# Forum More Stuff Debate & Technical Discussion  Emission Trading and climate change

## Rod Dyson

I am dead set againt the introduction of an ETS  for several reasons. 
First even if Global Warming was true we could never reduce emissions to a degree that would have any effect on global temperatures. 
Second an ETS will cripple the Australian economy for no net benefit. 
Third I believe that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming and that there need to be irrefutable evidence both scientific and imperical to proove CO2 is warming the planet and that any warming would be as damaging as they claim. 
Interested to know your thoughts? 
Cheers Rod

----------


## Ashore

Opened a nice bottle of red and will proberly order a late pizza , which may all be for nought if this forum has basically real people cause I cant see a real arguement against what you have said, espically the second point  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Its a great forum, thought this might give it a bit of life :Smilie:

----------


## Gooner

I'm doing some "emissions trading" in my wife's direction at the moment, and she ain't happy about it... oh oh .. she just walked away. 
Seems to be a one way trade.

----------


## rrobor

All you need look at is the extremes of weather over the last 10 years.  Sure you could explain each one away but in its entirity its more difficult   So do we say wait till it all goes pear shaped, I dont think so.  The UK had riots when the automatic loom was introduced.  People said it would ruin the economy,  it didnt.  What man does is find new methods. Man was born with a head on his shoulders, not a head in the sand.

----------


## Rod Dyson

rrobor hurricane frequency and intesity does not show any upward trend over the past 100 years only our ability to detect and measure them has changed. http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?...CLI3034.1&ct=1 
The world has always had severe weather so why is it now blamed on GW. 
An ETS does not contribute to an economy it takes away.  
Your analogy is a bit like the islanders who all fished for their food every day, until someone gave them a net. Now half the islanders were unemployed, but they all still ate fish. Guess what the unemployed were able to trade other services to the fishermen for fish in return. All employed again!! There are major shifts in economies that are helpful to the overall good of the people and then there is an ETS. 
Actually I would be very interested if someone could point to anything at all that is conclusive proof of AGW dispite the billions dollars of spent trying.

----------


## Dr Freud

Hi Rod, 
By all accounts your plastering is flawless, as is your logic.  I concur with your sentiments, and look forward to the emotional outbursts and prophesies of the end of the world.  But first, allow me to provide some context.  Best scientific estimates indicate the planet (Earth) is about 4.5 billion years old (p.s. there was no moon or water then, these arrived a few billion years later). :Confused:  
I know it hurts, but please keep reading.  Us humans arrived about 2 million years ago.  Then after lots of banging rocks together, we invented something called a thermometer about 150 years ago.  We now have about 100 years of very inaccurate surface temperature data, and a few decades of fairly accurate satellite data (on a planet that's been here 4.5 billion years)  :Doh:  
We have made very inaccurate guesses as far back as we can about the climate before we got here.  We call this proxy data in the scientific community (rhymes with poxy :Biggrin: )
Here it is: 
Geological Era---------Million Years Ago----------Carbon Dioxide ppm-----------Av Global Temperature 0C 
           Cambrian------------550-------------------------------------6,000----------------------23
Ordovician-----------470-------------------------------------4,200----------------------23 – 12
Silurian---------------430--------------------------------------3,500---------------------17 - 23
Devonian-------------380--------------------------------------2,100---------------------23 – 20
Carboniferous-------320------------------------------------1,000 - 200--------------20 – 12
Permian---------------270------------------------------------200 – 1,900--------------12 - 23
Triassic----------------230------------------------------------1,500-----------------------23 – 22
Jurassic----------------170------------------------------------2,000----------------------22 – 16
Cretaceous------------110------------------------------------1,500----------------------16 – 22
Tertiary------------------40---------------------------------------500------------------------22 – 12
Present Time-----------0---------------------------------------385-------------------------14 - 16  The planet (Earth) has naturally cycled between 200 and 6000 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 550 million years (no SUV's or power plants).  The average planetary temperature has naturally ranged between 12 and 23 degrees celsius over the last 550 million years (no SUV's or power plants).  We, the humans, now intend to maintain carbon dioxide levels at 450 parts per million and average global temperatures at 16 degrees celsius, FOREVER.  Just like nature intended?  Kevin Rudd thinks getting governments to agree will be challenging.  I think getting the planet Earth to agree will be "challenging". 
As a footnote, Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, it is a natural Molecule.  Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms).  So is your bloodstream (oh no, scary pollution).  You are a carbon based life form.  When you breathe out the carbon dioxide, plants breathe it in.  Then they breathe out oxygen, you breathe this in.  Complicated stuff, huh. 
Just to help you sleep at night, you are stuck on a ball of molten lava that has cooled on the outside due to being stuck in the sub-zero vacuum of space.  This ball is hurtling through space at over 100,000 kilometres per hour and no one is driving.  Luckily, we are stuck in the gravitational field of a giant nuclear explosion that is slowly expanding, which should disappear in about 1.5 billion years.  Gee wiz people, that 2 - 3 degree temperature rise is pretty scary :Yikes2:  
Just remember, the Dinosaurs didn't die out because they farted too much, they died because they were so busy fighting amongst themselves, nobody was watching where they were going, and they crashed into a big rock.

----------


## rrobor

I agree the planet will survive and recover.  Whether man will be on it to see, that is another thing. There is a sea current that flows from, not that far off Perth Scotland,  to about the same off Perth Western Australia. That relies on the sea having a certain percentage of salinity.   As the Ice caps are receeding salinity is decreasing and that current is reducing.  If that current stops the earth will loose its air conditioner. Southern Australia now is drying up, where I am there has been a drought for 20 years, When I came here we had real rain storms,  I now cant remember when the last one was.  But given all that and let us assume that most scientists may be wrong,  is it wise to wait and see, or is it wise to clean up our act now and not take the chance. Emission trading I agree is a joke, its the dirty spiv getting some poor begger to empty his chamber pot.

----------


## zacnelson

Rod, I agree with you 1000%.  I have been like an `evangelist' on this issue for about a year now, I always argue with people about it, it makes me so mad the way the liberal media (especially The Age and the ABC) completely silence the global warming critics.  It is the great myth of our age, and one day people will look back at it and laugh at how stupid we all were for believing it. 
One great resource is Andrew Bolt's blog (on the Herald Sun website), he frequently posts fantastic links to articles from global warming sceptics. 
I could go on for pages about the various arguments, but I'm at work at the moment so I can't write for long!  But I just wanted to express my agreement.

----------


## rrobor

Andrew Bolt is a self confessed right wing extremist.  He was all the way with George W on weapons of mass destruction because "they had proof".  That was a lie. So giving Bolt  as anything other than an extremist right wing view,  and a guy with the ability to research and manipulate for his purposes, does not add credability to any arguement.

----------


## zacnelson

One extra point - I wish the Liberal party would stand up and offer a position of direct opposition to the Government on this.  I wish the Liberal party was the party whose policy was `there is no global warming, we completely oppose the Kyoto protocol, we completely oppose the CPRS and the ETS.'  I think they would probably surprise themselves and win an election, particularly if they devoted every single moment in the media spotlight to exposing the lies and assumptions and prejudice associated with this issue.   
The Labor party won the unwinnable election in the 90s by fear-mongering on one issue alone, the GST.  I think the Liberals (if they had any balls and intelligence) would be equally successful if they targeted this one area ruthlessly, it is the biggest issue in decades. 
I am impressed with the National party and their stand on this, particularly Barnaby Joyce, he's very quick witted and erudite. 
Apart from the ridiculous pretenses of the CPRS (carbon pollution reduction scheme), another thing that really bugs me about the ETS (emissions trading scheme) is that is another poorly disguised exercise in socialism.  It is re-distribution of wealth on a massive scale, stealing from the huge industries that are at the very core of our economy, and putting it all in the expanding coffers of the government who will squander it unjustly on all sorts of meaningless undeserving causes, and it will also line the pockets of the financial sector who will make a fortune from brokering the new carbon economy.

----------


## chipps

I'm pretty vague as to what Emmission trading is all about. 
Just had a gander at the Kyoto Protocol Emissions Trading & am still confused. 
Are they saying some countries can trade this commodity as an offset, simply because they are in excess of the limits when compared to smaller economies? Kinda like a guilt payement to keep everyone happy?

----------


## rrobor

Elections are never won by extremists. If the Liberals want to stand a chance they have to push Labor left. Rudd is right wing Labor and as long as the liberals bicker and fight out in the ultra right, Rudd will stay in power. Howard kept going right until he destroyed the liberals chances, now they need someone to come left, and I dont see anyone in that rabble yet.  As to Global warming, the majority view is, it is a concern. To gain power, the Liberals must address that. They had a poll for liberal leader with the 3 leading liberals and Phar Lap, Phar Lap got 72%.

----------


## Haveago1

Global Warming?  
You have to take it seriously, just imagine the strife we would be in now if all that time and money had not been so judiciously expended tackling the Y2K bug.....

----------


## Rod Dyson

Zac I think you wrote my posts perfectly for me LOL. 
My god I thought I was reading myself! 
By the way rrobor can you please explain to me how much ice Antartica has lost in the past 30 years?  Or the Greenland ice sheets?  
Maybe you could research how the prevailing winds of the past 10 years have affected the Artic ice, rather than temperature.  But it is nice and reassuring that the artic ice has now recovered.   
Mind you the 30 years of records don't really tell us much, when you consider subs surfaced at the north pole in the 40's and sailing ships sailed the north west passage in the past sort of does indicate a bit that ice melt in the Artic is not really a new thing. 
It is a good thing to research these things rather that listen to a bias media.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Nice post Dr Freud. 
Zac 
I also think the Libs would get a shock at how much support they would get if they were honest and came out swinging against AGW.   
Most people hold the view AGW is real because the media told them so. Most open minded people change there view when presented with the facts not the media hyped fiction. The truth will come out but only when people freeze there butts off enough if there is a shift is to a cooler climate as it appears may happen.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Andrew Bolt is a self confessed right wing extremist. He was all the way with George W on weapons of mass destruction because "they had proof". That was a lie. So giving Bolt as anything other than an extremist right wing view, and a guy with the ability to research and manipulate for his purposes, does not add credability to any arguement.

  Andrew Bolt says it how it is and how he sees it.  Not always 100% right but you know he is not holding back.  We need more Andrew Bolts in the media.  The Media no longer reseach issues they just print the media releases from the enviro' groups etc without giving any though to the facts.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'm pretty vague as to what Emmission trading is all about. 
> Just had a gander at the Kyoto Protocol Emissions Trading & am still confused. 
> Are they saying some countries can trade this commodity as an offset, simply because they are in excess of the limits when compared to smaller economies? Kinda like a guilt payement to keep everyone happy?

  Here is a rough laymans explanation. 
They are going to put a price on carbon emission of x$ per tonne. They will issue all business with a permit to emit X tonnes of emissions. If they emit more than the permits allow them to they then need to purchase permits from someone who does not use all their permits. Or they can purchase carbon credits from other counties that have spare credits or are creating credits by planting trees etc! 
Each year the amount of credits allocated to a business is reduced requireing them to purchase more carbon credits. 
The interesting point is who is going to make the money? Every purchase of a carbon credit will go through an exchange where fees will be attached. Billions to be made here don't you think. Who has investments in carbon exchanges you may ask? AL GORE that who. 
Next question who creates the carbon credit and then more importantly who verifies it is an actual credit? Open for coruption do you think? Imagine the Mafia getting into this one? 
What is going to happen when our power companies have to buy huge amounts of carbon credits OVER SEAS. Do you think they will put their prices up? What about the hydro power in Tassie, reckon they might put their prices up too, just because they can? Where is all the money going to go? Yep you are right OVERSEAS.  
Now how about mining, aluminum and manufacturing? They will have to purchase huge amounts of carbon credits to operate. So India has no ETS but they have cheap labour... nice. Do you think maybe one or two of these companies might just pack up go to India or some place else? Nah they wouldn't would they?  
Ever thought what might happen to our emissions when our population goes from 22 mil to 35mil in the next 20 years? Yet we have an ever reducing cap don't we? 
Come on! it just cant be done it is undoable, the maths just do not add up. 
But ok, just in case we think all that pain is worth it. We are going to save the planet right? Ok, if we are gonna accept this maybe we should know how much this pain is going to exactly reduce temperatures by. Why not ask the government? Do they know? Ok so they don't have a clue. Lets ask the scientists surley they can tell us! You have got to be shitting me, they don't know either!!!!  
Ok but its still worth it. Isn't it?

----------


## rrobor

Rod I couldnt convince you with all the data I could show as to say Antartic ice melt, The New Zealand glacier melt etc. Nor could you convince me with stats like Andrew Bolt can dig up. My point is very simply this. The majority of Australians are on my side and Australia will cut carbon, the majority demand that.   What you or I believe in the end matters little,  Rudd won an election with a green bias. The liberals will be in the wilderness till they recognise that.  Turnbull does but he is now waiting for the final knife to finish him off. Every developed country in the world is cutting greenhouse gasses.   I think that speaks volumes about who we should believe.

----------


## Chumley

[quote=rrobor;774001] As to Global warming, the majority view is, it is a concern./quote] 
Pardon me but this is not correct. Perhaps the most advertised view is, or the noisiest, or the most radical (read newsworthy).  In any case, the majority view is not always right - this is science, not democracy.  Also note how we talk now about global warming, rather than the man-made climate change that used to be tossed around. Personally I think carbon emissions are just so small a part of the bigger picture its not worth messing with - but it is emotive and sells news just like the threat nuclear war used to be. 
Think about it. Greenhouse gases are about 2% of the atmosphere. Of those greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is about 3.6%. Of all the carbon dioxide produced we humans account for around 3.5%. And Australia is responsible for about 1.4% of human produced carbon dioxide. That comes to about 0.000035%. Which means we can do bugger all about 99.999965% of CO2 emissions. 
And we want to stuff around with our business models? 
Time for another beer.
Adam

----------


## woodbe

Rob, didn't you do this to death and back on the woodwork forums?  
Whoever shouts the loudest and makes the most posts isn't necessarily right. 
rrobor, there are New Zealand Glaciers among the few glaciers worldwide that are actually growing at the moment. Of course, they grow pretty slowly, but growing they are.  Fox Glacier Look in Geography - it's growing about a metre a week.  Frans Joseph Glacier likewise. 
The argument that the Glaciers generally are melting because of global warming may be correct, especially if you define the start of global warming as 1850's, which is when the Glaciers started to melt. Wikipedia reference As far as basing a current AGW argument on this, good luck!  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

First even if Global Warming was true we could never reduce emissions to a degree that would have any effect on global temperatures.  *Ignoring the former for the moment and assuming that by 'we' you are refering to Australia then yes.....reducing Oz's GHG emissions will have little actual impact on global temperatures (but then neither will anyone else's....but not for the reason you might think**)* 
Second an ETS will cripple the Australian economy for no net benefit. *Can't help thinking you might be right here too.....not because it is a wrong idea....it's just the wrong solution for the problem at hand.  It might be better simply provide a market incentive for low emission products by adopting a tariff system based on a product's GHG contribution - the higher the GHG the higher the tariff but more importantly the lower the GHG then the lower the tariff - perhaps even a negative tariff.  Sure you can call it a tax if you want but the evidence suggests that they work (eg solar HWS rebates, cigarettes, luxury motor cars etc) and are not unpopular.  Except they are incontravention with international trade treaties....unlike ETS's (becuase it is a trading scheme like the sharemarket and REC's)* 
Third I believe that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming and that there need to be irrefutable evidence both scientific and imperical to proove CO2 is warming the planet and that any warming would be as damaging as they claim.  *This is where we seriously part ways - my belief is counter to yours.*  *** back to the topic from earlier.  Emmission reductions from this point on will not have any positive effect (ie reduce) on air temperature for probably more than a century at the very least.  This is simply because it takes ages to get a leviathin like system such as our atmosphere to actually do anything.  Just as it has taken a century to even get the atmosphere to behave the way it is behaving  it'll take even longer for it to do anything different - you can boil a jug in a couple of minutes but it takes hours for it to cool down again.  Same goes for our atmosphere - except it ain't so simple as ajug of water.*   *The point? Easy. What happens if we keep boiling the jug? *

----------


## Rod Dyson

I will see your data and raise you mine.  Manipulation of natural occuring events to pesent as evidence of AGW is occuring everyday and is being bought by the Media, the public believes it because they do not hear the alternative views.  Slowly the alternative view are being heard, thanks to the internet.  
People naturally want to do the right thing, they want to be seen to do the right thing, it makes them feel good.  I don't blame them I don't denegrate them simply because they don't know.  But I do object to those who are choose not to look at the science agaist AGW when they know it exists. then if they do, refuse to acknowlege that there is a debate that may proove their feel good cause wrong. 
The majority may change their minds when it hurts them economically.  They will also call for heads to roll when they realize the pain was all in vain. They will wonder where the opposition to AGW was all this time.  They will wonder how the scientist got it so wrong. Every developed country is too scared to do anything different because of the populist view that AGW is real. 
I agree that the most popular view is that AGW is real and if we don't do something about it we will fry.  The proplem is that there is NO scientific basis that prooves this to be fact.  There is NO emperical evidence that supports this position.  All there is is fear and ignorance, sold well by the media and scientist who rely on this fear to get their grants.   
There is a lot of natural occuring events that can be used to fuel this fear. But where are the facts? Where is the proof?  It is just not there. 
Ever seen a flock of sheep being rounded up? People act the same way once one moves in a direction, a few others follow the rest bolt and nothing will change their course.  AGW and humans are exactly like this.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rob, didn't you do this to death and back on the woodwork forums?

  Yes. 
Fun wasn't it. 
It is a serious matter and should be brought up time and time again.      

> Whoever shouts the loudest and makes the most posts isn't necessarily right.

  I agree. But I started the thread and will reply to critics where I can, others can judge if what i write ir right or wrong. If that means 100's of posts so be it. I am not a hit and run poster.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Ever seen a flock of sheep being rounded up? People act the same way once one moves in a direction, a few others follow the rest bolt and nothing will change their course. AGW and humans are exactly like this.

  Something tells me that it one was to point a firearm at you....you'd spend the rest of your life asking one to prove it was loaded. It might be! :Minigun:  
At the moment...we have a metaphorical gun in this climate change thingy. You and yours are spending all your time pointing out that we don't know the brand, model number and calibre. Which is absolutely true. But who gives a toss when the damn thing is actually loaded! It's a f...ing gun!!!!  :Gaah:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *** back to the topic from earlier. Emmission reductions from this point on will not have any positive effect (ie reduce) on air temperature for probably more than a century at the very least. This is simply because it takes ages to get a leviathin like system such as our atmosphere to actually do anything. Just as it has taken a century to even get the atmosphere to behave the way it is behaving it'll take even longer for it to do anything different - you can boil a jug in a couple of minutes but it takes hours for it to cool down again. Same goes for our atmosphere - except it ain't so simple as ajug of water.*

    

> *The point? Easy. What happens if we keep boiling the jug?*

  And the evidence for this is? If this was true the evidece that an increace of X amount co2 will increace the temperature by x amount of degrees is?  
By the way what is earths perfect temperature?  How do we keep it at that perfect temperature? What natural forces will effect the perfect temperature? How do we combat the natural forces to maintain our perfect temperature? Can we?   
The world temperatures have been a lot higher than those of today and this was a time of great prosperity for humans.  They have also been a lot lower where humans suffered greatly.  
Why have temperatures flatened out and dropped over the past 10 years when carbon kept increacing?  Why didn't the computer models predict this drop? 
BTW earth is nothing like a jug of water.  There are many feedbacks in our atmosphere (which to this day are poorly understood), where there are none when boiling a jug of water.  Very bad analogy.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> At the moment...we have a metaphorical gun in this climate change thingy. You and yours are spending all your time pointing out that we don't know the brand, model number and calibre. Which is absolutely true. But who gives a toss when the damn thing is actually loaded! It's a f...ing gun!!!!

   Yes but some people who know a little bit about guns can see at a glance that its only a toy :Hahaha:

----------


## rrobor

If woodbe is referring to me doing it to death on the wood forum the answer is no, First time I have seen this. As to doing it to death Ive said all there is for me to say. People get into their own corners and can prove what suits them so the post is now pointless. My arguement was always with Silent but deadly, thats the issue in a nutshell.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> If woodbe is referring to me doing it to death on the wood forum the answer is no, First time I have seen this. As to doing it to death Ive said all there is for me to say. People get into their own corners and can prove what suits them so the post is now pointless. My arguement was always with Silent but deadly, thats the issue in a nutshell.

  Nah mate, he was refering to me :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  
The post is far from pointless to many, pointless for you I agree, as you have indicated your position is fixed and no amount of evidence to refute it will change your view. That is until the rest of the world changes their's first. I am not being insulting to you here rrobor. You are fully entitled to have this opinion. 
What is interesting is that many people share your view, no doubt about it. It is also a fact that there are a huge amount of people that don't have a "rusted on view", they simply believe what they are fed by the media. Another type view is that, "everyone else believes it so it must be true" then they think nothing more of it, until it hurts them.  
Of course it can also be said that I have a rusted on view as well, I accept that. However if the facts change and someone can show me scientific proof that AGW is FACT not just a theory I will change my view. I mean 1+1= 2 type of stuff. What will you do?

----------


## woodbe

> If woodbe is referring to me doing it to death on the wood forum

  No rrobor, that was for Rod, the anti-GW evangelist.  :Smilie:  
For you, I was pointing out about the Glacier melt preceding the current Global Warming news by about a century. It's a big problem for sure, especially in areas of the world that rely on Glaciers for water and refrigeration. 
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

Rod I could reverse your post and use the exact answer you gave me. You wouldnt believe in global warming even if you were sitting in a pot on the simmer so why get up tight.    If you believe the majority are idiots swayed by the media be happy with your beliefs.  Its not my belief and its a minority belief. Thankfully we live in a democracy.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here is a typical beat up news story to scare the pants out of us.  The surprising real story about this year’s Northeast passage transit: The media botched it  Watts Up With That? 
Pathetic really.

----------


## Gooner

Two arguements here. Global Warming and ETS. From my superficial knowledge of ETS it would seem that this may end up as another big problem we have to address rather than a solution. However that obviously has no relation to the GW arguements themselves. 
Regarding GW, obviously the models used to predict atmospheric pnenomena and its affect on the earth are not fully understood. However, I remember seeing global warming documentaries on TV back in the 80's predicting the type of stuff that is happening now. We cannot say with 100% certainty that it is a man-made effect, but certainly strong arguements can be made correlating our activity with current weather patterns. Just like any complicated topic, this evidence can be refuted, and then counter refuted, etc. 
However we can't dismiss the fact that the large majority of scientists working in this field believe in man-made global warming. I have read books on this topic that certainly present strong arguments. (But having a memory like a sieve, remember 1% of them). I have also jumped on the internet and read many convincing counter-arguements. In the end my conclusion is that you can selectively pick facts to back-up both arguements. However, that doesn't mean that we should ignore the issue.  
My basic intuition tells me that certainly the shear mass of emissions that we produce must have some kind of affect after several decades. Even if the effect is quite small, there are thousands of examples of how a small shift can cause a chain reaction of events that can turn into a huge problem. Huge problem for planet earth? Maybe not. Huge problem for humans? Certainly.  
There are too many consumers on this planet, fullstop. Apart from CO2, analyze your day and look at how many things you use and discard in a heartbeat. E.g The fuel you use in your 1.5 ton car at 18% efficiency to move your 80kg body from A to B. The containers you throw away, gas you use, electricity you waste, right down to the toilet paper you flush down the toilet. Then look at industry that does this kind of thing on a massive scale. 
It took millions and millions of years for bio-matter to be buried and turned to fossil fuel deposits. Humans have managed to dig up and burn vast quantities of these over a very short time frame. Logically one can see that this type of activity surely just *could* make a difference to the currently finely balanced system, especially considering the fact that our atmosphere is actually extremely thin on relative scales. 
Anyway.. I'm ranting... I'll end it here.

----------


## Gooner

> Here is a typical beat up news story to scare the pants out of us.  The surprising real story about this years Northeast passage transit: The media botched it Watts Up With That? 
> Pathetic really.

  Rod, you can't use a bad example of journalism to refute GW arguments. However, I do agree that the media is the enemy when it comes to scare-mongering and sensationalism. Annoys the crap out of me. It is a business after all. Unfortunately so is GW. It has become business, so expect "the common people" to get corrupt information. Just like cigarette companies in early days corrupting evidence against the ill effects of smoking.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod I could reverse your post and use the exact answer you gave me. You wouldnt believe in global warming even if you were sitting in a pot on the simmer so why get up tight. If you believe the majority are idiots swayed by the media be happy with your beliefs. Its not my belief and its a minority belief. Thankfully we live in a democracy.

  Please rrobor, read my post again. 
I am far from up tight. I said I WOULD change my views if there was evidence of AGW that was irrefutable.  Will you?  
I do not have any problem at all with your views, I don't agree with them for sure.  In the long run it is esential that there are people that have similar convictions as yourself. How else can we convince the fence sitters that AGW is a belief rather than scientific fact..

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, you can't use a bad example of journalism to refute GW arguments. However, I do agree that the media is the enemy when it comes to scare-mongering and sensationalism. Annoys the crap out of me. It is a business after all. Unfortunately so is GW. It has become business, so expect "the common people" to get corrupt information. Just like cigarette companies in early days corrupting evidence against the ill effects of smoking.

  I agree, the intention is to point out just how the Media go about corupting minds with "bad journalism".

----------


## Rod Dyson

Gooner lets not confuse pollution with human caused gloabl warming. No one wants pollution and all reasonable efforts should be made to reduce pollution. 
Sustainability is another issue not to be confused with AGW. There is no doubt we need to move toward a more sustainable lifstyle. Fossil fuels must be replace eventually.  
Population is another issue not to be confussed with man made global warming. Sure its an issue that needs addressing interestingly extra Co2 will help produce better crops. Who is going to volanteer to go first? 
The issue here is Co2 which is not pollution it is essential to life on earth and the cost to reduce CO2 emisisons which are claimed to increace the average temperature of the earth. If this is true then the other issues will have an impact on this. If the theory of Co2 is wrong then these other issues can be managed without destroying the economy to do so.  
In any event we should be consistently working on solutions to the REAL environmental problems facing us like pollution, over population, water and sustainability. Wasting trillions of dollars trying to solve a problem that may or may not exist is going to severely reduce our ability to address these real problems. 
Ok off to have a game of golf.

----------


## chrisp

> The issue here is Co2 which is not pollution it is essential to life on earth...

  Rod, 
You seem to be demanding a very high standard of proof from others with a contrary view. 
I would doubt that most readers here could explain fully and scientifically the reasons why:(a) smoking causes cancer;
(b) excessive sun expose causes skin cancer;
(c) being overweight is bad for one's health;However, most will accept these propositions as true to a greater or lesser extent.  Whether they choose to modify their own lifestyle is another matter.  And I'm sure we can all point out the exception of an long lived individual who defied the odds. 
The science of GW is quite complex too but we don't all need to fully understand it to form an opinion.  We will generally accept the views and opinions of those who work in the field - in this case the scientists. 
While there will be those who'll refute the prevalent views (I'm sure there'll be some who'll argue the moon landing didn't take place), in general I think global warming is generally accepted as happening. 
Oh, and by the way, CO2 can be be a poison in the right concentrations.   
It's all about balance.   GW science shows that the CO2 balance has shifted.  The ETS is merely a mechanism to apportion a cost to the carbon in an attempt to provide a financial incentive to restore the balance.

----------


## woodbe

Headpin, 
I think you're onto something.  :2thumbsup:   :Smilie:  
These 'discussions' are always interesting. I'm always amused at how people think that if they write more words then their argument somehow carries more weight. 
 woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

These arguements are never won or lost.   Rod believes to the root of his very being in his stance as I do in mine   I dont believe in religion and have a very religious friend.  He tries so hard to save my soul and show me the light.   I see it as his weakness and feel sorry that he needs such a crutch.   Does it really matter who is correct.  To quote from Chief Sitting Bull   "If you dont know what your actions will have on your children's children then do not do it."  I may be wrong but by the time we know that for sure its too late.  I dont have the right to burden others because I wanted the good life and I suggest neither does Rod.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Chrisp I don't expect anyone here to explain to me why AGW is real, I just expect that theyshould be able to point me to someone who can.  The trouble is they don't exist.  It is a theory and it is up to scientists to back the theory with proof not for them to say here is the theory now unless you can proove it is wrong it is correct, The fact is the planet has warmed for sure and Co2 has increased no one argues that.  But this does not proove co2 caused the warming, far from it.   
Co2 does not become a danger until it reaches 8,000 ppm as in the air quality of a submarine the world is a long way off that. 
Science is not about consensus leave that to the pollies. Science is based of verifiable facts of which the AGW theory in not one of them.  That is unless you can point me to a science paper that says otherwise. Only time will proove the theory wrong, which is unfortunate unfortunate as a lot of economic damage will be done in the mean time.  
The AGW crowd have sold their story well and scared the pants of Mr and Mrs Joe average and in particular school children.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Headpin, 
> I think you're onto something.   
> These 'discussions' are always interesting. I'm always amused at how people think that if they write more words then their argument somehow carries more weight. 
> woodbe.

  Woodbe you would do much better attacking the words rather than the person typing them.  Seems to be a common theme.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> These arguements are never won or lost. Rod believes to the root of his very being in his stance as I do in mine I dont believe in religion and have a very religious friend. He tries so hard to save my soul and show me the light. I see it as his weakness and feel sorry that he needs such a crutch. Does it really matter who is correct. To quote from Chief Sitting Bull "If you dont know what your actions will have on your children's children then do not do it." I may be wrong but by the time we know that for sure its too late. I dont have the right to burden others because I wanted the good life and I suggest neither does Rod.

  
rrobor, like I have said show me the proof then I will change my views.  The proof just does not exist.  AGW is simply a belief no different to a religion. Based on some mitigating circumstancial evidence.

----------


## rrobor

At the very least Rod my belief in that there is an issue and we need to mend our ways, will do no harm. Your belief that we can pour out CO2 to our hearts content may just do harm.  At the very minimum be man enough to acknowledge that as a fact.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> At the very least Rod my belief in that there is an issue and we need to mend our ways, will do no harm. Your belief that we can pour out CO2 to our hearts content may just do harm. At the very minimum be man enough to acknowledge that as a fact.

  There is harm rrobor, the economic and political fall out will be felt for years. The billions of $ spent on trying to proove AGW is happening would be much better off spent on the real problems facing us. That in itself is a great harm.  
The harm proposed by AGW is theretical on the premis that AGW is fact. 
What ways do you propose we mend? How far to we go and what REAL difference will it make? What have you done to mend your ways? 
I can ackowledge that Co2 emissions will increase and that they will continue to do so EST or not.  I can't acknowlege that this will be harmful to mankind. But the plants will love it.

----------


## rrobor

And Headpin I would say exactly the same abour you. And no Im not an Athiest.  Thats another religion that people love to ram at others. I said I had no religion. Do I believe in God, yes I believe God exists in the mind of the believer and Im happy with that thought.  My first post on this Rod I said they smashed looms during the industrial revolution in UK it was all doom and gloom. From that action the UK built an empire and at one time ruled 1/3 of the earth. Have faith in man as an inventor, shivering in a corner thinking this will destroy us is negative. Look at the innovations there are to find in the new, bugger the old ways.

----------


## zacnelson

Rrobor, it seems in almost every post you have made on this topic you revert to attacking the individual you disagree with, rather than addressing their arguments.  This is commonly called an `ad hominem' argument - an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise. 
An example of this is: 
    Person 1 makes claim X
    There is something objectionable about Person 1
    Therefore claim X is false
This is a tiresome approach, and the worst example is in the quote below:  

> I dont believe in religion and have a very religious friend.  He tries so hard to save my soul and show me the light.   I see it as his weakness and feel sorry that he needs such a crutch.

  Do you realise how incredibly offensive and redundant that comment is?  It is such a commonly thrown-about statement, constantly recycled and mockingly agreed to by circles of people all mutually content in their own religious indifference.  In no way is it defensible or even demonstrable.  What is his crutch for?  Perhaps you'd like to give examples of his many failings for which his religion is unquestionably providing the crutch?  Does he demonstrate a remarkable need for a crutch, a need greater than most people? Do you have no faults, otherwise you would look for a crutch too?  Or are you smugly content to admit that you `limp' around, too proud to use a crutch?   
Even if your argument was correct and it was proven that all religious people used their religion as a crutch, how does that disprove the essential precepts of their religion?  A religion must be logically and historically true or false regardless of the needs or behaviours of its' adherents. 
Look around you, there is a church on just about every corner; although we are now a secular country, even just 40 years ago we were a deeply religious country.  Australia was built on the foundations of western Christianity, with the values, freedoms, and forms of government it engendered.  Did generation after generation of strong Australian families all require a crutch?

----------


## rrobor

I simply gave you my feelings on the subject. I didnt say religion was wrong and I was correct. I stated what i feel. That you feel differently is your choice and I am not offended by that.  So please give me what I give you, the right to freedom of thought,  I chose my friend because of his strong belief, he passionatly believes he is correct and perhaps he is, but that is not me, I believe its a form of escapism.  But we respect each others views  and know neither will change, and that was the point.

----------


## rrobor

Hey Headpin you were doing ok on the beer mate. I think the bottle of red with the dinner did you no good at all.

----------


## zacnelson

Here is a quote from Barnaby Joyce: 
The National Party at a Federal level has been completely consistent on the ETS. It is the Employment Termination Scheme. It is the Extra Tax System and when that metaphor was working and cutting through the Labor Party got cunning and thought they would change it to the CPRS. Well the CP stands for cunning plan to get yourself to a double dissolution and RS stands for what the economy will look like if they ever get there.   *This is just another tax.* It is a tax that is going to come to you from the power points. Every electrical appliance in your house will have a tax on it. The ironing will be taxed, the vacuuming will be taxed, watching footy on a Sunday will be taxed, turning the lights on will be taxed. Who will they be taxing? Working families. Then you'll want to go shopping and what will happen? All your food will be taxed. If you are sick of it and want go on a plane and go away for the weekend, it's on aviation fuel, you'll be taxed. Everything in this new world under Kevin Rudd is taxed. Kevin in the shopping trolley, Kevin at the ironing board, Kevin in the kitchen, Kevin on the plane - too much Kevin makes me feel very sick. And what is he going to do this for? Because Kevin is going to change the climate. It is amazing, he is going to make that out there different. He told us so, it must be true. The reality is the ETS is not going to change the climate one iota. Not one thing will change in the climate because of this new tax. Metaphorically speaking, the difference Australia will make is the equivalent of a the breadth of a hair on the length of about a one kilometre bridge. It is so infinitesimally small. So ridiculous, so pointless, yet we are putting our economy out to dry.

----------


## zacnelson

Australia contributes around 1.5% of human CO2 emissions. Humans produce around 2% of global CO2. CO2 contributes about 2% of the total Greenhouse Effect.  
Therefore the Australian contribution to the Greenhouse Effect is 0.00006% which is too small to be measured.  
SO WHAT if we reduce our emissions by 20% (which will stall our entire economy) - so we can reduce our contribution to around 0.00005%???!!!...  
And yet hardly anybody seems to question this.

----------


## rrobor

zac pitty the world stock markets dont support that.   I dont need to go into detail, just get tomorrows paper and see what the world thinks of the Australian economy.  Barnaby is trying to drum up business for his party, no more or less.  I will take the advise of the world bankers above his any day. As to pollution, the Indians look at it per capita and they are out there in front and Australia is as dirty as it can get.  When you play these games you can prove whatever point you like.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Zac it is like they want AGW to be true! You are right it will not make one iota of difference to the temperatures. 
What amazes me the most, is that it is impossible to reduce our emissions while we have population growth and no alternative for base load electricity is on the horizon. The government knows this as well, they just want the revenue. 
rrobor, the emmissions per head has nothing at all to do with AGW. Unless your agenda is to reduce our living standards and increace their's by shifting wealth from a developed country to an undevelped one. If they increace their emmissions to our level per capita, (which they are entitled to do) and we reduce ours by 50% there would be a massive nett increace in emissions. So what now?

----------


## Ashore

> . As to pollution, the Indians look at it per capita and they are out there in front and Australia is as dirty as it can get. When you play these games you can prove whatever point you like.

  As does those in favor of an ETS , lets take it per head of bison , Its just like Carr did in NSW , said he would resign if hospital wating lists didn't drop after 12 months in office , and after 12 months he changed the way the waiting were counted , Australia produces how much in total to this so called Greenhouse effect ............come on even you die hards how much in total..... % wise would be good , I awate your numbers  :Cool:

----------


## Gooner

Rod, you seem quite adament on your "I don't believe it unless it's proven" stance. Although not "proven" there is a lot of evidence out there for GW. My question is, have you looked at the evidence and counter-evidence and decided to side with the latter? Or are you purely a non-believer until it is proven? That's what it is sounding like to me. 
I side with you on the ETS, but not on your general view of GW.

----------


## rrobor

Will we count in Headpin burning logs when he was fishing on the beach. Numbers ar games as is this trading business. It means we want other people to sweep up our crap. You cant trade by giving money to people who dont produce crap thats a lie and a political game. To maintain as we are now would be a help so can we not try for that. If you want numbers how about that, no gain or loss, lets maintain for a time and see what happens.

----------


## Rod Dyson

No I have looked at both side I started out believing AGW was a fact like everbody else. The supporting evidence has been refuted well and truly.  
When you dig deep enough into the science it is very very hard to believe in AGW. Either that or you have to call a lot of scientists outright liers.  
The AGW side of science is full of half truths and extrapolations of the effect of Co2 that just dont add up. 
The real turning point for me was the outlandish claims being made about the effects of AGW. This made me start looking into the science a bit more.  
But sure I am a non believe until it is proven. There are just too many doubt to consider anything different. There are so many holes in the science behind AGW you could drive a truck through. 
Most of the main points behind AGW have been totally discredited eg. the hockey stick. The computer models are way out over the past ten years and are programmed to extrapolate the effects of co2 in a linier fashon were the effect is logarithmic. Empirical evidence shows no predicted warming. Artic ice has not dissapeared and is on a come back, (as it has done many times in the past. The Antartic ice is at record levels. Greenland ice sheets show no sign of melting. Sea levels have leveled out of the past 5 years and prior to that the increace has not accelerated over the past 100 years.  
Nothing stacks up in its favor. 
The only thing they have is, yes Co2 is a green house gas and yes it is increacing. But that increace does not mean a dramatic increace in world temperatures. The short term correlation to the increace in Co2 and temps mean nothing. In fact ice cores show that co2 follows rather than leads Co2 by an average of 800 years. Yet the opposite was claimed by Al Gore.  
While on the subject a British court ruled that an incovenient truth had so many untruths that for it to be shown in schools it had to come with a dissclaimer. 
Phew I could go on but get the picture?

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe you would do much better attacking the words rather than the person typing them.  Seems to be a common theme.

  Hey mate, lighten up. I wasn't attacking anyone, I was commenting on the general progression of these global warming internet discussions. A lot of them end up with each post being a progressively longer thesis than the last one. The other way they go is people start posting links to crackpots on youtube proving that black is white etc. 
Maybe that's coming next?  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Man I think I will have to re-read what Ive written.  Twice ive been told to lighten up when I feel nothing but"light". 
I certainly mis-read your intention woodbe.

----------


## dazzler

> I am dead set againt the introduction of an ETS  for several reasons. 
> First even if Global Warming was true we could never reduce emissions to a degree that would have any effect on global temperatures. 
> Second an ETS will cripple the Australian economy for no net benefit. 
> Third I believe that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming and that there need to be irrefutable evidence both scientific and imperical to proove CO2 is warming the planet and that any warming would be as damaging as they claim. 
> Interested to know your thoughts? 
> Cheers Rod

  Hi Rod 
I agree with one and two.  But disagree on three, but we've done that one to death  :Tongue:  and neither of us will concede I imagine  :Frown: . 
cheers 
dazzler

----------


## Rod Dyson

LOL you got that right Dazzler. nice to hear from you.  At least you are part way there.  :Smilie:

----------


## rrobor

I agree its shut up or punch up time and as its hard to have a punch up 5 pages is a few too many.   Its the old rotating wheel trick as Maxwell Smart would say. Round and round going nowhere.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Its not a rotating wheel yet I haven't seen one shred of evidence to support AGW yet! 
All we have is a firm belief its true.

----------


## rrobor

6 pages going round in circles means only one thing. Noel has gone to bed.  Tomorrow during toast and marmalade there will be a few of these go, including this post.  The rest of the world is wrong Rod. You, George Bush, John Howard and the Queensland Nationals are correct,  so go to bed content.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Really rrobor, surely you have seen the polls on AGW in the US lately?  AGW rated dead last in the concerns of Americans. 
Good night.

----------


## rrobor

Its Noels coffee and scone morning. He has all those old biddies round once a week, so he is behind in the clean up.

----------


## watson

:Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin: 
Nup....been watching all the time.
There'll be no clean - up ........unless necessary.
If it goes round in circles - tuff.
Either widen or narrow the circles as required.
Depending on the point of view it either buggers us financially in the short term, or
buggers us ecologically in the long term.
Soooooo.........
Seconds out.......Box on........Ding!

----------


## Ashore

> fortunately he has me to look out for him and keep this ship on a even keel..................

  Oh dear headpin in charge.......if I was still at sea I'de be taking the gripes off the lifeboats and running out the bowsing in tackle  :Shock:

----------


## chrisp

> Is this thing dead yet?..............I'm not sure............I see a few lacerations, but there's no blood and guts hanging out............. 
> Someone want to give it a poke with a stick.........and see if it still moves.  
> I don't want to go near it..................I've got a splitting headache, must be something I ate yeserday...............

  I don't think it is dead yet, although it appears some of the participants seem to be busy elsewhere - is the Flat Earth Convention on at the moment?

----------


## chipps

> I don't think it is dead yet, although it appears some of the participants seem to be busy elsewhere -

  Not busy elsewhere Chrisp, just way outa my depth on the subject......... also kinda lost with the scientific jargon. 
But its been a good insight for me so far & as *Joe the Gadget Man* used to say......  _"Bring your money with ya"_

----------


## rrobor

Nothing worse than keys missing on your keyboard.  I was having a wee shortbread biscuit and a very nice malt when a crumb got stuck in the gullet.  Now I did manage to pour most of the malt out of the keyboard back into the glass, but neither were quite  the same again.   I stripped and cleaned the keyboard but the D wouldnt work.  Its hard writing trying to avoid words with a D in them.

----------


## dazzler

> LOL you got that right Dazzler. nice to hear from you.  At least you are part way there.

  Not sure if anyone watched q and a on abc last night as they had the usual climate change debate.  One of the sceptics, the hot blond chickee, had me in tears of laughter.  The pimply faced media ad bloke was doing the usual screaming and indignant laugh at the sceptics and how it was the most pressing issue facing the human race at the moment. 
Chickeebabe then shoots pimply down with something similar to "Well if its all so terrible and the ETS is your answer then your a joke and worse than the sceptics" (or that was the jist of it). 
And thats what makes me shake my head about the real left of climate change.  Whinge and shake their heads and support something (ETS) that wont make a lick of difference to anything, while continuing on with their merry carbon using lives. 
And as for our govt.  Who the hell do they think they are, strutting the world pretending we run the show.  Get real, we are a backwater in a backwater of a bubble.  Nice people, lets just stick at being good at sport. 
Oh, and I still believe that climate change is natural but we are giving it a big helping hand by adding too much carbon to the current cycle. But its not climate change that will get us, overpopulation and a killer disease will do it.

----------


## chipps

> Oh, and I still believe that *climate change is natural* but we are giving it a big helping hand by adding too much carbon to the current cycle.  
> But its not climate change that will get us, *overpopulation and a killer disease* will do it.

    
Finally................. Ideas I can understand as plausible & possible. 
Thanks for your input Dazzler  :Biggrin:    
PS: Love taking snippets of posts & quoting in *red*, makes me look intellegent  :2thumbsup:    
PPS: Wher's spell check goys???? ........plausible was a toughy to spel

----------


## rrobor

They might be correct Headpin,  I argued that it was getting drier, seems thats not quite true.  I was just listening to my old Julie Andrews collection and it seems that in Spain at least the hills have been dry for quite some time.  MMM! and an extra one for you to patch and paste    !

----------


## Rod Dyson

Hi Kids, Had fun while I was away I see.  
Well all is good nothing more here to comment on at the moment. 
Nothing else to do but go out and play golf again.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Lol  :Smilie:

----------


## Ashore

This was posted some time ago an has yet to be refuted
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related]YouTube - Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4[/ame]

----------


## rrobor

Oh sorry my mistake I thought you said refooted

----------


## Rod Dyson

rrobor, I would be interested to know if you watched that video and what your thoughts are?

----------


## Ashore

Nice refootin , bit of a heal and a nice long tonge, or is that why women wear them  :Biggrin:

----------


## rrobor

No Rod I didnt. You know my thoughts on the matter, they wont change.  I know your thoughts, they wont change.  So how many times do you want the wheel to spin?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Yep I get the picture loud and clear rrobor.

----------


## Gooner

> rrobor, I would be interested to know if you watched that video and what your thoughts are?

   

> No Rod I didnt. You know my thoughts on the matter, they wont change. I know your thoughts, they wont change. So how many times do you want the wheel to spin?

  Rrobor, how can you make an informed opinion by not researching an issue? To block your ears and go "nar nar nar I'm not listening" is a bit of an ignorant approach don't ya think?  
Anyway, I have seen that evidence presented before and the counter evidence goes along the lines of this... 
You can't look at historical records (from ice core samples) and assume the same trends, because something has changed. Something has been introduced. That is the effect of man which has never been a contributor to historical trends. Therefore the patterns and trends of the past may (or may not) no longer apply. 
The counter argument would also say that instead of taking the simplistic approach of looking at long term temperature patterns/trends, look at the correlation between atmospheric CO2 content verses temperature throughout the ages. The correlation between these are impressionable. Therefore, if we continue to increase atmospheric CO2 content via emissions and by the reduction of forrested areas then the conclusion will be that there will be a warming trend with associated extremes. 
Of course then you can go looking at further research that can refute that whole argument again, etc, etc.

----------


## Gooner

Here ya go. Found an image..CO2 vs temperature. 
Yep, there certainly have been temperature trends in the past, but there have also been CO2 trends. But look what's happening now. Certainly something is changing that has never been part of the long term trend.

----------


## rrobor

Gooner I have researched this for the the best part of 20 years and have my opinion based on that.   What you see here is two diametrically opposed camps each with firm beliefs. There has not been one mil of movement in any direction in the arguements in this post.  It is now a boring rotating post serving no point. Do you believe that brow beating for long enough will serve any point,? it wont. I answered the question asked, so as not to start a further arguement, and I dont intend to answer you in a way that could start one.
 The post is half dead, please let it rest.

----------


## Rod Dyson

rrobor, there is new scientific information almost daily refuting AGW. 
You need to get up to speed to ensure you thinking is valid and up to date. Got anything new that prooves AGW? I will gladly read it to see if it changes my opinion.  
But if you choose not to thats ok too. Many people choose to be that way no problem here at all. It certainly helps the fence sitters see ther way things are with a bit more clarity when they read or watch new information.

----------


## rrobor

If we have to have rotation let it be interesting. This is just down the road from where I learned my trade. The Falkirk Wheel. Boats can go from the river Forth to the river Clyde, joining east and west.

----------


## Ashore

Rob why would you not even look at the clip , you say you have looked at the issue over the last 20 years yet you wont look at the latest info , mate the flat earth society lasted a lot longer than 20 years mainly because the members there wouldn't look at new info , check out the clip with an open mind and then if you want more google his other 3-4 talks  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

On no! The youtube posts have started already and it's only page 8! 
We haven't even delved into the consensus issue properly yet and I think I've only seen one chart posted. That's really not good enough.  :Rolleyes:  At least the flat-earth society has been mentioned, so all is not lost. I think a bit more enthusiasm is required from both sides. 
At this rate the whole thread will be over by page 12, surely we can do better than that? 
woodbe.

----------


## watson

Excuse me denizens.......
Can we keep posts on topic or at least slightly relevant ........".off topic" just goes in the bin. 
And the topic is.......*Emission Trading*

----------


## dazzler

> Excuse me denizens.......
> Can we keep posts on topic or at least slightly relevant ........".off topic" just goes in the bin. 
> And the topic is.......*Emission Trading*

  But isnt that what they are doing.....trading emissions  :Tongue: . 
Most of it smells anyway  :Biggrin:

----------


## rrobor

I thought it was thingsthat are going round and round, so I aint finished yet.  Here is the Laxy water wheel.  My my Im a well traveled sod and seen a lot.  And no I wont post the Melbourne bent wheel .

----------


## Ashore

Hang on a minute the laxy wheel is in fact a non co2 producing energy supplier , wont run a bus but will pump a lot of water  :Rolleyes:

----------


## rrobor

Sorry to tell you its just a tourist site now,  they turn the tap on for bus tours. The work is now done by a bloody great electric motor.

----------


## Ashore

They oughter change its name to lazy wheel then  :Biggrin:

----------


## dib

I just need to put my two cents in.   
1. The green house effect is a proven effect ( back in in 1800's , wikipedia)
2. When it comes systems there is a balance, even though man made CO2 is small compared to the total CO2 it MAY be enough to upset the balance.
3. Having said that I believe that there must be a natural feedback system which maintains this balance eg higher temperaure -> more cloud -> heat is refected back out into space.  And I don't believe any of the climate modelling would be anywhere near accurate enough to predict what's really happening due to man made CO2.
4. The other theories I gave read about on short term global warming eg sun spots seem like rubbish to me.  
5. See 1. 
I think that the ETS is just going to move the carbon generation somewhere else.  It does not consider that it may be good for our economy to make aluminium and steel here, and most high emitting industries have already spent a gazzilllion dollars on reducing energy use because that saves them money.

----------


## chrisp

> 3. Having said that I believe that there must be a natural feedback system which maintains this balance eg higher temperaure -> more cloud -> heat is refected back out into space.  And I don't believe any of the climate modelling would be anywhere near accurate enough to predict what's really happening due to man made CO2.

  Actually, water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas and further exacerbates the warming.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Actually, water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas and further exacerbates the warming.

  
Yep. The man who discovered greenhouse gases - environment - 13 May 2009 - New Scientist  and the effect was first reported back in 1859.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

After nine pages my opinion still has not changed.  Emissions trading is a crock and a crutch....certainly as our beloved friends in the Labor and Liberal Parties are peddling it.  As for the Greens........I like the Greens because I don't think they take ETS seriously either....judging by todays amendments. 
Go hard or go hide under a blanket.... 
As for not finding conclusive proof in one spot about human induced climate change....you'll not find that outside the IPCC report.   
And in the end the scientific method doesn't rely on 'proof' so much as it relies on 'general consensus with the available evidence'.....it might sound like semantics to a lay person but it is important. Because 'proof' suggests that a result might always be static regardless of new information.....few scientists these would ever hammer their nail into calling something a 'proof' or 'a Law' because their ego's and professional reputations could very well take a belting if they are found down the track to have not considered something new coming into the mix. 
So the available empirical evidence about indicators of climate change suggests that something is happening, that humans are making a contribution and that the outcome could be catastrophic for the human species.  A very simple process of risk assessment based on that evidence and those outcomes suggests that it would be foolish to do nothing..... 
...so perhaps the arguement should not be so much about where the problem came from.....mopre along the line of what can we do to limit the damage? 
If not emission trading..............then what?  My option.  Just call the thing a bloody Greenhouse Gas Tax, put it in place and move on.  If something costs more then there is strong scientific evidence that the human species naturally seeks a cheaper alternative.....in this case a low greenhouse gas alternative. 
Been done before.......anyone remember CfC's?  Although now we've found out that many of the recent alternatives are tens to hundreds of times more greenhouse effective that CO2 or CH4 (methane)....dammit.

----------


## Gooner

> Been done before.......anyone remember CfC's?

  Actually, the whole Hole in the Ozone Layer thing is a good example of mankind scientifically identifying a global problem and implementing steps towards an effective solution. Probably the most significant one I can think of.

----------


## rrobor

Next wheel is Molly Malones barrow in Dublin. She died, I think from over exposure

----------


## mattwilliams78

I wasn't going to wade into this but Gooner's latest comment raised a smile.  
He's absolutely right about mankind rallying behind the montreal protocol to phase out refrigerants and a similar push was for the phasing out of leaded petrol in the late 80s. What makes me smile is that the same guy invented both.....d'oh!  Thomas Midgley, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Just think, he would have been held up as the greatest inventor of the time but poor guy look how it all played out for him  :Doh:  I bet the guy who invented asbestos was similarly pleased with himself. 
Anyway my point is that we all try our best but you never know what's coming around the corner. What most people I deal with try to follow is "The precautionary principle". None of us have personal proof that climate change is man-made but there's certainly something happening and if we try to reduce our emissions to pre-industrialisation levels then whats the worst that will happen? its certainly not going to make the climate worse. 
I hear what you're all saying about industry but really, its a very poor arguement and not one that's dissimilar to the one we heard GM and Ford going on about in America just a few years ago about how improving vehicle efficiency (and thereby reducing emissions) is too costly and would kill the US car industry. Well, surprise, surprise. 18 months later and they're looking for trillion dollar bailouts while the Japanese continue to refine their product to the nth degree and sell more cars than other country.  
Reducing emissions is about refining your process, reducing waste and generally being more effective with the resources you have (i.e. digging stuff out of the ground). Anyone who says this is a bad idea and that we should instead stay with our wasteful, resource hungry business as usual approach is surely arguing a lost cause?! 
(don't get me wrong, I realise the ETS is significantly flawed but its a start and its better to have a structure and build on that than try to get it right in one go. Also, don't kid yourselves that Australia is some little tiny country that no-one cares about - do you honestly think that Australia ratifying the Kyoto Protocol had no effect on America's decision? and what about China? we carry alot of sway in this region and many countries were using Australia as justification not to do anything themselves - we have to set an example - UNSW's research into solar panels is world leading but because of the combination of our bl00dy cheap coal and high labour costs it all got shipped out to china to be developed  :Annoyed: ). 
Sorry I got carried away......

----------


## Gooner

> I bet the guy who invented asbestos was similarly pleased with himself.

  I assume you meant asbestos sheeting, as asbestos is a natural mineral. Just some trivia for you.... asbsestos was used by the ancient greeks to make lantern wicks and cloth. The Romans made clothes out of asbestos and aparently washed them and literally "threw them into the fire" to dry.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Actually, the whole Hole in the Ozone Layer thing is a good example of mankind scientifically identifying a global problem and implementing steps towards an effective solution. Probably the most significant one I can think of.

  Exactly my point....there's a successful precedent for the sort of global risk aversion that we need with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.

----------


## Ashore

> Actually, the whole Hole in the Ozone Layer thing is a good example of mankind scientifically identifying a global problem and implementing steps towards an effective solution. Probably the most significant one I can think of.

   Gasses ware banned in 1994, removing one if not the best fire fighting medium (Halon), and the hole size is the same size as it was in 1987 funny that  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Gooner

> Gasses ware banned in 1994, removing one if not the best fire fighting medium (Halon), and the hole size is the same size as it was in 1987 funny that

  They say the ozone issue is more of a longer term recovery process. Around 50 to 100 years, which is relatviely short. Average ozone levels have been decreasing on a steady slope since the early 90s. In 1987 we were still in the process of depleting the ozone layer and we haven't yet recovered. But cetainly recovered from it's lowest point in around 1993.

----------


## Ashore

Charts like that realy don't tell the whole story as there are many things effecting the 'Hole" in the ozone layer , temperature being the largest , 
I am not saying that the montreal protocal was not a good thing overall but I feel there was a rush in reaction and some gasses were banned that shouldn't have been , it would have been wiser and saved more lives had the use of theis gasses been more rigidly policed

----------


## rrobor

For heavens sakes. Do you people realise the stress you put on me to find a new and novel wheel to post.  Do you really understand the stress that this is causing on me and mine.  Please consider your actions.

----------


## watson

wheelly?

----------


## Gooner

Headpin, I have a feeling that you ARE Mrs Watson.  :Smilie:

----------


## rrobor

Trust that bugger to start page 10.  I can see my creative life oozing out as this goes on.  Now I know you all love me so I know you wont force me to find a new and novel post of some friggin wheel   " PLEASE".

----------


## rrobor

I believed that was a ploy by young Mr Grace to keep all his minions in line, so when I got that invite,  I graceiously  (pardon the pun)  declined.  (Beat that).

----------


## Rod Dyson

FYI  *Senator Barnaby Joyce**Leader of the Nationals in the Senate*13th October 2009*COME CLEAN ON THE COST OF THE ETS, MR RUDD* Senator Joyce conducted a survey on the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to establish what percentage of people actually understood what an ETS was. Based on a few simple questions, such as ‘What is your understanding of an ETS’, 91.5% of respondents did not understand how an ETS works.  The Labor Government says that the majority of people want an ETS but how can this be the case when the vast majority of people don’t even understand what it is? This is part of the dishonesty behind this new revenue raising campaign. The ETS for all intents and purposes will be the Extra Tax System and a new Australian tax will not change the temperature of the globe.   There is something definitely fraudulent about delivering a guilt trip that appeals to the greater anxieties of the community and then implying that the remedy to these anxieties is a new tax when you know, categorically, that the new tax will deliver nothing but revenue to the treasury and commissions to the brokers. The ETS works on the premise that the majority of people are unaware of exactly how it works. The ETS’s affect on prices will change the buying pattern and supplying pattern of our economy. In fact that is the underlying principleof the plan.  In time, the ETS will deliver billions of dollars in commissions to carbon-permit brokers; they will trade those permits between the unfortunate sectors of the economy that will have to buy them. Industries will either pass the costs onto working families or they will go out of business trying. What Australians have to work out is that if they are involved in one of those sectors what is going to happen to them? The Government spends so much on advertising propaganda, why does it not come clean with an advertising campaign that clearly spells out the costs of the ETS and properly states the fact that the Australian scheme is a gesture that will not change the temperature of the globe?  *Media Inquiries* David Allender 07 4625 1500 0428 196 340

----------


## rrobor

OH cripes Id better start the search for another wheel. Why are people so unkind?

----------


## chrisp

Rod, 
Are you seeking preselection or standing for a political party?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> Are you seeking preselection or standing for a political party?

  LOL yeah right!! 
Nah Just cant stand this rubbish on global warming. It is just not happening and then you get guys that just believe in it as it was some kind of religion. They just put there fingers in their ears and go nah nah nah nah nah.  
I cant stand self serving do gooders that want to destroy the economy for no benefit at all except to feel good about themselves. It will all come undone there is nothing more certain. I for one would rather be tagged as a realist that took in all the evidence and came to my own opinion, rather than someone who fell for someone else's tripe without thinking. 
It is very easy to hide by trivializing the matter and not actually confronting the issues. Now that is putting the head in the sand.  There has never been a more draconian bill before parliament, one that will have a negative effect on just about every one, yet no one really understands it.  Go figure, just bend over.

----------


## zacnelson

G'day Rod, I agree 100% with all your posts in this thread.  In fact, I quoted Barnaby Joyce in one of my posts too.  I with I could vote for Barnaby Joyce for PM! 
I was thinking about something you wrote -   

> I cant stand self serving do gooders that want to destroy the economy for no benefit at all except to feel good about themselves.

  I actually think the green movement is more sinister than that.  I definitely believe they are 100% committed to their religion of global warming (YES, I said religion, there is no other word for it).  But I also think they are equally fully committed to extreme socialism, and this ETS plan is the perfect marriage of their green faith and their socialist ideals.   
The masterminds behind these schemes in Australia and elsewhere in the world are not unaware of the utter disruption that this will cause in our economy, nor are they apologetic.  In fact, they WANT a complete re-shuffling of the world economy, and a disturbance to the economies of individual (especially western) countries.  The ETS is a perfect smokescreen to generate a MASSIVE compulsory re-distribution of wealth, flowing from the private sector and industry into the ever-expanding public purse.  They WANT an increase in the size of government, and in the extending reach of the government's influence.  But aside from the ill effect within a nation's economy, it stretches even further - it entails the re-distribution of wealth from one country to another. 
It is a UN wet dream, one step closer to one-world government.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Yes Zac I agree there is a hidden agenda amongst some of the believers at the top.  But I am sure there are many that believe in their hearts they are doing the right thing.  Trouble is it just aint so. 
I am afraid that our kids (not mine) have been brain washed at an early age to believe in what they are told about AGW.  Sad aint it.

----------


## chrisp

> I cant stand self serving do gooders that want to destroy the economy for no benefit at all except to feel good about themselves. It will all come undone there is nothing more certain.

  Rod, 
I won't attempt to change your views on GW. 
However, my view is  that the "economy" is merely a man made tool to simply apportion costs of activities and materials.  For a very long time we have been using (and trading) the earth's resources with little regard to their true worth or their true cost to the environment.  Taxes are an economic tool for apportioning a dollar cost to the some of these hidden (or not so apparent) physical costs (such as depleting resources, pollution).  In effect, the ETS is just a mechanism, and a stepping stone, to a carbon tax to account for some of these costs. 
To me it seems ludicrous to talk about ETS/carbon tax "destroy(ing) the economy" - is actually the other way around - it is the economic model ("the economy") that is destroying the environment.  The economic model is faulty as it ignores important environment costs and encourages unsustainable activities. 
I say bring on a carbon tax and/or ETS (with increased cost over time) to drive economic activity toward sustainable practices.  We have "low carbon" technology, but we don't use it because the old "carbon" technology is too cheap due to the true environmental costs not being factored in to the cost.

----------


## rrobor

I stated a bit back that I didnt believe in religion. It may surprise you Rod that all my kids were incouraged to go to church. My daughter was a communist for a time, at the moment she is in your camp. So please leave mo out of your typecasting. I taught my kids to think for themselves I bet you didnt.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Rob you have a smart girl. I didn't mention any names  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): . 
Chrisp would you care to explain how we would achieve your goals with an increasing population? I would seriously like to know how you think it could be done. 
Also can you tell me how much we can expect to reduce the temperature by when we achieve that goal?

----------


## dib

> Actually, water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas and further exacerbates the warming.

  
Not water vapour CLOUD. Lookup "cloud forcing" in wikipedia.

----------


## dib

I think the answer is simple.  Neighbourhood nuclear power stations (Just not in mine please), We get Iran to build them for us.

----------


## rrobor

Tough to get a new interesting wheel from a place Ive been. But here is one from Australia
its off Donald Campbells Bluebird at lake Eyre.  Also from memory wasnt there a nice one in Coober Peedy. MMM.

----------


## Rod Dyson

This is one of the most sensible articles I have read on AGW. 
Now tell me where it is wrong.  Quadrant Online - Climate Modelling Nonsense

----------


## murray44

> This is one of the most sensible articles I have read on AGW. 
> Come on you believers read and then tell me where it is wrong.  Quadrant Online - Climate Modelling Nonsense

  Well I read it. So what? He doesn't actually prove anything, just a whole lot of opinion. We've all got opinions, doesn't prove right from wrong though.

----------


## rrobor

Ditto, now where's that wheel.

----------


## zacnelson

Great article! Thanks for linking that.  I love the Quadrant website, I've been on there before

----------


## rrobor

I know I said I wouldnt post this one, but its got family connections,  Son in law was an engineer on it. Now before you all rush in  with funnies, he was on the things that make it start and stop, not the twisty bits.

----------


## mattwilliams78

"Imagine the consequences both to science and to secular humanism should this hypothesis turn out to be untrue and the dire predictions of the climate models fail to materialise." 
shock!! horror!! we might be living in a country where we continue to enjoy a high standard of living but the products we use and services we enjoy are manufactured using a fraction of the resources they were before when polluting industries were subsidised to the hilt. 
I'm no climate change zealot/blind follower but SURELY people can see that we are shamefully wasteful bunch. Our drive for a product at the cheapest possible price has led to a situation where it's cheaper to buy a new thing from the other side of the world and throw the old thing away than it is to fix it locally (and I put my hand up as being one of the worst for this too...). I imagine that to do this someone, somewhere, has to exploit something - 9 times out of 10 its the environment or some poor person getting paid a dollar a day. 
Maybe the ETS isn't exactly the right mechanism, maybe AGW isn't the biggest threat to us, but seriously, letting aluminimum smelterers continue to pay only 2c a kWh to consume all the water in our rivers and pump emissions into our environment is a little short-sighted. Tiny countries like Denmark (and larger ones like Germany and Spain) have DECIDED to set up taxation systems, not unlike the ETS, to fund renewable energy research and now they are world leaders in wind and solar, exporting technology and knowledge around the world rather than their resources. And we continue to cry foul saying, "China needs our Iron Ore from huge open cut mines" or "Western Europe needs our coal". And you don't think its a good idea to take a small cut of that to support a more sustainable future for ourselves when these resources run out? (and please don't tell me you don't think they'll ever run out...I'm not necessarily talking in my lifetime but they'll run out in someone's) 
sorry for keeping this going  :Doh:

----------


## rrobor

Oh gawd thats going to stir the beggers up,  I better get another wheel lined up

----------


## Rod Dyson

Matt did you read post #43? 
It addresses a bit of what you are saying. 
No doubt the world will get to where you say it ought to be. But it will be the long way around if it tries to get there by pushing the AGW agenda. 
You cant confuse the issues you raise with AGW the ability to address these issues are diminished greatly when rescources are wasted on the myth of AGW. 
The world is going to get very ugly before it gets better if an ETS is introduced they proposed shift in wealth by paying off developing countries has a huge potential to get ugly.  
Dont be sorry for keeping it going, debate is good. Some just choose to adopt a view without looking at all aspects. Or simply try to tivialize the whole debate.

----------


## rrobor

I believe that was addressed to me so I shall answer. This subject has several facets. Politics of the right, Greenies, alternate lifers, big business etc etc. Each view is fixed and has been for some time. There has not been one shift in anyones view regarding this and there will be no change. The consensus view is we as a species have to address our uses of resources. Now this waxes and wanes dependant on the economy and the fear of change. But it remains a majority view with a higher percentage with the young for some form of control. To deny this is a folly and to argue to the extremes will create more against Rods arguement than it will for. As such there is no point  and the arguement just rolls on because it can.

----------


## chrisp

> Some just choose to adopt a view without looking at all aspects. Or simply try to tivialize the whole debate.

  For some reason this thread - and Rod's persistence in holding his out of date view  :Smilie:  - remind me of the Bear joke.  You know, the one with the punchline "*you're not here for the hunting, are you?*" 
Oops, sorry! I'm trivialising.   :Rolleyes:

----------


## chipps

> Matt did you read post #43?  *That's page 3 folks*  
> The world is going to get very ugly before it gets better if an ETS is introduced they proposed shift in wealth by paying off developing countries has a huge potential to get ugly.

  Hmmm, maybe move this to the debate sub-forum?  
Rod 
What's your interpretation of "_getting ugly_" ?  
Matt: Quote _"China needs our Iron Ore from huge open cut mines" or "Western Europe needs our coal"._Unquote 
If they need it & we have, someway or another, they'll get it. 
Perhaps this is what Rod means by "_getting ugly"_

----------


## Rod Dyson

Cant open closed minds eh! 
Time will tell it is the only way there will be resolution on this.  It will go the same way as every other dooms day prediction of which there are many.  This one though sure has the potential of causing the most damage.

----------


## chrisp

> Cant open closed minds eh!

  That would seem to be the case, but don't worry too much about it Rod, we all love you just the same.   :Smilie:

----------


## rrobor

New page so a new picture.  Being one, I give you  the Celtic knot. Very apropriate, it has no beginning or end it just goes round ad infinitum.

----------


## Ashore

The wheels are good rob , but a simple THE ETS IS UTTER BS , would work as well , you know rather than hide from the fact, just admit Dudd has got it wrong  :Biggrin:

----------


## rrobor

What has Mudd got to do with ETS.  ETS is a world standard its not something Ludd invented. Australia may be a large place but we are a very small country in the scheme of things. Sure we bat  in a higher league than our numbers would suggest but we still have to conform and we still have to trade. If Budd said we were going it alone Australia would be screwed. So whether its Sudd or Turncow it would make no difference.

----------


## Ashore

Obviously its easy to muddy the waters or to swim in circles
So I will ask you rob, simple questions that require simple answers
Will it cost the average Australian more to drive to work if the ETS comes into effect
Will it cost the average Australian more to buy a loaf of breab if the ETS comes into effect
Will it cost the average Australian more to switch on their computer if the ETS comes into effect
You may not wish to directly answer these question , espicaly after your previous posts in this thread but if you do answer a simple yes or no will suffice
Now if you are being honest one last question ( again a simple yes or no will do ) will the worlds ecology be changed 1% if Australia introduces this new tax, 
I wonder why people still stick their heads in the ground and let their set opinions dictate their thoughts , are we all so shallow that when we decide on a point weather it was obtained by political obediance or the ramblings of a few extremests that we ignore the facts and just believe what we are told by our masters 
This ETS will cost jobs , will reduce our standard of living and will produce no ecological results regardless of what Rudd or Wong or Garrett say
Now if you can show me how it will change anything ( other than our standard of living ) I am happy to listen , I will not cloud the issue and post pictures of wheels or dogs but read and listen , do you have the same ability  :Confused:

----------


## rrobor

Im not muddying the water that is fact. The world now is into ETS do you honestly believe Australia can give the world the rude finger. Australia joined with Rudd. USA with Obama. So will you be worse off, the answer is no. The world would have squeezed us dry had we been the lone dirty player. Now even the Chinese are falling into line. There is no choice. All you see is party  politics and the games of silly buggers.

----------


## Ashore

Questions answered ...0
Once again by passing the questions, Has the USA have signed an ETS No so why your vague answer 
Has any country introduced an ETS ?
And to quote you So will you be worse off, the answer is no.  How do you justify that statement............... :Confused: 
I asked you 4 questions none of which you answered 
1 Will it cost the average Australian more to drive to work if the ETS comes into effect
2 Will it cost the average Australian more to buy a loaf of bread if the ETS comes into effect
3 Will it cost the average Australian more to switch on their computer if the ETS comes into effect
4 will the worlds ecology be changed 1% if Australia introduces this new tax,   
Mate pull your head out of the sand, we will be worse off , globerly and locally if this tax is introduced 
And your answer to the 4 questions is ................  :Confused: 
Or do you have trouble with the yes or no answer

----------


## woodbe

Headpin, pass the chips mate. Would you like another beer? 
The game is starting to spark up a bit. Could be tears soon tho.  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

I answered your question, perhaps you missed that. The answer is no it will not. It is, by the way, a silly set of questions because you are taking it as some form of local event. This is a world wide thing not some new form of tax on you. Can you realistically determine the cost of bread in the future and say oct 19 it was $2. 40 now its $2 80 due to ETS how silly is that. Price of fuel is International so out with that. What do you really want to do. Hide from the fact the world will demand this of us, Hide from the fact that Rudd won an election with that as his cornerstone. Hide from the fact you are in the minority camp. This is a reality which like it or not will happen. To continue bitching about it is not facing reality. There are many things in an ETS that I think are flawed and I will argue for changes, but to dismiss is folly.
                                  AMEN

----------


## mattwilliams78

> Will it cost the average Australian more to drive to work if the ETS comes into effect
> Will it cost the average Australian more to buy a loaf of breab if the ETS comes into effect
> Will it cost the average Australian more to switch on their computer if the ETS comes into effect
> You may not wish to directly answer these question , espicaly after your previous posts in this thread but if you do answer a simple yes or no will suffice
> Now if you are being honest one last question ( again a simple yes or no will do ) will the worlds ecology be changed 1% if Australia introduces this new tax,

  To answer your questions simply Ashore 
1) yes
2) probably
3) definately
4) probably not if we continue to let those "true blue hard working aussies" out there soften our resolve any further. 
Does anyone even realise that we are on course to smash our Kyoto targets without even trying?? It turns out that 1990 was a record year for land (and forest) clearance and so our emissions that year were so unusually high that we could pretty much double our population and continue to increase our standard of living by 2020 and still meet any commitment that Rudd signed us up to. Now, because of industry lobbying our easy target of 20% has now been reduced to a measly 5%  and still people are whinging that "its too hard boohoo" etc. Electricity prices went up 15-20% 3 months ago and I bet a large proportion of this forum and certainly the population at large haven't probably even noticed. This money isn't going to help the environment. This money is going to bail out companies that didn't even have enough foresight to properly manage their own infrastructure. 
This redistribution of wealth is a load of old tripe. The "market" has an uncanny way of making money out of these kinds of taxes/systems and I swear that in 5 years time you'll be living absolutely no differently to now but all of a sudden its no more expensive to buy a solar hot water system than it is an old electric storage one (its practically that way now). No more expensive to buy a diesel car than a petrol one. twice as many hybrids on the road. more clean burning, gas fired neighbourhood power stations (powered by landfill gasor sewerage treatmant plant gas). more electric commuter cars on the road that have battery banks that can be loaded up with renewable power/cogenerated power while people are at work. opportunities to lease to buy solar power for your rooftop so that you can better manage your own power consumption and maybe even sell some back to the grid. 
What really gets my goat is that because of all this bad press about "losing jobs" and "more expensive for the aussie battler" big companies can get away with having us over a barrel about "make us exempt or we're moving somewhere else". They've already got a fantastic deal. maybe we should let them. They don't have any respect for us anyway. look at pacific brands. Look at Holden who needed to be taken to the brink before they would stop making "big Aussie sixes" that people drive their kids to and from school in doing 10k's each way max. I bet that most of those exempt companies will still cry poor and raise their prices along with the rest of industry - "our suppliers costs have gone up boohoo so we have to pass the cost onto you". 
People have got to wake up to the con that it is NOT going down this path. They're basically saying "if you don't let us continue to exploit your natural resources and pay absolutely nothing back to the environment then we'll go somewhere that will". We don't want those kind of companies around. We want the ones who are smart enough to see this new market as a source of INCOME not tax. If they maximise efficiency, make more savings than they need to, they can SELL this stuff - to the old dinosaurs
who are unwilling to change their ancient ways. 
I just can't see why some of you can't see an opportunity for the greater good in all of this. I work in this technological space and I'm not exagerating when I say that the systems I try to push every day will suddenly be way more vaiable because of this (so long as the ETS remains ambitious enough). Simple question to you; 
if you had the opportunity to contribute a fraction more now, to set in place the practices to make better, more efficient solutions more competitive, so that less pollution was pumped into the air which maybe slowed or stopped some climatic event in the future that may or may not happen, would you do it?  
You guys buy car/house insurance don't you? do you complain that this is a tax for some event in the future that may or may not happen? do you moan every year when you paid out money and you didn't have an accident? and that's to a company that's just making a buck, not to individuals and companies that are pushing technological boundaries.

----------


## Ashore

> I answered your question, perhaps you missed that.

  No rob you didn't , you can muddy the waters all you want but you know and I know and everyone here knows you did not answer the simple questions Yes or no 
rob talking round and round does not answer the questions 
To quote " I answered your question" you and I both know you didn't 
Four simple questions yes or no and you have a problem , One has to wonder why  :Confused:

----------


## Ashore

> To answer your questions simply Ashore 
> 4) probably not if we continue to let those "true blue hard working aussies" out there soften our resolve any further. 
> .

  Question 4 was   will the worlds ecology be changed 1% if Australia introduces this new tax,   Have you honestly read your answer , those true blue hard working aussies are the backbone of this country and you are worried that they will soften your resolve any further 
So you don't wont true blue hard working aussies to soften your resolve , well comrad ( and I rekon thats the right term ) I'm one of those hard working true blue aussies .................... note the dots cause I know that this forum has rules but you in my opinion have breached them
If you dont like hard working aussies you can ( for those reading this add your own words )
The further I go the more angry I become 
I won't dignify your post by adding anything else other than to say I do hope to meet you one day and discuss this face to face comrad

----------


## rrobor

Ashore please dont continually push a stupid point, you are not that silly. There is no way I can see the future, prices will go up, they always do. Will it be due to man creating better ways to live? Norway is embracing this and is creating wealth and jobs due to that. So who knows. But whatever it is there is no choice, those with the ability to accept the chalenge will suceed and as Matt says so well, dinosaurs are doomed. Ashore I return to edit as I take back my first statement as I find what you said about Matt offensive

----------


## Ashore

> I take back my first statement as I find what you said about Matt offensive

   so your answer is no , that if implemented there will be no increases in prices in anything due to the ETS 
As to finding what I said about MATT offensive  the man was degrading true blue hard working aussies,, read the text , 
the question was  will the worlds ecology be changed 1% if Australia introduces this new tax, 
And the answer was probably not if we continue to let those "true blue hard working aussies" out there soften our resolve any further. *our* resolve , whos the *our* and why shouldn't hard working aussies have a say  
Find Offence all you like

----------


## rrobor

You know very well what I objected to. I could also tell you that I worked for a large multi national who blackmailed  Australia and robbed Australia. All parts were sourced in the homeland and supplied from there. Part was bought in Australia for a cent  paid for from overseas then sold to the customers from overseas for a dollar. You have not been involved in business nor do you understand that. So when you say Comrade,  to who? to a firm shafting Australia or to Australia. Cripes I thought we were done with reds under the beds when Mal lost the election.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Matt do you really believe your view of the economy under an ETS will be a rosy as that? 
Co2 by the way is not pollution. I have no problem with reducing pollution (something we have done very well without an ETS). 
Wy introduce an ETS that will achieve NOTHING yet cost a lot just to fix a nonexistant problem anyway. All those great things you say will happen in a normal market if they are economically viable anyway. 
If what you say is true, that is, in 5 years we will be living no different than we do now. What is the point? Emissions will not, can not, be reduced in Australia or any other country without reducing living standards or building nuclear power stations all over the world then power cars from that power scource. Then why would we do that to solve a non problem? 
Read this page and watch the video, Then without shooting or degrading the messenger, comment on the content and tell me if it is a good or bad thing or where it is wrong.  http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...est_will_play/

----------


## rrobor

Aint seen this one, but it was a scotsman who created it. The most powerful waterwheel in history. First automatic horse shoe maker. This thing made one horseshoe per second during the American civil war for the Yanky side. It dont exist no more. Probably melted down ffor bean cans.

----------


## mattwilliams78

I had a read of the link but seriously I couldn't physically take anymore after the 20th hillbilly, right-wing, conspiracy-thriving, xenophobe mentioned "the end of days" and/or "New World Order". 
I don't think there's much point in me adding anymore, I've made my opinion clear enough and my perfectly valid comments on other posts are now getting referred back to this. 
I can see how people might have taken offence to my comment about "true blue aussies". That wasn't my intent. The reason it was in quotation marks is that I am tongue-in-cheek referring to the way that huge multinationals are using that particular excuse to argue why they can't be expected to cut emissions when really they are just doing wasteful things that they can't be bothered to try and iron out. And BTW, how much do they truly care about "True Blue Aussies" when they get an opportunity to shift offshore because of some tax loophole that allows them to pay their CEO an extra $10mil a year.  
I just think its an exciting opportunity to see some value of carbon pollution costed for once (and while carbon itself is not strictly pollution, the ways in which we process it definately do cause pollution, (and water consumption, and biodiversity destruction) and so this is in effect a proxy for pollution). 
Whether you think I'm some kind of commie nutjob is up to you but seriously, read the comments below that article you sent us to read and you think that represents a balanced outlook??? The CON here is that we are letting multinationals tell us that we shouldn't be modernising industry.

----------


## mattwilliams78

I really hope this hasn't ruined any chance I might get of assistance in laying those pavers  :Biggrin:

----------


## watson

There's reds under my bed.......!!
A few Cab Savs.............the odd Merlot blend.....etc etc. 
The point is..........name calling of any sort is OUT!
So keep to the point without destroying each others' reputations please.

----------


## watson

> I really hope this hasn't ruined any chance I might get of assistance in laying those pavers

  
Shouldn't ........but we've just got to remember decorum rules.......that's why the thread has been allowed to continue.
I can't state my opinions........I'm just the referee......so if we are nice boys....it continues.   :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

You really think its ok for us to pay a third world country for the carbon we emit?

----------


## rrobor

Funnily enough Rod I agree with you there, its a nonsence. Its like dumping 2 tons of crud on some pacific Island because theres a few people living on it. To Matt na youve no probs, Rod will plaster your walls any time you want.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod will plaster your walls any time you want.

  Yes Rob you read me right on that score.

----------


## dazzler

> I really hope this hasn't ruined any chance I might get of assistance in laying those pavers

  Not at all.  Just remember to scatter lumps of brick into the sand base  :2thumbsup:

----------


## rrobor

Now see what youve done dazzler you got this moved into the bad boy section.  Oh you will all be pleased to know I got a new picture if you start a new page

----------


## woodbe

Well, I was out by one page. that's not bad. 
Properly argued, any GW related thread is good for 25 pages. This one has been rather disappointing. I give it 4/10 "Could try harder" 
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

Dont understand Headpin, Whats the Dalia Lama sticking darts in his hand got to do with it.

----------


## Smurf

The Lima agreement of the early 1970's set us up for the financial and environmental situation we now have as being a resource exporting country that increasinly manufactures basically nothing.  
We can't continue forever running up massive debts and hoping to pay our way through the printing press - we've already seen one finanical crisis as a result and it sure won't be the last. Noticed the price of gold, oil or the US Dollar lately? This situation just isn't sustainable. 
And of course if we didn't have to worry about globalisation, there wouldn't be a need to provide the cheapest possible energy to Australian industry (what's left of it) such that it can "compete". All this situation does is force everyone down to the lowest common denominator be it in wages, environment or just about anything else. 
Technically, cutting emissions isn't that hard. It's the economic system where tomorrow's growth is collateral for today's debt (read that again and think about it...) and where it is mathematically impossible to actually repay the world's debts that is the problem. We're absolutely locked into constant growth, something that can't end well on a finite planet. The moment growth is halted or even slowed, we get an immediate economic crisis - the system either grows or collapses, that's how it was designed to work. Hence why governments and economists are so fearful of zero or negative growth - the entire system depends on growth in order to survive. 
Fact? Or just Smurf on a rant? Do some serious research into fiat currency and how the debt-dependent economies work and you'll find that we're in a rather big mess if growth stops. Money created from thin air today, with tomorrow's growth paying the interest. 
20 years ago I was actively concerned about the CO2 issue. Now that I have some understanding as to how the economy works, I've reluctantly given up any hope of emissions actually being reduced anytime soon. The only thing that would change that view is a paradigm shift in the global economic system - something that will happen at some point (given that it is inherently unsustainable) but it's anyone's guess as to when. And of course when it does happen, CO2 emissions will be the last thing on most people's minds.  :Frown:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Good post smurf.  There are a lot of storm clouds on the horizon.   
For the reasons you mention. emission reduction is impossible and fanciful. Yet, it may in fact force the paradigm shift you mention. There is a lot going on we don't know about.  One thing is for certain, and that is, there is NO credible scientific link to CO2 controlling temperatures, so what else is going on? 
We have a lot of well meaning but gullible people who have bought this pup, as we have a lot of  ???? people selling it.  No one will properly debate it. The media will not publish evidence against it (which there is plenty of, PEER REVIEWED). Governments have committed themselves to it with no point of return.

----------


## dazzler

So what happens to all the carbon we burn and put in the atmosphere?  :Smilie:

----------


## elkangorito

Emission trading is simply another way for the rich to get richer. 
I think these guys may have a good idea though.  Lutec Australia Pty Ltd - Welcome!

----------


## chrisp

> One thing is for certain, and that is, there is NO credible scientific link to CO2 controlling temperatures

  I take it that you didn't watch Myth Busters on Saturday night?   :Smilie:

----------


## chromis

> Co2 by the way is not pollution. I have no problem with reducing pollution (something we have done very well without an ETS).

  
Do you really think Australia has done well to reduce pollution? I guess that depends on your definition of pollution.  
What about all the crap that goes into our rivers and oceans . Mining produces a lot of by-product that nobody knows what to do with and it sits there leaching into the water table. There must be thousands of obvious cases of pollution in Australia that we just ignore.  
I don't know about climate change. I don't really care one way or another if it exists or not. If it gets government, business and science looking at pollution in all it's forms that is a good thing in my book. Maybe in 20 years we could swim again in the Swan river without getting sick, maybe it won't stink in summer anymore and the fish will stop dyeing in their hundreds and we just might be able to catch and eat a few as well.  
As far as ETrading goes. Like the pro climate change scientists, I cant really predict the future so it is pointless getting all pessimistic about people losing their jobs and the economy collapsing.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So what happens to all the carbon we burn and put in the atmosphere?

  It feeds the plants. 
World is greening up due to the extra CO2

----------


## rrobor

If any of you watched landline today you would have noted farmers in USA returning carbon to the soil as a no till method others were using cow muck to generate methane as energy sources for their farms. Given a chance people usually try to be responsible. For example Melbourne was asked to use less water and a target of 155 litres was requested. The good people of Melbourne have beaten that target. But anyways as its still going cos its a new page I give you John Boyd Dunlop. Scottish inventor of a wheel filled with hot air and wind and the creator of the word pneumatic.

----------


## dazzler

> It feeds the plants. 
> World is greening up due to the extra CO2

  I know, I have to carry a chainsaw just to get home of a night  :Tongue:

----------


## GraemeCook

Just imagine what the effect will be when the Wall Street investment bankers, those unrequited geniuses that caused the global financial crisis, get seriously involved in emissions trading? 
How will they make their next billion?   Who wins?  Who loses?  
Cheers 
Graeme

----------


## Ashore

It will end up like labors petrol watch ( funny though petrol still goes up 10 to 20 cents per litre on pension thursday)
Food watch ( funny though the big food chains have diffrent prices for the same goods in stores only 10 k apart)
The refugee boat people problem ( How many have we got again this year so far compaired to the last year of liberal government)
This new tax the ETS is un thought out , rushed into to apease minority groups , will do nothing to reduce greenhouse emmisions ( *where and how will this money collected in this new tax be spent* ) as is being hailed as the saviour of our planet , all this from a new tax on the australian people , 
Your right in one respect rob this goes round and round , those who want change , any change as long as someone is doing something , regardless of the cost to anyone else, will never see the reasoning behind any other arguement wether its right or wrong , the 'we must act now' is like the chicken little story , do something now run in circles grab at any straw rather than look at the facts and what will result from your actions for the sky is falling , we have global warming ( even if it cant be proven we'll change the name to climate change ) , the sea is rising , well it will if this global warming continues ....er sorry climate change...we have the worst weather in 80 years it must be global warming ..er climate change that is 
Answer just one question where will the moneys collected by this new tax if introduced be spent and lets see something in writing from the government , cause I cant find anything other than vague retoric  :Mad:

----------


## rrobor

Its amasing how many red herrings can be drawn into this thread.  Now theres an Idea for my next picture,  Perhaps an Arbroath smokie or kipper. Seems its not about the subject but about Kev bashing.  Anyways getting close to the next page so better get on the hunt. Bet you are all on tenter hooks.

----------


## Ashore

So you equate all references to labor with Rudd , intrestering , thought it was a bigger party than that , didn't realize he controlled all the policies , 
Funny enough I didn't mention him at all , freudian slip on your part rob or do you have more insight than the rest of us as to why labors policies are failing , and their promises not forthcoming  :Rolleyes:

----------


## rrobor

No sir I aint silly enough to start politics here, Noel has a large stick for situations like that.   I believe the government of the day is   "The Rudd government"   and thats as deep in as my toe will go.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Ashore, a retired marine engineer must have a few clues on sea level rises.  I wanted to buy one of these cheap sea side houses real cheap.  
Hmm trouble is they are not cheap and not likely to be. Some one is obviously wised up!  
Think of the compensation claims when the dust settles on this LOL.

----------


## Blocklayer

Hopefully a new and urgent world disaster situation will come along before this current one is proved a fraud.  
Its called Recycling. 
Great for humanity, the planet, and the elite. 
:

----------


## rrobor

Blocklayer is correct in some respect. The governments of the world have agreed on this,  not some dandy ideas the Rudd government dredged up.  So why oh why do you try to localise the thing if it is not just playing politics.

----------


## Ashore

> I wanted to buy one of these cheap sea side houses real cheap.  
> Hmm trouble is they are not cheap and not likely to be. Some one is obviously wised up!  
> .

  No need for anyone to move as soon as the nex tax comes in Rudd will change his name to Canute

----------


## Rod Dyson

Not all governments of the world have agreed on this, besides science should not be "agreed" apon by governments it should be demonstratable TRUE before any policy is made.  The scientific community will be the laughing stock for many years after this.  
Just because a government or many governments agree on this it does not make it true. Mind you you are right many governments have "agreed".  They all see a political advantage in agreement, their fall back is that they were just following what the scientist (read IPCC) were telling us.  They choose to ignore any other scientist who dissagree, many of which have proven AGW is through Co2 is just not possible.   
It will take time but the truth always wins.

----------


## Blocklayer

Isnt it funny.  The world economy unravels because the educated elite finally get caught out trading in fictional products ( do you understand all the available vapourware investment products ?)  So what to do?  Humanity needs these educated elites.  The old vapourware products have been outed as fraud.   So they need to find a new (fictional) product to trade in.  What can they use?  FEAR.  Tell the fools the climate is in ruins and  the only way to fix it is taxes and a new trading system that doesnt really trade in anything (but fear)   WAKE UP AUSTRALIA

----------


## rrobor

Winchester castle.  The great hall and King Arthurs 14th century round table. Arthur sat at the top. I had plans for smoked red herrings, perhaps next time

----------


## Ashore

> Blocklayer is correct in some respect. The governments of the world have agreed on *this*, not some dandy ideas the Rudd government dredged up. So why oh why do you try to localise the thing if it is not just playing politics.

   and as of this moment in time how many nations have an ETS the same as the one perposed by labor, once again you generalize "The governments of the world have agreed on *this* " what have the collective governments of the world ever agreed on , and what is *this,* are you implying that even a majority ( let alone all of the world governments) of world governments are going to bring in a new tax on their populations the same as the one preposed by the australian labor party 
Robb you debate like a monty python skit
But these are the facts 
No their not
There is no global warming 
Yes there is , they all agree there is
Who 
Everyone
But who exactialy 
Everyone , ....Sorry but it will be another ETS payment to continue arguing  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Ashore

> Just because a government or many governments agree on this it does not make it true. . They choose to ignore any other scientist who dissagree, many of which have proven AGW  through Co2 is just not possible.   *It will take time but the truth always wins*.

   Its not about the oil or *money*, there are weapons of mass destruction there
Bad analogy I know but the basic point is the same  :Rolleyes:

----------


## rrobor

Rudd went to an election with climate change as a cornerstone and won. Obama did the same. Now in this marvelous country we have elections. We also have soap boxes. May I suggest if you all want to get on a soap box and bleat, do it for an election. 
    If you feel strongly about it get on your soap box in the square and recrute. But please the renovative forum is not a soap box area.   Politics and religion are not for here.

----------


## Ashore

> Rudd went to an election with climate change as a cornerstone and won. Obama did the same. .

  No they didn't

----------


## woodbe

> No they didn't

  Please elaborate. That was certainly my reading of both campaigns. 
Item on the news the other day. They are talking about freezing samples of the worlds coral reefs to create a diversity 'bank' because the reefs are probably unsaveable due to climate change.   ABC AM Transcript 
Discuss.  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Woodbe the sun will die before coral reefs.  Coral reefs are under NO threat from climate change.  Even if water warms corals adapt.  They are more likely to die from cooler climate than warm. 
Coral survied the medievil warm period and it will survive again.  Hell it even survived the ice age... go figure? 
This is just another furphy scare to adjust your mind to accept AGW. 
Professor Clive Hamilton   “Personally I cannot see any alternative to ramping up the fear factor.”  
What does that tell you.  Fear factor is all they have no conclusive evidence,  dispite spending billions of dollars to find it.  We have models that assume the level of Co2 effect will be linier rather than logerithmic, (which is a proven fact). We have thousands of "fear factor" assumptions of the effect of climate change based on the faulty modles. You have governments that have dug themselves in so deep to appeal to the masses that they pray AGW is real while forging ahead as if it is.  
The fear factor is all AGW is built on and this absolutly disgusts me to the core.

----------


## Ashore

> Please elaborate. That was certainly my reading of both campaigns. 
> .

  Obama's main thrust was always edcuation first , and health second, followed by the economy , and in his economy sector was the need to remove americas reliance on foriegn oil and create '5 million green jobs that cant be moved overseas.'
Rudd's main thrust was at workplace relations laws
I would understand that this was not your reading of both campains for in the words of the imortal simon and garfunkle song The Boxer "for a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest "  :Biggrin:

----------


## rrobor

Rod I could give you a guarentee that you pay health insurance,  work insurance and other things.  Now you Rod have no intention of falling off a ladder and breaking a leg,  but you have had the good sense not to leave you and yours in a hole if that happens.    World governments can not take the risk.  There are just too many pointers that state the worlds climate is more violent.   Governments who get the mood of the people wrong loose power.  The USA was always a race between Hillary and Obama, the rest was a side show.  In Australia few expected Howard to win, but to be only the second to loose it all,  we didnt expect that.  So scream as much as you like, world opinion is not with you or yours.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Rob the insurance argument is just a plain furphy that doesn't wash in any way. I dont insure my boat because I dont own one. 
World opinion is with the AGW alarmists simply because they are led by the fear factor. It takes balls for a government to stand up to what is right rather than go with what propaganderist have fed the people. This is how the nazis got into power in germany. Hitler kept feeding propaganda and scaring people over the threat of communism and jewish takeover, (among other things), untill they believed it.  
We have been fed fear tactics over AGW for years now that the average Joe simply believes it whithout question. People are sheep. All this propaganda does not make it true. Quite the reverse.  
Why won't Gore or Hanson debate AGW with other scientist that refute AGW. Their claim the debate is over is false. If they were sure of there ground they would welcome debate to drive thier point home.  
The IPCC relied on temperature reconstruction from the UK for years 1850 to present. When other scientists requested the raw data they refused. When the pressure to release the data became too intense they claimed the data was destroyed. So no one is able to review and recontruct their work. 
AGW is so full of holes it cannot and will not last. The MSM is starting to question AGW slowly and scientists are starting to change sides to protect their intergity. Those that are retiring and no longer threatened by comming out are doing so.  
Governments protect themselves by claiming they are following the IPCC so they can lay the blame on their actions on the IPCC when it fails. This is the easy way out for them while pandering to the fear effected population.  
The whole process is disgusting to watch unfold.

----------


## woodbe

> Rudd's main thrust was at workplace relations laws

   

> *Environment* 
>  In opposition, Rudd called climate change "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time" and called for a cut to greenhouse gas emissions by 60% before 2050.[52] On 3 December 2007, as his first official act after being sworn in, Rudd signed the Kyoto Protocol.[53] On 15 December 2008, Rudd released a White Paper on reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.

    

> I would understand that this was not your reading of both campains for in the words of the imortal simon and garfunkle song The Boxer "for a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest "

  Pot, Kettle Black.  :Smilie:  
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfwiVR7VlWg"]Kevin07 Youtube[/ame] 
Workplace was indeed a big part of the campaign, along with Hospitals, education and the economy. You could say that Howard's policies on Climate Change and Workplace Relations were effectively his party's resignation letters. 
So Climate Change was a cornerstone of the Kevin07 campaign, as well as Obama's Campaign. No politician comes into power on a single policy however as the electorate is looking at a variety of issues that may or may not be a concern to them. 
woodbe.

----------


## Blocklayer

This is long, but at least give it a listen  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0"]YouTube - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul[/ame]

----------


## rrobor

Blocklayer, I honestly dont know if this guy is for me or against me.   But honestly we all have been through this now for several years.   If you have no opinion as to climate change now. Then where have you been.    This issue has turned into rioght wing politics versus left wing politics.   As such,  the average person seems compelled to side to one idiot fringe or the other.  Personally  I will show the rude finger to both. A majority view is good enough for me.

----------


## Ashore

> . A majority view is good enough for me.

  good cause everybody agrees with me , well all the governments of the world anyway  :Biggrin:

----------


## Ashore

> Pot, Kettle Black.  
> .

  No way, just using a great analogy to point out the truth  :Biggrin:

----------


## rrobor

Ashore, did you really read what I wrote. I stated that everybody had formed an opinion. Like yours, however much you push your view, you will not change any other opinion. Your view is right wing,, and you push that. My view for what its worth is leave a government in for max 3 terms then chuck em out. Rudd at the moment is working like a beaver, lets go with that. Howard was stale.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Rob I don't think you get it. SOME people have formed a rusted on view that will not change regardless of the evidence presented to them.  
Fortunately this is only the minority of both sides of policy. The greatest number are those in between people, blindly accept what the MSM or government tells them. These are the people that will sway the opinion away based on facts as they become more widely reported. We know you will ignore these facts untill you feel the majority support them. 
I will change my opinion if you can come up with some supporting evidence, the problem is it is just not there! No one can come up with anything concrete. Only guess work, and this is despite billions spent trying.  
The good thing is the theory is unravelling at a rate of knotts. Copenhagen will fizz then we will see more negative reports come out against AGW. It is a dead duck. 
PS Rudd is a lying creep that bends with the wind. No substance. Mind you turnbul in my opinion is not much better we are in a very very dismal political era.

----------


## rrobor

Im sorry Rod you are incorrect. the vast majority have formed a view based on various reasons, upbringing being the most common.   But they dont win or loose an election. That is done by about 10% of the population who quite honestly think you and I are boring old farts.  You can tell me every detail of why this global warming thing is crap, it will do nothing . Put it to a  hip hop beat and you may be on a winner.

----------


## woodbe

> No way, just using a great analogy to point out the truth

  Oh. Right.  
That would be one of those retrospective analogies then.  :Yikes2:  
rrobor was in fact correct.  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

rrobor, is it time for another wheel yet? 
Congratulations Rod. I thought this was dead, but it's sparked up again. 
Can you give us an idea of what Copenhagen 'fizzing' will look like? Are we talking about a mass walkout by major governments or something like that? If so, I'll have to start watching the news again as it's been pretty boring of late and I've given up on it. 
woodbe.

----------


## Ashore

> Oh. Right. wikepidea is an open resource , I note you didn't quote a real definition like websters , one has to wonder why , perhaps it doesn't fit into your world, btw before you use wikepedia as a refference have you ever bothered to find out where their information comes from  
> rrobor was in fact correct.  so was hitler and stalin if you believe their die hard followers 
> woodbe.

   Trouble is i'm not a follower I tend to read the facts and don't just quote the parts that suit my arguement 
For you though there is another clasic quote " the truth is out there " now if you bothered to look at all the links posted in this thread ( including the one posted by me ) and watched them with ( and here it gets hard ) an open mind you would realise that there has been played on the general public a huge hoax but perhaps I should post a picture of a wheel , rather than answer the real questions 
I have in fact asked several questions in the course of this thread and how many have been answered by straight answers... 
This is where the arguement on the ETS comes to a halt those against want answers and those for put up pictures of wheels because they have run out of ways to disprove the true facts . 
the elections of both obama and rudd were drovers dogs elections, where people wanted a change , but the* CORNERSTONES* of their total policies were not climate change , they were part and more on rudds than obams, but were not the main thing that their election resuts depended on and to say it was is simply *WRONG*
now we both know this and google is your friend , try "*the main issue in rudds campain for the election "*
Go to the thire on the list and click on the video 
But I know deep in my heart I'll still be wrong cause I dont believe like you and therefor I am wrong and a pot  :No: 
Now what was the song again ... oh yes the boxer

----------


## Ashore

There was another simon and garfunkel song " the sounds of silence " 
Guess I'm showing my age ... bit like confucius said with age comes wisdom .. whonder why thats true , may be why the labor party wanted to introduce the voting age be lowered to 16  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

Ashore, mate. You're punching the wrong dude, but I'll answer your questions as you seem to be feeling horribly wronged by not getting any answers. 
1. Wikipedia. I often use Wikipedia because it is a very good resource, especially if you want to get broader information and definitions than you might get at say Websters. Nothing wrong with Websters mind, but I think you'll find that it agrees with Wikipedia about Analogy. and it does. Imagine that  :Smilie:  
No, I don't know exactly who writes Wikipedia, but I have general faith in it, and am aware of the dispute processes (I'm a contributor as well) Do you know who writes the Websters dictionary? 
2. rrobor was correct. Sorry Ashore, I'm just not getting the connection between rrobor being correct about a cornerstone of the Rudd election campaign and those evil dudes' names you decided to quote. rrobor is a nice bloke, please take it easy. 
Are you deliberately invoking Godwin's Law? 
3. The truth is out there. I'm sure it is. There is a truth for everybody. This is the foundation stone of democracy and the pluralistic society we live in. There are facts (like the cornerstone thing) and there is opinion (like whether AGW exists). You for instance seem to have an opinion that it is all a big hoax. Good for you, but this is just an opinion - you cannot prove that you are right, and others just as equally cannot prove that you are wrong.  
To find out who is right about AGW, we have to wait until the facts happen. Please don't hold your breath, it could take a while. 
4. I'm getting this out of order, but we are back on Rudds Campaign. Did you watch the youtube I posted? It clearly states the Campaign priorities just before the election.  
5. Open Minds. I'm kinda not getting the connection between having and open mind and forming an opinion that AGW is a hoax. Are you saying that everyone who thinks it isn't a hoax has a closed mind? 
I'd still like to see the page 16 wheel... 
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

Appologies toall for being late. Power pole across the road with our transformer on it was being replaced. I spent the day doing a soduko or watching the antics.   Anyways as this is dragging on a bit its the reputed oldest wheel. Found in the the LjubljanaCityMuseum unveiled the oldest wheel in the world, found on an archaeological site in the Ljubljana Marshes. The news that the world's oldest wooden wheel had been found in Slovenia came a few months earlier as Austrian experts established that the wheel is between 5,100 and 5,350 years old.         Unlike this thead this one has stopped turning.

----------


## Ashore

> Sorry Ashore, I'm just not getting the connection between rrobor being correct about a cornerstone of the Rudd election campaign and those evil dudes' names you decided to quote. rrobor is a nice bloke, please take it easy. 
> Are you deliberately invoking Godwin's Law? 
> .

  I know he is and he knows that, this however is a discussion, as for mentioning those names it was to show that no matter how bad or wrong an idea or actions are the true belivers will agree with them, but godwins law no , thats why I put stalin in as well 
Campain priorities of the party ( and that speech was aimed at the audience that he was speaking to) and the cornerstone of the election results , are they the same  :No:  
Nice wheel robb   :Biggrin:

----------


## rrobor

Well if I am correct then why are we argueing.  Correct yes, and confused as well.

----------


## Ashore

I was referring to you being a nice bloke , not your wrong views, and who's argueing , i'm just trying to point out the error in you ways, wheely I am  :Biggrin:

----------


## rrobor

Sorry no wheel this time. I believed it was time for reflection    When I get too sure of my own opinion, this is the picture I have burned into my mind as to how wrong man can get it.    A wee man in a hideous ashes bog.      The words spoken were not those of Brownoski but were the words from Oliver Cromwell who was trying to avert another tragedy.        If we try to avoid climate change and are proven wrong, our ancestors will look at us as silly old buggers.  If we do nothing and climate change is a fact, we would be the despised generation. My form of religion is that I am the keeper, giver and protector of the genes.  Chancing their future for the pleasures of now, to me, is a betrayal.

----------


## Smurf

> Just imagine what the effect will be when the Wall Street investment bankers, those unrequited geniuses that caused the global financial crisis, get seriously involved in emissions trading? 
> How will they make their next billion? Who wins? Who loses?  
> Cheers 
> Graeme

  I'd be very, very surprised if they weren't already heavily involved in proposals for an ETS given that it is by its' very nature a _financial_ trading market with the opportunity to earn money from a market that otherwise simply does not exist in any form. 
Who wins? Same people who have generally won in the transition from a productive economy to a service economy and, since 1990, a _financial_ economy.

----------


## rrobor

Ah now I understand, its not my business or my fault, its their fault.  These terrible faceless people we can point the finger at to salve our own concience.  If there wasnt muck there would be no trade, and its you and I creating too much of that.  So no dont point the finger and blame others.  The one thing we all have is a vote,  and the one thing a politician wants is that vote.

----------


## intertd6

The underlying role of governments is to create fear & then solutions to fix the fears so you vote for them next time. That big block of ice below tassie which is 3 times the size of Australia & an average of 4 km thick is going to take some time to melt. Id be fairly confident that all natural resources will be dug up & expended before its melted too much & it hasn't started yet. Emissions trading is a stop gap measure untill the real issue of over population & growth in a biosphere is addressed.
regards inter

----------


## rrobor

You underline in a nutshell, every detail of what is wrong with the anti global warming pundits. "The underlying role of governments is to create fear & then solutions". This suggests everybody else is stupid, except you. "Id be fairly confident ".  Well sorry, that is not how you protect a planet.  What you gonna do to find out, play a game of two up perhaps?. "All natural resources will be dug up & expended ". What are your grandkids going to do with no resources.  "The real issue of over population & growth ",  Population growth has stopped in all countries with reasonable standards of education, nature tends to remove the surplusses of the ignorant. This is a harsh reminder of just what nature does to those that defy her. In the end, if we get it wrong, we, or our children, will answer to nature,

----------


## intertd6

rrobor, "This suggests everybody else is stupid, except you" your words not mine, I'd be pretty confident I'm not the only one though.
Its good to see that a need has been created for you & you have bought the product.
You dont have to be a rocket scientist to work out that Infinite growth in a finite world is going to be the real problem of the future.
regards inter

----------


## rrobor

Again you do the same thing, just different words. You suggest that other people buy this package of goods but you are smart enough to see through this rouse and I am not. You suggest we will run out of resources, I suggest we will not. I would be surprised if man has returned more than 1/10 of the locked carbon to the atmosphere and that looks like it has caused us trouble, Continue and there has to be a point of disaster. Now we see melinoma  increasing rapidly so its not just weather, its all sorts of other things.

----------


## intertd6

Maybe I have overlooked the fact that you maybe a rocket scientist & have skipped right over the inevitable solution.
regards inter

----------


## rrobor

I just put my arguement forward to scrutiny, if you have an arguement please state it, but dont resort to insult.
  Woodbe I edited this so as not to be last . But be my guest I sorta ran out of wheels

----------


## woodbe

If this thread makes it to 18 pages, can I do the wheel? 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

For your information. 
Here’s a way to understand Mr Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. 
Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere that we want to rid of human carbon pollution.  We’ll have a walk along it. 
The first 770 metres are Nitrogen. 
The next 210 metres are Oxygen. 
That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre.  20 metres to go. 
The next 10 metres are water vapour.  10 metres left. 
9 metres are argon.  Just 1 more metre. 
A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre. 
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide. 
A bit over one foot. 
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature.  It’s natural.  
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left.  About half an inch.  Just over a centimetre. 
That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere. 
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre. 
Less than the thickness of a human hair.  Out of a kilometre.

----------


## intertd6

rrobor quote "This suggests everybody else is stupid, except you."
rrobor quote "but dont resort to insult."
I have put forward my argument but it didnt suit your cause.
To give you an insight to my background, I have been on a drilling program where an ice core came up from the bottom of the antartic ice sheet & held it in my hands, so climate change is something I'm very interested in. Not the BS politics that goes with it
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> For your information. 
> Heres a way to understand Mr Rudds Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. 
> Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere that we want to rid of human carbon pollution.  Well have a walk along it. 
> The first 770 metres are Nitrogen. 
> The next 210 metres are Oxygen. 
> Thats 980 metres of the 1 kilometre.  20 metres to go. 
> The next 10 metres are water vapour.  10 metres left. 
> 9 metres are argon.  Just 1 more metre. 
> A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre. 
> ...

  So 387ppm then. 
Here is another Analogy. 
The average human weighs something around 80kgs
The average venom load of the common brown snake is something in the order of 5-10mg when milked and dried. Less would be delivered in a bite, but lets just assume the snake is lucky and delivers the whole load of 10mg. 
The snake venom would then represent about 0.125ppm of our 80kg human. 
Should we ignore the risks associated with brown snake bites because the amount of venom involved is infinitesimal compared to the percentage of CO2 in the air? 
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

Rod, you seem to be under some belief that carbon trading is a Rudd invention, its a world thing and as we are a part of that we are a part of carbon trading.  Woodbe get your wheel found

----------


## rrobor

Intertd6 you stated 
   "The underlying role of governments is to create fear & then solutions to fix the fears"   
That to me suggests that you believe the majority are sheep who cant think and can be fed a line on carbon for reasons unknown. That statement suggests you believe you are not silly enough to fall for that. The posts after that you will note were deleted. as I believe this one and yours will be, for the simple reason they dont address the issue but are personal attacks which are not part of this forum.

----------


## chrisp

Woodbe, 
It is time for a wheel.   :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

Bewdy. Ok, here it is. 
It's an ancient Viking wheel I had the privilege to view at the Viking Ships museum in Oslo. 
woodbe.

----------


## chipps

Nice one woodbe  :2thumbsup: , that's one classic looking wheel, esp the spokes & chunky wheel sections.........  
Guess that's where the term "fitter & turner" came from  :Rolleyes:  :Biggrin:

----------


## rrobor

Great start woodbe, hope youve got an oncore lined up.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Woodbe you draw a very long bow trying to compare snake vennom with C02.  LOL. 
And rrobor unfortunately I know only to well it is an international JOKE. 
Carbon trading does not work and never will.  The number don't add up.  Please enlighten me to how you think and ETS will reduce temperatures. 
You do know that believers are loosing ground and it wont be long before this scam is exposed for what it is.

----------


## rrobor

Ah Rod, what you view is an economic downturn which has caused people to have other priorities. Dont look at Fox news for your pointers, just a crowd of nutters there.

----------


## Rod Dyson

LOL that was quick. 
No Rob, just ask around there are so many people that just don't agree with AGW.  I know of only a handful that do. 
We were talking about it at the golf club the other day.  Not one agreed with AGW, just about every  person there saw it as a scam.  Even I was quite surprised.  A few did not really know too much about it but left with no doubt it was a scam.   
Fox new is only the beginning even the BBC has ran a few negatives on AGW. As the tide of public opinions turn a few more in the Media will jump on board.  They will have to report the truth sooner or later the smart ones see the writing on the wall and are dipping the big toe in the water now. 
I cant wait for it all to unravel before their eyes and see who squirms the most, the whole exercise will be almost worth it LOL.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe you draw a very long bow trying to compare snake vennom with C02.  LOL.

  So Rod, you have trouble with analogies too. LOL indeed.  :Doh:  
Let me explain it for you. 
Your description of the depth of the atmosphere taken up by CO2 if it were stratified into neat layers and just a kilometre thick is an attempt to trivialise the CO2 discussion by saying that it is effectively nothing in terms of depth, and therefore nothing to worry about. 
I made (and declared it at the time) an analogy of your description involving a trivial amount of snake venom in an average human body. My mission was not to compare CO2 with Snake venom at all, and most people would see that I think. 
My mission was to point out that it doesn't matter the amount of CO2, it's the effect of that CO2, and the effect of an increase in that CO2 that are the root of any discussion on Global Warming. 
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

Rod, I love you man. You are as Keating said "A true Believer". though I doubt you would take your name and Keating in one breath as a complement.  Im never sure if your view is just right wing or if you fully believe we can go on returning carbon to the atmosphere at a rate we are doing can be sustained.   I need oxygen to survive. A few years ago I spent a night in a very posh hotel in Melb. It was a sealed space and I couldnt breathe. The breakfast was fabulous, first time Ive dined with TV personalities, Though i must admit I wasnt in best form from the night before, Her indoors had been on the champers and was sent to bed speaking in tongues The morning was not our best. My little dangly thing at the back of my throat had grown, Im sure if you had asked, I could have popped it out and waved it at you. I spent time out front with a bemused usher in a cab rank, Even though the air was tainted with fumes, it was better than the crap inside. So please give me pure oxygenated air. Cripes I hope woodbe is getting his act together or is there anybody out  there willing to step in

----------


## Rod Dyson

Ok Woodbe, could you then explain how much C02 contributes to the overall greenhouse effect, and what % of temperature is directly due to C02 at its current level. Then could you explain in verifiable scientific terms the amount the temperature WILL increase with each rise in C02 in the future.  
Also could you determine if the effect of C02 on temperature is linier or logrithmic? 
A link to any web site that can answer these questions will do. I don't expect that you can explain this yourself. 
Cheers Rod

----------


## woodbe

> Ok Woodbe, could you then explain...

  Actually, I leave that for the relevant scientists. They have the training, the knowledge, the experience and access to the data. This whole trial by media, popular vote and self-professed experts caper is making a bit of a mockery of their work. 
So, you didn't say whether you 'got' the analogy or not. I thought it was quite effective.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Rrobor, I firmly believe that we have over the past 40 years done more to clean up the air quality than at any time in the past.  I believe that we should also continue to improve air quality and seek out alternative forms of energy.  I believe that polution is a priority for mankind.  I believe we should be looking at a more sustainable existence.   
But I do not believe for one second that our climate has been effected to any measurable degree by CO2.  I believe that the money being wasted on Co2 will detract from money that could be better spent on solving real problems in the world.  
Climate change is natural and we would be better spending money on mitagating the effects of climate change either cooling or heating.  For without any doubt we will get both in the future.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Woodbe I dont see how the analogy has any relevance whatsoever. Could you point me to a scientific paper that answeres the questions? 
.................... didn't think so  :Smilie:  I would have thought as you mention it is central to the case for AGW it would be a very simple request. 
Funny Penny Wong couldn't answer that integral question either.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe I dont see how the analogy has any relevance whatsoever.

  So you didn't get it? 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

No

----------


## rrobor

Rod I didnt look at your age, but I remember the new gas that was going to revolutionise the world Fleuro bluro of something like that. It knocked a hole in the ozone layer. Now we are freon free but that still lingers up there. An OOps of man within the last 40 years that has caused a spike in melinoma in man and animals. I suffer from rheumatoid arthritis, an ailment increasing each milenium. Its not a ailment of the aged, its an ailmment you get in your 40s. And I could go on showing little pointers as to where people are having to deal with things that didnt happen so much before.   Its easy if its not you. If it is you, it drives you to tell people, Please stop and consider.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Rrobor Co2 is essential to life on this planet it is not FREON or any other dangerous gas you can name you simply cant put it in the same catagory. No CO2 we are all dead.  
We can live with concentrations of 8,000 ppm of CO2 this is the danger level of Co2 in submarine air. Plants suck it up and grow much better with higher levels of CO2.  
It is NOT POLUTION. 
Still no answer to the most important question that will knock this argument on its head in a second. 
Cant you see the evidence is not there to support the theory? All we have is a theory and a bunch of scary stories that all seems plausible until you investigate the facts which just dont stack up. 
Pure belief is not sufficient as an argument to inflict the damage an ETS will cause to the world. 
For the life of me I can not reconcile with Rudds plan for 35 million people in Australia and reduced CO2 emissions, someone is lying. There is NO WAY australia will reduce emissions of C02 ETS or no. So what do we do? Pay billions of dollars in penalties under the proposed treaty.  
None of this stacks up. In any way shape or form and for the life of me I cannot understand how anyone with any sort of logic can fall for it.

----------


## rrobor

Point 1 it is not Rudds plan, it is a consensus of world powers. Howard did not join, Rudd did. Point 2 CO2 is a greenhouse gas, heat is no longer reflected so if you as you suggest accept C02 is rising then you must accept the temperature is rising and with that, the worlds climate will change. I argued this on another forum several years ago. Since then we have had multiple major world disasters and even at home we had the worst bushfire known. That will not stop, this is the legasy we leave our children.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Rrobor Yes Co2 is a greenhouse gas and it is increasing no argument there. Where the alarmists get it horribly wrong is the effect that doubling of co2 has. Hence the question posed before, "is the effect linier or logarithmic." If you understand the difference here you will also understand that 95% of the "greenhouse" effect of co2 is already in effect. adding more will not increace temperatures as you imagine. This is not made up it is verifiable science.  
Are you seriously linking all these "disasters" to global warming. When temperatures have actually come down this decade. In the 80's and 90's there was a correlation between rising temperatures and CO2 that correlation does not exist any more. Besides correlation does not mean causation. How do you explain increasing C02 and leveling or decreasing temperatures? We have not got a hope in hell of reducing Co2 in the next 50 years without killing off 2/3rds of the worlds population and that aint gonna happen, infact there will be more people than ever, all wanting power, food and a better living standard. 
The bushfires were a combination on atmospheric conditions unique to our part of the world (dessert to the north and ice to the south), and had nothing at all to do with green house gasses. These conditions are very rare at that intensity. Even BOM wasn't stupid enough to make the link to AGW. They called it as it was.  
This legacy rot is just a ploy to tug at your emotions to further your belief. Just like appealing to a higher order (ippc) rather than dealing with facts. 
I must admit they have done a vey good snow job. It wont end until the true science gets reported by the media rather than blogs. It will happen sooner rather than later. 
Rrobor it makes little or no difference if you can't see the trees for the forrest, what is important is that this kind of debate continues in all sorts of forums so that those who are not "involved" will see both arguments eventually. This is happening and the AGW alarmists are slowly loosing the battle. 
Oh I forgot to mention there is no consensus in science, only polictics have a consensus and the consensus is not always right.
There are so many snouts in the trough it is impossible to see the motivation of those pushing this agenda.

----------


## woodbe

> No

  Ok Rod. Here's a question for you. 
If you can't understand a simple concept like an analogy, even when it's explained to you, how do you manage to understand the complex concepts behind Global Warming? 
Did you like my wheel by the way? Those Vikings knew a thing or two I reckon. 
It's gone another page, I'm not sure I've got another wheel, but I'll take a look. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Woodbe I understand an analagy it just was not one that was relevant!

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe I understand an analagy it just was not one that was relevant!

  So you did get it, but you didn't think it was relevant. 
So you said you didn't get it. 
I get the picture.  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

I dont understand your arguement as to linear or logarithmic, thats a measurement in nonsense. If you measured it logarithmically you could say % wise C02 is decreasing each year , it would be a nice trick but thats all it is. Your faith in the human race is quite low, you dont believe man can invent to overcome.  The one thing George Bush did was change global warming to climate change. He did so because it sounds better but it is correct. Overall temp will slowly rise but the effects of that is a change in weather patterns. Tropics will be more violent. torrid will be drier and that band will grow. As that is a large portion of Australia, we will suffer,  Each year we will see more disasters, bigger and better than the ones before,. Bigger cyclones, more earthquakes etc etc but the diehards will always tell you its a natural cycle.  ANYWAY WHERES THE WHEEL

----------


## intertd6

some interesting reading New Zealand glacier findings upset climate theory  Watts Up With That?
regards inter

----------


## rrobor

I read that, all it states is that the north differs from the south. Man Im happy I now know that.

----------


## mattwilliams78

> So 387ppm then. 
> Here is another Analogy. 
> The average human weighs something around 80kgs
> The average venom load of the common brown snake is something in the order of 5-10mg when milked and dried. Less would be delivered in a bite, but lets just assume the snake is lucky and delivers the whole load of 10mg. 
> The snake venom would then represent about 0.125ppm of our 80kg human. 
> Should we ignore the risks associated with brown snake bites because the amount of venom involved is infinitesimal compared to the percentage of CO2 in the air? 
> woodbe.

  I really wasn't going to get involved with this again (some of you hurt my feelings before  :Biggrin: ) but I have to give kudos to woodbe for this very applicable analogy. Fact is, the introduction of the tiniest quantity of elements can have a devastating effect on our bodies so why not our atmosphere? 
Rod, Ashore, I'm amazed you can keep banging on about this. As someone pointed out, neither side can really point to any solid evidence - if we could then this debate would be unnecessary. So really, 19 pages of this is just frustration for both sides!! 
My last point (really, this time) is that the skeptics are arguing for doing nothing whereas the 'believers' (as you say) are at least trying to apply a precautionary principle and attempt to reduce mankind's impact on the planet. How can anybody defend a position that says "yes, we're using up resources but so what...."?? 
p.s. I'm sitting here listening to Al Gore getting plenty of airtme so ABC must still be AGW friendly?!

----------


## intertd6

> I read that, all it states is that the north differs from the south. Man Im happy I now know that.

   does it ?
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

Oh so earthquakes are caused by gloabal warming this gets better and better.
Tornado's int he US were low this year, no increase in cyclones either. Who are you trying to kid peddeling that scaremongering rubbish that has no a shred of truth, nor evidence of any kind to back it up. Straight from Gore Global warming lesson 101. LOL rant off/  
Seriously, there is not one scrap of evidence to back up a single claim you made about disasters. Words are easy, it is easy to believe and get scared by words, I dont buy it for a second. 
In simple terms linear is when you have an increase by a certain ratio the effect is a ratio in direct proportion to the increase. Logarithmic is when the effect of increase is ever decreasing in proportion to the incremental increase. This is close enough anyway. 
There is solid evidence that CO2 cannot produce the warming the alarmist say it can.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Matt, there is no changing your view either nor is it neccessary. You don't need to read these post if they bore you matt. Personally I find it great fun to bang on about this. I find it interesting to see how not one of you can answer a simple question that will solve this argument.  
You really just dont get it do you. I and most skeptics have no problem with preventing pollution or creating a more sustainable future. We just don't believe you have to sell out our living standards and line the pockets of chareltons, pay a fine for a "climate debt" that doesn't exist to do it. You don't need to scare kids stupid with false claims about the destruction of earth etc etc. That makes me sick in the guts to hear idiots waffle on about saving the world by reducing C02, for what? Just it case its true!! Give me a break! 
BTW the ABC will hang on till the dying breath. The ABC is a joke.

----------


## woodbe

> Logarithmic is when the effect of increase is ever decreasing in proportion to the incremental increase. This is close enough anyway.

  Well that's as clear as mud!  :Eek:  
Better find a wheel before this thread runs off the rails. 
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

Actually Rod thats incorrect. Its like the old farmer puting tags in cows ears being told left ear only, said it depends how you look at the beast. So if you increase or decrease logarithicaly 3DB is half or double so if you start with 1 increase by 3 dB per year its 2 then 4 then 8. I think you are getting this mixed up as some form of hysteresis effect which is the opposite.

----------


## woodbe

> Actually Rod thats incorrect.

  rrobor, come off it mate, Rod is never wrong about this stuff. He's absolutely certain about it even if he has a little trouble describing those logawhatsits.  
woodbe.

----------


## Vernonv

Re the snake venom analogy: 
How much snake venom is normally contained in the human body? How much CO2 is normally contained in the atmosphere? 
With the snake venom you are introducing something completely foreign to the human body. With CO2 you are making a tiny change to the overall concentration.  
Sorry, but as I see it, the analogy is not really applicable.

----------


## rrobor

Most Australians have been here, just not at this time. Can you unlock the puzzle?

----------


## woodbe

> Re the snake venom analogy: 
> How much snake venom is normally contained in the human body? How much CO2 is normally contained in the atmosphere? 
> With the snake venom you are introducing something completely foreign to the human body. With CO2 you are making a tiny change to the overall concentration.  
> Sorry, but as I see it, the analogy is not really applicable.

  So you missed it too. 
The analogy was about making light of tiny concentrations of anything, not specifically CO2 and snake antivenom.  
Seems that some of you have blinkers on. If something looks like an AGW supporting argument, better smack it down fast. The only reason I posted the analogy was to point out that the quantity or ppm is of way less importance than the effect.  
Happy for you to opine that the effect of CO2 is not as described if you wish, but we've heard that all before, and as Rod correctly points out, no one can post any 'proof' here that would settle it either way once and for all. 
woodbe.

----------


## Vernonv

> So you missed it too.

  I too did *not* miss it ... I do however think "it" missed. Sorry.

----------


## woodbe

No need to be sorry Vernonv, at least you can spell analogy which is a step up around here.  :Smilie:  
Even though you didn't really get it, I think my point has been well made regarding making light of small concentrations rather than the effects of those small concentrations, so I'll let it drop.  
rrobor, is that Melbourne? 
woodbe.

----------


## Vernonv

> rrobor, is that Melbourne?

  Nah, I think its Egypt ... de Nile. :Biggrin:

----------


## Gooner

Geez, this thing is still going? 
I just get the impression that Rod equates all people who belive that CO2 just MAY be doing something to adversely affect our climate also embrace the ETS. This is just not the case.

----------


## rrobor

Dont stop now, just found a great picture

----------


## Rod Dyson

LOL attack Rod day. 
Gooner you come to that conclusion all by yourself that is not my view. 
Woodbe you have not made a point to me the point made is only in your mind sorry vernonv is right. 
Spelling?  Well thats never been a strong point for me. It doesn't change much.  
Logarithmic? Argue with the scientists not me. 
The net effect of all these processes is that doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day -- it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can't make it any darker.  
Full link here Cold Facts on Global Warming

----------


## rrobor

Thats the hysteresis effect or simply put, saturation, the air can hold no more. Each time you make C into CO2 there is less O to breathe. when we get to that sage Rod we are all dead.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe you have not made a point to me the point made is only in your mind sorry vernonv is right.

  Analogy.
I let it drop because it was getting boring. Now you want to start it up again? Both of you independently agreed that it was an analogy, you just didn't like it. You even said you didn't get it, but then you said you did, but it wasn't 'relevant'.  :Shock:  
That's a good way of avoiding having to agree to the point of the analogy, even though I took the time to describe it in detail. That's ok, it actually wasn't for you exactly, and I certainly didn't expect you to agree with anything that questioned something you had posted hot off the internet, but I guess you didn't realise that. 
Now, we should argue your misunderstanding of Logarithmic with 'the scientists'  :Doh:  
It must be time for another photo. Spelling is much better in this post Rod. Well done. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Woodbe you are getting very confusing.

----------


## Vernonv

Yes, that was a little confusing.  

> Both of you independently agreed that it was an analogy, you just didn't like it.

  I didn't say that I didn't like your analogy ... I think its a wonderful analogy ... for something OTHER than changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. 
So to be clear - great analogy, but it doesn't fit the situation you are using it for.

----------


## rrobor

Here is a nice calculator for you. Batteries not needed.  Just keep turning the handle

----------


## intertd6

> Most Australians have been here, just not at this time. Can you unlock the puzzle?

  What has a picture of circular quay got to do with anything??
regards inter

----------


## rrobor

No flies on you is there mate!

----------


## woodbe

> So to be clear - great analogy, but it doesn't fit the situation you are using it for.

  That's actually quite hilarious. It can't be both. It's either great and it fits, or it's not great and it doesn't fit. That's how analogies work. 
Moving right along, African countries walked out on the Climate Change talks at Barcelona.  Why? Because they reckon developed nations are not taking the reductions seriously enough - we should have a target of 40%! That should make the Copenhagen talks pretty fiery. Interesting times. 
woodbe.

----------


## Vernonv

> It's either great and it fits, or it's not great and it doesn't fit.

  Quite true. Which is why I said this ...    

> I think its a wonderful analogy ... *for something OTHER than changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere*.

  ... but of course you only quoted what fitted your argument.  :Rolleyes:  Seems to be a lot of that going on when it comes to the climate change debate.

----------


## woodbe

> Which is why I said this ...   *for something OTHER than changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere* 
> ... but of course you only quoted what fitted your argument.  Seems to be a lot of that going on when it comes to the climate change debate.

  Except it isn't true. Look at the data. The Analogy was never about "*something OTHER than changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere*" It was about Rod's post #252 back on page 17. His post was pointing out how very small the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is, in the context of Rudds' CPRS, and my Analogy was pointing out that it's not the concentration that matters, it's the effect. 
Have a look for yourself, here is an abridged version, if you think I've only "quoted what fitted my argument" the whole thing is still there on page 17. 
See if you can find the bit about *changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere*   

> Heres a way to understand Mr Rudds Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. 
> Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere that we want to rid of human carbon pollution.  Well have a walk along it. 
> The first 770 metres are Nitrogen. 
> [..] 
> Thats the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere. 
> And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre. 
> Less than the thickness of a human hair.  Out of a kilometre.

  Really. this is quite boring.  If you're not going to keep up with the discussion there's no point in continuing with it.  :No:  
woodbe.

----------


## Vernonv

OK lets face it, your analogy does not fit the situation in which you tried to use it - it may fit other situations (maybe CFC's ???) but not CO2 in the atmosphere.  
Lets break it down, for those that having trouble getting it : 
1. The atmosphere already contains CO2, the human body does not contain any snake venom. 
2. CO2 is not poisonous to the atmosphere or the planet (in reasonable concentrations). Snake venom is poisonous to the human body. 
3. Adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the overall percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere by a very small percentage. Adding a small amount of snake venom to the human body will increase the concentration of snake venom in the body by an infinite amount (refer point 1). 
Get it? ... somehow I'm doubting you do.

----------


## woodbe

Quoted in full so I don't get accused of "quoted what fits your argument"   

> OK lets face it, your analogy does not fit the situation in which you tried to use it - it may fit other situations (maybe CFC's ???) but not CO2 in the atmosphere.  
> Lets break it down, for those that having trouble getting it : 
> 1. The atmosphere already contains CO2, the human body does not contain any snake venom. 
> 2. CO2 is not poisonous to the atmosphere or the planet (in reasonable concentrations). Snake venom is poisonous to the human body. 
> 3. Adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the overall percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere by a very small percentage. Adding a small amount of snake venom to the human body will increase the concentration of snake venom in the body by an infinite amount (refer point 1). 
> Get it? ... somehow I'm doubting you do.

  What you have described above in points 1 and 2 shows that the analogy is less than perfect. Few are, that doesn't 'break' them. Analogies are a device often used to help people understand, sometimes the 'imperfection' gives better focus. 
 Point 3 is a fallacy. The maths is wrong. Less said the better. 
So I'm now seeing that even though you don't say it, you didn't find the *changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere* in Rod's post. I guess I didn't expect you to acknowledge that, even though you quoted it as the reason the analogy didn't work. 
I'm running out of goodwill on this, so before I suffer any more boredom or accusations, I'll go back to lurking.  
I might post a wheel or something though  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## Vernonv

> The Analogy was never about "*something OTHER than changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere*" ... my Analogy was pointing out that it's not the concentration that matters, it's the effect.

  Fine, but it still doesn't make your analogy any more relevant. You are still talking about introducing something foreign to a "system" (a poison as it were) - CO2 is not foreign or poisonous to the atmosphere - it's not comparable.    

> Point 3 is a fallacy. The maths is wrong. Less said the better.

  Rubbish. Regardless of the maths, the point is quite clear, you are just choosing to ignore it.

----------


## woodbe

I have nothing to add, the posts here speak for themselves.  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I have nothing to add, the posts here speak for themselves.  
> woodbe.

  They do indeed! :Biggrin:

----------


## rrobor

*World carbon dioxide levels highest for 650,000 years, says US report*  *·* Rise in chief greenhouse gas worse than feared *·* Earth may be losing ability to absorb CO2, say scientists
 In another report C02 is a heavier gas. our atmosphere is getting heavier. What will that do? who knows.

----------


## intertd6

> No flies on you is there mate!

  you can see where they have been though.
regards inter

----------


## rrobor

Glad you said that about yourself, Noel would have wiped me if I had said that.

----------


## Ashore

> *World carbon dioxide levels highest for 650,000 years, says US report*  *·* Rise in chief greenhouse gas worse than feared *·* Earth may be losing ability to absorb CO2, say scientists
> In another report C02 is a heavier gas. our atmosphere is getting heavier. What will that do? who knows.

  *World carbon dioxide levels lowest for 700,000 years , says Australian forum* 
 Which in fact *is* true  :Rolleyes:

----------


## rrobor

This wheel is on the old mill on the stream  Preston, east Lothian Scotland, and as the wheel  of this thread turns, I supply you,  for your enjoyment and pleasure , a classical piece of liquid inspired music. You may find it here http://www.trasksdad.com/MusicHall/Nellie/Nellie.mp3

----------


## intertd6

> Glad you said that about yourself, Noel would have wiped me if I had said that.

  I'm not wound that tight so that I can't have a joke at my own expence.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> *World carbon dioxide levels lowest for 700,000 years , says Australian forum* 
> Which in fact *is* true

  probably both correct with a peak in co2 700,000 years ago

----------


## chrisp

Rod, 
When did you get the new User Name?  I've only just noticed the change.

----------


## Rod Dyson

A few days ago chrisp. Been meaning to do that ever since I stuffed it up when I first joined. 
Put my email address in instead of my name :Doh:

----------


## Gooner

So how does Rod explain this Melbourne heat wave in November hey?? Global Warming I tell yas!! Were gonna die... DIE I TELL YA!!

----------


## Rod Dyson

LOL ya gotta love it eh! Heat wave here and the coldest October in the US. What does it mean? absolutely nothing. 
We have had heat like this before in November nothing new there.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Please have a read of this and tell me where it is incorect.    McIntyre and Lindzen to appear on Finnish TV documentary – transcript  Watts Up With That? 
Just attack the message this time. If its not true say so and tell us where it get things wrong.

----------


## rrobor

Rod every side works out their angle and their numbers so no doubt what you have here is carefully planned on one side and hard to argue against. When people argue global warming , sure Melbourne is hotter at the moment, but thats not it. Its the overall going up, not USA cold snap etc.
 So theres plenty of room for An inconvenient truth or your guys to have fun and fame. To me, you are risking future generations if you dont take steps now. So its not aboiut me proving someone incorrect, it is about you proving beyond any reasonable doubt that you are correct. That you can not do.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Rrobor 
That is so so wrong,  it is up to those who propose the theory of AGW to prove it is correct not the other way arround.  Saying it is true and correct and if we don't do something about it poses a risk to you kids future, without providing evidence, is just an appeal to  fears that it might be true. And sure enough people do see this as to big a risk to take so they take the precautionary principle. 
The cost of trying to do something about something that might be happening with very little to no chance of success is plainly stupid.  Preparing a mitigation plan would be a lot smarter use of available finance and technology.  That is preparing a mitigation plan for both warming or cooling, because they really don't know which way the climate will go. 
There is zero chance of the world reducing carbon emmisions in the next 30 years or even beyond.  The numbers in the real world simply dont add up. It is impossible to achieve. 
You are right that you cant point at a weather event on either side of the globe and say there I told you so,  Unique weather events occur all the time.

----------


## rrobor

Rod my fears and beliefs will only aid in reducing waste and spinning out world resources  for a lot longer. Your idea is like a bull at a gate, lets have it all now, to hell with the kids. So no my ideas wont destroy, yours may. so it is up to you to prove otherwise.

----------


## Ashore

> To me, you are risking future generations if you dont take steps now. So its not aboiut me proving someone incorrect, it is about you proving beyond any reasonable doubt that you are correct. That you can not do.

   Robb thats a silly arguement , the same question can be asked of you , as I feel future generations are at risk unless we stop this new tax, So its not aboiut me proving someone incorrect, it is about you proving beyond any reasonable doubt that you are correct. That you can not do
You see robb I don't believe that anyone here is against reducing pollution in any of its forms , what the arguement is how this nex tax will do anything to reduce pollution in any form .
Why rush in like headless chooks and causing more huge problems without producing any tangiable results, building another branch to out already oversized governments is not the way to go

----------


## rrobor

To you perhaps it is a silly arguement, but its an arguement akin to the hypocratic oath. "First do no harm'. I harm no one with my silly arguement and sure I agree trading in polution is an odd way to do things. But its a step in the correct direction. Its not a tax, as you would suggect, by todays government, its a world agreed standard. So is the majority of world governments wrong and you guys correct. Is this your arguement, or do you wish to localise for political reasons. My politics by the way and I will post them, is. Leave a government in for 2 to 3 terms then kick them out before they get too lazy or corrupt. So political views dont impress me.

----------


## Ashore

You dodge away again mate , you made a statement to the effect that this new tax should be introduced because because those who oppose it 'it is about you proving beyond any reasonable doubt that you are correct. " proving beyond any reasonable doubt are correct , but when the same logic is applied as to why it shouldn't be introduced you dodge away and and fall back on the old chicken little theory we have to do anything , doesn't matter if its wrong , doesn't matter if it will actually achieve anything doesn't matter if it will cause even more long term problems , we have to be seen to be doing something , don't worry about understanding it don't worry about damage it might cause we must act now  :Runaway:

----------


## woodbe

Just thought I'd drop in and let you know I found a wheel. 
Credits - Image courtesy / MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change   

> To illustrate the findings of their model, MIT researchers created a pair of 'roulette wheels.' The wheel on the right depicts their estimate of the range of probability of potential global temperature change over the next 100 years if no policy change is enacted on curbing greenhouse gas emissions. The wheel on the left assumes that aggressive policy is enacted.

  What do you think, it seems to fit the discussion better than some of the other wheels? 
Michael

----------


## woodbe

Sorry, most remiss of me, I forgot to post THE LINK to the MIT Page describing the research behind the wheels. 
Michael

----------


## rrobor

Thank you kind sir I was all out. I did try to find a roulette wheel as I had the music Big wheel keeps on turning. But I failed

----------


## rrobor

To ashore. Sorry you continue under the illusion that there is some new tax. There is not. Industry will be charged for dumping sewage or other such noxious waste. I have a bill for sewage as do you. There is also a law in Victoria if your dog poops on the sidwalk you clean it up. What is unfair in that. Are you really suggesting that there comes a point where a large enough serving of poop is OK.

----------


## intertd6

The topic for discussion is emissions trading, not whether the atmosphere is in a warming or cooling phase, which is proven that it is in a warming phase, co2 is thought to be the culprit for the warming but its only an indicator, all life thrives in a richer co2 environment so its not going to kill us. The only way a balance can be reached with carbon is to burn only what can be harvested or grown in the short term which basically comes back to the zero growth theory, which the earth has been doing for eons. So if there is going to be no money envolved with carbon trading then why am I worried about it, why because it has not a chance of working unless the big global polluters stop burning fossil fuels & australia is not a big polluter, per capiter we are up there, but we only have a small capiter so we contribute 3/5ths of f all.
regards inter

----------


## rrobor

You know Im glad we worked that out, Now i can get the pegs out and hammered home before we build the fence around the topic. I argued the topic with an Indian and he argued per capita Australia is as bad as it gets and India is snow white. I ventured to suggest if his father wasnt related to a buck rabbit, these numbers would be different. We lost contact after that. So no sorry you cant pin something down to a single item, it has roots and branches and not to see that is a nonsence

----------


## Ashore

> To ashore. Sorry you continue under the illusion that there is some new tax. There is not. Industry will be charged for dumping sewage or other such noxious waste. I have a bill for sewage as do you. There is also a law in Victoria if your dog poops on the sidwalk you clean it up. What is unfair in that. Are you really suggesting that there comes a point where a large enough serving of poop is OK.

   Robb even for you this ones a beauty ,when the logic of your earlier post is shown to be faulty and thus your arguement wrong you come up with another wrong statement There is also a law in Victoria if your dog poops on the sidwalk you clean it up. the law may well fine you if you don't clean it up and are caught but there is no provision in the system to force you to clean it up , and btw sidewalks are american I thought victoria had footpaths and the term sidewalk is not actually used in Vic law , I also believe that it's not a state statute but a by-law enacted by local councils
Now robb where did I ever suggest that that a large enough serving of poop is OK , smoke and mirrors robb , when you have to resort to that you show us all that you have been proven wrong , but just can't admit it , and robb this bill rudd is trying to get through is a new tax, any cost to industry will be passed on to the consumer , just as the GST is ,  :Runaway:  :Biggrin:

----------


## rrobor

There was another post where I asked for my micrometer to measure split hairs. Man if you are down to argueing as to pavement footpath or sidewalk I give in. In the scheme of things whether a gnat has hair there or not may interest you but Im afraid few others. Doggy Poo is a Vic law but Im not into that either. You are welcome to be granted correct cos it dont bother me. What the Rudd Government (please note its a democratic party) is trying to pass is a world incentive. If Australia doesnt pass it we will be on our little lonesome and suffer the consequences of that. Turnbull has the sense to see that, the yokel party does not.

----------


## Rod Dyson

ROTFLMA   
INCENTIVE you have got to be kidiing right? 
What consequences? we get to save 7 billion per year fines for Co2 emitted in years gone by and we save the fines imposed on us when we realize it is impossible to reduce emissions. We save our economy from ruin. 
Now those are consequences I LIKE. 
My tip is Australia will never pass an ETS and nor will the US.  Common sense and reality will prevail at the final hour.  
BTW I think you mean initiative.  I would rather say it is a UN initiative with the sole purpose of transfering the wealth of the developed countries to the under developed countries.  This has NOTHING to do with reducing CO2 emissions.  Simply because it is not possible to reduce emissions  with current technologies. At best, at absolutley best you might trasfer some emissions from one country to another but over all the worlds emissions will continue to soar. 
The argument that the developed world reduce its emmissions (read lower living standards),to allow the under developed world in to increace their emmissions (read lift their living standards), has a very familier ring to it. 
Now what was that agian???

----------


## woodbe

> The argument that the developed world reduce its emmissions (read lower living standards),to allow the under developed world in to increace their emmissions (read lift their living standards), has a very familier ring to it.

  Whilst this is an unproven conspiracy theory, on the whole it's not such a bad idea. When you see the waste in our western society and contrast it with the abject poverty of other human beings whose circumstances are an accident of birth it would take a very cold hearted approach not to give up a little to improve their lot.  
Thanks for pointing out another reason why the ETS may be a good idea. We're all in this world together you know... 
If you read the article linked to the wheels above, I think you might find some other reasons supplied by the good researchers at MIT 
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

A very simplistic view Rod. People who put solar panels on the roof and feed back to the grid get paid for that. That is in the scheme. Farmers in USA run their farms on energy created from discarder fruit skins. They put it in vats and create methane which is  their source of energy. the waste when spent is humus for the farm. That is carbon trading and they get paid for that.  Europe I believe is experementing with pumping the gasses off their coal fired power stations deep into spent oil wells. This Idea that its all too hard so why bother is defeatist. There is money to be made in new industries. And know what Rod, the guys working in those industries will probably need their house plastered.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Rrobor, If you have read my previous posts, You will see I am all for sustainable living, pollution reduction etc. 
You know what I'm against. 
Woodbe, We give a whole lot of aid to developing countries right now.  Give a guy a fish or teach him to fish....!! You know that saying surely.  Nothing against helping others out but it has to be a choice thing not an imposition. We know how that system works (or not) don't we.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Europe I believe is experementing with pumping the gasses off their coal fired power stations deep into spent oil wells. This Idea that its all too hard so why bother is defeatist. There is money to be made in new industries. And know what Rod, the guys working in those industries will probably need their house plastered.

  And you say I have a simplistic view.  You are kidding?

----------


## rrobor

First link I found it wasnt the Swedish one but if Rod wishes to Im sure he can find it himself BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Sea-bed plan to store carbon

----------


## Rod Dyson

Yep that will work. It will keep some very enthusiastic people making a fortune for a while. For what benefit again? I'm sure they are out there lobbying like crazy for an ETS.  
Love the way they consider the leakage of CO2 a saftey issue  :Laugh bounce:  
So what if they find away to store carbon under the sea.  
What % of human induced emission will they store?
What difference will it make to world termperatures?
How much will it cost?
How much benefit will we get in real terms vs the cost?
Will the stored amount of carbon exceed the additional carbon created by increase in China, India etc. 
This to me is beyond any sense of reason. Co2 is NOT a polutant and is not a safety issue regardless of how much is leaked. We could not put enough C02 into the Ocean to do any harm no matter how hard we try. Take the moral high ground and collect the bucks.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Now why are we going to spend all that mone to put a tiny % of carbon under the sea again? Of course you do realize it is us that will pay for that through increased energy costs.  _New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now._ 
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected. 
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero. 
The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

----------


## rrobor

C02 is 1.5 times the weight of air, this means the atmosphere gets heavier. It also means it displaces oxygen at ground level. Now I dont claim any expertise here but I know that one famious law in physics is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, we know the action, we have little idea as to the reaction.
To stop waste of space I will answer here. I am no expert but I know that mixes dont necessarily follow what could be expected. Examples beiing alloys melt at differing temperatures to their constituents. So no . Logic tells me this could be so, experience tels me it aint necesseraly so.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Hmm rrobor, are you saying all the Atmospheric Co2 is at ground level?

----------


## woodbe

> The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero. 
> The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

  Just when the denialists are feeling all comfortable again, the author of the research decides that it might not be so peachy:   

> So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? Not necessarily, says Knorr. Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed.

  Back to the drawing board. At least we are certain that we are uncertain.

----------


## woodbe

We could do something about our high-carbon power generating systems by switching a substantial percentage to wind power. It would save us from having to go Nuclear too, which increasingly seems to be the way our politicians are thinking, even if it's against some party platforms. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Back to the drawing board. At least we are certain that we are uncertain.

  Great now we can at least agree the debate is not over and there is much to learn about our climate. 
Perhaps now we can also agree we are not going to fry in 5 years time and that any draconian action to stop a problem that may not exist, for which action is destined to fail even if it were so, can be put on hold untill the uncertainy of climate can be re-assesed base on new scientific findings. 
You see this is the fear that the warmers have of opening debate on AGW.  They know they will lose.  They know their science is full of holes, they know the only chance of getting their way is to silence dissent. They cant silence dissent, so we appeal to a higher body (IPPC) for "certainty".  We appeal to the morality of humans, we appeal to the fear of possibilty, we appeal to the feel good save the world cult.  
The biggest fear of all is blindly accepting the opinions of someone who will not debate, or prove their case. 
If they were so certain they should welcome debate so they can shut down dissent with pure scientific facts then get on with saving the world.   
Can you ever see this happening  :No:  If you cant you must surely doubt the secure scientific footing they claim to have.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> We could do something about our high-carbon power generating systems by switching a substantial percentage to wind power. It would save us from having to go Nuclear too, which increasingly seems to be the way our politicians are thinking, even if it's against some party platforms. 
> woodbe.

  Woodbe can you please demontrate to me how wind power will ever be able to provide base load power? 
Can you tell us how many wind generators would be required to provide base load power to Victoria now and in 20 years time. 
Can you tell us how the power produced by wind when the wind is blowing can be stored to provide us with the required power when it either does not blow or blows to hard. 
Can you tell us how the coal fired plants can fire up and wind down to accomadate the wind power generated, without having to run at full capacity irrespective of the amount of wind power supplied to the grid? 
Yep it sure does look like wind power is our slavation  :Laughcry:

----------


## rrobor

What a load of woof. Man has for years said this wont harm you and that wont harm you. Cigarette companies still say there is no conclusive proof smoking harms you. If you have money you can buy the scientist you want. What we all need to do is have a quiet think. Is man harming the planet. if the answer is yes, then how do we reduce that. Chopping down world forrests and shoving it up a chimney, doesnt do it for me.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> What a load of woof. Man has for years said this wont harm you and that wont harm you. Cigarette companies still say there is no conclusive proof smoking harms you. If you have money you can buy the scientist you want. What we all need to do is have a quiet think. Is man harming the planet. if the answer is yes, then how do we reduce that. Chopping down world forrests and shoving it up a chimney, doesnt do it for me.

  This is a pathetic argument.  Are you seriously putting Co2 on the same footing as cigarette smoke?  
The only scientist that are bought in the AGW case are the ones with their hands out for massive government grants. 
Even if you answer yes to your question, is blamming Co2 the answer?  While you are spending all your billions chasing the wrong culprit the real problems go unresolved. 
Re-forrestation is occuring all over the world My brother works for the world bank on this very issue.  He travels all over the world helping under developed counties draft laws and methods of enforcing those laws to prevent logging and poaching timber.  One of the main problems in these countries are the lack of power and the need to chop down trees for cooking heating ets. Armenia is a prime example of this as it has very little forest left at all.  The answer, dare I say it, is providing electricity to these poor areas.  
Timber in general is a renewable product and in places like Tasmania more trees are actually grown than cut down. 
So your thoughts on logging I share Rrobor perhaps the solution is a point of contention.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe can you please demontrate to me how wind power will ever be able to provide base load power? 
> Can you tell us how many wind generators would be required to provide base load power to Victoria now and in 20 years time. 
> Can you tell us how the power produced by wind when the wind is blowing can be stored to provide us with the required power when it either does not blow or blows to hard. 
> Can you tell us how the coal fired plants can fire up and wind down to accomadate the wind power generated, without having to run at full capacity irrespective of the amount of wind power supplied to the grid? 
> Yep it sure does look like wind power is our slavation

  Seems you agree with the incumbents more than you would have us believe. "Alternative energy supplies cannot supply base load power" 
Bunkum. 
I would like to cite a few examples of how base load power can be supplied by not burning fossil fuel. Probably no single one of these would do the job on it's own, but a sweet spot could be achieved by combining several of them. 
1. Wind Power is up to the task. The coal lobby does not want you to know the facts Rod, but investment pays dividends. (ask you conspiracy theory advisor why that might be) I know you doubt anything that does not agree with your mantra, but for example, have a look at THIS  
2. Solar thermal plant along the lines of those Australian technologies, developed in Australia by Australians, which had to leave the country because of a lack of support. Check this company out Just announcing a 100MW plant in Japan. There are a couple of plants in planning stages for Australia, we're buying our own technology back. Oh, and they also have technology for storing energy for supply outside of sunlit hours. 
3. Solar PV. This Company has gone into production with a solar panel that can be printed using a high speed printing press. Once that starts to scale, can you imagine where PV prices are going to head? 
3. Hot Rock. Still looking promising, 24/7 operation. 
4. We haven't even started to look at waves and tides yet. 
There is no energy shortage, there are plenty of ways of getting off carbon. The problem is that we are addicted to the easy way out, and regardless of the rights and wrongs of the ETS the simple reality is that we aren't going to change unless we are forced to. When we do, we will be paying through the nose to those countries that got the message early. 
The brave governments of the world have been making substantial investments in these technologies and are reaping the benefits by attracting the brains and production talent to their shores from countries such as ours that have lagged behind thinking that they don't need to change. Germany, for instance leads the world in domestic solar electricity generation. It is not a co-incidence that NanoSolar has set up a large PV assembly plant there. 
I can't tell you how many windfarms it would take, and using the fact that most of our power is generated by antique coal plants is not an adequate reason to forgo investment in new technologies. The coal plants themselves are extremely wasteful of resources and should be retired. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> The only scientist that are bought in the AGW case are the ones with their hands out for massive government grants.

  So, what you seem to be saying here Rod, is that all the climate scientists who agree with AGW in one form or another are all so morally bankrupt as to put a research grant before the truth.  
That's a particularly depressing world view you have taken on, but putting that aside for one moment, if these scientists are so easily swayed by a few bucks, why are you so sure that there are no bucks flowing to the anti-AGW scientists. After all, you don't need much imagination to see examples of corporations who have lots of cash and interests in keeping the status quo... 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Re-forrestation is occuring all over the world My brother works for the world bank on this very issue.  He travels all over the world helping under developed counties draft laws and methods of enforcing those laws to prevent logging and poaching timber.  One of the main problems in these countries are the lack of power and the need to chop down trees for cooking heating ets. Armenia is a prime example of this as it has very little forest left at all.  The answer, dare I say it, is providing electricity to these poor areas.  
> Timber in general is a renewable product and in places like Tasmania more trees are actually grown than cut down.

  Reads good, but the details are left out. 
The Old Growth Forests that are taken down regularly in Tasmania are replaced with monoculture fast growing eucalypts. Sure, there might be more of them, but they don't have the store of carbon, the mass nor diversity that exists in the forest that was removed. 
It takes a minimum of 500 years for an existing forest to re-establish it self (if it is even able to) left to it's own devices. Some of the forest that is still being taken out down there dates from Gondwanaland.  
It's not a problem at all, there are plenty of other trees in the 'other' forests.  :Yikes2:  
Sadly, most of the old forests are clearfelled and burned to make way for the new plantation. More waste, more carbon into the atmosphere. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I would like to cite a few examples of how base load power can be supplied by not burning fossil fuel. Probably no single one of these would do the job on it's own, but a sweet spot could be achieved by combining several of them.

  This is never going to happen it is unpredictable and you have to hit the "sweet spot" 24 hrs a day or suffer blackouts.  To achieve this would require and enormous amount of money making electricity far too expensive for industry driving them off shore.  See this example Columbia Falls Aluminum to close at end of October; 90 workers lose jobs   

> 1. Wind Power is up to the task. The coal lobby does not want you to know the facts Rod, but investment pays dividends. (ask you conspiracy theory advisor why that might be) I know you doubt anything that does not agree with your mantra, but for example, have a look at THIS

  The coal lobby has nothing to do with the facts on wind power generation this is just a tactic used by the AGW scare mongerers,  (see Rrobors use of the tobacco example above).  For wind power or any alternative energy to be considered seriously it must be able to supply base load power 24/7  clearly it cant do this. Quoting the fact that the spanish wind power generated 53% of the power usage for a period of time is about as useful as tits on a bull.  For if that was here our coal plant would be chugging along without any reduction of its output.  Only hydro or nuclear plants can wind up or down for wind power to have any justification. I don't disagree that these alternatives have place and should continue but their limitations need to be recognised for what they are until such a time as the technology improves.  It is no point lining the pockets of those pushing these alternatives with subsidies unless the projects can stand on their own.   

> 2. Solar thermal plant along the lines of those Australian technologies, developed in Australia by Australians, which had to leave the country because of a lack of support. Check this company out Just announcing a 100MW plant in Japan. There are a couple of plants in planning stages for Australia, we're buying our own technology back. Oh, and they also have technology for storing energy for supply outside of sunlit hours.

  Solar thermal is one thing I know nothing about. But I will do some research.   

> 3. Solar PV. This Company has gone into production with a solar panel that can be printed using a high speed printing press. Once that starts to scale, can you imagine where PV prices are going to head?

  All for new inovation if it works and does not have to be subsidised to be competetive suppliers of power go for it. It will have is place but suppling base load power won't be it.     

> 3. Hot Rock. Still looking promising, 24/7 operation.

  Geo thermal  is Tim Flannery's pet seeing he has a huge investment in it. We are about to give him 90 million dollars of tax payers money to continue developing this. After the 3 test wells collapsed and had to be caped with concrete I am not sure this one is going to stand up.  All our hot spots are miles away from our cities and industry.   

> 4. We haven't even started to look at waves and tides yet.

  Now we are talking, of everything you have mentioned this one has potential for Australia, everything else should be scraped and all research funds put into this. 
Why? Because this is the only thing that is constant and predictable (tidal rather that waves).  It has the potential to provide a continuous predictable amount of electricity that would enable a coal fire plant to wind up or down as long as they can store energy at neap tides to provide a consitant flow to the grid.   

> There is no energy shortage, there are plenty of ways of getting off carbon. The problem is that we are addicted to the easy way out, and regardless of the rights and wrongs of the ETS the simple reality is that we aren't going to change unless we are forced to. When we do, we will be paying through the nose to those countries that got the message early.

  No we are not we have built our living standards on our ability to produce reliable cheap energy.  Replace that with expensive unreliable energy guess what will happen.  Nothing is more certain that by the time we HAVE to have alternative energy scources the free market will provide the solutions.  

> The brave governments of the world have been making substantial investments in these technologies and are reaping the benefits by attracting the brains and production talent to their shores from countries such as ours that have lagged behind thinking that they don't need to change. Germany, for instance leads the world in domestic solar electricity generation. It is not a co-incidence that NanoSolar has set up a large PV assembly plant there.

  Stupid governments of the world will ulimatly drive investement to other countries while they destroy their own economies. 
Smart governments of the world will continue to support research into alternative power supply while maintaing their existing base load power supply, until these alternatives become economically viable. 
See the economy of spain  :Biggrin:    

> I can't tell you how many windfarms it would take, and using the fact that most of our power is generated by antique coal plants is not an adequate reason to forgo investment in new technologies. The coal plants themselves are extremely wasteful of resources and should be retired.

  Don't expect any investment in new coal or up graded coal plants in the near future either. I don't think I would like to see The entire coastline of victoria and the mountains covered in wind generators, would you? 
woodbe.[/quote] 
Nice try Woodbe but we are not going to replace coal in the near future unless its nuclear.  We certainly do not have to be pushed into it by scare mongering about co2.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Reads good, but the details are left out. 
> The Old Growth Forests that are taken down regularly in Tasmania are replaced with monoculture fast growing eucalypts. Sure, there might be more of them, but they don't have the store of carbon, the mass nor diversity that exists in the forest that was removed. 
> It takes a minimum of 500 years for an existing forest to re-establish it self (if it is even able to) left to it's own devices. Some of the forest that is still being taken out down there dates from Gondwanaland.  
> It's not a problem at all, there are plenty of other trees in the 'other' forests.  
> Sadly, most of the old forests are clearfelled and burned to make way for the new plantation. More waste, more carbon into the atmosphere. 
> woodbe.

   What a lot of guff woodbe.   
I have been in logged forests both in Tasmania and Victoria that have been logged. If you didn't know it had been logged or if you didnt see the odd stump you would never know the difference.  500 years is a total exagerration.   
Don't worry Woodbee the forest industy in Tasmania is close to being the best managed in the world.  Plenty of carbon grown down there.   
But hey Carbon is NOT a problem.

----------


## woodbe

There are papers on Solar Thermal at Ausra's website. 
They have a claim that given a plot of land in Arizona 100 miles square, they can supply the entire US Grid power requirements using Solar Thermal. No-one has taken them up on it yet. The US Navy is selling Solar Thermal generated power to California. (Retirement funds paid for the plant, I think) 
As far as out of generating hours supply, there are plenty of methods. If you had read the article on Spain, you would have seen that they don't switch off the generators when supply exceeds demand, they switch to pumping water into their hydro system which effectively becomes a battery.  
New Coal, you have to be kidding yourself. That was always a smokescreen to excuse the continued use of coal. The costs are enormous. Vastly cheaper to get moving with alternative power. 
These alternative power systems are not 'unreliable'. They are engineering exercises just like coal. 
This is not a 'try' These are technologies that have the capability to supply baseload, as you requested. They are being installed all over the world where governments do not have access to the lazy options. Now. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> I have been in logged forests both in Tasmania and Victoria that have been logged. If you didn't know it had been logged or if you didnt see the odd stump you would never know the difference.  500 years is a total exagerration.  
>  .

  It's a fact. We are talking about a forest ecosystem, not a plantation. Easy to take out, very hard or impossible to replace. 
What were the species you saw in your expert inspection of these forests? 
woodbe.

----------


## GraemeCook

> This to me is beyond any sense of reason. Co2 is NOT a polutant and is not a safety issue regardless of how much is leaked. We could not put enough C02 into the Ocean to do any harm no matter how hard we try. Take the moral high ground and collect the bucks.

  
The science is not with you on this one, Rod.   CO2 dissolves in water to make soda water, known to scientists as carbonic acid, H2CO3, from memory.   Carbonic acid will attack calcium.   CSIRO Marine Division in Hobart put out a paper about six months ago about the minute increases in CO2 in sea water being sufficient to weaken the shells of micro-shellfish, and they are now monitoring these effects.    Those shellfish are only one tier above algae on the bottom of the food chain and eventually effect all sea life. 
Cheers 
Graeme

----------


## rrobor

I didnt get back because I didnt see the point. Forrests are depleting, sure you can grow Radiata, but try for a descent piece of hardwood  and thats like hens teeth. But its not just that. Man used to use picks and shovels for coal, now its giant dredges. More and more oil wells  to supply cars gridlocked in an effort to drive to work with one driver. For a species, sorry we are starting to look a little bit silly.

----------


## GraemeCook

> Seems you agree with the incumbents more than you would have us believe. "Alternative energy supplies cannot supply base load power" 
> Bunkum.

  Woodbe, it is not polite to describe Rod's view as bunkum, even when he disagrees with you.   

> I would like to cite a few examples of how base load power can be supplied by not burning fossil fuel. Probably no single one of these would do the job on it's own, but a sweet spot could be achieved by combining several of them.

  By definition, base load power is always available when needed.   

> 1. Wind Power is up to the task.

  Even when the winds not blowing!   

> 2. Solar thermal plant along the lines of those Australian technologies, developed in Australia by Australians, which had to leave the country because of a lack of support.

  Works great at night and on dull, rainy days.   

> 3. Solar PV. This Company has gone into production with a solar panel that can be printed using a high speed printing press. Once that starts to scale, can you imagine where PV prices are going to head?

  Their is a PV revolution every two or three years, but they never seem to get them out of the laboratory.  PV products on the market have only improved marginally over the last 25+ years.   Industry relies on massive government subsidies to survive.   

> 3. Hot Rock. Still looking promising, 24/7 operation.

  Physics is impressive but there are still massive chemical and metalurgy problems to solve.   Trace chemicals plus heat leads to rapid electrolysis of metal machinery and piping.   

> 4. We haven't even started to look at waves and tides yet.

  There are some extremely high tides in the Kimberlies so let's dam a few bays and install tidal power stations like the French and Canadians have done.   Will you write the environmental impact study and husband it throgh the political process? 
Wave power is great at the laboratory level, a little more difficult to translate into commercial reality.   

> There is no energy shortage, there are plenty of ways of getting off carbon. .

  Classical economics agrees with you, Woodbe.   Energy supply is a function of price.   Incease the price sufficiently and people will make the energy.   It might mean that wheat is diverted from making flour into making ethanol, but if people want to eat then they will pay the price! 
Cheers 
Graeme

----------


## Rod Dyson

> What were the species you saw in your expert inspection of these forests? (/sarc) 
> woodbe.

  Do I need to be an expert to make a reasonable observation?

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe, it is not polite to describe Rod's view as bunkum, even when he disagrees with you.

  I was describing the incumbent's position and pointing out that Rod disagrees with them everywhere else. If the cap fits wear it I guess.    

> By definition, base load power is always available when needed.
> [..] 
> Even when the winds not blowing!
> [..] 
> Works great at night and on dull, rainy days.

  This is a technology problem. Spain pumps water into their hydro dams using excess power, Ausra have a plan for heated saline storage, lots of solutions to a problem that is solvable. Not as easy as running a coal powerstation and leaving the lights on all night I guess.   

> Their is a PV revolution every two or three years, but they never seem to get them out of the laboratory.  PV products on the market have only improved marginally over the last 25+ years.   Industry relies on massive government subsidies to survive.

  Graeme, this is a technology in production in commercial quantities Now. Not a lab experiment failing to reach market like the sliver tech that Origin has and continues to develop but maybe never making to market. (or arriving when the rest of the market has moved to the next level at 10% of the price.   

> Physics is impressive but there are still massive chemical and metalurgy problems to solve.   Trace chemicals plus heat leads to rapid electrolysis of metal machinery and piping.

  So you predict it's demise?   

> There are some extremely high tides in the Kimberlies so let's dam a few bays and install tidal power stations like the French and Canadians have done.   Will you write the environmental impact study and husband it throgh the political process? 
> Wave power is great at the laboratory level, a little more difficult to translate into commercial reality.

  I was asked to demonstrate. These are the current technologies and I offered wave/tidal as an untouched possibility. Who said it _had_ to be in the Kimberly?   

> Classical economics agrees with you, Woodbe.   Energy supply is a function of price.   Incease the price sufficiently and people will make the energy.   It might mean that wheat is diverted from making flour into making ethanol, but if people want to eat then they will pay the price!

  It's called change. You can embrace it, or you can fight it. It will happen anyway. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Do I need to be an expert to make a reasonable observation?

  But you are presenting your views as superior. You described my views as 'a lot of guff' 
The point is that the plantation forest replaces a diverse mix of species with an enforced monoculture with less of that stuff you don't believe to be important, and a huge release of that same stuff in the process. 
And in Tasmania, 500 years is realistic for re-emergence of temperate rainforest. That is, if it can. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> And in Tasmania, 500 years is realistic for re-emergence of temperate rainforest. That is, if it can. 
> woodbe.

  And who in their right mind has ever clear felled a tasmanian temperate rainforest in modern history, a few have been drowned & selectively logged for the valuable species of timber. But you would be confusing the ash forests which have a natural cycle of being burnt to a cinder every couple of hundred years after a wildfire then having to regenerate fresh all over again.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> But you are presenting your views as superior. You described my views as 'a lot of guff' 
> The point is that the plantation forest replaces a diverse mix of species with an enforced monoculture with less of that stuff you don't believe to be important, and a huge release of that same stuff in the process. 
> And in Tasmania, 500 years is realistic for re-emergence of temperate rainforest. That is, if it can. 
> woodbe.

  Woodbe, when I consider my views are correct and yours are wrong of course I consider my view superior to yours. As you present yours as superior to mine :Doh:    If you present evidence that will change my mind I will change my mind.  
So far you havent been able to accomplish that.  Mainly due to the fact your opinions start with the belief that C02 is the the cause of global warming and we must reduce emissions to prevent a global disaster.  You have not proved this premise. 
Meanwhile I am happy for you hold your views and express them here for me to respond to. I dont even want to try and change your opinion, I appreciate the opportunity to respond so this whole debate gets some air. Others can form their own opinions from what they read.   
The crux of the matter is that the AGW theory is only an unproven theory.  All else stems from the unwavering belief that this theory is true.  It is  a belief and nothing more, some liken it to a relgious belief. It is this unwavering belief that refuses to enter into any debate, or accept it that it may be wrong, that will be its undoing.  People thankfully are starting to wake up to this.  In my view debates like this help expose this. That is why Al Gore refuses to get into a debate over the science.

----------


## woodbe

> And who in their right mind has ever clear felled a tasmanian temperate rainforest in modern history, a few have been drowned & selectively logged for the valuable species of timber. But you would be confusing the ash forests which have a natural cycle of being burnt to a cinder every couple of hundred years after a wildfire then having to regenerate fresh all over again.
> regards inter

  The reason we know how long it takes rainforest to regenerate is largely because of wildfire events in the distant past that have been studied in the present. If a rainforest burned to a cider every 200 years it would cease to exist. 
As for the 'who in their right mind'   

> The predominant current logging operation in rainforest in NW Tasmania is clearfell, 
> followed by replacement with plantations. Those operations that are 'selective' 
> are virtually indistinguishable from clearfell operations - they leave only a 
> handful of trees which subsequently die from 'myrtle wilt'.

  ACF - The Tarkine in Brief 
This is not ancient history. Spend a bit of time on google maps and you can see where it has been happening.  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here is a nicely packaged article that says it all.  _Rudd scores an own-goal by saying we are deniers “who do not accept the scientific consensus”. Hell no we don’t. We stand by Galileo, Aristotle and Einstein. We demand evidence, and not just opinions. This calling to “consensus” is the stuff of tribal witchdoctors. Chief Kevin and the council of crows say storms are coming, the Gods are angry. We must pay them in barnacles to ward off the wind! For a hundred thousand years people have invented crises in order to scare their followers into submission. Rudd drags us back to the stone age._ 
Full article here. Global Bully Rudd fights for foreign committee, against citizens « JoNova 
Now for a bit of balance read this (if you can stomach it)  _Here’s how the public can come to know the truth about climate: repetition. Learning and comprehension require repetition. Think about repetition being used to learn multiplication tables, or in advertising, or in political campaigns, etc. Certainly dire climate explanations require even more repetition because it is difficult emotionally as well as cognitively. But we haven’t yet even begun to tell that story, we are so spooked by our own reactions and what we think others’ reactions will be._ 
Full article here http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11...nd-they-are-us 
This guy if a huge asset to us that are skeptical of the force fed, shakey science being fed to us by the UN.

----------


## woodbe

> So, what you seem to be saying here Rod, is that all the climate scientists who agree with AGW in one form or another are all so morally bankrupt as to put a research grant before the truth.  
> That's a particularly depressing world view you have taken on, but putting that aside for one moment, if these scientists are so easily swayed by a few bucks, why are you so sure that there are no bucks flowing to the anti-AGW scientists. After all, you don't need much imagination to see examples of corporations who have lots of cash and interests in keeping the status quo... 
> woodbe.

  Still waiting for your take on this one Rod... 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Now for a bit of balance read this (if you can stomach it)  _Heres how the public can come to know the truth about climate: repetition. Learning and comprehension require repetition. Think about repetition being used to learn multiplication tables, or in advertising, or in political campaigns, etc. Certainly dire climate explanations require even more repetition because it is difficult emotionally as well as cognitively. But we havent yet even begun to tell that story, we are so spooked by our own reactions and what we think others reactions will be._ 
> Full article here We have met the deniers, and they are us | Grist 
> This guy if a huge asset to us that are skeptical of the force fed, shakey science being fed to us by the UN.

  We agree on something here Rod! I'm wondering if you read the whole article?   

> Even though were believers, not skeptics, our denial is far more insidious and subtle.  So subtle, in fact, that weve managed to convince ourselves that were not in denial at all.  Quite the opposite.  Why, the thought is too absurd even to contemplate. 
>  But its true. 
>  Were deniers every time we say 80 percent by 2050, or even 80 percent by 2020; every time we refer to tipping points in the future tense; every time we advocate substituting clean energy for dirty energy; every time we buy a squiggly light bulb or a hybrid vehicle; every time we advocate for cap-and-trade, or even a carbon tax; every time we countenance the mention of loopy geoengineering schemes; every time we invoke the future of our children and grandchildren and ignore the widespread suffering from global climate disruption _today_. 
>  Every time we say these things and more, were promoting denial of dire climate reality, the reality thats spinning out of our grasp so fast that we conduct our frenetic climate solutions efforts in a kind of stupor, obsessing with parts-per-million statistics, keeping desperately busy to ward off our own utter collapse borne of despair. 
>  The reality were denying?  Were denying that weve put so much carbon into the atmosphere already that positive feedback loops are well on their way to amplification hell.[1] Were denying that time lags between carbon emissions and their effects are frighteningly relevant, and that the disastrous effects were seeing now are from emissions of 30 years ago.  Were denying that non-linear responses of physical systems cannot be calculated and therefore are perilously ignored. Were denying that our consumption and waste have far exceeded planetary capacity, possibly irreparably so.[2]

  He's a huge asset all right, doesn't mince words either, does he?  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> We agree on something here Rod! I'm wondering if you read the whole article?   
> He's a huge asset all right, doesn't mince words either, does he?  
> woodbe.

  He is a complete and utter fruitcake. 
And yes I read the whole article. 
I fail to see what we agree on there Woodbee.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So, what you seem to be saying here Rod, is that all the climate scientists who agree with AGW in one form or another are all so morally bankrupt as to put a research grant before the truth.  
> That's a particularly depressing world view you have taken on, but putting that aside for one moment, if these scientists are so easily swayed by a few bucks, why are you so sure that there are no bucks flowing to the anti-AGW scientists. After all, you don't need much imagination to see examples of corporations who have lots of cash and interests in keeping the status quo... 
> woodbe.

   
Most of these grants are going to the scientist studying the effects of AGW base on the premise that AGW is in fact true.  Rather than question the science behind AGW they simply assume its true thereby freeing their conscience to accept the grants.  Most of them honestly believe they are doing the right thing.   
There certainly are others who are riding the grants wave without any scuples.  
As with governments who blindly accept the IPCC version of the science without question.  This is great for Governments as they clearly have someone to blame if it all goes wrong.  
The problem with this is that there are numerous credible peer review papers that outright proves the AGW theory is false.  The governments put their fingers in their ears and go nah nah nah nah.   They don't want to know, they have accepted the IPCC and puplic opinion a few years back.  Now they are painted into a corner. Public opinion is rapidly going against them and their blind faith is making them look stupid in light of the new science that refute the theory. Their scapegoat is fading and they are looking very gullible indeed. 
You do know the opposite of skeptic is gullible dont you? 
What I am going to enjoy, is seeing how guys like our Slime Minister get away from AGW without looking totally stupid and gullible.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> He is a complete and utter fruitcake.

  He's just another person expressing his own opinion. Just like you and me. 
Still waiting to hear about those scientists. 
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

Here I give you Pythagoras, Greek mathematician who gave us Pi Pi is the relationship of the circumforance to the diameter of a circle given as 3.14 or 22/7. Now the interesting thing about Pi is its not quite so, it goes on ad infinitum. Japan Uni holds the record, taking Pi to 51 billion decimal places. So gents if you are trying for a record with this thread, you got a long long way to go.

----------


## Ashore

> Here I give you Pythagoras, Greek mathematician who gave us Pi Pi is the relationship of the circumforance to the diameter of a circle given as 3.14 or 22/7.

   Like some of your other beliefs that is so wrong on so many planes 
Pythagoras did not give us the constant pi , he is remembered for his therom , the square of the hypotanuse is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides in a right angle triangle and the sum of all the angles of a right angle triangle = 180 deg, I guess poor old archimedes ( who did deal in facts) constantly misses out 
and there are no accurate descriptions or statues of pythagoras , so even you picture is wrong 
but for global warming believers i'm sure it's close enough , who needs facts , or is this just splitting hairs  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Rod Dyson

who needs facts?  _A Brief History of π_  *Pi has been known for almost 4000 years—but even if we calculated the number of seconds in those 4000 years and calculated pi to that number of places, we would still only be approximating its actual value. Here’s a brief history of finding pi:*  _The ancient Babylonians calculated the area of a circle by taking 3 times the square of its radius, which gave a value of pi = 3. One Babylonian tablet (ca. 1900–1680 BC) indicates a value of 3.125 for pi, which is a closer approximation._  _In the Egyptian Rhind Papyrus (ca.1650 BC), there is evidence that the Egyptians calculated the area of a circle by a formula that gave the approximate value of 3.1605 for pi._  _The ancient cultures mentioned above found their approximations by measurement. The first calculation of pi was done by Archimedes of Syracuse (287–212 BC), one of the greatest mathematicians of the ancient world. Archimedes approximated the area of a circle by using the Pythagorean Theorem to find the areas of two regular polygons: the polygon inscribed within the circle and the polygon within which the circle was circumscribed. Since the actual area of the circle lies between the areas of the inscribed and circumscribed polygons, the areas of the polygons gave upper and lower bounds for the area of the circle. Archimedes knew that he had not found the value of pi but only an approximation within those limits. In this way, Archimedes showed that pi is between 3 1/7 and 3 10/71._  _A similar approach was used by Zu Chongzhi (429–501), a brilliant Chinese mathematician and astronomer. Zu Chongzhi would not have been familiar with Archimedes’ method—but because his book has been lost, little is known of his work. He calculated the value of the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter to be 355/113. To compute this accuracy for pi, he must have started with an inscribed regular 24,576-gon and performed lengthy calculations involving hundreds of square roots carried out to 9 decimal places._   _Mathematicians began using the Greek letter π in the 1700s. Introduced by William Jones in 1706, use of the symbol was popularized by Euler, who adopted it in 1737._  _An 18th century French mathematician named Georges Buffon devised a way to calculate pi based on probability. You can try it yourself at the Exploratorium exhibit Throwing Pi._ 
Link http://www.exploratorium.edu/pi/hist..._pi/index.html

----------


## rrobor

I was looking for a link to a sketch Billy Connoly did about being accosted with regards to his camera. " Is it an XP2, an XP2 has a wee screw on the left of the appature. I prefer the XP3 it has an upgraded flange and a larger sprocket" . I leave it to you all to know what Billy told him. Quite frankly I didnrt even think as was it relevent, all I wanted was Pi and the continual rotation of a thread that has not resolved one issue or changed one idea. Its as pointless as running Pi to billions of places.

----------


## autogenous

JST ? 
Just another Sales Tax ? 
My old hilux with a 2.0 litre motor achieved 370 litres on 65 litres.  My 4 litre V6 hilux achieves 500 km on 65 litres. 
AGW is just 2% of total CO2 emissions?

----------


## rrobor

Well let us all now be happy. William Jones in 1706 formulated Pi and gave it the greek letter. Im sure this knowledge will change your life as much as it will me.

----------


## autogenous

And your making the circle bigger with irrelevant to the topic saw dust.

----------


## rrobor

You tell me what is relevent. Go through every post on this thread and you will find every person answering has a fixed locked idea. Is it then relevent to thrust and parry looking for some minor flaw in the opposition, then attack that. If at any time one idea had changed in this thread I would not have posted things that rotate. This is an arguement akin to politics or religion, each side being frustrated the other "can not see". It just goes on, because it can.

----------


## woodbe

rrobor, I don't care about any of that. I'm just waiting to hear from Rod about the scientists. The suspense is killing me. 
Anyway, someone learned something from this thread. I'm sure of it. 
woodbe.

----------


## Ashore

> I didnrt even think as was it relevent, all I wanted was Pi .

  Robb all I was doing was pointing out another mistake, and trying to show you, that assuming something is right doesn't make it correct. 
Now therein lies the dilemma , on one side people are looking at the facts and coming to conclusions based on ( the most up to date actual) facts, and on your side you either make assumptions or believe the unproven assumptions of others based only on data (a lot of which has been shown to be faulty) that supports their assumptions  :Runaway:

----------


## Vernonv

> If at any time one idea had changed in this thread I would not have posted things that rotate.

  More BS. Why post cr@p (i.e. the whole wheel thing and the pi thing) in a thread because YOU don't believe anyone's opinions/ideas have been changed.   Is it just that you can't sustain your argument so wish to try and derail the debate for others? 
I'm totally against the ETS, but am a bit of a fence sitter (but probably leaning toward Rod's "side") in regard to climate change and am finding this debate both interesting and educational.  
If your not interested then stop spoiling it for others.  *Edited Post*:  A couple of things removed by Mrs Watson's little boy Noel

----------


## rrobor

Ashore it didnt enter my head to check on trivia , if it had been a concern I would have checked, as I did the second time. And I could almost bet if you were honest you didnt know that. To Vernov, I would like to believe you but find that difficult, As to what I do on this site, above each post is a triangle. Thet gives you access to make a complaint. Making rude noises here is for effect, so doesnt concern me.

----------


## Vernonv

I don't care what you believe roboor, but maybe you should show some maturity by not posting such rubbish in the first place. I would have thought even you would have been bright enough to figure that one out on your own ... maybe I being too optimistic.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## chipps

Lets take 5 & cool off for a bit 
Temporary lock

----------


## watson

OK....Seconds out....Round 13.........Ding!!

----------


## rrobor

Na Im fine with that Noel. Someone wants to personal attack me in a post its for effect. If I get on his wick he has the option of complaint. Then it goes to those who run the forum and they slice and dice as they see fit.
Oh and Noel , dont want to be pedantic but as we are sticklers for detail here isnt it round 27

----------


## woodbe

> Lets take 5 & cool off for a bit

  Have you seen the temperature here today? It's pushing 40 outside. If you have any of that cooling off to spare, send it down.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## watson

Yep I just check our thermo meter........not cool........but a couple of errors have crept into the debate. 
The theorem by Pythagorus reads: 
The son of the squaw on the Hippopotamus hide is equal to the sons of the squaws on the other two hides.
and rrobor's pic of Pythagorus is actually a movie prop statue of Charlton Heston in drag. 
Apart from those - everything is fine if we stay within the rules 
Have fun.

----------


## chipps

> Have you seen the temperature here today? It's pushing 40 outside. If you have any of that cooling off to spare, send it down.  
> woodbe.

    :Shock:  that's hot

----------


## Vernonv

No global warming here - it's only 26 deg C. 
Rodorr, I'm not attacking you, just some of the rubbish you are posting. You might need a thicker skin with the increase in temps brought on by all this global warming. :Biggrin:

----------


## rrobor

Vernpof Im so glad to see we have convinced you that global warming is a fact. And yes I honestly could do with a thicker skin, one of the drugs I take thins my skin. So its nice to see you noticed that.

----------


## Rod Dyson

This is what I thought of your scientists and their grants Woodbee. Did you miss this one?   

> Most of these grants are going to the scientist studying the effects of AGW base on the premise that AGW is in fact true. Rather than question the science behind AGW they simply assume its true thereby freeing their conscience to accept the grants. Most of them honestly believe they are doing the right thing.  
> There certainly are others who are riding the grants wave without any scuples.  
> As with governments who blindly accept the IPCC version of the science without question. This is great for Governments as they clearly have someone to blame if it all goes wrong.  
> The problem with this is that there are numerous credible peer review papers that outright proves the AGW theory is false. The governments put their fingers in their ears and go nah nah nah nah. They don't want to know, they have accepted the IPCC and puplic opinion a few years back. Now they are painted into a corner. Public opinion is rapidly going against them and their blind faith is making them look stupid in light of the new science that refute the theory. Their scapegoat is fading and they are looking very gullible indeed. 
> You do know the opposite of skeptic is gullible dont you? 
> What I am going to enjoy, is seeing how guys like our Slime Minister get away from AGW without looking totally stupid and gullible.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Ho Hum the weather is not climate argument only works for record cold temperatures like in the US at the moment I see. 
I guess the revival of El Nino has nothing to do with this? 
Try again woodbee.   

> Have you seen the temperature here today? It's pushing 40 outside. If you have any of that cooling off to spare, send it down.  
> woodbe.

----------


## Vernonv

> Vernpof Im so glad to see we have convinced you that global warming is a fact.

  Sorry to disappoint you rodbor but unfortunately I am far from convinced (by either "side") ... but as I said I am enjoying the debate and finding it useful. :2thumbsup:

----------


## rrobor

It always surprises me Rod how you equate global warming with the Rudd government along with ET You can only trade with others so to my mind there is a flaw in your arguement. To Vernov, then kindly stop pushingthe niggle button, you  almost closed the thread.

----------


## Vernonv

> To Vernov, then kindly stop pushingthe niggle button, you almost closed the thread.

  Pot, kettle, black.  :Rolleyes:  
I was merely clarifying my position which you seemed to have misread. However, it seems to me that you are the one trying to stir things up. Maybe you should let this thread get back to some serious discussion.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It always surprises me Rod how you equate global warming with the Rudd government along with ET You can only trade with others so to my mind there is a flaw in your arguement.

  
In the words of Pauline Hansen PLEASE EXPLAIN! I have no idea what you are talking about.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> To Vernov, then kindly stop pushingthe niggle button, you almost closed the thread.

  I think there are a few buttons being pushed here that is quite unneccessary. I will attack what you say call it rubbish or whatever but I will not attack you for saying it. 
So lets keep it clean. This is a good discussion. 
BTW Woodbee I am still waiting for your evidence that Co2 is the driver of global warming!!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Pot, kettle, black.  
> I was merely clarifying my position which you seemed to have misread. However, it seems to me that you are the one trying to stir things up. Maybe you should let this thread get back to some serious discussion.

  Deflection, evasion, trivialization and discredit the messenger, are common tactics used by people who do not have a credible answer in a debate.

----------


## Ashore

> . And I could almost bet if you were honest you didnt know that. .

  Actually I did mate, maths is a huge part of engineering ( even marine) , thermodynamics, mechanics and eloctrotechnology .

----------


## rrobor

Rod 4 points here you continually say things like "the government are sticking their fingers in their ears."  Now I use quotation marks, but please it is not an exact quote it is the gist, Im not going to disect word for word.  So you impart the impression that ET is a localised thing. Next we have when one source says yes you find another saying no etc. Now we could go on for ever doing that. It has been a debate for decades now and the consensus is it is happening so the majority of governments are following that line. Point 3 encouraging your little sidekick to keep up his vitriol will see this thread closed. Ive bitten the tongue a couple of times and will do so again, but dont expect me to continually take snash. Last in a free society we all do as we see fit and answer how we see the post should be answered. Personally I see you in some form of political stunt here, but thats a personal view so Im not passing it as correct You see me as something else but are passing that on.

----------


## woodbe

> Ho Hum the weather is not climate argument only works for record cold temperatures like in the US at the moment I see. 
> I guess the revival of El Nino has nothing to do with this? 
> Try again woodbee.

  Rod, this was not a try, you're shooting at shadows. It was directed to Chippy and his cool down comment.    

> Most of these grants are going to the scientist studying the effects of AGW base on the premise that AGW is in fact true. Rather than question the science behind AGW they simply assume its true thereby freeing their conscience to accept the grants. Most of them honestly believe they are doing the right thing.

  I don't buy that for a minute. We are not talking about schoolkids here. These are career scientists that have years of study and research behind them. I can imagine one or two being naive and finding themselves up a creek, but thousands of them?  
This is one of the core mantras from the denialists and one that I have the most trouble with. Unless these people were all placed under mass mind control by aliens I have real problems with 'suspension of disbelief'[1] on this issue. 
[1] *Suspension of disbelief* or "willing suspension of disbelief" is a formula named as such in English by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge to justify the use of fantastic or non-realistic elements in literature. Coleridge suggested that if a writer could infuse a "human interest and a semblance of truth" into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative.  Wikipedia page 
woodbe.

----------


## Vernonv

> Point 3 encouraging your little sidekick to keep up his vitriol will see this thread closed. Ive bitten the tongue a couple of times and will do so again, but dont expect me to continually take snash.

  You're not trying to niggle now are you? 
Your apparent obsession is somewhat troubling, but I think you really need to move on ... for your own sake, if not ours.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod 4 points here you continually say things like "the government are sticking their fingers in their ears." Now I use quotation marks, but please it is not an exact quote it is the gist, Im not going to disect word for word. So you impart the impression that ET is a localised thing.

  Not at all, you may see it that way.  OUR government should act independently in the best interest of Australia and not blindly follow the rest of the world.  Just because they want to trash their own economies it does not mean we have to.  Our Slime Minister has an ego that will destroy Australia.  

> Next we have when one source says yes you find another saying no etc. Now we could go on for ever doing that. It has been a debate for decades now and the consensus is it is happening so the majority of governments are following that line.

  Fistly science is not decided by consensus. Next their is no consensus their are thousands of qualified Scientist that dispute this.  We are not lemmings.  

> Point 3 encouraging your little sidekick to keep up his vitriol will see this thread closed. Ive bitten the tongue a couple of times and will do so again, but dont expect me to continually take snash.

  This is just wrong. I have done nothing of the sort.  

> Last in a free society we all do as we see fit and answer how we see the post should be answered. Personally I see you in some form of political stunt here, but thats a personal view so Im not passing it as correct You see me as something else but are passing that on.

  LOL I am a very concerned citizen. End of story.

----------


## rrobor

Look Vernov would you stop trying to make this personal. If you have an arguement put it but you are trying to get this into some sort of personal bitch fight and that is against forum rules. So for the last time please stop trying to create some personal slanging match. Rob

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I don't buy that for a minute. We are not talking about schoolkids here. These are career scientists that have years of study and research behind them. I can imagine one or two being naive and finding themselves up a creek, but thousands of them?

   It is irrelevant what you or I think. Not all scientist a crooks I am saying they have been misled by a few, and have now dug themselves a hole by. Most of them are genuine the problem is the basic premise that Co2 can raise temperatures in the future to the degree the IPCC says is just wrong. You, have ignored every request to provide some evidence that this is true. You cant and nor can they.  

> This is one of the core mantras from the denialists and one that I have the most trouble with. Unless these people were all placed under mass mind control by aliens I have real problems with 'suspension of disbelief'[1] on this issue.

  
I am not a denialist I am very skeptic. To be a denialist what you claim I am denying would have to be a proven fact. LOL see above :Biggrin:  Now a skeptic is one that does not accept a theory untill it can be proven. Thats me. Now where was that proof again? 
I thinkl I might get a bumper sticker made up  No denial but very bloody skeptic!

----------


## rrobor

From Isaac Newton to Abraham Lincoln, man has believed in a thing called inherent truth. We cant quuite prove it beyond reasonable doubt but we know it is so. Newton created all his laws believing there was some earthly force  called gravity pulling things to earth. His laws stand today  but he was somewhat out. Einstein said light must bend. He never proved that, someone else did. If Einstein had have waited for proof we would not have had E=MCsq . So waiting for absolute is a cop out.

----------


## woodbe

> I am not a denialist I am very skeptic. To be a denialist what you claim I am denying would have to be a proven fact. LOL see above Now a skeptic is one that does not accept a theory untill it can be proven. Thats me. Now where was that proof again? 
> I thinkl I might get a bumper sticker made up  No denial but very bloody skeptic!

  Rod, The point I made was not about you. It was about the scientists. You're projecting. 
You made a claim about wayward scientists that I pointed out is very hard to swallow, and is common within denialists, (and skeptics, based on you own self-diagnosis). I care not whether you see yourself as a skeptic or a denialist. 
The point remains that you think that there is some kind of immensely powerful control over all these trained and respected scientists who apparently sell their soul for a research grant, and some who are outright liars who presumably 'control' these non-thinking, lemming scientists who blindly continue to pour out supporting research that you claim would never exist if the whole process was not corrupt. 
Sorry. I have far greater faith in human nature, ethics, and the scientific process to accept what you embrace.  
woodbe.

----------


## Gooner

Looks like this thread, at the time of writing this post, is #2 on the renovate forum most replied thread list. 414 replies including this one. 
#1 (as far as I can see) is http://www.renovateforum.com/f83/code-practice-33205/ at 457. (That thread is quite funny and worth the read..) So go team, not far to go now...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The point remains that you think that there is some kind of immensely powerful control over all these trained and respected scientists who apparently sell their soul for a research grant, and some who are outright liars who presumably 'control' these non-thinking, lemming scientists who blindly continue to pour out supporting research that you claim would never exist if the whole process was not corrupt. 
> Sorry. I have far greater faith in human nature, ethics, and the scientific process to accept what you embrace.  
> woodbe.

  Oh boy, to have that much faith.  Seriously, you are not reading my response properly surely. 
I give a bit of credit to those scientist that simply believe that what their fellow scients say (just like you). So in all good faith go out and look at the effects that global warming has on their particular field of expertise.  Then there are others who flaunt the fear surrounding AGW to get grants.  To say this is not happening is a giant leap in faith at best and blindingly stupid at worst (that is not a personal sledge).  
You still have not answered my question Woodbe what scientific paper proves C02 can increase temperatures to the extent the IPCC claims it will.  Please at least give it a crack.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Looks like this thread, at the time of writing this post, is #2 on the renovate forum most replied thread list. 414 replies including this one. 
> #1 (as far as I can see) is http://www.renovateforum.com/f83/code-practice-33205/ at 457. (That thread is quite funny and worth the read..) So go team, not far to go now...

  I think we might get there Gooner  :Biggrin:

----------


## Gooner

We just may, especially if we keep making pointless replies like the one I am making now just to increase the reply count.

----------


## rrobor

Rod how can anybody prove beyond doubt what will happen. Beyond doubt C02 absorbs heat and increases make the atmosphere heavier. Air pressure at sea level must rise, Now theres an arguement that sea ice is melting. let us assume that is fact. That creates a less salty sea. this will alter sea currents. Now all that, if taken as fact will create change. To suggest that we can somehow put all these parameters together and many more, and come out with solid answers, is fairy story stuff. I once saw a guy explain random probability as such. Pour grain from a height into a tray. The first grain can go anywhere. each grain after that is slightly less random and more predictable. I would suggest in thge global warming thing, theres quite a pile.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod how can anybody prove beyond doubt what will happen. Beyond doubt C02 absorbs heat and increases make the atmosphere heavier. Air pressure at sea level must rise, Now theres an arguement that sea ice is melting. let us assume that is fact. That creates a less salty sea. this will alter sea currents. Now all that, if taken as fact will create change. To suggest that we can somehow put all these parameters together and many more, and come out with solid answers, is fairy story stuff. I once saw a guy explain random probability as such. Pour grain from a height into a tray. The first grain can go anywhere. each grain after that is slightly less random and more predictable. I would suggest in thge global warming thing, theres quite a pile.

  Based on what you say its pretty thin to bet the farm on. 
But just a few points. No one dissagrees that C02 is a greenhouse gas, we do know it is a very very small componant of the atmosphere. Can you point to a paper that says Co2 causes air pressure to rise at sea level? Thsi is a new one to me LOL. Now ice melting, that is an interesting one. I presume you realise that Artic ice cover has reduced base on 29 year observations and that is off a very cool starting point. And that this is SEA ice. The salt in sea ice drains out and creates saltier water underneath. I guess the fact that Artic ice has melted to lower level in the past is irrelevant? I suppose that fact NASA put down the melting sea ice due to prevailing winds and currents NOT warming is irrelevant too. I guess the sea ice recovery to near normal levels since 2007 doesnt matter either. That is without considering the fact that Antartic ice is at a record high. 
The only fairy storey here is that C02 is the cause of the planet warming. It is a well known fact that an increase in C02 alone will not increase temps as much as the models suggest. The models rely on feedbacks that are a pure guess. Except that it has now been proven that the feedback the models suggest is the opposite to what actually happens. See this The Truth About Global Warming: Feedbacks|GlobalWarming.org   
Its true that warming from the 70's followed the increase in C02 but correlation does not mean causation.  In fact Gore lied in his film about C02 preceeding temperature increases where the ice records show without doubt that C02 LAGS temperatures indicating that higher temperatures causes higher C02 not the other way around. Now thats a FACT that cannot be explained away.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Just to add a little bit, you may care to explain the fiasco of the hockey stick.  
Holeman Jenkins from the Wall Street Journal suggests..... 
A turning point in the debate was the debunking of two key bits of “evidence” cited by Gore and many other warmists - the “hockey stick” that purported to show we’d never been so hot, and the ice cores which were presented as proof that increases in carbon dioxide concentrations had caused the world to warm after past ice ages, when the evidence actually show that in every case the warming had preceded the CO2 rises. 
Note that the hockey stick actually passed peer review and was debunked first of all by a retired engineer and a professor of economic outside the warming club, which fought for years to cover up the flaws in the stick’s methodology. 
Nice to see a bit of skeptisim in a main stream media.  Some talk back radio shows are really getting into the act as well, not to mention [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKj7VWVUu8"]Fox News[/ame].  I can see a silver lining on the black cloud. 
The tide turns.

----------


## rrobor

Rod you are excelling yourself. First it was Andrew Boult, now we have the ultimate in jokers  Glen Beck. That man is an ultra right wing mouth for hire, anyone ever viewing his TV show on Fox knows that. It has even been shown how they doctored things  to suit their own ends, an idiot of the first degree. As to air pressure CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than normal air, I would assume if you increase the weight of the blanket the pressure must rise,  but that is a minor point. Papers are constructed by people. It always amases me why we need to find a paper, and that proves the point, its just another opinion.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Attack the man repeat the mantra
Attack the man repeat the mantra
Attack the man repeat the mantra
Attack the man repeat the mantra............................... 
Nothing changes.

----------


## Vernonv

> Papers are constructed by people. It always amases me why we need to find a paper, and that proves the point, its just another opinion.

  So are you saying that all the papers written supporting global warming are also rubbish? Or are you saying that you don't need proof of global warming, it's a faith based belief?

----------


## rrobor

Rod Andrew  Boult is a self confessed ultra right wing leacturer at Monash he admits to that. Glen beck is on Fox news and again prides himself as an ultra right head kicker. I didnt attack what they dont confess to themselves. Vernov what I said is what I said. You wish to search long enough you will find papers for and against toilet paper.

----------


## Vernonv

> Vernov what I said is what I said. You wish to search long enough you will find papers for and against toilet paper.

  Well robor, if you hold such little stock in the validity of "papers" in general, then why do you place so much faith in the GW "papers"? Why are the GW "papers" any more valid than the anti-GW "papers"?  
I agree that just because something is written down, doesn't make it true, but is the the defence of someones position (either pro or anti GW and/or ETS) based on what they are "invested in" (i.e. they have taken a position and must now defend it) or a truly critical look at the available information?

----------


## rrobor

Vernov for the last time the name I go under is rrobor, next read all I wrote and pick out one place I said this paper is correct. I dont have any great faith in any paper. To do so, you have to research who wrote it and if they had a bias. That becomes extremely difficult. So I prefer to take a consensus view over a broader spectrum, resulting in me believing there is enough in it to take steps to protect the planet.

----------


## Vernonv

> *Vernov* for the last time the name I go under is rrobor,

  Am I the only one who sees the irony in that statement? :Confused:    

> ... next read all I wrote and pick out one place I said this paper is correct. I dont have any great faith in any paper. To do so, you have to research who wrote it and if they had a bias. That becomes extremely difficult. So I prefer to take a consensus view over a broader spectrum, resulting in me believing there is enough in it to take steps to protect the planet.

  The trouble with taking the consensus view, is that it is also based on those same papers which you "dont have any great faith in". What makes me uneasy about the whole GW consciousness is that it's been driver by the media and they are not exactly known for their balanced view.

----------


## rrobor

You are pushing it again lad. There is spelling errors and there is  intentional digging. each time you do my name you change the spelling. now I did suggest that before so if you didnt take note then it was for a reason. Your other point is nonsence. The average of everything is usually roughly correct. I explained that on post 419 please read that.

----------


## zacnelson

I was amazed to see this article appear in the ultra-left Age website the other day!  It is one of the most eloquent things I've ever read on the subject of emissions trading.  The tide is perhaps turning; there have been numerous reported sightings of scepticism in the left media in recent months.  http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/science-cooks-the-books-driving-sensible-people-to-screaming-point-20091111-i9vo.html

----------


## Vernonv

> You are pushing it again lad. There is spelling errors and there is intentional digging.

  Please point out once in this thread where you have spelled it correctly. So yes, there certainly is spelling errors and there is intentional digging ... now grow up and stop being a hypocrite.  :Rolleyes:    

> now I did suggest that before so if you didnt take note then it was for a reason.

  No I didn't see where you mentioned it previously. Maybe you edited the post after I had already read it?    

> Your other point is nonsence. The average of everything is usually roughly correct. I explained that on post 419 please read that.

  The average of nonsense is nonsense. I believe we need to clean up our act and reduce our impact on this planet (that is a no-brainer), but I'm yet to be convinced that we are on (or over) the tipping point of total collapse. The ETS is dangerous a knee jerk reaction to the average of nonsense - sorry but I don't want to do that to my kids.

----------


## watson

*Just a Note from the Head Coach.*  
Tommy Haffey and Kevin Sheedy would love you blokes. 
But "Playing the Man" is not part of my game plan. 
Attack the ideas.....not the poster. 
'Nuff Said.

----------


## Vernonv

I thought we were playing nicely.  :Doh:

----------


## rrobor

> I was amazed to see this article appear in the ultra-left Age website the other day! It is one of the most eloquent things I've ever read on the subject of emissions trading. The tide is perhaps turning; there have been numerous reported sightings of scepticism in the left media in recent months.  http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/science-cooks-the-books-driving-sensible-people-to-screaming-point-20091111-i9vo.html

   You know I find this really annoying. global warming is not a political issue but there seems to be this idea that if you believe in it you are a lefty. Does that imply Malcolm Turnbull, has somehow joined the wrong party. Im hot and tired after just restacking half a ton of drying timber, does that make me a tree hugger or an enviornment vandal. Who knows? who cares! but dragging politics into a global issue is just wrong.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You know I find this really annoying. global warming is not a political issue but there seems to be this idea that if you believe in it you are a lefty. Does that imply Malcolm Turnbull, has somehow joined the wrong party. Im hot and tired after just restacking half a ton of drying timber, does that make me a tree hugger or an enviornment vandal. Who knows? who cares! but dragging politics into a global issue is just wrong.

   Rrobor, yes it is politcal the policticians themselves made it so when they created the IPCC which is a political organisation NOT a scientific one.  
Get used to it because the politics of this scam are just starting the warm up (pardon the pun).  As it gets closer to a vote in the US senate expect the country to back off AGW in a big way.  Just wait until the true cost of an ETS and agreement at Nopenhagen is made public.  People will and should demand a cost benefit analysis.   
There will be an outrage and the radicals will be left like a shag on a rock. 
Now the MSM have started publishing skeptical views the snow ball is gowing to grow very fast.  It is very hard to convince those in the Northern Hemisphere that a freezing thir butts off that we need to make earth cooler. :Biggrin:

----------


## rrobor

Rod you keep saying USA is having a cold spell, Well Southern Australia is having a hot spell. Put em together, what you got Bibity, bobity, bo. If the ocean currents change, the world air conditioner changes and we have to factor that in. Global warming is causing change but not that.

----------


## Rod Dyson

So then what does global warming cause? 
I know weather is weather I just post that becuase of the irony of it.  We know climate changes every one agrees on that one bar none.  What we disagree on is what causes Climate Change and If the current changes in climate are unique to the 20th century.

----------


## rrobor

The answer to that Rod is easy, it will produce extremes and more violent weather. Sure the temp will slowly increase on average but if that was the extent of it it wouldnt be much of an issue. What we will see is more devastation from hurricanes and tornadoes, worse hail etc. If we have an Ice melt then the torrid zones will be drier. Slowly but surely Victoria will turn into a desert.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The answer to that Rod is easy, it will produce extremes and more violent weather. Sure the temp will slowly increase on average but if that was the extent of it it wouldnt be much of an issue. What we will see is more devastation from hurricanes and tornadoes, worse hail etc. If we have an Ice melt then the torrid zones will be drier. Slowly but surely Victoria will turn into a desert.

  Ok and the evidence of this is where? 
I know there is evidence that there has been less tornados and hurricanes in recent years. I know there is evidence of recovery in the artic ice in the last few years. 
LOL do you really honestly believe Victoria will turn into a desert?? What scientific study says this? This is pure guess work and a very extreme indeed. 
The word *if* we have ice melt rather than *when* says it all. 
FYI
On the 2nd of November 1922, The Washington Post published the following story: Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt”. The corresponding report in the Monthly Weather Review of November 1922 had also stated that the ice conditions in the Northern North Atlantic were exceptional; in fact, so little ice has never before been noted.

----------


## rrobor

Yep I agree no ice melt, its just the Antartic thats floating our way, biggest Iceberg ever seen. No one drowned in USA when a Hurricane swamped a levy and we didnt loose a banana crop. Its all imagination, The barrier reef isnt getting bleached, everything is just dandy.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Yep I agree no ice melt, its just the Antartic thats floating our way, biggest Iceberg ever seen. No one drowned in USA when a Hurricane swamped a levy and we didnt loose a banana crop. Its all imagination, The barrier reef isnt getting bleached, everything is just dandy.

  Oh rrobor. 
The Antartic has a record level of ice. Large ice sheets have been breaking off for thousands of years this is nothing new. 
A hurricane in the US proves absolutly zilch as does a hurricane in QLD. There are hurricanes every year somewhere to link this to AGW is ludicrous. Not even the most ardent Warmers try this anymore. 
The GBR has recovered from a recent bleaching and has bleached before and will again. There has been no significant temperature increase in the waters of the GBR. You can't see the ridicule that these claims bring to the warmers table?

----------


## Vernonv

> Yep I agree no ice melt, its just the Antartic thats floating our way, biggest Iceberg ever seen. No one drowned in USA when a Hurricane swamped a levy and we didnt loose a banana crop. Its all imagination, The barrier reef isnt getting bleached, everything is just dandy.

  These sort of weather events have always occurred and always will. Do we have enough data (over time) to judge if these things are increasing or if this is just a normal cycle? Even if the severity is increasing, do we have the data to conclude exactly what is causing it?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Just to set you mind at ease Rrobor. 
It is more common for coral reefs to bleach than you think. They also recover preety dam quick. 
ScienceDaily (Apr. 24, 2009) — Marine scientists say they are astonished at the spectacular recovery of certain coral reefs in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park from a devastating coral bleaching event in 2006. 
Fear no more.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Very good Headpin. 
Love It  
But woodbe refuses to answer my question :Annoyed:

----------


## Groggy

:Rolleyes:

----------


## rrobor

Yes I must agree with headpin and my countless wheels. It is an arguement that will go on and on, Its futile, and as such unless someone starts cheering I think Ill drop out. Like the countless people in history There are always those who wait till its too late.

----------


## Groggy

Let me just say this gents, you don't want this thread mentioned in your eulogies (hopefully a long time from now)  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

It has certainly kept us entertained for a few days.  
Don't give up Rrobor we are just getting started.  
Once woodbe answers a simple question it will be all put to bed!

----------


## Rod Dyson

Insainity is an ETS  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Dog with a bone head pin. 
BTW want to sell a house in Queensland. 
Fill this form in first. 
Im sure Grandma will be able to do it will you? 
This is a bloody joke.

----------


## intertd6

> The reason we know how long it takes rainforest to regenerate is largely because of wildfire events in the distant past that have been studied in the present. If a rainforest burned to a cider every 200 years it would cease to exist. 
> As for the 'who in their right mind'  ACF - The Tarkine in Brief 
> This is not ancient history. Spend a bit of time on google maps and you can see where it has been happening.  
> woodbe.

   I quoted ash forests being burnt by wildfires not rainforests
The true temperate rainforests dont burn thats why they contain trees thousands of years old
If you believe the extremists, temporate rainforests are being clearfelled for the planting of ash forests, where in fact they produce a sapling of a sassafrass on the boundarys of an ash forest to support their arguments & then claim the whole area is a "temporate rainforest" They clearfell ash forests & replant ash forests. It would cost a lot of money to clearfell a rainforest with no return on the investment untill the ash forest matures for harvest, so who in their right mind is doing that? A= no one
regards inter

----------


## rrobor

You know I may have been wrong, I think Ive found proof we are liable to have an ice age snowy christmas on earth | Stock Flash Animation | iStockphoto.com

----------


## Rod Dyson

Thanks for that info Rrobor. 
BTW this post was the new record in a thread of the formum :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Far from useles Headpin. 
But I love your sense of humor!

----------


## Dr Freud

Ladies and Gentleman,   Thank you for a very amusing read over the past days.  I am very happy to see that the debate rages on.  One of the greatest drivers of human endeavour has been the settling of disputes through (reasoned?) argument, rather than bombardment.  Please see my original post (Post # 7 on page 1) for the data summary, and allow me the luxury of hopefully adding some food for thought  :Wink 1: .   CAVEAT: This post contains no factual information whatsoever, and relies entirely on proxy data and many assumptions, some of which are outlined below.  All future predictions are extremely unreliable due to the fact that sh.. happens.  (If only the IPCC was this noble)  :Eek: .   Assumption 1: Carbon Dioxide levels are the predominant driver of global temperature in a *causal relationship*, and other influences are ancillary, such as the sun, volcanoes, magma currents, earth tides, tectonic shifts, lunar distance, electromagnetic fields, axial tilt, etc etc.   Assumption 2: Once humans stabilise and maintain atmospheric concentrations of Carbon Dioxide at or below 450 parts per million, then average global temperatures will stabilise at 16 degrees Celsius indefinitely, regardless of other influences such as those listed in Assumption 1.   (NOTE: Assumption 1 and 2 are regarded as facts underpinning all current Carbon Dioxide reduction schemes as indicated by the IPCC.  :Cry: )   Assumption 3: Humans CAN and DO stabilise and maintain atmospheric concentrations of Carbon Dioxide as per Assumption 2.   Assumption 4: Assumption 3 must include ALL Carbon Dioxide concentrations, whether they be anthropogenic or natural, because if Assumption 1 is correct, then the source of the Carbon Dioxide is irrelevant.   Assumption 5: Graphs indicate how future climate graphs might appear.   Anyone see anything wrong with this picture?  Regardless of the economic cost, does this look natural?   Call a spade a spade lads (and ladies).   P.S. Headpin, your post #445 on page 30 was hilarious, nearly dropped the laptop while laughing.  For all other members, please see these Headpin posts to settle the argument for what is a truly remarkable analogy!

----------


## Dr Freud

Sorry folks, 
Forgot to mention a bumper sticker I saw this morning on a Camry. 
It said "Solar not Nuclear".  :Rolleyes:  
I thought I couldn't laugh any harder until I read Headpins comments.  :Biggrin:  
If you don't get it, Google the Sun.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Vernonv

> Let me just say this gents, you don't want this thread mentioned in your eulogies (hopefully a long time from now)

  Quite so Greg, but I would hazard a guess that most of what gets written in forums, and on the web in general, is far for eulogy worthy. However going by the "views" count this thread certainly seems to be popular entertainment.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Groggy

> However going by the "views" count this thread certainly seems to be popular entertainment.

  Like watching a plane crash from a safe distance  :Biggrin:

----------


## Vernonv

> Like watching a plane crash from a safe distance

  Exactly.  :Wink:  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Well, seeing we will be soon watching an economic train wreck this is an apt description.

----------


## rrobor

My old tech teacher at school was fond of telling a story about visiting the nut house. There, there was a guy banging his head against the wall. The teacher stopped and asked him why he did that? The reply was. "Cos its nice when you stop". Perhaps he had a logical point.

----------


## Ashore

almost as good as getting in the last word  :Biggrin:

----------


## rrobor

Never entered my head actually, perhaps it did yours. 
Below so as not to be accused of something Perhaps trying to be a whispering Ted "He's going for the pink, and for those of you with black-and-white TV sets, the yellow is behing the blue". Might be best to do your own thing, easy to stuff up as a commentator.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Rrobor, now here is something really worth fighting for.  Rather than wasting out time energy and money trying to reduce plant food and an essential gas for all life on this planet. 
This is truly disgusting.

----------


## autogenous

_If you believe the extremists, temporate rainforests are being clearfelled for the planting of ash forests, where in fact they produce a sapling of a sassafrass on the boundarys of an ash forest to support their arguments & then claim the whole area is a "temporate rainforest" They clearfell ash forests & replant ash forests. It would cost a lot of money to clearfell a rainforest with no return on the investment untill the ash forest matures for harvest, so who in their right mind is doing that? A= no one _ It has been found that lopping older trees for faster growing younger trees absorb more carbon.  
The end is nigh   Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective 
Im chasing plans for a 100ft wooden boat to build to house 2 of each animal.

----------


## rrobor

Sorry Rod however hard you try I aint going to be drawn into a pointless arguement that just keeps going. I did drop out a few times before and was silly enough to start again because of  graphs, and arguements like above, and the nonsense conclusions drawn. So as far as Im concerned this thread for me, is now closed.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Getting China to get their act together on pollution not exactly pointlees IMO. 
You could agree that that is a good idea!

----------


## Rod Dyson

BOMB SHELL 
Leaked Hadley data and emails. 
Could possibly blow the whole alarmist argument to pieces. Fudged data? Rorting of grants? :Rotfl:  
and a whole lot more. It is going to take a long time to make sense of all the information but you have got to say thanks to the whistleblower. :brava:   Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released « Watts Up With That? 
Now I wonder how long it will take the MSM to pick up on this.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Woodbe, here is your answer to how noble your scientist are. :Smilie:  From the Daily Telegragh! 
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing *how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process*. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority. “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !” 
These leaked emials from HCRUT certainly make for entertaining reading!!   Dam crooks.

----------


## Rod Dyson

From the leaked emails:   _From: Edward Cook, Date: 6/4/03 09:50 AM -0400_ _I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. (...) If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (...) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review - Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can. Please_   _From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009_ _I'm having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I've complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS_  _From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500_ _This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board..._  From: Tom Wigley, Date: 1/20/2005 04:30 PM _If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted._   _From: Tom Wigley, Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:17:29 -0600 Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too._  _ From: Benjamin D. Santer, Date: 19/03/2009 16:48 If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.  From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! _  
How much confidence do you have in Peer Review now?

----------


## Rod Dyson

For Woodbe, No greedy scientists here?  *Finantial practices*  From: Andrew Manning, Date: 06/10/2009 00:13 _is this another witch hunt (like Mann et al.)? How should I respond to the below? (I’m in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here in the UK – looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases – I thought we’d moved the debate beyond this, but seems that these sceptics are real die-hards!!).  From: Tatiana M. Dedkova, Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 09:41:07 +0500
Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible.  From: Mick Kelly, Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:17:15
NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN. How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn't make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven't spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious. Politically this money may have to go through Simon's institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!_ http://wattsupwiththat.com www.climateaudit.org

----------


## Rod Dyson

Nothing wrong here at all??  *Wrong data and practices*  From: Tom Wigley, Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700 _We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.  From: Kevin Trenberth, before Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:01:24 -0600 The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.  From: Michael Mann Date: 27/10/2009, 16:54
Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.  From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009 
In my 2 slides worth at Bethesda I will be showing London's UHI and the effect that it hasn't got any bigger since 1900. It's easy to do with 3 long time series  From: Darrell Kaufman, 
Regarding the "upside down man", as Nick's plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi series has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the calibration. Nonetheless, it's unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of the original work). It's weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature._

----------


## Rod Dyson

What hidden DATA?  *Hiding information*  From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500 _Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include._  _From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:18:24 -0400_ _Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to:_ _AD 1000_ _AD 1400_ _AD 1600_ _(...) But basically, you'll see that the residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd case--its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can't seem to dig them up. (...) p.s. I know I probably don't need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I'm providing these for your own personal use, since you're a trusted colleague. So please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things..._  _From: Phil Jones, Date:Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM_ _You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with._  _From: Phil Jones, Date: Mon Feb 9 09:23:43 2004_ _I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from individuals and not directly from Met Services through the Global Telecommunications Service (GTS) or through GCOS._  _From: Phil Jones, Date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:52 2008_ _Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond - advice they got from the Information Commissioner. (...) The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI - the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on._  _From: Phil Jones, Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:06 2005_ _If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them._  _Deleting the data  From: Phil Jones, Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005 The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated ! Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series ! Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH. The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate!  From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008 Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.    Wrongdoing  From: Phil Jones, Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005 I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !  From: Phil Jones, Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005
If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish.  From: Ben Santer, Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:56 -0700
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.  
Keeps getting better!_

----------


## Rod Dyson

Certainly makes interesting reading eh?  *Wrong data and practices*  From: Tom Wigley, Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700 _We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.  From: Kevin Trenberth, before Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:01:24 -0600 The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.  From: Michael Mann Date: 27/10/2009, 16:54
Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.  From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009 
In my 2 slides worth at Bethesda I will be showing London's UHI and the effect that it hasn't got any bigger since 1900. It's easy to do with 3 long time series  From: Darrell Kaufman, 
Regarding the "upside down man", as Nick's plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi series has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the calibration. Nonetheless, it's unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of the original work). It's weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature._   *Fixing the data*  From: Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 08:44:19 -0700 _I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.  From: Tom Wigley, Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these).   From: Gary Funkhouser, Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. (...) I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian.  From: Keith Briffa, Date: Wed Sep 22 16:19:06 1999
I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming.   From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:57 -0400
Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back--I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back   From: Phil Jones, Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 13:04:24 +0000
As all our (Mike, Tom and CRU) all show that the first few centuries of the millennium were cooler than the 20th century, we will come in for some flak from the skeptics saying we’re wrong because everyone knows it was warmer in the Medieval period. We can show why we believe we are correct with independent data from glacial advances and even slower responding proxies, however, what are the chances of putting together a group of a very few borhole series that are deep enough to get the last 1000 years. Basically trying to head off criticisms of the IPCC chapter, but good science in that we will be rewriting people’s perceived wisdom about the course of temperature change over the past millennium._

----------


## Rod Dyson

Certainly makes interesting reading eh?  *Wrong data and practices*  From: Tom Wigley, Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700 _We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming  and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important._  _From: Kevin Trenberth, before Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:01:24 -0600_ _The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate._  _From: Michael Mann Date: 27/10/2009, 16:54_ _Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations._  _From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009_  _In my 2 slides worth at Bethesda I will be showing London's UHI and the effect that it hasn't got any bigger since 1900. It's easy to do with 3 long time series_  _From: Darrell Kaufman,_  _Regarding the "upside down man", as Nick's plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi series has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the calibration. Nonetheless, it's unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of the original work). It's weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature._   *Fixing the data*  From: Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 08:44:19 -0700 _Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline._  _From: Tom Wigley, Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600_ _So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean  but wed still have to explain the land blip. Ive chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these)._   _From: Gary Funkhouser, Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700_ _I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. (...) I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian._  _From: Keith Briffa, Date: Wed Sep 22 16:19:06 1999_ _I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming._   _From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:57 -0400_ _Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back--I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back_   _From: Phil Jones, Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 13:04:24 +0000_ _As all our (Mike, Tom and CRU) all show that the first few centuries of the millennium were cooler than the 20th century, we will come in for some flak from the skeptics saying were wrong because everyone knows it was warmer in the Medieval period. We can show why we believe we are correct with independent data from glacial advances and even slower responding proxies, however, what are the chances of putting together a group of a very few borhole series that are deep enough to get the last 1000 years. Basically trying to head off criticisms of the IPCC chapter, but good science in that we will be rewriting peoples perceived wisdom about the course of temperature change over the past millennium._

----------


## Rod Dyson

I just heard on the grapevine that these leaked emails have pleased used car salesmen and lawyers no end. 
They are relieved that a lower life form has been found!

----------


## Dr Freud

I guess this means we no longer have to pay our climate debt at Copenhagen!   :2thumbsup:   *Nations to seek billions in 'climate debt'*  
                       From correspondents in Guatemala City
                                 November 21, 2009 01:38pm
The Adelaide Advertiser    *CENTRAL American nations will demand $US105 billion ($114.2 billion) from industrialised countries for damages caused by global warming, the region's representatives say.* 
 Central American environment ministers gathered in Guatemala overnight to discuss the so-called "ecological debt" owed to them and to set out a common position ahead of climate talks in Copenhagen next month. 
Guatemalan environment minister Luis Ferrate said the $US105 billion ($114.2 billion) price tag was "an estimate" of the damage done by climate change across 16 sectors in Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama.  
Ferrate minister said the region "had never faced" so much drought, aridity, flooding, and precarious food security.  
A formal proposal will be presented in Denmark, officials said.  
His Nicaraguan counterpart Juana Arguenal said that Central America would press industrialised countries to reach concrete decisions to reduce "greenhouse" gases at Copenhagen.  
"We hope for a deal that is ethical and moral," she said.  Imagine the eco-debt we could rack up when countries in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific Islands work out what we "owe" them.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Yep that makes me feel sick Doctor!

----------


## Allen James

I havent read this whole thread, but I wonder if anyone here has seen Lord Monckton talking about the Global Warming myth. This is a long video but a good one  well worth watching.  It goes for about an hour and 35 mins.  It sheds a lot of light on global warming lies.   [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&feature=channel"]YouTube - Updated with Slides - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul[/ame]

----------


## Rod Dyson

I find this one pretty entertaining LOL.  http://www.youtube.com/v/nEiLgbBGKVk..._embedded&fs=1

----------


## Allen James

> I find this one pretty entertaining LOL.  http://www.youtube.com/v/nEiLgbBGKVk..._embedded&fs=1

  Good one.   :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Well at least we have some smart Liberals.  But I am afraid it may all be lost. What a useless bit of legislation that will do NOTHING for the climate and cause nothing but grief.   
Turbull will be blamed in the future for letting this through I just hope they kick him out tomorrow.

----------


## dazzler

> I haven’t read this whole thread, but I wonder if anyone here has seen Lord Monckton talking about the Global Warming myth. This is a long video but a good one – well worth watching.  It goes for about an hour and 35 mins.  It sheds a lot of light on global warming lies.   YouTube - Updated with Slides - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul

  Well I managed to gave it a go.  Made it through to 32mins and just couldnt take it anymore. 
1.Haiti is starving because of systemic corruption and bad govt spanning generations and is in stark contrast to the dominican republic which shares its land mass. 
2. The spread of AIDS could not be halted by rounding up those infected and keeping them seperate.  By the time the seriousness of the illness was known the genie was well and truly out of the bottle.  There is no cure, so every person infected would be kept away from loved ones for years and years.  No democratic govt could possibly have implemented such as policy. 
3. Al Gores dvd cover.  For dogs sake, its a cover for a dvd, not a policy. 
Perhaps there is some serious information in the video later on but after seeing him mock the way someone speaks over and over, and based upon the above mentioned "lahs" by the presenter, I gave up.

----------


## chrisp

> Well at least we have some smart Liberals.

  And by implication your comment implies that "we have some stupid Liberals" too. 
The question is who are the "smart" ones and who are the "stupid" ones?  :Smilie:    :Arrow Up:   :Arrow Up:   :Arrow Up:   :Arrow Up:   :Arrow Up:   :Arrow Up:   :Arrow Up:   :Arrow Up:   :Arrow Up:

----------


## Allen James

> Well at least we have some smart Liberals. But I am afraid it may all be lost. What a useless bit of legislation that will do NOTHING for the climate and cause nothing but grief.

    

> Turbull will be blamed in the future for letting this through I just hope they kick him out tomorrow.

  Agreed Rod. I think it was great that Tony Abbott and others stood up to Turnbull. Conservatives need to keep the greenies at bay; not jump into bed with them.    

> Well I managed to gave it a go. Made it through to 32mins and just couldnt take it anymore.

    

> 1.Haiti is starving because of systemic corruption and bad govt spanning generations and is in stark contrast to the dominican republic which shares its land mass.  2. The spread of AIDS could not be halted by rounding up those infected and keeping them seperate. By the time the seriousness of the illness was known the genie was well and truly out of the bottle. There is no cure, so every person infected would be kept away from loved ones for years and years. No democratic govt could possibly have implemented such as policy.  3. Al Gores dvd cover. For dogs sake, its a cover for a dvd, not a policy.  Perhaps there is some serious information in the video later on but after seeing him mock the way someone speaks over and over, and based upon the above mentioned "lahs" by the presenter, I gave up.

  I thought you must have seen a different video, so I quickly checked the first five minutes of Lord Lord Moncktons speech, during which I saw him cover quite a few topics, including:  _How the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will not call a spade a spade; how richer countries keep a cleaner environment; how if you go to the former Soviet Union, or China, India, much of Africa and parts of South America, the filth and pollution are indescribable because the poverty is monstrous; how since we obviously all want a clean environment it is important that we do not waste money, effort, time or resources on non problems, such as global warming; how the seeker after truth does not put his trust in any old consensus: he questions it, and submits his learning from it to reason and demonstration; how scientists seek after truth, and the scientific method versus mythmaking._  That was just the first five minutes, and it was only a warm up, so your summary of the first 35 minutes was woefully incorrect (IMHO). You cherry-picked a couple of points you disagreed with, but failed to explain why you disagreed with them, and ignored all the best points made.  Just a little edit - watson

----------


## Rod Dyson

> And by implication your comment implies that "we have some stupid Liberals" too. 
> The question is who are the "smart" ones and who are the "stupid" ones?

  You bet there are some dumb Liberals Turnbull is one of them. 
Labour are not allowed to voice and opinion or they are expelled from the party. I know what I would prefer. How about you?

----------


## rrobor

Broke my rule but so be it. Rabbles dont win elections. the Liberals are a rabble. Abbot can not lead as he has too many hangups with religion which will destroy him. His girlfriends child also makes him look like a mug.  Hockey is a choice but he is a head kicker, I dont think he has enough to pull it off. Emission trading, global warming, call it what you may, gets the city vote. The country, not so much. The Liberals,  if they want to govern have got to take that into account. At the moment the Liberals are being driven by the Nationals  and yokels. They are not a viable opposition. That to me is an insult to Australia, an opposition must get its act together and be a viable alternative government, these clowns are not.

----------


## chrisp

> You bet there are some dumb Liberals Turnbull is one of them.

  It seems they have carefully placed themselves between a rock and a hard place. 
Leadership issues aside, IMHO the Liberals need to come to grips with GW and their response to it.  Until they do so, they can elect all the leaders they like, but the party will remain divided and unstable. 
So they either accept GW (like the majority of the rest of the world) and get on with sensible response.  This is the Turnbull position.  Or they, IMHO, become GW deniers and are seen to be out of touch with the majority of the rest of the world - the position taken by your "smart" ones.  I'm sure there is a political position for a GW denier's party but it won't win elections (IMHO).  
It seems to me (an implied "IMHO") that the only real alternative to Turnbull is Hockey and Hockey seems to be holding back so that Turnbull can do the inevitable "dirty work" (i.e. be seen to do something on the GW front) before he is prepared to step up. 
I think politically Turnbull is on the right track - to do nothing would be political suicide come the next election.  However, maybe he could have handled it a lot better than he has. 
Maybe the "smart" Liberals should resign from the Liberal Party and join the Nationals.

----------


## Allen James

> …the Liberals need to come to grips with GW and their response to it. Until they do so, they can elect all the leaders they like, but the party will remain divided and unstable.

  There is division in all parties for good reason. Thinking people have different opinions. Throwing away independent thinking to become a flock of sheep is not good advice for any political party. As Rod pointed out, Labour members face expulsion from the party if they voice differing opinions. The fact that Abbott and others have made a stand against the global warming myth shows their party is dynamic an independent. Abbott’s stand shows me he is probably the best choice to lead the party.     

> So they either accept GW (like the rest of the world)

  The rest of the world have not accepted Global Warming. Indeed, the majority of scientists reject it as a myth. Many hundreds of millions of ordinary people see it as a myth as well, so the world is far from ‘accepting’ this. Google "global warming is a myth" and see almost five million responses from around the world you say accepts it.  +"global warming is a myth" - Google Search     

> Or they become GW deniers and are seen to be out of touch with the rest of the world

  Nonsense. You don’t accept some mystical superstition just because it has become fashionable with millions of drongos. You reject it, regardless of what voters think, if you have any scruples. Following your logic, the Liberal Party should agree to legalise human sacrifice to the Sun God, as long as enough yobbos think it is the right thing to do. No thanks. Independent, intelligent thinking and standing up for what is right are what count; not mindlessly following a mob of halfwits with their latest religious cult.

----------


## rrobor

A politician is a public servant it is his duty as such to abide by the wishes of the majority and not as you say. "You reject it, regardless of what voters think, if you have any scruples." If that is your opinion, stay out of politics. That is dictatorshiip and thankfully not adhered to in Australia

----------


## watson

Hrrumph!!
There needs to be a little *(IMHO)* inserted into a few of the last posts...just stops members playing the man and not the Ball.

----------


## chrisp

> Indeed, the majority of scientists reject it as a myth.

  I'm not sure where you got that statement from?   
I suppose you assume that somehow the IPCC has got it all wrong?  And perhaps the US and Chinese governments are jumping at shadows?  In my view, governments are generally very cautious and measured in their responses.  Major governments usually don't take action on such issues lightly - they are well advised and well informed. 
Anyway, I don't intend to change your views on GW.  You are entitled to believe whatever you want. 
Rod opened up the political genie in this thread - and the moderators let it stand (much to my surprise) - so I thought I'd respond.  :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

> I'm not sure where you got that statement from?

   Its pretty clear the UN cherry pick their scientific opinions from a minority of yes men. Most of the worlds scientists are not consulted, and believe GW to be a hoax. You may start with the worlds most eminent scientists:  climate science: EMINENT SCIENTISTS WHO DISAGREE WITH THE CO2 GW THEORY      

> I suppose you assume that somehow the IPCC has got it all wrong?

   Id say so, yes. The IPCC is run by the UN, and the Global Warming myth helps them gain more power. Lord Monckton discusses the way they blatantly make up facts, in that video I pointed to on the last page:   [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&feature=channel]YouTube - Updated with Slides - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul[/ame]      

> And perhaps the US and Chinese governments are jumping at shadows?

   It would suit China if their industrial competitors in the West were crippled through pointless and destructive UN rules. Obama and the Democrats adore the Global Warming Myth for the same reason the UN does. It provides them more power.     

> In my view, governments are generally very cautious and measured in their responses. Major governments usually don't take action on such issues lightly - they are well advised and well informed.

   Indeed they often are. On the other hand one can find many examples of governments being misinformed. Take the Labour Party in England before WWII, who denounced Churchill as a crazy warmonger for suggesting that Hitler was preparing to start a war. With the help of left winged newspapers like the Times, they hurled abuse and ad hominem at Churchill for years, and were dead wrong all that time. Their belief that there was no need to prepare for war was as misinformed as their belief today that mankind is causing global warming.     

> Anyway, I don't intend to change your views on GW.

   To do that you would need evidence  something the UN and Gore have not provided.      

> You are entitled to believe whatever you want.

   Im entitled to be right, too.   :Biggrin:      

> Rod opened up the political genie in this thread - and the moderators let it stand (much to my surprise)

   Huh?  :Confused:   Nearly all folk talk about political policy making, especially the kind that will have grave repercussions on their wages or businesses.

----------


## rrobor

This is the worst about what has happened to global warming, it becomes a political football. The last post for example refers to Churchill being screamesd at by labour. Now that shows bias. The party in power was the Tories,  the Prime minister,  Neville Chamberlan.  He is famed for the statement "peace in our time". Whoever heard of lord Mockton before this,  could be Lord Lucan in disguise for all I know. Why is his view paramount and others are inferior. Why not tell us about Bush and weapons of mass destruction, what the found were a few damp squibs. As to Destroying industry, again a farse. Industries will grow in a different direction. How can we take the risk of not cleaning up our act , if wrong all that happens is the planet is a cleaner place, if correct then we may save a catastrophy.

----------


## chrisp

> It’s pretty clear the UN cherry pick their scientific opinions from a minority of yes men. Most of the world’s scientists are not consulted, and believe GW to be a hoax. You may start with the world’s most eminent scientists:  climate science: EMINENT SCIENTISTS WHO DISAGREE WITH THE CO2 GW THEORY

  It's an interesting (non comprehensive) list of 16.  The Internet is fun for finding "facts", here is a list of (considerably more than 16) scientists that support creationism:    List of scientists who support creationism - RationalWiki  
Note: I'm not vouching for the accuracy of the list, I'm just illustrating that it is easy to find supporters for just about any position one would like to hold.  I'm sure you could even find a supporter for the idea of segregating people with diseases - oops, I see you already have!  (Please excuse my cheap shot  :Smilie:  )   

> I’d say so, yes. The IPCC is run by the UN, and the Global Warming myth helps them gain more power. Lord Monckton discusses the way they blatantly make up ‘facts’, in that video I pointed to on the last page:   YouTube - Updated with Slides - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul

  yer, yer, him again.  RealClimate: Once more unto the bray 
If you ask me who I'd believe, the IPCC or Monckton, I'd side with the IPCC.   

> It would suit China if their industrial competitors in the West were crippled through pointless and destructive UN rules. Obama and the Democrats adore the Global Warming Myth for the same reason the UN does. It provides them more power.

  Oh, the conspiracy theory.     

> Indeed they often are. On the other hand one can find many examples of governments being misinformed. Take the Labour Party in England before WWII, who denounced Churchill as a crazy warmonger for suggesting that Hitler was preparing to start a war. With the help of left winged newspapers like the Times, they hurled abuse and ad hominem at Churchill for years, and were dead wrong all that time. Their belief that there was no need to prepare for war was as misinformed as their belief today that mankind is causing global warming.

  I'll take your point even if it is a little inaccurate according to rrobor.  Governments can be a self serving sometimes. 
I doubt that governments are implementing GHG reduction policies for financial profit.  It's going to cost us all dearly (maybe a point on which we agree).  I can't see any government rushing into carbon taxes (in whatever shape or form) unless they were convinced that GW is real - or that the majority of their voters think it is real.   

> Huh?   Nearly all folk talk about political policy making, especially the kind that will have grave repercussions on their wages or businesses.

  Rod offered the "smart Liberals" comment.  This is the comment I referred to as letting the genie out of the bottle. 
As an aside, speaking of "grave repercussions on their wages or business", do you believe in peak oil?  Did you know that China is investing heavily in manufacturing electric vehicles?  As I recall from a recent conference, China is setting out to be the largest electric vehicle manufacturer in the world.  There are other manufacturers setting out in the electric vehicle route too.  The world will move on from fossil fuels to more sustainable alternatives.  I'd much prefer that we had a government that embraced new, cleaner, technologies than one that waited-to-see-what-others-do-first before acting.  I suspect China is a sleeping giant who will have a major influence on world economics in the future. 
Anyway, discussion is good - if not futile.  Each to their own. 
For the record, I do hope you are right about GW being a myth, but the major credible scientific view is that GW is probably happening.  I say, prepare for the worst and hope for the best. 
Image a world that isn't dependent upon oil or other fossil fuels - and image the change in world politics an oil-independence would bring (think of the cause of wars and tensions in the world).  If GW concerns (regardless of whether true or false) speed up development of an oil-independent world, then what is to be lost?  Perhaps all that will be lost is a little short term gain for a long term benefit.

----------


## Allen James

> It's an interesting (non comprehensive) list of 16.

   As explained, it was a list of *eminent* scientists. For instance, Id say Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowskis opinion, that the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false," is important since he is a world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research. You would apparently say that the opinion of a professor in IT at LaTrobe University carries equal weight. I disagree. I would prefer expert views over inexpert views, especially when it comes to an emotional cult such as this. An IT professor can be just as wrong about GW as a 15 year old plumbing apprentice.  Here is another list of (relevantly schooled) scientists opposed to (man-made) Global Warming:   List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia       

> Oh, the conspiracy theory.

   Hah  thats rich, from someone who believes the biggest conspiracy theory going  Global Warming!  Global warming conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia      

> I'll take your point even if it is a little inaccurate according to rrobor. Governments can be a self serving sometimes.

   rrobor failed to show how my statement regarding Churchill was inaccurate, because it was quite accurate.      

> I doubt that governments are implementing GHG reduction policies for financial profit.

   Did I mention governments making a profit? I said it would provide them more power, as it will.   Ill address your other points later, when I have more time.

----------


## rrobor

From memory of my history. Churchill was sent to the back benches of the Tory party, and howeled down by his own party. You failed to mention that, because as someone else stated, "Its an inconvenient truth" . This shows you are biasing all views to the right or ultra right. You will continue to show errors from the left, but none from the right .
As such, you are fighting on two fronts, Global warming and right wing politics. As you will find most denialists are.
   What is in Wikipedia is not necessarily correct, Wikipedia is created by people posting in. My son has an entry in that, sorry to say as to some drink or other.
Your doctor Jabber guy well I googled him and first thing I found was he fudged numbers Easter on Jaworowski and CO2 : Deltoid
So its easy to find people for their own reasons playing silly buggers.

----------


## Allen James

Some other points I missed:    

> The Internet is fun for finding "facts", here is a list of (considerably more than 16) scientists that support creationism: .

   According to Richard Dawkins about 10% of scientists support creationism; 90% do not, but, as Dawkins says, it is impossible to prove God does not exist, just as it is impossible to prove the flying spaghetti monster does not exist. By contrast, the Global Warming theory has no such exit clause, as it is not supposed to be a religion (though it almost is). It must exist according to verifiable proof and evidence, and so far that has not been provided.     

> I'm just illustrating that it is easy to find supporters for just about any position one would like to hold.

   Discounting the list of 16 eminent scientists as “fun on the internet” or “finding any position you like online” is a Straw Man fallacy, as their views can be verified online quite easily. A simple search for each one will show which side they are on. For instance, the first person in the list of 16 eminent scientists is Dr. Edward Wegman - former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences - who demolished the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic. I verified that with a quick search. While doing that I saw the following video about the recent controversy about hacked CRU emails, in which a Dr. Tim Ball was interviewed.  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUGP7GnCZtU&feature=related"]YouTube- Climate Change Corruption, Hacked CRU Emails: Dr Tim Ball[/ame]   In the first two minutes you’ll hear him bring up Wegman. He explains how the ‘peer review’ approach was used in an underhanded way to try and neutralize Wegman’s hockey stick commentary. This isn’t ‘having fun on the internet’. It’s collecting information, and verifying it.  A quick search for any of the names on the eminent scientist list will verify the truth or not of the original claim. If you find any mistakes let us know.     

> I'm sure you could even find a supporter for the idea of segregating people with diseases - oops, I see you already have!

   When dangerous contagious diseases begin, they are often ‘contained’ by isolating carriers of the disease. Regardless, Monckton’s views on disease control have nothing to do with his knowledge concerning Global Warming, so this is just a simple logical fallacy      

> If you ask me who I'd believe, the IPCC or Monckton, I'd side with the IPCC.

   The IPCC is the UN, and it appears you happily side with them over the world’s most eminent scientists, regardless of the scandals now rocking Global Warming mythmakers.     

> Rod offered the "smart Liberals" comment. This is the comment I referred to as letting the genie out of the bottle.

   I don’t see any genie. Commenting on smart liberals, because they are sensible enough to stand up against a myth, is what I would expect from anyone in a discussion about the same.     

> As an aside, speaking of "grave repercussions on their wages or business", do you believe in peak oil?

   I believe in the law of supply and demand. As oil goes up in price, a market for alternatives will grow, eventually replacing current industries. That will happen without any input from greenies, who will pretend they are responsible.     

> I'd much prefer that we had a government that embraced new, cleaner, technologies

   Private enterprise will take care of that. Government involvement will only make the process ten times more costly and slow it down considerably.     

> the major credible scientific view is that GW is probably happening.

   First I am referring to the myth that any global warming is man made, but aside from that, global warming is not happening artificially or naturally, at this time. The ‘creditable’ scientific view you speak of is not creditable. Do yourself a favour and Google some of the scientists I listed, and read something worthwhile instead of leftist UN mumbo jumbo.     

> I say, prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

   No thanks, because subscribing to GW will mean paying for it big time, as politicians muckrake our lives about with gay abandon, interfering in businesses, jobs, products and technology they have no business being involved in at all.

----------


## rrobor

I think you are asking for this thread to be shut down.  how dare you bing a subject like diseases into this and what our views on that are. You were warned before to stick to the thread and not play the man. please do so.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Maybe the "smart" Liberals should resign from the Liberal Party and join the Nationals.

  I agree this is exactly what they need to do. 
If Turnbul has his way the Liberals are sunk.  The AGW theory is unravelling at a rapid pace with the climategate scandal being the final nail in the coffin.  Public acceptance of the science is forever tainted. 
Anyone political party proposing or supporting an ETS, that even if the claims on AGW were true would do NOTHING to change temperatures, will be ridiculed for ever and a day. 
If Turnbul wins the true conservatives of the Liberal party will be better off quitting the Liberal party and forming a new party with the Nationals in coalition with the remnants of the current Liberal party.  
This is the only way disgruntled Liberal voters will be able to vote for a conservative party in future elections.  For I will NEVER vote for a Political party that supports an ETS in any form whatsoever. 
BTW Welcome back Rrobor

----------


## rrobor

I didnt come back willingly, I got fed up with the fuzzy logic and the posts of some individual making speeches. I got fed up with the right wing element saying, " Look here is a man who can prove you are a moron".
 I got fed up with the sleight of hand. 
Dont know who you will vote for Rod, but in Melbourne and Sydney if you dont address global warming, you will not have support. Turnbull did an interview with Laurie Oaks this morning and he is correct, without some form of address to the issue the liberals will be out for 10 years or more. If they force Rudd to a double dissolution now, they will be decimated,  if you think that is a good thing, I do not.  Slightly edited : watson

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I think you are asking for this thread to be shut down. how dare you bing a subject like diseases into this and what our views on that are. You were warned before to stick to the thread and not play the man. please do so.

  Relax Rrobor no one is going to shut down the thread while we are exchanging views any posts that are personal attacks should be deleted but not the thread closed.

----------


## watson

> Relax Rrobor no one is going to shut down the thread while we are exchanging views any posts that are personal attacks should be deleted but not the thread closed.

  Thanks Rod,
This is my take on it.
Normally..........Sex,  Politics and Religion are out.
But in this case, the views debated here are more important than the politics. 
This is your Forum, and within the rules of decorum........state your case. 
Carry on.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Thank You Watson, Please make sure any personal attacks are deleted so we can carry on debating the issues. 
Cheers Rod

----------


## watson

Go For it.

----------


## rrobor

There was no personal attack Rod, to me the insult was greater than that . Almost 900 years ago our system was laid down in the Magna Carta since then men have refined it by means of war and all sorts to get to the stage we are now. You and I am sure could argue poliitics till the cows come home, but Im sure neither of us would attack our system, 
  Im sure you would not state a politician should ignore the people he represents or give a back handed way of calling people morons who disagree.
 But I disagree with you in that posts like that should be deleted, they should be left as a reminder of how easy it is  to become confused and believe that your pet issue is more important than the 900 years of refinement to our system of democracy.

----------


## Rod Dyson

The wishes of people change as circumstances change. The politicians need to change their views when circumstances change. It is no good being pig headed like Turnbull is on this issue. People are waking up to AGW. Climategate has turned many fence sitters, they now want us to wait untill the fall out from this is settled. There is no doubt there has been some very funny business going on in the IPCC and CRU.  
I have no doubt that Turnbull is sincere in his belief that AGW is going to destroy the world. But this belief is at best miss guided and worst plain wrong. He has placed his faith in these crooked scientists at CRU and the IPCC and painted himself into a corner. A really bad place for a politician to be. 
The rest of the party are being a bit more pragmatic about the issue and see there is a real need for Australia to wait. This is the right thing to do and if it splits the Liberal party so be it. 
If you haven't read all those emails I post please do so and I would like to hear what your take is on them.  A leading science writer that is firmly in the AGW camp are calling for the resignation of Jones at CRU read it here. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009...nigs-carbonic/

----------


## rrobor

As I stated before, for every scientist you find saying no, I can find one saying yes. If you wish Ill find a scientist saying there is no proof between tobacco and cancer.  So no, I wont read that. There are no governments in the world in denial of climate change.  Even the Chinese are coming in. So all these politicians have been hoodwinked by a few crooked scientists, for what reason. Now I have heard a few good conspiricy theories, but boy this ones a biggie. Sorry Rod but I can not believe you believe that.  A political agenda to destroy a government you dont like , yes,  but the world in some sort of conspiricy against CO2 man thats hard to swallow.

----------


## Rod Dyson

I have never mentioned a conspiricy. It is not a conspiricy that there will be a trasnfer of wealth from developed nations to undeveloped nations disguies as "carbon debt" that is true. No conspiricy about it.  
But can you find scientist that have fudged the data to "hide the decline"? Or threaten to change the peer review process to keep unfavorable reports out of the IPCC? Or get editors sacked from a scientific journal because they published a "skeptic" paper?  
This is not a conspiricy theory this is FACT by their own admission.  
The Chinese are comming on are they? Do you know what they put on the table to placate a few countries with a token? 20% reduction of future emission based on current emmisions PER ECCONOMIC UNIT!! Describe economic unit for me?  
Does this really tell you they are committed to reducing emmisions?  
A few crooked scientists just happen to be the BIG wheels of the AGW movement they are the holders and makers of the temperature record that the entire IPCC summary was based on!!!! 
LOL a few crooked scientist as if they only come from the university of nowhere country and don't mean nothing in the context of AGW science.  
These guys ARE the AGW science. Fob it off if you like but the truth WILL come out. ASK them why they did it I have no idea. 
The tobacco analogy has ZERO revelence in the AGW debate it really is a wasted argument.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So no, I wont read that.

  Now that is what you call REAL DENIAL.  
At least I read what the warmers write.

----------


## chrisp

Just some comments - please add an "IMHO" to all of these: 
I find it astonishing and somewhat amusing that the (man made) GW/CC deniers claim there is some sort of conspiracy going on in the scientific world.   
If there is any conspiracy going on, maybe it might be from the carbon side - the ones who stand to lose the most?  I recall the tobacco industry fought tooth and nail to produce "evidence" that smoking and cancer may not be connected.  I seem to recall that the original evidence that smoking causes cancer was statistical - and that the tobacco industry claimed to they were blue in the face that it wasn't a definite causal link between to two. 
On a general note, I find it is utterly disrespectful the claim that the general scientific community has somehow been corrupted - and by the UN.  I take it that those who believe so have had very little to do with the scientific community?  BTW, the IPCC isn't a research organisation, rather it reviews and summarises research published in the scientific literature. 
Also, as much as we might disagree with politicians, I can assure you that they are not stupid.  One does not get elected to public office without considerable diplomacy and intellect.  This, of course, doesn't mean we necessarily agree with their views or what they stand for.  I can't quote a reference now (as it was too long ago), but I do recall reading that politicians are (likely to be) in the top 1% of the general population for IQ.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I find it is utterly disrespectful the claim that the general scientific community has somehow been corrupted

  I am speachless!! 
You obviously are in the denial camp as well and will not read the self evident emails.  
What can I say Chrisp I guess people that DO read them will form their own opinion and reach their own conclusion. Those that don't will continue to DENY there is a problem. 
This just gets better and better. 
Oh just one point. No one is saying the "general" Scientific community is corrupt. Just the few at the top of heap thats all. The others simply believed them in good faith. See every thing about AGW stems from their crooked research, take that as true and the rest follows.

----------


## rrobor

The highest standard ofd living is in the scandanavian countries and they are embracing climate change. They are pumping the waste from oil refinaries int deep spent oil fields, they are creating new technology. 
No one is going to give money away in carbon trading, Put a solar panel on your roof and sell power to the grid, thats carbon trading, build a wind generator, thats carbon trading. Farmers in the USA were returning the waste from food processers to the land and getting paid to do so. Pig muck creating methane, I could go on and on. There are so many possibilities for new industries. We are not going to chuck money away, its finding new industries and cleaner ways. Believing that its the bogey man is false, its just another challenge and those that are smart will win, those that shiver in the cornerr crying woo we are doomed, will be. To Chrisp and pollies, sorry it aint necesseraly so. I seem to reember a chip shop lady got in I believe in Queensland, Her intelect and the spuds she cooked I believe were on parr.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Also, as much as we might disagree with politicians, I can assure you that they are not stupid. One does not get elected to public office without considerable diplomacy and intellect. This, of course, doesn't mean we necessarily agree with their views or what they stand for. I can't quote a reference now (as it was too long ago), but I do recall reading that politicians are (likely to be) in the top 1% of the general population for IQ.

  Nobody is questioning the intelligence of a politician, I know some very intelligent people that are as dumb as dog @#&#  
Intelligence does not mean smart, it does not mean honest, it does not mean honorable.   
It is an incredible leap of faith to believe that just because a person may be intelligent,  what they see as, "in our best interest" is actually in our best interest.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The highest standard ofd living is in the scandanavian countries and they are embracing climate change. They are pumping the waste from oil refinaries int deep spent oil fields, they are creating new technology. 
> No one is going to give money away in carbon trading, Put a solar panel on your roof and sell power to the grid, thats carbon trading, build a wind generator, thats carbon trading. Farmers in the USA were returning the waste from food processers to the land and getting paid to do so. Pig muck creating methane, I could go on and on. There are so many possibilities for new industries. We are not going to chuck money away, its finding new industries and cleaner ways. Believing that its the bogey man is false, its just another challenge and those that are smart will win, those that shiver in the cornerr crying woo we are doomed, will be. To Crisp and pollies, sorry it aint necesseraly so. I seem to reember a chip shop lady got in I believe in Queensland, Her intelect and the spuds she cooked I believe were on parr.

  Rrobor if all these things are done without taxpayer subsidies and without tax payer penalty and they stand up as a finacial benefit on their own, I do not have a problem with any of that.   
We do not need to pay a "carbon debt" to other countries to achieve cleaner energy in our country.   
If someone wants to pay more for electricity because it is cleaner, let them but don't ask me to subsidise it.  If they generate it at the same cost of coal without subsidies, hell even I will buy it. 
Create all the new technology you want, let me choose if I want to buy it or not  :2thumbsup: . 
You seem to miss the point.

----------


## chrisp

> To Crisp and pollies, sorry it aint necesseraly so. I seem to reember a chip shop lady got in I believe in Queensland, Her intelect and the spuds she cooked I believe were on parr.

  I did put a "disclaimer" in the brackets to cover her and one or two others  :Smilie:

----------


## rrobor

I dont miss the point as you say. Tax as far as a country goes is moving money from one pocket to another. There is no gain or loss. A massive dredge doesnt pay tax or need its wall plastered, people do. There are few people working creating your electricity. So believe it or not you probably pay more tax to support the unemployed. Your view  needs to broaden and see all the facets of the problem, not just the simple elements.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I dont miss the point as you say. Tax as far as a country goes is moving money from one pocket to another. There is no gain or loss. A massive dredge doesnt pay tax or need its wall plastered, people do. There are few people working creating your electricity. So believe it or not you probably pay more tax to support the unemployed. Your view needs to broaden and see all the facets of the problem, not just the simple elements.

  7 billion of money that could be better spent on our hospitals and schools to pay a climate debt for a problem that is not a problem is not a very simple element. 
You seem to trivialize things to make them seem less important as if to say it doesn't matter if it is right or wrong.  Well it does matter! 
I used to do card tricks at parties, to make slieght of hand work you had to divert attention, you are doing nicely.   
Well thats it for me tonight playing golf at Royal Melbourne early tomorrow.

----------


## rrobor

Trivialise things, what things. 7 billion bucks was spent, not to do anything about global warming but to keep our economy afloat when Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae went belly up because George wanted to find weapons of mass destruction. 
     USA economy is still in bad shape due to the ultra right not wanting to pay tax but still wanting to rule the world. That is your example of how tax works. You dont plaster the houses of the unemployed,  USA has the ultra rich and a mass of poor. A sneeze and their economies in the toilet. Scandinavia has the highest standard of living and the highest social services plus a low crime rate. take your pick.

----------


## dazzler

> Agreed Rod. I think it was great that Tony Abbott and others stood up to Turnbull. Conservatives need to keep the greenies at bay; not jump into bed with them.   I thought you must have seen a different video, so I quickly checked the first five minutes of Lord Lord Monckton’s speech, during which I saw him cover quite a few topics, including:  _How the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will not call a spade a spade; how richer countries keep a cleaner environment; how if you go to the former Soviet Union, or China, India, much of Africa and parts of South America, the filth and pollution are indescribable because the poverty is monstrous; how since we obviously all want a clean environment it is important that we do not waste money, effort, time or resources on non problems, such as global warming; how ‘the seeker after truth does not put his trust in any old consensus: he questions it, and submits his learning from it to reason and demonstration’; how scientists seek after truth, and the scientific method versus mythmaking._  That was just the first five minutes, and it was only a warm up, so your summary of the first 35 minutes was woefully incorrect (IMHO). You cherry-picked a couple of points you disagreed with, but failed to explain why you disagreed with them, and ignored all the best points made.  Just a little edit - watson

  Hi Allen.  Yeah, there may have been some good stuff in there that may have been very accurate.  But, and its a big one, if the speaker tells me things that I know to be crap then I consider what else he said to be just as dubious. 
So give me some bloomin credit for giving your little video a go. After 35 minutes I had had enough of him.  He may well hold the holy grail to show that climate change is a load of rubbish, but he can learn some manners and stick to the truth before I will be hitching my horses to his little cart.   
So next time I will cherry pick the bits you like and ignore the lahs and rubbish that he speaks, then you will be happy.  Be very careful that you dont become just as blinded as those who have drunk the coolaid.

----------


## Allen James

> if the speaker tells me things that I know to be crap then I consider what else he said to be just as dubious.

   I didnt refer you to Moncktons video to comment on his view about aids, but about his views about the global warming swindle, and I made that perfectly clear. If a great football coach made a video about why a certain team was doing well, and I referred you to it, I would expect you to pay attention to what he said about football. Perhaps he might make a an off-the-cuff remark about supporting the liberal party. If you spat the dummy because of that off-the-cuff remark, and dismissed everything he said about football, then I would say you missed the point I was referring to in the first place. My endorsements of Moncktons views about the Global Warming myth have nothing to do with his opinions about aids, or about his imitation of Al Gore.     

> So give me some bloomin credit for giving your little video a go.

   Giving it a go would mean watching it and debating him on his global warming points, instead of cherry picking irrelevant points and dismissing his whole video on that basis, without watching it. Hey, all film reviewers need constructive advice, so don't sweat it.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## rrobor

Ok, lets look at this Moncton guy, what is his claim to fame. 
He was science advisor to the Thatcher government.   Now Thatcher did such a good job that she destroyed her party, it splintered into factions and has been in opposition since.   I hope you notice the similarity.   Moncton has been irrelevant since1990. This is now his "moment in the sun"    Letting out all his bile and bias. He is a sad old fart who should have known better.

----------


## dazzler

> I didn’t refer you to Monckton’s video to comment on his view about aids, but about his views about the global warming swindle, and I made that perfectly clear. If a great football coach made a video about why a certain team was doing well, and I referred you to it, I would expect you to pay attention to what he said about football. Perhaps he might make a an off-the-cuff remark about supporting the liberal party. If you spat the dummy because of that off-the-cuff remark, and dismissed everything he said about football, then I would say you missed the point I was referring to in the first place. My endorsements of Monckton’s views about the Global Warming myth have nothing to do with his opinions about aids, or about his imitation of Al Gore.    Giving it a go would mean watching it and debating him on his global warming points, instead of cherry picking irrelevant points and dismissing his whole video on that basis, without watching it. Hey, all film reviewers need constructive advice, so don't sweat it.

  So why put the irrelevant points in in the first place?  I am not dismissing his video, just not prepared to put anymore of my time into listening to him based upon the mistakes he has already made.  And I only picked a couple of his mistakes.  I didnt worry about the rubbish he spun about first world environments being cleaner than second world ones.  The first world exports their rubbish and pollutants throughout the world and our streets look nice because we pay people to clean them up.  So the fact that our streets are clean doesnt negate the fact that we pollute the world and inflict this upon people who cant do anything about it.  Calcutta could be clean and tidy if we paid for a garbage service. 
And dont think for a minute that I accept the same crap from the believers.   
This thread is very reflective of much of the attitude surrounding the debate.  You have people on both sides with such intrenched viewpoints and attitudes that their message is lost in the vitriol and mocking that takes place.  Lord Smug and Al Gore are both the same, just at opposite ends, and Gore is more refined.  They, like many on this forum, dig a trench, cover their ears and throw grenades at each other. 
So we dont go around in circles here is my viewpoint. 
Since the industrial revolution we have changed the atmosphere.  We have cut down a huge percentage of our carbon dioxide soaking forests and then added billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide by burning coal and oil.  The CO2 level has risen markedly since this time (and this is not debatable it is a fact).  So we have changed the atmosphere from what it was. 
The issue for me is whether that can be a good thing, a bad thing or mean nothing at all. 
My decision is that it is none of the above but that it is not 'normal' as we have changed the little world we live in. It could be a good thing perhaps. 
But I dont think we have the right to continue to change the CO2 level until we know exactly how that will affect us, good or bad.  This is exactly opposite to those who say that there is insufficient evidence to support the scientific claims so they do nothing and are happy to put the futures of their children at risk.   
I am over looking at graphs from both sides of the fence as IMO they are both corrupted and the truth is probably scattered amongst the rubbish put out by both sides.  My truth meter is slightly swayed towards believing the real scientists, not the political ones, in that we are affecting the climate, once again because of my own beliefs that increasing the CO2 level to the same extent that existed (checked through ice cores and sediment) during the carboniferous period when there were no glaciers or ice packs is probably not a good thing.  I cant prove it is not a good thing, I just dont feel it can be a good thing and when I look at my children I dont want to risk their future. 
As to the ETS, its rubbish and simply a political vehicle to make the politicians look like they have done something on climate change and makes the majority of the population think the problem is fixed.  It is not only stupid but dangerous as it is worse than doing nothing.

----------


## Allen James

> Nobody is questioning the intelligence of a politician, I know some very intelligent people that are as dumb as dog @#&#  
> Intelligence does not mean smart, it does not mean honest, it does not mean honorable.  
> It is an incredible leap of faith to believe that just because a person may be intelligent, what they see as, "in our best interest" is actually in our best interest.

  Well said, Rod. Hope the golf is going well. 
In the meantime:  From The Sunday Times November 29, 2009  *Climate change data dumped* Excerpts:  _SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based._  _It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years._ … _The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data._ _In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”_  See the whole article here: Climate change data dumped - Times Online  It appears the global warming con artists are destroying incriminating evidence and making paltry excuses. How transparent can they be?  :Biggrin:   
Dazzler - I'll have to get back to you later bro - gotta rush.

----------


## chrisp

> It is an incredible leap of faith to believe that just because a person may be intelligent,  what they see as, "in our best interest" is actually in our best interest.

  Who made the "incredible leap of faith"?  I didn't. 
I was making a counter point.  You seem to be asserting that the GW believers are either misguided, corrupt, wrong, stupid (inferred from the "smart" comment), part of a worldwide conspiracy, etc. 
I was pointing out maybe not everyone who disagrees with you is misguided, corrupt, wrong, stupid (inferred from the "smart" comment), part of a worldwide conspiracy, etc.  To the contrary, I was pointing out that most scientists and politicians are pretty bright folk (there are exceptions of course).

----------


## Allen James

> So why put the irrelevant points in in the first place?

   Id say because it is a free world  in the West anyway. If Lord Monckton wishes to make a presentation about the global warming myth, with a couple of side issues thrown in for fun, he is free to do so. If the points he makes about global warming are excellent, the video will no doubt be pointed to by people debating that subject. If you addressed his global warming points you would be relevant. A common way to malign a good argument is to nitpick about side issues, and move the argument off topic. But look at his hairstyle! Im not listening to someone with a hairstyle like that! Its a common logical fallacy.    When James Randi offered a million dollars to various psychics if they could pass a controlled test to prove their claims, they all came out with lame excuses for not accepting the challenge. One of them even said, Would I allow myself to be tested by someone who has an adjective as a first name? Here is the video  its about the 2 minute mark:  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F26d0ouvDI"]YouTube - Psychics Respond to James Randi[/ame]   The rest of the video shows other psychics making lame excuses. I suppose youll watch one minute of it and then say you cant watch anymore because of Randis beard.  :Wink:       

> I didnt worry about the rubbish he spun about first world environments being cleaner than second world ones. The first world exports their rubbish and pollutants throughout the world

   Really? My rubbish goes down the road to a landfill. When I lived in Melbourne the same applied. I dont remember my rubbish being flown to India at any time.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):      

> and our streets look nice because we pay people to clean them up.

   And?     

> So the fact that our streets are clean doesnt negate the fact that we pollute the world

   Oh, really? And how do I pollute the world, pray tell?     

> and inflict this upon people who cant do anything about it. Calcutta could be clean and tidy if we paid for a garbage service.

   Now youre getting to the heart of the matter. The UN wants the power to take my money and give it to India  and that is what fuels their need to create a myth like Global Warming in the first place.      

> Lord Smug and Al Gore are both the same, just at opposite ends, and Gore is more refined.

   If Monckton is smug he has good reason to be, since he is absolutely correct about Gores lies and exaggerations. Watch the video to see more.      

> Since the industrial revolution we have changed the atmosphere.

   Barely at all. The amount of change is so negligible it isnt worth mentioning.      

> We have cut down a huge percentage of our carbon dioxide soaking forests

   Whatever percentage it is, it is not huge, and you have left out of your equation all the trees grown in cities and suburbs. Go up in a helicopter, remove all houses from view, and youre looking at a forest. Has that ever occurred to you? Then there are all the plantations that exist, from which lumber is harvested. Not to mention fruit trees and others.  pine plantation - Google Images      

> and then added billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide by burning coal and oil.

   Yes, because greenies forbade us to have nuclear power stations. This meant many millions of people died from emphysema. The carbon dioxide you speak of is nothing. During the age of the Dinosaurs there was a great deal more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there is today, and both plant and animal life was abundant. Man would have to work very hard for millennia to bring the C02 levels up to the same, and so what if they did?

----------


## rrobor

I find it insulting that someone would post  such a thing in this debate. I could pose the statement that no one could prove religion as this is the type of thing you are attempting here. What are you trying to suggest, that people who believe in something are liars and cheats. When are you going to stop posting irrelevant rubbish. Even the Queen is into it, I suppose you you will believe Moncton though and not her.

----------


## Allen James

> I was pointing out maybe not everyone who disagrees with you is misguided

    

> ...  I was pointing out that most scientists and politicians are pretty bright folk (there are exceptions of course).

  Plenty of bright Romans believed that Jupiter was the ruler of their many Gods. He was the god of sky, lightning and thunder; the son of Saturn and brother of Neptune, Pluto and Juno, who was also his wife. His attribute was the lightning bolt and his symbol the eagle, who was also his messenger. He was also considered the Patron god of Rome, and his temple was the official place of state business and sacrifices. Some of the brightest Romans prayed to Jupiter often, as they drank from lead goblets and pipes that would kill them slowly. Being bright doesn’t stop a person making big mistakes and being totally wrong. A person can be an expert in physics and an absolute dope when it comes to buying real estate, or a genius at composing operas yet hopelessly inept in political philosophy, just as a politician can be bright, but a socialist. Whoever said Stalin, Hitler or Mao weren’t bright? It’s another logical fallacy to imply that politicians are probably right about the global warming myth because some of them are bright. Very bright people are conned every minute of the day by even brighter people. So can bright politicians be very wrong? You bet.  [Info above about Roman Gods from http://www.unrv.com/culture/major-roman-god-list.php]

----------


## rrobor

Well theres a myth, I lived on a farm as did those before me, the header tank was lead as was the pipe to it. Lead is a very slow poison, chances are you would be dead a centuary or so before you would die from the lead. Anyways what has all this to do with global warming or ET. Will we be looking for spacemen next?   
Please dont get this like the muppet show. " PIGS IN SPACE'.

----------


## Allen James

Just to continue:   Aside from believing in a plethora of different gods, and drinking wine from lead goblets - see Time article about the effect of this, at:   http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...842832,00.html   - the brightest Romans believed the world was perched on the shoulders of a giant man, Atlas.   There are too many other examples of bright people who believed nonsense to list here, but a couple of other examples would include medieval doctors, who believed young girls' menstrual blood would cure leprosy, or that bloodletting helped restore balance to the body and spirit, and Plymouth pilgrim elders, who believed that washing the body was dangerous because infections came from sprits in wind and water. How about modern Scientologists, many of whom are quite bright, believe that 75 million years ago an evil galactic ruler, named Xenu, solved overpopulation by bringing trillions of people to Earth in DC-8 space planes, stacking them around volcanoes and nuking them.  :Biggrin:     ‘Being bright’ does not mean ‘being correct’. Many tradespeople here could tell you many stories about doctors, lawyers and other bright people who did the stupidest things with their plumbing, gas heaters, hot water systems, wiring, etc.   Hope that is settled now.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## rrobor

Peeda da Deeda da No No No

----------


## chrisp

> And by implication your comment implies that "we have some stupid Liberals" too. 
> The question is who are the "smart" ones and who are the "stupid" ones?

  I was just having a look back over this thread and I noticed one of my earlier posts (post #493) seems to have been edited.  I'm referring to the addition of the several "Arrow up"s.  I don't think I included these in my original post - well not intentionally anyway.   
Does anyone know why the "Arrow up"s are there for? 
BTW is anyone actually reading this thread?  It seems to have degenerated in to an impasse - maybe it was an impasse from the very first post?  :Yes:   
I wonder if anyone has actually changed sides from reading this thread?   :No:  
I admire the determination and persistence of some forum members, but I'm thinking it time to just agree to disagree and get back to more productive pursuits.  *We all *know* who is right* - we just don't agree who "*who*" is.

----------


## dazzler

Actually I think Allen is onto something.  If we have more cities then the world will have more trees and everything will be okay. 
Wow, thank dog, now quick, into the hummer and off to the senate, we may just have time.  :Tongue:  
What a joke  :Rolleyes:

----------


## rrobor

Chrisp, ours is not to ask why, ours is but to do or die. Only person able to do that is miseur le beak, or miseur le gun. take your pick. But personally to try to find out who gazumped you is not a wise move. Accept and move on.

----------


## chrisp

> Chrisp, ours is not to ask why, ours is but to do or die. Only person able to do that is miseur le beak, or miseur le gun. take your pick. But personally to try to find out who gazumped you is not a wise move. Accept and move on.

  rrobor, 
I'm not offend or concerned about the edit - nothing I wrote in that post was deleted - only the up arrows added. 
I'm curious as to what the "message" is intended with the arrows - It seems I'm missing the point (the "other side" will like that admission!)  
On the whole, I think the moderators have been very tolerant with this thread - no harm in that.

----------


## watson

*
Oh Poop...It was I.......Late at night..when I shooda known better. 
I've kept out of it as far as opinions......couldn't help that.
Pollogees*

----------


## rrobor

Ah Miseur le gun on the sherry again ?   You know I get peed off when he edits. If you go back some of my entries I think, Bugger it he might have fixed the spelling whilst he was at it.

----------


## watson

> Ah Miseur le gun on the sherry again ?   You know I get peed off when he edits. If you go back some of my entries I think, Bugger it he might have fixed the spelling whilst he was at it.

  Yep..a slip of the fingers........purposely kept out of the debate...until then.
Spell  check will be invoked in future.  :Rotfl:  
Box on.

----------


## Allen James

> Actually I think Allen is onto something. If we have more cities then the world will have more trees and everything will be okay.

   Certainly wherever Westerners have suburbs little old grannies will grow trees. Melbourne isn’t the only place where you have hundreds of square miles of suburban forest. Look at the photo of a Chicago suburb on this page:   Chicago suburb    Try to visualize the place without the houses and roads, and you can see the forest. This forest is invisible to greenies, and it isn’t politically correct to even mention it. Cities and suburbs are supposed to be ugly, barren places, right?  Most of the doomsday stories greenies tell you are just hocus pocus.    A few years ago some guy was screaming online about how humans are damaging the earth and posted a few photos of different places around the world where the earth is supposed to be “scarred” and “ruined”. I looked up these exact same places in Google Earth, and they were green and healthy, and full of trees. I posted the photos and the greenie guy ran away to hide under his bed.

----------


## chrisp

> *
> Oh Poop...It was I.......Late at night..when I shooda known better. 
> I've kept out of it as far as opinions......couldn't help that.
> Pollogees*

  I thought it might have been some sort of bookmark or something.  You know, to help you remember where you got up to when moderating.  I'd kind of understand it if it was a bookmark, as we seem to keep reading the same thing over and over and over...  Honestly, I'd have a hard time reading through this thread too without having my eyes glaze over. 
Posts in this thread have been boring, monotonous, repetitious, self-conceited, ill-argued, biased, one-sided, half-baked, poorly researched, at times rude and terribly worded - and that's just my posts  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I find it insulting that someone would post such a thing in this debate. I could pose the statement that no one could prove religion as this is the type of thing you are attempting here. What are you trying to suggest, that people who believe in something are liars and cheats. When are you going to stop posting irrelevant rubbish. Even the Queen is into it, I suppose you you will believe Moncton though and not her.

  
No Rrobor we don't consider the people who believe in AGW to be liars or cheats that has not been mentioned anywhere. 
We accuse the scientist who started this, by thier own admission, of being data manipulators and of keeping scientific papers that disagree with them out of the science journals by intimidation and threats.  We accuse them of deleting relevant data so their claims can not be scrutinized by other scientists.  If that is lying and cheating well so be it. 
They will not get away with this fraudulent action. 
BTW what you posted on the WWF that this thread has got no where I strongly dissagree. 
 I think it highlights perfectly the types of arguments that dont argue science but makes appeals to authority and attacks the man rather than the science, etc etc.  And everything but answer a simple question What evidence is their that shows increasing CO2 will warm the planet? 
You may think it goes arround in circles but I don't anyone reading this thread will that has no preconception will certainly gain some wonderfull insight into the AGW debate.

----------


## Rod Dyson

[quote=chrisp;780409] 
BTW is anyone actually reading this thread? It seems to have degenerated in to an impasse - maybe it was an impasse from the very first post?  :Yes:   
[quote] 
No Chrips I think the thread paints a perfectly clear picture of the arguments involved and  that irrespective of facts or scientist caught with their hand in the cookie jar some people will just look the other way and never change their mind. 
Like I say show me the proof thats not tainted by a crooked scientist and I WILL change my view.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Come guys if you every listen to anythin on AGW listen to this at the ABC of all places. 
Top of page download the file takes less than 1 minute.  Climate science: The leaked emails - Counterpoint - 30 November 2009 
Love to hear your comments Chrips and Rrobor

----------


## dazzler

> Certainly wherever Westerners have suburbs little old grannies will grow trees. Melbourne isnt the only place where you have hundreds of square miles of suburban forest. Look at the photo of a Chicago suburb on this page:   Chicago suburb    Try to visualize the place without the houses and roads, and you can see the forest. This forest is invisible to greenies, and it isnt politically correct to even mention it. Cities and suburbs are supposed to be ugly, barren places, right?  Most of the doomsday stories greenies tell you are just hocus pocus.    A few years ago some guy was screaming online about how humans are damaging the earth and posted a few photos of different places around the world where the earth is supposed to be scarred and ruined. I looked up these exact same places in Google Earth, and they were green and healthy, and full of trees. I posted the photos and the greenie guy ran away to hide under his bed.

  I really get scared going through Melbourne forest.  The other day I was attacked by a bear.

----------


## ivan_351

> I really get scared going through Melbourne forest. The other day I was attacked by a bear.

  
PMSFL , " Bear " ?????? 
cheers

----------


## Allen James

> I really get scared going through Melbourne forest. The other day I was attacked by a bear.

   Sigh. Some people literally can’t see the forest for the trees.  Yes, you will find Koalas in suburban Melbourne, but they are marsupials. If you have some in your backyard eucalyptus trees, you can expect to be woken up with these lovely noises:   http://www.abc.net.au/science/scribblygum/sound/koalagrunt.mp3    You will indeed find real bears in other city’s suburbs. As you know, suburbs have parks and pools, and bears love them.   Bear in the backyard - World - smh.com.au     Many other forest dwelling animals have moved into suburbs around the world, and this is mostly because of the trees you think don’t exist. Greenies hate discussing this, as they want you to believe Western cities and suburbs are radioactive, evil, black, grungy, polluted zones of death and chemicals. Wicked Moonee Ponds grannies don’t grow trees and flowers or feed maggies, no, they export filthy poisonous garbage to India, with the intent of killing all life on earth.  :Smilie:     Treeless Ascot Vale:  http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/ad113/Allen_James/ascot-vale-melbourne.jpg

----------


## Rod Dyson

DING 
1st round goes to common sense. 
Abbot wins Liberal leadership. 
Now, where it goes from here remains to be seen but it would appear that the ETS will be blocked for now. 
Good news for all Australians although some might not quite know it yet.

----------


## chrisp

> Good news for all Australians although some might not quite know it yet.

  ... and good news for the ALP - although some may not quite know it yet.   :Biggrin:

----------


## Allen James

> DING 
> 1st round goes to common sense. 
> Abbot wins Liberal leadership. 
> Now, where it goes from here remains to be seen but it would appear that the ETS will be blocked for now. 
> Good news for all Australians although some might not quite know it yet.

  That is indeed great news, and I heard it here first.  :2thumbsup:   :2thumbsup:   :2thumbsup:   :2thumbsup:   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Allen James

> ... and good news for the ALP - although some may not quite know it yet.

  If that were true the ALP would be happy about it. Theyre not. They wanted Turnbull or Hockey to win.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> ... and good news for the ALP - although some may not quite know it yet.

  I have no doubt that this will be a difficult job for Abott, I think the ALP are yet to have their own climate crisis it will come. 
This is an issue as you can see from comments in this thread that polarizes people to their views.  This is the same in the Labour party as well.  
A long way to go yet.  The US will never pass an ETS.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Article by Professor Lindzen (one of those skeptic scientist that are well respected but dont exist) 
Now I wonder if the climate deniers (rrobor chrisp) will read this and make a comment on how this professor has got it all wrong? Obviously he is employed by big oil to sprout untruths rather than MIT which must be just a front.  He cant possibly have any credentials on climate either.   
Full article here Richard S. Lindzen: The Climate Science Isn't Settled - WSJ.com 
Published in the Wall Street Journal. 
Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well. 
Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example. *Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology*

----------


## Allen James

The ClimateGate controversy is growing day by day.  Heres another video:  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE&feature=player_embedded"]ClimateGate  Whos who[/ame]  Last night the media commentators were all saying Hockey would win.  Maybe they forgot about the internet.  Id say Abbott emailed all his colleagues and pointed to various ClimateGate videos.  This would have changed some of the pro-GW views held.

----------


## rrobor

Ah no Rod, I got caught up in the absolute lunacy of what was posted and forgot the lessons of my old teacher. Now I believe Allen James has me on ignore as no amount of poking does anything to him, He just disgorges his bile regardless. So there is no point, Im argueing with a blank wall. If thats how you guys play Then play your game yourself, it no longer has any point.

----------


## dazzler

> Sigh. Some people literally cant see the forest for the trees.  Yes, you will find Koalas in suburban Melbourne, but they are marsupials. If you have some in your backyard eucalyptus trees, you can expect to be woken up with these lovely noises:

  
No no, a fair dinkum black one, from Canada.  Apparently cities are so dense with trees now that they are migrating here on ice sheets.   
Plus, the other day, when I was at band camp, I parked the car outside town hall and when I came back 30min later it was covered in vines....you gotta be careful.  :Eek:

----------


## rrobor

Bugger it, Id love to top that, But no Ill smile and move on

----------


## Allen James

> I believe Allen James has me on ignore as no amount of poking does anything to him, He just disgorges his bile regardless. So there is no point, Im argueing with a blank wall. If thats how you guys play Then play your game yourself, it no longer has any point.

  Hi rrobor,   You didnt actually quote anything I said or refute it properly. You mumbled a few oddities and might have grunted some insults from the distance, but since there was nothing directly addressed to me, refuting my quotes, I thought it would be impolite to respond. When I see some guy in the city talking to himself I usually leave him be. Use the quote function so I know what you are addressing, and explain carefully why you disagree and Ill be pleased to respond, old bean.    

> No no, a fair dinkum black one, from Canada. Apparently cities are so dense with trees now that they are migrating here on ice sheets.

  Theyll have to catch up with giant Pandas. They fly here on jets to check in at Adelaide Zoo, which has many trees too. Greenies oppose all that of course, because they hate to see giant pandas enjoying themselves.  Arup Graduate - Adelaide Zoo      

> Plus, the other day, when I was at band camp, I parked the car outside town hall and when I came back 30min later it was covered in vines....you gotta be careful.

   Neato. I like the Vines.  [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppJAAC69uE8]YouTube - The Vines-Highly Evolved[/ame]    http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/a...ide-street.jpg

----------


## rrobor

Dont get me wrong lad but no one can respond to the crap you keep posting. There is no arguement. Dazzler summed it up perfectly, I wish I could have done that. You post Lord haw haw. A silly old man, past his time but wanting to be important. His stuff had holes you could drive a bus through, Then he verged on Nazziism. Now you post this as your Guru then say,  "delete whats wrong", Where are you going with that. If I stand up as being the truth and the light, I better not have a black hole. So sorry your stuff sucks, do your homework before you post that excrement here.

----------


## chrisp

> Now I wonder if the climate deniers (rrobor chrisp) will read this and make a comment on how this professor has got it all wrong? Obviously he is employed by big oil to sprout untruths rather than MIT which must be just a front.  He cant possibly have any credentials on climate either.

  Rod, 
I'm a little distracted at the moment trying to settle a new laptop in and get all my favourite CAD packages and other software back to just how I like it.  Also, I'm operating on a shaped internet connection at the moment too (Kid + YouTube = shaped-internet-connection-in-no-time). 
With respect I haven't been able to read the referenced article, but by the magic of the internet, I can still offer some rebuttal!  Actually, you don't have to ask me (or rrobor) for comment - you can just go straight to the Real Climate website.  A quick search comes up with RealClimate: Richard Lindzen’s HoL testimony  
Is it interesting times politically?  The old saying is a week is a longtime in politics, however, I think in the last day or two we all know that a day is a longtime in politics. 
In someways I was surprised that Abbott won (I thought the Libs wouldn't go _that_ far) - I learn something everyday., In someways it is a sensible choice - they might as well face their demons head-on and sort out, one way or the other, just what they stand for. 
And to add to my confusion, I see tonight that Abbott himself now, as it seems to me, to be changing his spots.  On the 7:30 Report (on the left wing ABC) he was saying (if I heard correctly) "We will have a strong and effective climate change policy.  It just won't involve a great big new tax".  and that he shares the governemnt's commitment to reducing carbon emissions.  I thought he stood on an anti-CC platform?

----------


## rrobor

You will find Chrisp that politics in Australia is easy to predict. Australia is an upside down UK and about 10 or more years behind. Howard was Maggie Thatcher, forever pushing right. We missed John Major, We killed Howard clean and didnt hang on to a rotting corpse.
In UK the boys had a spat after major became a minor in 1997. but it was Thatcher that created the rot. 2009 and Brown is there till he gets kicked out next throw of the dice. Australia have a liberal party reeling from a defeat and ultra right dictation. Now they have elected a leader with opinion poll numbers in the teens, they are a party in self destruct mode, Pitty help us.
 Rod will be saddened to see liberals cross the floor but thats the crap that a mob of misfits do.

----------


## Allen James

An article in online UK Telegraph reports Malcolm Turnbull as “the first major political victim of the Climategate furore.”   *Climategate claims its first big political scalp*   Excerpts:   _Australian conservatives have shown the way by dumping the party leader who was in favour of massive carbon taxes and replacing him with one who stated last month that AGW is “crap.”_   _This makes Malcolm Turnbull, the suddenly-ex-leader of Australia’s Liberal party, the first major political victim of the Climategate furore. And his replacement Tony Abbott, the first politician to reap the benefits of the world’s growing scepticism towards ManBearPig. Of the three candidates, he was the only one committed to delaying the Australian government’s proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)._   _The trouble began last week when Australia’s opposition Liberal party began haemorrhaging frontbenchers, all of them preferring to lose their jobs than be railroaded by their leader into voting with the Government on Kevin Rudd’s new carbon tax._   Whole article  
I'm sure there will more scalps to follow, including Rudd's and Obama's.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## rrobor

Pitty help us when we need a POM newspaper to tell us how we are going. Hold on to your beliefs lad , glory in them now cos they will be shattered before you see Santa.

----------


## dazzler

Being serious for a second, no really I am, I don't think Malcolm was knifed over the ETS but for 2 main reasons 
1. Utegate.  This showed a complete lack of tactical awareness and it was 1/2 a straw on his camel. 
2. Agreeing to rudds demands that they agree before copenhagen and then attacking his party if they didnt support him. 
It was all politics.  Libs are better off going to an early election, losing and then rebuilding from there.  Many voters are realising that kevin is not all he is cracked up to be plus the libs can point to how much debt he has put our children into. 
The ets was garbage. IF climate change is the most pressing issue facing mankind then 5% is rubbish and they all know it.

----------


## Allen James

I just received an email pointing me to this excellent article by www.examiner.com called, Global warming: An inconvenient hoax  Global warming: An inconvenient hoax  
It's well worth the read.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## rrobor

Rudd is right wing labor, for the liberals to stand any hope of a chance  they have to push labour left. Its always centre of the road that wins  an election, Howard kept going right and labor took the mid position and thrashed him. Now liberals have an ultra right bible basher in place. He has as much chance as a snowflake in hell. So regardless as to what happens now, nothing will change

----------


## Allen James

Check out this hilarious video of an interview in which an English astrophysicist (and long range weather forecaster) takes on a Russian greenie over the nonsense being peddled as Global Warming, in light of ClimateGate. The interviewer does his best to get a word in edgewise near the end, but really should have just let the two go at each other.  If you get to the end, the Russian greenie states that Russia _never had malaria until recently_, and maintains that Global Warming is responsible. The astrophysicist guffaws loudly, saying it’s been there long before now. I did a search and the astrophysicist was right. The web is full of info about this.   Video here:  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anHuOAXIl0M"]YouTube - Hot 'Climategate' debate: Scientists clash LIVE on RT[/ame]   Info about Russian malaria here:  malaria essays   Excerpt:  _“After the fall of the Roman Empire, the History of malaria is unknown for quite some time in Ancient Europe. It was not until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that malaria became a problem again in Europe. The Netherlands, southern Scandinavia, Poland and Russia all experienced malaria terror.”_  So Global Warming caused malaria in Russia, eh? Another lie being peddled by GW mythmakers! Do these people have no shame?  :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

> And to add to my confusion, I see tonight that Abbott himself now, as it seems to me, to be changing his spots.  On the 7:30 Report (on the left wing ABC) he was saying (if I heard correctly) "We will have a strong and effective climate change policy.  It just won't involve a great big new tax".  and that he shares the governemnt's commitment to reducing carbon emissions.  I thought he stood on an anti-CC platform?

  Yes, I noticed that too and had a quiet chuckle. Whatever he may stand for, he knows what drives votes. 
How many people do you know who are willing to pay more tax. Abbott is now the hero saving us from more tax (and change).  
The planet of course is a different matter. It doesn't 'do' politics or resistance to change. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

> And to add to my confusion, I see tonight that Abbott himself now, as it seems to me, to be changing his spots. On the 7:30 Report (on the left wing ABC) he was saying (if I heard correctly) "We will have a strong and effective climate change policy. It just won't involve a great big new tax". and that he shares the governemnt's commitment to reducing carbon emissions. I thought he stood on an anti-CC platform?

   He stands on an anti-big tax platform. There is an issue called ‘Global Warming’ or ‘Climate Change’, and since this issue exists, obviously Abbott will have a policy on it. Nobody has any problem with reducing pollution, even in a clean country like Australia. That is a far cry from sending billions of dollars of Australian taxes to India just to humour lying UN scaremongers. The policy will probably be something like, “Humour the socialists in the UN by encouraging more pollution controls, but block any attempt to introduce big fat taxes that go straight to India.” That would be an excellent climate change policy to have.       

> Yes, I noticed that too and had a quiet chuckle. Whatever he may stand for, he knows what drives votes.

   Uh, no. He would be a fool not to have a policy on Climate Change, since the greenies created it and made it into a political hot potato.       

> Abbott is now the hero saving us from more tax

   Huge taxes – and it was heroic given the hysteria whipped up by the press pressuring him not to go against the grain.       

> The planet of course is a different matter. It doesn't 'do' politics or resistance to change.

   Would you be happier if we let the planet run our country?  :Rolleyes:

----------


## woodbe

> Would you be happier if we let the planet run our country?

  If we ran our countries in such a way, we would never need this debate. 
After all, we need this planet because we have so far not been able to find a nice new one (or a method of travelling to it) to wreck when we finally make this one too toxic for life. 
But yea, most people I meet who are vehemently against the ETS are principally worried about the added impost on their tax bill. You successfully reflect that Allen, thanks for including it here. 
woodbe.

----------


## Armadale Gas

I agree that our (Humans) time here has been short, and that the Earth goes through longer cycles than our existance here has been
We are caught up in a world where our wallet weight is more important than what we see as Planet Earth Health.
Unfortunately carbon trading is another avenue to the capatalist world we live in and yet another way to make money while keeping a clear concsience that we are doing what we can to rectify our abuse to the planet in the past, as we have abused it and are continuing to do so.
In Short i feel we have to ask ourselves a couple of questions is Global warming a reality? Yes, No, dont know. nobody has diffinitive proof and knows for sure wether it is or isnt so we have to go for the dont know option.
If we dont know are we/you happy with not trying ways to possibly prevent it?
I personally am not!
I dont feel that Australia or the world is doing enough.
I dont have Children who are going to inherit our poisiness planet but do feel for the other children who are going to. *We need to be less selfish.*

----------


## rrobor

What a great post Armadale Gas couldnt agree more. As to tax, If you want to see the countries with higher tax against the countries with lower tax You will find tax increases the standard of living. Scandanavia is high taxing but has great services. USA is low taxing, high crime rate, high poverty rate and caused the world recession.

----------


## Joe

Very dissapointing to see so many deniers here, considering there are so few in the broader community. Yes there is definitive proof if you care to look for it, there is in fact a vast amount of evidence! 
There are only three reasons to deny the overwhelming evidence for climate change. 1) you are paid to do so by the most powerful anti science lobby group ever formed (oil, coal, and enrgy); 2) You are inadvertantly sucked in by the BS and propoganda of the most powerful anti scientific propoganda lobby group in the world (and this can happen to the best of us) or 3) You are an idiot.  *It is true that there are a very few so called prominent scientists, who are either prominent in a non climatology background or are prominent because of their deliberately contrary views. The books, newspaper stories or Blogs that they create are not peer reviewed scientific papers and should be generally considered as being for entertainment rather than serious efforts to communicate scientific truth.*  *Whether and ETS or a carbon tax (as advocated by Abbot) is the best answer is entirely seperate from the actual science. Either you believe in science or you are a man induced climate change denier. There is no more debate unless you have conducted substantive research and produced a large body of peer reviewed literature that sucessfully contests the thousands of papers already published on the subject*   *Climate change will not go away because you do not understand it and it will not wait in abayance becuase you do not like it.*  *I know the deniers will go on with thier usual world conspiracy alarmist rubbish. But they will not cite one credible peer reviewed paper that offers substantive opposition to the basic tenats of man induced climate change. They can't because there aren't any!*

----------


## Allen James

.     

> If

    

> we ran our countries in such a way, we would never need this debate.

   Im intrigued to know how the planet would run Australia.      

> After all, we need this planet because we have so far not been able to find a nice new one (or a method of travelling to it) to wreck when we finally make this one too toxic for life.

   How are Australians making the planet toxic? I asked Dazzler this and he went as mute as a mackerel.  :Rolleyes:      

> But yea, most people I meet who are vehemently against the ETS are principally worried about the added impost on their tax bill.

   LOL!   Since impost means tax, and the ETS is a tax, I should think they _would_ be worried about the added impost to their tax bill. Emission Trading System (ETS) is a fancy way of saying Big Fat Tax(BFT).  At least most taxes go back into the Australian community.  Not this one.  Our BFT will go off to third world countries.  The Labor Party wants to tax us to pay their communist comrades overseas, which is pure treachery.     

> We are caught up in a world where our wallet weight is more important than what we see as Planet Earth Health.

   Hi Armadale.   Our planet has no health. It is a big lifeless rock. The only health you will find here is in the life inhabiting the planet. That life has been doing fine for millions of years without any help from the UN.     

> is Global warming a reality? If we dont know are we/you happy with not trying ways to possibly prevent it?

   You are free to spend your life attacking all the windmills you like, but you have no right to force me to spend *my* money attacking *your* windmills.  :Cool:      

> I dont have Children who are going to inherit our poisiness planet but do feel for the other children who are going to.

   How are Australians poisoning the planet?     

> We need to be less selfish.

   In my opinion it is the height of selfishness to force good, clean Australians to pay billions of dollars to foreign Communists because they pollute *their* water, air and land. We should be rewarded for setting a high example of cleanliness; _not punished for it. _     .

----------


## chrisp

Joe, 
Welcome to the forum. 
Your post should stir things up a bit. 
(Duck for incoming)   :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> .   [color=black] Im intrigued to know how the planet would run Australia.     How are Australians making the planet toxic? I asked Dazzler this and he went as mute as a mackerel.   .

  I'm surprised Dazzler went quiet about that. Maybe something less tedious passed him by and distracted him.  :Rolleyes:  
As to the question 'how the planet would run Australia' It would run it in such a way that Australia did not damage the planet. I would think this concept would be self evident. Of course, you are alluding to the fact that the planet is not able to practically communicate with Australia on a day to day basis, so my suggestion is that we Australians should manage and limit our impact upon the planet as we might expect the planet would if it were able. 
The planet will communicate with Australia on a long term basis by allowing us to convert the country we call Australia into an inhospitable and unliveable wasteland. No words are required for this communication, although I expect there would be a large planet sigh when the last human checks in their chips. 
As far as how Australians are making the planet toxic, are you suggesting that the types of effluent that our modern western society belches into the atmosphere, pumps into waterways and oceans, disposes into landfill, stores in massive byproduct dumps, or merely tosses out the car window is doing anything other than add to to toxic load of the planet? Add to this the masses of industrial waste created in overseas countries whilst fulfilling our thirst for cheap imported product and the problem increases in significance - we are exporting our toxic waste production to those countries as well.  
Of course it's not just Australia, but that's no excuse anyway. 
Happy for Dazzler to correct and add as he sees fit. :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> . In my opinion it is the height of selfishness to force good, clean Australians to pay billions of dollars to foreign Communists because they pollute *their* water, air and land. We should be rewarded for setting a high example of cleanliness; _not punished for it. _  .

  Okay, that paragraph there just took my breath away. 
Australia sets a high example of cleanliness. Can you please explain what you mean by that? I think we might be living in parallel universes... 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .    

> I'm surprised Dazzler went quiet about that. Maybe something less tedious passed him by and distracted him.

  
His own statement, We pollute the world, was tedious to him?     

> As to the question 'how the planet would run Australia' It would run it in such a way that Australia did not damage the planet.

  So it wouldnt change anything then?  :2thumbsup:     

> my suggestion is that we Australians should manage and limit our impact upon the planet as we might expect the planet would if it were able.

  What impact do we have on the planet that would need managing? Provide examples.    

> As far as how Australians are making the planet toxic, are you suggesting that the types of effluent that our modern western society belches into the atmosphere, pumps into waterways and oceans, disposes into landfill, stores in massive byproduct dumps, or merely tosses out the car window is doing anything other than add to to toxic load of the planet?

  Your description of Russia doesnt match Australia. The reason you, Dazzler and Armadale cant find evidence Australia is poisoning the planet is simple enough. It doesnt exist.     

> Okay, that paragraph there just took my breath away. Australia sets a high example of cleanliness. Can you please explain what you mean by that?

   Which part didnt you understand? The Global Warming crowd believes Australia is poisoning the planet, so the onus is on you to provide evidence.     

> I think we might be living in parallel universes...

   Heh - its not that complicated. You believe the left winged media - I don't.  :Smilie:     .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Very dissapointing to see so many deniers here, considering there are so few in the broader community. Yes there is definitive proof if you care to look for it, there is in fact a vast amount of evidence! 
> There are only three reasons to deny the overwhelming evidence for climate change. 1) you are paid to do so by the most powerful anti science lobby group ever formed (oil, coal, and enrgy); 2) You are inadvertantly sucked in by the BS and propoganda of the most powerful anti scientific propoganda lobby group in the world (and this can happen to the best of us) or 3) You are an idiot.  *It is true that there are a very few so called ‘prominent scientists’, who are either prominent in a non climatology background or are prominent because of their deliberately contrary views. The books, newspaper stories or Blogs that they create are not peer reviewed scientific papers and should be generally considered as being for entertainment rather than serious efforts to communicate scientific truth.*  *Whether and ETS or a carbon tax (as advocated by Abbot) is the best answer is entirely seperate from the actual science. Either you believe in science or you are a man induced climate change denier. There is no more debate unless you have conducted substantive research and produced a large body of peer reviewed literature that sucessfully contests the thousands of papers already published on the subject*   *Climate change will not go away because you do not understand it and it will not wait in abayance becuase you do not like it.*  *I know the deniers will go on with thier usual world conspiracy alarmist rubbish. But they will not cite one credible peer reviewed paper that offers substantive opposition to the basic tenats of man induced climate change. They can't because there aren't any!*

  LOL Joe you obviously have not read the climatedgate emails  
Yahoooo the ETS is dead Yahooo. 
Well we win the first round and it feels good. 
My god what have you guys done I get off the forum for a day and now cant keep up. 
Won"t cite one peer review paper? This is rolled gold  :Biggrin:  Considering the "team" blocked all the peer reviewed papers getting into the major science journals :Annoyed: . 
But in spite of that, there is a list of 400 or so peer reveiwed papers here somewhere that debunk AGW or you could google them if you wish. Or I can dig em up for you if you like. 
But then again it may be a waste of time, I take it if I did you would read them right? 
BTW many of the peer review papers you allude to start with the premise that C02 does cause "dangerous climate change" and they may be all true IF the original premise is correct. BIG IF buddy. Considering that it is agreed that doubling of Co2 will only increase temps by no more than 1 deg C. The rest of it is from an assumed positive feed back from increased water vaper. This is what all the models are based on. This positive feed back is wrong (peer reviewed). Why don't you do some reasearch. 
Now I wonder why this peer reviewed research has not made it in the main stream media or science journals? Can't possibly think why doh. 
Sheeeez sometimes I wonder?  Do you really expect us to believe what you posted?

----------


## Rod Dyson

This peer review argument has been shot down in flames thanks to a whistle blower in the CRU. 
Dont insult our intelligence by trying to argue this FALSE argument again. 
Read this.  http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-78248872.html

----------


## Rod Dyson

For your enlightenment Joe. 
Mr. Jones wrote to Mr. Mann, asking: "Mike: Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]? Keith will do likewise. ... Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Amman] to do likewise." 
Although Mr. Mann acknowledges that he received this message, he claims that neither he nor anyone else actually deleted any e-mails to hide information from a Freedom of Information request on how the United Nation's IPCC report was written. His e-mail response at the time, however, is quite damning because the language makes it seem that he went along with Mr. Jones' proposed initiative to destroy evidence. Far from criticizing the request, Mr. Mann wrote back: "I'll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@yahoo.com. Talk to you later, Mike."

----------


## Rod Dyson

A refresher course for Joes education on PEER REVIEW the CRU way. 
From the leaked emails:   _From: Edward Cook, Date: 6/4/03 09:50 AM -0400_ _I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. (...) If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (...) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review - Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can. Please_   _From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu Mar 19 17:02:53 2009_ _I'm having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I've complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS_  _From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500_ _This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board..._  From: Tom Wigley, Date: 1/20/2005 04:30 PM _If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted._   _From: Tom Wigley, Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:17:29 -0600 Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too._  _ From: Benjamin D. Santer, Date: 19/03/2009 16:48 If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.  From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! _ 
How much confidence do you have in Peer Review now?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Just in case you still doubt that PEER REVIEW was perverted by the Journals. 
This was stated by a prominent scientist. Nir Shaviv 
An editor of one of the more prominent journals wrote a colleague of mine that "any paper which doesn't support the anthropogenic GHG theory is politically motivated, and therefore has to be rejected".

----------


## Rod Dyson

Nice one eh!

----------


## woodbe

> . 
> Your description of Russia doesnt match Australia. The reason you, Dazzler and Armadale cant find evidence Australia is poisoning the planet is simple enough. It doesnt exist. .

  Actually, I have suggested that it is and you have somehow come to the conclusion that Australia carries out it's consumption without any toxic waste production. If you want evidence, just stick around any of our cities on a summer day when there is little wind and you will notice a discolouration in the sky. It's generally not too bad, but it is definitely there. If you go to China, where they make the computers, televisions and iPods etc that we buy in the millions, the pollution is so bad that you can hardly breathe the air on a good day. 
This is the pollution you can see and smell. It's the tip of the iceberg. Here are some examples of our other waste handling:  Toxic Australian e-waste dumped on China  National Toxics Network Inc - Export of Australia's Toxic Waste  Earthbeat - 11/05/96: Australia and the Export of Toxic Waste.  Article: Vic: Residents rally against toxic waste dump - AAP General News (Australia) | HighBeam Research - FREE trial  ENVIRONMENT-AUSTRALIA: Toxic Contaminants: The Other Scourge - IPS ipsnews.net  TVE's Earth Report 
This is not a realistic position to take, and along with the unrealistic statements about our 'cleanliness', and lack of pollution I suspect it's probably pointless to debate whether black is white with you. Perhaps that is why you didn't hear back from Dazzler. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Your up late woodbe. 
I would say in general the wealthy countries in the world take care of their environment much better than the poorer countries.  
We are very sensitive to polution and we should keep trying to find ways to reduce pollution. 
I grew up on the northwest coast of Tasmania and in the early 70's would catch cray's right out in front of our farm. Then pollution from the paper mill, tioxide and a gas works spewed toxic waste into the ocean and killed off all the kelp. Gone went the cray's, ablone and many other fish.  
The slightest swell would create a brown stain 1 k out to sea. In the late 70's early 80's they were made to clean up their act. Now the coast is pristine again the kelp is back as are the fish etc. 
We do a great job here in Australia with pollution control and we should keep trying to do better.  
BIG NOTE Co2 is NOT pollution.

----------


## Dr Freud

LOL, Rod, you crack me up. 
Me thinks Joe from Qld might be a pseudonym for Kev from Qld, who is here to help. 
But seriously, I've been busy hassling pollies for the last week to derail this gravy train.  :brava:  
I found oddly that the Greens and the Nationals responded nearly identically in their opposition to the Enormous Taxation Scheme (ETS).  The Liberals voiced a very diverse set of opinions, much like the various voices on this forum (mmm, strangely representative of the Australian People).  The independents opposed it for many good reasons.  And the Labor Party did the best impression of the Borg since Capt. Picard was assimilated, and all replied in one voice (actually a cut and pasted paragraph). 
But just for laughs, I have cut and pasted below some feedback I provided to one Liberal MP (who shall remain nameless).  Many other Senators and MP's were also unfortunate enough to receive some of my rantings.  Thanks for cutting and pasting the paragraphs below. I have responded in red to differentiate your previous reply in blue.  If you agree with all of the statements below, then it is obvious that you have a limited understanding of the issues at hand.  I am no expert myself, but have done some reading.  I will keep my responses to your comments brief, as I understand all of you have been and will be quite busy over this time.  But whichever way this ends up, please dont follow the Labor Party doctrine of printing a paragraph and having all members read it.  I admire the Liberal party on its free thinking, whether that is politically palatable or not.  Although, recent events are definitely pushing that envelope  :Smilie:   Human induced global warming is real and scientifically validated. So I will not allow history to record that I stood for doing nothing on one of the great challenges of our time. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Theory has not yet been scientifically validated, it if had it would be called The Laws of AGW, much like physics and thermodynamics.  That said, neither has it been invalidated, leaving it as a perfectly viable theory, much like The Big Bang Theory or Einsteins Theory of General Relativity.  I also do not stand for doing nothing, I stand for scientific investigation, and if a global issue is identified, then a global solution needs to be reached.  Even if I concede there is a global issue, do you seriously think Kevin Rudds ETS is going to save the world?   Change is now happening at an alarming rate so I am not prepared to put off action any longer.  I will leave it to you to research recent climate data to understand the fallacy of this statement.  Please never say this out loud again because it is embarrassing.  Even Tim Flannery has conceded the average global temperature is now cooling, and no scientists know why (see Lateline last week?).  Australians expect their political leaders and their political parties to take effective action on climate change because it is an important issue for them and their children.  Please dont refer to children.  Using children as pawns to emotionalise a scientific discussion is unbecoming.  You are correct however that if this global issue is validated, then EFFECTIVE action is not just important, it is essential.  Speaking of effective, how many degrees cooler will the Planet Earth be after 30 years of Kevin Rudds ETS?  I know the answer, do you?   The Opposition has always had significant concerns with the Rudd Governments CPRS legislation. That is why we fought for changes to the proposed scheme, to improve its design and protect Australian jobs.  This ones too easy, anybody remember the lipstick on a pig discussions  :Smilie:    As a result of the changes secured by the Opposition, tens of thousands of Australian jobs have been saved, farmers have been protected by permanently excluding agriculture from the scheme, $1.1 billion in direct support to small and medium businesses will be delivered, and the threat of blackouts and interruptions to the electricity supply has been removed.  Please see all previous responses.   Nobody is suggesting that we should be way out in front of the rest of the world. The approach that is being undertaken as a result of our amendments is for Australia to start cutting its emissions slowly prior to any global agreement. That is responsible.  *Assuming* AGW Theory is valid, is it RESPONSIBLE to continue to sell coal unabated to the rest of the world to burn at will, while taxing your own citizens for the same?  At least have the credibility to call this environmental window dressing what it is.  I find it amazing that the Greens are standing out from both major parties in terms of credibility on this issue.   I recognise that this issue has been the subject of considerable debate in the community. This is a difficult issue for many Australians and many Liberals.  Science is like a roller coaster, its only difficult if youre afraid.  If you know whats happening, its an exciting and enjoyable ride, particularly watching the scared people screaming and vomiting.   We all recognise that there are many people, including supporters of our party, who have doubts about the science of climate change.  As stated above, science is not about doubts, it is about testable theories (hypotheses).  I have no doubt, and no scientist (including those in the IPCC) has any doubt that AGW Theory has NOT YET been validated.  If it had, we wouldnt be having this discussion.  While were on the subject of the IPCC, ask yourself this.  If you were a scientist that had data showing the potential end of the human species, would you refuse FOI requests to release your data, or would you scream your data and model assumptions from the rooftops?  Why dont you ask them why theyre withholding data and emotionally blackmail them for putting our childrens future at risk?    But most people who doubt the science also know that it makes sense to take out insurance until any risk is either averted or proven wrong.  This analogy is so spurious as to defy belief.  For a start, I do not doubt the science.  Science is self-evident unlike religion, it does not require belief or scepticism.  But secondly, please point out in the CPRS bill (I hope you have read it) where it says what my amount of coverage is under this insurance policy.  In the event the ocean rises by 6 metres and drowns my property, how much do I get?  It would also be nice to get Treasury to give me an accurate estimate for my premiums under this policy as well.    As Margaret Thatcher said in 1990, this is about risk management. Or, as Rupert Murdoch has said, we have to give the planet the benefit of the doubt.  With all due respect to these two eminent leaders of our times who I do respect, I have read many scientific articles on this subject (both published and unpublished) and have yet to come across one of theirs.  Please dont disrespect their achievements by once again creating some spurious analogy for the ignorant masses.  Please educate them instead and create an Australia of educated masses.    We must have a credible position on climate change.  No arguments here, because the CPRS bill certainly is not one!   Time for Lateline now (*W*ait *A*while time), so gotta go.  But maybe some homework for all you believers and sceptics out there.  :Confused:    What is the current average global temperature? What is the ESTIMATED global average temperature over the last 200 million years? (Clue: The temperature we evolved to live in). Is the current average global temperature lower or higher than the ESTIMATED global average temperature we evolved to live in?   If you don't know the answers to these questions, how can you be worried about whether we are warming to hell? (And I use this religious reference intentionally  :Cool: ).

----------


## Dr Freud

Apologies all, but having read through all the CPRS Bills, I can't recall any mention of even reducing landfill or plastic bags, let alone toxic waste.  I dosed off a few times through the thousands of pages, but happy to be corrected if someone else spotted the toxic clean up sub-clauses.  All I got was complicated market based taxation schemes based on fresh air (oops CO2 emissions).  :Confused:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Well done DR Freud. 
Keep up the good fight! I too emailed the pollies and got similar cut and paste responses. I suggest Sue Boyce and Judith Thoeth get some special attention. They, like Joe need a bit of education! 
I gave em some LOL. 
Climategate will bring this thing undone nothing surer. The MSM just can't keep ignoring it. 
People just can't believe it when they see these emails for the first time. I think it was Woodbe who thought scientists were above reproach earlier in this thread before climategate broke out. 
Oh sweet justice. 
Used car salesmen are estatic, a lower life form has been discovered!

----------


## Dr Freud

Climategate has united the believers and the sceptics. 
Now everybody believes in "MANN made global warming".  :Biggrin:  
If you don't get it, please do some research.  :Shock:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> "MANN made global warming".

  LOVE IT :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Allen James

.    

> you have somehow come to the conclusion that Australia carries out it's consumption without any toxic waste production.

   Toxic waste is everywhere and most of it is perfectly natural, so I would never say such a thing. You need to look up the word toxin.   Toxin _any poison produced by an organism, characterized by antigenicity in certain animals and high molecular weight, and including the bacterial toxins that are the causative agents of tetanus, diphtheria, etc., and such plant and animal toxins as ricin and snake venom._ Random House Dictionary  Toxin _A poisonous substance, especially a protein, that is produced by living cells or organisms and is capable of causing disease when introduced into the body tissues but is often also capable of inducing neutralizing antibodies or antitoxins._ American Heritage Dictionary  Word Origin & History toxin _"organic poison," 1886, from L. toxicum "poison" (see toxic)._ Online Etymology Dictionary  Toxin Definition | Definition of Toxin at Dictionary.com    A cockroach produces toxic waste every time it farts. A dead cat produces toxic waste, as does a rotting pile of grass. Toxic waste is produced in millions of ways, and most of it by good old mother nature. Everything from volcanoes, fissures, forest fires and erosion, to beached whales, ocean tides, microorganisms, animal digestion and disease. Most ants carry toxic chemicals around, as do many snakes, spiders, and millions of other animals. Take a bucket of dirt from your backyard and have it analyzed. Check out all the toxic elements it contains. Do the same with any carcass. Do the same with rotting vegetation.    

> If you want evidence, just stick around any of our cities on a summer day when there is little wind and you will notice a discolouration in the sky. It's generally not too bad, but it is definitely there.

   Most of that discolouration is water vapour and dust. Some pollution is produced by the car you hypocritically drive, but that is mostly invisible. Even so, it is nothing compared with the enormous quantity of natural toxins produced each minute of the day by nature itself.    

> If you go to China, where they make the computers, televisions and iPods etc that we buy in the millions, the pollution is so bad that you can hardly breathe the air on a good day.

   He says, hypocritically typing on his computer.   This applies to cities like Beijing, and various places in the ex Soviet Union. Los Angeles had a similar problem back in the 60s and 70s, though not as bad. The problem was fixed as technology improved, giving us cleaner machines and factories, which in turn cut down on smog. Industry was required to use this cleaner technology by law. China is poor because communism does not allow wealth creation, and although it has begun to allow some nowadays, it still hampers true wealth creation for the masses through the bureaucracy, red tape, corruption and tyranny typical of communist regimes. Many factory owners cannot afford clean technology. The Communist state is also very inefficient regarding the overseeing of various laws that require implementation of cleaner technology. A factory owner simply bribes the government inspector who comes to investigate his filthy factory. If Australia is forced to pay communist governments billions of dollars, it will not change a thing. The way to defeat pollution in Chinese cities is to defeat communism, and that is something the Chinese will need to do on their own.    

> Here are some examples of our other waste handling:

   Toxic Australian e-waste dumped on China As the article says, Toxic materials inside some common electronic goods in Australia include mercury, lead, arsenic, bromide, beryllium and cadmium, although these are usually in *tiny amounts*. You have the same tiny amounts of toxic material in your own backyard. This so called toxic waste is nothing compared to the production of toxins that go on naturally every minute of the day across Australia and China. It is like comparing a teaspoon of salt water with the Pacific Ocean, and if you think your computer is dangerous toxic waste then why are you using it?   

> Earthbeat - 11/05/96: Australia and the Export of Toxic Waste.

   As the article says, In 1994 40 countries, including Australia signed the Basel Convention. This prohibits dumping waste in developing countries. But until 1998 the Convention still permits the export of hazardous materials for recycling overseas. So you now have a problem with recycling. Why? How is recycling elements poisoning the planet?   

> Earthbeat - 11/05/96: Australia and the Export of Toxic Waste.

   This was a rehash of the last link. Again, how is recycling elements poisoning the planet? If you have something against making or recycling batteries, then why did you buy so many of them yourself? You cant have your cake and eat it too.    

> Article: Vic: Residents rally against toxic waste dump - AAP General News (Australia) | HighBeam Research - FREE trial

   This is an article about how some people opposed a toxic waste dump in central Victoria. What does this have to do with Australians poisoning the planet? You oppose the controlled dumping of toxic materials, yet you buy them all the time. You have batteries, cars, televisions, computers, etc. etc., but you dont want us to dispose of these materials or recycle them safely. You insist that if we do recycle them, or safely bury them in a controlled way, that we are poisoning the planet - a planet already containing trillions of times the amount of toxins by itself, and on which life of all kinds produces millions of times as much, naturally, every day of the week.  Sorry old chum, but you utterly failed to show that Australia is poisoning the planet.   .

----------


## rrobor

I think guys when you gang up, super saturate, and congratulate one another. all you do is turn people off.   If someone experesses an alternate opinion to be mercilessly attacked repeatedly by the jabber brothers is killing this and turning it into a self congratulatery thread.

----------


## woodbe

> Your up late woodbe. 
> I would say in general the wealthy countries in the world take care of their environment much better than the poorer countries.  
> We are very sensitive to polution and we should keep trying to find ways to reduce pollution. 
> I grew up on the northwest coast of Tasmania and in the early 70's would catch cray's right out in front of our farm. Then pollution from the paper mill, tioxide and a gas works spewed toxic waste into the ocean and killed off all the kelp. Gone went the cray's, ablone and many other fish.  
> The slightest swell would create a brown stain 1 k out to sea. In the late 70's early 80's they were made to clean up their act. Now the coast is pristine again the kelp is back as are the fish etc. 
> We do a great job here in Australia with pollution control and we should keep trying to do better.  
> BIG NOTE Co2 is NOT pollution.

  Yea Rod, kept up late by visitors  :Smilie:  
I agree that pollution and toxic waste is not Co2, Allen however has a somewhat rose coloured view of the state of our country, even yours has a bit of a rosy tinge to it Rod. 
I was On the Tarkine coast mid October. This as you know is in the NW of Tasmania. It's a beautiful area and there is a remarkable amount of evidence of indigenous occupation there. There is also an amazing amount of rubbish and coastal degredation caused by people accessing the area on quad bikes. If a midden lays in the path of a quad bike, they just drive right through it. Every sort of houshold and motor refuse is lying in the bushes where their owners decided to fling it. This is apart from the rubbish washed up on the beach, of which there is plenty. So yea, even pristine NW Tasmania is effected. 
The wealthy countries take care of their pollution to some extent. The worst of it gets stored in frightening stockpiles of extremely hazardous waste. The poor countries do not have the legislation or perhaps the will to clean up their emissions because just like Co2 it costs big time to minimise it.  
Remember the Beijing Olympics? They shut down the factories for weeks prior to the games in an attempt to clean up the air for the event. 
Because of this lack of pollution control (and lower labor costs etc), the poorer countries maintain a lower cost of production, which has the effect of moving manufacturing plants from wealthy countries to poorer countries - so pollution increases. 
Co2 is not pollution. That's one way of looking at it. We certainly need it for life. How much is enough, and how much is too much? I expect that it would be fair to call it pollution when it starts effecting our environment. The question then becomes, have we humans caused an increase in atmospheric Co2, and has that impacted our environment in any way? 
woodbe.

----------


## Joe

Rod, Are you a 1 a 2 or a 3? Judging by your complete misunderstanding of how the scientific process works I am betting on a 2 moving on to 3. So cite me the paper that is published and cite the journal. Not from a made up list on an funded lobby group website, but a real one.  
Science is not an adversarial court room where an outrageous defence can be argued to create a seed of doubt and therefore set the guilty free. Science is a search for knowledge.  
In science there is no right or wrong, there is only data and theory which best fits the facts of the data. Consensus goes with the weight of the data and the theories that best explain it. That is how science works.  
Even a cursory review of the literature makes it clear that MICC is supported by the vast bulk of scientific discourse on the topic. The current consensus of the scientific community is that MICC is real. To declare otherwise is a plain and deliberate lie. 
The consensus may change but right now that is where it is at. 
I have read many of the emails and a great deal of commentary about them. Thus far I see nothing to support the bizare claims made in some of the posts here. I will continue to read about it, there is nothing that changes the basic science. 
You have been duped into ignorance based on your fears and prejudice, try these websites for some basic grounding.  Climate Progress, Climate Progress  Skeptical Science, Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism  Real Climate, RealClimate 
If you have no knowledge on a subject, and it is clear you are way out of your depth on this one, you should refrain from comment or at least try to learn something. Ask someone who does know, perhaps a recognised climatologist or someone who actually works in the subject area. Otherwise you just make yourself look silly.

----------


## woodbe

Here's one for Rod and his team of skeptics. If you take the time to watch this I'd be interested in your responses. 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - 5. Climate Change -- isn't it natural?[/ame] 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

Tony Abbott will make an already clean Australia even cleaner, without imposing "a great big, new tax”.  :2thumbsup:   Excerpts from ‘The Australian’ today:  _“[Abbott] said the Opposition remained committed to an unconditional target of reducing emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 but would not embrace an ETS or a carbon tax. He said there were "lots of things" that could be done to reduce emissions through other means, many not involving significant costs.”_   _“These included more energy-efficient buildings, better land management and biosequestration. NSW Nationals Senator John Williams claimed Australia could offset 100 per cent of its carbon emissions for 100 years by lifting soil carbon by 3 per cent.”_   Tony Abbott's tax-free carbon plan | The Australian     Mr Abbott also said he would welcome a debate on the use of nuclear energy. At the same time there is trouble for Rudd in Queensland, over his push for a Global Warming tax. _“The hip-pocket cost of the emissions trading scheme is just starting to register on voters' radars.”_  Trouble for Kevin Rudd in regional Queensland | The Australian    Meanwhile, Climategate's Phil Jones steps down.  :2thumbsup:    _LONDON (AP) - Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change._    _The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented._   _The allegations were made after more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists were posted to the Web following the security breach last month._    UK climate scientist to temporarily step down     .

----------


## woodbe

I think Bob Hawke is onto something:  Tony Abbott a temporary leader - Bob Hawke | News.com.au 
The results of the investigation into Phil Jones will indeed be interesting. 
It's also interesting that there seems to be very little concern about the tainted nature of the stolen information from the CRU. Sceptics of course are having a field day reading everything and anything into the contents of the email exchanges and with the help of the media reporting out of context and cherry picked items from them. 
And where is the rest of the criminally obtained data? 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.    CAUGHT GREEN-HANDED!  Cold facts about the hot topic of global temperature change after the Climategate scandal  by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley | November 30, 2009  THE WHISTLE BLOWS FOR TRUTH  [small excerpt]  _The whistleblower deep in the basement of one of the ugly, modern tower-blocks of the dismal, windswept University of East Anglia could scarcely have timed it better._  _In less than three weeks, the worlds governing class  its classe politique  would meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the worlds wealthier nations for its own enrichment: in short, to bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide, at the stroke of a pen, on the pretext of addressing what is now known to be the non-problem of manmade global warming._  _The unnamed hero of Climategate, after months of work gathering emails, computer code, and data, quietly sent a 61-megabyte compressed file from one of the universitys servers to an obscure public message-board on the internet, with a short covering note to the effect that the climate was too important to keep the material secret, and that the data from the University would be available for a short time only._  _He had caught the worlds politico-scientific establishment green-handed. Yet his first attempts to reveal the highly-profitable fraud and systematic corruption at the very heart of the UNs climate panel and among the scientists most prominent in influencing its prejudiced and absurdly doom-laden reports had failed. He had made the mistake of sending the data-file to the mainstream news media, which had also profited for decades by fostering the global warming scare, and by generally denying anyone who disagreed with the official viewpoint any platform._   See the whole 43 page article here:   http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...%20Scandal.pdf    An excellent and revealing read!  .  .

----------


## Armadale Gas

* to Allen James*
Your statement below frightens me perhaps you are a Psychic and this is what you see as happening! 
In my opinion you couldnt be further from the truth take a look at the below link.
our planet will become a lifeless rock if we all have your attitude Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Our planet has no health. It is a big lifeless rock. The only health you will find here is in the life inhabiting the planet. That life has been doing fine for millions of years without any help from the UN.

----------


## Joe

To all the deniers (particularly Rob) 
You demonstrate your ignorance in your purile responses. I am guessing there are a few 3s amongst you. Have you cited a paper published in a reputable journal that successfully argues against the basic tenats of human induced climate change? No, as I said there aren't any! 
In science there is no right or wrong, there is only data and theory which best fits the facts of the data. Consensus goes with the weight of the data and the theories that best explain it. That is how science works.  
Even a cursory review of the literature makes it clear that MICC is supported by the vast bulk of scientific discourse on the topic. The current consensus of the scientific community is that MICC is real. To declare otherwise is a plain and deliberate lie. 
I have read many of the stolen emails but not all. I have also read a great deal of comentary on them. To date I see nothing that questions the soundness of the science of man induced climate change and I have seen no credible comentary that discredits any of the science.  
It seems the deniers are desperate for some support but truth is the emails do not help your cause. Many of them are in fact about the nutters that serious researchers have to deal with when they would rather be getting on with the job at hand. The emails quoted in this thread are of that nature.  
If it weren't for the fact you are actually allowed to vote your paranoid, ill informed and pathetically illogical drivel would be funny. But the issue is serious and your lies are in fact a danger to rational debate. 
You guys seem to have a lot of opinion and very little knowledge. Check out these sites for some basics.  Climate Progress, Climate Progress  Skeptical Science, Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism  Real Climate, RealClimate  If you don't understand the basics of the science, and it is very clear that you do not, perhaps you should ask a climatologist or someone who works in this area instead of mouthing off on a subject clearly outside your ken.  In joining the rest of humanity to plan for the future perhaps you should start working on your apology statements now. You have been proven wrong and you only look sillier the more you go on about bizare plots to fool the world.

----------


## Allen James

[quote=Armadale Gas;780768]* to Allen James* Your statement below frightens me perhaps you are a Psychic and this is what you see as happening!  In my opinion you couldnt be further from the truth take a look at the below link. our planet will become a lifeless rock if we all have your attitude Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia    I agree with scientists who call Gaia a neo-Pagan New Age religion. If you wish to believe our planet is a living creature, you are basically putting forth religion, not science.  "Global Warming" is very close to being a religion also, and this should come as no surprise since there have been thousands of similar religions since man first began to believe in Gods. Weather Gods were the most popular because man depended on the weather for his livelihood. Tribes believed in Sun Gods, Wind Gods, Rain Gods, etc. They believed, as todays greenies do, that they could influence the weather by making sacrifices. In tribal cases it usually meant animal or human sacrifice. Modern greenies prefer to sacrifice industry and business to their GW God, since murder is against the law.

----------


## woodbe

> . Sorry old chum, but you utterly failed to show that Australia is poisoning the planet..

  With respect, your handling of this toxic waste discussion is well below par. 
There is a difference between a toxin and toxic waste. Here are some definitions for you:  Toxic waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  Hazardous waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Really, these are not new or confusing concepts. They have been identified since the industrial revolution (although the people creating them resisted attempts to have them identified and controlled, just as they did in many other campaigns like the tobacco one) 
Toxic waste and mass production go hand in hand. These are facts. 
If Australia is producing no toxic waste, why did the Vic Government try to establish a 'toxic waste dump' in the first place? 
Clearly there are natural toxins in the environment, however they are in small amounts and spread out over large areas. By creating our own toxic waste through our production and refinement processes we accumulate toxic waste into concentrations and volumes never seen in nature. We add to the total toxins and not by a small amount. My kids have eaten dirt and it didn't kill them, but you wouldn't want them near a teaspoonfull of some of the by-products our 'modern' and 'clean' processes produce. 
The links I pasted were there to prove to you that toxic waste exists, as you seem somewhat sceptical of the very idea. They were the first half dozen links from a google search for "toxic waste australia" which incidentally found:   

> Results *1* - *10* of about *494,000* for *toxic waste australia*.

  Oh yea. it exists alright. 
I'm a hypocrite because I live in a western society and have my eyes open and dare to say something about it? Can we please discuss the issues and leave the personal attacks alone. You have provided ample material for personal attack upon your good self on multiple fronts, however I have refrained from raising them as it will just drag the discussion into the bit bucket. Please do likewise. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> . CAUGHT GREEN-HANDED!  Cold facts about the hot topic of global temperature change after the Climategate scandal  by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley | November 30, 2009

  I'll wait for the outcome of the CRU investigation, thanks.  :Cool:   A little about Lord Christopher Monckton 
Quite a litany of mis-information from someone 'born to rule'. 
Whatever side I was on, I wouldn't want him on my side.  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Here's one for Rod and his team of skeptics. If you take the time to watch this I'd be interested in your responses.  YouTube - 5. Climate Change -- isn't it natural? 
> woodbe.

  
More theories that just prove that science has a long way to go to explain the climate. 
What we do know is that CO2 increase FOLLOWS temperature increase.
We know that the temperature record has been massaged up to show a greater increase
We know that urban temperatures have increased more than country temperatures.
We Know that the urban heat island effect has a greater effect on night time temps and that the largest increase in the temps is night time temps. 
Do we know that the tiny amount of man made CO2 directly increases temps by more than 1 deg C with a doubling of CO2. NO. 
Do we know that if there is a doubling of CO2 and a 1 deg C this will cause a negative feed back that will take temps to a further 3-5 deg C. No.  If this were the case there would be further negative feed back that would continue until the oceans boil. 
Fail.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'll wait for the outcome of the CRU investigation, thanks.   A little about Lord Christopher Monckton 
> Quite a litany of mis-information from someone 'born to rule'. 
> Whatever side I was on, I wouldn't want him on my side.  
> woodbe.

  More slandering of a person who delivers a message the warmers don't like. 
This is about as tiresome as the peer review argument put forward by Joe. 
These tactics by warmers have been exposed and are no longer valid.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I think guys when you gang up, super saturate, and congratulate one another. all you do is turn people off. If someone experesses an alternate opinion to be mercilessly attacked repeatedly by the jabber brothers is killing this and turning it into a self congratulatery thread.

  Just catching up on the days events Rrobor you don't have to read them.  
You seem to be desperate to "kill the thread" Rrobor.   
If you read back through your posts, you bring this up numerous times instead of comming up with a reasoned response to challenge what has been posted. 
At least Woodbe is engaging in the debate with counter information that he believes in, that which indicates why he has formed his opinions. Not that I agree with them. 
Joe's peer review rant just does not make any sense in light of the obvious hyjacking of the peer review process, as shown up by the climategate emails. 
BTW woodbe any investigation will be totally useless if conducted by the Universities themselves.  The grants that have been given to these Universities due to the work of these individuals is huge. They will play down the obvious for sue. 
It is illegal to delete data or emails subject to FOI which is exactly what they did.  Jones sent out an email to ask others to do the same.  Mann wrote back saying he will pass on the request.  Did not see Mann reject the suggestion, did you? 
Lets face it ETS or Carbon Tax is dead in Australia. :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Interesting.  Where should we be focusing our efforts then?

----------


## rrobor

On the contrary Rod. But what I do see is if anyone wants to argue something the gang attacks. For example you accuse someone of slander.  (eh no its Libel)  Now if you wish to look up the views of that man you wouldnt touch him with a barge pole. I put as much faith in his views as I do in Prince Chuckles on tother side. So you are jumping on the ship of  "As long as they agree with me". Lets hope with that crew you dont sink.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> On the contrary Rod. But what I do see is if anyone wants to argue something the gang attacks. For example you accuse someone of slander. (eh no its Libel) Now if you wish to look up the views of that man you wouldnt touch him with a barge pole. I put as much faith in his views as I do in Prince Chuckles on tother side. So you are jumping on the ship of "As long as they agree with me". Lets hope with that crew you dont sink.

  
Rrobor your opinion noted. :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> More theories that just prove that science has a long way to go to explain the climate. 
> What we do know is that CO2 increase FOLLOWS temperature increase.

  My reading of the explanation contained in the video was that there are several factors and Co2 is just one of them. You need to understand what else is happening in the time period you are looking at. Specifically, the video explains that Co2 and Insolation are the main driving factors and they need to be looked at together. Watch the video around 2:05 to 2:25 and you will see some nice graphs as well as the description of what is happening.   

> We know that the temperature record has been massaged up to show a greater increase
> We know that urban temperatures have increased more than country temperatures.
> We Know that the urban heat island effect has a greater effect on night time temps and that the largest increase in the temps is night time temps.

  Not covered in the video. I don't believe we 'know' that, I do believe that non-scientific folk have made these claims to try and convince the rest of us amateurs that the earth is actually not warming.   

> Do we know that the tiny amount of man made CO2 directly increases temps by more than 1 deg C with a doubling of CO2. NO. 
> Do we know that if there is a doubling of CO2 and a 1 deg C this will cause a negative feed back that will take temps to a further 3-5 deg C. No.  If this were the case there would be further negative feed back that would continue until the oceans boil.

  I think there are plenty of more qualified people than you or me that would disagree with you. 
Again, the video explains there are two main factors for heating the planet GHG's and Insolation. Historically, the Co2 component has been decreasing over millenia whilst the sun's input has been increasing. See around 3:10 on the video. The sun's output is increasing over time _and_ we are increasing atmospheric Co2. 
I take it that you are not denying that we are increasing Co2? 
For a better explanation of Co2 and climate its instructive to have a read at the relevant RealClimate page: Co2 Problem in 6 easy steps 
I'm only an interested Joe Public, but here is a GRAPH 1990 till present I made over at Wood for Trees using available data.   Since 1980 GRAPH including data and trends for TSI (Solar), Temp, and Co2 
So we are in a low solar trend and an increasing Co2 trend, yet the temperature trend is up. If it's not Co2, then what do the sceptics say it is? 
There's quite a lot of data over there. We have the choice of HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS temperature data sets along with a woodfortrees average of all data sets. Interesting stuff. WoodFortrees notes on temperature data. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> These tactics by warmers have been exposed and are no longer valid.

  Please Rod, happy to be corrected, but please quote actual texts where this has been shown to be an incorrect representation of the man's input with appropriate links. I did search, couldn't find anything other than him spouting in the popular press. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Please Rod, happy to be corrected, but please quote actual texts where this has been shown to be an incorrect representation of the man's input with appropriate links. I did search, couldn't find anything other than him spouting in the popular press. 
> woodbe.

  Attack the man.
Repeat the mantra.
Attack the man
Repeat the Mantra. 
The warmers are well known to use this tactic as it has been used here.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I take it that you are not denying that we are increasing Co2?

   Not at all, nor do I dispute the world has warmed, But I do dispute that man made Co2 is the cause. This is still yet to be proven, this video (which I watched entirely) does nothing to prove this. 
Co2 is a minor GHG and cannot increase temperatures as you suggest without the feedback.  All the models are based on this feedback as is the IPCC report. It is agreed that id Co2 doubles it on its own will increase temps by no more than 1 deg C.

----------


## woodbe

> Attack the man.
> Repeat the mantra.
> Attack the man
> Repeat the Mantra. 
> The warmers are well known to use this tactic as it has been used here.

  Breathe mate, breathe.  :Smilie:  
Actually, the OSS site I linked might have displayed the man in a poor light, however they also explained why the light was so poor. What I am asking for is not an emotive argument about whether he has been attacked, but whether those explanations still stand. 
Did you pick up the explanations? Did you scroll down, Rod? 
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

You posted that before Rod. Now Im a man of maths  so I will show you how you are turning people off rather than on your cause we are in page 42 when I did the calculation for every post you have you are getting 10.7 views. Now the next big post on the page is DIY install air con , that gets 136.5 views per post. In other words people have had about enough, the odd person starts, sees it as a folly and stops. Just give it a carefull quiet look, the tactics you and your supporters are employing is killing it.

----------


## woodbe

Regarding Heat Islands and the temperature records. 
I have the feeling that the answers to your mistrust are all over at this page on Real Climate. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Regarding Heat Islands and the temperature records. 
> I have the feeling that the answers to your mistrust are all over at this page on Real Climate. 
> woodbe.

  Real Climate is run by the "Team" and is not to be trusted :Biggrin:  
Reading the Climategate archive is a bit like discovering that Professional Wrestling is rigged. You mean, it is? _Really_?

----------


## Allen James

. . .   

> There is a difference between a toxin and toxic waste.

   There is indeed a difference in the popular way people use the terms, but there is no difference in terms of the toxicity. The common usage of toxic waste has been to do with the toxic waste produced by human industry. I have always liked to point out to people who rant about such things that nature produces its own toxic wastes, as a result of its industry, and these are in much greater abundance than any produced by humans. You produce a barrel of human industrial toxic waste, and Ill produce a barrel of natures toxic wastes, and they will be equally deadly. The difference is that mother nature produces far, far more than us poor humans.   Toxic _-adjectiv_e _1. of, pertaining to, affected with, or caused by a toxin or poison: a toxic condition._ _2._ _acting as or having the effect of a poison; poisonous:_ _a toxic drug._ _-noun_ _3. a toxic chemical or other substance._  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/toxic   .   

> If Australia is producing no toxic waste, why did the Vic Government try to establish a 'toxic waste dump' in the first place?

   Who said Australia produces no toxic waste? To repeat, toxic waste is everywhere, and most of it is natural. Our manmade toxic wastes are disposed of safely, and do not poison the planet as you hysterically believe.  .  [/quote]  

> A little about Lord Christopher Monckton

     This is a personal opinion attack article by one individual - a greenie called John Reisman. The the site *ossfoundation.us* is owned by him. He built it using plone, and likes to pretend it is a large organization, hence references to Our View etc.  He lives Big Bear Lake, California, which is in the San Bernardino National Forest, out in the middle of nowhere. He has not studied biology or weather, and has no qualifications in these areas of any kind.  Global Domains WHOIS | America Registry  Back in 2006 he tried to start a new political party, called The Centrist Party, which you can see here.  Whois verifies John Reisman in Big Bear Lake as the owner. Notice the TM on The Centrist Party and Common Sense For America?  .They have no such trademark, which can be verified here and here.  This is what Wikipedia say about it:  The Centrist Party was registered in 2006 with the Federal Election Commission and attempted to organize nationally. However, it never has been recognized as an official party in any of the states. Its only known member, also listed as chairman, was based in California and has acknowledged plans to unveil the party again in 2010.   Yet, on his site John Reisman once again pretends he is a large organization, saying (under the contact link):  _"Common Sense for America" Centrists are not moderate, they are strong sensible people that care about fairness, justice, value, and responsibility. To protect these values, we have created 'The Centrist Party'. Join us, to help return honor and value to our political leadership._  So what does he really do, when hes not pretending to be a large important organization? Why, he does webpage work using plone.  :Biggrin:   Here he is, giving advice to plone users about how to use plone:   Plone CMS: Open Source Content Management  Plone is a free and open source content management system anyone can use. I guess its being free suits Reisman, living out in the forest, growing who knows what kind of crops. When he isnt communing with nature, Reisman likes to use his site to insult people like Lord Monckton, using graphs and other data that have no credibility since climategate.  :Doh:       . . .

----------


## woodbe

> Interesting.  Where should we be focusing our efforts then?

  I'm not getting the relevance of this to the Climate change debate. Firstly, it's already 5 years out of date, and secondly it is being used in this context (here) to  compare current known health risk factors against future events of unknown extent. I really can't imagine any other outcome at this time given the focus of the study.  Of course, we can expect Global Climate Change to move up that list as it's impact becomes more relevant. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> . .You produce a barrel of human industrial toxic waste, and Ill produce a barrel of natures toxic wastes, and they will be equally deadly. The difference is that mother nature produces far, far more than us poor humans.

  But that's the point isn't it. There are few instances in nature of barrels of toxic waste, while our industry creates it in that form.   

> This is a personal opinion attack article by one individual - a greenie called John Reisman. The the site *ossfoundation.us* is owned by him. He built it using plone, and likes to pretend it is a large organization, hence references to Our View etc.  He lives Big Bear Lake, California, which is in the San Bernardino National Forest, out in the middle of nowhere. He has not studied biology or weather, and has no qualifications in these areas of any kind..

  Very interesting that you took the time to extract that information without answering his actual criticism. Do you have any information regarding the actual content on the webpage other than reciprocating with your own personal attack? 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> But that's the point isn't it. There are few instances in nature of barrels of toxic waste, while our industry creates it in that form.

   Australians put their tiny amount of toxic waste into barrels because we are clean and safety conscious. Undersea volcanoes spew their mountains of toxic waste without any packaging. Cows create their toxic waste without using plastic bags. Microorganisms produce theirs without a license. Swamps produce theirs without any council approval. Australians go through many hoops and red tape to produce theirs, and then dispose of it safely. . . So when are you going to tell us how Australia poisons the planet?   .  .

----------


## woodbe

> . So when are you going to tell us how Australia poisons the planet?

  I already did, but you weren't listening.  :Cool:  
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

per capita Australia is the worst in the world http://www.theage.com.au/environment...0910-fjdt.html Not only is that CO2 its all the other  stuff from oil fired and coal fired furnices The other point to this is this thread today has dropped from 10.7 viewers per post to 10.4. the average I counted over a full page was 36. So you are arguing with yourself.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> per capita Australia is the worst in the world The world's worst polluters Not only is that CO2 its all the other stuff from oil fired and coal fired furnices The other point to this is this thread today has dropped from 10.7 viewers per post to 10.4. the average I counted over a full page was 36. So you are arguing with yourself.

  Load of rubbish and so what.

----------


## rrobor

Australians put their tiny amount of toxic waste into barrels because we are clean and safety conscious. Thats what your mate wrote Rod, nice to know we are snow white. So whats the point of posting crap that no one believes. Regardless of whether polution is causing issues or not a statement like that is crap and destroys your arguement.

----------


## Rod Dyson

I gotta admitt you are wearing me out Rrobor with your pointless comments.

----------


## rrobor

Now theres an arguement Rod. When I post a site stating we are the worst,  its pointless. But when he posts, we put our pollution in little barrels for reasons unknown,  thats great stuff. Thats why I left this the last time it got full of self congratulary posts and pitty help anybody saying something different. Now Im only here because, truth be known, no one is reading this except the participants and they are wearing thin now.

----------


## woodbe

So no evidence to disprove the claims about Christopher Monckton of Brenchley ? 
It's worse than I thought then...  :Eek:  
Rod? Did you read the Heat Island info? The Co2 6 step info? 
For an advanced sceptic, you don't seem to post much hard information. Surely you have an arsenal of information why those lousy, morally bankrupt Climate Change Scientists are so horribly wrong? Where is it? Surely not the rubbish from Channel 4? 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. . .   

> So when are you going to tell us how Australia poisons the planet?

    

> I already did, but you weren't listening.

    Well, you posted some irrelevant links and I showed why they failed in reply #600. Unable or unwilling to face up to the music, you copied Dazzler and went as mute as a mackerel. It’s clear you cannot show how Australia “poisons the planet” because it doesn’t.     

> Australians put their tiny amount of toxic waste into barrels because we are clean and safety conscious. Thats what your mate wrote Rod, nice to know we are snow white.

   It actually began with woodbe, who said, “There are few instances in nature of barrels of toxic waste, while our industry creates it in that form.” I merely pointed out that we put such waste in barrels because we are clean and safety conscious. Why do you think Australians put toxic waste in barrels rrobor? Because we’re _unclean_ and _unconscious_ of safety?  :Biggrin:     

> So whats the point of posting crap that no one believes.

   That’s a question you need to ask yourself. I see nothing but tedious, repetitive trolling in most of your badly written posts, so far.    

> Regardless of whether polution is causing issues or not a statement like that is crap and destroys your arguement.

   Your arguments destroy themselves when you constantly describe them as ‘arguements’, and if you’re going to spend so much time moaning about pollution, you might learn how to spell the word.  :Rolleyes:   .  .

----------


## Rod Dyson

It is very easy for you to deny that these scientist are as you describe. You didn't read the emails I take it wooodbe. 
I also take it you don't believe there was a bit of fudging and manipulation by these scientists? Even though it is by their own admission.

----------


## chrisp

Rod, 
Very impressive effort from you on page 40 with 9 out of 15 posts on that page coming from you. 
Maybe you could go for a "forum first" (as far as I'm aware) and try for 15/15 - i.e. post a whole page of posts all by yourself.

----------


## Allen James

.    

> Rod, 
> Very impressive effort from you on page 40 with 9 out of 15 posts on that page coming from you. 
> Maybe you could go for a "forum first" (as far as I'm aware) and try for 15/15 - i.e. post a whole page of posts all by yourself.

  Rod's a busy man.  When he has time he answers a number of posts all at the same time - which is great, because they contain good information and advice, making this thread a very informative and educational one.  If that concerns you, then I'd have to wonder what you would say to an author who writes a 400 page book. 
"Hey, dude, like, what's up with all the pages, heh heh?"   :Biggrin:    .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> Very impressive effort from you on page 40 with 9 out of 15 posts on that page coming from you. 
> Maybe you could go for a "forum first" (as far as I'm aware) and try for 15/15 - i.e. post a whole page of posts all by yourself.

   :Biggrin:  Yes it was a big effort!! 
Catching up after being away for the day LOL.

----------


## woodbe

> It is very easy for you to deny that these scientist are as you describe. You didn't read the emails I take it wooodbe. 
> I also take it you don't believe there was a bit of fudging and manipulation by these scientists? Even though it is by their own admission.

  Rod, mate. 
A criminal broke into a server and took a bunch of data and emails. 
Subsequently, that criminal made a small subset of that information available on the internet. Supposedly 'random' and supposedly unedited. Who would know? 
Your side go ape with joy and delight with receiving stolen goods.  
Forgive me if I wait for the enquiry.  
I take it that you no longer subscribe to the theory that it's just a few rotten eggs at the top and climate scientists are all rotten now? 
Still waiting to hear about**: 
The 6 steps of understanding Co2 
Heat Island and temperature 
Something else, can't remember what... 
Allen. 
It's pretty simple mate. If we collect Toxic waste into barrels, eventually there is a leak or an accident. It's happened before and it will happen again. 
I have already explained the export of these toxic production processes into poorer countries, but you choose to disregard that. Up to you. Industrial production produces waste. Some of it, in Australia is in Barrels. In China and elsewhere it's in the environment. It's still waste created to fulfil demand in Australia. 
You haven't proved we aren't by the way.  
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. . .   

> A criminal broke into a server and took a bunch of data and emails.

   He is not a criminal. If you think he is, please point to the details of his court case and conviction.   

> Subsequently, that criminal

  He is not a criminal. I know Global Warming people like to distort things, but please, lets calm down and be honest about this issue.   

> made a small subset of that information available on the internet. Supposedly 'random' and supposedly unedited. Who would know?

  The scientists who did not deny writing the said emails.   

> Your side go ape with joy and delight with receiving stolen goods.

  Our intelligence forces steal information all the time, to protect us. The hacker in question was doing the same thing.   

> If we collect Toxic waste into barrels, eventually there is a leak or an accident. It's happened before and it will happen again.

  Woodbe, mate, volcanoes and swamps dont use barrels. They leak all day long. Dead whales on the beach dont come in barrels. They leak all over the beach. Fungus growing on a dead cow doesnt come in barrels.    

> I have already explained the export of these toxic production processes into poorer countries, but you choose to disregard that.

   You gave me irrelevant links, which I answered in reply 600. I asked you questions and made points which you ignored, and are still ignoring. For instance, if your computer, TV, car and batteries are toxic waste, poisoning the planet, then why did you purchase them? Can you spell hypocrisy?  :Biggrin:  .  . .

----------


## woodbe

> . He is not a criminal. If you think he is, please point to the details of his court case and conviction. 
> [..]  He is not a criminal. I know Global Warming people like to distort things, but please, lets calm down and be honest about this issue.

  Someone illegally broke into the server and illegally appropriated and distributed the data. That is a criminal act. Are you really suggesting it isn't?     

> The scientists who did not deny writing the said emails.

  Oh, right. These are the same scientists you disbelieve about their research. I can imagine they might not come forward at this juncture hoping to be given a fair hearing. If it were me, I'd be waiting for the inquiry. Trial by blog and media is rarely fair, and it certainly isn't justice.   

> Our intelligence forces steal information all the time, to protect us. The hacker in question was doing the same thing.

  Our intelligence forces are protected at the highest level by law. A hacker is subject to the law just the same as any other member of the public. Seeing as you seem quite unaware of the law, you may be interested to know that the law takes a very dim view of this sort of activity. If caught and convicted, he/she is probably looking at a jail term.   

> Woodbe, mate, volcanoes and swamps dont use barrels. They leak all day long. Dead whales on the beach dont come in barrels. They leak all over the beach. Fungus growing on a dead cow doesnt come in barrels.

  None of those things are stored for long periods in cities. They are natural hazards that we are protected from by our senses of smell and touch. Being natural occuring hazards, they have nothing to do with the discussion of whether Australia is adding to the toxic waste load of the planet. 
Where are the volcanoes in Australia by the way? I'd like to visit them.  :Doh:    

> You gave me irrelevant links, which I answered in reply 600. I asked you questions and made points which you ignored, and are still ignoring. For instance, if your computer, TV, car and batteries are toxic waste, poisoning the planet, then why did you purchase them? Can you spell hypocrisy?  .

  *You call me a hypocrite again. Personal attack.* This whole toxic waste discussion came up because YOU proclaimed that Australia did was clean:   

> The reason you, Dazzler and Armadale cant find evidence Australia is poisoning the planet is simple enough. It doesnt exist.

  When I repeatedly demonstrate out that Australia has a hand in creating these toxic waste products you choose to ignore and belittle that evidence and instead attack me as a hypocrite? I think that is called Ad Hominem 
And I haven't even mentioned our hand in supplying and burning coal locally and overseas or uranium. Nothing toxic about their byproducts either I guess. 
If you cannot discuss this without resorting to attacks, I will simply ignore you. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

Oh yea. I forgot to post this. 
Green and Red is Temperature data and trend 
Blue and Violet is Co2 data and trend 
Brown and Aqua is Solar Insolation  Link to interactive graph at WoodForTrees 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. . .  

> Someone illegally broke into the server and illegally appropriated and distributed the data. That is a criminal act. Are you really suggesting it isn't?

  One is only pronounced a criminal after one has been prosecuted and convicted of a crime. Whether his actions were actually a crime, considering he was uncovering a much worse crime, that would in turn save Western countries billions of dollars, can be determined by a jury  if it goes to court. My own opinion is that no crime was committed, due to the reasons for, and the results of, his valiant (to quote Lord Monckton) actions.    

> Oh, right. These are the same scientists you disbelieve about their research.

  Again, they had the opportunity to state the emails were false, and did not. They made it quite obvious the emails were theirs. By the way, I have no doubt they would have claimed they were false, if they believed they could get away with it. Since they would be aware that an examination of their servers hash codes and archived data could prove they sent the emails, they could not take that route. It is obvious that if they did not send the emails they would have said so immediately.    

> Our intelligence forces are protected at the highest level by law. A hacker is subject to the law just the same as any other member of the public. Seeing as you seem quite unaware of the law, you may be interested to know that the law takes a very dim view of this sort of activity. If caught and convicted, he/she is probably looking at a jail term.

  You are confusing a valiant hacker with treacherous sabotaging hackers, who wreak havoc and mayhem on the internet. This hacker was the robin hood of hackers, who did what he did to help millions of poor people. He is a hero, and will most likely be saluted by the judge and jury in any court case that came about. Laws forbid me to shoot someone with a gun. However, if I shot a man who was about to shoot the Prime Minister, then I would be a hero, not a criminal. This is much the same thing. At the root of the rule of law is the quest to judge a person fairly, looking at his motives and the results of his actions. If his motives and actions are beneficial to mankind, he will usually be judged accordingly.     

> Being natural occuring hazards, they have nothing to do with the discussion of whether Australia is adding to the toxic waste load of the planet.

  The question was not, whether Australia is adding to the toxic waste load of the planet. The question, which you continue to avoid, is, How does Australia poison the planet?     

> Where are the volcanoes in Australia by the way? I'd like to visit them.

  There have been many volcanoes in Australia, and in the oceans around Australia, over the millennia, pumping out huge amounts of material, much of which is toxic. Its still on or in the ground. Today there are two active volcanoes in Australian territory. From Oz Volcanoes:   ___Big Ben is located on Heard Island, an Australian territory in the southern Indian Ocean. Big Ben has erupted as recently as 2001. Mawson Peak on McDonald Island is located 40 km to the west of Heard Island volcano, in the sub Antarctic and is the highest peak on Australian territory. The island doubled in size between 1980 and 2001, due to volcanic activity._    

> If you cannot discuss this without resorting to attacks, I will simply ignore you.

  Whoa there young fella.  :Biggrin:   Politely stating simple facts is *not* ad hominem. If a person chastises Australians for poisoning the planet by recycling batteries and buying computers, TVs, computers and cars, when that _same person_ buys all these products time and time again, he or she is being hypocritical, by definition. It is merely a factual observation. Since this description fits you, you should address it.  :Smilie:  . .  .

----------


## woodbe

> . .One is only pronounced a criminal after one has been prosecuted and convicted of a crime. Whether his actions were actually a crime, considering he was uncovering a much worse crime, that would in turn save Western countries billions of dollars, can be determined by a jury  if it goes to court. My own opinion is that no crime was committed, due to the reasons for, and the results of, his valiant (to quote Lord Monckton) actions. 
> [..]  You are confusing a valiant hacker with treacherous sabotaging hackers, who wreak havoc and mayhem on the internet. This hacker was the robin hood of hackers, who did what he did to help millions of poor people. He is a hero, and will most likely be saluted by the judge and jury in any court case that came about. Laws forbid me to shoot someone with a gun. However, if I shot a man who was about to shoot the Prime Minister, then I would be a hero, not a criminal. This is much the same thing. At the root of the rule of law is the quest to judge a person fairly, looking at his motives and the results of his actions. If his motives and actions are beneficial to mankind, he will usually be judged accordingly. .

  You are more than a little confused.  Technology Enabled Crime Types - Australian High Tech Crime Centre 
Breaking into computers is a crime. If the person is found and charged and if sufficient evidence is brought to bear, they will be convicted. There is no such thing as a robin hood hacker in law. There is a test of the evidence, and if the evidence supports the charge beyond reasonable doubt then a conviction will be recorded and a sentence pronounced. 
This is law 101. Don't be surprised if the judge doesn't jump up and salute this hacker as his job has nothing to do with judging opinions about Climate Change.  
Toxic Load.
Adding to the toxic load of the planet is essentially the same as poisoning the planet. In any case my semantics meter is going off the scale so I doubt I will discuss that issue much more with you. I have shown you examples and have been repeatedly called a hypocrite for my trouble. Whether I am a hypocrite has nothing to do with whether Australia is [adding to the toxic load : Poisoning the planet] There is no way of recovering from that position. 
Monckton.
I'm still waiting for your critique of the examples of Monckton's antics from the OSS site. The general thrust is that his Climate change analyses use short term data in many fallacious attempts to demonstrate that long term trends and predictions are wrong. I think there are more than a few examples to discuss, and there are plenty of other sites that demonstrate similar antics from the bloke. 
We could do Moncton's example graphs one by one if you have trouble starting. 
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

You know Allen I keep reading the diabolicle things you write and can not believe anybody could think that way. The law is the law. When you or I disagree with the law we have the right to try and have it changed by the use of our vote. " The end justifies the means." Well in WW2 people were stuck in baths of freezing water to see how long they will last at a certain temperature. It was done to see how long a U boat crew could last. Now that has added to mans knowledge and is used today. When individuals start to make their own judgements as to which laws to follow and which to ignore we have no law we are a rabble.
views per post  10.38

----------


## Allen James

.. .   

> You are more than a little confused.

  About you refusing to answer questions? Its fairly straightforward:  A)You say Australians are poisoning the planet because they recycle batteries, buy computers, cars and TVs, yet you do all these things yourself.  B)Since this is the definition of hypocrisy, you are asked to explain, and you steadfastly refuse.  How do you think that helps your case?  Imagine a guy goes online on a public Australian board to accuse Australians of all being thieves. Then it turns out that he has a long record of convictions for bank robbery. Once this was discovered, and he was confronted about it, would he be better off admitting his comments had been hypocritical, or refusing to answer? Obviously his best approach would be to fess up and face the music. Refusing to answer is only going to make his hypocrisy appear worse. People will say, He wasnt just a hypocrite, but a pretentious, self satisfied and bad mannered hypocrite to boot.  This isnt ad hominem by the way  just the honest, objective truth. Its what people would say under those circumstances. So my advice is to face the music regarding all those computers, cars, TVs and batteries you have purchased, and explain why you call Australians planet poisoners for doing what you do yourself. Why dont you go around telling people that *you* poison the planet? Isnt it because you know that this would make it impossible for you to lecture us about how _Australians_ poison the planet? This is how you come across so far:  Woodbe: Australians poison the planet and should be punished accordingly through a big fat tax. Joe Public: How do they poison the planet? Woodbe: By buying TVs, computers, cars and recycling batteries. Joe Public: Dont you do that too? Woodbe: [Silence]. Joe Public: Hello? Will you answer the question?  Woodbe: I already answered.  Joe Public: Not at all. I pointed out your hypocrisy in doing the same thing, and you refused to comment. Doesnt that make you a hypocrite? Woodbe: How dare you use ad hominem! Im going to ignore you if you do that! Joe Public: Its not ad hominem. Im just stating facts. You still didnt answer the question. So what have you to say about the fact that you do the same thing you accuse Australians of doing? Woodbe: So anyway, about that hacker . . . Joe Public: Whoa there, how about your hypocritical position on buying cars, TVs, computers and batteries, while accusing Aussies of being planet poisoners? Woodbe: [sticks fingers in ears] Laddle laddle laddle laddle  I cant hear you  laddle laddle laddle . . .  Joe Public: Wouldnt this make you a hypocrite _and_ a shill, by definition? Woodbe: Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Waaagh!   

> Breaking into computers is a crime. If the person is found and charged and if sufficient evidence is brought to bear, they will be convicted.

  Not if a jury find him innocent of the crime. Dont tell me you havent heard of juries? They exist precisely because the law is not inflexible, as I explained in my last post. To repeat; I may not shoot someone, yet if I shoot the man who was going to shoot the Prime Minister I am exonerated. Laws on their own would send me to jail, while a jury would find me innocent and give me a medal.   

> Adding to the toxic load of the planet is essentially the same as poisoning the planet.

  To repeat, the planet is made up of huge amounts of toxic material  most of it natural. If you add a teaspoon of toxic material to a mountain of toxic material, you can hardly be accused of poisoning the poisonous mountain.   

> I'm still waiting for your critique of the examples of Monckton's antics from the OSS site.

  Says the guy who avoided every hard question so far, and refuses point blank to answer the worst of his howling mistakes. I already dealt with the imbecile John Reisman in reply #627, on page on page 42 of this thread, which I invite others to read now, for a good laugh. If you throw an amateur smear campaign like that at me and call it debate then you have a lot to learn about debating.  So when are you going to tell us how Australia poisons the planet?  . . .

----------


## chrisp

> .   
> Rod's a busy man.  When he has time he answers a number of posts all at the same time - which is great, because they contain good information and advice, making this thread a very informative and educational one.  If that concerns you, then I'd have to wonder what you would say to an author who writes a 400 page book. 
> "Hey, dude, like, what's up with all the pages, heh heh?"     .

  Allen, 
You have a funny way of reading posts! 
On page 40, it seems that Rod is having a conversation with himself - I just made (what I thought was) humorous comment. 
Oh, and BTW, last time I checked my publications list, it exceeds 80 publications.  How's yours?   :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

Ok, Allen, One last time.  

> Originally Posted by woodbe  You are more than a little confused.    .. .  About you refusing to answer questions? Its fairly straightforward:

  No, actually about your understanding of how the law works.   

> A)You say Australians are poisoning the planet because they recycle batteries, buy computers, cars and TVs, yet you do all these things yourself.

  Actually, no. Whether I do those things myself is irrelevant to the question of whether they happen, and whether their production and disposal poisons the planet. Which it does.   

> B)Since this is the definition of hypocrisy, you are asked to explain, and you steadfastly refuse.

  So I am on trial here for daring to point out facts about our modern society? Whether I am a hypocrite or not is irrelevant.    

> How do you think that helps your case?

  My case?   

> Imagine a guy goes online on a public Australian board to accuse Australians of all being thieves. Then it turns out that he has a long record of convictions for bank robbery. Once this was discovered, and he was confronted about it, would he be better off admitting his comments had been hypocritical, or refusing to answer? Obviously his best approach would be to fess up and face the music. Refusing to answer is only going to make his hypocrisy appear worse. People will say, He wasnt just a hypocrite, but a pretentious, self satisfied and bad mannered hypocrite to boot.

  So now I am being compared to robbers and thieves for pointing out that Australia produces Toxic Waste that poisons the planet? Really. This is too much.    

> This isnt ad hominem by the way  just the honest, objective truth.

  There is no truth test for Ad Hominem, and this is definitely Ad Hominem, regardless of the fantasy that seems to occupy your mind.   

> Its what people would say under those circumstances. So my advice is to face the music regarding all those computers, cars, TVs and batteries you have purchased, and explain why you call Australians planet poisoners for doing what you do yourself. Why dont you go around telling people that *you* poison the planet? Isnt it because you know that this would make it impossible for you to lecture us about how _Australians_ poison the planet?

  This is not what 'people say' under these circumstances. It is what YOU have said. 
It stands to reason that if the production of goods for our society involves production of toxic waste that by buying those products we each have some responsibility for the production of that waste. This is an unfortunate consequence of living in modern society. I face up to that and I do my best to minimise it. I think that is a better option than living in some sort of dream world where there I believe that Australia is 'clean', but we each make our own decision on that.    

> This is how you come across so far:  Woodbe: Australians poison the planet and should be punished accordingly through a big fat tax.

  Actually, I never said that. I said that we should run Australia as if directed by the planet. eg. minimise our impact.   

> Joe Public: How do they poison the planet?

  Have you changed your name now?   

> Woodbe: By buying TVs, computers, cars and recycling batteries.

  I actually pointed out that there are many ways we make toxic waste. Those items you have latched onto are but a small part of it.   

> Joe Public: Dont you do that too? Woodbe: [Silence].

  Many things you may get from me, but you haven't had silence. I have never denied that my existence on this planet comes at a cost to the planet of resources and waste. It's a fact of life. Recognising it and doing my best to minimise the impact is one way of dealing with that reality.   

> Joe Public: Hello? Will you answer the question?  Woodbe: I already answered.

  Indeed. I'm not sure what semantic trap you would like me to fall into here...   

> Joe Public: Not at all. I pointed out your hypocrisy in doing the same thing, and you refused to comment. Doesnt that make you a hypocrite? Woodbe: How dare you use ad hominem! Im going to ignore you if you do that!

  I wonder how many times I have to suffer this...   

> Joe Public: Its not ad hominem. Im just stating facts. You still didnt answer the question. So what have you to say about the fact that you do the same thing you accuse Australians of doing?

  It is Ad Hominem. I am an Australian, and I am already doing the best I can to minimise my impact. If that makes me a Hypocrite that's fine. At least I've recognised the problem and I do something about it.   

> Woodbe: So anyway, about that hacker . . . Joe Public: Whoa there, how about your hypocritical position on buying cars, TVs, computers and batteries, while accusing Aussies of being planet poisoners?

  You can't help yourself, can you?   

> Woodbe: [sticks fingers in ears] Laddle laddle laddle laddle  I cant hear you  laddle laddle laddle . . .  Joe Public: Wouldnt this make you a hypocrite _and_ a shill, by definition? Woodbe: Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Waaagh!

  Oh right. I think that's about as much as I am willing to tolerate on the Toxic score.    

> Not if a jury find him innocent of the crime. Dont tell me you havent heard of juries? They exist precisely because the law is not inflexible, as I explained in my last post. To repeat; I may not shoot someone, yet if I shoot the man who was going to shoot the Prime Minister I am exonerated. Laws on their own would send me to jail, while a jury would find me innocent and give me a medal.

  And if you shot a bloke in the presence of the Prime Minister and claimed he was going to shoot the PM but when inspected, he had no weapn and turned out to be the PM's best mate? See my previous post on this subject. Repeating your argument does not make it any more correct that it was the first time. Whilst you clearly think that it was the right thing to do hacking into a computer system and stealing data, the evidence will suggest otherwise. What you are suggesting is that we should adopt anarchy, the end justifies the means, etc, etc. The Law is there to protect all of us, not just those who happen to agree with your opinions.    

> To repeat, the planet is made up of huge amounts of toxic material  most of it natural. If you add a teaspoon of toxic material to a mountain of toxic material, you can hardly be accused of poisoning the poisonous mountain.

  Add a teaspoon of toxic material where it should not be, and you have a calamity. I'm thinking food chain; water supply; atmosphere. The issue is concentration and location. Rarely an issue with natural toxic hazards (but it does occasionally happen)    

> Says the guy who avoided every hard question so far, and refuses point blank to answer the worst of his howling mistakes. I already dealt with the imbecile John Reisman in reply #627, on page on page 42 of this thread, which I invite others to read now, for a good laugh. If you throw an amateur smear campaign like that at me and call it debate then you have a lot to learn about debating.

  So you are unable to stand up for your valiant co-sceptic Lord Monckton. His position is indefensible anyway.   

> So when are you going to tell us how Australia poisons the planet?

  Enough. 
/ignore 
woodbe.

----------


## Joe

Rod, Allen, *EDITED POST*
No response?  
Your contrary combination of cowardice and bragaderio reminds me that mortality is a wonderful thing. 
Check out the below as a basic primer in the science you so steadfastly refuse to understand. Deliberate ignorance may well be the defining character of humanity but I cannot resisit the urge to try and help you through this.   The Discovery of Global Warming - A History 
Good luck with the whole death denial thing. like I said it is only the fact that you are allowed to vote thst stops you from being hilarious...

----------


## woodbe

Joe, 
Thanks for posting. 
Maybe there is hope for Queensland. It must be pretty tough up there based on recent activity here. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Woodbe Nobody disputes point 1-3 of the 6 points.  However:  Step 4: “Lessons from simple toy models”– Presumably meaning that less outgoing radiation means a warmer surface, but bring in other factors (clouds, advection, convection), and as a general rule this statement looks too simple.  Step 5: “Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2.” This is about three times larger than some estimates (Stefan-Boltzmann for instance), and this is what a large portion of the debate revolves around, isn’t it? Settled? I doubt it. I see a few respondents on the thread are gamely prying away at this step.  Step 6:”Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number” Compared to what? Is it significant in terms of climate, extreme weather events, insurance losses, impacts on the economy, impacts on the polar bear, or letting bureaucrats run every minute detail of one’s life? How big a problem is this in reality? This is the biggest unsettled issue in the entire debate.  You want to boil the whole debate down to three steps over which there is little quarrel, followed by three iffy steps over which there is no proof, but only his un-proven opinions.  I did have to smile when I read the responses on that site (RC), though. Most could have a smiley emoticon in accompaniment, and they are all so polite–not like the real world at all.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, Allen, 
> No response?* EDITED POST* 
> Your contrary combination of cowardice and bragaderio reminds me that mortality is a wonderful thing. 
> Check out the below as a basic primer in the science you so steadfastly refuse to understand. Deliberate ignorance may well be the defining character of humanity but I cannot resisit the urge to try and help you through this.   The Discovery of Global Warming - A History 
> Good luck with the whole death denial thing. like I said it is only the fact that you are allowed to vote thst stops you from being hilarious...

  
You cant be serious?

----------


## rrobor

I would suggest boys you try to cool your temper,  I just thought I heard the fat lady warming up, Even Rod is getting a bit steamy. If you want this thread  to continue,  go have a cup of tea and a wee biscuit  and cool off.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> On page 40, it seems that Rod is having a conversation with himself.

   Not to me, as I read the preceding pages. It was clear he was catching up to and addressing previous issues brought up and points made.    

> Oh, and BTW, last time I checked my publications list, it exceeds 80 publications. How's yours? J

  The ACTU (Australian Council of Trade Unions) has a publications list, as does Worksafe Australia (another Union). Many left winged academics have papers published, supporting global warming, opposing nuclear energy, etc. During my own university days I was surrounded by lefties, being the only conservative there. There was always some bespectacled beatnik with a paper on why we should not build dams, or extolling communism, or on why trade unions are vital, and so on. Naturally I was never interested in joining their club, though I was published in various newspapers and magazines out there in the real world.     

> You say Australians are poisoning the planet because they recycle batteries, buy computers, cars and TVs, yet you do all these things yourself.

      

> Whether I do those things myself is irrelevant to the question of whether they happen, and whether their production and disposal poisons the planet. Which it does.

  You refuse to say, Yes, I poison the planet, because you know how hypocritical it is for a poisoner of the planet to insist that other poisoners of the planet give money to China, when you have done no such thing yourself. Lets look at how the conversation would go if you *did* fess up:  Woodbe: Australians poison the planet, so they should pay billions to China and India. Joe Public: Do you poison the planet too? Woodbe: Yes. Joe Public: Have you sent any money to India and China? Woodbe: No. Joe Public: If sacrificing money is the right thing to do, to appease the Global Warming Gods, then why havent you done it already? Woodbe: [Puts fingers in ears] Im not going to listen. Joe Public: Well? Dont you think thats hypocritical? Woodbe: addle laddle laddle . . . I cant hear you . . . Joe Public: Answer the question! Woodbe: Youre on ignore. Laddle laddle laddle . . .    

> this is definitely Ad Hominem

  Nope. Stating facts, however they may upset you, is not ad hominem. When a surgeon tells a woman she is overweight, it is not ad hominem. If I show you an example of hypocrisy that is, by definition, hypocrisy, it is not ad hominem. Most people understand the simple concept that it is hypocritical to run around screeching that others are doing some wicked deed, when it turns out you do it yourself  especially when you refuse to admit it, as you have done. Okay, you do not understand this, but most people do. On the bright side, you can learn about this now, and hopefully clean up your act.  :Smilie:     

> I am an Australian, and I am already doing the best I can to minimise my impact.

  Australians have no impact on the planet  thats the point. If you buy cars, computers, TVs and batteries, then you are guilty of what you charge Aussies with, but you have sent no money to India or China to pay for these wicked deeds.    

> And if you shot a bloke in the presence of the Prime Minister and claimed he was going to shoot the PM but when inspected, he had no weapn and turned out to be the PM's best mate?

  That would be a different scenario. In my example the person was indeed trying to shoot the PM. So my shooting him first saved the PM. Once this was determined in court, the jury would let me off the hook for breaking the otherwise strict law about not shooting people, and moreover, would extol me as a hero. You obviously need to learn more about how the court system and the rule of law work.    

> Enough. /ignore

  Very predictable. It is how you get out of admitting that you accuse others of doing what you do yourself, and are thus hypocritical on this subject.  On the subject of toxicity, dont take my word that the planet is a giant ball of rock, dirt and water, full of toxic substances. Try eating it. Grab a plate full of swamp mud and dig in. Eat some of your compost in the back yard. Devour some poisonous plants. Try some of the different elements found in the ocean. When you are sick and dying, ask a doctor why.  When we dig up out of the ground the elements we use to build computers, and return these same elements to the ground they came from, how are we poisoning the planet? You totally failed to answer this simple question because we obviously do not poison the planet. Everything we extract from the planet goes back _into_ the planet  leaving it compositionally exactly the same as it was before. If it is poisoned, it is because it was *always* poisoned, duhh...  :Rolleyes:    Anyway, I'm on ignore now, so I can have a rest! Yippee!   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Allen James

> go have a cup of tea and a wee

  I'll skip the tea, but will go for the number one.   :Biggrin:

----------


## Vernonv

> I'll skip the tea, but will go for the number one.

  But don't flush ... apparently an angel dies every time you flush ... or so the doomers say.  :Biggrin:

----------


## watson

Fellers,
I'm having to get in and *EDIT* a few posts.
That is *NOT* making my day.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe Nobody disputes point 1-3 of the 6 points.

  Ok.    

> However:

    

> Step 4: Lessons from simple toy models Presumably meaning that less outgoing radiation means a warmer surface, but bring in other factors (clouds, advection, convection), and as a general rule this statement looks too simple.

  Did you follow the link:  RealClimate: Learning from a simple model     

> Step 5: Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2.

    

> This is about three times larger than some estimates (Stefan-Boltzmann for instance), and this is what a large portion of the debate revolves around, isnt it? Settled? I doubt it. I see a few respondents on the thread are gamely prying away at this step.  Step 6:Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number Compared to what? Is it significant in terms of climate, extreme weather events, insurance losses, impacts on the economy, impacts on the polar bear, or letting bureaucrats run every minute detail of ones life? How big a problem is this in reality? This is the biggest unsettled issue in the entire debate.

  We have some work to do there I can see.  :Smilie:  Be back later on that.    

> You want to boil the whole debate down to three steps over which there is little quarrel, followed by three iffy steps over which there is no proof, but only his un-proven opinions.

  Actually, I have no interest in boiling the whole debate down to three steps. I do have interest in discovering where you decided that the science is wrong, and how. You get to explain yourself. I'm no scientist, and neither are you however.   

> I did have to smile when I read the responses on that site (RC), though. Most could have a smiley emoticon in accompaniment, and they are all so politenot like the real world at all.

  So you haven't been referring to RC for your pro-AGW research? Where do you (personally) go for that input? 
These are people trained to take sceptical counter positions. If it ended in a raging argument and name-calling at every turn, the process would break down. I guess they are generally rowing in the same direction on that site, so it probably helps the harmony too. 
woodbe.

----------


## Vernonv

> No response?

  I must admit I enjoy reading the logical and well thought out arguments that come from some of the contributors from both sides of this discussion, but your initial post sounded more like some sort of religious diatribe spewed from a fundamentalist fanatic ... so needless to say I can understand why you didn't get much of a response.

----------


## Allen James

> But don't flush ... apparently an angel dies every time you flush ... or so the doomers say.

  Heh heh - good one.   :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> Fellers,
> I'm having to get in and *EDIT* a few posts.
> That is *NOT* making my day.

  Sorry Noel.  :Cool:  
Look on the bright side: It could have been worse. My tongue has bite marks in it. :Eek:  
woodbe.

----------


## Joe

Pretty offensive Vern, but well within form for the misinformed. 
I asked for a cited paper in a reputable journal and got zilch from the deniers.  
Facts is facts Vern, there aint none!  
You lack the courage to support your position because it is based on belief rather than the facts of the science which you probably have't even taken the trouble to investigate.  
To be accused of religious like diatribe from a denier is a huge pot calling the kettle black. 
There aren't two sides there is only reasoned argument and denial. If you stick your head in the sand, along with your loony conspiratorial denial friends, don't be surprised when you get a kick up the butt!

----------


## Vernonv

You're true to form Joe  :2thumbsup:  ...

----------


## rrobor

LA . LA .LA .LAAA .LA . LA .LA. ME me me MEEE Me me . Hopefully that will amuse Noel enough. 
Views per answer now 10.247 so no one else is looking, yesterday was 10.7 average is about 30

----------


## Allen James

.   

> To be accused of religious like diatribe from a denier is a huge pot calling the kettle black.

  
You are the denier because you deny evidence that shows global warming is a myth.  If you disagree, peruse this thread and pick out the best arguments we have already provided, and dispute them, providing proof and evidence to back your claims up. We require evidence and science (not phony science) to accept a proposition like Global Warming, while you are very happy to accept an anti-science, semi-religious bunkum.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I would suggest boys you try to cool your temper, I just thought I heard the fat lady warming up, Even Rod is getting a bit steamy. If you want this thread to continue, go have a cup of tea and a wee biscuit and cool off.

  There you go again Rrobor with another threat that the thread will close.  
This issue is very polarizing in points of view I expect that the debate would be quite robust from time to time. Nothing new here. 
I think under the circumstances we are doing quite well. 
Having said that I see Watson has had to edit some post. This is not good and we need to maintain a bit of decorum.

----------


## watson

*Confession* 
I had yesterday off.......the Missus's 60th Birthday. 
Joe posted at 9:38 AM , and I didn't see it sitting in moderation until about 10PM last night.
I approved it, but the software puts it into chronological order..which means it slots it into the 9:38 AM slot, and at the rate you blokes post, that put it two pages back, and probably no one saw it. 
I'd be cheesed off if I thought no one answered me too!! 
But, it was just my fault. 
Seconds out....DING !!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Views per answer now 10.247 so no one else is looking, yesterday was 10.7 average is about 30

  Really Rrobor,  who cares?  
With the quantitiy of posts in this thread I would not expect much different.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I asked for a cited paper in a reputable journal and got zilch from the deniers.

  You still have not read the emails Joe that clearly explains why "reputable" jounals have not published papers that contradict AGW. 
LOL this really is a big joke, if it weren't so serious. 
Block publictations then accuse of not publicating  :Doh:

----------


## rrobor

> Really Rrobor, who cares?  
> With the quantitiy of posts in this thread I would not expect much different.

   Actually correct Rod. to drop from 10.7 to 10.2 with that amount of pages means that only those who are answering are looking.  The hissy spats are just between the hissy spitters, no one else wants to see it. You seem to believe I want the thread closed, for what reason  I dont know. Tony Abbot I now see is doing some back flips, Oh interesting days.

----------


## Vernonv

> Actually correct Rod. to drop from 10.7 to 10.2 with that amount of pages means that only those who are answering are looking.

  Don't you love how statistics can be (badly) manipulated.
But the bottom line is so what? - this thread still keeps popping back up to the top of the list with regular frequency. 
And it obviously holds enough interest for you to keep coming back ... maybe you just keep coming back to see if it has been closed yet?

----------


## chrisp

I know it is bad form to quote opinion pieces, but I did have a bit of a chuckle reading an opinion piece by Michael Pascoe in _The Age_. 
The full piece can be found here: In search of the Magic Carbon Pudding  
But to save you reading it all, here is what I thought was the humorous bit:_To greatly simplify matters, you can divide the climate change debate into four camps: Primarily, there are those who believe our species is dangerously warming the planet and therefore we need to do something about it - and there are those who believe we're not cooking anything. While you might disagree with one side or the other, you can still respect their sincerity._  _Then, standing on the grassy knoll, is the fringe group who believe the whole greenhouse carry-on is a communist plot to install a world government dictatorship. I'm surprised they haven't alleged it's being run by Jews out of the Vatican - but give them time. This ratbag fringe apparently listens to Alan Jones (and his ilk in other states) and includes some Liberal and National Party members. It's best just ignored in the hope that they will go away._  _The fourth force runs the line that, well, yes, there might be global warming, but Australia only produces 1.5 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases, so whether we reduce it a fraction or not won't have any real impact, so let's go for a swim instead._I think we have all four bases covered here  :Smilie:

----------


## rrobor

Perhaps Vernov I come to see if my little doggy will tag along. How I can manipulate the stat's is beyond me, its a simple matter of the viewers devided by the posters. The number average was taken at random at that time the count of 1 total page. Do it yourself if you want, you will find the interest has gone and the numbers are dropping.

----------


## woodbe

Rod, 
Step 5.   

> Step 5: Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2. This is about three times larger than some estimates (Stefan-Boltzmann for instance), and this is what a large portion of the debate revolves around, isnt it? Settled? I doubt it. I see a few respondents on the thread are gamely prying away at this step.

  Perusing the included references in the links within Step 5, I found this:   

> A vast array of thought has been brought to bear on this problem, beginning with Arrhenius simple energy balance calculation, continuing through Manabes one-dimensional radiative-convective models in the 1960s, and culminating in todays comprehensive atmosphere-ocean general circulation models. The current crop of models studied by the IPCC range from an equilibrium sensitivity of about 1.5°C at the low end to about 5°C at the high end. Differences in cloud feedbacks remain the principal source of uncertainty. There is no guarantee that the high end represents the worst case, or that the low end represents the most optimistic case. While there is at present no compelling reason to doubt the models handling of water vapor feedback, it is not out of the question that some unanticipated behavior of the hydrological cycle could make the warming somewhat milder  or on the other hand, much, much worse. Thus, the question naturally arises as to whether one can use information from past climates to check which models have the most correct climate sensitivity.

  Seems to me they are allowing for wide variability, however your suggestion of 1°C seems to be at the most optimistic end of the scale. Given a range of 1.5-5°C then using a midrange figure with wide confidence levels seems to be an acceptable approach. 
I'm certainly not reading anything on Step 5 at RC that suggests that the value is fixed. (or settled. Is this the context you meant for your 'settled, I doubt it' comment?) This is what they say:   

> As we have discussed previously, the last glacial period is a good example of a large forcing (~7 W/m2 from ice sheets, greenhouse gases, dust and vegetation) giving a large temperature response (~5 ºC) and implying a sensitivity of about 3ºC (with substantial error bars).

  What's unreasonable about that, Rod? They seem to be taking multiple studies into account, and allowing for them in their model. Even getting close to your suggestion but still recognising that it could also be a whole lot worse than even they have allowed for. 
Rod can you provide a link to the Stefan-Boltzmann info you quoted? I haven't been able to find anything specific, other than references to the Stefan-Boltzmann 'Law'  which is defined as:   

> The *StefanBoltzmann law*, also known as *Stefan's law*, states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body in unit time (known variously as the black-body *irradiance*, *energy flux density*, *radiant flux*, or the *emissive power*), _j_*, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature _T_ (also called *absolute temperature*)

   :Eek:  
Doesn't sound like Climate sensitivity calculation to me, although it clearly could be used for part of that. 
I'll move Step 6 into a separate post. It will all get too messy otherwise. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.  .   

> Don't you love how statistics can be (badly) manipulated.

    

> But the bottom line is so what? - this thread still keeps popping back up to the top of the list with regular frequency.  And it obviously holds enough interest for you to keep coming back ... maybe you just keep coming back to see if it has been closed yet?

  Yes, I’m afraid rrobor comes across like Hardy Har Har.    “Oh me, oh my, oh dear . . . it looks like Rod’s thread is _still_ going!”  .      

> I know it is bad form to quote opinion pieces, but I did have a bit of a chuckle reading an opinion piece by Michael Pascoe in _The Age_.

  
Michael Pascoe? Is that socialist windbag still going? They said he had a nose for finance. Well, he had a nose, but not much else, IMHO.  :Biggrin:    .  .

----------


## Vernonv

> Perhaps Vernov I come to see if my little doggy will tag along.

  Well robor, I don't care what you do with your pooch, however the RSPCA might. :Confused:    

> How I can manipulate the stat's is beyond me, its a simple matter of the viewers devided by the posters. The number average was taken at random at that time the count of 1 total page..

  The trouble with your amazing statistical analysis is that the more posts a thread gets, the less "popular" it appears i.e. a thread with 10 posts a day that gets read by 10 people = avg of 1. A thread with 100 posts a day that gets read by the same 10 people only scores an avg of 0.1. They are both read by the same number of people, but by your definition the first one is more popular. See? ... I'm doubting it.   

> Do it yourself if you want, you will find the interest has gone and the numbers are dropping.

  I still can't quite figure out why you keep saying the thread is dying ... is it wishful thinking - you have run out of steam and don't like that others haven't?

----------


## rrobor

Vernov, point 1.  I dont have a dog so chew on that a bit before you dig deeper. Point 2   I can view this post as often as I like today, it doesnt add to the numbers. And finally it was Rod who stated he thought I wanted the thread closed. He was incorerect.  Rod moved on without fuss. But all  his little coat tail hangers seem to have picked up Rods cast offs and are running with them.

----------


## Vernonv

> Vernov, point 1. I dont have a dog so chew on that a bit before you dig deeper.

  roborr, you brought up the dog, so if you don't have one and would like one, go see the RSPCA, cause I'm not sure why you are bringing it up here.  

> Point 2 I can view this post as often as I like today, it doesnt add to the numbers.

  What???? I knew you wouldn't get it. As hard as it is, please try and face facts.  

> And finally it was Rod who stated he thought I wanted the thread closed. He was incorerect. Rod moved on without fuss. But all his little coat tail hangers seem to have picked up Rods cast offs and are running with them.

  What are you talking about? :Confused:

----------


## Allen James

I figure I better post something so rrobor can scribble down the tally and get out his abacus.  :Biggrin:  
Here's another climategate video  interesting interview on Fox news: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx5SRJJmfJs]YouTube - 'Climategate'[/ame] 
They point out that it was public money  hence the emails were not stolen, they were given to their owners  the public.  Good point.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I know it is bad form to quote opinion pieces, but I did have a bit of a chuckle reading an opinion piece by Michael Pascoe in _The Age_. 
> The full piece can be found here: In search of the Magic Carbon Pudding  
> But to save you reading it all, here is what I thought was the humorous bit: _To greatly simplify matters, you can divide the climate change debate into four camps: Primarily, there are those who believe our species is dangerously warming the planet and therefore we need to do something about it - and there are those who believe we're not cooking anything. While you might disagree with one side or the other, you can still respect their sincerity._  _Then, standing on the grassy knoll, is the fringe group who believe the whole greenhouse carry-on is a communist plot to install a world government dictatorship. I'm surprised they haven't alleged it's being run by Jews out of the Vatican - but give them time. This ratbag fringe apparently listens to Alan Jones (and his ilk in other states) and includes some Liberal and National Party members. It's best just ignored in the hope that they will go away._  _The fourth force runs the line that, well, yes, there might be global warming, but Australia only produces 1.5 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases, so whether we reduce it a fraction or not won't have any real impact, so let's go for a swim instead._I think we have all four bases covered here

  LOL yep easy to see which camp he belongs in.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Just beutiful. 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- Rex Murphy on Climategate[/ame] 
Woodbe your RC points apart from 1-3 are opinion only end of story.

----------


## Mack

Some very interesting and extremely well written and thought out arguments from both sides and from all members, except one.   
This member continues to convey his message with incoherent poorly constructered ramblings.  Even after reading them several times I cannot understand what he is talking about. 
Frank Vaux

----------


## Allen James

It looks like there will probably be a criminal investigation into the shysters who were conning us with global warming.  This is the first in a series of five videos with an American DJ interviewing Lord Monckton about climategate fraud, criminal investigations, how we owned the data and how they tried to keep it from us, and how they should be locked up for international racketeering, and many other points.  If Monckton gets his way they'll end up in jail.  :2thumbsup:    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqOvX2-EwvI&feature=related]YouTube - Lord Monckton 1 of 5 Global Warming Climategate Fraud, Criminal Investigations[/ame]

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe your RC points apart from 1-3 are opinion only end of story.

  Rod, 
That's not a concern to me. Show me where it's wrong, and why. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> That's not a concern to me. Show me where it's wrong, and why. 
> woodbe.

  I am not a scientist woodbe, have never professed to be. I like you rely on what I read. Like you I choose what and who to believe. 
I don't blindly believe what I read I take in all the relevant information and process it on the balance of probabilities, which also includes motives behind what people write. 
In my opinion the AGW argument fails on several fronts other than unproven science and models that have failed to predict 10 years ahead much less 100 years. 
There are some very strong motives for the scientific arena to keep the AGW gray train going for as long as possible. Likewise there are very strong motives for politicians to support the theory of AGW. There are very view motives other that personal prestige for the scientists that argue AGW. The big oil funding argument does not cut it so don't insult our intelligence by trying that one. More than 90% of funding regardless of scource goes to the AGW camp. 
Most fringe scientist that study the effect rather than the cause of AGW can be excused a little here as they are just accepting the "head honchos" word. But even now the leaked emails have cast a major shadow over their works. 
Any scientist that has to resort to calling opponants "deniers" etc to support their arguments have lost already. When Al Gore refuses to debate the science you have to question why? When data is with held you have to question the motives behind that. When their theory can neither be proven or dis-proven combined with all the other factors you have to stop and question the validity of the theory. 
When gross exaggerations of the dire effects of AGW are presented day in and day out, are required to scare people into belief without conclusive proof, you have to wonder why?  
When the Media refuse to cover any storey that refutes AGW you have to wonder why. 
If the science was so settled and they are so sure of themselves wouldn't they want to debate the "deniers" so they could prove their case once and for all beyond any doubt? 
Yet no, they don't do any of this, instead they, hide the data, manipulate the peer review process, manipulate the data, and slander anyone that has opposing views. 
It was the gross exaggerations that first alerted my bull @@@@ detector on AGW. It was their own decree that the sciece was settled that made me want to look deeper into the science behind AGW. It was their refusal to debate and slander opponants that convinced me that was something not quite right with AGW. It was the leaked emails that put the icing on the cake, that confirmed all we thought was going on to put my doubts beyond doubt. 
It would take a massive shift in the science and the attitude of the warmers to begin to convince me otherwise.

----------


## Rod Dyson

I am away for the weekend so Chrisp expect a page of posts to catch up when I get back!

----------


## Rod Dyson



----------


## intertd6

> . . .      There have been many volcanoes in Australia, and in the oceans around Australia, over the millennia, pumping out huge amounts of material, much of which is toxic. It’s still on or in the ground. Today there are two active volcanoes in Australian territory. From “Oz Volcanoes”:   _“__Big Ben is located on Heard Island, an Australian territory in the southern Indian Ocean. Big Ben has erupted as recently as 2001. Mawson Peak on McDonald Island is located 40 km to the west of Heard Island volcano, in the sub Antarctic and is the highest peak on Australian territory. The island doubled in size between 1980 and 2001, due to volcanic activity.”_    .  .

  Been out of this for as while but picked up the recited garbage which is displayed on the web & people take as fact.
Fact, there is only one volcano on Heard island called "Big Ben" on Heard island, the peak of Heard island is called Mawson peak with a height of 2745m. Mcdonald island is now small volcano, these islands are not connected to the Australian mainland & are only Australian by political definition. When I visited the island in 1989 it's height was 2820m so its on the way down slowly 
regards inter

----------


## Allen James

. .    

> . There have been many volcanoes in Australia, and in the oceans around Australia, over the millennia, pumping out huge amounts of material, much of which is toxic. It’s still on or in the ground. Today there are two active volcanoes in Australian territory. From “Oz Volcanoes”:

    

> _“Big Ben is located on Heard Island, an Australian territory in the southern Indian Ocean. Big Ben has erupted as recently as 2001. Mawson Peak on McDonald Island is located 40 km to the west of Heard Island volcano, in the sub Antarctic and is the highest peak on Australian territory. The island doubled in size between 1980 and 2001, due to volcanic activity.”_

    

> Been out of this for as while but picked up the recited garbage which is displayed on the web & people take as fact.

   “Garbage” is a pretty strong term for one mistake.     

> Fact, there is only one volcano on Heard island called "Big Ben"

   Yes, and the quote above said there is one volcano on Heard Island, called Big Ben.     

> the peak of Heard island is called Mawson peak with a height of 2745m.

   Okay, so Mawson peak is on Heard Island, not McDonald Island. They made a minor error. Thanks for the correction. I also see from Wikipedia that “Mawson Peak is the highest Australian mountain (higher than Mount Kosciuszko), and one of only 2 active volcanoes in Australian territory, the other being McDonald Island.”      

> Mcdonald island is now small volcano

   From Wikipedia again: “The volcano on McDonald Island, after being dormant for 75,000 years, erupted in 1992 and erupted several times since. A satellite image taken in 2004 showed recent volcanic activity had joined McDonald Island and Flat Island into one island and generally doubled the land size of the resultant island. Its most recent eruption is thought to have been on 10 August 2005.”      

> these islands are not connected to the Australian mainland

   Er...nobody said they were. The quote I first used (see above) said, “an Australian territory in the southern Indian Ocean.”  :Rolleyes:      

> & are only Australian by political definition

   They are Australian full stop, no ifs and buts about it. Australian territory is Australian territory.    Well, after all that you have shown me one error made on their page – the fact that Mawson peak is on Heard Island, not McDonald Island. One line would have been sufficient for that, but anyhoo, I’ll email the site owner.   My points all remain unchanged, but thanks anyway.  :Wink:     . .

----------


## woodbe

Rod,   

> I am not a scientist woodbe, have never professed to be. I like you rely on what I read. Like you I choose what and who to believe. 
> I don't blindly believe what I read I take in all the relevant information and process it on the balance of probabilities, which also includes motives behind what people write. 
> In my opinion the AGW argument fails on several fronts other than unproven science and models that have failed to predict 10 years ahead much less 100 years. 
> There are some very strong motives for the scientific arena to keep the AGW gray train going for as long as possible. Likewise there are very strong motives for politicians to support the theory of AGW. There are very view motives other that personal prestige for the scientists that argue AGW. The big oil funding argument does not cut it so don't insult our intelligence by trying that one. More than 90% of funding regardless of scource goes to the AGW camp. 
> Most fringe scientist that study the effect rather than the cause of AGW can be excused a little here as they are just accepting the "head honchos" word. But even now the leaked emails have cast a major shadow over their works. 
> Any scientist that has to resort to calling opponants "deniers" etc to support their arguments have lost already. When Al Gore refuses to debate the science you have to question why? When data is with held you have to question the motives behind that. When their theory can neither be proven or dis-proven combined with all the other factors you have to stop and question the validity of the theory. 
> When gross exaggerations of the dire effects of AGW are presented day in and day out, are required to scare people into belief without conclusive proof, you have to wonder why?  
> When the Media refuse to cover any storey that refutes AGW you have to wonder why. 
> If the science was so settled and they are so sure of themselves wouldn't they want to debate the "deniers" so they could prove their case once and for all beyond any doubt? 
> ...

  I see where you're coming from. 
I had thought you were taking a lot more interest in the actual science than what you now profess. When you quoted Stefan-Boltzmann in the very short discussion of RC Step 5 for instance, you came across as someone who (even as a non-scientist) knew their science. 
Your final word on the RC 6 Step _"Woodbe your RC points apart from 1-3 are opinion only end of story"_ is particularly disappointing as I had hoped you could lead me through your convictions by showing where the AGW crowd's science doesn't stack up. The lack of response to the offer to explore the Monckton claims on the OSS site is also revealing as the sceptics seem to hold him up on a pedestal (here, anyway) Quite telling that you are unwilling to do so in either case, or at least explore them here. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

Yours is not science wouldbe, but pseudo science.  Your global warming quacks have been exposed, and continuing the bogus science mumbo jumbo wont get you off the hook this time.  It did before, with people easily persuaded by psychobabble, fake web pages, political scientists, as long as no hard evidence was required.  Now that they have been exposed with Climategate, they have nowhere to hide.  Your desperate attempt to continue the charade reminds me of the dead parrot sketch  you being the pet shop owner.  [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE&feature=fvw]YouTube - The Parrot Sketch[/ame]

----------


## intertd6

> . . Politely stating simple facts. .  .

  Which were incorrect & If they are not correct its garbage & probably put together by a year 8 student for a school project.
Also I believe the question to your answer about volcanos was was "show me where there are volcanoes in Australia" not "in Australian territorys", which is a political term not a geographical term. Australian territories have been wiped away with the stroke of a polititians pen numerous times in the past. ie New Guinea & Antarctica
regards inter

----------


## watson

I have read every word of these 696 posts. 
I'm none the wiser for having done so. 
I do, however, have an idea of each individual's idea of how big they think their  *d i c k*  is.
Cheeses Twice...you have a chance here to come up with something.
Use it.

----------


## intertd6

> I have read every word of these 696 posts. 
> I'm none the wiser for having done so. 
> I do, however, have an idea of each individual's idea of how big they think their *d i c k* is.
> Cheeses Twice...you have a chance here to come up with something.
> Use it.

  thats what happens when debates are about politics, religion, motorcars / bikes & football teams to name a few, we're lucky enough here to be able to say what we feel without being stoned by a angry mob, ala the life of brian
regards inter

----------


## watson

We are all individuals................."I'm not"  :Rotfl:

----------


## chrisp

> I have read every word of these 696 posts. 
> I'm none the wiser for having done so.

  Noel, 
A very fair summary of the thread so far.   
Maybe you could delete the other 696 posts to save any new comers from having to read through them.  :Smilie:

----------


## watson

Funny stuff.
I was thinking the other day. how clever would the Labour party have been on the day that the Liberals imploaded, to say......."Ha Ha we were fooling"....."gotchas".
But.........didn't happen.
Despair......Despair......Despair......

----------


## chrisp

GW/CC/ETS (or whatever you want to call it) is definitely a divisive issue. 
I've reached the point of "agreeing to disagree".  As much as I disagree with Rod on this topic I do enjoy and appreciate his contributions to this forum - and his good nature in an argument. 
I know Rod is a smart fellow and I'm sure, in time, Rod will see the light  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> I am away for the weekend so Chrisp expect a page of posts to catch up when I get back!

  ATTENTION EVERYONE. 
Please consider Rod.   Rod is going to attempt a (as far as I know) forum first and post a whole page of replies by himself.  To assist Rod in this momentous effort, can we all work together to ensure that there is exactly a multiple of 15 posts in this thread before Rod gets back? 
This will save Rod having to provide a few extra "padding posts" to bring about a new page in this thread.  (Who is it that just said "_All_ of his posts are padding posts"? - come to the front of the room now.).

----------


## rrobor

Well my crude calculator has the thread improving slightly to 10.44. As to Rod, well Rod knows I disagree with him, But Rod never gets personal. Even when very annoyed with me there was no trying to scoore hits. We could all do well to take lessons on subjects other than plastering from Rod. As to the subject, well the wheel keeps spinning aimlessly doesnt it.

----------


## Allen James

> Originally Posted by Allen James: _Politely stating simple facts_  Which were incorrect & If they are not correct its garbage & probably put together by a year 8 student for a school project.

  You just quoted me saying, _Politely stating simple facts,_ which was way back in post 647, back on page 44, long before I responded to your post on this page (47). That could easily be interpreted as my reply to you, which is *incorrect*.  :Rolleyes:    Now, back to your argument:     

> Which were incorrect

   Why use the words which were when there was only *one* mistake?  :Biggrin:      

> & If they are not correct its garbage

   They? There was one mistake, and making one mistake does not magically transform other facts into garbage. If it did, since we all make mistakes, it would mean that you and everyone else in the world would talk garbage. We ought to keep an eye out for _your_ next mistake then.  :Shock:      

> Also I believe the question to your answer about volcanos was was "show me where there are volcanoes in Australia" not "in Australian territorys", which is a political term not a geographical term.

   Stone the crows, we didnt have to wait long. Four mistakes in one sentence!  1) was was (incorrect grammar) 2) The question was actually, Where are the volcanoes in Australia by the way? 3) The spelling is territories, not territorys. 4) Political or not, Heard Island and McDonald Islands are part of Australia.     

> Australian territories have been wiped away with the stroke of a polititians pen numerous times in the past. ie New Guinea & Antarctica

   Strike me pink, there go _two more_ mistakes.  :Eek:   5) It is 'politician' not 'politition' 6) There is an apostrophe in politicians pen.  Regardless of what politicians may or may not do in the future, Heard Island and McDonald Islands are part of Australia *today*. If you dont believe me ask the CIA.   CIA - The World Factbook -- Heard Island and McDonald Islands   Youll notice on that page that:  1) Heard Island and McDonald Islands fly the Australian flag 2) They were transferred to Australia from the UK in 1947 3) They are administered from Canberra by the Australian Antarctic Division of the Department of the Environment and Heritage 4) Their legal system is the laws of Australia. 5) The Australian Government allows limited fishing around the islands 6) Defense is the responsibility of Australia; Australia conducts fisheries patrols   That makes them Australian, so their volcanoes are Australian.  :2thumbsup:       .

----------


## Allen James

Addendum:  The Australian Government (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts) has a webpage about Heard Island here.  Under the heading “Cool Facts” on the right hand side, they say:  “Both Heard Island and McDonald Island are volcanically active - they are *Australia's* only active volcanoes, and the only active volcanoes on subantarctic islands.”

----------


## manchild

*Kevin Rudd's $7b UN wrangle*  *Copenhagen** bound:* Climate Change Minister Penny Wong will attend the UN's climate C=change conference next month. _Source:_ Herald Sun *NEXT month Kevin Rudd flies to Copenhagen to help seal a United Nations deal to cut the world's emissions - and to make Australia hand over part of its wealth*  So keen is the Prime Minister to get this new global-warming treaty signed that he's been appointed a "friend of the chairman" to tie up loose ends. So here's the question: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treaty that could force Australia to hand over an astonishing $7 billion a year to a new and unelected global authority?
Yes, that's $7 billion, or about $330 from every man, woman and child. Every year. To be passed on to countries such as China and Bangladesh, and the sticky-fingered in-between. And a second question, perhaps even more important: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treaty which also gives that unelected authority the power to fine us billions of dollars more if it doesn't like our green policies?
It is incredible that these questions have not been debated by either the Rudd Government or the Opposition, whose hapless leader, Malcolm Turnbull, on Monday admitted he did not even have a copy of this treaty.
Australia's wealth and sovereign rights may soon be signed away, so why hasn't the public at least been informed?
In case you think what I'm saying is just too incredible - too far-fetched - to be true, let me quote this draft treaty.
Here is paragraph 33 of annex 1, which has already been discussed at UN meetings involving Australian negotiators in Bangkok and now Barcelona. Brackets indicate phrases which still need final agreement:
"By 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least USD 67 billion] [in the range of USD 70-140 billion] per year."
Plus, says paragraph 17 of annex III E, developed countries such as Australia should "compensate for damage" to the economies of poorer countries "and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity" allegedly caused by our gases.
And here comes the bill, in paragraph 41 of annex 1 of this extortion note: "[Financial resources of the Convention Adaptation Fund"] [may] [shall] include: (a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country parties] ... "
In fact, deeper in the draft our bill for our "historical climate debt, including adaptation debt" climbs to at "at least [0.5-1 per cent of GDP]". Wow. Let's do the sums. Australia's GDP is about $1000 billion a year. So this demand for 0.7 per cent of our annual wealth works out to $7 billion a year, to be handed over to a new global agency of the United Nations. That's your money, folks. Billions to be sent to Third World governments and authoritarian regimes to allegedly deal with a warming that actually halted in 2001. And all funnelled through the UN, which brought us such fast-money wheezes as the Oil-for-Food corruption scandal.
Never have the Third World's demands for the First World's cash been so brazen. But wait, there's more. Because never has the Left's mad goal of world government been so close, either. This draft treaty, on which Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has worked, also calls for the creation of a new "board" of global warming bureaucrats appointed by the countries signing the Copenhagen deal.
The powers this board will have over us are astonishing. For a start, it will check our emissions, and could "impose financial penalties, at a minimum of 10 times the market price of carbon, for any emissions in excess".
Work it out: if we exceed our emissions target by, say, as much as Rudd warned two years ago we'd overshoot by 2012, we'd be up for a fine of $1.4 billion even with the very lowest carbon price under Rudd's plan.
Even more outrageously, this new world body could impose "penalties and fines on non-compliance of developed country parties" such as Australia that failed to honour "commitments to ... provide support in the form of financial resources, technology transfer and capacity building". All this gives a remote and unelected world body a huge and unprecedented say in how we run our own economy and our foreign affairs. For instance, any Australian government that decided to keep gassy coal-fired power stations running to avoid blackouts or to save Australian jobs potentially faces huge fines from foreigners.
Likewise, if it stopped handing over technological breakthroughs to a China or some African leader it no longer trusted, it could be fined again.
But wait, there's still more.
You'd think this draft treaty that Rudd has worked on would at least give us a say over how our billions are spent.
But no. UN bodies are already notoriously hard for any one nation to supervise or restrain.
Even the United States, the biggest donor of all, could not stop the corruption at UNESCO two decades ago, and was forced to walk out in protest. Nor could it stop dictatorships such as Libya and Cuba from later holding key roles in the UN's human rights bodies.
And with this new global warming body, the vote of the paying West will be overruled even more decisively by the spending rest.
Under this draft treaty, the new board's biggest spending arm - the "adaptation fund" - will be managed by a "governing board comprising
three members from the five United Nations regional groups, two members from small island developing nations and two members from the least developed countries". That formula means the industrialised nations which pay most could hold just one of the nine seats on the body which will then spend their cash. Our cash.
That's the treaty being prepared for the Copenhagen meeting. That's the billions we risk having to hand over. That's the power we risk losing over our own affairs.
Now ask: why hasn't this been the subject of furious debate? Where's the Government? Where's the Opposition?
Well, here's Rudd's one response to this threat, given only this week: "At this stage there's no global agreement as to what long-term financing arrangements should underpin a deal at Copenhagen."
That's a "trust me", with no bottom line. In fact, Rudd is already reaching into his - your - wallet: "Australia, once a global agreement is shaped, would always be prepared to put forward its fair share."But how much? Seven billion dollars a year? Five? Three? Hello?
Badgered by Alan Jones on 2GB on Monday on this very point, he said: "Of course the poorest countries are going to need assistance ... (But) there is no way that anything like this would be accepted without extensive debate."
Just this week the European Union said it would pay its share of an
$82 billion cheque to this new body if countries such as ours come on board, too - so who's applying the brakes?
Not our politicians, for sure.
So if you oppose this surrender of our billions and our freedom, better start saying so now, before it's all too late.

----------


## Allen James

.  Good post manchild, and lets hope Aussies are sensible enough to overturn this.   In the meantime:  . COPENHAGEN  Climate campaigner Al Gore has canceled a lecture he was supposed to deliver in Copenhagen.  The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had been scheduled to speak to more than 3,000 people at a Dec. 16 event hosted by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper group.  The group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.  Gore Cancels Climate Lecture In Copenhagen    Al knows the gigs up. Hes probably too busy cleaning his hard drive of old e-mails to attend now. Hopefully Rudd will join Gore soon in leaving the sinking ship first.  .       .

----------


## autogenous

>>Al knows the gigs up. Hes probably too busy cleaning his hard drive of old e-mails to attend now< 
Hes made his millions out of this wagon now.  Time for him to fly off and hit the beach on some sinking resort atoll somewhere.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Very nice picture Mr Allen James. 
Here go some more of those cards (full articles online).  *Researcher: NASA hiding climate data*  
The Washington Times
03 December 2009
By Stephen Dinan 
The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.  
The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler. 
Mark Hess, public affairs director for the Goddard Space Flight Center, which runs the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) laboratory, said officials are working on Mr. Horner's request, though he couldn't say why they have taken so long.  
"We're collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests," Mr. Hess said. "It's just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that's responsive."  
"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "*These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this.*"  
His fight mirrors one in Europe that has sprung up over the the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in the UK after thousands of e-mails from the center were obtained and appear to show researchers shaving their data to make it conform to their expectation, and show efforts to try to drive global warming skeptics out of the conversation.  *The center's chief has stepped down pending an investigation into the e-mails.*     *The center has also had to acknowledge in response to a freedom of information request under British law that it tossed out much of the raw data* that it used to draw up the temperature models that have underpinned much of the science behind global warming.    
Mr. Horner suspects the same sort of data-shaving has happened at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), another leading global warming research center.     I'll ask again, if you had information potentially showing the end of the human species, would you avoid FOI requests for it, then throw away all the original data citing "not enough storage space"?  (Gee, where will I put this CD stack?!) Then still ask for trillions of dollars to fix the problem the 'transformed' data showed was happening?  Most of us keep tax receipts just in case we get audited, and the future of the human species is not riding on our tax receipts.  If you still believe this farce, I'm selling commercial and residential plots on Mars, please send money!   Meanwhile, where's the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory champion? 
Former Vice President Al Gore on Thursday abruptly canceled a Dec. 16 personal appearance that was to be staged during the United Nations' Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which begins next week. 
The ClimateDepot,com, an online news aggregator that tracks global-warming news reports, referred to the situation as "Nopenhagen," and evidence that popular momentum for the Copenhagen conference "is fading."   You can run, but you can't hide from the truth.  :Mad:

----------


## autogenous

_Hes probably too busy cleaning his hard drive of old e-mails to attend now_ 
Meanwhile, on a mail server somewhere __

----------


## Dr Freud

*UK Met Office to publish climate records* 
December 6, 2009 -- Updated 0508 GMT (1308 HKT)
CNN.com 
(Full story online). 
 The Met Office said it was publishing *a subset of the full HadCRUT record* of global temperatures -- that's one of a handful of global temperature data sets that underpin the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
 The *announcement comes amid a continuing controversy over leaked emails* from the UK's University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) which were published on the Internet in November.   They have generously agreed to release *a subset* of *some* data, only after massive global pressure.  No word yet as to whether this is raw data or 'adjusted' data.  I'll ask again, if you are a scientist with information potentially showing the end of the human species, would you be hiding and deleting it, or shouting it from the rooftops?   
"If you look at the land data, the sea surface data temperatures and mean air temperature data, those three records independently show a 0.7 degree warming trend over the past 100 years. That's all published by the IPCC."   *Assuming* this is the raw data, it has not yet been 'adjusted' for the Urban Heat Island effect, so at worst, the planet on average has warmed about 0.7 degrees in 100 years.  PANIC!!!!!!!!!!  :Yikes2:    Now, at least we can start to work out if we humans CONTRIBUTED to this 0.7 degree warming over the last 100 years, or if we CAUSED all of the 0.7 degree increase?  Gee I love science when there is a bit of integrity about it!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## rrobor

Yes it is very clear for everybody to see Copenhagen is warming up. Theres going to be a hot time in the old town tonight Telstra BigPond News and Weather

----------


## watson

They might as well

----------


## autogenous

Prostitutes sleeping with prostitutes 
Don't they normally call that industry night in the hotel arena?

----------


## watson

:Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

At least we now know our pollies are smarter than the UK's.  Free sex for all.  *Delegates gas it up for Copenhagen climate change talks* Article from: Sunday Mail  Adam Shand December 05, 2009 11:00pm *AUSTRALIA will emit more than 400 tonnes of greenhouse gases in sending one of the world's largest parties to this month's Copenhagen climate talks.* The Australian delegation is tipped to number up to 90 state, federal and local government politicians and officials, surpassing more populous nations such as Britain. Britain is only sending 38 delegates and support staff. In a conference lasting just 11 days, Australia's delegation for the climate change gabfest will produce emissions equivalent to nearly 30 years' output for the average Australian home. A spokeswoman for Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong defended the size of the team, saying only officials "working on reaching an effective outcome on climate change will be in attendance".  I like Penny's team.  :Kissyou:

----------


## woodbe

A bit of balance to the sceptics frantic postings about the stolen emails:  YouTube - 6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> A bit of balance to the sceptics frantic postings about the stolen emails:  YouTube - 6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails 
> woodbe.

  You guys have fun while I was away? 
Woodbe, You will get all kinds of interpretations of what these emails do or do not mean. 
I think it is well established what Jones meant by "hide the decline".  Yes it was to hide the decline from the 60's in the tree ring data used in the temp reconstruction, that was used to "hide" the MWP.   As the tree ring data did not conform with actual temps from the 60's, rather than show this he tacked on the actual temps and made it look like the tree ring data was a perfect match to the current temp record. 
This much we know is true. 
However your man attacks only 2 of the emails hardly a convincing argument.  It is the data that is being picked to pieces at the moment that will reveal the most damaging aspect of the leak.  Not withstanding the emails that show Jones would delete data rather than give it up, etc. etc.  
Have you read ALL the emails?  I would almost bet the farm that you have not. 
Not to worry though the truth WILL come out. In the mean time this revelation has caused untold damage to the entire scientific process. 
It is my opinion abd the opinion of many others, that the whistle blower who released this data will eventually come forward, then the proverbial will hit the fan.  This was not an ordinary hacker as you will find out.  It was someone in the CRU that had an intimate knowledge of where to find this information, a person who was sick of the skulldugery that was going on.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Chrisp, sorry to dissapoint no record posting tonight!!  Just a few. 
Cheers Rod

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Well my crude calculator has the thread improving slightly to 10.44. As to Rod, well Rod knows I disagree with him, But Rod never gets personal. Even when very annoyed with me there was no trying to scoore hits. We could all do well to take lessons on subjects other than plastering from Rod. As to the subject, well the wheel keeps spinning aimlessly doesnt it.

  Thanks for your observation Rrobor.   
I try to keep things as civil as possible.   
Interestingly, I understand why you guys have the views you do and do not hold you personally responsible for them. 
The alarmists have sold a pretty good story here.  If you choose to believe them and take them on face value, you would be entitled to believe the world as we know it will come to and end if we keep emitting CO2.  Many people are pre-disposed to believe what "authority" tells them, particularly when the media reports that "its true".   
I don't hold with the massive conspiricy theory, contrary to what you may think. I more believe it is something that has just gathered speed along the way, to get us to this point. People taking advantage along the way, simply adds a new dimension to it each time. 
Science has been hijacked by the green movement to the ultimate detriment of science. 
Most people have no idea what is going on and quite resonably believe what they are told by scientst, politicians and the media.  Most have no vested interest in the debate one way or the other and trust the "poweres that be".  But when contrary information becomes more available, and plausable, people start changing their view, or like me take an active interest.  Now when they see they do have a vested interest (ETS) they start to take notice. Hence the recent change in public opinion. 
Climategate will rapidly increase the negative opinion on AGW, in turn this will make the warmers act more shrill, which in my opinion will turn more people away, causing an avalanche that will bury AGW.  Each shrill exagerated claim will come with a counter claim from skeptics.  The only difference being, more people will take note of the skeptics. 
It will eventually become un-fashionable  to be an alarmist. 
Scientific evidence to either prove or dissprove AGW is a long way away.  The only sure fire way to kill this off is continued empirical evidence that fails to comply with the computer models. 
Well that is my take on the whole process anyway.  
 Cheers Rod

----------


## Allen James

> The ClimateDepot,com, an online news aggregator that tracks global-warming news reports, referred to the situation as "Nopenhagen," and evidence that popular momentum for the Copenhagen conference "is fading."

  *Nopenhagen* - perfect!   :Biggrin:  
Well, the controversy continues:  *Hannity interviews Inhofe about Climategate* *[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqfo2qCV-2s&feature=channel]YouTube - Full Interview: Inhofe Joins Hannity To Talk Climategate[/ame]*

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here is an honest appraisal of the "Climategate" emails.  It is a good read (it goes to a second page)  Scientists Behaving Badly 
Cheers Rod

----------


## woodbe

> You guys have fun while I was away? 
> Woodbe, You will get all kinds of interpretations of what these emails do or do not mean. 
> I think it is well established what Jones meant by "hide the decline".  Yes it was to hide the decline from the 60's in the tree ring data used in the temp reconstruction, that was used to "hide" the MWP.   As the tree ring data did not conform with actual temps from the 60's, rather than show this he tacked on the actual temps and made it look like the tree ring data was a perfect match to the current temp record.

  I don't think the MWP was in the 60's. As I understand it, tree rings began to be unreliable in the 60's. If you had proxy temp records that matched other proxies throughout time, but inexplicably went off the rails in the 60's, replacing the broken data with good data doesn't seem too outrageous to me. I'm not a scientist, but I have read a few pro and anti arguments on this one.   

> This much we know is true.

  We know it was done. We don't know that it was done to deliberately distort the record.   

> However your man attacks only 2 of the emails hardly a convincing argument.  It is the data that is being picked to pieces at the moment that will reveal the most damaging aspect of the leak.  Not withstanding the emails that show Jones would delete data rather than give it up, etc. etc.  
> Have you read ALL the emails?  I would almost bet the farm that you have not. 
> Not to worry though the truth WILL come out. In the mean time this revelation has caused untold damage to the entire scientific process. 
> It is my opinion abd the opinion of many others, that the whistle blower who released this data will eventually come forward, then the proverbial will hit the fan.  This was not an ordinary hacker as you will find out.  It was someone in the CRU that had an intimate knowledge of where to find this information, a person who was sick of the skulldugery that was going on.

  Opinion  :Smilie:  
The truth will hopefully come out. It certainly won't be reliably revealed through 'trial by media' 
woodbe

----------


## dazzler

> *Nopenhagen* - perfect!   
> Well, the controversy continues:  *Hannity interviews Inhofe about Climategate* *YouTube - Full Interview: Inhofe Joins Hannity To Talk Climategate*

  Well if Republican Senator Inhofe says it on Fox News, such a balanced and truthful programme, then it must be so.  :2thumbsup:   :Rolleyes:

----------


## woodbe

> Here is an honest appraisal of the "Climategate" emails.  It is a good read (it goes to a second page)  Scientists Behaving Badly 
> Cheers Rod

  Follow the money.  
woodbe.

----------


## dazzler

> Here is an honest appraisal of the "Climategate" emails.  It is a good read (it goes to a second page)  Scientists Behaving Badly 
> Cheers Rod

  An honest appraisal?  Seriously Rod, the fellow states that evidence for the little ice age is mostly anecdotal.  People could actually read and write at this stage in our history and temperature and rainfall was recorded just like it is today, and was quite accurate given that thermometers had moved from using a gas to a liquid in the mid 1600's. 
I lean towards belief that man is effecting the climate, but am open to reasonable challenge to this belief.  But sadly, in this forum, those who are skeptics, and that is not a bad thing to be skeptical, reach ever so far to the loony right and just post the next rambling crap that they come across. 
In their vigour to dismiss the other sides argument they make the exact mistakes that they claim the other side made, by publishing rubbish.  This is usually shown by the word "....gate" in the text. 
Is it possible to bring the ship back towards the middle a little, as she is listing so bad its about to go over  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I don't think the MWP was in the 60's. As I understand it, tree rings began to be unreliable in the 60's.

  I really don't know if you are being clever, smart or dumb here with this comment woodbe.   

> If you had proxy temp records that matched other proxies throughout time, but inexplicably went off the rails in the 60's, replacing the broken data with good data doesn't seem too outrageous to me. I'm not a scientist, but I have read a few pro and anti arguments on this one.

  You know as well as I, the purpose of this particular proxy temp record was to show that warming in the 20th century was unprecedented and that the 20th century was the warmist on record. They could only do that by getting rid of the MWP. The tree ring data did not co-operate so they fudged it. Simple really.  
I would ask you a question here woodbe,  please give me an honest answer.
Do you believe that the Mann hockey stick graph is a true representation of the proxy temperature?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> An honest appraisal? Seriously Rod, the fellow states that evidence for the little ice age is mostly anecdotal. People could actually read and write at this stage in our history and temperature and rainfall was recorded just like it is today, and was quite accurate given that thermometers had moved from using a gas to a liquid in the mid 1600's. 
> I lean towards belief that man is effecting the climate, but am open to reasonable challenge to this belief. But sadly, in this forum, those who are skeptics, and that is not a bad thing to be skeptical, reach ever so far to the loony right and just post the next rambling crap that they come across. 
> In their vigour to dismiss the other sides argument they make the exact mistakes that they claim the other side made, by publishing rubbish. This is usually shown by the word "....gate" in the text. 
> Is it possible to bring the ship back towards the middle a little, as she is listing so bad its about to go over

  Dazzler I think it is pretty clear your mind is made up. 
You do yourself no favors with this post.

----------


## woodbe

> I really don't know if you are being clever, smart or dumb here with this comment woodbe.

  Well, I've been called worse. Take your pick.  :Smilie:    

> You know as well as I, the purpose of this particular proxy temp record was to show that warming in the 20th century was unprecedented and that the 20th century was the warmist on record. They could only do that by getting rid of the MWP. The tree ring data did not co-operate so they fudged it. Simple really.

  Except for a small problem. You clearly believe that the proxy data was assembled to show the warming trend. On the other hand, I believe the Proxy data was assembled to find out what the temperature had been doing in time preseeding actual temp records. 
Replacing known bad data with known good data is 'fudging it'. Whatever. Like I said, the proxy data began to fall apart during a time period that thermometer records were available. It's hardly a sin to replace the broken part of the data with known good data.   

> I would ask you a question here woodbe,  please give me an honest answer.
> Do you believe that the Mann hockey stick graph is a true representation of the proxy temperature?

  The honest answer is that I don't know, and I don't have a belief about the issue.  
The reality is that even if the radical sceptics manage to (rightly or wrongly) destroy one piece of evidence by surrounding it with hysterical claims of fraud, the whole evidence for AGW doesn't rely on one hockey stick graph, (or even one data set). It comes back to our earlier discussion, we are talking about thousands of scientists here, not one or two bad eggs controlling a mass of drones. These are thinking, scientifically trained people specialising in Climate Science. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Dazzler I think it is pretty clear your mind is made up. 
> You do yourself no favors with this post.

  Seems pretty reasonable to me. He states his case well. 
As far as the article is concerned. Follow the money. Sourcewatch is your friend. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Except for a small problem. You clearly believe that the proxy data was assembled to show the warming trend. On the other hand, I believe the Proxy data was assembled to find out what the temperature had been doing in time preseeding actual temp records.

  The proxy data was indeed created to find out what the temperatures were pre records.  However they needed to show that the 20th century temperature rise was un-precedented. The MWP was warmer than current temps.  Mann set out to create a proxy temperature record that would hide the MWP and show unprecedent warming in the 20th century.  The Hockey stick graph was created and shown in the 2001 IPPC report, it was the public face of the scare campain.  It was discredited and shown to be totally false, it did not appear in the 2007 IPCC report. Yet it remains in the Australian Government web site.[/quote]  

> Replacing known bad data with known good data is 'fudging it'. Whatever. Like I said, the proxy data began to fall apart during a time period that thermometer records were available. It's hardly a sin to replace the broken part of the data with known good data..

   The problem with this statement is that it does not explain why the proxy data "fell apart" yet we are expected to believe the previous years are accurate.  They used current records to create the up swing and hide the decline. Yet they presented this as the proxy data. [/quote]  

> The honest answer is that I don't know, and I don't have a belief about the issue.

  Read this as it explains it all much better than I can. American Thinker: Understanding Climategate’s Hidden Decline « Watts Up With That? 
Claiming the current warming from 1850 as being unprecedented is a central point of the claims man is causing global warming, the claim is that they cant account for warming being natural so it must be man made.  Yet the MWP tells us that warming to a greater extent than today has occured before without our influence.  This is a big problem for the IPCC.    

> The reality is that even if the radical sceptics manage to (rightly or wrongly) destroy one piece of evidence by surrounding it with hysterical claims of fraud, the whole evidence for AGW doesn't rely on one hockey stick graph, (or even one data set). It comes back to our earlier discussion, we are talking about thousands of scientists here, not one or two bad eggs controlling a mass of drones. These are thinking, scientifically trained people specialising in Climate Science.

  So do we not listen to the scientist that specialize in climate science that dispute the science behind AGW? 
The entire basis of AGW is built on an inverted pyramid of science. CRU and the global temperature reconstruction is at the bottom of this pyramid. Most of the scientific claims are based on the the accuracy of this reconstruction. Destroy this inverted base and what do you get?  The thousands of scientist believe what the peer reviewed papers tell them, this forms the basis of their studies. What they were not told is that the peer reviewed process was hyjacked by your little group at the top.

----------


## Allen James

[. .   

> Well if Republican Senator Inhofe says it on Fox News, such a balanced and truthful programme, then it must be so.

   Thats all greenies have left now. Sneering denial.  :Rolleyes:      

> Follow the money.

   He says, as if Al Gore and the CRU scientists werent following the money. As long as global warming could be made to look real, the CRU would receive tens of millions of dollars in funding, which makes them guilty of big scale fraud and racketeering.     

> An honest appraisal? Seriously Rod, the fellow states that evidence for the little ice age is mostly anecdotal. People could actually read and write at this stage in our history and temperature and rainfall was recorded just like it is today

   The first half-decent thermometer didnt exist until 1706, and hardly anyone had one. Since the medieval warm period occurred around 1000, and the little ice age around 1500 to 1850, there would be no scientific readings on the first, and precious little on the second, most of which is probably lost. So its obvious most of the evidence would be anecdotal, forcing scientists to turn to other methods like tree rings, glacier analysis, etc., as explained in the article.  Meanwhile you think its perfectly okay for the scientists at CRU to conveniently delete huge amounts of data they used to create their global warming myth.  :Biggrin:      

> Seems pretty reasonable to me. He states his case well.

   Sure he does wouldbe. Like this:  Dazzler: There must be plenty of accurate scientific thermometer readings from 1500 to 1850, regarding the little ice age. After all, people could wead and wite Joe Six Pack: Uh, thermometers werent much good until 1706, and hardly anyone had one. These days they are as common as dirt, very accurate and cheap. Also, our literacy rate is much higher today. Dazzler: I dont care. I just want to believe. The data must be here somewhere! Joe Six Pack: Um, if you think a tiny amount of scientific data MUST exist from centuries ago, then what about the HUGE amount of CRU scientific data supporting global warming? Dazzler: What about it? Joe Six Pack: Where is it? Dazzler: Deleted I fink. Joe Six Pack: I thought you said that if it existed it must exist now. Dazzler: Yeah but, no but, yeah but, only if were talking about data from centuries ago, scrawled on parchment by candlelight, using clumsy and rare instruments. Joe Six Pack: Sorry, but that is dazzlingly silly, and makes no sense at all. Dazzler: Are you a greenie? Joe Six Pack: No way. Dazzler: Oh. Well, it would dazzle you more if you were, hyuk hyuk.  .  .

----------


## woodbe

> Claiming the current warming from 1850 as being unprecedented is a central point of the claims man is causing global warming, the claim is that they cant account for warming being natural so it must be man made.  Yet the MWP tells us that warming to a greater extent than today has occured before without our influence.  This is a big problem for the IPCC.

  Seems not everyone agrees with you:   

> *MYTH #4:   Errors in the "Hockey Stick" undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous.* 
> This statement embraces at least two distinct falsehoods. The first falsehood holds that the Hockey Stick is the result of one analysis or the analysis of one group of researchers (i.e., that of Mann et al, 1998 and Mann et al, 1999). However, as discussed in the response to Myth #1 above, the basic conclusions of Mann et al (1998,1999) are affirmed in multiple independent studies. Thus, even if there were errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, numerous other studies independently support the conclusion of anomalous late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth.

   RealClimate: Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"    

> The problem with this statement is that it does not explain why the proxy data "fell apart" yet we are expected to believe the previous years are accurate.

  I think they still don't know why it fell apart, just that it did. The proxy records were verified across different proxies, so I think they are reasonably confident that they are as accurate as possible.  
You could be right Rod, maybe we are in a situation where tens of thousands of Climate Scientists (or is it hundreds of thousands?) have been led up the garden path by a couple of frauds. I kinda doubt it. 
Slightly amusing is the credence you now give to frantic media reports of the demise of global warming when it was exaggerated claims of impending climate doom in the press that started you off on this anti-AGW pilgrimage. You should speak to your mate Allen about that. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

You sceptics voting for Abbot? Looks like he's your man:   *Turnbull savages Abbott over climate 'bullsh**'*  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Originally Posted by *RC*  _MYTH #4: Errors in the "Hockey Stick" undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous._  _This statement embraces at least two distinct falsehoods. The first falsehood holds that the Hockey Stick is the result of one analysis or the analysis of one group of researchers (i.e., that of Mann et al, 1998 and Mann et al, 1999). However, as discussed in the response to Myth #1 above, the basic conclusions of Mann et al (1998,1999) are affirmed in multiple independent studies. Thus, even if there were errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, numerous other studies independently support the conclusion of anomalous late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth._   :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:

----------


## chrisp

For those who might be interested:  The Copenhagen Diagnosis"The report has been purposefully written with a target readership of policy-makers, stakeholders, the media and the broader public. Each section begins with a set of key points that summarises the main findings. The science contained in the report is based on the most credible and significant peer-reviewed literature available at the time of publication. The authors primarily comprise previous IPCC lead authors familiar with the rigor and completeness required for a scientific assessment of this nature."

----------


## woodbe

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - "The Medieval Warming Crock"[/ame] 
Covers the MWP and the famous Hockey Stick. 
woodbe.

----------


## Joe

Alan, 
Sorry guys, had some woodwork to do! Is it only the aged that have time for daily posts? and are more than happy to stubornly deny reality until it kills them? 
Still won't answer my question? Where is your credible paper in a reputable journal that confounds the thousands of peer reviewed papers in support of human induced climate change?  
Your post in response to mine was a fantastic example of idiotic rhetoric.Can I quote you in an article I am writing? to be titled "The logic of denial". Basically the article will look at a profile of typical anti science campaingers. The idea is to inform the average citizen what goes on in the minds of these otherwise incomprehensible nutters so that we can find ways to help them step of their island before it sinks.  
It is not suffice to say that one day you will proven wrong because you already have been, it is all in the literature! not the media but the literature! 
Those who deny the science of human induced climate change are anti science. Given how far humanity has come it is sad to see folks like yourself fight so hard to deny reponsability for the current poor state of the planet.  
All I care about is that on the balance of the available evidence human induced climate change is vastly more likely to be true than not. Any attack on that is an attack on science.  
Do the research before you make such dumb comment and you will find that there is no credible evidence for oposition to the consensus that human induced climate change is real and is happening now. I wish that it were otherwise but there is no evidence and every day the case for human contribution to global warming grows.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The authors primarily comprise previous IPCC lead authors familiar with the rigor and completeness required for a scientific assessment of this nature."

  Big FAIL right here. :Yikes2:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Alan, 
> Sorry guys, had some woodwork to do! Is it only the aged that have time for daily posts? and are more than happy to stubornly deny reality until it kills them? 
> Still won't answer my question? Where is your credible paper in a reputable journal that confounds the thousands of peer reviewed papers in support of human induced climate change?  
> Your post in response to mine was a fantastic example of idiotic rhetoric.Can I quote you in an article I am writing? to be titled "The logic of denial". Basically the article will look at a profile of typical anti science campaingers. The idea is to inform the average citizen what goes on in the minds of these otherwise incomprehensible nutters so that we can find ways to help them step of their island before it sinks.  
> It is not suffice to say that one day you will proven wrong because you already have been, it is all in the literature! not the media but the literature! 
> Those who deny the science of human induced climate change are anti science. Given how far humanity has come it is sad to see folks like yourself fight so hard to deny reponsability for the current poor state of the planet.  
> All I care about is that on the balance of the available evidence human induced climate change is vastly more likely to be true than not. Any attack on that is an attack on science.  
> Do the research before you make such dumb comment and you will find that there is no credible evidence for oposition to the consensus that human induced climate change is real and is happening now. I wish that it were otherwise but there is no evidence and every day the case for human contribution to global warming grows.

  Quite sad really. :Frown:

----------


## chrisp

> Big FAIL right here.

  Oops, I forgot about the "reds under the bed", conspiracy, etc.  How naïve of me?   :Biggrin:  
The report provides comment and  references to the "hockey stick" (on page 45 for the time-poor).  You might like to read it as it also provides an update on the hockey stick you posted at the top of page 47 of this thread. 
Anyway, I'm happy to agree-to-disagree, and as stated by others the overall scientific picture is pretty clear - although some may not know it yet  :Smilie:

----------


## Joe

I have now asked for a credible paper from a reputable journal that substantiates the anti science pseudo religious posts that are sprouted by Dyson etc..in this forum. Not a peep.     *Edited Post*

----------


## Vernonv

> Not a peep.

  Maybe you are on their ignore lists? ... Don't know why ... You appear to be such a charming, well balanced fellow. :Biggrin:

----------


## Joe

or maybe you lack the capacity to provide a relevant answer Vern? Do you know anything about climate change Vern? or are you just sniping from the sidelines like a little kid at a big boys fight?  *EDITOR'S NOTE:*  Lift your game Joe....Play the ball.....not the Man.

----------


## rrobor

Oh gawd I was correct, its getting hot in the old town tonight.

----------


## Vernonv

> ... at a big boys fight?

  Yes, your posts reek of maturity.  :Rolleyes:  You don't put forward a reasoned argument, you just attack anyone who you think doesn't hold your views. If you are a "big boy", I'm happy not to be. 
I think you may be such a zealot that you would even attack someone on your side of the argument, if they didn't happen to hold you "one-eyed" views. 
BTW do you even know what my position on climate change is? Is there something in particular that I have said that you would like me to expand on?

----------


## Allen James

> You sceptics voting for Abbot? Looks like he's your man:

    

> *Turnbull savages Abbott over climate 'bullsh**'*

   Turnbull is a turned bull and belongs in the Labor Party. Meanwhile, Abbots ratings have leaped ahead of what they were, and the liberal partys have also risen, so replacing the Turned Bull was the right move.     

> Is it only the aged that have time for daily posts?

   Teens like you gabble all day online and through cell phones, so I'm afraid its around the other way, son.     

> and are more than happy to stubornly deny reality until it kills them?

   Again, that is what kids do. You read about them dying in fast cars, on drugs or drunk out of their mind, stubbornly refusing to change. Older people are survivors, so your description doesnt fit very well. It will make more sense when you are older.     

> Still won't answer my question?

   As you havent quoted me I dont remember the post in question. Im not interested in hunting it down because I remember your post was banal and clichéd, and that most of your points were already answered in this thread. Instead of digging up clichéd old arguments like the ones the greenies keep flogging, try answering questions about the validity of global warming in light of climategate. That would make you relevant instead of dodgy. You can also try answering the question the greenies dodged, which is, How does Australia poison the world?     

> Your post in response to mine was a fantastic example of idiotic rhetoric.

   Since you failed to show how, or even link the quote, I will assume you are bluffing.     

> Can I quote you in an article I am writing? to be titled "The logic of denial".

   Sure, as long as you quote me correctly and provide a link to the quote.     

> Basically the article will look at a profile of typical anti science campaingers. The idea is to inform the average citizen what goes on in the minds of these otherwise incomprehensible nutters so that we can find ways to help them step of their island before it sinks.

   I am pro-science. I believe politicians and the church have no business interfering with science. They tried to silence Galileo, tried to remove evolution from schools, and now they have created the global warming myth in an attempt to redistribute wealth around the globe. Lenin would be proud of them. The scientists they paid to perform this trick are the biggest fraudsters ever.  Those who support global warming are political and religious  anything but scientific.

----------


## rrobor

Now Im not getting into who is correct or wrong,  Rod  and myself share differing views on this but you will not find this vitriol flowing. This is a debate issue. These little hissy spats from both sides are childish and dont add to anybodies credability. I suggest you all go for a cup of tea before Noel has to get out his Army gear.

----------


## Groggy

Noel is a bit kinder than I over these spats. Playing the person is "not on" folks, end of story. Please stick to the subject, ad hominem attacks must stop.

----------


## dazzler

> Dazzler I think it is pretty clear your mind is made up. 
> You do yourself no favors with this post.

  Its not Rod cause Im telling you its not.  I am very inquisitive and seeing as I am a very experienced investigator I probably have more experience than most on trying to get to the truth.  As you would imagine, as an investigator, you are required to not only outline your case but look at it from the opposite side so that you can negate any possible arguments disproving your case.  This is my specialty and I enjoy it.  So when I am presented with a statement from someone, in these cases the Lord and later the Senator, I can listen to the statements with my bull..... meter running in the background.  Once it picks up on the ..... then I have my hole in the story.  The premise being that if you make one mistake then you may have made another.  Make two mistakes and the weight one would put on the rest of the persons statement falls considerably.  And this is equally put on anything the loony left state.   
Perhaps this best sums it up.  If I state that the other side is wrong because they have made a mistake, and in that same presentation I make a mistake, then the value put on my presentation is weakened. 
And additionally, as soon as the presenter mocks the other side you know that they no longer have a scientific or inquisitive mind, for they have their answer and take the lofty ground, grinning down at the stupid people below.  And sadly, and is the same for both sides. 
Again, I have not made up my mind completely.  I have stated my reasons why it seems to make sense that putting all the carbon back into the atmosphere that has been stored underground may well not be in our interest.  I have also stated that I may be wrong.  
But, being inquisitive, I will always like to see, read and debate more.   
So I sit a little to the side of belief that man is inducing climate change to some extent.  But I feel a little lonely in my spot and would happily move over a little if something rational was presented. 
My criticism stands.  I give Fox News the same credit that I give the loony greenie parties.....virtually nil for they are as blinded to the truth as each other.

----------


## dazzler

> [. .  Thats all greenies have left now. Sneering denial.     He says, as if Al Gore and the CRU scientists werent following the money. As long as global warming could be made to look real, the CRU would receive tens of millions of dollars in funding, which makes them guilty of big scale fraud and racketeering.    The first half-decent thermometer didnt exist until 1706, and hardly anyone had one. Since the medieval warm period occurred around 1000, and the little ice age around 1500 to 1850, there would be no scientific readings on the first, and precious little on the second, most of which is probably lost. So its obvious most of the evidence would be anecdotal, forcing scientists to turn to other methods like tree rings, glacier analysis, etc., as explained in the article.  Meanwhile you think its perfectly okay for the scientists at CRU to conveniently delete huge amounts of data they used to create their global warming myth.     Sure he does wouldbe. Like this:  Dazzler: There must be plenty of accurate scientific thermometer readings from 1500 to 1850, regarding the little ice age. After all, people could wead and wite Joe Six Pack: Uh, thermometers werent much good until 1706, and hardly anyone had one. These days they are as common as dirt, very accurate and cheap. Also, our literacy rate is much higher today. Dazzler: I dont care. I just want to believe. The data must be here somewhere! Joe Six Pack: Um, if you think a tiny amount of scientific data MUST exist from centuries ago, then what about the HUGE amount of CRU scientific data supporting global warming? Dazzler: What about it? Joe Six Pack: Where is it? Dazzler: Deleted I fink. Joe Six Pack: I thought you said that if it existed it must exist now. Dazzler: Yeah but, no but, yeah but, only if were talking about data from centuries ago, scrawled on parchment by candlelight, using clumsy and rare instruments. Joe Six Pack: Sorry, but that is dazzlingly silly, and makes no sense at all. Dazzler: Are you a greenie? Joe Six Pack: No way. Dazzler: Oh. Well, it would dazzle you more if you were, hyuk hyuk.  .  .

  Thank you Allen.  Thank you thank you thank you thank you. 
Oh god thank you.  :2thumbsup:   :2thumbsup:   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Allen James

> Thank you Allen. Thank you thank you thank you thank you.
> Oh god thank you.

  If my disagreeing with you makes you this happy, what would happen if I agreed with you about something??  :Rolleyes:

----------


## dazzler

Just realised that last post might be a bit 'left field'. 
Thanks for submitting a post that demonstrates how far one will go to attack anothers view. 
I havent supported Al Gore's view of climate change have I?  If so where?. I have stated that its inappropriate to mock the way one speaks which most people would find offensive. 
I havent supported the scientists who had their emails printed have I?  If I have please show me where?.  If the emails are correct, and they have done wrong (that is when put in context they show misleading conduct to promote their position), then I will say exactly that and it will call into question whatever analysis they have made.  Those scientists would have no credibility in my eyes.  
I havent spoken to a person called joe six pack and further I am pretty sure it would not have been taped.  Can you tell us how you came across this conversation? 
And finally, what evidence do you have that I am a 'greenie'.   
So, to ensure clarity and that those posting are being truthful, please just copy and post the following; 
1. My support of Al Gore's beliefs.
2. My support of the scientists involved in the emails.
3. Evidence of my conversation with Joe.
4. Evidence that I am a greenie. 
Shouldnt be a problem I imagine  :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

> So, to ensure clarity and that those posting are being truthful, please just copy and post the following;

    

> 1. My support of Al Gore's beliefs. 2. My support of the scientists involved in the emails. 3. Evidence of my conversation with Joe. 4. Evidence that I am a greenie.  Shouldnt be a problem I imagine

    ON page 36, you said Monckton's comment about first world environments being cleaner than second world ones was 'rubbish' he had 'spun'.
  You said, The first world exports their rubbish and pollutants throughout the world.   I said that my rubbish goes down the road to a landfill and that I didn't remember my rubbish being flown to India at any time.   You continued, The fact that our streets are clean doesnt [sic] negate the fact that we pollute the world.   When I asked how I pollute the world, you refused to answer.   You said, Calcutta could be clean and tidy if we paid for a garbage service.  Like all groups greenies have their variations. Some greenies dont even know theyre greenies, as they think theyre so different from other greenies. I met a crazy feminist once, who was bad mouthing men and praising Germaine Greer. When I mentioned her being a feminist she growled, I am not a feminist, and I resent being placed in a category by men!  You sound like a greenie to me, and I'm sure Al Gore would like your posts, but if you are not, then good. I guess well see in your future posts.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Noel is a bit kinder than I over these spats. Playing the person is "not on" folks, end of story. Please stick to the subject, ad hominem attacks must stop.

  .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :. 
Take your pick Joe

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Its not Rod cause Im telling you its not. I am very inquisitive and seeing as I am a very experienced investigator I probably have more experience than most on trying to get to the truth. As you would imagine, as an investigator, you are required to not only outline your case but look at it from the opposite side so that you can negate any possible arguments disproving your case. This is my specialty and I enjoy it. So when I am presented with a statement from someone, in these cases the Lord and later the Senator, I can listen to the statements with my bull..... meter running in the background. Once it picks up on the ..... then I have my hole in the story. The premise being that if you make one mistake then you may have made another. Make two mistakes and the weight one would put on the rest of the persons statement falls considerably. And this is equally put on anything the loony left state.  
> Perhaps this best sums it up. If I state that the other side is wrong because they have made a mistake, and in that same presentation I make a mistake, then the value put on my presentation is weakened. 
> And additionally, as soon as the presenter mocks the other side you know that they no longer have a scientific or inquisitive mind, for they have their answer and take the lofty ground, grinning down at the stupid people below. And sadly, and is the same for both sides. 
> Again, I have not made up my mind completely. I have stated my reasons why it seems to make sense that putting all the carbon back into the atmosphere that has been stored underground may well not be in our interest. I have also stated that I may be wrong.  
> But, being inquisitive, I will always like to see, read and debate more.  
> So I sit a little to the side of belief that man is inducing climate change to some extent. But I feel a little lonely in my spot and would happily move over a little if something rational was presented. 
> My criticism stands. I give Fox News the same credit that I give the loony greenie parties.....virtually nil for they are as blinded to the truth as each other.

  Perhaps you should tune in your skills to the list of emails and comment on them..

----------


## Rod Dyson

Sorry Guys, short sharp posts not my usual form had a baaaaddd day!!!! Family death and to top it off I have spent the night in the police station with my daughter, because believe it or not some middle aged imbecile decided to jerk off in front of her on the train.  
I am lost for words.

----------


## dazzler

> ON page 36, you said Monckton's comment about first world environments being cleaner than second world ones was 'rubbish' he had 'spun'.
>   You said, The first world exports their rubbish and pollutants throughout the world.   I said that my rubbish goes down the road to a landfill and that I didn't remember my rubbish being flown to India at any time.   You continued, The fact that our streets are clean doesnt [sic] negate the fact that we pollute the world.   When I asked how I pollute the world, you refused to answer.   You said, Calcutta could be clean and tidy if we paid for a garbage service.  Like all groups greenies have their variations. Some greenies dont even know theyre greenies, as they think theyre so different from other greenies. I met a crazy feminist once, who was bad mouthing men and praising Germaine Greer. When I mentioned her being a feminist she growled, I am not a feminist, and I resent being placed in a category by men!  You sound like a greenie to me, and I'm sure Al Gore would like your posts, but if you are not, then good. I guess well see in your future posts.

  Nope, doesnt cut it, try again. 
Otherwise you are full of it.

----------


## woodbe

> Sorry Guys, short sharp posts not my usual form had a baaaaddd day!!!! Family death and to top it off I have spent the night in the police station with my daughter, because believe it or not some middle aged imbecile decided to jerk off in front of her on the train.  
> I am lost for words.

  Good grief!  :Eek:  
Sounds like a day from hell. Hope things look up for you Rod. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

> you are full of it.

  Like you, most greenies agree I must be full of it.  After all, Im Australian, which means Im guilty of polluting the whole planet.  I should be punished for poisoning the world, and should pay for Calcuttas garbage service.  I should give a lot of money each year to socialists and communists overseas, because their cities are so filthy, and its my fault because Im a filthy capitalist.  No you dont sound like a greenie.   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:

----------


## dazzler

> ON page 36, you said Monckton's comment about first world environments being cleaner than second world ones was 'rubbish' he had 'spun'.
>   You said, “The first world exports their rubbish and pollutants throughout the world.”   I said that my rubbish goes down the road to a landfill and that I didn't remember my rubbish being flown to India at any time.   You continued, “The fact that our streets are clean doesnt [sic] negate the fact that we pollute the world.”   When I asked how I pollute the world, you refused to answer.   You said, “Calcutta could be clean and tidy if we paid for a garbage service.”  Like all groups greenies have their variations. Some greenies don’t even know they’re greenies, as they think they’re so different from other greenies. I met a crazy feminist once, who was bad mouthing men and praising Germaine Greer. When I mentioned her being a feminist she growled, “I am not a feminist, and I resent being placed in a category by men!”  You sound like a greenie to me, and I'm sure Al Gore would like your posts, but if you are not, then good. I guess we’ll see in your future posts.

  Okay so getting back to the actual points. 
Re my rubbish statement.  Perhaps I should have been more specific in my post.  I apologise for that.  By rubbish I refer to stuff we dont want or can no longer use (not household garbage).  
We build our ships and when they are of no value we send them to the third world to be stripped on their beaches and mud flats.  
When our computers are of no value we send them to the third world to be disposed of.  When our tyres no longer have tread we send them to third world to disposed of.  When our steel products are no longer serviceable we send them to the third/second world to be disposed of. 
There are a few examples. 
Now of course they recycle a lot of this stuff which is great, but not all.  The third world does not have the regulations to ensure the environment is cared for so it is at risk and is often damaged.  Not to mention the health damage that the workers suffer because of unsatisfactory OH&S.  
When we create pollution it impacts the globe, seeing as its a closed bubble. 
Just because our streets and environment looks clean, because we have tips and garbage collection, its only skin deep.  Here are some examples; 
I live in Tasmania, touted as a very unspoilt environment.  I cant swim in the River Derwent due to pollution and cant eat fish caught in it or down the channel. 
A lovely clean place to visit if you get the chance are the great lakes of america.  Pristine, except for the fact that one is nearly dead due to pollution and the US is spending billions trying to reverse the damage we have caused through industry and the introduction of exotic species.  Yep, looks lovely, but hardly a shining light to support the Lords statement. 
We enjoy the benefit of the product while others suffer during and after we have enjoyed it.  Maybe thats just the way the world is but it is something that I find a little disturbing.  Sadly I   still drive my car and power my house so I am part of the problem.  Maybe one day it will come back to bite me.  
So thats what I meant, I dont even ask you to understand it, but it is an issue to me. 
So back to put up or shut up; 
Please cut and paste where; 
1. I supported Al Gores beliefs,
2. My support of the scientists involved in the emails
3. Evidence of my conversation with Joe
4. Evidence that I am a greenie. 
Dont bother trying to make rubbish up or infer what you think you have made from my posts, just simply cut and paste from the appropriate thread.  Once you have done this then I will take it on the chin and accept your propositions. 
Put up or shut up.  :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

In reply to *Allen James* post #705, after all that all you have proven is I can't spell reel well & your smoother than teflon.
regards inter

----------


## watson

*Get back on the Friggin' topic!!*
The next member that attacks another  .....uses words like Dumb/ Stupid/ Hypocrite.....
or attacks spelling instead of the topic...or just generally pizzes me off with their attitude will end up..........OFF.
You have an opportunity here to DEBATE............ so do so. 
The thread will also be closed for 24 hours after each deviation from these rules.  *Do Not Pizz me off anymore*. 
Enough.........I've got other bloody things to do.  *Your friendly..but busy...and slightly jaded bloody Administrator.*

----------


## woodbe

> *Great Barrier Reef at stake* 
>  At the same time, coral reef specialist professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg says the conference in Denmark could decide the fate of the Great Barrier Reef. 
>  The Great Barrier Reef, a major tourist industry earner, could go from breathtaking kaleidoscope to bleached ghost-town if temperatures continue to rise.
>  "I started my scientific career studying coral reefs because they were beautiful and they seemed to stretch on forever and now we're at a point where the very ecosystem I work on is threatened to perhaps disappear before the end of my life," Mr Hoegh-Guldberg said.
>  "That is a remarkable situation so when I go to Copenhagen I take a very personal message that something that is so beautiful and so loved by so many people may disappear on account of decisions we may make in Copenhagen."
>  This year has been a crash course in politics for Mr Hoegh-Guldberg, who has spent more time lobbying politicians than in his laboratory.
>  He even ended up in Canberra before the Coalition's recent leadership challenge to brief the often sceptical Opposition.
>  "One question I was asked: How do you know which scientists to believe?" he said.
>  "I would have thought that answer was clear, you listen to the Academy of Sciences or to the consensus science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
>  "A lot of the opinions there are largely because they had not had the benefit of the right information and that was disappointing because they had not sought out the best science but had tended to listen non-qualified snake oil salesman."

   Coal boss takes climate solutions to Copenhagen - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  
Doesn't sound like a fraud to me. More like a concerned and passionate scientist. Is this one of the people Rod's side believes are either frauds or unthinking drones?  
The article is also worth reading for the report of change in attitude from the coal industry.  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here you go Woodbe. 
A real scientist takes down real climate.  Climatologist slams RealClimate.org for 'erroneously communicating the reality of the how climate system is actually behaving' | Climate Depot

----------


## Ashore

> Okay so getting back to the actual points. 
> Re my rubbish statement. Perhaps I should have been more specific in my post. I apologise for that. By rubbish I refer to stuff we dont want or can no longer use (not household garbage).  
> We build our ships and when they are of no value we send them to the third world to be stripped on their beaches and mud flats.  And just when was the last time a ship was built in australia, other than a naval vesal and they don't go to third world countries to be stripped 
> When our computers are of no value we send them to the third world to be disposed of.  Then why do I see so many computers out in the hard waste clean up 
> When our tyres no longer have tread we send them to third world to disposed of.  Now I might be picky but I have never heard of any tyres being sent overseas because they were worn out , not even containers of them and I have had a bit to do with transporting cargoes 
> When our steel products are no longer serviceable we send them to the third/second world to be disposed of. I think you will find that the days of sending pig iron and scrap overseas are long gone , most scrap iron is re-used within australia , but if you can show me when it is exported I would be intrestered , a list of ships or even ports that shuch cargoes were loaded at , or even companies that carried them  
> There are a few examples. No they are a few un substantiated statements by you  
> Just because our streets and environment looks clean, because we have tips and garbage collection, its only skin deep. Here are some examples; 
> I live in Tasmania, touted as a very unspoilt environment. I cant swim in the River Derwent due to pollution and cant eat fish caught in it or down the channel. Now funny enough I have just returned from a holiday in Hobart and there seems to be no ban on eating fish caught there , certainly no health warnings , and the fish we caught and ate off bruny were ok ?
> Put up or shut up.  Now this is a good point , but it applies to everyone

  Rgds

----------


## Allen James

.   

> We build our ships and when they are of no value we send them to the third world to be stripped on their beaches and mud flats.

  Actually many have been scuttled right here. See this PDF file, which lists 30 pages worth:   This caused no harm to the ocean or the land, but greenies insisted it did, so these days any scuttling that takes place is done “cleanly” by removing various materials first. Ships are even scuttled to form new reefs, to stop greenies whining. The HMAS Adelaide, HMAS Canberra, HMAS Brisbane, HMAS Hobart, HMAS Bayonet, HMAS Perth and HMAS Swan are seven examples.  If Indians are lucky enough to be given ships to recycle, that is a great reward to them. All the materials in the ships were dug out of the planet, and when they return to the planet (whether by land or ocean) they are merely going back to where they came from. How can recycling them, as they do in your Indian example, be _polluting the planet_?    

> When our computers are of no value we send them to the third world to be disposed of.

   Only a small unknown percentage of computers are sold to third world countries, and that's because they are wanted there. Although this is illegal and very small scale, it does not pollute the planet in any way, shape or form. All the materials in the computers came out of the planet you say is “poisoned” by them, which proves the notion is nonsense.    

> When our tyres no longer have tread we send them to third world to disposed of.

   Once again you’ve exaggerated and generalized, and failed to provide links and references.  “C&N Ruggiero are an Australian-owned company providing a solution in tyre and rubber disposal and recycling.”  http://www.cnruggiero.com.au/  That was the first entry of 24,200 pages of entries that came up in Australian Google for “tire disposal in Australia”. Click here to see the same search, and enjoy wading through all the Australian disposers or recyclers of tyres. It should take you a few months, so good reading! Then you can search using the term “recycling” instead of “disposal” for more results.  [snip repetition]    

> I live in Tasmania, touted as a very unspoilt environment.

   “Unspoilt environment” is a greenie term. In my opinion roads, footpaths, shops, houses, service stations, restaurants, etc., do not “spoil” an environment, but enhance it greatly. Most people agree with me, as they prefer to live in houses and go shopping rather than live in a marsh, eating slugs for lunch and keeping warm under a blanket of mossies. Sure, some of them _say_ roads, houses, etc., spoil the environment, but how many of them actually _abandon_ these things? Almost none. When a scruffy hermit does pop up out of the scrub we usually have a good laugh at him, being such a rarity. The vast majority of greenies cling to their “spoilt environment” tenaciously, because they are hypocrites.    

> I cant swim in the River Derwent due to pollution and cant eat fish caught in it or down the channel.

   Again you’re probably exaggerating, especially when you look at many examples of “natural” water around the world (more on that below). This is a photo of a Derwent Beach Watch sign – showing “good” water quality based on the past five summers:  http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200812/r326336_1463030.jpg   It comes from this page from the greenie-supporting ABC, which discusses the improving Derwent.   Watch Man vs. Wild and learn a little about life in the wild. He will be out in the middle of some lost wilderness, a thousand miles away from civilization, and coming across a creek, will explain that drinking it straight could lead to all kinds of problems, with germs, parasitic eggs, various fungi, algae, tiny worms, and natural toxins, to name a few from memory. Sifting and boiling the water, and testing it first, are vital to avoid becoming sick or even dying. This is as natural as it gets, and the water is probably worse than the Derwent. Water has been that way long before humans came on the scene, so don’t blame us. Think of the millions of swamps – do you really believe that water is healthy for you? How about sea water - ever tried drinking that? How long do you think you could survive on the stuff? How about sulphurous springs? If you are going to complain about one measly river, don’t forget to add all the other natural water you can’t drink around the world. Once again, the stuff we dig up to process in factories came out of the earth. Even when it is then returned to the water, which annoys us very clean and neat humans, all it is doing is returning to the planet we took it from. Sure we should clean up our rivers, and mostly we do, but this in no way can be described as “polluting or poisoning the planet”.

----------


## woodbe

> Here you go Woodbe. 
> A real scientist takes down real climate.  Climatologist slams RealClimate.org for 'erroneously communicating the reality of the how climate system is actually behaving' | Climate Depot

  So the denialists don't agree with Real Climate. 
What a surprise.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## dazzler

Still waiting; 
So, to ensure clarity and that those posting are being truthful, please just copy and post the following; 
1. My support of Al Gore's beliefs.
2. My support of the scientists involved in the emails.
3. Evidence of my conversation with Joe.
4. Evidence that I am a greenie.

----------


## Allen James

> Still waiting;
> So, to ensure clarity and that those posting are being truthful, please just copy and post the following; 
> 1. My support of Al Gore's beliefs.
> 2. My support of the scientists involved in the emails.
> 3. Evidence of my conversation with Joe.
> 4. Evidence that I am a greenie.

  Ive been waiting longer for an answer to How do Australians pollute (or poison) the planet?  So far you havent provided one.

----------


## rrobor

My I answer that. Australians use electricity which is mostly derived from brown coal. The muck that blasts out of furnices to produce that is very high. 
Australians introduced cattle and feed them on diets that create high methane as well as beef.
 Australians like white paper, to get that, all sorts of toxins are produced which they pump 3 or 4 miles out to sea, because we dont want it here. 
We fill large holes in the ground with stuff we dont want and the poisons from that leach into the water table and down streams killing everything in its path. We dont like our own waste, so the resultants of that we pump far out to sea cos we dont like swimming in it 
Yes folks we are mucky little pups, regardless of the ultimate planet consequences, we really need to clean up our act.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Guys AGW and pollution control are 2 seperate issues. No one likes pollution and we should be always looking for ways to reduce pollution.  
Australia and other advanced nations do a pretty good job but could always do better. 
However the money wasted trying to reduce an non-pollutant CO2 could have been used to catch the real culprits.

----------


## Ashore

> Still waiting; 
> So, to ensure clarity and that those posting are being truthful, please just copy and post the following; 
> 1. My support of Al Gore's beliefs.
> 2. My support of the scientists involved in the emails.
> 3. Evidence of my conversation with Joe.
> 4. Evidence that I am a greenie.

  So am I , you have yet to refute your previous statements  :No:

----------


## rrobor

> Guys AGW and pollution control are 2 seperate issues. No one likes pollution and we should be always looking for ways to reduce pollution.  
> Australia and other advanced nations do a pretty good job but could always do better. 
> However the money wasted trying to reduce an non-pollutant CO2 could have been used to catch the real culprits.

   Im sorry Rod I dont agree. Im old enough to remember asbestos sheeting as the new bute stuff thats going to roof the world.  Or the new marvel gas that was in everything and was non toxic. Im old enough to remember the horse fly in plagues in UK and frogs and bumble bees, scarce as hens teeth when I left.
  So what exactly are we doing ?  no one knows.  We blunder from the brink of one disaster to the next. Isnt it time we just bit the bullet and cleaned up our act and accept if theres a doubt, err on safety.

----------


## woodbe

> However the money wasted trying to reduce an non-pollutant CO2 could have been used to catch the real culprits.

  The US EPA doesn't agree with you Rod.  12/07/2009: EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment / Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity   

> EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment / Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity

   

> These long-overdue findings cement 2009s place in history as the year when the United States Government began addressing the challenge of *greenhouse-gas pollution* and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform, said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson

   (emphasis is mine) 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .    

> My I answer that. Australians use electricity which is mostly derived from brown coal. The muck that blasts out of furnices to produce that is very high.

  Agreed.  Greenies prevented us all these years from enjoying the cheaper, much cleaner nuclear power, while never objecting to Russia, China, Japan and other countries using it.  Because of them, coal has been mined to supply coal based power stations, and this is very dirty.  Huge numbers of coal miners died from emphysema as a result, and many others have also been affected as a result of the pollution caused by burning coal to run the power stations.  Even so, coal comes from the earth.  All the elements inside it come from the earth.  We mine it, and then use it, and those elements inevitably return to the earth, even if they are in the lungs of the poor people who died thanks to greenies.  Australians elected the Labor governments that kept us tied to coal, so that was their choice.  However, since these elements come out of the earth, and return to the earth, there is no poisoning of the planet.  I agree you could say it pollutes the area in question (Yallourn or wherever), but that is hardly polluting the planet.  Also, if conservatives like Abbott have their way, we will have our cheaper, cleaner nuclear power stations sometime soon.  Were working on it.     

> Australians introduced cattle and feed them on diets that create high methane as well as beef.

  Cows farting?  Heh heh.  Youre throwing that at me?  Ever heard of natural gas?  Methane is a major constituent of it.  It is also used as an important source of hydrogen and a wide variety of organic compounds.  A quarter of the worlds cows are found in India.  Rotting plants and animals underwater create huge amounts of methane worldwide, as do bacteria.  Long before humans came along there were huge herds of large mammals all over the planet.  Long before that huge herds of enormous dinosaurs produced a lot more methane than your modern cow.  When did you hear a greenie accuse dinosaurs or buffalo of poisoning the planet?  :Biggrin:      

> Australians like white paper, to get that, all sorts of toxins are produced which they pump 3 or 4 miles out to sea, because we dont want it here.

  You havent provided any source material, statistics, links or figures.  As previously explained, there is a much greater amount of toxic material found and created naturally in the sea.  The sea is a big place, and is hardly poisoned by this small amount of material which came from the earth in the first place.  At the same time industry is changing thanks to new technology, which makes production cleaner all the time.  This isnt because of legislation as much as the simple human need to be neat, tidy and clean.  We dont like pollution.  This pulp mill, opened in 2007, is a good example. The mill has zero water leaving the site, and uses no chlorine bleaching.       

> We fill large holes in the ground with stuff we dont want and the poisons from that leach into the water table and down streams killing everything in its path.

  Yet you are typing on a computer.  I obviously wont take this claim seriously, but feel free to point to some evidence.     

> We dont like our own waste, so the resultants of that we pump far out to sea cos we dont like swimming in it

  Agreed.  We are clean, and have been like that since we evolved.  We would walk a fair way from the tribal camp to dig a hole and do our business, and would thus fertilize the forest in the process.  We dont like sitting in our waste.  Does our waste hurt the forest?  Does it hurt the sea?  Not at all, since the materials we harvested came from the earth, and return to it.  The ocean hardly notices our contribution to its already vast supply of toxic materials.  Even so, we continue to make our environment cleaner with every passing year, as it is part of our instincts to do so.     

> Yes folks we are mucky little pups, regardless of the ultimate planet consequences, we really need to clean up our act.

  Humans are very clean animals, and Australians are cleaner than most.  Australia deserves an award for setting an example of cleanliness that puts many other countries to shame.  If anyone can supply any evidence Australia "pollutes or poisons the planet" please point to the evidence.  .  .

----------


## rrobor

Point by point  Neuclear power is by far the most epensive power there is. It also gives countries the ability to create bombs. By far the cheapest is Hydro then coal.
Next  Cows fed on high protein diets create huge volumes of gas and have become on of the worlds major poluters. This is why the USA is producing cattle feed which reduces gas.
  The new pulp mill in Tazzy is designed with an outflow that (from memory) is going to be 5K out to sea, if its so clean , let them water their gardens with the stuff. 
 Look at Jacques Cousteau work in the Medeteranian. Over one lifetime it has turned from a paradise to in some places a desert. Now there  are areas in Australia the same.
  Wife as a child walked over the bridge at Lakes entrance Victoria. She stated the sea was full of crabs and sea grass. Today its bare sand
   As to sea outfall. I need a paper do I , I think not. If the stuff is pure, lets tip it on your lawn. As to it being good fertiliser, it probably is, but we add to that with the chemestry set of clensers and the like. 
As to us being pure Australia tops greenhouse pollution index - Environment - www.smh.com.au
  But then what is the point you are going to go off on Neuclear power and CO2 is not a toxin etc etc and the wheel just spins.

----------


## Allen James

> So what exactly are we doing ? no one knows.

   I know.  We are growing hundreds of millions of trees and other plants, including grass, as we build our cities and their suburbs around the planet.  We are the first animal to consciously and deliberately care for animals and plants, and to go out of our way to care for them, healing them, repairing them, feeding them, breeding them and creating habitats for them.  We are the first animal to deliberately go out of our way to improve the environment by protecting endangered species, removing threats to the same, and search for ways to make the environment safer for ourselves and other living things in a myriad of ways.

----------


## Allen James

.    

> Neuclear power is by far the most epensive power there is.

   This is another myth created by greenies. First, they clog the industry with green tape and ridiculous over-the-top rules and regulations, and then wonder why this increases costs. I’m not talking about nuclear power plants that are burdened by massive amounts of green tape, but normal, ordinary nuclear power stations that operate safely. I remember how greenies would not allow a nuclear power station to open in the States somewhere because its radioactivity reading was “too high”. It turned out later that the reading was no higher than the reading one received for St Paul's Cathedral in Melbourne which, like most stone buildings, emits a natural amount of radioactivity.      

> It also gives countries the ability to create bombs.

   We need bombs to keep the peace.     

> By far the cheapest is Hydro then coal.

   The cheapest is nuclear power, as long as it isn’t smothered in green tape.     

> Next Cows fed on high protein diets create huge volumes of gas and have become on of the worlds major poluters.

   Provide a trustworthy link showing that Austalia’s cows “poison or pollute *the world*.” If true, there should be many big headlines on the subject, right?     

> The new pulp mill in Tazzy is designed with an outflow that (from memory) is going to be 5K out to sea, if its so clean , let them water their gardens with the stuff.

   Why do you think they put it 5 k out to sea? Also, where is your source for this information? Provide details so we can see the whole story.     

> As to us being pure Australia tops greenhouse pollution index - Environment - www.smh.com.au

   That is a greenie article, quoting Greenpeace campaigner Catherine Fitzpatrick. She believes that a tiny increase in carbon dioxide is “poisoning our planet”. It isn’t, and this has been covered many times in this thread. As I explained before, there was a much greater amount of CO2 in the atmosphere during the time of the dinosaurs, and it didn’t stunt their growth. Humans need thousands of years and great deal of luck to get the CO2 back to the levels they were then, and so what if they did? The plants would be lusher and greener, and we’d probably be better off.    .

----------


## rrobor

You see this was what I expected. If you state a fact like Gunns pulp mill has an outflow going as far out to see as it can. Then we get show a paper. 
 If we show a paper then its done by a greenie so should be discounted. Neuclear power is the most expensive there is. Want to look up facts on that be my guest. 
The first in UK was Dounraey in Scotland on  the north coast. Out to sea is the Orkney Islands. You wont find papers on this but Lukemia on the Orkneys was beyond what should be expected. You also have to decommission power stations after 40 or so years. Now the world is starting to get littered by dead abandoned  power stations. 
 As to bombs. My example is the US and guns. Bombs dont keep the peace they just give idiots the chance to gain horrific weapons, which  is a terrifying thought
  . The world is quite capable of creating Napoleons , Hitlers, Idi Amins etc etc
  Carbon dating is done by radio activity leeching out after you die. This suggests that an exact amount of radio activity has something to do with life, it may even be what life is. So lets just take care not to muck about with things we dont know enough about.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Peer reviewed Peer Reviewed  :Yikes2: 
Even published in nature magazine double :Yikes2:  :Yikes2:   Climate claims fail science test | The Australian 
I don't know the answer to these questions, but as Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman observed: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." 
Joe you there? Joe?

----------


## Rod Dyson

ANOTHER PAPER 
(seeking peer review)  http://kestencgreen.com/green%26arms...-analogies.pdf

----------


## dazzler

> Ive been waiting longer for an answer to How do Australians pollute (or poison) the planet?  So far you havent provided one.

  How do Australians pollute (or poison) the planet? 
Well for a start we drive cars and trucks that put out pollutants that go into the atmosphere in the world we live in. 
We allow our rivers to carry toxins and other chemicals out to the sea.  (My Derwent river is a perfect example). 
We pump oil and gas from oil fields to our north that spill into the sea and are spread by currents into East Timor and Indonesian waters. 
So there you go.  
Your turn, put up or shut up.

----------


## Allen James

.  .  

> You see this was what I expected. If you state a fact like Gunns pulp mill has an outflow going as far out to see as it can. Then we get show a paper. If we show a paper then its done by a greenie so should be discounted.

  You didn’t supply any links or information about Gunn’s pulp mill (actually called “Bell Bay Pulp Mill”), so there was no paper shown, and no greenie to object to. Surely you can find information about the mill that isn’t written by a biased greenie. Here is what they say about themselves:    _._ _Much has been said and written about our Pulp Mill project. Opponents of the development have resorted to misinformation, scare-mongering and false claims. Tasmanians have a right to know the truth. That is why we produced a series of factual newspaper advertisements, drawn from the information contained in the information submitted to government for the assessment of the project. All the detailed material, reports and data is available on our project website at Gunns Ltd | Pulp Mill Project: Home, but we have produced the abbreviated information in this booklet so that the Tasmanian public can have ready access to THE FACTS._  . Scrolling down you can read a lot of information about how beneficial they will be to Tasmania. Under the heading “Effluent” we find the following: .  _• The Pulp Mill effluent treatment plant will be state-of-the-art, incorporating best design principles of primary and secondary treatment plants in operation in the pulp industry around the world._ _._ _• The effluent is so clean it could be discharged into the Tamar River, but guidelines have specificed it to be discharged approximately three kilometres out into Bass Strait, into 26 metres of water. The effluent will be continuously monitored for quality and flow._  _._ _• The adoption of current technology will ensure that the effluent meets the highest world standards._ _._ _• Studies also show that there will be no impact on the aquatic environment from metals absorbed naturally by trees._ _._ _• The high quality treatment technology will also virtually eliminate natural properties in wood which historically are responsible for tainting of fish stocks._ _._ _• A comprehensive study on the impact on a seal colony some 15 km from the outfall indicated little or no impact on the seals, fish or other sea life from the effluent._  .   

> Neuclear power is the most expensive there is.

   It is the cheapest there is.  . From The Eagle Tribune:  _._ _Nuclear power's increasingly favorable economics is a key factor in its comeback. The cost of producing nuclear-generated electricity is 25 percent cheaper than coal and less than one-quarter of natural gas. Utilities recognize that they no longer can rely heavily on natural gas for electricity production because of its high and volatile prices. Nor is solar or wind power viable. Although politically popular, in most instances, they are far too costly and cannot provide power reliably at industrial strength._ _._ _The next nuclear power plants will be built to standardized designs, four of which are certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Now, for the first time, utilities will apply for a combined construction and operating license, so that a nuclear plant can begin commercial operation when complete, within four years of the first pouring of concrete. France, which obtains nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, has shown this can be done. Now is a good time to launch a new generation of nuclear power plants. Our future depends on it._ _._ _Gilbert J. Brown, Ph.D., is a professor and coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program at the University of Massachusetts Lowell._  .   

> The first in UK was Dounraey in Scotland on the north coast. Out to sea is the Orkney Islands. You wont find papers on this but Lukemia on the Orkneys was beyond what should be expected. You also have to decommission power stations after 40 or so years. Now the world is starting to get littered by dead abandoned power stations.

   You can put your fears away about those issues, as it is just more greenie scaremongering. They are very good at cooking up old wives’ tales about nuclear energy. .    

> Bombs dont keep the peace they just give idiots the chance to gain horrific weapons, which is a terrifying thought

   Not to me and millions of other people. We understand the need for defence. .    

> The world is quite capable of creating Napoleons , Hitlers, Idi Amins etc etc

   Which is precisely why we need a nuclear deterrent. If there is one thing tyrants don’t like, it’s being obliterated. .    

> Carbon dating is done by radio activity leeching out after you die. This suggests that an exact amount of radio activity has something to do with life, it may even be what life is. So lets just take care not to muck about with things we dont know enough about.

   I don’t really understand what you just said, but I can assure you that humans know plenty about nuclear power, and have been using it productively for many decades now. Thanks to the green Labor Government, poor old Australia will come to the nuclear power table last, to begin enjoying cheap and clean power. Our great grand children will think we were mad to do without it for so long.   .

----------


## Allen James

.    

> How do Australians pollute (or poison) the planet?

    

> Well for a start we drive cars and trucks that put out pollutants that go into the atmosphere in the world we live in.  We allow our rivers to carry toxins and other chemicals out to the sea. (My Derwent river is a perfect example).  We pump oil and gas from oil fields to our north that spill into the sea and are spread by currents into East Timor and Indonesian waters.

  
These are the same arguments dressed in in different hats and ties.  They were all covered in my previous points, none of which you debated.  Go back and read my previous posts for the answers.   .

----------


## woodbe

dazzler, rrobor, 
As you can see, some people don't just _know_ about a river in Egypt, they have moored their boat on it. 
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

This is why I state this is a waste of time. I post something and its "Greenie bias" The most expensive power in the world is Neuclear but thats cos greenies dont allow them to spread their muck around I presume. And it goes on and on with statements that dont quite make sense, do we believe that We are the only ones that will get the bomb , Pakistan has the bomb and she is less than stable. Bomb Pakistan you will have India and China after you, Bomb them and its WW3. We all know coal fired power is dirty but cheap , Australia is mostly supplied by that. but we are told we are the cleanest on the planet. There is one area in Melbourne  that has had to be evacuated because the landfill under them was not done correctly and now gas levels in the houses are close to explosive. Now when that was done,  Im sure they wrote a nice little piece of waffle  Just as Gunn has. But we swallow that because its not "Greenie". When we get to a stage where we are not prepaired to look, but are only interested in crushing all debate other than our own view. It is then not a debate but a war between two sides, that can have no resolution.

----------


## Ashore

> How do Australians pollute (or poison) the planet? 
> Well for a start we drive cars and trucks that put out pollutants that go into the atmosphere in the world we live in. 
> We allow our rivers to carry toxins and other chemicals out to the sea. (My Derwent river is a perfect example). 
> We pump oil and gas from oil fields to our north that spill into the sea and are spread by currents into East Timor and Indonesian waters. 
> So there you go.  
> Your turn, put up or shut up.

   Now Dazzler in a previous post you made statements that wern't true , as you have here 
Australians do not pump gas ( which cannot spill into the sea as it is a GAS ) into the sea
Now dazzler some of your statements are shown to be INCORRECT  why not admit it 
It is easy to tell fibs but you have been caught out twice now in the matter of a couple of days and yet you continue , this can only put into doubt other posts you have made and leads us all to wonder , is the only way you can continue with you arguement that there is climate change is to make up STUFF and try to convince both yourself and others that the false statements you make are real  :No:   *EDITED POST*

----------


## rrobor

LA LA LA LA ME ME ME fat lady is tuning up, or is it him with army boots.

----------


## dazzler

Hi ashore 
Sorry, leak oil into the sea and gas into the atmosphere. Have we not been watching the news of late? 
There, I have fixed my mistake, sorry for the poor wording.   
What was the other lie?  
I might make mistakes, if I do I will admit them.  This is what debate is.  I am happy to be right any wrong I make. 
Unfortunately there are others on this forum who will state that I have said something and then cant show where. 
All I want is for them to have the strength of character to either put up or shut up.

----------


## dazzler

> .  
> These are the same arguments dressed in in different hats and ties.  They were all covered in my previous points, none of which you debated.  Go back and read my previous posts for the answers.   .

  thats okay, you can disagree and you can point out where I am wrong. 
Once again, stand up for yourself and cut and paste where I have made the statements.   I dont need to copy them for you again. 
Just cut and paste and I will shut up.  Easy!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> LA LA LA LA ME ME ME fat lady is tuning up, or is it him with army boots.

   The strangest posts Rrobor.

----------


## Allen James

.    

> This is why I state this is a waste of time. I post something and its "Greenie bias" The most expensive power in the world is Neuclear but thats cos greenies dont allow them to spread their muck around I presume. And it goes on and on with statements that dont quite make sense, do we believe that We are the only ones that will get the bomb , Pakistan has the bomb and she is less than stable. Bomb Pakistan you will have India and China after you, Bomb them and its WW3. We all know coal fired power is dirty but cheap , Australia is mostly supplied by that. but we are told we are the cleanest on the planet. There is one area in Melbourne that has had to be evacuated because the landfill under them was not done correctly and now gas levels in the houses are close to explosive. Now when that was done, Im sure they wrote a nice little piece of waffle Just as Gunn has. But we swallow that because its not "Greenie". When we get to a stage where we are not prepaired to look, but are only interested in crushing all debate other than our own view. It is then not a debate but a war between two sides, that can have no resolution.

   Like Daz you have taken to repeating clichés that were already answered, so you can join him in finding my replies above, in posts you didnt debate.   .

----------


## Rod Dyson

Just a little read for you.  Welcome to the Copenhagen Climate Challenge Web Site 
Only a few scientists signed this letter  :Smilie:  Guess it can't be true! Cause I'll bet these guys are not real scientist right?

----------


## rrobor

It was a reminder Rod that Noel got tired of this going for the man. Calling someone a liar, Ill tell you now, Noel hasnt spotted that, he is 2 busy elsewhere. So its  my way of saying Dont get the fat lady singing because thats the end. Dazzler has been extra kind, so with luck everybody may just be lucky after Noel has his cornflakes tomorrow.

----------


## Allen James

.   

> Just a little read for you.

    

> Welcome to the Copenhagen Climate Challenge Web Site  Only a few scientists signed this letter  Guess it can't be true! Cause I'll bet these guys are not real scientist right?

  Excellent find Rod. Great to see this kind of action being taken.  In other news, Greenie Gore has at last responded to Climategate by predictably telling big fat lies. . From PrisonPlanet – excerpt: . *More Lies From Al Gore As He Attempts To Dismiss ClimateGate* *Shrugs off “silly” CRU emails as over a decade old while admitting to not having read them.* _Wednesday, Dec 9, 2009_ . _Al Gore has responded to the Climategate emails scandal by doing what he knows best, skirting the truth and making statements that have no correlation to actual known facts._ _In an interview with Slate, Gore responds to several questions over the damning leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University by lying and suggesting that the emails are all over ten years old._ _._ _Here is an excerpt:_ _._ _Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?_ _A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old._ _…_ _Of course, if Al Gore had bothered to read any of the emails or spend five minutes looking at any reports related to the greatest scientific scandal of the century, he would know that the emails cover a period of ten years, with the most recent being sent just one month ago on November 12th._ _._ _Some of the most damming emails... are less than one year old._ _._  For other furphies by Gore, see whole article and interview here. _._ _._ It’s obvious Gore knew very well how recent many of the emails were, and lied quite deliberately. Greenies – they never let the truth get in their way.  Here is a video that shows Al Gore lying about graphs, and a panel of experts show how, very effectively:  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU"]YouTube - Al Gore Debates Global Warming[/ame] .  . .  .

----------


## Rod Dyson

Happy Christmas. 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQXY4tWaoI&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - It's A Climategate Christmas[/ame]

----------


## Rod Dyson

Unprecedented warming? I DONT THINK SO.   
Well, whaddaya know — a hockey stick. In fact, the “blade” continues up in the 20th century at least another half a degree. But how long is the handle? How unprecedented is the current warming trend? 
Yes, Virginia, there was a Medieval Warm Period, in central Greenland at any rate. But we knew that — that’s when the Vikings were naming it Greenland, after all. And the following Little Ice Age is what killed them off, and caused widespread crop failures (and the consequent burning of witches) across Europe. But was the MWP itself unusual? 
Well, no — over the period of recorded history, the average temperature was about equal to the height of the MWP. Rises not only as high, but as rapid, as the current hockey stick blade have been the rule, not the exception. 
In fact for the entire Holocene — the period over which, by some odd coincidence, humanity developed agriculture and civilization — the temperature has been higher than now, and the trend over the past 4000 years is a marked decline. From this perspective, it’s the LIA that was unusual, and the current warming trend simply represents a return to the mean. If it lasts. 
From the perspective of the Holocene as a whole, our current hockeystick is beginning to look pretty dinky. By far the possibility I would worry about, if I were the worrying sort, would be the return to an ice age — since interglacials, over the past half million years or so, have tended to last only 10,000 years or so. And Ice ages are not conducive to agriculture. 
… and ice ages have a better claim on being the natural state of Earth’s climate than interglacials. This next graph, for the longest period, we have to go to an Antarctic core (Vostok): 
In other words, we’re pretty lucky to be here during this rare, warm period in climate history. But the broader lesson is, climate doesn’t stand still. It doesn’t even stay on the relatively constrained range of the last 10,000 years for more than about 10,000 years at a time.

----------


## woodbe

Being the sceptic that you are Rod, I know you will have investigated the confidence interval of this data. 
What is it? 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe



----------


## chrisp

Rod, 
I went to the web site referenced in your post with the graphs. 
Here is a quote from the site:_"Although each of the proxy temperature records shown below is different, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals a steep increase in the rate or spatial extent of warming since the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. When compared to the most recent decades of the instrumental record, they indicate the temperatures of the most recent decades are the warmest in the entire record. In addition, warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century than in any previous time."  _ NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data 
Another quote:_"When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed significantly over the last 140 years. Global warming has occurred."_ ... and another:_"Nevertheless, with each year, more and more climate scientists are coming to the conclusion that human activity is also causing the climate to change. First on the list of likely human influences is warming due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Other human activities are thought to drive climate as well. As the ice-core data show, the increase in carbon dioxide is unprecedented and well outside the range of natural variations."_ NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Perspective on Global Warming - The End 
Are you sure the quoted web site supports your assertions?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Being the sceptic that you are Rod, I know you will have investigated the confidence interval of this data. 
> What is it? 
> woodbe.

  I guess these guys are reputable! 
At the Foresight Institute, J. Storrs Hall had some interesting graphs made from NOAA ice core data (*Alley, R.B. 2000. The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.)*

----------


## chrisp

> I guess these guys are reputable! 
> At the Foresight Institute, J. Storrs Hall had some interesting graphs made from NOAA ice core data (*Alley, R.B. 2000. The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.)*

  ... and I guess they are not! 
The "Foresight Institute" has supposedly used data from the NOAA data sets and come to different conclusions.  I'd believe the NOAA rather than some other lot "cherry picking" the data sets.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Are you sure the quoted web site supports your assertions?

  I'm sure I do not. Must have snuck in with a reference to the failed hockey stick.  
So many posts, thanks for pointing out that slip, chrisp. 
Nice to see you are looking at the links. Have you got any thing to say about the others? Or do you agree with them?  
Boy I stuffed up the lay out of this page sorry guys. 
I'm sure you have read them all. 
Cheers Rod

----------


## Rod Dyson

> ... and I guess they are not! 
> The "Foresight Institute" has supposedly used data from the NOAA data sets and come to different conclusions. I'd believe the NOAA rather than some other lot "cherry picking" the data sets.

  The se graphs show how cherry picking is used to  miss-represent the current warming. Without showing the full data set as the other graphs show. 
Dont you think? 
Story here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...ta/#more-13939

----------


## chrisp

> Boy I stuffed up the lay out of this page sorry guys.

  Don't worry, we'll click over on to a new page very soon...

----------


## chrisp

> The only cherry picking here is the first graph. Shown to miss-represent the current warming. Without showing the full data set as the other graphs show. 
> Dont you think?

  Have a look over the NOAA website and have a look at their sets of graphs over the same periods.  NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - NCDC Paleoclimatology Branch

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Have a look over the NOAA website and have a look at their sets of graphs over the same periods. NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - NCDC Paleoclimatology Branch

   See my edited post. Too quick on the key board

----------


## woodbe

> I'd believe the NOAA rather than some other lot "cherry picking" the data sets.

  Especially seeing this 'Foresight Institute' is some kind of Nanotechnology promoter with no connections to Climate Science. 
*Boggle* 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Especially seeing this 'Foresight Institute' is some kind of Nanotechnology promoter with no connections to Climate Science. 
> *Boggle* 
> woodbe.

  The Data is from the NOAA 
Put together in a graph by FI. 
Who cares what they do or don't do.  The data is the data. 
You guys just don't seem to understand that. You just keep keep shooting down the messenger in typical warmist/greeny style.   
You may think this looks clever, but to an outsider who thinks a little for themselves, it derides your entire argument.   
You would be better off explaining why this is wrong, why you say the current warming is unprecedented in view of the data as displayed?  Obviously one of your champions are not going to present the full data set because it destroy's their argument. But when someone else does you seek to destroy them.   
You know I have seen these sorts of tactics somewhere else I'm sure of it.  Lets see?  Ah, thats it CLIMATEGATE. :Yikes2:  
Fail try again

----------


## woodbe

> The Data is from the NOAA 
> Put together in a graph by FI.

  Using a single proxy data source in the centre of Greenland, and arriving at a completely different conclusion to the people who collected it.   

> Who cares what they do or don't do.  The data is the data.

  Classic. 
So what you're saying is that we don't need scientific analysis at all. Once we have the data, any numbskull can work out what it means. I had no idea it was that simple Rod, thanks for explaining it to us. 
 woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Using a single proxy data source in the centre of Greenland, and arriving at a completely different conclusion to the people who collected it. 
> Classic. 
> So what you're saying is that we don't need scientific analysis at all. Once we have the data, any numbskull can work out what it means. I had no idea it was that simple Rod, thanks for explaining it to us. 
> woodbe.

   Why would I think anything but, you would miss the point.

----------


## Allen James

.  .  Excellent graphs Rod.  Its a shame the Warmers cant bear looking at them.   Nonetheless, it looks like Chicken Littles polar bears are coming home to roost.   :Biggrin:  .  .  .   .   .    .  .   .  .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> .  .  Excellent graphs Rod. It’s a shame the Warmers can’t bear looking at them.  Nonetheless, it looks like Chicken Little’s polar bears are coming home to roost.  .  .

  Where are you pulling the jokes from? They are good! 
What I can't comprehend is that this historical record is not disputed, just totally ignored. It clearly shows that temperatures where higher in the past and really that is not a hard concept to grab. I can't reconcile with the claims the earth is now hotter than it has ever been. Nor can I reconcile with the claims that the warming of the 20th century is un-precedented.  
We know that Earth has warmed but no one can say exactly why. They only THINK CO2 is the reason because the rise in CO2 correlated with temperature increases for a short period. Impossible to claim correlation over a short time frame means causation. 
This is more true since the temperatures have failed to continue climbing along with CO2 over the past 10 years or so, It makes their claim very weak in my opinion. All the "evidence" of global warming means absolutely Jack S#*T if the cause cant be proven. All it tells us is the world is warmer than 30 years ago.  
This is all dependent on the accuracy of the adjustments to the raw data made by the gate keepers of the world temperature records to give us a true picture of the temperatures. The following graph may have a bit of bearing on that accuracy as does the "climategate" emails. I can really only put it down to Ideology that makes the warm-mongers blind to the contrary science. 
Boy I hope this does not stuff up the page like last time :Blush7:    
Now here is the link to the entire article The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero « Watts Up With That? 
Cheers guys chew on this one for me.

----------


## chrisp

Rod, 
In Melbourne, the temperature can vary about 40 to 50 degrees over a year - i.e. the highest maximum could be in the mid forties and the lowest minimum somewhere in the early sub-zeros. 
Climate Change is the study of the gradual shift in the average global temperature (in the order of fractions of a degree) over decades/centuries.  The day-to-day and year-to-year temperature variations are just "noise" on the long term average temperature.  To eliminate the "noise", one needs to average a great deal of data - both over the time-domain and the spatial-domain - to find the long term average global temperature.  Selecting data from one location may not be truly representative of the whole picture. 
I do not consider myself well informed on this.  I do admire your tenacity on this topic, and you have got me reading up a bit in this area. 
If you truly have the energy, time and seriously want to be well informed, here's what I'd suggest you could do:  Start by reading a well referenced document - say The Copenhagen Diagnosis This one is an easy read.Look up the references on the above article and read them to understand the background material used to produce the first mentioned report.Look up the articles and papers referenced in the above step.Look up the articles and papers referenced in the above step.repeat step 4 until you find you have most all of the papers referenced.  You'll find yourself going in circles and, hopefully, you'll have a very good understanding of who's who in the field.Check the analysis and calculations in the published works to understand exactly how the author reached their conclusions.  Warning, most scientific literature assumes a very high level understanding of the foundation principles of the field - you may need to dig up a few text books to understand the assumed principles.  What can appear as a few lines of mathematical equations in publication can often be many pages when worked out in full (DAMHIKT)Monitor the scientific literature for further articles (at this point you would be about 12-months off the current thinking in the field.  i.e. it can take about 12 months to have a paper published based on the latest studies).Attending conferences in the field (you'll know who the big names are from step 5) to get closer to the current state-of-play.  (Conference presentations can be very up-to-date).
If you do all the above (to step 7), I think you would truly be regarded as well informed on the topic. 
In scientific research, the above steps are simply a "literature survey" done to understand the topic before doing any serious work that might contribute to the field - usually the next step is to attempt to replicate some of the published results to check that you have your methodologies correct (easier said than done). 
Or you can be like me - and just accept the analysis of the most respected scientists working in the field.  Yep, I accept they could collectively be wrong, but it is very unlikely.  
I wouldn't take any opinion type material seriously as it is just for entertainment value.  Some like to read Andrew Bolt and some like to read Catherine Deveny - neither of which should be taken seriously. 
BTW, I think if you read the later literature you'll find that the "hockey stick" isn't _that_ discredited.  Sure there where a few papers challenging some aspects of the hockey stick, and some corrections have been done, but my understanding is that the general trend is considered correct. 
This post certainly isn't intended to be a criticism of you or your posts, but rather just a friendly "leg up" on how to break in to the serious literature on the topic.  You seem to have tremendous energy and an appetite for information - I think you should have a go at tackling the serious literature.

----------


## chrisp

> Excellent graphs Rod.  Its a shame the Warmers cant bear looking at them.

  What?  I looked at them - and posted a reply rebutting them.  It is just "cherry picking" - the graphs are based on selected data from the NOAA.  The NOAA itself (the source of the data) actually states the world is warming (see my earlier posts for references). 
I think your statement is false.

----------


## Allen James

.   

> Where are you pulling the jokes from? They are good!

   . From www.cagle.com  :Biggrin:  . .   . .   

> What I can't comprehend is that this historical record is not disputed, just totally ignored. It clearly shows that temperatures where higher in the past and really that is not a hard concept to grab. I can't reconcile with the claims the earth is now hotter than it has ever been. Nor can I reconcile with the claims that the warming of the 20th century is un-precedented.

  Me either.  Its pretty clear the temperature has been going up and down for millennia, and theyve just honed in on the last little bit.  A number of experts have said it seems that the CO2 isnt driving the temperature; the temperature is driving the CO2. ..   

> We know that Earth has warmed but no one can say exactly why. They only THINK CO2 is the reason because the rise in CO2 correlated with temperature increases for a short period. Impossible to claim correlation over a short time frame means causation.

  One Asian scientist compared the temperature graphs with the suns activity and found a perfect correlation ( I cant find it online at the moment, but will continue looking tomorrow), so it may well be the suns varying temperatures and activity.  Most of our heat comes from the sun, though Gore seems to think it comes from my kitchen stove.  :Biggrin:  . . .

----------


## Allen James

.    

> The NOAA itself ... actually states the world is warming (see my earlier posts for references).

   The “Global Warming” myth isn’t about the planet warming or cooling, which it is always doing, but about “man made global warming”. . Nobody here (or anywhere as far as I know) argues that temperatures do not fluctuate. What _is_ being contested is that HUMANS ARE RESPONSIBLE. That is the age old religion many tribes believed in.  . "_Our Sun Gods will give us scorching temperatures unless we sacrifice some humans. Our rain Gods are angry so they will flood us, unless we sacrifice some goats."_ . _"Let us do a rain dance to please the Gods and bring rain - Hayuh hayuh, hayuh hayuhh, hayuh hayuhh hayuhhh, Hayuh hayuh, hayuh hayuhh, hayuh hayuhh hayuhhh, hayuh hayuh . . ."_ . People seem to be hard wired to keep re-inventing their age old sun and rain gods.  :Rolleyes:  .    .. .    .. .    ..

----------


## woodbe

> Why would I think anything but, you would miss the point.

  Oh, I got the point all right. 
You directly copy/pasted a piece written by a nanotech guru (without attributing it to him or his site at the time), including the 'smart' language.  
When the hard light of day is shone on it, it doesn't stack up. It's a single proxy temperature record in the middle of a massive ice sheet. No confidence interval is specified in the analysis. The analysis is performed by someone without knowledge or experience in the field, but somehow were are expected that this 'revelation' cancels out the validity of masses of data gathering from all over the planet and analysis by other people actually qualified to understand the data and analyse it. 
I'm sure if I could be bothered, I could dredge up a single temperature record that makes the hockey stick look like a pancake. It would be just as valid as this detritus. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Boy I hope this does not stuff up the page like last time   
> Now here is the link to the entire article The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero « Watts Up With That? 
> Cheers guys chew on this one for me.

  Sure Rod. How about this:  Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends : Deltoid   

> Remember how the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition made the warming trend in New Zealand go away by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site?  Well, Willis Eschenbach has followed in their foot steps by using the same scam on Australian data.  He claims that for Darwin "the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling" 
> That blue line for raw temperature in his graph combines different records without any adjustment, even though Eschenbach could see that there was a step change between record 0 and record 1.
>   The adjustment procedure used is described here, with the the authors noting:   A great deal of effort went into the homogeneity adjustments. Yet the   effects of the homogeneity adjustments on global average temperature   trends are minor (Easterling and Peterson 1995b). However, on scales   of half a continent or smaller, the homogeneity adjustments can have   an impact. On an individual time series, the effects of the   adjustments can be enormous.  These adjustments are the best we could   do given the paucity of historical station history metadata on a   global scale. But using an approach based on a reference series   created from surrounding stations means that the adjusted station's   data is more indicative of regional climate change and less   representative of local microclimatic change than an individual   station not needing adjustments.Eschenbach, however, simply declares the NOAA's adjustments "blatantly bogus" that created a "false warming". This isn't a strong argument, but maybe there is a way to check the NOAA's work?  
> Oh look, here's the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's high quality climate data for Darwin aiport   
> Their notes state:   A change in the type of thermometer shelter used at many Australian observation sites in the early 20th century resulted in a sudden drop in recorded temperatures which is entirely spurious. It is for this reason that these early data are currently not used for monitoring climate change. Other common changes at Australian sites over time include location moves, construction of buildings or growth of vegetation around the observation site and, more recently, the introduction of Automatic Weather Stations.
>       The impacts of these changes on the data are often comparable in size to real climate variations, so they need to be removed before long-term trends are investigated. Procedures to identify and adjust for non-climatic changes in historical climate data generally involve a combination of:  investigating historical information (metadata) about the observation site,using statistical tests to compare records from nearby locations, andusing comparison data recorded simultaneously at old and new locations, or with old and new instrument types.And full details of the procedure are described in this paper. 
>   I suppose the next argument is that the NOAA and the BOM are conspiring together to fasify the temperature record. 
>   Eschenbach, by the way, has cooked temperature records before.

  
Did I miss the point on this one too?   :Doh:   
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Sure Rod. How about this:  Willis Eschenbach caught lying about temperature trends : Deltoid    
> Did I miss the point on this one too?   
> woodbe.

  It is hardley surprising that they would have a plausible or semi plausible defence for the huge adjustment to the raw data. 
It is these adjustments that will come under some intense scrutiny in the comming years as CRU releases their raw data. 
No doubt there will be a degree of legitimacy in adjustments.  What will be  found out is if the adjustments are correct or if correction for UHI has been ignored.  Another area of doubt is the effects of development around stations or poorly located stations. 
This is a huge cloud over the temperature record.  The eagerness to adjust up but hesitation to adjust down.  
Time will tell on this issue.

----------


## woodbe

> It is hardley surprising that they would have a plausible or semi plausible defence for the huge adjustment to the raw data. 
> It is these adjustments that will come under some intense scrutiny in the comming years as CRU releases their raw data. 
> No doubt there will be a degree of legitimacy in adjustments.  What will be  found out is if the adjustments are correct or if correction for UHI has been ignored.  Another area of doubt is the effects of development around stations or poorly located stations. 
> This is a huge cloud over the temperature record.  The eagerness to adjust up but hesitation to adjust down.  
> Time will tell on this issue.

  Rod, mate. You're jumping at shadows again. 
The Australian BOM changed the type of thermometer in the Darwin weather station. It was known to have different sensitivity that the old one. Nothing to do with CRU. If you bothered to read the links you would realise how paranoid your comments appear.   

> I suppose the next argument is that the NOAA and the BOM are conspiring together to fasify the temperature record.

  Indeed, it would appear that we have reached this juncture already.  :Yikes2:  
And probably anyone else on the planet who dares to analyse temperature data is conspiring also, unless they show cooling. 
Better check for reds under the bed. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, mate. You're jumping at shadows again. 
> The Australian BOM changed the type of thermometer in the Darwin weather station. It was known to have different sensitivity that the old one. Nothing to do with CRU. If you bothered to read the links you would realise how paranoid your comments appear. 
> Indeed, it would appear that we have reached this juncture already.  
> And probably anyone else on the planet who dares to analyse temperature data is conspiring also, unless they show cooling. 
> Better check for reds under the bed. 
> woodbe.

  As I said time will tell.

----------


## woodbe

> As I said time will tell.

  snap!   

> I'll wait for the outcome of the CRU investigation, thanks. ( Post 612 of this thread).

  Something we agree on, although you won't see it that way I'm sure.  Sir Muir Russell to head the Independent Review into the allegations against the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) - University of East Anglia (UEA)   

> Thu, 3 Dec 2009
>      Today the University of East Anglia (UEA) announced that Sir Muir Russell KCB FRSE will head the Independent Review into allegations made against the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). 
>  The Independent Review will investigate the key allegations that arose from a series of hacked e-mails from CRU. The review will: 
>  1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes. 
>  2. Review CRUs policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice. 
>  3. Review CRUs compliance or otherwise with the Universitys policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (the FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations (the EIR) for the release of data. 
>  4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds. 
>  Sir Muir will have the discretion to amend or add to the terms of reference if he feels necessary, devise his own methods of working, and call on appropriate expertise in order to investigate the allegations fully. 
>  The University has asked for the Review to be completed by Spring 2010 and this will be made public along with UEAs response. 
> ...

  woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> snap!   
> Something we agree on, although you won't see it that way I'm sure.  Sir Muir Russell to head the Independent Review into the allegations against the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) - University of East Anglia (UEA)   
> woodbe.

  Why would I not see it that way. I too am very happy to see this matter investigated.  
What we don't seem to agree on is that the existence of and the tone of these emails casts a cloud over climate science in general. You don't seem to think this is the case and I do. 
This is not surprising, nor is it something I would argue with you. We have a direct opposite polarity on AGW. Nothing new here and in fact nothing wrong with this either. 
I for one, see this as helpfull to win the middle ground of public opinion on AGW. The more people out there that are blindly accepting and excusing the climate science, claiming the debate is over and sprouting exaggerated claims of damage by CO2, the better.  
For it is this, that will allert sensible people to the other side of the debate as more scientific evidence that disputes the AGW claim claim gets puplic hearing.   
Up untill recently there has been no debate nor exposure of science refuting AGW. How could you blame Mr & Mrs Joe Average to have any other opinion than AGW is real. The politics behind AGW are a direct result of the opinions of Mr & Mrs Joe Average. The fact that we are having this discussion shows that the science is not settled. Your side has to convice us, they have failed. 
So keep up the good work.  
I would be more worried about my position if Climate Science was an open book and all counter science was taken into consideration, debated and lost. Rather than the personal attacks, ignorance and evasivness, Hell, I might even change my opinion. 
Cheers Rod

----------


## Allen James

.   

> snap!   
> Something we agree on, although you won't see it that way I'm sure.  Sir Muir Russell to head the Independent Review into the allegations against the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) - University of East Anglia (UEA)   
> woodbe.

  Bwaa ha haghh!  :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   The whole climategate saga began with the staff (Climatic Research Unit) of the University of East Anglia, and their emails. So now the Vice-Chancellor (Acton) of said university chooses someone to conduct an “independent” review, to see whether there was any wrongdoing, and you figure it will actually be “independent, non-biased and neutral”. Pull the other one.   Aside from the obvious farce in the university choosing its own judge, the person they picked is not a climate expert. In posts above this you ragged anyone who posted links to people who didn’t pass your qualifications review, and now you are saying how great it is that a person with *no* qualifications in climate at all should head up a nudge-nudge wink-wink “independent” inquiry!  What a scream!  Muir was a politician who then obtained a degree in philosophy and became a principal. He wouldn’t know a fake climatologist if he bumped into one. I'm sure he will conclude the emails were_ nothing - nothing at all_.   Snap! . .

----------


## woodbe

Rod,   

> Your side has to convice us, they have failed.

  In the media, and in the publicity stunts you are probably correct. Not many Scientists are good at media and facing the public. Don't mistake this as an indicator that their science is wrong however. Their public adversary is often highly skilled media driven machines who know how to create a controversial headline and sell papers. 
As far as the Science is concerned, I think it is the other way around. The sceptics need to convince the Climate Scientists and the public that they have more than a bunch of pseudo science and cherry picked temperature records etc to lay their case on. Anyone taking more than a cursory look at sceptics websites is rapidly drawn into an environment of conspiracy theories, vested interests and general ill will. 
I personally don't blame the scientists for some of their bad reactions. As I have said before, most are career scientists, and they are not unthinking drones. In the public debate, they often have to answer crackpot allegations from people who simply don't understand the basics.   

> I would be more worried about my position if Climate Science was an open book and all counter science was taken into consideration, debated and lost. Rather than the personal attacks, ignorance and evasivness, Hell, I might even change my opinion.

  I think chrisp explained earlier how you might open that book.  
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

Conclusive proof is always hard to find, but the weather has been strange world wide Drought for 15 years in Victoria then just to call me a liar its quite wet this year. Banana crops destroyed floods in USA Tornadoes etc. But all can be coincidence. Sceptics make great noises about scientists not disclosing all the figures. Well take them and chop bits here and there and you will find the result you desire. There is though proof that man is using more than his share of fossil fuels. Took millions of years to lay down, yet we shove them up a chimney with gay abandon.
The Amazon rain forrest one of the earths main lungs is subjected to slash and burn farming.  Another major lung is plankton and that gets sucked up by the shipload to make cattle food.The high protein creating gassy cows. 
   Now that just shows one cumulative action that must be one of thousands. But try to make conclusive sense of it all and its not so easy. That the majority of scientists agree to global warming as did the Australian politicians with the exception of a few at the last election,. This states that we had better consider it real.

----------


## woodbe

An interesting journey and result:  The Climate Deniers vs The Consensus | Information Is Beautiful 
The result: 
(Don't know if it's too big to fit here, but I'll give it a go anyway)   
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Their public adversary is often highly skilled media driven machines who know how to create a controversial headline and sell papers.

   The opposite is true. The mainstream media support the global warming myth all the way, which is why they said precious little about climategate. Rather than give them a hard time as you suggest, they have given them green lights all the way; _green_ being the operative word. .   

> The sceptics need to convince the Climate Scientists and the public.

   That is against the scientific method. If a scientist comes up with a new theory the onus is on that scientist to provide evidence and allow it to be debated openly. He or she needs to prove their theory. .   

> Anyone taking more than a cursory look at sceptics websites is rapidly drawn into an environment of conspiracy theories, vested interests and general ill will.

   Again the opposite is true. Man-made Global Warming is a conspiracy theory, created by vested interests (the UN and its cohorts), and with the greatest ill will, they refuse debate or dissent on the subject.  Scientists who see through the GW myth are censored. Since the green Mainstream Media will not give them a voice they are forced to use the internet, like this group.  Check out their scientific advisory board members, and their about us page to see that they are _unpaid volunteers_ concerned with correcting the myths.   Providing Insight Into Climate Change.  Myths / Facts  COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING   MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.   FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the warming trend over land from 1980 by half.   There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.     MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.   FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940  1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.   The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.   MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.   FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year, which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.     MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.   FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.039% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and  in the end  are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.  Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.    MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.   FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption - that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.    MYTH 6: The UN proved that manmade CO2 causes global warming.   FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:   1) None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.  2) No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to manmade causes   To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.    MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.   FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.    Continued...

----------


## Allen James

.  Continued . . .  MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.   FACT:   There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale.  Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.    MYTH 9:  Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.   FACT:  Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. Its normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.    MYTH 10:  The earths poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.   FACT:  The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.    Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.    More FACTS and MYTHS?  See what Professor deFreitas (School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland) has to say. Click here.  .

----------


## rrobor

Spose its a myth that theres a large ice island complete with penguins heading Perth way. What you are saying Allen is something anybody can say, You have no proof conclusive, nor do I.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> An interesting journey and result:  The Climate Deniers vs The Consensus | Information Is Beautiful 
> The result: 
> (Don't know if it's too big to fit here, but I'll give it a go anyway)  
> woodbe.

  Sheez so many holes you could drive a truck through. 
Will only convince the already convinced. 
Big fail

----------


## Rod Dyson

I agree with what Allen said.

----------


## Hoff

> An interesting journey and result:  The Climate Deniers vs The Consensus | Information Is Beautiful 
> The result: 
> (Don't know if it's too big to fit here, but I'll give it a go anyway)   
> woodbe.

  I can't believe anyone would seriously post that i support of global warming.!!! :No:  :Doh:  :Biggrin: . 
The "debate" has reached a new low.  I sincerely trust that the rest of the "true believers" won't put this up.

----------


## woodbe

> Sheez so many holes you could drive a truck through. 
> Will only convince the already convinced. 
> Big fail

  Haha, predictable response. 
If woodbe posts it, then it's AGW supporting rubbish, deny it without reading it properly. 
Clearly you didn't read it at all. 
It's not an argument either way. It's a non-scientific attempt to at least collect all the arguments in one place. 
You can submit your error corrections to him at his site, he's very receptive. 
woodbe,

----------


## woodbe

> I can't believe anyone would seriously post that i support of global warming.!!!. 
> The "debate" has reached a new low.  I sincerely trust that the rest of the "true believers" won't put this up.

  It's not 'in support' of anything. 
It's one person's attempt to put all the arguments in one place.  
Sorry you didn't like it  :Cool:  
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Sheez so many holes you could drive a truck through.

   Agreed. Here comes one now.  :Biggrin:     

> An interesting journey and result:

    

> The Climate Deniers vs The Consensus | Information Is Beautiful The result: [snip big ugly graphic]

  You insist any arguments we supply be backed up by scientifically qualified people, yet you promote the summary of a guy who is everything but a climate expert. David McCandless is a London-based journalist who likes to dabble in graphics.  Is he at least neutral?  No, he's a Warmer, natch!  See his graph called 'Kyoto: Whos On Target?'  He also believes in the latest doomsday theory to hit the market; 2012: The End Of The World?  His graphic (posted above) was billed The Climate Deniers vs The Consensus.  :Biggrin:   Most Warmers call opponent scientists Deniers, but zany McCandless turns it into _The Climate Deniers. _ Warmers become '_The Consensus',_ heh.  The *Climate Deniers* vs. *The Consensus*! Nah  hes not biased!  :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:      .

----------


## Rod Dyson

Have a listen to this BBC progam on "climategate"  BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - The Report - Episodes available now on BBC iPlayer

----------


## Rod Dyson



----------


## Rod Dyson

ETS in action.  *Organized Crime in Charge of EU Carbon Trade, Police Say*  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL-e33oaI94&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- Organized Crime in Charge of EU Carbon Trade, Police Says[/ame]

----------


## Allen James

. Heres an excellent article called Climategate: Be Skeptical Of Envirojournalism by Bradley Fikes   December 5th, 2009.  The readers comments at the bottom are also excellent.    .

----------


## manchild

A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him inconvenient questions during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.
 Professor Stephen Schneiders assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.  
Full story.     http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/...te/#more-44722

----------


## Allen James

> A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions” during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.
> Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.  
> Full story.     http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/...te/#more-44722

  This has odors of Marxism. Don't question your leaders or you might get ruffed up. 
Here's one where he gets thrown out by a bunch of limousine liberals who think they should be the only ones who fly, because they are spreading the message.  YouTube - An Inconvenient Question: The Age of Stupid NYC Premiere

----------


## woodbe

Not a good look, is it. 
I note that in the comments, there is an element of craziness not yet seen here in Rod's little band of sceptics. I think Noel would ban the lot of them.  :Eek:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

I consider the systematic stifling of public debate on this issue a bit more serious than "not a good look".  I disagree with most of the assertions and assumptions from the green machine on AGW Theory, but I will put my life on the line to preserve their rights to say it (and I have many times).  :Biggrin:  
What needs to be understood by the mainstream population is that this type of behaviour has been delivered to scientists with alternate views for decades.  How do you think they have felt without any support.   :Annoyed:  Climategate has at least allowed some insight into this sordid behaviour, which I hope someone will try to describe as "scientific", because I need a laugh.  :No:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Not a good look, is it. 
> I note that in the comments, there is an element of craziness not yet seen here in Rod's little band of sceptics. I think Noel would ban the lot of them.  
> woodbe.

  Not such a little band woodbee they are beginning to out number the warm mongers.   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Note to woodbe, These graphs are from the NOAA website in 2000. 
Not made up data by anyone other than NOAA scientist. 
Now I wonder why we don't see them now on their website?  http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim3.gif

----------


## woodbe

> Note to woodbe, These graphs are from the NOAA website in 2000. 
> Not made up data by anyone other than NOAA scientist. 
> Now I wonder why we don't see them now on their website?  http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim3.gif

  I have no idea Rod. Did you ask them? 
Nothing has changed. It's still a single proxy record from the middle of a massive ice sheet. You know that there are many more temperature records available and required to get any sort of reliable picture. Or do you?  
woodbe

----------


## Dr Freud

Green democracy = limit free speech  :Censored2:  
They must have learned how to accept opposing views from the IPCC scientific contributors. 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZw8yF5alkM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZw8yF5alkM[/ame]

----------


## woodbe

Monckton invoked Godwins! 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

Dear Woodbe,    Am I to assume your bonhomie attitude as tacit approval for the erosion of free speech and reasoned debate?  I do not agree with many of the assumptions and assertions of Lord Monckton (as I have previously stated for the AGW Theory proponents), but I will put my life on the line to preserve his rights to express them.   :Biggrin:      It is by listening to all of these views and then examining the validity of the data and methodology underpinning them that an informed opinion can be formed.  IF you believe that turning off microphones, stifling questions and shouting down debate is legitimate for people whose opinions differ from our own, then please write to your MP and have our laws changed.  :Censored2:      But I prefer the Australian model:  :Aussie5:    Australian Freedom of Speech Laws   The Australian Constitution does not expressly protect freedom of speech or expression. In 1992, however, the High Court of Australia held that a right to freedom of expression, in so far as public and political discussion were concerned, was implied in the Constitution. This right was thought to be an essential requirement of democratic and representative government and thus implied into the Australian Constitution, which had established such a system of government. Subsequent cases have made determinations on the scope of this implied freedom.    Or the _original_ UN model:  :Fineprint:      In 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 19 affirms the right to free speech: _Article 19._  Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.    (Free Speech and the Constitution)   As opposed to the _contemporary_ USA/UN model:  :Compress:    The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression... It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media"...In 1992 when the United States ratified the main international law treaty which addresses freedom of expression, the government carefully attached reservations to ensure that the treaty could not "restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States."...The Obama administration's debut at the Human Rights Council laid bare its very different priorities...   (You Can't Say That) 
Which is clearly demonstrated in the videos above.  :Tv Happy:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I have no idea Rod. Did you ask them? 
> Nothing has changed. It's still a single proxy record from the middle of a massive ice sheet. You know that there are many more temperature records available and required to get any sort of reliable picture. Or do you?  
> woodbe

  I guess you would prefer to put your faith in the hockey stick graph. 
Maybe you can tell me if you believe Mann's hockey stick graph is a true reconstruction of the past climate? After all his is just a single proxy record manipulated from tree ring data.  Yet a major conclusion on AGW was reached by the IPCC from this single graph. A graph that failed to appear is subsequent IPCC reports yet its conclusion was carried forward.

----------


## woodbe

> Dear Woodbe,   Am I to assume your bonhomie attitude as tacit approval for the erosion of free speech and reasoned debate?

  Dear Dr Freud, 
Am I to assume by your presumptuous post that I need not reply as you have already decided? 
For what it is worth, I don't support law breaking regardless of who is doing it. This includes the right to free speech (where enshrined in law), destruction of public property and illegal access to computer systems. 
By way of full disclosure, I have personally gotten away with driving my motor car in excess of the speed limit occasionally. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> I guess you would prefer to put your faith in the hockey stick graph. 
> Maybe you can tell me if you believe Mann's hockey stick graph is a true reconstruction of the past climate? After all his is just a single proxy record manipulated from tree ring data.  Yet a major conclusion on AGW was reached by the IPCC from this single graph. A graph that failed to appear is subsequent IPCC reports yet its conclusion was carried forward.

  Guess all you like. We have been here before. If you would rather place your trust of the whole planet's future on a single proxy temperature record in the middle of a large ice sheet, go right ahead. 
You know there is masses of data available. 
Think about your proposition. IF you think everyone responsible for temperature records is fudging the data, how come this Greenland data shows something against the trend? Why haven't they fudged it as many sceptics claim? 
You can't have it both ways. 
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

Guys you are getting a bit rough again, Hows about trying to cool down a bit and get the caps lock off. Its not helping you know, figures dropping again, 10.31 now, so who are you trying to convince.

----------


## Dr Freud

Hey Rrobor, appreciate your concern, but we're big boys here.  There are few debates worth having that are not "rigorous" to some degree.  As long as we don't resort to cheap name calling, I think the big boys are happy to play.  I am personally happy for some witty banter, even if I am the butt of it on the odd occasion.  :Tongue:  
Woodbe, glad to hear you don't subscribe to those tawdry tactics.   :2thumbsup:  
I wanted to clarify this as you are one of the few protagonists actually engaging in the science on this issue, as opposed to the other "shut up denier, consensus says it's the end of the world" argument.  On the science, more to follow in later posts... 
But examining the language of the Copenhagen meetings, it seems very emotional, financial and political for what is supposed to be a scientifically based solution for preventing the end of our human way of life as we know it.  Here is a small example if you can't be bothered reading the volumes... *
Asked whether the thought of disappointing so many played on negotiators' minds, Danish environment minister and conference president Connie Hedegaard said: "I am absolutely sure that leaders consider that very much, and personally I think it has taken years to build up the pressure we have seen around the world and I believe that has contributed to making the political price for not delivering in Copenhagen very high."*  Emotional temperatures rising as expectations fall | The Australian 
I certainly am not an AGW Theory protagonist, but I would like to see some factual information demonstrating how the reduction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is going to cool the planet.  I don't even want a monthly data projection set, even annual projections would nice.  That way, I could infer the causal relationship parameters the IPCC is assuming to be correct, as they have not demonstrated any yet.  :No:

----------


## woodbe

> Hey Rrobor, appreciate your concern, but we're big boys here.  There are few debates worth having that are not "rigorous" to some degree.  As long as we don't resort to cheap name calling, I think the big boys are happy to play.  I am personally happy for some witty banter, even if I am the butt of it on the odd occasion.  
> Woodbe, glad to hear you don't subscribe to those tawdry tactics.   
> I wanted to clarify this as you are one of the few protagonists actually engaging in the science on this issue, as opposed to the other "shut up denier, consensus says it's the end of the world" argument.  On the science, more to follow in later posts... 
> But examining the language of the Copenhagen meetings, it seems very emotional, financial and political for what is supposed to be a scientifically based solution for preventing the end of our human way of life as we know it.  Here is a small example if you can't be bothered reading the volumes... *
> Asked whether the thought of disappointing so many played on negotiators' minds, Danish environment minister and conference president Connie Hedegaard said: "I am absolutely sure that leaders consider that very much, and personally I think it has taken years to build up the pressure we have seen around the world and I believe that has contributed to making the political price for not delivering in Copenhagen very high."*  Emotional temperatures rising as expectations fall | The Australian

  Did you expect anything less? 
It's a meeting of leaders (politicians) and their climate entourages from all over the world. It's also a magnet for everyone from the climate sphere of interest including the crazy extremes from both sides of the public debate. I'd sure like them all to behave, but I've given up on that particular pipe dream a long time ago.   

> I certainly am not an AGW Theory protagonist, but I would like to see some factual information demonstrating how the reduction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is going to cool the planet.  I don't even want a monthly data projection set, even annual projections would nice.  That way, I could infer the causal relationship parameters the IPCC is assuming to be correct, as they have not demonstrated any yet.

  Not sure exactly what you want. Is this a statement or a question? AFAIK the focus is on limiting the temperature increase, and I believe they have been talking about a 2C global average increase as  a goal. I think you would find this sort of stuff in IPCC report but it will probably do your head in. Look in section _10.5.3    Global Mean Responses from Different Scenarios_ of the  IPCC 4th Rpt. Physical Science basis 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

It was with much regret that I read all of the IPCC reports as they were released.  What was regrettable was the scientific weight given to qualitative assumptions.  It is for this reason that many mathematicians and scientists have rallied against the IPCC reports.  It is not to say that they are rallying against the theory per se, what they will not accept is the wilful lack of explanation of the tenuous assumptions inherent in the IPCC reports.  As I have said above, Climategate is merely an expedient method of public disclosure of this process.   By way of some examples from the report you have linked: *1.3.3 Detection and Attribution* Both detection and attribution rely on observational data and *model output*. In spite of the efforts described in Section 1.3.2, estimates of century-scale natural climate fluctuations remain difficult to obtain directly from observations due to the relatively short length of most observational records and a lack of understanding of the full range and effects of the various and ongoing external influences.    A decade later, Wigley and Raper (1990) used a simple energy-balance *climate model* to show that the observed change in global-mean surface temperature from 1867 to 1982 could not be explained by natural internal variability. This finding was later confirmed using variability estimates from *more complex coupled ocean atmosphere general circulation models* (e.g., Stouffer et al.,1994).   Models are based on qualitative assumptions fed with inaccurate and limited quantitative data, and are not factual.  They cannot even have a true probabilistic calculation conducted as assumptions are not quantifiable.     *Empirical (Experimental)   Definition of Probability:* _P_(_A_) = number of times _A_ occurred divided by the times   the experiment was repeated. *Classical Definition of   Probability:* _P_(_A_) = number of event _A_ outcomes divided by the size of   the sample space.     An event with a probability of   0 is *impossible*.
  An event with a probability of 1 is *certain*.   Probabilities for random events might be computed exactly. In such case we express them as fractions. Other probabilities are obtained by experiment and are thus approximations which are typically expressed to three significant digits unless there are compelling reasons for more or less precision. Probabilities are often given as percentages. In such a case, certainty corresponds with 100% and impossibility with 0%. *Be sure to include the percentage (%) symbol. *  This however has not stopped the IPCC doing this.  They just get their experts to pluck the numbers from the ether as outlined below from the same link, and then attach the percentage symbol arbitrarily to their opinion to give it a veneer of credibility.   *14. Likelihood, as defined in Table 4, refers to a probabilistic assessment of some well defined outcome having occurred or occurring in the future.* The categories defined in this table should be considered as having fuzzy boundaries. Use other probability ranges where more appropriate but do not then use the terminology in table 4. *Likelihood may be based on* quantitative analysis or *an elicitation of expert views.* The central range of this scale should not be used to express a lack of knowledge  see paragraph 12 and Table 2 for that situation. There is evidence that readers may adjust their interpretation of this likelihood language according to the magnitude of perceived potential consequences [8]. *Table 4. Likelihood Scale.* *Terminology Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome* _Virtually certain_ > 99% probability of occurrence _Very likely_ > 90% probability _Likely_ > 66% probability _About as likely as not_ 33 to 66% probability _Unlikely_ < 33% probability _Very unlikely_ < 10% probability _Exceptionally unlikely_ < 1% probability   In a nutshell, what this paragraph is saying is that a small group of people can get together and decide qualitatively that there is a 90% chance of an event occurring, which is exactly what the IPCC has done.  This is wrong on so many levels, but what defies belief is the pressure brought to bear on scientists and mathematician trying to highlight these anomalies.   Models certainly have their place in the scientific process, and are very valuable in qualitatively expressing that which we cannot yet quantify.  But their place is certainly not in directing trillions of dollars of funding and resources that could otherwise be spent on more worthwhile pursuits.  Here is a basic explanation of the scientific model:   *Scientific Theory or Model*   A scientific theory is a synthesis of well-tested and verified hypotheses about some aspect of the world around us. When a scientific hypothesis has been confirmed repeated by experiment, it may become known as a scientific law or scientific principle...Scientists often employ a model in order to understand a particular set of phenomena. A model is a mental image of the phenomena using terms (or images) with which we are familiar. For example, in the planetary model of the atom scientists visualize the atom as a nucleus with electrons orbiting around it in a manner similar to the way that planets revolve around the Sun. While this model is useful in understanding the atom, it is an over-simplified description of a real atom and does not describe/predict all of its attributes.   Scientific Theory or Model  In relation to the last paragraph of my last post, I was asking for the IPCCs projections showing that as CO2 stabilises or decreases, then temperatures will stabilise or decrease accordingly. I created some of my own graphs (models) rather facetiously in an earlier post, but I have a rather dry sense of humour.   All of the graphs, charts, tables and data released by the IPCC (and others) has already been adjusted or modelled and therefore is literally impossible to either validate or invalidate.  If ALL raw data was published, then anyone with an abacus and a rudimentary knowledge of statistics and/or mathematics could conduct numerous analyses, and the scientific debate and argument would be impressive.  Unfortunately, it would also be very messy, ambiguous and technical, which is never good for funding.    But in closing, as this post is no doubt emulating my last sentence, these four words are taught in all first year mathematical and statistical courses as the foundation of data analysis, but are still the least remembered:    Correlation is not causation.   :No:

----------


## woodbe

Ok then. It wasn't really a question. 
Thanks for sharing your analysis. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. Meanwhile, in Copenhagen, the Emperor and his supporters still insist his invisible clothes are beautiful, and that the freezing weather is actually very warm.  If the rest of us were smart enough, wed lock the doors on their hall and turn it into a mental asylum while theyre all in one place.  . From todays Australian:  . _At the same time as the negotiations broke down, the conference organisation also failed, with thousands of government advisors, business and environmental lobbyists and journalists forced to wait all day in freezing conditions to try to get accredited to enter the "Bella" conference centre. After a ten hour wait hundreds were turned away to try again today._ . Crunch negotiations begin in Copenhagen as poorer countries return to talks | The Australian

----------


## rrobor

A couple of years ago for a Christmas gift I got a set of 4 CDs. The Universe in a Nutshell spoken in  the electronic tone of Stephen Hawking.  I could never quite understand how time could change with circumstance. Hawking made it easy. Snring theory, Black holes with or without hair, all laid bare. But Dr Freud, man you write stuff that takes a lot of digesting.  *UN-EDITED POST*

----------


## chrisp

> Correlation is not causation.

  Absolutely correct, but it can provide some useful leads to causation. 
BTW, I seem to recall that "correlation is not causation" was a catch cry of the tobacco industry when refuting the link between smoking and cancer.  Eventually the evidence of the link became overwhelming and widely accepted.

----------


## rrobor

No honest Noel its true, Stepen Hawking won a years subscription to playboy  on a bet that black holes had that deleted word.  Is it not perhaps your mind that has an issue with,  that deleted word. Or perhaps its me trying to push your limits. These and other things will be resolved when we return to "days of our lives".

----------


## watson

[S]OK give me a link and I'll put the word HAIR  back in[/S].
AAh why don't I just put it back in, 'cos who'd believe a link from the net anyway.
That's what I've learned about the net from this thread.

----------


## rrobor

Sorry Noel,  no link. but give me a PO box and Ill send you a copy of  the 4 CDs . You got the rrobor address, I would be as happy as the proverbial pig in poo to send i a copy to you.

----------


## rrobor

There is a famous quote by some guy or other. " life is for the living". Well let me add to that, I wouldnt be dead for quids, Noel you made my year, Thank you.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> This reminds of German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, he stated that all truth goes through three steps. 
> First, it is ridiculed.
> Second, it is viloently opposed.
> Finally, it is accepted as being self evident. 
> I think this Global warming discussion is wilding alternating between the first and second step. 
> I wonder how much suffering mankind and the planet will have to endure before it becomes self evident?

  
I read that the other way Head pin It will be self evident it has been a big worry over nothing.  Certainly the empirical evidence is pointing that way rather than the other.

----------


## rrobor

I would answer that this way Rod. People see what they desire to see, and believe that, that they see. I do hope headpin adds that to his memorised quotes. Its a ME.

----------


## rrobor

I would disregard that Rod, Headpin has'nt quite got it. I used to drink copious amounts of beer, all it got me was a large gut. Now Im more selective, I drink stuff with more bang for the buck, Have not quite trimmed the fat but at least Im not using excess water flushing the loo. As to headpins point, wait a mo, Ill have a read.

----------


## chrisp

> Based soley on my own observations...............the years seem to be getting warmer and are warmer for longer periods. That's all the evidence I need.  
> Do I know what is causing this seemingly warmer weather? No.
> Do I believe it is mankind? Yes
> Do I think that the worlds governements and humanity as a whole can solve the problem? I would have to say, NO. 
> Do I want to continue asking myself questions like this all night? No 
> Do sane people talk to themselves? Sometimes
> Would you like another beer? Yes
> Who's turn is it to get up this time? Yours.
> Can you get me a beer whilst your up? Certainly
> ...

  Heady, 
Welcome to the asylum thread - I for one are pleased to have you here  :Smilie:

----------


## NigeC

Having read this thread and observed the last couple of days of the Copenhagen summit I can effectively say we are all DOOMED!
As long as there are people who think it is worth the money paid to cut down old growth forests or continue to mine coal for fuel for power stations, what about all the cars in the world spewing out all that CO2. I just shake my head at Kevin "Beak" Rudd having his final media conference with kids at a school because he doesn't want to answer the hard questions before he leaves.
Australia would have to be one of the biggest polluters in the world based on our exports of gas and coal. 
My 3 simple solutions would be something like this
1. End all logging of old growth and rain forests effective immediately
2. No new coal power stations to be built after Jan 1 2010
3. Fully subsidized renewable energy.

----------


## rrobor

Oh Gawd NigeC you are a brave man, I see the woolves sharpening their teeth now.

----------


## chrisp

> My 3 simple solutions would be something like this
> 1. End all logging of old growth and rain forests effective immediately

  I always feel hot under the collar when I hear that we chop down old growth hardwood and turn it into chips  :Mad: .   It seems a complete waste of resources to me.

----------


## NigeC

> Oh Gawd NigeC you are a brave man, I see the woolves sharpening their teeth now.

  Nah I think they are sensible ideas, I doubt too many people would think logging old growth and rain forests would be a "smart" thing.
We all know coal fired power stations are shockers
Why wouldn't we want a 3kw SGU on every house and wind turbines, I reckon those big wind turbines look heaps better than a coal power station. Wait to you see how much this new desalination plant down here is going to use in electricity.
Our politicians talk green on one hand and on the other approve $50Bn gas sales to China and Korea and build desal plants. What do we do?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I would answer that this way Rod. People see what they desire to see, and believe that, that they see. I do hope headpin adds that to his memorised quotes. Its a ME.

  Wow Rrobor you got that right!!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Having read this thread and observed the last couple of days of the Copenhagen summit I can effectively say we are all DOOMED!
> As long as there are people who think it is worth the money paid to cut down old growth forests or continue to mine coal for fuel for power stations, what about all the cars in the world spewing out all that CO2. I just shake my head at Kevin "Beak" Rudd having his final media conference with kids at a school because he doesn't want to answer the hard questions before he leaves.
> Australia would have to be one of the biggest polluters in the world based on our exports of gas and coal. 
> My 3 simple solutions would be something like this
> 1. End all logging of old growth and rain forests effective immediately
> 2. No new coal power stations to be built after Jan 1 2010
> 3. Fully subsidized renewable energy.

  Hmm you got your threads mixed up. This is the wish list forum. http://www.renovateforum.com/f188/co...-change-83914/

----------


## chrisp

> Thanks, Chrissy.................. 
> I've been wanting to drop a line or two in this thread for a while....................but I've gotta be careful what I say....................I've already got one official warning...............Mr Watson is gunna put me on KP duty if I play up again..........

  Heady, 
I think you'll be relatively safe in this thread (Oops - maybe not).   We have done politics to a large extent, and religion to a less extent - and Noel has let most of it remain! 
I've been trying to deviously thinking of *way of getting sex into the thread* - then we'll have the trifector  :Smilie:

----------


## rrobor

Im just pleased to see there is some origional thoughts coming in and not pages of some old Phart doing his thing cos he can. There is always too much hot air and too little substance. I dont care what people think, but I do care that they can think, and are not just a part of the bleating flock of whatever persuasion.

----------


## watson

> Heady, 
> I think you'll be relatively safe in this thread (Oops - maybe not).   We have done politics to a large extent, and religion to a less extent - and Noel has let most of it remain! 
> I've been trying to deviously thinking of* way of getting sex into the thread* - then we'll have the trifector

  I can .........I can....Pick me!!
When the "leaders" of the world arrive there over the next cupla days...we are all stuffed

----------


## rrobor

Chrisp hasnt been reading this has he. I did introduce SEX. The ladies of the night are offering themselves free to delegates in Copenhagen. I put in for funding for the trip cos Ive got lots to say, but Kev hasnt replied yet.

----------


## andy the pm

I have nothing to add except I believe in global warming, and yes, its man made!! 
There, I said it.... 
Andy

----------


## Allen James

.    

> I have nothing to add except I believe in global warming, and yes, its man made!! 
> There, I said it....

  Translation:   _We must repent and make sacred sacrifices, to appease our mighty Sun God._  . Only 37% of Americans now believe human activity causes global warming, and Aussies are right on their heels. .  Toplines - Energy - November 11-12, 2009 - Rasmussen Reports . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I have nothing to add except I believe in global warming, and yes, its man made!! 
> There, I said it.... 
> Andy

  LOL Andy big statement.  I am SKEPTIC and very proud of it.   
Here is a nice article for you. 
Climate change has gone by the wayside nopenhagen is now just a cash grab by the 3rd would countries.  Investors.com - Copenhagen Collapse 
This whole disaster for mankind (AGW THEORY) is about to fall on its a%#e

----------


## Rod Dyson

This is not a bad little read either!!!  Daily Express | UK News :: Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why 
Never thought I would see this in a main stream paper. 
They are my hero's

----------


## Rod Dyson

How about a poll.   AP Poll: [Americans don't want to pay for the cap and trade swindle] - Yahoo! News  A majority — *59 percent — wouldn't support cap-and-trade if it meant paying $10 extra a month for electricity.*

----------


## Rod Dyson

> .    Translation:  _We must repent and make sacred sacrifices, to appease our mighty Sun God._  . Only 37% of Americans now believe human activity causes global warming, and Aussies are right on their heels. .  Toplines - Energy - November 11-12, 2009 - Rasmussen Reports . . .

  Things are looking up Allen,  DOE sends a litigation hold notice regarding CRU to employees  asking to preserve documents

----------


## Rod Dyson

All you need to know about Global Warming here.  CO2 Science

----------


## Dr Freud

Seems the wheel is turning again...let me give it a gentle nudge.  :Blush7:    Apologies for the rambling on the previous post (and this one), but in order to expose the magicians, you need to understand the tricks of the trade.  The quantification of opinion is but one of these.  All this means is that if you use numbers, people are more likely to believe you.  For example, if a sparky says this wiring is pretty dodgy, Id recommend full rewiring unless you want to risk a fire.  The average punter would think they are chasing some dollars.  Same sparky says theres a 90% chance of your house burning down in the next 30 days.  Job done!   Here is another contemporary example of this trick. There are many others, but I must limit my rambling (full link below):   From The Times  December 15, 2009   *Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up*   In his speech, *Mr Gore told the conference*: These figures are fresh. Some of the *models* suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that *there is a 75 per cent chance* that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within *five to seven years.* However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.   *Its unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, Dr Maslowski said. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.*    Mr Gores office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a ballpark figure several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.   Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up - Times Online   The article goes on to demonstrate that these tricks are now open to criticism.  Ill leave to all of you intrepid net surfers to uncover the countless examples of this over the preceding years that have not been questioned due to the previously overwhelming consensus argument.  HINT: you might want to start with the IPCC reports.   In relation to the spurious Smoking causes cancer analogy, causation used in the scientific context is very different to the lay context.  Generally speaking, scientific causation is proved after both contingency and contiguity are satisfied. In easy terms, contingency means every time I do A, then B will *always* happen.  Contiguity means B must *always* occur *after* A.  Therefore, if we can find just one person who smokes and does not get cancer, then this theory is scientifically refuted (and we have found many of these people).   This does not mean that smoking does not *contribute* to the risk of cancer (and very significantly).  Unfortunately, a scientifically correct statement such as Smoking has regularly been shown to account for .632 of the proportion of variance of various cancers listed below, does not practically achieve the goal we want, so we simplify the message for pragmatic, political and health reasons to Smoking causes cancer.   For all the true believers out there, you can believe in climate change ( by which I suspect you actually mean AGW Theory, as the climate has always changed, is changing this very second, and will always change, so does not require belief).  You can also believe in God, the Tooth Fairy, Unicorns and that one day Jennifer Hawkins will want your sexy body.  This is the joy of democracy, we can believe whatever we want.  However, the strength of your belief does scientifically validate your theory.  Only the demonstration of a causal relationship will do this.  Until this is demonstrated, as Rrobor says, the wheel will continue to turn, as it does for many other theories.   For the stats buffs out there, bivariate correlations between CO2 and temp are generally accepted at about the .7 level ( but this should be treated with caution as the system is not linear and the data has already been transformed).  This generally means that about 50% of what we know as temperature is related to about 50% of what we know as CO2 in some way (assuming a linear relationship).  We do not have enough data yet (more on this in later posts assuming Im not boring people to tears) to even determine the proportion of variance in temperature that is related to CO2 in the truly chaotic climate system.  That is why we use *models*.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

A CO2 experiment. 
This is a must watch. 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPNiBVU2QIA&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Carbon Dioxide: The Breath of Life[/ame]

----------


## andy the pm

Wow, evangelical sceptics, who'd a thunk it.... Although posting an article by the daily express is pushing credibility a touch far...ain't no Pulitzer prize winners there, and having lived in the UK for 10 years I feel I can comment of the quality of journalism, especially from the red tops. And it would be fair to stay that they have never let truth stand in the way of a headline. Im impressed that you have gone to all that trouble of posting various stories to read and should I find myself suffering from insomnia I might try one...Im mildly amused that many of these anti climate change studies are funded by the petro-chemical industry (dont ask me to prove it because I cant be bothered, Im a lazy greenie, and Im just musing, not trying to convert the masses). It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see the planet is changing, and whether its manmade or natural, well that debate will rage till the planet is a smouldering waste land and personally, thats not something I want for my kids, or their kids, or their kids etc (depends on the rate of decay I guess). So, as a result I try to live my life in a manner that leaves little (preferably, none) footprint on the planet.  And as its a personal choice, you wont get me ranting about how its all the fault of greedy people, how the rainforests are being raped just so you can sit in your Balinese outdoor furniture, how vast tracts of the ocean are now empty of life just so we can have fish fingers whenever we like, or how theres a huge hole in the ozone because we want to be cool when its hot, or hot when its cool or keep our hair in place when its windy...well maybe Ill rant just a little. The simple fact is we are slowly ruining this planet and whether its climate change, mining, deforestation or whatever its having the same effect, so please dont tell me its not related, just like people try to tell you pollution and climate change are two different arguments, please.

----------


## woodbe

I think the EPA calls it a pollutant because of it's effect on the climate, not it's effect on plants. That makes this a straw man argument. Fail. 
Didn't I post this before? 
Oh yea, here it is:(Link)  

> *EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment* __ _Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity_    *WASHINGTON*  After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. (continues on the link..)

  I wonder if he's done these tests playing with the heat, moisture and sunlight variables. That would start to get interesting. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Seems the wheel is turning again...let me give it a gentle nudge.    ... rambling on .... ....  in order to expose the magicians, you need to understand the “tricks” of the trade....      ... “Smoking has regularly been shown to account for .632 of the proportion of variance of various cancers listed below”...   .....For the stats buffs out there, bivariate correlations between CO2 and temp are generally accepted at about the .7 level

  Hmm, and you wouldn't be using those "tricks" you are pointing out to us?  :Biggrin:

----------


## rrobor

> How about a poll.   AP Poll: [Americans don't want to pay for the cap and trade swindle] - Yahoo! News A majority  *59 percent  wouldn't support cap-and-trade if it meant paying $10 extra a month for electricity.*

  There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Now I did try to find whose quote that was but its confused. I once was a shop steward ( no one else would do it) and had statistics rammed at me. I gave the answer which is true of a poll done of married women in the UK on having a bit on the side. They had a 50%  of married women had had affairs outside their marriage. When broken down 95% told the survey to go mind their opwn business. Then there was the error factor, and the "in your dreams factor". There are three kinds of lies.

----------


## Rod Dyson

The blow torch is turned toward the PSU here. :Biggrin:  http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...chael-mann.pdf 
And turned up full blast here.  http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...chael-mann.pdf  :Yippy:  
Time is on the skeptics side. All we have to do is prevent ireversable economic damage until reality sinks in to the main population.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> ...Im mildly amused that many of these anti climate change studies are funded by the petro-chemical industry (dont ask me to prove it because I cant be bothered, Im a lazy greenie, and Im just musing, not trying to convert the masses).

  We are all quite bored with this ridiculous claim.   
It has been done to death and does not hold one iota of sway with the public anymore and just makes your argument look rather stupid. 
I encourage you to keep using it though because it has the reverse effect on sensible people, than you expect. 
Keep the alarmist claims comming. people are now immune to them and every claim pushes more people away from AGW.  
Enough evidence debunking alarmism is sneaking through to the people to sway public opinion.  As the wheels fall off AGW and Nopehagen, scientist will start jumping like rats from a sinking ship. 
What is so great about this is guys like you are helping.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

> Time is on the skeptics side. All we have to do is prevent ireversable economic damage until reality sinks in to the main population.

  So that actually doesn't sound like a sceptic viewpoint anymore.  
Just sayin'  :Laughing1:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> We are all quite bored with this ridiculous claim.   
> It has been done to death and does not hold one iota of sway with the public anymore and just makes your argument look rather stupid.

  So Rod, you're saying that the petrochemical industry has no funding links with any of these people you link here? (you should be able to answer this easily, as being a sceptic yourself, it would be high on you list of things to check before you adopt their arguments as your own) 
Yes or no will be fine. 
woodbe

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So Rod, you're saying that the petrochemical industry has no funding links with any of these people you link here? (you should be able to answer this easily, as being a sceptic yourself, it would be high on you list of things to check before you adopt their arguments as your own) 
> Yes or no will be fine. 
> woodbe

  This is a non argument that does not warrent any kind of answer, other than it shows your mind set.

----------


## chrisp

> This is a non argument that does not warrent any kind of answer, other than it shows your mind set.

  Rod, 
With respect, your "side" has made lots of claims that scientists are being corrupted and governments are deceived (the "conspiracy theory").  Yet you won't entertain the idea that vested interests might not like the change away from fossil fuels! 
It would seem to me if you are going to claim "conspiracy", then maybe you should look a little closer to home first (i.e. your "side" first).  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> This is a non argument that does not warrent any kind of answer, other than it shows your mind set.

  And it shows that you know the links are there, but you haven't faced up to the possibilities they entail.  Read if you can bear it   

> Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.  
>  There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.  
>  Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.  
>   Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.  
> The worlds best-qualified scientists agree that climate is changing and that the burning of fossil fuels is mostly to blame. Although there is no debate in peer reviewed science journals, the well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign has left the impression  in mainstream media  of a lively and continuing scientific controversy.  
>  Scientists from within the fossil fuel industries own organizations raised red flags about climate change as early as 30 years ago  and they specifically dismissed the credibility of deniers by 1995. Yet the fossil fuel industry has continued to support efforts to subvert the science, attacking real scientists and promoting a cast of skeptics in their place. DeSmogBlog looks behind these deniers to test their credentials and to search out their source of funding.  
>  People have a right to know who is paying the deniers. It is difficult to deceive or confuse a well-informed person. DeSmogBlog exists to clear up the PR pollution around fossil fuels and climate change.

  
woodbe.

----------


## andy the pm

And as for your daily express article, once you take out all the repetition and irrelevant points, you will be left with about 10 or 15...the title of the article is, and I quote, climate change is natural: 100 reasons why. *74)* To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions  How is that a reason climate change is natural?  It is an incredibly poor piece of journalism but one you would expect from the sceptics... And 10 minutes of my life I’ll never get back.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> With respect, your "side" has made lots of claims of scientists being corrupted and governments being deceived (the "conspiracy theory"). Yet you won't entertain the idea that vested interests might not like the change away from fossil fuels! 
> It would seem to me if you are going to claim "conspiracy", then maybe you should look a little closer to home first (i.e. your "side" first).

  The thing is Chrisp, I am sure that "some" funding from the oil companies goes to scientist that are skeptical of AGW. They also fund the other side as well.  
This is a non issue and has been sprouted by the Alarmist that any science that is funded in any way by oil companies is no good.  
This argument is now viewed as purely propaganda by the alarmist and has no bearing on the science or public opinion, except for those that are polarized to the alarmist view.  
Continuing to push this is beneficial to the skeptics as it is seen as a hollow argument. This is more so as people are turning to facts rather than resopnding propaganda, scare mongering and personal attacks.  
This form or argument has reached saturation point, and is now seen as a turn off to the middle ground folks. 
So keep pushing it for all your worth, keep the scare stories comming, keep attacking the persons delivering the message, it is working against you now. 
This has been recognised by some senior alarmists, who are saying that exaggerated claims etc, are not helpful to the cause! I can't just remember where I read this so I cant provide a link.  
Cheers, happy days are comming.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> And as for your daily express article, once you take out all the repetition and irrelevant points, you will be left with about 10 or 15...the title of the article is, and I quote, climate change is natural: 100 reasons why. *74)* To date cap and trade carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions  How is that a reason climate change is natural?  It is an incredibly poor piece of journalism but one you would expect from the sceptics... And 10 minutes of my life Ill never get back.

  I would not expect a polarized alarmist to have any other view than this Andy.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> And it shows that you know the links are there, but you haven't faced up to the possibilities they entail.  Read if you can bear it  
> woodbe.

   :Laughing1: 
This argument could be totaly reversed aginst the Alarmist  :Laughing1:  
What a ripper.

----------


## andy the pm

Rod, 
You don't even know me, never met me, and yet you have pigeonholed me based on a few words I have written on an online forum...
Very broadminded! 
Andy

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> You don't even know me, never met me, and yet you have pigeonholed me based on a few words I have written on an online forum...
> Very broadminded! 
> Andy

  Those words you have written pigeonhole you not me.

----------


## andy the pm

Words or actions don't pigeonhole or stereotype, its peoples responses that do it

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Words or actions don't pigeonhole or stereotype, its peoples responses that do it

  Andy this is not an attack on you personally. 
If you are not polarized on you view that AGW is happening ok.  You would then be open to clear evidence that rebukes this theory, right? 
I have no problem admitting I am a skeptic.  I am just yet to find ANY proof that AGW theory is true.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> 95% told the survey to go mind their opwn business.

   Robrwr, congratulations on using the quote function, mate! I never thought I’d see the day!  :Biggrin:    .   

> A CO2 experiment. This is a must watch.

    

> YouTube - Carbon Dioxide: The Breath of Life

  Excellent video and other articles Rod.  . In prior posts I was trying to explain to the greenies that: . _“Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.”_ . _http://www.answers.com/topic/carbon-dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere_ . . So basically, when it was in *much greater* quantities we had large populations of enormous dinosaurs and abundant, lush rainforests all over the earth. It’s obvious that CO2 stimulates life and we could do with a lot more of the stuff, as the man in your video shows. When they are faced with this kind of evidence, greenies hide under their beds, chanting their global warming mantra over and over. Theirs is a religion, but arguments need to be put up for the sake of younger people who might read their nonsense and be drawn in by it. . It's no wonder they are scrambling to rename their religion from _global_ _warming_ to _climate cha_nge.  :Biggrin:   Anyway, we've got them on the run now, and the numbers are on our side.  :2thumbsup:   .. .

----------


## woodbe

> This argument could be totaly reversed aginst the Alarmist  
> What a ripper.

  That would rely on our biggest disagreement falling your way. To wit, that there are thousands and thousands of climate scientists working for all manner of organisations  from the top to the bottom of the sector who are party to a massive fraud and conspiracy. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.   

> Rod, 
> You don't even know me, never met me, and yet you have pigeonholed me based on a few words I have written on an online forum...
> Very broadminded!

  . Rods just dealing with the facts Andy, but a person can give away a lot about themselves with just few words online. For instance: . I believe the earth is flat, and I dont care what anyone says. . I do not believe man landed on the moon, no matter what the history books say. . I believe in ghosts and UFOs, regardless of the validity of the evidence. . I believe in ESP, and I dont care what skeptics say. . I believe Yuri Geller can bend spoons with his mind power alone, regardless of what skeptics like James Randi say, or evidence he shows that Yuri was a fake. I just believe, and thats all! .   .

----------


## andy the pm

Rod, I know its not a personal attack, and even if it was, I'm too laid back to care! But I did prove a point.
Like I said before, this is a debate that will rage forever, well past our lifetime.
I personally believe we are damaging this planet and have take the decision to minimise my impact. I dont believe we are likely to see any irrefutable evidence one way or another as to AGW unless we can go back in time. Everything we have (on both sides) is based on computer modelling and stats from the last couple of hundred years. But I don't believe we should be burying our head in the sand either

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Like I said before, this is a debate that will rage forever, well past our lifetime.

   Humans have had thousands of religions – many of them involving the weather – for hundreds of thousands of years. There is no reason to think they will suddenly stop that behaviour now. Sure they will go on believing in Sun and Rain Gods, and that humans cause those Gods to change the weather according to how humans behave – it’s in their psyche. On the other hand that doesn’t make them right, just as they are not right about the Gods Zeus or Mars.  .   

> I personally believe we are damaging this planet and have take the decision to minimise my impact.

   How are we damaging the planet? . .   

> I don’t believe we are likely to see any irrefutable evidence one way or another as to AGW unless we can go back in time. Everything we have (on both sides) is based on computer modelling and stats from the last couple of hundred years.

   To repeat what I said on the last page in post 915: . In prior posts I was trying to explain to the greenies that: . _“Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.”_  . http://www.answers.com/topic/carbon-...27s_atmosphere  . . So basically, when it was in much greater quantities we had large populations of enormous dinosaurs and abundant, lush rainforests all over the earth. It’s obvious that CO2 stimulates life and we could do with a lot more of the stuff, as the man in your video shows.  . .   

> But I don't believe we should be burying our head in the sand either

   That is what greenies do when they refuse to face facts.  :Cool:    .

----------


## woodbe

> The thing is Chrisp, I am sure that "some" funding from the oil companies goes to scientist that are skeptical of AGW. They also fund the other side as well.  
> This is a non issue and has been sprouted by the Alarmist that any science that is funded in any way by oil companies is no good.

  Think this through Rod. It's not that simple, and it's not just scientific funding that is of concern. 
As far as finding funding sources is concerned, it has gotten a whole lot easier in the last few years, although that probably means that funding has become more devious. sourcewatch.org is usually a pretty good starting point and wikipedia is often useful. Google as usual will find entries on blogs and news sites.  This is the entry on sourcewatch for the organisation behind Rod's CO2 plant growing straw man argument. 
Sadly, no surprises there. 
woodbe

----------


## Rod Dyson

> That would rely on our biggest disagreement falling your way. To wit, that there are thousands and thousands of climate scientists working for all manner of organisations from the top to the bottom of the sector who are party to a massive fraud and conspiracy. 
> woodbe.

  Climategate, like it or not, has demonstrated the very premise that supports "un-precedented" global warming was based of fudged and manipulated data, (Manns hockey stick). 
This was crucial to their theory, without it they cant claim C02 is the only answer they can come up with to explain the "rapid" jump in global temeperatures.  
Every thing about AGW flows from this flawed, fudged and fraudulent data. 
So I will repeat, (for I don't know how many times),  I do not believe the majority of scientists are engaged in a conspiracy, they quite righty responded to what was "peer reviewed" evidence.  Even though as we now know was completely fabricated to support the AGW theory.  Like it or not woodbe that is what has happened. 
Now for the great quote.  When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do sir? (John Maynard Keynes) :Wink:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Think this through Rod. It's not that simple, and it's not just scientific funding that is of concern. 
> As far as finding funding sources is concerned, it has gotten a whole lot easier in the last few years, although that probably means that funding has become more devious. sourcewatch.org is usually a pretty good starting point and wikipedia is often useful. Google as usual will find entries on blogs and news sites.  This is the entry on sourcewatch for the organisation behind Rod's CO2 plant growing straw man argument. 
> Sadly, no surprises there. 
> woodbe

  Epic fail here woodbe.  So the scource of a small/partial amount funding makes the science incorrect.   
Keep these claims comming, more the better as each one weakens the alarmist argument. It is a well know scientific fact plants grow better with more C02.  
Most of us over 40 were taught this in primary school.

----------


## Rod Dyson

From Al Gore. 
"Describing a "runaway melt" of the Earth's ice, rising tree mortality and prospects of severe water scarcities, Gore told a UN audience: "In the face of effects like these, clear evidence that only reckless fools would ignore, I feel a sense of frustration" at the lack of agreement so far." 
LOL .See it is claims like this that are so easily disputed that are pushing the average joe to the skeptic side.  People can see through this sort of cr&%p.  I think it is just fantastic that he makes these claims.

----------


## woodbe

> Epic fail here woodbe.  So the scource of a small/partial amount funding makes the science incorrect.   
> Keep these claims comming, more the better as each one weakens the alarmist argument. It is a well know scientific fact plants grow better with more C02.  
> Most of us over 40 were taught this in primary school.

  I didn't question the science, I question the motive behind the misinformation, and I found a petrochemical company. What a surprise. 
I posted the sourcewatch as an example. If you go looking through the sceptic posts on this thread, you will find a multitude of such links.  
The fact is that that particular video demonstrates the straw man fallacy beautifully. A true sceptic would question why. A denialist would accept it as gospel because it seems to refute the other side's argument. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Climategate, like it or not, has demonstrated the very premise that supports "un-precedented" global warming was based of fudged and manipulated data, (Manns hockey stick). 
> This was crucial to their theory, without it they cant claim C02 is the only answer they can come up with to explain the "rapid" jump in global temeperatures.  
> Every thing about AGW flows from this flawed, fudged and fraudulent data. 
> So I will repeat, (for I don't know how many times),  I do not believe the majority of scientists are engaged in a conspiracy, they quite righty responded to what was "peer reviewed" evidence.  Even though as we now know was completely fabricated to support the AGW theory.  Like it or not woodbe that is what has happened. 
> Now for the great quote.  When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do sir? (John Maynard Keynes)

  A few pages ago, you said you'd wait for the review. Now, somehow Climategate is settled. The scientists are guilty. 
Your suggestion that   

> I do not believe the majority of scientists are engaged in a conspiracy, they quite righty responded to what was "peer reviewed" evidence. Even though as we now know was completely fabricated to support the AGW theory.

  clearly defines that you have already made up your mind about the science. The part where you think that scientists would engage in this sort of behaviour without realising they are unknowing pawns in a worldwide conspiracy is just not believable.  
This is not scepticism. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> * didn't question the science, I question the motive behind the misinformation,* and I found a petrochemical company. What a surprise. 
> I posted the sourcewatch as an example. If you go looking through the sceptic posts on this thread, you will find a multitude of such links.  
> The fact is that that particular video demonstrates the straw man fallacy beautifully. A true sceptic would question why. A denialist would accept it as gospel because it seems to refute the other side's argument. 
> woodbe.

  Rolled gold Woodbe. :brava:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> A few pages ago, you said you'd wait for the review. Now, somehow Climategate is settled. The scientists are guilty. 
> Your suggestion that clearly defines that you have already made up your mind about the science. The part where you think that scientists would engage in this sort of behaviour without realising they are unknowing pawns in a worldwide conspiracy is just not believable.  
> This is not scepticism. 
> woodbe.

  What you fail to understand woodbe, is that the HOCKEY STICK graph HAS been totally DEBUNKED, irrespective of climategate.  
All the emails do is add weight to the fact it was constructed to hide the MWP.  
Not believable to you Woodbe I expect nothing less.  I am not trying to convince you.   
Your arguments alone do all the work.

----------


## woodbe

> Your arguments alone do all the work.

   

> Every thing about AGW flows from this flawed, fudged and fraudulent data.

  Not nearly as well as yours.  :Doh:  
You really don't understand the Straw Man Fallacy do you? 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Not nearly as well as yours.  
> You really don't understand the Straw Man Fallacy do you? 
> woodbe.

  Why would you think that.  I see strawman arguments here all the time.  I understand them very well.

----------


## woodbe

There is a proposition that CO2 is not a pollutant because plants grow in higher concentrations than found in the current atmosphere. 
By demonstrating that plants do in fact grow in higher concentrations of CO2, the proposition is not debunked. The only thing proved (and as you say, we all knew it already) was that plants are not effected negatively by the concentrations of the pollutant they were exposed to. 
Straw man. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> There is a proposition that CO2 is not a pollutant because plants grow in higher concentrations than found in the current atmosphere. 
> By demonstrating that plants do in fact grow in higher concentrations of CO2, the proposition is not debunked. The only thing proved (and as you say, we all knew it already) was that plants are not effected negatively by the concentrations of the pollutant they were exposed to. 
> Straw man. 
> woodbe.

  Damn customers... Let me rephrase that: 
There is a proposition that CO2 is a pollutant. 
By demonstrating that plants do in fact grow in higher concentrations of CO2, the proposition is not debunked. The only thing proved (and as you say, we all knew it already) was that plants are not effected negatively by the concentrations of the pollutant they were exposed to. 
Straw man. 
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

> . .  Robrwr, congratulations on using the quote function, mate! I never thought I’d see the day! .

  Allen that my typing could be better, I have no doubt but having suffered Rheumatoid arthritis for 20 odd years I think Im doing rather well. Now I didnt tell you that because I wished to, I told you that because sitting in your chair there you have no idea as to what any other person out in the WWW is confronting. So please keep your little funnies to yourself, you dont know others circumstances or the hurt you may inflict. I return to add, Noel , headpin etc make light hearted fun of my spelling etc and thats fine but with vitriol sorry no.   .  Allen that my typing could be better I have no d

----------


## Rod Dyson

> There is a proposition that CO2 is not a pollutant because plants grow in higher concentrations than found in the current atmosphere. 
> By demonstrating that plants do in fact grow in higher concentrations of CO2, the proposition is not debunked. The only thing proved (and as you say, we all knew it already) was that plants are not effected negatively by the concentrations of the pollutant they were exposed to. 
> Straw man. 
> woodbe.

  No one ever said this alone debuked the AGW claim it is an example of the good extra Co2 does.  It is a bit like "the artic ice is melting" argument. Except this is real, the ice argument is a naturally occuring periodic event that has been attached to the AGW band wagon because it is convenient.  I know which is the stawman argument very well.

----------


## woodbe

> No one ever said this alone debuked the AGW claim

  Actually no-one including the speaker (he was quite emphatic) said it had anything to do with AGW at all. It was supposed to be debunking the idea that CO2 is a pollutant.  
Even though I'm not a fan of petrochem funded organisations, I watched that video at your recommendation. Seems there must be a hidden message in it that can only be deciphered by sceptics. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> By demonstrating that plants do in fact grow in higher concentrations of CO2, the proposition is not debunked. The only thing proved (and as you say, we all knew it already) was that plants are not effected negatively by the concentrations of the pollutant they were exposed to.  Straw man.

  Sorry, but as the man in the video (see below) explained, and as history proves (see my post about CO2 during the age of dinosaurs), much greater concentrations of CO2 is not only *good* for plants, but for *animals* too. All life benefits greatly from it. Moreover, this is but *ONE* piece of evidence, not the *ENTIRE* argument, as you imply, in your Straw Man fallacy.  . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPNiBVU2QIA&feature=player_embedded  .   

> Allen that my typing could be better, I have no doubt but having suffered Rheumatoid arthritis for 20 odd years I think Im doing rather well. Now I didnt tell you that because I wished to, I told you that because sitting in your chair there you have no idea as to what any other person out in the WWW is confronting. So please keep your little funnies to yourself, you dont know others circumstances or the hurt you may inflict. I return to add, Noel , headpin etc make light hearted fun of my spelling etc and thats fine but with vitriol sorry no.

   Again I’m not really understanding you robrwr, but I was talking about your use of the quote function, which I haven’t seen you use before. You usually just talk without quoting the other person, and this makes it hard to know whom you are talking to. It wasn’t a criticism old chap - I was happy to see you using the quote function. Please keep it up, to avoid confusion. Warmers are hard enough to understand as it is.  :Biggrin:    . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Actually no-one including the speaker (he was quite emphatic) said it had anything to do with AGW at all. It was supposed to be debunking the idea that CO2 is a pollutant.  
> Even though I'm not a fan of petrochem funded organisations, I watched that video at your recommendation. Seems there must be a hidden message in it that can only be deciphered by sceptics. 
> woodbe.

  You are right Woodbe it claims that it debunkes Co2 is a pollutant which it does so very nicely. this is quite different to you claiming it debukes the AGW theory.  It is just one nail in the coffin out of many. 
You don't see a difference here?

----------


## Allen James

. .
Earth to Greenies. Earth to Greenies: . Pollution is that which pollutes. . Pollute . 1. to make foul or unclean, esp. with harmful chemical or waste products; dirty: to pollute the air with smoke. . 2. to make morally unclean; defile.  . 3. to render ceremonially impure; desecrate: to pollute a house of worship.  . 4. Informal. to render less effective or efficient: The use of inferior equipment has polluted the company's service.  .  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pollute  . If CO2 helps plants and animals thrive, then it cannot be called a pollutant, by definition. .

----------


## woodbe

> You are right Woodbe it claims that it debunkes Co2 is a pollutant which it does so very nicely. this is quite different to you claiming it debukes the AGW theory.  It is just one nail in the coffin out of many. 
> You don't see a difference here?

  1. Plants existing in higher concentrations of CO2 does not prove or disprove CO2 being classed as a pollutant. 
2. I do see the difference. You raised the AGW claim, not the video, and not me, but now I am making claims that it 'debukes' the AGW theory? I think not.  :Smilie:  
3. I think you mean debunks? 
Must be the heat...  :Laughing1:  
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

[quote=Allen James;782481].Again I’m not really understanding you robrwr, but I was talking about your use of the quote function, which I haven’t seen you use before. You usually just talk without quoting the other person, and this makes it hard to know whom you are talking to. It wasn’t a criticism old chap - I was happy to see you using the quote function. Please keep it up, to avoid confusion. Warmers are hard enough to understand as it is.  :Biggrin:   . Again I’m not really (Poor grammar) understanding you (robrwr), "but" (consider deletion and full stop.) I was talking about your use of the(") quote function("), ( consider a revision here) which I haven’t seen you use before. You usually just talk ( This is not oral) without quoting the other person, (and) (consider dropping and starting new sentence) this makes it hard to know (with) whom you are talking to (delete to). It wasn’t a criticism old chap (condesending)- I was happy to see you using the quote function. Please keep it up, to avoid confusion. Warmers ( Pardon) are hard enough to understand as it is.  :Biggrin: 
[quote  
You do really know how to push the wrong buttons dont you ellen old chap. I have just had a look at your effort, it aint so crash hot. So perhaps we should just stick to answering and not be so concerned with others spelling or grammar

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> 1. Plants existing in higher concentrations of CO2 does not prove or disprove CO2 being classed as a pollutant.

    

> 2. I do see the difference. You raised the AGW claim, not the video, and not me, but now I am making claims that it 'debukes' the AGW theory? I think not.   3. I think you mean debunks?  Must be the heat...

   Now now woudbe, we mustn’t talk about spelling or grammar, or people might point to your use of ‘it’s’ below.  :Biggrin:  .    

> I think the EPA calls it a pollutant because of it's effect on the climate, not it's effect on plants. That makes this a straw man argument. Fail. Didn't I post this before? Oh yea, here it isLink)

   If the EPA call CO2 a pollutant then they are incorrect, because, as I posted above, the definition of ‘pollute’ is to make *foul* or *unclean*, and to *harm*, *desecrate* make *inferior*, etc. Since increased CO2 makes plants and animals *thrive*, it cannot be called a pollutant - by *definition*. . . Pollute Definition | Definition of Pollute at Dictionary.com . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> 1. Plants existing in higher concentrations of CO2 does not prove or disprove CO2 being classed as a pollutant. 
> 2. I do see the difference. You raised the AGW claim, not the video, and not me, but now I am making claims that it 'debukes' the AGW theory? I think not.  
> 3. I think you mean debunks? 
> Must be the heat...  
> woodbe.

  Yes my bad there woodbe.  
It cant be the heat though I am sitting in my office with the air con cranked up as high as I can get it.

----------


## Allen James

> perhaps we should just stick to answering and not be so concerned with others spelling or grammar

   Again robbor, I havent mentioned your spelling or grammar, though you have brought it up yourself twice now.  :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:  . No matter how many times you say Im discussing your spelling, it wont change the fact that I was complimenting you for using the quote function.  Looking at your last post, it seems you still need to tweak that a little, but its a good effort my old mate.  :2thumbsup:    .

----------


## Allen James

. .    

> Yes my bad there woodbe.

    

> It cant be the heat though I am sitting in my office with the air con cranked up as high as I can get it.

  
Me too.  Im sure woodbe uses his eggnisher too, whether it be in the house, office or car - along with the computers, televisions and batteries he says are polluting the planet.  :Biggrin:   .

----------


## rrobor

> Again robbor, I havent mentioned your spelling or grammar, though you have brought it up yourself twice now.   . No matter how many times you say Im discussing your spelling, it wont change the fact that I was complimenting you for using the quote function. Looking at your last post, it seems you still need to tweak that a little, but its a good effort my old mate.    .

   How many times do you need to push buttons by purposly spelling my name in every way possible  but the correct one, Old Chap

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> You usually just talk without quoting the other person, and this makes it hard to know whom you are talking to. It wasn’t a criticism old chap - I was happy to see you using the quote function.

    

> this makes it hard to know (with) whom you are talking to (delete to).

   Actually, it’s either way, as you can see here, in an English Grammar tutorial: . “Spoken English is acceptable as long as it is understandable to the person *whom you are talking to*. Depending upon the person to whom you are talking, informal English can be used. Not much importance is given to the grammatical aspects. Pronunciation is important.” . spoken English . If you still have doubts matey, check the three million sources of the phrase online: . +"whom you are talking to" - Google Search .   

> How many times do you need to push buttons by purposly spelling my name in every way possible but the correct one, Old Chap

   Well, it's an easy mistake, but rrobor, it seems you are also upset by the ‘old’ in ‘old mate’. Strike me pink man, that’s just an Australianism. I know you said you were Scottish, but you’ve been here long enough to hear ‘old mate’ haven’t you?  . I mean, stone the bleedin' crows!  :Rolleyes:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   .

----------


## watson

:Ninja:

----------


## rrobor

If you had said old mate it would have passed. you said old chap which is flapper pommy (look it up) so dont, please dont try to wriggle out and into the light. Just try as you should have in the first place to see your error and move on. Answer the friggin post and dont try to demean others in doing so.

----------


## watson

:Ninja:   :Ninja:   :Ninja:  
42º in the shade here   :Cool:

----------


## rrobor

Sorry Noel,  Asa done if Hesa done

----------


## watson

:2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> 42º in the shade here

  LOL 24c in the air con here. 
Wanna come over for a beer?   :Wink:

----------


## woodbe

> Yes my bad there woodbe.  
> It cant be the heat though I am sitting in my office with the air con cranked up as high as I can get it.

  Well, you're cooler than me then. 36 outside, 29.7 in here. It's over 40 down the hill though, so cannot complain I guess, although I'd like to.  :Smilie:  I'm going to retreat to the basement soon, it's buried in rock - just 20C down there according to the thermometer (uncorrected, you understand)  :Cool:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> (uncorrected, you understand)  
> woodbe.

  You sure on that I don't believe you  :Rolleyes:   
cheers Rod

----------


## woodbe

> You sure on that I don't believe you   
> cheers Rod

  See for yourself  :Cool:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

Note that the timestamp on that data is out by an hour because some lazy git hasn't gotten around to adjusting it.  :Redface:  
So, if you want to make your own corrections, add 1 hour.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

Hey Heady old mate, na the clock is OK, Everything else is a bit sus though.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Note that the timestamp on that data is out by an hour because some lazy git hasn't gotten around to adjusting it.  
> So, if you want to make your own corrections, add 1 hour.  
> woodbe.

  
I'll get phill jones to do it, that will warm up your basement by a degree or 2. :Biggrin:

----------


## rrobor

Asa confused is that GMT or Perth WA time . Do we add an hour or 12 hours then subtract by what one subtracts by IE 12 hours in NZ. or is it  some other thing. These and other things will  be answered when we return yo "Days of our life".

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Allen, you better back off, mate.................we can only hold Rob back for so long, he's frothing at the mouth and chompin at the bit.

    :Biggrin:   . Careful laddie – he prefers rrobor - but thanks for the heads-up. . .   

> If he gets loose, well, I don't know what he's capable of.............but the thought of the old fella bearing down on ya is pretty scary stuff.

   True enough, old chap. . And for those who are interested, ‘Old Chap’ is an old Aussie song from 1915 my great granduncle used to sing as he rode his horse down Sydney's George Street.  .   

> If you think I'm kiddin, take a look at one of his old baby photos.

   Heh – I’ll bear it in mind.  :Wink:   . .

----------


## rrobor

Man you really are a piece of work. . "Careful laddie – he prefers rrobor - but thanks for the heads-up". Now pray tell me who and what that refers to. I was quite happy to drop it but you stir the pot again and again. Now do you suggest that Noel is guilty of favouratism, I wish you luck, I wouldnt have done that for quids.

----------


## watson

Back on topic please

----------


## rrobor

Have asa been a  bad boy again. MMM

----------


## woodbe

> I'll get phill jones to do it, that will warm up your basement by a degree or 2.

  Don't need his help, got a bit of our own hockey stick happening here.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .    

> Don't need his help, got a bit of our own hockey stick happening here.

    

> .

  . Why was the temperature going down for the first ten days? Global cooling, global cooling! The sky is falling!  :Eek:  .    . . .

----------


## Ashore

Looks like the logical arguement is stuffed Rod , proof that global Warming , er no that was proven false , um change the name , climate change is upon us , well in England at least  :Biggrin:

----------


## rrobor

What logical arguement. This is just page after page of a wolf pack attacking any voice that happens to disagree. Other than that theres reems of stuff from people no ones heard of before getting attention because they stand out from the crowd. That a bit of fun was introduced for a change, well great stuff. The people who dont agree on climate change are in the minority, The bully tactics on this thread is in the majority. So sorry you had more than a fair share, so dont complain.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Looks like the logical arguement is stuffed Rod , proof that global Warming , er no that was proven false , um change the name , climate change is upon us , well in England at least

  It will be back, it is a very fluid argument/topic.

----------


## Allen James

.    

> It will be back, it is a very fluid argument/topic.

   Agreed.  I think we're at the hockey stick part of the discussion, with the best parts yet to come.  The heat is under the environmentalists now, and will continue to rise.  :Biggrin:   .

----------


## Allen James

.  .  Another day in Joe Sixpacks house. A Greenie is dating his sister, and Joe entertains him in the living room. . Joe Sixpack: So, youre a Greenie, eh? Greenie: Will she be long in there? Joe Sixpack: Huh? Oh, she usually takes a while with the makeup. Greenie: Hmm. Gee, its hot today. Joe Sixpack: Yeah, I can see youre sweating. You wanna beer? Greenie: Got any carrot juice? Joe Sixpack: Not really. Greenie: Never mind then. No, I dont remember it being this hot when I was young. Joe Sixpack: Back then, were you as big as you are now? Greenie: I was skinny, why? Joe Sixpack: Well, no offense, but you look like John Candy today. Maybe that has something to do with it. Greenie: [Cough] Joe Sixpack: Im just saying . . . Greenie: Look man, it wasnt this hot and thats final! Joe Sixpack: Uh huh. Sure. Greenie: And the pollution! Theres methane everywhere! Joe Sixpack: I dont see a problem myself, but you probably dont help. Greenie: And just whats _that_ supposed to mean? Joe Sixpack: Fatties drop a lot of hotties, I guess. Greenie: You mean farting? Well, only because of all the junk food we have to eat, thanks to the global junk food industries! Anyway, I do feel hotter these days, and its Australias fault. Joe Sixpack: It is?  Greenie: Sure. For instance, Aussies buy televisions and cars. Joe Sixpack: What the . . ? Greenie: They pollute the planet. Joe Sixpack: They do? Greenie: Sure. Joe Sixpack: How? Greenie: They just do. Joe Sixpack: Hang on mate, dont you have a TV? Greenie: Thats not the point. Blinkin Aussies are buying cars, so Indians and Chinese people are suffering great pollution. Joe Sixpack: Cant see it myself. And dont forget about the cars youve owned. Greenie: Irrelevant. Aussies are also flying in jets, poisoning the world. Joe Sixpack: Hey, my sister told me you flew to Bali just last year. Greenie: Well how did you want me to get there  in a rowboat?  Joe Sixpack: Still, you flew. Greenie: THATS BESIDE THE POINT! The point is; I care! Joe Sixpack: Meh. You care about forcing Aussies to pay billions to China and Africa. Greenie: Why shouldnt they? They ruined the planet, so they should pay. Joe Sixpack: Nah. Anyway, why do Greenies criticize Aussies for buying cars, TVs, computers, batteries and for flying jets, while doing the exact same things themselves? Greenie: Im not listening to this [puts headphones on]. If you dont want to argue sensibly, Im listening to Triple J. Joe Sixpack: Wont that create a carbon footprint? Greenie: La la la laaa Joe Sixpack: Getting hot under the collar with these questions? Greenie: La la la la laagh. . . Joe Sixpack: Speaking of carbon footprints, if anyone needs a low carb diet its you. Greenie: Im not fat, Im big boned! . . . la la laa la. . . Joe Sixpack: Come off it. You make Michael Moore look like Twiggy. Greenie: [Rips off headphones and stands up] Im not putting up with this. Im going back to the commune, where I can be one with my enviro-buddies [stomps off]. Joe Sixpack: Fine, and dont let the door hit your big carbon print on the way out! . . .

----------


## rrobor

Up there , it used to be a nice clean wall.

----------


## chrisp

I think Allen, in a single post, has summed up his entire scientific reasoning for denying climate change.   :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

.    

> I think Allen, in a single post, has summed up his entire scientific reasoning for denying climate change.

   You cant handle the scientific reasoning, hence the soapie. . Meanwhile in Copenhagen, our Greenie Prime Minister Rudd is busy trying to throw our money away in earnest, instead of doing his job back here. . From The Australian today: . _"The high-level segment yesterday was delayed by arguments over procedure and the speech that got the biggest round of applause was an anti-capitalist sermon by the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez._ . .

----------


## chrisp

> .You cant handle the scientific reasoning, hence the soapie.

  Allen, 
Once again you are "pigeonholing" fellow forumites without any foundation for your view. 
I can assure you I can "handle the scientific reasoning".  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

*Rudd bumps Key from BBC climate debate*  *       Originally Posted by ABC     *   

> New Zealand Prime Minister John Key has been dumped at the last minute from the BBC's climate change debate in favour of Australian PM Kevin Rudd.
>  The BBC had asked Mr Key to take part in what the broadcaster is describing as the "greatest debate on earth".
>  The show will be filmed in Copenhagen's New Concert Hall before an audience of 1,000 people.
>  The BBC says leaders from around the world will be challenged over their commitment to fighting climate change.
>  The President of Mexico will be there and so will the South African Prime Minister, but not Mr Key.
>  The New Zealand media is reporting that Mr Key has been elbowed out by Mr Rudd.
>  A spokesman for Mr Key admitted the Government was very disappointed with the BBC's decision.
>  The spokesman said he had an idea why the BBC changed its mind but he "wasn't going to do their explaining for them".

  ABC Link 
HaHa. Mr Rudd the spotlight bully boy.  :Smilie:  Seeing as NZ seems to have just discovered climate change last week, its not that surprising I guess... 
Wonder if we can get a feed for that, a lot of the BBC stuff won't stream to Australia.  
Has anyone noticed the rather excellent web feeds from COP15? Regardless of your position on the whole debate the technology has been very well done. Copenhagen Webcast mainpage  
woodbe.

----------


## rrobor

BBC isnt that the BRITISH BROADCASTING thingy. Waw its great to see our PM has such power as to govern what the Poms will hear and see.  Im all for that. See the High court has gazumped the Queen . Next the poms will be singing  "Rule Australia, Australia rules the waves".

----------


## Allen James

. Yawn... . I was about to hit the sack when I read an email about what the Russians have done to help Climategate along. Check out the page here.  . Goodnight all – 1.25 am here – 2.25 am Melb. time... . . _Climategate goes SERIAL: Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming_ . _Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages._ . _Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)_ . _(What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.)_ . . .

----------


## chrisp

> OK, I'm still a little undecided on the issue, what's the general opinion? is it getting warmer or not?............... 
>  I'd love to see some graphs backing up the information, perhaps even some links to news report and interviews would be beneficial for me............ 
> Much appreciated...................

  I think a few fictional narratives would help too.  :Biggrin:

----------


## rrobor

Tell you one thing, the penguins and seals on that 50k chunk of ice floating towards Perth sure think its hotting up.

----------


## rrobor

Heard it on the news, there were these penguins  all of a flap, floating past Mcquarie island. News guy reconed the thing would get about as far as Perth before the little beggers would have  to abandon ship.

----------


## andy the pm

Its just an alarmist plot, if you look closely you can see the saw marks on the ice...

----------


## Ashore

> I think a few fictional narratives would help too.

   The global warmers have already got that area covered  :Biggrin:

----------


## Allen James

.   

> I think a few fictional narratives would help too.

   .  Fight fiction with fiction. .
. Joe Sixpack:  Global warming is a myth.  The poles are getting larger, and the ice is becoming thicker.  If anything were going to have global cooling.
Greenie:  Ach, theres a wee problem with yer theory laddie.  I jest saw in the news that a bonnie iceberg is heading for Perth, that it is. 
Joe Sixpack:  So?
Greenie:  Ye canna havva global coolin ifn the poles are metltin ya fool!  Makes no sense!
Joe Sixpack:  Melting?  The ice sheets are getting bigger and thicker, which is why huge pieces are breaking off.
Greenie:  Ach neh, Im no genni listen to ye.  I tell ye noo laddie, the world is endin in a wee while, so git away with ye.  Youll get no sausages with one meat ball ye wont.
Joe Sixpack:  This is how old wives tales start up.
Greenie:  Ill no listen to ye blasphemy!  An iceberg as big as Scotland is headin fer Perth, so its clear the planet is melting, and thats that, it is!  The Queen believes it, so thats good enough fer me!
Joe Sixpack:  Thats right Chicken Little, never mind science  just roll your magic bones, dance your rain dance, and make up myths all day long.
Greenie:  Aye, ye canna havva rain without a rain dance laddie, and the bones tell me its the end of the world soon enough, aye, that it is. .
.
.

----------


## rrobor

Man this is getting sad.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Man this is getting sad.

  What do you mean? 
I am getting happier by the day :Biggrin:  
Looks like no deal at nopenhagen  :2thumbsup:  
Europe being hit by snow storms on the eve of this non historic event PRICELESS :Biggrin:  
The alarmist band wagon can now rapidly dissintergrate without the complexity of an absurd "legally' binding agreement on emissions. 
Abbott was proved to be right all along.  We have a lot to thank him for.  Well done Abbott shame on Rudd and Turnbull. 
Today is a GREAT day.

----------


## Naf

> Europe being hit by snow storms on the eve of this non historic event PRICELESS

  OMG global waming is making it snow now, what's next? rain, hail

----------


## Ashore

Whats all this , you mean our 114 delo's couldn't swing it , no I just wonder how much this little jaunt cost , plus all the ones that stayed at home and got exrta for filling the shoe's 
Australia 
H.E. Mr. Kevin Michael Rudd Prime Minister 
H.E. Ms. Penelope Wong Minister, Climate Change and Water Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water 
H.E. Ms. Louise Helen Hand Ambassador for Climate Change Department of Climate Change 
Mr. David Fredericks Deputy Chief of Staff Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 
Mr. Philip Green Oam Senior Policy Adviser, Foreign Affairs Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 
Mr. Andrew Charlton Senior Adviser Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 
Mr. Lachlan Harris Senior Press Secretary Prime Ministers Office Office of Prime Minister 
Mr. Scott Dewar Senior Adviser Office of Prime Minister 
Ms. Clare Penrose Adviser Office of Prime Minister 
Ms. Fiona Sugden Media Adviser Office of Prime Minister 
Ms. Lisa French Office of the Prime Minister Office of Prime Minister 
Mr. Jeremy Hilman Adviser Office of Prime Minister 
Ms. Tarah Barzanji Adviser Office of Prime Minister 
Mr. Kate Shaw Executive Secretary Office of Prime Minister 
Ms. Gaile Barnes Executive Assistant Office of Prime Minister 
Ms. Gordon de Brouwer Deputy Secretary Prime Minister and Cabinet 
Mr. Patrick Suckling First Assistant Secretary, International Division Prime Minister and Cabinet 
Ms. Rebecca Christie Prime Ministers Office 
Mr. Michael Jones Official Photographer Prime Minister and Cabinet 
Mr. Stephan Rudzki 
Mr. David Bell Federal Agent Australian Federal Police 
Ms. Kym Baillie Australian Federal Police 
Mr. David Champion Australian Federal Police 
Mr. Matt Jebb Federal Agent Australian Federal Police 
Mr. Craig Kendall Federal Agent Australian Federal Police 
Mr. Ian Lane Squadron Leader Staff, Officer VIP Operations 
Mr. John Olenich Media Adviser / Adviser to Minister Wong Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water 
Ms. Kristina Hickey Adviser to Minister Wong Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water 
Mr. Martin Parkinson Secretary Department of Climate Change 
Mr. Howard Bamsey Special Envoy for Climate Change Department of Climate Change 
Mr. Robert Owen-Jones Assistant Secretary, International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Clare Walsh Assistant Secretary, International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Jenny Elizabeth Wilkinson Policy Advisor Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Elizabeth Mary Peak Principal Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Kristin Tilley Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change 
Mr. Andrew Ure Acting Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Annemarie Watt Director, Land Sector Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Kushla Munro Director, International Forest Carbon Section International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Kathleen Annette Rowley Director, Strategic and Technical Analysis Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Anitra Cowan Assistant Director, Multilateral Negotiations Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Sally Truong Assisting Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Jane Wilkinson Assistant Director Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Tracey Mackay Assistant Director International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Laura Brown Assistant Director, Multilateral Negotiations International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Tracey-Anne Leahey Delegation Manager Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Nicola Loffler Senior Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Tamara Curll Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Jessica Allen Legal Support Officer Department of Climate Change 
Mr. Sanjiva de Silva Legal Adviser, International Climate Law Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Gaia Puleston Political Adviser Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Penelope Jane Morton Policy Adviser, Multilateral Negotiations (UNFCCC) International Division Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Claire Elizabeth Watt Policy Advisor Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Amanda Walker Policy Officer, Multilateral Negotiations Department of Climate Change 
Mr. Alan David Lee Policy Adviser, Land Sector Negotiations Department of Climate Change 
Ms. Erika Kate Oord Australian Stakeholder Manager Department of Climate Change 
Mr. Jahda Kirian Swanborough Communications Manager Ministerial Communication Department of Climate Change 
H.E. Mr. Sharyn Minahan Ambassador DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Julia Feeney Director, Climate Change and Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
Mr. Chester Geoffrey Cunningham Second Secretary DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Germany 
Ms. Rachael Virginia Cooper Executive Officer, Climate Change and Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
Ms. Rachael Grivas Executive Officer, Environment Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
Moya Elyn Collett Desk officer, Climate Change and Environment Section Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
Mr. Rob Law Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
Mr. Robin Davies Assistant Director General, Sustainable Development Group Australian Agency for International Development 
Ms. Deborah Fulton Director, Policy and Global Environment Australian Agency for International Development 
Ms. Katherine Renee Ann Vaughn Policy Advisor, Policy and Global Environment Australian Agency for International Development 
Mr. Brian Dawson Policy Adviser Australian Agency for International Development 
Mr. Andrew Leigh Clarke Deputy Secretary Department of Resources Development, Western Australia 
Mr. Bruce Wilson General Manager, Environment Energy and Environment Division Department of Resources Development, Western Australia 
Ms. Jill McCarthy Policy Adviser Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism 
Mr. Simon French Policy Adviser Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 
Mr. Ian Michael Ruscoe Policy Adviser Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 
Mr. David Walland Acting Superintendent, National Climate Centre Bureau of Meteorology 
Mr. Damien Dunn Senior Policy Adviser The Australian Treasury 
Ms. Helen Hawka Fuhrman Policy Officer, Renewable Energy Policy and Partnerships 
Mr. Scott Vivian Davenport Chief Economics NSW Department of Industry and Investment 
Mr. Graham Julian Levitt Policy Manager, Climate Change NSW Department of Industry and Investment 
Ms. Kate Jennifer Jones Minister, Climate Change and Sustainability Queensland Government 
Mr. Michael William Dart Principal Policy Advisor Office of the Hon. Kate Jones MP Queensland Government 
Mr. Matthew Anthony Jamie Skoien Senior Director, Office of Climate Change Queensland Government 
Mr. Michael David Rann Premier, South Australia Department of Premier and Cabinet, Southern Australia 
Ms. Suzanne Kay Harter Adviser Department of Premier and Cabinet, Southern Australia 
Mr. Paul David Flanagan Manager, Communications Government of South Australia 
Mr. Timothy William OLoughlin Deputy Chief Executive, Sustainability and Workforce Management Department of Premier and Cabinet South Australian Government 
Ms. Nyla Sarwar M.Sc student Linacre College University of Oxford 
Mr. Gavin Jennings Minister, Environment and Climate Change and Innovation, Victorian Government 
Ms. Sarah Broadbent Sustainability Adviser 
Ms. Rebecca Falkingham Senior Adviser Victoria Government/Office of Climate Change 
Mr. Simon Camroux Policy Adviser Energy Supply Association of Australia Limited 
Mr. Geoff Lake Adviser Australian Local Government Association Sridhar Ayyalaraju Post Visit Controller DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Tegan Brink Deputy Visit Controller and Security Liaison Officer Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Melissa Eu Suan Goh Transport Liaison Officer and Consul DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Lauren Henschke Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Maree Fay Accommodation Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Patricia McKinnon Communications Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Eugene Olim Paasport / Baggage Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Belinda Lee Adams 
Ms. Jacqui Ashworth Media Liaison Officer Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Patricia Smith Media Liaison Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Martin Bo Jensen Research and Public Diplomatic Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Mauro Kolobaric Consular Support DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Susan Flanagan Consular Support DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Stephen Kanaridis IT Support Officer DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. George Reid Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Ashley Wright Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Jodie Littlewood Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Thomas Millhouse Support Staff DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Timothy Whittley Support Staff Driver DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Ms. Julia Thomson Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Donald Frater Chief of Staff to Minister Wong Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water 
Ms. Jacqui Smith Media Liaison DFAT Diplomatic Mission of Australia to Denmark 
Mr. Greg French Senior Legal Advisor, Environment Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade   :Cool:

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> Europe being hit by snow storms on the eve of this non historic event PRICELESS
> ... 
> Abbott was proved to be right all along. We have a lot to thank him for. Well done Abbott shame on Rudd and Turnbull. .
> Today is a GREAT day.

  Agreed.  This is priceless.  :2thumbsup:  . COP15's Final Hours: Hopenhagen or Nopenhagen? (Slideshow)   .

----------


## Allen James

.  

> Whats all this , you mean our 114 delo's couldn't swing it , no I just wonder how much this little jaunt cost , plus all the ones that stayed at home and got exrta for filling the shoe's 
> Australia 
> H.E. Mr. Kevin Michael Rudd Prime Minister 
> H.E. Ms. Penelope Wong Minister, Climate Change and Water Office of the Minister for Climate Change and Water 
> H.E. Ms. Louise Helen Hand Ambassador for Climate Change Department of Climate Change 
> Mr. David Fredericks Deputy Chief of Staff Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 
> Mr. Philip Green Oam Senior Policy Adviser, Foreign Affairs Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 
> Mr. Andrew Charlton Senior Adviser Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 
> Mr. Lachlan Harris Senior Press Secretary Prime Ministers Office Office of Prime Minister 
> ...

  Man Ashore, it makes me so mad to see this; our idiot politicians wasting taxpayer dollars to go on a hippie fest. We should lock the b&st@rds up. Even the USA didnt send that many people, and we're about 17 times smaller than them. . . ALP = Woodstock .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> OMG global waming is making it snow now, what's next? rain, hail

   Just the irony of it Naf, just the irony.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Allright..................a slide show............ 
> I'm still tremendously worried about this climate change.............can anyone tell me if its going to affect the beer brewing process in Australia.................

  Headpin, I am sure someone can think of a way. 
Then get a $2 mill grant to research it.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> That sounds like a job for me............how do I go about applying for the grant?

  Easy just tell Rudd you are a scientist and that beer production will be destroyed if you dont cut emmissions.  He will be happy to give you a couple of mil' I sure :Wink:

----------


## Ashore

If only your'de put the application in 4 weeks ago you would proberly have gotten a trip to nopenhagen as well  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here are a few facts you should know by an IPCC reviewer no less.   _By Lee C. Gerhard, IPCC Expert Reviewer_ 
It is crucial that scientists are factually accurate when they do speak out, that they ignore media hype and maintain a clinical detachment from social or other agendas. There are facts and data that are ignored in the maelstrom of social and economic agendas swirling about Copenhagen. 
Greenhouse gases and their effects are well-known. Here are some of things we know: 
� The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect. 
� Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history. 
� Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not statistically significant. 
� There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes. 
� The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect. 
We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes: 
� Global temperature changes naturally all of the time, in both directions and at many scales of intensity. 
� The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world. 
� Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature. 
� Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the “hockey stick” graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century. 
� During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change. 
Contrary to many public statements: 
� Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change. 
� Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-year lows. Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or severity of storms. 
� Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years - extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes. 
� The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records. 
� Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten centimeters rise in this century. 
The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data and computer programs. The computer programs are the source of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data. Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs. 
Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and inflammatory language. For instance, the word “ever” is misused by media and in public pronouncements alike. It does not mean “in the last 20 years,” or “the last 70 years.” “Ever” means the last 4.5 billion years. 
For example, some argue that the Arctic is melting, with the warmest-ever temperatures. One should ask, “How long is ever?” The answer is since 1979. And then ask, “Is it still warming?” The answer is unequivocally “No.” Earth temperatures are cooling. Similarly, the word “unprecedented” cannot be legitimately used to describe any climate change in the last 8,000 years. 
There is not an unlimited supply of liquid fuels. At some point, sooner or later, global oil production will decline, and transportation costs will become insurmountable if we do not develop alternative energy sources. However, those alternative energy sources do not now exist. 
A legislated reduction in energy use or significant increase in cost will severely harm the global economy and force a reduction in the standard of living in the United States. It is time we spent the research dollars to invent an order-of-magnitude better solar converter and an order-of-magnitude better battery. Once we learn how to store electrical energy, we can electrify transportation. But these are separate issues. Energy conversion is not related to climate change science. 
I have been a reviewer of the last two IPCC reports, one of the several thousand scientists who purportedly are supporters of the IPCC view that humans control global temperature. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us try to bring better and more current science to the IPCC, but we usually fail. Recently we found out why. The whistleblower release of e-mails and files from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University has demonstrated scientific malfeasance and a sickening violation of scientific ethics. 
If the game of Russian roulette with the environment that Adrian Melott contends is going on, is it how will we feed all the people when the cold of the inevitable Little Ice Age returns? It will return. We just don’t know when. Read more here.

----------


## Dr Freud

Hurry, there may still be time to jump aboard the gravy train while it has slowed down...  *Scientist: Climate Change to Impact Beer Production *  April 8, 2008  The price of beer is likely to rise in coming decades because climate change will hamper the production of a key grain needed for the brew - especially in Australia, a scientist warned Tuesday.  
  Jim Salinger, a climate scientist at New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, said climate change likely will cause a decline in the production of malting barley in parts of New Zealand and Australia.   Scientist: Climate Change to Impact Beer Production - ABC News   Quote your friendly neighbourhood climate scientist above, and you too can travel on the gravy train.   The Rudd Labor Government has delivered $2.3 billion over the four years of this Budget to help individuals, communities and businesses meet the challenges of climate change as we work in partnership with other nations to develop cooperative, global solutions. The Budget provides $1.7 billion to support Australias world leading scientists and researchers in their work to improve energy efficiency and clean energy options.   http://whitepaper.climatechange.gov..../ccbo-0809.pdf    But hurry, things are slowing down...  
Copenhagen  :Smilie: 
Hopenhagen  :Redface: 
Nopenhagen  :Frown: 
Dopenhagen  :Tapedshut:

----------


## woodbe

Having Lee C. Gerhard on the IPCC Review team strengthens the status of the IPCC IMO. (that is, if he really is an IPCC Reviewer, I haven't checked) 
Looks like he's one of Bob Carter's mates by the sound of his points. Geologist? 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Having Lee C. Gerhard on the IPCC Review team strengthens the status of the IPCC IMO. (that is, if he really is an IPCC Reviewer, I haven't checked) 
> Looks like he's one of Bob Carter's mates by the sound of his points. Geologist? 
> woodbe.

  I am sure you have googled his profile already  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

Well, I have _now._  
The 'Arctic is cooling' thing struck a bell for me.  
And I found he really has been a reviewer for the IPCC. Good for him. Strange how this massive conspiracy allows dissenters into it's ranks. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

The Sceptics mate Plimer was in debate with Monbiot on lateline the other day. 
It's a good watch, especially when they start talking about volcanos.  Plimer, Monbiot cross swords in climate debate - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

Also, the BBC Great Debate is on BBC Radio:  BBC - BBC World Service Programmes - The BBC Debate 
woodbe

----------


## looseless

Couldn't be stuffed reading the last 1000 posts.  Dunno if climate change at the moment is influenced by man, monkeys and my farts,
BUT............................ 
There are two simple questions
1.  Are we using the earth's resources as efficiently as possible? 
Answer - Obviously NO. 
2.  Can we do better? 
Bloody oath.  In the last 100 years we have consumed stuff like there is no tomorrow.  We owe it to our kids and their kids to pull our heads in, and get it right.  Fossil fuels are finite - everyone agrees with that.  So we need to get our arses into gear and develop some renewable energy sources.  And the smartest blokes going around are the Renovate forum postmen.  Let's see what we can do.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Couldn't be stuffed reading the last 1000 posts. Dunno if climate change at the moment is influenced by man, monkeys and my farts,
> BUT............................ 
> There are two simple questions
> 1. Are we using the earth's resources as efficiently as possible? 
> Answer - Obviously NO. 
> 2. Can we do better? 
> Bloody oath. In the last 100 years we have consumed stuff like there is no tomorrow. We owe it to our kids and their kids to pull our heads in, and get it right. Fossil fuels are finite - everyone agrees with that. So we need to get our arses into gear and develop some renewable energy sources. And the smartest blokes going around are the Renovate forum postmen. Let's see what we can do.

  Yes, and this is a whole new argument that has nothing to do with CO2 warming the world. 
New technology will replace fossil fuels as time goes on and we will be in a much better position to persue those technologies if we don't blow the wealth of the world chasing boogy men.

----------


## chrisp

> YNew technology will replace fossil fuels as time goes on and we will be in a much better position to persue those technologies if we don't blow the wealth of the world chasing boogy men.

  ,,, or blow the wealth by sticking to coal while the rest of the world moves on.

----------


## Rod Dyson

no need to rush.

----------


## Allen James

. . .  

> There are two simple questions
> 1. Are we using the earth's resources as efficiently as possible? .
> Answer - Obviously NO.

  
How do you think you will improve our efficiency by punishing us for being more efficient than most countries?  Punishing people for being more efficient is how you *decrease* such efficiency. .  

> 2. Can we do better? .
> Bloody oath. In the last 100 years we have consumed stuff like there is no tomorrow.

  What are you talking about?  You mean we burn coal?  Harvest wood?  Mine various metals?  If youre complaining about this, why do you drive a car?  Why are you typing these messages on a computer?  Why do you own a TV?  Why did you have electricity connected at your house?  If you wish to join the greenie cavemen, who hate technology and business, then shouldnt you be abandoning all these evil things?  Or are you going to drive your car, use your computer, TV, etc., and like Woodbe, punish Aussies for doing the same?  Ever heard of the saying, Practice what you preach? .    

> We owe it to our kids and their kids to pull our heads in, and get it right.

  We owe it to our kids to remove the greenie propaganda their socialist teachers teach them, and to lower taxes.  Our kids will pay the price for all this nonsense.  .   

> Fossil fuels are finite - everyone agrees with that.

  So what?  As we near the end of their supply we develop new technology.  Whats the big mystery?  Greenies have prevented us using nuclear energy for the last half a century.  Perhaps you should be on their back about that.  Youll find them driving around in smoky Volkswagen beetles, with Ban the Dams and Solar Not Nuclear stickers on their bumper bars.  Change Ban the Dams to Dam the Bans  we need dams  and tell the fools that solar *is* nuclear.    ..   

> So we need to get our arses into gear and develop some renewable energy sources.

  Nuclear power is not only renewable, but everlasting.  There is no shortage of it.  Im sure you think we should be using bicycle power to turn turbines, or wind, etc., but nuclear is far superior, and rejected by green socialist hippies. . Hey Looseless, this is only a debate  you have a nice X-mas, hear?  :Smilie:     . .

----------


## zacnelson

Allen James, I have been loving your contribution to this thread, I always agree with everything you and Rod say!  Keep up the great work!  Too many people these days have their head in the sand and just believe everything the Rudd government, the media (especially the ABC) and the IPCC say.  I think one lesson we have learnt is that `Science' is not unbiassed, in fact the IPCC and others have been horribly subjective and selective in their use of data, to the point that their data is rendered totally useless.

----------


## looseless

> . . .  How do you think you will improve our efficiency by punishing us for being more efficient than most countries? Punishing people for being more efficient is how you *decrease* such efficiency.[/color] .  What are you talking about? You mean we burn coal? Harvest wood? Mine various metals? If youre complaining about this, why do you drive a car? Why are you typing these messages on a computer? Why do you own a TV? Why did you have electricity connected at your house? If you wish to join the greenie cavemen, who hate technology and business, then shouldnt you be abandoning all these evil things? Or are you going to drive your car, use your computer, TV, etc., and like Woodbe, punish Aussies for doing the same? Ever heard of the saying, Practice what you preach? .   We owe it to our kids to remove the greenie propaganda their socialist teachers teach them, and to lower taxes. Our kids will pay the price for all this nonsense. .  So what? As we near the end of their supply we develop new technology. Whats the big mystery? Greenies have prevented us using nuclear energy for the last half a century. Perhaps you should be on their back about that. Youll find them driving around in smoky Volkswagen beetles, with Ban the Dams and Solar Not Nuclear stickers on their bumper bars. Change Ban the Dams to Dam the Bans  we need dams  and tell the fools that solar *is* nuclear.  ..  Nuclear power is not only renewable, but everlasting. There is no shortage of it. Im sure you think we should be using bicycle power to turn turbines, or wind, etc., but nuclear is far superior, and rejected by green socialist hippies. . Hey Looseless, this is only a debate  you have a nice X-mas, hear?     . .

   Thanks Allen, Merry Christmas to you and your family.  Have a good one mate.
I think by the length of your reply, that you have read a lot more into my comments  than what I actually said.  If you think that we are 100% efficient in our enery use, then we'll have to agree to disagree, but we (the world, not just Oz) do waste a lot of energy and resources.  All I'm saying is that we can do better and that we should do better.  
Enuff said.

----------


## andy the pm

> . . What are you talking about? You mean we burn coal? Harvest wood? Mine various metals? If youre complaining about this, why do you drive a car? Why are you typing these messages on a computer? Why do you own a TV? Why did you have electricity connected at your house? If you wish to join the greenie cavemen, who hate technology and business, then shouldnt you be abandoning all these evil things? Or are you going to drive your car, use your computer, TV, etc., and like Woodbe, punish Aussies for doing the same? Ever heard of the saying, Practice what you preach?

  I gotta give it to you Allen, your posts always make me laugh.... :Biggrin:

----------


## Allen James

. . [/quote]   

> Allen James, I have been loving your contribution to this thread, I always agree with everything you and Rod say! Keep up the great work! Too many people these days have their head in the sand and just believe everything the Rudd government, the media (especially the ABC) and the IPCC say. I think one lesson we have learnt is that `Science' is not unbiassed, in fact the IPCC and others have been horribly subjective and selective in their use of data, to the point that their data is rendered totally useless.

   Thanks Zac,  Thats very kind of you.  Rod created a great thread, and has defended his position very well.  I reckon he should go into politics, as he could be very effective.  In my case I might be too loud and forceful online, though I do try to keep the tone friendly. . The people on this forum are very civil, and thats a nice change. . I prefer plastering walls, connecting hot water systems or painting walls, to political debate, but then again my kids need someone to speak up about these matters, so I push myself to do so.  Paul Keating and Bob Hawke made me poor, and since that time I vowed I would add my voice to those opposing big socialist governments.  While Im much better off now, I have no doubt theyll make me poor again the minute they get the chance. . .   

> Thanks Allen, Merry Christmas to you and your family. Have a good one mate.

  
Thanks looseless, and I wish you all the best. . .   

> I think by the length of your reply, that you have read a lot more into my comments than what I actually said.

  Sorry if I did that  it must be too much Christmas spirit! . .   

> If you think that we are 100% efficient in our enery use, then we'll have to agree to disagree,

  I agree with you that we can use our resources better, and that there is always room for improvement in most of the things we do.  . .   

> but we (the world, not just Oz) do waste a lot of energy and resources.

  I have some issues with your use of waste and a lot.   . A ten year old girl falls off a fence and is in danger of internally bleeding to death.  She is unconscious.  I use my mobile phone to call an ambulance.  But wait, the mobile phone was assembled out of materials mined from the earth, using large machines, and all the components were manufactured in smelly factories all across China.  It uses battery power, and again batteries are made in smelly factories from stuff mined out of the earth by huge smelly machines.  And wait  the ambulance is another machine made in smelly factories with materials mined from the earth by huge machines, etc.  And wait  the ambulance is going to have to drive across roads that are made of tar and cement, from materials taken from the earth by smelly machines, and these roads were put together with huge smelly machines, and are governed by a system of lights that were also made from mined materials, and so on and so forth, all the way down to the ambulance officers buttons. . So is calling an ambulance to save the girl *a lot* of *waste*?  . Nope, and find me a greenie willing to toss his cell phone in the bin instead of use it to save his precious daughters life. . Phones and ambulances are a great facility that separate us from Bronze Age people, who would simply pray to their Gods while the girl died.  .   

> All I'm saying is that we can do better and that we should do better. Enuff said.

  Sure we can do better.  We can take the fantastic world we have already created, with its jets and phones, and TVs and cars, and make it even better.  No denying that.  But to penalize and fine Aussies for being efficient and clean while other nations thrive in their pigsties, is just silly. . Once again, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.  :Smilie:  . . .

----------


## andy the pm

> Gentleman, all very interesting, but we still haven't answerd the most important question. 
> Is this climate change thingy going to affect the production of beer, particuliary in the Queensland area.

  Headpin,
As an alarmist greenie, I can only recommend that you start brewing your own... :Sneaktongue:  
Andy

----------


## Ashore

> I wonder what sort discount you get for buyin a pallet of beer?

  You can but dudd's ETS on the pallet ( burnable wood ) makse it twice as dear  :Rolleyes:

----------


## woodbe

> You can but dudd's ETS on the pallet ( burnable wood ) makse it twice as dear

  If you think the ETS is bad, it's got nothing on the CHEP tax. 
woodbe.

----------


## looseless

Thanks for those kind words Allen.   T QquoteThank 
[quote] "*I agree with you that we can use our resources better, and that there is always room for improvement in most of the things we do."* . G'day Allen, Roger that, but this next bit heads off into orbit a bit.   

> *"A ten year old girl falls off a fence and is in danger of internally bleeding to death. She is unconscious. I use my mobile phone to call an ambulance. But wait, the mobile phone was assembled out of materials mined from the earth, using large machines, and all the components were manufactured in smelly factories all across China. It uses battery power, and again batteries are made in smelly factories from stuff mined out of the earth by huge smelly machines. And wait – the ambulance is another machine made in smelly factories with materials mined from the earth by huge machines, etc. And wait – the ambulance is going to have to drive across roads that are made of tar and cement, from materials taken from the earth by smelly machines, and these roads were put together with huge smelly machines, and are governed by a system of lights that were also made from mined materials, and so on and so forth, all the way down to the ambulance officer’s buttons.* *.* *So is calling an ambulance to save the girl a lot of waste? "*  No, mate, but I have never said that we shouldn't use technology or that calling an ambulance for any reason would be a "lot of waste".No  .  *"Sure we can do better. We can take the fantastic world we have already created, with its jets and phones, and TV’s and cars, and make it even better. No denying that. But to penalize and fine Aussies for being efficient and clean while other nations thrive in their pigsties, is just silly."* .
> And I have certainly NEVER said that we should fine or penalise Aussies or anyone for being efficient and clean. Whoa back old son. Have another stubby and enjoy the Gold Coast sun. 
> I s'pose where I'm coming from is that we do a lot of silly things like import water in small bottles (and embedded energy),when Aussie water is purer and better, we import food products (and embedded energy),when Aussie produce is cleaner and greener, millions of cars sit in traffic every day (often carrying 1 person) burning fuel, buildings, offices and malls are airconditioned even when the weather is a delightful 20-25 degrees outside, politicians and fatcats talk the talk but don't walk the walk, and so on and so on. 
> Yes we do a hell of a lot of things well, but there is always room for continuous improvement, and that's what life is all about. If it wasn't for mankind's amazing ability to continually improve then we wouldn't have even made it to the Bronze Age, let alone today's wonderful world. 
> Anyway mate, take it easy, Headpin has purchased a container load of Aussie beer at a very reasonable price, so there's a fair chance that he'll be able to shout us all a coldy. . . .

----------


## watson

> Hi....
> Its a great forum, thought this might give it a bit of life.  Have a look at what is available before you buy anything to ensure that you purchase furniture which matches your requirements as well as your tastes.

  How's the weather in New Dehli mate???
You've gotta do better than this.

----------


## watson

C'mon you blokes.....say g'day to *richard786*..........briefly.

----------


## looseless

> Hi....
> Its a great forum, thought this might give it a bit of life.  Have a look at what is available before you buy anything to ensure that you purchase furniture which matches your requirements as well as your tastes.

   .
G'day Richard 786, 
Welcome aboard.  I can only concur with your lively comments about buying furniture that matches your requirements as well as your tastes.   
Is edible furniture widely available?  I'd like mine to taste like ..............? 
Fill in the blank.  It's certainly sparked up this thread. 
I only hope that the stools that you buy don't taste like...............stools?!??????? 
Merry Christmas :brava:

----------


## watson

Wonderful........when I finally zap him I'll remove all this stuff.....but he's like a breath of fresh air.
A spammer who forgot to spam.
From New Dehli.

----------


## rrobor

Hi Richard Briefly. Bye  Richard Briefly.
Now I got a complaint. Headpin always complains as to me using Scottish words. I was going to write colloquialisms, but I couldnt spell it. He has pinched my word "Thingy" . I think this is a serious breech of etiquette, almost a pistols at dawn thingy. Its just not good form
_______________________________ First indisputable Scottish truth of life. “You’ll get yours Jimmy”

----------


## Groggy

Actually, I don't think that "Thingy" should be in the serious restorer's vernacular. Doesn't that contravene a rule?

----------


## watson

Dunno....got a shed full of thingys.
I'll go and blat him.
Silly bugger he is.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Hi....
> Its a great forum, thought this might give it a bit of life.  Have a look at what is available before you buy anything to ensure that you purchase furniture which matches your requirements as well as your tastes.

   LOL it blew me away when I saw this post.  
How did Watson let it pass? 
Now reading further I see. But will he return to see how friendly we are to spammers? NOT 
Possibly not so I would just delete.

----------


## andy the pm

What does vernacular mean??

----------


## watson

Its a vein going between your brain and your gonads.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> . .    Rod created a great thread, and has defended his position very well. I reckon he should go into politics, as he could be very effective. . .

  Thanks Allen. 
One problem with the politics bit.  No sooner I got in I would be out!!  I would make the reporters job to easy to pull up a dirt file!!! 
A product of a rebellious youth you see.  Nothing serious, but not that family friendly either. :Redface:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Wow we went past 1000 posts and didnt even celebrate damn. 
Maybe we can break out the carbon filled bubbly when we hit 100 pages :Wink:

----------


## watson

I forgot to count too...very slack of me.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Sheez, what am I gonna do over christmas 4 days without a computer.   
Watson be sure to keep em in line.  
Don't want the thread closed while I'm away,eh Rrobor  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

LOL just noticed the 1000th post was mine.

----------


## watson

Its ok...I'll keep 'em entertained with my thoughts on the subject until you get back.

----------


## Allen James

> we  do waste a lot of energy and resources.

     

> So is calling an ambulance to save the girl *a lot* of *waste*?

   

> Nope, and find me a greenie willing to toss his cell phone in the bin instead of use it to save his precious daughters life.

    

> . Phones and ambulances are a great facility that separate us from Bronze Age people, who would simply pray to their Gods while the girl died.

     

> have never said that we shouldn't use technology or that calling an ambulance for any reason would be a "lot of waste".

   Thats great news looseless, because I know that plenty of greenies actually do say that these things are evil and should be discarded. They refuse to let their children have whooping cough vaccine. They reject nuclear power and promote the idea that big business is evil, which includes mining companies. _Without mining companies we have no mobile phones, ambulances or roads._ Without mobile phones, roads and ambulances, I would have to use a *Bronze Age* approach to saving my daughter; praying to Sun Gods etc., which brings us back to global warming... .  .     

> we do a lot of silly things like import water in small bottles (and embedded energy),when Aussie water is purer and better, we import food products (and embedded energy),when Aussie produce is cleaner and greener

   I agree, but a lot of this is to do with the added costs of socialistic, unionist rules and regulations. The ALP is basically a bunch of unions. It insists businesses pay all kinds of benefits and taxes, and that all workers be given all kinds of remuneration. This means that any Aussie product will be expensive. Parasitic unions are so bad that foreign companies can produce goods, ship them to Australia, and *still* sell them *cheaper* than the Australian companies. Its pathetic and laughable, but true. .  Australians are a laughing stock around the world because they are not even able to produce their own food for a lower price than Argentina, even when that country is over the other side of the planet. This is like being beaten in a race by a one legged blind man. Its pathetic, and its all thanks to unions. Unions make us look like idiots.  The funny thing about it is that Aussies think they are really competive sportsmen.  Hah!  They can't even compete with Mexico!  :Biggrin:   .    

> millions of cars sit in traffic every day (often carrying 1 person) burning fuel,

   Correct, but there is nothing wrong with one-person cars. What is wrong is having two-lane roads when ten lanes are needed, and having traffic lights when overpasses are needed. Think of all the *millions* of gallons of fuel being wasted every minute, as Aussies sit at red lights. Do you _really_ think the ALP is helping the environment by keeping us sitting at red lights all day?  Hmmm?   .    

> buildings, offices and malls are airconditioned even when the weather is a delightful 20-25 degrees outside

   They are told what the ideal temperature is and stick with it, as it helps their business. Profits are higher when they do this. Its better than what you find in India, where there is no _egnisher_, and a lot of poor slobs waving palm leaves, or nothing at all. Give me the air conditioning any day, thanks.  :2thumbsup:   .   .

----------


## Allen James

.  .   

> I gotta give it to you Allen, your posts always make me laugh....

   Thanks Andy  and have a great Chrissy.  :Smilie:    

> Gentleman, all very interesting, but we still haven't answerd the most important question.

    

> Is this climate change thingy going to affect the production of beer, particuliary in the Queensland area.

   Nah. But if it does Mexico will send us even cheaper beer.  :Biggrin:      

> Thanks Allen.

    

> One problem with the politics bit. No sooner I got in I would be out!! I would make the reporters job to easy to pull up a dirt file!!!  A product of a rebellious youth you see. Nothing serious, but not that family friendly either.

   Well, I reckon most Aussies wouldnt worry about it whatever it is, but at least you can be an advisor to someone else. Maybe your kids for instance, if they go into politics. Hey, we need some good people in there!  :Wink:  .  . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

Some videos to watch: 
Fox News Global Warming, Or A Lot of Hot Air?  
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqi7fxERiqk]YouTube - Global Warming, Or A Lot of Hot Air? Part 1 (FoxNews Dec 20 2009)[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnCLQIYNYgo]YouTube - Global Warming, Or A Lot of Hot Air? Part 2 (FoxNews Dec 20 2009)[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UisVhZHouq4]YouTube - Global Warming, Or A Lot of Hot Air? Part 3 (FoxNews Dec 20 2009)[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Pj6uWTgXM]YouTube - Global Warming, Or A Lot of Hot Air? Part 4 (FoxNews Dec 20 2009)[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWYuZs6Idb8]YouTube - Global Warming, Or A Lot of Hot Air? Part 5 (FoxNews Dec 20 2009)[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BTS3K9DFy0]YouTube - Global Warming, Or A Lot of Hot Air? Part 6 (FoxNews Dec 20 2009)[/ame]

----------


## woodbe

LOL @ Rod, Leaving us with some homework while he skips off for a break  :Biggrin:  
Have a good one Rod. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> 1. Are you any the wiser after reading this thread?
> 2.  have you changed your stance on the climate change thingy after reading this thread?
> 3.  Was this thread just a great waste of time and energy
> 4.  Would you like another beer.

  No, No, Yes, YES.

----------


## woodbe

> No, No, Yes, YES.

  No, No, No, Yes. 
I've seen some opinions and mindsets here that I didn't know still existed IRL. Its been an eye opener. 
woodbe.

----------


## Ashore

> O.K, look, it's all very interesting and informative (all 6 posts that I have read) can somone save me the effort and summarize this whole thread? 
> Hang on, I've had another of my brillant ideas.......hence the avatar........... 
> I propose that Mr Watson creates a poll (I love polls) multiple choice Yes or No answers and we can all vote on (all 6 of us). 
> 1. Are you any the wiser after reading this thread? Yes but I suppose thats because I have an open mind and are willing to at least look at other information and not disreguard it out of hand because I already have a mind set
> 2. have you changed your stance on the climate change thingy after reading this thread? No I am a realist and a well qualified engineer , I look at all the facts and don't make my mine up due to political arguement , or continue on a line because of an earlier statement , after that statement is proven wrong I judge my decision on real information
> 3. Was this thread just a great waste of time and energy I dont think so , there have been the best arguements put up for both sides , and though some question have not been answered , some were others used smoke and mirrors changing the point rather than answer the real questions, anyone ( and I am sure ther were a few) who read the comments made here with a open mind have seen the great deception for what it was
> 4. Would you like another beer. Now that depends on the beer ( emu bitter, rhieneck, DA, Fosters ) then proberly no but it also depends on the temperture of the day and the beer , If it was -2c and the beer was 30c then I would have to take into account , how long since the last beer and how long till the next , then again if you havent had a beer for a couple of days and it was anything above -2c I suppose even the emu bitter, rhieneck, DA, Fosters  would taste good and even better after the first one  
> Your thoughts?

   ...

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> O.K, look, it's all very interesting and informative (all 6 posts that I have read) can somone save me the effort and summarize this whole thread?

    

> Hang on, I've had another of my brillant ideas.......hence the avatar...........  I propose that Mr Watson creates a poll (I love polls) multiple choice Yes or No answers and we can all vote on (all 6 of us).

   Heh heh, Headpin, you put a lot of trust in public opinion.  The trouble is that millions of people believe in ghosts, UFOs, telepathic spoon bending, ESP, the 2012 end of the world, lucky charms, unlucky numbers, astrology, and so on. . Imagine you went back to England before Captain Cook discovered Australia, and did a poll in a London pub. . Headpin:  Okay, who believes Cook will discover a new country that is about 30 times bigger than mother England, populated with kangaroos, platypuses, koalas, kookaburras and aborigines with boomerangs [he goes on to describe each of these].
Pub Mob:  Grumble grumble, sounds like rubbish, grumble, mumble. . . 
Headpin:  Right, so I count no hands.  So 100% of you think this will not happen.
Pub Mob:  Lets hang im. . Or lets say we send you to America at the time of the Abraham Lincoln, again in a crowded inn. . Headpin:  Okay, so who believes that women and blacks will eventually be allowed to sue companies that dont hire them, and have homosexual relationships with the full backing of the law, and be forbidden to use physical discipline on their children?
Inn Mob:  [confused looks  scratching heads] What the hell he be talking 'bout?
Headpin:  Right, so I count no hands.  So 100% of you think this will not happen.
Inn Mob:  Lets hang the varmint. . The next time youre driving down the road in your horseless carriage Headpin, consider how many innovators were laughed at and scorned by your public.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## DvdHntr

Whilst I don't believe that science can be 100% on this I don't think it hurts to live a less energy intensive lifestyle. 
The issue I feel is the dramatic over population of the earth. Water is already a scarce resource, and if you double our population how can we have enough?

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> This is fun.................your turn now

   Sure. . Headpin:  Im going to poll you on a few issues.  Please put your hand up if you agree, or do nothing if you disagree.  [clears throat].  Now, cell phones are [describes cell phones].  Who believes we will have cell phones in due course?
Mob:  [confused looks  scratching heads]
Headpin:  Okay.  Nobody.  Jeez you guys are a riot. 
Mob:  [angry murmurs]
Headpin:  Hokay  lets try microwave ovens [describes them].  How many believe these will be a household item eventually?
Mob:  [confused looks  scratching heads]
Headpin:  Right.  Nobody.  Alrighty then, how about the internet [explains]?
Mob:  [silent]
Headpin:  Nope?  Hmm.  It seems you guys have no imagination at all. [Over the next hour Headpin covers many other subjects].
Mob:  [getting restless]
Headpin:  Thanks for your  patience and the polling is over.  Lets see, according to you there will never be jets, planes, cars, phones, TVs, computers, the internet, nuclear power, atom bombs, missiles, lasers, rockets, moon missions, electricity, light bulbs, dvds, printers, scanners, modems, plasterboard, radio, elevators, refrigerators, cement mixing trucks, satellites, breast enlargement surgery, cloning, DNA mapping, anti-depressants, hormone treatment, sex changes, legal homosexually, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Germaine Greer or CNN.  In fact according to you, most of what will exist in the 21st century will never happen!
Mob:  Yeah, so?  As far as were concerned youre a headcase, and should be locked up.  You come in here with your cockamamie beliefs and crazy notions and fantasies, and expect us to agree with you?  Youre a demented blasphemous sorcerer obviously!
Headpin:  I am amazed.  I will never again care a hoot what people say in polls.  This proves that asking a pub mob about anything is about as productive as asking a crocodile.
Mob:  Off with his head! Sorcerer!
Headpin:  Save it.  Im outta here.  Im going back to 2009 to surf the web and watch TV.
Mob:  Tie him up!  Hang him.  Hes a witch!
Headpin:  [Back in 2009, Headpin listens to CNN].
CNN:  The latest poll shows that 30% of people believe in global warming.
Headpin:  Whoopee do.  You might as well tell me what cows and sheep think, for all thats worth.
CNN:  In other polls, people are saying they think Obama is maybe not God after all.
Headpin:  Dohh! [switches off TV].  Polls Schmolls! . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> 

    

> Whilst I don't believe that science can be 100% on this I don't think it hurts to live a less energy intensive lifestyle.

  
How are my energy requirements any of your business, and how do you intend to cut my energy requirements?  Please be precise  give me gallons or litres, watts, amps, etc., and how you will enforce this. . .   

> The issue I feel is the dramatic over population of the earth.

  
Which animal or plant species are you referring to?  I agree there are far too many crocodiles, kangaroos and polar bears, but greenies will protect them to the hilt. .   

> Water is already a scarce resource

  
That is a wild eyed myth.  Most of our planet is covered in water, much of it miles deep.  . .   

> , and if you double our population how can we have enough?

  
There is enough water for us to have a hundred times our population, and then some.  Of course, if you do a poll the mob will tell you were all dying of thirst, and there is only one bucket of poisoned water left in the well.  . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> *Maude Lebowski*: What do you do for recreation?  .

    

> *The Dude*: Oh, .  [snip]

   Headpan, for some reason you decided to respond by supplying an out-of-context script from an irrelevant movie, and neglected to link us to the page you took that script from. None of the links you _did_ provide worked    :Rolleyes:  . Strange. . Nonetheless, while we are now on the subject of movie scripts, Atlas Shrugged is set to become a new movie in 2011. It was one of the greatest books ever written and has been in continuous print since the year I was born, 52 years ago. . Here is the book, which you can download free. . http://www.callendamornen.co.uk/eBoo...asShrugged.pdf . . Excerpt: . "Thinking is man's only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's consciousness, the refusal to thinknot blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgmenton the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict 'It is.' ..Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say 'It is, you are refusing to say 'I am.' By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: 'Who am I to know?'he is declaring: 'Who am I to live?' . ."This, in every hour and every issue, is your basic moral choice: thinking or non-thinking, existence or non-existence, A or non-A, entity or zero. . ."To the extent to which a man is rational, life is the premise directing his actions. To the extent to which he is irrational, the premise directing his actions is death. . ."You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert islandit is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed todayand reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it. . ."If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shall think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments. . . "My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence existsand in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: ReasonPurposeSelf-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledgePurpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieveSelf-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride. . . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> The one and only link that I provided works fine..........must have something to do with how you hang your tongue, hey?...................

   . I missed that last link because the first 15 links you provided didn’t work. Colour me impatient, but I neglected to try the 16th, under the assumption it wouldn’t work either.  . .So, do you have any response to my previous points, or are you headpinned?  :Biggrin:   . .

----------


## watson

*Behave Please*

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> *Behave Please*

  Hi Watson, we’ll try and behave. You have a merry Christmas now. .  If that’s your photo you’re a handsome chap – probably with some Irish Scottish English blood, like half this forum, including me.  :Wink:  .  . .

----------


## watson

:Rotfl:  
Can't wait until I start using the ones with the Santa hat on.

----------


## Allen James

.   

> Can't wait until I start using the ones with the Santa hat on.

  Like this one?  :Biggrin:     .

----------


## watson

Ho Ho Ho! 
Beauty

----------


## Dr Freud

From the PM (Prime Muppet). 
Mr Rudd urged the more than 130 world leaders at Copenhagen to "turn the tide" in his speech, made to a half-full hall as snow settled on the ground outside.  Mr Rudd quoted from a handwritten note he'd received from Gracie, a six-year-old from Canberra. "Hi, my name is Gracie. How old are you?" he read out.  "I am writing to you because I want you all to be strong in Copenhagen, please listen to us as it is our future."  Mr Rudd added, "I fear that at this conference, we are on the verge of letting little Gracie down".  The PM brushed aside the climate sceptics, saying the science of man-made climate change was "indisputable".   Kevin Rudd proposes &squo;grand bargain&squo; to climate summit | The Courier-Mail    From the population.  
Does anybody besides me think it's a bit weird to be mobilising six-year-olds on political issues?   _Posted at 11:38 AM December 23, 2009 _                                              Watching Rudd using the "Child Card" in Copenhagen was cringe worthy stuff. What an embarassment to Australia he was. Even the US news crews picked up Rudds speach and laughed at it. Totally Embarassing!  Hot under the collar in kindergarten | The Australian  From reality. 
Santa's ok kiddies, here is the  latest satellite picture of all the ice (in purple):        
The USA currently has more than half the country now covered in snow:      
More fun stuff at:  Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog  Yes, yes, I know weather is not climate, so these pictures are here to show the planet today, so the kiddies can sleep tonight.   *WARNING:* Please check with your playgroups and schools to ensure they are not exposing your children to this ridiculous propaganda which could have serious effects on their mental well-being (as it obviously has on many adults).  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w62gsctP2gc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w62gsctP2gc[/ame]   [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OIPYUlHv38"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OIPYUlHv38[/ame]   [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I-AhVkXlb4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I-AhVkXlb4[/ame]  Call me old fashioned, but I still believe in reading kids happy bedtime stories and saying "sweet dreams", as opposed to terrifying them in the hope of emotionally blackmailing their parents to believe a theory that cannot be substantiated by scientific data, so they will happily pay extra tax. 
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all...  :Santahat:

----------


## zacnelson

Great post Dr Freud!  You rock!

----------


## Allen James

.   

> Yep, I'd go along with this statement.................. . 
> I'm gunna put you on my innovative thinkers list..............now, if I can just find that calculator.............found it.............O.K, so thats 3 + 1 = 4 . 
> Is someone keeping a record of these figures, I'm starting to lose track.......... .

  Heh heh.  If your calculator thinks the oceans don't exist, it's time to replace it.  :Biggrin:   :Rolleyes:   . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

Merry Christmas to all the ETS thread lovers. 
Good work Allen.  
I will be back in 4 days. 
Cheers Rod

----------


## Allen James

.   

> Merry Christmas to all the ETS thread lovers. 
> Good work Allen.  
> I will be back in 4 days. 
> Cheers Rod

  Merry Christmas Rod, and to all the other posters here at renovateforum.com.  You guys have helped me a great deal with my work, with all your great ideas. 
Cheers, 
Allen   .

----------


## mattwilliams78

> O.K, look, it's all very interesting and informative (all 6 posts that I have read) can somone save me the effort and summarize this whole thread? 
> Hang on, I've had another of my brillant ideas.......hence the avatar........... 
> I propose that Mr Watson creates a poll (I love polls) multiple choice Yes or No answers and we can all vote on (all 6 of us). 
> 1. Are you any the wiser after reading this thread?
> 2. have you changed your stance on the climate change thingy after reading this thread?
> 3. Was this thread just a great waste of time and energy
> 4. Would you like another beer. 
> Your thoughts?

  
Yes, No, Yes, Yes. 
I've found this thread pretty disappointing. Whilst 1000 posts on a subject that affects every one of us should be interesting reading, about 600 posts have been pages and pages of extreme right wing drivel posted by just two or three contributers. I honestly would try to take the "do nothing until something really bad happens" approach more seriously if it wasn't constantly accompanied by racist/ sexist/ homophobic/ xenophibic/ protectionist statements that is the standard fare of right wing politics. 
Bottom line is, whether climate change is man made or not isn't really that relevant. As population increases (which it will, surely you can't deny this as well??) energy and water WILL become harder and harder to easily/cheaply secure in sufficient quantities and then we will HAVE to be more efficient about how we use it. For those few skeptic characters of you on here with the loud voices - you are right, we can just solve that then when the time comes so we don't HAVE to do that now. Trouble is, as anyone who has called a plumber out late on a public holiday/middle of the night to clear that drain/fix that leak they'd been meaning to sort out for ages, doing something when you HAVE to do it is nowhere near as cheap as when you could CHOOSE to do it. 
Its a shame that so many baby boomers (and I suppose I'm probably being ageist here, or a communist as some of you accused me back on page 20ish) are now reaching retirement age and think that rocking the boat is such a terrifying thing. Because they hold such a balance of power, its difficult for us Gen X/Yers to make a positive change because the boomers have thrown their weight behind the huge multinationals that pollute and degrade and exploit natural resources just so that their shareholders can continue to be excessively wealthy. Ironically, the past 18 months should show us that the global financial market is quick to react and if anything making significant changes to how it works could be fairly straighforward if anyone had the guts to give it a go. Many of us [lefties?!] actually thought this may be the opportunity to change things for the better (like getting rid of ridiculous CEO bonuses) but as we climb out of the "recession we had to have" it appears that life will be back to the old faithful wasteful, consumption driven lifestyle that we know well.  
I'm a technologist and a developer and would absolutely resent the suggestion that I'm a tree-hugging luddite that wants us to throw away our phones and let our kids die (what an unnecessary point anyway, who in their right mind would support such a notion??). I'm just saying that the same mobile phone could be charged using an integrated solar cell or the ambulance could be hydrogen fuel cell powered, using clean renewable electricity, and emitting only H2O as it races through our neighbourhoods. CO2 benchmarking, such as that used on the government's green vehicle guide, is already a proven way to weed out fuel inefficiency (even if CO2 ends up being proven to have no direct relationship to climate change in the longterm).  
Anyone that argues against that as a desirable future direction (with or without short term government intervention)  is not someone who's opinion I really need to be open to anyway. I can't see that continuing this thread for another 1000posts will throw up any more gems but then I suppose I could just butt out like I did for the last 700odd posts. 
Matt  
p.s. I don't fully understand how the forum works but rrobor appears to not have an account anymore?! It would be a real shame if he has been hounded off the forum for standing by his precautionary principle views - I feel that some of the anti climate change mockeries were unfairly singled out at him.

----------


## Allen James

.  Headpin: Was this thread just a great waste of time and energy Mattwilliams78: Yes Translation: “We hate hearing conservatives criticize the myth called global warming.” . .   

> about 600 posts have been pages and pages of extreme right wing drivel posted by just two or three contributers.

   If it is “drivel” it should be easy for you to correct, yet you failed to do so.  :Rolleyes:  .   

> racist/ sexist/ homophobic/ xenophibic/ protectionist statements that is the standard fare of right wing politics.

   Hitler was a socialist. I think you’ll find all those elements alive and well in many lefties. .   

> Bottom line is, whether climate change is man made or not isn't really that relevant.

   It is extremely relevent to those of us who will have to pay through the nose to China and India for our “sins” in “poisoning the planet”, when in fact we committed no such sins to begin with. .   

> As population increases … energy and water WILL become harder and harder to easily/cheaply secure

   The opposite is obviously true, as we are constantly improving our ability to have both, in better and more abundant ways, as our population increases over the centuries. .   

> I'm just saying that the same mobile phone could be charged using an integrated solar cell or the ambulance could be hydrogen fuel cell powered, using clean renewable electricity, and emitting only H2O as it races through our neighbourhoods.

   Who disagrees that new technology provides more ways to do things, and that this will provide us many different choices? Greenies have forced us to use coal for decades now, when we could have been using clean, efficient and cheap nuclear power. . . .

----------


## chrisp

> 1. Are you any the wiser after reading this thread?
> 2.  have you changed your stance on the climate change thingy after reading this thread?
> 3.  Was this thread just a great waste of time and energy
> 4.  Would you like another beer.

   

> No, No, Yes, YES.

  Heady, 
I did take your "poll" quite literally and responded simply "yes  or no". 
For the first question, it was definitely a "best fit" response.  I suppose a longer answer is that I'm somewhat surprised at the level of resistance to the idea of AGW from some posters. 
I suppose some take awhile to come around and recognise that we have a problem and can't simply go on doing what we are doing. 
It is strange in a way because along with proverbial "death and taxes", about the only certainty or constant in life, or the world, is change. 
I'm reminded of the Kuber-Ross model of the "5 stages" in this thread - i.e. denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.  Some seem to be very stuck in the "denial - anger" stages and come up with all sorts of pseudo-science or worldwide conspiracy theories to deny the science.  I absolutely amazed and astounded that some posters really believe that all the world governments have been fooled by some conspiracy initiated by scientists to secure research funding? 
So, yes, I have learnt something from this thread - some are so set in their ways that I doubt that anything will change their mindset.  :Smilie:

----------


## watson

Thanks for that logical..low key..response.
I must say, as the reader of all things controversial, that I may be missing any relevant points from either  side.
The things I have learned, or had confirmed: 
Politicians..in any shape or form.....are not to be believed.
Scientific Data can be manipulated to suit either side of a discussion.
Scientist can be bought. (First hand experience) 
I knew George Lugg (deceased) who was required by the Government of the day to say publicly that the tests at Maralinga would do no harm whatsoever.
He was also the scientist that said in the 60's that Agent Orange would do no harm whatsoever.
(ya wanna see the crap that grows on me) 
So, I'm not going to be swayed by published scientific data from either camp.
As for politicians.......... :Puke:  
Just  makes me a little sad altogether. 
That's enough from me.

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> I'm somewhat surprised at the level of resistance to the idea of AGW from some posters.

   I’ve pointed to polls in this thread showing that the majority of Americans do not believe humans are responsible for global warming, so why would you be surprised some resist the idea here? If Americans can reject the latest greenie swindle, Aussies are quite capable of the same. .   

> I suppose some take awhile to come around and recognise that we have a problem and can't simply go on doing what we are doing.

   What problem do we have exactly? .   

> It is strange in a way because along with proverbial "death and taxes", about the only certainty or constant in life, or the world, is change.

   You conveniently removed the words ‘man-made’ and ‘calamitous’ from in front of _change_. Nobody here thinks things don’t change. Some of the brighter ones here understand that plenty of change takes place without being man-made or calamitous. .   

> I'm reminded of the Kuber-Ross model of the "5 stages" in this thread - i.e. denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

  It’s a shame you refused to be reminded about the wild eyed nature of religious fanatics, intent on blaming man for the weather, while sacrificing humans to their many different sun, wind and rain gods. Try arguing with those tribes and you would face wrath and retribution, but little debate.  .  

> I absolutely amazed and astounded that some posters really believe that all the world governments have been fooled by some conspiracy initiated by scientists to secure research funding?

  I doubt all were, but certainly many were, by a small group of fraudsters who cornered the market on global warming, and refused the right of anyone to debate the subject. .   

> So, yes, I have learnt something from this thread - some are so set in their ways that I doubt that anything will change their mindset.

   That would describe those who subscribe to the mythology of sun gods and sacrifice, not of those who prefer debate and real science.  :Rolleyes:   . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I've found this thread pretty disappointing. Whilst 1000 posts on a subject that affects every one of us should be interesting reading, about 600 posts have been pages and pages of extreme right wing drivel posted by just two or three contributers. I honestly would try to take the "do nothing until something really bad happens" approach more seriously if it wasn't constantly accompanied by racist/ sexist/ homophobic/ xenophibic/ protectionist statements that is the standard fare of right wing politics.

  Are you serious??  You really believe all that has been posted here in argument against AGW is as you have described. What can this possibly say about your ideals and opinions?     

> p.s. I don't fully understand how the forum works but rrobor appears to not have an account anymore?! It would be a real shame if he has been hounded off the forum for standing by his precautionary principle views - I feel that some of the anti climate change mockeries were unfairly singled out at him.

  No one has hounded anyone off the forum simply because we do not agree with his or her opinions.  I have no problem with Rrobors opinion it is just wrong IMO. 
More on the rest of your post later. Just got back.

----------


## woodbe

> Are you serious??  You really believe all that has been posted here in argument against AGW is as you have described. What can this possibly say about your ideals and opinions?

  Welcome back Rod  :Biggrin:  
I can't speak for Matt, but I have noticed many of the ills he speaks of here. Not from you mind, I think you come across as pretty well balanced - just misguided.  :Laugh bounce:  
I bite my lip on those particular statements as they are not part of the ETS/AGW debate, and they speak more eloquently about their author than I could possibly hope to.  
So how was the beach? See any icebergs?  :Wink:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Welcome back Rod  
> I can't speak for Matt, but I have noticed many of the ills he speaks of here. Not from you mind, I think you come across as pretty well balanced - just misguided.  
> I bite my lip on those particular statements as they are not part of the ETS/AGW debate, and they speak more eloquently about their author than I could possibly hope to.  
> So how was the beach? See any icebergs?  
> woodbe.

  Cheers Woodbe,   
I will get back into the discussion proper soon mean while I will lurk and snipe a comment or 2. 
The wife is fine..... oops sorry you said BEACH.  Nah no ice except in my scotch.

----------


## Ashore

> I've found this thread pretty disappointing. Whilst 1000 posts on a subject that affects every one of us should be interesting reading, about 600 posts have been pages and pages of extreme right wing drivel posted by just two or three contributers. I honestly would try to take the "do nothing until something really bad happens" approach more seriously if it wasn't constantly accompanied by racist/ sexist/ homophobic/ xenophibic/ protectionist statements that is the standard fare of right wing politics. 
> .

   

> Are you serious?? .

   When all your arguements have been shown to be false and you run out of smoke and mirrors what do you expect Rod , of course he is serious ( grasping at straws that is ) to change the direction of the thread again  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> When all your arguements have been shown to be false and you run out of smoke and mirrors what do you expect Rod , of course he is serious ( grasping at straws that is ) to change the direction of the thread again

  Which arguments have been shown to be false?   
Be specific now don't just gloss over it.

----------


## andy the pm

Good post Matt.   

> .  Headpin: Was this thread just a great waste of time and energy Mattwilliams78: Yes Translation: “We hate hearing conservatives criticize the myth called global warming.” . .  If it is “drivel” it should be easy for you to correct, yet you failed to do so.  .  Hitler was a socialist. I think you’ll find all those elements alive and well in many lefties. .  It is extremely relevent to those of us who will have to pay through the nose to China and India for our “sins” in “poisoning the planet”, when in fact we committed no such sins to begin with.  Where is the evidence that we will pay through the nose??  .  The opposite is obviously true, as we are constantly improving our ability to have both, in better and more abundant ways, as our population increases over the centuries.  Where is the evidence that we improve our ability to have both?? Surely your not talking about desalination, where the cost to build one in Sydney was around $1.7B, never mind the running costs. .  Who disagrees that new technology provides more ways to do things, and that this will provide us many different choices? Greenies have forced us to use coal for decades now, when we could have been using clean, efficient and cheap nuclear power. Nuclear is clean?? So how do you deal with the waste? How much does it cost to decommission one of these things at the end of its life?? I think the 600k+ deaths due to radiation exposure following the Chernobyl disaster would disagree about nucleur power being clean...along with all the other deaths since the 50's. Ask the residents that live around Dounreay power station whether they enjoy walking on the radioactive beach.... .  . .

----------


## Allen James

.   

> When all your arguements have been shown to be false and you run out of smoke and mirrors what do you expect Rod , of course he is serious ( grasping at straws that is ) to change the direction of the thread again

     

> Which arguments have been shown to be false?

    

> Be specific now don't just gloss over it.

  Im pretty sure Ashore was talking about mattwilliams78 running out of smoke and mirrors, and grasping at straws, not you, Rod.  :2thumbsup:  .  

> Allen James: It is extremely relevent to those of us who will have to pay through the nose to China and India for our sins in poisoning the planet, when in fact we committed no such sins to begin with.  andy the pm: Where is the evidence that we will pay through the nose??

  . Millions are on welfare, paid for by taxes that are themselves paid mostly by industry and business. All those working for the government pay no real tax, since their wages and taxes are also paid by industry and business. Industry and business also pay the taxes paid by private wage earners. Thus the ransom we would pay to China, India and other pollution-loving countries, for our _crime_ of being clean and efficient, would be paid for by our businesses and industries. The ALP wants us to pay a ransom of some billions on a continual basis. If they are successful we will most definitely pay through the nose. .   

> Allen James: The opposite is obviously true, as we are constantly improving our ability to have both, in better and more abundant ways, as our population increases over the centuries.

    

> andy the pm: Where is the evidence that we improve our ability to have both??

  A simple examination of history will show you all you need to conclude we are constantly improving our ability to have both, in better and more abundant ways, as our population increases over the centuries. It is not for me to teach you history, but for you to prove your ludicrous suggestion that, As population increases  energy and water WILL become harder and harder to easily/cheaply secure. Since the very reverse has been going on for centuries, your statement needs very strong evidence to show it is going to halt, and turn around. Where is it? .   

> Allen James: Who disagrees that new technology provides more ways to do things, and that this will provide us many different choices? Greenies have forced us to use coal for decades now, when we could have been using clean, efficient and cheap nuclear power.

    

> andy the pm: Nuclear is clean??

  Very clean.  . Its time to discard worn-out greenie myths about nuclear power, and get educated on the subject. Again, I cant do that for you, but here are 683,000 pages of information on +"clean nuclear energy" . +"clean nuclear energy" - Google Search= . Browse through and read up on the facts. . ..

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Which arguments have been shown to be false?   
> Be specific now don't just gloss over it.

  LOL sorry Ashore a miss read there my apologies 
Thanks Allen

----------


## Allen James

.  Allen James:  Greenies have forced us to use coal for decades now, when we could have been using clean, efficient and cheap *nuclear power*. . andy the pm:  Nuclear is clean?? .
Allen James:   Very clean... here are 683,000 pages of information on +"clean nuclear energy" . Headpin:  Just so we have enough reading material here's 9, 710,000 pages on radioactive nuclear waste..................... . If radioactivity is unclean, then all plants are unclean, since they all contain potassium-40, which is radioactive.  I havent heard greenies say that before, but since you, andy the pm, Matt and others here are so concerned with radioactive waste, try digesting this: . A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage.  It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island accident. . Very unclean coal mining and burning has also caused the deaths of tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of people around the world through emphysema, cancer and other diseases, so any nitpicking you can drag up about nuclear accidents is just that.  And who *insisted* we stay with lethal, filthy coal power for the last half century?  Greenies.  England had their first NPS in 1957. . Even now that greenies _know_ how much better nuclear power is for their sacred clean environment (the one full of natural radioactive elements, and coal, and oil), the greenies are against it for purely political and emotional reasons. . To repeat; you need to educate yourselves about the cleanliness of nuclear power, and stop living in the distant past. . . .

----------


## Allen James

. . [Scene – Outback Australia, late afternoon. A Californian Greenie (Jethro) is driving down a dusty road when he comes across a jolly swagman, sitting under the shade of a Coolibah tree. He stops for directions and the swagman offers him tea. Jethro parks his old Volkswagen Beetle and sits down by the camp fire] .
Jethro: Hi, I’m Jethro. Peace, brother!
Swagman: You a Yankee?
Jethro: Sure is. I’m from Hollywood Californ-eye-ay. I’m here for the Oolaroo Greenie convention.
Swagman: Where?
Jethro: Oolaroo. You know, that durned huge red rock yonder, near Alice Springs.
Swagman: Oh, you mean Ayer’s Rock.
Jethro: No, that’s its old name. It’s called Oolaroo now on account o’ how it was first called Oolaroo by the native Australians.
Swagman: Hmmm. What do they call Sydney and Melbourne now?
Jethro: [looks confused]
Swagman: So what kind of convention you goin’ to?
Jethro: [grinning proudly] A Greenie convention; me bein’ a Greenie meself, hyuk hyuk!
Swagman: And what is a Greenie, according to you?
Jethro: Why we jest loves the environment, yessir! You know - all *this* [raises palms up and looks skyward, with a crazed look in his eyes].
Swagman: Oh, you one of them yoga types?
Jethro: No sir, not really.
Swagman: Then what’s this? [raises palms and looks skyward, with a crazed look]
Jethro: Oh you know, everythang! The air, trees, grass, ground. Tarnation, I mean the whole world ‘round us, with all its critters and such.
Swagman: Which humans _don’t_ love that?
Jethro: Most Aussies, that’s who! They’re stinking it up with their cars, computers, TV’s and so forth. Ya can smell it all the way from China!
Swagman: [Scratches head and sniffs the air] You can? Smells fine to me. Anyway, you got a car yerself.
Jethro: [a little embarrassed] Oh that old thang, heck, that’s hardly a car. You should see the one we got back home in Beverley Hills. Oh, and we got a ce-ment pond too.
Swagman: Still, it’s a car ain’t it? And a smoky one too. 
Jethro: [Looks confused] Now you mention it, let me check my Greenie Guide about that, because all the Greenies I know have cars, computers, TV’s, and such [takes out moth-eaten book from back pocket and begins eyeballing it]. 
Swagman: What’s that sticker on yer car mean – ‘solar not nuclear’?
Jethro: Oh that? Well heckfire, we don’t want no nuclear power polluting the air with all that radiation, no sir. 
Swagman: What is sunshine then?
Jethro: Huh? Why that’s one o’ them goldurned environment thingies we love so much (raises palms and looks skyward, with a crazed look].
Swagman: But it’s created by the nuclear power of the sun. I read it right here in this magazine [picks up magazine and quotes]. “When the Sun’s direct radiation is not blocked by clouds, it is experienced as *sunshine*.”
Jethro: Well golly, it don’t say that in the guide neither [eyeballs book again, looking worried].
Swagman: Says in this magazine that Ayers Rock emits radiation too.
Jethro: You mean Oolaroo? G’wan wid yer! Cain’t be true!
Swagman: And it says all living things have radioactive elements in them.
Jethro: [Dumbfounded]
Swagman: What’s that other sticker you got, says, “Ban the Dams”?
Jethro: [Cheers up] Oh that? That’s to stop Aussies cutting down trees.
Swagman: But trees need water, and for that we need dams.
Jethro: Not if it means cutting down a few trees to build them first, no sir!
Swagman: How can people grow and save trees without water?
Jethro: [Scratches head]
Swagman: Seems to me you got your priorities ass over teat.
Jethro: [Frowns]
Swagman: We need more dams to save trees, and we need nuclear power to replace the much dirtier and more dangerous coal power. We also need cars and computers, which came out of the earth, so how can they be “stinking up the world?”
Jethro: Well gosh mister, I don’t know what to think. I was just going by what the Californ-eye-ay Greenies told me. 
Swagman: Them hippies drive around in their smoky Beetles trying to stop business, is all.
Jethro: But why would they do that?
Swagman: They are mostly anti-capitalist socialists. That’s why they want to take money away from clean capitalists and give it to dirty communists. 
Jethro: [Leaps up] Mister, I’ve been hornswaggled. I gotta get back home and tell Granny and Ellie May to kick them Greenies out of our home. They’ve even taken over our ce-ment pond! They even refused to let us use chlorine, so now the water is green and stinks. Why I oughta [shakes fist]! Thanks a lot – bye now [runs off].
Swagman: [Watches Jethro drive away in a cloud of smoke, waving the smoke away and coughing]. Gasp - it takes all types I guess – cough. Geez our schools have a lot to answer for. . . .

----------


## Allen James

. Headpin: _Just so we have enough reading material here's 9, 710,000 pages on radioactive nuclear waste....................._ . Allen James:  _If radioactivity is unclean, then all plants are unclean, since they all contain potassium-40, which is radioactive. I havent heard greenies say that before, but since you, andy the pm, Matt and others here are so concerned with radioactive waste, try digesting_ _this__:
A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage. It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island accident._ . . _Very unclean coal mining and burning has also caused the deaths of tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of people around the world through emphysema, cancer and other diseases, so any nitpicking you can drag up about nuclear accidents is just that. And who insisted we stay with lethal, filthy coal power for the last half century? Greenies. England had their first NPS in 1957._ . Headpin: _Elly May: I hear they got smog. Daisy Mae 'Granny' Moses: What's a smog? [pause] Jethro: I reckon it's a small hog_  . Heh heh.  Environmentalists always react this way when faced with hard facts about nuclear energy versus coal power, solar being nuclear, trees needing dams, etc.   :Biggrin:  . .

----------


## andy the pm

How anyone can think that nuclear power is clean or safe is beyond me, but hey, each to their own...
I had to chuckle when I read the safety figures touted by the world nuclear organisation, talk about comparing apples with asparagus...
What people seem to gloss over is the waste handling and decommissioning costs of nuclear power stations.
Most developed countries now require the power station operator to bear the costs of decommissioning, not the state, so who do you think will ultimately bear the cost? The consumer of course.
True life cycle costs of building nuclear power stations show that as a commercial operation they no longer provide the pay back that they may once have provided. This is reflected in the number that are being built, blame the greenies all you want, commercial acumen is what gets these things built.
We have seen how the developing countries (righty) use the argument that the developed countries have done exactly the same things to progress society so its to be expected that they will claim their right to nuclear power. Its also to be expected that they will experience the same mistakes as developed countries (mainly because they will be sold out dated technology, much the same as armament supply). The mistakes developed countries made include: *December 12, 1952*  INES Level 5 - Chalk River, Ontario, Canada - Reactor core damaged 
A reactor shutoff rod failure, combined with several operator errors, led to a major power excursion of more than double the reactor's rated output at AECL's NRX reactor. A cover gas system failure led to hydrogen explosions, which severely damaged the reactor core. *May 24, 1958*  INES Level needed - Chalk River, Ontario, Canada - Fuel damaged 
Due to inadequate cooling a damaged uranium fuel rod caught fire and was torn in two as it was being removed from the core at the NRU reactor.  *October 25, 1958* - INES Level needed - Vinča, Yugoslavia - Criticality excursion, irradiation of personnel 
During a subcritical counting experiment a power buildup went undetected at the Boris Kidrich Institute's zero-power natural uranium heavy water moderated research reactor. This was one of the first nuclear incidents investigated by then newly-formed IAEA.  *July 26, 1959*  INES Level needed - Santa Susana Field Laboratory, California, United States - Partial meltdown 
A partial core meltdown took place when the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) experienced a power excursion that caused severe overheating of the reactor core, resulting in the melting of one-third of the nuclear fuel and significant releases of radioactive gases.  *October 5, 1966*  INES Level needed - Monroe, Michigan, United States - Partial meltdown 
A sodium cooling system malfunction caused a partial meltdown at the Enrico Fermi demonstration nuclear breeder reactor. The accident was attributed to a zirconium fragment that obstructed a flow-guide in the sodium cooling system. Two of the 105 fuel assemblies melted during the incident. *Winter 1966-1967* (date unknown)  INES Level needed 
The Soviet icebreaker Lenin, the USSRs first nuclear-powered surface ship, suffered a major accident in one of its three reactors. To find the leak the crew broke through the concrete and steel radiation shield with sledgehammers, causing irreparable damage. The ship was abandoned for a year to allow radiation levels to drop before the three reactors were removed, to be dumped into the Tsivolko Fjord on the Kara Sea, along with 60% of the fuel elements packed in a separate container. The reactors were replaced with two new ones, and the ship re-entered service in 1970, serving until 1989.  *May 1967*  INES Level needed - Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, United Kingdom - Partial meltdown 
Graphite debris partially blocked a fuel channel causing a fuel element to melt and catch fire at the Chapelcross nuclear power station. The core was repaired and restarted in 1969, operating until the plant's shutdown in 2004. *January 21, 1969*  INES Level needed - Lucens, Canton of Vaud, Switzerland - Explosion 
A total loss of coolant led to a power excursion and explosion of an experimental nuclear reactor in a large cave at Lucens. The cavern was heavily contaminated and was sealed. *February 22, 1977*  INES Level 4 - Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia - Fuel damaged 
Operators neglected to remove moisture absorbing materials from a fuel rod assembly before loading it into the KS 150 reactor at power plant A-1.  *March 28, 1979*  INES Level 5 - Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United States - Partial meltdown 
Equipment failures and worker mistakes contributed to a loss of coolant and a partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station 15 km southeast of Harrisburg. *March 13, 1980* - INES Level 4 - Orléans, France - Nuclear materials leak 
A brief power excursion in Reactor A2 led to a rupture of fuel bundles and a minor release (8 x 1010 Bq) of nuclear materials at the Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant. 
March, 1981  INES Level 2 - Tsuruga, Japan - Overexposure of workers 
More than 100 workers were exposed to doses of up to 155 millirem per day radiation during repairs of a nuclear power plant, violating the company's limit of 100 millirems per day.  *September 23, 1983*  INES Level 4 - Buenos Aires, Argentina - Accidental criticality 
An operator error during a fuel plate reconfiguration in an experimental test reactor led to an excursion of 3×1017 fissions at the RA-2 facility. The operator absorbed 2000 rad (20 Gy) of gamma and 1700 rad (17 Gy) of neutron radiation which killed him two days later.  *April 26, 1986*  INES Level 7 - Prypiat, Ukraine (then USSR) - Power excursion, explosion, complete meltdown 
A mishandled reactor safety test led to an uncontrolled power excursion, causing a severe steam explosion, meltdown and release of radioactive material at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant located approximately 100 kilometres north-northwest of Kiev.  *May 4, 1986*  INES Level needed - Hamm-Uentrop, Germany (then West Germany) - Fuel damaged 
A spherical fuel pebble became lodged in the pipe used to deliver fuel elements to the reactor at an experimental 300-megawatt THTR-300 HTGR. Attempts by an operator to dislodge the fuel pebble damaged its cladding, releasing radiation detectable up to two kilometers from the reactor.  *November 24, 1989*  INES Level needed - Greifswald, Germany (then East Germany) - Fuel damaged 
Operators disabled three of six cooling pumps to test emergency shutoffs. Instead of the expected automatic shutdown a fourth pump failed causing excessive heating which damaged ten fuel rods.  *April 6, 1993*  INES Level 4 - Tomsk, Russia - Explosion 
A pressure buildup led to an explosive mechanical failure in a 34 cubic meter stainless steel reaction vessel buried in a concrete bunker under building 201 of the radiochemical works at the Tomsk-7 Siberian Chemical Enterprise plutonium reprocessing facility. The contamination plume extended 28 km NE of building 201, 20 km beyond the facility property.  *June, 1999*  INES Level needed - Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan - Control rod malfunction 
Operators attempting to insert one control rod during an inspection neglected procedure and instead withdrew three causing a 15 minute uncontrolled sustained reaction at the number 1 reactor of Shika Nuclear Power Plant. The Hokuriku Electric Company who owned the reactor did not report this incident and falsified records, covering it up until March, 2007.  *September 30, 1999*  INES Level 4 - Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan - Accidental criticality 
Workers put uranyl nitrate solution containing about 16.6 kg of uranium, which exceeded the critical mass, into a precipitation tank at a uranium reprocessing facility in Tokai-mura northeast of Tokyo, Japan. The tank was not designed to dissolve this type of solution and was not configured to prevent eventual criticality. Three workers were exposed to (neutron) radiation doses in excess of allowable limits. Two of these workers died.  *April 10, 2003*  INES Level 3 - Paks, Hungary - Fuel damaged 
Partially spent fuel rods undergoing cleaning in a tank of heavy water ruptured and spilled fuel pellets at Paks Nuclear Power Plant. It is suspected that inadequate cooling of the rods during the cleaning process combined with a sudden influx of cold water thermally shocked fuel rods causing them to split. *April 19, 2005*  INES Level 3 - Sellafield, England, United Kingdom - Nuclear material leak 
Twenty metric tons of uranium and 160 kilograms of plutonium dissolved in 83,000 litres of nitric acid leaked over several months from a cracked pipe into a stainless steel sump chamber at the Thorp nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. 
November 2005  INES Level needed - Braidwood, Illinois, United States - Nuclear material leak 
Tritium contamination of groundwater was discovered at Exelon's Braidwood station.  *March 6, 2006*  INES Level needed - Erwin, Tennessee, United States - Nuclear material leak 
Thirty-five litres of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer into a lab at Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin Plant. The incident caused a seven-month shutdown and a required public hearing on the licensing of the plant.
Of course, this is just commercial nuclear accidents. It also doesn't include commercial incidents with the most recent being June 2008 or military accidents. So despite the legislation, the technology, the procedures, processes and training mistakes still happen. Clean and safe eh??
And I ask yet again, what do you do with the waste?? 
Andy

----------


## mattwilliams78

> . . Swagman: They are mostly anti-capitalist socialists. Thats why they want to take money away from clean capitalists and give it to dirty communists.  . . .

  "Clean capitalists" ROFL haha, its exactly because the environment has no monetary value that it doesn't even figure within capitalism's structure. However labour, which is an easily measured commodity, can be driven down by those capitalists by employing 8 year olds to stitch $150 trainers on dangerous equipment for 14 hours a day for US$1. 
Don't even try to suggest that capitalism is clean, the only environmental protection we enjoy at all in the first-world superpowers is because of organisations like the EPA that make it ILLEGAL to pollute - and even then, the fine is so paltry that I suspect some organisations see it easier to pay the fine than fix the problem. 
I'm not opposed to business (I'm still pretty offended by all your commie jibes), I'm perfectly aware that this is how we choose to live our lives and I am a willing participant. But those of you who seem so vehemently opposed to seeing environmental improvement as a business opportunity really should take the time to read the excellent "Natural Capitalism" - a book that, for me, really highlighted the opportunity rather than fears in modifying the way we live our lives; in particular, I was pretty excited by a proposed switch to a service based economy where we buy an outcome (like clean clothes) rather than more and more things (like a cheap washing machine) which could lead to impressive resource savings and very high grade recycling (that is, breaking apart an old washing machine to reuse the housing or drum as it is, not melting it down to make it into fresh steel to make the same washing machine bits all over again.) One of the most famous companies that has taken the opportunity is Interface who redesigned the way carpet was sold and remanufactured and are very successful at what they do. 
link to book - Natural Capitalism-Creating the Next Industrial Revolution 
BTW - the suggestion that solar is just nuclear power and therefore we should be fine to be handling radioactive material because Uluru emits some trace radiation is ridiculous! While coal is polluting (as, equally, are cars), theirs is a slow, slow exposure and one that is entirely avoidable if we were to encourage the uptake of alternative fuels. Nuclear is epic in its destruction when it goes wrong, try telling the survivors of Hiroshima and Chernobyl that they should "suck it up - I know this seems bad but this only happens once in a while" and there is always the issue of where to put the waste when you're done with it. At least the waste from coal powered stations only ends up in the atmosphere where it [does or doesn't] cause a bit of warming.  
Opinions such as those posted on this thread really set me going!! Its such a ridiculous stance to take to say that there's plenty of environment out there and what could we possibly do to it? what can us little ants really do when we dig huge hoIes in the ground to burn, in just a few centuries, huge quanities of material that has taken billions of years to form or dig up material which over millenia has been safely tucked away in the middle of deserts away from people (the few that were there to begin with probably died and we are unwilling to listen to the locals who through their ancient stories and lengends tell us to keep away). We are such an arrogant bunch! I dearly, dearly hope (I would pray if I was religious) that we are not forced into a situation in a decade or two where, through our inaction/lack of moral turpitude to switch from fossil fuels to renewables, we are forced to take up nuclear because of its relatively quick set-up for a given capacity but we are just building a whole lot of 50 year timebombs - its a shame that just as the UK are in the process of decommissioning the last of a number of disastrous old plants that they have now thrown down the gauntlet to allow private operators to build at least 10 more (fast forward 2030, "boss, I've got a great idea for how we can improve productivity 20% so that I can hit my bonus this year, you know that maintenance crew......"). My aunt worked at Berkeley Nuclear Power Plant for most of her adult life and has had breast cancer twice, my cousin (her daughter) has also been diagnosed and my uncle (her husband) has had prostate cancer. There is no other history of cancer in my family anywhere. Nuclear is dangerous. Full stop. 
I know that in your minds I haven't posted sufficient irrefutable evidence to convince you of the damage we are wreaking but seriously, if you don't think that digging jurassic stuff out of the ground and burning it in epic quantities is going to release world changing quantities of heat that we should be mindful of, then you probably stayed up on Christmas eve trying to see Santa and are looking foward to finding the eggs that the Easter Bunny will be leaving you. This is basic physics. You don't have to believe this. Its a physical fact. However, in your defence, this thread was supposed to be about MAN MADE climate change and really, I'm not sure if anyone can be absolutely sure about that one. My personal belief though is sort out the first one (less digging stuff out of the ground) and the second one should sort itself out.  
Now I really, really have to stop replying to your ridiculous comments. I'm supposed to be relaxing on holiday!  
p.s. I don't disagree that the commies might be dirty though....Stalin and Mao didn't exactly set a good example.

----------


## mattwilliams78

CORRECTION TO ABOVE 
Sorry Allen, whilst the first para was a direct response to "your" statement that capitalists are clean, any subsequent "your" was more a general statement about all contributors on here that argue against climate change legislation and not a slight on you personally. Although of course you do fit in that group as a general "your"  :Biggrin:  
Sorry for any confusion or misintended offence,  
Matt  :Blush7:

----------


## Allen James

.   

> If radioactivity is unclean, then all plants are unclean, since they all contain potassium-40, which is radioactive. I havent heard greenies say that before, but since you, andy the pm, Matt and others here are so concerned with radioactive waste, try digesting this: .

    

> A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage. It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island accident. . .Very unclean coal mining and burning has also caused the deaths of tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of people around the world through emphysema, cancer and other diseases, so any nitpicking you can drag up about nuclear accidents is just that. And who insisted we stay with lethal, filthy coal power for the last half century? Greenies. England had their first NPS in 1957.

     

> How anyone can think that nuclear power is clean or safe is beyond me

  Heh heh  way to go bro; ignore the evidence when its provided on a silver tray.  :Rolleyes:  .   

> The mistakes developed countries made include

  
[Snip] nit-picking laundry list of problems which dont nearly compare to the enormous list of accidents that occurred in coal mines around the world.  These include scores of cave-ins, machinery accidents, explosions, etc., taking legions of lives over and above any occurring in the nuclear industry, and the tens of millions of others lost through emphysema etc. . Any tradesman can tell you that accidents will occur in any industry, but the safety record of nuclear power stations is excellent.  The liberal press would place a story about 300 Mexicans killed in a coal mine cave-in on page 35 of the Sun, while a story about one guy dying in a nuclear power plant would receive page one coverage for months and years.  The blatant bias against nuclear power stations was staggering, and continues to this day. .   

> Clean and safe eh??

  Greenies get everything back to front.  For more than half a century they forced us to suffer millions of deaths through coal mining and coal power, insisting we do without the much cleaner, safer nuclear power.  They tell us solar, not nuclear when they are the same thing, and they whine, Ban the Dams when millions of new trees need dams to survive.  Now they tell us more CO2 is a calamity, when in fact it helps plants and animal life thrive.  If they say humans cause global warming, you may rest assured they dont.  If they say our weather will get warmer, it is more likely to get cooler.  Why trust people with such a long record of being totally incorrect? .   

> And I ask yet again, what do you do with the waste??

  I havent time to educate you on clean and safe nuclear power, as it would take me years of tutoring.  You can learn much about this yourself thanks to the World Wide Web.  Here is a list of 248,000 pages on +"nuclear waste management" from Google.  Take a look this time, and learn a little about what youre trying to lecture us about.  I looked at the second link that comes up to find this page in just a few seconds.  It's a five minute lesson and it will triple your current knowledge.  Then you have all the other thousands of pages to view.  Why shun this subject when it is readily available?  Do you think you will suffer radiation burns?  :Biggrin:  . .

----------


## andy the pm

Thats the solution, dig it deep and hope it never comes back... 
And it won't in our lifetime, but it will come back...  _and the tens of millions of others lost through emphysema etc._  Got a link to that?? Are you talking developed nations, developing nations??? Just seems like hysteria to me...  _Heh heh  way to go bro; ignore the evidence when its provided on a silver tray._  You have produced nothing to show that nuclear power is safe or clean.  And where have I said that coal fired power stations are the solution??   Headpin, I'm working through the material.... :Blush7:

----------


## intertd6

I'm all for nuclear power, fusion that is, if you like the other type, fission take some waste & spread it on your veggies & see how long you & your decendants live for.
regards inter

----------


## Allen James

.  

> Clean capitalists" ROFL haha

  
The more capitalistic a country is, the cleaner its cities and suburbs are.  The more communistic it is, the dirtier its cities and suburbs are. Compare Chinas cities and suburbs to the United States cities and suburbs. .   

> its exactly because the environment has no monetary value that it doesn't even figure within capitalism's structure

  
Capitalism cannot exist without the environment, so that statement makes no sense whatsoever. .   

> However labour, which is an easily measured commodity, can be driven down by those capitalists by employing 8 year olds to stitch $150 trainers on dangerous equipment for 14 hours a day for US$1.

  
Again, child labour of this kind (which has nothing to do with the subject of this thread) occurs more frequently the more communist a country is.  Compare child labour in China with child labour in the United States.  An American company will pay a Chinese company to make shoes, but it will not dictate how it does this, since that would be interfering in Chinese politics, and businesses do not make it a practice to interfere in overseas politics  they leave that to the politicians.  If you want American companies to be banned from ordering shoes from Chinese companies, complain to your hero Obama or Rudd, not to Nike. .   

> Don't even try to suggest that capitalism is clean

  
I dont need to suggest.  Its a simple, easily seen fact.  Take a look around some time. .   

> the only environmental protection we enjoy at all in the first-world superpowers is because of organisations like the EPA that make it ILLEGAL to pollute

  
I didnt say HOW it was achieved, just that it was.  However, since you bring it up, my own opinion is that humans (especially those in capitalist democracies) have an innate desire to live in an ever cleaner environment.  Technology is mostly responsible for this, not a bunch of bureaucrats.  The bureaucrats always tag along behind technology and take all the credit, paying themselves handsomely with taxpayers money in the process.  As rrobor would have said, They peer into their wee red rule books and tick their boxes, and pretend they are in charge. .   

> I'm still pretty offended by all your commie jibes

  
What jibes did I make at you about you being a communist?  You may point to the quote using the quote function if you like. .   

> the suggestion that solar is just nuclear power and therefore we should be fine to be handling radioactive material because Uluru emits some trace radiation is ridiculous!

  
I agree  who made that claim?  Again, please point to the quote.  As for my view, we _are_ fine handling radioactive material, but it has nothing to do with Uluru (or _Oolaroo_ in the story).  I actually pointed out that when people say radioactive material is _unclean_, they are in fact saying that all cleaned and prepared edible plants are unclean, since all living things contain radioactive elements.  Theyre also saying Uluru is unclean, sunshine is unclean, etc.  Greenies dont say that about plants, Uluru or sunshine, hence their use of unclean is a contradiction. .   

> While coal is polluting (as, equally, are cars), theirs is a slow, slow exposure

  
From above:  A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage.  This occurs at the same time rate.  Greenies like to complain about the radioactivity of nuclear power plants, but ignore this simple fact.  If you are talking about the _other_ aspect of coal power plants, then you have to consider all the following: . A) The manufacturing of large mining machines, and the fuel and exhaust they use and create.
B) The mining of coal, and the coal dust and other air born materials this creates, and how this is carried in the air.
C) The lungs of the millions of miners around the world this enters, and the disease, suffering, death and economic costs it causes (not just at the end of the victims lives, but all through it).
D) The geographic area this same dust and debris lands on around the mines, and the damage to plants, livestock and humans it causes, leading to more disease, suffering, death and economic costs.
E) The construction of railway lines and trains to transport the mined coal, and the trucks that also transport it.
F) The fuel needed to transport the coal via trains and trucks, and the pollution this causes.
G) The use of coal in the coal power plants, and the dust this causes, and the damage once again to the workers lungs, and to surrounding human populations, livestock and vegetation, etc.
H) The great number of deaths and injuries resulting from coal mine cave ins and other machine deaths during both the mining, transport and burning of coal, and all the accidents in the other related industries (see above) over the last fifty years, around the world. . Now compare all that with the tiny amount of material used to fuel a nuclear power plant each year, the tiny amount of waste material it produces, and the microscopic transport this entails.  Adding all this together it is like comparing a mouse with a herd of elephants. .   

> I dearly, dearly hope  that we are not forced  to take up nuclear because  we are just building a whole lot of 50 year timebombs

  
Sorry Matt, but Im afraid thats just an old wives tale.  See the links I provided above, and read up on the industry. .   

> My aunt worked at Berkeley Nuclear Power Plant for most of her adult life and has had breast cancer twice

  
My sympathies to your Aunt.  With respect though, and without malice, a lady who worked in Myers (whose family had no history of shingles), developed shingles.  Does this mean Myers caused her shingles?  This is just a straightforward question that anyone interested in cause and effect, and evidence, would ask. .   

> Nuclear is dangerous.

  
Coal power is far more dangerous, as proven above. .   

> Now I really, really have to stop replying to your ridiculous comments. I'm supposed to be relaxing on holiday!

  
Happy holidays Matt!  :2thumbsup:  .   

> p.s. I don't disagree that the commies might be dirty though....Stalin and Mao didn't exactly set a good example.

  
Well at least we can agree on something.  :Smilie:  .
.

----------


## Allen James

.
.   

> Thats the solution, dig it deep and hope it never comes back... And it won't in our lifetime, but it will come back...

   _[/spooky music] Ooh, the naughty nuclear waste is somehow going to rise up and get us, out of the very stable, deep, monitored bedrock, and it will attack us one night in thousands of years, when we have much better technology than today, and somehow the evil substance will beat us and we will be left a black and ruined, dead planet, like all those created by Greenies in Hollyweird. [spooky music]_
Yuh, right.  :Rolleyes:  .   

> and the tens of millions of others lost through emphysema etc. Got a link to that?? Are you talking developed nations, developing nations??? Just seems like hysteria to me...

  
There are plenty of links online about all the miners who died or were injured or disabled from mining accidents, cave-ins and emphysema, black lung, etc., but its only when you add all data together that you end up with many millions.  See the list I provided Matt above, and then add all the deaths and injuries from people who used sooty coal burning stoves and fireplaces in small smoky confines (because they had no cheap nuclear generated electricity available), and add these to the other industries in transport of coal and coal power, and then do this for all countries on earth going back a century, to see how the figures go into the many millions.  You also have the problem of many communist, fascist or socialistic nations hiding true death counts in order to improve their image, or simply because records werent kept, and there is the problem of mining companies also hiding figures to avoid litigation or penalties.  Most places online only deal with one area or another, but it is clear that many millions have died or were injured over the last century as a result of the mining, transport and use of coal.  Lets not even mention the many tens of thousands who died slow, grisly, tortured deaths, trapped in mine shafts or under heavy machinery.  Many of the workers used to mine coal in developing nations (and even in some developed nations) were considered cheap slaves, not fit to be even recorded on a list of deaths.  Their bodies were simply left where they were buried (or where they died), and the work continued.  With such conditions as these, its not easy to have accurate figures available, but if you read enough about the industrys history it soon becomes apparent just how deadly mans use of coal has been, and is. . It's getting late but I did a quick search.  Here is one site I found in about twenty seconds: . _How many nuclear energy deaths have there been this year ? Zero.
How about coal mining deaths in the last year ? 5000 to 10,000 worldwide.
How about nuclear energy deaths in the last ten years ? Zero.
How about coal mining deaths in the last ten year ? about 80,000 worldwide.
Many of those who die in coal mines do not die painlessly or instantly.
Many were likely trapped and suffered for days in failed efforts but were too deep to free themselves or for help to reach them in time. Plus there are the air pollution deaths of about 1 million each year. Many of those suffered from painful diseases before succumbing.
A lot of deaths and injuries for coal power versus almost none for nuclear power. IT also translates into a lot of human suffering._ . From the same page: . _Coal mining has a lot more risks for fires and explosions.  Coal mining is for 6 billion tons of coal, uranium mining is for 60,000 tons of uranium each year. 100,000 times less target material. Even the amount of rock removed by uranium mining is less._ .   

> You have produced nothing to show that nuclear power is safe or clean.

  
I showed it is both safe and clean, unless you think sunshine is unclean or that a very safe industry is unsafe.  Some people believe flying is very unsafe. Some think using microwaves is unsafe.  Some thought electricity was evil, and that horseless carriages were the work of the devil.  History proved them wrong. .   

> And where have I said that coal fired power stations are the solution??

  
If you attack nuclear power then you doing the defenders of coal power a great favour, since the former would replace the latter.  Attacking clean, safe nuclear power helps filthy and dangerous coal power to remain. .   

> I'm all for nuclear power, fusion that is, if you like the other type, fission take some waste & spread it on your veggies & see how long you & your decendants live for.

   .
This is another red herring greenies like to trot out.  Their bumper sticker reads, Solar not Nuclear.  Sunshine is radiation created by nuclear energy, thus their bumper sticker is a contradiction.  Being pedantic about fusion or fission doesnt change this.  As for radioactive materials, we only want it in certain doses.  Eating a radioactive plant is okay, providing the dose is normal, but eating a much more radioactive substance would be deadly and thus silly. . Allen James:  A normal amount of sunshine is safe.
intertd6:  Yeah right.  Try standing in the Gobi Desert for three days in the raw, heh heh.
Allen James:  That wouldnt be a normal amount. . Similarly, the waste from a normal nuclear power station is sealed safely in concrete, in stable rock, thousands of feet below the earth, in a monitored location, not smeared on my vegies. . . .

----------


## intertd6

Allen James, so your speaking on my behalf now, well you can stop that right now as I have not given you permission to do so, Nuclear fission energy is the ultimate short term gain for long term loss. A bit like nuclear weapons, Der!
regards inter

----------


## Allen James

.   

> Nuclear fission energy is the ultimate short term gain for long term loss.

  
To get to email we went from smoke signals to carrier pigeons, horse couriers, mail (post offices), telegraph, phones, faxes and finally email (partial list only). To get to nuclear fusion power we start with levers, donkeys, water wheels, steam, coal, electricity, nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion (partial list only).  The problem is that Greenies are still stuck on coal, which had its curtain call more than 50 years ago.  They are retarding our development and keeping Australia well below where it is supposed to be on the world stage. . . James: These new fangled carrier pigeons are great, eh?  Very fast way to send a message.
Greenie:  What was wrong with smoke signals?
James:  They reckon we might have post offices one day, delivering letters.
Greenie:  So what.  Telegraphs would be much better.
James:  Youd support telegraphs?
Greenie:  Course not.  Im just saying theyd be better than snail mail.
James:  Obviously, but technology goes through stages of development.
Greenie:  Not if we greenies can help it. We want everyone to stick with smoke signals.
James:  How do you make the smoke?
Greenie:  Throw leaves on a fire.
James:  Leaves from what plant?
Greenie:  What is this, Twenty Questions?
James:  Oh I get it.
Greenie:  Smoke signalling is good. 
James:  For you stone heads maybe, but how about the rest of us?
Greenie:  Relax man.  Go with the flow.
James:  No thanks.  Im heading all the way to email, and then some.
Greenie:  Bummer, dude. . . .

----------


## Allen James

.  *Nine stories MSM missed* . . http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/politics/2009/12/31/big-stories-mainstream-medi a-missed?slide=9  . 
No wonder the left wants Fox News out of the picture!  . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

Evidence? What evidence. No one here has supplied one scrap of evidence that proves AGW. 
From JO NOVA:  *Scientific evidence for the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the main cause of global warming needs to be:*  *Empirical* - That which we can see, hear, record, or write down. A measurement of some sort. An observation of the natural world.*Related to CAUSE and EFFECT.* That means evidence that shows that our extra carbon caused most of the recent warming. Not just evidence that the world has got warmer (which could be due to some other reason).*Evidence that shows carbon has a major role,* that doubling the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause, say, 2 – 10 degrees of warming. If doubling carbon only causes 0.5 degrees of warming, who cares?It doesn’t matter how many associations, unions, or Nobel-Prize-winning Saints believe in a theory. If they claim there is evidence, _by thousands of scientists in peer reviewed papers_, then it should easy for them to provide it. The problem is, all those thousands of papers are either _not_ empirical, _not_ related to the cause of the warming, or _do not_ show carbon has a major role.
When we talk about the “Major Role”, we’re talking about Feedbacks. Nobody who is anybody believes doubling carbon on it’s own will warm us by much more than one degree C. The Pachuri-Gore-Hansen Team ($$) believe this warming will then cause _changes in other factors_ (like humidity) which will then _cause much more warming_.
The history of humanity is full of people who were absolutely dead-set sure, and completely wrong. Climate models are not evidence: they are imperfect “simulations” of the climate, not the climate itself. Our global atmosphere is a messy algorithm, with oceans, clouds, rain, water vapor, solar wind, magnetic fields, forests, ice-cover, glaciers, volcanoes, heat from below, and moving dust clouds of soot. It’s just not possible to simulate the real atmosphere without making assumptions, estimates or decisions on which parts to simplify or omit. Since all those things rely on the opinions of the modelers, no matter how well intentioned or educated they are, a model is a glorified opinion.
When people claim they have lots of evidence, notice closely whether they can _back that up_

----------


## woodbe

Rod, 
The last time I offered to work through the science with you (so we could both learn) you ducked out claiming that it was "all opinion" 
We are not scientists (although there are scientists reading the forum) so we really don't understand the science enough to debate it other than quote the latest pro and anti propaganda from polarised web sources. People can do that without our help. 
Now you are suggesting we should accept opinions such as this:   

> If doubling carbon only causes 0.5 degrees of warming, who cares?

  _(that sounds like implicit acceptance of AGW, BTW)_ 
Whatever JO NOVA is, I don't think that it is capable of redefining the scientific process to be anything better than it already is.  
Debating opinions has gotten old, so there is not a lot to add, especially as we have now arrived at the point where almost the entire anti case rides on a claim of massive worldwide scientific fraud and data tampering by thousands of scientists.  
Bear in mind what that means: The anti side is now accepting that the data analysis shows AGW, but claims the underlying data has been tampered with. 
I'll wait for the outcome of the review thanks. :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Colsy

I thought I would browse for data on GW the other day and found some pretty interesting stuff at the BOM site. 
Have a play around with this, you can select different data from ma drop down box at the top of the page. This particular one is the amount of very hot days in a year. Australian Climate Extremes - Time series

----------


## Rod Dyson

*News story:*  *WHAT A JOKE*   *TWELVE million low-energy light bulbs were posted to UK households over the holiday season by an energy company as part of its legal obligation to cut carbon emissions, despite government advice that many would never be used.*  _Npower sent out the packages last month to escape a ban on issuing unsolicited bulbs which came into force January 1._ _The German-owned company saved millions of pounds by giving away the bulbs._ _Alternative ways of meeting its obligation, such as insulating homes, are much more effective but up to seven times more expensive._ _It faced a fine of more than £40m (A$72.25m), or 10 per cent of its turnover, if it failed to meet its target for improving efficiency in homes under the carbon emissions reduction target scheme._ _Households have received more than 180 million free or subsidised low-energy bulbs in the past 18 months._ _A survey in July by the Energy Saving Trust found that the average home had six unused ones lying in drawers._  _In 2008 the government ordered the big energy companies to invest in measures for improving energy efficiency and cutting fuel poverty._ _Companies can choose how to meet their obligations. Each measure they fund is given a score for the lifetime carbon savings it achieves._ _Companies were allowed to register immediate carbon savings from every bulb issued on the assumption that all recipients instantly installed them in some of their most intensively used light sockets._ _In reality, many people either stored the bulbs or threw them away, often because they were the wrong fitting or wattage._

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I thought I would browse for data on GW the other day and found some pretty interesting stuff at the BOM site. 
> Have a play around with this, you can select different data from ma drop down box at the top of the page. This particular one is the amount of very hot days in a year. Australian Climate Extremes - Time series

  WOW unreal!!! 
I wonder why they only show from 1960  :Blush7:  
This is  a bit like the forecasts from the UK MET office.
Each year they forecast mild winters or sizzling summers that have not happened they are becomming the laughing stock of forecasting.  Is BOM tainted by AGW?? I wonder. Warnings of more snow for Britain as predictions of mild winter fall flat - Telegraph

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I didn't get, Rod? where's the punchline? 
> I'm gunna nominate you for the "funny post" of the week award..............at least your tryin...........Mr Watson is struggling to find enough funny posts for his award.

  
No, I doubt you would get it headpin  :Biggrin:  
Not to worry others certainly will.  True colours come shining through!

----------


## Rod Dyson

is this the way science is done?  *Scientists being subjected to pressure* Also while we are on the subject of oppressive actions - here is a letter from Dr Miklos Zagoni who has lost his job with the Hungarian Government because of his view that CO2 is not causing undue Global warming. =========== *Why Dr Ferenc Miskolczi and Dr Miklos Zagoni have been put under pressure to be silent about Miskolczi`s research concerning the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect.*  In 2004 Dr Ferenc Miskolczi published a paper ’The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation’, in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service (Vol. 108, No. 4, October–December 2004, pp. 209–251.). The co-author of the article was his boss at NASA (Martin Mlynczak). Mlynczak put his name to the paper but did no work on it. He thought that it was an important paper, but only in a technical way.  
When Miskolczi later informed the group at NASA there that he had more important results, they finally understood the whole story, and tried to withhold Miskolczi’s further material from publication. His boss for example, sat at Ferenc’s computer, logged in with Ferenc`s password, and canceled a recently submitted paper from a high-reputation journal as if Ferenc had withdrawn it himself. That was the reason that Ferenc finally resigned from his ($US 90.000 /year) job. 
I want to make it clear: NASA never falsified or even tried to falsify Ferenc`s results, on the contrary, they fully understand it. They know that it is correct and see how important it is.  To make sense of their actions, they probably see a national security issue in it. Perhaps they think that AGW is the only way to stop, or to slow, the coal-based growth of China. 
In my circumstance where I have been dismissed from my Government paid position in Hungary, I think the information vacuum  (in Hungary), has the same type of origin. I believe someone is in the background trying to convince the establishment (media, science, politics) that Miskolczi's results are against our national security interests.  First, they tried to frighten me, and then when that did not work, they kicked me out from my job. So now I am turning to the wider internet to publicise Miskolczi`s work, as I know that his results are valid and true. There is no way and no need to hold them back for the world to understand them. Tomorrow, for the first time in my life, I am jobless. Budapest, 31 Dec, 2009 Dr Miklos Zagoni
(57)
physicist
Hungary http://miskolczi.webs.com

----------


## Rod Dyson

The weather is not climate I know, but the poms are freezing.  Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict - Telegraph

----------


## woodbe

> WOW unreal!!! 
> I wonder why they only show from 1960  
> This is  a bit like the forecasts from the UK MET office.

  Did you find the reds under the bed?  :Yikes2:  
Click on the left panel 'Timeseries Graphs' and you get a larger data set. 
I'm not seeing the connection between UK forecasts and Aussie historical data. This is not a forecast, and we all know that while forecasts are generally pretty good these days, they can still be spectacularly wrong. 
Do you think the Aussie BOM is tinkering with the data too? 
Have you asked them 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

No reds, no beds, no tinkering, no conspiracy, and certainly no need to get sidetracked on the BOM data set, as the SCIENTIFIC FRAUD is self evident.  If you have read all of the information "leaked" from the CRU and still think they have complied with all known scientific principles (ie, not behaved fraudulently), then we had better start a new thread, because I can explain this in detail if anyone needs it (or see Rod's previous cut and paste of some of the information).  If this information survives the legal process, it may also be deemed ILLEGAL.   
(Read more below, full link at end).  *THE Climategate scandal continues to unfold. The thousands of emails leaked to the internet from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal a tight-knit, influential group of scientists whose attitude to their profession is, to say the least, distorted.                 *   
It seems that a religious belief in disastrous climate change has destroyed their common sense and their appreciation of what is the appropriate way to carry out research. 
Climategate may at least demonstrate that the concept of a scientific consensus with regard to global warming is nonsense. There may indeed be thousands of scientists contributing to the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but on any particular aspect of the overall story all have to rely on the word of the few scientists who are directly involved. And when the particular aspect concerns experimental data on which the whole story rests, the data purporting to show the world is getting warmer, then the consensus argument is indeed on shaky ground. 
On the evidence so far, there is not much doubt that the group of scientists linked to the CRU has behaved fairly badly. Any individual email from the Climategate pile may be explained and excused as a stupid mistake of the time, but when all are taken together it seems obvious enough that there have been lots of violations of what might be called the scientific code. The most glaring examples concern efforts to keep basic sets of data out of the hands of people who may not be sympathetic to the official story about the disastrous nature of global warming. This, when the CRU is specifically paid to collate the data gathered by national meteorological services across the world, and to make the data available to outside scientists to check and to use. 
In any event, the CRU information is covered by environmental information regulations that specifically require public bodies in Britain to make their data progressively available to the public by electronic means that are easily accessible. 
So the ducking and weaving in the face of reasonable requests for CRU data by outside scientists and indeed in the face of Freedom of Information requests by those same outside scientists may not be just bad scientific form. It may be illegal. Which makes the lukewarm reaction to Climategate by the great and powerful of the scientific establishment even more difficult to swallow. The journal Nature, for instance, has this to say: "If there are benefits to the email theft, one [of those benefits] is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts." 
Let us ignore the fact that even a prestigious journal such as Nature is happy to label scientific scepticism as the work of "denialists", which is good evidence that the CRU disease has spread far and wide into the general science community. Prior to Climategate, there were probably fewer than a dozen FOI demands to CRU. There would have been no need even for those if the information had been made available when it was first requested. 
I said recently in my book The Climate Caper that most scientists simply cannot believe that their colleagues would deliberately oversell a scientific conclusion for the benefit of a political cause. Dishonesty of that nature would fly in the face of everything that the rather idealistic typical scientist has been taught about his profession. 
Perhaps Climategate will provide a medium for introducing typical scientists to the real world and perhaps as well it will re-introduce them to the idea that scepticism is the basis of the profession. 
Garth Paltridge is an atmospheric physicist and former chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research. His book The Climate Caper is published by Connor Court.   Boffins may be illegal | The Australian    But as I have said before, CLIMATEGATE is just the overt expression of a corrupting of the scientific process through the politicisation of this area of research.  There is no giant conspiracy, just many overlapping agenda's benefiting by perpetuating a myth, much like Christmas.  :Shock:   I have gone through a lot of the raw data available on climate, and am happy to say that since human measurement of temperature began, we can categorically answer the following questions: 
Does the global average temperature fluctuate? 
YES.  :2thumbsup:  
Have we measured both increases and decreases in temperature over various time frames? 
YES.  :2thumbsup:  
Have any of these fluctuations been outside of human habitation ranges? 
NO.  :No:  
Have we designed COMPUTER MODEL SIMULATIONS predicting unprecedented "catastrophic" changes? 
YES.  :2thumbsup:  
Do these models rely on ASSUMPTIONS? 
YES.  :2thumbsup:  
Have the models accurately predicted climate changes since their design? 
NO.  :No:  
Can we predict weather with any accuracy more than a few days out? 
NO.  :No:  
Can we predict weather cummulatively over 10 - 30 or even 100 years? 
Look at the last question and have a think about this one!  :Confused:

----------


## woodbe

> Does the global average temperature fluctuate? 
> YES.  
> Have we measured both increases and decreases in temperature over various time frames? 
> YES.  
> Have any of these fluctuations been outside of human habitation ranges? 
> NO.

  Hilarious!  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> hilarious!  
> Woodbe.

   why?

----------


## woodbe

> why?

  If we measured it, we were there. We are still here, therefore it must have been within human habitation ranges.   :Doh:  
woodbe.

----------


## andy the pm

I think the denialists bang on a bit much about climategate, a bit like any other 'gate' really.
Is the university of east anglia really the only place providing climate research data?? 
A quick google provides 28,300,000 pages related to climate research....get over it denialists

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I think the denialists bang on a bit much about climategate, a bit like any other 'gate' really.
> Is the university of east anglia really the only place providing climate research data?? 
> A quick google provides 28,300,000 pages related to climate research....get over it denialists

  The alarmists would just love to see it go away, and continue to trivulise it in hope that it will. 
I have got bad news for you Andy, it will not go away. It was wrong and it needs to be fully investigated. Whats more all the CRU data and methods need to be made public so it can be scrutinized, like the proper scientific method. 
ATM they are asking us to simply trust them that they have accurately reported the temperatures, that they base AGW on. You have to be kidding right? Trust that lot after all the efforts they made to keep their data from scrutiny and their efforts in suppressing any papers that disputed their theory. 
This will never be swept under the rug like monty python, "move along, nothing to see here". If it gets whitewashed by a kangaroo inquest that brushes over the facts, there will be howls from the roof tops creating more damage to the AGW theory than you can imagine. 
Lets face it AGW is just about dead. They will not be able to keep suppressing papers now and they will flood in over the next few years.  
The emperor has no clothes guys. 
You fail to recognize that all the other works on AGW stem from the crooked findings of these crooks. I think now is a good time for the 
alamists to get over it and let the proper scientific method decide if AGW theory stacks up.  Crikey if it is so un-deniably true you should be encouraging skeptics so you can cut them down with facts.  I cant see Al Gore debating anyone soon.  The skeptics are growing at a rapid rate while alarmists are dropping like flies, what does this tell you?  I am afraid its nearlly all over rover.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> If we measured it, we were there. We are still here, therefore it must have been within human habitation ranges.   
> woodbe.

  To be expected from a died in the wool Alamist  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  
And yes I am a died in the wool skeptic and very proud of the fact.   :Biggrin:

----------


## andy the pm

Thanks Rod, 
You have just proven my previous post. 
Andy

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Thanks Rod, 
> You have just proven my previous post. 
> Andy

  Not at all Andy the Alarmists are in complete denial :Biggrin:

----------


## andy the pm

> Not at all Andy the Alarmists are in complete denial

  To quote the denialists....prove it....  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> To be expected from a died in the wool Alamist

  What, Logic?  :Biggrin:  
Measurement not extrapolation dear Rod.  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> To quote the denialists....prove it....

  Some light reading for you Andy.  *AP Analysis Overlooks Scientific Implications of Climategate*   _By William DiPuccio_ 
The Associated Press has published an independent investigation into the scientific implications of the recent emails hacked from East Anglia University in England.  In, AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty, AP writers Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter, and Malcolm Ritter concluded that the messages dont support claims that the science of global warming was faked. 
The Scientific Consensus 
But the article misses two very important points and stumbles in its logic.  First, regarding the scientific consensus, the reporters conclude:  However, the [email] exchanges dont undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. 
The emails, as the article admits, reveal that skeptical scientists were stonewalled, blacklisted, and repeatedly denied access to data under the FOI.  If the views of these scientists had been welcomed as a check and balance on the work of others, if they had been made partners at the table, if they had been given full access to the same data, if their research was published, and if those who opposed their findings had been forced to respond to their conclusions in peer reviewed literature, then the consensus would probably look much different than it does now.  
At the very least, the pretense of utter certainty which proponents of the IPCC hypothesis maintain, would have been substantially diminished and they would have been forced to acknowledge that their position was not fully supported by the peer reviewed literature.  
It is circular reasoning to appeal to a consensus that was shaped by scientists conspiring to eliminate all opposition.  These scientists, though relatively few in number, wielded a disproportionate influence on the scientific community.  Moreover, from the private emails it is evident that they were less confident about their own conclusions than they appeared to be in public discourse.  
The Significance of Errors in Past Temperature Reconstructions 
Second, the writers of the AP study are totally oblivious to the implications of the attempt by Phil Jones and others to hide the decline in a graph that was later published in the 2001 IPCC report.  The decline refers to an unmistakable deviation in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring studies.  The cause of the deviation has never been resolved.  Tree ring proxies are used to reconstruct temperature data for the last 1000 years (instrumental data did not start until around 1850).  
Though actual temperatures were rising after 1960, the tree ring data in one major study, by Keith Briffa, indicated that temperatures were falling precipitously.  It is clear from the emails that this deviation in proxy temperatures (the divergence problem") was not disclosed to the public or policy makers because it would raise questions and uncertainties about the overall reliability of past climate reconstructions.  
Historical temperature reconstructions are a crucial plank in the IPCCs hypothesis which claims that our current warming trend is the result of CO2 emissions.  If it can be shown that todays warming is unprecedented, then it is more likely (though not certain) that CO2 emissions are interfering with nature and skewing temperatures upward. 
But over the last 1000 years, average temperature has varied by only one degree according to the reconstructions.  The case for todays extraordinary temperatures rides on only four or five tenths of a degree.  The large shaded area in the attached graph (from IPCC TAR), which delineates the margin of error, clearly shows the imprecise nature these reconstructions.  Briffas reconstruction (green line) was truncated at 1960 to hide the decline.    _2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (Figure 2.21) comparing different Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions from 1000 A.D. to 2000 A.D. The recent instrumental Northern Hemisphere temperature record to 1999 is shown for comparison.  Two standard error limits (shaded region) for the smoothed Mann et al. (1999) series are shown. The horizontal zero line denotes the 1961 to 1990 reference period mean temperature. Enlarged here._ 
Questions raised about the reliability of temperature reconstructions using tree ring data can effectively undermine the claim that our current warming is unprecedented.  For example if temperatures in the medieval period were actually closer to the upper portion of the shaded area, as most paleoclimate histories have shown, then there would be no cause for alarm.  
The AP investigation was misleading on this particular.  The authors tell us that the so-called hockey stick reconstruction (shown on the graph) which asserted the 1990s were the hottest years in a millennium, was upheld as valid by a National Academy of Sciences study.  
But, in fact, there were two studies.  The second, conducted by a team of statisticians led by Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, was highly critical of the hockey-stick reconstruction.     _A pre-publication draft version of the same graph showing the deviation in Briffas reconstruction after 1960 (yellow line).  Overall, Briffas reconstruction shows a significant departure from the other series. This was apparently adjusted in the final version.  Image courtesty of Steve McIntyre, climateaudit.org. Enlarged here._  
The AP article never mentioned this investigation.  Nor did it mention that in the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment, the hockey stick temperature profile was barely discernable.  Temperatures in the middle ages were noticeably elevated over those in the 2001 assessment, though still not as high as the current instrumental record.  
Contrary to the conclusions drawn by the AP investigation, there are serious scientific implications surrounding the Climategate emails.  Though defenders continue to beat the drums in favor of the scientific consensus, it is becoming clear not only that this consensus was partially manufactured through manipulation, but also that the science it represents does not rise to the level of certainty it has auspiciously claimed. 
Over the last couple of years, numerous studies have challenged various aspects of the IPCCs science, including the dominance of CO2.  Natural variability - ocean oscillations, solar cycles, etc. - plays a larger role in climate change than once thought.  A spate of recent research has shown that aerosol pollution (e.g., soot, sulfur, nitrogen, dust) and changes in land use changes (e.g., deforestation, agriculture, urbanization) have a greater impact on climate than CO2.  
Before we pull the trigger and spend billions of dollars on controlling carbon emissions, we need to consider the entire range of scientific research and reassess our policies in light of these findings.   _Bill DiPuccio was a weather forecaster for the U.S. Navy, and a Meteorological/Radiosonde Technician for the National Weather Service.  More recently, he served as head of the science department for Orthodox Christian Schools of Northeast Ohio.  He continues to write science curriculum, publish articles, and conduct science camps._

----------


## andy the pm

> Some light reading for you Andy.  *AP Analysis Overlooks Scientific Implications of Climategate*   _By William DiPuccio_ 
> The Associated Press has published an independent investigation into the scientific implications of the recent emails hacked from East Anglia University in England. In, AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty, AP writers Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter, and Malcolm Ritter concluded that the messages dont support claims that the science of global warming was faked. 
> The Scientific Consensus 
> But the article misses two very important points and stumbles in its logic. First, regarding the scientific consensus, the reporters conclude: However, the [email] exchanges dont undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. 
> The emails, as the article admits, reveal that skeptical scientists were stonewalled, blacklisted, and repeatedly denied access to data under the FOI. If the views of these scientists had been welcomed as a check and balance on the work of others, if they had been made partners at the table, if they had been given full access to the same data, if their research was published, and if those who opposed their findings had been forced to respond to their conclusions in peer reviewed literature, then the consensus would probably look much different than it does now. 
> At the very least, the pretense of utter certainty which proponents of the IPCC hypothesis maintain, would have been substantially diminished and they would have been forced to acknowledge that their position was not fully supported by the peer reviewed literature. 
> It is circular reasoning to appeal to a consensus that was shaped by scientists conspiring to eliminate all opposition. These scientists, though relatively few in number, wielded a disproportionate influence on the scientific community. Moreover, from the private emails it is evident that they were less confident about their own conclusions than they appeared to be in public discourse. 
> The Significance of Errors in Past Temperature Reconstructions 
> Second, the writers of the AP study are totally oblivious to the implications of the attempt by Phil Jones and others to hide the decline in a graph that was later published in the 2001 IPCC report. The decline refers to an unmistakable deviation in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring studies. The cause of the deviation has never been resolved. Tree ring proxies are used to reconstruct temperature data for the last 1000 years (instrumental data did not start until around 1850). 
> ...

  Rod,
You misunderstood my question, I simply asked you to prove that alarmists were in denial...
But thanks for posting an article by a us navy weather forcaster  :brava: its convinced me.... 
If you really are interested, have a read of this http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/m...Change2007.pdf
An independent examination of the 'hockey stick graph' , but I'm sure as a denialist you will find some reason to discredit the information... 
Andy

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod,
> You misunderstood my question, I simply asked you to prove that alarmists were in denial...
> But thanks for posting an article by a us navy weather forcaster its convinced me.... 
> If you really are interested, have a read of this http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/m...Change2007.pdf
> An independent examination of the 'hockey stick graph' , but I'm sure as a denialist you will find some reason to discredit the information... 
> Andy

   :Biggrin:  Standard tactic attack the man rather than the information.  :brava:  
Says it all really.

----------


## andy the pm

> Standard tactic attack the man rather than the information.  
> Says it all really.

   
Rod, 
Something you have done ever since you called me an alarmist!
And you still fail to answer the question, just keep moving the topic, standard denialist argument...this is my last post in this section, lifes just too short... 
Andy

----------


## Rod Dyson

> If you really are interested, have a read of this http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/m...Change2007.pdf
> An independent examination of the 'hockey stick graph' , but I'm sure as a denialist you will find some reason to discredit the information... 
> Andy

  Andy the hockey stick is dead D E A D.  No one is in disagreement with this now not even the IPCC.   
Are you one of these that believe that the MWP and LIA did not exist? Come on you can do better than that.

----------


## woodbe

> Andy the hockey stick is dead D E A D.  No one is in disagreement with this now not even the IPCC.

  So the IPCC agrees with you now Rod, or is there more to AGW than a single over-hyped graphic?   

> Are you one of these that believe that the MWP and LIA did not exist? Come on you can do better than that.

   :Arrow Down:    

> Standard tactic attack the man rather than the information.

   :Arrow Down:    

> Says it all really.

  I have nothing to add.  :Cool:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So the IPCC agrees with you now Rod, or is there more to AGW than a single over-hyped graphic? 
> I have nothing to add.  
> woodbe.

   Woodbe, atypically you fail to recognise that this "over hyped graph" was a main contributer to the AR3 report that concludes that the current warming is unprecedented based on the evidence that this "over hyped graph" showed. 
The above paper alluded to by Andy was written in 2005 published on the internet in 2006 and in (cant remember) 2007.  This is OLD STUFF that has been completely and comprehensivly DEBUNKED.  You will find no scientist out there now supporting this VERY IMPORTANT "over hyped" graph.  To bring this graph out of the closet as evidence of AGW is insulting to anyones intelligence. 
Again we see that an important part of the AGW "evidence" that has totally been debunked is being shrugged off as insignificant to the AGW theory.  Nothing could be further from the truth. 
Are you really trying to convince yourself or are you seriously trying to convince me? 
You see, you call a skeptic a denialist and yet you deny this.   We are not denialists we have nothing to deny, yet we have every right to be skeptical. 
I might ask who are the real denialists?

----------


## Rod Dyson

More reading for Andy. 
Nice to see this stuff getting into the MSM.  Just think how many skeptics this piece has produced LOL. I love it.  *Boffins (Scientific Researchers) May Be Illegal* 
By Garth Paltridge in The Australian 
THE Climategate scandal continues to unfold. The thousands of emails leaked to the internet from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal a tight-knit, influential group of scientists whose attitude to their profession is, to say the least, distorted. 
It seems that a religious belief in disastrous climate change has destroyed their common sense and their appreciation of what is the appropriate way to carry out research. 
Climategate may at least demonstrate that the concept of a scientific consensus with regard to global warming is nonsense. There may indeed be thousands of scientists contributing to the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but on any particular aspect of the overall story all have to rely on the word of the few scientists who are directly involved. And when the particular aspect concerns experimental data on which the whole story rests, the data purporting to show the world is getting warmer, then the consensus argument is indeed on shaky ground. 
On the evidence so far, there is not much doubt that the group of scientists linked to the CRU has behaved fairly badly. Any individual email from the Climategate pile may be explained and excused as a stupid mistake of the time, but when all are taken together it seems obvious enough that there have been lots of violations of what might be called the scientific code. The most glaring examples concern efforts to keep basic sets of data out of the hands of people who may not be sympathetic to the official story about the disastrous nature of global warming. This, when the CRU is specifically paid to collate the data gathered by national meteorological services across the world, and to make the data available to outside scientists to check and to use. 
In any event, the CRU information is covered by environmental information regulations that specifically require public bodies in Britain to make their data progressively available to the public by electronic means that are easily accessible. 
So the ducking and weaving in the face of reasonable requests for CRU data by outside scientists and indeed in the face of Freedom of Information requests by those same outside scientists may not be just bad scientific form. It may be illegal. Which makes the lukewarm reaction to Climategate by the great and powerful of the scientific establishment even more difficult to swallow. The journal Nature, for instance, has this to say: “If there are benefits to the email theft, one [of those benefits] is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts.” 
Let us ignore the fact that even a prestigious journal such as Nature is happy to label scientific scepticism as the work of “denialists”, which is good evidence that the CRU disease has spread far and wide into the general science community. Prior to Climategate, there were probably fewer than a dozen FOI demands to CRU. There would have been no need even for those if the information had been made available when it was first requested. 
I said recently in my book The Climate Caper that most scientists simply cannot believe that their colleagues would deliberately oversell a scientific conclusion for the benefit of a political cause. Dishonesty of that nature would fly in the face of everything that the rather idealistic typical scientist has been taught about his profession. 
Perhaps Climategate will provide a medium for introducing typical scientists to the real world and perhaps as well it will re-introduce them to the idea that scepticism is the basis of the profession. See post here. 
Garth Paltridge is an atmospheric physicist and former chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research. His book The Climate Caper is published by Connor Court.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe, atypically you fail to recognise that this "over hyped graph" was a main contributer to the AR3 report that concludes that the current warming is unprecedented based on the evidence that this "over hyped graph" showed.

  I didn't say (and you didn't ask) who I thought was doing the over-hyping, but I'll let that slide.   

> The above paper alluded to by Andy was written in 2005 published on the internet in 2006 and in (cant remember) 2007.  This is OLD STUFF that has been completely and comprehensivly DEBUNKED.  You will find no scientist out there now supporting this VERY IMPORTANT "over hyped" graph.  To bring this graph out of the closet as evidence of AGW is insulting to anyones intelligence. 
> Again we see that an important part of the AGW "evidence" that has totally been debunked is being shrugged off as insignificant to the AGW theory.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

  Another unanswered question: So the IPCC agrees with you now Rod, or is there more to AGW than a single over-hyped graphic?   

> Are you really trying to convince yourself or are you seriously trying to convince me? 
> You see, you call a skeptic a denialist and yet you deny this.   We are not denialists we have nothing to deny, yet we have every right to be skeptical.

  Actually, you get so offended by being called a denialist that I stopped using the term quite a while ago. Sorry you didn't notice... For your health really. You get so steamed up about it, but now you are calling anyone who disagrees with you an 'Alarmist'. Pot Kettle Black. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> *Boffins (Scientific Researchers) May Be Illegal* 
> By Garth Paltridge in The Australian 
> [..]
> I said recently in my book The Climate Caper that most scientists simply cannot believe that their colleagues would deliberately oversell a scientific conclusion for the benefit of a political cause. Dishonesty of that nature would fly in the face of everything that the rather idealistic typical scientist has been taught about his profession.

  Also in his book:  Quote from Sourcewatch:  

> In the last chapter, Paltridge trots out a lot of the traditional global warming conspiracy theories, claiming that the "warmists" have hidden agendas. Warmists either like the idea of carbon cap-and-trade because it would be "the first step towards global government", or they are socialists who want to "force a redistribution of wealth both within and between nations", or they are "powerbrokers" who see emissions trading as a path to the sort of power that used to be wielded the major religions, or they are politically correct and driven by "a need for public expression of their own virtue".[31]

  
Quite ironic coming from someone who speaks at conferences funded by the energy and mining industries. :Smilie:   woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I didn't say (and you didn't ask) who I thought was doing the over-hyping, but I'll let that slide.

   Irrelevant  

> Another unanswered question: So the IPCC agrees with you now Rod, or is there more to AGW than a single over-hyped graphic?

    This is a ridiculous statement that makes no sense. Again you fail to address the importance of this graph in the AR3 report.  

> Actually, you get so offended by being called a denialist that I stopped using the term quite a while ago. Sorry you didn't notice... For your health really. You get so steamed up about it, but now you are calling anyone who disagrees with you an 'Alarmist'. Pot Kettle Black.

  You can keep calling me a denialist all you like I will keep refering to myself as a skeptic.  I have no problem with that and I am certainly far from being steamed up about it. Alarmists is a befitting term to anyone who creates a scenario to alarm others without providing sufficient evidence to support their claims, a bit like chicken little.  My use of Alarmists is more a generic term term I am applying supporters of the alarming scenarios presented by those that wish to push the AGW hype.  Don't take it personally as I don't being called a denialist. Whilst I will always refer to myself as a skeptic. :Wink 1:  
Keep smiling.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Also in his book:  Quote from Sourcewatch:  Quite ironic coming from someone who speaks at conferences funded by the energy and mining industries.  woodbe.

  
MY OH MY. Why cant we just for once dispute what the article says, and give a good credible reason why the article is not true rather than wheeling out this credibility attack all the time. 
I really don't care if he says the moon is made of cheese and believes it. Is what he says here WRONG and WHY?  
Can you please address that just for once. 
PS :Roflmao2:  :Roflmao2: Scource watch.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So the IPCC agrees with you now Rod, or is there more to AGW than a single over-hyped graphic? 
> woodbe.

  Just for the record I know the IPCC is a lot more than one graphic. I know they have cherry picked the science that support their conclusion and actively left out any papers that does not. 
There are many documented accounts of this happening from reviewers that left the IPCC in disgust. (Google them I don't have time). 
What is more to the point the leaked emails prove conclusivly, (I know you will wait for the enquiry), that this is a fact. 
BTW where is Rrobor I miss him!!

----------


## woodbe

> MY OH MY. Why cant we just for once dispute what the article says, and give a good credible reason why the article is not true rather than wheeling out this credibility attack all the time. 
> I really don't care if he says the moon is made of cheese and believes it. Is what he says here WRONG and WHY?  
> Can you please address that just for once. 
> PSScource watch.

  So let me get this straight. We should accept everyone at face value and it is very naughty of us to have a peek and see if there is any reason why they might be saying one thing or another. I didn't think you were so into PC Rod, but there you go. 
I'll call out any of these people with energy and mining industry connections. This is not secret information after all. 
As for credibility attack, that is definitely the pot calling the kettle black. Talk about inquisition by internet! 
By the way, your Boffins article is a repost. Please pay attention.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Just for the record I know the IPCC is a lot more than one graphic.

  Why thank you.   

> BTW where is Rrobor I miss him!!

  He had a small altercation with a moderator, hasn't been seen since. 
Night. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here is a great essay that just about sums up the current mood on AGW.  Harmless Sky - Climate, the countryside and landscapes » Goodbye to 2009 
There is a bit in it for everyone to dwell on  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So let me get this straight. We should accept everyone at face value and it is very naughty of us to have a peek and see if there is any reason why they might be saying one thing or another. I didn't think you were so into PC Rod, but there you go. 
> I'll call out any of these people with energy and mining industry connections. This is not secret information after all. 
> As for credibility attack, that is definitely the pot calling the kettle black. Talk about inquisition by internet!

  Sigh  :Doh:    

> By the way, your Boffins article is a repost. Please pay attention.  
> woodbe.

  Ah yes I see dr freud posted it before I do apologise. It is a great read though.

----------


## Dr Freud

> If we measured it, we were there. We are still here, therefore it must have been within human habitation ranges.   
> woodbe.

  A breakthrough!  Yes we are still here, and have been here for 2 million years in close to our current physical iteration.  And based on our best guesses (also known as proxy data, but more on this in a minute), we could have survived for hundreds of millions of years prior to this (temperature wise that is, those Velociraptors looked mean on the big screen  :Eek: ).  Given we started as a few primates somehwere near latter day Africa, currently sit at about 6.5 billion, and are projected to reach 9 billion very soon, eradication is the least of our worries.    :Thewave:  
This is in spite of many doomsday scenario's by both religious zealots and scientist's alike, some even with noble intentions:   end of the world failed theories - Google Search 
But back to the proxy data.  My own opinion on the validity of this stuff was satirically displayed in post #7 on page 1 (with more dinosaur references too).  But nonetheless, I was looking forward to debating the caution required in interpreting statistical output from data driven factor analysis techniques when using proxy data.  But Rod, you frustrated poor Andy before I could help him understand why his posted article required caution in its interpretation.  But after my last attempt at data analysis discussions, this is probably for the best.  

> Ah yes I see dr freud posted it before I do apologise. It is a great read though.

  Yes, well worth a second look Rod.   :2thumbsup:   
And speaking of looks, what do you call a blind dinosaur? 
Idontthinkhesaurus.   :Doh:  
I like dinosaurs because they lived on a flat planet.   :Confused:

----------


## woodbe

> A breakthrough!  Yes we are still here, and have been here for 2 million years in close to our current physical iteration.

  Not so fast doc. Measuring entails both being there, and taking the measurement. We have records for a few hundred years. There were no thermometers 2 million years ago. 
This is all separate from proxy data. That's not measurement. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

My bad Woodbe, it was late and I was rambling again.  :Club:  
I was perhaps not clear in trying to explain that humans have been roaming the planet for millions of years, and are happy living in both freezing and desert conditions, as demonstrated by our promulgation across the planet (we are a pesky species, just ask Skynet  :Biggrin: ).  If I had to choose between cockroaches and humans to survive the longest, my money is on the humans.  I was not intending to mean that we have been measuring temperature for all of this time. 
My views on temperature measurement were briefly summarised in post #7 on page 1 as follows:   

> Best scientific estimates indicate the planet (Earth) is about 4.5 billion years old (p.s. there was no moon or water then, these arrived a few billion years later). 
> I know it hurts, but please keep reading. Us humans arrived about 2 million years ago. Then after lots of banging rocks together, we invented something called a thermometer about 150 years ago. We now have about 100 years of very inaccurate surface temperature data, and a few decades of fairly accurate satellite data (on a planet that's been here 4.5 billion years)  
> We have made very inaccurate guesses as far back as we can about the climate before we got here. We call this proxy data in the scientific community (rhymes with poxy)
> Here it is: 
> Geological Era---------Million Years Ago----------Carbon Dioxide ppm-----------Av Global Temperature 0C 
>            Cambrian------------550-------------------------------------6,000----------------------23
> Ordovician-----------470-------------------------------------4,200----------------------23  12
> Silurian---------------430--------------------------------------3,500---------------------17 - 23
> Devonian-------------380--------------------------------------2,100---------------------23  20
> ...

   
I use the proxy data above in the understanding there are literally hundreds of other proxy data sets that contest these numbers.  This is the joys of the frontier of science, we all get to argue about things we don't understand.  The only thing that really peeves me is when a politician says "The science is settled on climate change".  :Mad:  :Mad:  :Mad:    :Ranting2:  
The science is not settled on anything my friend.  :2thumbsup:  
That is why one of my favourite quotes is "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history".  Science has constantly been evolving and always will.  The periodic table has been "settled" many times in the past, but those inconvenient elements kept popping up and really annoying some scientists.  Yet, we still teach children today that the periodic table is now settled.  Hence my comments about the dinosaurs living on a flat planet.  We now say that prior to Galileo and Copernicus, that people "thought" they lived on a flat earth.  They didn't "think" they lived on a flat earth, they "knew" they lived on a flat earth, just as we "know" we live on a round one.   
If facts so fundamental as this can change in concepts so widely accepted by the scientific community, how can the science be settled in a field where all serious members readily admit we don't have all the answers, hence we create the models.  I am happy for all this scientific debate to rage, as it does in all areas of science, but I don't want to pay taxes for it.   :No:  
That's why I like dinosaurs, they add perspective when people start arguing about what happened to inaccurate temperature measurements between 1920 and 1990.   :Wink 1:

----------


## woodbe

You know what I think? 
I think you read into the words 'the science is settled' far more than necessary.  
Settled doesn't mean still or frozen, it means that the chaos has subsided. 
To me, those words mean that as new research and papers arrive and get added to the mass that is already there, it's not changing the direction of what we already know. This is not to say that the science is locked down or immutable as you seem to infer, just that the current thinking isn't changing much. 
But of course, as soon as a politician uses any words, we're probably in trouble. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

I unfortunately read into the words "the science is settled" exactly what is described in them by the politicians (of all parties) who send this phrase and their explanations of it to me (more about this below in Lowy speech).  These are the people who want me (and all of us) to pay more taxes for these words.  :No:    Perhaps the Prime Muppet (PM) didnt consider his lack of reply as rude as he considers me to be a globally powerful force hell bent on killing children and destroying the future of humanity!!!  :happy:    Here is the PM describing me (a skeptic) at his Lowy Institute speech on 9 November 2009 (dont laugh Rod, youre top of his list).   The truth is this is hard, because the climate change skeptics, the climate change deniers, the opponents of climate change action are active in every country.   They are a minority. They are powerful. And invariably they are driven by vested interests.   It is time to be totally blunt about the agenda of the climate change skeptics in all their colours - some more sophisticated than others. It is to destroy the CPRS at home, and it is to destroy agreed global action on climate change abroad, and our children's fate - and our grandchildren's fate - will lie entirely with them.   The legion of climate change skeptics are active across the world, and they happily play with our children's future.   Instead they offer *maximum fear*, the universal conservative stock in trade.   And by doing so, these do-nothing climate change skeptics are prepared to destroy our children's future.   And that is what they want, because they are driven by a narrowly defined self interest of the present and are utterly contemptuous towards our children's interest in the future.   This brigade of do-nothing climate change skeptics are dangerous because if they succeed, then it is all of us who will suffer.   Our children.   And our grandchildren.   They are betting our future, the future of our children and our grandchildren, and they are doing so based on their own personal intuitions, their personal prejudices and their deeply ingrained political prejudices.   You are betting our children's future and the future of our grandchildren.  Whew, better warn the in-laws not to bring the kids and grandkids around, I sound dangerous!   :Eek:    (Full rant linked below) Speech | Prime Minister of Australia   Now back on previous topic, from a while ago, but some may have missed this.   *Climate change science isn't settled*   Jan Veizer From: _The Australian_ April 24, 2009 12:00AM  *MANY people think the science of climate change is settled. It isn't. And the issue is not whether there has been an overall warming during the past century. There has, although it was not uniform and none was observed during the past decade. The geologic record provides us with abundant evidence for such perpetual natural climate variability, from icecaps reaching almost to the equator to none at all, even at the poles.*   The climate debate is, in reality, about a 1.6 watts per square metre or 0.5 per cent discrepancy in the poorly known planetary energy balance.   Let me explain. Without our atmosphere, the Earth would be a frozen ice ball. Natural greenhouse warming, due to atmospheric blanket, raises the temperature by about 33C. At least two-thirds of this warming is attributed to the greenhouse effect of water vapour.   Water vapour, not carbon dioxide, is by far the most important greenhouse gas. Yet the models treat the global water cycle as just being there, relegating it to a passive agent in the climate system. Energy that is required to drive the water cycle and generate more water vapour must therefore come from somewhere else: the sun, man-made greenhouse gases, other factors or any combination of the above.   Note, however, that because of the overwhelming importance of water vapour for the greenhouse effect, existing climate models are unlikely to yield a definitive answer about the role of carbon dioxide v the sun, for example, and the answer must be sought in past records.   The past climate record does indeed resemble the trend in solar output. However, because three decades of satellite data show only limited variability, the solar output would have to be somehow amplified to explain the entire magnitude of the centennial warming.     The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change argues that because no amplifier is known, and because the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide did increase from 280 parts per million to 370ppm, man-made greenhouse gases must be responsible for most of the energy imbalance.   But this is an assumption, an attribution by default, not an actual empirical or experimental proof that carbon dioxide is the driver. Yet such attribution is then taken as a fact in the subsequent complex model calibrations of climate sensitivity to CO2.  The science of climate change continues to evolve and regardless of the outcome of the climate debate, observational data suggests that we may be served well by basing our climate agenda, scientifically and economically, on a broader perspective than that in the IPCC outlined scenarios. Our pollution abatement and energy diversification goals could then be formulated, and likely implemented, with less pain.   _Jan Veizer is a distinguished university professor of geology (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and has researched the use of chemical and isotopic techniques in determining Earth's climatic history._ 
(Full story here)  _Climate change science isn't settled | The Australian_   _Gee, which of these two articles seems to be offering maximum fear. _    _To really get into the good stuff, here are some nice arguments about if we are even using the right methods to calculate average global temperature.  _    _http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf_ _RealClimate: Does a Global Temperature Exist?_  _At a deeper level, we can even argue about instrumentation calibration and placement, but all this for another day...isnt science wonderful when we dont link it to financial derivative markets and taxation systems. _

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I unfortunately read into the words "the science is settled" exactly what is described in them by the politicians (of all parties) who send this phrase and their explanations of it to me (more about this below in Lowy speech). These are the people who want me (and all of us) to pay more taxes for these words.     Perhaps the Prime Muppet (PM) didnt consider his lack of reply as rude as he considers me to be a globally powerful force hell bent on killing children and destroying the future of humanity!!!       Here is the PM describing me (a skeptic) at his Lowy Institute speech on 9 November 2009 (dont laugh Rod, youre top of his list).

  Nice post. 
I hope like hell I am on top of his list.  I want every one to know I did not fall for this c*%p for a minute. 
That speech was the lowest any PM of Australia has ever sunk.  What a load of hyperboyle.   I hope he will be hounded to his grave for his stupidity.  Oh wait, he will just blame it all on those pesky scientists that had nothing to gain by hyping up the AGW theory :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):   All scientists around the world agree you know!

----------


## Dr Freud

Assuming AGW Theory is correct  :Tongue: , this is our national destination!   *A PM cloaked in many disguises*   By Peter Van Onselen From: _The Sunday Telegraph_ January 03, 2010 12:00AM   *NEW year is a time to reflect on the recent past. When one reflects on the rhetoric Kevin Rudd has used since assuming the Labor leadership it tells a story of contradictions.  *      A PM cloaked in many disguises Rudd has described climate change as the biggest moral challenge our generation faces, his strong words worked up ahead of the last election when he was aiming to win the votes of people disillusioned with John Howard's unwillingness to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. 
  Rudd also liked to talk up his target of reducing greenhouse gases by 60 per cent from 2000 levels by 2050.
  But how does he think he is going to achieve that while simultaneously aiming for a "big Australia", as he puts it, which could see our population rise to 35 million by the same time?  *Reducing 2000 levels of emissions by 60 per cent when the population will be so much larger in 2050 will require per-capita cuts that simply are not achievable. *  (Full story here)   A PM cloaked in many disguises | The Daily Telegraph   Is the CPRS the best vehicle to get us there?   *Tax-and-bribe is CPRS folly*   Malcolm Colless From: _The Australian_ January 05, 2010 12:00AM  *THE Rudd government's latest attempt to win voter support for its emissions trading scheme just reinforces what a sham this tax-based policy really is.  *      Labor claims a Treasury analysis of the ETS impact shows that low-income households will be, on average, $190 a year better off as a result of government handouts to compensate for the hike in living costs caused by this scheme. While the impact of increased prices on households with incomes up to $60,000 a year is $420, the compensation package will be $610.
  This is nothing more than political sleight of hand to try to salvage some credibility from this failed policy. 
  Even if the Rudd ETS policy had some merit, which it does not, why would the government want to overcompensate this lower income end of the community? Could it be that despite all the rhetoric it doesn't know what the actual impact will be and is hedging its bets? Whatever the case, it is trying to address community concern over the ETS. 
  (Full story here)  Tax-and-bribe is CPRS folly | The Australian    I have asked our pollies if any of them could explain to me how this tax is going to control the global climate, but strangely not one of them could.  Go figure!   :Confused:  What I did discover however is that many of them in both the major parties HAVE NOT YET READ THE FULL CPRS BILL.   :Eek:  I have worked in Canberra, so understand many bills get through unread by many pollies, but these are primarily routine in nature, not the biggest moral challenge our generation faces.   Im obviously not that bright, so can somebody please explain to me how this tax is going to control the global climate?  :Confused:   :Game joystick:   :Cold:   :Cold:   :Rain2:

----------


## Dr Freud

Someone else is upset at being called a baby killer by our PM (See full story in attached file below).   But he also answers a query I had earlier in the piece.  :2thumbsup:    From posts Page 58    

> I certainly am not an AGW Theory protagonist, but I would like to see some factual information demonstrating how the reduction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is going to cool the planet. I don't even want a monthly data projection set, even annual projections would nice. That way, I could infer the causal relationship parameters the IPCC is assuming to be correct, as they have not demonstrated any yet.

     

> Not sure exactly what you want. Is this a statement or a question? AFAIK the focus is on limiting the temperature increase, and I believe they have been talking about a 2C global average increase as a goal. I think you would find this sort of stuff in IPCC report but it will probably do your head in. Look in section _10.5.3 Global Mean Responses from Different Scenarios_ of the IPCC 4th Rpt. Physical Science basis 
> woodbe.

      

> In relation to the last paragraph of my last post, I was asking for the IPCCs projections showing that as CO2 stabilises or decreases, then temperatures will stabilise or decrease accordingly. I created some of my own graphs (models) rather facetiously in an earlier post, but I have a rather dry sense of humour.

     Well the IPCC still has not yet provided any projections, so we can run with these crude calculations using IPCC data and assumptions:   "The IPCCs bureaucrats are careful not to derive a function that will convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in temperature. I shall do it for them.   We determine the warming forestalled over the coming decade by comparing the business-as-usual warming that would occur between now and 2020 if we made no cuts in CO2 emissions with the lesser warming that would follow full compliance with the Copenhagen Accord.      Where todays CO2 concentration is 388 ppmv    Business as usual: _ΔT_ = 5.7 ln(408.0/388) = 0.29 C°  Copenhagen Accord: _ΔT_ = 5.7 ln(406.5/388) = 0.27 C° = *Global warming forestalled, 2010-2020: 0.02 C° *  One-fiftieth of a Celsius degree of warming forestalled is all that complete, global compliance with the Copenhagen Accord for an entire decade would achieve. Yet the cost of achieving this result  an outcome so small that our instruments would not be able to measure it  would run into trillions of dollars."    Yes, he is privileged, pompous and verbose, but his numbers are accurate (assuming the IPCC assumptions are correct  :Biggrin: ). 
(Media version here)  Climate-change rebel bites back | The Daily Telegraph

----------


## DvdHntr

Too much science for me but I don't agree with taxing or trading. The biggest issue I feel is the continued population growth in "Western" nations that is being financially encouraged by governments to solve an economic problem. In Australia, like other countries we have an aging population and instead of setting up a fund years ago with the extra tax dollars from baby boomers, we spent it and now we can't afford to pay pensions. All that will achieve is that in 50 years time, unless they keep paying people to have kids, is the same as now. 
This is a drain on resources that are not infinite. If we allow the population to take it's natural course the population will find an equillibrium and plateau at a sustainable level. Emerging nations will go through the same cycle and in fact many of them are slowing in their birth rates already.

----------


## woodbe

How very entertaining. 
I'm interested in whether our sceptics use any discrimination in selecting their sources that they so regularly post here. I'm not saying this is actually the case, but it certainly appears on the face of it that any sceptical argument that appears in the anti-AGW blogosphere is very quickly copy/pasted here, (often without quoting sources). One gets the impression that if a sceptical argument appears that is inflammatory and controversial, then it will turn up here. 
This enquiry comes from my thinking about the nature of scepticism. My understanding is that the sceptic mind would test every position, not only those that lay on the other side from one's chosen side of the discussion. This doesn't seem to be happening here, hence this post. 
My question is, are there any AGW sceptics or arguments would you not quote here, and why? 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> How very entertaining. 
> I'm interested in whether our sceptics use any discrimination in selecting their sources that they so regularly post here. I'm not saying this is actually the case, but it certainly appears on the face of it that any sceptical argument that appears in the anti-AGW blogosphere is very quickly copy/pasted here, (often without quoting sources). One gets the impression that if a sceptical argument appears that is inflammatory and controversial, then it will turn up here. 
> This enquiry comes from my thinking about the nature of scepticism. My understanding is that the sceptic mind would test every position, not only those that lay on the other side from one's chosen side of the discussion. This doesn't seem to be happening here, hence this post. 
> My question is, are there any AGW sceptics or arguments would you not quote here, and why? 
> woodbe.

  
Woodbee, I continually read both sides of the argument on AGW,  I selcect only a very small portion of what I read to post here.  I look at the information rather than its source.  
I have never been one to discard information simply because of my opinion of the person providing it.  I have an open mind to all information I receive, irrespective of the topic.  Some information from the most "trustworthy" sources can be complete drivel yet a down and out tramp could provide an absolute jewel.  
I trust my own @@@@@@@@ meter on information that I do someone else's.  If i have doubts I either discard or research to come to a conclusion.  We get so much information these days you can't possibly verify it all. so we balance what information we get on level of importance to us. 
I think discarding what someone says because of predjudice is the height of small thinking.  Hence my consistent request for you and others to address the issues raised rather than try to attack the credibility of the provider.  I may as well beat my head against a brick wall though.  The tone of your post indicates to me you think we should veto what we post here not based on the information provided, but on who provides it.   
I have tested the AGW theory against what I read to the contrary and very little of it gets past my @@@@@@@@ metre.  There is not one bit of supporting evidence of AGW that comes even close to convincing me that I may be wrong in my opinion.  I understand why the alamists have the view they do and I have no wish to try and change that view.
My only concern is that Mr & Mrs Joe Average gets exposed to the other side of the argument so that they can come to a conclusion rather than just accept what they read in the MSM. 
When you really get down and think about it you have to wonder why the scientist that promote AGW say the science is settled and will not enter any debate with "skeptics".  If it was so settled and so irrefutable, then they should welcome at every opportunity to mae their case against a skeptic, just so they can silence the skeptics.  The problem is the science is on such shaky ground they dare not debate as any debate exposes them to ridicule.   
When the likes of Al Gore comes out and debates the science with skeptical scientists, I will be right there to listen to every word with baited breath, just to see if he can prove his case. 
Woodbe I ask you why do you think these guys will not debated other credible climatologists and scientist that have an opposing view? This is a very simple question I would really like to know your thoughts.   
Cheers Rod

----------


## woodbe

Hi Rod, 
You misunderstand my question, but never mind.   

> The tone of your post indicates to me you think we should veto what we post here not based on the information provided, but on who provides it.

  No, I don't, but not taking the source of your information into account could be a mistake. You must remember the Tobacco companies' misinformation campaigns? A lot of the guff they offered was very convincing. If you look at who stands to lose from action on Climate Change it's not hard to work out who they are. I do discount high profile people's stated opinions based on the money trail, it would be foolishly gullible to accept them at face value.   

> you have to wonder why the scientist that promote AGW say the science is settled and will not enter any debate with "skeptics"

  Ok, which Scientists are saying 'the science is settled'? Please supply references. I've only heard media and as Dr Freud rightly points out, Pollies. 
As for the real scientists not wanting to debate sceptics, I can't say I blame them. Science is not a debate, and it takes a lot of effort to refute spurious claims that have so often been made.    

> When the likes of Al Gore comes out and debates the science with skeptical scientists

  Al Gore, a non-scientist should debate with sceptical scientists? Why? What would be the point?   

> Woodbe I ask you why do you think these guys will not debated other credible climatologists and scientist that have an opposing view? This is a very simple question I would really like to know your thoughts.

  I think if you read the climate literature you will find that there is plenty of opportunity for dissenting views. The bottom line is that unlike public opinion, science is not decided by debate. 
I know how much you have to grind your teeth to read RealClimate, but you should read this 
I'm not trying to convince you of anything Rod, other than there is a valid scientific opinion out there even if you don't agree with it. 
Bigger than Climate Change itself, the biggest disagreement you and I have is that there is an organised conspiracy by thousands of Climate scientists to defraud the world and falsify data wholesale. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Bigger than Climate Change itself, the biggest disagreement you and I have is that there is an organised conspiracy by thousands of Climate scientists to defraud the world and falsify data wholesale. 
> woodbe.

  This is utter rubbish I make no such claim. 
I believe that the agenda has been set very early on in the AGW affair by a FEW like minded scientist that have gone way beyond normal scientific protocol to protect their theory, for whatever reason. 
Then I believe that many scientists that take the findings of the original scientists on face value, have exploited this to get grants to study just about every aspect you can think of based on the assumption the original theory is correct.   The grant money comes thick and fast from a panniced government, who are also taken in by the findings of the original team with the help of the greens and then a panniced public. 
Once this ball has gained this sort of momentum every charelton under the sun that see a way of making a buck out of the AGW scare comes on board.  This have momentum all on it own yet there is NO proof the theory is true. Yet to the contrary there are many scientist that totally reject the theory.  That combined with LACK of empirical evidence to support the theory just blows the whole thing out of the water.  It will take a while for the momentum created to finally die.  But it will there is no doubt about that. 
The public opinion on AGW if moving rapidly into the skeptic camp all this extreme wheather in the NH will just help quicken the pace. 
No big conspiracy theory just a big snowball that gathered up all the chareltons along the way that is starting to disintergrate at a rapid pace. 
You made a claim very early in the thread that you trust scientist yet you only seem to trust scientist that promote AGW.  There are many scientist that are desperately trying to be heard with no vested interest in oil companies that completly debunk the AGW theory. You don't trust these scientist? 
The whole house of cards is about to come crashing down, of that there is no doubt.

----------


## Rod Dyson

This is gold LOL.  See the head of the UK Met office try and explain why the got the long range forecast so horribly wrong. BBC News - Chief defends Met Office record 
Nice to see the MSM getting stuck into these jokers.

----------


## Dr Freud

> My question is, are there any AGW sceptics or arguments would you not quote here, and why? 
> woodbe.

   Absolutely! But seeing as you asked... :Biggrin:    There are more fruit loops coming out of this debate than a Kelloggs factory. And that is on all sides of the debate.  For example:   It is a conspiracy to erode national sovereignty and individual liberty and create and grant omnipotence to global governance.   While some of the information in this article is correct, this sentence doesnt require much of a brain to refute.  Our current federal government spent over $15 million and couldnt set up a website to display grocery prices.  I think omnipotence and global governance are a little out of their league. 
(Not to say that little Kev doesnt dream  :Sleepysmileyanim:   :Irule: ).   (More found here) Copenhagen treaty and global warming conspiracy « Politics   Or from another angle:   *Climate change is already beginning to transform life on Earth.* Around the globe, seasons are shifting, temperatures are climbing and sea levels are rising. If we don't act now, climate change will permanently alter the lands and waters we all depend upon for survival.   Apologies for my ignorance, but I was under the misapprehension that the climate is constantly changing and has been transforming life since it began on Earth somewhere around 3.5 billion years ago.  As for altering lands and waters, Google Pangea you muppets.   (More found here) Climate Change - Impacts of climate change and global warming: Feel the heat   I have read most of the information released by the IPCC and it was in fact this information that first led me question the data collection and assessment methodologies, combined with flawed assumptions, that has led to this hysteria.  I have also back referenced many of the compiled articles and they individually are even less substantial then the IPCC reports.        Ive said it before and Ill say it again, science is not about belief or sKepticism, it is developing a theory, then proving it, after which it becomes a scientific principle or law.  This theory remains RESOLUTELY unproven, but also has not yet been disproved, so is still a perfectly good theory.   :2thumbsup:    I do not believe Monckton or Gore, McKintyre or Mann, the IPCC, or any other supposed authority when it comes to AGW Theory.  I rely on facts, and when the facts change (ie. flat Earth to round Earth), then my opinion changes.   (p.s. You may have missed my post # 1145 above, which I thought was quite balanced.  It showed full links to Pro-AGW Rudd Vs Skeptical Scientist Veizer.  Then I posted a sKeptical scientist paper Vs refuted by Real Climate website.  I dont care what people believe, I want them to understand the facts, then once they do, they are entitled to their own opinion.  But having people  - including some of my loony family  telling me turn my toaster off at the power point to save the Polar Bears was more than my rationale brain could stand.)  :Russian roulette:

----------


## woodbe

> This is utter rubbish I make no such claim.

  Ah, we've been there before. To believe your version, the one with the  
"few like minded scientist that have gone way beyond normal scientific protocol to protect their theory"  
then we would have to also believe that all the  
"many scientists that take the findings of the original scientists on face value, have exploited this to get grants to study just about every aspect you can think of based on the assumption the original theory is correct"  
would have to be unthinking drones, not any sort of educated, trained scientists. 
Either suggestion (the global conspiracy or the unthinking drones) is ridiculous. I can see that it might happen for a very few scientists, but thousands? Where is your @@@@@@@ meter now? Gone to sleep? 
Again, which Scientists are saying 'the science is settled'? Please supply references.  
Again, Science is not resolved by debate. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Again, which Scientists are saying 'the science is settled'? Please supply references.  
> woodbe.

    Well heres one for starters, just so we can get off this semantic sidetrack.  :Giveup:       *Roger Pielke, Jr.* *Gender:* Male *About Me* I am a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I also have an appointment as a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University and am a Senior Fellow of The Breakthrough Institute, a progressive think tank.   And heres what he said:   So the next time that you hear that the "science is settled" you can understand that *it is settled*...   You do keep making me post these fruit loops when I would prefer not to.  If you want to read his full spiel, here it is, with a cool Kevin and Hobbs cartoon:   Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: The Science is Settled      

> would have to be unthinking drones, not any sort of educated, trained scientists. 
> Either suggestion (the global conspiracy or the unthinking drones) is ridiculous. I can see that it might happen for a very few scientists, but thousands? Where is your @@@@@@@ meter now? Gone to sleep?

     More semantics, as none of these scientists has proved AGW theory anyway!   :No:    But as an explanation as to how these things occur, let me supply a financial analogy by the name of Bernie Madoff (the surname should have given it away  :Biggrin: ).  But seriously, people have suicided over this fiasco, so lets look at Bernie (not a small group with an agenda, but just one man!).  Bernie was in a position of TRUST.  Therefore, thousands of the worlds best and brightest financial minds lost over US $60, 000, 000, 000.00 (Thats over US$60 BILLION!), over a long period of time.   They were not unthinking drones, they were the best educated, trained investors the planet has ever seen, but their undoing was they *TRUSTED an authority figure with data* rather than doing the hard yards and thinking for themselves.  Just in case you think they were only greedy bankers (losing ordinary peoples money!), Bernie was rated and reviewed by many independent ratings agencies during this fraud, and he was that good (or bad!), he was even investigated by the US Securities and Exchange commission, and declared above board. (Justice was eventually done and Bernie will be pleasuring burly inmates until his dying breath :Realbighug: )   Long story short, TRUST is essential in our society (do you always slow down and check every side street, lane and driveway as you drive, or do you TRUST everyone else to stop and not kill you). Unfortunately, this trust is sometimes abused.  As I have said before, Climategate is just the public expression of this distrust that many scientists have been trying to highlight for some time (often to their detriment).  It is difficult for me to make a judgement call on the data presented as I cannot TRUST it, even before Climategate, but particularly since then.   But enough of the semantics, and time for some antics, lets see some numbers, because as my friend Woodbe rightly points out, science is not decided by debate. :Ohcrap:

----------


## woodbe

So that's just one. Where are the rest of these "fruit loops" you talk of? 
Incidentally, here is what his 'settled science' post is about**:   

> What is this settled science?  Thomas Friedman gets it absolutely correct in his NYT column today (emphasis added):

   

> This is not complicated. We know that our planet is enveloped in a blanket of greenhouse gases that keep the Earth at a comfortable temperature. As we pump more carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases into that blanket from cars, buildings, agriculture, forests and industry, more heat gets trapped.  *What we dont know, because the climate system is so complex, is what other factors might over time compensate for that man-driven warming, or how rapidly temperatures might rise, melt more ice and raise sea levels.* Its all a game of odds. Weve never been here before. *We just know two things*: one, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays there for many years, so it is irreversible in real-time (barring some feat of geo-engineering); and two, that CO2 buildup has the potential to unleash catastrophic warming. 
> When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is irreversible and potentially catastrophic, I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.

  Totally unreasonable.  :Smilie:    

> More semantics, as none of these scientists has proved AGW theory anyway!

  And the AGW theory is ultimately proved by AGW itself isn't it? I don't think there is any other way, do you? So of course none of these scientists has proved it, and neither has any others disproved it. 
I really have no problem with you not trusting a data set. It's the same scale of trust though as the drone scientists - CRU does not collect all the data in their collection, and they are not the only collection. Every country has their own data. You're still talking about a worldwide phenonomon of data fraud that implicates thousands of people. 
@@@@@@ meter is still off the scale. These are not plausible suggestions. 
Thanks for finally agreeing that science is not settled by debate. You could try and wise up your fellow sceptics as they don't seem to get it. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

I've been away so I'm not sure if this has been posted already, but this is the website which contains all the emails that caused CLIMATEGATE    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/   
This might make some good weekend reading.   Attention those who were whining, "They may be fake, so I refuse to take them seriously."  _"The authenticity of these emails has been confirmed by most of the relevant parties including the CRU at Univeristy of East Anglia and many of the authors. These emails contain some quite surprising and even disappointing insights into what has been happening within the climate change scientific establishment. Worryingly this same group of scientists are very influential in terms of economic and social policy formation around the subject of climate change."_

----------


## Rod Dyson

> But enough of the semantics, and time for some antics, let’s see some numbers, because as my friend Woodbe rightly points out, science is not decided by debate.

  Agree with your entire post says it all In a nutshell Allen. Cheers.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Woodbe, . 
The insurance argument has been discussed before. 
There is a general message put out by both activists, policticans, and scientists alike that the science is settled.   
Even in your post above what you claimed is settled science is totally correct is wrong.     

> This is not complicated. We know that our planet is enveloped in a blanket of greenhouse gases that keep the Earth at a comfortable temperature.

  Agree this is settled science.   

> As we pump more carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases into that blanket from cars, buildings, agriculture, forests and industry, more heat gets trapped.

  Not settled, at least in the way you think.  No one will argue that doubling of atmospheric C02 will in itself increase temps by .5 of 1 degree.  The *debatable* science here is will humans be able to put enough C02 to acually double atmospheric C02 and if they do will .5 of 1 degree be a problem.  (the feed back mechanisims used in the models to say it will have been discredited). Lots of *debate* on the scientific issues to be had here i think.     

> the CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays there for many years, so it is “irreversible” in real-time (barring some feat of geo-engineering);

  Big fail Bristol University | News from the University | Climate change science not settled. Debatable? 
Big fail woodbe. Science is debatable where you have opposing science, which we have here. 
If the science can't be proven in a lab test and replicated by others it remains an un-proven theory until empirical evidence proves it either true or false.  The validity of the Theory in the mean time is quite open to debate, to determine the likelyhood of the theory being proven right or wrong.  This is more so if there is going to be trillions of $$ spent trying to reverse a NON problem, that could not be reversed even if it were a problem!  
Science itself is never settled by debate nor consensus. But this does not say that their should not be debate or consensus.

----------


## woodbe

Rod, 
I didn't say the science could not be debated. 
I said Science is not resolved by debate. I think you are possibly confusing opinion with science. 
Just ask Dr Freud, he will explain it to you. 
We still have just one scientist publishing a comment on a blog saying the science is settled. Is that it? Surely you can find more than one? Seems like this huge problem of scientists saying 'the science is settled' is not as big as some people think. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> I didn't say the science could not be debated.

  And I never said it could be settled by debate.  

> I said Science is not resolved by debate. I think you are possibly confusing opinion with science.

  You really do read what you want into things Woodbe did you not understand my position on science/debate as in my last post?  I agree it is not resolved by debate. :Doh:    

> We still have just one scientist publishing a comment on a blog saying the science is settled. Is that it? Surely you can find more than one? Seems like this huge problem of scientists saying 'the science is settled' is not as big as some people think. 
> woodbe.

  Woodbe I really don't know where you are going with this, or how it contributes to the overall debate we are having.  I am not going to troll through the internet to find examples of scientist that claim the science is settled nor am I going to get into semantics over who says the science is settled.   
What is important here, is that the promotors of AGW, whether it be scientists or activists or others have either said or encouraged the view that the science on AGW is settled and "urgent action needs to be taken". As we know the science is not settled therfore these claims regardless of who make them are false and are designed to create a false public impression of the certainty of AGW.   
No trivial point scoring is going to help you in this debate woodbe. It is almost up there with attacks on people rather than what they say.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe I really don't know where you are going with this, or how it contributes to the overall debate we are having.  I am not going to troll through the internet to find examples of scientist that claim the science is settled nor am I going to get into semantics over who says the science is settled.

  Simple really. There is no real debate here, this is a sceptic fortress. Anyone who comes along and doesn't agree gets the treatment and usually gives up very soon after - there is only so much most people will take. If you have a cause, you're not helping it. The only reason I stay is to show that there is more than one opinion out there and to keep you honest. 
So if you want to claim, as you did, things like the scientists are saying the science is settled, which is patently not true because if it were you would have showered me with a hundred examples, forgive me for mentioning it but I will point it out and ask for evidence to back up such spurious claims. 
If that's semantics, we need it in this thread. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Where are the rest of these "fruit loops" you talk of?

   Plenty right here, just read many of the previous posts and links  :Biggrin: , but seriously, just watch the news, read the paper or surf the net.   As for our friend Friedman, it is too easy, but also too time consuming to disassemble his argument, as these assumptions have been refuted many times in the scientific community.   As a quick example:     

> As we pump more carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases into that blanket from cars, buildings, agriculture, forests and industry, more heat gets trapped.

   Assumption taken as fact!    Plenty of this in the AGW theory arena.  As I will demonstrate below, exact temperatures are still in dispute, let alone how interacting variables may be contributing to them.   Then good old Kevs *maximum fear* complaint.     

> is irreversible and potentially catastrophic,

   Just to confirm:       

> I really have no problem with you not trusting a data set. It's the same scale of trust though as the drone scientists - CRU does not collect all the data in their collection, and they are not the only collection. Every country has their own data. You're still talking about a worldwide phenonomon of data fraud that implicates thousands of people.

   
Tthere is no global conspiracy, and both Rod and I have made it clear we do not subscribe.  Hence my Bernie analogy.  Bernie had thousands of people feeding him data, and had hundreds of employees running and adjusting this data for him, based on models he supplied them with, and reports he generated.  They are not all in jail pleasuring inmates, because they did nothing wrong, other than TRUSTING an authority figure with data. Thousands of scientists are adjusting data and feeding this data into models based on assumptions that were claimed to be fully peer reviewed and supported.  Many scientists have always questioned these assumptions.   As for the debate argument, science is determined by facts and facts alone.  What is debated constantly is what constitutes a fact (ie. old fact "Flat Earth" replaced by new fact "Round Earth").     Apologies for simplification (all made up), but hopefully the gist gets through.   Lets assume two random temperature measurements in one place over Time 1 and Time 2:   Time 1 = Max *35* Time 2 = Max *30*   Planet is cooling.   But IPCC uses Max + Min / 2, so:   Time 1 = Max 35 + Min  5  = 40/2 = *20* Time 2 = Max 30 + Min 20 = 50/2 = *25*   Planet is warming.   But IN REALITY, this happened, and the data looked like this:   Time 1 0000 - 20 0200 - 15 0400 - 5 0600 - 15 0800 - 20 1000 - 30 1200 - 35 1400 - 35 1600 - 35 1800 - 25 2000 - 20 2200 - 20 Avg - 23   Time 2 0000 - 20 0200 - 20 0400 - 20 0600 - 22 0800 - 22 1000 - 24 1200 - 30 1400 - 26 1600 - 24 1800 - 22 2000 - 22 2200 - 20 Avg - 23   Planet is stable.   These are just three of methods of calculation of possibly infinite methods of measuring temperature at just one location.  If three different scientists get three different outcomes from exactly the same data set, none of them are frauds.  They are using different assumptions.  What is fraudulent is if an individual or individuals try to claim that their assumptions are the best or only one to use!  Whether this is in Bernies Sales Brochures or IPCC Sales Brochures is no different.   For a few more of the many assumptions:   *We then have to assume methods of combining all the locations.*   (If Northern Hemisphere temps go down, but Southern Hemisphere temps go up more, is the Planet warming on average? Then if we start cooling it, will the Northern Hemisphere be happy?)   *We then have to assume accuracy and calibration of measuring instruments.*   (Does an alcohol thermometer measurement taken in Alaska in the winter of 1915 compare to a digital thermometer reading at Kalgoorlie last week?  Remember, we are talking about an average change of 0.7 degrees Celsius in over 100 years, *IF* we assume IPCC data adjustments have not distorted the data.)   *We then have to assume placement of these instruments (UHI?).*   (Can we compare a rooftop measurement in inner city Jakarta today (population 210 million) with a measurement from 1900 (population 40 million.))   These are just some issues still in dispute in the scientific arena, just about accurately measuring the temperature, let alone whether it is going up or down, and then PROVING what is causing these changes.   I hope for some healthy rebuttals defending adjustments made to the data in an attempt to correct for these inadequacies.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The only reason I stay is to show that there is more than one opinion out there and to keep you honest.

  Happy to have you champ  :2thumbsup:  but I also do miss Rrobor.   

> So if you want to claim, as you did, things like the scientists are saying the science is settled, which is patently not true because if it were you would have showered me with a hundred examples, forgive me for mentioning it but I will point it out and ask for evidence to back up such spurious claims. 
> If that's semantics, we need it in this thread. 
> woodbe.

  I don't like semantics, for example, do you only want the expression "the science is settled", or will you accept synonyms such as: debate is over; unequivocal; certain; clear; complete; unambiguous; absolute; decided; incontrovertible; indisputable; incontestable; unambiguous; undeniable  :Eek:  etc. etc.) 
These are silly games, can't we just look at the information and think for ourselves rather than defer to the "authority figures" for their opinions?    :Educate:

----------


## woodbe

Dr. Freud, 
There you go. an even and fair response, with no personal jibes. see Rod, it is possible. 
As for the numbers, I accept that any number set can be created to fit the ends, and a method of looking at them can be created likewise. Lies, damn lies and statistics. I would expect those methods to fall apart at some stage though due to variability over time of the temperature events. I guess the real question you raise is what is the basis for the IPCC to use Max + Min/2, and is it justified?  
The same goes for the other questions you raise, (thermometer records and adjustments), and I am not qualified to answer them from knowledge, but I'm not averse to hearing about them either. 
As for the semantics, I took issue with a particular phrase, I didn't pen it, and the author didn't retract or adjust it, so I can only assume he meant only that phrase. 
woodbe.

----------


## looseless

It seems to me that the people who want to do nothing about climate change are extremely concerned about the Government using Climate Change as an excuse to raise taxes.  ha ha ha ha 
As if the Government needs any excuses to raise taxes.........they can do it any time they want.   
So if that is one of the prime drivers for people to rise up against this "commie left wing global conspiracy" then FORGET IT. 
Don't be too concerned about money.  It has no value, and is only a means of exchange.  Real wealth is generated from the planet and its inhabitants.  Money has got nothing to do with Wealth.  Lets face it.  If the planet is stuffed then money is absolutely worthless.   
Its not worth the gamble to do nothing, because you are gambling with the only planet that we've got. 
Its 41 degrees today, 42 tomorrow, and 43 the next day.  Things are warming up. :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Happy to have you champ  but I also do miss Rrobor.   
> I don't like semantics, for example, do you only want the expression "the science is settled", or will you accept synonyms such as: debate is over; unequivocal; certain; clear; complete; unambiguous; absolute; decided; incontrovertible; indisputable; incontestable; unambiguous; undeniable  etc. etc.) 
> These are silly games, can't we just look at the information and think for ourselves rather than defer to the "authority figures" for their opinions?

  
Well said Dr Freud. Your post above was great, it shows just how long a bow needs to be drawn to come to a conclusion AGW is happening. 
Woodbe it is entirely up to you if you continue to post on this thread or not. personally I hope you do.  We would really like to see debate about the content of claims posted here rather than attacks on credibility justified or not.  It seems some things just cant be denied so ingoring them is the best option.  
I can assure you I will continue posting information I see relevant to the overall AGW debate.  2010 will be the major turning point in the AGW theory as it is losing ground at a rapid rate.  It might be time to start mellowing and move to the center of the debate a bit.   
Cheers Rod

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Dr. Freud, 
> There you go. an even and fair response, with no personal jibes. see Rod, it is possible.

  I try very hard not to bring in personal jibes into this debate woodbe.  I guess you are refering to my using "alarmists" to describe those who promote AGW.

----------


## woodbe

> I guess you are refering to my using "alarmists" to describe those who promote AGW.

  Not at all. I'm not an alarmist. I don't go around the place promoting pro-AGW blogs etc. I will stand up for them where justified though. 
When the argument is directed directly at someone instead of the words, that's when I regard it as being personalised. Words like "big fail woodbe" are designed (whether you intend it or not) to personalise and inflame the debate.  
For the record, when I do quote what someone else has written, I often get a response indicating that I am wrong, not the author. Makes me feel like a plagiarist even though you might notice I am reasonably careful to reveal and link sources. 
Comes down to whether you want a discussion or a dog fight really.  :Cool:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Not at all. I'm not an alarmist. I don't go around the place promoting pro-AGW blogs etc. I will stand up for them where justified though. 
> When the argument is directed directly at someone instead of the words, that's when I regard it as being personalised. Words like "big fail woodbe" are designed (whether you intend it or not) to personalise and inflame the debate.  
> For the record, when I do quote what someone else has written, I often get a response indicating that I am wrong, not the author. Makes me feel like a plagiarist even though you might notice I am reasonably careful to reveal and link sources. 
> Comes down to whether you want a discussion or a dog fight really.  
> woodbe.

  No dog fight discussion is fine "big fail" is not personally directed to you but the information that you provide. It is a popular phrase for something that is wrong. 
It is very easy to say you are wrong when really we are meaning the information you provide is wrong. You should not take that as a personal insult. I enjoy our banter and take absolutely nothing personal. I know you will always disagree with me, no problem there. Just adress the issues rather than the attack the person wtiting the article and I will have a lot more respect for your argument. 
Cheers

----------


## Allen James

> Riveting stuff...........you guys should write encyclopaedia's...........

    
Fixed.

----------


## looseless

Are you blokes getting tired? 
Couple of beers should cheer you up.   
Think I'll need a slab today, as Horsham is predicted to have a top temperature of 44 degrees today.  Temperature at 1.30 pm is 43 degrees (Elders website) and the Wimmera has got the State's first Catastrophic Fire Day warning.   
Stay cool dudes.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Are you blokes getting tired? 
> Couple of beers should cheer you up.  
> Think I'll need a slab today, as Horsham is predicted to have a top temperature of 44 degrees today. Temperature at 1.30 pm is 43 degrees (Elders website) and the Wimmera has got the State's first Catastrophic Fire Day warning.  
> Stay cool dudes.

  And this information is relevant to this thread, why?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Horsham is predicted to have a top temperature of 44 degrees today. Temperature at 1.30 pm is 43 degrees (Elders website) and the Wimmera has got the State's first Catastrophic Fire Day warning.  
> Stay cool dudes.

   

> And this information is relevant to this thread, why?

  Must be weather quoting day.  :Biggrin:   Let me have a go...all plagiarised with full link below to read source articles.  *Warmists buried under Britains snow*  *Andrew Bolt  Saturday, January 09, 10 (10:07 am)*   
Interrupting my break to pass on the picture of this (Northern Hemisphere) winter:  _From head to toe there is barely a patch of land not blanketed by the heaviest snowfall in 50 years. It was taken at 11.15am on Thursday by the NASA satellite Terra and transmitted to the University of Dundee Satellite Receiving Station._ Hey, this shouldnt have happened - if you believed the Climategaters and their models a decade ago:  _According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event._  _Children just arent going to know what snow is, he said._ In fact, this shouldnt have happened if you believed Climategaters just last year:  _In October, the Met Office predicted Britain would have a mild winter, despite the inaccuracy of its barbecue summer forecast which drew strong criticism, after heavy rainfall saw the wettest July for almost 100 years. It said the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010 were likely to be milder than last year and that there was an 85 per cent chance of normal or above average conditions._ Christopher Booker notes that the Mets models now seem tuned to always expect warmer weather than what actually turns up. 
Now even the BBC is going for the throat of the Mets boss, wondering why he deserved his performance bonus and why we should believe his models that predict a warming century:  
So embarrassing is all this to warmers that _The Age_ devotes an entire oped piece to explaining why record cold doesnt disprove man-made global warming:  _People across the northern hemisphere are facing the fact that a warming planet doesnt get rid of winter. Britain is experiencing snow and chill, and on Monday the heaviest snow on record plastered Seoul. In coming days, the central US will experience its most brutal cold wave in 10 to 20 years. And most of western Europe will be encased in a deep freeze by this weekend_  _(But) its also critical to remember the global in global warming. Even if every inch of land in the northern hemisphere were unusually cold, that would only represent 20 per cent of Earths surface._Sure, but two points need to be made. 
First, warmists such as the _Age_ editor or the green groups now insisting that record cold in one part of the world proves nothing have no hestitation in claiming that record heat in another part, though, proves plenty. Example:  _THE Federal Government has said climate data showing last year was Australias second-hottest on record means the Senate should pass the emissions trading scheme next month Its up to the Senate and Mr Abbott to recognise that climate change is real, to recognise that for Australians warming is happening, the Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, said yesterday._Second, this cruel winter highlights the fact that - as the latest statellite data confims - even though mans emissions have kept rising, the planet has kept cooling since at least 2001, in direct contradiction of the warmist theory:    P.S. This is based on a 20 year average, so I don't put much stock in it for long term pattern forming (aside from all other data issues I have already outlined), but it does show a 0.1 of a degree celsius increase in 30 years, if you're into short term trends.  
(Full link here)  Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog  I also think that Greenland is pretty cold right now and Africa is pretty hot...just a prediction mind you...I'm no expert.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

> Second, this cruel winter highlights the fact that - as the latest statellite data confims - even though mans emissions have kept rising, the planet has kept cooling since at least 2001, in direct contradiction of the warmist theory:

  The way I read that graph, 2001 looks to be about +0.1 to +0.2 over the average. If you draw a line across in between, most of the remaining points are still above that line? Or am I reading it wrong? It sure shows a big variation 07-08 though. 
Michael

----------


## Rod Dyson

Looks like the MSM are dipping their big toe into the water to test the temperature.  Antarctic sea water shows &#039;no sign&#039; of warming | Herald Sun

----------


## Rod Dyson

Let the games begin!  Four charged with carbon trading fraud in Belgium - Risk.net 
Washington Post: 
Maybe California can lead the world after all. (by getting rid of its carbon tax)  California Cap-and-Trade Revolt - WSJ.com 
And maybe Rudd is wrong!!  
We won't lose our barrier reef after all. http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/feature...e,52379,en.php 
 At least this is a softening of the CO2 destroys all theory.  Now we just have to wait a bit longer until for the total capitulation.
This is great news wouldn't you think?

----------


## woodbe

> We won't lose our barrier reef after all. Featured news - University of Exeter

   

> As a result, reefs inside the park were showing recovery whereas those with more seaweed were not. This sort of evidence may help persuade governments to reduce the fishing of key herbivores like parrotfishes and help reefs cope with the inevitable threats posed by climate change.

  Requires action. Not inaction. Which will you be rooting for Rod? The fishing lobby will be strong, and the denialists are building a case that the risk doesn't exist, so the path of least resistance for our sooky government will be to do nothing. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

You didn't read my post??  
This is a start, I read what it said in the article. 
Common sense is creeping in over all sectors of the big scares on AGW. They have started watering down predictions.  
Now as I said we are just waiting for the complete capitulation. 
Heard the saying "never trap a crocidile"?  Always allow them an escape route.  The smart people are starting to wind back predictions to give themselves the escape route.  This is going to be a pleasure watching this un-fold over the next year or two.

----------


## woodbe

Well, I suppose if you think it's smart to allow vocal minorities to decide what goes in the paper, that's true.  
Paper's full of rubbish anyway, weren't they one of the sources of your frustration over global warming, and now you're gleeful that you think they're joining your side? :Confused:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The way I read that graph, 2001 looks to be about +0.1 to +0.2 over the average. If you draw a line across in between, most of the remaining points are still above that line? Or am I reading it wrong? It sure shows a big variation 07-08 though. 
> Michael

  The joy of statistics is that they are so arbitrary IF assumptions are taken as fact, as the UAH boffins attempt to pull off. The running average (red line) takes an average of the averages for the last 25 months and plots them in order to smooth out the "natural variation" in the allegedly raw data. "Natural variation" is boffin talk for " We have no idea why the temperature goes up and down", so we will try to make it look smoother.  
The learned Mr Bolt is pointing out that this 25 month average at last plot is lower than 2001 (ie. The planet has cooled on average of averages).  :Shock:   
But why 25 months, why not 12, or 26, or 20 is a nice round number? 
This is why I say it is still inconceivable that so many people have not bothered to look deeper into this when the cost implications are massive. I don't care what hair brained schemes scientists get into, and there have been many, but I don't want to pay taxes for them.  :No:  
But seriously, even if we go back to arbitrary date of 1979 till end of trend line, we see a rise of 0.1 of a degree celsius. IF this crazy warming keeps up, we could be 0.3 of a degree warmer in 100 years.  :Doh:    

> http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/feature...e,52379,en.php 
> Requires action. Not inaction. Which will you be rooting for Rod? The fishing lobby will be strong, and the denialists are building a case that the risk doesn't exist, so the path of least resistance for our sooky government will be to do nothing. 
> woodbe.

  I can't believe you two didn't cordially discuss the scientist in here who thinks the science is settled.   Professor Peter Mumby of the University of Exeter said: "...the* inevitable* threats posed by climate change. 
Sorry, couldn't resist.  :Wink:

----------


## woodbe

> on average of averages

  I see. 
That was something my grade 5 maths teacher said I should never do...  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> The running average (red line) takes an average of the averages for the last 25 months and plots them in order to smooth out the "natural variation" in the allegedly raw data.

  The quoted graph must be referring to _weather_ change rather than _climate_ change. 
Climate change is usually plotted with 20-, 30-, 50-year running averages. 
From "The Copenhagen Diagnosis": _If one looks at periods of ten years or shorter, such short-term variations can more than outweigh the anthropogenic global warming trend. For example, El Niño events typically come with global-mean temperature changes of up to 0.2 °C over a few years, and the solar cycle with warming or cooling of 0.1 °C over five years (Lean and Rind 2008). However, neither El Niño, nor solar activity or volcanic eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate trends. For good reason the IPCC has chosen 25 years as the shortest trend line they show in the global temperature records, and over this time period the observed trend agrees very well with the expected anthropogenic warming._

----------


## Rod Dyson

More good news from the WSJ  The Climate Debate is Changing - WSJ.com 
Australia gets a great mention. 
Enjoy!!

----------


## Dr Freud

> The quoted graph must be referring to _weather_ change rather than _climate_ change. 
> Climate change is usually plotted with 20-, 30-, 50-year running averages. 
> From "The Copenhagen Diagnosis": _If one looks at periods of ten years or shorter, such short-term variations can more than outweigh the anthropogenic global warming trend. For example, El Niño events typically come with global-mean temperature changes of up to 0.2 °C over a few years, and the solar cycle with warming or cooling of 0.1 °C over five years (Lean and Rind 2008). However, neither El Niño, nor solar activity or volcanic eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate trends. For good reason the IPCC has chosen 25 years as the shortest trend line they show in the global temperature records, and over this time period the observed trend agrees very well with the expected anthropogenic warming._

  Let's re-write that last sentence (using all the same words).   _And over 25 years as the shortest trend line they show in the global temperature records, the observed trend agrees very well with the expected anthropogenic warming._ _For good reason the IPCC has chosen this time period._ 
What does arbitrary mean? But enough semantics...  Hi Chrisp,  I let the previous statistical inference comments slide regarding Al Gores and the IPCCs quantification of opinion go, even though I tried to explain the difference between actual probabilities and the IPCCs opinions as I was busy at the time, but I cant let this one slide. People might actually read The Dopenhagen Diagnosis and believe it. You do know who wrote it and why it was written I presume?  But in regards to the time frames involved, you may have missed my P.S. in post # 1177 on page 79   

> P.S. This is based on a 20 year average, so I don't put much stock in it for long term pattern forming (aside from all other data issues I have already outlined), but it does show a 0.1 of a degree celsius increase in 30 years, if you're into short term trends.

  Please see post # 1165 on page 78 for all other data issues. This will also allow you to contextualize the numbers in the satellite data, and The Dopenhagen Diagnosis. Satellites dont have brains, so they are programmed with assumptions from human brains.  :Educate:   In regards to the graph quoting weather vs climate, if you had quoted my next line:   

> The running average (red line) takes an average of the averages for the last 25 months and plots them in order to smooth out the "natural variation" in the allegedly raw data. "Natural variation" is boffin talk for " We have no idea why the temperature goes up and down", so we will try to make it look smoother.

  It is neither weather nor climate. The graph only shows temperature, which is one component that makes up weather, which cumulatively we call climate (pick any arbitrary long time period, 10, 20, 30, 100, everyone else does). But please see post #1143 on page 77 if you want to contextualize global climate variation.  Please also see link below which clearly explains temperature as a component of weather.   http://www.greenscreen.org/articles_jr/Weather.htm  We used to teach kids this stuff in primary school, now we teach them to turn the toaster off at the wall to save the polar bears, and to shower with a bucket.  :Laughing1:   By the way, you might want to point out to these ecologists that their information:  The temperature of your *climate depends on where you are on Earth.* Its always warmer at the equator than at the North or South Pole *because the suns rays hit the equator more directly.*  directly contradicts The Dopenhagen Diagnosis that states:  _However, neither El Niño, nor solar activity or volcanic eruptions_ *make a significant contribution to longer-term climate trends*_._  Google axial tilt and orbital variations (of Earth) and do some research into these areas of astrophysics and you will soon find which one of the above is full of ..it. But as a short cut, just imagine we took away the sun (ie. Low solar activity), if it makes no significant contribution to climate trends, then who cares. I guess it would just get dark.  :Cool:   But then, a lot of people are being kept in the dark now.  :Shock:   P.S. Great article Rod, sums up the global change that actually is anthropogenic.  :brava:

----------


## autogenous

Id much rather Abbot put 1 cent on fuel on top of the current 35 cents which does have GST attached to it along with other fossil fuels and put those funds into real tree habitat and rehabilitation programs with solid outcomes.   
Some regions of Australia have the capacity to respond to rehabitation after being victims of the prior Australian pre-industrial settlement era. 
Places like around Kalgoorlie have regions with prior tree areas where the wooded areas were emaciated.  Certain areas which include riparian zones along river systems need areas refurbished to rectify water systems killing several birds with one stone. 
As a quick example Kalgoorlie may seem arid but vast areas of trees were removed for the steam boilers etc for Gold production. 
With some tree programs additional to the current its not just CO2; its animal habitat, salt reduction,  water purification,  acid sulphate reduction, top soil stabilisation, waterway improvement; the list goes on if executed in the right places. 
Australia needs solid outcomes that aren't consumed by administration and bureaucracy.  
To enable volunteer groups additional funds to get trees in the ground where they may go some way to altering back impacting the above mentioned environmental issues would go a long way.  Even work for the dole programs if it was ever feasible. 
So many benefits on so many levels.

----------


## autogenous

Lets face it, if any countries wished to embarrass the western world right now it could do worse than start massive re-forrestation programs. 
All this chest beating about weaponry.  With the sweep of the hand any rogue leader could make the western world look like fools in charging forward on radical environmental changes over vast areas. 
Lets face, anyone can blow the crap out of anything these days.  How big of an impact would it make by being a leader in vast regions of woodlands?   
With Chinas wealth and infrastructure they could make many so called first world countries look like idiots at speed. It appears most of the time they wish to make fools of other countries, what a way to embarrass everyone. 
If you want to embarrass the rest of the world and gain the utmost respect as a world leader, what better way. 
ICBM's are so yesterday.  Water on mars, what ever, massive reforestation of North Korea, you've got me embarrassed, you've got my attention.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Next big scam?  The next big scam: carbon dioxide - FP Comment 
With a bit of luck Australia will dodge this.

----------


## Dr Freud

I think you could be right Rod, it could be a very "hot" year in politics.  :Tempted:      Rudd's taxing climate policy is a liability Malcolm Colless From: _The Australian_ January 15, 2010 12:00AM*IN the lead-up to the December climate change conference in Copenhagen the Rudd government was full of bravado as it threatened to reintroduce, next month, its legislation for an emissions trading scheme which the Liberals had just defeated in the Senate. This was clearly designed to unsettle the opposition, and its new leader, Tony Abbott, by holding out the prospect of a double dissolution election if the legislation was again rejected. The Prime Minister may have believed he was on solid ground because Malcolm Turnbull, who Abbott displaced, was clearly spooked at the consequences for the Liberal party if such an election was fought over this legislation.*   But the political sands have shifted significantly since then, and far from being intimidated by the reintroduction of this legislation the opposition should be daring Rudd to bring it on.  For a start the Copenhagen conference, where Rudd the climate change warrior took centre stage, proved an embarrassing waste of time and taxpayers' money. Rudd and his caravan of advisers and hangers-on were left desperately trying to squeeze some policy credibility out of this gabfest. If anything, Copenhagen undermined Rudd's fundamental premise that the cap and trade system, which forms the basis of his government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, is the only satisfactory way to address global warming through reducing green house gas emissions.  While the conference failed to reach any constructive agreement for a global response to the effects of climate change it did throw the spotlight on the complexities and uncertainties that surround the cap and trade system. In the wake of the Senate's defeat of the CPRS legislation in early December, Rudd rejected a challenge by Abbott to debate the issue of climate change. He advised the new Opposition Leader to calm down and develop a policy on this.  Reintroducing the legislation not only provides the opportunity for the opposition to debate the government's policy but for it to drive a wedge between the flawed, tax-based, ETS and the broader issue of climate change.  Political polling has been in hibernation over the holiday season but will be back in full swing in coming weeks, particularly as this is a federal election year. The Liberals believe that while there is community support for action to ameliorate the effects of climate change, this is overshadowed by concerns the ETS is nothing more than a tax that will drive up the cost of living.  They expect this to be reflected in opinion polling before the CPRS legislation is reintroduced, if in fact it is.  This will significantly influence Abbott's "direct action" alternative to the government's climate change policy which he will develop in a series of public speeches which began with an address to the Sydney Institute last night.  In attacking government rhetoric supporting its climate change policy, Abbott claims that this, in fact, is a smokescreen for its general environmental neglect particularly in the areas of land and water management.  The Nationals, Abbott's Coalition partners, argue that by placing all these programs under one agency - Caring for Our Country - the government has drastically reduced access to funding for farmers who have maintained a sustainable balance in land use. Meanwhile, the government has tried to justify passage of its CPRS legislation on the basis that it is essential in the fight against global warming, which is primarily the fault of mankind. But the reality is that this legislation will create a highly intrusive, big brother organisation within the Climate Change department which will have powers of intervention and enforcement rivaling those of the Australian Taxation Office.  And it is here that the opposition should be focusing its attack on the government because this is the area of greatest community concern and uncertainty about the consequences of Labor's policy lies.  Householders have been told to brace themselves for higher prices ranging from energy to food in the ETS-based battle against carbon pollution. Not surprisingly, few can understand how this comes about through a system of trading emissions permits. And the Climate Change department's enviro-babble explanation of how this system works in terms of provisional, make good, excess surrender emissions numbers and credits doesn't help. But what is clear is that businesses and power plants are free to emit whatever level of carbon dioxide they choose as long as they surrender an "eligible emissions unit" for each tonne of pollution.  As with the tax office, the Climate Change Regulatory Authority will have powers to monitor, audit and impose penalties where necessary to enforce compliance with this system, all of which will require a growing taxpayer-funded bureaucracy.  Australians do care about the environment. What they don't care for are more taxes.  Full link here.

----------


## Rod Dyson

I would like the "alarmist" to watch and then comment on this series of video's I would like to know what is incorrect,  John Coleman’s hourlong news special “Global Warming – The Other Side” now online, all five parts here « Watts Up With That?

----------


## autogenous

Rod: _Next big scam? _ This is my point Rod. The current proposal is to hand it over to other countries with so called less pollution.  The potential for fraud is huge. 
Why not just spend the money in Australia right now on habitat rectification to improve waterway and riparian quality.  The far greater threat has been the destruction of large areas of native flora for agriculture and industry yet little has been done to stem the salt through water table rise and other commercial pollutants producing Algal blooms, arsenic outbreaks and faecal matter flowing in the water. 
The removal of subsidisation of coal etc would leave non-fossil technologies to compete ready for when fossil fuels rise in cost and of course their finite end.  Technologies of non-fossil type would be ready for a transition when fossils become too expensive.
That subsidisation should be going to regeneration of the environmental areas that will prevent our water supplies becoming salt.  One of the most poisonous substances known to man.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod: _Next big scam?_ 
> This is my point Rod. The current proposal is to hand it over to other countries with so called less pollution. The potential for fraud is huge. 
> Why not just spend the money in Australia right now on habitat rectification to improve waterway and riparian quality. The far greater threat has been the destruction of large areas of native flora for agriculture and industry yet little has been done to stem the salt through water table rise and other commercial pollutants producing Algal blooms, arsenic outbreaks and faecal matter flowing in the water. 
> The removal of subsidisation of coal etc would leave non-fossil technologies to compete ready for when fossil fuels rise in cost and of course their finite end. Technologies of non-fossil type would be ready for a transition when fossils become too expensive.

  I agree with you we could do a hell of a lot to make real improvements to the environment with the money wasted on AGW.   

> That subsidisation should be going to regeneration of the environmental areas that will prevent our water supplies becoming salt. One of the most poisonous substances known to man.

  I read a very interesting book last week called Mr Stuart's Track, about the exploration of the areas around lake Eyre and beyond to Darwin, (the route of the 1st telegragh wire).  One of the biggest problems in out back SA was finding fresh water that was not salty.  So, while salination is a problem for Australia, it has always been a problem with very large tracts of inland water that are saline now and always have been to one degree or another. 
During the exploration they found that some water holes lost the salinity after flooding from the north but went back to salt later.   
This is just an observation, as I have no knowledge whatsoever of man made salinity levels. 
Cheers Rod

----------


## Dr Freud

*United Nations' blunder on glaciers exposed*   Chris Hastings and Jonathan      Leake From: _The      Australian_ January 18, 2010 12:00AM  *THE peak UN body on climate change has been dealt another humiliating blow to its credibility after it was revealed a central claim of one of its benchmark reports - that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 because of global warming - was based on a "speculative" claim by an obscure Indian scientist. *   The 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming, appears to have simply adopted the untested opinions of the Indian glaciologist from a magazine article published in 1999.
  The IPCC report claimed that the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish inside 30 years. 
  But the scientists behind the warning have now admitted it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's report. 
  It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. 
  Mr Hasnain, who was then the chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. 
  The revelation represents another embarrassing blow to the credibility of the IPCC, less than two months after the emergence of leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which raised questions about the legitimacy of data published by the IPCC about global warming. 
  One email written by a scientist referred to ways of ensuring information that doubted the veracity of man-made climate change science did not appear in IPCC reports. 
  Several emails also revealed that some scientists at East Anglia tried to bully colleagues who challenged the theory of man-made climate change. 
  Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on Himalayan glaciers in the 2007 IPCC report, said on the weekend he was considering recommending that the claim about glaciers be dropped.
  "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, then I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments," Professor Lal said. 
  The IPCC's reliance on Mr Hasnain's 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Mr Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. 
  "Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain," Pearce said. "The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis.
  "Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words, it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. 
  "However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers, not the whole massif."
  The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when environmental group WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain's 1999 interview with New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper. 
  Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Professor Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas. 
  When published, the IPCC report gave its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the melting of the glaciers was "very likely". The IPCC defines "very likely" as having a probability of greater than 90 per cent. 
  Glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of metres thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. 
  Julian Dowdeswell, director of the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge University, said: "A small glacier such as the Dokriani glacier is up to 120m thick. A big one would be several hundred metres thick and tens of kilometres long. The average is 300m thick so to melt one at 5m a year would take 60 years." 
  Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Professor Lal admits he knows little about glaciers.   When published, the IPCC report gave its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the melting of the glaciers was "very likely". The IPCC defines "very likely" as having a probability of greater than 90 per cent.   This is the slippery slope of violating scientific principles, or what I refer to as the quantification of opinion, or what many refer to as making ..it up!  :Annoyed:    Some might want go over post # 860 on page 58 to see more on this fiasco.   Does anyone still feel comfortable giving up trillions of dollars based on these bozos opinions masquerading as probabilistic facts, without some serious investigating.  :No:  
Our Prime Muppet does!  :Screwy:

----------


## Dr Freud

(Apologies, forgot the link for previous post.)   But while Im here:   Why doesnt the PM have time to investigate this fiasco surrounding the greatest moral challenge of our generation, that may unnecessarily cost our country hundreds of billions?     *PM refuses to confirm whether villain in his new book is a Kiwi*     Christian Kerr From: _The Australian_ January 18, 2010 1:54PM  *HAS Australia's border security failed? Has a Kiwi intruder been running amok at The Lodge? The Prime Minister won**t say so, but any parent will have their suspicions.*  
    The villain of Mr Rudd's children book, Jasper & Abby and the Great Australia Day Kerfuffle, launched today in Melbourne, is a scruffy little terrier. 
  We're told it's from Mapleton, in Queensland, from the part of the world where the PM grew up. But Chewy - for that is the dog's name - bears a remarkable physical resemblance to Hairly Maclary (from Donaldson's Dairy), the canine protagonist of New Zealand author Lynley Dodd's multi-million selling series. 
  Chewy is no patriot. He launches an attack on beloved national symbols  including an Australia Day cake  and even attempts to desecrate the flag. 
  He is only foiled by the initiative of the Prime Ministerial pets, Jasper the Cat and Abby Dog. 
  The evidence that Chewy is a Kiwi infiltrator is certainly significant. 
  However, government insiders suggest that Chewy is modelled on a dog that belongs to the PMs former web guru, Annie ORourke. 
  Which raised the possibility that at sometime something even more embarrassing than a New Zealand invasion occurred.   (With link this time. )

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *United Nations' blunder on glaciers exposed*    Chris Hastings and Jonathan Leake From: _The Australian_ January 18, 2010 12:00AM

  Ha, you beat me to it Dr. 
Amazing how this is starting to disintergrate around their ears. 
Here is what the indians are saying. Ramesh turns heat on Pachauri over glacier melt scare - India - The Times of India

----------


## Rod Dyson

Climate change stance behind poll slide - PM   Climate change stance behind poll slide - PM | News.com.au 
I wonder if he will get the message.  Somehow I doubt it.

----------


## Ashore

Hellooooo , hum... seems to have gone very quiet in here , well on one side of the room anyway  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Nah we still get silent visitors every day. 
I guess i will only post stuff I feel is relevant as it comes up. 
We seem to have lost the "alamists" for the moment anyway.

----------


## autogenous

_One of the biggest problems in out back SA was finding fresh water that was not salty._ 
Apparently there is vast quantities of water below the Nullabour plain_. _ Some of it saline but not overly.Look at google earth on the surface..

----------


## Dr Freud

*The science was settled... *  *It's not drought, it's climate change, say scientists *  *MELISSA FYFE*  *August 30, 2009*  theage.com.au    SCIENTISTS studying Victoria's crippling drought have, for the first time, *proved the link* between rising levels of greenhouse gases and the state's dramatic decline in rainfall. 
  A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO *has confirmed* what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change. 
  More here.   *Oops... *  *Jury still out on climate change: CSIRO *  BY ROSSLYN BEEBY, SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT REPORTER *19 Jan, 2010* 08:54 AM  Canberratimes.com.au   Australia's peak science agency, the CSIRO, has backed away from attributing a decade of drought in Tasmania to climate change, claiming *''the jury is still out''* on the science.   The comments follow the issuing of a CSIRO report yesterday, revealing drought has cut water availability in northern Tasmania's premier wine growing region by 24 per cent, with river flows reaching record lows. One of the report's co-authors, hydrologist David Post, told The Canberra Times there was *''no evidence''* linking drought to climate change in eastern Australia, including the Murray-Darling Basin.   ''At this stage, we'd prefer to say we're talking about natural variability. *The science is not sufficiently advanced to say it's climate change, one way or the other.* The jury is still out on that,'' Dr Post said.   More here.   *How fast can they back pedal from this mess... *  **

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *How fast can they back pedal from this mess...*      **

  Dont worry the are back peddeling very fast.  LOL it is great to see. Even the IPPC is getting stick for its dodgy science.  Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: More Laundered Literature: A Guest Post by Ben Pile 
My guess there will be more comming as the MSM are starting to turn.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here is one for Woodbe who has so much faith in the scientific method. 
It is a great explaination of how it broke down in climate science.  Climategate Analysis From SPPI  Watts Up With That?  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...e_analysis.pdf 
Cheers Rod

----------


## woodbe

> _One of the biggest problems in out back SA was finding fresh water that was not salty._ 
> Apparently there is vast quantities of water below the Nullabour plain_. _ Some of it saline but not overly.Look at google earth on the surface..

  There is a lot, but the quality is variable. Note that you cannot tell the water quality from Google Earth, but if you see water, it is most likely salty. One of the problems from the past is that early pastoral and mining interests sunk bores looking for good water - if they found salty water they just left the tap running so to speak. There's been a bit of an effort to clean these up in recent times, but some of them are now massive eroded holes. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Here is one for Woodbe who has so much faith in the scientific method. 
> It is a great explaination of how it broke down in climate science.  Climategate Analysis From SPPI  Watts Up With That?  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...e_analysis.pdf 
> Cheers Rod

  Thanks Rod, 
John P. Costella sings marvellously to his sceptic audience.  
Like I said, I'll wait for the review thanks.  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Thanks Rod, 
> John P. Costella sings marvellously to his sceptic audience.  
> Like I said, I'll wait for the review thanks.  
> woodbe.

  You wont read it??

----------


## woodbe

> You wont read it??

  Sorry, where did I say that? 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'll wait for the outcome of the CRU investigation, thanks.  
> woodbe.

   

> Like I said, I'll wait for the review thanks.  
> woodbe.

  I too look forward to reading this independent (?) review (as does the whole world). No doubt they will release all the raw data used and all the methodological procedures and assumptions used.   :2thumbsup:  
Mr Costella's review was certainly entertaining.  :Hooray:  
 But I will feed this into all other information available.   
I think we have all learned from this fiasco that it is better to think for ourselves rather than rely on the "authority figures" for their opinions. 
Look how some truly independent reviews turn out:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Sorry, where did I say that? 
> woodbe.

   I didn't say you said that.  It was a question. :Doh:  :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

> It was a question.

  It was a statement with question marks at the end of it. 
A question would be something like 'did you read it?', or 'are you going to read it?' 
You won't agree??  :Sneaktongue:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It was a statement with question marks at the end of it. 
> A question would be something like 'did you read it?', or 'are you going to read it?' 
> You won't agree??  
> woodbe.

  You are splitting straws here you know exactly what I ment.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I too look forward to reading this independent (?) review (as does the whole world). No doubt they will release all the raw data used and all the methodological procedures and assumptions used.

     Apparently the UK government also has concerns about the independent (?) review.     *Science and Technology Committee* *The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia*   *Terms of Reference* 
The Science and Technology Committee today announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).  
The Committee has agreed to examine and invite written submissions on three questions:   What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?   Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?   How independent are the other two international data sets?   The Committee intends to hold an oral evidence session in March 2010.   *Background *  On 1 December 2009 Phil Willis, Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, wrote to Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor of UEA following the considerable press coverage of the data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU).  
The coverage alleged that data may have been manipulated or deleted in order to produce evidence on global warming. On 3 December the UEA announced an Independent Review into the allegations to be headed by Sir Muir Russell.   The Independent Review will:   1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.   2. Review CRU's policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.   3. Review CRU's compliance or otherwise with the University's policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act ('the FOIA') and the Environmental Information Regulations ('the EIR') for the release of data.   4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds .   *Submissions *  The Committee invites written submissions from interested parties on the three questions set out above by noon on* Wednesday 10 February*:   Each submission should:   a)be no more than 3,000 words in length 
b)be in Word format (no later than 2003) with as little use of colour or logos as possible 
c)have numbered paragraphs 
d)include a declaration of interests.   A copy of the submission should be sent by e-mail to scitechcom@parliament.uk and marked "Climatic Research Unit". An additional paper copy should be sent to:   The Clerk
Science and Technology Committee
House of Commons
7 Millbank
London SW1P 3JA   It would be helpful, for Data Protection purposes, if individuals submitting written evidence send their contact details separately in a covering letter. You should be aware that there may be circumstances in which the House of Commons will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.   Please supply a postal address so a copy of the Committee's report can be sent to you upon publication.   A guide for written submissions to Select Committees may be found on the parliamentary website at: House of Commons Departmental Select Committees: Guide for Witnesses   Please also note that:   Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed memorandum, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.   Memoranda submitted must be kept confidential until published by the Committee, unless publication by the person or organisation submitting it is specifically authorised.   Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or by making it available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence.   Select Committees are unable to investigate individual cases.    *Oral evidence* An evidence session will be announced in due course.   *Press notices* 22/01/10 Inquiry announced   Full link here.   Whats our federal government doing about this disaster?   *PM's juggling act*  _January 23, 2010_  *Michelle Grattan *   Kevin Rudd has made Australia Day policy speeches around the nation on each of the past five days, with two to come. We've heard about productivity, fiscal responsibility, infrastructure, jobs and disadvantage. Today he speaks about health; tomorrow (unless there is a change) he's due to talk about cities.  *Anything odd about this list? You've got it. Climate change and the need for an emissions trading scheme haven't been the focus of any speech so far.*   Full link here.   You can RUDD, but you cant hide!  :Peepwall:

----------


## woodbe

> You are splitting straws here you know exactly what I ment.

  Whatever. If you don't type what you mean the meaning of what you do type becomes a lottery. 
Dr. Freud. I'm not sure what you are expecting Mr Rudd to do? Should he announce a parliamentary inquiry into the CRU emails too?  :Confused:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Dr. Freud. I'm not sure what you are expecting Mr Rudd to do? Should he announce a parliamentary inquiry into the CRU emails too?  
> woodbe.

   I dont expect the Prime Muppet to do anything because he is more concerned about spin rather than substance.  What I would recommend he does is call a Royal Commission into any Australian involvement in this fiasco.  At a minimum, a Senate Committee with a very broad frame of reference.  The evidence pointing to gross incompetence and negligence is already self-evident.  Some of it I have provided in post # 1203 on page 81, with more provided below.   *Climate email mess hits Australia *  *PAOLA TOTARO*  _December 5, 2009 _     LONDON: Australian weather records for an international database on climate change were a "bloody mess", riddled with entry errors, duplication and inaccuracies, leaked British computer files reveal.  
  The Herald found the criticism in a 247-page specialist programmer's log, unearthed among the thousands of files hacked from East Anglia University, which is at the centre of a climate change email scandal.  
  Labelled "HARRY-READ-ME", the log catalogues problems with the raw, historical climate data sent from hundreds of meteorological stations around the world.  
  The Australian data comes in for particular criticism as the programmer discovers World Meteorological Organisation codes are missing, station names overlap and many co-ordinates are incorrect.  
  At one point the programmer writes about his attempts to make sense of the data. "What a bloody mess," he concludes. In another case, 30 years of data is attributed to a site at Cobar Airport but the frustrated programmer writes: "Now looking at the dates. something bad has happened ... COBAR AIRPORT AWS [automatic weather station] cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!"  
  In another he says: "Getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data ... so many false references ... so many changes ... bewildering."  
  "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar co-ordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight."    Full story here.   This is now left to sit uncontested as our countrys reputation in the international scientific community.  The PM does nothing to refute or correct these allegations or practices, but instead is happy to push ahead with a massive taxation upheaval based on this mess.   
The PM does not even ask one question about how this has occurred, but chooses to ignore the subject entirely for nearly the last month as shown in post # 1214 on page 81.      Even if he chose not to call the reviews, I would recommend at least waiting for these other international reviews (UK   :England: and USA :Usa3: ) and further investigations to be completed before subjecting our country to the biggest bureaucratic and taxation burden in its history.  But no... :No:     *Rudd Government will try again for ETS tax*     By Sue      DunlevyFrom: The Daily Telegraph December 20, 2009 11:59PM *THE Rudd Government will press ahead with its plan to put a price tag on carbon pollution even though the leaders of other nations refused to reach a legally binding agreement on reducing global warming in Copenhagen. *  Treasurer Wayne Swan said the controversial emissions trading scheme that would push up the cost of electricity and power was "just as relevant now as it was before Copenhagen and we need to pass the bill for business certainty".   Full story here.   To reiterate, I expect nothing of the PM, I would only expect this of a leader!    :Aussie3: Happy Australia Day to all.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Keep up the good work with this exposure Dr Freud.  I am away for a few days but I see the IPCC is getting a lot of flack at the moment for all the non peer reviewed guess work that went into AR7. 
I will post some links when I get back.  It looks like they are self imploding. 
So much for the "trust worthy scientists" LOL

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm a little disappointed with the number of posts the last few days...................remember kids, I get to post the 2000th reply..........

  Maybe we could all just post $2000 to the ATO instead, short cut this whole charade.  :2thumbsup:   But just in case you can't be bothered trawling through the mountains of evidence piling up, I'll happily provide some snippets from time to time...so let's hear from Tom.  *Professor Tom Wigley*  * 
Current Post:* Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO; Honorary Professor, School of Environmental Sciences, UEA     *Room Number:* n/a     *Telephone:* +1 303 497 2690     *Fax:* +1 303 497 1333     *Email:* wigley@ucar.edu    *Research Interests*  
Climate, sea level and carbon cycle modeling; climate data analysis.    *Biography*  
I have degrees in theoretical physics, and trained and worked as a meteorologist between my B.Sc. and Ph.D. After a period teaching at the University of Waterloo in Canada, I joined the Climatic Research Unit in 1975 and was Director from 1979 to 1993. I moved to the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO in 1993, but maintain an active association with UEA. I have been a member of Academia Europaea since 1991, Fellow of the American Meteorological Society since 2001, and Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science since 2002. I have published more than 250 papers in refereed journals and books, many of which are highly cited.  I am on ISIs Highly Cited Researchers List.  More here.   And what did Tom say?  _November 25, 1997: email 0880476729 (This has been going on over a decade)_ 
Tom Wigley roundly criticises the eleven scientists seeking endorsement of their Statement. 
Dear Eleven, 
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view when you say that the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.  
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their scientific research. I think you have failed to do this. 
Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the sciencewhen, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with the IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject.
 
When scientists color the science with their own personal views or make categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics . I find this extremely disturbing.   More here.     :Logic wins again:

----------


## Dr Freud

What the PM used to say about the IPCC:   PM KEVIN RUDD: Well, I just look at what the scientists say. There's a group of scientists called the International Panel on Climate Change - 4000 of them. Guys in white coats who run around and don't have a sense of humour. They just measure things. And what they say to us is it's happening and it's caused by human activity.   What the PM says now: ..................................................  .................................................    What the PM used to say about AGW:   PM KEVIN RUDD: I think it's probably one of the biggest if the not THE biggest challenge for the century and the reason's pretty clear - it affects everything.   What the PM says now: ..................................................  .................................................   Crunch time...how appropriate.    All this ammunition and our government is still firing blanks.  :Giveup:

----------


## Dr Freud

A question of science - Is this cause and effect?   (With bonus Hockey Stick graph provided by Kevin Rudd)   The cause?  New York Times - Asia Pacific *Australia Announces Changes on Asylum Seekers*  
By TIM JOHNSTON
  Published: July 30, 2008  (See Red Dot below)  
SYDNEY, Australia  Australia is ending its policy of automatic detention for asylum seekers who arrive in the country without visas, the government said Tuesday.  Detention in immigration centers will be used only as a last resort and for the shortest possible time, Immigration Minister Chris Evans said as he announced the policy change in a speech at Australian National University in the capital, Canberra.   
Mr. Evans is a member of the Labor government of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who took office last year after the 11-year tenure of John Howard, a conservative.   Full story here.    The effect?        Full data here.   Now thats what a *real Hockey Stick graph* looks like!  :Biggrin:  
With all the raw data published.  :2thumbsup:    Dont you just love science and statistics.  :Think:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Tom Wigley roundly criticises *the eleven scientists* seeking endorsement of their Statement.

      

> PM KEVIN RUDD: Well, I just look at what the scientists say. There's a group of scientists called the International Panel on Climate Change - *4000 of them*. Guys in white coats who run around and don't have a sense of humour.

    
One of these guys can't count.   
A mathematician once told me there are only three types of people, those who can count and those who can't.  :Tongue:

----------


## woodbe

So the news is that we have a strong political theme underlying our distaste for any sort of Carbon Trading. Funny how there is little mention here of the sceptics' friend, Mr Tony Abbott, who is on record as saying that Global Warming is a load of crap.  
In other news, one of the Linch Pins of the sceptics' root arguments regarding the surface temperature record is *Under Attack* (pdf, 1.6Mb) and published. 
Seems that there might be more to it than taking a photograph and aiming cheap shots at people who do the work. _What a surprise._ 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> So the news is that we have a strong political theme underlying our distaste for any sort of Carbon Trading. 
> woodbe.

   Political themes have been underlying this debate for a long time:   _Indeed, it strikes us as opening the way for climate science and economics to be determined, at least in part, by political requirements rather than by the evidence. Sound science cannot emerge from an unsound process We are concerned that there may be political interference in the nomination of scientists whose credentials should rest solely with their scientific qualifications for the tasks involved Similarly, scientists should be appointed because of their scientific credentials, and not because they take one or other view in the climate debate At the moment, it seems to us that the emissions scenarios are influenced by political considerations ... _  http://www.publications.parliament.u...naf/12/12i.pdf   But I dont care what gets traded (Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen...), as long as I dont have to pay taxes for it.   :No:     

> Funny how there is little mention here of the sceptics' friend, Mr Tony Abbott, who is on record as saying that Global Warming is a load of crap.  
> woodbe.

   For the record, I dont care what political party tries to tax me for fresh air, I will reject this.  Malcolm Turnbull is one of the best lawyers, entrepreneurs and businessman in the country, but I would vote against him every day of the week that he supports this fiasco.   The former Opposition leader, Mr Turnbull, has pledged to cross the floor to support the amended ETS.   Thankfully he is gone and we now have a limited choice. But as you raise Mr Abbott, lets hear his thoughts on the subject (just for balance). 
He admitted that there were times when he had stuffed up politics but said that when someone became a leader, they had made a new start.   I think that climate change is real and that man does make a contribution, he said.    But he said there was argument about the level of that contribution and what should be done about it.    Mr Abbott said the argument was about how to deal with climate change.   The last thing we should be doing is rushing through a great big new tax just so that Kevin Rudd can take a trophy to Copenhagen, he said.    I am humbled: Abbott    

> In other news, one of the Linch Pins of the sceptics' root arguments regarding the surface temperature record is *Under Attack* (pdf, 1.6Mb) and published. 
> Seems that there might be more to it than taking a photograph and aiming cheap shots at people who do the work. _What a surprise._ 
> woodbe.

   The article above made many assumptions, but for the sake of not arguing semantics, I will concede that if all the data they used was accurate and the assumptions they used are valid, then the temperature record for the continental United States between 1980 and 2010 is only fairly inaccurate (as defined by their own criteria).     This doesnt change what I said in post # 7 on page 1.  But it does again raise the question as to why our government does not want this type of scrutiny over Australian data measuring and recording standards.  Perhaps if more of this type of scrutiny was applied globally (ie the G in AGW), then this study could expanded into relevance.    Unfortunately, many protagonists of AGW Theory still make the false assumption that refuting your opponents argument then proves your own (not that the temperature inaccuracies argument has even been refuted mind you).    This is a simplified version of the scientific method:   1. I develop a theory;   2. I do everything I can to refute (disprove) my theory;   3. If I cannot refute it, I then do everything I can to prove my theory;   4. After I prove my theory, I provide ALL my work to others to refute my theory (just in case I missed anything);   5. If no-one can refute my proven theory, it becomes a scientific fact, principle or law.   The IPCC has not gone through this process (see climategate) but the world is currently teetering between step 2 and step 3.  Please understand this, until AGW Theory is proved, it does not matter what sceptics say about the theory, it is still a theory.  I can say that the tooth fairy told me that AGW Theory was false.  If someone proves the tooth fairy doesnt exist, that does not prove AGW Theory (i.e. criticising an opponent at step 2 doesnt automatically transfer the theory to step 5).   All my posts are designed to do is make people realise that this theory has not been proven, contrary to many claims by reputable scientists.  I am happy to argue about evidence indicating support for or detracting from the AGW Theory, but it is still just a theory.   P.S. But I reserve the right to take the occasional cheap shot.   :Boxing:  
For example, heres a communist superpower regime telling the IPCC to be less authoritarian.   Amid controversy surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on melting glaciers, Xie Zhenhua, Vice-Chairman of Chinas National Development and Reform Commission, today urged the UN panel to make the fifth assessment report comprehensive by also citing contrarian views.

----------


## woodbe

LOL. So much red ink. 
My political comment was directed towards the overt personalisation of this topic as an anti-Rudd one of late, not whether the carbon trading debate involved politics at all. 
There was I thinking that step 5 read "If no-one can refute my proven theory, it becomes our best accepted theory until something that fits the data better comes along, and we never stop looking." 
Seems like even the sceptics are now looking to set theories in cement. I'm reminded of Hanrahan. 
So the Chinese, who are hell bent on uncontrolled consumption of fossil fuels and development of their economy would like the IPCC to change their mind.  _what a surprise._ 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

Apologies comrade,watermelon time.    

> My political comment was directed towards the overt personalisation of this topic as an anti-Rudd one of late, not whether the carbon trading debate involved politics at all.
> woodbe.

    Id make it anti-Obama if I was a US citizen, or anti-Brown if I was a UK citizen, but Im an Aussie and Rudd wants to tax me for fresh air.  So it is personal and it is anti-Rudd.  :Cool look:    

> There was I thinking that step 5 read "If no-one can refute my proven theory, it becomes our best accepted theory until something that fits the data better comes along, and we never stop looking." 
> Seems like even the sceptics are now looking to set theories in cement. I'm reminded of Hanrahan.
> woodbe.

   Just to reiterate.    

> This is a simplified version of the scientific method

      I was trying to avoid another semantic sidetrack, but here goes.  Theories do not get set in cement.  Theories are not facts. But as I have covered previously, even facts can change, albeit rarely:     

> As for the debate argument, science is determined by facts and facts alone. What is debated constantly is what constitutes a fact (ie. old fact "Flat Earth" replaced by new fact "Round Earth").

    (See post # 1165 on page 78 for full details and post # 1143 on page 77 for the settled science info.)   There are entire areas of science dedicated to debating these definitions, but as an intro:   *Scientific Theory*  *A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven.*   Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions   *Scientific Fact* 
  3. Something that has been objectively verified. 4. Something having real, demonstrable existence." The 3rd and 4th definitions are what scientists mean by "facts."  
  Here is a statement of fact, in the scientific sense:   Under      normal circumstances, if a piano is dropped from a height, it will fall.   This is true no matter how many times the piano is dropped and no matter how many different people drop it. They can all agree that the piano will fall, even if they don't personally drop it, or even see it drop. In other words, they have "objectively verified" that the piano will drop. The piano itself is a tangible, measurable object, which means it has "real, demonstrable existence."  *Difference Between Fact and Belief* 
  There are some things people may call "facts" that do not meet the 3rd and 4th definitions given above. That doesn't mean they aren't true; it just means they aren't what science defines as "facts." For example, some people consider the following statement to be a fact:   The earth      was created in one week's time by a supernatural being called "God."   Unlike the falling piano, scientists cannot repeat this event to see if the earth can be created in one week; in other words, they cannot objectively verify that such a thing is possible. Unlike the piano, scientists cannot detect or measure God to see if God has the same kind of "real, demonstrable existence" that a piano does. To science, the statement above represents a "belief," something one chooses to think is true or false, and is not a statement of fact.   Science Fundamentals ? What is a "Fact?": Knowing the Definition of a Fact is Crucial to Understanding Science  In a nutshell, if a theory is disproved it is invalidated (yet to happen to AGW Theory).  If a theory is proved, it becomes a fact, not a "best accepted theory" (also yet to happen to AGW Theory).  Until one of these two things happen, it is still just a theory.    

> So the Chinese, who are hell bent on uncontrolled consumption of fossil fuels and development of their economy would like the IPCC to change their mind.  _what a surprise._ 
> woodbe.

    Climate change concerns survival and development of people. We need to adopt an open attitude to scientific research and incorporate all views, said Xie   Sounds like he is asking the IPCC to open their minds, as opposed to change them.  But I guess we are lucky to live in a country that doesnt uncontrollably consume fossil fuels and develop our economy.  :Wink 1:    But now, back to the scientists...   July 5, 2000: *email 0962818260 *   Mike Kelly, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, writes to Mike Hulme and Tim ORiordan:  
  Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic partner, and will contribute to a studentship fund, though under certain conditions.  
  And they accuse skeptics of being in the pockets of Big Oil?  
Im talking to Shell Internationals climate change team, but this approach will do equally for the new Foundation, as its only one step or so off Shells equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Foundation and what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether its within the remit.    Sounds lucrative. Buildings dont come cheap.   More here.

----------


## woodbe

Signal to Noise 115:745 
The Chinese are definitely the sceptics' friend. After all, they are a shining light of open-ness in a closed world. They have the purest air, water, the most worker-friendly workplace laws and an a free and uncensored communication system. It's the kind of place that fosters 'open minds', especially if you breathe deeply on a warm summer day. *cough* [insert sarcasm emoticon here] 
Be careful what you wish for. The heavy hitters supporting the sceptics' burn, bash and bury' campaign are definitely from the wrong end of town. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> And they accuse skeptics of being in the pockets of Big Oil?

  So Shell publically provides funding to the uni (clearly with strings attached - most likely 'no research that undermines our business'; the 'remit' would be interesting to see.) and this is comparable to devious, undisclosed and hidden petrochemical funding of anti-AGW thinktanks?  
Seems pretty fair comparison to me.  :Sneaktongue:  
We've moved from Hanrahan to Tom Sawyer again.  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Signal to Noise 115:745 
> The Chinese are definitely the sceptics' friend. After all, they are a shining light of open-ness in a closed world. They have the purest air, water, the most worker-friendly workplace laws and an a free and uncensored communication system. It's the kind of place that fosters 'open minds', especially if you breathe deeply on a warm summer day. *cough* [insert sarcasm emoticon here] 
> Be careful what you wish for. The heavy hitters supporting the sceptics' burn, bash and bury' campaign are definitely from the wrong end of town. 
> woodbe.

   

> So Shell publically provides funding to the uni (clearly with strings attached - most likely 'no research that undermines our business'; the 'remit' would be interesting to see.) and this is comparable to devious, undisclosed and hidden petrochemical funding of anti-AGW thinktanks?  
> Seems pretty fair comparison to me.  
> We've moved from Hanrahan to Tom Sawyer again.  
> woodbe.

  Faced with this avalanche of scientific support for AGW Theory, combined with the scientific support from the IPCC reports, AGW Theory is still just a theory.  :Biggrin:  
Apologies for the brevity, lots of work to do... :Frown:

----------


## woodbe

Brevity acknowledged and applauded. We get to the point without a lot of hot air. 
I think we both accept that it is a theory. What I wrote was not scientific support, it was a brief refutation of the dubious proposals you posted. But of course you knew that. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Read this Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data - Times Online 
The CRU broke the law in regard to FOI but cannot be prosecuted due to time frames. 
Could this be just the start?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Breaking news in NATURE Mag.  Won't that piss off Mann and CO.  They cant block this one. 
New Paper Nature: carbon cycle feedback is 80% weaker than advertised   The Reference Frame: Nature: carbon cycle feedback is 80% weaker than advertised

----------


## Dr Freud

> ...What I wrote was not scientific support...
> woodbe.

   If only the IPCC authors were this honest.  :Wink:    But, did you know...   *THE Rudd government has committed to introducing an emissions trading scheme with a floating carbon market in 2012 regardless of what the rest of the world does to cut greenhouse gas emissions. *  *Even though Treasury has done NO economic modelling on this scenario? *  *2.2 The scenarios and assumptions *  This report uses scenarios to explore the potential economic effects of climate mitigation policy on Australia. Each scenario represents, in a stylised way, a different possible future...   Two scenarios  CPRS −5 and CPRS −15  examine the potential costs of the Governments proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.  Australias action takes place within a simple multi-stage global policy framework.   Australia and other countries listed in Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol take comparable action from 2010; and developing countries gradually adopt emission reduction obligations from 2015 to 2025.   Two further scenarios  Garnaut −10 and Garnaut −25  were developed jointly with the Garnaut Climate Change Review.  These more stylised scenarios assume united global action, with all countries taking on emission reduction obligations from 2013.   This represents an optimal post-2012 agreement. National contributions are based on a contraction and convergence approach, whereby the allocation of emission rights among countries converges from current levels to equal per capita rights by 2050 (Garnaut, 2008a).   The Prime Muppet has NO idea what economic effect this scenario will have on the economy, but will introduce it anyway!   
Hands up all those feeling comfortable with this policy development?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

Lucky the PM is so up to date with the science...   Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has told ABC1's Insiders...   "When it comes to exceptional or extreme drought, exceptionally high temperatures, the historical assumption that this occurred once every 20 years has now been revised down to between every one and two years," he said.   "Exceptional circumstances drought conditions ... will occur twice as often and with twice the area of droughted parts of Australia included.   Maybe he could now issue a retraction and outline the current CSIRO position...   For example, Professor Sackett said, while the reality of climate change was clearly understood, there was less certainty about its effects on rainfall patterns in Australia. More research was required before conclusions could be drawn with any scientific confidence.

----------


## chrisp

> For example, Professor Sackett said, while the reality of climate change was clearly understood, there was less certainty about its effects on rainfall patterns in Australia. More research was required before conclusions could be drawn with any scientific confidence.

  The linked article is an interesting read.  From the same article: _"Professor Sackett said there was no real dispute within the scientific community about the reality of climate change but she wanted non-scientists to have greater access to the evidence to help inform the necessary public debate about crafting policy responses to the problem."_

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The linked article is an interesting read. From the same article: _"Professor Sackett said there was no real dispute within the scientific community about the reality of climate change but she wanted non-scientists to have greater access to the evidence to help inform the necessary public debate about crafting policy responses to the problem."_

  Yep this reads like the prelude, to quietly sneaking out the back door, hoping no one will notice. 
"no real dispute" mean yes there is dispute but at the moment I am keeping my options open  This is quite a change from "the science is settled". 
"she wanted non-scientist to have greater access to the evidence"  A backward way of saying that the "evidence" read "data" has been kept from public or scientific scrutiny and now we are caught out it should be disclosed.  
Yes the climate debate is sure changing. :Brava: brava 
Not long now.

----------


## woodbe

LOL @ Rod.  :Biggrin:  
When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, hey, Rod? 
Beautifully creative spin. Seriously. You're in the wrong profession - most pollies don't get as good as this. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> LOL @ Rod.  
> When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, hey, Rod? 
> Beautifully creative spin. Seriously. You're in the wrong profession - most pollies don't get as good as this. 
> woodbe.

  LOL thought you would like that Woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

A pretty green outfit now...        Professor Sackett said there was no real dispute within the scientific community about the reality of climate change but she wanted non-scientists to have greater access to the evidence to help inform the necessary public debate about crafting policy responses to the problem.      "The public must be provided with the best possible advice," Professor Sackett said.      Like this?      *We've got 5 years to save world says Australia's chief scientist Professor Penny Sackett *     THE planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government's chief scientist.    I liked the world more when there was only one green muppet.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Yep like_  said, DR._ She is starting to back peddle.  Dont you just love it.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yep like_  said, DR._ She is starting to back peddle.  Dont you just love it.

  
I certainly do my friend.  It is all coming down...  Professor Phil Jones, the director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and a contributor to the IPCC's reports, has been forced to stand down while an investigation takes place into leaked e-mails allegedly showing that he attempted to conceal data.   In response to one request for data Professor Jones wrote: "We have 25 or so years invested in the work.  Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"   Why?    

> 4. After I prove my theory, I provide ALL my work to others to refute my theory (just in case I missed anything);

  From here.    But not only is he a bad scientist, it looks like the good professor might get a whole lotta love, just like Bernie.    What is not being intelligently reported is that Jones is still liable as lead conspirator in the UKs Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and may face prosecution under the United Kingdom Fraud Act (2006). If convicted of the offense of fraud by either false representation, failing to disclose information or fraud by abuse of his position, he stands liable to a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment.    According to the IPCC likelihood scale, it is _very likely_ (90% certain) that the good professor is going to need this:

----------


## woodbe

Haha. 
Love it. The sceptic's kangaroo court. Isn't it grand to be able to replace a presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt.  
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Yep like_  said, DR._ She is starting to back peddle.  Dont you just love it.

  It seems to me that it is Dr Freud who is the one backpedalling here.  First he(?) quoted her to support his argument and is now rubbishing her. 
Rereading Rod's post in the quote above, I think he may have made a Freudian slip and used the term "peddle" instead of "pedal" - quite appropriate   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

Gentlemen,  you do your cause a disservice by continuing to argue the semantics rather than the science (ie. trying to kill my tooth fairy).      But in your defence, I guess it's tough to argue the scientific basis for AGW Theory when the alleged evidence is crumbling and even the PM doesn't want to talk about it anymore.  :Shock:    But lets start with the semantics lest I be accused of being a hypocrite.     

> Haha. 
> Love it. The sceptic's kangaroo court. Isn't it grand to be able to replace a presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt.  
> woodbe.

     I do not presume innocence or guilt in the legal sense, and even I did that would be irrelevant as the presumption of innocence is enshrined in our (and the UKs) criminal legal system.  That is why the author of the cited article used the expressions may face prosecution and if convicted.  I suggest you re-read the IPCC reports and count the number of times the words may and if appear.  These words indicate that the outcome of the subject matter is all but settled.      *In the legal sense*, it will be a suitably convened judge and/or jury that will determine the innocence or guilt of the accused (should he even be charged).   My reference to the IPCC likelihood scale is a satirical reference to what I have been continually referring to as the quantification of opinion.  This is how the IPCC determined that Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 with a 90% certainty based on the opinion of one scientist with no data from a quote in the media.  My apologies if this satirical simile was lost on some of the audience.      As for the lubricant, if you cant figure this one out then dont break the law.     

> It seems to me that it is Dr Freud who is the one backpedalling here. First he(?) quoted her to support his argument and is now rubbishing her.

    

> Rereading Rod's post in the quote above, I think he may have made a Freudian slip and used the term "peddle" instead of "pedal" - quite appropriate

     As for the pretty professor, what I have been consistently doing is using the CSIROs own words to highlight their inconsistency on the subject of AGW Theory.  Hence, I can use their own words against their own words.  That is how they support my argument that *they are inconsistent.*  That is why I suggested they get the PM up to speed on all the changes in their position, as he has not retracted any of his statements made that are inconsistent with the current CSIRO position.   As for rubbishing the professor, I have not said a bad word about her, I have just quoted her own words, that as shown above, are inconsistent. 
My title of A pretty green outfit now... was a double entendre designed to highlight the professors pretty green outfit (and she is quite pretty too), as well as satirically suggesting that the CSIRO was also being increasingly influenced by protagonists of AGW Theory.  My apologies again if this satire was lost on some of the audience.    In summary, my position is that AGW Theory is a perfectly valid theory that has yet to be proved or disproved scientifically.  I have also asserted regularly that many scientists working in this area have breached or overlooked fundamental scientific practices to further various individual agendas that sometimes overlap, such as careers, funding, ideology and even altruism.  This has led to a groundswell of popular support for the theory, that is yet to be proven.    I seriously do not personally care about anything in the preceding paragraph, other than intellectual curiosity.  But when some muppet uses the above as an excuse to tax me for fresh air because he cant balance a budget, then alludes that I am some kind of oil burning serial killer of children futures, then we are going to toe to toe gentleman.  It is personal and it is anti-Rudd.     :Minigun:     As for the peddling, this is an appropriate Freudian slip. AGW Theory protagonists have been peddling their wares for a while, but as I said here, I aint buying based on their glossy sales brochure.  
But it is good to see some interest in the area of psychoanalysis, makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.  :Thumbup1:     But to get away from semantics and back to the muppets ineptitude (much to the chagrin of the ideologues):   ONE of the Rudd Government's key climate change initiatives is close to collapse amid claims of widespread rorting and mismanagement.  :Yikes2:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rereading Rod's post in the quote above, I think he may have made a Freudian slip and used the term "peddle" instead of "pedal" - quite appropriate

  Yep never was renown for my spelling,

----------


## woodbe

> I do not presume innocence or guilt in the legal sense,

   
LOL. And you accuse us of semantics?. You have made it very clear what your position is, legal or otherwise (as have sceptics here in general). Hence my reference to Kangaroo Court. 
Unlike the good Professor Jones, you at least have the opportunity to re-interpret what you and your correspondent wrote for those of us who are too dim to get your true meaning, even though you extend no such benefit to the person you hold in the focus of your ire.  
Thankfully, our legal systems do not operate in a manner similar to this trial by internet campaign, however I suspect the man himself and his family are going through a very tough time waiting for the wheels to turn and the opportunity for him to defend himself to arrive, while the opportunists and sensationalists declare him guilty of all sorts of crimes at every chance they get. 
Semantics, by the way, is the study of _meaning_, and it is very appropriate to this discussion. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

It just gets better and better everyday.  Do you see the cracks opening up yet Woodbe?    NASA and NOAA are organizations from which many of true believers in the global warming religion have come, and they've played a critical role in providing the scientific-sounding justification for the worst of the alarmist predictions.  But now scientists from NOAA have published research in _Science_ that challenges the core assumptions of the global warming camp: 
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/29/steve-janke-more-unsettling-science-in-the-global-warming-camp.aspx#ixzz0e4oKAU2X 
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> LOL. And you accuse us of semantics?. You have made it very clear what your position is, legal or otherwise (as have sceptics here in general). Hence my reference to Kangaroo Court.   Unlike the good Professor Jones, you at least have the opportunity to re-interpret what you and your correspondent wrote for those of us who are too dim to get your true meaning, even though you extend no such benefit to the person you hold in the focus of your ire.     
> Thankfully, our legal systems do not operate in a manner similar to this trial by internet campaign, however I suspect the man himself and his family are going through a very tough time waiting for the wheels to turn and the opportunity for him to defend himself to arrive, while the opportunists and sensationalists declare him guilty of all sorts of crimes at every chance they get. 
> Semantics, by the way, is the study of _meaning_, and it is very appropriate to this discussion. 
> woodbe.

  
You give this man way to much credit Woodbe. If you have read all the emails and the interpretation of the time line and context in which they were eritten by this man, You would have to be in complete DENIAL that he is sugar coated and clean on the FOI issue and fraud in general. 
Justice will be done. Read this http://www.climategate.com/climatega...-fraud-charges

----------


## woodbe

> You give this man way to much credit Woodbe.

  Actually, no I don't. 
That you discredit him without trial on the basis of unanswered accusation speaks to your cause more than I would dare. 
So be it. You judge, I wait.  
According to you, we have all the time in the world, yet your rush exposes you. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Actually, no I don't. 
> That you discredit him without trial on the basis of unanswered accusation speaks to your cause more than I would dare. 
> So be it. You judge, I wait.  
> According to you, we have all the time in the world, yet your rush exposes you. 
> woodbe.

  It is not me doing the judging I'm just an observer,

----------


## woodbe

> It is not me doing the judging I'm just an observer,

  
woodbe <-- Speechless!   :Yikes2:

----------


## Dr Freud

By his own admission, the good Dr Phil Jones wrote this: _If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA wholl say we must adhere to it! _  And this: _Havent got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So Im not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but Im not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldnt be deleting emails - unless this was normal deleting to keep emails manageable!_   _Anyway requests have been of three types - observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter - and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these - all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioners Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business - and it doesnt! Im sounding like Sir Humphrey here!  _  And this: _Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?_  _Keith will do likewise. Hes not in at the moment - minor family crisis._  _Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I dont have his new email address._  _We will be getting Caspar to do likewise._  _I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!_    And as a result of this and many of his dubious practices now faces this: The reputation of the University of East Anglia's world renowned climatic research unit (CRU)was shaken to the core last year after emails posted on the internet from researchers including its director Prof Phil Jones appeared to suggest ways of avoiding freedom of information requests together with a trick to explain away an apparent fall in global temperatures.   Police including a team from Scotland Yard were called in to investigate amid speculation that the leaks were part of a smear campaign by climate change sceptics to discredit the UEA in the run up the Copenhagen summit last year.   The row has reverberated around the world and it emerged today the Norwich university breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming.    Full story here.    But Rod is right, he is not judged by us, he is judged by his own actions!   If his family suffers, it is not because of what we do, but what he did.

----------


## Dr Freud

The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false *before* the Copenhagen summit, _The Times_ has learnt.     Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it.   He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.     The IPCCs report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.     Full story here.    

> *How fast can they back pedal from this mess... *  **

----------


## Dr Freud

In London, Trade Minister Simon Crean has urged Britain to scrap its latest "green tax" rise on airfares, arguing it discriminates against people travelling to Australia.   "We've indicated to the Government that whilst this was originally said to be a duty for environmental purposes it's now accepted that it's just for revenue raising purposes," Mr Crean said.   Full story here.   Maybe you could indicate this to your own government you muppet.   :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

it is getting hard to keep up with all the climate news  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

Im happy to help out where I can champ.  :2thumbsup:      I thought I had seen it all, but I wonder where the AGW Theory protagonists will draw the line when defending the indefensible.     I have said before, children should not be the pawns in this sick game, but RUDD in his Lowy Institute speech and these greenies obviously disagree.          According to Creative Director Fred Claviere, it was a hard choice to use an image this provocative.     But in his own words:  "We have to make people react...it was simply too urgent to not use it."   Maybe you could use scientific evidence instead you freaks!  :Upset:

----------


## Dr Freud

A catastrophic heat wave appears to be closing in on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. How hot is it getting in the scientific kitchen where they've been cooking the books and spicing up the stew pots? So hot, apparently, that Andrew Weaver, probably Canada's leading climate scientist, is calling for replacement of IPCC leadership and institutional reform.   If Andrew Weaver is heading for the exits, it's a pretty sure sign that the United Nations agency is under monumental stress. Mr. Weaver, after all, has been a major IPCC science insider for years. He is Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, mastermind of one of the most sophisticated climate modelling systems on the planet, and lead author on two recent landmark IPCC reports.   For him to say, as he told Canwest News yesterday, that there has been some "dangerous crossing" of the line between climate advocacy and science at the IPCC is stunning in itself.    Full story here.     

> People might actually read The Dopenhagen Diagnosis and believe it. You do know who wrote it and why it was written I presume?

    For those who couldnt be bothered researching the sordid history of  The Dopenhagen Diagnosis, it is covered very briefly in the above story as well.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

But wait, theres more...   The panel admitted last week that its 2007 report wrongly asserted that Himalayan glaciers likely would melt by 2035. That alarming claim created concern across southern and eastern Asia, whose major rivers are fed by the glaciers.   While the content of IPCC reports is supposed to be rigorously checked by a scientific, peer-review system, those rules weren't followed in this case. The glacier-melting claim was kept in the report even though some glacier experts considered it preposterous.   The claim originated with an Indian glaciologist, Syed Hasnain, who works for a research company in India headed by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC's chairman.   British newspaper reports say Pachauri's company used the false glacier claim to win multi-million-dollar research grants from the U.S. and Europe.   Maybe RUDD will attack these rorts with the same vigour  he went after the UNs oil-for-food scandal with the AWB?  *Mr RUDD* (Griffith) (2:39 PM) My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. When the Deputy Prime Minister, as trade minister, was warned in January 2000 of Canadian and UN concerns about irregular payments by the AWB to Saddam Husseins regime, why did he turn a blind eye to these warnings by limiting the investigation to a simple phone call to the AWB, the very company that the Australian government had been warned about?   Or maybe not, as RUDD has been very easily duped before.

----------


## Dr Freud

More destruction of the IPCC here and here.   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> More destruction of the IPCC here and here.

  I am going to have to get another hobby sooner than I thought once this is all over. 
Sheez I will be bored.

----------


## Dr Freud

Don't retire just yet big fella, we have years of investigations, commissions, inquiry's and court cases to get through.  I wonder how many RUDD is currently setting up?  :No:   
Not to mention the scientific community taking a good hard look at themselves to prevent this occurring again.  :2thumbsup:  
But more great "peer-reviewed" material below:   The United Nations climate change panel based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain peaks on a student essay and an article in a mountaineering magazine, a British newspaper reported.  
Geez, lucky we didn't send in any emails supporting the theory, we could have been cited as well.         :Shock:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Don't retire just yet big fella, we have years of investigations, commissions, inquiry's and court cases to get through. I wonder how many RUDD is currently setting up?    Not to mention the scientific community taking a good hard look at themselves to prevent this occurring again.   But more great "peer-reviewed" material below:   The United Nations climate change panel based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain peaks on a student essay and an article in a mountaineering magazine, a British newspaper reported.    Geez, lucky we didn't send in any emails supporting the theory, we could have been cited as well.

  Yes I am currently reading through this analysis of the climate gate emails. It is quite a read in more ways than one.  It is the best analysis I have seen yet.  I doubt anyone could read this and come away with any doubt these guys cooked the books.  They would have to be in complete and utter denial  :Smilie:    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...e_analysis.pdf
(link previously posted but worth posting again)

----------


## Dr Freud

A different Professor called Phil.   Philip Stott is Emeritus Professor of Biogeography in the University of London, where he taught at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). He was Head of Department for seven years and Dean of Student Admissions. Philip has researched on the construction of 'environmental knowledge' for over thirty years, most recently in relation to 'global warming', energy, tropical rain forests, and biotechnology. He has published in many academic journals. For more than 17 years, retiring in 2004, he was Editor-in-Chief of the internationally important _Journal of Biogeography_ (Blackwell Publishing), and his latest books are _Global environmental change_ (with Dr. Peter Moore and Professor Bill Chaloner), _Political ecology: science, myth and power_ (edited with Dr. Sian Sullivan), and _Royal Siamese Maps_ (with Dr. Santanee Phasuk). Philip broadcasts on both radio and television, and he is a regular panellist on BBC Radio 4's interactive environmental programme, 'Home Planet'. He also writes extensively for the press, above all for _The Times_. Philip has a special interest in the developing world, and particularly in South East Asia. He is Chair of the Anglo-Thai Society, UK.   What this Phil wrote...   Moreover, the collapse has been quicker than any might have predicted. The humiliating exclusion of Britain and the EU at the end of the Copenhagen débâcle was partially to be expected, but it was brutal in its final execution.   And, as ever, capitalism has read the runes, with carbon-trading posts quietly being shed, Green jobs sidelined, and even big insurance companies starting to hedge their own bets against the future of the Global Warming Grand Narrative. These rats are leaving the sinking ship far faster than any politician, many of whom are going to be abandoned, left, still clinging to the masts, as the Good Ship Global Warming founders on titanic icebergs in the raging oceans of doubt and delusion.   And what can one say about the science? The science is already paying dearly for its abuse of freedom of information, for unacceptable cronyism, for unwonted arrogance, and for the disgraceful misuse of data at every level, from temperature measurements to glaciers to the Amazon rain forest.    What is worse, the usurping of the scientific method, and of justified scientific scepticism, by political policies and political propaganda could well damage science sensu lato - never mind just climate science - in the public eye for decades. The appalling pre-Copenhagen attacks by the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and his climate-change henchman, Ed Miliband, on those who dared to be critical of the science of climate change were some of the most unforgivable I can recall.   For the moment, we must not underestimate the magnitude of the collapse.    Academically, it is jaw-dropping to observe.    And, the political, economic, and scientific consequences will be profound.    Full story here.

----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## woodbe

> A different Professor called Phil.

  So the man who was once described as   

> Britain's leading climate-change denier and has built a career on criticising environmentalists. Professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London, he has no climate-science qualifications

  Writes a piece telling the world that it's all a load of bunkum. 
what a surprise... 
Does it strike you sceptics as ironic that the very media you tearfully complained  was exaggerating and sensationalising AGW claims without giving any space to dissenting views, is now doing the opposite. It certainly is not lost on me. 
What's hilarious is you think they're "coming around" when they are just doing their thing, same as last time. Selling papers. 
But then, you're 'just observers'  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So the man who was once described as Writes a piece telling the world that it's all a load of bunkum. 
> what a surprise... 
> Does it strike you sceptics as ironic that the very media you tearfully complained was exaggerating and sensationalising AGW claims without giving any space to dissenting views, is now doing the opposite. It certainly is not lost on me. 
> What's hilarious is you think they're "coming around" when they are just doing their thing, same as last time. Selling papers. 
> But then, you're 'just observers'  
> woodbe.

  Woodbe there is no doubt that the MSM was Pro AGW from the start. They would not publish any storey that disputed AGW even though there were plenty. What is happening now is so profound that they can not ingore it any longer and remain credible. We are not cheering the MSM per se. We are cheering the fact that is has come to the point where they can no longer ignore the sceptics. 
This is a major turning point and is the death nell of AGW. 
Even Jon Faine had a softer approach today that before albeit a very small consession allowing a skeptic on his show.

----------


## woodbe

> We are cheering the fact that is has come to the point where they can no longer ignore the sceptics.

  You're kidding yourself. They are doing the same thing they always do, and you yourself have said here that what they do has nothing to do with the facts. Because they currently appear to be supporting your view, all is well in your world. 
It appears that there are two types of MSM.   
1) There is the 'wrong' type that is terribly misguided, and reports AGW as foregone conclusion. 
2) There is the 'right' type that has realised the error of it's ways and is now questioning AGW. 
The only problem with this typing, is that the MSM has not changed at all, they have just identified another opportunity for continuing to sensationalise and milk a topic. 
Most amusing. I look forward to further revelations about the MSM from your viewpoint.  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

[quote=woodbe;787296]. Because they currently appear to be supporting your view, all is well in your world.{/quote}  
You try to make this sound like I applaud the MSM. Yet my view is far from that,  They are forced into this position because of the weight of facts and evidence is against them.     

> .  
> 1) There is the 'wrong' type that is terribly misguided, and reports AGW as foregone conclusion.

    Would you not say this is wrong?  As in reporting AGW as a forgone conclusion, when they know full well it is not.  

> .  
> 2) There is the 'right' type that has realised the error of it's ways and is now questioning AGW.

  Now, where do I say this is the "right" type?  see above  :Doh:    

> .  
> The only problem with this typing, is that the MSM has not changed at all, they have just identified another opportunity for continuing to sensationalise and milk a topic.

   Yes I agree they are milking it.  I guess you don't see a change in the way they are miking it as anything significant, after the 15 years or so of the hype they previously printed.   

> . 
> Most amusing. I look forward to further revelations about the MSM from your viewpoint.

  I am glad to see you are amused.  What you have written here actually says a lot.

----------


## Dr Freud

Then...  The Prime Minister intimated he would go to the people in an early election if his carbon emissions trading legislation was rejected. He won't. The electorate has shifted.    Now...  The Prime Minister did not rule out supplanting climate change with health as a double-dissolution election trigger, saying he was tired of the Coalition blocking measures such as the means test out of ''pure ideological bloody-mindedness''.    You can RUDD but you cant hide! 
  [IMG]file:///C:/Users/Laptop/Desktop/Photo%20Crop/KR%20Credibility.jpg[/IMG]  P.S. Journalists are still idiots.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> Yes I agree they are milking it.  I guess you don't see a change in the way they are miking it as anything significant, after the 15 years or so of the hype they previously printed.

  Didn't you read the papers before that Rod? You must be younger than I thought. 
The MSM are not forced to do anything, they are opportunistic and if they have reported hype for 15 years, it's because it suited them and sold papers. The significance of the change is that they think it will sell... more papers. 
LOL. You need to 'get over' the media. The only 'side' they are on, is their own. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Semantics, by the way, is the study of _meaning_, and it is very appropriate to this discussion. 
> woodbe.

    Just so we don't take ourselves too seriously... :Sneaktongue:    Kevin Rudd was visiting a primary school in Tasmania.
 One class was in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. 
 The teacher asked Mr. Rudd if he would like to lead the discussion on the word tragedy. 
 So the illustrious leader asked the class for an example of a tragedy.
 A little boy stood up and offered: If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him, that would be a tragedy. 
 No, said Rudd that would be an accident. 
 A little girl raised her hand: If a school bus carrying fifty children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy. 
 Im afraid not, explained Mr. Rudd thats what we would call great loss. 
 The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Rudd searched the room. Isnt there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy? 
 Finally, at the back of the room, little Johnny raised his hand.
 In a quiet voice he said: If a plane carrying you and Mrs. Rudd was struck by a friendly fire missile & blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy. 
 Fantastic! exclaimed Rudd . Thats right. And can you tell me why that would be tragedy? 
 Well, says little Johnny it has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldnt be a great loss and it probably wouldnt be a f*cking accident either!

----------


## woodbe

So, seeing as the sceptics herein are awake and seem to dislike our PM so much, perhaps you would like to make some predictions regarding the Opposition's Climate Change Policy to be announced today, and how you think the funding might pan out. 
After all, you will be voting for Mr Abbott, either directly or indirectly I guess, if you don't want to support Mr Rudd.   

> He says the Coalition's alternative policy will include direct action measures to reduce emissions and meet a 5 per cent reduction target, but is yet to spell out the details.

  I guess you're not going to like that much (the 5%) but at least it's not a CTS. Not bad for someone who is on the record as saying that the whole thing is 'crap'. Where will the money come from? 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> After all, you will be voting for Mr Abbott, either directly or indirectly I guess, if you don't want to support Mr Rudd.
> woodbe.

  This farce is just one issue.  I will vote as I always have, by weighing up all of the policies on election day and picking a party who I believe will make this country better.  I have voted for both Keating and Howard previously and the record supports most of their reforms compared to their opponents of the day.  The minor parties are yet to float my boat.  But based on the size of the Enormous Tax Scheme, the other parties don't have a tough act to beat.   

> Where will the money come from? 
> woodbe.

  From the $40 billion surplus Howard left?  Oops, all spent. 
From our current surplus budgets?  Oops, all deficits. 
Borrow it from the zero debt Howard left? Oops, over $200 billion on the credit card already. 
You raise a very good question my friend.  It will be a very interesting election campaign watching them all try to answer it.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Six weeks ago.   When you strip away all the political rhetoric, all the political excuses, there are two stark choices action or inaction. The resolve of the Australian Government is clear we choose action, and we do so because Australia's fundamental economic and environmental interests lie in action.   Action now. Not action delayed.   As one of the hottest and driest continents on earth, Australia's environment and economy will be among the hardest and fastest hit by climate change if we do not act now.   This is a profoundly important time for our nation, for our world and for our planet.   If ever there was a need for an urgent Double Dissolution election, this is it.  RUDD has the trigger.  Election date in March?  This is the issue of our generation, let alone one election! Who wouldnt vote to save the whole world from catastrophe?   Six hours ago.   Mr Rudd said he would fight the next election reminding voters that Labor had kept the economy strong against the backdrop of the global recession and had fought to save jobs.   ...Labor had a good story to tell on infrastructure, water, health and education spending and the new My School website.   Us, I guess!    P.S. Im actually impressed, this new website appears to be working.  :brava:

----------


## chrisp

Rod, 
Did you manage to get along to see Lord Christopher Monckton yesterday?  Climate sceptic clouds the weather issue

----------


## woodbe

He's a riot. 
I can't decide if the MSM are being 'good' or 'bad' by reporting him. Please advise the sceptic position on this Rod. 
The Abbott climate change policy is in.   

> Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has placed a $1 billion emissions reduction fund at the heart of the Coalition's new $3.2b climate change policy.

  If you think past the rhetoric, you will be able to figure out where that money comes from. The hint is that the government only gets money from tax and borrowings, and both are ultimately paid for from a single source. 
No big new tax, eh? Looks like they're just gunna use some big old taxes. Haha. 
So, who should a sceptic vote for? 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> Did you manage to get along to see Lord Christopher Monckton yesterday?  Climate sceptic clouds the weather issue

  No why should I he cant tell me any more than I already know.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> He's a riot. 
> I can't decide if the MSM are being 'good' or 'bad' by reporting him. Please advise the sceptic position on this Rod.

  You amuse my woodbe, assuming my thoughts are the "skeptics" position. 
You keep ranting about "good" and "bad" media when I made my position quite clear to you in above posts.  
 quote=woodbe;787371]
The Abbott climate change policy is in. 
If you think past the rhetoric, you will be able to figure out where that money comes from. The hint is that the government only gets money from tax and borrowings, and both are ultimately paid for from a single source. 
No big new tax, eh? Looks like they're just gunna use some big old taxes. Haha. 
So, who should a sceptic vote for? 
woodbe.[/quote]  
Definietly not Rudd, i am not up to speed yet on Abbot's policy. But any policy that can be reversed rather than "locked" in for future generation is a step forward IMO. As carbon permits become an asset (LOL), unfortantely that isn't a laughing matter but hard not to, a huge amount of money would need to be spent buying back those assets, if it were to be reversed as it would have to be in the future.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Thanks for than headpin, Yes I have seen that before ironic isn't it.

----------


## woodbe

> You amuse my woodbe, assuming my thoughts are the "skeptics" position. 
> You keep ranting about "good" and "bad" media when I made my position quite clear to you in above posts.

  I'm not your woodbe.  :Smilie:  
You're the resident self proclaimed non-denialist sceptic. Do you think the Monckton reporting is a good thing or not? Is he the sort of representative you want for your side? 
If you seriously don't vote for Rudd, you'll effectively be voting for Abbott. Done deal, you don't even have to look at the policy. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

[quote=woodbe;787420]I'm not your woodbe.  :Smilie: [quote] typo  

> You're the resident self proclaimed non-denialist sceptic.

  That is getting a bit ridiculous Woodbe.  

> Do you think the Monckton reporting is a good thing or not? Is he the sort of representative you want for your side?

   No doubt I believe any air time he gets is good air time.     

> If you seriously don't vote for Rudd, you'll effectively be voting for Abbott. Done deal, you don't even have to look at the policy.

   :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

*Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws *  Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.   A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.    The IPCC's 2007 report used the study to justify the claim that "any urban-related trend" in global temperatures was small. Jones was one of two "coordinating lead authors" for the relevant chapter.   Full story here.     Because you see amidst all the discussion about how they should respond, there are two fascinating emails from Tom Wigley who was director of CRU at the time.    While everyone else was all blah,blah, blah, no case to answer, blah blah, obvious nonsense blah, blah, troublemaking sceptics and so on, Tom saw that the charges appeared to be true, the response failed to answer them, and that they ought to have issued a simple retraction right at the start and avoided all this trouble.    That would, of course, have posed a problem for the IPCCs case, but at least everybodys job would be safe.   More here.

----------


## Dr Freud

The IPCC cited a guide for Antarctica tour operators on decontaminating boots and clothing.   The reference is in the Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group II, section 15.7.2 Economic activity and sustainability in the Antarctic. The claim is:   "*The multiple stresses of climate change* and increasing human activity on the Antarctic Peninsula represent a clear vulnerability (see Section 15.6.3), and have *necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines* for tourist landings on the Antarctic Peninsula (IAATO, 2005)."   So the IPCC cites a boot and clothing cleaning guide as evidence that the "multiple stresses of climate change...have necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines". That might be laughable in and of itself, but the problem is _the article doesn't even mention climate change_. Once. Nothing at all about global warming, or temperature increase. *Nothing! *  More here.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Not bad for someone who is on the record as saying that the whole thing is 'crap'. 
> woodbe.

  If youre going to quote the man (Mr Abbott), at least give him the credit of including the whole quote, or maybe even provide the link.   "I think I was nodding off down at the back of the room when all of a sudden he came out with the comment that the *science* around climate change was `absolute crap' and I kind of jumped back awake and wrote down his quote," Wilson says.   Full story here.   It would be a brave person that now says the science around climate change is absolutely sound.  Probably sits between moderately crap and absolute crap in my humble opinion.   But youre not the only one to make this mistake.  Even those astute journalists are now trying to correct this:   PM: Well, my question is not about Mr Abbott personally. I simply go to the question of policy. And if I were to go to two, just off the top- big one, climate change. You cannot take the risk with Australia's future, to have a leader- Mr Abbott- who goes out there and says, quote "that climate change is absolute crap", unquote. That's his position, that's his stated position. Our view's radically-   OAKES: His position is that climate change *science* is crap, he said.   PM: Oh well, his statement is that "it is absolute crap", quote, unquote. And he has a whole series of other conflicting statements attached to that.    From the PM himself.   Could the honeymoon finally be over?

----------


## Dr Freud

Misquoting sometimes dangerously misrepresents the facts, not just in the AGW Theory debate, but also when a dad (Mr Abbott again) gives his teenage daughters this advice:   "They shouldn't give themselves away lightly, that's the advice that I was asked - what would I say to my daughters, and that was the advice that I said I would give them," he said.   "I gave as honest an answer as I can. What I said was my view but it's not a view that I would necessarily want to force on anyone else."    Gets a nice little spin into this:   Mr Abbott has in the past been seen as having an image problem with women over his conservative views on issues such as abortion, and Ms Gillard says he should not be dishing out advice to women.   "These comments will confirm the worst fears of Australian women about Tony Abbott," she said.   "Australian women want to make their own choices and they don't want to be lectured to by Mr Abbott."   Hopefully this pattern can stay out of the AGW Theory debate, just to keep us all on track.  :2thumbsup:    Abbott spun here.

----------


## woodbe

> If youre going to quote the man (Mr Abbott), at least give him the credit of including the whole quote, or maybe even provide the link.

  Sorry, Dr Freud. It's been discussed here before, but yea, I could have provided the link. I think the point is that Abbott was securely anti-CTS, anti-AGW before he became leader, but now he's got a $3b+ taxpayer funded Climate Change plan. I'm happy with that, but it must annoy the heck out of people who think it's all crap, because they have nowhere to vote. I guess the Marijuana Party will do well LOL. 
We're delving into semantics to try and call the CC Science 'crap' without roping in the resulting CC itself aren't we? I'm happy to talk semantics, even though it's routinely unpopular here.  
Is Abbott trying to say that he believes in AGW, but not the science? If he doesn't believe in AGW, then why the CC Plan? It all seems a bit conflicted from here. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Sorry, Dr Freud. It's been discussed here before, but yea, I could have provided the link. I think the point is that Abbott was securely anti-CTS, anti-AGW before he became leader, but now he's got a $3b+ taxpayer funded Climate Change plan. I'm happy with that, but it must annoy the heck out of people who think it's all crap, because they have nowhere to vote. I guess the Marijuana Party will do well LOL. 
> We're delving into semantics to try and call the CC Science 'crap' without roping in the resulting CC itself aren't we? I'm happy to talk semantics, even though it's routinely unpopular here.  
> Is Abbott trying to say that he believes in AGW, but not the science? If he doesn't believe in AGW, then why the CC Plan? It all seems a bit conflicted from here. 
> woodbe.

  Abbot is smarter than you think. 
The ETS Labor proposes is here foerever once introduced regardless of the future of climate change and the science. 
What Abbot proposes will reduce co2 but if it is proven in the years to come that it is no longer required he can change his position with no harm done.  This is smart it caters for the alarmists and is protection against the science being wrong. 
Planting new trees and cleaning up the enviroment won't be a bad thing regardless of climate change. 
The pursuit of new technology is not a bad thing either even. 
The worst thing that can happen is that we get an ETS that increases the prices of all products and services and sends companies off shore with our jobs, without being able to reverse it.   
The ETS stinks and Abbot is providing a reasonable response to the current level of  "threat" that AGW presents. (which is not much).

----------


## woodbe

> What Abbot proposes will reduce co2 but if it is proven in the years to come that it is no longer required he can change his position with no harm done.

  Except to $3b of taxpayer money? 
Ok, I get that, what I don't get is that you are in support of it and singing it's praises. I think I may have even copped it for suggesting an 'insurance' viewpoint in this thread.  
$3b is no little commitment from Mr Abbott.  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Except to $3b of taxpayer money? 
> Ok, I get that, what I don't get is that you are in support of it and singing it's praises.

  You are doing a lot of reading things into comments to suit yourself, 
Where did I say I support it. I simply said it was a better option than what Rudd proposes. In my view we should do nothing for the sake of AGW but we should always be looking for a better environment, polution reduction etc for its sake alone. 
Not forced on us with bogus claims of AGW, where knee jerk reactions like the ETS can't be undone.   

> I think I may have even copped it for suggesting an 'insurance' viewpoint in this thread.

  The insurance veiwpoint is invalid just as much now as it was in previous posts. 
This has nothing to do with the "insurance" veiwpoint. It as all about reaching a position that appeases many and does not lock us in for the long term. Yet if and a very very big if AGW becomes a problem in reality, it can be expanded on to meet the requirements of the day. Very smart move IMO one that I still don't agree is needed, but is better of two evils.    

> $3b is no little commitment from Mr Abbott.

  This is nothing like the cost of Rudds ETS there is no comparison. If it were not for deep green zealots spreading false alarms we would not be spending any of this money chasing shadows.

----------


## chrisp

> Abbot is smarter than you think.

  Rod, 
I have no doubt that Tony Abbott and other politicians are quite smart.  Having fell into the leadership of the coalition after a strange leadership vote, Mr Abbott, and the Coalition, know a hard-line anti-AGW stance will not win him, or the Coalition, an election.  I suspect that internal political party polling by the Liberals has effectively forced Mr Abbott to publicly moderate his stance. 
In a way you're right about to idea of people coming around - it's just that they are coming to around to the view that something has to be done to reduce GHG emissions.  If the wider population truly believes AGW is a rort, then Mr Abbott would press on with his AGW is "crap" position. 
What they seem to be doing is coming up with a hybrid policy on carbon - claiming to do something because it is good for the environment but not push the carbon reduction aspect too much. 
In my view, the good thing that comes out of all this this that the political "debate" is now on a carbon tax rather than the validity of AGW.  This is as it should be as the AGW is a science issue whereas a carbon tax is a political issue.

----------


## Dr Freud

Vote for me, my policy is zero new tax for fresh air. :2thumbsup:    But if you want to compare the costs:   However, he said the $3.2 billion cost over the forward estimates should be compared with Labor's $40 billion "money-go-round".   Over 10 years, the coalition's plan would cost $10 billion as opposed to Labor's $114 billion carbon pollution reduction scheme, he said.    

> Where will the money come from? 
> woodbe.

   

> The hint is that the government only gets money from tax and borrowings, and both are ultimately paid for from a single source. 
> woodbe.

   When it comes to tax, size does matter!   Guess which one also comes with this:   numerous intermediaries, such as brokers, exchanges, aggregators, and financiers, as well as other peripheral participants such as validation and verification, information and analysis, legal, and consulting service providers   Guess which one has an exit clause from this:   The IPCC is becoming the laughing stock of the developed world.

----------


## Dr Freud

I'm just watching some lunatic on Lateline (Senator Brown) talking about taxing ONLY the "big polluters" . 
I still think most proponents of AGW Theory don't get this, so I'll type s l o w l y ... :Biggrin:  
The fastest way to find a so called "big polluter" of CO2 is to find a mirror. 
That's right, I said it pal, you!   :Pointlaugh:  
Even if you are riding a bicycle, powering a generator for your computer, you are still using manufactured equipment and breathing out CO2 knuckleheads.   
Are you going to take the heroin addicts defence and blame the "pushers" for all YOUR problems while you constantly get a bigger hit and a higher high from your habit (Fridge, lights, heaters, water, cars, houses, medications, supermarkets, hospitals, etc, etc, etc). 
When the "pushers" costs go up, what do you think happens to the street value? 
Oh yeh, we get compensation for that from the extra tax the pushers are paying, so we can still shoot up just like before.   
The bankers handle this new market and create "heroin derivatives" to sell, and somehow out of all this, a miraculous new drug without side effects is discovered to replace the old one before the price of the old drug gets so high that the whole system crashes.  Sounds like a fool proof plan to me... :Screwy:    Just say no! 
But if you're a dedicated junkie just like me, keep posting.  :Stirthepot:

----------


## looseless

Howdy cowdies, 
It is good to be back in the land of the living.  Have I missed much?   :Biggrin:  :Doh: 
How is the mass debate going?

----------


## looseless

I have got to hand it to you Headpin.  You don't miss a thing. 
I can't put my *finger* on it, but I am sure that there is a spelling error there somewhere. :Yikes2:   I'll let you know when I am going to come back into the debate. 
Keep up the good work.

----------


## Rod Dyson

[quote=chrisp;787584] 
In a way you're right about to idea of people coming around - it's just that they are coming to around to the view that something has to be done to reduce GHG emissions.  
Nothing has to be done to reduce Co2.   

> If the wider population truly believes AGW is a rort, then Mr Abbott would press on with his AGW is "crap" position.

  Correction, when  AGW proves to be a rort he will have put us in a position of the least damage. Still makes me want to puke, but there you go.  

> What they seem to be doing is coming up with a hybrid policy on carbon - claiming to do something because it is good for the environment but not push the carbon reduction aspect too much.

  At least this is a minor consession.  

> In my view, the good thing that comes out of all this this that the political "debate" is now on a carbon tax rather than the validity of AGW. This is as it should be as the AGW is a science issue whereas a carbon tax is a political issue.

  Yes well the 2 things are hand in hand, are they not?  Nothing good is comming out of this. Nothing.

----------


## woodbe

> Nothing good is comming out of this. Nothing.

  Oh dear. We're back to Hanrahan.  *Said Hanrahan* 
 "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan
In accents most forlorn
Outside the church ere Mass began
One frosty Sunday morn. 
 The congregation stood about,
Coat collars to the ears,
And talked of stock and crops and drought
As it had done for years.  
 "It's looking crook," said Daniel Croke;
"Bedad, it's cruke, me lad,
For never since the banks went broke
Has seasons been so bad."  
 "It's dry, all right," said young O'Neil,
With which astute remark
He squatted down upon his heel
And chewed a piece of bark.  
 And so around the chorus ran
"It's keepin' dry, no doubt."
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."  
 "The crops are done; ye'll have your work
To save one bag of grain;
From here way out to Back-o'-Bourke
They're singin' out for rain.  
 "They're singin' out for rain," he said,
"And all the tanks are dry."
The congregation scratched its head,
And gazed around the sky.  
 "There won't be grass, in any case,
Enough to feed an ass;
There's not a blade on Casey's place
As I came down to Mass."  
 "If rain don't come this month," said Dan,
And cleared his throat to speak -
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"If rain don't come this week."  
 A heavy silence seemed to steal
On all at this remark;
And each man squatted on his heel,
And chewed a piece of bark.  
 "We want an inch of rain, we do,"
O'Neil observed at last;
But Croke 'maintained' we wanted two
To put the danger past.  
 "If we don't get three inches, man,
Or four to break this drought,
We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."  
 In God's good time down came the rain;
And all the afternoon
On iron roof and window-pane
It drummed a homely tune.  
 And through the night it pattered still,
And lightsome, gladsome elves
On dripping spout and window-sill
Kept talking to themselves.  
 It pelted, pelted all day long,
A-singing at its work,
Till every heart took up the song
Way out to Back-o'-Bourke.  
 And every creek a banker ran,
And dams filled overtop;
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"If this rain doesn't stop."  
 And stop it did, in God's good time:
And spring came in to fold
A mantle o'er the hills sublime
Of green and pink and gold.  
 And days went by on dancing feet,
With harvest-hopes immense,
And laughing eyes beheld the wheat
Nid-nodding o'er the fence.  
 And, oh, the smiles on every face,
As happy lad and lass
Through grass knee-deep on Casey's place
Went riding down to Mass.  
 While round the church in clothes genteel
Discoursed the men of mark,
And each man squatted on his heel,
And chewed his piece of bark.  
 "There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man,
There will, without a doubt;
We'll all be rooned,"said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."  
 P. J. Hartigan ('John O'Brien')  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

Great ammo:    But here's your target:     

> "It's looking crook," said Daniel Croke;
> "Bedad, it's cruke, me lad,
> For never since the banks went broke
> Has seasons been so bad."  
> woodbe.

  Declaring the crisis "a national and international emergency", the Prime Minister announced yesterday he had no choice but to plunge the nation into a $22.5billion budget deficit this year to fund economic stimulus measures designed to prevent 90,000 job losses.      Asked how he would fund the rescue package, he said: "We'll have to borrow it. That's the bottom line."  Under fresh economic estimates, the budget deficit of $22.5billion in 2008-09 will rise to $35.5 billion in 2009-10.   

> And so around the chorus ran
> "It's keepin' dry, no doubt."
> "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
> "Before the year is out."  
>  "The crops are done; ye'll have your work
> To save one bag of grain;
> From here way out to Back-o'-Bourke
> They're singin' out for rain.  
>  woodbe.

  KEVIN RUDD has launched a blistering attack on climate change sceptics and deniers in Australia and abroad, accusing them of a systematic campaign to sabotage global talks in Copenhagen and of being contemptuous towards the interests of the world's children.   The Nationals, he said, were betraying the farmers who faced increased drought because of climate change.   

> And every creek a banker ran,
> And dams filled overtop;
> "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
> "If this rain doesn't stop."  
> woodbe.

  *THE UN climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to a rise in natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. *  Kevin Rudd last November linked weather extremes to the debate over the government's emissions trading scheme.   

> "There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man,
> There will, without a doubt;
> We'll all be rooned,"said Hanrahan,
> "Before the year is out."  
>  woodbe.

  "Everyone in Australia ... this weekend would work it out that we are among the hottest and driest continents on Earth. We will feel the effects of climate change fastest and hardest," said Rudd, referring to more than 80 bushfires in Australia and temperatures over 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit).   The carbon trading scheme was a key promise of Rudd's 2007 election campaign and he wants the ETS laws passed before December's global climate talks in Copenhagen.  Cease fire, cease fire, they're your friendlies...   :Minigun:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Oh dear. We're back to Hanrahan.   
> woodbe.

  An own goal woodbe. 
This poem discribes our country to a tee. 
Take note of the swings and the despair with each swing.  Just about captures the Alamist thinking perfectly. 
Thanks for reminding us how utterly usesless it is to read more into our changing climate than is actually there. Yep love Hanrahan.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Over 10 years, the coalition's plan would cost $10 billion as opposed to Labor's $114 billion carbon pollution reduction scheme, he said.

  $114,000,000,000 to reduce global anthropogenic emissions by .075%, assuming the rest of the world stabilises at zero emissions growth, otherwise this money is wasted. 
Hands up who still believes in a zero growth in world wide emissions.  :Roflmao:    

> Declaring the crisis "a national and international emergency", the Prime Minister announced yesterday he had no choice but to plunge the nation into a $22.5billion budget deficit this year to fund economic stimulus measures designed to prevent 90,000 job losses.

    
$465,000.00 per job to save a job, not even create a new one.  :Wtf3:  
I know the dollar has been strong, but I suspect we're not getting value for money out of this climate caper?  :Puke:

----------


## Dr Freud

When your argument continues to fail through lack of evidence:   The incorrect figures which date back to 2007 were revealed on Wednesday by weekly _Vrij Nederland_. The Dutch Living Environment Planning Agency told reporters that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) added two figures supplied by the agency: the area of the Netherlands which is below sea-level and the area which is susceptible to flooding. In fact, these areas overlap, so the figures should not have been combined to produce the 55 percent quoted by the IPCC.   Questions are being asked on a broader scale too about climate change data. US researchers Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts, quoted in Dutch daily De Telegraaf, say that the perceived global temperature rise may be an result of changes in the measuring methods.   And youve already tried terrorising  and then exploiting children:   

> 

     I guess you dont have to stoop much lower to attack the the disabled, such as Lord Monckton who suffers from Graves Disease:        The amended story and picture here after many complaints.    How weak do you and your argument have to be before you begin exploiting children and ridiculing peoples disabilities?  :Crutch:

----------


## Dr Freud

How weak, heres just a small sample.    _- the faked claim of the imminent melting of Himalayan glaciers  _  _- the IPCC admission that the Himalayan claim had been included just for political reasons_   _- Pachauris initial refusal to correct the claim, and his lies about not having been warned_   _- Pacharuis astonishing business links with companies directly involved in areas of IPCC nterest_   _- Pachauris bizarre claim that sceptics were people who believe asbestos powder was safe, and theat he hoped theyd put it on their face every day_   _- the use by the IPCC of sources supplied by green groups and even a student and a shoe-cleaning guide._   _- the citing of false information about the dangers to the Amazon_   _- the Climategate revelations on the exclusion of sceptical scientists and their papers_   _- the resignation in protest at IPCC bias by a leading hurricane expert_   _- the apparent faking of a key IPCC-cited study to play down the urban heat island effect_   _- the failure of the globe to warm this past decade in line with IPCC predictions_   _- new peer-reviwed papers suggesting the IPCC has greatly exaggerated the warming effect of carbon dioxide_   _- the corruption of the peer-reviewed process, as first warned by the Wegman report and then confirmed by Climategate_

----------


## woodbe

> An own goal woodbe. 
> This poem discribes our country to a tee. 
> Take note of the swings and the despair with each swing.  Just about captures the Alamist thinking perfectly. 
> Thanks for reminding us how utterly usesless it is to read more into our changing climate than is actually there. Yep love Hanrahan.

  You miss the point of Hanrahan IMO Rod, 
It's about the 'glass half empty set' to see (and report) doom at every step. It's about a person's mindset, not about 'our country' as a whole.    

> Nothing good is comming out of this. Nothing.

  You were being Hanrahan mate, no-one seemed to get my previous references, so I thought I'd elaborate. That you think Hanrahan refers to the whole country, the 'Alarmists', or anybody else comes as no surprise. 
Cheer up mate, we're not rooned yet.  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

I havent seen dodging like this since Neo.   TONY JONES: But they won't know prior to the election, based on what you've just said, what the potential economic impact is of higher targets. 
PENNY WONG: Well, Tony, if we move to a higher target that would be the Government's policy. But the Government's policy at the moment is we do no more, no less than the rest of the world. We have a 5 per cent target. If the scheme is passed, that is the target unless the conditions that we laid out are met. So we are being very clear. 
TONY JONES: Yes, but you've already told the rest of the world that you're prepared to go to 25 per cent if the rest of the world moves. You've also set a target for 2050 of 60 per cent, so there has to be large reductions over time, and don't the public have the right to know what the cost of those increases will be? 
PENNY WONG: Which is why we have been upfront about that. And, Tony, we can talk about economic modelling all night long, if you'd like, but ... 
TONY JONES: Well, no, we don't have to, I was just trying to get to the bottom of whether you're prepared to release that modelling. I think the answer is no.   View the phenomenal dodging here.

----------


## Dr Freud

How do you defend a scheme when the people who created it dont understand it?   *ETS costs remain a mystery to Labor *  In parliamentary question time and in interviews, ministers, including Rudd, have blathered and blustered, dissembled and distracted when asked simple questions.   This week in parliament, Rudd was unable to answer questions about what compensation a single person earning $45,000 a year would get or what a double-income couple on $65,000 each -- a NSW policeman and teacher -- would get.   Small Business Minister Craig Emerson blustered about the "most stupid question" he had heard when a dairy farmer's concerns were raised about electricity price rises from the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme being added to price rises everyone was already feeling now.   Aged Care Minister Justine Elliott could not address a concern that had been raised for months about pensioners in nursing homes facing increased living costs because of higher energy bills and not getting compensation.   Yesterday, Assistant Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said "low- and middle-income earners are fully compensated" for prices rises passed on by power stations. In fact, half of all households will be "fully compensated".   Full story here.   I have read all of this and I do understand it, and its not pretty.   Im happy for anyone to explain to me how this policy will yield environmental and/or economic benefits?   *Bottom line, no one knows exactly how much this will cost us, except it will be a lot!  *

----------


## Dr Freud

This article is telling.   It shows a massive groundswell of support by innocent Australians who want to genuinely protect and enhance the environment (which is the vast majority, if not all of us).   It also shows how an incompetent government driven by spin can destroy this spirit.      But barely six months since its launch, the $175 million Green Loans program has become just the latest government green scheme to descend into farce, hot on the heels of the solar panel and insulation rebates. 
  Thousands of people could be unemployed and thousands of dollars out of pocket after paying to be trained to work under a scheme that is likely to end more than two years early.   Green Loans is just the latest department bungle. The home insulation rebate program has been plagued by claims of rorts and safety concerns after the deaths of four young installers.   The government's Solar Homes and Communities Plan is another that failed to anticipate overwhelming demand from households. By the time the Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, canned the rebate last June with less than a day's notice, the scheme had blown a $534 million hole in the department's budget. Illustrating the fervour with which the public embraced the program, more than 55,000 people rushed to snap up the rebate in its last two weeks.   It seems no one has control of this.      But if many aspects of the scheme appear to have been poorly thought through, one aspect was planned with forensic detail: the spin. A Green Loans ''prospectus and style guide'', available online, instructs that the scheme be referred to in full as ''the Australian Government's Green Loans Program''. It provides advice on handling media calls, gives guidance on layout, fonts, colour palettes and use of symbols in Green Loans propaganda, and sets out a handy list of approved ''Green Loans talking points''. 
  One reads: ''[Green Loans] is also kick-starting more growth in green jobs by generating work for around 1000 home sustainability assessors.''   Full story here.   Just imagine if we had a real leader that could harness this goodwill and actually developed policies to create tangible environmental benefits, instead of running a bureaucratic spin campaign at every opportunity.     These are just some of the reasons he has backed down from his double dissolution trigger on the failed ETS.     You would laugh if it wasnt our money being continually wasted and innocent Australians being duped, hurt and killed by this farce.  :No:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I havent seen dodging like this since Neo.      TONY JONES: But they won't know prior to the election, based on what you've just said, what the potential economic impact is of higher targets.  PENNY WONG: Well, Tony, if we move to a higher target that would be the Government's policy. But the Government's policy at the moment is we do no more, no less than the rest of the world. We have a 5 per cent target. If the scheme is passed, that is the target unless the conditions that we laid out are met. So we are being very clear.  TONY JONES: Yes, but you've already told the rest of the world that you're prepared to go to 25 per cent if the rest of the world moves. You've also set a target for 2050 of 60 per cent, so there has to be large reductions over time, and don't the public have the right to know what the cost of those increases will be?  PENNY WONG: Which is why we have been upfront about that. And, Tony, we can talk about economic modelling all night long, if you'd like, but ...  TONY JONES: Well, no, we don't have to, I was just trying to get to the bottom of whether you're prepared to release that modelling. I think the answer is no.      View the phenomenal dodging here.

  LMAO it is  a joke is it not?

----------


## Allen James

It's great to see this thread is still alive and well.  
I've been away - came back to post something in the pool forum - pool problem. 
I reckon this thread deserves a gold medal for its length. Good on ya Rod, Dr. Freud, and to all those fighting global warming!    :2thumbsup:   :2thumbsup:   :2thumbsup:   :2thumbsup:   :2thumbsup:    
Cheers,  
Allen

----------


## Rod Dyson

Yes the good DR has been keeping up the new information flow very well.  
The only problem with the thread is the lack of alamists willing to put up an argument to the FACTS that are posted here. It really is a shame. 
Cheers

----------


## woodbe

> The only problem with the thread is the lack of alamists willing to put up an argument to the FACTS that are posted here. It really is a shame.

  Well, that's understandable. The resident sceptics jump on anyone who makes a peep in here that doesn't sound like AGW or Rudd bashing.  
You have created the perfect sceptic space where everyone sings from the sceptic  hymn book except woodbe who refuses to run away, and yet you think it's a shame they didn't come back? 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yes, I agree the the Doc has been doing a wonderful job keeping up the flow, the flow of what is debateable?

   The flow of facts my friend, the flow of facts.  As I have said previously, what constitutes a fact is regularly debated, and all scientists should always be willing to maintain an open mind to this debate.  :2thumbsup:     

> Well, that's understandable. The resident sceptics jump on anyone who makes a peep in here that doesn't sound like AGW or Rudd bashing.  
> You have created the perfect sceptic space where everyone sings from the sceptic  hymn book except woodbe who refuses to run away, and yet you think it's a shame they didn't come back?
> woodbe.

   I dont sing from any hymn book. So far as I can tell, I present facts from a place called reality.  I personally am always willing to recant any information I have promulgated that has been proven to be unsubstantiated, unlike others.   If others are held to this standard, that should not be considered jumping on them, it is merely getting them to support their argument with facts.  If they have none and choose to depart, leaving their allegations unsubstantiated, then that is their choice.   :Smilie:    But as I have said previously, I welcome your input and encourage others to join in, if for no other reason than to hold us sceptics to account.  We do get it wrong on the very odd occasion.  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

From science fiction?      Climate change sceptic William Kininmonth, a former director of the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre, questioned the reliability of long-term predictions, given that the limit of accurate forecasts was about 10 days. 
  "The whole issue about the global warming scenario is that the uncertainty of computer modelling is being downplayed," he said. 
  NCC climatologist and El Nino specialist Grant Beard said short-range and long-range forecasting were "two different problems" and uncertainty was a given beyond the short term. 
  "You need to know very precisely the conditions of the atmosphere and ocean . . . but eventually *you depart from reality after about 10 days*," he said.  Full story here.   To economic fact? 
  Aged pensioners in nursing homes pay the equivalent of 84 per cent of their pension to their care providers in what is called the daily care fee, a charge that covers expenses such as food and utilities. 
  Mr Laverty told The Weekend Australian that aged care providers were concerned about rises in the price of food and electricity under the government's plans. 
  He warned Catholic Health Australia would face an additional $10 million in costs under the government's emissions trading scheme in its first year alone.  Full story here.

----------


## Dr Freud

*A test of Rudds priorities*  *May 28th, 2009* 
  Grant approval for a mine which will directly and indirectly employ 45,000 people during a time of rising unemployment, or reject the proposal to satisfy Big Green: 
  BILLIONAIRE businessman Clive Palmer claims he can start work on the $6.5 billion Waratah Coal project early next year if Queensland government approvals are forthcoming 
  But the project still needs EIS approvals from the state Government *as well* *as federal approval for the port expansion*, and Mr Palmer said he hoped he would get those approvals this year. 
  The project has already been delayed by Rudd: 
  The original project, proposed last year, involved a port at Shoalwater Bay near Rockhampton, but federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett did not grant permission for the port.  Palmer, Bligh in $69b China coal deal 
  By Kerrin Binnie
  Posted 3 hours 35 minutes ago 
Updated 3 hours 4 minutes ago  
  Queensland billionaire Clive Palmer has signed a deal to sell millions of tonnes of coal to China in what's believed to be Australia's largest export contract. 
  Mr Palmer says the $69 billion, 20-year offtake deal was signed last Friday with China Power International. 
  Another $8.6 billion agreement was signed with the Metallurgical Corporation of China to build the project in central Queensland. 
  Mr Palmer's Resourcehouse wants to develop a 40 million-tonne-a-year thermal coal mine in the Galilee Basin, near Alpha, west of Emerald. 
  "That's the biggest coal mine in the world in one go I think you'll find," Mr Palmer said.   So in summary, were going to get taxed to hell for burning this stuff as a disincentive to using it, while RUDD approves billions of tonnes to be shipped out in the future and burnt elsewhere on the planet for free.  Maybe they use a different atmosphere to us?  :Confused:

----------


## chrisp

> The flow of facts my friend, the flow of facts.  As I have said previously, what constitutes a fact is regularly debated, and all scientists should always be willing to maintain an open mind to this debate.

  Facts?  Most of what you have posted is just snippets of regurgitated selected media articles on opinions.  Hardly what most of us would call "facts".  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Facts? Most of what you have posted is just snippets of regurgitated selected media articles on opinions. Hardly what most of us would call "facts".

  HMM I will let the doc answer that one. I sure he will.

----------


## chrisp

> I havent seen dodging like this since Neo.    TONY JONES: But they won't know prior to the election, based on what you've just said, what the potential economic impact is of higher targets. 
> PENNY WONG: Well, Tony, if we move to a higher target that would be the Government's policy. But the Government's policy at the moment is we do no more, no less than the rest of the world. We have a 5 per cent target. If the scheme is passed, that is the target unless the conditions that we laid out are met. So we are being very clear. 
> TONY JONES: Yes, but you've already told the rest of the world that you're prepared to go to 25 per cent if the rest of the world moves. You've also set a target for 2050 of 60 per cent, so there has to be large reductions over time, and don't the public have the right to know what the cost of those increases will be? 
> PENNY WONG: Which is why we have been upfront about that. And, Tony, we can talk about economic modelling all night long, if you'd like, but ... 
> TONY JONES: Well, no, we don't have to, I was just trying to get to the bottom of whether you're prepared to release that modelling. I think the answer is no.   View the phenomenal dodging here.

  If you could look past the politics, just as Abbott has adopted a pseudo pollution reduction scheme (but don't call it a carbon pollution reduction scheme in fear of upsetting the hardcore denialists, but let others think it is a CPRS) for political purposes, Wong knows that electricity prices from carbon intensive electricity generation must rise, but doesn't want to go in to the full ramifications for political reasons. 
The fact is that electricity is dirt cheap (there is a pun there for those who can see it  :Smilie:  ), and by artificially increasing the price of fossil fuel generated energy we will make renewable energy generation the cheaper option. 
Yep, the price of (fossil generated) electricity will go up, but at some point we'll get to the point where we can't install renewable energy systems fast enough as renewable energy will be the cheaper option - a good outcome if you ask me.

----------


## chrisp

> HMM I will let the doc answer that one. I sure he will.

  Maybe he will respond - probably with a sequence of three long posts with "opinion" quotes and the odd picture or cartoon if the past lot is anything to go by.   :Biggrin:

----------


## dazzler

> Well, that's understandable. The resident sceptics jump on anyone who makes a peep in here that doesn't sound like AGW or Rudd bashing.  
> You have created the perfect sceptic space where everyone sings from the sceptic  hymn book except woodbe who refuses to run away, and yet you think it's a shame they didn't come back? 
> woodbe.

  Hey Woodbe, Im still here, just not posting for fear of being banned. :Wink:

----------


## woodbe

> Maybe he will respond - probably with a sequence of three long posts with "opinion" quotes and the odd picture or cartoon if the past lot is anything to go by.

  You left out the bit where he tosses a few knives at Mr Rudd, otherwise spot on chrisp. 
I hear you dazzler, thanks for popping in  :2thumbsup:  
With one of the supreme chiefs of the sceptic movement visiting Australia at the moment and even giving an audience to the esteemed Mr Abbott, I'm really surprised that our sceptics here aren't giving him a bit of airtime. He's living proof that the sceptics are the kind of people we should be supporting. 
What's up boys, is he a bit hot to handle or something? 
It's not like his funding or Facts are anything to worry about, so why the quiet treatment?  
Do spill the beans, we're itching to hear about it. Did you get to go to his public talks, or did you get a private audience? Did he let you kiss his Nobel Prize pin? 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You left out the bit where he tosses a few knives at Mr Rudd, otherwise spot on chrisp. 
> I hear you dazzler, thanks for popping in  
> With one of the supreme chiefs of the sceptic movement visiting Australia at the moment and even giving an audience to the esteemed Mr Abbott, I'm really surprised that our sceptics here aren't giving him a bit of airtime. He's living proof that the sceptics are the kind of people we should be supporting. 
> What's up boys, is he a bit hot to handle or something? 
> It's not like his funding or Facts are anything to worry about, so why the quiet treatment?  
> Do spill the beans, we're itching to hear about it. Did you get to go to his public talks, or did you get a private audience? Did he let you kiss his Nobel Prize pin? 
> woodbe.

  How about attacking what he says woodbe. You just can't do it, because he can back up every bit of science he talks about.  I've requested this from the outset of this thread and yet nothing, absolutly nothing said to contradict the arguments put forward by the skeptics.  Nothing but silence and personal attacks, this is the best way to lose a debate and you are doing a fine job. 
I guess you approve of this waste of money too. Government's switched on energy move | News.com.auOh but it will create more un-productive jobs, Lets jsut spread the wealth around by making up fake jobs. I wanna puke. What benefit could this possibly be?  
BTW up late getting a weeks worth of paper work done just so I can go fishing.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Facts?  Most of what you have posted is just snippets of regurgitated selected media articles on opinions.  Hardly what most of us would call "facts".

   Thanks Rod, Ill get this one. :Cool:    Gentlemen, I urge you all to keep up so as to avoid this sort of duplication, but please see a small sample of some facts I have previously posted:   RUDD approved exports of billions of tonnes of coal ETS tax free, while intending taxing us to reduce coal consumption. Humans cannot predict weather more than a few days out, IPCC predictions out to 2100 are fictional, based on assumptions programmed into a computer model. Australians are being duped, hurt and killed by failed government environmental policies that waste billions of our money. The government does not understand the cost implications of its own policy. This is why they don't understand it. The IPCC is one of the most discredited global scientific bodies currently operating. Many proponents of AGW Theory do not speak out against the exploitation of children and the disabled to further their cause. The governments ETS will cost $114 billion dollars in ten years and achieve zero change in global temperature. The IPCC cited a boot cleaning guide as being peer reviewed evidence of AGW Theory. The IPCC reports contained flawed data. The governments new My School website actually works. The IPCC's peer reviewed claims are a joke. The reason the government can't answer the cost questions is because Treasury has not modelled Australia going it alone. Regardless of obfuscations, AGW Theory is still just a theory. Why all of these are facts. What a real hockey stick graph looks like. Scientists inside the IPCC have known of scientific violations for over a decade and said nothing publicly. There is evidence of widespread flaws in Australia's weather recording systems and RUDD ignores it. The CSIRO said the science was settled, but then recanted. The quantification of opinion is not used in science for a good reason. The Copenhagen Diagnosis actually tried to sell the Sun as having no significant effect on climate, and some people bought it. Assumptions are arbitrary.   Please also see some opinions I have posted:   I think the government are poor economic managers. This is hilarious. RUDD is a muppet. RUDD is a better fit to the Hanrahan analogy than Rod. Journalists are still idiots. RUDD has time to write children's books, but no time to write good policy.   

> I'm really surprised that our sceptics here aren't giving him a bit of airtime. 
> woodbe.

   Once again, please keep up gentlemen, I thought we had already covered the fact that attacking tooth fairies does not advance your cause, and I personally prefer to think for myself, as opposed to relying on authority figures.  But I still congratulate Lord Monckton for raising the profile of the sceptical side of this debate, in spite of the continued personal attacks against his persona, as opposed to his facts.     

> Hey Woodbe, Im still here, just not posting for fear of being banned.

   Why would you be banned for citing evidence showing a causal relationship between anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and the currently recorded 0.7 degree Celsius warming over the last 150 years.  If anything, you would be given the Nobel prize.  Particularly if you could iron out some of the data anomalies already discussed at length in the scientific community.  Failing this, quantifying the proportion of variance in temperature accounted for by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions via a contributory relationship would drive this debate forward by decades.  :2thumbsup:    But its late, Im tired, so one for Chrisp and Woodbe:          Now, we were up to the part where the IPCC is discredited, our government has no idea what the ETS is going to cost, and has no idea what effect it will have on global temperatures, but has simultaneously increased shipments of coal for the rest of the world to burn free of any ETS taxation... :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

That was just some from the last ten pages, I can do the first 70 as well if anyone is still having trouble distinguishing between facts and beliefs (or opinions). 
Or just read here again:  Why all of these are facts.    But in the interests of keeping things rolling:  The Iceman Cometh... :happy:

----------


## woodbe

> How about attacking what he says woodbe.

  Actually, I really couldn't do a better job on that than he does himself. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> I thought we had already covered the fact that attacking tooth fairies does not advance your cause, and I personally prefer to think for myself, as opposed to relying on authority figures.  But I still congratulate Lord Monckton for raising the profile of the sceptical side of this debate, in spite of the continued personal attacks against his persona, as opposed to his facts.

  Monckton is a tooth fairy?  
I'm sorry, I'd love to see his facts, all I can find is extreme, sensational opinion. Or do you mean 'facts' like if we make everyone in the world have a regular aids test and permanently isolate those with the disease then we could control aids?, or 'facts' like Jackie Kennedy is responsible for 40 million kids' deaths by malaria? 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Actually, I really couldn't do a better job on that than he does himself. 
> woodbe.

  LOL what sort of answer is that?  More of the same eh! 
The Alarmists *cannot* win this debate without comming up with real evidence that dispells what the skeptics are saying.  Attacking the person is no longer an option the debate has progressed way beyond that.  Now is the time to either put up or your theory of AGW is in for an imminent collapse. 
This is a very serious matter and the childishness of personal attacks simply don't cut it with the general public anymore. 
The public are confused on AGW they now see that the science is not so setteled as they have been told.  They are looking to people like you woodbe to come out and proove that what the skeptics are saying is wrong for genuine scientific reasons.  The more you stall giving these reason the more people are swaying to the skeptical side. 
So you really need to step up to the plate and get factual rather than hysterical.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'm sorry, I'd love to see his facts, all I can find is extreme, sensational opinion. Or do you mean 'facts' like if we make everyone in the world have a regular aids test and permanently isolate those with the disease then we could control aids?, or 'facts' like Jackie Kennedy is responsible for 40 million kids' deaths by malaria? 
> woodbe.

  See these sort of comments just don't cut it woodbe. They are said to cast *dispertions* on the person.  Anyone can see beyond that.  What has what he said about aids, and banning DDT got to do with what he said about AGW?  
People are now thinking beyond the personal attacks. We see from the leaked emails that this has been a tactic against skeptics from the start, now when you try it it is more embarassing than effective.  *Editor* reckons that word should be *Nasturtiums*

----------


## chrisp

> The public are confused on AGW they now see that the science is not so setteled as they have been told.  They are looking to people like you woodbe to come out and proove that what the skeptics are saying is wrong for genuine scientific reasons.

  For those interested in some serious comments and rebuttal on on the denialist material, have a look at RealClimate and search for a relevant term from the story, for example "Moncton" and read climate scientists' comments on his material.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> For those interested in some serious comments and rebuttal on on the denialist material, have a look at RealClimate and search for a relevant term from the story, for example "Moncton" and read climate scientists' comments on his material.

  Please post some of the stuff here so we can pull it apart for you.  Meanwhile you may like to read this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7017907.ece 
But at least wait until I get back from my fishing trip. I don't want the Doc to have all the fun.

----------


## woodbe

> LOL what sort of answer is that?  More of the same eh! 
> The Alarmists *cannot* win this debate without comming up with real evidence that dispells what the skeptics are saying.  Attacking the person is no longer an option the debate has progressed way beyond that.  Now is the time to either put up or your theory of AGW is in for an imminent collapse.

  LOL. Who'se an alarmist now? 
AGW is not a debate, and I have no interest or expectation of 'winning it' here. We've been over this ground before, the only reason I am here is to attempt to keep you guys honest. I am neither a scientist nor a speculative sensationalist like the good C. Monckton, the loose cannon that he is. 
You argue based on sceptic science 10%, opinion 90%, even if your 10% is right, there is still masses of AGW supporting data remaining. My opinion is that the sceptics still have a mass of work to do if they really want to debunk the theory as opposed to steer public opinion which has been their overriding modus operandi since they started 'the debate'. 
Now the 'alarmists' cause will be lost if_ I_ don't debate _you_? What??? 
I'm sorry, I'm just not that important, and I have things to do. Talk amoungst yourselves for a while. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> But at least wait until I get back from my fishing trip. I don't want the Doc to have all the fun.

  Rod, 
Have a good break.

----------


## woodbe

I think Rod would like me to speak on his behalf 
LOL

----------


## looseless

> Great ammo:    But here's your target:       Declaring the crisis "a national and international emergency", the Prime Minister announced yesterday he had no choice but to plunge the nation into a $22.5billion budget deficit this year to fund economic stimulus measures designed to prevent 90,000 job losses.      Asked how he would fund the rescue package, he said: "We'll have to borrow it. That's the bottom line." Under fresh economic estimates, the budget deficit of $22.5billion in 2008-09 will rise to $35.5 billion in 2009-10.     KEVIN RUDD has launched a blistering attack on climate change sceptics and deniers in Australia and abroad, accusing them of a systematic campaign to sabotage global talks in Copenhagen and of being contemptuous towards the interests of the world's children.     The Nationals, he said, were betraying the farmers who faced increased drought because of climate change.     *THE UN climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to a rise in natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.*     Kevin Rudd last November linked weather extremes to the debate over the government's emissions trading scheme.     "Everyone in Australia ... this weekend would work it out that we are among the hottest and driest continents on Earth. We will feel the effects of climate change fastest and hardest," said Rudd, referring to more than 80 bushfires in Australia and temperatures over 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit).      The carbon trading scheme was a key promise of Rudd's 2007 election campaign and he wants the ETS laws passed before December's global climate talks in Copenhagen.  Cease fire, cease fire, they're your friendlies...

   Geez mate, you're starting to go on a bit.  Entertaining stuff, no doubt..........but your undies and true colours are starting to show.  Have you changed em lately.  I get 4 days out of mine.
Personally, I think we're travelling OK.  Not perfect........just OK, OK? :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

> Geez mate, you're starting to go on a bit.

  "starting" ????    :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

> Facts? Most of what you have posted is just snippets of regurgitated selected media articles on opinions. Hardly what most of us would call "facts".

   I’ve seen many hundreds of facts posted by Dr. Freud and Rod. I posted a few as well. You ignored most of them the same way a rhinoceros ignores the birds making a lunch of the mites on its back.  :Biggrin:      

> by artificially increasing the price of fossil fuel generated energy we will make renewable energy generation the cheaper option.

   Or, put more simply; Labor will raise taxes.      

> How about attacking what he says woodbe. You just can't do it, because he can back up every bit of science he talks about. I've requested this from the outset of this thread and yet nothing, absolutly nothing said to contradict the arguments put forward by the skeptics. Nothing but silence and personal attacks, this is the best way to lose a debate and you are doing a fine job.

   I agree. It is clear all the warmers have is ad hominem. No actual countering arguments. I guess history will show they lost this after climategate, and many of them just didn’t know it yet. I wonder how long it will take for the Penny to drop (pun intended).     

> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7017907.ece

   Good find Rod – and now this is blowing up into ‘Africa Gate’.   FOXNews.com - Africa-Gate? U.N. Fears of Food Shortages Questioned

----------


## Dr Freud

Good to have you back champ!   :2thumbsup:  
I've been busy of late, but look forward to tearing the pro-tax lobby a new one later this week, once I have time to get back online properly.  I have noted the mountain of evidence piling up supporting AGW Theory in my absence  :No: , gonna be tough refuting it all. 
But in the interim, watch a bunch of high school kids tearing the Ruddster a new one here as he tries to peddle these same old lines in 2010 from 2008   and 2009 even though he now knows they are lies!  Maybe the kids have used the few computers he has provided to get the truth from the internet...Oh, the irony... :Biggrin:  
As for my true colours, they are not just starting to show, they have always been on show:   :Aussie5:  
Oi.

----------


## Dr Freud

Rest assured my friend, we will not be  :Censored2: .  
In accordance with the the good old King James Bible: 
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" John 8:32   :Angel:

----------


## Allen James

> Good to have you back champ!

   Thanks Dr. Freud – I was very impressed with your fact finding and presentations, and with Rod’s cool, determined resolve. The warmers lost this debate, and are still scratching their heads trying to figure that out.   As for those creators of the myth; liars never prosper. It’s true the bureaucrats who lined their pockets by lying about global warming certainly made plenty of dough, but only at the cost of their reputations. In the long run it will cost them big time – and maybe some prison time - if Lord Monckton gets his way.         

> watch a bunch of high school kids tearing the Ruddster a new one here as he tries to peddle these same old lines in 2010 from 2008 and 2009 even though he now knows they are lies! Maybe the kids have used the few computers he has provided to get the truth from the internet...Oh, the irony...

   I watched the video, and Rudd was his usual smug, bureaucratic self, evading answers and providing glib, rehearsed speeches. The kids saw straight through it and gave him one difficult question after another. I liked the section below on that page, where the ‘rhetoric’ versus ‘reality’ points were made, listing Rudd’s errors. He is every bit as bad as Al Gore.      

> Rest assured my friend, we will not be .  
> In accordance with the the good old King James Bible: 
> "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" John 8:32

  Yes, the truth has a way of always coming through in the end, and I’m glad it made its appearance as soon as it did. If the guy who released those emails had been less able, and all the world’s Rods and Dr. Freuds had been less concerned, they might have gotten away with this lie, just as they did with that giant failure, Communism. Actually, this was just another version of that horrible fiasco. It may have had a different label, name, uniform, umpires and theme song, but it was the same old game: Looting.

----------


## chrisp

> It’s true the bureaucrats who lined their pockets by lying about global warming certainly made plenty of dough, but only at the cost of their reputations. In the long run it will cost them big time – and maybe some prison time - if Lord Monckton gets his way.

  Is this another one of those 'facts' you keep referring to?  I understand that one was well and truly blown out of the water as another "Monckton fact".   :Smilie:  
An interesting read can be found on this and other Monckton 'facts' here http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...s/s2813459.htm

----------


## rodmy

Wow, 90 odd pages of passionate debate conducted in a most gentlemanly manner by all parties.  Came upon this thread a bit late but thank you one and all, it's been a really  interesting read/ride. So much information, so many _facts, _ it just makes my head spin. Yes, I'm a blonde. :Confused:  
Here's a few more links that may be of interest. They don't prove or disprove AWG, just add to the pool of _facts.  John Quiggin  Climategate revisited _ From Possum in Qld.   Andrew Bolt, Knowledge Weight and Flagship Media  Pollytics 
Possum again. When climate change scepticism changes political opinion  Pollytics 
Cheers, Mrs. rodmy :Biggrin:              
As for quoting Fox News, The Telegraph, or any other Limited News publication  :Roflmao:

----------


## bklooger

yes im glad crikey.com and its employees are neutral observers  :Yikes2:  
imagine that andrew bolt is a big bad ogre just one man 
i wonder what people are hiding when they play the man and not the issue 
ps i vote ets a gaint tax and scam along with all other green policies

----------


## chrisp

> Cheers, Mrs. rodmy

  Welcome to the fray.  It is good to have you here. 
You needn't worry about all the other 90 pages, I doubt we have changed anyone's mind on AGW, but we have had a good time along the way.

----------


## andy the pm

Dr Freud is actually Christopher Monckton and I claim my free slab....

----------


## Ashore

> . _John Quiggin Climategate revisited_

   Jesus rodmy did you actually read the post in that link , or better yet did you understand it , Its easy for any one to make statements that have nothing to do with the truth , or ignore anything that dis agrees with their die hard beliefs but that Quiggin , if thats his/her name leaves a lot to be desired , sorry but thats just another link that goes nowhere other that giving a un proven point of view . :Doh: Sorry where are my manners the point of view may well be inline with yours and I see now that without any possability of finding any creditable links you need to grasp at straws and as such I shouldn't find fault with them just because their wrong

----------


## woodbe

Ah Yes.. 
Least said, soonest mended. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

> Is this another one of those 'facts' you keep referring to?

   Sure. It's a fact the scientists were being paid a lot of money.       

> An interesting read can be found on this and other Monckton 'facts' here ABC.net.au

   ABC? You mean the Labor Party channel?    Puhlease.  :Roflmao:

----------


## Allen James

> yes im glad crikey.com and its employees are neutral observers  
> imagine that andrew bolt is a big bad ogre just one man 
> i wonder what people are hiding when they play the man and not the issue 
> ps i vote ets a gaint tax and scam along with all other green policies

  Onya bklooger!    :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

Well whaddya know.  Key 'climategate' scientist cleared of wrongdoing   

> One of the scientists at the centre of the 'climategate' email scandal has been cleared of any wrongdoing, and had allegations of manipulating and hiding data dismissed. 
> Pennsylvania State University conducted an inquiry into Dr Michael Mann, a climatologist working for their Department of Meteorology, after a series of emails were leaked as proof scientists were manipulating data to push the case of human induced climate change. 
> Dr Mann was cleared of all allegations of misconduct, with one caveat. In relation to the allegation of deviating from accepted practices, while there was no evidence of his work falling outside of accepted scientific practice, the public nature of the leak and fears it may undermine trust in science mean further investigation was needed. 
> The University looked through all of Dr Mann's email correspondences in making its findings. 
> Central to the claims Dr Mann manipulated and withheld data was the use of the word 'trick' in an email exchange discussing a graph to be presented in a World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) report. 
> In the inquiry the University found the contrary to claims of falsification, the scientists involved were merely trying to explain data. 
> "In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a 'trick' to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr Jones and others including Dr Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) report," the inquiry said. 
> "They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field. 
> "The so-called 'trick' was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field." 
> ...

   
Put the stack of apologies and excuses over there,  :Arrow Right:  we'll have a bonfire later.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Well whaddya know.  Key 'climategate' scientist cleared of wrongdoing 
> Put the stack of apologies and excuses over there,  we'll have a bonfire later.

    

> ABC? You mean the Labor Party channel?   Puhlease.

  Woodbe, 
I suspect some people are very choosy about the sources of information that they'll accept (or maybe they just have trouble separating reported 'opinions' from 'facts').  Maybe you can find a non-ABC source to help them out?  :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

"*Lord Monckton debates with UNSW scientist Tim Lambert in Sydney*" - with Alan Jones as moderator (go figure?). 
Is on now - and I've missed most of it.  Does anyone know if it will be available on the web later? 
I wonder if Rod is in the audience?

----------


## Allen James

> I suspect some people are very choosy about the sources of information that they'll accept (or maybe they just have trouble separating reported 'opinions' from 'facts'). Maybe you can find a non-ABC source to help them out?

  The ABC supports the ALP and its policies enthusiastically, and has for as long as I can remember. What do you expect from a news organization run by government?

----------


## chrisp

> The ABC supports the ALP and its policies enthusiastically, and has for as long as I can remember. What do you expect from a news organization run by government?

  So I take it you thought they supported the Coalition when they were in government? 
Maybe you might like to read this paper before answering http://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leig...MediaSlant.pdf after all it might be something to do with the tint of your glasses than the ABC.

----------


## chrisp

> I wonder if Rod is in the audience?

  The penny just dropped!  Rod's away '_fishing_' and Lord Monckton is on a speaking tour.  Maybe 'Rod' is really the Lordship?

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe, 
> I suspect some people are very choosy about the sources of information that they'll accept (or maybe they just have trouble separating reported 'opinions' from 'facts').  Maybe you can find a non-ABC source to help them out?

  I see.  :Smilie:  
Well, in that case, such people could access the report itself (PDF) and read the same words the ABC did and draw their own [s]conspiracy theories[/s] conclusions. 
That way, they's be free of all pro government bias, should it exist. Note that the report is quite lengthy, so the reader will have to be able to concentrate past the headline... 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Note that the report is quite lengthy, so the reader will have to be able to concentrate past the headline...

  I see what you mean about long, it is 10 pages   :Shock:  
These lefty, greenie, communist types seem to have all the time in the world for writing loooong biased reports.  Loooong reports must be one of their methods for confusing the public   :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

> So I take it you thought they supported the Coalition when they were in government?

   To repeat, "The ABC supports the ALP and its policies enthusiastically, and has for as long as I can remember."      

> Maybe you might like to read this paper before answering

    No thanks. I know exactly how much the ABC support the ALP, as I have witnessed the ongoing, transparent bias for many decades. Denying it would be like denying the smell of a dead rat in small room. I certainly don’t need academics telling me the dead rat doesn’t smell.

----------


## Allen James

.  .   Lord Monckton addresses a Greenpeace-campaigner on global warming. Its a riot. .  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzkB5DuveDE"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]   Another interesting Monkton interview  from a few days ago  revealing the scams going on:  Lord Monckton Rajendra Pachauri will be jailed.  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_vqvJLDsJk"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]   . An article from just 5 hours ago:  NOAA and the New "Climategate" Scandal  From The New American  http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2930-noaa-and-the-new-qclimategateq-scandal   .  .   .

----------


## rodmy

Bias at our ABC?  You're right and it is so annoying. The ABC should be ashamed of their collective selves. Commie so and so's. 
This study from a couple of Uni _types_ at UoM and ANU confirmed my tendency towards _conspiracy theories_.  :No:  
The short version for those without much time. Study finds ABC bias leans towards Coalition 
The full version, .pdf can be down loaded here. Well worth a read.  http://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leig...MediaSlant.pdf  
For Ashmore.   
John Quiggin is an Australian Research Council Federation Fellow in Economics and Political Science at the University of Queensland.
Professor Quiggin is prominent both as a research economist and as a commentator on Australian economic policy. He has published over 700 research articles, books and reports in fields including risk analysis, production economics, and environmental economics. He has also written on policy topics including unemployment policy, micro-economic reform, privatisation, competitive tendering, and sustainable management of the MurrayDarling system. He was awarded the Thomson ISI Australian Citation Laureate for Economics in 2004. He is a Fellow of the Australian Social Science Academy, the American Agricultural Economics Association, and the Australian Institute of Company Directors, and a Distinguished Fellow of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society. 
Yeah, what would he know about anythunk??  :Wink 1:  
Cheers and goodwill,
Mrs rodmy. :Biggrin:

----------


## rodmy

Ahhhgh!!  no, sorry chrisp I see you've already posted the Andrew Leigh link. My bad.  
Cheers, Mrs rodmy

----------


## Dr Freud

Not much time so will be brief (I can hear the sighs of relief  :Tongue: ), I gotta sort out some lovey dovey stuff for Valentine's tomorrow.  Don't worry lads, 24 hr servo's have got plenty of stuff if you forgot.  But quickly: 
A guy took this:   
and through data "manipulation", turned it into this:   
And even the IPCC was so ashamed they left it out of all of their subsequent publications. 
If you still are unsure if this transformation was legitimate, read all of this and then please explain for everyone's enlightenment the rationale and context for the transformation. 
I was heartened to see the glee in posting the Penn State results, and I will address this comedy of errors soon.  But in the interim, can anyone please highlight some evidence linking anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions to the increasingly spurious 0.7 degrees celsius warming over the last 150 years.  Anyone?  :No:

----------


## dazzler

I am at a loss as to whats true and whats not. 
So maybe we could square away a few things that we all agree on are factual, and maybe work from there. 
So 1st question (with 2 parts) is;  Has the CO2 level in the atmosphere increased since the industrial revolution? 
And, is burning fossil fuel the reason?

----------


## autogenous

Is industry subsidised in regards of electricity and water? 
I have a feeling the difference between Australia in many areas and the UK which pays way more for electricity is that one of the biggest future topics on this forum will be Solar panels and similar technologies. 
Can private industry live with a dramatic drop in demand of electricity across the nation though considering many may have 60% of their power derived from roof top power that doesnt have the expensive "back to grid installation" and the horrendous smart metre service charges?

----------


## Dr Freud

> I am at a loss as to whats true and whats not. 
> So maybe we could square away a few things that we all agree on are factual, and maybe work from there. 
> So 1st question (with 2 parts) is;  Has the CO2 level in the atmosphere increased since the industrial revolution? 
> And, is burning fossil fuel the reason?

  Part 1, irrefutably yes, this science is settled!  :Biggrin:  Ball park lets call it 280ppm to 380ppm for simplicity.  Heres why:        Part 2, if you are implying by your words THE reason indicating singular responsibility, that the anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels is solely responsible for 100% of this increase, in the absence of all other anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic influences, then the answer is obviously no.  But if you more likely were trying to suggest that burning fossil fuels has contributed to this rise, along with other anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic effects, in a chaotic system of interactions including extra-terrestrial forces, then the answer is yes.  Heres why:        You can read more here about the Carbon Cycle.    Interestingly, you will not find the words moral challenge, denier, sceptic, catastrophic, dangerous, Armageddon, save the world or polar bears.  Sadly, real science is considered very boring to the majority of people, hence the need for it to be "sexed up" if you want to push an agenda in the absence of facts.  You will however find more evidence that carbon dioxide actually encourages growth in the biosphere.   But again, as I said from the beginning, please assess all of this in the context of this information.    This little blue ball is getting on in years, and has been through a lot.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Is industry subsidised in regards of electricity and water? 
> I have a feeling the difference between Australia in many areas and the UK which pays way more for electricity is that one of the biggest future topics on this forum will be Solar panels and similar technologies. 
> Can private industry live with a dramatic drop in demand of electricity across the nation though considering many may have 60% of their power derived from roof top power that doesnt have the expensive "back to grid installation" and the horrendous smart metre service charges?

  I wouldn't be too concerned, we currently have the choice of business as usual or lights out.  I know where my vote is going.  Even the most resourced individual on the planet has realised we need a miracle   to save the planet.  :Eek:  
But as the good book says:   
Damn those inter-galactic highways... :Valentine4:

----------


## woodbe

> Sadly, real science is considered very boring to the majority of people, hence the need for it to be "sexed up" if you want to push an agenda in the absence of facts.

  Would you like to rephrase that? 
Currently, the way you have constructed the sentence, it reads that real science has no facts? 
Possibly your ideology generator was getting ahead of your keyboard input devices. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I think Rod is wrong, yep, that's right, he's got no idea. All he's doing is copy and paste.......kids stuff, Rod. 
> I don't even think he reads half of the stuff he posts. 
> I'm that confident that he has no real grasp of the facts that I challenge him to verbal show down. There's really only one provisio, you have only 2 days to take up my challenge otherwise I accept your forfeit and claim a TKO win for myself. 
> And don't try and feed me that story about you whaling out in the pacific somewhere, we all know that your simply hiding............. 
> There you go big fella, how you going to respond to that, huh?..........

  LOL I'm baaaack

----------


## chrisp

> Ahhhgh!!  no, sorry chrisp I see you've already posted the Andrew Leigh link. My bad.  
> Cheers, Mrs rodmy

  Mrs rodmy, 
I was setting up Allen and he took it _hook, line and sinker_!  even after warning him that he might like to read the reference before answering.   :Biggrin:   I couldn't believe it. 
I think Allen has shown his bias for all to see. 
It seems that Rod hasn't been the only one fishing.  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Would you like to rephrase that? 
> Currently, the way you have constructed the sentence, it reads that real science has no facts? 
> Possibly your ideology generator was getting ahead of your keyboard input devices. 
> woodbe.

   

> Mrs rodmy, 
> I was setting up Allen and he took it _hook, line and sinker_!  even after warning him that he might like to read the reference before answering.    I couldn't believe it. 
> I think Allen has shown his bias for all to see. 
> It seems that Rod hasn't been the only one fishing.

  You could at least try to support your case with some facts... :Doh:  
I can put up some pro-AGW Theory stuff to help you guys out if you want, then refute it as well... :2thumbsup:

----------


## rodmy

Dr Freud,
Hope you enjoy your Valentines day, a little lovey dovey stuff is good for the soul and relationships. Trust me though, as a women, the '_lovey dovey stuff_' is even more appreciated if it's given outside a day dictated by florists and chocolate manufacturers and what the nearest '_24 hour servo'_ happens to have on the shelves. Hope you and she/he have a great day. :2thumbsup:  
I've tried to follow many of the interesting links you've posted and appreciate the tremendous effort you put into combing the net for snippets of *fact*ual information. I must be honest though and say that some posts I've only  scanned, then quickly  moved on as it sometimes feels like your screaming at people. 
At post #1366 you appear a little calmer, (must be all that '_lovey dovey stuff'_ washing over you), :Biggrin:  so I followed your link and ended up here. Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective 
I'm a little uncomfortable disputing your _fact finding_ jihad, you being a Senior Member and all. However, there really are several points in your link which are confusing to this dizzy blonde. 
For example, the above link quotes, without linking, Professor Jane Francis, Paleoclimatologist Leeds University UK with:  "    *What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase     within our big icehouse climate."* Dismissing political calls for     a global effort to reverse climate change, she said,* " It's really     farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should     do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should     be ready to adapt to the change." 
I*s this the same Professor Jane Francis of Leeds Uni, along with a hundred or so other silly scientists, signed off on this public statement?  *Statement from the UK science community*   *We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method. The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".*   
Link: Statement from the UK science community - Times Online 
Poor Jane is also quoted in the the 'Copenhagen Diagnosis', produced by the Climate Change Research Centre, (CCRC), University of NSW. 
"New ice-core records confirm the importance of greenhouse gasses for   past temperatures on Earth, and show that CO2 levels are higher now than they have ever been during the last 800,000 years. The last time Earth experienced CO2 levels this high was millions of years ago." _Professor Jane Francis,   University of Leeds, UK 
link:  The Copenhagen Diagnosis 
I guess it would be just easier to go along with Bolt, Monckton, Joyce et.al. I guess deep down we all crave simplistic populist answers to complex issues. My mate Blue, down at the pub, reckons them scientists are just over paid pointy heads wot probably can't even do up their own shoelaces. 
Peace and happiness, 
Mrs rodmy          _

----------


## chrisp

> I am at a loss as to whats true and whats not. 
> So maybe we could square away a few things that we all agree on are factual, and maybe work from there. 
> So 1st question (with 2 parts) is;  Has the CO2 level in the atmosphere increased since the industrial revolution? 
> And, is burning fossil fuel the reason?

  Part 1: CO2 has risen from ~280ppm to ~380ppm. 
Part 2: Isotope analysis indicates most all of the rise is due to human activity.  See RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Bias at our ABC? You're right and it is so annoying. The ABC should be ashamed of their collective selves. Commie so and so's.

  Most of the media are left winged, for good reason.  Their unions were infiltrated by communists during the Cold War.  The same happened to wharves, schools and universities.    .   

> This study from a couple of Uni types at UoM and ANU confirmed my tendency towards conspiracy theories.

  Academics need not lecture me on how dead rats dont stink.  I personally watched the media support its beloved ALP for many decades.  The ABC may have been more obvious about it since government departments are rarely subtle.  .

----------


## Dr Freud

*Phil Jones, the professor behind the Climategate affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised. *  But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.   These statements are likely to be welcomed by people sceptical of man-made climate change who have felt insulted to be labelled by government ministers as flat-earthers and deniers.   His colleagues said that keeping a paper trail was not one of Professor Jones strong points. Professor Jones told BBC News: There is some truth in that.   More here.   Given this revelation by Dr Jones, I wonder how he would now explain this:     

> 

     We are being asked to restructure the entire planets energy systems and economic structure based on work by this guy (obviously not alone) who now admits his data is flawed and his records are dubious, yet he has previously asserted with little doubt that AGW Theory exists.  I wonder if his change of heart is an attempt to avoid a jail sentence which would change other parts of his anatomy?   Meanwhile, whats his buddy Mann up to at Penn State?   *February 10, 2010 *  IRONY ABOUNDS: A reader emails: Today, Michael Mann was scheduled to give a colloquium on climate change at the University of Pennsylvania, where I am a graduate student. As you may know, Philadelphia has been hit by multiple snowstorms in the past week. Today, for what I am told is the first time since the mid-1990s, the university suspended normal operations due to snow, and his colloquium on climate change has been postponed.   Found here.   I hope the poor guy can at least keep updating his real climate website.     
Lets also hope they can all get back in business soon to cool this planet down.  :Cold:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Dr Freud,
> Hope you enjoy your Valentines day, a little lovey dovey stuff is good for the soul and relationships. Trust me though, as a women, the '_lovey dovey stuff_' is even more appreciated if it's given outside a day dictated by florists and chocolate manufacturers and what the nearest '_24 hour servo'_ happens to have on the shelves. Hope you and she/he have a great day. 
> I've tried to follow many of the interesting links you've posted and appreciate the tremendous effort you put into combing the net for snippets of *fact*ual information. I must be honest though and say that some posts I've only  scanned, then quickly  moved on as it sometimes feels like your screaming at people. 
> At post #1366 you appear a little calmer, (must be all that '_lovey dovey stuff'_ washing over you), so I followed your link and ended up here. Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective 
> I'm a little uncomfortable disputing your _fact finding_ jihad, you being a Senior Member and all. However, there really are several points in your link which are confusing to this dizzy blonde. 
> For example, the above link quotes, without linking, Professor Jane Francis, Paleoclimatologist Leeds University UK with:  "    *What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase     within our big icehouse climate."* Dismissing political calls for     a global effort to reverse climate change, she said,* " It's really     farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should     do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should     be ready to adapt to the change." 
> I*s this the same Professor Jane Francis of Leeds Uni, along with a hundred or so other silly scientists, signed off on this public statement?  *Statement from the UK science community*   *We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method. The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".*   
> Link: Statement from the UK science community - Times Online 
> Poor Jane is also quoted in the the 'Copenhagen Diagnosis', produced by the Climate Change Research Centre, (CCRC), University of NSW. 
> ...

  Rest assured, I don't defer to anyone based on their rank, title, tenure or qualifications, and I certainly don't expect anyone to give any credence to me.  I'd much rather all credence be given to the upholding of sound scientific and mathematical practices.  I can also assure you that not all the information here is factual, a bit of humour and opinion interspersed keeps us all amused  :Biggrin: . 
In this vein, I certainly don't hold the esteemed Professor Jane Francis as an "authority figure" on climate change.  Perhaps during your next scan of the thread you may come across several of these issues that have already been done to death. 
Another issue also thoroughly satisfied is that science is not determined by consensus, but by facts.  Having a hundred (or even a trillion zillion) scientists agree with a political report doesn't create a causal relationship between the variables discussed.  I'm sure during your next scan you will also uncover this information. 
As for the Copenhagen Diagnosis, this too has been covered briefly, but I am now tempted to begin a _jihad_ against it.  If you have researched this document thoroughly, can you please provide all the information in it that may assist with this:    

> But in the interim, can anyone please highlight some evidence linking anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions to the increasingly spurious 0.7 degrees celsius warming over the last 150 years. Anyone?

  Because without this, AGW Theory is just another theory, of which there are literally millions, and I'm happy to discuss many of them, but don't want to pay taxes for any of them. :Annoyed:  
But it is good to see your interest in the Copenhagen Diagnosis, I too am a big fan of science fiction... :2thumbsup:     Hmmmm, warming they say this planet is, but feel it I do not!

----------


## Dr Freud

*Meanwhile, what sort of competency has our government shown in rolling out economically sound and environmentally effective policies? *  *More than two million homes will receive free ceiling insulation as part of the Rudd governments new economic stimulus package. *  *And *  *Prime Minister Kevin Rudd today announced a new fast track process so that homeowners can start applying for free ceiling insulation immediately. *  *Interesting how it was Rudd taking the credit, but now Garrett taking the heat. *  Last October, after one installer had died fitting the metal insulation, Mr Garrett met with Master Electricians Australia to discuss safety. 
"Master Electricians were very concerned in general terms that metal fasteners and foil insulation posed an unacceptable safety electrocution risk," Mr Garrett told parliament of what was said in the meeting. 
The electricians asked him to suspend the use of metal insulation in the program and issued a media release calling for the metal insulation to be removed from the scheme. 
Mr Garrett refused to do so. 
Another installer died while fitting the foil insulation after Mr Garrett's decision. This week he banned the foil insulation.     In his speech to parliament today, Mr Garrett also detailed a series of warnings, dating back to February 2009, that mandatory training of installers was needed to ensure safety.   But   PETER Garrett will remain a political liability for the federal government, with Kevin Rudd standing by his besieged environment minister and ignoring calls to sack him.   Sometimes, political commentators sum it up nicely:   GRAHAME MORRIS: He can and I notice the PM is saying he's doing a good job, but when you think about it, under his watch the whales are dying, the koalas are dying, the Tasmanian devils are dying, the trees are dying, the rivers are dying and now people are dying. And under a program of his we're turning ordinary suburban homes into sort of suburban electric chairs, and you think, well, blimey, if he's doing a good job, what's he gotta do to do a bad one?   Do you trust these people to introduce a new $114 billion taxation scheme linked to derivative based market prices that will hobble the Australian economy when compared to the rest of the world?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

But wait, theres more:   Dodgy roof insulation has caused 20 house fires in WA since the Federal Government began its troubled cash for batts scheme, new figures show.   HOUSE fires have more than doubled in Melbourne in the past year as a direct result of dodgy insulation jobs.   Mr Garrett's own office yesterday admitted 86 fires across the country had been linked to insulation put in under the program, but said the exact cause in some remained under investigation.   Sheesh, talk about urban heat island effects.  If peoples lives werent being destroyed and ended by this fiasco, it would be comical.  But seriously, these same people are telling us they can cool down the entire planet by raising Australians taxes.   :Confused:  
Are their current environmental policies increasing their credibility? :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

*New Paper in Science: Sea level 81,000 years ago was 1 meter higher while CO2 was lower*    *Sea-level rises and falls as Earths giant ice sheets shrink and grow. It has been thought that sea level around 81,000 years agowell into the last glacial periodwas 15 to 20 meters below that of today and, thus, that the ice sheets were more extensive. Dorale et al. (p. 860; see the Perspective by Edwards) now challenge this view. A speleothem that has been intermittently submerged in a cave on the island of Mallorca was dated to show that, historically, sea level was more than a meter above its present height. This data implies that temperatures were as high as or higher than now, even though the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was much lower.*    
Fig. 1 Encrusted speleothems at various levels in caves from Mallorca. (A) Geologic map of Mallorca (10) and location of sampled caves (red dots). (B) Schematic cross-section through a coastal cave in Mallorca showing multiple carbonate encrustation levels. (C and D) Present-day and paleo levels of encrusted speleothems related to higher (E) and lower (F) sea-level stands. (G) Typical morphology for tidal rangerelated carbonate encrustation (size of speleothem, 20 cm). (H) Bathymetric map of the western Mediterranean region and the predicted present-day rate of sea-level change due to GIA [adapted from (15)   More here.   I say again, this is just another study that adds more information to the AGW Theory debate, it does not disprove the theory, so all the true believers can relax.

----------


## Dr Freud

Global warming has placed the future of the Winter Olympics and winter sports from the Sierras to the Alps in peril, according to interviews with environmental scientists, Olympic officials, historians and athletes in recent weeks.   "At the end of the day the Winter Olympics depend on snow," said Ingrid Liepa, a former Olympic speedskater for Canada, "and it's very important they do their part in protecting winter."   Thanks Ingrid.  About as credible an argument as my dodgy pictures.        Maybe if these guys could get to work, they could legislate for the new taxes that would cool the planet down.   But perhaps a more reasoned El Nino analysis can be found here.

----------


## Dr Freud

There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm.   That's in part because of global warming  hotter air can hold more moisture, so when a storm gathers it can unleash massive amounts of snow. Colder air, by contrast, is drier; if we were in a truly vicious cold snap, like the one that occurred over much of the East Coast during parts of January, we would be unlikely to see heavy snowfall.   But as far as winter storms go, shouldn't climate change make it too warm for snow to fall? Eventually that is likely to happen  but probably not for a while.    Surely, this claim has to test even the strongest faith.      
I hope the planet doesnt warm much more, otherwise we may all freeze to death!  :Confused:     More debate here about the freezing actually being caused by warming.

----------


## Dr Freud

*Emissions 'could rise' under ETS*  
  Government data appears to show that under the ETS, Australia's emissions would rise from 553 million tonnes in 2000 to 585 million tonnes by 2020.  
  The target to cut emissions by 5 per cent is only reached by paying other countries to reduce their emissions.  
  Junior climate change minister Greg Combet was unable to guarantee the ETS would reduce Australia's emissions by 2020.  
  When asked how much of the emission reduction would come from domestic sources, he said: "That's up to the market".    Full story here.   This just gets better and better!  :Fineprint:

----------


## Allen James

.     

> I'm not reading a single word of it

   .      .

----------


## Allen James

.   Allen James: _Academics need not lecture me on how dead rats don’t stink._    

> http://500hats.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/27/head_up_ass.gi

  Heh – nice picture of a leftist academic, and they abound in universities.  .  [Two men enter small room]   Joe Sixpack: Oh man, [cough] what’s that smell? Leftist Academic: [gasp, cough] You will find it is the car pollution from outside. Joe Sixpack: Phew, it stinks [cough]. No, this is much worse. Something died. Academic: [choke] No, you will find . . . Joe Sixpack: There – on the floor - a big dead rat! Academic: [recoils in horror] Oh, I say! [cough, gasp] Joe Sixpack: [Holding nose] Let’s open a window and get that rat smell out of here. Academic: No, no! You’ll make the smell worse [gasp] Joe Sixpack: [Opening window] Say what? [breaths in fresh air]. Academic: The smell is from the cars outside! [Goes to window to gulp fresh air in] Joe Sixpack: Listen pal, I can see the rat, and I can smell the rat. Academic: Ah, but I wrote a paper on this, proving it is car pollution [offers Joe the paper]. Joe Sixpack: [Taking paper] You think this will convince me that a dead rat doesn’t stink? Academic: Precisely. Put that paper to good use immediately, and you won’t regret it! Joe Sixpack: No worries [bends down and slides paper under dead rat]. Academic: What the . . ? I say! What the dickens are you doing? Joe Sixpack: Putting your paper to good use. [Lifts rat with paper, exits room]. Academic: [Following] But that paper took me six months to write! Joe Sixpack: [Drops rat in bin, and offers paper back to academic] Academic: Why, I never! Harumph! [Stomps off with nose in air] Joe Sixpack: [Tosses paper in bin] Hey professor, we need to scrub the floor now! Academic: Do it yourself! Joe Sixpack: Yeah, I guess you’ll be too busy writing another rat spatula! [Laughs loudly].    .

----------


## autogenous

_but said the exact cause in some remained under investigation. _ This could be the result of insulation around especially 12 volt down lights.The heat is not released around the insulation causing it to catch fire especially, blow in insulation_. _ Some light fittings need a surround to release the heat they put off._  _

----------


## autogenous

_Sea-level rises and falls as Earths giant ice sheets shrink and grow. It has been thought that sea level around 81,000 years agowell into the last glacial periodwas 15 to 20 meters below that of today and, thus, that the ice sheets were more extensive. _ In the Kimberly of Australia there is fossil coral reefs some 100+ metres above sea level.__

----------


## dazzler

Thanks for your replies Chris and Dr Frued.  What about the rest of you, or are you going to keep going around in circles?

----------


## chrisp

> Surely, this claim has to test even the strongest faith.       
> I hope the planet doesnt warm much more, otherwise we may all freeze to death!

   
Maybe I'm reading your post wrong, but I get the impression that you are inferring that the snowstorms are anecdotal evidence of the world is in a cooling cycle.  Remember, the science is on the global warming, not on isolated weather events. 
Some facts on recent global temperatures:  *Global Highlights*   The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). This is the fourth warmest January on record.The global land surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.83°C (1.49°F) above the 20th century average of 2.8°C (37.0°F)the twelfth warmest January on record. Land areas in the Southern Hemisphere were the warmest on record for January. In the Northern Hemisphere, which has much more land, comparatively, land surface temperatures were 18th warmest on record.The worldwide ocean surface temperature for January 2010 was the second warmestbehind 1998on record for January, 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.5°F). This can be partially attributed to the persistence of El Niño across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (CPC), El Niño is expected to continue through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2010.Source: State of the Climate | Global Analysis | January 2010

----------


## Allen James

.  .   

> _Jerry : So were going to make the Post Office pay for my new stereo?_  _Kramer : It's just a write off for them._  _Jerry : How is it a write off?_  _Kramer : They just write it off._  _Jerry : Write it off what?_  _Kramer : Jerry all these big companies they write off everything_  _Jerry : You don't even know what a write off is._  _Kramer : Do you?_  _Jerry : No. I don't._  _Kramer : But they do and they are the ones writing it off._  _Jerry : I wish I just had the last twenty seconds of my life back._  _Fixed_

  Not quite. Your effort was plagiarized, and the spelling and grammar were wrong. .  Correct version: .  Jerry: So, we're going to make the post office pay for my new stereo now? Kramer: It's a write-off for them. Jerry: How is it a write-off? Kramer: They just write it off. Jerry: Write it off what? Kramer: Jerry, all these big companies, they write off everything. Jerry: You don't even know what a write-off is. Kramer: Do you? Jerry: No, I don't! Kramer: But they do. And they're the ones writing it off. Jerry: I wish I had the last twenty seconds of my life back. . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Package_(Seinfeld) . Quite apart from that, your copy and paste had nothing to do with the argument.   .  Geez Head, you're easy to beat in debate.  :Biggrin:      . .

----------


## Allen James

.    

> I am dead set againt the introduction of an ETS for several reasons.

    

> First even if Global Warming was true we could never reduce emissions to a degree that would have any effect on global temperatures.  Second an ETS will cripple the Australian economy for no net benefit.  Third I believe that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming and that there need to be irrefutable evidence both scientific and imperical to proove CO2 is warming the planet and that any warming would be as damaging as they claim.  Interested to know your thoughts?

   Sure.  My thoughts are that you know very well the global warmers are full of hot air.  Its clear they are losing, and you wish to desert the sinking ship. . .

----------


## Allen James

. .    

> There ya go, Allen. A little something I found surfin the web.

   Obviously, but you made two mistakes. First you did not make a note that it was not yours, by providing a link, and secondly the source you copied was flawed and full of mistakes. .  .     

> snip talk about punctuation and grammar

   What I said wasn’t about your writing abilities – it was about the accuracy of the quote you copied and pasted without providing a link. .  .   I couldn’t understand the rest of your post, and haven’t time to try to figure it out.     . .

----------


## Dr Freud

> But first, allow me to provide some context. Best scientific estimates indicate the planet (Earth) is about 4.5 billion years old (p.s. there was no moon or water then, these arrived a few billion years later). 
> I know it hurts, but please keep reading. Us humans arrived about 2 million years ago. Then after lots of banging rocks together, we invented something called a thermometer about 150 years ago. We now have about 100 years of very inaccurate surface temperature data, and a few decades of fairly accurate satellite data (on a planet that's been here 4.5 billion years)  
> We have made very inaccurate guesses as far back as we can about the climate before we got here. We call this proxy data in the scientific community (rhymes with poxy)
> Here it is: 
> Geological Era---------Million Years Ago----------Carbon Dioxide ppm-----------Av Global Temperature 0C 
> Cambrian------------550-------------------------------------6,000----------------------23
> Ordovician-----------470-------------------------------------4,200----------------------23  12
> Silurian---------------430--------------------------------------3,500---------------------17 - 23
> Devonian-------------380--------------------------------------2,100---------------------23  20
> ...

  Come on champ, you could at least have quoted this.  It took me hours to figure out how many of those little dashes to put in to make all the numbers line up... :Blush7: ...and they're still crooked. :Frown:

----------


## Allen James

.   

> But first, allow me to provide some context 
> snip

  Again, you need to provide sources and links when publishing others' writing. It’s called plagiarizing when you don’t, as some people might think you are the author.  In this case it was Dr. Freud's writing, not yours. .  At this stage I’m assuming you are deserting the sinking ship of global warming, and that’s fine. Those opposed to GW in this thread won’t expect any apologies.  .  Jump off and we’ll haul you to shore, and then you can pretend you were always on our side.  :Rolleyes:    .

----------


## Dr Freud

No worries champ.  :2thumbsup:  
I also didn't want you being taken to task over all the inaccuracies in there.  :Shock:  
For example, the sun is estimated to begin expanding in about 1.5 billion years, but won't disappear, but will likely fry the planet then turn into a white dwarf...   
I wonder which one?

----------


## Allen James

.  .   

> I don't have time to post links............

  It would take longer to put in those many periods (full stops) you like so much in between your sentences, so I think you can afford the time. .  .   Allen James: _The source you copied was flawed and full of mistakes._   

> *My copy and paste was flawed and full of mistakes?* I'm only following standard copy and paste protocol in this thread...........

   Try and read carefully. I said the source you copied was flawed and full of mistakes. I’m sure your copy and paste ability is fine, as is my five year old nephew’s.  :Biggrin:  .  .       

> why make mention of it now?

   You thought I was talking about _your_ spelling abilities, obviously. Read the posts again if you’ve already forgotten them. .  .     

> Fixed

   Despite your fixation with the word ‘fixed’, most of what you are posting is broken, mate. IMHO.  :Wink:      .  .  .

----------


## Dr Freud

> Maybe I'm reading your post wrong, but I get the impression that you are inferring that the snowstorms are anecdotal evidence of the world is in a cooling cycle.  Remember, the science is on the global warming, not on isolated weather events. 
> Some facts on recent global temperatures:*Global Highlights*   The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). This is the fourth warmest January on record.The global land surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.83°C (1.49°F) above the 20th century average of 2.8°C (37.0°F)the twelfth warmest January on record. Land areas in the Southern Hemisphere were the warmest on record for January. In the Northern Hemisphere, which has much more land, comparatively, land surface temperatures were 18th warmest on record.The worldwide ocean surface temperature for January 2010 was the second warmestbehind 1998on record for January, 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.5°F). This can be partially attributed to the persistence of El Niño across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (CPC), El Niño is expected to continue through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2010.Source: State of the Climate | Global Analysis | January 2010

  Apologies, I was trying to point out that earlier IPCC claims were for less snow based on the output from their models they programmed with their own assumptions.  Then inconveniently, more snow arrived (yes, just weather).   
A good scientist would do what you did, and explain that weather is not climate.   
However, some AGW Theory proponents are so insecure about their theory based on it's continued empirical implosion, that they are actually trying to spin the fact that this weather event that is contradictory to their predictions, is actually supportive of AGW Theory. :Youcrazy:

----------


## Allen James

.   .      

> _That's a shame...............you may call it plagiarizing, I call it stirring._

  
I am not in charge of the word plagiarizing, Im just sending you the definition.  If you think the definition should be changed to stirring, youll need to consult with the dictionary people and the courts. .  As for your position on GW, I will assume you now support it again, based on your general behaviour and responses here.  .   .

----------


## Allen James

.    

> _one sort of guessed thsat you would know that..................._

  Huh? . .   

> _ who cares..................i'll read em as i like.....................if you want accuracy..............tune into the abc............._

   Translation: I am proud to plagiarize badly, and will continue this practice.  . .   

> http://trulyequal.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/fear-global-warming.jpg

    

> Too busy to post links..........................

  Pictures dont require links, as they are their own links, as you can see. Slabs of other peoples text do require links, or you are plagiarizing.  . .   

> fixed.fixed..fixedfixed.

   Chanting fixed at something wont fix it, Im sorry to tell you.  :Biggrin:    . .

----------


## Allen James

.   

> Well, I've got to go gents. They draw the raffle real soon. 
> My work here is done.

  Okay then. See ya mate.  
You've done enough fixing for today.    .  .

----------


## Allen James

.  .   

> _Damn...........and I thought I was plagiarizing_

  
You were when you posted writing that wasnt yours, without a reference or link.  As for the pictures, anyone can right click on them to see the properties, and the link.  On the other hand if you put those on your own site and didnt name the source, that would be a copyright infringement. . .

----------


## Allen James

.    

> Not if I see you first.....................fixed...................  .link to something...............

  It's probably not a good idea to post after drinking a slab, headpin.  Just a little friendly advice.  :Wink:   .  .

----------


## Dr Freud

The missus keeps asking me what I'm giggling at, I think she thinks I'm having some sort of online flirty dalliance.  :Biggrin:    *Business losing faith in Rudd *  And as Mr Rudd and Wayne Swan defended the government's economic record in parliament, other business groups backed the BCA's criticism, while premiers endorsed Mr Bradley's call for a simplified tax system.   But where Mr Rudd has constantly justified the need for his proposed carbon emissions trading scheme on the basis it would give business investment certainty, Mr Bradley made clear that the failure of December's international meeting in Copenhagen to seal a binding pact on emissions reductions had changed the equation. "Given the lack of progress at Copenhagen towards a global agreement, there is a need now to calibrate Australia's emissions targets in line with other international responses," Mr Bradley said.   Full story here.  And   This should simplify things nicely.  :Confused:    One would think after failing to heed industry warnings in other failed environmental policies, they might have learned a lesson, but apparently not.   Mr Rudd says the issue of climate change will be front and centre at the next election.  He has indicated the Government is still considering calling a double dissolution election if it cannot get its emissions trading scheme (ETS) through Parliament.

----------


## dazzler

So, another three pages and the basic question isn't being answered. 
Why is that?

----------


## woodbe

> *Business losing faith in Rudd*

    
I was enjoying not having to hear about Mr Rudd for the last few pages. 
If you keep this up, I'll have to ignore you as well as that Allen character. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> So, another three pages and the basic question isn't being answered. 
> Why is that?

  A lawyer might object and say "Asked and answered your honour?"  I think everyone is fairly happy to agree that humans have added more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere since industrialisation.  We can argue like good scientists about exactly how much and according to which cycles.  Keep in mind, we are not adding anything to the whole system, just moving it around as nature has always done.  Greenies hate it when I call human's activities natural.  :Biggrin:   
But what are we, unnatural.   :Confused:   
More likely a bunch of hairless apes with a superiority complex.  :2thumbsup:   
If you want more detail, the even the real climate link below can assist. :Eek:     

> Part 1, irrefutably yes, this science is settled!  Ball park lets call it 280ppm to 380ppm for simplicity.  Heres why:        Part 2, if you are implying by your words THE reason indicating singular responsibility, that the anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels is solely responsible for 100% of this increase, in the absence of all other anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic influences, then the answer is obviously no.  But if you more likely were trying to suggest that burning fossil fuels has contributed to this rise, along with other anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic effects, in a chaotic system of interactions including extra-terrestrial forces, then the answer is yes.  Heres why:        You can read more here about the Carbon Cycle.    Interestingly, you will not find the words moral challenge, denier, sceptic, catastrophic, dangerous, Armageddon, save the world or polar bears.  Sadly, real science is considered very boring to the majority of people, hence the need for it to be "sexed up" if you want to push an agenda in the absence of facts.  You will however find more evidence that carbon dioxide actually encourages growth in the biosphere.   But again, as I said from the beginning, please assess all of this in the context of this information.    This little blue ball is getting on in years, and has been through a lot.

   

> Part 1: CO2 has risen from ~280ppm to ~380ppm. 
> Part 2: Isotope analysis indicates most all of the rise is due to human activity.  See RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

----------


## Dr Freud

> [/left]
> [/left] 
> I was enjoying not having to hear about Mr Rudd for the last few pages. 
> If you keep this up, I'll have to ignore you as well as that Allen character. 
> woodbe.

  Apologies if the truth upsets your sensibilities, but I am just quoting the real world.  If the real world is upsetting, you may want to hibernate away from all information.   
The inglorious PM is now being seriously questioned from many quarters (including the high school kids he thought he could hide behind). 
This clown is trying to tax me for breathing out fresh air, and he tried to cast me as some sort of child killing fiend for pointing out his assumptions were flawed. 
If what I am posting is inaccurate, please advise me and I will recant immediately.  If you can't handle the truth, then maybe ignorance (ignoring) could be your salvation.  :2thumbsup:  
I would ignore the clown if I could, but this is like asking the British in WW2 not to mention Hitler, or the Sunni's in Baghdad in Desert Storm not to mention Bush.   
Pretty hard to combat the enemy when political correctness and sensibilities start dictating tactics.  I think I've been fairly polite to most members, except for the occasional outburst when censorship policies  :Censored2:  start to infiltrate. 
But in a nutshell:    You're damn right I ordered the code RUDD!

----------


## woodbe

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that there has been an over riding anti-PM flavour from you. You argue well on GW but the anti-Rudd flavour does you no service, and suggests a prior bias. 
And no, I didn't vote for him, and I'm not defending him on the basis of my own political opinion.   

> this is like asking the British in WW2 not to mention Hitler, or the Sunni's in Baghdad in Desert Storm not to mention Bush.

  These events are in a completely different league to the discussion of AGW and an ETS that if I remember correctly was an election issue. 
We need to keep our feet on the ground I think.  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

*Another Smoking Gun from Australia?   How GISS adjusts temperature records in two adjacent sites *  _Despite its assurances, GISS has adjusted the temperature records of two sites at Mackay to reverse a cooling trend in one and increase a warming trend in another.   This study presents evidence that this is not supportable and is in fact an instance of manipulation of data. _  A good read, but in a nutshell, they turn this:     Into this:     And this data feeds into the warming myth!   Full story here.    No smoking gun, but hey, surely it's getting harder to "ignore" the truth?  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Apologies for simplification (all made up), but hopefully the gist gets through.   Lets assume two random temperature measurements in one place over Time 1 and Time 2:   Time 1 = Max *35* Time 2 = Max *30*   Planet is cooling.   But IPCC uses Max + Min / 2, so:   Time 1 = Max 35 + Min  5  = 40/2 = *20* Time 2 = Max 30 + Min 20 = 50/2 = *25*   Planet is warming.   But IN REALITY, this happened, and the data looked like this:   Time 1 0000 - 20 0200 - 15 0400 - 5 0600 - 15 0800 - 20 1000 - 30 1200 - 35 1400 - 35 1600 - 35 1800 - 25 2000 - 20 2200 - 20 Avg - 23   Time 2 0000 - 20 0200 - 20 0400 - 20 0600 - 22 0800 - 22 1000 - 24 1200 - 30 1400 - 26 1600 - 24 1800 - 22 2000 - 22 2200 - 20 Avg - 23   Planet is stable.   These are just three of methods of calculation of possibly infinite methods of measuring temperature at just one location.  If three different scientists get three different outcomes from exactly the same data set, none of them are frauds.  They are using different assumptions.  What is fraudulent is if an individual or individuals try to claim that their assumptions are the best or only one to use!  Whether this is in Bernies Sales Brochures or IPCC Sales Brochures is no different.

   This stuff can be found here.    But for those requiring a more cogent and detailed summary:   [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OjPJnEtfUE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OjPJnEtfUE[/ame]

----------


## Allen James

.     

> So, another three pages and the basic question isn't being answered. 
> Why is that?

  Covered already.      .  .  .

----------


## Dr Freud

> Not at all. I'm just pointing out that there has been an over riding anti-PM flavour from you. You argue well on GW but the anti-Rudd flavour does you no service, and suggests a prior bias. 
> And no, I didn't vote for him, and I'm not defending him on the basis of my own political opinion.   
> These events are in a completely different league to the discussion of AGW and an ETS that if I remember correctly was an election issue. 
> We need to keep our feet on the ground I think.  
> woodbe.

  This campaign is intentional and well documented my friend.    

> In summary, my position is that AGW Theory is a perfectly valid theory that has yet to be proved or disproved scientifically.  I have also asserted regularly that many scientists working in this area have breached or overlooked fundamental scientific practices to further various individual agendas that sometimes overlap, such as careers, funding, ideology and even altruism.  This has led to a groundswell of popular support for the theory, that is yet to be proven.    I seriously do not personally care about anything in the preceding paragraph, other than intellectual curiosity.  But when some muppet uses the above as an excuse to tax me for fresh air because he cant balance a budget, then alludes that I am some kind of oil burning serial killer of children futures, then we are going to toe to toe gentleman.  It is personal and it is anti-Rudd.

  And perhaps you could also email the PM and advise him to keep his feet on the ground.  I already have, and was dutifully "ignored" :Shock: .  Because you see, I just quote what he says, and highlight what he does (or does not do).  The fact that this information seems so confronting speaks of the PM, not of my highlighting it, such as:   

> Perhaps the Prime Muppet (PM) didnt consider his lack of reply as rude as he considers me to be a globally powerful force hell bent on killing children and destroying the future of humanity!!!    Here is the PM describing me (a skeptic) at his Lowy Institute speech on 9 November 2009 (dont laugh Rod, youre top of his list).   The truth is this is hard, because the climate change skeptics, the climate change deniers, the opponents of climate change action are active in every country.   They are a minority. They are powerful. And invariably they are driven by vested interests.   It is time to be totally blunt about the agenda of the climate change skeptics in all their colours - some more sophisticated than others. It is to destroy the CPRS at home, and it is to destroy agreed global action on climate change abroad, and our children's fate - and our grandchildren's fate - will lie entirely with them.   The legion of climate change skeptics are active across the world, and they happily play with our children's future.   Instead they offer *maximum fear*, the universal conservative stock in trade.   And by doing so, these do-nothing climate change skeptics are prepared to destroy our children's future.   And that is what they want, because they are driven by a narrowly defined self interest of the present and are utterly contemptuous towards our children's interest in the future.   This brigade of do-nothing climate change skeptics are dangerous because if they succeed, then it is all of us who will suffer.   Our children.   And our grandchildren.   They are betting our future, the future of our children and our grandchildren, and they are doing so based on their own personal intuitions, their personal prejudices and their deeply ingrained political prejudices.   You are betting our children's future and the future of our grandchildren.  Whew, better warn the in-laws not to bring the kids and grandkids around, I sound dangerous!     (Full rant linked below) Speech | Prime Minister of Australia

  Feet? Ground?  But seriously, if he immediately suspended all AGW Theory related policies and ordered a full unlimited royal commission into the science behind the IPCC claims, with no policies implemented until the theory was validated, then on this policy he would get my vote, because then it would be better for the country than Abbott's and the Liberal's current policy.  The Greens are a joke, and no prospect of a pro-Australia policy coming out of there any time soon.

----------


## Allen James

.   

> Not at all. I'm just pointing out that there has been an over riding anti-PM flavour from you.

  Natch.  We get an over riding global warming flavour from Rudd. . .

----------


## dazzler

> .    
> Covered already.      .  .  .

  Sorry I missed it - what was YOUR answer?

----------


## dazzler

> A lawyer might object and say "Asked and answered your honour?"  I think everyone is fairly happy to agree that humans have added more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere since industrialisation.  We can argue like good scientists about exactly how much and according to which cycles.  Keep in mind, we are not adding anything to the whole system, just moving it around as nature has always done.  Greenies hate it when I call human's activities natural.   
> But what are we, unnatural.    
> More likely a bunch of hairless apes with a superiority complex.   
> If you want more detail, the even the real climate link below can assist.

  Id already acknowledged and thanked you. Wondering what the others have to say. Thanks!

----------


## woodbe

> But seriously, if he immediately suspended all AGW Theory related policies and ordered a full unlimited royal commission into the science behind the IPCC claims, with no policies implemented until the theory was validated, then on this policy he would get my vote, because then it would be better for the country than Abbott's and the Liberal's current policy.  The Greens are a joke, and no prospect of a pro-Australia policy coming out of there any time soon.

  I know it's only your opinion and all, but do you honestly believe a Royal Commission would either come out with an acceptable result (to anyone) and do it in any sort of useful timeframe?  
Even Mr Abbott wouldn't do that, he has already demonstrated that he knows it would be electoral suicide, so you're running out of useful places to put your vote I guess.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.     

> *snip multiple webpages*

    

> . . .for Mr James benifit all links available for your perusual.

  I have Google if I need webpages, and I see no reason to spend time reading anything recommended by you.  . If you have some evidence concerning your beliefs you may do some work on your own. Extract the said evidence and post it here.   If links were arguments, then here's mine: .  The New York Public Library . http://www.nypl.org/ . Get back to us when you finish reading it. .  .

----------


## chrisp

> We can argue like good scientists about exactly how much and according to which cycles.

  "Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this."RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
There is no scientific argument on this, just about all the extra CO2 is from human activity.

----------


## autogenous

_280 to nearly 380 _ 2 Billion to 6 billion. Everybody stop exhaling.   Dam those people_  _

----------


## chrisp

> _280 to nearly 380 _ 2 Billion to 6 billion. Everybody stop exhaling.   Dam those people__

  Maybe your post was intended to be tongue in cheek, but just to point out, the extra CO2 isn't due to increased population - unless the extra people are breathing fossil deposits. 
The isotope analysis shows the increase in CO2 is from a fossil origin - i.e. burning fossil fuels. 
Just thought you'd like to know.

----------


## autogenous

My Mrs reckons I have isotopes come out the rear... 
It blows me away the government allows lime sand mining by digging up sea grass in the hundreds of square kilometres which absorbs the ocean carbon.  If they were really serious, really serious, that's why they're full of fossil isotopes... 
Ok, its been proven positive in emissions but gladly not the exaggerated amount of about 5 times to start a new derivatives market.. 
Do isotopes include black Friday bush fires?  :Eek:

----------


## Rod Dyson

This was posted in the SMH comments this morning.  
Sums it up pretty well I think.  

> "We won't change without pain."
> How true that is. Now justify the need for change with an open and tranparent scientific process that allows anyone who want to have a look to examine the data and methodologies used to support the CO2 causing catastrophic climate change hypothesis.
> This is after all what genuine skeptics want to see. It does not take much research to discover that the scientists in charge of the data have taken outrageous steps to ensure their work remains unscrutinised.
> Rather than abusing skeptics for not swallowing propaganda, how about allaying their fears with some good old fashioned transparency?  *Dave* | Sydney - February 11, 2010, 8:24AM

----------


## Rod Dyson

> ummmmm..........aahhhhhh....................Rod never posted a link. 
> You do realise, Rod, you run the risk of not only being labelled a plagiarizer.................but a possible law suit due to copyright infringement.................  
> I got this advice from someone else................now, do I have to link this back to his/her post?...................

  I have been trying to catch up here, so no, I am not aware, except for seeing your endless comments on the issue. 
I am sure we will all forgive you for not posting a link.  We all conduct our debate in our own way, readers I am sure are smart enough to judge the value of comments, from the presentation and content.  
Cheers rod

----------


## dazzler

So in the absence of dissent we are in agreement that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased due to the burning of fossil fuels.   
Well done everyone  :2thumbsup: . 
Now for the next one; 
What is the equal and opposite reaction that we will experience because of it? 
Will it be good, will it be bad?  What will change to accommodate it? 
Way you go  :Smilie:   Now - No bloody graphs, no bloody links to anything - what do YOU think, in your own words, from your own brain, based on what YOU have read or seen or even a hunch.

----------


## Allen James

.   ..    

> FINISHED............................

   Yelling “Finished” accomplishes about as much as chanting “fixed”. .  .    

> Boy, your hard to please

   Boy, my hard to please _what_? You didn’t finish the sentence. .  .    

> ....................don't post a link.....................and you whinge..............posts a link and you whinge.

   I was quite clear. When you cut and paste someone else’s text you should always provide a reference or link, and you might also make sure it is accurate and worth posting. Otherwise you will be a ‘poor plagiarizer’ at best. I have not asked you for your standalone links. If I want to look at WebPages I have billions to peruse without your assistance. . As far as your recommended links are concerned, why would I look at them? A guy walks up and stands outside your house for a few weeks, hurling sneers and insults at you, and then throws a book at your house and yells, “Read that!”  . Would I read it? . By contrast someone I respect offers me a book (or link), perhaps I will look at it. If you don’t know this then it’s about time you learned. In the meantime, if you wish to put forward arguments, do so. It involves some work because you need to find the information and present it, along with a reference or link. Or you may compose your own original ideas. This is how debate differs from bar room malarkey. If I wanted bar room malarkey I can find it down the road in any bar. . .   

> You must be a riot to live with............................Australia's liveliest social activities club in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane Australia's liveliest social activities club in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane Get back to me when you got one.............................

   It sounds like you are here to meet people and socialize. This particular thread is about global warming; not about your social life. . . PS - If you wish to reduce your carbon footprint, use less periods.  . . .

----------


## Allen James

.     

> ummmmm..........aahhhhhh....................Rod never posted a link.

    

> You do realise, Rod, you run the risk of not only being labelled a plagiarizer.................but a possible law suit due to copyright infringement.................   I got this advice from someone else................now, do I have to link this back to his/her post?...................

   Rod named the source.  You named no source, gave no link, and the information you posted was full of errors.  Big difference.   . .

----------


## Dr Freud

*Rudd spins this: *  But it goes to the sometimes sickening process of politics and the people who make it, and I hope they forgive me. But the fact is that more Australians have died as a result of the Rudd government's home insulation program, "administered" by Environment Minister Peter Garrett, than lost their lives in the Iraq war.   Yet in 2007 that did not stop an on-the-make opposition foreign affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, from calling for the resignation of then foreign minister Alexander Downer on the grounds that he had ministerial responsibility for the so-called "wheat for weapons" scandal, a name invented by Rudd.   Except that unlike the present government's maladministration of the ceiling insulation scheme, no Australians died from any shot fired in anger on Downer's watch.   On April 12, 2006, an excited Rudd smelled blood, accusing Downer of lying either to parliament or to the Terence Cole royal commission set up largely as result of Rudd's agitations.   *But don't expect Rudd to set up any sort of inquiry.*   He was out there yesterday on Meet the Press trying to deflect all the blame on to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. That's right, Abbott.   Full story here.   Rudd ignores this:   The ABC has been told that one company the Federal Government accredited last year had a history as a telemarketing business and no prior qualifications in home insulation.   The ABC understands that when the company director was told the Federal Government had stopped processing accreditation, the director called the Environment Department to apply pressure and it is claimed that within days the company was told its application had been approved.   Within weeks of that approval, 26-year-old Matthew Fuller, who had been working for that firm, was dead - electrocuted at a Meadowbank property in Queensland while trying to install foil in a roof.   Full story here.    And you ask me why I do this:    

> 

    

> You're damn right I ordered the code RUDD!

     Not so much as one public servant or Minister has been asked why this happened! :Mad:    Our young people should not be dying because of Rudds incompetence and obsession with spin. :Mad:    Ill ask again, do you trust these people to reconstruct the entire economic structure of our country based on IPCC advice? :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Maybe your post was intended to be tongue in cheek, but just to point out, *the extra CO2 isn't due to increased population* - unless the extra people are breathing fossil deposits. 
> The isotope analysis shows the increase in CO2 is from a fossil origin - i.e. burning fossil fuels. 
> Just thought you'd like to know.

  So if the population was zero, then emissions would still be the same?  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

Dr Jones edges slowly backwards out of the IPCC claims:   *A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical? *  So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.   *D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre. *  This area is slightly outside my area of expertise.   *M - What advice did you seek in handling FOI requests?* 
  The university's policy and guidelines on FOI and the Environmental Information Regulations are on our website and the information policy and compliance manager (IPCM) takes responsibility for co-ordinating responses to requests within that framework. We also have colleagues in each unit and faculty who are trained in FOI to help in gathering information and assessing any possible exceptions or exemptions.  
  I worked with those colleagues and the IPCM to handle the requests with responses going from the IPCM. He also liaises with the Information Commissioner's Office where necessary and did so on several occasions in relation to requests made to CRU. Where appropriate he also consulted with other colleagues in the university on specific issues.   *T - Where do you draw the line on the handling of data? What is at odds with acceptable scientific practice? Do you accept that you crossed the line? *    This is a matter for the independent review.    Full story here. 
For clarification of the Professor's interview, then see here.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

EMMA GRIFFITHS, REPORTER: Colin Brierley still lives under the roof that nearly killed him. 
EMMA GRIFFITHS: Last September the 63-year-old climbed up there for a look and knelt on electrified foil insulation. 
COLIN BRIERLEY: Obviously I received an electric shock that actually went in the knee and came out of the top of the head. 
EMMA GRIFFITHS: He's now launching the first legal proceedings against the Federal Government stemming from the insulation program. He says the accident has affected his memory and balance and given him chest pains. 
ROGER SINGH, LAWYER: He was living proof to the Government of the risks associated with the insulation program. 
COLIN BRIERLEY: I don't want to it to happen to anybody else, I really don't. 
EMMA GRIFFITHS: The Opposition's called for urgent action to inspect the *48,000*  homes that could be affected.    EMMA GRIFFITHS: And it's again targeted the Environment Minister, criticising him for going bush to make a biodiversity announcement when they say he should have been in Canberra attending a meeting with the unions and insulation industry.   PETER GARRETT, ENVIRONMENT MINISTER: I don't go to technical experts meetings in the ordinary course of events.  My officials go to those meetings, as they should. They'll provide me with the appropriate reports for them and I'll listen very carefully to those discussions that have been undertaken.   Aside from the class action we the taxpayers are up for, the Federal Minister for the Environment describes a Federal Government program that kills 4 people in less than a year the ordinary course of events, and he will be driving the ETSs introduction.  I wonder if people start dying under that scheme, will he also consider it the ordinary course of events.  
And Rudd continues to fully support him.  :Wtf:    These people cant run a $3 billion environmental policy and are trying to convince us to begin a $114 billion environmental policy.   Hands up who thinks the $114 billion one will work much better?  :Headbang:

----------


## Dr Freud

> So in the absence of dissent we are in agreement that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased due to the burning of fossil fuels.   
> Well done everyone . 
> Now for the next one; 
> What is the equal and opposite reaction that we will experience because of it? 
> Will it be good, will it be bad?  What will change to accommodate it? 
> Way you go   Now - No bloody graphs, no bloody links to anything - what do YOU think, in your own words, from your own brain, based on what YOU have read or seen or even a hunch.

  Based on the SWAG method (Scientific Wild Arsed Guess), the Planet Earth has regularly cycled between approx 200 ppm CO2 and 6000 ppm as far back as we can tell (about 500 million years).  Over this time, temperature has fluctuated between approx 12 and 24 degrees celsius in what might be described as a "loosely lagging correlation", with temperature generally preceding greenhouse gas releases (other than water vapour).  The first 4 billion years are incalculable via the SWAG method, hence we will need copious amounts of beer to decipher.  We are still here. 
There is a statistical phenomenon known as "regression to the mean" which basically says when you are at either end of a paradigm, put money on returning to the centre.  Let me provide a very crude analogy. 
  Let's say your car has a speedometer between 0 - 100 km per hr.  If you car is stationary, put money on the next speedo move being up.  If your car is travelling at 100 kph, put money on the next speedo move being down.  
Paragraph 1 highlights that we just bounced off the bottom of this paradigm.  For all you Yazz fans, the only way is up.  The interesting questions are when, why, and how fast.  
Google for more, but the crux is, statisticians don't need to know how it happens (ie, braking, lack of fuel or brick wall), or why (speed camera, hole in fuel tank or idiot driver), but just need to understand that this phenomenon does happen in defined paradigms.  Be nice to be able to predict (as in stock markets), but I'll leave the fortune telling to the IPCC and their computer models.  
There is a reason most of the debunking of this myth was done by mathematicians and statisticians, the numbers don't add up. 
Capone defrauded with machine guns, but was brought down by an army of accountants. :Doh:  
Hey, that's my brain, what can I say  :Laugh bounce spin:

----------


## woodbe

> EMMA GRIFFITHS, REPORTER: Colin Brierley still lives under the roof that nearly killed him.

   
This furore seems to be misplaced. 
The Government sponsors an insulation program. As far as I know (I've had no first hand contact) the program covers all insulation, not just the foil batts which I would have thought were a minority. 
A lack of adequate care and possibly training results in some installers killing themselves.  
Sorry. If the foil batts are approved for use as insulation in Australia, how is this Garrett's fault? Surely whichever body approves insulation for sale in Australia should be copping the heat. The Insulation give-away has just accelerated the risks associated with the foil. 
Maybe the foil batts are a bad idea altogether, but that's something I would expect to hear from a building standards body, who would revoke their ratings and approval if the risks were seen to warrant it.  
Smells of spin.  
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

*.*  *Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995*    Read more:   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment- scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fZen524G   The academic at the centre of the Climategate affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble keeping track of the information.   Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.   Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is not as good as it should be.   The data is crucial to the famous hockey stick graph used by climate change advocates to support the theory.   *Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now  suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.*  *.*  *.*

----------


## Allen James

.  .    

> For your benifit.................just assume that everything I post is linked to the dictionary in one way or another....................

    

> Fixed..........................

   Translation:  _I will plagiarize other peoples misinformation in this political debate, whether you like it or not._ . My answer:  _Go ahead, make my day.  _ . The easiest way to beat someone in debate is to reveal their shoddy plagiarizing.   :Wink:   .
.

----------


## chrisp

> *.*  *Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995*    Read more:   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment- scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fZen524G   The academic at the centre of the Climategate affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble keeping track of the information.   Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.   Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is not as good as it should be.   The data is crucial to the famous hockey stick graph used by climate change advocates to support the theory.   *Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now  suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.*  *.*  *.*

  "Yesterday, the Daily Mail of the UK published a predictably inaccurate article entitled Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995″. 
 The title itself is a distortion of what Jones actually said in an interview with the BBC._ What Jones actually said is that, while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995_, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time interval (1995-present) involved. The warming trend consequently doesnt quite achieve statistical significance. But it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a time interval as short as 15 yearsa point we havemade countless times at RealClimate. It is also worth noting that the CRU record indicates slightly less warming than other global temperature estimates such as the GISS record.  
 The article also incorrectly equates instrumental surface temperature data that Jones and CRU have assembled to estimate the modern surface temperature trends with paleoclimate data used to estimate temperatures in past centuries, falsely asserting that the former has been used to produce the hockey stick graph.  
 Finally, the article intentionally distorts comments that Jones made about the so-called Medieval Warm Period. Jones stated in his BBC interview that _There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia_ and that _For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions._ 
 These are statements with which we entirely agree, and they are moreover fully consistent with the conclusions of the most recent IPCC report, and the numerous peer-reviewed publications on this issue since. Those conclusions are that recent Northern Hemisphere warming is likely unprecedented in at least a millennium (at least 1300 years, in fact), and that evidence in the Southern Hemisphere is currently too sparse for confident conclusions. Mann et al in fact drew those same conclusions in their most recent work on this problem (PNAS, 2008). 
 Unfortunately, these kinds of distortions are all too common in the press nowadays and so we must all be prepared to respond to those journalists and editors who confuse the public with such inaccuracies."Source: RealClimate   
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

And while we're on the subject of spin, Realclimate has a good article that looks in quite some depth at the 'errors' in the IPCC report, as well as a brief introduction as to what the IPCC is, and what it is not.  
Here's the link and a few pertinent quotes:   

> Lets start with a few basic facts about the IPCC.  The IPCC is not, as many people seem to think, a large organization. In fact, it has only 10 full-time staff in its secretariat at the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva, plus a few staff in four technical support units that help the chairs of the three IPCC working groups and the national greenhouse gas inventories group. The actual work of the IPCC is done by unpaid volunteers  thousands of scientists at universities and research institutes around the world who contribute as authors or reviewers to the completion of the IPCC reports. A large fraction of the relevant scientific community is thus involved in the effort.  The three working groups are:  *Working Group 1 (WG1),* which deals with the physical climate science basis, as assessed by the climatologists, including several of the Realclimate authors.  *Working Group 2 (WG2)*, which deals with impacts of climate change on society and ecosystems, as assessed by social scientists, ecologists, etc.  *Working Group 3 (WG3)* , which deals with mitigation options for limiting global warming, as assessed by energy experts, economists, etc. 
>  Assessment reports are published every six or seven years and writing them takes about three years. Each working group publishes one of the three volumes of each assessment. The focus of the recent allegations is the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which was published in 2007.  Its three volumes are almost a thousand pages _each_, in small print. They were written by over 450 lead authors and 800 contributing authors; most were not previous IPCC authors. There are three stages of review involving more than 2,500 expert reviewers who collectively submitted 90,000 review comments on the drafts. These, together with the authors responses to them, are all in the public record.

  
As to the errors. Note that the 'Glacier error' that was big news for our sceptics here and all the antiAGW crowd that ran it up the flagpole with great anti-IPCC fanfare:    

> _Himalayan glaciers:_ In a regional chapter on Asia in Volume 2, written by authors from the region, it was erroneously stated that 80% of Himalayan glacier area would very likely be gone by 2035. This is of course not the proper IPCC projection of future glacier decline, which is found in Volume 1 of the report. There we find a 45-page, perfectly valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice (Chapter 4), with the authors including leading glacier experts (such as our colleague Georg Kaser from Austria, who first discovered the Himalaya error in the WG2 report).  There are also several pages on future glacier decline in Chapter 10 (Global Climate Projections), where the proper projections are used e.g. to estimate future sea level rise. So the problem here is not that the IPCCs glacier experts made an incorrect prediction. The problem is that a WG2 chapter, instead of relying on the proper IPCC projections from their WG1 colleagues, cited an unreliable outside source in one place. Fixing this error involves deleting two sentences on page 493 of the WG2 report.

  Two sentences scuttles the entire IPCC? Yeah, right. 
Now, if the RC crew can find that and point it out, how come our sceptics can't? At least one of them claims great knowledge of the IPCC report, perhaps they don't want to look, because it's far easier to spread misinformation than the 'facts' ? 
Anyway, it's there to read, and a whole lot more on the linked page, including discussion of the media's role in blowing a few words out of all proportion. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> So in the absence of dissent we are in agreement that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased due to the burning of fossil fuels.   
> Well done everyone . 
> Now for the next one; 
> What is the equal and opposite reaction that we will experience because of it? 
> Will it be good, will it be bad?  What will change to accommodate it? 
> Way you go   Now - No bloody graphs, no bloody links to anything - what do YOU think, in your own words, from your own brain, based on what YOU have read or seen or even a hunch.

  Abiding by Dazzler rules, Here goes:CO2 is one of many greenhouse gasses (GHG) in the atmosphere. 
The earth experiences about 390W/m2 from the sun.  About 240W/m2 is re-radiated back out from the earth.  Greenhouse gasses trap about 150W/m2. 
CO2 is just one of the GHGs.  man-made GHGs such as CFCs and HFCs have also entered the atmosphere and also contribute to the greenhouse effect. 
The increase in CO2 has has a radiative forcing effect of 1.63 W/m2 (using radiative forcing coefficient = 5.35 for CO2) 
The effect of increased greenhouse effect from CO2 increasing from 280ppm to 380 ppm is a temperature rise of 1.2 degrees Celsius (using a sensitivity of 0.75 degrees per w/m2).  However, it takes a while for the extra radiation to warm the planet and so far we have only experienced 0.5 degree rise with a further 0.7 degress yet to come.  This assumes that we stabilise CO2 concetrations at present levels.  However, the CO2 emissions are growing so the overall temperature rise is also growing. 
So far, we have a 35% rise in CO2 producing a 1.2 degree temperature change (the relationship is approximately logarithmic).  Overall, this can at first seems insignificant, however, the impact of relatively small, and long term, temperature increase is an increase in extreme weather events (droughts, cyclones), glacier retreat and increased sea level, change in weather patterns (such as periods of long dry periods and then heavy rain falls) that may lead to soil erosion. agriculture production is expected to decline over much of southern and eastern Australia.My view is that global warming - and indeed man-made global warming - is generally accepted in the wider scientific community.  That is there is no serious dissention on the basic science.  However, there seems to be a public or populist campaign to dispute global warming science, or claim global warming is either not man-made, or the man-made contribution is insignificant.  While such campaigns may cause short-term confusion to the general public, and may hold up the political processes required for action (such as introduction of a carbon tax), I have no doubt that in the long term the world will generally accept the premise of global warming science and move on to a path of action. 
I see the world moving slowly from a fossil fuel powered society to a renewable energy powered society.  Along the way I suspect we'll become a more energy conscious society and we'll become somewhat more choosy about our appliances and energy use.  This increase in "energy consciousness" will be aided by increased energy costs.

----------


## Allen James

.   Allen James: _Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995_  _._ _Read more:_  _._ _Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online_ .   

> "Yesterday, the Daily Mail of the UK published a predictably inaccurate article entitled

    

> Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995”.

  How was it inaccurate? . .   

> The title itself is a distortion of what Jones actually said in an interview with the BBC.

   I disagree. Where is your proof? . .   

> What Jones actually said is that, while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995

   Whoa, little fella. When I go to the article and do a search for the term, “nominally warmed since 1995”, I find zero results.  . Check it yourself here: . BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones . . In fact, I can’t even find the word ‘nominally’ in the interview. What are you talking about? . .   

> The article also incorrectly equates instrumental surface temperature data that Jones and CRU have assembled

   Whoa again, little buddy. A search for “instrumental surface temperature” in the article quoted, at: . Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online . has zero results. If there is no mention of the words “instrumental surface temperature” in the article, how could it be incorrectly equating it with anything? . . This is merely covering fire from realclimate.org , who are biased in the extreme and have a great deal to lose as GW is revealed to be the scam it obviously is. They make a lot of noise, and hope you will be distracted.  . Read the article and ignore their noise. .  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0fZen524G     .

----------


## Allen James

.  .   

> My view is that global warming - and indeed man-made global warming - is generally accepted in the wider scientific community.

  Where is your proof?  From what I have seen most scientists are sceptics.  . .   

> That is there is no serious dissention on the basic science.

  LOL.  Ever heard of climategate, he with fingers in ears?   :Tongue:    .    

> However, there seems to be a public or populist campaign to dispute global warming science

  Yes, the common peasants  no scientists at all.  LOL.  Just delete all the tens of thousands of scientists who oppose GW, and, as the emperor in Amadeus said, Well, there it is!  :Biggrin:   . .   

> While such campaigns may cause short-term confusion to the general public, and may hold up the political processes required for action (such as introduction of a carbon tax), I have no doubt that in the long term the world will generally accept the premise of global warming science and move on to a path of action.

  Dream all you like, but the hoodwinking is over.   You lost.   :Smilie:    .   .

----------


## chrisp

> ._Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995_  _._ How was it inaccurate? . I disagree. Where is your proof?

  Well, let me see, the headline states "_U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995"_ 
However, Professor Jones states in his answer to Question E:*E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?*
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity. Can you see any discrepancy between the headline and the interview? 
Oh, and what does he say about warming since 1995:*B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming*
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. He doesn't say that there hasn't been any warming - there has - it just not statistically significant at a 95% confidence level. 
Can you see how "U-Turn" might be misleading too? 
[All quotes from the BBC website BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones ]  
Out of interest, did you really read the interview and come to the conclusion that the "U-Turn" story is an accurate representation?

----------


## Allen James

.    .  .  .

----------


## chrisp

> .Where is your proof?  From what I have seen most scientists are sceptics.  LOL.  Ever heard of climategate, he with fingers in ears?    Yes, the common peasants – no scientists at all.  LOL.  Just delete all the tens of thousands of scientists who oppose GW, and, as the emperor in ‘Amadeus’ said, “Well, there it is!”   Dream all you like, but the hoodwinking is over.   You lost.

  Allen, 
I stated my _opinion_.  The "My view ..." at the start of the paragraph should have tipped you off that I was expressing an opinion.  You want proof?  Just a minute... *chrisp*: chrisp, is that your opinion? *chrisp*: Yes, it is. There you go, proof that it is my opinion. (personal correspondence with the author, Feb 2010)  :Smilie:  
I'm basing my opinion on my experiences with scientists and my view is that climate change is not an contentious issue with scientists.  Yep, there might be the odd one here and there, but on the whole, global warming is accepted in the scientific community.

----------


## watson

Back on topic please fellers.

----------


## dazzler

Thanks Chrisp 
Interesting thoughts.  Funny how quiet it is when you simply ask someone to state what they think, not what they can google. 
cheers

----------


## chrisp

> Oh.....Geeeeezzzzzzz, Chrissy.................looks like your in trouble now, some pretty strong words there......................I think Mr James called you "buddy"

  Headpin, 
I noticed that too.  Do you think he might be trying to pick a fight with me?   :Eek:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Back on topic please fellers.

  Allow me... :Biggrin:    You see, the IPCC used to print this:       This is what IPCC had in their 1990 report (FAR). No warming. It has not warmed up since Middle Ages.     Then the Real Climate guy did this for the IPCC:      
And on his Real Climate website, still to this day denies any wrong doing:   There is no evidence...no grand plan to get rid of the MWP...   Its a pity he doesnt add the following fact to the Real Climate website.   There is no evidence proving AGW Theory. :Pop:     And yes, I have read most of the information released by the IPCC, and guess what?   There is no evidence proving AGW Theory. :Pop:     Strange isnt it, allegedly most scientists working with the backing of most governments using supercomputers and satellites, funded to the hundreds of billions cant find one fact to prove this theory, yet somehow just agree via consensus that this climate thing is real (Real Climate?)    I dont know why, but Im getting flashbacks to my childhood religious lessons.   There is no evidence proving them either. :Pop:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Abiding by Dazzler rules, Here goes:CO2 is one of many greenhouse gasses (GHG) in the atmosphere. 
> The earth experiences about 390W/m2 from the sun.  About 240W/m2 is re-radiated back out from the earth.  Greenhouse gasses trap about 150W/m2. 
> CO2 is just one of the GHGs.  man-made GHGs such as CFCs and HFCs have also entered the atmosphere and also contribute to the greenhouse effect. 
> The increase in CO2 has has a radiative forcing effect of 1.63 W/m2 (using radiative forcing coefficient = 5.35 for CO2) 
> The effect of increased greenhouse effect from CO2 increasing from 280ppm to 380 ppm is a temperature rise of 1.2 degrees Celsius (using a sensitivity of 0.75 degrees per w/m2).  However, it takes a while for the extra radiation to warm the planet and so far we have only experienced 0.5 degree rise with a further 0.7 degress yet to come.  This assumes that we stabilise CO2 concetrations at present levels.  However, the CO2 emissions are growing so the overall temperature rise is also growing. 
> So far, we have a 35% rise in CO2 producing a 1.2 degree temperature change (the relationship is approximately logarithmic).  Overall, this can at first seems insignificant, however, the impact of relatively small, and long term, temperature increase is an increase in extreme weather events (droughts, cyclones), glacier retreat and increased sea level, change in weather patterns (such as periods of long dry periods and then heavy rain falls) that may lead to soil erosion. agriculture production is expected to decline over much of southern and eastern Australia.My view is that global warming - and indeed man-made global warming - is generally accepted in the wider scientific community.  That is there is no serious dissention on the basic science.  However, there seems to be a public or populist campaign to dispute global warming science, or claim global warming is either not man-made, or the man-made contribution is insignificant.  While such campaigns may cause short-term confusion to the general public, and may hold up the political processes required for action (such as introduction of a carbon tax), I have no doubt that in the long term the world will generally accept the premise of global warming science and move on to a path of action. 
> I see the world moving slowly from a fossil fuel powered society to a renewable energy powered society.  Along the way I suspect we'll become a more energy conscious society and we'll become somewhat more choosy about our appliances and energy use.  This increase in "energy consciousness" will be aided by increased energy costs.

  At least we can now agree that "consensus of opinion" is all that's required to "believe" this new faith, as opposed to determining facts to prove a theory.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Two sentences scuttles the entire IPCC? Yeah, right. 
> woodbe.

   No my friend, not two, there can be only one, and here it is.   

> There is no evidence proving AGW Theory.

----------


## Dr Freud

The lesson is clear. The ETS is a lost cause. In which case, Rudd would be well advised to cut Labor's losses now and junk the legislation.   Rudd is primarily responsible for his government's inability to explain its climate change policies.   It has become fashionable for commentators to assert that Rudd cannot communicate a simple message. As far as the ETS is concerned, this is harsh. It is not clear if anyone can explain emissions trading in readily understandable terms.   Any supporters want to have a good Aussie go?   This may help?  :Help:   If you can, distill it into a soundbite to counter this one: *
"Kevin Rudd's big new tax".*

----------


## woodbe

> No my friend, not two, there can be only one, and here it is.

  So you claim to have read and largely understand the IPCC report, yet you somehow failed to notice or report the insignificance of the Glacier error, given that it was not in volume 1 in the Glaciers, Snow and Ice chapter (Chapter 4) 
I am sceptical of your scepticism.  
woodbe

----------


## chrisp

> 

   
Just to clarify, is the graph you quote showing the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age based upon global data or localised data? 
My understanding is that it is a localised phenomenon and not global.

----------


## Allen James

.  .   

> Well, let me see, the headline states "

    

> *U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995"* However, Professor Jones states in his answer to Question E: *E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?*

  Obviously you didn’t read the interview, which I linked you to: . http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm  Quote: . *Question: B* - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming *Answer:* Yes, but only just.  . This means the headline you say is incorrect was actually correct.  . You also failed to answer my other questions, or to explain why the article you linked us to from realclimate made the mistakes I outlined.  .  .

----------


## chrisp

> Obviously you didn’t read the interview, which I linked you to: . BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

  Yes I did.  I even quoted from it in my post.  Maybe you didn't read my post  :Confused:

----------


## Allen James

.  .     

> Thanks Chrisp

    

> Interesting thoughts. Funny how quiet it is when you simply ask someone to state what they think

  It is amazing how quiet greenies go when you ask them how Australia is 'poisoning the world' as they claim, or even better, when you ask them why they do all the things they say poison the planet - like drive cars, own TV's, computers, etc. We already posted a video in this thread showing the Irish interviewer who asked Eco nuts opposed to jets, why they used them to come to the conference, and they refused point blank to answer this glaring hypocrisy, running away from the camera. Then when those opposed to them try to speak, the same Eco hypocrites fly to Copenhagen in more jets to drown them out.  .  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHcJQcGk25o"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]   .  .

----------


## Allen James

.     

> Yes I did. I even quoted from it in my post. Maybe you didn't read my post

  This is your answer?  LOL!  If that isn't "going quiet", what is?   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:     .

----------


## Allen James

Well Rod, 
Congrats on the hundredth page.  :2thumbsup:   :Photo3:   :Brava:  :Photo3:   :2thumbsup:   
Do they have a longer thread on this board? This could be a record.  
Allen

----------


## chrisp

> Thanks Chrisp 
> Interesting thoughts.  Funny how quiet it is when you simply ask someone to state what they think, not what they can google. 
> cheers

  No worries Dazzler. 
Thank you for your efforts - and questions - to provide some constructive direction to this thread.

----------


## Allen James

.     

> No worries Dazzler.

    

> Thank you for your efforts - and questions - to provide some constructive direction to this thread.

   Theres nothing like the smell of chrispy bacon in the morning.   :Wink:   .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Well Rod, 
> Congrats on the hundredth page.      
> Do they have a longer thread on this board? This could be a record.  
> Allen

  Got to be a record! 
You guys are doing quite well.  I have been so damn busy, I have had trouble just keeping up. 
Cheers Rod

----------


## dazzler

> .  .    It is amazing how quiet greenies go when you ask them how Australia is 'poisoning the world' as they claim, or even better, when you ask them why they do all the things they say poison the planet - like drive cars, own TV's, computers, etc. We already posted a video in this thread showing the Irish interviewer who asked Eco nuts opposed to jets, why they used them to come to the conference, and they refused point blank to answer this glaring hypocrisy, running away from the camera. Then when those opposed to them try to speak, the same Eco hypocrites fly to Copenhagen in more jets to drown them out.  .  YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.   .  .

  You have quoted me and referred to greenies.  Are you once again calling me a greenie. So that you understand, I am from the country, calling someone a greenie without proof would find you coughing up your own teeth. 
Is this what you are saying, that I am a greenie.

----------


## Allen James

.     

> No worries Dazzler.

    

> Thank you for your efforts - and questions - to provide some constructive direction to this thread.

  Theres nothing like the smell of chrispy bacon in the morning.  :Wink:   . .

----------


## Allen James

.   *Dazzler:* _Interesting thoughts. Funny how quiet it is when you simply ask someone to state what they think_  *Allen James:* _It is amazing how quiet greenies go when you ask them how Australia is 'poisoning the world' as they claim, or even better, when you ask them why they do all the things they say poison the planet - like drive cars, own TV's, computers, etc. We already posted a video in this thread showing the Irish interviewer who asked Eco nuts opposed to jets, why they used them to come to the conference, and they refused point blank to answer this glaring hypocrisy, running away from the camera. Then when those opposed to them try to speak, the same Eco hypocrites fly to Copenhagen in more jets to drown them out._ . _[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHcJQcGk25o&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- Eco Hypocrites Fly in Jets Across Atlantic to Attack AFP in Copenhagen[/ame]_  . .   

> You have quoted me and referred to greenies.

   You mentioned how people go quiet when asked questions, so I gave some good examples of that. .  .  .   

> Are you once again calling me a greenie.

   I answered this already when you asked me before in this thread. I mentioned the crazy feminist who hated men, and quoted Germaine Greer, and when I called her a feminist she angrily declared she was not, and was very angry about being labelled by a man.  .  You may not think youre a greenie, but most greenies would be very pleased with your posts in this thread.  :Rolleyes:  .    .

----------


## Allen James

.   .     . . .  . . ..   .   .     . .. v . .     . . .   . . . . .. .

----------


## watson

*ADMIN WARNING* 
OK people.
Time to call this into line again.
Playing the man is not debating, and it annoys the bejeezuz out of me as well.
There will be no more designating posters as Green/Purple/Right/ Left/ based on your personal opinion as seen in this post: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...tml#post789115.
This is a Debate.........so Bloody debate.......without resorting to basic school yard taunts.

----------


## Allen James

.    

> *ADMIN WARNING*

    

> OK people. Time to call this into line again. Playing the man is not debating, and it annoys the bejeezuz out of me as well. There will be no more designating posters as Green/Purple/Right/ Left/ based on your personal opinion as seen in this post: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/emission-trading-77931/index51.html#post789115. This is a Debate.........so Bloody debate.......without resorting to basic school yard taunts.

   I am happy to refrain from calling people greenies, if that is your rule, but what are you going to say to Headpin, who behaves like a drunken idiot, trolling us all day long?  See the many pages above for examples.    .

----------


## watson

That'd be good Allen.
Just report the posts otherwise, I don't interfere (Usually)

----------


## Rod Dyson

Yep, I'm all for keeping it very civil. 
Pity I just don't have time on my hands ATM to get into it  :Smilie:  
There is just to much ammo around to absorb it all.  Thankfully all heading in the right direction. 
Nice to see Obama is putting out there.  If you want to reduce emissions you have to embrace nuclear power.  Funny that.

----------


## Allen James

.     

> That'd be good Allen.

    

> Just report the posts otherwise, I don't interfere (Usually)

   As you say, Watson.   :Wink:  . I'll be taking my leave anyway for the next couple of weeks, as I have to build another room for a tenant who will be moving in then.  That includes the plastering and the BIR's. .  So I'll see you all again after that. .  Cheers, .  Allen  .  .    

> Yep, I'm all for keeping it very civil.

    

> .  Pity I just don't have time on my hands ATM to get into it   There is just to much ammo around to absorb it all. Thankfully all heading in the right direction.  Nice to see Obama is putting out there. If you want to reduce emissions you have to embrace nuclear power. Funny that.

  
Civil is best, as you say Rod.   .  Anyhow, see ya'll soon, .  .  Allen   .   . .

----------


## Dr Freud

> *ADMIN WARNING* 
> OK people.
> Time to call this into line again.
> Playing the man is not debating, and it annoys the bejeezuz out of me as well.
> There will be no more designating posters as Green/Purple/Right/ Left/ based on your personal opinion as seen in this post: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...tml#post789115.
> This is a Debate.........so Bloody debate.......without resorting to basic school yard taunts.

  So I take it that unless little Kev starts posting, I can still call him a muppet.  :2thumbsup:  
(Don't go creating a fake Kev profile just to get me on a technicality).  :Annoyed:  
But just in case, also found some of the front bench online, here's Pete, Kev, Wayne and Julia.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Most concerning for Rudd, they are noticing his government's climate change con.  :Clap:

----------


## chrisp

> Just a quick overveiw on the debate thus far for those of you missed the first 100 pages. 
> The "B" Team 
> Capain Dyson has taken time out to sit on his hands. Mr James has retired hurt but has vowed to return. The Doc is valiantly batting on. 
> The "A" Team 
> Captain Woodbe is pondering field placements. Dazza is putting his protector on, in anticipation of a physical encounter. Chrissy has returned to behind the stumps and is engaged in some friendly banter. Headpin plays silly mid on. 
> Watson is going [s]red[/s] in the face blowing his whistle................ 
> Stay tuned kids.....................

  That has to be one of the best posts in the whole thread. 
You're a genius mate.  :2thumbsup:  
Come on team 'A', I can see the cracks forming in the opposition.  Keep this up and they'll fall apart.   :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> That has to be one of the best posts in the whole thread. 
> You're a genius mate.  
> Come on team 'A', I can see the cracks forming in the opposition.  Keep this up and they'll fall apart.

  Excuse me, I'm the Captain! 
Come on team 'A', I can see the cracks forming in the opposition.  Keep this up and they'll fall apart.   :Smilie:    :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Excuse me, I'm the Captain!

  Oops, sorry, I'll go back to being wicket keeper.  At least I get the full set of pads  :Smilie:

----------


## Vernonv

Chris, from now on you will need to start every post with "I pity the fool ...".  :Wink:    :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

Well, I came upon a very convincing document today from a couple of standup sceptic sources, one of which we are very familiar with: Anthony Watts The paper is called "*Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?*" and the authors are Joseph D'Aleo & Anthony Watt:   

> Authors veteran meteorologists Joe DAleo and Anthony Watts analyzed temperature records from all around the world for a major SPPI paper, Surface Temperature Records  Policy-driven Deception?  The startling conclusion that we cannot tell whether there was any significant global warming at all in the 20th century is based on numerous astonishing examples of manipulation and exaggeration of the true level and rate of global warming.     That is to say, leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net global warming in the 20th century.

  Fighting words, n'est pas?  
Have a look at what Open Mind blog has to say, full copy on the Link   

> One of the section titles in DAleo and Wattss denialist document is NO WARMING TREND IN THE 351-YEAR CENTRAL ENGLAND TEMPERATURE RECORD.  It comes from a site calling itself carbon sense. Only when you read the section do you discover that it only compares 100-year averages of the 20th century to the 18th century, and only for the summer season. In fact their entire case is just smoke and mirrors.

  "*Only when you read the section do you discover that it only compares 100-year averages of the 20th century to the 18th century, and only for the summer season.*" 
Is there no end to the depths? 
Those that like to look at charts will find them a'plenty on the Open Mind analysis linked above, with comprehensive discussion. 
Watts, you might recall, is the guy who created a storm over UHI and is the architect of an amateur weather station 'expose' on the subject. If he's going to pull shonky sceptical 'science' stunts like this, how much credence will he have when he gets around to analysing his own data?  
Discuss.  
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> That's not quite correct, Chris........................it's SUPER GENIUS............

  Psst, good to see you picked up on the 'opening' I left for you  :Wink:

----------


## dazzler

So I am in the A team....woohoo.  :2thumbsup:  
Okay B team, what is the equal and opposite reaction to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.   
Remember, your own words, no links.  :Smilie:

----------


## dazzler

> 12th man...............your carrying the drinks..............

  But theres only two of us......

----------


## chrisp

> Watts, you might recall, is the guy who created a storm over UHI and is the architect of an amateur weather station 'expose' on the subject. If he's going to pull shonky sceptical 'science' stunts like this, how much credence will he have when he gets around to analysing his own data?   
> Discuss.

    *The pot calling the kettle black* (I hope Mr Watson didn't ban 'black'?  :Shock:  )  
I'm somewhat amazed at the number of times some sort of conspiracy theory is proposed as to why some reputable authority might be supporting the AGW theory. 
Without searching back through this thread, I think we have had claims that 'the scientists are keeping themselves in the job'; 'AGW is the new communism crusade'; 'the IPCC is a way of the UN forming a world government'; to name a few. 
Yet all along, we have being hearing twisted and distorted 'facts' that 'prove' that AGW doesn't exist.  I sometimes wonder if there is a conspiracy - but that the conspiracy is with the anti-AGW brigade.  'The pot calling the kettle black', or is it a case of 'can't see the splinter for the log in their eye'? 
It whole debate reminds me of the the other debates in the past, such as smoking as the cause of cancer and the fluoridation of the water supplies.  At the time they were hotly debated, and if I recall correctly, some even claimed that fluoridation was a communist plot. 
Our regular contributor Allen James (temporarily retired) gave a good example of distorting facts by quoting out of context.  (You can read back a few pages to the "U-turn" headlines and the link to the interview is supposedly summarises). 
I don't believe Rod, Allen or Dr Freud are in some secret society to derail AGW and ETS.  But I'm a little at loss to understand their stubbornness to accept that the science just might be right.  Is it a fear of change?  Is it a fear of a new tax? 
Speaking of 'tax', I get the impression that 'tax' is considered a dirty word in some circles.  Personally, I don't mind tax.  I see it as the way society pays for all those things that are good for us as a whole, such as roads, police, courts, schools, etc.  Taxes can also be used as a tool to encourage, or discourage, certain behaviours.  An example of this is the tax placed on tobacco. 
Let's see if that brings any comments.  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

Projections from the CSIRO and BOM show that if we don't reduce our carbon pollution, the number of very hot days over 35 degrees will more than double in Adelaide and experience nearly a 30 fold increase in Darwin by 2070.   :Lolabove:  
The final desperate ramblings of irrelevance.  :Sweat:

----------


## andy the pm

> The final desperate ramblings of irrelevance.

  Never a truer word spoken by a sceptic...

----------


## woodbe

> The final desperate ramblings of irrelevance.

  That's your response? 6 words to counter 3206 words, and not a single attempt to respond to the actual arguments proposed, many of them shining a light on the sceptic position? 
I remain sceptical of your scepticism. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I don't believe Rod, Allen or Dr Freud are in some secret society to derail AGW and ETS. But I'm a little at loss to understand their stubbornness to accept that the science just might be right. Is it a fear of change? Is it a fear of a new tax?  
> Let's see if that brings any comments.

  I'll bite. What sort of secret society did you have in mind? 
Of course you are at a loss I expect no more. Even if, big big if, the theory of AGW proves correct I cannot understand how any one can believe that an ETS here in Australia or anywhere else for that matter would make one iota of difference to temperature. Particularly in view of the projected population growth for Australia and other countries. It is a feel good policy that will cost us plenty but deliver nothing. 
Even if we reduce emissions by 5% which I very much doubt we can even with an ETS how much will the world temperature drop? No one can answer this question. Now for the amount of money it cost is the result worth it? 
If temperatures rise (which I doubt very much they will) this money would be better spent in mitigation of the results of higher temperatures, rather than throwing money away on a vain attmpt to stop temperatures rising. 
If you read back through my posts you will see quite clearly that I do not hold to any conspiracy theories. You will see exactly why I think this whole mess has got out of hand. 
Time is the only way we will get to the bottom of the AGW debate. There are quite clearly many attempts by scientist and the ipcc to ramp up the scare factors to get people to support the theory, this cannot be denied. Yet public opinion is going the opposite direction another fact that cannot be denied. We can argue till the cows come home and you will not change my view unless you come up with some factual evidence tha AGW is fact. No one, NOT ONE bit of evidence clearly says that the theory is fact. You have a lot of circumstancial claims that do not prove a thing, many of which have been magnified out of proportion, with the specific desire to scare people into "action".  
If AGW was real and could be proven beyond doubt, skeptics would be welcomed with open arms by the "warmists" so they had the opportunity to put there theory beyond doubt. Yet the opposite has happened. Both warmist scientists and policticians alike have tried to smear, ridicule, discredit, and villify skeptics,of which, many, not all, are quite intelligent people. This has not been lost on the general public, so what do you expect? 
Time will tell.  
Cheers Rod

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'll bite. What sort of secret society did you have in mind? 
> Of course you are at a loss I expect no more. Even if, big big if, the theory of AGW proves correct I cannot understand how any one can believe that an ETS here in Australia or anywhere else for that matter would make one iota of difference to temperature. Particularly in view of the projected population growth for Australia and other countries. It is a feel good policy that will cost us plenty but deliver nothing. 
> Even if we reduce emissions by 5% which I very much doubt we can even with an ETS how much will the world temperature drop? No one can answer this question. Now for the amount of money it cost is the result worth it? 
> If temperatures rise (which I doubt very much they will) this money would be better spent in mitigation of the results of higher temperatures, rather than throwing money away on a vain attmpt to stop temperatures rising. 
> If you read back through my posts you will see quite clearly that I do not hold to any conspiracy theories. You will see exactly why I think this whole mess has got out of hand. 
> Time is the only way we will get to the bottom of the AGW debate. There are quite clearly many attempts by scientist and the ipcc to ramp up the scare factors to get people to support the theory, this cannot be denied. Yet public opinion is going the opposite direction another fact that cannot be denied. We can argue till the cows come home and you will not change my view unless you come up with some factual evidence tha AGW is fact. No one, NOT ONE bit of evidence clearly says that the theory is fact. You have a lot of circumstancial claims that do not prove a thing, many of which have been magnified out of proportion, with the specific desire to scare people into "action".  
> If AGW was real and could be proven beyond doubt, skeptics would be welcomed with open arms by the "warmists" so they had the opportunity to put there theory beyond doubt. Yet the opposite has happened. Both warmist scientists and policticians alike have tried to smear, ridicule, discredit, and villify skeptics,of which, many, not all, are quite intelligent people. This has not been lost on the general public, so what do you expect? 
> Time will tell.  
> Cheers Rod

  I coudn't have said it better, but it is worth saying again!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

> I'll bite. What sort of secret society did you have in mind?

  I think I said that I thought you weren't part of a secret society.   

> Even if we reduce emissions by 5% which I very much doubt we can even with an ETS how much will the world temperature drop? No one can answer this question. Now for the amount of money it cost is the result worth it?

  If you can determine the amount of CO2 emissions, you can determine the ultimate temperature rise. 
At this stage, it is not a question of 'how much the temperature will drop' but rather a question of 'how much are we prepared to let the temperature rise'.    

> If you read back through my posts you will see quite clearly that I do not hold to any conspiracy theories. You will see exactly why I think this whole mess has got out of hand.

  I will have a read back sometime just to refresh.     

> Both warmist scientists and policticians alike have tried to smear, ridicule, discredit, and villify skeptics,of which, many, not all, are quite intelligent people. This has not been lost on the general public, so what do you expect?

  I was interested to see LateLine tonight where Greg Hunt stated that the Liberals or Coalition (I'm not sure exactly who he spoke on behalf of) would match Labors CO2 reductions and using the same criteria to set the emissions reduction targets.  It seems to me that the Liberals (but I'm not sure about the Nationals?) have come around to see the need for CO2 reductions.  The only contention seems to be the form of 'tax' or 'encouragement' to do so.  There doesn't seen to be any debate about AGW (i.e. the science) any more.  Maybe this is the 'coming around' that you have been predicting?   

> Time will tell.

  Agreed.  
And welcome back to the asylum.   :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> I coudn't have said it better, but it is worth saying again!

  It's good to see your independent thinking and analysis processes at work.  A man who can speak someone else's mind.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *The pot calling the kettle black* (I hope Mr Watson didn't ban 'black'?  )  
> I'm somewhat amazed at the number of times some sort of conspiracy theory is proposed as to why some reputable authority might be supporting the AGW theory. 
> Without searching back through this thread, I think we have had claims that 'the scientists are keeping themselves in the job'; 'AGW is the new communism crusade'; 'the IPCC is a way of the UN forming a world government'; to name a few. 
> Yet all along, we have being hearing twisted and distorted 'facts' that 'prove' that AGW doesn't exist.  I sometimes wonder if there is a conspiracy - but that the conspiracy is with the anti-AGW brigade.  'The pot calling the kettle black', or is it a case of 'can't see the splinter for the log in their eye'? 
> It whole debate reminds me of the the other debates in the past, such as smoking as the cause of cancer and the fluoridation of the water supplies.  At the time they were hotly debated, and if I recall correctly, some even claimed that fluoridation was a communist plot. 
> Our regular contributor Allen James (temporarily retired) gave a good example of distorting facts by quoting out of context.  (You can read back a few pages to the "U-turn" headlines and the link to the interview is supposedly summarises). 
> I don't believe Rod, Allen or Dr Freud are in some secret society to derail AGW and ETS.  But I'm a little at loss to understand their stubbornness to accept that the science just might be right.  Is it a fear of change?  Is it a fear of a new tax? 
> Speaking of 'tax', I get the impression that 'tax' is considered a dirty word in some circles.  Personally, I don't mind tax.  I see it as the way society pays for all those things that are good for us as a whole, such as roads, police, courts, schools, etc.  Taxes can also be used as a tool to encourage, or discourage, certain behaviours.  An example of this is the tax placed on tobacco. 
> Let's see if that brings any comments.

   

> Never a truer word spoken by a sceptic...

   

> That's your response? 6 words to counter 3206 words, and not a single attempt to respond to the actual arguments proposed, many of them shining a light on the sceptic position? 
> I remain sceptical of your scepticism. 
> woodbe.

  Gentlemen, all of the information you have posted is redundant based on the information in this thread alone (ie. calling someone a sceptic doesn't prove AGW Theory), let alone the many facts freely available in the world at large (ie. you don't accept science by consensus because it "might" be right, this is not called "stubbornness", it's called scientific methodology).   
It truly is becoming tedious going back through all the previous posts to continually rebut your same redundant points.  All of our time is valuable, so I suggest it may be more productive to cover new ground.  If you're having trouble keeping up, could I suggest taking notes of the more salient points.  :Shock:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I think I said that I thought you weren't part of a secret society.

   I know what you said, but I was wondering if you thought there was one regarding skeptics of AGW that others might be a member or why raise the prospect at all?   

> If you can determine the amount of CO2 emissions, you can determine the ultimate temperature rise.

    Hmmmm... ok enlighten me?  

> At this stage, it is not a question of 'how much the temperature will drop' but rather a question of 'how much are we prepared to let the temperature rise'.

   Easy to say, but try and explain exactly how this could be done, if it has been done, please provide a link to a cost benefit analysis that has been done to justify this.   

> I will have a read back sometime just to refresh.

   Do so, you will find I try very hard to explain my position yet it seams to fall on deaf ears.   

> I was interested to see LateLine tonight where Greg Hunt stated that the Liberals or Coalition (I'm not sure exactly who he spoke on behalf of) would match Labors CO2 reductions and using the same criteria to set the emissions reduction targets. It seems to me that the Liberals (but I'm not sure about the Nationals?) have come around to see the need for CO2 reductions. The only contention seems to be the form of 'tax' or 'encouragement' to do so. There doesn't seen to be any debate about AGW (i.e. the science) any more. Maybe this is the 'coming around' that you have been predicting?

  They have little choice but to have a foot in both camps. You will also notice that what they propose is reversable and will not cause any long term damage to the economy when AGW goes the way of the ice age scare in the 70's. Unlike the ETS which will be a permanent blight on our economy.  

> And welcome back to the asylum.

  I have been lingering, the others have been covering any points I would have raised. Been way too busy to get in depth ATM.

----------


## Dr Freud

The Australian also learned Environment Minister Peter Garrett had been warned by industry experts about poor safety standards in the home insulation sector at least five months before *it gave $2.45 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies last year.*   "I said that to ensure that taxpayers got good value . . . it was important that we used the government's CodeMark scheme," Mr Oliver said.   "It was one way the government could ensure that the product and the installation being done were correct and that the taxpayer could get good value for money. "As I was saying this, he (Mr Garrett) was smiling and nodding his head."  *News of the warnings came as Kevin Rudd stonewalled in the face of media questions about why he pumped so much stimulus money into the sector if he knew it was not properly regulated. * *The Prime Minister simply refused to answer the question.*   He also ignored a question from The Australian about whether the Department of Environment made similar warnings early last year, when cabinet was hammering out the details of the scheme.   At a press conference yesterday, The Australian asked Mr Rudd whether he and his cabinet bore responsibility for having Mr Garrett administer a scheme in an industry sector they now acknowledge had inadequate safety regulations.   He failed to answer and declined to comment on opposition claims the Department of Environment warned cabinet against a rapid rollout of the scheme early last year.   Later, The Australian asked the same questions in writing, prompting a demand from one of Mr Rudd's press secretaries that the newspaper reveal whether it had any documentary evidence of advice from the Department of Environment.   Full story here.   These same people are about to pump $114 billion dollars into a flawed ETS policy that business and industry, every other political party, their own specialist advisors, and even environmentalists warn will fail.   Can you see a pattern forming with their environmental policies?  :Fineprint:

----------


## Dr Freud

Why your language supports my argument!   *skep**⋅**ti**c  *  noun  1. a person who questions   the validity or authenticity of something purporting   to be factual. 2. a person who maintains   a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of   others. 3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp.   Christianity, or of important elements of it. 4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy.  a. a member of a     philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which     consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge     of things is impossible. b. any later thinker who     doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind. adjective  5. pertaining to skeptics   or skepticism; skeptical. 6. (initial capital letter) pertaining   to the Skeptics.   Also, *sceptic.*    *Origin:* 
156575; < LL scepticus thoughtful, inquiring (in pl. Scepticī the Skeptics) < Gk skeptikós, equiv. to sképt(esthai) to consider, examine (akin to skopeîn to look; see -scope ) + -ikos -ic    Synonyms:
3. doubter. See atheist.    Antonyms:
3. believer.   *believer*   *be⋅lieve*   verb (used without object)  1. to have confidence in   the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in   doing so: Only if one believes in something can one   act purposefully.  verb (used with object)  2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion,   story, etc.); give credence to. 3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person). 4. to have a conviction   that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action   or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is   believed to be headed for the Mexican border.  5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually fol. by a   noun clause): I believe that he has left town.  Verb phrase 6. believe in,  a. to be persuaded of     the truth or existence of: to believe in     Zoroastrianism; to believe in ghosts.  b. to have faith in the     reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of: I can     help only if you believe in me.  Idiom 7. make believe. make (def.   46).  Use *believer* in a Sentence See images of *believer* Search *believer* on the Web   *Origin:* 
11501200; ME bileven, equiv. to bi- be- + leven, OE (Anglian) gelēfan (c. D gelooven, G glauben, Goth galaubjan)   Find here or any other dictionary.

----------


## woodbe

Gentlemen Sceptics, 
Where is the love for Mr Watt? He has been accused of authoring an analysis that simply doesn't stand up to the most basic scientific inspection, reported in Post 1524 
He is one of the sceptic High Priests. Are you abandoning him? 
Perhaps the realisation has dawned that being a weatherman does not necessarily equip one to understand and do science? 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

There is no abandoning of Watt, I have not had a chance to reasearch what you say so I cant comment either way. 
In general Anthony Watt is a sensible person that seeks the truth in science rather than believing everything he is told.  He like anyone else is not infalable.  He puts all his work out in the open for all to see and comment.  He has corrected errors in the past when pointed out to him.  Unlike some scientists we know. 
Irrespective of the result of what you say, it changes nothing.   
You might like to look at your hero's with the same critical eye, and report back what you find!

----------


## chrisp

> ie. you don't accept science by consensus because it "might" be right, this is not called "stubbornness", it's called scientific methodology

  I think we need to put your comment in to a context. 
Let me use a hypothetical analogy (yes, analogies can be risky and are rarely good fit  :Rolleyes: ) 
Let's suppose 10 separate groups of scientists studying the effects of smoking on human health.  These scientists are from different backgrounds and use different methodologies to determine what, if any, impact on human health there is from smoking.   One group of researchers might use a statistical method (say worldwide death statistics);Another group might use hospital admission data;Another might set-up controlled groups: i.e. a group of smokers and a group of non-smokers and study them over a period of time.Another group might do a laboratory study using laboratory animals.Another might do a 'test tube' study to see the effect of smoke by-products on human cells.Another might analyse the possible mechanisms that smoke by-products effects different individuals using DNA studies.One might study the effect of temperature (smoke is hot, right?) on the human body.[you can make up your own extra three studies  :Wink: ]
 At the end of there studies the results are reported.  9 groups report a definite relationship between smoking and cancer.  One group doesn't find such a relationship (but didn't disprove it either). 
None of the researchers can prove for sure that 'if _you_ smoke _you_ will get cancer' but 9 out of 10 are very such it is a very strong risk factor in a general population. 
Do you: a) Ignore the results as it hasn't been proven conclusively - i.e. 100% agreement.
b) Agree that the 9 out of 10 studies aren't 100% conclusive individually and therefore aren't conclusive as a whole.
c) Wait until all studies come up with 100% confidence conclusions and all studies are unanimous.or d) accept that the bulk of the scientific studies are indicating a relationship between smoking and cancer. You may claim '_you don't accept science by consensus because it "might" be right_'.  However, a small amount of uncertainty or inconclusiveness in a collection of studies doesn't invalidate the bulk of the studies. 
You seem to be waiting for  AGW to reach '_scientific law_' status rather than accepting a AGW '_scientific theory_'.

----------


## woodbe

> There is no abandoning of Watt,

  Good to hear!   

> You might like to look at your hero's with the same critical eye, and report back what you find!

  What has this got to do with The Man of Steel?  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> I think we need to put your comment in to a context.

  Good post Chris. We have often seen this criticism of AGW theory 'not being proven' in this thread, thanks for putting it in context. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Chris, from now on you will need to start every post with "I pity the fool ...".

   

> I think we need to put your comment in to a context.

  Oops, I meant to say: 
"I pity the fool. I think we need to put your comment in to a context..."   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I think we need to put your comment in to a context. 
> Let me use a hypothetical analogy (yes, analogies can be risky and are rarely good fit ) 
> Let's suppose 10 separate groups of scientists studying the effects of smoking on human health. These scientists are from different backgrounds and use different methodologies to determine what, if any, impact on human health there is from smoking.   One group of researchers might use a statistical method (say worldwide death statistics);Another group might use hospital admission data;Another might set-up controlled groups: i.e. a group of smokers and a group of non-smokers and study them over a period of time.Another group might do a laboratory study using laboratory animals.Another might do a 'test tube' study to see the effect of smoke by-products on human cells.Another might analyse the possible mechanisms that smoke by-products effects different individuals using DNA studies.One might study the effect of temperature (smoke is hot, right?) on the human body.[you can make up your own extra three studies ]At the end of there studies the results are reported. 9 groups report a definite relationship between smoking and cancer. One group doesn't find such a relationship (but didn't disprove it either). 
> None of the researchers can prove for sure that 'if _you_ smoke _you_ will get cancer' but 9 out of 10 are very such it is a very strong risk factor in a general population. 
> Do you: a) Ignore the results as it hasn't been proven conclusively - i.e. 100% agreement.
> b) Agree that the 9 out of 10 studies aren't 100% conclusive individually and therefore aren't conclusive as a whole.
> c) Wait until all studies come up with 100% confidence conclusions and all studies are unanimous.or d) accept that the bulk of the scientific studies are indicating a relationship between smoking and cancer. You may claim '_you don't accept science by consensus because it "might" be right_'. However, a small amount of uncertainty or inconclusiveness in a collection of studies doesn't invalidate the bulk of the studies. 
> You seem to be waiting for AGW to reach '_scientific law_' status rather than accepting a AGW '_scientific theory_'.

  This is a real strawmans argument Chrisp.  
It means nothing, what is your point?  Is it that we should believe in any theory put forward without proof simply because of the smoking causes cancer theory, simply on the basis of some casual relationship. 
This is rubbish and any thinking person knows it.

----------


## chrisp

> It means nothing, what is your point?  Is it that we should believe in any theory put forward without proof simply because of the smoking causes cancer theory, simply on the basis of some casual relationship. 
> This is rubbish and any thinking person knows it.

  With respect Rod, what '_theory put forward without proof_' are you referring to?  I hope you are not suggesting that the AGW theory is without proof? 
BTW, it's not rubbish either  :Smilie:  
You are welcome to use my analogy and show/demonstrate how it breaks down if you wish.  It would be more convincing than just saying 'rubbish'.

----------


## woodbe

> This is rubbish and any thinking person knows it.

  It probably won't happen, but I'd like to see Rod take a deep breath and walk us through why this is 'rubbish' 
I think we are exposing a raw nerve here, and while the analogy of tobacco has emotions attached to it, this is territory that needs covering if the sceptics are to make themselves understood. There are others, but this is one of the core topics IMO 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Originally Posted by chrisp   
> If you can determine the amount of CO2 emissions, you can determine the ultimate temperature rise.           Hmmmm... ok enlighten me?

  Rod, 
I'm happy to walk you through it.  I almost did it earlier in response to dazzler's challenge but I deleted the references and equations.  Here it is again with a little more detail:   

> Abiding by Dazzler rules, Here goes:CO2 is one of many greenhouse gasses (GHG) in the atmosphere. 
> The earth experiences about 390W/m2 from the sun.  About 240W/m2 is re-radiated back out from the earth.  Greenhouse gasses trap about 150W/m2.  Essentially we have an energy balance equation here.  The sun 'shines' energy on to the planet, most is re-radiated out again.  GHG slow/trap the energy. 
> CO2 is just one of the GHGs.  man-made GHGs such as CFCs and HFCs have also entered the atmosphere and also contribute to the greenhouse effect.  The greenhouse contribution is determined by the concentration of the particular gas and the gas's 'radiative forcing' (RF) index.  The latest indexes can be found in this paper Welcome to AGU Online Services  
> The increase in CO2 has has a radiative forcing effect of 1.63 W/m2 (using radiative forcing coefficient = 5.35 for CO2)  RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) using the simplified method.  A better result can be done using a serious GCM (Global Climate Model) such as EdGCM   
> The effect of increased greenhouse effect from CO2 increasing from 280ppm to 380 ppm is a temperature rise of 1.2 degrees Celsius (using a sensitivity of 0.75 degrees per w/m2).  However, it takes a while for the extra radiation to warm the planet and so far we have only experienced 0.5 degree rise with a further 0.7 degrees yet to come.

  The above used the 'simplified' method.  You could, with a bit of work, use a full blown GCM software tool and come up with similar numbers yourself. 
The relationship between CO2 concentration and average global temperature is well established science.

----------


## dazzler

> I think we are exposing a raw nerve here, .

  Hey, that makes two raw nerves; 
This one, and the "what is the equal and opposite reaction to the rise in CO2" question   :Smilie:

----------


## dazzler

Hey 
My second question is the Big Conspiracy Theory.  I am wondering if anyone here really believes that Climate Change is a conspiracy and if so what is their theory behind it? 
cheers

----------


## Rod Dyson

> With respect Rod, what '_theory put forward without proof_' are you referring to? I hope you are not suggesting that the AGW theory is without proof? 
> BTW, it's not rubbish either  
> You are welcome to use my analogy and show/demonstrate how it breaks down if you wish. It would be more convincing than just saying 'rubbish'.

  Yes I am talking about AGW.  
We all know that according to the temp records, that we have to accept because the data has been lost, that there has been an increace in temperatures over the last 100 years or so.  There is no evidence that CO2 is the cause of this increace.  There is no evidence that the increace is unprecedented.   
So for a short period in time CO2 rose in sync with temperatures, this correlation does not mean causation.    In fact ice cores show CO2 increaces after the temperature increaces, quite contrary to what Al Gore would have you think.  These are facts guys, now can you handle the truth? 
The smoking argument has nothing to do with AGW.   
You would like to link it of course becuase it conjures up an emotive image which is what the whole alarmist propaganda is all about. Emotions not cold hard facts. 
Keep trying guys the public are falling off the band wagon in droves, the more you make stupid unrealistic, emotive analogies, the quicker the public will turn off.  The public are not stupid.

----------


## chrisp

> The smoking argument has nothing to do with AGW.   
> You would like to link it of course becuase it conjures up an emotive image which is what the whole alarmist propaganda is all about. Emotions not cold hard facts.

  Rod, I didn't know the 'smoking' analogy was too close to the bone for you.  Here is a 'fixed' version:   

> I think we need to put your comment in to a context. 
> Let me use a hypothetical analogy (yes, analogies can be risky and are rarely good fit ) 
> Let's suppose 10 separate groups of scientists studying the effects of eating red jelly beans on human health. These scientists are from different backgrounds and use different methodologies to determine what, if any, impact on human health there is from eating red jelly beans.   One group of researchers might use a statistical method (say worldwide death statistics);Another group might use hospital admission data;Another might set-up controlled groups: i.e. a group of red jelly bean eaters and a group of non-red jelly bean eaters and study them over a period of time.Another group might do a laboratory study using laboratory animals.Another might do a 'test tube' study to see the effect of red jelly bean artificial colouring on human cells.Another might analyse the possible mechanisms that red jelly bean artificial flavouring effects different individuals using DNA studies.One might study the effect of excess sugar on the human body.[you can make up your own extra three studies ]
>  At the end of there studies the results are reported. 9 groups report a definite relationship between eating red jelly beans and cancer. One group doesn't find such a relationship (but didn't disprove it either). 
> None of the researchers can prove for sure that 'if _you_ eat red jelly beans _you_ will get cancer' but 9 out of 10 are very such it is a very strong risk factor in a general population. 
> Do you: a) Ignore the results as it hasn't been proven conclusively - i.e. 100% agreement.
> b) Agree that the 9 out of 10 studies aren't 100% conclusive individually and therefore aren't conclusive as a whole.
> c) Wait until all studies come up with 100% confidence conclusions and all studies are unanimous.or d) accept that the bulk of the scientific studies are indicating a relationship between eating red jelly beans and cancer. You may claim '_you don't accept science by consensus because it "might" be right_'. However, a small amount of uncertainty or inconclusiveness in a collection of studies doesn't invalidate the bulk of the studies. 
> You seem to be waiting for  AGW to reach '_scientific law_' status rather than accepting a AGW '_scientific theory_'.

  FIXED!  :Smilie:  
I'll await your step-by-step rebuttal that shows how my analogy breaks down.   

> Keep trying guys the public are falling off the band wagon in droves, the more you make stupid unrealistic, emotive analogies, the quicker the public will turn off.  The public are not stupid.

  I agree the public are not stupid - did I say that somewhere?  I even stated politicians are not stupid.  Speaking of which, I see the Coalition are making sure that there is absolutely no differentiation between them and Labor on carbon emission targets.  The Coalition isn't stupid, they know weak emissions targets will make them a sitting duck.  I figure that the Coalition also knows that the public isn't stupid either.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, I didn't know the 'smoking' analogy was too close to the bone for you. Here is a 'fixed' version:

  You have me puzzled here, why on earth would this be "close to the bone" to me. 
[quotw]
I'll await your step-by-step rebuttal that shows how my analogy breaks down.[/quote]
I have no intention of rebutting your post point by point as it is a pointless exercise.  As the "smoking causes cancer" argument has a completly different dynamic, with different players who have different reasons, for their opinions, to the AGW argument. 
You would like nothing more to draw this argument into a "big tobacco" and "big oil" argument. Linking skeptics to "Big Oil".  This has been done unsuccesfully before.   
Yet here we go.  I have no doubt what I'm about to write will fall on deaf ears.  
Many of the prominent skeptical scientist are NOT funded by oil companies, as the warmist would have you believe, nor do they have vested financial interest on the outcome of the AGW debate in the same way the tobacco companies did in the smoking debate. Note, I have said many not all, just like some the promoters of AGW have no finacial vested interest in AGW, yet some definitly do. 
Now this brings us to the stark difference between the tobacco argument and the AGW argument.  The tobacco companies had a major vested interest in keeping there product squeaky clean and I have no doubt spent billions of dollars trying to do just that.  I happen to agree that smoking causes many health issues.  Yet I still smoked up until I had a heart attack.  The only beneficiaries to prove the theory incorrect were the tobacco companies.   
Unlike  AGW where every one has a vested interest in the TRUTH about AGW not just the oil companies.  It will effect every aspect of our lives, therefore it is crucial that there be open scientific methods applied to prove or disprove AGW.  
The skepics of AGW have a very different agenda to the skeptics of smoking damage. This is why you can't compare the two issues regardless of your points above.   

> I see the Coalition are making sure that there is absolutely no differentiation between them and Labor on carbon emission targets. The Coalition isn't stupid, they know weak emissions targets will make them a sitting duck. I figure that the Coalition also knows that the public isn't stupid either.

  We have already discussed this, BTW 5% is a strong target now?  LOL no they are very switched on when it comes ot AGW not that I agree with them, yet I understand their tactics unlike some here.  Do you really believe that the coalition's position on AGW is an endorsement to the reality of AGW?  I have a bridge for sale!!

----------


## Rod Dyson

BTW now you are really stretching the imagination with the red jelly bean analogy. 
You are trying to simplify a process to a one size fits all, I prefer your smoking analogy at least that made some kind of sense, albeit wrong in comparison to AGW.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Nice editorial in the Washington Times here. EDITORIAL: More errors in temperature data - Washington Times 
Gives you a lot of conficence in the temp measurements.

----------


## chrisp

> BTW now you are really stretching the imagination with the red jelly bean analogy. 
> You are trying to simplify a process to a one size fits all, I prefer your smoking analogy at least that made some kind of sense, albeit wrong in comparison to AGW.

  Rod, 
The _logic_ arguments I used in the 'smoking' and 'red jelly bean' analogies are identical.  I've really only changed a few words here and there, but the logic is identical. 
You seem to have a problem with the 'smoking' one which is quite understandable considering you have been a smoker until you had a heart attack.  I truly didn't mean to aim my analogy on to such a sensitive topic to you. 
Forgetting about the 'smoking' or 'red jelly beans' can you explain the error in my _logic_ (i.e. my argument)? 
Effectively, you are latching on the perceived 'inconclusiveness' in AGW as proof that it doesn't exist while the majority scientific view is that AGW is proven.  I don't think my analogy is a bad one overall.

----------


## Rod Dyson

More good suff! 
These are dark times. And the resignation of Yvo de Boer as executive secretary of the UN climate change secretariat today only compounds the sense of gathering crisis. De Boer has been a steady pair of hands guiding the international negotiations through some very rocky periods — not least the dramatic episode in Bali two years ago where he himself burst into tears on the plenary stage — and his trustworthy, solid presence will be sorely missed. Despite the official denials, there can be little doubt that this resignation indicates his frustration at the general unravelling of the process that was so depressingly evident at Copenhagen.  
full link here. Yvo de Boer's resignation compounds sense of gathering climate crisis | Mark Lynas | Environment | guardian.co.uk

----------


## chrisp

> Nice editorial in the Washington Times here. EDITORIAL: More errors in temperature data - Washington Times 
> Gives you a lot of conficence in the temp measurements.

  Editorial == Opinion. 
I just thought you'd like to know that.  :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> BTW 5% is a strong target now?  LOL no they are very switched on when it comes ot AGW not that I agree with them, yet I understand their tactics unlike some here.  Do you really believe that the coalition's position on AGW is an endorsement to the reality of AGW?  I have a bridge for sale!!

  A 5% target is p### weak in my view. 
The point is that the Coalition has locked its targets in exactly the same way as Labor.  This indicates to me they don't want 'targets' to be an election issue.  If they thought there was political ground to be gained by running with the AGW is 'crap' line, I sure that they would.  Their internal polling must be telling them that the public is expecting strong targets.   
Maybe the Coalition doesn't truly believe in the AGW theory (I don't know, you'll have to ask them), but they are going to run with the public perception of doing something about carbon emissions.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> The _logic_ arguments I used in the 'smoking' and 'red jelly bean' analogies are identical. I've really only changed a few words here and there, but the logic is identical.

  It seems my reply was completely lost on you!   

> You seem to have a problem with the 'smoking' one which is quite understandable considering you have been a smoker until you had a heart attack. I truly didn't mean to aim my analogy on to such a sensitive topic to you.

  The analogy is not at all sensitive to me due to my smoking.  It is quite understandable that the tobacco companies lobbied hard against a huge threat to their income. Just as understandable that they were wrong.  

> Forgetting about the 'smoking' or 'red jelly beans' can you explain the error in my _logic_ (i.e. my argument)?

   Please re-read my reply and you might understand the error in your logic.  

> Effectively, you are latching on the perceived 'inconclusiveness' in AGW as proof that it doesn't exist while the majority scientific view is that AGW is proven. I don't think my analogy is a bad one overall.

  Please, don't you understand that science is not driven by consensus?  Where do you get the "majority"scientific view from? Just because it WAS the loudest does not make it the majority view.  Your "majority" view is rapidly evaporating now the vilification of scientist with an alternate view is being exposed. 
This argument is totally flawed.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Editorial == Opinion. 
> I just thought you'd like to know that.

   Yes I know nice one though isn't it! :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> A 5% target is p### weak in my view. 
> The point is that the Coalition has locked its targets in exactly the same way as Labor. This indicates to me they don't want 'targets' to be an election issue.

  Politically smart dont you think, (not that I agree).  

> If they thought there was political ground to be gained by running with the AGW is 'crap' line, I sure that they would.

    You really didn't hear Abotts actual comment did you? Or do you just choose to mis-represent it?  

> Their internal polling must be telling them that the public is expecting strong targets.

   If they thought this they would have a larger target :Doh:    

> Maybe the Coalition doesn't truly believe in the AGW theory (I don't know, you'll have to ask them),

  I have and the majority don't.   

> but they are going to run with the public perception of doing something about carbon emissions.

   Politically they have to.  What they have done, while I would prefer they do nothing, is come up with a compromise that will not criple the country.  They have a proposal that is not damaging to the economy and one that can be reversed with no long term effects. 
The right option is have the courage to do nothing, but use the money saved to reduce REAL polution, and or prepare for mitigation if AGW is a fact, (which I strongly doubt).  Considering that NOTHING we can do will have any effect on global temperatures even if every word of AGW theory is correct. This option is by far the best option for Australia in the scheme of things.   
Can you explain how Rudds ETS will change global temperatures? Can you say by what degree our actions under Rudd will change global temperatures?  Can you say what the cost of Rudds ETS will be to Australians and how that cost will benefit us? 
Rudd can't explain any of these question so I doubt you can either, yet you would have us go headlong into the never never without knowing why? A bit like the giant leap into the insulation scam where it too was put together without a cost benefit plan or understanding of the ramifications of such a policy.   
Man you really have got to have FAITH to trust Rudd with anything much less the ETS.

----------


## chrisp

> Now this brings us to the stark difference between the tobacco argument and the AGW argument.  The tobacco companies had a major vested interest in keeping there product squeaky clean and I have no doubt spent billions of dollars trying to do just that.  I happen to agree that smoking causes many health issues.  Yet I still smoked up until I had a heart attack.  The only beneficiaries to prove the theory incorrect were the tobacco companies.

  Rod, 
I might be reading between the lines a bit, but I suspect that you accept the logic of my 'smoking' analogy. 
I seem to recall when the health issues of smoking came to light, there was many cries of 'statistical, not causal'. 'they haven't _proved_ smoking causes cancer', etc. 
It wasn't just the tobacco industry that didn't like the message, individual smokers would argue that the link wasn't conclusively proven - and would happily continue to smoke.  I can remember smokers hanging on to any doubt in the science they could find to ease their concerns about smoking.  The tobacco industry pushed as many 'doubt' lines as it could to help things along.  For years the message was 'smoking is linked to cancer'.  After many years, and many studies, the statistical evidence became so over whelming that the message changed to 'smoking causes cancer'. 
In the analogy I wrote I could replace 'smoking' with 'AGW' (just as I did with 'red jelly beans').  The logic of the argument is identical. 
You seem to be able to accept the argument when 'smoking' is used but not if 'AGW' is used instead. 
I contend that you haven't shown how my logic is in error.

----------


## woodbe

> It seems my reply was completely lost on you! 
> [..] 
> This argument is totally flawed.

  Here it is again Rod. Please explain without resorting to bringinig in tobacco, oil companies or any other potential winners or losers under AGW. This is a logical discussion not a comparison between red jellybeans and AGW:   

> I think we need to put your comment in to a context. 
> Let me use a hypothetical analogy (yes, analogies can be risky and are  rarely good fit ) 
> Let's suppose 10 separate groups of scientists studying the effects of  eating red jelly beans on human health. These scientists are from  different backgrounds and use different methodologies to determine what,  if any, impact on human health there is from eating red jelly beans.   One group of researchers might use a statistical method  (say worldwide death statistics);Another group might use  hospital admission data;Another might set-up controlled  groups: i.e. a group of red jelly bean eaters and a group of non-red  jelly bean eaters and study them over a period of time.Another  group might do a laboratory study using laboratory animals.Another  might do a 'test tube' study to see the effect of red jelly bean  artificial colouring on human cells.Another might analyse the  possible mechanisms that red jelly bean artificial flavouring effects  different individuals using DNA studies.One might study the  effect of excess sugar on the human body.[you can make up your  own extra three studies ]
>  At the end  of there studies the results are reported. 9 groups report a definite  relationship between eating red jelly beans and cancer. One group  doesn't find such a relationship (but didn't disprove it either). 
> None of the researchers can prove for sure that 'if _you_ eat red  jelly beans _you_ will get cancer' but 9 out of 10 are very such it  is a very strong risk factor in a general population. 
> Do you: a) Ignore the results as it hasn't been proven  conclusively - i.e. 100% agreement.
> b) Agree that the 9 out of 10 studies aren't 100% conclusive  individually and therefore aren't conclusive as a whole.
> c) Wait until all studies come up with 100% confidence conclusions and  all studies are unanimous.or d) accept  that the bulk of the scientific studies are indicating a relationship  between eating red jelly beans and cancer. You may  claim '_you don't accept science by consensus because it "might" be  right_'. However, a small amount of uncertainty or inconclusiveness  in a collection of studies doesn't invalidate the bulk of the studies. 
> You seem to be waiting for  AGW to reach '_scientific law_' status  rather than accepting a AGW '_scientific theory_'.

  Over to you Rod, please point out the logical errors. Claiming that it is a 'flawed' argument is ok, as long as you clearly explain the reasons that it is 'flawed' so that readers can understand. Without explanation, it's just guff. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

OMG I have answered the only logical way I can. Get over it if you don't agree with that answer. 
I'm sure reader's with an open mind will know exactly what I mean.

----------


## chrisp

> I'm sure reader's with an open mind will know exactly what I mean.

  I agree.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> I might be reading between the lines a bit, but I suspect that you accept the logic of my 'smoking' analogy. 
> I seem to recall when the health issues of smoking came to light, there was many cries of 'statistical, not causal'. 'they haven't _proved_ smoking causes cancer', etc. 
> It wasn't just the tobacco industry that didn't like the message, individual smokers would argue that the link wasn't conclusively proven - and would happily continue to smoke. I can remember smokers hanging on to any doubt in the science they could find to ease their concerns about smoking. The tobacco industry pushed as many 'doubt' lines as it could to help things along. For years the message was 'smoking is linked to cancer'. After many years, and many studies, the statistical evidence became so over whelming that the message changed to 'smoking causes cancer'. 
> In the analogy I wrote I could replace 'smoking' with 'AGW' (just as I did with 'red jelly beans'). The logic of the argument is identical. 
> You seem to be able to accept the argument when 'smoking' is used but not if 'AGW' is used instead. 
> I contend that you haven't shown how my logic is in error.

  Yes for the reason I wrote.  Like woodbe you just have to move on I have answered your post.  I am not going to repeat myself adnauseum.  Your logic is, IN MY OPINION flawed, you have my reasons why I believe that. I have nothing more to add. 
Re-read my post.

----------


## chrisp

> Your logic is, IN MY OPINION flawed, you have my reasons why I believe that. I have nothing more to add. 
> Re-read my post.

  Now we are getting somewhere.  Do you see what the problem is, you are using '*opinion*' (not facts or logic) as the basis of your view. 
Maybe you understand why we have been using the labels 'facts' and 'opinion' so much in an attempt to clarify some of the posts? 
(BTW, I did reread your post several times.)

----------


## woodbe

> Nice editorial in the Washington Times here. EDITORIAL: More errors in temperature data - Washington Times 
> Gives you a lot of conficence in the temp measurements.

   

> Joseph D'Aleo, the first director of meteorology and co-founder of the  Weather Channel, and Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and founder of  SurfaceStations.org, are well-known and well-respected scientists. On  Jan. 29, they released a startling study showing that starting in 1990,  the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began  systematically eliminating climate-measuring stations in cooler  locations around the world. Eliminating stations that tended to record  cooler temperatures drove up the average measured temperature. The  stations eliminated were in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas  away from the sea and more rural locations. The drop in the number of  weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations  to fewer than 1,500.

  Rod, this looks like the same report that shows cooling in central England by only using century averages and ignoring non-summer temperatures. Still waiting for your response on that. Don't rush, the logic post is more important than this one. 
Looks like Watts has got the Washington Times in his thrall. The weather men are now "well-known and well-respected scientists"   

> Mr. D'Aleo and Mr. Watts provide some amazing graphs

  uh oh. Looks like they only looked at the pretty pictures... 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> My second question is the Big Conspiracy Theory.  I am wondering if anyone here really believes that Climate Change is a conspiracy and if so what is their theory behind it?

  dazzler, 
Another question already.  :Shock:   Are all the responses to your last question in?  I must have missed them.

----------


## dazzler

> dazzler, 
> Another question already.   Are all the responses to your last question in?  I must have missed them.

  Not yet... soon, we just need to be patient... :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> As a footnote, Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, it is a natural Molecule.  *Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide* (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms).  So is your bloodstream (oh no, scary pollution).  You are a carbon based life form.  When you breathe out the carbon dioxide, plants breathe it in.  Then they breathe out oxygen, you breathe this in.  Complicated stuff, huh.

  I was just reading some of the early posts in this thread.  I'm amazed this one got through, "*Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide"*. 
Where did you study science?   Did you study science at all?  Even someone who only studied science at high school could tell you the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen (~78%) and most of the rest is oxygen (~21%).  :Smilie:  
For the record, ~0.038% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide.

----------


## chrisp

> I do believe German philospher Arthur Schopenhauer when he stated the truth goes through three steps, and history has proven this to be correct. 
> First, it is ridiculed.
> Second, it is violently opposed.
> Finally, it is accepted as self evident. 
> In what stage is the current argument concerning global warming at?

  Where did that quoted post for Headpin  come from?  Well, believe it or not, it is our of the very first page of this thread. 
I'm impressed by our Headpin.  He likes to play the comedian, but, by golly, I thought his comments, so early in this thread, were quite prophetical. 
I suspect we have just left stage 1 and starting to get into stage 2 in this thread.

----------


## woodbe

> I was just reading some of the early posts in this thread.  I'm amazed this one got through, "*Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide"*.

  good pickup Chris!  
Given that we take oxygen and dispose of CO2 via breathing, I had a look to see what sort of numbers actually occur during breathing, found this 'amazing graph' and the associated paper *Single-exhalation profiles of NO and CO2 in humans: effect of dynamically changing flow rate*  
Result? CO2 hardly managed to get over 5% during the trial. 
I think we can call that one debunked for now, at least until Dr Freud explains where the 70% came from. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

LOL I don't know why you lot are so chirpy when the AGW theory is falling down around your heads. 
No more comments today just got home from 21 hrs straight of plastering.

----------


## chrisp

> No more comments today just got home from 21 hrs straight of plastering.

  Sounds like you have been busy trying to fill in those deep gaping cracks in the anti-AGW science.  Any luck?   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Sounds like you have been busy trying to fill in those deep gaping cracks in the anti-AGW science. Any luck?

   You may want to start here!! Global Warming: Meltdown | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner

----------


## woodbe

> Well, I came upon a very convincing document today from a couple of standup sceptic sources, one of which we are very familiar with: Anthony Watts The paper is called "*Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?*" and the authors are Joseph D'Aleo & Anthony Watt:        Originally Posted by the blurb  _ Authors veteran  meteorologists Joe DAleo and Anthony Watts analyzed temperature records  from all around the world for a major SPPI paper, Surface Temperature Records  Policy-driven Deception?   The startling conclusion that we cannot tell whether there was any  significant global warming at all in the 20th century is based on  numerous astonishing examples of manipulation and exaggeration of the  true level and rate of global warming.     That is to say, leading meteorological institutions in the  USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with  instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there  has been any significant net global warming in the 20th century._    Fighting words, n'est pas?  
> Have a look at what Open Mind blog has to say, full copy on the Link        Originally Posted by Open Mind  One of the section titles in DAleo and Wattss denialist document is NO WARMING  TREND IN THE 351-YEAR CENTRAL ENGLAND TEMPERATURE RECORD.  It comes from a site calling itself carbon sense.  Only when you read the section do you discover that it only compares  100-year averages of the 20th century to the 18th century, and only for  the summer season. In fact their entire case is just smoke and mirrors.    "*Only when you read the section do you discover that it only compares 100-year averages of the 20th century to the 18th century, and only for the summer season.*" 
> Is there no end to the depths? 
> Those that like to look at charts will find them a'plenty on the Open Mind analysis linked above, with comprehensive discussion. 
> Watts, you might recall, is the guy who created a storm over UHI and is the architect of an amateur weather station 'expose' on the subject. If he's going to pull shonky sceptical 'science' stunts like this, how much credence will he have when he gets around to analysing his own data?

  Still waiting for a response on this one, or will we just call Watts a write-off seeing as he's now been caught actually doing what he claims the other side does. 
woodbe.

----------


## Blocklayer

As I sit here freezing next to my new best mate, the Chinese heater we bought the other day, thinking about the electric bill the bludger is brewing, can't help but think: 
If Global Warming warms the globe, wouldn't this off-set the coal consumption - power generation etc involved in keeping billions warm in winter? 
:

----------


## woodbe

While we wait for Rod to prepare his defence of Anthony Watts, here's a story about the tactics that some sceptics seem to be using against anyone publicly supporting AGW in Australia:   *Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial*  
Thankfully, we haven't suffered that sort of behaviour here! 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Still waiting for a response on this one, or will we just call Watts a write-off seeing as he's now been caught actually doing what he claims the other side does. 
> woodbe.

  Woodbe, there are numerous posts here pages and page of post that you have not responded to in any meaningful sense. Direct questions you have not answered throughout the 100 odd pages on this thread.   
So for you to harp on this demanding a response is really quite amazing, it is as if you believe you have some sort of gotcha that will completely vindicate your position on AGW.   
Yet the most important questions here remain unanswered, Despite being asked many times throughout this thread.   
How much will an ETS cost each Austrailan? 
How much will Australia reduce the global CO2 output as a % of total world wide CO2 output? 
How much will the temperature drop due to Australian Co2 reduction? 
What is the cost/benefit ration of the reduction in temperature we create? 
How will Australia reduce emissions of CO2 while population increase by 10 million people?  
Will you answer these questions or show me where they have been answered by someone else?   
I think the answer to these questions are far more pertinent to this thread. Dont you?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial*  
> Thankfully, we haven't suffered that sort of behaviour here! 
> woodbe.

  While not condoning this behaviour, it does show the change in public perception on AGW.  
I also think it may have a bit to do with the over the top scare campaign by alarmist, also the fact many of these scientists and activists tried to shut down debate on AGW.  This of coarse has ultimately back fired on thim in very big way. 
I am afraid this will only get worse as more people become aware of how they have been duped.  
Clive Hamilton is the guy who wrote this:  _Hi there,  Theres something you need to know about your father. 
Your dads job is to try to stop the government making laws to reduce Australias carbon pollution. He is paid a lot of money to do that by big companies who do not want to own up to the fact that their pollution is changing the worlds climate in very harmful ways. 
Because of their pollution, lots of people, mostly poor people, are likely to die. They will die from floods, from diseases like dengue fever, and from starvation when their crops wont grow anymore. 
The big companies are putting their profits before the lives of people. And your dad is helping them.  _

----------


## Rod Dyson

BTW I have read Tamio's refuting of Watts and D'Aleo, but I can't comment one way or the other who is right and who is wrong and I really don't have the time to study it properly.   
Regardless this does nothing to prove or disprove AGW. It is just one part of the overall debate.  I don't agree with every comment or study by all the skeptics. I am sure that the truth will come out in time.  
What is not in any doubt is the uncertainty of the temperature record and the treatment of raw data adjustment.   This will be an ongoing debate and should be persued by both sides.  The Alarmists need to justify the adjustments and the Skeptics must hold them accountable.   
You can expect a lot more of this type of discussion in future as the skeptics get hold of the raw data through FOI. 
Happy now?  Perhaps you can now answer my questions?  Though seriously, I really don't care if you don't.  While these questions remain unanswered there will be a very dark cloud over the ETS.

----------


## chrisp

> How much will Australia reduce the global CO2 output as a % of total world wide CO2 output?

  Rod, 
You seem to keep raising this little gem of an argument from time to time the _'small percentage of a small percentage of a small percentage'_ argument.  This could also be rephrased as '_Anything that I could do as an individual is so insignificant so that I might as well do nothing_'. 
Do you see anything wrong with the logic in your argument?  Anything at all?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> You seem to keep raising this little gem of an argument from time to time the _'small percentage of a small percentage of a small percentage'_ argument. This could also be rephrased as '_Any that I could do as an individual is so insignificant so that I might as well do nothing_'. 
> Do you see anything wrong with the logic in your argument? Anything at all?

  Not at all Chrisp, these are quite valid questions that need to be answered before committing to changing our lifestyles and enconomy at great expense. It is called a cost benefit analysis and shoud be done in order to "sell" to the public the need to introduce an ETS.  
I see nothing wrong in the slightest, wanting to know what the cost will be and what the benefit will be.  
The question is, can you see the folly of charging ahead comitting to changes that will cost us plenty and reform our ecomomy at a huge cost in a way that can not be undone, all without fully knowing the benefit or costs of doing so? This defies any kind of logic.  
Do you really think this is a good idea? 
What you are trying to do is gloss over these important questions as if they don't matter, by attaching some kind of urgency, that we don't have time to do the analysis before it too late to act. This is so flawed that it reeks of trying to push through an agenda before people cotton on to the folly. 
Your argument of '_Any that I could do as an individual is so insignificant so that I might as well do nothing_'. is simply up to the idividual to determine what action they decide they should take, if any, for it is at their own self imposed cost and perceived benefit, based on their personal belief. While a government MUST provide the cost and benefit, before imposing constraints and costs on those who do not share you belief. 
In view of the shaky science that supports the AGW theory it is even more important that the government does a proper cost/benefit analysis. 
Your excuse for not being able to provide an answer to these questions is a pathetic side step, designed in a way to not to fully justify taking action because you know it will not stand up to proper scrutiny. 
Just answer the question or at least provide a better justification for not.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe, there are numerous posts here pages and page of post that you have not responded to in any meaningful sense. Direct questions you have not answered throughout the 100 odd pages on this thread.   
> So for you to harp on this demanding a response is really quite amazing, it is as if you believe you have some sort of gotcha that will completely vindicate your position on AGW.

  Rod, I have answered every question I said I would answer. To hold me responsible for every unanswered question here is a bit over the top.  
You indicated that you would have a response to this question, I'm just reminding you about it, as it seems to have slipped off the table (I think it's 3 or 4 pages back now) 
Personally, I'm not looking for vindication of my position, but the sceptics here have made a big deal over the perceived quality of research, I'm surprised Watts is immune to inspection from your team. 
I'm happy for you to say you no longer want to answer it, if that's what you mean by this:   

> BTW I have read Tamio's refuting of Watts and D'Aleo, but I can't  comment one way or the other who is right and who is wrong and I really  don't have the time to study it properly.

  Given the apparent methodological errors he has made, regardless of whether they were deliberate or some kind of brain snap by two collaborating weather men, there are two take-home messages from this little episode: 
1. Whatever faults the peer review process has, it's better than none. 
2. Watts doesn't appear to be either the 'white knight' or the scientist he would have us believe. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Not at all Chrisp, these are quite valid questions that need to be answered before committing to changing our lifestyles and enconomy at great expense. It is called a cost benefit analysis and shoud be done in order to "sell" to the public the need to introduce an ETS.

  Just concentrating on the argument for now, your argument is nonsense (aka 'rubbish'). 
But rather than just state my opinion, let me explain why.  It is the same argument as saying "I won't take my used engine oil to a recycling depot, I'll just pour it down the sewer.  After all my used oil is a very small percentage of a very small percentage of... and will hardly make any difference at all". 
CO2 emissions will be reduced if we all reduce our individual emissions. 
We can hardly expect the rest of the world to clean up its act before we have a think about cleaning up ours.  First world countries are the ones that ought to be leading by example. 
In any case, whether we 'lead' or 'follow' will make little difference in the end as we'll end up with an ETS - and regardless of who is in power.  (just thought you'd like to know that  :Smilie:  ). 
Actually, I'm waiting for *Dr Freud* to address the '*science by consensus*' issue and the "*your lungs contain 70% CO2*" claim.  Where is he?  :Confused:

----------


## woodbe

> Clive Hamilton is the guy who wrote this:

  So Rod. Happy for you to point that out.  
Can I take it that you have had a change of heart now, and we can happily quote other things that high profile sceptics have been upto, and who pays for their lunch without being taken to task for 'personal attacks'? 
Hello Mr Goose, meet Mr Gander.  :Cool:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Looks like the B team has decinerated into a shambles.................. 
> This two pronged attack from the A Team has Captain Dyson under immense pressure................without his tag team buddies to shoulder some of the burden we could see Captain Dyson declare very soon.................

  Not on your life. 
Chew on a few of these.  I have a title for this.: 75 reasons to be skeptical of "global warming"

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So Rod. Happy for you to point that out.  
> Can I take it that you have had a change of heart now, and we can happily quote other things that high profile sceptics have been upto, and who pays for their lunch without being taken to task for 'personal attacks'? 
> Hello Mr Goose, meet Mr Gander.  
> woodbe.

  So what are you alluding to here woodbe.  This is exactly what the guy wrote.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Just concentrating on the argument for now, your argument is nonsense (aka 'rubbish'). 
> But rather than just state my opinion, let me explain why. It is the same argument as saying "I won't take my used engine oil to a recycling depot, I'll just pour it down the sewer. After all my used oil is a very small percentage of a very small percentage of... and will hardly make any difference at all". 
> CO2 emissions will be reduced if we all reduce our individual emissions. 
> We can hardly expect the rest of the world to clean up its act before we have a think about cleaning up ours. First world countries are the ones that ought to be leading by example. 
> In any case, whether we 'lead' or 'follow' will make little difference in the end as we'll end up with an ETS - and regardless of who is in power. (just thought you'd like to know that  ). 
> Actually, I'm waiting for *Dr Freud* to address the '*science by consensus*' issue and the "*your lungs contain 70% CO2*" claim. Where is he?

   Changes nothing Chrisp, still leaves open the questions. 
You miss the entire point. Never mind. at least there will be enough people that wont.

----------


## woodbe

> So what are you alluding to here woodbe.  This is exactly what the guy wrote.

  I'm alluding to the fact that everytime I point out your heros' 'prior works' and sources of bread and gravy, I get shouted down and accused of personal attacks. Have a look at your own responses to my postings for Monckton et al showing their history on sourcewatch and desmog. 
It's a simple concept, I'm surprised you didn't get it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I sense some standards variations here based on whether the source is pro or anti AGW. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> You miss the entire point. Never mind. at least there will be enough people that wont.

  Not at all.  I'm questioning your reasoning.  You seem to be sure AGW is disproved if  there is a single doubt about the theory (regardless of the qualifications of the doubter).  Never mind the whole stack of evidence for it, it somehow doesn't count while there is the slightest hint of doubt. 
Your reasoning with the 'our contribution is insignificant' argument shows similar reasoning and logic faults. 
It would seem to me that your stance on AGW is based upon similar false reasoning - perhaps 'feelings' or 'opinions' rather than 'science' or 'logic'.

----------


## Rod Dyson

If you guys are wondering why the entire AGW theory is on the verge of complete collapse, you might like to read this. How Al Gore Wrecked Planet Earth - Walter Russell Mead's Blog - The American Interest 
There is no doubt that the climate change bubble has burst and there will perhaps never be another opportunity to revive it, (thank god).  Yet when you are looking around for someone to blame you must look at yourselves, (read rusted on alarmists).   
One thing is for sure, (my opinion). for every one new recruit to the alarmist view there will be 100 new skeptics.  Oh life is good.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'm alluding to the fact that everytime I point out your heros' 'prior works' and sources of bread and gravy, I get shouted down and accused of personal attacks. Have a look at your own responses to my postings for Monckton et al showing their history on sourcewatch and desmog. 
> It's a simple concept, I'm surprised you didn't get it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I sense some standards variations here based on whether the source is pro or anti AGW. 
> woodbe.

  This is not a slander of the guys character, bringing up past references to other subjects, nor am I digging dirt on his fundig, it is a direct comment that is, ON TOPIC.  It seems you are unable to see the difference. No problem, carry on.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Not at all. I'm questioning your reasoning. You seem to be sure AGW is disproved if there is a single doubt about the theory (regardless of the qualifications of the doubter). Never mind the whole stack of evidence for it, it somehow doesn't count while there is the slightest hint of doubt.

  Irrespective of the existence or lack there of in support of AGW. The government must provide a cost benefit analysis of the need for an ETS.  So we should go ahead without knowing the ultimate cost? Or indeed if what is being proposed will actually do anything that it is intended?  

> Your reasoning with the 'our contribution is insignificant' argument shows similar reasoning and logic faults.

  My reasoning for the requirement of a cost analysis before an ETS is introduced is not entirely reasoned by 'our contribution is insignificant'  although this is a definite factor. If you couple this with the doubts around the science and lack of action by the major emitters then it does become significant, regardless of your analogies.  A bit like p...ing into the wind.  However if your case is solid the a cost benefit analysis will demonstrate that and you will have public support.  All you have now is suspicion, which is quite justified.   
I put it to you that a proper cost benefit analysis will never be done because it will kill the ETS dead in its tracks. So either way the alarmists are stuffed.  See the truth does come out.   

> It would seem to me that your stance on AGW is based upon similar false reasoning - perhaps 'feelings' or 'opinions' rather than 'science' or 'logic'.

  I am not about to re-gurgitate everything I have written on this thread to confirm my reasonings.  I think my position and reasoning is quite clear. 
I suppose you are taking the moral high ground to claim your reasoning is beyond reproach?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I don't know, Rod. 
> This tandem attack from Woodbe and Chrissy is pretty impressive.....................your ducking and weaving but it's not looking pretty..............one senses that your defense is collapsing.

  I suggest you take your rose coloured glasses off headpin.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Another little pet of the Alarmists is now dead.  JPL: Missing ice in 2007 drained out the Nares strait – pushed south by wind where it melted far away from the Arctic  Watts Up With That?  
Thanks NASSA. 
Wonder why we haven't seen this in the MSM.

----------


## chrisp

> If you guys are wondering why the entire AGW theory is on the verge of complete collapse...

  I wasn't wondering that at all.  :Rolleyes:  
You must have completely different news sources in your part of the world to the rest of us.  Perhaps you could post a few reputable science links for us to read?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I wasn't wondering that at all.  
> You must have completely different news sources in your part of the world to the rest of us. Perhaps you could post a few reputable science links for us to read?

  Did you read this one? It is always interesting to see how the others think?   
Maybe you will find an element of truth in it.  At the very least you will see what others are reading about AGW and how they are reacting, see comments.

----------


## Rod Dyson

LOL I have heard this before but thought I would shre it with you guys. 
“ordinary people see through man-made climate fears, but educated people are very vulnerable.”

----------


## woodbe

> Another little pet of the Alarmists is now dead.  JPL: Missing ice in 2007 drained out the Nares strait  pushed south by wind where it melted far away from the Arctic  Watts Up With That?  
> Thanks NASSA. 
> Wonder why we haven't seen this in the MSM.

  Maybe they read Open Mind and realise Watts is currently discredited? 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Maybe they read Open Mind and realise Watts is currently discredited? 
> woodbe.

  So NASSA is wrong eh?

----------


## Dr Freud

Lads, apologies for the David Copperfield routine, but life took over... 
Probably won't be back until the weekend, and judging by the quality of the "true believer's" arguments, I am going to be busy.  :Cry:  
I was looking forward to spending most of the weekend outside in the very hot temperatures forecast for Perth,  :Surfing: but now will likely spend 30-40 hours going round the same merry go round.  Kinda reminds of when I invite door knocking bible bashers inside and get them to convince me of their religion, same kind of circular argument. 
In the interim, kudos to Mr Dyson for standing up to a barrage of obfuscation.  It still amazes me how all these posts are continually added with not one fact proving AGW Theory, yet the proponents continue to attempt to discredit those who will not "believe" in the absence of empirical proof.  Religion is the child of belief, science is the child of scepticism.  All will be answered on the weekend ladies and gents, but until then:  In Rod we trust!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Lads, apologies for the David Copperfield routine, but life took over... 
> Probably won't be back until the weekend, and judging by the quality of the "true believer's" arguments, I am going to be busy.  
> I was looking forward to spending most of the weekend outside in the very hot temperatures forecast for Perth, but now will likely spend 30-40 hours going round the same merry go round. Kinda reminds of when I invite door knocking bible bashers inside and get them to convince me of their religion, same kind of circular argument. 
> In the interim, kudos to Mr Dyson for standing up to a barrage of obfuscation. It still amazes me how all these posts are continually added with not one fact proving AGW Theory, yet the proponents continue to attempt to discredit those who will not "believe" in the absence of empirical proof. Religion is the child of belief, science is the child of scepticism. All will be answered on the weekend ladies and gents, but until then:  In Rod we trust!

  Take it easy, all under control here, lots of huffing and puffing but like you say nothing credible.  Lots of bullets being fired but they are spaying all over the place every where but the target. So the merry go round continues.
Have a good break.

----------


## woodbe

> So NASSA is wrong eh?

  Nothing in my response, absolutely nothing, could possibly point to your conclusion. 
It's NASA, (not NASSA), and they are just doing their job. Studying the planet and reporting the results of their research. 
If you scan the comments on the entry on Watts' site, the depths of disrespect offered to the NASA scientists doing the work is quite an eye opener. Shocking, even. I'm reminded of the inquisition and witch burning. 
Probably, the MSM didn't report it because it wasn't very exciting. Lets face it, understanding how the ice melts is not near as interesting to the average joe as why. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

Another Watts Post torn to pieces by Open Mind 
Looks like Mr Watts isn't kicking any goals of late. He's even picking contributors that seem to have the same sort of problems with data analysis as he does himself. 
I think you were right to keep him at arms length Rod, he's starting to smell. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Probably, the MSM didn't report it because it wasn't very exciting. Lets face it, understanding how the ice melts is not near as interesting to the average joe as why. 
> woodbe.

  Nice, it is only important when it is melting and can be blamed on AGW, yet becomes unimportant when it is confirmed it was not AGW that caused the melting. 
Can you see the double standards here? LOL amazing, really now you can see why the Alarmists are losing all credibility.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Another Watts Post torn to pieces by Open Mind 
> Looks like Mr Watts isn't kicking any goals of late. He's even picking contributors that seem to have the same sort of problems with data analysis as he does himself. 
> I think you were right to keep him at arms length Rod, he's starting to smell. 
> woodbe.

  Not at all woodbe regardless of what is written about him here he and his site has a lot to contribute to the AGW debate. 
It is quite normal that these groups will troll through every item of thousands of items he posts, looking for a smear. Given the amount of work he produces they are bound to latch onto something for which they can use.   
Nothing new here. Keep trying.

----------


## woodbe

> Nothing new here. Keep trying.

  Clearly, you didn't read the linked post.  
What is new here, is that someone qualified to review is taking the time to disect some of the sceptic misinformation and finding a rubbish dump hidden inside what is dressed up to look like a stately mansion. 
As to this:   

> It is quite normal that these groups will troll through every item of  thousands of items he posts, looking for a smear.

  That's really good, Rod. If ever there was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, this is it. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Nice, it is only important when it is melting and can be blamed on AGW, yet becomes unimportant when it is confirmed it was not AGW that caused the melting. 
> Can you see the double standards here? LOL amazing, really now you can see why the Alarmists are losing all credibility.

  You need to think deeper than you are Rod, or you are never going to make the connections to piece a puzzle together.   The NASA scientists reported that "We don't completely understand the conditions  conducive to the  formation of these arches," Kwok said. "We do know  that they are  temperature-dependent because they only form in winter." 
Their research is just one of many thousands of pieces of research that help the scientific community understand how the planet operates. Whether the 2007 event is related to AGW or not does not diminish the fact that it is warming, and we now know that these ice bridges are important.  
But of course, every piece of research news released by 'the enemy' is subjected to spin and propaganda. I can't see how this one would fit into the conspiracy theories, but I'm sure they will have a go at that too. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Did you read this one? It is always interesting to see how the others think?   
> Maybe you will find an element of truth in it.  At the very least you will see what others are reading about AGW and how they are reacting, see comments.

  Rod, 
I do read most of the links you give, but I usually skip the opinion pieces.  I don't really care what Andrew Bolt or Allan Jones have to say on AGW, it's just their opinion.  If I want, I'm sure if I look hard enough I could find a proponent mouthpiece for any opinion I fancy.  The bottom line is that it is just an _opinion_ and doesn't _prove_ anything.  Links and cut-and-pastes of opinions just don't cut it for me.  *I'd be more than happy if someone could prove the AGW science is wrong.*  It is no skin off my nose if somehow it is proved that man-made CO2 emission has nothing to do with GW, and/or the resultant temperature rise is of no concern to mankind. 
I have read most of your science links that supposedly disprove AGW, but while they initially seem to have an air of authority, a little checking of facts and a bit of cross checking of the authors and the data sources usually shows major flaws in their argument. 
Did you actually read the link to the report on the NASA work (the one that you provided? JPL: Missing ice in 2007 drained out the Nares strait – pushed south by wind where it melted far away from the Arctic  Watts Up With That? ) 
From that article:_PASADENA, Calif. – In 2007, the Arctic lost a massive amount of thick, multiyear sea ice, contributing to that year’s record-low extent of Arctic sea ice. A new NASA-led study has found that the record loss that year was due in part to the absence of “ice arches,” naturally-forming, curved ice structures that span the openings between two land points. These arches block sea ice from being pushed by winds or currents through narrow passages and out of the Arctic basin._and_The ice lost through Nares Strait was some of the thickest  and  oldest in the Arctic Ocean._  _“If indeed these arches are less likely to form in the future, we have to account for the annual ice loss through this narrow passage. Potentially, this could lead to an even more rapid decline in the summer ice extent of the Arctic Ocean,” Kwok said._I'm not sure how the quoted article supports your anti-AGW stance?  If anything, it is pointing out how changes in global temperatures may accelerate ice loss. 
I'll keep looking at the scientific links you provide (but please don't be offended if I ignore the opinion ones).  But I'm yet to see any convincing scientific evidence that disproves the AGW theory.  As I've stated, I'd be happy (no, I be delighted) for the AGW theory to be proved wrong.  If I see something that truly shows a convincing shift in the science I'll happily swap 'sides'. 
However, as I see it, the science is very stable.  I don't see the 'debate' to be on the science but rather the form of response we make.  Although there seems to be a campaign to discredit the science to confuse the masses for political purposes. 
Even if mankind voted/decided/felt that nothing should be done about GW and we continue unchanged, the science tells us earth will continue to warm.  It will then just be a matter of time as to how long the warming has to continue before action is taken.  One of these actions will be to reduce CO2 emissions.  We, humankind, use our 'economy' to steer our choices (If we want people to use less of something we bump the price up).  Hence, I predict we'll have some form of ETS or carbon tax eventually. 
It is a shame that the ETS has become an issue for political point scoring.  It wasn't so long ago that we had a bipartisan agreement on the need for some form of ETS.  Now we have a Liberal leader who has stated the purpose of the Coalition is to "oppose" the government.  Mind you, they are also setting their emissions cuts to the exact same levels as those proposed by the government.  
To sum up, as I see it, we can can take the short-way or we can take the long-way, but we'll eventually end up at the same place.

----------


## woodbe

Meanwhile, Mr Watts has posted yet another post on his site by the already discredited snow-man, Mr Goddard: Bringing Skillfull Observation Back to Science   

> Tamino objects to the graph below because it has less than 90%  confidence using his self-concocted cherry picking analysis. 
> So what is wrong with his analysis?  Firstly, 85% would be a pretty good  number for betting.  A good gambler would bet on 55%.  Secondly, the  confidence number is used for predicting future trends.  There is 100%  confidence that the trend from 1989-2010 is upwards.  He is simply  attempting to obfuscate the obvious fact that the  climate models were wrong.

  Now if we were the type of people who believed stuff just because it is posted on our hero's website, that's a great piece. It really socks it to Tamino and shows he is wrong!  
If we read the first few comments on the 'article' we come across this little gem of an instruction regarding those pesky confidence limits for Mr Goddard:   

> A confidence interval is about distinguishing a random distribution  from a pattern. By convention, you need to be 95% confident in your  trend in order to reject the null hypothesis. 90% is on the bleeding  edge of acceptable. Less than 90% is not statistically significant by  any measure. 
>  This is basic, basic scientific procedure, and was not invented by  elitists to confuse people like you, Mr. Goddard. Its analogous to the  belying techniques used in climbing: yes, everybody does it; no, its  not immediately obvious to an outsider why we do it that way; no, it is a  very bad idea to ignore the procedure because you think the elitists  have it in for just-folks.

  How did that guy get in there to spread his propaganda about confidence limits? LOL 
What does Tamino say about this? Is he going quiet like our local sceptics?  Nope. He extends his analysis of the snow cover, unearthing a couple of statistically significant trends. If it pains you to read the article Rod, the statistically significant trends displayed are showing less  northern hemisphere weekly snow cover since satellite observations began. 
It's sad that respectable scientists have to spend their time fighting off ignorant bulldust from people who have not equipped themelves with the appropriate skills, but when they do it as well as Tamino, it's beautiful to watch. 
That ripping sound is the sound of Tamino ripping up more baloney on Watts' site. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Rod's gone awfully quiet................his last post was at 7.50 yesterday morning.........logs on this morning and nothing. 
> I guess the easiest way to deflect those bullets is to just hide..................  *Rod Dyson *   *Last Activity: 24th Feb 2010 07:01 AM*

  Woodbe and I are waiting quietly for him to show.  As soon as he does, we'll open fire! :Firedevil:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It seems that Captain Dyson isn't quite as boisterous when he is the lone voice............

   Really head pin, what sort of comment is that. I also have a business to run. ATM we are very busy so posting will be light.

----------


## dazzler

> Really head pin, what sort of comment is that. I also have a business to run. ATM we are very busy so posting will be light.

  Can I post on your behalf  :Tongue:

----------


## woodbe

We've all heard the chants from all and sundry (even here in this thread) along the lines that 'I know this is weather, not climate, but the amount of snow this year makes you wonder...'   We're not hearing much about this though:    Arctic sea ice and news from NSIDC   

> *January 2010 compared to past years*                While Arctic sea ice extent has declined in all seasons, the  downward trends in winter ice extent are much smaller than in summer.  Polar darkness and low temperatures mean that the ice generally  refreezes to about the same boundaries each winter. Ice extent averaged  for January 2010 was the fourth lowest for the month since the beginning  of satellite records, and 180,000 square kilometers (69,000 square  miles) higher than the record low January extent observed in 2006. The  linear rate of decline for January is now 3.2% per decade.

  
Yup. Definitely entering the next ice age. NOT  :Smilie:   
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

I guess this means AGW is real. NOT. 
We know why the Artic ice has retreated and its not due to heat. Just remember no one is denying that the world heated up from the 70's we are just skeptical that it is due to Co2 emissions. 
Retreating ice does not confim AGW.

----------


## woodbe

> I guess this means AGW is real. NOT. 
> We know why the Artic ice has retreated and its not due to heat.

  Anyway, I just put that up there to amuse the troops while you got back from work and started on the many posts of P109.  
So don't waste any time on the Arctic Ice melting in the cold. We all know it's a symptom, we just disagree on what it's a symptom of. 
I'm sure Chrisp would like a response to his last post. 
I'm especially interested in your take on Goddardgate. and Wattsgate. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Anyway, I just put that up there to amuse the troops while you got back from work and started on the many posts of P109.  
> So don't waste any time on the Arctic Ice melting in the cold. We all know it's a symptom, we just disagree on what it's a symptom of. 
> I'm sure Chrisp would like a response to his last post. 
> I'm especially interested in your take on Goddardgate. and Wattsgate. 
> woodbe.

  You guys seem to think you have a "gottcha" here, where it is just another part of the debate.  Because of the turmoil that has resulted from the errors in the IPCC report and the climategate emails etc (which by the way you still have NOT commented on), you are keen to latch on to any seeming error by a skeptic.   
While this is understandable there is a lot of lost ground for the "alarmists" to make up. 
For me to give any real answer to those post would require a bit of time to research the facts, time I do not have.  So calls (demands) I respond to your imaginary "gottcha" are going to go un-answered, as have many of the post we have put up about errors in the "warmists" argument.   
It seems you are not prepared to do what you demand of me.

----------


## woodbe

> For me to give any real answer to those post would require a bit of time to research the facts, time I do not have.  So calls (demands) I respond to your imaginary "gottcha" are going to go un-answered, as have many of the post we have put up about errors in the "warmists" argument.

  Sorry Rod, that's double standards right there. 
You drop copy/paste sceptic arguments in here at a drop of a hat, and within a very short time of them being posted on Watts or wherever. How can you be doing that if you are spending the time 'researching' if they are legitimate? 
Once again we see that any post against AGW is a good post regardless of it's factual basis, whilst these posts pointing out the errors in sceptic 'science' remain unanswered because it would take too much time to research. 
The only reason you get called to answer these is that you have made such a business about claiming AGW being false, fake and a complete fraud, which is a position not supportable unless you continue to back it up. 
When some of the main protaganists of the anti-AGW argument are found to be practicing dodgy and ignorant science, as bad or worse even than what _you have claimed_ is happening in mainstream climate science, you say you can't comment because you need/don't have time to research. 
Still, you're only doing what the rest of the web sceptics are doing I suppose, supporting _your opinion_ with anything you can find that looks damaging to the other side. 
Time to put up Rod. It doesn't worry me at all if you continue to ignore it, but your argument is weakened due to your continued lack of legitimate response. 
woodbe.

----------


## watson

> 

  *
Third Umpire Here* 
On Topic Please

----------


## watson

:Biggrin:  I'm still reading page three  :Shock:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> But that's an legitimate appeal, sir.  
> From Silly Mid Off it looked like Captain Dyson had been stumped. 
> I'm sure that if you reveiw the replay in Slo-Mo, you will clearly see that Captain Dyson is way out of his crease. The fact that Captain Dyson has voluntarily left the field of play validates my appeal. 
> I think you should pull the stumps and declare the A team the winners.............unless of course you can find another batter?

  You have lost all credibility IMO Headpin. 
Perhaps you can do as Watson askes and keep to the topic.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Even though I have not had time to research what you say about Anthony Watts, you might like to consider the following.   _The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, allegedly confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that sea levels would rise due to climate change. The IPCC put the rise at 59 centimeters by 2100. The Nature Geoscience study put it at up to 82 centimeters._ _Many considered the study and the IPCC's estimates too conservative in their warnings. After all, Al Gore, in his award-winning opus, "An Inconvenient Truth," laughingly called a documentary, foretold an apocalyptic vision of the devastation caused by a 20-foot rise in sea levels due to melting polar ice caps "in the near future."_ _Now Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at England's University of Bristol, has formally retracted the study. "One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years," he said._ _According to Siddall, "People make mistakes, and mistakes happen in science." They seem to be happening a lot lately, and more than just mistakes. We are talking about outright fraud, the deliberate manipulation and destruction of data._  _Full article here Investors.com - Al Gore's Nine Lies_ 
There are mistakes and there are fraudulent claims designed to ALARM like Gores 20ft rise in sea levels that are not supported by any science. 
That said, I have seen other instances where Anthony Watts made an error, (no-one is infallable), where he was quite open about the error and set about correcting it. Can the same be said of Al Gore or other alarmist scientists? This being said, I have no idea if what you posted about Anthony is correct or not. I do know he is quite open about his science and posts all his results and data to be "peer reviewed" openly on the internet,  can this be said of others, who choose to hide thier data?

----------


## woodbe

> Even though I have not had time to research what you say about Anthony Watts, you might like to consider the following.

  Thanks Rod, I think we've seen enough character assassination of Al Gore on this thread to last a lifetime. The subjects of the question were in fact: 
* Watts' Central England Data nonsense. 
* Goddard's broken snow statistics and apparent preference for 'a good betting number' over confidence intervals. 
Can you please stay on topic. Digging up dirt to copy/paste regarding Gore/Jones/Hansen etc does nothing to answer the query, and just wastes everyone's time including yours. 
Sceptics are not going to get far by releasing research based on obvious data misrepresentation. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

Headpin, you rooned it.  :Biggrin:  
I have been quietly cheering the lack of posts in this thread as an indicator that we are finally getting better. I was even hopeful that we would make 24 hours without a post! 
Well, that's wrecked now, thanks mate  :Cool:  
I see even Cosgrove has caved in and announced we should be doing something about climate change. Even suggests a Nuclear power option. Whilst talking to the Climate Denial party otherwise known as the Liberal Party, he said things like:   

> "If we don't do it, a country with our values, a country presently in  the top 20 wealthiest countries in the world ... how can we expect  other nations to act and thus offset our lack of action?" General  Cosgrove said.
>  "Let's not muck about any more and start now to resolve the problems  that we own.

   

> Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott told General Cosgrove that he  does not entirely share his judgment on the state of the climate change  science.
>  Mr Abbott, however, says he agrees that nuclear power is the only  realistic way to reduce carbon emissions while maintaining living  standards.
>  "That's not the policy of the Liberal Party. It will not be the  policy of the Liberal Party between now and the next election.  Nevertheless, it is a debate that this country should have," Mr Abbott  said.

  Busy day, Mr Garrett copped it in the neck over the insulation debacle too.   

> Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has announced he is establishing a  separate, stand-alone department for Climate Change and Energy  Efficiency.
>  The department will be headed by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong,  but her assistant minister, Greg Combet, will be given direct  responsibility for winding up the insulation program and rolling out its  replacement. 
>  Mr Rudd says Mr Garrett will remain as Environment Minister but his  portfolio will focus on environmental protection as well as heritage and  the arts.
>  Mr Rudd has admitted the department changes are a demotion for Mr  Garrett.
>  "This represents a reduced range of responsibilities, that's a fact,"  he said.

  He should'a stuck to music. 
woodbe

----------


## Naf

> Mr Legresy has been monitoring the Metz Glacier via satellite images and on the ground for a decade in cooperation with Australian scientists.

  He musta been so excited when it finally moved after watching it for *10 years*.

----------


## woodbe

> Could the same thing be said about Mr Watson?

  Um. I dunno. I'm very busy at the moment, but if you post some of his music I'll spend some time researching it and come back with an opinion.   :Biggrin:  
woodbe

----------


## Dr Freud

Ladies and gents, what happened.   
All hell broke loose, then this thread derailed into "he said, she said". 
It's gonna take a while, but I'll try to get up to speed, and maybe "poke the bear" along the way.  :Wink 1:  
I think what we need is more "cutting and pasting". :Yikes2:

----------


## woodbe

> I think what we need is more "cutting and pasting".

  Prefer original stuff if you 'have the time' but as long as it's not from this thread (seen it already) or the Denial Party songbook, go right ahead. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Ladies and gents, what happened.

  And also, can you get a note from your mum, you were due back here 3 days ago.  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> I think what we need is more "cutting and pasting".

  I agree with Woodbe on this one  :Biggrin:  
I don't think this thread is going to change the world (sorry Noel  :Rolleyes:  ).   
Rather than reading cut'n'paste opinions of outsiders, I'd much rather read the opinions of our own forumites and the reasons behind their opinions.

----------


## chrisp

> And also, can you get a note from your mum, you were due back here 3 days ago.

  I think I know the reason... It was far too hot in Perth to be posting on the internet.  Nothing to do with Global Warming, huh?  :Smilie:

----------


## watson

> I don't think this thread is going to change the world (sorry Noel  ).

  Nor I really..but with 1659 posts and 20161 views at least it's out there for those that want to............to see all sides.

----------


## Dr Freud

Lads, at least let me get in the door, crack open a cold one, and put my feet up.  :Beer:  
My replies may be redundant as you guys and gals may have covered this stuff already, but here goes the catch up.   

> So you claim to have read and largely understand the IPCC report, yet you somehow failed to notice or report the insignificance of the Glacier error, given that it was not in volume 1 in the Glaciers, Snow and Ice chapter (Chapter 4) 
> I am sceptical of your scepticism.  
> woodbe

  I commend your scepticism of my scepticism as good scientific practice, but I assure you that I am sceptical of AGW Theory.  I provide all my previous posts as empirical evidence supporting this assertion. 
As to my lack of eidetic memory, when I have previously read, and continue to read information relating to this theory, I am looking for information either indicating or supporting a causal relationship between anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and an unprecedented change in global climate systems.  Failing this, I also keep an open mind to the evidence showing correlational links between these two variables, which will not prove AGW Theory, but will further inform future research and theories. 
From memory (not eidetic remember  :Confused: ) I do not recall having ever claimed to have memorised every IPCC report and all the contributing studies, including fully reviewing all assertions made in all said studies back to their source data and study methodologies.  The reason these studies are irrelevant to argument is that all the glaciers in the world can melt, but this still does not prove anthropogenic carbon emissions caused it.  It does not matter if 100% of scientists believe it, if they can't prove it, it doesn't exist in science. They are describing the effect without knowing the cause. 
P.S. Asking Dr Freud to get a note from his mum is fraught with issues.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Welcome back Doc. 
In this letter to the EPA there are some good questions that need an answer. anyone here prepared to take them up?  Many leading scientists tell the EPA to think again | The SPPI Blog

----------


## woodbe

> Originally Posted by woodbe  So you claim to have read and largely understand the IPCC report, yet  you somehow failed to notice or report the insignificance of the Glacier  error, given that it was not in volume 1 in the Glaciers, Snow and Ice  chapter (Chapter 4)    As to my lack of eidetic memory, [..]

  So that's a yes then.  
Fair enough. Pity no purported sceptic sifting through the report took the time before they rushed out the headlines, especially as the hard work of discovering and reporting the error was already done for them. Doesn't look like the work of sceptics at all. 
woodbe

----------


## Dr Freud

> Well, I came upon a very convincing document today from a couple of standup sceptic sources, one of which we are very familiar with: Anthony Watts The paper is called "*Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?*" and the authors are Joseph D'Aleo & Anthony Watt:  Fighting words, n'est pas?  
> Have a look at what Open Mind blog has to say, full copy on the Link   
> "*Only when you read the section do you discover that it only compares 100-year averages of the 20th century to the 18th century, and only for the summer season.*" 
> Is there no end to the depths? 
> Those that like to look at charts will find them a'plenty on the Open Mind analysis linked above, with comprehensive discussion. 
> Watts, you might recall, is the guy who created a storm over UHI and is the architect of an amateur weather station 'expose' on the subject. If he's going to pull shonky sceptical 'science' stunts like this, how much credence will he have when he gets around to analysing his own data?  
> Discuss.  
> woodbe.

  Geez, 111 pages, then the claims and counter claims...an hour of my life I''ll never get back.  But the facts remain unchanged, land based temperature records are very inaccurate, and it is great that scientists are finally critical of this. 
In a nutshell, as I have said numerous times, the data cannot be trusted and Watts has done a great job in collating and highlighting many of the inconsistencies in this data.  The spurious rebuttals above do nothing to address his legitimate methodological questions of the compilation of data sets. 
But then, picking some semantic side track and arguing this rather the lack of valid science is all too familiar from AGW Theory proponents.  I notice Ladbury at no stage defends the validity of data measuring and manipulation, which is the main point of the entire paper, but finds a few sidetracks, that while statistically are correct, are a hand picked subset of data.  But to level this claim only at Watts, given the other information in his paper is laughable.  :Hahaha:  
But I will cover the data sets in more detail later, gotta try to get caught up... :Read:

----------


## Dr Freud

> So that's a yes then.  
> Fair enough. Pity no purported sceptic sifting through the report took the time before they rushed out the headlines, especially as the hard work of discovering and reporting the error was already done for them. Doesn't look like the work of sceptics at all. 
> woodbe

  Let me get this right, the IPCC and it's purported 4000 "humourless" scientists come up with a theory that they can't prove, despite hundreds of billions of dollars in research grants, using satellites and supercomputers, and make so many basic mistakes that they are still being picked up and criticised to this day, and now are likely the most publicly discredited science organisation on the planet. 
And you still spin this into being the sceptics fault for not picking up all their errors?  :Confused:    
And I thought RUDD's mates at Hawker Britton were the kings of spin.  :Charley:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Welcome back Doc. 
> In this letter to the EPA there are some good questions that need an answer. anyone here prepared to take them up?  Many leading scientists tell the EPA to think again | The SPPI Blog

  Looks like I missed some fireworks while I was gone, you got to have all the fun. 
But yeh, like I said in the last few posts, it is great to see questions actually being asked.  These poor scientists lived in fear of career suicide had they tried this a few short years ago.  I'll dig up some other stuff on this soon, but the times they are a changing...

----------


## Dr Freud

> So I am in the A team....woohoo.  
> Okay B team, what is the equal and opposite reaction to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.   
> Remember, your own words, no links.

  The amplification effects of CO2 are well documented in a mathematical sense, but the effects created in a truly chaotic system are clearly well beyond our current intellect and technology, as demonstrated by the continued failure of all climate models based on CO2 as a driver of atmospheric change.  :Biggrin:  
But if you want my humble opinion, proxy data (remember rhymes with poxy) shows global CO2 levels have previously been to 6000 parts per million (currently about 380 ppm) without the planet exploding into a ball of flames, and the proxy data suggests if anything, that biological and ecological systems thrive in higher CO2 environments. 
But as a modern day indicator, where do most people spend their holiday money, on a beach somewhere in the tropics, or digging in a snow cave in the tundra?  Even the ski bunnies retreat to the hot tub or fireplace and wine after the sun goes down.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I think we need to put your comment in to a context. 
> Let me use a hypothetical analogy (yes, analogies can be risky and are rarely good fit ) 
> Let's suppose 10 separate groups of scientists studying the effects of smoking on human health.  These scientists are from different backgrounds and use different methodologies to determine what, if any, impact on human health there is from smoking.   One group of researchers might use a statistical method (say worldwide death statistics);Another group might use hospital admission data;Another might set-up controlled groups: i.e. a group of smokers and a group of non-smokers and study them over a period of time.Another group might do a laboratory study using laboratory animals.Another might do a 'test tube' study to see the effect of smoke by-products on human cells.Another might analyse the possible mechanisms that smoke by-products effects different individuals using DNA studies.One might study the effect of temperature (smoke is hot, right?) on the human body.[you can make up your own extra three studies ]
>  At the end of there studies the results are reported.  9 groups report a definite relationship between smoking and cancer.  One group doesn't find such a relationship (but didn't disprove it either). 
> None of the researchers can prove for sure that 'if _you_ smoke _you_ will get cancer' but 9 out of 10 are very such it is a very strong risk factor in a general population. 
> Do you: a) Ignore the results as it hasn't been proven conclusively - i.e. 100% agreement.
> b) Agree that the 9 out of 10 studies aren't 100% conclusive individually and therefore aren't conclusive as a whole.
> c) Wait until all studies come up with 100% confidence conclusions and all studies are unanimous.or d) accept that the bulk of the scientific studies are indicating a relationship between smoking and cancer. You may claim '_you don't accept science by consensus because it "might" be right_'.  However, a small amount of uncertainty or inconclusiveness in a collection of studies doesn't invalidate the bulk of the studies. 
> You seem to be waiting for  AGW to reach '_scientific law_' status rather than accepting a AGW '_scientific theory_'.

  I thought we had truly dismissed this ridiculous comparison, but apparently not.  But if you were going to make it, you could at least have got close to something credible. 
For example, a "definite relationship" is what a lonely scientist's hand has with his D :Bandaid: k.  I think you are attempting to demonstrate a "causal relationship".  Should that be the case, you do not need 9 out of 10 studies or 9 trillion out of 10 trillion,  You just need 1. This would then "prove" the theory, and the debate would be over.  Similarly, a causal relationship between another variable and the effect mentioned would disprove the theory, and the debate would also be over. 
If you were actually meaning a correlational relationship, then most of the studies you have listed are not appropriately designed for this analysis, and are better suited to analytical comparisons such as t-tests or anova's.   
In any event, it never ceases to amaze me how AGW Theory proponents are willing to argue over just about anything, other than the science linking anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and global climate change allegedly at unprecedented levels.  :Doh:    Jo Nova gives Penny Wong some consideration for her spurious analogy here.

----------


## Dr Freud

> With respect Rod, what '_theory put forward without proof_' are you referring to?  I hope you are not suggesting that the AGW theory is without proof? 
> BTW, it's not rubbish either  
> You are welcome to use my analogy and show/demonstrate how it breaks down if you wish.  It would be more convincing than just saying 'rubbish'.

  AGW Theory has neither been proven nor disproven, just like thousands of other scientific theories out there.  Until one of these events occurs, they are all perfectly valid theories. 
As for the "rubbish" comment, I think it is referring to the analogy as opposed to AGW Theory in general.  I would probably describe this spurious analogy as redundant or irrelevant, but hey, each to his own.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Your way out of your crease, Rod.   
> It is no theory that the toxins and chemical in ciggarette smoke cause cancer.  Surely your not going to refute that?

  Dudes, we have gone over this before, but here is the abridged version. 
On the packets it says "Smoking causes cancer" as a simple and effective health message that I fully support.  But this is scientifically inaccurate.  There are many people who have smoked all their lives and never had cancer.  Therefore, scientifically we still need to investigate specifically what toxins and chemicals, in what combinations, in what cigarettes, filtered or unfiltered, how many per day, what occupations, passively or actively, what cancers, all or specific, individual genetics, etc etc. 
In summary, smoking is bad for your health, and has been demonstrated to significantly contribute to cancer in most people.  But if/when we are able to determine the causal relationship in this health area, it may be as simple as removing the offending combination of chemicals, as when the relationship is causal, the variables are that specified.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Rod, 
> I'm happy to walk you through it.  I almost did it earlier in response to dazzler's challenge but I deleted the references and equations.  Here it is again with a little more detail: 
>                      Originally Posted by *chrisp*   _Abiding by Dazzler rules, Here goes:CO2 is one of many greenhouse gasses (GHG) in the atmosphere. 
> The earth experiences about 390W/m2 from the sun. About 240W/m2 is re-radiated back out from the earth. Greenhouse gasses trap about 150W/m2. Essentially we have an energy balance equation here. The sun 'shines' energy on to the planet, most is re-radiated out again. GHG slow/trap the energy. 
> CO2 is just one of the GHGs. man-made GHGs such as CFCs and HFCs have also entered the atmosphere and also contribute to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse contribution is determined by the concentration of the particular gas and the gas's 'radiative forcing' (RF) index. The latest indexes can be found in this paper Welcome to AGU Online Services  
> The increase in CO2 has has a radiative forcing effect of 1.63 W/m2 (using radiative forcing coefficient = 5.35 for CO2)  RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) using the simplified method.  A better result can be done using a serious GCM (Global Climate Model) such as EdGCM   
> The effect of increased greenhouse effect from CO2 increasing from 280ppm to 380 ppm is a temperature rise of 1.2 degrees Celsius (using a sensitivity of 0.75 degrees per w/m2). However, it takes a while for the extra radiation to warm the planet and so far we have only experienced 0.5 degree rise with a further 0.7 degrees yet to come._  
> The above used the 'simplified' method.  You could, with a bit of work, use a full blown GCM software tool and come up with similar numbers yourself. 
> The relationship between CO2 concentration and average global temperature is well established science.

  This is a wonderful theory, and has already been covered previously works perfectly and is mathematically correct in a laboratory setting.  However, as with all great battle plans, it never survives contact with the enemy.  In this case, the enemy is reality.  Every single climate model based on this (and other) calculations, assumptions and assertions have failed.  This is because we do not yet know exactly how the real world is responding to these and other variables we may not even yet know contribute to this paradigm. 
I don't blame you for quoting these things, but the scientists out there that unashamedly purport that they can attribute exactly 1.2 degrees celsius of average global warming based on a 100 ppm increase in CO2, without even discussing the countless confounding natural variables in this equation is truly remarkable.   
For crying out loud, we are still arguing about whether our current temperature records are accurate, and even satellite and ocean records are continually being recalibrated.  Yet you are happy quoting the 1.2 degrees increase as a fact based on a causal relationship, no ifs or maybes in sight.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yes for the reason I wrote.  Like woodbe you just have to move on I have answered your post.  I am not going to repeat myself adnauseum.  Your logic is, IN MY OPINION flawed, you have my reasons why I believe that. I have nothing more to add. 
> Re-read my post.

  Nothing wrong with your opinion, it also coincides with mine.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Rod, this looks like the same report that shows cooling in central England by only using century averages and ignoring non-summer temperatures. Still waiting for your response on that. Don't rush, the logic post is more important than this one. 
> Looks like Watts has got the Washington Times in his thrall. The weather men are now "well-known and well-respected scientists"   
> uh oh. Looks like they only looked at the pretty pictures... 
> woodbe.

  Did you actually read the original report.   
No doubt there was some hand picked data in there, but the New Zealand, Australian, China, USA, and Pacific data records had nothing to do with CET.  Which in any event was accurate, just hand picked, or "cherry picked" as you prefer.  I wonder if the IPCC scientists would ever try to hand pick data to fit their argument?  Of course not!   :Tongue:  
But the point you guys continually miss, is that this debate is what should have happened before the scare campaign started.  The fact that it is happening now is great.  Watts should be held to account, as should all scientists asserting their viewpoint, but particularly those with their grubby paws in taxpayers pockets.   :Mad:  
You also do not disagree with Watts' criticisms of standardised UHI data transformation, and the whole temperature data grid argument is a scientific can of worms in it's own right.  And the pictures are pretty, I might post some once I get caught up, because a picture is worth a thousand words.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

You guys will really rather argue about everything other than the lack of science linking anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and alleged unprecedented climate change. 
First you tried the carcinogenic influences of social habits on oncogenes, now you want to deflect onto haemotological processes influencing expiration:   

> I was just reading some of the early posts in this thread.  I'm amazed this one got through, "*Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide"*. 
> Where did you study science?   Did you study science at all?  Even someone who only studied science at high school could tell you the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen (~78%) and most of the rest is oxygen (~21%).  
> For the record, ~0.038% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide.

   

> good pickup Chris!  
> Given that we take oxygen and dispose of CO2 via breathing, I had a look to see what sort of numbers actually occur during breathing, found this 'amazing graph' and the associated paper *Single-exhalation profiles of NO and CO2 in humans: effect of dynamically changing flow rate*  
> Result? CO2 hardly managed to get over 5% during the trial. 
> I think we can call that one debunked for now, at least until Dr Freud explains where the 70% came from. 
> woodbe.

   

> As a footnote, Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, it is a natural Molecule. Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms). So is your bloodstream (oh no, scary pollution). You are a carbon based life form. When you breathe out the carbon dioxide, plants breathe it in. Then they breathe out oxygen, you breathe this in. Complicated stuff, huh.

  I initially made this comment in a facetious manner to demonstrate the benign nature of carbon dioxide, particularly in relation to humans, as some people appeared convinced it was some type of toxic pollution that would eradicate humans on contact.  But I ask for the forgiveness of all readers as I attempt to explain, not being a haematologist  :No:  
First, it is correct that atmospheric carbon dioxide content is about .038%, as has been well documented previously in this thread.  Humans are a carbon based life form, and with other animals, form part of the natural carbon cycle that produces carbon dioxide (Greenies don't cringe, we are natural).  When we breathe air in we produce carbon dioxide, plants breathe this in, then breathe out oxygen.  Now, what happens inside us. 
When we breathe in, we use the oxygen (and other substances ingested, inhaled, absorbed or injected) in our various biological processes, with one waste product being carbon dioxide.  All this carbon dioxide waste (call it 100% of carbon dioxide we produce) travels in the blood stream and through the lungs.  The 70% I was referring to is that 70% of this carbon dioxide is retained in the lungs and bloodstream to regulate blood Ph levels via the following formula:  *Carbonic Anhydrase*  *CO2 +  H2O ===> H2CO3 + H+ + HCO3-* 
 carbon dioxide + water  ==> carbonic acid + hydrogen ion + bicarbonate ion    
A further 7% is also retained in the blood plasma, but at the time, I foolishly thought we would be discussing climate data as opposed to haemotology, so omitted this detail.  Net result is that about 23% of the carbon dioxide that we produce is actually expirated from the lungs to the outside atmosphere.  In terms of atmospheric percentage, this ranges between about 3.5% and 7.5% depending on various parameters, but as my good friend Woodbe points out, we can use 5% as a general guide.  
So in summary, we inhale the atmosphere at .038% CO2 and turn it into 5% CO2.  That means we are concentrating this "pollution" by over 130 times every time we breathe in and out.  Lucky we only breathe out 23% of our total production!  The average human will "pollute" about a tonne of carbon dioxide every three years.  There are currently 6.5 billion humans, projected to grow to 9 billion soon. Uh Oh!  :Doh:   
Yes, I have studied science, and it is obvious that others have not.  But as a wise man once said, "You don't have to be a cook to criticise the cooking, we all know when something tastes like ..it".  :PANCAKES:  
For the vampires out there, you can read more about blood here and here. 
But seriously, what about a causal link between anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and alleged unprecedented global warming?  :Question:

----------


## Dr Freud

> While we wait for Rod to prepare his defence of Anthony Watts, here's a story about the tactics that some sceptics seem to be using against anyone publicly supporting AGW in Australia:   *Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial*  
> Thankfully, we haven't suffered that sort of behaviour here! 
> woodbe.

  No, and I will happily stand alongside those opposing my argument to defend them against any filth of this type.  :2thumbsup:  
If anything, I would encourage them to talk more, because the more they try to explain themselves, the weaker their argument gets!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Woodbe, there are numerous posts here pages and page of post that you have not responded to in any meaningful sense. Direct questions you have not answered throughout the 100 odd pages on this thread.   
> So for you to harp on this demanding a response is really quite amazing, it is as if you believe you have some sort of gotcha that will completely vindicate your position on AGW.   
> Yet the most important questions here remain unanswered, Despite being asked many times throughout this thread.   
> How much will an ETS cost each Austrailan? 
> How much will Australia reduce the global CO2 output as a % of total world wide CO2 output? 
> How much will the temperature drop due to Australian Co2 reduction? 
> What is the cost/benefit ration of the reduction in temperature we create? 
> How will Australia reduce emissions of CO2 while population increase by 10 million people?  
> Will you answer these questions or show me where they have been answered by someone else?   
> I think the answer to these questions are far more pertinent to this thread. Dont you?

  Ahhh, those inconvenient truths.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Just concentrating on the argument for now, your argument is nonsense (aka 'rubbish'). 
> But rather than just state my opinion, let me explain why.  It is the same argument as saying "I won't take my used engine oil to a recycling depot, I'll just pour it down the sewer.  After all my used oil is a very small percentage of a very small percentage of... and will hardly make any difference at all". 
> CO2 emissions will be reduced if we all reduce our individual emissions. 
> We can hardly expect the rest of the world to clean up its act before we have a think about cleaning up ours.  First world countries are the ones that ought to be leading by example. 
> In any case, whether we 'lead' or 'follow' will make little difference in the end as we'll end up with an ETS - and regardless of who is in power.  (just thought you'd like to know that  ). 
> Actually, I'm waiting for *Dr Freud* to address the '*science by consensus*' issue and the "*your lungs contain 70% CO2*" claim.  Where is he?

  I think I did the 70% one, but can't recall the science by consensus issue.  But as it has been thoroughly canvassed previously, I will briefly reiterate, science is not settled by consensus.  Hope this clears up whatever the issue was.  :Wink:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Not at all.  I'm questioning your reasoning.  You seem to be sure AGW is disproved if  there is a single doubt about the theory (regardless of the qualifications of the doubter).  Never mind the whole stack of evidence for it, it somehow doesn't count while there is the slightest hint of doubt. 
> Your reasoning with the 'our contribution is insignificant' argument shows similar reasoning and logic faults. 
> It would seem to me that your stance on AGW is based upon similar false reasoning - perhaps 'feelings' or 'opinions' rather than 'science' or 'logic'.

   
Ok, one for those who came in late (Old Phantom joke).  No-one can claim that AGW Theory is disproved, just like no-one can argue that it is proved, because neither event has yet occurred.  It is still just a theory.  If it helps, think of a theory as "just an idea that seems to make sense".

----------


## Dr Freud

It's late, I'm tired. This post is to remind me I'm up to page 109, and quite delirious. 
Apologies for the rambling and no doubt many errors.  :Sleep 1:

----------


## woodbe

> Let me get this right, the IPCC and it's purported 4000 "humourless" scientists come up with a theory that they can't prove, despite hundreds of billions of dollars in research grants, using satellites and supercomputers, and make so many basic mistakes that they are still being picked up and criticised to this day, and now are likely the most publicly discredited science organisation on the planet. 
> And you still spin this into being the sceptics fault for not picking up all their errors?

  No, I'm pointing out that the sceptics tactics and 'science' have more of the qualities of deliberate misinformation than fact. 
If you actually look at the analysis of the errors in the IPCC report that have been blown up out of all proportion by the sceptics, the Glaciers is the biggest, and as we have already seen, it's not in volume 1 of the report. It's an insignificant error. It doesn't change the report, and can be fixed by removing 2 sentences from the report. 
But lets not get distracted from the topic of the post at hand. The sceptics are continuing to rush out the slightest error they can find, usually without adequately checking their sources and certainly overstating the effect. Misinformation. 
And I can well believe that the sceptics have been combing it hoping to find the magic bullet. If it was there, we'd have heard of it by now. 
And hundreds of billions of dollars?. I think we need to get our feet on the ground. For a start, the IPCC pays very few people, and almost none of the scientists. It's a voluntary and unpaid contribution by them. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Dudes, we have gone over this before, but here is the abridged version.  On the packets it says "Smoking causes cancer" as a simple and effective health message that I fully support.  But this is scientifically inaccurate.  There are many people who have smoked all their lives and never had cancer.  Therefore, scientifically we still need to investigate specifically what toxins and chemicals, in what combinations, in what cigarettes, filtered or unfiltered, how many per day, what occupations, passively or actively, what cancers, all or specific, individual genetics, etc etc.

  We need to stamp that little piece of work in Gold on a stone tablet.  
Just like the current misinformation battle over AGW, the tobacco one was long and drawn out for exactly the same reasons:  
1) There were powerful and cashed up corporations who stood to lose big bucks by allowing the truth to prevail. 
2) Most people effected didn't want to accept it, which made them sitting ducks for the misinformation campaign. 
And it seems our Dr Freud is still spinning for the tobacco industry. If they had been able to make the cigarettes safe, they would have by now.   *Burning tobacco and inhaling the smoke on a regular basis is emphatically, statistically, scientifically, factually linked to cancer.* 
No if's, no but's, no maybe's 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> For example, a "definite relationship" is what a lonely scientist's hand has with his Dk.  I think you are attempting to demonstrate a "causal relationship".

  A definite relationship doesn't require a causal basis - that can, and often does, comes later. 
Do I take it that you think there is no relationship (causal or otherwise) between CO2 levels and global warming?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Meanwhile, Mr Watts has posted yet another post on his site by the already discredited snow-man, Mr Goddard: Bringing Skillfull Observation Back to Science   
> Now if we were the type of people who believed stuff just because it is posted on our hero's website, that's a great piece. It really socks it to Tamino and shows he is wrong!  
> If we read the first few comments on the 'article' we come across this little gem of an instruction regarding those pesky confidence limits for Mr Goddard:   
> How did that guy get in there to spread his propaganda about confidence limits? LOL 
> What does Tamino say about this? Is he going quiet like our local sceptics?  Nope. He extends his analysis of the snow cover, unearthing a couple of statistically significant trends. If it pains you to read the article Rod, the statistically significant trends displayed are showing less  northern hemisphere weekly snow cover since satellite observations began. 
> It's sad that respectable scientists have to spend their time fighting off ignorant bulldust from people who have not equipped themelves with the appropriate skills, but when they do it as well as Tamino, it's beautiful to watch. 
> That ripping sound is the sound of Tamino ripping up more baloney on Watts' site. 
> woodbe.

  This is great stuff.  It is all that the sceptics have wanted from the start.  It is good to see scientists arguing with each other over inane points that most people in the street really couldn't care about.  This is how it should be, not some global fear campaign about the end of the world as we know it. 
But in a nutshell, these guys (on all sides) can handpick data sets to support their relative arguments and I don't care, as long as some muppet isn't trying to tax me for their ramblings.  Seriously, they are arguing over 50 years of snowfall data on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old.  :Hahaha:  
This is what scientists do, that's why they usually don't get the chicks. :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> No, I'm pointing out that the sceptics tactics and 'science' have more of the qualities of deliberate misinformation than fact. 
> If you actually look at the analysis of the errors in the IPCC report that have been blown up out of all proportion by the sceptics, the Glaciers is the biggest, and as we have already seen, it's not in volume 1 of the report. It's an insignificant error. It doesn't change the report, and can be fixed by removing 2 sentences from the report. 
> But lets not get distracted from the topic of the post at hand. The sceptics are continuing to rush out the slightest error they can find, usually without adequately checking their sources and certainly overstating the effect. Misinformation. 
> And I can well believe that the sceptics have been combing it hoping to find the magic bullet. If it was there, we'd have heard of it by now. 
> And hundreds of billions of dollars?. I think we need to get our feet on the ground. For a start, the IPCC pays very few people, and almost none of the scientists. It's a voluntary and unpaid contribution by them. 
> woodbe.

  I'll go a paragraph at time otherwise I'll get confused.  Still a bit sleep deprived from last nights effort.  
Para 1. Sceptics do not need any science.  They are not purporting anything.  They can heckle and jeer from the sidelines to their hearts content.  The onus is on the proponent(s) of a theory to prove it scientifically.  Should a sceptic have the motivation, they may try to disprove a theory, but then they will also have to do this scientifically. 
Para 2. Wholeheartedly agree, this does not change the report, because it still does not prove AGW Theory. 
Para 3. Once again, lots of heckling and jeering going on, but it's easy to do this with ideologies and much more difficult to do this with hard science. 
Para 4. Sceptics do not need a magic bullet, there is nothing to shoot at. 
Para 5. Apologies for the lack of clarity, I was not trying to say that the IPCC has received all of this funding, I was referring to sum total of expenditure into this area of research globally over time, which is unprecedented in human history.  See  herefor an idea of just some of the dollars being spent.

----------


## Dr Freud

> We need to stamp that little piece of work in Gold on a stone tablet.  
> Just like the current misinformation battle over AGW, the tobacco one was long and drawn out for exactly the same reasons:  
> 1) There were powerful and cashed up corporations who stood to lose big bucks by allowing the truth to prevail. 
> 2) Most people effected didn't want to accept it, which made them sitting ducks for the misinformation campaign. 
> And it seems our Dr Freud is still spinning for the tobacco industry. If they had been able to make the cigarettes safe, they would have by now.   *Burning tobacco and inhaling the smoke on a regular basis is emphatically, statistically, scientifically, factually linked to cancer.* 
> No if's, no but's, no maybe's 
> woodbe.

   

> Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*   _Dudes, we have gone over this before, but here is the abridged version.  A Dude, hey?  I've never ben referred to as a "Dude"  
> On the packets it says "Smoking causes cancer" as a simple and effective health message that I fully support.  Effective measure?  you gotta be kidding..........it's about as effective as speeding cameras have on road deaths. 
> But this is scientifically inaccurate. But medically accurate. 
> There are many people who have smoked all their lives and never had cancer.   Yeh, right, they all died from cardiovascular associated health problems conclusively linkd to smoking. 
> Therefore, scientifically we still need to investigate specifically what toxins and chemicals, in what cigarettes, filtered or unfiltered, how many per day, what occupations, passively or actively, what cancers,  Smoking causes causes cancer is specific enough for me. I mean, it's like saying venom from a Taipan Snake is not venomous, because we don't know which particuliar chemical (s) in what combinations, all or specific, individual genetics, etc etc.......YADA, YADA.........YADA  
> In summary, smoking is bad for your health, and has been demonstrated to significantly contribute to cancer in most people.   But where not going to say it causes cancer............... 
> But if/when we are able to determine the causal relationship in this health area, it may be as simple as removing the offending combination of chemicals, as when the relationship is causal, the variables are that specified._  
> Oh good......................in the mean time, lets suck em up, die in the millions and worry about it later.....................I suppose that's one way of thinning the world population out without another world war.

  Gents, with the exception of the bit about me spinning for the tobacco industry (If only they were paying me off), there is nothing contradictory in these posts and mine. 
The crux is, a causal relationship is the lodestone of scientific endeavour.  The strength of our convictions will support neither a building nor a theory.  As is well documented every time this ridiculous analogy is trotted out, I wholeheartedly agree with all of your sentiments above.  But this does not create a causal relationship between these variables.  As Woodbe reiterates my earlier point, if the tobacco companies could isolate these variables in a causal relationship, do you not think they would, then promulgate their new cancer free cigarettes across the globe.  The fact is that even these almighty financial behemoths cannot unlock a causal relationship in what is a self evident "link". 
Just to be really clear, the word "causes" used in the everyday context is vastly different to the word "causal" used in the scientific context.  Once the immutability of the causal relationship is understood, then the burden of quantification becomes apparent. 
But really, can we start another thread on this if you want to get into it in detail, and we can go through the whole sordid history. We can discuss the causal relationship just as easily with climate data. I'm just basking in the warmth of getting caught up and now look forward to heckling and jeering like a lunatic.  :Laugh bounce spin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Will we achieve this:  UNIVERSITY leaders are pressing for a public campaign to restore the intellectual and moral authority of Australian science in the wake of the climate wars.  Via this:  SCHOOL students will learn about Aboriginal Dreamtime stories, Chinese medicine and natural therapies but not meet the periodic table of elements until Year 10 under the new national science curriculum.   Maybe Rudd could teach kids what a causal relationship is rather than having political correctness supersede hard science? :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

We are the third rock from that giant nuclear explosion to the left. 
If this picture depicts 280 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, I wonder what 380 ppm will look like?

----------


## woodbe

> I'll go a paragraph at time otherwise I'll get confused.  Still a bit sleep deprived from last nights effort.  
> Para 1. Sceptics do not need any science.  They are not purporting anything.  They can heckle and jeer from the sidelines to their hearts content.  The onus is on the proponent(s) of a theory to prove it scientifically.  Should a sceptic have the motivation, they may try to disprove a theory, but then they will also have to do this scientifically. 
> Para 2. Wholeheartedly agree, this does not change the report, because it still does not prove AGW Theory. 
> Para 3. Once again, lots of heckling and jeering going on, but it's easy to do this with ideologies and much more difficult to do this with hard science. 
> Para 4. Sceptics do not need a magic bullet, there is nothing to shoot at. 
> Para 5. Apologies for the lack of clarity, I was not trying to say that the IPCC has received all of this funding, I was referring to sum total of expenditure into this area of research globally over time, which is unprecedented in human history.  See  herefor an idea of just some of the dollars being spent.

  No comment really needed on this, except to say that this is a useful filter for viewing sceptic posts, especially Para 1. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> We are the third rock from that giant nuclear explosion to the left. 
> If this picture depicts 280 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, I wonder what 380 ppm will look like?

  Not sure what you are trying to depict here, but your scale is way off: 
The diameter of the sun is about 1.4 million Km
The mean distance between the earth and the sun is a little over 149 million Km.  
So, if you wanted to show the sun that size (about 9cm diameter on my monitor) you would need to show the earth nearly a metre away from it. 
Still, it's a nice picture  
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Para 1. Sceptics do not need any science.

  Quite wrong in a scientific context.   
It is good to be sceptical, but one must also be constructive too.   
Scientific convention requires that sceptics support their position.  One can't just look at a body of work and claim it to be 'rubbish'.  One must provide some basis for one's scepticism.  Otherwise one would be considered as _talking through your hat_.  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

I thought you might be interested in this. No doubt it is most likely wrong, could you please point out where is is wrong?  Someone should explain this to Rudd and the cast of thousands that went to Nopenhagen. Are we being conned by all this garbage or what? They are trying to tell us that the planet is heating up - ? - half of the Northern Hemisphere is under thick snow (worst for years) - go figure.   *This article appeared in the Rockhampton morning Bulletin on 22.12.09.* *Although I have never ever met the author I was, after some difficulty, able to contact him by phone.*   *This is an excellent piece for my friends to send to their politicians or to anybody who needs to be educated about Australia 's Coal driven power houses.*  *Terry is now retired and is in excellent health at age 69.* *Nobody paid him to write the article which was, (to their credit), published by the local press.*  *Terry told me I could distribute his article as I saw fit.*  *Written By Terence Cardwell*   The Editor The Morning Bulletin.  I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.  Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.  Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made 'carbon emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.  Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.  And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.  First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters and heat the air and water before entering the boilers.   The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.  Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost wise that is very low.  The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.  As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.  We have, like, the USA , coal fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia - exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.  The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the coal supply for the future.  Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist.  Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.   The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied for a 'base load' because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.  The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes they can pump it back but it cost to do that. (Long Story). 
End part 1

----------


## Rod Dyson

Part 2  Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.  Based on a average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.  As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.  Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal power generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)  We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.  Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness the government is following. Do the simple math’s and see for yourselves.  According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.  To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective; If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 meters x 3.7 meters x 2.1 meters, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.  Australia emits 1 percent of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world's total CO2 emissions.  What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?  By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.  Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004 percent.  Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).  Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent.  Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.  That would equate to a area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!  For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and roofing installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable energy, etc, etc.  How ridiculous it that.   The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller business.  T.L. Cardwell   To the Editor I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.

----------


## dazzler

Mr Cardwell makes some good and valid points.   
He states that CO2 has risen from .034% to .038% over the past 50 years (which I think he means 340ppm to 380ppm) where it was actually measured in hawaii as being 315 to 385PPM. This kind of throws his calculations out a bit which is a shame. 
I agree with his views on the ETS totally.  Pity he cant treat people with respect and refrain from using terms in inverted comma's like 'believers'.  Turns me off, just like Lord Munckton (cant remember spelling sorry)

----------


## woodbe

I'd offer a couple of minor points. 
1) Burning coal at 100% efficiency still means releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. 
2) There is a solar thermal company in the US that has offered to supply the entire US electricity demand (yes, yes, including baseload) from a 100 mile square parcel of land. 
The only reason alternative energy doesn't work is that we've never really tried it. 
Any further questions? 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> I thought you might be interested in this. No doubt it is most likely wrong, could you please point out where is is wrong?

   

> What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?  By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.  Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004 percent.  Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).  Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent.  Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.  That would equate to a area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!

  Rod, 
It is the '_small percentage of a small percentage of a small percentage_' argument (aka 'why bother?' argument) again.   
What's wrong?  Yep, sure, if we, and only we, reduced our CO2 emissions and no one else did anything, the argument might hold.  However, that is not what is being proposed.  The whole world is working towards setting targets.  So if we reduce our emissions by 20% and everyone else reduces their emissions by 20%, the reduction is 20%. 
Surely you didn't need someone to point out the error in the augment to you, did you?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The whole world is working towards setting targets. So if we reduce our emissions by 20% and everyone else reduces their emissions by 20%, the reduction is 20%. 
> Surely you didn't need someone to point out the error in the augment to you, did you?

  And you really believe that is achievable given population growth?  It is impossible to achieve it here in Australia unless you fudge the numbers :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'd offer a couple of minor points.   
> Any further questions? 
> woodbe.

  Yes can you please provide a link to item 2.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Well, well, well...................this is worthy of quoting and repeaating. Capain Dyson seems to have neglected to supply a link to his source of information. You know how Mr James dislikes plagarizing, Rod. Besides, apparently you run the very real risk of facing a lawsuit for this type of conduct. Just ask Mr James.  
> Sorry, Rod..............but I'm gunna have to refer this post to the third umpire for reveiwing.................you may be given an official warning for unsportmanship behaviour. 
> In future you leave the plagarizing to us drunken idiots...................

  And you can't read!!!

----------


## woodbe

> Yes can you please provide a link to item 2.

  Well, here is a start, don't you have Google at home?  SOLAR THERMAL POWER AS THE PLAUSIBLE BASIS OF GRID SUPPLY (PDF) (Ausra.com)  Learning About PV: The Myths of Solar Electricity (energy.gov)  Solar Power Tower Technologies Could Solve the World's Energy Needs (brighthub.com) 
...etc... 
woodbe

----------


## chrisp

> Originally Posted by *chrisp*   _The whole world is working towards setting targets. So if we reduce our emissions by 20% and everyone else reduces their emissions by 20%, the reduction is 20%. 
> Surely you didn't need someone to point out the error in the augment to you, did you?_     And you really believe that is achievable given population growth?  It is impossible to achieve it here in Australia unless you fudge the numbers

  Rod, 
You asked what was wrong with the argument and I pointed out the error. 
As to meeting reduction targets?  Why not?  Why is it impossible?  Don't you think you could save 20% on your CO2 emissions (or 30% if you want) if you tried?

----------


## woodbe

> And you can't read!!!

  Rod, 
I think this is the bit that confused Headpin. The way this reads, Rod Dyson tracked down Terry and gained permission from him to post the article. 
If that's the case, no worries. If it's not the case, you should really quote where you copy/pasted it from.   

> *This article appeared in the Rockhampton morning Bulletin on 22.12.09.* *Although I have never ever met the author I was, after some difficulty, able to contact him by phone.*   *This is an excellent piece for my friends to send to their politicians or to anybody who needs to be educated about Australia 's Coal driven power houses.*  *Terry is now retired and is in excellent health at age 69.* *Nobody paid him to write the article which was, (to their credit), published by the local press.*  *Terry told me I could distribute his article as I saw fit.*

  woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Not sure what you are trying to depict here, but your scale is way off: 
> The diameter of the sun is about 1.4 million Km
> The mean distance between the earth and the sun is a little over 149 million Km.  
> So, if you wanted to show the sun that size (about 9cm diameter on my monitor) you would need to show the earth nearly a metre away from it. 
> Still, it's a nice picture  
> woodbe.

  Just trying to add some context to the discussion. I find it therapeutic to remember I am just a hairless ape who's ancestors figured out how to bang rocks together on a speck of dust in the middle of nowhere.  Not exactly masters of the universe... :Monkey dance:  
A closer to scale link is posted below, but Noel would have torn me a new one if I cut and pasted this into the thread.  :Eek:   I guess this is why they call it space.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Well, here is a start, don't you have Google at home?   
> woodbe

  Why the cheap shot woodbe?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> I think this is the bit that confused Headpin. The way this reads, Rod Dyson tracked down Terry and gained permission from him to post the article. 
> If that's the case, no worries. If it's not the case, you should really quote where you copy/pasted it from.   
> woodbe.

  The reference of where it was published in the first place is good enough.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Well, here is a start, don't you have Google at home?  SOLAR THERMAL POWER AS THE PLAUSIBLE BASIS OF GRID SUPPLY (PDF) (Ausra.com)  Learning About PV: The Myths of Solar Electricity (energy.gov)  Solar Power Tower Technologies Could Solve the World's Energy Needs (brighthub.com) 
> ...etc... 
> woodbe

  
Hmm. I am not against renewable energy provided it is comercially viable and not funded from the tax payer and actually produces energy that does not have to be backed up by a coal fired plant anyway. 
It states that storage is for 16hrs. what happens when we get a rain event like the past week in the cental areas of Australia.  Would this mean we have balck outs if this was used here? Yes it all sounds good and I am all for it if it works.  Nothing at all to do with AGW, in my book if it works and is viable do it.   
These technologies need to be persued irrespective of AGW.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Well, here is a start, don't you have Google at home?  SOLAR THERMAL POWER AS THE PLAUSIBLE BASIS OF GRID SUPPLY (PDF) (Ausra.com)  Learning About PV: The Myths of Solar Electricity (energy.gov)  Solar Power Tower Technologies Could Solve the World's Energy Needs (brighthub.com) 
> ...etc... 
> woodbe

  I am a huge fan of renewable energy sources, particularly solar as opposed to others like wind and geothermal, as it exists in abundance across the universe.  Handy when traveling.  No doubt it will be replaced by anti-matter or gravitational drives in the future (or maybe not based on our latest science curriculum changes  :Annoyed: ), but it is a likely stepping stone for us hairless apes. 
I particularly like the space based stuff like this  and maybe if we weren't wasting this money  in market based derivative trading scams, we could invest it all in solar and make it viable a lot quicker.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

It is a matter of record that Minister Garrett alerted his cabinet colleagues to the inherent problems of the home insulation scheme on at least one occasion and we can only presume did so to deafening silence by way of response or if any verbal response was made it seems to be of the dont tell me your problems variety.     One of the other reasons postulated on why Garrett was not sacked was that Kevin Rudd may have feared the big, bald fellow shuffling off to the backbench and backgrounding journalists on how he had made the PM and cabinet aware of the manifest problems of the home insulation scheme but was widely ignored by Rudd.    If you give someone 2.4 billion dollars to run a carbon pollution reduction program and they royally screw it, what do you say when they ask for 114 billion dollars for something infinitely more complicated?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

AUSTRALIA'S top climate scientist has contradicted Federal Government claims the drought in the Murray Darling Basin is due to global warming.   Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, Prof Neville Nicholls, said the claim was not backed by science.   Yet Federal Climate Change and Water Minister Penny Wong has repeatedly claimed the basin's drought is due to climate change.   Prof Steven Sherwood, of the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre, said the "sceptics here are (for once) technically correct, in that there is no proven link - yet - between Murray Darling drought and climate change".

----------


## Dr Freud

Run away... :Running:    THE opposition has seized on moves to overhaul US climate change legislation that looks set to jettison a cap-and-trade approach as further evidence Kevin Rudd's emission trading scheme is losing support in the international community. 
and,   Draft legislation for a new Japanese climate bill omits mention of a limit on emissions by industry, a sign Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyamas government may retreat from an earlier promise to start a cap-and-trade system.

----------


## Dr Freud

But Rudd's most pivotal admission was a shocker: referring to health reform, he said on ABC1's Insiders: "We didn't properly, I think, estimate the complexity of what we were embarking on."   Play that again? This sounds like a government out of its depth.   What about climate change, with its emissions trading scheme?   The signs of disenchantment on climate change policy came as early as the first half of 2008. People expected that Rudd would recruit them in response to the climate challenge. But eventually the public decided `he's not serious', so the issue slid down the ladder of concerns."

----------


## Dr Freud

Commons committee tiptoed round embattled scientist and sidestepped crucial questions.   But still heard this:   Jones's general defence was that anything people didn't like  the strong-arm tactics to silence critics, the cold-shouldering of freedom of information requests, the economy with data sharing  were all "standard practice" among climate scientists. "Maybe it should be, but it's not."   And he seemed to be right. The most startling observation came when he was asked how often scientists reviewing his papers for probity before publication asked to see details of his raw data, methodology and computer codes. "They've never asked," he said.   But for the first time he did concede publicly that when he tried to repeat the 1990 study in 2008, he came up with radically different findings. Or, as he put it, "a slightly different conclusion". Fully 40% of warming there in the past 60 years was due to urban influences. "It's something we need to consider," he said.

----------


## Dr Freud

Global warming kills family.  :Rip:    Maybe theyre scared enough now.  :Mad:

----------


## Dr Freud

Also, ceiling insulation faults, defective electrical cables e.g. perished or rodent-damaged cable insulation and home maintenance activities may, over time, result in electrification of the foil insulation. These factors increase the risk to householders, and to tradespeople undertaking work in ceiling spaces. Some of the associated risks may include electrocution, serious electric shock and burns.   So:   "If they are going to check all one million roofs and repair and replace faulty or unsafe insulation, it could cost half a billion dollars," the association's James Tinslay said.   And the Herald Sun can reveal that crime gangs in Romania, Lebanon and Asia have been skimming millions of dollars from the roof insulation scheme. Federal Police are investigating fake insulation companies set up by the gangs to claim $1200 rebates for work that has not been done.   And now theyre lining up for the next gravy train:   THE Australian Federal Police has warned the Rudd Government that the criminal underworld could target an emissions trading scheme.   Lucky Rudd is so responsive to warnings about his environmental policy flaws.

----------


## Dr Freud

Which one of these:      Said this:   It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.

----------


## Dr Freud

University tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails 
  The letter also confirmed the ICOs previous statement that the university had failed in its duties under the Freedom of Information Act by rejecting requests for data.  
  The university had demanded that the ICO withdraw this statement.  
  The ICO letter, signed by Graham Smith, the deputy commissioner, said: I can confirm that the ICO will not be retracting the statement ...The fact that the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here, but cannot be acted on because of the elapsed time, is a very serious matter.

----------


## Dr Freud

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.   The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's inquiry, 'The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia'.    The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide _prima facie_ evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.   The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.   There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.   Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.   However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.   Truly a link worth reading to get an objective assessment of this fiasco!  :brava:

----------


## Dr Freud

Rajendra Pachauri, the controversial Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to face an international inquiry into the performance of his organisation.   The ministers  led by Hillary Benn, the Environment Secretary,and his counterparts from Germany,. Norway, Algeria and Antigua and Barbuda  refused to allow Dr Pachauri to decide who would carry out the review, insisting it must be completely and demonstrably independent of the IPCC.    The two agencies are expected first to approach national academies of sciences and to ensure that it examines the management of the organisation as well as its scientific procedures.    The review is to report by August to allow time for its conclusions - and Dr Pachauri's position  to be assessed before the IPCC meets for its own annual assembly in Korea in October.   :brava:

----------


## Dr Freud

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called the greatest scientific scandal of our generation  the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). 
  Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify. 
  In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted, Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress. 
  Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.   The staff report describes four major issues revealed by the Climategate files and the subsequent revelations:   1.The emails suggest some climate scientists were cooperating to obstruct the release of damaging information and counter-evidence. 2.They suggest scientists were manipulating the data to reach predetermined conclusions. 3.They show some climate scientists colluding to pressure journal editors not to publish work questioning the consensus. 4.They show that scientists involved in the report were assuming the role of climate activists attempting to influence public opinion while claiming scientific objectivity. 
  By naming potential criminal offenses, Senator Inhofe raises the stakes for climate scientists and others involved. Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglias Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct. Adding possible criminal charges to the mix increases the possibility that some of the people involved may choose to blow the whistle in order to protect themselves.    The question, of course, is whether the Senate Democratic majority will allow this investigation to proceed, in the face of the Obama administrations stated intention to regulate CO2 following the apparent death of cap and trade legislation. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science. 
Why would you continually block an investigation into climate science?  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists, representatives of Britains weather office quietly proposed that the worlds climatologists start all over again to produce a new trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and rigorous peer review. 
  After the firestorm of criticism called Climate-gate, the British governments official Meteorological Office apparently has decided to wave a white flag and surrender.  :Giveup3:  
  The new effort, the proposal says, would provide: 
  verifiable datasets starting from a common databank of unrestricted data 
methods that are fully documented in the peer reviewed literature and open to scrutiny; 
a set of independent assessments of surface temperature produced by independent groups using independent methods, 
comprehensive audit trails to deliver confidence in the results; 
robust assessment of uncertainties associated with observational error, temporal and geographical in homogeneities. 
I guess these standards were missing in the old effort.   The question after the Met Offices shift in stance may be whether environmentalists eager to move those mountains of cash are also ready to stand down until the 21st century questions get 21st century answers.

----------


## Dr Freud

POLICE are baffled how they did it but the Prime Minister definitely has a problem in Rose Bay - with a large illuminated traffic sign sending the message: "Kevin Rudd sucks".       
I swear I have an alibi.  Looks like a sparky did this anyway.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> It states that storage is for 16hrs. what happens when we get a rain event like the past week in the cental areas of Australia.  Would this mean we have balck outs if this was used here? Yes it all sounds good and I am all for it if it works.  Nothing at all to do with AGW, in my book if it works and is viable do it.   
> These technologies need to be persued irrespective of AGW.

  Storage is a technicality, and one that is often raised as a reason to dismiss when discussing alternative energy. I think that once we get serious about actually implementing this kind of technology we will come up with an appropriate solution, there are plenty of candidate ideas. Even firing up the old coalie would be a solution given that we would be saving the CO2 for almost 100% of the time anyway, and that might well be an interim solution given that the hardware is already in place. 
Ausra was started in Australia by an Aussie. It got moved to the US because of a lack of interest and support by the Australian Government. We're still getting the same claptrap about alternative energy from both sides of politics. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> POLICE are baffled how they did it but the Prime Minister definitely has a problem in Rose Bay - with a large illuminated traffic sign sending the message: "Kevin Rudd sucks".       
> I swear I have an alibi.  Looks like a sparky did this anyway.

  Haha. There are internet forums devoted to the subject of hacking into road signs. Armed with the right information and a slack contractor, any 12 year old could do it. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called the greatest scientific scandal of our generation  the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). 
>   Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify. 
>   In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted, Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

  So will they call this 'The Inhofe Inquisition'? Seems like they are preparing to burn the witches at the stake. 
Oh my McCarthy! 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> There ya go, Rod.  
> A little bit of friendly information from your friend and mine, Mr James..............perhaps the most knowledgeable person on the web...............in his own mind.

  Big deal so what. 
Your contribution to this thread is nothing but sh-t stiring and has lost any form of humour that it may have had in the begining.  
You have contributed nothing to the debate.

----------


## woodbe

> Why the cheap shot woodbe?

  Sorry if I offend, but we have been over this before, even in this very thread. 
You say you support this kind of technology, but everytime I mention it, it's greeted as if it's something new. Anyone with more than a passing interest in the subject would recall that there are very good technologies in place that have the capability of providing base load power without burning fossil fuels or glowing in the dark. It's the vested interest brigade who prolong the myth that it isn't possible. 
I'm sure that there are people in the audience who recognise a bit of a theme there, but I won't mention it so as to not offend your sceptic sensibilities.  :Lipsrsealed2:  
As for the taxpayer funding, that's a silly requirement. Who do you think paid for most of the existing power stations? Those are the kind of things that Governments do, even though the pendulum has swung towards private funding with government support in recent times, so you may get your wish. Whatever happens, you _will_ pay for the hardware via your electricity bill. 
woodbe.

----------


## dazzler

> And you really believe that is achievable given population growth?  It is impossible to achieve it here in Australia unless you fudge the numbers

  Yeeeehaaaaaaa.......We can agree on something... :Inlove:  
This is what really irks me, Rudd and Co go on and on about reducing emissions and then he wants to double the population. 
What a moron.

----------


## Ashore

And a cartoon drawn by ? means what 
The truth is out there but even when you have been shown to be wrong you still use smoke and mirrors and now cartoons , there have been over 1700 posts so far without any real evidence proving global warming or climate change and yet still the " I am right trust me " arguement is still here , some simple substantial proof of global warming has yet to be shown , so the people who now need to grasp at straws call it climate change , move the goldposts as such and still can't prove it , then the last fling try and ridicule anyone who dis-agrees with you and post silly cartoons. 
The word that comes to mind for people with such a mindset is pity  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

The lovely Jo Nova explains some of:  :Inlove:    The money trail   For direct PR comparisons though, just look at "_Think Climate Think Change_": the Australian Government put $13.9 million into just one quick advertising campaign. There is no question that there are vastly more financial rewards for people who promote a carbon-made catastrophe than for those who point out the flaws in the theory.  Think again?

----------


## Dr Freud

In March, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."  _In fact_, Adelaide's reservoirs are now 75 per cent full, just weeks from 2009.  In June last year, Flannery warned Brisbane's "water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months".  _In fact_, 18 months later, its dams are 46 per cent full after Brisbane's wettest spring in 27 years. 
  In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in just two years.  _In fact_, three years later its dams are 63 per cent full, not least because June last year was its wettest since 1951. 
  In 2004, Flannery said global warming would cause such droughts that "there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century's first ghost metropolis".   And now:        Brisbanes combined dam capacity has broken the 80 per cent mark for the first time in eight years as inflows continue to pour in across the catchments.  The one about Perth may be right, but not because we run out of water, it's because we don't have daylight saving or shops open outside of business hours.  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## woodbe

> In March, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."  _In fact_, Adelaide's reservoirs are now 75 per cent full, just weeks from 2009.

  Tut tut. No proper reference, and therefore we are lost in time. 
Rather than spread more sceptic misinformation, it's worth looking at the facts. 
Flannery spoke those words in March 2008, while the drought and the lack of flow in the Murray was causing real panic among the crowd who administer such things as irrigation rights and making sure there is adequate domestic water for the population. Yes, it was a scary prediction. 
Talking about Adelaide's reservoirs as an indication of long term capacity is misinformation based on ignorance, and the reason it is misinformation is that those reservoirs are normally filled not by rainfall, but by pumping the Murray up there. Adelaide is dependant on the Murray. Period. If the Murray stops flowing, Adelaide is stuffed. 
The other bit of information about water that is conveniently ignored, not reported or made publicly obvious, is that in Adelaide, and probably many other places, domestic use is something around 10% of total consumption. Makes you think about those water restrictions, doesn't it? 
Proper management of Australia's water resource is the issue. Both sides of politics have repeatedly failed us on this, and we are now reliant on good luck with the seasons, and will shortly be reliant on a network of energy hogging desalination plants that (apart from Perth) would not be necessary if our governments had pulled their finger out 20 years ago when the warning bells started ringing. 
The reason we have water issues is because assumptions have been made that it is an inexhaustible resource in a time of climate change. We regularly drive through the Shepparton area - it's one of those irrigation areas that is served by open channels that have been proven to be some of the leakiest containers of water known to man - they have tested the losses, and about 50% is through the walls and floor of the channels and the other 50% is by evaporation. Big bucks is being spent in the region to 'fix' the losses, but wait for it, what they are doing is ignoring the evaporation issue - they are digging up the channels and lining them with a membrane to stop the seepage. So 100% of the losses will now be evaporation. The standard should be pipes, not open channels. 
Water is a serious issue for Australia, and the promise of billions of dollars to fix it has been a welcome sign that the depth of the problem is recognised in Canberra. The lack of visible effective long term action on the issue is very dissapointing. 
woodbe

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Tut tut. No proper reference, and therefore we are lost in time. 
> Rather than spread more sceptic misinformation, it's worth looking at the facts. 
> Flannery spoke those words in March 2008, while the drought and the lack of flow in the Murray was causing real panic among the crowd who administer such things as irrigation rights and making sure there is adequate domestic water for the population. Yes, it was a scary prediction. 
> Talking about Adelaide's reservoirs as an indication of long term capacity is misinformation based on ignorance, and the reason it is misinformation is that those reservoirs are normally filled not by rainfall, but by pumping the Murray up there. Adelaide is dependant on the Murray. Period. If the Murray stops flowing, Adelaide is stuffed. 
> The other bit of information about water that is conveniently ignored, not reported or made publicly obvious, is that in Adelaide, and probably many other places, domestic use is something around 10% of total consumption. Makes you think about those water restrictions, doesn't it? 
> Proper management of Australia's water resource is the issue. Both sides of politics have repeatedly failed us on this, and we are now reliant on good luck with the seasons, and will shortly be reliant on a network of energy hogging desalination plants that (apart from Perth) would not be necessary if our governments had pulled their finger out 20 years ago when the warning bells started ringing. 
> The reason we have water issues is because assumptions have been made that it is an inexhaustible resource in a time of climate change. We regularly drive through the Shepparton area - it's one of those irrigation areas that is served by open channels that have been proven to be some of the leakiest containers of water known to man - they have tested the losses, and about 50% is through the walls and floor of the channels and the other 50% is by evaporation. Big bucks is being spent in the region to 'fix' the losses, but wait for it, what they are doing is ignoring the evaporation issue - they are digging up the channels and lining them with a membrane to stop the seepage. So 100% of the losses will now be evaporation. The standard should be pipes, not open channels. 
> Water is a serious issue for Australia, and the promise of billions of dollars to fix it has been a welcome sign that the depth of the problem is recognised in Canberra. The lack of visible effective long term action on the issue is very dissapointing. 
> woodbe

  Yes it is an improtant issue but not because of Climate Change. Try bad practices like your open drains and increase in population growth, farming and industry, without an increase in storage facility. 
Dam the Mitchel.

----------


## woodbe

Climate change puts a strong focus on it because it has been mismanaged for such a long time. 
My little post was in response to some misinformation posted by one of the resident sceptics, it was not meant to be a pro-agw post per se. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Tut tut. No proper reference, and therefore we are lost in time. 
> Rather than spread more sceptic misinformation, it's worth looking at the facts. 
> Flannery spoke those words in March 2008, while the drought and the lack of flow in the Murray was causing real panic among the crowd who administer such things as irrigation rights and making sure there is adequate domestic water for the population. Yes, it was a scary prediction. 
> Talking about Adelaide's reservoirs as an indication of long term capacity is misinformation based on ignorance, and the reason it is misinformation is that those reservoirs are normally filled not by rainfall, but by pumping the Murray up there. Adelaide is dependant on the Murray. Period. If the Murray stops flowing, Adelaide is stuffed. 
> The other bit of information about water that is conveniently ignored, not reported or made publicly obvious, is that in Adelaide, and probably many other places, domestic use is something around 10% of total consumption. Makes you think about those water restrictions, doesn't it? 
> Proper management of Australia's water resource is the issue. Both sides of politics have repeatedly failed us on this, and we are now reliant on good luck with the seasons, and will shortly be reliant on a network of energy hogging desalination plants that (apart from Perth) would not be necessary if our governments had pulled their finger out 20 years ago when the warning bells started ringing. 
> The reason we have water issues is because assumptions have been made that it is an inexhaustible resource in a time of climate change. We regularly drive through the Shepparton area - it's one of those irrigation areas that is served by open channels that have been proven to be some of the leakiest containers of water known to man - they have tested the losses, and about 50% is through the walls and floor of the channels and the other 50% is by evaporation. Big bucks is being spent in the region to 'fix' the losses, but wait for it, what they are doing is ignoring the evaporation issue - they are digging up the channels and lining them with a membrane to stop the seepage. So 100% of the losses will now be evaporation. The standard should be pipes, not open channels. 
> Water is a serious issue for Australia, and the promise of billions of dollars to fix it has been a welcome sign that the depth of the problem is recognised in Canberra. The lack of visible effective long term action on the issue is very dissapointing. 
> woodbe

  Gee whiz, if only the IPCC were scrutinised this well, we wouldnt be in this mess.   No proper reference?- Mr Andrew Bolt is a very reputable and credible journalist in Australia, so if you are calling this reputable journalists work into question, then maybe you are best directing your criticism to these guys.   But to save you the hassle and also demonstrate Mr Bolts accuracy, Ill even post the source article, with no witty repartee about inadequate Google skills.   The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.   As for lost in time, apologies for not spelling it out but at the risk of sounding condescending, here goes.   The article was labelled and dated:   *Top 10 dud predictions*   Andrew Bolt December 19, 2008 12:00AM  With this in the text:   In March, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."   By writing in December 2008, that in March, Flannery said, with the prediction for early 2009, by convention of implication it is generally accepted that the reference was for March 2008.  For example, if I said to you that this AGW fiasco will be even more discredited by October, it is implicit that in the absence of a specified year, I am referring to 2010 (ie. this year), as opposed to 2072.  But as I said above, the source quote should clear all this up.  Apologies for not having the day and time, but perhaps you could get these from Tim.   As for misinformation: He said it; it was bogus; and even you admit it was a scary prediction.   If by misinformation you mean I omitted a detailed description of this great nations water infrastructure, then guilty as charged.  But if people are really interested in this, then theres nothing stopping them researching it themselves.  But really, this has nothing too with the point, which was Tim Flannery was involved in baseless scaremongering.  Apologies if this also sounds condescending, but I thought this point was obvious.   As for Adelaide not being supplied by rainfall, how does water get into the Murray Darling?  By your logic, no dams are filled by rainfall, but by above ground or below ground runoff.  Whether this dam delivery system is man made or erosion made, I think its a safe bet most of it came from the sky.  As for Adelaide being stuffed, I guess they will just evacuate the entire city (state?) rather than installing desal plants or a pipeline?   But I think our good friend Rod is onto something about population, farming practices and lack of dams.   You see, heres the rainfall for the Murray Darling area:     Found here, looks kinda steady to me.   And what happened to peoples use of this stable resource? 
Here's our population growth:     Found here, looks kinda rising to me.   Maybe if we stored more water than we used to, wed be OK?   Dams not an option in Labor food plan.   Uh oh, steady rainfall pattern, rising population, rising water usage, greenies anti-water storage policies...I wonder where how this story will end?  :Cry:    Lucky Rudd's on the ball.

----------


## Dr Freud

Hey, I think I figured out why we in Australia have not had an investigation into the dodgy science behind the whole AGW Theory debacle.  It may be that the Auditor General, the Senate Committees and the Federal Law Enforcement agencies are just suffering *sheer exhaustion* after all the investigations into Rudd's policy failures and mismanagement.  Here's just a sample:   GREG Combet has called in the Auditor-General to investigate the bungled $2.45 billion home insulation program.   THE $175 million green loans scheme was "hijacked" by opportunists, overseas call centres and companies that specialised in making homes environmentally friendly, leading to a raft of dubious assessments.   Investigations are already under way into the "manner and cause" of the explosion that killed at least three suspected asylum seekers on a boat off the northern coast of Australia, Northern Territory police say. "It will be a multi-jurisdictional investigation, it will entail resources from the Australian Federal Police ... "All the relevant agencies - immigration and Customs and the like - will have input."   Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has rejected demands from the Opposition that he ask the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to investigate a nightclub dispute involving Government MP Belinda Neal.  "My understanding of police investigations [is] if it's been undertaken by the New South Wales police that they [in] the process of their investigations discover a matter, automatically this flows to other police jurisdictions," he said.   "We already have the Auditor-General investigating Prime Minister Rudd's own office over the awarding of a lucrative government contract to another Rudd senior ministerial staffer," the Coalition's shadow special minister of state Michael Ronaldson said.   The government has ordered the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to investigate whether someone impersonated one of Mr Rudd's senior economic advisers, who's accused of emailing a Treasury official on behalf of Ipswich car dealer John Grant.   Not only does his government have to navigate its way delicately through the growing debate about China's steadily increasing commercial interest in Australia but also we now have the nearly unbelievable revelations that Australian spies have been spying on Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon, allegedly concerned about his connections to a wealthy Chinese businesswoman.   He said he had not spoken to Mr Fitzgibbon about the covert investigation, but smh.com.au understands the Prime Minister has spoken to the head of the Defence Department Nick Warner and the Defence Force chief Angus Houston.   Kevin Rudd has rejected Coalition allegations of impropriety and repeated that there has been no representations from him or his office regarding donor John Grant, in a press conference in Canberra this evening.  It follows a remarkable Senate inquiry this afternoon.  The Prime Minister has also requested that the Auditor-General conduct a full investigation by the end of July.   The Senate has agreed to the Coalition proposal for an inquiry into the difficulties small business continue to face in getting access to adequate and affordable finance.  The impact of the Governments bungled handling of the bank deposit guarantee on second-tier lenders is still being felt and has limited competition and choice for small business finance.   The Greens and minor parties have combined with the Opposition to delay a vote on the Government's $42 billion economic stimulus package by sending it to a Senate inquiry for scrutiny.   Union thuggery is set to escalate on worksites across the country if the Rudd Government doesnt listen to the advice it was given at a senate inquiry into the Building and Construction Industry today, Family First Leader Senator Steve Fielding said.   Senator Fiona Nash, Nationals Senator for NSW and Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate said the Senates Finance and Public Administration References Committee will inquire into the impact of native vegetation laws and legislated greenhouse gas abatement measures on landholders.  The inquiry will also examine the impact of the Rudd Governments proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the Coalitions Direct Action Plan on the Environment and Climate Change, Senator Nash said.   Following significant changes made to Perths air route structure last year, Western Australian Liberal Members and Senators have secured a full scale Senate Inquiry into the conduct of Airservices Australia and the Rudd Government.   Is Rudd's education revolution successful and will standards improve? Based on its record to date, the answer is "no". The cost of the computer program has blown out by millions, the Auditor-General is investigating the waste and mismanagement of the school infrastructure program and schools are losing their independence and being micro-managed by Canberra. 
Maybe we can call the carbon cops to investigate.  :Cop:

----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## woodbe

> Gee whiz, if only the IPCC were scrutinised this well, we wouldnt be in this mess.   No proper reference?- Mr Andrew Bolt is a very reputable and credible journalist in Australia, so if you are calling this reputable journalists work into question, then maybe you are best directing your criticism to these guys.

  Apologies doc. I didn't notice the reference buried in your text. It's there all right.  :Redface:     

> As for misinformation: He said it; it was bogus; and even you admit it was a scary prediction.
> [..]
> As for Adelaide not being supplied by rainfall, how does water get into the Murray Darling?  By your logic, no dams are filled by rainfall, but by above ground or below ground runoff.

  It was scary, but it was also a real concern at the time. It was not bogus.   Unlike the east coast, Adelaide does not have enough rainfall to supply it's own water needs, therefore it is reliant on water making it's way through the Murray/Darling. The Darling has been a non-issue for SA since the Menindee Lakes dried up early in the drought - only this year and after a lot of interstate argy-bargy has there been enough water in the Darling to let the Darling flow into SA. 
At the time, Flannery was voicing the concerns of the regulators. You might not like that, and with 20/20 hindsight and a couple of good rainy seasons in the Darling Catchment and some aggressive posturing from the SA Government clearly the concern has eased. 
Bolt, and you by quoting it, are engaged in a misinformation campaign. The concerns at the time were real, and justified. Concerns remain about water management that even you and Rod recognise.    

> You see, heres the rainfall for the Murray Darling area:

   
Nice pretty graph doc. It would be more relevant to graph the river flows into SA than rainfall. Australia has oodles of rainfall, it just isn't always where the population is. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

Well, well, well.  
Our resident sceptics 'haven't got the time' to do the research, and Anthony has been playing games about code and replication.   It's not looking good   

> Anthony: 
>  It has now been independenly confirmed, by multiple persons, that my  results regarding the impact of station dropout on global temperature  are correct.  Your claims, in your document with Joe DAleo for the  SPPI, are just plain wrong. 
>  Youve avoided answering this criticism, claiming that you cant  replicate my results without my code.  Yet several others managed to do  just that.  Its not that difficult, and you were irresponsible not to  investigate this issue before publishing your claims.  The posts by E.M.  Smith are so incoherent they resemble the ravings of a lunatic more  than the results of a qualified analyst.  Your only other response has  been to call me a coward for blogging under a pseudonym.  Thats nothing  but a desperate attempt of a scoundrel to deflect attention from his  own misdeeds. 
>  Furthermore, your use of false claims to accuse NOAA scientists of  deliberate deception was not just mistaken, it was unethical. 
>  If you have any honor at all, youll set the record straight.  You  owe it to everyone, and especially to NOAA, to admit that you were  wrong.  And you certainly owe it to NOAA to apologize.  You need to make  a highly visible, highly public admission of error, and apology, for  using falsehoods to accuse others of fraud. 
>  Are you man enough?

  woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.  Roadmap of the Climategate fiasco....The scientists lied:   *United States Senate Report-‘Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy*   http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-12b7df1a0b63    .      .

----------


## Allen James

.  .   

> I find that hard to believe, Doc. That's not a very realistic picture. The rain was falling in the wrong direction.
> The Doc must have been standing on his head when he originally posted this picture ............. 
> OK, if you ignore all the useless information posted in the picture, and use a little imagination you can almost believe that this is a picture of rain.

  . . .     .   .

----------


## Dr Freud

> Will we achieve this:  UNIVERSITY leaders are pressing for a public campaign to restore the intellectual and moral authority of Australian science in the wake of the climate wars.  Via this:  SCHOOL students will learn about Aboriginal Dreamtime stories, Chinese medicine and natural therapies but not meet the periodic table of elements until Year 10 under the new national science curriculum.   Maybe Rudd could teach kids what a causal relationship is rather than having political correctness supersede hard science?

  ABORIGINAL Dreamtime stories will be removed from the national science course on the orders of curriculum head Barry McGaw, who said religious and spiritual beliefs had no place in the science classroom.   Professor McGaw said schools were still free to teach the Dreamtime stories and belief systems such as intelligent design (and AGW Theory? :Wink: ) in other classes, such as religion.

----------


## Dr Freud

> .  Roadmap of the Climategate fiasco....The scientists lied:   *United States Senate Report-Consensus Exposed: The CRU Controversy*   http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7d b3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63   .

     *The document you requested can not be found or is undergoing routine maintenance.* 
                 If this is an application error, the system administrator has been notified by email. 
Just like the data underwent "routine maintenance"?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Apologies doc. I didn't notice the reference buried in your text. It's there all right.   It was scary, but it was also a real concern at the time. It was not bogus.   Unlike the east coast, Adelaide does not have enough rainfall to supply it's own water needs, therefore it is reliant on water making it's way through the Murray/Darling. The Darling has been a non-issue for SA since the Menindee Lakes dried up early in the drought - only this year and after a lot of interstate argy-bargy has there been enough water in the Darling to let the Darling flow into SA. 
> At the time, Flannery was voicing the concerns of the regulators. You might not like that, and with 20/20 hindsight and a couple of good rainy seasons in the Darling Catchment and some aggressive posturing from the SA Government clearly the concern has eased. 
> Bolt, and you by quoting it, are engaged in a misinformation campaign. The concerns at the time were real, and justified. Concerns remain about water management that even you and Rod recognise.     
> Nice pretty graph doc. It would be more relevant to graph the river flows into SA than rainfall. Australia has oodles of rainfall, it just isn't always where the population is. 
> woodbe.

  Two simple solutions, either move the population or move the water.   Your view, I've been reading notes about what you feel, you've actually said that you think 75% of Australia's available water is just lying idle.   Maybe we could use some of this money?   It is estimated that governments in Australia will spend at least $800 million this financial year on climate change research.   This might sound crazy, but what if we actually spent money on solutions, instead of researching theories?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## woodbe

> Just like the data underwent "routine maintenance"?

  Maybe it was based on Watt's unsubstantiated and provably incorrect claims of fraud? 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Two simple solutions, either move the population or move the water.

  It's simpler than that. Manage the water we already have properly and there wouldn't be a problem. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> It's simpler than that. Manage the water we already have properly and there wouldn't be a problem. 
> woodbe.

   Couldn't agree more. 
It's on the table, I'll get Kev to bump it up his priorities list.  :2thumbsup:    

> 

  Oops, I can't find him, others are looking too.   Will the real Kevin Rudd please stand up?

----------


## Dr Freud

The Conservative Leadership Foundation has launched a campaign to recognise and celebrate Human Achievement Hour.   During Human Achievement Hour, people around the world will be recognising the incredible accomplishments of the human race.   Originally conceived by the Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2009, Human Achievement Hour coincides with the earth hour campaign but salutes those who keep the lights on and produce the energy that makes human achievement possible.   Millions of people around the world will be showing their support for human achievement by simply going about their daily lives.   While earth hour activists will be left in the dark, Human Achievement Hour participants will be going to the cinema, enjoying a hot meal, driving their car or watching television.  Or surfing the Renovate Forum's website!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Maybe it was based on Watt's unsubstantiated and provably incorrect claims of fraud? 
> woodbe.

  I have already covered the issue of what I refer to as "fruit loops" which includes things such as rhetoric from: 
Monckton on conspiracies;
Gore on oceans;
Rudd on baby killers;
and now Watts on fraud. 
These fruit loop claims from all sides of the argument just obfuscates the facts, which is what we should actually be looking at.  It is well known that in many scientific areas, data becomes skewed through both intentional and unintentional mechanisms, but even if the skewed data has some plausible or methodological rationale, it is still drawing a long bow to call it fraud.  But you can take this up with Mr Watts directly as to his terminology, I would call it "spurious", or in layman's terms, "dodgy". 
But rest assurred, if evidence of systemic manipulation of data is found, then it is fraud, particularly given the funding being allocated on these results. 
But aside from Mr Watts' fraud claims, his analysis of data mismanagement is entirely valid.  If you still dismiss all of his work based on one of his spurious claims, then perhaps you will accept Dr Phil Jones' testimony to the UK parliamentary investigation into climate science and data manipulation.    

> Commons committee tiptoed round embattled scientist and sidestepped crucial questions.   But still heard this:   Jones's general defence was that anything people didn't like  the strong-arm tactics to silence critics, the cold-shouldering of freedom of information requests, the economy with data sharing  were all "standard practice" among climate scientists. "Maybe it should be, but it's not."   And he seemed to be right. The most startling observation came when he was asked how often scientists reviewing his papers for probity before publication asked to see details of his raw data, methodology and computer codes. "They've never asked," he said.   But for the first time he did concede publicly that when he tried to repeat the 1990 study in 2008, he came up with radically different findings. Or, as he put it, "a slightly different conclusion". Fully 40% of warming there in the past 60 years was due to urban influences. "It's something we need to consider," he said.

    This incorrect calculation has fed into data manipulation conducted in contemporary climate science.  Once a thorough assessment is made of all this, then we hopefully will be able to determine a more accurate assessment of contemporary climate, and whether the changes are "catastrophic" or not, and whether the manipulation was "fraud" or not.

----------


## woodbe

> The Conservative Leadership Foundation has launched a campaign to recognise and celebrate Human Achievement Hour.

   
Sad really. 
The CLP hasn't worked out that when it's dark where they are, the other side of the world is in daylight.   

> With a proven legacy  of success, the CLF is the                best and most unique political training school in Canada.

  A Political Trailing School. Figures, I guess, but I would have guessed the deep south.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> But aside from Mr Watts' fraud claims, his analysis of data mismanagement is entirely valid.

  Not according to Tamino. Did you 'have time' to research this, or are you just copy/pasting it again? 
Multiple issues of Watts' errors and loony claims have been aired here, but apparently no-one 'has time' to check to see if the claims are correct, but amazingly, they find plenty of time to keep posting masses of misinformation. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. . .     

> *The document you requested can not be found or is undergoing routine maintenance.*  If this is an application error, the system administrator has been notified by email.  Just like the data underwent "routine maintenance"?

  Apologies Dr. Freud – I think this link will work:  . Roadmap of the Climategate fiasco....The scientists lied:   *United States Senate Report-‘Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy*   .  http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-12b7df1a0b63   . . . .

----------


## Dr Freud

> Not according to Tamino. Did you 'have time' to research this, or are you just copy/pasting it again? 
> Multiple issues of Watts' errors and loony claims have been aired here, but apparently no-one 'has time' to check to see if the claims are correct, but amazingly, they find plenty of time to keep posting masses of misinformation. 
> woodbe.

  Asked and answered your honour.   

> Geez, 111 pages, then the claims and counter claims...an hour of my life I''ll never get back.  But the facts remain unchanged, land based temperature records are very inaccurate, and it is great that scientists are finally critical of this. 
> In a nutshell, as I have said numerous times, the data cannot be trusted and Watts has done a great job in collating and highlighting many of the inconsistencies in this data.  The spurious rebuttals above do nothing to address his legitimate methodological questions of the compilation of data sets. 
> But then, picking some semantic side track and arguing this rather the lack of valid science is all too familiar from AGW Theory proponents.  I notice Ladbury at no stage defends the validity of data measuring and manipulation, which is the main point of the entire paper, but finds a few sidetracks, that while statistically are correct, are a hand picked subset of data.  But to level this claim only at Watts, given the other information in his paper is laughable.  
> But I will cover the data sets in more detail later, gotta try to get caught up...

   

> Did you actually read the original report.   
> No doubt there was some hand picked data in there, but the New Zealand, Australian, China, USA, and Pacific data records had nothing to do with CET.  Which in any event was accurate, just hand picked, or "cherry picked" as you prefer.  I wonder if the IPCC scientists would ever try to hand pick data to fit their argument?  Of course not!   
> But the point you guys continually miss, is that this debate is what should have happened before the scare campaign started.  The fact that it is happening now is great.  Watts should be held to account, as should all scientists asserting their viewpoint, but particularly those with their grubby paws in taxpayers pockets.   
> You also do not disagree with Watts' criticisms of standardised UHI data transformation, and the whole temperature data grid argument is a scientific can of worms in it's own right.  And the pictures are pretty, I might post some once I get caught up, because a picture is worth a thousand words.

  Watts' claims were based primarily on two premises: first, that the sample size from which data was collected had been altered without regard to the statistical integrity of the data set, or any necessary power adjustments required in interpretation of the new data sets based on reduced sample sizes, and second, that post-hoc data manipulation had resulted in many "transformed" data sets showing an apparent exacerbation of warming trends. 
As you rightly point out, Watts does cast aspersions based on his findings, which may or may not be justified, but history can judge this more accurately than we can.  Suffice to say, I would only go so far as to agree with his statistical interpretations, which are valid, but leave the casting of aspersions to others.   Even Tamino to his credit concedes these same points about his own work:   These averages cannot be considered as high quality as the data produced by GISS or HadCRU, for many reasons. For one thing, my grids are large so the gridding is much more coarse. For another thing, Ive just taken the GHCN raw data _as is_, I havent checked for discontinuities or outliers, and I havent applied any adjustments. Some adjustments accentuate a warming trend (like time-of-observation bias) while others reduce it (like UHI adjustments), but denialists generally criticize all adjustments roundly, and one of my purposes is to see what you get without any.   But rather than agree with Taminos description of but denialists generally criticize all adjustments roundly, I would suggest that statisticians criticise all adjustments that are not fully disclosed, including assumptions on which they based, and full publication of both data sets, pre-transformation and post-transformation.  This is increasingly occurring as I have alluded to above which is great.   But again, it is great that these guys are now arguing over this, as this is what should have happened from the start, rather than a baseless scaremongering political campaign.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

An interesting report in today's paper:  *IT IS an ''increasingly remote possibility'' that human activity is not the main cause of climate change, concludes a review of more than 100 scientific studies that have tracked observed changes in the Earth's climate system.*  *The research will strengthen the case for human-induced climate change against the viewpoints of sceptics who argue the observed changes in the Earth's climate can largely be explained by natural variability.*  *(...)*  *If the observed climate change were entirely due to solar activity, the Earth's atmosphere would have warmed more evenly, and the troposphere and stratosphere would have been affected.* GUARDIAN(From: Climate change review stresses human factor )

----------


## Dr Freud

> But rather than agree with Taminos description of but denialists generally criticize all adjustments roundly, I would suggest that statisticians criticise all adjustments that are not fully disclosed, including assumptions on which they based, and full publication of both data sets, pre-transformation and post-transformation.  This is increasingly occurring as I have alluded to above which is great.   But again, it is great that these guys are now arguing over this, as this is what should have happened from the start, rather than a baseless scaremongering political campaign.

  By way of example, the process of altering the data set began long before 1992 as agreed upon by both Watts and Tamino, yet here we are in 2010 just starting to analyse if these data set changes have had any significant effects on the data trends and output.   After assuming everything was alright for about 20 years.   It has been suggested that the large reduction of reporting stations which culminated in 1992, preferentially retained urban stations, which is simply false. Its also been suggested that it preferentially retained warm stations and that this has introduced an artificial warming trend, which is nonsense. But lets see how the stations which were retained compare to those which were not. Hence Ive also computed, for each grid, separate time series using only those stations which dropped out by 1992 (when the station dropout was pretty much complete), and using only those which continued reporting after that.  It is telling that Watts and Tamino are calculating these effects now, after how many IPCC reports just "assumed" everything was alright?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> . .   Apologies Dr. Freud  I think this link will work:  . Roadmap of the Climategate fiasco....The scientists lied:   *United States Senate Report-Consensus Exposed: The CRU Controversy*   .  http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-12b7df1a0b63   . . . .

  Thanks champ, I was worried it was my technical ineptitude, but I've got it now. 
I think I'll open a few ice cold beers and settle in to this little gem.  :Cheers2:

----------


## woodbe

> It is telling that Watts and Tamino are calculating these effects now, after how many IPCC reports just "assumed" everything was alright?

  Misinformation. This is not about IPCC, it's about NOAA and the GHCN temperature data. 
What is at issue is a full scale accusation of fraud raised by Watts that has not been backed up by any reasonable verification. There is an assumption of fraud on his part if anything.  
Remember that the accusation was that the NOAA dropped stations deliberately to warm the temperature record. NOAA denies this, always has, and it seems that third parties are coming up with confirmation from public data that backs up the NOAA position. 
Watts' credibility is on the line. His methods have been shown to be suspect, and his premise incorrect. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

Apologies for intruding into your post, but the beers are affecting my judgement.  :Tongue:    

> Misinformation. This is not about IPCC, it's about NOAA and the GHCN temperature data. 
> My friend, this is not misinformation, I was merely crediting people with the intelligence to join the dots.  I was mistaken and will now reverse that transaction.  You may recall that it is ridiculous (although attempted) to deny the fact that fresh water in Adelaide comes from the sky: 
> Rain...runoff...rivers...dams...pipelines...Adelai  de. 
> Similarly, it is ridiculous to separate the IPCC from the data sets underpinning its findings: 
> Temp station...data...study...IPCC...policy report...RUDD's big new tax.   This is tiresome and hopefully adequate, so let's move on. 
> What is at issue is a full scale accusation of fraud raised by Watts that has not been backed up by any reasonable verification. There is an assumption of fraud on his part if anything.   You think the issue is one guy calling some other guys frauds because they DID violate statistical principles, yet have no issues with our country's entire economic structure being jeopardised on an unfounded theory?   
> Remember that the accusation was that the NOAA dropped stations deliberately to warm the temperature record. NOAA denies this, always has, and it seems that third parties are coming up with confirmation from public data that backs up the NOAA position. 
> Again, as has been agreed upon by both Watts and Tamino, these stations were dropped (and lots of them), thereby creating a variety of spurious data sets that are NOT statistically comparable for too many reasons to list here, and the dropping of these stations was NOT done in accordance with statistically valid methods.  Therefore, the data comparisons cannot be relied upon until statistical rigour is returned to the data (if this is even possible, and the UK Bureau of Meteorology does not think it is).   
> Watts has accused certain individuals of systemic selection when removing stations (ie, fraud) and if an investigation ensues, these individuals will either be declared ignorant of known scientific practices, or guilty of fraud if they did deliberately know and avoid those principles.  Whether the data set ultimately shows increased warming, cooling or stagnation is irrelevant to the intention of the people removing the stations.  But this is a legal argument, not a scientific one.  There is nothing wrong with Watts making the accusation, if he trundles off to the auditor's with his evidence, this can be investigated.  Until then, his accusations are what is known as unsubstantiated.  
> ...

  Seriously dude, as we've already covered here, attacking tooth fairies does your cause a disservice.  Regardless of what people say about AGW Theory and whether that is based in science or not is literally irrelevant.  Science stands on its own and does not shirk from criticism or innuendo.  The problem with this theory is it's lack of scientific rigour, which leaves its protagonists little to no support in defending it.  Hence the tendency to instead attack its critics.

----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## woodbe

> Apologies for intruding into your post, but the beers are affecting my judgement.  
> Seriously dude, as we've already covered here, attacking tooth fairies does your cause a disservice.  Regardless of what people say about AGW Theory and whether that is based in science or not is literally irrelevant.  Science stands on its own and does not shirk from criticism or innuendo.  The problem with this theory is it's lack of scientific rigour, which leaves its protagonists little to no support in defending it.  Hence the tendency to instead attack its critics.

  Again, you miss the point.    

> Again, as has been agreed upon by both Watts and  Tamino, these stations were dropped (and lots of them), *thereby creating  a variety of spurious data sets that are NOT statistically comparable  for too many reasons to list here, and the dropping of these stations  was NOT done in accordance with statistically valid methods.*

  More misinformation. 
That is the issue doc. Tamino and others have demonstrated that the station dropouts do not effect the trends and are statistically relevant. The stations were also dropped for valid statistical reasons. 
I don't think you will find much that Tamino and Watts agree on despite your spin that they are in agreement on something. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.    

> And if your an over achiever, like me. You'll be trolling the Renovation Forum whilst skulling copious amounts of BEER............

     .  .
.

----------


## woodbe

> At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists, representatives of Britain’s weather office quietly proposed that the world’s climatologists start all over again to produce a new trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and “rigorous” peer review. 
>   After the firestorm of criticism called Climate-gate, the British government’s official Meteorological Office apparently has decided to wave a white flag and surrender.  
>   The new effort, the proposal says, would provide: 
>   –”verifiable datasets starting from a common databank of unrestricted data” 
> –”methods that are fully documented in the peer reviewed literature and open to scrutiny;” 
> –”a set of independent assessments of surface temperature produced by independent groups using independent methods,” 
> –”comprehensive audit trails to deliver confidence in the results;” 
> –”robust assessment of uncertainties associated with observational error, temporal and geographical in homogeneities.” 
> I guess these standards were missing in the old effort.

  Funny that you get such a different view than the very people who suggested the new dataset:   

> *Q217                                                Chairman:* Could  I move on to Professor Slingo: on 24 February the Met Office issued a  statement calling for a programme to deliver a new global temperature  dataset, and you used the words "to augment current datasets, to refine  current datasets and to follow on from the pioneering work of the  University of East Anglia."  Have you lost confidence in the existing  datasets?  *Professor Slingo:*  Not at all, no.  *Q218                                                Chairman:* So  why are you calling for that to be done?  *Professor Slingo:*  What we are actually proposing is a new assessment which looks at much  higher temporal resolution data, so in particular, if you think the CRU  dataset looks just at monthly means, which is very helpful if you are  interested in the global warming trend, the average changes in our  climate, but what is very clear now is that we need to know much more  than that; we need to know about extremes, we need to know about heat  waves, daily extremes of temperature, the sorts of things we had in  2003, and whether those are changing as well.  Many of the impacts of  climate change will be felt through changes in extremes, probably more  so than even just the average trend of global warming.  What we have  proposed as an international initiative under the World Meteorological  Organisation is to create a new dataset that looks at daily or even  sub-daily temperature, and following on from temperature then to do  rainfall and other key climate variables that impact on society,  ecosystems, biodiversity, and so forth.  This was a really important  initiative, one that actually we had been thinking about for some  considerable time.  We had an opportunity to present it to the  Commission for Climatology, which is the appropriate body in the WMO.   They meet every four years.  It so happened that they were meeting this  year in Turkey and we decided in discussion both with CRU and many  international scientists that we should push ahead with this because we  feel it is badly needed.  *Q219                                                Chairman:* In  your submission to the Committee you say that there are numerous studies  that have tested the robustness of surface temperature records but we  have received, and our stuff is now published, many submissions with  contrary views.  Why is there this confusion?  Is that just normal  scientists taking different views?  The data is all there.  *Professor Slingo:*  Yes, as we have shown since we have released the data.  The robustness  of the temperature record, independent of how many stations you have, is  not what our initiative is about at all.  *Q220                                                Chairman:* No.   The accusation is that some of the Earth-based datasets are being taken  in places – which was why Dr Stringer’s comments earlier were so  pertinent, that if they are taken in places where there are, if you  like, other things happening, for instance, next to urban facilities  that generate heat, they are massively distorted.  Is that not the  reason that people do not believe the integrity of where the sensors are  has been fully published?  *Professor Slingo:*  That is a very important point, and one of the major parts of the work,  indeed, that was done at UEA over two or three decades is that whole  issue of where the station is.  Has it moved?  Has its environment  changed?  We have looked extensively at issues around urbanisation,  particularly related to the Chinese stations, and actually a lot of  research has been done, it has been published, and we have shown that  the estimated contamination of the global temperature record by  urbanisation is approximately three per cent of the measured warming  signal for the 20th century, in other words, 0.02 degrees C.  That is  all looked at in great detail and that is why creating a global  temperature record is a very complex issue because you must take account  of all those sorts of complexities around the observations and how you  construct the mean temperature record.  *Q221                                                Chairman:* There  appears to be a difference – how significant it is you will tell us –  between the surface temperature data and the satellite observation data,  which seems to tell us different things.  How do you explain that? *
>                                          Professor Slingo:*  In fact, the satellite temperature data do not tell us different things.   At the very beginning there were issues to do with…  Let us remember,  first of all, a satellite does not observe temperature; it observes the  radiation that the planet emits, and you need a model to---  *Q222                                                Chairman:* We  extrapolate the temperatures from that.  *Professor Slingo:*  Yes, so we have a model that interprets the radiation that is emitted in  terms of the temperature for a block of the atmosphere.  The initial  issues around that related to drift in the satellite orbits and also  that you have to know the temperature of the body of the instrument to  make sure that what you observe as the radiation being emitted by the  planet is not being contaminated by that.  This comes back to John’s  comments about when you release data.  If you release it too early,  before these sorts of checks are done by the scientists, you end up with  people then doing more work on data that are not robust.  What was  shown at a later stage was, once those corrections were applied, there  is a very robust signal in the satellite data of tropospheric warming.  I  would also say that the level of uncertainty in the satellite data is  an order of magnitude larger than for the surface-based observations  because they are not direct measurements of temperature.  *Professor Watson:*  In addition, as Julia has already said, one attempts to take out the  heat island effect but there is also the ocean temperature, the marine  air temperature, the sea surface temperature, and the sub-sea surface  temperature.  There is balloon data as well.  So even if you were to say  a small percentage of the over 5,000 temperature land-based records  have a small urban heat island effect which they take into account, you  still have this other huge wealth of information that supports the  picture that the Earth is warming.  What has also been said by Julia  about this new programme is incredibly important because it is not just  monthly means we care about; it is whether there are more heat waves,  extreme weather events.  Theory would suggest that, as the planet warms,  you would see a shift both in the mean temperature and a spread in the  variance but that combination should give us far more extreme weather  events, the type of event we saw in the summer of 2003.  So analysing  the data record to see not only what has happened to mean monthly  temperatures is important but also whether there has been a change in  extremes is another very valuable piece of information.  *Professor Beddington:*  Professor Slingo did not make the point explicitly but I think I  should, that this initiative by the Met Office was not in reaction to  anything to do with the University of East Anglia and the emails.  This  has been planned for some time.

  House of Commons, Minutes of evidence The Disclosure of Climate Data from the CRU UEA, March 1 2010.  
Edit: Copyright info for Headpin  :Smilie:   

> © Parliamentary copyright All Parliamentary copyrights are reserved. The material  listed may be reproduced without formal permission for the purposes of  non-commercial research, private study and for criticism, review and  news reporting provided that the material is appropriately attributed.

   
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

..   

> http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/2/10/128787780582823639.png

  . .   . . ..

----------


## Dr Freud

*KEVIN Rudd and Nicola Roxon have swung the election year decisively to Labor's terrain of health and hospitals with a reform blueprint that is risky, complex and a huge change in power within Australia's system of government. *  It is Rudd's big political play to compensate for the reversal in climate change politics.   Farewell emissions trading scheme, welcome health as Labor's new saviour.   Gentlemen, you have served your cause with valour, but your leadership has abandoned you in the trenches.   :Damn:     Its over.   :Cry:     We will honour a ceasefire while you collect your casualties and sound a hasty retreat.  :Thumbup:       Fare thee well comrades, lest you end up like these committed souls.  :No:

----------


## Allen James

.  .  

> your never going to beat me in a p#####g contest........................cause I drink far too much Beer.

  . .   . . .

----------


## Allen James

.  .   

> I'm above average

  .   . . .

----------


## woodbe

Ha HA Ha LOL 
I was reading the cartoons here today, and one of the links at the bottom of the page caught my attention.   
When I clicked on it, it took me to the famous Watts blog and this little entry:   
This is better than any cartoon  :2thumbsup:  
Seems like our Rod actually had some time after all. 
BTW, I can give you an opinion if you like Rod: Watts should HTFU and answer Tamino. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Ha HA Ha LOL 
> I was reading the cartoons here today, and one of the links at the bottom of the page caught my attention.   
> When I clicked on it, it took me to the famous Watts blog and this little entry:   
> This is better than any cartoon  
> Seems like our Rod actually had some time after all. 
> BTW, I can give you an opinion if you like Rod: Watts should HTFU and answer Tamino. 
> woodbe.

  ... and if you click on the 'Tennex' link, you will be lead to an interesting site about.... How to plaster, plastering tips, plastering cracks, holes,  
A take on the old "bear joke" come to mind: *You're not here for the Science, are you Rod?*  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

We missed this in January, but no matter, there has been plenty to talk about.  Climate Science Update - UCSUSA (PDF) 
A couple of the diagrams from the report might whet your appetite to read the paper:      
Despite all the noise, the evidence of AGW continues to stack up, but fear not, there will always be disagreement because the evidence is never enough for some to change their world view. As we have seen, they latch on to and feed from sceptic sites run by people who are not scientists, and who do not appear to understand nor carry out research based on scientific principles, and are are either strangely silent when exposed or throw lots of irrelevant mud hoping some will stick and dissuade ongoing inspection of their dodgy information. 
woodbe.

----------


## autogenous

The whole Eastern seaboard must be hopin for a little less rain and some hail this year..  :Biggrin:  
Europe is probably wishing for a bit less snow too..  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> Despite all the noise, the evidence of AGW continues to stack up, but fear not, there will always be disagreement because the evidence is never enough for some to change their world view. As we have seen, they latch on to and feed from sceptic sites run by people who are not scientists, and who do not appear to understand nor carry out research based on scientific principles, and are are either strangely silent when exposed or throw lots of irrelevant mud hoping some will stick and dissuade ongoing inspection of their dodgy information.

  woodbe, 
I have long been convinced that _the_ - and _this_ - debate isn't anything to do with the science of global warming.  The science is quite clear for all, and any, to read.  There is very, very little doubt that: the earth is warming; that CO2 is a major contributor; and that the increase in CO2 is due to human activity. 
However, the debate is _political_ but is being masqueraded as a scientific debate when it isn't a scientific debate at all. 
It also seems to me to be a 'numbers' game.  It seems to me that the anti-AGW brigade is trying to use 'numbers' in a vain attempt to somehow overcome the science.  I suppose it is a false form of cause-and-effect by claiming that there are: (number) papers against the AGW theory, regardless of scientific worth; (number) people/posts against the AGW theory.   
For example, in this very thread we seem to get a barrage of anti-AGW one after the other that aren't in response to any post seemly just to make up the 'numbers'.  It seems to me that it might be some simplistic reasoning or argument that if there are a 100 posts for and a 100 posts against, then the truth must be in the middle - never mind the science! 
This is an interesting thread in the sense that it is a great illustration to human behaviour in the face of difficult to understand and difficult to accept facts.  Denial emotion runs very strongly.  I wonder how long it will be until wide 'acceptance' happens and the present day deniers themselves wonder what all the doubt and uncertainty was about. 
It is very unfortunate that such a important and widely recognised issue has been turned in the a political, vote scoring, issue in Australia.

----------


## Dr Freud

Alas no, there won't be Nobel peace? prizes issued today.  Always wondered why the IPCC didn't get one in the scientific categories, like physics? But that for another day.   

> We missed this in January, but no matter, there has been plenty to talk about.  Climate Science Update - UCSUSA (PDF) 
> A couple of the diagrams from the report might whet your appetite to read the paper:      
> Despite all the noise, the evidence of AGW continues to stack up, but fear not, there will always be disagreement because the evidence is never enough for some to change their world view. As we have seen, they latch on to and feed from sceptic sites run by people who are not scientists, and who do not appear to understand nor carry out research based on scientific principles, and are are either strangely silent when exposed or throw lots of irrelevant mud hoping some will stick and dissuade ongoing inspection of their dodgy information. 
> woodbe.

  We didn't miss anything champ.  This window dressing is based on information already well represented in this thread, which includes our "adjusted" data, similar to that of our good friends Dr Phil Jones and Dr Michael Mann.  What they show is a bivariate correlation of about +.7.  Next time you time you chat to a mathematician, ask them what this means in a multivariate environment.  Don't tell them it is chaotic or they will laugh at you, let them assume you mean it is controlled.  :Biggrin:  
As for the "cherry picking" claims in laugh 2, oops, graph 2, 50 years of data huh?  How old is the planet again?  Unless you are like the Joho's who I talk to occasionally who try to convince me the planet in 6000 years old, are you claiming this is a representative sample of climate history?  50 is sooooo much better than 10, out of 4.5 billion.  :Doh:  I freely admitted Watts "cherry picked" data after your outraged outbursts, as do many people, so perhaps you will level these same criticisms at this window dressing you have posted?  A quick recap may help those who came in late:   

> Hi Rod, 
> By all accounts your plastering is flawless, as is your logic.  I concur with your sentiments, and look forward to the emotional outbursts and prophesies of the end of the world.  But first, allow me to provide some context.  Best scientific estimates indicate the planet (Earth) is about 4.5 billion years old (p.s. there was no moon or water then, these arrived a few billion years later). 
> I know it hurts, but please keep reading.  Us humans arrived about 2 million years ago.  Then after lots of banging rocks together, we invented something called a thermometer about 150 years ago.  We now have about 100 years of very inaccurate surface temperature data, and a few decades of fairly accurate satellite data (on a planet that's been here 4.5 billion years)  
> We have made very inaccurate guesses as far back as we can about the climate before we got here.  We call this proxy data in the scientific community (rhymes with poxy)
> Here it is: 
> Geological Era---------Million Years Ago----------Carbon Dioxide ppm-----------Av Global Temperature 0C 
>            Cambrian------------550-------------------------------------6,000----------------------23
> Ordovician-----------470-------------------------------------4,200----------------------23  12
> Silurian---------------430--------------------------------------3,500---------------------17 - 23
> ...

  Or in pics if you prefer:    But hey, if you've got your heart set on this evidence, please email the Ruddster, cos looks like he's lost that loving feeling. :Secret:    

> *KEVIN Rudd and Nicola Roxon have swung the election year decisively to Labor's terrain of health and hospitals with a reform blueprint that is risky, complex and a huge change in power within Australia's system of government. *  It is Rudd's big political play to compensate for the reversal in climate change politics.   Farewell emissions trading scheme, welcome health as Labor's new saviour.   Gentlemen, you have served your cause with valour, but your leadership has abandoned you in the trenches.      Its over.

     Now it's gone, gone, gone...whaoo, whaoo, whao.  This too is a political rather than policy fix. It takes the pressure off the government over the failure of what was the emissions trading scheme shambles.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Hey, I think I figured out why we in Australia have not had an investigation into the dodgy science behind the whole AGW Theory debacle.  It may be that the Auditor General, the Senate Committees and the Federal Law Enforcement agencies are just suffering *sheer exhaustion* after all the investigations into Rudd's policy failures and mismanagement.  Here's just a sample:   GREG Combet has called in the Auditor-General to investigate the bungled $2.45 billion home insulation program.   THE $175 million green loans scheme was "hijacked" by opportunists, overseas call centres and companies that specialised in making homes environmentally friendly, leading to a raft of dubious assessments.   Investigations are already under way into the "manner and cause" of the explosion that killed at least three suspected asylum seekers on a boat off the northern coast of Australia, Northern Territory police say. "It will be a multi-jurisdictional investigation, it will entail resources from the Australian Federal Police ... "All the relevant agencies - immigration and Customs and the like - will have input."   Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has rejected demands from the Opposition that he ask the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to investigate a nightclub dispute involving Government MP Belinda Neal.  "My understanding of police investigations [is] if it's been undertaken by the New South Wales police that they [in] the process of their investigations discover a matter, automatically this flows to other police jurisdictions," he said.   "We already have the Auditor-General investigating Prime Minister Rudd's own office over the awarding of a lucrative government contract to another Rudd senior ministerial staffer," the Coalition's shadow special minister of state Michael Ronaldson said.   The government has ordered the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to investigate whether someone impersonated one of Mr Rudd's senior economic advisers, who's accused of emailing a Treasury official on behalf of Ipswich car dealer John Grant.   Not only does his government have to navigate its way delicately through the growing debate about China's steadily increasing commercial interest in Australia but also we now have the nearly unbelievable revelations that Australian spies have been spying on Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon, allegedly concerned about his connections to a wealthy Chinese businesswoman.   He said he had not spoken to Mr Fitzgibbon about the covert investigation, but smh.com.au understands the Prime Minister has spoken to the head of the Defence Department Nick Warner and the Defence Force chief Angus Houston.   Kevin Rudd has rejected Coalition allegations of impropriety and repeated that there has been no representations from him or his office regarding donor John Grant, in a press conference in Canberra this evening.  It follows a remarkable Senate inquiry this afternoon.  The Prime Minister has also requested that the Auditor-General conduct a full investigation by the end of July.   The Senate has agreed to the Coalition proposal for an inquiry into the difficulties small business continue to face in getting access to adequate and affordable finance.  The impact of the Governments bungled handling of the bank deposit guarantee on second-tier lenders is still being felt and has limited competition and choice for small business finance.   The Greens and minor parties have combined with the Opposition to delay a vote on the Government's $42 billion economic stimulus package by sending it to a Senate inquiry for scrutiny.   Union thuggery is set to escalate on worksites across the country if the Rudd Government doesnt listen to the advice it was given at a senate inquiry into the Building and Construction Industry today, Family First Leader Senator Steve Fielding said.   Senator Fiona Nash, Nationals Senator for NSW and Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate said the Senates Finance and Public Administration References Committee will inquire into the impact of native vegetation laws and legislated greenhouse gas abatement measures on landholders.  The inquiry will also examine the impact of the Rudd Governments proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the Coalitions Direct Action Plan on the Environment and Climate Change, Senator Nash said.   Following significant changes made to Perths air route structure last year, Western Australian Liberal Members and Senators have secured a full scale Senate Inquiry into the conduct of Airservices Australia and the Rudd Government.   Is Rudd's education revolution successful and will standards improve? Based on its record to date, the answer is "no". The cost of the computer program has blown out by millions, the Auditor-General is investigating the waste and mismanagement of the school infrastructure program and schools are losing their independence and being micro-managed by Canberra. 
> Maybe we can call the carbon cops to investigate.

  Even after all this, there's more investigations to be made.  We'll never get the duly required full investigations into this ETS fiasco at this rate.   KEVIN RUDD insisted on closely supervising the management of the home-insulation program as far back as October, says a letter from the Prime Minister signing off on proposals by the environment minister, Peter Garrett.   And:       At Stuarts Point Public School, a $931,000 library has been chocked using bricks and wood, which parents consider to be a safety issue.   (Nice work if you can get it  :2thumbsup: ).   Ive been emailing senators to ask them to put these other frivolous investigations of Rudds mismanagement on hold, and to focus on the $114 billion looming ETS disaster.  Maybe they could retain the safety issue ones though?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Ha HA Ha LOL 
> I was reading the cartoons here today, and one of the links at the bottom of the page caught my attention.   
> When I clicked on it, it took me to the famous Watts blog and this little entry:   
> This is better than any cartoon  
> Seems like our Rod actually had some time after all. 
> BTW, I can give you an opinion if you like Rod: Watts should HTFU and answer Tamino. 
> woodbe.

   

> ... and if you click on the 'Tennex' link, you will be lead to an interesting site about.... How to plaster, plastering tips, plastering cracks, holes,  
> A take on the old "bear joke" come to mind: *You're not here for the Science, are you Rod?*

  What is that about religious ideologies that closes peoples minds to learning? 
I will let our good friend Rod speak for himself, but whether it was him or someone else seeking more information on this subject, that should be encouraged, not made light of. 
I have even referred people on this thread to the Realclimate website for more information  :Eek: .  This is so that they start learning more about this subject from anywhere, rather than blindly following this faith, based on authority figures. 
But I am slowly realising that trying to explain that science is an open minded, mistake filled,  continual learning journey into the unknown that is fun, creative and beneficial to humans is being lost on faith based dogmatism driven by fear mongering and personal attacks.   :Flog Deadhorse:

----------


## Dr Freud

> woodbe, 
> I have long been convinced that _the_ - and _this_ - debate isn't anything to do with the science of global warming.  The science is quite clear for all, and any, to read.  There is very, very little doubt that: the earth is warming; that CO2 is a major contributor; and that the increase in CO2 is due to human activity. 
> However, the debate is _political_ but is being masqueraded as a scientific debate when it isn't a scientific debate at all. 
> It also seems to me to be a 'numbers' game.  It seems to me that the anti-AGW brigade is trying to use 'numbers' in a vain attempt to somehow overcome the science.  I suppose it is a false form of cause-and-effect by claiming that there are: (number) papers against the AGW theory, regardless of scientific worth; (number) people/posts against the AGW theory.   
> For example, in this very thread we seem to get a barrage of anti-AGW one after the other that aren't in response to any post seemly just to make up the 'numbers'.  It seems to me that it might be some simplistic reasoning or argument that if there are a 100 posts for and a 100 posts against, then the truth must be in the middle - never mind the science!  *This is an interesting thread in the sense that it is a great illustration to human behaviour in the face of difficult to understand and difficult to accept facts.  Denial emotion runs very strongly.  I wonder how long it will be until wide 'acceptance' happens and the present day deniers themselves wonder what all the doubt and uncertainty was about.* 
> It is very unfortunate that such a important and widely recognised issue has been turned in the a political, vote scoring, issue in Australia.

  In accordance with my last post, what does or does not constitute a fact has been clearly discussed previously and duly ignored as it is discordant with the faith.  Similarly, the "numbers" that you refer to are facts, as opposed to the "theory" that you suggest we all just believe in.  But to answer your query as to how long until acceptance happens, this took a few thousand years:    As to deniers being converted, history also gives us some clues:   To maintain its authority, the Church suppressed heretics. The Church had a very specific definition of heresy: A heretic publicly declared his beliefs (based upon what the Church considered inaccurate interpretations of the Bible) and refused to denounce them, even after being corrected by the authority. He also tried to teach his beliefs to other people. He had to be doing these things by his own free will, not under the influence of the devil.

----------


## woodbe

> I will let our good friend Rod speak for himself, but whether it was him or someone else seeking more information on this subject, that should be encouraged, not made light of.

  I have no problem with people wishing to expand their knowledge, why would I? but I wouldn't advise asking a drunk about how to secure the drinks cabinet.   

> As for the "cherry picking" claims in laugh 2, oops,  graph 2, 50 years of data huh?  How old is the planet again?

  Sure, the planet is older than 50 years. I would expect to see correlation of some sort, as the data is from the same series. +.7 merely says they are on the same page. I note you made no mention of statistical significance of the shorter set, but then that would be asking too much I guess. 
Figure 2 clearly shows the misinformation of the cooling since 1998 brigade. I thought even you would see that, but apparently I was mistaken. Note that the 50 year line is a trend line, whilst the other is a simple line drawn between the highest and the lowest points in the shorter series.  
And finally, when the sceptics seem to be on the back foot, even after the helping hand of the email theft and their bogus science, their next game is to claim that the data is wrong, it's been manipulated and tinkered with so that the sad broken data we are left with only shows warming. That takes us back to Tamino and others who have clearly shown otherwise even using the raw data. 
Mud throwing. The only benefit of the mud throwing is that it motivates people to independantly replicate the temperature trends in question using the methods described with or without the actual programs, and with the same or different data sets as has been done by Tamino, clearclimatecode, The Blackboard, The Whiteboard and others. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> I wouldn't advise asking a drunk about how to secure the drinks cabinet.

  Though you wouldn't mind at all if a drunk defended your arguments all through a thread by trolling, mumbling idiotic remarks, and in general, being a clown.  :Biggrin:  I guess when you are desperate, anything goes. . .  .   

> when the sceptics seem to be on the back foot, even after the helping hand of the email theft

  Taxpayers funded the lies told, and if one wanted to shed light on them, hacking was a necessary evil. "Stealing" what belongs to you, to show how it is corrupt, is not a particularly good example of "stealing". It is a good example of "cleaning corruption up".   .   .

----------


## chrisp

> As a footnote, Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, it is a natural Molecule. *Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide* (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms). So is your bloodstream (oh no, scary pollution). You are a carbon based life form. When you breathe out the carbon dioxide, plants breathe it in. Then they breathe out oxygen, you breathe this in. Complicated stuff, huh.

   

> What is that about religious ideologies that closes peoples minds to learning?

  Doc, 
Maybe you should heed some of your own comments.  You seem to be repeating the same old misinformation again.   :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

.  . Allen James: _Taxpayers funded the lies told, and if one wanted to shed light on them, hacking was a necessary evil. "Stealing" what belongs to you, to show how it is corrupt, is not a particularly good example of "stealing". It is a good example of "cleaning corruption up"._ .   

> Yes. I remember this, they were holding a raffle down at the club

   .    .  .  .

----------


## chrisp

> .   .

  Allen, 
If you keep up your work on editing pictures, who knows, maybe you'll be able to work as a graphics designer?   :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> I will let our good friend Rod speak for himself, but whether it was him or someone else seeking more information on this subject, that should be encouraged, not made light of. 
> I have even referred people on this thread to the Realclimate website for more information .  This is so that they start learning more about this subject from anywhere, rather than blindly following this faith, based on authority figures.

  I do hope Rod reads your second paragraph quoted above.  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

Don't hold your breath, the history of Rod and RealClimate is not good:   

> Originally Posted by *RC*  _MYTH #4: Errors in the "Hockey Stick" undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous._  _This statement embraces at least two distinct falsehoods. The first falsehood holds that the Hockey Stick is the result of one analysis or the analysis of one group of researchers (i.e., that of Mann et al, 1998 and Mann et al, 1999). However, as discussed in the response to Myth #1 above, the basic conclusions of Mann et al (1998,1999) are affirmed in multiple independent studies. Thus, even if there were errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, numerous other studies independently support the conclusion of anomalous late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth._

  woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

Classic.   

> Real Climate is run by the "Team" and is not to be trusted 
> Reading the Climategate archive is a bit like discovering that Professional Wrestling is rigged. You mean, it is? _Really_?

  woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> If you keep up your work on editing pictures, who knows, maybe you'll be able to work as a graphics designer?

   .   

> a designer of graphics...real rocket science stuff...

   LOL! . Say the users of Charles M. Schulz’ Linus and Chuck Jones’ Wile E. Coyote, who use these designs without permission. Every graph, cartoon and illustration these guys have posted was designed, as was just about everything they own, including our drunk’s beer containers and their labels. Yet they stick their snobby noses up at ‘design’, typing on designed keyboards. . Typical tall-poppy-syndrome yobbos.  :Rolleyes:   :Rolleyes:   :Biggrin:   . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> Yoo Hoo, Mr James...I would always take the opposite side to you.

  Let's test that, shall we? .
I say you should keep posting.  .  .

----------


## watson

Boring!!!
C'mon U2.  :Snog:   
and please keep to the topic.

----------


## chrisp

It is amazing what you can find on the internet:*Kevin Kilty* (08:15:29) : (responding to) _Tennex (04:34:50) :_ _Off Topic sorry guys but._  _I know there is a response to this RealClimate: The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps some where._*You are looking for a reference to the peer-reviewed literature, no doubt. I dont have one*. Answer steps one at a a time. 
Concede the first three points.  
Step 4: Lessons from simple toy models Presumably meaning that less outgoing radiation means a warmer surface, but bring in other factors (clouds, advection, convection), and as a general rule this statement looks too simple. 
Step 5: Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2.
This is about three times larger than some estimates (Stefan-Boltzmann for instance), and this is what a large portion of the debate revolves around, isnt it? Settled? I doubt it. I see a few respondents on the thread are gamely prying away at this step. 
Step 6:Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number Compared to what? Is it significant in terms of climate, extreme weather events, insurance losses, impacts on the economy, impacts on the polar bear, or letting bureacrats run every minute detail of ones life? How big a problem is this in reality? This is the biggest unsettled issue in the swirling debate. 
The blogger wishes to boil the whole debate down to three steps over which there is little quarrel, followed by three iffy steps over which there is no proof, but only his ex-cathedra pronouncements.  
I did have to smile when I read the responses on that site (RC), though. Most could have a smiley emoticon in accompaniment, and they are all so politenot like the adult world at all. 
From:  CSIRO climate researcher resigns rather than be censored  Watts Up With That?It must be nice to have a 'coach' to help. 
Has the response been posted yet?  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

Ha. 
That was from when Rod and I were going to debate the 6 steps early on in this thread. He suddenly backed out, now I see why. 
Nice find chrisp. Rod's the copy/paste kid  :Cool:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Ha HA Ha LOL 
> I was reading the cartoons here today, and one of the links at the bottom of the page caught my attention.   
> When I clicked on it, it took me to the famous Watts blog and this little entry:   
> This is better than any cartoon  
> Seems like our Rod actually had some time after all. 
> BTW, I can give you an opinion if you like Rod: Watts should HTFU and answer Tamino. 
> woodbe.

  Well I only have one thing to say about this, and that is that it if far better seek information on a subject rather than shooot your mouth off about something you know nothing about.

----------


## chrisp

> Well I only have one thing to say about this, and that is that it if far better seek information on a subject rather than shooot your mouth off about something you know nothing about.

  
Rod, 
There is a crux to your response. 
You have sought advice on how to refute the simplified "6 easy steps" of CO2.  Your advisor has stated that "(If) You are looking for a reference to the 'peer-reviewed' literature, no doubt. I don’t have one".  i.e. thay have stated that as far as they know, there is no published science to refute the "6 easy steps". 
Doesn't the response that "_(If)_ _You are looking for a reference to the 'peer-reviewed' literature, no doubt. I don’t have one"_ ring alarm bells to you at all?  *Surely, if you are as well read and independent as you claim, wouldn't you question a 'scientific' rebuttal that is offered without any foundation in scientific literature?*  And jumping ahead, just in case you decide to run with the "coach's" rebuttal suggestions, are you familiar with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation at all?  Have you ever solved the equation?  Do you know that it is related to 'black body' radiation?  Do you know if 'black body' radiation equation is applicable to the green-house effect? 
If not, maybe you should be a little careful before posting comments such as "_it if far better seek information on a subject rather than shooot your mouth off about something you know nothing about_".  After all, we wouldn't want to create the 'kettle calling the pot black' situation, would we? 
As I've stated before, I doubt that you are here for the science.  Do you have some other motive for your scientifically unfounded support of an anti-AGW stance?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod,   As I've stated before, I doubt that you are here for the science. Do you have some other motive for your scientifically unfounded support of an anti-AGW stance?

  I don't profess to know all the science never did. 
If you do not know my view and how I have come to have that view, then you better start reading the posts from the begining, because I am not going over it all again.  
I have seen nothing in this thread to change that view if anything only to reinforce it. 
Dr Freud has a much better handle of the science than I any any of the warmers here I might add. 
The Alarmist here and every where else for that matter are getting more shrill by the day as more and morre of their science collapses around them.  There is so much going on at the moment to discredit the alarmists it is hard to keep up.    
The US will never get an ETS off the ground nor will the EPA ever be able to use their powers.  The damage has been done. The only road back to any sort of credibility for the warmist is to acutually come up with the proof of AGW rather than over hyped assumptions that assumes AGW.  
Now it is just a matter of time before this entire issue is put behind us.  Time for the natural changes in climate to take effect, for without any scientific proof the only evidence left is empirical, and this is working against you, hence the sudden surge to try and discredit skeptics.  Just keep an eye on the artic ice! 
Rant away guys.

----------


## chrisp

> Dr Freud has a much better handle of the science than I any any of the warmers here I might add.

   

> As a footnote, Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, it is a natural Molecule. *Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide* (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms). So is your bloodstream (oh no, scary pollution). You are a carbon based life form. When you breathe out the carbon dioxide, plants breathe it in. Then they breathe out oxygen, you breathe this in. Complicated stuff, huh.

  Yep, he sure has a real good handle on the science, doesn't he?  :Smilie:  
And, yes, we have pointed out the error and it still gets re-quoted by Dr Freud himself.  Dr Freud explained that is was 70% of something else.  Not to worry, I suppose it is close enough.  Obviously, he is not too worried about being too particular with facts, is he?

----------


## woodbe

> Well I only have one thing to say about this, and that is that it if far better seek information on a subject rather than shooot your mouth off about something you know nothing about.

  No problem with that Rod, my only problem is with the choice you made of source. You could have at least asked on a site independant of Watts seeing as he was the author of the bodgy information, hence my comment about drunks and drinks cabinets.   

> Now it is just a matter of time before this entire issue is put behind  us.  Time for the natural changes in climate to take effect, for without  any scientific proof the only evidence left is empirical, and this is  working against you, hence the sudden surge to try and discredit  skeptics.  Just keep an eye on the artic ice!

  Wishful thinking. There's no sudden surge on our part, we're just responding to a sudden surge in the steaming pile of dodgy sceptic science. 
Empirical evidence is just fine by me, just as long as it is studied upon and reported by scientists, not self promoting trumped up weather men who have limited understanding and no respect for science. 
If you are so willing to rate 2010's arctic ice, you have to be prepared to accept 2007's as well. Neither event is of statistical significance, but I'm sure Mr Snow over at WUWT has other ideas about that. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.  

> Dyson just doesn't seem to have the same vigour he did in the early exchanges.

  .  . . .

----------


## woodbe

> Dr Freud has a much better handle of the science than I any any of the warmers here I might add.

  Dr Freud has openly said he directs people to RealClimate, whereas you say they are not to be trusted. If you hold Dr Freud in such high scientific esteem, why is it that you choose to ignore his advise? 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

..    

> Allright, enough of the silly stuff, lets get back on topic. 
> Has anyone conclusive proof that the climate is changing due to mankind? 
> Interested to know your thoughts.......................

  He says, 1876 posts late.  :Biggrin:   .   .

----------


## Allen James

.  .   

> If you keep up your work on editing pictures, who knows, maybe you'll be able to work as a graphics designer?

     

> a designer of graphics...real rocket science stuff...

     

> . LOL! . Say the users of Charles M. Schulz’ Linus and Chuck Jones’ Wile E. Coyote, who use these designs without permission. Every graph, cartoon and illustration these guys have posted was designed, as was just about everything they own, including our drunk’s beer containers and their labels. Yet they stick their snobby noses up at ‘design’, typing on designed keyboards. . Typical tall-poppy-syndrome yobbos.

    

> It is amazing what you can find on the internet:*Kevin Kilty* (08:15:29) :

   :Biggrin:  .
I love the smell of chrispy bacon.  :Wink:   . .

----------


## Allen James

.   

> why is it that you choose to ignore his advise?

  Ignore his advise what?   .
I think you might look for some more legible team mates, Chrispy.   :Biggrin:   . .

----------


## chrisp

> .  .
> I love the smell of chrispy bacon.

   

> .Ignore his advise what?   .
> I think you might look for some more legible team mates, Chrispy.

  Allen, 
You're quite right.  I can smell it too! 
Yep, what is that wonderful aroma I can smell....,  Mmmmmm..., Isn't it good!   There is nothing quite like it...., but it isn't bacon I can smell.... 
No, it's a much more satisfying aroma that I can smell..., I think it is that delicious smell of success and victory!  :2thumbsup:    :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

A few short months ago...   This is the greatest moral challenge of our generation.   A fairly well known bloke once said that when gambling:   _You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em._ _Know when to walk away, know when to run. _  _You are betting our children's future and the future of our grandchildren. _  And now...   In fact, so fast is global warming theory collapsing that in his flurry of recent speeches to outline his policies for the new decade, Rudd has barely mentioned his "moral challenge" at all.   The baseless emotional manipulation of parents and children used for political effect, now cast aside for political expediency.   Regardless of your views on this subject, how do you assess this man on the content of his character?     
Success and victory indeed!

----------


## Dr Freud

> Dr Freud has openly said he directs people to RealClimate, whereas you say they are not to be trusted. If you hold Dr Freud in such high scientific esteem, why is it that you choose to ignore his advise? 
> woodbe.

  
The point I am making is that people need to look at all the information and make their own minds up, not listen to authority figures.  If you do not understand all viewpoints, how can you ascertain what is the truth.  I am no scientist, but I read a lot of this stuff, and I am just encouraging others to make an informed decision before committing this country to a dubious scheme creating unprecedented economic upheaval.  After all, we are all on a learning journey, are we not?   

> The quoted graph must be referring to _weather_ change rather than _climate_ change. 
> Climate change is usually plotted with 20-, 30-, 50-year running averages. 
> From "The Copenhagen Diagnosis":_If one looks at periods of ten years or shorter, such short-term variations can more than outweigh the anthropogenic global warming trend. For example, El Niño events typically come with global-mean temperature changes of up to 0.2 °C over a few years, and the solar cycle with warming or cooling of 0.1 °C over five years (Lean and Rind 2008). However, neither El Niño, nor solar activity or volcanic eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate trends. For good reason the IPCC has chosen 25 years as the shortest trend line they show in the global temperature records, and over this time period the observed trend agrees very well with the expected anthropogenic warming._

   

> Let's re-write that last sentence (using all the same words).   _And over 25 years as the shortest trend line they show in the global temperature records, the observed trend agrees very well with the expected anthropogenic warming._ _For good reason the IPCC has chosen this time period._ 
> What does arbitrary mean? But enough semantics...  Hi Chrisp,  I let the previous statistical inference comments slide regarding Al Gores and the IPCCs quantification of opinion, even though I tried to explain the difference between actual probabilities and the IPCCs opinions as I was busy at the time, but I cant let this one slide. People might actually read The Dopenhagen Diagnosis and believe it. You do know who wrote it and why it was written I presume?  But in regards to the time frames involved, you may have missed my P.S. in post # 1177 on page 79    Please see post # 1165 on page 78 for all other data issues. This will also allow you to contextualize the numbers in the satellite data, and The Dopenhagen Diagnosis. Satellites dont have brains, so they are programmed with assumptions from human brains.   In regards to the graph quoting weather vs climate, if you had quoted my next line:  It is neither weather nor climate. The graph only shows temperature, which is one component that makes up weather, which cumulatively we call climate (pick any arbitrary long time period, 10, 20, 30, 100, everyone else does). But please see post #1143 on page 77 if you want to contextualize global climate variation.  Please also see link below which clearly explains temperature as a component of weather.   http://www.greenscreen.org/articles_jr/Weather.htm  We used to teach kids this stuff in primary school, now we teach them to turn the toaster off at the wall to save the polar bears, and to shower with a bucket.   By the way, you might want to point out to these ecologists that their information:  The temperature of your *climate depends on where you are on Earth.* Its always warmer at the equator than at the North or South Pole *because the suns rays hit the equator more directly.*  directly contradicts The Dopenhagen Diagnosis that states:  _However, neither El Niño, nor solar activity or volcanic eruptions_ *make a significant contribution to longer-term climate trends*_._  Google axial tilt and orbital variations (of Earth) and do some research into these areas of astrophysics and you will soon find which one of the above is full of ..it. But as a short cut, just imagine we took away the sun (ie. Low solar activity), if it makes no significant contribution to climate trends, then who cares. I guess it would just get dark.   But then, a lot of people are being kept in the dark now.   P.S. Great article Rod, sums up the global change that actually is anthropogenic.

----------


## Dr Freud

And it is good that we continue to ask questions.   

> The way I read that graph, 2001 looks to be about +0.1 to +0.2 over the average. If you draw a line across in between, most of the remaining points are still above that line? Or am I reading it wrong? It sure shows a big variation 07-08 though. 
> Michael

  And try to fumble our way to answers.   

> The joy of statistics is that they are so arbitrary IF assumptions are taken as fact, as the UAH boffins attempt to pull off. The running average (red line) takes an average of the averages for the last 25 months and plots them in order to smooth out the "natural variation" in the allegedly raw data. "Natural variation" is boffin talk for " We have no idea why the temperature goes up and down", so we will try to make it look smoother.  
> The learned Mr Bolt is pointing out that this 25 month average at last plot is lower than 2001 (ie. The planet has cooled on average of averages).   
> But why 25 months, why not 12, or 26, or 20 is a nice round number? 
> This is why I say it is still inconceivable that so many people have not bothered to look deeper into this when the cost implications are massive. I don't care what hair brained schemes scientists get into, and there have been many, but I don't want to pay taxes for them.  
> But seriously, even if we go back to arbitrary date of 1979 till end of trend line, we see a rise of 0.1 of a degree celsius. IF this crazy warming keeps up, we could be 0.3 of a degree warmer in 100 years.

  For this is part of the scientific method my friends. :2thumbsup:

----------


## Allen James

..    

> I think it is that delicious smell of success and victory!

  He says, using a couple of designed emoticons, typing them on a designed keyboard, in a designed room, at a designed desk.  Some victory!  :Biggrin:  . I love the smell of chrispy bacon in the morning, so thanks. . .

----------


## woodbe

> Regardless of your views on this subject, how do you assess this man on the content of his character?

   
You find or start the 'I vote Liberal' thread and do it there. 
How are you getting along with 70% CO2 in your lungs Dr Freud? Cough much?  :Tongue:   
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.  .  

> Try pulling your head in, Mr James...............you may get different perspective........ http://www.shermankuek.net/images/HeadUpAss.jpg

  . .  . . .

----------


## Allen James

.     

> How are you getting along with 70% CO2 in your lungs Dr Freud? Cough much? woodbe.

   . Im not sure if it was Chrispy or you, Wouldbe, but one of you began this repeated attack on Dr. Freud based on how much carbon dioxide is in the air. That has nothing to do with how much C02 is in the lungs, since it is brought to the lungs via the blood, as well as by direct air intake. Shall I dig up the post in question and rub your nose in it for fifty pages?  . Quote: . The majority of carbon dioxide transported by the blood is through the bicarbonate buffer system. Carbon dioxide diffusing into a red blood cell is converted to carbonic acid by the enzyme carbonic anhydrase via the following chemical equation: CO2 + H2O --> H2CO3 (1). The carbonic acid then dissociates into hydrogen and bicarbonate ions. The hydrogen ion reacts and attaches itself to hemoglobin while the bicarbonate ion is pumped out of the red blood cell in exchange for a chloride ion, a process known as a chloride shift (1). The result is blood carries both the bicarbonate (now in the blood plasma) and the hydrogen ion to the lungs. . "Once in the lungs, bicarbonate is pumped back into the red blood cell in exchange for a chloride ion, the hydrogen ion dissociates from hemoglobin, carbonic acid is reformed, and carbonic anhydrase converts the carbonic acid into carbon dioxide and water. Carbon dioxide then diffuses from the blood into the lungs and is exhaled and expelled from the body. *It is estimated 70% of all carbon dioxide transported by the blood uses this method of transport.*  . "Thus these are the three main methods of transporting carbon dioxide within the blood. I hope this article has given you a better understanding of how your body moves carbon dioxide from your tissues to the lungs where it is ultimately exhaled and expelled from your body. . . http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/520329/how_blood_transports_carbon_dioxide_pg2.html?cat=5 . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> If only you knew Chrissy true identity.

   . .   . .. . Other Hedpain toons: . http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/a...headpin-04.jpg . http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/a...headpin-05.jpg . http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/a...headpin-06.jpg . http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/a...headpin-07.jpg . http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/a...headpin-08.jpg . http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/a...headpin-09.jpg . http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/a...eadpin-10a.jpg . http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/a...headpin-11.jpg .  .  . .

----------


## chrisp

> Yep, he sure has a real good handle on the science, doesn't he?  
> And, yes, we have pointed out the error and it still gets re-quoted by Dr Freud himself.  Dr Freud explained that it *was 70% of something else.*  Not to worry, I suppose it is close enough.  Obviously, he is not too worried about being too particular with facts, is he?

   

> . Quote: . “...*It is estimated 70% of all carbon dioxide transported by the blood uses this method of transport.*  . .

  Allan, 
Thank you for picking up on the 'handle' I left in my comment.  Yep, the content of the gas in your lungs certainly isn't 70% CO2.  The "70%" is about something else entirely different. 
However, have you noticed that Dr Freud has used the same post about three times without making a correction or clarification to the 70% CO2 figures?  :Eek:

----------


## Allen James

.    

> Allan,

    

> Thank you for picking up on the 'handle' I left in my comment. Yep, the content of the gas in your lungs certainly isn't 70% CO2. The "70%" is about something else entirely different.  However, have you noticed that Dr Freud has used the same post about three times without making a correction or clarification to the 70% CO2 figures?

   My post was about your mistake, which you avoided like a dose of castor. . Okay, lets drag you through the mud. . You sneered: .   

> I was just reading some of the early posts in this thread. I'm amazed this one got through, "Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide".

    

> . Where did you study science? Did you study science at all? Even someone who only studied science at high school could tell you the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen (~78%) and most of the rest is oxygen (~21%). . For the record, ~0.038% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide.

   How much of the atmosphere is made up of C02 has nothing to do with how much C02 is in the lungs, as you can see here: . http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/520329/how_blood_transports_carbon_dioxide_pg2.html?cat=5 . You were wrong then, and you failed to retract your mistake or apologise for it, so you are wrong again  and that makes *two* times. . Care to go for three? .

----------


## chrisp

> Rant away guys.

   

> Over to you, Doc......................

  Funny! 
Your comment is exactly what I thought too when I read Rod's line.

----------


## chrisp

> How much of the atmosphere is made up of C02 has nothing to do with how much C02 is in the lungs, as you can see here:

  Absolutely!   
But it is *not* 70% is it?  It is not even close to 70% is it? 
Let see how good your basic science is:  Atmosphere is about 21% Oxygen (O2) and about 78% nitrogen (N2).  This is what you breath in with each breath.The Nitrogen is stable and chemically inert at body temperatures and plays no part in a chemical sense.The oxygen is used by the body - but not all of it.Only the oxygen (O2) can be converted in to carbon dioxide (CO2).You can work out the rest yourself.  Show me how you get the 70% CO2 when there is only 21% is oxygen in atmosphere? 
As I said, the "your lungs contain 70% CO2" is absolute rubbish - it is not even close.   :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> Absolutely!   
> But it is *not* 70% is it?  It is not even close to 70% is it? 
> Let see how good your basic science is:  Atmosphere is about 21% Oxygen (O2) and about 78% nitrogen (N2).  This is what you breath in with each breath.The Nitrogen is stable and chemically inert at body temperatures and plays no part in a chemical sense.The oxygen is used by the body - but not all of it.Only the oxygen (O2) can be converted in to carbon dioxide (CO2).You can work out the rest yourself.  Show me how you get the 70% CO2 when there is only 21% is oxygen in atmosphere? 
> As I said, the "your lungs contain 70% CO2" is absolute rubbish - it is not even close.

  And to give credit where credit is due, woodbe did find a link with the real CO2 levels in your lungs. 
This was posted in this very thread sometime ago...   

> good pickup Chris!  
> Given that we take oxygen and dispose of CO2 via breathing, I had a look to see what sort of numbers actually occur during breathing, found this 'amazing graph' and the associated paper *Single-exhalation profiles of NO and CO2 in humans: effect of dynamically changing flow rate*  
> Result? CO2 hardly managed to get over 5% during the trial. 
> I think we can call that one debunked for now, at least until Dr Freud explains where the 70% came from. 
> woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.     

> Absolutely! [snip rant about Dr. Freud]

   Absolutely followed by a dissertation on Dr. Freud, is not a retraction, so it looks like you went for *three*.  That makes you equal. . In a nutshell, you assumed that the amount of carbon dioxide in ones lungs is the amount breathed in, which is incorrect, because the CO2 is brought to the lungs by mostly other means (as shown above).  This is why the amount exhaled is so much more than the amount inhaled.  So you happily trolled Dr. Freud for many pages about what he said, yet you want to ignore your own mistake. . Saying absolutely, is not saying, Okay, I was wrong.   . .

----------


## Allen James

.   

> Really, Mr James...........this infatuation you have of me is quite flattering, and as soon as the sex change operation is complete, I'll be sending you some NEW pictures of me.  .

  . .   . . .

----------


## Mack

Alan James your a loser.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Alan James your a loser.

  .
My 'a loser' _what_?  . Chrispy - please translate for your colleague.  :Biggrin:  . .

----------


## chrisp

> In a nutshell, you assumed that the amount of carbon dioxide in one’s lungs is the amount breathed in

  No I didn't.  Maybe you should read my post again. 
I'm still waiting for you to show me how 70% CO2 in your lungs is correct. 
Maybe you should just stick to posting silly pictures.  :Smilie:

----------


## andy the pm

> No I didn't. Maybe you should read my post again. 
> I'm still waiting for you to show me how 70% CO2 in your lungs is correct. 
> Maybe you should just stick to posting silly pictures.

  He's clearly very proud of them, everyone has his initials in them...

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> No I didn't.

   You said, on page 106, in post number 1583 [emphasis mine]: . _I was just reading some of the early posts in this thread. I'm amazed this one got through, "Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide".
Where did you study science? Did you study science at all? Even someone who only studied science at high school could tell you the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen (~78%) and most of the rest is oxygen (~21%).  For the record, ~0.038% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide._ . You sneered about how the lungs could not possibly be 70% full of carbon dioxide because the air we breathe does not have that amount of carbon dioxide in it.  That is beyond dispute, unless you cannot read your own writing. . Since the amount of C02 breathed out is much greater than 70% of the amount breathed in, your error here is bigger than any you whine about, and this is the fourth time you have maintained you were correct, so you have beaten the record you troll us about. . .  .

----------


## chrisp

> .You sneered about how the lungs could not possibly be 70% full of carbon dioxide because the air we breathe does not have that amount of carbon dioxide in it.  That is beyond dispute, unless you cannot read your own writing. . Since the amount of C02 breathed out is much greater than 70% of the amount breathed in, your error here is bigger than any you whine about, and this is the fourth time you have maintained you were correct, so you have beaten the record you troll us about..

  I'm still waiting for you to show me how _70% CO2 in your lungs_ is correct.   :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

. .    

> I'm still waiting for you to show me how _70% CO2 in your lungs_ is correct.

   Thats obvious misdirection, since I haven't said 70% CO2 in your lungs is correct - it was not the issue I addressed. You deliberately pretended I did, to avoid answering the hard question of your own mistake. Your much greater error (far more than 70%) is what I addressed, and you have failed to admit to it, five times now, choosing mischievous misdirection instead. . Remember, this is the internet, and what you say is on the record. It's not a private email that you can delete. . . .

----------


## watson

Just send money..stuff being nice!!

----------


## chrisp

> .You said, on page 106, in post number 1583 [emphasis mine]: . _“I was just reading some of the early posts in this thread. I'm amazed this one got through, "Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide".
> Where did you study science? Did you study science at all? Even someone who only studied science at high school could tell you the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen (~78%) and most of the rest is oxygen (~21%).  For the record, ~0.038% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide._ . You sneered about how the lungs could not possibly be 70% full of carbon dioxide because the air we breathe does not have that amount of carbon dioxide in it.  That is beyond dispute, unless you cannot read your own writing. . Since the amount of C02 breathed out is much greater than 70% of the amount breathed in, your error here is bigger than any you whine about, and this is the fourth time you have maintained you were correct, so you have beaten the record you troll us about.

  Okay Allen, 
I can see where you are getting confused.  My argument isn't that the amount of CO2 increases by 70%.  I'm arguing that Dr Freud has erroneously stated that 'your lungs contain 70% CO2' and that he has repeated this claim/post several times with this error. 
Work out the stoichiometry:Small amount of CO2 breathed in (typically 0.038%)
21% oxygen breathed in
78% nitrogen breathed inThe body uses some of the oxygen and converts it to CO2: A small amount of CO2 (0.038%) plus 21% CO2 (absolute tops if all the O2 is converted to CO2) does not equal 70%.

----------


## watson

Ok Ok Ok..gather around ..dib dib dib and all that.
This could all be classed as a bit of fun, but inadvertently there are personal attacks happening here, which as you may well know...we don't do. 
Just a heads up from me.  
I'm altering my signature.......to *Bugger Nice..Send Money!!*

----------


## Rod Dyson

Would anyone like to comment on this? The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide  Watts Up With That? 
Now woodbe concentrate on the article not the messenger! 
So if Co2 cant do it on its own its all up to the feedback system that the computers predicts is it?

----------


## chrisp

> Rod, 
> I'm happy to walk you through it. I almost did it earlier in response to dazzler's challenge but I deleted the references and equations. Here it is again with a little more detail: 
>    Quote:
>                          Originally Posted by *chrisp*   _Abiding by Dazzler rules, Here goes:CO2 is one of many greenhouse gasses (GHG) in the atmosphere. 
> The earth experiences about 390W/m2 from the sun. About 240W/m2 is re-radiated back out from the earth. Greenhouse gasses trap about 150W/m2. Essentially we have an energy balance equation here. The sun 'shines' energy on to the planet, most is re-radiated out again. GHG slow/trap the energy. 
> CO2 is just one of the GHGs. man-made GHGs such as CFCs and HFCs have also entered the atmosphere and also contribute to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse contribution is determined by the concentration of the particular gas and the gas's 'radiative forcing' (RF) index. The latest indexes can be found in this paper Welcome to AGU Online Services  
> The increase in CO2 has has a radiative forcing effect of 1.63 W/m2 (using radiative forcing coefficient = 5.35 for CO2)  RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) using the simplified method.  A better result can be done using a serious GCM (Global Climate Model) such as EdGCM   
> The effect of increased greenhouse effect from CO2 increasing from 280ppm to 380 ppm is a temperature rise of 1.2 degrees Celsius (using a sensitivity of 0.75 degrees per w/m2). However, it takes a while for the extra radiation to warm the planet and so far we have only experienced 0.5 degree rise with a further 0.7 degrees yet to come._ 
>  The above used the 'simplified' method. You could, with a bit of work, use a full blown GCM software tool and come up with similar numbers yourself. 
> The relationship between CO2 concentration and average global temperature is well established science.

   

> Would anyone like to comment on this? The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide  Watts Up With That? 
> Now woodbe concentrate on the article not the messenger! 
> So if Co2 cant do it on its own its all up to the feedback system that the computers predicts is it?

  Rod, 
The 'simplified' relationship is logarithmic - I showed the 'simplified' calculation in an earlier post (back on page 104). 
This is well known.  The IPCC also knows about the approximate logarithmic relationship too.   
Did you think this was something new or something that was overlooked?

----------


## Allen James

. .  Allen James:  _Remember, this is the internet, and what you say is on the record. It's not a private email that you can delete._ .   

> Wrong again, Mr James!

  . Nope.  First, people have memories, and you cant delete those.  Second, web pages are cached in a number of ways.  Third, in Windows you click file/save as, then select htm or html, and save.  It takes a few seconds. . . .    

> I can see where you are getting confused.

  
You would like to see that, and are working hard to confuse the reader. .   

> My argument isn't that the amount of CO2 increases by 70%.

  
More mischievous misdirection.  Show me where I said that was your argument. . [snip rant about Dr. Freud] . You sneered about how the lungs could not possibly be 70% full of carbon dioxide because the air we breathe does not have that amount of carbon dioxide in it. That is beyond dispute, unless you cannot read your own writing.  Since the amount of C02 breathed out is much greater than 70% of the amount breathed in, your error here is bigger than any you whine about, and this is the sixth time you have maintained you were correct, so you have well beaten the record you troll us about. . .

----------


## Allen James

.   

> You said, on page 106, in post number 1583 [emphasis mine]:  _“I was just reading some of the early posts in this thread. I'm amazed this one got through, "Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide"._ _Where did you study science? Did you study science at all? Even someone who only studied science at high school could tell you the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen (~78%) and most of the rest is oxygen (~21%). For the record, ~0.038% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide._ . You sneered about how the lungs could not possibly be 70% full of carbon dioxide because the air we breathe does not have that amount of carbon dioxide in it. That is beyond dispute, unless you cannot read your own writing. . Since the amount of C02 breathed out is much greater than 70% of the amount breathed in, your error here is bigger than any you whine about, and this is the fourth time you have maintained you were correct, so you have beaten the record you troll us about.

    

> Dear oh dear................if only, Mr James knew young Chrissy's true identity.

   Any two bit actor will tell you that you are only as good as your last performance. I judge people by their actions and their words. . If a placard waving bum came up to me in the street and told me some silly story about the world ending tomorrow, I would tell him to get lost. If a drunk then stumbled up and breathed his beery breath on me, insisting the placard guy was someone great, I’d tell him where to go too.  . Perhaps you think your word is worth something on this board. If so, how did you earn that position and who sanctioned it? .   

> Fear not Chrissy....................I won't divulge your true identity...........

  Chrispy must really value you as his 'fixed' spokesman.  :Biggrin:  .  .

----------


## Allen James

.  .  

> It's in my nature to be a nice guy

  . .   . . . . .

----------


## woodbe

> Would anyone like to comment on this? The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide  Watts Up With That? 
> Now woodbe concentrate on the article not the messenger! 
> So if Co2 cant do it on its own its all up to the feedback system that the computers predicts is it?

  How does this look Rod?:   

> *                                      Richard Telford* (01:00:29) :                                       
>                                                    I dont know if this post was supposed to be misleading and  confusing but is certainly is.
> Forcing is logarithmic! Surprisingly, climate scientists were aware of  that.
> The final graph is complete junk. Comparing forcing due to CO2 alone  with forcing due to CO2 + feedbacks and finding that the latter is  larger is pretty trivial.

  
It's the third comment Rod. I thought you did all your research on WUWT, you must have missed it.  :2thumbsup:   
Still waiting for your analysis on the other Watts issue seeing as you seem to have time now. Has anyone answered your plea for help yet?   
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

You guys crack me up. :Biggrin:  
Thanks for the spirited engagement Mr James, but I assure you it is not warranted.  The irrelevant deflections are merely trying to avoid discussing: 
No evidence proving AGW Theory; 
And a Prime Muppet running as fast as he can from a flawed ETS policy. 
Both topics being what this thread is about.  Unlike cigarette smoking, haematological analysis, malaria, aids, or any of the other semantic sidetracks offered to distract from the truth:  There is no evidence proving AGW Theory! 
Ouch!  
So I ignore all of these distractions as they have been asked and answered. 
But like any circus, I ignore the clowns as they're designed to take your attention away from what's happening behind the scenes.    This used to be a fun house, but now it's filled with evil clowns.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

At the risk of inflaming another well travelled semantic sidetrack, don't you think it is refreshing to hear someone say they have an open mind?   ABC chairman Maurice Newman has attacked the media for being too willing to accept the conventional wisdom on climate change.   "My view on any of these topics is to keep an open mind, and I still have an open mind on climate change," he said.   "Many of the people who have a different point of view on the climate science are respectable and credentialed scientists themselves.   "So as I said, I'm not a scientist and I'm like anybody else in the public, I have to listen to all points of view and then make judgments when we're asked to vote on particular policies."

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Still waiting for your analysis on the other Watts issue seeing as you seem to have time now. Has anyone answered your plea for help yet? 
> woodbe.

  The Doc answered you pretty well on that woodbe no further comment required. :Biggrin:  
"plea" is a bit over dramatic don't you think! But that fits with you entire argument on AGW  :Smilie:  
Read on Woodbe down the comments a bit. This says it all really.  *Alleagra* (02:27:36) :  
Richard Telford (01:00:29) :
“I don’t know if this post was supposed to be misleading and confusing but is certainly is. Forcing is logarithmic! Surprisingly, climate scientists were aware of that.
The final graph is complete junk. Comparing forcing due to CO2 alone with forcing due to CO2 + feedbacks and finding that the latter is larger is pretty trivial.”
Looks like you have an excellent opportunity to demolish the sceptics with at most one follow-up submission which I hope you’ll make. Please avoid abuse such as ‘complete junk’ (makes you feel better but does not enlighten us) and tell us exactly where the author has gone wrong and mislead us

----------


## Allen James

> Sure you can, some days I can't remember where I put my Beer down.........and then sometimes, on a Monday I can't remember a thing from the weekend. Hang on a minute, I think I've been ripped off..................I don't see the "cache" button anywhere. Mr Watson, can you have a look at this for me?, apparently I'm suppossed to have a "cache" buton. What the hell? I'm not having a very good start to the day...............I don't see any of that crap out my window..............just birds and trees. Nice sentence, Mr James..............is that in code? From memory.................if you go to page..............oh Crap................I've forgotten................Never mind, I'm sure someone has saved it, Mr James. I'd like to have a shot at that record, Mr James. That's it kids, off to get the morning papers for the shop.

     . . .

----------


## woodbe

> The Doc answered you pretty well on that woodbe no further comment required. 
> "plea" is a bit over dramatic don't you think! But that fits with you entire argument on AGW  
> Read on Woodbe down the comments a bit. This says it all really.  *Alleagra* (02:27:36) :  
> Richard Telford (01:00:29) :
> I dont know if this post was supposed to be misleading and confusing but is certainly is. Forcing is logarithmic! Surprisingly, climate scientists were aware of that.
> The final graph is complete junk. Comparing forcing due to CO2 alone with forcing due to CO2 + feedbacks and finding that the latter is larger is pretty trivial.
> Looks like you have an excellent opportunity to demolish the sceptics with at most one follow-up submission which I hope youll make. Please avoid abuse such as complete junk (makes you feel better but does not enlighten us) and tell us exactly where the author has gone wrong and mislead us

  Too funny, Rod. Did you read further?  :Biggrin:  
Suggest readers head over there and read the rest of the comments themselves, saves us from duplicating it here. 
Take home is that the author is claiming something he has just realised is ignored by climate science. Like most of the guff on Watts' site, its just more misinformation. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> The Doc answered you pretty well on that woodbe no further comment required.

  Sorry Rod, didn't notice it. Was it hidden amongst the Kevin Rudd hate mail? 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.    

> if you keep struggling on the line, you soon tire yourself out.

    . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Sorry Rod, didn't notice it. Was it hidden amongst the Kevin Rudd hate mail?

  There is a mountain of Kevin Rudd hate mail you will never see, because the media supports the ALP. .
Thank goodness for the silent majority out there, who will kick this rudderless communist out at the next election, and hopefully close down whatever government department you, Chrispy and our resident drunk "work" for.  :Biggrin:  .   .

----------


## Rod Dyson

Will wind farms be our salvation from AGW. 
Maybe not according to this!   Wind power is a complete disaster - FP Comment

----------


## Allen James

.   

> Hillarious..................comic genius. . 
> I don't work for anyone, Mr James.  . 
> I'm a resident of the Brisbane institute for the mentally unbalanced. Looks like you have no hope, or shall we say, hopless.

  .  Well, Headpin, please accept my apologies. . I once (when I was young) worked for the Red Cross in Melbourne, and worked in their handicapped areas.   . Since I now understand a little more about you, I will (probably) leave you be. However, I would hope that you might troll Rod and Dr. Freud a little less, in return. That is my condition. Please stick to the subject and try not to destroy the thread with flame and ad hominem. . Thanks.  :Smilie:  . ..

----------


## chrisp

> .Please stick to the subject and try not to destroy the thread with flame and ad hominem.

   :Roflmao:  
Pots and kettles comes to mind here  :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

> Pots and kettles comes to mind here

   Says the pot, to the kettle. 
Show me any unjustified ad hominem I have posted.  Come on - reach out and be a man!   :Biggrin:  
I have to go out on a job, but I will be back later to see what you came up with.   . . .

----------


## chrisp

> Show me any unjustified ad hominem I have posted.  Come on - reach out and be a man!   
> I have to go out on a job, but I will be back later to see what you came up with.

  Golly, I'm having a hard time finding one!  Hmm, maybe I'll ask my mate Dazzler for some help.  :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

.     

> Golly, I'm having a hard time finding one! Hmm, maybe I'll ask my mate Dazzler for some help.

   Translation: _I couldn’t find any unjustified ad hominem._  .
Chrispy bacon.  .
Dazzling.  :Biggrin:   .. .

----------


## Dr Freud

> Sorry Rod, didn't notice it. Was it hidden amongst the Kevin Rudd hate mail? 
> woodbe.

  My good friend, I think youre confused.  You see, you call this hate mail, when in fact I love it.  So you really should call it love mail.  :Inlove:    If it was hate, I would be avoiding it, or have an aversion to it:   Hate definition - to dislike or wish to avoid   But instead, I seem infatuated with Ruddmail:   Love definition - A strong predilection or enthusiasm   So you see, to rebut your assertion and demonstrate my love for posting all things Rudd, I will provide these as an overt expression of my love for Ruddmail.   KEVIN Rudd says he was alerted to potential safety problems with the governments home insulation program as early as August 2009 and will be subjected to Opposition questioning on the matter next week.   Kevin Rudd stimulus drove up interest rates   Ken Henry tax review to get an airing as PM Kevin Rudd caves in   Last year, a federal government report found that $45m was spent in the first 15 months of the project but not one house was completed.   KEVIN Rudd's hand-picked fix-it man for the botched $2.45 billion home insulation scheme, Greg Combet, has admitted it was so poorly administered he has no idea how many of the 10,000 companies that delivered the insulation were dodgy.   Now that they have got to know him and see how he performs, Australians arent that sure about Rudd.   Electrical specialists have warned the Government not to use safety switches to fix problems in houses fitted with foil insulation.   More than 30 of the nation's top water scientists have united in an urgent plea to the Federal Government to reduce water allocations.  They are worried that a proposed management plan for the Murray Darling fails to address what they say is the biggest problem that is draining the system.   THE Rudd government ramped up the environmental benefits of its botched $2.45 billion home insulation scheme by grossly overstating the cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that could be achieved by households, expert independent analysis says.   The National Electrical Contractors Association has referred to potentially $450 million as the cost of repairing a program that was already on track to be $1 billion over budget   Where have you seen the government waste money?  Tell us below or contact our news desk in confidence on 03-92921226   Oh yeh baby, I loved that.   :Inlove: But this was just a kiss on the cheek, I dont know how I control myself.   But wait a minute, it just occurred to me that you always try to avoid discussing Ruddmail.  Maybe you actually subconsciously hate it, but just cant process this emotion in your conscious mind:   Projection definition - The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.   But do you hate the fact that it is all true, or do you hate me for highlighting these truths, or do you hate Rudd for being a phoney, or do you hate yourself for being so easily duped?  Oh no, times up.  But maybe during our next session we can move forward from here.  I think we are really starting to make progress.  I prescribe two doses of healthy scepticism a day until we talk again.  This will definitely help with the anxiety and guilt.  :Sofa:

----------


## Dr Freud

You didn't really think I could leave without a pic?

----------


## woodbe

And yet another day goes by where Dr Freud fails to explain the 70% CO2 in his lungs. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .     

> And yet another day goes by where Dr Freud fails to explain the 70% CO2 in his lungs.

  Or where Chrispy agrees he was wrong about the C02 in lungs mostly coming from the air we breathe. .
. .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> However, I would hope that you might troll Rod and Dr. Freud a little less, in return. That is my condition.   Sorry, Mr James. No chance of me adhering to those terms.

  Sorry headpin, this is a big fail.  Your drivel has gone beyond "hooking" me and has so for quite a while.
As far as I am concerned you have nothing to add here at all and simply seek to trivulize an important issue. 
I mostly totally ignore your posts and apart from when it gets personal will continue to ignore them.

----------


## Allen James

.   

> I most totally ignore all the posts, I only speed read over them looking for a little bait.

   . . .

----------


## dazzler

> .    Translation: _I couldnt find any unjustified ad hominem._  .
> Chrispy bacon.  .
> Dazzling.   .. .

  Only because you dont have the balls to stand up for what you have said in the past but hide behind the internet with stupid sarcastic little comments.  Why dont you just take your mindless little mind somewhere else and let the forum get back to what it was before you came along.  Where debate was  reasonable.  Im sure there is a hole that is missing its owner some where. 
And once you grow some balls, come back, we welcome men here.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Only because you dont have the balls to stand up for what you have said in the past

  That is a good example of pure ad hominem, especially since it comes with no examples, proof, or links.  If I were to make such a statement I would certainly back it up with examples. . .   

> but hide behind the internet

  Define hide behind the internet. . .   

> with stupid sarcastic little comments.

  Again, you provided no examples.  That is cowardly ad hominem, since it hasnt any substance; just pure flame and invective.  People usually do that when they have no examples.  Global Warming is an emotional subject but I am quite happy to debate it without ad hominem, although I will sometimes use it to fight fire with fire, if it is used against me. . .   

> Why dont you just take your mindless little mind somewhere else and let the forum get back to what it was before you came along.

  To back this up you should provide an example of posts of mine that were mindless.  Many of Hedpains posts were indeed mindless, as they were ranting, irrelevant gibberish, but you dont mind, so long as he annoys Rod or Dr. Freud.  This makes your position inconsistent and hypocritical.  Its one rule for your team, but another rule for your opponents. . .  

> Where debate was reasonable. Im sure there is a hole that is missing its owner some where.

  Can somebody translate this? . .   

> And once you grow some balls, come back, we welcome men here.

  I guess by we you mean Chrispy, Wouldbe, Hedpain and your dazzling self?  Heh heh.  How do you like those apples, Chrisp?  Pots, kettles, frying pans  your team just loves its ad hominem.  :Biggrin:  . . . .

----------


## chrisp

> .Translation: _I couldn’t find any unjustified ad hominem._  .
> Chrispy bacon.  .
> Dazzling.

  It seems I have missed the point of your post.  It seems to me that that you wish to play slippery word games. 
I'd be happy to play along but, as you are probably aware, there is a bit of a guessing aspect to these games.  Let's see, I can see three possibilities here:  Are you taking a literal interpretation on _Ad hominen_?  I have assumed the common usage on _Ad hominem_ abusive (_ad personam_).  Maybe you are intending another form of _Ad hominem_?Maybe you are playing on 'unjustified'?  Do you contend that your attack was justified?Or are you contending that you didn't offended Dazzler?

----------


## Allen James

.    

> It seems I have miss the point of your post. It seems to me that that you wish to play slippery word games.

  Actually, this post of yours was a good example of the slippery word games you mention.  I asked you to point to any unjustified ad hominem I had posted, and you failed to do so.  You can philosophize all you like about it, but you still failed.  Im still waiting.   .  .  

> Do you contend that your attack was justified?

  
What attack? . .  

> Or are you contending that you didn't offended Dazzler?

  
The truth is offensive to some people.  When a person says the colour blue is red, and you say, "You are incorrect; it's blue," and they are offended, that's their problem, not mine.  I will correct their mistakes whether it offends them or not, because unlike you, I did not take an oath to be politically correct. .
Once again I am leaving to go out on a job, but I will be back later.  . . . .

----------


## andy the pm

> .  To back this up you should provide an example of posts of mine that were mindless. Many of Hedpains posts were indeed mindless, as they were ranting, irrelevant gibberish, but you dont mind, so long as he annoys Rod or Dr. Freud. This makes your position inconsistent and hypocritical. Its one rule for your team, but another rule for your opponents. .

  
How about posts 1881, 1884, 1896, 1900, 1909, 1934, 1943, 1947 and 1965?? All recent examples of mindless posting and puerile behaviour. 
Andy

----------


## watson

Thread Temporarily  Closed for housekeeping.

----------


## watson

Nah...If I was going to remove all the crud, I'd have to hire a skip, and that would blow the budget.
The highlight today has been.......... :Shrug:

----------


## chrisp

> How about posts 1881, 1884, 1896, 1900, 1909, 1934, 1943, 1947 and 1965?? All recent examples of mindless posting and puerile behaviour. 
> Andy

  Exactly. 
And he now has the gall to try and argue that he isn't a hypocrite (my reference to 'kettles' and 'pots')  :Eek:

----------


## dazzler

> . . 
> That is a good example of pure ad hominem, especially since it comes with no examples, proof, or links.  If I were to make such a statement I would certainly back it up with examples. . . 
> Define hide behind the internet. . . 
> Again, you provided no examples.  That is cowardly ad hominem, since it hasnt any substance; just pure flame and invective.  People usually do that when they have no examples.  Global Warming is an emotional subject but I am quite happy to debate it without ad hominem, although I will sometimes use it to fight fire with fire, if it is used against me. . . 
> To back this up you should provide an example of posts of mine that were mindless.  Many of Hedpains posts were indeed mindless, as they were ranting, irrelevant gibberish, but you dont mind, so long as he annoys Rod or Dr. Freud.  This makes your position inconsistent and hypocritical.  Its one rule for your team, but another rule for your opponents. . . 
> Can somebody translate this? . . 
> I guess by we you mean Chrispy, Wouldbe, Hedpain and your dazzling self?  Heh heh.  How do you like those apples, Chrisp?  Pots, kettles, frying pans  your team just loves its ad hominem.  . . . .

  I can combine it into one simple answer for you. 
Go away you slimy little fellow until you grow some balls.

----------


## chrisp

> I guess by ‘we’ you mean Chrispy, Wouldbe, Hedpain and your dazzling self?  Heh heh.  How do you like those apples, Chrisp?

  Actually, I think they're a pretty damn good bunch and I'm honoured to the associated with them.   :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

.  .   

> How about posts 1881, 1884, 1896, 1900, 1909, 1934, 1943, 1947 and 1965?? All recent examples of mindless posting and puerile behaviour.

  I asked you for examples, not addresses.  What exactly was mindless and puerile about any of my posts?  Be specific. . .   

> And he now has the gall to try and argue that he isn't a hypocrite (my reference to 'kettles' and 'pots')

  You and your minions havent provided any examples yet, Chrispy.  Throwing post numbers at me doesnt count.  If you know anything about debate you know that you need to explain your argument; not toss page numbers at people.  Dazed cant define his case because he knows my posts were justified, considering the drooling troll I responded to.   . .   

> Go away you slimy little fellow until you grow some balls.

  If I said that you can bet Chrispy would be begging Watson to ban me.  Like I said, you guys have one rule for yourselves, and another rule for everyone else.  :Rolleyes:  . .   

> Actually, I think they're a pretty damn good bunch and I'm honoured to the associated with them.

  I can understand why, looking at your poor responses to the hard questions.  You would lean on ad hominem merchants any day of the week rather than debate the issue. . . .

----------


## woodbe

Sorry to pollute this thread with topic content.  :Biggrin:  
I came across an interesting piece on The Drum recently, Its about Climate debate: opinion vs evidence and written by Stephan Lewandowsky. 
His take on the nature of scepticism and what we are witnessing in the climate debate struck a chord regarding this thread:   

> It is utterly inconceivable that all the arguments against climate  change that have been falsified multiple times will rise from the dead  and overturn scientific knowledge.  
> Instead, the very fact that  many of the roughly 100 falsified "sceptic" talking points are  continually reiterated in public draws a clear dividing line between  healthy scepticism and arrogant denialism.  
> Sceptics seek answers and scrutinise arguments before accepting the  current state of scientific knowledge as fact. Denialists dismiss sound  arguments, solid data, and experimental evidence in favour of  propositions that have long been shown to be flawed. 
> The world's  pre-eminent scientific journal, _Nature_, therefore refers to  those who cling to long-debunked pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories  while dismissing the findings of thousands of peer-reviewed studies by  their true label  _denialists_.  
> The potentially  devastating consequences of denialism are brought into sharp focus by  the sad history of South Africa's AIDS policies. Despite having one of  the world's highest rates of HIV infections, the government of President  Thabo Mbeki went against consensus scientific opinion 10 years ago and  declined anti-retroviral drugs, preferring instead to treat AIDS with  garlic and beetroot. Politicians even accused a leading South African  immunologist of defending Western science and its "racist ideas" for his  insistence on scientific treatment methods. According to a recent  peer-reviewed Harvard study, this denialism cost the lives of more than  330,000 South Africans.  
> For that, President Mbeki and his  associates are now held in richly deserved contempt around the world. 
> Precisely the same fate awaits denialists of climate change.

  I commend the whole article to you all, the quote above is but a small part of it. 
woodbe.

----------


## watson

Onya woodbe...........you're a brave man............wanting to get back on topic.
Interesting that your's was post number *1984*. 
Four Legs Good...........Two legs Bad

----------


## woodbe

Wait, Watson, I've got more:  *Dr. James Hansen agrees with Rod Dyson*   

> He says the Federal Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is  too heavily favoured towards polluters, and he is pushing for a  user-pays system.
>  "You collect a fee at the mine or the wellhead or the port of entry,  and then you distribute that money to the public as a green cheque or an  income tax reduction," he said.

  ABC News  
There you go Rod, just goes to show you never know who your mates are until they put their money where their mouth is and stand up for you.  
Hansen  :Throb:  Dyson    :Biggrin:   
woodbe.

----------


## dib

It's unfortunate that such a complex science has become politicised.  I really feel sorry for most scientists working in the area who I reckon just want to do their job, collect data and improve and validate models.  Then these other "scientists" try to debunk the more complex models using very simple models for just a single effect (assume the system is linear or log) - and yes I am generalising a bit .  The source code for many of the models are available and have been scrutinised but have you heard any of these other "scientists" say hey you have not accounted for this effect or what ever and this is how you would includeit in your climate model.  Instead it's just witch hunt.  I feel a big wheel coming on  ...

----------


## Allen James

.   

> All I had to do is just dangle the bait ...you ... swallow the hook, line and sinker, then ...tangle yourself in my line................

    .  .. .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> It's unfortunate that such a complex science has become politicised. I really feel sorry for most scientists working in the area who I reckon just want to do their job, collect data and improve and validate models. Then these other "scientists" try to debunk the more complex models using very simple models for just a single effect (assume the system is linear or log) - and yes I am generalising a bit . The source code for many of the models are available and have been scrutinised but have you heard any of these other "scientists" say hey you have not accounted for this effect or what ever and this is how you would includeit in your climate model. Instead it's just witch hunt. I feel a big wheel coming on ...

   If you are saying that those who lied, hid the truth and created false impressions to gain valuable grants and keep a myth going (see climate-gate), are the _real_ scientists, while those in opposition to them are "fake scientists”, then it is clear *you* have politicized the weather.   .  .

----------


## dib

No thats not what I am saying at all.  There have been a few who have done the wrong the thing and I would never try to defend their actions.  Did these guys do it to get grants ? Maybe, maybe not I dont know but I suspect you dont either.  In my opnion it was more likely out of control ego's.   
The point I am tried to make is that these other guys are not saying you can improve your predictions by doing x y & z but are just saying that they a crap.  Depending on which statistics you look at this may true. Using a simple linear model to "prove" something is false in my opinion is a bit of a stretch.      
Just form my personal point of view I don't know any scientists who have become scientists for the money.  They do it for the science and feelng of achievement.  
BTW This thread was about the ets, which unfortunaley was designed by economists and politiicians and not scientists!

----------


## woodbe

A little more fuel for the fire. 
Rod denigrates any suggestion that there are parallels between Tobacco and Climate sceptisism.  Now check this out   

> For those who are interested, here is a list in alphabetical order of  32 organizations involved in both the denial campaign surrounding  tobacco and that surrounding Anthropogenic Global Warming: 
> 1.  Acton Institute Acton Institute - SourceWatch ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty 
> 2.  American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) American Legislative Exchange Council - SourceWatch ExxonSecrets Factsheet: ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council 
> 3.  Alexis de Tocquerville Institute Alexis de Tocqueville Institution - SourceWatch ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Alexis de Tocqueville Institution 
> 4.  American Enterprise Institute American Enterprise Institute - SourceWatch ExxonSecrets Factsheet: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research 
> 5.  Americans for Prosperity Americans for Prosperity - SourceWatch 
> 6.  Atlas Economic Research Foundation Atlas Economic Research Foundation - SourceWatch ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Atlas Economic Research Foundation 
> 7.  Burson-Marsteller (PR firm) Burson-Marsteller - SourceWatch 
> 8.  Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) Citizens Against Government Waste - SourceWatch 
> ...

  
Illuminating indeed.  
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> You got off light, Dazza. You nearly had one of those pictures tricked up in your name

    . . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .    

> No thats not what I am saying at all. There have been a few who have done the wrong the thing and I would never try to defend their actions. Did these guys do it to get grants ? Maybe, maybe not I dont know but I suspect you dont either.

   The grants were their livelihood, and involved many millions of dollars. If that isn’t an incentive or motive, what is? So yes, I think it is quite obvious they did it for the money. .     

> In my opnion it was more likely out of control ego's.

   . Columbo: So Mr. Dib, why do you think they lied and covered up information? Dib: I think it was their ego. Columbo: Their ego? [scratching head, rubbing chin, and squinting] Dib: Yes. I mean, you know, they didn’t want to look stupid. Columbo: Oh. I see. Well thanks Mr. Dib [leaves room]. Dib: Any time Mr. Columbo. Columbo: [Opens door] Oh, just one thing, sorry.  Dib: Yes, what is it this time? Columbo: I just wanna confirm. These guys were making millions, right? Dib: Well, their budget was quite expensive, yes. Columbo: And that would include their wages, their trips, lunches, hotels, plane tickets, all expenses paid, that sort of thing? Dib: Well, yes. What are you driving at Mr. Columbo? Columbo: Oh nuttin. It’s just that, [squints] I find it hard to believe the money wasn’t a motive. Dib: What do you mean? Columbo: Well, and please, correct me if I’m wrong here, but, wouldn’t they lose their jobs if this whole climate thing was undone and proven wrong? Dib: Well, some of them yes, but they could find other jobs. Columbo: Yeah, but when you’re on a good thing, don’t you stick with it? Dib: Look Columbo, I have work to do. Is there anything else? Columbo: You’re right. I’m so sorry. I’ll get outta here and leave you be.  Dib: Thank you. Columbo: [Turns back] So, if you don’t mind sir, just to clarify in my mind . . . Dib: What? What is it? Columbo: We are talking millions here, right? They would lose millions. Dib: Yes, yes, millions. What of it? Columbo: And you still think it was just an ego thing. Dib: Columbo! My work! Columbo: Sure. Okay, well, I’ll be going then. Thanks again. Dib: Goodbye. . . . .

----------


## chrisp

> Columbo: So Mr. Dib, why do you think they lied and covered up information? Dib: I think it was their ego. Columbo: Their ego? [scratching head, rubbing chin, and squinting] Dib: Yes. I mean, you know, they didn’t want to look stupid. Columbo: Oh. I see. Well thanks Mr. Dib [leaves room]. Dib: Any time Mr. Columbo. Columbo: [Opens door] Oh, just one thing, sorry.  Dib: Yes, what is it this time? Columbo: I just wanna confirm. These guys were making millions, right? Dib: Well, their budget was quite expensive, yes. Columbo: And that would include their wages, their trips, lunches, hotels, plane tickets, all expenses paid, that sort of thing? Dib: Well, yes. What are you driving at Mr. Columbo? Columbo: Oh nuttin. It’s just that, [squints] I find it hard to believe the money wasn’t a motive. Dib: What do you mean? Columbo: Well, and please, correct me if I’m wrong here, but, wouldn’t they lose their jobs if this whole climate thing was undone and proven wrong? Dib: Well, some of them yes, but they could find other jobs. Columbo: Yeah, but when you’re on a good thing, don’t you stick with it? Dib: Look Columbo, I have work to do. Is there anything else? Columbo: You’re right. I’m so sorry. I’ll get outta here and leave you be.  Dib: Thank you. Columbo: [Turns back] So, if you don’t mind sir, just to clarify in my mind . . . Dib: What? What is it? Columbo: We are talking millions here, right? They would lose millions. Dib: Yes, yes, millions. What of it? Columbo: And you still think it was just an ego thing. Dib: Columbo! My work! Columbo: Sure. Okay, well, I’ll be going then. Thanks again. Dib: Goodbye.

  Be careful dib, if Columbo is persistently asking you seemly dumb questions, it is a sure sign that he is going to come back later and arrest you for the crime.   :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

.   

> Be careful dib, if Columbo is persistently asking you seemly dumb questions, it is a sure sign that he is going to come back later and arrest you for the crime.

  Actually, in this particular episode, Chrisp is the evil guy.  Dibs is just another cast member.  :Biggrin:  . .

----------


## chrisp

> .   Actually, in this particular episode, Chrisp is the evil guy.  Dibs is just another cast member.  . .

  Actually, I've never seen a Columbo episode like that.  In every episode I can recall, Columbo always starts questioning the perpetrator.   *UNDELETED*  :Rotfl:

----------


## chrisp

> Onya woodbe...........you're a brave man............wanting to get back on topic.
> Interesting that your's was post number *1984*. 
> Four Legs Good...........Two legs Bad

  BTW, what's the prize for "2000"? 
Are you going to shout us all a round at the bowls club?

----------


## watson

There's a suprise coming

----------


## watson

*Thread closed temporarily for daily maintenance*

----------


## watson

*Passed to me via PM from Rod*   
Rod's out at the moment but he wished to say the following:  *Wow we did it 2000 posts!! 
Now it would be nice to get back on topic. 
Woodbe I will get back to you on your last real post as I have to go out for the afternoon to keep the wife happy. *

----------


## chrisp

*2000 posts!   (I think I might be in trouble)*

----------


## watson

Nope.............intelligent use of the forum facilities.  :Rotfl:

----------


## chrisp

Damn  :Smilie:  
For those who missed it:  It would seem that one of my pre-2000 'off topic' posts that I kindly deleted in the interests of keeping this thread 'on topic' has mysteriously reappear.   *UNDELETED*

----------


## chrisp

> *Woodbe I will get back to you on your last real post as I have to go out for the afternoon to keep the wife happy.*

  Have a great afternoon Mr Watson. 
Will Mr HeadPin be filling in again in your absence this afternoon?

----------


## watson

Hell No...........its Rod that's out...........not me.
I closed the thread so I could get him to post the 2000th post..but too late she cried.

----------


## chrisp

> Hell No...........its Rod that's out...........not me.
> I closed the thread so I could get him to post the 2000th post..but too late she cried.

  Oops, I misread the post. 
Maybe we can save the "3000" for him  :Smilie:

----------


## watson

Gasp!!

----------


## Dr Freud

> Sorry to pollute this thread with topic content.  
> I came across an interesting piece on The Drum recently, Its about Climate debate: opinion vs evidence and written by Stephan Lewandowsky. 
> His take on the nature of scepticism and what we are witnessing in the climate debate struck a chord regarding this thread:   
> I commend the whole article to you all, the quote above is but a small part of it. 
> woodbe.

  
Garlic and beetroot? 
AIDS? 
The Falklands war??? 
Geez, this guy makes our ramblings here sound relevant. 
But it's a nice thought bubble that unlike some accepts the fact that:  *There is no evidence proving AGW Theory!* 
Even my fellow sandgroper concedes that some scientists just think this is the case (consensus?) and some do not?  :No:   If only thinking made it so, I could make Angelina so much happier than Brad is.  :Blush7:

----------


## Dr Freud

> A little more fuel for the fire. 
> Rod denigrates any suggestion that there are parallels between Tobacco and Climate sceptisism.  Now check this out    
> Illuminating indeed.  
> woodbe.

  Look champ, I've admitted before that when it comes to a lot of issues I'm not that bright, so you're going to have to join the dots on this one.  I couldn't really figure out how any of this information proves AGW Theory? :Confused:  
1) My humble assessment was that the IPCC posited a theory, therefore the burden of proof is on them to prove this theory. 
2) Many sceptics, some well informed, some less so, jeered and heckled this idea as being unsubstantiated. 
3) The IPCC still has not substantiated their claim. 
4) Now you allege some corporations were buying beers for the hecklers. 
5) And this has relevance to the IPCC being unable to prove their own claims?   I was kinda with you up to step 4.  As for step 5, I think I need more illuminating (only if you offset the energy required).  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

> There is no evidence proving AGW Theory!

  Misinformation again. 
There is plenty of evidence. There is a  public campaign to refute it with pseudo science and cherry picked information. 
Of course, Dr Freud is waiting for the end game proof, its the irrefutable evidence that you find when its too late to do anything about it. Not surprising coming from someone who says that sceptics don't need any science. 
Still waiting to hear about the 70% CO2 in your lungs by the way, if you have a moment... 
woodbe.

----------


## dazzler

> If I said that you can bet Chrispy would be begging Watson to ban me.  Like I said, you guys have one rule for yourselves, and another rule for everyone else.

  Of course there are two rules.  One for normal people and one for Eunuchs.  :2thumbsup:  
But its a democracy, all the Eunuchs need to do is sew some balls back on and they will be treated the same. 
The balls will be a bit rotten and smelly having been gone for so long but we will still welcome them.

----------


## woodbe

> 1) My humble assessment was that the IPCC posited a theory, therefore the burden of proof is on them to prove this theory. 
> 2) Many sceptics, some well informed, some less so, jeered and heckled this idea as being unsubstantiated. 
> 3) The IPCC still has not substantiated their claim. 
> 4) Now you allege some corporations were buying beers for the hecklers. 
> 5) And this has relevance to the IPCC being unable to prove their own claims? 
> I was kinda with you up to step 4.  As for step 5, I think I need more illuminating (only if you offset the energy required).

  1) The IPCC does not create or prove theories. 
2) irrelevant by your own measure 
3) The IPCC does not substantiate claims. They collect worldwide scientific information and collate it. 
4) I don't allege anything, I report what I have found. It seems to be pretty solid information. If you have better evidence that those 32 corporations who supported Tobacco denial are not involved in Climate denial please tender it. 
5) Once again, it is not up to the IPCC to substantiate claims. That is up to the individual authors of the research papers the IPCC collates. I believe that in science, that is done by sceptical science and replication.  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

You really stoked the fires by questioning my Ruddlove. 
I email him every now and again and ask him why he spurns not only me, but his brain child, the ETS.  I know it is ugly, but doesn't everyone think all of their children are beautiful?  Not Rudd, he has dumped this brainchild of his like a baby on a hospital step. 
But don't worry Ruddy, I still love you.  Cos you're a real man, and once you're finished dealing with these pesky women, you'll have time for me and your brain child:   The PM left Ms Keneally and her advisers stunned when he snapped "let's get on with some health reform", after she delivered a glowing welcome to the PM before a closed door meeting to break the impasse over NSW's reluctance to sign up to Mr Rudd's plans.   Guests at the function said people had overheard the PM "getting up her" at the function, held on March 5, over comments by NSW Health officials that the reforms would lead to regional hospital closures. "She complained that he was rude and dismissive," a friend and colleague of Ms Keneally said. Watch it live here!   And Ruddy has form bullying female subordinates:   Sources said the PM reacted "strongly" and a heated exchange followed. The attendant burst into tears and reported the matter to the senior cabin attendant.   Maybe thats why he is getting less love from the ladies:   According to the polling, women have also begun to sour on Mr Rudd, the paper says.   But dont worry Ruddy, you bully those pesky females as much as you want, cos youll always have my love to come back to. (Dazzler might not love you though, doesn't take much "balls" to bully female subordinates). 
I know youre busy, thats why youre ignoring me and your ETS baby, but maybe you could spare a few minutes and $20 million of our taxpayer dollars to buy your other new baby some credibility:   The federal government's Department of Climate Change may be at the cutting edge of environmental policy development but it is well behind when it comes to its own effect on the environment.   The department has told a parliamentary committee that its Canberra headquarters achieved only a 2½-star rating on the five-star National Australian Built Environment Rating System and did not comply with the government's policy on energy efficiency in its own operations.   As a result, it is seeking approval to spend $20.5 million fitting out a new building which will have ''state of the art'' green features including passive air handling systems, photovoltaic arrays on the roof and facades and sophisticated energy management and lighting controls.

----------


## Dr Freud

Quote:  

> Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*   _There is no evidence proving AGW Theory!_

  Apologies again for the intrusion into your post, but sometimes I do ramble and lose my place.   

> Misinformation again. 
> There is plenty of evidence. There is a  public campaign to refute it with pseudo science and cherry picked information.  There is plenty of evidence of what exactly?  Your first sentence does not specify? I guess cherry picking from sentences is somehow different to cherry picking from data.  My quote above refers to my original statement which is not misinformation, but scientific fact, which you still ignore.  If you wish to rebut this statement, your first sentence should read "There is evidence proving AGW Theory".  As I  have said before, scientists do not need to have "plenty" of evidence.  Scientists understand that evidence is evidence.  Whether it supports a theory or detracts from a theory, is very different to whether the evidence proves or disproves a theory, "plentiful" or not.  If you truly think that my original statement is misinformation, then there is nothing further I can do.  Other than urge those with any doubts to do their own research and discover the truth. 
> Of course, Dr Freud is waiting for the end game proof, its the irrefutable evidence that you find when its too late to do anything about it. Not surprising coming from someone who says that sceptics don't need any science.  The end game? When it's too late? Please define these concepts for me.  Remember, I'm not that bright sometimes.  It appears to me that you are alluding to some catastrophic doomsday scenario.  Even if AGW Theory is proven one day, I take comfort in the fact that science based outcomes will be more than able to mitigiate, reverse, or render irrelevant any unwanted effects, while keeping any wanted effects. But I can better respond after you clarify your end game and too late concepts? 
> I don't believe in God, unicorns, or tooth fairies, but do believe life has or does exist in the universe other than on Earth.  I do not need science for any of these beliefs as they are sceptical beliefs.  That is why I have been glad you added my statement to you posts.  People with adequate comprehension will be able to read this and separate a sceptical belief from scientific sceptical endeavours designed to disprove a theory.  The fact you failed to comprehend this is not my issue. 
> Still waiting to hear about the 70% CO2 in your lungs by the way, if you have a moment...  This has been asked and answered previously.  Like I said above, if you failed to comprehend this, it is not my issue.  If you have just missed the post, I suggest you go back and read it. 
> woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

Quote:  

> Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*   _  But dont worry Ruddy, you bully those pesky females as much as you want, cos youll always have my love to come back to. (Dazzler might not love you though, doesn't take much "balls" to bully female subordinates)._

   

> UM AH............the Doc is getting personal.   
> You know, Doc, you really should choose better forum site buddies, you don't want to sink to Mr James's level, do you?

  I subscribe to a theory that bullying people weaker than you is the sign of having "no balls".  This weakness may be physical or structural through relationships or chain of command.  Rudd has use this form of bullying as show above.  I was assuming Dazzler would also frown on this type of behaviour as his posts indicate he values males as being courageous, which does not involve bullying weaker subordinate females.  But hey, I could be wrong, I'll leave it up to Dazzler to speak for himself if he wants to comment on Rudd's behaviour, that was just my assumption.

----------


## Dr Freud

Getting the hard word from my weak female, she wants to go house hunting, she picks, I pay.  Damn bullying females.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> Quote:
>      Apologies again for the intrusion into your post, but sometimes I do ramble and lose my place.

  For someone who says sceptics don't need any science, you sure ask about it a lot. 
If you want evidence of AGW, you don't need me to recite it for you. Just go and spend some time at places like realclimate, and follow the links to published science. And really, there is plenty of evidence supporting AGW if you care to look with your eyes rather than through the filter of your world view. 
I'm sorry, I did miss your answer to the 70% question. Probably it was buried in anti-Rudd propaganda. Can you just answer it here quickly for me now: Do you still claim that the air in our lungs is 70% CO2? 
Yes or no will do. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.    

> Actually, I've never seen a Columbo episode like that. In every episode I can recall, Columbo always starts questioning the perpetrator.

   And friends, neighbours, janitors, witnesses, etc. Youll have to work on that memory.  :Rolleyes:  .   

> The balls will be a bit rotten and smelly

   Youre doing a great job in your essay on ad hominem, Dazed. Chrisp will be proud.  :Biggrin:  . .

----------


## watson

OK that's enough all.
If you can't keep on a subject...you'll lose the subject.
I have to read all this crud.....now shape up or ship out.  *And I'm not bloody kidding* 
ETS is the go..........nothing else.
Any deviation........... .the thread will be closed and we'll lose a few members. 
End of story!!

----------


## watson

*Cut it out*  *Final Warning*

----------


## watson

From now on......nothing except ETS

----------


## Allen James

.   

> I am dead set againt the introduction of an ETS for several reasons. 
> First even if Global Warming was true we could never reduce emissions to a degree that would have any effect on global temperatures. 
> Second an ETS will cripple the Australian economy for no net benefit. 
> Third I believe that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming and that there need to be irrefutable evidence both scientific and imperical to proove CO2 is warming the planet and that any warming would be as damaging as they claim. 
> Interested to know your thoughts? 
> Cheers Rod

  Good post, and I agree. . .

----------


## Allen James

.    

> Hi Rod, 
> By all accounts your plastering is flawless, as is your logic. I concur with your sentiments, and look forward to the emotional outbursts and prophesies of the end of the world. But first, allow me to provide some context. Best scientific estimates indicate the planet (Earth) is about 4.5 billion years old (p.s. there was no moon or water then, these arrived a few billion years later). 
> I know it hurts, but please keep reading. Us humans arrived about 2 million years ago. Then after lots of banging rocks together, we invented something called a thermometer about 150 years ago. We now have about 100 years of very inaccurate surface temperature data, and a few decades of fairly accurate satellite data (on a planet that's been here 4.5 billion years)  
> We have made very inaccurate guesses as far back as we can about the climate before we got here. We call this proxy data in the scientific community (rhymes with poxy)
> Here it is: 
> Geological Era---------Million Years Ago----------Carbon Dioxide ppm-----------Av Global Temperature 0C 
> Cambrian------------550-------------------------------------6,000----------------------23
> Ordovician-----------470-------------------------------------4,200----------------------23  12
> Silurian---------------430--------------------------------------3,500---------------------17 - 23
> ...

  Well said, Dr. Freud.

----------


## chrisp

> .       Originally Posted by Dr Freud  _As a footnote, Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, it is a natural Molecule. Your lungs are currently 70%  filled by Carbon Dioxide (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen  atoms). So is your bloodstream (oh no, scary pollution). You are a  carbon based life form. When you breathe out the carbon dioxide, plants  breathe it in. Then they breathe out oxygen, you breathe this in.  Complicated stuff, huh._    Well said, Dr. Freud.

  Do you actually read the stuff you are quoting? 
The same old error is there yet again.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> OK that's enough all.
> If you can't keep on a subject...you'll lose the subject.
> I have to read all this crud.....now shape up or ship out.  *And I'm not bloody kidding* 
> ETS is the go..........nothing else.
> Any deviation........... .the thread will be closed and we'll lose a few members. 
> End of story!!

  Happy to oblige Mr Watson.  But if I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, could you instead remove the offenders rather than close the thread.  While many of us have not changed our minds since this thread began, I have learned a lot along the way, from all sides of this issue.  I dare say others have done similar, and when the time comes to vote for the $114 billion Enormous Taxation Scheme, I naively would like to think we have informed some people, in whatever direction.   
This thread also gives me some comfort in the fact that we have had over 2000 posts, including many from some very strong believers in this theory, and they still have not cited any evidence proving AGW Theory.  If this thread makes it to the election, I will vote with a much clearer conscience knowing that there is still no evidence proving AGW Theory.   :Innocent:  
(Insert appropriate genuflection)

----------


## Dr Freud

> Look champ, I've admitted before that when it comes to a lot of issues I'm not that bright, so you're going to have to join the dots on this one. I couldn't really figure out how any of this information proves AGW Theory? 
> 1) My humble assessment was that the IPCC posited a theory, therefore the burden of proof is on them to prove this theory. 
> 2) Many sceptics, some well informed, some less so, jeered and heckled this idea as being unsubstantiated. 
> 3) The IPCC still has not substantiated their claim. 
> 4) Now you allege some corporations were buying beers for the hecklers. 
> 5) And this has relevance to the IPCC being unable to prove their own claims?   I was kinda with you up to step 4.  As for step 5, I think I need more illuminating (only if you offset the energy required).

   Apologies again for the intrusion, but I do ramble and it seriously does help me keep track of stuff.   

> 1) The IPCC does not create or prove theories.  Couldn't agree more.  Global warming and global cooling theories have been around a long time, the IPCC just jumped on the latest gravy train gathering speed, so no they didn't create this theory.  And for your second point, I also couldn't agree more, they have not proven this theory either. 
> However, they did posit this theory.  Posit definition - 1. To assume the existence of; postulate. 2. To put forward, as for consideration or study; suggest. 3. To place firmly in position. 
> So if they posit, postulate, suggest or claim that this theory is valid (which they do with the assertion of a 90% probability), then they do have to substantiate or validate this claim. 
> 2) irrelevant by your own measure  Couldn't agree more.  At least you now understand that people can heckle and jeer at theories as much as they want, as the burden of proof is on those positing a theory, not those heckling it, who posit nothing. 
> 3) The IPCC does not substantiate claims. They collect worldwide scientific information and collate it.  Couldn't agree more.  The IPCC has collected and collated worldwide scientific information and still does not substantiate their claim. 
> 4) I don't allege anything, I report what I have found. It seems to be pretty solid information. If you have better evidence that those 32 corporations who supported Tobacco denial are not involved in Climate denial please tender it.  Couldn't agree more.  If you don't allege anything about this information being relevant to the lack of evidence proving AGW Theory, then we concur. 
> 5) Once again, it is not up to the IPCC to substantiate claims. That is up to the individual authors of the research papers the IPCC collates. I believe that in science, that is done by sceptical science and replication.   See, once again we get to step 5.  The IPCC has asserted, claimed, posited, theorised, suggested (etc. etc.) that most of the temperature increase over the last 50 years is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and they assert this mathematically with a 90% probability (see AR4 if you wish to verify this for yourself). The IPCC claims this based on the studies they have reviewed provided by many scientists, including themselves.  Probabilities are initially derived as a decimal, then transcribed to a percentage for ease of interpretation and/or communication, therefore, the IPCC must have some calculation showing how they derived 0.9 probability, and what data they used for this calculation.  Otherwise, they just made it up and added some numbers to give it the veneer of credibility(quantification of opinion?).  You are an avid researcher of such things, I'll leave it to you to post which of these two scenarios is true.  You probably suspect I already know the answer to this as it has been posted before.  But many factual posts seem to have been missed in this thread.  
> woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

Please assume a standing apology from here for the intrusions.   

> For someone who says sceptics don't need any science, you sure ask about it a lot. 
> Once again, sceptics don't need science because they are not promoting any particular theory.  If you are promoting a theory, then yes, you need science to back up your claims, hence I ask for it.  If a sceptic wants to scientifically disprove a theory, then they will also have to do this scientifically.  I personally do not have the time nor the inclination for this, so as I have said before, AGW Theory is still a perfectly valid theory that has no evidence proving it (or disproving it). 
> If you want evidence of AGW, you don't need me to recite it for you. Just go and spend some time at places like realclimate, and follow the links to published science. And really, there is plenty of evidence supporting AGW if you care to look with your eyes rather than through the filter of your world view.  I have spent a fair amount of time at realclimate as well as reading many other sources of information (more on this below). Hence my previous explanations between evidence supporting a theory or proving it.  All the evidence available at the time supported the fact that the Earth was flat.  However, this evidence could not prove this, because it was not true.  But the consensus from nearly all scientists and people at the time was that the Earth was flat.  This belief did not make it so.  The filter of my world view is that science should be based on facts, and when baseless scaremongering and bullying is used instead, my filter says some people are full of  and need to be held accountable. 
> I'm sorry, I did miss your answer to the 70% question. Probably it was buried in anti-Rudd propaganda. Can you just answer it here quickly for me now: Do you still claim that the air in our lungs is 70% CO2? 
> Yes or no will do.  I have never made this claim, and when you read the relevant post, you will hopefully understand why.  There are links there, and you can research haematology to you hearts content. 
> woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Of course, Dr Freud is waiting for the end game proof, its the irrefutable evidence that you find when its too late to do anything about it. Not surprising coming from someone who says that sceptics don't need any science.  The end game? When it's too late? Please define these concepts for me. Remember, I'm not that bright sometimes. It appears to me that you are alluding to some catastrophic doomsday scenario. Even if AGW Theory is proven one day, I take comfort in the fact that science based outcomes will be more than able to mitigate, reverse, or render irrelevant any unwanted effects, while keeping any wanted effects. But I can better respond after you clarify your end game and too late concepts?

  If you've realised that the doomsday scenario is a baseless scaremongering tactic used by protoganists of AGW Theory, then I am happy to stand by my assessment above.  However, if you choose to define these concepts down the track somewhere, I am also happy to discuss this.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Do you actually read the stuff you are quoting? 
> The same old error is there yet again.

  
Based on previous posts, it is obvious that Mr James does read the stuff he is quoting. 
It's becoming apparent that you don't read the stuff I am quoting.  If you did, you would realise the error is there yet again, only it's yours.  Perhaps if you go to post # 2018, you may find some clearly needed help.

----------


## Dr Freud

Quote:  

> Originally Posted by *Rod Dyson*   _I am dead set againt the introduction of an ETS for several reasons. 
> First even if Global Warming was true we could never reduce emissions to a degree that would have any effect on global temperatures. 
> Second an ETS will cripple the Australian economy for no net benefit. 
> Third I believe that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming and that there need to be irrefutable evidence both scientific and imperical to proove CO2 is warming the planet and that any warming would be as damaging as they claim. 
> Interested to know your thoughts? 
> Cheers Rod_

   

> .  
> Good post, and I agree. . .

   :Exactly:  :Logic wins again:

----------


## Dr Freud

I have just started reading Ian Plimers book "Heaven and Earth" which is fascinating reading.  I won't post anything here yet, as I would like to assess it in total, but based on my readings so far, I can highly recommend this information to all those seeking more facts on this subject.  Yes, of course there are his opinions on the science interspersed, but I trust in your respective intellects to be able to tell the difference between him quoting science or opining on it.  The referencing to source articles is also extensive for those seeking to clarify his assertions.

----------


## Allen James

From the Wilsonville Spokesman, March 12, 2010:  
Although 31,000 American scientists, 9,000 of us with PhDs, signed the Oregon Petition Project objecting to global warming hysteria, science is likewise not determined by popular vote. Although one of the signers was the late Edward Teller, one of the great physicists of the 20th century, and another was MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, who is widely acknowledged as the greatest meteorologist alive today, science is never settled, even by the best and brightest. 
Science is ultimately determined only by real evidence from credible sources. 
The great scandal known as "ClimateGate" revealed that scientists at the very top of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), both British and American, were compensating for their lack of honest evidence linking man-made carbon dioxide to global warming by doctoring data, refusing to reveal analysis techniques, and bullying any who got in their way. The released emails showed that they were also conspiring with the scientific societies to silence critics.  
Hardly a week goes by without more revelations of wrongdoing and more calls for re-evaluation of climate data. 
A recent re-evaluation of U.S. temperature data suggests that there was little or no net warming over the last century. NASA GISS analysis purporting to show global warming really shows localized warming due to urbanization. We know that the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s were about as warm as the 1990s, and both were largely caused by an ocean oscillation known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). 
Global temperature declined during the 1940s and stayed down for three decades until an abrupt shift to the warm mode of the PDO in 1977 known as the Great Pacific Climate Shift. Since the dawn of the satellite era in 1979, far better measurements of global temperature reveal significant variations in response to sea surface temperatures and large volcanic eruptions but not carbon dioxide.
(Latest Global Temps Roy Spencer, Ph. D. ) 
Since the huge El Nino of 1998, the average global temperature has declined slightly in concert with the total energy content of the oceans. The new ocean data comes from the ARGO array of 3,175 deep sea diving buoys distributed throughout the worlds oceans. Because these declining temperatures are completely at odds with all U.N. climate simulations, they are ignored by alarmists, except of course in their private e-mails. 
Polar sea ice varies on a seasonal basis and in response to ocean cycles. Over the relatively short satellite era, Arctic sea ice reached a low in 2007 at about the same time Antarctic sea ice reached a high. Today, the situation is as Rep. Wingard stated: very near normal. (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/-cryosphere/ ) 
Polar bears are doing just fine, as they have during warmer periods in the past, such as the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods. Polar bear populations have increased five-fold since 1940. 
Anyone who has lived in a hot humid climate knows that water vapor is by far the primary greenhouse gas.
Carbon dioxide is a very minor player in our climate. Its real importance is as the gas of life, directly responsible for all green plants and hence all animals on this planet. That makes it highly beneficial.
Rep. Wingard is certainly correct that the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming is dead, and it needs to be buried. I wish others were as well informed.  .  Wilsonville Spokesman | Dialogue > Reader Views | Setting the record straight on global warming  . .

----------


## woodbe

> Once again, sceptics don't need science because they  are not promoting any particular theory.

  Which explains why we see sceptics actively working to destroy science based on opinion. That is what is happening at the hands of people like Watts.   

> AGW Theory is still a perfectly valid theory that has  no evidence proving it (or disproving it).

  Been there, done that, got the tshirt. You brush aside any existent proof, such as the post industrial temperature record, and any number (1000's) of other supporting studies that also find evidence. That leaves you free to then play with the words as you are. It's a nonsense to use this argument to avoid doing anything about global warming. The only way to collect that kind proof is to have the future events described by the theory actually happen (and harder, not brush them aside too). This is what I'm referring to in my end-game comment.   

> If you've realised that the doomsday scenario is a  baseless scaremongering tactic used by protoganists of AGW Theory, then I  am happy to stand by my assessment above.

  So, a sceptic designed catch-22 to promote inaction based on wordplay and no science. Brilliant. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.   

> *cut it out*  *final warning*

   

> from now on......nothing except ets

   

> aye aye, major....................

    

> there's only a handfull of people visiting this thread and i dare say that out of that handfull only 3 or 4 take the subject seriously. The rest only tune in to read the humourous comments.

  Cut it out.  Stick with ETS.   . .. .

----------


## watson

> There's only a handfull of people visiting this thread and I dare say that out of that handfull only 3 or 4 take the subject seriously. The rest only tune in to read the humourous comments.

  The maths don't add up for that statement.
Over 2000 post..but over 24000 views.
Also, those that can see who are reading the thread (like the Administrators) know that the interest goes far beyond the members of this Forum. 
As long as its on topic ..........it stays.
End of story

----------


## chrisp

> Based on previous posts, it is obvious that Mr James does read the stuff he is quoting. 
> It's becoming apparent that you don't read the stuff I am quoting.  If you did, you would realise the error is there yet again, only it's yours.  Perhaps if you go to post # 2018, you may find some clearly needed help.

  I read post #2018 - it is a reference to the effect that the answer is elsewhere.  :Doh:  
Let's go through this carefully.  It, the error, originated way back on Page 1, post 7   

> As a footnote, Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, it is a natural Molecule. *Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms)*. So is your bloodstream (oh no, scary pollution). You are a carbon based life form. When you breathe out the carbon dioxide, plants breathe it in. Then they breathe out oxygen, you breathe this in. Complicated stuff, huh.

  Admittedly, it took me awhile to back read some of the earlier posts, but on *page 106* I pointed out the error:   

> I was just reading some of the early posts in this thread. I'm amazed this one got through, "Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide". 
> Where did you study science? Did you study science at all? Even someone who only studied science at high school could tell you the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen (~78%) and most of the rest is oxygen (~21%). 
> For the record, ~0.038% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide.

  Woodbe soon after (also *page 106*) provided the correct levels:   

> Given that we take oxygen and dispose of CO2 via breathing, I had a look to see what sort of numbers actually occur during breathing, found this 'amazing graph' and the associated paper Single-exhalation profiles of NO and CO2 in humans: effect of dynamically changing flow rate 
> Result? CO2 hardly managed to get over 5% during the trial. 
> I think we can call that one debunked for now, at least until Dr Freud explains where the 70% came from.

  On *page 112* you offered a retraction:  [I have abbreviated the post somewhat for the benefit of other readers.]   

> When we breathe in, we use the oxygen (and other substances ingested, inhaled, absorbed or injected) in our various biological processes, with one waste product being carbon dioxide. All this carbon dioxide waste (call it 100% of carbon dioxide we produce) travels in the blood stream and through the lungs. *The 70% I was referring to is that 70% of this carbon dioxide is retained in the lungs and bloodstream to regulate blood Ph levels via the following formula*: 
> Carbonic Anhydrase CO2 + H2O ===> H2CO3 + H+ + HCO3-
> carbon dioxide + water ==> carbonic acid + hydrogen ion + bicarbonate ion 
> So in summary, *we inhale the atmosphere at .038% CO2 and turn it into 5% CO2.* That means we are concentrating this "pollution" by over 130 times every time we breathe in and out. Lucky we only breathe out 23% of our total production! The average human will "pollute" about a tonne of carbon dioxide every three years. There are currently 6.5 billion humans, projected to grow to 9 billion soon. Uh Oh!

  Maybe it is your very verbose writing style, and perhaps your desire to explain where the "70%" confusion arose, but it would seem to me from woodbe's comments and Mr James' response that the message in your retraction hasn't got through. 
We have seen the erroneous *"Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide (that's one  Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms)"* posted/quoted several times since and now we see Mr James is staunchly defending the error.  I'm somewhat surprised and perplexed that you have let the quoting of the erroneous post stand. 
Do you think Mr James really did read your retraction?  If so, why did he posted the erroneous version?  Are you sure you still want to run with "Based on previous posts, it is obvious that Mr James  does read the stuff he is quoting."?  And, why don't you jump in when someone re-quotes the error and point out that you issued a retraction? 
From a casual reader's point of view, it could be seen as:   You are letting Mr James and others look foolish by re-quoting an obvious error; or Mr James (and others) are making you look a bit foolish by repeatedly re-quoting, and therefore highlighting, your error.   :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> Hardly a week goes by without more revelations of wrongdoing and more calls for re-evaluation of climate data.

  Hardly a week goes by when we don't hear this little gem.  :Biggrin:  
The underlying premise of these statements seems to be that the AGW science is just '_a house of cards'_ and will quickly fall over sometime very soon. 
After all the calls and reevaluations, what has changed?  The science still remains as firmly - and firmer - behind the AGW theory and global warming.

----------


## woodbe

> On page 112 you offered a retraction:  [I have abbreviated the post  somewhat for the benefit of other readers.]                            Originally Posted by Dr Freud  When  we breathe in, we use the oxygen (and other substances ingested,  inhaled, absorbed or injected) in our various biological processes, with  one waste product being carbon dioxide. All this carbon dioxide waste  (call it 100% of carbon dioxide we produce) travels in the blood stream  and through the lungs. The 70% I was referring to is that 70% of this  carbon dioxide is retained in the lungs and bloodstream to regulate  blood Ph levels via the following formula:

  Oh so that's it, is it? Thanks for finding this Chris! 
So (emphasis mine)   

> *Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide* (that's one  Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms)

  becomes   

> carbon dioxide waste  (call it 100% of carbon dioxide we produce) travels in the blood stream  and through the lungs. The 70% I was referring to is that 70% of this  carbon dioxide is *retained in the lungs and bloodstream*

  So now we're not talking about the gas in our lungs anymore, we're talking about the lungs themselves, possibly the gas they contain plus the entire bloodstream. On top of that, we're not talking about the absolute CO2 content anymore either, we're talking about some calculation of percentage retained in the lung/blood system versus the amount in the expired air. 
What a load of rubbish. Sceptics don't need any science indeed! 
Am I the only one to notice that this 'explanation' is just someone weaselling out of admitting they made a mistake? 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

No effective answer yet to the 'taboo' post I made *linking 30+ companies who actively campaigned for Tobacco Denial who are also actively campaigning for Climate Denial*. 
I'm guessing the reason they don't like it mentioned, and try to stifle the discussion of it, is that it is an embarrassing statistic that challenges our resident sceptics' worldview. 
Frankly, if I found myself with an opinion that was being actively promoted by one of these organisations, I'd be thoroughly questioning my reasons and basis for holding that opinion. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> I have just started reading Ian Plimers book "Heaven and Earth" which is fascinating reading.  I won't post anything here yet,

  Hang on!  You claim you aren't going to post something on it until you have read it, but you have posted something on it anyway!   

> but I trust in your respective intellects to be able to tell the difference between him quoting science or opining on it.

  That's a brave call with the AGW deniers here isn't it?  There has been, and still is, tremendous confusion with some here over difference between 'fact' and 'opinion' in the deniers camp.

----------


## watson

Headpin..... :Doh: 
These cartoons aren't contributing much to the debate.

----------


## watson

> If you prefer, I can just do a copy and paste of pages and pages statistics and data?

  With some thought and opinions ...........that would be preferable.
I don't want the thread to become the repository for every bloody Global Warming Cartoon ever found on the web.

----------


## chrisp

> With some thought [s]and[/s] *or * opinions ...........that would be preferable.
> I don't want the thread to become the repository for every bloody Global Warming Cartoon ever found on the web *or silly PhotoShopped pictures*.

  Mr Watson, 
I hope you don't mind, but I thought I'd suggest a couple of very minor corrections to your post. 
After all, we like to be inclusive here - and we wouldn't like to leave the other side out. 
(The cartoons are at least on topic whereas the silly pictures aren't.)   :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

For those interested. 
Dr. Hansen's talk the other day at the University of Adelaide is now online and can be downloaded as mp3 here:  University of Adelaide: Environment Institute 
There is a couple of hours in it: An introduction; A conversation with Mike Young; The Presentation; Questions from the audience. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I read post #2018 - it is a reference to the effect that the answer is elsewhere.  
> Let's go through this carefully.  It, the error, originated way back on Page 1, post 7   
> Admittedly, it took me awhile to back read some of the earlier posts, but on *page 106* I pointed out the error:   
> Woodbe soon after (also *page 106*) provided the correct levels:   
> On *page 112* you offered a retraction:  [I have abbreviated the post somewhat for the benefit of other readers.]   
> Maybe it is your very verbose writing style, and perhaps your desire to explain where the "70%" confusion arose, but it would seem to me from woodbe's comments and Mr James' response that the message in your retraction hasn't got through. 
> We have seen the erroneous *"Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide (that's one  Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms)"* posted/quoted several times since and now we see Mr James is staunchly defending the error.  I'm somewhat surprised and perplexed that you have let the quoting of the erroneous post stand. 
> Do you think Mr James really did read your retraction?  If so, why did he posted the erroneous version?  Are you sure you still want to run with "Based on previous posts, it is obvious that Mr James  does read the stuff he is quoting."?  And, why don't you jump in when someone re-quotes the error and point out that you issued a retraction? 
> From a casual reader's point of view, it could be seen as:   You are letting Mr James and others look foolish by re-quoting an obvious error; or Mr James (and others) are making you look a bit foolish by repeatedly re-quoting, and therefore highlighting, your error.

   

> Oh so that's it, is it? Thanks for finding this Chris! 
> So (emphasis mine) 
> becomes 
> So now we're not talking about the gas in our lungs anymore, we're talking about the lungs themselves, possibly the gas they contain plus the entire bloodstream. On top of that, we're not talking about the absolute CO2 content anymore either, we're talking about some calculation of percentage retained in the lung/blood system versus the amount in the expired air. 
> What a load of rubbish. Sceptics don't need any science indeed! 
> Am I the only one to notice that this 'explanation' is just someone weaselling out of admitting they made a mistake? 
> woodbe.

  At last, you've finally realised that CO2 is entirely harmless to humans and the environment.  And in fact is an integral and essential part of the biosphere.  :2thumbsup:  
If you want to start a new thread on haematology, I am more than happy to show you where you have gone so wrong in interpreting the information above, but alas this thread is just satisfied with knowing CO2 is entirely harmless in all historically measured and future projected atmospheric concentrations. 
And to think, people are claiming no one learns anything from this thread.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

The governments gone so quiet on the Enormous Taxation Scheme that even I am finding it tough to cut and paste at my usual frenetic level.   That said, I will post the information below.  It is a little strange that it is from a pro-AGW Theory environmentalist, but his story somehow resonated with me.  Perhaps it was the since discredited witch hunt that the poor guy had to go through.  His crime was disagreeing with the consensus solution, even though he agrees with AGW Theory.   But his radical ideas are here:   FOR the better part of a decade, I have upset many climate activists by pointing out that there are far better ways to stop global warming than trying to persuade governments to force or bribe citizens into slashing their reliance on fuels that emit carbon dioxide.   I post this to highlight that even if you believe that AGW Theory is real, there are certainly a lot of alternative solutions much better than Rudds ETS.  Read more at the link below as to how Rudds implementation of government manipulated market based environmental policies actually turn out:   While the seriousness of the harvesting problems were being absorbed, the project was then dealt a crippling blow from an unexpected quarter, the Federal Government. It changed solar-energy rebates causing a plunge in the price of renewable-energy certificates, or RECs. They flooded the marketplace, prices dropped over $50. They were $52 on the last sale prior to this system coming in, dropped down to $24. We dropped something like $8 million out of our cash flow simply because the Government introduced this scheme.   The Government had predicted REC prices would sit at around $60, and could go as high as $90 this year. At $42, Sunshine Electricity can survive. At $24, it's not viable.   Times that by $114 billion across the entire economy and things start to look a little messy, especially after reading this.

----------


## chrisp

Just in: (Report from that left-wing ABC)*Climate change is beyond doubt: CSIRO* 
"*The head of Australia's peak science body has spoken  out in defence of climate scientists, saying the link between human  activity and climate change is beyond doubt.*  
The head of the CSIRO, Dr Megan Clark, says the evidence of global  warming is unquestionable, and in Australia it is backed by years of  robust research."Climate change is beyond doubt: CSIRO - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## chrisp

* But wait, there is more:**Climate change is real and it's here: report                *   *                 TOM ARUP            *  
     March 15, 2010       
AUSTRALIA's two leading scientific agencies will release a  report today showing Australia has warmed significantly over the past  50 years, and stating categorically that ''climate change is real''. 
The State of the Climate snapshot, drawn together by  CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology partly in response to recent attacks  on the science underpinning climate change, shows that Australia's mean  temperature has increased 0.7 degrees since 1960. The statement also  finds average daily maximum temperatures have increased every decade for  the past 50 years.(from: Climate change is real and it's here: report ) 
BTW, the article finishes up with this paragraph: "CSIRO chief executive Megan Clark said yesterday that while society  would debate the science underpinning climate change - much like  previous debates about the link between smoking and lung cancer -  CSIRO's role was to release ''unemotional'' scientific data."That analogy seems to keep popping up again and again   :Smilie:  
Everyone, please hold your breath.  We wouldn't like to blow _the house of cards_ over.  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> BTW, the article finishes up with this paragraph: "CSIRO chief executive Megan Clark said yesterday that while society  would debate the science underpinning climate change - much like  previous debates about the link between smoking and lung cancer -  CSIRO's role was to release ''unemotional'' scientific data."That analogy seems to keep popping up again and again

  I wonder why? Could it be that the science community has a long enough memory to remember the public campaign denigrating science and offering opinion as fact, often quoting outlier cases as typical and thereby trying to extinguish the case in the public mind? 
It didn't work then either. Just like this iteration on Climate Change, it was successful in delaying action which cost many lives to lung cancer. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.   

> Just in: (Report from that left-wing ABC.

    

> Climate change is beyond doubt: CSIRO

  The argument is not about whether climate changes, since it changes regularly and always has, duhhh.  . It is about whether such change is induced by mankind, as per the myth you religiously believe. . As for government run organizations like the CSIRO, they will almost certainly support the idea that man influences climate, because they wish to keep (and spend) the billions of dollars budgeted to them. They have the same incentive to humor leftist politicians as those bureaucrats and scientists involved in Climate-gate. Money. . . .

----------


## dib

Sooooo what has caused the climate change in Australia .... it's not sun activity .... its not log functions doing funky stuff .... its not volcanos .... maybe alien lizards ....

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Sooooo what has caused the climate change in Australia .... .

   Many things  all of them natural. .    

> it's not sun activity .... .

  Why do you say that?  The sun obviously has the biggest influence on earths climate. .    

> its not volcanos ....

  Volcanoes do influence the climate around the globe, and this in turn will affect Australian climate to some degree. .     

> maybe alien lizards ....

  If you wish to believe in another Sun God religion, with man being punished for his sins, be my guest.  Lord knows you wont be the first.  But dont pretend it is backed up by science. . .

----------


## dib

I agree with every comment you made.  From everything I have read there has been no sustained increase in any of these things in recent history.  Sun activity from my point of view would be the most likely but from what I understand the stratosphere ( or some sphere!) has cooled, indicating that their has been less sun activity.

----------


## chrisp

> As for government run organizations like the CSIRO, they will almost certainly support the idea that man influences climate, because they wish to keep (and spend) the billions of dollars budgeted to them. They have the same incentive to humor leftist politicians as those bureaucrats and scientists involved in Climate-gate. Money.

  You may like to ask Graeme Pealman for his view on your ill founded comment.  Scientists bitter over interference - National - theage.com.au 
The CSIRO is just starting to shake off the gag put in place by the former government. 
(Note the date on the article.  It isn't the Rudd government that is being referred to in this article.)

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> From everything I have read there has been no sustained increase in any of these things in recent history.

  Humans have been pretending to understand the weather for millennia.  Ever since we burned people at the stake to appease the Sun Gods, or cut their throats to appease the Rain Gods, we thought we understood how to influence the weather, and what made it tick. . Climate has changed continuously, forever, and man has only a basic inkling of the process, which is why the weather predictions are so often way out.  We just love to pretend we know what the weather is doing, and why.  Im sure we will eventually work it out, with the help of much greater technology, perhaps in a few decades or so.  Well look back and laugh at the Man Made Climate Change advocates of the late twentieth and early twenty first centuries. . .  

> Sun activity from my point of view would be the most likely but from what I understand the stratosphere ( or some sphere!) has cooled, indicating that their has been less sun activity.

  When you say sun activity you probably mean unusual activity, like sun spots, etc.  Its worth remembering what the sun is, in its plain _normal_ state.  A huge thermonuclear reactor, fusing hydrogen atoms into helium, it hurls through space with its million degree temperatures and intense magnetic fields, and Earth is just mere speck orbiting it.  We have only just begun to know some of the secrets of the universe, and will discover many more before we can say we know a little about it.  Who knows how many ways the sun affects our weather?  Invite Woodbe or Chrispy to live a few miles from a perfectly safe nuclear reactor in Victoria, and theyll run a hundred miles through the snow in their underpants to avoid such an event.  Yet they choose to believe that if our tiny speck has fluctuations in climate, its not because it orbits an enormous thermonuclear star, but all because of the relatively microscopic human life form on its surface.  Its like a Monty Python sketch. . .   

> You may like to ask Graeme Pealman for his view on your ill founded comment.

    

> Scientists bitter over interference - National - theage.com.au

  
I try to avoid reading The Age, as it is an ALP flier.  However, if you organise the appropriate text and paste it here to support your argument, I will peruse it. . .  

> The CSIRO is just starting to shake off the gag put in place by the former government.

  Global Warming advocate Rudd was elected in 2007.  His government appointed Megan Clark as the CSIRO's chief executive in 2008, and promised her $2.1 billion over the next three years.  You may rest assured Rudds cohorts would have made it clear they expected her support in the issue of global warming, in return for such commitments. . . . .

----------


## andy the pm

> New information has come to light. 
> According to this picture, the dinosaurs never died out due to the ice age. 
> Stay with me, kids whilst I try and explain the facts. 
> You will note that the picture below depicts some strange looking animals. I have it on good authority that these strange creatures are in fact, Dinosaurs. 
> Now, if you look closely in the back ground you will see an object with the word "ARK" written on it, for those of you who guessed that this is indeed an ARK. I can confirm you are correct. 
> Upon the Ark and to the left you will note a couple heads sticking above the Ark's roof, I'm not entirely sure, but I believe these maybe Girraffes. Still with me? 
> To the right of the Ark you will see a couple of strange looking heads, at first glance it may look like Chrisp and Bedford. But, I can assure you these heads belong to elephants. 
> So, there you have it, in a nutshell. 
> The ice age had nothing to do with the Dinosaurs dying out, quite possibly they missed the boat due to ETS.

  Makes more sense than the previous post...

----------


## chrisp

> To the right of the Ark you will see a couple of strange looking heads, at first glance it may look like Chrisp and Bedford. But, I can assure you these heads belong to elephants.

  Bedford and I were taking a leak over the side.  I was telling Bedford that the water was warm.  He said "...and deep too." 
[s]It looks like Bedford and I did get caught when we were skinny dipping.  :Redface: 
[/s]  :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

.  

> Makes more sense than the previous post...

  How so?  .

----------


## Allen James

.   

> .Global Warming advocate Rudd was elected in 2007. His government appointed Megan Clark as the CSIRO's chief executive in 2008, and promised her $2.1 billion over the next three years. You may rest assured Rudds cohorts would have made it clear they expected her support in the issue of global warming, in return for such commitments.

   

> It looks like Bedford and I did get caught when we were skinny dipping.

  That's your response?  Didn't Watson say we should stay relevent?   :Rolleyes:    .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> 3) the ipcc does not substantiate claims. They collect worldwide scientific information and collate (twist) it.

  lol

----------


## Rod Dyson

You boys are doing well while I am on a break.  as for the  CSIRO we all know climate changes nobody disputes this. 
We just dispute your reasons for the changes. Sorry no bannanas boys.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Just in: (Report from that left-wing ABC)*Climate change is beyond doubt: CSIRO* 
> "*The head of Australia's peak science body has spoken  out in defence of climate scientists, saying the link between human  activity and climate change is beyond doubt.*  
> The head of the CSIRO, Dr Megan Clark, says the evidence of global  warming is unquestionable, and in Australia it is backed by years of  robust research."Climate change is beyond doubt: CSIRO - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  Climate change is beyond doubt? Uh, der! Does anybody remember a single post here or anywhere in the world arguing that the climate never changes?  Do we really need our once premier science body to tell us this? 
The evidence of global warming is unquestionable? Uh, der! So is the evidence of global cooling, what's your point? 
The link between human activity and climate change is beyond doubt? Uh, der! Ever heard of chaos theory?  It's quantifying this link that is the issue at hand.   This rehashing of spurious assumptions is embarrassing for this once great institution.   If you want to read the full CSIRO report, it is here.   If you want to see just a few reasons why this once great institution of Australian science has again been diminished by this farce, it is here.   When reading the report, look for this sentence they claim is the proof:   _A few environmentalists working for the UN have an opinion_ that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century.   And also if you have really good eyesight, you might see this in the fine print.   _...Models make assumptions about future events such as CO__2_ _emissions, and are designed to paint a picture of a series of possible future states...  _

----------


## Dr Freud

> *The science was settled... *  *It's not drought, it's climate change, say scientists *  *MELISSA FYFE*  *August 30, 2009*  theage.com.au    SCIENTISTS studying Victoria's crippling drought have, for the first time, *proved the link* between rising levels of greenhouse gases and the state's dramatic decline in rainfall. 
>   A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO *has confirmed* what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change. 
>   More here.   *Oops... *  *Jury still out on climate change: CSIRO *  BY ROSSLYN BEEBY, SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT REPORTER *19 Jan, 2010* 08:54 AM  Canberratimes.com.au   Australia's peak science agency, the CSIRO, has backed away from attributing a decade of drought in Tasmania to climate change, claiming *''the jury is still out''* on the science.   The comments follow the issuing of a CSIRO report yesterday, revealing drought has cut water availability in northern Tasmania's premier wine growing region by 24 per cent, with river flows reaching record lows. One of the report's co-authors, hydrologist David Post, told The Canberra Times there was *''no evidence''* linking drought to climate change in eastern Australia, including the Murray-Darling Basin.   ''At this stage, we'd prefer to say we're talking about natural variability. *The science is not sufficiently advanced to say it's climate change, one way or the other.* The jury is still out on that,'' Dr Post said.   More here.   *How fast can they back pedal from this mess... *  **

  But wait, there is more indeed!   

> * But wait, there is more:**Climate change is real and it's here: report                *   *                 TOM ARUP            *  
>      March 15, 2010       
> AUSTRALIA's two leading scientific agencies will release a  report today showing Australia has warmed significantly over the past  50 years, and stating categorically that ''climate change is real''. 
> The State of the Climate snapshot, drawn together by  CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology partly in response to recent attacks  on the science underpinning climate change, shows that Australia's mean  temperature has increased 0.7 degrees since 1960. The statement also  finds average daily maximum temperatures have increased every decade for  the past 50 years.(from: Climate change is real and it's here: report ) 
> BTW, the article finishes up with this paragraph: "CSIRO chief executive Megan Clark said yesterday that while society  would debate the science underpinning climate change - much like  previous debates about the link between smoking and lung cancer -  CSIRO's role was to release ''unemotional'' scientific data."That analogy seems to keep popping up again and again   
> Everyone, please hold your breath.  We wouldn't like to blow _the house of cards_ over.

  It is a tragedy that this once great institution is being eroded because of this farce.  And they wonder why kids these days don't want to study maths and science any more.  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

"CSIRO's role was to release ''unemotional'' scientific data."   You mean unemotional stuff like this?   "If the earth's temperature rose 2C, she warned, there would be risks that were "*difficult and dangerous*"."   I guess we better do something before its *too late*.   See more of the CSIRO decline that they cant hide rehashed below.    

> A pretty green outfit now...        Professor Sackett said there was no real dispute within the scientific community about the reality of climate change but she wanted non-scientists to have greater access to the evidence to help inform the necessary public debate about crafting policy responses to the problem.      "The public must be provided with the best possible advice," Professor Sackett said.      Like this?      *We've got 5 years to save world says Australia's chief scientist Professor Penny Sackett *     THE planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government's chief scientist.    I liked the world more when there was only one green muppet.

----------


## Dr Freud

> You may like to ask Graeme Pealman for his view on your ill founded comment.  Scientists bitter over interference - National - theage.com.au 
> The CSIRO is just starting to shake off the gag put in place by the former government. 
> (Note the date on the article.  It isn't the Rudd government that is being referred to in this article.)

    Note the date on the article.  But it is the Rudd government being referred to in this one:   THE nation's peak science agency has tried to gag the publication of a paper by one of its senior environmental economists attacking the Rudd government's climate change policies.  The paper, by the CSIRO's Clive Spash, argues the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is an ineffective way to cut emissions, and instead direct legislation or a tax on carbon is needed.  The paper was accepted for publication by the journal New Political Economy after being internationally peer-reviewed.   You see, historically the CSIRO being a government entity was supposed to remain apolitical and serve Australia, not get involved in political debate. Until now:   The apolitical science organisations have weighed into the debate as they believe Australians are not being told the correct information about temperatures, rainfall, ocean levels and changes to atmospheric conditions.   Err, are Australians being told about your assumptions leading to spurious assertions due to the total lack of evidence proving AGW Theory?   Or are you too busy releasing unemotional scientific data like this:   *AUSTRALIA'S leading scientists have hit back at climate change sceptics, accusing them of creating a "smokescreen of denial". *  *More examination of this issue** here, including: *     Spash has said his paper, The Brave New World of Carbon Trading, is a dispassionate analysis of ETS policies and is not partisan. 
  He was told in February he could publish the work if it were peer-reviewed. In July, after it had been cleared for publication, the CSIRO told him it could not be published. 
  Spash has now been told he can't publish the paper - even in a private capacity - because it is ``politically sensitive''. 
  Furthermore, the CSIRO has attempted to win brownie points with the Government, which controls its purse strings, by disquieting attempts to intimidate him. 
  Spash says he received a letter outlining a list of trivial instances in which he was accused of breaching CSIRO policy, giving as an example a claim he had not completed a leave form properly.   *It also contains this: *     In a 6200-word address to the Lowy Institute on Friday, Kevin Rudd outdid Hanrahan with his dire predictions of ruination.
  Soaring temperatures, greater drought, storm surges,  rising sea levels and a drop in our GNP are all just over the horizon.   *That analogy keeps popping up again and again.*

----------


## Dr Freud

*Families in fear as energy costs soar *   Pricing regulator IPART proposed rises of 44-62 per cent over three years to pay for a backlog of network maintenance and the Federal Government's proposed ETS. 
  The Ombudsman said these increases could cause "fuel poverty". "It may well, that's our concern, particularly if the [ETS] comes in," she said. Fuel poverty - a household spending more than 10 per cent of income for an adequate 21C warmth - contributed to nearly 37,000 English and Welsh deaths in 2008-09. 
  In Australia, it isn't the cold, it's the heat. High temperatures were linked to 374 deaths in Victoria last year.  IPART said a single aged pensioner would spend 7-12 per cent of income on electricity after the ETS and an average household up to 6 per cent more.   Probably not a good time to run an election campaign on the greatest moral challenge of our generation.  What else could we use, umm, health?  Maybe the next generation after Rudd will have some strength of conviction, rather than sense of convenience (if there is a next generation :Eek: ).   I know there is no science proving this theory, but if I did believe it, and believed Rudds rhetoric about the ETS, Id be feeling very betrayed and disappointed right about now. Or I might still just believe...

----------


## woodbe

> Originally Posted by woodbe  3) the ipcc does not substantiate claims. They collect worldwide  scientific information and collate (twist) it.    lol

  worldview. 
Sure looks like Rod has run out of steam, he hasn't even responded to TobaccoGate. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> You boys are doing well while I am on a break.  as for the  CSIRO we all know climate changes nobody disputes this. 
> We just dispute your reasons for the changes. Sorry no bannanas boys.

  Just in case you might be implying or suggesting that the CSIRO doesn't give any reason for the temperature rise:*"It is very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming observed since 1950*There is greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century. International research shows that it is extremely unlikely that the observed warming could be explained by natural causes alone. Evidence of human influence has been detected in ocean warming, sea-level rise, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns. CSIRO research has shown that higher greenhouse gas levels are likely to have caused about half of the winter rainfall reduction in south-west Western Australia." (from: http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf )

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Just in case you might be implying or suggesting that the CSIRO doesn't give any reason for the temperature rise:

    

> *"It is very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming observed since 1950*There is greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century. International research shows that it is extremely unlikely that the observed warming could be explained by natural causes alone. Evidence of human influence has been detected in ocean warming, sea-level rise, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns. CSIRO research has shown that higher greenhouse gas levels are likely to have caused about half of the winter rainfall reduction in south-west Western Australia." (from: http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf )

   Imagine that  after being appointed by Rudds government, and promised billions of dollars, the new CSIRO leader supports the idea that probably global warming is caused by humans.  Who woulda thunk?  Very scientific stuff indeed.   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   .

----------


## woodbe

Like Rod, I've had the odd lol moment, but I didn't expect to have one reading our local rag. Andrew Faulkner has a piece in it generally bemoaning the multitude and quality of signs we face in day to day life, with the added electioneering signs we have in SA at the moment. 
Anyway, towards the end of the article he points out some issues with the ALP and Liberal signage and then pops out this comment on the quality of Climate Scepticism:   

> *Then there's the climate sceptics, whose stencil-like efforts match their half-baked arguments. Child-like signs matching child-like beliefs.*

  I couldn't find the article online, but it's in the Eastern Courier, March 17, P18. "Too many signs are a bad sign" 
So looks like your mob better get to him Rod, he didn't mention climategate at all!    :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.  Thanks to environmentalists people have a bloated idea of human importance on the planet earth. . I asked a colleague to come up with some information about the size of humans relative to the size of our planet. If the earth was reduced to the size of an average room (a 3 m diameter sphere) and a human sat upon it, he would not be able to see humans at all. Even if he knelt down and put his eyeball as close as possible, and squinted, he would not make them out. He would need a microscope  or maybe an electron microscope  to detect humans on that 3 m sphere. My colleague did the math, and here is his result. I make further comments below that: . . . . As you can see, humans would be twice as small as bacteria at that scale, and the person would need an electron microscope to see them. Also, they occupy a very small part of the surface area of earth, which is mostly ocean, wilderness and desert.  . Although they have almost no affect on the planet, humans have vivid imaginations. They love to make up myths, from Zeus to Rain Gods, and from UFOs to ghosts. One of their favourite myths is that they influence the planets climate. They may be microscopically insignificant, but they have huge egos.  :Biggrin:  .  .

----------


## chrisp

> Although they have almost no affect on the planet, humans have vivid imaginations. They love to make up myths, from Zeus to Rain Gods, and from UFO’s to ghosts. One of their favourite myths is that they influence the planet’s climate. They may be microscopically insignificant, but they have huge egos.

  Allen, 
I take it that you think that is a good analogy? If so, I'm pleased that it gives you a nice warm feeling of blissful insignificance  (you insignificant so and so.  :Smilie:  ).    By all means, go ahead and do whatever it is that you want, after all you are only a very insignificant part of a very insignificant human race.  Whatever you do won't make any real difference at all in the grand scheme of thing.  (Have we heard that argument before?  :Rolleyes:  ) 
Back to your analogy, There is a problem.  It is not the volume of human bodies on the planet that is the issue here, it is the volume of CO2 that is the issue. 
Also, your friends analogy (BTW, is it really the work of your friend, or did you hock it from the internet?) is static model.  You need an analogy that shows the accumulation of CO2. 
You (or your friend) might like to rework the analogy to allow for the average of *27.2 tonnes of CO2 (equivalent) that each Australian produces per year*.  The CSIRO Home Energy Saving Handbook uses the analogy of 1 large plastic garbage holds 100 gram of CO2.  (The Victorian government uses "black balloons")  i.e. factor the volume of 272,000 garbage bags per year per person into your scaled analogy.

----------


## woodbe

You might be wondering about how organisations like the Tobacco denialists quoted in my sig get their message out, well here's some frightening information for those of us who believed that journalistic research and hard work is what drives our newspapers.  Research finds PR spinning most newspaper stories   

> *Researchers have found more than half of newspaper  stories surveyed over five days were driven by the public relations  industry.* 
>  More than 2,000 articles from 10 newspapers were analysed by the  Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at the University of  Technology in Sydney and online publication Crikey in September last  year. 
>  The results showed nearly 55 per cent of all stories were triggered  by public relations firms. 
>  The Daily Telegraph came out on top with 70 per cent of its stories  sourced from the PR sector, with the Sydney Morning Herald at 42 per  cent. 
>  Crikey editor Sophie Black says it is not what most readers would  expect. 
>  "It's not to say there isn't a role for public relations," she said. 
>  "But I think most readers would be very surprised to realise that a  lot of the news they read has been generated by PR in some way." 
>  Crikey says most journalists and editors refused to respond when  asked about the public relations element in their stories, and some  later withdrew comments out of fear they would be reprimanded or fired.

  
So the answer is simple. The denialists spit out a press release via their PR firm, and the newspapers lap it up. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.    

> I take it that you think that is a good analogy?

   I provided no analogy; just some facts. Do the math and check the figures for yourself if you have doubts about it. .   

> If so, I'm pleased that it gives you a nice warm feeling of blissful insignificance (you insignificant so and so.).

   Bacteria (and humans) by themselves are not insignificant, but their effect on various things in the universe is insignificant, as is their size, volume, etc., when compared to the planet Earth. That was made very clear. Which part confused you? .   

> By all means, go ahead and do whatever it is that you want, after all you are only a very insignificant part of a very insignificant human race.

   This is mischievous misdirection, since humans are not insignificant by themselves, but _are_ insignificant (in size and volume), regarding the planet, as was clearly shown. .   

> Back to your analogy,

   What analogy did I make? [crickets chirping] .   

> There is a problem. It is not the volume of human bodies on the planet that is the issue here, it is the volume of CO2 that is the issue.

   No, the problem (as explained) is that environmentalists and their cohorts have created the false impression that humans, along with their buildings and industry, are a big part of the planet. Actually they are a microscopic smear on a few small parts of the planet, and their affect on Earth is virtually zero. . Your comments about CO2 are irrelevant, since in the time of the dinosaurs there was many times the amount of CO2 we have now, and all it did was help life proliferate. Everything you have said about C02 in this thread is irrelevant. Man’s microscopic contribution to “pollution” on this planet has been lied about for decades by greenies, and has now become their “science” as well as their religion. .  . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> worldview. 
> Sure looks like Rod has run out of steam, he hasn't even responded to TobaccoGate. 
> woodbe.

  No need been done to death nothing changed.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Just in case you might be implying or suggesting that the CSIRO doesn't give any reason for the temperature rise: *"It is very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming observed since 1950*There is greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century. International research shows that it is extremely unlikely that the observed warming could be explained by natural causes alone. Evidence of human influence has been detected in ocean warming, sea-level rise, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns. CSIRO research has shown that higher greenhouse gas levels are likely to have caused about half of the winter rainfall reduction in south-west Western Australia." (from: http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf )

  So what does this statement tell us?? 
Nothing.

----------


## woodbe

> Originally Posted by woodbe  worldview. 
> Sure looks like Rod has run out of steam, he hasn't even responded to TobaccoGate. 
> woodbe.    No need been done to death nothing changed.

  Glad that you admit that nothing has changed, Rod. I couldn't agree more. 
I must say that you're very lucid today!  :2thumbsup:  
Cheers, 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> So what does this statement tell us?? 
> Nothing.

  Well, to be more correct: This statement tells us *Nothing* _that Rod wants to hear._ 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Although they have almost no affect on the planet, humans have vivid imaginations. They love to make up myths, from Zeus to Rain Gods, and from UFO’s to ghosts. *One of their favourite myths is that they influence the planet’s climate.* They may be microscopically insignificant, but they have huge egos.

   

> .I provided no analogy;

  My bad!  Sorry!  You provided a "_myth_".  :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

.   

> My bad! Sorry! You provide a "_myth_".

  Maths is a myth?   :Biggrin:   .
This is what I expect from Sun God worshipers.  :Rolleyes:   .

----------


## watson

Sorry people...........power out here for 8 hours....just catching up..temporary closure only.

----------


## watson

Open again

----------


## chrisp

> Open again

  Good post, and I agree.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Glad that you admit that nothing has changed, Rod. I couldn't agree more. 
> I must say that you're very lucid today!  
> Cheers, 
> woodbe.

  Just very busy woodbe. 
Flitting in and out when I can.

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> Thanks to environmentalists people have a bloated idea of human importance on the planet earth. . I asked a colleague to come up with some information about the size of humans relative to the size of our planet. If the earth was reduced to the size of an average room (a 3 m diameter sphere) and a human sat upon it, he would not be able to see humans at all. Even if he knelt down and put his eyeball as close as possible, and squinted, he would not make them out. He would need a microscope  or maybe an electron microscope  to detect humans on that 3 m sphere. My colleague did the math, and here is his result. I make further comments below that: . . . . As you can see, humans would be twice as small as bacteria at that scale, and the person would need an electron microscope to see them. Also, they occupy a very small part of the surface area of earth, which is mostly ocean, wilderness and desert.  . Although they have almost no affect on the planet, humans have vivid imaginations. They love to make up myths, from Zeus to Rain Gods, and from UFOs to ghosts. One of their favourite myths is that they influence the planets climate. They may be microscopically insignificant, but they have huge egos.  .  .

  After putting up the post above I was accused of creating a 'myth'.  :Biggrin:  . The simple mathematical facts are that a person 2 metres tall, examining the planet Earth if reduced to a three metre diameter, would need to use an electron microscope to see humans, which would be half the size of bacteria, on that scale. The math provided backs that up. . . Scene: A crowd gathers around a perfect reproduction of the planet Earth, reduced to three metres diameter. It is contained inside a glass room, lit from every direction.  Guide: This is a model of the real planet Earth, and it is identical in every way, but it has been shrunk to three metres diameter  about the size of a bedroom, in width. Joe Sixpack: Well, its impressive. [He goes very close and eyeballs the surface of the sphere] Isnt this where Melbourne is supposed to be? Guide: Er, yes. Joe Sixpack: I cant see any people. Guide: Heh heh, no sir, for that you would need an electron microscope. Would you like one? Joe Sixpack: Okay, sure. Guide: {Wheels device in and focuses on Melbourne] Joe Sixpack: Thanks. Oh yeah, I can make out some little dots, along what might be streets. Guide: Yes, they are humans. Joe Sixpack: Wow. Theyre very small, aint they? Guide: Tiny. Smaller than bacteria, relatively speaking. Joe Sixpack: [Walks backwards to view entire three metre planet model] Thats amazing! Guide: What is? Joe Sixpack: The planet Earth. Its huge! Compared to those microscopic specks, I mean. Guide: Oh thats nothing. In the next room you can see how insignificant the Earth is compared to the Sun. Joe Sixpack: Really? Guide: Thats nothing. There are much bigger stars. You really are a newbie to this, arent you? Joe Sixpack: Well, I havent had much time for this stuff. Guide: Okay, fasten your seatbelt. Here we go. . . . [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LLfDG0GNvc"]YouTube - The Stars and the Grand Universe[/ame][The Stars and the Grand Universe] . . .

----------


## woodbe

These Scientists have been hard at work for the last several years researching the effects of climate change on Butterflies. Because of our human interest in butterflies, there are good records of the dates of emergence of them going back 65 years.   

> This is the first time we've been able to link the change in a natural  system, like a butterfly, to regional warming and then link that  regional warming to increase in green house gases as a result of human  activity.

  There's a report on ABC just in but I first heard it on JJJ  :Smilie:  
Interesting stuff, and supporting evidence again, but not of the proof that will interest Dr Freud - his requires a time machine. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> These Scientists have been hard at work for the last several years researching the effects of climate change on Butterflies.

  I wonder what the relative size of a butterfly would be if the earth was reduced to size of an average room (a 3m diameter sphere)? 
Apparently the rescaled relative size has something to do with the contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere by butterflies.  :Confused:    :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> I wonder what the relative size of a butterfly would be if the earth was reduced to size of an average room (a 3m diameter sphere)? 
> Apparently the rescaled relative size has something to do with the contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere by butterflies.

  I don't know Chris, but I've scoured the real estate section, I can't find any rooms that are 3m diameter spheres. I think the whole thing's a furphy I mean, where would you put the door, and there would be only one place in the room you could stand up without falling over? Whatever it is, it won't sell. :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> I wonder what the relative size of a butterfly would be if the earth was reduced to size of an average room (a 3m diameter sphere)?

    

> Apparently the rescaled relative size has something to do with the contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere by butterflies

    :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   . More mischievous misdirection, as the post wasnt *just* about size.  It was about the fact that environmentalists have created the perception that humans are a BIG part of the planet Earth. . In reality they are just a microscopic smear on its surface, in a few places.  Most of it is wilderness, desert and ocean, and doesnt have microscopic humans. . Once you realize this, the greenies view that humans are poisoning the planet is a lot easier to see through. . I think the problem has been exacerbated by GPS and satellite photos, Google Earth, etc.  People think humans are much bigger than they are. . . .

----------


## chrisp

> Gee ya snuck that one in!.......honest I was really bustin', but I don't think I made it measurably deeper.

  I'm pleased that someone is reading this thread - and that you found it.  
I decided to leave the original text in the post and just [s]strike it out[/s].  Otherwise, as you can see, Allen had already quoted it and I wouldn't want people to think that Allen was nuts or something quoting text that no longer existed.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Just in case you might be implying or suggesting that the CSIRO doesn't give any reason for the temperature rise:*"It is very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming observed since 1950*There is greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century. International research shows that it is extremely unlikely that the observed warming could be explained by natural causes alone. Evidence of human influence has been detected in ocean warming, sea-level rise, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns. CSIRO research has shown that higher greenhouse gas levels are likely to have caused about half of the winter rainfall reduction in south-west Western Australia." (from: http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf )

  This window dressing is embarrassing.  Mainly because with the exception of the last sentence, it has pretty much been cut and pasted from the IPCC.  But that is not to say the last sentence is not embarrassing in and of itself, just seehere.    But to save some time in going through and pointing out how much waffle this really is, the one piece of apparently quantifiable information that stands out is the 90% probability statement (actually stated as >90%, which is interesting). 
I would be grateful for your explanation as to how this figure was derived.  Ideally, its source output should appear to be something like .937 but I would be grateful for your explanation of this probabilities determination?  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

Actually, rehashing the CSIRO's Penny Sackett reminded me of another doomsday maiden named Dale Arden.  You Flash Gordon fans may remember her claim: 
"Flash, I love you, but we've only got fourteen hours to save the Earth."      More similarities with AGW Theory found here.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Like Rod, I've had the odd lol moment, but I didn't expect to have one reading our local rag. Andrew Faulkner has a piece in it generally bemoaning the multitude and quality of signs we face in day to day life, with the added electioneering signs we have in SA at the moment. 
> Anyway, towards the end of the article he points out some issues with the ALP and Liberal signage and then pops out this comment on the quality of Climate Scepticism:   
> I couldn't find the article online, but it's in the Eastern Courier, March 17, P18. "Too many signs are a bad sign" 
> So looks like your mob better get to him Rod, he didn't mention climategate at all!    
> woodbe.

  What exactly is a climate sceptic?  I'm fairly sure we've got a climate.  :Biggrin:  
But I'm very sceptical of AGW Theory. :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Open again

   I guess threads are like minds, they work best when they are open. :Blush7:

----------


## Dr Freud

This visual presentation below is representative of a scale of forces in our world that are currently unfathomable, and constantly hold my attention as we try to uncover some of the answers.   

> . .  After putting up the post above I was accused of creating a 'myth'.  . The simple mathematical facts are that a person 2 metres tall, examining the planet Earth if reduced to a three metre diameter, would need to use an electron microscope to see humans, which would be half the size of bacteria, on that scale. The math provided backs that up. . . Scene: A crowd gathers around a perfect reproduction of the planet Earth, reduced to three metres diameter. It is contained inside a glass room, lit from every direction.  Guide: This is a model of the real planet Earth, and it is identical in every way, but it has been shrunk to three metres diameter  about the size of a bedroom, in width. Joe Sixpack: Well, its impressive. [He goes very close and eyeballs the surface of the sphere] Isnt this where Melbourne is supposed to be? Guide: Er, yes. Joe Sixpack: I cant see any people. Guide: Heh heh, no sir, for that you would need an electron microscope. Would you like one? Joe Sixpack: Okay, sure. Guide: {Wheels device in and focuses on Melbourne] Joe Sixpack: Thanks. Oh yeah, I can make out some little dots, along what might be streets. Guide: Yes, they are humans. Joe Sixpack: Wow. Theyre very small, aint they? Guide: Tiny. Smaller than bacteria, relatively speaking. Joe Sixpack: [Walks backwards to view entire three metre planet model] Thats amazing! Guide: What is? Joe Sixpack: The planet Earth. Its huge! Compared to those microscopic specks, I mean. Guide: Oh thats nothing. In the next room you can see how insignificant the Earth is compared to the Sun. Joe Sixpack: Really? Guide: Thats nothing. There are much bigger stars. You really are a newbie to this, arent you? Joe Sixpack: Well, I havent had much time for this stuff. Guide: Okay, fasten your seatbelt. Here we go. . . . YouTube - The Stars and the Grand Universe[The Stars and the Grand Universe] . . .

  And this study while also fascinating from a biological perspective, is now going to be subjected to ridicule for the spurious assertions it makes based on trust in authority figures.  Do you really think the claims based on this study of nympho butterflies adds any credibility to AGW Theory?   

> These Scientists have been hard at work for the last several years researching the effects of climate change on Butterflies. Because of our human interest in butterflies, there are good records of the dates of emergence of them going back 65 years.   
> There's a report on ABC just in but I first heard it on JJJ  
> Interesting stuff, and supporting evidence again, but not of the proof that will interest Dr Freud - his requires a time machine. 
> woodbe.

  But if you want to talk about butterflies, check this out.   This led Lorenz to realize that long-term weather forecasting was doomed.   And more here.   He also appreciated that in real weather situations, this sensitivity could mean the development of a front or pressure-system where there never would have been one in previous models.   As for time machines, Laplace's Demon negates this need entirely at the first site listed.   "We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at any given moment knew all of the forces that animate nature and the mutual positions of the beings that compose it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit the data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom; for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."   But as we are not omnipotent, we must settle for the unknown.  Quantum multiverse theories currently do battle with these same demons, but they are not easily slain.  Certainly not by horny aussie students studying horny butterflies, then making spurious assertions.

----------


## Dr Freud

I highly recommend Lorenz's work to all to read and assess.  But in the interim, here's two pretty butterflies, one mathematical and one biological.

----------


## chrisp

> I guess threads are like minds, they work best when they are open.

  But not so open that one's brain falls out ("plop!").  :Rolleyes:

----------


## woodbe

If the cap fits, wear it.   

> And this study while also fascinating from a biological perspective, is now going to be subjected to ridicule for the spurious assertions it makes based on trust in authority figures.  Do you really think the claims based on this study of nympho butterflies adds any credibility to AGW Theory?

  Not having a copy of the research, I'm not able to say one way or the other Doc. Being a joint research project between Melbourne and Monash Unis, I'd expect they engaged in good science practice, and didn't make any spurious assertions at all. 
You however have already made up your mind.  
What was that you said about open minds again? 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> But to save some time in going through and pointing out how much waffle this really is, the one piece of apparently quantifiable information that stands out is the 90% probability statement (actually stated as >90%, which is interesting). 
> I would be grateful for your explanation as to how this figure was derived.  Ideally, its source output should appear to be something like .937 but I would be grateful for your explanation of this probabilities determination?

  I'm reasonably sure that the 90% statement is probably a direct quote (or close to a direct quote) from the IPCC document.  I too thought it sounded 'IPCC-ish' when I read it. 
I'm sure you can find the methodology used for the determination of the certainty categories  in the IPCC reports. 
I take it that you are betting on the <10% probable outcome?  If so, do you think it is good and rational reasoning given the scientific evidence? 
Is there a motive behind your entrenched 'scepticism'?

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> What exactly is a climate sceptic? I'm fairly sure we've got a climate.  
> But I'm very sceptical of AGW Theory.

  It seems the AGW church is based on the premise that microscopic mans anthropogenic warming of a globe far too big for him to even fathom, is so utterly non-debatable, that any opposition to it is the same as denying climate itself. This flies in the face of science, since any scientific theory is open to challenge, and will often change as new information comes in. Their labeling of AGW sceptics as climate sceptics is akin to labeling round earth theorists as Earth Sceptics. . . Scene: Inside 3 metre Earth exhibition. A 3 metre perfect reproduction of Earth hangs in the air inside a glass room, lit from all directions, as people examine it, some through electron microscopes. . Joe Sixpack: Looking at humans under this electron microscope, they sure look insignificant on this huge planet Earth. Guide: Yes, and they only occupy a small part of the surface area. Most of the planet is water, desert and wilderness. Sixpack: Which makes it hard to believe they can be influencing the climate, as some of them claim. Professor Smith: Well, humans have been claiming that for millennia. Sixpack: They have? I thought the anthropogenic global warmers only started their church in the last decade or so. Professor Smith: Well yes, but there have been countless other tribes who worshiped various weather Gods, believing their own human behaviour affected the weather. Sixpack: There were? Professor Smith: Of course. Youve heard of tribes making human sacrifices to appease Sun Gods, or Rain Gods, I take it? Sixpack: Yes. Professor Smith: They believed their behaviour could influence the weather. They believed that if they behaved badly, the weather Gods would punish them through climate, by making it either too hot and dry, or too wet and cold, etc. This AGW religion is just the latest version of a human tradition that is as old as man. Ms. Green: Rubbish. You climate sceptics make me sick.  Sixpack: Climate sceptics? Whos denying the climate?  Ms. Green: You are. Its clear man is responsible for global warming. Sixpack: But your theory is just a theory, and open to debate, is it not? Ms. Green: No. The issue is closed, and we must make amends. Professor Smith: Yes, this is true of most weather religions. No debate, and sacrifice is a must. Sixpack: Heh heh. Theyre pretty transparent arent they? Ms. Green: Climate Sceptics! You should be put to the stake and burned! Professor Smith: Yes, that would appease your god, I suppose! Sixpack: Lady, you need to see a therapist. Ms. Green: I have no time for climate deniers! Harumph! [storms off] Sixpack: Look at that slogan on her jacket. Solar, not nuclear. Hah! Professor Smith: What an oxymoron! Sixpack: Well, she aint pretty or smart, that's for sure. Professor Smith: No I mean . . . oh never mind. She wasnt exactly eye candy, or smart. . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .
As an addendum to my last post, I should add that humans didnt just believe they could influence weather while in primitive tribes.  They continued doing this in every religion in the world, and continue doing so to this day. . Take a church going farmer in Horsham, Victoria, suffering hardship after years of drought.  Every evening when he sits to eat with his family, he says a prayer.  Amongst other things it includes,  and we ask you Lord to bring us rain, so that we can grow our crops, and pay our bills . . . . This man believes his prayer can influence the weather.  So he believes HE can influence the weather. . Now lets cross to a Muslim shepherd in Afghanistan.  He does exactly the same thing.  Bowing to Mecca, he pleads Allah to bring rain, again believing he can influence the weather in this way. . Humans have always believed they can influence the weather, ever since the first man believed in a God. . Religion took up the lions share of this, but these days Atheists are a growing force, especially amongst socialists.  So when a group of scientists were employed by various left winged politicians to convince us that man was indeed influencing the weather, and climate, they knew that any attempt to make it religious would make them a laughing stock.  So they used weather patterns and CO2 graphs instead.  God was replaced with graphs and carbon dioxide. . A few hollywierd movies like The Day After along with a great deal of media hype, convinced many millions to go along with this latest version of man affects the weather. . It was blown apart by climate-gate, though some AGW followers havent caught on to this yet.  :Rolleyes:  . . .

----------


## chrisp

> Religion took up the lions share of this, but these days Atheists are a growing force, especially amongst socialists.  So when a group of scientists were employed by various left winged politicians to convince us that man was indeed influencing the weather, and climate, they knew that any attempt to make it religious would make them a laughing stock.  So they used weather patterns and CO2 graphs instead.  God was replaced with graphs and carbon dioxide.

  Fascinating. 
Do you have a reference for that quote? 
And are you sure it is not the other way around - _The deity is in control of all - therefore it doesn't matter what we do_.

----------


## Allen James

.
.   

> Religion took up the lions share of this, but these days Atheists are a growing force, especially amongst socialists. So when a group of scientists were employed by various left winged politicians to convince us that man was indeed influencing the weather, and climate, they knew that any attempt to make it religious would make them a laughing stock. So they used weather patterns and CO2 graphs instead. God was replaced with graphs and carbon dioxide.

   .   

> Fascinating. Do you have a reference for that quote?

  . Allen James.  When I quote others I reference them. .
.
.   

> And are you sure it is not the other way around - _The deity is in control of all - therefore it doesn't matter what we do_.

  I dont understand the question; please elaborate. . I made some factual statements about how Man believes he controls the weather (usually through prayer and ritual), and that this has been going on since the first human believed in God, or Gods.  It is a very common and familiar human activity.  Do you dispute that? . I have to go out again to a job, but I look forward to your reply upon my return. .
.
.

----------


## chrisp

> Allen James.  When I quote others I reference them. . I don’t understand the question; please elaborate. . I made some factual statements about how Man believes he controls the weather (usually through prayer and ritual), and that this has been going on since the first human believed in God, or Gods.  It is a very common and familiar human activity.  Do you dispute that?

  Allen, 
you seem to be running a 'we are insignificant' argument to prove or suggest that insignificant mankind couldn't possibly affect the weather on the huge plant Earth.  *The analogy*You (or your friend) has already provided a calculation of the approximate ratio of the size of humans to the size of the planet and made reference to the size of bacteria. 
You seemed to be offended when I referred to this as an 'analogy'  - so I take it that _not only are we not on the same page_, we are _not using the same dictionary_. 
Firstly, I see two issues with your analogy (sorry to use that word), firstly *shouldn't you be comparing the size of a human to the size of the atmosphere around Earth (not the entire planet)? * And secondly, as I've stated before, *it is not the size of humans that counts, but rather the size of their CO2 production*. Also, the analogy (there's that word again) maybe a little deceiving in another way as the present percentage (volume) of CO2 is quite low (380ppm) so, just maybe, it won't take that much extra CO2 to make a notable difference to the CO2 concentration.*The facts*Anyway, that's enough on debasing your analogy (Oops, that word!), let's look at the *facts* and see how things stack up.  CO2 levels have increased from 280ppm to 380ppm in recent times (do you dispute that?).The extra CO2 has shown to be almost entirely made from burning fossil fuels - _man-made_ (do you dispute that?)Therefore your argument that _insignificant mankind couldn't make any impact on the huge earth?_ is *false*. 
Your analogy is a poor one as it does not accord with observed behaviour (CO2 has actually increased due to human activity), or help explain the behaviour (poor model).  It uses a wrong size/volume as a base in any case.  (i.e. it is using the size of the whole earth rather than just the size of the relatively thin atmosphere). 
If you want to peruse this line of argument you will then need to move to the question of whether a seemly small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere can change the climate.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Allen, you seem to be running a 'we are insignificant' argument to prove or suggest that insignificant mankind couldn't possibly affect the weather on the huge plant Earth.

   We are not, by ourselves, insignificant – not by a long shot. I have the highest regard for human beings and their great achievements. I believe they will achieve much more in the future. They may even one day control the weather and climate. . However, at this time, in relation to the vast planet we inhabit, our affect on Earth is insignificant, which is not to insult humans. If I were to say that whales have no affect on how hard Mexican cooks work, or that watermelons have no affect on U2 DVD sales, it would not be an attempt to besmirch Mexican cooks or watermelons. It would just be an objective, emotionless fact. . .   

> The analogy

    

> . You (or your friend) has already provided a calculation of the approximate ratio of the size of humans to the size of the planet and made reference to the size of bacteria.  You seemed to be offended when I referred to this as an 'analogy' - so I take it that not only are we not on the same page, we are not using the same dictionary.

  I phoned a colleague to ask for his math on this, as he is a mathematician. I wasn’t offended by your use of the word ‘analogy’, but it was not an analogy, so I corrected you. I merely provided the correct ratio of humans in relation to Earth, to put some perspective into place regarding our relative size. I think environmentalists have created the impression that humans are “choking the planet”, and nothing could be further from the truth. . .   

> Firstly, I see two issues with your analogy (sorry to use that word),

   Here is the definition of analogy: . “A similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.” . Analogy | Define Analogy at Dictionary.com . I provided no analogies – just some math concerning sizes. If I talked about the earth being a pumpkin, that would be an analogy. . .   

> firstly shouldn't you be comparing the size of a human to the size of the atmosphere around Earth (not the entire planet)?

   How would that help me show how small humans are compared with the Earth? Environmentalists tell us that we “poison the planet” and that we must “save the planet”. They don’t say we must “save the air”. . .   

> And secondly, as I've stated before, it is not the size of humans that counts, but rather the size of their CO2 production.

   Again, my posts have nothing to do with CO2. They were about the propaganda taught to our kids about how fragile the planet is, and how humans are “killing” it. They create the impression that humans are a big part of our planet. They are not, and this is what I was showing. . .   

> Also, the analogy

   What analogy? . .   

> maybe a little deceiving in another way as the present percentage (volume) of CO2 is quite low (380ppm) so, just maybe, it won't take that much extra CO2 to make a notable difference to the CO2 concentration.

   So? Who cares if CO2 goes up? . .   

> Anyway, that's enough on debasing your analogy

   If you believe so ardently that it is an analogy, surely you could explain the analogous part of my post. Why didn’t you? . .   

> CO2 levels have increased from 280ppm to 380ppm in recent times (do you dispute that?).

    

> . The extra CO2 has shown to be almost entirely made from burning fossil fuels - man-made (do you dispute that?) . Therefore your argument that insignificant mankind couldn't make any impact on the huge earth? is false.

  An increase in CO2 will make no difference to the planet, or to life on earth. The point you have avoided a few times is that Carbon Dioxide was in much higher concentrations at the time of the dinosaurs, with no deleterious effect on life. If anything it stimulated life. At this time your whole argument is based on CO2, and CO2 is great stuff.  . . .

----------


## chrisp

> If you believe so ardently that it is an analogy, surely you could explain the analogous part of my post. Why didn’t you?

  *analogy* (_plural_ *analogies*)  A relationship of resemblance or equivalence between two  situations, people, or objects, especially when used as a basis for explanation or extrapolation.
(From Wiktionary)You, or your friend, make the following size _relationships_:Earth == average sized room
Man == less than a bacteriaWhy do you scale it anyway?  Could it be that you are trying the _explain_ how relatively insignificant the human race is on a scale that everyone can relate to? 
But please don't let semantics get in the way of you arguing your case.  :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

.   

> *analogy* (_plural_ *analogies*) 1.A relationship of resemblance or equivalence between two situations, people, or objects, especially when used as a basis for explanation or extrapolation. (From Wiktionary)

   Thats not bad, but I think Oxford and Cambridge make it even clearer. . _Oxford Dictionary:
analogy
1 a comparison between one thing and another made to explain or clarify. 
2 a correspondence or partial similarity._ . AskOxford: analogy . _Cambridge University Press:
analogy 
a comparison between things which have similar features, often used to help explain a principle or idea 
 - He drew an analogy between the brain and a vast computer.
 - It is sometimes easier to illustrate an abstract concept by analogy with (= by comparing it with) something concrete. ._ _analogous 
The experience of mystic trance is in a sense analogous to sleep or drunkenness._ . analogy - Definition of analogy noun from Cambridge Dictionary Online: Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus .
So an analogy is comparing one thing with another, different thing.  In my case I compared nothing with nothing.  I merely stated how well a man could see humans on the earth if it were shrunk to 3 metres while he remained at 2 metres.  If you can see any analogous comparison I made, point to it.  I noticed you haven't so far. . .   

> You, or your friend, make the following size _relationships_: .

    

> Earth == average sized room . Man == less than a bacteria

  
Not quite.  It would be: . Earth (and its humans), shrunk down to a 3 metre diameter, viewed by a two metre tall man. . .   

> Why do you scale it anyway?

  For the same reason a science teacher tells us that when an ant picks up a small grain of sand and walks along, it would be the same as us picking up a car and running at 30 kph.  Or when a mechanic says, If you could stand inside your piston, you would see the walls were all scratched and worn. . When dealing with environmentalists who blow humans way up out of proportion, making it sound like the planet is just a small thing, and we big humans will poison and wreck it in no time, it is worth spelling out that humans are invisible on a 3 metre sized earth, without electron microscopes.  That throws cold water on the Were poisoning the planet mob. . .   

> But please don't let semantics get in the way of you arguing your case.

  So far that is what you are doing.  I made no analogy, yet you insist I did. . . .

----------


## chrisp

> An increase in CO2 will make no difference to the planet, or to life on earth. The point you have avoided a few times is that Carbon Dioxide was in much higher concentrations at the time of the dinosaurs, with no deleterious effect on life. If anything it stimulated life. At this time your whole argument is based on CO2, and CO2 is great stuff.

  I think we maybe getting somewhere. 
You seem to be now accepting that atmospheric CO2 has increased from about 280ppm to about 380ppm due to humankind burning fossil fuels in recent times. 
So the question in your mind is now whether the increase in CO2 matters at all? 
Is this a fair summation?

----------


## Allen James

.    

> I think we maybe getting somewhere.

   I was '_there'_ in about 1984, when I realized why greenies were opposed to nuclear power stations and dams. .   

> You seem to be now accepting that atmospheric CO2 has increased from about 280ppm to about 380ppm due to humankind burning fossil fuels in recent times.

   I didn’t accept it, but I did say it wouldn’t matter, since the amount was so much greater in past times, with no ill effect. If you don’t understand, then here is an analogy: . Chrisp: Cancer is going to go through the roof soon. Allen: Why’s that? Chrisp: Because of the number of bicycles. Allen: Oh? I disagree. I don’t believe they will cause a cancer epidemic. Chrisp: Do you agree that there are more bicycles than people in Australia today? Allen: It wouldn’t matter if there were, because bicycles don’t have anything to do with it. Chrisp: I think we may be getting somewhere. You seem to be now accepting that there are more bicycles than people in Australia.  Allen: No, I’m saying that it doesn’t matter how many bicycles there are, because they are not the cause of cancer. I don’t care if the number of bicycles doubles or triples, because cancer is caused by other factors. . .   

> So the question in your mind is now whether the increase in CO2 matters at all?

   Huh? . From my post, page 61, post 915 of this thread:     

> .In prior posts I was trying to explain to the greenies that:

   

> _"Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago."_

    

> . _http://www.answers.com/topic/carbon-dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere_ . . So basically, when it was in *much greater* quantities we had large populations of enormous dinosaurs and abundant, lush rainforests all over the earth. It’s obvious that CO2 stimulates life and we could do with a lot more of the stuff, as the man in your video shows.

  . I made my position on CO2 clear all the way through this thread. . .

----------


## Dr Freud

The average NSW household will be paying nearly $1000 more per year in electricity bills by 2013 due to the Federal Government's proposed emissions trading scheme (ETS).   The home page is currently polling readers to see if they are happy paying more for electricity under Rudds ETS.   Yes: About 6,000 No:  About 108,000   So when was the last time Rudd sang the praises of his ETS, or claimed this issue is still the greatest moral challenge of our generation? 
Maybe "health" could be the greatest moral challenge of our generation this month?

----------


## Dr Freud

> These Scientists have been hard at work for the last several years researching the effects of climate change on Butterflies. Because of our human interest in butterflies, there are good records of the dates of emergence of them going back 65 years. 
> Quote:    
> 			
> 				Originally Posted by *Professor David Karoly*  _This is the first time we've been able to link the change in a natural system, like a butterfly, to regional warming and then link that regional warming to increase in green house gases as a result of human activity._    There's a report on ABC just in but I first heard it on JJJ  
> Interesting stuff, and supporting evidence again, but not of the proof that will interest Dr Freud - his requires a time machine. 
> woodbe.

   

> This visual presentation below is representative of a scale of forces in our world that are currently unfathomable, and constantly hold my attention as we try to uncover some of the answers.    And this study while also fascinating from a biological perspective, is now going to be subjected to ridicule for the spurious assertions it makes based on trust in authority figures.  Do you really think the claims based on this study of nympho butterflies adds any credibility to AGW Theory?    But if you want to talk about butterflies, check this out.   This led Lorenz to realize that long-term weather forecasting was doomed.   And more here.   He also appreciated that in real weather situations, this sensitivity could mean the development of a front or pressure-system where there never would have been one in previous models.   As for time machines, Laplace's Demon negates this need entirely at the first site listed.   "We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at any given moment knew all of the forces that animate nature and the mutual positions of the beings that compose it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit the data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom; for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."   But as we are not omnipotent, we must settle for the unknown.  Quantum multiverse theories currently do battle with these same demons, but they are not easily slain.  Certainly not by horny aussie students studying horny butterflies, then making spurious assertions.

   

> If the cap fits, wear it.   
> Not having a copy of the research, I'm not able to say one way or the other Doc. Being a joint research project between Melbourne and Monash Unis, I'd expect they engaged in good science practice, and didn't make any spurious assertions at all. 
> You however have already made up your mind.  
> What was that you said about open minds again? 
> woodbe.

  
Let's run through that again.   

> Interesting stuff, and supporting evidence again

   

> Do you really think the claims based on this study of nympho butterflies adds any credibility to AGW Theory?

     

> Not having a copy of the research, I'm not able to say one way or the other Doc.

  
So, you say it's supporting evidence, then when questioned as to it's credibility, can't say one way or the other, as you don't have a copy of the research.  So how can you claim earlier it was supporting evidence, then claim you can't say through lack of evidence?  :Confused:   And as for this:    

> You however have already made up your mind.  
>  What was that you said about open minds again?

  My mind is made up on the ridiculous statement you quoted by Karoly who is a rolled gold idiot (and interestingly a contributor to the IPCC).  Just read the statement and you will see why.   
My mind is constantly open to new ideas and new facts, but is closed to religious dogma, except for it's sociological study as part of the human condition.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Just in case you might be implying or suggesting that the CSIRO doesn't give any reason for the temperature rise:*"It is very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming observed since 1950*There is greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century. International research shows that it is extremely unlikely that the observed warming could be explained by natural causes alone. Evidence of human influence has been detected in ocean warming, sea-level rise, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns. CSIRO research has shown that higher greenhouse gas levels are likely to have caused about half of the winter rainfall reduction in south-west Western Australia." (from: http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf )

    

> This window dressing is embarrassing.  Mainly because with the exception of the last sentence, it has pretty much been cut and pasted from the IPCC.  But that is not to say the last sentence is not embarrassing in and of itself, just seehere.    But to save some time in going through and pointing out how much waffle this really is, the one piece of apparently quantifiable information that stands out is the 90% probability statement (actually stated as >90%, which is interesting). 
> I would be grateful for your explanation as to how this figure was derived.  Ideally, its source output should appear to be something like .937 but I would be grateful for your explanation of this probabilities determination?

   

> I'm reasonably sure that the 90% statement is probably a direct quote (or close to a direct quote) from the IPCC document. I too thought it sounded 'IPCC-ish' when I read it. 
> I'm sure you can find the methodology used for the determination of the certainty categories  in the IPCC reports. 
> I take it that you are betting on the <10% probable outcome? If so, do you think it is good and rational reasoning given the scientific evidence? 
> Is there a motive behind your entrenched 'scepticism'?

    

> I'm sure you can find the methodology used for the determination of the certainty categories  in the IPCC reports.

  
In spite of the anti-sceptics sceptical scepticism of my reading of a lot of the IPCC reports, I have indeed read them, and yes my friend, I have found the methodology you speak of.  But as has been the protocol on this thread of late to put up or shut up, is the onus not on you to substantiate this 90% probability you have cited, or retract it as being fallacious?   

> Is there a motive behind your entrenched 'scepticism'?

  Yes.  And when you find and read the methodology you speak of, you will know what this motive is.  And you will also know that I am not betting on anything, least of all a 10% probability of an event not occuring. 
The mathematical foundation to this oft quoted figure should be easy for you to find in many IPCC publications, but let me give you a two word clue to help you on your search, from your own citation:    

> *It is very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming observed since 1950*

  
Happy hunting comrade.  :Private Eye:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I think we maybe getting somewhere. 
> You seem to be now accepting that atmospheric CO2 has increased from about 280ppm to about 380ppm due to humankind burning fossil fuels in recent times. 
> So the question in your mind is now whether the increase in CO2 matters at all? 
> Is this a fair summation?

  During the Jurassic period, best scientific estimates put atmospheric CO2 as peaking at about 2000ppm, but prior to this has been estimated as high as 6000ppm.  But lets stick with the Jurassic at 2000ppm for now.  The Jurassic period (199.6 million to 145.5 million years ago) was characterized by a warm, wet climate that gave rise to lush vegetation and abundant life. Many new dinosaurs emergedin great numbers. Among them were stegosaurs, brachiosaurs, allosaurs, and many others.   And also:     During the Upper Jurassic, the Logan Sea entered this area from the north. In its various advances and retreats, this body of water covered large areas of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, depositing sandstone, shale, limestone, and some gypsum. The retreat of the Logan Sea, toward the end of the period, was followed, probably in the Upper Jurassic but possibly in the Lower Cretaceous Period, by the deposition of the Morrison continental series of clays and sandstones, noted for its richness in fossil dinosaurs.   The history of the European Jurassic is very well known, that system being one of the most complete on the Continent. Studies of oxygen isotopes, the extent of land flora, and marine fossils indicate that climates during Jurassic times were mildperhaps 15°F (8°C) warmer than those of today. No glaciers existed during this period. The plant life of the Jurassic was dominated by the cycads, but conifers, ginkgoes, horsetails, and ferns were also abundant. Of the marine invertebrates, the most important were the ammonites. The dominant animals on land, in the sea, and in the air were the reptiles.  
Dinosaurs, more numerous and more extraordinary than those of the Triassic period, were the chief land animals; crocodiles, ichthyosaurs, and plesiosaurs ruled the sea, while the air was inhabited by the pterosaurs and relatives. Mammals, making their first appearance, were few and small but undoubtedly became well established during the Jurassic period. The Jurassic saw the appearance of the first bird, Archaeopteryx.   My 5 year old nephew loves this stuff.  The more he learns, the less he is afraid of the FACT that the climate changes, along with many other things.  Regardless of the cr-p they try to teach him at school these days about the world coming to an end because his mum drops him off instead of walking him to school.  :Mad:    So the question in your mind is now whether the increase in CO2 matters at all? :Confused:  
Is this a fair summation? :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## woodbe

> Let's run through that again. 
> So, you say it's supporting evidence, then when questioned as to it's credibility, can't say one way or the other, as you don't have a copy of the research.  So how can you claim earlier it was supporting evidence, then claim you can't say through lack of evidence?

  Selective quoting and deliberate obtuseness doesn't make a point Doc, it just shows how set your opinion is. 
The research is by Australian scientists, not by me. In the interview I heard and subsequently read and posted here, one of those very scientists said that they had been able to link the butterfly emergence changes over the last 65 years with both changes in temperature and climate change. 
On the face of it, that is supporting evidence. That is what I reported. You on the other hand decided to start rubbishing the as yet unseen report as 'spurious' simply because it apparently supports AGW. 
Closed mind and misinformation, Doc.  
Don't apologise, we're used to it around here from the sceptics. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> .I didn’t accept it, but I did say it wouldn’t matter, since the amount was so much greater in past times, with no ill effect.

  Allen, I hope you don't mind a little more questioning?  I'm just trying to understand your position better. 
Also, I'm a little confused by your response.  I'm not sure what facts you accept or do not accept. 
Maybe we can go through it one step at a time (for my benefit). 
Yes, I understand that in the time of the dinosaurs (and other times in the distant past) CO2 levels varied considerably.   
But in recent times (the last 100~200 years) do you accept that CO2 levels have increased from ~280ppm to ~380ppm?

----------


## chrisp

> I like how the Doc comes in last thing at night and strings all his posts together. 
> Makes scrolling past them so much easier....................

  I think the Doc might be using that old trick I've seen used in primary school.  You know the one, the one where when you had to write a composition on some topic.  You knew the stuff you wrote wasn't that good, but you hoped to impress the teacher by writing it using colour pencils (using several different colours too! ) and adding the odd picture or two.

----------


## Allen James

. . Make yourself comfortable on the couch there Chrisp. Let me get my notebook and pen. Now, where were we in the last session? Oh yes. You believe CO2 is going to kill everyone. Do you still believe this, even after learning that naughty CO2 was far more plentiful during the age of dinosaurs, when life was plush and abundant? .   

> Allen, I hope you don't mind a little more questioning?

   What? Oh, sure, fire away. [scribbles note  appears to think _he_ is the shrink!] . .   

> I'm just trying to understand your position better.

   Okay, but, er, thats my job. Now just relax and explain what concerns you at this time. . .   

> I'm a little confused by your response.

   [makes note] Uh huh. Okay. Now, which response? What confuses you exactly? . .   

> I'm not sure what facts you accept or do not accept.

   About . . ? . .   

> Maybe we can go through it one step at a time (for my benefit).

   Go through what, exactly? Don't get up, stay there, that's right. [Scribbles note] . .   

> Yes, I understand that in the time of the dinosaurs (and other times in the distant past) CO2 levels varied considerably.

   Well, thats a step in the right direction, but do you realize CO2 was in a much higher concentration at that time? This is what you need to accept, to get over this CO2 phobia. . .   

> But in recent times (the last 100~200 years) do you accept that CO2 levels have increased from ~280ppm to ~380ppm?

   Now youre regressing back to where we were when we first started these sessions. Please keep up. Weve already covered this, and the last example was where I mentioned bicycles, remember? . . If you want to know my position on CO2, watch this engaging clip (about nine minutes). . [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs"]YouTube - The Great Global Warming Swindle, part 1 of 9[/ame] . Its the first of nine parts, and its been around since March 2007, way before climate-gate. In the documentary, called The Great Global Warming Swindle, they go over exactly why the AGW church exists, and how anyone in opposition to it is a heretic. It talks about the CO2 myth, and in this first part you even see one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, saying that he doesnt call it the environmental movement anymore, because, Really, it is a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level. This is found at 5:30 in the clip. At 7:20 he says, The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries. . For those interested in seeing the whole documentary, the first part is entitled: The Great Global Warming Swindle, part 1 of 9 and the others are numbered accordingly, and all are on www.youtube.com . I highly recommend it. . . .

----------


## chrisp

> Originally Posted by chrisp  But in recent times (the last 100~200 years) do you accept that CO2  levels have increased from ~280ppm to ~380ppm?     Now youre  regressing back to where we were when we first started these sessions.  Please keep up. Weve already covered this, and the last example was  where I mentioned bicycles, remember?

  Sorry Allen, 
I missed your answer to the main question.  Could you repeat it for me?

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> During the Jurassic period, best scientific estimates put atmospheric CO2 as peaking at about 2000ppm, but prior to this has been estimated as high as 6000ppm. But lets stick with the Jurassic at 2000ppm for now.

    

> .   The Jurassic period (199.6 million to 145.5 million years ago) was characterized by a warm, wet climate that gave rise to lush vegetation and abundant life. Many new dinosaurs emerged—in great numbers. Among them were stegosaurs, brachiosaurs, allosaurs, and many others. . .

   Along with climate-gate and a few other embarrassing facts, this is the reason the AGW church is crumbling. They run from the fact that dinosaurs enjoyed a much higher concentration of CO2, when life was abundant and plush, just as the anti-jet greenies run when interviewers ask them why they use jets to go to rallies. They tell us to accept their CO2 Goddess or be branded heretics and banished to the everlasting fires of green hell.    All they can do is chant, “C02 is increasing,” which means nothing. . . . .

----------


## Allen James

.    

> I missed your answer to the main question. Could you repeat it for me?

   I've dealt with your chanting that CO2 has increased. CO2 has increased and decreased all throughout the history of life on earth, with no ill effects whatsoever. Thus it is of no concern to me. You have refused to address this each time I mentioned it, choosing instead to chant. .. Chrisp: We will suffer apocalypse because CO2 is increasing. Allen: Poppycock. It was five times more abundant when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Chrisp: Do you agree it is increasing? Allen: Did you hear what I just said? Chrisp: But do you agree? Allen: Youre worse than an Amway salesman. . .  Sound familiar Chrisp? . .  .

----------


## chrisp

> .Sound familiar Chrisp?

  It sounds very much like you might be extremely reluctant to answer, what I thought was, a fairly simple question.

----------


## dazzler

Didn't take long for James to get back to his old garbage of making up conversations. A serious question, are you doing this on purpose or are you just not quite okay?

----------


## chrisp

> Allen: Poppycock. It was five times more abundant when dinosaurs roamed the earth.

  It would seem that you could actually give us a *firsthand* account of the CO2 levels when dinosaurs roamed. 
What was it like back then?   :Smilie:

----------


## watson

A fair series of deletions has just occurred..........offtopic..........general crud......and,it's starting to irritate me fellers.

----------


## andy the pm

> .. However, at this time, in relation to the vast planet we inhabit, our affect on Earth is insignificant, which is not to insult humans.  .  I merely provided the correct ratio of humans in relation to Earth, to put some perspective into place regarding our relative size. I think environmentalists have created the impression that humans are choking the planet, and nothing could be further from the truth. .  Again, my posts have nothing to do with CO2. They were about the propaganda taught to our kids about how fragile the planet is, and how humans are killing it. They create the impression that humans are a big part of our planet. They are not, and this is what I was showing.. .

  If our impact on the planet is so insignificant, how do you explain the hole in the ozone layer??  We managed to do that in just 60 years....

----------


## andy the pm

> It would seem that you could actually give us a *firsthand* account of the CO2 levels when dinosaurs roamed. 
> What was it like back then?

  
I find it quite funny how denialists are quick to point out the perceived short comings of computer modelling when it comes to climate change and AGW, but are happy to embrace it when it comes to showing us how much higher CO2 levels were when dinosaurs ran around (apparently)

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Didn't take long for James to get back to his old garbage of making up conversations.

   Do you have a quote? . .   

> A serious question, are you doing this on purpose or are you just stupid?

   Doing what on purpose? . .   

> It would seem that you could actually give us a *firsthand* account of the CO2 levels when dinosaurs roamed. What was it like back then?

   The article I quoted from is here: . carbon dioxide: Definition from Answers.com . You can see all the references that back it up at the bottom of the page. If you dispute any part of this, present your argument. Sneering is not debate. . .   

> If our impact on the planet is so insignificant, how do you explain the hole in the ozone layer?? We managed to do that in just 60 years....

   This issue is a decade and a half old. Its time you caught up. . Stratospheric Ozone: Myths and Realities . . .

----------


## chrisp

> .This issue is a decade and a half old. Its time you caught up. . Stratospheric Ozone: Myths and Realities

  It is an interesting source that you use: *"The Science & Environmental Policy Project* (SEPP) is an Arlington, Virginia,  United States-based research and advocacy group financed by private contributions, founded in  1990 by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer. The group disputes the prevailing  scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and secondhand smoke."(from: Science & Environmental Policy Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) 
There is more on them at: Science and Environmental Policy Project - SourceWatch

----------


## woodbe

> and secondhand smoke."

  Cough, cough. Tobacco again. 
Sounds like a reliable outfit Chris.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> The group disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and secondhand smoke."

   The logical fallacy you provide here is that he cannot be correct about the ozone layer if he opposes popular views about second hand smoke. Carrying that logic forward we must then say that if Einstein was wrong about which violinist was the best in Europe, he must have been wrong about E = mc2. . Yippee!  :Biggrin:    . .

----------


## Dr Freud

> Selective quoting and deliberate obtuseness doesn't make a point Doc, it just shows how set your opinion is. 
> The research is by Australian scientists, not by me. In the interview I heard and subsequently read and posted here, one of those very scientists said that they had been able to link the butterfly emergence changes over the last 65 years with both changes in temperature and climate change. 
> On the face of it, that is supporting evidence. That is what I reported. You on the other hand decided to start rubbishing the as yet unseen report as 'spurious' simply because it apparently supports AGW. 
> Closed mind and misinformation, Doc.  
> Don't apologise, we're used to it around here from the sceptics. 
> woodbe.

   I shall respond point by point in order to avoid inadvertently being deliberately obtuse.     

> Selective quoting

   Selective quoting?  If you look again, I think this post was more comprehensively quoted that just about any other in this thread.  I merely extracted some of the pertinent points from this extensive quote.     

> deliberate obtuseness

   It was not deliberately obtuse as I did not intend it.  If you found it to be obtuse, this means that it was inadvertently received by you as being obtuse.    

> doesn't make a point Doc

   It did make a point, which I shall expand on below.     

> it just shows how set your opinion is

   And it has nothing to do with my opinion, but yours.  Specifically your claim that this study was supporting evidence for AGW Theory.    

> The research is by Australian scientists, not by me.

   Agreed, but it was it was you who claimed it was supporting evidence for AGW Theory.     

> In the interview I heard and subsequently read and posted here, one of those very scientists said that they had been able to link the butterfly emergence changes over the last 65 years with both changes in temperature and climate change.

   Agreed again.  But if this climate change is not anthropogenic, then how is this support for AGW Theory?  The study title, briefing, and interim report mention nothing in regards to anthropogenic warming.  But hey, if hearing something on the radio is enough fact checking for you to claim that what you heard is supporting evidence, then please dont watch War of the Worlds.     But I took a little time to research this (call me crazy) and found their interim report at the link here. Once the final report is released, we can discuss it in detail if you wish, but lets assess what we have so far.  Interestingly, no mention is made of Karoly at the start of this study.  One tends to picture bandwagons and jumping at this point?   But back to the study, which in a nutshell shows a negative correlation between hatching time and temperatures.  Does this mean that there is a causal relationship between these two variables? Anyone? Well done, the answer is no!   Does the study say anything at all about this phenomenon having a causal relationship due to anthropogenic warming? Anyone? Well spotted, this is a trick question because Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is still just a theory, and cannot be used as evidence for itself, that would just be silly.  Youd have to be a Karoly to try that one on.     

> On the face of it, that is supporting evidence

   On the face of it, that is spurious assertions based on correlations having nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2 emissions not being linked in a causal relationship to global warming.     

> That is what I reported.

   I know, that is why I am pointing out that this is not supporting evidence for AGW Theory as you have claimed.     

> You on the other hand decided to start rubbishing the as yet unseen report as 'spurious' simply because it apparently supports AGW.

   I have not rubbished this report. If you look again here, you will see that I said:   "And this study while also fascinating from a biological perspective, is now going to be subjected to ridicule for the spurious assertions it makes based on trust in authority figures."   I fully support this study on its biological merits, and commend the students involved for their dedication to their area of science.  They put in considerable efforts over many years for this study.  But to correct your assertion above, it does not support AGW Theory at all, so how can this be a rationale for my alleged rubbishing of it.   What is spurious are Karolys assertions and manipulation of this study to further his own agenda, which it appears Kearney is more than happy to oblige, to his discredit.   Rather than go on further, just read this for a laugh (or cry):   Australian scientists say they have uncovered a "causal link" between the early emergence of a common butterfly and human-induced global warming.    

> Closed mind and misinformation

    Ill leave it to the readers to make their own minds up on who this refers to.  

> Don't apologise, we're used to it around here from the sceptics.

     Thats because sceptics understand that all humans and theories are fallable, and rejoice in making mistakes, as this shows us what does not work, thereby leading us closer to what does.  A zealot on the other hand never apologises as this weakens their ideological position.   As an aside, this little butterfly project cost Australian taxpayers a quarter of a million dollars.

----------


## Dr Freud

> In spite of the anti-sceptics sceptical scepticism of my reading of a lot of the IPCC reports, I have indeed read them, and yes my friend, I have found the methodology you speak of.  But as has been the protocol on this thread of late to put up or shut up, is the onus not on you to substantiate this 90% probability you have cited, or retract it as being fallacious?   Yes.  And when you find and read the methodology you speak of, you will know what this motive is.  And you will also know that I am not betting on anything, least of all a 10% probability of an event not occuring. 
> The mathematical foundation to this oft quoted figure should be easy for you to find in many IPCC publications, but let me give you a two word clue to help you on your search, from your own citation:    
> Happy hunting comrade.

  
How goes the hunt my friend?  Are we moving closer to substantiation or retraction?  I can provide more clues if necessary?

----------


## Dr Freud

> I think the Doc might be using that old trick I've seen used in primary school.  You know the one, the one where when you had to write a composition on some topic.  You knew the stuff you wrote wasn't that good, but you hoped to impress the teacher by writing it using colour pencils (using several different colours too! ) and adding the odd picture or two.

  Alas, we live on a round planet, so I'm temporally disadvantaged over here in the west.  Then I read the posts here and have to research carcinogens, oncogenes, haematology, butterflies and numerous other issues designed to distract from the fact that there is no evidence proving AGW Theory.  So by the time I start posting, it is very late even over here. 
Alas, the teacher has taken my crayons.  But there will still be pictures, as a picture is worth a thousand words, and I'm sure no-one wants another 1000 words from me.  
As for the stuff you write not being that good, please see my previous post.

----------


## Dr Freud

> If our impact on the planet is so insignificant, how do you explain the hole in the ozone layer??  We managed to do that in just 60 years....

  
We managed to fly to the moon in 3 days. 
What's your point? 
Do you want to start researching another irrelevant sidetrack rather than maybe you present any evidence proving AGW Theory?

----------


## Dr Freud

> I find it quite funny how denialists are quick to point out the perceived short comings of computer modelling when it comes to climate change and AGW, but are happy to embrace it when it comes to showing us how much higher CO2 levels were when dinosaurs ran around (apparently)

  It is not "denialists" that point out these factual shortcomings, and not perceived shortcomings of climate models, but an entire area of science.  The reason their shortcomings are factual is that not a single one of them has ever worked.  If you call this a perception, then we might need to work through this slowly.  Or you may want to research more about this.  Here are some reasonable starting points:   

> But if you want to talk about butterflies, check this out.   This led Lorenz to realize that long-term weather forecasting was doomed.   And more here.   He also appreciated that in real weather situations, this sensitivity could mean the development of a front or pressure-system where there never would have been one in previous models.   As for time machines, Laplace's Demon negates this need entirely at the first site listed.   "We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at any given moment knew all of the forces that animate nature and the mutual positions of the beings that compose it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit the data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom; for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."   But as we are not omnipotent, we must settle for the unknown. Quantum multiverse theories currently do battle with these same demons, but they are not easily slain. Certainly not by horny aussie students studying horny butterflies, then making spurious assertions.

  Now, in relation to your next point about historical CO2 levels, these are not predictions made by the flawed climate models, but very rough estimates based on what are referred to as proxy data.  Here is a quick refresher:   

> Hi Rod, 
> By all accounts your plastering is flawless, as is your logic.  I concur with your sentiments, and look forward to the emotional outbursts and prophesies of the end of the world.  But first, allow me to provide some context.  Best scientific estimates indicate the planet (Earth) is about 4.5 billion years old (p.s. there was no moon or water then, these arrived a few billion years later). 
> I know it hurts, but please keep reading.  Us humans arrived about 2 million years ago.  Then after lots of banging rocks together, we invented something called a thermometer about 150 years ago.  We now have about 100 years of very inaccurate surface temperature data, and a few decades of fairly accurate satellite data (on a planet that's been here 4.5 billion years)  
> We have made very inaccurate guesses as far back as we can about the climate before we got here.  We call this proxy data in the scientific community (rhymes with poxy)
> Here it is: 
> Geological Era---------Million Years Ago----------Carbon Dioxide ppm-----------Av Global Temperature 0C 
>            Cambrian------------550-------------------------------------6,000----------------------23
> Ordovician-----------470-------------------------------------4,200----------------------23  12
> Silurian---------------430--------------------------------------3,500---------------------17 - 23
> ...

  So my friend, I am not happy embracing any climate models.  As for these "denialists" you speak of, best you get their opinion from them. 
When you say "(apparently)", do you not believe in dinosaurs, or do you question the accuracy of the proxy data, as I certainly do.

----------


## Dr Freud

> It is an interesting source that you use:*"The Science & Environmental Policy Project* (SEPP) is an Arlington, Virginia,  United States-based research and advocacy group financed by private contributions, founded in  1990 by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer. The group disputes the prevailing  scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and secondhand smoke."(from: Science & Environmental Policy Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) 
> There is more on them at: Science and Environmental Policy Project - SourceWatch

   

> Cough, cough. Tobacco again. 
> Sounds like a reliable outfit Chris.  
> woodbe.

  Now there's some evidence supporting AGW Theory?  :Confused:  
Or are you just personally attacking those highlighting the flaws in your logic again?  Maybe you could spend some of this time researching AGW Theory and dig up some evidence showing a causal relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and unprecedented global warming? 
Hey, when you are researching, I don't suppose you could find the data supporting that 90% probability calculation.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> But in recent times (the last 100~200 years) do you accept that CO2 levels have increased from ~280ppm to ~380ppm?

  My friend, we have well and truly covered this issue, and Mr James is understandably exasperated.  I assume this is leading to a point somewhere along the line, as opposed to you just forgetting this has all been covered many times already.  If you need some information, this may help:   

> Alas no, there won't be Nobel peace? prizes issued today.  Always wondered why the IPCC didn't get one in the scientific categories, like physics? But that for another day. 
> Quote:    
> 			
> 				Originally Posted by *woodbe*   _We missed this in January, but no matter, there has been plenty to talk about.  Climate Science Update - UCSUSA (PDF) 
> A couple of the diagrams from the report might whet your appetite to read the paper:      
> Despite all the noise, the evidence of AGW continues to stack up, but fear not, there will always be disagreement because the evidence is never enough for some to change their world view. As we have seen, they latch on to and feed from sceptic sites run by people who are not scientists, and who do not appear to understand nor carry out research based on scientific principles, and are are either strangely silent when exposed or throw lots of irrelevant mud hoping some will stick and dissuade ongoing inspection of their dodgy information. 
> woodbe._    We didn't miss anything champ.  This window dressing is based on information already well represented in this thread, which includes our "adjusted" data, similar to that of our good friends Dr Phil Jones and Dr Michael Mann.  What they show is a bivariate correlation of about +.7.  Next time you time you chat to a mathematician, ask them what this means in a multivariate environment.  Don't tell them it is chaotic or they will laugh at you, let them assume you mean it is controlled.   
> As for the "cherry picking" claims in laugh 2, oops, graph 2, 50 years of data huh?  How old is the planet again?  Unless you are like the Joho's who I talk to occasionally who try to convince me the planet in 6000 years old, are you claiming this is a representative sample of climate history?  50 is sooooo much better than 10, out of 4.5 billion.  I freely admitted Watts "cherry picked" data after your outraged outbursts, as do many people, so perhaps you will level these same criticisms at this window dressing you have posted?

  And here is Dr Michael Mann's version of Real Climate fame:    And here is some context:    Now, is there a point to your fixation with this?

----------


## Dr Freud

> *SCIENTISTS have failed to get the message out on climate change, according to the federal government's top scientific adviser. *   Chief Scientist Penny Sackett, who has previously said climate change is real and humans are contributing to it, said the problem was not the credibility of the climate science but of "miscommunication". 
>   "I think we do have a communications failure, and I think we should admit that, we should address it," Dr Sackett, an astronomer, told ABC Television. 
>   She suggested scientists and journalists should ask themselves how they could do a better job at improving the public's understanding of climate science.

     Heres an idea, maybe you could tell the truth?   Instead of this pattern of communication that the CSIRO is all too familiar with:   

> Climate ads banned for overstating threat   "Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought," read the copyline on one of the ads. "Extreme weather conditions such as flooding, heatwaves and storms will become more frequent and intense," warned the ad, commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change.   The ads were part of a DECC campaign that attracted 939 complaints last year. Upholding the complaints, the ASA said forecasts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "involved uncertainties" the adverts failed to reflect.  Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband downplayed the problem raised by the ASA.  "The science tells us that it is more than 90 per cent likely that there will be more extreme weather events if we don't act," he said. "In any future campaign, as requested by the ASA, we will make clear the nature of this prediction. We will continue to provide public information about the dangers of climate change".

    Yeh, lets use childrens nursery rhymes to overstate the dangers.  Freaks!  Hey Woodbe, can you please also email Mr Miliband and explain to him that he is spreading misinformation.  I know how seriously you take the issue of misinformation.  Oh look, Mr Miliband is also using the 90% probability calculation.  Once Chrisp explains the mathematical derivation of this probability, we can all email Mr Miliband and explain it to him too.  But surely Mr Miliband already knows how this was calculated.  He surely wouldnt just trust an authority figure without first checking the data.  Surely, neither would our Mr Rudd.

----------


## Dr Freud

Yes, there certainly is a communication problem at the CSIRO.     

> Column - CSIRO shames itself

----------


## Dr Freud

A very balanced view which is both rare and refreshing:   

> We have those committed to the view that anthropogenic global warming is real and dangerous, dismissing those who disagree with them as "denialists" or "climate sceptics" and even suggesting they are moral miscreants, like Holocaust deniers. On the other hand, sceptics are prone to dismiss or attack the proponents of the AGW hypothesis as "green fascists" or as believers in a new "religion" and the like. Such epithets are symptoms of frustration and bewilderment but do nothing to resolve the substantive matters in dispute.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Look out! It's the end of the world

  
Amazingly, this was not written by the CSIRO, the IPCC, Kevin Rudd, Al Gore, James Hansen or Tim Flannery.

----------


## Dr Freud

Can we have a debate on the ETS?    

> TONY Abbott has used his first question as opposition leader to challenge Kevin Rudd to a televised debate on climate change.

  
No!    Can we have a debate on health?     

> KEVIN Rudd was "spooked" into calling next week's health debate because his government's tactic to suspend question time yesterday backfired, the Opposition claims.

   Yes!    Obviously transferring 20% of hospital funding is more important to the government than Anthropogenic Global Warming concerns, or its own ETS policy.   Maybe our hospitals will be so well run, they will work underwater when the oceans rise?  :Boat:

----------


## woodbe

> But back to the study, which in a  nutshell shows a negative correlation between hatching time and  temperatures.  Does this mean that there is a causal relationship  between these two variables? Anyone? Well done, the answer is no!

  Hilarious, Doc. The study is not available, yet you have a crystal ball, and render the comments of the scientists who did it as based on lies! Butterfly emergence based on temperature is the main focus of the whole paper.   

> Rather than go on further, just read this for a laugh (or cry):   Australian scientists say they have uncovered a "causal link" between the early emergence of a common butterfly and human-induced global warming.

  So, once again, and before the paper is available to inspect, the Doc dismisses it not on the science, (well, we knew that, because he's the sceptic who famously revealed that "sceptics don't need any science") but because it claims to have found a link to AGW. 
So here's the rules from the Sceptic Hymn Book that relate to any new evidence or research papers. These rules are the only ones they need, and if you apply them to any of the evidence presented here, you will notice that our sceptics have applied them failthfully: 
1. If the research paper claims to find evidence of AGW, it's rubbish. 
2. If the paper claims to refute AGW, it's gospel. 
As you can see, this is a failsafe ruleset that needs no science at all. Anyone who doesn't like the idea that they may have to pay a bit more tax, or turn their aircon down to save power, etc, etc, can confirm the falsity of the AGW by applying these simple rules. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Originally Posted by chrisp   _But  in recent times (the last 100~200 years) do you accept that CO2 levels  have increased from ~280ppm to ~380ppm?_    My friend, we have well and  truly covered this issue, and Mr James is understandably exasperated.  I  assume this is leading to a point somewhere along the line, as opposed  to you just forgetting this has all been covered many times already.

  I do have a 'point' or reason for my question to Allen - and I'd guess it isn't clear to all yet (not that I'm trying to hide it).  *What I'm trying to do is understand Allen's position better by trying to find a common point on which we agree.*  
I understand Allen's stance that CO2 has nothing to do with the planet warming.  I suspect that Allen stance may also be that the planet isn't warming at all, or that the warming is just part of the natural cycle of things.  This I can comprehend (but I do not necessarily agree).  This he has 'covered'. 
What I'm trying to work out is what Allen accepts or rejects in the scientific domain.  I have picked the 'CO2 increasing from 280ppm to 380ppm' as a starting point (mainly because one of Allen's posts sort of implied that he accepted that point - so I sought explicit confirmation).  *I have also chosen this point (i.e. 'CO2 increased from 280pp to 380ppm in the recent past') as it is just scientific measurement and recording of past events.*  
Regardless of whether Allen believes CO2 has anything or nothing to do with the climate,  I am interested to know if he accepts that statement that you have quoted regarding CO2 levels increasing from about 280ppm to 380ppm in recent times.  This he has not 'covered'. (You, Dr Freud, may have covered it, but I would like to hear Allen's view.)  *My motive (or point) is to simply ascertain what science Allen accepts and what he rejects.*  If Allen accepts it, I'll move forward to another point; if he rejects it, I'll move back, until I find the point of divergence.  In a nutshell, I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind Allen's position on AGW/CC better. 
Sorry if I sound pushing or demanding, but I think it is important to find the _point of divergence_ of our respective views.  I don't see why Allen would feel uncomfortable being quizzed on some of the foundations his publicly strongly expressed views. 
It could be that I'm barking up the wrong tree entirely and that Allen's views aren't based on any science at all.  I'd be surprised if this is the case, so please bear with me while I try to make some sense of Allen position.  As to being 'exasperated', a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer would quickly settle the point.

----------


## woodbe

More sceptic bulldust hits the trashcan: 
The original research paper:   

> THREE AUSTRALASIAN SCIENTISTS FIND TEMPERATURE LINK TO SOUTHERN OSCILLATION 
> Posted 29 July 2009 
> A study by three Australasian researchers published 23 July in the highly regarded Journal of Geophysical Research shows that most of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to natural climate processes. The research by Chris de Freitas (University of Auckland, New Zealand), John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University, Australia) finds that the Southern Oscillation is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later.  LINK to download pdf
> Last Updated ( Sunday, 11 October 2009 )[/url]

  And the results of inspection by someone qualified to inspect the science:   

> * Mclean debunked (at last)          *  
>                                 Better  late than never, our Comment  on McLean has been formally accepted. It has spent most of the last  6 months on the Editor's desk, awaiting the decision. The peer review  was painless apart from the time taken - the three reviewers were all  positive and made a small number of helpful suggestions which were  easily incorporated into the text. However, the time taken (and it could  have been months longer) is something that the AGU might like to think  about. 
> Amusingly, the comment will be published alone, without  the customary Reply. Why? Because...McLean et al couldn't muster a reply  that was publishable (and not for want of trying, either - it was  simply rejected). No doubt this will further strengthen their belief in a  widespread climate science conspiracy to suppress their groundbreaking  research. Hopefully, disinterested observers will conclude instead that  there is simply no valid defence of what they did. I have no idea what  they tried to say, although the press  release at the time of the original publication shows that they  were aware of the obvious criticisms and had some wriggling already well  prepared. I have emailed them to ask if they will share their response.  If their response had been accepted, it would have potentially taken  another two months for our (sequential) revisions, and another month of  reviewing. All for a short paper which points out glaring errors that  should never have made it into print. 
> Just to go over the science  again...it has been well-known for decades that ENSO/SOI is related to  interannual temperature variability. It has also been repeatedly shown  that this cannot represent more than a modest part of the total  temperature variations and a negligible part of the long-term trend.  Evidence for all of this is referenced in our Comment. The primary error  of McLean et al is that although they filter out all long term changes,  they still claim that the resulting high correlation between SOI and  global mean temperature (in the filtered series) has relevance for long  term trends. As shown in the toy examples in the comment, this is simply  not true - the correlations calculated by their analysis method are  completely unrelated to any long-term trends in the underlying data. A  secondary error is that they splice together two data sets which have  different baselines, which artificially reduces the warming by about  0.2C. A third error is that they claim to identify two flat periods with  a breakpoint in the middle (for both SOI and temperature), but their  statistical analysis provides no support for this. 
> Update:  Sceptical science has a fuller write-up of it here. 
> Update2:  Someone purporting to be McLean replies  in the comments, confirming that he received my email but is not  prepared to share his reply, which seems curiously at odds with his  bullish attitude regarding his research. What odds it will be published  in  that septic journal of last resort bastion of  quality, the non-ISI-listed E&E (eds:  Boehmer-Cristiansen and Peiser) or not at all?

  Sceptics once again prove that they don't need science, or in this case they just prove they don't need good science. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Originally Posted by Dr Freud   _As a footnote, Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, it is a natural Molecule.  Your lungs are currently 70%  filled by Carbon Dioxide (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen  atoms).  So is your bloodstream (oh no, scary pollution).  You are a  carbon based life form.  When you breathe out the carbon dioxide, plants  breathe it in.  Then they breathe out oxygen, you breathe this in.   Complicated stuff, huh._

  You need to very careful of who you quote.  Some posters don't know their facts very well.  And even worse, some can't seem to get their facts right even when the errors have been pointed out to them. 
Oops, you are quoting you.  :Yikes2:  
[Come clean Doc, you're just teasing us, aren't you?]

----------


## chrisp

*Scientific Debate?* 
I suspect that the casual reader of this thread might get the impression that the science of climate change is hotly debated within scientific circles. 
However, in the science world, the science of climate change is well accepted.  Of course there is the odd dissent here and there, but the bulk of scientists accept man-made climate change (AGW) is real. 
The American Geophysical Union published a paper by Doran & Zimmerman "_Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change_" (EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Vol. 90, No. 3, doi:10.1029/2009EO030002, 2009) examining the views of earth scientists. 
A copy of the paper can be found at: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf 
A graph from this paper shows the level of agreement with the AGW theory from various groups.   
From the final paragraph of the paper (my emphasis):_"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues
to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."_ Also, Wikipedia has an article on "Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  
This article lists scientific organisations that are: in agreement with; those that are non-committal; and those that are dissenting; with AGW. 
A summary of the breakdown is (from the same article in Wikipedia):_"No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a  dissenting opinion  since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its  current position in 2007.  Some organisations hold non-committal positions." _ I'm sure some will be quick to point out that none of this is _proof_ of AGW.  However, the purpose of this post is to highlight the level of consensus from those 'in the know'. 
My view is that: The debate on AGW *isn't* a scientific debate within the scientific community.  It *might* be a quasi-scientific debate in the general community (such as this  forum) but it *should* be a political debate as to our response and action to AGW.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> The American Geophysical Union published a paper by Doran & Zimmerman "_Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change_" (EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Vol. 90, No. 3, doi:10.1029/2009EO030002, 2009) examining the views of earth scientists.

    

> A copy of the paper can be found at: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf  A graph from this paper shows the level of agreement with the AGW theory from various groups.

  This was written in January 2009, and the graph came from a poll made in 2008, way before climate-gate, and therefore irrelevant. . Thousands of scientists and many eminent scientists disagree with AGW, as do a growing public around the world. . You need to catch up. . . *The Times, Trenton* . *A rough winter for global warming* Thursday, March 18, 2010 .  We're all too familiar with the names by now: "Snowmageddon," the "Snowpocalypse" the "Snowicane," and, for the younger crowd, "Snowtorious B.I.G." You know it's been a brutal winter when the blizzards get their own nicknames.   Spring is in the air, and not a moment too soon. You've overstayed your welcome, Old Man Winter. Please grab your coat on the way out.  Whether kvetching at work around the water cooler or with a neighbor while shoveling snow, most of us saw the conversation inevitably turn to global warming -- "Where's Al Gore when we need him?" Such quips, of course, are infuriating to the faithful in the church of manmade, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW). It's "climate change," they insist, and any weather extremes, including this season's blizzards, can be attributed to its all-powerful reach.  Which is a great angle, as "climate change" is like the color-safe bleach of the natural world: It can make your summers hotter, your winters snowier, and all of your hurricanes a Category 5.   A handful of blizzards, of course, do not disprove global warming. Speaking about the brutal winters throughout the Northern Hemisphere, Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, echoed that sentiment: "I think we have to be careful not to interpret any single event as a proof of either warming or the fact that warming has stopped," he said. "We cannot explain any single phenomenon by one single cause."  Wise words.   If only the climate change crowd adhered to the same when pointing to scraggly polar bears, Australian wildfires or Hurricane Katrina as de facto proof of global warming. The alarmists like to have it both ways, dismissing singular climate events when they don't fit the narrative, yet highlighting the same when they further the agenda.  Even with the rebranding to climate change, it has been a winter of discontent for the AGW crowd. Emails leaked from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, the infamous "climategate" scandal, started the bad run of publicity. While the CRU correspondence was perhaps not the smoking gun desired by hardcore global warming skeptics, at the very least it showed scientists with an aversion to full transparency and more zeal for results than process.  Climategate was followed by a string of embarrassing admissions and retractions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, whose report is supposed to be the official distillation of global climate science, for use by public policymakers. Exaggerated claims about the melting rate of Himalayan glaciers, it turns out, were pulled from a magazine article. Similar assertions about the destruction of the Amazon rain forest, the percentage of the Netherlands under sea level and African crop yields were shown to be poorly fact-checked, pulled from secondary sources, or both. This reliance on so-called "gray science" led to charges of advocacy on the part of the IPCC, which is against its charter.  Pay these errors no mind, we are told. There are bound to be minor gaffes in data so voluminous, and they do nothing to detract from the consensus. The "science is settled" is the common refrain, despite the fact that the phrase is, in itself, not a terribly scientific thing to say. And even they must admit there comes a point when we find enough unsettling revelations behind the science to legitimately question whether it is, in fact, settled.  That debate aside, the real question is whether the proposed remedies for global warming -- transferring trillions of dollars to poor countries and green technologies -- can withstand a cost/benefit analysis. Cutting the government of Namibia a check for $5 billion to erect some wind turbines is no guarantee that it will be used for the same. It also diverts funding from HIV/AIDS relief, nutritional programs and many other humanitarian causes that have an immediate, direct impact on the world's poor. There's only so much money that developed economies, which are still struggling from the recession, can spread around. Where do we cut back in the singular pursuit of a greener future?  Such ruminations are, apparently, the preoccupation of climate change deniers and fools.   "The evidence is overwhelming and the time for debate is over."   "We must act now before it's too late."   "Further delay only hastens our own peril."    . A rough winter for global warming - NJ.com   .    

> My view is that...the debate on AGW *isn't* a scientific debate within the scientific community.

   You have conveniently ignored the many links we provided that prove your view wrong. . . .

----------


## chrisp

> .This was written in January 2009, and the graph came from a poll made in 2008, way before climate-gate, and therefore irrelevant. . Thousands of scientists and many eminent scientists disagree with AGW, as do a growing public around the world.

  Allen, 
I'd be more than happy to look at any figures and statistics you can provide to support your claim. 
Quoting an *opinion* piece in a newspaper just doesn't cut it.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> I'd be more than happy to look at any figures and statistics you can provide to support your claim.

   Youd ignore any information on this, as you have already, in this thread. . .   

> Quoting an *opinion* piece in a newspaper just doesn't cut it.

   Correct opinions always cut it. Pretending climate-gate never happened and posting out-of-date graphs does not.  .

----------


## chrisp

> .Youd ignore any information on this, as you have already, in this thread.

  I'm more than happy to read and evaluate information.  It is *opinion* that I choose to ignore.  One can find just about any opinion one likes on the web.  In my view opinion is essentially worthless as a basis for a constructive argument.    

> Correct opinions always cut it.  Pretending climate-gate never happened and posting out-of-date graphs  does not.

  Is that an admission that you just fish for opinions that coincide with your own views? 
You are welcome to find some more up to date information and statistics.  I'd be very happy to see them. 
Do you assert that there has been a swing away from AGW in the scientific community?  If so, maybe you'd better amend  the Wikipedia article to include the 'dissenting' scientific organisations.  Wikipedia reports that there are none.

----------


## Rod Dyson

And you wonder why we no longer trust the CSIRO and wonder why we don't trust what the scientist are telling us.  The BOM & CSIRO report: It’s what they don’t say that matters « JoNova 
The scientific comunity has only got themselves to blame.  Tom Nelson: Alarmists should be stunned by these fresh admissions from NASA  Howlin’ Wolf: Paul Ehrlich on Energy (Part II: Failed Predictions) — MasterResource  How government cash created the Climategate scandal | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
Even Hanson has had a go at fudging. What a laughing stock they have made of themselves. Why don't they just stick to the facts? Why embellish their data?  http://wallstreetpit.com/20710-clima...s-back-to-1980  
Man have they got some ground to make up.  
Just to cap it off. How to make a skeptic. http://american.com/archive/2010/mar...ific-consensus 
At least the used car salesmen are feeling better about themselves and their standing in the community.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Hilarious, Doc. The study is not available, yet you have a crystal ball, and render the comments of the scientists who did it as based on lies! Butterfly emergence based on temperature is the main focus of the whole paper.   
> So, once again, and before the paper is available to inspect, the Doc dismisses it not on the science, (well, we knew that, because he's the sceptic who famously revealed that "sceptics don't need any science") but because it claims to have found a link to AGW. 
> So here's the rules from the Sceptic Hymn Book that relate to any new evidence or research papers. These rules are the only ones they need, and if you apply them to any of the evidence presented here, you will notice that our sceptics have applied them failthfully: 
> 1. If the research paper claims to find evidence of AGW, it's rubbish. 
> 2. If the paper claims to refute AGW, it's gospel. 
> As you can see, this is a failsafe ruleset that needs no science at all. Anyone who doesn't like the idea that they may have to pay a bit more tax, or turn their aircon down to save power, etc, etc, can confirm the falsity of the AGW by applying these simple rules. 
> woodbe.

   

> Hilarious, Doc. The study is not available

  Yet you claim it is "supporting evidence" for AGW Theory? :Confused:    

> yet you have a crystal ball, and render the comments of the scientists who did it as based on lies!

  I don't need a crystal ball, I read the information released by the scientists conducting the study.  I also provided a link, you might want to take a look.  They themselves did not claim to find a causal relationship between Anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, so I was merely pointing out your erroneous claim that the study was "supporting evidence" for AGW Theory.  The scientists conducting the study did not lie, and I have never claimed they did.   

> Butterfly emergence based on temperature is the main focus of the whole paper.

  Yes my friend, this was my whole point.  It was your claim that this somehow is "supporting evidence" that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are the primary drivers of current global temperatures that requires you to clarify.  But as I have said, if your justification is that you heard it on the radio, I accept this as your level of investigation into this study.   

> So, once again, and before the paper is available to inspect, the Doc dismisses it not on the science, (well, we knew that, because he's the sceptic who famously revealed that "sceptics don't need any science") but because it claims to have found a link to AGW.

  I dismiss this paper as being "supporting evidence" of AGW Theory on the scientific fact that this study has never claimed to either look for or find any link or relationship whatsoever between anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and global temperature.  This my friend is not only science, but common sense, as the study never claimed it, never investigated it and never found it.  The rest of your hyperbole is redundant (and tiresome) as it has been refuted in depth previously in this thread.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I do have a 'point' or reason for my question to Allen - and I'd guess it isn't clear to all yet (not that I'm trying to hide it).  *What I'm trying to do is understand Allen's position better by trying to find a common point on which we agree.*  
> I understand Allen's stance that CO2 has nothing to do with the planet warming.  I suspect that Allen stance may also be that the planet isn't warming at all, or that the warming is just part of the natural cycle of things.  This I can comprehend (but I do not necessarily agree).  This he has 'covered'. 
> What I'm trying to work out is what Allen accepts or rejects in the scientific domain.  I have picked the 'CO2 increasing from 280ppm to 380ppm' as a starting point (mainly because one of Allen's posts sort of implied that he accepted that point - so I sought explicit confirmation).  *I have also chosen this point (i.e. 'CO2 increased from 280pp to 380ppm in the recent past') as it is just scientific measurement and recording of past events.*  
> Regardless of whether Allen believes CO2 has anything or nothing to do with the climate,  I am interested to know if he accepts that statement that you have quoted regarding CO2 levels increasing from about 280ppm to 380ppm in recent times.  This he has not 'covered'. (You, Dr Freud, may have covered it, but I would like to hear Allen's view.)  *My motive (or point) is to simply ascertain what science Allen accepts and what he rejects.*  If Allen accepts it, I'll move forward to another point; if he rejects it, I'll move back, until I find the point of divergence.  In a nutshell, I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind Allen's position on AGW/CC better. 
> Sorry if I sound pushing or demanding, but I think it is important to find the _point of divergence_ of our respective views.  I don't see why Allen would feel uncomfortable being quizzed on some of the foundations his publicly strongly expressed views. 
> It could be that I'm barking up the wrong tree entirely and that Allen's views aren't based on any science at all.  I'd be surprised if this is the case, so please bear with me while I try to make some sense of Allen position.  As to being 'exasperated', a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer would quickly settle the point.

  Maybe if you put half this effort into figuring out the data and mathematical computations of the IPCC's 90% probability calculation, you could post the answer for everyone? 
Failing this, I guess we can just accept that you retract your previous claims regarding this probability calculation.  You might also want to let Woodbe know, so he can post the word "Misinformation" in relation to both you and the IPCC.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> More sceptic bulldust hits the trashcan: 
> The original research paper:   
> And the results of inspection by someone qualified to inspect the science:   
> Sceptics once again prove that they don't need science, or in this case they just prove they don't need good science. 
> woodbe.

  I hope that if nothing else, some of our readers will learn that this post is an example of the best science you can get.  Having your work openly and honestly (savagely :Biggrin: ) criticised is science at it's best. 
This is all most of the critics of the IPCC have been asking for, as it did not occur during the baseless scaremongering that created this fiasco.  As I have posted many times before, the fact that it is beginning to happen now is great.  :2thumbsup:  
I will read these two articles soon and get back to you with my humble opinion if you are interested? :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*   _Hi Rod, 
> By all accounts your plastering is flawless, as is your logic. I concur with your sentiments, and look forward to the emotional outbursts and prophesies of the end of the world. But first, allow me to provide some context. Best scientific estimates indicate the planet (Earth) is about 4.5 billion years old (p.s. there was no moon or water then, these arrived a few billion years later). 
> I know it hurts, but please keep reading. Us humans arrived about 2 million years ago. Then after lots of banging rocks together, we invented something called a thermometer about 150 years ago. We now have about 100 years of very inaccurate surface temperature data, and a few decades of fairly accurate satellite data (on a planet that's been here 4.5 billion years)  
> We have made very inaccurate guesses as far back as we can about the climate before we got here. We call this proxy data in the scientific community (rhymes with poxy)
> Here it is: 
> Geological Era---------Million Years Ago----------Carbon Dioxide ppm-----------Av Global Temperature 0C 
>            Cambrian------------550-------------------------------------6,000----------------------23
> Ordovician-----------470-------------------------------------4,200----------------------23  12
> Silurian---------------430--------------------------------------3,500---------------------17 - 23
> ...

   

> You need to very careful of who you quote.  Some posters don't know their facts very well.  And even worse, some can't seem to get their facts right even when the errors have been pointed out to them. 
> Oops, you are quoting you.  
> [Come clean Doc, you're just teasing us, aren't you?]

  
I have pointed put that CO2 is not just harmless, but an essential and beneficial substance for both humans and biospheres.  To highlight this point following subsequent questions, I explained in detail how over 70% of CO2 produced by humans is retained and recirculated through the lungs and bloodstream to maintain blood Ph levels.  I even went further than this and pointed out what dirty, filthy "carbon polluting" little factories we are.  But hey, I like breathing, and if you think this activity is polluting and killing the planet, you should feel free to stop at any time. :2thumbsup:  
If your disagree or have any evidence contrary to this, please present it, because as I have said, I am not a haematologist.  But if you continue with these painful interjections, I may have to have you removed by a proctologist.  :Hahaha:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Scientific Debate?* 
> I suspect that the casual reader of this thread might get the impression that the science of climate change is hotly debated within scientific circles. 
> However, in the science world, the science of climate change is well accepted.  Of course there is the odd dissent here and there, but the bulk of scientists accept man-made climate change (AGW) is real. 
> The American Geophysical Union published a paper by Doran & Zimmerman "_Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change_" (EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Vol. 90, No. 3, doi:10.1029/2009EO030002, 2009) examining the views of earth scientists. 
> A copy of the paper can be found at: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf 
> A graph from this paper shows the level of agreement with the AGW theory from various groups.   
> From the final paragraph of the paper (my emphasis):_"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues
> to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."_ Also, Wikipedia has an article on "Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  
> This article lists scientific organisations that are: in agreement with; those that are non-committal; and those that are dissenting; with AGW. 
> ...

  What happens when you take the sense out of consensus? 
Con us? 
Science is not determined by a vote.  I don't know how many times this has to be said for it to be understood.  Until recent times, the consensus amongst scientists was that the Earth was flat.  This did not make it so. 
Here is a classical example of consensus.  People "in the know" decree something to be true, and a billion people are expected to automatically agree, because the authority figures "in the know" have decreed it.   The Vatican yesterday added its voice to a rising chorus of warnings from churches around the world that climate change and abuse of the environment is against God's will, and that the one billion-strong Catholic church must become far greener.  At a Vatican conference on climate change, Pope Benedict urged bishops, scientists and politicians - including UK environment secretary David Miliband - to "respect creation" while "focusing on the needs of sustainable development". 
Now, please understand that the following is not evidence that AGW Theory has been disproved, but it is evidence that your nonsensus consensus argument is flawed.   Just see: here and here and here and here for a start.   

> My view is that: The debate on AGW *isn't* a scientific debate within the scientific community.  It *might* be a quasi-scientific debate in the general community (such as this  forum) but it *should* be a political debate as to our response and action to AGW.

  I put it to you that either your view is wrong, or the Institute of Physics representing 36,000 physicists is wrong, as they have submitted a document debating the scientific rigour of the data in climate science to the British Parliamentary House of Commons enquiry into the CRU fiasco, and they state:  "However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field." 
Consensus?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> THE Rudd government has warned of brown-outs and national power shortages akin to the water crisis if $100 billion is not spent on generators in the next 10 years, guaranteeing steep rises in electricity bills.  Power price rises have also been linked to the cost of connecting renewable energy sources, such as wind turbines, to the national electricity grid and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.   Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson said at the weekend that the investment required to avoid power rationing and increase renewable energy "can only be paid for with higher electricity prices".  
> "It is high time we started telling the truth about electricity prices," he told a meeting of business people in Queensland on Saturday.

    Yes, I think it is high time too.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

> Yet you claim it is "supporting evidence" for AGW Theory?

   

> I dismiss this paper as being "supporting evidence" of AGW Theory on the scientific fact that this study has never claimed to either look for or find any link or relationship whatsoever between anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and global temperature.  This my friend is not only science, but common sense, as the study never claimed it, never investigated it and never found it.

  Um, Doc? Did you manage to find _the title_ of the paper anywhere at all?   

> Early emergence in a butterfly causally linked to
> anthropogenic warming
> Michael R. Kearney, Natalie J. Briscoe, David J. Karoly, Warren P. Porter, Melanie Norgate and Paul
> Sunnucks
> Biol. Lett. published online 17 March 2010
> doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.0053

  Keep digging Doc, you'll get to China soon. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> I put it to you that either your view is wrong, or the Institute of Physics representing 36,000 physicists is wrong, as they have submitted a document debating the scientific rigour of the data in climate science to the British Parliamentary House of Commons enquiry into the CRU fiasco, and they state[...]

  Here's what they stated on the 5th of March:   

> We regret that our submission has been seized upon by some  individuals to imply that IOP does not support the scientific evidence  that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is  contributing to global warming.   *IOPs position on global warming  is clear: the basic science is well established and there is no doubt  that climate change is happening and that we should be taking action to address it now.*

  They have been changing What they say a bit though, you will find a record of the noticed changes here 
Sorry Doc, you were saying? 
woodbe

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Do you assert that there has been a swing away from AGW in the scientific community? If so, maybe you'd better amend the Wikipedia article to include the 'dissenting' scientific organisations. *Wikipedia* reports that there are none.

   On 28 November, in post 502 of this thread, I gave you a list of *eminent* scientists opposed to AGW. . climate science: EMINENT SCIENTISTS WHO DISAGREE WITH THE CO2 GW THEORY . I provided you another list of *relevantly schooled* scientists opposed to (man-made) Global Warming, from *Wikipedia*, in reply 505: . List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . . As you can see here, you scoffed at both lists, as ‘fun on the internet’. . http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...1/index34.html . Now you’re having your own ‘fun on the internet’ by posting out of date articles in a lame attempt to ‘prove’ that only common riff-raff oppose AGW. . .   

> I'm more than happy to read and evaluate information. It is *opinion* that I choose to ignore.

  Lord Monckton provided many facts to back up his _opinion_ that AGW is a myth, and though we provided you a number of videos you provided no countering argument, yet your _opinion_ is that he is incorrect. Obviously out of the two, one would ignore your opinion, and value his. . .   

> One can find just about any opinion one likes on the web.

   Yes, we can all have ‘fun on the net’, as you like to say, but there is a great abundance of correct information there too – much of which you like to ignore. . .   

> In my view opinion is essentially worthless as a basis for a constructive argument.

   Correct opinions are not worthless, and are usually supported by facts. It was Darwin’s opinion that life evolved through natural selection and survival of the fittest, and he backed up his opinions with many examples of the stages of evolution, fossils, variation within a species, specialization, etc. His peers called his “opinion” madness. Their faith in their own view was so strong, mere facts had no chance of swaying them. Similarly, your faith in AGW waterproofs you against facts. . . .

----------


## chrisp

> I have pointed  put that CO2 is not just harmless, but an essential and beneficial  substance for both humans and biospheres.  To highlight this point  following subsequent questions, I explained in detail how over 70% of  CO2 produced by humans is retained and recirculated through the lungs  and bloodstream to maintain blood Ph levels.  I even went further than  this and pointed out what dirty, filthy "carbon polluting" little  factories we are.  But hey, I like breathing, and if you think this  activity is polluting and killing the planet, you should feel free to  stop at any time. 
> If your disagree or have any evidence contrary to this, please present  it, because as I have said, I am not a haematologist.  But if you  continue with these painful interjections, I may have to have you  removed by a proctologist.

  On *page 112 you offered a retraction*:  [I have abbreviated the    post somewhat for the benefit of other readers.]   

> _When  we breathe in, we use the oxygen (and other substances ingested,  inhaled, absorbed or injected) in our various biological processes, with  one waste product being carbon dioxide. All this carbon dioxide waste  (call it 100% of carbon dioxide we produce) travels in the blood stream  and through the lungs. The 70% I was referring to is that 70% of this  carbon dioxide is retained in the lungs and bloodstream to regulate  blood Ph levels via the following formula: 
> Carbonic Anhydrase CO2 + H2O ===> H2CO3 + H+ + HCO3-
> carbon dioxide + water ==> carbonic acid + hydrogen ion + bicarbonate  ion 
> So in summary, we inhale the  atmosphere at .038% CO2 and turn it into 5% CO2. That  means we are concentrating this "pollution" by over 130 times every time  we breathe in and out. Lucky we only breathe out 23% of our total  production! The average human will "pollute" about a tonne of carbon  dioxide every three years. There are currently 6.5 billion humans,  projected to grow to 9 billion soon. Uh Oh!_

   *It would seem that you have retracted it yourself.*  :Smilie:  
If you want to make the point that CO2 is harmless, then do so, but don't repost total *crap* to support your contention. 
If you don't like the 'painful interjections' then the solution is simple:  Cease posting that obvious crap and I'll cease correcting it.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> ...and there is no doubt climate change is happening...

  Who in this thread ever claimed climate change doesn't happen? . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> On *page 112 you offered a retraction*: [I have abbreviated the post somewhat for the benefit of other readers.]

    

> *It would seem that you have retracted it yourself.*   If you want to make the point that CO2 is harmless, then do so, but don't repost total *crap* to support your contention.  If you don't like the 'painful interjections' then the solution is simple: Cease posting that obvious crap and I'll cease correcting it.

   How about the crap you posted about CO2 in lungs being the same percentage as CO2 in the air?  Obviously you didnt know about how CO2 is collected in the lungs, yet you failed to amend that mistake five times in a row. .
.
.

----------


## chrisp

> Correct opinions are not worthless, and are usually supported by facts. It was *Darwins opinion* that life evolved through natural selection and survival of the fittest, and he backed up his opinions with many examples of the stages of evolution, fossils, variation within a species, specialization, etc. His peers called his opinion madness. Their faith in their own view was so strong, mere facts had no chance of swaying them. Similarly, your faith in AGW waterproofs you against facts.

  Mr James, 
You'll have to help me out here.  I've heard of _Darwin's Theory of Evolution_ but I've never heard of _Darwin's Opinion of Evolution_.  Do you have a reference I can look up? 
Is 'Opinion' the same as 'Theory'?  You may like to check your dictionary.  :Wink:  *Opinion*:  A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certaintyA message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof *Theory*:  A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomenaA tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"; "a scientific possibility that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory" (Definitions from WordWeb) 
It would seem to me that you are having trouble separating 'fact' from 'opinion'.

----------


## chrisp

> How about the crap you posted about CO2 in lungs being the same percentage as CO2 in the air?  Obviously you didn’t know about how CO2 is collected in the lungs, yet you failed to amend that mistake five times in a row.

  I pointed out tha air contains 380ppm CO2 (breathed in).  The O2 content is ~21% (breathed in).  There is no way that you can produce 70% CO2 concentration from 21% oxygen. 
Have you even thought about the 78% N2 concentration?  I'd like you see you work that in to the "70% CO2".  (Next you'll be telling us that you have a chemical reaction that can turn lead Pb in to gold Au)    :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Mr James,

    

> You'll have to help me out here. I've heard of _Darwin's Theory of Evolution_ but I've never heard of _Darwin's Opinion of Evolution_. Do you have a reference I can look up?  Is 'Opinion' the same as 'Theory'? You may like to check your dictionary.  *Opinion*:   A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certaintyA message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof*Theory*:   A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomenaA tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"; "a scientific possibility that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"(Definitions from WordWeb)  It would seem to me that you are having trouble separating 'fact' from 'opinion'.

   Heh heh. Im always amused when people get their panties in a wad over this.   :Biggrin:  . Opinions always precede scientific hypotheses, and stay alongside them all the way. Darwin began with an opinion, offered his hypothesis, and maintained his opinion. At the end of his life his opinion remained, as did his theory. . . .

----------


## Allen James

.  .  

> I pointed out tha air contains 380ppm CO2 (breathed in). The O2 content is ~21% (breathed in). There is no way that you can produce 70% CO2 concentration from 21% oxygen.

  The amount of CO2 in the lungs is not related to the amount breathed in, so you have made the same error again. . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> I was just reading some of the early posts in this thread. I'm amazed this one got through, "Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide".

    

> Where did you study science? Did you study science at all? Even someone who only studied science at high school could tell you the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen (~78%) and most of the rest is oxygen (~21%).  For the record, ~0.038% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide.

    

> How much of the atmosphere is made up of C02 has nothing to do with how much C02 is in the lungs, as you can see here:

    

> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/520329/how_blood_transports_carbon_dioxide_pg2.html?cat=5

  . Quote: . The majority of carbon dioxide transported by the blood is through the bicarbonate buffer system. Carbon dioxide diffusing into a red blood cell is converted to carbonic acid by the enzyme carbonic anhydrase via the following chemical equation: CO2 + H2O --> H2CO3 (1). The carbonic acid then dissociates into hydrogen and bicarbonate ions. The hydrogen ion reacts and attaches itself to hemoglobin while the bicarbonate ion is pumped out of the red blood cell in exchange for a chloride ion, a process known as a chloride shift (1). The result is blood carries both the bicarbonate (now in the blood plasma) and the hydrogen ion to the lungs. .. "Once in the lungs, bicarbonate is pumped back into the red blood cell in exchange for a chloride ion, the hydrogen ion dissociates from hemoglobin, carbonic acid is reformed, and carbonic anhydrase converts the carbonic acid into carbon dioxide and water. Carbon dioxide then diffuses from the blood into the lungs and is exhaled and expelled from the body. It is estimated 70% of all carbon dioxide transported by the blood uses this method of transport.  .. "Thus these are the three main methods of transporting carbon dioxide within the blood. I hope this article has given you a better understanding of how your body moves carbon dioxide from your tissues to the lungs where it is ultimately exhaled and expelled from your body." . . .

----------


## chrisp

> .The amount of CO2 in the lungs is not related to the amount breathed in

  Correct.  I think you might be starting to understand some basic chemistry. 
Some of the oxygen (O2) we breath in is converted to carbon dioxide (CO2).  The amount of CO2 breathed in is trivial (380ppm).  It is the oxygen that is, or can be, converted to CO2.  With 21% oxygen being breathed in, there can be - absolute tops - about 21% CO2 (plus the 380ppm breathed in which is trivial) being breathed out.   
The actual figure is way lower as we don't convert all the 02 to CO2.  It certainly isn't the 70% CO2 concentration as repeatedly posted/quoted by Dr Freud.

----------


## Allen James

.    

> You may like to check your dictionary.

    

> *Opinion*: A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty 1 A message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof

  I think your dictionary definition is a second-rate one. Here is a more concise definition (emphasis mine): . *Opinion*: .. 1.* a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty*.  . 2. *a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.*  . 3. *the formal expression of a professional judgment*: to ask for a second medical opinion.  . 4. *Law.* *the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case*.  . 5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.  . 6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him. . Random House Dictionary . Opinion | Define Opinion at Dictionary.com . . .

----------


## chrisp

> . Quote: . “The majority of carbon dioxide transported by the blood is through the bicarbonate buffer system. Carbon dioxide diffusing into a red blood cell is converted to carbonic acid by the enzyme carbonic anhydrase via the following chemical equation: CO2 + H2O --> H2CO3 (1). The carbonic acid then dissociates into hydrogen and bicarbonate ions. The hydrogen ion reacts and attaches itself to hemoglobin while the bicarbonate ion is pumped out of the red blood cell in exchange for a chloride ion, a process known as a chloride shift (1). The result is blood carries both the bicarbonate (now in the blood plasma) and the hydrogen ion to the lungs. .. "Once in the lungs, bicarbonate is pumped back into the red blood cell in exchange for a chloride ion, the hydrogen ion dissociates from hemoglobin, carbonic acid is reformed, and carbonic anhydrase converts the carbonic acid into carbon dioxide and water. Carbon dioxide then diffuses from the blood into the lungs and is exhaled and expelled from the body. It is estimated 70% of all carbon dioxide transported by the blood uses this method of transport.  .. "Thus these are the three main methods of transporting carbon dioxide within the blood. I hope this article has given you a better understanding of how your body moves carbon dioxide from your tissues to the lungs where it is ultimately exhaled and expelled from your body."

  So is your argument is that: _"It is estimated 70% of all carbon dioxide  transported by the blood uses this method of transport._ " is the same as (the following false statement)? _"Your lungs are currently  70% filled by Carbon Dioxide (that's one Carbon atom attached to two  Oxygen atoms)._"  Surely it'd be easy for you to just admit that Dr Freud is wrong rather than continue to defend the false statement or play semantics?  His false statement is is quite clear, explicit and is hard to misinterpret.

----------


## Allen James

.  .   

> Correct. I think you might be starting to understand some basic chemistry. Some of the oxygen (O2) we breath in is converted to carbon dioxide (CO2). The amount of CO2 breathed in is trivial (380ppm). It is the oxygen that is, or can be, converted to CO2. With 21% oxygen being breathed in, there can be - absolute tops - about 21% CO2 (plus the 380ppm breathed in which is trivial) being breathed out. The actual figure is way lower as we don't convert all the 02 to CO2. It certainly isn't the 70% CO2 concentration as repeatedly posted/quoted by Dr Freud.

  Googling information at me won't hide your error.  When you said, "Even someone who only studied science at high school could tell you the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen (~78%) and most of the rest is oxygen (~21%). For the record, ~0.038% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide," it was clear you thought the amount of CO2 in the lungs was the same ratio as that in the air we breathe.  After six attempts to feint, bluster and bluff, you now pretend you knew all along.   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> So is your argument is that:

    

> _"It is estimated 70% of all carbon dioxide transported by the blood uses this method of transport._ "is the same as (the following false statement)? _"Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms)._" Surely it'd be easy for you to just admit that Dr Freud is wrong rather than continue to defend the false statement or play semantics? His false statement is is quite clear, explicit and is hard to misinterpret.

  
More mischievous misdirection.  I was addressing your mistake.  You are once again trying to misquote me and change the subject. . . .

----------


## chrisp

> Googling information at me won't hide your error.  When you said, "Even someone who only studied science at high school could tell you the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen (~78%) and most of the rest is oxygen (~21%). For the record, ~0.038% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide," it was clear you thought the amount of CO2 in the lungs was the same ratio as that in the air we breathe.  After six attempts to feint, bluster and bluff, you now pretend you knew all along.

  Google?  I didn't google that.  I can remember some basic high school chemistry though.

----------


## Allen James

.    

> Google? I didn't google that. I can remember some basic high school chemistry though.

  Yeah, and you look like Linus too, and not Uncle Fester, right?   :Rolleyes:   . .

----------


## chrisp

> .Yeah, and you look like Linus too.

  The big smile is about right.  The hair? - well I'm blessed with a solid head of hair.  :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

.  . *IPCC Corruption Included Ignoring Facts and Science*  .  . Phil Jones, disgraced and dismissed Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), granted BBC reporter Roger Harrabin an interview. Why Harrabin? His reporting has shown bias on all the IPCC and CRU activities. Leaked emails showed the CRU gang used friends in the BBC and that apparently continues. Prevarication, evasion, half-truths continue in Phil Jones answers. Despite this there are stunning admissions from Jones. There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers.  .   . *The Sun They Ignore*  . Why did they include ER and ignore major solar factors of the Milankovitch Effect and changes in solar magnetism that cause temperature change? The simple answer was to counteract the claim that the Sun was causing warming. Variance in ER for the short periods of record are about 0.15%, which sounds like very little, but theoretical calculations show a 6% variance explains all temperature variance in the history of the Earth. They manipulate the data and models to attribute temperature change since 1950 almost totally to CO2. As Jones explains, The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both.  .  . *Orbit*  . Key to understanding IPCC claims are what they leave out. Leaked emails talk about the selective process they employed. For example, until recently all textbooks showed the Earths orbit around the Sun as a fixed ellipse. Actually we have known for over 150 years that the orbit is constantly changing from almost circular as it is now to more extreme ellipse as it was 22,000 years ago.  (Figure1)  .   Figure 1: Orbital Eccentricity  .  Constantly changing orbit is caused primarily by the gravitational pull of Jupiter. Obviously the amount of energy received at the Earth varies as the elliptical orbit changes. Currently the difference between when the earth is closest to the sun (perihelion) and furthest away (aphelion)  is ±3.5% for a total difference of 7%. However at full ellipticity the difference is ±8.5% for a total of 17%. The complete cycle from minimum to maximum ellipticity and back is 100,000 years. This means the distance between Earth and Sun is changing every year, which affects the amount of energy received. In 1864 Scottish scientist James Croll published a paper that began 20 years of research calculating how the orbital changes caused global temperature change. It culminated in a 1867 book titled, Climate and Time.   .  .  *Tilt*   Croll also knew two other changes were important. Change in Earths tilt oscillating between 21.4° and 24.8° with the current angle being approximately 23.5° and decreasing. Full cycle from minimum to maximum and back to minimum takes 40,000 years.  .   Figure 2: Obliquity of the Ecliptic or Changes in Tilt.  .   . *Precession of the Equinox* . The other is the position of the Earth in its orbit around the sun on which equinoxes (equal length of day and night) occur, currently March 20/21 and September 22/23.  Figure 3 shows two examples of opposite positions and presentation of the Earth to the Sun.  .    . Figure 3: Precession of the Equinox. Aphelion means away from the sun and parahelion means closest to the sun.  . 
The Precession sequence is much shorter for the full cycle to occur and varies between 19,000 and 23,000 years.  .   . *Watch the Richter Scale as Politicians Jump Off the IPCC Wagon*  . . Jones only concedes some points but they are enough from the high priest of the CRU and IPCC to completely destroy its credibility. What will the sycophants and exploiters like Gore and the Mainstream Media do now? What about politicians who based positions and policy on environment and energy on the IPCC? What about the massive scams of Cap And Trade? What about the extreme environmental groups who have bullied and preached from the moral high ground? What about the scientists who took vehement positions without understanding? It is a very sad day for science, the people and the world.  .  . IPCC Corruption Included Ignoring Facts and Science  .  .  .

----------


## chrisp

> Originally Posted by woodbe  ...and  there is no doubt climate change is happening....    Who in this thread ever claimed climate change doesn't happen?.

  Allen, 
Are you playing semantics again?  Or are you just quoting out of context? 
The IOP stated:_"We regret that our submission has been seized upon by some  individuals  to imply that IOP does not support the scientific evidence  that the  rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is   contributing to global warming.  
IOPs position on global  warming  is clear: the basic science is well established and there is no  doubt  that climate change is happening and that we should be taking  action to address it now."_Maybe you are one of those 'individuals' whom the IOP refers to in the first paragraph?

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> Are you playing semantics again? Or are you just quoting out of context?  The IOP stated: _"We regret that our submission has been seized upon by some individuals to imply that IOP does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming._   _IOP’s position on global warming is clear: the basic science is well established and there is no doubt that climate change is happening and that we should be taking action to address it now."_ Maybe you are one of those 'individuals' whom the IOP refers to in the first paragraph?

  No, I'm just the guy who asked, "Who in this thread ever claimed climate change doesn't happen?" . Care to answer? . . ..

----------


## chrisp

> No, I'm just the guy who asked, "Who in this thread ever claimed climate change doesn't happen?" . Care to answer?

  You are playing on the 'climate change' in the second paragraph out of context with the first paragraph. 
Semantics!

----------


## woodbe

> You are playing on the 'climate change' in the second paragraph out of context with the first paragraph. 
> Semantics!

  Indeed. 
I don't normally see Allen's post's unless they are quoted. I'd just like to point out to him that he has made an attribution error. The words he quoted were clearly labelled in my post as coming from the IOP, yet he has mangled the quoting to show them as my words. Not true. 
Good pickup Chris. This is typical of someone who reads what they want to see, not what is written, and when caught they try and obfuscate the discussion to hide their error. Another shining example is that 70% CO2 in the lungs error made by one of the other sceptics here. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.    

> You are playing on the 'climate change' in the second paragraph out of context with the first paragraph.

    

> .  Semantics!

  
How was it out of context?   .  They maintain that climate change is happening, and Im asking how this is relevant to this thread, given that nobody here said climate change wasnt happening. .  Another job - will catch ya later today.  ..

----------


## chrisp

> Maybe if you put half this effort into figuring out the data and mathematical computations of the IPCC's 90% probability calculation, you could post the answer for everyone?

  Is it that you are::  Questioning or having some trouble understanding how the IPCC addresses uncertainty; or,Are you looking for a 100% certainty before you accept anything?
 If it is the former, you can obtain the IPCC "_Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties_" from here http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...idancenote.pdf 
If it is the latter, it would suggest that you are using "very low confidence" ("Less than 1 out of 10 chance") possibilities for the basis of your 'scepticism'.  Your stance sounds more like 'denialism' to me. 
For Allen's benefit:*Denialism*  describes the position of those who reject propositions that are strongly  supported by scientific or historical evidence and seek to influence policy  processes and outcomes accordingly(From good old WordWeb)

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> ...and there is no doubt climate change is happening....

     

> Who in this thread ever claimed climate change doesn't happen?

     

> I don't normally see Allen's post's unless they are quoted.

   IOW he debates with his fingers in his ears. 'Laddle, laddle, laddle, I can't hear you.'  :Biggrin:  . .   

> I'd just like to point out to him that he has made an attribution error.

   You may inform Wouldbe that I made no errors, Chisp. . .   

> The words he quoted were clearly labelled in my post as coming from the IOP, yet he has mangled the quoting to show them as my words. Not true.

   Tell him that as you can see above, the quote he posted is posted by him. Thats why it says, Originally *Posted* by woodbe. Is he claiming he didnt post the quote? And where did I _mangle_ anything? The words were a direct quote from his post. . You can also tell him that when he quotes outside sources, there is no need to use the quote function. Quote marks, italics, coloured text or indents are fine. When you use the quote function for an outside quote, it disappears from the respondents return quote, and he or she needs to insert it manually. . .   

> This is typical of someone who reads what they want to see, not what is written, and when caught they try and obfuscate the discussion to hide their error.

   He says, with his fingers in his ears.  :Biggrin:  . . .

----------


## chrisp

> And you wonder why we no longer trust the CSIRO and wonder why we don't trust what the scientist are telling us.  The BOM & CSIRO report: It’s what they don’t say that matters « JoNova 
> The scientific comunity has only got themselves to blame.  Tom Nelson: Alarmists should be stunned by these fresh admissions from NASA  Howlin’ Wolf: Paul Ehrlich on Energy (Part II: Failed Predictions) — MasterResource  How government cash created the Climategate scandal | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
> Even Hanson has had a go at fudging. What a laughing stock they have made of themselves. Why don't they just stick to the facts? Why embellish their data?  ClimateGate Goes Back to 1980  
> Man have they got some ground to make up.  
> Just to cap it off. How to make a skeptic. When to Doubt a Scientific ?Consensus? &mdash; The American, A Magazine of Ideas 
> At least the used car salesmen are feeling better about themselves and their standing in the community.

  Welcome back Rod.  We have missed you. 
Let's see you have provided links to 6 *opinion pieces* awaiting response.  You know what I think of opinion pieces - a waste of time!  But let me have a look in depth at the first one. 
It contends that the rainfall over Australia is overall increasing - and using the BoM data to prove this.  Hang on, isn't the contention that the BoM and CSIRO can't be trusted - yet they use BoM data.  I'm confused! 
I've checked the BoM site, and yes there is an overall increase in rainfall since records began (or at least as far back as the interactive website graphs work). 
Let's see what the reports actually says - after all it must be wrong - otherwise why make the "why we don't trust what the scientist are telling us" comment:*Much of Australia will be drier in coming decades*
In Australia compared to the period 1981-2000, decreases in rainfall are likely in the decades to come in southern areas of Australia during winter, in southern and eastern areas during spring, and in south-west Western Australia during autumn. An increase in the number of dry days is expected across the country, but it is likely that there will be an increase in intense rainfall events in many areas.(From: http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/.../20100315a.pdf ) 
The report states that it uses 1981-2000 as a basis for the future rainfall - and it expects it to decrease from there on.  It also states a increase in the number of dry days and an increase in the intense rainfall. 
The statement doesn't contradict the data.   
I suppose you may have hoped that they said something like:  "The average rainfall is increasing so the AGW theory has been solidly disproved" - but never mind the steady increase in temperature shown in the same dataset. 
BTW, did you notice the increase in rainfall anomaly?

----------


## Allen James

.    

> If it is the later, it would suggest that you are . . .

   If it is the later what? Taxi? Train? Ambulance? Just trying to understand your statement. . .   

> For Allen's benefit:

    

> *Denialism* 1. describes the position of those who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence and seek to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly (From good old WordWeb)

  Good old WordWeb will define any old word, even those that haven’t become official words yet. . There is no reference for ‘denialism’ in the main dictionaries; Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, Oxford, American Heritage, Random House, etc – nothing. Methinks it is a term invented by greenies. . A denier is a person who denies. So here is a concise definition of ‘deny’, for Chrisp’s benefit: . . *deny* . –verb (used with object),-nied, -ny·ing.  . 1.to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true: to deny an accusation.  2.to refuse to agree or accede to: to deny a petition.  3.to withhold the possession, use, or enjoyment of: to deny access to secret information.  4.to withhold something from, or refuse to grant a request of: to deny a beggar.  5.to refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate: to deny one's gods.  6.to withhold (someone) from accessibility to a visitor: The secretary denied his employer to all those without appointments.  7.Obsolete. to refuse to take or accept.  —Idiom 8.deny oneself, to refrain from satisfying one's desires or needs; practice self-denial.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Origin:  1250–1300; ME denien < OF denier < L dēnegāre. See denegation —Related forms de·ny·ing·ly, adverb pre·de·ny, verb (used with object),-nied, -ny·ing. re·de·ny, verb (used with object),-nied, -ny·ing. un·de·nied, adjective . http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denies -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . Now, I wonder if Chrisp, or fingers-in-ears woodbe, would like to explain how we AGW deniers are ‘climate deniers’.  . . .

----------


## chrisp

> If it is the later what? Taxi? Train? Ambulance? Just trying to understand your statement.

  Lok again.  :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Lok again.

  Again Im confused.  How do I lok?  .  .

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> Now, I wonder if Chrisp, or fingers-in-ears woodbe, would like to explain how we AGW deniers are climate deniers.

  Another hard question avoided.  No surprises there.   :Biggrin:  .
.
.

----------


## chrisp

> Good old WordWeb will define any old word, even those that havent become official words yet. . There is no reference for denialism in the main dictionaries; Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, Oxford, American Heritage, Random House, etc  nothing. Methinks it is a term invented by greenies.

  Allen, 
You need to get with it (man).  English is an evolving language.  New words appear and old words gain new meanings.  For example, if I were to call you a gay man 50 years ago, it would mean something completely different to calling you a gay man today. (that was just a factitious example.  :Rolleyes:  ) 
WordWeb is one of the more dynamic dictionaries - well recommended (by me).    

> Now, I wonder if Chrisp, or fingers-in-ears woodbe, would like to explain how we AGW deniers are climate deniers. .

  This is an easy one - just quote out of context.  You can change the meaning of quotes by taking them other of context or truncating text that sets the context.  Let me see if I can find an example.... look back a little in this thread and you'll find an example by you.

----------


## woodbe

> We regret that our submission has been seized upon by some   individuals  to imply that IOP does not support the scientific evidence   that the  rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is    contributing to global warming.

  Says it all really, Allen. 
You didn't notice that or you wouldn't have asked:  

> Who in this thread ever claimed climate change  doesn't happen?

  NB. Notice how easy it is to construct the attribution correctly, even though I never saw the original post? 
For the record, I have you on ignore because of 2 things. One is the infantile posts containing conversations with fictitious characters that can only be regarded as puerile, and reveal more about the poster than enlightening the audience about AGW or ETS, and second are the degrading posts made in your name revealing actions and opinions regarding your own flesh and blood. Even if the posts were true and you actually you held these deplorable opinions about your own family members, which I honestly hope you don't, this is certainly not the place to air them. Get help. 
On the off-chance that you are actually a pre-pubescent, I apologise in advance for this next paragraph, as it clearly does not apply to you, but on the internet we really have to take people at face value and you have represented yourself as an adult with several offspring and some kind of job. Its a case of if the cap fits, wear it. 
My suggestion is that you heed Dazzler's advice, and when you have grown some, and learned to honour your own family, come back and lets have a debate with respect. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Welcome back Rod. We have missed you. 
> Let's see you have provided links to 6 *opinion pieces* awaiting response. You know what I think of opinion pieces - a waste of time! But let me have a look in depth at the first one. 
> It contends that the rainfall over Australia is overall increasing - and using the BoM data to prove this. Hang on, isn't the contention that the BoM and CSIRO can't be trusted - yet they use BoM data. I'm confused! 
> I've checked the BoM site, and yes there is an overall increase in rainfall since records began (or at least as far back as the interactive website graphs work). 
> Let's see what the reports actually says - after all it must be wrong - otherwise why make the "why we don't trust what the scientist are telling us" comment: *Much of Australia will be drier in coming decades*
> In Australia compared to the period 1981-2000, decreases in rainfall are likely in the decades to come in southern areas of Australia during winter, in southern and eastern areas during spring, and in south-west Western Australia during autumn. An increase in the number of dry days is expected across the country, but it is likely that there will be an increase in intense rainfall events in many areas.(From: http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/.../20100315a.pdf ) 
> The report states that it uses 1981-2000 as a basis for the future rainfall - and it expects it to decrease from there on. It also states a increase in the number of dry days and an increase in the intense rainfall. 
> The statement doesn't contradict the data.  
> I suppose you may have hoped that they said something like: "The average rainfall is increasing so the AGW theory has been solidly disproved" - but never mind the steady increase in temperature shown in the same dataset. 
> BTW, did you notice the increase in rainfall anomaly?

  LOL anyone can see how they are trying to pull the woll over our eyes here. 
Cutting to the chase here, they are trying to make out we are in an un-precedented dry period by cherry picking thier own data to support the AGW theory.  
Why not tell us it is wetter now than before?  Doesn't fit the agenda, not scary enough.  Oh no we can see past their trick even if you cant. at least some people are awake here. 
BTW I wil be around just not posting as much  :Biggrin:   I have 30 houses to get priced by the end of the week. Not to mention fixing the odd stuff ups on sites.  Nice to be busy though.

----------


## Rod Dyson

This should give you guys who think the warming of the planet since 1975 is unprcedented, a new perspective. Compliments of Phil Jones no less.  Quadrant Online - End-phase of the Climate Wars?

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> You need to get with it (man).

   No thanks. . .   

> English is an evolving language.

   Can you name a language that doesn’t evolve? . .   

> New words appear and old words gain new meanings.

   One plus one equals two. Let’s move along, shall we? . .   

> For example, if I were to call you a gay man 50 years ago, it would mean something completely different to calling you a gay man today.

   Similarly, if I called you a pantywaist a century ago, you’d know what I meant. . .   

> WordWeb is one of the more dynamic dictionaries - well recommended (by me).

   I say it is biased, not dynamic; which is why I recommend the dictionaries I pointed to above. . Let’s try both of them out, using the word ‘conservative’. I’ll bold the biased words used by the left winged WordWeb source: .  .  *conservative* ..  Adjective . 1.Resistant to change 2.Having social or political views favouring conservatism 3.Avoiding excess "a conservative estimate";  - cautious 4.*Unimaginatively conventional* - button-down, buttoned-down 5.Conforming to the standards and conventions of the *middle class* "a conservative mentality";  - *bourgeois, materialistic* Noun: conservative kun'sur-vu-tiv 1.*A person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas* - conservativist Noun: Conservative 1.A member of a Conservative Party . . . *conservative* . –adjective  . 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.  2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.  3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.  4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.  5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.  6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.  7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.  . –noun 8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.  9. a supporter of conservative political policies.  10. (initial capital letter) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.  11. a preservative.  . *Origin:*  1350–1400; < LL conservātīvus, equiv. to L conservāt(us) (see conservation) + -īvus -ive; r. ME conservatif < MF < L, as above  —Related forms  . con·serv·a·tive·ly, adverb  con·serv·a·tive·ness, noun  an·ti·con·serv·a·tive, adjective, noun  an·ti·con·serv·a·tive·ly, adverb  an·ti·con·serv·a·tive·ness, noun  half-con·serv·a·tive, adjective  half-con·serv·a·tive·ly, adverb  hy·per·con·serv·a·tive, adjective, noun  hy·per·con·serv·a·tive·ly, adverb  hy·per·con·serv·a·tive·ness, noun  non·con·ser·va·tive, adjective, noun  o·ver·con·serv·a·tive, adjective  o·ver·con·serv·a·tive·ly, adverb  o·ver·con·serv·a·tive·ness, noun  pseu·do·con·serv·a·tive, adjective  pseu·do·con·serv·a·tive·ly, adverb  qua·si-con·serv·a·tive, adjective  qua·si-con·serv·a·tive·ly, adverb  sem·i·con·serv·a·tive, adjective  sem·i·con·serv·a·tive·ly, adverb  su·per·con·serv·a·tive, adjective  su·per·con·serv·a·tive·ly, adverb  su·per·con·serv·a·tive·ness, noun  un·con·serv·a·tive, adjective  un·con·serv·a·tive·ly, adverb  un·con·serv·a·tive·ness, noun  . . Dictionary.com  Based on the Random House Dictionary . . .   

> Now, I wonder if Chrisp, or fingers-in-ears woodbe, would like to explain how we AGW deniers are ‘climate deniers’.

     

> This is an easy one - just quote out of context. You can change the meaning of quotes by taking them other of context or truncating text that sets the context. Let me see if I can find an example.... look back a little in this thread and you'll find an example by you.

   That made no sense. Try again. . . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Says it all really, Allen. 
> You didn't notice that or you wouldn't have asked: 
> NB. Notice how easy it is to construct the attribution correctly, even though I never saw the original post? 
> For the record,* I have you on ignore* because of 2 things. One is the infantile posts containing conversations with fictitious characters that can only be regarded as puerile, and reveal more about the poster than enlightening the audience about AGW or ETS, and second are the degrading posts made in your name revealing actions and opinions regarding your own flesh and blood. Even if the posts were true and you actually you held these deplorable opinions about your own family members, which I honestly hope you don't, this is certainly not the place to air them. Get help. 
> On the off-chance that you are actually a pre-pubescent, I apologise in advance for this next paragraph, as it clearly does not apply to you, but on the internet we really have to take people at face value and you have represented yourself as an adult with several offspring and some kind of job. Its a case of if the cap fits, wear it. 
> My suggestion is that you heed Dazzler's advice, and when you have grown some, and learned to honour your own family, come back and lets have a debate with respect. 
> woodbe.

  For someone who has me on ignore, you sure make a lot of noise.  Could you go back to ignoring me, please?   :Biggrin:  . . .

----------


## woodbe

> Originally Posted by Allen James  For someone who has me on ignore, you sure make a lot of noise. Could  you go back to ignoring me, please? .    Your also on my ignore list, however it's got nothing to with the forum.   
> Perhaps your making ANOTHER wrong assumption about Woody, Mr James.

  Allen, you clearly are not reading. You remain on ignore, I only see your posts when someone quotes you. Thankfully that isn't often, and so far I haven't seen anything that would entice me to do otherwise. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> your watching too much TV, Rod

  
His watching too much TV, what?  You forgot to say.  You guys are hard to understand. . .   

> Your also on my ignore list

  My also on your ignore list?  I dont get it. . .   

> Perhaps your making ANOTHER wrong assumption

  My making another wrong assumption, what? . .   

> You remain on ignore

  You two make a lot of noise for people ignoring me.  Id rather you harped at others so I can make my observations without the your this and your that logical fallacies.   :Biggrin:  . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> how about STILL

  Wrong forum, Hedpain. You need to go to a beverage board for instructions on building stills, I imagine. Good luck.. . . .

----------


## woodbe

> This should give you guys who think the warming of the planet since 1975 is unprcedented, a new perspective. Compliments of Phil Jones no less.  Quadrant Online - End-phase of the Climate Wars?

  I think not.   

> Jones says that this correlation is evidence of causation, because the  IPCC has no other explanation.

  This is a misrepresentation. They even have his actual words in the opinion piece, but they fail to understand what he is saying:   

> *Harrabin*_ -_ _what factors  convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?_ *
> Jones*_- The fact that we cant explain the warming from  the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing._

  What Quadrant has missed by not understanding the basics, is that Dr Jones is talking about known forcings, of which there are only a few and they are well understood, and Dr. Jones is simply explaining that the warming cannot be accounted for by anything other than human activity. 
To equate what Dr Jones said with "because the IPCC has no other explanation" is mischievous misinterpretation of his words. He is a scientist, and I'm pretty sure he would not say that because it is not a falsifiable statement. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> To equate what Dr Jones said with "because the IPCC has no other explanation" is *mischievous* misinterpretation of his words. He is a scientist, and I'm pretty sure he would not say that because it is not a falsifiable statement.

  I used the term mischievous misdirection a number of times recently, in regard to Chrisps posts.  Now you use the word mischievous, and methinks its because you read all my posts, including this one.  You simply view all the posts while logged off, when the ignore feature doesnt work.  :Biggrin:  . Hi woodbe.  Turning red, yet?   :Redface: .
.
.

----------


## chrisp

> This should give you guys who think the warming of the planet since 1975 is unprcedented, a new perspective. Compliments of Phil Jones no less.  Quadrant Online - End-phase of the Climate Wars?

  
Rod, 
Thanks for pointing out that article. I've been having a look around their website and _Quadrant Magazine_ certainly is an interesting read.   
Did you read this article?  Quadrant Online - Scare Campaigns and Science Reporting 
I'd be very interested to hear your views and thoughts on this article if you have time to read it.

----------


## woodbe

More sceptic misinformation bites the dust.   

> Danish journalists have confirmed that The Institute for Energy Research  commissioned and paid for the anti-wind energy study  released last year by a Danish think tank that claimed Denmark exaggerates the amount of wind  energy it produces (it doesnt), questioned whether wind energy reduces  carbon emissions (it does), and asserted that the U.S. should choose  coal over wind because its cheaper (its not when you count the true costs of coal). 
> The Copenhagen  Post reports: _A controversial report critical of the wind  energy industry from conservative think tank CEPOS was commissioned and  paid for by an American think tank with close ties to the coal and oil  industries._

  Link to full story 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.   

> This should give you guys who think the warming of the planet since 1975 is unprcedented, a new perspective. Compliments of Phil Jones no less.  Quadrant Online - End-phase of the Climate Wars?

  That was a good read, Rod. .
I think it is worth quoting the last 4 or 5 paragraphs:  . .
"The real value of the Harrabin/Jones interview is the fact that straight questions received straight answers, for the first time in recent memory. .
"Professor Jones, as co-inventor of the modern climate change hypothesis, principal archivist of global temperature records, co-author of the IPCC’s AR4, Nobel laureate, and former CRU director, is the most authoritative source imaginable. He received written notice of the questions from a long-sympathetic interviewer, and his responses were pre-vetted by his lawyers and by the University of East Anglia media office. There will be no retractions. .
"Even if humans have in fact been responsible for the “unexplained” warming of 0.051C per decade over 35 years, it is comforting to note that allowing this rate to continue will produce only 0.5C by the end of the century. As only about half of the human-caused warming is attributed to CO2, the valuation of any net benefit from abandoning fossil fuels is becoming very obscure indeed. .
"Five-hundredths of a degree Celsius per decade produces extra nocturnal warmth at about the same rate as we grow toenails. It is far too insignificant to be detected by human sensors or even by standard weather thermometers - which are usually rounded up to the closest whole degree. It is a statistical fiction, created by computer-splicing of incompatible datasets, derived from averages of averages of inconsistent instruments. .
"The controversy continues. But with the imprimatur of Phil Jones to the key fact that recent warming is not unusual, the debate will never be the same. The two sides are edging closer to a common set of facts; and it surely cannot be too much longer before common conclusions are drawn from those facts." . . See the rest here, compliments of Rod: . Quadrant Online - End-phase of the Climate Wars? . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> Thanks for pointing out that article. I've been having a look around their website and _Quadrant Magazine_ certainly is an interesting read.  
> Did you read this article?  Quadrant Online - Scare Campaigns and Science Reporting 
> I'd be very interested to hear your views and thoughts on this article if you have time to read it.

  No I didn't, but since you recomended it I have since read it.I happen to agree with that article, that is, that the media has beat up the scare of GM foods, because they do not understand the science involved. However I do not see the relationship of this article and that of the ETS/AGW that we are discussing here on this thread.  
Unless it could it be you are pointing out that the media support the AGW theory because they don't understand the climate science and therefore follow the populous view regardless of its accuracy, or poliical agenda driven by activists that promote that view. That I understand.

----------


## chrisp

> No I didn't, but since you recomended it I have since read it.I happen to agree with that article, that is, that the media has beat up the scare of GM foods, because they do not understand the science involved. However I do not see the relationship of this article and that of the ETS/AGW that we are discussing here on this thread.  
> Unless it could it be you are pointing out that the media support the AGW theory because they don't understand the climate science and therefore follow the populous view regardless of its accuracy, or poliical agenda driven by activists that promote that view. That I understand.

  Rod, 
Thank you for taking the time to read the article and sharing your views on it.  I had very little doubt that you would enjoy that article.  If you are  interested, you can read the 'footnoted' version here: http://www.crikey.com.au/Media/docs/...bac1fe9956.pdf 
The editor of Quadrant, Keith Windschuttle, also liked the article too.  He commented to the author that:_"I really like the article. You bring together some very important  considerations about scientific method, the media, politics and morality  that I know our readers would find illuminating."_ So it would seem that you are in good company.  But Rod, I've got to come clean, there is a punchline to the story...._Keith Windschuttle, the editor of the conservative magazine Quadrant,  has been taken in by a hoax intended to show that he will print  outrageous propositions._  _This month’s edition of Quadrant contains a hoax article purporting to be by “Sharon Gould”, a  Brisbane based New York biotechnologist._  _But in the tradition of Ern Malley – the famous literary hoax perpetrated by  Quadrant’s_ first editor, James McAuley – the Sharon Gould  persona is entirely fictitious and the article is studded with false  science, logical leaps, outrageous claims and a mixture of genuine and  bogus footnotes.  
(From: How Windschuttle swallowed a hoax to publish a fake story in Quadrant – Crikey  ) Yep, the *whole story was a hoax* designed to check if Quadrant Magazine checks its sources.  That article was laced with false information and facts - but included footnotes that would have soon proved it to be a hoax. 
I think the moral of the _story_ is that we need to be very careful of our sources of information.  "_Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to  listen._"  Homer Simpson  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

At this point, I think it's appropriate to consider my 2 rules of  the sceptical hymn book   :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> Thank you for taking the time to read the article and sharing your views on it. I had very little doubt that you would enjoy that article. If you are interested, you can read the 'footnoted' version here: http://www.crikey.com.au/Media/docs/...bac1fe9956.pdf 
> The editor of Quadrant, Keith Windschuttle, also liked the article too. He commented to the author that: _"I really like the article. You bring together some very important considerations about scientific method, the media, politics and morality that I know our readers would find illuminating."_So it would seem that you are in good company. But Rod, I've got to come clean, there is a punchline to the story.... _Keith Windschuttle, the editor of the conservative magazine Quadrant, has been taken in by a hoax intended to show that he will print outrageous propositions._  _This month’s edition of Quadrant contains a hoax article purporting to be by “Sharon Gould”, a Brisbane based New York biotechnologist._  _But in the tradition of Ern Malley – the famous literary hoax perpetrated by Quadrant’s_ first editor, James McAuley – the Sharon Gould persona is entirely fictitious and the article is studded with false science, logical leaps, outrageous claims and a mixture of genuine and bogus footnotes.  
> (From: How Windschuttle swallowed a hoax to publish a fake story in Quadrant – Crikey ) Yep, the *whole story was a hoax* designed to check if Quadrant Magazine checks its sources. That article was laced with false information and facts - but included footnotes that would have soon proved it to be a hoax. 
> I think the moral of the _story_ is that we need to be very careful of our sources of information. "_Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen._"   Homer Simpson

  Yes I could well imagine many news or web sites being fooled by this kind of deception. Possibly even Crikey, but then agin I will bet they will be on their toes for a while LOL.  
I really don't see the point of this Chris, as anyone can be taken in by a hoax.  
Just think what a mess the news would be in if hoaxes like this were thrown around every day a bit of a juvenile stunt if you ask me. 
I am not so thrilled about hoaxes and conspiracy theories at the moment as my brother is the target of a major conspiracy theory on the Port Arthur shootings by some fruitcake. The problem is there is always someone that will believe in them and swear they are true.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> At this point, I think it's appropriate to consider my 2 rules of the sceptical hymn book   
> woodbe.

  Woodbe you will be waiting a long time as I will not give the tobacco argument vs AGW a moment of my time. Wrong barrow to push. Except that I will say irrespective of there opinons of tobacco does it make their opinions on AGW wrong.  It is a bit like correlation of CO2 and Temps rising at the same time Must be the Co2 causing it because we cant find anything else.  Really just hollow and deceptive arguments that will only fool stupid people.

----------


## Allen James

..   

> Thank you for taking the time to read the article and sharing your views on it. I had very little doubt that you would enjoy that article. If you are interested, you can read the 'footnoted' version here: 
> ...
> The editor of Quadrant, Keith Windschuttle, also liked the article too. He commented to the author that: _"I really like the article. You bring together some very important considerations about scientific method, the media, politics and morality that I know our readers would find illuminating."_So it would seem that you are in good company. But Rod, I've got to come clean, there is a punchline to the story.... _Keith Windschuttle, the editor of the conservative magazine Quadrant, has been taken in by a hoax intended to show that he will print outrageous propositions._  _This months edition of Quadrant contains a hoax article purporting to be by Sharon Gould, a Brisbane based New York biotechnologist._  _But in the tradition of Ern Malley  the famous literary hoax perpetrated by Quadrants_ first editor, James McAuley  the Sharon Gould persona is entirely fictitious and the article is studded with false science, logical leaps, outrageous claims and a mixture of genuine and bogus footnotes.  
> (From: How Windschuttle swallowed a hoax to publish a fake story in Quadrant  Crikey ) Yep, the *whole story was a hoax* designed to check if Quadrant Magazine checks its sources. That article was laced with false information and facts - but included footnotes that would have soon proved it to be a hoax.

   That's all greenies have now.  Hoaxes.   :Biggrin:     .. .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> I really don't see the point of this Chris, as anyone can be taken in by a hoax.

    

> .  Just think what a mess the news would be in if hoaxes like this were thrown around every day a bit of a juvenile stunt if you ask me.

  Good points. . Also, when Chrispy recommends some article in future, we should be wary.  :Cool:  . . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

Dam French they really know how to spoil a good party. BBC News - French government backs down on carbon tax plan

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> Dam French they really know how to spoil a good party. BBC News - French government backs down on carbon tax plan

  Great news.  . *"The French government has signalled that it is dropping a plan for a tax on domestic carbon dioxide emissions."* .
Oh, and Chrisp - this _isn't_ a hoax*.*   . . .

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe you will be waiting a long time as I will not give the tobacco argument vs AGW a moment of my time.  Wrong barrow to push.

  That's OK Rod. It's really just a statement of fact that any sceptic has to come to terms with in their own way (or pretend it doesn't exist).  
The 32 Company Tobacco link post has been up for nearly 2 weeks without any attempt to disprove it or explain it. I'm not sure anyone is up to it, perhaps even the sceptics think it's true? 
By the way, the post you answered was not about the Tobacco link... 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> The 32 Company Tobacco link post has been up for nearly 2 weeks without any attempt to disprove it or explain it.

    

> ...  By the way, the post you answered was not about the Tobacco link...

  Hi woodbe (for when you log off and check out the board).   :Biggrin:  . It seems to me you're using smoke and mirrors to take attention away from climate-gate. You might want to stop nagging Rod about tobacco, and get back on topic.  :Rolleyes:  . . .

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe you will be waiting a long time as I will not give the tobacco argument vs AGW a moment of my time. Wrong barrow to push. Except that I will say irrespective of there opinons of tobacco does it make their opinions on AGW wrong.  It is a bit like correlation of CO2 and Temps rising at the same time Must be the Co2 causing it because we cant find anything else.  Really just hollow and deceptive arguments that will only fool stupid people.

  Hmm. How many versions of this post are you going to make? 
Firstly, it's not just opinions Rod, it's full-blown discredit and denial campaigns run by the same companies. Clearly that doesn't worry you in the slightest, but it raises valid questions in most people's minds. You've definitely got a disconnect there, don't you have the slightest suspicion that their motives might be less than pure and that their services just might be being bought by people with vested interests in the status quo? 
If I found organisations like that on my team, I'd definitely be wondering if I was on the right team. 
Secondly, I'm sure we have just been over the 'can't find anything else' argument in my response to your Quadrant article. It just aint like that. The forcings are known, and scientists look for hypotheses that are falsifiable otherwise they have nothing to test and their hypotheses are worth about the same. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> If I found organisations like that on my team, I'd definitely be wondering if I was on the right team.  
> woodbe.

   :Hahaha:  
Don't worry woodbe you have plenty on your team. Or I suppose you think green activists are as pure as the driven snow? :Yikes2:

----------


## woodbe

> Don't worry woodbe you have plenty on your team. Or I suppose you think green activists are as pure as the driven snow?

  If you are trying to imply that individuals who make their own minds up and stand up for what they think is right are somehow the same as professional tobacco denial machines which receive secret back door money to distort and misinform the debate, then I'm afraid I'm having a hard time seeing the connection. 
Poles apart, Rod.  
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Yes I could well imagine many news or web sites being fooled by this kind of deception. Possibly even Crikey, but then agin I will bet they will be on their toes for a while LOL.  
> I really don't see the point of this Chris, as anyone can be taken in by a hoax.

  Rod, 
The point I was making - as I stated - was *one needs to check their sources rather than just take things on face value*. 
I was interested to see that you quoted an articles in _Quadrant Magazine_.  I must admit that I didn't know much about the magazine, but I do recall hearing a regular radio segment Radio National that had regular guest by the name of Robert Manne.  Robert Manne was introduced as "Editor of Quadrant Magazine".  While I don't recall the exact programs, the general commentary provided by Robert Manne was quite thought provoking and sometimes quite challenging. 
It was with great interest I was keen to read the article you suggested.  I was somewhat taken back by the general style of argument used in the article.  It used snippets of actual transcripts with Phil Jones, but added skewed commentary between the quotes.  *I wondered if Phil Jones would consider the article to be a fair representation of his views?* 
I had a look around the Quadrant website to see the style and content of other articles.  It all seemed to be very *conservative*.  I started to wonder if this was the same publication I associated with Robert Manne? 
A bit of searching soon turned up:_"When Robert Manne was editor in the 1990s, the magazine moved slightly to the left. However, Manne resigned in 1997 after repeated disputes with its editorial board. Manne was succeeded by journalist and self-described contrarian Padraic McGuinness who resigned in late 2007 (shortly before his death) and was succeeded by the historian Keith Windschuttle."  (from Wikipedia: Quadrant (magazine) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )  _ So, yes, it is the one and the same.  It seems that Manne was at odds with the editorial board.  *So how good is Quadrant Magazine for quality information?*  It seemed others had already tried it out._"In January 2009, Windschuttle published a fake submission purporting to be written by biotechnologist “Dr Sharon Gould”, a name later revealed to be fictitious. The article, titled Scare Campaigns and Science Reporting, used fraudulent science, including falsified CSIRO research to make its claims.  The event later came to be known as the Windschuttle-Quadrant  hoax." (ibid Wikipedia)_ I wonder why Quadrant leaves the hoax article up on their website?  It would seem to me that Quadrant isn't too particular as to what it publishes, as long as it fits the political theme of the magazine.  Maybe it is it is just publishing what its readers want to read?  (Regardless of whether it is fact or fiction?). 
So, what have I leant?  A magazine that I thought would be okay from its association with Robert Manne, turns out to be very conservative:_Its stance is often described as conservative, neo-conservative,                 or rightwing. In fact it is not necessarily any of these  things,                 but maintains a sceptical approach to unthinking Leftism,  or political                 correctness, and its "smelly little orthodoxies"._ (from: Quadrant Magazine ) I don't know about you Rod, but I'd hardly describe it as a reputable source of information. 
EDIT: 
Also, it doesn't take a lot of effort to check out information on the web.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Waiting for the sceptic response to this: A list of 32 organisations involved in both the denial campaign surrounding tobacco and that surrounding Anthropogenic Global Warming.

  Woodbe is very excited about this crappy webpage that compiled a list of people who are opposed to both global warming, and various tobacco laws.  Big deal.  Hitler and Stalin both had moustaches, just as many businessmen did.  Does this mean all businessmen are commies and fascist tyrants? . The page that gave woodbe his thrill for the year was here, on the biased and often incorrect realclimate.org site: . RealClimate: Unforced variations . It says, For those who are interested, here is a list in alphabetical order of 32 organizations involved in both the denial campaign surrounding tobacco and that surrounding Anthropogenic Global Warming and goes on to provide a list of pages from sourcewatch.org and exxonsecrets.org, two more dubious, biased sites.  Often they dont provide the actual webpage to the company in question. . Rather than wade through all this garbage, lets just take the very first one on the list.  I have no idea what well find, but something tells me it wont be much. . Under the heading Acton Institute, there is a link to this page at sourcwatch.org: . Acton Institute - SourceWatch  . It provides a summary of The Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty (founded 1990), calling it a liberal think tank. . The Institute organises seminars for religious leaders, academics and business leaders which aim to link economics and religion. It publishes books, journals, and opinion about related issues, and it runs a Center for Economic Personalism for producing academic literature. . It provides a list of Acton Institute Core Principles.  If I do a search for global, as in global warming, there is one paltry link at the very bottom of the page, which takes us to a left winged blog.  That blog announces that Acton brought a global warming skeptic Fred Smith to Grand Rapids for a lecture in 2007. . Whoopee do! . Back on the first page again; if I do a search for tobacco there is nothing in the article to do with Acton.  Lets try going to the Actons actual website, to see how involved they are in either subject. . The Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty . I see plenty of stuff there about health care reform, catholic matters, the Bishops of England and Wales, economic principles, socialized medicine, nuclear matters, heart care reform, Glenn Beck, books, and so on, but nothing about global warming or tobacco. . Obviously if I searched their site I might find something on these subjects, but this is not what the institute is about.  These subjects are a very minor part of what they are about. . This is just another example of realclimate.org exaggerating and muckraking.  It is a very poor attempt by amateurs to puff a non-issue up into something important sounding.   . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> If you are trying to imply that individuals who make their own minds up and stand up for what they think is right are somehow the same as professional tobacco denial machines which receive secret back door money to distort and misinform the debate, then I'm afraid I'm having a hard time seeing the connection. 
> Poles apart, Rod.  
> woodbe.

  Not at all woodbe the green activist groups are also very well funded and push for all types of causes that are riddled with fabrications.  DDT is a perfect example the cost of this fabricated scare was millions of lives lost to malaria.  
So don't go taking the moral high ground, all activist have causes to push and will lie through their teeth to push an agenda the green activist as well.

----------


## Rod Dyson

[quote=woodbe;793133 then I'm afraid I'm having a hard time seeing the connection.  
woodbe.[/quote] 
Take off your rose coloured glasses and you will be able to see a lot clearer.

----------


## woodbe

> Not at all woodbe the green activist groups are also very well funded and push for all types of causes that are riddled with fabrications.  DDT is a perfect example the cost of this fabricated scare was millions of lives lost to malaria.  
> So don't go taking the moral high ground, all activist have causes to push and will lie through their teeth to push an agenda the green activist as well.

  Rod, I'm so happy you have decided to try and defend these scum of the earth tobacco organisations. I didn't think any of our sceptics were brave enough. 
Just a little context to put the DDT millions into context with the Tobacco milions:  

> Malaria  remains a major public health challenge in many parts of the world. The  World Health Organization (WHO)  estimates that in 2008 there were 243 million cases, resulting in  863,000 deaths.

   

> The World Health Organization  estimates that tobacco caused 5.4 million deaths in 2004[24]  and 100 million deaths over the course of the 20th century.[25]  Similarly, the United States Centers for Disease  Control and Prevention describes tobacco use as "the single most  important preventable risk to human health in developed countries and an  important cause of premature death worldwide."[26]

  Are you supporting their production of bogus 'research' too? How about the funding, are you happy that the sources are secret? Are you really happy that the same people who delivered campaigns to tell the public that tobacco was safe are now telling them that AGW doesn't exist?  
Sounds like you accept them onto your team, warts and all. Correct me if I'm wrong. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, I'm so happy you have decided to try and defend these scum of the earth tobacco organisations. I didn't think any of our sceptics were brave enough. 
> Just a little context to put the DDT millions into context with the Tobacco milions:    
> Are you supporting their production of bogus 'research' too? How about the funding, are you happy that the sources are secret? Are you really happy that the same people who delivered campaigns to tell the public that tobacco was safe are now telling them that AGW doesn't exist?  
> Sounds like you accept them onto your team, warts and all. Correct me if I'm wrong. 
> woodbe.

  Woodbe this discussion is about the ETS and AGW you are doing your utmost to link the tobacco argument to this discussion with the expressed desire to discredit peoples opinion on one issue simply because of their opinion on another issue without actually attacking what they are saying about AGW.   
This is the height of ignorance in my opinion.    

> Rod, I'm so happy you have decided to try and defend these scum of the earth tobacco organisations. I didn't think any of our sceptics were brave enough.

  And here you are attempting to discredit me and my opinions, with no foundation whatso ever.  You are being very deceitful with this approach as I have told you in prior post that I do not agree with the tobacco lobby.  What opinion they or anyone else has on tobacco has NOTHING to do with their opinions on AGW.  
You are wrong on this woodbe and you should abandon your smear efforts because that is all it is. 
By you standards anyone who has an opinion you disagree with has no valid opinion on anything else.  This is absurd. 
You were presenting a reasonable argument early on in this debate now you are being feral, You think you have latched onto a winning argument, yet you just discredit yourself totally with this junk.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Are you really happy that the same people who delivered campaigns to tell the public that tobacco was safe are now telling them that AGW doesn't exist?

   Chrisp, aren’t you embarrassed yet by woodbe’s insistence on using a clumsy logical fallacy? Do I have to spell it out to you guys?  Actually, yes, I think I do. .  Woodbe has decided that because a small minority of anti-AGW people oppose some aspects of tobacco legislation, ALL anti-AGW people are wrong. He ignores the fact that in any large group of people there will be those who oppose some aspects of tobacco legislation, including those who support AGW. . .He is using the logical fallacy known as ‘Guilt By Association’.  Fallacy: Guilt By Association  Quote:  *Fallacy: Guilt By Association*   _Also Known as: Bad Company Fallacy, Company that You Keep Fallacy_   _Description of Guilt By Association_  Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:  It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.   Therefore P is false   It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."   The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.   Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).   *Examples of Guilt By Association*  Jen and Sandy are discussing the topic of welfare. Jen is fairly conservative politically but she has been an active opponent of racism. Sandy is extremely liberal politically.   Jen: "I was reading over some private studies of welfare and I think it would be better to have people work for their welfare. For example, people could pick up trash, put up signs, and maybe even do skilled labor that they are qualified for. This would probably make people feel better about themselves and it would get more out of our tax money."   Sandy: "I see. So, you want to have the poor people out on the streets picking up trash for their checks? Well, you know that is exactly the position David Count endorses."   Jen: "Who is he?"   Sandy: "I'm surprised you don't know him, seeing how alike you two are. He was a Grand Mooky Wizard for the Aryan Pure White League and is well known for his hatred of blacks and other minorities. With your views, you'd fit right in to his little racist club."   Jen: "So, I should reject my view just because I share it with some racist?"   Sandy: "Of course."    Libard and Ferris are discussing who they are going to vote for as the next department chair in the philosophy department. Libard is a radical feminist and she despises Wayne and Bill, who are two sexist professors in the department.   Ferris: "So, who are you going to vote for?"   Libard: "Well, I was thinking about voting for Jane, since she is a woman and there has never been a woman chair here. But, I think that Steve will do an excellent job. He has a lot of clout in the university and he is a decent person."   Ferris: "You know, Wayne and Bill are supporting him. They really like the idea of having Steve as the new chair. I never thought I'd see you and those two pigs on the same side."   Libard: "Well, maybe it is time that we have a woman as chair."   ==================================  We could easily submit poor wouldbe's logical fallacy to the owner of that site, to include as an example.  :Biggrin:   *wouldbe's examples of the Guilt By Association logical fallacy:*  _Duhh, because some people who oppose the AGW theory also oppose tobacco legislation, obviously all people who oppose the AGW are mindless tobacco supporters, and must be wrong about AGW, duhh…_ . . . .

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe this discussion is about the ETS and AGW you are doing your utmost to link the tobacco argument to this discussion with the expressed desire to discredit peoples opinion on one issue simply because of their opinion on another issue without actually attacking what they are saying about AGW.   
> This is the height of ignorance in my opinion.    
> And here you are attempting to discredit me and my opinions, with no foundation whatso ever.  You are being very deceitful with this approach as I have told you in prior post that I do not agree with the tobacco lobby.  What opinion they or anyone else has on tobacco has NOTHING to do with their opinions on AGW.  
> You are wrong on this woodbe and you should abandon your smear efforts because that is all it is. 
> By you standards anyone who has an opinion you disagree with has no valid opinion on anything else.  This is absurd. 
> You were presenting a reasonable argument early on in this debate now you are being feral, You think you have latched onto a winning argument, yet you just discredit yourself totally with this junk.

  Rod, 
Clearly I have struck a raw nerve. Sorry about that. I've never been called 'feral' before, not sure if that is a compliment or an insult.  :Rolleyes:  
I know you don't agree with the tobacco lobby Rod, I'm questioning why you have no problem with the same organisations being involved in the AGW debate. We're not talking about opinions here, we are talking about 3rd party attempts to influence people's opinions for cash. These organisations are operating in the AGW space. 
Frankly, I don't know why you decided to enter the tobacco wars. You were doing a good job staying out of it, which is about the best you can do when you have these creeps on your side. I do not see the tobacco argument as a 'winning argument' Its a connection that exists, and an embarrassing one at that. Denying that it exists or ignoring it won't make it go away. In the end, their 'research' will eventually stand or fail on it's merits.    

> What opinion they or anyone else has on tobacco has NOTHING to do with  their opinions on AGW.

  I wouldn't argue that, but that is not the issue. These organisations are paid to generate their output regardless of their personal opinions. They are professional misinformation machines. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Woodbe you have not struck a raw nerve, I just think you are totally out of line with your reasoning to the point you are almost hysterical about by the way you keep regurgitating it trying to bait people into a discussion so you can claim some sort of gotcha. 
Yet the whole argument is so wrong as explained by Allen, In my view you are making a it of a fool of yourself while in the begining you were putting up a reasonable, albeit wrong argument.   
You just wont let this one go, this just makes no sense to me.  

> I wouldn't argue that, but that is not the issue. These organisations are paid to generate their output regardless of their personal opinions. They are professional misinformation machines.

  They are only this in your opinion because they come from the opposite political spectrum to you.  We could say the same for the green activists.  The thing you are not addressing is the argument they put forward.  I know this is the new push staight out of the "how to destroy a skeptic handbook". but this like all your other attempts at discrediting rather than arguing the points raised, will further damage your cause. 
The AGW movement is on the back foot nothing is more certain, how you handle yourselves from this moment forward will dictate wheather you ever get off the ground again or not.  If this is the best you can do I am afraid its curtain time for you.

----------


## woodbe

> They are only this in your opinion because they come from the opposite political spectrum to you.  We could say the same for the green activists.  The thing you are not addressing is the argument they put forward.  I know this is the new push staight out of the "how to destroy a skeptic handbook". but this like all your other attempts at discrediting rather than arguing the points raised, will further damage your cause.

  Rod, look back in the recent posts, I have been posting the results of the dismantling of these professional misinformation machines as they come to light regardless of their origins for some time. The most recent one was the doomed Danish windfarm misinformation put out by the 'Institute for Energy Research' 
Like the others, no comment from the sceptics when denial machine research bites the dust. 
woodbe.

----------


## dazzler

> Rod, 
> The point I was making - as I stated - was *one needs to check their sources rather than just take things on face value*. 
> I was interested to see that you quoted an articles in _Quadrant Magazine_.  I must admit that I didn't know much about the magazine, but I do recall hearing a regular radio segment Radio National that had regular guest by the name of Robert Manne.  Robert Manne was introduced as "Editor of Quadrant Magazine".  While I don't recall the exact programs, the general commentary provided by Robert Manne was quite thought provoking and sometimes quite challenging. 
> It was with great interest I was keen to read the article you suggested.  I was somewhat taken back by the general style of argument used in the article.  It used snippets of actual transcripts with Phil Jones, but added skewed commentary between the quotes.  *I wondered if Phil Jones would consider the article to be a fair representation of his views?* 
> I had a look around the Quadrant website to see the style and content of other articles.  It all seemed to be very *conservative*.  I started to wonder if this was the same publication I associated with Robert Manne? 
> A bit of searching soon turned up:_"When Robert Manne was editor in the 1990s, the magazine moved slightly to the left. However, Manne resigned in 1997 after repeated disputes with its editorial board. Manne was succeeded by journalist and self-described contrarian Padraic McGuinness who resigned in late 2007 (shortly before his death) and was succeeded by the historian Keith Windschuttle."  (from Wikipedia: Quadrant (magazine) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )  _ So, yes, it is the one and the same.  It seems that Manne was at odds with the editorial board.  *So how good is Quadrant Magazine for quality information?*  It seemed others had already tried it out._"In January 2009, Windschuttle published a fake submission purporting to be written by biotechnologist Dr Sharon Gould, a name later revealed to be fictitious. The article, titled Scare Campaigns and Science Reporting, used fraudulent science, including falsified CSIRO research to make its claims.  The event later came to be known as the Windschuttle-Quadrant  hoax." (ibid Wikipedia)_ I wonder why Quadrant leaves the hoax article up on their website?  It would seem to me that Quadrant isn't too particular as to what it publishes, as long as it fits the political theme of the magazine.  Maybe it is it is just publishing what its readers want to read?  (Regardless of whether it is fact or fiction?). 
> So, what have I leant?  A magazine that I thought would be okay from its association with Robert Manne, turns out to be very conservative:_Its stance is often described as conservative, neo-conservative,                 or rightwing. In fact it is not necessarily any of these  things,                 but maintains a sceptical approach to unthinking Leftism,  or political                 correctness, and its "smelly little orthodoxies"._ (from: Quadrant Magazine ) I don't know about you Rod, but I'd hardly describe it as a reputable source of information. 
> EDIT: 
> Also, it doesn't take a lot of effort to check out information on the web.

  Good stuff Chris, thanks for taking the time to post useful info  :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

> More sceptic misinformation bites the dust. 
>    Quote:
>                          Originally Posted by *desmogblog*  _Danish journalists have confirmed that The  Institute for Energy Research  commissioned and paid for the anti-wind energy study   released last year by a Danish think tank that claimed Denmark exaggerates the amount of wind   energy it produces (it doesnt), questioned whether wind energy reduces   carbon emissions (it does), and asserted that the U.S. should choose   coal over wind because its cheaper (its not when you count the true costs of coal). 
> The Copenhagen  Post reports: A controversial  report critical of the wind  energy industry from conservative think  tank CEPOS was commissioned and  paid for by an American think tank with  close ties to the coal and oil  industries._  Link to full story 
> woodbe.

  Good pick up, woodbe. 
It is another example of your excellent research.   :2thumbsup:  
It'd be good if the denialists had half your research capability.  If they did, we wouldn't be having this AGW debate in the first place.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, look back in the recent posts, I have been posting the results of the dismantling of these professional misinformation machines as they come to light regardless of their origins for some time. The most recent one was the doomed Danish windfarm misinformation put out by the 'Institute for Energy Research' 
> Like the others, no comment from the sceptics when denial machine research bites the dust. 
> woodbe.

  By all means keep doing that but stop degrading your argument with the smoking lobby stuff.  Leave that to the juveniles.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Good pick up, woodbe. 
> It is another example of your excellent research.  
> It'd be good if the denialists had half your research capability. If they did, we wouldn't be having this AGW debate in the first place.

  The words "think tank" are conjered up to sound evil LOL. 
This sort of stuff really amuses me.

----------


## Rod Dyson

More garbage reporting here.  Disputed isle in Bay of Bengal disappears into sea - Yahoo! News 
"What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Hazra. 
Now read the facts. Bengal Island succumbs to global warming nonsense – AP gets nutty over the loss of a sandbar  Watts Up With That?

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> Chrisp, arent you embarrassed yet by woodbes insistence on using a clumsy logical fallacy? Do I have to spell it out to you guys?  Actually, yes, I think I do. .  Woodbe has decided that because a small minority of anti-AGW people oppose some aspects of tobacco legislation, ALL anti-AGW people are wrong. He ignores the fact that in any large group of people there will be those who oppose some aspects of tobacco legislation, including those who support AGW. . He is using the logical fallacy known as Guilt By Association.  Fallacy: Guilt By Association  ...   *wouldbe's examples of the Guilt By Association logical fallacy:*  _Duhh, because some people who oppose the AGW theory also oppose tobacco legislation, obviously all people who oppose the AGW are mindless tobacco supporters, and must be wrong about AGW, duhh_

    

> Good pick up, woodbe.

    

> It is another example of your excellent research.

  .  :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   . . Well, it appears Chrispy wasn't embarrassed after all.  :Tongue:   :Tongue:   :Tongue:   . . It just gets better and better.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  .. . .  .

----------


## woodbe

> More garbage reporting here.  Disputed isle in Bay of Bengal disappears into sea - Yahoo! News 
> "What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Hazra.

  I can see what you're complaining about here Rod, and I don't disagree with you - but this is news reporting not science. News reporting is invariably biased, even when they report on science. You can bet that a full interview with Hazra would reveal that he/she is intimately aware of the many factors involved with the loss of islands in the Bay, but that's not the kind of interview that makes headlines. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> You can bet that a full interview with Hazra would reveal that he/she is intimately aware of the many factors involved with the loss of islands in the Bay, but that's not the kind of interview that makes headlines.

  I suspect woodbe is correct with the "many factors involved" comment._"Global warming has caused the rivers that pour down from the  Himalayas and empty into the Bay of Bengal to swell and shift in recent  decades, placing these islands, known as the Sundarbans, in danger, four  islands are already completely underwater and another 10 in the area  are at risk._   _A recent study by Sugata Hazra, an oceanographer at Jadavpur University_ in nearby Kolkata, found that during  the last 30 years, roughly 80 square kilometers, or 31 square miles, of  the Sundarbans have disappeared. More than 600 families have been  displaced, according to the local government authorities. Ghoramara  alone has shrunk to under five square kilometers, about half its size in  1969, Hazra's study concluded."(From: Ghoramara Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) From my reading of this and some other information on the web, it sounds like the bay might be 'backing up' with water flow from the rivers.  Changing weather patterns have also been mentioned._"The annual number of cyclones has fallen, but they are more intense now  due to global warming and this means more coastal flooding, erosion and  more saline water moving in on the islands, he added."_(From: Rising seas engulf islands ) The fact is that the islands have been shrinking, and it would seem that the sea level rising by a few millimetres isn't the main reason, but rather it is other issues (increased river flows, cyclones, erosion etc.) that could be linked to global warming. 
The information I can find on this is sketchy so it could be worthwhile keeping an open mind on this one. 
Rod, it is good to see you are questioning news reports though - keep it up.  :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> this is news reporting not science.

  Its news reporting you never complain about or correct, and that is the whole point.  Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming was as much a result of the left winged media as it was mischievous left winged UN bureaucrats.  The two worked together and relied on each other.  Rod has pointed to a sandbar that comes and goes; that AGW mythmakers are claiming is evidence of AGW.  They make the claims, and the media support them, as usual. .   

> You can bet that a full interview with Hazra would reveal that he/she is intimately aware of the many factors involved with the loss of islands in the Bay, but that's not the kind of interview that makes headlines.

  Hazra is a liar.  He takes an example of a perfectly normal changing sandbar, and pretends it is evidence of manmade global warming (AGW).    . .   

> I suspect woodbe is correct with the "many factors involved" comment.

  Who doesnt know there are many factors in a changing sandbar?  Theres wind, tides, current, temperature and the earths, moons and suns elliptical orbits, to name a few.  My retired ex-green beret next door neighbour could tell you that, because he watches the Discovery Channel.  It is common sense rather than rocket science. . .   

> The fact is that the islands have been shrinking, and it would seem that the sea level rising by a few millimetres isn't the main reason, but rather it is other issues (increased river flows, cyclones, erosion etc.) that could be linked to global warming.

  The issue isnt about global warming  it is about Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming.  Where is your evidence that any of this was caused by a guy with a factory in Altona, Melbourne? . .   

> Rod, it is good to see you are questioning news reports though - keep it up.

  For one who buys the green propaganda without question, could you lay the sneering on any thicker?   :Doh:  . . . .

----------


## chrisp

> Gee, I hope the Doc is OK, we haven't from him for a few days now..........

  I hope that he hasn't been doing an experiment to find out if it is possible to fill his lungs with 70% Carbon Dioxide (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen  atoms).   :Smilie:

----------


## dazzler

> More garbage reporting here.  Disputed isle in Bay of Bengal disappears into sea - Yahoo! News 
> "What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Hazra. 
> Now read the facts. Bengal Island succumbs to global warming nonsense  AP gets nutty over the loss of a sandbar  Watts Up With That?

  Its official......climate change is a myth and this has been uncovered due to the statements of, wait for it,  hold on tight, are you ready  An Oceanographer! 
Thats right sportsfans, Climate Change is a myth because a person who is not qualified in the field made an incorrect statement. Game over boys, shut down the thread.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Its official......climate change is a myth and this has been uncovered due to the statements of,   wait for it,  hold on tight , are you ready   An Oceanographer! 
> Thats right sportsfans, Climate Change is a myth because a person who is not qualified in the field made an incorrect statement. Game over boys, shut down the thread.

    A bit melodramatic there dazler.

----------


## dazzler

Now thats the understatement of the year  :Tongue:

----------


## woodbe

Remember this post? 
In the news today, the authors of the original study are claiming censorship because their response was rejected by peer review. 
They have apparently published their response on the web, details and ongoing responses here and here. 
Take home message: In their response, the original Authors did not address the issues raised in the comment that debunked their study. As such, it failed basic scientific publishing rules and was rejected in peer review. You can get away with that sort of crap on a web forum, but not in peer reviewed science. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> Its official......climate change is a myth and this has been uncovered due to the statements of, wait for it, hold on tight, are you ready An Oceanographer!Thats right sportsfans, Climate Change is a myth because a person who is not qualified in the field made an incorrect statement. Game over boys, shut down the thread.

   
Are you qualified to talk about myths, Dazed? . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Remember this post? 
> In the news today, the authors of the original study are claiming censorship because their response was rejected by peer review. 
> They have apparently published their response on the web, details and ongoing responses here and here. 
> Take home message: In their response, the original Authors did not address the issues raised in the comment that debunked their study. As such, it failed basic scientific publishing rules and was rejected in peer review. You can get away with that sort of crap on a web forum, but not in peer reviewed science. 
> woodbe.

  Nice a scientific bum fight.  Well this is how it should be done.  Except you have to love the ABC's use of "climate deniers"  This tag will be your undoing,  it turns people into skeptics in droves.   They think they are smart using this tag LOL they are so wrong.   
How many times have I heard that people became skeptical of AGW because of the use of this tag.  LOL idiots.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> was rejected in peer review. You can get away with that sort of crap on a web forum, but not in peer reviewed science.

   You remind me of those who swore horses could never be replaced by cars. . Peer Review may have been respectable once, but it lost that respect after climate-gate. We now know that peer review is another name for jobs for the boys.  .   .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Nice a scientific bum fight. Well this is how it should be done. Except you have to love the ABC's use of "climate deniers" This tag will be your undoing, it turns people into skeptics in droves. They think they are smart using this tag LOL they are so wrong.

    

> How many times have I heard that people became skeptical of AGW because of the use of this tag. LOL idiots.

   Agreed. . . John Doe: Hes a climate denier! Jane Doe: Really? He denies the climate? John: Exactly. Jane: He says climate doesnt exist? John: Huh? Jane: He says climate doesnt exist? John: Dont be silly. No, he says that man made global warming doesnt exist. Jane: Okay, but, I dont get it John: Get what? Jane: If he doesnt deny that climate exists, why would you call him John: I dont want to talk about this, okay? Hes a climate denier and thats all there is to it. Jane: Uh huh. ButI still dont get it. John: Well, just shut up, because Im trying to read The Age. Jane: Dad, Im on your side. Im just asking some questions.  John: Good, but why ask such annoying ones? You remind me of your mother. Jane: Uh huh, but you said he is a climate denier! John: So? Jane: He doesnt deny that climate exists! John: Youre just being pedantic now. Jane: Pedantic? I cant believe this. John: Just shut up, okay? Im trying to read The Age. Jane: Youre a moron, dad. [Walks out] John: Oh yeah? Well let me tell you, young lady, this isnt going to help your peer review, considering all my mates are your peers! Jane: Your peers are morons too! [slams door] John: [ruffles paper] Well, I never. Raising greenies these days is harder than ever. . . .

----------


## woodbe

> Nice a scientific bum fight.  Well this is how it should be done.

  Its more a case of the original authors having a bit of a public dummy spit because they were not permitted to get away with their bogus analysis. The scientific bun fight was played out 6 months ago, and has only now become an issue because the publishing decisions have finally been made. 
Sceptic vs Denier is where you are again confusing opinion and science but its a case of if the cap fits wear it. If people swap sides because of it, they couldn't have much conviction for their opinion. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. . I remember rrobor in this thread whining about cow farts helping to cause ‘global warming’. Here’s the latest on that myth: . . Now it's CowGate: expert report says claims of livestock causing global warming are false . March 25th, 2010 . [excerpt]: . It is becoming difficult to keep pace with the speed at which the global warming scam is now unravelling. The latest reversal of scientific “consensus” is on livestock and the meat trade as a major cause of global warming – one-fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions, according to eco-vegetarian cranks. Now a scientific report delivered to the American Chemical Society says it is nonsense. The Washington Times has called it “Cowgate”.  The cow-burp hysteria reached a crescendo in 2006 when a United Nations report ominously entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow” claimed: “The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents). This is a higher share than transport.” This led to demands in America for a “cow tax” and a campaign in Europe at the time of the Copenhagen car crash last December called Less Meat=Less Heat.  Now a report to the American Chemical Society by Frank Mitloehner, an air quality expert at the University of California at Davis, has denounced such scare-mongering as “scientifically inaccurate”. He reveals that the UN report lumped together digestive emissions from livestock, gases produced by growing animal feed and meat and milk processing, to get the highest possible result, whereas the traffic comparison only covered fossil fuel emissions from cars. The true ratio, he concludes, is just 3 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in America are attributable to rearing of cattle and pigs, compared with 26 per cent from transport.  Mitloehner also makes the deadly serious point: “Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries.” Precisely. The demonising of cows and pigs is just another example of global warmists’ callous indifference to starvation in the developing world, as in the case of the unbelievably immoral and reckless drive for biofuels – pouring Third World resources for subsistence into Western liberals’ fuel tanks – and, notoriously, carbon trading.  Week by week the AGW collapse intensifies. Himalayan glaciers, polar bears, Arctic ice, Amazon rainforests, all discredited. Now it turns out the great cow-burp scare is bovine excrement too. The global warming scam is, to the majority of people, an object of derision. The scientific community has also at last wakened up. They are smelling the coffee in more and more institutions these days.  This week the Science Museum in London announced it is revising its stance so that its Climate Change Gallery will now be renamed the Climate Science Gallery, to reflect its new position of neutrality in the climate debate. Chris Rapley, the director, said the museum was taking a different approach after observing how the debate had been affected by leaked e-mails and overstatements of the dangers of global warming. He said: “We have come to realise, given the way this subject has become so polarised over the past three to four months, that we need to be respectful and welcoming of all views on it.”  When did you ever hear that sort of thing before? But that is fair enough: neutrality, a level playing field and an equal voice is all global warming sceptics have ever asked for. Given those reasonable conditions, the truth will out and we will win. The signs are that a lot of scientists have been moved to assert their integrity, encouraged by the increasingly huge breaches sceptics have made in the defences of the AGW camp. Others may simply have calculated they may have backed a loser and it is time to take out some insurance. . . Full article here: .. Now it's CowGate: expert report says claims of livestock causing global warming are false – Telegraph Blogs . . .  .

----------


## Allen James

. . Climategate: the whitewash continues . March 22nd, 2010 . The Royal Society ... has announced wholl be chairing its independent inquiry into the science behind the Climategate scandal. . And guess what? The man could scarcely be more parti pris if theyd given the job to Al Gore. . His name is Lord Oxburgh and, as Bishop Hill reports, he is: . President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association . Chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables . A member of the Green Fiscal Commission . So the chairman of this independent panel has a direct financial interest in the outcome. . ========================= . Full article here: . Climategate: the whitewash continues – Telegraph Blogs . . . .

----------


## Allen James

. . Greenies ‘Earth Hour’ a big failure. . In 2008 the earth hour brought about a 12.4 per cent drop in power in Brisbane’s CBD, and the next year it was 8 per cent. This year, even with a great deal more publicity for their cause, and Fairfax Media sponsoring the event, the Earth Hour organizers only managed a 2 per cent drop. .  At that rate I guess next year one bloke will turn his front porch light off, and a gecko will eat a few less moths as a result.  :Biggrin:  . This is good news. People are starting to realize that the hot air around lately is mostly generated by greenies.  :2thumbsup:  . . .

----------


## Allen James

.  .  IPCC chief Rajenda Pachauri. . Environmental 'Crisis' and Government Power The IPCC's climate-change fearmongering is only the latest excuse to expand the public sector. . Wall Street Journal MARCH 23, 2010 . Excerpt: . The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted for the first time last month that it is facing a crisis of confidence. But the IPCC's failings go far beyond the recent spate of errors identified in its reports. The problem began with the global political climate that led to the formation of the IPCC two decades ago.  Contrary to popular perception, the IPCC is not a scientific organization. It does no research of its own. Composed of scientists nominated by different governments, its key function is to collate evidence of human-induced climate change, not just changes in climate.  It is hardly surprising that with such an inherently biased objective the scientists lost their objectivity. Many of them went on a crusade to support the political goal of proving anthropogenic global warming. Concerns about scientific objectivity and critical discourse were thrown overboard.  Why did political masters set such a nonscientific mandate for their scientists at the IPCC? Because over the past half century, governments have often ridden the green bandwagon to justify public-sector expansion.  Almost every decade we have witnessed the birth of a new green scare, apparently based on new scientific findings. First came the campaign against the pesticide DDT in the 1960s, followed by the population bomb in the 1970s. Then we had the campaign to protect forests and species in the 1980s, the ozone hole in the 1990s, and most recently the crescendo over climate change leading up to last year's Copenhagen summit.  Each time, the scare was shown to be false or overhyped. For instance, millions of people in the developing world died of malaria because DDT was wrongly vilified. It took decades to overcome the blanket ban of the chemical, and now it is once again being used to control mosquitoes in Africa.  Predictions of a rising population depleting the world's resources have proven equally false and destructive. India today is enjoying the demographic dividend of a young workforce, while China is getting worried at the prospect that it may become the first society in history to grow old before it becomes rich. Likewise, forests are making a surprising comeback in many parts of the world, as the rise in agricultural productivity and economic growth are lowering demand for agricultural land.  Clearly, the track record of green prophecies has been pathetic. And with the collapse of the Soviet empire, and periodic economic turmoil, (such as the Asian economic crisis in 1997, and the dot-com bust in 2000), the public's confidence in their leaders' capacity to make effective economic policies has been shaken. It is in this context that climate change provided a new opportunity for many governments to legitimize their role, and expand their scope. . See full article here: . Barun S. Mitra: The IPCC's Fearmongering Isn't New - WSJ.com . . Well, its clear the Wall Street Journal knows a scam when it sees one. The question is, how long will it take the Ruddy Greens in Australia to figure it out?  :Biggrin:  . . . .

----------


## woodbe

Warning to Rod: The following video contains multiple uses of the word 'denier'. So if you are still overly sensitive to that word you might be best to skip watching it, but you would be missing out on a good recap on the Phil Jones BBC interview, and what the sceptics deliberately ignored. Also covers the sceptic misinformation over the Siddal sea level paper retraction, and the lack of science in the sceptic tactics. 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc&feature=channel"]Flogging the Scientists[/ame] 
The final comment regarding several calls from the sceptic community for public floggings, sackings, jail and even Hari-Kari of climate scientists is thought provoking.   

> What makes a great civilisation turn away from science, reason and civility to hatred of knowledge, ignorance fear and brutality? We seem to be running an experiment to find out?

  Once again, we look for the real science from the public sceptic campaign to support their rhetoric and move the science forward. Despite our resident sceptics proclaiming that the battle is already won, and 'The AGW movement is on the back foot nothing is more certain, how you  handle yourselves from this moment forward will dictate wheather you  ever get off the ground again or not.'  
The science basis for AGW  is still standing, it has not been retracted or rendered out of date by new hypothesis and research. If the sceptics are genuine, (and as can be seen, most are opinion sceptics, not science sceptics), this is surely where the sceptic effort should be applied, not in a polarising and inflammatory campaign based on opinion. The only casualty in that approach will be science itself. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> The science basis for AGW is still standing

  I disagree.  AGW has been totally discredited.  .
.  *EDITED POST*   . . .

----------


## woodbe

More on the McLean et al affair:  The Peer Reviewed literature has spoken   

> Much confusion and spin infects current public discussion of "peer  reviewed" research: first we had Maurice Newman, the Chairman of the  ABC, who suggested that "distinguished scientists" challenge the  overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change by "peer reviewed  research", although he oddly failed to name such research.  
> Now  we have John McLean, an author of a lone article that was celebrated by  some media scribes as overturning the scientific consensus on climate  change, cry  "censorship" because his response to a devastating deconstruction of  his work in the peer reviewed literature was not accepted for  publication. 
> So what exactly is peer reviewed research? How does  it work? 
> To understand the current controversy, one must  understand that peer review is egalitarian but not indiscriminate; that  it is fallible but self-correcting; and that it exercises quality  control but not censorship.

  more on the link 
and for those that think that somehow all the noise made by the opinion sceptics is based on scientific effort:   

> The peer reviewed literature has spoken loudly and clearly: The paper by  McLean and colleagues permits no conclusions about global warming, let  alone the lack thereof.  
> This outcome puts to rest the only peer  reviewed article that was purportedly about climate change and claimed  to challenge the scientific consensus, to have come out of Australia  since the IPCC's 2007 report.  
> This single article is no more. 
> What is left standing instead are, for example, the 110 peer  reviewed articles on climate change that were published by scientists at  the University of New South Wales' Climate Change Research Center alone  since 2007. 
> Yes, 110 peer reviewed articles since 2007 from  just one Australian research center that add to the overwhelming  scientific evidence on climate change and its human causes.  
> 110  peer reviewed articles which in the service of humanity seek ways to  manage the problem.  
> 110 to 0.  
> That is the score of the  peer reviewed science between just one Australian university and the  Australian "skeptics". 
> Care to make it 200 to 0? 300 to 0? Just  add in a few more Australian universities. 
> Care to make it  umpteen thousands to virtually none? Just read the peer reviewed  literature surveyed by the IPCC.

  On the back foot over science? I don't think so. I think we are still waiting for the sceptic's science to arrive, if it ever does. If AGW is ever overturned, it's won't be by the opinion sceptics, it will be by the scientists working in the field, doing the hard yards, publishing their results and methods, adding credible research to the body of existing work. 
woodbe

----------


## chrisp

> Warning to Rod: The following video contains multiple uses of the word '*denier*'.

  Has anyone looked up 'denialist' or 'denialism' at Wikipedia?  It is an interesting article: *"Analysis of the  term and its usage* 
Mark Hoofnagle has  described denialism as "the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the  appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is  none." and is a  process that operates by employing one or more of the following five tactics in  order to maintain the appearance of legitimate controversy:  *Conspiracy theories* - Suggesting opponents  have an ulterior motive for their position or are part of a conspiracy.*Cherry picking* -  Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated,  flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look like they  base their ideas on weak research.*False  experts* - Paying an expert in the field, or another field, to lend  supporting evidence or credibility.*Moving the  goalpost* - Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by  continually demanding some other (often greater) piece of evidence. In other  words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved  to exclude the attempt. Thus denialists use the absence of complete and absolute  knowledge to prevent the implementation of sound policies, or the acceptance of  an idea or theory.*Other logical fallacies* - Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to  consequences, straw man, or  red herring"
(From: Denialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) Does any of the above 5 items ring a bell?  I thought it is quite a pertinent article to this thread.   :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Has anyone looked up 'denialist' or 'denialism' at Wikipedia? It is an interesting article:

    

> *"Analysis of the term and its usage*  Mark Hoofnagle has described denialism as "the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none." and is a process that operates by employing one or more of the following five tactics in order to maintain the appearance of legitimate controversy:  *Conspiracy theories* - Suggesting opponents have an ulterior motive for their position or are part of a conspiracy.*Cherry picking* - Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look like they base their ideas on weak research.*False experts* - Paying an expert in the field, or another field, to lend supporting evidence or credibility.*Moving the goalpost* - Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often greater) piece of evidence. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. Thus denialists use the absence of complete and absolute knowledge to prevent the implementation of sound policies, or the acceptance of an idea or theory.*Other logical fallacies* - Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to consequences, straw man, or red herring"(From: Denialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )  Does any of the above 5 items ring a bell? I thought it is quite a pertinent article to this thread.

   The word you're looking for Chrispy, is 'Liar'. . *Liar*
-noun a person who tells lies." . www.dictionary.com (Random House and others) .
. As for 'denier', here is the actual definition: . *Denier* -noun
a person who denies. .
. *Deny* . *verb (used with object),-nied, -ny·ing.*  1. to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true: _to deny an accusation._  2. to refuse to agree or accede to: _to deny a petition._  3. to withhold the possession, use, or enjoyment of: _to deny access to secret information._  4. to withhold something from, or refuse to grant a request of: _to deny a beggar._  5. to refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate: _to deny one's gods._  6. to withhold (someone) from accessibility to a visitor: _The secretary denied his employer to all those without appointments._  7. _Obsolete_. to refuse to take or accept.   Idiom 8. *deny oneself,* to refrain from satisfying one's desires or needs; practice self-denial. .
. You and the other 'denialist' lovers have a nice day now, hear? . . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Warning to Rod: The following video contains multiple uses of the word 'denier'. So if you are still overly sensitive to that word you might be best to skip watching it,

  Woodbe it is not my sensitivity to this term, it is the general perception of many, that use of this term by AGW activist, sends a signal of desperation of your position, thereby making some folks take a second look to see why you are so desperate to get your message across. What they find is science that lacks credibility.   

> The only casualty in that approach will be science itself.

  Science is already the casualty.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe it is not my sensitivity to this term, it is the general perception of many, that use of this term by AGW activist, sends a signal of desperation of your position, thereby making some folks take a second look to see why you are so desperate to get your message across. What they find is science that lacks credibility.

  Perhaps in the mind of the opinion sceptics.  
I think there is more exasperation than desperation. The message has been already delivered, and it continues to be delivered. The opinion sceptics don't agree, but they seem to be having real trouble, desperate trouble countering credible science with credible science.   

> Science is already the casualty.

  Not yet, it won't go down without a fight. Our society has too much invested in science to let it go easily. We may walk to the edge, but I doubt we will jump. 
What are you going to replace it with Rod? Creationism? 
NB. I have started to use two phrases for sceptics: 
1. Sceptics. These are normal scientists using normal scientific method to try and develop alternative hypotheses and research regarding AGW. As we have seen recently, not getting a lot of traction, but I'm still convinced there are good people working in the field regardless of some of the rubbish that has been presented and subsequently torn to shreds thus far. 
2. Opinion Sceptics. These are either pseudo scientists or outspoken members of society who disagree with AGW for reasons other than science (although they will claim the science is flawed). This group comprise 99% of the sceptic discussion here. 
The group that matters is group 1. They are the people who will disprove AGW if it is at all possible.  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The *opinion* sceptics don't agree, but they seem to be having real trouble, desperate trouble countering credible science with credible science.

  Is this the new mantra out of the Alarmist handbook woodbe?  It sure sounds like it.   
Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth!!! 
You don't have credible science to prove the A part of AGW. 
Sure there is plenty of science about that tells us the climate changes but we already know that! 
There is plenty of science that tells us what "MIGHT" happen "IF" this happens.  Plausible stuff if the "IF" happens. Then it is still only a "MIGHT".   
But seriously your scientists have only proved what we already know happens, ie. climate changes.  They are no closer to proving man is the cause of warming than they were 20 years ago.   
What will bring you unstuck is when co2 keeps rising, (which it will, of that I have no doubt), and the temperatures do not rise in accordance to the models.   
Now we are already seeing evidence that the models are way out, yet this is not enough,  the theory has to be smashed before you rusted on guys change.  So we may have to wait another 10 years yet, (god help us), for this to be efectivly killed off as one of the many eco scares of our time.   
In the meantime don't expect any governments to bring in and ETS at least that seems to be dead in the water.  If it gets legs again it will be easier to defeat next time, as public opinion is moving away from an ets at a rapid rate. 
Yep, harp away at your mantra all you like woodbe it is falling on deaf ears.  Unitil you come up with the smoking gun you don't have a chance.

----------


## woodbe

> Unitil you come up with the smoking gun you don't have a chance.

  Great irony there Rod. 
As for your comment that "You don't have credible science to prove the A part of AGW." 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLYqzIhhT6o&feature=channel"]What do we know about climate change?[/ame]   

> Is this the new mantra out of the Alarmist handbook woodbe?  It sure  sounds like it

  No Rod, I'm doing what I have always tried to do here. Keep the opinion sceptics honest. If you want to take down science, you'll have to do it with science. If you post pseudo science, I'll call it when it gets exposed. Strike rate is very high, but there is a delay. I'm sure you understand why that might be. 
Hmm. An 'Alarmist' handbook? Would that be the opposite of a 'Denialist' handbook? Pot, Kettle Black.  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

Hey lads and ladies, 
Apologies for the drop off in posts, I'm sure you're all thrilled I'm back.  :Biggrin:  
I've been busy helping friends and family clean up after our little hail storm.  I've discovered a causal link between my mates being in trouble and them ringing for my tools.   
Fortunately, there's another causal link between me helping out and getting food and beer.   :2thumbsup: .   
So in the words of a famous scientist "It's causal all the way through". 
If this AGW thing keeps up, I'll never have to shop for food or beer again.  :Biggrin:  
I've been trying to keep up with the info, but will have a good read through soon.  Looks like the battle rages on. I do admire those foot soldiers who battle on long after their ETS Leader has abandoned them.  :Giveup:  
The Ruddster is so quiet on this, even I can't find anything to quote him on.  :Shock:  
I guess AGW Theory will be recorded by political history as "the greatest politically expedient challenge of our generation".

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The group that matters is group 1. They are the people who will disprove AGW if it is at all possible.  
> woodbe.

  You really just don't get it woodbe, it is not up to group 1 to disprove AGW it is still up to your guys to PROVE AGW.  
You can't disprove something that has not yet been proven.  
Untill you can prove your theory it is still just a theory. Let get to fist base first LOL. 
The skeptics you call goup 2, generally, are people who have weighed up the evidence presented to support the AGW THEORY and the evidence presented that does not support the AGW theory. On the balance of that evidence skeptics like myself remain skeptical for many many reasons other than the science presented. 
It was nothing to do with science that first made me skeptical it was the manic way the AGW activist were comming up with hyped up nonsense to support their case which they say the science was settled. It had its own stink about it, like nothing else. The bull  @@@@ meter was off the scales and still is.

----------


## chrisp

> You really just don't get it woodbe, it is not up to group 1 to disprove AGW it is still up to your guys to PROVE AGW.

  Rod, 
Out of interest, what would you personally consider or accept as 'proof'' of AGW?

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Hey lads and ladies,

    

> Apologies for the drop off in posts, I'm sure you're all thrilled I'm back.   I've been busy helping friends and family clean up after our little hail storm. I've discovered a causal link between my mates being in trouble and them ringing for my tools.   Fortunately, there's another causal link between me helping out and getting food and beer. .   So in the words of a famous scientist "It's causal all the way through".  If this AGW thing keeps up, I'll never have to shop for food or beer again.   I've been trying to keep up with the info, but will have a good read through soon. Looks like the battle rages on. I do admire those foot soldiers who battle on long after their ETS Leader has abandoned them.   The Ruddster is so quiet on this, even I can't find anything to quote him on.   I guess AGW Theory will be recorded by political history as "the greatest politically expedient challenge of our generation".

  It’s good to see you and Rod back again, Dr. Freud. I hope the hail storm didn’t cause too much damage. But wait – there are those here who don’t want to hear about hail storms, preferring instead to hear about droughts and heat waves.  :Biggrin:  . Thanks to environ*mentalist* legislation many houses and people have been burned to death in the last couple of years. Most because they weren’t allowed to cut down flammable trees or even back-burn, and others because their Labor supplied insulation was installed incorrectly. It seems the Greens like the smell of smouldering Aussies. . Chuck another Aussie on the barbie.  :Cool:  . Me, I’ve been busy cutting down a whole bunch of tall eucalyptus trees, that were sucking all the water out from under a house I own, making it sink. But wait – they don’t want to hear that either. I’m supposed to let my house sink and crack in half, to save the poor eucalyptus trees, which are abundant, full of termites and grow like weeds.  :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:  . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> Out of interest, what would you personally consider or accept as 'proof'' of AGW?

  The one thing you haven't provided so far, I imagine. .
.Proof. . . .

----------


## woodbe

> The skeptics you call goup 2, generally, are people who have weighed up the evidence presented to support the AGW THEORY and the evidence presented that does not support the AGW theory. On the balance of that evidence skeptics like myself remain skeptical for many many reasons other than the science presented. 
> It was nothing to do with science that first made me skeptical it was the manic way the AGW activist were comming up with hyped up nonsense to support their case which they say the science was settled. It had its own stink about it, like nothing else. The bull  @@@@ meter was off the scales and still is.

  Rod, that is precisely my point. You are an opinion sceptic. Glad to have you on board, but you need Group 1. to 'weigh the evidence' and debunk it. So far, they haven't been able to do it. Whatever you may claim amounts for nothing until the science itself is sorted, and it's not a popularity contest. 
I find it amusing that the purveyors of your original hysteria are now your bestest friends, but we've been there before.  :Cool:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Untill you can prove your theory it is still just a theory. Let get to fist base first LOL.

  Rod, it's not 'my' theory. You really don't get much about science, do you?  
Based on all of the research so far, AGW is the most successful hypothesis about what is happening to our climate. I'd be real happy for the sceptics to come up with and provide a hypothesis that fits the evidence better than the incumbent one, but so far, they just don't seem to be able to come up with anything with legs. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Rod, it's not 'my' theory. You really don't get much about science, do you?  
> Based on all of the research so far, AGW is the most successful hypothesis about what is happening to our climate. I'd be real happy for the sceptics to come up with and provide a hypothesis that fits the evidence better than the incumbent one, but so far, *they just don't seem to be able to come up with anything with legs.*  
> woodbe.

  *
Hey look, I've got legs.*      
Back to more low brow stuff soon.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Allen James

.    

> Rod, it's not 'my' theory.

   If you buy the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, defend it, promote it and want to impose big taxes on Australian’s as a result, then it most certainly is your theory. You may not have created your car, computer or the AGW theory, but they are all yours. . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

Now I wonder who wrote this bit of truth!  _Climate science, even at its most uncontroversial, could never motivate the remaking of the entire global energy economy. Efforts to use climate science to threaten an apocalyptic future should we fail to embrace green proposals, and to characterize present-day natural disasters as terrifying previews of an impending day of reckoning, have only served to undermine the credibility of both climate science and progressive energy policy._  
Here is the link Freeing Energy Policy From The Climate Change Debate by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger: Yale Environment 360 
Read the entire article it sums up what I have been saying all along quite well.

----------


## chrisp

> Now I wonder who wrote this bit of truth!  _Climate science, even at its most uncontroversial, could never motivate the remaking of the entire global energy economy. Efforts to use climate science to threaten an apocalyptic future should we fail to embrace green proposals, and to characterize present-day natural disasters as terrifying previews of an impending day of reckoning, have only served to undermine the credibility of both climate science and progressive energy policy._  
> Here is the link Freeing Energy Policy From The Climate Change Debate by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger: Yale Environment 360  Read the entire article it sums up what I have been saying all along  quite well.

  Rod, it is an opinion article on the politics of AGW (rather than science). 
Did you read this part:_"In the end, there is no avoiding the enormous uncertainties inherent to our understanding of climate change. Whether 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, or 450 or 550, is the right number in terms of atmospheric stabilization, any prudent strategy to minimize future risks associated with catastrophic climate change involves decarbonizing our economy as rapidly as possible._"
(ibid)I take it that this part of the article "sums up what (you) have been saying all along  quite  well"?

----------


## woodbe

> Now I wonder who wrote this bit of truth!
>  [..]
> Read the entire article it sums up what I have been saying all along quite well.

  Nice link pickup from Watts' site Rod. I note that he still has not responded in any meaningful way to Tamino's Challenge 
Regarding the Yale article, it's an Opinion piece of course. Continues to quote previously debunked claims regarding IPCC etc. Does not actually disagree with de-carbonising energy, looks more like a turf grab than anything else.   

> Carbon caps may remain as aspirational targets, but the primary role for  carbon pricing, whether through auctioning pollution permits or a  carbon tax, should be to fund low-carbon energy research, development,  and deployment.

  So a tax and cap is ok, as long as it's not proposed by climate science. Are you really sure this article sums up what you have been saying all along?  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, it is an opinion article on the politics of AGW (rather than science). 
> Did you read this part: _"In the end, there is no avoiding the enormous uncertainties inherent to our understanding of climate change. Whether 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, or 450 or 550, is the right number in terms of atmospheric stabilization, any prudent strategy to minimize future risks associated with catastrophic climate change involves decarbonizing our economy as rapidly as possible._"
> (ibid)I take it that this part of the article "sums up what (you) have been saying all along quite well"?

  
LOL yes but what a level headed opinion base of facts.   
Got to follow the new Mantra chrisp opinion vs science,  You got to love that.  Where do you draw the line? A lot of science is opinion, based on facts as the scientist interperates them.  Another mantra that will bring you undone.  You better read the article again Chrisp. 
I guess you had to get a bit of a morsel out of it.  I like the fist sentence best._In the end, there is no avoiding the enormous uncertainties inherent to our understanding of climate change._

----------


## woodbe

> Got to follow the new Mantra chrisp opinion vs science,  You got to love that.  Where do you draw the line? A lot of science is opinion, based on facts as the scientist interperates them.

  That's obvious, but just in case it hasn't occurred to you Rod: 
Science may start with an idea or opinion. For it to become accepted science, it then has to be researched and proven through the scientific process. In the end, if the resulting hypothesis cannot be falsified, it will stand until something that fits the evidence more closely comes along. 
The whole _opinion sceptic_ mantra is that opinion debunks scientific research without having to do the research, but unfortunately that's clearly a short cut that lacks credibility. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Nice link pickup from Watts' site Rod. I note that he still has not responded in any meaningful way to Tamino's Challenge

  Give it a rest we have done that the doc answered you nicely.   

> Regarding the Yale article, it's an Opinion piece of course. Continues to quote previously debunked claims regarding IPCC etc. Does not actually disagree with de-carbonising energy, looks more like a turf grab than anything else.

  Here you go with your mantra again (boring). See response to chrisp.   

> So a tax and cap is ok, as long as it's not proposed by climate science. Are you really sure this article sums up what you have been saying all along?

  Woodbe I was sure you would be clever enough to know what part of the article means, "sums up" what I have been saying and wich parts I would not agree with. Guess not! Maybe I have to spell it out for you next time. BTW you nicely avoid the points of the article but we are used to you doing that now.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> That's obvious, but just in case it hasn't occurred to you Rod: 
> Science may start with an idea or opinion. For it to become accepted science, it then has to be researched and proven through the scientific process. In the end, if the resulting hypothesis cannot be falsified, it will stand until something that fits the evidence more closely comes along. 
> The whole _opinion sceptic_ mantra is that opinion debunks scientific research without having to do the research, but unfortunately that's clearly a short cut that lacks credibility. 
> woodbe.

  LOL I will let Doc rip you a new one on this comment woodbe.  I am sure he will answer you much better than I.

----------


## woodbe

> Give it a rest we have done that the doc answered you nicely.

  No insult to Doc, but the invitation to respond is with Watts. I was pointing out that he hasn't, in case it had missed your attention.  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> LOL I will let Doc rip you a new one on this comment woodbe.  I am sure he will answer you much better than I.

  Give it a go Rod, the Doc can correct your analysis when he comes along.  
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Rod, it is an opinion article on the politics of AGW (rather than science).

   Yes, a smart, level headed opinion, no doubt formed after looking at the science. . .   

> Did you read this part:

    

> _"In the end, there is no avoiding the enormous uncertainties inherent to our understanding of climate change. Whether 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, or 450 or 550, is the right number in terms of atmospheric stabilization, any prudent strategy to minimize future risks associated with catastrophic climate change involves decarbonizing our economy as rapidly as possible._"

  Did you notice the word ‘prudent’, which I emphasized? . Taxing clean Australian businesses and householders to make dirty businesses in China and India rich, is not ‘prudent’ by any means. . . .

----------


## Allen James

.
.   

> Now I wonder who wrote this bit of truth!

    

> _Climate science, even at its most uncontroversial, could never motivate the remaking of the entire global energy economy. Efforts to use climate science to threaten an apocalyptic future should we fail to embrace green proposals, and to characterize present-day natural disasters as terrifying previews of an impending day of reckoning, have only served to undermine the credibility of both climate science and progressive energy policy._   Here is the link Freeing Energy Policy From The Climate Change Debate by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger: Yale Environment 360  Read the entire article it sums up what I have been saying all along quite well.

   I read it, and they make some very good points.  I posted this response: .
. There was never a time when humans didnt worship weather gods, believing their prayers and sacrifices could influence the weather, keeping floods and droughts, or extremes in temperature, at bay.  There have been many thousands of different versions of these weather based religions, and their followers are always quite emotional and murderous.  Brutal and fanatical witchdoctors would have people sacrificed, chopping their heads off and setting bowls of blood before their Sun or Rain Gods altar.  They would dance and chant, and plead with their weather God.  Please bring us rain, dear Rain God, so that we can grow our crops once more, and not starve, or, Please bring the sun back, Sun God, and melt this ice and snow, and let us be warm once more, and so on.  If there was no change, more sacrifices would occur.  Eventually, when any kind of change for the better occurred, the results were predictable. . Chimalli:  Look!  The skies are clearer today, and it is slightly warmer!
Itzcóatl:  Youre right!  All hail the mighty Sun God Tenochtitlan, for we have pleased Him!
Chimalli:  Gather everyone together and we will offer another sacrifice, in thanks!
Itzcóatl:  Another virgin?
Chimalli:  Of course!  We must not annoy Tenochtitlan!
Itzcóatl:  Yes, but . . . Chimalli:  But what man?  Why do you hesitate?  Is it not obvious our sacrifices have worked?
Itzcóatl:  Yes, but there arent many virgins left.
Chimalli:  None?
Itzcóatl:  There is old toothless Teyacapan, but she is so ugly, Tenochtitlan might be offended.
Chimalli:  Youre right.  We will offer Tenochtitlan two young boys instead.
Itzcóatl:  As you wish. .  Next day . Chimalli:  Hmm.  The skies are dim and cloudy again, and the temperature has dropped.
Itzcóatl:  Perhaps Tenochtitlan was displeased with the offering of boys.
Chimalli:  Perhaps.  We must make amends, by offering Him three young female virgins!
Itzcóatl:  But where will we find them?
Chimalli:  Well raid the tribe from across the valley.  They have plenty.
Itzcóatl:  Ill have the men form an attack party.
Chimalli:  As quickly as you can.  We must change the weather as soon as possible.
Itzcóatl:  By the way, are you sure these sacrifices help to change the weather?
Chimalli:  Of course!  It is a settled science!  You saw the changes happen with your own eyes!
Itzcóatl:  I guess so.  Okay, Ill tell the women to prepare the altar for more sacrifices.
Chimalli:  Tell them I want the virgins covered in flowers before they die, to please Tenochtitlan.  Oh and Itzcóatl, if I hear you doubt Tenochtitlan again, I may consider sacrificing you to Him.
Itzcóatl:  It will never happen again, I promise. .
. Today its common for many a farmer to say a prayer at the dinner table, ending with, ...and God, please bring rain soon, so we can hold on to our farm.  Amen. . Humans have always believed they can influence the weather.  It seems to be hardwired into our brains.  We dont seem to realise just how paltry and insignificant our presence is on this planet.  That is why I had a colleague figure out the math to show our size in relation to the planet.  It turns out that if the planet was reduced to 3 metres diameter (about the size of a common room), a man two metres tall would not be able to see humans on its surface, even if he eyeballed the surface close up.  Not even with an optical microscope would he see them.  He would need an electron microscope, and even then, they would be about half the size of common bacteria, at that scale.  When you then consider that they only occupy a small part of the planet, as its surface is mostly made up of water, wilderness and desert, their presence and influence on Earth is very insignificant.  Here is the math to back these claims up: . http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/a...tive-sizes.jpg . .   Man poisons the planet, environmentalists say, implying it is a living being (another religion), but all the so called poison comes out of the planet in the first place.  Obviously if all these substances were here in the first place, the planet was already poisoned to begin with.  That would make God or the Big Bang guilty of poisoning Earth, not humans. . Dispensing with such bunkum for a moment, and getting back to science, our planet is not poisoned at all.  It is what it is, and the toxic materials that are part of the earths composition are perfectly natural.  Even when its own volcanoes spew millions of tons of toxic materials into the atmosphere, it is not poisoning itself, because these materials were already part of it.  It is merely moving them around.  How can a huge ball of rock poison itself anyway?  It is not alive. The notion that the tiny bacteria on its surface (us) can in any way poison it by taking some materials out of it, and putting them back in again, is hilarious. . Humans have always had these crazy notions because, while we may be insignificant compared to planet Earth, our egos are as big as the Sun. . To sum up; the proponents of the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth are merely the latest version of a religious tradition that has been going on for millennia, and it wont be the last, by any means.  Sun based religious tribes are always very emotional and destructive, and they always insist on providing sacrifices to their Gods.  The modern AGW religion insists on sacrificing business and capitalism in successful, clean Western Nations, and redistributing that wealth to poorer communist and socialist nations, which are often dirty and smoggy.  It is a kitschy, bizarre version of the old weather religions, but still involves punishment and sacrifice to appease their particular deity.  Humans participating in this ancient tribal process always feel they have been cleansed, and will now be smiled upon from above.  They have a warm, glowing feeling of being protected from harm by the elements, because they have pleased their sun-planet-universe god. .
. 
.
.

----------


## chrisp

> Got to follow the new Mantra chrisp opinion vs science,  You got to love that.  Where do you draw the line? A lot of science is opinion, based on facts as the scientist interperates them.

  Rod, 
Where you draw the line:  Do you form your opinions based on gut feelings, impressions or intuition - whether they are your hunches or those of others?; orDo you form your opinions based on scientific observation, analysis and reasoning that has been published and verified by peers - again, whether it is your own scientific work or that of others?
I don't think the discussion in this thread is really about the science at all.  The discussion is more to do with the difficultly some have of accepting the prevailing scientific view that AGW is real.  
Is AGW really that scary to you?

----------


## Allen James

. .    

> Do you form your opinions based on scientific observation, analysis and reasoning that has been published and verified by peers

   Peers paid for by IPCC chief socialist and greenie, Rajenda Pachauri? . LOL!  :Biggrin:   :Rolleyes:  .  . .   

> Is AGW really that scary to you?

   AGW believers scare me, as I don't want my business destroyed, or (in times long passed) my head chopped off. I think everyone should fear these people. . . .

----------


## woodbe

> I don't think the discussion in this thread is really about the science at all.  The discussion is more to do with the difficultly some have of accepting the prevailing scientific view that AGW is real.

  Snap! Got it in one, chrisp! 
Rod doesn't want to know about the science, he thinks it has been discredited by opinion. I'd go along with that if the opinion was backed up by science, but the only support available is either shonky science that has been discredited scientifically, or yet more sceptic opinion.  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe I was sure you would be clever enough to know what part of the article means, "sums up" what I have been saying and wich parts I would not agree with. Guess not! Maybe I have to spell it out for you next time. BTW you nicely avoid the points of the article but we are used to you doing that now.

  Um, Rod? This is what you said:   

> Read the entire article it sums up what I have been saying all along  quite well.

  You said "Read the entire article it sums up what I have been saying all along" You didn't say "parts of this article", you entreated us to read all of it because you thought it summed up what you had been saying all along. 
I guess you may not have read it all yourself or something, but you can't blame us for following your instructions and pointing out a couple of yawning chasms between what you have been 'saying all along' and what the article says. 
Just goes to show, even the opinion sceptics have to properly check what Watts posts up on his site these days or they'll get caught out. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Snap! Got it in one, chrisp! 
> Rod doesn't want to know about the science, he thinks it has been discredited by opinion. I'd go along with that if the opinion was backed up by science, but the only support available is either shonky science that has been discredited scientifically, or yet more sceptic opinion.  
> woodbe.

  Total rubbish woodbe  
The fact is you can't present any science that confirms AGW You can only present science that verifies what we already know. 
You have presented no science that would alter my opinion of AGW.  If fact your methods only strenghthen my opinion.   
You cant escape the fact that the AGW lobby has poorly pesented their "facts" by over hyping what little science they have. This has destroyed your argument boys.  Come up with real science thats supports your theory and I will listen.   
You cant win by trying to shame people to believe you, like you are attempting here.  You can only win by producing real evidence that is not inflated by hyperbole. 
Come back when you can do that in the mean time think about the damage you are doing to your own cause with your pathetic mantra's.

----------


## chrisp

> You said "Read the entire article it sums up what I have been saying all along" You didn't say "parts of this article", you entreated us to read all of it because you thought it summed up what you had been saying all along. 
> I guess you may not have read it all yourself or something,...

  I was also wondering if Rod had actually read the article in full. 
The article didn't seem that well aligned with the views Rod has presented here. 
Rod, at least you now know that woodbe and I read the article.  :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> Come up with real science thats supports your theory and I will listen.

  Rod, 
you could always start here: IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

----------


## woodbe

> Total rubbish woodbe  
> The fact is you can't present any science that confirms AGW You can only present science that verifies what we already know. 
> You have presented no science that would alter my opinion of AGW.  If fact your methods only strenghthen my opinion.

  Opinion. I have no interest in changing your opinion at all. None whatsoever. 
Rod, there is masses of science supporting AGW. I couldn't present any of it here to change your OPINION because you have chosen to accept opinion over science.  
You have said this yourself many times. You don't like how the message was delivered, so you think it smells and your opinion is that it is wrong. That's fine if you prefer to base your worldview on what people say rather than what they do. 
It's not the AGW side of the fence that is devoid of supporting science and you know it.  
Playing word games and asking for proof of AGW does not help your own cause, it only points directly at the lack of effective, publishable research by the sceptics. 
Once again, there is an established and accepted hypothesis supporting AGW. It's the best one we have, and it's supported by thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers, each based on scientific method. These cannot be eliminated with an opinion, that requires scientific research and a hypothesis that fits the data better than the one we have. 
The field is open for the sceptics to take if they have the science. Be my guest. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Opinion.

  You come across as being of the very strong opinion that AGW is correct. . .   

> I have no interest in changing your opinion at all. None whatsoever.

  Heh heh, right.  Uh huh. . .   

> Rod, there is masses of science supporting AGW.

  I see plenty of evidence of climate change, but none for man-made global warming.  When you guys called us climate deniers, you made a kind of Freudian Slip, because it revealed that what you are really harping about is climate change, and that is all.  It seems you hate to add the man made part any more.  Embarrassed? . .   

> I couldn't present any of it here to change your OPINION because you have chosen to accept opinion over science.

  Rod accepted the fact that climate changes, long ago, as did we all.  Nobody is denying that.  We deny that climate changes because of man, and you have provided exactly ZERO evidence it does. . .   

> asking for proof of AGW does not help your own cause.

  Thats pure Al Gore right there, telling us not to question a scientific theory.  All scientific theories should be questioned, and when you say they should not be, you are presenting religion, not science. . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> . .  You come across as being of the very strong opinion that AGW is correct. . .  Heh heh, right. Uh huh. . .  I see plenty of evidence of climate change, but none for man-made global warming. When you guys called us climate deniers, you made a kind of Freudian Slip, because it revealed that what you are really harping about is climate change, and that is all. It seems you hate to add the man made part any more. Embarrassed? . .  Rod accepted the fact that climate changes, long ago, as did we all. Nobody is denying that. We deny that climate changes because of man, and you have provided exactly ZERO evidence it does. . .  Thats pure Al Gore right there, telling us not to question a scientific theory. All scientific theories should be questioned, and when you say they should not be, you are presenting religion, not science. . . .

  Well said :2thumbsup:

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Well said

   Thanks Rod. . . It's a long thread that Rod began, so for any newbies happening by, these videos might help bring you up to speed: . _Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration_ . High comedy – a must watch. . [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE&feature=channel"]YouTube - Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration[/ame] . . _An Inconvenient Question: The Age of Stupid NYC Premiere_ . Mr. McAleer asks celebrities an inconvenient question while covering the premiere of new docu-drama, 'The Age of Stupid’. The elitist greenies refuse to answer why they are flying in jets they condemn, and ban the interviewer. Essential viewing. . [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-cvK9vxA6M"]YouTube - An Inconvenient Question: The Age of Stupid NYC Premiere[/ame] . . _Climategate: Australian ABC Chairman admits media bias regarding AGW_  Maurice Newman is an honest man who happens to be the chairman of the ABC, trying to get his journalists to stop using ‘groupthink’ regarding AGW. _Good luck, Maurice. You'll need it!_ . [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Deh_2pC6k0g"]YouTube - Climategate: ABC Chairman admits media bias[/ame] . . .  .

----------


## Allen James

. . When I was a kid in high school, Silent Spring was on our booklist.  I didnt read it.  At that time many teachers were on strike in Melbourne, and I wagged school rather than sit in a room doing nothing.  I must have wagged a third of the year, and I would spend my time in the public library, reading.  I taught myself all the stuff they _werent_ teaching in school.  This is how I avoided being brainwashed by greenies. . Of course we now know that as a result of Silent Spring and the hysteria it whipped up, *DDT* was banned.  This resulted in millions of deaths worldwide, and those were mostly children. . This video gives a snapshot of the story in under 4 minutes. . [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqJnLlzSVdM&feature=channel]YouTube - DDT Saves Lives In Africa[/ame] . .  PS - What is the situation in Australia today?  Are we allowed to buy DDT again, or is the Green Labor Government continuing the ban out of some kind of nostalgic kinship with hippies from the sixties? . . .

----------


## woodbe

> Well said

  Rod, I see you are still struggling to see my points. Now, I'm not sure whether that is because you "won't" see them, or I simply have not explained myself adequately. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but I'll give it another go 'just for you'  :Smilie:  
So, here we are in 2010. There is a public discussion around AGW.  
What do we know? (hear me out, I'm not saying you accept the underlying science)    * We know that there are many (000's) of peer reviewed scientific papers, each documenting research and a proof of each paper's hypothesis, that collectively support AGW. * We know that there are very few peer reviewed papers standing that debunk any of this body of science. 
So what am I saying about all this? 
I am not saying that there is no possibility that the scientists are wrong. 
I am saying that I will accept that AGW is bunkum, if and when the underlying science supporting it disproven by the same methods that it became accepted in the first place. 
I am really doubtful that AGW will be debunked, but it will suit me fine  if it is, make no mistake.  
This to me is the only reasonable path. As a civilisation, we have invested in science since Galileo. It has stood us in great stead. At times, science has been wrong, and if you look at history, you will find that it is scientists (sometimes the very same ones) who have been able to come up with better hypotheses that have simply outdated and debunked those prior errors.  
My position is based on a passing knowledge and great respect for the scientific process. Even if it is horribly off the rails as you suggest, it will self-correct. By far the largest proportion of people involved in science are people who want to understand what makes the world tick, they won't hang about long clutching onto an old hypothesis. 
So that is why I said that the sceptic scientists have the floor. The science is there to debunk, the methods and the papers are there to study and replicate with their alternative hypotheses. Pardon me if I clutch to the current hypothesis while they get on with it. 
If I'm 'rusted on' to anything, it's the long term scientific process. As a civilisation we owe it an awful lot of our ability to operate in modern society, be healthy and enjoy the fruits of the resulting technology. 
Hope that helps  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

*Climate-row professor Phil Jones should return to  work, say MPs*   

> The climate scientist at the centre of the row over stolen e-mails has  no case  to answer and should be reinstated, a crossparty group of MPs says. 
>   Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia, was acting in line with  common  practice in the climate science community when he refused to share his  raw  data and computer codes with critics. 
>   The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee said that the  focus on  Professor Jones, director of the universitys Climatic Research Unit  (CRU),  had been largely misplaced. It said that there were innocent  explanations  for his use of the word trick and the phrase hide the decline in  e-mails  concerning global temperatures. 
>   He stepped down in December pending the outcome of an inquiry by the  university into more than 1,000 e-mails sent by him and colleagues.

  More on the link 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> I am not saying that there is no possibility that the scientists are wrong. 
> I am saying that I will accept that AGW is bunkum, if and when the underlying science supporting it disproven by the same methods that it became accepted in the first place. 
> I am really doubtful that AGW will be debunked, *but it will suit me fine  if it is*, make no mistake.

  Well stated woodbe.  :2thumbsup:  
I too would happily change my view on AGW if the prevailing scientific view changes.  Until then, AGW is the accepted theory.

----------


## andy the pm

> Rod, I see you are still struggling to see my points. Now, I'm not sure whether that is because you "won't" see them, or I simply have not explained myself adequately. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but I'll give it another go 'just for you'  
> So, here we are in 2010. There is a public discussion around AGW.  
> What do we know? (hear me out, I'm not saying you accept the underlying science)   * We know that there are many (000's) of peer reviewed scientific papers, each documenting research and a proof of each paper's hypothesis, that collectively support AGW.* We know that there are very few peer reviewed papers standing that debunk any of this body of science.
> So what am I saying about all this? 
> I am not saying that there is no possibility that the scientists are wrong. 
> I am saying that I will accept that AGW is bunkum, if and when the underlying science supporting it disproven by the same methods that it became accepted in the first place. 
> I am really doubtful that AGW will be debunked, but it will suit me fine if it is, make no mistake.  
> This to me is the only reasonable path. As a civilisation, we have invested in science since Galileo. It has stood us in great stead. At times, science has been wrong, and if you look at history, you will find that it is scientists (sometimes the very same ones) who have been able to come up with better hypotheses that have simply outdated and debunked those prior errors.  
> My position is based on a passing knowledge and great respect for the scientific process. Even if it is horribly off the rails as you suggest, it will self-correct. By far the largest proportion of people involved in science are people who want to understand what makes the world tick, they won't hang about long clutching onto an old hypothesis. 
> ...

  Well said woodbe

----------


## Rod Dyson

Will comment tomorrow out on the town tonight!

----------


## dazzler

> Will comment tomorrow out on the town tonight!

  Have a good one mate!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Have a good one mate!

  Thanks Dazzler, headache this morning!

----------


## Rod Dyson

He he he he It is temperatures when ice decreases but WIND when it increases. 
But I guess it must be comforting to all of you who were worried that we would be ice free to see the artic ice has recovered to normal conditions, right?  Arctic Sea Ice about to hit ‘normal’ – what will the news say? Watts Up With That? 
Oh BTW cue the shotguns to shoot the messenger.

----------


## chrisp

> He he he he It is temperatures when ice decreases but WIND when it increases. 
> But I guess it must be comforting to all of you who were worried that we would be ice free to see the artic ice has recovered to normal conditions, right?  Arctic Sea Ice about to hit normal  what will the news say? Watts Up With That? 
> Oh BTW cue the shotguns to shoot the messenger.

  Rod, 
it might be worthwhile going to the source of the data at Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis and reading their interpretation.  The report on the March data (April report) should be out in a few days time.

----------


## woodbe

> He he he he It is temperatures when ice decreases but WIND when it increases. 
> But I guess it must be comforting to all of you who were worried that we would be ice free to see the artic ice has recovered to normal conditions, right?

  Define normal. Weather does not equal climate. 
Watts is gloating that the ice extent at the end of a particularly cold and snowy winter has *almost reached the* *average* of the 21 years from 1979-2000.  
When I went to school, an average means that there are data points both higher and lower than it, and the entire 2009-2010 extent to date is well below the 1979-2000 average, meaning of course that the sea ice extent this year will still pull the average down. 
There is no need to shoot the messenger. Simply looking at the data reveals that he has once again shot himself in the foot.  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Rod, 
> it might be worthwhile going to the source of the data at Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis and reading their interpretation.  The report on the March data (April report) should be out in a few days time.

  Thanks Chrisp. 
Here is what I was talking about**:   _Figure 3. Monthly February ice extent for  1979 to 2010 shows a decline of 2.9% per decade. _  _Credit:  National Snow and Ice  Data Center_ 
As you can see the average is cause for no joy, despite the spin from Watts. 
woodbe.

----------


## dazzler

This month of March has been the hottest on record.  Just thought you would want to know.  Damned polar bears have left. :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Define normal. Weather does not equal climate.

  
We know this. 
The reason it get thrown back in the faces of the warmist is that they made such a big deal out of a reduction in the ice extent that HAS to be caused by AGW.  
Yet we know that he biggest factor in the ice extent is prevailing wind conditions don't we?  
Yet the Alarmists are still out there preaching there will be an ice free summer in x years. X differing from alarmist to alarmist. All due to AGW.  Don't you  cringe when you hear this sort of stuff sprouted?

----------


## woodbe

> We know this. 
> The reason it get thrown back in the faces of the warmist is that they made such a big deal out of a reduction in the ice extent that HAS to be caused by AGW.  
> Yet we know that he biggest factor in the ice extent is prevailing wind conditions don't we?  
> Yet the Alarmists are still out there preaching there will be an ice free summer in x years. X differing from alarmist to alarmist. All due to AGW.  Don't you  cringe when you hear this sort of stuff sprouted?

  I just look at the Data, Rod. Believing what is printed in the media is a mugs game.   
Rod, I know you mean well, but the data is saying that there is something else happening than variability caused by wind. Wind might explain the odd bad year's ice, but it won't explain a 30 year trend that mirrors similar trends in every indicator. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I just look at the Data, Rod. Believing what is printed in the media is a mugs game.   
> Rod, I know you mean well, but the data is saying that there is something else happening than variability caused by wind. Wind might explain the odd bad year's ice, but it won't explain a 30 year trend that mirrors similar trends in every indicator. 
> woodbe.

  No one is doubting that there has been a decline in the 30 year satalite ice record. 
There are a number of issues that are doubtful, yet are put forward as facts about the 30 year decline in Artic ice. 
Is it un-precedented?
Is a 30 year period that starts at a cold period indicative of actual long term trends?
What would this trend look like if we had records spanning 100 years?
Is the cause an increase in temperature or prevailing winds?
If so is the temperature increase caused by mans co2 emissions?
Is it right to extrapolate the trend you show to continue for the next 30years?
Is the recent recovery of ice extent the sign of a breaking of the 30 year trend? 
Lots of questions woodbe. Nothing you show here is proof or evidence of any real long term trend.  
Gotta go wife is calling.

----------


## woodbe

> No one is doubting that there has been a decline in the 30 year satalite ice record.

  Oh. What's this then:   

> the artic ice has recovered to normal conditions

   

> There are a number of issues that are doubtful, yet are put forward as facts about the 30 year decline in Artic ice. 
> Is it un-precedented?

  Relevance to the current situation?    

> Is a 30 year period that starts at a cold period indicative of actual long term trends?

  This is the actual long term trend. I think the accepted climate interval for trends is 25 years. If you want to talk Geological time scale then humans are irrelevant anyway.   

> What would this trend look like if we had records spanning 100 years?

  This would rely on proxy records, something that the sceptics have taken considerable delight in calling into question at the slightest inaccuracy.   

> Is the cause an increase in temperature or prevailing winds?

  Hypothesis: The long term 30 year reduction in arctic sea ice is due the a 30 year shift in wind patterns.  
Don't forget that this is a _downward trend_, so it would have to be_ increasing wind effect_ over time to depress the extent of ice more each year on average. 
Any decent sceptic scientist would be able to run that research. I have my doubts that there would be many willing to take it on as I suspect this is an easily falsified hypothesis.   

> If so is the temperature increase caused by mans co2 emissions?

  Man's CO2 emissions are the accepted and as yet un-falsified hypothesis for current global warming. The hypothesis is well researched and replicated across many indicators.   

> Is it right to extrapolate the trend you show to continue for the next 30years?

  Is it right to ignore the trend? Normal procedure is to extrapolate it, adjust the forecast based on updated data as it happens and compare actuals against forecast, thereby fine tuning the forecast as time goes on.   

> Is the recent recovery of ice extent the sign of a breaking of the 30 year trend?

  This is a joke, right? A recovery to _almost average_ in a single month is a sign of a 30 year trend being broken? Wishful thinking.   

> Lots of questions woodbe. Nothing you show here is proof or evidence of any real long term trend.

  30 years is significant. It parallels other changes in indicators for temperature and natural events all over the world - seasons, onset of melt, hatchings, shifts in growing seasons and areas etc etc.  
Doubts don't worry me Rod. That's good and healthy. What worries me is that you hold unproven and untested doubts as more credible than than all of the peer reviewed research to date.  
woodbe.

----------


## dazzler

Hi all 
Well, seeing as its Easter and all I thought it only appropriate that I announce that I don't wanna be an Easter Islander anymore. 
And I don't wanna be the last one chewing on the mouldy bones of my mates in some dank little cave just to eek out life a little longer. 
Yes, I am no longer a fence sitter and have finally taken sides.  Sorry Rod, but  you will have to do without a sexy middle aged baldy hunk of love on your team. 
Heres why; 
Though I am reasonably well educated, with an IQ in the 95 percentile, I really don't know that much about the science of Climate Change. So I am reliant upon advice and information from those who are, or at the very least, possess the skills to understand the science.   
Additionally, I really don't know any scientists who can explain it to me so I rely on scientists who I respect, either through the science they have presented, both in the media through documentaries and books/papers etc. 
So who do I trust to tell me the truth (as they see it through scientific eyes) and who don't have any conflict of interest.  
I think I can trust people like David Attenborough, David Suzuki, Jared Diamond and Tim Flannery.  All smart scientists well respected by their peers and of high standing in the community.  None have an axe to grind.  They all have enough scientific and media work to keep them happy and financially stable without any climate change debate. 
They all state that the science behind human influenced climate change is accurate and the most pressing issue facing humans.   
I also considered what I know to be true or at least what has been proven to be true.   
The CO2 in our atmosphere has, and continues to, climb and that has been linked, through the chemical signature of fossil fuel originated CO2, to our use of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution.  I consider it to be a fact because it simply makes sense. We burn it and it goes up in the sky. 
I also know that we are deforesting a large part of our world which further reduces the ability to convert or store all this CO2.   
I also know that there are lots more humans with an ever increasing desire for cars and roads and big houses and concrete office blocks, all adding to the CO2 issue and heat. 
So by combining what scientists I trust say, along with what I know to be true, and using my qualifications in Risk Management,  I have come to the conclusion, that us Humans are more than probably responsible for accelerating the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and that in the short term, the climate is, or will, warm sufficiently to create problems for us.  These problems will affect my children to some degree. 
So there you go.  I BELIEVE! 
So why don't I want to be an Easter Islander.  What a miserable ending to their world.  The poor buggers. 
I imagine travelling back in time and standing on the shore as the first families arrive and watch them jump off their boats with their kids, pigs, plants and hiding in the boats stinking rats.  How good would it have been to stop them and say; 
"Hey, you better kill them rats otherwise you are going to be in BIG trouble.  Oh, and please don't cut down the trees.  Cause the rats will eat the nuts and new plants wont grow and over time all the trees will be cut down, grow old or get eaten by the rats.  The ecology will change and all the bird species and mammals will die out due to the rats and lack of trees and the only meat you will be able to get is by swimming to a nearby island through shark infested waters to get some birds." 
I wonder what they would say?  I cant prove to them that it will happen but there is enough reason to expect, once explained to them scientifically, that it may, or it is more than probable to occur.  I would hope they would listen.  But I imagine there would be some, that would shrug their shoulders and say - "I aint doing nothing till ya prove it." 
Sadly, even when the environmental decline was obvious to them, they still couldn't change their lifestyle to prevent it.   
Thats why I don't want to be an Easter Islander anymore  :Smilie: . 
On to the original question of an Emission Trading Scheme!. I thought I could always smell a rat with it.  The smell of political spin.  What got me is that if the govt agrees with man made climate change and that it is THE most pressing issue facing us, why have such a puny meaningless reduction in CO2 emission as the policy.  This rat was further seen when it was dropped like a hot potato once Copenhagen had failed to agree on it.  And the rat was confirmed when our govt decided that Australia needed to rapidly increase our population to sustain our future, when that increase would undo ALL the gains made by sustainable energy, hybrid cars, home insulation or any of the other green schemes. 
So IMO Man Made Climate Change is real, and an ETS is a Croc. 
Anyone else want to come in my time machine  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Allen James

.  .   

> you will have to do without a sexy middle aged baldy hunk of love on your team.

   I don't recall you being on our team. You made all these points way back in post #532, page 36, in November last year. You have consistently supported the environmentalists and AGW. . .  

> I really don't know that much about the science of Climate Change. So I am reliant upon advice and information from those who are, or at the very least, possess the skills to understand the science.

  There are many eminent scientists who oppose AGW. You may listen to them if you like. . .   

> So who do I trust to tell me the truth (as they see it through scientific eyes) and who don't have any conflict of interest.

   Hopefully not those who are politically motivated, as many environmentalists are. . .   

> I think I can trust people like David Attenborough, David Suzuki, Jared Diamond and Tim Flannery. All smart scientists well respected by their peers and of high standing in the community.

   None of these men are climate experts. Two of them (Suzuki and Flannery) are environmental activists, with a very politically biased agenda. . .   

> None have an axe to grind.

   Suzuki and Flannery are both political activists, so you bet they have an axe to grind. . .   

> The CO2 in our atmosphere has, and continues to, climb and that has been linked, through the chemical signature of fossil fuel originated CO2, to our use of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution. I consider it to be a fact because it simply makes sense. We burn it and it goes up in the sky.

   Real climate experts (shown to you many times in this thread) have explained that man’s contribution in no way effects the climate, and they have explained why, ad nauseam. In the times of the dinosaurs the CO2 content was way, way higher, and plants and animals thrived. You chose to ignore this, though it was pointed out to you a few times in this thread. . .   

> I also know that we are deforesting a large part of our world which further reduces the ability to convert or store all this CO2.

   You’re repeating yourself. From November, 2009: .   

> We have cut down a huge percentage of our carbon dioxide soaking forests.

    

> Whatever percentage it is, it is not huge, and you have left out of your equation all the trees grown in cities and suburbs. Go up in a helicopter, remove all houses from view, and you’re looking at a forest. Has that ever occurred to you? Then there are all the plantations that exist, from which lumber is harvested. Not to mention fruit trees and others. . http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...art=18&ndsp=18

  .. Obviously that didn’t impress you. Once again, feast your eyes on all the plants humans plant, raise, farm, harvest and reap. . http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...m=QBIR&qs=n&sk=#  . http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...=n&sk=&sc=8-15# .  http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...m=QBIR&qs=n&sk . .   

> I also know that there are lots more humans with an ever increasing desire for cars and roads and big houses and concrete office blocks, all adding to the CO2 issue and heat.

   Adding CO2 doesn’t hurt us. Dinosaurs. Remember? . .   

> I BELIEVE!

   You can believe it all you like, but it won’t have any effect on the climate. Like all other Sun, Rain or Wind Gods, your AGW God is pure fiction. There is no science backing it up, and if you believe there is, put it forward. The only science I’ve seen offered so far is to do with climate change, and everyone already knows climate changes. You have to prove that MAN is making the planet Earth hotter, and you will never do that because microscopic man is doing no such thing. . . . Happy Easter, y'all. . . .

----------


## chrisp

> Yes, I am no longer a fence sitter and have finally taken sides.  Sorry Rod, but  you will have to do without a sexy middle aged baldy hunk of love on your team. 
> (clip) 
> On to the original question of an Emission Trading Scheme!. I thought I could always smell a rat with it.  The smell of political spin.  What got me is that if the govt agrees with man made climate change and that it is THE most pressing issue facing us, why have such a puny meaningless reduction in CO2 emission as the policy.  This rat was further seen when it was dropped like a hot potato once Copenhagen had failed to agree on it.  And the rat was confirmed when our govt decided that Australia needed to rapidly increase our population to sustain our future, when that increase would undo ALL the gains made by sustainable energy, hybrid cars, home insulation or any of the other green schemes. 
> So IMO Man Made Climate Change is real, and an ETS is a Croc.

  Onya dazzler  :2thumbsup:  
I think you have summed up the situation well.  AGW is real and is *not* a debate within scientific circles.  However, our response to AGW *is* a political debate - and it should be. 
However, the debate on our response to AGW has been derailed somewhat by some claiming that there is significant scientific doubt about AGW when there is very little doubt. 
I do think this thread would be more productive discussing our response and the politics of what we do about AGW.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> I think you have summed up the situation well. AGW is real and is *not* a debate within scientific circles.

   Translation: _Although many eminent scientists disagree with AGW, and AGW has been discredited and is rapidly becoming an embarrassment to the United Nations, I will block my ears and eyes, and pretend I have seen no such dissent. I will encourage other AGW supporters to BELIEVE in AGW, simply because political activists like David Suzuki tell them to._ . .   

> I do think this thread would be more productive discussing our response and the politics of what we do about AGW.

   Rods opening post in this thread was about how he was dead set against the introduction of an ETS for several reasons. Along the way we had climate-gate and the Hopenhagen Fiasco to add to those reasons.  *Edited post*
Different Rules in here: . . .

----------


## dazzler

> I do think this thread would be more productive discussing our response and the politics of what we do about AGW.

  Yep, I agree.  I think we can make a start by acting locally as best we can, particularly a focus on reducing the amount of stuff we import and trying to become much more self sufficient.  We also need to address our use of land particularly for meat growing given the amount of damage they do to our country AND the emissions they create. 
Lots of political decisions to be made.  But I suppose if they cant sort out forestry on my little island then the big decisions wont come either.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Dr Freud

Apologies for interrupting this little love in before the sweet sounds of Kumbaya begin. 
But this is a tree huggers view of themselves:   
And this is their hypocritical reality (think Earth Hour):   
And this is the universe:   
Happy Easter everyone.  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

Happy Easter Doc. 
*Cough*  

> *Can I use any of your images free of charge?* 
>  We are always happy to help if we can but we have to protect the  rights of the artists we represent.  Due to the agreements we have with  our artists, we do not have the right to grant use of any of their  images without the appropriate fee being paid.  *How much does it cost to use an image?* 
>  Our prices vary according to use. For a full list of our licenses and  prices please visit the pricing page of our  web site. If you wish to use an image for a purpose that falls outside  our standard licenses please  with full details of the intended use, and  we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

  
You may bring the forum into disrepute posting those...  
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> We ...need to address our use of land particularly for meat growing given the amount of damage they do to our country AND the emissions they create.

   This was covered 6 days aqo. . .  

> Now it's CowGate: expert report says claims of livestock causing global warming are false . March 25th, 2010 . [excerpt]: . It is becoming difficult to keep pace with the speed at which the global warming scam is now unravelling. The latest reversal of scientific “consensus” is on livestock and the meat trade as a major cause of global warming – one-fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions, according to eco-vegetarian cranks. Now a scientific report delivered to the American Chemical Society says it is nonsense. The Washington Times has called it “Cowgate”.  The cow-burp hysteria reached a crescendo in 2006 when a United Nations report ominously entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow” claimed: “The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents). This is a higher share than transport.” This led to demands in America for a “cow tax” and a campaign in Europe at the time of the Copenhagen car crash last December called Less Meat=Less Heat.  Now a report to the American Chemical Society by Frank Mitloehner, an air quality expert at the University of California at Davis, has denounced such scare-mongering as “scientifically inaccurate”. He reveals that the UN report lumped together digestive emissions from livestock, gases produced by growing animal feed and meat and milk processing, to get the highest possible result, whereas the traffic comparison only covered fossil fuel emissions from cars. The true ratio, he concludes, is just 3 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in America are attributable to rearing of cattle and pigs, compared with 26 per cent from transport.  Mitloehner also makes the deadly serious point: “Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries.” Precisely. The demonising of cows and pigs is just another example of global warmists’ callous indifference to starvation in the developing world, as in the case of the unbelievably immoral and reckless drive for biofuels – pouring Third World resources for subsistence into Western liberals’ fuel tanks – and, notoriously, carbon trading.  Week by week the AGW collapse intensifies. Himalayan glaciers, polar bears, Arctic ice, Amazon rainforests, all discredited. Now it turns out the great cow-burp scare is bovine excrement too. The global warming scam is, to the majority of people, an object of derision. The scientific community has also at last wakened up. They are smelling the coffee in more and more institutions these days.  This week the Science Museum in London announced it is revising its stance so that its Climate Change Gallery will now be renamed the Climate Science Gallery, to reflect its new position of neutrality in the climate debate. Chris Rapley, the director, said the museum was taking a different approach after observing how the debate had been affected by leaked e-mails and overstatements of the dangers of global warming. He said: “We have come to realise, given the way this subject has become so polarised over the past three to four months, that we need to be respectful and welcoming of all views on it.”  When did you ever hear that sort of thing before? But that is fair enough: neutrality, a level playing field and an equal voice is all global warming sceptics have ever asked for. Given those reasonable conditions, the truth will out and we will win. The signs are that a lot of scientists have been moved to assert their integrity, encouraged by the increasingly huge breaches sceptics have made in the defences of the AGW camp. Others may simply have calculated they may have backed a loser and it is time to take out some insurance. . . Full article here: ... Now it's CowGate: expert report says claims of livestock causing global warming are false – Telegraph Blogs

  .. ..   

> I suppose if they cant sort out forestry on my little island then the big decisions wont come either.

   Tasmania has plenty of trees, and plenty of greenies. . http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...m=QBIR&qs=n&sk=# . . .   .

----------


## Dr Freud

> Happy Easter Doc. 
> *Cough*   
> You may bring the forum into disrepute posting those...  
> woodbe.

  The last thing I would want is to taint the high repute of some of the previous posts on this thread,  :Biggrin:  so allow me to clarify. 
Free use of these images is allowed, but I have incorrectly linked to the cartoonstock homepage.  Their policy is: 
"Firstly the free way: If you want to refer to our cartoons, whilst you can't actually display them within your content without licensing them, you can always link directly to an image in-situ on the CartoonStock website." 
So as an example, this was my prior technique which was incorrect:   
Whereas now I will post them correctly as such:  Shoot the messenger  
In the interests of maintaining the high repute of posts on this thread (and the forum generally), I urge all future users of cartoonstock images to do similar.  
But now onto the more important question of why my previous post would rankle you so much that you would go to the effort of researching the fine print of a websites posting policy in an attempt to stifle this message.  
Was it the cognitive dissonance  produced by pointing out the inconsistencies in your position.  For example, if AGW Theory protoganists believe carbon dioxide is a pollution, yet keep breathing out and and using energy, plus having children who will also breathe out and use energy, are they not creating the very catastrophe they caution against?  This psychological conflict must be difficult to reconcile for the true believers in this theory?  
But rest assured my friend, this dissonance is very easily resolved.  All you have to do is accept the world as it is, and cease living in fear of the doomsday prophesies that have been with humans for a very long time indeed.  :2thumbsup:  
But you see, this truly is a Catch-22 situation, for the longer you use western societies products and energy to argue your case, the more dissonance you create within.  Kinda like Tim Flannery being paid millions by the airline industry to fly around the globe promoting low carbon footprints  :Doh: .  No wonder the poor guy always looks so worried. :Cry:  
But enough psychobabble  :Confused: , hopefully I'll get more time tomorrow to get through all the previous posts and clarify some of the other issues raised.

----------


## watson

*Editor's Note*
This is starting to irritate me a little.
You have an opportunity to debate.....please use it sensibly.
The things that are pizzing me off: 
1. Posting of useless images.
2. The "my d ick" is bigger than yours syndrome.
3. The waste of my time (I have to read every bloody word................please make it worthwhile.) 
Why don't you actually say what you think...without quoting any one else. 
And I don't care what "camp" you are in. 
Get it sorted.

----------


## woodbe

> For example, if AGW Theory protoganists believe carbon dioxide is a pollution, yet keep breathing out and and using energy, plus having children who will also breathe out and use energy, are they not creating the very catastrophe they caution against?  This psychological conflict must be difficult to reconcile for the true believers in this theory?

   Baloney, and I suspect you know it. 
The issue is not whether CO2 is a pollutant or not. That is a red herring which comes down to how you define pollution, and it matters not whether you call it pollution. It is a GHG. 
What does matter is that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat, and we are adding to the CO2 concentration greatly by burning fossil fuels. Currently we are at:   
Would you like to refute the peer reviewed science that: 
a) The increase is due to burning fossil fuels? 
or 
b) Increasing CO2 traps heat? 
or  
c) Both. 
If so, please support your position, preferably with something accepted by science (peer reviewed would be a good start) 
woodbe.

----------


## dazzler

> *Editor's Note*
> I have to read every bloody word.....

  Oh jesus I feel your pain.   :Tongue:

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> The issue is not whether CO2 is a pollutant or not. That is a red herring which comes down to how you define pollution, and it matters not whether you call it pollution. It is a GHG.

   So, greenhouse is all about carbon dioxide, right? . Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapour and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere. . In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapour by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapour and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models, Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264). . The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2. . . . If you discount all other possible drivers of global temperature change -- meaning that humanity has completely taken over from all natural effects that were operating until that time (highly unlikely) -- then the estimate of Charnock & Shine neatly fits observed warming over the period. . If their massive estimate of net greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide is true then a worst case doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide will still only produce a total warming under 1.5 °C (and we're thought to be almost half-way there already). . This still does not suggest a major enhanced greenhouse catastrophe. . . . JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts . . . .

----------


## Allen James

.  Global warming gang takes another hit . By News on the Net  Saturday, April 3, 2010 . - Dailymail.co.uk . The amount of ice covering the Arctic dramatically increased last month, reaching levels not seen at this time of year for nearly a decade, says this article on MailOnline. . Astonished climate scientists blamed unusually cold weather over the Bering Sea for the increase, then tried to spin the news. The rise is simply a yearly variation,  they waffled, and cannot be taken as a sign that global warming is coming to an end. . But what about all of those dire warnings that the Arctic would soon be ice-free? . The recent observations make the 2007 projections that the region would be ice free by 2013 look very unrealistic, said Dr. David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation think-tank. . . More: . Increase in Arctic ice confounds doomsayers | Mail Online .
.
.

----------


## woodbe

New post up on Open Mind noting the huffing and puffing of McLean regarding Stephan Lewandowsky's critique based on peer review.  

> Stephan  Lewandowsky has posted a rather scathing critique of the paper by  McLean, de Freitas, and Carter, a summary of the comment which  decapitates it, and now McLean has replied.   It seems he finally found a venue where his reply wouldnt be rejected  for the nonsense it is.
>   Or has he?

  
Interesting that most of the comments seem to come from people who understand where McLean et al went wrong, whereas he cannot (will not?). He gets quite testy too, without accepting or explaining his errors. most unbecoming. 
No mention of this fracas on Watt's site, (no surprise) but he has posted a piece by the illustrious Fred Singer countering the British House of Commons report into the UEA. Nothing of note apart from his usual paid-for responses. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

AG Warmers  read it and weep. . . . *Global-warming Alarmism Dying a Slow Death* . by Alex Newman . [excerpt] . Last December in Copenhagen at the United Nations climate summit, officials and global-warming alarmists seemed confident of their imminent triumph. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that it will yield a success, proclaimed UN global-warming chief Yvo de Boer just weeks before the conference.  But Copenhagen was not the victory de Boer had been anticipating. In fact, most analysts labeled it a significant setback for the alarmist agenda. And since then, problems for the human-caused warming campaign have only grown. After a series of scandals exposed extreme misconduct (if not criminality) by leading climate scientists and errors surrounding the movements theories, pundits began announcing the inevitable collapse of climate hysteria. But the vested interests will not go down without a long, hard fight.   Scandals The climate alarmists were already doing poorly in the United States before the Copenhagen failure. An October 2009 Pew poll showed that only 36 percent of Americans even believed in man-made global warming. The issue consistently ranked last among public priorities. Commentators referred to the movement as a cult, and critics ridiculed the theories and dangerous solutions all over the Internet. And that was before the proverbial hitting of the fan late last year.   In November 2009, a scandal now known as Climategate changed everything. Just before the much-touted global-warming conference, incriminating e-mails and data from the University of East Anglias Climatic Research Unit were revealed to the world. And the picture was not pretty. Prominent climate scientists, including many who were deeply involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, were exposed plotting to hide the decline in global temperatures, conspiring to violate Freedom of Information laws, and scheming to keep contradictory viewpoints excluded. The scandal led to even more distrust of the alarmist narrative.  After Climategate made headlines around the world, obvious factual errors started turning up in the UNs IPCC report as researchers began scrutinizing it more closely. Widely considered the gospel of the anthropogenic-warming campaign, the report was rapidly losing credibility.   First came Glaciergate. In its final report, the IPCC suggested that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 or sooner. It turns out the wild assertion (along with several others in the same paragraph) was lifted from an advocacy groups propaganda literature, which took it from an Indian magazine article that has since been discredited. The claim was totally incorrect. The IPCC has been forced to recant it.  More errors were soon exposed in a flurry of bad press for the alarmists. Amazongate, as it has become known, involved fantastical predictions about global warmings effect on the Amazon rain forest. Up to 40 percent of it could be in danger, according to the report. The IPCC also took this claim from advocacy group literature. But on top of that, it incorrectly attributed it to a report that did not even hint at such a prediction. Critics have correctly labeled the assertion a fabrication.   Continued  . . .

----------


## Allen James

Continued: . . There was also Africagate. The IPCC erroneously claimed that rain-dependent agriculture in some African countries could be cut in half by 2020, with the wildly inaccurate claims also taken from an advocacy group report (written by an academic who works with carbon credits). Of course, this was also wrong. But this time, IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri was the one responsible for allowing the error to be repeated in the condensed Synthesis Report. . Questions and criticism about the use of temperature data have also been ongoing and continue to plague the UN panels credibility. Chinagate, where scientists misused Chinese temperature records, is just one example. . The claims of increased hurricane frequency were also proven fraudulent. And as if those blows were not enough, the Dutch government recently forced the IPCC to retract its claim that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level. Its actually 26 percent. . The rapid loss of public credibility over all the errors has also accompanied numerous calls by prominent voices for official inquiries and even criminal investigations. Several universities involved have already launched reviews. And even previous IPCC chief Professor Robert Watson, for example, is calling for a probe to investigate warming bias by the UN panel. The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying, he told the U.K. Times Online. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened. The UN will indeed launch an independent inquiry, but critics generally expect a coverup. . U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) went further, proposing criminal investigations to determine if alarmists violated any laws. A Senate report produced for Inhofes Environment and Public Works Committee concluded that, among other problems, scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, may have violated federal laws. . Similarly, British authorities were investigating possible criminal activity by Climategate scientists who refused to provide documents and data under lawful Freedom of Information requests. The scientists may reportedly escape prosecution under the FOI law because of a six-month statute of limitations. .
. *Rats and Ships* . Even the politicians and officials still pushing the alarmist agenda have distanced themselves from the IPCC report. The analogy of rats frantically ditching a sinking ship has been used by numerous critics to describe the situation. . Climate chief Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change who predicted success in Copenhagen, announced his resignation in mid-February. He said it was time to pursue new challenges. But he still advises companies about global warming. . Even a prominent member of the pro-United Nations, internationalist Council on Foreign Relations has thrown in the towel, possibly trying to salvage some credibility by denouncing the scandals. The global warming movement as we have known it is dead because of bad science and bad politics, wrote CFR senior foreign policy fellow Walter Mead in a piece for The American Interest. He still believes in human-caused warming, but harshly criticized the movement for its lawbreaking and phony claims. The global warming meltdown confirms all the populist suspicions out there about an arrogantly clueless establishment invoking faked science to impose cockamamie social mandates on the long-suffering American people, backed by a mainstream media that is totally in the tank, he rightly concluded. . Prominent companies that were once leading the push for action on climate change have also been retreating to the shadows. Around the time of de Boers announcement, three large American firms (including two oil companies) bailed on the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a powerful lobby pushing for cap and trade legislation. . Some of the media have also finally started to report the apparent demise of climate alarmism. The strategy pursued by activists (including scientists who have crossed the line into advocacy) has turned out to be fatally flawed, declared the Canadian Globe and Mail in a recent article entitled The great global warming collapse: As the science scandals keep coming, the air has gone out of the climate-change movement. . Even a writer for the BBC admitted the campaign was falling apart in a recent piece entitled The dam is cracking. This same media organization has in recent years issued dire predictions of global warming almost daily and last year sat on the Climategate e-mails for over a month. (The BBC claims it wasnt aware of the significance of the information it was given.) . The neoconservative Weekly Standard  normally a promoter of the glob-alist establishments agenda  actually ran a cover story recently with a cartoon depicting polar bears laughing at a naked and freezing Al Gore. The article, entitled In Denial  The meltdown of the climate campaign, was written by fellow Steven Hayward with the American Enterprise Institute, an organization that has repeatedly peddled climate propaganda and the desirability of emission reductions and a carbon tax. More rats jumping ship? . Even alarmism ringleader Al Gore seemingly conceded defeat on the impact of his efforts to educate the public on human-caused climate change. I have thus far failed, he told a Norwegian talk show in early March while promoting his new climate book. But, his fight is far from over. .  . Much more in the whole article, here:  . Global-warming Alarmism Dying a Slow Death . . .

----------


## Dr Freud

*It looks like life is returning to normal:*  *-**Some scientists are finally arguing over the science;* *-**Australians will not be taxed for producing fresh air;* *-**Politicians are wasting billions of our dollars building bureaucracies.*   THE Rudd Government has transferred its entire emissions trading team into the strife-prone household insulation program, putting plans for carbon trading this year on the backburner.   The team of 154, which has been costing taxpayers an average of $370,000 each planning for the non-existent emissions trading scheme, will be put to work on sorting out the problems with the $2.45 billion home insulation program that left four people dead and has been implicated in 120 house fires up to March 24.   Hiring for the "phantom" agency (as it has been dubbed) continues, with plans to take staffing to 300 by the end of next year, relayed Department of Climate Change deputy secretary Geoff Leeper.   Emissions trading laws, officially known as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, are stalled in the Senate and now face a firm no vote from the Opposition. They were once the centrepiece of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's response to climate change, which he dubbed "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time".   The Department of Climate Change did not exist until December 2007.   The new entity is known as the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Its secretary, Martin Parkinson, said it now has more than 1000 staff.   Dr Parkinson told a Senate inquiry his agency had taken over the National Energy Efficiency Initiative and Solar Homes and Communities Plan, which were budgeted to cost about $370 million this financial year. These new responsibilities could take spending to as much as $1 billion, according to last year's budget reports on climate change.

----------


## dazzler

> *It looks like life is returning to normal:*  *-**Some scientists are finally arguing over the science;* *-**Australians will not be taxed for producing fresh air;* *-**Politicians are wasting billions of our dollars building bureaucracies.*   THE Rudd Government has transferred its entire emissions trading team into the strife-prone household insulation program, putting plans for carbon trading this year on the backburner.   The team of 154, which has been costing taxpayers an average of $370,000 each planning for the non-existent emissions trading scheme, will be put to work on sorting out the problems with the $2.45 billion home insulation program that left four people dead and has been implicated in 120 house fires up to March 24.   Hiring for the "phantom" agency (as it has been dubbed) continues, with plans to take staffing to 300 by the end of next year, relayed Department of Climate Change deputy secretary Geoff Leeper.   Emissions trading laws, officially known as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, are stalled in the Senate and now face a firm no vote from the Opposition. They were once the centrepiece of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's response to climate change, which he dubbed "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time".   The Department of Climate Change did not exist until December 2007.   The new entity is known as the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Its secretary, Martin Parkinson, said it now has more than 1000 staff.   Dr Parkinson told a Senate inquiry his agency had taken over the National Energy Efficiency Initiative and Solar Homes and Communities Plan, which were budgeted to cost about $370 million this financial year. These new responsibilities could take spending to as much as $1 billion, according to last year's budget reports on climate change.

  This shows it was ALL politics.  Spin spin spin, and the voters buy it. :Rolleyes:

----------


## dazzler

> Apologies for interrupting this little love in before the sweet sounds of Kumbaya begin. 
> But this is a tree huggers view of themselves:

  And you dont take it seriously;  
see whats happening....

----------


## Allen James

. . From The Weekly Standard: . . .  . . In Denial *The meltdown of the climate campaign.* . Steven F. Hayward . _Excerpts:_ . The British media—even the left-leaning, climate alarmists of the Guardian and BBC—are turning on the climate campaign with a vengeance. The somnolent American media, which have done as poor a job reporting about climate change as they did on John Edwards, have largely averted their gaze from the inconvenient meltdown of the climate campaign, but the rock solid edifice in the newsrooms is cracking. Al Gore was conspicuously missing in action before surfacing with a long article in the New York Times on February 28, reiterating his familiar parade of horribles: The sea level will rise! Monster storms! Climate refugees in the hundreds of millions! Political chaos the world over! It was the rhetorical equivalent of stamping his feet and saying “It is too so!” In a sign of how dramatic the reversal of fortune has been for the climate campaign, it is now James Inhofe, the leading climate skeptic in the Senate, who is eager to have Gore testify before Congress. . …. . The climate campaign is a movement unable to hide its decline. Skeptics and critics of climate alarmism have long been called “deniers,” with the comparison to Holocaust denial made explicit, but the denier label now more accurately fits the climate campaigners. Their first line of defense was that the acknowledged errors amount to a few isolated and inconsequential points in the report of the IPCC’s Working Group II, which studies the effects of global warming, and not the more important report of the IPCC’s Working Group I, which is about the science of global warming. Working Group I, this argument goes, is where the real action is, as it deals with the computer models and temperature data on which the “consensus” conclusion is based that the Earth has warmed by about 0.8 degrees Celsius over the last century, that human-generated greenhouse gases are overwhelmingly responsible for this rise, and that we may expect up to 4 degrees Celsius of further warming if greenhouse gas emissions aren’t stopped by mid-century. As Gore put it in his February 28 Times article, “the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged.” I note in passing that the 2007 Working Group I report uses the terms “uncertain” or “uncertainty” more than 1,300 times in its 987 pages, including what it identified as 54 “key uncertainties” limiting our mastery of climate prediction. This central pillar of the climate campaign is unlikely to survive much longer, and each repetition of the “science-is-settled” mantra inflicts more damage on the credibility of the climate science community. . …. . The climate campaign camp followers are exhausting their invective against skeptics. Harvard’s Jeffrey Sachs wrote in the Guardian that climate skeptics are akin to tobacco scientists—some of the same people, in fact, though he gave no names and offered no facts to establish such a claim. In the Los Angeles Times Bill McKibben compared climate skeptics to O.J. Simpson’s “dream team” of defense attorneys able to twist incontrovertible scientific evidence. Not to be outdone, Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT) compared climate skeptics to appeasers of Hitler in the 1930s, a comparison, to be sure, that Al Gore has been making since the early 1990s, but Sanders delivered it with his patented popping-neck-veins style that makes you worry for his health. . In addition to being a sign of desperation, these ad hominem arguments from the climate campaigners also make clear which camp is truly guilty of anti-intellectualism. Gore and the rest of the chorus simply will not discuss any of the scientific anomalies and defects in the conventional climate narrative that scientists such as Christy have pointed out to the IPCC. Perhaps the climate campaign’s most ludicrous contortion is their response to the record snowfall of the eastern United States over the last two months. The ordinary citizen, applying Occam’s Razor while shoveling feet of snow, sees global warming as a farce. The climate campaigners now insist that “weather is not climate,” and that localized weather events, even increased winter snowfall, can be consistent with climate change. They may be right about this, though even the IPCC cautions that we still have little ability to predict regional climate-related weather changes. These are the same people, however, who jumped up and down that Hurricane Katrina was positive proof that catastrophic global warming had arrived, though the strong 2005 hurricane season was followed by four quiet years for tropical storms that made a hash of that talking point. . The ruckus about “weather is not climate” exposes the greatest problem of the climate campaign. Al Gore and his band of brothers have been happy to point to any weather anomaly—cold winters, warm winters, in-between winters​—as proof of climate change. But the climate campaigners cannot name one weather pattern or event that would be inconsistent with their theory. Pretty convenient when your theory works in only one direction. . …. . The lingering question is whether the collapse of the climate campaign is also a sign of a broader collapse in public enthusiasm for environmentalism in general. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, two of the more thoughtful and independent-minded figures in the environmental movement, have been warning their green friends that the public has reached the point of “apocalypse fatigue.” They’ve been met with denunciations from the climate campaign enforcers for their heresy. The climate campaign has no idea that it is on the cusp of becoming as ludicrous and forlorn as the World -Esperanto Association.  .  . _Steven F. Hayward is the F.K. Weyerhaeuser fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of the forthcoming Almanac of Environmental Trends (Pacific Research Institute)._ . _Whole article here:_ . _http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/denial_ . . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

Nice articles there Allen and Doc. 
Maybe you "came out" a bit early Dazzler!! 
Mind, you were always leaning left on this issue.  So I am not surprised. Although I agree that the ETS has not a hope in hell of reducing emissions in Australia on 1990 levels.  Our population growth alone will see to that.  It has been fancifull thinking all along.  I cant understand how some could not see it. Political expediency some would call it, and they would be right. 
Hope you all had a great Easter break.  I did, I knocked 2 strokes off my handicap 14 to 12.

----------


## dazzler

> Mind, you were always leaning left on this issue.

  
Left ----- what the? 
I am a national party voter to the core......... :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Left ----- what the? 
> I am a national party voter to the core.........

  Just on this issue Dazzler LOL I'm not calling you a commie!!!

----------


## Allen James

.. .   

> I bet you can't guess which way I'm leaning towards on this subject?

    

> . This might give you a clue

  .  I'd respond with an graphic of my own, but Watson would only delete it, as he has done a few times recently, to protect you. . It must be nice to know, that as a bludging ex-law enforcement officer who spends all his time trolling this board from a Brisbane Mental Facility, that you have an old hippy to protect you.  :2thumbsup:  . . Go ahead Watson - ban me. Get that rush you've been dying for from the day I joined.  :Biggrin:  . . .

----------


## watson

Don't think headpin needs any protecting by me. 
Deletions occur when the posts are not on topic.......or out of rules.
As for the rest of your post......get a life.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Don't think headpin needs any protecting by me.

    

> Deletions occur when the posts are not on topic.......or out of rules. As for the rest of your post......get a life.

   How many of Headpins posts are on topic?  . . .

----------


## watson

Lets put it this way.....Headpin has just reached 1000 + posts.
Without deletions, he would quite possibly have double that amount of posts. 
To educate you.....I spent all of the hippie era in the Army....doing non-hippie things.
So have a go at that.
I repeat......get a life. Deletions aren't the end of the world.

----------


## Allen James

. . .   

> Lets put it this way.....Headpin has just reached 1000 + posts.

    

> Without deletions, he would quite possibly have double that amount of posts.

  What has that to do with anything? . .   

> To educate you.....I spent all of the hippie era in the Army....doing non-hippie things. So have a go at that.

   I have supported Vietnam War and North Korean War vets all my life, and continue to do so to this day. My father was a paratrooper in WW2. . If you were in the army then I take my hat off to you, and apologize for confusing you with hippies. I just couldn’t understand why you would want to delete my artwork, when it is less controversial than most caricatures or political cartoons you see in the daily papers. I was a political cartoonist myself, and no editor I ever had deleted my work as you do. . .    

> I repeat......get a life. Deletions aren't the end of the world.

   When you delete artwork that takes some time to put together, it may not be the end of the world, but it isn’t a kiss on the cheek either. It is like burning a wooden bowl made by Neil. This is Australia, and Aussies like caricatures and cartoons. I don’t think we live in China, do we? . I do respect you if you served, and whatever you say goes, according to Neil. I guess I’ll be banned in due course, for wanting to express myself, but that's okay. These days it's common fare in Australia. If so, then I'll just find another place to express myself.  :Cool:  . . .

----------


## watson

> .  I have supported Vietnam War and North Korean War vets all my life, and continue to do so to this day. My father was a paratrooper in WW2.  .

  Great......I could do with a rise in my TPI pension  :Biggrin:  
Anyway...I'm off topic.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Great......I could do with a rise in my TPI pension

    

> Anyway...I'm off topic.

  After all is said and done, I salute you for serving our nation and fighting our enemies. Neil, Rod and others were right about you, and I apologise for any misunderstandings.. . . .

----------


## watson

988 deletions Headpin

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Left ----- what the? .

    

> I am a national party voter to the core.........

   Well Dazzler, Im impressed.  Im glad to hear this, and I also appreciate the fact that you dont support the ETS. . As you know, in all political parties there are different shades of left and right.  After reading your posts in this thread I would say that you would be a left of centre Nat supporter.  In my case I would be way over on the right side.  My ideas about scaling down the size of government and privatizing just about everything would probably raise the eyebrows of even the most conservative Nationalists.  Im pragmatic though, and since they are the most conservative party we have in Australia, I support them. . I understand that, in regard to AGW, you believe you are helping humans avoid a catastrophe that may be coming.  Despite your kind efforts in this regard, you need to consider for a moment that sometimes people create sky is falling myths.  This is why you have seen so many people with The End Is Nigh signs, during your life. . The End Is Nigh - Google Search= . It seems to be a human trait, and it is probably tied to the fact that we are the first animal that was able to recognize and dwell upon its own mortality. . Dogs dont have to worry about dying. . We humans, on the other hand, figure out pretty early on that one day we are going to die, and it affects us in many dramatic ways. . Some of us go rushing off and begin to worship Zeus, or Odin, or whatever. . Some of us begin making sacrifices to the Sun Gods. . Some of us decide that EVERYONE is going to die, and hold up 'The End Is Nigh' signs. . My advice to people is to relax.  Im quite happy to die when my time comes, and I know that my DNA will carry on in future generations.  For those with no kids, they can also rest assured that their actions will influence life in the future, like a chain reaction.  So they will leave their mark.  Also, our molecules will continue on, to be part of trees, buildings, other people, stars and whatever. . As the Beatles said, Let It Be. . . [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBgjysQA6Cc&feature=related]YouTube - The Beatles - Let it Be (1970)[/ame] [Beatles  Let it be] .
.
.

----------


## chrisp

> Deletions aren't the end of the world.

  I know it is hard to believe, but I seem to have the opposite problem - after I delete my own posts, the administrator reinstates them!  :Confused:  
I must be one of those good forum members  :Innocent:

----------


## Rod Dyson

This may explain your graph on Ice extent woodbe. 
Have a read.  American Thinker: Was the Arctic Ice Cap 'Adjusted'?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I know it is hard to believe, but I seem to have the opposite problem - after I delete my own posts, the administrator reinstates them!  
> I must be one of those good forum members

  LOL I have never had a post deleted by me or the mods  :Innocent:  :Innocent:

----------


## Rod Dyson

And you may wonder why there are skeptics? 
Have a look at this and you may see why.  Damfunny if it wasn't so serious! warmlist

----------


## Allen James

.
.   

> LOL I have never had a post deleted by me or the mods

  Way to go, Rod.  You are the Abraham Lincoln of renovateforum.com. .
Good onya mate.   :2thumbsup:  .
. .

----------


## watson

*Editor's Note:*
All right you blokes: Back on Topic   :Rulz:    :Rotfl:

----------


## woodbe

> This may explain your graph on Ice extent woodbe. 
> Have a read.  American Thinker: Was the Arctic Ice Cap 'Adjusted'?

  Yes Rod. someone who likes looking for statistical traps, and also likes to ridicule stated observations. For instance: "_At that rate, the polar ice  cap would be gone in 385 years._" 
Sure. Look at the title of the graphic. It's for March, the month with about the highest extent/area etc. Note that the discussion is about loss of ice over the whole year, year on year, and the expectation that the Arctic will be navigable/ice free during summer in the not too distant future because of the trend. 
Also note that the sceptics continue to rejoice in a single cold winter and hail it as the reversal. It helps to be statistically ignorant if you're a sceptic, that way you can ignore the obvious truth. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> And you may wonder why there are skeptics? 
> Have a look at this and you may see why.  Damfunny if it wasn't so serious! warmlist

  Didn't your parents teach you about truth and newspapers Rod? 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> This may explain your graph on Ice extent woodbe. 
> Have a read.  American Thinker: Was the Arctic Ice Cap 'Adjusted'?

  Rod, 
The author of that article seems to be having trouble accepting the NSIDC graphs.  They play on the difference between 'extent' and 'area' as the central area of the polar cap weren't actually measured, but assumed to be ice covered.  The contention seems to be that the unmeasured area in the centre (i.e. calculated 'extent' minus measured 'area') varies from month to month and therefore someone is diddling the figures.  Perhaps it that the satellites used to do the measuring track different paths over (or relative to) the earth resulting in a different 'assumed ice' area in the centre?  *The bottom line is the area enclosed in the perimeter of the ice cap - the 'extent'.   The article you have quoted actually concedes that it is shrinking.* 
The article sounds a bit like a 'conspiracy theory' to me.

----------


## Allen James

. . *THE BUSINESS TIMES* . *End of the IPCC: one mistake too many* . *'Climategate' suggests a conspiracy to commit fraud by a small gang of influential UN panel scientists* . *April 7, 2010* . *By S FRED SINGER* . THE United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acknowledged they made a mistake in their projection of 2035 as the date when all the Himalayan glaciers would melt. But the Himalayan blunder is not a one-off mistake; it is only the latest of a long list of errors that have dogged the IPCC over the past 10 years. And by now, after the 'Climategate' flap of last November, 'Glaciergate' seems to have opened the floodgates with reports on 'Amazongate', 'Natural-disaster-gate', and many more. . In their 2001 report, the IPCC had claimed that the 20th century was 'unusual' and blamed it on human-released greenhouse gases. Their infamous temperature graph shown there, shaped like a hockey stick, did away with the well-established Medieval Warm Period (around 1000AD, when Vikings were able to settle in southern Greenland and grow crops there) and the following Little Ice Age (around 1400 to 1800AD). Two Canadians exposed the bad data used by the IPCC and the statistical errors in their analysis. . Since then, the litany of IPCC errors continues to grow.  ·  In mid-August 2009, after repeated requests for such data under the Freedom of Information Act, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), one of the three international centres that publish global temperatures, announced that it discarded the raw data used to calculate global surface temperatures. The CRU action renders independent review and verification of the temperature trends published by the CRU impossible - a clear violation of principles of science.  ·  In October, at the 2009 annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, Dr Don Easterbrook presented graphs demonstrating how tree-ring data from Russia showing a cooling after 1961 was disguised in IPCC publications. The artful deceit so exposed indicates that the IPCC Assessment Report-4 (AR4) of 2007 contains deceptions rendering its conclusion that global warming is anthropogenic (human-caused) scientifically questionable.   ·  In November, emails from the CRU were leaked to the public, creating what became known as 'Climategate'. These emails reveal efforts to suppress independent studies that are contrary to IPCC conclusions of AGW (anthropogenic global warming). Thus, the IPCC scientific review process has a systematic bias of an unknowable magnitude in favour of human-induced warming.   ·  In mid-December, the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) reported that the Hadley Centre for Climate Change of the British Meteorological Office (Met Office) had probably tampered with Russian climate data and that the Russian meteorological station data does not support human-caused global warming. Thus the reported global surface temperature trends are unreliable and probably have a strong warming bias of an unknown magnitude.   ·  In January this year, American researchers Joe D'Aleo and E Michael Smith reported that the US-National Climatic Data Center (NOAA-NCDC) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA-GISS) dropped many meteorological stations from their databases in recent years. The dropped stations, many of which continue to make appropriate reports, are generally in colder climates. Thus, all global surface temperatures and temperature trends announced by the three international reporting organisations probably have a warming bias of an unknown magnitude - rendering their announced temperature trends scientifically unreliable.   ·  On Jan 23 this year, the Sunday Times (London) reported that the AR4 wrongly linked natural disasters to global warming. The published report upon which this claim was based actually stated: 'We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophic losses.'   ·  In January also, Dr Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the AR4's chapter on Asia, stated that the IPCC deliberately exaggerated the possible melt of the Himalayan glaciers. 'We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.' This admission demonstrates that the AR4 is a political document and not a scientific one.   ·  More recently, additional reports reveal that the IPCC's claims that warming will cause extensive adverse effects in the Amazon rainforests and on coral reefs came not from science studies but from publications by environmental advocacy groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace. More scandalous even, the IPCC based their lurid predictions on anecdotal, non-peer-reviewed sources - not at all in accord with its solemnly announced principles and scientific standards.  . These events show not only a general sloppiness of IPCC procedures but also an extreme ideological bias - quite inappropriate to a supposedly impartial scientific survey. Yet all of these missteps pale in comparison to 'Climategate', which calls into question the very temperature data used by the IPCC's main policy result. In my opinion, Climategate is a much more serious issue than simply sloppiness and ideological distortion; Climategate suggests a conspiracy to commit fraud by a small gang of influential IPCC scientists. . . Article continues here: . http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/...380103,00.html . .. .

----------


## Rod Dyson

It would be nice to see an answer to these questions put to the enquiry into CRU 
Full article here - Bishop Hill blog - A letter from PhilWillis   *Questions for Phil Willis*
1.            The potential “manipulation or suppression” of data was one of three questions in your terms of reference. You acknowledged the receipt of written evidence that CRU had manipulated data, noting in fn 17 that these issues were raised in McIntyre’s submission, which described incidents of “arbitrary adjustment (“bodging”), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data.” There is no evidence on the record – from Jones or anyone else – contradicting these assertions. Why did you omit these issues from your inquiry? In the absence of any rebuttal, what was the basis of your conclusion that CRU’s reputation was “intact”? Since the evidence was not rebutted, shouldn’t you have drawn the attention of the Science Panel to these matters and asked them to examine these particular issues?
2.            You concluded that the term “trick…to hide the decline” was “shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous”. No evidence was placed on the record (nor exists in the specialist literature) claiming that the tree ring data was “erroneous” i.e. measured incorrectly. The data is what it is. Upon reflection, do you still think it is appropriate to use the term “erroneous” for the tree ring data in this context?
3.            You also stated that “what was meant by ‘hide the decline’ was remove the effects of data known to be problematic in the sense that the data were known to be misleading.” Did you receive any evidence (other than from Jones and/or UEA) that deletion of post-1960 tree ring data from the IPCC and WMO graphics was an acceptable statistical technique? In the absence of such independent evidence, what was the basis for your conclusion that this was an acceptable technique? Given that there is convincing evidence that the post-1960 tree ring data was removed from the relevant IPCC graphic, on what basis did you accept UEA’s evidence that “CRU never sought to disguise this specific type of tree-ring “decline or divergence”?
4.            The contemporary Climategate emails state that the reasons for the deletion of the post-1960 tree ring data (hide the decline) were concerns that “the skeptics [would] have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates” and that inclusion of the data would “dilute the message rather significantly”. What steps did the Committee take to assess assertions by UEA and Jones about the motives for deleting post-1960 data from important graphics against contemporary evidence from the Climategate emails?
5.            Your assessment of potential subversion of peer review omitted the consideration of relevant incidents placed into evidence. Why did you fail to consider the following cases from McIntyre’s submission that apparently showed efforts by CRU correspondents to subvert the peer review process? If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically.
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised
I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting What was the reason for not considering these incidents? How can you justify a conclusion that there was no effort to subvert the peer review process without considering these incidents?
6.            Evidence was also presented to the Committee of the opposite form of subversion of the peer review process: non-arms length peer reviewing by Jones of articles by close associates (Mann, Schmidt, Santer etc.). Why did the Committee omit consideration of this aspect of the peer review problem? Did the Committee intend to condone such practices? In retrospect, should the Committee have commented on these matters?
7.            Professor McKitrick argues that Professor Jones used his position in the IPCC to suppress evidence that called the quality of his data sets into question (Ev 140, para [13]-[15]). The Committee accepted Professor Jones’ claim (paragraphs 72, 73) that he was merely making "informal comments" and expressing his views to a colleague about some papers. Did the Committee not consider it relevant that Jones was, at the time, not merely acting in a private capacity, but was a Lead Author of the IPCC Report, and that he was therefore not merely expressing an opinion about the papers, but was in fact expressing an intent to manipulate IPCC guidelines in order to prevent disclosure of peer-reviewed evidence that went against his views?
8.            In defence of this claim that he tried to keep sceptic findings out of the IPCC reports, Professor Jones defends himself by stating that the papers were already in the scientific literature, an explanation that is accepted by the committee. Since the accusation is one of keeping the findings out of the IPCC reports, the fact that they were already in the scientific literature is irrelevant. Professor McKitrick states that Professor Jones did keep the papers out of the drafts of the IPCC reports, only including them in the final draft after protests from sceptics and then inserting unsubstantiated statements into the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (para 15) in order to bypass their conclusions. Professor McKitrick lists (para 19) the evidence that the committee would need to obtain in order to disprove an allegation of fabrication of evidence.
How has the committee discounted Professor McKitrick’s allegation? Did the Committee ask Professor Jones to supply the information alluded to by Professor McKitrick? If not, is the Committee prepared to ask him for it now?
____________________________________________
So, to return to Phil Willis's letter, we have a series of mysteries. Despite Mr Willis's statements to the contrary, the report does not explain the reasons for the conclusions the committee reached, at least not those questions posed above.
Where, for example the committee took evidence of fabrication of part of the contents of an IPCC report, but no evidence to the contrary, what possible weighing of the evidence could the committee make? _How could it come up with a finding of "not guilty" without any evidence for the defence?_ I suppose this is probably within the remit of an official whitewash. 
Moving on, Mr Willis suggests that we sceptics should address ourselves to the Russell review or to the Royal Society panel. This will be interesting. Ross McKitrick has submitted the same allegation of fabrication to Sir Muir's team. But I don't think this will make any difference.
My guess is that the subsequent story will go something like this: the Emails panel will defer ruling on the issue because it is a scientific question. They will hand the job over to the Royal Society panel instead.
The Royal Society panel is tasked with examining CRU's research for integrity. But of course the observant among you will notice that Ross McKitrick's allegations relate to an IPCC report and not a CRU paper. McKitrick's allegations will therefore be out of scope. See where this is leading?
But wait! I hear you cry. There is an IPCC inquiry too isn't there? Well, yes, except that the IPCC inquiry is looking at institutional design and not scientific matters, so once again, the allegation will be out of scope.
Clever eh?

----------


## woodbe

> But wait! I hear you cry. There is an IPCC inquiry too isn't there? Well, yes, except that the IPCC inquiry is looking at institutional design and not scientific matters, so once again, the allegation will be out of scope.
> Clever eh?

  Another indication that the sceptics still don't get it. IPCC doesn't do science, so an investigation into the IPCC will always be about the organisation and process. If you want to attack the science, you don't do that with an 'investigation' you do that within the existing scientific process: Hypothesise; Proof; Publish. 
One day, sceptics will announce that they are going to do some serious science to prove their (currently baseless) claims, and submit the results for peer review. 
Meanwhile, the character assassination of Prof. Jones continues. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. . From The Wall Street Journal, April 6, 2010: . . What's the Next 'Global Warming'? . _Herewith I propose a contest to invent the next panic._ . . So global warming is dead, nailed into its coffin one devastating disclosure, defection and re-evaluation at a time. Which means that pretty soon we're going to need another apocalyptic scare to take its place. . As recently as October, the Guardian reported that scientists at Cambridge had "concluded that the Arctic is now melting at such a rate that it will be largely ice free within ten years." This was supposedly due to global warming. It brought with it the usual lamentations for the grandchildren. . But in March came another report in the Guardian, this time based on the research of Japanese scientists, that "much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is [due] to the region's swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming." It also turns out that the extent of Arctic sea ice in March was around the recorded average, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. . The difference between the two stories has little to do with science: There were plenty of reasons back in October to suspect that the Arctic ice panicbased on data that only goes back to 1979was as implausible as the now debunked claim about disappearing Himalayan glaciers. But thanks to Climategate and the Copenhagen fiasco, the media are now picking up the kinds of stories they previously thought it easier and wiser to ignore. . This is happening internationally. In France, a book titled "L'imposture climatique" is a runaway bestseller: Its author, Claude Allègre, is one of the country's most acclaimed scientists and a former minister of education in a Socialist government. In Britain, environmentalist patron saint James Lovelock now tells the BBC he suspects climate scientists have "[fudged] the data" and that if the planet is going to be saved, "it will save itself, as it always has done." In Germany, the leftish Der Spiegel devotes 15 pages to a deliciously detailed account of "scientists who want to be politicians," the "curious inconsistencies" in the temperature record, the "sloppy work" of the U.N.'s climate-change panel and sundry other sins of modern climatology. . . Full article here: . Bret Stephens: What's the Next 'Global Warming'? - WSJ.com . . .

----------


## Allen James

. . Lord Monckton trounces some AGW supporters in an Australian interview/debate. . . [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyTbeJzK6GY&feature=related]YouTube - Lord Monckton debates Rupert Posner 1 of 3[/ame] . [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX45sf2i5Jw&feature=related]YouTube - Lord Monckton debates Rupert Posner 2 of 3[/ame] . [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDW_yXLvgoE&NR=1]YouTube - Lord Monckton debates Rupert Posner 3 of 3[/ame] . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> . . Lord Monckton trounces some AGW supporters in an Australian interview/debate. . . YouTube - Lord Monckton debates Rupert Posner 1 of 3 . YouTube - Lord Monckton debates Rupert Posner 2 of 3 . YouTube - Lord Monckton debates Rupert Posner 3 of 3 . . .

  Nice to hear that again, thanks for posting Allen.

----------


## dazzler

> Nice to hear that again, thanks for posting Allen.

  Yep, nice to see that own goal again from the nut job; 
As always, listen to him then investigate it yourself;  Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority :: Climate Change on the Great Barrier Reef 
My mum would have washed his lying little mouth out with soap.  :Sneaktongue:

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Yep, nice to see that own goal again from the nut job;

    

> As always, listen to him then investigate it yourself;  Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority :: Climate Change on the Great Barrier Reef  My mum would have washed his lying little mouth out with soap.

  You accuse Lord Monckton of lying, but provide no detail. If he lied, please provide the details so we can investigate. Fail in this and your own case loses all merit. Anyone can accuse someone of lying. To back it up you need facts. This is a basic necessity in debate.  What *exactly* did he say (the *precise* wording) that was a lie, and where is your evidence that it is a lie, *exactly*? I’ll bet you don’t provide these answers. . .  .

----------


## dazzler

> You know it;s quite possible that the fool is completely oblivious to the fact.............................

  Yes, yes he is.  :Tongue:

----------


## dazzler

Hey..... I found something to link to.....woohoo........I didnt even have to think, I just googled 'Monckton' and up came this on the age website. 
I am feeling particularly clever and knowledgeable that I could do this and now consider myself an expert on Monckton.  God its easy.  You should try it.  Type  in 'G O  O G L E' and up pops a "search engine" and away you go.  I reckon there must be good stuff thats all true on the 'internet;. 
Anyways, heres something worth a giggle about our mate;  Debunking the myths behind the pontificating potty peer 
Might have to do some more of this "googling' thing.  :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> . You accuse Lord Monckton of lying, but provide no detail. If he lied, please provide the details so we can investigate. Fail in this and your own case loses all merit. Anyone can accuse someone of lying. To back it up you need facts. This is a basic necessity in debate. .  What *exactly* did he say (the *precise* wording) that was a lie, and where is your evidence that it is a lie, *exactly*? Ill bet you dont provide these answers.

  Crickets chirping... .
. Admit it Daz - when you went back and examined the evidence, you found no lie. .
.
.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Hey..... I found something to link to.....woohoo........I didnt even have to think, I just googled 'Monckton' and up came this on the age website.

    

> I am feeling particularly clever and knowledgeable that I could do this and now consider myself an expert on Monckton. God its easy. You should try it. Type in 'G O O G L E' and up pops a "search engine" and away you go. I reckon there must be good stuff thats all true on the 'internet;.  Anyways, heres something worth a giggle about our mate;  Debunking the myths behind the pontificating potty peer  Might have to do some more of this "googling' thing.

   Fairfax Media support Rudds AGW all the way, and have been nothing but a Labour Party Flier since 1981.  They sponsored the greenies 'Earth Hour', so dont expect any reason out of them regarding an objective fact collector like Monckton.  The article you pointed to was nothing but trash journalism, raking up a bunch of ad hominem and straw man arguments and serving them up as news. . Mud throwing Carlton provided no backup for any of his It's not true _arguments_.  Monckton backs up everything he says.  This is why he creamed the two lefties in the ABC interview, and its why he would crucify Mike Carlton in a debate.  We all know that, like Al Gore, Carlton would much rather scoff and jeer from the sidelines. . . .

----------


## Dr Freud

*Rudd government declares Climate Change is crap. *  Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has remained deathly silent on climate change since the spectacular collapse of this baseless scaremongering was demonstrated for the world to see at Copenhagen.   Public support for action against climate change has softened, so Rudd has switched to hospital reform, which is still popular. This man is a champion of good policy?  Rudd hasn't said a word about climate change for months, even though his emission trading scheme bill is back before Parliament.   Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has also intentionally ignored the Senators whose crucial votes he would need if he intended to get his fiasco bills passed into law.   GREENS leader Bob Brown keeps seeing Kevin Rudd on television. But, he said yesterday he had not met the Prime Minister for more than six months - despite all the legislation piling up in the Senate.  His experience is not unique. Independent senator Nick Xenophon, another key Senate vote, said yesterday he had not met Mr Rudd face to face for a year or so, since they last had talks on the stimulus package.   Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has said he supports a bigger Australia when asked about our population doubling from 1990 levels to 2050 levels of 35 million people, yet mentions nothing about how this will affect his alleged beliefs about these extra carbon polluters destroying our planet.   The Federal Government is under pressure to spell out how it plans for Australia to sustain more than 35 million people by 2050.   Prime Minister Kevin Rudds own website lists his media releases this year, which is a sad indictment of a man who has the power, but does nothing about a cause he allegedly believes is the greatest moral challenge of our generation.   And Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has already shut down his own bureaucracy he set up to run this fiasco, as we have already seen here.   THE Rudd Government has transferred its entire emissions trading team into the strife-prone household insulation program, putting plans for carbon trading this year on the backburner.   I can only conclude that after Climategate, Copenhagen and numerous scientists now speaking out against this farce, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has finally realised that AGW Theory is just a theory, and the hyped scaremongering around climate change is absolute crap.  Hes just trying to figure out a politically convenient way of spinning this.   The only other alternative which would be an even sadder indictment on the man, is if he still truly believes we are destroying the planet, but is willing to ignore this for political expediency. :No:    Either way, the ETS is dead! :Biggrin:

----------


## andy the pm

Here's a link to a pretty good article debunking a paper Moncton wrote...  Monckton's errors - July 2008  
Good to see Dr Fraud is back....

----------


## dazzler

Sheesh, blind freddie could see how wrong he was on this bit;  _NCDC: κ = ΔT/ (ΔF + b ΔT) = 0.412 / (0.560 + 2.16 x 0.412) = 0.284 KW-1m2 McKitrick: κ = ΔT/ (ΔF + b ΔT) = 0.206 / (0.599 + 2.16 x 0.206) = 0.197 KW-1m2 Mean: κ = (0.284 + 0.197) / 2 = 0.241 KW-1m2 (26)_ 
Like.....hello........

----------


## dazzler

> Here's a link to a pretty good article debunking a paper Moncton wrote...  Monckton's errors - July 2008  
> Good to see Dr Fraud is back....

  That was quite a read and most of it went over my head.   Dealing with crims, liars and cheats for 18years left me with a pretty good BS meter and it was hitting redline when I first saw Monckton speak on youtube.  Very much the showman who uses insults and ridicule constantly to take his viewers away from what he said.  Most just nod and laugh knowingly though they have no idea what dribble he has just pontificated. 
Thanks for the link. Hey this linking thing is fantastic. 
I found this;  http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/t...ook_2-3_lq.pdf 
Its full of cartoons and graphs and stuff 
and guess what I found in the text; 
"Non-believers dont have to prove anything." 
I am sure I have heard something similar on here........ 
Gotta go, more gooooogling to do before bed!

----------


## woodbe

> Good to see Dr Fraud is back....

  oops, is that a Freudian slip?  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> Thanks for the link. Hey this linking thing is fantastic.I found this;http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdfIts full of cartoons and graphs and stuffand guess what I found in the text;"Non-believers don’t have to prove anything."I am sure I have heard something similar on here........Gotta go, more gooooogling to do before bed!

  Well, I’m not impressed. You say Monckton lied in the ABC interview, but refuse to prove any of your accusations by providing the detail.  :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:  . As Lord Monckton himself would say; “Tsk tsk. Very poor form.” . . .

----------


## Allen James

.   

> . *Good to see Dr Fraud is back*....

  Great argument, Andy the PMS.  :Biggrin:   .   .

----------


## andy the pm

> Sheesh, blind freddie could see how wrong he was on this bit;  _NCDC: κ = ΔT/ (ΔF + b ΔT) = 0.412 / (0.560 + 2.16 x 0.412) = 0.284 KW-1m2 McKitrick: κ = ΔT/ (ΔF + b ΔT) = 0.206 / (0.599 + 2.16 x 0.206) = 0.197 KW-1m2 Mean: κ = (0.284 + 0.197) / 2 = 0.241 KW-1m2 (26)_ 
> Like.....hello........

  
I know, I know, talk about a school boy error there.... :Blush7:

----------


## andy the pm

> Dealing with crims, liars and cheats for 18years left me with a pretty good BS meter and it was hitting redline when I first saw Monckton speak on youtube. Very much the showman who uses insults and ridicule constantly to take his viewers away from what he said. Most just nod and laugh knowingly though they have no idea what dribble he has just pontificated.

  That is exactly how he operates, bluff and bluster. If I submitted a paper that came back with that many red lines through it I would be embarrassed, but considering there are dozens of them I'd consider a change of career....

----------


## woodbe

I find it hard to believe that our sceptics hold Monckton in such high regard. He would be another ally that I would run away from, quickly. 
You may know that he recently wrote to a couple of US Senators. The letter has been released and dissected by interested parties looking to prove or disprove his statements. One person found two lies in just one of the paragraphs of the letter. Another pointed out that he cleverly represented himself as a member of the house of Lords, whereas he has never been a member of that institution (he stood for election and got no votes)   

> Although an hereditary peer, Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords.[3]  He was an unsuccessful candidate for a Conservative seat in the House  of Lords in a March 2007 by-election  caused by the death of Lord Mowbray and Stourton.  Of the 43 candidates, 31 – including Monckton – received no votes in  the election.[4]

  
Of interest are his recent claims that the increase in CO2 is linear. Tamino has a go at that (surprise! the CO2 increase is definitely exponential) 
Monckton managed to rile a Utah based Geology Prof who has gone to some lengths to separate the truth from the lies and published a comprehensive analysis of Monckton's funny business regarding the IPCC CO2 projections. 
The Prof has this to say regarding a behaviour we see here from our own sceptics almost all the time:   

> "The moral of the  story is not that amateurs should stay out of the debate about climate  change," writes Bickmore, who noted that he is a geologist rather than a  climate  scientist.   
>  "Rather, the moral is that when you see a complete  amateur raising objections about a highly technical subject, claiming  that he or she has blown the lid off several decades of research in the  discipline, you should be highly suspicious."

  Using that last paragraph as a filter, our little band of sceptics here just don't seem to be truly sceptical, do they? 
Lastly:   

> The false claims undermine  Monckton's credibility in a way that is easy for anyone to understand,  said Bickmore. They open a window onto the skeptic's scientific claims,  like his assertion that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is  wrong about global warming.

  Full article in the Salt Lake Tribune 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I find it hard to believe that our sceptics hold Monckton in such high regard. He would be another ally that I would run away from, quickly.

  That is just it Woodbe, You have know idea how, "we", I regard Monckton.  I don't regard him in any particular manner whatsoever.  I don't even agree with all he says or has done I don't have to agree with everything about him.  You see I where I'm comming from here? 
This is why you guys get hoodwinked so easily, you take a position and blindly believe everything you see or hear that supports that position without analysing for yourself.  You assume others supporting that position can do no wrong.  speak no untruths, or embellish anything. 
So you assume everyone thinks the same way as you, you feel its ok to trash an entire argument on the basis of character assasination, rather than accept a point that may be quite valid you dismiss them all. 
We call this narrow mindedness.

----------


## dazzler

Your spot on Rod, maybe Woodbe's point should only be directed at those silly enough to continue posting up links to him, or those who think the links are, how to put it, mmmmmm, maybe the quote is best;  _"Nice to hear that again, thanks for posting Allen."_  :Wink:

----------


## woodbe

Sure Rod, sure.   

> Lord  Monckton trounces some AGW supporters in an Australian  interview/debate. . . YouTube - Lord Monckton debates Rupert Posner 1 of 3 . YouTube - Lord Monckton debates Rupert Posner 2 of 3 . YouTube - Lord Monckton debates Rupert Posner 3 of 3 .

    

> Nice to hear that again, thanks for posting Allen.

  Monckton's fallacious arguments and proven lies are the subject of my post, not his character. As I have repeatedly said, my position on this issue is based upon the science and on that issue the sceptics have the floor. Thousands of published peer reviewed papers describing what we know about climate and AGW are ready to be debunked. Where is the sceptic science?  
Whenever that is mentioned the silence from you is deafening. Those papers would not stand if the sceptics were actually doing science that supported their position. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Your spot on Rod, maybe Woodbe's point should only be directed at those silly enough to continue posting up links to him, or those who think the links are, how to put it, mmmmmm, maybe the quote is best;  _"Nice to hear that again, thanks for posting Allen."_

  Yes it was a good interview in my opinion he made some very good points and knew his facts.  
But you also miss the point I make to Woodbe. :Doh:  
Woodbe is implying we should reject anything he has to say base on previous actions or statements that you may agree or dissagree with.  This is a very narrow minded argument is it not?  Just as your post here makes no sense if you claim I am "spot on".  It is more a poor attempt at denegrating my point of view based again on this narrow minded perception of Monckton. 
Not to worry that is what makes us who we are. It would be a boring old world if we were all the same eh!

----------


## chrisp

> Where is the sceptic science?  
> Whenever that is mentioned the silence from you is deafening. Those papers would not stand if the sceptics were actually doing science that supported their position.

  The 'sceptic' position isn't based on science at all.   
I'd seriously question the use of the term 'sceptic' in this context - it is more likely that the term 'denier' is correct.

----------


## woodbe

> But you also miss the point I make to Woodbe. 
> Woodbe is implying we should reject anything he has to say base on previous actions or statements that you may agree or dissagree with.  This is a very narrow minded argument is it not?

  Your point is not found at all. I am not implying anything, I am representing the facts. If you wish to take an implication from that, it's your own. I am happy to hear things Monckton says, but I also listen to him using the knowledge that he holds the truth in a certain disregard. 
In fact, someone who holds Monckton up as someone who 'knows his facts' is not  narrow minded, they are gullible. He certainly knows and espouses many 'facts', the question is, which of them is true? 
If I am narrow minded for researching the topic based on the published science and not the squawkings of media savvy amateurs, then I would think myself lucky to be so. However, I doubt you would find such a description of narrow mindedness in any dictionary. You may find that it goes the other way, those that cling to their unfounded opinions in spite of overwhelming evidence are more likely narrow minded. 
woodbe.

----------


## dazzler

> Just as your post here makes no sense if you claim I am "spot on".  It is more a poor attempt at denegrating my point of view based again on this narrow minded perception of Monckton.
> !

  Oh come on.....it was a good attempt :Tongue:  
He is just so full of it.  Full of holes, full of hot air, full of ...........well, it. 
Is it narrow minded? How? Here is a man that denegrates and scoffs those who he opposes and yet its narrow minded if we have a chuckle back at him when so much of what he says is proved wrong. 
Dont get me wrong, he is a very clever debater and probably a pretty good bloke.  But as for being the champion of those seeking an alternative view to climate change I think he does more harm than good.  He actually makes the alternative view look rather stupid with so many mistakes. 
PS - Did you see my square set?

----------


## Allen James

. . Al Gore runs away from Bill OReilly once again, as he has done for 11 years.  Hes good at running, but not so good at answering questions. .  Embedded Display for mediaite? . . Click the skip this ad in top right corner to get rid of white screen. . .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> He is just so full of it. Full of holes, full of hot air, full of ...........well, it. Here is a man that denegrates and scoffs those who he opposes and yet its narrow minded if we have a chuckle back at him when so much of what he says is proved wrong.

  Nonsense.  Monckton bends over backwards to provide facts, and then tells you where these were obtained so that you can check them.  Heres a speech he gave at Sutherland Institute in Salt Lake City on Friday, March 26, 2010, using a slide show. .   [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYDMQDtnXnM]YouTube - Lord Christopher Monckton on "Global Warming" Part 1[/ame] .
. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzWqT-7LqiQ&feature=related]YouTube - Lord Christopher Monckton on "Global Warming" Part 2[/ame] .
. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqS0ZsNBGSg&feature=related]YouTube - Lord Christopher Monckton on "Global Warming" Part 3[/ame] .
. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txge3Kz_uUU&feature=related]YouTube - Lord Christopher Monckton on "Global Warming" Part 4[/ame] .
. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3yDup6kRKk&feature=related]YouTube - Lord Christopher Monckton on "Global Warming" Part 5[/ame] .
. . This next one is an older speech, Apocalypse? No! he made in 2009, to students, about the myths of man-made global warming. . Ill just provide the first of the nine parts: .
. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXX56REsBIE&feature=related]YouTube - Apocalypse? No! [1/9][/ame] .
.
.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Interesting way to look at a temperature graph.  Looks real scary! Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics … and Graphs  Watts Up With That?

----------


## dazzler

> Interesting way to look at a temperature graph.  Looks real scary! Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics  and Graphs  Watts Up With That?

  I always thought Homerj would be behind it.  Damn him  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> Interesting way to look at a temperature graph.  Looks real scary! Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics  and Graphs  Watts Up With That?

  So now we don't deny the rise any more, we just don't think it's important? 
Right. Hold the scope to your blind eye, that worked for Napoleon 
I suppose its better than claiming the earth is cooling... 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Man we have to cut emission or we will will have to spend more time cutting lawns.   
Sheez I knew there had to be a good reason. 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Seeing is Believing[/ame]

----------


## Rod Dyson

C3: Aw, Shucks! Peer-Review of Oysters Finds NY Warmer During Roman & Medieval Periods 
Nah can't be possible. the scientists tell us that the current warming is unprecedented and could only be caused by man.  
This has to be rubbish science.
/sarc

----------


## Rod Dyson

I guess someone else also thinks the science behind AGW is a bit off. 
The Attorney General’s office is a very reactive office. We wouldn’t be suing the EPA if the EPA did not abandon all semblance of science and law to put out its endangerment finding on the CO2.   Cuccinelli appears at Powhatan Courthouse 
Interesting to see how this plays out. 
Or this. 
Building on sand 
The EPA, incapable of distinguishing pollutants from harmless air, based its war on global warming on findings of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a _governmental_ body, not a _scientific_ body. The IPCC drew on scientific studies, except for those it excluded. IPCC hand-picked representatives, some of them scientists, summarized the findings, selectively including and excluding from the already-screened conclusions. The IPCC came up with an unsurprisingly political document drawn from sometimes one-sided, other times flatly flawed, research, while ignoring inconvenient contrary evidence. Since last year, there's been news aplenty about the IPCC report's frauds and mistakes. Good enough for government work, apparently 
link http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/-243422--.html 
Someone sure believes the science isn't settled.  I would love a crystal ball right now!

----------


## Rod Dyson

This cant be right it has to be all lies!  The Hockey Schtick: The Cooling of Greenland over the past 8000 Years 
It sure isn't science. Is it?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Aha this has got to be a conspiracy theory. 
No way could this be fact.  Confidential document reveals Obama's hardline US climate talk strategy | Environment | guardian.co.uk

----------


## Rod Dyson

I guess none of these papers are science so we should just trash the lot as being un-scientific.  Pete'sPlace: Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So now we don't deny the rise any more, we just don't think it's important? 
> Right. Hold the scope to your blind eye, that worked for Napoleon 
> I suppose its better than claiming the earth is cooling... 
> woodbe.

  I don't think anyone here has denied that warming has taken place. I just don't think that it is dangerous, un-precedented, significant, accurate (UHI), predictable, or caused solely by man's emissions of co2. 
You are right it is much better for us than cooling. Finally something we can agree on.

----------


## woodbe

> C3: Aw, Shucks! Peer-Review of Oysters Finds NY Warmer During Roman & Medieval Periods 
> Nah can't be possible. the scientists tell us that the current warming is unprecedented and could only be caused by man.  
> This has to be rubbish science.
> /sarc

  Let me see. I wonder how much fossil fuel we were burning in the Roman and Medieval periods? Oh. virtually none. Right... 
Interesting how proxy records are rubbish if they support AGW, but quotable if they don't, hey Rod?   

> Because the oyster beds of Tappan Zee have  not been reestablished during the Current Warm Period, we conclude that  temperatures in this region today are not as warm as they were during  the MWP (~ AD 600-1250).

  I dunno, maybe it has something to do with the pollution ? Or perhaps the effects of 19 million people living there now? In any case, this is hardly refuting the basics of AGW. 
Having a little rush of blood are we? 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> We wouldnt be suing the EPA if the EPA did not abandon all semblance of science and law to put out its endangerment finding on the CO2.

  Define 'We' 
Last I checked, the Australian AG was not suing the US EPA. Tell me this is not another of your copy/paste efforts that you haven't checked Rod. 
As I understand it, the US EPA are taking the prevailing science into account. When/if that is no longer the prevailing science, I guess they will change their stance. They obviously don't hold Watts site in high regard, maybe they recognise science when they see it? 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Having a little rush of blood are we? 
> woodbe.

  Nah just giving you some reading to do.  Haven't changed your mind yet??  BTW why do you think Rudd has gone silent on the ETS that was so critical to our very survival?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Define 'We' 
> Last I checked, the Australian AG was not suing the US EPA. Tell me this is not another of your copy/paste efforts that you haven't checked Rod.
>  woodbe.

  Nice evasion woodbe, do you really think I was refering to Australia? 
Of course it is copy and paste.  Why should I re type it when I can copy and paste?  Do you think it would change if I typed it? 
It is for your information take it anyway you wish.  Who cares if it is copy and paste anyway? And what difference does it make?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Define 'We'  
> woodbe.

  Read the article I think "we" is defined well enough,  are you just jumping the gun without reading the article or are you trying to be cute?

----------


## woodbe

> This cant be right it has to be all lies!  The Hockey Schtick: The Cooling of Greenland over the past 8000 Years 
> It sure isn't science. Is it?

  Relevance to *Global Warming*? If Greenland is cooling, it makes the warming for the rest of the planet even more significant. 
Coming from a site titled "Global Cooling 12 years and counting sure doesn't get my hopes up that I'm about to read some ground breaking research that debunks AGW. 
Of more interest is the accelerating loss of mass from the Greenland Ice Sheet   

> We use monthly measurements of time-variable gravity from the GRACE  (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite gravity                         mission to determine the ice mass-loss for the  Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets during the period between April 2002  and                         February 2009. We find that during this time  period the mass loss of the ice sheets is not a constant, but  accelerating with                         time, i.e., that the GRACE observations are  better represented by a quadratic trend than by a linear one, implying  that the                         ice sheets contribution to sea level becomes  larger with time. In Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr  in 20022003                         to 286 Gt/yr in 20072009, i.e., an acceleration  of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 20022009.

  woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Of course it is copy and paste.  Why should I re type it when I can copy and paste?  Do you think it would change if I typed it?

  The point is, its not obvious if they are your words or someone else's. If its a quote, show it, otherwise, its plagiarism. 
Of course the US denialists are incensed that the EPA should do any such thing. It has nothing to do with a discussion of AGW in Australia. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The point is, its not obvious if they are your words or someone else's. If its a quote, show it, otherwise, its plagiarism.

   I will try to be more sensitive to your views on plagiarism in the future (snigger snigger)   

> Of course the US denialists are incensed that the EPA should do any such thing. It has nothing to do with a discussion of AGW in Australia. 
> woodbe.

  Are you serious?

----------


## woodbe

> Are you serious?

  Absolutely. What the EPA in the USA does in the USA has no effect on Australia, we are a sovereign state. They have no juristriction here. 
Why would Australian's living in Australia get all hot and bothered over US domestic policy?  
Unless you are suggesting the Australian EPA should follow suit?  
woodbe.

----------


## dazzler

> BTW why do you think Rudd has gone silent on the ETS that was so critical to our very survival?

  Cause he lost traction with the voters due to treating us all like morons for not wanting to drink his Kool Aid.  What a worm.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Why don't you try converting what you suppossedly read into your own veiws using your own words?

  Three points here: . 1) He has expressed his own view hundreds of times in this thread, as anyone can see. . 2) Chrisp, Woodbe and Daze constantly demand evidence . 3) In your own case I see very little opinion or facts  just trolling  like the rambling nonsense below: .   

> We may actually believe that you have some idea of what you post. Add it to the other 10 billion posts floating around the net on the subject. Means nothing. we don't want someone elses veiws and words........it's suppossed to be a debate.................by posting a simple copy paste of someone elses veiws and words, you turn it into a pi##ing contest.

   . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

Mean while....  I like this More Wisdom via Solomon: Global Warming Has Passed The Point Of No Return  Watts Up With That?  
Quite right, what is normal? 
What is the optimum climate state we would like to revert to? 
Really makes you wonder what drugs these people are on.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> . .  Three points here: . 1) He has expressed his own view hundreds of times in this thread, as anyone can see. . 2) Chrisp, Woodbe and Daze constantly demand evidence . 3) In your own case I see very little opinion or facts  just trolling  like the rambling nonsense below: .  . . .

  You are quite right my views are well known here.   
The demand for evidence (no science) etc prompted a bit of flourish of science thrown at you. Just to show you are completely wrong about lack of science that supports the skeptic view.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Yep an ETS looks even more doubtful, at least some people can see sense.   _Richard S. Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and professor at MIT, said: 
It is difficult to see what, other than cupidity, could lead to any gathering momentum. In point of fact, nothing proposed would have any discernible impact on climate regardless of one's views on climate science. Rather, the legislation would simply be another mix of payoffs and taxes. Public concern over climate is sinking. The science is increasingly acknowledged as being far from certain and even dubious. Scandals, while being denied, are clearly real. Claims of certainty are being endorsed by professional societies with no expertise (presumably under pressure from the environmental enthusiasts in the White House) while many actual scientists are acknowledging severe problems. The situation is quite a mess, and, I suspect that many politicians sense this. Supporting such legislation gets ever riskier. Atop all this, the developing world is more clearly and vocally identifying carbon control with attempts to stifle desperately needed development -- which is to say that the issue is developing a patina of profound immorality._ 
That was a quote by Richard Lindzen by the way that I cut and pasted here for your perusal. Just in case you thought I wrote it. 
And this is the where I cut and pasted it from if you would like to see more.Tom Nelson 
Happy?

----------


## woodbe

> You are quite right my views are well known here.   
> The demand for evidence (no science) etc prompted a bit of flourish of science thrown at you. Just to show you are completely wrong about lack of science that supports the skeptic view.

  What?  
Lemme see. Rod pops up a few random studies that individually or together do absolutely nothing to refute or debunk AGW, and it 'shows' we are completely wrong about science that supports the sceptic view? 
Try harder Rod, there must be some relevant science out there surely? 
The problem is that there is no easy way to kill off the AGW theory, because its based on science, and science is based on sceptical enquiry: think of a hypothesis and try and prove it wrong. 
Any hypothesis worth looking at is falsifiable. Ask yourself why the hypothesis you love to hate because of what you heard in the media has not been falsified yet. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Try harder Rod, there must be some relevant science out there surely?

   Youve touted yourself all throughout this thread as being objective and scientific Woodbe, but you are neither, and the evidence for that is right there in your tagline. Waiting for the sceptic response to this: A list of 32 organisations involved in both the denial campaign surrounding tobacco and that surrounding Anthropogenic Global Warming. . I showed how this was nothing but a logical fallacy in post 2272, page 152 of this thread (see the quote at the bottom of this post). I pointed out that no objective person would ever use such a weak fallacy as some kind of proof that AGW deniers are wrong, yet you cling to it tenaciously. . You didnt just use that line once. You pursued Rod with it relentlessly at the start, and then proudly placed it there in your tagline where it has remained ever since. You REALLY BELIEVE it is good, objective proof that ALL AGW deniers are wrong. . As far as proof is concerned, it is on the same level as, I met a French guy who was a fool, so all French people are fools. . Rod, Dr. Freud and myself linked you to hundreds of scientists and their arguments against AGW, and you whine about not being given any science. That, coupled with the logical fallacy you proudly display, shows, in my opinion, that you dont _really_ understand much about science, or the disciplines of science. You simply scoff and sneer, and thats about it. . Al Gore and Rudd, who know very little science, did a great deal of AGW touting, and how it was real, and were very good at scoffing at critics too, but they have both crawled away to hide since climate-gate. I guess the smartest warmers are all doing that now. Others will continue scoffing, but really, give us a break on the give me science routine. Youve had plenty, and you patently ignored it. . . . ================================= .   

> Woodbe has decided that because a small minority of anti-AGW people oppose some aspects of tobacco legislation, ALL anti-AGW people are wrong. He ignores the fact that in any large group of people there will be those who oppose some aspects of tobacco legislation, including those who support AGW. . .He is using the logical fallacy known as Guilt By Association.  Fallacy: Guilt By Association  Quote:  *Fallacy: Guilt By Association*   _Also Known as: Bad Company Fallacy, Company that You Keep Fallacy_   _Description of Guilt By Association_  Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:  It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.   Therefore P is false   It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."   The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.

  . . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> . .  Youve touted yourself all throughout this thread as being objective and scientific Woodbe, but you are neither, and the evidence for that is right there in your tagline. Waiting for the sceptic response to this: A list of 32 organisations involved in both the denial campaign surrounding tobacco and that surrounding Anthropogenic Global Warming. . I showed how this was nothing but a logical fallacy in post 2272, page 152 of this thread (see the quote at the bottom of this post). I pointed out that no objective person would ever use such a weak fallacy as some kind of proof that AGW deniers are wrong, yet you cling to it tenaciously. . You didnt just use that line once. You pursued Rod with it relentlessly at the start, and then proudly placed it there in your tagline where it has remained ever since. You REALLY BELIEVE it is good, objective proof that ALL AGW deniers are wrong. . As far as proof is concerned, it is on the same level as, I met a French guy who was a fool, so all French people are fools. . Rod, Dr. Freud and myself linked you to hundreds of scientists and their arguments against AGW, and you whine about not being given any science. That, coupled with the logical fallacy you proudly display, shows, in my opinion, that you dont _really_ understand much about science, or the disciplines of science. You simply scoff and sneer, and thats about it. . Al Gore and Rudd, who know very little science, did a great deal of AGW touting, and how it was real, and were very good at scoffing at critics too, but they have both crawled away to hide since climate-gate. I guess the smartest warmers are all doing that now. Others will continue scoffing, but really, give us a break on the give me science routine. Youve had plenty, and you patently ignored it. . . . ================================= .   . . . .

   :Welldone:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Hmm when Governments have no choice but to cut costs guess where they cut it first?  Christie cutting million for global warming prevention | Science updates | NewJerseyNewsroom.com -- Your State. Your News. 
LOL says a lot for the "if we don't stop CO2 we are doomed" crowd. I guess we will now all fry to hell.

----------


## woodbe

> 

  Leopards don't change their spots, but I guess there will always be a first time. 
Rod, if sceptics really want to combat the science, they will need to go back to basics and find new hypotheses that fit the evidence better than the best hypotheses that stand today. Pulling up a video of a plant growing faster in high CO2 does not refute AGW. Nor does a study showing it was warmer somewhere or other before, or a study showing that the temperature in Greenland is swimming against the tide. I'm sure sceptical scientists don't need any hints, but the basic hypotheses that would be worth debunking for a start are: "We are raising CO2 Levels", "CO2 traps heat" and "The planet is warming" 
Note that Greenland cooling is not evidence of the planet cooling unless the data from the rest of the planet also shows cooling - it doesn't.    _Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from_ _Domingues et al 2008__. 
Graphic and links courtesy of Skeptical Science_ 
woodbe.

----------


## dazzler

> Hmm when Governments have no choice but to cut costs guess where they cut it first?  Christie cutting million for global warming prevention | Science updates | NewJerseyNewsroom.com -- Your State. Your News. 
> LOL says a lot for the "if we don't stop CO2 we are doomed" crowd. I guess we will now all fry to hell.

  Do you actually read these things you link to Rod? Seriously........ 
If you read the text the decision by the governor is to reduce the massive debt that the state of New Jersey has.  This has been met with the following (from the text);  _"Governor Christie has announced that he will cut money (the $65 million) for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and $68 million in programs funded by RGGI will be eliminated,'' Tittel said. 
RGGI, a compact with multiple states in the Northeast, was established to create programs that reduce the greenhouse gas footprint. Programs help pay for clean energy programs that reduce carbon and create jobs. 
Tittel charged that by cutting the fund, the governor is hurting the environment and keeping green jobs out of the state. 
"When it comes to clean energy and reducing greenhouse gases, this budget shows the governor is full of hot air," Tittel said. "He keeps taking money away from green jobs and clean energy programs, undermining the environment and costing us jobs as well. 
"DEP is at its lowest level of funding in more than 25 years," Tittel said. "There won't be enough people at DEP to issue the permits required to protect public health and the environment and ensure that our economy gets going."_ 
One would imagine that the voters of the state will have to decide whether the Governor has done the right thing or not.   
Instead of "LOL says a lot for the "if we don't stop CO2 we are doomed" crowd" it says a lot for the political will, or lack there of, to make the hard decisions in hard times.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Leopards don't change their spots, but I guess there will always be a first time. 
> Rod, if sceptics really want to combat the science, they will need to go back to basics and find new hypotheses that fit the evidence better than the best hypotheses that stand today. woodbe.

  Woodbe, it is up to the warmist to verify their own hypotheses, not for skeptics to come up with a new one.  First you have to demonstate there is actually a problem you cant do that, the evidence is just not there.  You come up with masses of circumstantial evidence that you say verifies your hypotheses but it just doesn't do it.   
You cant see that? You have to be blind not to see that nothing produced so far validates the AGW hypotheses. You can't point to a single thing that is un-precedented and could ONLY be caused by AGW.  
Your "world" and science is built on a bed of sand, which is fast eroding away. Science you say, show me science that validates your theory! it does not exist.  
The only thing that will falsify the AGW theses is time.  When we don't fry and the temperatures fluctuate back with a cooler climate, when the Artic ice refuses to dissapear, when we find that we still have a winter every year, (jump on that one lol) When the polar bears refuse to die, .............. etc etc. When the temperatures refuse to keep rising as the models tell us. Then even the die hards like you will have to give it up. 
So many failed predictions already shows that the dire warnings have been a farce. 
Mean while as all these things and more that are mentioned refuse to happen the more logical people are leaving your church in droves.  Public opinion on AGW is in freefall and you will rarely see converts from skeptic to warmist but you will see many more skeptics as time rolls on.  
Yes even you will eventually have to be honest and say, well we made a mistake we really thought we were right.  
You have a bit of cheer in the thought that you were convinced you were doing the right thing.  Just miss-guided I guess.  Like the movie not evil just wrong.   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Do you actually read these things you link to Rod? Seriously........ 
> If you read the text the decision by the governor is to reduce the massive debt that the state of New Jersey has. This has been met with the following (from the text);  _"Governor Christie has announced that he will cut money (the $65 million) for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and $68 million in programs funded by RGGI will be eliminated,'' Tittel said._  _RGGI, a compact with multiple states in the Northeast, was established to create programs that reduce the greenhouse gas footprint. Programs help pay for clean energy programs that reduce carbon and create jobs._  _Tittel charged that by cutting the fund, the governor is hurting the environment and keeping green jobs out of the state._  _"When it comes to clean energy and reducing greenhouse gases, this budget shows the governor is full of hot air," Tittel said. "He keeps taking money away from green jobs and clean energy programs, undermining the environment and costing us jobs as well._  _"DEP is at its lowest level of funding in more than 25 years," Tittel said. "There won't be enough people at DEP to issue the permits required to protect public health and the environment and ensure that our economy gets going."_ 
> One would imagine that the voters of the state will have to decide whether the Governor has done the right thing or not.  
> Instead of "LOL says a lot for the "if we don't stop CO2 we are doomed" crowd" it says a lot for the political will, or lack there of, to make the hard decisions in hard times.

  Yes I read it and my thoughts on it have not changed.  There is no political will for they know that it will destroy them.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe, it is up to the warmist to verify their own hypotheses, not for skeptics to come up with a new one.

  You haven't been paying attention, have you? 
Sceptical Inquiry _is_ the scientific process. The scientists that put the pieces of AGW together have scoured their ideas to falsify their hypotheses. They can't falsify it, they haven't been able to, neither have the sceptics. They would welcome the opportunity. Can you imagine the kudos you would get for publishing a new hypothesis explaining the evidence better than AGW? 
I'm happy to change my tune Rod, but not because I want to (and I do) I will change it when the hypotheses are falsified by peer reviewed science. I envy you being able to believe its all bunkum on the basis of the denier opinion sites and media, but it I can't do that.  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'm happy to change my tune Rod, but not because I want to (and I do) I will change it when the hypotheses are falsified by peer reviewed science. I envy you being able to believe its all bunkum on the basis of the denier opinion sites and media, but it I can't do that.  
> woodbe.

  It is very easy once you realize that the AGW theory cannot be falsified by science nor can it be proven.  So then you have to consider things on the balance of probabilities given the evidence you have.  The best evidence we have is to compare empirical evidence with the projections of the hypotheses, in this case it is just not stacking up.   
Mainly due to the fact that, contrary to what Alarmists will tell us, nothing in the current climate is out of the ordinary.  We are yet to experience any climatic event that has not happened at some point in the past, without the help of human CO2.  
Yet AGW theory, (models) tell us we should. This it is not happening yet and nothing points to it happening in the future. 
Name me one climatic event that has not happened in the past? 
Show me where temperatures are following the IPCC predictions over the past 10 years or so? Can you verify that the temperature record is in fact as accurate as they claim? You can say it is but you can't verify it. So all your trust is in the sciientist that tell us it is, even though "climategate" like it or not has given us a glimpse of their attitude to accuracy and truth.  Even if you believe them you still can not verify it. 
So much is being spent on this that could be spent on REAL problems it makes me sick.  Money is being diverted from real life and death issues to support this, that cannot be verified as true, worse still empirical evidence is stacking up against it every year.   
I shake my head, it is shameful.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Woodbe, it is up to the warmist to verify their own hypotheses, not for skeptics to come up with a new one. First you have to demonstate there is actually a problem you cant do that, the evidence is just not there. You come up with masses of circumstantial evidence that you say verifies your hypotheses but it just doesn't do it.  
> You cant see that? You have to be blind not to see that nothing produced so far validates the AGW hypotheses. You can't point to a single thing that is un-precedented and could ONLY be caused by AGW.

   

> You haven't been paying attention, have you? 
> Sceptical Inquiry _is_ the scientific process. The scientists that put the pieces of AGW together have scoured their ideas to falsify their hypotheses. They can't falsify it, they haven't been able to, neither have the sceptics. They would welcome the opportunity. Can you imagine the kudos you would get for publishing a new hypothesis explaining the evidence better than AGW? 
> I'm happy to change my tune Rod, but not because I want to (and I do) I will change it when the hypotheses are falsified by peer reviewed science. I envy you being able to believe its all bunkum on the basis of the denier opinion sites and media, but it I can't do that.  
> woodbe.

  It is great that we can all agree that AGW Theory has not been disproved (yet  :Biggrin: ), but a balanced assessment would also note that it has not been proved either.  Therefore, it is still just a theory, like the countless others out there. 
But there is no evidence proving AGW Theory.  
Just a reminder of this simplified explanation below.      

> Unfortunately, many protagonists of AGW Theory still make the false assumption that refuting your opponents argument then proves your own (not that the temperature inaccuracies argument has even been refuted mind you).     This is a simplified version of the scientific method:   1. I develop a theory;   2. I do everything I can to refute (disprove) my theory;   3. If I cannot refute it, I then do everything I can to prove my theory;   4. After I prove my theory, I provide ALL my work to others to refute my theory (just in case I missed anything);   5. If no-one can refute my proven theory, it becomes a scientific fact, principle or law.   The IPCC has not gone through this process (see climategate) but the world is currently teetering between step 2 and step 3.  Please understand this, until AGW Theory is proved, it does not matter what sceptics say about the theory, it is still a theory.  I can say that the tooth fairy told me that AGW Theory was false.  If someone proves the tooth fairy doesnt exist, that does not prove AGW Theory (i.e. criticising an opponent at step 2 doesnt automatically transfer the theory to step 5).   All my posts are designed to do is make people realise that this theory has not been proven, contrary to many claims by reputable scientists.  I am happy to argue about evidence indicating support for or detracting from the AGW Theory, but it is still just a theory.

    :Happydance:  
I don't think I've ever been to a "denier opinion site", whatever that is, but the reason I know this theory has not been proven is called the scientific method, not because of the media (certainly not the media  :No: ) or a "denier opinion site". 
Note to self: Google "denier opinion site", might be some good stuff there? :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Note to self: Google "denier opinion site", might be some good stuff there?

  Two results included for bottom of page suggestions:  Searches related to _denier opinion site_  *climate change* denier*  holocaust* denier 
Says it all really, sticks and stones hey gents.  :Kiss:

----------


## Dr Freud

Nice work on the irrelevant tagline again, but in defence of Woodbe's taglines, I'm rather proud that I've been admission of the week for lot's of weeks now.  :2thumbsup:  
I'm hoping my link has been getting lots of traffic so people can read the post in full:   

> I'll go a paragraph at time otherwise I'll get confused.  Still a bit sleep deprived from last nights effort.  
> Para 1. Sceptics do not need any science.  They are not purporting anything.  They can heckle and jeer from the sidelines to their hearts content.  The onus is on the proponent(s) of a theory to prove it scientifically.  Should a sceptic have the motivation, they may try to disprove a theory, but then they will also have to do this scientifically. 
> Para 2. Wholeheartedly agree, this does not change the report, because it still does not prove AGW Theory. 
> Para 3. Once again, lots of heckling and jeering going on, but it's easy to do this with ideologies and much more difficult to do this with hard science. 
> Para 4. Sceptics do not need a magic bullet, there is nothing to shoot at. 
> Para 5. Apologies for the lack of clarity, I was not trying to say that the IPCC has received all of this funding, I was referring to sum total of expenditure into this area of research globally over time, which is unprecedented in human history.  See  herefor an idea of just some of the dollars being spent.

  Astute readers may recognise some of this from two posts ago. 
I guess it is balanced in a way, as one tagline refers to parts of the scientific method, while the other is irrelevant obfuscation of the scientific method.  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

Hey, just noted the third tagline. 
I've met Kev too.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> Hey, just noted the third tagline. 
> I've met Kev too.

  haha. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, but nice one anyway!   

> The IPCC has  not gone through this process (see climategate) but the world is  currently teetering between step 2 and step 3.

  Of course the IPCC has not gone through this process. It works with the science but it doesn't create it. If you attack the IPCC, you are attacking their reports, not the underlying science. But you knew that. 
Thanks for reposting your post about the scientific process. I only wish Rod would read and understand it. I do need to give Rod some credit though, he just came out with this:   

> It is very easy once you realize that the AGW theory cannot be *falsified*  by science nor can it be proven.

  So at least he is becoming familiar with the language, hopefully he will begin to understand it, and the implications of a long standing hypothesis that no-one has been able to falsify. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

The IPPC report card is in. 
The result  FAILSee full report here.  IPCC Report Card - the 2007 climate bible (AR4)

----------


## dazzler

HI Rod 
Can you show me in the link how to read where it is not from a peer reviewed paper.  When I click on the links it takes you to the IPCC page but cant find where it says its not from a peer reviewed paper. 
Just havent trouble reading it.

----------


## chrisp

> The IPPC report card is in. 
> The result  FAILSee full report here.  IPCC Report Card - the 2007 climate bible (AR4)

  Rod, 
An interesting article.  Did you look deeper? 
I had a look at some of there examples - I tried to find a local one.  For example, the site states:"5,587 references in the IPCC  report were not  peer-reviewed. Among these documents are  press  releases, newspaper  and magazine   articles,  discussion  papers,  MA and PhD  theses,  working  papers,  and  advocacy literature published by   environmental groups." 
(from: Main Findings of the Citizen Audit of the 2007 IPCC report ) I followed the 'press release' link to see some examples.  One (local) one quoted is:*"Working Group2, Chapter 11* *Premier of Victoria*, 2006: Ballarats   future water supplies secured by major Bracks government action plan. Media  release, 17 October 2006.   http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/newsroom/news_item.asp?id=978. AR4 WGII Chapter 11: Australia and New Zealand - 11. ReferencesRelevant paragraph at:   http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-2-5.html "Find the relevant part of the IPCC report that used this reference leads me to: Table 11.2. Examples of government adaptation  strategies to cope with water shortages in Australia.  *Victoria* *New pipeline from Bendigo to Ballarat, water  recycling, interconnections between dams, reducing channel seepage,  conservation measures* *US$153 million by  2015* *Premier of Victoria, 2006* (from: AR4 WGII Chapter 11: Australia and New Zealand - 11.2.5 Current adaptation ) 
Hang on, the example is from *Working Group II (WG2)* "_assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate  change, negative and positive consequences of climate change, and options for  adapting to it._"  *This isn't the science of climate change - the science is Working Group I (WG1).* 
Clicking on the various links for examples of 'non peer reviewed' literature on gives examples form WG2 and WG3 - the non scientific WGs. 
Interestingly, the only examples provided for 'non peer reviewed' references to WG1 are in the 'theses' link.  But hang on, who assesses the these higher degree dissertations - wouldn't be _peers_ would it. 
It would seem to me that "*noconsensus*" is one of those 'special interest' groups who are trying to confuse the general public with poorly researched 'audits' - I'd give them a *"FAIL"*.

----------


## woodbe

Chrisp, you're right. its all smoke and mirrors. 
As you can see, Rod's link gives high marks for the IPCC Working Group 1. Every score is a B or higher, more than half get an A. So even the sceptics agree that the science is sound, who would have thought?     _source: noconsensus.org_  
That makes it a  CREDIT 
I think Rod got confused because all the bad marks are at the top and he probably didn't realise that they were for the non-science working groups. (or maybe he didn't read all of the page, wouldn't be the first time) Don't feel bad Rod, the same error was made by the people exaggerating the impact of the two sentences in the report dealing with the Himalayan Glaciers. That wasn't in WG1 either. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Of course the IPCC has not gone through this process. It works with the science but it doesn't create it. If you attack the IPCC, you are attacking their reports, not the underlying science. But you knew that. 
> woodbe.

  Well actually I was explaining (attacking?) that both the IPCC and all its minions (underlying science) have not gone through this process, or held others accountable to it.  If they had, the theory would either be proved or disproved.  They haven't gone through this, that's why it's just another theory.  I could have detailed how Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Michael Oppenheimer, Stephen Schneider, Kevin Trenberth, etc, etc has not gone through this process, but my posts are tedious enough, so I use the IPCC as my "all the usual suspects" banner.  Crude and inaccurate I know, but you guys are now holding up the IPCC's failure to meet it's own standards as a creditworthy effort, so I guess the bar is set pretty low now.  :Biggrin:  
For what it's worth, it's possible the non-peer reviewed stuff in the IPCC reports could actually be it's saving grace, given the revelations of how the "peer review" system has been corrupted.  I particularly liked the WWF submissions, I kept hoping to find links to Hulk Hogan pile driving Al Gore.  :Biggrin:  
But being serious for a moment, nah, better do that in another post, I've lowered the tone of this one too far.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The IPPC report card is in. 
> The result  FAILSee full report here.  IPCC Report Card - the 2007 climate bible (AR4)

  Great post Rod.  It shows what frauds the IPCC (and its minions) are about all the "peer review" hoopla they carry on about.  As I said above, I don't put much weight in this process in the climate research area anyway, given their self-confessed corruption of this process.  But it is the standard the IPCC set for themselves, and yes FAILED to achieve.  But let's break down the WG's found here   and see what they do.  _"The IPCC Working Group I (WG I) assesses the physical scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change._  _The main topics assessed by WG I include:  changes in greenhouse gases and aerosols in the atmosphere; observed changes in air, land and ocean temperatures, rainfall, glaciers and ice sheets, oceans and sea level; historical and paleoclimatic perspective on climate change; biogeochemistry, carbon cycle, gases and aerosols; satellite data and other data; climate models; climate projections, causes and attribution of climate change"_  
This is the Climategate group, which still just flogs their theory, but somehow these enviro-political types have an opinion we are the sole reason for this planet warming an alleged 0.5 of a degree celsius over 150 years. :Eek:    _"The IPCC Working Group II (WG II) assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change, and options for adapting to it._ _It also takes into consideration the inter-relationship between vulnerability, adaptation and sustainable development. The assessed information is considered by sectors (water resources; ecosystems; food & forests; coastal systems; industry; human health) and regions (Africa; Asia; Australia & New Zealand; Europe; Latin America; North America; Polar Regions; Small Islands)."_  
This is the causal group.  You can't mention anything to them at a barbecue, because they'll tell you "climate change caused it".  Rod's excellent post here  recently encapsulated the spirit of this group.  If you're ever charged with a crime, hire these guys, they'll convince anyone that climate change did it.  :Biggrin:    _"The IPCC Working Group III (WG III) assesses options for mitigating climate change through limiting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing activities that remove them from the atmosphere._ _The main economic sectors are taken into account, both in a near-term and in a long-term perspective. The sectors include energy, transport, buildings, industry, agriculture, forestry, waste management. The WG analyses the costs and benefits of the different approaches to mitigation, considering also the available instruments and policy measures. The approach is more and more solution-oriented."_ 
This is my favourite group, the "Justin Case" group.  IF the opinions of the dudes in group one are right, and IF the opinions in group two are right, then we should do this stuff to stop it.  Must be a good day at the office figuring out how to fix hypothetical symptoms to a hypothetical problem with hypothetical solutions.  No wonder these guys don't get paid.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  
Personally, I think group three is the most potentially damaging, as the first two just rant and rave about the end of the world as we know it.  But group three actually has (had?) convinced people like RUDD that increasing our taxes will cool down this planet.  :Wtf3:  
Apologies, didn't raise the tone much, did I?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

In Iceland, around 800 people have been evacuated from around the Eyjafjallajokull volcano as the heat is melting glacial ice, causing flooding.  Group two will try to claim the volcano, but eventually only take the glacial ice melt as being caused by AGW Theory.  Great negotiators.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> This is my favourite group, the "Justin Case" group. IF the opinions of the dudes in group one are right, and IF the opinions in group two are right, then we should do this stuff to stop it. Must be a good day at the office figuring out how to fix hypothetical symptoms to a hypothetical problem with hypothetical solutions. No wonder these guys don't get paid.  
> Personally, I think group three is the most potentially damaging, as the first two just rant and rave about the end of the world as we know it. But group three actually has (had?) convinced people like RUDD that increasing our taxes will cool down this planet.

  Nice work Doc

----------


## woodbe

> Well actually I was explaining (attacking?) that both the IPCC and all its minions (underlying science) have not gone through this process, or held others accountable to it.  If they had, *the theory would either be proved or disproved*.  They haven't gone through this, that's why it's just another theory.

  
Here we go again. Word games. Dr Freud purports to understand the Scientific Process, but yet he expects it to deliver things it never has. 
Any accepted scientific hypothesis will never be 100% proven in the eyes of science. There is always a small chance that the hypothesis will be falsified by new evidence or a better hypothesis. 
What Dr Freud asks, can never be delivered. 
On Rod's link, the science (WG1) got an A or a B. Coming from a sceptic site, it's pretty clear that the IPCC 'minions' did go through the scientific process in the original research. Worth noting that these 'minions' do not work for the IPCC. 
But we know all this. We know the IPCC is not doing science, and we know that the original science supporting AGW stands accepted by the broad scientific community because it has not been falsified. ('disproven', if you like, Dr Freud).  
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> On Rod's link, the science (WG1) got an A or a B. Coming from a sceptic site, it's pretty clear that the IPCC 'minions' did go through the scientific process in the original research.

  But to add to that, the only examples given on the *noconsensus* website of non-peer review references for WG1 are higher degree dissertations.  These are examined by peers!  What is noconsensus's definition of non-peer reviewed?

----------


## andy the pm

> What is noconsensus's definition of non-peer reviewed?

  
I doubt they can agree on that.... :Biggrin:

----------


## Allen James

.
. _I predicted this whitewash (on this thread) back when they announced who would be doing the whitewashing_ . Telegragh *Climategate: CRU whiter than  er  whitewash, as world laughs at AGW scam apologists* .
By *Gerald Warner* April 14th, 2010 . Well, we all knew it would be a second whitewash of CRU and its climate alarmist pseudo-data; but even the most hard-headed sceptics among us probably thought that Lord Oxburghs inquiry would be a tad more sophisticated in its brushwork, that it would make some effort to persuade rather than patronise, that its bland conclusions would be a little less blatant and in-your-face. . Not so. If you want incontrovertible evidence that it is business as usual for the arrogant academic establishment, today has provided it. In the popular jargon, they still dont get it. They imagine the AGW scam will go on forever, along with all the other lies with which the political class deluges the public. This effort is too sloppy really to merit the term whitewash: the sceptical graffiti are still clearly visible through the transparent white coating. . We found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention, said Oxburgh. I love that. It paints a moving (in the way a Disney animated cartoon is tear-jerking) picture of some loveable boffins, unversed in the ways of the world, being dragged out, blinking, into the glare of publicity, like embarrassed lottery winners. All it needs is Snow White. Here were we thinking that Phil Jones was a ruthless manipulator blocking the publication of colleagues sceptical views, but he turns out to be Susan Boyle in a white coat. . Predictably (most sceptical commentators could have written the text in advance) Oxburgh found absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever. He added: Whatever was said in the e-mails, the basic science seems to have been done honestly and fairly. I get it. They spent every day working with impeccable integrity and objectivity to produce absolutely accurate and unchallengeable data; then they went onto their computers for relaxation and played a daft game in which they pretended to hide the decline, try the Nature trick and censor the publication of conflicting views. . Then, realising that outsiders might mistake this practical joke for the real thing, they exchanged panicky messages urging one another to delete e-mails. That does not quite explain why they also resisted Freedom of Information requests for access to their impeccable data, so we must attribute that to the natural shyness of these timid woodland creatures, as depicted by Lord Oxburgh. . Clearly, Lord Oxburgh is a safe pair of hands. He sounds like the kind of chap who could rehabilitate the Piltdown Man. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is having a good belly-laugh at British academic standards: the CRU  and now Lord Oxburgh and Co  have made our scientists a global laughing stock. . For sheer chutzpah, though, I take my hat off to Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science. This jester now says: I think those so-called sceptics who have attempted to undermine the credibility of climate change science on the basis of the hacked e-mails now need to apologise for misleading the public about their significance. . Clearly, the AGW camp takes a dim view of misleading the public. Is it just my irredeemable scepticism, or am I right in forecasting that the CRU is not about to receive many apologies? Globally, slightly more people currently believe the world is supported on the back of a giant turtle than believe in the AGW scam. Never mind, lads and lasses at CRU: on with the motley, back to the computer model and keep your spirits up. Hide the decline! Erase all e-mails! Peer review (its been endorsed by all my pals) is infallible. Weather is not climate. Four legs good, two legs bad . Now that the House of Commons and Lord Oxburgh have strutted their stuff, there remains a third whitewash  sorry, independent review  to come, conducted by Sir Muir Russell. This blog announces a competition. Readers are invited to submit selections of clichés, exculpatory phrases that they expect will occur in the third report. Those whose predictions come closest to the actual wording in the published document will be acclaimed here and will receive a magnum of champagne from James Delingpole (I made that last bit up). So, lets have your submissions, please. . . Whole article: . http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100034453/climategate-cru-whiter-than-er-whitewash-as-world-laughs-at-agw-scam-apologists/ .
.
.

----------


## Allen James

. . *Investor's Business Daily: Climategate Gets a Whitewash* . By Tim Graham 17 April 2010 .  The editorial page at Investor's Business Daily noticed what the major media ignored or downplayed, once again: the latest Climategate development. They headlined their Friday editorial "Climategate Gets a Whitewash." The University of East Anglia commissioned two independent inquiries into what became known as the Climate-gate scandal. But just how "independent" was the latest report? IBD wasn't impressed with the five-page report that found no deceitful practices:  . The sugarcoated report should be no surprise. The probe was conducted by *Lord Oxburgh*, an academic who was briefly chairman of Shell. He is now, according to the Financial Post, chair of Falck Renewables, a firm that has wind farms across Europe, and chair of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, "a lobby group which argues that carbon capture could become a $1 trillion industry by 2050." . Imagine that. A man with a financial interest in companies that would benefit from efforts to arrest man-made global warming is asked to look into the possible scientific malpractice of researchers whose conclusions are favorable to his business concerns. . Oxburgh is a man of clear bias who should have never been allowed to be near the probe. Six years ago, he told the British press that "if we don't have (carbon) sequestration, I see very little hope for the world." In fact, he said he was "really very worried for the planet," without large-scale sequestration. . Three years later he said, "We are sleepwalking" into a global warming disaster of such proportion that the world might need "regulations which impose very severe penalties on people who emit more than specified amounts of greenhouse gases." . Yes, just the man to have in charge of an investigation of researchers who seem more concerned with politics than science. . . . Article continues here: . . Investor's Business Daily: Climategate Gets a Whitewash | NewsBusters.org . .  Another good article on this here: . http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/15/wh...is-quick-work/ .
. .

----------


## Dr Freud

> In Iceland, around 800 people have been evacuated from around the Eyjafjallajokull volcano as the heat is melting glacial ice, causing flooding.  Group two will try to claim the volcano, but eventually only take the glacial ice melt as being caused by AGW Theory.  Great negotiators.

  Yes, it didnt take the group 2 types long to crank up the fear campaign again, rolling out the same old garbage.  I always love the way they use the word causes with no hint of sarcasm.  The less inquiring minds could be fooled into thinking a causal relationship had been established.  Apparently this volcano wasnt caused by AGW Theory, but its a convenient time to remind plenty will be in the future. __  _Ice cap thaw may awaken Icelandic volcanoes _  _By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent Fri Apr 16, 7:06 pm ET _  _OSLO (Reuters)  A thaw of Iceland's ice caps in coming decades caused by climate change may trigger more volcanic eruptions by removing a vast weight and freeing magma from deep below ground, scientists said on Friday. _  _"Our work suggests that eventually there will be either somewhat larger eruptions or more frequent eruptions in Iceland in coming decades," said Freysteinn Sigmundsson, a vulcanologist at the University of Iceland.  "Global warming melts ice and this can influence magmatic systems," he told Reuters. The end of the Ice Age 10,000 years ago coincided with a surge in volcanic activity in Iceland, apparently because huge ice caps thinned and the land rose. _  _Carolina Pagli, a geophysicist at the University of Leeds in England, said there were risks that climate change could also trigger volcanic eruptions or earthquakes in places such as Mount Erebus in Antarctica, the Aleutian islands of Alaska or Patagonia in South America. _  _"The effects would be biggest with ice-capped volcanoes," she said. "If you remove a load that is big enough you will also have an effect at depths on magma production."  She and Sigmundsson wrote a 2008 paper in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters about possible links between global warming and Icelandic volcanoes. _  _He said that melting ice seemed the main way in which climate change, blamed mainly on use of fossil fuels, could have knock-on effects on geology. The U.N. climate panel says that global warming will cause more floods, droughts and rising seas._    So you see, if you don't turn your tv off at the power point, you will cause more of this:      
Betcha feel guilty about leaving the fridge on during Earth Hour now, huh!  :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Betcha feel guilty about leaving the fridge on during Earth Hour now, huh!

  Not at all Doc.  Cranked up every light in the house. Just love being a rebel.

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> Not at all Doc. Cranked up every light in the house. Just love being a rebel.

  Yep - it's a good time to switch all internal and external lights on, along with TVs, stereos, etc.   .
Christmas lights blinking outside aint a bad idea either.  :Biggrin:  . . .

----------


## Allen James

. . Top Scientists Rush To Defend Discredited Theory Of 'Runaway' Global Warming . 17 April 2010 . . Excerpt: . . *Myth:* _". . . neither recent controversies [Climategate e-mails], nor the recent cold weather, negate the consensus among scientists: something unprecedented is now happening. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising and climate change is occurring, both due to human actions."_ . *Fact:* First, there is no so-called "consensus among scientists." More than 31,400 American scientists, 9,029 with PhD degrees and 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth and environmental sciences, have signed a petition urging the United States government to reject any cap-and-trade agreement placing limits on greenhouse gas emissions. . According to the petition, "The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. . "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." . Moreover, scientific inquiry is not based on "consensus." If it were, science still would be wedded to Ptolemy's theory placing the earth at the center of the universe, with the sun, moon, planets, and stars revolving about it in circular orbits. His theory was the consensus belief of the time. . Real science is driven by investigation, not consensus. Scientists develop a hypothesis, which is subjected to rigorous testing. Eventually it may evolve into a formal theory, which is exposed to further testing and experimentation by scientists determined to challenge or disprove it. . Unlike their "consensus" brethren, scientists worthy of the label carefully search for data that might actually contradict their theory so they can test it further or refine it. The "science is settled" soothsayers, on the other hand, select only data that tends to support their theory, while steadfastly ignoring any data that disagrees with it. The AGW-consensus-bound scientists are not practicing science; they are pushing advocacy. . . . Whole article: . Top Scientists Rush To Defend Discredited Theory Of 'Runaway' Global Warming | Energy & Environment . . . .

----------


## Allen James

. . Regarding the petition against AGW mentioned in my post above, you can see the entire list of *31,486* American *Scientist* signatories,* 9,029* of whom have *PHD’s*, here. See the *qualifications* of all the signers, here. . [In case this is archived and links are lost, the long address for the site, minus the www, is: petitionproject.org/index.php ] . . The red faced “All Scientists agree with AGW” climate alarmists can read this and weep.  :Redface:   :Redface:   :Redface:  . . Quote: . . Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.   The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,714 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.   All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.   The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.  Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.  1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,804 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.  2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.   3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.  4. Chemistry includes 4,821 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.  5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.  6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.  7. Engineering and general science includes 10,103 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs. . . . .

----------


## woodbe

*Response by the University of East Anglia to the  Report by Lord Oxburghs Science Assessment Panel* Link  

> Conclusions
> 1.    We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal. 
> 2.    We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists. 
> 3.    It was not the immediate concern of the Panel, but we observed that there were important and unresolved questions that related to the availability of environmental data sets. It was pointed out that since UK government adopted a policy that resulted in charging for access to data sets collected by government agencies, other countries have followed suit impeding the flow of processed and raw data to and between researchers. This is unfortunate and seems inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere in government. 
> 4.    A host of important unresolved questions also arises from the application of Freedom of Information legislation in an academic context. We agree with the CRU view that the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties should stay with those who collected it.

  Worth reading the whole report, its not entirely positive towards the CRU, but it also does not find against the scientists or their work. 
I believe that is 2 reviews completed out of 3, and so far we have no supportable claims of scientific malpractice. Of course this will not be enough for the sceptics here as their kangaroo court has already passed its judgement without considering all of the information. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Worth reading the whole report, its not entirely positive towards the CRU, but it also does not find against the scientists or their work. 
> I believe that is 2 reviews completed out of 3, and so far we have no supportable claims of scientific malpractice.  
> woodbe.

   :Rotfl:   Seeing as you are so concerned about propriety in these matters, such as linking tobacco funders and oil companies to all skeptics, in some sort of conflict of interest, it is interesting you mention nothing of your Lord Oxburghs funding sources.   Personally, I dont care who pays him as hes full of it, but funding sources seems to be a passion of yours so let me get you started in your digging.   This is from wikipedia:   _In March 2010, he was appointed as the chairman of an inquiry into the research conducted by the Climatic Research Unit following the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident.[6] The report, released 14 April, 2010, exonerated the CRU scientists of malpractice. Critics asserted Oxburgh's ties with businesses that stood to profit from the decision created a conflict of interest.[7] Specifically, he is honorary president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association,[8]chairman of Falck Renewables, a wind energy firm,[9] an advisor to Climate Change Capital, and a director of GLOBE, the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment.[10] _   _The University of East Anglia did not see any conflict of interest.[11]_   This is from Falck renewables:   _Falck Renewables is an innovative wind energy company headquartered in London, England. Founded in 2002, its objective is to play a major role in responding to the growing problem of climate change attributed to greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, Falck wind farms in operation and construction represent a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of approximately 1 million tonnes annually.  
  The company is active in four core markets: the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, and France, with over 400 MW in operation or construction. Significant future growth is expected in both core and new markets, supported by a large development pipeline and Falcks network of joint development ventures with world class local developers._   Gee, I wonder if these findings might contribute to this significant future growth.   Maybe the UEA lost his CV with these details on it.  They are such hardworking professional scientists, they often lose or throw out these insignificant details.   But happy hunting champ, give us a yell if you dig up anything you feel might be a conflict of interest.  Then maybe we could refer it to someone independent to confirm if it is a conflict of interest.  I think Michael Mann at Realclimate would give us a balanced assessment?

----------


## Dr Freud

Love to stay and chat lads, but I'm really worried about my computers carbon emissions setting off volcanoes around the Planet.   :Blowup:  
I don't think I could sleep with a volcanic eruption on my conscience.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> Seeing as you are so concerned about propriety in these matters, such as linking tobacco funders and oil companies to all skeptics, in some sort of conflict of interest, it is interesting you mention nothing of your Lord Oxburghs funding sources.

     

> The Panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct. Rather it was asked to come to a view on the integrity of the Units research and whether as far as could be determined the conclusions represented an honest and scientifically justified interpretation of the data. The Panel worked by examining representative publications by members of the Unit and subsequently by making two visits to the University and interviewing and questioning members of the Unit. Not all the panel were present on both occasions but two members were present on both occasions to maintain continuity. About fifteen person/days were spent at the University discussing the Units work.

  The enquiry was not about whether CRU's results were correct, it was about whether they had followed scientific process. Whether the many claims from sceptics that they had fraudulently changed the data to support an unsupportable hypothesis was correct. To do that, you need specialists, namely scientists to examine the methods and report on them. You can finger Lord Oxburgh for having pro AGW personal opinions and interests, but this was a panel not an individual report, and it is still the second report to find that these claims of fraud are without foundation.   

> The Panels work began with a detailed reading of the published work. Every paper was read by a minimum of three Panel members at least one of whom was familiar with the general area to which the paper related. At least one of the other two was a generalist with no special climate science expertise but with experience of some of the general techniques and methods employed in the work. Most of the members of the Panel read all the publications. The publications provided a platform from which to gain a deeper understanding of the Units research and enabled the Panel to probe particular questions in more detail.

  So the members of the panel got into the CRU research and familiarised themselves with it before visiting the CRU and then interviewing the CRU scientists "About fifteen person/days were spent at the University discussing the Units work." 
So when the third report comes out, and doesn't support the allegations of fraud, it will be universally hailed as rubbish by the sceptics. What a surprise. Even so, the CRU is not the only source of research supporting AGW, there are thousands of them. What this whole sideshow ignores is that there are multiple studies using independent data arriving at the same conclusions.  
The science still stands. The floor is open. Where are the published scientific studies showing an alternative hypothesis? 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> The science still stands.

   Yes, it's a standing joke.  :Biggrin:  . The only science Woodbe is interested in is the phony science that supports his climate alarm myth. Just as he likes to pretend I don’t exist, so he tries to pretend the science that debunks AGW doesn’t exist. . This article explains what it is like for scientists or academics trying to correct errors made by the IPCC: . http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-cont...atekeeping.pdf .  First the climate alarmists refuse to look at real science, and then they pretend it doesn't exist. .  .

----------


## Rod Dyson

Some more cut and paste reading for you. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...yopia_talk.pdf 
Love to get your opinion of this Woodbe, particularly the very last page.

----------


## chrisp

> Some more cut and paste reading for you. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...yopia_talk.pdf 
> Love to get your opinion of this Woodbe, particularly the very last page.

  Rod, 
I hope you don't mind, but I had a look too. 
The last page of the pdf file is:*Burden of proof in science*  It is for those that propose a claim or problem to show all evidence and proof for their proposition.It is not for the skeptical scientists to prove their proposition is wrong or internally-consistent.The pseudo-scientific ground of precaution does not apply and must not be tolerated based on emotions or popularity contestsThe overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that gloabl warming is happening.  If the 'sceptical' scientists feel that this is wrong, then they need to prove the science to the contrary.   
As far as 'emotion' is concerned, I'd hang the 'emotion' tag on the group who refuse to acknowledge the accepted science.  :Smilie:  
BTW, I had a quick look through the other pages too.  One big error jumped out at me - the CO2 concentration graph at Salt Lake City that showed the CO2 spikes.  The author obviously has very little understanding of how scientists measure the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. 
BTW2 - what is _your_ opinion on the link you provided?  Why not express your own opinion rather than present bits and pieces of information from the web and ask for someone else's opinion?

----------


## dazzler

> BTW2 - what is _your_ opinion on the link you provided?  Why not express your own opinion rather than present bits and pieces of information from the web and ask for someone else's opinion?

  Well it would be a damn short thread then  :Wink:

----------


## dazzler

Keeping in the spirit of things, how amazing is this;  Proof Aliens Exist - Alien abduction videos that tell the stories of victims of UFO encounters in their own words and provide proof aliens exist. 
Its on the net....damn, must be true..... :Rolleyes:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> BTW2 - what is _your_ opinion on the link you provided? Why not express your own opinion rather than present bits and pieces of information from the web and ask for someone else's opinion?

  This has been prepared by scientist so in woodbe's words I have to trust a scientist!!!   Or is the opinion of a scientist that does not agree with your theory not worthy to listen to? It certainly cast further doubt on the claims that AGW is a serious threat. 
Hows That?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Keeping in the spirit of things, how amazing is this;  Proof Aliens Exist - Alien abduction videos that tell the stories of victims of UFO encounters in their own words and provide proof aliens exist. 
> Its on the net....damn, must be true.....

  Dazzler this "comming out" does not do you well mate!

----------


## looseless

You blokes still at it?  Haven't you got anything better to do?  Chill out and have a beer. 
Dazzler, that link was very interesting, as I have just returned from Planet 83475938, after being abducted nearly 2 months ago.  I thought that no time had elapsed during the past 2 months due to the obsequious repetition being regurgitated through this thread. 
That aint living Barry..........This is living! :Yikes2:

----------


## woodbe

> This has been prepared by scientist so in woodbe's words I have to trust a scientist!!!   Or is the opinion of a scientist that does not agree with your theory not worthy to listen to? It certainly cast further doubt on the claims that AGW is a serious threat. 
> Hows That?

  I'm downloading it now Rod, but please note that 'Prepared by a Scientist' is not the same as 'published in a peer review journal', and no, SPPI is not a peer review journal. The fact that it is on SPPI is indication that there is no expectation that it will be published in one - journals don't generally touch anything that is already public. Isn't SPPI the mob that published Watts' last load of tripe? 
I'm not interested in 'doubt' Rod. (yes, I know you are) I am interested in the sceptical side of the discussion putting their work where their mouth is. Do the science, demonstrate a better fit of their hypothesis to the data, falsify the existing hypothesis, publish. Do that, and you have my attention. Throw yet another unsupported anti opinion around and all you will get from me is ennui.  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Some more cut and paste reading for you. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...yopia_talk.pdf 
> Love to get your opinion of this Woodbe, particularly the very last page.

  Actually, the 'slides' or whatever they are supposed to be (they are in no way a scientific paper, just a jumbled collection of information from all sorts of places) are probably better than the last page. They might be right, they might be wrong and they might be being used to support an argument that they actually don't, but at least they are not drivel.   

> Burden of proof in science
> (1)It is for those that propose a claim or problem to show all evidence and proof for their proposition

  I think that has been done, that is what the 'discussion' is about. Some people don't agree with the _hypothesis_ which has been published, and remains standing for want of effective alternative hypotheses.   

> (2)It is not for the skeptical scientists to prove their proposition is wrong or internally-consistent

  Written by a scientist? Any scientist worth their salt tries to prove their 'proposition' (hypothesis) is wrong. That's what they do, it's part of the process. 
If the sceptical scientists have an alternative hypothesis, publish it. This is not a difficult concept. I'd agree that things get difficult when you find your alternative hypothesis is easily falsified, but I'm more than happy to hear that they have been successful.   

> (3)The pseudo-scientific ground of precaution does not apply and must not be tolerated based on emotions or popularity contests

  "Must not be tolerated" huh? That's some new scientific language right there. Even for sceptics, this 'paper' hits a new low. The author doesn't even see fit to add their name and contact details to the piece. Are you sure this was 'prepared by a scientist' ? 
Nothing new here Rod. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.
.   

> You blokes still at it? Haven't you got anything better to do? Chill out and have a beer.

  Welcome back, looseless.  If you didnt know it was still going on, then you obviously havent been reading it.  If you havent read it, how can you comment on it?    *WATSON*  . 
.
.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Any scientist worth their salt tries to prove their 'proposition' (hypothesis) is wrong.

  Says Woodbe, who thinks that because some of the staff of NASA oppose some aspects of tobacco legislation, that *all* people in NASA are wrong in their views on space. . How scientific!   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:  .
.
.

----------


## dazzler

> Dazzler this "comming out" does not do you well mate!

  But its true....its no the net!!!!!! 
Actually, I have a story about a yowie that I will tell one day  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Ahh I just watched episode 5 season 2 of the Hollowmen all about AGW. 
It is a must see folks.  Just about explains how government works perfectly.   
You can download it off the net!  
Damn I wish I could post it here.

----------


## chrisp

> Ahh I just watched episode 5 season 2 of the Hollowmen all about AGW. 
> It is a must see folks.  Just about explains how government works perfectly.

  Do I take it that you consider a *television comedy-drama show* as a legitimate source of information?  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Rod Dyson

No I found it very entertaining and a close to the mark. 
Very good for a laugh.
Lighten up chrisp

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> _Wow, it comes highly recommended by Rod, kids. I don't know about anyone else, but that is good enough for me................I'll give it a miss. Gee, I've always wanted to know how the governement works.........Wonders never cease to amaze me, another brillant find by, Rod. I'll add that little bit of information to the rest of the crap Rod has managed to copy and paste for us._ _Why don't you just copy and paste the dialogue a little bit at a time and then we can paint a picture of what is happening with our minds eye. Don't worry about Mr Watson, his minds eye is partially blind.......I'll explain it to him very slowly...........__ See, Chris, I'm not the only one who has noticed that your putting weight on._

   . . .

----------


## chrisp

> Ahh I just watched episode 5 season 2 of the Hollowmen all about AGW. 
> It is a must see folks.  Just about explains how government works perfectly.   
> You can download it off the net!  
> Damn I wish I could post it here.

   

> Do I take it that you consider a *television comedy-drama show* as a legitimate source of information?

   

> No I found it very entertaining and a close to the mark. 
> Very good for a laugh.
> Lighten up chrisp

  Rod, 
It's nothing to do with the need to 'lighten up'.  I was picking on your phrasing of your first post quoted above.  The terms such as 'explains how governments work' imply that you take this as a source of useful and reliable information.  This is conjecture. 
Your later post quoted above was much better.  You stated that you enjoyed it ("I found it very entertaining") and, by implication, you are recommending it to anyone who would like a laugh.  This is an opinion (and a valid opinion). 
As long as we are all clear about what are opinions and what are facts - and express then as so - we'll all get along just fine.  :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> Ahh I just watched episode 5 season 2 of the Hollowmen all about AGW. 
> It is a must see folks. Just about explains how government works perfectly.  
> You can download it off the net!  
> Damn I wish I could post it here.

  I found a couple of clips of this on youtube (only a minute or so long), and it looks excellent.  I wouldn't mind seeing the whole episode, but can't locate it.  .
.
.

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> It's nothing to do with the need to 'lighten up'. I was picking on your phrasing of your first post quoted above. The terms such as 'explains how governments work' imply that you take this as a source of useful and reliable information. This is conjecture.

  Art both reflects and affects politics. It does this through a variety of media, from writing, plays, TV productions, movies, paintings, cartoons, poetry and so on. Artists constantly reflect upon the madness and ineptitude of poor political decision making, and have a knack of boiling complex situations down to their essential elements. They sum up events in a nutshell that anyone can understand. Here is a cartoon of Galileo Galilei for instance, which sums up the Church’s persecution of him: .    .. . A priest from that time would lecture an admirer of the cartoon as you just lectured Rod. “You take this scribble as a source of useful and reliable information? Bah! This is conjecture!” . Galileo wants to point out truths about the moon against the church’s wishes. That is not conjecture; it is honest observation and communication, provided in a light hearted way the public can understand. The Church in those days (and perhaps today) would hate such a cartoon, just as you would hate a modern TV satire about the inept politicians who promote the alarmist AGW myth. . . .

----------


## woodbe

> Your later post quoted above was much better.  You stated that you enjoyed it ("I found it very entertaining") and, by implication, you are recommending it to anyone who would like a laugh.  This is an opinion (and a valid opinion). 
> As long as we are all clear about what are opinions and what are facts - and express then as so - we'll all get along just fine.

  Agree with that. The Hollowmen can be great, the best shows are hilarious but there are also some quite weak ones. I guess it's hard to ring the bell on every strike! 
Its a TV Comedy show. Great for a laugh, but not a place to research facts. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> Its a TV Comedy show. Great for a laugh, but not a place to research facts.

  When did Rod say it was a "place to research facts"?    :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:  .
You warmers need to get out and smell the roses sometime. You sound like clucking old nuns in a monastary, banning TV, cartoons, etc. The irony is that the Left use art much more than the Right in discounting the Right's political arguments. When they finally see any attempt by the Right to do the same, they want to delete it or denounce it ASAP.   :Rolleyes:   . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> It's nothing to do with the need to 'lighten up'. I was picking on your phrasing of your first post quoted above. The terms such as 'explains how governments work' imply that you take this as a source of useful and reliable information. This is conjecture. 
> Your later post quoted above was much better. You stated that you enjoyed it ("I found it very entertaining") and, by implication, you are recommending it to anyone who would like a laugh. This is an opinion (and a valid opinion). 
> As long as we are all clear about what are opinions and what are facts - and express then as so - we'll all get along just fine.

  nitpicky sheezzz!  You guys cant recognize a tounge in cheek comment?  You have to take it literally I find this in itself very funny, thanks for the extra entertainment!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> . . 
> I found a couple of clips of this on youtube (only a minute or so long), and it looks excellent. I wouldn't mind seeing the whole episode, but can't locate it.  . . .

  google "hollowmen torrent" you should find it.

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> You might want to get your eyes checked again, Chris. Perhaps a refresher course on ESP could also be advantageous? I don't know why you didn't realise that this was a "tongue in cheek " comment. I mean, you know, it's pretty obvious................. and it does match all the other drivel Rod has dished out thus far............

    *GOOD SPAMMING PIC EDITED OUT*
I decide what's spam...no one else.
Watson . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> it does match all the other drivel Rod has dished out thus far............

   What have you posted that isnt drivel, and why does Watson protect you as though your troll spam is worth something?  Are you two both in the police union or something?  Nudge nudge, wink wink, must protect our union mates, eh? .
.
.

----------


## woodbe

> google "hollowmen torrent" you should find it.

  tut tut. That's stealing young Rod, (and no, this is not a 'tongue in cheek comment' ) 
Is there no limit to the depths the sceptics will go? (this is a tongue in cheek comment) 
Hope your ISP isn't one of those that is logging illegal downloads! (this is not a 'tongue in cheek comment' ) 
Remember that deleting a file does not remove it from your computer, it just throws away the address. Forensics would most likely find it again. (this is not a 'tongue in cheek comment' ) 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.    

> .

    

> .    *GOOD SPAMMING PIC EDITED OUT* I decide what's spam...no one else. Watson.

  Does that mean you are never to be questioned? In my opinion you protect Headpin’s trolling and spamming from my counter points, and it’s a strange thing for a moderator to do. That’s my opinion, or as you would prefer me to say, “My humble opinion.”  :Rolleyes:  . On most boards trolls like headpin are the ones picked on by the mods, not polite posters like myself. So what gives? . . .

----------


## Allen James

.   

> tut tut. That's stealing young Rod, (and no, this is not a 'tongue in cheek comment' )

  What about how you video tape (or copy to your DVD) shows on TV?  Thats also illegal, though Im sure you do it, or have done it.  How many times have you been given software, or given it to someone else?  Thats illegal too, and just about everyone does it.  How many times have you broken the speed limit in the car you say is poisoning the planet?  Thats illegal too.  How many red lights have you gone through?  How often did you fail to stop at a stop sign? . As far as the theft you speak of, all that transpired here was a few words were posted  nothing else, so no theft occurred.  In order to make a charge like that, you need evidence.  You also need to prove the charge in court, which is not easy.  Recently the owners of thepiratebay.org were taken to court and found guilty, to no avail.  The site still exists, and millions still download movies, songs, software, etc., from it every day. .   

> Forensics would most likely find it again. (this is not a 'tongue in cheek comment' )

  It sounds to me like youre a little desperate for any kind of argument, now that you have lost the man made global warming debate.  :Biggrin:  . . .

----------


## watson

Ok John, Allen, whatever
You've questioned ....so I will answer.
This area of the Renovation Forum was set up by.......... :Blush7: ..me.
Specifically, so that rules/regulations/by laws etc could be debated by those either "in the know"  or dealing with them on a day by day basis.
Rod asked if he could use this area to pose the question "Do we agree with the introduction of an ETS".....I agreed, and away we went. This started back on the 7 October 2009.
The rules I set are not written down, but are basically..."play the ball...not the man" and I delete posts/pics/rude gestures based on that set of rules and the written rules of the forum. 
You also seem to have a bit of a problem with Headpin. That's Tuff. (Headpin holds the all time record for post deletions). Does he kick up about it??  Sure does..to me.... via PM.
There is an "Ignore" facility that you could use and there goes your Headpin problem, but after so many deletions, he's learned how far things can be pushed. 
You also seem to have a problem with me...that's really Tuff.
I'm not going to change.  :Shock:  and you're stuck with me
There is no one else Moderating or Administrating here but me, so suffer Baby. I will delete what does not conform to the forum rules and the "Play the Ball....not the man" rule.
Deletions are not a personal slight...they just happen.  Suck it up mate!!
If you would like me fired or removed, please contact the Forum owner again, but I believe you will get the same reply as you did the last time. That would actually mean a lot less hours of my day spent reading everything in this thread, and let me get on with what remains of my life. 
Basically, apart from the 200 spammers a week that you never see, and the odd new member that sees the forum as an advertising medium, you're my only "complainer", and when it comes right down to it.........I don't give a RATS.
So, that's how it is in the big wide world of Renovate Forum. Or at least this part of it.
Oh, and thanks for the big "thank you" that you gave me for replying with very good advice on your pool heating problem................ :Annoyed:  (given without fear or favour) 
Now grow up!  
So lets get back to the topic.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Mr Watson and I go back a longs way.

    

> I first stumbled across Mr Watson when we were both attaending the Avocca Drug Rehabilitation centre for the gifted.  I was conducting a seminar on the dangers of drug for a group of native Indian children from the capital of Timbuktu.  I was using Mr Watson as an example to these youngsters of what long term rampant drug abuse can do to the body.  Mr Watson was at the time strongly addicted to Viagra, often found walking with a noticeable limp along the lonely back streets of Avocca.  Fortunately I was able to cure Mr Watson's addiction and I'm happy to say that he is now managing life extremely well on a concotion of heroin and over the counter medication. 
> Way to go Watto...........

   Hey Headpin, if youre trying to say, Its not what you know, its Watson you know, dont bother.  Ive grown up in Australia, the land of unions, where its not what you know, but who you know. . Regardless of that typical Aussie notion, I never subscribed to it.  If I moderated a board and my own mother came along and trolled, Id be obliged to delete her posts.  Id then sit down with her and have a cup of tea, and explain that if I did anything less I would be showing everyone that I was biased. . But hey  thats just me.  Watson is the mod and he obviously likes to protect you, so enjoy your trolling privileges.  Just dont start fantasising that people dont notice.  :Rolleyes:  .
.
.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> There is an "Ignore" facility that you could use and there goes your Headpin problem

   Putting my head in the sand and pretending someone isnt trolling me or Rod, or Dr. Freud, isnt going to stop the trolling, so no, the problem doesnt go away. .   

> You also seem to have a problem with me...that's really Tuff.

   No problem with you, just a problem with your protection of a troll. If you dont like that, tuff. .   

> I will delete what does not conform to the forum rules and the "Play the Ball....not the man" rule.

   Most of Headpins posts play the ball, and not the man, so excuse me if I dont believe you. .   

> Now grow up!

   I grew up when I was about 14, and ever since then I knew about people like Headpin. Every cop-shop has a few corrupt cops who think they can get away with anything. Theres nothing new or novel about that. .   

> So lets get back to the topic.

   Gladly. . . PS - Oh, and apologies about the pool thread  Ive answered that now, and thanks. .
.
.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> tut tut. That's stealing young Rod, (and no, this is not a 'tongue in cheek comment' ) 
> Is there no limit to the depths the sceptics will go? (this is a tongue in cheek comment) 
> Hope your ISP isn't one of those that is logging illegal downloads! (this is not a 'tongue in cheek comment' ) 
> Remember that deleting a file does not remove it from your computer, it just throws away the address. Forensics would most likely find it again. (this is not a 'tongue in cheek comment' ) 
> woodbe.

  Butter would not melt in your mouth!! 
(now that was tounge in cheek) 
Really guys, we surely we know when one is taking the piss out of a subject etc. without going to the moral high ground!  
lets get back to the cut and pasting its much more fun.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here something to get you started. Where is the missing heat??   Some Comments on Earth?s ?Missing Energy? Roy Spencer, Ph. D. 
Missing heat has got to be a joke right??

----------


## ubeaut

*Everyone* on these forums should give thanks to Mr Watson for keeping these forums running smoothly and making them a great place to visit, free from spam, porn pedlars, and other low life scum bags who come here on a daily basis trying to pedal their sheeit to our members. 
Mr Watson gives around 10 hours a day and night to these forums to keep them as good as they are. The pay is zero, the work conditions and perks zero, it is a thankless and often soul destroying job. 
For my money, anyone who isn't happy with Mr Watson and the amazing job he does here, is more than welcome to take their toys and go play in another sandpit. He has enough to do without having to put up with extra garbage from unappreciative, disgruntled, people who have no idea what so ever exactly what he does for them. 
If on the other hand you think you could do as good a job as Mr Watson (I doubt anyone here could) please feel free to step up and volunteer. He could do with some help and with someone else to cop the sheeit instead of  him.  
However you need to be prepared to sacrifice around 10 hrs a day for the good of the forums, prepared to lose the fun aspect of the forums, answer the dozens of emails and pm's received each day, be completely unbiased and able to reprimand and even lose friends if necessary, read all new threads and posts each day checking for spam, person attacks, porn, etc and moderate, delete and or ban perpetrators. Search countless IP addresses, email addresses and locations to authenticate membership of suspect member registrations, etc, etc, etc. 
If you think you fit the bill and are as good as him let me know. By the way Mr Watson is also an Administrator over at Woodwork Forums and spends as much time working over there as he does here probably more, all for he same wage and conditions as here.  
Still think you're as good..... Let's have you. If not pull your head and lay off  Mr Watson or go away 
Neil Ellis  _Head Administrator
Renovate Forum / Woodwork Forums_

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *Everyone* on these forums should give thanks to Mr Watson for keeping these forums running smoothly and making them a great place to visit, free from spam, porn pedlars, and other low life scum bags who come here on a daily basis trying to pedal their sheeit to our members. 
> Mr Watson gives around 10 hours a day and night to these forums to keep them as good as they are. The pay is zero, the work conditions and perks zero, it is a thankless and often soul destroying job. 
> For my money, anyone who isn't happy with Mr Watson and the amazing job he does here, is more than welcome to take their toys and go play in another sandpit. He has enough to do without having to put up with extra garbage from unappreciative, disgruntled, people who have no idea what so ever exactly what he does for them. 
> If on the other hand you think you could do as good a job as Mr Watson (I doubt anyone here could) please feel free to step up and volunteer. He could do with some help and with someone else to cop the sheeit instead of him.  
> However you need to be prepared to sacrifice around 10 hrs a day for the good of the forums, prepared to lose the fun aspect of the forums, answer the dozens of emails and pm's received each day, be completely unbiased and able to reprimand and even lose friends if necessary, read all new threads and posts each day checking for spam, person attacks, porn, etc and moderate, delete and or ban perpetrators. Search countless IP addresses, email addresses and locations to authenticate membership of suspect member registrations, etc, etc, etc. 
> If you think you fit the bill and are as good as him let me know. By the way Mr Watson is also an Administrator over at Woodwork Forums and spends as much time working over there as he does here probably more, all for he same wage and conditions as here.  
> Still think you're as good..... Let's have you. If not pull your head and lay off Mr Watson or go away 
> Neil Ellis  _Head Administrator_ _Renovate Forum / Woodwork Forums_

  Thanks Neil, I for one am impressed with Watson's commitment to the forum. 
3 cheers Watson!

----------


## woodbe

> Thanks Neil, I for one am impressed with Watson's commitment to the forum. 
> 3 cheers Watson!

  Who said Rod and woodbe never agree on anything? 
Thanks Neil and Watson, yer bloods worth bottling!  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Who said Rod and woodbe never agree on anything? 
>  woodbe.

  I am really a nice bloke woodbe I'm sure over a beer or two we could find many things we agree on!!

----------


## chrisp

> *Everyone* on these forums should give thanks to Mr Watson for keeping these forums running smoothly and making them a great place to visit, free from spam, porn pedlars, and other low life scum bags who come here on a daily basis trying to pedal their sheeit to our members. 
> Mr Watson gives around 10 hours a day and night to these forums to keep them as good as they are. The pay is zero, the work conditions and perks zero, it is a thankless and often soul destroying job.

  Full marks to Noel.   :2thumbsup:  
I'm amazed by the effort Noel puts in to this forum reading most/every post.  While I find the forum interesting, I just don't have the time to put in the amazing effort and energy Noel puts in to the forum. 
Not only has Noel been very fair, he has also done the often thankless job with great humour. 
Thank you for all your efforts Noel.

----------


## Allen James

.   

> For my money, anyone who isn't happy with Mr Watson and the amazing job he does here, is more than welcome to take their toys and go play in another sandpit. He has enough to do without having to put up with extra garbage from unappreciative, disgruntled, people who have no idea what so ever exactly what he does for them.

  On the contrary I have a very good appreciation of what Watson does here, because you and Watson keep telling me.  I do a very good job in my field too, and I think many people here do a very good job in their fields, like Rod for instance, in his plastering.  On the other hand, even the *best* tradesmen make mistakes on the odd occasion, and most will accept some constructive criticism occasionally. . . .

----------


## Dr Freud

> This started back on the 7 October 2009.

  Well Rod, you certainly opened up a can of worms here. :Stirthepot:  
I'm already enjoying visions of this thread passing to our children and grandchildren, and surviving the next ice age, as group 2 descendants try to pin the next ice age on AGW Theory.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

These bozo's still think the Sun might have something to do with the climate  :Confused: :  *NASA releases close-up photos and video of the sun from the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO)                 *  The observatorys five-year mission will examine the sun's magnetic field and the suns impact on Earth's atmosphere and climate.    They obviously didn't read the great work including Michael Mann of Realclimate fame, in the Copenhagen Diagnosis:  Solar activity makes no significant contribution to longer term climate trends. 
But hey, I was wondering something.  If the science on this is so strong, and all the world's greatest scientists (minus a few crazies with no science) have advised world leaders about this, and world leaders are not mitigating this, then the world leaders have committed all of us to the _very likely_ extinction of our species!!!   :Eek:  
No wonder I don't trust politicians.  I tried to complain about this to some journalists, but they were too busy covering the Red Bull air race and the Grand Prix.  Apparently some of these planet killing humans drive their pollution machines long distances, to watch other pollution machines racing in circles.  Just for fun!!!  :Eek:  
I was getting concerned, but then I was reading about Arj Barkers new comedy show called "Awesome Human Theory".  A write-up briefly describes it as:  _Anyway, he says that he is into Awesome Human Theory which means that the problem isnt people but rather Nature: humans are too awesome for Nature to keep up!  _ If I can get a hold of this material, I'll pass on the link (legally of course  :Wink 1: ).

----------


## ubeaut

> On the other hand, even the *best*  tradesmen make mistakes on the odd occasion, and most will accept some  constructive criticism occasionally.

   :Censored2:   :Banghead:

----------


## Allen James

.   

> I've had hundreds of posts deleted

  90% of your posts in this thread were trolling.  You bait others, ignore the subject, scoff, jeer and try to demean the importance of the subject. .  .  

> I had a whole sub-forum deleted.

  A whole sub forum.  LOL.  It was one silly post, comprising six sentences, and it was locked because it was obvious you were just trying to annoy Rod by starting another thread like this one. . http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/tr...issions-89709/ . .   

> I ocassionally complain to Mr Watson about something posted, sometimes he agrees with me, most times he doesn't. He's the Judge and the Jury on this forum, I just accept his decision and move on.

  Not really.  You continue trolling, and that isnt what I call moving on. . .   

> What some people refer to as Trolling, the majority of others refer to as humour.

  Nope.  The majority of your posts are text book trolling, by definition. . .   

> I guess, if you don't fit into the majority catergory, you'd be well advised to find another forum.

  Yes, the old logical fallacy Argument By Dismissal.  If you dont like it, leave the country.  Imagine how you would react if you went to Bunnings to return a faulty product and they gave you that line.  If you dont like it, dont shop here!  No doubt youd be cursing and ranting just as you did in the gun store that time you told us about. . .   

> Mr James complains about this forum attitude being different to others.

  Incorrect.  I have never said that, and if you think I did, point to the quote. . .   

> Yep, he's right (first time)

  Nope  never said such a thing.  There are hundreds of thousands of forums, and many of them are of a similar quality.  All busy forums have hard working mods, as they are a necessity, and none that Ive ever come across are paid, because they enjoy doing the work voluntarily.  Some mods get a little power hungry, while others are too weak.  Most mods are somewhere in the middle, and I think Watson is quite a good mod.  Some boards are very censorial, others are more open-minded.  This board is quite fair, and the Admin and Watson are quite patient.  When I had a go at Watson for protecting you, and deleting me when I responded to your trolling, it was not an attack on the board, or on Watson, as you mischievously imply.  In the same way, if I go to Bunnings to complain that the drill I bought doesnt work, its not an attack on Bunnings or the salesgirl. . .   

> Mr Watson is a trend setter.

  If you keep brown nosing like this, even Watson might lose respect for you. . .   

> I agree with Mr Ellis and suggest that if you don't like how Mr Watson administrates the forum, go back to your old forum

  I dont recall him saying that to me, and if you think he did, point to the quote. . .   

> ...........we won't miss you........

  Why would a troll miss me?  I oppose trolls. . . Okay Watson, now that Ive responded, I guess youll delete my post.  After all, we dont want to upset poor Headpain.  :Biggrin:  . . .

----------


## watson

:Rotfl:

----------


## chrisp

> These bozo's still think the Sun might have something to do with the climate :  *NASA releases close-up photos and video of the sun from the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO)                 *  The observatorys five-year mission will examine the sun's magnetic field and the suns impact on Earth's atmosphere and climate.    They obviously didn't read the great work including Michael Mann of Realclimate fame, in the Copenhagen Diagnosis:  Solar activity makes no significant contribution to longer term climate trends.

  I went to the NASA web site and read the full article on the purpose of the SDO ( NASA - NASA's New Eye on the Sun Delivers Stunning First Images ).  Here is a couple of quotes:_"Space weather has been recognized as a cause of technological problems  since the invention of the telegraph in the 19th century. These events  produce disturbances in electromagnetic fields on Earth that can induce  extreme currents in wires, disrupting power lines and causing widespread  blackouts. These solar storms can interfere with communications between  ground controllers, satellites and airplane pilots flying near Earth's  poles. Radio noise from the storm also can disrupt cell phone service._ "and_"SDO will provide critical data that will improve the ability to predict  these space weather events. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in  Greenbelt, Md., built, operates and manages the SDO spacecraft for the  agencys Science Mission Directorate in Washington."_  Maybe those "_bozo's_" (sic) didn't intend the SDO to show that "_the Sun might have something to do with the  climate_".  Maybe you're reading too much into a story on the SDO? 
I also read the second link in your post.  I don't think anyone disputes that the earth is generally warmer the closer you are to the sun.  i.e. it is generally warmer near the equator than the poles.  RealClimate states (quoting from your quote): "However, neither El Niño, nor  solar activity or volcanic eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate * trends*."The key word is "_trend_" - as increasing, deceasing.  They are stating that the solar activity has no long term effect on the long term climate temperature rise or fall - i.e. the equator is warmer because it is closer to the sun but it is not getting progressively warmer due to solar activity. 
The contribution from the sun is a *flow* of radiation.  The greenhouse gases capture and retain more of the energy flow thus increasing the average temperature.

----------


## Allen James

. . .   

> I went to the NASA web site and read the full article on the purpose of the SDO (

    

> NASA - NASA's New Eye on the Sun Delivers Stunning First Images ). Here is a couple of quotes: _"Space weather has been recognized as a cause of technological problems since the invention of the telegraph in the 19th century. These events produce disturbances in electromagnetic fields on Earth that can induce extreme currents in wires, disrupting power lines and causing widespread blackouts. These solar storms can interfere with communications between ground controllers, satellites and airplane pilots flying near Earth's poles. Radio noise from the storm also can disrupt cell phone service._ "and _"SDO will provide critical data that will improve the ability to predict these space weather events. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., built, operates and manages the SDO spacecraft for the agencys Science Mission Directorate in Washington."_  Maybe those "_bozo's_" (sic) didn't intend the SDO to show that "_the Sun might have something to do with the climate_". Maybe you're reading too much into a story on the SDO?  I also read the second link in your post. I don't think anyone disputes that the earth is generally warmer the closer you are to the sun. i.e. it is generally warmer near the equator than the poles. RealClimate states (quoting from your quote): "However, neither El Niño, nor solar activity or volcanic eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate *trends*."The key word is "_trend_" - as increasing, deceasing. They are stating that the solar activity has no long term effect on the long term climate temperature rise or fall - i.e. the equator is warmer because it is closer to the sun but it is not getting progressively warmer due to solar activity.  The contribution from the sun is a *flow* of radiation. The greenhouse gases capture and retain more of the energy flow thus increasing the average temperature.

   I think you are regurgitating the same old arguments over and over, Chrisp.  This is the kind of stuff we were listening to long before climate-gate, and it seems you wish to believe that the world view (including many thousands of eminent scientists) on climate alarmism hasnt changed.  It has, and youve been supplied many links to show that, which I noticed you mostly ignored. . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> .  .  . 
> A whole sub forum. LOL. It was one silly post, comprising six sentences, and it was locked because it was obvious you were just trying to annoy Rod by starting another thread like this one. . . .

  
He lost his ability to annoy me many many posts ago.   :Biggrin:

----------


## intertd6

Whats really funny about the ETS is that the gov't has dropped it like a hot potato once they found out nobody else globally could make up their mind about it. All the talk about a double dissolution election if the opposition didn't go along with it has faded quietly into the mist.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Whats really funny about the ETS is that the gov't has dropped it like a hot potato once they found out nobody else globally could make up their mind about it. All the talk about a double dissolution election if the opposition didn't go along with it has faded quietly into the mist.
> regards inter

  Yes we have noticed, funny that.

----------


## Allen James

. Alarmists keep ringing the bell  .
Richard S. Lindzen From: The Australian April 24, 2010  . Excerpt (from end of article): . . It appears the public is becoming increasingly aware that something other than science is going on with regard to climate change and that the proposed policies are likely to cause severe problems for the world economy. . Climategate may thus have had an effect after all. . But it is unwise to assume that those who have carved out agendas to exploit the issue will simply let go without a battle. One can only hope the climate alarmists will lose so we can go back to dealing with real science and real environmental problems such as assuring clean air and water. . . _Richard S. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the US._ . . Whole article here:  . Alarmists keep ringing the bell | The Australian . . .

----------


## chrisp

> Whats really funny about the ETS is that the gov't has dropped it like a hot potato once they found out nobody else globally could make up their mind about it. All the talk about a double dissolution election if the opposition didn't go along with it has faded quietly into the mist.
> regards inter

  I'd say that the government softened its line on an ETS as it knows it will be a difficult issue politically.  Likewise, the Coalition (or Liberals) have softened their anti-AGW stance since Abbott became their leader.  Do you remember the "crap" comments from Abbott before he became opposition leader?  Within weeks (or maybe days?) he stated publicly changing his tune. 
There is on doubt in my mind that the introduction of an ETS - or whatever other form of economic incentive - to reduce GHG production will be politically difficult. 
However, the science is very clear on AGW so it will only be a matter of time until politicians, and society as a whole, will be required to act.

----------


## Dr Freud

> They are stating that the solar activity has no long term effect on the long term climate temperature rise or fall

  Seriously champ, I know what they are shoveling, but don't you feel just a little silly pushing this nonsense.  :No:    

> I say that the government softened its line in an ETS as it knows it will be a difficult issue politically.

   :Rotfl:  
Rudd had a hard-on for this fiction, but he hasn't "softened" his line, he's gone the "John Bobbit".   

> However, the science is very clear on AGW so it will only be a matter of time until politicians, and society as a whole, will be required to act.

  I have added you to similar great scientists of "our" time.  Check the link below for your cohorts full story.  The last one for Kenneth Watt's is hilarious.  :Biggrin:   *"However, the science is very clear on AGW so it will only be a matter of time until politicians, and society as a whole, will be required to act."* _ Chrisp, Blogger_  *We have about five more years at the outside to do something.*  _ Kenneth Watt, ecologist_  
*We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.*  _ Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist_    *Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.* _ New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day_   *Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.*  _ George Wald, Harvard Biologist _  I hate the media.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Quote:    
> 			
> 				Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*   _Maybe if you put half this effort into figuring out the data and mathematical computations of the IPCC's 90% probability calculation, you could post the answer for everyone?_    Is it that you are::  Questioning or having some trouble understanding how the IPCC addresses uncertainty; or,Are you looking for a 100% certainty before you accept anything?
>  If it is the former, you can obtain the IPCC "_Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the
> IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties_" from here http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...idancenote.pdf 
> If it is the latter, it would suggest that you are using "very low confidence" ("Less than 1 out of 10 chance") possibilities for the basis of your 'scepticism'.  Your stance sounds more like 'denialism' to me. 
> For Allen's benefit:*Denialism*  describes the position of those who reject propositions that are strongly  supported by scientific or historical evidence and seek to influence policy  processes and outcomes accordingly(From good old WordWeb)

  It seems that the good Mr James has beaten you to the punch in finding out how the IPCC came up with it's 90% claim of certainty (his link below).  Apparantly they just made it up! No maths, no science, just an opinion.  Who would have thought?   *"It is sometimes claimed that the IPCC is 90 per cent confident of this claim, but there is no known statistical basis for this claim; it's purely subjective."* 
You see, you could have figured this out had you read the link you provided above.  I guess you either didn't read it, couldn't figure this out, or figured it out and didn't want to pass on this fact?  

> . Alarmists keep ringing the bell  .
> Richard S. Lindzen From: The Australian April 24, 2010  . . Whole article here:  . Alarmists keep ringing the bell | The Australian . . .

  *No maths, no science, just an opinion.  Who would have thought?*  :Doh:

----------


## chrisp

> "It is sometimes claimed that the IPCC is 90 per cent confident of this claim, but there is no known statistical basis for this claim; it's purely subjective." 
> You see, you could have figured this out had you read the link you provided above.  I guess you either didn't read it, couldn't figure this out, or figured it out and didn't want to pass on this fact?   *No maths, no science, just an opinion.  Who would have thought?*

  *Gross generalisations and clutching at straws.  Who would have thought?* 
Lets have a look at the IPPC refernce I gave earlier.  Here is a quote:"14. _Likelihood_, as defined in Table 4, refers to a probabilistic assessment of some well defined outcome having occurred or occurring in the future. The categories defined in this table should be considered as having ‘fuzzy’ boundaries. Use other probability ranges where more appropriate but do not then use the terminology in table 4. *Likelihood may be based on quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views.* The central range of this scale should not be used to express a lack of knowledge – see paragraph 12 and Table 2 for that situation. There is evidence that readers may adjust their interpretation of this likelihood language according to the magnitude of perceived potential consequences [8]."*Table 4. Likelihood Scale.*Terminology Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcomeVirtually certain           > 99% probability of occurrence
Very likely                  > 90% probability
Likely                         > 66% probability
About as likely as not   33 to 66% probability
Unlikely                      < 33% probability
Very unlikely               < 10% probability
Exceptionally unlikely   < 1% probabilityI'd hardly call "*quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views*", what the article refers to as "*purely subjective*" as in 'lacking in reality or substance'.  But then again, it is you may choose to use that definition when it suits you. 
My comments on this are pedantic - but this is necessary as your argument is based on a pedantic attempt to discredit the IPCC terminology.  *Do you truly believe that the IPCC findings are based upon "No maths, no science, just an opinion" or are you grossly over generalising your opinion too?*  
In any case, the 'likelihood' scale is there to assist the reader in understanding the level of consensus within the scientific community and their views on the likely outcomes for their projections. 
I think you are clutching at straws with this as some form of argumentative attempt to claim that the science is unsound.  *As woodbe as often suggests, it would be much more productive to simply point out some sound and reputable science that discredits the AGW theory.*

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> I'd say that the government softened its line on an ETS as it knows it will be a difficult issue politically.

   Yes, because people are waking up to the scam. . .    

> Likewise, the Coalition (or Liberals)

   The Coalition is made up of The Nationals and The Liberals, so they are not “the liberals”. That’s like Iraqis calling British Forces "American", just because the Americans are the larger force. It's like Yankees calling Kiwis Aussies, or Aussies calling Canadians Americans. Get it right, lad. .  .    

> have softened their anti-AGW stance since Abbott became their leader.

   It’s called diplomacy and politics. Remember, they’re dealing with a AGW supporting media. . .   

> Do you remember the "crap" comments from Abbott before he became opposition leader? Within weeks (or maybe days?) he stated publicly changing his tune.

   Abbott didn’t make Global Warming into a huge political issue; Greenies did. He has no choice now about having a policy on it. The policy will basically be, “Humour the greenies but never believe the AGW myth, which is crap.” This point was covered a long time ago in this thread, so it seems you are once again regurgitating old material. . .   

> There is on doubt in my mind that the introduction of an ETS - or whatever other form of economic incentive - to reduce GHG production will be politically difficult.

   Everybody and his dog knows that. The AGW myth has been exposed for what it is – a political ploy to redistribute wealth, and bring about the socialist State you guys have been pining for since Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke. You’ve been caught with your fingers in the cookie jar, so naturally it would be hard to introduce the infamous ETS. . .   

> However, the science is very clear on AGW so it will only be a matter of time until politicians, and society as a whole, will be required to act.

   Nonsense. The science was distorted, politicized, exaggerated, hidden and or deleted. The discredited IPCC did their best to ensure no scientist could publish his objections to the AGW alarmist myth. That is not ‘clear science’. It is clear *political propaganda*. . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Lets have a look at the IPPC refernce I gave earlieryour argument is based on a pedantic attempt to discredit the IPCC terminology

  Dr. Freud doesnt have to discredit an already discredited organization.  The IPCC* is* a discredited part of the UN, which itself is blatantly Socialist and will do anything to create a Socialist world.  It will lie, exaggerate, censor and politicize science to get its alarmist policies in place.  What you need to do Chrisp, is start answering the thousands of eminent scientists we have referred you to, and explain why they are wrong, instead of repeating your broken record about what the defamed IPCC Socialists have said.  Nobody wants to hear their old scratched propaganda records again. . . . .

----------


## woodbe

Meanwhile, in other news:   

> One of the world's leading climate scientists has launched a libel lawsuit (PDF) against a Canadian newspaper for publishing  articles that he says "poison" the debate on global warming.
> In a  case with potentially huge consequences for online publishers, lawyers  acting for Andrew Weaver, a climate modeller at the University of  Victoria, Canada, have demanded the National  Post removes the articles not only from its own websites, but also from  the numerous blogs and sites where they were reposted.

  Guardian.co.uk link (lawsuit pdf link above corrected by me) 
It was always only a matter of time before the published scientists decide enough is enough.  
Chrisp, good and relevant post, and thank you for pointing out that the sceptics have a way forward to resolve the debate for us all that they choose not take: Do the science and publish it in a peer reviewed journal. (No Rod, not the plants growing faster in CO2 kind of Science!) 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> It was always only a matter of time before the published scientists

   Published as in, “the scientists that weren’t rejected by the media because their views were Politically Correct.” . .   

> decide enough is enough.

   LOL. It’s a libel case.  :Rolleyes:  . .   

> No Rod, not the plants growing faster in CO2 kind of Science!

   Yes, instead of addressing relevant issues, like the fact that increased CO2 is good for life on earth, they’ll use arguments like the one you like to flog: . _“Because some anti AGW people in the world are opposed to certain aspects of tobacco legislation, ALL anti AGW scientists must be wrong.”_ . If the paper was incorrect about some personal matters, he _may_ win the libel part of the action, but there is no way he will win the other part, to do with *censoring* an anti-AGW paper. . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Chrisp, good and relevant post, and thank you for pointing out that the sceptics have a way forward to resolve the debate for us all that they choose not take: Do the science and publish it in a peer reviewed journal. (No Rod, not the plants growing faster in CO2 kind of Science!) 
> woodbe.

   I guess none of these peer reviewed papers count!!  Popular Technology.net: 700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming 
Your banter about no peer reviewed science that contradicts the AGW theory is all bull woodbee and you know it, you just choose to ignore it.  
Just like all the activists behind this scam you believe if you tell an un-truth often enough it will become accepted truth.  Guess what! its not working the internet will find you out every time.   
Cue Chrisp ............ oh so everything on the internet is true is it? ........ doh!!  nooooo chrisp it is not! Hey, but why not try to discredit a comment with that rot anyway, at least you feel better! 
You can say these papers do not dissprove AGW, yes quite right ,but on the same token you have *not got a single peer reviewed paper that proves it.* So here we are stalemate waiting for time to prove the theory one way or the other. 
Have a nice long week end boys and girls.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Gross generalisations and clutching at straws.  Who would have thought?* 
> Lets have a look at the IPPC refernce I gave earlier.  Here is a quote:"14. _Likelihood_, as defined in Table 4, refers to a probabilistic assessment of some well defined outcome having occurred or occurring in the future. The categories defined in this table should be considered as having fuzzy boundaries. Use other probability ranges where more appropriate but do not then use the terminology in table 4. *Likelihood may be based on quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views.* The central range of this scale should not be used to express a lack of knowledge  see paragraph 12 and Table 2 for that situation. There is evidence that readers may adjust their interpretation of this likelihood language according to the magnitude of perceived potential consequences [8]."*Table 4. Likelihood Scale.*Terminology Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcomeVirtually certain           > 99% probability of occurrence
> Very likely                  > 90% probability
> Likely                         > 66% probability
> About as likely as not   33 to 66% probability
> Unlikely                      < 33% probability
> Very unlikely               < 10% probability
> Exceptionally unlikely   < 1% probabilityI'd hardly call "*quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views*", what the article refers to as "*purely subjective*" as in 'lacking in reality or substance'.  But then again, it is you may choose to use that definition when it suits you. 
> My comments on this are pedantic - but this is necessary as your argument is based on a pedantic attempt to discredit the IPCC terminology.  *Do you truly believe that the IPCC findings are based upon "No maths, no science, just an opinion" or are you grossly over generalising your opinion too?*  
> ...

  "*quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views*" 
So, which is it? * 
Quantitative analysis* means that the 90% figure is derived from a probability calculation.  Be nice if you could dig up the calculations for us to take a look at? *
Elicitation of expert views* is a real fancy way of saying just an opinion.  If you dress up this opinion with some numbers (90%) to make it sound more convincing, some people would refer to this as a sales pitch, I refer to it as the quantification of opinion, or in everyday terms, making --it up.  :Biggrin:  
So I guess if you can dig up those calculations, I'll stand corrected?    *"Do you truly believe that the IPCC findings are based upon "No maths, no science, just an opinion" or are you grossly over generalising your opinion too?"* 
Sorry if it was not clear, I am referring to the claim which you posted from the CSIRO, which is the oft quoted 90% certainty of the IPCC in AGW Theory.  As Woodbe is so fond of pointing out, the IPCC does not do science, they are a political body, so are we  talking about the opinion of a political body as the backbone supporting this theory?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Meanwhile, in other news:  Guardian.co.uk link (lawsuit pdf link above corrected by me) 
> It was always only a matter of time before the published scientists decide enough is enough.  
> Chrisp, good and relevant post, and thank you for pointing out that the sceptics have a way forward to resolve the debate for us all that they choose not take: Do the science and publish it in a peer reviewed journal. (No Rod, not the plants growing faster in CO2 kind of Science!) 
> woodbe.

   :Lolabove:  
This is gold.  If they called him names and he can't take it, then he should sue them.  If they questioned the validity of his science, then why doesn't he just release all his data and methodology to the scientific community at large, and they will support him if his science is valid.  If some scientists question his work, welcome to the scientific process Mr Weaver. If those loony journalists choose to print this stuff, welcome to democracy.  
I think these scientists are getting really annoyed that they can't censor, oops, "peer-review" the media, like they have done with climate science journals in recent history.   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

Seeing as you guys can't find any science proving AGW Theory, (unless you've lowered the bar even further to include political opinion  :Biggrin: ), I thought I'd pose a logistical question. 
If this is a proxy data temperature record, albeit very inaccurate:    
And this is the committment from Copenhagen:  The document recognised that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of the present day and that actions should be taken to keep any temperature increases to below 2°C. 
Then can someone, and I don't care who, please explain to me how in the hell we are going to negate all the "natural" forces that have been driving temperatures up and down for hundreds of millions of years, when we don't even understand how they work yet?  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

I just noticed a resurfacing of Penny Wong.  For those who have arrived in Australia over the last four months, you may never have heard of Penny.  She's our minister for climate change (and a few other bits taken off our demoted environment minister - long story). 
I was wondering if Penny had popped up again to champion the AGW or ETS causes, but alas no.  It was bad news time, and good ol' RUDD was as far away as possible.  Hard on the heels of the insulation decision Climate Change Minister Penny Wong announced a media conference at short notice about the Government's other trouble plagued climate change program, the green loans scheme. Senator Wong says there will now be increased auditing of 9,000 claims.  "The Government has become aware of some anecdotal evidence and potential cases of non-compliant activity as well as fraudulent, potentially fraudulent activity under this program," she said.  "This is an audit that we are putting in place at a cost of $4.28 million to ensure that there are measures in place to combat these potential breaches and to improve the functioning of the program."   If these fiasco's were occurring in Zimbabwe or Sudan, I'd be laughing my a--- off at the ineptitude of their government.  But sadly this is our government, flushing our taxes.  :Annoyed:  
Does anyone still seriously trust them to introduce a $140 billion dollar derivative scheme run by investment bankers and under-written by the Australian taxpayer?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

To those who did so much with so little and asked for nothing in return, I thank you. 
Much respect.   :Thanx:

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> I guess none of these peer reviewed papers count!!

    

> Popular Technology.net: 700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

   Ouch. Thats gotta hurt.  :2thumbsup:  .

----------


## woodbe

> I guess none of these peer reviewed papers count!!  Popular Technology.net: 700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming 
> Your banter about no peer reviewed science that contradicts the AGW theory is all bull woodbee and you know it, you just choose to ignore it.  
> Just like all the activists behind this scam you believe if you tell an un-truth often enough it will become accepted truth.  Guess what! its not working the internet will find you out every time.   
> Cue Chrisp ............ oh so everything on the internet is true is it? ........ doh!!  nooooo chrisp it is not! Hey, but why not try to discredit a comment with that rot anyway, at least you feel better! 
> You can say these papers do not dissprove AGW, yes quite right ,but on the same token you have *not got a single peer reviewed paper that proves it.* So here we are stalemate waiting for time to prove the theory one way or the other. 
> Have a nice long week end boys and girls.

  I dunno Rod, busy with Anzac day stuff, but I had a quick look at the list and the first two papers on it were not reviewed by a journal carried in the ISI listing of  peer-reviewed journals.  
Your old friend sourcewatch has this to say, which might explain why:   

> _Energy and Environment_ is not carried in the ISI listing of  peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely  criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.[1][2] Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have  published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by  Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and  Congressman Joe Barton.[1]
>  Climate change skeptics which have been published in this journal  include Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Ian Castles, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, Madhav  Khandekar, Craig Loehle, Steve McIntyre, and Indur Goklany.

  
Haha. A few of your mates in there too  :Smilie:  Looks like it might be the journal you send your junk science to when no-one else will print it.   
So, if that is at the top of the 700 'papers' (some of them appear to be letters to the editor and other guff) I have my doubts we're looking at a debunking of anything but common sense.  
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> I dunno Rod, busy with Anzac day stuff, but I had a quick look at the list and the first two papers on it were not reviewed by a journal carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals.

   You wanted peer reviewed science, arguing the case for AGW sceptics. You got it x 700. Now you’re whining that the first two aren’t listed on your favorite site. So what? I already showed you how the world’s top science magazine “Science” refused to publish a perfectly good peer reviewed scientific article by an AGW sceptic (that exposed an important error) because they were biased. If _they_ can refuse publication for political reasons, so can ISI. Besides, you did not specify that the journals had to be on ISI’s list, when you frequently harped about Rod providing science. You’re obviously making excuses now that you have the 700 scientific journals. . .   

> Your old friend sourcewatch has this to say, which might explain why:

    

> _Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.[1][2]_

  Sourcewatch, itself a very biased AGW-supporting site, run by a fanatical alarmist, is not at all interested in any science that opposes AGW. The statement you quote above produces two links [1] and [2]: . www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment#cite_note-Thacker-0 . www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment#cite_note-1 .  These two turn out to be *one* piece of information, on two different pages. They *both* point to the *same* two articles: . Richard Monastersky, "Storm Brews Over Global Warming", Chronicle of Higher Education, September 4, 2003. . Paul D. Thacker, "Skeptics get a journal", Environmental Science & Technology, August 31, 2005. . That’s an example of error-filled Sourcewatch, trying to pad out the argument. The two articles were written in 2003, and 2005, while the article provided by Rod; the first of the 700, was published in November, 2007. Sourcewatch has thus provided an outdated pair of articles that have nothing to do with the 2007 article – another attempt at mischievous misdirection. So where is the evidence from Sourcewatch that _Energy and Environment_ has been *widely* criticized? I see none. So who runs Woodbe’s favourite website, sourcewatch.org? . According to betterwhois.com, the owner is Patricia Barden, who runs another leftist website called ‘The Center for Media and Democracy’ (www.prwatch.org). She is a political activist in the US., and here is a page about her, with a photo and short bio: . http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/bios.php/Patricia_Barden . Quote: . _“Patricia Barden received her bachelor's degree in Information Systems from the University of Richmond. Before starting with the Center in June 2005, she worked as the web developer for the State Environmental Resource Center for three years._ _…_ _“Patricia is both an environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist. Her interests include bicycling, playing guitar, bird watching, and taking walks with her Jack Russell terrier, Dixie Doodle.”_ . So web designer and gay/lesbian rights activist Patricia Barden says that _Energy and Environment_ has been *widely* criticized, we are supposed to believe her because..?   . Because she and Woodbe say so. Yeah, right. What are Patricia’s qualifications to be rubbishing the 700 peer reviewed scientific journals that oppose AGW? *NONE*. . Woodbe, are you ever going to address the science, now that Rod has delivered it? .
.
.
.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> . .  . Because she and Woodbe say so. Yeah, right. What are Patricia’s qualifications to be rubbishing the 700 peer reviewed scientific journals that oppose AGW? *NONE*.

  Nice reply Allen, just wait for the "play the man" thing to come out. This will be good!! Given what character assassination the skeptical scientists have had to deal with! (pre-emptive strike against a predictive response).   

> Woodbe, are you ever going to address the science, now that Rod has delivered it?

    Not much chance of that Allen, where it comes to peer reviewed science that goes against the AGW theory, alarmists are in complete denial.  If you took woodbe's word there is not a single paper that disputes AGW. This is denial.  You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all the people all of the time. It is great to see so many people waking up to this total scam and AGW hoax. .
.

----------


## woodbe

> If you took woodbe's word there is not a single paper that disputes AGW. This is denial.

  I suggest you let woodbe speak for himself, as you patently have not read and/or understood what woodbe has said. 
Woodbe has repeatedly said that the science behind AGW is well established and has yet to be debunked. (if you actually read and understood what woodbe has written, you would know this) 
There are people, some of them scientists, who are sceptical of AGW, and who have not put up, done the science and had it published in peer review journals. If they had, and the science was sound, they would change the accepted hypothesis. 
700 papers reported to "support scepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming" does not mean 700 papers debunking AGW - if it did, and they debunked the core science, ... well you could work that out for yourself, I've said it enough times. I wonder how many papers would comprise the list of papers supporting AGW - many thousands probably, but in any case it would probably only take a small fraction of the number to debunk it. 
Would that upset some of the authors of the existing work? I guess it  could. Could they do anything about it? Nope, they'd just have to get over it. 
And of course, you know by now, that every scientist will take the sceptical approach to their hypothesis as a matter of course, that's how good science is done. So you could say that every peer reviewed paper has a basis of scepticism of AGW, but when the hypothesis cannot be falsified... you know the rest. 
I've never said that there is no scepticism, I've just pointed out that it doesn't have a home outside of the hysteria shanties such as that run by Watts yet. That could change - do the science, publish it, and change the accepted hypothesis.  
Bring it on! 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

Moving on again, what doth our welded-on sceptics make of this:   
Its a graphic from a post by steve in his blog about Ethics of Climate - talk by Ray Pierrehumbert 
Apparently, the message is that it's not just climate we're having an impact on. 
I suppose none of that is happening either? Interested in hearing your considered views. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

I know I bag the media a bit, but sometimes you come across some witty items like this article, particularly as it's a parochial sandgroper.  The Carl Williams line had me chuckling.   But since the election in 2007, Kevin Rudd has managed to under-achieve on virtually every "vision'' that he spruiked to Australian families, working or otherwise...Overriding all that, we were often reminded that the "greatest moral challenge of our time'' was unresolved and time was running out. So, how come we still can't put a market price on carbon?... Now, as Carl Williams discovered earlier in the week, not all exercise bikes are good for you and similarly not all reform is what it might seem when it comes out of the Federal Government media office.   Too soon?  :Bike2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> . .  Ouch. Thats gotta hurt.  .

  The truth often does.  :Tears:  
But seriously, there are thousands of scientific papers that point to alternative and many varied climate drivers.  But at the end of the day, I don't care what they all say, as these other clowns don't want me pay more taxes in some sort of socialist redistribution under the false pretenses of saving the Planet Earth.  Maybe that's why I treat these alternative drivers with a bit more respect than AGW Theory.  :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Woodbe has repeatedly said that the science behind AGW is well established and has yet to be debunked. (if you actually read and understood what woodbe has written, you would know this) 
> There are people, some of them scientists, who are sceptical of AGW, and who have not put up, done the science and had it published in peer review journals. If they had, and the science was sound, they would change the accepted hypothesis. 
> 700 papers reported to "support scepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming" does not mean 700 papers debunking AGW - if it did, and they debunked the core science, ... well you could work that out for yourself, I've said it enough times. I wonder how many papers would comprise the list of papers supporting AGW - many thousands probably, but in any case it would probably only take a small fraction of the number to debunk it. 
> Would that upset some of the authors of the existing work? I guess it could. Could they do anything about it? Nope, they'd just have to get over it. 
> And of course, you know by now, that every scientist will take the sceptical approach to their hypothesis as a matter of course, that's how good science is done. So you could say that every peer reviewed paper has a basis of scepticism of AGW, but when the hypothesis cannot be falsified... you know the rest. 
> I've never said that there is no scepticism, I've just pointed out that it doesn't have a home outside of the hysteria shanties such as that run by Watts yet. That could change - do the science, publish it, and change the accepted hypothesis.  
> Bring it on! 
> woodbe.

  
You reall cant get it woodbe just how ridiculous your argument is. 
So many papers support a theory that can't be scientifically PROVEN vs so many papers that debunk a theory that can't be DIS-PROVEN.   
Now what does this amount to??? 
Nothing. Lets wait and see where the empirical evidence takes us.  So far it does not support your theory.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Moving on again, what doth our welded-on sceptics make of this:  
> Its a graphic from a post by steve in his blog about Ethics of Climate - talk by Ray Pierrehumbert 
> Apparently, the message is that it's not just climate we're having an impact on. 
> I suppose none of that is happening either? Interested in hearing your considered views. 
> woodbe.

  My considered view is that these guys are dead-set idiots?  Anyone reading this drivel with an ounce of critical analysis could explain why.  :Doh:  
Tell you what, for such an avowed "science" advocate as yourself, I'm surprised you even posted this.  :Shock:  
How about digging up some of that science you are so fond of referring to?  Surely you must have it on hand by now.  How about we start with the strongest scientific paper you can find supporting AGW Theory, then we won't have to waste time with the "also ran's".  Please, not some obscure reference to the IPCC or some computer model, or some spurious correlation, but an actual scientific paper that demonstrates how Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions are the predominant, if not sole driver of global temperatures, to the exclusion of all other "alleged" climate drivers. 
Take your time, email your buddies at Realclimate if necessary.  Let's make it a good one.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

> The truth often does.  
> But seriously, there are thousands of scientific papers that point to alternative and many varied climate drivers.  But at the end of the day, I don't care what they all say, as these other clowns don't want me pay more taxes in some sort of socialist redistribution under the false pretenses of saving the Planet Earth.  Maybe that's why I treat these alternative drivers with a bit more respect than AGW Theory.

  An honest post Dr Freud, good for you. No-one likes paying taxes, but some of us should look deeper than our hip pocket. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Lets wait and see where the empirical evidence takes us.  So far it does not support your theory.

  And for you, Rod, another honest statement. Good for you. I hope it works out. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> My considered view is that these guys are dead-set idiots?  Anyone reading this drivel with an ounce of critical analysis could explain why.

  Cool, Doc. Be my guest, I'm sure you have an ounce of critical analysis, lets start with Diversity loss, seeing as its the largest magnitude of loss. 
Let me have it, don't hold back, show me how it isn't happening. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> How about digging up some of that science you are so fond of referring to?

  I think its been quoted here often enough. I offered to go through it with the sceptic grand master back at about page 20 or before, he backed out.   

> an actual scientific paper that demonstrates how Anthropogenic Carbon  Dioxide emissions are the predominant, if not sole driver of global  temperatures, to the exclusion of all other "alleged" climate drivers.

  Word games. Pick a goal so high, no-one can kick it. Then you can shoot them down easy. CO2 has never been the only driver, probably never will be, and I haven't heard any respected scientist suggesting it was. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Cool, Doc. Be my guest, I'm sure you have an ounce of critical analysis, lets start with Diversity loss, seeing as its the largest magnitude of loss. 
> Let me have it, don't hold back, show me how it isn't happening. 
> woodbe.

  I've covered this topic already with this.   

> I was getting concerned, but then I was reading about Arj Barkers new comedy show called "Awesome Human Theory". A write-up briefly describes it as:  _Anyway, he says that he is into Awesome Human Theory which means that the problem isnt people but rather Nature: humans are too awesome for Nature to keep up! _

  Here's some observations just from the first few paragraphs just for fun, which is by no means comprehensive.  *"Ray began by pointing out that climate ethics might not seem to fit with the theme of the rest of the series, but it does, because future climate change will, in effect, make the earth into a different planet.* " 
Er, by definition, change creates something different.  Climate changes have always made a different planet and always will.  Even if by some bizarre suspension of the laws of physics the climate stops changing, the planet will still be different every second of every day. *
"And the scary thing is we dont know too much about what that planet will be like.*" 
Er, a big lava ball hurtling through space, trapped in the gravitational field of a giant nuclear explosion.  Some egocentric life form running around thinking they own it.  * "Which then brings us to questions of responsibility, particularly the question of how much we should be spending to avoid this.*" 
Er, who are we going to pay, Gaia?  Oh that's right, the UN.  Hope we get a receipt.  Then if the temperature (and climate) keeps changing like it always has, maybe we can get a refund?  *"Humans are a form of life,* " 
Er, thanks Steve, I won't die wondering now. *
"and are altering the climate in a major way.* " 
Er, Steve, the Theory bit in AGW Theory means it is theoretical, not real.  Some people use hypothesis, this means it is hypothetical, still not real.  So you really should say something like "may be altering the climate in accordance with AGW Theory".  In accordance with another theory, Chaos Theory, there are many variables altering the climate, including the heat currently being produced by my computer.  But to throw in the the word "major" in a statement of fact when actually trying to describe a theory is a little silly don't you think.  *"Some people talk about humans now having an impact of geological proportions on the planet.* " 
Er Steve, some people talk about a lot of things.  Could you provide a more specific source, like some people down at the pub.  *"But in fact, were a force of far greater than geological proportions: were releasing around 20 times as much carbon per year than what nature can do (for example via volcanoes).*" 
Er Steve, if you extract your neck ornament from your nether orifice, you might want to research what nature actually "can do", as opposed to what you might be referring to, which is what nature has "very recently done". 
But this could go on forever, or actually not according to Steve.  *"Of course, such exponential growth can never continue indefinitely.*" 
Er, really Steve, a finite resource cannot last indefinitely? Who would've thought?  
Enough fun and games.  Back to the point.   

> Let me have it, don't hold back, show me how it isn't happening.

  On a serious note, you have to come to grips with this so I'll try again.  There are lots of theories around, which scientists are regularly trying to prove or disprove.  They are called theories because they are theoretical, or in other words, not yet reality.   
When a scientist finds enough evidence to begin supporting a theory, this is good, because it means they "might" be heading in the right direction.  However, this is often proven wrong when a totally different reality emerges (once again, think flat Earth turning into round Earth, as most evidence at the time supported a flat Earth theory). 
A good scientist will build such a mountain of sound evidence that the theory will sometimes be taken as reality, until a suitable alternative explanation emerges.  Do you consider this threshold achieved with AGW Theory given its most fervent and informed proponents admit to writing this:   *"The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.*"  *This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. Obviously, they found a solution to thattake over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial boardWhat do others think?*  *I will be emailing the journal to tell them Im having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.* 
How about your scientists show the whole world that it is happening.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I think its been quoted here often enough. I offered to go through it with the sceptic grand master back at about page 20 or before, he backed out. 
> Word games. Pick a goal so high, no-one can kick it. Then you can shoot them down easy. CO2 has never been the only driver, probably never will be, and I haven't heard any respected scientist suggesting it was. 
> woodbe.

  These enviro-activists have gone to the whole world and asked them to restructure their way of life and their economies, including possibly foregoing much of the technological innovation of the industrial age, thereby altering the direction of human endeavour, possibly for the better, possibly for the worse. 
I think the world has a right to ask for some pretty serious evidence.  Political bodies opinions, spurious correlations and computer predictions just don't do it for me.  The bigger the ask, the higher bar my friend.  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> Cool, Doc. Be my guest, I'm sure you have an ounce of critical analysis, * lets start with Diversity loss*, seeing as its the largest magnitude of  loss. 
> Let me have it, don't hold back, show me how it isn't happening.

   

> I've covered this topic already with this.   
> Here's some observations just from the first few paragraphs just for fun, which is by no means comprehensive.  *"Ray began by pointing out that climate ethics might not seem to fit with the theme of the rest of the series, but it does, because future climate change will, in effect, make the earth into a different planet.* " 
> Er, by definition, change creates something different.  Climate changes have always made a different planet and always will.  Even if by some bizarre suspension of the laws of physics the climate stops changing, the planet will still be different every second of every day. *
> "And the scary thing is we dont know too much about what that planet will be like.*" 
> Er, a big lava ball hurtling through space, trapped in the gravitational field of a giant nuclear explosion.  Some egocentric life form running around thinking they own it.  * "Which then brings us to questions of responsibility, particularly the question of how much we should be spending to avoid this.*" 
> Er, who are we going to pay, Gaia?  Oh that's right, the UN.  Hope we get a receipt.  Then if the temperature (and climate) keeps changing like it always has, maybe we can get a refund?  *"Humans are a form of life,* " 
> Er, thanks Steve, I won't die wondering now. *
> "and are altering the climate in a major way.* " 
> Er, Steve, the Theory bit in AGW Theory means it is theoretical, not real.  Some people use hypothesis, this means it is hypothetical, still not real.  So you really should say something like "may be altering the climate in accordance with AGW Theory".  In accordance with another theory, Chaos Theory, there are many variables altering the climate, including the heat currently being produced by my computer.  But to throw in the the word "major" in a statement of fact when actually trying to describe a theory is a little silly don't you think.  *"Some people talk about humans now having an impact of geological proportions on the planet.* " 
> ...

  So all those words and not a single comment about diversity loss. 
Focus, Doc. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> When a scientist finds enough evidence to begin supporting a theory, this is good, because it means they "might" be heading in the right direction.  However, this is often proven wrong when a totally different reality emerges (once again, think flat Earth turning into round Earth, as most evidence at the time supported a flat Earth theory). 
> A good scientist will build such a mountain of sound evidence that the theory will sometimes be taken as reality, until a suitable alternative explanation emerges.

  A good scientist will actually have a hypothesis and try and falsify it. When he can't falsify it, he will try and prove it, and he will publish it. That is where we are now with AGW. We are still waiting for a better hypothesis to appear. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> So all those words and not a single comment about diversity loss. 
> Focus, Doc. 
> woodbe.

  I figured Awesome Human Theory had it covered.  Here's a link to Arj:  I do think that people are a little kneejerk about the whole environment thing. Some people act like the Earth is broken just because its so hot. Itd be refreshing to hear one intelligent person, besides myself, suggest the seemingly obvious possibility that the Earth is just fine, thank you, but perhaps theres something wrong with the Sun! Im not a scientist but Im pretty sure that that son-of-a-bitch is where all the heat is coming from. Arj Barker 
But in all seriousness, this is about AGW Theory and the ETS.  Hence my assessment of the climate change information at the link. We have gone down many rabbit holes including ozone depletion, haematology, butterflies, etc etc.  Speciation is an entirely separate area of science with equally as many conflicting theories and philosophies as climate science.  For example, around 99% of all species that have ever lived were rendered extinct long before humans arrived.  We can argue rates and reasons until we are extinct, but that sounds like another rabbit hole. 
So I think I'll *focus* on reminding everyone that AGW Theory is theoretical and hypothetical, but certainly not a fact.  What is a fact is that the climate changes all the time, and we don't know why. 
What we do know is that we have an entire federal government department called The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency that promotes AGW Theory as a fact.  Here is a statement from, and link to their website:  The increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases is largely responsible for the observed warming of 0.74°C over the 20th century. 
See, no ambiguity, no theory, it *is* largely responsible. 
Our taxes are paying for this rubbish.  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

> A good scientist will actually have a hypothesis and try and falsify it. When he can't falsify it, he will try and prove it, and he will publish it. That is where we are now with AGW. We are still waiting for a better hypothesis to appear. 
> woodbe.

  No arguments here champ.  I've already fully supported this process before. 
It seems our difference of opinion is that I regard various hypothetical ideas (hypotheses) as being hypothetical.  You seem to advocate taking action on this hypothetical idea under the assumption it is real? Because of hypothetical doomsday effects?

----------


## woodbe

> No arguments here champ.  I've already fully supported this process before.

  Except that you do tend to mostly post political distortions and rants in between the occasional support for the scientific process. Not to mention the scientific process distortion I replied to with that comment...   

> It seems our difference of opinion is that I regard various hypothetical ideas (hypotheses) as being hypothetical.  You seem to advocate taking action on this hypothetical idea under the assumption it is real?

  Somewhat. Let's say that under the knowledge that when there is an overwhelming stack of parallel  and replicated studies independently supporting the hypothesis, and none capable of falsifying it, that we  should pay attention.   

> Because of hypothetical doomsday effects?

  Because of justice. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Victory??  _    
			
				It was once a centrepiece of the Federal Government’s election strategy, but now
			
		  _   

> _ the emissions trading scheme (ETS) has been relegated to the shelf until at least 2013__._  _Delaying the scheme means the Government could save $2.5 billion from its budget over the next three years, because it would not be paying compensation to households and industries…_  _Government sources say it was decided last week to remove the scheme from next month’s budget, bowing to the political reality that the Senate is unlikely to pass the ETS any time soon._

   
Not quite, the stink still lingers!  But are we close to the death rattle of the ETS?   
The US has also shelved their ETS. 
Great news!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Somewhat. Let's say that under the knowledge that when there is an overwhelming stack of parallel and replicated studies independently supporting the hypothesis, and none capable of falsifying it, that we should pay attention. 
> Because of justice. 
> woodbe.

  Rubbish woodbe. It cant be proven nor can it be falsified. So it is just opinion.  All we have is knowledge that climate has changed, we all agree to that.  Much of the studies are hypothetical forcasts of the results of temerature increases, that assume that temperatures will continue to go up!  Yet the empirical evidence is not showing this.   
You cant change the way we live and reek havoc on world economies on the filmsy "evidence" presented.   
The longer we stall the more the empircal evidence shows your models have it all wrong.  People are waking up to this farce.  
Like all doomsday alarms from the past this one will slip off the worry radar as well. 
Time is on our side now ETS schemes around the world are being scrapped.  Carbon markets are at their lowest level ever.  
LOVE IT

----------


## Allen James

. . Just an update for Woodbe, regarding his post #2589, on page 173 of this thread, in which he responds to Rods link to 700 peer reviewed papers supporting skepticism of Man Made global warming at this address: . Popular Technology.net: 700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming . Woodbe said, I had a quick look at the list and *the first two papers* on it were not reviewed by a journal carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Your old friend *sourcewatch* has this to say, which might explain why: _Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers._ . I pointed out that Sourcewatch.org (though it sounds important) is simply a *one woman website* run by Patricia Barden, an environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist. Her interests include bicycling, playing guitar, bird watching, and taking walks with her Jack Russell terrier, Dixie Doodle, and she has no qualifications at all to be denouncing climate scientists. Furthermore, her statement that, Energy and Environments peer review process has been widely criticized, was not backed up with any proof. She just makes up insults and palms them off as source watch. Woodbe claims to be objective but uses this kooky site to denounce scientific arguments. . After I read Woodbes post I looked at the first journal in the list of 700, and saw that it was written by Mr. Craig Loehle, Ph.D., National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI), Washington, Illinois. I decided to email him, and quoted Woodbes response to the 700 peer reviewed journals, and how Mr. Loehles (the first one) was not listed on ISI. Mr. Loehle replied as follows: . _Dear Allen,_ . _I have 120 peer-reviewed pubs, of which about 15 are on climate change, including in GRL, Mathematical Geology, Climatic Change, and Ecological Modeling._ . _My sympathies debating with people like that. I did a debate last year with Michael Schlesinger and it was bizarre. He insulted me, held up his Nobel peace prize as if it had something to do with science, would not respond to any points I raised, and interrupted._  . _Energy and Environment is peer-reviewed. Don't know why not listed in ISI. The irony here of course is that 1/3 of the IPCC citations are not peer-reviewed at all--they are student theses, press releases, government reports, newspaper stories, and advocacy org (like greenpeace) pubs. Climategate shows and my experience confirms that there is a concerted effort to keep skeptical work out of publication. Editors have even been removed for being to soft on us wackos._ . _Craig Loehle_ . If you would like to respond to this Woodbe, Ill let Mr. Loehle know your thoughts. Care to put your science forward for his comments? Youre always asking us for science. Now I have a live scientist for you to go one on one with. . . .

----------


## woodbe

> Rubbish woodbe.

  Rubbish yourself.  :Smilie:    

> It cant be proven nor can it be falsified.

  A rare admission from you Rod. Careful, you're dropping the ball.    

> So it is just opinion.

  Now that IS Rubbish. It is clearly not opinion. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> . . Just an update for Woodbe, regarding his post #2589, on page 173 of this thread, in which he responds to Rods link to 700 peer reviewed papers supporting skepticism of Man Made global warming at this address: . Popular Technology.net: 700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming . Woodbe said, I had a quick look at the list and *the first two papers* on it were not reviewed by a journal carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Your old friend *sourcewatch* has this to say, which might explain why: _Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers._ . I pointed out that Sourcewatch.org (though it sounds important) is simply a *one woman website* run by Patricia Barden, an environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist. Her interests include bicycling, playing guitar, bird watching, and taking walks with her Jack Russell terrier, Dixie Doodle, and she has no qualifications at all to be denouncing climate scientists. Furthermore, her statement that, Energy and Environments peer review process has been widely criticized, was not backed up with any proof. She just makes up insults and palms them off as source watch. Woodbe claims to be objective but uses this kooky site to denounce scientific arguments. . After I read Woodbes post I looked at the first journal in the list of 700, and saw that it was written by Mr. Craig Loehle, Ph.D., National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI), Washington, Illinois. I decided to email him, and quoted Woodbes response to the 700 peer reviewed journals, and how Mr. Loehles (the first one) was not listed on ISI. Mr. Loehle replied as follows: . _Dear Allen,_ . _I have 120 peer-reviewed pubs, of which about 15 are on climate change, including in GRL, Mathematical Geology, Climatic Change, and Ecological Modeling._ . _My sympathies debating with people like that. I did a debate last year with Michael Schlesinger and it was bizarre. He insulted me, held up his Nobel peace prize as if it had something to do with science, would not respond to any points I raised, and interrupted._  . _Energy and Environment is peer-reviewed. Don't know why not listed in ISI. The irony here of course is that 1/3 of the IPCC citations are not peer-reviewed at all--they are student theses, press releases, government reports, newspaper stories, and advocacy org (like greenpeace) pubs. Climategate shows and my experience confirms that there is a concerted effort to keep skeptical work out of publication. Editors have even been removed for being to soft on us wackos._ . _Craig Loehle_ . If you would like to respond to this Woodbe, Ill let Mr. Loehle know your thoughts. Care to put your science forward for his comments? Youre always asking us for science. Now I have a live scientist for you to go one on one with. . . .

  Well done Allen, incredilbe that you got a response. 
It just confirms that alarmists just don't want to admit that there is plenty of peer review science that debunks their theory. 
But if they seem to think that if they say it often enough people will believe them.  Woodbe you are dead wrong on this. You really need to get your head out of the sand and admit there very valid scientific papers that go against your theory. Denying these papers exist and have validity will certainly come back and bite the alarmist on the butt, just as the exagerated claims, the playing the man has, science is settled, etc has.   
Alarmists really need to be honest about this, debate and recognize the validity of skeptics.  if your science is so convincing it will win out.  Only scared people who know they are on shaky ground act as the alarmists do.  Seriously you are only kidding yourselves.  People are awake to these tactics and sick of it, you cannot and will not win with these tactics.

----------


## Allen James

. .    

> Well done Allen, incredilbe that you got a response.

    

> It just confirms that alarmists just don't want to admit that there is plenty of peer review science that debunks their theory.  But if they seem to think that if they say it often enough people will believe them. Woodbe you are dead wrong on this. You really need to get your head out of the sand and admit there very valid scientific papers that go against your theory. Denying these papers exist and have validity will certainly come back and bite the alarmist on the butt, just as the exagerated claims, the playing the man has, science is settled, etc has.   Alarmists really need to be honest about this, debate and recognize the validity of skeptics. if your science is so convincing it will win out. Only scared people who know they are on shaky ground act as the alarmists do. Seriously you are only kidding yourselves. People are awake to these tactics and sick of it, you cannot and will not win with these tactics.

  Thanks Rod. Woodbe has the peer reviewed journal of Mr. Loehles right there, and only needs to counter it with his scientific argument.  Perhaps Chrisp can lend a hand. They cant really use SourceWatch.org again as a counter argument because it turns out to be a web-designer political-activist and her dog, Dixie Doodle, who know doodley-squat about the science of climate.  :Biggrin:  . They are in a bit of a corner now, and this would be a good time for them to face up to the challenge. . . .

----------


## chrisp

> Victory?? 
> Not quite, the stink still lingers!  But are we close to the death rattle of the ETS?   
> The US has also shelved their ETS. 
> Great news!

  Rod, 
The ETS is always going to be a political hot potato.  It is in effect a extra cost on carbon intensive activities - a 'new tax' if you like - and any extra cost burden is always going to be hard to sell. 
However, *while the politics is a hot potato, the science isn't*.  Therefore it is only a matter of time before society, and politicians, will need to act. 
I see you have posted a link to list of 700 papers supposedly supporting "skepticism" - with the disclaimer of "_The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position  to any of the authors_." 
700 does sound impressive, but lets look at the bigger picture.  Taking a few quotes from Wikipedia (Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ):_"No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a  dissenting opinion  since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its  current position in 2007. Some organisations hold non-committal positions."_ *"Since 2001, 32 national science  academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming  anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to  reduce emissions of greenhouse gases."*Lets see what some of these scientific bodies have to say on climate change.  Here is a small sample from the same Wikipedia page referenced above: The *U.S. Global Change Research  Program* reported in June, 2009   that:Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The  global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to  human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come  mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with  important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural  practices, and other activities.*Geological Society of Australia*In July 2009, the Geological Society of Australia  issued the position statement _Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate  Change_: Human activities have increasing impact on Earth’s environments. Of  particular concern are the well-documented loading of carbon dioxide  (CO2) to the atmosphere, which has been linked unequivocally  to burning of fossil fuels, and the corresponding increase in average  global temperature. Risks associated with these large-scale  perturbations of the Earth’s fundamental life-support systems include  rising sea level, harmful shifts in the acid balance of the oceans and  long-term changes in local and regional climate and extreme weather  events. GSA therefore recommends…strong action be taken at all levels,  including government, industry, and individuals to substantially reduce  the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the likely  social and environmental effects of increasing atmospheric CO2*American Physical Society*In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS)  adopted an official statement on climate change: Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing  the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases  include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other  gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of  industrial and agricultural processes. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no  mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s  physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human  health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases  beginning now.  Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction  difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of  human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological  options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms.  The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and  its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the  emission of greenhouse gases.

----------


## chrisp

Oh, and for paper #1 on your list, you may like to read RealClimate: Past reconstructions: problems, pitfalls and progress

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> The ETS is always going to be a political hot potato. It is in effect a extra cost on carbon intensive activities - a 'new tax' if you like - and any extra cost burden is always going to be hard to sell. 
> However, *while the politics is a hot potato, the science isn't*. Therefore it is only a matter of time before the society, and politicians, will need to act. 
> I see you have posted a link to list of 700 papers supposedly supporting "skepticism" - with the disclaimer of "_The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors_." 
> 700 does sound impressive, but lets look at the bigger picture. Taking a few quotes from Wikipedia (Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ): _"No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007. Some organisations hold non-committal positions."_*"Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases."*Lets see what some of these scientific bodies have to say on climate change. Here is a small sample from the same Wikipedia page referenced above: The *U.S. Global Change Research Program* reported in June, 2009 that: Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.*Geological Society of Australia* In July 2009, the Geological Society of Australia issued the position statement _Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change_: Human activities have increasing impact on Earths environments. Of particular concern are the well-documented loading of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, which has been linked unequivocally to burning of fossil fuels, and the corresponding increase in average global temperature. Risks associated with these large-scale perturbations of the Earths fundamental life-support systems include rising sea level, harmful shifts in the acid balance of the oceans and long-term changes in local and regional climate and extreme weather events. GSA therefore recommendsstrong action be taken at all levels, including government, industry, and individuals to substantially reduce the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the likely social and environmental effects of increasing atmospheric CO2*American Physical Society* In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change: Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earths physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earths climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

  These statement do not verify a thing about AGW, not all the members of these associations agree with the comments of the executive and many have been challenged by the membership.  It is just political comments that prove nothing.   
If you have been following the debate here you would also see that the science proves nothing as does the science against AGW.  All this means that there are aguments for and against AGW and that only time and empirical evidence will solve the issue.  Currently on this score you are way behind.  It is impossible to prove or disprove so lets sit back and relax and see what mother nature throws at us. 
The ETS is dead are you happy?  I AM

----------


## chrisp

> These statement do not verify a thing about AGW, not all the members of these associations agree with the comments of the executive and many have been challenged by the membership.  It is just political comments that prove nothing.

  The statements are the formal _scientific_ positions of the respective scientific bodies on climate change.   
These societies and bodies represent a very large number of scientists.  The level of scientific support for AGW totally overwhelms the level of support for the opposing view.    *It isn't political comment - it is scientific comment.*

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Oh, and for paper #1 on your list, you may like to read

    

> RealClimate: Past reconstructions: problems, pitfalls and progress

  Heh heh. Woodbe put up “sourcewatch.org”, AKA Patricia Barden, an environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist, as his argument against the 700 peer reviewed scientific skeptics journals, and who does Chrisp put up? . realclimate.org . That's a left-wing political site founded by friends of Gore, managed by *Betsy Ensley*, another green activist like Patricia Barden. Betsy manages other sites like bushgreenwatch.org (sponsored by moveon.org) and womenagainstbush.org. MoveOn.org is an extremely left winged organization that supports Gore, Obama and AGW. It is described as a ‘hate filled propaganda machine’. . Betsy also runs Environmental Media Services. EMS is primarily an organization to pay for junk science about food and beverages, often hired by food companies to damage their competitors. . Environmental Media Services: Funding sources, staff profiles, and political agenda . Betsy appears to be a paid political activist for all things green and all things anti-bush, who graduated from the University of Iowa in 2000, where she majored in Global Studies with thematic focus on *war, peace and security*, and minored in *Asian languages*. . _“As critics note, the idea that RealClimate is just a bunch of unpaid “real scientists” is risible, given their methods of argumentation are often little more than smear, ridicule, cherry-picking science, and pronouncing themselves and their exclusive little climate clique as only the few 'qualified’ to have an opinion on man-made global warming. RealClimate’s members, like Andrew Dessler of Grist and writers for the Soros-backed Climate Progress, perpetrate a unique form of “qualification thuggery” by which anyone skeptical of their agenda are unworthy to comment, typically because they skeptic does not affiliate with the UN IPCC. When the skeptic is an IPCC author or reviewer, well he’s still unqualified. And “mere physicists” such as Freeman Dyson, or chemists, or economists, are also unqualified, but only when they disagree. After all, Dessler is a chemist, and the IPCC’s “chief scientist” is no such thing at all, as you’ll see._ _._ _“Absent agreement, this unholy alliance of activists, Big Science and other vested interests responds so viciously to even the whiff of dissent that it is impossible to not wonder what it is they are afraid of.”_ . RealClimate methods: smear, ridicule, cherry-picking ... . . Woodbe and Chrisp appear to have no scientific argument in response to Mr. Loehle’s journal. They have both seen my posts on this, and the journal in question, and all they can come up with by reply is to refer us to green kooks like Pat and Betty, two unqualified left winged activists. . . .    . . .

----------


## chrisp

> _ Editors have even been removed for being to soft on us wackos._ . _Craig Loehle_    .

  I do hope that Mr James, as he has done here many times, wrote back to Dr Loehle pointing out the obvious grammatical error in his response.  :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> The statements are the formal _scientific_ positions of the respective scientific bodies on climate change.

    

> These societies and bodies represent a very large number of scientists. The level of scientific support for AGW totally overwhelms the level of support for the opposing view.   *It isn't political comment - it is scientific comment.*

  Your argument fails on a number of levels. First there is the glaring contradiction wherein you first demand ‘science’ to debunk AGW ‘science’, but upon receiving it, run away to hide behind a logical fallacy. Very revealing and disappointing. . Second, there is the logical fallacy itself; that if XX number of scientists believe something, and X number of scientists do not, then XX number of scientists must be correct _because there are more of them_. LOL!! That would mean that nearly every scientific breakthrough in history was wrong, since the number of scientists opposed to them were always greater than the number agreeing with them, before they were accepted.  Third, you have not justified your statement anyway, by supplying a list of scientists whom agree with AGW, so that we can check about this. In my opinion most eminent scientists in this area are today very sceptical about AGW. . You have failed to counter scientific arguments, instead referring us to kooks and logical fallacies.  :Rolleyes:   :Biggrin:   :Rolleyes:  . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> I do hope that Mr James, as he has done here many times, wrote back to Dr Loehle pointing out the obvious grammatical error in his response.

   I predicted you would point that out. Typos is all you have at this stage, and that just adds to your  embarrassing failure in regard to answering his science. . . .

----------


## watson

My only "hackle" is the quote  _My sympathies debating with people like that._ I just wonder how the "people like that"  have been described? :Tapedshut:

----------


## Allen James

> My only "hackle" is the quote _My sympathies debating with people like that._

    

> I just wonder how the "people like that" have been described?

  Here is the email I sent, Noel:  Craig Loehle, Ph.D. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI), 552 S. Washington St. #224 Naperville Illinois 60540 USA Phone: 630-579-1190 Fax: 630-579-1195 email: cloehle@ncasi.org Dear Craig,  I was involved in a debate online about AGW. I am a skeptic. The AGW believers there were complaining that we had no peer reviewed science to back us up. One of the people on my side provided them this link, to 700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming, at: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html  This was the response:  I had a quick look at the list and the first two papers on it were not reviewed by a journal carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Your old friend sourcewatch has this to say, which might explain why:  _Originally Posted by sourcewatch_  _Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.[1][2] Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton.[1]_ _Climate change skeptics which have been published in this journal include Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Ian Castles, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, Madhav Khandekar, Craig Loehle, Steve McIntyre, and Indur Goklany._  Haha. A few of your mates in there too Looks like it might be the journal you send your junk science to when no-one else will print it. So, if that is at the top of the 700 'papers' (some of them appear to be letters to the editor and other guff) I have my doubts we're looking at a debunking of anything but common sense.  Craig, I see that your journal is the first one on the list, and is published by Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd. I looked up the ISI Web of Knowledge mentioned, and saw information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISI_Web_of_Knowledge  Am I right to assume that the ISI people are not the only people a scientist MUST go to, and that they may even be biased against AGW skeptics? What does one say to someone who first demands peer reviewed science and then rejects it because it isnt on his favorite site? Ill do my best, but I would like to hear your views.  Yours sincerely,  Allen James

----------


## watson

> Here is the email I sent, Noel:  Craig Loehle, Ph.D. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI), 552 S. Washington St. #224 Naperville Illinois 60540 USA Phone: 630-579-1190 Fax: 630-579-1195 email: cloehle@ncasi.org Dear Craig,  I was involved in a debate online about AGW. I am a skeptic. The AGW believers there were complaining that we had no peer reviewed science to back us up. One of the people on my side provided them this link, to 700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming, at: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html  This was the response:  I had a quick look at the list and the first two papers on it were not reviewed by a journal carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Your old friend sourcewatch has this to say, which might explain why:  _Originally Posted by sourcewatch_  _Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.[1][2] Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton.[1]_ _Climate change skeptics which have been published in this journal include Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Ian Castles, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, Madhav Khandekar, Craig Loehle, Steve McIntyre, and Indur Goklany._  Haha. A few of your mates in there too Looks like it might be the journal you send your junk science to when no-one else will print it. So, if that is at the top of the 700 'papers' (some of them appear to be letters to the editor and other guff) I have my doubts we're looking at a debunking of anything but common sense.  Craig, I see that your journal is the first one on the list, and is published by Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd. I looked up the ISI Web of Knowledge mentioned, and saw information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISI_Web_of_Knowledge  Am I right to assume that the ISI people are not the only people a scientist MUST go to, and that they may even be biased against AGW skeptics? What does one say to someone who first demands peer reviewed science and then rejects it because it isnt on his favorite site? Ill do my best, but I would like to hear your views.  Yours sincerely,  Allen James

  Fair enough TA!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The statements are the formal _scientific_ positions of the respective scientific bodies on climate change.  
> These societies and bodies represent a very large number of scientists. The level of scientific support for AGW totally overwhelms the level of support for the opposing view.   *It isn't political comment - it is scientific comment.*

  These statements ARE a contentious issue amongst the membership of many of these organisations, Like it or not they are political statements, made by the heads of these organisations it is not put to a vot you know.  They don't reflect the views of all the members as you might portray.  Imagine if one of these organizations went against the alarmist view? They are politically restrained and obligated to make these statements at the risk of being villified if they didn't.  Just wait and see the softening up of their positions as it becomes politically safe to do so.  Some of these organisations are under enormous pressure from within to change their position.  
There is no consensus as you may have as think. 
Chrisp it is time the alarmists start getting honest and say as it is rather than how you would like it to be.  They might get a little more respect if they do.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Here is the email I sent, Noel:  Craig Loehle, Ph.D. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI), 552 S. Washington St. #224 Naperville Illinois 60540 USA Phone: 630-579-1190 Fax: 630-579-1195 email: cloehle@ncasi.org Dear Craig,  I was involved in a debate online about AGW. I am a skeptic. The AGW believers there were complaining that we had no peer reviewed science to back us up. One of the people on my side provided them this link, to 700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming, at: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html  This was the response:  I had a quick look at the list and the first two papers on it were not reviewed by a journal carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Your old friend sourcewatch has this to say, which might explain why:  _Originally Posted by sourcewatch_  _Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.[1][2] Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton.[1]_ _Climate change skeptics which have been published in this journal include Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Ian Castles, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, Madhav Khandekar, Craig Loehle, Steve McIntyre, and Indur Goklany._  Haha. A few of your mates in there too Looks like it might be the journal you send your junk science to when no-one else will print it. So, if that is at the top of the 700 'papers' (some of them appear to be letters to the editor and other guff) I have my doubts we're looking at a debunking of anything but common sense.  Craig, I see that your journal is the first one on the list, and is published by Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd. I looked up the ISI Web of Knowledge mentioned, and saw information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISI_Web_of_Knowledge  Am I right to assume that the ISI people are not the only people a scientist MUST go to, and that they may even be biased against AGW skeptics? What does one say to someone who first demands peer reviewed science and then rejects it because it isnt on his favorite site? Ill do my best, but I would like to hear your views.  Yours sincerely,  Allen James

  Nicely put Allen thanks for posting this.

----------


## woodbe

So even Mr Loehle is capable of selective interpretation of the IPCC?   

> _The irony here of  course is that 1/3 of the IPCC citations are not peer-reviewed at  all--they are student theses, press releases, government reports,  newspaper stories, and advocacy org (like greenpeace) pubs._

  Selective, because any reader of this thread, or the of the IPCC will already know that the science is in WG1, and a recent scorecard from a sceptic site took the same delight in pointing out how many of the studies were not peer reviewed. They arranged the table in reverse order, so that the science score came at the bottom of the list, and if their blinkered sceptic blog readers had read enough of the list (it was long), they would have realised that the WG1 Science group came out with A's and B's - very few non peer-reviewed papers quoted by WG1 at all.   

> As you can see, Rod's link gives high marks for the IPCC Working Group 1. Every score is a B or higher, more than half get an A. So even the sceptics agree that the science is sound, who would have thought?     _source: noconsensus.org_  
> That makes it a  CREDIT 
> I think Rod got confused because all the bad marks are at the top and he probably didn't realise that they were for the non-science working groups. (or maybe he didn't read all of the page, wouldn't be the first time) Don't feel bad Rod, the same error was made by the people exaggerating the impact of the two sentences in the report dealing with the Himalayan Glaciers. That wasn't in WG1 either. 
> woodbe.

  Thanks Rod for quoting this stuff from Allen, the sceptics have repeatedly pointed out to me that my questioning of the PR campaigns by the sceptics are coming from the same organisations that did the Tobacco campaigns as wrong, straw man, unfair, guilt by association, etc, etc or whatever, and yet Allen considers it appropriate to post this kind of thing:   

> I pointed out that Sourcewatch.org (though it  sounds important) is simply a *one woman website* run by Patricia  Barden, an environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist. Her  interests include bicycling, playing guitar, bird watching, and taking  walks with her Jack Russell terrier, Dixie Doodle, and she has no  qualifications at all to be denouncing climate scientists.

   
Note that the site is sourcewatch, not climatesciencewatch - it doesn't debate climate science, it outs people with compromising ties capable of distorting their ability to be impartial. Nor does it matter whether it is run by one person or a hundred, or a woman, and we know that Allen has a problem with them which is a large part of the reason I have him on ignore. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So even Mr Loehle is capable of selective interpretation of the IPCC?   
> Selective, because any reader of this thread, or the of the IPCC will already know that the science is in WG1, and a recent scorecard from a sceptic site took the same delight in pointing out how many of the studies were not peer reviewed. They arranged the table in reverse order, so that the science score came at the bottom of the list, and if their blinkered sceptic blog readers had read enough of the list (it was long), they would have realised that the WG1 Science group came out with A's and B's - very few non peer-reviewed papers quoted by WG1 at all.   
> Thanks Rod for quoting this stuff from Allen, the sceptics have repeatedly pointed out to me that my questioning of the PR campaigns by the sceptics are coming from the same organisations that did the Tobacco campaigns as wrong, straw man, unfair, guilt by association, etc, etc or whatever, and yet Allen considers it appropriate to post this kind of thing:    Note that the site is sourcewatch, not climatesciencewatch - it doesn't debate climate science, it outs people with compromising ties capable of distorting their ability to be impartial. Nor does it matter whether it is run by one person or a hundred, or a woman, and we know that Allen has a problem with them which is a large part of the reason I have him on ignore.  woodbe.

  
I'll raise ya a......... No Frakking Consensus: What the IPCC Learned from Press Releases 
The IPCC sold themseves as a watertight organisation with ONLY reference to peer review papers.  They have been caught out like it or not.

----------


## dazzler

Rudd dropped the ETS today.  We are all doomed  :Tongue: . 
What a gutless witless worm not having the balls to take it to a double dis and let the people decide. 
A worm I tells ya. 
Oh, and heres a link;  Earthworm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rudd dropped the ETS today. We are all doomed . 
> What a gutless witless worm not having the balls to take it to a double dis and let the people decide. 
> A worm I tells ya. 
> Oh, and heres a link;  Earthworm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Yep really shows his character LOL

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> Rudd dropped the ETS today. We are all doomed . . 
> What a gutless witless worm not having the balls to take it to a double dis and let the people decide.

  Good news Dazzler, and I agree about him being a gutless and witless worm.  :Biggrin:  .
It looks like Rod was right about the ETS being doomed, all along.  :2thumbsup:  .
Here is an article: . Kevin Rudd delays emissions trading scheme until Kyoto expires in 2012 | The Australian . .
The comments there are quite interesting too. . . . .

----------


## Allen James

. . Woodbe: _“Any reader of this thread, or the of the IPCC will already know that the science is in WG1, and a recent scorecard from a sceptic site took the same delight in pointing out how many of the studies were not peer reviewed.”_ Yet they refuse to publish peer reviewed science that opposes their science. Nice.  :Rolleyes:  . Woodbe: _“_the sceptics have repeatedly pointed out to me that my questioning of the PR campaigns by the sceptics are coming from the same organisations that did the Tobacco campaigns as wrong, straw man, unfair, guilt by association, etc, etc or whatever, and yet Allen considers it appropriate to post this kind of thing: . _‘I pointed out that Sourcewatch.org (though it sounds important) is simply a one woman website run by Patricia Barden, an environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist. Her interests include bicycling, playing guitar, bird watching, and taking walks with her Jack Russell terrier, Dixie Doodle, and she has no qualifications at all to be denouncing climate scientists.’”_ . Where is the straw man? You and Chrisp sneered about various sources Rod used, when the person in question was *not* a scientist. I pointed out what Patricia Barden actually does and is qualified to do, and how they have nothing to do with climate science. If she was a bus driver or an accountant I would have posted the same info in exactly the same way. Are you saying that because I mentioned what Patricia herself mentioned on her own website, about her being a environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist, that there is something _wrong_ with being those things? I certainly did not say that. I mentioned it precisely for the same reasons you nagged Rod often in the past – she is not qualified to run a site about or comment upon climate science. She is a political activist. You constantly harp about us not providing objective science, and when we do, you refer us to a political activist with a dog called Dixie Doodle.  :Biggrin:  . . .

----------


## woodbe

> The IPCC sold themseves as a watertight organisation with ONLY reference to peer review papers.  They have been caught out like it or not.

  I think that is baloney, but I am prepared to concede if you can produce an IPCC press release or preamble that claims that the entire report suite from all working groups is ONLY based on peer reviewed science. 
In any case its a red herring, it is still a fact that the part of the IPCC reports that matters in terms of AGW, - the Science - has been reviewed by both the Scientific community and the noconsensus sceptical website, and both gave it an A or a B. The science in the IPCC WG1 report is based on peer reviewed science. No question. 
woodbe

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I think that is baloney, but I am prepared to concede if you can produce an IPCC press release or preamble that claims that the entire report suite from all working groups is ONLY based on peer reviewed science. 
> In any case its a red herring, it is still a fact that the part of the IPCC reports that matters in terms of AGW, - the Science - has been reviewed by both the Scientific community and the noconsensus sceptical website, and both gave it an A or a B. The science in the IPCC WG1 report is based on peer reviewed science. No question. 
> woodbe

  LOL only problem, they only took one side of the argument.  The only red herring around here is the IPCC

----------


## Allen James

. . I emailed Woodbes responses to Craig Loehle, and he responded.  Putting that dialogue together then, it goes like this: . *Craig Loehle*:  _The irony here of course is that 1/3 of the IPCC citations are not peer-reviewed at all--they are student theses, press releases, government reports, newspaper stories, and advocacy org (like greenpeace) pubs._ . *Woodbe*:  _Selective, because any reader of this thread, or the of the IPCC will already know that the science is in WG1, and a recent scorecard from a sceptic site took the same delight in pointing out how many of the studies were not peer reviewed. They arranged the table in reverse order, so that the science score came at the bottom of the list, and if their blinkered sceptic blog readers had read enough of the list (it was long), they would have realised that the WG1 Science group came out with A's and B's - very few non peer-reviewed papers quoted by WG1 at all._ . *Craig Loehle*:  _Ah, yes, but it is in the IMPACTS that the alarms are supposed to be. The WG1 does not say what will happen, just what the climate will be.  The entire scare is about water shortages and disease and droughts, which is where most of the non-peer-reviewed work is cited.  Amazongate, himalayagate, etc._ . _Craig_ . When I invited Craig to debate further he said he had responded a few times to people like Eli Rabbett, when Eli attacked his latest paper, and all of them completely ignored his responses.  He said, There is a problem of standards of evidence.  Alarmists take the alarm as self evident, and are not much interested in evidence. . Sound familiar, Rod?  Dr. Freud?  :Biggrin:  . Anyway, if you read this Craig, thanks for your input.  :2thumbsup:  . . .

----------


## Dr Freud

> . . I emailed Woodbes responses to Craig Loehle, and he responded.  Putting that dialogue together then, it goes like this: . *Craig Loehle*:  _The irony here of course is that 1/3 of the IPCC citations are not peer-reviewed at all--they are student theses, press releases, government reports, newspaper stories, and advocacy org (like greenpeace) pubs._ . *Woodbe*:  _Selective, because any reader of this thread, or the of the IPCC will already know that the science is in WG1, and a recent scorecard from a sceptic site took the same delight in pointing out how many of the studies were not peer reviewed. They arranged the table in reverse order, so that the science score came at the bottom of the list, and if their blinkered sceptic blog readers had read enough of the list (it was long), they would have realised that the WG1 Science group came out with A's and B's - very few non peer-reviewed papers quoted by WG1 at all._ . *Craig Loehle*:  _Ah, yes, but it is in the IMPACTS that the alarms are supposed to be. The WG1 does not say what will happen, just what the climate will be.  The entire scare is about water shortages and disease and droughts, which is where most of the non-peer-reviewed work is cited.  Amazongate, himalayagate, etc._ . _Craig_ . When I invited Craig to debate further he said he had responded a few times to people like Eli Rabbett, when Eli attacked his latest paper, and all of them completely ignored his responses.  He said, There is a problem of standards of evidence.  Alarmists take the alarm as self evident, and are not much interested in evidence. . Sound familiar, Rod?  Dr. Freud?  . Anyway, if you read this Craig, thanks for your input.  . . .

  Yeh, rings a bell.  Who needs evidence when you have climate models, conjecture, spurious correlations and claims of percentages that aren't real.  :Doh:  
Keep fighting the good fight Craig.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Somewhat. Let's say that under the knowledge that when there is an overwhelming stack of parallel  and replicated studies independently supporting the hypothesis, and none capable of falsifying it, that we  should pay attention. 
> woodbe.

  Did you email this to Kev?    :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It is a matter of record that Minister Garrett alerted his cabinet colleagues to the inherent problems of the home insulation scheme on at least one occasion and we can only presume did so to deafening silence by way of response or if any verbal response was made it seems to be of the dont tell me your problems variety.     One of the other reasons postulated on why Garrett was not sacked was that Kevin Rudd may have feared the big, bald fellow shuffling off to the backbench and backgrounding journalists on how he had made the PM and cabinet aware of the manifest problems of the home insulation scheme but was widely ignored by Rudd.    If you give someone 2.4 billion dollars to run a carbon pollution reduction program and they royally screw it, what do you say when they ask for 114 billion dollars for something infinitely more complicated?

  I'm just watching the 4 Corners report on the insulation debacle (we're a bit slower over here in the west).  If the letters from Garret to Rudd over this are leaked, this government is toast.  Saving the climate but knowingly risking and costing lives is a poor cost benefit analysis.  This is just one problem with rushing climate schemes based on this fiction.  :Mad:

----------


## Dr Freud

> My considered view is that these guys are dead-set idiots?  Anyone reading this drivel with an ounce of critical analysis could explain why.  
> Tell you what, for such an avowed "science" advocate as yourself, I'm surprised you even posted this.  
> How about digging up some of that science you are so fond of referring to?  Surely you must have it on hand by now.  How about we start with the strongest scientific paper you can find supporting AGW Theory, then we won't have to waste time with the "also ran's".  Please, not some obscure reference to the IPCC or some computer model, or some spurious correlation, but an actual scientific paper that demonstrates how Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions are the predominant, if not sole driver of global temperatures, to the exclusion of all other "alleged" climate drivers. 
> Take your time, email your buddies at Realclimate if necessary.  Let's make it a good one.

    

> Rod, 
> 700 does sound impressive, but lets look at the bigger picture.  Taking a few quotes from Wikipedia (Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ):

  Rather than post other people's opinions, why not read the source of all these opinions yourself, and make up your own minds on what you read.  :Shock:   There are hundreds of real scientific articles referenced to validate any claims you want to make. 
You hold up working group 1 as your holy grail of science underwriting this theory, and chapter 9 is where they pin this on us pesky humans.  This chapter is where it all starts folks.  Count the number of models used, then present your science?  Show us all that science that supports this theoretical idea.  :2thumbsup:   Chapter 9.

----------


## woodbe

> Craig Loehle:  Ah, yes, but it is in the  IMPACTS that the alarms are supposed to be. The WG1 does not say what  will happen, just what the climate will be.  The entire scare is about  water shortages and disease and droughts, which is where most of the  non-peer-reviewed work is cited.  Amazongate, himalayagate, etc.

  Cool. So we are apparently in agreement that the science is sound, and tells us 'what the climate will be' 
That's new. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.
.   

> Cool. So we are apparently in agreement that the science is sound, and tells us 'what the climate will be'

    

> That's new.

   Im afraid Craig has you on ignore, Woodbe.  :Biggrin:  .
.
.

----------


## chrisp

> Rather than post other people's opinions, why not read the source of all these opinions yourself, and make up your own minds on what you read.

  The opinions I have quoted are not just anyone's opinion, but rather the stated *opinions of international recognised scientific bodies*.   
With all the ranting and raving we read from the deniers, one might think the science is wide open on AGW - it isn't. 
Me thinks some people have very strong political biases on this issue, that they are trying to convince themselves that the science has somehow been corrupted, rather than accept the scientific opinion of major scientific organisations.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> I'm just watching the *4 Corners report on the insulation debacle* (we're a bit slower over here in the west). If the letters from Garret to Rudd over this are leaked, this government is toast. Saving the climate but knowingly risking and costing lives is a poor cost benefit analysis. This is just one problem with rushing climate schemes based on this fiction.

   For those who missed it, the whole episode is here: . Four Corners - A Lethal Miscalculation . It was good, but tended to concentrate mainly on the deaths of the young installers and the fact that Rudd and Garrett didn’t have any standard of care or safety. The hundreds of house fires weren’t really covered much at all, though they touched upon it, interviewed firemen, and showed how the fires start. We didn’t see much concerning all the burnt houses – just two or three. It could have been a lot more damming – I think they let Rudd and Garrett off lightly, but that’s the ABC for you. . I suppose they’ll never do an expose on how the government is directly responsible for the many bush fires we suffer each year, along with many lost lives and homes, as a result of Labor’s bans on cutting down trees and back burning, which I think is a much greater example of how the greenies and Labor like to sacrifice Aussies to their tree Gods. . . .

----------


## woodbe

> Here, Woody.................I'll do a quote so that you can see how lucky you are..........

  Thanks Headpin.  :Smilie:  
You won't believe this, but Craig has actually gone up in my estimation after this exchange. haha. 
As for being on ignore, tell someone who cares. 
woodbe

----------


## andy the pm

> . .   . I suppose theyll never do an expose on how the government is directly responsible for the many bush fires we suffer each year, along with many lost lives and homes, as a result of Labors bans on cutting down trees and back burning, which I think is a much greater example of how the greenies and Labor like to sacrifice Aussies to their tree Gods. . . .

  Another comment showing just how ignorant and stupid you really are, keep it coming...

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Another comment showing just how ignorant and stupid you really are, keep it coming...

   You obviously have no idea what is going on in Australia, Andy. The Federal and State Labor Parties, along with most local governments, forbid the removal of dangerous trees from around properties, to appease greenies. It is a common problem, and any man and his dog can tell you stories about it. My neighbour for instance, here in Qld., had many huge and dangerous eucalyptus trees that were hanging over the road, and could easily have fallen on passing pedestrians or cars. They were also a fire hazard, and caused his house damage from their roots. Yet when he contacted the local council they told him that State and Federal laws forbid him to remove the trees. He pointed the danger of them falling on people and the council said, “Tough luck. If they do it will be *your* responsibility,” meaning he would have to pay the costs. In the end he had to break the law and cut them down. Luckily the Labor Government didn’t find out or he would have been fined many tens of thousands of dollars. . This mental disease isn’t restricted to Queensland; it’s all over Australia. Are you seriously telling me you haven’t heard about the guy who was fined $50,000 for saving his house by chopping down trees? . Here is some of an article from The Daily Telegraph, 2009 [Emphasis mine]: . . Start with Judge Leonard Stretton's *1939* inquiry into the Black Friday fires, fast forward to the *1984* review of the Ash Wednesday fires the previous year, the report on fire prevention by the Auditor-General in *1992*, the CSIRO fire management paper prepared by Phil Cheney in *1994*, the Victorian inquiry and the federal inquiry - A Nation Charred - in *2003*, and you will find that the *principal problem constantly identified* over the span of your life as a determinant in the ferocity of the fires *is the* *level of fuel available*. . Every basic firefighter is taught the "fire triangle" - its three components are fuel, oxygen and a heat source. … Each of the inquiries I have mentioned made note of the fuel levels with your predecessor, Judge Stretton, noting: "The amount of* (controlled) burning* which was done was* ridiculously inadequate,''* in 1984, the level of reduction burning was found to be *"too low"*, in 1992, the "failure'' of the Victorian Department of Conservation and Environment to meet its fuel-reduction targets was found to have made the forests "*more susceptible*" to fires, and *this story is repeated* in various forms right through 2003 *and*, without pre-empting your findings, *remains the case today*. . The Victorian *Government*, and local *councils*, have *ignored all the warnings*. . What's more, the experienced farmers, foresters and residents of bushfire prone areas have been reviled as rednecks for merely stating the obvious, and *convicted of criminal behaviour if they take the necessary steps to protect their property from the wilful failure of the authorities to take measures to reduce the risk.* . *Liam Sheahan* and his wife Dale, for example, were dragged through the courts by their local Mitchell Shire Council and *fined $50,000* for *clearing the trees* around their home in 2002. . Today, the Sheahans' home is the *only one standing* in a 2km radius after fires swept through last week. . "*Labor has pandered to minority green groups* to get over the line, but now we hope that what happened to us might be a catalyst for change,'' Liam said. . "The situation is the same from Adelaide to southern NSW." . Reedy Creek is an easy hour's drive from Melbourne. Two hours further north, in Tawonga South, just over the 895m high Tawonga Gap, *Allan Mull*, a former farmer, former fire brigade captain, prospector, developer and now alpine activist campaigns for safer forests from his eco-friendly home surrounded by an organic garden and covered in solar panels. . A founding member of the small but vocal Alpine Conservation and Access Group, he has studies and reports which show the need for regular burning to keep the alpine forests healthy. . "*Aborigines used to start fires* on the ridge lines as they came down after feasting on bogong moths every year," Mull, a fourth generation member of a Kiewa Valley family, told me. . "When the forests were commercially logged and under the control of the old Forestry Commission, the forestry workers did the same thing. . "*But the state government since the days of (former Labor premiers) John Cain and Joan Kirner have allowed green ideologues to take over.* The forests have been *locked up*, the fire trails have been *closed*, they are *full of weeds and feral animals*. The state has failed in its duty of care. Our national parks and reserves are now *national disasters*, whether burnt or not.'' . Mull also blames the *city media* for not listening to *rural* voices, saying that *urban green groups are never questioned but experienced country representatives are mocked.* … "The state boasts that its parks and reserves are *'protected'* lands but the *opposite* is true," he said. . Burning issue top's judge Bernard Teague's inquiry agenda | The Daily Telegraph . You can read more about Liam Sheahan (and see his photo) here: . VEXNEWS 2010© | DOING FINE: A patriot’s vision saved his house despite persecution from enviro-bureaucrats . ..
.
.
. .

----------


## chrisp

> Well, kids if you didn't already believe Mr James had lost his marbles, there's no denying it now..............

    *Lost his marbles?  -  I think you are assuming that he had some in the first place*  :Rolleyes:   
However, I suspect that Mr James has a thing for "environmental and  gay/lesbian rights activist" - and especially has a thing for them if he finds all three in the one person!   Did anyone check his claim that SourceWatch is ran by Patricia Barden (the, heaven forbid, _environmental and  gay/lesbian rights activist_)? 
From SourceWatch: "*The Center for Media and  Democracy (CMD) publishes SourceWatch*"
(from SourceWatch:Purpose - SourceWatch ) The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) was established by:"CMD is led by *Lisa Graves* and was  founded by *John Stauber* in  1993."
(from: About CMD | Center for Media and Democracy ) So who is Patricia Barden?"The Center for Media and Democracy's IT Director *Patricia Barden"*
(from: Patricia Barden | Center for Media and Democracy ) Yep, she is the *IT Director*.  It seems to me that you had to look hard to find a environmentalist/gay/lesbian  in SourceWatch and that you seems to use the "environmental and  gay/lesbian  rights activist" handle to discredit people or organisations?    Why have you got such a hang-up with environmentalists/gays/lesbians Allen?  After all it's not their fault - maybe it is something that can prevented with home schooling?

----------


## woodbe

> Woody, how big can you make that signature of yours.  I believe we may have another addition for you.

  Well, I dunno, there must be a limit I guess. 
Hate to ruin a good story and point out that the burning and tree removal restriction issues have been supported by governments of both Labor and Liberal persuasions, State and Federal for decades, so you can't single out Labor for that one. It was probably even around before the greenies! 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> .I suppose theyll never do an expose on how the government is directly responsible for the many bush fires we *suffer* each year, along with many lost lives and homes, as a result of Labors bans on cutting down trees and back burning, which I think is a much greater example of how the greenies and Labor like to sacrifice Aussies to their tree Gods..

     

> You gotta love the line "directly responsible" typical uneducated, uninformed response from everyone's friend, Mr James...................

   The bushfires we *suffer*, as in the bushfires that come racing right up to our houses, causing panic and forcing people to evacuate or risk their lives, using hoses to fend off flames. That suffering is unnecessary because back burning, tree removal and clearing of fuel is all that is needed to avoid this, and most government departments forbid such activity thanks to greenie legislation. The lost lives and houses are also unnecessary for the same reasons. . .   

> I guess the idiot running around with a lighted match and a can of petrol is just co-incidental to the fact that the bushfire started.......... and had no real bearing on the bushfire?

   That idiot could not create the carnage we are talking about here, Headpain, if people were allowed to remove dangerous fire hazards and look after their own properties. Only environmental bureaucrats can cause this kind of carnage, by preventing the same, thus making it easy for arsonists to kill hundreds. It would be no different if the government banned burglar alarms and door locks. This would allow burglars and rapists free reign. Would you then blame burglars, or the government? . This isnt rocket science.  :Rolleyes:  .   

> Well, kids if you didn't already believe Mr James had lost his marbles, there's no denying it now..............Someone really should tell his Mommy that's he's playing around on her computer again................Woody, how big can you make that signature of yours. I believe we may have another addition for you.

   As for the rest of your trolling, youre only making yourself and Watson look bad, so carry on, by all means. . . .

----------


## woodbe

> So who is Patricia Barden?"The Center for Media and Democracy's IT Director *Patricia Barden"*
> (from: Patricia Barden | Center for Media and Democracy ) Yep, she is the *IT Director*.  It seems to me that you had to look hard to find a environmentalist/gay/lesbian  in SourceWatch and that you seems to use the "environmental and  gay/lesbian  rights activist" handle to discredit people or organisations?    Why have you got such a hang-up with environmentalists/gays/lesbians Allen?  After all it's not their fault - maybe it is something that can prevented with home schooling?

  Good pick up Chris, The other point is that the content on Sourcewatch is user contributed by Joe Public, just like Wikipedia - So even if the IT Director were all those things (and who cares anyway) she's just keeping the systems up and running while the users post their information. 
You'll even find that both Sourcewatch and Wikipedia are powered by the same opensource wiki engine:  
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Well, I dunno, there must be a limit I guess.

    

> Hate to ruin a good story and point out that the burning and tree removal restriction issues have been supported by governments of both Labor and Liberal persuasions, State and Federal for decades, so you can't single out Labor for that one. It was probably even around before the greenies!

    Sure, Mr. "Probably".  :Rolleyes:  . Since the 60s greenies have been preventing the building of dams and back-burning, etc., to save trees, which is nonsense, as more trees are destroyed as a result.  Labor has steadfastly supported the greens in this endeavour.  Liberal governments may not have removed all such legislation, because it would have been contested and blocked by Labor, and would have lost votes for the Liberals.  However, they are not the cause, and two wrongs dont make a right anyway.  Today the Labor government is in charge, both Federally and in every State, and is very gung ho about its greeenie approach to killing Aussies, whether it be in bush fires, or in insulation debacles.  They are also salivating at the prospect of adding huge taxes on top of that, to fund Communists overseas.  This will also kill Aussies, as health is affected by wealth. .
.
.

----------


## chrisp

> Today the Labor government is in charge, both Federally and in every State

  Is this another one of those "Mr James facts"?*"Colin James Barnett* (June 15, 1950 (age 59)),  Australian politician, is the leader of the Western Australian Liberal Party, Premier of Western Australia  since the 2008 electionTreasurer of Western Australia  since 27 April 2010."
(from: Colin Barnett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

----------


## andy the pm

> . .  . Since the 60s greenies have been preventing the building of dams and back-burning, etc., to save trees, which is nonsense, as more trees are destroyed as a result. Labor has steadfastly supported the greens in this endeavour. Liberal governments may not have removed all such legislation, because it would have been contested and blocked by Labor, and would have lost votes for the Liberals. However, they are not the cause, and two wrongs dont make a right anyway. Today the Labor government is in charge, both Federally and in every State, and is very gung ho about its greeenie approach to killing Aussies, whether it be in bush fires, or in insulation debacles. They are also salivating at the prospect of adding huge taxes on top of that, to fund Communists overseas. This will also kill Aussies, as health is affected by wealth.

  I knew it wouldn't be long before the communists made an appearance in one of your hysterical posts... 
Here's a link to the back burning activities carried out in NSw recently...  Hazard Reduction Burns - NSW Rural Fire Service 
On another note, its really quite funny how you are so quite to cry troll when you see a post you don't like but are quite happy to troll along yourself...

----------


## woodbe

Haha, it seems the sceptics no need of Science, they don't need their own words either  Amazing that two documents are so alike (PDF)  
The hole just got deeper and stinky. Yes Sceptics, this is the way to win the debate.   

> Clearly, the problems I have exposed here go well beyond lack of  proper attribution.  Wegman et al have followed closely Bradley’s  exposition, but have still managed to introduce mistakes and even gross  distortions.
>  That such a shoddy misrepresentation of another author’s work has  been used as part of a baseless, politically motivated attack on that  author is beyond shameful. Perhaps it is time to interrupt the incessant  braying about so-called Climategate, and examine a real outrage for  once.  “Sound science” indeed!

  woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Having worked on the ground firefighting and doing fire protection/prevention works for over 30 years, I have seen many instances of fires started that the government was not directly responsible for.

   You may have misread me, or perhaps I could have been clearer. I havent claimed the government starts fires. I maintain that the government prevents people back-burning, removing trees and removing fuel from the scrub around their houses and communities. When the fire rushes up to their back fence, they suffer, and the government is directly responsible for that. As for harmless bush fires, which will start for a variety of reasons, of course no government is responsible. . .   

> I think this is more a result of local council policies than federal governments.

   I think it is a mixture of all three; federal, state and local. . .   

> I think the greens have been a very convenient process for governments to reduce expenditure on fire protection works in the good name of conservation.

   I agree about the excuse part, but I would not call building a fire trap around towns good conservation, and Im sure you wouldnt either. Just to clarify.  :Winksmiley02:  . .   

> In all fairness to Mr James, the powers that be in this location changed their way with Bushfires about 20 years ago from fire protection to fire suppression, I'm not convinced that was the best decision.

   I agree, but I think you are too kind. The guy who was fined $50,000 for saving his own house is an example of the Monty Python madness of the green laws now in place around our country. . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Is this another one of those "Mr James facts"? *"Colin James Barnett* (June 15, 1950 (age 59)), Australian politician, is the leader of the Western Australian Liberal Party, Premier of Western Australia since the 2008 electionTreasurer of Western Australia since 27 April 2010."
> (from: Colin Barnett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

  Oops - thanks for picking up that error Chrisp.  Yes, one down and a few more to go.   :Biggrin:  .
.
.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> I knew it wouldn't be long before the communists made an appearance in one of your hysterical posts...

   You mean were supposed to let Rudd and his merry men send our money to communists overseas, and never mention it? I think it is important to mention it, especially in an ETS thread. . .   

> Here's a link to the back burning activities carried out in NSw recently..

    

> Hazard Reduction Burns - NSW Rural Fire Service ...

   Thanks, and I am aware back burning happens. Its just that it is woefully retarded across the country, by the green legislation mentioned previously. Aussies are prevented from removing trees on their properties across this land, even when they are fire traps. Backburning only happens in some lucky areas, and is prohibited in many, many others. . .   

> On another note, its really quite funny how you are so quite to cry troll when you see a post you don't like but are quite happy to troll along yourself...

   Please point to any trolling I have done. If you are referring to cartoons I did in response to a trolls trolling; that is not the same thing. . . .

----------


## watson

Closed for cleaning.
Mind the floor its slippery!!

----------


## watson

Seconds Out.....Box on..Ding

----------


## Rod Dyson

It would be nice if we could get back on topic.

----------


## watson

:What he said:

----------


## woodbe

> It would be nice if we could get back on topic.

  Have a look at post 2667 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Have a look at post 2667 
> woodbe.

  Your point is?

----------


## woodbe

> Your point is?

  I'm not making a point, I'm reporting tactics that are low, even by sceptic standards. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> *Lost his marbles? - I think you are assuming that he had some in the first place.*

    

> However, I suspect that Mr James has a thing for "environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist" - and especially has a thing for them if he finds all three in the one person!

  Nope – as explained, I was merely following your lead, in pointing out the lack of qualifications of those pointed to, in response to the science presented. You and Woodbe did that quite often with Rod, so lap it up. Patricia Barden, who runs SourceWatch, is indeed unqualified. On this page you can see her references, and none of them include anything to do with climate science: . Patricia Barden | Center for Media and Democracy . She is a web-designer, and an environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist. Her interests include bicycling, playing guitar, bird watching, and taking walks with her Jack Russell terrier, Dixie Doodle. . .   

> Did anyone check his claim that SourceWatch is ran by Patricia Barden (the, heaven forbid, _environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist_)?

   When did I say there was anything wrong with being an environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist? Chrisp doth protest too much, methinks.__  _._ Regarding SourceWatch, and Patricia’s role, go to Better Whois: The WHOIS domain search that works with all registrars. and do a search for sourcewatch.org: . *Registrant Name*:*Patricia Barden* Registrant Organization Center for Media and Democracy Registrant Street1:520 University Avenue, Suite 227 Registrant City:Madison Registrant State/Province:Wisconsin *Admin Name:Patricia Barden* *Admin Email:Patricia@prwatch.org* *Tech Name:Patricia Barden* *Tech Email:Patricia@prwatch.org* Name Server:NS1.QUICKSERVE.COM Name Server:NS0000.NS0.COM . Sourcewatch was formerly prwatch.org, and was sponsored by prwatch.org. So what does betterwhois.com says about them? . *Registrant Name:Patricia Barden* Registrant Organization Center for Media and Democracy Registrant Street1:520 University Avenue, Suite 227 Registrant City:Madison Registrant State/Province:Wisconsin *Admin Name:Patricia Barden* *Admin Email:Patricia@prwatch.org* *Tech Name:Patricia Barden* *Tech Email:Patricia@prwatch.org* . My, my, what a surprise.  :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:      

> From SourceWatch:

    

> "The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) publishes SourceWatch

  Well, maybe that’s because the so called “Center for Media and Democracy” is none other than *prwatch.org*, which was covered above.     

> Why have you got such a hang-up with environmentalists/gays/lesbians Allen?

   No hang-ups here, pal - I’m just delivering information. Sounds like you may have some hang-ups about it though... .     

> After all it's not their fault - maybe it is something that can prevented with home schooling?

   Huh? _What’s_ not _whose_ fault?     

> You crazy mixed up kid, Bedford.

    

> You'll have to excuse Bedford, Mr James. I don't know why he would think you  said that the government was directly responsible for bush fires...............

  You deleted the words ‘we suffer’. Also, I explained the meaning of this three times already. Obviously we don’t suffer bushfires in their own right, because the bush needs to burn from time to time. Ask the aborigines. By contrast, when green governments forbid people to remove inflammable trees from beside their homes, or to back burn, or to clear the fuel from the scrub around their towns, in the baking heat of summer, when the well stocked bush is itching to burst into flame, then yes, by hook or by crook, you will suffer bushfires, and yes, the government will be directly responsible. So to repeat: . _The government is directly responsible for the many bush fires we suffer each year_. . . .

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm not making a point, I'm reporting tactics that are low, even by sceptic standards. 
> woodbe.

    The fact is that your tactics are even lower.  You are funding a government (via taxes) to produce blatant lies in relation to this issue.  Unfortunately, so are most of us.  Then you claim to be an ardent scientific proponent, yet remain silent on these lies.   If you are so outraged about poorly represented science, why are you so strangely silent about this:   

> So I think I'll *focus* on reminding everyone that AGW Theory is theoretical and hypothetical, but certainly not a fact.  What is a fact is that the climate changes all the time, and we don't know why. 
> What we do know is that we have an entire federal government department called The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency that promotes AGW Theory as a fact.  Here is a statement from, and link to their website:  The increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases is largely responsible for the observed warming of 0.74°C over the 20th century. 
> See, no ambiguity, no theory, it *is* largely responsible. 
> Our taxes are paying for this rubbish.

  Mann-made climate change and his hockey stick have less credibility than Rudd.  Are you seriously arguing that you support the reintroduction of this farce into AGW Theory after the IPCC themselves have removed it from their own publications?   But based on form so far, attacking tooth fairies is all proponents of this theory have left I guess?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Is this another one of those "Mr James facts"?*"Colin James Barnett* (June 15, 1950 (age 59)),  Australian politician, is the leader of the Western Australian Liberal Party, Premier of Western Australia  since the 2008 electionTreasurer of Western Australia  since 27 April 2010."
> (from: Colin Barnett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

  Glad to see you guys actually know we exist over here in the west.  We're used to the east coast just stealing our mining royalties and reducing our GST revenues to prop up failed state governments on your side of Oz.  :Biggrin:  
At least we get to keep our GST.  Dunno how much you guys are gonna get slugged in new state taxes after Rudd squanders your GST he is stealing.  :Cry:  
We have regularly polled against the ETS over here in the west, and we even sacked our treasurer just for banging a greenie.  :Shock:  
Our federal environment minister still has his job after overseeing the deaths of four people, the burning down of over 120 houses, and the rendering potentially dangerous or lethal of nearly a million aussie homes.  :Annoyed:  
Different strokes for different folks I guess.  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The opinions I have quoted are not just anyone's opinion, but rather the stated *opinions of international recognised scientific bodies*.   
> With all the ranting and raving we read from the deniers, one might think the science is wide open on AGW - it isn't. 
> Me thinks some people have very strong political biases on this issue, that they are trying to convince themselves that the science has somehow been corrupted, rather than accept the scientific opinion of major scientific organisations.

  Ooooooh, a really, really, really, really special opinion?  What was I thinking?  At least these guys had the sense not to try and dress up their opinion with a fake probability number just to feign credibility. 
And I accept many opinions for consideration, but don't take any on faith.  Let he who is opining make his case, because in the absence of facts or evidence, opinions are just opinions.  
But if you add assumptions to opinions, you can make a computer model.  Read all about it here:   

> You hold up working group 1 as your holy grail of science underwriting this theory, and chapter 9 is where they pin this on us pesky humans.  This chapter is where it all starts folks.  Count the number of models used, then present your science?  Show us all that science that supports this theoretical idea.   Chapter 9.

----------


## Dr Freud

*Office of Hot Air costs you $90m *  TAXPAYERS will fork out $90 million a year to keep more than 400 public servants employed within the federal Climate Change Department - despite most now having nothing to do until 2013. More than 60 of them are classified as senior executive staff on salaries between $168,000 and $298,000 a year.   It's OK, we'll just borrow this as well and add it to the debt.  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

Heres some sugar coated feedback for Kev:   Really, have we ever seen a bigger prat as prime minister, and granted there've been a few? On Tuesday he justified the 'just resting' move on the basis that the rest of the world hadn't committed to CO2 reductions.   There will be many words written about Rudd's retreat but it is simply crystallised: he is a prime minister without the courage to champion the policy that defined him.   Decision to put climate action on hold smacks of political cowardice   And Rudd the coward as usual sends out Wong to spin this as a reason:   Regrettably, as a result of Tony Abbott backflipping on what had been the previous Opposition's position...   :Wtf1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Chrisp, you're right. its all smoke and mirrors. 
> woodbe.

  Mr Bolt seems to agree. 
                  First Rudd announced hed stop these emissions to stop the world from burning up:   
  But he lacked the courage. So now, to distract you, hell crack down on these emissions instead, to stop a few Australians from lighting up:   
  True. Rudd has downscaled his gandiose ambitions from saving the entire planet to saving just a few smokers:_CIGARETTES will be sold in plain packages from January 2012 as Kevin Rudd introduces the worlds most draconian anti-smoking laws in a move likely to spark a legal challenge from big multi-national tobacco companies._  _The new laws will prohibit the use of tobacco industry logos, colours, brand imagery or promotional text of tobacco product packaging._But, in fact, Rudd is treating voters with complete contempt. The very next day after his humiliating backdown on his emissions trading scheme he announces a trivial campaign on smoking, banking that its enough to change the topic from his deceit and cowardice, and talk instead of hios being tough and bold.    
  Its as transparent as its pathetic.     More here. 
Hey Woodbe, did you email Kev and convince him that if he destroys the tobacco industries massive funding of people like me, then AGW Theory can be real again?  :Biggrin:  
Doh, there goes my Cayman Island accounts.  :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

> The fact is that your tactics are even lower.  You are funding a government (via taxes) to produce blatant lies in relation to this issue.  Unfortunately, so are most of us.  Then you claim to be an ardent scientific proponent, yet remain silent on these lies.

   
My tactics are lower than taking a scientist's own work, plagiarising and distorting it, and using it in an attempt to discredit that scientist? I've suffered a few insults in this thread, but that rates up near the top Doc. 
My tactics are to point out that the weight of scientific research falls on the side of AGW, and to point out where the sceptics offer opinion or junk science as fact. Until the weight of scientific research falls the other way, I will continue to do so.    

> The increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases is  largely responsible for the observed warming of 0.74°C over the 20th  century.[/left] 
> See, no ambiguity, no theory, it is largely responsible. 
> Our taxes are paying for this rubbish.

  I'm sure you would like the Government to be sceptical, but even if they were able to ignore the science, the weight of public opinion still requires that they do something about AGW despite the mountain of misinformation from the sceptics.  
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

.
.   

> What was the topic again, Rod?

    

> I thought we were now discussing how the government is directly responsible for bushfires.  Mr James is a riot. Some of my aquaintances down at the club almost doubled up in laughter after I told them about that line.

   Youre trolling, spamming and lying, and this just makes you and Watson look bad.  By all means keep it up. . You deleted the words we suffer for the second time.  Obviously we dont suffer bushfires in their own right, because the bush needs to burn from time to time. Ask the aborigines. By contrast, when green governments forbid people to remove inflammable trees from beside their homes, or to back burn, or to clear the fuel from the scrub around their towns, in the baking heat of summer, when the well stocked bush is itching to burst into flame, then yes, by hook or by crook, you will suffer bushfires, and yes, the government will be directly responsible. So to repeat: . _The government is directly responsible for the many bush fires we suffer each year._ .
.
.

----------


## Allen James

.  . Allen James: _I suppose theyll never do an expose on how the government is directly responsible for the many bush fires we suffer each year, along with many lost lives and homes, as a result of Labors bans on cutting down trees and back burning, which I think is a much greater example of how the greenies and Labor like to sacrifice Aussies to their tree Gods._ .   

> This line is proving very popular at my place of employment..................It's a cracker............

   This is old news. Tell them to read more, or just get out and talk with Aussies. . .
From the Sydney Morning Herald: . . Green ideas must take blame for deaths . Miranda Devine Sydney Morning Herald columnist . February 12, 2009 . It wasn't climate change which killed as many as 300 people in Victoria last weekend. It wasn't arsonists. It was the unstoppable intensity of a bushfire, turbo-charged by huge quantities of ground fuel which had been allowed to accumulate over years of drought. It was the power of green ideology over government to oppose attempts to reduce fuel hazards before a megafire erupts, and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation to protect themselves. . So many people need not have died so horribly. The warnings have been there for a decade. If politicians are intent on whipping up a lynch mob to divert attention from their own culpability, it is not arsonists who should be hanging from lamp-posts but greenies. . Governments appeasing the green beast have ignored numerous state and federal bushfire inquiries over the past decade, almost all of which have recommended increasing the practice of "prescribed burning". Also known as "hazard reduction", it is a methodical regime of burning off flammable ground cover in cooler months, in a controlled fashion, so it does not fuel the inevitable summer bushfires. . In July 2007 Scott Gentle, the Victorian manager of Timber Communities Australia, who lives in Healesville where two fires were still burning yesterday, gave testimony to a Victorian parliamentary bushfire inquiry so prescient it sends a chill down your spine. . "Living in an area like Healesville, whether because of dumb luck or whatever, we have not experienced a fire since about 1963. God help us if we ever do, because it will make Ash Wednesday look like a picnic." God help him, he was right. . Gentle complained of obstruction from green local government authorities of any type of fire mitigation strategies. He told of green interference at Kinglake - at the epicentre of Saturday's disaster, where at least 147 people died - during a smaller fire there in 2007. . "The contractors were out working on the fire lines. They put in containment lines and cleared off some of the fire trails. Two weeks later that fire broke out, but unfortunately those trails had been blocked up again [by greens] to turn it back to its natural state. Instances like that are just too numerous to mention. Governments have been in too much of a rush to appease green idealism. This thing about locking up forests is just not working." . The Kinglake area was a nature-loving community of tree-changers, organic farmers and artists to the north of Melbourne. A council committed to reducing carbon emissions dominates the Nillumbik shire, a so-called "green wedge" area, where restrictions on removing vegetation around houses reportedly added to the dangers. In nearby St Andrews, where more than 20 people are believed to have died, surviving residents have spoken angrily of "greenies" who prevented them from cutting back trees near their property, including in one case, a tea tree that went "whoomp". Dr Phil Cheney, the former head of the CSIRO's bushfire research unit and one of the pioneers of prescribed burning, said yesterday if the fire-ravaged Victorian areas had been hazard-reduced, the flames would not have been as intense. . Kinglake and Maryville, now crime scenes, are built among tall forests of messmate stringy bark trees which pose a special fire hazard, with peeling bark creating firebrands that carry fire five kilometres out. "The only way to reduce the flammability of the bark is by prescribed burning" every five to seven years, Cheney said. He estimates between 35 and 50 tonnes a hectare of dry fuel were waiting to be gobbled up by Saturday's inferno. . Fuel loads above about eight tonnes a hectare are considered a fire hazard. A federal parliamentary inquiry into bushfires in 2003 heard that a fourfold increase in ground fuel leads to a 13-fold increase in the heat generated by a fire. . Things are no better in NSW, although we don't quite have Victoria's perfect storm of winds and forest types. Near Dubbo two years ago, as a bushfire raged through the Goonoo Community Conservation Area, volunteer firefighters bulldozing a control line were obstructed by National Parks and Wildlife Service employees who had driven from Sydney to stop vegetation being damaged. . The poor management of national parks and state forests in Victoria is highlighted by the interactive fire map on the website of the Department of Sustainability and Environment. Yesterday it showed that, of 148 fires started since mid-January, 120 started in state forests, national parks, or other public land, and just 21 on private property. . Only seven months ago, the Victorian Parliament's Environment and Natural Resources Committee tabled its report into the impact of public land management on bushfires, with five recommendations to enhance prescribed burning. This included tripling the amount of land to be hazard-reduced from 130,000 to 385,000 hectares a year. There has been little but lip service from the Government in response. Teary politicians might pepper their talking points with opportunistic intimations of "climate change" and "unprecedented" weather, but they are only diverting the blame. With yes-minister fudging and craven inclusion of green lobbyists in decision-making, they have greatly exacerbated this tragedy. . There is an opening now in Victoria for a predatory legal firm with a taste for David v Goliath class actions. . . Green ideas must take blame for deaths . . . .

----------


## watson

OK.........the "fire's" out now.
Back on topic please.
ETS

----------


## Allen James

.  . PM delays emissions trading scheme as inconvenient political truth . Dennis Shanahan Political Editor The Australian April 27, 2010 . . AFTER months of avoiding even mentioning an emissions trading scheme Kevin Rudd has formally dumped Labor's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until at least after the next election, and possibly the one after that. . After months of refusing to defend or promote the answer to the greatest moral and economic challenge of our time or to propose an alternative the Prime Minister has simply put it off as an inconvenient political truth and tried to blame the Coalition and the Greens for obstruction in the Senate. . The simple fact of the matter is that Rudd over-politicised and over-dramatised the importance of an ETS, put all his political capital into one policy that would split the Coalition and provide a campaign platform and had no answer when it failed. . Rudd's insistence the Senate pass the CPRS legislation before the Copenhagen climate change meeting in December now looks completely hollow and Australia's stance friendless and isolated internationally. . An ETS is no longer in the lexicon of the Obama administration and China and India are not budging on binding agreements after the expiration of the 2012 Kyoto agreement. . The demands for business certainty that drove Rudd's insistence are now empty rhetoric and the threats of a double-dissolution or an early election meaningless. . Rudd has now adopted the policy of the Tony Abbott-led Coalition and will not act until other nations do and will take direct action to cut greenhouse gas emissions and keep (and meet) the existing Kyoto targets without an ETS. . After attacking the Coalition on an ETS and destroying Malcolm Turnbull's Liberal leadership with hollow threats of early elections Rudd has shown less conviction than the former Opposition leader, who actually crossed the floor to support legislation Labor won't even be putting back into this Parliament. . Rudd had a political victory over Turnbull but lost the policy debate with the public while ending up with a double-dissolution trigger he couldn't use. . Today's declaration has hollowed out Rudd's climate change conviction and adopted the Coalition's wait-and-see approach which meets none of the demands Rudd made before Copenhagen last year. . All of the dire predictions of electoral disaster for the Coalition on climate change are unfulfilled with Rudd simply wanting to talk about health and hospitals for the next six months. . . PM delays emissions trading scheme as inconvenient political truth | The Australian .  .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> OK.........the "fire's" out now.
> Back on topic please.
> ETS

  What ETS Watson?? 
Rudd has canned it and replaced the urgency of Co2 to cigarette smoke!!!

----------


## watson

:Rotfl:       and tonight at midnight he's gonna put fags up by 25%...I think that's to pay for the plain wrappers.
The mind fair boggles.

----------


## watson

> What ETS Watson??

  Sorry Rod I should have answered that.
An Emission Trading Scheme is two 14 year old boys swapping handkerchiefs  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Sorry Rod I should have answered that.
> An Emission Trading Scheme is two 14 year old boys swapping handkerchiefs

  At least that has more hope of success.

----------


## watson

Interesting that none of the fag purveyors in our little town could contact any of the reps that sell fags......like all day. No answer....no reply .
Anyway..beat me...I'll admit it

----------


## Dr Freud

> Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*   _ The fact is that your tactics are even lower. You are funding a government (via taxes) to produce blatant lies in relation to this issue. Unfortunately, so are most of us. Then you claim to be an ardent scientific proponent, yet remain silent on these lies._    My tactics are lower than taking a scientist's own work, plagiarising and distorting it, and using it in an attempt to discredit that scientist? I've suffered a few insults in this thread, but that rates up near the top Doc. 
> My tactics are to point out that the weight of scientific research falls on the side of AGW, and to point out where the sceptics offer opinion or junk science as fact. Until the weight of scientific research falls the other way, I will continue to do so.        
> 			
> 				Originally Posted by  
> If you are so outraged about poorly represented science, why are you so strangely silent about this:  *What we do know is that we have an entire federal government department called The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency that promotes AGW Theory as a fact. Here is a statement from, and link to their website:*  _The increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases is largely responsible for the observed warming of 0.74°C over the 20th century._         _ 
> See, no ambiguity, no theory, it is largely responsible. 
> Our taxes are paying for this rubbish._     
>     I'm sure you would like the Government to be sceptical, but even if they were able to ignore the science, the weight of public opinion still requires that they do something about AGW despite the mountain of misinformation from the sceptics.  
> woodbe.

  My friend, this is not an insult, it is an observation.  You may take offense, but I didn't give it.   
I have continually pointed out that it is a good thing that these clowns argue about this stuff.  That is what happens continually in all areas of science.  You never hear about the other areas because they are not chasing billions of dollars in funding via publicity generating fear mongering. 
But a few seppo's arguing about a piece of science fiction based on proxy data, already discredited, is not anywhere near the level of lies that you currently remain silent on.  As I said, the longer you remain silent on the lies shown above, the more you damn yourself.  This bureaucratic white elephant that is costing us $90 million dollars a year is publishing blatant scientific lies and you do not care.  Our own national government is publishing blatant scientific lies and you do not care.  But you are outraged by a seppo paraphrasing in his criticism of a scientific "hockey stick" farce?  I think it is you who are insulting the intelligence of the readers here. 
By the way, I don't want the government to be sceptical, I want them to be the opposition.  :Biggrin:   But until then, they could at least create a veneer of scientific honesty and credibility. 
As for your green poll... :Hahaha:  
And as for your weighty science, as has been demonstrated, it is a combination of spurious correlations, confected probabilities, conjecture, climate models and opinion.  I have posted links to chapter nine, which is the foundation for this weighty science.  Still no cut and pastes from you yet with this sheer weight of science.  Not much left in there after you take out the assumptive and arbitrary models, is there?  :Biggrin:  
So in summary let's compare: 
Scenario 1: Some seppo's arguing over an already discredited science fiction based on proxy data, cherry picking and padding out their agenda's. 
Scenario 2: An Aussie tacitly defending our own government wasting our own money publishing scientific lies against our own citizenry. 
Tough call mate, but my vote goes to scenario 2 for having the lowest tactics.  But if I was a seppo, maybe my call would be different. 
P.S. I use seppo as a term of endearment.  Our two nations have stood side by side on too many occasions to do otherwise. :Aussie3:  :Usa3:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Originally Posted by *woodbe*   _      I'm sure you would like the Government to be sceptical, but even if they were able to ignore the science, the weight of public opinion still requires that they do something about AGW despite the mountain of misinformation from the sceptics.  
> woodbe._

   

> As for your green poll...

  CHRIS UHLMANN: But perhaps the Government's going cold on emissions trading because its polling shows the electorate's cooling on global warming. What was a huge political positive in 2006 is becoming a liability. Since 2006, the Lowy Institute has conducted a yearly poll which asks whether Australians should take action on climate change, even if it involves significant cost. 68 per cent of those polled agreed with that proposition in 2006. That's now down to 46 per cent.   
MICHAEL WESLEY, LOWY INSTITUTE: I think back in 2006-2007 when we were polling there was a combination of factors. There was the Al Gore movie, there was the Stern review, there was wide-ranging drought and fires and so on and people I think had started to make the connection between climate change and some of these natural disasters that were happening. I think roll forward a few years, you've got the problems with the Copenhagen climate change talks, you've got some doubts raised about the science around climate change and the fact that the - the drought's no longer with us and it's started to rain again. So, I think all of those sorts of things play into public expectations and perceptions.  Full story here.    Rudd switched from being a poll dancer to smoking polls.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

The 7PM Project - Video 
It's amazing how quickly these daft claims fall apart when simply questioned by common sense.

----------


## dazzler

Did anyone come up with the equal and opposite reaction to all the carbon we put up in the atmosphere?

----------


## woodbe

> So in summary let's compare: 
> Scenario 1: Some seppo's arguing over an already discredited science fiction based on proxy data, cherry picking and padding out their agenda's. 
> Scenario 2: An Aussie tacitly defending our own government wasting our own money publishing scientific lies against our own citizenry. 
> Tough call mate, but my vote goes to scenario 2 for having the lowest tactics.  But if I was a seppo, maybe my call would be different. 
> P.S. I use seppo as a term of endearment.  Our two nations have stood side by side on too many occasions to do otherwise.

  I don't defend the government, but I do defend the science when it's unreasonably attacked by various junk and opinion not based on science.  
As far as I am concerned the ETS proposed by Rudd wasn't near good enough. I didn't vote for him either, but this thread is not about your political preferences. 
The 'Seppos' are not arguing, one of them appears to be unable to come up with an independant paper debunking the original scientist's research, so he has copied the original paper and adjusted it to suit his conclusion. I know a sceptic is happy to ignore or approve that, but for everyone else, its worth posting as yet another example of dirty tricks. 
woodbe.

----------


## Allen James

> and tonight at midnight he's gonna put fags up by 25%...I think that's to pay for the plain wrappers.
> The mind fair boggles.

   . . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Did anyone come up with the equal and opposite reaction to all the carbon we put up in the atmosphere?

   I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter, Dazz, old mate. Looking at the much greater amount of CO2 in our atmosphere at various times in the past, when vegetation was lush and abundant, and animal life was prolific; it’s not really an exercise worth bothering with. This is the kind of thing you don’t have to worry about for a few centuries, and by then our power producing technology will be so squeaky clean it won’t matter. . If you _are_ still concerned you could ask Patricia Barden, who runs sourcewatch.org and prwatch.org. Woodbe and Chrisp like to direct sceptics to her sites for the good dope. If she doesn’t know an answer to something, her dog Dixie Doodle might.  :Biggrin:  . www.prwatch.org/cmd/bios.php/Patricia_Barden . Or you could ask Rudd. Today he’s very busy changing the prices on cigarettes from $13.50 to $20.00, to help Aussie battlers, so you may not get through. On the other hand Al Gore might be available, if he’s not busy re-decorating his newly acquired seaside mansion, which he insists will be under 20 feet of water soon.  :Biggrin:  . The AGW alarmists have many good people who are willing to help you figure out what is going on with CO2, even though most of them don’t know what CO2 is. They pride themselves in giving advice, regardless. . Here are some other Gore lovers, who want to ban water: . [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw"]YouTube - Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Banning Petition[/ame] [Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Banning Petition] . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> I don't defend the government

   You have staunchly defended the Labor Governments position on AGW and other environmental tomfoolery, and that is very much _defending the government._ . .   

> , but I do defend the science when it's unreasonably attacked by various junk and opinion not based on science.

   Ive watched you all the way through this thread steadfastly ignore science that opposes AGW, while pretending to be objective. Youve used many logical fallacies, like the tobacco by-line you proudly publish with each post, in place of logical debate. You point us to irrelevant political activist websites instead of science, and sneer when presented with real science. Dixie Doodle will be proud! .     

> I didn't vote for [Rudd] either

   A vote for the Greens is mostly a vote for Labor, since they often give their preferences to Labor. So you get to have your cake and eat it too. . . .

----------


## woodbe

Offtopic, but rather than drop off the list and have you all worried sick about me (haha, as if) 
I'm off on a long distance self-supported walking trip in about a week, and in the meantime till then, I'll be buzzing about doing last minute stuff that one does with these sorts of expeditions (where is my tent, anyway?). Might not get a lot of opportunity to post, and certainly won't once I'm on the trail. Be back in June. 
Try not to let the thread die while I'm gone  :Biggrin:   Instructions while I am away.  :Smilie:   *Sceptics:* Stick to the core science. Remember we are waiting for the sceptics to do science that redefines the ruling hypothesis. (Note to Rod; you won't find this at WUWT)   *Non-Sceptics:* Most of our sceptics are quite reasonable if you read between the lines, but they are prone to posting things that they haven't checked properly, or off topic politics posts. These create a mess on the thread, so please make sure their indiscretions are corrected or it will be chaos in here before you know it.  *Watson:* Thanks for the even-handedness, we're very lucky to have a non-prick moderator in this forum, I'm sure the thread would have been shut down 100 times by now on most sites. Keep up the good work! PM me an address and I'll send you a postcard from somewhere special  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

So where are you off to?  
The North Pole? LOL have a good time woodbe I'm sure we will be here when you get back.

----------


## Bloss

> So where are you off to?  
> The North Pole? LOL have a good time woodbe I'm sure we will be here when you get back.

  Either pole will do they're both gettin' warmer .  .  .  :Wink:

----------


## chrisp

> I'm off on a long distance self-supported walking trip in about a week, and in the meantime till then, I'll be buzzing about doing last minute stuff that one does with these sorts of expeditions (where is my tent, anyway?). Might not get a lot of opportunity to post, and certainly won't once I'm on the trail. Be back in June.

  woodbe, 
Have a great break.  You have left some mighty big boots to fill.   :Smilie:

----------


## watson

woodbe the walker.....have a good trek.

----------


## dazzler

> Did anyone come up with the equal and opposite reaction to all the carbon we put up in the atmosphere?

  Again - Nuthin!  Poor poor fellas, cant even answer the simple one.  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

Happy trails Woodbe.  I'll have to self-censor while you are away.  Hope you are heading somewhere warm  :Tongue: , winters closing in.  I can recommend a good book to take, it's called "Heaven and Earth" by Ian Plimer.   :Biggrin:  It's full of science with around 1,000 scientific articles, you'll love it being a science buff.  :2thumbsup:  I haven't finished it yet, but the science is very boring, great for putting you to sleep after a hard days walking.    

> I'm off on a long distance self-supported walking trip in about a week,  
> woodbe.

  I was almost this inspired after watching Forrest Gump.  Walked to the fridge instead.  :Frown:

----------


## Dr Freud

Oh yeh, if you find it harder to breathe after a bit, that's the 70% of Carbon Dioxide being recirculated into your lungs and bloodstream.  :Shock:   :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

Quote:   

> Originally Posted by *dazzler*   _Did anyone come up with the equal and opposite reaction to all the carbon we put up in the atmosphere?_

      

> Again - Nuthin!  Poor poor fellas, cant even answer the simple one.

  Seriously, we (humans) have no idea what will happen.  We can make lots of guesses (some educated, some less so), but at the end of the day, we don't currently have the knowledge or the technology to predict what will happen.  We have very inaccurate measurements of what has happened previously (see chart below), but all of the variables involved in these processes are in a constant state of flux, making predictions very difficult.  
What can be said is that previously, it appears that temperatures have upper and lower bounds, and that higher CO2 levels are associated with increased ecosystems and biological diversity.  But this doesn't necessarily mean the same will hold true in the future.  If you can see a consistent relationship between CO2 and temperature, I'm happy to hear your thoughts? 
(Psychobabble Warning)  :Eek:  
Human nature hates uncertainty, that's why we invent belief systems.  It gives our minds an island of security in the chaos of the world around us. This can be both a good and bad thing depending on how it is used.  But sometimes we just have to say "We don't know".   
[quote=Dr Freud;796120]

----------


## Dr Freud

As an example, if you live on a stationary space station, what day is it, and what time is it?  We create these belief systems just to give us a security base (but hey, I love public holidays just the same  :Tongue: ).  Gotta love The Matrix.  "Tank, I need a way out  :Phone1: ". 
AGW Theory fearmongers (like all great scare campaigns) play on this aspect of human nature to manipulate people. 
They built a myth that the climate has never changed in this way before, ie. was a secure base.  Now that is all going to change. Uh oh.  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

See, it's not just me!  Cash-strapped insulation installers furious at 'lies' of Kevin Rudd

----------


## Dr Freud

See, it's not just me!  While it was undoubtedly deserved, Rudd certainly isnt the only one suffering a withdrawal from the credibility bank. The media seemed somewhat less enthusiastic about reviewing their own ostentatious rhetoric on the ETS.

----------


## Dr Freud

The ETS may end up being the cheaper emissions control option.  :Sneaktongue:    TURNING public debate from the failed emissions trading scheme to universally despised tobacco emissions is a media masterstroke from Kevin Rudd, but the cost could leave a singe in taxpayers' pockets.  The risk of having to compensate tobacco companies with taxpayers' dollars is objectionable not just legally but morally. The Rudd government also has shown contempt for parliament, given that the Senate's community affairs committee is investigating the legality and efficacy of a plain packaging bill, with submissions due today and the committee set to report in August.

----------


## Dr Freud

Bricklayers wanted.  Immediate start.  Wall required, 1862km long by 10 km high.  Prefer eastern states workers due to local employment shortages.  All tools in Canberra to be left there. Ph: 1800 F--- Off.  :Biggrin:    Tax review stokes WA secession whispers.   You racked up the debt you Prime Muppet, don’t expect us to pay it back for you, just because your other great big tax failed.  :Mad:  :Mad:  :Mad:

----------


## Allen James

. . .   

> So where are you off to?

   

> The North Pole?

    :Biggrin:   One thing's for sure. Whatever wilderness Woodbe’s trekking off into, his car, TV, computer and batteries will still be waiting for him when he returns, and climategate will still be climategate. . . .  . .

----------


## Allen James

. . The old Hide the Decline video Rod posted early in this thread has been removed by YouTube because Michael Mann, creator of the hockey stick graph and the subject of the video, is threatening to sue. . www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2010m4d27-Climategate-scientist-threatens-lawsuit-over-Hide-the-Decline-YouTube-video . . There is still one version on youtube, but it will probably disappear soon enough.  It wasnt enough for Mann to hide the decline.  Now hes trying to hide the video.   :Biggrin:  . [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc"]www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc[/ame] . The second version of that video  Hide the Decline II was also removed from Youtube, but can be seen here: . Hide The Decline II on Vimeo . .
Google videos also have both versions, so Mann will have to sue a few more people if he wants to remove it entirely, but in my opinion, this action by him will only increase its visibility online, as people begin saving and uploading the versions currently available.  Mann has probably increased the viewing of these videos greatly by this action. . www.google.com/search?q=hide+the+decline+video&tbo=p&tbs=vid%3A1&  source=vgc&hl=en&aq=f . . Meanwhile  reported 30 April - Al Gore has bought another mansion next to the ocean he said would soon be twenty feet higher!  See details and map here: . http://news-political.com/2010/04/30...omment-page-1/ . . .

----------


## chromis

I go away for months come back and you all still going on with this topic.  
If this continues to October it must be the longest running thread of all time.  
Quick call Guinness book records.

----------


## watson

and my Therapist   :Rotfl:

----------


## watson

I remember that scene from around this house too  :Annoyed: 
I roll 'em....so they are coming out thinner as we speak. And I won't quit. It's the Healthy Old Buggers ( HOB's) that are clogging up the health system...not the smokers. We die :Clap2: 
I actually watched Lateline last night on ABC..with Krueger (ex Lib President) and some other dude from the AWU debating Kev's performance....first time in my life I've ever agreed with Krueger.
The presenter asked Krueger to compare Rudd and Whitlam and his quote was "Gough may have been a really bad money manager..but at least he had a plan".

----------


## Dr Freud

Too true Mr Watson.  Here is an excerpt:   "MICHAEL KROGER: Well, Leigh, when my father was alive, the great moral issue of his time was fighting Adolf Hitler and Nazism. When I was younger, the great moral issue of our time was fighting communism, to liberate millions and millions, tens of millions of people around the world from oppression.  
This man declared this the great moral issue of this time. He should have called a double dissolution based on this issue because this was, as you said, the issue which defined him and defined our time, defined our generation. This is just another backflip from this disastrous Prime Minister who is the worst prime minister I've ever seen in this country in my lifetime - the worst and getting worse. And if he had ... 
LEIGH SALES: So you think, in your view, worse than Gough Whitlam? 
MICHAEL KROGER: Worse than Whitlam? Oh, God, much worse than Whitlam. Much worse than Whitlam. I mean, Gough Whitlam had - compared to this man, he had beliefs. I mean, he had - he opened Australia's relations with China, he had the Trade Practices Act, the Family Law Act.  
OK, he was a disaster in terms of managing the economy, but Whitlam had beliefs. There were things that he came into Parliament to do when he became Prime Minister in 1972. He was a grand figure on the Australian stage. He ended up as a disastrous Prime Minister, but at least he believed in something.  
This man believes in nothing. Absolutely nothing. He's a fraud as a prime minister. And, I'll tell you what staggers me: it staggers me that people in the Labor Party are still prepared to work with him as leader. He changes policies every day. As Paul Kelly said, this is a man without beliefs, without a narrative. What does he stand for? Nothing. Nothing. 
LEIGH SALES: Let me ask Paul Howes to respond to that. 
PAUL HOWES: Well, um, it's a bit hypocritical, Michael, to have a person like yourself, as senior as you are in your party, to criticise Labor from changing policies. I mean, the Opposition at the moment - and Tony Abbott is meant to be a conviction politician - well he is the most inconsistent conviction politician that I think our country's ever seen."   And here is the full story:   The full story.

----------


## Dr Freud

> . . The old Hide the Decline video Rod posted early in this thread has been removed by YouTube because Michael Mann, creator of the hockey stick graph and the subject of the video, is threatening to sue. . www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2010m4d27-Climategate-scientist-threatens-lawsuit-over-Hide-the-Decline-YouTube-video . . There is still one version on youtube, but it will probably disappear soon enough.  It wasnt enough for Mann to hide the decline.  Now hes trying to hide the video.   . www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc . The second version of that video  Hide the Decline II was also removed from Youtube, but can be seen here: . Hide The Decline II on Vimeo . .
> Google videos also have both versions, so Mann will have to sue a few more people if he wants to remove it entirely, but in my opinion, this action by him will only increase its visibility online, as people begin saving and uploading the versions currently available.  Mann has probably increased the viewing of these videos greatly by this action. . www.google.com/search?q=hide+the+decline+video&tbo=p&tbs=vid%3A1&  source=vgc&hl=en&aq=f . . Meanwhile  reported 30 April - Al Gore has bought another mansion next to the ocean he said would soon be twenty feet higher!  See details and map here: . http://news-political.com/2010/04/30...omment-page-1/ . . .

   :Roflmao2:  
This is hilarious.   
I remember back in the good old days when scientist's were accused of fraudulent results, they defended themselves with.......ummm......, well, science! 
It appears now that these climatologists have none of this, so instead of that they use lawyers.  This is a trend that is now forming as highlighted by Woodbe's earlier posts, for these guys to sue to protect their reputation, rather than present their "scientific evidence", and have their accusers laughed out of the room.  This would work brilliantly, if they actually had any "scientific evidence".  One day soon they will realise, you can't censor, oops, "peer-review", the internet. 
Fortunately, the legal system has no such high bars, and relies on tests such as "on the balance of probabilities" and "beyond reasonable doubt".  Mann-made climate change and his cohort may not be ridiculed as highly as the bar gets lowered in this environment. This would be like Ali getting sued for assault by Foreman after his a--- whipping.  Step up in the ring or shut up Mann.  Hiding behind your lawyers skirt because your numbers don't add up is cowardice.  :Biggrin:

----------


## watson

> Too true Mr Watson.  Here is an excerpt:

   
Thanks for getting the names right and the quote right (which I didn't)
But either way, I thought it summed up the current PM very well.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> A few pages back, Mr James was telling us how the government was/is DIRECTLY responsible for bush fires.

  You deleted the words we suffer.  Obviously we dont suffer bushfires in their own right, because the bush needs to burn from time to time.  Ask the aborigines.  By contrast, when green governments forbid people to remove inflammable trees from beside their homes, or to back burn, or to clear the fuel from the scrub around their towns, in the baking heat of summer, when the well stocked bush is itching to burst into flame, then yes, by hook or by crook, you will suffer bushfires, and yes, the government will be directly responsible. So to repeat: . _The government is directly responsible for the many bush fires we suffer each year._ . .   

> He also touched on the subject of how the government sacrifices Aussies.

  Every Aussie burnt to a crisp in unnecessary bushfires, caused by bad greenie legislation that blocks tree removal and back burning, is indeed sacrificed to the Labor Partys tree Gods. . . Some links: . . Green ideas must take blame for deaths . www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/burning-issue-top-agenda/story-e6frezz0-1111118863330 . www.vexnews.com/news/2745/doing-fine-a-patriots-vision-saved-his-house-despite-persecution-from-enviro-bureaucrats/ . .   

> Perhaps the most amazing piece of Drivel thus far to come from his twisted perspective. And, yes, the pi%^ing contest continues. It's been a great source of amusement for many of us. Just a word of advice, the thread is best veiwed with your ignore member option tuned into Mr James. Un-beknown to him, just about everyone has him on their ignore list............He's almost talking to himself............

  This is an example of Watsons play the ball and not the man rules in action.  :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:  . . .

----------


## Allen James

.
.   

> This is hilarious.  
> I remember back in the good old days when scientist's were accused of fraudulent results, they defended themselves with.......ummm......, well, science! 
> It appears now that these climatologists have none of this, so instead of that they use lawyers. This is a trend that is now forming as highlighted by Woodbe's earlier posts, for these guys to sue to protect their reputation, rather than present their "scientific evidence", and have their accusers laughed out of the room. This would work brilliantly, if they actually had any "scientific evidence". One day soon they will realise, you can't censor, oops, "peer-review", the internet. 
> Fortunately, the legal system has no such high bars, and relies on tests such as "on the balance of probabilities" and "beyond reasonable doubt". Mann-made climate change and his cohort may not be ridiculed as highly as the bar gets lowered in this environment. This would be like Ali getting sued for assault by Foreman after his a--- whipping. Step up in the ring or shut up Mann. Hiding behind your lawyers skirt because your numbers don't add up is cowardice.

  Agreed.  Most politicians understand that suing a cartoonist over a caricature is a pointless exercise, usually resulting in ten times the adverse publicity, so they never do.  Mann needs to learn a lesson from them.  As a result of his actions, millions of extra people will watch those videos now, and dozens will upload new versions.  :2thumbsup:  . .

----------


## watson

> . . 
> This is an example of Watsons play the ball and not the man rules in action.    . . .

  Argit

----------


## Dr Freud

> Argit

  Please forgive my ignorance, I dont know what Argit means.  I tried researching this, and found some strange parallels below, but Im not really confident this is the right reference?  :Confused:    *Argit* is a fellow con-man and former partner of Kevin Ethan Levin. He belongs to a rare species of porcupine alien.  He appears to be constantly in debt.      He first appears in the episode _Kevin's Big Score_.   *Kevin Ethan Levin*, formerly known as *Kevin 11 (Kevin E. Levin)*, is a human-alien hybrid with the ability to absorb any type of energy and release it at will.  Kevin eventually ran away from his family and started living on the streets, where he remained alienated because of his powers. This led to him developing anti-social behavior disorders that border on sociopathy. Kevin's abilities have somewhat changed throughout the course of the series.  Kevin has been unable to transform back to his human form twice now.   Kevin's powers are similar to the Marvel villain, the Absorbing Man. However, unlike him, Kevin only becomes a solid form of what he absorbs, coating him with a protective layer of said material. The Absorbing Man was actually able to become what he touched and manipulate his new form anyway he wished. Additionally, during the time Kevin had mutated, he was similar to the DC hero, Metamorpho. Both had the ability to reshape their bodies as they wished, being comprised of different elements that can be manipulated. However, Kevin was only solids, while Metamorpho was liquids and gases in addition to solids. Kevin could not also change his body to different elements while Metamorpho could. Interestingly, Kevin shared Metamorpho's insecurities and self-hatred of their mutated appearance.   Was this a really weird Ben 10 reference, or am I way off the mark?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Apparently Workchoices was bad for staff?   Public servants in the Climate Change Department were assured as late as Tuesday morning that the Government's emissions trading scheme was going ahead as planned, even though reports of the scheme's demise had already appeared in that day's press. That was until Mr Rudd confirmed later that same day that the plan to tackle what he had described as the greatest moral challenge of our time would be delayed for at least three years.   ''Up until this week, everything was urgent and had to be done in a hurry. People put their lives on hold at the whim of the Prime Minister.''   ''No one knows who to believe any more. There is certainly no trust in what the Government is saying or in the senior management of the department.''   PS climate staff angry at waste   And this department is still recruiting, adding millions of expenditure for no reason:   *Who are we looking for?* 
 The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is looking for up to 30 graduates from all academic disciplines.  In addition to your academic qualifications (reflecting strong academic achievement), we are seeking candidates with the following attributes:  Ability to develop      productive relationships Highly developed      communication skills Outcomes focused Strategic Perspective Analytical and critical      thinking Leadership, judgement and      initative Team player  Building and applying      knowledge  These attributes will be taken into consideration during the initial short listing process.   Hey Kev, you better hope these attributes are not taken into consideration during the next election process.  It could be very bad for you to be held to the standards you ask of your subordinates, whom you treat with such contempt.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I think your way off the mark, Doc........but I could be wrong.......  
> Think of it as a sound rather than a word, like Geeeeezzz, uuummmm or aahhhh 
> Hey, don't worry about being off the mark, we've grown accustomed to your aim being a 180 degrees in the wrong direction...........    *Edited Post*

  Thanks champ.  I didn't think Mr Watson fitted the Ben 10 or Kevin 11 demographic.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

This describes how ignorant green ETS voters will *guarantee Rudds re-election this year! *  Testing the waters inside Labor on two recent policy reversals reveals two camps: cheerleaders and the vaguely appalled.  Some say they have sustained little electoral damage from toughening the stance on asylum seekers and shelving emissions trading. They say any hurt has been done on the left and most votes lost to the Greens will return through preferences."   And how far back this lack of substance was obvious.    "When Kevin Rudd took on John Howard in the only leaders debate of the 2007 election, Mr Rudd was still a largely unknown quantity.   So it wasn't surprising he was asked this question:   "Mr Rudd, your troop withdrawals are heavily qualified. And, on other issues, your party labelled the Medicare safety net a sham, and then supported it.    "You said the Commonwealth land release was a marginal issue in making housing more affordable and then you adopted it. You oppose capital punishment always and everywhere, except when it's inconvenient.   "You often accuse the prime minister of doing anything and saying anything to get elected.   "What do you actually believe in, Kevin Rudd? What won't you qualify or jettison to get elected?"  *In the minds of some of his own, that question has now been answered. *  Full story at link below:   Conviction? Clever Kevin is no Pig Iron Bob

----------


## chrisp

*Malcolm is back - or rather he is staying put.* 
I assumed that Malcolm Turnbull was going to stay on the backbench and wait for the Liberals and/or Abbott to come a cropper over the AGW/ETS issue (which they surely will) and then do a Lazarus. 
After he announced his intending retirement for politics I figured that I got that one wrong! 
However, things can change quickly in politics - I see he is now decided to stay on!  Grins, grimaces as Turnbull rejoins 'fray' 
Politically, this is good news for those who want to see some action on AGW, but it may not be good news for Abbott or Rudd.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> *Malcolm is back - or rather he is staying put.*

    

> I assumed that Malcolm Turnbull was going to stay on the backbench and wait for the Liberals and/or Abbott to come a cropper over the AGW/ETS issue (which they surely will) and then do a Lazarus.  After he announced his intending retirement for politics I figured that I got that one wrong!  However, things can change quickly in politics - I see he is now decided to stay on!  Grins, grimaces as Turnbull rejoins 'fray'  Politically, this is good news for those who want to see some action on AGW, but it may not be good news for Abbott or Rudd.

  Dream on. AGW is dead in the water and Turnbull is a lame duck. You may be familiar with the term ‘death rattle’. Any noise you hear nowadays defending AGW or ETS is just that. . . .

----------


## Poptech

Some comments on a few older posts,   

> I had a quick look at the list and the first two papers on it were not reviewed by a journal carried in the ISI listing of  peer-reviewed journals.

  *ISI* (Institute for Scientific Information)  is owned by the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and  offers commercial database services (Web of Knowledge) similar to other  companies services such as EBSCO's "Academic Search" and Elsevier's  "Scopus". Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and  irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal.   

> Your old friend sourcewatch has this to say, which might explain why: [...]  Note that the site is sourcewatch, not  climatesciencewatch - it doesn't debate climate science, it outs people  with compromising ties capable of distorting their ability to be  impartial.

  Sourcewatch is an alarmist smear site,  *Sourcewatch*  $$$  Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy 
- Sourcewatch (_Discover the Networks_)   

> These "exposes," which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal  predominantly with conservative entities... [...]   *As with the  online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and  edited by ordinary Web users.* Says SourceWatch: "You don't need any  special credentials to participate -- we shun credentialism along with  other propaganda techniques." While stating that it seeks to maintain  fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website,  SourceWatch does acknowledge that "ignoring systemic bias and claiming  objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques."  [...]  
> ...*The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries  rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources.*

  - Center for Media and Democracy (_Discover the  Networks_)   

> An anti-capitalist, anti-corporate organization that seeks to expose  right-wing "public relations spin and propaganda".  
> In CMD's  view, capitalism generally, and corporations in particular, are the  principal root causes of societal ills in the U.S. and abroad. The  Capital Research Center, which rates the ideological leanings of  nonprofit organizations, places CMD near the extreme far left of the  spectrum. The website ActivistCash, which provides "information about  the funding source[s] of radical anti-consumer organizations and  activists," characterizes CMD as "a counterculture public relations  effort disguised as an independent media organization." [...]  
> CMD  was founded by the leftist writer and environmental activist John  Stauber, who continues to serve as the Center's Executive Director.  Stauber began his activism in high school when he organized anti-Vietnam  War protests and early Earth Day events. The co-author (with  SourceWatch founder Sheldon Rampton) of six books, Stauber created the  now-defunct website Vote2StopBush.org.  He is also an unpaid advisor to  several organizations, including the Action Coalition for Media  Education, the Center for Food Safety, the Liberty Tree Foundation, the  Media Education Foundation, and the Organic Consumers Association.  
> The  aforementioned Sheldon Rampton currently serves as CMD's Research  Director. A graduate of Princeton University, Rampton was formerly an  outreach coordinator for the Wisconsin Coordinating Council on  Nicaragua, a group established in 1984 to oppose President Reagan's  efforts to stop the spread of Communism in Central America, and  currently dedicated to promoting a leftist vision of "social justice in  Nicaragua through alternative models of development and activism." 
> An  April 2001 commentary in the liberal publication Village Voice said of  Rampton and Stauber: "These guys come from the far side of liberal."

  - Center for Media & Democracy (_Activist Cash_)   

> The Center for Media &  Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as  an independent media organization. CMD isnt really a center it would  be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a  two-person operation. 
> Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber operate,  as do most self-anointed progressive watchdogs, from the presumption  that any communication issued from a corporate headquarters must be  viewed with a jaundiced eye. In their own quarterly PR Watch newsletter,  they recently referred to corporate PR as a propaganda industry,  misleading citizens and manipulating minds in the service of special  interests. Ironically, Rampton and Stauber have elected to dip into the  deep pockets of multi-million-dollar foundations with special interest  agendas of their own.

   

> Haha. A few of your mates in there too  Looks like it might be the journal you send your junk science to when no-one else will print it.

  *Correcting  misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment*  *Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed  interdisciplinary    academic journal* (_ISSN: 0958-305X_)
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek and Scopus
- Found at 44  libraries worldwide, at universities and the library of congress.  Including an additional 81  in electronic form.   

> So, if that is at the top of the 700 'papers' (some of them appear to be letters to the editor and other guff) I have my doubts we're looking at a debunking of anything but common sense.

  None are letters to the editor. "Letters" is a term used to describe a type of scientific publication in certain peer-reviewed journals such as Nature.   

> Oh, and for paper #1 on your list, you may like to read RealClimate: Past reconstructions: problems, pitfalls and progress

  The correction that addresses all these complaints is included in the PDF link, just scroll down.  A 2000-year global temperature  reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF) _(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058,  December 2007)
- Craig Loehle_  *The  Truth about RealClimate.org*

----------


## Rod Dyson

> If the liberals are to take power again, they will only do it on the back of Abbott. Turnbull hasn't enough of everything, he's too soft, too lame. I like the look of Abbott, he's a fighter. Calls a spade a spade. I like that. 
> I don't neccessarily agree with all that he says, but I like the kid...........

  Sheez Head Pin if only we could agree on the ETS!!   :Brava:

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Some comments on a few older posts,

    

> *ISI* (Institute for Scientific Information) is owned by the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services (Web of Knowledge) similar to other companies services such as EBSCO's "Academic Search" and Elsevier's "Scopus". Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal.   Sourcewatch is an alarmist smear site,  *Sourcewatch*  $$$ Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy  - Sourcewatch (_Discover the Networks_)  - Center for Media and Democracy (_Discover the Networks_)  - Center for Media & Democracy (_Activist Cash_)   *Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment*  *Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal* (_ISSN: 0958-305X_) - Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek and Scopus - Found at 44 libraries worldwide, at universities and the library of congress. Including an additional 81 in electronic form.   None are letters to the editor. "Letters" is a term used to describe a type of scientific publication in certain peer-reviewed journals such as Nature.   The correction that addresses all these complaints is included in the PDF link, just scroll down.  A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF) _(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)_ _- Craig Loehle_  *The Truth about RealClimate.org*

  Welcome to the board Poptech. I knew Woodbe exaggerated these matters, and thanks for the information. So we may now conclude that when Chrisp and Woodbe were provided the perfectly good peer reviewed science, they chose to ignore it. Woodbe has gone off on some kind of nature romp, but Chrisp is still here. Perhaps he will address this issue, but I doubt it. . How do you find the average American these days, in regard to their basic views on AGW? Over here people are more and more skeptical each day. . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod. off the record. I don't disagree with your points entirely on an ETS.

   LOL no longer off the record.   

> I do believe their is a trend towards global warming. Man made or not?.........I really don't know, however if I had to make a choice. I would say man made.

  Well we now have Phil Jones saying the current warming is not un-precedented so this is a very large leap in faith. CO2 Science   

> Do I think the world governments and in particuliar the Australian government know how to deal with the problem effectively. Not on your life.

  Now this is where we really agree.   

> I only take the opposite side to you because you have a radical, obnoxious, extremist, lunatic on your side which leads me to believe you must be wrong.

  Sheez another great leap of faith, I am wrong because someone you dislike agrees with me?  

> Hope that helps explain our difference of opinon on an ETS

  Yes but i wish I could understand the logic of it!!!!

----------


## Rod Dyson

Thank you poptech for your contribution.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Perhaps, now you will understand my reluctance to believe anyone who just copies and pastes..................  
> Why don't you try me on another subject, I'm pretty good at the ole copy and paste.......

  Nobody here claims to know all about AGW or the ETS. This is not an exam to test an individuals knowledge base on these subjects. 
We all know the personal opinions of each poster. What the cut and paste is doing is simply informing the readers of the blog, changes that have occured that imact their side of the argument and inviting comment from the other side. 
The AGW/ETS debate is an evolving issue without cut and pasting new news this thread would have ended months ago.  
You need to just get over it and accept that people will cut and paste articles here all the time.

----------


## chrisp

Let's have a look at some facts: 
CO2 has increased dramatically in recent times.  The increase coincides with the industrial revolution.       
The first question that often gets asks is whether this increase in CO2 is due to natural causes or due to human activity. 
The second graph directly above shows that the source of this increased CO2 is due to human activities i.e. it is  'anthropogenic'. 
CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG) and its increase adds to the warming of the atmosphere.  The measured average global temperature is:    *So far, the above is all measured or scientifically derived data -  not the result of modelling, extrapolation or speculation.*  
So what do the various models from various research groups predict?   
The next question that arises is "So what?  What does a few degrees temperature rise matter?". 
While is doesn't sound like much of a rise, the environmental impact is disproportionate to the seemingly small rise.  For example, sea levels are rising:   
To most scientists, the science is very clear - AGW exists and is real. 
The only argument is what do we do about it.  The is where the discussion should be - i.e. the topic of this thread - what type/form of a carbon tax or ETS should we adopt.

----------


## chrisp

> The enlarged graph was ...

  ... a PITA to resize - it kept jumping back to a big size.  Can you fix it Mr Watson?

----------


## watson

> ... a PITA to resize - it kept jumping back to a big size.  Can you fix it Mr Watson?

  Since we've upgraded some of the pic posting criteria, that graph is within specs, so it'll go to the biggest allowable.

----------


## Poptech

> Welcome to the board Poptech. I knew Woodbe exaggerated these matters, and thanks for the information. So we may now conclude that when Chrisp and Woodbe were provided the perfectly good peer reviewed science, they chose to ignore it.

  Exactly and I am impressed that you took the time to contact Dr. Loehle as few people take the time to go to the source for the truth. I've had to do this numerous times and was surprised and how few people even actually do this.  .  

> How do you find the average American these days, in regard to their basic views on AGW? Over here people are more and more skeptical each day.

  Definitely more skeptical every day but it is fairly evenly split on political lines. Liberals believe in alarmism, Conservatives and Libertarians don't. I am seeing more independents becoming skeptical which is the swing voting block here and what got Obama elected (his poll numbers are tanking bad as well as the Democratic congress). Pay attention to this November's U.S. Congressional elections and you will see a huge change to the right which should help with knocking down any future energy taxes, which so far has been held up by the Senate. Thus Obama is instead trying to use the EPA to regulate CO2. On an individual level I have noticed many more women pushing green hysteria than men, a divide which appears to be growing.   

> Just what we need, another copy and paste expert.

  To make you happy I could have retyped everything I already previously compiled and typed but that would not take advantage of 1960's computer technology which I hope you would agree is what computers are for. 
As for the age of the post, I apologize as I only recently found it and while Allen has done an excellent job of addressing most of the issues, I wanted to further clarify them.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here is some compelling evidence that the ice loss in the artic is NOT un-precedented as the warmists would have us think. “Catastrophic” retreat of glaciers in Spitsbergen | Watts Up With That? 
One of the main arguments for the AGW theory is that current temperatures and ice melt are un-precedented.  That is provided you take out and "HIDE" the medieval warm period.

----------


## chrisp

*Media Watch* 
Did you see Media Watch on the ABC tonight?    *Prof. Ian Plimer got caught out on a few "facts"* - see http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...s/s2889174.htm  
Here are a few extracts from Media Watch:Prof. Ian Plimer: ... we humans only put out about three per cent of the  annual emissions of carbon dioxide. The rest comes from all sorts of  other things, including volcanoes.
 Radio 2GB, The Jason  Morrison Drive Show, 19th April, 2010... it has been shown by the US Geological Survey that current emissions  from volcanoes are being dwarfed by human emissions to a ratio of  1/130...
 Response from Fred Jourdan (Prof. of Applied  Geology, Curtin University of Technology), 28th April, 2010Prof. Ian Plimer: The very fact that we see this great plume of  particles going into the atmosphere is telling us there's a huge amount  of greenhouse gas being released from this volcano, unpronounceable  volcano. 
 Radio 2GB, The Jason Morrison Drive Show, 19th  April, 2010Well, says Jason Morrison, so much for all  those warmists who think puny humans can have an effect on the world's  climate:Jason Morrison: ... and I just, I wonder what  this does to all their theories? 
Prof. Ian Plimer: It completely  stuffs them, we know that
 Radio 2GB, The Jason Morrison  Drive Show, 19th April, 2010 
The eruption in Iceland emitted a fairly small amount of CO2. In fact  most recent estimates show that the flights that were grounded by the  eruption would have emitted about twice as much CO2 as the volcano  itself. 
 Response from Fred Jourdan (Prof. of Applied  Geology, Curtin University of Technology), 30th April, 2010

----------


## Dr Freud

> Happy trails Woodbe.  I'll have to self-censor while you are away.  Hope you are heading somewhere warm , winters closing in.  I can recommend a good book to take, it's called "Heaven and Earth" by Ian Plimer.   It's full of science with around 1,000 scientific articles, you'll love it being a science buff.  I haven't finished it yet, but the science is very boring, great for putting you to sleep after a hard days walking.    
> I was almost this inspired after watching Forrest Gump.  Walked to the fridge instead.

  I told Woodbe I would self-censor while he was away, so I must perform a mea culpa here and admit my "misinformation".  :Shock:  
I am only half way through Plimer's book, so can only speak for the 1000+ "peer-reviewed" scientific articles he sources his information from.  However, he cites around 2000 of these in total for the whole book. 
I had visions of Woodbe reading this in a desert somewhere screaming "misinformation", so thought I had better correct this myself, before he gets back and holds me to account after his enlightening read.  :Biggrin:  
More to follow...

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Prof. Ian Plimer got caught out on a few "facts"*

  Someone got caught out. 
Maybe if you read his book (like Woodbe is no doubt doing in a forest somewhere  :Biggrin: ), you would not have to rely on idiot journalists misrepresenting the actual "facts".  And I include all journalists in this drivel of a story, both those supporting AGW Theory, as well as those opposing it. 
I have not heard this interview in full or in these statements in context, but based on your post, here are some "facts".   

> Prof. Ian Plimer: ... we humans only put out about three per cent of the  annual emissions of carbon dioxide.

  This is a fact (unless you want to argue over fractions of a percent).    Full story here.   Or: "Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin.     

> The rest comes from all sorts of other things, including volcanoes.

      This is a fact.    It is estimated that volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller than the sources from human activity.    If this is comprehended correctly, it says "all sorts of other things, including volcanoes", not Anthropogenic Vs volcanoes.  One can only hope that Prof Jourdan was sent small quotes out of context, otherwise he has demonstrated some very poor comprehension skills, rendering his further responses quoted here as ridiculous.     

> Prof. Ian Plimer: The very fact that we see this great plume of particles going into the atmosphere is telling us there's a huge amount of greenhouse gas being released from this volcano, unpronounceable volcano.

   This is a fact (based on the accepted usage of the word "huge").    More new info and some shame for us. According to leading geologists, Eyjafjallajoekull is emitting between 150,000 and 300,000″ tons of CO2 a day (source). Despite the attentions of the Icelandic vulcanologists and detailed research, our calculations were apparently off by a factor to 10. Many apologies for this error. The volcano *is* belching huge gobs of CO2 into the atmos. Arguably, still less than the amount that wouldve been emitted by the grounded planes. Weve corrected the diagram. Thanks to all the commenters who helped us refine and correct our calcs.      

> Prof. Ian Plimer: It completely stuffs them, we know that

   I think we can chalk this one up as an opinion.  It strikes me as enthusiastic hyperbole, and I find it hard to believe anyone (even us) would hold our many statements of this nature to be "facts".   My personal opinion is that they were "completely stuffed" long before this volcano.

----------


## Dr Freud

> CO2 has increased dramatically in recent times.  The increase coincides with the industrial revolution.

  Dramatically compared to what exactly, an arbitrary time frame back to when humans invented the thermometer.  The chart below shows some "dramatic"increases and decreases in CO2.  And the recent increase doesn't just coincide with the industrial revolution, it was contributed to by the industrial revolution.  No need to understate this issue, it's just the amounts, interactions and effects that are usually disputed.    

> The first question that often gets asks is whether this increase in CO2 is due to natural causes or due to human activity.

  My first question is what happens if CO2 keeps going up, regardless of what is contributing to it.  The answer is: we don't know.   

> The second graph directly above shows that the source of this increased CO2 is due to human activities i.e. it is 'anthropogenic'.  CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG) and its increase adds to the warming of the atmosphere.

  Please explain the exact nature of this relationship based on the long term proxy data below, as opposed to a very short arbitrary data set since we invented the thermometer.   

> The measured average global temperature is:

  Consistent with our ascent out of the last few small and large ice ages.   

> So far, the above is all measured or scientifically derived data -  not the result of modelling, extrapolation or speculation.

  Yes, the industrial revolution allows us the technology to measure this stuff now.  Does your head in sometimes I bet.  We would not die out as a species had we not invented the technology that allows us to measure our own demise.  :Confused:   

> So what do the various models from various research groups predict?

  Have you got any pictures of the models in a bikini?   

> The next question that arises is "So what?  What does a few degrees temperature rise matter?".

  Don't quote me on this, but I think we're currently around 0.7 of a degree.  Let's check back in a hundred years or so and see how good those motherboards prophecies were?   

> While is doesn't sound like much of a rise, the environmental impact is disproportionate to the seemingly small rise. For example, sea levels are rising:

  Not as fast as the assumptions.  See previous ice age comments.   

> To most scientists, the science is very clear - AGW exists and is real.

  Please include numbers of all scientists globally, and then numbers showing a majority believe AGW Theory is real.  And then ask that majority if they believe we should prove scientific theories by vote or by evidence?   

> The only argument is what do we do about it.

  See previous 2800 or so posts for a few more arguments you may have missed.  
[quote=Dr Freud;796830]  Quote:  Seriously, we (humans) have no idea what will happen.  We can make lots of guesses (some educated, some less so), but at the end of the day, we don't currently have the knowledge or the technology to predict what will happen.  We have very inaccurate measurements of what has happened previously (see chart below), but all of the variables involved in these processes are in a constant state of flux, making predictions very difficult.  
What can be said is that previously, it appears that temperatures have upper and lower bounds, and that higher CO2 levels are associated with increased ecosystems and biological diversity.  But this doesn't necessarily mean the same will hold true in the future.  If you can see a consistent relationship between CO2 and temperature, I'm happy to hear your thoughts? 
(Psychobabble Warning)  :Eek:  
Human nature hates uncertainty, that's why we invent belief systems.  It gives our minds an island of security in the chaos of the world around us. This can be both a good and bad thing depending on how it is used.  But sometimes we just have to say "We don't know".     

>

----------


## Allen James

.  

> Some comments on a few older posts,   *ISI* (Institute for Scientific Information) is owned by the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services (Web of Knowledge) similar to other companies services such as EBSCO's "Academic Search" and Elsevier's "Scopus". Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal.  
> Sourcewatch is an alarmist smear site,  *Sourcewatch*  $$$ Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy 
> - Sourcewatch (_Discover the Networks_) 
> - Center for Media and Democracy (_Discover the Networks_) 
> - Center for Media & Democracy (_Activist Cash_)   *Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment*  *Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal* (_ISSN: 0958-305X_)
> - Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek and Scopus
> - Found at 44 libraries worldwide, at universities and the library of congress. Including an additional 81 in electronic form.  
> None are letters to the editor. "Letters" is a term used to describe a type of scientific publication in certain peer-reviewed journals such as Nature.  
> The correction that addresses all these complaints is included in the PDF link, just scroll down.  A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF) _(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)_ _- Craig Loehle_  *The Truth about RealClimate.org*

   

> *Media Watch* 
> Did you see Media Watch on the ABC tonight?

  There you go, Poptech.  Looks like Chrisp is too scared to address your points, which I predicted.  :Biggrin:  . . .

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Here is some compelling evidence that the ice loss in the artic is NOT un-precedented as the warmists would have us think.

    

> “Catastrophic” retreat of glaciers in Spitsbergen | Watts Up With That?  One of the main arguments for the AGW theory is that current temperatures and ice melt are un-precedented. That is provided you take out and "HIDE" the medieval warm period.

  Good find Rod. History repeating itself. . . .  Meanwhile, in other news: . . Commenting on an interview James Cameron gave on ‘Hardball’, where he preaches about how we’re all poisoning the planet, John Nolte points out the glaring hypocrisy of Cameron, who created a number of huge blockbusters including _The Terminator_, _The Abyss_, _True Lies_, _Titanic_ and now the very successful (but tacky), _Avatar_. . . GLOBAL WARMING: Is James Cameron a Genocidal Maniac? by John Nolte . Either James Cameron is a genocidal maniac or a black-hearted liar. How else to explain the vast divide between his words and deeds? Yesterday on “Hardball,” Cameron ripped we Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change deniers as “dangerous.” The takeaway from the interview is that the director really, _really_, *really* believes that consumerism and energy consumption put our planet in peril. . Okay, fine. But then why is he trying to kill us all off with his own lifestyle? Forget about the mansion he currently resides in, look at how his work contributes to the extinction of all life on Earth. . 1.The energy consumed to make films. . 2.The energy consumed to distribute his films worldwide. . 3.The energy consumed to promote them. . 4.The energy consumed by those going to see them. . 5.The energy consumed to create, distribute and promote DVDs . 6.The inevitable landfill waste that comes with millions and millions of DVDs produced all over the world. . If you take Cameron at his word regarding his fevered belief that Climate Change is real and man made, the next logical question can only be: James, why then are you so aggressively engaging in the kind of behavior you yourself believe will destroy Mother Earth? . Does Chris Matthews bother to ask him that? If there was even a chance, Cameron wouldn’t have shown up. Regardless, someone has to stop James Cameron, and stop him now. He’s intentionally working to kill us all. Let’s throw him in jail for depraved indifference to human life … before it’s too late. . Chris Matthews is also a hardcore Climate Change believer, and he’s actually worse than Cameron in the genocidal maniac department.. Twice a day, five days a week he consumes untold amounts of energy to broadcast a television show no one watches. . Both of these genocidal maniacs spent a lot of time singling Glenn Beck out as ”dangerous,” but like most rational people Beck doesn’t believe in Climate Change. I guess he could be wrong. But he’s not dangerous. . On the other hand, even though Cameron and Matthews are wrong, they are most certainly quite dangerous. They believe a certain kind of behavior will wipe out the planet and yet they continue to indulge in that behavior in ways few people do. . Both have moved way beyond the realm of hypocrisy — both are stone cold sociopaths. . Or they’re lying about Climate Change. . . . Big Hollywood Blog Archive GLOBAL WARMING: Is James Cameron a Genocidal Maniac? . . . Regarding the Greenie movie, Avatar, I thought Sean Burn's summary was accurate: . Excerpt: . “Avatar looks like the kind of gaudy, 1970s airbrush painting you’d see on a van owned by your stoner friend who sees too many Rush concerts. This is not, as heralded, “the future of cinema.” Instead it’s more like the old cliche: One step forward, two steps back.” . http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/screen/reviews/Avatar-79565587.html
.
.
.
.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Exactly and I am impressed that you took the time to contact Dr. Loehle as few people take the time to go to the source for the truth. I've had to do this numerous times and was surprised and how few people even actually do this.

   Thanks Poptech; Dr. Loehle and yourself were very helpful. When I asked a colleague involved in Physics to help me work out the relative size humans are on the planet Earth, he was happy to help. I thought that given the political climate these days, others might be happy to help too. The result of that human/Earth size project was this: . http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/a...tive-sizes.jpg . I was hoping it could help people see how tiny we are in terms of the planet.     

> Definitely more skeptical every day but it is fairly evenly split on political lines. Liberals believe in alarmism, Conservatives and Libertarians don't.

   Yes, it’s much the same here. Our conservative party recently went through a shakeup over ETS. The leader was dumped because he supported it, while the new leader Tony Abbott opposes it vigorously, calling it a ‘big fat tax’. The Labor Party here (similar to your Democrats) staunchly support AGW and ETS, but have recently shelved the whole matter for a few years under growing skeptism from the public. . .   

> I am seeing more independents becoming skeptical which is the swing voting block here and what got Obama elected (his poll numbers are tanking bad as well as the Democratic congress). Pay attention to this November's U.S. Congressional elections and you will see a huge change to the right which should help with knocking down any future energy taxes, which so far has been held up by the Senate.

   That’s excellent news. Do you think they may come back with some other alarmist theme, like ‘global cooling’, or some other version of the ozone hole? I see there is a doomsday 2012 idea that is gaining momentum, though I don’t know much about that. . .   

> Thus Obama is instead trying to use the EPA to regulate CO2. On an individual level I have noticed many more women pushing green hysteria than men, a divide which appears to be growing.

   That’s a great point. I can see how climate based myths would arouse maternal protective instincts. Mothers have sheltered their infants from the elements down through the ages, so perhaps evolution shaped them accordingly. Environmental alarmism may be a trigger to summon up an instinctive reaction. When Avatar shows on the big screen, science flies out the window.  :Rolleyes:  . .   

> Just what we need, another copy and paste expert.

     

> To make you happy I could have retyped everything I already previously compiled and typed but that would not take advantage of 1960's computer technology which I hope you would agree is what computers are for.

    :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:  . It is quite hilarious that someone thinks there is something wrong with copying and pasting. It reminds me of what they said about every other development in technology. “Travelling faster than 30 miles per hour will shake you to pieces.” “TV will never catch on.” “Electricity is the work of the devil.” “Microwaves will make you barren.” . . . .

----------


## watson

I'll be back later to clean out all the non-topic stuff from the last couple of days.......busy elsewhere at the moment.
so, to all members involved in this thread.........

----------


## chrisp

> This is a fact (unless you want to argue over fractions of a percent).

  *Clarification* 
The succinct nature of forum posts and responses does result in detail getting lost. 
Dr Freud is correct in stating that about 3% of total CO2 emissions are anthropogenic.  However, the other ~97% of CO2 production (the natural part) is balanced such that the generators of CO2 (the "sources") are balanced by the consumers of CO2 (the "sinks").   
The carbon cycle has been in a cycling between about 180ppm to 300ppm for the past 420,000 years or so.    
Only in resent times has the CO2 level suddenly jumped to 380ppm."The present atmospheric CO2 *increase* is caused by  anthropogenic emissions    of CO2. About three-quarters of these emissions are due to  fossil    fuel burning. Fossil fuel burning (plus a small contribution from  cement production)    released on average 5.4  0.3 PgC/yr during 1980 to 1989, and 6.3     0.4 PgC/yr during 1990 to 1999. Land use change is responsible for the  rest    of the emissions."
(from: IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions | UNEP/GRID-Arendal - Publications - Other ) So, yes, there is a large background carbon cycle happening naturally and this accounts for the bulk of the CO2 *turnover* (but *not* the *increase* in CO2 levels).  However, *anthropogenic CO2* has changed the balance resulting in an *increase in CO2 levels* in the atmosphere.  *In a nutshell, the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 levels from ~280ppm to ~380ppm is almost entirely anthropogenic (i.e. human induced).*

----------


## chrisp

> It reminds me of what they said about every other development in technology. “Travelling faster than 30 miles per hour will shake you to pieces.” “TV will never catch on.” “Electricity is the work of the devil.” “Microwaves will make you barren.”

  ..."_Anthropogenic Global Warming is not real_."   :Smilie:

----------


## watson

> ..."_Anthropogenic Global Warming is not real_."

  Only 5 computers will ever access the web.

----------


## watson

OK deletions done.....28 posts deleted.
You blokes are really giving me a warm fuzzy feeling  :Annoyed:

----------


## chrisp

> For all the kids out there.  Please note that I am now spelling yaw correctly.

  Was there a problem before?   :Wink:

----------


## Allen James

.   

> Was there a problem before?

   Well one, at least.  You negleted to reply to Dr. Loehle or Poptech, the two American scientists who came to provide you and Woodbe some answers.  How will that look on your rsum?   :Biggrin:  . . .

----------


## chrisp

> .Well one, at least.  You negleted (sic) to reply to Dr. Loehle or Poptech, the two American scientists who came to provide you and Woodbe some answers.  How will that look on your rsum?

  What is there to respond to?  PT made a reference to a "correction".  That "correction" was already noted in the link I provided:*"**Update (Jan 22): Loehle has issued a correction  that fixes the more obvious dating and data treatment issues, but does  not change the inappropriate data selection, or the calibration and  validation issues."*
BTW, I certainly wouldn't like any mention of Poptech or Loehle on  my resume - I've actually got a good reputation to uphold.  :Wink:

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> What is there to respond to?

   Dr. Loehles papers and Poptechs posts.  . Dr. Loehles papers were the first two of 700 peer-reviewed papers linked to you and Woodbe by Rod, here: . Popular Technology.net: 700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming . After you saw them you went mute. Woodbe threw a few insults and promptly left on a wilderness walk.  :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:  . Poptechs first post was reply #2753, page 184. You still haven't addressed it, and no; Im afraid this _wont_ look good on your rsum. . After all, you and Woodbe pleaded Rod for science, and ignored it when it was provided, which is very telling, dont you think? . You also neglected to answer post 461, page 179, about sourcewatch.orgs Patricia Barden and her Dixie Doodle. .  . .  . .  .

----------


## watson

To keep my input to the thread to a minimum, I'll post the following pics for what is happening rather than "go on about it". 
If I need to work on the thread, I will temporarily close it and you will see.....  
When the thread is open again you will see....  
When I edit a post you will see....  
If I wan't you to stop going on in a certain manner you will see......  
If I wan't to reconfirm the main rule, you will see......  
If I think you are posting crap, you will see.....  
Hope it makes moderation a bit of fun.

----------


## Poptech

> What is there to respond to?  PT made a reference to a "correction".  That "correction" was already noted in the link I provided:*"**Update (Jan 22): Loehle has issued a correction  that fixes the more obvious dating and data treatment issues, but does  not change the inappropriate data selection, or the calibration and  validation issues."*

  Calibration and validation issues have all been addressed. Gavin's opinion on what is "appropriate" or not is just that - an opinion. The conclusions have not changed with the issued correction.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> To keep my input to the thread to a minimum, I'll post the following pics for what is happening rather than "go on about it". 
> If I need to work on the thread, I will temporarily close it and you will see.....  
> When the thread is open again you will see....  
> When I edit a post you will see....  
> If I wan't you to stop going on in a certain manner you will see......  
> If I wan't to reconfirm the main rule, you will see......  
> If I think you are posting crap, you will see.....  
> Hope it makes moderation a bit of fun.

  Nice Watson. Very clever.

----------


## chrisp

> To keep my input to the thread to a minimum, I'll post the following pics for what is happening rather than "go on about it". 
> If I need to work on the thread, I will temporarily close it and you will see.....  
> When the thread is open again you will see....  
> When I edit a post you will see....  
> If I wan't you to stop going on in a certain manner you will see......  
> If I wan't to reconfirm the main rule, you will see......  
> If I think you are posting crap, you will see.....  
> Hope it makes moderation a bit of fun.

  Did you employ a graphics designer?  :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

. Okay, well I do like the smell of Chrispy bacon in the morning. And Chrispy Rudd.  :Smilie:  . From The Australian today: . . *Army of let-down voters set to desert ALP*  . Andrew Fraser  May 05, 2010 12:00AM   *IN Kevin Grove, Caboolture, they're not happy, Prime Minister.* . Take Alan Abbott. The 52-year-old ute-driving handyman enjoys his beer and cigarettes and is deeply unimpressed the cost of both have gone up since he changed his vote in 2007 and helped elect the Rudd government.  The list doesn't end there. Mr Abbott and his wife, Sandra, who works in a petrol station, are uneasy about Labor's handling of border protection. They think Australia is already big enough and yesterday's 0.25 percentage point interest rate hike added to their concern about being priced out of Queensland's southeast. . Next time round, they will both be voting for the Liberals and their namesake, Tony Abbott. . "You know, before the last election I thought Rudd was a fair dinkum sort of bloke," Alan Abbott said yesterday. "But there's something about him now that I don't really trust." . The couple are part of a growing army of the disillusioned and discontented with Mr Rudd, brought out in yesterday's horror Newspoll in The Australian for the Prime Minister and his government. . Concerns are also growing in the government, with worried Labor MPs planning to ask Mr Rudd to embrace a carbon tax as Labor's climate change policy, to fill the vacuum left by his contentious shelving of the emissions trading scheme. . After being bombarded by outraged younger voters in their electorates, five Labor MPs have told The Australian the government's current position on climate change is untenable and unsellable to the electorate. . The Abbotts' home in Kevin Grove is in the key electorate of Longman, north of Brisbane, which shifted to Labor in 2007 and will be in the Opposition Leader's sights when Mr Rudd calls the election later this year. . Mr Rudd was campaigning only a street away on Monday, as he hit the hustings to sell the Henry tax review. . Alan Abbott enjoys a beer and a smoke - "you've got to have some vices, haven't you" - and the cost of both has gone up under the Rudd government. . "I'm paying about $25 a week more for my cigarettes now than before," he said. . Mr Abbott doubts whether he will be around to vote again in Longman. "We're moving back to the Kerang district in Victoria and we can buy a house there with no debt," Mr Abbott said. . "And one of the reasons we're doing that is we don't want to get caught up again with a mortgage when it looks as though interest rates are going to keep going up and up. . "And with this Henry report, I don't mind the mining companies paying more tax - most of them are overseas-owned - but what about the other multinationals? . "If you looked at all the other people who don't pay all their tax - the lawyers, the company directors - he was going to to do something about that as well, and that's another area where nothing happened." . But he also feels that Rudd wasn't upfront enough with his views on immigration and population, and that Australia is getting too many people. Both the Abbotts are swinging voters who have no qualms about changing their vote between elections. . "I didn't mind a lot of what John Howard did, but Work Choices was a big reason why I voted against him last time. Nothing happened to me, but I heard so many stories from people I knew about it." . In a deadly assessment, he feels that Howard had a core competence, while the current government doesn't. . He said that around Caboolture and Morayfield, there was early talk that the Rudd government's roofing insulation scheme was a rort, while the BER scheme to assist schools also seems to have been rorted. . . http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/army-of-let-down-voters-set-to-desert-alp/story-e6frgczf-1225862290434 . . .The _Penny_ might finally be dropping for Aussies, and there's nothing _Wong_ with that.  :Smilie:  . . . .

----------


## chrisp

*Scientific Consensus?* 
I've been reading up here-and-there on AGW by following some of the links provided on this thread. 
I came across an interesting experiment to evaluate the level of scientific support for the AGW theory.   
Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego, searched the *Web of Science* (an index of refereed papers published in scientific journals) using the search term "*global climate change*".  The search turned up 928 papers.  The papers were read and categorised as (quote):(1) those explicitly *endorsing* the consensus position,
(2) those explicitly *refuting* the consensus position, 
(3) those discussing methods and techniques for measuring, monitoring,
or predicting climate change, 
(4) those discussing potential or documenting actual impacts of climate  change, 
(5) those dealing with paleoclimate change, and 
(6) those proposing mitigation strategies.And the result?_"How many fell into category 2that is, how many of these papers present evidence that refutes the statement: Global climate change is occurring, and human activities are at least part of the reason why? The answer is remarkable: none."_ (my emphasis)(from: http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/Oreskes2007.pdf )  *This is not to say that there are no refereed papers refuting AGW, but it would seem that they're pretty thin on the ground.*

----------


## Allen James

It appears _Nature_ magazine will be blowing whats left of AGW out of the water in June  from Canada Free Press (emphasis mine): . . *30,000 Anti-Global Warming Scientists Cant Be Wrong* . _By Fred Dardick_ Friday, April 30, 2010  . *Nature Magazine*, the academic journal that introduced the world to X-rays, DNA double helix, wave nature of particles, pulsars, and more recently the human genome, is set to publish a paper in June that shows atmospheric carbon dioxide *(CO2) is responsible for only 5-10% of observed warming on Earth*.  . As explained by the papers author Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, The climate is warming, yes, but *not* because of greenhouse gases.  . For the preeminent scientific journal in the world to publish Kauppinens work shows conclusively that Al Gores much touted scientific consensus supporting human-caused global warming is a *myth*. . *Eco-censors and the global warming hoax* . For years scientists have been trying to get out the message past the eco-censors that there are thousands and thousands of them who do not buy into the global warming hoax.  . Since 2009 more than *238 physicists* including Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever and professors from Harvard, MIT, Princeton, UCLA and dozens of other top universities and research institutions have signed an open letter addressed to the Council of the American Physical Society saying the scientific data *did not support* the conclusion that increased CO2 concentrations are responsible for global warming. . In 2009 *over 700* international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC members, joined with Senator Inhofe in a Senate Minority Report to express their *doubts* over man-made global warming claims.  . In the report U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg was quoted as saying It is a *blatant lie* put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who dont buy into anthropogenic global warming.  . In the largest effort to date to document global warming dissent in the scientific community, *31,486* Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,029 PhD, 7,157 MS, 2,586 MD and DVM, and 12,714 BS or equivalent - have signed on with the Global Warming Petition Project to state the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity. . Many of the best and brightest minds in the United States and around the world are in total agreement: The so-called global warming scientific consensus is a *complete fabrication and does not exist*. . . 30,000 Anti-Global Warming Scientists Cant Be Wrong  . . .

----------


## Poptech

> Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego, searched the *Web of Science* (an index of refereed papers published in scientific journals) using the search term "*global climate change*".  The search turned up 928 papers....

  Her original paper said she used the search term "climate change" and after complaints of failure to reproduce her study she magically remembered it was "global climate change". The difference? 10,000 papers. Lets not forget the fact that Web of Science only indexes 10,000 odd journals, Scopus indexes 16,500. So not only is she not searching the complete peer-reviewed literature she is using subjective search terms to get preconceived conclusions. The exact search term "global climate change" is hardly one that you find turning up in the global warming debate. My list clearly shows her conclusions are worthless and instead her "study" has been used for propaganda purposes of claiming that "no skeptical peer-reviewed papers exist". Which is a lie.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> . 30,000 Anti-Global Warming Scientists Cant Be Wrong  . . .

  LOL sure casts a shadow of doubt eh!!

----------


## chrisp

> LOL sure casts a shadow of doubt eh!!

  Sure does!  I'll eagerly await the paper - if it ever comes out in Nature.  :Rolleyes:  
Also, how did the story about a supposed paper coming in Nature turn in to a story on the "Oregon Petition"?  :Confused:  
How does it go?  "If it walks like a duck, ...".  It sounds very much like a hoax to me, but I'll keep an open mind and await the publication of the paper.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Sure does! I'll eagerly await the paper - if it ever comes out in Nature.

  Meh.  Judging by the way you treated two other scientists, you can hardly expect us to believe you are 'eager'.  If it does come out we know exactly how you will respond:  You wont. . .   

> Also, how did the story about a supposed paper coming in Nature turn in to a story on the "Oregon Petition"?

  It didnt turn into anything.  The article contained several news items, and included them all. . .   

> How does it go? "If it walks like a duck, ...". It sounds very much like a hoax to me, but I'll keep an open mind and await the publication of the paper.

  Its clear you dont know a hoax when it stares you in the face, since you still believe in the AGW hoax.   . . The news about Professor Kauppinen is from the Finnish Newspaper Turun Sanomat, which is why you probably could not find the source using English, in Google.  The papers website is here:  Etusivu - Turun Sanomat . . .

----------


## Allen James

.   

> Her original paper said she used the search term "climate change" and after complaints of failure to reproduce her study she magically remembered it was "global climate change". The difference? 10,000 papers. Lets not forget the fact that Web of Science only indexes 10,000 odd journals, Scopus indexes 16,500. So not only is she not searching the complete peer-reviewed literature she is using subjective search terms to get preconceived conclusions. The exact search term "global climate change" is hardly one that you find turning up in the global warming debate. My

    

> list clearly shows her conclusions are worthless and instead her "study" has been used for propaganda purposes of claiming that "no skeptical peer-reviewed papers exist". Which is a lie.

  Well said, Poptech. . From memory I think Chrisp is an electrical engineer, and he is passionate about AGW. This may explain why his arguments are more emotional than scientific.  :Biggrin:  I am no scientist either, though I _try_ to be objective. . . .

----------


## Allen James

.
.   

> Try harder, [S]your [/S] you're failing............

  Dont forget Headpin, we have Google to find info in just a few seconds. . +Chrisp +"electrical engineer" site:renovateforum.com - Google Search . .   

> I still can't get over the fact that there's an electrical engineer out there who goes by the moniker of chrisp :eek:

     

> Yep, hard to believe - it must have been some kind of parapraxia when I signed up!

    

> And I must be an excellent one too - I haven't met thatirwinfella (unless he was that TAFE teacher:eek: )

   .
.
.

----------


## chrisp

> The news about Professor Kauppinen is from the Finnish Newspaper Turun Sanomat, which is why you probably could not find the source using English, in Google.  The paper’s website is here:  Etusivu - Turun Sanomat

  Allen, 
I searched long and hard.  Most sites link back, or refer to, the Canada Free Press website.  It seems that the only 'source' for this story was single article in a Finnish newspaper. 
This sounds like a ground breaking story, yet it was hardly made any news outside the blogosphere.  :Confused:

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Allen,

    

> I searched long and hard. Most sites link back, or refer to, the Canada Free Press website. It seems that the only 'source' for this story was single article in a Finnish newspaper.  This sounds like a ground breaking story, yet it was hardly made any news outside to blogosphere.

  I think there are two reasons it’s mostly in the blogosphere: . 1) It’s based on a Finnish article (see below), and that by itself will delay any articles in English papers. . 2) There is a strong bias against anti-AGW articles by western media. You can imagine the average editor saying, “Finnish? Against AGW? Fuggedaboudit.” . If _Nature_ decides not to go ahead, it is only a matter of time before it will have to publish these kinds of papers, as their own reputation is at stake. This news is originally from the Finnish Newspaper Turun Sanomat, and here is a crude translation, through Google’s translation tools: . Google Translate . I wrote to Professor Kauppinen to ask whether the paper will be published in Nature, and I will post any reply I receive. . . .

----------


## chrisp

> I wrote to Professor Kauppinen to ask whether the paper will be published in Nature, and I will post any reply I receive.

  Allen, 
Even if it is being published, he would NOT be allowed to say so ahead of time (I think he can say so 1 week before the publication date).  Nature has a very strict embargo policy. 
This is another 'doubt' on the story.

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> Even if it is being published, he would NOT be allowed to say so ahead of time (I think he can say so 1 week before the publication date). Nature has a very strict embargo policy.  This is another 'doubt' on the story.

  Well, there’s magazine policy, journalistic investigation, and Einstein-like forgetfulness. . A sharp Finnish journalist might have managed to obtain this information from the professor and include it in the article _without_ the professor’s consent. Perhaps the professor was upset when he saw the article. If so, he probably won’t return my email. . If that happened, it might anger Nature, and that might jeopardise the publishing. As I say though, it is only a matter of time before Nature, Science and other magazines like them will begin publishing these kinds of papers. If they don’t they will seriously damage their own standing with thousands of eminent scientists around the world. .
.
.

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> I hadn't forgotten, it's no big secret.

   So when you said, Try harder, your[sic] failing, you really meant, Yes Allen, you are correct; Chrisp _is_ an electrical engineer.  Very telling.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  . . .

----------


## chrisp

> From memory I think Chrisp is an electrical engineer, and he is passionate about AGW. This may explain why his arguments are more emotional than scientific.  *I am no scientist either*, though I _try_ to be objective.

  Allen, 
Clearly you are not a scientist - your basic logic reasoning error above demonstrates that. 
You state that I'm a electrical engineer and infer that I'm not a scientist.  Have you thought that they are not mutually exclusive?  *For most part, I don't care about the background or qualifications of people who post on this (or any other) forum.  If they can make a sensible argument, I'll listen.* 
If you'll allow me to skite for a moment, during a unrelated web search, I found out that a thesis of mine (in science) - yep, I can call myself a scientist too - is listed for inclusion in the the National Archives as part of the collected works of a very significant Australian scientist (who was my supervisor).  Not many other students of this scientist have had their thesis listed for inclusion to the national archive. 
Hopefully, Noel will come along later and delete all this off-topic and immaterial _ad hominem_ argument (including this post).

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Clearly you are not a scientist

   Nor have I implied I am. I provided my personal details the day I joined here. . .   

> - your basic logic reasoning error above demonstrates that.

   My logic and reasoning has been far more objective than yours, and that has been made clear many times. There are many science people in my family - I probably get it from them. . .   

> You state that I'm a electrical engineer

   I merely pointed to your own words. If you’re not an electrical engineer, take it up with yourself. . .   

> and infer that I'm not a scientist

   I would have to see the qualifications before believing you are a scientist. . .   

> Hopefully, Noel will come along later and delete all this off-topic and immaterial _ad hominem_ argument.

     

> Did you employ a graphics designer?

   You mean it’s one rule for you and your drunken sidekick Headpin, and another for me? . . .

----------


## watson

*Cheeses twice.*      
I'm only going to clean out once a day.....just like a good housewife should.

----------


## Allen James

. . Here are some of the hilarious, spectacularly wrong predictions made on the occasion of Earth Day 1970: . . We have about five more years at the outside to do something. .  Kenneth Watt, ecologist . . Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.  .  George Wald, Harvard Biologist . . By[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s. .  Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist . . It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.  .  Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day . . Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions.By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine. .  Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University . . Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to supportthe following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollutionby 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.  .  Life Magazine, January 1970 . . At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, its only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.  .  Kenneth Watt, Ecologist . . By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a ratethat there wont be any more crude oil. Youll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill er up, buddy, and hell say, `I am very sorry, there isnt any. .  Kenneth Watt, Ecologist . . Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct. .  Sen. Gaylord Nelson . . The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age. .  Kenneth Watt, Ecologist . . Keep these predictions in mind when you hear the same predictions made today. Theyve been making the same predictions for 39 40 years. And theyre going to continue making them untilwellforever. . . Earth Day 2010 Special: 15 spectacularly stupid predictions from the first Earth Day | Conservative News from IHateTheMedia.com . . . .

----------


## chrisp

> Her original paper said she used the search term "climate change" and after complaints of failure to reproduce her study she magically remembered it was "global climate change". The difference? 10,000 papers. Lets not forget the fact that Web of Science only indexes 10,000 odd journals, Scopus indexes 16,500. So not only is she not searching the complete peer-reviewed literature she is using subjective search terms to get preconceived conclusions. The exact search term "global climate change" is hardly one that you find turning up in the global warming debate. *My list clearly shows her conclusions are worthless* and instead her "study" has been used for propaganda purposes of claiming that "no skeptical peer-reviewed papers exist". Which is a lie.

  Actually, it is not "*worthless*".  It is a valid sample - and the sample methodology was explained as was the analysis method.  If the search terms were poorly chosen (I'm not say that they were), then they'd probably miss just as many "for" papers as "against" papers. 
The author *didn't* claim that there were *no* papers at all refuting AGW, just that the sample that she took (938 papers) didn't have a single one that explicitly stated that it was evidence against AGW (whereas more than 200 of that sample explicitly stated that it was evidence supporting AGW). 
So a sample from a well know and well regarded scientific index, the results were ~220 for to 0 against AGW. 
If you have serious doubts, you could always redo the study using different search terms. 
It would seem to me that the "scientific doubt" campaign maybe a political campaign - not a scientific campaign. 
BTW, *welcome to the forum* and sorry for not responding earlier.  I suspect that you maybe on a 'short leash' as a new member and your posts don't appear until released by the moderator - after I've read that part of the thread.  I only became aware of your post after Allen quoted from it.

----------


## watson

I'm actually gonna post something...........
To add to what Allen has said, do we remember the Y2K bull beat up by the media???
How much crap was that???
I think the media....scientific or not.....has a big part to play in the dissemination of utter crud, and they are not held to account, as are writers of papers either "for or against" AGW. At least the author's of the "for and against" are having a go (either for money or principle) and maybe the whole point is to just make us think about our footprint on the planet. Do we make a difference.....or are we the insignificant "smoke makers" that one side would have us believe, or is farting in the paddock a crime against the environment and the general well being of the planet as a whole.
The facts I know are:
20 years ago.......my area had an annual rainfall of 27 Inches. (borderline stuff)
Veggie garden......no problem....cropping ...no problem
The well on my place has worked for 90 years.....it dried up three years ago.
We hold parties for the Grand-kids in the dust bowl that was our dam. (safe place.....no Bindies or snakes)
Haven't had a home grown veggie for four years.
I buy water.  :Mad:  
So...I think there is a bit of "Blow fly Sodomisation" going on here.
Have we caused Global warming?? ....Dunno. ( Every bugger with relevant info has an axe to grind)
Is there Global Warming???.....Dunno. ( Every bugger with relevant info has an axe to grind)
Has there been a change in my local climate??........'Knoath.
Does that affect me and what I have to do to live......My Bloody Oath.
Am I concerned about how the world will be in another 50 years???..........that'd make me 137 ( and apart from a Guinness Book of Records entry) I don't give a "rats". 
Because........if the scientific community have to work it out.......(without making a splash and a squillion)....they will. (that's how we learned to eat Mastadons)
There are too many opportunities for quasi scientists to make a quid at the present time, without using the "GOYA Principle".
That's ....*.G*et *O*ff *Y*our *A*ss.  
Besides that.....you all are missing the point!!! 
You could all be qualified to speak on this subject by simple replying to a Google ad that appears every so often at the top of this thread.    
So get qualified.....it's on the web....it's real   :Rotfl:   
(I must water down the last whiskey brew)

----------


## chrisp

> I'm actually gonna post something...........

  A big welcome to our newest active member on this thread!  It is good to have you aboard Noel.  Don't worry, Headie and I will look after you.   :Smilie:  
BTW, as a electrical engineer, and one who designs assorts of microprocessor stuff, I was amazed at the hysteria over the Y2K issue.  I recall being at a supermarket that New Years eve and the fellow ahead of me in the checkout queue was buying several 4-litre containers of water (and ran back to get a few more too).  I suppose he was worried that the water would go off at midnight - but bloody hell, why not just fill a few containers at home rather than buy water at the supermarket?  Crazy!

----------


## Rod Dyson

Hehehehe. 
Nice to see you wade in Watson!! 
Keep comming the waters fine.

----------


## Bedford

> Am I concerned about how the world will be in another 50 years???..........that'd make me 137 ( and apart from a Guinness Book of Records entry) I don't give a "rats".

   Neither do I.    

> (I must water down the last whiskey brew)

   No need to water it down, it doesn't have to last 70 years only 50. :Biggrin:

----------


## watson

> Hehehehe. 
> Nice to see you wade in Watson!! 
> Keep comming the waters fine.

  I shouldn't really....'cos I'm more on about how my patch has changed in the past 25 years..........local climate change........not Global anything.
I can remember in the late 80's you would not dare drive off a track in a paddock for fear of being bogged up to your headlights in "Baby Cack"...often Farmers would leave a bogged tractor where it was until summer. 
So, my local rainfall has dropped dramatically........I don't know why.....and no one in authority has a suggestion except AGW. 
So my jury (of one) is still out ..until my rainfall comes back to 27 inches when the big wheel  makes a turn towards where I want the cycle to be. 
I'll bugger off now.

----------


## Allen James

> I'm actually gonna post something...........

    

> To add to what Allen has said, do we remember the Y2K bull beat up by the media??? How much crap was that???

  I reckon! They went on and on and on about it for months. When the time came, nothing happened at all. . .     

> I think the media....scientific or not.....has a big part to play in the dissemination of utter crud

   Agreed. I now pronounce it ‘_krudd_’, after K. Rudd. I think the sound Aussies will hear when the penny drops, is “_Pwong_”, as in P. Wong.  :Biggrin:   . . . . .

----------


## chrisp

> To add to what Allen has said, do we remember the Y2K bull beat up by the media???
> How much crap was that???

  Being a positive and optimistic fellow, we must look at the positives learnt from the Y2K bug.   
At least we know, with the benefit of hindsight, it is nothing to worry about.  We can pass this knowledge to our Queenslanders so they'll know not to worry when they come to the Y2K issue - in about 40 years time.   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Do you think we could run an ETS any better than this?  EUobserver / Anti-fraud investigators swoop on EU emissions traders

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Being a positive and optimistic fellow, we must look at the positives learnt from the Y2K bug.

   I'm afraid you lost me. _We_ are a _positive fellow_?  :Confused:  .    

> At least we know, with the benefit of hindsight, it is nothing to worry about. We can pass this knowledge to our Queenslanders so they'll know not to worry when they come to the Y2K issue - in about 40 years time.

   Oh, I understand now. No, not all Queenslanders are as dense as Headpin.  :Biggrin:  . Just to bring you up to speed on that email I sent to Jyrki Kauppinen; he wrote back: . ------------------------------------  Dear Allen James,  I am sorry that there was a mistake in the newspaper. We have the manuscript and we will submitt it to Nature very soon.  Yours sincerely  Jyrki Kauppinen  ------------------------------------ . I'm not sure if there really was a mistake. It may just be that he isn't supposed to reveal it yet, as discussed above. I guess we'll see in June. . . .

----------


## chrisp

> 2) There is a strong bias against anti-AGW articles by western media. You can imagine the average editor saying, “Finnish? Against AGW? Fuggedaboudit.”

  I don't think it is an issue of bias, but rather being able to verify the story.  I don't think any self-respecting editor would publish a story like that without some form of verification from a reputable source.  Hell, if it is true and verifiable, you'd be publishing it on the front page (just below the latest sports-star story  :Smilie:  ). 
I haven't seen any further developments on this one.  Maybe the paper is going to be published in Nature (and is under tight wraps), or it is some sort of hoax or mistake. 
I suppose time will tell. 
(Edit: pipped at the post by Allen)

----------


## chrisp

> Just to bring you up to speed on that email I sent to Jyrki Kauppinen; he wrote back: . ------------------------------------  Dear Allen James,  I am sorry that there was a mistake in the newspaper. We have the manuscript and we will submitt it to Nature very soon.  Yours sincerely  Jyrki Kauppinen  ------------------------------------ . I'm not sure if there really was a mistake. It may just be that he isn't supposed to reveal it yet, as discussed above. I guess we'll see in June.

  Allen, 
Thanks for clearing that up.  I suspect this forum is way ahead of the pack on that story. 
There is a big difference between _intending-to-submit_ and _will-be-published_.  Maybe something got lost in translation?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I don't think it is an issue of bias, but rather being able to verify the story. I don't think any self-respecting editor would publish a story like that without some form of verification from a reputable source. Hell, if it is true and verifiable, you'd be publishing it on the front page (just below the latest sports-star story  ). 
> I haven't seen an further developments on this one. Maybe the paper is going to be published in Nature (and is under tight wraps), or it is some sort of hoax or mistake. 
> I suppose time will tell. 
> (Edit: pipped at the post by Allen)

   :Rotfl:  :Rotfl:  :Rotfl:   Has to be the funniest post I have read here so far.  The media verifying what it prints on AGW from a reputable source?   :Rotfl:  :Rotfl:   Made my day Chrisp

----------


## Allen James

.   

> Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego, searched the *Web of Science* (an index of refereed papers published in scientific journals) using the search term "*global climate change*". The search turned up 928 papers.

     

> Her original paper said she used the search term "climate change" and after complaints of failure to reproduce her study she magically remembered it was "global climate change". The difference? 10,000 papers. Lets not forget the fact that Web of Science only indexes 10,000 odd journals, Scopus indexes 16,500. So not only is she not searching the complete peer-reviewed literature she is using subjective search terms to get preconceived conclusions. The exact search term "global climate change" is hardly one that you find turning up in the global warming debate. *My list clearly shows her conclusions are worthless* and instead her "study" has been used for propaganda purposes of claiming that "no skeptical peer-reviewed papers exist". Which is a lie.

   Well said Poptech. I also see that she conducted this strange and limited search way back in 2004, 6 years ago. Way, way before climategate or any of the other major blunders made by the AGW hoaxers. What relevance would this have today? . .   

> Actually, it is not "*worthless*". It is a valid sample

   It was, as Poptech pointed out, limited to only one source, and used only one term; _global climate change,_ which may or may not have been used in many papers. It was also *six years* ago. How is it _not_ worthless? . .   

> If the search terms were poorly chosen (I'm not say that they were), then they'd *probably* miss just as many "for" papers as "against" papers.

   Tsk tsk. Scientists aren’t supposed to draw conclusions based on ‘probably’, especially when their expertise is restricted to electrical engineering, and not literature based search tools. Electrical Engineers can be fine scientists, as long as they are not religiously attached to myths like AGW. That’s when their logic breaks down, and this is a good example of it. . . .

----------


## Allen James

.
.   

> Actually, it is not "*worthless*". It is a valid sample - and the sample methodology was explained as was the analysis method. If the search terms were poorly chosen (I'm not say that they were), then they'd probably miss just as many "for" papers as "against" papers.

    

> The author *didn't* claim that there were *no* papers at all refuting AGW, just that the sample that she took (938 papers) didn't have a single one that explicitly stated that it was evidence against AGW (whereas more than 200 of that sample explicitly stated that it was evidence supporting AGW).  So a sample from a well know and well regarded scientific index, the results were ~220 for to 0 against AGW.  If you have serious doubts, you could always redo the study using different search terms.  It would seem to me that the "scientific doubt" campaign maybe a political campaign - not a scientific campaign.  BTW, *welcome to the forum* and sorry for not responding earlier. I suspect that you maybe on a 'short leash' as a new member and your posts don't appear until released by the moderator - after I've read that part of the thread. I only became aware of your post after Allen quoted from it.

      

> Has to be the funniest post I have read here so far. The media verifying what it prints on AGW from a reputable source?

    

> Made my day Chrisp

   It was pretty funny.  :Rotfl:  :Rotfl:  :Rotfl:  .
. The media wanting to make sure the source is reputable?   :Doh:   :Yikes2:   :Doh:  .
.
.

----------


## chrisp

> Tsk tsk. Scientists aren’t supposed to draw conclusions based on ‘probably’, especially when their expertise is restricted to electrical engineering, and not literature based search tools. Electrical Engineers can be fine scientists, as long as they are not religiously attached to myths like AGW. That’s when their logic breaks down, and this is a good example of it.

  I'll eagerly await your explanation as how the search terms chosen somehow are biased and somehow get the "pro" papers and miss the "anti" papers. 
BTW, why do you assume my expertise is restricted to electrical engineering?  I usually get invited to speak on other topics.

----------


## chrisp

> .  It was pretty funny.  .
> . The media wanting to make sure the source is reputable?

  How many reputable media outlets published that story?  :Smilie:

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> I'll eagerly await your explanation as how the search terms chosen somehow are biased and somehow get the "pro" papers and miss the "anti" papers.

   My father and brothers were all involved in science, and I never heard them using your approach. Nor have any of the scientists I’ve read about. If I use the same approach you described Naomi Oreskes using in your post: . http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...tml#post797316 . I can search this very thread we’re in, using Google, like this: . "global climate change" emission-trading site:renovateforum.com . Google . . Hmm. 5 results out of 2,840 posts. Who used the term 'global climate change'?  You Me (in answer to you) Poptech (in answer to you) Dr Freud Woodbe . So according to your logic: . _Allen James, graphic designer and rather objective fellow, searched the renovateforum.com forum ‘Emissions Trading’ thread using the search term "global climate change". The search turned up 5 posts. The posts were read and categorised as:_ . _(1) those made by people opposed to the theory of AGW_ _(2) those made by people in agreement with the theory of AGW_  . _And the result? There were two people in agreement with AGW and three people against it. So this obviously means there were 1128 posts and dozens of other posters neither opposed to or in agreement with AGW._ . Does it work? . .   

> BTW, why do you assume my expertise is restricted to electrical engineering?

   I just think that the points made by Rod, Poptech and myself weren’t really understood by you, and that may be because you are more of a technician than a scientist. There are some very fine technicians out there, so that's not meant to be an insult. There are also some fine electrical engineer scientists, but they tend to be very objective. . .   

> I usually get invited to speak on other topics.

   I can’t help but be reminded of Australian Idol here. No offense, but a person goes on stage and tells the judges he is a great singer, and very popular. “My family and friends all say I’m wonderful, and I sang at a few weddings,” he claims. So the judges tell him to proceed, and this is what we get: . [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BujNeHyIFPI"]YouTube - Australian Idol... Fail!!!![/ame] [Australian Idol... Fail!!!!] . . .

----------


## chrisp

> .I can search this very thread we’re in, using Google, like this: . "global climate change" emission-trading site:renovateforum.com . Google . . Hmm. 5 results out of 2,840 posts. Who used the term 'global climate change'?  You Me (in answer to you) Poptech (in answer to you) Dr Freud Woodbe [...] [...] 
> Does it work?

  Allen, your sample had *5* "hits", Naomi Oreskes had *928*.  Also, your sample is from a *web blog* (that contain posts from any old Tom, Dick or Harry - i.e. people like you and me), Naomi Oreskes is from a recognised *scientific publications* index (which contain papers from people who do know what they're talking about.  Hey, it seems that I'm in that category too.   :Smilie:  ). 
A quote from BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science"_The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of  the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,  methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.  Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either  explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with  methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic  climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the  consensus position."_ Yep, it was done a few years ago, and you might argue that different search terms will turn up a different number of "hits" - but will that change the ratio?  I did suggest to PT that he could redo the study. 
The study isn't "*worthless*".  *I suggest that you stick to the topic and leave the ad hominem attacks alone.*

----------


## Allen James

. .   

> Allen, your sample had *5* "hits", Naomi Oreskes had *928*.

   The point was that Naomi (who is very biased in favour of AGW) _chose_ the search term, and then decided what the results _meant_. *She* decided that none of the resulting papers _”presented evidence that refuted the statement ‘Global climate change is occurring, and human activities are at least part of the reason why’.”_ The only way to know what was *really* going on in those papers would be to have an _unbiased_ panel of scientists study each and every one of them before deciding what percentage provided evidence for or against AGW. If the panel found there were *no* papers providing such evidence, it would be splendid evidence the papers were collected by a biased organisation, since there are abundant peer reviewed papers opposing AGW out there, as you have seen. . .   

> Also, your sample is from a *web blog* (that contain posts from any old Tom, Dick or Harry - i.e. people like you and me), Naomi Oreskes is from a recognised *scientific publications* index

  Search methodology doesn’t _care_ whether you use a scientific publication (which is conveniently not available to the public online) or renovateforum's website. The point made about search results remains the same – you can use any number of terms to organize the results. Fashion and politics play a role in what expressions people use, so this is hardly scientific. Next you’ll do a search for ‘heterosexual’ on this site, and since there are no results, conclude all the members are gay.  :Biggrin:  . Google . Well except for me, since I just used the word. Another Guinness Book record for Allen James. . .   

> The study isn't "*worthless*".

   Neither is a dead cat from fertilizer's point of view. I wouldn’t try palming if off as a trendy hat at the next Melbourne Cup however, which is kind of what you are doing with Naomi’s silly search. Is her dog called Dixie Doodle too?  :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:  . . .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Oh, gee that's gotta be disappointing, Mr James. Seems as though Rod's even turned off reading your lunatic drivel rants.

  Not at all Alen is doing a fine job and I am following the thread just haven't had a lot of time to contribute.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Not at all Alen is doing a fine job and I am following the thread just haven't had a lot of time to contribute.

  Yes, a fine job.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

It is Rudd and his fellow blow-in Penny Wong that had to save us from the great moral issue of our time.  Vital to our nations future the CPRS bill had to be passed by 3pm on some Friday back in October or November, not a minute later.  What an embarrassment to them this high-pressure hoax became. Surprisingly the world did not end in 2009 after all.    
Vote GREENS for three more years of this.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *For most part, I don't care about the background or qualifications of people who post on this (or any other) forum. If they can make a sensible argument, I'll listen.* 
> If you'll allow me to skite for a moment, during a unrelated web search, I found out that a thesis of mine (in science) - yep, I can call myself a scientist too - is listed for inclusion in the the National Archives as part of the collected works of a very significant Australian scientist (who was my supervisor). Not many other students of this scientist have had their thesis listed for inclusion to the national archive.

  In all this great scientific endeavour, did you ever cover this concept? *
Correlation does not imply causation.* 
Did you ever cover the concepts of sample size, range restriction, or representative random sampling? 
Did you ever cover the concepts of assumption testing, or data violations? 
Did you ever cover the concept of evidence based science above group think pressure? 
And if you did, why are you ignoring these and many other scientific basics?   

> Allen, your sample had *5* "hits", Naomi Oreskes had *928*..._Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the  consensus position."_

     

> Quote:    
> 			
> 				To most scientists, the science is very clear - AGW exists and is real.
> 			
> 		   Please include numbers of all scientists globally, and then numbers showing a majority believe AGW Theory is real.  And then ask that majority if they believe we should prove scientific theories by vote or by evidence?

  This is not to single you out.  You are obviously not alone in these views.  It is pointing to the degradation of scientific principles and institutions that have stood the test of time in removing many ridiculous belief systems.  I am still confident these principles will prevail over time, but am constantly amazed at the drivel allowed to pass as science (think back to Karoly's hijacked "causal relationship" fiction).  Your index search presented in defence of this theory is a case in point.  Why would you even bother with this drivel if you had anything even close to credible to present?  :Blush7:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'll eagerly await your explanation as how the search terms chosen somehow are biased and somehow get the "pro" papers and miss the "anti" papers. 
> BTW, why do you assume my expertise is restricted to electrical engineering?  I usually get invited to speak on other topics.

  Riddle me this Batman, even if 100% of scientists say something is real, does that make it real?  
If this was how science worked, scientists could all just agree on commercial cold fusion and our energy problems would be over.  :Happydance:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I don't think it is an issue of bias, but rather being able to verify the story.  I don't think any self-respecting editor would publish a story like that without some form of verification from a reputable source.  Hell, if it is true and verifiable, you'd be publishing it on the front page (just below the latest sports-star story  ). 
> I haven't seen any further developments on this one.  Maybe the paper is going to be published in Nature (and is under tight wraps), or it is some sort of hoax or mistake. 
> I suppose time will tell. 
> (Edit: pipped at the post by Allen)

  Hey mate, while you're waiting, you might want to grab a copy of Plimer's book, Heaven and Earth.  It cites about 2000 peer-reviewed articles showing how many alternative drivers are a better fit than AGW Theory for many recorded climate changes. 
You can then tree reference these and find thousands of similar articles. Being a science buff, you will love this, and it can help pass the hours while you wait for the single article above.  :2thumbsup:  
Or if you are ideologically opposed to keeping this book having continuous print runs as it currently does, do something similar with the 700 articles already referred to here.

----------


## Poptech

> Yep, it was done a few years ago, and you might argue that different search terms will turn up a different number of "hits" - but will that change the ratio?  I did suggest to PT that he could redo the study.

  Explain to me the point of the study? Clearly it is to make the case whether skeptical peer-review literature exists. I have already established it does and an extensive number of papers in the period she "searched".    

> The study isn't "*worthless*".

  Of course it is,  
1. It use a source that does not index all peer-reviewed journals.
2. It use a constrained subjective search term and date range that has nothing to do with the intent of the paper, which was to determine if any skeptical peer-reviewed literature exists.  *The conclusions do not match reality and thus the study is worthless.*

----------


## Poptech

> The point of the study, is the sharp bit at the end.

  Which has been proven to be invalid.   

> Oh, dear.  If I knew you were  going to ask and the question yawself, all in one paragraph.  I wouldn't  have bothered trying to explain the pointy end to ya.

  If you actually had the ability to explain anything to me I would be impressed.   

> Yep, we  know that.  The key words beings "I have"

  Reality is they exist despite your denial.   

> Yeh, that's right, Chris.  You didn't include the  studies from any lunatic whacko out there.

  So you consider the following journals lunatic wackos? 
AAPG Bulletin
Advances in Geosciences
Advances in Global Change  Research
Advances in Space Research
Agricultural and Forest  Meteorology
Agricultural Water Management
Agriculture, Ecosystems  & Environment
AIP Conference Proceedings
Ambio
American  Journal of Botany
American Scientist
Annales Geophysicae
Annals  of Glaciology
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
Annual  Review of Fluid Mechanics
Applied Energy
Aquatic Botany
Arctic  and Alpine Research
Area
Arizona Journal of International and  Comparative Law
Astronomical Notes
Astronomy & Geophysics
Astrophysics  and Space Science
Astrophysics and Space Science Library
Atmospheric  Chemistry and Physics
Atmospheric Environment
British Medical  Journal (BMJ)
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS)
Bulletin  of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics
Bulletin of Canadian  Petroleum Geology
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics
Canadian  Journal of Earth Sciences
Central European Journal of Physics
Chemical  Engineering Progress
Chemical Innovation
Climate Dynamics
Climate  of the Past
Climate Research
Climatic Change
Comptes Rendus  Geosciences
Contemporary South Asia
Current Opinion in  Biotechnology
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Ecological  Complexity
Ecological Modelling
Ecological Monographs
Ecology
Economic  Analysis and Policy
Economics Bulletin
Emerging Infectious  Diseases
Energy
Energy & Environment
Energy Fuels
Energy  Policy
Energy Sources
Environment International
Environmental  and Experimental Botany
Environmental Conservation
Environmental  Geology
Environmental Geosciences
Environmental Health  Perspectives
Environmental Politics
Environmental Research
Environmental  Science & Policy
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Environmental  Software
Environmetrics
Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical  Union
Fresenius' Journal of Analytical Chemistry
Futures
Geografiska  Annaler
Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography
GeoJournal
Geology
Geomagnetism  and Aeronomy
Geophysical Research Letters
Geoscience Canada
Global  and Planetary Change
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Global Change  Biology
Global Environmental Change
GSA Today
Hydrological  Sciences Journal
Il Nuovo Cimento C
Interfaces
International  Journal of Biometeorology
International Journal of Climatology
International  Journal of Environmental Studies
International Journal of  Forecasting
International Journal of Global Warming
International  Journal of Modern Physics B
International Journal of Remote Sensing
International  Quarterly for Asian Studies
International Social Science Journal
Irish  Astronomical Journal
Irrigation and Drainage
Iron & Steel  Technology
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
Journal of  Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
Journal of Atmospheric and  Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial  Physics
Journal of Chemical Education
Journal of Climate
Journal  of Coastal Research
Journal of Environmental Sciences
Journal of  Environmental Quality
Journal of Forestry
Journal of Fusion Energy
Journal  of Geophysical Research
Journal of Information Ethics
Journal of  Lake Sciences
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering
Journal  of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics
Journal of Paleolimnology
Journal  of Plant Physiology
Journal of Scientific Exploration
Journal of  the American Water Resources Association
Journal of the Atmospheric  Sciences
Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society
Journal of  the South African Institution of Civil Engineering
La Chimica e  l'Industria
Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences
Leadership  and Management in Engineering
Malaria Journal
Marine Geology
Marine  Pollution Bulletin
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
Meteorologische  Zeitschrift
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
Moscow  University Physics Bulletin
Natural Hazards
Natural Hazards  Review
Nature
Nature Biotechnology
Nature Geoscience
New  Astronomy
New Concepts In Global Tectonics
New Literary History
New  Phytologist
New Zealand Geographer
New Zealand Journal of Marine  and Freshwater Research
Nordic Hydrology
Norwegian Polar Institute  Letters
Oceanologica Acta
Paleoceanography
Paleontological  Journal
Physical Geography
Physical Review E
Physical Review  Letters
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth
Physics Letters A
Physics  Reports
Physics Today
Planetary and Space Science
Plant, Cell  & Environment
Plant Ecology
Plant Physiology
PLoS Biology
Proceedings  of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering
Proceedings of the  ICE - Civil Engineering
Proceedings of the International Astronomical  Union
Proceedings of the International Geoscience and Remote Sensing  Symposium
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
Proceedings  of the Royal Society A
Progress in Physical Geography
Public  Administration Review
Pure and Applied Geophysics
Quaternary  International
Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics
Quarterly  Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
Quaternary Research
Quaternary  Science Reviews
Regulation
Risk Analysis
Russian Journal of  Earth Sciences
Science
Science of the Total Environment
Science,  Technology & Human Values
Scientia Horticulturae
Social  Studies of Science
Society
Soil Science
Solar Physics
South  African Journal of Science
Space Science Reviews
Spectrochimica  Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy
Surveys in  Geophysics
Technology
Tellus A
The Astrophysical Journal
The  Cato Journal
The Electricity Journal
The Holocene
The  Independent Review
The Lancet
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
The  Open Atmospheric Science Journal
The Quarterly Review of Biology
The  Review of Economics and Statistics
Theoretical and Applied  Climatology
Topics in Catalysis
Waste Management
Water  Resources Research
Weather
Weather and Forecasting
World  Economics   

> Sorry about that.  I 've told Chris before about letting his  search term out more often.

  You understand the definition of "subjective" correct? You understand that skeptical peer-reviewed papers can exist that are not in the database searched and/or do not include the phrase "global climate change"?   

> Depends which reality you reside in.   Are you referring to the AGW skeptics reality?, commonly referred to as the realms of fantasy?

  Do you have anything meaningful to add to the conversation outside of color coding posts and replying to them with meaningless comments? It is worse though, since you have demonstrated that you do not know how to use the quote feature properly. 
FYI, it is not 701.5 papers but more like over 725 supporting skepticism.

----------


## watson



----------


## watson



----------


## watson

*The Dummy has been Spat*
or "spitted" if you like that better 
I've just spent my time deleting another 21 crud posts
I've got better things to do 
If you don't like this thread *Get out of it* *Don't post* 
Irrespective of who posts  *If it happens again* *You will cease to exist* *as a member of this forum*  *Final Warning*

----------


## Allen James

. .  

> In all this great scientific endeavour, did you ever cover this concept?  *Correlation does not imply causation.*  Did you ever cover the concepts of sample size, range restriction, or representative random sampling?  Did you ever cover the concepts of assumption testing, or data violations?  Did you ever cover the concept of evidence based science above group think pressure?  And if you did, why are you ignoring these and many other scientific basics?

  Looking at Chrisps past record, I doubt youll receive an answer, but well said nonetheless, Dr. Freud. . .  

> Riddle me this Batman, even if 100% of scientists say something is real, does that make it real?  If this was how science worked, scientists could all just agree on commercial cold fusion and our energy problems would be over.

  Exactly. If we could get them to all agree we can live forever  presto! Eternal life for everyone!  :2thumbsup:   :Biggrin:  Yippee!  :Biggrin:   :2thumbsup:     .

----------


## Allen James

.  . State of Virginia to Investigate Global Warming Scientist Mann . FOXNews.com . A legal battle is heating up faster than the planet for embattled climatologist Michael Mann. . First word emerged that the *inspector general* for the *National Science Foundation* would look into the Penn State panel reviewing the climate scientist, who is currently director of the school's Earth System Science Center.  Now the attorney general for his old employer the *University of Virginia* is planning an *investigation*, too. . According to a report in Charlottesville weekly The Hook, Virginia *Attorney General* Ken Cuccinelli has asked the University of Virginia to produce "a sweeping swath of documents relating to Manns receipt of nearly half a million dollars in state grant-funded climate research" conducted while Mann was at UVA between 1999 and 2005. . Should the AG uncover evidence of impropriety, the school could be commanded to return the funds, and pick up the cost of the AG's investigation. . Whole article here:  FOXNews.com - State of Virginia to Investigate Global Warming Scientist Mann . . ---------------------------------------------------------------------- . . Another Global Warming Scientist Slates Legal Probe . _By John O'Sullivan_ Friday, May 7, 2010  . Since the Climategate scandal establishment figures have relentlessly stymied unwelcome scrutiny by legal experts. The latest wagon-circler is Dr. Judith Curry, an esteemed member of NASAs Climate Research Committee for over three years. Now Curry has become a self-appointed apologist for the unethical and some say, fraudulent, conduct of Penn. State Universitys climate professor, Michael Mann.  I fear government scientists may have been complicit in foisting junk science upon us to help world governments introduce unwelcome cap and trade tax policies.  . The only reason Manns British counterparts are not in jail is because they evaded prosecution on a mere technicality. Across the board climate researchers are shown to be guided by subjectivity leading them to cherry pick their data.  Sheehan is an Associate US Attorney working out of the US Attorneys Office, US Department of Justice in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Manns new stomping ground. Sheehan confirms that fraud in scientific research is a widespread problem. (1.)  . Studies prove that 40% or more of surveyed researchers knew of scientific misconduct but did not report it (2.). In the field of medical science alone, 17% of surveyed researchers personally knew of fabrication by colleagues over the previous 10 years (3.)  . Scientific fraud can and does happen because researchers either crave professional recognition or adamantly believe they have the right answer, despite evidence to the contrary. Scientific swindlers, being highly educated and intelligent, are extremely adept at falsifying data and documents. We are talking here about extreme perpetrators such as those involved in the recent Korean stem cell cloning fraud and Britains MMR vaccine-autism scandal. These abuses remind us that society must stay vigilant in such matters.  We need full transparency here. If Professor Mann is innocent then he has no need to hide his numbers. But despite repeated polite requests for access to Manns data, they have been denied. Thus, Cuccinelli rightly smells a rat and was compelled to use the law to force disclosure. . . Whole article here:  Another Global Warming Scientist Slates Legal Probe . . . .

----------


## Allen James

. . The ETS was just a way to make us pay more tax and to slow down development. It’s just another version of what anti-development types have been doing since the 70’s. They started by opposing nuclear power stations and dams. Dams, because they said it would mean _killing trees_.  Of course that’s nonsense because trees need water, and without dams water is scarce. . This was one of their stickers back in the day: . http://www.sandarac.com.au/graphics/no_dams.gif . . I’ve made some stickers to counter that ‘No Dams’ one. I’ve put them up on this thread: . http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/vi...problem-90668/ . You can print them out and use them if you’d like to help eradicate the ‘no Dams’ virus that has infected most people these days. .  .

----------


## chrisp

> Explain to me the point of the study? Clearly it is to make the case whether skeptical peer-review literature exists. I have already established it does and an extensive number of papers in the period she "searched".

  The purpose of the study (in part):"_Let’s start with a simple question: What is the scientific consensus on climate change, and how do we know it exists? Scientists do not vote on contested issues, and most scientific questions are far too complex to be answered by a simple yes or no, so how does anyone know what scientists think about global warming? 
Scientists glean their colleagues’ conclusions by reading their results in published scientific literature, listening to presentations at scientific conferences, and discussing data and ideas in the hallways of conference centers, university departments, research institutes, and government agencies. For outsiders, this information is difficult to access: scientific papers and conferences are by experts for experts and are difficult for outsiders to understand._" 
(from: http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/Oreskes2007.pdf )Essentially, it was a way of *quantifying* the level of scientific support for, and against, AGW.  It isn't a measure of the validity of AGW - as some here have gone off on a tangent about.  _I posted it as a study that shows that the scientific doubt may not be anywhere near as high as some are making out._ 
As to providing a list of 700 or whatever, would you like me to post the total number of papers published that are "hits" using the search terms - either the two or three terms?  It is way, way more than 700.  I have access to more databases than just the WoS. 
Anyway, if you disagree, don't just whinge about it, why not do an impartial study (rather than a one-side list) and publish it?  Oreskes has already provided the basic methodology for you - you can choose the databases and the search terms yourself.  *Anyway, as said before, you only need one good paper to disprove the whole AGW thing - I'll eagerly await it.*  :Smilie:  
BTW, I stepped out of the room for awhile after Allen as was getting a bit heated.  Did I miss something?

----------


## chrisp

> In all this great scientific endeavour, did you ever cover this concept? *
> Correlation does not imply causation.* 
> Did you ever cover the concepts of sample size, range restriction, or representative random sampling? 
> Did you ever cover the concepts of assumption testing, or data violations? 
> Did you ever cover the concept of evidence based science above group think pressure? 
> And if you did, why are you ignoring these and many other scientific basics?

  Maybe you can explain them to Allen to show why his sampling of a single thread in a _renovation_ forum is crap for determine the scientific consensus on AGW.     

> This is not to single you out.  You are obviously not alone in these views.  It is pointing to the degradation of scientific principles and institutions that have stood the test of time in removing many ridiculous belief systems.  I am still confident these principles will prevail over time, but am constantly amazed at the drivel allowed to pass as science (think back to Karoly's hijacked "causal relationship" fiction).  Your index search presented in defence of this theory is a case in point.  Why would you even bother with this drivel if you had anything even close to credible to present?

  If you read my posts carefully, and follow the links provided, you will have noticed that it is not my study! 
If you have sampling issue, maybe you can  point them out to the author rather than provide some motherhood statements.  *The post wasn't intended as a scientific support for AGW, but as a study pointing out the poor support for the anti-AGW position within scientific community.*  
Rather than ranting and raving, you'd be better off by explicitly pointing out how the search terms are biased; or the database selection is biased; or how the sample population is biased (rather than just limited); or by redoing the study in its entirety - or maybe it is that you are pushing a political position rather than a scientific position?

----------


## Poptech

> Essentially, it was a way of *quantifying* the level of scientific support for, and against, AGW.

  Making it was absolutely worthless because "AGW" was not used in the search. 
Please answer the following questions,  *1. Why did the search phrase not include "AGW" or "Anthropogenic Global Warming"? 
2. Does the ISI index all peer-reviewed journals? 
3. Do peer-reviewed skeptical papers exist that do not include the search phrase "global climate change"?*   

> As to providing a list of 700 or whatever, would you like me to post the total number of papers published that are "hits" using the search terms - either the two or three terms?  It is way, way more than 700.  I have access to more databases than just the WoS.

  Worthless, just because a paper includes the search phrase does not mean it explicitly supports AGW.  

> Anyway, as said before, you only need one good paper to disprove the whole AGW thing - I'll eagerly await it.

  *Can you provide one paper to empirically prove it? I eagerly await.* 
The study is propaganda since the results found "zero" papers that disagree about AGW (*lie*). Please stop referencing worthless studies.

----------


## watson

Settle down......a debate in this country doesn't mean "I will Win at all costs"
Just tone down a bit..........( I've been reading your home Blog page........)

----------


## Allen James

> Making it was absolutely worthless because "AGW" was not used in the search. 
> Please answer the following questions,  *1. Why did the search phrase not include "AGW" or "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?*  *2. Does the ISI index all peer-reviewed journals?*  *3. Do peer-reviewed skeptical papers exist that do not include the search phrase "global climate change"?*  
> Worthless, just because a paper includes the search phrase does not mean it explicitly supports AGW.  *Can you provide one paper to empirically prove it? I eagerly await.* 
> The study is propaganda since the results found "zero" papers that disagree about AGW (*lie*). Please stop referencing worthless studies.

  Well said Poptech.

----------


## watson

> Well said Poptech.

  
Not in my school of manners.

----------


## Allen James

. . There is a new book out called ‘Climategate’ by meteorologist Brian Sussman. . “Climategate is a godsend for anyone who has ever expressed skepticism about the environmentalist that claim that the Earth is in peril because of mankind's appetite for carbon-based fuels. … “Sick of twisted "facts" mass-marketed to manipulate basic living decisions and common-sense energy consumption, Sussman indicts a cabal of elitist politicians, bureaucrats and activists who front the environmental movement to push intrusive, Marxist-derived policies in a quest to become filthy rich.” . Superstore.WND.com - A WorldNetDaily Exclusive! . Check out Sussman here, talking with Hannity – 22 April, 2010: . [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrbB0ye1Mq0&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Climate Gate Hannity 22 Apr 2010~1.mp4[/ame] . . See more about Sussman and his points here: . Climategate Book - Brian Sussman - Exposing Global Warming Scam . . .

----------


## Allen James

.
.   

> Not in my school of manners.

   I cant see anything untoward in anything Poptech said.  Headpin, by contrast, in post 2832, page 190, states that *I said* my *mother, father* and *half brothers* were all *involved in fraud*.  I dont have any half brothers, and my parents were not involved in fraud, and nor did I ever state such a thing.  How can you give Headpin a green light on that, and criticize Poptech for debating civilly?  :Confused:  .
.
.

----------


## watson

Oh that's easily solved.......two words......Fcuck off.

----------


## chrisp

> The study is propaganda since the results found "zero" papers that disagree about AGW

  *The biased perception is all yours.  If you bother to read the literature, you will see the study states: * (I've highlighted the relevant bit to save you the trouble of reading it all)_"Third, there is the question of what kind of dissent still exists. The analysis of the published literature presented here was done by sampling, using a keyword phrase that was intended to be fair, accurate, and neutral: ‘‘global climate change’’ (as opposed to, for example, ‘‘global warming,’’ which might be viewed as biased). The total number of papers published over the last ten years having anything at all to do with climate change is probably over ten thousand, and no doubt some of the authors of the other over nine thousand papers have expressed skeptical or dissenting views. But the fact that the sample turned up no dissenting papers at all demonstrates that any remaining professional dissent is now exceedingly minor."_
(from: http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/d...s/Chapter4.pdf )*The author doesn't state that there isn't dissenting views - just that the sample turned up none. * BTW it is a "sample" review - it isn't a "comprehensive" review.* 
Here is another bit from the same author for your enjoyment:*_"But again, none of the papers used that motivation to argue openly against the consensus, and it would be illogical if they did because a skeptical motivation does not constitute scientific evidence. Finally, approximately 20 percent of the papers explicitly endorsed the consensus position, and an additional 5 percent proposed mitigation strategies. In short, the basic reality of anthropogenic global climate change is no longer a subject of scientific debate. 
Some readers will be surprised by this result and wonder about the reliability of a study that failed to find any arguments against the consensus position when such arguments clearly exist. After all, anyone who watches the evening news or trolls the Internet knows that there is enormous debate about climate change, right? Well, no. 
First, let’s make clear what the scientific consensus is. It is over the reality of human-induced climate change. Scientists predicted a long time ago that increasing greenhouse gas emissions could change the climate, and now there is overwhelming evidence that it is changing the climate and that these changes are in addition to natural variability. Therefore, when contrarians try to shift the focus of attention to natural climate variability, they are misrepresenting the situation."_
(from: http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/Oreskes2007.pdf )*I can assure you that there is next to no debate in the general scientific community about the existence of AGW. 
The "scientific debate" argument is purely propaganda designed to confuse the general population. * (I think I've stumbled upon a sore spot.  :Biggrin:  )

----------


## Poptech

> How can you give Headpin a green light on that, and criticize Poptech for debating civilly?

  I am wondering the same thing. He does nothing but derail the conversation.

----------


## Poptech

> If you bother to read the literature, you will see the study states

  Why are you repeatedly quoting a paper I already read and ignoring my questions?  *1. Why did the search  phrase not include "AGW" or "Anthropogenic Global Warming"? 
2. Does the ISI index all peer-reviewed journals? 
3. Do peer-reviewed skeptical papers exist that do not include the  search phrase "global climate change"?*  *4. Can you provide one paper to empirically prove AGW?* 
Could it be because you are incapable of answering them?

----------


## watson

There are no green lights.......and I learned manners from my Mum's dog.

----------


## Poptech

> I can assure you that there is next to no debate in the general scientific community about the existence of AGW.

  *Before you "assure" me can you please provide the objective method for determining the "general scientific community".*

----------


## chrisp

> *Before you "assure" me can you please provide the objective measure for determining the "general scientific community".*

  You seem very upset PT.  Why is that?  Is it something I said?

----------


## Poptech

> You seem very upset PT.  Why is that?  Is it something I said?

  I am not upset at all. Now,  * Can you please provide the objective measure for determining the  "general scientific community".* 
And please answer my questions,  *1. Why did the search  phrase not include "AGW" or "Anthropogenic  Global Warming"? 
2. Does the ISI index all peer-reviewed journals? 
3. Do peer-reviewed skeptical papers exist that do not include the   search phrase "global climate change"?*  *4. Can you  provide one paper to empirically prove AGW? * If the questions are too difficult for you to answer please let me know.

----------


## chrisp

> I am not upset at all.

   :Rotfl:

----------


## Poptech

> 

  I understand you may be incapable of answering these questions but please try,  *Can you please provide the objective measure for determining the   "general scientific community".* 
And please answer my questions,  *1. Why did the search   phrase not include "AGW" or "Anthropogenic  Global Warming"? 
2. Does the ISI index all peer-reviewed journals? 
3. Do peer-reviewed skeptical papers exist that do not include the    search phrase "global climate change"?*  *4. Can you   provide one paper to empirically prove AGW? * If the  questions are too difficult for you to answer please let me know.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I understand you may be incapable of answering these questions but please try,  *Can you please provide the objective measure for determining the "general scientific community".* 
> And please answer my questions,  *1. Why did the search phrase not include "AGW" or "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?*  *2. Does the ISI index all peer-reviewed journals?*  *3. Do peer-reviewed skeptical papers exist that do not include the search phrase "global climate change"?*  *4. Can you provide one paper to empirically prove AGW?* 
> If the questions are too difficult for you to answer please let me know.

  Sheez I wish I could ask the right questions like this, I too would like to see the response. 
Lets have em Chrisp.

----------


## watson

> I understand you may be incapable of answering these questions but please try,
> If the  questions are too difficult for you to answer please let me know.

  *
In my town...those two statements would get your gonads removed.........and I've already eaten. 
Bye.*

----------


## watson

Sorry that post was supposed to be sent an hour ago....but I forgot to hit Send, so its out of context .....time wise. 
Sadly.....two members have left the building.
So please continue this very relevant debate in the manner we are used to.
Cut and paste is cool..............shutup Headpin!!
I do not care what your "side" is.
I do not care who you vote for.
This stuff is relevant and important........shutup Headpin!! 
Same rules apply.
Play the ball not the man. 
Seconds out........box on.  
Shutup Headpin!!

----------


## chrisp

> Sheez I wish I could ask the right questions like this, I too would like to see the response. 
> Lets have em Chrisp.

  Now the air has been cleared.  Original questions in *bold*, my responses in blue.  _ Can you please provide the objective measure for  determining the "general scientific community".  This is a personal observation but one that is well supported by the quoted study.  My observation is that the scientific community has 'moved on' to what to do, and what are the expected ramifications of AGW.  I have regular contact (daily/hourly) with scientists from many disciplines.   1. Why did the search phrase  not include "AGW" or "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?  What if it does, and what if it doesn't?  It isn't whether the search terms will capture all the papers - the study didn't set out to as there would be too many to analyse.  A 'sample' was taken using the three search terms.  The question is "Would more anti-AGW papers be found relative to pro-AGW papers if different terms were used?".  This is the point of my "bias" comments.  Do you think more anti-AGW hits would have been found with different search terms - i.e. would the ratio of "pro-AGW" to "anti-AGW" papers change - or change much?  I don't think so.  2.  Does the ISI index all peer-reviewed journals?  No, there are several other well regarded indexes.  The ISI Web of Science is well regarded and quite comprehensive.  I could do some searches for you and post the numbers from each database for the terms used in the study.  3. Do  peer-reviewed skeptical papers exist that do not include the search  phrase "global climate change"?  Probably/possibly - but not many.  4. Can you provide one  paper to empirically prove AGW?  The effects of Climate Change are well known and well established.  I did a post a few pages back that showed the solid evidence of CO2 increase (and man-made) and temperature rise.  AGW is not my field, but the overwhelming scientific view is that it is real.  Try and find a single reputable scientific organisation or body that states that it isn't real._

----------


## Rod Dyson

Could this finish Michael Mann?  Climate Scientist Faces Knockout Punch in Virginia Court

----------


## chrisp

Rod, 
As a follow up on my last post, the type of things scientists seem to be concerned about is the extent and affects of AGW. 
As a sort of an example, the ABC 'Catalyst' show last week had a story typical 'AGW' type of thing general scientists are focused on: 
Here is a couple of lines from the show:*Dr Graham Phillips* 
The next big food issue could  be how rising levels of carbon dioxide are affecting our fruit and  vegies. Now we know that plants love CO2 so rising levels of it will  affect their metabolisms and it seems almost certain that for many foods  the levels of nutrition will go down and for some toxin levels will go  up. Both serious issues when you are trying to feed a world with an  increasing population.  * Dr Ros Gleadow* 
We're  tracking worst case scenario with carbon dioxide at the moment and we  need to predict what sort of things are going to happen in the future.The full story and video can be found at: Catalyst: Toxic Crops - ABC TV Science

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> As a follow up on my last post, the type of things scientists seem to be concerned about is the extent and affects of AGW. 
> As a sort of an example, the ABC 'Catalyst' show last week had a story typical 'AGW' type of thing general scientists are focused on: 
> Here is a couple of lines from the show: *Dr Graham Phillips* 
> The next big food issue could be how rising levels of carbon dioxide are affecting our fruit and vegies. Now we know that plants love CO2 so rising levels of it will affect their metabolisms and it seems almost certain that for many foods the levels of nutrition will go down and for some toxin levels will go up. Both serious issues when you are trying to feed a world with an increasing population.  *Dr Ros Gleadow* 
> We're tracking worst case scenario with carbon dioxide at the moment and we need to predict what sort of things are going to happen in the future.The full story and video can be found at: Catalyst: Toxic Crops - ABC TV Science

  With all due respects to your scientist, I think this is alarmist bunkum.  All I have read about plants and C02 is the more of it the better.  
If he really wanted to find out he could go to the farmers who pump c02 into their hot houses to increase the growth rate.   Not to mention that at times past when concentration of c02 was much greater than today, flora and fauna florished the world over. 
You really have to stop getting taken in by these charelton scientists that are just pushing alarmist theories to get funding.   :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> With all due respects to your scientist, I think this is alarmist bunkum.  *All I have read about plants and C02 is the more of it the better.*

  Um, Hmm, I take it you didn't read the transcript in the link.  :Rolleyes:    

> If he really wanted to find out he could go to the farmers who pump c02 into their hot houses to increase the growth rate.   Not to mention that at times past when concentration of c02 was much greater than today, flora and fauna florished the world over.

  Don't get deceived by the CO2 levels over the past 400 million years or so.  You need to look at the *oxygen* levels too, as well as other compounds (sulphur).  The early atmosphere had no free oxygen (as in 02), it was mostly bound in a hydroxide (-OH) form.  It is the early plant life that created the O2. 
The early atmosphere has been described as a "witches brew".  The plants might have "thrived" but humans didn't.   

> You really have to stop getting taken in by these charelton scientists that are just pushing alarmist theories to get funding.

  Did the story mention "AGW" or "global warming" at all?  Maybe you are letting your own preconceptions get in the way?  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Did the story mention "AGW" or "global warming" at all? Maybe you are letting your own preconceptions get in the way?

  LOL you out do yourself here.  Does MY comment mention "AGW"  or "Global Warming". 
You must stop jumping at shadows Chrisp!  Thanks for the laugh though.

----------


## watson

Poptech must be missing the thrust and parry of our little debate.
He emailed this to the Reno Forum Webmaster: 
-------------------------------- 
Guys with small dicks always ban those they cannot argue with to make themselves feel powerful. 
-------------------------------- 
hmmm!

----------


## chrisp

> Poptech must be missing the thrust and parry of our little debate.
> He emailed this to the Reno Forum Webmaster: 
> -------------------------------- 
> Guys with small dicks always ban those they cannot argue with to make themselves feel powerful. 
> -------------------------------- 
> hmmm!

  DO I take it that "Poptech" was a real member (rather than an assumed alias by another member)? 
It is hard to believe that there is more than one person in the world with a personality identical to that of "Allen James".  Scary.  :Rolleyes:  
Rod, be careful who you associate with.  You know the old saying "_one is judged by the company one keeps_".   :Eek:   
(BTW, I'm happy to debate this topic with you - even if your views are a _little_ misguided  :Smilie:  )

----------


## chrisp

*Whale poo* 
Who would have thought that... Whale poo could help oceans absorb CO2 | Reuters

----------


## chrisp

> I was going to send Pop, Allen or John a farewell message, you know to wish them good luck in the future, via that address.  
> But I changed my mind............he/they'd probably just want to argue about it with me.

  I was going to suggest that we do something to solemnly mark to 'passing' of the two members - then I thought _Nah, stuff them!_  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> DO I take it that "Poptech" was a real member (rather than an assumed alias by another member)? 
> It is hard to believe that there is more than one person in the world with a personality identical to that of "Allen James". Scary.  
> Rod, be careful who you associate with. You know the old saying "_one is judged by the company one keeps_".   
> (BTW, I'm happy to debate this topic with you - even if your views are a _little_ misguided  )

  Are you really inferring that anybody who has similar views on the ETS and AGW in general are associates of mine?? 
You have got to be kidding right?

----------


## chrisp

> Are you really inferring that anybody who has similar views on the ETS and AGW in general are associates of mine?? 
> You have got to be kidding right?

  Rod, 
I intended no offence and I apologise if offence was taken. 
The term "associate" was intended in the definition of "_a person who joins with others in some activity or endeavour_".  You certainly have joined in with those people in pushing the anti-AGW agenda. 
For the record, I certainly don't lump you in with them - other than for your shared anti-AGW/ETS views.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> I intended no offence and I apologise if offence was taken. 
> The term "associate" was intended in the definition of "_a person who joins with others in some activity or endeavour_". You certainly have joined in with those people in pushing the anti-AGW agenda. 
> For the record, I certainly don't lump you in with them - other than for your shared anti-AGW/ETS views.

  No problem no offence taken, I was just miffed by the reference to me being judged by the actions of others that share my views on AGW, veiws I am very happy to have.  Yet I  don't agree with every skeptic, I don't even pretend to fully undestand all the science behind either argument.  Yet I my Bull s**t meter began ringing loud and clear with all the wacko claims being made about what AGW will cause.   The rest is history as you know.

----------


## watson

I've been talking with Chrisp about this today.....and passed it up to the computer guru.
Nearest we can work out its the amount of deletions in the past week that have buggered it up a bit.
I've also only got 97 pages.....so I must see more posts per page that you guys.
Later tonight I'll have a chance for more of  play...so bear with me please.

----------


## watson

Check it out now........has that made any difference??

----------


## Bedford

That seems correct your post #2903 is on the bottom of page 194 here, but it seems to have put Poptech's posts back, at least at the top of page 193. :Smilie:    

> Check it out now........has that made any difference??

----------


## watson

Beauty..there was a conflict between where I had put the dear departed, and the fact that he was also banned...oops mentioned that word again.

----------


## woodturner777

What is going on here, I got home from a long day at work and there in my business e-mail inbox was this offensive e-mail sent to watson and forwarded to me and others.
I will read this thread when I get more time.
But I do know that Whale poo and whale sperm rubbed into your hair stops you going bald, but bloody oath catching the Whales is the hard part as you get older.
Cheers,Bob   

> *Whale poo* 
> Who would have thought that... Whale poo could help oceans absorb CO2 | Reuters

----------


## woodturner777

Just a thought, I am starting to read through the threads more and more, so I will post more on this subject once I have read more.
Been a young fellow of only 63 and in my life time I have seen many inventions to save oil and fuel,  patents bought out by big oil companys so they can sell you more oil.
This is the great thing I have learned in life we get taking for a ride all through it.
Fight for your country then they bring out atomic bombs press a button.
Sorry we don't nead you any more. :Biggrin: 
Bring out a robot that does the work of 300 man, sorry we don't nead you anymore. :Biggrin: 
If they could only find a way of harnessing all of the methane gas coming from politicians the world would be saved. :Biggrin:  :2thumbsup: 
Regards,Bob

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *Whale poo* 
> Who would have thought that... Whale poo could help oceans absorb CO2 | Reuters

  I guess we will have to find a way to breed whales instead of cows now. 
Give that man a $500,000 grant to study if this is practical!

----------


## Rod Dyson

This sums up Al Gore well.   

> *The Problems with Al Gore*   _By David Deming_  
> Scientific issues like climate change are not morality plays.  Scientists are objective and tentative.  To be a scientist is to be skeptical.  Science is never “settled,” because there can be no finality in any empirical system of knowledge.  Only God has all the data.  Scientists employ multiple working hypotheses. They work together cooperatively, eager to have their mistakes pointed out to them, so as to advance a disinterested search for truth. 
> One of the finest examples of this ethic is found in a letter written by Robert Hooke to Isaac Newton on January 20, 1676.  Hooke told Newton, “I have a mind very desirous of and very ready to embrace any truth that shall be discovered though it may much thwart and contradict any opinions or notions I have formerly embraced.” Why was Hooke eager to have his errors pointed out?  Because, he explained, “my aim is the discovery of truth,” therefore “I can endure to hear objections.” 
> But Al Gore can endure no objections. His aim is not to find truth, but to tendentiously assemble and present information so as to mislead.  An example of Gore’s dissembling is found in the film, An Inconvenient Truth.  One of the most memorable scenes in An Inconvenient Truth is the unveiling of a startling graph that shows a strong correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature over the last several hundred thousand years.  Gore then states “when there’s more carbon dioxide the temperature gets warmer.” Because the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now relatively high, the audience is led to believe that a drastic rise in global temperature is imminent.

  Full article here American Thinker: The Problems with Al Gore

----------


## chrisp

> This sums up Al Gore well.   
> Full article here American Thinker: The Problems with Al Gore

  Rod, 
Maybe the answer that you seek is right under your nose:_I have a mind very desirous of and very ready to embrace any truth that  shall be discovered though it may much thwart and contradict any  opinions or notions I have formerly embraced."_   Robert Hooke to Isaac Newton on January 20, 1676 
(from: the same source and quote quoted by Rod) :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> Check it out now........has that made any difference??

  I think it is fixed. 
This post should test it as it should appear on a new page. 
EDIT: Yep, it's fixed.

----------


## watson

Wahoo.....and I didn't have to use my wedge or screwdriver.

----------


## Bedford

> I can still see Chrissy's posts.............

  What post? :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> What post?

  That's not a problem - you have me on ignore.   
I have me on ignore too - it makes reading the forum so much more pleasant.   :Rolleyes:

----------


## chrisp

BTW, Rod had better start preparing his "3000" commemorative post - we are only about a hundred or so (allowing for a few deletes here and there) from another ton.

----------


## watson

Ok while things are quiet.....shutup Headpin!!!.......I have a question.
Why are *peer-reviewed* papers considered so important??

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Ok while things are quiet.....shutup Headpin!!!.......I have a question.
> Why are *peer-reviewed* papers considered so important??

  That is a good question Watson. 
Peer review of papers is supposed to be a method of preventing "junk science" from being published in scientific journals.  In theory this is a good system and all things equal it should work.  The problem is when you get a bunch of like minded scientist peer reviewing each others papers, basically slapping each other on the back.   
Just because a paper is peer reviewed it does not mean it is "the gospel". As we found out from the climategate emails the peer review process on climate science was far from sound. 
In these emails Phil Jones the head of CRU and one of the most highly regarded climate scientists, was arguing that he did not want a peer reviewed paper that went against the AGW theory appearing in the IPCC report.  In that exchange he said this paper would not appear in the IPCC report even if it meant that he had to change the peer review rules. 
In these emails there was also evidence of a group of climate scientists putting pressure on various scientific journals not to publish certain papers that debuked AGW. 
So there you go!

----------


## watson

> The problem is when you get a bunch of like minded scientist peer reviewing each others papers, basically slapping each other on the back.

  Thanks Rod.........That has been my "bug bear" right throughout.........especially if there are a few bucks floating around. 
From my reading of the debate posts so-far...and other reading....it would appear that both sides have been a little bit "tainted" with that problem, so I wondered why anyone would place such importance on *peer-reviewed* papers. 
Old adage......."never trust a skinny chef".....which could probably be updated to.."never trust a scientist until you see his/her  bank account details".

----------


## chrisp

> Peer review of papers is supposed to be a method of preventing "junk science" from being published in scientific journals.  In theory this is a good system and all things equal it should work.  The problem is when you get a bunch of like minded scientist peer reviewing each others papers, basically slapping each other on the back.

  Rod, 
You are mostly right.  The peer review system is intended to provide a way of ensuring that papers are of a certain standard and to provide some credibility to the paper. 
It is a way of the journal maintaining its standards by having the paper checked by others in the field prior to being accepted for publication.  Journals don't just automatically get a good reputation, their reputation is built and earned by the standard of the papers published over time. 
However, it doesn't stop the publication of the paper.  The author can always submit the paper to another journal for publication.  There are journals that will happily publish anti-AGW papers.  In any case, the anti-AGW scientists could always set up their own peer-review system and panel - but they'd still have to earn their credibility.

----------


## chrisp

> so I wondered why anyone would place such importance on *peer-reviewed* papers.

  Noel, 
It is a "quality" thing.  As an analogy, comparing a peer-reviewed journal to a non-peer-reviewed journal would be like comparing Better Homes and Gardens to Fine Woodworking for furniture making.   
One is intended for a general audience and its designers/writers are not necessarily of world-class ability and aren't too concerned about producing quality projects.  The other is something that is aimed at a very knowledgeable audience that understands the finer points of the field and wants to learn from those highly regarded in their field.  The latter is more choosy in what it publishes - and its audience demands this. 
If you were a timber furniture producer,  would you prefer to say to your peers that you have been be published in BHG or FWW? 
There is a place for both types of publications just as there is a place for mass produced furniture and fine furniture.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Thanks Rod.........That has been my "bug bear" right throughout.........especially if there are a few bucks floating around. 
> From my reading of the debate posts so-far...and other reading....it would appear that both sides have been a little bit "tainted" with that problem, so I wondered why anyone would place such importance on *peer-reviewed* papers. 
> Old adage......."never trust a skinny chef".....which could probably be updated to.."never trust a scientist until you see his/her bank account details".

  Peer review has taken a lot of stick over the AGW debate, no system is fool proof, yet there has to be a system.  The climategate emails have shown the world that peer review is open to manipulation and is now distrusted by many this is a great shame for science in general.   I am sure the repercussions of this will be felt for a long time.  
Initially the proponents of AGW were shouting that some scientific papers debunking AGW were not valid as they did not appear in scientific journals or were not peer reviewed, while the whole time acting to prevent these papers from being published by applying pressure to the publications.    

> I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
> them
> out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
> Cheers
> Phil

   Link East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable 
They realised the danger of quoting Skeptics did not publish peer reviewed papers in journals.  Here is the response.   

> This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
> "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!
> So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a
> legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
> research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
> need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
> sit on the editorial board...
> What do others think?
> mike

  Here is the link East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable 
Since these emails became public there has been many peer reviewed papers not favouring AGW published and there will be more to come. In my opinion it has become much harder for the journals to reject papers as there will be an outcry from the skeptical scientist and this time someone will listen. 
So the entire sorry saga continues to unravel.  It has been demonstrated quite clearly that the science is not "in" or "setteled".  They have only just begun to understand how our atmosphere works.  Who knows maybe one day they will find conclusive evidence that AGW is real, but they are a long way off.  We have discussed previously that the theory of AGW cannot yet be proven nor can it be dis-proven so it remains a theory.  Impirical evidence is not supporting the theory to date andthe further along we go that it does not support it, the weaker the theory becomes.

----------


## chrisp

> The climategate emails have shown the world that peer review is open to manipulation and is now distrusted by many this is a great shame for science in general.   I am sure the repercussions of this will be felt for a long time.  
> [..snip..] 
> So the entire sorry saga continues to unravel.  It has been demonstrated quite clearly that the science is not "in" or "setteled".

  The email "_climategate_" certainly has focused considerable attention on to the conduct of the (one) research institution concerned.  *There have been two review reports released on the email matter so far.  The conclusions of these two reports: * I've quoted the conclusions of the two reports in full, but I've underlined some important lines.*Conclusions*
22. The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Joness refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU. (Paragraph 136) 
23. In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonestyfor example, Professor Joness alleged attempt to hide the declinewe consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed
by Professor Beddington, that global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity. It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid. (Paragraph 137) 
24. A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planets decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable. (Paragraph 138) 
(from: http://www.publications.parliament.u...h/387/387i.pdf )and:*Conclusions*
1. We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were  ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal. 
2. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists. 
3. It was not the immediate concern of the Panel, but we observed that there were important and unresolved questions that related to the availability of environmental data sets. It was pointed out that since UK government adopted a policy that resulted in charging for access to data sets collected by government agencies, other countries have followed suit impeding the flow of processed and raw data to and between researchers. This is unfortunate and seems inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere in government. 
4. A host of important unresolved questions also arises from the application of Freedom of Information legislation in an academic context. We agree with the CRU view that the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties should stay with those who collected it. 
(from: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/...statements/SAP )*I'm not sure which part of these reports debunks the science of AGW?* 
I'm awaiting the cries of bias, conspiracy, etc.  :Smilie:     

> Impirical evidence is not supporting the theory to date andthe further along we go that it does not support it, the weaker the theory becomes.

  Could you quote this empirical evidence that does not support the theory to date?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Chrisp, the reviews not withstanding, the evidence is in the emails themselves for all to see and interpret how they see them themselves, this in my mind is pretty damming. I don't for a second agree with a review by a person with a vested interest in the outcome. Personally I will trust my own judgement based on the eviedence before my eyes. Don't you?I  I don't need anyone else to tell me how to interpret what is blatently obvious to me. You cant see this?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Could you quote this empirical evidence that does not support the theory to date?

    NO how about you quote what does support it!!!!

----------


## Rod Dyson

Yes Watson I am up late again  :Smilie:  LOL 
Just got back from a poker tournament that we held as a fund raiser for the Northcote Rifle Club. Great succss I might add. BTW I came 2nd. 
And just in case, it was a game where all proceeds of the buy in went back to the players in the pay out (legal reasons). 
We are one year off our 100 year anniversary and believe it or not 6 weeks ago had a meeting to decide if we should dissolve the Club due to lack of funds and attendance. Thankfully a few of us said no way, too much history to loose and dug in. Since then we have turned the whole thing arround and we are certain to see through our 100 years and beyond. 
Tonight was a great success and we will quite a few new members from it. 
P.S 
Sorry about the plug for the club. Delete if you think it is inappropriate  :Blush7:

----------


## watson

Plug away Rod.

----------


## chrisp

> *Impirical evidence is not supporting the theory  to date* and the further along we go that it does not support it, the  weaker the theory becomes.

   

> *Could you quote this empirical evidence* that does not support the theory to date?

   

> *NO* how about you quote what does support  it!!!!

   

> *Personally I will trust my own judgement based on the eviedence before my eyes.* Don't you?I  I don't need anyone else to tell me how to interpret what is blatently obvious to me. You cant see this?

  Can you see why I'm confused?   :Confused:

----------


## Vin

I have read some of this thread, not all it's to long, and I can't believe the thoughts of folks. 
I have this one question and then I am out of here. 
 How can we burn not just a hundred years or a thousand years of stored carbon but millions of years worth and think things are not going to change.   AFP: Earth may be too hot for humans by 2300: study

----------


## chrisp

> I have this one question and then I am out of here.

  Vin, 
Don't go - stay and enjoy the thread.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Vin, 
> Don't go - stay and enjoy the thread.

  LOL more support chrisp.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I have read some of this thread, not all it's to long, and I can't believe the thoughts of folks. 
> I have this one question and then I am out of here. 
> How can we burn not just a hundred years or a thousand years of stored carbon but millions of years worth and think things are not going to change.   AFP: Earth may be too hot for humans by 2300: study

  Vin, the catch here is in the link the words "MAY" anyone can make any claim they like with the pre-condition of "MAY".   What about a report that says, "WILL" rather than "MAY" 
Not very convincing. Just scare mongering.  Unfortunately these tactics work, but on whom? Not me that is for sure.

----------


## Vin

Rod, I will continue the debate if you can answer this. 
[quote][How can we burn not just a hundred years or a thousand years of stored  carbon but millions of years worth and think things are not going to  change. /QUOTE]

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Can you see why I'm confused?

   

> _Personally I will trust my own judgement based on the eviedence before my eyes. Don't you?I I don't need anyone else to tell me how to interpret what is blatently obvious to me. You cant see this?_

    _I was refering to what i see was written in the emails and trusting my interpretation over that of someone with a vested interest in protecting the writer of the emails.  But you knew thats what I was refering to,  didn't you. (HMMM Locked on Italic)_

----------


## Rod Dyson

[quote=Vin;798180]Rod, I will continue the debate if you can answer this.   

> [How can we burn not just a hundred years or a thousand years of stored carbon but millions of years worth and think things are not going to change. /QUOTE]

  Go back to the beginning and read  :Biggrin: . 
Seriously though, "things" are always going to change.  The climate is always changing it will never be stable. It is always going to either be comming out of or going into an Ice Age. Nothing we do will alter this.  We can not create a perfect climate regardless of what we do.  Perhaps you can explain to me how this is possible? 
Perhaps you could also tell me what the perfect climate is for "us" "you" "them".  You see what you consider perfect is not going to be for someone else.

----------


## Vin

[quote=Rod Dyson;798182]  

> Rod, I will continue the debate if you can answer this.   
> Go back to the beginning and read . 
> Seriously though, "things" are always going to change.  The climate is always changing it will never be stable. It is always going to either be comming out of or going into an Ice Age. Nothing we do will alter this.  We can not create a perfect climate regardless of what we do.  Perhaps you can explain to me how this is possible? 
> Perhaps you could also tell me what the perfect climate is for "us" "you" "them".  You see what you consider perfect is not going to be for someone else.

  No one denies climate changes naturally but you still have not answered me, so I will ask with a more direct question. Do you believe that burning millions of years of acclimated carbon in a few centuries alters the earths climate? Yes or No

----------


## chrisp

> _(HMMM Locked on Italic)_

  Rod, that could just your _lean-to-the-right_ political preference showing.   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

[quote=Vin;798184]  

> No one denies climate changes naturally but you still have not answered me, so I will ask with a more direct question. Do you believe that burning millions of years of acclimated carbon in a few centuries alters the earths climate? Yes or No

  Yes there is some degree of effect the question is how much?  That is a question  no one can quantify with any degree of certainty.    
The question is like asking me do I think  pissing in a swimming pool makes the water salty.  The answer has to be yes, but to what degree?  
Answering yes to your question, by no means vindicates the argument that AGW is a problem that demands the types of action and life changing remedies that are being proposed.   An Alarmist would like to say "HA GOTCHA you agree we are effecting climate, so i am right and you are wrong". Well it is far from being that simplistic, as much as you would like it to be. I am sure you will come back and argue that this has to be the case, hence the reason for your question in the first place.   
I am very used to this type of question being posed to achieve some kind of gotcha, it will only be a gotcha in your mind not reality. :Wink:  
So far the climate has refused to match the predictions of the AGW theory.  The claim that current temperatures are unprecedented  are totaly without foundation.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, that could just your _lean-to-the-right_ political preference showing.

  God damn, you may be _right!_

----------


## chrisp

[quote=Rod Dyson;798191]  

> I am very used to this type of question being posed to achieve some kind of gotcha, it will only be a gotcha in your mind not reality.

  Rod, 
I don't think it is intended as a "gotcha" but rather a pondering point.  AGW aside, fossil fuel reserves are running out.  The question is framed in the context that it took millions of years to lay down the fossil fuel reserves and at the rate that we are going, they'll be used up with in a few hundred years.  It is hardly sustainable. 
It is also a lot of extra CO2 that is being pumped in to the natural CO2 cycle. 
Yep, it is has changed the CO2 balance from 280ppm to 380ppm - FACT.

----------


## Rod Dyson

You may be interested the these snow stats for the Northern Hemisphere.  October Through March Was the Snowiest On Record In The Northern Hemisphere | Watts Up With That? 
Now we know weather is not climate change. But how do we believe these "experts" when they say this:  

> The experts at East Anglia and CRU told us in 2000 that : (March, 2000) According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. Children just arent going to know what snow is, he said.
> David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes  or eventually feel virtual cold.

   
Yet Mother Nature delivers this: 
We also know that the past decade had the snowiest winters on record. 
I guess the experts know best and these records are just our imagination, we should dissregard the facts and just listen to the "experts"  :Wink:

----------


## Rod Dyson

[quote=chrisp;798193]  

> Rod, 
> I don't think it is intended as a "gotcha" but rather a pondering point. AGW aside, fossil fuel reserves are running out. The question is framed in the context that it took millions of years to lay down the fossil fuel reserves and at the rate that we are going, they'll be used up with in a few hundred years. It is hardly sustainable.

  
Interestingly Chrisp, contrary to what you may think, I am not against looking for alternative energy scources.  Just against it being forced on us for all the wrong reasons.  They should stand on there own merits, when fuel scources do get low enough new technologies will become cost effective.  The markets will take care of this.   

> It is also a lot of extra CO2 that is being pumped in to the natural CO2 cycle. 
> Yep, it is has changed the CO2 balance from 280ppm to 380ppm - FACT.

  And exactly what does this FACT prove?

----------


## chrisp

> And exactly what does this FACT prove?

  Along with the isotope analysis of the CO2 content, it proves that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 280ppm to 380ppm due mostly to burning fossil fuels by human kind.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Along with the isotope analysis of the CO2 content, it proves that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased form 280ppm to 380ppm due mostly to burning fossil fuels by human kind.

   Yes but what does this prove?  what does "mostly" mean. Also the degree of certainty on the isoptopes is?? 
Yet.......... here is impirical evidence......... 
It sure is affecting the antartic. At this rate the pole will melt in ?? years!!  
Ok had to take out the graph as it was too big.   
Full link here C3: Antarctica: It's Not Melting & Temperature Increase Is Zilch - There's No CO2 Impact

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I have read some of this thread, not all it's to long, and I can't believe the thoughts of folks. 
> I have this one question and then I am out of here. 
> How can we burn not just a hundred years or a thousand years of stored carbon but millions of years worth and think things are not going to change.   AFP: Earth may be too hot for humans by 2300: study

  From Roger Pielke Sr.   

> *The study has a major fault in that it has not properly assessed the actual behavoir of the atmosphere if such warming occurred in the lower troposphere. Moreover, this is another example of the publication of a paper with predictions that cannot be tested.*  *I discuss these issues in more depth below.*  *..................................................  ................*  *The Sherwood and Huber paper is just a model sensitivity study, not a verifiable prediction. Moreover, not only is it scientifically flawed, but the dissemination of a press release illusrates that this is really not a science study. The funding of such a study by the National Science Foundation (whose predictions cannot be verified) illustrates another failure by the NSF to properly support climate science. *

   
Full link here Comments On The Scientifically Flawed Study “Researchers Find Future Temperatures Could Exceed Livable Limits” By Sherwood and Huber 2010  Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. 
Should clear things up a little for you Vin.

----------


## Vin

[quote=Rod Dyson;798182]  

> Rod, I will continue the debate if you can answer this.   
> Go back to the beginning and read . 
> Seriously though, "things" are always going to change.  The climate is always changing it will never be stable. It is always going to either be comming out of or going into an Ice Age. Nothing we do will alter this.  We can not create a perfect climate regardless of what we do.  Perhaps you can explain to me how this is possible? 
> Perhaps you could also tell me what the perfect climate is for "us" "you" "them".  You see what you consider perfect is not going to be for someone else.

   

> Along with the isotope analysis of the CO2 content, it proves that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased form 280ppm to 380ppm due mostly to burning fossil fuels by human kind.

  And what does this mean----- 
Well it means that the *vast majority* of the science community  through lots of studies and modeling conclude that earth is warning. Now when I say science community I mean those that dedicate the study to this particular field.  
I remember once being showed some petition that was produced in the USA claiming that the experts had it wrong, After days or research into this petition I found the list on the net. Scanning it for hours most that signed it had no expertise in the field, they were doctors of medicine, and engineering ect.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So your making comparisons between a somewhat salty pool and life on earth as we know it?

  Oh please, spare me so over dramatic.  Exactly why so many logical people are so turned off by this stuff.   
Where is there any evidence of an impending armageddon? 
Relax we will not shrivel up, we will surely run out of fossil fuels before we turn the atmosphere into a CO2 soup. LOL

----------


## Dr Freud

Hi lads and ladies, 
Apologies for the short break, I can only imagine how much my lilting tones were missed.  :Biggrin:  
I missed the details of the blood feud last weekend, then the thread jammed up for a few days, so I figured I'd wait for some sort of reasonable state to return.  
Got a lot of catching up to do, so better get started... 
Oh yeh, welcome Vin, I loved your work in The Chronicles of Riddick, but not so much in The Fast and the Furious.  :2thumbsup:  
But in relation to this topic, rest assured that I know AGW Theory scaremongering is "absolute crap".  And contrary to what greenie pinko's will try to have you believe, I am not a homicidal, genocidal, psychopathic, species ending, baby killing, planet destroying overlord, funded by giant oil and tobacco corporations via secret bank accounts. 
I have no secret bank accounts anymore. :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Did a quick catch-up on the links, seems like I didn't miss much. 
Someone typed some words into a search engine and now allegedly has evidence for a consensus. :No:  And I've been asked to "scientifically" rebut this intranet search? :Confused:  
Regardless of the ridiculous basis of this "study", how many times do I have to remind people that it doesn't matter how many scientists agree something is real.  They have to prove it, particularly if they are asking our entire species to change the way it lives at a cost of trillions of dollars and an intangible opportunity cost that is incalculable. 
P.S. Vin, it would pay to go and read this thread in more detail, you will then understand the futility of models.  They are based on flawed assumptions.  We know these assumptions are flawed because they have never worked.  That's right, never.  If you want a possible explanation why, research Chaos Theory.  There's a few links from this thread.  Every time their latest and greatest model fails, it weakens AGW Theory (as this is based on models, not facts), and it strengthens Chaos Theory, which basically says predicting climate through models is beyond us puny humans. 
Best we leave it to the Gods, eh.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I have read some of this thread, not all it's to long, and I can't believe the thoughts of folks. 
> I have this one question and then I am out of here. 
>  How can we burn not just a hundred years or a thousand years of stored carbon but millions of years worth and think things are not going to change.   AFP: Earth may be too hot for humans by 2300: study

  Hi Vin, 
Rod has answered this well already, but 12 degrees in a few hundred years, seriously? 
By nearly any account, we are already at or past half way through this stuff.  We will change fuel sources way before we get through the next half purely for economic reasons.  CO2 has a logarithmic (and comparatively tiny) effect on temperature, which is itself subject to other variables.  That said, even if we assume that 100% of the measured change of .7 degree celsius in the last 100 years is wholly attributable to human industrial age causes, don't you think it strange that less CO2 being released in the future, contributing comparatively less to any alleged warming, is suddenly going to trigger a massive never seen before thermal reaction that will render this planet uninhabitable.  This my friend is not science, it is doomsayers predicting armageddon.   

> No one denies climate changes naturally but you still have not answered me, so I will ask with a more direct question. Do you believe that burning millions of years of acclimated carbon in a few centuries alters the earths climate? Yes or No

  Yes! This is not a matter of belief, it is a fact.  Just like you currently breathing in an out is altering the Earth's climate.  What human technology and intellect currently struggles with is quantifying these effects or "alterations".   
Follow the link below and you can read first hand the best scientific case that has been made by the IPCC in 4AR.  The IPCC are the bozo's pushing this barrow, so this is as good as it gets.  :Eek:    

> You hold up working group 1 as your holy grail of science underwriting this theory, and chapter 9 is where they pin this on us pesky humans.  This chapter is where it all starts folks.  Count the number of models used, then present your science?  Show us all that science that supports this theoretical idea.   Chapter 9.

----------


## Dr Freud

This is hilarious.  :Biggrin:   ...but there's one thing you can't escape and that is this: it is still in your hands to go to the next election on the issue as you defined as a great moral challenge of our time, an issue on which you accused the Opposition of political, of absolute political cowardice, it's in your hands to go to the next election, seek a double dissolution, whether you seek a double dissolution or not and make this ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) a fresh mandate for the people to decide and tell both sides of politics what they want.  Now you have squibbed that decision. You have put this on the backburner until 2013, at least, in the Budget makes that clear?    If you click on this link and watch Rudd lose it, you'll understand what a farce this whole AGW Theory and ETS scam is.  Rudd said he spent a whole three days working on changing the world.  Wow, staggering stuff.  I guess we're all lucky Churchill stuck at his greatest moral challenge a bit longer.  And after all the science in the world supporting this theory had been presented, and none of the science refuting it, what action did world leaders take? Nothing.  That's right ladies, nothing.  Gee, I guess that scientific argument must be pretty compelling stuff. :No:  
As an aside, Rudd didn't previously describe this as a "a great moral challenge", but rather used to use the expression "the greatest moral challenge".  Since his budgetary backflip, he now calls AGW Theory just "a great moral challenge".

----------


## Dr Freud

How the fake scare for a real tax got trumped by a meaningless promise resulting in a new real tax creating a real economic scare. Phew, talk about spinning. :Confused:   Then there's the ETS. Again, why was it necessary to formally abandon it just before this budget? For exactly the same reason? Once formally abandoned, the ETS numbers come out of the budget.  The answer is that it enables the government to deliver on its promise to keep spending growth to 2 per cent year.  So we have a prime minister who welches on "our greatest moral challenge" purely - sorry, only - to meet a completely artificial budget number. And an utterly meaningless number at that.

----------


## Dr Freud

And there will be $30 million over two years for a national campaign to "educate the community in climate change". 
Maybe we could just provide a link to this thread and save us borrowing another $30 million dollars from China? :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

PM commits $2.4bn to 'non-feasible' carbon emissions storage    The Rudd government is spending $2.4 billion on CCS projects and is putting $100 million a year into the Global CCS Institute it created last year. The Bligh government is spending $102.5 million on the ZeroGen CCS project near Rockhampton and other CCS projects. 
  Michael Economides and Christine Ehlig-Economides, in a study published in the Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, found that for one commercial-scale coal-fired power station, the underground storage area for the removed CO2 emissions would have to be ``enormous, the size of a small US state''. 
  ``The findings clearly suggest (geological CO2 sequestration) is not a practical means to provide any substantive reduction in CO2 emissions, although it has been repeatedly presented as such by others,'' they wrote.

----------


## Dr Freud

Watts Up with the Climate? Australian Tour 
Follow the link for a tour venue near you, then cheer or jeer as you prefer.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Quote:
>                          Originally Posted by *Rod Dyson*   _Oh please, spare me so over dramatic.   Over Dramatic?  Have you ever been to LA, perhaps Bangkok, maybe Hong Kong?  Ever lived, worked or visited Central Australia, away from man made activities?  I've lived, worked or visited all of these places, and I can tell you that the veiw/atmosphere between the over populated toxic emission cities and central Australia is vastly different.  I can remember standing on my balcony looking down the road in LA and barely being able to see a couple hundred metres. I can aslo remember looking into the night sky and not see a single star due to the smog!  Compare that with pristine central Australia where you can look into the night sky and it's filled with that many stars that they seem to be almost touching each other.  
> Exactly why so many logical people are so turned off by this stuff.   Many thousands of logical people also believed that Hitler would lead Germany out of depresion and victory at war. Many millions of people died because these so called logical people failed..........  
> Where is there any evidence of an impending armageddon?  I used my eyes, Rod. As I've said many times now.......that's all the evidence I need. I've lived long enough and seen what man has done to the atmosphere to realise that we should seek cleaner alternative ways to generate power...............before it's too late! 
> Relax we will not shrivel up, we will surely run out of fossil fuels before we turn the atmosphere into a CO2 soup. LOL_  
> I'm glad Rod knows the date we'll run out of fossil fuels, would you mind telling the rest of us exactly when this will be?  From someone who used to work in the oil exploration field, I can assure you that there are huge, vast fields of untapped oil and gas still out there. One of the biggest is under the Rocky Mountains USA. It's only a matter of time before permission is granted to tap it  You'll forgive me for not following your advice. If you were giving me advice in regard to plastering. I surely would listen. But your not. You have been very consistent in passing on your veiws of the situation based solely on a monetary thing.

  I for one wholeheartedly agree with you on reducing smog and pollution, not just from our cities, but from the entire planet.  I too have seen these sights and love my time out in the bush.  Something just feels right about sleeping in the dirt and breathing that sweet eucalyptus air. :2thumbsup:  
But just to clarify, that sweet fresh air is where all the Carbon Dioxide is.  As CO2 levels increase, plant life abounds.  This is not based on models or idiotic environmental theories, it is a measured fact.  One of the fallacies that AGW Theory proponents try to push is that CO2 is now somehow bad for plants.  This is like saying that oxygen is bad for animals.  What idiots.  But they need to paint CO2 as evil, so they will continue to smear it. 
But back to the pollution and smog.  This will still be exactly the same no matter what CO2 strategy is introduced, because CO2 is not pollution.  This is another idiotic lie that has been sold by these lunatics.  That is why they always show smog and pollution during the all the television shows on CO2.  Here is what smog is made of (Wiki): 
 "Smog," a term coined in 1905 to describe the combination of smoke and fog rising from factory smokestacks during the Industrial Revolution, is mostly comprised of sulphur dioxide (sometimes called "SOX").  
However, since the introduction of the automobile, vehicular emissions and the increased use of fossil fuels for heating and industry have introduced new chemicals to the atmosphere, changing the composition of smog. This is called "photochemical smog."  
Along with sulphur dioxide, the primary pollutants of photochemical smog are volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These primary pollutants interact with the heat of the sun to produce various hazardous chemicals known as "secondary pollutants," which include peroxyacetyl nitrates and tropospheric ozone.  
Photochemical smog is composed of many different compounds, but the three major ones are ozone, PAN and VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds). *Ozone* is written as O3 and is the product of the following reaction:
 O+O2--->O3. 
 The singular O is formed when NO2 decomposes because of sunlight *PAN(peroxyacetylnitrate)*is the product of VOCs oxygen and nitrogen oxide.
 VOCs are uncombusted fuels, often the product of engines."  
The failed ETS/CPRS does nothing, nil, zero, zilch, nada to address any of these real pollution issues.  And that is one of my bug bears with this nonsense, it is wasting money and time on ridiculous theories, instead of addressing real pollution issues.  
So just remember, when you are breathing all that clean fresh air, that's CO2.  When see all that smog, that's NOT CO2.  But all that real pollution certainly does create a haze that contributes to something called the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, which distorts our temperature records in ways we are still trying to unravel. 
By the way, they are called non-renewable because they are running out.  Economics will dictate we leave these fuel sources long before they have completely run out, because global energy use is skyrocketing, while these non-renewables are plummeting.  There are many scientific and economic theories as to when and how this transition will occur, but I guarantee you the economic impetus will kick in to change human technology long before this contrived nonsense.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

Lesson 1: Spinning too much will leave you tied up in knots. 
A great read of a government running around in circles wasting our money on ridiculous policies.  Climate action argument the nude ball of politics    Abandoning the idea because of Senate obstructionism ignores the fact that the Prime Minister could seek to have both houses of Parliament dissolved and then put the matter to the people at an election. If he won that election he could then put his Carbon Pollution Reduction bill to the vote at a joint sitting. 
  It's not something anyone would do lightly but it is something you would do if you believed that climate change was the great moral and economic challenge of our age.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yes but what does this prove?  what does "mostly" mean. Also the degree of certainty on the isoptopes is?? 
> Yet.......... here is impirical evidence......... 
> It sure is affecting the antartic. At this rate the pole will melt in ?? years!!  
> Ok had to take out the graph as it was too big.   
> Full link here C3: Antarctica: It's Not Melting & Temperature Increase Is Zilch - There's No CO2 Impact

  Nice work Rod, pretty decent temp spike about 400 years ago.  All up about 3 full degrees celsius in about 150 years, compared to our recent .7 of a degree in about 150 years.  Uh oh, I wonder if it was the cars or the cows that time.  :Biggrin:  
(Yes people, this is proxy data, we didn't have thermometers back then, and spurious to compare local data to globally averaged, blah, blah, blah...  The point is, temperature changes, climate changes, the Planet changes, get used to it, or get off at the next stop.)

----------


## chrisp

> and spurious to compare local data to globally averaged, blah, blah, blah...

  It is good to see that you DO know when you are talking crap.   :Smilie:    

> The point is, temperature changes,  climate changes, the Planet changes, get used to it, or get off at the  next stop.)

  Natural change I can live with, but unnatural change we need to be responsible about and not continue to spew CO2 into the atmosphere like there is no tomorrow.  CO2 isn't as benign or beneficial as Dr Freud likes to make out - it certainly warms the place up. 
(That'll get him going  :Smilie:  )

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I for one wholeheartedly agree with you on reducing smog and pollution, not just from our cities, but from the entire planet. I too have seen these sights and love my time out in the bush. Something just feels right about sleeping in the dirt and breathing that sweet eucalyptus air. 
> But just to clarify, that sweet fresh air is where all the Carbon Dioxide is. As CO2 levels increase, plant life abounds. This is not based on models or idiotic environmental theories, it is a measured fact. One of the fallacies that AGW Theory proponents try to push is that CO2 is now somehow bad for plants. This is like saying that oxygen is bad for animals. What idiots. But they need to paint CO2 as evil, so they will continue to smear it. 
> But back to the pollution and smog. This will still be exactly the same no matter what CO2 strategy is introduced, because CO2 is not pollution. This is another idiotic lie that has been sold by these lunatics. That is why they always show smog and pollution during the all the television shows on CO2. Here is what smog is made of (Wiki): 
> "Smog," a term coined in 1905 to describe the combination of smoke and fog rising from factory smokestacks during the Industrial Revolution, is mostly comprised of sulphur dioxide (sometimes called "SOX").  
> However, since the introduction of the automobile, vehicular emissions and the increased use of fossil fuels for heating and industry have introduced new chemicals to the atmosphere, changing the composition of smog. This is called "photochemical smog."  
> Along with sulphur dioxide, the primary pollutants of photochemical smog are volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These primary pollutants interact with the heat of the sun to produce various hazardous chemicals known as "secondary pollutants," which include peroxyacetyl nitrates and tropospheric ozone.  
> Photochemical smog is composed of many different compounds, but the three major ones are ozone, PAN and VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds). *Ozone* is written as O3 and is the product of the following reaction:
> O+O2--->O3. 
> The singular O is formed when NO2 decomposes because of sunlight *PAN(peroxyacetylnitrate)*is the product of VOCs oxygen and nitrogen oxide.
> ...

  Wow nice response, I agree 100%

----------


## Bedford

Cow Power, that'll fix it.  CVPS Cow Power

----------


## Dr Freud

> Thanks Doc, I think.  A little bit of that went over my head but I get the gist of it.  I think where both on the same road................eithier that or I've had a couple to many beers whilst out 4 x4 ............. 
> You know over a carton or two, we could be good friends.............

  Yeh, I think at the end of the day we all want to leave this rock better than we found it, but the joy of democracy is we get to argue about the different ways to achieve this. 
Then once we have the best course of action, we give this to the bureaucracy who comes up with the most politically expedient version which usually turns out to be the most expensive and least effective.  :Sneaktongue:  
That's one of the reasons we drink beer.

----------


## Dr Freud

> How the fake scare for a real tax got trumped by a meaningless promise resulting in a new real tax creating a real economic scare. Phew, talk about spinning.  Then there's the ETS. Again, why was it necessary to formally abandon it just before this budget? For exactly the same reason? Once formally abandoned, the ETS numbers come out of the budget.  The answer is that it enables the government to deliver on its promise to keep spending growth to 2 per cent year.  So we have a prime minister who welches on "our greatest moral challenge" purely - sorry, only - to meet a completely artificial budget number. And an utterly meaningless number at that.

  What do you do when you have racked up massive debts you cant pay, and your big new tax falls out of favour.  You create another big new tax.  The weird thing is, this tax will probably reduce carbon dioxide emissions more effectively than the other one, by directly slowing down iron ore and coal industries without compensation, which will drive retail prices higher.  So you get the benefit of taking taxes from the industrial sector, but now you also dont have to compensate low-income households when these costs get passed through to consumers, so they consume less.  Pretty smart move actually.   Rudd says this in private:   The miners said Mr Rudd told them the new tax would help the rest of the economy by slowing down the mining sector.   But spins this in public:   The prime minister hit back at critics today, arguing it will actually broaden the mining sector and increase overall production.   And he is now officially the spin king:   But most of all the politicians should be blamed for over-spinning policies. Rudd is the worst offender.   And what do international investors think:   Morgan Stanley's is recommending investors short the Australian Dollar vs. both the U.S. dollar and Singaporean dollar. Their main concerns are that the government's new 'resource super profits tax' on mining companies, such as BHP (BHP), will destroy the mining industry's valuations and create a headwind for Australian economic growth.  Australia may be inadvertently hanging itself here... basically the Australian economy weathered the storm better than most economies thanks to its resource industry which continued to fuel China's robust growth. Due to this outperformance, Australia was forced/able to hike interest rates well before everyone else. Yet now... they are killing the driver of economic performance while at the same time being forced to deal with the higher interest rates they thought they could bare thanks to the mining industry driving outperformance.   Thats why this is so tragically funny and true:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It is good to see that you DO know when you are talking crap.

  Thanks champ, hopefully one day I will be able to repay the compliment.  :Biggrin:  :Shock:  :Biggrin:    

> Natural change I can live with, but unnatural change we need to be responsible about and not continue to spew CO2 into the atmosphere like there is no tomorrow. CO2 isn't as benign or beneficial as Dr Freud likes to make out - it certainly warms the place up. 
> (That'll get him going  )

  It might get me going, but it certainly won't get catastrophic global warming going.  :Biggrin:  
And speaking of natural change, I was wondering if you had managed to clear up this little "natural change" issue for me?  I'd be grateful for any assistance (or computer modelling) that could help.  I've been looking for this stuff, but can't find a coherent response yet.   

> Seeing as you guys can't find any science proving AGW Theory, (unless you've lowered the bar even further to include political opinion ), I thought I'd pose a logistical question. 
> If this is a proxy data temperature record, albeit very inaccurate:    
> And this is the committment from Copenhagen:  The document recognised that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of the present day and that actions should be taken to keep any temperature increases to below 2°C. 
> Then can someone, and I don't care who, please explain to me how in the hell we are going to negate all the "natural" forces that have been driving temperatures up and down for hundreds of millions of years, when we don't even understand how they work yet?

----------


## Dr Freud

Assuming you believed in AGW Theory, it would make sense to steer us toward "cleaner" energy sources than oil, while we transition to something 100% "clean" and renewable. 
Would you not look like a tax grabbing hypocrite if you actually increased taxes on cleaner energy sources?  Watch the fine print, new excise on LPG   *HALF a million drivers will be hit by a new $540 million excise on LPG that was hidden in the fine print of the budget. * 
  Governments have spent more than $400 million over the past five years encouraging drivers and taxi fleets to convert their vehicles to run on cleaner liquefied petroleum gas, and the LPG industry has argued that it should remain excise-free. 
  But the government will impose a 2.5¢ a litre excise from July 2011, rising to 12.5¢ a litre over five years. Over the next four years the new tax will reap about $540 million.

----------


## Dr Freud

Why the ETS died:   Kevin was crystal clear from the start  the Greens couldn't be allowed any sort of ownership of the [emissions] trading scheme and the Liberals would have to support it so that they'd wear the [associated increased] costs to voters, a Labor source said.   Why there will be no resurrection:   The Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, told the Herald the government would not try to legislate the ETS even by its new delayed start year of 2013 unless there is ''credible action'' by the end of 2012 from countries such as China, India and the US. It would also require a resolution of the Copenhagen deadlock over how national efforts are checked.  ''We will only [legislate] if there is sufficient international action,'' Senator Wong said, declining to explain exactly what that meant.   And why we should all give thanks:   By blocking the ETS, the opposition prevented Mr Rudd from taking Australia out on a limb, recklessly exposing the nation to economic risk when an international deal on carbon was nowhere on the horizon and we contribute 1.5 per cent of world emissions. Mr Rudd should be thanking Tony Abbott's opposition and voices like ours that urged caution.   And if anyone is still in any doubt that the ETS/CPRS has gone the way of the dodo, I suggest you email the PM and ask him this question:   What effect will the CPRS have on the mining sector when it kicks in during 2013, given greater cuts will be required due to the late start, while they are already paying the full 40% profits tax as well?  
If you can supply the treasury modelling on this PM, that would be great.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

You really confuse me Head Pin, I have agreed with you for 2 posts in 2 days.  Really nice to see a post that makes perfect sense.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You stick with me, Rod and I'll learn ya real good............ 
> I just knew that if we knocked those rough edges off ya, you'd polish up allright............

   :Biggrin:  Now lets not get too excited Head Pin we got some work to do :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

I also agree that these images represent what may go wrong in the mining and transport of oil.  While I agree these incidents are terrible (and emotionally stirring), they will remain unchanged under all actions currently proposed to deal with AGW Theory and its alleged effects. 
By example, this is an oil spill with global action on CO2 emissions and concentrations stable at 450ppm.   

> 

  And this is an oil spill with NO global action on CO2 emissions and concentrations rising over 1000ppm.   

>

----------


## Dr Freud

And for positive comparison: 
This is a natural environment with global action on CO2 emissions and concentrations stable at 450ppm.    
And this is a natural environment with NO global action on CO2 emissions and concentrations rising over 1000ppm.   
CO2 is an odourless, colourless, invisible, greenhouse gas that is good for plants, and therefore also benefits animals .  You can't see it, taste it, or smell it.  It is not pollution or "poison" as it is now being taught to our children.  Seriously, do you think it is good to teach kids they are breathing out poison everyday that is killing the planet.  Do these sicko's have any idea what this can potentially do to children's perceptions of themselves.   :No:  :Annoyed:  :Mad:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Doc, your hung up on the C02 argument.

   Its not me, its the bozos at the IPCC, and their band of merry men, blindly following along.  It is well documented that I have no issues whatsoever with CO2.  As soon as these bozos reach a similar conclusion, and our Prime Muppet drops the last pretence of his Enormous Taxation Scheme, this whole thread (and global delusion) will end.   

> The picture is a lot bigger than that. It's toxic emissions and the enviourmental disasters associated with gathering these fossil fuels that we should be concerned with. 
> The less mining, drilling and transporting means the less chance we have of another enviourmental disaster not to mention the cleaner atmosphere.

   It is also well documented that I support a cleaner environment, I support better controls of pollution, I advocate strongly for serious funding and research into commercial applications of solar energy, I support a transition from coal to nuclear pending this solar breakthrough, I support reducing fossil fuel dependence, primarily for energy security reasons, but also for environmental reasons.  Bottom line, I hate pollution with a passion, and the diversion of resources to AGW Theory *instead of* rectifying these issues pisses me off no end.  This is no small amount of money.   I will provide another example, regarding oil burning pollution being ignored while this irrational nonsense is blatantly lied about to kids, and all fully funded by us stupid taxpayers blindly following along.   Check this out:   Exhaust gas or flue gas is emitted as a result of the combustion of fuels such as natural gas, gasoline/petrol, diesel fuel, fuel oil or coal.  The largest part of most combustion gases is nitrogen (N2), water vapor (H2O) (except with pure-carbon fuels), and carbon dioxide(CO2) (except for fuels with no carbon in); these are not toxic or noxious (although carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming). A relatively small part of it is undesirable noxious or toxic substances, such as carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOx), Ozone(O3), partly unburnt fuel, and particulate matter.   And this:   The reaction that works the engine of an automobile is simply a combustion (burning) of petrol (gasoline), diesel oil, or LPG (propane).  But because of the way the motor is designed and tuned, the actual composition of exhaust fumes is rather more complicated than that.  So ideally the composition might be something like 70% nitrogen, 15% carbon dioxide, 15% water vapour.  However, not all of the fuel burns completely. So the exhaust stream may contain carbon monoxide (very poisonous), soot, and unburnt petrol.  The other significant material that is present in car exhaust is nitric oxide.  When this nitric oxide cools, it can react further with the air to produce nitrogen dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide is a poisonous and corrosive brown gas. It is the substance that reacts in sunlight to start off the very complicated series of reactions that produce photochemical smog (Los Angeles type smog). In cool damp conditions, it can alternatively react with water droplets to produce nitric acid, and acid rain.  Leaded petrol is still used in many places (including here in Australia). When petrol burns, the tetraethyl lead produces lead oxide as a very fine dust. This is a poisoning hazard, both in terms of direct inhalation, and in terms of helping maintain a high content of lead in the street dust along busy roads.   Now based on this information, it would be reasonable to conclude that burning oil/coal/gas produces both benign and toxic/noxious/poisonous gases.  We could produce two lists:   Benign   Nitrogen Water Vapour (a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming-Wiki forgot to mention this) Carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming-Wiki remembered to mention this)   Noxious   Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitric Oxides Nitrogen Dioxides Nitric acid (Acid rain) Lead oxide Ozone Unburnt fuel Particulate matter (Soot)
Photochemical smog   Now watch the animation on this link (click on the Transformer or the days of change logo).  This animation also runs in this exact format in television ads screened during prime time viewing.  The cute transformer is obviously designed to gets the kids attention.  This transformer is also plastered all over our trains here in WA, to reinforce this message to kids.  You will need sound.   Transperth Homepage    Did you hear all those nasty toxic and poisonous substances listed?   I think we can all agree that pollution sucks.  All that remains is that we all agree to spend trillions of dollars on renewable energy and removing pollution, rather than chasing fictional green rabbits based on the opinion of enviro-wackos working for the UN.

----------


## watson

Bugger me Doc.....I'll just have to light up a Fag while I read that one...........Toxic Smoxic.. :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Bugger me Doc.....I'll just have to light up a Fag while I read that one...........Toxic Smoxic..

  Busted by the boss.  :Blush7:  
The later it gets, the more I ramble.  Maybe I should only log on before breakfast.  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I forget what I exactly wrote here. But I do believe there was a legitimate question in there somewhere.
> Let me re-phrase it and see if I can get it past the censor. 
> Perhaps it went something like this? 
> How can you take a picture of the present or past and then try and pass it off as the future, Doc? Unless your the Doc from "back to the future" me thinks you might be only guessing..................

  Guessing is probably flattering to my rambling.  It was more like a thought experiment, crudely plagiarising Schrodinger's Cat.   Either of these pictures and associated ratings could exist in the same time and same place depending on the actions contributing to them, but which one is real cannot be known until the event is observed. 
Interestingly, your criticism closely aligns to Einstein's criticism of Schrodinger's original thought experiment, in that reality will always triumph over experiments.  :Shock:  
I think I need more beer.

----------


## Dr Freud

How many millions of dollars is our government borrowing from China to fund these highly educational campaigns.  The website below shows how shallow our kids education has become.   Shout Out for Climate Change   *Primary students* need to submit an original artistic piece like a song, poem, photograph or piece of artwork that raises awareness about climate change.  *Secondary* and *Tertiary students* need to upload an original advertisement in video format that is up to 60 seconds in length and encourages, inspires and equips Australians to take action on climate change.   
In addition, *Tertiary students* must submit a media plan and a promotion plan outlining specific media outlets you would use to promote your ad and explaining how you would get maximum national exposure for your advertisement.  
  Heres an example of a primary school project for the kiddies:    Students to learn how to say global warming and climate change in various languages. In one of the languages, students to write and say both in a sentence.    It is telling that this government is teaching Australian kids to run a spin campaign, rather than...oh, I dunno, maybe learn some science?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

You see, Abbott tried to teach the kids few home truths about climate change:   "Last week Tony Abbott (the Australian opposition leader) told school children that it was warmer at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth. This banal line set off a flurry of denial and bluster."   Then Rudd almost popped a vein in his forehead:   "how is it that, in the 21st century, you could support this Leader of the Opposition, who says that the world was hotter in Jesus time? How could you actually hold to a belief, in defiance of total science around the world, that somehow in the last 2000 years the world has become cooler, not warmer? How could you stand behind a leader who says that the industrial revolution, in effect, did not happen?"   Find out whos lying to the kiddies here:   Roman Warming (Gullible Rudd steps right in it) « JoNova   (Even if you dont go the link, its not a tough one to call). :Biggrin:

----------


## watson

Just to let you that know you all matter, at least what you say does..........(oh well..do we exempt Headpin  :Rotfl: ) 
Rudd's minders' site has just linked back to the last couple of posts.

----------


## watson

and then the Skeptics site just hit it too.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Just to let you that know you all matter, at least what you say does..........(oh well..do we exempt Headpin ) 
> Rudd's minders' site has just linked back to the last couple of posts.

  Interesting what site is it?

----------


## watson

G'day Rod...can give you the Skeptics site.........'tother one has disappeared.......looking though. 
Skeptics site: Roman Warming (Gullible Rudd steps right in it) &#171; JoNova

----------


## chrisp

> You see, Abbott tried to teach the kids few home truths about climate change:   "Last week Tony Abbott (the Australian opposition leader) told school children that it was warmer at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth. This banal line set off a flurry of denial and bluster."

   
I wonder if those "home truths" were '_scripted_' comments (aka 'Gospel') or '_heat-of-the-moment_' comments?

----------


## Dr Freud

> I wonder if those "home truths" were '_scripted_' comments (aka 'Gospel') or '_heat-of-the-moment_' comments?

  More likely "scriptured" comments.  :Biggrin:    "And you will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free. John 8: 32"  But seriously, Abbott tells us that politicians sometimes change their minds, engage in hyperbole, and even spin (ie. he tells us the truth) and we feign outrage.    But we put up with the spin we are constantly fed below in silence.     One thing is for sure, the climate change advertising wont mention the words greatest moral challenge of our time or for that matter political courage.   and   KEVIN Rudd is yet to deliver on dozens of election commitments, leaving a trail of backflips and broken promises as he prepares to fight for a second term.   and   But only last night this same shocked Tanner managed to prove Abbotts point by denying what he himself said only two months ago about the dangers of lifting the compulsory superannuation guarantee levy - as his own Government has just now done.  
Well may we say God save the spin, because nothing will save the ETS.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Just to let you that know you all matter, at least what you say does..........(oh well..do we exempt Headpin ) 
> Rudd's minders' site has just linked back to the last couple of posts.

  They're probably excited cos their new kiddies climate change propaganda website actually started getting some hits.   :Rolleyes:  
Then realised it's a bunch of old drunken men.  :Shock:   
Mr Watson, please forgive me if this thread gets banned when Conroy's new net filter comes in. :Tongue:  
But if the Men in Black appear at your door, can you please ask them when we outsourced Australia's policy development to communist China.  Chinese officials have told Trade Minister Simon Crean that they are worried the new 40 per cent tax will push commodity prices even higher.  Mr Crean says he has asked China to have a say in how the tax should be implemented. 
I'd be happy to outsource the ETS tax implementation to China, then I know it would never be introduced.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

The Chinese aren't worried, they're confused.  :Confused:  :Confused:  :Confused:   
If Rudd claims his big new mining tax will increase mining production starting in 2012 (ie. increased CO2 emissions), but then will implement his ETS big new tax to decrease mining production starting in 2013 (ie. decreased CO2 emissions), then what will be the net effect of these two big new taxes fighting each other to simultaneously lower and raise CO2 emissions?  :Confused:  :Confused:  :Confused:    

> What effect will the CPRS have on the mining sector when it kicks in during 2013, given greater cuts will be required due to the late start, while they are already paying the full 40% profits tax as well?  
> If you can supply the treasury modelling on this PM, that would be great.

  Buggered if I know how this is all supposed to work out???

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The Chinese aren't worried, they're confused.   
> If Rudd claims his big new mining tax will increase mining production starting in 2012 (ie. increased CO2 emissions), but then will implement his ETS big new tax to decrease mining production starting in 2013 (ie. decreased CO2 emissions), then what will be the net effect of these two big new taxes fighting each other to simultaneously lower and raise CO2 emissions?    
> Buggered if I know how this is all supposed to work out???

  Well said. 
Love the cartoon.

----------


## chrisp

I wonder what will happen if this thread reaches 3000 posts and nobody even notices?   :Rolleyes:

----------


## m6sports

So whats so bad about climate Change 
Everyone always complaints when its COLD 
If its warmer people wont use as much Electricity in heating there homes 
So in turn lowering CO2 emissions  :2thumbsup:  
i didnt want to read the last 3004 Posts but thats my contribution  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> Would anyone else care to comment or elaborate on the Doc's excellent find?.................

  The engineer in me has problems with the size of the mechanism on the valve.  Also, if it is a butterfly valve, the valve body is the wrong shape.

----------


## watson

> Would anyone else care to comment or elaborate on the Doc's excellent find?.................

  Yes....you're all fired. 
oops ....last job.
Now get back on topic or it'll never reach 4000

----------


## Dr Freud

> I wonder what will happen if this thread reaches 3000 posts and nobody even notices?

  I just assumed someone would secretly gazump the 3000.  :Biggrin:  
But I don't know if this sham can hold up for another 1k.

----------


## chrisp

> I just assumed someone would secretly gazump the 3000.  
> But I don't know if this sham can hold up for another 1k.

  Don't worry Doc, we'll keep going until Rod and you finally see sense - but I suspect we'll hit 10,000 posts before that though.   :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> Good point, Chris.  I guess that's why your on the big bucks down at woolies, hey?

  Absolutely.  We couldn't trust just anybody to put those stickers on the fruit and veggies - gee, they have to be on the right way up - and did you know those stickers are self-adhesive and they don't have to be licked?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> So whats so bad about climate Change 
> Everyone always complaints when its COLD 
> If its warmer people wont use as much Electricity in heating there homes 
> So in turn lowering CO2 emissions  
> i didnt want to read the last 3004 Posts but thats my contribution

  This makes more sense than most of the 3004 posts previously. 
We'll have to drag you down to our level.  :Beer:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yes....you're all fired. 
> oops ....last job.
> Now get back on topic or it'll never reach 4000

  Hey boss, your last job?   
And back on topic, what does the Donald reckon?  Looks like even Trump, who has openly supported liberals like Barack Obama, has joined the anti-global warming crowd. It is only logical that someone who plays such an integral part of our capitalist economy should question global warming. Trump knows that measures being proposed in Washington to fight global warming will not contribute in any notable way but will in fact destroy much of our already fragile economy.

----------


## Dr Freud

> This isn't looking good, kids.   
> I fear the Doc's "copy" source is scraping the bottom of the barrel...............

  That's because this whole farce is quickly going the way of the dodo. 
I recall some (like Rod  :2thumbsup: ) predicting the demise of this nonsense, but I think even us realists (oops, sceptics) have been amazed at how quickly it has unravelled.   
Maximum kudos to the whistleblower at UEA for Climategate.  Who knows how many trillions this person/s saved us.  Not to mention the opportunity cost of chasing this imagined threat at the expense of the real environmental issues. 
But it is making life difficult trying to find anyone talking about "the greatest moral, economic and environmental challenge of our generation". 
Especially anyone in our federal government?  Did aliens abduct Penny Wong?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> This isn't looking good, kids.  
> I fear the Doc's "copy" source is scraping the bottom of the barrel...............

  But I am still on a roll.   

> *From*  *Brooks Hanson* *Brooks Hanson is Deputy Editor for physical sciences at Science.* *If the scientific community does not aggressively address these issues, including communicating its process of discovery and recognizing its modern data responsibilities, and if society does not constructively engage science, then the scientific enterprise and the whole of society are in danger of losing their crucial rational relationship.*    *And in response Willis Eschenbach* 
> Well put. The problem is not that Inhofe has said some actions by top climate scientists are unethical and possibly illegal. The problem is that some top scientists acted in unethical and possibly illegal ways. The problem is not that people are sending hateful emails to scientists. It is that climate scientists have poisoned the well by publicly calling for the trial of people with whom they disagree, and then want to complain that people are being mean to them. The problem is not that states are taking to the law to fight bad science, it is that the bad science is so entrenched, and the peer review system has become so much of an old-boys club, that the only way to fight it is in the courts.
> This is the crux of the matter for climate scientists who wish to restore the lost trust: do honest, transparent, ethical science, and let the results fall where they may. Stop larding “scientific” papers with pounds of “might” and “could” and “may” and “possibly” and “conceivably”, we don’t care about your speculations, we want your science. Stop underestimating the errors and overestimating the certainty. Stop making up the “scary scenarios” advocated by Stephen Schneider. Stop calling for trials for people who don’t follow the party line

  Full article here Editorializing about the Editorial | Watts Up With That? 
[quote]  *Also from* *Willis Eschenbach* 
In this situation, the only honest thing a climate scientist can do is to do the best, clearest, and cleanest science possible; to be totally transparent and reveal all data and codes and methods; to insist that other climate scientists practice those same simple scientific principles; and to say “we don’t know” rather than “might possibly have a probabilistic chance of maybe happening” for all the rest. That is the only path to repairing the lost trust between the public and climate science.
Oh, yeah, and one more thing … apply those principles to scientific editorials as well. Don’t exaggerate, and provide some citations for scientific editorials, trying to trace these vague claims is both boring and frustrating …[quote] 
I whole heartedly agree with every thing Willis Eschenbach says here in his reply to the editorial by Hanson.

----------


## Dr Freud

Hey Rod, I really enjoyed this bit: 
"Climate science is a new science, one of the newest. We have only been studying climate extensively for a quarter century or so, and it is an incredibly difficult field of study. The climate is a hugely complex, driven, chaotic, resonant, constructal, terawatt-scale planetary heat engine. It contains five major subsystems (atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and cryosphere), none of which are well understood. Each of these subsystems has a host of forcings, resonances, inter-reservoir transfers, cycles, and feedbacks which operate both internally and between the subsystems. The climate has important processes which operate on spatial scales from atomic to planet-wide, and on temporal scales from nanoseconds to millions of years. Our present state of knowledge of that system contains more unknowns than knowns." 
But surely it's gotta be simpler than this.  If CO2 goes up, then temperature goes up.  If CO2 goes down, then temperature goes down.  :Blush7:  
This simpler model means we mighty humans can adjust the global temperature very easily, just like an aircon unit.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Stop the press!   I think it may be better to bring the real ETS back, rather than its much worse imposter.   Embittered by his failure to achieve (his emissions trading schemes) passage and faced with a resurgent opposition led by Tony Abbott, Rudd has seen his political salvation in the mining tax. Rudds desperation for revenues to plug the holes in his budget is revealed by his willingness to damage international perceptions of sovereign risk associated with investing in this nation. It is one of the most damaging acts of short-term populism in our nations history and not befitting the holder of the office of prime minister.   Read at the link why the ETS may actually have been better for us!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Stop the press!        I think it may be better to bring the real ETS back, rather than it’s much worse imposter.         Embittered by his failure to achieve (his emissions trading scheme’s) passage and faced with a resurgent opposition led by Tony Abbott, Rudd has seen his political salvation in the mining tax. Rudd’s desperation for revenues to plug the holes in his budget is revealed by his willingness to damage international perceptions of sovereign risk associated with investing in this nation. It is one of the most damaging acts of short-term populism in our nation’s history and not befitting the holder of the office of prime minister.         Read at the link why the ETS may actually have been better for us!

  Yes I cant see how Rudd can last. Or is this just wishfull thinking on my part?

----------


## chrisp

> Oh, OK.  Let me re-phrase that. 
> The Doc's scraping the bottom of the copy source barrel and Rod's rolling around the the bottom of the copy source barel........................

  Quoting Andrew Bolt and Donald Trump!   :No:   Their barrel must be very close to empty.   :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Quoting Andrew Bolt and Donald Trump!  Their barrel must be very close to empty.

  Now that depends entirely on your perspective now doesn't it. 
Not many left leaning folks like Andrew Bolt because they don't like the truth. Andrew is an opinion writer and says it how he see's it. I don't always agree with him but more often than not he is right.

----------


## chrisp

> Andrew is an opinion writer and says it how he see's it.

  And that's what grates with me and other here - you are using _opinion_ of others as some sort of basis or support for your opinion.  It would be better just to express your opinion and leave Andrew's opinion out of it.  If I want Andrew's opinion, I'll read the Hun.  I' d rather hear your opinion. 
Mind you, if you are quoting _facts_, by all means provide a quote, but to me quotes of others _opinions_ are just unnecessary.   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> And that's what grates with me and other here - you are using _opinion_ of others as some sort of basis or support for your opinion. It would be better just to express your opinion and leave Andrew's opinion out of it. If I want Andrew's opinion, I'll read the Hun. I' d rather hear your opinion.
> Mind you, if you are quoting _facts_, by all means provide a quote, but to me quotes of others _opinions_ are just unnecessary.

  
What are you on about, seriously?  This entire AGW scam revolves around opinion. Your scientist are casting an opinion, based on some pretty shoddy data, there is not one fact that proves AGW it is all opinion, and every opinion is just as valid as another.  If you don't like to read the opinion of others then don't.  </rant> 
I will coninue posting the opinion of others that I agree with here to see if you agree or disagree with that opinion.  This is not a test to see how much I know about AGW it is taking in all the information offered and then forming an opinion of your own based on your own perception of the validity of the information you are presented with.   
Personally I have a very good @@@@@@@@ meter and like to call a spade a spade. You can't accept any wrong doing by the climate scientists involved in climate gate, yet it is blatently obvious to most that read the emails.  You seem to be happy to defend anyone that shares you belief regardless of how blatently obvious it is to others.  That is what I would call denial.   How about Mann is his hockey stick the real deal? Was there a medieval warm period? or did it not exist as Mann sugests?     :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> And that's what grates with me and other here - you are using _opinion_ of others as some sort of basis or support for your opinion. It would be better just to express your opinion and leave Andrew's opinion out of it. If I want Andrew's opinion, I'll read the Hun. I' d rather hear your opinion.

  Actually, I like using reality as the basis or support for my opinion.  The change in climate as measured by us humans in the last few thousand years is so stable as to seem boring on a geological time scale.   
As for Mr Bolts opinion, it closely aligns my own, and therefore logic dictates it is superior compared to opposing opinions and should be shared with those less well informed.  :Biggrin:   But on a serious note, he has links to many others stories which makes my posts less verbose, a blessing in anyone's opinion.   

> Mind you, if you are quoting _facts_, by all means provide a quote, but to me quotes of others _opinions_ are just unnecessary.

  I guess based on this criteria, you will strongly oppose any references to the IPCC and its conclusions then?    

> It seems that the good Mr James has beaten you to the punch in finding out how the IPCC came up with it's 90% claim of certainty (his link below). Apparantly they just made it up! No maths, no science, just an opinion. Who would have thought?   *"It is sometimes claimed that the IPCC is 90 per cent confident of this claim, but there is no known statistical basis for this claim; it's purely subjective."* 
> You see, you could have figured this out had you read the link you provided above. I guess you either didn't read it, couldn't figure this out, or figured it out and didn't want to pass on this fact?   *No maths, no science, just an opinion.  Who would have thought?*

   

> *Gross generalisations and clutching at straws.  Who would have thought?* 
> Lets have a look at the IPPC refernce I gave earlier.  Here is a quote:"14. _Likelihood_, as defined in Table 4, refers to a probabilistic assessment of some well defined outcome having occurred or occurring in the future. The categories defined in this table should be considered as having fuzzy boundaries. Use other probability ranges where more appropriate but do not then use the terminology in table 4. *Likelihood may be based on quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views.* The central range of this scale should not be used to express a lack of knowledge  see paragraph 12 and Table 2 for that situation. There is evidence that readers may adjust their interpretation of this likelihood language according to the magnitude of perceived potential consequences [8]."*Table 4. Likelihood Scale.*Terminology Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcomeVirtually certain           > 99% probability of occurrence
> Very likely                  > 90% probability
> Likely                         > 66% probability
> About as likely as not   33 to 66% probability
> Unlikely                      < 33% probability
> Very unlikely               < 10% probability
> Exceptionally unlikely   < 1% probabilityI'd hardly call "*quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views*", what the article refers to as "*purely subjective*" as in 'lacking in reality or substance'.  But then again, it is you may choose to use that definition when it suits you. 
> My comments on this are pedantic - but this is necessary as your argument is based on a pedantic attempt to discredit the IPCC terminology.  *Do you truly believe that the IPCC findings are based upon "No maths, no science, just an opinion" or are you grossly over generalising your opinion too?*  
> ...

    

> "*quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views*" 
> So, which is it? * 
> Quantitative analysis* means that the 90% figure is derived from a probability calculation. Be nice if you could dig up the calculations for us to take a look at? *
> Elicitation of expert views* is a real fancy way of saying just an opinion. If you dress up this opinion with some numbers (90%) to make it sound more convincing, some people would refer to this as a sales pitch, I refer to it as the quantification of opinion, or in everyday terms, making --it up.  
> So I guess if you can dig up those calculations, I'll stand corrected?    *"Do you truly believe that the IPCC findings are based upon "No maths, no science, just an opinion" or are you grossly over generalising your opinion too?"* 
> Sorry if it was not clear, I am referring to the claim which you posted from the CSIRO, which is the oft quoted 90% certainty of the IPCC in AGW Theory. As Woodbe is so fond of pointing out, the IPCC does not do science, they are a political body, so are we talking about the opinion of a political body as the backbone supporting this theory?

  And finally, based on this same criteria, at last we have heard the end of the "consensus" argument.  For you see, when people agree on something based on a belief as opposed to verifiable facts, they are sharing a similar opinion.  So, the consensus nonsensus is purely opinion.  How's that for a fact.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

The planets have aligned.  What are the odds Andrew Bolt would have written an opinion piece on Michael Mann today? :Biggrin:   Yet another warming scare zapped | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog  
Spooky action at a distance?

----------


## chrisp

> What are you on about, seriously?  This entire AGW scam revolves around opinion.

  
Yer, yer.  I suppose the smoking-cases-cancer claim is just another opinion in your books too? 
There is a world of difference between a collective prevailing scientific view and a view from a newspaper columnist.  I know which I prefer.   :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> And finally, based on this same criteria, at last we have heard the end of the "consensus" argument.  For you see, when people agree on something based on a belief as opposed to verifiable facts, they are sharing a similar opinion.  So, the consensus nonsensus is purely opinion.  How's that for a fact.

  The reason that I posted the post that you quoted wasn't for a scientific rational for proving AGW, but rather to counter act the Anti-AGW propaganda that many/most scientists are now seriously questioning the basis of AGW - they aren't.  So called "climategate" has had very little, or no, impact on the science of AGW. 
The "fact" is that the author did a sample literature search and determined the stance of the papers on AGW.  The facts are in the numbers presented by the author.  These then support the authors view that the scientific community is very much in support/agreement about AGW.  What do you base your opinion on?  :Biggrin:  
Also, the word "opinion" has somewhat different meanings in general use to that in scientific use.   
In general usage, "opinion" is often just a feeling, preference or bias.  In scientific usage "opinion" is a considered view only given when the facts support that view.

----------


## chrisp

> On the subject of opinions. 
> I'd be very interested to know what Humphrey Bear has to *say* about this ETS.   
> Some days I don't make a move unless Humphrey has given his approval...........................

  Humphrey doesn't _say_ anything about anything - he's a mute.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Haven't played here in a while there's a series of articles in New Scientist built around the theme of 'Living with Denial' and exploring some of the reasons why science and scientists have in general failed to articulate and communicate effectively to the general community in the last little while.  It also explores the culture of denial and why it is an important part of human society. 
Check 'em out Living in denial: The truth is our only weapon - opinion - 23 May 2010 - New Scientist Living in denial: Questioning science isn't blasphemy - opinion - 22 May 2010 - New Scientist
...and there's a few more in the links off to one side 
or listed here http://www.newscientist.com/special/living-in-denial

----------


## chrisp

> Haven't played here in a while there's a series of articles in New Scientist built around the theme of 'Living with Denial' and exploring some of the reasons why science and scientists have in general failed to articulate and communicate effectively to the general community in the last little while.  It also explores the culture of denial and why it is an important part of human society. 
> Check 'em out Living in denial: The truth is our only weapon - opinion - 23 May 2010 - New Scientist Living in denial: Questioning science isn't blasphemy - opinion - 22 May 2010 - New Scientist
> ...and there's a few more in the links off to one side 
> or listed here Special report: Living in denial - New Scientist

  SDB, 
Thank you for providing the links to those articles. 
I have been somewhat perplexed by the rigidity of the anti-AGW sentiment expressed by some.  I can fully understand an anti-ETS or anti-carbon-tax view as these are political stances.  But the anti-AGW stance goes against the accepted scientific view (i.e. this is not politics). 
I do recall seeing a Q&A program on the ABC awhile back that shed some insight in to the reason some might hold an anti-AGW view of the world. 
The whole transcript of the program can be found at Conservatives, Comedians and Political Correctness | Q&A | ABC TV  
Here is the part I thought was interesting:*TONY JONES*: Well, but is climate change and global warming a  conservative idea? Do you think the scientists are conservative or  radical?  *WALEED ALY* : I think they're being scientists. I don't  know that, you know - let's just - this is a - let's just say something  up front. Let's just all be honest. Most people in this room, unless  there are climatologists among us, really have no idea about whether or  not climate change is real. What's happening, though, is that we make  decisions about whether or not we are going to believe that it is real  or not and usually we make those decisions on the basis of what we want  the answer to be and that is _why you find that at the moment on the  conservative side of party politics around the world you are more like  to find people who are climate sceptics or denialists because - because  that side of politics has overwhelmingly bought into the idea of  neo-liberalism and the idea that the free market should be our guiding  philosophy. Not just the free market is a good thing, but it's our  guiding political philosophy. And when you buy that, climate change  becomes very difficult to accommodate._ So this becomes an ideological  contest for people who are of that persuasion, _because the minute they  accept the reality of climate change, it destroys the idea that the  market is our guiding philosophy, and so they are forced, essentially,  to start from a position that says, well, we need to deny this, and then  they will look around for data and scientists here and there and so on  and nothing amuses me more than seeing bloggers and pundits and  columnists and all sorts of - and broadcasters who are not scientists  pretending to have scientific debates..._ 
(The emphasis is mine - for the time-poor readers of this thread.)For those of you how are unfamiliar with the Q&A program, Tony Jones is the presenter of the Q&A program.   Waleed Aly. who was a guest on that program, is a lecturer in politics at Monash University, where he also works within the Global Terrorism Research Centre. 
I found that this article helps to partly explain why some are somehow translating a scientific problem (or theory) in to a political agenda.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Yer, yer. I suppose the smoking-cases-cancer claim is just another opinion in your books too?

  Very very malicious statement there Chrisp.  You know from my previous posts that I do not disagree with the smoking causes cancer argument.  You can't seem to realize that logical people can differentiate between the validity of arguments  on a subject based on facts and opinions from a broad rescource, not simply based on political lines. 
In other words, just because a person has one opinion on a subect  that I agree with does not mean I agree with everything that person says.  Unlike what you seem so desperate to convey.  
I see truth where ever its told, I do not have a prejudice that precludes me listening and taking heed of what they say, unlike some around here.   
I literally hate it when someone says "what would he know he is only a ..........".  Everyone or anyone can have a valid opinion on any subject.  I feel very sorry for those who care not to listen just because of a pre-concieved idea that the person can not possibly know something simply due to prejudice.  
Sorry mate you are so wrong.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Haven't played here in a while there's a series of articles in New Scientist built around the theme of 'Living with Denial' and exploring some of the reasons why science and scientists have in general failed to articulate and communicate effectively to the general community in the last little while. It also explores the culture of denial and why it is an important part of human society. 
> Check 'em out Living in denial: The truth is our only weapon - opinion - 23 May 2010 - New Scientist Living in denial: Questioning science isn't blasphemy - opinion - 22 May 2010 - New Scientist
> ...and there's a few more in the links off to one side 
> or listed here Special report: Living in denial - New Scientist

  Exactly what are skeptic supposed to be denying? 
That climate change is real?  No, I doubt that there is anyone that would deny climate change is real. 
That temperatures have increaced over the last 100 years? No, again it is very apparent that temperatures have increased. 
That co2 emissions have increased? No again this is very clear and measureable. 
What most skeptics disagree with is that co2 is the cause of climate change or temperature increases. This is not denial because these are not facts and cannot be proven to be true.   
I don't think it is the sckeptics that are in denial.

----------


## chrisp

> Very very malicious statement there Chrisp.  You know from my previous posts that I do not disagree with the smoking causes cancer argument.  You can't seem to realize that logical people can differentiate between the validity of arguments  on a subject based on facts and opinions from a broad rescource, not simply based on political lines. 
> In other words, just because a person has one opinion on a subect  that I agree with does not mean I agree with everything that person says.  Unlike what you seem so desperate to convey.  
> I see truth where ever its told, I do not have a prejudice that precludes me listening and taking heed of what they say, unlike some around here.   
> I literally hate it when someone says "what would he know he is only a ..........".  Everyone or anyone can have a valid opinion on any subject.  I feel very sorry for those who care not to listen just because of a pre-concieved idea that the person can not possibly know something simply due to prejudice.  
> Sorry mate you are so wrong.

  Rod, 
I very much enjoyed reading your post - I'm just not sure if you are responding to me or to yourself!  :Rolleyes:  
The "smoking-causes-cancer" analogy wasn't intended to be malice, but rather a comment that this too is the accept prevailing scientific view.  You seem to be able to accept scientific view that smoking causes cancer but you get all up in arms when science says AGW is happening. 
As to political lines, it seems that it is _your side_ that frequently makes, or quotes, political comments (I should underline comment - as "a statement that expresses a personal opinion").  AGW isn't a political issue - it is a scientific issue. 
I agree that everyone can have an opinion - but please understand that it is just an opinion (Opinion: A personal belief or judgement that is not founded on proof or certainty).   
AGW is not an issue to be decided in the political arena - it is nothing to do with politics!  It is not like we can simply pass an anti-AGW bill and AGW will go away (just like we can't simply pass a bill that makes smoking harmless).   The right or wrong of an ETS is a political issue or matter.  An ETS is an example of a political tool to put in place actions to overcome the AGW problem. 
When the prevailing scientific view of the world and my view of the world are are at odds, I'd be seriously question my views.  :Wink:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The ole "Logical People" line again.................... 
> I'd like to know how Rod defines a logical person outside his beloved ETS mindset. 
> You do realise, Rod that history has long list of logical people who failed miserably. 
> I guess, if Columbus used his logic we'd still be living on a flat world, hey Rod. 
> Fortunately, Columbus ignored all the so called "Logical people" and found the truth................... 
> Logical people.........NIL
> ill- logical people.......ONE

  So who really was the logical person here?  Prime example of how an 'ill-logical" majority can be proved wrong by a logical few :Wink: .

----------


## dazzler

> SDB,   *WALEED ALY*  [/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=2]: I think they're being scientists. I don't  know that, you know - let's just - this is a - let's just say something  up front. Let's just all be honest. Most people in this room, unless  there are climatologists among us, really have no idea about whether or  not climate change is real. What's happening, though, is that we make  decisions about whether or not we are going to believe that it is real  or not and usually we make those decisions on the basis of what we want  the answer to be and that is _why you find that at the moment on the  conservative side of party politics around the world you are more like  to find people who are climate sceptics or denialists because - because  that side of politics has overwhelmingly bought into the idea of  neo-liberalism and the idea that the free market should be our guiding  philosophy. Not just the free market is a good thing, but it's our  guiding political philosophy. And when you buy that, climate change  becomes very difficult to accommodate._ So this becomes an ideological  contest for people who are of that persuasion, _because the minute they  accept the reality of climate change, it destroys the idea that the  market is our guiding philosophy, and so they are forced, essentially,  to start from a position that says, well, we need to deny this, and then  they will look around for data and scientists here and there and so on  and nothing amuses me more than seeing bloggers and pundits and  columnists and all sorts of - and broadcasters who are not scientists  pretending to have scientific debates..._   
> I found that this article helps to partly explain why some are somehow translating a scientific problem (or theory) in to a political agenda.

  Sums it up pretty good really.  Which is probably why this thread has more circle work than a B and S.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> I very much enjoyed reading your post - I'm just not sure if you are responding to me or to yourself!

  I am glad you enjoyed it.  

> The "smoking-causes-cancer" analogy wasn't intended to be malice, but rather a comment that this too is the accept prevailing scientific view. You seem to be able to accept scientific view that smoking causes cancer but you get all up in arms when science says AGW is happening.

  Ok if not malice it is ignorance.   
You don't seem to be see the difference and the stupidity of this argument.  Just because science is right on the question of smoking it does not automatically make it right on AGW or indeed other issues.  Science has been proven wrong on many issues over the years.  This is a fact now you should get over it and move on to try and explain why science is right on AGW rather than say is is because they are scientist.  If so how do you explain the science that says AGW is not happening to any degree that should be cause for alarm they cant be both right? :Confused:   yet the two camps are scientists, your logic fails right here.  Oh but wait........ ah! I hear you say..... but but but they are not real scientist.  OH BOY give me a break.   

> As to political lines, it seems that it is _your side_ that frequently makes, or quotes, political comments (I should underline comment - as "a statement that expresses a personal opinion"). AGW isn't a political issue - it is a scientific issue.   
> I agree that everyone can have an opinion - but please understand that it is just an opinion (Opinion: A personal belief or judgement that is not founded on proof or certainty).

  Generally opinions are formed from reading the "facts" and "opinions" of others and then weighing up the relevent information to form your own opinion.  No scientist has an opinion on AGW based on certainty.  Because in the AGW theory there is NO certainty. just another thing you need to come to terms with. 
[quote} 
AGW is not an issue to be decided in the political arena - it is nothing to do with politics! It is not like we can simply pass an anti-AGW bill and AGW will go away (just like we can't simply pass a bill that makes smoking harmless). The right or wrong of an ETS is a political issue or matter. An ETS is an example of a political tool to put in place actions to overcome the AGW problem.[/quote] 
I agree it should not be a political issue but it has been turned into one by both alarmists and skeptics. So like it or not it is now a political problem.  

> When the prevailing scientific view of the world and my view of the world are are at odds, I'd be seriously question my views.

  As headpin nicely pointed out in a post above the prevailing scientific view was that the world was flat. ......... You get the picture.   
As you will see the "prevailing" view on AGW will change as the empirical record keeps refusing to validate the AGW theory.

----------


## chrisp

> As you will see the "prevailing" view on AGW will change as the empirical record keeps refusing to validate the AGW theory.

  Have you found any?  If so, you better let most of the world's scientific bodies know because they must have missed it.

----------


## chrisp

> Sums it up pretty good really.  Which is probably why this thread has more circle work than a B and S.

  Dazzler, 
I liked the quote too.  It helped explain some peoples' reactions.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Have you found any? If so, you better let most of the world's scientific bodies know because they must have missed it.

  Ho Hum, even Phil Jones recognizes temperatures have not gone up since 1998.  Now what were the models predicting?   
I guess its a traversty that they can't explain why temperatures have not gone up! 
Ask Trenberth what he thinks about the travesty. :Biggrin: . 
Now where was that evidence that matches the predictions? :Blush7:

----------


## chrisp

*What Rod claims:*   

> Ho Hum, even Phil Jones recognizes temperatures have not gone up since 1998.  Now what were the models predicting?   
> I guess its a traversty that they can't explain why temperatures have not gone up! 
> Ask Trenberth what he thinks about the travesty.. 
> Now where was that evidence that matches the predictions?

  *What Phil Jones actually said:**B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no  statistically-significant global warming*
Yes, but only just. I  also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend  (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95%  significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the  significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific  terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for  shorter periods. 
(from: BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones ) Rod, you make it sound like Phil Jones has said the temperature didn't go up - did he say that? 
But let's not let those annoying *facts* get in the way of an *opinion*.  :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> Ask Trenberth what he thinks about the travesty..

  Good idea!  Let's look.  You can find his paper here: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenbert...cs09final2.pdf 
As the publisher has stipulated strict copyright conditions on this paper, I won't quote from it here. 
Why don't you have a look - even skip read it if you want - and see what the overall impression of the author is?  I don't think you will find that it supports your implied contention at all.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The reason that I posted the post that you quoted wasn't for a scientific rational for proving AGW, but rather to counter act the Anti-AGW propaganda that many/most scientists are now seriously questioning the basis of AGW - they aren't.  So called "climategate" has had very little, or no, impact on the science of AGW. 
> The "fact" is that the author did a sample literature search and determined the stance of the papers on AGW.  The facts are in the numbers presented by the author.  These then support the authors view that the scientific community is very much in support/agreement about AGW.  What do you base your opinion on?  
> Also, the word "opinion" has somewhat different meanings in general use to that in scientific use.   
> In general usage, "opinion" is often just a feeling, preference or bias.  In scientific usage "opinion" is a considered view only given when the facts support that view.

  I agree, Climategate had little or no impact on the science of AGW Theory (you may choose to start adding the word "Theory" as well.  Ignoring the fact it is theoretical doesn't make it real  :Biggrin: ).   
But the science was always spurious, and still is.  I have asked people on this site to present any evidence whatsoever showing that AGW Theory has any empirical evidence proving it, and they cannot.  The only conditions I stipulate is that spurious correlations, computer models, and political or scientific "opinions" cannot be included.  Suddenly the whole illusion disappears. 
I have posted numerous links to Chapter 9, but no takers. 
No, Climategate had no impact on the science itself, it merely dragged this debacle into the harsh glare of scrutiny. 
As for the consensus article, I will run to 10,000 posts explaining how wrong it is. But to save time, I have already said, I will conceded that 100% of all scientists, all people, all Gods, and all creatures great and small agree that AGW Theory is real.  As a self-proclaimed scientist, can you tell me if this in fact makes it real? 
I have also already said what I base my opinion on, it's a place called reality.  I've sent invitations to the IPCC, but they don't want to visit.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Haven't played here in a while there's a series of articles in New Scientist built around the theme of 'Living with Denial' and exploring some of the reasons why science and scientists have in general failed to articulate and communicate effectively to the general community in the last little while.  It also explores the culture of denial and why it is an important part of human society. 
> Check 'em out Living in denial: The truth is our only weapon - opinion - 23 May 2010 - New Scientist Living in denial: Questioning science isn't blasphemy - opinion - 22 May 2010 - New Scientist
> ...and there's a few more in the links off to one side 
> or listed here Special report: Living in denial - New Scientist

  I wholeheartedly agree that people who deny the climate has been changing since the Planet formed 4.5 billion years ago have serious issues.  These people think it was perfectly stable until 100 years ago when we started the industrial age.  Talk about living in denial.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> SDB, 
> Thank you for providing the links to those articles. 
> I have been somewhat perplexed by the rigidity of the anti-AGW sentiment expressed by some.  I can fully understand an anti-ETS or anti-carbon-tax view as these are political stances.  But the anti-AGW stance goes against the accepted scientific view (i.e. this is not politics). 
> I do recall seeing a Q&A program on the ABC awhile back that shed some insight in to the reason some might hold an anti-AGW view of the world. 
> The whole transcript of the program can be found at Conservatives, Comedians and Political Correctness | Q&A | ABC TV  
> Here is the part I thought was interesting:*TONY JONES*: Well, but is climate change and global warming a  conservative idea? Do you think the scientists are conservative or  radical?  *WALEED ALY* : I think they're being scientists. I don't  know that, you know - let's just - this is a - let's just say something  up front. Let's just all be honest. Most people in this room, unless  there are climatologists among us, really have no idea about whether or  not climate change is real. What's happening, though, is that we make  decisions about whether or not we are going to believe that it is real  or not and usually we make those decisions on the basis of what we want  the answer to be and that is _why you find that at the moment on the  conservative side of party politics around the world you are more like  to find people who are climate sceptics or denialists because - because  that side of politics has overwhelmingly bought into the idea of  neo-liberalism and the idea that the free market should be our guiding  philosophy. Not just the free market is a good thing, but it's our  guiding political philosophy. And when you buy that, climate change  becomes very difficult to accommodate._ So this becomes an ideological  contest for people who are of that persuasion, _because the minute they  accept the reality of climate change, it destroys the idea that the  market is our guiding philosophy, and so they are forced, essentially,  to start from a position that says, well, we need to deny this, and then  they will look around for data and scientists here and there and so on  and nothing amuses me more than seeing bloggers and pundits and  columnists and all sorts of - and broadcasters who are not scientists  pretending to have scientific debates..._ 
> (The emphasis is mine - for the time-poor readers of this thread.)For those of you how are unfamiliar with the Q&A program, Tony Jones is the presenter of the Q&A program.   Waleed Aly. who was a guest on that program, is a lecturer in politics at Monash University, where he also works within the Global Terrorism Research Centre. 
> I found that this article helps to partly explain why some are somehow translating a scientific problem (or theory) in to a political agenda.

  Waleed Aly is an idiot.  Once again, it would take too long to explain in how many ways his thought bubble above is ridiculous.  But just for starters, all AGW Theory proponents claim that the free markets are the best way of solving this problem through a price on carbon.  So why would free market ideologues be opposed to the concept of AGW Theory?  In fact, it is the financial marketeers themselves who have been pushing the idea of global carbon markets harder than the IPCC, as they stand to make trillions from this fiction, literally taxing and trading fresh air. Yes, an idiot.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *What Rod claims:*    *What Phil Jones actually said:**B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no  statistically-significant global warming*
> Yes, but only just. I  also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend  (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95%  significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the  significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific  terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for  shorter periods. 
> (from: BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones ) Rod, you make it sound like Phil Jones has said the temperature didn't go up - did he say that? 
> But let's not let those annoying *facts* get in the way of an *opinion*.

   

> Good idea!  Let's look.  You can find his paper here: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenbert...cs09final2.pdf 
> As the publisher has stipulated strict copyright conditions on this paper, I won't quote from it here. 
> Why don't you have a look - even skip read it if you want - and see what the overall impression of the author is?  I don't think you will find that it supports your implied contention at all.

  Hey, I've got a better idea. 
Why don't we get all the world's scientists that believe in AGW Theory in one place at one time to present the best scientific evidence they can muster, then present this evidence to most of the worlds leaders, even if it takes days.  We can even exclude all science and evidence to the contrary to make the case even more compelling.  :2thumbsup:  
Then the world's leaders can demonstrate how much stock they place in this science by implementing global policies to mitigate any threat they have been convinced may exist. 
Wow, really weird deja vu writing that.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yer, yer.  I suppose the smoking-cases-cancer claim is just another opinion in your books too?

  Anterograde or retrograde? 
A quick search of this thread will bring it all flooding back.  
Meanwhile, back in AGW Theory Land, reality continually refuses to yield to computer models. Pesky reality, naughty reality.  :Sneaktongue:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I wonder how far we can stretch the boundaries of possible toxic emissions before life on earth is impossible.......................

   

> C02 aside.  Won't lowering or eliminating man made toxic emissions into the atmosphere be bettter for all life on earth?

  Hell yeh.  As soon as Rudd introduces the Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Nitric Oxides, Nitrogen Dioxides, Nitric acid (Acid rain), Lead oxide, Ozone, Unburnt fuel, Particulate matter (Soot), Photochemical smog pollution reduction scheme (CMHNONDNALOOUFPMPSPRS),  he'll get my vote. 
But I don't think spending trillions trying to reduce CO2 (or water vapour) or other benign greenhouse agents is going to help.   

> Its not me, its the bozos at the IPCC, and their band of merry men, blindly following along.  It is well documented that I have no issues whatsoever with CO2.  As soon as these bozos reach a similar conclusion, and our Prime Muppet drops the last pretence of his Enormous Taxation Scheme, this whole thread (and global delusion) will end.   It is also well documented that I support a cleaner environment, I support better controls of pollution, I advocate strongly for serious funding and research into commercial applications of solar energy, I support a transition from coal to nuclear pending this solar breakthrough, I support reducing fossil fuel dependence, primarily for energy security reasons, but also for environmental reasons.  Bottom line, I hate pollution with a passion, and the diversion of resources to AGW Theory *instead of* rectifying these issues pisses me off no end.  This is no small amount of money.   I will provide another example, regarding oil burning pollution being ignored while this irrational nonsense is blatantly lied about to kids, and all fully funded by us stupid taxpayers blindly following along.   Check this out:   Exhaust gas or flue gas is emitted as a result of the combustion of fuels such as natural gas, gasoline/petrol, diesel fuel, fuel oil or coal.  The largest part of most combustion gases is nitrogen (N2), water vapor (H2O) (except with pure-carbon fuels), and carbon dioxide(CO2) (except for fuels with no carbon in); these are not toxic or noxious (although carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming). A relatively small part of it is undesirable noxious or toxic substances, such as carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOx), Ozone(O3), partly unburnt fuel, and particulate matter.   And this:   The reaction that works the engine of an automobile is simply a combustion (burning) of petrol (gasoline), diesel oil, or LPG (propane).  But because of the way the motor is designed and tuned, the actual composition of exhaust fumes is rather more complicated than that.  So ideally the composition might be something like 70% nitrogen, 15% carbon dioxide, 15% water vapour.  However, not all of the fuel burns completely. So the exhaust stream may contain carbon monoxide (very poisonous), soot, and unburnt petrol.  The other significant material that is present in car exhaust is nitric oxide.  When this nitric oxide cools, it can react further with the air to produce nitrogen dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide is a poisonous and corrosive brown gas. It is the substance that reacts in sunlight to start off the very complicated series of reactions that produce photochemical smog (Los Angeles type smog). In cool damp conditions, it can alternatively react with water droplets to produce nitric acid, and acid rain.  Leaded petrol is still used in many places (including here in Australia). When petrol burns, the tetraethyl lead produces lead oxide as a very fine dust. This is a poisoning hazard, both in terms of direct inhalation, and in terms of helping maintain a high content of lead in the street dust along busy roads.   Now based on this information, it would be reasonable to conclude that burning oil/coal/gas produces both benign and toxic/noxious/poisonous gases.  We could produce two lists:   Benign   Nitrogen Water Vapour (a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming-Wiki forgot to mention this) Carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming-Wiki remembered to mention this)   Noxious   Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitric Oxides Nitrogen Dioxides Nitric acid (Acid rain) Lead oxide Ozone Unburnt fuel Particulate matter (Soot)
> Photochemical smog   Now watch the animation on this link (click on the Transformer or the days of change logo).  This animation also runs in this exact format in television ads screened during prime time viewing.  The cute transformer is obviously designed to gets the kids attention.  This transformer is also plastered all over our trains here in WA, to reinforce this message to kids.  You will need sound.   Transperth Homepage    Did you hear all those nasty toxic and poisonous substances listed?   I think we can all agree that pollution sucks.  All that remains is that we all agree to spend trillions of dollars on renewable energy and removing pollution, rather than chasing fictional green rabbits based on the opinion of enviro-wackos working for the UN.

   

> Is that an exact figure, Doc.  Cause I was leaning towards 4.3256 billion years ago.................

  I tend to lose count myself, I was a lot younger back then.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Let's say we all buy into this myth, that CO2 is "poisonous" and going to kill the Planet. 
And in this mythology, continue to ignore the real pollution. 
Then one day, BP and it's mates invent a CO2 splitter, which converts fossil fuel emissions of CO2 into "harmless" emissions.  They then fit this new technology to all vehicles and power plants, and we continue to burn fossil fuels with all "toxic" emissions listed above still happily going on.  But as we all bought into the CO2 bogeyman, what do we do, say we got cheated because oil companies got rid of the threat we pretended was real.  :No:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> What most skeptics disagree with is that co2 is the cause of climate change or temperature increases. This is not denial because these are not facts and cannot be proven to be true.   
> I don't think it is the sckeptics that are in denial.

  Actually....this part of the 'climate change' mechanism was demonstrated in the 19th century (with respect to CO2 anyway) and continues to be demonstrated in high school classrooms, green house and aquariums around the world to this day.   
Other contributors to the 'greenhouse effect' (such as methane and other complex compounds) have also been proven and scientifically demonstrated - mostly way back in the 20th century.  
If you want....you can do the experiment yourself.  Obtain two or three simple relatively air tight containers - a small timber frame with plastic wrap on it is sufficient - and install a thermometer in each.  Load one up with plain old air, load another up with air plus a little CO2 (crack a few soda bulbs), load another up with a bit of methane (fart in a jar?).  Leave them all in a sunny spot and observe the temperature change in each over time - keep any eye on the outside air temperature as well.  Provided that none of the containers leak (especially with ones with added CO2 or methane)....I could pretty much gaurantee that the ones dosed with CO2 or methane will finish up hotter than the plain old air. 
Works for the kids so there's no reason it can't work for you too.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Then one day, BP and it's mates invent a CO2 splitter, which converts fossil fuel emissions of CO2 into "harmless" emissions.  They then fit this new technology to all vehicles and power plants, and we continue to burn fossil fuels with all "toxic" emissions listed above still happily going on.  But as we all bought into the CO2 bogeyman, what do we do, say we got cheated because oil companies got rid of the threat we pretended was real.

  That's actually demonstrably hard to do if you know a little about physics.....splitting CO2....takes a bit of energy and produces (among other things carbon monoxide - which really is poisonous) little of economic value.  Going the other way though is much easier (combining it with something else)...plants do it all the time.  And so does the chemical industry. 
CO2 is not in itself a poison....the only way it will directly kill a human being is by displacing oxygen - to do that it has to be present in vast quantities (like in a freezer half full of dry ice).  In actual fact, oxygen is a far far more toxic substance, pound for pound, than carbon dioxide.

----------


## chrisp

> Actually....this part of the 'climate change' mechanism was demonstrated in the 19th century (with respect to CO2 anyway) and continues to be demonstrated in high school classrooms, green house and aquariums around the world to this day.   
> Other contributors to the 'greenhouse effect' (such as methane and other complex compounds) have also been proven and scientifically demonstrated - mostly way back in the 20th century.  
> If you want....you can do the experiment yourself.  Obtain two or three simple relatively air tight containers - a small timber frame with plastic wrap on it is sufficient - and install a thermometer in each.  Load one up with plain old air, load another up with air plus a little CO2 (crack a few soda bulbs), load another up with a bit of methane (fart in a jar?).  Leave them all in a sunny spot and observe the temperature change in each over time - keep any eye on the outside air temperature as well.  Provided that none of the containers leak (especially with ones with added CO2 or methane)....I could pretty much gaurantee that the ones dosed with CO2 or methane will finish up hotter than the plain old air. 
> Works for the kids so there's no reason it can't work for you too.

  Myth Busters did something similar using small rooms (mini hothouses) instead of containers and, I think, may have used a controlled light source too.  From memory, it was a "student" episode and the experiment was conducted by a young teenage boy.  I don't think they used methane, but they certainly did use plain air and enhanced CO2 air.  The results were as SDB predicts - CO2 loaded air was hotter.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Myth Busters did something similar using small rooms (mini hothouses) instead of containers and, I think, may have used a controlled light source too. From memory, it was a "student" episode and the experiment was conducted by a young teenage boy. I don't think they used methane, but they certainly did use plain air and enhanced CO2 air. The results were as SDB predicts - CO2 loaded air was hotter.

  I seem to remeber reading something about this experiment some time ago. I will see if i can dig it up.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I seem to remeber reading something about this experiment some time ago. I will see if i can dig it up.

  Ah here it is BBC botches grade school CO2 science experiment on live TV – with indepedent lab results to prove it | Watts Up With That? Now don't shoot the messenger! 
BTW it is quite clear that co2 is a "greenhouse" gas.  The real issue is how much effect has CO2 in isolation has on temperatures. Is CO2 the real cause of temperature fluctuation in our climate, if so how much.  If you double the CO2, what will the temperature be?  
In these experiments the CO2 used is far greater that 380 pts per million. All it does is confirms what is already known and that is that CO2 is a green house gas.  This does not prove that an increase from 380 ppm to 500 ppm will increase atmospheric temperatures to a degree that will be a danger rather than a benefit to man.

----------


## chrisp

> Ah here it is BBC botches grade school CO2 science experiment on live TV  with indepedent lab results to prove it | Watts Up With That? Now don't shoot the messenger! 
> BTW it is quite clear that co2 is a "greenhouse" gas.  The real issue is how much effect has CO2 in isolation has on temperatures. Is CO2 the real cause of temperature fluctuation in our climate, if so how much.  If you double the CO2, what will the temperature be?  
> In these experiments the CO2 used is far greater that 380 pts per million. All it does is confirms what is already known and that is that CO2 is a green house gas.  This does not prove that an increase from 380 ppm to 500 ppm will increase atmospheric temperatures to a degree that will be a danger rather than a benefit to man.

  The MythBusters episode, the "Young Scientist Special", can be found here: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I"]YouTube - Mythbusters confirm carbon dioxide warms air[/ame]  
They used methane too. 
The myth was "Confirmed" - just thought you'd like to know that.  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> They used methane too. 
> The myth was "Confirmed" - just thought you'd like to know that.

  No one I know disputes that cO2 is a green house gas.

----------


## chrisp

Apparently there is a Starbucks cup out with an interesting message:
(I don't know if it is real or a fake.)   
Image from: Demotivational Posters. Rate,create,browse demotivational posters. With 50,000+, Motifake.com is the largest demotivational posters commmunity

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> BTW it is quite clear that co2 is a "greenhouse" gas.   
> The real issue is how much effect has CO2 in isolation has on temperatures. Is CO2 the real cause of temperature fluctuation in our climate, if so how much.  If you double the CO2, what will the temperature be?  
> In these experiments the CO2 used is far greater that 380 pts per million. All it does is confirms what is already known and that is that CO2 is a green house gas.  This does not prove that an increase from 380 ppm to 500 ppm will increase atmospheric temperatures to a degree that will be a danger rather than a benefit to man.

  Para 1: that's not what you said in the original quotation 
Para 2: That's not the issue - CO2 does not work in isolation and the boffins are well aware of it and they even take that into account in their analysis. Is it the real cause? On its own? Hell No! It is just one of the major contributing factors along with other 'greenhouse' gases.  It actually isn't a very effective greenhouse gas but there's a vast amount of it.  Methane is a vastly more effective greenhouse gas (as are many other hydrocarbons and fluorocarbons) but fortunately there's not that much of it in the atmosphere....yet.  Atmospheric methane concentrations have been trending upwards for some time now. If CO2 levels double how hot will it get? No idea. Warmer than now certainly.  Would the heat rise alone threaten humanity? No. The danger is in the knock-on effects.  And they are notoriously hard to imagine and therefore predict.   
Think about the time you shoved a screw bit into your hand, Rod.  That alone wouldn't kill you but would you have predicted beforehand that the impact would cause you to go woozy, nearly fall off your stilts and then struggle to find a safe spot because you hadn't thought you might ever fall off your stilts? Now that could've killed you.  Same goes with the predictions and responses around our climate...they are tricky & hard to predict...is it such a ridiculous argument to suggest that we put up a bit of scaffolding/risk protection just in case? 
Para 3: Very true.  All it proves is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  Also true that it is extremely unlikely that the experiment will allow you to predict/model a specific  temperature increase for a given CO2 concentration.  The point (one of them) that is getting lost here is that it is not the increasing air temperature that will kill you - it is the knock-on effect that such a thing contributes to.  Eventually these knock-ons have the capacity to manifest themselves in physical ways that could threaten your way of life...if not your life itself.  
In a *typical job site risk analysis*...the *likelihood* remains under discussion but the odds are that something will happen in the next 20 years, the *consequence* could conceivably be devastating to a large number of people so therefore the risk would be considered '*high*', a level that obliges one to take action to *reduce risk*. Fortunately, there are practical remedial risk abatement options available to those on the job site - we just have to pick one.  What would you do?  Argue about the risk or consider a least effort risk abatement activity? If the latter then good on you.  What harm is a bit of scaffolding?

----------


## Dr Freud

> That's actually demonstrably hard to do if you know a little about physics.....splitting CO2....takes a bit of energy and produces (among other things carbon monoxide - which really is poisonous) little of economic value.  Going the other way though is much easier (combining it with something else)...plants do it all the time.  And so does the chemical industry.

  I wasn't suggesting this as the way to go, quite the opposite.  The actualisation of my thought bubble would be disastrous (luckily sequestration is also proving it's uselessness).  Now please don't go steering those greedy corporations in the right direction with suggestions of what would work.  :Biggrin:    

> CO2 is not in itself a poison....

  You obviously didn't see the Transformer.  :Sayitaintso:

----------


## Dr Freud

> ...The danger is in the knock-on effects.  And they are notoriously hard to imagine and therefore predict...   
>   ...Eventually these knock-ons have the capacity to manifest themselves in physical ways that could threaten your way of life...if not your life itself...

  So if they are hard to imagine and hard to predict, they could also improve your way of life, and improve your life itself.  :2thumbsup:  
Oh yeh, this is after assuming AGW Theory is not a crock and assuming it makes any discernible difference against the background noise of other variations.  :Biggrin:  
I'll get one of these ready just in case, but if you mean the knock-on effects predicated on computer models and asumptions, I think we'll be ok.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Myth Busters did something similar using small rooms (mini hothouses) instead of containers and, I think, may have used a controlled light source too. From memory, it was a "student" episode and the experiment was conducted by a young teenage boy. I don't think they used methane, but they certainly did use plain air and enhanced CO2 air. The results were as SDB predicts - CO2 loaded air was hotter.

  This is a great "controlled" experiment for kids to do, as we know the answer will always be the same.  Hence the name "controlled".  Google extraneous variables or confounding variables and you will hopefully understand why these results are not generalisable to the real world.  Remember this:   

> Hey Rod, I really enjoyed this bit: 
> "Climate science is a new science, one of the newest. We have only been studying climate extensively for a quarter century or so, and it is an incredibly difficult field of study. The climate is a hugely complex, driven, chaotic, resonant, constructal, terawatt-scale planetary heat engine. It contains five major subsystems (atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and cryosphere), none of which are well understood. Each of these subsystems has a host of forcings, resonances, inter-reservoir transfers, cycles, and feedbacks which operate both internally and between the subsystems. The climate has important processes which operate on spatial scales from atomic to planet-wide, and on temporal scales from nanoseconds to millions of years. Our present state of knowledge of that system contains more unknowns than knowns." 
> But surely it's gotta be simpler than this. If CO2 goes up, then temperature goes up. If CO2 goes down, then temperature goes down.  
> This simpler model means we mighty humans can adjust the global temperature very easily, just like an aircon unit.

  Here's the full read from Rod.    

> Full article here Editorializing about the Editorial | Watts Up With That?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Lord Monckton wins global warming debate at Oxford Union 
This is an interesting read, a debate in the Oxford Union on AGW was won by the "skeptic by 135 votes to 110. 
The arguments put forward can be read here. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/2...on/#more-19868 
Is it any wonder this is happening. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/sc...25climate.html  The Brits are starting to come to their senses it seems.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Here's a new-ish CC summary from Barrie Pittock that was published in the journal 'Climatic Change' back in February.  The first half provides a potted history of climate change science and includes references to the original (& critical) scientific papers 
Well worth a read ...only 7 pages  http://www.springerlink.com/content/...1/fulltext.pdf

----------


## Vin

You folks still at it, :Roflmao:  this will end up the longest thread on the internet, you going for  Guinness World Records . :2thumbsup:  
I guess while your arguing here you ain't driving the car pumping co2 in the atmosphere.

----------


## chrisp

> You folks still at it,

  Vin, 
It does seem futile at times, but we are making progress... slooowly...  *From:* (page 14)  

> One thing is for certain, and that is, there is  NO credible scientific link to CO2 controlling temperatures

  *To:* (page 205)  

> No one I know disputes that cO2 is a green house  gas.

  So slowly, that I don't think Rod has noticed.  :Smilie:

----------


## Vin

That looks pretty conclusive to me  :2thumbsup:  
Rod did you really make both of those statements :Blush7:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You folks still at it, this will end up the longest thread on the internet, you going for  Guinness World Records .

  
Haven't got a hope.  This one here Wheeeeewww!! Thats A Relief...... runs to over 137,400 posts and rising

----------


## chrisp

> Haven't got a hope.  This one here Wheeeeewww!! Thats A Relief...... runs to over 137,400 posts and rising

  Okay guys, gather round, we have a had a bit of a blow, but don't fret, we can can still do it - but we have a big job on our hands.  I thought we'd have to make this thread hit 10.000 posts, but SDB has opened our eye - we need to hit 200,000 posts to be in the serious running.... 
Here is the plan:*Rod:* stick doggedly to your position - don't waver now mate!  You've been doing a great job but the odd crack has been showing of late.  Come on!  give it 100%.  *Doc:* Good work with the multiple string of sequential posts - and doing the night-shift!  Keep it up - maybe even try for a whole page at the time.  Come on, you can easily do a page!  No point doing a single post when you can turn it into 15 instead!  *Heady:* keep up the wise cracks - prod them along with a few cutting remarks.  *Woodbe:* Come on mate, enough of the nature walk holiday, it is time to get back to work.  *Vin:* Welcome to the thread.  You've just got warmed up, show us what you can really do mate!  *Dazzler:* Enough time on the bench mate!  Back on the field and kick a few more goals mate!  *SBD:* Welcome to the team.  You've shown that you are made of the right-stuff.  Come on now, don't sit back now, get out there and post your guts out!Gather 'round now (sing together):  200,000  :brava: ...  200,000  :brava: ...  200,000  :brava: ...  200,000  :brava: ... Yes! We can do it!  :brava:  
(Why is Watson groaning   :Confused:  )

----------


## Dr Freud

> I don't know what getting your toys out will do for ya, Doc. But, you know, if that makes you happy, play with your 'Noah's Ark action set" all day long............... 
> Your big on the Flood theme lately, Arks, Unicorns.................

  Maybe the years of evangelical flooding prophecies from Mr Gore (Al Gore Warming (AGW) Theory) is starting to have an effect on me?    
If one of you guys in NSW could run down and check this out for me, I've been hearing it's happening faster than we think.  :Doh:

----------


## watson

Its Ok Doc.
I have it on good authority that the wind never blows in Sydney.......it sucks.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Lord Monckton wins global warming debate at Oxford Union 
> This is an interesting read, a debate in the Oxford Union on AGW was won by the "skeptic by 135 votes to 110. 
> The arguments put forward can be read here. Lord Monckton wins global warming debate at Oxford Union | Watts Up With That? 
> Is it any wonder this is happening. Britons? Fears Turn to Doubts About Climate Change - NYTimes.com  The Brits are starting to come to their senses it seems.

  Funny stuff Rod, but you really should do it more justice by cutting and pasting some snippets for those readers who can't read all the links.  It also shows how our little forum mirrors the same arguments being made all over the world.  Here's some gems: 
"...At one point, Lord Lawson was interrupted by a US student, who demanded to know what was his connection with the Science and Public Policy Institute, and what were the Institutes sources of funding. Lord Lawson was cheered when he said he neither knew nor cared who funded the Institute... 
...Ms. Zara McGlone, Secretary of the Oxford Union, opposed the motion, saying that greenhouse gases had an effect [they do, but it is very small]; that the precautionary principle required immediate action, just in case and regardless of expense [but one must also bear in mind the cost of the precautions themselves, which can and often do easily exceed the cost of inaction]; that Bangladesh was sinking beneath the waves [a recent study by Prof. Niklas Moerner shows that sea level in Bangladesh has actually fallen]; that the majority of scientists believed global warming was a problem [she offered no evidence for this]; and that irreversible natural destruction would occur if we did nothing [but she did not offer any evidence]... 
...Lord Monckton said that real-world measurements, as opposed to models, showed that the warming effect of CO2 was a tiny fraction of the estimates peddled by the UNs climate panel. He said that he would take his lead from Lord Lawson, however, in concentrating on the economics rather than the science. He glared at the opposition again and demanded whether, since they had declared themselves to be so worried about global warming, they would care to tell him  to two places of decimals and one standard deviation  the UNs central estimate of the global warming that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The opposition were unable to reply. Lord Monckton told them the answer was 3.26 plus or minus 0.69 Kelvin or Celsius degrees. An Hon. Member interrupted: And your reference is? Lord Monckton replied: IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2. [cheers]. He concluded that shutting down the entire global economy for a whole year, with all the death, destruction, disaster, disease and distress that that would cause, would forestall just 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.024 Kelvin or Celsius degrees of global warming, so that total economic shutdown for 41 years would prevent just 1 K of warming..." 
See, sounds just like us.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Its Ok Doc.
> I have it on good authority that the wind never blows in Sydney.......it sucks.

   :Biggrin:  You crazy easterners with that old chestnut. 
Talk like that is the reason we now have to put up with Canberra.  :Shock:  
Apologies for the sudden departure earlier, urgent request for net usage was received from local management, who is also responsible for catering.  Request was granted.  :Annoyed:

----------


## jago

Hello and both feet first ! It doesn't matter if global warming is true or not ... It has already become a @multi billion dollar industry with absolutley no reason to actually prove which is correct, both sides are getting rich, any how by the time they do prove it either way, everybody would have forgotten the original context.
@
It's like this thread people get caught in the momentum: @ideology, the challenge fun, point scoring, @boredom, alcohol @missus/hubby won't put out, footballs not on and so on! @ @ 
Society is becoming better at "Emperors new clothes" coming up with ways of producing nothing of true value yet charging a fortune for it!@ 
And before you ask for my motivation to add to this beast of a thread :@ 
The footballs finished I've had way too much to drink the missus is away and I @'m bored and thought I would take on the challenge to score some points as Watson stopped the Daily Planet joke... Www. Dailypla. Only kidding. 
Ciao@ :Kissing:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Here's a new-ish CC summary from Barrie Pittock that was published in the journal 'Climatic Change' back in February.  The first half provides a potted history of climate change science and includes references to the original (& critical) scientific papers 
> Well worth a read ...only 7 pages  http://www.springerlink.com/content/...1/fulltext.pdf

   I was going to write this off as just another puff piece trotting out the same old lines with no scientific evidence proving AGW Theory, and for the most part this was correct.   But then I came across items like this:   *Where does the scientist stop giving adviceat the causal link between cause and effect, or at the logical policy implications which may be clear to us as scientists, but not so clear to decision makers? *  For a start, are you able to please provide the cause and effect evidence that the good Mr Pittock speaks of?  He certainly did not provide any such thing.   Then can you please explain if you agree scientists are suddenly better placed than policy makers to decide on these logical policy implications.  Scientific training must have changed since I last checked.  Im not sure if these scientists are really that qualified to design and implement policy outside of the scientific bubble, factoring in issues such as micro and macro economics, energy security, national security, housing and welfare implications, food supply, poverty levels, equity and ethical issues, structural and historical inequalities, population constraints and these effects on future societal reforms, etc, etc, all at the local, national and global levels.   I know the current Rudd government is not helping my argument through its ineptitude, but I think I feel safer have elected representatives responsible for policy rather than one subset of society claiming to have all the right answers, but none of the evidence.   This paper alone could take us over the 200,000 posts mark before all this fiction was rebutted.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You folks still at it, this will end up the longest thread on the internet, you going for  Guinness World Records . 
> I guess while your arguing here you ain't driving the car pumping co2 in the atmosphere.

  Don't hold your breath.  :Biggrin:  
No seriously, you gotta keep breathing.  I know this is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, but I'm willing to risk it.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Vin, 
> It does seem futile at times, but we are making progress... slooowly...  *From:* (page 14)
>    Quote:
>                          Originally Posted by *Rod Dyson*   _One thing is for certain, and that is, there is  NO credible scientific link to CO2 controlling temperatures_  *To:* (page 205)
>    Quote:
>                          Originally Posted by *Rod Dyson*   _No one I know disputes that cO2 is a green house  gas._  
> So slowly, that I don't think Rod has noticed.

  Seeing as you have already verballed the good Mr Dyson, I will leave it to him to rebut in full this false attempt at demonstrating inconsistency.  But in the interim, I put it to you that he has been single-minded in his argument that anthropogenic CO2 is what has not yet been proven to be responsible for the recent measured warming. 
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 
By definition, in isolation it has a net warming effect - but is subject to interactions with many other variables and systems in ways that we are yet to fathom. 
This thread is filled with info from the start explaining how much of it is in the atmosphere, and how little we know in terms of its exact contribution to climate, so taking two quotes out of context contrary to someones stated position is casting a spurious assertion (Hmmm, pattern forming here).  I do this all the time :Blush7: , but Rod has played a pretty straight bat. 
In terms of AGW Theory, the main issue in this thread, there is NO evidence proving a causal relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the measured 0.7 degree celsius "statisticallly averaged globally measured" warming over the last 150 years.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Vin, 
> It does seem futile at times, but we are making progress... slooowly...  *From:* (page 14)   *To:* (page 205)  
> So slowly, that I don't think Rod has noticed.

  Been my position all along :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Doc:* Good work with the multiple string of sequential posts - and doing the night-shift!  Keep it up - maybe even try for a whole page at the time.  Come on, you can easily do a page!  No point doing a single post when you can turn it into 15 instead!

  I'm running out of stuff.  The whole world is realising this was a scam and have stopped talking or caring about it.  :Biggrin:  :2thumbsup:  :Biggrin:  
Doh, now Rod just cut into my string of posts, so no hope tonight.  :Cry:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> That looks pretty conclusive to me  
> Rod did you really make both of those statements

  Why not? they are both true. we know that co2 is a green house gas. we also know it is one of many. We know it is only a minor gas in comparison to water vapor. What we dont know is is the degree any increase of CO2 will alter the temperature. Until this question can be answered the entire theory is not proven and remains at best a guess.  
To think a minor Greenhouse gas controlls the temperature of eath without any direct evidence is a giat leap of faith. The casual correlation of increases of CO2 and temperatures since the 70's does not in any way shape or form proove anything.

----------


## Dr Freud

*A freezing winter! *  Mongolia is counting the cost of one of the harshest winters on record. Across the country an estimated 8.5 million goats, sheep, horses, camels, yaks and cows have died of hunger or succumbed to the freezing conditions. That's one in five of the entire national herd.   Freak snowstorms were also reported, claiming the lives of 16 people. The National Emergency Management Agency's small provincial team saved more than 80 others who had been trapped or lost in the snow.   *A degradation of farming practices!*    This zhud has exposed huge problems in the way the livestock industry is run in Mongolia. Until 1995 it was controlled by government collectives and regulations. These days there is little thought to land and water management and last year there were 44-million animals roaming the land - well above the carrying capacity of the pastures. This has led to tensions among the herders.   The privatisation of the business also led many young, inexperienced herders to buy animals. When prices for cashmere wool hit $40 a kilogram three years ago, herders took on more goats - voracious eaters which tread heavily. Once goats made up 20 percent of the national herd. Now they account for 80 per cent.   *A national disaster unfolds! *  The government has declared disaster zones in 15 of 21 provinces and through the United Nations is seeking $21m to assist in the immediate clean up of the dead animals. Australia has contributed $1m so far.  *Surely we couldnt blame this one on Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory?*   As a result of these developments, and the effects of climate change over the same time period, the land is now suffering from degradation and desertification in some parts. Water supplies are being affected as well.   Ah, to hell with all evidence to the contrary, throw it in anyway. :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

If you are going to quote what you think I think you should at least make some attempt at being correct.   

> This is Rod's initial thread starting post. As you can see, Rod's had three points which he based his argument on. 
> Rod's veiw across this thread can only be descibed as a roller coast ride.  
> Apparently Rod requires irrefutable evidence to believe that the reduction of C02 and her accompanying noxious, toxic gases will be of any benefit to the world before he's gunna make a move.

  CO2 is not a pollutant for a start. I am all for spending money on ridding the world of real pollutants. Money spent on the bogus AGW claim would be much better spent reseaching way to rid us of real pollutants.  

> He's also under the belief that man is unable to find an alternative source of power, other than fossil fuels!

   I have no doubt that man will find efficient forms of alternative fuel as and when the need arises. Again money wasted on AGW would have been better spent on the research of VIABLE alternative fuels. Sorry wind power and solar power just won't do it. They will play a roll on a very limited scale but try and run a country on solar or wind alone!  

> He's also under the false assumption that the Australian Economy was not crippled when the Labour party was voted into power.

   Now this really demonstrates this has just been a *provocative post*. You know damn well my political views. And this does not mean a shred of support of Rudds utter waste and destruction of our economy.  
You should be a bit more ingenious in the future. Rather than trying to stir up the pot. Why not try to be constructive for once.      *These are only your opinions Headpin* Attachment 79089  *And this is a classic case*  Attachment 79090[/quote]

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'm running out of stuff. The whole world is realising this was a scam and have stopped talking or caring about it.  
> Doh, now Rod just cut into my string of posts, so no hope tonight.

  LOL sorry Doc and you were doing so well. I seem to be working on WA time lately.  I'm always a late night person :Bat:

----------


## Dr Freud

I found Penny!   Wong accused of stifling insulation scrutiny   Climate Change Minister Penny Wong argued responsibility for the axed program now rested with another minister and another department.   Er, Yes Minister!    Liberal Senator Ian McDonald quizzed the department's secretary, Robyn Kruk, on the failed program.  Ms Kruk denied claims she was avoiding responsibility for the failed scheme.  "I again say there were inherent risks, some of that risk could not be mitigated."   Er, these are the people asking us to trust them with mitigating risks at the globally catastrophic level.   Heres a tip Penny and Kev, try kicking a point first, then a goal, then string some wins together.   
Then we can take on global domination.   Until then, try to keep a lid on it.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> LOL sorry Doc and you were doing so well. I seem to be working on WA time lately.  I'm always a late night person

  No probs, it's cold and rainy over here now  :Shock:  so time to check out anyway.   :Zzsoft:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *Where does the scientist stop giving adviceat the causal link between cause and effect, or at the logical policy implications which may be clear to us as scientists, but not so clear to decision makers? *  For a start, are you able to please provide the cause and effect evidence that the good Mr Pittock speaks of?  He certainly did not provide any such thing.   Then can you please explain if you agree scientists are suddenly better placed than policy makers to decide on these logical policy implications.  Scientific training must have changed since I last checked.  Im not sure if these scientists are really that qualified to design and implement policy outside of the scientific bubble, factoring in issues such as micro and macro economics, energy security, national security, housing and welfare implications, food supply, poverty levels, equity and ethical issues, structural and historical inequalities, population constraints and these effects on future societal reforms, etc, etc, all at the local, national and global levels.

  To my knowledge, yes, the paper was peer reviewed.  You may note that it is one of the elements of current scientific practise that Pittock has some 'issues' with (in his view, it's very slow and inherently conservative - I'm still not certain that's a bad thing) and he comments about them in the paper. 
Pittock included a very simple literature review in the first two pages of the paper highlighting the key papers that demonstrate the basic drivers behind the effect that our emissions are having on our atmosphere.  Handily, and very typically for a peer reviewed scientific paper, all the papers & documents that Pittock referenced in this section are included in a list at the end....we call that a reference list.  Rather than totally rehashing the whole thing, scientists tend to rely on the reader to pursue and examine the works described in a reference list.  So if you indeed are looking for the cause and effect evidence....it's in those papers.  And each of those papers itself has a reference list....and on we go. I truly encourage you to have a wander through them. 
Are scientists better placed to decide 'logical policy implications' than the policy makers? Sometimes...absolutely.  It's the similar scenario to when you make what seems to you to be a simple investment decision that you believe will have a spectacular financial benefit....but then your accountant points out that as a result of that decision you'll end up having to take on an unforeseen (to you) tax burden.  Policy makers are experts at making policy....they are not necessarily experts about every aspect of life that the policy might touch.  Its implications if you will.  And in some instances....a scientist, an accountant, a lawyer, a physician, an engineer or many,many specialists in their field are called in to make a contribution to policy. 
But that wasn't the question that Pittock was asking in that quotation.  He asked when scientists should cease providing advice in terms of policy.  Should it be at the point where they have demonstrated when the policy is required?  Or should it be after the policy is drafted when the policy itself might have unintended outcomes?  And I think it is fair to say that that we aren't talking just about physical scientists here....scientists from other fields such as (but not limited to) economics, humanities, sociology, engineering etc. are also included here. 
So, my good Doctor....when should the experts in their field leave the policy stage?   :Kissing:

----------


## chrisp

> Been my position all along

  Which one?  :Smilie:

----------


## jago

Missionary by the sounds of things ! :Wink 1:

----------


## chrisp

> In terms of AGW Theory, the main issue in this thread, there is NO evidence proving a causal relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the measured 0.7 degree celsius "statisticallly averaged globally measured" warming over the last 150 years.

   

> To think a minor Greenhouse gas controlls the temperature of eath without any direct evidence is a giat leap of faith. The casual correlation of increases of CO2 and temperatures since the 70's does not in any way shape or form proove anything.

  You two left out the bit about it being a political lefty, socialist, communistic, new-world-order thing!   :Rolleyes:  
All those scientists all around the world have somehow just all got it wrong!  :Eek:  
Or is the standard of proof required a function of your own political biases?  :Smilie:

----------


## watson

> Think about everyday situations where you require irrefutable evidence before you commit yourself..................

  Is the water too hot/cold.? *Before bathing/swimming.* Does the Bank have my best interests at heart? *Before applying for a mortgage.*
Is that 40 x 90 mm pine going to support my weight. *7M above the deck *

----------


## Rod Dyson

Head Pin it is quite obvious you are attempting to draw me into a slanging match. 
None of what you have posted has any foundation whatsoever. My position on AGW has not changed, throughout this thread. However if the facts do change I will change my opinion. What will you do? 
I suggest you are attempting to draw me into a similar slanging match as you did with other posters on this thread who were subsequently banned for retaliating. Well I have news for you, It won't work. All you are achieving is confirming what everyone else is thinking and that is you are a 1st class JERK. 
Now having said that you will not get any more from me, irrespective of what you post or how you post it I will not be responding to you in any way in future.

----------


## Rod Dyson

3 cheers Watson

----------


## watson

Now, I'll just go through the rules again. 
Normal forum rules apply.....*with the extra debate rule*........*Play the Ball not the man.* 
Seconds out......box on.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Now, I'll just go through the rules again. 
> Normal forum rules apply.....*with the extra debate rule*........*Play the Ball not the man.* 
> Seconds out......box on.

  Shall do

----------


## watson

Just a little note.
Our main source of heating is a wood stove.......its had a blow out..........and I'm waiting 48 hours for the Fireproof cement to dry.
Gotta say.......I'm bloody freezing. 
Sorry, probably not on topic.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Just a little note.
> Our main source of heating is a wood stove.......its had a blow out..........and I'm waiting 48 hours for the Fireproof cement to dry.
> Gotta say.......I'm bloody freezing. 
> Sorry, probably not on topic.

  What timing I just got a call from the mrs to light the fire.  What was that you said "suffer baby" :Biggrin:

----------


## watson

3 PM tomorrow I can light it again..........bugger.
I know weather can't be confused with the topic..........but Geez.....I'm cold. :Rotfl:  
Added this as proof>

----------


## Vin

Ok this is a futile argument, the planet is stuffed anyway unless every nation  on the planet follows China's one child policy. So lets debate the real problem :Doh:

----------


## watson

This is probably one of those Global myths......but I have an inkling (unsupported....and not peer reviewed) that the most numbers of people that have ever lived on this planet (for all time) are actually present now.. 
Just chucking it in there.

----------


## chrisp

> Our main source of heating is a wood stove.......its had a blow out..........and I'm waiting 48 hours for the Fireproof cement to dry.
> Gotta say.......I'm bloody freezing.

  Onya Noel! 
It is good to read that you are doing your bit to help cut CO2 emissions.   :2thumbsup:

----------


## watson

Tee Hee........lots of cubes of Yellow Box waiting to warm my weary bones. 
ps...as I get warmer.......I get happier.

----------


## chrisp

> This is probably one of those Global myths......but I have an inkling (unsupported....and not peer reviewed) that the most numbers of people that have ever lived on this planet (for all time) are actually present now.. 
> Just chucking it in there.

  Snopes is your friend:  snopes.com: Living Outnumber Dead 
and here is one that Rod might be interested in reading: snopes.com: Al Gore's Energy Use

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Ok this is a futile argument, the planet is stuffed anyway unless every nation on the planet follows China's one child policy. So lets debate the real problem

  Vin over population should not be confused with the AGW debate. Population increase has its own set of issues not to be confused with AGW.  Of course if you hold to the theory of AGW more humans mean more emission.  Now if you believe CO2 emissions are a problem then you naturally would see over population as a contributing factor. 
If you do not subscribe to the AGW theory over population is an entirely seperate debate. 
I'm not quite sure how you can go about decreasing population unless by volantary birth control.  Having said that without any thought to the justification of having to do so.   
I saw a graph not long ago that shows that in most western countries population, without imigrants from predominatley muslim countires, would in actual fact be decreasing. I think in most developed countries the birth rates are about even or maybe negative.  It is the poorer countries that tend to have large families.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Snopes is your friend: snopes.com: Living Outnumber Dead 
> and here is one that Rod might be interested in reading: snopes.com: Al Gore's Energy Use

  I already know Al Gore uses more energy than any normal family!! There has been plenty of stories abounding the net on Al Gores hypocrisy when it comes to energy use. 
One that comes to mind was when his driver sat in the car with the engine running while waiting ages for Al Gore.

----------


## watson

Bewdiful.......Bewdiful.........Bewdiful.
That worked perfectly!! 
If we believe anything on the web......not kosher.
If we believe what people quote from the web..........not kosher. 
But.
If Snopes says its not true.....we believe that??? That's Milk and Meat.....Not Kosher. 
Thanks Chrisp......that was my reason for posting that crud. 
The Web is full of Biased Crud......and maybe we should think for ourselves. 
And so saying.....he wends his weary way into bed.....having spent a very bloody cold night waiting for the fire cement to cure. 
Tomorrow....3PM....I'll be burning Yellow Box wood ( that a Dog wind Blew down on my own place)......in my refurbished stove......made from the Brake drums of Semi-trailers......that I recycled 10 years ago.....from a semi that didn't make it back to the city. 
I love this stuff........so have a good night.

----------


## Vin

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY"]YouTube - The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8)[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb3JI8F9LQQ&feature=related"]YouTube - The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 2 of 8)[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFyOw9IgtjY&feature=channel"]YouTube - The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 3 of 8)[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFLgjbKfypI&feature=related"]YouTube - The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See Part 4 of 8[/ame] 
If you want the remaining parts I find them tomorrow!

----------


## chrisp

> And so saying.....he wends his weary way into bed.....having spent a very bloody cold night waiting for the fire cement to cure. 
> Tomorrow....3PM....I'll be burning Yellow Box wood ( that a Dog wind Blew down on my own place)......in my refurbished stove......made from the Brake drums of Semi-trailers.

  I seem to recall that I heard something about fire cement taking three-times longer to cure when it is coldish... :Confused:   I don't know where I heard that?... :Confused:  Maybe it was something I read on the internet somewhere?...  :Confused:  
Just chucking it in there.  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Yes Vin I have to agree that population is a problem and just another reason why money should not be wasted chasing the CO2 boggey man. The video's explain exponential growth very well! Thanks for posting them. 
In the natural world nature sure knows how to deal with over population, however mankind is very good at subverting nature with un-intended consequences. Hence we were smart enough to get rid of the plague and other deseases that were essentially a population control in humans. Where will this take us? I'm not sure. Will nature come back with something we just can't beat?  
In Tasmania the tasmanian devil population skyrocketed over the past 40 years, mainly due to increased food supply (road kill helped). This tumor they are getting is a consequence of over population in my opinion. It is transfered when they fight over food. Once the population thins not so many fights and less transfer of the tumor, leaves a smaller but healthier population of Devils. What is going to be the tumor for humans? 
Now we could talk about this forever but maybe it would be better in another thread rather than the AGW/ ETS thread  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> How many millions of dollars is our government borrowing from China to fund these highly educational campaigns.  The website below shows how shallow our kids education has become.   Shout Out for Climate Change   *Primary students* need to submit an original artistic piece like a song, poem, photograph or piece of artwork that raises awareness about climate change.  *Secondary* and *Tertiary students* need to upload an original advertisement in video format that is up to 60 seconds in length and encourages, inspires and equips Australians to take action on climate change.   
> In addition, *Tertiary students* must submit a media plan and a promotion plan outlining specific media outlets you would use to promote your ad and explaining how you would get maximum national exposure for your advertisement.  
>   Heres an example of a primary school project for the kiddies:    Students to learn how to say global warming and climate change in various languages. In one of the languages, students to write and say both in a sentence.    It is telling that this government is teaching Australian kids to run a spin campaign, rather than...oh, I dunno, maybe learn some science?

  Not satisfied with brainwashing the kids, lets waste more time and money via:  Public servants trained to fight scepticism | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog    
Seriously people, what the hell happened to this country! 
The CSIRO is now campaigning against scientific debate, because people are starting to understand that the CSIRO's position is scientifically flawed. And they're using our money to do it.  FFS!  :Mad:  
I'm surprised they didn't pay for the lunch as well to get more people in. 
Full sordid story at link above.

----------


## chrisp

> Seriously people, what the hell happened to this country! 
> The CSIRO is now campaigning against scientific debate, because people are starting to understand that the CSIRO's position is scientifically flawed. And they're using our money to do it.  FFS!

  What's happening to this country?  Simple, we are just getting on with educating the general population to the effects of global warming.  This is now taught in schools too.  I don't see anything wrong with that - it is the overwhelming scientific view - it is NOT scientifically contentious at all. 
It is only the anti-AGW segment that promotes the idea that the science is in doubt.  The idea that there is scientific debate on AGW is just propaganda for political purposes. 
The CSIRO, along with ALL the major scientific organisations in the whole world, all accept the AGW theory.  Part of the charter of the CSIRO is public education. 
The anti-AGW isn't just fighting a loosing battle on the science, they are just completely out of step with the scientific position.

----------


## Dr Freud

> To my knowledge, yes, the paper was peer reviewed.  You may note that it is one of the elements of current scientific practise that Pittock has some 'issues' with (in his view, it's very slow and inherently conservative - I'm still not certain that's a bad thing) and he comments about them in the paper. 
> Pittock included a very simple literature review in the first two pages of the paper highlighting the key papers that demonstrate the basic drivers behind the effect that our emissions are having on our atmosphere.  Handily, and very typically for a peer reviewed scientific paper, all the papers & documents that Pittock referenced in this section are included in a list at the end....we call that a reference list.  Rather than totally rehashing the whole thing, scientists tend to rely on the reader to pursue and examine the works described in a reference list.  So if you indeed are looking for the cause and effect evidence....it's in those papers.  And each of those papers itself has a reference list....and on we go. I truly encourage you to have a wander through them. 
> Are scientists better placed to decide 'logical policy implications' than the policy makers? Sometimes...absolutely.  It's the similar scenario to when you make what seems to you to be a simple investment decision that you believe will have a spectacular financial benefit....but then your accountant points out that as a result of that decision you'll end up having to take on an unforeseen (to you) tax burden.  Policy makers are experts at making policy....they are not necessarily experts about every aspect of life that the policy might touch.  Its implications if you will.  And in some instances....a scientist, an accountant, a lawyer, a physician, an engineer or many,many specialists in their field are called in to make a contribution to policy. 
> But that wasn't the question that Pittock was asking in that quotation.  He asked when scientists should cease providing advice in terms of policy.  Should it be at the point where they have demonstrated when the policy is required?  Or should it be after the policy is drafted when the policy itself might have unintended outcomes?  And I think it is fair to say that that we aren't talking just about physical scientists here....scientists from other fields such as (but not limited to) economics, humanities, sociology, engineering etc. are also included here. 
> So, my good Doctor....when should the experts in their field leave the policy stage?

   

> To my knowledge, yes, the paper was peer reviewed.

  Apologies, the peer-reviewed crack was sarcasm.  My views on this process in the climate science area is well documented.   

> So if you indeed are looking for the cause and effect evidence....it's in those papers.

  With all due respect, the doctrine that has been foisted upon us all during this thread is that if we put it up, we have to back it up.  I'd love to spend my time researching your argument for you, but if you can't back this statement of a causal relationship proving AGW Theory (as the good Mr Pittock certainly didn't), then you are free to retract it.  :2thumbsup:   I've previously put up plenty of info describing what constitutes a causal relationship in scientific terms to assist.   

> Are scientists better placed to *decide* 'logical policy implications' than the policy makers? Sometimes...absolutely.

  Er, no, never.  Call me a fuddy duddy, but I'm a stickler for that little process called the Westminster bicameral parliamentary system.  But hey, you're not alone in trying to circumvent democracy:  Save the planet! Scrap democracy | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog   

> And in some instances....a scientist, an accountant, a lawyer, a physician, an engineer or many,many specialists in their field are called in to *make a contribution to policy*.

  Ah, now that sounds so much better.  You see, everyone, scientist or not, gets to contribute to the policy process in Australia.  This is the joy of a democracy.  We can all email/call/write to our elected representatives with our facts and opinions and they can design policy accordingly.  The oil companies can do this, environmental groups, scientists, economists etc etc. can all make a contribution.  But no my friend, never should we accede authority to *decide* policy to any of these individual interests.  :No:  
Remember Copenhagen, that is how it all works.  :2thumbsup:     

> So, my good Doctor....when should the experts in their field leave the policy stage?

  They're on the wrong stage.  Politicians work on the policy stage. See all points above as to how all these "experts" have the same rights of all of us in a democracy.  You don't get extra voting or influencing rights with every PhD, and pretending "experts" somehow know best is condescending to many smart people who decide not to go to university to get the titular "expert" documentation.  No one should ever cease providing advice to government (especially the current one, they need it  :Biggrin: ).

----------


## Dr Freud

> What's happening to this country?  Simple, we are just getting on with educating the general population to the effects of global warming.  This is now taught in schools too.  I don't see anything wrong with that - it is the overwhelming scientific view - it is NOT scientifically contentious at all. 
> It is only the anti-AGW segment that promotes the idea that the science is in doubt.  The idea that there is scientific debate on AGW is just propaganda for political purposes. 
> The CSIRO, along with ALL the major scientific organisations in the whole world, all accept the AGW theory.  Part of the charter of the CSIRO is public education. 
> The anti-AGW isn't just fighting a loosing battle on the science, they are just completely out of step with the scientific position.

   

> Simple, we are just getting on with educating the general population to the *effects* of global warming.

  See, there's that word again.  In order to have an effect, you need a cause.  Then you have a cause and effect relationship, or "causal relationship".  I'd be grateful for your provision of the evidence of this.  Perhaps you and SBD could tag team on the research. 
I also assume you mean AGW Theory, as opposed to just global warming.  You see, this distinction is becoming more important as the "experts" now refer to AGW Theory as "global warming" or "climate change" to suit their particular obfuscations. 
Finally, presenting to the general population on "dealing with climate change denialism" could hardly be called scientific education.   

> This is now taught in schools too.

  Er, yeh, there's a link in the original post to the Rudd government's latest efforts for teaching the kiddies science at Shout Out for Climate Change, but try not to get too bogged down in the periodic table or the astrophysics.   

> It is only the anti-AGW segment that promotes the idea that the science is in doubt. The idea that there is scientific debate on AGW is just propaganda for political purposes.

  Now that's just plain scary.  :Eek:    

> The CSIRO, along with ALL the major scientific organisations in the whole world, all accept the AGW theory. Part of the charter of the CSIRO is public education.

  ALL the major scientific organisations in the whole world all accepted that the Earth was flat.  They also had a charter of public education, and many of the "uneducated" got the "pyre squared" (PiR2 :Biggrin: ) treatment.    

> The anti-AGW isn't just fighting a loosing battle on the science, they are just completely out of step with the scientific position.

  If the anti-AGW Theory position is losing, why are the CSIRO holding "anti-denialist" presentations and complaining that scientific debates are swaying public opinion away from AGW Theory?  This sham has been funded by hundreds of billions of dollars, and is being unraveled by facts and common sense, all of which is absolutely free.  :2thumbsup:  
Don't you just love democracy.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> ......and maybe we should think for ourselves...

  Better be careful Boss, that kinda talk could get you re-educated!  :Biggrin:  
You could find yourself shackled to Mr Dyson in a government basement listening to this:   
I figured I'm safe cos it would cost too many carbon emissions to fly me to Victoria for re-education, but you two guys better be careful.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> What's happening to this country? Simple, we are just getting on with educating the general population to the effects of global warming. This is now taught in schools too. I don't see anything wrong with that - it is the overwhelming scientific view - it is NOT scientifically contentious at all. 
> It is only the anti-AGW segment that promotes the idea that the science is in doubt. The idea that there is scientific debate on AGW is just propaganda for political purposes. 
> The CSIRO, along with ALL the major scientific organisations in the whole world, all accept the AGW theory. Part of the charter of the CSIRO is public education. 
> The anti-AGW isn't just fighting a loosing battle on the science, they are just completely out of step with the scientific position.

   :Yikes2:  :Yikes2:  :Yikes2:  :Yikes2:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> See, there's that word again. In order to have an effect, you need a cause. Then you have a cause and effect relationship, or "causal relationship". I'd be grateful for your provision of the evidence of this. Perhaps you and SBD could tag team on the research. 
> I also assume you mean AGW Theory, as opposed to just global warming. You see, this distinction is becoming more important as the "experts" now refer to AGW Theory as "global warming" or "climate change" to suit their particular obfuscations. 
> Finally, presenting to the general population on "dealing with climate change denialism" could hardly be called scientific education. 
> Er, yeh, there's a link in the original post to the Rudd government's latest efforts for teaching the kiddies science at Shout Out for Climate Change, but try not to get too bogged down in the periodic table or the astrophysics. 
> Now that's just plain scary.  
> ALL the major scientific organisations in the whole world all accepted that the Earth was flat. They also had a charter of public education, and many of the "uneducated" got the "pyre squared" (PiR2) treatment.  
> If the anti-AGW Theory position is losing, why are the CSIRO holding "anti-denialist" presentations and complaining that scientific debates are swaying public opinion away from AGW Theory? This sham has been funded by hundreds of billions of dollars, and is being unraveled by facts and common sense, all of which is absolutely free.  
> Don't you just love democracy.

   :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup: 
  Well said Doc

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> With all due respect, the doctrine that has been foisted upon us all during this thread is that if we put it up, we have to back it up.  I'd love to spend my time researching your argument for you, but if you can't back this statement of a causal relationship proving AGW Theory (as the good Mr Pittock certainly didn't), then you are free to retract it.   I've previously put up plenty of info describing what constitutes a causal relationship in scientific terms to assist.

  Hey Doc....if you don't do the research yourself then you'll never have any ideas of your own...so if you're happy letting Andrew Bolt & Piers Akerman do the research for you and form your opinions for you...then we here on the other side of the argument simply can't help you in your search for proof of AGW one way or the other. That's what the scientific process is all about - 'do your own research and make up your own mind'.   
The best we can do is point out the original research (which Pittock's paper references, for example) that we've found helped us form our opinion.  If you'd like to point out the original research that supports your opinion on AGW (as opposed to AB's degustations) then I'm more than happy to read it and see if it influences my paradigm. 
By the by....you do recognise that there is a difference between 'policy formulation' and 'logical policy implications'....don't you?  When scientists make a decision on the latter....they then tell the policy makers who can then make up their own mind what they would like to do with the information.  So your precious democratic process is safe from that nasty worldwide cabal of scientists that you so fear and loathe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Well boys and girls, the AGW theory is just getting weaker and weaker.  About that big list of scientific societies pledging their undying support for the AGW. 
Well the pressure from within is forcing them one by one to re-word their assertions on AGW.  This will be a watering down of their current support in the UK's Royal Society. How far they will go is anyone's guess, but it surely means that support in the scientific societie's is not as strong as some would have us believe.  My view is that this is just the tip of the iceberg.  

> The UK's Royal Society is reviewing its public statements on climate change after 43 Fellows complained that it had oversimplified its messages. 
> They said the communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood. 
> The society's ruling council has responded by setting up a panel to produce a consensus document

  Full link here. BBC News - Society to review climate message

----------


## chrisp

> Well boys and girls, the AGW theory is just getting weaker and weaker.  About that big list of scientific societies pledging their undying support for the AGW. 
> Well the pressure from within is forcing them one by one to re-word their assertions on AGW.  This will be a watering down of their current support in the UK's Royal Society. How far they will go is anyone's guess, but it surely means that support in the scientific societie's is not as strong as some would have us believe.  My view is that this is just the tip of the iceberg.  
> Full link here. BBC News - Society to review climate message

  ...and a couple of more quotes from the same source: "There is very clear evidence that governments are right to be very  worried about climate change. But in any society like this there will  inevitably be people who disagree about anything - and my fear is that  the society may become paralysed on this issue."  
"Lobbyists funded by the fossil fuel industry were fighting to  undermine that consensus and science academies were concerned that  public doubt might deter governments from taking precautionary action to  reduce emissions of CO2."Lobby groups at work!     
Don't hold your breath waiting for the Royal Society to recant on AGW.   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> ...and a couple of more quotes from the same source: "There is very clear evidence that governments are right to be very worried about climate change. But in any society like this there will inevitably be people who disagree about anything - and my fear is that the society may become paralysed on this issue."  
> "Lobbyists funded by the fossil fuel industry were fighting to undermine that consensus and science academies were concerned that public doubt might deter governments from taking precautionary action to reduce emissions of CO2."Lobby groups at work!    
> Don't hold your breath waiting for the Royal Society to recant on AGW.

  I don't need to hold my breath, it has started all ready. There is now way they could recant on AGW all in one go, they will loose too much face. Mark my words here right now, as you will see over the next 10 years or so. There will be a steady dilution if the steadfast support of scientific societies every where. It will start small and gather pace as more and more start changing their stance by opening the door of doubt just a crack at a time.  
They have no choice and they know it. They don't want to be left like a shag on a rock when the whole ediface comes tumbling down.  
So many (as in people groups and politicians etc), have put their entire credibility on the line over climate change, the smart ones are starting to put a foot on both sides of the fence. Those left bleating the doomsday scenario's to the death knell will be the activists, retiring politician's and retiring scientist's. Up and comming scientists etc. will start to see the writing on the wall, because if they want a future in science then they will need to come out on the right side of the AGW theory. If not their credibility will be shot. Either way the AGW theory is doomed as far as I am concerned, not one bit of empirical data supports the climate models that scared the world silly. They are running out of wriggle room. 
The only judge and jury will be the empirical data over the next 20 years or so that will either confirm or deny the AGW theory. As it cannot be proved or dis-proved any other way.   :Biggrin: See all my own opinion :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  
Now why don't you post how you think the AGW theory will play out over time.  Then we can see who's prediction comes closest to the mark!

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here is a great article about the science and policy. 
Good timing as it has been raised here in the past day or two.   

> *We must stop saying ‘The science demands...’ Top climate-change expert Mike Hulme tells spiked it is a scandal that scientific claims are increasingly usurping politics and morality.*

  Full article here good read for both sides of the debate. spiked debate: We must stop saying ‘The science demands…’ by Tim Black

----------


## Rod Dyson

Seeing how Vin posted on how numbers can produce very scary result one way. I thought I might post this aticle on how numbers can be made to look scary in the opposite way. 
The article is about the greenland ice sheet and how long it will take to melt based on the current rates.  On Being the Wrong Size | Watts Up With That?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Hey Doc....if you don't do the research yourself then you'll never have any ideas of your own...so if you're happy letting Andrew Bolt & Piers Akerman do the research for you and form your opinions for you...then we here on the other side of the argument simply can't help you in your search for proof of AGW one way or the other. That's what the scientific process is all about - 'do your own research and make up your own mind'.  
> The best we can do is point out the original research (which Pittock's paper references, for example) that we've found helped us form our opinion. If you'd like to point out the original research that supports your opinion on AGW (as opposed to AB's degustations) then I'm more than happy to read it and see if it influences my paradigm. 
> By the by....you do recognise that there is a difference between 'policy formulation' and 'logical policy implications'....don't you? When scientists make a decision on the latter....they then tell the policy makers who can then make up their own mind what they would like to do with the information. So your precious democratic process is safe from that nasty worldwide cabal of scientists that you so fear and loathe.

  A rather verbose retraction, but consider it graciously accepted.  :2thumbsup:  
Don't feel too bad though, nobody else can find any evidence that AGW Theory is real either?  :No:  
As for my research, poor old Andy and Piers aren't really up to the job.  Most of the scientific papers I use to form my opinion can be found here  . 
And I couldn't do the policy questions as much justice as Rod's link below.  Well worth a look.  :2thumbsup:     

> Here is a great article about the science and policy. 
> Good timing as it has been raised here in the past day or two.   
> Full article here good read for both sides of the debate. spiked debate: We must stop saying The science demands by Tim Black

  And FYI, I fear real threats and loathe indoctrinated ignorance, especially in children. These bozo's aren't a cabal, more like a circus. :Party Smiley:

----------


## Dr Freud

> These bozo's aren't a cabal, more like a circus.

----------


## Dr Freud

First we had to spend $30 million of our own money educating ourselves on climate change after Rudd dumps his own failed ETS:   And there will be $30 million over two years for a national campaign to "educate the community in climate change".   Then there was the $15 million we spent to educate ourselves on how to combat those lunatic denialists, whoever and wherever they are:   Dealing with climate change denialism - $15 million well spent?   Now theres shonky dealings to get another $38 million for advertising to educate ourselves how the replacement ETS is so awesome for us, but were too all too dumb to realise it:   You have big pockets too, apparently. In fact, surprise, surprise, they saw this coming and allocated $38 million in the budget "to inform the public of the Government's taxation agenda".   With all this money we keep borrowing from China to educate ourselves on this stuff, we must all be really smart by now, huh?

----------


## Dr Freud

> ...Don't hold your breath waiting for the Royal Society to recant on AGW.

  That's our argument, you're supposed to be saying "*Hold* your breath waiting for the Royal Society to recant on AGW", cos then we save CO2 emissions.  :Wink 1:

----------


## chrisp

> That's our argument, you're supposed to be saying "*Hold* your breath waiting for the Royal Society to recant on AGW", cos then we save CO2 emissions.

  Okay, if you're up to it, please go ahead and.... *Hold* your breath until the Royal Society recants.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Okay, if you're up to it, please go ahead and.... *Hold* your breath until the Royal Society recants.

  LOL, that's the spirit soldier.  :Biggrin:  
It's good to see we all haven't lost our sense of humour.  :Harhar:  
But gotta go now...getting dizzy...lungs burning...but it's ok...Gaia needs the sacrifice.  :Tongue:

----------


## Dr Freud

> First we had to spend $30 million of our own money educating ourselves on climate change after Rudd dumps his own failed ETS:   And there will be $30 million over two years for a national campaign to "educate the community in climate change".   Then there was the $15 million we spent to educate ourselves on how to combat those lunatic denialists, whoever and wherever they are:   Dealing with climate change denialism - $15 million well spent?   Now theres shonky dealings to get another $38 million for advertising to educate ourselves how the replacement ETS is so awesome for us, but were too all too dumb to realise it:   You have big pockets too, apparently. In fact, surprise, surprise, they saw this coming and allocated $38 million in the budget "to inform the public of the Government's taxation agenda".   With all this money we keep borrowing from China to educate ourselves on this stuff, we must all be really smart by now, huh?

  Now that I think about it, this advertising campaign is a timely reminder on the dangers of digging up resources and using them to create, um, well everything we use!  Especially if the byproduct we seem most concerned about is fresh air.  :Doh:  
Because I had already forgotten the last Rudd campaign that used another $14 million of our dollars to educate us on a policy *that never happened.*  Deja vu all over again.  :Biggrin:   KEVIN Rudd's feelgood advertising campaign on climate change cost taxpayers an extraordinary $13.9 million, with a massive spend on television and even magazine advertisements in lads' mag FHM and Cosmopolitan.  
And they called that a massive spend, what do we call the latest education ads.  But it was a bit heavy on the science and facts last time though, I hope the new series is a bit simpler to understand than this.  
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLDsF1YVQ38&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Australian Gov't 'Carbon pollution reduction scheme' ads[/ame]

----------


## Dr Freud

> Well boys and girls, the AGW theory is just getting weaker and weaker.  About that big list of scientific societies pledging their undying support for the AGW. 
> Well the pressure from within is forcing them one by one to re-word their assertions on AGW.  This will be a watering down of their current support in the UK's Royal Society. How far they will go is anyone's guess, but it surely means that support in the scientific societie's is not as strong as some would have us believe.  My view is that this is just the tip of the iceberg.  
> Full link here. BBC News - Society to review climate message

  Hey Rod,  just had full read of this.  Kinda reminds me of a scientific version of KerPlunk. As more straws get pulled, AGW Theory supporters will slowly lose their marbles.  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Here is a great article about the science and policy. 
> Good timing as it has been raised here in the past day or two. 
> Full article here good read for both sides of the debate. spiked debate: We must stop saying The science demands by Tim Black

  Well found, Rob.  It's a pretty good piece about where we are now with respect to 'the debate we have to have' and I'm fairly strongly in favour of Hulme's comments here.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Hey Rod, just had full read of this. Kinda reminds me of a scientific version of KerPlunk. As more straws get pulled, AGW Theory supporters will slowly lose their marbles.

  Yes well while we are on the subject of scientific organisations, they wonder why we don't trust them!!  *    
			
				FEDERAL Treasury and the CSIRO are supposed to be among the most trusted institutions in Australia. They are both supposed to be founded in objective rationalism.
			
		  *   

> The Treasury building in Canberra houses the greatest collection of economic analytical and policymaking brainpower in Australia. The same, in the fields of science, goes for the CSIRO in Melbourne. Together they should form the rock-solid foundation of policymaking in Australia.

  Full Link Treasury and CSIRO both have breached trust | The Australian

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Well found, Rob. It's a pretty good piece about where we are now with respect to 'the debate we have to have' and I'm fairly strongly in favour of Hulme's comments here.

  I think it is quite clear that Skeptics just want to line up the ducks on the science and be shown cause why they should also believe whole heartedly in the theory of AGW. 
Nothing inflames skeptics more than someone saying the science is settled when it is baltently obvious it is not.  So therefore they start looking for reasons why they are making this false claim.  What are they hiding?  What are they trying to ram through without proper process?    
My guess is that they believe AGW is certain yet they know they can't prove it.  So they have tried to stiffle any dissenting science to prevent what is happening right now.  Yet this "the science is settled" just made people more distrustfull of the climate scientists.  Just look at the omission from the CSIRO in the post above.  They purposely left out the methane graph so it would not create doubt.  If the science is so clear why would they need to do that?   
If the courts were run like this they would be hanging an innocent man just because he happened to be seen in the vicinity of the murder.

----------


## Rod Dyson

The New York times is slow to act but better late than never I guess.   

> LONDON — Last month hundreds of environmental activists crammed into an auditorium here to ponder an anguished question: If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?

  Full link here. Britons? Fears Turn to Doubts About Climate Change - NYTimes.com 
Is that the fat lady I hear warming up her voice?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Doc can you shed some light on this? Has it got any credibility?  

> NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?  
> As per my article this week, forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the ‘blackbody’ numbers supporting the theory didn’t add up in a 3-dimensional universe: 
> "_During lunar day, the lunar regolith absorbs the radiation from the sun and transports it inward and is stored in a layer approximately 50cm thick....in contrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple black body, the regolith then proceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the surface, thus warming it up significantly over the black body approximation..._"

  
Full link NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why by John O&#039;Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists | Climate Realists

----------


## Dr Freud

> Doc can you shed some light on this? Has it got any credibility?   
> Full link NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why by John O'Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists | Climate Realists

  Hey champ, I think the one thing all sides of this debate agree on is that you make a hell of a lot more sense than I do.  :2thumbsup:  
I've got a dinner party starting soon, but I'll have a read later.  One thing I do know for sure is that the mechanism of atmospheric energy transfer is grossly simplified by using the term "greenhouse effect".   
Anyway, some red wine is sure to get me rambling later (or passed out instead  :Biggrin: ).

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yes well while we are on the subject of scientific organisations, they wonder why we don't trust them!! 
> [b] 
> Full Link Treasury and CSIRO both have breached trust | The Australian

  Very sad indeed!  :Frown:  :Cry:  :Annoyed:  :Mad:

----------


## chrisp

> Yes well while we are on the subject of scientific organisations, they wonder why we don't trust them!! 
> Full Link Treasury and CSIRO both have breached trust | The Australian

  I assume you know that the quoted article is an *opinion* piece (not fact - just a view of Terry McCrann) - don't you?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I assume you know that the quoted article is an *opinion* piece (not fact - just a view of Terry McCrann) - don't you?

  Yes, but is he WRONG?  And if so why?

----------


## chrisp

> Yes, but is he WRONG?  And if so why?

  Rod, 
It is an *opinion* - a personal held *view*.  It isn't a right or wrong thing and it certainly isn't *proof*.  
For example, I might have an opinion on the merits of a colour - it isn't a right or wrong - it is just a preference. 
A definition of opinion is: _n_. A personal belief or judgement that is not founded on proof or certainty. 
You seen to have a habit of posting other's opinions as if they are somehow support or proof of your own view.  A quick look around the internet will find you any opinion on any topic you to want.  Does that make every view on every topic right? 
While there might be some comfort in finding like-minded opinions published elsewhere, I certainly wouldn't recommend them as a basis for informing ourselves on a particular topic.

----------


## Bedford

> While there might be some comfort in finding like-minded opinions published elsewhere, I certainly wouldn't recommend them as a basis for informing ourselves on a particular topic.

  Would this also apply to peer reviewing?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> It is an *opinion* - a personal held *view*. It isn't a right or wrong thing and it certainly isn't *proof*.  
> For example, I might have an opinion on the merits of a colour - it isn't a right or wrong - it is just a preference. 
> A definition of opinion is: _n_. A personal belief or judgement that is not founded on proof or certainty. 
> You seen to have a habit of posting other's opinions as if they are somehow support or proof of your own view. A quick look around the internet will find you any opinion on any topic you to want. Does that make every view on every topic right? 
> While there might be some comfort in finding like-minded opinions published elsewhere, I certainly wouldn't recommend them as a basis for informing ourselves on a particular topic.

  I think we all know what an opinion is. 
Now is Terry's opinion that the CSIRO left off the methane graph correct or not? 
Now where the real opinion is why did they leave it out? 
Now I asked you why you thought this opinion is wrong.  Sheez, not that hard really.  :Doh:  That is unless you are really just trying to evade the issues.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yes, but is he WRONG?  And if so why?

  He's right in that CSIRO & BoM ballsed up their communications (yet again) with respect to this report.  They made an assumption about the intelligence of their readers and that assumption was wrong. 
But McCann is wrong about the science. Now anyway. 
The problem has been that methane concentrations have indeed plateaued for some time.  However, at the time of the State of the Climate report being prepared there were one or two papers in press (awaiting peer review) that presented data that apparently shows that methane levels are again on the rise.  I believe these papers have since been published but I haven't yet come across them. However, the US Gov's NOAA has their 'latest' (September 09) greenhouse gas concentration data update here http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ that does show a small kick in methane levels in the last couple of years...whether this is a newly established trend remains to be seen.  I've cut the graph out below but the entire page is well worth a look.   
And the bureaucrats rather lazily decided to skimp on the explanation on the assumption that it was easier to omit data rather than try and articulate a fairly complicated explanation.....and risk getting it misinterpreted. 
Dumb decision and not an uncommon one in a bureaucracy.

----------


## chrisp

> Would this also apply to peer reviewing?

  It would depend upon whether the "_opinion_" is formed *internally* - such as it is something I like or prefer; or whether it is formed *externally* - I have observed certain phenomena and used it as a basis for developing a view. 
Peer reviewed is a scientific review process that examines the reasoning and logic (and sometimes data) used to form an opinion - it is an external review.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

It is certainly an external review but don't for one second think it is perfect.  The strength of the peer review process is based on the qualities of the people that are on the peer review panel that a particular journal uses - and no publication ever ever ever reveals whomsoever is a member of its peer review panel.  Ostensibly this is to prevent the authors from undulying pressuring the PRP into accepting the paper.  
The counter argument is that the rest of us have little but trust, faith and the application of our own scientific knowledge that the 'experts' on the PRP will sort the wheat from the chaff of the originally submitted paper.   
In the end, PRPs have demonstrated that they are the most effective court to judge a scientific paper in the first instance....but like all courts.....they do stuff up on occasion.  After all they are all made of people.

----------


## Dr Freud

> It would depend upon whether the "_opinion_" is formed *internally* - such as it is something I like or prefer; or whether it is formed *externally* - I have observed certain phenomena as developed a view. 
> Peer reviewed is a scientific review process that examines the reasoning and logic (and sometimes data) used to form an opinion - it is an external review.

  I think it is good that we are now classifying opinions into more "valid" categories.  This would give them the perception of being more valid than other opinions.  I guess as we are now using words to differentiate them, we could call it the "qualification of opinion".  This is much better than the scam the IPCC tried to pull off which I call the "quantification of opinion", which was attaching fake numbers to opinions just to make them seem more "valid".   

> Quote:
>                          Originally Posted by *chrisp*   _And that's what grates with me and other here - you are using opinion of others as some sort of basis or support for your opinion. It would be better just to express your opinion and leave Andrew's opinion out of it. If I want Andrew's opinion, I'll read the Hun. I' d rather hear your opinion._    Actually, I like using reality as the basis or support for my opinion. The change in climate as measured by us humans in the last few thousand years is so stable as to seem boring on a geological time scale.  
> As for Mr Bolts opinion, it closely aligns my own, and therefore logic dictates it is superior compared to opposing opinions and should be shared with those less well informed.   But on a serious note, he has links to many others stories which makes my posts less verbose, a blessing in anyone's opinion.     
> 			
> 				Quote:
>                          Originally Posted by *chrisp*   _ Mind you, if you are quoting facts, by all means provide a quote, but to me quotes of others opinions are just unnecessary. _      I guess based on this criteria, you will strongly oppose any references to the IPCC and its conclusions then?      
> 			
> 				Quote:
>                          Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*   _It seems that the good Mr James has beaten you to the punch in finding out how the IPCC came up with it's 90% claim of certainty (his link below). Apparantly they just made it up! No maths, no science, just an opinion. Who would have thought?   "It is sometimes claimed that the IPCC is 90 per cent confident of this claim, but there is no known statistical basis for this claim; it's purely subjective." 
> ...

----------


## Dr Freud

> Very sad indeed!

  This is far from the only criticism of this window dressing, it is just the latest.  As we are seeing, more scientists are being emboldened every day to speak out on these issues.  This is just another straw, Kerplunk!   

> But wait, there is more indeed!    It is a tragedy that this once great institution is being eroded because of this farce.  And they wonder why kids these days don't want to study maths and science any more.

    

> "CSIRO's role was to release ''unemotional'' scientific data."   You mean unemotional stuff like this?   "If the earth's temperature rose 2C, she warned, there would be risks that were "*difficult and dangerous*"."   I guess we better do something before its *too late*.   See more of the CSIRO decline that they cant hide rehashed below.

  Full report here for those who like science fiction:  http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf

----------


## Bedford

> It would depend upon whether the "_opinion_" is formed *internally* - such as it is something I like or prefer; or whether it is formed *externally* - I have observed certain phenomena and used it as a basis for developing a view. 
> Peer reviewed is a scientific review process that examines the reasoning and logic (and sometimes data) used to form an opinion - it is an external review.

  Which opinion, (int/ext) would be the least biased and most accurate?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Well found, Rob.  It's a pretty good piece about where we are now with respect to 'the debate we have to have' and I'm fairly strongly in favour of Hulme's comments here.

   

> It is certainly an external review but don't for one second think it is perfect.  The strength of the peer review process is based on the qualities of the people that are on the peer review panel that a particular journal uses - and no publication ever ever ever reveals whomsoever is a member of its peer review panel.  Ostensibly this is to prevent the authors from undulying pressuring the PRP into accepting the paper.  
> The counter argument is that the rest of us have little but trust, faith and the application of our own scientific knowledge that the 'experts' on the PRP will sort the wheat from the chaff of the originally submitted paper.   
> In the end, PRPs have demonstrated that they are the most effective court to judge a scientific paper in the first instance....but like all courts.....they do stuff up on occasion.  After all they are all made of people.

  Hey SBD, please accept my apologies, I believe I had misjudged you as being one of the blind-faith followers of AGW Theory. 
It seems you argue your points quite rationally.  It is a shame that we stand on opposite sides of this two-way range, but I look forward to hearing more of the other side argued logically for a change.  It is going to make us sceptics work much harder.  It is much easier to dismiss doomsday scenarios, rather than well argued facts and theories.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Which opinion, (int/ext) would be the least biased and most accurate?

  In my opinion, both my internal and external opinions are least biased and most accurate when compared to dissenting opinions.  :Wink 1:  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> This is far from the only criticism of this window dressing, it is just the latest.  As we are seeing, more scientists are being emboldened every day to speak out on these issues.  This is just another straw, Kerplunk!      
> Full report here for those who like science fiction:  http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf

  
Freud....you really need to do something about your post structures...they are almost unreadable!!  I'm having trouble trying to figure out what you're on about. 
You might not like what they say but at least the CSIRO can string together a coherent paragraph at the moment... :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Freud....you really need to do something about your post structures...they are almost unreadable!!  I'm having trouble trying to figure out what you're on about. 
> You might not like what they say but at least the CSIRO can string together a coherent paragraph at the moment...

  Yeh, gotta clean up my act a bit, I do tend to ramble incoherently more often than not.  :Smilie:  
I tried to explain this to Rod in regards to the NASA Lunar research, still gotta get onto that. 
The dinner party last night definitely didn't help with my coherence.  :Blush7:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Hey SBD, please accept my apologies, I believe I had misjudged you as being one of the blind-faith followers of AGW Theory. 
> It seems you argue your points quite rationally.  It is a shame that we stand on opposite sides of this two-way range, but I look forward to hearing more of the other side argued logically for a change.  It is going to make us sceptics work much harder.  It is much easier to dismiss doomsday scenarios, rather than well argued facts and theories.

  The only thing I have 'blind faith' in is the stupidity of the human animal.  All of them.  No exceptions. 
I'm not big on scenarios but am fairly confident in the laws of physics.  We are stuffing (or if you prefer, something is stuffing) with the physics of this planet....we may not know exactly what is going to happen as a result....but a range of 'somethings' is going to happen. There's a pretty good chance than more than a few aren't going to be much fun to deal with - personally I'd like that risk to be much much lower.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Well boys and girls, the AGW theory is just getting weaker and weaker.  About that big list of scientific societies pledging their undying support for the AGW. 
> Well the pressure from within is forcing them one by one to re-word their assertions on AGW.  This will be a watering down of their current support in the UK's Royal Society. How far they will go is anyone's guess, but it surely means that support in the scientific societie's is not as strong as some would have us believe.  My view is that this is just the tip of the iceberg.  
> Full link here. BBC News - Society to review climate message

  Here's another example of the scientists feeling a little braver speaking out.  "Australia's former chief scientist, Professor Robin Batterham, is embroiled in a bitter dispute over climate change within one of the nation's elite science academies...      ...A two-page draft, posted on a password-protected section of the academy's website, said the academy ''does not believe the science is settled'' regarding climate change. 
  It said many scientists believed ''climate changes are nothing unusual, based on past geological records''..."  Scientists at academy row over climate sceptic policy - Local News - News - General - The Canberra Times 
(I had to concentrate a lot to get it like that  :Frown: )

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It seems you argue your points quite rationally.

  Do you want to know why it seems that way?  You see I went to this course...a bit like this one... 
....to help people like me deal with people like...like...not like me in a rational and non antagonistic manner.  There wasn't much talk about 'facts' or 'figures'....more about how to have a pleasant conversation with people whose beliefs run counter to your own.   :Harhar:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Here's another example of the scientists feeling a little braver speaking out.  "Australia's former chief scientist, Professor Robin Batterham, is embroiled in a bitter dispute over climate change within one of the nation's elite science academies...      ...A two-page draft, posted on a password-protected section of the academy's website, said the academy ''does not believe the science is settled'' regarding climate change. 
>   It said many scientists believed ''climate changes are nothing unusual, based on past geological records''..."  Scientists at academy row over climate sceptic policy - Local News - News - General - The Canberra Times 
> (I had to concentrate a lot to get it like that )

  Not exactly....Batterham still 'believes' in AGW.....but suggests that there's not enough 'certainty' in the science about the process and potential outcomes to ensure that good political decisions and good policy outcomes. 
From the article: In a recent lecture to the University of Western Australia as academy president, Professor Batterham warned of the dangers of a political over-reaction to climate change. 
He said there was ''still much of the science that is uncertain'' and used data in an academy-badged slide presentation that claimed investment to create green jobs in Spain had resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs, or 2.2 jobs for every ''green job'' created. 
According to a report of the lecture published in a mining newsletter, Professor Batterham said despite scientific uncertainty, '' we need to drastically reduce CO2 or face runaway temperature rise''. 
Bad policy is still a problem in this debate...and really easy and quick to make and employ...typically within a three year election cycle 
By comparison, good science is often slow to come by....often decades.  And I'm not sure I want to wait that long.  Don't think Batterham is either.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Doc can you shed some light on this? Has it got any credibility?   
> Full link NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why by John O'Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists | Climate Realists

  Criticisms of using the term "greenhouse effect" when describing the Stefan-Boltzmann assumptions are already well documented in climate science, but as far as I have previously read, most of this was related to the actual "energy budget" calculations within the atmosphere.  These budget calculations (much like Rudd's :Biggrin: ) are often not balanced that well due to the unknowns. 
This relates to infra-red energy being transmitted or absorbed by the atmosphere, in both directions mind you.  But this energy (heat) transfer does not stand in isolation, convection and conduction plays a large part, working in coordination with the hydrological cycle. 
It appears that this criticism is now targetted at the actual lack of accountability of absorbed or delayed energy in the Earth "or blackbody in the theoretical version" in the models.  I haven't looked in depth at the Stefan-Boltmann assumptions to see how it accounts for this effect.  This criticism seems to say that it doesn't!   
I find this hard to believe as stored energy from infra-red energy is well known to dissipate on a time delay, particularly so in the oceans more so than in the land.  This is why nights are always warmer near the coast compared to inland, the oceans are warmer for longer as the land loses heat quicker.  From memory, land absorbing depth on Earth is about 100cm, and this article indicates Lunar absorbing is about 50cm. 
I will definitely do some digging, and maybe Chrisp can supply more details, as he has previously posted a decent amount of info in relation the energy budget.  That said, laboratory tests and modelling results are not always directly applicable in the real world. 
But hey, if they (climatologists) have not being accounting for this absorbed energy in their models, it will be very surprising and very spurious (dodgy :Biggrin: ).  Most unlike their other models.  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Not exactly....Batterham still 'believes' in AGW.....but suggests that there's not enough 'certainty' in the science about the process and potential outcomes to ensure that good political decisions and good policy outcomes. 
> From the article: In a recent lecture to the University of Western Australia as academy president, Professor Batterham warned of the dangers of a political over-reaction to climate change. 
> He said there was ''still much of the science that is uncertain'' and used data in an academy-badged slide presentation that claimed investment to create green jobs in Spain had resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs, or 2.2 jobs for every ''green job'' created. 
> According to a report of the lecture published in a mining newsletter, Professor Batterham said despite scientific uncertainty, '' we need to drastically reduce CO2 or face runaway temperature rise''. 
> Bad policy is still a problem in this debate...and really easy and quick to make and employ...typically within a three year election cycle 
> By comparison, good science is often slow to come by....often decades.  And I'm not sure I want to wait that long.  Don't think Batterham is either.

  Honesty is not always the best policy, but both yours and Batterham's are most refreshing and most welcome.  How sweet it is to finally hear people saying we have looked at the science available, and our opinion is action is required sooner rather than later.  Dissenting opinions are also worthy of being aired, as the scientific information available is far from conclusive. 
What we have heard unopposed until recently has been that the science is no longer an issue of debate, and all opposed to our opinion are denialists who actively encourage the destruction of future generations of our children and grandchildren. 
Notice the *slight* change. 
Refreshing indeed.  :2thumbsup:   
(If this was the result of the CSIRO briefings, I may become a supporter, but I doubt it as then they certainly aren't practising what they are preaching  :Biggrin: ).

----------


## chrisp

> I think it is good that we are now classifying opinions into more "valid" categories.  This would give them the perception of being more valid than other opinions.  I guess as we are now using words to differentiate them, we could call it the "qualification of opinion".  This is much better than the scam the IPCC tried to pull off which I call the "quantification of opinion", which was attaching fake numbers to opinions just to make them seem more "valid".

  Doc, 
I'm kind of in shock - I mostly agree with your post.  :Shock:  
I do agree with the need to define or classify opinions - but I suspect we'll be pushing different aims.  :Rolleyes:  
I think "*Opinion*" is a great cause of confusion and needs to be cleared up.   
Firstly, there is the difference between objective and subjective opinion.  I'll attempt to define these as:*objective opinion* (definition of objective: _Undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena_).  *subjective opinion* (definition of subjective: _Taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias_). I certainly value or rank opinions differently depending upon the source and qualification of the provider of the opinion. 
I do take, and accept, your comment on the "*quantification of opinion*" and I certainly don't accept that because a majority believe _such-and-such_ that _such-and-such_ is necessarily right, correct or best. 
I do, however, look at the "*quality of opinion*".  That is, the experience and the qualification of the person or organisation providing the opinion. 
I think this is where "scientific opinion" is sometimes confused with "popular opinion". 
In essence, *all opinions are not equal*.  Some are worth more than others. 
By its nature, scientific "opinion" is an "objective opinion" as science is a highly objective discipline.  Scientists, when speaking in a scientific capacity, will not voice unsubstantiated (aka subjective) opinions without explicitly stating that they are subjective opinions.  Where it does get confusing is that a scientist's personal opinion is usually driven by their objective opinion - making their subjective and objective opinion the same! 
Just to stir things up (and this is where we'd beg to differ) in the case of AGW theory, the weight of the "_quality of opinion_" and the weight of the "_quantity of opinion_"   supports the AGW theory.   :Smilie:  
[Definitions used are from WordWeb.]

----------


## chrisp

> Which opinion, (int/ext) would be the least biased  and most accurate?

  Bedford, 
I think SBD has provided a good answer to your question:   

> It is certainly an external review but don't for one second think it is perfect.  The strength of the peer review process is based on the qualities of the people that are on the peer review panel that a particular journal uses - and no publication ever ever ever reveals whomsoever is a member of its peer review panel.  Ostensibly this is to prevent the authors from undulying pressuring the PRP into accepting the paper.  
> The counter argument is that the rest of us have little but trust, faith and the application of our own scientific knowledge that the 'experts' on the PRP will sort the wheat from the chaff of the originally submitted paper.   
> In the end, PRPs have demonstrated that they are the most effective court to judge a scientific paper in the first instance....but like all courts.....they do stuff up on occasion.  After all they are all made of people.

  My opinion, is that the externally reviewed opinion would be less biased than an internally generated view.

----------


## Bedford

> My opinion, is that the externally reviewed opinion would be less biased than an internally generated view.

  Thanks Chrisp, It was a fair question though ? :Smilie:  
With these scientifically reviewed opinions, what percentage would be internal or externally generated, and is there a standard required ( as in checks and balances) to prevent distortion before the reports (findings) are made public?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> With these scientifically reviewed opinions, what percentage would be internal or externally generated, and is there a standard required ( as in checks and balances) to prevent distortion before the reports (findings) are made public?

  All of them in the first instance will be internally generated by the team or individual that wrote the paper.  The paper will then be submitted for publication and provided to a peer review committee along with any supporting material that the PRC may require.  The PRC then decides whether that internally generated opinion is substantiated by the data and the analysis technique. 
The premise is that the PRC will review the paper for logic and readability and provide an opinion about whether the author's findings are substantiated by both the data itself AND the analysis process conducted by the author. This may require the PRC members to actually repeat the analysis process in part (or in full) to demonstrate that data + analysis supports the finding. This is why the peer review process can often take more than two years to get through....rather than twenty minutes for a newspaper article or five seconds for a blog opinion. 
Is there a standard for PRP? Kind of.  The journals often describe the process that must be followed in order to get a paper published which is typically available on their website.  For example, here is the peer review information for one of the most prestigious of Scientific journals, Nature http://www.nature.com/authors/editor...er_review.html  Personally, as someone who sometimes analyses data and writes reports for a living, I find that page on of the more daunting things on the Internet. 
Other journal publishers (Springers, Elsevier, Wiley etc) also publish their editorial policies on their websites and then each journal has its own specific variations around their specialities that comply with the publishers policy. 
I'm not sure if there is an 'industry' standard....might be worth a hunt.

----------


## Bedford

Well, your never going to beat this mob. :Biggrin:   *      The review process*  
                            All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save  time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most  likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those  papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or  otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review  (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from  specialists in the field).     http://www.nature.com/authors/editor...er_review.html

----------


## chrisp

> Thanks Chrisp, It was a fair question though ? 
> With these scientifically reviewed opinions, what percentage would be internal or externally generated, and is there a standard required ( as in checks and balances) to prevent distortion before the reports (findings) are made public?

  Bedford. 
A very good question! 
I don't actually know the answer.  It is a bit like asking "_What percentage of jury trials produce the wrong determination?_" or "_What percentage of the police force are corrupt?_".  I think most of us would agree that there are mis-justice trail outcomes and that there has been, or is, some corruption in the police force, but just how much would be hard to say. 
I think (i.e. my opinion), is that in the scientific publications, the standard varies form publication to publication.  The better journals are often referred to as "prestigious".  I can't actually give you a percentage of rejected vs published - you would need to ask an editor of a journal (but they might not tell you either). 
Even the most basic peer-review process will require others in the field to state that the paper has some merit and is worthy of publication as it contributes to the knowledge in the field.  On the other hand, there are journals that will almost publish anything. 
One measure of scientific worth of a scientist is not just how many papers he or she has published, or which journals they have published in, but their "citation rate" for their papers - i.e. how many other papers make reference to their paper.  The higher the citation rate, the more influential, and well regarded, the work/author is.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Well, your never going to beat this mob.  *      The review process*  
>                             All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save  time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most  likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those  papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or  otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review  (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from  specialists in the field).   http://www.nature.com/authors/editor...er_review.html

  Bit like being on an interview panel (or Australian Idol)....first...create your short list!  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> ALL the major scientific organisations in the whole world all accepted that the Earth was flat.

  I'm not sure of the source (i.e. substantiation) of your claim, but I do find it an interesting point. 
The "spherical earth" concept would, I imagine, be counter-intuitive and hard to accept when it was first proposed.  The idea of hanging upside-down would be strange, and as after as most of are concerned the earth seems to be flat. 
What I find interesting is with your post is the question:  Just how long did it take from the when someone came up with the idea of a spherical earth to when it became widely accepted? 
Wikipedia has an article on "Spherical Earth" which outlines the development of the idea.  Spherical Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  
In summary, it seems that it took 300 years (or thereabouts) for the idea to be generally accepted (I don't know when it was universally accepted?).  Some of the early determinations of the size of the earth where  very clever and surprisingly accurate! 
It makes me wonder just how long it will take the AGW theory to be generally accepted?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Well, your never going to beat this mob.  *      The review process*  
>                             All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save  time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most  likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those  papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or  otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review  (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from  specialists in the field).     http://www.nature.com/authors/editor...er_review.html

  Not in those days anyway, but hopefully the times are a'changing. 
The peer-review process prior to Climategate was less than perfect or infallible (Google "the file draw effect" as an example), but was held in the scientific arena as the one of best methods available for removing "noise" or spurious research in a partly (but not fully) rigorous manner.  However, due to the confidentiality required, a great degree of trust had to be placed in the process itself. 
One of the worst fall-outs from the clowns in this fiasco, is that they have tarnished many reviewers who do great work every day.  The trust in this system will now have to be rebuilt from the ground up, especially in the climate science area, but other scientific areas have also had some of their credibility tarnished by this through no fault of their own. 
In order to maintain some sort of coherence  :Biggrin: , I will rehash some salient points below.

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's how dissenting science of the day was treated by the peer-review process: 
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing *how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process*. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. Obviously, they found a solution to thattake over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial boardWhat do others think?
 I will be emailing the journal to tell them Im having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. Ive had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !Full story here:  Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? – Telegraph Blogs

----------


## Dr Freud

Then the Editor-in-Chief of Nature has to recuse himself from sitting on the "independent" panel reviewing UEA conduct, as he had already made his mind up before the "independent" review had begun. Fancy that!  :Doh:  
"Then, later in the day critics including Lord Lawson, the former chancellor who called for this inquiry, began to raise concerns - in particular about an editorial in Nature magazine which he claimed accused critics of the scientists of paranoia, and was supportive of the scientists under investigation.    
  Last night it emerged on a sceptical website that in an interview with China Radio International last December, Dr Campbell appeared to have pre-judged the very issues the inquiry is supposed to examine. "   
Full story here:   BBC - Newsnight: Susan Watts: Extraordinary developments in 'Climategate' affair

----------


## Dr Freud

Thankfully, a voice of reason rose above the din regarding this sordid affair, and as we have seen recently in Rod's policy post, continues his crusade to renew some rigor to climate science: 
"A more thoughtful response to the emails comes from Mike Hulme, another climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, as reported by a New York Times blogger:  
"This event might signal a crack that allows for processes of re-structuring scientific knowledge about climate change. It is possible that some areas of climate science has become sclerotic. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science." 
The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-citedin that same peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim." 
Full story here:  Climate Change Emails Reveal Rigged 'Consensus' - WSJ.com

----------


## Dr Freud

I couldn't finish without some colourful hyperbole from our favourite sceptic:  _"Natures_ editors, not having reached intellectual puberty, lack the self-critical skill of examining their own consciences. When they grow up, they will realize that there is a reason why the skeptics are winning. It is because _the skeptics are right._ The science never was settled, nor was the debate over. CO2 is a bit-part player in the climate. Get over it and move along. Get a life.  
 And how come the skeptics are winning, when billions of state-funded propaganda dollars have been squandered for decades in an ever more futile attempt to buy the acquiescence of John Q. Public? Your average voter does not necessarily understand the growing number of scientific papers establishing, by a variety of measurements, that the UNs XBox 360s have gotten the models wrong, and that the warming effect of CO2 is around one-seventh of the UNs vastly-exaggerated central estimate.  
 But what the man on the crosstown bus can smell a mile off is propaganda bulls***.    
Tell him the debate on anything is over and his antennae will start to twitch. Tell him that because the debate is over he will have to lose his job and pay higher taxes and gasoline prices and electricity costs and he will ask what youre on and whether he can have some." 
Full story here:  Climategate: Once Respected Nature Now Staffed By Moaning Ninnies | MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory

----------


## Dr Freud

> It makes me wonder just how long it will take the AGW theory to be generally accepted?

  Once scientifically and statistically rigorous real world studies demonstrate a causal relationship that is replicable and both internally and externally valid.  :2thumbsup:  
Or Rudd spends enough of our money on propaganda.  :Cry:  
Either one will achieve general acceptance.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> I couldn't finish without some colourful hyperbole from our favourite sceptic:

  Doc, you left the best bit out... "*By Christopher Monckton*"   :Laughing1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Doc, you left the best bit out... "*By Christopher Monckton*"

  I gave a clue, *"And finally, the count."* 
But who else would be "our favourite sceptic"?**

----------


## chrisp

> I gave a clue, *"And finally, the count."* 
> But who else would be "our favourite sceptic"?**

  Rod.  :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Here's how dissenting science of the day was treated by the peer-review process: 
> And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing *how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process*. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.[INDENT]This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. Obviously, they found a solution to thattake over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial boardWhat do others think?
>  I will be emailing the journal to tell them Im having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. Ive had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !

  The blogger's comments are, in my opinion, a spectacular over reaction to the email content.   
Scientists in all fields make personal judgements about journals all the time based on a perception of content over time - just the same as you or I might do about the content of The Australian, The Age, The Women's Weekly or even Crikey. All these dudes were expressing is an opinion about whether they would support the journal (by submitting new papers).  Contacting or lobbying the editorial committee is a perfectly legitimate way of getting your views and opinions across - that is why most decent journals make the contact information of their editorial committee publicly available. You can see who is determining whether your paper is added to the 'short list'.  If you can liaise with these people then they can get both the populist and dissenting sides of an argument and take them into account when making the short list. 
The so-called 'ClimateGate' brouhaha has not altered the typical peer review process one iota...it remains much as it was.  No better, no worse.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The blogger's comments are, in my opinion, a spectacular over reaction to the email content.   
> Scientists in all fields make personal judgements about journals all the time based on a perception of content over time - just the same as you or I might do about the content of The Australian, The Age, The Women's Weekly or even Crikey. All these dudes were expressing is an opinion about whether they would support the journal (by submitting new papers).  Contacting or lobbying the editorial committee is a perfectly legitimate way of getting your views and opinions across - that is why most decent journals make the contact information of their editorial committee publicly available. You can see who is determining whether your paper is added to the 'short list'.  If you can liaise with these people then they can get both the populist and dissenting sides of an argument and take them into account when making the short list. 
> The so-called 'ClimateGate' brouhaha has not altered the typical peer review process one iota...it remains much as it was.  No better, no worse.

  So just to clarify: are you saying that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published; or do you support this one-sided bias and pressure if you are honest enough to acknowledge its censorial nature; or do you just recognise the one-sided bias and pressure and condone it by inaction as it supports your ideology; or do you make the claim that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published (as you appear to do above by trying to legitimise this farce)? 
For you see, as I mentioned, the peer-review process is far from perfect, but to equate this with the ridiculous distortions we have seen recently by some of these bozo's is equally ridiculous, and can probably only be matched by the suppression of free science by religious zealots throughout history.  :Annoyed:  
And no, Climategate certainly did not alter the peer-review process.  Like all corruption, it was merely exposed.  It is now incumbent on society (no, not just scientists) to determine whether we are happy being manipulated and treated like idiots by the "experts", or whether we say we want accountability and transparency from our scientists.  We get enough lies, corruption and ideology from our moronic politicians and their media puppets.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So just to clarify: are you saying that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published; or do you support this one-sided bias and pressure if you are honest enough to acknowledge its censorial nature; or do you just recognise the one-sided bias and pressure and condone it by inaction as it supports your ideology; or do you make the claim that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published (as you appear to do above by trying to legitimise this farce)? 
> For you see, as I mentioned, the peer-review process is far from perfect, but to equate this with the ridiculous distortions we have seen recently by some of these bozo's is equally ridiculous, and can probably only be matched by the suppression of free science by religious zealots throughout history.  
> And no, Climategate certainly did not alter the peer-review process. Like all corruption, it was merely exposed. It is now incumbent on society (no, not just scientists) to determine whether we are happy being manipulated and treated like idiots by the "experts", or whether we say we want accountability and transparency from our scientists. We get enough lies, corruption and ideology from our moronic politicians and their media puppets.

  Nicely put Doc. 
There is no bigger liar in politics than Rudd, his lies are breathtaking.   

> *THE RUDD government had already called in advertising agencies to pitch for a $38 million taxpayer funded campaign to sell the mining tax before announcing the new tax, despite arguing it was a campaign of misinformation by mining companies that justified the "urgent" expenditure.*

    Kevin Rudd planned mining ad campaign planned before industry backlash | The Australian

----------


## Dr Freud

> Nicely put Doc. 
> There is no bigger liar in politics than Rudd, his lies are breathtaking. 
> [/b]  Kevin Rudd planned mining ad campaign planned before industry backlash | The Australian

  Well, at least he learned from the last time.  ETS Mark1 failed because the taxpayer funded propaganda wasn't enough.  For ETS Mark2, he is going earlier and costlier than before, as he thinks we will buy it this time. What an idiot.  :Doh:  :Biggrin:    

> Once scientifically and statistically rigorous real world studies demonstrate a causal relationship that is replicable and both internally and externally valid.  
> Or Rudd spends enough of our money on propaganda.  
> Either one will achieve general acceptance.

  Yes, definitely still going with the second option.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So just to clarify: are you saying that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published; or do you support this one-sided bias and pressure if you are honest enough to acknowledge its censorial nature; or do you just recognise the one-sided bias and pressure and condone it by inaction as it supports your ideology; or do you make the claim that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published (as you appear to do above by trying to legitimise this farce)?

  Q1 - are you saying that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published?  
A1 - In general, yes.  I agree the emails imply there was an attempt to coerce the editorial team at just one of the many, many international scientific journals that publish climate change papers but to suggest that this demonstrates one sided bias and prevents anti-AGW papers from being published is gilding the lily. 
Q2 - do you support this one-sided bias and pressure if you are honest enough to acknowledge its censorial nature?  
A2 - Absolutely not.  If a scientific paper is good enough (regardless of topic or persuasion) then it should not be blocked from publication. 
Q3 - do you just recognise the one-sided bias and pressure and condone it by inaction as it supports your ideology? 
A3 - You labour under the misapprehension that I have an ideology to support...I retain an open mind.  There is bias and pressure on both sides of the debate - to suggest its a one way street is naive. 
Q4 - do you make the claim that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published (as you appear to do above by trying to legitimise this farce)? 
A4 - this question is the same as the first....and so is the answer.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Q1 - are you saying that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published?  
> A1 - In general, yes.  I agree the emails imply there was an attempt to coerce the editorial team at just one of the many, many international scientific journals that publish climate change papers but to suggest that this demonstrates one sided bias and prevents anti-AGW papers from being published is gilding the lily. 
> Q2 - do you support this one-sided bias and pressure if you are honest enough to acknowledge its censorial nature?  
> A2 - Absolutely not.  If a scientific paper is good enough (regardless of topic or persuasion) then it should not be blocked from publication. 
> Q3 - do you just recognise the one-sided bias and pressure and condone it by inaction as it supports your ideology? 
> A3 - You labour under the misapprehension that I have an ideology to support...I retain an open mind.  There is bias and pressure on both sides of the debate - to suggest its a one way street is naive. 
> Q4 - do you make the claim that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published (as you appear to do above by trying to legitimise this farce)? 
> A4 - this question is the same as the first....and so is the answer.

  Please forgive my incessant questioning, but you were making a rather cogent argument until this, so I just want to make sure I am not misunderstanding your position before rebuking it.  I have been assuming you have read the information already posted in this thread, so if you have not, please advise. :Biggrin:  
I am not naive enough to take a position that there has been "zero" pressure applied from the anti-AGW Theory position, I myself continue to apply such pressure.  :Biggrin:   But I hardly hold the sway of a journal editor, government minister, or IPCC scientist in influencing published material. 
So you say there is bias and pressure on both sides of this argument.  Are you suggesting (surreptitiously) this bias and pressure has been "equally weighted" throughout this debate, or do you concede that this bias and pressure has been weighted more to "one side", particularly so prior to Climategate.  You see, if it is the former, then we will have an interesting time presenting our evidence to support our differing viewpoints.  If it is the latter, then we can agree the debate has been biased and pressured in a "one-sided" manner, we can just banter over the scale of the imbalance (with supporting evidence of course).  :Biggrin:

----------


## Bedford

In the interests of continuing this discussion,   

> Did anyone come up with the equal and opposite reaction to all the carbon we put up in the atmosphere?

  I am also curious about this, but couldn't find a response, maybe it vaporised in the carnage? 
If someone could point me to it or offer an answer that would be great, thanks. :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So you say there is bias and pressure on both sides of this argument.  Are you suggesting (surreptitiously) this bias and pressure has been "equally weighted" throughout this debate, or do you concede that this bias and pressure has been weighted more to "one side", particularly so prior to Climategate.

  Q1 - Are you suggesting (surreptitiously) this bias and pressure has been "equally weighted" throughout this debate? 
A1 -  No.  But then I have no idea how much 'bias & pressure' is being applied one way or the other.   
Q2 - do you concede that this bias and pressure has been weighted more to "one side", particularly so prior to Climategate? 
A2 - No. Of course not.  But then like I said before "I have no idea how much 'bias & pressure' is being applied one way or the other".  And the so called 'Climategate' changed nothing as far as I can tell. 
In the end, I prefer to assume that the peer review process is applied and delivered as objectively as possible by *each and every journal* in accordance with their editorial criteria so that all the submissions to that journal  are dealt with equitably based on the quality of the content rather than the opinions of the authors.  But there are *tens of thousands of scientific journals* being published out there....it is fair to assume that there are a few that aren't as rigorous and fair-minded as they should be. Buggered if I know which ones though...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by dazzler 
> Did anyone come up with the equal and opposite reaction to all the carbon we put up in the atmosphere? 
> I am also curious about this, but couldn't find a response, maybe it vaporised in the carnage? 
> If someone could point me to it or offer an answer that would be great, thanks.

  There where a few responses....none of them helpful.  
The equal and opposite physical reaction is that the atmosphere has got more dense... 
Is that any help?  :Hahaha:

----------


## chrisp

> In the interests of continuing this discussion,  
> I am also curious about this, but couldn't find a response, maybe it vaporised in the carnage? 
> If someone could point me to it or offer an answer that would be great, thanks.

  I thought it was a question directed to the "other side" so I passed on it. 
Here is my take:  We are talking about "flow systems" here.  The analogy isn't '_filling a bucket with water_' (which is an accumulation system), but rather '_filling a leaking_ _bucket_ with water'.What we have is a CO2 flow system where there are processes that generate CO2 ('sources') and processes that consume CO2 ('sinks').  To use the above analogy, the water filling the bucket is the 'source' and the water leaking out of it is the 'sink'.Assuming it is a stable system, the level of CO2 (or water) will reach and stabilise at a particular level (aka 'equilibrium' level).If the 'source' is increased by pumping in more CO2 (or water) at an increased rate, the CO2 (or water) level will rise, but this will also increase the pressure at the 'sink' too so the sink rate will also increase (i.e. using the leaking bucket analogy, the water level will rise and increase the 'head' pressure driving water through the leak).  Overall there is an increase in the CO2 (water) level as the increased 'head' is required to increase the 'sink' rate.  The CO2 (water) level will eventually reach a new, higher, equilibrium level.
The short answer to Dazzler's question, is there is an 'opposite' reaction to CO2 - but 'equal' will depend upon your definition of 'equal'.  Eventually, the CO2 'sink' rate will catch up with the increased CO2 'source' rate, but the atmospheric CO2 level will increase as a result. 
To complicate things further, the climate system is a number of coupled flow systems: there is the CO2 level as one system, and there is the CO2 level to temperature system. 
At present, the temperature rise due to the existing level (rate) of CO2 emissions hasn't yet stabilised (analogy: the water level in the leaking bucket is still increasing).  The prediction is a 1.2 degree rise of which we have so far experienced a 0.7 degree rise with another 0.5 degrees required for the temperature to reach equilibrium.  However, we are actually increasing the rate of CO2 emission at the moment so even a higher temperature rise is anticipated. 
Clear as mud!  :Smilie:

----------


## Bedford

So, under current conditions it's diminishing returns? 
In recent years they have been taking chemicals out of our vehicles fuel to reduce pollution, so is there a chemical that can be added to cancel this pollution? 
Now I know I will become a laughing stock for this example, but if for example citric acid was to counteract the pollution caused by fuels, if we planted Orange trees they could supply food, consume some of the CO2 in the process, and negate the affects of the vehicle emissions if mixed with their fuels. Surely there must be some chemical that could assist.  
Rod, feel free to ask Mr Watson to bomb this off if it's out of whack. :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> In recent years they have been taking chemicals out of our vehicles fuel to reduce pollution, so is there a chemical that can be added to cancel this pollution? 
> Now I know I will become a laughing stock for this example, but if for example citric acid was to counteract the pollution caused by fuels, if we planted Orange trees they could supply food, consume some of the CO2 in the process, and negate the affects of the vehicle emissions if mixed with their fuels. Surely there must be some chemical that could assist.

  The short answer is "_yes, but..._" 
The basic chemical reaction, when burning hydrocarbons is something like:CH4 +  2O2 →  CO2 +  2H2O + energyIn essence, CO2 is a by-product of our use of fossil fuels to produce energy.   
To somehow chemically null out the CO2 and turn it in to something else will  require energy.  So, *yes*, we could develop a system to convert the CO2 in the something else, *but* it will _require_ energy - for example to drive the above equation backwards  Due to inefficiencies,we'd end up with a process that will requires more energy to clean-up the CO2 than is produced by the hydrocarbons in the first place.   
We might as well not burn the hydrocarbons in the first place as it will take more energy to 'clean it up' than is produced!  This is essentially a foundation of the "greenie" view of the world - i.e. we should use renewable energy instead.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> In the interests of continuing this discussion,  
> I am also curious about this, but couldn't find a response, maybe it vaporised in the carnage? 
> If someone could point me to it or offer an answer that would be great, thanks.

  Don't know do you?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The short answer is "_yes, but..._" 
> The basic chemical reaction, when burning hydrocarbons is something like: CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O + energyIn essence, CO2 is a by-product of our use of fossil fuels to produce energy.  
> To somehow chemically null out the CO2 and turn it in to something else will require energy. So, *yes*, we could develop a system to convert the CO2 in the something else, *but* it will _require_ energy - for example to drive the above equation backwards Due to inefficiencies,we'd end up with a process that will requires more energy to clean-up the CO2 than is produced by the hydrocarbons in the first place.  
> We might as well not burn the hydrocarbons in the first place as it will take more energy to 'clean it up' than is produced! This is essentially a foundation of the "greenie" view of the world - i.e. we should use renewable energy instead.

  What renewable energy do you think will run all our cars trucks busses etc?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> At present, the temperature rise due to the existing level (rate) of CO2 emissions hasn't yet stabilised (analogy: the water level in the leaking bucket is still increasing).

  If they have not established it by now with all the $$ thrust at it, why not?  

> The prediction is a 1.2 degree rise of which we have so far experienced a 0.7 degree rise with another 0.5 degrees required for the temperature to reach equilibrium.

  Here is the quandry, they PREDICT a 1.2 degree rise yet above we say that we have not been able to establish how much the temperature will rise due to CO2.  The .7 degree rise is subject to a lot of debate due to the measuring methods and urban heat island effect pluss many more concerns about the accuracy.    

> However, we are actually increasing the rate of CO2 emission at the moment so even a higher temperature rise is anticipated.

  Another quandry!! CO2 has continued to rise yet temperatures for the past 10 years or so have not and no one can explain why?   
CO2 is predicted to keep rising but the predictions are that temperatures will actually fall over the next 20 years or so.   :Confused:  :Confused:  :Confused:     
Clear as mud!  :Smilie: [/quote]

----------


## Rod Dyson

> What renewable energy do you think will run all our cars trucks busses etc?

  This might help.   http://windfarmperformance.info/

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> In recent years they have been taking chemicals out of our vehicles fuel to reduce pollution, so is there a chemical that can be added to cancel this pollution? 
> Now I know I will become a laughing stock for this example, but if for example citric acid was to counteract the pollution caused by fuels, if we planted Orange trees they could supply food, consume some of the CO2 in the process, and negate the affects of the vehicle emissions if mixed with their fuels. Surely there must be some chemical that could assist.

  Laughing stock?  There's no such thing as a dumb question so who is going to laugh at you?  That said....citric acid doesn't comes from citrus but that's no matter either. 
There's nothing out there that will consume the CO2 resulting from a hydrocarbon combustion simply because energy that resulted from the reaction that released the CO2.  The energy required to fix it quickly at the source is greater than the energy released.... 
That said...in some Euro vehicles we've started adding urea to diesel fuel to help reduce the production of particulates.  And there's plenty more greenhouse gases than just CO2...so you never know what the boffins might come up with. 
Longer term....there are a few labs around the world that have figured out some of the concepts around artificial trees that can fix CO2.  So the boffins are fighting back...

----------


## Rod Dyson

My my our climate scientist certainly are beyond reproach.   

> Shock new evidence of a NASA scientist faking a fundamental greenhouse gas equation shames beleaguered space administration in new global warming fraud scandal. 
> Caught in the heat are NASA's Dr. Judith Curry and a junk science equation by the space agency’s Dr. Gavin Schmidt creating disarray over a contentious Earth energy graph.  
> The internal row was ignited by the release of a sensational new research paper discrediting calculations crucial to the greenhouse gas theory.

  Link NASA Charged in New Climate Fakery: Greenhouse Gas Data Bogus by John O&#039;Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists | Climate Realists

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> What renewable energy do you think will run all our cars trucks busses etc?

  A mixture of hydrocarbons (sourced from biomass and natural gas reserves) and electricity (sourced from mixture of locally and grid sourced feeds based on hydro, solar, wind, tide, geothermal, biomass, coal, natural gas...) dependent on need and operating circumstances. 
It's not rocket science.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> A mixture of hydrocarbons (sourced from biomass and natural gas reserves) and electricity (sourced from mixture of locally and grid sourced feeds based on hydro, solar, wind, tide, geothermal, biomass, coal, natural gas...) dependent on need and operating circumstances. 
> It's not rocket science.

  
You missed nuclear. 
BTW what % of our needs do you think each one will provide, considering of coarse the amount of electicity that will be required to charge our electric cars.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> My my our climate scientist certainly are beyond reproach.   
> Link NASA Charged in New Climate Fakery: Greenhouse Gas Data Bogus by John O'Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists | Climate Realists

   

> My my our climate scientist certainly are beyond reproach.   
> Link NASA Charged in New Climate Fakery: Greenhouse Gas Data Bogus by John O'Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists | Climate Realists

  
Sorry Rod but a paper written by three dudes (science adviser, retired radiochemist and retired analytical chemist) and simply published online at a so-very-sceptic website does not meet my sniff test....no matter how flash it might look.  Or even right it might prove to be in the unlikely event of it being submitted to a scientific journal http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/...n_the_Moon.pdf 
As for some of the other stuff raised in that weird little pdf your link then links to..(it is a bit hard to track)...my feeling is that you correspondent is over-reaching.  For example, the weakness of many climate and energy balance models with respect to the Southern Ocean (much of the southern hemisphere in fact) has been recognised for some time - mainly because only there's only a handful of 1st World countries down here and the monitoring effort down here until recent times has been a shadow of what has happened to our north...of course the models aren't going to be that flash at the detail. At no point in that abstract AMS Journals Online - Simulation of Present-Day and Twenty-First-Century Energy Budgets of the Southern Oceans does it say....global warming ain't happening - it just says we can't model clouds very well in the Southern Ocean - no biggy - we couldn't model clouds anywhere realistically only five years back.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You missed nuclear. 
> BTW what % of our needs do you think each one will provide, considering of coarse the amount of electicity that will be required to charge our electric cars.

  No I didn't.  I omitted it on purpose.  Because it's a form of electricity generation we don't have in Australia.  All the others we already have in one form or another - only tidal remains in the commercial prototype stage. 
As for their percentage contribution.....I've no idea. And nor do I really care. But I look forward to finding out one day.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> No I didn't. I omitted it on purpose. Because it's a form of electricity generation we don't have in Australia. All the others we already have in one form or another - only tidal remains in the commercial prototype stage. 
> As for their percentage contribution.....I've no idea. And nor do I really care. But I look forward to finding out one day.

  
Be prepared for blackouts LOL 
If you want to power our country with increased population without co2 then you had better conceed to nuclear power or you will be severely dissapointed.

----------


## Dr Freud

Another chapter will document the government's politically motivated dumping of what it claimed as "the great moral issue of our time". While Rudd ministers point the finger of blame at the opposition and the Greens for opposing the emissions trading system, the Prime Minister could take the same policy to the coming election for voter approval. He won't. Rudd's rhetoric, this time about climate change, has been defeated by more reality. This year, fewer and fewer Australians - especially the working families that Rudd won over in 2007 - believe his hype.   So rework this for the first page: someone close to me liked to say the difference between monkeys and men is men learn from their mistakes. The Rudd government was led by a barrel of interlinking monkeys.   Full sordid story here:   When vanity hits political reality | The Australian 
Rudd entered under the fanfare of saying sorry to some Australians. Will he say sorry to all Australians for what he's stolen from us?      

> But in a nutshell:    You're damn right I ordered the code RUDD!

----------


## Dr Freud

> Q1 - Are you suggesting (surreptitiously) this bias and pressure has been "equally weighted" throughout this debate? 
> A1 -  No.  But then I have no idea how much 'bias & pressure' is being applied one way or the other.   
> Q2 - do you concede that this bias and pressure has been weighted more to "one side", particularly so prior to Climategate? 
> A2 - No. Of course not.  But then like I said before "I have no idea how much 'bias & pressure' is being applied one way or the other".  And the so called 'Climategate' changed nothing as far as I can tell. 
> In the end, I prefer to assume that the peer review process is applied and delivered as objectively as possible by *each and every journal* in accordance with their editorial criteria so that all the submissions to that journal  are dealt with equitably based on the quality of the content rather than the opinions of the authors.  But there are *tens of thousands of scientific journals* being published out there....it is fair to assume that there are a few that aren't as rigorous and fair-minded as they should be. Buggered if I know which ones though...

    

> But then I have no idea how much 'bias & pressure' is being applied one way or the other.

   

> But then like I said before "I have no idea how much 'bias & pressure' is being applied one way or the other".

   

> I prefer to assume that the peer review process is applied and delivered as objectively as possible

   

> ...it is fair to assume that there are a few that aren't as rigorous and fair-minded as they should be. Buggered if I know which ones though...

  It is unfortunate that you have not yet acquired enough information on this subject to form even a cursory opinion.  I can highly recommend this thread if you want to gain more knowledge.  It presents a lot of information from many viewpoints in regards to AGW Theory, and its various tangential issues.  This may assist in transforming some of your assumptions into more (even slightly) informed opinions.  But hey, if you're happy working with assumptions, there's nothing wrong with this.  At least you've clearly explained them, unlike the IPCC when delivering their model output, without clear explanation of the underlying assumptions.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I thought it was a question directed to the "other side" so I passed on it. 
> Here is my take:  We are talking about "flow systems" here.  The analogy isn't '_filling a bucket with water_' (which is an accumulation system), but rather '_filling a leaking_ _bucket_ with water'.What we have is a CO2 flow system where there are processes that generate CO2 ('sources') and processes that consume CO2 ('sinks').  To use the above analogy, the water filling the bucket is the 'source' and the water leaking out of it is the 'sink'.Assuming it is a stable system, the level of CO2 (or water) will reach and stabilise at a particular level (aka 'equilibrium' level).If the 'source' is increased by pumping in more CO2 (or water) at an increased rate, the CO2 (or water) level will rise, but this will also increase the pressure at the 'sink' too so the sink rate will also increase (i.e. using the leaking bucket analogy, the water level will rise and increase the 'head' pressure driving water through the leak).  Overall there is an increase in the CO2 (water) level as the increased 'head' is required to increase the 'sink' rate.  The CO2 (water) level will eventually reach a new, higher, equilibrium level.
> The short answer to Dazzler's question, is there is an 'opposite' reaction to CO2 - but 'equal' will depend upon your definition of 'equal'.  Eventually, the CO2 'sink' rate will catch up with the increased CO2 'source' rate, but the atmospheric CO2 level will increase as a result. 
> To complicate things further, the climate system is a number of coupled flow systems: there is the CO2 level as one system, and there is the CO2 level to temperature system. 
> At present, the temperature rise due to the existing level (rate) of CO2 emissions hasn't yet stabilised (analogy: the water level in the leaking bucket is still increasing).  The prediction is a 1.2 degree rise of which we have so far experienced a 0.7 degree rise with another 0.5 degrees required for the temperature to reach equilibrium.  However, we are actually increasing the rate of CO2 emission at the moment so even a higher temperature rise is anticipated. 
> Clear as mud!

  It is good to finally get back to the scientific debate rather than the he said/she said stuff.  (Oops, sorry I forgot the scientific debate was over  :Wink 1: ).   

> the temperature rise due to the existing level (rate) of CO2 emissions

  So if the temperature rise (spurious anyway) is *due to* the CO2, then it is the effect of CO2, which becomes the cause, hence a "causal relationship".  Surely the hundreds of billions of dollars pumped into this area of science being worked on by the most passionate environmental scientists on the planet have uncovered this causal relationship by now?   

> The prediction is a 1.2 degree rise of which we have so far experienced a 0.7 degree rise with another 0.5 degrees required for the temperature to reach equilibrium.

  Aside from the previous point, let's assume the 0.7 degree celsius rise is accurate (and in any way meaningful).  Then let's assume the whole 0.7 degrees was directly caused by ONLY anthropogenic CO2 emissions (which you did).  Are you therefore trying to say that every single other known influence on temperature, and the interaction between all of these variables, has magically been frozen against the laws of physics since we invented thermometers and started growing cities around them?  Just wondering?  :Confused:   Or do we just assume their net influence is magically 0.00 degrees? 
Oh yeh, thanks for also pointing out the error margin in the models, nearly 100%.  :Biggrin:    

> The analogy isn't '_filling a bucket with water_' (which is an accumulation system), but rather '_filling a leaking_ _bucket_ with water'.

  Forgive me for quibbling on the details of this analogy (as many of mine are disastrous  :Biggrin: ), but I assume this is a purely theoretical analogy not designed to reflect the real world.  It seems to ignore the fact that CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere and "greenhouse effect".  As this theory is titled AGW Theory, the warming of the entire globe is intrinsic to the theory, and by direct implication, all factors potentially influencing this warming.  While this analogy is quite good for describing the CO2 flow system in isolation, is it not a little spurious just cutting straight to the temperature discussion while ignoring all the other stuff in the AGW Theory "bucket"?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Did anyone come up with the equal and opposite reaction to all the carbon we put up in the atmosphere?

   

> In the interests of continuing this discussion,  
> I am also curious about this, but couldn't find a response, maybe it vaporised in the carnage? 
> If someone could point me to it or offer an answer that would be great, thanks.

   

> Don't know do you?

  We'll know when this question is answered because then this thread will end. :2thumbsup:  
As has been posted previously, all we have is dodgy (proxy) records for what has happened over the last few hundred million years (and no, the Planet didn't end  :Sneaktongue: ).  Woodbe laughed at that one last time.  :Biggrin:  
All we have now are current measurements, which are somewhere between boring and monotonous on a geological scale. 
As for predictions, consult your nearest computer model, tarot card reader, or psychic.  They are all comparable in their statistical accuracy. 
I prefer to lean towards Lorenz's Chaos Theory, which so far has been supported by every prediction ever made.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> What renewable energy do you think will run all our cars trucks busses etc?

   

> A mixture of hydrocarbons (sourced from biomass and natural gas reserves) and electricity (sourced from mixture of locally and grid sourced feeds based on hydro, solar, wind, tide, geothermal, biomass, coal, natural gas...) dependent on need and operating circumstances. 
> It's not rocket science.

  Technically, on a geological time scale, natural gas and coal are renewable.  Once we all return to the Earth (I kinda like the idea of being future sequestered carbon  :Biggrin: ) along with other carbon, time will see us potentially topping up oil, gas and coal reserves. Technically, biomass is also renewable, but not logistically viable on a future planet of 9 billion humans all aspiring to live above the poverty line. 
But in environmental usage, I think greenies would balk at your suggestion that gas and coal can be classed as renewable.  Rudd would love you though, as his RET legislation would be very easily achieved.  :2thumbsup:  
So we are left with: hydro, solar, wind, tide, and geothermal.  :Cry:  
Are these technologies at a commercially scalable level (even combined) to replace non-renewable energy sources? No.  :No:  
Is it currently economically viable to develop these technologies to a commercially scalable level to replace non-renewable energy sources? No.  :No:  
Will jeopardising the economic prosperity of the non-renewable energy sector by heavier taxation regimes leaving them financially worse off, enable them to increase business investment in the renewable sector? No.  :No:  
Should we have taken the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted globally on this farce and instead invested in R&D into viable commercially scalable renewable energy? Hell yes.  :2thumbsup:  
Abso-bloody-lutely.  :brava:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It is unfortunate that you have not yet acquired enough information on this subject to form even a cursory opinion.  I can highly recommend this thread if you want to gain more knowledge.  It presents a lot of information from many viewpoints in regards to AGW Theory, and its various tangential issues.  This may assist in transforming some of your assumptions into more (even slightly) informed opinions.  But hey, if you're happy working with assumptions, there's nothing wrong with this.  At least you've clearly explained them, unlike the IPCC when delivering their model output, without clear explanation of the underlying assumptions.

  And here's silly old me thinking we were talking about the publication of scientific analysis in general....whereas The Doc seems to think I have no opinion on the science itself.  Which is not true.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Technically, on a geological time scale, natural gas and coal are renewable.  Once we all return to the Earth (I kinda like the idea of being future sequestered carbon ) along with other carbon, time will see us potentially topping up oil, gas and coal reserves. Technically, biomass is also renewable, but not logistically viable on a future planet of 9 billion humans all aspiring to live above the poverty line. 
> But in environmental usage, I think greenies would balk at your suggestion that gas and coal can be classed as renewable.  Rudd would love you though, as his RET legislation would be very easily achieved.  
> So we are left with: hydro, solar, wind, tide, and geothermal.  
> Are these technologies at a commercially scalable level (even combined) to replace non-renewable energy sources? No.  
> Is it currently economically viable to develop these technologies to a commercially scalable level to replace non-renewable energy sources? No.  
> Will jeopardising the economic prosperity of the non-renewable energy sector by heavier taxation regimes leaving them financially worse off, enable them to increase business investment in the renewable sector? No.  
> Should we have taken the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted globally on this farce and instead invested in R&D into viable commercially scalable renewable energy? Hell yes.  
> Abso-bloody-lutely.

  Why limit ourselves to renewables only?  There's plenty of fossil energy sources out there (especially natural gas) that can be exploited with a far smaller carbon footprint especially during the long social adjustment period.  The greenies are as bad with respect to their opinions on fossil fuels as those brownies & glow sticks who say that renewables will never work - narrow minded negative thinking.   
Biomass is looking to be extremely promising viability wise especially with new developments around algae that are being tweaked to provide large quantities of hydrocarbons and other feedstocks. Biomass also a broad church when it comes to the definition of the source - it isn't always about corn and land area.  Think more broadly and ambitiously than that, Freud-y. 
Frued said:
"So we are left with: hydro, solar, wind, tide, and geothermal.  :Cry:  
Are these technologies at a commercially scalable level (even combined) to replace non-renewable energy sources? No.  :No: " 
A very large chunk of the East Coast of Australia is already supplied with electricity sourced in a large part from hydro power.  Why do you think they built the Snowy Scheme fifty years ago - for bigger fish ponds?  :Doh:  
Both solar and wind have been demonstrated as commercially viable and whilst  only wind is in the large scale as yet...the solar stations are coming.  In the meantime, decentralised solar based supplies are not uncommon.  Baseload management is now essentially solved through a range of storage options (both thermal (salt water ponds, heat exchangers and steam) and battery based - check out King Island Power Station's liquid battery for instance) so there's no longer a significant hurdle there.  Tide has a few demo plants on the east and west coats and a geothermal plant is powering Innamincka in SA with a grid connection expected in the next five years. 
Combine that with the natural gas power stations in WA, SA and QLD with potential for more in Vic (recently announced) & QLD; the increasingly common decentralised systems that are popping up in homes, businesses and government buildings; and the ever growing push for improve energy efficiency in homes and businesses; there should be plenty of power in the grid for some time yet. 
So the answer is actually yes. No just demonstrates a lack of flexibility and imagination...as it always has. 
Freud said:
"Will jeopardising the economic prosperity of the non-renewable energy sector by heavier taxation regimes leaving them financially worse off, enable them to increase business investment in the renewable sector? No.  :No:  
Should we have taken the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted globally on this farce and instead invested in R&D into viable commercially scalable renewable energy? Hell yes." 
Who is going to pay for increasing taxation on the non-renewable energy sector?  The consumer, of course.  So how will the sector be any worse off? And why would they be the only companies that invest in renewables? 
As for Para 2...."the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted globally on this farce"....what hundreds of billions and to which particular farce are we refering? Annual climate science budgets from around the world combined would be lucky to reach more than 10 billion US (yes that's a guess) whereas there are plenty of other farces around the world that are better funded than that - defence, marketing of TVs, public relations, reality television, sporting events etc etc.  Spending on the environment in this country alone amounts only a few hundred million per annum or less than 1% of GDP (I can't remember which)....we spend more than that on the AFL. 
Whichever farce you happen to prefer...yes...we should have spent the last decade investing more into "viable commercially scalable renewable energy".  No argument from me there.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> A very large chunk of the East Coast of Australia is already supplied with electricity sourced in a large part from hydro power. Why do you think they built the Snowy Scheme fifty years ago - for bigger fish ponds?

  LOL try building a new dam in Australia!!   
See how far the greens will let you get.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here is an article on Islands in the pacific and how they are actually growing and not sinking.  While the article itself does not really pove anything, it is interesting to read the comments. 
If you were in any doubt that AGW has lost traction in the public's eye, this shoud dispell any doubts.  I will make a prediction that polls on the public view of climate change will never ever reach the previous high points in favor of AGW. 
Here is the link. Climate change &#039;increases island size&#039; | News.com.au 
Just ask around people you know and you will find that the wind has been sucked out on the AGW bandwagon sails.   
My next prediction is that the scientists have fired all the bullets they have on AGW, there is nothing new left for them to come up with to convince the public to change back to support them.   Science by skeptical scientists will not be able to deliver a decisive blow either. Yet at the same time the empircal evidence will continue to work against the theory. This will be the critical difference. 
Scientists can no longer get away with fudging numbers the spot light will be squarely on them as it should be.  We have climate gate to thank for that.  It is going to be a slow gind that will pick up pace as doomsday predictions fail to materialize.  The ice free ice caps will be the first prediction that will leave egg on the face of alarmists.  The next will be prolonged drought in Australia.   
I would like to hear how you guys think the AGW theory will play out.  What will be the turning points in you mind that will win the day for your side?  Will it be ice free polar caps? Al gore has only a few years to go to start wiping egg off his face :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

For the love of Huey....read the article that News Ltd has quoted Shape-shifting islands defy sea-level rise - environment - 02 June 2010 - New Scientist and the abstract & outline paper upon which it was based (published wayyyyyyyback in May 2008 but available online since November 2007) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...9daf109ec7d105 and tell me please where the various authors and opinionists say that this discredits the science and various proofs offered for a warming climate.... 
Yes....islands can adapt...who knew? I didn't!  Glad no grateful that they can.  Question is....can they continue to do so in the face of warmer and more acidic oceans?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I would like to hear how you guys think the AGW theory will play out.

  The 'theory' will play out just fine....the mechanism has already been demonstrated. The reaction to the mechanism is where the action is....the "what's gonna happen".   
And I've no idea what is going to happen...few if any really do (but that doesn't stop the guessing game)...it has already been demonstrated that some things are definitely going to change...but how those changes will interact? No idea.  Worse still...I'm deeply suspicious of how the human species will react to that change.  Because human beings are collectively stupid and will  always strive for the individual at the cost of the many.  But that last bit is just an opinion....still.....prove me wrong.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> For the love of Huey....read the article that News Ltd has quoted Shape-shifting islands defy sea-level rise - environment - 02 June 2010 - New Scientist and the abstract & outline paper upon which it was based (published wayyyyyyyback in May 2008 but available online since November 2007) ScienceDirect - Global and Planetary Change : Reef-island topography and the vulnerability of atolls to sea-level rise and tell me please where the various authors and opinionists say that this discredits the science and various proofs offered for a warming climate.... 
> Yes....islands can adapt...who knew? I didn't! Glad no grateful that they can. Question is....can they continue to do so in the face of warmer and more acidic oceans?

  Did you read what I said about the article?   

> While the article itself *does not really pove anything*, it is interesting to read the comments.

  I was simply pointing out the tone of the comments to the article at least 5 to 1 against AGW in general!!   
Just pointing out what the alarmist are up against as far as public opinion goes.  Ignore public opinion at your peril.   
You see too many alarmist outlandish predictions are failing to materialize and many others totally debunked. People fell for it for a while but have woken up to the fact that they have been hoodwinked into accepting that AGW was going to destroy us by activists blowing scare campaigns out of all proportion. 
So now we are getting back to scientific facts rather than scare mongering.  Scare mongering has back fired on the AGW alarmists and the science is not strong enough on its own, never has been, hence the scare mongering. 
So, where do we go from here?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The 'theory' will play out just fine....the mechanism has already been demonstrated. The reaction to the mechanism is where the action is....the "what's gonna happen".  
> And I've no idea what is going to happen...few if any really do (but that doesn't stop the guessing game)...it has already been demonstrated that some things are definitely going to change...but how those changes will interact? No idea. Worse still...I'm deeply suspicious of how the human species will react to that change. Because human beings are collectively stupid and will always strive for the individual at the cost of the many. But that last bit is just an opinion....still.....prove me wrong.

  It won't be up to me to prove you wrong, nothing I or anyone else can say could do that.  Only time and the failure of many predictions can do that. We will see a steady watering down of the scares, as time goes on. Which will result in further weakening of the theory.     :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> The problem has been that methane concentrations have indeed plateaued for some time.  However, at the time of the State of the Climate report being prepared there were one or two papers in press (awaiting peer review) that presented data that apparently shows that methane levels are again on the rise.

  Here is a bit of insight on the methane plateau, Winds of change  
It is a good article covering a few points that we haven't covered in this thread (yet). 
The short answer (for the reading challenged) is: It is/was the Russians - and their leaky natural gas plants.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I was simply pointing out the tone of the comments to the article at least 5 to 1 against AGW in general!!

  You and I either didn't read the same articles....or we have very very different ways of interpreting the written word.     

> So, where do we go from here?

  Shamefully, we hang around here with all the other sheep and wait to be led..... :Cry:

----------


## chrisp

> Here is an article on Islands in the pacific and how they are actually growing and not sinking.  While the article itself does not really pove anything, it is interesting to read the comments.

  It would seem to me that the reader comments are related to the 'summary' story on the link rather than the 'full story'.  Also, I suspect 'News' has somewhat tainted the summary story as the impression I get from the 'summary' story is different to that I get from the 'Full' story. 
Let me provide a few quotes from the 'full' story:   

> The study of 27 islands by the University of Auckland and the South  Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji found that over the last  60 years only four of the islands had shrunk, with the others either  remaining stable or growing. 
> In the same period sea levels have risen by 120 millimetres, or 2  millimetres a year. 
> The reason lies in the how the islands were  formed over time, the study said, as weather patterns change the islands  appeared to respond. 
> Erosion of coral forms the foundation of  Pacific islands and, as living coral provides a continuous supply of  material, wind and wave action helps a constant build-up of debris to  form on the islands. 
> Major weather events like cyclones serve to  further add to the islands foundations. When Hurricane Bebe swept past  Tuvalu in 1972 debris washed up on the island caused a 10 per cent  increase in the main islands size.

   

> However, the study warned that rising sea levels would  still be a threat in many parts of the world, and that factors such as  erosion could not be discounted as threats to the islands.

  Hardly what I'd call "debunking" stuff.  On the contrary, it actually adds weight to climate change as the story confirms increasing sea levels and more adverse weather events. 
And a few of the comments:  

> *Mark  of Sydney*  _Posted at 12:40 PM June 03, 2010_                                             Aaah there are 20 odd thousand islands in the  Pacific, 330 odd in Fiji so this could hardly be called an extensive  study. *The reasons behind the growth aren't discussed here either* - land  reclaimation ? natural growth of Volcanic islands ?

  Umm, yes they were - in the 'full story'   

> *Always right *  _Posted at 12:44 PM June 03, 2010_                                             Is anyone reading the article before posting  comments? Regardless of whether I personally believe in global warming  or not, the article is stating despite rising sea levels, the islands  are growing. *There is not one comment in this article that states global  warming/climate change/whatever else you want to call it does not  exist.* Read before jumping on your soapbox people! You just sound  ignorant and foolish!

  Good to see someone actually read the full story. 
On the whole, Rod is quite correct that the comments running very heavily in favour of the anti-AGW view (even more than 5:1 if you ask me), however, it does appear that the comments are related to the distorted 'summary' story.  Or maybe, people read in to it what they want to read?

----------


## Bedford

I wonder if the tides were the same, i.e. in or out when these comparisons were made?  "Paul Kench at the University of Auckland in New  Zealand and Arthur Webb at the South Pacific Applied  Geoscience Commission in Fiji used historical aerial photos and  high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land surface of  27 Pacific islands over the last 60 years. During that time, local sea  levels have risen by 120 millimetres, or 2 millimetres per year on  average."  Shape-shifting islands defy sea-level rise - environment - 02 June 2010 - New Scientist 
This is a scary bit, 
"The archive exists   so that scientists have a store of the past to  re-analyse as new techniques are developed and new gases discovered. The  importance of this was underlined with the recent discovery of two new  greenhouse gases - nitrogen trifluoride, which is produced during the  manufacture of flat-screen televisions and is 17,000 times more potent a  heat-trapper than carbon dioxide, and sulfuryl fluoride, a toxic  chemical used in fumigation". Winds of change 
Two other things I wonder about, 
1) How much of the rising sea levels is caused by the increase in boats/ships displacing it? 
2) The amount of "stuff" that goes into the air in a short time of bushfires, I don't mean smoke from gumtrees so much as all the plastic, rubber from car tyres, paints, building materials and refrigerants etc.to name a few.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> On the whole, Rod is quite correct that the comments running very heavily in favour of the anti-AGW view (even more than 5:1 if you ask me), however, it does appear that the comments are related to the distorted 'summary' story.  Or maybe, people read in to it what they want to read?

  Whoops....my apologies to Rod.  I didn't realise Rod was commenting on the comments of the commentariat at News.com.au.  I thought he'd actually read the source material :Doh:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Two other things I wonder about, 
> 1) How much of the rising sea levels is caused by the increase in boats/ships displacing it? 
> 2) The amount of "stuff" that goes into the air in a short time of bushfires, I don't mean smoke from gumtrees so much as all the plastic, rubber from car tyres, paints, building materials and refrigerants etc.to name a few.

  1) Bugger all (but that's a guess).  Wouldn't be too difficult to guesstimate - determine the total tonnage of registered commercial shipping and multiply by about 1.1 to determine volume of water displaced then divide that by the surface area of the world's oceans and you'll get a really really rough guesstimation of the depth of the water displaced by commercial shipping 
2) The thing to remember is that fire is the ultimate oxidiser so a large proportion of the human stuff that gets burned up is reduced to much the same thing that a gum tree is reduced....most of the smoke stays in the lower atmosphere where it settles out relatively quickly but some of it does get mixed up into the mid and upper atmosphere where it can hang about for some time....the result of that is mixed - soots and sulphur compounds tend to block infra red coming in while some other stuff (particularly the complicated fluorocarbons and the more ubiquitous green house gases) block the infra red getting out.  There's a shed load more of the former though in bushfire smoke....and volcanos.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

It has probably been pointed out before in this mess but this Wikipedia page provides a reasonable summary of some of the critical science to date on attribution of recent climate change. Most importantly there is a strong set of references at the end which allow the individual to track the references down and create for themselves an informed opinion...on way or the other Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Whoops....my apologies to Rod. I didn't realise Rod was commenting on the comments of the commentariat at News.com.au. I thought he'd actually read the source material

  Surprise surprise surprise, did read the article. And did not make any comment on its validity or impact on the debate. :Sneaktongue:

----------


## Bedford

> It has probably been pointed out before in this mess but this Wikipedia page provides a reasonable summary of some of the critical science to date on attribution of recent climate change.

  Thanks SBD, lotta big words in that one! :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Why limit ourselves to renewables only?  There's plenty of fossil energy sources out there (especially natural gas) that can be exploited with a far smaller carbon footprint especially during the long social adjustment period.  The greenies are as bad with respect to their opinions on fossil fuels as those brownies & glow sticks who say that renewables will never work - narrow minded negative thinking.   
> Biomass is looking to be extremely promising viability wise especially with new developments around algae that are being tweaked to provide large quantities of hydrocarbons and other feedstocks. Biomass also a broad church when it comes to the definition of the source - it isn't always about corn and land area.  Think more broadly and ambitiously than that, Freud-y. 
> Frued said:
> "So we are left with: hydro, solar, wind, tide, and geothermal.  
> Are these technologies at a commercially scalable level (even combined) to replace non-renewable energy sources? No. " 
> A very large chunk of the East Coast of Australia is already supplied with electricity sourced in a large part from hydro power.  Why do you think they built the Snowy Scheme fifty years ago - for bigger fish ponds?  
> Both solar and wind have been demonstrated as commercially viable and whilst  only wind is in the large scale as yet...the solar stations are coming.  In the meantime, decentralised solar based supplies are not uncommon.  Baseload management is now essentially solved through a range of storage options (both thermal (salt water ponds, heat exchangers and steam) and battery based - check out King Island Power Station's liquid battery for instance) so there's no longer a significant hurdle there.  Tide has a few demo plants on the east and west coats and a geothermal plant is powering Innamincka in SA with a grid connection expected in the next five years. 
> Combine that with the natural gas power stations in WA, SA and QLD with potential for more in Vic (recently announced) & QLD; the increasingly common decentralised systems that are popping up in homes, businesses and government buildings; and the ever growing push for improve energy efficiency in homes and businesses; there should be plenty of power in the grid for some time yet. 
> So the answer is actually yes. No just demonstrates a lack of flexibility and imagination...as it always has. 
> ...

  This is a lovely story, much like Buck Rogers (apologies to Gen Y, Google it).  A little bit of science is projected into a science fiction future.  I have had this argument many times with various people and it it used to go round in circles while they told me what was "possible".  I do not argue that these things are "impossible".  My question was:  *
Are these technologies at a commercially scalable level (even combined) to replace non-renewable energy sources?*  
My answer was:  *No.*  :No:  
Your answer was:   

> So the answer is actually yes. No just demonstrates a lack of flexibility and imagination...as it always has.

  As AGW Theory is purported to be a global phenomena, logic dictates that a global solution is required (Unless you are SUPERKEV, and can save the world all on your own).   
Using your "imagination", can you please outline the realistic (flexible) manner in which you will get all nation states to *replace* their non-renewable energy sectors with hydro, solar, wind, tide, and geothermal?  I am particularly interested in your persuasive skills with China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, India, United States of America, Brazil, and Somalia?  Perhaps you could start with the bipartisan support for shutting down the coal, oil and gas sector in Australia.  Oh yeh, please also include your global replacement for cement in this?  It would be pointless having all these nations on board, but still engaging in increasing global cement production levels. 
(This is the part where the greenies faces go red!  :Mad:  Some would facetiously argue they are showing their true colours.  :Biggrin: )   

> Annual climate science budgets from around the world combined would be lucky to reach more than 10 billion US

  My friend, this farce consists of more than just a science budget.  Here's some info to digest just for a start:  Ghana To Access Global Fund On Climate Change| News | Graphicghana.com  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...mate_money.pdf 
One day, somebody will add all this up, and the opportunity cost will stop all this current merriment in its tracks.  :Sneaktongue:  
As for the "what about" arguments above, we have gone down many rabbit holes in this thread.  I personally would cancel all Arts funding, but that has as much relevance to AGW Theory as the misnomer of "reality tv". 
But I loved the movie "The Right Stuff".  Once again Gen Y, well worth watching.  :2thumbsup:  
The question was asked "What makes rocket ships go up". 
The answer"Funding. Funding makes rocket ships go up.  No bucks, no Buck Rogers!" 
Just like AGW Theory I guess. :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The 'theory' will play out just fine....*the mechanism has already been demonstrated.* The reaction to the mechanism is where the action is....the "what's gonna happen".   
> And I've no idea what is going to happen...few if any really do (but that doesn't stop the guessing game)...it has already been demonstrated that some things are definitely going to change...but how those changes will interact? No idea.  Worse still...I'm deeply suspicious of how the human species will react to that change.  Because human beings are collectively stupid and will  always strive for the individual at the cost of the many.  But that last bit is just an opinion....still.....prove me wrong.

  Please forgive my ignorance.  Exactly what is this "mechanism" you speak of, and exactly how was it "demonstrated"?  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It has probably been pointed out before in this mess but this Wikipedia page provides a reasonable summary of some of the critical science to date on attribution of recent climate change. Most importantly there is a strong set of references at the end which allow the individual to track the references down and create for themselves an informed opinion...on way or the other Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  These simplistic and biased explanations that take assumptions as reality are very poor examples for people to learn more on this subject.  I was going to tear it apart point by point, but have to go to IKEA for some stuff. :Biggrin:      

> Thanks SBD, lotta big words in that one!

  Yeh, but to get the good oil, you should really read this link below.  It is the scientific culmination of all IPCC information that they claim blames this farce on us humans.  It is a little heavy (as computerised predictions of the future based on lots of assumptions tends to be). 
But in a nutshell, some scientific dudes make assumptions, then program a computer to look for these assumptions in various data.  They themselves pick which data goes in and which doesn't.  Then they tweak the computer assumptions some more because they don't get the answers they want.  Then, hey presto, the computer output matches thier original assumptions.  AGW Theory is believed.  :2thumbsup:  
Talk about "Weird Science".  I prefer the "Kelly Le Brock" computer output. Gen Y should definitely check this one out.  This is computer output that was really hot!  :Biggrin:      

> Rather than post other people's opinions, why not read the source of all these opinions yourself, and make up your own minds on what you read.   There are hundreds of real scientific articles referenced to validate any claims you want to make. 
> You hold up working group 1 as your holy grail of science underwriting this theory, and chapter 9 is where they pin this on us pesky humans.  This chapter is where it all starts folks.  Count the number of models used, then present your science?  Show us all that science that supports this theoretical idea.   Chapter 9.

----------


## Dr Freud

Land masses have changed before you know.   :2thumbsup:  
Anybody want to bet they are going to stay the same as they are now, forever?      
It's lucky there were no SUV's back then.  I guess that's why the *ocean level has never changed????* before we started driving cars!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> My question was:  *
> Are these technologies at a commercially scalable level (even combined) to replace non-renewable energy sources?*  
> My answer was:  *No.*  
> Your answer was:
> "So the answer is actually yes. No just demonstrates a lack of flexibility and imagination...as it always has." 
> Using your "imagination", can you please outline the realistic (flexible) manner in which you will get all nation states to *replace* their non-renewable energy sectors with hydro, solar, wind, tide, and geothermal?  I am particularly interested in your persuasive skills with China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, India, United States of America, Brazil, and Somalia?  Perhaps you could start with the bipartisan support for shutting down the coal, oil and gas sector in Australia.  Oh yeh, please also include your global replacement for cement in this?  It would be pointless having all these nations on board, but still engaging in increasing global cement production levels.

  How did you manage to confuse 'commercially viable' and 'diplomacy'?  As I've said....the former has been demonstrated.  The latter will always be a work in progress - since people are mostly sheep then it could take some time. 
Oh and the cement?  That's easy.  Use different chemistry - magnesium and aluminium instead of calcium.  There are a few commercial alternatives already on the market in Australia...mostly based on fly ash from coal fired power stations or slag from steel production. But there's a bunch of other formulations around the planet at varying levels of development and commercialisation.  Some even absorb CO2 as they cure..

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Land masses have changed before you know.   
> Anybody want to bet they are going to stay the same as they are now, forever? 
> It's lucky there were no SUV's back then.  I guess that's why the *ocean level has never changed????* before we started driving cars!

  No they won't stay the same....so?  There's been some recent research and modelling that suggests that one day they'll all fuse up but no time soon.  I recall a New Scientist article relatively recently about it. 
As for sea level change....  
Data from here Climate Change: Key Indicators  and (more specifically) from here Ocean Surface Topography from Space and this is how they do it Ocean Surface Topography from Space-Overview 
Of course....these are merely observations...not analysis.  However, my simple analysis, Freud, is that your statement is incorrect.

----------


## Dr Freud

> How did you manage to confuse 'commercially viable' and 'diplomacy'? As I've said....the former has been demonstrated. The latter will always be a work in progress - since people are mostly sheep then it could take some time. 
> Oh and the cement? That's easy. Use different chemistry - magnesium and aluminium instead of calcium. There are a few commercial alternatives already on the market in Australia...mostly based on fly ash from coal fired power stations or slag from steel production. But there's a bunch of other formulations around the planet at varying levels of development and commercialisation. Some even absorb CO2 as they cure..

  Apologies for the lack of clarity.  Allow me to explain it more clearly.  You see, when I asked the "imagination" questions, I was playing along with your claim that "commercial viability" was true.  This means that these technologies would actually make money, not cost money.   
You see, all current renewable energy sources are either increasing energy prices (ie. are not commercially viable) or are being foisted upon us by legislation (RET) and propped up by subsidies (ie. are not commercially viable).  But I am willing to play along, cos that's the kinda guy I am.  :Biggrin:  
This would include any infrastructure developments required, hence the "commercially scalable" concept.  So governments wouldn't need much "diplomacy" to convince them to make money (especially our muppets).  Even if they were too inept to run it, they could let business run it profitably, and tax these profits (hopefully not a super tax though :Shock: ). 
So please, read this again under this assumption that you have these commercially scalable (money making) technologies that can *replace* current non-renewable energy sources.  By the way, to make these currently commercially viable, they would have to be cheaper than existing sources, because government subsidies are not "commercially viable". 
I'd be interested in hearing why businesses and governments globally are not taking up your money making energy sources that are renewable and would end many global economic, security, poverty, and social issues? 
Shall we try again?   

> This is a lovely story, much like Buck Rogers (apologies to Gen Y, Google it).  A little bit of science is projected into a science fiction future.  I have had this argument many times with various people and it it used to go round in circles while they told me what was "possible".  I do not argue that these things are "impossible".  My question was:  *
> Are these technologies at a commercially scalable level (even combined) to replace non-renewable energy sources?*  
> My answer was:  *No.*  
> Your answer was:        Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly   
> So the answer is actually yes. No just demonstrates a lack of flexibility and imagination...as it always has.    
> As AGW Theory is purported to be a global phenomena, logic dictates that a global solution is required (Unless you are SUPERKEV, and can save the world all on your own).   
> Using your "imagination", can you please outline the realistic (flexible) manner in which you will get all nation states to *replace* their non-renewable energy sectors with hydro, solar, wind, tide, and geothermal?  I am particularly interested in your persuasive skills with China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, India, United States of America, Brazil, and Somalia?  Perhaps you could start with the bipartisan support for shutting down the coal, oil and gas sector in Australia.  Oh yeh, please also include your global replacement for cement in this?  It would be pointless having all these nations on board, but still engaging in increasing global cement production levels. 
> (This is the part where the greenies faces go red!  Some would facetiously argue they are showing their true colours. )

  Oh, I almost forgot.  You're not going to have any fly ash, because you've just shut down all the coal plants.  As the wind and the waves will be generating the massive energy amounts needed for steel production, you will still have slag production, but based on global increases in concrete production, you are coming up way short. Some interesting reading here to help you along.  It's old, but some good stuff in there.  http://ies.lbl.gov/iespubs/47205.pdf 
For example:  "Steel-related carbon dioxide emissions closely mirror primary energy use, with China clearly dominating, followed by India, Brazil, and Mexico. Carbon dioxide emissions from steel production are responsible for 13% of total emissions in Brazil, 12% of total emissions in South Africa and in China, 8% of total emissions in India, and 6% of total emissions in Mexico.    If best practice technology had been used to produce the same amount and types of steel in China in 1995, energy savings and carbon dioxide emissions reductions of 45% could have been achieved." 
I am curious as to how using your "imagination", you will convince China to replace their entire energy system, when they can't even be convinced to use best practice steel production to reduce CO2 emissions.  But hey, seeing as they stand to make money out of this change, I guess the argument shouldn't be too hard to make?

----------


## Dr Freud

They use a lot of that steel to make warships, guns and bombs. 
If Rudd keeps this up, we just might find out how many the hard way:  It's an anger documented first in the Marr essay during the dark days of the Prime Minister's attempts to broker a deal on climate change at last year's Copenhagen talks.  "Those Chinese f . . kers are trying to rat-f . . k us," Rudd told journalists and aides, according to Marr.  I think I prefer it when he was bad mouthing defenceless females in the ADF who he knew couldn't retaliate for fear of disciplinary action (F.....n coward). :Mad:  
I hope your "diplomacy" is better than this SBD, otherwise you're gonna have trouble convincing China to make all this money from renewables.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> As for sea level change.... 
> Data from here Climate Change: Key Indicators  and (more specifically) from here Ocean Surface Topography from Space and this is how they do it Ocean Surface Topography from Space-Overview 
> Of course....these are merely observations...not analysis. However, my simple analysis, Freud, is that your statement is incorrect.

  Apologies again, this was wit in it's lowest form.  :Wink 1:    

> It's lucky there were no SUV's back then.  I guess that's why the *ocean level has never changed????* before we started driving cars!

  Ocean levels have obviously been changing for a long time.  My sarcasm with the SUV's was designed to show the ridiculous claims of AGW Theory relating to many "unprecedented" events.  The records over the last few hundred years don't cut it.  Not over the 4.5 billion years that the planet has been here.  That said, best estimates are that the water arrived sometime later.  (Tides were also nasty when the moon first arrived  :Shock: ). 
But as an example: 
"As the climate has warmed following the end of a recent cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" in the 19th century, sea level has been rising about 1 to 2 millimeters per year due to the reduction in volume of ice caps, ice fields, and mountain glaciers in addition to the thermal expansion of ocean water. 
During cold-climate intervals, known as glacial epochs or ice ages, sea level falls because of a shift in the global hydrologic cycle: water is evaporated from the oceans and stored on the continents as large ice sheets and expanded ice caps, ice fields, and mountain glaciers. Global sea level was about 125 meters below today's sea level at the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago. 
During the warmest intervals, called interglacial epochs, sea level is at its highest. Today we are living in the most recent interglacial, an interval that started about 10,000 years ago and is called the Holocene Epoch by geologists. 
Sea levels during several previous interglacials were about 3 to as much as 20 meters higher than current sea level." 
Full story here:  USGS FS 002-00: Sea Level and Climate 
Just for perspective.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

(Some in federal Labor believe the NSW government deliberately played up ETS-related electricity price rises in an announcement in late March to try to bolster the kill the ETS campaign.)      The ''kill'' option was ferociously resisted by the Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, her assistant minister, Greg Combet, the Finance Minister, Lindsay Tanner, and others on the grounds that it was bad policy and even worse politics, given everything the government had said it stood for. 
  The Prime Minister was undecided, torn, fearful of the political scare campaign over prices but just as fearful about what a lengthy delay would mean for his own credentials as a reformer and for the policy he truly believed was both necessary and right. 
  Maintaining a vague commitment to the scheme would complicate the politics of the resources super profits tax the government had recently decided to advocate as its major taxation reform. Why jeopardise a reform the government could deliver in deference to one that it had not been able to get though the Senate, Swan is said to have argued. 
  Even worse, from Swan's point of view, the way the compensation payments under the scheme are treated in the budget would make it almost impossible for the government to meet its crucial stimulus package ''exit strategy'' - to keep the growth in government spending below 2 per cent.  In the end the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, agreed with Swan. Tanner, according to sources, did not. Rudd remained torn but finally agreed it should be removed from the budget, a decision which meant it was deferred for at least another three years.   Full sordid story here:   Decision that shattered faith in PM   Lots of talk about covering Rudds backside.  Anybody notice the environment or Australias best interests being discussed?   By the way, where was Garrets input?  He was/is the Minister for Environment?   ENVIRONMENT minister Peter Garrett has admitted he was not consulted about the government's decision to ditch its proposed emissions trading scheme and that he knew nothing about it until he read it in the newspapers.   Poor guy.  Definitely joined the wrong party.  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Maintaining a vague commitment to the scheme would complicate the politics of the resources super profits tax* the government had recently decided to advocate as its major taxation reform. Why jeopardise a reform the government could deliver in deference to one that it had not been able to get though the Senate, Swan is said to have argued.

  These are the type of complications Swanny was worried about**:   

> And if anyone is still in any doubt that the ETS/CPRS has gone the way of the dodo, I suggest you email the PM and ask him this question:   What effect will the CPRS have on the mining sector when it kicks in during 2013, given greater cuts will be required due to the late start, while they are already paying the full 40% profits tax as well?  
> If you can supply the treasury modelling on this PM, that would be great.

    

> The Chinese aren't worried, they're confused.   
> If Rudd claims his big new mining tax will increase mining production starting in 2012 (ie. increased CO2 emissions), but then will implement his ETS big new tax to decrease mining production starting in 2013 (ie. decreased CO2 emissions), then what will be the net effect of these two big new taxes fighting each other to simultaneously lower and raise CO2 emissions?    
> Buggered if I know how this is all supposed to work out???

  One of the many problems is, there are so many other disasters being created immediately as a result of the announcement (see links below), no-one has bothered to look three years ahead to the effects of these ridiculous policy positions running concurrently. :Doh:   Rudd down a mineshaft | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog   The tax thats killing Rudd | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Freud....you are doing your mad post structure again.   
Back to 'commercial viability'.....prices have to go up.  That's the most basic result of economic growth.  You can't have growth in the economy if costs don't go up.  Simple mathematics. 
Withe respect to energy....there will be no new power stations of any breed (fossil, renewable, nuclear) in this country (or any other) without government subsidies.  Most, if not all, of the ones we currently have were built and continue to operate thanks to government subsidies.  In fact, a large chunk of them were built with public money and then sold (partially or fully) to private interests.....along with the grid infrastructure.  It's one of the major reasons why there has been relatively  little investment in Australia in power stations and the like for decades - private companies don't invest in this sort of infrastructure because the pay back period is too long on a large power station. 
Think about it.  It takes a decade or more to make a decent sized power station (nuclear takes as much as twenty years).  So whichever company owns the thing has to find someone who is prepared to fund something that takes (say) 12 years before it makes a cent of income.....not even a superannuation fund is that patient.  Only the public purse is that patient. 
It is typical capitalistism.....publicise the loss but privatise the profit.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Ocean levels have obviously been changing for a long time.  My sarcasm with the SUV's was designed to show the ridiculous claims of AGW Theory relating to many "unprecedented" events.  The records over the last few hundred years don't cut it.  Not over the 4.5 billion years that the planet has been here.  That said, best estimates are that the water arrived sometime later.  (Tides were also nasty when the moon first arrived ). 
> But as an example: 
> "As the climate has warmed following the end of a recent cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" in the 19th century, sea level has been rising about 1 to 2 millimeters per year due to the reduction in volume of ice caps, ice fields, and mountain glaciers in addition to the thermal expansion of ocean water. 
> During cold-climate intervals, known as glacial epochs or ice ages, sea level falls because of a shift in the global hydrologic cycle: water is evaporated from the oceans and stored on the continents as large ice sheets and expanded ice caps, ice fields, and mountain glaciers. Global sea level was about 125 meters below today's sea level at the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago. 
> During the warmest intervals, called interglacial epochs, sea level is at its highest. Today we are living in the most recent interglacial, an interval that started about 10,000 years ago and is called the Holocene Epoch by geologists. 
> Sea levels during several previous interglacials were about 3 to as much as 20 meters higher than current sea level." 
> Full story here:  USGS FS 002-00: Sea Level and Climate 
> Just for perspective.

  I'm reasonably aware of changes in sea level and other things in the depths of prehistory.   
But I'm mystified how you can use them to simply write off the recent data with respect to sea level change by saying "big deal, it has happened before".  :Confused:  
The problem is not the fact that that sea level is rising (or for that matter why it is rising) and doing so at a rate greater than most recent prehistory.  The problem is what's in the way. Which is a very large proportion of human civilisation.  And it appears we are still arguing over whether we need to get out of the way. 
Human civilisation only dates back a few thousand years.....and some of that civilisation has already been found underwater.  
As an example, how long do you reckon it'll take to move Perth off the Swan River Plain....how much would it cost and who will pay for it? And then you add all that cost together from all the other coastal cities and towns in Oz... 
What would you do, Freud?  
Or are you going to take the lazy way out and tell us that the current rate of rise is too slow and too small to be any big deal? If so then I'd really appreciate some assurance that this is actually the case.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Freud....you are doing your mad post structure again.   
> Back to 'commercial viability'.....prices have to go up.  That's the most basic result of economic growth.  You can't have growth in the economy if costs don't go up.  Simple mathematics. 
> Withe respect to energy....there will be no new power stations of any breed (fossil, renewable, nuclear) in this country (or any other) without government subsidies.  Most, if not all, of the ones we currently have were built and continue to operate thanks to government subsidies.  In fact, a large chunk of them were built with public money and then sold (partially or fully) to private interests.....along with the grid infrastructure.  It's one of the major reasons why there has been relatively  little investment in Australia in power stations and the like for decades - private companies don't invest in this sort of infrastructure because the pay back period is too long on a large power station. 
> Think about it.  It takes a decade or more to make a decent sized power station (nuclear takes as much as twenty years).  So whichever company owns the thing has to find someone who is prepared to fund something that takes (say) 12 years before it makes a cent of income.....not even a superannuation fund is that patient.  Only the public purse is that patient. 
> It is typical capitalistism.....publicise the loss but privatise the profit.

  It seems at last we agree, allow me to explain below:   

> Back to 'commercial viability'.....prices have to go up. That's the most basic result of economic growth. You can't have growth in the economy if costs don't go up. Simple mathematics.

  Er, yes, this is generally referred to as inflation.  The current Reserve Bank preferred range is 2 - 3 percent.  So let's call it 2.5% as the preferred rate.  This baseline for economic growth means that if you are achieving this rate of return, you are actually not making any money.  Being commercially viable means you are achieving a return above this rate (and obviously other costs).   
For example, if you put $100 in the bank earning 2.5%, and we assume target inflation, then at the end of the year, you have $102.50, but the problem is what you could have bought for $100 a year ago now costs $102.50.  If you earned 7.5% interest (return), then you would have $107.50, could buy the items for $102.50, and still have $5 profit.  Alternatively, if inflation stagnated at 0%, then you would have $2.50 profit at the first rate of return, or $7.50 profit at the second rate of return.   
This is the basis of a commercially viable operation, ie. running above inflation (prices going up), as well as all other costs of course.  So commercial viability is nothing to do with prices having to go up, it is everything to do with making a net profit.  Anyone running a small business will tell you that while these mathematics are simple, making profits regularly is anything but.  :2thumbsup:     

> Withe respect to energy....there will be no new power stations of any breed (fossil, renewable, nuclear) in this country (or any other) without government subsidies. Most, if not all, of the ones we currently have were built and continue to operate thanks to government subsidies. In fact, a large chunk of them were built with public money and then sold (partially or fully) to private interests.....along with the grid infrastructure. It's one of the major reasons why there has been relatively little investment in Australia in power stations and the like for decades - private companies don't invest in this sort of infrastructure because the pay back period is too long on a large power station.

  So we agree then that these renewable energy sources are not currently commercially scalable?   

> Think about it. It takes a decade or more to make a decent sized power station (nuclear takes as much as twenty years). So whichever company owns the thing has to find someone who is prepared to fund something that takes (say) 12 years before it makes a cent of income.....not even a superannuation fund is that patient. Only the public purse is that patient.

  Given the timeframes you provide for known base-load construction techniques, and the thousands of new plants already funded and under production, do we also agree that *replacing* the over 50,000 current power plants globally with the niche sources known as renewables is far from currently achievable? 
For some perspective of current proceedings, here's a quick review of the RET info in Australia:  Renewable energy target initiative is mad, bad tokenism | The Australian 
For the official version:  Office of the Renewable Regulator (ORER) - Legislative framework 
For a quick reality check:  http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/29ELEC.pdf  
My friend, the scale of this energy transformation is immense.  My argument this entire time is that wasting our money and time setting up ridiculously complicated derivative markets chasing a fresh air phantom that is yet to be proved is detracting from funding R&D and developing realistic renewable energy solutions.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm reasonably aware of changes in sea level and other things in the depths of prehistory.   
> But I'm mystified how you can use them to simply write off the recent data with respect to sea level change by saying "big deal, it has happened before".  
> The problem is not the fact that that sea level is rising (or for that matter why it is rising) and doing so at a rate greater than most recent prehistory.  The problem is what's in the way. Which is a very large proportion of human civilisation.  And it appears we are still arguing over whether we need to get out of the way. 
> Human civilisation only dates back a few thousand years.....and some of that civilisation has already been found underwater.  
> As an example, how long do you reckon it'll take to move Perth off the Swan River Plain....how much would it cost and who will pay for it? And then you add all that cost together from all the other coastal cities and towns in Oz... 
> What would you do, Freud?  
> Or are you going to take the lazy way out and tell us that the current rate of rise is too slow and too small to be any big deal? If so then I'd really appreciate some assurance that this is actually the case.

  I fully agree with some your previous statements that collectively humans are idiots.  We are also certainly very intelligent and can work cooperatively to achieve what is sometimes miraculous, but then on many occasions, we are morons.  

> But I'm mystified how you can use them to simply write off the recent data with respect to sea level change by saying "big deal, it has happened before".

  Not only has it happened before, it will happen again.  :2thumbsup:    

> The problem is what's in the way. Which is a very large proportion of human civilisation. And it appears we are still arguing over whether we need to get out of the way.

  Aaaah, at last we get to the real problem.  Urban planning! Or more appropriately, lack of it.  As you raise my home town, let's use it for discussion for a moment.   
You referred to the:   

> Swan River Plain

  The reason it's called this is because it's a flood plain.   
The reason it's plain is because every now and again, massive amounts of water come down and wash everything away, leaving it, well, plain! 
Now, us freaky humans, being lazy, turn up and say oh look, cleared level building areas right next to the water we need, how perfect! The same goes for coastal developments at river delta's, fresh water and easy transport.  But these are urban planning issues, nothing to do with the planet changing regularly in total oblivion of our presence.  Let's not blame the poor planet for doing what it's always done because we built our cities in stupid places. 
It was stupid to build Los Angeles on a fault line, Venice in a subsiding soil area, Banda Aceh in a coastal tsunami plain, Pompeii under a volcano, New Orleans below sea level, and many other cities on flood plains.  As for Perth, we are mostly about 30 metres above sea level, so if we are moving, we'll have a lot of people to help, as they will already have moved here  :Biggrin: .   
It's a very safe city, that's why I live here, risk management.  :2thumbsup:   http://www.ga.gov.au/image_cache/GA6523.pdf 
But these are all urban planning issues.  The planet is just being a planet, stop blaming it for our idiocy.  :Wink 1:    

> What would you do, Freud?

  Stop building cities in stupid places for a start!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

"The Green Clubs module is one component of a partnership established last year with the Australian Governments Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. 
  In addition to the introduction of the module, an interactive climate change awareness program for families and children involved in junior football programs has also been developed. 
  The AFL has committed to reducing carbon pollution and this week renewed its partnership with Origin as its Official Green Energy Partner. 
  The partnership agrees in principal that Origin will offset the emissions equivalent to approximately 100 per cent of the energy used by the MCG at this years Toyota AFL Grand Final as well as offsetting the carbon footprint of fans travelling to the Grand Final.  In addition, Origin will offset the emissions equivalent to approximately 25 per cent of the energy used at venues for the other eight games of the 2010 Toyota AFL Final Series."  Full story here:   AFL and Senator launch Green Clubs - AFL.com.au   Er, but well still fly to and fro across the country and regularly play under lights just to boost our ratings.  But were serious about this stuff, seriously serious.  :Frown:    Window dressing at its finest.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

*Can we afford to spend money on renewables?*   Heres where we started:      "Unlike the northern hemisphere, Australia entered the global financial crisis with no public debt, a $20 billion surplus, $45 billion in the bank, a record low 4 per cent unemployment, a strong pipeline of projects and a properly regulated financial sector. Alternative solutions were possible and far more appropriate in Australia.  
In Australia, the automatic economic stabilisers kicked in. The exchange rate dropped from 90c to the US dollar to 60c to the US dollar. This proved a massive aid to exports, prompting Australias largest ever trade surplus in the first quarter of 2009. Unlike the northern hemisphere, lower interest rates were able to work to significantly stimulate spending in Australia."  Heres what happened:   "The Rudd Government panicked, and over-reacted, by mimicking this high spending northern hemisphere solution.  Along the way, in seeking to introduce this agenda of taxing, spending, borrowing and government intervention, the Rudd Government has established a reputation as an incompetent administration after the monumental mismanagement of the $2.4 billion home insulation fiasco, the $6-$8 billions of dollars wasted in delivering the $16.2 billion school halls program, the $1.2 billion blow-out with the computer and schools program, the extra $1 billion price tag from the failure to control our borders and stop boats coming, the embarrassing indigenous housing program, the broken promises over the emissions trading scheme, private health insurance, childcare, GP super clinics, broadband, political advertising by the Government, tax hikes on employer superannuation, and a huge new tax which will make our resources sector the highest taxed resources sector in the world by a country mile. So much for protecting our competitiveness."   Heres where were heading:   "Australia is now paying the price through a $57 billion deficit, debt approaching $130 billion once the broadband billions are borrowed, Government borrowing of $700 million a week for the next two years, multi-billion dollar interest repayments for years to come, six interest rate increases in a row and much greater vulnerability for all of us if the world experiences a double dip recession."   *With a self-imposed government limit of 2% increase in spending growth, and private spending dwindling due to increased rates and taxes, I dont think we can afford any serious renewable transition schemes now.*  :No:    The sad but true full story here:   http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/LinkCli...O8%3d&tabid=71

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So we agree then that these renewable energy sources are not currently commercially scalable? 
> Given the timeframes you provide for known base-load construction techniques, and the thousands of new plants already funded and under production, do we also agree that *replacing* the over 50,000 current power plants globally with the niche sources known as renewables is far from currently achievable? 
> My friend, the scale of this energy transformation is immense.  My argument this entire time is that wasting our money and time setting up ridiculously complicated derivative markets chasing a fresh air phantom that is yet to be proved is detracting from funding R&D and developing realistic renewable energy solutions.

  P1:  No. There are a number of renewable methods that are commercially scaleable (some have been)....the question is whether the market/government in question is prepared to pay for them.  My original paragraph refered to all forms of power generation - I say again ALL forms of large scale power generation will require substantial public investment to get them built. 
P2: Yes.  But I'm not advocating wholesale replacement. Never have. 
P3: Given the current economic system that we are blessed with.....there will be no R&D or product developments with respect to renewable power sources without some sort of market driven signal....be it a tax, stimulus, market derivative or plain old consumer demand.  The money wasted (and yes it was wasted) on efforts to date to provide a signal through carbon 'trading' would never have gone into renewables R&D......no more than it would have gone to subsidising a new coal fired power station....neither make enough money for our profit hungry times.  So it would've just been wasted on something else  :No:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *Can we afford to spend money on renewables?*   Heres where we started:      "Unlike the northern hemisphere, Australia entered the global financial crisis with no public debt, a $20 billion surplus, $45 billion in the bank, a record low 4 per cent unemployment, a strong pipeline of projects and a properly regulated financial sector. Alternative solutions were possible and far more appropriate in Australia.  
> In Australia, the automatic economic stabilisers kicked in. The exchange rate dropped from 90c to the US dollar to 60c to the US dollar. This proved a massive aid to exports, prompting Australias largest ever trade surplus in the first quarter of 2009. Unlike the northern hemisphere, lower interest rates were able to work to significantly stimulate spending in Australia."  Heres what happened:   "The Rudd Government panicked, and over-reacted, by mimicking this high spending northern hemisphere solution.  Along the way, in seeking to introduce this agenda of taxing, spending, borrowing and government intervention, the Rudd Government has established a reputation as an incompetent administration after the monumental mismanagement of the $2.4 billion home insulation fiasco, the $6-$8 billions of dollars wasted in delivering the $16.2 billion school halls program, the $1.2 billion blow-out with the computer and schools program, the extra $1 billion price tag from the failure to control our borders and stop boats coming, the embarrassing indigenous housing program, the broken promises over the emissions trading scheme, private health insurance, childcare, GP super clinics, broadband, political advertising by the Government, tax hikes on employer superannuation, and a huge new tax which will make our resources sector the highest taxed resources sector in the world by a country mile. So much for protecting our competitiveness."   Heres where were heading:   "Australia is now paying the price through a $57 billion deficit, debt approaching $130 billion once the broadband billions are borrowed, Government borrowing of $700 million a week for the next two years, multi-billion dollar interest repayments for years to come, six interest rate increases in a row and much greater vulnerability for all of us if the world experiences a double dip recession."   *With a self-imposed government limit of 2% increase in spending growth, and private spending dwindling due to increased rates and taxes, I dont think we can afford any serious renewable transition schemes now.*    The sad but true full story here:   http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/LinkCli...O8%3d&tabid=71

  
Ahhhh....perhaps.  But can we afford to trust politicians with an agenda and an axe to grind? 
What's a few more laps around the whirlpool, Doctor!!

----------


## Dr Freud

> Ahhhh....perhaps.  But can we afford to trust politicians with an agenda and an axe to grind? 
> What's a few more laps around the whirlpool, Doctor!!

  Too true. 
As Fox Mulder used to say, "Trust no-one".  But then he also said I would never lie. I willfully participate in a campaign of misinformation.  :Cool:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Been a bit of a quite time on the AGW front.  But I thought you might like to read this.   

> *Among the most surprising and yet standard practices is a tendency in establishment climate science to simply ignore published studies that develop and/or present evidence tending to disconfirm various predictions or assumptions of the establishment view* that increases in CO2 explain virtually all recent climate change.
> Perhaps even more troubling, when establishment climate scientists do respond to studies supporting alternative hypotheses to the CO2 primacy view, t*hey more often than not rely upon completely different observational datasets* which they say confirm (or at least don’t disconfirm) climate model predictions.
> We should not be using public money to pay for faster and faster computers so that increasingly fine-grained climate models can be subjected to ever larger numbers of simulations until we have got the data to test whether the predictions of existing models are confirmed (or not disconfirmed) by the evidence. *Policy carrying potential costs in the trillions of dollars ought not to be based on stories and photos confirming faith in models, but rather on precise and replicable testing of the models’ predictions against solid observational data.*

    *Link here.  A Lawyer’s Examination of the IPCC “Evidence” for Man-made Global Warming | The SPPI Blog*  *Can't wait to see this get into a court!!*  *It will happen sooner rather than later.*

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Did you read the source material?  
I'm not so sure from my read of the abstract and introduction that it calls anthropogenic climate change into doubt rather it is critical of the policy and political response to the data interpretation - and I support that as this has been stuffed from the get go.  The IPCC reports are political in nature and conservative in language...they also strive to suggest certainty of language in order to provide policy direction for governments.   
In doing so...they mask the language of 'maybe' that is so often associated with scientific literature - as in 'this drug may provide relief of symptoms to up to 60% of patients'.  That's a strong statement of 'maybe'.....the drug has a better than even chance of being medically useful - but it is not a definitive (eg. yes, no or number) statement.  Most science practise is no different - it is rarely about a solid answer, it's more about the statistical possibility of the hypothesis being either right or wrong.  The trouble comes when you try and re-write this for policy makers who seem to require absolutes (possibly on the fear of being sued or worse, voted out) rather than probabilities (no matter how likely they may be). 
In the end, the authors analysis is potentially valuable and his advocacy of pushing more money towards the collection of actual data is something to be supported - that has always been the hardest thing to acquire because to do so is spectacularly expensive.  Hence, our employment of models as a surrogate.   
I don't understand the general fear of models but then I have a background in their development, application and interpretation - practitioners in this space don't apply the same sense of certainty to model results than outside observers seem to.  The flipside is that we don't often communicate this uncertainty particularly well either and even when we do it is often lost in translation from bland report to 30 second media report. 
But if the author is pushing for more money for real data that we can use to support the analysis of climate change in the past, present and future.....who's going to be churlish enough to refuse that?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Did you read the source material?  
> I'm not so sure from my read of the abstract and introduction that it calls anthropogenic climate change into doubt rather it is critical of the policy and political response to the data interpretation - and I support that as this has been stuffed from the get go.  The IPCC reports are political in nature and conservative in language...they also strive to suggest certainty of language in order to provide policy direction for governments.   
> In doing so...they mask the language of 'maybe' that is so often associated with scientific literature - as in 'this drug may provide relief of symptoms to up to 60% of patients'.  That's a strong statement of 'maybe'.....the drug has a better than even chance of being medically useful - but it is not a definitive (eg. yes, no or number) statement.  Most science practise is no different - it is rarely about a solid answer, it's more about the statistical possibility of the hypothesis being either right or wrong.  The trouble comes when you try and re-write this for policy makers who seem to require absolutes (possibly on the fear of being sued or worse, voted out) rather than probabilities (no matter how likely they may be). 
> In the end, the authors analysis is potentially valuable and his advocacy of pushing more money towards the collection of actual data is something to be supported - that has always been the hardest thing to acquire because to do so is spectacularly expensive.  Hence, our employment of models as a surrogate.   
> I don't understand the general fear of models but then I have a background in their development, application and interpretation - practitioners in this space don't apply the same sense of certainty to model results than outside observers seem to.  The flipside is that we don't often communicate this uncertainty particularly well either and even when we do it is often lost in translation from bland report to 30 second media report. 
> But if the author is pushing for more money for real data that we can use to support the analysis of climate change in the past, present and future.....who's going to be churlish enough to refuse that?

   

> Did you read the source material?

  Not yet, but 80 pages, gee whiz Rod, gotta build some shelves this weekend.  Still also haven't gotten to the bottom of the lack of theoretical blackbody conversions in the climate models yet.  :Doh:   But I may defer this, as the models are failed anyway, and the law is so much more interesting.   

> I'm not so sure from my read of the abstract and introduction that it calls anthropogenic climate change into doubt

  Just by reading Rod's excerpt, he is obviously calling the entire argument into doubt, and if the argument cannot stand up (which it can't by the way), then no AGW.  But you can still theorise about it, it's a free country  :Wink 1: .   

> it is critical of the policy and political response to the data interpretation - and I support that as this has been stuffed from the get go.

   :2thumbsup:    

> they also strive to suggest certainty of language

  Maybe they could strive for scientific certainty instead?   

> rather than probabilities (no matter how likely they may be).

  I am still waiting for a mathematically derived probability that AGW Theory is true.  Be real curious as to the data set used for this calculation.  The IPCC just plucks numbers out of thin air (oops, CO2 thickened air :Biggrin: ).  How likely is it really?   

> more money towards the collection of actual data is something to be supported - that has always been the hardest thing to acquire because to do so is spectacularly expensive.

  Spectacularly misrepresented is a better expression. See here:  The Great Dying of Thermometers « JoNova 
and here  Home   

> Hence, our employment of models as a surrogate.

  Your surrogate is infertile and suffering Braxton Hicks contractions.  :Shock:    

> I don't understand the general fear of models

  You've obviously never met Naomi Campbell.  :Biggrin:    

> The flipside is that we don't often communicate this uncertainty particularly well either

  Yeh, I must have missed the constant IPCC caveats indicating that current climate models have ZERO predictive validity.  :Biggrin:    

> But if the author is pushing for more money for real data that we can use to support the analysis of climate change in the past, present and future.....who's going to be churlish enough to refuse that?

  Er, me!  I say we conduct a cost benefit analysis comparing this issue to many others warranting our time and money, and allocate suitable resources based on reality rather than religious zeal (or someone just "pushing").  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

_"The truth is, in order to save our planet and ourselves...we only have seven to ten years to reduce emissions to zero._" 
No problemo, Flash did it in fourteen hours, plenty of time.  :Biggrin:     

> Actually, rehashing the CSIRO's Penny Sackett reminded me of another doomsday maiden named Dale Arden.  You Flash Gordon fans may remember her claim: 
> "Flash, I love you, but we've only got fourteen hours to save the Earth."      More similarities with AGW Theory found here.

  But wait there's more from these AGW Theory fruit loops:  _"Only an empathic sense for the suffering of people in Pakistan, Nigeria, China and Australia, to name just a few countries already being severely affected by climate change, will motivate us to take the strong and immediate action needed." _ Suffer in your jocks lads and ladies.  Crank those air-cons tonight, while the rest of the world "empathises" with us frying to death.  :Doh:  
Full sordid propaganda here (it hurts me to direct people to these sites  :Cry: ):  How Do Empathy and Dangerous Climate Change Relate? | Global Climate Change Information

----------


## Dr Freud

I think I know why the rest of the world thinks us Aussies are almost climate refugees. Tim Flannery has been flying around the world regularly spewing CO2 into the atmosphere making predictions that are just as accurate as the models he gets paid millions to believe.  Amazing how he just got "owned and boned" live on the radio. 
 "Flannery started our interview by paying out on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for walking away from what hed sold as the great moral and economic challenge of our time.  
 Flannery: Im unlikely to vote for him because my trust has been eroded away. He promised to deliver an emissions trading scheme and hes then withdrawn that with very little justification.  
   Bolt: He said he wouldnt move now until the rest of the world did something, which is a direct repudiation of what he said before. But, Tim, part of the reason that hes backed down is that theres been a great swing in sentiment against this kind of thing. Theres a rising tide of scepticism. How much are you to blame for some of that?  
  Flannery: There is some swing in sentiment. And I think its very hard to maintain any issue with that sort of very high level of support for a long time ...  
  Bolt: But, Tim ... Im wondering to what extent are you to blame for rising scepticism about some of the more alarming claims about global warming.   
 Bolt: Well, lets go through some of your own claims. You said, for example, that Adelaide may run out of water by early 2009. Their reservoirs are half full now. You said Brisbane would probably run out of water by 2009. They are now 97 per cent full. And (you said) Sydney could be dry as early as 2007. 
  Their reservoirs are also more than half full. How can you get away with all these claims?  
   Flannery: What I have said is that there is a water problem. They may run out of water.    
 Bolt: No, no. You said Brisbane would run out of water possibly by as early as 2009. Theres no desalination plant, theres no dam. Its now 100 per full.  
   Flannery: Thats a lie, Andrew. I didnt say it would run out of water. I dont have a crystal ball in front of me. I said Brisbane has a water problem.  
   Bolt: Ill quote your own words (from the New Scientist June 16, 2007): Water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months. That was, on the timeline you gave, by the beginning of 2009. Their reservoirs are now 97 per cent full.  
   Flannery: Yeah, sure. Theres variability in rainfall. They still need a desal plant.   
   Bolt: You also warned that Perth would be the 21 centurys first ghost metropolis.  
  Flannery: May ... Right? Because at that stage there had been no flows into that water catchment for a year and the water engineers were terrified.  
   Bolt: Have you seen the water catchment levels? Here, see, theyre tracking above the five-year level ...  
  Flannery: You want to paint me as an alarmist.   
   Bolt: You are an alarmist.  
   Flannery: Im a very practical person.   
   Bolt: You said (in The Guardian, August 9, 2008) the Arctic could be ice-free two years ago.  
   Flannery: No, I didnt ..." 
Full story here:  Column - Flannery cant take the heat | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog    :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:   You can RUDD, but you can't hide.  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  
P.S. For those who couldn't be bothered reading the Perth threat assessment, we're still here, and we're ok.  No droughts, fires, floods, ocean tsunamis, famines, or pestilence (well, some pestilence from the recent community cabinet: Support for Rudd plummets in WA - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  :Biggrin: )

----------


## Dr Freud

*"Trautman*: You did everything to make this private war happen. You've done enough damage. This mission is over, Rambo. Do you understand me? This mission is over! Look at them out there! Look at them! If you won't end this now, they will kill you. Is that what you want? It's over Johnny. It's over!   *Rambo*: Nothing is over! Nothing! You just don't turn it off! It wasn't my war! You asked me, I didn't ask you! And I did what I had to do to win! But somebody wouldn't let us win! And I come back to the world and I see all those maggots at the airport, protesting me, spitting. Calling me baby killer and all kinds of vile crap! Who are they to protest me? Who are they? Unless they've been me and been there and know what the hell they're yelling about! " 
Find out why here:  This is SO not over « JoNova 
and here:  The wounded are dangerous « JoNova

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Not yet, but 80 pages, gee whiz Rod, gotta build some shelves this weekend. Still also haven't gotten to the bottom of the lack of theoretical blackbody conversions in the climate models yet.  But I may defer this, as the models are failed anyway, and the law is so much more interesting. 
> Just by reading Rod's excerpt, he is obviously calling the entire argument into doubt, and if the argument cannot stand up (which it can't by the way), then no AGW. But you can still theorise about it, it's a free country .   
> Maybe they could strive for scientific certainty instead?     
> I am still waiting for a mathematically derived probability that AGW Theory is true. Be real curious as to the data set used for this calculation. The IPCC just plucks numbers out of thin air (oops, CO2 thickened air). How likely is it really? 
> Spectacularly misrepresented is a better expression. See here:  The Great Dying of Thermometers « JoNova 
> and here  Home 
> Your surrogate is infertile and suffering Braxton Hicks contractions.  
> You've obviously never met Naomi Campbell.  
> Yeh, I must have missed the constant IPCC caveats indicating that current climate models have ZERO predictive validity.  
> Er, me! I say we conduct a cost benefit analysis comparing this issue to many others warranting our time and money, and allocate suitable resources based on reality rather than religious zeal (or someone just "pushing").

   :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I think I know why the rest of the world thinks us Aussies are almost climate refugees. Tim Flannery has been flying around the world regularly spewing CO2 into the atmosphere making predictions that are just as accurate as the models he gets paid millions to believe. Amazing how he just got "owned and boned" live on the radio. 
> "Flannery started our interview by paying out on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for walking away from what hed sold as the great moral and economic challenge of our time.  
> Flannery: Im unlikely to vote for him because my trust has been eroded away. He promised to deliver an emissions trading scheme and hes then withdrawn that with very little justification.  
> Bolt: He said he wouldnt move now until the rest of the world did something, which is a direct repudiation of what he said before. But, Tim, part of the reason that hes backed down is that theres been a great swing in sentiment against this kind of thing. Theres a rising tide of scepticism. How much are you to blame for some of that?  
> Flannery: There is some swing in sentiment. And I think its very hard to maintain any issue with that sort of very high level of support for a long time ...  
> Bolt: But, Tim ... Im wondering to what extent are you to blame for rising scepticism about some of the more alarming claims about global warming.   
> Bolt: Well, lets go through some of your own claims. You said, for example, that Adelaide may run out of water by early 2009. Their reservoirs are half full now. You said Brisbane would probably run out of water by 2009. They are now 97 per cent full. And (you said) Sydney could be dry as early as 2007. 
> Their reservoirs are also more than half full. How can you get away with all these claims?  
> Flannery: What I have said is that there is a water problem. They may run out of water.    
> ...

  LOL yes I heard this on the radio.  What a jole is Flannery

----------


## SilentButDeadly

OK....you guys win.  Bashing two pegs with a stick wasn't much fun anyway. 
In that case, would you be happy if we just continue as we are making free and unfettered use of the available resources (whoever & whatever they happen to be) with no further opportunity to whinge and complain...regardless of the consequences or unexpected outcomes?  I'm happy to take, use and consume whatever resources I want whenever I feel the need and bugger the rest...including you two. 
Consider it a Grand Experiment. Last dipshit standing wins.

----------


## Dr Freud

He tried talking tough to girls to show what a tough guy he is:   If Rudd doesn't want to be publicly quoted saying rude words, why does he use them at all? I think it's because he wants journalists to get a general impression of him as a tough guy.  He's like a nervous boy just beginning his factory apprenticeship, ostentatiously swearing as often as possible in an effort to impress the big men around him.   That didnt work, so now he spends our money trying to show the UN what a tough guy he is:   The new draft text keeps some elements of the Copenhagen Accord, including a plan for aid to developing nations of $10 billion a year from 2010 to 2012, rising to more than $100 billion from 2020.  Australian delegate Robert Owen-Jones announced in Bonn that Canberra was contributing 559 million Australian dollars ($469 million) to the 2010-12 funds.   So a ten-fold increase over ten years will see us paying $5.6 billion dollars a year by 2020.   This is all borrowed money that we are paying interest on, to give unconditionally to some corrupt third world regimes.   For all you pensioners freezing this winter because you dont get enough government support, you have my sympathy at the irony! :Annoyed:  
Using our money to mask your insecurities is not tough Kev. :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> OK....you guys win.  Bashing two pegs with a stick wasn't much fun anyway. 
> In that case, would you be happy if we just continue as we are making free and unfettered use of the available resources (whoever & whatever they happen to be) with no further opportunity to whinge and complain...regardless of the consequences or unexpected outcomes?  I'm happy to take, use and consume whatever resources I want whenever I feel the need and bugger the rest...including you two. 
> Consider it a Grand Experiment. Last dipshit standing wins.

  I know this thread has been going a long time, but I think you may have lost the plot (literally  :Biggrin: ). 
You have (like many people) confused many issues.   
Reducing benign CO2 from the atmosphere has *absolutely nothing* to do with: 
- The amount of non-renewable resources we use;
- The amount of toxic pollution we generate. 
Mechanisms could be arranged to remove CO2 from the atmosphere without altering these two issues at all.  Green advocates have conflated all of these issues to make ignorant people believe that some ridiculous government policy like Rudd's CPRS will magically cure all of the environmental concerns on the planet. Seriously? :Doh:  
Every single person I have ever met or read about who is either anti-AGW Theory, anti-ETS, or both, all believe in and support a cleaner environment and the development of more renewable energy technologies.  If you think these people are all environmental vandals happy to sit by while our planet dies, then you have fallen for the very simplistic argument that Green activists foist on the weak minded. 
This thread is replete with examples where both Rod, myself and many other anti-AGW Theory people have explicitly stated our support for cleaner environmental policies, and better development of renewable energy sources.  Once again, this has *absolutely nothing* to do with stabilising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. 
Conflating these issues again does our reputations and your clarity a disservice.  :2thumbsup:  
Rest assured, once AGW Theory is relegated to the dustbin of history, you, Rod, myself and many others will still champion the cause of the environment, but in a place called reality, rather than over-hyped Green scaremongering.  :Kissing:

----------


## Dr Freud

Even one of the greatest champions of the AGW Theory cause now concedes it could all be a storm in a teacup.   ALAN KOHLER: And you don't think there's any chance that it was just a fad that was there for a while and it's gone away now? 
NICK ROWLEY: You know what Alan, I really hope it is, I really hope that in five to 10 years time you say 'gee that climate change thing it was all just proved to be a big storm in a teacup, it didn't happen.'  
That would be great we'd all move on and do something else. I think the likelihood of that given the basic science and dynamics behind the problem is very very sadly low.    Full story here:   Australia facing 'uncertain' climate future - Inside Business - ABC   More info about Nick Rowley here:   Nick Rowley 
It is worth watching the video, the body language is more telling than the words.  My, what a difference a few months makes.

----------


## Dr Freud

Romantics in NSW will be happy, lots of candlelit dinners coming up.  BUILDING coal-fired power plants will be banned in NSW as part of a new climate change policy expected to go to Cabinet next week.  However, Treasury officials said a ban could push electricity prices even higher for consumers already hit with a 13 per cent price rise on July 1 as much-needed new energy would have to come from more costly sources.  Mr Sartor said last night: "The NSW Government's policy is to be fuel neutral in relation to any new power generation.  
I wonder how their fuel neutral policy is going to fit in with their dam bans and Rudd's big Australia population growth strategy? 
Apologies again to the pensioner's, remember the planet appreciates your pain.  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The new draft text keeps some elements of the Copenhagen Accord, including a plan for aid to developing nations of $10 billion a year from 2010 to 2012, rising to more than $100 billion from 2020.  Australian delegate Robert Owen-Jones announced in Bonn that Canberra was contributing 559 million Australian dollars ($469 million) to the 2010-12 funds.   So a ten-fold increase over ten years will see us paying $5.6 billion dollars a year by 2020.

     
Compare that waste to how many of our dollars are actually going into solutions:   A spokeswoman for education minister Julia Gillard said the funding had been restored because of the high quality of applications...The CSIRO was awarded $47.3 million for geothermal and solar energy projects associated with Australia's bid to host the Square Kilometre Array radio telescope. 
So let's see: $556 million unconditionally to those least able or likely to develop solutions, and $47 million to actually developing solutions. 
And people think I have the problem for protesting against this farcical waste of yet more of our money, time and opportunity.  :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I know this thread has been going a long time, but I think you may have lost the plot (literally ). 
> You have (like many people) confused many issues.  
> Reducing benign CO2 from the atmosphere has *absolutely nothing* to do with: 
> - The amount of non-renewable resources we use;
> - The amount of toxic pollution we generate. 
> Mechanisms could be arranged to remove CO2 from the atmosphere without altering these two issues at all. Green advocates have conflated all of these issues to make ignorant people believe that some ridiculous government policy like Rudd's CPRS will magically cure all of the environmental concerns on the planet. Seriously? 
> Every single person I have ever met or read about who is either anti-AGW Theory, anti-ETS, or both, all believe in and support a cleaner environment and the development of more renewable energy technologies. If you think these people are all environmental vandals happy to sit by while our planet dies, then you have fallen for the very simplistic argument that Green activists foist on the weak minded. 
> This thread is replete with examples where both Rod, myself and many other anti-AGW Theory people have explicitly stated our support for cleaner environmental policies, and better development of renewable energy sources. Once again, this has *absolutely nothing* to do with stabilising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. 
> Conflating these issues again does our reputations and your clarity a disservice.  
> Rest assured, once AGW Theory is relegated to the dustbin of history, you, Rod, myself and many others will still champion the cause of the environment, but in a place called reality, rather than over-hyped Green scaremongering.

  You beat me to it DR.  This is so true.  Why do we have to have a hoax like AGW in order to reduce our use of fossil fuels.  If this is a good thing to do which I believe it is, then we should be working towards this without the scare campaign.

----------


## Dr Freud

There are compelling reasons for Australian progressives to embrace a more muscular vision of nation-building and social justice as opposed to the grandiosity of cosmopolitan ethics.  
  The moral challenge of climate change - so apparently neat and unambiguous - has for too long been divorced from the political challenge, something so unavoidably messy. 
  If a moral language can't motivate us to translate principles into practice, then it does little good for us to parade our virtue. 
  Emphasising patriotism and nation-building may seem strange to suggest as a response to what is a global problem. Yet, strangely enough, decisive action may require us to be patriotic savages, motivated by working for our national tribe, rather than cultivated cosmopolitan ghosts, moved by a love of humanity. 
  Full story here:   Labor needs a a practical, not a moral, approach to climate change | The Australian   OK, so I put my country before third world dictators, so call me a patriotic savage.  By implication from this latte drinking idiot, I am by definition neither cultivated nor humane because I am a patriot.   And drivel like this is supposed to enthuse our nation to believe this farce.  :No:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Every thing is very very quiet on the AGW front!  What can that mean? 
Not a lot of new material comming out from either side.  Have both sides fired all their bullets?

----------


## chrisp

> Every thing is very very quiet on the AGW front!  What can that mean?

  I thought you had conceded   :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Every thing is very very quiet on the AGW front!  What can that mean? 
> Not a lot of new material comming out from either side.  Have both sides fired all their bullets?

  The scam has been uncovered, and as innocent people start to realise how they were intentionally duped, they will start to resent the fraudsters that perpetrated this scam. :Annoyed:  
And the sad thing is, some ideologues are still believing in the AGW Theory dream (or nightmare).  :Cry:   This scaremongering is all AGW Theory has left:   FRANK Fenner doesn't engage in the skirmishes of the climate wars. To him, the evidence of global warming is in. Our fate is sealed.   "We're going to become extinct," the eminent scientist says. "Whatever we do now is too late.  Homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years," he says. "A lot of other animals will, too. It's an irreversible situation. I think it's too late. I try not to express that because people are trying to do something, but they keep putting it off.   After all these failed and failing doomsday scenarios, where to from here?   When Prophecy Fails - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Dr Freud

Here is a recent focus on real environmental issues, rather than belief systems and computer models:   Liberal candidate for Penrith, Stuart Ayres is demanding Labor stop dumping toxic waste in the precious Nepean River.  Even more concerning, is that it appears Labor is trying to hide the truth from the community as it fails to release the latest data from Sydney Water  the major polluter, said Mr Ayres.  Ms Cusack told Parliament this week that the Labor Government owned Sydney Water is removing 70 tonnes of contaminants from sewage and then issuing itself licenses through the EPA to discharge those contaminants directly into the Nepean River. It's disgusting.      And here is the result:  Liberals candidate Stuart Ayres has recorded a massive swing of 25.5 per cent to claim victory in the Penrith by-election in New South Wales. 
  Voted in with no talk of market derivative schemes, increased Carbon taxes, or Armageddon. 
  Hopefully a lesson learned?

----------


## Dr Freud

This clown is so upset that the Chinese foiled his plans for climate change leadership status at Copenhagen, that he is now blatantly insulting them in public.  War anyone?        INVITATIONS to meet Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinpeng in Canberra this weekend were telephoned just yesterday to leading Australian business figures with China-related interests.  
  Their absurdly late delivery was yet further proof of the chaos which invariably reigns in Prime Minister Kevin Rudds personal office.  
  Some recipients were wondering how Rudd would greet his guest in light of his reported description of the Chinese leaders in a recent widely-publicised article as ratf ... . . g Chinese, during the disastrous Copenhagen climate change summit. On Wednesday, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said he did not believe the disparaging remarks attributed to Rudd by Fairfax writer David Marr would damage relations between Australia and China.  
  But later that evening, Rudd delivered a bizarre explanation of his ratf ... . . g remarks to attendees at the Canberra press gallerys annual gala ball. 
  His speech - reported by several outlets yesterday - left attendees staggering. 
Full scary read here:  Rudd caught in a devious rat trap of his own design | Daily Telegraph Piers Akerman Blog   Hopefully someone will explain to this moron that climate policy is no reason to pick a fight with our biggest export recipient, especially as they have more guns.  :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> This clown is so upset that the Chinese foiled his plans for climate change leadership status at Copenhagen, that he is now blatantly insulting them in public. War anyone?      
> INVITATIONS to meet Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinpeng in Canberra this weekend were telephoned just yesterday to leading Australian business figures with China-related interests.  
> Their absurdly late delivery was yet further proof of the chaos which invariably reigns in Prime Minister Kevin Rudds personal office.  
> Some recipients were wondering how Rudd would greet his guest in light of his reported description of the Chinese leaders in a recent widely-publicised article as ratf ... . . g Chinese, during the disastrous Copenhagen climate change summit. On Wednesday, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said he did not believe the disparaging remarks attributed to Rudd by Fairfax writer David Marr would damage relations between Australia and China.  
> But later that evening, Rudd delivered a bizarre explanation of his ratf ... . . g remarks to attendees at the Canberra press gallerys annual gala ball. 
> His speech - reported by several outlets yesterday - left attendees staggering. 
> Full scary read here:  Rudd caught in a devious rat trap of his own design | Daily Telegraph Piers Akerman Blog    Hopefully someone will explain to this moron that climate policy is no reason to pick a fight with our biggest export recipient, especially as they have more guns.

  
 Yes that speach was truely bizarre.

----------


## watson

I never read right through the links...but I read that one with an increasing sense of despair.
He's really got to go  (IMHO)

----------


## PhilT2

I am cautious about reading too much into this one event. This was a charity fundraiser and talking $### is sort of what is expected (with pollies and journos what did you expect) I thought that journalists usually regarded them as off the record. But maybe some of them have an axe to grind.Did any of them ever report on what Howard said at one of these events? If not then maybe their bias is showing. 
But I have to admit as an attempt at a humorous speech it was a massive fail.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Here is a recent focus on real environmental issues, rather than belief systems and computer models:   Liberal candidate for Penrith, Stuart Ayres is demanding Labor stop dumping toxic waste in the precious Nepean River.  Even more concerning, is that it appears Labor is trying to hide the truth from the community as it fails to release the latest data from Sydney Water  the major polluter, said Mr Ayres.  Ms Cusack told Parliament this week that the Labor Government owned Sydney Water is removing 70 tonnes of contaminants from sewage and then issuing itself licenses through the EPA to discharge those contaminants directly into the Nepean River. It's disgusting.      And here is the result:  Liberals candidate Stuart Ayres has recorded a massive swing of 25.5 per cent to claim victory in the Penrith by-election in New South Wales. 
>   Voted in with no talk of market derivative schemes, increased Carbon taxes, or Armageddon. 
>   Hopefully a lesson learned?

  Not a chance.....this is good and faithful political spin of the highest order.  And Mr. Ayres election (nor the imminent election of his peers to Government) will change nothing.  Treated human effluent will continue to be discharged into the Nepean River come what may. The reason there is increasing amounts of it has nothing to do with the system itself - it's the ever increasing number of users.  More people are moving into the catchment area - more people, more poo - more poo, more water - more water, more nutrients.....simple. 
What our esteemed political friend doesn't tell you in his missive is how much the discharge volumes increased over the same time....because I'll bet that went up by a similar margin.  And all the while the concentrations (mg/L) probably didn't shift much at all - so the plants are working fine....it's just the number of people using them. 
In the end, talking 'effluent' is far more simplistic & more misleading than treating 'effluent'.  But the suckers continue to lap it up.... 
If you really want more info about load based licencing in NSW then head to DECC | Environment protection licences and read away.  You can also search all of Sydney Water's licences and see what they are allowed to discharge....

----------


## Dr Freud

At least we can agree this is in reality "Absolute Cr-p".  :Biggrin:  
Not just a computer modelled prediction of "Absolute Cr-p". :Biggrin:  
Because predicting weather or climate 100 years into the future and calling that science is "Absolute Cr-p".  :Biggrin:  
Not that we'll ever see it in 100 years, because apparently we're all going to die!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

*Kruddibility:* The art of believing you are credible when every living thing, including potatoes, believes you are not. 
Now this is inkruddible.   
Read the full story here:  Can painting a mountain restore a glacier?    Our poor ancestors, they banged the rocks together to harness fire and create our world, now we paint them white in a religious charade to appease the weather gods.

----------


## Dr Freud

*The CSIRO has threatened all Australians with the death penalty if we do not believe in their computer modelling climate gods.*  :Shock:  
Last month Australia's chief scientist, Penny Sackett, told a Canberra gathering that we have six years to radically lower emissions, or face calamitous, unstoppable global warming.              Six years. 
Full story here (a year old tale of woe, down to five years now :2thumbsup: ):  Poor prognosis for our planet                   Melting icebergs ... a symptom of global warming. _Photo: Reuters_  *  
You see people, icebergs never melted prior to the industrial age.  They've been floating around the planet for 4 billion years waiting for humans to invent cars so they could finally melt...and become a symptom of "global warming", or "climate change", or "carbon pollution". *

----------


## Dr Freud

If you're having a laugh at the ridiculous depths this farce has sunk to, just remember how many billions of your tax dollars have already been wasted.  :Annoyed:  
Then consider how many billions more are being allocated now by ludicrous UN panels such as these:  United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 
Here's an example from Chapter 1, page 1 (get it in early I guess). 
"Acknowledging that the largest share of historical global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries and that, owing to this historical responsibility, *developed country Parties* must take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof [by adopting ambitious, [quantified, legally-binding and economy-wide domestic] emission reduction commitments or
actions, and by *providing adequate financial*, technological and capacity-building *support to developing country Parties*]" 
Interesting how a whole planet can be saved just by transferring taxes from one country to another.  Who would have thought?  :Doh:  
I know who will be having the Parties.  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

For those of you happy to shut down our coal powered energy production, here's some sense of scale for you. 
There is another thread running about the three gorges dam in China:  China's Monster Three Gorges Dam Is About To Slow The Rotation Of The Earth 
If we use hydro to replace current "dirty" power generation:  http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/29ELEC.pdf 
We will need one million dams of this size around the world to replace our current energy needs.    *
1,000,000 of these.*  :Eek:  
Or we could instead go for the less reliable, and build over eleven billion of these.   *
That's 11,000,000,000.* 
This would be a line of 275,000 turbines wide, at every kilometre around the circumference of the earth. 
I'm no sparky, so happy for any clarification if my numbers are way out? :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> For those of you happy to shut down our coal powered energy production, here's some sense of scale for you. 
> There is another thread running about the three gorges dam in China:  China's Monster Three Gorges Dam Is About To Slow The Rotation Of The Earth 
> If we use hydro to replace current "dirty" power generation:  http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/29ELEC.pdf 
> We will need one million dams of this size around the world to replace our current energy needs.  *1,000,000 of these.*  
> Or we could instead go for the less reliable, and build over eleven billion of these.  *That's 11,000,000,000.* 
> This would be a line of 275,000 turbines wide, at every kilometre around the circumference of the earth. 
> I'm no sparky, so happy for any clarification if my numbers are way out?

   But hey, what would I know.   Heres a university professor with another computer model with a $100 billion price tag, for another unrealistic theory.   A Melbourne University report says all of Australia's energy could come from renewable sources by 2020 as opposed to the Federal Government's target of 20 per cent.   Lets just ignore all the caveats and fairy stories.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

So what is Dr. Freud's prescription then, hmmm? 
There's no point pfaffing on like you do without offering options & ideas of your own. Such a thing is just whinging rather than contributing... 
My personal opinion is that I suspect that 10 years is too rapid and the assumption that the average Australian will halve their electricity use through efficiency gains in that time is also gilding - we are too selfish a species to halve our use of anything unless there is an immediate unsavoury price to pay (people still smoke and imbibe alcohol, for example despite the known risks simply because it doesn't kill them quickly). 
Still...it's offering more hints of possible solutions than Freud is...for that the boffins should be commended.

----------


## chrisp

> But hey, what would I know.   Heres a university professor with another computer model with a $100 billion price tag, for another unrealistic theory.   A Melbourne University report says all of Australia's energy could come from renewable sources by 2020 as opposed to the Federal Government's target of 20 per cent.   Lets just ignore all the caveats and fairy stories.

  It is probably worthwhile reading the actual report before being too critical.  :Rolleyes:  
Firstly, it isn't a Melbourne University report, it is produced by "Beyond Zero Emissions" which is "a not-for-profit, volunteer run organisation".  About | Beyond Zero Emissions This is not your error, but that of the ABC. 
A synopsis  report can be found at: Zero Carbon Australia 2020 | Beyond Zero Emissions  
The report needs to be taken in context (like all reports).  It is a "could" case, as in Australia *could* convert to 100% renewable energy in 10 years.  I don't think BZE expects or anticipates that this *would* actually happen. 
The report outlines the technologies that could be used and provides some modelling outcomes based upon solar and wind outputs along with some bio-fuel backup that makes the case that 100% renewable energy is doable and doesn't necessarily have 'baseload' problems.

----------


## Dr Freud

> So what is Dr. Freud's prescription then, hmmm? 
> There's no point pfaffing on like you do without offering options & ideas of your own. Such a thing is just whinging rather than contributing... 
> My personal opinion is that I suspect that 10 years is too rapid and the assumption that the average Australian will halve their electricity use through efficiency gains in that time is also gilding - we are too selfish a species to halve our use of anything unless there is an immediate unsavoury price to pay (people still smoke and imbibe alcohol, for example despite the known risks simply because it doesn't kill them quickly). 
> Still...it's offering more hints of possible solutions than Freud is...for that the boffins should be commended.

  A wise man once told me that you don't have to be a cook to critcise the cooking!  :2thumbsup:  
But hey, I'm happy to throw my opinions (recipes) around, whether people like their flavour or not.  Cos I'm that kind of maverick renegade.   

> I am a huge fan of renewable energy sources, particularly solar as opposed to others like wind and geothermal, as it exists in abundance across the universe. Handy when traveling. No doubt it will be replaced by anti-matter or gravitational drives in the future (or maybe not based on our latest science curriculum changes ), but it is a likely stepping stone for us hairless apes. 
> I particularly like the space based stuff like this  and maybe if we weren't wasting this money  in market based derivative trading scams, we could invest it all in solar and make it viable a lot quicker.

  And from the big fella:   

> Hmm. I am not against renewable energy provided it is comercially viable and not funded from the tax payer and actually produces energy that does not have to be backed up by a coal fired plant anyway. 
> It states that storage is for 16hrs. what happens when we get a rain event like the past week in the cental areas of Australia.  Would this mean we have balck outs if this was used here? Yes it all sounds good and I am all for it if it works.  Nothing at all to do with AGW, in my book if it works and is viable do it.   
> These technologies need to be persued irrespective of AGW.

  My argument is against the massive waste and distraction from these important issues.  Why run some $114 billion dollar money go round, when a fraction of this money will likely solve the energy issues in much less time, for bona fide reasons.  Then we can make trillions selling this to the rest of the planet. Hell, I'd even pay 12% GST if the extra 2% was quarantined away from parliament and dedicated to private R&D into solar. 
But no, lets cripple the economy instead, so no-one can afford to do any research, let alone development!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> This is not your error, but that of the ABC.

  Thanks champ, I've got more than enough of my own.  :Biggrin:  
Obviously a very rare lapse for this great media institution.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

Rudd press conference. He says:  
Gillard has asked for a leadership ballot. It will take place at 9am.     More updates here:   How strange. Global warming a year ago was seen as the policy supported by everyone of sense, and by all political parties. Since then the leaders of the both the biggest parties have lost their jobs essentially over this issue.    :Shock:  :Shock:  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

This time it wasn't me, PM Joolia did it!   

> You're damn right I ordered the code RUDD!

  But she doesn't believe in AGW Theory either.  :Biggrin:   Turning to Labor's failed attempt to introduce an emissions trading scheme, Ms Gillard said she was disappointed that Australia didn't have a price on carbon.  ``In the future we will need one,'' she said.  ``But first we will need to establish a community consensus for action. 
In the future? Not now? No urgency? Everyone sentenced to death in five years?  What the? 
We've never had a community consensus yet!  But she's going to wait for one.  :Doh:  
Definitely a closet sceptic!!!  :2thumbsup:  :Biggrin:  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

Too little too late Kev:  Mr Rudd said he remained proud of the government's three unsuccessful efforts to get the emissions trading scheme through parliament.  ``If I had one point of future policy it must be our ambition to pass a carbon pollution reduction scheme within this parliament, the one that follows I mean,'' he said.  ``So that we can make a difference, a real difference to climate change.'' 
Once again, future policy?  What happened to the urgency Kev?  Look dude, I understand you got beaten by a girl and had a cry about it, but that's no excuse for lying again to the Australian people.  :No:  
If anyone believes Kev, please explain how his CPRS is/was going to make a "real difference" to [climate change]. 
And he is recommending it commencing in the next term of government.  But treasury still hasn't done any calculations on how the CPRS Tax and the RSPT Tax will fight against each other in the real world as opposed to Ken Henry's and Wayne Swan's theoretical models.  Will the RSPT increase coal production like Swan claims, or will the coal production go down according to the CPRS design?  :Confused:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> This time it wasn't me, PM Joolia did it!   
> But she doesn't believe in AGW Theory either.    Turning to Labor's failed attempt to introduce an emissions trading scheme, Ms Gillard said she was disappointed that Australia didn't have a price on carbon. ``In the future we will need one,'' she said. ``But first we will need to establish a community consensus for action.  
> In the future? Not now? No urgency? Everyone sentenced to death in five years? What the? 
> We've never had a community consensus yet! But she's going to wait for one.  
> Definitely a closet sceptic!!!

  With a bit of luck she wont be there long enough for it to be her problem. 
As a side.  I won a $50 bet with my business partner.  The bet was that Rudd would not contest the next election and that he will be axed and Gillard would take over. 
When did I make that bet?  Election day last election. :Smilie:

----------


## Make it work

Wow Rod, you should be a political speculator. How long will Prime Minister Elmo last if the poles do not improve?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Wow Rod, you should be a political speculator. How long will Prime Minister Elmo last if the poles do not improve?

  To me it was always on the cards with Rudd. 
It just took longer for people to see through him. As for any more predictions. I don't have any!

----------


## watson

In my usual manner............will she do well as full forward for the "doggies".
Her comments re the ETS still worry this little black duck.

----------


## Bedford

From The Australian.  Julia Gillard has promised to pursue carbon pricing only after 'public consensus' | The Australian

----------


## Dr Freud

First she said this:   Delay is denial: Gillard urges ETS resolution   Then she did this:   Who then persuaded Rudd to drop his planned emissions trading scheme to stop global warming, leaving him looking like an unprincipled humbug?... It was Gillard...   Now she says this:   Thats why I said today if elected as Prime Minister at the forthcoming election then I will take the time to reprosecute the case with the Australian community to develop that deep and lasting consensus.   Lets see:   *1- If elected*; *2- Reprosecute the case;* *3- Develop deep and lasting consensus. *  Then after all this magic, she will start working on a policy to deal with AGW Theory. 
Phew!  At least we've confirmed she has *no* current policy.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

Lets see why Gillard is dancing to the public popularity music.  She has to get major public support for any future climate policy, because if she falls in the polls shell get knifed in the back on the way down, just like Rudd.   KEVIN Rudd had his issues. But if his dismissal proved anything yesterday, it confirmed that the Australian Labor Party has become a vacuous, amorphous beast that feeds off polls and focus groups.  What the members of this once great party have said to the Australian people is that it is a party that doesnt believe in anything any more, other than the pursuit of power for powers sake.  The country is now in politically uncharted waters.  What politician will dare ever pursue reform on this basis?   The removal of a prime minister, which many in the Labor Party will argue was necessary for the good of the country as well as Labor, has unfortunately proven that the office of Prime Minister has become a factional plaything, negotiated by faceless men and women much like the office of Premier has become in NSW.   While all this is going on, who the hell is running the country?  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

What's *not* going up?  Investment in viable renewable energy.   
Full story here (as Rod has previously pointed out):  If we relied on wind power, Australia would have shut down | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
We can't afford this because of what *is* going up: 
This:   
And this:   
Full story here:  Joyce: Gillard Set To Outspend Rudd  Barnaby Is Right 
I think the pictures are easier than explaining all the waste of our money, particularly chasing carbon dioxide fairies, that could instead be spent on developing viable renewable energy sources. 
WOMBAT  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> 

  I knew he shouldn't have left those sharp objects lying around.  Poor bloke probably turned around to pin up another policy and got hammered from behind.  :Stretcher:  
But seriously, he was an idiot and his CPRS debacle would have crippled this country.  But he should have answered to the Australian people.  We should pick our Prime Minister's and dismiss them, not vote for a party and have them chop and change Prime Minister's according to their political infighting.  :No:  
NSW has to put up with this garbage, but this is our country for goodness sake!

----------


## Dr Freud

*CSIRO said we are all dead if don't act within five years. 
Now sceptics could be dead a lot sooner for uncovering the truth about AGW Theory scams:* 
"Spains Dr. Gabriel Calzada  the author of a damning study concluding that Spains green jobs energy program has been a catastrophic economic failure  was mailed a  _dismantled bomb_ on Tuesday by solar energy company Thermotechnic.
 Says Calzada:Before  opening it, I called [Thermotechnic] to know what was inside  they answered, it  was their answer to  my energy pieces.The bomb threat is just the latest intimidation Dr. Calzada has faced since releasing his report and following up with articles in _Expansion_ (a  Spanish paper similar to the _Financial Times_). A minister from Spains Socialist government called the rector of King Juan Carlos University  Dr. Calzadas employer  seeking Calzadas ouster. Calzada was not fired, but he was stripped of half of his classes at the university. The school then dropped its accreditation of a summer university program with which Calzadas think tank  Instituto Juan de Mariana  was associated. 
As I have previously  reported at PJM (here and here), Spains green jobs program was repeatedly referenced by President Obama as a model for what he would like to implement in the United States. Following the release of Calzadas report, Spains Socialist government has since acknowledged the debacle  both privately and publicly. This month, Spains government instituted massive  reductions in subsidies to renewable energy sources." 
Fulls story here:  Pajamas Media  BREAKING: Green Energy Company Threatens Economics Professor  with Package of Dismantled Bomb Parts 
Talk about an argument blowing up in your face!  :Blowup:

----------


## Dr Freud

Former Labor leader Mark Latham says it is likely Prime Minister Julia Gillard will eventually suffer the same fate as her predecessor Kevin Rudd.  Mr Latham also criticised the party for becoming poll-driven and said it has given up on getting hard reforms through the Parliament.   The CPRS was a hard reform, and always will be without USA, China and India joining in. Its looking less likely every day that this is going to happen.   Therefore, according to the CSIRO we are all dead! 
Who's the real Chk Chk Boom Girl? 
Clare Werbeloff or Penny Sackett?

----------


## chrisp

> And this:   
> Full story here:  Joyce: Gillard Set To Outspend Rudd  Barnaby Is Right 
> I think the pictures are easier than explaining all the waste of our money

  
What a lot of biased and unsubstantiated opinion and rumour you have been posting.   
Fancy quoting *Barnaby "Millions, um no, Billions, um no, Trillions, um a number with lots of zero" Joyce* for projections on government spending when Gillard has only been in office one day  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

"At yesterday's caucus meeting Rudd stood up and said he believed Gillard and he had worked out a compromise in their first meeting last night. "I thought we were capable of working our way through but when she returned she called it on." 
  He was implying that the factional bosses had pushed it - and killed a potential compromise. 
  He also effectively blamed Gillard and Wayne Swan for the decision to shelve the emissions trading scheme, a key policy reversal which triggered his decline in the polls. He blamed the troubled resources super-profits tax on Swan. 
  He gave a sombre speech, which was both "statesmanlike" but also dug the knife into Gillard and Swan - essentially blaming them for the RSPT and the abandonment of an ETS. 
  He stopped two or three times to fight back tears."  Full story here:   A stab right from the heartland | The Australian  
Oh my God! They killed Kevvy!

----------


## Dr Freud

THE federal government has been accused of sending a bad signal on climate change policy after one of its first acts was to back the first major deal to export Victorian coal.   From 2014, the Victorian company expects to export 2 million tonnes of dried brown coal a year to burn in Vietnamese power stations, eventually rising to 20 million tonnes a year.    Greens climate change spokeswoman Christine Milne said the federal government could not be serious about reducing emissions if was willing to open up a ''massive polluting'' export industry.   She called on Prime Minister Julia Gillard to tell Mr Crean to focus on export deals that helped the climate.   ''Brown coal is the most polluting fuel we have. Pumping energy into transforming it into the equivalent of black coal will only increase pollution at home and overseas,'' she said.   Government insiders say Ms Gillard, while understanding climate change, has not been engaged with the issue.   Full story here:   Greens slam Gillard on brown coal export deal   The word hypocrite does not even come close!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> In my usual manner............will she do well as full forward for the "doggies".
> Her comments re the ETS still worry this little black duck.

    On radio station 3AW, when asked by *Neil Mitchell* whether she could promise that she would not be leader before the next election, she said "You may as well ask me am I anticipating a trip to Mars." Which, no, apparently she wasn't.   When Fairfax Media's Tim Lester interviewed Gillard on the *National Times* website, an even better fantasy analogy was embraced. If "Steven Spielberg rang me from Hollywood and asked me to star opposite Brad Pitt in a movie, would I do it? Well, I'd be a little bit tempted but you know what, I don't reckon Steven Spielberg is going to give me a call." No leadership, no calls from Spielberg, got it.   Then on *2GB radio*, another hypothetical, when the Deputy was asked had there been a Howard/Costello deal done with Rudd, she responded with something equally as topical as leadership. Gillard said : "I know well be welcoming Jessica [Watson] back to Sydney this weekend after her round the world epic feat. I tell you, I think theres more chance of me going round the world sailing solo a dozen times than this chatter in the media becoming anything more than that."   Then on Monday she reinforced the point once again, apparently "theres more chance of me becoming the full forward for the [Western Bulldogs] than there is of any change in the Labor Party."   So just to recap, if Julia does get the PM spot, she will also be sailing around the world solo a dozen times, starring in a Spielberg production alongside Brad Pitt, adventuring into outer-space and playing professional football.   Full story here:   Rumours About Julia Gillard Getting The PM's Job     But then it happened!                   
Found here:   PHOTO GALLERY: how Julia Gillard said no to the Labor leadership | Crikey

----------


## Dr Freud

> What a lot of biased and unsubstantiated opinion and rumour you have been posting.

  Business as usual for me.  :Biggrin:  
But if I stopped posting biased and unsubstantiated opinion and rumour, then I would have to also stop referring to the IPCC.  :Shock:  :Biggrin:     

> Fancy quoting *Barnaby "Millions, um no, Billions, um no, Trillions, um a number with lots of zero" Joyce* for projections on government spending when Gillard has only been in office one day

  Seriously, we don't run the country's finances on a daily basis (unlike most households).  The gang of four have set down these numbers already years in advance.  Admittedly, if Gillard scraps the RSPT and leaves the CPRS off the table (ie. no massive new taxes), then the situation will get even worse.  Or if she announces massive spending cuts, then it will get better. Will this happen months from an election given recent events.  :Rotfl:  
But if you don't trust good 'ol Barnaby, you can work it out for yourself. 
Just start here:  AOFM  Home  *(Total Commonwealth Government Securities
               on Issue - $147,133m)* 
Then go here:  Budget Paper No. 1: Budget Strategy and Outlook 2009-10 - Statement 3: Fiscal outlook  *(An underlying cash deficit of $40.8 billion is expected in 2010‑11, compared with an estimated deficit of $46.6 billion at MYEFO. In accrual terms, a fiscal deficit of $39.6 billion is expected for 2010‑11.)* 
Then do a bit of jiggery pokery numbers stuff, and you too will come up with the truth. 
Good 'ol Barnaby sums it up here:  Can We Even Pay The Interest?  Barnaby Is Right 
Now, back to the issue at hand, how much spare money do we have to spend on renewable energy R&D.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

The ETS explained for us every day citizens. 
The slideshow takes a few minutes, but much better than reading the legislation.  :2thumbsup:   Emissions Trading 101

----------


## Rod Dyson

Wow you have been busy Doc. 
Great reading material! 
Cheers Rod

----------


## jago

Wow I thought this was ETS thread ..not  a party political rant from WA. 
I think Canboring is missing a spin doctor...pmsl :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

> Wow I thought this was ETS thread ..not  a party political rant from WA. 
> I think Canboring is missing a spin doctor...pmsl

  I'm pleased to see someone else has noticed the politicising of this thread too. 
It is quite ironic in a way, from his posts, it seems to me that the Doc seems to think that Labor has copped a hiding due to proposing the ETS, price on carbon pollution, etc. where as it seems to me that they have copped a hiding for doing *too little* on the ETS, price on carbon pollution, etc. 
Maybe it is just the different perspectives from WA to Vic?   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Wow I thought this was ETS thread ..not  a party political rant from WA. 
> I think Canboring is missing a spin doctor...pmsl

  This is an ETS thread, and the ETS is a political policy response to a perceived environmental theory.  Therefore, if I rant against the ETS and all those who support its introduction, it is well within the remit of this thread.  Occasionally many of us have strayed from the path, and the good Mr Watson has pulled us into line.  Once Tony Abbot is running the country  :Shock: , I will pursue him with just as much vigour to remove his window dressing of a policy called "direct action".  But right now, this is the much lesser of two evils. 
But I have made my views clear before:   

> Political themes have been underlying this debate for a long time:   _Indeed, it strikes us as opening the way for climate science and economics to be determined, at least in part, by political requirements rather than by the evidence. Sound science cannot emerge from an unsound process We are concerned that there may be political interference in the nomination of scientists whose credentials should rest solely with their scientific qualifications for the tasks involved Similarly, scientists should be appointed because of their scientific credentials, and not because they take one or other view in the climate debate At the moment, it seems to us that the emissions scenarios are influenced by political considerations ... _  http://www.publications.parliament.u...naf/12/12i.pdf   But I dont care what gets traded (Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen...), as long as I dont have to pay taxes for it.      For the record, I dont care what political party tries to tax me for fresh air, I will reject this.  Malcolm Turnbull is one of the best lawyers, entrepreneurs and businessman in the country, but I would vote against him every day of the week that he supports this fiasco.   The former Opposition leader, Mr Turnbull, has pledged to cross the floor to support the amended ETS.   Thankfully he is gone and we now have a limited choice. But as you raise Mr Abbott, lets hear his thoughts on the subject (just for balance). 
> He admitted that there were times when he had stuffed up politics but said that when someone became a leader, they had made a new start.   I think that climate change is real and that man does make a contribution, he said.    But he said there was argument about the level of that contribution and what should be done about it.    Mr Abbott said the argument was about how to deal with climate change.   The last thing we should be doing is rushing through a great big new tax just so that Kevin Rudd can take a trophy to Copenhagen, he said.    I am humbled: Abbott

  Take note that I said limited choice.  There is no mainstream party willing to stand up and say that this sham is a disgrace to science, politics and common sense.  :2thumbsup:  
And I am always willing to spin the *fact* *that there is no scientific evidence proving AGW Theory*, and that the Labor Party is using this sham as a massive tax grab to pay for its ever growing debt problems.   
Do you believe they really buy this farce when they restrict uranium sales and use, yet increase brown coal production and use? 
Whose really spinning here, and whose falling for it?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Wow you have been busy Doc. 
> Great reading material! 
> Cheers Rod

  Yeh, been an interesting week. 
Historical change in Australia. Now if we vote for the Labor party, the union leaders pick the PM and the policies.  Just like the NSW debacle.  Paul Howes (AWU) was on Lateline Wednesday night announcing that Kevin Rudd was no longer the PM.  Very brave before a single vote had been cast.  The caucus then capitulated to this on Thursday morning.  Very interesting times indeed. 
Perhaps we could ask Mr Howes what the next climate policy will be?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm pleased to see someone else has noticed the politicising of this thread too.

  AGW Theory = Scientific Issue (Barely  :Biggrin: )
ETS = Political Response 
The thread is not being politicised, by definition the response to the issue is political.    

> It is quite ironic in a way, from his posts, it seems to me that the Doc seems to think that Labor has copped a hiding due to proposing the ETS, price on carbon pollution, etc. where as it seems to me that they have copped a hiding for doing *too little* on the ETS, price on carbon pollution, etc.

  Wholeheartedly agree here.  Rudd lost popularity because he promised to save the world (literally  :Doh: ) and people believed him.  Then he said it was too much paperwork to go to a double dissolution election when the Greens Party, the Liberals, and other non-Labor senators said his policy (political response) was useless. 
Most supporters felt gutted that the world was now going to end, but just a few asked the question "If this really was as serious as Rudd made out, why would he just walk away from it?" 
I congratulate those few.  :brava:  
Gillard is still walking away...   

> Maybe it is just the different perspectives from WA to Vic?

  Many people over here don't want to pay tax for fresh air.  Some do. 
My guess is Victoria is probably the same.  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yeh, been an interesting week. 
> Historical change in Australia. Now if we vote for the Labor party, the union leaders pick the PM and the policies.  Just like the NSW debacle.  Paul Howes (AWU) was on Lateline Wednesday night announcing that Kevin Rudd was no longer the PM.  Very brave before a single vote had been cast.  The caucus then capitulated to this on Thursday morning.  Very interesting times indeed. 
> Perhaps we could ask Mr Howes what the next climate policy will be?

  *30 April 2010 *  *PAUL HOWES:* This climate change is an issue that Labor will continue to focus on into the future. It's not all about the ETS.   *PAUL HOWES:* I reckon the election'll be some time in 2010 and I have no idea when it's gonna be...Definitely, definitely some time in 2010.   Full story here (VERY telling interview all round, well worth a read):   The Australian Workers Union: Paul Howes on ABC TV's Lateline   *24 June 2010 *  *JULIA GILLARD:* My leadership will be about talking to the Australian people about climate change.  I believe that we have got to therefore change the way we do things and that this nation will in the future need a price on carbon.   *JULIA GILLARD:* Kerry, I can absolutely rule out next year. The election will be in 2010.   Full story here:   The 7.30 Report - ABC 
So in summary:  
1- Rudd gone.
2- "ETS" dropped for "price on carbon".
3- Timetable changed from urgent to "in the future".
4- Election definitely in 2010.   I guess its just a coincidence that the union faction leaders are excellent at predicting the future.   Maybe we *should* be asking them what the next climate policy will be?

----------


## jago

Dr  Freud 
Whats the answer?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Does this have a familiar ring to it? 
This is a posted comment on this page. Amazongate: the missing evidence - Telegraph   

> RickBradford 
> 1 minute ago  
> Warmists have an urgent psychological need to be right the whole time, which fuels their whining outrage when they are shown to be wrong, their desperate, blind scrambling to try to shore up their position, and their triumphal glee when they think they have scored a point. 
> It's all about 'winning' for them, and nothing to do with truth in research leading to sensible policy-making.

----------


## chrisp

> Does this have a familiar ring to it? 
> This is a posted comment on this page. Amazongate: the missing evidence - Telegraph

  Sound familiar?  It sure does! 
Fancy posting a comment (read "opinion") on an opinion article - i.e. an _opinion_ on an *opinion* to support your position! 
It would sounds more convincing if the denialists could produce some credible scientific evidence to support their position.  Oh well, I suppose opinions - and opinions on opinions - is as good as their _'evidence'_ gets.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Dr  Freud 
> Whats the answer?

  *I seek not to know the answers, but to understand the questions.  Kwai Chang Kaine.* 
Question: Are human's really "causing" all of the measured half degree warming of the last 150 years?  
Answer: We don't know. 
Question: IF we are, do we believe failed computer models that tell us against all historical measurements to the contrary, that this warming is catastrophic and will end civilisation as we know it? 
Answer: No. 
Question: IF we ignore the flawed data and all the failed scientific theory in this area of research, but ideologically still decide that AGW Theory might be real, so want to act anyway, will the CPRS legislation introduced in Australia stop the entire planet's anthropogenic CO2 contribution? 
Answer: No.  *My answer:* Let all scientists (ie. geologists, physicists, astrophysicists, biologists, paleontologists, chemists, climatologists etc.) all go away quietly into the night and tell them when they have some idea of how the planet really works to let us know.  :2thumbsup:  *
IF I was an AGW proponent - answer:* We need to get the whole world to act to cease ALL CO2 production immediately.  If this means billions of people dead through disease, famine or war, so be it.  If the chief scientists pushing this theory are right (including the CSIRO), then the entire human species is about to be wiped out.  A few billion dead people means nothing when our entire species is at threat of extinction.  :2thumbsup:  
It's not the answer, but it's my answer.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Julia Gillards interview with Laurie Oakes this morning.   I must have missed the bit about urgency and the end of the world.   Make up your own mind if the ETS is dead or not.    LO: Youve now been pinged along with Wayne Swan as responsible for the shelving of the Emissions Trading System, the decision more than anything else shredded Kevin Rudd's credibility. Do you accept responsibility for that?   JG: I accept my fair share.   LO: It sounds like the lion's share from the reports we have on the dispatch    JG: I accept my fair share of the responsibility for all of the decisions that happened when Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister. I accept my fair share, for the good things and the bad things.   LO: But you did argue that the ETS should be dumped because it was hurting Labour politically, is that true?   JG: Laurie, I was concerned that if you were going to do something as big to your economy as put a price on carbon, with the economic transformation that implies, with changing the way in which we live, you need a lasting and deep community consensus to do it. And I don't believe we have that lasting and deep community consensus now. Now I believe we should have a price on carbon, and I will be prepared to argue for a price on carbon to lead, so that we get to that lasting and deep community consensus, but we are not there yet. We can take practical measures on climate change, I believe in climate change, I believe its caused by human activity, and I believe we have got an obligation to act. And I'll be make some statements about some further things we can do to address the challenge of climate change as we work to that lasting and deep community consensus.   LO: You didn't actually say this, Kevin Rudd did, this is a great moral challenge of our time, but you did as recently as December say that delaying the ETS was the same as climate change denial. Are you a deny-er?   JG: Well no Laurie, I am not a denier, I am not a denier, but I'm someone who believes that you have got to take the community with you when you make lasting and deep changes.  Now as Prime Minister, as a leader, I have an obligation to have the conversation, to have the discussion to indicate the attitudes, and I'm doing that today. I believe in the future of this nation, we will have a price on carbon. I believe we will transform our economy the way that that price imply, I believe there will be ways in which we live that are different. But that's something that the community has to have a part in the decision, a part in the conversation, and we have got to drive the consensus for change.   LO: It seems to me and to a lot of other people, that in terms of policy, the three things, the three big problems the Rudd government had were asylum seeker policy, the ETS back flip and the mining tax, now Kevin Rudd basically followed your asylum seeker policy, he did what you wanted on the Emissions Trading System, I don't know if you can be blamed for the mining tax, but two out of three ain't bad.   Full story here:   Today on Sunday Julia Gillard and Laurie Oakes

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Sound familiar? It sure does! 
> Fancy posting a comment (read "opinion") on an opinion article - i.e. an _opinion_ on an *opinion* to support your position! 
> It would sounds more convincing if the denialists could produce some credible scientific evidence to support their position. Oh well, I suppose opinions - and opinions on opinions - is as good as their _'evidence'_ gets.

  It is an observation of another's opinion. Oh well I guess you cant get that. Kinda confirms the observation don't you think? 
LOL

----------


## Dr Freud

> Does this have a familiar ring to it? 
> This is a posted comment on this page. Amazongate: the missing evidence - Telegraph

   

> Sound familiar?  It sure does! 
> Fancy posting a comment (read "opinion") on an opinion article - i.e. an _opinion_ on an *opinion* to support your position! 
> It would sounds more convincing if the denialists could produce some credible scientific evidence to support their position.  Oh well, I suppose opinions - and opinions on opinions - is as good as their _'evidence'_ gets.

  So let me get this straight: 
The article ( I assume your read it) is about one dudes opinion, that gets adopted by a green group as their opinion, that gets published by the IPCC as "peer-reviewed scientific evidence". 
Opinion on an opinion sold to us as evidence! :Doh:  
Then Rod quotes a dudes opinion about a media article, and clearly explains that it is just a comment, and never purports that this is peer-reviewed scientific evidence. 
Observation on an opinion clearly explained as just that!  :2thumbsup:  
And you have no issues with the IPCC, but have issues with Rod?  :Confused:  
As for my evidence, I think I'll stick with reality.  If you care to argue with reality, why don't you spend the next few nights sleeping outside and let me know how you go.  :Biggrin:  
Oh yeh, the old "weather isn't climate" stuff.  Then please spend every winter sleeping outside for the next twenty years and let me know how you go.  If you start enjoying balmy nights under the stars I guess you guys are right, if you keep freezing your b--lls off, I guess you guys are wrong.  :2thumbsup:  
Reality bites.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> So let me get this straight: 
> The article ( I assume your read it) is about one dudes opinion, that gets adopted by a green group as their opinion, that gets published by the IPCC as "peer-reviewed scientific evidence".

  Yep, I read it. 
Let's see, it's an article in _The Daily Telegraph_ by one of their *opinion* writers by the name of Christopher Booker.  And  someone, "RickBradford", posted a comment of support (quoted by Rod). 
So who is Christopher Booker?  Wikipedia provides some insight:_Booker, a prominent global  warming sceptic, has claimed in his long-running column in the_ _Sunday Telegraph that 2008 was  "the year man-made global warming was disproved", amid "a turning point  in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming",  and that government policy aimed at dealing with this issue will be  ruinously expensive.
Booker has also claimed that white asbestos is "chemically  identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent" risk to human  health,  stating that "HSE studies, including a paper by John Hodgson and Andrew  Darnton in 2000, concluded that the risk from the substance is  "virtually zero".
Booker has also claimed that_   _"scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not  exist";__there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans".__Darwinists "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and  unexamined a priori assumptions".__BBC Radio 4's Today Programme  "crudely distorted" the debate between defenders of the theory of Intelligent Design  and Darwinians  and "went out of their way to ignore the fact that the proponents of  "intelligent design" are scientists"._From: Christopher Booker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*Hardly what I would consider to be a reputable source.* 
Did _you_ read the article?  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Bedford

Would it be alright to throw some more wood on the fire?  Coldstream weather forecast, Bureau of Meteorology Warnings & rainfall

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Yep, I read it. 
> Let's see, it's an article in _The Daily Telegraph_ by one of their *opinion* writers by the name of Christopher Booker. And someone, "RickBradford", posted a comment of support (quoted by Rod). 
> So who is Christopher Booker? Wikipedia provides some insight: _Booker, a prominent global warming sceptic, has claimed in his long-running column in the_ _Sunday Telegraph that 2008 was "the year man-made global warming was disproved", amid "a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming", and that government policy aimed at dealing with this issue will be ruinously expensive._ _Booker has also claimed that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent" risk to human health, stating that "HSE studies, including a paper by John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton in 2000, concluded that the risk from the substance is "virtually zero"._ _Booker has also claimed that_  _"scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist";__there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans".__Darwinists "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".__BBC Radio 4's Today Programme "crudely distorted" the debate between defenders of the theory of Intelligent Design and Darwinians and "went out of their way to ignore the fact that the proponents of "intelligent design" are scientists"._From: Christopher Booker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*Hardly what I would consider to be a reputable source.* 
> Did _you_ read the article?

  
So I guess you would say whatever this guy writes can't be right correct?  
You amaze me more and more. certainly confirms what RickBradford had to say.

----------


## chrisp

> So I guess you would say whatever this guy writes can't be right correct?  
> You amaze me more and more. certainly confirms what RickBradford had to say.

  I don't think he _can't be right_, but rather as he biased, what he writes is *likely* to be wrong or a misrepresentation. 
Also, his reasoning on those other topics (Oops, it seems that _smoking causes cancer_ rears its head again  :Rolleyes:  ), makes his logic and conclusions very questionable. 
He _could_ possibly be right, but I'd very much doubt what he writes.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Would it be alright to throw some more wood on the fire?  Coldstream weather forecast, Bureau of Meteorology Warnings & rainfall

  Yeh, I too have been scraping ice from the windscreen for the past week.  Enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.  I empathise with poor Chrisp sleeping outside waiting for it to warm up.  And remember we also have the rest of the worlds empathy for our extreme temperature plight.   

> _"Only an empathic sense for the suffering of people in Pakistan, Nigeria, China and Australia, to name just a few countries already being severely affected by climate change, will motivate us to take the strong and immediate action needed." _ Suffer in your jocks lads and ladies.  Crank those air-cons tonight, while the rest of the world "empathises" with us frying to death.  
> Full sordid propaganda here (it hurts me to direct people to these sites ):  How Do Empathy and Dangerous Climate Change Relate? | Global Climate Change Information

  That CO2 stuff is magic, really warms the place up when the Sun comes out!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yep, I read it. 
> Let's see, it's an article in _The Daily Telegraph_ by one of their *opinion* writers by the name of Christopher Booker.  And  someone, "RickBradford", posted a comment of support (quoted by Rod). 
> So who is Christopher Booker?  Wikipedia provides some insight:_Booker, a prominent global  warming sceptic, has claimed in his long-running column in the_ _Sunday Telegraph that 2008 was  "the year man-made global warming was disproved", amid "a turning point  in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming",  and that government policy aimed at dealing with this issue will be  ruinously expensive.
> Booker has also claimed that white asbestos is "chemically  identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent" risk to human  health,  stating that "HSE studies, including a paper by John Hodgson and Andrew  Darnton in 2000, concluded that the risk from the substance is  "virtually zero".
> Booker has also claimed that_   _"scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not  exist";__there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans".__Darwinists "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and  unexamined a priori assumptions".__BBC Radio 4's Today Programme  "crudely distorted" the debate between defenders of the theory of Intelligent Design  and Darwinians  and "went out of their way to ignore the fact that the proponents of  "intelligent design" are scientists"._From: Christopher Booker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*Hardly what I would consider to be a reputable source.* 
> Did _you_ read the article?

  For crying out loud, do you guys have an on-line course that trains you how to go off on a tangent in ad-hominem attacks.  Is it www.smearthesceptic.com?  :Biggrin:   (not real). Or is it Al Gore's little climate brigade training (can't be bothered looking it up :Cool: ). 
If you prefer a Pro-AGW Theory website argument about the subject, try:  Comparing what the IPCC and peer-reviewed science say about Amazonian forests 
If you want to find the main reason trees are disappearing (people chopping them down, duh  :Doh: ), start here:  Deforestation in Amazonia - Encyclopedia of Earth 
But seriously, can't the dude have an opinion contrary to the Church of AGW, without being personally attacked for irrelevant attitudes to other issues.  He is possibly anti-abortion, patriarchial, bi-sexual, and needs viagra to get it up?  He may even believe in Santa Claus, or thought he once saw a UFO? But what the hell does this have to do with the dude having a contrary opinion to AGW Theory? 
The more you guys carry on like this, the more you validate the opinion of an opinion on this opinion piece:   

> Warmists have an urgent psychological need to be right the whole time, which fuels their whining outrage when they are shown to be wrong, their desperate, blind scrambling to try to shore up their position, and their triumphal glee when they think they have scored a point. 
> It's all about 'winning' for them, and nothing to do with truth in research leading to sensible policy-making.

  Yeh, I read it too.  But like all stuff I read, it didn't trigger any insecurities in my opinion of this farce!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

How do you negate the lack of a climate policy? 
Adopt a "me too" strategy.  :2thumbsup:  
"Ms Gillard's position on emissions trading has been ambiguous since she replaced Kevin Rudd on Thursday. She has said she supported a carbon price, but declined to back Mr Rudd's timetable of reviewing whether to introduce emissions trading in 2012. 
''I will be prepared to argue for a price on carbon, to lead so that we get to that lasting and deep community consensus, but we're not there yet.'' 
             She promised announcements about ''practical measures'' on climate change while the government worked on building a consensus." 
Gillard's not even going to argue for a price on carbon (I assume dioxide :Doh: ), but she "will be prepared to" one day... 
Gee, "practical measures", better not call them "direct action". 
Clowns, the lot of them.  :Screwy:  
Full story here:  Parties 'clones' on climate

----------


## chrisp

> But seriously, can't the dude have an opinion contrary to the Church of AGW, without being personally attacked for irrelevant attitudes to other issues.  He is possibly anti-abortion, patriarchial, bi-sexual, and needs viagra to get it up?  He may even believe in Santa Claus, or thought he once saw a UFO? But what the hell does this have to do with the dude having a contrary opinion to AGW Theory?

  There is nothing wrong with the guy, and anyone else, having an opinion - we all have them. 
However, it seems that the anti-AGW fraternity seems to use opinions as if they are facts to underpin their views on anti-AGW.  :Eek:  
If you can't find any reputable science to support your view, then I'd suppose that you would have to make do with opinions instead.  Never mind the science, don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory or a political rant.   :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> For crying out loud, do you guys have an on-line course that trains you how to go off on a tangent in ad-hominem attacks.  Is it www.smearthesceptic.com?   (not real). Or is it Al Gore's little climate brigade training (can't be bothered looking it up). 
> But seriously, can't the dude have an opinion contrary to the Church of AGW, without being personally attacked for irrelevant attitudes to other issues.  He is possibly anti-abortion, patriarchial, bi-sexual, and needs viagra to get it up?  He may even believe in Santa Claus, or thought he once saw a UFO? But what the hell does this have to do with the dude having a contrary opinion to AGW Theory?

  Yep.  It's called 'Risk Assessment 101'.  You can do it at most reputable adult education centres.  Highly recommended.  Nothing to do with Al Gore either. 
The bloke can have an opinion....even about climate change but given that all of his other opinions have been found to 'incorrect' then (using your risk assessment training) you can pretty easily determine the likelihood of the dude being wrong.   
....well.....I can.  But it is just an opinion.

----------


## chrisp

> *CSIRO said we are all dead if don't act within five years.*

  Hey Doc, 
What is your source for the above quote?  I'm curious to read it.

----------


## Dr Freud

> There is nothing wrong with the guy, and anyone else, having an opinion - we all have them. 
> However, it seems that the anti-AGW fraternity seems to use opinions as if they are facts to underpin their views on anti-AGW.  
> If you can't find any reputable science to support your view, then I'd suppose that you would have to make do with opinions instead.  Never mind the science, don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory or a political rant.

  I don't use opinions to underpin the fact that AGW Theory is just a theory.  I use the fact that it is called AGW Theory, to know that it is a theory.  As I have mentioned numerous times, there are countless theories in many areas of science, and none of them are proven, that is why they are called theories.  As for this particular debacle, it unfortunately taints other theories that are much more credible.  
With all due respect to your "science", what you are referring to are computer models programmed with flawed assumptions, supported by enviro-fascist opinion. 
I get my science from a place called reality.  You too can access this vast database, walk outside and gather as much as you want.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Hey Doc, 
> What is your source for the above quote?  I'm curious to read it.

  And here I was thinking you were hanging off my every word and furiously note-taking from all my posts.  :Wink 1:  
My source is the other Penny, more on the ministerial one next!  :Biggrin:    

> *The CSIRO has threatened all Australians with the death penalty if we do not believe in their computer modelling climate gods.*  
> Last month Australia's chief scientist, Penny Sackett, told a Canberra gathering that we have six years to radically lower emissions, or face calamitous, unstoppable global warming.              Six years. 
> Full story here (a year old tale of woe, down to five years now):  Poor prognosis for our planet                   Melting icebergs ... a symptom of global warming. _Photo: Reuters_  *  
> You see people, icebergs never melted prior to the industrial age.  They've been floating around the planet for 4 billion years waiting for humans to invent cars so they could finally melt...and become a symptom of "global warming", or "climate change", or "carbon pollution". *

   

> A pretty green outfit now...       Professor Sackett said there was no real dispute within the scientific community about the reality of climate change but she wanted non-scientists to have greater access to the evidence to help inform the necessary public debate about crafting policy responses to the problem.    "The public must be provided with the best possible advice," Professor Sackett said.   Like this?    *We've got 5 years to save world says Australia's chief scientist Professor Penny Sackett *    THE planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government's chief scientist.   I liked the world more when there was only one green muppet.

----------


## Dr Freud

Remember now, this person is not only a federal senator, but our Minister for Climate Change (and energy blah blah).  :Biggrin:  
"For too long, those who deny climate change is real have muddied the debate. For too long, they have hijacked this issue to pursue their own agenda. Today, I want to play my part in setting the record straight on the science. 
...It is because of you that we understand climate change is real. It is because of you that we understand that climate change is happening now. It is because of you that we understand that climate change is caused by CO2 emissions... 
...Those that deny the reality of climate change  lets call them the climate change opposition - cannot agree on an alternative theory. And they are even less likely to concede that they might be wrong. Some say the earth is not warming. Some say it has stopped warming. Others say the earth is warming  but because of natural variability. 
 When it comes down to it, the climate change opposition have not put forward one alternative, coherent explanation as to how the climate is changing and why it is changing. And when weighing their theories it is reasonable to ask about the relevance of their qualifications and the extent of their willingness to be peer reviewed. 
 Publicity does not equate to scientific weight... 
...Apart from this, we must acknowledge that the climate change consensus is underpinned by the peer review process. It is important that the public understands how this system works...It is robust. It is trustworthy... 
...We have all been taught that there are two sides to every story. The difference is that climate change is not a story. Climate change is fact. And it is irresponsible to try to tell people that climate change does not pose a risk... 
...For example, we should remind ourselves that:   Scientists have found that it is at least 90 per cent likely that the observed global warming has been caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change....
...If we do not take action on climate change, the impact on the Murray Darling Basin will be catastrophic... 
...If the Australian Greens had not teamed up with the Coalition to sink the legislation, we would be moving towards a price on carbon... 
...Because no fair-minded person could be presented with the weight and extent of the science and not conclude that we have to act..." 
Full story here (You can trust it guys, it's a greenie site.  It's even green :Doh: ):  Penny Wong speech at Climate Adaptation Futures Conference - A Climate For Change 
I seriously don't know whether to laugh or cry anymore.  :Rotfl:  :Weeping:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yep.  It's called 'Risk Assessment 101'.  You can do it at most reputable adult education centres.  Highly recommended.  Nothing to do with Al Gore either. 
> The bloke can have an opinion....even about climate change but given that all of his other opinions have been found to 'incorrect' then (using your risk assessment training) you can pretty easily determine the likelihood of the dude being wrong.   
> ....well.....I can.  But it is just an opinion.

  Two points you missed.     

> given that *all* of his other opinions have been found to 'incorrect'

  First, you can read his bio as well as the next guy, so you can see he's got some stuff right and he's got some stuff wrong, haven't we all.  My point was, highlighting only the things he has gotten wrong in an attempt to smear his reputation is cheap (as is saying *all* his opinions are incorrect). 
Second, you once again make the mistake of a lot of AGW Theory supporters in thinking that peoples opinions of the facts at hand are the issue, then you try to discredit the person and thereby their opinion. 
I provided the extra link to the greenie site (again below) so people could go there and see a version of the facts at hand played out.  Then they can form their own opinion (or research further as they see fit).  That way, each persons own brain can kick in and form an opinion, then they dont have to rely on someone else's.  You see, us sceptics don't "believe" in authority figures or accept any opinion as dogma.  But as this is what AGW Theory relies on, I understand why AGW Theory supporters continue to make this false assumption. 
In spite of the continued efforts of AGW Theory supporters to stifle debate and limit information (as demonstrated by Penny Wong above), the best way to reduce risk is to reduce ignorance.   :Biggrin:  
But I'm sure your ubeaut adult education course would have taught you that.  :Wink 1:      

> If you prefer a Pro-AGW Theory website argument about the subject, try:  Comparing what the IPCC and peer-reviewed science say about Amazonian forests

  P.S.  
I'd also be curious as to whether you apply your risk assessment approach to climate models?  You see, *all* climate models been found to be *incorrect* in predicting future weather patterns, let alone the accumulation of these weather patterns over decades. 
Can you also pretty easily determine the likelihood of these models being wrong?  :Sneaktongue:

----------


## Dr Freud

*WARNING:* The text below is commentary from a website cited below that should be regarded as the opinion of the writer only and in no way reflects on the credibility of the author of the article whatsoever, or the editors of said article, notwithstanding any statutory restrictions applicable to the censoring of aforementioned opinions, but may reflect on the credibility of the poster to this thread as cogent and explicit action was required to present this information in this format, albeit as an example of an aforementioned axiom expressed in previous posts with an indirect yet pertinent relation to the comments contained herein. 
In a nutshell: It's peoples (Brisbanian's) opinions, don't take it too seriously, and please don't dig up all their sordid histories in an attempt to discredit them.  :2thumbsup:  
"All these really concerned environmental people think nothing of dashing to the otherside of the world in fuel guzzling aircraft, taking a plethora of assistants with them and staying in some super duper energy sucking resort - Rudd & Copenhagen - and they want to speak for us serfs! *Rusty*                 | Tamworth             - June 29, 2010, 10:46AM 
Here we go again, Copenhagen was a flop, no one is going to sign up to anything. It wont stop all these so called scientists wanting to re-visit the whole thing. Prior to people finding out that a large proportion of the data was tainted, these scientists and environmental hangers-on never had it so good in all their puff. All they had to do was put climate change or global warming on their submission papers and they would get their grant post haste. Nothing has changed, the world is still turning, the sun comes up the rain comes down, Al Gore has beach front property. Given a chance these scare mongerers will again have all the dopes running around declaring the sky is falling. Carbon is not a pollutant.* masmanster@gmail.com*- June 29, 2010, 11:27AM 
For crying out loud, just plant more trees and EVERYTHING will be fine. AND we'll have lots of forest products for GENERATIONS to come. This is not news, remember the New Forest in Britain? Or is this too old fashioned for us?!*
TEKNIX*                 | Holloways Bch             - June 29, 2010, 12:02PM 
Abbott is right. Climate change is complete cr*p.* 
Blah Blah*             - June 29, 2010, 12:25PM"   Julia Gillard Wants Carbon Trading Scheme Says Penny Wong 
Good onya Blah Blah!  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> *CSIRO said we are all dead if don't act within five years.*

   

> Hey Doc, 
> What is your source for the above quote?  I'm curious to read it.

   

> And here I was thinking you were hanging off my every word and furiously note-taking from all my posts.  
> My source is the other Penny, more on the ministerial one next!

  Doc, 
Thanks for that.  I followed the link to the newspaper article Poor prognosis for our planet and having the date of the talk cited, I managed to find the actual speech given by Penny Sackett. 
What she _actually said_ was:  *Perhaps most importantly, to meet the 2 degree C warming goal, global CO2 emissions must not grow after 2015.**That gives us 6 years to go from increasing global emissions every year, to decreasing them every year.* (from: http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-...arliament1.pdf ) She _did not say_ that "*we are all dead if don't act within five years*".

----------


## chrisp

> *WARNING:* The text below is commentary from a website cited below that should be regarded as the opinion of the writer only and in no way reflects on the credibility of the author of the article whatsoever, or the editors of said article, notwithstanding any statutory restrictions applicable to the censoring of aforementioned opinions, but may reflect on the credibility of the poster to this thread as cogent and explicit action was required to present this information in this format, albeit as an example of an aforementioned axiom expressed in previous posts with an indirect yet pertinent relation to the comments contained herein.

    :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:    :brava:   :brava:   :brava:   :brava:   :brava:  
I love it!   :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Doc, 
> Thanks for that.  I followed the link to the newspaper article Poor prognosis for our planet and having the date of the talk cited, I managed to find the actual speech given by Penny Sackett. 
> What she _actually said_ was:  *Perhaps most importantly, to meet the 2 degree C warming goal, global CO2 emissions must not grow after 2015.**That gives us 6 years to go from increasing global emissions every year, to decreasing them every year.* (from: http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-...arliament1.pdf ) She _did not say_ that "*we are all dead if don't act within five years*".

  
Good pick-up. :2thumbsup:  
Damn media scaremongering again!  :Annoyed:  
That crazy journalistic outlet called the Sydney Morning Herald actually verballed poor Penny and printed this outlandish scaremongering  :Shock: :  *
"Last month Australia's chief scientist, Penny Sackett, told a Canberra gathering that we have six years to radically lower emissions, or face calamitous, unstoppable global warming."* 
You see, when I read "unstoppable global warming", I generally thought that it will keep getting hotter and hotter, and...well...never stop! Being a reasonably sensible person, I figured all life on Earth would end in a fireball. 
But I have read Penny's real speech now (thanks for the link) and we obviously have nothing to worry about. Install a few aircons, pipelines and change a few immigration policies and everyone's happy. I could do with a few degrees warmer right now anyway.  :Biggrin:  
Now, we just have to get these damn journalists to stop scaremongering!!!  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Two points you missed.   
> First, you can read his bio as well as the next guy, so you can see he's got some stuff right and he's got some stuff wrong, haven't we all.  My point was, highlighting only the things he has gotten wrong in an attempt to smear his reputation is cheap (as is saying *all* his opinions are incorrect). 
> Second, you once again make the mistake of a lot of AGW Theory supporters in thinking that peoples opinions of the facts at hand are the issue, then you try to discredit the person and thereby their opinion.

  First:  So Peter Garrett is actually OK as a Minister? 
Second:  Peoples opinions of the facts in their hand are the issue.    

> I'd also be curious as to whether you apply your risk assessment approach to climate models?  You see, *all* climate models been found to be *incorrect* in predicting future weather patterns, let alone the accumulation of these weather patterns over decades. 
> Can you also pretty easily determine the likelihood of these models being wrong?

  I do use the risk assessment approach.  As does everyone who works with 'computer models' be they the ones that model the climate, an Airbus A380, drug response in humans, sewage flows, industrial chemistry processes, social response to advertising....because it is built into the modelling process. 
Ignorance about computer models leads you and many many others to suggest that the models are wrong.....they can rarely if ever be described as wrong.  Mainly because they don't actually produce 'answers' or 'results' in quite the way you'd expect.  
Each model run will typically produce hundreds if not thousands of possible outcomes based on the variables it has been given and the assumptions upon which it is based.  That suite of data is then analysed to determine the range of most likely outcomes for the variables in question (the 'result' if you will) and the relative uncertainty that exists around that data range (the 'confidence' level).  The next component is the interpretation of that result.  And this interpretation is the so called 'answer' that gets published. 
The power of a model is that it can be run for virtually every possible iteration of an event that is under the influence of a range of variables in just a few hours or days.  In this way we can test what might happen in an event given a particular circumstance without actually observing thousands of such events......which might take centuries and cost the GDP of half the developed world.   Models are significantly faster & cheaper than real life....dumber but cheaper.  So they suit humans perfectly :Biggrin:  
As for their likelihood of "not describing the situation correctly" (or, in really simplistic terms, "being wrong")...as I've said...every output from a model comes with a confidence figure which expresses the level of uncertainty around that output....+ve and -ve error bounds if you will.  And more than a few that I've seen in the environmental industry have uncertainties of well over 100%.....not uncommon if you are trying to describe something with only a couple of points of data. But since no-one is willing to pay for the data collection to better inform some of these models.....we gets what we pay for. 
So are all the climate models wrong? No.  Of course not.  That is a simplistic statement.  Same as saying that Doc Freud (or SBD for that matter) is always right.  
The part that concerns me about some of the climate models is that the level of uncertainty around the data they produce is steadily getting smaller and smaller.  And I'd much prefer if they were a little less certain.....

----------


## chrisp

> Yeh, I too have been scraping ice from the windscreen for the past week.  Enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.  I empathise with poor Chrisp sleeping outside waiting for it to warm up.

  Brrr!  It sure is cold out here.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Brrr!  It sure is cold out here.

  Lucky you got the wireless laptop.  :Smilie:  
I'm not looking forward to summer anymore now...paybacks gonna be a b-tch.  :Blush7:

----------


## Dr Freud

> First:  So Peter Garrett is actually OK as a Minister? 
> Second:  Peoples opinions of the facts in their hand are the issue.    
> I do use the risk assessment approach.  As does everyone who works with 'computer models' be they the ones that model the climate, an Airbus A380, drug response in humans, sewage flows, industrial chemistry processes, social response to advertising....because it is built into the modelling process. 
> Ignorance about computer models leads you and many many others to suggest that the models are wrong.....they can rarely if ever be described as wrong.  Mainly because they don't actually produce 'answers' or 'results' in quite the way you'd expect.  
> Each model run will typically produce hundreds if not thousands of possible outcomes based on the variables it has been given and the assumptions upon which it is based.  That suite of data is then analysed to determine the range of most likely outcomes for the variables in question (the 'result' if you will) and the relative uncertainty that exists around that data range (the 'confidence' level).  The next component is the interpretation of that result.  And this interpretation is the so called 'answer' that gets published. 
> The power of a model is that it can be run for virtually every possible iteration of an event that is under the influence of a range of variables in just a few hours or days.  In this way we can test what might happen in an event given a particular circumstance without actually observing thousands of such events......which might take centuries and cost the GDP of half the developed world.   Models are significantly faster & cheaper than real life....dumber but cheaper.  So they suit humans perfectly 
> As for their likelihood of "not describing the situation correctly" (or, in really simplistic terms, "being wrong")...as I've said...every output from a model comes with a confidence figure which expresses the level of uncertainty around that output....+ve and -ve error bounds if you will.  And more than a few that I've seen in the environmental industry have uncertainties of well over 100%.....not uncommon if you are trying to describe something with only a couple of points of data. But since no-one is willing to pay for the data collection to better inform some of these models.....we gets what we pay for. 
> So are all the climate models wrong? No.  Of course not.  That is a simplistic statement.  Same as saying that Doc Freud (or SBD for that matter) is always right.  
> The part that concerns me about some of the climate models is that the level of uncertainty around the data they produce is steadily getting smaller and smaller.  And I'd much prefer if they were a little less certain.....

   

> First:  So Peter Garrett is actually OK as a Minister?

  Dunno, he's never been a Minister.  He spent some time as Rudd's finger puppet, then got scapegoated and demoted.  I'll let you know if they get re-elected and he actually gets to be a Minister.  Poor schmuck was trying to save the whales while his (tor)mentor was being harpooned. :Biggrin:   

> Second:  Peoples opinions of the facts in their hand are the issue.

  Seriously champ, the planet doesn't care what we think of it.  Reality exists outside of our opinions. 
As for the models, that was a lovely story.  It almost sounded Kruddible. So what's the average global temperature going to be in 100 hours? 100 days??  100 weeks??? 100 months???? 100 years?????  That's just temp, not even full weather, let alone climate. 
It is a simplistic statement because it's a simple fact.  Occam's razor my friend.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Remember now, this person is not only a federal senator, but our Minister for Climate Change (and energy blah blah).   
> I seriously don't know whether to laugh or cry anymore.

  How about throw up  :Sick:

----------


## Dr Freud

Welcome back champ.  :2thumbsup:  
Hope all went well. 
You didn't miss much.  Other than a political assassination.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> How about throw up

  Would that count as a Carbon emission?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

"Opposition frontbencher Michael Ronaldson today savaged Ms Gillard for flying to Brisbane last night to pay homage to Labor Party right-wing faction figure Bill Ludwig at a $40-a-plate party fundraiser, saying the trip appeared to have included no official business. 
Ms Gillard used her entitlement to an RAAF VIP jet to head to a Labor Party function for Yvette D'ath, who holds the seat of Petrie on Brisbane's northside.  
Ms D'Ath is also linked with Labor's Australian Workers Union faction, headed by Mr Ludwig and central to the party's decision to dump Mr Rudd in favour of Ms Gillard last week.  
Senator Ronaldson, the Opposition spokesman on probity issues, said Ms Gillard had wasted thousands of dollars of public money.  
Instead, the new Prime Minister has flown up to Brisbane on a RAAF luxury jet, just to pay homage to Bill Ludwig, one of the faceless factional powerbrokers who installed her, and to attend a $40 per head Labor fundraising dinner.  
Ordinary MPs are prohibited from using their entitlements for `party business', including fundraising. Yet Julia seems to think that she can thumb her nose at such things.  
Ms Gillard made no comments to reporters this morning. Her office has not yet responded to questions from The Australian Online about what other official business she conducted after arriving in Brisbane.  
However, it is understood Ms Gillard has cancelled plans to travel to Brisbane again tonight to address a dinner of business people."  
Full story here:   Gillard flies into first storm as PM after taking jet to Labor dinner in Brisbane | The Australian  
Forget the probity and rorting, flying to Brisbane two nights in a row just for dinner?  Who is she, Pretty Woman?  How many CO2 emissions for dinner?  And we gotta sit here and shiver cos we shouldn't burn carbon.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

"New Zealand's failure to cut greenhouse gas emissions has left taxpayers staring down the barrel of a Kyoto Protocol liability of at least $1 billion and possibly more than $5 billion, according to a book analysing National's emissions trading system. 
They say the scheme will not make any inroads into cutting New Zealand's gross emissions levels. 
"The ETS completely fails as a mechanism to make today's polluters meet today's emissions bill." 
The authors say using these credits to pay the Kyoto bill is like putting it "on the plastic" for the next generation to pay." 
Full story here:  Emissions scheme could cost NZ up to $5b - Politics - NZ Herald News 
Fancy that, a giant money-go-round based on financial derivatives run by the financial sector turns out to be a useless rort of taxpayers dollars?   :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Good pick-up. 
> Damn media scaremongering again!  
> That crazy journalistic outlet called the Sydney Morning Herald actually verballed poor Penny and printed this outlandish scaremongering :  *
> "Last month Australia's chief scientist, Penny Sackett, told a Canberra gathering that we have six years to radically lower emissions, or face calamitous, unstoppable global warming."* 
> You see, when I read &quot;unstoppable global warming&quot;, I generally thought that it will keep getting hotter and hotter, and...well...never stop! Being a reasonably sensible person, I figured all life on Earth would end in a fireball. 
> But I have read Penny's real speech now (thanks for the link) and we obviously have nothing to worry about. Install a few aircons, pipelines and change a few immigration policies and everyone's happy. I could do with a few degrees warmer right now anyway.  
> Now, we just have to get these damn journalists to stop scaremongering!!!

  Looks like you're not the only one laughing at these scaremongering bozo's.  Laugh Riot: 190-year climate 'tipping point' issued -- Despite fact that UN began 10-Year 'Climate Tipping Point' in 1989! | Climate Depot

----------


## Gooner

Geezus. I haven't been on the forum for a while and come back to see this thread still going.... 
Can someone summarize the last 150 pages for me please?  :Smilie:

----------


## jago

Gooner ...  
HOT AIR!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Geezus. I haven't been on the forum for a while and come back to see this thread still going.... 
> Can someone summarize the last 150 pages for me please?

  I could.....but how well do you cope with interpretive dance?  :Happydance:

----------


## PhilT2

You should have been on the Gold Coast last week, there were a thousand scientists there who claim to actually know something about this. Gold Coast hosts climate conference - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## Dr Freud

> You should have been on the Gold Coast last week, there were a thousand scientists there who claim to actually know something about this. Gold Coast hosts climate conference - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  Being the concerned global citizens they are, they obviously rowed in by kayak to save emissions?  They surely wouldn't fly in those planet destroying machines?  :Doh:  
But strange how their solution to the problem is "building more scientific institutions", gee whiz, more funding to you guys, no probs at all.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

Watch Minister for Resources Martin Ferguson proudly explaining the expansion of our oil and gas businesses over coming decades.  Then at least doubling coal production in NSW and QLD alone, plus massively expanding iron ore production, with all the massively increased resulting CO2 emissions.  Small miners not snubbed by tax deal: Ferguson - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
(About the 7.30 minute mark if you're interested). 
What level of idiocy is required to believe that these people take this AGW Theory nonsense seriously?  :Buttkick:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Gooner ...  
> HOT AIR!

  It's freezing over here.  Breaking all the records.   
According to the media here, this all supports Global Warming?  :Confused:  
I'm not a smart guy, but where the hell did all the CO2 go, and where can we get some more?   
We gotta heat this mofo up!  :Burnt:

----------


## jago

I know I'm freezing my @@@@ off whilst Londons hot ...not fair! :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I know I'm freezing my @@@@ off whilst Londons hot ...not fair!

  It's definitely warmer than down here:  *Weather for London, UK* 
 - Add to iGoogle*20°C* | °F Current: *Partly Cloudy* Wind: SW at 23 km/h Humidity: 49%   Sun  24°C | 12°C  Mon 20°C | 10°C Tue  23°C | 12°C Wed 24°C | 14°C   Perth, WA 17°C Current: Partly Cloudy Wind: SE at 8 km/h Humidity: 42% 
Sun  16° | 3° Mon  18° | 4° Tue  18° | 5° Wed  17° | 5°   
But I'm still curious.  If CO2 is supposed to be heating everything up, why are we getting record low temperatures?  Has the CO2 travelled to the northern hemisphere for about 6 months, then maybe it will come back down here and start warming the place up again?  :Biggrin:  
And if the CO2 is still here, and we're still freezing, what the hell does that mean?  :Confused:

----------


## jago

After many a drunk discussion with a very good friend (he did his PHD on this subject and has spent the last 20 years trying to come up with a solution to the hole in Ozone layer) no resolution to the question, does pollution directly cause warming...he is more concerened about the radiation that we are subject to beause of the the hole rather than is it getting hotter! But thats whatkeep Astrophysicists awake at night! 
Is there a problem yes ....but by they way its being sold to us! To me its similar to the way we are sold, sorry scared into the the belief there is Terrorism around every corner. A @@@@ load of people take opposing views talk it up and make even more money by trading blows.= Result a load of people forget the context of the original argument and another is industry is born. 
Personally I'm of the belief that this a part of the 10,000+ year heating/cooling cycle that the planet has been through before. Whilst the pollution we put in to the air is not good in any form for us humans can they prove it heats the earth....! well thats the debate.  
ETS well yah sure itsa revenue raise but do we all want to go on breathing the air that comes with huge industralization (China & India) without leading the way when it comes to the financing of AIR! I've been waiting for a while for a country to start trading so I can get in and make some bloody money...seriously! :2thumbsup:  I still remember an Econmics teacher in the early 80's going on about the privatisation of Water and how by the end of the Century we would be paying to drink water...well hold you hands up if you have bought a bottle of the stuff at 20,000% markup in the past month! 
So DR FREUD you are dragging me further into this ...congrats! but a chill wind is blowing I don't have any windows(no joke) so I off to put all my 60+ halogens, 17kw of electric heaters and upteem Plasmas on to keep the empolyees of Country energy in 4 wheel drives. GO NUCLEAR! 
The Gulf of Mexico oil spill has a high probablity of causing weather pattern changes if it pollutes the *T**hermohaline Circulation* such as the Gulf stream then maybe in 100 - years they (humans) in Northern Europe might all be @@@@ed*
Ps: ...way too many beers.   CODE VIOLATION>>>>>>>>>>>There is never too many beers  (watson)*

----------


## Dr Freud

> So DR FREUD you are dragging me further into this ...congrats!

  It ain't me.  You've just realised how much fun we've all been having.  Welcome to the party pal... :Biggrin:    

> *
> Ps: ...way too many beers.   CODE VIOLATION>>>>>>>>>>>There is never too many beers  (watson)*

  Too true!

----------


## Dr Freud

ENOUGHS enough. If youre really this keen to vote Green in the state election, why not prove youre serious?   
  Why not live the life you apparently want the Greens to inflict on the rest of us?  
  Go turn off your own lights first. Kill your fridge. Cook your roast over a solar-powered candle.  
  Then go to work and turn off the machines. Junk the computer. Tell your hospital to switch off the machines that go bing. And harness some donkeys to pull our trains. 
 Cant find donkeys, you say? Nonsense. Look at yesterdays Newspoll, which reports a record 18 per cent of Victorians plan to vote Green.  
  Plenty there. Hook em up.  
  I laugh, but dear God, were drowning, up to our necks in unreason.  
  There, there, coos my wife, when I sob that even some of our frequent-flyer friends vote Greens.  
Lights out. Heating, too. Starve and shiver for your faith. At least live as miserably as you plan to vote.  
Full funny opinion piece here (you crazy Victorians  :Biggrin: ):  Column - Live Green before you vote it | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## jago

My heads sore ...I blame the pollution! :Cry:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It's definitely warmer than down here:  *Weather for London, UK* 
>  - Add to iGoogle*20°C* | °F Current: *Partly Cloudy* Wind: SW at 23 km/h Humidity: 49%   Sun  24°C | 12°C  Mon 20°C | 10°C Tue  23°C | 12°C Wed 24°C | 14°C   Perth, WA 17°C Current: Partly Cloudy Wind: SE at 8 km/h Humidity: 42% 
> Sun  16° | 3° Mon  18° | 4° Tue  18° | 5° Wed  17° | 5°   
> But I'm still curious.  If CO2 is supposed to be heating everything up, why are we getting record low temperatures?  Has the CO2 travelled to the northern hemisphere for about 6 months, then maybe it will come back down here and start warming the place up again?  
> And if the CO2 is still here, and we're still freezing, what the hell does that mean?

  
I seem to recall a lesson in primary school about a thing called 'Seasons' and apparently they are different in the northern hemisphere from the southern hemisphere.  So when we have 'winter' (and we are cold) they have 'summer' (and they are warm)......and it's apparently all to do with the Earth tilting on its axis. 
Nothin' at all to do with CO2.....but then what would my fuddy old primary school teacher know?   Perhaps you should ask Andrew Bolt for his opinion?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ENOUGHS enough. If youre really this keen to vote Green in the state election, why not prove youre serious?   
>   Why not live the life you apparently want the Greens to inflict on the rest of us?  
>   Go turn off your own lights first. Kill your fridge. Cook your roast over a solar-powered candle.  
>   Then go to work and turn off the machines. Junk the computer. Tell your hospital to switch off the machines that go bing. And harness some donkeys to pull our trains. 
>  Cant find donkeys, you say? Nonsense. Look at yesterdays Newspoll, which reports a record 18 per cent of Victorians plan to vote Green.  
>   Plenty there. Hook em up.  
>   I laugh, but dear God, were drowning, up to our necks in unreason.  
>   There, there, coos my wife, when I sob that even some of our frequent-flyer friends vote Greens.  
> Lights out. Heating, too. Starve and shiver for your faith. At least live as miserably as you plan to vote.  
> Full funny opinion piece here (you crazy Victorians ):

  Been doing this for ages.....I'm getting much better at typing while pedalling too. 
Donkeys are hopeless for power generation.  I prefer using senior citizens.....much livelier.  
Freud.....you demonstrate far too much fear of the future.  Fear attracts predators.  We're having too much fun to watch you get eaten  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> My heads sore ...I blame the pollution!

  All beer contains dissolved carbon dioxide.    :Gaah:  
What the hell, die happy!   :Cheers2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Been doing this for ages.....I'm getting much better at typing while pedalling too. 
> Donkeys are hopeless for power generation.  I prefer using senior citizens.....much livelier.  
> Freud.....you demonstrate far too much fear of the future.  Fear attracts predators.  We're having too much fun to watch you get eaten

  It's a Hallmark moment.  :Thanx:  
Warms the heart on these cold chilly nights, but more on this below.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I seem to recall a lesson in primary school about a thing called 'Seasons' and apparently they are different in the northern hemisphere from the southern hemisphere.  So when we have 'winter' (and we are cold) they have 'summer' (and they are warm)......and it's apparently all to do with the Earth tilting on its axis. 
> Nothin' at all to do with CO2.....but then what would my fuddy old primary school teacher know?   Perhaps you should ask Andrew Bolt for his opinion?

  Steady on big fella.  Sounds like you are trying to build a case for the Sun driving temperature on this planet. 
Remember Icarus. 
Better ease up on this kinda talk, otherwise you'll be called a "denier".  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

"Temperatures dipped to a wintry 0.3C in the city overnight,  with Jandakot  recording a freezing  minus -1.4C at 5.22am. 
WA climate services technical officer Michelle Dalpozzo said a succession of high pressure cells, with clear skies and lights winds letting any warm air escape, had caused the unusually long cold, dry spell." 
So let me get this straight: 
We've pumped massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere;
Any warming effect of future CO2 will be less than previous CO2;
All this CO2 still doesn't stop all the heat escaping allowing us to freeze;
If that irrelevant Sun didn't show up every morning, we'd all freeze to death very quickly. 
So how does AGW Theory go again? 
Oh yeh, luckily in the same article, the "scientists" help to explain all this: 
"While individual events cannot be linked to climate change, drought conditions in WA have been linked to heavy snowfall in eastern Antarctica and scientists say man-made greenhouse gases may be to blame." 
Oh yeh, and a timely warning to those evil carbon polluting pensioners: 
"Meanwhile, FESA fire investigation officer Jim Bell has warned about the dangers of  cranking up home heating.  
You should never leave your heater unattended and if youre drying clothes keep them at least a metre away from the heater so they dont catch fire, Mr Bell said." 
Maybe these types of warnings should be heeded:  Insulation scheme fire tally leaps to 189 | The Australian 
Full story here:  Record cold snap continues | Perth Now

----------


## Dr Freud

Dear Mr or Ms Climategate, both science and human civilisation owes you a lot. 
And as always, the planet doesn't give a flying   :Censored2: . 
"SENIOR climate scientists have conceded that their world has changed irrevocably - and for the better - in the wake of the so-called Climategate scandal. 
''The release of the emails was a turning point,'' Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, told _The Guardian_ . ''The community has been brought up short by the row over their science. Already there is a new tone. Researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties.'' 
The emails, mostly between Dr Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and colleagues both in Britain and the US, appeared to reveal a systematic attempt to evade freedom of information requests as well as open discussion on ways to play down research findings that did not fit within the framework of steadily rising global temperatures. 
Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, the scientist who has worked hard to try to reconcile warring factions, said the idea of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists as ''self-appointed oracles, enhanced by the Nobel prize, is now in tatters''. 
              The outside world, she said, could now see that the science of climate was ''more complex and uncertain than they have been led to believe''. 
The furore had  laid bare ''the seamy side of peer review and consensus building in the IPCC assessment reports.''" 
Full story here:  Climate scandal a 'game changer'   

> The outside world, she said, could now see that the science of climate was ''more complex and uncertain than they have been led to believe''.

  Alas Judith, not enough of the outside world.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

No Arnie, not you! 
"If China cannot meet its own energy-efficiency targets, the chances of avoiding widespread environmental damage from rising temperatures are very close to zero, said Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency in Paris. 
But even if China can make the promised improvements, the International Energy Agency now projects that Chinas emissions of energy-related greenhouse gases will grow more than the rest of the worlds combined increase by 2020. China, with one-fifth of the worlds population, is now on track to represent more than a quarter of humanitys energy-related greenhouse-gas emissions." 
Full story here:  News Headlines 
Chrisp, head back inside mate, it's all falling apart. 
SBD, stop pedalling mate, plug back into the grid. 
Crank up the heaters lads, it's freezing out there.  :Cold:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Oh yeh, and a timely warning to those evil carbon polluting pensioners:

  
"Unpaid bills and calls for help to charities are both pointing to increasing difficulties for West Australians in paying their electricity bills. 
 The electricity retailer, Synergy, says there has been an $8 million rise in unpaid power bills in the last year.  
The Premier, Colin Barnett says there are programs available for people who are struggling.  
 "To family members, if you're concerned about parents, elderly relatives, please make sure that they're well looked after and that they're warm in these cold conditions," he said. 
 "And, if you need assistance, contact the hardship utility grants scheme." 
 Police have confirmed that two people in their seventies and eighties were found dead in their homes last night but the cause of death has not been established.  
 In the past fortnight, the average minimum temperature in Perth has been 1.3 degrees.  
The Society's Lucinda Adar says many people simply cannot afford to use heaters.
 "Particularly at the moment in WA, it's a financial decision," she said.  
 "Increases in utilities has hit many people hard, not only the elderly, and I think people are having to make those decisions now "do I turn the heating on, or do I put an extra blanket on my bed?"" 
Full story here:  Power bill crunch hits households, Synergy - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
Maybe a massive artificial price rise based on a failed theory about all this heat will help.  :Laugh bounce spin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Nothin' at all to do with CO2.....but then what would my fuddy old primary school teacher know?   Perhaps you should ask Andrew Bolt for his opinion?

   "It is important to the Gillard Government that the CSIRO be led by another global warming alarmist, who wont do anything embarrassing.  
 Embarrassing, like, asking the CSIRO, itself a hotbed of warmist activism, to account for a string of dud predictions that have caused such needless fear and led the Government so astray in its enthusiasm for emissions trading.  
 Remember the CSIRO report in 2003 that claimed global warming could strip our ski resorts of a quarter of their snow by 2018, and half by 2050?  
  Were now half way to 2018, and yet again the snow was great for the opening of the ski season last week.  
 Its been fantastic, weve had so much snow that we opened a day early, on Friday, Perisher Blue spokeswoman Kelly Schlecht says.  
  If it stays like this well have a bumper season.  
  True, weather is not climate - but can someone tell that to McKeon?  
  Two years ago he told_ The Age_ what had helped to convince him of man-made warming was that a rainy wind across Waratah Bay, next to Wilsons Promontory, had all but gone. He knew this because hed been relying on it to fill the sails of his yacht as it tried to break the world speed-sailing record.  
 Shocked by his limp sails, hes since become a business community ambassador for Earth Hour, spruiking the value of tackling global warming by switching off lights for a single hour on one Saturday each year.  
      On one hand you might consider McKeons evidence for man-made global warming reassuring, since the worst thats happened to him as a result of this apocalyptic heating is that his yacht isnt quite as fast as it used to be.  
  Should I panic now, or can I wait?  
 Still, it is a worry that some local freak of weather is seen by the new CSIRO chairman as proof of a man-made warming of the whole globe."  
Full story here:   Column - The CSIRO chairmans yacht no measure of global warming | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

*"THE IPCC's report on climate change failed to make clear it often presented a worst-case scenario on global warming, an investigation has found. * A summary report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on regional impacts focused on the negative consequences of climate change and failed to make clear that there would also be some benefits of rising temperatures. 
The report adopted a "one-sided" approach that risked being interpreted as an "alarmist view". 
The report, which underpinned the Copenhagen summit last December, wrongly suggested that climate change was the main reason communities faced severe water shortages and neglected to make clear that population growth was a much bigger factor. 
The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which published the results of its investigation yesterday, concluded that the IPCC's main findings were justified and climate change did indeed pose substantial risks. 
But it said the IPCC could strengthen its credibility by describing the full range of possible outcomes, rather than picking on the most alarming projections. It concluded: "Without proper explanation, the results at the summary level of Working Group II (which focused on regional impacts) could easily be interpreted as being an alarmist view.""  
Full story here:  UN's climate report 'one-sided' | The Australian

----------


## Dr Freud

> The report, which underpinned the Copenhagen summit last December, wrongly suggested that climate change was the main reason communities faced severe water shortages and neglected to make clear that population growth was a much bigger factor.

  Even Google would have busted this myth, had they cared to use it!  :Doh:    

> Gee whiz, if only the IPCC were scrutinised this well, we wouldnt be in this mess.   No proper reference?- Mr Andrew Bolt is a very reputable and credible journalist in Australia, so if you are calling this reputable journalists work into question, then maybe you are best directing your criticism to these guys.   But to save you the hassle and also demonstrate Mr Bolts accuracy, Ill even post the source article, with no witty repartee about inadequate Google skills.   The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.   As for lost in time, apologies for not spelling it out but at the risk of sounding condescending, here goes.   The article was labelled and dated:   *Top 10 dud predictions*   Andrew Bolt December 19, 2008 12:00AM  With this in the text:   In March, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."   By writing in December 2008, that in March, Flannery said, with the prediction for early 2009, by convention of implication it is generally accepted that the reference was for March 2008.  For example, if I said to you that this AGW fiasco will be even more discredited by October, it is implicit that in the absence of a specified year, I am referring to 2010 (ie. this year), as opposed to 2072.  But as I said above, the source quote should clear all this up.  Apologies for not having the day and time, but perhaps you could get these from Tim.   As for misinformation: He said it; it was bogus; and even you admit it was a scary prediction.   If by misinformation you mean I omitted a detailed description of this great nations water infrastructure, then guilty as charged.  But if people are really interested in this, then theres nothing stopping them researching it themselves.  But really, this has nothing too with the point, which was Tim Flannery was involved in baseless scaremongering.  Apologies if this also sounds condescending, but I thought this point was obvious.   As for Adelaide not being supplied by rainfall, how does water get into the Murray Darling?  By your logic, no dams are filled by rainfall, but by above ground or below ground runoff.  Whether this dam delivery system is man made or erosion made, I think its a safe bet most of it came from the sky.  As for Adelaide being stuffed, I guess they will just evacuate the entire city (state?) rather than installing desal plants or a pipeline?   But I think our good friend Rod is onto something about population, farming practices and lack of dams.   You see, heres the rainfall for the Murray Darling area:     Found here, looks kinda steady to me.   And what happened to peoples use of this stable resource? 
> Here's our population growth:     Found here, looks kinda rising to me.   Maybe if we stored more water than we used to, wed be OK?   Dams not an option in Labor food plan.   Uh oh, steady rainfall pattern, rising population, rising water usage, greenies anti-water storage policies...I wonder where how this story will end?    Lucky Rudd's on the ball.

  Poor Kev, played the man and not the ball, now he's been given a "Red" card.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

"Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she will not revive the Government's emissions trading scheme until at least 2013. 
She says the Government will stick with its intention of reviewing global progress at the end of 2012 before deciding whether to proceed with the trading scheme.  
 "The pricing of carbon I think is best done through a market-based mechanism, that is the carbon pollution reduction scheme, and the 2012 timeframe stands there," she told ABC TV's Lateline. 
Labor's previous plans for an emissions trading scheme were shelved under former prime minister Kevin Rudd." 
Full story here:  Emission trading off agenda until 2013 - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
Good one Joolia, blame it on Rudd.  Who's allegedly running the country now? 
At least you didn't promise to end the blame game.  :Biggrin:

----------


## jago

Quick call 000 Dr Freuds lost it...he's done a "Cousins" taken too many caffeine pills and is now stuck in Analysis Paralysis .    
Where do you get the time ? lol   :Yikes2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Where do you get the time ? lol

  Insomnia + Hypochondria + Scepticism = Lying awake feeling sick about AGW Theory scam.  :Biggrin:  
But really, Google does it all.

----------


## PhilT2

"Greenies anti water storage policies"
Bit hard to tell who is a greenie and who isn't. Link is to a story about the local national party member for Gympie berating the greens for not opposing the Traveston dam project strongly enough. Traveston Crossing Dam split | Gympie News | Local News in Gympie | Gympie Times
National Party members on the Darling Downs are also opposed to the development of new coal mines in that area. What makes a greenie; fear of losing votes from local farmers or fear of losing the Mary River lungfish? If the dams don't go ahead won't we still be short of water anyway?

----------


## Dr Freud

> "Greenies anti water storage policies"
> Bit hard to tell who is a greenie and who isn't. Link is to a story about the local national party member for Gympie berating the greens for not opposing the Traveston dam project strongly enough. Traveston Crossing Dam split | Gympie News | Local News in Gympie | Gympie Times
> National Party members on the Darling Downs are also opposed to the development of new coal mines in that area. What makes a greenie; fear of losing votes from local farmers or fear of losing the Mary River lungfish? If the dams don't go ahead won't we still be short of water anyway?

   

> Bit hard to tell who is a greenie and who isn't.

  It's easy for me.  My experiences have led me to believe that the vast majority of people in Australia are very concerned about the environment, and will take all reasonable steps they are able to that ensures a cleaner environment.  We are not greenie's, we have rational concerns for the environment in which we live.  :Flowers2:  
A miniscule number are environmental vandals (ie. deliberately discarding rubbish that they know will harm the environment, when a perfectly viable cleaner alternative is available).  These people are obviously not greenies and I will happily "carbon sequester" these individuals.  :Death:  
A small number are true "Greenies" who  have an irrational view of how the natural world works and continually bemuse me with their thoughts that humans are the masters of the universe.  They see humans as controlling all forces in the universe.  The refuse to accept the reality that we are a bunch of hairless apes who got lucky banging rocks together.  The universe (including our planet) ticked along just fine before we got here, and no doubt will tick along just fine after our insignificant species is long gone, just like the 99% of all pre-existing species that have already become extinct.  Greenies pursue ideologies as opposed to feasible solutions and then try to run over other people with their moralistic bicycles.  :Bicycle bask:  
In short, we should make our time here as comfortable and balanced as possible.  We've learned not to cr@p in the street, and we burn stuff to keep warm.  But hey, that's just my opinion. 
Here's a more coherent version:  *Greenie* may refer to:  someone concerned with the effects of production and consumption on the environment. Greenie's take into account environmental consciousness, environmental friendliness and energy efficiency when making consumption choices. Other common considerations of a Greenie include products that are family friendly, healthy and non-toxic.[1] The term builds off of the green industries built around creating products and processes that are sustainable in their resource use throughout the totality of the product life cycle. The origin of the word is a play on the commonly used term, foodie, and tries to create a connotation of an individual actively involved in the green movement. The term has shown up in contemporary politics. Generally, it is used to delineate those individuals who votes are determined by environmental issues. More specifically, it used by both the Green party as a means of identifying their members as well as by conservatives to identify those they feel have irrational fears of policies that may negatively effect the environment. In general the term is used in a positive sense by the Green party and in a negative sense by conservatives[2] Greenie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Dr Freud

Reasonable steps for a cleaner environment:  Forest Conservation - History - Managing Australia's Forests - Australian Forests - Australia?s native and planted forests information resource 
Environmental vandals:  Asbestos dumper caught in sting | The Daily Telegraph 
Numerous greenie ideologies sold moralistically:  Knock, knock. Its Gillards green police | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

Just a reminder for context (and I love this YouTube jingle  :Biggrin: ).   

> . . The old Hide the Decline video Rod posted early in this thread has been removed by YouTube because Michael Mann, creator of the hockey stick graph and the subject of the video, is threatening to sue. . www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2010m4d27-Climategate-scientist-threatens-lawsuit-over-Hide-the-Decline-YouTube-video . . There is still one version on youtube, but it will probably disappear soon enough.  It wasnt enough for Mann to hide the decline.  Now hes trying to hide the video.   . www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc . The second version of that video  Hide the Decline II was also removed from Youtube, but can be seen here: . Hide The Decline II on Vimeo . .
> Google videos also have both versions, so Mann will have to sue a few more people if he wants to remove it entirely, but in my opinion, this action by him will only increase its visibility online, as people begin saving and uploading the versions currently available.  Mann has probably increased the viewing of these videos greatly by this action. . www.google.com/search?q=hide+the+decline+video&tbo=p&tbs=vid%3A1&  source=vgc&hl=en&aq=f . . Meanwhile  reported 30 April - Al Gore has bought another mansion next to the ocean he said would soon be twenty feet higher!  See details and map here: . http://news-political.com/2010/04/30...omment-page-1/ . . .

----------


## Dr Freud

Many in the mainstream media are attempting to portray The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, just released in the UK, as exonerating the researchers. In fact the main conclusion, buried under pages of rhetoric, confirms that data was presented in a misleading way. Here is the actual text of the conclusion regarding the allegation of impropriety in the presentation of tree ring data:*On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a trick and to hide the decline in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was Misleading.*Unfortunately, the media, including many who remain skeptical of climate change, have missed the main scientific point at question in the tree ring data. The researchers were not trying to hide evidence of a decline in global temperatures over the last decadewe have plenty of actual thermometer readings to show temperatures in recent years.  
What they were trying to hide was the discrepancy between actual temperature readings and the temperatures suggested by tree ring data. They have relied on tree ring data to show that the earth was cooler in the past. If the tree ring data is not reliable (as the discrepancy in recent years would suggest), then maybe the earth was actually hotter in the past than these researchers would have us believeand perhaps the hot temperatures of recent years do not represent unprecedented global warming but just natural variation in climate. 
The review panel at least acknowledged that the trick used to hide the decline was misleading. Now lets see if the media can report the result in a way that is not itself misleading.   UK Climategate Investigation Conclusion: Hiding the Decline was Misleading | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

----------


## Bedford

> Asbestos dumper caught in sting | The Daily Telegraph

  While there is no doubt this bloke's a DH, if councils were fair dinkum, they would make tips less selective and more economical for users. 
It seems that they no longer want to supply a service to rate payers, if the books don't show a reduction in waste within their area, they make it go somewhere else so their Shire looks good environmentally.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a trick and to hide the decline in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was Misleading.*UK Climategate Investigation Conclusion: Hiding the Decline was Misleading | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

  How does Gav and Mike and the rest of "The Hockey Stick Team" interpret all of this in their opening paragraph: 
"The main issue is that they conclude that the rigour and honesty of the CRU scientists is not in doubt. For anyone who knows Phil Jones and his colleagues this comes as no surprise, and we are very pleased to have this proclaimed so vigorously. Secondly, they conclude that none of the emails cast doubt on the integrity and conclusions of the IPCC, again, something we have been saying since the beginning.  They also conclude as we did that there was no corruption of the peer-review process. Interestingly, they independently analysed the public domain temperature data themselves to ascertain whether the could validate the CRU record.  They managed this in two days, somewhat undermining claims that the CRU temperature data was somehow manipulated inappropriately." 
Sounds like exoneration? But wait, buried deeper in the text: 
"In retrospect (and as we stated last year) we agree with the Muir Russell report that the caption and description of the figure could indeed have been clearer, particularly with regard to the way proxy and instrumental data sources were spliced into a single curve, without indicating which was which. The WMO cover figure appears (at least to our knowledge) to be the only instance where that was done. Moving forward, nonetheless, it is advisable that scientists be as clear as possible about what sorts of procedures have gone into the preparation of a figure. But retrospective applications of evolving standards are neither fair nor useful." 
Evolving standards, huh?  Clearly labeling a graph?  Detailing methodology used? Not mentioning splicing various data sets?  Wow, how has science ever coped before these exacting standards evolved from the Muir Review?   :Doh:   RealClimate: The Muir Russell report

----------


## Dr Freud

Good old RealClimate and Hockey Stick team (the guys that sent the dodgy emails in the first place) couldn't let an independent review run without "suggesting" how that review should be run and what it should find.  Here's some stuff from just one of their submissions: 
"Dear Sir Muir, 
After reading the submissions posted on the Independent Climate Change Email Reviews website  and seeing some of our own submissions delayed or redacted  we are writing to express some serious concerns, and to provide specific suggestions. We recognize the complexity and difficulty of the task you have undertaken, and offer these views in the hope that you will find them helpful... 
...One submission urged you to consider the fate of a paper on the health hazards of tobacco as highly relevant to your inquiry. The history of tobacco research is indeed relevant. It shows that, by manufacturing controversy (or the appearance of controversy), and by harassing, discrediting, and distracting scientists, it is possible to cloud scientific knowledge and forestall scientific progress for decades. The same strategy is now being used by many of the same players to attack climate science and climate scientists. This has been well documented in such recent books as Doubt Is Their Product, Merchants of Doubt, and Climate Cover-Up, as well as in recent hearings before the U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. These disinformation tactics contribute to the publics increasing confusion regarding the causes of climate change. Two months ago, for example, a Gallup poll found that only 52% of Americans accept that most scientists believe that global warming is occurring, down from 65% in 2008... 
...Under these circumstances, we respectfully offer the following comments and suggestions: 
 1. In formulating recommendations to ensure that scientific data are appropriately disclosed (while at the same time protecting scientists and enabling them to carry out their research), it may be useful to take account of experience in the U.S., and to seek international consistency in this area... 
...In developing recommendations on how CRU should release data, you might find it helpful to consider some experience from across the Atlantic. In particular, there is much that is instructive in the history of the U.S. Office of Management and Budgets (OMB) regulations under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.... 
...We strongly believe that CRU and other research institutions should operate under similar guidelines, and hope that the ICCER will be able to make such a recommendation.  Specifically, when CRU publishes research, the research data (see above for definition) should  be made available. Other information, however  including preliminary analyses, drafts of  scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or communications with colleagues   should be expressly protected from disclosure... *
...2. We believe that it is important to state unequivocally in your findings (and any summary of your findings) that nothing that you have seen calls into question the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change...* 
...To ensure that your findings do not fuel dangerous misconceptions, we feel it should be made absolutely clear  as every serious review of the stolen emails has already confirmed  that nothing in the emails calls into question the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.  *3. Not all the evidence submitted to the ICCER comes from parties with genuine interest in furthering scientific understanding. We hope that this can be taken into account in evaluating the credibility of submitted evidence...* 
...The ICCER has received submissions from parties who seem to have no good-faith interest in furthering scientific understanding. We hope that every allegation, summary, timeline, purported scientific criticism, or other statement can be carefully examined for veracity... 
...4. We hope you are able to acknowledge and take into account the prolonged and intense campaign of harassment that has been directed at CRU and other climate scientists.... 
...Finally, we note that several of our own submissions to the ICCER were held up or redacted out of concern that someone might claim that something in them was defamatory. It does not appear that a similar filter was applied to the numerous submissions that falsely accuse legitimate climate scientists of dishonesty and misconduct. We hope you are able to remedy this inconsistency...." 
What a bunch of insecure clowns.  :Biggrin:   http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/L...s_26%20May.pdf

----------


## Dr Freud

> While there is no doubt this bloke's a DH, if councils were fair dinkum, they would make tips less selective and more economical for users. 
> It seems that they no longer want to supply a service to rate payers, if the books don't show a reduction in waste within their area, they make it go somewhere else so their Shire looks good environmentally.

  My local tip now charges nearly $40 bucks for a flat 6'x4' trailer load.  Nothing bad either (paint, batteries, tyres etc).  We've had several discussions recently over here about increased illegal dumping of rubbish due to the price increases. 
These are the "greenie" policies I argue against.  They think that by charging massive prices, then people will use less and produce less waste.  This is backward thinking if I've ever seen it.  It is the same theory behind the ETS.  If we send a massive price signal, then people will stop using their electricity service. Seriously?  :Doh:  
In reality, if there is a need for the service, you better replace it with something more viable rather than just shutting down the original service with price signals.  But hey, what the hell would I know?  :Confused:

----------


## Bedford

Thanks Doc, BTW can you please bring Chrisp back in out of the cold, we haven't heard from him for a few days and I'm a bit worried.  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> If the dams don't go ahead won't we still be short of water anyway?

  Sorry for missing this one, didn't want to appear rude. 
It's time to bust this myth that "greenies" have been selling for all too long. *
We will NEVER be short of water.* 
There is more water available, not only on this Planet, but throughout the universe, than we could ever fathom using.  As I have said before, what we are short of is intellect and will, to harness what is overly in abundance all around us. 
As an example, think of the wonderful fresh rainwater that falls onto the houses, driveways, roads, factories, offices and all other surfaces just in the metropolitan areas.  What percentage of this resource do we currently capture?  Research just Brisvegas and let me know what you come up with? Desal indeed?  :Doh:  
Here's a quick summary of what's up:  *"Earth's water distribution* 
  Where is Earth's water located and in what forms does it exist? You can see how water is distributed by viewing these bar charts. The left-side bar shows where the water on Earth exists; about 97 percent of all water is in the oceans. The middle bar shows the distribution of that three percent of all Earth's water that is freshwater. The majority, about 69 percent, is locked up in glaciers and icecaps, mainly in Greenland and Antarctica. You might be surprised that of the remaining freshwater, almost all of it is below your feet, as ground water. No matter where on Earth you are standing, chances are that, at some depth, the ground below you is saturated with water. Of all the freshwater on Earth, only about 0.3 percent is contained in rivers and lakesyet rivers and lakes are not only the water we are most familiar with, it is also where most of the water we use in our everyday lives exists.      Water distribution: Where is water on, above, and in the Earth?"  
We still primarily focus on the rivers: 2% of 0.3% of 3%.  
Greenies emphasise this focus to avoid the abundant reality.  :2thumbsup:  
Astronauts can get their own: 
"Much of the universe's water may be produced as a byproduct of star formation. When stars are born, their birth is accompanied by a strong outward wind of gas and dust. When this outflow of material eventually impacts the surrounding gas, the shock waves that are created compress and heat the gas. The water observed is quickly produced in this warm dense gas.  
 Water has been detected in interstellar clouds within our galaxy, the Milky Way. Water probably exists in abundance in other galaxies, too, because its components, hydrogen and oxygen, are among the most abundant elements in the universe. Interstellar clouds eventually condense into solar nebulae and solar systems such as ours."   Water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Relax champ, there's plenty for everyone.  :Rain2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Thanks Doc, BTW can you please bring Chrisp back in out of the cold, we haven't heard from him for a few days and I'm a bit worried.

   :Shock:

----------


## jago

Docs lost it ...we need you to stop taking the caffiene..pmsl 
Having grew up in London I allways thought Australian cites and towns were dry and hot...well I'm freezing my @@@@ off costal in NSW and having to put up with 1.8 metres of rain last year, with a Dam thats not full!!! So, what water shortage as Doc said just poor management of resources. :Annoyed:  
Its not something we will as a planet ever run out of, we in Australia just have to accept that with hindsight our forefathers did not put our cities or farms in the best places and then without a Metroplitian sewer system to collect run off...well! :Doh:  
The Green movement have since I was a child always tried to sell thier policies by scaring us, we're all going sufer die etc etc unless we adopt this now...if you cannot be positive when selling then you will not reach the wider market, and thats the problem they tend to be dour people even if the message has some weight.

----------


## PhilT2

Sorry, should have been clearer. When someone mentions "policies" I assume they are talking about 
a political party. I just wanted to point out that it is not only the Green Party that has policies opposing 
dams and coal mining, the LNP has them too. The vast majority of us don't have policies, just different 
points of view.

----------


## chrisp

> Thanks Doc, BTW can you please bring Chrisp back in out of the cold, we haven't heard from him for a few days and I'm a bit worried.

  I'm Back!  I've been away for a week or so without reliable internet access.  I'll try and catch up with this thread.  Can anyone let me know if Dr Freud actually posted anything factual to responded to?  :Biggrin:   Hopefully he hasn't been quoting Andrew Bolte.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Dr Freud

Appreciate the concern Jago, but the Stillnox will bring me down soon.  :Shakehead:  :Zzsoft:  
But news just in, a journalist actually figured out what hypocrisy means:  *hypocrisy  * *1.* the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc., contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety *2.* an act or instance of this  
"This points to the more basic assumption underlying both versions of the tax, which amounts to Gillard's (and Kevin Rudd's) even bigger hypocrisy. 
For, rather than struggling with the two clunky variations of the tax's name, there is a much simpler, much more accurate name. It should be called the China Prosperity Tax. Or, perhaps, with all due deference to the events of the 1930s, the China Co-Prosperity Tax. 
In concept, it is based entirely on the belief -- hope? -- that China will keep on booming. That it will consume, and this is crucial: ever more and more of our coal and iron ore. 
No China boom, no high commodity prices as "estimated" by Treasury; no super profits; no resource tax revenues. And, it's worth adding, no budget surplus.
It is not sufficient for China to maintain some growth in its economy, far less just sustain the level of its current activity. It has to keep growing at around 10 per cent a year, give or take a percentage point or two either way, every year. Even one year of "time out" would be devastating for commodity prices and our tax revenues. 
Gillard's Great Hypocrisy sits at the centre of this Great Expectation: that whatever coal and iron ore we sell to China today, we will be selling rising multiples of them tomorrow, in 2020 and beyond. 
This is coal and iron ore that is embedded carbon dioxide. So, Gillard, and Rudd before her, have built their hoped-for return to budget surplus and future national prosperity on, in effect, demanding that China -- already the world's biggest "polluter" -- pumps ever-rising volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere. 
As it turns our coal and iron ore into, what else: coal-fired power, iron and steel, cement, and whatever. And carbon dioxide. 
So, its OK to help China boost its emissions -- nay demand it do so, using our resources -- while embarking on the most pointless and pointlessly painful attempt to cut our domestic emissions."  Julia Gillard's big lie at the heart of mining tax coup | The Australian   :Hmm:

----------


## Dr Freud

In his short tenure in the leader's job, Abbott has destroyed Kevin Rudd's prime ministership. First, he destroyed the emissions trading scheme. Despite the claims of a Rudd autocracy, the former prime minister abandoned the ETS partly because so many backbenchers told him Abbott's campaign against it was killing them in their electorates. As a result, Rudd adopted Abbott's policy on greenhouse gas emissions.   Gillard shows Howard and Abbott were right | The Australian   So whats Joolia doing now?   Criticism is building that Ms Gillard is moving too quickly to address Labor's policy weaknesses in her haste to clear the deck for an election.   The government is considering a suite of measures to reclaim support from voters lost to the Greens when Mr Rudd ditched the ETS. These include a controversial idea to place tough new restrictions on all new coal-fired power stations and a national energy-efficiency target.   PM Julia Gillard told to slow down on climate | The Australian

----------


## Rod Dyson

Have been very quite for a while but I am still lurking! 
BTW why isnt woodbe back yet I miss his banter. 
Should get active again soon, we havn't got this thing licked quite yet but well on the way.  Lets see how Gillrudd handles this monster.

----------


## PhilT2

> Many in the mainstream media are attempting to portray The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, just released in the UK, as exonerating the researchers. In fact the main conclusion, buried under pages of rhetoric, confirms that data was presented in a misleading way. Here is the actual text of the conclusion regarding the allegation of impropriety in the presentation of tree ring data:*On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a trick and to hide the decline in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was Misleading.*Unfortunately, the media, including many who remain skeptical of climate change, have missed the main scientific point at question in the tree ring data. The researchers were not trying to hide evidence of a decline in global temperatures over the last decadewe have plenty of actual thermometer readings to show temperatures in recent years.  
> What they were trying to hide was the discrepancy between actual temperature readings and the temperatures suggested by tree ring data. They have relied on tree ring data to show that the earth was cooler in the past. If the tree ring data is not reliable (as the discrepancy in recent years would suggest), then maybe the earth was actually hotter in the past than these researchers would have us believeand perhaps the hot temperatures of recent years do not represent unprecedented global warming but just natural variation in climate. 
> The review panel at least acknowledged that the trick used to hide the decline was misleading. Now lets see if the media can report the result in a way that is not itself misleading.   UK Climategate Investigation Conclusion: Hiding the Decline was Misleading | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

  Perhaps the media didn't get past the findings where it states "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt"
and "we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments"
All on page 11 section 1.3 
Here's a link to the Dutch report which says basically the same thing. http://www.pbl.nl/images/500216002_tcm61-48119.pdf 
Bit short on bedtime reading material here.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Perhaps the media didn't get past the findings where it states "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt"
> and "we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments"
> All on page 11 section 1.3 
> Here's a link to the Dutch report which says basically the same thing. http://www.pbl.nl/images/500216002_tcm61-48119.pdf 
> Bit short on bedtime reading material here.

  Unlike some participants to this thread, I am very keen to have *your opinion* on the now uncovered conduct of some "scientists" (and I use the term nominally, not in practice). 
I assume you have read the emails themselves and the accounts of many dissenting scientists as to their treatment at the hands of these self appointed eco-oracles.  I am sure you are also aware of the findings regarding the intentional avoidance of FOI legislation in the UK.  So with all due respect to Muir Russel's opinion, do you believe based on the information available to you that :   

> their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt

  
?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Perhaps the media didn't get past the findings where it states "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt"
> and "we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments"
> All on page 11 section 1.3 
> Here's a link to the Dutch report which says basically the same thing. http://www.pbl.nl/images/500216002_tcm61-48119.pdf 
> Bit short on bedtime reading material here.

  Keep in mind your bedtime reading only covers select parts of IPCC WG2.  The Russell Review was dealing with very constrained review parameters outside of this area (more on this later).   Also keep in mind that the IPCC held themselves up as unimpeachable, and the entire world had to revolutionise our very way of life based on their certainty.   But here are some excerpts that you may have missed from your bedtime reading:   PBL  Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency   ...Seven of the investigated 32 conclusions on the regional impacts of climate change contain information that we were unable to sufficiently trace to the underlying chapters in the IPCC Working Group II Report or to the references therein...   ... We found certain inaccuracies, ranging from (very) small errors in numbers to imprecise literature references. In addition, the PBL has some critical comments to make....   ... From Table TS.4 readers may mistakenly conclude that 3,000 to 5,000 more heat related deaths could be directly attributed to temperature change (as is the case with the additional people suffering from increased water stress also shown in the table). However, the largest part of the 3,0005,000 range is dependent on expected changes in population sizes and age distributions within cities (C1). With the other drivers remaining constant, temperature change would only be responsible for 300 to 900 more heat-related deaths (this can be calculated from Table 2 in McMichael et al., 2003)...   ... The average, region-wide, glacier area retreat rate is probably between 0.1 and 0.5% per year. Although the glacier area will shrink substantially this century, especially in the most vulnerable eastern zone of the Himalayas, glaciers (such as Khumbu and Imja), will not disappear entirely, or even mostly, by 2035, as stated in the Working Group II Report...   ... The Working Group II Report states that 55% of Dutch land area is below sea level. This should have read that 55% of the Netherlands is prone to flooding: 26% of the country is at risk because it lies below sea level and another 29% is susceptible to river flooding...   *.... The scientific uncertainties that the IPCC, including Working Group II, are confronted with, are large and deep... *  ... The IPCC authors were in fact requested to produce a traceable account of their assessment of uncertainty in expert judgments in the Fourth Assessment process...It is our general impression that this part of the guidance has never been fully implemented in the assessment process. Also, the option to have separate traceable accounts underlying the reports has not been pursued...   ... A projected decrease by 50 to 60% in _extreme wind and turbulence_ over fishing grounds was mistakenly represented as a 50 to 60% decrease in _productivity_ as a result of changes in wind and turbulence...   ... Table 3.3 provides an overview of all newly found errors in referencing in the regional chapters of the Fourth Assessment Working Group II Report. We found four instances of inaccurate referencing, which could and should be repaired by issuing errata...   ...For instance, the focus in Table SPM.2 of the Synthesis Report is on crops for which yields are likely to be reduced in Africa, but the table does not mention the crops for which yields are likely to increase due to climate change. For Australia and New Zealand, Table SPM.2 shows many risks but only one benefit of climate change (initial benefits for agricultural production  in New Zealand)...   ... However, this information was often not contextualised in the summary statements by also mentioning other impact factors. This was even the case when these other factors were much larger than the impact that was attributable to climate change. To give an example, Arnell (2004) showed that the number of people living in water-stressed watersheds (defined as having less than 1,000 m*3* of water per year, per person), even without climate change, would rise strongly over time (a rise of 1.5 to 2 billion people by 2025, globally, compared to 1995, see his Table 5), mainly due to population growth in already water-stressed areas. This increase is much larger than the additional increase related to climate change. Again, some policymakers may wish to see both numbers  that is, changes with and without climate change  within the same context in a summary...   ... For instance, the projected up to 50% reduction in yields in rain-fed agriculture for some countries in Africa, was ultimately based on an untraceable reference (MATUHE, 2001). Given the high importance attached to the statement, this is a major comment...   ... Yet another example concerns a paper on a projected increase in coffee-leaf miners in Brazil, which was listed in the references of Chapter 13 as submitted to _Climatic Change_, but we found that the paper had never been accepted by this particular journal, which makes this reference untraceable...   ... Alternatively, it could be argued that policymakers should be presented with a complete picture in the Summaries for Policymakers, not just with negative examples (without suggesting that potential positive effects cancel out potential negatives effects)...   ... We believe that policymakers (and their analysts) need to see the complete picture at summary level. Positive impacts are important, because they may also become smaller when mitigation measures are introduced. There may be offsets possible between positive and negative impacts of climate change, for instance, in relation to agricultural yields. Although there are justifiable objections against making a cost-benefit analysis of positive and negative impacts, to not mention them would be policy-pre-emptive...   ... Finally, some of the comments made and the errors found  including those received through our registration website  were related to the issue of accentuating or even heightening the severity of climate-change impacts. We recommend that the authors of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) be made specifically aware of this issue. *Care should be taken with phrasing of statements that could be perceived by readers as heightening the projected impacts of climate change*... 
The IPCC Scaremongering?  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

Why is that the hardworking people of WA are always being asked to bail out this inept governments debt woes.  We've had enough of people smugglers clogging WA jails at our expense, now we have to pay an extra $7 billion to help China *increase* their carbon dioxide emissions! 
Paying more money to increase carbon dioxide emissions!  :Confused:  
WA greenies are going to be majorly pi55ed off.  :Wink 1:  
"Under Kevin Rudd's bad tax, WA was going to be hit for at least $4 billion out of $12 billion, he says. 
Under Julia Gillard's dodgy tax deal, negotiated in secret, it will be more like $7 billion out of $10.5 billion. 
Senator Cormann, who is Chairman of the Senate Fuel and Energy Committee, also claims Prime Minister Gillard prevented Treasury Secretary Dr Ken Henry from answering questions about the tax at a committee hearing during the week. 
She doesn't want people in Western Australia to know how much we will end up paying as a result of her new tax, he says."   Julia Gillard tax would be worse: WA senator | The Australian

----------


## Dr Freud

A wise man once said "When you change the government, you change the country".  The UK has just had a change of government, and the new team are looking to massively reduce budget deficits and national debt levels.  The spending in this area will only be made more accountable as time goes on. 
Before the Muir Russell review: 
"...Parliament isnt the place where climate sceptics go to make friends. Just over a year ago, just three MPs voted against the Climate Act, with 463 supporting it. But events took a surprising turn at Parliaments first Climategate hearing yesterday. 
  MPs who began by roasting sceptics in a bath of warm sarcasm for half an hour were, a mere two hours later, asking why the University of East Anglias enquiry into the climate scandal wasnt broader, and wasnt questioning the science of climate change. Thats further than any sceptic witness had gone. 
  In between, theyd wrought an admission from CRU director Phil Jones that hed written some awful emails, and that during peer review nobody had ever asked to see his raw data or methods. 
Perhaps the Honourable Members had noticed an incongruity. The Vice Chancellor of East Anglia, with Jones seated next to him, had said CRU had made a significant contribution to the human scientific understanding of climate change. Yet the practices of CRU looked more tatty and indefensible as the hearing went on. How could CRU be crucial to the science, but the science could not be discussed? Something was not quite right... 
...Graham Stringer (Lab) opened up with a it's nice to meet you having read all your emails over the past few days... 
...Jones initially stated that the methods were published in the scientific papers, theres no rocket science in them. He cant have thanked his boss Acton for butting in to say that CRU was not a national archive and had no obligation to preserve the raw temperature data... 
...Jones had said, "Why should I make the data available when your aim is to find something wrong with it?"... 
...Jones said that during the peer review process, nobody had ever asked for raw data or methodology... 
...By this point Jones and Acton appear to have lost the sympathy of the Committees Chair, Willis. 
  What staggered him, he said, was Actons statement that the integrity of the UEA was the most important question. Surely scientific integrity on the world's leading global question should be the question. Have you not miserably failed? he asked... 
...The Information Commissioner for seven years until last summer ,Richard Thomas, was invited to put the FOIA requests in context. Several Jones emails show him vowing to hide behind UK FOIA law, briefing University staff to refuse requests to sceptics, and asking colleagues to destroy email. 
  The University, in another PR blunder, had objected to a statement from the current IC office that the Climategate emails showed prima facie evidence of criminal activity. They hadnt been found guilty, they complained. Thats because the IC couldnt investigate, Thomas pointed out, and again renewed his call for the six month time limit on complaints to be closed... 
...Ian Stewart (Lab) was determined to show that the FOIA requests were harassment... 
...Thomas stood firm: I do not think hassle justifies the deliberate destruction of information.... 
...Sir Muir Russell, former VC of Glasgow University, was picked by Acton to head East Anglias enquiry into the emails. He too might have been surprised that the questioning was more pointed than anticipated. 
  Stringer implied the staff Russell had chosen were inadequate. He noted that the NAS Hockey Stick hearings had boiled down to McIntyre vs Mann and required the best statisticians in the world. I ask you to look at that again  you may need a statistician. 
  Russell said Michael Mann had emailed him at one minute to midnight and if that takes us into the statistical area, then fine. The MPs didnt look impressed... 
...Russell said it was a process enquiry not a substance enquiry  one for the great book of bureaucrats quotes. He looked alarmed at the prospect of an enquiry looking at climate science. Where would it end? What kind of questions would people ask? 
  What indeed... 
...Three hours later, the day closed with three big guns of the scientific establishment and most prominent advocates of warming: former IPCC chair Bob Watson, the Governments chief scientific advisor John Beddington, and head scientist at the Met Office, Julia Slingo OBE. Since the story broke, Watson has been a prominent in emphasising the "Keep Calm and Carry On" message: that the science is untouched, and cannot be questioned.  *The three were slightly too chummy and jovial, and seemed unaware of the connection MPs had made: that rotten scientists perhaps mean rotten science.*"    Climategate hits Westminster: MPs spring a surprise ? The Register

----------


## Dr Freud

After the Muir Russel review: 
"*Parliament was misled and needs to re-examine the Climategate affair thoroughly after the failure of the Russell report, a leading backbench MP told us today.* 
  "It's not a whitewash, but it _is_ inadequate," is Labour MP Graham Stringer's summary of the Russell inquiry report. Stringer is the only member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology with scientific qualifications - he holds a PhD in Chemistry.   
  Not only did Russell fail to deal with the issues of malpractice raised in the emails, Stringer told us, but he confirmed the feeling that MPs had been misled by the University of East Anglia when conducting their own inquiry. Parliament only had time for a brief examination of the CRU files before the election, but made recommendations. This is a serious charge. 
  After the Select Committee heard oral evidence on March 1, MPs believed that Anglia had entrusted an examination of the science to a separate inquiry. Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia Edward Acton had told the committee that "I am hoping, later this week, to announce the chair of a panel to reassess the science and make sure there is nothing wrong." 
Ron Oxburgh's inquiry eventually produced a short report clearing the participants. He did not reassess the science, and now says it was never in his remit. "The science was not the subject of our study," he confirmed in an email to Steve McIntyre of _Climate Audit_.  *Earlier this week the former chair of the Science and Technology Committee, Phil Willis, now Lord Willis, said MPs had been amazed at the "sleight of hand".* 
  "Oxburgh didn't go as far as I expected. The Oxburgh Report looks much more like a whitewash," Graham Stringer told us. 
  Stringer says Anglia appointee Muir Russell (a civil servant and former Vice Chancellor of Glasgow University), failed in three significant areas. 
  "Why did they delete emails? The key question was what reason they had for doing this, but this was never addressed; not getting to the central motivation was a major failing both of our report and Muir Russell." 
   Stringer also says that it was unacceptable for Russell (who is not a scientist) to conclude that CRU's work was reproducible, when the data needed was not available. He goes further: 
  "The fact that you can make up your own experiments and get similar results doesn't mean that you're doing what's scientifically expected of you. You need to follow the same methodology of the process."... 
...In 2004 Jones had declined to give out data that would have permitted independent scrutiny of their work, explaining that "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."  *This policy is confirmed several times in the emails, with Jones also advising colleagues to destroy evidence helpful to people wishing to reproduce the team's results.* 
  "I think that's quite shocking," says Stringer. 
Thirdly, the University of East Anglia failed to follow the Commons Select Committee's recommendations in handling the inquiry and producing the report. 
  Stringer said, "We asked them to be independent, and not allow the University to have first sight of the report. The way it's come out is as an UEA inquiry, not an independent inquiry." 
  Stringer also says they reminded the inquiry to be open - Russell had promised as much - but witness testimony took place behind closed doors, and not all the depositions have been published. 
Muir Russell's team heard only one side of the story, failing to call witnesses who were the subjects of the emails - Stephen McIntyre of Climate Audit is mentioned over one hundred times in the archive - who may have given a different perspective. Nor was any active climate scientist supportive of climate change policy but critical of the CRU team's behaviour - Hans Storch or Judith Curry, let alone the prominent sceptics, for example - summoned. Stringer feels their presence would have provided vital context. 
The panel included Richard Horton, editor of _The Lancet_ and a vocal advocate of mitigation against climate change (in 2007 he described global warming "the biggest threat to our future health") and Geoffrey Boulton a climate change advisor to the UK government and the EU, who spent 16-years at the University of East Anglia - the institution under apparently 'independent' scrutiny.  *"Vast amounts of money are going to be spent on climate change policy, it's billions and eventually could be trillions. Knowing what is accurate and what is inaccurate is important."* 
  "I view this as a Parliamentarian for one of the poorest constituencies in the country. Putting up the price of fuel for poor people on such a low level of evidence, hoping it will have the desired effect, is not acceptable. I need to know what's going on."  *Climategate may finally be living up to its name. If you recall, it wasn't the burglary or use of funding that led to the impeachment of Nixon, but the cover-up. Now, ominously, three inquiries into affair have raised more questions than there were before.*"  Parliament misled over Climategate report, says MP ? The Register

----------


## Dr Freud

Here is what Michael Mann and "The Hockey Stick Team" from RealClimate told the Muir Russell Review that it should find:   "The ICCERs remit includes mak[ing] recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance, and security structures for CRU and the  release of data that it holds. In developing recommendations on how CRU should release data, you might find it helpful to consider some experience from across the Atlantic.  
In particular, there is much that is instructive in the history of the U.S. Office of Management and Budgets (OMB) regulations under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. These regulations pertain to disclosure of information relating to federally funded research. OMB issued the regulations in response to a 1998 law known as the Shelby Amendment, which directed OMB to write new standards requiring that all data produced under federal grants be available to the public under FOIA procedures. 
The Shelby Amendment provoked an uproar in the scientific community. There was widespread concern that if it were interpreted too broadly, the law would interfere with scientists ability to carry out their research. Such concerns were expressed in Congressional testimony by Dr. Bruce Alberts, (who was at the time the President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences). Dr. Alberts warned that, unless the new standards were appropriately limited, they would have a chilling effect on scientific collaboration, and would be used by various special interest groups to harass researchers doing research that these interest groups would like to stop.  
The American Association for the Advancement of Science voiced similar concerns to OMB, and noted that overly broad disclosure requirements would have serious unintended consequences for scientists, their institutions, federal funding agencies, and the wider public.   Ultimately, after receiving more than 12,000 comments, OMB issued guidelines (reported at 65 Fed. Reg. 14406) that balance the publics interest in disclosure against scientists need for confidentiality and protection from harassment. Under the guidelines, when federally funded, published research is used in developing agency action that has the force and effect of law, research data relating to the published findings are available under FOIA.  
Research data is defined as the recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings . Expressly excluded from the definition of research data, however  and therefore protected from disclosure  are _preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or communications with colleagues._ (Emphasis added.) We strongly believe that CRU and other research institutions should operate under similar guidelines, and hope that the ICCER will be able to make such a recommendation."   http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/L...s_26%20May.pdf   Here's what the Muir Russell Review did find:   "The Review offers the following more general recommendations:   Definition of research data. There is extensive confusion and unease within the academic community as to exactly how FoIA/EIR should be applied in terms of the materials developed during a research process.  
The Review believes that all data, metadata and codes necessary to allow independent replication of results should be provident concurrent with peer-reviewed publication. However the situation regarding supporting materials such as early drafts, correspondence with research colleagues and working documents is widely regarded as unclear.  
The American experience is instructive here. The so called ―Shelby Amendment‖ in 1998 directed the US ―Office of Management & Budget (OMB)‖ to produce new standards requiring all data produced under Federally funded research to be made available under the US Freedom of Information Act.  
This resulted in great concern within the US Scientific community, expressed through Congressional testimony, that a very broad interpretation of this requirement could seriously impair scientific research and collaboration. In the final OMB guidelines10, recognising these concerns, ―research data‖ is defined as: _"the recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings, but not any of the following: preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or communications with colleagues"_.  
The Review recommends that the ICO should hold consultations on a similar distinction for the UK FoIA/EIR."   http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf  *I can't wait until the UK MP's figure out that their "independent" review is actually a mechanism for US "rotten scientists" to surreptitiously criticise existing UK FOI laws in favour of US laws.  This will be fun to watch.*  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Ohhh....the HoT Air this little distraction has generated.  Shame we can't actually do anything with it (..the hot air, I mean).  Although I'm not sure what we do with the findings of the distraction either. 
Perhaps we can legislate to regulate research......or data collection....or data analysis.  I know....don't ask any potentially scary questions! 
In the end....regardless of whether there is or isn't AGW....we certainly haven't really had a intelligent debate one way or the other.  Just a human one. 
And that makes me happy.  Because it proves George Romero was right.

----------


## PhilT2

Unlike some participants to this thread, I am very keen to have *your  opinion* on the now uncovered conduct of some "scientists" (and I use  the term nominally, not in practice). 
Thanks, and I'm genuinely interested in your opinion also. But if you just want to add copy/pastes from sites I've already read how is that a debate? Why not just tell us what anti AGW sites you find informative and we'll go read them at the original source. 
The point of my post was that the site you quoted ignored the clearly identified findings printed in the front of the report and went and found a quote buried in the body of the document which could be interpreted differently. Even comments on the site accused them of taking it out of context. I can't check it myself as they don't disclose where they lifted the quote from. Isn't that basically deceptive?  
Re the "conduct" of scientists. It seems some of them have tried to keep information from rivals and critics and have generally acted like a***holes. Maybe they kick their dog and cheat on their wives too. Proving that is not the same as faulting the research. We have to play the ball not the man. (got that line from Mr Watson) If you want to discuss flaws in the studies I'm happy to do that, but you have to tell me what document and where the quotes you rely on come from. I am interested in your opinion. (not Andrew Bolts)

----------


## Dr Freud

> Ohhh....the HoT Air this little distraction has generated.  Shame we can't actually do anything with it (..the hot air, I mean).  Although I'm not sure what we do with the findings of the distraction either. 
> Perhaps we can legislate to regulate research......or data collection....or data analysis.  I know....don't ask any potentially scary questions! 
> In the end....regardless of whether there is or isn't AGW....we certainly haven't really had a intelligent debate one way or the other.  Just a human one. 
> And that makes me happy.  Because it proves George Romero was right.

  How about we let the scientists do the science, like they have always done.  When they figure something out, they can let us know.  Until then, they can keep their internal theoretical disputes all to themselves and out of my tax paying pockets.  :2thumbsup:  
Is this the Romero quote you were thinking of?  :Biggrin:  
Monkeys are ornery and hard to work with.  :Monkey dance:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Thanks, and I'm genuinely interested in your opinion also. But if you just want to add copy/pastes from sites I've already read how is that a debate? Why not just tell us what anti AGW sites you find informative and we'll go read them at the original source. 
> The point of my post was that the site you quoted ignored the clearly identified findings printed in the front of the report and went and found a quote buried in the body of the document which could be interpreted differently. Even comments on the site accused them of taking it out of context. I can't check it myself as they don't disclose where they lifted the quote from. Isn't that basically deceptive?  
> Re the "conduct" of scientists. It seems some of them have tried to keep information from rivals and critics and have generally acted like a***holes. Maybe they kick their dog and cheat on their wives too. Proving that is not the same as faulting the research. We have to play the ball not the man. (got that line from Mr Watson) If you want to discuss flaws in the studies I'm happy to do that, but you have to tell me what document and where the quotes you rely on come from. I am interested in your opinion. (not Andrew Bolts)

   

> Thanks, and I'm genuinely interested in your opinion also.

  You'll find plenty of it in this thread.  No-one's accused me of not airing it sufficiently yet.  :Biggrin:    

> But if you just want to add copy/pastes from sites I've already read how is that a debate?

  This information is not the whole debate, just a part of it, already covered by a wise man     *HERE.* 
And several readers of the thread have previously indicated they do not like accessing links, so I provide some text for their benefit (assuming they are still reading  :Wink: ).   

> The point of my post was that the site you quoted ignored the clearly identified findings printed in the front of the report and went and found a quote buried in the body of the document which could be interpreted differently. Even comments on the site accused them of taking it out of context. I can't check it myself as they don't disclose where they lifted the quote from. Isn't that basically deceptive?

  The site listed a link to the entire document for anyone to read as they wished after just nine words, long before they even mentioned the quote: "Many in the mainstream media are attempting to portray The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review,..." 
Apologies if I am assuming this, but if you are not aware, you can click on text with underlining and it takes you to another website or location.  Once there, the contents indicate Chapter 7 deals with tree ring analysis.  Once in Chapter 7, page 60 displays this finding: 
"26. Finding: In relation to "hide the decline" we find that, given its subsequent iconic
significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the TAR), the figure supplied
for the WMO Report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was
truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and
instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find that it is misleading to
curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that
both of these procedures should have been made plain  ideally in the figure but
certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text." 
As you can see, it clearly states truncation of data, or splicing of data sets are not misleading, as long as these procedures are made plain.  In this case, this was not done, therefore this was misleading. 
In general, I don't see this as "basically deceptive".  I see this as a person (blogger) putting an opinion forward, then providing full access to the source document so any other interested parties can read it and form their own opinion.    

> Re the "conduct" of scientists. It seems some of them have tried to keep information from rivals and critics and have generally acted like a***holes.

  I'm no peer-reviewer, but this doesn't sound like rigorous or honest scientific behaviour to me.  Particularly when they claim the entire human species is at stake, it is borderline psychopathic!  :Wink 1:    

> Maybe they kick their dog and cheat on their wives too. Proving that is not the same as faulting the research.

  I feel sorry for the dog, but gotta see the wife before I make a judgement call.  :Biggrin:  
But you're right, there's plenty of other info in this thread that faults the research all on its own.  :2thumbsup:    

> We have to play the ball not the man. (got that line from Mr Watson) If you want to discuss flaws in the studies I'm happy to do that, but you have to tell me what document and where the quotes you rely on come from. I am interested in your opinion. (not Andrew Bolts)

  The ball is "AGW Theory", and I think I have given it a good kicking, with not too many yellow cards on the way.   
Like I said before, plenty of flawed research in this thread if you want to go through it. 
Every one of my posts has the link to the full document it refers to, just click on the underlined bit (not this one, just for demo purposes). 
As I said before, no-one has accused me yet of being shy to put forward my opinion.  :Wink 1:  
As for "Bolta" as he's affectionately known, if you don't like it, you can ignore it, or rant about it (ignore/rant).  Unfortunately he can't be "peer-reviewed" off the internet (not yet anyway  :Biggrin: ). 
But as John McClane said, "Welcome to the party, pal".  :Fireworks:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Unlike some participants to this thread, I am very keen to have *your opinion* on the now uncovered conduct of some "scientists" (and I use the term nominally, not in practice). 
> Thanks, and I'm genuinely interested in your opinion also. But if you just want to add copy/pastes from sites I've already read how is that a debate? Why not just tell us what anti AGW sites you find informative and we'll go read them at the original source. 
> The point of my post was that the site you quoted ignored the clearly identified findings printed in the front of the report and went and found a quote buried in the body of the document which could be interpreted differently. Even comments on the site accused them of taking it out of context. I can't check it myself as they don't disclose where they lifted the quote from. Isn't that basically deceptive?  
> Re the "conduct" of scientists. It seems some of them have tried to keep information from rivals and critics and have generally acted like a***holes. Maybe they kick their dog and cheat on their wives too. Proving that is not the same as faulting the research. We have to play the ball not the man. (got that line from Mr Watson) If you want to discuss flaws in the studies I'm happy to do that, but you have to tell me what document and where the quotes you rely on come from. I am interested in your opinion. (not Andrew Bolts)

  
Not looking at the conduct of these scientists and the reasons for it is just putting your head in the sand IMO. 
Like it or not it reflects badly on the results.  No one has yet showed us a direct link to CO2 and temperatures yet we want to go out and spend trillions of $ trying to prevent somenthing we are not even certain is happening, With out even knowing if what we do would have any effect in any case. Just blows my mind that people could be that dumb.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Paying more money to increase carbon dioxide emissions!  
> WA greenies are going to be majorly pi55ed off.

  The news below is much fairer.  At least the whole country gets stung by this farce.  Now we can all pay more to create more carbon dioxide emissions.  :Sneaktongue:   *"HIGHER electricity prices resulting from Prime Minister Julia Gillard's delay in setting a carbon price will cost Australia $2 billion a year by 2020...  * ...The report says "the increase in prices would occur irrespective of whether a carbon regime is or is not introduced in 2013". 
"They are the costs of uncertainty," it says... 
...Plans are instead focusing on gas-fired "peaking" power plants, which are cheaper to build but less efficient and more expensive to operate, and potentially more polluting... 
..."Uncertainty around the price tag on pollution will increase electricity prices, hurt the economy and hit the cost of living for everyday Australians..."  Carbon price delay fuels power costs | Herald Sun 
If this whole fiasco gets off the ground,  :No:  :Shock: , all this extra cash goes into "carbon permits" and "carbon offsets".  So who really gets all this money??? Sorry pensioners, not you.  Some candidates below. :Arrow Down:

----------


## Dr Freud

Amazongate ending: 
"Last week, after six months of evasions, obfuscation, denials and retractions,    a story which has preoccupied this column on and off since January came to a    startling conclusion. It turns out that one of the most widely publicised    statements in the 2007 report of the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate    Change  a claim on which tens of billions of dollars could hang  *was not    based on peer-reviewed science, as repeatedly claimed, but originated solely    from anonymous propaganda published on the website of a small Brazilian    environmental advocacy group.*  
The ramifications of this discovery stretch in many directions. First, it    seems to show that the IPCC  whose reports governments rely on to justify    presenting mankind with the largest bill in history  has been in serious    breach of its own rules.  
 Second, it raises hefty question marks over the credibility of the worlds    richest and most powerful environmental pressure group, the WWF, credited by    the IPCC as the source of its unsupported claim.   *And third, it focuses attention once more on a bizarre scheme, backed by the    UN and promoted by the World Bank, whereby the WWF has been hoping to share    in profits estimated at $60 billion, paid for by firms all over the    developed world...* 
 ..This curious episode may also point to another reason why WWF and Woods Hole    have been so active in recent years to promote concern over the danger of    global warming for the Amazon rainforest.  
As I revealed here on March 20,    they have been closely allied in support of a scheme known as REDD    (Reduction in Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation of Tropical    Forests). Its aim is to turn the CO2 in forest trees into carbon credits,    saleable on the world market to allow firms to continue emitting CO2.  
Backed    by $80 million from the World Bank, WWF, Woods Hole and IPAM are partners in    a consortium, supported by the Brazilian government, to protect and manage a    vast area of forest in the Tumucumaque region, in return for which they    would have the right to sell its carbon credits.  
In 2007 Dr Nepstad    published a formula which would allow the carbon contained in the entire    forest to be valued at $60 billion.   
  Although the REDD scheme was approved in principle at Decembers UN Copenhagen    conference, two serious snags remain. First, it has yet to be approved in    detail (although they still hope to achieve this in Cancun later this year).    Second, the US Senate still hasnt passed its cap and trade bill, which    would open up a lucrative new market for anyone involved in carbon trading,    such as those with a stake in REDD...    Amazongate: At last we reach the source - Telegraph   *Are you people getting this yet?*  :Youcrazy:  
We breathe out fresh air here in Australia (CO2), and get taxed massively for this.
Then less developed nations are declared a "carbon offset" zone.
Then they sell us these offsets for billions of dollars for creating the CO2 that their "carbon offset" designated trees are breathing in.   :Lolabove:  
And this is supposed to cool a giant lava ball hurtling through space at around 100,000 kms hr, bombarded by massive amounts of radiation from a giant nuclear explosion whose gravitational field we are stuck in.  :Doh:  
This has been happening for billions of years, now we're gonna get taxed for it.  :Russian roulette:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Not looking at the conduct of these scientists and the reasons for it is just putting your head in the sand IMO. 
> Like it or not it reflects badly on the results.  No one has yet showed us a direct link to CO2 and temperatures yet we want to go out and spend trillions of $ trying to prevent somenthing we are not even certain is happening, With out even knowing if what we do would have any effect in any case. Just blows my mind that people could be that dumb.

  You and me both Champ!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Not looking at the conduct of these scientists and the reasons for it is just putting your head in the sand IMO. 
> Like it or not it reflects badly on the results.  No one has yet showed us a direct link to CO2 and temperatures yet we want to go out and spend trillions of $ trying to prevent somenthing we are not even certain is happening, With out even knowing if what we do would have any effect in any case. Just blows my mind that people could be that dumb.

  
Rod's word work in reverse context too: 
Not looking at the conduct of these sceptics and the reasons for it is just putting your head in the sand IMO. 
Like it or not it reflects badly on the results.  Despite decades of complaint & counter claim, no one has yet showed us an alternative hypothesis to the direct link between greenhouse gases and temperatures. Yet they still want to go out and and spend trillions of $ trying to maintain a lifestyle that we are not even certain is sustainable. With out even considering what the long term impacts might be. Just blows my mind that people could be that dumb.  
....it's so cool when we are all equally stupid ain't it?

----------


## Chumley

> ...no one has yet showed us an alternative hypothesis to the direct link between greenhouse gases and temperatures. Yet they still want to go out and and spend trillions of $ trying to maintain a lifestyle that we are not even certain is sustainable...

  But skeptics don't need to show alternative hypotheses - they are not necessarily backing any alternative, just being skeptical about the current hypothesis. 
And maybe they don't put forward an alternative hypothesis about the link between greenhouse gases and temperatures because their either isn't a link or it is far too complex to explain in a forum (gosh, even the scientists can't do it without getting into trouble). 
And maybe they don't want to spend trillions of $ maintaining a lifestyle that is not sustainable but equally they don't want to spend money on something that does not deliver any return - they have acknowledged the need to spend money on things like pollution control/reduction and stopping deforestration, but this doesn't sound as grand as spending money on fixing global warming (or generate as many votes). 
The most frustrating thing about this whole issue is the number of people who STILL claim the science is 'fixed' and 'complete' - as if we ever really know all there is to know about the world we live in.

----------


## chrisp

> The most frustrating thing about this whole issue is the number of people who STILL claim the science is 'fixed' and 'complete' - as if we ever really know all there is to know about the world we live in.

  I suspect it is poor wording as the science is never 'complete' - we are always learning.   
However, the science is clear on AGW - try and find any reputable scientific organisation that has expressed explicit doubt about AGW.  :Smilie:

----------


## Chumley

> I suspect it is poor wording as the science is never 'complete' - we are always learning.  
> However, the science is clear on AGW - try and find any reputable scientific organisation that has expressed explicit doubt about AGW.

  Yeah, well tell that to the self-important politicians who stand up and say it is 'complete' - I notice there is no outcry about this from the balanced scientific community. 
And with respect the science is not clear on AGW.  The length of this thread is sufficient to see that.  There are plenty of people I talk to about this at length who share the lack of clarity in varying degrees from mild suspicion (of scientists in general, of AGW science in particular, and of course of the political/media coverage of anything) to outright hostility.  Science hasn't even defined a direct relationship between higher levels of CO2 and temperature variations -- if scientists can't even nail this down, how can they speak with authority on the many complex interactions that make up climate. 
Science has a good track record of discoveries.  But it also has a long track record of complete stuff-ups.  Who really knows which way this will go, but why should we shell out trillions of $ while we wait for better evidence?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ......but why should we shell out trillions of $ while we wait for better evidence?

  Because have to do something while we are waiting......and sometimes I'd like a better standard of alcoholic beverage than mere VB whilst I'm waiting for the main course to turn up.  :happy:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> But skeptics don't need to show alternative hypotheses...

  .....surely you jest?   
'The science'  can't merely say "I'm right and thou shalt believe me" and expect to get away with it - as recent events attest.  So why should sceptics be able to say "They're wrong and thou shalt believe me" and expect a different reaction? 
Down that road lies madness.  
Oh.....hello....your satnav led you astray too?  Very pretty here though eh? Would you like some Krug whilst we are waiting for the mains to arrive?

----------


## PhilT2

> Apologies if I am assuming this, but if you are not aware, you can click  on text with underlining and it takes you to another website or  location.  Once there, the contents indicate Chapter 7 deals with tree  ring analysis.  Once in Chapter 7, page 60 displays this finding:

  
Yes it saves a lot of time when you give a page no. But the section you were originally referring to from the foundry site is actually on page 13. But you're right, the graph was described as "misleading", they also say "the figure in question was a frontispiece (decoration?) and there is no major discussion or emphasis on it in the text". The data used wasn't incorrect, the methodology was sound, no incorrect information was given, they just didn't describe what they did. All the other allegations were found to be groundless. Their critics made a submission to the inquiry and this was the best they could find? One minor stuff up in ten years of work, we should all be so lucky. But the world has moved on, the CRU has been exonerated and the scientists have gone back to work.     

> Like I said before, plenty of flawed research in this thread if you want  to go through it.

  Is there a discussion anywhere on the differences between the Mann and McIntyre papers? If there is, post a page no. If not I will find some papers on the CO2 stuff that Rod keeps raising and put them up. But not till the weekend.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The news below is much fairer. At least the whole country gets stung by this farce. Now we can all pay more to create more carbon dioxide emissions.   *"HIGHER electricity prices resulting from Prime Minister Julia Gillard's delay in setting a carbon price will cost Australia $2 billion a year by 2020...*  
> ...The report says "the increase in prices would occur irrespective of whether a carbon regime is or is not introduced in 2013". 
> "They are the costs of uncertainty," it says... 
> ...Plans are instead focusing on gas-fired "peaking" power plants, which are cheaper to build but less efficient and more expensive to operate, and potentially more polluting... 
> ..."Uncertainty around the price tag on pollution will increase electricity prices, hurt the economy and hit the cost of living for everyday Australians..."  Carbon price delay fuels power costs | Herald Sun 
> If this whole fiasco gets off the ground, , all this extra cash goes into "carbon permits" and "carbon offsets". So who really gets all this money??? Sorry pensioners, not you. Some candidates below.

  LOL yes I thought the same when I read this article.  Prices to rise either way gotta love it.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> But skeptics don't need to show alternative hypotheses - they are not necessarily backing any alternative, just being skeptical about the current hypothesis.

  Spot on.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Rod's word work in reverse context too: 
> Not looking at the conduct of these sceptics and the reasons for it is just putting your head in the sand IMO. 
> Like it or not it reflects badly on the results.  Despite decades of complaint & counter claim, no one has yet showed us an alternative hypothesis to the direct link between greenhouse gases and temperatures. Yet they still want to go out and and spend trillions of $ trying to maintain a lifestyle that we are not even certain is sustainable. With out even considering what the long term impacts might be. Just blows my mind that people could be that dumb.  
> ....it's so cool when we are all equally stupid ain't it?

  Some of us are more equal than others.  :Biggrin:  
Your errors of assumption are truly astounding.   :Confused:   Do you seriously believe that if a hypothesis cannot be either proved or disproved, it should be acted upon as if it were fact?  :Confused:  :Confused:  :Confused:  
I'd also be interested in your definition of "direct link"? And once you've defined it, are you speaking for controlled laboratory tests, or real world measures and estimates of our 4.5 billion year old planet? You might want to clarify if this link between CO2 an temperature exists in the absence of all other variables.  It's just I'm looking for some cheap heating alternatives.  If I lock up the house airtight and pump in heaps of CO2 at night, might get some cheap heating?  :Doh: 
You obviously earn more than me, cos I ain't spending trillions on my lifestyle.  I'm just a dude trying to get by.  :Wink 1:  
With all due respect to the greenie sustainability theory, I don't know if you've been keeping up with current affairs, but the human race ain't dying out.  Whatever we've been doing is working f----ing awesomely!  :Biggrin:   
But apologies for the rambling, caffeine still going, Stillnox will kick in soon, but really curious about that "direct link" stuff?

----------


## Dr Freud

> But skeptics don't need to show alternative hypotheses - they are not necessarily backing any alternative, just being skeptical about the current hypothesis. 
> And maybe they don't put forward an alternative hypothesis about the link between greenhouse gases and temperatures because their either isn't a link or it is far too complex to explain in a forum (gosh, even the scientists can't do it without getting into trouble). 
> And maybe they don't want to spend trillions of $ maintaining a lifestyle that is not sustainable but equally they don't want to spend money on something that does not deliver any return - they have acknowledged the need to spend money on things like pollution control/reduction and stopping deforestration, but this doesn't sound as grand as spending money on fixing global warming (or generate as many votes). 
> The most frustrating thing about this whole issue is the number of people who STILL claim the science is 'fixed' and 'complete' - as if we ever really know all there is to know about the world we live in.

  Mate, what a breath of fresh air! (Oops, forgot CO2 was pollution for a minute there, must remember not to breathe out near the kids  :Shock: ). 
But seriously, I just watched Q&A (why do I torture myself so) and had to listen to some idiot arguing about 5% CO2 reduction targets in Australia saving the planet.  :Doh:  I started running the hot bath and was getting the razors out, then I read your post.  So thanks, I feel invigorated.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I suspect it is poor wording as the science is never 'complete' - we are always learning.   
> However, the science is clear on AGW - try and find any reputable scientific organisation that has expressed explicit doubt about AGW.

   

> However, the science is clear on AGW

  Really?  I think we'd all be interested in hearing a summary then?  Should be real easy to explain to us nationalistic savages if it is so clear?

----------


## Dr Freud

> .....surely you jest?   
> 'The science'  can't merely say "I'm right and thou shalt believe me" and expect to get away with it - as recent events attest.  So why should sceptics be able to say "They're wrong and thou shalt believe me" and expect a different reaction? 
> Down that road lies madness.  
> Oh.....hello....your satnav led you astray too?  Very pretty here though eh? Would you like some Krug whilst we are waiting for the mains to arrive?

  'The science' never said any such thing.  Eco-fascientists within and associated with the IPCC said this.  'The science' said "Holy Sh--, this is complicated and these hairless apes can't even calibrate thermometers". 
Sceptics (me anyway) also never said any such thing.  The word "believe" which permeates this farce is indicative of its religious, as opposed to scientific nature.  Just because we believe in something, does not make it real.  So yes indeed you are right, down this road lies madness. 
The catch cry of the sceptic throughout scientific history has been "Prove it!".  :2thumbsup:  
P.S. At the risk of stating the obvious again, this is not, and is not required by scientific doctrine to be, an alternative hypothesis.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

After this (not to mention the rest of it highlighted in this thread):   

> Re the "conduct" of scientists. It seems some of them have tried to keep information from rivals and critics and have generally acted like a***holes.

   

> But you're right, the graph was described as "misleading",

   

> they just didn't describe what they did.

  You subscribe to this:   

> the CRU has been exonerated

  *mis·lead·ing* Tending to mislead; deceptive.   *ex·on·er·ate* *1.*  To free from blame. 
And as for this sideshow:   

> One minor stuff up in ten years of work,

  Really?  :Doh:    

> Is there a discussion anywhere on the differences between the Mann and McIntyre papers? If there is, post a page no. If not I will find some papers on the CO2 stuff that Rod keeps raising and put them up. But not till the weekend.

  Maybe you could spend the weekend reading the thread from page 1 (ignore my stuff, you won't like it anyway).  It will save a lot of time, rather than covering all of this stuff again.  I dunno about the others, but if we go down that path, Rrobor might have been right all along.  :Shock:  
But if you can dig up some super secret research that they forgot to mention at Copenhagen showing how CO2 is solely responsible via a causal relationship for the arbitrarily measured 0.7 degrees celsius temperature increase over the last 150 years, I'm sure we will all be very keen for a read.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I'd also be interested in your definition of "direct link"? And once you've defined it, are you speaking for controlled laboratory tests, or real world measures and estimates of our 4.5 billion year old planet? You might want to clarify if this link between CO2 an temperature exists in the absence of all other variables.  It's just I'm looking for some cheap heating alternatives.  If I lock up the house airtight and pump in heaps of CO2 at night, might get some cheap heating?

  For the last time.  Again.... 
Simple high school physics demonstrates that our atmosphere works like a blanket.  Without it there'd be a vacuum and it'd be a little bit chilly - like on the moon.  With it we are demonstrably warm and comfortable.  The basics of this were demonstrated way back in the first half of the 19th century so we can that the link between 'greenhouse gases' and atmospheric temperature dates from that time.  Quite when it was labelled 'the greenhouse effect' I have no idea.  Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
So this is direct link that legitimately considered fundamental by pretty much everyone. 
The next step in the chain is the step from the natural greenhouse effect to anthropogenic global warming.  And it's here that Freud and his friends seem to have the greatest drama.  And that's fair enough I suppose. 
The basics are that there's four major contributing factors to the natural greenhouse effect that is fundamental to life on Earth.  By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect, they are: 
water vapor, 3670%
carbon dioxide, 926%
methane, 49%
ozone, 37% 
Of these four components, the human species is liberating two from their many sinks and sources in significant quantities - carbon dioxide and methane.  And we know through direct measurement that the concentrations of both these compounds in the atmosphere have increased in the last 50 years.  From that data, it is relatively easy to determine the volumes of those two things required to increase atmospheric concentrations - they are truly vast - and given the limited number of known sources of either (both natural and unnatural) capable of releasing such quantities....it isn't too tricky to identify the likely contributors.  
Back to the link.....given what we know about the natural greenhouse effect then if we increase the amount of any of the contributing agents in the atmosphere then it is pretty clear (at least to me) that the insulative capacity of the atmosphere will also increase.  Thicker blanket, better insulation. 
And this better insulation is being demonstrated by the observation that the global air temperature trend over the last fifty years or so has typically been in the upwards direction. 
Quite where it might end up and when is of course complicated......and this is where I believe where one third of the kerfuffle lies. The second third is occupied by the question of if the temperature rises then what happens.  The final third is what can we actually do about it. 
So, in closing, the fundamental link between greenhouse gases and air temperature has been known & demonstrated for almost a century and a half.  What is hotly debated is how we have influenced and perhaps skewed the natural process. 
In answer to your question, Freud.....if you pump your house full of CO2 in an effort to heat it....you'll fail.  Firstly, you'll be dead.  Secondly, it won't heat anything as there's no energy source - but it will slow down further temperature loss from the house compared to a normal breathable atmosphere.  But then I reckon you're smart enough to know that for yourself

----------


## chrisp

> But if you can dig up some super secret research that they forgot to mention at Copenhagen showing how CO2 is _solely_ responsible via a causal relationship for the arbitrarily measured 0.7 degrees celsius temperature increase over the last 150 years, I'm sure we will all be very keen for a read.

   

> So, in closing, the fundamental link between greenhouse gases and air temperature has been known & demonstrated for almost a century and a half.

  Great answer SBD. 
However, I suspect it is a trick question - Freud asked for research that showed that CO2 is *solely* responsible.  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Great answer SBD. 
> However, I suspect it is a trick question - Freud asked for research that showed that CO2 is *solely* responsible.

  Where's the trust gone in this relationship?  :Console:    :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Great answer SBD. 
> However, I suspect it is a trick question - Freud asked for research that showed that CO2 is *solely* responsible.

   :Biggrin:  
Didn't see that.   :Doh:   there I go telling people more than they ever wanted to know.....yet again  :Laugh bounce spin:  
Mind you.....who's the numpty (on either side of the lunatic asylum) that would ever suggest CO2 is *solely* responsible for the greenhouse effect or even AGW?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> For the last time.  Again.... 
> Simple high school physics demonstrates that our atmosphere works like a blanket.  Without it there'd be a vacuum and it'd be a little bit chilly - like on the moon.  With it we are demonstrably warm and comfortable.  The basics of this were demonstrated way back in the first half of the 19th century so we can that the link between 'greenhouse gases' and atmospheric temperature dates from that time.  Quite when it was labelled 'the greenhouse effect' I have no idea.  Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
> So this is direct link that legitimately considered fundamental by pretty much everyone. 
> The next step in the chain is the step from the natural greenhouse effect to anthropogenic global warming.  And it's here that Freud and his friends seem to have the greatest drama.  And that's fair enough I suppose. 
> The basics are that there's four major contributing factors to the natural greenhouse effect that is fundamental to life on Earth.  By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect, they are: 
> water vapor, 3670%
> carbon dioxide, 926%
> methane, 49%
> ozone, 37% 
> ...

  This was a great answer, but not really relevant to the topic of AGW Theory. 
But aside from the vague references in your answer, the atmospheric effects described generally explain these phenomena.   
I should have specified rather than assumed the continuity of the discussion would cover it, but the question was referring to the "direct link" of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions to recent arbitrarily measured changes in temperature? 
This is the fun part:   

> And this better insulation is being demonstrated by the observation that the global air temperature trend over the last fifty years or so has typically been in the upwards direction.

  Like I said, very vague.  :Confused:   
Wouldn't want to define how it is "demonstrated" and throw some numbers in there by any chance?  :Smilie:  
(Oh, yeh, let's just stick to AGW Theory, shall we?)  :Biggrin:   
Nearly forgot this but:   

> In answer to your question, Freud.....if you pump your house full of CO2 in an effort to heat it....you'll fail. Firstly, you'll be dead. Secondly, it won't heat anything as there's no energy source - but it will slow down further temperature loss from the house compared to a normal breathable atmosphere. But then I reckon you're smart enough to know that for yourself

  I dunno about full, I was thinking more about 10,000 parts per million, as opposed to the 385 parts per million outside, or the 450 parts per million we've been told this dangerous poison will reach.  10,000 parts per million should make me nice and drowsy, but as you reckon it's not going to warm anything up, might as well not bother. 
Hell, the crazies at the link below reckon I could go to 20,000 parts per million of pure CO2, but I'm not gonna risk it.  :No:   Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
And I'm flattered, but you've definitely overestimated me, I'm not that smart.  A smart person would have jumped on the bandwagon and be making a squillion taxing people for breathing out fresh air, think Stern, Gore, Flannery, etc.etc. These guys are smart, I'm a poor schmuck struggling to heat the house.  :Laugh bounce spin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Didn't see that.    there I go telling people more than they ever wanted to know.....yet again  
> Mind you.....who's the numpty (on either side of the lunatic asylum) that would ever suggest CO2 is *solely* responsible for the greenhouse effect or even AGW?

  You mean Numpty's, plural.  The list is long and distinguished.  But what would you think was the problem if a government policy was called the "Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme".  
"The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) legislation introduced to Parliament on 2 February 2010,puts a price on carbon in an efficient way throughout the economy. It uses a cap and trade emissions trading mechanism to limit carbon pollution."  How does the CPRS work? - Think Change 
Think Numpty?  :Slap2:

----------


## Dr Freud

I *was* laughing at this:  *"CULLING the feral animals that burp and fart their way around Australia's outback could eliminate billions of tonnes of carbon emissions, an environmental group says.* "  Culling farting feral animals could curb carbon, Pew says | Herald Sun 
Then I giggled at the irony of greenies advocating killing little animals for breathing and farting.  :Biggrin:  
Then I gasped when I realised I was a feral animal that burped and farted it's way around Australia's outback.  :Shock:  :Shock:  :Shock:   
Where will these crazies stop?  :Chase:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Appreciate the concern Jago, but the Stillnox will bring me down soon.  
> But news just in, a journalist actually figured out what hypocrisy means:  *hypocrisy  * *1.* the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc., contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety *2.* an act or instance of this  
> "This points to the more basic assumption underlying both versions of the tax, which amounts to Gillard's (and Kevin Rudd's) even bigger hypocrisy. 
> For, rather than struggling with the two clunky variations of the tax's name, there is a much simpler, much more accurate name. It should be called the China Prosperity Tax. Or, perhaps, with all due deference to the events of the 1930s, the China Co-Prosperity Tax. 
> In concept, it is based entirely on the belief -- hope? -- that China will keep on booming. That it will consume, and this is crucial: ever more and more of our coal and iron ore. 
> No China boom, no high commodity prices as "estimated" by Treasury; no super profits; no resource tax revenues. And, it's worth adding, no budget surplus.
> It is not sufficient for China to maintain some growth in its economy, far less just sustain the level of its current activity. It has to keep growing at around 10 per cent a year, give or take a percentage point or two either way, every year. Even one year of "time out" would be devastating for commodity prices and our tax revenues. 
> Gillard's Great Hypocrisy sits at the centre of this Great Expectation: that whatever coal and iron ore we sell to China today, we will be selling rising multiples of them tomorrow, in 2020 and beyond. 
> This is coal and iron ore that is embedded carbon dioxide. So, Gillard, and Rudd before her, have built their hoped-for return to budget surplus and future national prosperity on, in effect, demanding that China -- already the world's biggest "polluter" -- pumps ever-rising volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere. 
> ...

  
Coal and Iron Ore export volumes are skyrocketing even higher than predicted before:  What has changed is a very substantial and strong outlook for a couple of our key commodities as we go forward. And that's the truth of it. 
Thanks Swannie, I guess we gotta kill a whole lot more of those breathing and farting critters now.   :Minigun:  :Chick:

----------


## Dr Freud

*"FIRST the bad news - scientists are now 99 per cent certain mass extinction events on Earth are as regular as clockwork... * ...According to what they've seen, life on Earth is wiped out every 27 million years.  *It's not going to be global warming that finishes us all off, either.* 
Unfortunately for our planet, it passes through a shower of comets every 27 million years, and it very rarely escapes unscathed... 
...The last one occurred 11 million years ago, so at least Doomsday cult members can now set their clocks for the year 16,002,010, rather than the fashionably Hollywood mark of 2012. 
Which gives us all a little breathing space - *if you don't believe in global warming*..."   Life on Earth wiped out every 27 million years - and it's not the fault of Nemesis | Herald Sun 
Stoopid scientists, what would they know.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

"Excuse me, but what's the tearing hurry? We've had a new Prime Minister for five minutes, but we're being rushed off to an election before we can get her measure. Why? Is there a fear, if the election were delayed until October, the gloss would have worn off and we'd see Julia Gillard in a less hopeful and flattering light?  
              Is the new leader's fleeting honeymoon all that stands between Labor and electoral defeat? Is Labor's record in government that bad? Is Tony Abbott such a formidable opponent?  
              I'm not impressed by what we've seen of the Gillard government so far. We've seen the triumph of political expediency over good government. From her first day she's left little doubt three running political sores - the mining tax, resentment of boat people and the vacuum left by Labor's abandonment of its emissions trading scheme - needed to be staunched quick smart if the government's re-election were to be secured...  
...We know, despite her protestations, climate change won't be one of her second-term priorities. She says (correctly) we need to put a price on carbon, but then says she won't get ahead of public opinion and won't act on a carbon price until after 2012. Her next term will be spent doing the explaining that should have been done this term..."   Gillard In Rush To Call Election  
Better get this election thing over with before Aussies realise our harmless CO2 emissions are going up, up, up and away.  Super tax = super emissions.  :Superman:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> This was a great answer, but not really relevant to the topic of AGW Theory.

  You're kidding, right? It is exactly the same mechanism.  The 'greenhouse effect' is the natural process.  AGW is essentially our influence on this same process    

> Wouldn't want to define how it is "demonstrated" and throw some numbers in there by any chance?

  The increasing trend in mean global temperature is demonstrated here by our very own Bureau of Meteorology Global climate variability & change - Time series graphs and you can even get the data upon which the plot below is built.  You should check out the actual site (which provides a lot of scope to play with data) but this plot suggests a rising trend in temperature since around 1910 and a 0.4 degree increase over the 1961-1990 mean since 1990.    
The next trick (and the critical part of Frued's argument) is the attribution......what is behind this increasing trend? 
Prime candidates are increased concentrations of greenhouse gases skewing the behaviour of the natural greenhouse effect by holding more heat energy in AND increases in solar energy. Primarily because these are just about the only things that CAN increase mean air temperatures on such a vast scale.  Either a thicker blanket or a better heater.  This is really simple physics. 
Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases has been widely demonstrated (NASA is just one source http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm).....especially since 1950.  For a really up to date look at CO2 measurements keep an eye on AIRS 
In terms of solar energy......the observations over the last few decades indicate that the typical energy output of the sun has increased slightly.  But the increase in output has not been enough on its own to account for a statistically significant portion of the sea surface temperature increase that has been observed.....just not enough watts.  Some of the latest observations are from here The 'Official' VIRGO Home Page! which is bought together here SOHO Data 
So if it isn't a better heater.........then it must be a better blanket.  I know this is a simplistic statement but as I often say.....it's all about basic physics. 
And we move on the the next question......how did the Earth get a better blanket?  I'm not going to go there.  I'm comfortable with the scientific consensus on this one.  It was us. 
The final question is 'what will happen?' Don't know about this one.  To be honest I personally don't really care about the details - I'm simply concerned that it will be different to now and likely not in a way that I'm going to consistently enjoy.  It is fair enough to say though that this is probably the central social, scientific and political question behind all this debate about AGW.

----------


## Dr Freud

> You're kidding, right? It is exactly the same mechanism.  The 'greenhouse effect' is the natural process.  AGW is essentially our influence on this same process 
> The increasing trend in mean global temperature is demonstrated here by our very own Bureau of Meteorology Global climate variability & change - Time series graphs and you can even get the data upon which the plot below is built.  You should check out the actual site (which provides a lot of scope to play with data) but this plot suggests a rising trend in temperature since around 1910 and a 0.4 degree increase over the 1961-1990 mean since 1990. 
> The next trick (and the critical part of Frued's argument) is the attribution......what is behind this increasing trend? 
> Prime candidates are increased concentrations of greenhouse gases skewing the behaviour of the natural greenhouse effect by holding more heat energy in AND increases in solar energy. Primarily because these are just about the only things that CAN increase mean air temperatures on such a vast scale.  Either a thicker blanket or a better heater.  This is really simple physics. 
> Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases has been widely demonstrated (NASA is just one source http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm).....especially since 1950.  For a really up to date look at CO2 measurements keep an eye on AIRS 
> In terms of solar energy......the observations over the last few decades indicate that the typical energy output of the sun has increased slightly.  But the increase in output has not been enough on its own to account for a statistically significant portion of the sea surface temperature increase that has been observed.....just not enough watts.  Some of the latest observations are from here The 'Official' VIRGO Home Page! which is bought together here SOHO Data 
> So if it isn't a better heater.........then it must be a better blanket.  I know this is a simplistic statement but as I often say.....it's all about basic physics. 
> And we move on the the next question......how did the Earth get a better blanket?  I'm not going to go there.  I'm comfortable with the scientific consensus on this one.  It was us. 
> The final question is 'what will happen?' Don't know about this one.  To be honest I personally don't really care about the details - I'm simply concerned that it will be different to now and likely not in a way that I'm going to consistently enjoy.  It is fair enough to say though that this is probably the central social, scientific and political question behind all this debate about AGW.

  Are you sure you weren't a contributing author to the IPCC reports?  :Biggrin:   This summary gave me flashbacks to a lot of what they wrote (albeit without the models).   
Let's see, throw some convenient variables around, ignore reality, cast spurious assertions, and when it comes to actually backing AGW Theory with a causal relationship, everyone starts ducking for cover.  The IPCC just made up some numbers (literally, just made it up).  At least you have plausible deniability, you can just say "I was trusting the consensus". 
I don't trust people easily my friend.  When I was first given some ceramic plates and told they would withstand multiple rounds of 7.62, I took them to the range and put multiple rounds of 7.62 into them.  They worked just fine.  (Swapped for new ones after this btw  :Blush7: ).  They were heavy b@sta@rds so I figured if they were going to slow me down, there better be a good reason.  There was and I wore them. 
Same logic applies here.  When these bozo's wanted to weigh me down, I did some research to make sure the weight was worth carrying.  Guess what.  I ain't wearing this one.  :No:  
If you're willing to rely on trusting someone else's opinion, I'll take the fight to them.  Because once they change their opinion, then I guess yours will change too.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

I have finally finished "Heaven and Earth" by Ian Plimer.  :Happydance:  
It gets a bit heavy in the middle, but well worth the read!  
If you are open minded and want more info about AGW Theory, it's great.  :Question:  
If you are a devout AGW Theory supporter, you will learn a lot about the science and hate Plimer for explaining it to people.  The good news is there are many vagaries and a little hyperbole to pick apart.  :Punching:  
If you are already sceptical, you will probably consider it boringly vindicating.  :Sleepysmileyanim:  
More here:  Heaven and Earth Global Warming... Ian Plimer - $39.95 : Connor Court Publishing, Australian Publisher 
( I suppose I have to declare I have no vested financial interest in this product.  Please get it out of the library).  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

I might try this one next, sounds kinda interesting:  "Activists and even some scientists will tell you that the science behind the expected major warming of the globe is rock solid. In fact, the projections of temperature increases in coming decades are based on entirely unproven forecasting systems which depend on guesses about crucial aspects of the atmosphere behaviour and the all-important oceans. In addition, these forecasts use carbon dioxide emission scenarios that have been generated by economic calculations rather than from science, and parts of which are already hopelessly wrong less than a decade after they were made.   As Mark Lawson explains in this book, in laymans language, this lunacy has been compounded by further forecasts based on these already deeply flawed projections and combined with active imaginations, to produce wild statements about what will happen to plant, animal, bird and marine life, as well as coral reefs, hurricanes, sea levels, agriculture and polar ice caps. The books shows that these projections are little more than fantasy.   On top of all this lunacy activists, aided and abetted by some scientists, have proposed a range of solutions to the supposed problem that are either never going to work, such as an international agreement to cut emissions, or are overly complicated and expensive for no proven return, such as carbon trading systems and wind energy. None of these proposals have been shown to be of any use in reducing carbon emissions, outside of theoretical studies. Where wind energy has been used in substantial amounts overseas the sole, known result has been very expensive electricity for no observed saving in emissions."   *A GUIDE TO CLIMATE CHANGE LUNACY
bad forecasting, terrible solutions 
Mark Lawson* *Paperback, 286 pages*  *Release Date July 26th* *ISBN: 9781921421426*

----------


## Dr Freud

This Red ain't even pretending to be green on the outside.  *"GREEN groups keenly awaiting Julia Gillard's climate change policy are disappointed she mostly ignored the topic in a major agenda-setting speech today.*.. 
...This extraordinary situation raises the disturbing prospect that she has no idea how or why she needs to shift the economy from a pollution-dependent footing to a resilient clean economy...."  Gillard speech cops green flak | The Australian

----------


## Dr Freud

This Get Up skit is hilarious!  :Biggrin:  
Joolia's gonna bleed votes to the greens again if this keeps up.  Then we all just might get a big fat ETS turkey in our Christmas Stocking thanks to Greens in the Senate.     :Merrychristmas:   Coffee with Julia | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

And you guys think it is just me.  The cover up is always the killer.  :Disgust1:  
"By way of preamble, let me remind you where I stand on climate change. I think climate science points to a risk that the world needs to take seriously. I think energy policy should be intelligently directed towards mitigating this risk. I am for a carbon tax. I also believe that the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption. The scandal attracted enormous attention in the US, and support for a new energy policy has fallen. In sum, the scientists concerned brought their own discipline into disrepute, and set back the prospects for a better energy policy.  
 I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause... 
...The Penn State Inquiry exonerating Michael Mann -- the paleoclimatologist who came up with "the hockey stick" -- would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for "lack of credible evidence", it will not even investigate them... 
...Further "vindication" of the Climategate emailers was to follow, of course, in Muir Russell's equally probing investigation.  To be fair, Russell manages to issue a criticism or two. He says the scientists were sometimes "misleading" -- but without meaning to be (a plea which, in the case of the "trick to hide the decline", is an insult to one's intelligence). On the apparent conspiracy to subvert peer review, it found that the "allegations cannot be upheld" -- but, as the impressively even-handed Fred Pearce of the Guardian notes, this was partly on the grounds that "the roles of CRU scientists and others could not be distinguished from those of colleagues. There was 'team responsibility'." Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of the university which houses CRU, calls this "exoneration"... 
...Like Pearce, The Economist rightly draws attention to the failure of the Russell inquiry to ask Phil Jones of the CRU whether he actually deleted any emails to defeat FoI requests. It calls this omission "rather remarkable". Pearce calls it "extraordinary". Myself, I would prefer to call it "astonishing and indefensible"... 
...It's not the extreme or otherwise ill-advised policy recommendations of the greens that have turned opinion against action of any kind, though I grant you they're no help. It's the diminished credibility of the claim that we have a problem in the first place. That is why Climategate mattered. And that is why these absurd "vindications" of the climate scientists involved also matter. 
 The economic burdens of mitigating climate change will not be shouldered until a sufficient number of voters believe the problem is real, serious, and pressing. Restoring confidence in climate science has to come first. That, in turn, means trusting voters with all of the doubts and unanswered questions -- with inconvenient data as well as data that confirm the story -- instead of misleading them (unintentionally, of course) into believing that everything is cut and dried. The inquiries could have started that process. They have further delayed it."  
Full story here:  Climategate and the Big Green Lie - Politics - The Atlantic

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Are you sure you weren't a contributing author to the IPCC reports?   This summary gave me flashbacks to a lot of what they wrote (albeit without the models).   
> Let's see, throw some convenient variables around, ignore reality, cast spurious assertions, and when it comes to actually backing AGW Theory with a causal relationship, everyone starts ducking for cover.  The IPCC just made up some numbers (literally, just made it up).  At least you have plausible deniability, you can just say "I was trusting the consensus". 
> I don't trust people easily my friend.  When I was first given some ceramic plates and told they would withstand multiple rounds of 7.62, I took them to the range and put multiple rounds of 7.62 into them.  They worked just fine.  (Swapped for new ones after this btw ).  They were heavy b@sta@rds so I figured if they were going to slow me down, there better be a good reason.  There was and I wore them. 
> Same logic applies here.  When these bozo's wanted to weigh me down, I did some research to make sure the weight was worth carrying.  Guess what.  I ain't wearing this one.  
> If you're willing to rely on trusting someone else's opinion, I'll take the fight to them.  Because once they change their opinion, then I guess yours will change too.

  
You were right, Freud.  I did overestimate you.

----------


## Dr Freud

> You were right, Freud.  I did overestimate you.

  That's ok.  Happens all the time.  :Biggrin:  
And it is much less damaging than overestimating the strength of a very weak theory.    :Showoff:   :Aerobics:   
Hit those weights... :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

Judgement day is at hand.  No action vs Direct action:  Today is expected to mark the start of up to six weeks for Ms Gillard to set out her case for election as Prime Minister - and the Coalition's Tony Abbott to convince the nation's voters why he should occupy the Lodge. 
No action:   
Direct action:      :Confused:  :Confused:  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

*Election: 21 August 2010.* 
NO climate change policy? 
What are you running away from Joolia?

----------


## Make it work

Has anyone thought to ask the manufacturer of the universe about global warming? 
I think you will find He was well aware of all global functions and malfunctions during the design stage and that the matter is well under control. 
BTW - Global warming, if it is real, is far from man's biggest problem, there are many many more problems that are definitely real and man made but do not get nearly as much attention as the climate.  
Homelessness, hunger, poverty, greed, drugs, alcohol, poor education standards, oppression, racial & gender inequality, world health standards, injustice, divorce rates, peace (or the lack there of), obesity and the breakdown of community just to name a few of man made problems that can be tackled by man for the benefit of mankind.

----------


## PhilT2

Bunjil can fix it? Wow, that's great. But before I hand it over to him can I just check with the people in Aceh and Haiti how that worked for them. If He turns out to be just another primitive tribal myth then we're all screwed, right? Sorry but I'm a big believer in solving our own problems.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Has anyone thought to ask the manufacturer of the universe about global warming? 
> I think you will find He was well aware of all global functions and malfunctions during the design stage and that the matter is well under control. 
> BTW - Global warming, if it is real, is far from man's biggest problem, there are many many more problems that are definitely real and man made but do not get nearly as much attention as the climate.  
> Homelessness, hunger, poverty, greed, drugs, alcohol, poor education standards, oppression, racial & gender inequality, world health standards, injustice, divorce rates, peace (or the lack there of), obesity and the breakdown of community just to name a few of man made problems that can be tackled by man for the benefit of mankind.

   :Handshake:  
The opportunity cost of this farce in terms of the issues you mention is but one of the tragedies with this circus. 
But I do hope you are thick skinned, the vitriole that will be directed your way for not agreeing wholeheartedly with this scam will be considerable.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Bunjil can fix it? Wow, that's great. But before I hand it over to him can I just check with the people in Aceh and Haiti how that worked for them. If He turns out to be just another primitive tribal myth then we're all screwed, right? Sorry but I'm a big believer in solving our own problems.

  Are you also a big believer in scientifically proving we actually have a problem, then determining the cause of that problem, and then finally creating an effective solution to that problem?   :Cool look:

----------


## PhilT2

> Are you also a big believer in scientifically proving we actually have a  problem, then determining the cause of that problem, and then finally  creating an effective solution to that problem?

  Is there another way to work things out? What do you recommend? 
We could all stand around praying to whichever type of sky fairy you believe in. The problem is we all believe in different ones so that little get together could end up like a weekend in Belfast. 
We could get a member of the English nobility to explain it all to us. Should us colonials get our opinions from the mother country? Heard any words of wisdom from Prince Charles lately....ever? 
We could get our information from tabloids and shock jocks in the media. But their real job is entertainment not information and we want to be more than just entertaining don't we? 
I try to be a proper skeptic; I go to the meetings. The scientific method beats all the above as a way of determining what to do. But who do we trust to do the science properly? Because I have a daughter with a disability I have spent twenty years reading and evaluating the research into the causes and treatments of autism. I've had to learn to take some shortcuts to manage the workload. If a scientist is not actually working in the field in question and doesn't have a history of publications in credible journals then reading their work gets low priority. 
Another thing that I hope I've learned in the last sixty years is that I can be wrong. When people see everything on their side of the fence as perfect and everything on the other side as wrong no matter what, then I start to suspect that they have lost their objectivity. Or gone into politics. 
My other job, not the paying one, is as a lobbyist for a disability group. Myself and hundreds of other parents of kids with disabilities have until Aug 21 to ensure that both parties in this election have policies that will provide our kids with the chance of a real education and a real job. But I did say that I would get back to you with some recent research that I genuinely would like to hear your opinion of. And I will, it's just going to be a little longer now, priorities being what they are.

----------


## Make it work

> Bunjil can fix it? Wow, that's great. But before I hand it over to him can I just check with the people in Aceh and Haiti how that worked for them. If He turns out to be just another primitive tribal myth then we're all screwed, right? Sorry but I'm a big believer in solving our own problems.

  Interesting concept, that of solving our own problems. I refer to my previous list of some of those problems and would be interested in hearing your ideas on their solutions. 
As for Aceh and Haiti, think about it this way, if the wealthier, more developed nations had shared their resources and technology, like engineered building design to withstand the conditions, the residents of these less fortunate countries may have not suffered so gravely. It takes a natural disaster of such magnitude to wake us up to their needs. 
Also who is to say that these events were not the work of Satan and that the work of God was in the aid provided. Have you noticed how ordinary people become heroes in these times and how many people talk of Miracles happening. God uses ordinary people to do the extraordinary. 
God's design in nature will automatically repair any effect caused by man digging up old dinosaurs and prehistoric trees for fuel as well as the effects of many thousands of tons of "polluting" gasses that recently came out of the volcano in Iceland, and all the other volcanoes in history. 
Having said that, I do believe that "Civilised" man is far to wasteful and is not using the resources given to him very wisely. I also believe that there should be more done in developing alternate energy sources, if for no other reason, to reduce our dependence on oil and gas as our primary sources of energy and therefore break the monopoly, but we do not need an ETS to do this.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Is there another way to work things out? What do you recommend? 
> We could all stand around praying to whichever type of sky fairy you believe in. The problem is we all believe in different ones so that little get together could end up like a weekend in Belfast. 
> We could get a member of the English nobility to explain it all to us. Should us colonials get our opinions from the mother country? Heard any words of wisdom from Prince Charles lately....ever? 
> We could get our information from tabloids and shock jocks in the media. But their real job is entertainment not information and we want to be more than just entertaining don't we? 
> I try to be a proper skeptic; I go to the meetings. The scientific method beats all the above as a way of determining what to do. But who do we trust to do the science properly? Because I have a daughter with a disability I have spent twenty years reading and evaluating the research into the causes and treatments of autism. I've had to learn to take some shortcuts to manage the workload. If a scientist is not actually working in the field in question and doesn't have a history of publications in credible journals then reading their work gets low priority. 
> Another thing that I hope I've learned in the last sixty years is that I can be wrong. When people see everything on their side of the fence as perfect and everything on the other side as wrong no matter what, then I start to suspect that they have lost their objectivity. Or gone into politics. 
> My other job, not the paying one, is as a lobbyist for a disability group. Myself and hundreds of other parents of kids with disabilities have until Aug 21 to ensure that both parties in this election have policies that will provide our kids with the chance of a real education and a real job. But I did say that I would get back to you with some recent research that I genuinely would like to hear your opinion of. And I will, it's just going to be a little longer now, priorities being what they are.

   

> Is there another way to work things out? What do you recommend?

  There are lots of other much less effective ways to work things out, such as making up numbers to support your opinion when you cannot scientifically prove something, such as the IPCC has done with AGW Theory.  I recommend the 3 steps above.   

> We could all stand around praying to whichever type of sky fairy you believe in. The problem is we all believe in different ones so that little get together could end up like a weekend in Belfast.

  I respect all peoples rights to believe in anything they want, and as I have said previously, I have bet my life on this respect.  We in Australia should thank whoever or whatever we believe in every day to live in a country such as this.  :2thumbsup:   But this has nothing to do with science.   

> We could get a member of the English nobility to explain it all to us. Should us colonials get our opinions from the mother country? Heard any words of wisdom from Prince Charles lately....ever?

  I think everyone should form their own opinion after conducting as much research as possible, from all sources possible.   

> We could get our information from tabloids and shock jocks in the media. But their real job is entertainment not information and we want to be more than just entertaining don't we?

  The media is but one of these possible sources.  I would hope neither you nor anyone else believes everything they read or hear through the media, but the sad thing is I know plenty of people who do.   

> I try to be a proper skeptic; I go to the meetings. The scientific method beats all the above as a way of determining what to do. But who do we trust to do the science properly? Because I have a daughter with a disability I have spent twenty years reading and evaluating the research into the causes and treatments of autism. I've had to learn to take some shortcuts to manage the workload. If a scientist is not actually working in the field in question and doesn't have a history of publications in credible journals then reading their work gets low priority.

  You have my full support and admiration for your efforts in terms of disabilities.  I too have direct experience with both Autism, Asperger's and many other disabilities, in a private and occupational setting.  It would no doubt be unnecessary describing to you the funding imbalances between these issues and the massive waste of money we have seen thrown at just a theory, as opposed to real and pressing everyday health issues for Australians in need.   

> Another thing that I hope I've learned in the last sixty years is that I can be wrong. When people see everything on their side of the fence as perfect and everything on the other side as wrong no matter what, then I start to suspect that they have lost their objectivity. Or gone into politics.

  My experience is that not only can I be wrong, but that I usually am. As soon as I realise this, I change my opinion.  That is what I did with AGW Theory, I started as a supporter, and the more I read, the more my support was validated.  Right up to the part of attribution.  When I realised the whole body of work was based on a foundation of assumption, opinion and deception, very cleverly disguised as facts, I was astounded.  It really shook my faith in science.  Fortunately, I have realised that this deception was very limited in it's scope, but other's merely trust these "experts", but are not deceitful themselves. 
I have no illusions of perfection, but what is perfectly clear is that AGW Theory has not been proven.    

> My other job, not the paying one, is as a lobbyist for a disability group. Myself and hundreds of other parents of kids with disabilities have until Aug 21 to ensure that both parties in this election have policies that will provide our kids with the chance of a real education and a real job. But I did say that I would get back to you with some recent research that I genuinely would like to hear your opinion of. And I will, it's just going to be a little longer now, priorities being what they are.

  Like I said above, full support for your efforts.  But no rush on this issue, even if the computer models are right, we've still got hundreds of years to sort this out.  :2thumbsup:  
And the lads here will tell you, I'm not usually shy about sharing an opinion or two.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Looks like that SA water issue is being resolved???  :Confused:     *"A SECRET plan to dig up dozens of Adelaide roads, compulsorily acquire land, disrupt businesses and erect huge pumping stations in parks will not be released until after the federal election. * Homeowners already caught in the network are being bullied into signing confidentiality agreements, with government agents bailing up retirees after dark with little more than Google Earth maps showing them how their homes will lose value, then leaving without passing on any paperwork to examine.  
People who seek more information are being told to sign documents preventing them from speaking about the issue... 
..."No wonder there has been no public outcry - no one knows what they are doing and they won't know until they do it," Mr Blake said. "The whole process is out of control. Ordinary citizens are being steamrolled by secrecy... 
...Liberal MP for Sturt, Christopher Pyne, and State MP Vickie Chapman will hold a public meeting on August 5 at 6.30pm at the Burnside Community Centre, and are circulating a petition opposing the pumping station.  
"The Labor Party is trying to sneak a massive water pumping station into suburban Wattle Park in the dead of the night with little consultation. The entire project has been veiled in mystery," Mr Pyne said..."   Pipelines to disrupt thousands | Adelaide Now  
Now, what was it that Joolia said:  
"...I'm utterly committed to the service of our people. I grew up in the great state of South Australia. I grew up in a home of hardworking parents. They taught me the value of hard work. They taught me the value of respect. They taught me the value of doing your bit for the community and it is these values that will guide me as Australia's Prime Minister. I believe in a government that rewards those who work the hardest, not those who complain the loudest. I believe in a government that rewards those that day in, day out, work in our factories and on our farms, in our mines and in our mills, in our classrooms and in our hospitals, that rewards that hard work, decency and effort. The people that play by the rules, set their alarms early, get their kids off to school, stand by their neighbours and love their country...  
...A strong and responsible government improving and protecting the essential public services and basic rights our people depend on, including so importantly, their rights at work..."   Julia Gillard's First Speech As Prime Minister | Transcript

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I'm still waiting to hear a logical and well thought rebuttal from Freud of my attempt at explaining attribution on the preceding page....so far all I've got is that I sound like the IPCC....not exactly deep, informative or useful in terms of feedback.  And I think he's actually accusing me of making stuff up. 
So.....why am I wrong?  Why is my analysis of attribution so......well....wrong? Not enough pretty graphs? Too many big words? Too sensible? Too far fetched? 
And if I am wrong........then how does the atmosphere actually work?  Show me some alternative facts?  
The fact is that I don't expect to hear anything useful to me from Freud.....just the same as it doesn't expect to hear anything useful from me.  And if it does then automatic nonono circuit kicks in anyway.....and no-one can fix that.

----------


## PhilT2

Heard this story today about small quantities having a large effect. Context was a discussion about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The analogy is: take an above average person, inject a substance at considerably less than the ratio of less that the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere. Stand back and observe the catastrophic (and fatal) effects of small quantities on a large system. 
Most impressive results are achieved if the injected substance is something like inland taipan venom but the analogy works better if the substance is a drug like morphine, useful at low levels, fatal at others.

----------


## intertd6

> Heard this story today about small quantities having a large effect. Context was a discussion about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The analogy is: take an above average person, inject a substance at considerably less than the ratio of less that the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere. Stand back and observe the catastrophic (and fatal) effects of small quantities on a large system. 
> Most impressive results are achieved if the injected substance is something like inland taipan venom but the analogy works better if the substance is a drug like morphine, useful at low levels, fatal at others.

  Were they selling anti snake venom? because thats the only analogy this story fits.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

After lots of colourful (and flawed) assumptions in your original post, this basically was the attribution you described:   

> And we move on the the next question......how did the Earth get a better blanket? I'm not going to go there. I'm comfortable with the scientific consensus on this one. It was us.

  Accordingly, my response in a nutshell was:   

> Let's see, throw some convenient variables around, ignore reality, cast spurious assertions, and when it comes to actually backing AGW Theory with a causal relationship, everyone starts ducking for cover.  The IPCC just made up some numbers (literally, just made it up).  At least you have plausible deniability, you can just say "I was trusting the consensus".

  And here we go...   

> I'm still waiting to hear a logical and well thought rebuttal from Freud of my attempt at explaining attribution on the preceding page....so far all I've got is that I sound like the IPCC....not exactly deep, informative or useful in terms of feedback.  And I think he's actually accusing me of making stuff up.

  I thought my rebuttal was logical and well thought.  You can trawl through this thread for the numerous posts where I've clearly demonstrated that the IPCC has *not* demonstrated a causal relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and any measured changes in temperature over the last 150 years.  They did literally make up numbers to support their opinion.  You did not, and I did not accuse you of this.  I did correctly state that you place your trust in the enviro-fascientists who did make these numbers up.  Not your fault at all, I too once trusted them.   

> So.....why am I wrong? Why is my analysis of attribution so......well....wrong? Not enough pretty graphs? Too many big words? Too sensible? Too far fetched?

  This is an oversimplification, but in a nutshell, to demonstrate a causal relationship (i.e. attribute the temperature changes to the anthropogenic CO2 emissions), you need to rule out ALL other variables, then satisfy various statistical and methodological criteria, then finally demonstrate the two essential elements of contingency and contiguity.  The IPCC did *not* do this, and neither did you, that's why you are wrong. 
Just remember, this does not disprove AGW Theory either, so I am not saying it categorically is not happening in accordance with the theory.  What I am saying is that the data as we measure it does not support the theory, and the studies in this area have *ALL* failed to demonstrate a causal relationship.   

> And if I am wrong........then how does the atmosphere actually work?  Show me some alternative facts?

  Live outside for just one year.  All your questions will be answered.  If you want historical answers over the last few hundred million years, we have rough guesses.  If you want predictions of the future, there are plenty of psychic mediums or computer models out there.   

> The fact is that I don't expect to hear anything useful to me from Freud.....just the same as it doesn't expect to hear anything useful from me. And if it does then automatic nonono circuit kicks in anyway.....and no-one can fix that.

  As I've said before, this thread is filled with enough information and links to answer any question in relation to this farce.  I'm tired of trawling back through them all to provide links.  Use the search function and all your questions will be answered. 
As for me, I'm always open to new information.  I've spent a long time searching for any validation of this theory, so if you could dig it up, that would be great.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Heard this story today about small quantities having a large effect. Context was a discussion about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The analogy is: take an above average person, inject a substance at considerably less than the ratio of less that the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere. Stand back and observe the catastrophic (and fatal) effects of small quantities on a large system. 
> Most impressive results are achieved if the injected substance is something like inland taipan venom but the analogy works better if the substance is a drug like morphine, useful at low levels, fatal at others.

  Mate, I sympathise with your time constraints, but if you have time, read the whole thread.  These crazy analogies have all been covered before and are what scientists refer to as spurious.  In layman's terms, dodgy, for too many reasons to list here. 
One example, previous atmospheric measurements have gone to many thousands of parts per million with no planetary explosion.  A few hundred is a joke.  :Burnt:

----------


## Dr Freud

> were they selling anti snake venom? Because thats the only analogy this story fits.
> Regards inter

   
lol  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Joolia did the "me too" on asylum policy.  I wonder if she will copy ole' Tones on this one? 
"Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says there will not be a price on carbon in Australia if the Coalition wins Government. 
He says he opposes a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme... 
...He says he doubts India and China will sign up to a binding international agreement to put a price on carbon... 
...The Greens have labelled Mr Abbott "ignorant" about international action on climate change. Senator Christine Milne says both countries are taking steps to cut emissions and Mr Abbott has no credibility.   "Every time he makes statements criticising China and India without understanding what they're doing, then he's simply showing his ignorance and setting the Coalition further behind," she said..."  Abbott says no to carbon price - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   Hey Senator, someone's ignorant!   List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   And check this out for a contemporary update Senator:    Drop in rich countries' emissions caused by recession in 2009 was nullified by steep increases from China and India

----------


## PhilT2

> Mate, I sympathise with your time constraints, but if you have time,  read the whole thread

  Did that before my first post. That's a couple of hours out of my life that I won't get back.  What I found was some baiting, flaming, ad hominem, heaps of quotes from the media, lots of political opinion, some middle east mythology (bible quote) and not much else. Where are the links to the real science done by the real scientists and the credible links to the work that refutes their conclusions. Maybe it's there just buried in all the other crap but I can't find it. 
Sorry if the dig about religion offends anyone. I respect everyones right to have a belief. I don't have to respect the belief itself. There are a lot of stupid beliefs out there. If you're a true skeptic and respect facts and science then religion does not stand up to scrutiny. If you can't apply critical thinking to your beliefs then how can you have confidence in your view on AGW.   

> were they selling anti snake venom? Because thats the only analogy this  story fits.
> Regards inter

  I'll accept that the link with CO2 is weak but it does fit better with the catalytical effect fluorocarbons have on ozone, no?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Now we are getting somewhere, Freud.....at least I think we are. 
I don't think you are querying attribution between CO2 and temperature.  You are querying attribution between humanity and the observation that we do indeed have a better atmospheric blanket due to increased levels of greenhouse gases. True? 
If yes....then read on because all below is predicated on my assumption being correct.  If no....then what's below won't serve you any purpose. 
Figuring out where the greenhouse gases actually come from in order for the planet to get a better blanket is not conceptually difficult - there's only a relatively small number of potential sources for starters. Basically, the natural sources (sinks) and the agents for their release (both human and natural).  The mechanisms and processes of store and release are very easy to define.  The challenging bit has been (and will continue to be) to apply accuracy and precision around the volume of greenhouse gases going which way.  Whilst our knowledge and understanding of the various parts of the process are sufficient enough to be generally confident of relative amounts (big, medium, small for example) going in or out (with the bonus of in some cases knowing more).....we certainly don't know exact volumes down to the nearest tonne...let alone kilogram... 
But it is fair to say that we have a pretty good grasp of the various sources, sinks and trends in their behaviour....if not the precise numbers. 
To date...this is an example of the best we have GCP - Carbon Budget  although I would hope for something similar for the other greenhouse gases 
The question I would ask is.....is absolute precision and accuracy required to make a suite of decisions based on risk?  Or is it sufficient to look at a diagram of our knowledge to date of the greenhouse gas cycle to determine whether it is out of kilter or not. 
The answering the former would provide 'attribution' of human interference in the greenhouse effect (or not) because all parts of the process would be numerically nailed down.  The latter would only provide the most likely players in attribution.  
And the latter is where most of the mainstream climate science and policy has got comfortable.....simply based on the available resources and scientific expediency.  We know enough to be comfortable with our findings....move on to the next important question.  But, of course, this has made many people (like yourself, Freud, it seems) uncomfortable..... 
This question over preferred knowledge (precision vs broad appraisal) isn't a science question......it is a political question.  Because it is a question about risk.  How much do we really need to know about something before we are comfortable with making a decision?  That is a personal question and, in a societal context, a political question.  The only scientific aspect of it is why various people make the decision that they do in relation to this question.

----------


## PhilT2

There's a discussion on co2 here. Scroll down through the comments to see the OP retire to fix his math. Spencer Part2: More CO2 Peculiarities – The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio | Watts Up With That?

----------


## woodbe

Regular readers of this thread will be aware that some posters here regularly and gleefully report that scientific support for AGW is shrinking and that the science is both wrong and somehow shoddy.  
When the facts are analysed, rather than assessed by wilful opinion, there is a somewhat different story:  Expert Credibility in Climate Change (Abstract) (PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA)   

> Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372                      climate researchers and their publication and  citation data to show that (_i_) 9798% of the climate  researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of  ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental                      Panel on Climate Change, and (_ii_) the  relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers  unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that                      of the convinced researchers.

  Full article (PDF) 
Discuss. 
Thanks, I had a fabulous trip walking in wonderful country. 
Unlikely to continue to post here often, as I have other priorities. 
Michael

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Is there another way to work things out? What do you recommend? 
> . But who do we trust to do the science properly?

  Good question see the take on scientific trust here at New Scientist. 
Worth a read Without candour, we can't trust climate science - opinion - 14 July 2010 - New Scientist

----------


## Dr Freud

> Did that before my first post. That's a couple of hours out of my life that I won't get back.  What I found was some baiting, flaming, ad hominem, heaps of quotes from the media, lots of political opinion, some middle east mythology (bible quote) and not much else. Where are the links to the real science done by the real scientists and the credible links to the work that refutes their conclusions. Maybe it's there just buried in all the other crap but I can't find it.

  Real science? Real scientists? Credible links?  :Pointlaugh:  
You do know this thread is about AGW Theory and the ETS?   :Biggrin:    

> Sorry if the dig about religion offends anyone. I respect everyones right to have a belief. I don't have to respect the belief itself. There are a lot of stupid beliefs out there. If you're a true skeptic and respect facts and science then religion does not stand up to scrutiny. If you can't apply critical thinking to your beliefs then how can you have confidence in your view on AGW.

  This is indicative of the confusion of proponents of AGW Theory.  The problem created by this whole fiasco is that due to the total lack of evidence proving this theory, we now all say whether we "believe" or not.  This is not the realm of science.  This is not the realm of critical thinking.  It is the realm of "belief" and "faith.  Religion does not need to stand up to scrutiny.  No-one should have to "prove" their belief systems scientifically.  This is like having a PCA run to determine if you love your family.  It is moronic.  Of course you love them, just as I love mine, but can we scientifically prove it.  You don't have to prove it to me, I "believe" it already.  I need apply no more critical thinking to this.  These beliefs can happily co-exist with each other, that's why I leave people free to believe whatever they want (as long as they don't want to tax me for it  :Annoyed: ). 
Now, let's take a walk on the wild side.  Science is very different.  Now if you want to propose or support an allegedly scientific theory, you had better come well armed with some serious numbers.  :Wink 1:  
As for my own beliefs, they would probably give you nightmares, but I generally refer to them as auto-monotheistic.  :Biggrin:  
But my namesake would probably call this narcissistic.  :Shock:    

> I'll accept that the link with CO2 is weak but it does fit better with the catalytical effect fluorocarbons have on ozone, no?

  No.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Now we are getting somewhere, Freud.....at least I think we are.

  You thought wrong.  :Biggrin:    

> I don't think you are querying attribution between CO2 and temperature. You are querying attribution between humanity and the observation that we do indeed have a better atmospheric blanket due to increased levels of greenhouse gases. True?

  False on too many levels to go into.  Please search the thread for some of this stuff.  Seriously people, has the good Mr Watson deleted all this stuff since I last looked.   :Shock:  CO2 in a *controlled* setting increases plant growth and assists in maintaining temperature.  Contrary to greenie philosophy, we do not *control* the planet.  We don't even know how it works yet.  :No:   That's why I'm freezing my nuts off with this *historically low* level of CO2 floating around.   

> If yes....then read on because all below is predicated on my assumption being correct. If no....then what's below won't serve you any purpose.

  No! But I read on anyway, cos that's the kinda lunatic I am.  :Biggrin:  
I dunno how many ways I need to say this.  All the conjecture, supposition, assumption, opinion, qualification, guesstimation, and making up stuffation *does not matter!* 
Science itself, not me, demands proof.  Proof consists of a causal relationship.  Hell, I'd settle for a spurious bivariate correlation right now, just to get the ball rolling (I might post some actually, just to get this rockshow back on the road).  We could then work our way through the PCA and regressions before this thing falls apart again.  
Please understand, I have no issue with the planet doing what it's always done, *change!* 
Rather than describing how the carbon cycle works, how about you just cite some real world evidence (i.e. reality) showing how anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causally responsible for all of the measured changes in temperature since we invented thermometers?  :Banghead:  
Contrary to greenie philosophy, this is not political, this is science.  Greenies make this argument because they have *no* scientific evidence proving AGW Theory, so try to obfuscate with this "political" accusation in an attempt to defend their indefensible position. 
Ask yourself, does this sound like a political question or a scientific question: 
"...how about you just cite some real world evidence (i.e. reality) showing how anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causally responsible for all of the measured changes in temperature since we invented thermometers?"   :Sweatdrop:

----------


## Dr Freud

> There's a discussion on co2 here. Scroll down through the comments to see the OP retire to fix his math. Spencer Part2: More CO2 Peculiarities  The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio | Watts Up With That?

  You really need to understand this point.  There is nothing, nil, zilch, zero evidence proving anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the cause of temperature changes since we invented thermometers.  I admire these antagonists of AGW Theory for giving this farce the argument it doesn't deserve, but anthropogenic CO2 has not yet been determine to be the cause of any temperature changes.  Yet these lunatics are arguing over where the CO2 came from, and how it moves around.  Who gives a flying F :Innocent: ? How about these bozo's cowboy up with some real numbers, not those generated by some psychic computer.  
The level that this farce continues to grow astounds me more and more everyday.  The one glimmer of hope is that if terraforming is so easy, I can at least change planets with little effort and escape these muppets.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Regular readers of this thread will be aware that some posters here regularly and gleefully report that scientific support for AGW is shrinking and that the science is both wrong and somehow shoddy.  
> When the facts are analysed, rather than assessed by wilful opinion, there is a somewhat different story:  Expert Credibility in Climate Change (Abstract) (PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA)    Full article (PDF) 
> Discuss. 
> Thanks, I had a fabulous trip walking in wonderful country. 
> Unlikely to continue to post here often, as I have other priorities. 
> Michael

  Your witty retorts were sorely missed (unlike your views on AGW Theory :Biggrin: ) .  That was some walk.  Our country?  But enough chit chat... :Biggrin:  
Your article starts with this: 
"Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking *agreement* among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC."  *"a·gree·ment* _n. _ *1.*  The act of agreeing. *2.*  Harmony of opinion; accord. *3.*  An arrangement between parties regarding a course of action; a covenant." 
This is *not* science, but it *is* wrong and shoddy to pretend that because some people agree that something is real, that this is scientific proof that it is real.  It is agreed opinion, not scientific proof. A wise man once said:   _"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing._" *Anatole France.* 
He was very wise, he also said this: _
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't."_ *Anatole France.*   :France:  
P.S. Don't spose you took Plimer's "Heaven and Earth" for some light reading on your walk?  :Sneaktongue:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Your article starts with this: 
> "Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking *agreement* among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC."

  Sorry, forgot to mention this latest obfuscation. 
Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) now???  :Confused:  
No global? No warming? No theory? 
I guess humans causing localised cooling is now a fact!  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:   
Someone better tell Google, I gave up after five pages.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Judgement day is at hand.  No action vs Direct action:  Today is expected to mark the start of up to six weeks for Ms Gillard to set out her case for election as Prime Minister - and the Coalition's Tony Abbott to convince the nation's voters why he should occupy the Lodge. 
> No action:   
> Direct action:

  And the winner of the Green's preferences goes to: 
"Labor has agreed to give the Greens their preferences in all Senate contests in return for the Greens' support in more than 50 marginal Lower House seats.  Nationals say Greens will 'run the country' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
Greens now support the party with NO climate change policy??? 
Who woulda picked that!  :Biggrin:  
Tony Abbott is now the Greenest political leader in this election.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

> This is *not* science, but it *is* wrong and shoddy to pretend that because some people agree that something is real, that this is scientific proof that it is real.  It is agreed opinion, not scientific proof.

  Nice obfuscation Freud. 
The Article was never represented as science, it is an analysis of the numbers. These scientists are not actively 'agreeing' with each other, but they are individually finding support for AGW through the results of their research.  _Based on 1,372                      climate researchers._ _9798% of the climate  researchers most actively publishing in the field  support the tenets of  ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental                       
Panel on Climate Change._ 
Of course that would be IPCC WG1. I'm sure you know that, but just thought I'd spell it out so we don't have to endure another Himalaya/Amazon/Glacier-Gate red herring chase. 
You could always be right, but I'm not liking your odds.  :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Ask yourself, does this sound like a political question or a scientific question: 
> "...how about you just cite some real world evidence (i.e. reality) showing how anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causally responsible for all of the measured changes in temperature since we invented thermometers?"

  I've asked.  And I've asked around too.  And the consensus is....that it isn't a question.  
So what was the question?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The Article was never represented as science...These scientists are not actively 'agreeing' with each other...You could always be right...

   :Biggrin:  :Shock:  :Biggrin:  
But seriously, if they had two relevant facts to rub together, they may actually be able to generate some real heat. 
Then they could publish just one paper, that's right, just one! 
Because that's all it would take to prove this theory.  But until then, we can engage in meta-analyses and "surveys" of scientific works till the cows come home (damn emitting cows at that).

----------


## Dr Freud

> I've asked.  And I've asked around too.  And the consensus is....that it isn't a question.  
> So what was the question?

  Then that wasn't the answer?  :Laughing1:     

> *
> I seek not to know the answers, but to understand the questions.  Kwai Chang Kaine.*

----------


## Dr Freud

*"TONY Abbott's two big promises on a carbon tax and WorkChoices are essentially unbreakable if he wins the election.                  * His promise not to put a tax on carbon is by far the more important and would save all Australians potentially thousands of dollars a year. 
At its most basic a promise not to have another GST-style tax on everything is entirely within his and an Abbott government's control. He doesn't have the tax, we don't have the tax. 
In direct contrast, any attempt to go back to WorkChoices would be doomed to failure. There is no way that could get through a Labor-Greens dominated Senate... 
...Unlike the GST, a carbon tax is not about raising revenue. It has one purpose and one purpose alone - to increase the price you pay for your electricity... 
...Let that sink in. The carbon price/tax mob want you to pay much more for your existing electricity, simply so that we can all pay the same higher price for additional electricity... 
...So if you were paying $1000 a year for electricity it would become $2000. Plus in those very stupid states such as Victoria which have imposed so-called 'smart meters' the extra you are already paying for them. 
But a really meaningful carbon tax would have to be more like $100-$125 a tonne. That would at least triple your power bills. The $1000 cost would become $3000. The $2000 become $6000. 
And I haven't begun to detail what that would do to jobs, to investment, to all your basic living situations, such as access to healthcare and schools... 
...If we reduced our emissions to zero, it would make absolutely no difference to the world's climate. Today, tomorrow, ever... 
...So there is a very real choice. Abbott is promising not to double or triple what you pay for your electricity.  *Julia Gillard and her new partner Bob Brown are promising to do exactly that; to double or triple your power bills. She just won't tell you how she plans to 'move forward' on that.*"   Tony Abbott's powerful gambit | Herald Sun

----------


## Dr Freud

Read it and weep. 
Read it now, weep after it happens.  :Cry:   Dangers of a Green signal | Herald Sun

----------


## andy the pm

> *"TONY Abbott's two big promises on a carbon tax and WorkChoices are essentially unbreakable if he wins the election.*  
> His promise not to put a tax on carbon is by far the more important and would save all Australians potentially thousands of dollars a year. 
> At its most basic a promise not to have another GST-style tax on everything is entirely within his and an Abbott government's control. He doesn't have the tax, we don't have the tax. 
> In direct contrast, any attempt to go back to WorkChoices would be doomed to failure. There is no way that could get through a Labor-Greens dominated Senate... 
> ...Unlike the GST, a carbon tax is not about raising revenue. It has one purpose and one purpose alone - to increase the price you pay for your electricity... 
> ...Let that sink in. The carbon price/tax mob want you to pay much more for your existing electricity, simply so that we can all pay the same higher price for additional electricity... 
> ...So if you were paying $1000 a year for electricity it would become $2000. Plus in those very stupid states such as Victoria which have imposed so-called 'smart meters' the extra you are already paying for them. 
> But a really meaningful carbon tax would have to be more like $100-$125 a tonne. That would at least triple your power bills. The $1000 cost would become $3000. The $2000 become $6000. 
> And I haven't begun to detail what that would do to jobs, to investment, to all your basic living situations, such as access to healthcare and schools... 
> ...

  What a load of absolute crap - not one acurate comment in there. The reason electricity prices are going up is the decades of lack of investment in the infrastructure, both generating and transmission, but then the media in this country has never let the truth or accuracy stand in the way of a good story...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

<sigh>   Terry McCrann. 
Here we were quietly having a meaningful debate about emission trading and then Freud goes and sullies the water with the personal opinion of this pillock. 
I'm honestly mystified by the fear associated with a carbon tax (unless its actually all about selling newspapers and advertising...in which case.....all good - shoot out the lights & party).  Tax is not a one way street as far as my understanding of economic theory goes.  We pay tax to the Gov so that they provide services. So if we pay tax on carbon then that obligates a government (red, blue or green) to do something about 'carbon' on our behalf.  Not simply disappear it into some superannuation like black hole where it is isolated from doing any good.     
But then it's all moot.....since it simply won't happen whichever government we end up with.  Nothing to discuss. Nothing to complain about.  Move on, sheep.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> "...how about you just cite some real world evidence (i.e. reality)  showing how anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causally responsible for all  of the measured changes in temperature since we invented thermometers?"

  The problems, Freud (as you well know) with addressing this question is that a) anthropogenic CO2 is not solely responsible for 100% of the change in global mean temps;  b) most of the attribution analysis is conducted using models....an approach that don't ideologically support and c) is summarised in documents produced by an organisation (the IPCC) that you also don't ideologically support.......so frankly I reckon I'm flogging a dead ass. 
Still and all.....the Wikipedia page on Attribution does have a very useful set of references (there is no single smoking gun) Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and does include this rather interesting attached graphic (that did of course result from model analysis). 
Frankly, I suspect, you want something you can't have......which is a simple answer.  Plus even if we could present that simple answer, I suspect, you still wouldn't accept it. 
The truth of the matter is that your acceptance (and that of your peers) of attribution isn't actually required.  The world runs just fine without it......has done for quite a few years now. 
So where are we with emission trading?  Oh that's right.....we can shut this thread down now until 2015 when next it might be considered.

----------


## Dr Freud

> What a load of absolute crap - not one acurate comment in there.

  Not one? Really? 
"When the wind don't blow, the power don't flow." 
So your argument is that wind turbines can generate electricity with no wind?  :Confused:    

> The reason electricity prices are going up is the decades of lack of investment in the infrastructure, both generating and transmission

  You may have misread (or not read) this article.  It was about projected future price rises directly attributable to a carbon tax.  It did not argue that there were no other inputs to price rises.  If anything, it indicated that there were, with the reference to the "dumb meters" in Victoria.  Read a bit more stuff here:  Climate heating up on Gillard | The Australian   

> but then the media in this country has never let the truth or accuracy stand in the way of a good story...

  Too true my friend, too true!  :2thumbsup:  
Election campaigns dig a hole in the ground so they lower this bar even further.

----------


## Dr Freud

> <sigh>   Terry McCrann. 
> Here we were quietly having a meaningful debate about emission trading and then Freud goes and sullies the water with the personal opinion of this pillock.

  If we banned the opinions of pillocks, this thread wouldn't have got past page 1.  :Biggrin:  
I'll leave it to future philosopher's to determine if it is actually possible to have a "meaningful debate about emission trading".  How exactly do you trade a natural molecule that is more available than beach sand?   

> I'm honestly mystified by the fear associated with a carbon tax (unless its actually all about selling newspapers and advertising...in which case.....all good - shoot out the lights & party). Tax is not a one way street as far as my understanding of economic theory goes. We pay tax to the Gov so that they provide services. So if we pay tax on carbon then that obligates a government (red, blue or green) to do something about 'carbon' on our behalf. Not simply disappear it into some superannuation like black hole where it is isolated from doing any good.

  Obligated, huh? Not disappear, like overseas huh?   

> *Emissions 'could rise' under ETS*  
>   Government data appears to show that under the ETS, Australia's emissions would rise from 553 million tonnes in 2000 to 585 million tonnes by 2020.  
>   The target to cut emissions by 5 per cent is only reached by paying other countries to reduce their emissions.  
>   Junior climate change minister Greg Combet was unable to guarantee the ETS would reduce Australia's emissions by 2020.  
>   When asked how much of the emission reduction would come from domestic sources, he said: "That's up to the market".    Full story here.   This just gets better and better!

    

> But then it's all moot.....since it simply won't happen whichever government we end up with.  Nothing to discuss. Nothing to complain about.  Move on, sheep.

  Tony Abbott is certainly adamant we will have no carbon tax.  :2thumbsup:  
Are you saying that Joolia Gillard is lying to the Australian people and secretly intends to "me too" Abbott's policy after the election if she wins?  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The problems, Freud (as you well know) with addressing this question is that a) anthropogenic CO2 is not solely responsible for 100% of the change in global mean temps;

  So what percentage is it responsible for?   

> b) most of the attribution analysis is conducted using models....an approach that don't ideologically support and c) is summarised in documents produced by an organisation (the IPCC) that you also don't ideologically support.......so frankly I reckon I'm flogging a dead ass.

  I support science.  Science does not have the luxury of ideologies.  *sci·ence**
a.*  The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.   *i·de·ol·o·gy* *1.*  The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture. 
See the difference. 
So you're right, I don't support psychic computers pushing the ideologies of their enviro-fascientist masters.  But none of these theatrics are in the realm of scientific evidence proving AGW Theory.   

> Still and all.....the Wikipedia page on Attribution does have a very useful set of references (there is no single smoking gun) Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and does include this rather interesting attached graphic (that did of course result from model analysis).

  Nice picture.  Looks like something drawn up by Paul the psychic octopuscomputer.  :Snorkel:  
But seriously, the IPCC couldn't prove it, no-one at Copenhagen ratified it, so I don't think Wikipedia's gonna swing it.   

> Frankly, I suspect, you want something you can't have......which is a simple answer. Plus even if we could present that simple answer, I suspect, you still wouldn't accept it.

  Frankly, I just want a scientific answer.  I've already alluded to Ockham's razor, so parsimony can take care of itself.   

> The truth of the matter is that your acceptance (and that of your peers) of attribution isn't actually required. The world runs just fine without it......has done for quite a few years now.

  My friend, I am glad you have finally agreed on this point.  The planet will keep going around and around the giant nuclear explosion, getting warmer and cooler at various times, just as it always has, whether us hairless apes are here or not. 
That said, if some bozo's propose a theory that claims attribution of one variable effecting another, then it is this theory that *requires* attribution, not me. This is called science.  :2thumbsup:     

> So where are we with emission trading? Oh that's right.....we can shut this thread down now until 2015 when next it might be considered.

  What deal did Joolia do with the Greens to likely give them the balance of power in the Senate?   :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

Don't breathe out. 
Don't fart. 
Don't eat?  Green diet push angers experts | The Australian  *"AUSTRALIA'S top health standards body has been accused of subverting food science to fit a green agenda.                  *                                It did this by suggesting caps on meat and fish intake on environmental grounds -- even though pregnant women risk nutritional deficiencies as a result." 
Covert population control maybe?  :Doh:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Article in latest ECOS magazine from the CSIRO entitled 'Can we reduce emissions with an emission trading scheeme?'  http://www.ecosmagazine.com/view/dsp...=2010&direct=1 
Worth a read....

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So what percentage is it responsible for? 
> So you're right, I don't support psychic computers pushing the ideologies of their enviro-fascientist masters.  But none of these theatrics are in the realm of scientific evidence proving AGW Theory. 
> Nice picture.  Looks like something drawn up by Paul the psychic octopuscomputer.

  According to that particular graph from that particular model.....about 0.7 of one degree which makes it about 70% of the positive drivers.....no idea what the level of confidence is around that prediction but I'll wager that if it got this far it'd have to be reasonably high. 
As for computer models......all streams of science...be it climate, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics......whatever......they all rely in some way on computer models just like the ones you fear.  In fact, most of the climate models are merely derivations of models used previously in other physical science streams for decades.  They are far far far more mainstream than you obviously care to know. And they sure as hell aren't psychic. 
Indulge me.....before crying 'invisible black box psychic turkey' when someone talks about computer modelling....trying learning a little more about them.  It'll do you good.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Covert population control maybe?

  ....that statement is taking absurd to a new level of.......ridiculous.  Honestly, that's as polite as I can be.... 
In an effort to provide an intelligent response....(wouldn't be hard)  Veggieworld: Why eating greens won't save the planet - environment - 20 July 2010 - New Scientist

----------


## jago

Is there ayway we can offset this thread, its creating its own smog  :Doh:

----------


## watson

Yep......we clever ones print every post....and then burn them.......and then stamp the ashes into the garden.......viola!!!........zero carbon footprint. 
(i'm joking)

----------


## jago

Watson my  dear fellow I print it off and use it for bum wrap, well I wont run out for the foreseable future now will I !   :Biggrin:

----------


## jago

> .zero carbon footprint.

  I totally disagree, you will still have traces of carbon on your Sole ..man! :Wink 1:

----------


## watson

There ya go...at least I helped the thread get to 3500 posts  :Rotfl:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

You spin me right round baby right round like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a.....SSSSSSSHHHRFFFFFFFXHXHXXXXXXXXXXKKK 
....give that man a cigar.

----------


## jago

Cohiba will be followed by my Uppman* just dont tell the wife I'm still smoking them!  *

----------


## wolfbunny

What ya been talkin bout! :Confused:  I've only just arrived here :Shock: 
When the sun doesn't come up tomorrow start to worry :Cool: 
Just like the seasons weather patterns go in cycles
It's one in all in isn't it? 
Whatever government regs are put into force in the land of Oz ie make the cheque out to the Gillard/Rudd/Abbott govt. whoever is in charge :No:  if the other countries down play ball or vise versa you got nothing, except the voiuce in your own head!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Welcome to the Peanut Paddock....may you spread your brand of fertiliser well and with great gusto.

----------


## wolfbunny

Which ways the wind blowing

----------


## Dr Freud

> Article in latest ECOS magazine from the CSIRO entitled 'Can we reduce emissions *with* an emission trading scheeme?'   http://www.ecosmagazine.com/view/dsp...=2010&direct=1 
> Worth a read....

  Already asked and answered.  :Biggrin:    

> Junior climate change minister Greg Combet was unable to guarantee the ETS would reduce Australia's emissions by 2020.

  Let's just call it an innocent typo.  :Smilie:  
But seriously, for something called Anthropogenic *Global* Warming Theory, there wasn't much talk of any *global* solutions. 
Except for this bit: 
"Philip Sutton believes that the transition to
a safe climate could happen in as little as
seven years." 
Really?  
Altering standards in Australia could lead to a safer *global* climate in 7 years?   :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

> According to that particular graph from that particular model.....about 0.7 of one degree which makes it about 70% of the positive drivers.....no idea what the level of confidence is around that prediction but I'll wager that if it got this far it'd have to be reasonably high.

  Perhaps my questions was unclear, as it appears you've provided an answer to the question: What does one assumption based computer model predict might be a reasonable guess within controlled parameters of the percentage attributable only to the limited variables assessed? 
Perhaps rephrasing it may help? 
As you have indicated that the average measured temperature increase over the last 150 years is not 100% attributable to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, what percentage of this temperature increase has been proved to be caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions?   

> As for computer models......all streams of science...be it climate, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics......whatever......they all rely in some way on computer models just like the ones you fear. In fact, most of the climate models are merely derivations of models used previously in other physical science streams for decades. They are far far far more mainstream than you obviously care to know. And they sure as hell aren't psychic. 
> Indulge me.....before crying 'invisible black box psychic turkey' when someone talks about computer modelling....trying learning a little more about them. It'll do you good.

  I have mentioned many times in this thread (unless the good Mr Watson has unleashed the IT Langoliers) that computer models have their place in science, nay the world in general. 
But suggesting that the output from a computer model can be considered to prove a real world chaotic phenomenon with unknown inputs, ill-defined parameters, and evolving outcomes, is beyond comprehension.  I've learnt a lot about them, and has it has done me good.  It is good to know their limitations.   
Consider that the Dirty Harry model.  :Throw:

----------


## Dr Freud

> ....that statement is taking absurd to a new level of.......ridiculous.  Honestly, that's as polite as I can be.... 
> In an effort to provide an intelligent response....(wouldn't be hard)  Veggieworld: Why eating greens won't save the planet - environment - 20 July 2010 - New Scientist

  Nice article, nice summary: 
"When you add this to the growing population, the United Nations' best guess is that by 2050, the world will need to more than double its production of meat - an increase that would be environmentally disastrous."  
Meanwhile: Absurd? Ridiculous? Don't be polite, give those wacko greenies both barrels.   The issue of population, or more accurately overpopulation, is a really, really sensitive subject, so I want to state from the outset that this article is not directed to those people with children, rather those that are considering having children; be it their first or adding to their clan. What's done is done, what's not can be prevented.   If youre not sure you want to be a parent, or the reasons youre planning on having children are due mostly to social pressure, maybe you should reconsider.  Babies are a big responsibility and its important for their parents to know they really want them and know they can take care of them.  After all, raising another human being is resource intensive!   Many experts believe that, since Europeans and Americans have such a lopsided impact on the environment, the world would benefit more from reducing their populations than by making cuts in developing countries.   People often talk about their right to have children. Nature doesn't recognize or care about those rights and deals with overpopulation in ways we find quite cruel.   Throughout history, different cultures have celebrated birth as a unique moment signifying the joy of life. The reinterpretation of birth as a form of greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour speaks to today's degraded imagination, where carbon-reduction becomes the supreme moral imperative. Once every newborn baby is dehumanised in this way, represented as a professional polluter who is a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions, it becomes increasingly difficult to feel anything other than apprehension about the growth of the human race.   JULIA Gillard's comments yesterday put the issue beyond doubt -- she is the first Prime Minister to seek election on the platform of a smaller growing Australia and rejects the current growth model as "irresponsible".   The proof that Gillard is effectively lying about Labor's plans came this week, when she was asked whether she truly would cut immigration.  Her answer: "I don't believe this is an immigration debate."  Pardon? So what is it instead? A debate about sterilising more women? Compulsory euthanasia?   Former Labor leader Mark Latham was rightly scathing: "If it's not an immigration debate, it's no debate. And I tell you what it is; it's a fraud.    Absurd and ridiculous indeed.  :Happydance:

----------


## Dr Freud

"Questions are being asked about the chance of former PM Kevin Rudd being given a ministerial position if Labor is re-elected, after revelations about the way he administered national security... 
...If the Government is re-elected, Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she will give him a job on the frontbench... 
...The National Security Committee of Cabinet is where the gravest decisions of government are made, from the conduct of war to the protection of the borders.  The prime minister chairs the gathering of ministers and senior officials. The inner circle includes the chief of the defence force, the secretary of foreign affairs and the Australian Federal Police commissioner. 
 The heads of Australian intelligence agencies are also there.
 Senior government officials say John Howard was scrupulous in attending the meetings. 
 But Commonwealth officials and cabinet sources have told the ABC that, as prime minister, Mr Rudd showed a casual disregard for the national security committee, at a time when Australia was engaged in a war and wrestling with its border security policy. 
 The ABC has learned that several times the then prime minister allowed his 31-year-old chief of staff Alister Jordan to deputise for him on the committee, when Mr Rudd was late or did not attend at all... 
...The revelations also raise questions about Ms Gillard's role and whether she raised any concerns about key areas of the administration.  
Retired admiral Chris Barrie, former chief of the defence force, says he would expect ministers to pipe up in such a situation. 
 "If it wasn't running right I'd expect those ministers to say something about it," he said..."  Rudd faces cabinet neglect claims - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   *We have this story to thank for finally drawing out Gillard's climate change policy.  Less than 2 hours later, in the middle of the night, the "climate revolution" was "leaked" by parties unknown:*  
"Prime Minister Julia Gillard is set to unveil the ALP's new climate change policy today, two and half months after the Federal Government decided to shelve its emissions trading scheme... 
...In a speech in Brisbane today, the ABC understands Ms Gillard will outline plans to set up a committee of scientists to advise the Government on climate change. 
 The committee will be paired with a citizens' assembly consisting of 100-200 volunteers who will gauge feeling of the community on its attitude towards putting a price on carbon and feed it back to the Government..." 
WOW!!!  :Yippy:  
A committee of scientists to advise the government on climate change??? 
I knew those CSIRO bozo's had no idea what they were talking about.  :Doh:  
Obviously Gillard doesn't place much stock in Wong's (that's Penny Wong who's been kidnapped by aliens  :Shock: ) advice from the IPCC either. 
The best part, 200 volunteers to voice community feeling on imposing a massive useless tax on all Australians that will drive up their electricity prices and general cost of living, thereby reducing their living standards, for *zero* environmental benefit? 
I think you'll get some good feedback on this Joolia.  :Puke:   Gillard to unveil new climate measures - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## Dr Freud

"Her speech, to be given at the University of Queensland, is a sharp repudiation of dumped prime minister Kevin Rudd's do-as-I-say approach and an attempt by Ms Gillard to neutralise the political risks of the climate issue... 
...According to part of Ms Gillard's speech, obtained by The Australian..."  Gillard seeks new climate consensus | The Australian  
Gee, I wonder where they got select parts of Gillard's speech from? 
Still, if the goal of your climate change policy is to distract from damning reports of government incompetence and "neutralise political risks", the environment is not likely to get a look-in.

----------


## Dr Freud

These crazy dudes reckon we can still have babies.  *"JULIA Gillard's focus on a "sustainable population" is an excuse for failing to tackle questions on infrastructure, the environment and social policy, according to two of Australia's leading economists. *                                And one of Labor's three hand-picked population panellists, demographer Graeme Hugo, said population growth was necessary and need not conflict with economic, social and environmental sustainability..."   Population focus a cover for failure, says RBA director | The Australian

----------


## Dr Freud

> ....that statement is taking absurd to a new level of.......ridiculous. Honestly, that's as polite as I can be.... 
> In an effort to provide an intelligent response....(wouldn't be hard)  Veggieworld: Why eating greens won't save the planet - environment - 20 July 2010 - New Scientist

  I noticed that no supporters of AGW Theory spoke out about this nonsense below when it was first highlighted.  Given your recent conversion to describing greeny wacko's as absurd and ridiculous, perhaps you'd now care to direct some vitriole in a well-deserved direction.   

> Im happy to help out where I can champ.      I thought I had seen it all, but I wonder where the AGW Theory protagonists will draw the line when defending the indefensible.     I have said before, children should not be the pawns in this sick game, but RUDD in his Lowy Institute speech and these greenies obviously disagree.          According to Creative Director Fred Claviere, it was a hard choice to use an image this provocative.     But in his own words:  "We have to make people react...it was simply too urgent to not use it."   Maybe you could use scientific evidence instead you freaks!

----------


## Dr Freud

That CO2 stuff is working just like in the computer models?  :Confused:  
"A brutal and historical cold snap has so far caused 80 deaths in South America, according to international news agencies. Temperatures have been much below normal for over a week in vast areas of the continent. In Chile, the Aysen region was affected early last week by the worst snowstorm in 30 years. The snow accumulation reached 5 feet in Balmaceda and the Army was called to rescue people trapped by the snow."     Cold snap freezes South America  beaches whitened, some areas experience snow for the first time in living memory | Watts Up With That?

----------


## Dr Freud

Hands up who thinks this climate change policy is good?  About 150 community representatives from a range of ages and backgrounds would be randomly chosen to take part in the panel which appears similar to Mr Rudd's 2020 summit talkfest, where he invited movers and shakers from across the nation to discuss ideas for the future.      Anybody? Anybody? 
Hands up who thinks we are the laughingstock of both AGW Theory believers and sceptics around the world?   :Lolabove:  :Lolabove:  :Lolabove:  :Lolabove:  :Lolabove:

----------


## Dr Freud

True consensus at last!   THE Coalition, Greens and a chorus of economists and environmental groups have condemned Labor's new climate change policy.  Critics, which also included Reserve Bank board member Warwick McKibbin and the Australian Conservation Foundation, labelled today's announcement as, variously, a policy failure, a leadership failure and a delay to make it appear that action is being taken.   GREENS climate change spokeswoman Christine Milne has launched a scathing attack on Julia Gillard's plan to reduce carbon emissions. Describing it as rubbish, she said it gave no certainty to business on when an emissions trading scheme could be introduced or what a carbon price might be.   Gillard's proposal for a 150-member citizens' assembly to try to reach consensus on climate change and the case for a carbon price is the wackiest idea to come along in quite a while.  Kevin Rudd's farcical 2020 Summit looks sensible by comparison. The very reason we are going to the polls on August 21 is to elect a 150-member citizens' assembly. It is called the House of Representatives. What Gillard proposes is to instead outsource what should be the job of Parliament to a group of unelected people, chosen - on the basis of the electoral roll and census data - by "an independent authority". SHE is saying, in effect, that Parliament as an institution no longer works.   Leaders of groups including Greenpeace, WWF and the Australian Conservation Foundation held a joint press conference to state their opposition to the policy.    Joolia, just admit you're a sceptic and be done with it?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Hey Joolia, why are you so scared to announce the Carbon Tax deal you did with the greens?  *"SOARING electricity and gas bills have emerged as the main concern among Australian consumers, as they battle shock heating costs. *                                The size of utility bills has leapfrogged the state of the economy as the key worry for households, a report on consumer confidence reveals...  
...The pain is set to cut even deeper in the next decade because of infrastructure upgrades, increasing demand, and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions...  
...Welfare agencies warn that to cope, some struggling households are choosing between eating and heating..."   Consumers quake at power bills | Herald Sun  
It certainly is a hard sell to convince voters you want to at least double their power bills to stop the planet overheating, when they currently can't afford their home heating bills cos it's freezing outside.  :Confused:  :Confused:  :Confused:   
Your fantastic cop out Joolia proves that reality trumps failed theories every day of the week.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Well if that is all Jules can do and given where it is at in the states I would almost say the whole AGW thing is about to hit a brick wall.  
At last I feel a bit confident that common sense will prevail. 
Cheers Rod

----------


## watson

Apart from the "Rudd talk-fest" similarity to what the PM proposes, I just notice a similarity to the type of "waddayarekun" proposals of the Hawke era. Just old fart recollection...not saying its good or bad. 
That'll be $1:75 please.........(2 cents with inflation).

----------


## PhilT2

Reminds me of the GST, Keating wanted it but couldn't get it past the unions. Hewson tried to sell it as part of "fightback". Howard said "never ever" but did it anyway. We will end up with some form of scheme to limit emissions and the cost will be worn by the taxpayer. No one likes the idea but many recognise it as necessary. 
That'll be $1.75. please plus GST

----------


## jago

> Well if that is all Jules can do and given where it is at in the states I would almost say the whole AGW thing is about to hit a brick wall.  
> At last I feel a bit confident that common sense will prevail. 
> Cheers Rod

  
Don't say that Freud might have to do some renovating at the weekends :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Well if that is all Jules can do and given where it is at in the states I would almost say the whole AGW thing is about to hit a brick wall.  
> At last I feel a bit confident that common sense will prevail. 
> Cheers Rod

  It is close to over, but I dread the thought of a Red government with a Green Senate. 
Gillard needs her mining tax to pay off her debts, and if the Greens will only pass this in a deal with a price on carbon, then two great big new taxes for all of us.  The Reds will gleefully tax big business, and the Greens will gleefully tax carbon.  What neither of these idiotologies have told Australians is that this money comes from us mugs. 
If the Greens don't get the balance of power, no probs. 
If the Reds don't win government, no probs. 
But if both of these happen, which is looking more likely every day, then hello double the big new taxes for everyone. 
What does the poor environment get?  Ask China, India, the USA, etc etc. :Frown:  
I might just have to volunteer for Joolia's Citizen's Committee for Climate to see if I can derail it.  I will obviously have to swear allegiance to the cause to even stand a chance of getting on the committee.  Do you reckon if I link this thread, she will put me in?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Don't say that Freud might have to do some renovating at the weekends

  The sad thing is I still am.  Imagine when I finish my built in robes, I'll have so much more time to dedicate to destroying this myth.  :Shock:  
Won't be in the near future though, I seriously underestimated how long it takes to build drawers from scratch.  I've put together flat pack ones, so figured it couldn't be much harder to custom cut all the bits myself...with a jigsaw.  :Annoyed:  
Still, a great lesson in patience (and stupidity).  Five down, ten to go...  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

I might raise some of these issues once I am on the committee:  Id bet my $80 that drivers arent as green as Brumby pretends | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
But on Q&A tonight, Penny Wong said only "credible" scientists would be able to present information to the committee.  Penny gets to decide who these will be.  No guessing who will and won't be considered "Kruddible".  
Maybe they will also only randomly select from the "credible" citizens as well.  Certainly rules me out.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> If the Reds don't win government, no probs.

  How Freudian, how McCarthyist 
Came out in the end, didn't it Doc?  :Biggrin:  
woodbe predicts the 'Reds' will win with a Green balance of power in at least one of the houses. Should make it interesting watching our witless leaders trying to sweep the environment under the table. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> woodbe predicts the 'Reds' will win with a Green balance of power in at least one of the houses. Should make it interesting watching our witless leaders trying to sweep the environment under the table.

  Me thinks that too. 
I suspect that a vote for the Greens with a preference to the 'Reds' will in effect be a de facto referendum on climate change action. 
It is interesting to note that when the 'reds' were doing badly in the opinion polls, the swing was to the greens rather than to the conservatives.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> woodbe predicts the 'Reds' will win with a Green balance of power in at least one of the houses. Should make it interesting watching our witless leaders trying to sweep the environment under the table.

  Whilst I'm with you on this prediction  (red lower house, green BoP upper house).....I can't help wondering how sustainable this isn't. 
Green are bound to make life ideologically difficult for both red and blue...and Citizen Sheep will get 'frustrated' with the red government and take it out on green. 
Result? Next election.....Blue landslide.  Same thing happened a few years back to beige (Democrat). 
However.....in the long run, the difference will be......zip.  Grass will grow, sheep will frolic in the sun, ambivilous.....

----------


## chrisp

> Result? Next election.....Blue landslide.  Same thing happened a few years back to beige (Democrat).

  Could well happen - especially if Malcolm Turnbull comes out from the cold.  :Smilie:

----------


## Bedford

Well Jools, have I got a deal for you!  Gillard Offers Cash For Old Cars

----------


## Bedford

"Instead, the latest in our dumbing down of policy is  Julia Gillard's plan to take $394 million out of programs to develop  solar energy or carbon capture and storage so she can give $2000 each to  people trading in pre-1995 cars for more fuel-efficient new ones. This,  she says, will cut emissions by 1 million tonnes and save buyers $344  million in fuel costs.
              Two points of basic arithmetic. First, $394 million spent  to save $344 million? That's $50 million wasted. Second, as prominent  economist Warwick McKibbin points out, the scheme will cost us $394 per  tonne of emissions saved. We've been talking about carbon prices of $20  or $30 a tonne. A solar power plant or carbon capture and storage scheme  would cost a fraction of this price."  Leaders Fail Australia On Immigration And Climate

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I might raise some of these issues once I am on the committee:  I’d bet my $80 that drivers aren’t as green as Brumby pretends | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
> But on Q&A tonight, Penny Wong said only "credible" scientists would be able to present information to the committee. Penny gets to decide who these will be. No guessing who will and won't be considered "Kruddible".  
> Maybe they will also only randomly select from the "credible" citizens as well. Certainly rules me out.

  Oh boy, she gets to choose only scientists "activists" that support the theory. What a whitewash. 
A bad idea just got worse.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Could well happen - especially if Malcolm Turnbull comes out from the cold.

  No chance of that.

----------


## Dr Freud

> How Freudian, how McCarthyist 
> Came out in the end, didn't it Doc?  
> woodbe predicts the 'Reds' will win with a Green balance of power in at least one of the houses. Should make it interesting watching our witless leaders trying to sweep the environment under the table. 
> woodbe.

  It's been out before, and even longer than I've been using it champ.  A very old joke.  :Biggrin:    

> This Red ain't even pretending to be green on the outside.  *"GREEN groups keenly awaiting Julia Gillard's climate change policy are disappointed she mostly ignored the topic in a major agenda-setting speech today.*.. 
> ...This extraordinary situation raises the disturbing prospect that she has no idea how or why she needs to shift the economy from a pollution-dependent footing to a resilient clean economy...."  Gillard speech cops green flak | The Australian

   

> Apologies comrade,watermelon time.      Id make it anti-Obama if I was a US citizen, or anti-Brown if I was a UK citizen, but Im an Aussie and Rudd wants to tax me for fresh air.  So it is personal and it is anti-Rudd.

  Political response to climate change by Roy G. Biv

----------


## Dr Freud

More failed green theories on the outside leading to red balance sheets on the inside. (I just made that one up  :Biggrin: ) 
But here's a slightly more coherent response: 
"ALL you need know about Julia Gillards cash for clunkers promise is that its another green scheme... 
...Just why green schemes are so prone to flop or be fleeced is no coincidence. The word green - or sustainable - is like holy water. Sprinkle it on a sinner and even the greatest con man becomes redeemed... 
...The amount of carbon we anticipate saving through this measure by getting the 200,000 old cars off the road is one million tonnes. 
And already were in la-la land. Even accepting the Governments own rubbery figures (and its warming alarmism), this means Gillard will spend $400 on each tonne of C02 saved.  
  Does this make any sense at all, when we can remove that same tonne of CO2 by planting trees for a mere $10? ... 
...This means she is taking cash from things like solar panels, which can remove CO2 for about $250 a tonne, and splashing it instead to a used-car giveaway to do the same job for twice the price. Yes, it really is that mad... 
...True enough, because thats just how Gillards plan is defended even now by Climateworks, the activist outfit that proposed it to Labor. Sure, conceded Climateworks executive director Anna Skarbek, this way of removing CO2 is about four times more expensive than most alternatives. 
You can cut carbon emissions by 25 per cent by doing things that cost not much more than $100 a tonne of carbon, but things like the cash-for-clunkers scheme can give you a role in signalling behaviour.  
 This is just for signalling behaviour then? So its the gesture that counts, and never mind if whats actually achieved is insanely expensive and utterly futile..."  Column - The real car wreck is Gillards bucks for bombs | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

> "Instead, the latest in our dumbing down of policy is  Julia Gillard's plan to take $394 million out of programs to develop  solar energy or carbon capture and storage so she can give $2000 each to  people trading in pre-1995 cars for more fuel-efficient new ones. This,  she says, will cut emissions by 1 million tonnes and save buyers $344  million in fuel costs.
>               Two points of basic arithmetic. First, $394 million spent  to save $344 million? That's $50 million wasted. Second, as prominent  economist Warwick McKibbin points out, the scheme will cost us $394 per  tonne of emissions saved. We've been talking about carbon prices of $20  or $30 a tonne. A solar power plant or carbon capture and storage scheme  would cost a fraction of this price."  Leaders Fail Australia On Immigration And Climate

  Sorry mate, pretty much replicated this above.  But this level of hypocritical idiocy probably needed reiterating. 
Just to remind those still laughing, it's your money going overseas.  Next time you see on your payslip or group certificate how much tax you are paying, remember this is how it is being spent.   :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

Look out hypocrites, a call to put your money where your theory is.  :Shock:  
"THERE is, thank God, one promise in this dead-hearted election to lift the heart of every serious moralist.  By serious, I dont mean the kind of moralists who now plague us in their tens of thousands, demanding more from others than they give themselves.  
 You know the sort. Theyre the ones who go to free Make Poverty History concerts to demand taxpayers give to Africa what they themselves wouldnt even fork out for the band.  Theyre the ones who paid nothing for the Live Earth concerts where they screamed for the rest of us to cut down on the petrol they wasted to get there and on the electricity the musos needed by the megawatt for their amps.  These are the awareness raisers and finger-waggers whose fast track to sweatless goodness lies in denouncing everyone else as evil... 
...From now on, Premier Anna Bligh sweetly suggested, such noble people could, if they wished, demonstrate the way to utopia by making the tiniest of sacrifices of their own.  For just a $59 tax-deductible donation for tree-planting on top of their rego, motorists could offset their wicked car emissions for the whole year. And wait, theres more: the Government would match their donation dollar for dollar.  _Waddaya say?_  
Erm, not much. Of all the Queenslanders to renew their rego in the first six months of Blighs plan, just 230 took up her offer. Tells you a bit.  Now Victorian Premier John Brumby, a teaser behind that grim face, is copying this same mischievous policy to stick it to the greens he secretly despises.  Last week he said hed give green drivers the option of paying a voluntary fee of up to $80 to offset their emissions - and bankroll his own green schemes.  With a straight face, he suggested 20 per cent of drivers in this reddest of mainland states would cough up...  
...You think 20 per cent of drivers really will dip into their own tight pockets? Ha. Even Virgin Blue, the most right-on of airlines, found fewer than 0.5 per cent of its passengers would pay a zac towards its own offset scheme...  
...Should electorates that vote Green have their taps welded shut and power rationed?..."   Column - The return of DIY moralism | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog  
Luckily no true green supporters will see these comments as they have already disconnected from the grid and stopped using these filthy plastic polluting machines.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

Do you think it is ethical to spruik a renewable energy project as environmentally beneficial without  disclosing your financial interest in it time after time?   I have long argued that we should develop a city in the Cooper Basin  a Geothermia  as a hub for minerals processing dependent entirely on clean renewable energy.   Well, Flim Flammery sees no problem with this, and has even been given $90 million of your money for his failed project.   Federal government awards 90 million dollars in funding to Cooper Basin 25 MW geothermal demonstration project. 
  And we give him awards for taking our money and wasting it.  High profile Geodynamics shareholder and Monash University geology graduate, Tim Flannery, was named Australian of the Year on Thursday 25th January, obviously in recognition of his support of geothermal energy. 
And then he flies around the world being paid to spruik an environmentally friendly airline.   :Roflmao2:  
Dear Tim, please see previous post.  :Wink 1:

----------


## chrisp

> Well if that is all Jules can do and given where it is at in the states I would almost say the whole AGW thing is about to hit a brick wall.

  Why, has the science changed?_"A report on the world's climate has confirmed that 2009  was one of Australia's hottest years on record and provides more  evidence of global warming._ _Three hundred scientists from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Association compiled the report, which the association's data centre  chief Deke Arndt says paints a compelling picture."_
(From: Climate check-up 'screams world is warming' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) )  The report quoted in the ABC story can be found via NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries

----------


## Vin

NOAA: last decade was warmest, global warming "undeniable" - Green House - USATODAY.com 
I just had to drop in and see how this debate was going now!!!!!!!!    :2thumbsup:

----------


## PhilT2

The section on Aust is here. Ch 7 p46 http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/c...tes-lo-rez.pdf

----------


## Dr Freud

> Why, has the science changed?

  No.  :No:  
There is still *no* evidence proving AGW Theory.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I just had to drop in and see how this debate was going now!!!!!!!!

  Welcome back, long time no see.  :Hug:  
Just to get you back up to speed:    The debate is over! Climate change is real (whatever the hell that means  :Confused: ). Humans are causing it. We don't need proof, some scientists believe it. We need to silence sceptics who are all funded by big oil. Increased taxes in Australia will save the whole planet. 
Ok, now that's out of the way, let's rock and roll.  :Rockon:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The section on Aust is here. Ch 7 p46

  Er, the reality on Aust is here.  See door, walk outside. 
Chrisp will tell you what a sweat he has built up sleeping outside these past few weeks. 
But hey, if the adjusted data says we are all scorching down here, I guess reality must be wrong?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's a reminder of an oversimplified explanation:   

> Apologies for simplification (all made up), but hopefully the gist gets through.   Lets assume two random temperature measurements in one place over Time 1 and Time 2:   Time 1 = Max *35* Time 2 = Max *30*   Planet is cooling.   But IPCC uses Max + Min / 2, so:   Time 1 = Max 35 + Min  5  = 40/2 = *20* Time 2 = Max 30 + Min 20 = 50/2 = *25*   Planet is warming.   But IN REALITY, this happened, and the data looked like this:   Time 1 0000 - 20 0200 - 15 0400 - 5 0600 - 15 0800 - 20 1000 - 30 1200 - 35 1400 - 35 1600 - 35 1800 - 25 2000 - 20 2200 - 20 Avg - 23   Time 2 0000 - 20 0200 - 20 0400 - 20 0600 - 22 0800 - 22 1000 - 24 1200 - 30 1400 - 26 1600 - 24 1800 - 22 2000 - 22 2200 - 20 Avg - 23   Planet is stable.   These are just three of methods of calculation of possibly infinite methods of measuring temperature at just one location.  If three different scientists get three different outcomes from exactly the same data set, none of them are frauds.  They are using different assumptions.  What is fraudulent is if an individual or individuals try to claim that their assumptions are the best or only one to use!  Whether this is in Bernies Sales Brochures or IPCC Sales Brochures is no different.   For a few more of the many assumptions:   *We then have to assume methods of combining all the locations.*   (If Northern Hemisphere temps go down, but Southern Hemisphere temps go up more, is the Planet warming on average? Then if we start cooling it, will the Northern Hemisphere be happy?)   *We then have to assume accuracy and calibration of measuring instruments.*   (Does an alcohol thermometer measurement taken in Alaska in the winter of 1915 compare to a digital thermometer reading at Kalgoorlie last week?  Remember, we are talking about an average change of 0.7 degrees Celsius in over 100 years, *IF* we assume IPCC data adjustments have not distorted the data.)   *We then have to assume placement of these instruments (UHI?).*   (Can we compare a rooftop measurement in inner city Jakarta today (population 210 million) with a measurement from 1900 (population 40 million.))   These are just some issues still in dispute in the scientific arena, just about accurately measuring the temperature, let alone whether it is going up or down, and then PROVING what is causing these changes.   I hope for some healthy rebuttals defending adjustments made to the data in an attempt to correct for these inadequacies.

  The numbers never lie, but lot's of people lie about the numbers.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

For a slightly more detailed look at just some aspects of this number juggling:  kenskingdom   :Yawn:

----------


## PhilT2

_inner city Jakarta today (population 210 million)_
The inner city must be crowded. How did they find room for a weather station?

----------


## Vin

Thanks for the welcome back!!!     

> We don't need proof, some scientists believe it.

    I am unaware of any proof of anything, global warming is a theory!   What sort of uneducated statement is this, Darwin’s theory of evolution is not proof, its just that a theory, but only flat earth folks believe differently!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Here's a reminder of an oversimplified explanation:   
> The numbers never lie, but lot's of people lie about the numbers.

  Nice post that one! 
So true

----------


## chrisp

> Here's a reminder of an oversimplified explanation: 
> (....) 
> The numbers never lie, but lot's of people lie about the numbers.

  I'll say they do.  The reality is that both the _minimum_ and _maximum_ temperatures are rising.   
(from: Recent Climate Change - Annual Average Global Surface Temperature Anomalies 1880-2008 | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA ) 
Maybe you had better fudge your numbers again - oops, sorry, you stated that numbers were made up.  :Doh:  
But don't let the *facts* (i.e. the real temperature records) get in the way of a *good story* (i.e. your made up numbers).  :Smilie:

----------


## jago

It seems that the last 236 pages could have been saved and this one page explained the lot, state of knowledge  State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA 
well except the bit about an ETS ...lol  :Doh:

----------


## PhilT2

_Let’s assume two random temperature measurements in one place over Time 1 and Time 2:_ 
If the above example makes any sense to anyone, either mathematically or logically, could they explain it to me?  :(_Does an alcohol thermometer  measurement taken in Alaska in the winter of 1915 compare to a digital  thermometer reading at Kalgoorlie last week? _ No, but when the alcohol thermometer in Alaska was replaced with a more modern one the two were likely checked against each other and any inaccuracies of the old one could be calculated and its readings adjusted. Would you consider this sort of adjustment to be fraud? Nobody is trying to say that all past records are 100% accurate. This is why scientists are using multiple sources of information to get the best picture possible.

----------


## Dr Freud

> ...I am unaware of any proof of anything...

  Are you a defense lawyer?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Nice post that one! 
> So true

  Yeh, I kinda like it too. 
Shows how easy it is to get whatever answer you want from various data by making different assumptions (Hockey Stick anyone?). 
Looks like some of the lads above take it kinda seriously though.  :Rolleyes:  
You'd think I insulted them or something.   :Biggrin:  
Just to clarify people, I am not saying that the temperature has not risen over the last 150 years, it is inevitable that temperature has to either go up or down over whatever arbitrary time period you pick.  Pick one yourself, we have rough data going back about 500 million years. 
I am saying that our accuracy in measuring temperature globally is far from accurate, let alone calibrated or standardised, and anyone that argues it is an accurate representation of reality is an idiot. 
Then, as for the arbitrary assumptions made in the "adjustment" and presentation of this data, words fail me at the farce that this theory has created.   :Roflmao2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> But don't let the *facts* (i.e. the real temperature records)

  You guys are better than Seinfeld.  :Laugh bounce:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It seems that the last 236 pages could have been saved and this one page explained the lot, state of knowledge  State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA 
> well except the bit about an ETS ...lol

  I'm just curious about something, there's lots of numbers to explain this lovely story, or "State of Knowledge".  
"1 Throughout the science section of this Web site, use of "virtual certainty" (or virtually certain) conveys a greater than 99% chance that a result is true. Other terms used to communicate confidence include extremely likely (greater than 95% chance the result is true), "very likely" (greater than 90% chance the result is true), "likely" (greater than 66% chance the result is true), more likely than not (greater than 50% chance the result is true), unlikely (less than 33% chance the result is true), very unlikely (less than 10% chance the result is true), and extremely unlikely (less than 5% chance the result is true). These judgmental estimates originate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007)." 
I don't suppose you'd know how these mathematical probabilities were derived.  :Confused:  
Here's a hint:   

> The numbers never lie, but lot's of people lie about the numbers.

----------


## Dr Freud

All aboard the new gravy train... 
"THE five climate change experts Julia Gillard hopes to inform public opinion on the issue will be paid an average of $300,000 a year."  $1.5m for climate chiefs 
I better get my resume ready.  :Phone1:

----------


## jago

> All aboard the new gravy train... 
> "THE five climate change experts Julia Gillard hopes to inform public opinion on the issue will be paid an average of $300,000 a year."  $1.5m for climate chiefs 
> I better get my resume ready.

  Thats cheap I would have expected alot more dosh...bugger I'm not getting out of bed for that!

----------


## Dr Freud

> Thats cheap I would have expected alot more dosh...bugger I'm not getting out of bed for that!

  But not much to do for the dosh mate.   
All the works already done by the IPCC. 
It's just about convincing idiots like me that it's all real.  :Banghead:

----------


## Dr Freud

Remember this:   

> All beer contains dissolved carbon dioxide.    
> What the hell, die happy!

  The greenie solution? 
"Beer drinkers will pay more from Monday with a tax grab of 21c for a full-strength slab of 24 cans - taking the total excise on the carton to $14.28."  Taxes on beer and alcohol to rise again on Monday | Herald Sun 
Another emission reduction plan to compensate for having no climate change policy?  :Sneaktongue:

----------


## Dr Freud

*"LABOR'S push to cut greenhouse gas emissions through the use of energy efficiency schemes was yesterday dealt another blow when building industry heavyweights discredited the star ratings being applied to hundreds of thousands of homes... 
...*They said owners were not aware that mandatory software tools -- used to calculate whether a planned new house could achieve the minimum five-star energy efficiency rating necessary to obtain approval for construction -- gave vastly different results for the same house under identical conditions. 
It is another setback for the government while it is still trying to quell criticism after the shelving of its emissions trading scheme, the disintegration of the home insulation program and green loans scheme, and the subsequent findings that both were fatally flawed, costing lives and taxpayers' money due to poor planning and execution.  
It also comes after Labor's latest environmental announcements -- the 150-person citizens assembly to forge a national consensus on action on climate change and the cash-for-clunkers green car replacement scheme -- were widely criticised...  
...The results show that the three software tools, including the original model designed by the CSIRO, were inherently unreliable...  
...It also means the stated objective of the federal government to cut greenhouse gas emissions in houses is in serious question...  
...Climate Change Minister Penny Wong declined to comment..."  Energy star ratings in disarray | The Australian  
Debacle!  
What's wrong Penny, cat got your tongue?  :Sneaktongue:

----------


## Dr Freud

*"* *WOULD you buy a used cash-for-clunkers gimmick from this woman?... 
...*What can we do that is as silly, so utterly pointless, so open to rorting? Something that has some tenuous, however remote, tie to green, saving-the-planet mushiness -- although heaven forbid it required substantive, painful action?... 
...Obama's cash-for-clunkers was unabashedly all and only about stimulus. It failed on those "merits" alone: simply and expensively and so disruptively, bringing forward some new vehicle purchases. Albeit, thank-you-very much, on the taxpayer's dollar. 
It didn't even try to make the ludicrous pretence of being "green." Whereas Down Under, it's a case of: sorry, we won't give you a real climate change policy, so here's a meaningless cash-for-clunkers substitute... 
I have to say I'm conflicted. A symbolic waste of $400 million seems a reasonable price to pay, if that's the case, for meaningful inaction on the climate change charade. 
In this same category is Gillard's perfectly secular but Augustinian coal-fired power policy. Lord, or perhaps Gaia, give me carbon-less purity, but just not yet. 
In short, it's an announcement of a government that hasn't got a clue..."   Julia Gillard's more off than Gough Whitlam | The Australian    :No:

----------


## Bedford

It's often referred to as wasting taxpayers dollars with these schemes, but isn't it mostly over seas borrowings now?  My concern is, if this is so, that we become in debt to over seas banks for essentially non income producing assets, totally relying on tax dollars for interest and principal repayments on a failed scheme. What does the government put up as collateral for these loans?

----------


## Dr Freud

> It's often referred to as wasting taxpayers dollars with these schemes, but isn't it mostly over seas borrowings now?  My concern is, if this is so, that we become in debt to over seas banks for essentially non income producing assets, totally relying on tax dollars for interest and principal repayments on a failed scheme. What does the government put up as collateral for these loans?

  Thanks for a great summary of our current national disgrace. 
The answer to your collateral question is our future!  We the taxpayers now will be paying taxes into the future just to service this massive debt.  No hospitals, no schools, no environmental R&D, no good social policies, just increased taxes going to interest payments and debt payments.  :Annoyed:  
Here's some words from Shrek: 
"Labor will never deliver a surplus under Kevin Rudd. Labor will not do so because even after last years budget with a $54 billion deficit, which was the biggest spending budget in a generation, and even after last years budget where the government predicted the end of the world as we know itso even under the terms of those budget parametersin this budget the government has increased spending by $26 billion.  
If you thought they were throwing in the steak knives, wait because there is more. There is a 2010-11 budget that will spend an extra $26 billion. In fact, the 2010-11 budget forecasts a massive $40.8 billion deficit. It took 25 minutes for the Treasurer to get the words out last night of a deficit of $40.8 billion. Do you know why?  
Because the fact of the matter is that, when they actually deliver a surplus according to their own forecasts, by that stage this government would have borrowed over $700 million a week to fund their deficit. That is $100 million per day, every day, to fund their deficit. Then the hard task of repaying the $93 billion starts.  
What is it with Labor and $90 billion debts? Anna Bligh now has apparently something like $90 billion of debt in Queensland. Paul Keating left $96 billion of debt. If a change of government does come at the next election, how much is the Labor Party debt going to be? Around $90 billion.  
It is something that is fixed in the DNA of the Labor Party: leave the debt and get the coalition to do the hard yards of paying off the debt. That is because the Labor Party loves to spend money."  The Hon. Joe Hockey :: Shadow Treasurer

----------


## Dr Freud

*"THE Prime Minister appears to be driven by narrow calculations of political advantage... 
...*The same is true of earlier leaks from within Kevin Rudd's kitchen cabinet, the Gang of Four, on the subject of the emissions trading scheme. While her mantra over the past 18 months has been "delay is denial", it was she who had reportedly argued most strenuously for deferring an ETS for at least three years, and persuading a reluctant Rudd. An alternative slush fund for buying off wavering constituencies was proposed instead: the first version of the mining tax... 
...But she remains electorally vulnerable in the sensible centre of Australian politics because it's widely understood that, whether it takes the form of an ETS or a carbon price, decisive action is bound to be both costly and ineffectual. 
Out of those twin imperatives came the announcement of a citizens' assembly, 150 people chosen at random to deliberate on climate change policy for a year and decide on a course of action. It was an idea recycled from NSW Labor and within a few days a Galaxy poll found 62 per cent of respondents said it was a turkey...  
...Originally implemented in Germany and last year in the US, it holds out the promise of reducing emissions and petrol consumption through government subsidy. But the environmental benefits are mostly of the illusory, feel-good kind and hugely expensive -- as even the opinion pages of The Age conceded -- and the program is likely to be stillborn.  
Advocates of the scheme never take into account the additional energy and resources consumed in replacing a car before the end of its useful life. Writing in Friday's Australian, Oliver Marc Hartwich described the German policy as "one of the most bizarre and wasteful programs ever to be implemented by any government. Instead of scrapping hundreds of thousands of perfectly functional cars for imaginary benefits, the prime minister would be better advised to scrap her lunatic proposal."...  
...Why, they're asking, choose to reactivate the issue this time around rather than waiting to see how the climate debate develops during the next term? Why use your first statement as Prime Minister to express disappointment "that we have not yet been able to put a price on carbon"?  
Why formalise a lopsided deal with the Greens that raises more questions than it answers and creates voter anxieties about extreme and ill-considered policy?  
There are a few more questions they'll be pondering. Doesn't Gillard understand the Greens can't deliver their supporters' second preferences? Or that with enhanced numbers in the Senate they would make governing from the centre almost impossible?..."   Cabinet leaks show depth of Gillard's problems | The Australian  
Yes, well worth read.  :Saddest:   
I guess if you enviro-warriors want action on climate change you have to put your full support behind any real action policies out there.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Here's some words from Shrek: 
> Labor will never deliver a surplus under Kevin Rudd.

  And they never did!  
And the future prediction award goes to........SHREK!  :Hooray:    :Clap:  :Clap:  :Clap:

----------


## Dr Freud

> ...But she remains electorally vulnerable in the sensible centre of Australian politics because it's widely understood that, whether it takes the form of an ETS or a carbon price, decisive action is bound to be both costly and ineffectual.

  Who would have thought that all these massive taxes would feed straight through to us poor taxpayers.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):   
"The head of Coles says he does not believe having to pay a levy to fund the Coalition's proposed paid parental leave scheme would push prices up for consumers. 
 The Coalition has committed to funding the scheme by imposing a 1.7 per cent company tax levy on the nation's biggest businesses. 
 The Government says it will push up food prices.  
 But the managing director of Coles, Ian McLeod, has told ABC's Sunday Profile the levy would have a relatively small impact. 
 "In overall terms I'm probably more concerned about the rising utility bills that are emerging through Australia, with electricity rates rising at almost 20 per cent," he said.  
 "That's going to have a much more material impact in terms of our cost base than any sort of other changes to government policy either one way or the other."..."   The real Coles and Woolies tax is Gillards | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
Well people, if you want a huge spike in your bills, and a lowering of your standard of living, for absolutely no environmental effect, you know what to do.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Bedford

> Thanks for a great summary of our current national disgrace. 
> The answer to your collateral question is our future!  We the taxpayers now will be paying taxes into the future just to service this massive debt.  No hospitals, no schools, no environmental R&D, no good social policies, just increased taxes going to interest payments and debt payments.

  Thanks Doc, I understand  what you mean by the long term (our Grand kids) still repaying the debt, but I don't see that as collateral. 
I suppose what I mean is, has the government issued the title to Australia (or part thereof) with a filthy big red stamp on it stating MORTGAGED TO some overseas bank? which could expose the country to a repossession. 
Keep in mind I have no idea how the loan to value ratio of 90 billion compares to what Australia is worth. 
Thanks.

----------


## jago

90 billion is about 9% of GDP so reasonable. Of assets that's a different matter it's a minimal debt.

----------


## woodbe

Perhaps this thread should be renamed to:   *Dr Freud's one man Liberal Party Echo Chamber.* 
Nice job Doc, do you get a commission?  :Biggrin:  
Back on topic, here is the current state of the Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomoly over at PIOMAS:   
Full size available over at the PIOMAS site. 
Meanwhile, the latest Sea Ice Extent image from NSIDC:    
Yes, sorry its so small, the full size is on the site.  
Strange how the ice going down matches the temperature going up, don't you think? Sure puts the claims of shenanigans on the temperature record into perspective.   

> All the works already done by the IPCC.

  You know that the IPCC collates the research, it doesn't actually do the research, don't you Doc? Of _course_ you did. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Perhaps this thread should be renamed to:   *Dr Freud's one man Liberal Party Echo Chamber.* 
> Nice job Doc, do you get a commission?  
> Back on topic, here is the current state of the Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomoly over at PIOMAS:   
> Full size available over at the PIOMAS site. 
> Meanwhile, the latest Sea Ice Extent image from NSIDC:    
> Yes, sorry its so small, the full size is on the site.  
> Strange how the ice going down matches the temperature going up, don't you think? Sure puts the claims of shenanigans on the temperature record into perspective.   
> You know that the IPCC collates the research, it doesn't actually do the research, don't you Doc? Of _course_ you did. 
> woodbe.

  Sea Ice Page | Watts Up With That?  
Oh but wait Antony Watts is a monster that could not provide any reliable information right?  Even if it comes from credible sources such as you have posted above.  Just his graphs put it all in the correct prospective.  Not a cherry pick like yours. 
The truth hurst eh. 
No way is there going to be an ice free Artic any time soon buddy.

----------


## chrisp

> Sea Ice Page | Watts Up With That?  
> Oh but wait Antony Watts is a monster that could not provide any reliable information right?  Even if it comes from credible sources such as you have posted above.  Just his graphs put it all in the correct prospective.  Not a cherry pick like yours. 
> The truth hurst eh. 
> No way is there going to be an ice free Artic any time soon buddy.

  Rod, 
You can argue (or deny) all you like about the rise of CO2, the impact of the CO2, the source of CO2, the extent of the ice caps, the thickness of the ice caps, seasonal variations, etc. 
You can even argue about the calibration of the thermometers and weather stations if you like.  
However, if the world is warming, there will be less ice in the world as a whole.  If there is less ice, where does the ice go?  Yep, it melts, turns to water and eventually ends up in the sea.  What happens to the sea level when it gets this extra water?  Yep, you guessed it, the sea level will rise. 
So has the sea level risen?     
(From: Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )  *How do you explain the increasing sea level if the world isn't warming?* 
Gee, the CO2 measurements (showing increasing CO2 in the atmosphere) and temperature measures (showing the earth warming) by those lefty, socialist, corrupt (via government research grants) scientists seem to concurrence with the fact that the sea level is rising too. 
Or do you think that the sea level rising has been fudged too?   
Perhaps, just maybe, the AGW theory is true.  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Thanks Doc, I understand what you mean by the long term (our Grand kids) still repaying the debt, but I don't see that as collateral. 
> I suppose what I mean is, has the government issued the title to Australia (or part thereof) with a filthy big red stamp on it stating MORTGAGED TO some overseas bank? which could expose the country to a repossession. 
> Keep in mind I have no idea how the loan to value ratio of 90 billion compares to what Australia is worth. 
> Thanks.

  Hope this helps (crude explanation, cos this stuff gets complicated and needs its own thread): 
The government sells "bonds" that are kinda like temporary shares in Australia.  No hard assets are put up as security, as cash flow is used for security.  Us taxpayers are that cash flow.  (Kinda like a business with high turnover, but few assets i.e E-bay). When you have sovereign debt crises (ie. Iceland, Greece), it means the government has less cash flow coming in than payments going out.  We all know this as bankruptcy. 
AOFM link in quote below explains more.  Now, let's say Bank of China buys $1 billion dollars of these bonds over a ten year period, conveniently called 10 year bonds.  Then Australia gets to keep the $1 billion dollars for ten years to pay the bills, but pays interest on this either quarterly or bi-annually.  Current interest rate on these bonds is about 5.2%. So in a nutshell, Australia pays Bank of China $52 million per year for ten years, then gives them back the $1 billion dollars.  All up, costs us $520 million dollars. 
Now, if we use this to build something productive or income producing, it would be worth the effort and the expenditure.  I personally don't think the $900 cheques, pink batts scheme, green loans scheme, school halls scheme, cash-for-clunkers scheme etc.etc. is really worth it. 
Now, we do not have $1 billion in bonds, these muppets have racked up over $90 billion net debt in under two years!  To cut a long story short, we gotta find $50 billion in interest plus the $90 billion in principal over the next ten years.  Pretty much require a $14 billion dollar surplus every year for a decade.  Remember now, this is with current spending ratios.  No new schools, hospitals, infrastructure etc unless we want to increase the debts. 
Think of this as having a massive credit card debt.  You may still be earning money, but if you spend money on something rather than paying your debt, you are in effect buying this item on your credit card, then paying interest on it at your debt interest rate. 
We have mortgaged our future.  As long as taxes keep going up, we should be fine.  :Cry:  
Another way is to sell the assets to pay the debt, like Medibank is scheduled for sale.  John Howard was roundly criticised for selling assets to pay off Labors last debt.  How well would we have handled the current financial crisis had this not been done?  I figure better to sell the furniture than lose the house. Ask the Greeks what they reckon?  :Wink 1:  
(The AOFM numbers are gross debt).  
(RBA: CGS Bond Prices - June 2010)    

> Just start here:  AOFM  Home  *(Total Commonwealth Government Securities
>                on Issue - $147,133m)*

----------


## Dr Freud

> Perhaps this thread should be renamed to:   *Dr Freud's one man Liberal Party Echo Chamber.* 
> Nice job Doc, do you get a commission?

  Nah mate, this one's a freebie.   
I'm in the pocket of big oil, so got plenty of dosh already.  :Biggrin:    

> You know that the IPCC collates the research, it doesn't actually do the research, don't you Doc? Of _course_ you did. 
> woodbe.

  Of _course_! I meant they had done the work "of collating the research". 
That's just my maverick renegade style again.  :happy:    

> Yes, sorry its so small, the full size is on the site.  
> woodbe.

  That's ok mate, it's probably all this cold weather.  :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Strange how the ice going down matches the temperature going up, don't you think? Sure puts the claims of shenanigans on the temperature record into perspective. 
> woodbe.

  Yes, this will happen from time to time.  The fun questions are how much heat for how much melt.  Then the really fun questions, what's causing the heat.  But it's nothing to do with the inaccurate temperature record, that's just humans being lazy.        

> Sea Ice Page | Watts Up With That? 
>  Not a cherry pick like yours.

  A polite understatement my friend.  :Smilie:  
3 months or 30 years, on a 4,500,000,000 year old planet.

----------


## PhilT2

To put this in another perspective look at the debt to GDP ratio of other countries List of countries by public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's only wikipedia so the accuracy may not be spot on but close enough I think. Japan is notable at 189%, most of Europe is over 60% including Germany. Singapore at 113% is the same as Greece. 
We have had much higher debt in the past, like most nations we emerged from WW2 with debt of over 100% of GDP. The post war boom still happened. While $90 bill sounds like a lot it is equal to less than two years of mining royalties under the old scheme. 
Many nations with both right and left wing govts borrowed in response to the global meltdown. No one found an easy solution to the problem. There were no magic answers. The current opposition said that under the circumstances that they would have borrowed also. If you believe only one side of politics can stuff up you weren't paying attention during the Howard years.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *How do you explain the increasing sea level if the world isn't warming?*

  There was too much in this to break it down. 
Please read this:  Spurious Correlations    

> Perhaps, just maybe, the AGW theory is true.

  After you read the link, you'll hopefully realise that "perhaps" and "maybe" are correct, but not proof.

----------


## Dr Freud

> To put this in another perspective look at the debt to GDP ratio of other countries

  I don't live in other countries, I live here.   :Aussie3:  
If any pollies waste our money, they're gonna be held accountable!  :Annoyed:

----------


## woodbe

> Sea Ice Page | Watts Up With That?  
> Oh but wait Antony Watts is a monster that could not provide any reliable information right?  Even if it comes from credible sources such as you have posted above.  Just his graphs put it all in the correct prospective.  Not a cherry pick like yours. 
> The truth hurst eh. 
> No way is there going to be an ice free Artic any time soon buddy.

  Well look at that. Watt's has a page on the ice without any text from the serial misinformer Mr Goddard. Good for him. 
Watts missing (sic) is the Arctic Ice *Volume* Anomoly from PIOMAS:    
This is the graph that you know, shows how much ice is there rather than how far it has spread. I wonder why he would leave that out? Any ideas spring to mind Rod? 
Cherry pick indeed. 
I don't know about an ice-free Arctic, Rod, but it's sure looking like we'll have one with bugger-all summer ice pretty soon. 
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

_If any pollies waste our money, they're gonna be held accountable!_  :Annoyed:  
Couldn't agree more. But isn't it just more than wasting money? What about our capacity to defend ourselves? Is that as important as how much we owe? I have some concerns over the preparedness of our defences, most, but not all, relate to decisions made during the Howard years. The poor decision making and administration of existing contracts have left us in a vunerable position.  Recently the Seasprite naval helicopter contract was cancelled. This should have happened years ago. There are reports that most of the Collins class submarines are unfit to put to sea. We also bought some second hand Abrams tanks that are too heavy to pass over any bridges in this country. But that doesn't matter because the number of engine room fires means that they are not safe to use anyway. The joint strike force fighters that we have contracted to buy most likely will go over budget and behind schedule. Until then we will have to manage with aging F/A 18s and antique F 111s. Neither what we have or what we intend to buy appear to match the current Mig our neighbours already have. If we are attacked by a fleet of war canoes we are in trouble. 
Howard squandered ten years of mining boom prosperity on what? We have nothing to show for it, no adequate defence, no high speed broadband, no solution to Murray Darling issues, no investment in infrastructure. Just a lot of middle class welfare schemes, tax benefits, subsidised health insurance, child care and a baby bonus for any millionaire that wants it. At the same time employment for people with disabilities dropped by 30% as they were systematically weeded out of the public service under "economic rationalist" principles. 
People with short memories or selective recall have forgotten the flaws of the Howard years. Does anyone recall the rorts that happened under the gun buyback scheme? The cost of some of the National Party porkbarrel schemes? Does anyone know how federal disability funds for education are accounted for? Of course you don't because there is no requirement to account for it. Anyone buy any T2 Telstra shares from Honest Johnny, the ones that are now worth less than half what they cost? 
Selective amnesia? 
Not trying to overlook or minimise the flaws in the current govt, just attempting to jog a few memories and counter the bias in some comments.

----------


## PhilT2

*How do you explain the increasing sea level if the world isn't warming? * That's easy, rain is produced magically by the sky fairy which makes the sea levels rise. He did this once before so there is a historical precedent for it. That time it rained for forty days and the sea levels rose a great deal. Only one family survived by building a boat and putting two of each of the worlds eighty million different species on board. Then magically the water disappeared. Millions of people believe this but there is a lot less evidence for it than there is for global warming. Logical creatures we are not.

----------


## watson

And they included a pair of bloody termites too  :Duh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Well look at that. Watt's has a page on the ice without any text from the serial misinformer Mr Goddard. Good for him. 
> Watts missing (sic) is the Arctic Ice *Volume* Anomoly from PIOMAS:    
> This is the graph that you know, shows how much ice is there rather than how far it has spread. I wonder why he would leave that out? Any ideas spring to mind Rod? 
> Cherry pick indeed. 
> I don't know about an ice-free Arctic, Rod, but it's sure looking like we'll have one with bugger-all summer ice pretty soon. 
> woodbe.

  Woodbe I have already won one bet on the ice free summer, but they didnt pay up! Funny that! 
However I would be very happy to place another wager to say that we will NOT have an Ice free summer in the Artic in the next five years. I would be hapy to extend that bet to 30 years but I doubt I will be here to collect :Wink: . 
I wont happen mate NO WAY.  BTW I have zero confidence in any graphs produced to show warming etc. ZERO.  I am tipping that I am not the only one to feel this way.

----------


## chrisp

> BTW I have zero confidence in any graphs produced to show warming etc. ZERO.

  So, out of interest, do you have 'confidence' in graphs that show what you like to believe?   :Rolleyes:

----------


## woodbe

> I don't know about an ice-free Arctic, Rod, but it's sure looking like we'll have one with bugger-all summer ice pretty soon.

   

> However I would be very happy to place another wager to say that we will NOT have an Ice free summer in the Artic in the next five years.

  Ask someone else to bet with you Rod, I've been to the arctic, and its bloody cold in summer even with the warming. From my previous comment, clearly I think that there will be some ice there for a long time. There just won't be much of it.  
Besides, betting on disasters isn't my idea of a nice way to behave. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Crisp & Woodbe.....you are wasting your bandwidth on our two friends.  Frankly, you would be better served using it and your skills elsewhere rather than shouting across the gorge saying something akin to you're on the wrong road.....they are so far down it anyway they ain't coming back. 
And besides......their individual opinions aren't that crucial anyway.  So there's not much to be gained by bashing away at them...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So, out of interest, do you have 'confidence' in graphs that show what you like to believe?

  I don't have a lot of confidence in any of the "AGW science" as it is mostly politically driven, both ways.  The entire thing is a shambles, with so much in terms of money and credibiltiy riding on the long term outcome. However it cannot be said that the science is settled, it will not be settled in our lifetimes IMO.

----------


## Dr Freud

> _If any pollies waste our money, they're gonna be held accountable!_  
> Couldn't agree more. But isn't it just more than wasting money?

  Many of the programs you higlighted that deserve more funding are definitely worthy.  Didn't see any Rudd/Gillard revolutions in there though? ETS? CPRS? Carbon Tax? 
BIG difference between investment and waste!  :2thumbsup:    

> Howard squandered ten years of mining boom prosperity on what? We have nothing to show for it...

  Er, zero net debt.     

> Paul Keating left $96 billion of debt.

  Short memories indeed, don't spose you know how much interest we all paid last time?  Add that on top.    

> Not trying to overlook or minimise the flaws in the current govt, just attempting to jog a few memories and counter the bias in some comments.

  No possible risk of overlooking these flaws champ.  :Biggrin:  
But just to get back to the point, the reason the for these new "greenie" taxes is to pay back this massive debt, not to achieve any environmental outcomes.  That is my reason for raising this issue.  Without massive new taxes to cover the wasteful spending of these idiots, we are not looking good.  Whose gonna fund all the health and social policies then? 
Greenie smokescreen just gives this tax grab a "moral" facade!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Ask someone else to bet with you Rod, I've been to the arctic, and its bloody cold in summer even with the warming. From my previous comment, clearly I think that there will be some ice there for a long time. There just won't be much of it.  
> Besides, betting on disasters isn't my idea of a nice way to behave. 
> woodbe.

  Gee, if all the Arctic ice flaoting at the North Pole melts, how much will the ocean rise?  :Shock:  
Just curious as to the scale of this impending DISASTER?  :Cry:  
Poor Santa.  :Frown:

----------


## Dr Freud

> So there's not much to be gained by bashing away at them...

  A man's gotta have a hobby.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I don't have a lot of confidence in any of the "AGW science" as it is mostly politically driven, both ways.  The entire thing is a shambles, with so much in terms of money and credibiltiy riding on the long term outcome. However it cannot be said that the science is settled, it will not be settled in our lifetimes IMO.

  Yeh, IMHO, this farce currently sits between astrology and scientology.  
I respect these two much more though, as they at least acknowledge they are belief systems.    :Biggrin:  
Uh oh, take cover!  :Shock:

----------


## PhilT2

> Whose gonna fund all the health and social policies then?

  We can fund it out of all the money we are saving on fuel for the submarines, tanks and planes that are not safe to use. If an invader shows up you can be first in line to attack them armed with your zero net debt. Or we could all use the money we got from the gun buyback scheme to bribe them to invade elsewhere. Or we could just pray that nothing happens, it's the only weapon we have left. Pity it's totally useless. 
Anyway the good news is you won't have to pay the taxes for long. Seems like the god botherers have decided it's all coming to an end....on May 21 2011. Request a Free 'Judgment Day May 21, 2011' Bumper Sticker
Labor has nothing on religions when it comes to fleecing the flock.

----------


## Dr Freud

> We can fund it out of all the money we are saving on fuel for the submarines, tanks and planes that are not safe to use. If an invader shows up you can be first in line to attack them armed with your zero net debt. Or we could all use the money we got from the gun buyback scheme to bribe them to invade elsewhere. Or we could just pray that nothing happens, it's the only weapon we have left. Pity it's totally useless.

  Getting a little off the track here, but all sides have questions to answer:    The Coalitions White Paper is the biggest boost to defence spending in 20 years.  When Labor was elected in 1983 there were nearly 73,000 full-time defence service personnel but by 1996 had dropped to 58,000. Under Kim Beazley, Army Reserves dropped from 28,920 to 23,747, a drop of 17%. Under the Coalition, defence recruiting has increased by 30% in the last year.  The Beazley legacy to Defence was the trouble-plagued Collins Class submarine, a project that was years behind schedule and will cost Australian taxpayers a billion dollars and more to fix. 
IMHO, we have AAA security, Access, Area and ANZUS.  It's very difficult to get a large force here, once here it's very difficult to secure, and while this is happening, the yanks will nail you in the rear (sorry Kiwi's, you guys can fire a few shots too).  All decent military strategic plans factor these three in for us.    But moving forward to the game at hand:    

> Anyway the good news is you won't have to pay the taxes for long. Seems like the god botherers have decided it's all coming to an end....on May 21 2011. Request a Free 'Judgment Day May 21, 2011' Bumper Sticker
> Labor has nothing on religions when it comes to fleecing the flock.

  You mean religions like AGW Theory:   In his address to the Global Environment Forum this week (read talking shop for unelected, overpaid bureaucrats), Ban warned of impending droughts, floods and other natural disasters, as well as mass social unrest and violence  the human suffering will be incalculable  if the worlds leaders did not seal a deal on climate change at a summit in Copenhagen in December. In the Secretary Generals ominous words: We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.    And:   Even when greens themselves doubt the logic of their ever-fluctuating deadlines for climate doom, they seem to think that the only way to convince people that we have to Do Something is to scare - or, in PC terms, nudge - us into submission, and so new deadlines are set over and over again. Yet, in the same way that no one noticed when Goldsmiths 5,000 days ran out in 2003, when the clock stops ticking on the One Hundred Months site, few will pay attention. By that time, another Nostradamus-like prophecy of climate catastrophe will surely have been declared. 
Perhaps some words from your opponents are appropriate:   John 8:7  Rest assured, if invaders do show up, I'll take care of them.  :Brucelee:

----------


## Dr Freud

The lights are on in WA:  Western Australia coal fired power stations 
But nobody's home in Victoria:  Brumby sells us a solar crock, just as even Gillard sees the light | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog   :Harhar:

----------


## Dr Freud

> IMHO, we have AAA security, Access, Area and ANZUS.  It's very difficult to get a large force here, once here it's very difficult to secure, and while this is happening, the yanks will nail you in the rear (sorry Kiwi's, you guys can fire a few shots too).  All decent military strategic plans factor these three in for us.

  Please forgive, I may have led you astray.  We may soon have AA security.  :Cry:   SCRAPPING the ANZUS treaty, twinning Melbourne with Leningrad and introducing a super-tax on the rich were among radical policies devised or backed by Julia Gillard as a student activist.

----------


## Dr Freud

The Australian Greens believe that: 
"1. climate change poses the greatest threat to our world in human history and requires urgent local, national and global action. 
2. we have only 10-15 years to use our collective human intelligence to address the crisis of climate change and to prevent catastrophe." 
Translation: Scaremongering. 
"10. energy prices should reflect the environmental and social costs of production and use. 
12. the major refurbishment of existing coal fired power stations undermines the effort to increase end-use energy efficiency, demand management and renewable energy." 
Translation: Higher prices for everyone.  
"13. a safe climate will require a return to an atmospheric concentration of 350ppm or lower of greenhouse gases (CO2 equivalents)" 
Translation: The Earths climate has been unsafe for most of the time.     
"14. Australia needs to plan for a future that does not rely on coal export and coal fired electricity." 
Translation: State the obvious and you might sound like you know what you're doing.  
Full story here:  http://greens.org.au/sites/greens.or...Nov%202009.pdf

----------


## PhilT2

> Translation: The Earths climate has been unsafe for most of the time.

  Unsafe for whom? Could you see if you can find some records of real estate prices during the early Cambrian period? I would be interested to see if rising sea levels were affecting the prices of apartments in high rise beach front units at that time.   

> It's very difficult to get a large force here

  How large was the force that brought down the World Trade centre?   

> John 8:7

  That's from the King James Version. How many other versions are there? And if this is the one true word of God, why are these other versions different?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> "13. a safe climate will require a return to an atmospheric concentration of 350ppm or lower of greenhouse gases (CO2 equivalents)" 
> Translation: The Earths climate has been unsafe for most of the time.

  Freud....as the ideal self centred human being that you are....I'm surprised that you use this ridiculous plot as some sort of response.  The human timeframe is covered by at most the last pixel on the right hand side....none of what comes before that is irrelevant to the concepts of 'safe' or 'unsafe'...because the human species and its primate predecedents simply weren't there...and they are our concepts....not the environments 
Greens policy is as humanistic as that of any political party.....humans come first (despite what you might imagine).  After all, humans are expected by the Greens to vote for the Greens.  So when they talk about a safe climate....they mean safe for [S]human civilisation[/S] Greens voters in the first instance....and what they actually mean is ....less risky...

----------


## Dr Freud

> Unsafe for whom?

  Dunno, ask Bob Brown, he said it.  The Jurassic and Cretaceous periods look comfy?  :Sweatdrop:    

> Could you see if you can find some records of real estate prices during the early Cambrian period?

  I know some guys who have a computer model for this.  :Game joystick:    

> I would be interested to see if rising sea levels were affecting the prices of apartments in high rise beach front units at that time.

  There must have been heaps of apartments.  All those halogens and elevators caused the massive CO2 emissions you can see.  :Scareboo:    

> How large was the force that brought down the World Trade centre?

  I did say it was difficult to get a large force here did I not, not a small one. Just look at all the boats to our north streaming in small groups regularly.  I can assure you that the US has the surface naval craft of our large threats tracked, and vice versa (subs are different) and we will certainly hear about if they all start boarding and heading our way.  The yanks may sometimes be slow learners, but they certainly learnt from Pearl Harbour. 
But to answer your question, it depends.  Assuming you speak of humans, not physics, do you just mean those on the planes, those training and harbouring them, or those agreeing with their ideology? 
But your question, while ambiguous, proves my point.  Do you think the US military budget is too small as well?  History has proven conventional military forces usually lose asymmetric warfare one way or the other.  There are better ways. 
But aside from all the diesel these military machines burn, it's a tenuous (though interesting) link to AGW Theory.   

> That's from the King James Version. How many other versions are there? And if this is the one true word of God, why are these other versions different?

  Dunno.  Maybe you could go to your local church and ask the preacher.  I am certainly not well versed in the answers to these questions.  I am however well versed in irony. That's why I posted a quote from those you denounce highlighting the hypocrisy of your position that claims they have cornered the market of doomsday scenarios.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> 

   

> Freud....as the ideal self centred human being that you are....I'm surprised that you use this ridiculous plot as some sort of response.  The human timeframe is covered by at most the last pixel on the right hand side....none of what comes before that is irrelevant to the concepts of 'safe' or 'unsafe'...because the human species and its primate predecedents simply weren't there...and they are our concepts....not the environments 
> Greens policy is as humanistic as that of any political party.....humans come first (despite what you might imagine).  After all, humans are expected by the Greens to vote for the Greens.  So when they talk about a safe climate....they mean safe for [s]human civilisation[/s] Greens voters in the first instance....and what they actually mean is ....less risky...

  So, just to clarify your position. 
You accept that the Planet Earth changes constantly, and CO2 levels fluctuate constantly, and temperature levels fluctuate constantly, all very naturally. 
But, as we build giant immovable concrete stuff in silly places and are therefore no longer nomadic, we need to "artificially" or "unnaturally" prevent any changes to the factors found in "the last pixel on the right". 
Sounds like a reasonable plan to me, just a pity it's being sold as a naturalised greenie con job.  :Biggrin:  
And as for "ideal self centered", my good friend Maslow calls this "self-actualised":

----------


## Dr Freud

What a rabble, including the "Real Joolia".  "Prime Minister Julia Gillard's plan for a citizens' assembly on climate change was put forward without Cabinet consultation, the _Australian Financial Review_ reports.   A number of ministers first heard of the scheme when Ms Gillard announced it 10 days ago, the newspaper said.   The climate change policy also made no mention of involving stakeholders in talks around an interim carbon price, a subject that had been discussed and approved in cabinet, the _AFR_ added."  Another leak exposes Gillards spin | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog   They killed Kevvy for this?  :Doh:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So, just to clarify your position. 
> You accept that the Planet Earth changes constantly, and CO2 levels fluctuate constantly, and temperature levels fluctuate constantly, all very naturally.

  Yes.....of course....   

> But.....we need to "artificially" or "unnaturally"  prevent any changes to the factors found in "the last pixel on the  right".

  Actually.....yes.  Glad you finally agree. :brava:  Might make a humanist of you yet.... 
We do need to minimise the unnatural changes we are making to the optimum environmental conditions that provided for the development of the human species in the 'last pixel on the right'....like chucking excessive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and raising average atmospheric temperatures.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> like chucking excessive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and raising average atmospheric temperatures.

  But this is still only a best guess right?   
There is no scientific evidence that mans Co2 will actually increase the temperature by any dangerous amount. 
We are still waiting for this!! 
The best you can do is use some extrapolated figures punched into a pre-programed computer model to "confirm" the scientists best guess. Based on the fact that CO2 is a contributer to the GHE.  What is easy to ignore here is the % effect that CO2 has on the GHE and then what contribution Man MadeCO2 is of the total CO2.   
HMMMM something just does not add up here.  
But but but...... the science is settled.  :Wink:

----------


## Dr Freud

*"A STUDY of Arctic cooling cycles suggest warming is linked to solar activity.  * By measuring the rings of 400-year-old Scots pine trees, German researchers at the University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart were able to determine periods of fast-growth activity associated with higher average temperatures.  They found that temperatures between 1630 and 1840 cooled, then warming in the Arctic began - just after the end of the "Little Ice Age" and 30 years before the start of the Industrial Age. 
The "Little Ice Age" refers to a 300-year cooling effect leading up to the Industrial Age in which the Arctic cooled by 0.4C.  That phase also coincided with a decline in solar radiation over the same period."  Arctic trees provide link between solar radiation and global warming | News.com.au  
Ignore the usual tree ring fiasco, but read this article for it's refreshingly correct language such as "*is linked","* associated with" and "coincided with". 
No false claims of a causal relationship in sight.  :Woot:

----------


## Dr Freud

*"THE Earth could be hit by a wave of violent space weather as early as tomorrow after a massive explosion on the sun. * The explosion happened to be aimed directly towards Earth. "  Solar fireworks to follow sun blast | Perth Now 
Don't panic, AGW Theory assures us the Sun has no effect on temperature.  :Burnt:

----------


## Dr Freud

This could well be the most ambiguous sentence in thread:   

> We do need to minimise the unnatural changes we are making to the optimum environmental conditions that provided for the development of the human species

  
Please define: 
Does we mean Australia or the whole species?
Need or want?
Minimise means reduce by what quantum?
What is your definition of unnatural changes, and can we separate any effects of natural ones?
If natural ones have worse effects do we unnaturally alter these to maintain optimum environmental conditions?
Exactly which part of the planet inhabited by humans has these optimum environmental conditions?
How can we convert the whole planet to this?
Given that the human species has developed in diverse areas of the planet including frozen wastelands to stark deserts, have we not demonstrated remarkable resiliency, even before current technological levels?   :Confused:  
Please explain?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> But this is still only a best guess right?   
> .....  
> But but but...... the science is settled.

  Not a best guess.... 
The science associated with AGW and its drivers is certainly settled in the minds of the scientists and the various bodies that fund such research....the science is certainly not settled with respect to the impacts on the biosphere as a result of AGW - sure we have a grasp of the broad implications (eg. basic trends) but not the specific details (the exact whats and whens).  Question is...if you already know the trend is heading in the wrong direction then how long do you want to wait....just for the exact number.  Bit like standing there looking at a fire front, knowing it is coming in your direction but doing nothing because you aren't sure how hot the flames might be.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Please define: 
> Does we mean Australia or the whole species?
> Need or want?
> Minimise means reduce by what quantum?
> What is your definition of unnatural changes, and can we separate any effects of natural ones?
> If natural ones have worse effects do we unnaturally alter these to maintain optimum environmental conditions?
> Exactly which part of the planet inhabited by humans has these optimum environmental conditions?
> How can we convert the whole planet to this?
> Given that the human species has developed in diverse areas of the planet including frozen wastelands to stark deserts, have we not demonstrated remarkable resiliency, even before current technological levels?

  Does we mean Australia or the whole species? *Species*
Need or want? *My opinion is need...but I'd prefer if we didn't have to*
Minimise means reduce by what quantum?  *Minimise does not mean 'reduce'...never has*
What is your definition of unnatural changes, and can we separate any effects of natural ones? *Unnatural in this context means something we contributed to. Yes - but you don't believe me*
If natural ones have worse effects do we unnaturally alter these to maintain optimum environmental conditions? *If the end justifies the means....*
Exactly which part of the planet inhabited by humans has these optimum environmental conditions? *The word is 'had' - we've already been here for a few hundred thousand years. The bits we live in....it is called the biosphere for a reason*
How can we convert the whole planet to this? *Why would we need to? The trouble is we seem to moving away from it!*
Given that the human species has developed in diverse areas of the planet including frozen wastelands to stark deserts, have we not demonstrated remarkable resiliency, even before current technological levels? *Bloody oath.  We are a remarkable & adaptable species.* 
The concern many have is that the species is not the generalist it once was and may not have the capacity to adapt in the face of a fast warming world without losing some or all of the civilisation that continues to drive the development of the species and is most proud of... 
The truth behind scientific concern about AGW is that scientists are not primarily concerned about losing our environmental heritage & biodiversity....they are most worried about losing the collective knowledge & skills bound up in our civilisation - much of which they have contributed to.  So in a nutshell, they are selfishly fearful of losing their legacy.....and they are somewhat mystified as to why no-one else wants to recognise the possibility that it could actually happen.

----------


## PhilT2

Arctic trees provide link between solar radiation and global warming | News.com.au  AAAR Abstract 2668 - Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 
Here's the link to the original story, published last year. To the Australian that's news I suppose.

----------


## PhilT2

> That's why I posted a quote from those you denounce highlighting the  hypocrisy of your position that claims they have cornered the market of  doomsday scenarios.

  I think that your accusation of hypocrisy is inappropriate and not based on any realistic interpretation of what I posted. If you can show where I have denounced somebody or made a claim that anyone has cornered a market on doomsday scenarios I would be interested to see it. A smiley does not make your remark accurate.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Don't panic, AGW Theory assures us the Sun has no effect on temperature.

  That's garbage.........and you know it.  Being misleading as well as disingenuous is not helping your cause, Freud. 
The Sun (of course) is the primary driver of temperature on this planet.  However, climate science has demonstrated (and continues to demonstrate) that the current (last 50 years) increase in average global air temperatures are not matched/related to a commensurate increase in energy output from the sun.....

----------


## intertd6

> That's garbage.........and you know it. Being misleading as well as disingenuous is not helping your cause, Freud. 
> The Sun (of course) is the primary driver of temperature on this planet. However, climate science has demonstrated (and continues to demonstrate) that the current (last 50 years) increase in average global air temperatures are not matched/related to a commensurate increase in energy output from the sun.....

  ........or C02 concentrations. 
 Regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> Arctic trees provide link between solar radiation and global warming | News.com.au  AAAR Abstract 2668 - Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 
> Here's the link to the original story, published last year. To the Australian that's news I suppose.

  It's certainly news to many AGW Theory proponents I suppose.  
But thanks for link, it also has this: 
"We found a strong positive correlation with summer temperature of JulyAugust (r = 0.58)." 
"...series of observed solar activity indicate that solar activity may have been one major driving factor of past climate on Kola Peninsula." 
Proves my point that it is refreshing to see some numbers represented as a correlation with no hyperbole about "causes", and expressions like "indicate...may have been one".  Again, no ridiculous claims around "this is the cause of it".   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I am however well versed in irony. That's why I posted a quote from those you denounce *highlighting the hypocrisy of your position* that claims they have cornered the market of doomsday scenarios.

  Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assumed *your position* was that of supporting AGW Theory? 
If so, AGW Theory supporters (as well displayed in this thread) are renowned for supporting doomsday scenarios.  I have not seen a single post from you rejecting these doomsday scenarios and scaremongering, so must assume you support them.  Was the little girl being hung on the melting ice-block justifiable as you see this cause as being "so serious"?  So when you wrote this:   

> Anyway the good news is you won't have to pay the taxes for long. Seems like the god botherers have decided it's all coming to an end....on May 21 2011. Request a Free 'Judgment Day May 21, 2011' Bumper Sticker
> Labor has nothing on religions when it comes to fleecing the flock.

  It seems to me that you are denouncing religions of using scaremongering to mobilise action and raise funds.  Practices and beliefs which are consistent with your own position.  Yet you make no mention of your own position believing in and using the same tactics.  Therefore, one of these positions must be false, as you cannot support and denounce the same beliefs at the same time (unless you're George W. Bush  :Biggrin: ). 
This may help:  _n._ _pl._ *hy·poc·ri·sies* *1.*  The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. *2.*  An act or instance of such falseness.  _tr.v._ *de·nounced*, *de·nounc·ing*, *de·nounc·es* *1.*  To condemn openly as being evil or reprehensible. See Synonyms at criticize. *2.*  To accuse formally.   

> I think that your accusation of hypocrisy is inappropriate and not based on any realistic interpretation of what I posted. If you can show where I have denounced somebody or made a claim that anyone has cornered a market on doomsday scenarios I would be interested to see it. A smiley does not make your remark accurate.

  As explained above, the accusation of hypocrisy is appropriate and is a realistic interpretation (unless your position is that you *do not* support AGW Theory). 
Those you denounce are all those people in all religions who you accuse of "fleecing the flock".  Giving to God is always voluntary and never required. Those who teach Christians otherwise are unloving shepherds, fleecing the flock.  
As for "cornering the market", did you mention all the instances of AGW Theory scaremongering with doomsday scenarios, or did you make it sound like religions alone do this?   *"corner the market* - to become so successful at selling or making a particular product that almost no one else sells or makes it"  
And the accuracy makes it accurate, the smiley just makes it friendly.  :Biggrin:   
But as much fun as these word games are, I don't suppose you'd want to spend some time digging up any proof of AGW Theory?  No-one else has had any luck at this either.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> From "The Copenhagen Diagnosis":_However, neither El Niño, nor solar activity or volcanic eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate trends. _

   

> The Sun (of course) is the primary driver of temperature on this planet.

  Watching you lads sort this out might be as much fun as watching the infighting in this link!

----------


## Dr Freud

> ........or C02 concentrations. 
>  Regards inter

   :2thumbsup:  
Good onya mate, you draw their fire, I'll circle round and give them another dose of reality up the rear.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

This has already happened:   After promising to reduce the cost of living, since Labor was elected: Electricity prices have gone up 34%; Water prices have gone up 29%; Gas prices have gone up 26%; Overall, utility bills have gone up 31%   And Victoria is leading the way:   Bureau of Statistics figures released show electricity prices in Melbourne have soared by more than 53 per cent since the 2007 election in which former PM Kevin Rudd made living costs for "working families" a top issue.   I wonder what the increases will look like after both the Carbon Tax and the Coal Mining Tax kick in?  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

What the hell are you Victorians up to?  :Confused:  *
"FEARS Victoria's coastline will be swamped by rising sea levels have led to an unprecedented ruling that ended a family's dream beachside development. * The ruling, blocking plans for eight townhouses in Lakes Entrance, could undermine coastal development worth millions. 
A federal government report last year warned that up to 44,600 homes along Victoria's coast could be destroyed or damaged by rising sea levels over the next century. 
After a four-year battle for planning permission to build the Lakes Entrance townhouses close to the town centre, they have been left with broken dreams and a major financial headache. They had planned to keep some of the homes for themselves and sell the others. 
 "We meet all the criteria put in front of us and VCAT knocked us back," Mr Strini said. "We have invested $1 million and this has turned into a nightmare. Our dreams have been shattered." 
 In his ruling, VCAT's Ian Potts said the Strini case had brought into focus climate change planning issues, and a cautious approach was needed. 
"This decision effectively rules out almost any developments in existing commercial and residential areas that may be subject to sea level rises within the next 90 years - even if the buildings are above the flood level," he warned."  Fear of coastal swamping leads to unprecedented ruling on property | Herald Sun  
Better tell those kids in the picture to run away or their parents might also get charged with putting their kids in danger being that close the rising ocean about to swamp them!  :Doh:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ........or C02 concentrations. 
>  Regards inter

  Really? 
Temperature 
CO2   NOAA Climate Services

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> What the hell are you Victorians up to?

  Being cautious.....planning for the future....minimising potential financial risks to taxpayers with respect to compensation claims......that sort of thing.  Sensible people call it thinking ahead so I'm told.  
Observed sea level change in feet  
Old mate should think himself lucky....he might've built the things and then found out he couldn't afford to insure them.  Bit like many coastal houses in the  SE USA....

----------


## Dr Freud

> Really? 
> Temperature 
> CO2   NOAA Climate Services

  *Cherry picking* is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. 
Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available. 
Learn more here:  Cherry picking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia    

> 

  50 years vs 500 million years. 
I don't suppose you have any correlational comparisons (i.e. valid data analysis) to compare how your little cherry pick compares to long term averages?  Then a power study to indicate the external validity of your little cherry pick?  Or do we just have to trust colourful words and colourful pictures, and just cough up extra taxes to pay back massive government debts for no environmental outcomes?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Being cautious.....planning for the future....minimising potential financial risks to taxpayers with respect to compensation claims......that sort of thing.  Sensible people call it thinking ahead so I'm told.  
> Observed sea level change in feet  
> Old mate should think himself lucky....he might've built the things and then found out he couldn't afford to insure them.  Bit like many coastal houses in the  SE USA....

   
Comparison of two sea level reconstructions during the last 500 Ma. The scale of change during the last glacial/interglacial transition is indicated with a black bar. *Note that over most of geologic history, long-term average sea level has been significantly higher than today.* 
Learn more here:  Sea level - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Oh yeh, remember this?   

> *Cherry picking* is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. 
> Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available. 
> Learn more here:  Cherry picking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
> 50 years vs 500 million years. 
> I don't suppose you have any correlational comparisons (i.e. valid data analysis) to compare how your little cherry pick compares to long term averages?  Then a power study to indicate the external validity of your little cherry pick?  Or do we just have to trust colourful words and colourful pictures, and just cough up extra taxes to pay back massive government debts for no environmental outcomes?

  The inconvenient truth indeed!  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

Quite hilarious. 
Dr Freud uses a cherry pick to claim a cherry pick. 
The overriding logical fallacy Dr Freud keeps quoting is that reconstructed data from hundreds of millions of years ago 'shows' that current events are not unusual. What he leaves out is that humans were most unusual millions of years ago. (i.e. they didn't exist), and that we have the collective power to alter the climate regardless of what it might do of its own accord. 
And lets not start on the reconstructed data that the sceptics claim to be full of holes when the AGW crowd use it, but somehow acceptable in the hands of a serial denialist. Refer Dr Freud's previous explanation of Hypocrisy.  
As you were. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Quite hilarious.

  AGW Theory always is.  :Biggrin:    

> Dr Freud uses a cherry pick to claim a cherry pick.

  My friend, a walk is supposed to clear the head, and you must have gone for a long walk.  
Please allow me to refresh your memory. 
I am on the record as stating that the planet is 4.5 billion years old.  The proxy data set I presented is 500 million years, which is about 11% of the Earth's history.  I'll leave it to you to calculate what percentage of the Earth's climate history 50 years is? 
If it is not time scale, but source that you take issue with, I am also on the record as indicating this proxy data is but one source of many, and I continue to urge all people to research all data and make their own minds up about the truth.  If you are suggesting that I am cherry picking as I did not post all data available on the internet, then guilty as charged (and Mr Watson is much happier).  However, I am happy to rest on my record of urging all people to research and present as much data as they see fit.  But we have danced to this tune before your walk my friend:   

> My bad Woodbe, it was late and I was rambling again.  
> I was perhaps not clear in trying to explain that humans have been roaming the planet for millions of years, and are happy living in both freezing and desert conditions, as demonstrated by our promulgation across the planet (we are a pesky species, just ask Skynet ).  If I had to choose between cockroaches and humans to survive the longest, my money is on the humans.  I was not intending to mean that we have been measuring temperature for all of this time. 
> My views on temperature measurement were briefly summarised in post #7 on page 1 as follows:  I use the proxy data above in the understanding there are literally hundreds of other proxy data sets that contest these numbers.  This is the joys of the frontier of science, we all get to argue about things we don't understand.  The only thing that really peeves me is when a politician says "The science is settled on climate change".   
> The science is not settled on anything my friend.  
> That is why one of my favourite quotes is "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history".  Science has constantly been evolving and always will.  The periodic table has been "settled" many times in the past, but those inconvenient elements kept popping up and really annoying some scientists.  Yet, we still teach children today that the periodic table is now settled.  Hence my comments about the dinosaurs living on a flat planet.  We now say that prior to Galileo and Copernicus, that people "thought" they lived on a flat earth.  They didn't "think" they lived on a flat earth, they "knew" they lived on a flat earth, just as we "know" we live on a round one.   
> If facts so fundamental as this can change in concepts so widely accepted by the scientific community, how can the science be settled in a field where all serious members readily admit we don't have all the answers, hence we create the models.  I am happy for all this scientific debate to rage, as it does in all areas of science, but I don't want to pay taxes for it.   
> That's why I like dinosaurs, they add perspective when people start arguing about what happened to inaccurate temperature measurements between 1920 and 1990.

   

> The overriding logical fallacy Dr Freud keeps quoting is that reconstructed data from hundreds of millions of years ago 'shows' that current events are not unusual. What he leaves out is that humans were most unusual millions of years ago. (i.e. they didn't exist), and that *we have the collective power to alter the climate* regardless of what it might do of its own accord.

  Don't suppose you have any proof of this in relation this great AGW Theory?  :Sneaktongue:    

> And lets not start on the reconstructed data that the sceptics claim to be full of holes when the AGW crowd use it, but somehow acceptable in the hands of a serial denialist. Refer Dr Freud's previous explanation of Hypocrisy.

  Again, my views on the accuracy of proxy data and measured data were clearly outlined on page 1 of this thread.  Therefore, my position has been consistent.  But I can understand how it may appear hypocritical if you had forgotten earlier posts.  Must have been a really long walk.  :Biggrin:    

> Hi Rod, 
> By all accounts your plastering is flawless, as is your logic.  I concur with your sentiments, and look forward to the emotional outbursts and prophesies of the end of the world.  But first, allow me to provide some context.  Best scientific estimates indicate the planet (Earth) is about 4.5 billion years old (p.s. there was no moon or water then, these arrived a few billion years later). 
> I know it hurts, but please keep reading.  Us humans arrived about 2 million years ago.  Then after lots of banging rocks together, we invented something called a thermometer about 150 years ago.  We now have about 100 years of very inaccurate surface temperature data, and a few decades of fairly accurate satellite data (on a planet that's been here 4.5 billion years)  
> We have made very inaccurate guesses as far back as we can about the climate before we got here.  We call this proxy data in the scientific community (rhymes with poxy)
> Here it is: 
> Geological Era---------Million Years Ago----------Carbon Dioxide ppm-----------Av Global Temperature 0C 
>            Cambrian------------550-------------------------------------6,000----------------------23
> Ordovician-----------470-------------------------------------4,200----------------------23  12
> Silurian---------------430--------------------------------------3,500---------------------17 - 23
> ...

  Please everyone, if we can't keep up, at least try to catch up.  :Biggrin:    

> As you were.

  Now where was I?  Oh, that's right, freezing cold and paying much higher heating bills, apparently to stop me from overheating outside.

----------


## chrisp

> Originally Posted by *chrisp*   _From "The Copenhagen Diagnosis":However, neither El Niño, nor solar activity or volcanic eruptions make a significant contribution to longer-term climate trends. _

   

> Originally Posted by *SilentButDeadly*   _The Sun (of course) is the primary driver of temperature on this planet._

   

> Watching you lads sort this out might be as much fun as watching the infighting in this link!

  Freud - the key word is *"trend"*  
SBD is correct, the sun is the primary driver.  The quote from _The Copenhagen Diagnosis_ is effect says the change in solar output from the sun doesn't explain the temperature changes on earth. 
There is no contradiction between SBD and I - but you already knew that!

----------


## intertd6

> Really? 
> Temperature 
> CO2   NOAA Climate Services

  Now I'm only an average bloke but even I can see that graph on the bottom doesn't match the top for nearly half the time span.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

This sounds good:   ...From day one under a Coalition government, everyone who uses energy  thats pensioners, retirees, farmers, families and young people  could live without the threat of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme that would raise prices, damage industries and cost jobs...   ...I want to address a few words to people thinking of voting Green. I share your concerns for the future of our country and fully accept that we have only one planet to live on.    The Coalition will definitely meet our 2020 emission reduction targets. But rather than taxing consumers, the Coalition will buy abatements, particularly through soil improvements and tree planting. That way, well improve agricultural productivity as well as reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Coalition, in fact, is now the only major political party with an effective policy to reduce emissions. What we will never do, though, is damage our economy with futile gestures...   This doesnt sound so good:   ...My friends, within three months, preparations for an emissions reduction fund will be under way and the first recruiting for the Green Army will be about to start...   Make up your own mind here:   http://resources.news.com.au/files/2...ott-speech.pdf    I can't wait the next launch, might get more details on the 150 people deciding the Carbon Tax policy for Australia?  I'll try to get a gig on this committee, but I'm gonna have to pretend to believe in this scam.  Lucky you guys have given me all the AGW Theory arguments, I'll just cut and paste your posts into my application.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

> Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms).

  It is interesting to see how set some people are in their *wrong* ways.  Freud is still posting the scientific fallacy quoted above even though it has been thoroughly disproved early in this thread. 
Just watch Freud try and do a _sleight of words_ again to show the above quote is correct.   :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Freud - the key word is *"trend"*  
> SBD is correct, the sun is the primary driver.  The quote from _The Copenhagen Diagnosis_ is effect says the change in solar output from the sun doesn't explain the temperature changes on earth. 
> There is no contradiction between SBD and I - but you already knew that!

  Do I get a sentence reduction for an early guilty plea.  :Stirthepot:  
Just trying to spice things up while Rod is off living the dream.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Now I'm only an average bloke but even I can see that graph on the bottom doesn't match the top for nearly half the time span.
> regards inter

  Based on what most of us have been posting, I'd say you are well above the average of posters in this thread.  :Thumb Yello:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It is interesting to see how set some people are in their *wrong* ways.  Freud is still posting the scientific fallacy quoted above even though it has been thoroughly disproved early in this thread. 
> Just watch Freud try and do a _sleight of words_ again to show the above quote is correct.

  If you didn't get it before, you certainly won't now.  :Banghead:  
But just for kicks, how about we discuss the fact that there is still no evidence proving AGW Theory.  :Whistling2:

----------


## Rod Dyson

You are doing a fine Job Freud! 
Cheers Rod

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Now I'm only an average bloke but even I can see that graph on the bottom doesn't match the top for nearly half the time span.
> regards inter

  Spot on.....and I'd be worried if it did.  And I sure as heck wouldn't present it if they were exactly matched over the same time scale.....it'd be complete and utter tosh. 
The reason why is that we would expect a lag period between the input and the response.  As an analogy, when you turn on a light switch there is a delay between the flick of the switch and the ultimate result - activation of the light globe. There are many others - firewood on the fire - lag - heat; blanket on the bed - lag - warmth... 
So it is with CO2 (or any GHG) and air temperature.  In this case, the lag is quite a few years as all we are doing is building a better blanket.   
There are corresponding lags between GHG increases and the other biophysical response/s across the planet (anything from a few years to many, many decades) - and this is what is causing all the grief and conjecture about what might happen as a result of that rise in GHG.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Quote:
     					Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*   _Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms). _   

> It is interesting to see how set some people are in their *wrong* ways.  Freud is still posting the scientific fallacy quoted above even though it has been thoroughly disproved early in this thread. 
> Just watch Freud try and do a _sleight of words_ again to show the above quote is correct.

  If my lungs had 70% CO2  in them I'd:
A) be a scientific miracle;
B) an anomaly in basic physics;
C) very dead.  
Perhaps Freud isn't telling us something about himself?  Is he actually an alien being? Sent here to keep us arguing amongst ourselves so that we never develop sufficiently to get off this lonely, wet rock and challenge his advanced pan-galatic civilisation.... 
Freud - our very own GHG breathing little green man   :Yipee:

----------


## jago

> Quote:
>      Perhaps Freud isn't telling us something about himself?  Is he actually an alien being? Sent here to keep us arguing amongst ourselves so that we never develop sufficiently to get off this lonely, wet rock and challenge his advanced pan-galatic civilisation.... 
> Freud - our very own GHG breathing little green man

  
Way too funny  :Brava: speakhearsee:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

One of my new favorite websites: Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism 
With respect to CO2 and our contribution.....   
Came from here...Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming 
worth a squiz and a read.....good stuff on the climate models too How reliable are climate models?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Quote: 
> Perhaps Freud isn't telling us something about himself?  Is he actually an alien being? Sent here to keep us arguing amongst ourselves so that we never develop sufficiently to get off this lonely, wet rock and challenge his advanced pan-galatic civilisation.... 
> Freud - our very own GHG breathing little green man

  *
Just look into this light.*

----------


## Dr Freud

*"VICTORIANS hit with soaring electricity bills could have their power rationed under a smart meter plan.  * Some companies want to "choke" or restrict amounts delivered to homes to help families cope with costs. 
New meters that are being rolled out to every household and small business can ration power to control debt for individual customers. 
"This would allow, for example, sufficient power to be provided at a premises to run a few lights and the fridge only ... either as an alternative to disconnection or as an additional step prior to disconnection.""  Victorians facing soaring bills could have power rationed | Herald Sun 
Might lose a few bloggers on here? 
Rather have cold beer than computer power.  :Confused:  
Hands up all those supporting Carbon taxes?  :No:

----------


## andy the pm

> *"VICTORIANS hit with soaring electricity bills could have their power rationed under a smart meter plan.*  
> Some companies want to "choke" or restrict amounts delivered to homes to help families cope with costs. 
> New meters that are being rolled out to every household and small business can ration power to control debt for individual customers. 
> "This would allow, for example, sufficient power to be provided at a premises to run a few lights and the fridge only ... either as an alternative to disconnection or as an additional step prior to disconnection.""  Victorians facing soaring bills could have power rationed | Herald Sun 
> Might lose a few bloggers on here? 
> Rather have cold beer than computer power.  
> Hands up all those supporting Carbon taxes?

  Whats that got to do with a carbon tax?? Nothing, way off track again...

----------


## woodbe

> Whats that got to do with a carbon tax?? Nothing, way off track again...

  Don't worry Andy, Dr Freud is just displaying his susceptibility to conspiracy theories. 
Its just a media beat-up Freud. All we're really dealing with here is that with a smart meter, the energy retailers can limit their exposure to customers who habitually live beyond their means and don't pay their bill without actually cutting them off altogether. Its a good thing. You're jumping at shadows still. 
And yea. Nothing to do with carbon taxes or AGW.  
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Tis the same as having your download/upload speed choked when you exceed your data limit on the interweb.  Or your water supply pressure limited at the meter during water restrictions for exceeding water use limits.  Neither are good....but that's private industry for you. 
Still not relevant to this thread though...

----------


## woodbe

From NOAA: *Climate Indicators*   

> The following "climate indicators" present data from each of the datasets featured in the 2009 Climate Assessment Chapter 2 sidebar _"How do we know the world has warmed?"_  by John Kennedy and several other authors. Within each indicator,  individual datasets can be toggled off and on for further inspection and  zoomed in onto periods of interest. All data used in the sidebar is  publicly accessible and the annual data as used in the analysis can be  downloaded here.
>     This set of indicators was selected as we would unambiguously  expect them to increase or decrease if the world were warming. In a  warming world, based upon simple physical principles we would expect the  following indicators to increase: land surface air temperature, sea-surface temperature, marine air temperature, sea level, tropospheric temperature, ocean heat content and specific humidity. Conversely, we would expect the following indicators to decline: snow cover, sea-ice extent, glacier mass, and stratospheric temperatures. Stratospheric temperature decline is also influenced by ozone depletion.

  See the whole page and clickable graphs here 
woodbe

----------


## intertd6

> With respect to CO2 and our contribution.....

  Now all you have to do is try & link those increases in CO2 levels to likewise temperature increases in a provable manner.
As I said  a long time ago, I do not dispute that there is now a warming trend in global temps & that CO2 is an indicator, not the cause, but logically the answer lays in the burning of fossil fuels = HEAT, photochemical smog / haze capturing the suns energy in the atmosphere = HEAT.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> Whats that got to do with a carbon tax?? Nothing, way off track again...

   

> Don't worry Andy, Dr Freud is just displaying his susceptibility to conspiracy theories. 
> Its just a media beat-up Freud. All we're really dealing with here is that with a smart meter, the energy retailers can limit their exposure to customers who habitually live beyond their means and don't pay their bill without actually cutting them off altogether. Its a good thing. You're jumping at shadows still. 
> And yea. Nothing to do with carbon taxes or AGW.  
> woodbe.

   

> Tis the same as having your download/upload speed choked when you exceed your data limit on the interweb.  Or your water supply pressure limited at the meter during water restrictions for exceeding water use limits.  Neither are good....but that's private industry for you. 
> Still not relevant to this thread though...

  Lads, if you're going to take a walk on the green side, you could at least get with the greenie program:  *"A properly designed carbon tax would make possible generous compensation schemes for working people and people on welfare faced with rising fuel and electricity prices."*  Five questions about a carbon tax | Green Left Weekly  * "Prices of products and services that use fossil fuels would rise as producers passed their carbon tax costs downstream. For example, electricity produced from coal would gradually get more expensive, while electricity produced from wind would not."*  Price Carbon Campaign 
I even found these greenie sites to avoid your usual ad hominen routines. 
And as for those people on aged and disability pensions habitually living beyond their means, they make me sick. Recharging their electric wheelchairs and running all that medical equipment, watching digital tv all day, greedy pricks.  :Tv Happy:  
Real smart meters, huh!

----------


## Dr Freud

> From NOAA: *Climate Indicators* 
> See the whole page and clickable graphs here 
> woodbe

  Ooooooh, look at the pretty colours.  :Biggrin:  
So pretty I forgot to look for a causal relationship.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> * "Prices of products and services that use fossil fuels would rise as producers passed their carbon tax costs downstream. For example, electricity produced from coal would gradually get more expensive, while electricity produced from wind would not."*

  "HOBART'S new rooftop wind turbines have stopped after two of the blades came loose  when they began spinning out of control." 
[Coming loose and spinning out of control, what does that remind me of?]  :Biggrin:  
"We were scared because we could see people walking on the street below and it looked like the whole assembly might fall right off the building." 
"I Want Energy Director Rob Manson said a safety mechanism was activated that causes the turbines to fold in on themselves. 
"We were very pleased to see the safety mechanism work exactly as it was meant to,'' Mr Manson said." 
"Mr Manson said "excessive amounts of wind'' caused the problem. 
He said the turbines were designed to withstand "cyclonic'' winds of 60m/sec." 
"Fellow council worker Piangpen Narksut was also amazed, but said she hoped they would not be taken down. 
"They were spinning like crazy this morning... 
"But it isn't really that windy today so they obviously need to be properly secured."  Wind turbines grind to halt Tasmania News - The Mercury - The Voice of Tasmania  
I think the one thing we can all agree on is the amount of spinning going on here.  :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

*Tradies alert*: 
"Our ultimate responsibility is to our members. Those members are the builders, tradespeople and hardworking construction industry folk who build our homes, schools, hospitals, roads and community infrastructure. Without them, our current lifestyle would not exist.  
 Our members are concerned that on Election Day many Australians will vote for the Greens without fully understanding the consequences this will have on our economy, infrastructure and ultimately; our way of life. 
 Master Builders is taking action because our members are worried about the future of the economy and the long term viability of their industry.  *The Australian Greens will:*  *Oppose the establishment of new coal-fired power stations, new coal mines and the expansion of existing mines.*(Source: The Australian Greens, Climate Change and Energy Policy, No. 38-39)
 Coal-fired power stations produce 80 per cent of the electricity we use to run our economy. *Under Greens policies, Victorian businesses will be subjected to higher electricity bills,* risking job security and international competitiveness."  Think Before You Vote  
No doubt this will be relegated as another "way off track" "media beat up" "not relevant to this thread"? 
A much easier phrase is "inconvenient truth".  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Now all you have to do is try & link those increases in CO2 levels to likewise temperature increases in a provable manner. 
> regards inter

  Uh oh, they're not going to like you.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

"Spain's plans to have 2,000 electric cars on the road by the end of 2010 have been dealt a blow as figures showed just 16 have been sold."  BBC News - Spain's electric car sales off target 
Gee, I wonder why?  Maybe all these fruit loop greenies didn't realise making electricity really expensive makes electric cars redundant.  Duh. 
Remember this:   

> "Spains Dr. Gabriel Calzada  the author of a damning study concluding that Spains green jobs energy program has been a catastrophic economic failure  was mailed a  _dismantled bomb_ on Tuesday by solar energy company Thermotechnic.

  
Here's some info from the study: 
"14. The price of a comprehensive electricity rate (paid by the end consumer) in
Spain would have to be increased 31% to being able to repay the historic debt
generated by this rate deficit mainly produced by the subsidies to renewables,
according to Spains energy regulator. 
15. Spanish citizens must therefore cope with either an increase of electricity rates
or increased taxes (and public deficit), as will the U.S. if it follows Spains model." 
Winners!

----------


## woodbe

> "Spain's plans to have 2,000 electric cars on the road by the end of 2010 have been dealt a blow as figures showed just 16 have been sold."  BBC News - Spain's electric car sales off target 
> Gee, I wonder why?  Maybe all these fruit loop greenies didn't realise making electricity really expensive makes electric cars redundant.  Duh.

  Being so up to date on Spain, you'd know that they are in the grips of a deep recession. Unemployment first quarter 2010 at 20% 50% of under 25's are out of work. No surprise things aren't selling well... 
And EV's in the states? They already have the sports car Tesla and have been chosen by Nissan as a launch market for their all-electric Leaf. Nissan revealed in May that their US pre-orders had already exceeded their production capacity Anyone who suggests that electric cars are not going to be a hit with consumers is simply not paying attention. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> As I said  a long time ago, I do not dispute that there is now a warming trend in global temps & that CO2 is an indicator, not the cause, but logically the answer lays in the burning of fossil fuels = HEAT, photochemical smog / haze capturing the suns energy in the atmosphere = HEAT.
> regards inter

  Logically....but not scientifically. 
The heat effect as a result of burning fossil fuels simply isn't sufficient to account for a significant proportion of the total heat gain in the atmosphere.....let alone in our oceans.  Simply not enough joules to account for it.  From It's waste heat  
As for the photochemical smog and other poluting aerosols....funnily enough, the truth is the opposite to what you suggest.  Rather than trapping heat.....it is actually reflecting heat that would otherwise be trapped.   It's aerosols 
This is why some geoengineers/terraforming proponents have suggested injecting sulphates (could be sulphides?) into the atmosphere to act as a form of sunscreen and buffer to tide us over whilst we presumably get our act together.....unfortunately, there's some recent work that suggests that some potentially nasty feedback effects are likely - though there is way more science to do before anyone can be confident one way or the other.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *Under Greens policies, Victorian businesses will be subjected to higher electricity bills,* risking job security and international competitiveness

  I think what they meant to say is....."*Regardless of whose policies we continue under....Victorian businesses will be subjected to higher electricity bills....*" 
Can't have a 3% annual CPI increase and not have higher electrcity prices....simple economics. 
Add to that the fact that Victoria hasn't significantly invested in its power generation infrastructure in the last three decades (some of the actual generating equipment dates back to the fifties!).....and the State doesn't actually own or have signigicant control over any of that infrastructure (or the distribution infrastructure)....and we can't fail to escape a significant increase in energy charges if we continue to use grid supplied power.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Logically....but not scientifically. 
> The heat effect as a result of burning fossil fuels simply isn't sufficient to account for a significant proportion of the total heat gain in the atmosphere.....let alone in our oceans. Simply not enough joules to account for it. From It's waste heat  
> As for the photochemical smog and other poluting aerosols....funnily enough, the truth is the opposite to what you suggest. Rather than trapping heat.....it is actually reflecting heat that would otherwise be trapped.   It's aerosols 
> This is why some geoengineers/terraforming proponents have suggested injecting sulphates (could be sulphides?) into the atmosphere to act as a form of sunscreen and buffer to tide us over whilst we presumably get our act together.....unfortunately, there's some recent work that suggests that some potentially nasty feedback effects are likely - though there is way more science to do before anyone can be confident one way or the other.

  Now you might tell us what % of man made Co2 makes up that figure V's natural Co2  and support it with some scientific facts. While you are at it you might then lay out what % of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor and other gases.  Then work it back to the % difference man made Co2 makes.  Then you go go a step further and work out the % of man made Co2 that Australia contributes.  Then possibly you could work out for us the amount of temperature increase is due entirely by man made C02 then by Australia's Co2. 
That should be very easy to do eh! 
Boy while we are on a roll, once you have the scientifically proven figures for that.  Maybe we could then work out how much cooler the world would be if Australia reduced emissions by 5% then 10% the 20%. Should be a cinch :Wink:  
Then I guess the next step seeing that was so easy is to work out the cost per % of reduction to the economy and equate that back to a $ figure per degree of temperature drop that we in Australia can achieve.   
Then we can ask ourselves is it worth it? 
Seeing how the science is settled and all that, this should be a walk in the park. 
Now that would make a lot more sense to a layman like me.  Rather than sticking a figure up there with a cute diagram that would have the reader think that it is our factories etc making up all the warming observed over the last centuary.  That is if the temperature records are squeaky clean and accurate of course. Not to mention any other natural influences on temperature. 
No long bows beng draw here though, it is cut and dried, all these figures should be readily available considering all the money that has been spent on it. 
Without these figures, what would you say?  That we are guessing  :Confused: .  But hey that ok lets change our lifestyles and go back to horse and carts, cause our best guess surely justifies it. :Yikes2:

----------


## chrisp

> Now you might tell us what % of man made Co2 makes up that figure V's natural Co2  and support it with some scientific facts. While you are at it you might then lay out what % of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor and other gases.  Then work it back to the % difference man made Co2 makes.  Then you go go a step further and work out the % of man made Co2 that Australia contributes.  Then possibly you could work out for us the amount of temperature increase is due entirely by man made C02 then by Australia's Co2. 
> That should be very easy to do eh!

  Rod, 
You will, if you care to read them, find answers to most of your questions at the link provided by SBD.  For example: How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?    

> Boy while we are on a roll, once you have the scientifically proven figures for that.  Maybe we could then work out how much cooler the world would be if Australia reduced emissions by 5% then 10% the 20%. Should be a cinch

  I'm not sure where you got the idea that Australia is supposed to single handily to reduce CO2 and global warming for the whole world? 
It is just a matter of us doing our bit.  It is quite a simple concept really - if we all reduce our emissions by 20%, well, emission worldwide will be reduced 20%.  :Smilie:    

> Then I guess the next step seeing that was so easy is to work out the cost per % of reduction to the economy and equate that back to a $ figure per degree of temperature drop that we in Australia can achieve.   
> Then we can ask ourselves is it worth it? 
> Seeing how the science is settled and all that, this should be a walk in the park.

  Is it only the dollars that count for you?  I think it is a great example of where a proper tax regime can benefit mankind as a whole - tax the polluting technologies to put the clean technologies on a more even footing.   

> Now that would make a lot more sense to a layman like me.  Rather than sticking a figure up there with a cute diagram that would have the reader think that it is our factories etc making up all the warming observed over the last centuary.  That is if the temperature records are squeaky clean and accurate of course. Not to mention any other natural influences on temperature. 
> No long bows beng draw here though, it is cut and dried, all these figures should be readily available considering all the money that has been spent on it. 
> Without these figures, what would you say?  That we are guessing .  But hey that ok lets change our lifestyles and go back to horse and carts, cause our best guess surely justifies it.

  It is not guessing Rod, it is science.  For some reason you seem to have issues with accepting what is a widely accepted in the scientific community - it also seems that just about every government in the world also accepts AGW as true.  *It is not a matter of "going back" but rather going forward to better and cleaner energy technologies.*

----------


## PhilT2

One way of looking at Co2 is on a per capita basis, on those grounds we are in the top ten worst. CO2 Emissions (per capita) (most recent) by country

----------


## intertd6

> Now all you have to do is try & link those increases in CO2 levels to likewise temperature increases in a provable manner.
> As I said a long time ago, I do not dispute that there is now a warming trend in global temps & that CO2 is an indicator, not the cause, but logically the answer lays in the burning of fossil fuels = HEAT, photochemical smog / haze capturing the suns energy in the atmosphere = HEAT.
> regards inter

  I was trying to keep it short with this, but I will have to add a few things, with the burning of fossil fuels add, the burning of forests by clearing & deforestation, when you consider the heat released by burning of forests / fuels in relation to the CO2 produced the former by far outweighs the latter per m3 plus all this being held in a zone close to the earths surface by an insulating cloud which is heating up also. Heat glorious heat
with photochemical smog / haze, add particlulates, seeing water vapour has the greatest greenhouse effect of all, smog/haze/particles are starting to be considered more serously as a contributer to warming.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> Being so up to date on Spain, you'd know that they are in the grips of a deep recession. Unemployment first quarter 2010 at 20% 50% of under 25's are out of work. No surprise things aren't selling well... 
> And EV's in the states? They already have the sports car Tesla and have been chosen by Nissan as a launch market for their all-electric Leaf. Nissan revealed in May that their US pre-orders had already exceeded their production capacity Anyone who suggests that electric cars are not going to be a hit with consumers is simply not paying attention. 
> woodbe.

  Gee, Spain had lots of failed green policies, taxpayer subsidies, big deficits, big debts, promises of massive numbers of green jobs, all ending in failure and recession.  Does this remind you of anything closer to home?  
And I never said a bad word about electric cars, they are great run off coal or nuclear, until something more practically and economically viable becomes mainstream.  The point is failed greenie policies are driving up electricity prices (above CPI and other cost inputs for those having trouble keeping up  :Shock: ) and wasting everyones time and money, and our idiot government are paying for all these rorts with our money. 
And your little pre-orders are based on $99 fully-refundable registrations of interest on a vehicle with up to 30% government rebates.  Not exactly sound predictive validity, but then again that's never been a strong point for AGW Theory proponents.  :Biggrin:  
But hey, if our moronic government give me taxpayer dollars to buy an electric car cheaper than a petrol car, I'll put down a refundable $99 bucks till I get more details.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Now you might tell us what % of man made Co2 makes up that figure V's natural Co2  and support it with some scientific facts. While you are at it you might then lay out what % of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor and other gases.  Then work it back to the % difference man made Co2 makes.  Then you go go a step further and work out the % of man made Co2 that Australia contributes.  Then possibly you could work out for us the amount of temperature increase is due entirely by man made C02 then by Australia's Co2. 
> That should be very easy to do eh! 
> Boy while we are on a roll, once you have the scientifically proven figures for that.  Maybe we could then work out how much cooler the world would be if Australia reduced emissions by 5% then 10% the 20%. Should be a cinch 
> Then I guess the next step seeing that was so easy is to work out the cost per % of reduction to the economy and equate that back to a $ figure per degree of temperature drop that we in Australia can achieve.   
> Then we can ask ourselves is it worth it? 
> Seeing how the science is settled and all that, this should be a walk in the park. 
> Now that would make a lot more sense to a layman like me.  Rather than sticking a figure up there with a cute diagram that would have the reader think that it is our factories etc making up all the warming observed over the last centuary.  That is if the temperature records are squeaky clean and accurate of course. Not to mention any other natural influences on temperature. 
> No long bows beng draw here though, it is cut and dried, all these figures should be readily available considering all the money that has been spent on it. 
> Without these figures, what would you say?  That we are guessing .  But hey that ok lets change our lifestyles and go back to horse and carts, cause our best guess surely justifies it.

  Mate, this is gold.  :2thumbsup:  
If any AGW Theory proponent actually tried to answer these on a serious basis, they would see the futility in their support for the many failed greenie policies advocated thus far.  It's just a shame none of them will try to answer these on a serious basis.  No doubt lots of pretty words and pictures will pop up, but no numbers yet again. 
Chrisp answered that 20% = 20%, so I guess that's a start.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> One way of looking at Co2 is on a per capita basis, on those grounds we are in the top ten worst. CO2 Emissions (per capita) (most recent) by country

  I'm glad you said "one way" and not "a good way", so you still have some AGW Theory credibility left after posting this ridiculous argument, that is used often by many AGW Theory proponents. 
By this logic, a country with 1 person emitting 50,000 tonnes of CO2 per capita (total 50,000 tonnes) is a worse "offender" under AGW Theory than a country with 1 billion people each emitting 10,000 tonnes of CO2 per capita (total 10,000,000,000,000 tonnes). 
Population = 1, Per capita = 50,000, Total = 50,000 tonnes. 
Population = 1,000,000,000, Per capita = 10,000, Total = 10,000,000,000,000 tonnes. 
Yeh, I like your logic, we take out the first dude and the planet will be so much better off.  The second mob are much lower "per capita". 
Seriously, you guys gotta figure out how your own theory works, none of your pretty pictures show "per capita" CO2 levels and temperature correlation for a reason.  When you figure out why, you'll be well on your way to never mentioning this ridiculous statistic again.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I was trying to keep it short with this, but I will have to add a few things, with the burning of fossil fuels add, the burning of forests by clearing & deforestation, when you consider the heat released by burning of forests / fuels in relation to the CO2 produced the former by far outweighs the latter per m3 plus all this being held in a zone close to the earths surface by an insulating cloud which is heating up also. Heat glorious heat
> with photochemical smog / haze, add particlulates, *seeing water vapour has the greatest greenhouse effect of all*, smog/haze/particles are starting to be considered more serously as a contributer to warming.
> regards inter

  Man, you gotta be Chuck Norris kinda tough!  :Ninja Smile:  
Throwing down a fact like that in this thread.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

*"PLANTS can adapt to climate change much better than previously thought, according to a new study."  Flowers adapt to climate change with genetic switch | The Australian 
Truly amazing, living things adapt to their environment! *

----------


## Dr Freud

Someone needs one of those taxpayer funded electric cars: 
"Senate candidate Lin Hatfield Dodds says she's not environmentally irresponsible for owning a V8 Toyota Landcruiser... 
...Ms Hatfield Dodds told The Canberra Times that poor public transport options forced her family to buy a second car about two years ago. The other family car was a Toyota Echo. The 4WD was chosen to take the family on monthly camping trips.''I'm not at all worried about driving a four-wheel drive I've always said I don't fit the mould of what people often perceive a green to be,'' she said. 
Both cars' carbon emissions were offset through Greening Australia's Breathe Easy program. According to Greening Australia, a large diesel V8 4WD produces 5.460 tonnes of emissions each year. The recommended offset donation is $191.10.  
''I drive two cars. I have a Landcruiser and an Echo. Mostly I drive the Echo because I try not to drive the big car around Canberra. That's our car to go camping in and I ride an e-cycle, which is a bicycle with a little battery on it, and I walk,'' Ms Hatfield Dodds said."   Greens candidate defends 4WD use - Local News - News - General - The Canberra Times 
Ahhh, it's all ok now, it's all being *"off-set".*  :Doh:  
Maybe she could do the next ultra-triathlon with Mr Rabbit?

----------


## Dr Freud

*"A STATE Government-backed scheme to use the sun to power towns in Queensland's scorched Outback has run into the dust due to concerns about the light. * Cloncurry in the state's northwest was meant to be the centrepiece of a radical $30 million plan to use solar energy to heat water and generate electricity, cutting carbon emissions and reliance on diesel  and eventually taking the town off the grid... 
...The Government, which faces criticism over a series of expensive infrastructure blunders, is blaming the project's failure on concerns about *light pollution*... 
..."There was a glare issue exceeding what they consider to be appropriate levels," he said. "If the glare issue cannot be addressed the project will be moved somewhere else in Cloncurry or it will not proceed."  
The State Government earmarked $7 million for the project. Of that, $900,000 had been spent so far, he said..."  Queensland solar power project in Cloncurry stalls because of bright light of panels | Courier Mail  *BREAKING NEWS:*  
You heard it here first people, soon we will all be paying a *Light Tax* for emitting too much glare from our windows, cars, solar panels etc., also known as "Light Pollution". 
Before you start laughing at your gleaming bald spot, think how ridiculed you would be going back in time and convincing people one day we would tax people for what they breathe out and tax cows for farting and burping.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Take heed, once a lucrative tax regime is in place, it it rarely removed by any future government.  Remember Labor's rock solid promise to roll back the GST, now they're actually stealing it from the states.  *"Thousands of British businesses will be liable for significant fines and    charges under a new government green tax scheme.  *  
Companies that fail to register their energy use by next month will be hit    with fines that could reach £45,000 under the little-known rules.  
               Those that do participate in the *Carbon    Reduction Commitment (CRC)* initiative by declaring their energy use    will face charges for every ton of greenhouse gas they produce.   
These payments are expected to average £38,000 a year for medium-sized firms,    and could reach £100,000 for larger organisations.   
...The Coalition is pressing ahead with the CRC despite Conservative pledges to    cut red-tape on businesses..."  Business facing a wave of green taxes - Telegraph 
Let's play spot the environmental outcome.  :Fineprint:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Is it only the dollars that count for you?  I think it is a great example of where a proper tax regime can benefit mankind as a whole - tax the polluting technologies to put the clean technologies on a more even footing.

  So, what you are saying is that these new carbon taxes will *artificially increase current electricity prices much higher*, thereby artificially making the "choice" of using renewable energy much more sensible? 
Hmmm, don't stray too far from the herd.  :No:

----------


## chrisp

> Chrisp answered that 20% = 20%, so I guess that's a start.

  Yep, not a bad start! 
I figured that my *20% = 20%* is a little closer to the mark than Rod's *20% = zero*.   :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> So, what you are saying is that these new carbon taxes will *artificially increase current electricity prices much higher*, thereby artificially making the "choice" of using renewable energy much more sensible?

  Bingo! 
You finally get what carbon tax and emissions trading is all about! 
On a more serious take, the fossil resources we are using to power our homes and our industry are finite - and their by-products are detrimental to the environment (and ultimately to us).  We are essentially using up fossil fuel reserves that took millions of years to produce in the matter of a few centuries.  At some point we need to change. Do you suggest that we just continue on our merry way until we hit that brick wall - or should we do something different now since we can now see the brick wall ahead?  By doing something different, I mean developing and encouraging renewable energy sources.

----------


## woodbe

> No long bows beng draw here though, it is cut and dried, all these figures should be readily available considering all the money that has been spent on it. 
> Without these figures, what would you say?  That we are guessing .  But hey that ok lets change our lifestyles and go back to horse and carts, cause our best guess surely justifies it.

  Got Straw Man? 
Good work Rod. Seeing you have already made up your mind on this, you must have run these numbers yourself? Or did you just read a Newspaper Headline you didn't like to decide it was all hogwash? 
Oh, by the way, Your Hero has been getting into trouble with simple things again (simple things like facts and misinformation that is.) 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Bingo! 
> You finally get what carbon tax and emissions trading is all about!

  Ahem, maybe you could fully answer the questions posed in my previous post seriously like Freud suggested, then we could work our if this is worth it. 
If you produced the figures then maybe a few more people will agree with you.  The very fact that a cost/benefit analysis can't be done clearly defining all the parameters, will surely keep people from believing you.  Particularly when there is so much info out there that disputes your theory. 
Fancy asking us to "just trust us" this is for your own good, without being able to back it up with some straight forward figures.  It is this that make the AGW proponant a laughing stock to so many of us.  Come up with some better if you want us to open our wallets. 
It might make you feel good to have a "purpose" and spend your money to prove your worth.  But some of us require a bit more solid evidence before spending our money. 
Just show me how an ETS can be justified.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Got Straw Man? 
> Good work Rod. Seeing you have already made up your mind on this, you must have run these numbers yourself? Or did you just read a Newspaper Headline you didn't like to decide it was all hogwash? 
> Oh, by the way, Your Hero has been getting into trouble with simple things again (simple things like facts and misinformation that is.) 
> woodbe.

  No Woodbe I just cant help but notice that with all the billions spent on this farce NOBODY has been able to come up with the numbers. So who is the fool here? 
Show me the numbers Woodbe or admit you have nothing other than extrapolated trends pumped into a model with dubious start dates and dubious data to predict something that MIGHT happen in the future, to back up this absolute crock. 
Yes I have made up my mind that it is a total farce, becuase you guys have had years to produce some real evidence that this is fact and yet you continually fail to do so. 
The theory is like a bucket that has so many holes in it that you cant pour enough water into it to get the bucket full. Until you guys come up with some figures to back up what you claim then you are pushing a lost cause.  
Time is against you and time is our friend. The longer sensible people can stall the faithful from taking stupid expensive action that will do NOTHING to reduce global temperatures, (before you skwark show us the figures), the more likely this thing will fall over and we can get on with our lives. We can then focus our attention to real environmental concerns, like REAL polution.  
Seriously though you guys are fast losing ground while you cant come up with the simple figures that will prove AGW. People wake up to this sort of stuff, thankfully.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Oh, by the way, Your Hero has been getting into trouble with simple things again (simple things like facts and misinformation that is.) 
> woodbe.

  Oh boy, just sooooo tired of this crud. 
I guess what you are trying to say here is that every thing else Monckton says is false or miss-leading? Maybe Tamio is right, I don't know.  
I really don't see how you or anybody else can simply dissregard what a person has to say out of hand, because he may not be right on every thing said.  
By making a big deal of this really points to shallow thinking. It is a blatent attempt to disscredit all he says. This in my book just shows me that you fear what else he has to say. So he must be disscredited at any cost! If he is so wrong about everything, why not challenge everything he says? I can tell you why, because he will make a fool out of "you". 
Here is a challenge for you, why not come back and tell us what he says that is correct? If it is all wrong then tell us why?  You could start here http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...hn_abraham.pdf 
Also why would he be MY hero? He is just another person of many who are out there poking more holes in your bucket.

----------


## woodbe

> Oh boy, just sooooo tired of this crud. 
> I guess what you are trying to say here is that every thing else Monckton says is false or miss-leading? Maybe Tamio is right, I don't know.

  Touchy today Rod? 
I'm not trying to say anything, and certainly not asking you to put words in my mouth. 
Just reporting when the denialist poster boys fall in their own slop buckets, which they do with regular monotony. 
Hey, but if they are completely wrong on one thing, they must be nearly right on the rest, right?  :Yikes2:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Touchy today Rod? 
> I'm not trying to say anything, and certainly not asking you to put words in my mouth. 
> Just reporting when the denialist poster boys fall in their own slop buckets, which they do with regular monotony. 
> Hey, but if they are completely wrong on one thing, they must be nearly right on the rest, right?  
> woodbe.

  Nah I'm never "touchy'" as you put it. I find it all a bit amusing actually. How you can defend your position when asked for a clear answer on the numbers is beyond me.  
For if what you believe is true, these numbers should easy to claculate with some degree of accuracy. The fact is no-one can and nor do they want the debate to go this way because it weakens the entire AGW theory. So rather than answer the question the warmers avoid it like poison. Yet if you could answer this, it would kill all arguments.  
While this remains un-answered and warmers keep dodging by throwing up re herrings to discredit any that dissagree with them, you will certainly loose your argument. AGW is being shown how much of a crock it is right here.  
What really amuses me is that so many people are prepared to believe this rubbish without either looking at the arguments against AGW or demanding solid evidence.  
What really *amazes* me is that so many people are prepared to believe this rubbish after being presented with enough counter argument to at best drop AGW in its tracks, at worst create enough doubt to proceed with caution and wait and see.  
As I say time is on our side, whilst we are sensibly holding off on any major changes to our lives (read ETS), then I am happy to sit back and watch, the warmers make complete fools of themselves, as the empirical evidence unfolds to bury the AGW argument forever.  
I can see an acute shortage of humble pie in the years to come.

----------


## woodbe

> For if what you believe is true, these numbers should easy to claculate with some degree of accuracy. The fact is no-one can and nor do they want the debate to go this way because it weakens the entire AGW theory. So rather than answer the question the warmers avoid it like poison. Yet if you could answer this, it would kill all arguments.

  We both know it wouldn't kill all arguments. It would just create more arguments. 
Tell you what Rod, you're so into numbers, show us the numbers you have that prove it isn't so. 
Nice debating tactic  - require your opponents to jump through an impossible hoop, and when they cannot, declare yourself the victor. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> So, what you are saying is that these new carbon taxes will *artificially increase current electricity prices much higher*?

   

> Bingo! 
> You finally get what carbon tax and emissions trading is all about!

  As can be clearly seen from the start of this thread, this is what this fiasco is all about, that's why I have been arguing against it from the start.  Massive increase in energy prices to pay back an idiotic governments debts, with no environmental outcomes. 
But click on the link below, and you can see how you might want to convince your fellow AGW Theory believers of this.   

> Lads, if you're going to take a walk on the green side, you could at least get with the greenie program:  *"Prices of products and services that use fossil fuels would rise as producers passed their carbon tax costs downstream. For example, electricity produced from coal would gradually get more expensive, while electricity produced from wind would not."*

----------


## Dr Freud

*"VICTORIAN households face electricity price rises of up to 50 per cent - between $600 and $800 a year on average - to cover soaring costs and pollution taxes. * The savage blow will push average annual bills for typical families towards $2000 by 2013... 
...Electricity generators had factored in a price on carbon to protect their profits, and consumers had been paying more despite the ETS not being imposed, Mr Polis said..."  New $800 power slug | Herald Sun 
Who wants to vote for higher electricity prices for no environmental outcome?   :Screwy:

----------


## chrisp

> Massive increase in energy prices to pay back an idiotic governments debts, with no environmental outcomes.

  It is nothing to do with government debt. 
Electricity prices, and fossil fuel prices are on the rise - regardless of who is in government.  It isn't politics that is driving up prices! 
Here are some of the reasons:  Electricity infrastructure (generators, power lines, etc.) hasn't been updated for many years (decades).The population has been growing.The size of houses have been increasing.The demand for power has been increasing.Peak demand (which determine the 'size' of the infrastructure needed) has been growing even faster.
We are running out of generating and distribution capacity - this is the main driver of 'smart meters' - it is an attempt to redistribute the load and increase prices, to 'artificially' reduce demand, at times of high load. 
For fossil fuels, it seems that oil is becoming somewhat harder to find and pump out of wells.  It is supply and demand. 
... and then comes AGW ... 
Do you think politicians can somehow prevent the price increases?  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

> We both know it wouldn't kill all arguments. It would just create more arguments. 
> Tell you what Rod, you're so into numbers, show us the numbers you have that prove it isn't so. 
> Nice debating tactic  - require your opponents to jump through an impossible hoop, and when they cannot, declare yourself the victor. 
> woodbe.

  This is not a debating tactic, it is called the scientific method. 
I have tried many times to explain this to many AGW Theory proponents, who continually ignore it.  This primarily is the fault of the IPCC who themselves have bastardised scientific integrity.  Now many people see their methods as being scientifically valid, whereas they have attempted a meta-analysis and instead produced science fiction. 
I do not blame you and others for not realising the error of the IPCC's method, but I do implore you to research and learn the correct scientific method for yourselves. 
Again: If you propose a theory, you need to validate it.  It does not stand as "assumed to be reality" until someone disproves it.  This is called religion, and is perfectly valid as religious dogma. Just don't call it science.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Bedford

> Electricity prices, and fossil fuel prices are on the rise - regardless of who is in government.

  Who owns these fossil fuels and is there a royalty paid on this?

----------


## woodbe

> I have tried many times to explain this to many AGW Theory proponents, who continually ignore it.  This primarily is the fault of the IPCC who themselves have bastardised scientific integrity.  Now many people see their methods as being scientifically valid, whereas they have attempted a meta-analysis and instead produced science fiction.

  Except you know that the IPCC does not do science, they collate it and assemble it into their report. The actual science is done by Scientists independant of the IPCC beavering away at their own research and publishing it in peer reviewed journals. In this thread, you have repeatedly attacked the IPCC's science, knowing that the IPCC does not do the scientific research or publish it. 
Talk about dogma. How many times does this need to be explained in this thread before it sinks in? The IPCC is not a research organisation, it does not do research and it does not publish research.  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> It is nothing to do with government debt.

  Taxes are revenue.  Revenue pays expenses.  Expenses higher than revenue equals debt.  Increase taxes (greenie carbon ones) increases revenue.  Revenues now higher than expenses (including principal and interest payments on debt). Debt then decreases. 
Hope this wasn't oversimplified.  A picture may also help:     

> Electricity prices, and fossil fuel prices are on the rise - regardless of who is in government. It isn't politics that is driving up prices! 
> Here are some of the reasons:  Electricity infrastructure (generators, power lines, etc.) hasn't been updated for many years (decades).The population has been growing.The size of houses have been increasing.The demand for power has been increasing.Peak demand (which determine the 'size' of the infrastructure needed) has been growing even faster.
> We are running out of generating and distribution capacity - this is the main driver of 'smart meters' - it is an attempt to redistribute the load and increase prices, to 'artificially' reduce demand, at times of high load. 
> For fossil fuels, it seems that oil is becoming somewhat harder to find and pump out of wells.  It is supply and demand. 
> ... and then comes AGW ...

  These costs inputs apply to the market.  They are not the artificially introduced greenie carbon taxes* added on top* of these market influences. 
Can we all please keep up:   

> The point is failed greenie policies are driving up electricity prices *(above CPI and other cost inputs for those having trouble keeping up )* and wasting everyones time and money, and our idiot government are paying for all these rorts with our money.

   

> Do you think politicians can somehow prevent the price increases?

  Er, yes!  As explained [again] above, market costs apply regardless. 
One side of politics wants to add another lot of greenie carbon taxes *on top of these costs.* 
The other side does not. 
So *yes,* politicians can prevent price increases by not adding ridiculous greenie taxes that have no environmental benefit. 
More to the point, *we as ordinary citizens get to choose* if we want artificially inflated electricity prices for no environmental benefit. 
We choose on Saturday 21 August 2010.  :Ausflag:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Except you know that the IPCC does not do science 
> woodbe.

   

> This primarily is the fault of the IPCC who themselves have bastardised scientific integrity.  Now many people see their methods as being scientifically valid, whereas they have attempted a meta-analysis and instead produced science fiction.

  My friend, we have already agreed on this many times in the past. 
The IPCC certainly do not "do science".  They do science fiction.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> Again: If you propose a theory, you need to validate it.

  You propose an Hypothesis, and then you try and tear it down (falsify it). If you cannot do this, then you work on proving it. If its good enough, and you have done good science, you might get published in a peer review journal.   

> It does not stand as "assumed to be reality" until someone disproves it.

  It stands until someone proposes a better Hypothesis that fits the data. If this happens, then the new Hypothesis stands in place of the old one, and the process repeats. 
These are the basics of every peer-reviewed scientific paper, including the many thousands supporting AGW.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Again: If you propose a theory, you need to validate it.  It does not stand as "assumed to be reality" until someone disproves it.  This is called religion, and is perfectly valid as religious dogma. Just don't call it science.

  Proved that theory yet? 
Or will you also just invent a fictional subjective likelihood scale?  :Biggrin:  
No my friend, the IPCC certainly does not do science!  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You propose an Hypothesis, and then you try and tear it down (falsify it). If you cannot do this, then you work on proving it. If its good enough, and you have done good science, you might get published in a peer review journal. 
> It stands until someone proposes a better Hypothesis that fits the data. If this happens, then the new Hypothesis stands in place of the old one, and the process repeats. 
> These are the basics of every peer-reviewed scientific paper, including the many thousands supporting AGW.  
> woodbe.

  No problems with this process "in general" for many theories running around, but where does the increased taxation in Australia kick into this scientific process?

----------


## Dr Freud

> No problems with this process "in general" for many theories running around, but where does the increased taxation in Australia kick into this scientific process?

  If you answer Rod's excellent questions, you will invariably also answer my simple one.  :Biggrin:    

> Now you might tell us what % of man made Co2 makes up that figure V's natural Co2  and support it with some scientific facts. While you are at it you might then lay out what % of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor and other gases.  Then work it back to the % difference man made Co2 makes.  Then you go go a step further and work out the % of man made Co2 that Australia contributes.  Then possibly you could work out for us the amount of temperature increase is due entirely by man made C02 then by Australia's Co2. 
> That should be very easy to do eh! 
> Boy while we are on a roll, once you have the scientifically proven figures for that.  Maybe we could then work out how much cooler the world would be if Australia reduced emissions by 5% then 10% the 20%. Should be a cinch 
> Then I guess the next step seeing that was so easy is to work out the cost per % of reduction to the economy and equate that back to a $ figure per degree of temperature drop that we in Australia can achieve.   
> Then we can ask ourselves is it worth it? 
> Seeing how the science is settled and all that, this should be a walk in the park. 
> Now that would make a lot more sense to a layman like me.  Rather than sticking a figure up there with a cute diagram that would have the reader think that it is our factories etc making up all the warming observed over the last centuary.  That is if the temperature records are squeaky clean and accurate of course. Not to mention any other natural influences on temperature. 
> No long bows beng draw here though, it is cut and dried, all these figures should be readily available considering all the money that has been spent on it. 
> Without these figures, what would you say?  That we are guessing .  But hey that ok lets change our lifestyles and go back to horse and carts, cause our best guess surely justifies it.

----------


## PhilT2

> I'm glad you said "one way" and not "a good way", so you still have some  AGW Theory credibility left after posting this ridiculous argument,  that is used often by many AGW Theory proponents.

  There seems to be a bit of confusion about where the boundary lies between the science and the politics. AGW theory proposes that the world is warming at an unprecedented rate and man made fossil fuel emission are a significant cause. But that is about where the science stops. 
Any solutions are a political process. Anyone who believes that the high population poorer nations would willingly agree to incur costs to cut their emissions without equal or greater contributions from wealthier nations would in my view be extremely politically naive. 
In the past I have been able to access the latest research through a friend who worked at the local university. She had free access through work to the journals that normally charge for articles. Some, ,not many, are available in hard copy at the UQ library. Now that she has moved on I have to find another source with the right access. But I am curious as to how others keep up with current research. Do you have similar sources or do you only read the free stuff? Or is your mind made up and you feel that you don't need new information?

----------


## chrisp

> In the past I have been able to access the latest research through a friend who worked at the local university. She had free access through work to the journals that normally charge for articles. Some, ,not many, are available in hard copy at the UQ library. Now that she has moved on I have to find another source with the right access. But I am curious as to how others keep up with current research. Do you have similar sources or do you only read the free stuff? Or is your mind made up and you feel that you don't need new information?

  I don't know about others here, but I too have the 'right access' so finding any scientific information is relatively easy. 
For what it is worth, most of the information is in the public domain anyway.  I only use the 'right access' to check out some of the indexes for some of those contentious claims or publications.  (I'm still awaiting THAT paper that is supposed to appear in Nature  :Rolleyes:  ) 
Also, for most part, the science has moved on - there isn't any serious scientific question as the whether AGW or real or not.  It is just a matter of more information to fine tune the predictions.  I'm sure that the first reputable scientific paper that disproves AGW will make the front page of just about every newspaper.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Also, for most part, the science has moved on - there isn't any serious scientific question as the whether AGW or real or not. It is just a matter of more information to fine tune the predictions. I'm sure that the first reputable scientific paper that disproves AGW will make the front page of just about every newspaper.

  Your joking right? Here is a link to help you out. http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html 
Sure, just as you cant point to a paper that proves AGW nor do these disprove it.  But you cannot claim the science has moved on as if AGW is true. This is a blatent lie.  Keep telling  porkies about this and drive a few more to look behind the scenes and find out how much of a scam this is.   
When warmers can give a sensible answer to the math questions posed above the warmers might get a bit of credibility, until then you have none, except with the gulible or those with vested interests.    
BTW Woodbe you can see what your nemisis is on about here.Monckton: Why current trends are not alarming | Watts Up With That?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Woodbe the following is a post in WUWT,  it shows how your mates at RC handle critique LOL.  *Ralph* _says:_  August 14, 2010 at 5:48 am 
Real Climate had a ‘disproof’ of Lord Monckton’s CO2 claims. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/
But if you look at their figure 4, you will see that Monckton’s ‘fantasy IPCC projections’ are almost exactly the same as the IPCC’s projections. So I am not sure what point they are trying to make.
I tried to point this out on Real Climate, but four of my five postings were deleted.
AGW does not brook freedom of speech. You will think what the the Great Comrade tells you to think.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe the following is a post in WUWT,  it shows how your mates at RC handle critique LOL.

  Dear Rod. 
WUWT is not a science based site. It's an opinion site started by a TV Weatherman who didn't like what he read in the headlines. 
Allow me to remind you that (_i_) 9798% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field  support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental                      Panel on Climate Change, and (_ii_) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that                      of the convinced researchers. 
Once again, Public opinion is fickle, and it is not based on science. It often swings against science because we humans plain don't like to hear things that mean we have to change how we live. I could post previous examples of this behaviour, but a) you already know about them, and b) you don't like them mentioned in the context of AGW. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> *Ralph* _says:_  August 14, 2010 at 5:48 am 
> Real Climate had a disproof of Lord Moncktons CO2 claims. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/
> But if you look at their figure 4, you will see that Moncktons fantasy IPCC projections are almost exactly the same as the IPCCs projections. So I am not sure what point they are trying to make.
> I tried to point this out on Real Climate, but four of my five postings were deleted.
> AGW does not brook freedom of speech. You will think what the the Great Comrade tells you to think.

  Here's 'Ralph's' remaining comment:  

> Ralph says:       7 August 2010 at 9:51 AM
>        As your figure 4 demonstrates, Moncktons CO2 projections are almost exactly the same as the IPCC projections.
>  So what, exactly, is the point you are trying to make?

  And if you actually read the RC piece instead of believing what you read on WUWT, you would find this:   

> Moncktons rendition is still not an honest representation of anything  the IPCC ever published.  I can prove this by blowing up the 2000-2010  portion of the graph in Fig. 4.  I have done this in Fig. 5, where I  have also plotted the actual mean annual global CO2 concentrations for that period.  The clear implication of this graph is that even if the A2 scenario did predict atmospheric CO2  evolution (and it doesnt,) it would actually be a good prediction, so  far. In Figures 1 and 2, Lord has simply fabricated data to make it seem  like the A2 scenario is wrong.

  So it seems he is trying to jump on Fig. 4. before he read the rest of the discussion, which dealt with his question and answered it succinctly. His very question displays the clear information that he had not read or understood anything past Fig. 4. 
On that basis, I'm not surprised that his posts got deleted. RC is like a honeypot for every crank denialist but if you read the comments, you will see that genuine sceptics get treated with respect. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Your joking right? Here is a link to help you out. Popular Technology.net: 800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm 
> Sure, just as you cant point to a paper that proves AGW nor do these disprove it.  But you cannot claim the science has moved on as if AGW is true. This is a blatent lie.  Keep telling  porkies about this and drive a few more to look behind the scenes and find out how much of a scam this is.

  Rod, 
It is not a "blatent (sic) lie". 
As in any field, you will find the odd dissenter, but in AGW science - and especially from those who work in the actual field - the level of agreement about the existence of AGW is very high (95% plus).  We can go through the statistics again if you like? 
In the scientific community and there is very very little argument about whether AGW is real.  Most of the discussion is around topics like why certain politicians are playing political games with the issue. 
Come on Rod.  I'm not sure exactly what your issue is with AGW, but it seems to me that it is time for you to _come in from the cold_.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> There seems to be a bit of confusion about where the boundary lies between the science and the politics. AGW theory proposes that the world is warming at an unprecedented rate and man made fossil fuel emission are a significant cause. But that is about where the science stops. 
> Any solutions are a political process. Anyone who believes that the high population poorer nations would willingly agree to incur costs to cut their emissions without equal or greater contributions from wealthier nations would in my view be extremely politically naive. 
> In the past I have been able to access the latest research through a friend who worked at the local university. She had free access through work to the journals that normally charge for articles. Some, ,not many, are available in hard copy at the UQ library. Now that she has moved on I have to find another source with the right access. But I am curious as to how others keep up with current research. Do you have similar sources or do you only read the free stuff? Or is your mind made up and you feel that you don't need new information?

   

> I don't know about others here, but I too have the 'right access' so finding any scientific information is relatively easy. 
> For what it is worth, most of the information is in the public domain anyway.  I only use the 'right access' to check out some of the indexes for some of those contentious claims or publications.  (I'm still awaiting THAT paper that is supposed to appear in Nature  ) 
> Also, for most part, the science has moved on - there isn't any serious scientific question as the whether AGW or real or not.  It is just a matter of more information to fine tune the predictions.  I'm sure that the first reputable scientific paper that disproves AGW will make the front page of just about every newspaper.

  Are you people mad? 
Are you seriously saying that unless we pay some $20 prescription to some scientific journals, they will withhold the truth from us about the imminent termination of our species? 
From what you two are saying, these lunatics aren't scientist's, they're psychopaths!  :Doh:  
As for political solutions, can you all please start to understand what your own theory claims.   
AGW Theory doesn't care about rich nations, poor nations, per capita contributions and any other blah blah pseudo-politico-scientific speak you want to come up with.  AGW Theory works off total contributions.  If all your "scientists" have explained this clearly to the world, and they choose to do nothing about it, then we all die.  Your own theory states that one nation cannot make a difference, total contributions are the *only* thing that counts. 
But my personal opinion after studying all the science in this area, is that this whole theory is predicated on spurious computer model output and is a crock!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> (_i_) 9798% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field  support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental                      Panel on Climate Change, and (_ii_) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that                      of the convinced researchers. 
> woodbe.

   

> As in any field, you will find the odd dissenter, but in AGW science - and especially from those who work in the actual field - the level of agreement about the existence of AGW is very high (95% plus).  We can go through the statistics again if you like? 
> In the scientific community and there is very very little argument about whether AGW is real.

  Surveys are not scientific proof people.  :Doh:  
Gentleman, just because some people agree on something, this does not make it reality.  Once again, this is how religions work (and kudos to their faith).  In science, we say *prove it?* 
But this is a well worn and well ignored path for AGW Theory believers!   

> Your witty retorts were sorely missed (unlike your views on AGW Theory) .  That was some walk.  Our country?  But enough chit chat... 
> Your article starts with this: 
> "Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking *agreement* among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC."  *"a·gree·ment* _n. _ *1.*  The act of agreeing. *2.*  Harmony of opinion; accord. *3.*  An arrangement between parties regarding a course of action; a covenant." 
> This is *not* science, but it *is* wrong and shoddy to pretend that because some people agree that something is real, that this is scientific proof that it is real. It is agreed opinion, not scientific proof. A wise man once said:   _"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing._" *Anatole France.* 
> He was very wise, he also said this: _
> "An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't."_ *Anatole France.*   
> P.S. Don't spose you took Plimer's "Heaven and Earth" for some light reading on your walk?

----------


## woodbe

> But my personal opinion after studying all the science in this area, is that this whole theory is predicated on spurious computer model output and is a crock!

  Hang on, you don't want to pay for access, yet you have studied 'all the science' This is another one of Doc's clangers!  :2thumbsup:  
If you _had_ studied all the science you would know that there is more to the science than what can be predicated on computer model output, spurious or not. You would also not be posting on Internet Forums because you just wouldn't have the time - there are thousands and thousands of journals to read and study... 
haha. Good work Doc, you're destroying your own arguments before we can get to them.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Here's 'Ralph's' remaining comment:  
> And if you actually read the RC piece instead of believing what you read on WUWT, you would find this:   
> So it seems he is trying to jump on Fig. 4. before he read the rest of the discussion, which dealt with his question and answered it succinctly. His very question displays the clear information that he had not read or understood anything past Fig. 4. 
> On that basis, I'm not surprised that his posts got deleted. RC is like a honeypot for every crank denialist but if you read the comments, you will see that genuine sceptics get treated with respect. 
> woodbe.

  And how exactly does this prove AGW Theory?  :Wink 1:  
No wonder you can't get the poorer nations to agree to act on this wacky theory.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> Surveys are not scientific proof people.

  Surveys were never offered as scientific proof. Doc.  
The study quoted does show that 97-98% of people who have taken the time and effort to become scientifically competent in the field "support the tenets of ACC as outlined by the IPCC" This is not agreement, its a whole bunch of scientists working independently yet coming to the same conclusions. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Hang on, you don't want to pay for access, yet you have studied 'all the science' This is another one of Doc's clangers!  
> If you _had_ studied all the science you would know that there is more to the science than what can be predicated on computer model output, spurious or not. You would also not be posting on Internet Forums because you just wouldn't have the time - there are thousands and thousands of journals to read and study... 
> haha. Good work Doc, you're destroying your own arguments before we can get to them.  
> woodbe.

  Yes, more semantic sidetracks to deflect from your lack of any evidence proving AGW Theory. 
"All the science" was not intended to mean every individual scientific research paper written in the last 150 years with a direct or indirect relationship to global atmospheric science. 
It was intended to mean relevant scientific arguments in support of AGW Theory and the articles cited as supporting these arguments.  The IPCC is a good repository of some of this information, but a far from comprehensive one. 
Rather than continually rushing down semantic "a-ha" moments of glory, and turning this thread into a tiresome waffle of semantic disclaimers, just show us "all the science" that proves AGW Theory? 
We both know how much of this there isn't.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Surveys were never offered as scientific proof. Doc.  
> The study quoted does show that 97-98% of people who have taken the time and effort to become scientifically competent in the field "support the tenets of ACC as outlined by the IPCC" This is not agreement, its a whole bunch of scientists working independently yet coming to the same conclusions. 
> woodbe.

  
LOL you really believe these figures. I guess you don't count the scientists that vehmentley dispute the AGW therory.  
I suppose the fact that the villification of scientist who dissent from the popular *opinion*, has no bearing on this either.   
Get some real evidence Woodbe. Get the answers to the questions posed that can be backed by science and then AGW might get a bit of credibility.  
While these questions remain unclear AGW theory is just an opinion.  Nothing proven no empirical evidence to support it. That is, unless you think short term correlations that cannot be scientifically proven as causation, are evidence. 
Time is our friend, slowy the lack of empirical evidence is changing the opinions of many people.  I am going to laugh my A** off at all the fools that have been sucked in by this rubbish.  Governments the world over are stalling, love it.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Surveys were never offered as scientific proof. Doc.  
> The study quoted does show that 97-98% of people who have taken the time and effort to become scientifically competent in the field "support the tenets of ACC as outlined by the IPCC" This is not agreement, its a whole bunch of scientists working independently yet *coming to the same conclusions.* 
> woodbe.

  
Given the rancour from your side as to the posting of opinions, I'm surprised you are now such an advocate of using opinions to support your argument. 
You see my friend, science cares not for how well informed your opinion is, it is still just an opinion.  Science is about proving and disproving, not comparing the strength or numbers of opinions.  Learn this lesson well, it will help with the separation of science and politics.  Science will present a numerically proven causal relationship.  Politics will present a persuasive argument requiring people *coming to the same conclusions.* 
But apparently, you also believe that people coming to the same conclusions are not in agreement?  :Confused:

----------


## chrisp

> LOL you really believe these figures. I guess you don't count the scientists that vehmentley dispute the AGW therory.

  Oh, we counted them.   
Let's work it out for you: 
97% to 98% support AGW.  Simple mathematics gives us that 2% to 3% could either: (i) don't support it, (ii) are undecided, or (iii) don't wish to state their opinion. 
At a guess, I'd guess the number of scientists that "_vehmentley (sic) dispute the AGW_" would be a very small percentage of the 2% to 3% - i.e. they would be a very very small minority. 
Even at best, stretching the figures as far as you can, you could only claim 3% - still a very small minority.

----------


## chrisp

> While these questions remain unclear AGW theory is just an opinion.  Nothing proven no empirical evidence to support it. That is, unless you think short term correlations that cannot be scientifically proven as causation, are evidence.

  There is evidence Rod, you just choose to ignore it. 
Can you explain the recent (~150 year) increase in temperature?  Can you explain the increasing sea level?  Or do you think that these observations are just errors?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> There is evidence Rod, you just choose to ignore it. 
> Can you explain the recent (~150 year) increase in temperature? Can you explain the increasing sea level? Or do you think that these observations are just errors?

  Can you prove that this is due to MM Co2?? 
No didn't think so.

----------


## chrisp

> Can you prove that this is due to MM Co2??

  With a high level of confidence, the *science* can.   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> With a high level of confidence, the *science* can.

   :Wave:  :Wave:  :Rotfl:  :Rotfl:

----------


## chrisp

> 

  Now theres a man with an open mindyou can feel the breeze from here!
  _Groucho Marx_    :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> With a high level of confidence, the *science* can.

  Not quite right...the correct response should have been "With a high level of confidence, climate science has..." 
Of course, the response from Rod will be the same regardless. 
Personally, as I said about 250 pages back....the ETS that was being discussed at the time was a crock.  The carbon reduction measures that have been talked about recently (as part of some election campaign apparently) are also largely....a crock.  The one size fits most carbon tax that the Greens seem to favour.....yeah, that's a crock too.  Mainly because....like most taxation...those who logically should be paying the most usually end of paying the least. 
My preference.....despite the fact that I consider ACC/AGW/whatever to be a real observation, an undeniable fact and a definite risk to the future of my genetic line.....is to do absolutely nothing.  Not a thing.  No taxes, no market influences, no rebates, no handouts, no incentives, no disincentives....nothing.  Let the human will have its way...which ever way it wants to turn - green nirvana, grey goo, white technoboredom or plain brown smog.   
No matter who is right....and who is wrong.....something will happen.  And it'll be really interesting to watch.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Not quite right...the correct response should have been "With a high level of confidence, climate science has..." 
> Of course, the response from Rod will be the same regardless. 
> Personally, as I said about 250 pages back....the ETS that was being discussed at the time was a crock. The carbon reduction measures that have been talked about recently (as part of some election campaign apparently) are also largely....a crock. The one size fits most carbon tax that the Greens seem to favour.....yeah, that's a crock too. Mainly because....like most taxation...those who logically should be paying the most usually end of paying the least. 
> My preference.....despite the fact that I consider ACC/AGW/whatever to be a real observation, an undeniable fact and a definite risk to the future of my genetic line.....is to do absolutely nothing. Not a thing. No taxes, no market influences, no rebates, no handouts, no incentives, no disincentives....nothing. Let the human will have its way...which ever way it wants to turn - green nirvana, grey goo, white technoboredom or plain brown smog.  
> No matter who is right....and who is wrong.....something will happen. And it'll be really interesting to watch.

  Wow a post I 1/2 agree with from SBD  :Wink:  
You are 1/2 way there buddy.   
I certainly agree it will be VERY interesting to watch.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You are 1/2 way there buddy.   
> I certainly agree it will be VERY interesting to watch.

  Half way there? To what?  
Personally, I suspect that this puts your and my opinions further apart than ever.  You believe AGW/ACC is a fraud whereas I am confident that it is real.  
Yet you also seem to believe in some way that 'we' should be encouraged/provoked/led through the nose by policy etc. to live within our means in terms of resource consumption; sustainability et al..... 
However, I believe we should live the way 'we' want without significant policy constraint - if you want to use more of anything and can afford it then then go for your life - sky is the limit.  Equally, if you want to use less then it should not be made difficult to achieve or be the trigger for social, political & economic discrimination. 
Your way helps people abrogate their decision making and the repercussions to someone else....the way of the Sheep.   
My way places the entire responsibility for decision making and the repercussions of both good and bad decisions on the individual....I suppose you could call it the way of the Goat. 
Still think I'm half way there?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Still think I'm half way there?

  Yes I do!   

> Personally, I suspect that this puts your and my opinions further apart than ever. You believe AGW/ACC is a fraud whereas I am confident that it is real.

  Definitly disagree with you on this one. Belief is based on opinion and the "vibe lol" not scientifically proven facts. Just a heap of mish mashed loosely correlated and hardley definitley reliable data.   

> Yet you also seem to believe in some way that 'we' should be encouraged/provoked/led through the nose by policy etc. to live within our means in terms of resource consumption; sustainability et al.....

   What on earth have I said that gives you this idea.  

> However, I believe we should live the way 'we' want without significant policy constraint - if you want to use more of anything and can afford it then then go for your life - sky is the limit. Equally, if you want to use less then it should not be made difficult to achieve or be the trigger for social, political & economic discrimination.

   This I agree with.  

> Your way helps people abrogate their decision making and the repercussions to someone else....the way of the Sheep.

  The only sheep here are those that blindly believe that AGW is real without looking at all the facts presented to the contrary with an open mind. Surely there is room for doubt in you mind? If not, can you tell me what part of what has been presented as evidece of AGW puts the theory beyond doubt?   

> My way places the entire responsibility for decision making and the repercussions of both good and bad decisions on the individual....I suppose you could call it the way of the Goat.

  See now we are talking, free enterprise and less regulations in our lives :Brava: brava

----------


## chrisp

> However, I believe we should live the way 'we' want without significant policy constraint - if you want to use more of anything and can afford it then then go for your life - sky is the limit.  Equally, if you want to use less then it should not be made difficult to achieve or be the trigger for social, political & economic discrimination.
> ... 
> My way places the entire responsibility for decision making and the repercussions of both good and bad decisions on the individual....I suppose you could call it the way of the Goat.

  Wow!  What an interesting philosophy you have there. 
I understand your philosophy when an individual's actions have no, or very little, impact on others (e.g. you can pick your nose all you like - but please keep your boogers to yourself  :Smilie:  ). 
However, what is your view when an individual's actions have impact on others as well?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Well guys, fortunately for me Global Warming stayed away for another year to enable me to partake in a bit of snow skiing for a few days. 
Nice for it to dump a heap of snow the day before I go.  Better yet forecasted snow every day this week  :Smilie:  
Have to leave the forum to you guys till Saturday.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Wow!  What an interesting philosophy you have there. 
> I understand your philosophy when an individual's actions have no, or very little, impact on others (e.g. you can pick your nose all you like - but please keep your boogers to yourself  ). 
> However, what is your view when an individual's actions have impact on others as well?

  You're on the right track - think seriously on the implications of an individual over reaching themselves in the eyes of their peers.   
Ultimately, it is a shitstirrers philosophy.   
You may do whatever you like....but you have to be prepared to personally accept _ALL_ the potential consequences & implications of doing so without the prospect of significant personal, financial, legislative & political protection from both your peers and the environment at large.  And if the average sheep thought truly and deeply about that then they may find acceptance of a more reasonable existance much easier to come by......and if they don't.....well they probably didn't think hard enough. 
The average human sheep is now so isolated, protected, coddled and directed by their own society that they no longer have any need to make a concious decision about protecting their future.....they abrogate that responsibility to the collective consciousness.   
My view is that if they actually had to individually compete against their both their fellow sheep AND the ecosystem services that support them for their portion of a constrained resource as opposed to simply having it doled out to them for a fee then they might actually 'respect' the resource better than they do... 
So it's my philosophy (so to speak)......but I don't choose to use resources wildly because I'm not prepared to accept either the cost or the risk. In accordance with my philosophy, I much prefer to, wherever possible, use less......

----------


## chrisp

> My view is that if they actually had to individually compete against their both their fellow sheep AND the ecosystem services that support them for their portion of a constrained resource as opposed to simply having it doled out to them for a fee then they might actually 'respect' the resource better than they do...

  ...a bit like buying meat in a plastic container from a supermarket versus having to hunt (or farm) and slaughter the animal yourself?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Yeah, I suppose so. 
My beloved example is Cubby Station.  Those blokes were smart enough to recognise an opportunity provided in partial ignorance by both the State and Federal Government and the people and they ran it to its logical conclusion.....all perfectly legally.  And strategically brilliant. And now no-one knows what the hell to do about it....that is sheer brilliance.  It completely buggers the floodplain environment immediately downstream (but does bugger all the the Murray & Darling Rivers) and creates all sorts of hand wringing in the chattering class but whichever way it goes....the mob behind Cubby...wins.  Heart stonkingly marvellous.....and so stupid in the same breath.  Give praise to the Sheep. 
Give the sheep enough rope to let themselves hang with it, I say.  One day they might realise that the rope is actually potentially fatal.

----------


## PhilT2

New report from Australian Academy of Science http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf

----------


## chrisp

> I can see an acute shortage of humble pie in the years to come.

  It seems that some are happy to eat humble pie right now..._More Global Warming Skeptics Changing Their Views 
 Someone who has not been the most enlightened when it comes to global  warming (or global weirding), science editor of the Daily Mail Michael  Hanlon has announced that he is changing is stance on the matter due to recent events in Greenland and his trip to this country (which he now refers to as Global Warming Ground Zero). Yesterday, Hanlon wrote:  _ _I have long been something of a climate-change sceptic, but my views in recent years have shifted.  For me, the most convincing evidence that something worrying is going  on lies right here in the Arctic (emphasis added). Joss Garman said  Hanlon could previously be seen as the UKs most influential sceptic and has a good story on this and other recent changes in conservative media with regards to global warming. 
 And on the other side of the Atlantic: One of Americas most  influential global warming skeptics, CNN meteorologist Chad Myers, has  finally admitted that global warming is caused by man. Brad Johnson of The Wonk Room has more on this plus a video._ _ 
 Meanwhile, one of the most infamous and ridiculous global warming  deniers in the world, Christopher Monckton (aka Lord Monckton), has been  directly and bluntly told by the House of Lords that he needs to stop claiming he is a member of the upper house._  
(Links and story can be found at: Global Warming News of the Week  Planetsave  )

----------


## Dr Freud

> With a high level of confidence, the *science* can.

  We all know that science can do this, the question you ignore again is did it? 
Silly slogans like "yes we can" and "yes we will" often fool people into missing the important statement of "yes we did!" 
What we need is to "stand up for real action" against these silly slogans.  :Blush7:

----------


## woodbe

I agree  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Personally, as I said about 250 pages back....the ETS that was being discussed at the time was a crock.  The carbon reduction measures that have been talked about recently (as part of some election campaign apparently) are also largely....a crock.  The one size fits most carbon tax that the Greens seem to favour.....yeah, that's a crock too.  Mainly because....like most taxation...those who logically should be paying the most usually end of paying the least. 
> My preference.....despite the fact that I consider ACC/AGW/whatever to be a real observation, an undeniable fact and a definite risk to the future of my genetic line.....is to do absolutely nothing.  Not a thing.  No taxes, no market influences, no rebates, no handouts, no incentives, no disincentives....nothing.  Let the human will have its way...which ever way it wants to turn - green nirvana, grey goo, white technoboredom or plain brown smog.   
> No matter who is right....and who is wrong.....something will happen.  And it'll be really interesting to watch.

  A position advocating reality over fictional human dominion.  How refreshing.  :Smilie:  
I'll even wear the obviously subtle undertones.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> New report from Australian Academy of Science http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf

  Not a bad read compared to some of the drivel out there, especially surprising given Karoly was involved.  At least they use correct language some of the time, albeit in contradiction to their own statements.  But still, so many assumptions, computer models, conjecture, and appeals to authority figures.  Not a single fact in there proving AGW Theory! 
And as for this picture, it looks like we're going to all burst into flames soon:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Give the sheep enough rope to let themselves hang with it, I say.  One day they might realise that the rope is actually potentially fatal.

  No good tying ourselves up in knots in the meantime, eh?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It seems that some are happy to eat humble pie right now..._More Global Warming Skeptics Changing Their Views 
>  Someone who has not been the most enlightened when it comes to global  warming (or global weirding), science editor of the Daily Mail Michael  Hanlon has announced that he is changing is stance on the matter due to recent events in Greenland and his trip to this country (which he now refers to as Global Warming Ground Zero). Yesterday, Hanlon wrote:  _ _I have long been something of a climate-change sceptic, but my views in recent years have shifted.  For me, the most convincing evidence that something worrying is going  on lies right here in the Arctic (emphasis added). Joss Garman said  Hanlon could previously be seen as the UKs most influential sceptic and has a good story on this and other recent changes in conservative media with regards to global warming. 
>  And on the other side of the Atlantic: One of Americas most  influential global warming skeptics, CNN meteorologist Chad Myers, has  finally admitted that global warming is caused by man. Brad Johnson of The Wonk Room has more on this plus a video._ _ 
>  Meanwhile, one of the most infamous and ridiculous global warming  deniers in the world, Christopher Monckton (aka Lord Monckton), has been  directly and bluntly told by the House of Lords that he needs to stop claiming he is a member of the upper house._  
> (Links and story can be found at: Global Warming News of the Week  Planetsave  )

  Man, I'm confused.  First you didn't like opinions, then you liked informed opinions, now you value changed opinions (just 2?) even more?  The dude called Chad finally admitted that global warming is "caused by man".  Why has he been keeping it secret for so long?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

> I agree

  Mate, this is gold.  I got excited at first cos I thought it was an ad put out by Mr Rabbit finally rubbishing this argument.  Then I saw the logo and realised it was another stunt.  Then I got excited again cos it may just subliminally change a lot of minds out there given the "Yes we can" slogan drones out there.  :Biggrin:  
Very clever, a sceptics message paid for by believers to deceive other believers, but believed instead by a sceptic to influence believers to become sceptics.   :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

Number of words that Kevin Rudd devoted in his 2007 campaign launch speech to tackling global warming, the ”great moral, environmental and economic challenge of our age”:_237_Number of words that Julia Gillard devoted in her 2010 campaign launch speech to tackling global warming, ”a profound challenge for all of us”:_12_    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...nge_after_all/  __ Maybe Joolia is trying to subliminally transform the public to her scepticism in the ad above?

----------


## woodbe

This one must be for you, Doc  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> This one must be for you, Doc

  Hey, that matches an email he sent me last week.  Have you hacked my account?  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> Hey, that matches an email he sent me last week.  Have you hacked my account?

  Nope. That was done by some Russian hacker last week.  :2thumbsup:   :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> It seems that some are happy to eat humble pie right now..._More Global Warming Skeptics Changing Their Views 
>  Someone who has not been the most enlightened when it comes to global  warming (or global weirding), science editor of the Daily Mail Michael  Hanlon has announced that he is changing is stance on the matter due to recent events in Greenland and his trip to this country (which he now refers to as Global Warming Ground Zero). Yesterday, Hanlon wrote:  _ _I have long been something of a climate-change sceptic, but my views in recent years have shifted.  For me, the most convincing evidence that something worrying is going  on lies right here in the Arctic (emphasis added). Joss Garman said  Hanlon could previously be seen as the UKs most influential sceptic and has a good story on this and other recent changes in conservative media with regards to global warming. 
>  And on the other side of the Atlantic: One of Americas most  influential global warming skeptics, CNN meteorologist Chad Myers, has  finally admitted that global warming is caused by man. Brad Johnson of The Wonk Room has more on this plus a video._ _ 
>  Meanwhile, one of the most infamous and ridiculous global warming  deniers in the world, Christopher Monckton (aka Lord Monckton), has been  directly and bluntly told by the House of Lords that he needs to stop claiming he is a member of the upper house._  
> (Links and story can be found at: Global Warming News of the Week  Planetsave  )

  If people really did believe the end of the world, was nigh youd think more would do something about it:  _"MORE than 40,000 turned up in 2006, but just 10,000 people participated in the Walk Against Warming, an annual march through (Sydney) to protest against government inaction on climate change._  _Pepe Clarke, the chief executive of the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, had hoped to build on the 15,000 who marched during the Copenhagen Summit last year, but the rally shrank yet again."_  Heat goes out of warming | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
I wonder if the two dudes who changed their opinions were marching?  :Wink:

----------


## woodbe

> If people really did believe the end of the world, was nigh youd think more would do something about it:  _"MORE than 40,000 turned up in 2006, but just 10,000 people participated in the Walk Against Warming, an annual march through (Sydney) to protest against government inaction on climate change._  _Pepe Clarke, the chief executive of the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, had hoped to build on the 15,000 who marched during the Copenhagen Summit last year, but the rally shrank yet again."_  Heat goes out of warming | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
> I wonder if the two dudes who changed their opinions were marching?

----------


## Dr Freud

They are a lot of fun though... :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

*Rudd wants to give Labors CPRS some CPR*  
 17-August-2010  
  Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd are at odds on Labors future approach to a carbon price.
 In a letter to his constituents, future senior Labor frontbencher Kevin Rudd has revealed that he wants to revive the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme:
 We must do more in Australia by putting a cap on pollution and developing a market mechanism to deliver a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. 
In his letter, Mr Rudd also talks up the results of the failed Copenhagen conference and spruiks the importance of his new UN role. 
Labor is in a state of confusion over how to deal with the fact that if re-elected they will put a price on carbon - pushing up electricity prices and the cost of living. 
Last night, after spending the whole election campaign saying that she would lead a debate to put a price on carbon, Julia Gillard changed tack and now suddenly  unbelievably - claims that she wont put a price on carbon. 
Thanks to the secret Labor-Green preference deal, Labor are likely to hand control of the Senate to Bob Brown, who has again made it clear that he will demand a price on carbon: 
[it will be] the first item on the list when I meet the next Prime Minister after this election. (Radio 5AA, 16th August 2010) 
On Lateline last week, Maxine McKew acknowledged the inevitability of a carbon tax under Labor: It is inevitable we will see a price on carbon (11th August). 
And the future Foreign Minister, Mr Rudd, has made it clear he too wants a price on carbon. 
The only way to get real action on climate change, without imposing a carbon tax and raising the cost of living and the price of electricity is to vote Liberal.  Rudd wants to give Labor?s CPRS some CPR > The Nationals > Latest News

----------


## woodbe

> The only way to get real action on climate change, without imposing a carbon tax and raising the cost of living and the price of electricity is to vote Liberal.

  You'd be hard pressed to make this any better if you made it up.  :2thumbsup:  
I wonder what they're smoking in the Nat's office? 
woodbe.

----------


## andy the pm

> The only way to get real action on climate change, without imposing a carbon tax and raising the cost of living and the price of electricity is to vote Liberal.

    :Roflmao:  
Sadly some people will actually believe it....

----------


## chrisp

> Man, I'm confused.  First you didn't like opinions, then you liked informed opinions, now you value changed opinions (just 2?) even more?  The dude called Chad finally admitted that global warming is "caused by man".  Why has he been keeping it secret for so long?

  I know that you have a problem distinguishing fact from opinion.  So let's go through it carefully: 
Rod seems to be making the contention that the AGW house-of-cards will fall over sometime soon.  He made a comment about "humble pie" in this context. 
I have pointed out that a well known AGW sceptical who is the science editor for a well known sceptical newspaper has publically changed his view.  (these are facts about his opinion) 
These facts fly in the face of Rod's claim (opinion) that the acceptance of AGW theory is somehow on the decline and that somehow the issue will just blow away. 
I know for fact that the scientists certainly haven't changed their view on the existence of AGW.

----------


## jago

Coalition Of The Willing on Vimeo

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The only way to get real action on climate change, without imposing a carbon tax and raising the cost of living and the price of electricity is to vote Liberal.  Rudd wants to give Labor?s CPRS some CPR > The Nationals > Latest News

  I'm more mystified by a) why the Nationals would want the punters to vote Liberal; and b) how voting is an action against climate change.  
What the quote should probably have said: 
"The only way to get real action on climate change, without imposing a carbon tax and raising the cost of living and the price of electricity is to GET OFF YOUR @@@@ AND DO IT YOURSELF."

----------


## Dr Freud

> Sadly some people will actually believe it....

  
Kinda like AGW Theory, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, huh?   :Burnt:  :Fixed:  :Wmann3:

----------


## woodbe

This is gold:  

> ZAKARIA: Let me ask you what people wonder about, advocates like you. They say 
>  MICHAELS: Im advocating for efficiency.
>  ZAKARIA: Right. But people say that youre advocating also for the  current petroleum-based industry to stand pat, to stay as it is, and  that a lot of your research is funded by these industries.
>  MICHAELS: *Oh, no, no*. First of all, what Im saying is 
>  ZAKARIA: Well, is your research funded by these industries?
>  MICHAELS: *Not largely*. The fact of the matter is 
>  ZAKARIA: Can I ask you what percentage of your work is funded by the petroleum industry?
>  MICHAELS: I dont know. *40 percent*? I dont know.

  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fguJod_voPc&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Pat Michaels admits: '40 percent' of funding comes from big oil.[/ame] 
For once I agree with Rod. People _are_ beginning to wake up. Its just not happening in the direction he thinks. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> This is gold:YouTube - Pat Michaels admits: '40 percent' of funding comes from big oil. 
> For once I agree with Rod. People _are_ beginning to wake up. Its just not happening in the direction he thinks. 
> woodbe.

  WOW! 
AGW Theory is hereby proved. 
Your science is irrefutable.  :Biggrin:  
With science like this, you may even be awarded the Nobel peace prize.  :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

Its not my science you have to worry about, Doc. 
That's another serial denier hitting the deck. Even the Cato Institute has rushed to distance themselves from him.  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Its not my science you have to worry about, Doc. 
> woodbe.

  I don't worry at all about science. Perhaps I should have added one of these.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):    

> That's another serial denier hitting the deck. Even the Cato Institute has rushed to distance themselves from him.  
> woodbe.

  At the risk of indulging this irrelevant sidetrack, this proves AGW Theory how?  :Sneaktongue:

----------


## Dr Freud

"...An Associated Press examination of U.S. Department of Energy records and information provided by utilities and trade groups shows that more than 30 traditional coal plants have been built since 2008 or are under construction... 
...The expansion, the industry's largest in two decades, represents an acknowledgment that highly touted "clean coal" technology is still a long ways from becoming a reality and underscores a renewed confidence among utilities that proposals to regulate carbon emissions will fail... 
..."Building a coal-fired power plant today is betting that we are not going to put a serious financial cost on emitting carbon dioxide," said Severin Borenstein, director of the Energy Institute at the University of California-Berkeley... 
...Experts say the widespread application of carbon-neutralizing technologies for coal plants remains at least 15 to 20 years away.  
"This is not something that's going to happen tomorrow," Grasser said. "You have to do the required research and development and take steps along the way."   *Producing clean coal power appears straightforward: Separate the carbon dioxide before it goes up the smokestack, then store it underground in geological formations.*"   The Associated Press: AP Enterprise: Old-style coal plants expanding 
Ok, first, spend some time digesting the full story in relation to our futile political ramblings, with massive real world costs for no environmental outcomes. 
But the important point here, I've highlighted in bold.  The intention of this great plan of Gillard's clean coal power plants is to separate and trap the CO2 (pollution?) and still pump out all the rest (clean stuff?). 
Remember all the "clean stuff" that will continue to get pumped out IF we figure out this technological separation over the next few decades.   

> Its not me, its the bozos at the IPCC, and their band of merry men, blindly following along.  It is well documented that I have no issues whatsoever with CO2.  As soon as these bozos reach a similar conclusion, and our Prime Muppet drops the last pretence of his Enormous Taxation Scheme, this whole thread (and global delusion) will end.   It is also well documented that I support a cleaner environment, I support better controls of pollution, I advocate strongly for serious funding and research into commercial applications of solar energy, I support a transition from coal to nuclear pending this solar breakthrough, I support reducing fossil fuel dependence, primarily for energy security reasons, but also for environmental reasons.  Bottom line, I hate pollution with a passion, and the diversion of resources to AGW Theory *instead of* rectifying these issues pisses me off no end.  This is no small amount of money.   I will provide another example, regarding oil burning pollution being ignored while this irrational nonsense is blatantly lied about to kids, and all fully funded by us stupid taxpayers blindly following along.   Check this out:   Exhaust gas or flue gas is emitted as a result of the combustion of fuels such as natural gas, gasoline/petrol, diesel fuel, fuel oil or coal.  The largest part of most combustion gases is nitrogen (N2), water vapor (H2O) (except with pure-carbon fuels), and carbon dioxide(CO2) (except for fuels with no carbon in); these are not toxic or noxious (although carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming). A relatively small part of it is undesirable noxious or toxic substances, such as carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOx), Ozone(O3), partly unburnt fuel, and particulate matter.   And this:   The reaction that works the engine of an automobile is simply a combustion (burning) of petrol (gasoline), diesel oil, or LPG (propane).  But because of the way the motor is designed and tuned, the actual composition of exhaust fumes is rather more complicated than that.  So ideally the composition might be something like 70% nitrogen, 15% carbon dioxide, 15% water vapour.  However, not all of the fuel burns completely. So the exhaust stream may contain carbon monoxide (very poisonous), soot, and unburnt petrol.  The other significant material that is present in car exhaust is nitric oxide.  When this nitric oxide cools, it can react further with the air to produce nitrogen dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide is a poisonous and corrosive brown gas. It is the substance that reacts in sunlight to start off the very complicated series of reactions that produce photochemical smog (Los Angeles type smog). In cool damp conditions, it can alternatively react with water droplets to produce nitric acid, and acid rain.  Leaded petrol is still used in many places (including here in Australia). When petrol burns, the tetraethyl lead produces lead oxide as a very fine dust. This is a poisoning hazard, both in terms of direct inhalation, and in terms of helping maintain a high content of lead in the street dust along busy roads.   Now based on this information, it would be reasonable to conclude that burning oil/coal/gas produces both benign and toxic/noxious/poisonous gases.  We could produce two lists:   Benign   Nitrogen Water Vapour (a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming-Wiki forgot to mention this) Carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming-Wiki remembered to mention this)   Noxious   Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitric Oxides Nitrogen Dioxides Nitric acid (Acid rain) Lead oxide Ozone Unburnt fuel Particulate matter (Soot)
> Photochemical smog   Now watch the animation on this link (click on the Transformer or the days of change logo).  This animation also runs in this exact format in television ads screened during prime time viewing.  The cute transformer is obviously designed to gets the kids attention.  This transformer is also plastered all over our trains here in WA, to reinforce this message to kids.  You will need sound.   Transperth Homepage    Did you hear all those nasty toxic and poisonous substances listed?   I think we can all agree that pollution sucks.  All that remains is that we all agree to spend trillions of dollars on renewable energy and removing pollution, rather than chasing fictional green rabbits based on the opinion of enviro-wackos working for the UN.

  Yay, after we spend trillions, we can separate that clear, odourless, colourless, harmless animal exhalation, that plants need for life and bury it underground.  But smog and acid rain will increase massively, lucky they aren't evil "pollution" like CO2.  :2thumbsup:  
NOTE: Apologies to Mr Rabbit, there was no intention to represent him as being fictional or green.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> At the risk of indulging this irrelevant sidetrack, this proves AGW Theory how?

  Did I say it did? No. 
Was it directed at Rod's ongoing posts regarding the impending doom for the entire AGW position supported by 97+% of publishing climate scientists? Yes. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Yay, after we spend trillions, we can separate that clear, odourless, colourless, harmless animal exhalation, that plants need for life and bury it underground.  But smog and acid rain will increase massively, lucky they aren't evil "pollution" like CO2.

  At least you recognise that pollution exists. Well done.  :2thumbsup:  
Legislation and regulation already exists for known pollutants, but we could always have less of them, so I'd support a sensible move in that direction. Are you implying that there is no existing pollution regulation for coal fired power plants? 
Apart from recent moves in the US, CO2 emissions are not regulated at all. 
Your comments read as if you deny CO2 physics in the atmosphere? Haven't we done this before? Being beneficial for plants has nothing to do with its properties as a GHG. 
The clean coal movement is a smokescreen for inaction. We do not have the financial capability to develop the technology to a usable level, nor the time. Even if we did, the cost is so high that it would make alternative energy seem outrageously cheap. Maybe its a trick  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## jago

Thats excellent whilst reading this page of threads the sponsor ad from google  
VOTE GREEN    :Rofl5:

----------


## PhilT2

It's a minor point but some of the information in the post #3744 by Doc is well out of date. Aust stopped using leaded petrol long ago and the latest catalytic converters have also contributed to reduced exhaust emissions. To say that oil burning pollution is being ignored is quite incorrect if you consider the number of emission control measures that vehicles must comply with and how long some of these standards have been in place. 
Incidentally the catalytic converter converts some of the noxious gases from the exhaust into CO2.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Thats excellent whilst reading this page of threads the sponsor ad from google  
> VOTE GREEN

  Either one, the deals done.  :Biggrin:   ...In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price... 
What price will we pay for electricity for the preference deal?  :Doh:  
Must be a great position to release it the night before the election.  Late enough that it doesn't affect the outcome, but now you can say you released it prior to the last election, so now you have a "mandate" to raise electricity prices.

----------


## Dr Freud

> At the risk of indulging this irrelevant sidetrack, this proves AGW Theory how?

   

> Did I say it did? No. 
> woodbe.

  Well at least we all agree that it's not real.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> At least you recognise that pollution exists. Well done.  
> woodbe.

  It must have been a really, really long walk.  :Biggrin:    

> Legislation and regulation already exists for known pollutants, but we could always have less of them, so I'd support a sensible move in that direction. Are you implying that there is no existing pollution regulation for coal fired power plants? 
> woodbe.

  This must be bizzaro world.  I'm describing the real pollution that humans produce, and you start describing the standards monitoring that production.  Are you for real?  Do you want me to post some pics of the pollution I describe, then some pics of CO2 "pollution" in action?  AGW Theory relies on this level of group think and ignorance to survive.   

> Apart from recent moves in the US, CO2 emissions are not regulated at all. 
> woodbe.

  Maybe we can call it the "You can breathe in but you can't breathe out Act 2010"?  :Lolabove:    

> Your comments read as if you deny CO2 physics in the atmosphere? Haven't we done this before? Being beneficial for plants has nothing to do with its properties as a GHG. 
> woodbe.

  I'm curious as to your understanding of CO2 physics in the atmosphere when levels previously have spiked around 2000 ppm and 6000 ppm, compared to current 380 ppm levels?  Particularly in the continual growth curve pushed by AGW Theory scientists, often referred to as the "runaway" greenhouse effect?  Runaway from the failed theory more likely.  :Doh:    

> The clean coal movement is a *smokescreen* for inaction. We do not have the financial capability to develop the technology to a usable level, nor the time. Even if we did, the cost is so high that it would make alternative energy seem outrageously cheap. Maybe its a trick  
> woodbe.

  Now that's funny.  :Pipe1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> If Rudd claims his big new mining tax will increase mining production starting in 2012 (ie. increased CO2 emissions), but then will implement his ETS big new tax to decrease mining production starting in 2013 (ie. decreased CO2 emissions), then what will be the net effect of these two big new taxes fighting each other to simultaneously lower and raise CO2 emissions?  
> Buggered if I know how this is all supposed to work out???

   

> Either one, the deals done.   ...In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price... 
> What price will we pay for electricity for the preference deal?  
> Must be a great position to release it the night before the election.  Late enough that it doesn't affect the outcome, but now you can say you released it prior to the last election, so now you have a "mandate" to raise electricity prices.

    

> More to the point, *we as ordinary citizens get to choose* if we want artificially inflated electricity prices for no environmental benefit. 
> We choose on Saturday 21 August 2010.

  Judgement Day!  :Sos:  :Runaway:

----------


## woodbe

> I'm curious as to your understanding of CO2 physics in the atmosphere when levels previously have spiked around 2000 ppm and 6000 ppm, compared to current 380 ppm levels?

  First, you need to update:   
380ppm was about 2006. 
Secondly, if you can quote me a time when CO2 was at the levels you describe, was the primary forcing, and humans were present, I'd be happy to banter with you over the physics. (why do I feel that you are about to come out with the old, tired, and incorrectly applied 'temperature drives CO2' argument?) 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> First, you need to update:
> 380ppm was about 2006.
> woodbe.

  Sorry, my bad.  I forget how you guys love semantics. Those 10 points (oops, sorry again, 10.09 points) makes all the difference.  :Doh:  
I also need to apologise as my very rough quotes of the previously measured proxy data weren't 2000 ppm and 6000 ppm down to two decimal points either.  :Doh:    

> Secondly, if you can quote me a time when CO2 was at the levels you describe, was the primary forcing, and humans were present, I'd be happy to banter with you over the physics. (why do I feel that you are about to come out with the old, tired, and incorrectly applied 'temperature drives CO2' argument?) 
> woodbe.

  Obviously you're aware of the proxy data?  :Doh:  
So you have proof that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary forcing now?  :Doh:  
Why do humans have to be present, do you want video and commentary?  :Doh:  
And again, sceptics aren't coming out with any "argument" other than asking you AGW Theory proponents to prove your theory, which clearly you cannot, hence the continual semantic distractions. 
That's why I love this thread, every time we ask you guys to show this fantastic science you talk about, and you cannot, even people with absolutely no scientific information in this area stop and think *"Geez, maybe this is a crock, how come they can never show any science proving their claims".*  :2thumbsup:  
So for all you people who don't know who to trust in this area, watch for the continued semantic distractions, I'll be happy to highlight them just for laughs.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

One of the AGW Theory greenie scientists:  *"Guy R. McPherson* is Profesor Emeritus at the University of Arizona. Educated in the ecology and management of natural resources, his early scholarly efforts produced many publications of little lasting importance. In mid-career, he began to focus on development and creative application of ecological theory, primarily with an eye toward conservation of biological diversity. Currently, his scholarly efforts focus on social criticism, with results that appear most frequently on newspaper op-ed pages. In addition, he facilitates research by students and he prepares synthetic documents focused on articulation of the links between (1) environmental protection, social justice, and the human economy and (2) science and its application. These efforts have produced more than 100 scholarly papers and nine books." 
What he believes: 
"Ive written all this before, but I have not recently provided a concise summary. This essay provides a brief overview of the dire nature of our predicaments with respect to fossil fuels. The primary consequences of our fossil-fuel addiction stem from two primary phenomena: peak oil and global climate change. The former spells the end of western civilization, which might come in time to prevent the extinction of our species at the hand of the latter." 
I disagree with his beliefs, but why I still respect this man: 
"In 2009 at the height of a productive career, McPherson left the university to prepare for collapse. He now lives in an off-grid, straw-bale house where he puts into practice his lifelong interest in sustainable living via organic gardening, raising small animals for eggs and milk, and working with members of his rural community." 
He rejects the pampered western lifestyle that he denounces, rather than living in luxury and just whining about the manner in which that luxury is provided.  Time To Terminate Western Civilization Before It Terminates Us By Guy R. McPherson 
You go Guy!  :Respect:

----------


## woodbe

> Sorry, my bad.  I forget how you guys love semantics. Those 10 points (oops, sorry again, 10.09 points) makes all the difference.  
> I also need to apologise as my very rough quotes of the previously measured proxy data weren't 2000 ppm and 6000 ppm down to two decimal points either.

  No need to apologise, the proxy data probably wouldn't be so accurately calibrated anyway.     

> Obviously you're aware of the proxy data?  
> So you have proof that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary forcing now?

  Do you have proof it isn't?   

> Why do humans have to be present, do you want video and commentary?

  Because otherwise you will pull out your bogus graphic again  :Smilie: , and in any case, if we are going to discuss the physics of CO2 we don't really need to head off so far into the past that there is no recorded history. The physics of CO2 do not rely on history, belief or scepticism of AGW, and they clearly show that the nature of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is to retain planetary heat. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Judgement Day!

  Er, judgement week? 3 will decide? Carbon taxes???   :Stooges:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Do you have proof it isn't? 
> woodbe.

  This line that you and other AGW Theory protagonists keep pushing is truly amusing. It is the first sign for those who don't get involved in the science to understand how weak your theory is.  Here's a summary of your position. 
Woodbe: AGW Theory is real.
Dr Freud: Prove it is real.
Woodbe: Prove it isn't, otherwise you have to believe it.
Dr Freud:  :Doh:  
My friend, your position rests well within ideology and religion, not science.  Science is about substantiating your own position with evidence and proof, not making claims and believing them until someone else scientifically refutes your beliefs.  We've covered this too many times before for me to believe you will understand it this time.   
Please research the scientific method for yourself, and then you can bring more credibility to your side of the discussion.   

> Because otherwise you will pull out your bogus graphic again , and in any case, if we are going to discuss the physics of CO2 we don't really need to head off so far into the past that there is *no recorded history*. The physics of CO2 do not rely on history, belief or scepticism of AGW, and they clearly show that the nature of *increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is to retain planetary heat*. 
> woodbe.

  There is plenty of recorded history, just Google "geology".  Or I can recommend a really good book by a great geologist that can help you.  :Biggrin:    
And I know I get annoying asking for proof all the time, but I don't suppose you have any evidence proving exactly what percentage of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions has resulted in what percentage of any recorded temperature changes?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

:Off Topic:  
I dunno about the Planet being hot, but after watching the election last night, Mr Rabbit's daughter's are smokin'!   :Innocent:

----------


## woodbe

> My friend, your position rests well within ideology and religion, not science.  Science is about substantiating your own position with evidence and proof, not making claims and believing them until someone else scientifically refutes your beliefs.  We've covered this too many times before for me to believe you will understand it this time.

  Doc, I'm not sure who you think you're debating, but the invitation was to debate CO2 Physics, not your personal worldview (or mine, for that matter). 
Now, I think I've made it clear that CO2 physics can be discussed without leaning on prehistoric references (or any history for that matter), and I think you might agree that the current understanding of CO2 Physics was arrived at scientifically. Its not surprising that you are ducking and weaving, I would too in your position. :Cool:  
If you don't want to discuss it, just say so. I've got better things to do anyway. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And I know I get annoying asking for proof all the time, but I don't suppose you have any evidence proving exactly what percentage of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions has resulted in what percentage of any recorded temperature changes?

  I still don't understand why you focus on this....what do you expect this specific information will actually tell you? 
The truth is that climate science could likely determine an approximation of the proportion of the total observed temperature increase that could be attributed to anthropogenic sources. 
The problem is that due to the time period lag between CO2 input and atmospheric temperature response (five to twenty years) the number is basically ancient history.  Essentially, to get a result for the recorded temperature increase to date we'd have to look back to the GG concentrations and inputs as far back as two decades ago.   
From a policy & scientific perspective, it is a useless number. Which may go some of the way to explaining why we can not pull such a number out of our collective hats. 
There are more realistic and scientifically valid ways to determine attribution rather then input X results Y% of observation Z.  The most obvious is if our observations of some greenghouse gases are rising at a similar rate to our observations of air temperature while all the other forcings on air temperature are not behaving in a similar fashion then it is pretty likely that it's the greenhouse gases forcing the issue.  And we've been showing 'those' observations for quite some time.  
So, Freud, there's why we can show you what you want.  We can't and we don't need to to.  Attribution has already been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community - you simply don't like or understand the result.  That's not our fault.  
Earth sciences rarely demands (or expects) an exact result - merely 'high confidence' in the likley range of findings.  Recent political experience suggests that policy progress doesn't not always require a definitive result - but at least we have very high confidence in the process of how we got there anyway.   
Viva la Goat.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Doc, I'm not sure who you think you're debating, but the invitation was to debate CO2 Physics, not your personal worldview (or mine, for that matter). 
> Now, I think I've made it clear that CO2 physics can be discussed without leaning on prehistoric references (or any history for that matter), and I think you might agree that the current understanding of CO2 Physics was arrived at scientifically. Its not surprising that you are ducking and weaving, I would too in your position. 
> woodbe.

  CO2 physics are not in question here, and neither is any worldview.  For those new to this fiasco, this is another tactic used by AGW Theory proponents.  They have tried many times to argue that sceptics are "ignoring" the science or "arguing" the science.  This tries to represent the sceptic side of this fiasco as being anti-science.  In reality, radiative forcing effects of a CO2 molecule are well documented. 
What is disputed, which is what the AGW Theory proponents continually try to deflect from, is what effect is anthropogenic CO2 having on global average temperatures as measured in the chaotic system known as the universe.  All I have ever asked for is scientific proof of this causal relationship?  Not hard really.  :Smilie:  
You call it "ducking and weaving", I call it asking for proof.  I'm sure all those swinging sceptics out there can see who really is ducking and weaving.  :Biggrin:    

> If you don't want to discuss it, just say so. I've got better things to do anyway. 
> woodbe.

  Once you present your proof, there will be nothing more to discuss.  :2thumbsup:  
Until then, we've all got "fossil fuel powered" better things to do as well.  :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I still don't understand why you focus on this....what do you expect this specific information will actually tell you?

  I focus on the scientific method which requires a person proposing a theory to provide evidence proving it. 
I expect this information will actually tell me if the theory is a fact or a crock of ..it.  No prizes for guessing where we currently are at.   

> The truth is that climate science could likely determine an approximation of the proportion of the total observed temperature increase that could be attributed to anthropogenic sources. 
> The problem is that due to the time period lag between CO2 input and atmospheric temperature response (five to twenty years) the number is basically ancient history. Essentially, to get a result for the recorded temperature increase to date we'd have to look back to the GG concentrations and inputs as far back as two decades ago.  
> From a policy & scientific perspective, it is a useless number. Which may go some of the way to explaining why we can not pull such a number out of our collective hats. 
> There are more realistic and scientifically valid ways to determine attribution rather then input X results Y% of observation Z. The most obvious is if our observations of some greenghouse gases are rising at a similar rate to our observations of air temperature while all the other forcings on air temperature are not behaving in a similar fashion then it is pretty likely that it's the greenhouse gases forcing the issue. And we've been showing 'those' observations for quite some time.

  So with all the measurements, computers, satellites, scientists and hundreds of billions of dollars, you can't even give me a specific correlation over the last few decades, let alone causation.  Yet you want us to believe a computer prediction for what's going to happen in 200 years time?  :Doh:    

> So, Freud, there's why we can show you what you want. We can't and we don't need to to. Attribution has already been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community - you simply don't like or understand the result. That's not our fault.  
>  Earth sciences rarely demands (or expects) an exact result - merely 'high confidence' in the likley range of findings. Recent political experience suggests that policy progress doesn't not always require a definitive result - but at least we have very high confidence in the process of how we got there anyway.  
>  Viva la Goat.

  So in a nutshell, you have no proof and we all just have to believe the enviro-fascientist's that hijacked this scaremongering farce. 
Feel free to go build your straw-bale house on the high ground my friend, but leave my taxes alone.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

*James Cameron - King of Hypocrites.* 
"The _Avatar_ director was determined to expose journalists, such as myself, who thought it was important to ask questions about climate change orthodoxy and the radical "solutions" being proposed. 
Cameron said was itching to debate the issue and show skeptical journalists and scientists that they were wrong. 
I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads," he said in an interview. 
Well, a few weeks ago Mr. Cameron seemed to honor his word. 
His representatives contacted myself and two other well known skeptics, Marc Morano of the Climate Depot website and Andrew Breitbart, the new media entrepreneur. 
Mr. Cameron was attending the AREDAY environmental conference in Aspen Colorado 19-22 August. He wanted the conference to end with a debate on climate change. Cameron would be flanked with two scientists. It would be 90 minutes long. It would be streamed live on the internet.  
They hoped the debate would attract a lot of media coverage. 
"We are delighted to have Fox News, Newsmax, The Washington Times and anyone else you'd like. The more the better," one of James Cameron's organizers said in an email. 
It looked like James Cameron really was a man of his word who would get to take on the skeptics  he felt were so endangering humanity. 
Everyone on our side agreed with their conditions. The debate was even listed on the AREDAY agenda. 
But then as the debate approached James Cameron's side started changing the rules. 
They wanted to change their team. We agreed. 
They wanted to change the format to less of a debateto "a roundtable". We agreed. 
Then they wanted to ban our cameras from the debate. We could have access to their footage. We agreed. 
Bizarrely, for a brief while, the worlds most successful film maker suggested that no cameras should be allowed-that sound only should be recorded. We agreed 
Then finally James Cameron, who so publicly announced that he "wanted to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out," decided to ban the media from the shoot out. 
He even wanted to ban the public. The debate/roundtable would only be open to those who attended the conference.  
No media would be allowed and there would be no streaming on the internet.  No one would be allowed to record it in any way. 
We all agreed to that. 
And then, yesterday, just one day before the debate, his representatives sent an email that Mr. "shoot it out " Cameron no longer wanted to take part. The debate was cancelled."  http://noteviljustwrong.com/blog/general/481

----------


## woodbe

> CO2 physics are not in question here,

  Glad to hear it. 
Well, that's CO2 shut down in this thread then, unless Rod disagrees? 
As for proof, you are asking for 100% scientific proof yes? 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

A greenies "Catch-22". 
Scientists call it "unintended consequences". 
Flim Flammery proposed pumping massive amounts of sulphur into the atmosphere to "fix" this myth.  :Shock:  
Learn this lesson well on the small scale my friends.  :2thumbsup:   Wind farm clue to horrific 'corkscrew' seal deaths | Mail Online

----------


## Dr Freud

> Glad to hear it. 
> Well, that's CO2 shut down in this thread then, unless Rod disagrees? 
> As for proof, you are asking for 100% scientific proof yes? 
> woodbe.

  See that ladies and gentleman, it's another example of semantic distraction at work, in order to avoid providing evidence of AGW Theory. 
This was the initial paragraphs in full:   

> CO2 physics are not in question here, and neither is any worldview.  For those new to this fiasco, this is another tactic used by AGW Theory proponents.  They have tried many times to argue that sceptics are "ignoring" the science or "arguing" the science.  This tries to represent the sceptic side of this fiasco as being anti-science.  *In reality, radiative forcing effects of a CO2 molecule are well documented.*  *What is disputed, which is what the AGW Theory proponents continually try to deflect from, is what effect is anthropogenic CO2 having on global average temperatures as measured in the chaotic system known as the universe.  All I have ever asked for is scientific proof of this causal relationship?  Not hard really.*  
> You call it "ducking and weaving", I call it asking for proof.  I'm sure all those swinging sceptics out there can see who really is ducking and weaving.  
> Once you present your proof, there will be nothing more to discuss.  
> Until then, we've all got "fossil fuel powered" better things to do as well.

  Ducking and weaving indeed!  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> As for proof, you are asking for 100% scientific proof yes?

   

> See that ladies and gentleman, it's another example of semantic distraction at work, in order to avoid providing evidence of AGW Theory.

  I think not. I have asked for exactly what type and quality of evidence you require. In doing so, I have not engaged in attacking your worldview as you have mine, and I respectfully ask that you reciprocate otherwise I will withdraw from the conversation. 
I may or I may not be able to supply you with what you need, but I certainly won't be able to begin if you choose not to answer my clarifying questions.  
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So with all the measurements, computers, satellites, scientists and hundreds of billions of dollars, you can't even give me a specific correlation over the last few decades, let alone causation.  Yet you want us to believe a computer prediction for what's going to happen in 200 years time?

  Specific correlation? Yes, of course I can. But the evidence to date suggests that you don't accept the stuff we keep putting in front of you. Even though it is derived from observational data.... 
Because for some odd and inexplicable reason you seem to require a concise numerical equation as a 'proof'......which is pretty bloody funny coming from someone who distrust computer models as much as yourself. 
Anyway....to the correlation you demanded 
The following graphs are from here Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?) and should be considered in conjunction with the text.  All the references to the papers they were derived from are included in the text.        
Where's the CO2 coming from? Us, basically. Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming     

> Yet you want us to believe a computer prediction for what's  going to happen in 200 years time?

  Most certainly not.  Even I would place little faith in a predictive model for the expected conditions in 200 years time.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Glad to hear it. 
> Well, that's CO2 shut down in this thread then, unless Rod disagrees? 
> As for proof, you are asking for 100% scientific proof yes? 
> woodbe.

  Never  been in doubt here woodbe. Read Doc's post. Then you may get an bit of an idea why we are so skeptical of your claims. 
Doc put it well if the warmists proved their case there would be no room for doubt.  Until you do it is a waste of time trying to cram the AGW religion down our throats.
Casual correlation and asumptions just don't cut it.

----------


## woodbe

> One thing is for certain, and that is, there is NO credible scientific link to CO2 controlling temperatures, so what else is going on?

  Should I mark the relevant bit in italics for you Rod, or can you see it for yourself? 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> If this was true the evidece that an increace of X amount co2 will increace the temperature by x amount of degrees is?

  Here's another bit of your doubt from page 2, Rod. 
Have you changed your mind? Do you now think that increasing CO2 could have an effect on temperature?  
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Casual correlation and asumptions just don't cut it.

  Actually, they do. 
It seems that you and the Doc are demanding an unattainable standard of _absolute proof_ to the AGW theory.  It is only in the branch of mathematics that can provide absolute proofs. 
Most areas of science reply on observation coupled with some fundamental principles that couple the cause and the effect (causality).  Repeated observation (measurement) strengthening the hypothesis which then becomes a theory.  The AGW theory is no different to any other area of science (mathematics excepted). 
Using your logic, you two could also be sceptical about Newton's law of gravity too - or maybe you are?

----------


## watson

Look out!!   Here comes another apple. :Shock:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Should I mark the relevant bit in italics for you Rod, or can you see it for yourself? 
> woodbe.

  Need I spell it out for you, that this reads CONTROLLING temperatures. 
Now would you like to try again woodbe :Wink:

----------


## Dr Freud

So much for evidence.  :No:  
If you want to keep posting this "trust us" philosophy, I'll happily keep going round in circles explaining how you still have no proof of your theory.  But it's late, I'm tired, so more detailed reply tomorrow. 
In the interim, posting the same incorrect pretty pictures really doesn't help your cause at all.  Even people who nothing about AGW Theory would say something like "Hey, that picture looks like it's case closed.  How come they didn't show that stuff at Copenhagen?". 
Answer: Beacause it's called Miss Universe science, visually very pretty and all designed to achieve world peace, but with no substance.  :Biggrin:  
P.S. Mr Rabbit's going ok, so could be no Carbon taxes after all (then this can all go back to being a philosophical debate rather than a tax debate).  But then again, 1 green, 2 socialist independents and 1 lefty Tasmanian could force Joolia to a Carbon Tax.  Interesting times we live in.  Lucky the rest of the world is still pumping out CO2 faster than we can count it.  :Shock:

----------


## woodbe

> Need I spell it out for you, that this reads CONTROLLING temperatures. 
> Now would you like to try again woodbe

  Sure Rod, I'll give it a go but you're a hard man to pin down.  :Smilie:  
So I'm still confused where you are in regarding CO2 physics. 
Is it all still absolute crap for you, or you just now dispute the sensitivity or some other point? 
Do you agree or disagree with this, and why?:  

> If a change in CO2 affects temperature, and at that point if it  was the major forcing then it would be 'CONTROLLING' temperature.

  Just like to point out that if you are still denying CO2 physics, you'd be out of step with most of your sceptic mates. Even Monckton has publically agreed with the theory so I think that little battle has been well lost in the face of established science even though there is no absolute proof of the theory (like most science, btw) 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> If a change in CO2 affects temperature, and at that point if it was the major forcing then it would be 'CONTROLLING' temperature.

  This sentence shows exactly what you have wrong about CO2. 
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas I have posted that somewhere on this thread before.
So we also know that to SOME DEGREE changes to CO2 level will have SOME effect on temperatures. What is not known is, how much changes in CO2 changes the temperature. 
In any event we do know in the overall greenhouse effect CO2 only plays a small role, water vaper being the most significant.  We also know that doubling of CO2 does not double the effect of Co2. 
So it is very deceitful to claim Co2 controlls temperature,  
Now how about tackling the questions posed earlier that would put an end to all doubt?   
Or show us how exactly CO2 in the contoller of world temperatures?  Pointing to some dubious correlation over 30 odd years is laughable.  You do realise that ice cores show that increases in CO2 actually lags increase in temperatures over the long term, don't you? or is this an inconvenient fact you choose to ignore?

----------


## woodbe

> We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas I have posted that somewhere on this thread before.
> So we also know that to SOME DEGREE changes to CO2 level will have SOME effect on temperatures. What is not known is, how much changes in CO2 changes the temperature. 
> In any event we do know in the overall greenhouse effect CO2 only plays a small role, water vaper being the most significant.  We also know that doubling of CO2 does not double the effect of Co2. 
> So it is very deceitful to claim Co2 controlls temperature,  
> Now how about tackling the questions posed earlier that would put an end to all doubt?   
> Or show us how exactly CO2 in the contoller of world temperatures?  Pointing to some dubious correlation over 30 odd years is laughable.  You do realise that ice cores show that increases in CO2 actually lags increase in temperatures over the long term, don't you? or is this an inconvenient fact you choose to ignore?

  Excellent Post. 
Thanks Rod, made my day. Especially the bit about the ice cores.  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  
So you no longer deny CO2 Physics, but you can't bring yourself to actually say that. No worries, I understand mate. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Excellent Post. 
> Thanks Rod, made my day. Especially the bit about the ice cores.  
> So you no longer deny CO2 Physics, but you can't bring yourself to actually say that. No worries, I understand mate. 
> woodbe.

  Nothing I haven't posted before in some form or another. 
You still evade answering the questions that will take all doubt away from our skeptic minds. 
Until then and while there is no empirical evidence that confirms the models you rely on, AGW is just an unproven theory that cannot be rellied apon to turn our world upside down and wreck our economy. 
Glad you like the post.

----------


## woodbe

> Until then and while there is no empirical evidence that confirms the models you rely on, AGW is just an unproven theory

  I'm coming to that Rod, but first I need one more thing from you. 
Show me an example of some other scientific theory and its empirical evidence and proof that you are happy with.  
Then I will know exactly what kind of evidence to bring to the table. I've got a lot of evidence at my disposal and I'm sure you don't want me to spam the thread like Doc. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'm coming to that Rod, but first I need one more thing from you. 
> Show me an example of some other scientific theory and its empirical evidence and proof that you are happy with.  
> Then I will know exactly what kind of evidence to bring to the table. I've got a lot of evidence at my disposal and I'm sure you don't want me to spam the thread like Doc. 
> woodbe.

  Fire away Woodbe.  You could start by answering the questions posed a page or 2 back.  Until these can be answered you cant claim AGW is anything other than a belief (sort of like a religion).   
I would have a lot more respect for the AGW argument when these are answered.  It has to be done, if what you say is fact and not just belief it should be easy enough to pull the numbers in and doi it.  When these questions are answerd and confirmed accurate, you will take all the argument away. Then we will all believe you.

----------


## woodbe

> Show me an example of some other scientific theory and its empirical evidence and proof that you are happy with.

  Waiting.... 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Specific correlation? Yes, of course I can. But the evidence to date suggests that you don't accept the stuff we keep putting in front of you. Even though it is derived from observational data.... 
> Because for some odd and inexplicable reason you seem to require a concise numerical equation as a 'proof'......which is pretty bloody funny coming from someone who distrust computer models as much as yourself. 
> Anyway....to the correlation you demanded 
> The following graphs are from here Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?) and should be considered in conjunction with the text.  All the references to the papers they were derived from are included in the text.

  My friend, just to help you along a bit, this is what a correlation looks like:   *r(n = 100) = .7, p = .05.* 
Specifically, the theory you support indicates that a bivariate linnear correlation would be the initial analysis required, followed closely by a regression if results were supportive.  I have previously posted this number for your two variables, but it would be nice for you supporters to at least know what it is.   
After this, we may even extend ourselves towards causality, but this requires more than these statistical analyses, it also requires strict adherence to scientific methodology and principles (explained as nauseum previously). 
Your pretty little pictures taken from the "skeptical science fiction" website is commonly referred to as a trend analysis (albeit a very dubious one in their case).  Here are some of their other gems: 
"Even during a period of long term warming, there are short periods of cooling due to *climate variability.*" 
Ok people, when it's warming, it's us, when it's cooling, its "climate variability".  Everybody got it?  :Rotfl:  
"Given the strong *causal link* between CO2 and warming..."   :Rotfl:  :Rotfl:  :Rotfl:  
"However, this is a short period as far as climate trends are concerned...By comparing carbon dioxide levels to temperature from 1964 to 2008, it becomes apparent that even during a long term warming trend, there are short periods of cooling." 
10 years = short, 40 years = "science".  :Rotfl:  
"This demonstrates the danger of drawing conclusions from *one small piece of the puzzle* without viewing the broader picture." 
Too funny.  :Rotfl:     

> 

  I don't have time to go over all the flaws in this pretty picture, but hopefully everyone who cares can read some of the links below and figure just some of them out.  Some I've posted before, but obviously no-one read them based on evidence to date.  If you can't be bothered doing some reading to figure out if our species is about to die out, I guess you don't take this issue that seriously, huh!  :Biggrin:   Spurious Correlations  Correlation: Assumptions and Limitations  Restricted Range 
(Have a play with this one, very easy to use, keep an eye on R2 values).  http://mchb.hrsa.gov/mchirc/_pubs/trend_analysis.pdf 
(Ignore the variables, a decent look at trend analysis as opposed to correlations). 
Seriously people, for all the broohaha about the end of the world, most of you people aren't even prepared to dedicate a few hours a week to studying the basics of scientific methodology, statistics, or the giant con job that has been perpetrated by many players on both sides of this issue.  But hey, I guess it's easier to turn out the lights for an hour each year, pray for an ineffectual carbon tax and appease the green gods?  :Biggrin:  
If I believed in this farce, I'd be very angry at you impotent greenies!  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Waiting.... 
> woodbe.

  I was so busy spamming, didn't even realise you guys were here.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Sure Rod, I'll give it a go but you're a hard man to pin down.  
> So I'm still confused where you are in regarding CO2 physics. 
> Is it all still absolute crap for you, or you just now dispute the sensitivity or some other point? 
> Do you agree or disagree with this, and why?:
> Just like to point out that if you are still denying CO2 physics, you'd be out of step with most of your sceptic mates. Even Monckton has publically agreed with the theory so I think that little battle has been well lost in the face of established science even though there is no absolute proof of the theory (like most science, btw) 
> woodbe.

   

> Excellent Post. 
> Thanks Rod, made my day. Especially the bit about the ice cores.  
> So you no longer deny CO2 Physics, but you can't bring yourself to actually say that. No worries, I understand mate. 
> woodbe.

   

> I'm coming to that Rod, but first I need one more thing from you. 
> Show me an example of some other scientific theory and its empirical evidence and proof that you are happy with.  
> Then I will know exactly what kind of evidence to bring to the table. I've got a lot of evidence at my disposal and I'm sure you don't want me to spam the thread like Doc. 
> woodbe.

  Go easy big fella, I'm having trouble getting through your scientific detail!  :Biggrin:  
A cynic may point this out as more semantic distraction?  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Look out!!   Here comes another apple.

  Hey Mr Watson, maybe you could be the new speaker of the house in Canberra? 
You seem to have got us rabble under some sort of control.  :torturs:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Nothing I haven't posted before in some form or another. 
> You still evade answering the questions that will take all doubt away from our skeptic minds. 
> Until then and while there is no empirical evidence that confirms the models you rely on, AGW is just an unproven theory that cannot be rellied apon to turn our world upside down and wreck our economy. 
> Glad you like the post.

  
I like it too.  We are in consensus.  :Biggrin:  :Shock:  :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Lucky the rest of the world is still pumping out CO2 faster than we can count it.

  The second video is telling.  Mostly diesel trucks carrying coal for burning.  :Doh:   China now with more cars than roads | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
Yay "Earth Hour"!!!  :Yippy:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Show me an example of some other scientific theory and its empirical evidence and proof that you are happy with. 
> woodbe.

   

> Waiting....
> woodbe.

  Someone might think you are avoiding discussing AGW Theory's crumbling status?  :Cry:    

> I've got a lot of evidence at my disposal and I'm sure you don't want me to spam the thread like Doc. 
> woodbe.

  Hey, I resemble that remark!  :Rotfl:

----------


## woodbe

> Someone might think you are avoiding discussing AGW Theory's crumbling status?

  Only in your dreams.  :Biggrin:  
Waiting now for both your good self and Rod to respond, then we can get to work on the evidence. Till then, feel free to waffle on. 
When you're ready. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

Here what we've said so far:  *Election Live* 
                     76 seats required for victory  *Labor* 
                                                          71    *Coalition* 
                                                          71  
                                                                                            79.6% counted.
 Updated Wed Aug 25 06:15PM  
Here's what we're still saying:  Brisbane  50.3 LNP AHEAD    Corangamite 50.3 ALP AHEAD Hasluck  50.5 LIB AHEAD 
What does that say about Australia's view of "delay is denial" and "urgent action" on alleged anthropogenic induced warming? 
Maybe our three new power brokers will bring more consensus? 
"The three independent amigos of the House of Representatives plus their new best friend from the Greens have made a New Age pitch for a multi-party, multi-faceted, multi-dimensional approach to politics, all consensus, co-operation and listening to the people... 
...But when asked for their position on the most significant issue which divided the old Parliament, climate change, it became clear the new spirit of consensus does not mean instant agreement on complex policy issues among this unlikely gang of four, let alone all 150 lower house MPs... 
...The observer of a sceptical cast of mind might wonder how the new era of consensus politics will be able to reach decisions on contentious issues if the new gang of four has four different positions on one of the most important outstanding policy issues in town..."  Independents wobble before winds of climate change 
Or not?  :Lmfao:  
Gee whiz, that science must be compelling and those policies must be excellent solutions.  :Doh:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> My friend, just to help you along a bit, this is what a correlation looks like:   *r(n = 100) = .7, p = .05.* 
> Specifically, the theory you support indicates that a bivariate linnear correlation would be the initial analysis required, followed closely by a regression if results were supportive.  I have previously posted this number for your two variables, but it would be nice for you supporters to at least know what it is.   
> After this, we may even extend ourselves towards causality, but this requires more than these statistical analyses, it also requires strict adherence to scientific methodology and principles (explained as nauseum previously). 
> Your pretty little pictures taken from the "skeptical science fiction" website is commonly referred to as a trend analysis (albeit a very dubious one in their case).

  I'm standing here quietly giggling......you truly appear to know near enough to knaff all about statistical analysis.  But of course you seem to think you know quite a bit about it.  Keep on kidding yourself....it's bloody funny to watch  :brava:  
I've run enough ANOVA's in my time to know that it is easy to generate some rather spurious statistical analysis...thanks for the links anyway...but I've also been involved in the scientific process more than long enough to know that none of the plots I presented before have anything much less than a 95% confidence interval attached to the analysis - in other words, they have a 95% chance of being correct.  So rubbish them all you like but they've been through more scrutiny than any of your hilarious pontifications....or for that matter, mine.   
In this thread anyway.... :Blush7:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Either one, the deals done.   ...In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price... 
> What price will we pay for electricity for the preference deal?  
> Must be a great position to release it the night before the election.  Late enough that it doesn't affect the outcome, but now you can say you released it prior to the last election, so now you have a "mandate" to raise electricity prices.

  If we have a truly hung parliament, we have to go back to the polls and have another election, and now Joolia has to run on an agenda of raising electricity prices!  :Biggrin:  
Now that will be fun to watch.  :Rotfl:  
It would be almost worth the cost to the taxpayer of another election.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Only in your dreams.  
> Waiting now for both your good self and Rod to respond, then we can get to work on the evidence. Till then, feel free to waffle on. 
> When you're ready. 
> woodbe.

  How about you start with these.  Very easy questions, then we can get to the underlying data justifying your answers?  :2thumbsup:    

> Now you might tell us what % of man made Co2 makes up that figure V's natural Co2  and support it with some scientific facts. While you are at it you might then lay out what % of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor and other gases.  Then work it back to the % difference man made Co2 makes.  Then you go go a step further and work out the % of man made Co2 that Australia contributes.  Then possibly you could work out for us the amount of temperature increase is due entirely by man made C02 then by Australia's Co2. 
> That should be very easy to do eh! 
> Boy while we are on a roll, once you have the scientifically proven figures for that.  Maybe we could then work out how much cooler the world would be if Australia reduced emissions by 5% then 10% the 20%. Should be a cinch 
> Then I guess the next step seeing that was so easy is to work out the cost per % of reduction to the economy and equate that back to a $ figure per degree of temperature drop that we in Australia can achieve.   
> Then we can ask ourselves is it worth it? 
> Seeing how the science is settled and all that, this should be a walk in the park. 
> Now that would make a lot more sense to a layman like me.  Rather than sticking a figure up there with a cute diagram that would have the reader think that it is our factories etc making up all the warming observed over the last centuary.  That is if the temperature records are squeaky clean and accurate of course. Not to mention any other natural influences on temperature. 
> No long bows beng draw here though, it is cut and dried, all these figures should be readily available considering all the money that has been spent on it. 
> Without these figures, what would you say?  That we are guessing .  But hey that ok lets change our lifestyles and go back to horse and carts, cause our best guess surely justifies it.

  In Rod we Trust!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> How about you start with these. Very easy questions, then we can get to the underlying data justifying your answers?

  I think we will be waiting a loooong time Doc. 
These guys just don't seem to get it, that is, it is up to them to convince us that the theory hold up in the real world.  Not for us to disprove it.  This simply amazes me.  Just because a they get a group of people to agree with it they seem to think this justifies the theory is correct and cant be questioned. 
Woodbe do you have any doubt at all that you may be wrong?

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm standing here quietly giggling......you truly appear to know near enough to knaff all about statistical analysis. But of course you seem to think you know quite a bit about it. Keep on kidding yourself....it's bloody funny to watch

  I only know what I've read written by "scientists", which is a poofteenth of what's available.  But now that I have a little knowledge, I am dangerous to AGW Theory.   :2thumbsup:  
But I like how you prefer to make disparaging remarks about my attempts to educate myself and others about the many faults in AGW Theory.  But you are noticeably silent on the actual statistical points I raise. Very strange.  :Confused:  
But I'm just a knaffer, what would I know compared to a statistical genius such as you?  :Rotfl:    

> I've run enough ANOVA's in my time to know that it is easy to generate some rather spurious statistical analysis...thanks for the links anyway...but I've also been involved in the scientific process more than long enough to know that none of the plots I presented before have anything much less than a 95% confidence interval attached to the analysis - in other words, they have a 95% chance of being correct.  So rubbish them all you like but they've been through more scrutiny than any of your hilarious pontifications....or for that matter, mine.   
> In this thread anyway....

  Maybe that range restriction link may be handy after all?  And yes, we've seen your scientific genius previously displayed in this thread:   

> There are more realistic and scientifically valid ways to determine attribution rather then input X results Y% of observation Z. The most obvious is if our observations of some greenghouse gases are rising at a similar rate to our observations of air temperature while all the other forcings on air temperature are not behaving in a similar fashion then it is pretty likely that it's the greenhouse gases forcing the issue.

  Maybe if any knaffers like me could be bothered to read the links, they can point out the countless methodological and statistical flaws in this?   :Doh:  
I'm obviously not qualified!  :No:  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I think we will be waiting a loooong time Doc.

  Very true!  :2thumbsup:  
Unless AGW Theory is true, then we don't have much time at all.  :Burnt:  :Rotfl:

----------


## jago

My local King/Queen Maker believes in the AGW (for political purposes)  ..so suck it up and get  better accountants, as this is a Tax thread not a discussion on if we  require or want to reduce pollutants. 
After x amount of posts I still  feel we're back in school; name calling,so here goes ..."your mum!" 
  PS: I want an ETS I will make money, like so many others,  embrace the change make some money and benefit from a healthier planet. :Rotfl: 
--

----------


## woodbe

> How about you start with these.  Very easy questions, then we can get to the underlying data justifying your answers?

  Already answered by Chrisp 
If you could explain where his answer misses the mark, (if you can find any time to look at the science between campaigning that is) I'm sure Chrisp would be happy to hear any rational critisism, as would I. 
Still waiting for Rod's reply to this:   

> Show me an example of some other scientific theory and its empirical evidence and proof that you are happy with.

  woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> These guys just don't seem to get it, that is, it is up to them to convince us that the theory hold up in the real world.  Not for us to disprove it.  This simply amazes me.  Just because a they get a group of people to agree with it they seem to think this justifies the theory is correct and cant be questioned. 
> Woodbe do you have any doubt at all that you may be wrong?

  You've never really gotten hold of the scientific method, have you Rod? 
Once the dust settles, and a hypothesis becomes accepted as the ruling theory, the idea is for scientists to try and make a better one. It gets tested in every discipline. The only reason it stands is not because its proven, but because no-one has been able to unseat it and disprove it. Attempts to unseat a ruling theory generally land up confirming it. This is where AGW is now - new studies are added to the thousands already in the pile that confirm the theory, but it will never be 100% proven. 
But don't take my word for this, here is what Stephen Hawking says about it:   

> "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must  accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a  model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make  definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes  on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense  that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many  times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never  be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On  the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single  observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The  "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a necessary  consequence of using inductive logic.

  This stands for thousands of theories. These are generally accepted as 'solved' but could be disproven by new approaches at any time, however unlikely. 
You are correct of course. It is not up to you to disprove AGW, just as it is not up to us to prove it. This is where it falls on the sceptical scientists (that's all of the scientists btw) to do the work and disprove it. Unfortunately for your chosen position, this is not happening, and the theory stands. 
As for me being wrong? I don't give a toss if I'm wrong about this. I'd welcome it. Just waiting for the (disproving) science to get published but I'm not holding my breath. 
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

> I only know what I've read written by "scientists", which is a  poofteenth of what's available.  But now that I have a little knowledge,  I am dangerous to AGW Theory.

  It would be easier to take your views seriously if you didn't keep plugging Plimer as a serious contributer to the AGW debate.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It would be easier to take your views seriously if you didn't keep plugging Plimer as a serious contributer to the AGW debate.

  Maybe this guy is wrong too.  

> *[Richard Alley, a glaciologist and climate researcher at Pennsylvania State University] "We don't really have an ice-sheet model that we trust," says Alley, noting that, in addition to global warming, glaciers react to local and regional changes in winds, ocean temperatures and ocean circulation.* "In many ways," he says, "this large advance serves to show how far we have to go before climate modelling of geoengineering is really good enough that useful regional projections could be made to guide decision-makers."

  Although the original quote is here Geoengineering won't curb sea-level rise : Nature News
in  a pro AGW article on Geoengineering, it just shows they do not have the information to make these bold changes. 
I suspect by the time they do it will be all over.  The cold spell we are heading for will take care of that :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> My local King/Queen Maker believes in the AGW (for political purposes)  ..so suck it up and get  better accountants, as this is a Tax thread not a discussion on if we  require or want to reduce pollutants. 
> After x amount of posts I still  feel we're back in school; name calling,so here goes ..."your mum!" 
>   PS: I want an ETS I will make money, like so many others,  embrace the change make some money and benefit from a healthier planet.
> --

  Fully agree on the money scamming taxation schemes.  But just curious as to how higher taxes and richer bankers in Australia then leads to a healthier planet?  Please use small words, cos as you can see above, I'm not too bright.  :Ohcrap:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Already answered by Chrisp 
> If you could explain where his answer misses the mark, (if you can find any time to look at the science between campaigning that is) I'm sure Chrisp would be happy to hear any rational critisism, as would I. 
> woodbe.

  Ahhh, and I just thought that response was more semantic distractions to avoid the tough questions. 
But I think I figured it out, you guys are so smart that you can't figure out our dumb questions.  But it's all right-hemisphere, so we may have to spell out the left-hemisphere aspects. 
Apologies Rod for intruding on your post, but this may help!   

> Now you might tell us what % of man made Co2 makes up that figureV's natural Co2  and support it with some scientific facts.  *[Insert percentage here: ____%] 
> [Insert scientific references here_____.]* 
> While you are at it you might then lay out what % of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor and other gases.   *[Insert H2O vapor percentage here: ____%] * *[Insert other percentages here: ____%]*  *[Insert scientific references here_____.]* 
> Then work it back to the % difference man made Co2 makes.   *[Insert percentage here: ____%]*  *[Insert scientific references here_____.]* 
> Then you go go a step further and work out the % of man made Co2 that Australia contributes.   *[Insert percentage here: ____%]*  *[Insert scientific references here_____.]* 
> Then possibly you could work out for us the amount of temperature increase is due entirely by man made C02 then by Australia's Co2. *[Insert total temperature increase contribution in degrees celsius here: ____]*  *[Insert scientific references here_____.]* *[Insert Australia's temperature increase contribution in degrees celsius here: ____]*  *[Insert scientific references here_____.]*  
> That should be very easy to do eh! 
> Boy while we are on a roll, once you have the scientifically proven figures for that.  Maybe we could then work out how much cooler the world would be if Australia reduced emissions by 5% then 10% the 20%. Should be a cinch  *[Insert temperature reduction in degrees celsius for Aus 5% CO2 reduction here: ________.]* *[Insert temperature reduction in degrees celsius for Aus 10% CO2 reduction here: ________.]* *[Insert temperature reduction in degrees celsius for Aus 20% CO2 reduction here: ________.]* 
> Then I guess the next step seeing that was so easy is to work out the cost per % of reduction to the economy and equate that back to a $ figure per degree of temperature drop that we in Australia can achieve.    *{1 degree celsius global temperature reduction will cost [Insert AUS$ here $ ____________ .] - HINT: Garnaut's report will help.}* 
> ...

  Damn left brain!  :Biggrin:    

> Still waiting for Rod's reply to this: 
>  woodbe.

  How about you chew this little theory up before biting off another one.  :Wink 1:  
Unless of course you are just interested in semantic distractions?

----------


## Dr Freud

> You've never really gotten hold of the scientific method, have you Rod? 
> woodbe.

  Rod is sceptical and asks for scientific proof rather than engaging in faith based assumptions, while AGW Theory proponents regularly defer to authority figures and engage in personal smears rather than presenting evidence.  I think all readers have a pretty good idea who has or hasn't got a hold of the scientific method.  :2thumbsup:    

> Once the dust settles, and a hypothesis becomes accepted as the ruling theory, the idea is for scientists to try and make a better one. It gets tested in every discipline. The only reason it stands is not because its proven, but because no-one has been able to unseat it and disprove it. Attempts to unseat a ruling theory generally land up confirming it. This is where AGW is now - new studies are added to the thousands already in the pile that confirm the theory, but it will never be 100% proven. 
> But don't take my word for this, here is what Stephen Hawking says about it: 
> This stands for thousands of theories. These are generally accepted as 'solved' but could be disproven by new approaches at any time, however unlikely. 
> You are correct of course. It is not up to you to disprove AGW, just as it is not up to us to prove it. This is where it falls on the sceptical scientists (that's all of the scientists btw) to do the work and disprove it. Unfortunately for your chosen position, this is not happening, and the theory stands. 
> woodbe.

  I like this Hawking dude, he agrees with me that you guys support something theoretical or hypothetical.  One day, it may be proved meaning it's real or disproved making it false.   
He must be a knaffer too. Probably also believes in aliens, little green men just like me.  :Biggrin:    

> As for me being wrong? I don't give a toss if I'm wrong about this. I'd welcome it. Just waiting for the (disproving) science to get published but I'm not holding my breath. 
> woodbe.

  Come on, just hold it for a couple of seconds, every little bit helps.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It would be easier to take your views seriously if you didn't keep plugging Plimer as a serious contributer to the AGW debate.

  It would be easier to take your views seriously if you didn't smear Plimer personally, but instead read his work and point out which of his statements are dubious, and which of his 2000'ish references are incorrect. 
As I have mentioned previously in this thread, there are many statements in his book you can take to task (I did), but there are literally hundreds of others that are not disputed or widely supported in various sciences. 
But hey, smear away, it just demonstrates the lack of scientific depth to this farce.  :Biggrin:  
Maybe I could list all of the scientists whose work I have read, then you can smear them all?  But I should warn you, most of them are pro-AGW Theory scientists.  :Sneaktongue:

----------


## Dr Freud

Sorry folks, gotta dash.  Off on the campaign trail again (apparently). 
But it's good, gotta keep the cheques rolling in to pay those massive electricity bills coming soon from our new carbon tax.  :Biggrin:    

> This one must be for you, Doc

----------


## woodbe

> These guys just don't seem to get it, that is, it is up to them to  convince us that the theory hold up in the real world.  Not for us to  disprove it.

   

> The only reason it stands is not because its proven, but because no-one has been able to unseat it and disprove it.

   

> Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense  that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it.

   

> Rod is sceptical and asks for scientific proof rather than engaging in faith based assumptions

   

> One day, it may be proved meaning it's real or disproved making it false.

  I think both Rod and Dr Freud are not listening, nor understanding what the science is about, how it is achieved, nor what it means. Rod is right about some guys who don't get it, I suggest he looks in the mirror. 
woodbe

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I think both Rod and Dr Freud are not listening, nor understanding what the science is about, how it is achieved, nor what it means.

  Perhaps. The thing is we can't change it......so there's not much to be gained from banging on about it apart from the odd giggle.   
In the end......it's not like they can do the AGW Theory any significant harm.  So we might as well let them continue without molestation.

----------


## chrisp

> I think both Rod and Dr Freud are not listening, nor understanding what the science is about, how it is achieved, nor what it means.

  I suspect that they don't _want_ to listen. 
Hypothetically, I wonder if there was a cost-neutral fix to CO2 emissions, would Rod and the Doc still be so opposed to the AGW theory? 
I suspect that they just don't like the 'tax' or 'carbon price' and that they are taking an anti-AGW stance as their argumentative position.  i.e. I suspect that their position is driven by the opposition to a 'tax' - their portrayed doubt about the science is merely a red herring.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Now you might tell us what % of man made Co2 makes up that figureV's natural Co2  and support it with some scientific facts.  *[Insert percentage here: ____%] 
> [Insert scientific references here_____.]*

  As a percentage.....the ludicrous number is 1800%. Wrong and meaningless in its oafish simplicity. 
In reality....human emissions are around 30 gigatonnes annually while natural emissions from the land and ocean amount to about 780 gigatonnes in the same period.  The catch is that both land and ocean absorb CO2 to the tune of around 790 gigatonnes per annum....so the natural cycle is in relative balance.  It is actually absorbing about 40% of human emissions but the rest ends up in the atmosphere.  So that's about 18 gigatonnes per annum that we are adding on top of what is essentially a balanced cycle (so therefore zero).  Hence the 1800% of zero.  What *really* matters is that ever increasing CO2 concentration....
 All of this comes from the IPCC AR4 via How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?    

> While you are at it you might then lay out what % of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor and other gases.   *[Insert H2O vapor percentage here: ____%] * *[Insert other percentages here: ____%]*  *[Insert scientific references here_____.]*

  The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997).  Overall, the natural cycle totals around approx. 150 W/m2. So water vapour is about 50% of the natural greenhouse effect. Safe to say that water vapour is by far the most prevalent contributor to the NATURAL cycle. The key is how we currently play with it... 
Currently, anthropogenic forcing is around +1.6 W/m2 on top of this natural cycle (that's 1% per annum so, looking at it simplisticly, in 50 years...instead of being 150 watts per square meter it'll be more like 200watts per square meter) - and CO2 is by far the dominant player in this....and as pointed out above....its concentration is increasing.  Reference? (IPCC AR4 Section 2.1). via CO2 is not the only driver of climate and also ESRL Integrating Themes: Radiative Forcing of Climate by non-CO2 Atmospheric Gases    

> Then work it back to the % difference man made Co2 makes.   *[Insert percentage here: ____%]*  *[Insert scientific references here_____.]*

  See above......about 1.6% per annum.   

> Then you go go a step further and work out the % of man made Co2 that Australia contributes.   *[Insert percentage here: ____%]*  *[Insert scientific references here_____.]*

  1.28% in 2007, 16th highest of 240 odd countries GHG data from UNFCCC     

> Then possibly you could work out for us the amount of temperature  increase is due entirely by man made C02 then by Australia's Co2. *[Insert total temperature increase contribution in degrees celsius here: ____]*  *[Insert scientific references here_____.]* *[Insert Australia's temperature increase contribution in degrees celsius here: ____]*  *[Insert scientific references here_____.]*

  Not that easy to translate into degrees C. Essentially, we have more heat energy building up in the biosphere (air & water).  Since 1970, the Earth's heat content has been rising at a rate of 6 x 1021 Joules per year. _ (Murphy 2009) and_ _Domingues et al 2008__ via_ How we know global warming is still happening 
In terms of Australia's contribution.....agreed.....tiny.  But we are the 16th highest emitter - leaves us well within the 80:20 rule - 80% of the solution comes from just 20% of the problem.  So if we get down to the level of the 50th highest contributor then well have a good argument for doing nothing.   

> Boy while we are on a roll, once you have the scientifically proven  figures for that.  Maybe we could then work out how much cooler the  world would be if Australia reduced emissions by 5% then 10% the 20%.  Should be a cinch  *[Insert temperature reduction in degrees celsius for Aus 5% CO2 reduction here: ________.]* *[Insert temperature reduction in degrees celsius for Aus 10% CO2 reduction here: ________.]* *[Insert temperature reduction in degrees celsius for Aus 20% CO2 reduction here: ________.]* 
> Then I guess the next step seeing that was so easy is to work out the  cost per % of reduction to the economy and equate that back to a $  figure per degree of temperature drop that we in Australia can achieve.     *{1 degree celsius global temperature reduction will cost  [Insert AUS$ here $ ____________ .] - HINT: Garnaut's report will help.}* 
> Then we can ask ourselves is it worth it?  *[Insert yes or no here: ________.]*

  Honestly can't help you with this one.....whilst I agree our contribution to AGW is relatively small in terms of totals....I can't help thinking that being a sheep on this is simply a faster way of getting to the abbatoir

----------


## Rod Dyson

> In the end......it's not like they can do the AGW Theory any significant harm. So we might as well let them continue without molestation.

  It is this type of hollier than thou attitude that will bring you undone.  I or Doc may not do any "harm" as you put, from an individual point of view. But collectivly it is skeptics like us that you cannont fool or silence with your crass, beilieve us, trust us, we are right, regardless of evidence, that will bring your theory down before you destroy our way of life.  
I think that any reasonable person that reads this thread can see that you have not produced any evidence that proves this theory with enough confidence to destroy our economy with an ETS,  
This post or yours just demonstrates how you expect everyone to believe AGW without question the asumptions behind the theory. 
Why am i not surprised.

----------


## woodbe

> I think that any reasonable person that reads this thread can see that you have not produced any evidence that *proves this theory* with enough confidence to destroy our economy with an ETS,

   

> The only reason it stands is not because its proven, but because no-one has been able to unseat it and disprove it.

   

> Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense  that it is only a hypothesis; *you can never prove it*.

  I think any reasonable person would be asking why you continue to ask for proof. 
Did you not notice that SBD has responded to your evidence request 2 posts above this one? 
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

> It would be easier to take your views seriously if you didn't smear  Plimer personally, but instead read his work and point out which of his  statements are dubious, and which of his 2000'ish references are  incorrect.

  I have said nothing personal against Plimer, just echoed the comment made by many others that his book doesn't add much to the debate because of the lack of credible science. Others have listed the incorrect references and the correct references to incorrect papers in great detail, what I find interesting is the quite unusual remarks like the mention of land mines and mercury poisoning on p19. Or the totally unsupported comment about the exodus on p57. I can't think of another book by an emeritis professor with so many basic errors, has anyone seen anything online where Plimer has attempted to answer his critics? 
I heard that there was expected to be a close race between the Climate Sceptics Party and the Australian Sex Party in this election but the Sex Party came first. Well they would wouldn't they? Less than 20,000 people Australia wide supported the climate sceptics. 
Other good news is that Qld Lib senator Sue Boyce is recovering well from the heart attack and will not be stepping down. Locals remember her timely warnings about Monckton and her crossing the floor to support the ETS which she disliked but believed a bad scheme was better than doing nothing.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I think both Rod and Dr Freud are not listening, nor understanding what the science is about, how it is achieved, nor what it means. Rod is right about some guys who don't get it, I suggest he looks in the mirror. 
> woodbe

   

> Perhaps. The thing is we can't change it......so there's not much to be gained from banging on about it apart from the odd giggle.   
> In the end......it's not like they can do the AGW Theory any significant harm.  So we might as well let them continue without molestation.

   

> I suspect that they don't _want_ to listen. 
> Hypothetically, I wonder if there was a cost-neutral fix to CO2 emissions, would Rod and the Doc still be so opposed to the AGW theory? 
> I suspect that they just don't like the 'tax' or 'carbon price' and that they are taking an anti-AGW stance as their argumentative position.  i.e. I suspect that their position is driven by the opposition to a 'tax' - their portrayed doubt about the science is merely a red herring.

  Alas, Rod and myself realise that AGW Theory proponents have so bastardised the scientific process through their zealotry, that it will take years, if not decades, for any semblance of credibility to return to their ranks. 
Are we alone in this view? 
No my friends, we stand alongside every citizen in every country who supports their government in presiding over increased CO2 emissions, in the full knowledge that IF AGW Theory is true, then we are all willingly participating in the imminent destruction of not only our own species, but all life as we know it. 
Either that, or we all realise these bozo's are full of ..it.  :Biggrin:  
Remind me again, how many countries have reversed CO2 emissions, and when will they reach zero emissions? 
Do you want a real giggle? 
You guys all believe humans (including all of our families) will be rendered extinct as a result of this hoopla, and the best you can come up with is cheap point scoring here.  No massive investing of your time in education, activism, radical protests etc.  Remember the Jihad, the Crusades, the Inquisition, now those dudes really believed in what they were peddling. 
Greenies used to sleep in trees just to save a forrest.  AGW Theory proponents believe they are trying to save the entire planet, yet keep using fossil fuel power and can't even be bothered to organise a tent embassy. 
Now that's worth giggle.  :Hihi:

----------


## Dr Freud

> 1.28% in 2007, 16th highest of 240 odd countries GHG data from UNFCCC 
>  Not that easy to translate into degrees C.  
>  In terms of Australia's contribution.....agreed.....tiny.   
>  Honestly can't help you with this one.....

  Love your work.  Let me have a crack at the end bits.  :2thumbsup:  
We've argued the radiative forcing previously, so let's move on assuming all these things are correct (including AGW Theory! :Biggrin: ) 
Let's do some rough calculations just to get a sense of scale.  We've also argued logarithmic vs linear and temporal issues, so please let's just get to the next step.  These numbers are not exact, but guys, just relax and follow the bouncing ball. 
Let's say humans are responsible for all of the measured 0.7 degrees increase in temp solely through CO2 emissions. 
Australia as you point out accounts for about 1.28% of this, or .008 degrees (relax, breathe, these are not exact, remember they're for a sense of scale). 
We (Aussie's) intend to reduce our CO2 output by 5%, so assuming this causes a 5% reduction in temp (cos that's what we're doing it for), global average temp should reduce by about .0004 degrees. (Again, very crude, just for scale). 
[This is assuming the rest of the world has reduced to zero emissions, otherwise it is even more pointless.  :Biggrin: ] 
CPRS was estimated to cost about $120 billion for 5% reduction by 2020. 
[This is assuming limited global action, not going it alone we intend to]. 
(Apologies Rod, my calculator can't do cost per full degree celsius, not enough zero's). 
In terms of Australia's temperature contribution, tiny is an understatement. Not many thermometers go to 4 decimal places. 
In terms of Australia's pointless financial suicide, futility is an understatement.  China, India and the USA are increasing CO2 emissions daily. 
Soooo, to answer the final question: 
"Then we can ask ourselves is it worth it?"  *[Insert yes or no here: ________.]* 
My opinion, no!  :2thumbsup:  
Any takers in the yes camp?

----------


## Dr Freud

> It is this type of hollier than thou attitude that will bring you undone.  I or Doc may not do any "harm" as you put, from an individual point of view. But collectivly it is skeptics like us that you cannont fool or silence with your crass, beilieve us, trust us, we are right, regardless of evidence, that will bring your theory down before you destroy our way of life.

  Too right.  Knaffers like us are harmless.  We just allow the AGW Theory proponents more opportunities to do all the harm themselves. 
Sceptics caused Mann etc to use their "tricks", leading to their own disgrace. 
Some sceptic then leaked Climategate info, showing AGW Theory proponents antics. 
Sceptics (or Chinese Rat-F-ckers as Rudd referred to them) apparently derailed Dopenhagen by pitting paying proponents against receiving proponents. 
Then Mr Rabbit (sceptic) stood up for common sense and we all watched the AGW Theory proponents (Rudd, Wong, Brown, Turnbull) destroy their own agenda. 
Then Joolia (sceptic) proposed the "citizens assembly" which saw proponents attacking their own beloved greenies (Wong, Garrett MIA) over this farce. 
So yeh, while we do little direct harm, we just stand up and say "Oi, let's take a closer look", then the zealotry starts and all the harm is self-inflicted in personal attacks and vitriole. 
Lucky we are Chuck Norris tough!  :Ninja Smile:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I think any reasonable person would be asking why you continue to ask for proof. 
> woodbe.

  I think any reasonable person would be asking why you continue to ignore humans keep increasing our CO2 emissions in spite of the theoretical or hypothetical position you support? 
Maybe everyone needs more "proof"?  :Biggrin:    

> Did you not notice that SBD has responded to your evidence request 2 posts above this one? 
> woodbe.

  Sure did, great response by SBD! 
So, assuming all this hoopla is true, we get a 0.0004 degree celsius reduction for a measly $120 billion, assuming all others cease emitting today. Are you in?  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I have said nothing personal against Plimer...

  Really?     

> It would be easier to take your views seriously if you didn't keep plugging Plimer as a serious contributer to the AGW debate.

  The man's life and passion has been dedicated to geology and determining the geologic record of the planet, and you say he is not a serious contributer this debate. 
How about I take an area that you are really passionate about and make comments that you don't really take this area seriously?  Do you want me to give it a go?  Would you take it personally?   

> ...what I find interesting is the quite unusual remarks like the mention of land mines and mercury poisoning on p19. Or the totally unsupported comment about the exodus on p57. I can't think of another book by an emeritis professor with so many basic errors, has anyone seen anything online where Plimer has attempted to answer his critics?

  Land mines and Moses?  I must have missed those bits in the IPCC reports.  Remind me again how that relates to AGW Theory?  But I guess you agree with the other 500 pages then?  Or do you figure a small smear discounts everything written in the entire book? 
I have said before, there are some statements in there I took to task, as I do for everything I read, but learning is about filtering information using your own mind, rather than echoing comments made by others.   

> I heard that there was expected to be a close race between the Climate Sceptics Party and the Australian Sex Party in this election but the Sex Party came first. Well they would wouldn't they? Less than 20,000 people Australia wide supported the climate sceptics.

  According to AGW Theory proponents in this thread and elsewhere, Mr Rabbit was leading the climate sceptics party.   
The "direct action" party just picked up 73 seats in the lower house. 
The "lets talk to the committee" party picked up 72 seats in the lower house. 
The "carbon price now" party picked up 1. (All due kudos for their first, but only gained by preferences from the direct action party  :Biggrin: ). 
Recent polling indicates 3 of the 4 remaining constituencies favour the "direct action" by at least 2 to 1.  :2thumbsup:  
Australia has spoken. 
Argue with them!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

The sky is falling!  Well, the rain and the snow anyway.  Wheres the big dry their models kept predicting? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
Reset doomsdayer scenario #27346524.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Who are these bozo's?  Sun storm to hit with 'force of 100 bombs' | Perth Now 
We've got more important global destruction stuff to study, like cows farting.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> Let's say humans are responsible for all of the measured 0.7 degrees increase in temp solely through CO2 emissions. 
> Australia as you point out accounts for about 1.28% of this, or .008 degrees (relax, breathe, these are not exact, remember they're for a sense of scale). 
> We (Aussie's) intend to reduce our CO2 output by 5%, so assuming this causes a 5% reduction in temp (cos that's what we're doing it for), global average temp should reduce by about .0004 degrees. (Again, very crude, just for scale).

  The assumptions used in your calculations are only valid if Australia is _single-handedly_ responsible for reducing the world's CO2 emissions.  This is a retake on Rod's "20% = zero" argument. 
The idea is that we do-our-part and reduce our emissions by an agreed amount.  Collectively, the world can reduce CO2 emissions. 
Your calculations may be right, but your underlying assumptions are wrong.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The "direct action" party just picked up 73 seats in the lower house. 
> The "lets talk to the committee" party picked up 72 seats in the lower house. 
> The "carbon price now" party picked up 1. (All due kudos for their first, but only gained by preferences from the direct action party ). 
> Recent polling indicates 3 of the 4 remaining constituencies favour the "direct action" by at least 2 to 1.  
> Australia has spoken. 
> Argue with them!

  This is turning into a joke.  :Doh:  Abbott calls out Labor - and the Three Amigos | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
On the upside, not likely to get an ETS through this mess. 
On the downside, not likely to get anything through this mess.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The assumptions used in your calculations are only valid if Australia is _single-handedly_ responsible for reducing the world's CO2 emissions.  This is a retake on Rod's "20% = zero" argument. 
> The idea is that we do-our-part and reduce our emissions by an agreed amount.  Collectively, the world can reduce CO2 emissions.

  Collectively, the world can not only reduce, but end our CO2 emissions, hunger, poverty, war, famine, obesity, crime, etc. etc., but the important question is did we? 
That's why I am curious?   

> Remind me again, how many countries have reversed CO2 emissions, and when will they reach zero emissions?

  I imagine you AGW Theory guru's should have this list handy?   

> Your calculations may be right, but your underlying assumptions are wrong.

  Assumptions usually are, that's why computer models based on them are great in theory (AGW Theory :Biggrin: ), but flawed in predicting weather and climate.  Now when the IPCC bases it's attribution on these assumptions, then subjectively selects a "likelihood" scale based on these assumptions, you wonder why I shake my head  :No:  in disbelief (pun intended).  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> Collectively, the world can not only reduce, but end our CO2 emissions, hunger, poverty, war, famine, obesity, crime, etc. etc., but the important question is did we?

  We did ban DDT, CFC, leaded-petrol, asbestos, etc... 
Human behaviour is a little harder to 'ban' but a tax on unwanted behaviour acts as a disincentive.  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

Wow, I could be talked into changing sides by her!  :Blush7:   Heidi Cullen - The Colbert Report - 8/25/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

----------


## woodbe

> Wow, I could be talked into changing sides by her!   Heidi Cullen - The Colbert Report - 8/25/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

  Is this a good time to be coming out of the closet Doc?  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

You are doing a fine job here doc. I am sidelined for a day or two more. All our phone are out in bundoora until at least Monday. No Internet, have to use iPhone, hate it. Oh well I guess we have to get used to these hardships cause the way we are going we will have to get used to power blackouts.

----------


## Dr Freud

I've had enough of this cold weather (and climate  :Biggrin: ), so I'm taking a week off to head north for some solar powered fun in the sand and surf. 
I'm sure Rod will have convinced you all that AGW Theory is a crock by the time I get back.  :2thumbsup:  
Here's more of the weather I'm running away from:  Dam ironic | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

Different computer models, different assumptions, different results.  Shrinking atmospheric layer linked to low levels of solar radiation | UCAR 
How about we figure out how all this stuff works first, then start thinking about whether we control it.

----------


## Dr Freud

Consider this a light-hearted look at trend analysis.  Please don't take it seriously as it's just for laughs. Seriously, I made it all up, don't go doing anything crazy while I'm away.  :Biggrin:  
You see, I've been analysing a few trends, and I've figured out the real reason for the recent global warming is profits made from selling bicycles.  Yes that's right, selling bicycles has been driving the economic engine of the modern economy, and the increased cycling has increased the spin rate of the planet, leading to increased atmospheric friction with the planets surface causing the warming.  Sounds crazy I know, but go with me on this. 
After looking at this chart:   

> 

  I realised that all the warming was acually being caused by the population growth in the developing world, and not by us industrialised nations, as evidenced by this growth trend graph:    
Now your obvious question is, but we have the industry, how can they be driving the temperature up?  Well, they don't have as many cars as we do, so they ride bicycles.  These bicycles are one person per unit on poorly maintained roads, so create more friction on the planet than our industrialised mass transit networks, leading to faster global rotation and more atmospheric heat.  Now you know why there's not as much time in the day as there used to be. 
Here's the commensurate bicycle increases to prove it.   
See how inustrial populations and cars are flatter growth, but third world populations and bicycles match almost exactly to the temperature increases.  But you might ask "What about the CO2 levels?".  Well, don't you breathe harder when you ride a bike.  Imagine this times a few billion, it's just a byproduct of all that bicycle riding.  Now you might ask, "How can we allow this to continue?".  Because we industrialised nations have made lots of money producing and selling the bicycles of course.  Here's the proof:   
The good news is, you can see bicycle sales have steadied since the mid-1980's. ( I reckon this is due to people in developing countries double-dinkying on the handlebars, kinda like we car-pool).  You can see how in just a few years, the planet spin rate slowed and temperatures have steadied since the mid-1990's (you can't ride as fast either with someone on the handlebars).  You can also see that after a decade or two, this reduced sales data flowed back into the financial markets leading to a steadying of the markets. 
I call this AGW Theory, or Anthropogenic Global Wheeling Theory!  The data above proves me right.  I am designing a Climate Pedal Reduction Scheme (CPRS) to reverse this pedalling and warming connection.  Mock me at your peril.  :Cool look:  
Behold the face of evil.  :Biggrin:    :Bike2:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It is this type of hollier than thou attitude that will bring you undone.  I or Doc may not do any "harm" as you put, from an individual point of view. But collectivly it is skeptics like us that you cannont fool or silence with your crass, beilieve us, trust us, we are right, regardless of evidence, that will bring your theory down before you destroy our way of life.  
> I think that any reasonable person that reads this thread can see that you have not produced any evidence that proves this theory with enough confidence to destroy our economy with an ETS,  
> This post or yours just demonstrates how you expect everyone to believe AGW without question the asumptions behind the theory. 
> Why am i not surprised.

  My holier than thou attitude?  Pot calling kettle black if you ask me. 
As 'my' theory threatening to destroy 'your' way of life.....my argument is that 'your' way of life is threatening to compromise mine. 
As I've said many times before....an ETS won't reduce the risk to my way of life from your way of life....

----------


## woodbe

> How weak, heres just a small sample.
> [..]  _- Pacharuis astonishing business links with companies directly involved in areas of IPCC nterest_

   

> One subject the talkative Dr Pachauri remains silent on, however, is  how much money he is paid for all these important posts, which must run  into millions of dollars. Not one of the bodies for which he works  publishes his salary or fees, and this notably includes the UN, which  refuses to reveal how much we all pay him as one of its most senior  officials.

  Well, the answer is in on that score:   

> (TERI) - asked the auditors KPMG to review his financial  relationships. Today, for the first time, the Guardian is publishing  KPMGs report(1). KPMG studied all Pachauris financial records, accounts and tax  returns, as well as TERIs accounts, for the period 1 April 2008  31  December 2009. It found that any money paid as a result of the work that  Pachauri had done for other organisations went not to him but to TERI.  None of the money was paid back to him by TERI: he received only his  annual salary, which is £45,000. 
>  His total additional income over the 20 months reviewed by KPMG amounted to the following:
>   A payment of 20,000 rupees (£278) from two national power commissions in India, on which he serves as director;
>   35,880 rupees (£498) for articles he has written and lectures he has given;
>   A maximum of 100,000 rupees - or £1,389 - in the form of royalties from his books and awards. 
>  In other words, he made £45,000 as his salary at TERI, and a maximum  of £2,174 in outside earnings. So much for Pachauris highly lucrative  commercial jobs amounting to millions of dollars. 
>  Amazingly, the accounts also show that Pachauri transferred a  lifetime achievement award he was given by the Environment Partnership  Summit - 200,000 rupees - to TERI. In other words, he did not even keep  money to which he was plainly entitled, let alone any money to which he  was not. 
>  As for how much we all pay him as chairman of the IPCC, here is the full sum:   *£0*.

  The Guardian has published the results of the KPMG enquiry and apologised.   

> Last weekend it issued an apology to Pachauri.  "[The article] was not intended to suggest that Dr Pachauri was corrupt  or abusing his position as head of the IPCC and we accept KPMG found Dr  Pachauri had not made 'millions of dollars' in recent years. We  apologise to Dr Pachauri for any embarrassment caused."

  No sign of an apology appearing over at Andrew Bolt's weblog.  
woodbe.

----------


## Bedford

Weather  forecasting  the Australian way     It  was April and the Aboriginals in a remote part of Northern Australia asked their  new elder if the coming winter was going to be cold or mild. Since  he was an elder in a modern community he had never been taught the old secrets.  When he looked at the sky he couldn't tell what the winter was going to be  like. Nevertheless,  to be on the safe side, he told his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be  cold and that the members of the tribe should collect firewood to be  prepared. But  being a practical leader, after several days he had an idea. He  walked out to the telephone booth on the highway, called the Bureau of  Meteorology and asked, 'Is the coming winter in this area going to be  cold?' The  meteorologist responded, 'It looks like this winter is going to be quite  cold..' So  the elder went back to his people and told them to collect even more wood in  order to be prepared. A  week later he called the Bureau of Meteorology again. 'Does it still look like  it is going to be a very cold winter?' The  meteorologist again replied, 'Yes, it's going to be a very cold  winter.' The  elder again went back to his community and ordered them to collect every scrap  of firewood they could find. Two  weeks later the elder called the Bureau again. 'Are you absolutely sure that the  winter is going to be very cold?' he asked. 'Absolutely,'  the man replied. 'It's looking more and more like it is going to be one of the  coldest winters ever.' 'How  can you be so sure?' the elder asked. The  weatherman replied, 'Our satellites have reported that the Aboriginals in the  north are collecting firewood like crazy, and that's always a sure  sign.'

----------


## Mack

Anyone notice that the weather seems to be getting warmer lately?

----------


## Dr Freud

It was much warmer where I was for the last week. 
I've got truckloads of goodies to post, but have been mellowed by my time in the sun, so will have to work up the energy.  :Biggrin:  
The folks in Victoria can't tell whether it's getting warmer cos their thermometers are all under water. 
Hope you kiddies over there are all ok.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The Guardian has published the results of the KPMG enquiry and apologised. 
> No sign of an apology appearing over at Andrew Bolt's weblog.  
> woodbe.

  The Guardian said it and apologised.  We all (the WWW) just referred to their article.  If you want to bring it to Mr Bolt's attention, his email is on his website.  I don't think he reads our posts, so you may be waiting a while for his response if you are relying only on your post. 
He's a fairly cagey character, so you may want to have Pachauri's expense accounts from his various entities ready.  :Biggrin:    

> As for how much we all pay him as chairman of the IPCC, here is the full sum:   *£0*. 
> woodbe.

  I guess scientists are just like tradies then, you do get what you pay for.  :Biggrin:  
"...The five-month probe ordered by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the IPCC should have a stronger scientific basis for making its predictions and recommended an overhaul of the position of IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri... 
...The review called for a new chief executive to run the IPCC and for the chairmanship to become a part-time post with a new holder for each landmark study carried out..."  Review urges reforms to climate body after mistakes, but UN says overall findings remain | The Australian 
An overwhelming vote of confidence in the chairman no doubt?  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

A refreshing read from someone looking to "move forward".  :Biggrin:  
"...Those who fret about carbon footprints and have no faith in humans to solve the carbon problem, get short shrift from Williams. He labels them "carbonistas", highlighting the notion that such concern is merely fashionable. 
"There's a divide occurring in society premised on carbon and how we handle it. It's become a moralistic split. It's not based on class, but being rich certainly helps when it comes to being seen to minimise carbon footprints. 
"Certain people have smugly created a new low-carbon fraternity. It's a new way of reframing their contempt for the oiks, the chavs, the lower orders. It all has a very Victorian feel about it."..." 
Full story here:  Sustainable? We're a lot smarter than that | The Australian

----------


## Dr Freud

Just how many "carbonista's" are there in Oz? 
"...The Qantas Group's annual report revealed yesterday that between 7.5 per cent and 9 per cent of customers paid the extra money to offset their emissions, despite websites attempting to steer them in that direction... 
...The percentage of people taking up offsets on Jetstar drops to between 4 per cent and 5 per cent on long flights and sits in the 6 per cent to 6.5 per cent range on trans-Tasman flights..." 
And even less globally! 
"Qantas spokesman David Epstein said uptake on the group's airlines was still one of the highest in the world." 
Full story here:  As much as 90 per cent of airline passengers decline to pay for carbon offsets | The Australian 
Oh yeh baby, it's easy to believe for free.  :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

Welcome back Doc. 
Are any of our resident sceptics still disagreeing that global land/sea temperatures are increasing (no Doc, trends, not weather) because the code used to analyse the data is corrupted to falsely show warming? 
I think at the beginning of this long thread we would have had several takers on that question (sadly, I didn't have the presence of mind to ask it) and especially around the time of the stolen CRU emails, but I'd be interested in a show of hands to gauge the current position. 
Thanks, 
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

On SBS tonight at 7.30 Insight features the late Stephen Schneider facing questions on climate change. SBS Insight

----------


## Dr Freud

> Welcome back Doc. 
> woodbe.

  Thanks mate.  It was a struggle coming back.  Life's refreshing in the middle of nowhere.  Spotted a sea shell embedded in some coral fossils about a hundred feet above sea level.  Amazing what you see when your eyes are open.  Eventually trekked to a visitor centre later on and discussed it with them.  They claimed the whole area was hundreds of feet under the ocean a few million years ago.  Wacko sceptics.  :Biggrin:    

> Are any of our resident sceptics still disagreeing that global land/sea temperatures are increasing (no Doc, trends, not weather) because the code used to analyse the data is corrupted to falsely show warming? 
> woodbe.

  That old chestnut.  How's this for a better plan.  You show us some evidence that humans caused any measured increase.  The accuracy of your "science" will then leave no one in doubt, unlike the dubious methods demonstrated in the "allegedly stolen" emails.  :2thumbsup:  
Credibility is like virginity, once you lose it, you never get it back.  But if enough time passes, it feels like it all never happened.  :Hump:

----------


## Dr Freud

> On SBS tonight at 7.30 Insight features the late Stephen Schneider facing questions on climate change. SBS Insight

  Kudos to him for his convictions. 
Managed to get the second half of this usual broohaha. I think if those wackos just read this thread, all their questions will be answered, whatever their position.  Almost embarrased to be a sceptic after seeing some of those loonies in the audience. 
Seriously people, I don't really care which position you take, just read a book for goodness sake and engage a brain cell.  :Gaah:

----------


## Dr Freud

Years Melbourne has been on water restrictions: _7_Where a new dam for Melbourne was planned: _(T)he Mitchell has a huge catchment area - so big, in fact, that it would normally fill a dam the size of the Thomson, our biggest, three times faster than that dam fills now. Its a river that floods badly around every decade._The likely cost of such a dam: _$1.35 billion._What happened to that planned dam: _(The Labor Government)  turned the dam reservation on Gippslands Mitchell River into a national park._ The excuse the dam-phobic Labor Government gave for not building the dam: _Unfortunately, we cannot rely on this kind of rainfall like we used to._What it spent instead on a desalination plant to deliver just a third of the water:  _  $3.5 billion (or $5.7 billion in net present cost over the next 30 years)._When the Mitchell last burst its banks: _2007_ How much water went to waste in that single flood: _There is no doubt that had a dam the size of the Thomson dam (Melbournes biggest) been in place on the Mitchell River, all of the flooding in Bairnsdale, Paynesville and much, if not all, of the Gippsland Lakes and Lakes Entrance flooding would have been prevented Thwaites own department says more than 540 billion litres of flood water has gone down the Mitchell alone since June 19. In a dam, that would be more water than Melbourne uses in a year._ How the Mitchell is flowing today: _Moderate Flood Warning for the Wonnangatta and Mitchell Rivers Since 9 AM rainfall general rainfall totals of up to 13 mm have been recorded Mitchell River catchment As a result, stream rises have occurred in the upper Mitchell River catchment which is likely to lead to areas of Minor flooding over the coming days._Another river the Labor Government could have used:  _Check also the Glenmaggie Reservoir on the Macalister, which (in 2009 was) so full that (it) had to tip out as much as 40 billion litres .... Thats as much water wasted as Melbourne uses in a whole month. You see, the Glenmaggie is not only another reservoir thats too small, but its even been left unconnected to Melbournes water network._ How the Macalister is flowing today: _MAJOR FLOOD WARNING FOR THE MACALISTER RIVER DOWNSTREAM OF LAKE GLENMAGGIE_How much the green madness has cost Victoria.  _Incalculable._   _Full story here:_   _Whats the excuse now for that mad dam ban? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

----------


## Dr Freud

THE LOVE of field and coppice,   Of green and shaded lanes, Of ordered woods and gardens   Is running in your veins; Strong love of grey-blue distance,Brown streams and soft, dim skies I know but cannot share it,   My love is otherwise.     
I love a sunburnt country,   A land of sweeping plains,Of ragged mountain ranges,   *Of droughts and flooding rains.*  
I love her far horizons,   I love her jewel-sea, Her beauty and her terrorThe wide brown land for me!     
The stark white ring-barked forests,   All tragic to the moon, The sapphire-misted mountains,   The hot gold hush of noon.Green tangle of the brushes,   Where lithe lianas coil, And orchids deck the tree-tops   And ferns the warm dark soil.    Core of my heart, my country!_ _ Her pitiless blue sky, When sick at heart, around us,   We see the cattle die But then the grey clouds gather,   And we can bless againThe drumming of an army,   The steady, soaking rain.    Core of my heart, my country!    
Land of the Rainbow Gold, For flood and fire and famine,She pays us back threefold; Over the thirsty paddocks,   Watch, after many days, The filmy veil of greenness   That thickens as we gaze. 
An opal-hearted country,   A wilful, lavish land All you who have not loved her,   You will not understand Though earth holds many splendours,Wherever I may die, I know to what brown country   My homing thoughts will fly.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Nice article, nice summary: 
> "When you add this to the growing population, the United Nations' best guess is that by 2050, the world will need to more than double its production of meat - an increase that would be environmentally disastrous."  
> Meanwhile: Absurd? Ridiculous? Don't be polite, give those wacko greenies both barrels.   The issue of population, or more accurately overpopulation, is a really, really sensitive subject, so I want to state from the outset that this article is not directed to those people with children, rather those that are considering having children; be it their first or adding to their clan. What's done is done, what's not can be prevented.   If youre not sure you want to be a parent, or the reasons youre planning on having children are due mostly to social pressure, maybe you should reconsider.  Babies are a big responsibility and its important for their parents to know they really want them and know they can take care of them.  After all, raising another human being is resource intensive!   Many experts believe that, since Europeans and Americans have such a lopsided impact on the environment, the world would benefit more from reducing their populations than by making cuts in developing countries.   People often talk about their right to have children. Nature doesn't recognize or care about those rights and deals with overpopulation in ways we find quite cruel.   Throughout history, different cultures have celebrated birth as a unique moment signifying the joy of life. The reinterpretation of birth as a form of greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour speaks to today's degraded imagination, where carbon-reduction becomes the supreme moral imperative. Once every newborn baby is dehumanised in this way, represented as a professional polluter who is a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions, it becomes increasingly difficult to feel anything other than apprehension about the growth of the human race.   JULIA Gillard's comments yesterday put the issue beyond doubt -- she is the first Prime Minister to seek election on the platform of a smaller growing Australia and rejects the current growth model as "irresponsible".   The proof that Gillard is effectively lying about Labor's plans came this week, when she was asked whether she truly would cut immigration.  Her answer: "I don't believe this is an immigration debate."  Pardon? So what is it instead? A debate about sterilising more women? Compulsory euthanasia?   Former Labor leader Mark Latham was rightly scathing: "If it's not an immigration debate, it's no debate. And I tell you what it is; it's a fraud.    Absurd and ridiculous indeed.

  Many cults do not realise the effects of their doomsday scenarios on the psychologically vulnerable.  *James J. Lee, environmental militant, slain at Discovery building after taking hostages*  washingtonpost.com 
Lee said he experienced an awakening when he watched former Vice President Al Gores environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth.   NW Republican: Liberal "home grown" terrorist takes hostages: Al Gore follower 
Read below to find out how this scaremongering filters into an unstable mind.  Terrorists use the same absolutist indoctrination methods, just different beliefs.  Be warned, there are some disturbing statements here.  :Frown:   My Demands 
I'm not saying all AGW Theory proponents are like this guy, but just warning (again) of the effects of this nonsense on the vulnerable.  :Cool:

----------


## jago

:Postwhore:     :Closed:

----------


## chrisp

> Almost embarrased to be a sceptic after seeing some of those loonies in the audience.

  I missed the start of the program (but thanks for the heads-up PhilT2). 
I was wondering where they got the audience from?  It must have been hard rounding up a bunch of sceptics willing to go on national television.  But then again, there didn't seem to be that many of them (and some seemed to be changing their mind towards the end).   :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> That old chestnut.  How's this for a better plan.

  So what's your position on 'that old chestnut' Doc? 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I'm not saying all AGW Theory proponents are like this guy, but just warning (again) of the effects of this nonsense on the vulnerable.

  Works both ways....only have to look at this woman to see what the Right does to vulnerable minds....

----------


## woodbe

Or this guy:    Geert Wilders on SBS: "Mr Contoversial" 
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

Anyone who missed Insight can catch it here. SBS Insight 
[QUOTE][I'm not saying all AGW Theory proponents are like this guy, but just  warning (again) of the effects of this nonsense on the vulnerable. /QUOTE] 
How people with mental illness react to the world around them is not readily predictable. Censoring discussion on a significant issue does them no favours. Neither does using them to advance either side of the debate.

----------


## woodbe

> Anyone who missed Insight can catch it here. SBS Insight        Originally Posted by Dr Freud  I'm not saying all AGW Theory proponents are like this guy, but just  warning (again) of the effects of this nonsense on the vulnerable.    How people with mental illness react to the world around them is not readily predictable. Censoring discussion on a significant issue does them no favours. Neither does using them to advance either side of the debate.

  Thanks for bringing that Insight episode up PhilT2, Stephen Schneider acquitted himself quite well. It was obvious from many of the audience's comments that they had never come across someone familiar with the science, not had they taken the time to search it out. 
His comments about about the media should resonate with our own Rod Dyson, and his mentioning of 'elliptical blogs' and non peer reviewed books was also pertinent to this thread, and I note that he nonchalantly exposed Plimer's video claims for what they were. 
There is also many videos of Stephen on You Tube 
RIP. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

watched it all changes nothing

----------


## Rod Dyson

Woodbe can you explain this and how it effects the AGW theory?  Working 9,25 What a way to make a livin (at AGW) | Watts Up With That? 
Thanks

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe can you explain this and how it effects the AGW theory?  Working 9,25 What a way to make a livin (at AGW) | Watts Up With That? 
> Thanks

  Mate, I've read some complex blog posts, but that one takes the cake. Did you actually read it? I gave it a good shot, I think you owe me a beer for linking it, my head hurts!   

> kzb says:                      September 8, 2010 at 5:00 am 
>           Im afraid my poor little brain cell  cannot follow the logic of this article.  And I work in a scientific  field so I dont know what non-scientific people will make of it.

  Several more like that in the comments. 
I'm not sure I can 'explain this' for you Rod, the author seems to be having an extremely difficult time of it himself. Even by Watt's standards its a rather disjointed iteration. If I follow it correctly, the author is gleefully using a single model to claim that everyone else's models are wrong. And here was I thinking you didn't trust models Rod, or is that only the models that deliver results you don't like?  :Confused:  
Once again, we have a sceptic who thinks he has found the silver bullet and publishes his 'science' on an elliptical blog site. 
Do you think he will rewrite in decipherable text and have it peer reviewed? 
In any case, I think its quite likely that he's missed one or two or three things and when the dust settles we will find once again that the science of AGW actually changes through hard scientific work, publishing and peer review, not through posts on Watts' site. 
edit: Steven Mosher has just thrown a spanner in the works  :Smilie:    

> Steven Mosher says:                      September 8, 2010 at 8:37 am 
>           Frank,
>   As a old modtran user ( when it used to be classified) you need to  understand  that it does not include feedbacks. You can use it to tell  you one thing: More C02 = More warming,  all things be equal, ie no  feedbacks. There is no way of calculating sensitivity. Sensitivity can  only be estimated by running a GCM.  For engineers we might use Modtran  to estimate what level of IR signal we can expect to get when radiation  passes through the atmosphere, for example.  So if we have a heat source  on the ground emitting and we want to view it from above we have to  calculate how much of that signal will will actually reach the sensor  and how much of it will be blocked by the atmosphere. Or, if we are on  the ground and want to estimate what a hot source in the sky will look  like by the time that signal passes down through the atmosphere we can  also use MODTRAN.   As the model shows, adding C02 to the atmosphere  will result in changes to the transfer of radiation.  If the model wasnt  right, if C02 did not interact with IR the way the model describes the  sensors in space, the sensors on the ground would not perform as they  do.  What MODTRAN tells us is that all things being equal a worl with  more C02 is a warmer world. Not a colder world, not a world with the  same temperature, a warmer world. Folk who deny that C02 has any effect  on the transfer of radiation through the atmosphere, need to understand  that the fundamental science, engineering and working devices say  otherwise.
>   How much warming when we INCLUDE feedbacks? thats the real question.

  You didn't answer my question? 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

What is the mining world thinking?  Move on climate, BHP Billiton urges 
... sense, it would seem!

----------


## Rod Dyson

And this changes what?

----------


## chrisp

> Time is against you and time is our friend. The longer sensible people can stall the faithful from taking stupid expensive action that will do NOTHING to reduce global temperatures, (before you skwark show us the figures), the more likely this thing will fall over and we can get on with our lives. We can then focus our attention to real environmental concerns, like REAL polution.

   

> As I say time is on our side, whilst we are sensibly holding off on any major changes to our lives (read ETS), then I am happy to sit back and watch, the warmers make complete fools of themselves, as the empirical evidence unfolds to bury the AGW argument forever.

   

> Time is our friend, slowy the lack of empirical evidence is changing the opinions of many people.  I am going to laugh my A** off at all the fools that have been sucked in by this rubbish.  Governments the world over are stalling, love it.

  I'm just pointing out evidence that counteracts your view that the support for the AGW theory is somehow flagging.

----------


## Rod Dyson

No chrisp, it is dying a very slow death. When will you wake up to the fact this scam is sliding backwards?   
Maybe we will be as successful as these guys EU carbon trading scheme failing to cut pollution, campaigners warn | Environment | guardian.co.uk 
What a joke.

----------


## woodbe

> the fact this scam is sliding backwards?

  Please supply empirical evidence to support your claim that  
a) 'this' is a scam 
b) it is sliding backwards.   :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

Latest from ABS 1370.0 - Measures of Australia's Progress, 2010

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Maybe we will be as successful as these guys EU carbon trading scheme failing to cut pollution, campaigners warn | Environment | guardian.co.uk

  Almost certainly.  Which is a shame. 
I read something recently that suggested that our social and economic capacity to actually alter our current consumption of hydrocarbons (and the society upon which it depends) is diminishing at the same rate as the hydrocarbon reserves......so basically we can't change even if we wanted to. 
The general greed & ignorance of human nature is so personally uplifting... :Happydance:  :Happydance:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Well I fail to see how we can have population growth both here and world wide and not increase the out put of CO2. 
I also fail to see how one can be so certain that CO2 is driving the climate!!

----------


## watson

Please Check this Post  http://www.renovateforum.com/f186/ro...0-posts-92998/

----------


## woodbe

> Well I fail to see how we can have population growth both here and world wide _and not increase the out put of CO2_. 
> I also fail to see how one can be so certain that CO2 is driving the climate!!

  We've come a long way, haven't we? 
One by one, the arguments of the skeptics have been dying a slow death. 
We no longer argue that CO2 is increasing,
We no longer argue CO2 physics,
We no longer argue that average temperatures are increasing, 
Instead we argue about climate sensitivity and whether we should be spending any of our money trying to do something about it. 
Meanwhile the skeptics claim that the AGW support is losing ground.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

[quote=woodbe;812711]We've come a long way, haven't we? 
One by one, the arguments of the skeptics have been dying a slow death.  

> We no longer argue that CO2 is increasing,

  This has never been in doubt or argued against to my knowlege.  

> We no longer argue CO2 physics,

  Again never been disputed we have always agreed CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  

> We no longer argue that average temperatures are increasing,

  No here is where we start to get a bit iffy on the method and relevance of the data record.   
Method in doubt due to the way raw data is manipulated/adjusted. 
Relevance in doubt due to the short length of time average global temps have been calculated.  We could go on but that would be re-writing the entire thread again :Wink:   

> Instead we argue about climate sensitivity and whether we should be spending any of our money trying to do something about it.

  And we should keep arguing this until there is a better understanding of what acutally does drive our climatic changes.    

> Meanwhile the skeptics claim that the AGW support is losing ground.  
> woodbe.

  There is no doubt that support for AGW is losing ground in all areas.  Like I have said it is just a matter of time.  We will see how they spin the cooling period we are now entering as it deepens and lengthens over the next 10 years or so. 
We are already seeing a bit of how they a spinning it by John Holdrens new AGW/Climate Change monnicker. "Global Climate Disruption" Global warming is dead. Long live, er, 'Global climate disruption'! – Telegraph Blogs  Now we are really having a bet each way.  
I say bring it on change it again.  Folks are sick of spin and they will see through this in a second except for the gullible. 
Meanwhile another smackdown in peer reviewed papers no lesss. 
Conclusions From Allen and Sherwood (2008) and Thorne (2008) Are Refuted Conclusions From Allen and Sherwood (2008) and Thorne (2008) Are Refuted « Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Our pollies have cold feet on ETS. 
Perhaps this is why. Californias Job Terminator

----------


## Rod Dyson

Who wouldn't supprt global warming if you were getting a bit of this pie?  China powers booming world climate change industry | The Australian

----------


## woodbe

> Originally Posted by woodbe   We no longer argue that average temperatures are increasing,    
> No here is where we start to get a bit iffy on the method and relevance of the data record.   
> Method in doubt due to the way raw data is manipulated/adjusted. 
> Relevance in doubt due to the short length of time average global temps have been calculated.  We could go on but that would be re-writing the entire thread again

  No need to rewrite. There are now multiple reconstructions from multiple data sets. they all come to similar conclusions, regardless of who did the calculations, which data is used, or where the software came from. Temperatures are rising. Even AGW skeptics are confirming this.   _Figure 8.  Comparison of temperature trends, in degrees C per decade._   

> *What independent confirmations of the globally gridded anomaly methods have been made?* 
>  In addition to the cross-checks available by comparing and  contrasting GISS, CRU, NCDC, and JMA, several technical bloggers have  created their own globally gridded temperature anomaly records. Jeff Id and Roman M Joseph at Residual Analysis Zeke Hausfather Nick Stokes Chad Herman Steven Mosher 
> The Clear Climate Code  project, which includes Nick Barnes and Dave Jones, refactored the  GISTEMP code into python, uncovering some minor bugs, which were then  corrected in the official GISTEMP code.
>  Steve McIntyre, analyzing the GISTEMP product data sets, uncovered a  discontinuity around the year 2000 which was subsequently corrected.

  
If you have been following this, and it has been a hot issue for the people involved above and others for quite a while now, you would know that there is general acceptance within the group of people independently verifying the analyses that the records we have are showing similar changes regardless of data set, gridding method or software approach. 
You might not like to admit it Rod, but you like most reasonable skeptics are now not fighting things that you denied earlier. 
Its part of the whole public discussion process on this issue - the skeptics put up an erroneous argument and it eventually gets properly, methodically, scientifically refuted. Meanwhile the skeptics pick up a new erroneous argument and run with that. Rinse, repeat. Its easy to make the claims but much harder to prove them wrong - time and ability to change directions and stance are definitely on the side of the skeptics. 
The only problem is that they are running out of room to find new arguments, which is why they are now fighting for survival at the climate sensitivity front. 
woodbe.

----------


## Mack

Having spent more time on planet earth than the majority, it is evident to me that Rod's lack of intelligence and understanding on the issue is obvious.  
His sporadic and immature comments suggests that he is more concerned about prolonging this thread than he is about the future.

----------


## watson

Bugger off Shawn..that was too obvious.  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Having spent more time on planet earth than the majority, it is evident to me that Rod's lack of intelligence and understanding on the issue is obvious. 
> His sporadic and immature comments suggests that he is more concerned about prolonging this thread than he is about the future.

  Hmm I think I understand the issues better than you think.  
We all want what is best for our future and it is good that we don't all agree what that should entail. Or we could end up with something none of us really want.  
I would much prefer to see the money spent on AGW and the futile attempt to reduce CO2 emisssions, spent on providing the millions of rawandan refugees cooking and heating fuel. This would cut out the black market in charcoal burners, and protect the forrests of the Congo and the habitat of the gorrila. That is money well spent. 
I would like to see the money spent on irrigation in 3rd world counties so they can provide for themselves. I would like to see a better future for sure. I just happen to dissagree whole heartedly with the need or the chance of success of the methods proposed to combat a problem that may or may not exist. Not to mention that a warmer world is far better that a cooler one. 
Now it is very subjective as to where the lack of intelligence lies, and only time will sort it out, for science surely can't at the moment. 
The argument that we are running out of time to prevent an armageddon is total rubbish.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

*Expert credibility in climate change*   William R. L. Anderegga,1,James W. Prallb,Jacob Haroldc, andStephen H. Schneidera,d,1 + Author Affiliations  aDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;bElectrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3G4;cWilliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, CA 94025; anddWoods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305                           Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)  *Abstract* 
                   Although preliminary estimates from  published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among  climate scientists                      on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change  (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the  anthropogenic                      cause and the level of scientific agreement  underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community  itself,                      the distribution of credibility of dissenting  researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement  among                      top climate experts has not been conducted and  would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset  of 1,372                      climate researchers and their publication and  citation data to show that (_i_) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined                      by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (_ii_) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that                      of the convinced researchers.     Expert credibility in climate change  
...and the full paper has been made available to everyone via the provided link.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Now it is very subjective as to where the lack of intelligence lies, and only time will sort it out, for science surely can't at the moment. 
> The argument that we are running out of time to prevent an armageddon is total rubbish.

  Not total rubbish.  As in "...can be safely ignored".   
Whilst I'm with you on the idea of impending armageddon being highly unlikely....there is actually a very real risk of some rather nasty things happening.   
So while I'm in full support of gorillas & bonobos in the Congo and access to modern irrigation & water management technology in the developing world (that many already have access to anyway - it is just their current farming systems [family based subscitence driven small holdings] often struggle to adopt factory farming techniques).....if these things are under pressure from a destabilising climate as well then our precious investment in those things could well be for nought. 
Truth is......from an economic point of view....there's no money to be made by investing in the third world.  So any money currently invested in "climate change"....if it were suddenly a non-issue...would not then get directed to the third world...(more likely 4D television or Avatar 2)...which is a very sad reflection on human nature and current economic theory. 
Either way.......the gorilla's are rooted. :Cry:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Here's another sceptics vs science article in the latest ECOS mag from the CSIRO...  http://www.ecosmagazine.com/view/dsp...=2010&direct=1

----------


## woodbe

> Here's another sceptics vs science article in the latest ECOS mag from the CSIRO...  http://www.ecosmagazine.com/view/dsp...=2010&direct=1

   

> While climate scientists may still debate issues such as degrees of impact, or timeframes, there is consensus within their community that global warming is happening and that humans are responsible. If we accept this consensus, we then need to realise that the longer we wait to act, the more the risks will increase and the fewer our options.

  The public debate between opinion holders is heading in the same direction. You can't wage a debate based on misinformation forever, as you routinely have to concede small points along the way (or lose your credibility). Eventually, the argument from reasonable opinion sceptics will come down to degrees and timeframes, its already happening if you watch. 
And Rod, contrary to what you have read, (was that Bolt, or WUWT?) people who support AGW do not generally support a binary result of Armageddon.  
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> T....people who support AGW do not generally support a binary result of Armageddon.

  Armageddon is simply 'the final battle between Good and Evil'. That won't happen. Mostly because G & E are just 'concepts'. 
Ignorance, on the other hand, can be scientifically demonstrated 
So what will happen will be akin to Parlimentary Question Time (under the new 'rules') if it staged by the World Wrestling Federation..........."the final battle between Dumb and Dumber"

----------


## Dr Freud

Hey Rod,  
Congrats on the 2 grand.  Keep on swinging. 
I've been tied up lately, only casually browsing, but should be back into the fray soon. 
You gotta admire these guys determination though, braving the chill in spring, after one of the coldest, wettest winters I've experienced in a long time, to present all their doomsday scenarios of the end of the world. 
Hell, if I thought we could speed up the warming of the whole planet, I'd crank it up a few degrees.  I've been freezing my b-ll-cks off these last few months. 
But hey, since we invented the thermometer, some people believe we now control the temperature of the planet.  Maybe if we wind our clocks forward, we could get shorter work days, then wind them back on the weekends.  :Biggrin:  
In the words of the Jobkillernator, I'll be back!  :Wink 1:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Well Doc, you and I had better have our bags packed as we could be off to the re-education camp, if this Bozo has his way.  Global Warming Alarmist Calls For Eco-Gulags To Re-Educate Climate Deniers

----------


## Dr Freud

Alright lads, I'm well rested after my recent MIA episode. 
This new open-minded committee has inspired me to re-ignite this debate. 
I'm sure we aren't all done here yet, we've got a planet to save. :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Alright lads, I'm well rested after my recent MIA episode. 
> This new open-minded committee has inspired me to re-ignite this debate. 
> I'm sure we aren't all done here yet, we've got a planet to save.

  LOL yeah we have to go into battle again to stop this cr&p

----------


## Dr Freud

> We are already seeing a bit of how they a spinning it by John Holdrens new AGW/Climate Change monnicker. "Global Climate Disruption" Global warming is dead. Long live, er, 'Global climate disruption'!  Telegraph Blogs

  Hilarious! Change the name to suit the changing reality.  How about we just accept the reality.  :Doh:  
Here's some of this great read: 
"Can this be for real? Here the government is being advised by one of its own think tanks how to railroad through its climate policies by encouraging mobs of activists to stage spontaneous protests demanding action which the majority of the electorate dont actually want. I know this sort of thing happens all the time in Pyongyang, Teheran and Caracas. But in Britain?" 
Maybe these bozo's are adherents to this doctrine:  Protesters shut down Port of Newcastle - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
It's really strange though, why does this vocal minority feel impelled to do these things when proponents here keep telling us about the overwhelming belief in, and support of, this fiction?  We just had an election, surely this overwhelming support should have seen the Greens win about 140 out of the 150 seats in the lower house?

----------


## Dr Freud

"Then there is climate change. Gillard's fix was a citizens' assembly of 150 people who would discuss the issue and reach a consensus on it. Derided during the election campaign, the assembly was dumped after the campaign to be replaced by the Greens' all-party parliamentary committee to comprise only those parliamentarians who believe in a price on carbon. On the eve of election day Gillard said: "I rule out a carbon tax." When BHP Billiton chief executive Marius Kloppers went public recently with his support for a carbon tax, the Prime Minister decided it might be a good idea after all and declared that to rule it in or out was "a little bit silly".  
With the government's climate change policy in the hands of a parliamentary committee and the Greens set to hold the balance of power in the Senate from July next year, Gillard will be lucky to have much input into the policy's final design."   A paralysed Gillard is making Rudd look good | The Australian  
You gotta be really bad to make him look good.  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

All I can say is thank whatever you believe in that our military leaders are selected and trained for leadership qualities more robust that this pathetic effort. The "woe is me, things look too hard" is weak and does the feminist cause a great injustice.  Grow a pair Joolia. 
"Prime Minister Julia Gillard has warned that key promises she made during the federal election may be broken because of the "new environment" created by the hung Parliament.  
 Ms Gillard says it is no longer "business as usual" for major reforms, including anything associated with climate change."   Promises will be broken, says Gillard - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  
Being Bob Brown's hand puppet is not a good look for our Prime Minister.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

Gee, I remember the good ol' days when MP's went to Canberra and represented the opinions of their constituencies.  We called this novel concept democracy.  Now they go to Canberra and get given their opinions by the "new paradigm".  Sounds like you're either with them or against them.  I guess it would just be a little but silly to ask for open and transparent debate. 
""Parliamentary members of the committee will be drawn from those who are committed to tackling climate change and who acknowledge that effectively reducing carbon pollution by 2020 will require a carbon price," Ms Gillard said."  Greens to co-chair climate committee | Courier Mail 
Kudos to you Mr Watson for allowing us rabble to put forward our own ridiculous opinions rather than giving them to us before we are even allowed into the room. :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

"In fact, China isn't green at all; as the Chinese themselves say, referring to the ever-present smog in their megacities, it's gray. Air pollution is getting steadily worse, and water pollution is a major crisis as well. China burns more coal (by far) and emits more greenhouse gases than any other country. It sells more automobiles than any other country too (it passed the United States last year). And all those bad numbers are still going up, because China's No. 1 goal is increasing industrial production, not protecting the environment."  China's 'green economy' will have to wait - latimes.com 
Senator Christine Milne regularly holds up China as a bastion of carbon virtue, in order to convince the ignorant among us that what we do will make a difference.  She is lying, not stupid. 
And anyway, who do you think would have continued to sell China this coal unabated under Rudd's CPRS or Gillard's new bastardised policy? 
Surely we could offload these people to a circus out there somewhere looking for some clowns.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

"Forget the [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqZvpRjGtGM"]great moral challenge[/ame] of climate change  Kevni and Therese have just bought a resource-chomping new house:_Former Lodge resident Therese Rein on Friday revealed via Twitter that she and her husband Kevin Rudd had found a new home in Canberra._  _Yay!!! Kevin and I have found a house with a garden in Canberra and move in mid October, she announced _  _The new Rudd residence  they still own a house in Brisbane  is a near-new $2.2 million two-storey mansion._  _The house has five bedrooms, three bathrooms, a double carport and in the words of marketing agent Peter Blackshaw it has been designed for modern living._  With their latest properties alone, the Rudds and Al Gore now have a total of ten bedrooms and _twelve bathrooms_. Add their other houses and the bathroom footprint is looking gigantorious. What happened to the [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8RFR4kHeJc"]terrible drought made more severe by global warming?"[/ame]  YAY!!! | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog 
I hope the pools heated for those chilly Canberra winters.  Oh, I almost forgot, Ruddy's already planning for when the planet gets really, really hot from all those "big polluters".  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

The rest of the world thinks he speaks for all of us! 
At the same time as his wife's buying a spare mansion:  *"Rudd tells UN to up its game* -   September 26, 2010 01:24PM  
..."Put even more starkly, we must do that which we say... 
...While the UN had played a critical role in ridding the world of nuclear weapons, there was still much urgent work to be done - as there was for climate change and global financial imbalances. 
Australia was willing to play its part, Mr Rudd said... 
..."We always seek to do that which we say," Mr Rudd said..."  Rudd tells UN to up its game 
Exactly what part are you playing, the village idiot?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

He wasted so much time focussed on mathematics, evidence and the scientific method.  All he needed to do was start brainwashing the kids, then create an emotional argument to sway the consensus. Yes, much easier method, as seen in the Greenpeace video linked below.  Column - The green totalitarian itch | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
As we've seen from AGW Theory proponents before, if you can't present a credible argument to adults, then emotional manipulation using children is all you've got left.  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

Gee whiz, maybe the USA might not be in a position to cripple their economy with carbon taxes any time soon:   
This is even before the "quantitative easing" really gets on a roll. 
Maybe the Greens will succeed in stopping all coal coming out of the ground here, then the Middle East can stop pumping oil, and we can all live in Nirvana.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

So, we all agree that the climate changes all the time, in ways that we have no idea of accurately predicting.  And it is fairly obvious we are at one of the coldest spots in geologic history, so by all accounts, things should be warming up soon.   

> 

  Small issue, we humans don't like change, so want to artificially maintain this current climate forever.  No problem at all with this plan, but how are we gonna achieve it? 
Here's one proposition:  Australian Labor News - Let's move Australia forward 
Who thinks it could work?  :No:  
Who thinks our giant ball of lava hurtling through space is *not* affected by the ALP?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

" Warmenist Tim Flannery, prior to Copenhagen:  _This round of negotiations is likely to be our last chance as a species to deal with the problem. I cant say Im optimistic ..._  He can now. The former panic merchant has changed his mind. In fact, he seems absolutely buoyant at humankinds prospects. Heres Flannery on yesterdays _Sunrise_, jabbering with fellow warmster-turned-optimist David Koch:   *Flannery:* _After the Copenhagen meeting, I guess myself and a few other people sat back and thought, gee, are we actually going to make it or not? And there was a bit of a mood of depression hanging over everyone and I thought, you know, the only way to understand this is to take a bit of a longer view._  _So thats why I brought in evolution and how the process that created us  whats it created, a monster or something that can live within the planets constraints. And, you know, I must say I came away from that exercise feeling a lot more optimistic  youve got to take a longer view._  *Koch:* _Yeah, coz youve looked at history and youve found that we change all the time. Were actually, and the earth, nature, ourselves, were really resilient._  *Flannery:* _Thats right._ "  
WOW!  :Doh:  
Full story here:  WERE REALLY RESILIENT | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog 
(Includes bonus link to the new Global Cooling scare.  Yes, you heard right right, cooling),

----------


## Rod Dyson

Whats this then?? 
The royal society comming to its senses? 
I wonder how long before a few more get some common sense? Royal Society Bows To Climate Change Sceptics

----------


## chrisp

> Whats this then?? 
> The royal society comming to its senses? 
> I wonder how long before a few more get some common sense? Royal Society Bows To Climate Change Sceptics

  From the report produced by the Royal Society:"*There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.*"
(from: Climate Change: A Summary of the Science - Publications - The Royal Society )It sounds like the Royal Society are very much coming (remaining?) to its senses!

----------


## Rod Dyson

You dont recognise a shift in their position? It is a start. They are very much in dissagreement with each other. You might like to read this from May this year. BBC News - Society to review climate message 
The winds of change are upon us Chrisp and it is not man made climate change. Subtle as they may be!

----------


## Dr Freud

> From the report produced by the Royal Society:"*There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.*"
> (from: Climate Change: A Summary of the Science - Publications - The Royal Society )It sounds like the Royal Society are very much coming (remaining?) to its senses!

  Come on champ, if you're going to quote bits and pieces of a document, and least make it sexy.  Here's some quotes from the same text (I highlighted the bold bits, just for fun  :Biggrin: ).  "The Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earths climate.   The shifts between glacial and interglacial periods over the past few million years are thought to have been a response to changes in the characteristics of the Earths orbit around the Sun. While these led to only small changes in the total energy received from the Sun, they led to significant changes in its geographical and seasonal distribution.   There is *very strong* evidence to indicate that climate change has occurred on a wide range of different timescales from decades to many millions of years; human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of *potential* causes of climate change.   In principle, changes in climate on a wide range of timescales can also arise from variations within the climate system due to, for example, interactions between the oceans and the atmosphere; in this document, this is referred to as internal climate variability. Such internal variability can occur because the climate is an example of a *chaotic system*: one that can *exhibit complex unpredictable internal variations even in the absence of the climate forcings* discussed in the previous paragraph.   Since variations in climate can result from both climate forcing and internal climate variability, *the detection of forced climate change in observations is not always straightforward*.  
Furthermore, the detection of climate change in observations, beyond the expected internal climate variability, is not the same as the attribution of that change to a particular cause or causes. *Attribution requires* additional evidence to provide *a quantitative link* between the proposed cause and the observed climate change.   As noted above, *projections of climate change are sensitive to the details of the representation of clouds in models*. Particles originating from both human activities and natural sources have the potential to strongly influence the properties of clouds, with consequences for estimates of climate forcing. *Current scientific understanding of this effect is poor*.   Measurements show that averaged over the globe, the surface has warmed by about 0.8oC (with an uncertainty of about ±0.2oC) since 1850.  The warming has also not been geographically uniform  some regions, most markedly the high-latitude northern continents, have experienced greater warming; *a few regions have experienced little warming, or even a slight cooling*.   *The size of future temperature increases* and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, *are still subject to uncertainty.*   There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to *significant modifications in our understanding*."  But what the hell, let's tax our most profitable industries to death while the rest of the world rocks on!  At least we'll have the moral high ground if the tide starts coming in.  :2thumbsup:   I feel a tremor in the force, like a million scaremongering voices suddenly cried out, then were suddenly silenced.     :Blowup:

----------


## chrisp

> Come on champ, if you're going to quote bits and pieces of a document, and least make it sexy.  Here's some quotes from the same text (I highlighted the bold bits, just for fun ).

  Let's look at an example of what the Doc quoted:    

> *The size of future temperature increases* and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, *are still subject to uncertainty.*

  
What the report actually stated with the above quote in blue:   

> There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial. It is important that decision makers have access to climate science of the highest quality, and can take account of its findings in formulating appropriate responses.

  _I take it that your idea of "fun" is selectively quoting small parts of the report to misconstrue the overall conclusion._  
Hardly debunking!

----------


## Dr Freud

> _I take it that your idea of "fun" is selectively quoting small parts of the report to misconstrue the overall conclusion._

  Well, the most fun part was realising that lots of people too lazy to read the whole report would just read just read this and understand what a load of fiction all the scaremongering is.  It is all true cut and paste, so is exactly what they wrote.  If people are too lazy to read the whole report, I guess they aren't too concerned about the end of the world, huh? 
But as to misconstruing the overall conclusion, I think it sums the overall conclusion up nicely with this:  *"Attribution requires* additional evidence to provide *a quantitative link* between the proposed cause and the observed climate change." 
Causality as opposed to conjecture my friend.  :Wink 1:    

> Hardly debunking!

  I didn't intend to debunk anything, I was wholeheartedly agreeing with all those statements that they made.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Well Doc, you and I had better have our bags packed as we could be off to the re-education camp, if this Bozo has his way.  Global Warming Alarmist Calls For Eco-Gulags To Re-Educate Climate Deniers

  A great read, and worthy of some quotes to set the scene for our next little shop of horrors.  After all, what good is a scare campaign without a few scares along the way?  
"A Finnish environmentalist guru has gone further than any other global warming alarmist in openly calling for fascism as a necessary step to save the planet from ecological destruction, demanding that climate change deniers be re-educated in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite. 
Linkola calls for forced abortions, while also adding that another world war would be a happy occasion for the planet because it would eradicate tens of millions of people. 
As we have documented, although not going quite as far as Linkola, the eco-fascist movement is attracting prominent advocates, including James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia hypothesis. Lovelock told the Guardian earlier this year that democracy must be put on hold to combat global warming and that a few people with authority should be allowed to run the planet. 
 This sentiment was echoed by author and environmentalist Keith Farnish, who in a recent book called for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age. Prominent NASA global warming alarmist and Al Gore ally Dr. James Hansen endorsed Farnish's book.  
 Linkola concurs with Farnish and Hansen, writing, Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed. 
 Another prominent figure in the climate change debate who exemplifies the violent and death-obsessed belief system of the movement is Dr. Eric R. Pianka, an American biologist based at the University of Texas in Austin. During a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March 2006, Pianka advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the worlds population through the airborne ebola virus. The reaction from scores of top scientists and professors in attendance was not one of shock or revulsion  they stood and applauded Piankas call for mass genocide. 
Given the fact that cult followers of these extremist fringe environmentalists, people like Discovery Channel building gunman James Jay Lee, are now starting to act out on their gurus doctrines with violence, its high time that radical global warming alarmists who are calling for mass murder and fascism be investigated by the relevant authorities as potential terrorists. 
The heart of Linkolas dark philosophy revolves around the need to slaughter masses of humans. *If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die,* he writes." 
These lunatic fascientists are pushing this farce.  Remember the last line quoted for the next little shop of horrors.  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

*WARNING: Please don't let the real kids watch!* 
Welcome to our little shop of horrors. 
First they hung the kiddies:   

> 

   
Then they brainwashed them into divisive anger:  *[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgvnqv1-_D4"]YouTube - Greenpeace Video[/ame]  
Now they just blow them up: 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSTLDel-G9k"]YouTube - How to Cut Carbon Emissions[/ame] 
Damn kids have had it coming for a while now.  Running around all the time, breathing in and out like carbon dioxide wasn't some type of pollution killing the planet.  Selfish little pricks probably dream of having* [s]kids[/s]* polluting units of their own one day too.  
Wait, what do I hear? Oh that's right, the sweet sounds of silence as AGW Theory proponents once again don't speak out against this insanity due to their own insecurities about the weakness of their position.   *

----------


## Dr Freud

If you still have an open mind on this subject, which we all should have, ask yourself this question. 
If the science is as overwhelming and compelling and conclusive as claimed, why not just present it, rather than using children for sick emotional blackmailing tactics?  :No:  
Einstein, Tesla, Newton, Edison.  These are scientists.  The lunatic supporters of these wackos and their tactics are contemptible.  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Given the fact that cult followers of these extremist fringe environmentalists, people like Discovery Channel building gunman James Jay Lee, are now starting to act out on their gurus doctrines with violence, its high time that radical global warming alarmists who are calling for mass murder and fascism be investigated by the relevant authorities as potential terrorists. 
> The heart of Linkolas dark philosophy revolves around the need to slaughter masses of humans. *If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die,* he writes."

  Gee, has that familiar wacko ring to it.  Now where have I heard ranting about mass death for those evil westerners?  Oh that's right:  *"OSAMA bin Laden expressed concern about global climate change and flooding in Pakistan in a reported audio recording that hit the internet on Friday... 
...*In one of two tapes issued in January, bin Laden blamed major industrial nations for climate change - a statement the U.S. State Department said showed that he was struggling to stay relevant..."  New Osama bin Laden speech says climate change is worse than wars | Herald Sun 
Peddling fear to remain relevant in the face of reality, how poignant for these kindred spirits.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Just in case you need more evidence to prove AGW Theory, remember that *everything* that happens is proof of global warming: 
"Last year brought drought:   _Research shows that this severe, extended drought is clearly linked with global warming, (Climate Minister Penny)  Wong said._This year brought rain:   _GLOBAL warming may have given Australia its wettest September in more than 100 years, but extreme dry years lie ahead, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) says._ Does this global warming game seem rigged to you? " 
Full story here:  Global warming causes whatever last happened | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## chrisp

> Well, the most fun part was realising that lots of people too lazy to read the whole report would just read just read this and understand what a load of fiction all the scaremongering is.  It is all true cut and paste, so is exactly what they wrote.  If people are too lazy to read the whole report, I guess they aren't too concerned about the end of the world, huh?

  There it is folks, the Doc's integrity in quoting from others has been stated in black and white.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Dr Freud

> There it is folks, the Doc's integrity in quoting from others has been stated in black and white.

  Well, black and light grey really.  :Biggrin:  
But obviously you missed the point of the whole exercise.  If people actually cared about this fiction, they would read the entire document, rendering our ramblings irrelevant. 
If they don't care enough about this fiction to read a few pages, but instead choose to *trust* only my ramblings or those of the IPCC fascientists,  then I think this is great.  It validates the religiosity of this cause based on faith rather than understanding.  
But in terms of integrity, if you want to moralise about the cut and paste function, call Mr Gates. 
And I again note your concern about my cut and paste technique, but are resoundingly silent on the technique of showing children being blown up just because they didn't "believe" in the cause. 
Yeh, me and my CNTRL V and CNTRL C are really the bad guys here.  :Wink:  
Look out kiddies...   :Blowup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Hey Doc "splattergate" is hitting the MSM 
WHAT ARE THESE GUYS THINKING!!!!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqTd0g48ZY4]YouTube - Fox Coverage of 10:10 Global Warming Shock Video (Warning - Graphic)[/ame]

----------


## SilentButDeadly

They thought it might funny.....and I thought small parts of it was.  Especially the part where Gillian Anderson 'popped' all over the studio. 
But in terms of delivering some sort of message.....utterly utterly useless.  Whilst I remember the product niche ('affirmative action against climate change') I can't remember the actual 'product' being advertised....so the ad was a waste. 
On another matter.....since when was the US Fox News network considered 'mainstream media'?

----------


## barney118

its a con, govts are broke and need more cash. then the tax receipts multiply when you have to pay income tax on the electricity sold back to the grid, you cant supply your neighbour or the street with excess electricity, then they will change the laws on how much your electricity is worth to buy (nothing), then you have to register to pay gst as you are now an income producing business.... all in the sake of killing the trees as there will be no co2 for them to convert to oxygen for us...this is what I call man made climate change.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Welcome to the discussion barney118.

----------


## woodbe

Yea, welcome to the nuthouse barney. 
Not wanting to be picky barney118, but as far as I know the income from home solar PV is not taxed. 
The economics of home power generation get better and better as the price of power goes up, so even if the power companies didn't pay anything for the power you generate in excess of your usage, you would still be saving a bundle in a few years time. 
If they pay you nothing for the power, you wouldn't be an income producing business, so you wouldn't have to register for GST would you? 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> They thought it might funny.....and I thought small parts of it was.

  Kiddie snuff, real funny stuff.  :Biggrin:  
Which small parts did you like, the small parts left of some kids exploded over the other kids.  :2thumbsup:  
Maybe one day when you get to pick up bits of kids blown up for real, you might lose your taste for kiddie snuff.  :Baby:

----------


## Dr Freud

> On another matter.....since when was the US Fox News network considered 'mainstream media'?

  My friend, the mainstream media is too busy criticising other heinous crimes against children.  Even academia is outraged at these other heinous crimes, so much more serious than depicting the blowing up of children to score cheap political points.  Here's a sample of this heinous child abuse, much worse than kiddie snuff:    
"...Clothing retailer Witchery is being accused of portraying children as adults in a campaign advertising a new kidswear range... 
...This is precisely the result, and we step back from sexualisation and we get adultification... 
...While the clothing line may do well, Dr Rush says for many the advertising campaign is just plain creepy.  "The thing that for me is most creepy of all is that I think the campaign ties into this child as fashion accessory for the parent trend, which I think is encapsulated most in this horrible expression of the mini-me - you know, the child as a mini version of me," she said..."  Retailer criticised for portraying kids as adults - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
The good Dr Rush appears to be a big supporter of AGW Theory based on information publicly available.  I am surprised she is yet to rebuke the kiddie snuff video even though it has been brought to her attention.  If she thinks that fashion is "just plain creepy", maybe she is just preparing a really scathing critique?  
Something like encapsulating children as mini-mines - you know, the child as a mini version of landmines.  Adultification Vs Obliteration, which one is worse for the kiddies?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

We will agree with this theory whether we want to or not.  Then we will have consensus.  A lot of scientists went through this for years, it's about time we had a taste of getting told what our opinion will be by the bureaucracy. 
"Prime Minister Julia Gillard has officially dumped her proposal for a citizens' assembly on climate change... 
...Instead, the Government has set up a climate change committee made up of Labor, Greens and independent MPs... 
..."The meeting also discussed the need to *make sure the community is informed*, that we are harnessing community consensus about climate change," she said. 
"In that regard the committee agreed there would be a dedicated website which would provide information about the committee's work. 
 "The committee would periodically release documents to *inform community understanding about climate change*; that we would create the climate change commission, which would engage in public outreach work to *inform the community about climate change and about pricing carbon.*"    PM dumps proposal for citizens' assembly - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  
Congratulations ignorant masses, first you will be informed, then you will pay more taxes.  Don't ask questions, just read the new "website" and get informed.  :Doh:

----------


## chrisp

> Whats this then?? 
> The royal society comming to its senses? 
> I wonder how long before a few more get some common sense? Royal Society Bows To Climate Change Sceptics

  You may like to read this also...   UK body says News Ltd misrepresented it on climate 
Me thinks it is another example of why it is a good idea to read the source material rather than just rely on newspaper reports of the material. 
Here is a quote from _The Age_ story about what the Royal Society said about the story in _The Australian_:*Royal Society vice-president John Pethica said the suggestion the science body had revised its position ''was simply not true''. 
In a letter to*  *The Australian seen by The Age,  Professor Pethica said nothing had changed - there was no greater  uncertainty about future temperature rises now than the society had  previously reported. ''The science remains the same, as do the  uncertainties - as anyone who reads the document can see.''*

----------


## Dr Freud

> You may like to read this also...   UK body says News Ltd misrepresented it on climate 
> Me thinks it is another example of why it is a good idea to read the source material rather than just rely on newspaper reports of the material.

  I concur with reading the source material as I have previously stated many times, and it was posted earlier for all to read. 
It is slightly worrying though that after this insightful advice, you then post a link to a newspaper report based on another newspaper report based on the actual source material.  :Confused:     

> Here is a quote from _The Age_ story about what the Royal Society said about the story in _The Australian_:*Royal Society vice-president John Pethica said the suggestion the science body had revised its position ''was simply not true''. 
> In a letter to*  *The Australian seen by The Age, Professor Pethica said nothing had changed - there was no greater uncertainty about future temperature rises now than the society had previously reported. ''The science remains the same, as do the uncertainties - as anyone who reads the document can see.''*

  No-one is arguing that the science has changed, we are making the point that the hyperbole and scaremongering rhetoric is finally being recognised and somewhat mitigated.  This may actually lead to a rational debate on the subject sometime in the future, hopefully leading to a more accurate scientific "theory" being devised including the massive knowledge deficits.  :2thumbsup:  
But hey, that is a newspaper report based on a newspaper report, so who knows?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> We will agree with this theory whether we want to or not.  Then we will have consensus.  A lot of scientists went through this for years, it's about time we had a taste of getting told what our opinion will be by the bureaucracy. 
> "Prime Minister Julia Gillard has officially dumped her proposal for a citizens' assembly on climate change... 
> ...Instead, the Government has set up a climate change committee made up of Labor, Greens and independent MPs... 
> ..."The meeting also discussed the need to *make sure the community is informed*, that we are harnessing community consensus about climate change," she said. 
> "In that regard the committee agreed there would be a dedicated website which would provide information about the committee's work. 
>  "The committee would periodically release documents to *inform community understanding about climate change*; that we would create the climate change commission, which would engage in public outreach work to *inform the community about climate change and about pricing carbon.*"    PM dumps proposal for citizens' assembly - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  
> Congratulations ignorant masses, first you will be informed, then you will pay more taxes.  Don't ask questions, just read the new "website" and get informed.

  Just when I thought it couldn't possibly get any worse. 
First, we got told only politicians who support AGW Theory *AND* Carbon pricing could sit on this committee. 
Second, we the people lost our promised community forum to openly debate this issue. 
Third, now our elected representatives are being banned from parliamentary committees if they may disagree with Greens policies.  *"THERE was no room for Nick Xenophon on the government's multi-party climate change committee               *  
Climate Change Minister Greg Combet made the statement yesterday, amid claims the independent senator had been blocked by the Greens. 
Mr Combet said the committee, chaired by Julia Gillard, was "small and tightly focused" and there was no room for anyone else, even though the Coalition had refused to fill two seats set aside for it. 
Liberal senator Nick Minchin last night said the government's position was ridiculous. "The Coalition is right not to take up the spots offered, but the government should give one of our two seats to Nick Xenophon." 
Senator Xenophon said he was bitterly disappointed that despite writing and making representations to the Prime Minister and Mr Combet requesting a seat, he was excluded from the committee. 
Sources close to Senator Xenophon said at least two Labor Party figures had told him "the Greens vetoed his presence"."Christine Milne was fingered as the one who insisted Nick not be on the committee," a well-placed source said. 
"This is a political decision the government has made. The speculation was I would not have toed the line on a carbon tax because I previously have been critical of it, and that I commissioned, along with Malcolm Turnbull, last year, at my own expense, economic modelling to show that an intensity-based emissions trading scheme would be significantly more efficient in economic and environmental terms to reduce greenhouse velocity gases."  Nick Xenophon vetoed on climate committee | The Australian  
Democracy in action, banning our elected representatives from representing us! 
Watermelons are the new black.

----------


## chrisp

> _I take it that your idea of "fun" is selectively quoting small parts of the report to misconstrue the overall conclusion._

   

> Well, the most fun part was realising that lots of people too lazy to read the whole report would just read just read this and understand what a load of fiction all the scaremongering is.  It is all true cut and paste, so is exactly what they wrote.  If people are too lazy to read the whole report, I guess they aren't too concerned about the end of the world, huh?

   

> I concur with reading the source material as I have previously stated many times, and it was posted earlier for all to read.

   :Rotfl:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> We will agree with this theory whether we want to or not. Then we will have consensus. A lot of scientists went through this for years, it's about time we had a taste of getting told what our opinion will be by the bureaucracy. 
> "Prime Minister Julia Gillard has officially dumped her proposal for a citizens' assembly on climate change... 
> ...Instead, the Government has set up a climate change committee made up of Labor, Greens and independent MPs... 
> ..."The meeting also discussed the need to *make sure the community is informed*, that we are harnessing community consensus about climate change," she said. 
> "In that regard the committee agreed there would be a dedicated website which would provide information about the committee's work. 
> "The committee would periodically release documents to *inform community understanding about climate change*; that we would create the climate change commission, which would engage in public outreach work to *inform the community about climate change and about pricing carbon.*"    PM dumps proposal for citizens' assembly - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  
> Congratulations ignorant masses, first you will be informed, then you will pay more taxes. Don't ask questions, just read the new "website" and get informed.

  
Honest to god this makes me sick in the stomache, that they think they can get away with this type of @@@@@@@@.  How is it that people can not see what is going on here.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Now here is another scientist that cant be counted in the "consensus"   

> Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
> From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
> To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
> 6 October 2010 
> Dear Curt: 
> When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). 
> Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be? 
> How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
> It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
> ...

  The AGW theory will die a death of 1000 cuts. Stupidity in the extreme.

----------


## Dr Freud

I tried the sarcastic version:   

> If people are too lazy to read the whole report, I guess they aren't too concerned about the end of the world, huh?

  Which you obviously didn't get.  So I spelled it out:   

> But obviously you missed the point of the whole exercise. If people actually cared about this fiction, they would read the entire document, rendering our ramblings irrelevant.

  You apparently didn't understand this either:   

> 

  Sorry champ, can't make it any simpler  than that. 
Maybe if you cared as much about our parliamentary corruption currently occuring, you'd examine their processes with just as much endeavour.

----------


## Dr Freud

> We will agree with this theory whether we want to or not.  Then we will have consensus.  A lot of scientists went through this for years, it's about time we had a taste of getting told what our opinion will be by the bureaucracy.

   

> Now here is another scientist that cant be counted in the "consensus" 
> "APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?" 
> The AGW theory will die a death of 1000 cuts. Stupidity in the extreme.

  Too true!  Our own government has to silence national debate on the issue just to keep pushing this failed fiction on the population.  The Greens are smart enough to know if the facts are shown in the harsh light of day, they will be ridiculed.  Gillard is just their hand puppet now, clinging on to power by any means.  It would surprise me if she even knew what IPCC was an acronym for, let alone how useless a carbon tax in Australia will be on average global temperatures.  I can only hope she is not so stupid as to believe Bob Brown claiming that Australia's Carbon tax is going to save the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu.  :Doh:  
If there are still people out there wondering what to believe, take notice how often skeptics in any scientific field try to silence debate, then take note how often believers in various ideologies try to silence debate. 
You will soon work out that open debate is the cornerstone of both science and democracy, yet silencing debate is the cornerstone of AGW Theory proponents.  :Tapedshut:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Too true! Our own government has to silence national debate on the issue just to keep pushing this failed fiction on the population. The Greens are smart enough to know if the facts are shown in the harsh light of day, they will be ridiculed. Gillard is just their hand puppet now, clinging on to power by any means. It would surprise me if she even knew what IPCC was an acronym for, let alone how useless a carbon tax in Australia will be on average global temperatures. I can only hope she is not so stupid as to believe Bob Brown claiming that Australia's Carbon tax is going to save the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu.  
> If there are still people out there wondering what to believe, take notice how often skeptics in any scientific field try to silence debate, then take note how often believers in various ideologies try to silence debate. 
> You will soon work out that open debate is the cornerstone of both science and democracy, yet silencing debate is the cornerstone of AGW Theory proponents.

  Yes Doc I think what Gillard has done might have worked 85 years ago but people are too well conected to the world for it to work so well now.   They will not be able to keep the debate silent.  Will the young voters who put them in power see through it? well that remains to be seen.  They may have to experience the pain of their naivety before they change. 
Woodbe would you like to comment on the Hal Lewis resignation letter? You will read it won't you?

----------


## chrisp

> *The CSIRO has threatened all Australians with the death penalty if we do not believe in their computer modelling climate gods.*  
> Last month Australia's chief scientist, Penny Sackett, told a Canberra gathering that we have six years to radically lower emissions, or face calamitous, unstoppable global warming.              Six years. 
> Full story here (a year old tale of woe, down to five years now):  Poor prognosis for our planet

   

> I concur with reading the source material as I have previously stated many times, and it was posted earlier for all to read.

   

> Which you obviously didn't get.  So I spelled it out

  Oh, don't worry, I get it alright.  Doesn't it seem somewhat ironic that someone who states that they are prepared to misquote because they figure others won't check the source, or who have quoted many newspaper articles - even opinion pieces! - will post claims that are clearly wrong - and can easily be verified as wrong by reading the report quoted in the stories.   :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Oh, don't worry, I get it alright. Doesn't it seem somewhat ironic that someone who states that they are prepared to misquote because they figure others won't check the source, or who have quoted many newspaper articles - even opinion pieces! - will post claims that are clearly wrong - and can easily be verified as wrong by reading the report quoted in the stories.

  Jeez you guys (AGW Theory proponents generally) are hard work.  You'll happily argue down every little semantic rabbit hole you find, but stifle debate about climate science at every opportunity.  Like I said earlier, if you guys put this much effort into researching the science, you could have solved this dilemma by now.   
But to rake over these coals again, let's see how the discussion originally went:   

> Doc, 
> Thanks for that.  I followed the link to the newspaper article Poor prognosis for our planet and having the date of the talk cited, I managed to find the actual speech given by Penny Sackett. 
> What she _actually said_ was:  *Perhaps most importantly, to meet the 2 degree C warming goal, global CO2 emissions must not grow after 2015.**That gives us 6 years to go from increasing global emissions every year, to decreasing them every year.* (from: http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-...arliament1.pdf ) She _did not say_ that "*we are all dead if don't act within five years*".

   

> Good pick-up. 
> Damn media scaremongering again!  
> That crazy journalistic outlet called the Sydney Morning Herald actually verballed poor Penny and printed this outlandish scaremongering :  *
> "Last month Australia's chief scientist, Penny Sackett, told a Canberra gathering that we have six years to radically lower emissions, or face calamitous, unstoppable global warming."* 
> You see, when I read "unstoppable global warming", I generally thought that it will keep getting hotter and hotter, and...well...never stop! Being a reasonably sensible person, I figured all life on Earth would end in a fireball. 
> But I have read Penny's real speech now (thanks for the link) and we obviously have nothing to worry about. Install a few aircons, pipelines and change a few immigration policies and everyone's happy. I could do with a few degrees warmer right now anyway.  
> Now, we just have to get these damn journalists to stop scaremongering!!!

  So, like I said before which I will say again, I regularly cut and paste into this thread with full links to the source document the quote is cut and pasted from.  The cut and pastes are 100% accurate and 100% from the source document.  As to the journalistic integrity of some of those nitwits, my opinions on this are well documented. 
But as shown above, when these nitwit journalists have been shown to be incorrect, as you have done above by researching and presenting the source document, I have respectfully thanked you for the clarification.  If you wish to prosecute the matter further, I suggest you take it up with the journalist and their employer. 
This is a nuanced argument which you have continually had problems with, but there is nothing wrong with presenting both opinions and facts in relation to AGW Theory.  People who care about the facts will obviously read more than this thread, rendering our ramblings irrelevant (particularly this semantic drivel).  Those who don't care about the end of the world either already realise what a farce this is, or are too stupid for any of this to have an effect. 
I've tried to avoid using sarcasm here as it's obviously confusing, but rest assured there will be plenty more sarcasm in future posts.  It's the lowest form of wit, but hey, that's me.  :Cool:  
Now, where's that causal link gone, I'm sure it was here just a minute ago? 
Oh that's right, it was a myth that we now try to distract from by arguing semantics.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Now here is another scientist that cant be counted in the "consensus" 
> The AGW theory will die a death of 1000 cuts. Stupidity in the extreme.

   

> Yes Doc I think what Gillard has done might have worked 85 years ago but people are too well conected to the world for it to work so well now.   They will not be able to keep the debate silent.  Will the young voters who put them in power see through it? well that remains to be seen.  They may have to experience the pain of their naivety before they change. 
> Woodbe would you like to comment on the Hal Lewis resignation letter? You will read it won't you?

  You are so right with this.  Time is on our side my friend.  Every day that passes validates the scaremongering shrieking from AGW Theory proponents for the farce that it is.  Your post from Hal Lewis is a brilliant example of the myth falling apart day by day.  These events continue to occur day after day, and each day, more and more people turn away from this failed religion.   
Silencing debate and sacrificing kiddies is not the way to demonstrate sound scientific principles.   :No:  
Regular people like us are slowly learning this more and more every day.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

> Gee, I remember the good ol' days when MP's went to Canberra and represented the opinions of their constituencies.  We called this novel concept democracy.  Now they go to Canberra and get given their opinions by the "new paradigm".  Sounds like you're either with them or against them.  I guess it would just be a little but silly to ask for open and transparent debate. 
> ""Parliamentary members of the committee will be drawn from those who are committed to tackling climate change and who acknowledge that effectively reducing carbon pollution by 2020 will require a carbon price," Ms Gillard said."

  Maybe you expect less from our leaders? 
In my view, our parliamentarians are there to _lead_ as well as _represent_! 
On matters related to *opinion*, I'd expect a parliamentarian to _represent_ the views of his/her constituents.  You could call this 'followership'. 
On matters related to _fact_, I'd expect a parliamentarian to _lead_ the views of his/her constituents.  This is called leadership. 
Sometimes, the general public needs to be educated and informed on matters of national importance - AGW is such a matter.  The scientific support of AGW is overwhelming.  Politicians should be educating the general population (i.e. leading) and formulating actions to counter AGW. 
To expect otherwise would be a race to the bottom - which is very much what we had in the last election. 
Isn't it ironic that the Coalition stood on a 'do nothing' (aka 'crap') platform on AGW to appeal to the sceptics, whereas the Labor Party stood on a 'do something later' platform that showed a lack of leadership. 
The Labour Party had a swing against it - mostly to the Greens and maybe the independents. 
Now we have a parliament where the major parties were anti-AGW or weak-kneed on AGW now looking at bringing in a carbon price as the minor parties/independents are demonstrating leadership! 
I'm most pleased with the present make-up of the parliament - things are happening!   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> On matters related to _fact_, I'd expect a parliamentarian to _lead_ the views of his/her constituents.  This is called leadership. 
> Politicians should be educating the general population (i.e. leading) and formulating actions to counter AGW.

  Let's take a look at your "leaders" and their "facts":  Former Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said in February that 'there may well be dispute about the cost of catastrophes, but the science on the link between these catastrophes and climate change has not been credibly challenged.   Meanwhile, the Greens are targeting Queensland votes by saying they are now the only party with a credible climate change plan to save the Great Barrier Reef.  Senator Brown said without fast action to tackle acidification of the reef, the Great Barrier Reef would die.   TONY Windsor claims he supports action on climate change. Why then did he sell his farm to Werris Creek coal?   Hes OK. Hes got his money.   Ms Gillard's plan focused on creating a 150-strong "citizens' assembly" of rank-and-file Australians to decide the fate of Labor's climate change measures... If a 12-month investigation by the citizen's assembly rejects the need for an ETS, a Gillard government will proceed no further.     * Fact: None of these people are credible leaders on AGW Theory.* 
This does not mean you can't follow them, we do live in a free country after all.  :Biggrin:  
Speaking of credibility, let's compare this:     

> The scientific support of AGW is overwhelming.

  *Author: Chrisp - Renovate Forum.* 
To this:   

> It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montfords book organizes the facts very well.) I dont believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist...In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

  *Author: Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, Presidents Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)*  
For those readers out there still making up their minds, maybe it's worth a closer look before we railroad our economy based on Green fairy tales.  :2thumbsup:  
Oops, I forgot, we don't have debate in this country anymore, our illustrious "leaders" will now "lead" us with their all powerful knowledge that us mere citizens couldn't possibly comprehend.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm most pleased with the present make-up of the parliament - things are happening!

  Wow! This is great. Things are happening!  :2thumbsup:  
Forgive my ignorance, but just a reminder that I'm not an esteemed "leader" with all their magical knowledge.  But just how much will the Planet Earth cool down by after our "leaders" make these things "happen" ?  :Doh:  
In degrees celsius would be fine.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> In my view, our parliamentarians are there to _lead_ as well as _represent_! 
> On matters related to *opinion*, I'd expect a parliamentarian to _represent_ the views of his/her constituents.  You could call this 'followership'. 
> On matters related to _fact_, I'd expect a parliamentarian to _lead_ the views of his/her constituents.  This is called leadership.

  In my view, it would be nice if our elected representatives could both represent and lead their constituents, rather than being banned from contributing.  This is known as communism.   

> Third, now our elected representatives are being banned from parliamentary committees if they may disagree with Greens policies.  *"THERE was no room for Nick Xenophon on the government's multi-party climate change committee              *   Nick Xenophon vetoed on climate committee | The Australian 
> Democracy in action, banning our elected representatives from representing us!

  Great democracy huh!  The likes of Mugabe and Kim Jong Ill must be laughing their heads off.  :Hahaha:

----------


## Dr Freud

Sorry for the oversight, less I be accused of fraudulent quoting again. This:   

> (Montfords book organizes the facts very well.)

  Refers to this:   
But to tell the truth, my omissions relating to information debunking this fiction have gone strangely unnoticed.  :Confused:

----------


## intertd6

> In my view, our parliamentarians are there to _lead_ as well as _represent_! 
> On matters related to *opinion*, I'd expect a parliamentarian to _represent_ the views of his/her constituents. You could call this 'followership'. 
> On matters related to _fact_, I'd expect a parliamentarian to _lead_ the views of his/her constituents. This is called leadership.

  I would have come down in the last shower if I believed that, If they ever had any idea what was going on in the real world it would be a good start, not just their own or party ideology, believing their own lies is their ultimate downfall. And it will take them years to wriggle out of this one
regards inter

----------


## chrisp

> If they ever had any idea what was going on in the real world it would be a good start, not just their own or party ideology, believing their own lies is their ultimate downfall. And it will take them years to wriggle out of this one

  That's being a bit harsh on the Liberal Party, isn't it?   :Smilie:

----------


## PhilT2

> Sorry for the oversight, less I be accused of fraudulent quoting again. This: 
> Refers to this:   
> But to tell the truth, my omissions relating to information debunking this fiction have gone strangely unnoticed.

   
It's ok doc we understand you could have picked up a few bad habits from reading crap like Heaven and Earth, Have you actually read this one?

----------


## Dr Freud

> It's ok doc we understand you could have picked up a few bad habits from reading crap like Heaven and Earth, Have you actually read this one?

  I've seen it on sites before, but not read it yet.  I will now as the good professor has piqued my interest. 
Unfortunately my multinational oil corporations that sponsor me don't appreciate the high standard of living I've grown accustomed to.  Therefore I still have to find time to work and pay the bills.  Truck falling apart all the time doesn't help either. Then any spare cash and time goes into my various hobbies.  After that, I invest limited time and funds into educating myself about, and denouncing this fiasco.  So I will read it, but don't expect any rave reviews until about Christmas.  :Biggrin:  
I don't suppose you could recommend or refute it before I cough up my hard earned? 
P.S. I've had my bad habits a lot longer than you think.  :Wink 1:

----------


## chrisp

> I've seen it on sites before, but not read it yet.

  If you hold off buying it for a few months, you'll probably be able to pick up a copy in the bookshop discount bins at a greatly reduced price.   :Rolleyes:

----------


## Vin

I see you guys are still at it, whats the point, a price on carbon is inevitable now. :Hooray:      :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> If you hold off buying it for a few months, you'll probably be able to pick up a copy in the bookshop discount bins at a greatly reduced price.

  I should be so lucky.  Unfortunately I haven't seen it in bookstores at all.  It must be on the banned list, just like the pollies and scientists who disagree with AGW Theory. 
But I'm thinking of buying a new one online from the USA and having it flown down here, rather than buying a copy already in the country. Just for the irony.  :Wink 1:  
But it brought a smile to my face thinking of the poor greenies deciding whether burning these books was worth the Carbon Dioxide emissions.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I see you guys are still at it, whats the point, a price on carbon is inevitable now.

  Are you just cheering the fact that we may have a pointless new tax driving up the cost of living and driving down the standard of living? 
If so, not much more to say really.  
Or are you cheering the fact that this new tax will "save" the Planet Earth? 
If so, just curious as to how this will "happen".  Chrisp is obviously still translating his US data into degrees celsius of planetary cooling once all of our electricity bills go up. 
Oh yeh, remind me again how many billions of tonnes of coal this "new paradigm" government is still exporting to China etc., to burn at will?  How much have they stemmed these coal exports by again, I forget?  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> I should be so lucky.  Unfortunately I haven't seen it in bookstores at all.

  Maybe you haven't been looking in the right section of the bookshop.  Have you looked in the fiction/mythology section?   :Rolleyes:

----------


## PhilT2

> It must be on the banned list,

  Amazon has it at $11, local bookstores in Bris $25
Not in local or state library so not likely I will read it. I don't have a lot of spare time either, so I prefer to limit my reading material to stuff written by people with real qualifications and experience in the subject they're writing about. I'm sure Montford is a very competent accountant but what new insight can he bring to the debate?
Ljungqvist (2010) is the latest proxy study and it is said to concur with all the other studies. While I haven't read his book my understanding of Montfords opinion is that they are all wrong and he is right.
Where would we be without accountants?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Are you just cheering the fact that we may have a pointless new tax driving up the cost of living and driving down the standard of living? 
> If so, not much more to say really.  
> Or are you cheering the fact that this new tax will "save" the Planet Earth? 
> If so, just curious as to how this will "happen". Chrisp is obviously still translating his US data into degrees celsius of planetary cooling once all of our electricity bills go up. 
> Oh yeh, remind me again how many billions of tonnes of coal this "new paradigm" government is still exporting to China etc., to burn at will? How much have they stemmed these coal exports by again, I forget?

  It amazes me that these guys could cheers for something that will simply add cost to everything yet do absolutely nothing towards achieving their goal. 
It wont be many years that all the cost of either a carbon tax or ETS will be absorbed into the normal living expenses and wages and prices will go up accordingly to cover this impost without reducing one ioto of emissions.  It is quite laughable in reality that people could think otherwise.   
Demand for energy will make it so.  Increase in population will guarantee it. 
But they wont get it through without a huge fight it aint over yet.  
Wait till the bills start going up further in anticipation as they already have.  There are already petitions against energy price rises by the same people (the media), who cheer the warmists on, go figure  I had to smile at that, serves them right.  At least I am in a bit better position than most to afford it.   
When it comes down to it, the extra money I spend on energy will be less I spend on other things.  Now that makes sense for the economy!!  Yes it will be a major economic shift, more than you guys realise.  You seem to think it is as simple as raise the price of energy and people will use less.  Even if they do (which I very much doubt), what will it achieve except make some people very wealthy?   
The people that it will affect most are those that can least afford it. Those that can afford it won't change a thing.  So if the poor get subsidised what  energy saving do you get. And again I ask what will it achieve?   
Oh I get it some of you will feel warm and fuzzy inside, thats all right then.
We will be the monsters because we will NOT feel warm and fuzzy but downright Pi##ed off. 
Yep real value here.

----------


## chrisp

> Chrisp is obviously still translating his US data into degrees celsius of planetary cooling once all of our electricity bills go up.

  I don't think I need to do any translating - all the information is out there for all to see. 
Here is a recent one by Meinshausen _et al_. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2[thinsp][deg]C : Abstract : Nature  It has a good graph on the possible range of temperature rises. 
There is also a more readable general report at http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf  which also includes a version of the same graph.

----------


## chrisp

> When it comes down to it, the extra money I spend on energy will be less I spend on other things.  Now that makes sense for the economy!!  Yes it will be a major economic shift, more than you guys realise.

  What difference does that make to the 'economy'?"  If you are spending what you normally spend, but spending more on energy and less on something else, the 'economy' (money flow) is the same.    

> You seem to think it is as simple as raise the  price of energy and people will use less.  Even if they do (which I very  much doubt), what will it achieve except make some people very wealthy?

  In an ideal world, people would naturally change and adapt to what's good for the common good.  However, it seems that we need to use cost/money as a lever to make people change their ways.  We use it both ways: cost - we increase the cost or fine unwanted behaviour (eg. bad driving), or we can provide incentives for people to take on good behaviours (such as subsidies for solar panels).  A price on carbon is a cost driver to help the world adapt to AGW. 
What will it achieve?  Well, a cleaner earth.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Maybe you haven't been looking in the right section of the bookshop.  Have you looked in the fiction/mythology section?

  I had a look in the fiction section, all they had was "Tooth Fairies" and "AGW Theory".  :Biggrin:  
Then I looked in the history section, they had "Australia used to be a democracy".  :Biggrin:  
Then I looked in the mystery section, they had "Why is it snowing in October".  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## Dr Freud

> I don't think I need to do any translating - all the information is out there for all to see. 
> Here is a recent one by Meinshausen _et al_. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2[thinsp][deg]C : Abstract : Nature  It has a good graph on the possible range of temperature rises. 
> There is also a more readable general report at http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf  which also includes a version of the same graph.

  What fantastic prophesies.  My Tarot card reader said they are spot on, but my psychic and my clairvoyant said they are dreaming.  :Biggrin:  
But seriously, while these fictional prophesies are wonderful for theoreticians to muse over on the global scale, they are nothing to do with what effect our new domestic tax is going to have. 
Let's go through it again:    

> I'm most pleased with the present make-up of the parliament - things are happening!

  You see, you said our parliament (assuming here the government alliance as they have the balance of power) are making things happen (assuming here you meant effective mitigating strategies to cool down the Planet Earth, because anything else is pointless). 
That's why I was curious as to how a new tax in Australia will cool down the Planet Earth:   

> Wow! This is great. Things are happening!  
> Forgive my ignorance, but just a reminder that I'm not an esteemed "leader" with all their magical knowledge.  But just how much will the Planet Earth cool down by after our "leaders" make these things "happen" ?  
> In degrees celsius would be fine.

  Linking a fictional story about probabilistic analyses does not support your initial claim that our "new paradigm" parliament are making things "happen". 
A simple equation of dollars in tax raised equals degrees of planetary cooling will be great.  Something like this: 
AUD$1,000,000,000.000 = .0001 degrees C planetary cooling.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> What difference does that make to the 'economy'?"  If you are spending what you normally spend, but spending more on energy and less on something else, the 'economy' (money flow) is the same.

   :Doh:    

> In an ideal world, people would naturally change and adapt to what's good for the common good. However, it seems that we need to use cost/money as a lever to make people change their ways. We use it both ways: cost - we increase the cost or fine unwanted behaviour (eg. bad driving), or we can provide incentives for people to take on good behaviours (such as subsidies for solar panels). *A price on carbon is a cost driver to help the world adapt to AGW.*

  WOW! I must have missed the news.  Exactly when did "The World" put a price on carbon?   

> What will it achieve?  Well, a cleaner earth.

  Gee whiz, I have been busy lately, but must have missed heaps of news.  I thought the new carbon tax was supposed to magically cool down the Planet Earth.   
Now it cleans as well? Probably a good thing cos this theory needs an enema!  :Toiletjump:

----------


## Dr Freud

Towns in southern New South Wales have become isolated as floodwaters continue to rise following heavy rain in the area.  State Emergency Service spokesman Phil Campbell says major flooding is expected on the Hume Dam near Albury.   "We've got some concerns around the Upper Murray and the upper reaches of the Mitta Mitta River," he said.  "We expect that to go to a major flood level."   Snow, floods and gale-force winds have swept across eastern Australia overnight, transforming parts of New South Wales and Victoria into springtime winter wonderlands.   The deluge, and flood alerts in the Murrumbidgee area, brought a sense of irony to Mr Barbon, who a day earlier at a community meeting had listened to Murray-Darling Basin Authority bureaucrats tell him and 5000 other Griffith residents that the environmental state of the rivers was so bad farmers might have to relinquish up to 43 per cent of their water entitlements.  "You know with climate change, it's a cycle," Mr Barbon said yesterday.   "We've had reports from Mt Dandenong, possible snow around the Kinglake Ranges and also around Ballarat there's likely to be some snow flurries," he said.  "The alpine areas are very cold indeed, around about minus seven degrees, so there's been some snow in the high country as well."

----------


## Dr Freud

This farce is unraveling more every day.  Farmers pay for this anti-human agenda. But Windsor hangs up | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

"The European Environment Agency reported that by the end of last year emissions produced by the current 27 member countries have fallen by more than 17% since 1990, putting them "well on track" to meet the target to meet the EU's own pledge of a 20% reduction by 2020 . 
However a report due to be published soon by the Policy Exchange thinktank has measured the emissions generated by goods and services consumed by those countries and found that it has increased by more than 40%.  
As a result, "demonstrating success in reducing carbon levels is questionable," said Simon Less, the thinktank's head of environment and energy." 
Full joke here:  Europe on track for Kyoto targets while emissions from imported goods rise | Environment | The Guardian

----------


## Dr Freud

"The AGW religion in Germany is in deep trouble. Consensus is crumbling. the science is coming under attack... 
...Professor Dr Landfried reminds us that a university is one of the few places in society where questions can be asked freely, where answers are searched, and then questioned again, and that without any restrictions, in an environment where debate is free.  Landfried says, Religions have a hard time dealing with that.... 
...Kirstein then quotes Maurice Strong, John Houghton, Stephen Schneider, and explains some of the recent and infamous PR scare campaigns. Theres even a Climate Change Hotel and tourism in Greenland where you can actually see climate change taking place. 
After viewing Dr Kirsteins presentation, it is absolutely no wonder that Hal Lewis called climate science the greatest fraud hes ever seen. Dr Rahmstorf, Dr Schellnhuber, your sham is up."  
Full story here:  Climate Change Now Questioned At German Universities  Professors Speaking Up  
A new hope... 
 "_Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station._" ―Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin[src]  :Stormtrooper:  
 "_The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers._" ―Princess Leia to Grand Moff Tarkin[src]

----------


## Dr Freud

> Towns in southern New South Wales have become isolated as floodwaters continue to rise following heavy rain in the area.  State Emergency Service spokesman Phil Campbell says major flooding is expected on the Hume Dam near Albury.   "We've got some concerns around the Upper Murray and the upper reaches of the Mitta Mitta River," he said.  "We expect that to go to a major flood level."   Snow, floods and gale-force winds have swept across eastern Australia overnight, transforming parts of New South Wales and Victoria into springtime winter wonderlands.   The deluge, and flood alerts in the Murrumbidgee area, brought a sense of irony to Mr Barbon, who a day earlier at a community meeting had listened to Murray-Darling Basin Authority bureaucrats tell him and 5000 other Griffith residents that the environmental state of the rivers was so bad farmers might have to relinquish up to 43 per cent of their water entitlements.  "You know with climate change, it's a cycle," Mr Barbon said yesterday.   "We've had reports from Mt Dandenong, possible snow around the Kinglake Ranges and also around Ballarat there's likely to be some snow flurries," he said.  "The alpine areas are very cold indeed, around about minus seven degrees, so there's been some snow in the high country as well."

  How reality trumps a computer model, *again and again!* 
"MAXINE McKEW: In a way I'm going to ask you to rain on people's parade, because in fact, your concern really is that, long term, our weather patterns are changing in quite profound ways. What is it that leads you to this conclusion?  
TIM FLANNERY: Well, I'm afraid that the science around climate change is firming up fairly quickly, and what we've seen is three major phenomena that are depriving Australia of its rainfall. One of them is just simply the shifting weather patterns as the planet warms up, so the tropics are expanding southwards and the winter rainfall zone is sort of dropping off the southern edge of the continent. The second one is disturbances in the ozone layer, and that is causing wind speeds around Antarctica to increase and, again, drawing that winter rainfall to the south. But the third and really the most worrying of them is this semi-permanent el Nino-like condition that's occurring as the Pacific Ocean warms up, and we're seeing much longer el Ninos than we've seen before and often now back-to-back el Ninos with very little of the la Nina cycle, the flood cycle, in between. So between those three factors, which have been evident really since about 1976, we've seen some quite considerable and look to be permanent rainfall drops across much of southern and eastern Australia.  
MAXINE McKEW: Does that mean eastern Australia is particularly badly affected?  
TIM FLANNERY: It certainly is. Eastern Australia's the area where el Nino reigns supreme, of course, and it was the land of drought and flooding rain. But since 1998 particularly, we've seen just drought, drought, drought, and particularly regions like Sydney and the Warragamba catchment - if you look at the Warragamba catchment figures, since '98, the water has been in virtual freefall, and they've got about two years of supply left, but something will need to change in order to see the catchment start accumulating water again.  
MAXINE McKEW: But you can't be certain, though, that at some point we won't see - in spite of what you've laid out there, we won't see a return to more normal patterns?  
TIM FLANNERY: Well, you can't predict the future; that's one of the things that you learn fairly early on, but if I could just say, the general patterns that we're seeing in the global circulation models - and these are very sophisticated computer tools, really, for looking at climate shift - are saying the same sort of thing that we're actually seeing on the ground. So when the models start confirming what you're observing on the ground, then there's some fairly strong basis for believing that we're understanding what's causing these weather shifts and these rainfall declines, and they do seem to be of a permanent nature. I don't think it's just a cycle. I'd love to be wrong, but I think the science is pointing in the other direction." 
Full story here:  Lateline - 10/06/2005: Flannery warns on global warming  
Oh, by the way... 
"Well, you can't predict the future; that's one of the things that you learn fairly early on..." 
Learn this well Tim?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

"ADVOCATES of drastic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions now speak a lot less than they once did about climate change. Climate campaigners changed their approach after the collapse of the Copenhagen climate change summit last December, and the revelation of mistakes in the UN climate panel's work, as well as in response to growing public scepticism and declining interest. 
Although some activists still rely on scare tactics - witness the launch of an advertisement depicting the bombing of anybody who is hesitant to embrace carbon cuts - many activists now spend more time highlighting the "benefits" of their policy prescription. They no longer dwell on impending climate doom but on the economic windfall that will result from embracing the "green" economy... 
...Instead of focusing on climate change, the Climate Commission hyped the benefits that Denmark would experience if it led the shift to green energy. Unfortunately, on inspection these benefits turn out to be illusory... 
...By the same token, the prediction that governments will impose massive carbon taxes has little basis in reality..." 
Full story is a great read:  First do the research, then make deep carbon cuts | The Australian

----------


## Dr Freud

"...with continued below average rainfall patterns, it could take many years  5-10  for the Wivenhoe system to climb back to 40 percent even with purified recycled water, desalination and the other measures being taken..." 
Premier Peter Beattie and Deputy Premier Anna Bligh
28 January 2007  Purified recycled water a permanent part of South East Queensland's drinking supplies   *Wivenhoe Dam
% Full = 100.0                                                 
15/10/2010 08:00AM                                                 
Controlled releases from dam*  Latest dam levels | Seqwater 
Scaremongering is great while people are being kept in the dark!

----------


## Dr Freud

*"DRENCHING rains have delivered southeast Queensland enough water to last until 2018 without another drop falling from the sky.... * ...Miner Anglo American said it had experienced unusual rain at some of its operations, disrupting its ability to produce coal..."  Water until 2018, and it didn't cost $9bn | The Australian 
It's so unusually cold and rainy, that we produce less coal, leading to less emissions, meaning it becomes even more cold and rainy. 
Didn't see that one in the computer model.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

"After suffering snow, sleet, rain and consistently freezing temperatures, the knowledge that the Met Office has officially recognised winter 2009-10 as the coldest in 31 years brings with it a certain grim satisfaction... 
...The news may come as little surprise to those affected by snow in December and January, when falls of up to 2ft saw councils' grit supplies run low, travel chaos and the return of the Guardian's snow day live blog. 
According to the Met Office the mean temperature in the UK was 1.51C this winter, compared to a long-term average winter temperature ‑ calculated from data collected between 1971 and 2000 ‑ of 3.7C. The mean temperature in 1978-79 was 1.17C. 
The data shows that Scotland suffered the most this winter, with the provisional mean temperature 0.24C ‑ only slightly higher than 1978-79, when the figure was 0.16C..."   British winter was the coldest for 31 years | UK news | guardian.co.uk      
Now, we all just wait until mid summer when the "adjusted" data is released showing how we are all drying and frying to hell!  :Doh:

----------


## Dwyer

*G'day Rod,* 
I'm only responding because I'm ticked off that 4000 people responded to your thread and noone to mine which was below it.  :Biggrin:  
This link is worth a look regarding scientific consensus on global warming. Is there a scientific consensus on global warming? 
ETS: Lets say the coal company that supplies 100 Aussie homes with  electricity produces 20 tonnes of CO2 over what it has Govt permits to  produce when it makes that electricity. It now needs to buy 20 carbon  credits, say from a wind farm which produces enough energy for 100  houses with 0 emissions of CO2. The wind farm can then invest to expand,  the coal company costs more to run. It's not directly about reducing  emissions but rather the Governments' way of manipulating the market, making  private companies reduce carbon for a cheaper solution than they could  engineer at the present time.  
Why can't the Government reduce emissions if it's so important?:
The  Government can't reduce emissions because they are a Government and I  assure you after working in ours for many years through several  political parties, Governments are first and foremost in the business of  getting re-elected not solving world problems. They think they would  have to shut down the coal mining and processing companies and apart from the stockholders and  sacked employees not voting for them, the majority of us that use coal  electricity wouldn't either. So they first have to reduce our reliance  on coal. Or, wait for some cataclysmic event which causes public opinion  to not care about the coal companies etc.  
If individuals who  can't afford solar panels or a Toyota Prius want to decrease emissions  they can switch from coal to the sadly under-advertised Greenpower  How much it costs - GreenPower 
Now, I don't suppose any of you could answer my post???? :Sneaktongue:  **   **

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *G'day Rod,* 
> I'm only responding because I'm ticked off that 4000 people responded to your thread and noone to mine which was below it.  
> This link is worth a look regarding scientific consensus on global warming. Is there a scientific consensus on global warming? 
> ETS: Lets say the coal company that supplies 100 Aussie homes with electricity produces 20 tonnes of CO2 over what it has Govt permits to produce when it makes that electricity. It now needs to buy 20 carbon credits, say from a wind farm which produces enough energy for 100 houses with 0 emissions of CO2. The wind farm can then invest to expand, the coal company costs more to run. It's not directly about reducing emissions but rather the Governments' way of manipulating the market, making private companies reduce carbon for a cheaper solution than they could engineer at the present time.  
> Why can't the Government reduce emissions if it's so important?:
> The Government can't reduce emissions because they are a Government and I assure you after working in ours for many years through several political parties, Governments are first and foremost in the business of getting re-elected not solving world problems. They think they would have to shut down the coal mining and processing companies and apart from the stockholders and sacked employees not voting for them, the majority of us that use coal electricity wouldn't either. So they first have to reduce our reliance on coal. Or, wait for some cataclysmic event which causes public opinion to not care about the coal companies etc.  
> If individuals who can't afford solar panels or a Toyota Prius want to decrease emissions they can switch from coal to the sadly under-advertised Greenpower How much it costs - GreenPower 
> Now, I don't suppose any of you could answer my post????

  Well I guess most would agree that one thread on this subject is enough.  Perhaps if were posted here in the first instant then you may have got a response :2thumbsup: . 
I really don't believe that scientific conclusions should be reached by consensus do you?  They should be reached by agressive search for the facts, not opinion. 
There is no factual evidence that any change in temperatures are significantly due to mans activities on this planet.  People here have tried to represent that there is and many people believe there is.  But the entire AGW theory really boils down to computerised models that show warming attributed to feedbacks created by a very small warming effect of increasing CO2.   
The feedbacks they rely on are guess work only there are nothing factual supporting it. 
As far as ETS is concerened and changing to wind power, they question has been asked on numerous occasions here to produce numbers to support the cost of making this change. 
Do you seriously think we can replace our coal fired plants with wind or other forms or renewable energy, while our population keeps expanding?   
I got a bridge in sydney i want to sell!!

----------


## chrisp

> "After suffering snow, sleet, rain and consistently freezing temperatures, the knowledge that the Met Office has officially recognised winter 2009-10 as the coldest in 31 years brings with it a certain grim satisfaction... 
> ...The news may come as little surprise to those affected by snow in December and January, when falls of up to 2ft saw councils' grit supplies run low, travel chaos and the return of the Guardian's snow day live blog. 
> According to the Met Office the mean temperature in the UK was 1.51C this winter, compared to a long-term average winter temperature ‑ calculated from data collected between 1971 and 2000 ‑ of 3.7C. The mean temperature in 1978-79 was 1.17C. 
> The data shows that Scotland suffered the most this winter, with the provisional mean temperature 0.24C ‑ only slightly higher than 1978-79, when the figure was 0.16C..."   British winter was the coldest for 31 years | UK news | guardian.co.uk  
> Now, we all just wait until mid summer when the "adjusted" data is released showing how we are all drying and frying to hell!

  *I see you are still confusing weather with climate. 
All you have to do now is show how the long term temperature trend has suddenly and completely reversed and gone back to the pre-1900 average.*

----------


## Rod Dyson

Hmm how to get the scientific message across.   

> Dominique Browning's Personal Nature Column » Time is Running Out
> That means we no longer have the luxury of polite, time-consuming public debate on the issue. "We have to be much more aggressive about pinpointing our enemies, and doing it early—showing how and where they are spending their money to undermine our efforts," he says. "We need to learn how to inflict pain on the opposition."
> The environmental movement must also do a better job of linking climate directly to shrinking harvests, falling water tables, receding glaciers, extended droughts and more violent storms. Already, food, water, and climate problems are simultaneously hitting many nations. It's happening _now_, and we need to connect that to climate change in the minds of all people.

  And you wonder why we doubt the wild claims put forward by warmists.  It is these sorts of claims that made me start to smell a rat in the first place.  I figgured if they have to do and say stuff like this to get their message across something must be wrong.  That is why I started looking into AGW in the first place.  Trying to scare someone sh$%tless to change their beliefs stinks of religion not science. 
The deeper I went in the stronger the stink became.

----------


## chrisp

> But the entire AGW theory really boils down to computerised models that show warming attributed to feedbacks created by a very small warming effect of increasing CO2.

  *
We must demand that they stop using those computer models that are causing the actual average global temperature to increase and the sea level to rise!*

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *I see you are still confusing weather with climate.*  *All you have to do now is show how the long term temperature trend has suddenly and completely reversed and gone back to the pre-1900 average.*

  Yes it looks like the recovery from the LIA is right on target to me. Now go back to the MWP and see if this graph looks anything other than normal.  
That is of course if you can trust the adjusted temperature figures shown here have not been tweaked to cause alarm!!  There are so many ways that this graph and or data can be manipulated to panic people. This proves Jack Chit.

----------


## chrisp

> That is of course if you can trust the adjusted temperature figures shown here have not been tweaked to cause alarm!!  There are so many ways that this graph and or data can be manipulated to panic people. This proves Jack Chit.

  When the scientific evidence just doesn't support your position, there is always the good old conspiracy theory!  Global warming conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   :Rolleyes:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> When the scientific evidence just doesn't support your position, there is always the good old conspiracy theory! Global warming conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Where did I mention conspiracy theory?? 
Where have i ever said there is a conspiracy theory. 
Quite the contrary, I believe there has been a lot of self seving people, politicians and organizations that have jumped onto this because they can either make a buck or gain prestige out of it, be it through study grants, providing alternative power or cashing in on carbon trading.  
I don't think it is a single conspiracy.  It is a bunch of opportunists that fuel this rubbish.  They do so by trying to scare people into a religeous type belief of AGW rather than produce hard evidence.  
If you want to be sucked into this vacuum, that is your choice. I can assure you I will not.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It is tempting to play the crusader, to make some moral, if futile stand in defense of our current thermostat setting. But we must be realistic. There is little hope of creating an enforceable global carbon constraint, and without the existence of such a regime, there is little point in surrendering our national economy to green adventures.

  So well put and this from someone who whole heartedly believes in global warming. 
Read his sensible article here Global warming not worth the fight - The Tech 
Nearly the only time I have ever agreed with a warmist.  The beauty of what he sensibly proposes is that when it proves to be another false scare like many others over thousands of years, we will be able to breath a sigh of relief that we avoided an economic bullet.  
You wonder why our Government are hell bent in becomming economic martyrs. Oh thats right without the greeies they are not in government.  How silly of me to forget.  God I want to go and throw up right now.

----------


## chrisp

> Where have i ever said there is a conspiracy theory.

  *conspiracy theory*  A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a  secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.the belief that the government or a covert organization is responsible  for an event that is unusual or unexplained, esp when any such  involvement is denied(Definitions from: conspiracy - definition of conspiracy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. )    

> Quite the contrary, I believe there has been a lot of self seving people, politicians and organizations that have jumped onto this because they can either make a buck or gain prestige out of it, be it through study grants, providing alternative power or cashing in on carbon trading.

  Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ... 
Maybe you are just having a dictionary malfunction?   :Rolleyes:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *conspiracy theory* 
> A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act. the belief that the government or a covert organization is responsible for an event that is unusual or unexplained, esp when any such involvement is denied(Definitions from: conspiracy - definition of conspiracy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. ) 
> Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, ... 
> Maybe you are just having a dictionary malfunction?

  Be semantic as you wish Chrisp.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Now this is a great paper on temperature pattens.   http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pd...etta-JSTP2.pdf   

> We investigate whether or not the decadal and multi-decadal climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. Several global surface temperature records since 1850 and records deduced from the orbits of the planets present very similar power spectra.   Eleven frequencies with period between 5 and 100 years closely correspond in the two records. Among them, large climate oscillations with peak-to-trough amplitude of abou t0.1 and 0.251C, and periods of about 20 and 60 years, respectively, are synchronized to the orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn. Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are also visible in the temperature records. A9.1-year cycle is synchronized to the Moon’s orbital cycles.     A phenomenological model based on these astronomical cycles can be used to well reconstruct the temperature oscillations since 1850 and to make partial forecasts for the 21st century. It is found that at least 60%of the global warming observed since 1970 has been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate oscillations.  The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030–2040. Possible physical mechanisms are qualitatively discussed with an emphasis on the phenomenon of collective synchronization of coupled oscillators

----------


## Dr Freud

> *I see you are still confusing weather with climate.*

  I see you are still confusing theory with reality.  :Biggrin:  
But seriously, aren't we all a little tired of these silly statements.  :Wink 1:  
Now just to clarify in case you are operating under a genuine misapprehension as opposed to being sarcastic, Tim Flannery and people like you "believe" that the climate changed and emptied the dams.  Whereas I "know" that the weather changed and filled them up.  Simple really, theory vs reality.   

> *
> All you have to do now is show how the long term temperature trend has suddenly and completely reversed and gone back to the pre-1900 average.*

  Oh dear.  This really is tragic.  Let's go through this slowly as it's very confusing. 
What in your opinion is "long term"?
Why do I have to show a "sudden reversal"?
What exactly constitutes a "complete reversal"?
When you say "pre-1900 average", I assume you mean the average of the 4.5 billion years prior? 
Or do you wish to clarify to 1850-1900 average, meaning since we invented the thermometer up until we can blame those capitalist pigs for heating up the whole planet? 
Take your time, I can understand you're still grappling with the tax dollars to degrees celsius equation.   

> **

  Nice pics, another 4 degrees warming and we'll be back to the "long term average".  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *
> We must demand that they stop using those computer models that are causing the actual average global temperature to increase and the sea level to rise!*

  This mischevious conduct and semantic distraction continues to reinforce the fact that you have no evidence proving this failed theory you support. 
At least with the scaremongering and threatening peoples children and grandchildren, you get to push their emotional buttons and scare them into believing. 
I went to the beach the other day and guess where it was?
Then I went to the beach where it was 10 million years ago and guess where it was? 
Once again, no theory, no computer models, just reality. 
You guys should visit sometime.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> So well put and this from someone who whole heartedly believes in global warming. 
> Read his sensible article here Global warming not worth the fight - The Tech 
> Nearly the only time I have ever agreed with a warmist.

  It is rare and refreshing to find people who agree with the theory, yet have the sincerity to acknowledge the futility of the green fantasies to mitigate that theory, assuming it is even real.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Be semantic as you wish Chrisp.

  Mate, this is all they've got left.   
They tried fudging the data, baseless scaremongering, even depicting the hanging and blowing up of children. 
Now, the more semantic distractions they create, the more they think people won't notice that their theory is entirely based on failed computer models. 
Take the temperature graphs posted above.  Chrisp pastes them and just assumes the temperature changes are "caused" entirely by humans, and had we not become industrialised, these temperatures would magically remain flat.  No warmer, no cooler, just magically flat.  And what evidence does he produce to prove this assumption? 
Er, all I saw was the temperature graph.  No causality in sight.  :No:  
But hey, a few more semantic distractions should stop people focussing on this fact!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Mate, this is all they've got left.  
> They tried fudging the data, baseless scaremongering, even depicting the hanging and blowing up of children. 
> Now, the more semantic distractions they create, the more they think people won't notice that their theory is entirely based on failed computer models. 
> Take the temperature graphs posted above. Chrisp pastes them and just assumes the temperature changes are "caused" entirely by humans, and had we not become industrialised, these temperatures would magically remain flat. No warmer, no cooler, just magically flat. And what evidence does he produce to prove this assumption? 
> Er, all I saw was the temperature graph. No causality in sight.  
> But hey, a few more semantic distractions should stop people focussing on this fact!

  Yes nicely put.

----------


## chrisp

> *
> We must demand that they stop using those computer models that are causing the actual average global temperature to increase and the sea level to rise!*

   

> This mischevious (sic) conduct and semantic distraction continues to reinforce the fact that you have no evidence proving this failed theory you support.

  *Sea level rise*
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.  *Global temperature rise*
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.  *Warming oceans*
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.  *Shrinking ice sheets*
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.  *Declining Arctic sea ice*
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.   *Glacial retreat*
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.  *Extreme events*
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.  *Ocean acidification*
The carbon dioxide content of the Earth’s oceans has been increasing since 1750, and is currently increasing about 2 billion tons per year. This has increased ocean acidity by about 30 percent.  
from: Climate Change: EvidenceSomehow, I don't think it is 'my position' that is short on evidence.  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *Sea level rise*
> Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.  *Global temperature rise*
> All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.  *Warming oceans*
> The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.  *Shrinking ice sheets*
> The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.  *Declining Arctic sea ice*
> Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.   *Glacial retreat*
> Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world  including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.  *Extreme events*
> The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.  *Ocean acidification*
> The carbon dioxide content of the Earths oceans has been increasing since 1750, and is currently increasing about 2 billion tons per year. This has increased ocean acidity by about 30 percent.  
> from: Climate Change: EvidenceSomehow, I don't think it is 'my position' that is short on evidence.

  And if all of these claims are true, what makes you think it is not natural?  What make you so certain that Co2 caused all of these claims.   
What would have happend to all these measures in any case? 
These sort of claims are made to try and shock and scare us only, they prove nothing.  We all know temperatures have risen. We also know that temperatures have been higher in the past (MWP).  Big deal.  
We don't dissagree that climate changes and this is evidence of climate change to some degree.  We all know that. 
How convienient for you to use these natural changes in climate, something that happens all the time one way or the other regardless of what we do or don't do, to push your scare mongering. 
Watch this space as the climate will change again the other way. What then?

----------


## attie

I must agree with you Rod Dyson, we are fed so much controversial stuff about this that I think much of it is just personal opinions and not a great deal to do with science. I don't know who is feeding our politicians the information but if it is coming via our public servant advisers heaven help us

----------


## chrisp

> And if all of these claims are true, what makes you think it is not natural?  What make you so certain that Co2 caused all of these claims.  
> What would have happend to all these measures in any case? 
> These sort of claims are made to try and shock and scare us only, they prove nothing.  We all know temperatures have risen. We also know that temperatures have been higher in the past (MWP).  Big deal.  
> We don't dissagree that climate changes and this is evidence of climate change to some degree.  We all know that. 
> How convienient for you to use these natural changes in climate, something that happens all the time one way or the other regardless of what we do or don't do, to push your scare mongering.

  I don't doubt that there has been some natural variation in climate patterns, however, natural variation doesn't explain the observed climate change. 
What makes me so certain?  

> "The evidence from surface temperature observations is strong: The observed warming is highly significant relative to estimates of internal climate variability which, while obtained from models, are consistent with estimates obtained from both instrumental data and palaeoclimate reconstructions. It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that recent global warming is due to internal variability alone such as might arise from El Niño (Section 9.4.1). The widespread nature of the warming (Figures 3.9 and 9.6) reduces the possibility that the warming could have resulted from internal variability. No known mode of internal variability leads to such widespread, near universal warming as has been observed in the past few decades. Although modes of internal variability such as El Niño can lead to global average warming for limited periods of time, such warming is regionally variable, with some areas of cooling (Figures 3.27 and 3.28). In addition, palaeoclimatic evidence indicates that El Niño variability during the 20th century is not unusual relative to earlier periods (Section 9.3.3.2; Chapter 6). Palaeoclimatic evidence suggests that such a widespread warming has not been observed in the NH in at least the past 1.3 kyr (Osborn and Briffa, 2006), further strengthening the evidence that the recent warming is not due to natural internal variability. Moreover, the response to anthropogenic forcing is detectable on all continents individually except Antarctica, and in some sub-continental regions. Climate models only reproduce the observed 20thcentury global mean surface warming when both anthropogenic and natural forcings are included (Figure 9.5). No model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global mean warming trend or the continental mean warming trends in all individual continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century. Detection and attribution of external influences on 20th-century and palaeoclimatic reconstructions, from both natural and anthropogenic sources (Figure 9.4 and Table 9.4), further strengthens the conclusion that the observed changes are very unusual relative to internal climate variability."*Hegerl, G.C., F. W. Zwiers, P. Braconnot, N.P. Gillett, Y. Luo, J.A. Marengo Orsini, N. Nicholls, J.E. Penner and P.A. Stott, 2007: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.*Can be found on the web at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter9.pdf

  And just in case you intend to run the line that the IPCC is biased, etc., here is another quote for your interest on the level of support for the IPCC findings:  

> "Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) _9798% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,_ and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."  *William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.*Which can be found on the web at: Expert credibility in climate change

  Oh, and by the way:  the MWP was a localised phenomena - not a global one (but you already knew that, didn't you. )I'm 'pushing' science.   :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> I must agree with you Rod Dyson, we are fed so much controversial stuff about this that I think much of it is just personal opinions and not a great deal to do with science. I don't know who is feeding our politicians the information but if it is coming via our public servant advisers heaven help us

  ... and that would be your personal opinion?   :Rolleyes:

----------


## PhilT2

[QUOTE][We also know that temperatures have been higher in the past (MWP/QUOTE] 
What research do you rely on for your information on the temps in the MWP?

----------


## Rod Dyson

try the orinal graphs in the early Ipcc reports for a start. 
Then they realized they had to get rid of the MWP enter Mann and his hockey stick. 
Calling the MWP a local event is drawing a long bow Chrisp and very deceitful. There are papers that show this was in the sothern hemisphere as well. Why was it shown in the early IPCC reports? 
I suspect they thought at the time the temps would surpass this event. When they realized this was not going to happen any time soon they, did every thing in their power to get rid of. A you trust these charletons. 
It disgusts me.

----------


## PhilT2

What I'm looking for is the original research that the IPCC used for their report.

----------


## chrisp

> try the orinal graphs in the early Ipcc reports for a start. 
> Then they realized they had to get rid of the MWP enter Mann and his hockey stick. 
> Calling the MWP a local event is drawing a long bow Chrisp and very deceitful. There are papers that show this was in the sothern hemisphere as well. Why was it shown in the early IPCC reports?

   The warm period became known as the MWP, and the cold period was called the Little Ice Age (LIA). However, this view was questioned by other researchers; the IPCC First Assessment Report  of 1990 discussed the "Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD (which may  not have been global) and the Little Ice Age which ended only in the  middle to late nineteenth century." The IPCC Third Assessment Report  from 2001 summarised research at that time, saying "... current  evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold  or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little  Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in  describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in  past centuries".  Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake  deposits, have shown that, taken globally, *the Earth may have been  slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm  Period' than in the early and mid-20th century.* Crowley and Lowery (2000)  note that "there is insufficient documentation as to its existence in the Southern hemisphere." Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   

> I suspect they thought at the time the temps  would surpass this event. When they realized this was not going to  happen any time soon they, did every thing in their power to get rid of.  A you trust these charletons.

  The good old conspiracy theory!  Unfortunately for your argument, it would seem that the global temperature has already surpassed that of the MWP.

----------


## chrisp

> A you trust these charletons. 
> It disgusts me.

  Why not? Eddy was quite good at snooker and billiards.   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Why not? Eddy was quite good at snooker and billiards.

  LOL spelling is not a strong pont. More so when I'm in a hurry. :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   
 [/quote] *William M. Connolley topic-banned (R3)* 
5.6) William M. Connolley is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3. 
Support:To replace remedies 5.1 to 5.5 above. *Roger Davies* *talk* 04:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Shell babelfish 08:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)It has become clear, during the case itself, that the topic area has become too personalized and _polarized_ around a number of editors who are, frankly, incapable of working together. While I may not agree that all editors involved have the same _severity_ of misbehavior, I can appreciate that a forcible fresh start is probably going to help — with gradual return on merit as the editors involve themselves in other areas of the project. — Coren (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Risker (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Aye. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Sad, reluctant support. I dislike intensely the idea of separating a knowledgeable editor from editing in the field of his expertise. My instincts impel me to say that I would, if possible, prefer a more carefully tailored, nuanced sanction or set of sanctions that could preserve the value of William M. Connolley's editing while addressing the problems that exist with it. (This is an observation I've made about some of the other editors who are being topic-banned as well.) We have also acknowledged that some of the specific assertions made about him previously were inaccurate or taken out of context. However, the "enough is enough" consensus of the committee is clear, and given the entire record here I can hardly say that the overall structure and outcome of the final decision is an outlandish one. Given the result, I hope that William M. Connolley can refocus his dedication to the project in other ways, while addressing the concerns that have been expressed so that he can return to this topic area in due course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[/quote] 
Yep and you can trust wikpedia too LOL 
And another one here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/1...-topic-banned/

----------


## chrisp

> Yep and you can trust wikpedia too LOL

  "*In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest  period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years.*"  NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The DataI suppose you don't trust the NOAA either? 
Maybe the Wikipedia page was blocked as some people were submitting non-factual information.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> "*In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years.*"  NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The DataI suppose you don't trust the NOAA either? 
> Maybe the Wikipedia page was blocked as some people were submitting non-factual information.

  Still Chrisp, nothing is unusual about the current temperatures. What do you think the perfect temperature for earth should be.  Which period in time should we try to turn back the climate too.  Then how do you think we can hold it at that level as it is forever changing as history shows.   
Given that the climate is always on the move, show me a period where it was stable?  So how can we be certain that the changes we see now, are not natural?   
What will you think when the climate starts to cool, or don't you think it will?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Now this is a great paper on temperature pattens.   http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf

  This looks like a good read.  It may have to wait until next weekend when I can settle down with some thought clarifying amber fluid and spend a few hours digesting it.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Sea level rise*
> Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.  *Global temperature rise*
> All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.  *Warming oceans*
> The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.  *Shrinking ice sheets*
> The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.  *Declining Arctic sea ice*
> Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.   *Glacial retreat*
> Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world  including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.  *Extreme events*
> The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.  *Ocean acidification*
> The carbon dioxide content of the Earths oceans has been increasing since 1750, and is currently increasing about 2 billion tons per year. This has increased ocean acidity by about 30 percent.  
> from: Climate Change: EvidenceSomehow, I don't think it is 'my position' that is short on evidence.

  Pay attention now, this is important! 
These things you have listed are known as *effects*. 
In science, when we try to say something is *causing* these *effects*, we call this *proving causality.* 
Then we have *cause* and *effect*. 
You (and anyone) can post heaps of evidence confirming any *effect*.  Unfortunately for you, there is *absolutely no evidence* proving what you and other supporters of this theory claim to be the *cause*. 
How can I be so sure there is *absolutely no evidence* you may ask? 
Well, you may.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I must agree with you Rod Dyson, we are fed so much controversial stuff about this that I think much of it is just personal opinions and not a great deal to do with science. I don't know who is feeding our politicians the information but if it is coming via our public servant advisers heaven help us

  My friend, you have mastered a skill missing in many.  You are able to separate opinions from science.  You realise that stating your opinion is fine (and most welcome here), but you do not misrepresent opinion as science, as some misguided souls continue to do. 
Please stay and chat, your opinion is very valued here, but be warned, you will be attacked mercilessly for being a "climate denier", whatever the hell that is.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I don't doubt that there has been some natural variation in climate patterns, however, natural variation doesn't explain the observed climate change.

  Really.  :Biggrin:  
Did a computer model tell you that?  Then it must be true!  :Biggrin:    

> What makes me so certain?

  I've already proffered this wonderful fiction for scrutiny previously, but no-one was brave enough to stake their reputation on assumptions programmed into a computer. 
Here's the link: This chick was hot.  
But I'm glad you have now, and am curious as to your opinions on whether we can trust these computer programmers enough to change the entire course of human history based on the assumptions they put into their computer programs?   

> And just in case you intend to run the line that the IPCC is biased, etc., here is another quote for your interest on the level of support for the IPCC findings:Oh, and by the way:

  First, The IPCC Chapter 9 is worse than biased, it is fiction. 
Second, surveying people does not prove a scientific law.  It gives you the opinions of the people surveyed.  The fact that they are scientists opinions is irrelevant to the scientific method, that does not care about the occupation of the person with the opinion.  One day this may make sense.

----------


## Dr Freud

> What I'm looking for is the original research that the IPCC used for their report.

  So are they!   :Rofl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The warm period became known as the MWP, and the cold period was called the Little Ice Age (LIA). However, this view was questioned by other researchers; the IPCC First Assessment Report  of 1990 discussed the "Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD (which may  not have been global) and the Little Ice Age which ended only in the  middle to late nineteenth century." The IPCC Third Assessment Report  from 2001 summarised research at that time, saying "... current  evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold  or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little  Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in  describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in  past centuries".  Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake  deposits, have shown that, taken globally, *the Earth may have been  slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm  Period' than in the early and mid-20th century.* Crowley and Lowery (2000)  note that "there is insufficient documentation as to its existence in the Southern hemisphere." Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The good old conspiracy theory!  Unfortunately for your argument, it would seem that the global temperature has already surpassed that of the MWP.

  To reiterate the points from my good friend Rod: 
Again you confuse theory with reality.  You claim this is a conspiracy "theory", when in "reality" he got sacked for doing it. 
See what happens when you start confusing theory with reality. 
For another reality check, check out Bolta:   _ All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didnt like the subject of a certain article, he removed it  more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred  over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement._  _Anyway, Connolleys latest escapade has proved to be the straw that broke the camels back for the Wiki administrators. He has now been banned from writing on Climate Change for Wikipedia.  
Full story here:  The sliming of a sceptic is finally too much for even Wikipedia | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog  _

----------


## Dr Freud

> "*In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest  period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years.*"  NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The DataI suppose you don't trust the NOAA either? 
> Maybe the Wikipedia page was blocked as some people were submitting non-factual information.

  See, now we're talking, 1200 years of proxy data.  Well on the way down the 4.5 billion year track. The 1970-2000 data was really starting to look ridiculous, but at least now we're well on the way. 
And what an outrage! Non-factual information on the internet? Unbelievable!  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

Are all global warmists hypocrites, or just the most famous? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So are they!

   Lovely just bloody lovely.

----------


## chrisp

> *
> We must demand that they stop using those computer models that are causing the actual average global temperature to increase and the sea level to rise!*

   

> This mischevious conduct and semantic distraction continues to reinforce the fact that you have no evidence proving this failed theory you support.

   

> These things you have listed are known as *effects*. 
> In science, when we try to say something is *causing* these *effects*, we call this *proving causality.* 
> Then we have *cause* and *effect*.

  Evidence:   Your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief  "_the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling_"An indication that makes something evident "_his trembling was evidence of his fear_"(law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved
(Definition from WordWeb) 
The *evidence* is the physically observed observation (i.e. the measurements of temperature, sea level rise, etc.).  The *explanation* of the observed climate changes is based on well know physical principles in a complex system - hence the numeric modelling.   

> You (and anyone) can post heaps of evidence confirming any *effect*.  Unfortunately for you, there is *absolutely no evidence* proving what you and other supporters of this theory claim to be the *cause*.

  Absurd!  The same statement could be meaninglessly applied to anything - the theory of gravity, for example.  That next apple just might fall up!

----------


## watson

Well bugger you lot......I can't wait until after midnight when Freud posts.
This is the one.   :Fireworks: *   4000*  :Fireworks:  *     POSTS*     
Haven't you blokes fixed this yet?????

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Well bugger you lot......I can't wait until after midnight when Freud posts.
> This is the one.  * 4000*  *POSTS*       Haven't you blokes fixed this yet?????

  
LOL congrats everyone got to be a record eh! 
I was a commin watson

----------


## watson

I just needed to grab some zzzzz's so I jumped in. 
Well done all you lot.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Haven't you blokes fixed this yet?????

  The joy of these scams is that they're all remarkably similar. 
Drug companies rarely find cures, they find lifelong treatments, much more profitable.  
That's why we will pay carbon taxes for a long time, to keep the bad forces at bay. 
So no joy on getting it fixed unfortunately, but rest assured, the fix is in.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

*"ELECTRICITY bills have shot past $3200 a year for some Victorians amid soaring prices and blowouts in energy use. *                                And annual costs could hit a shocking $10,000 for big households in five years if a carbon tax is introduced, an analyst warns...  
...*Melbourne's coldest winter in more than a decade*, combined with price rises of up to 20 per cent this year, has left many households reeling from bill shock.  
Ben Freund, of price comparator GoSwitch, warned surging coal costs, government targets for more expensive wind, solar and other renewable energy, network upgrades to cope with extra demand and the drain of airconditioners would have a dramatic affect on people's hip pockets in coming years."   Electricity bills could rise to $10,000 per year | Herald Sun  
But wait, there's more:   *"THE impact of surging power prices is more severe and widespread than expected, with a majority of households choosing to shiver through winter - electric heating pushed beyond their budgets...*  
The truth emerged in an exclusive cost of living survey, which revealed:
* 12 PER CENT of people don't have enough money to pay household bills;
* A FURTHER 24 per cent are barely making ends meet;
* TWO-THIRDS of respondents think value at the supermarket is deteriorating; and
* NEARLY three-quarters of people want the position of Federal Consumer Affairs Minister reinstated.  
"I sit on the lounge with a hot-water bottle and a blanket. We only use the heater for the kids," Mrs Raish said."   People choose cold over expensive electricity | The Daily Telegraph

----------


## woodbe

The rest of the world has been moving on while Rod and Doc recycle their anti-change propaganda.   Australia lagging on carbon pricing: report - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   

> As political and business leaders confront the  obstacles to putting a price on carbon, an independent report says  Australia is already badly lagging behind its trading partners.
>  Global research commissioned by the Climate Institute says countries  including Britain, China and the United States already have higher  direct and indirect carbon pricing.
>  As a result, the report to be released today says Australia is at no  risk of being left alone in the world by putting a price on carbon.
>  The report, conducted by the environmental economics firm Vivid  Economics, compared the direct and indirect price tags on pollution and  found that key competitors had a price 17 times that of Australia's.
>  According to the research, Australia's implied carbon price per tonne  of emissions is the second lowest of the seven regions assessed.
>  The highest is the UK (.30), China (.20), USA north-east  (.50), USA overall (.10), Japan (.10), Australia (.70)  and South Korea (.70).
>  Climate Institute deputy chief executive Erwin Jackson says the  research shows Australia has no chance of being isolated by putting a  price on carbon.
>  "There is no risk of Australia leading the world in making businesses  responsible for the pollution they cause - we have already been  overtaken by competitors including the UK, China and the USA," Mr  Jackson said.
>  "The UK is reaping the benefits of its policies to price pollution,  in addition to its participation in the European Emissions Trading  Scheme, and has an equivalent price tag around 17 times that of  Australia's.
> ...

  
From a global perspective, Australia will smell if it doesn't move toward a low carbon economy.  
The writing has been on the wall for years now guys. The winners have long taken low carbon opportunities, the losers remain in denial. We could have/should have moved years ago, but now we will play costly catch-up. And if we haven't got it sorted by peak oil we're screwed.  
What you missed, is that we are a poofteenth of the world economy, and what we think is irrelevant to it. We either move with the machine or get crushed in the gears.   
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The rest of the world has been moving on while Rod and Doc recycle their anti-change propaganda.   Australia lagging on carbon pricing: report - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)    
> From a global perspective, Australia will smell if it doesn't move toward a low carbon economy.  
> The writing has been on the wall for years now guys. The winners have long taken low carbon opportunities, the losers remain in denial. We could have/should have moved years ago, but now we will play costly catch-up. And if we haven't got it sorted by peak oil we're screwed.  
> What you missed, is that we are a poofteenth of the world economy, and what we think is irrelevant to it. We either move with the machine or get crushed in the gears.   
> woodbe.

  Then let us STINK to high heaven. 
Yes we are a poofteenth of the carbon emissions too. This is beyond crazy mate. 
I dam well hope I am around to see this scam fall on its @@@@. 
But it aint over yet woodbe there will be a fight dont doubt it. 
I can assure you the only winners are those reaping a fortune off the sucker public that are paying for the high costs of this folly. 
My tip this isssue is going to create a huge divide in nations in the comming years.  I doubt this is going to end well for anybody.

----------


## PhilT2

> Drug companies rarely find cures, they find lifelong treatments, much  more profitable.

  Got  evidence to support this?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Got  evidence to support this?

  Go check out your local cemetery, lots of them paid for lots of treatment, none got cured!  :Frown:  
Oops, forgot you guys don't like reality, I'll try and dig up a computer model that predicts this effect.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

> Then let us STINK to high heaven. 
> Yes we are a poofteenth of the carbon emissions too. This is beyond crazy mate. 
> I dam well hope I am around to see this scam fall on its @@@@. 
> But it aint over yet woodbe there will be a fight dont doubt it. 
> I can assure you the only winners are those reaping a fortune off the sucker public that are paying for the high costs of this folly. 
> My tip this isssue is going to create a huge divide in nations in the comming years.  I doubt this is going to end well for anybody.

  Rod, you have your head in the sand mate. the 'huge divide' you speak of is the divide between countries that have long term plans to escape the burden (and cashflow deficit) of a fossil fuel based economy and those that don't. 
AGW or no, we should have had a concrete plan in action to move away from fossil fuels in a big way by now. We don't have any such plan, we haven't even scratched the surface and it will impact our future export earnings and therefore our economy.  
You can wail all you like, but you are a minority opinion in a tiny country and trying to swim against the tide. We are out of step with our major trading partners and the gap is widening all the time as we try to hang on to our old ways in the face of change. 
Economising on carbon and bringing alternative energy online is the way of the future and yet you are still in denial arguing anti-science. Solar alone is 1000W per square metre and we have lots of those metres going to waste while countries with limited sunlight have significant alternative energy inputs. (our mainland area is 7,659,861 square _kilometres_) 
You are against a carbon tax because you think it is unjust and an impost, but when our trading partners devalue our exports because they are 'dirty' you will realise that failing to act is unjust to future Australians on the basis of trade, without even considering the AGW impact. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Go check out your local cemetery, lots of them paid for lots of treatment, none got cured!  
> Oops, forgot you guys don't like reality, I'll try and dig up a computer model that predicts this effect.

  Plenty of people living today who would be otherwise dead on the basis of those nasty drug companies medicines that "don't work" 
I know quite a few. If you were a real Doc, so would you. We all end up dead, so being found in a cemetery is no testement to the failure of any treatment. 
Quite a telling revelation on your worldview if I might say so Doc. Is this conspiracy theory from the same pile you get your climate denial from mate? Its good to air that stuff regularly or it goes rancid.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Evidence:   Your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief  "_the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling_"An indication that makes something evident "_his trembling was evidence of his fear_"(law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved
> (Definition from WordWeb) 
> The *evidence* is the physically observed observation (i.e. the measurements of temperature, sea level rise, etc.).  The *explanation* of the observed climate changes is based on well know physical principles in a complex system - hence the numeric modelling.

  With all due respect to your linguistic diligence, evidence in the scientific sense (which yes, I just assumed it would be taken as) is very different from other usages such as legal evidence or lay evidence. 
The measurements you cite are certainly evidence of the effects as I have described above, but these measurements say nothing of the causes.  Causation in the scientific sense has been explained ad nauseum to no avail, so I will not do so again. 
Also previously explained ad nauseum is the fact that modelling is not evidence of anything, let alone this farce. 
This may help in the evidence explanation:  Understanding Scientific Evidence    

> Absurd! The same statement could be meaninglessly applied to anything - the theory of gravity, for example. That next apple just might fall up!

  When the apple falls down, this is the effect.  This is measurable and replicable.  There is plenty of evidence of this effect.  The theories (plural) all try to explain why this happens, that is the cause.  The cause of gravity is yet to be proven, that's why the explanations are called theories. Newton's is kinda magnetic and Einstein's is kinda bending the spacetime continuum, but remember, these are just theories (and there are others), so are yet to be proven.  AGW Theory is far, far below these and almost all other theories on the credibility scale. 
So yes, the next apple just might fall up, as we are yet to comprehensively understand the causes of gravity.  This is not absurd, it is science.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The rest of the world has been moving on while Rod and Doc recycle their anti-change propaganda.   Australia lagging on carbon pricing: report - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
> woodbe.

  This is hilarious!  :Biggrin:  
I'll tell you what mate, as soon as China, USA and India stop increasing their CO2 emissions and start actually reducing their real CO2 emissions, I'll stop laughing. 
What a piece of science fiction number mumbo jumbo.  :Doh:    

> From a global perspective, Australia will smell if it doesn't move toward a low carbon economy. 
> woodbe.

  Seriously champ, maybe a trip to Jakarta, Mumbai, Tokyo or Beijing may lead you to a more accurate assessment of whose smelling and whose not. 
I love Australia because it smells great!   

> The writing has been on the wall for years now guys. The winners have long taken low carbon opportunities, the losers remain in denial. We could have/should have moved years ago, but now we will play costly catch-up. And if we haven't got it sorted by peak oil we're screwed. 
> woodbe.

  Hey, if we're that that close to the oil running out, then we can't burn the stuff for hundreds of years, so no more warming.  Problem solved.  Normal cost mechanisms will kick in and sort it all out.  No need for fake taxes eh!   

> What you missed, is that we are a poofteenth of the world economy, and what we think is irrelevant to it. We either move with the machine or get crushed in the gears. 
> woodbe.

  Good word that, irrelevant.  Once they all introduce their ETS, then we can move with them, eh.  No point in refusing after USA, India and China introduce ETS legislation and getting crushed.  Let's hope that machine (whole planet) get's moving then.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Rod, you have your head in the sand mate. the 'huge divide' you speak of is the divide between countries that have long term plans to escape the burden (and cashflow deficit) of a fossil fuel based economy and those that don't. 
>  woodbe.

  Sweet, let's go nuclear.  :2thumbsup:    

> AGW or no, we should have had a concrete plan in action to move away from fossil fuels in a big way by now. We don't have any such plan, we haven't even scratched the surface and it will impact our future export earnings and therefore our economy.  
> woodbe.

  Sweet, let's go nuclear.  :2thumbsup:    

> You can wail all you like, but you are a minority opinion in a tiny country and trying to swim against the tide. We are out of step with our major trading partners and the gap is widening all the time as we try to hang on to our old ways in the face of change. 
> woodbe.

   :Roflmao2:  
You guys really crack me up sometimes!  I still don't know whether you actually believe this stuff or say it just trying to antagonise people.   

> Economising on carbon and bringing alternative energy online is the way of the future and yet you are still in denial arguing anti-science. Solar alone is 1000W per square metre and we have lots of those metres going to waste while countries with limited sunlight have significant alternative energy inputs. (our mainland area is 7,659,861 square _kilometres_) 
> woodbe.

  Er, once again, no-one is arguing that renewable energy is not the way of the future.  The best way of achieving this is by using our current cheap energy sources to develop it.  The worst way is to artificially cripple the economy in the belief somehow miracle technology will just magically appear out of the crippled economy.  :No:  
As for anti-science?  What exactly is it?  Something like anti-gravity?  :Biggrin:    

> You are against a carbon tax because you think it is unjust and an impost, but when our trading partners devalue our exports because they are 'dirty' you will realise that failing to act is unjust to future Australians on the basis of trade, without even considering the AGW impact. 
> woodbe.

  I'll tell you what champ, as soon as China starts refusing to buy our iron ore and coal cos they reckon it's too "dirty", we'll whack some carbon taxes on top of the price for them just to keep them happy.  :2thumbsup:   Meanwhile, back in reality... :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> go check out your local cemetery, lots of them paid for lots of treatment, none got cured!  
> oops, forgot you guys don't like reality, i'll try and dig up a computer model that predicts this effect.

   lmao

----------


## Dr Freud

Geez, you guys would rather argue about anything other than this failed theory.  :Biggrin:  
I'll humour you for a bit, but this does get tiresome.   

> Plenty of people living today who would be otherwise dead on the basis of those nasty drug companies medicines that "don't work" 
> woodbe.

  Most treatments "do work", that's why they make so much money. :2thumbsup:    

> I know quite a few. If you were a real Doc, so would you. We all end up dead, so being found in a cemetery is no testement to the failure of any treatment. 
> woodbe.

  It wasn't the failure of any treatment in question, it was the absence of a cure.  If we are going to disappear down these semantic rabbit holes for some light relief, can we please at least keep up.  :Biggrin:  
By the way, a cure for death would be handy.  :2thumbsup:    

> Quite a telling revelation on your worldview if I might say so Doc. Is this conspiracy theory from the same pile you get your climate denial from mate? Its good to air that stuff regularly or it goes rancid.  
> woodbe.

  Pharmaceutical companies make more profits from treatments than from cures. 
You think this is a conspiracy theory? 
I'm not going to research and write a dissertation on this for you, but here's a starting point if you're really interested in the subject:  
pharmaceutical treatments About 6,360,000 results (0.11 seconds)   pharmaceutical treatments - Google Search  
pharmaceutical cures About 969,000 results  (0.10 seconds)  pharmaceutical cures - Google Search  
HINT: As you research company values and P/E ratios, compare these to market share of skin creams and MPB treatments. 
Oh, and by the way...   

> your climate denial  
> woodbe.

  About 100 pages ago I asked who keeps denying there is a climate?  I'm pretty sure we've got one, so it's not me.  :No:  
If you point out who this person is that's denying we have a climate, I'll be happy to join forces with you in convincing them that we do in fact have one.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> lmao

  Mate, it's great to see some of us haven't lost our sense of humour.  :Biggrin:  
If the world is going to end, we may as well enjoy what we've got left.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

*"THE fight against global warming has globe-trotting bureaucrats attending more than one international climate conference every week. * Department of Climate Change staff flew first class to 64 global climate change meetings in just 12 months at a cost of more than $4 million. 
  A Senate committee heard that 93 staff went to destinations including Greenland, the Maldives, Japan, the US and Bolivia." 
Full story here:  VIPs' global swarming for climate change meetings | Herald Sun 
But I'm sure they "offset" all of this?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

"Solar investors such as Vilimelis were lured by a 2007 law passed by the government of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero that guaranteed producers a so-called solar tariff of as much as 44 cents per kilowatt-hour for their electricity for 25 years -- more than 10 times the 2007 average wholesale price of about 4 cents per kilowatt-hour paid to mainstream energy suppliers... 
...Now Vilimelis and more than 50,000 other Spanish solar entrepreneurs face financial disaster as the policy makers contemplate cutting the price guarantees that attracted their investment in the first place. 
You feel cheated, he says. We put our money in on the basis of a law. 
Zapatero introduced the subsidies three years ago as part of an effort to cut his countrys dependence on fossil fuels. At the time, he promised that the investment in renewable energy would create manufacturing jobs and that Spain could sell its panels to nations seeking to reduce carbon emissions. 
Yet by failing to control the programs cost, Zapatero saddled Spain with at least 126 billion euros of obligations to renewable-energy investors. The spending didnt achieve the governments aim of creating green jobs, because Spanish investors imported most of their panels from overseas when domestic manufacturers couldnt meet short-term demand. 
Stark Lesson 
Spain stands as a lesson to other aspiring green-energy nations, including China and the U.S., by showing how difficult it is to build an alternative energy industry even with billions of euros in subsidies, says Ramon de la Sota, a private investor in Spanish photovoltaic panels and a former General Electric Co. executive. 
The government totally overshot with the tariff, de la Sota says. Now they have a huge bill to pay -- but wheres the technology, wheres the know-how, wheres the value?" 
Full story here:  Spain's Solar Deals on Edge of Bankruptcy as Subsidies Founder - Bloomberg 
Hey, why don't we do this?  :Lolabove:

----------


## Dr Freud

Hilarious!  :Biggrin:  
Watch as Tim tries to deny all his failed prophecies! 
His excuse?  The predictions of future drought would only be valid if the assumption of low future rain were correct.  The new rain means his predictions would still be correct if it hadn't rained!   :Laughcry:  :Laughcry:  :Laughcry:   Miracles, Media and the Murray | Q&A | ABC TV

----------


## woodbe

> The joy of these scams is that they're all remarkably similar. 
> Drug companies rarely find cures, they find lifelong treatments, much more profitable.

  Drug companies don't find lifelong treatments, they find pharmacy that has traction on a medical condition. If you have a lifelong medical condition, you will probably be needing lifelong pharmacy.  
I'm not hearing many cases of people discontinuing treatment for their lifelong medical condition because they thought drugs were a 'scam' - mostly people who ditch medications do so for efficacy or side-effect reasons. 
There are plenty of cures in our arsenal of drugs, but I guess you knew that. 
Its no surprise that you distort the relationship and expose your worldview once again, because drug companies rely heavily on scientific research. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Geez, you guys would rather argue about anything other than this failed theory.  
> I'll humour you for a bit, but this does get tiresome.   
> Most treatments "do work", that's why they make so much money.   
> It wasn't the failure of any treatment in question, it was the absence of a cure.  If we are going to disappear down these semantic rabbit holes for some light relief, can we please at least keep up.  
> By the way, a cure for death would be handy.    
> Pharmaceutical companies make more profits from treatments than from cures. 
> You think this is a conspiracy theory? 
> I'm not going to research and write a dissertation on this for you, but here's a starting point if you're really interested in the subject:  
> pharmaceutical treatments About 6,360,000 results (0.11 seconds)   pharmaceutical treatments - Google Search  
> ...

  Haha. You accuse me of semantics? 
1) We live in a capitalist system. If there were no profit motive for finding new and better drugs, there would be no new and better drugs. 
2) Of course drug companies make more money from lifelong treatments than cures. Do we have to explain the difference between disease and symptoms? Most people have gotten past the bit where they think pharmacy is some kind of magic that can 'cure' intractable medical conditions but you seem to be struggling... 
3) Climate Denial semantics. Google 'Climate Denial' if you really don't know what it means. No need to report back.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

If you pardon the poor humour, I think we've done the drugs to death.  
Better that our incoherent ramblings are at least on topic.    

> 3) Climate Denial semantics. Google 'Climate Denial' if you really don't know what it means. No need to report back.  
> woodbe.

  I know I don't need to, but I think I really want to.  :Biggrin:  
You see, I took your advice and this is what I found:  Meanwhile at the University of the West of England in Bristol this weekend, a conference of "eco-psychologists", led by a professor, are solemnly exploring the notion that "climate change denial" should be classified as a form of "mental disorder". 
So what you are saying is that I have a mental disorder?  :Saddest:  
And I thought I was supposed to be the psychoanalytical expert.

----------


## Dr Freud

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKZ4RolQxec&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - James Cameron - Hypocrite[/ame]

----------


## woodbe

> You see, I took your advice and this is what I found:  Meanwhile at the University of the West of England in Bristol this weekend, a conference of "eco-psychologists", led by a professor, are solemnly exploring the notion that "climate change denial" should be classified as a form of "mental disorder". 
> So what you are saying is that I have a mental disorder?

  I think you are projecting Doc. 
Just in case you are not up to date, woodbe didn't write that particular report, nor has he read up on eco-psychology, and he is definitely not diagnosing your personal problems for you via google searches. 
It does sound like you now have an idea what climate denial is. Did I really read your tacit admission that you are one? Oops  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> It does sound like you now have an idea what climate denial is. Did I really read your tacit admission that you are one? Oops  
> woodbe.

  Well, if you are saying that I don't have a mental disorder, then I'm still confused. 
Are you saying that I tacitly admitted being something that you still haven't clearly defined? 
But dinner's on now, back later.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

*Questions*  :Confused:  
Putting aside the issue of whether AGW is real or not, here are some questions to whoever would like to answer them:  What can we do as *individuals* to prevent/fix climate-change/AGW?What can we we as a *nation* to prevent/fix climate-change/AGW?What can we do as a *global community* to prevent/fix climate-change/AGW?
Do you think we can, or could/will, do anything about AGW or is it something beyond our individual/collective control?   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Questions*  
> Putting aside the issue of whether AGW is real or not, here are some questions to whoever would like to answer them:  What can we do as *individuals* to prevent/fix climate-change/AGW?What can we we as a *nation* to prevent/fix climate-change/AGW?What can we do as a *global community* to prevent/fix climate-change/AGW?
> Do you think we can, or could/will, do anything about AGW or is it something beyond our individual/collective control?

  This is a silly game. 
AGW Theory is based entirely on conjecture. 
Pretending to come up with fixes to a pretend problem is just further down the fiction pathway.  :Banghead:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *Questions*  
> Putting aside the issue of whether AGW is real or not, here are some questions to whoever would like to answer them:  What can we do as *individuals* to prevent/fix climate-change/AGW?What can we we as a *nation* to prevent/fix climate-change/AGW?What can we do as a *global community* to prevent/fix climate-change/AGW?Do you think we can, or could/will, do anything about AGW or is it something beyond our individual/collective control?

  Too easy Chrisp.  Nothing! 
Now if you ask the same question again but to prevent/fix pollution you may give a different answer, that is after defining "polllution".

----------


## PhilT2

> So what you are saying is that I have a mental disorder?

  Don't panic Doc, it's only a touch of Dunning Kruger. Unfortunately there is no cure but treatment can provide some relief of symptoms. Take two aspirin and report to your nearest remedial math class.

----------


## chrisp

> The rest of the world has been moving on while Rod and Doc recycle their anti-change propaganda.   Australia lagging on carbon pricing: report - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
> From a global perspective, Australia will smell if it doesn't move toward a low carbon economy. 
> The writing has been on the wall for years now guys. The winners have long taken low carbon opportunities, the losers remain in denial. We could have/should have moved years ago, but now we will play costly catch-up. And if we haven't got it sorted by peak oil we're screwed. 
> What you missed, is that we are a poofteenth of the world economy, and what we think is irrelevant to it. We either move with the machine or get crushed in the gears.

  There is a little more on that topic in today's _The Age_:   

> Professor Garnaut said national and state regulations had made it  ''extremely difficult'' to open a new coal plant in the US despite  emissions trading legislation having been blocked in its Senate. Carbon  trading was operating in the north-east, and many states had taken steps  to regulate energy use and the emissions intensity of power plants. 
>               ''We would kid ourselves if we pretended quite a lot wasn't happening in the United States,'' the senior economist told _The Age_. 
>               ''Astute observers are saying there may be no more  coal-based power investment in the US, and through the Environment  Protection Authority and local action there is very strong pressure to  close down a lot of coal-based generation.'' 
>               Professor Garnaut said the US had been more ''rational  and realistic'' than Australia in realising new, high-emitting power  plants would be shut down early as the world moved to cleaner energy. He  said there was also a ''striking ignorance'' in Australia about how  much China had accelerated its climate policies over the past year. 
>               ''We have to do a lot more than we are doing now to just  be an average performer compared to other developed countries and  China,'' he said.

  Full story at: Australia 'outpaced on climate'

----------


## Dr Freud

> Don't panic Doc, it's only a touch of Dunning Kruger. Unfortunately there is no cure but treatment can provide some relief of symptoms. Take two aspirin and report to your nearest remedial math class.

  Hey, I resemble that remark.  :Biggrin:  
But I'm still curious, how does my ignorance and stupidity make your theory real when it still hasn't been proven yet? 
I'm too dumb for all that book learning about complicated theoretical stuff, that's why I stick with reality, it doesn't need any figuring out, it just is.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> There is a little more on that topic in today's _The Age_: 
> Full story at: Australia 'outpaced on climate'

  I admire your commitment to recycling garbage.  :Biggrin:  
But recycling fiction unfortunately doesn't convert it to fact, it is still fiction. 
This is the level of desperation that this farcical movement has been debased to. 
No hopenhagen was the lid closing on this farce.  Now that nation states have rejected this farce, proponents are reduced to chasing some local and state based window dressing to support their failed cause.  We had some trees planted around the neighborhood the other day.  There are probably your equivalents in other countries using this to brow beat their own countries about how much action Australia is taking and why they need to move urgently or get "crushed".  :Doh:  
Economic analysis of pro-rata cost bases calculated on a per capita basis is not going to cool the planet down according to the theory you subscribe to. 
Only real reductions in total global CO2 emissions in the very near term has any chance of doing this, assuming we have not already passed the "tipping point" - according to your subscribed theory! 
Meanwhile, back in reality... :Biggrin:  
P.S. Do you wanna ask Garnaut if his mining companies are still pumping toxic effluent into rivers and the ocean waters in the pacific?  I heard he was trying to sell out to avoid being called a hypocrite.  Obviously the new gravy train is more lucrative than a gold mine.  Who woulda figured?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

> Too easy Chrisp.  Nothing! 
> Now if you ask the same question again but to prevent/fix pollution you may give a different answer, that is after defining "polllution".

  A very astute question my friend. 
I can understand why these AGW Theory proponents are so confused about what pollution really is.  Their guru's are telling them that what they breathe out is pollution, but toxic waste pumped out from transnational mining companies into rivers and oceans is fine. 
"Climate change expert Ross Garnaut has defended the decision of mining companieswith which he has been involved to use a controversial method of releasing mining waste into rivers and the ocean in Papua New Guinea... 
...According to the ABC  report, OK Tedi discharges 56 million tonnes of metalliferous waste into local  river systems each year.  The practice is banned in Canada and the US and indigenous landowners were concerned with the method being employed at the mines... 
...Professor Garnaut said there were genuine dilemmas in resources  development everywhere.  Disposal of waste and tailings inevitably  involved some disruption of the natural environment, he said..." 
Full story here:  Garnaut defends dumping mine waste in river 
Original reports here:  The 7.30 Report - ABC  
Lucky we have these "experts" to teach us right from wrong.  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

A supporter of AGW Theory who doesn't agree with the scaremongering? 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPUcfQS-slo&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Cool It Trailer (HD)[/ame]

----------


## chrisp

> *Questions*   Putting aside the issue of whether AGW is real or not, here are some questions to whoever would like to answer them:  What can we do as *individuals* to prevent/fix climate-change/AGW?What can we we as a *nation* to prevent/fix climate-change/AGW?What can we do as a *global community* to prevent/fix climate-change/AGW?

   

> This is a silly game. 
> AGW Theory is based entirely on conjecture. 
> Pretending to come up with fixes to a pretend problem is just further down the fiction pathway.

  Umm, the question was what is your opinion on whether we could individually or collectively do anything about AGW - whether you believe in AGW or not.   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Umm, the question was what is your opinion on whether we could individually or collectively do anything about AGW - whether you believe in AGW or not.

  Sorry, am I missing something here?   
You cannot possibly answer that question unless you believe in AGW. 
BTW is that a question like, do you believe in god? 
Or am I confusing the religious overtones.

----------


## chrisp

> Sorry, am I missing something here?   
> You cannot possibly answer that question unless you believe in AGW.

  Rod,  
You provided a very satisfactory answer to the questions (Thank you!).  You answered them even though you don't believe in AGW. 
I was just curious to see the Doc's (and others) response to those questions.  It isn't intended to be a trick admission to believing in AGW!  But rather just an assessment of whether you think the world could reduce its CO2 emissions if it wanted to.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> But rather just an assessment of whether you think the world could reduce its CO2 emissions if it wanted to.

  Mate, we could reduce just about anything if we wanted to. 
In WW2, we reduced the population by 50 million people. 
If we (humans) all just turned off all the power sources and stopped making stuff, billions of us would die and the emissions would plummet to far below pre-industrial levels.  That is why your premise is pointless.  No-one would argue that it can't physically be done, the questions to be asked are why and how much.  This is the reason you need to dismiss AGW Theory from the discussion, because then you remove the why and the how much. 
Once AGW Theory is proved, including all of it's ridiculous prophecies, then we have the why. 
Then when scientists and geo-political leaders can give us categorical information on effective mitigation pathways, we have the how much. 
Until these two conditions are met, we are analysing fairy tales.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Now this is a great paper on temperature pattens.   http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf

  This is very refreshing, a paper that explains some issues and admits it's limitations.  No scaremongering, no dead kids, just science with all its flaws. 
It likely indicates more pieces of our climate and general planetary puzzle that one day we will hopefully solve fully. 
I've always relegated Astrology to the same status as all other belief systems, but if these issues are proven, then Jupiter aligning with Saturn may yet contribute to what kind of day we have.  But that's still likely to be all of us, rather than 1/12th.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

This a good speech about intellectual honesty (and the CPRS dishonesty), and IMHO highlights why this farce was always destined to fail. 
Intellectual courage is slowly being rebuilt in this area, and the truth shall set us free.  :Shutup2:   
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18p8O3Joo-g&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Freedom of Speech: Does it have its limits? Keith Windschuttle[/ame]

----------


## Dr Freud

Let's put this little myth to bed before it takes hold in the media.  This is the only ridiculous argument left to the AGW Theory movement in Australia.  They will tow the line in the Greens argument that the rest of the world in speeding towards renewable energy shangri-la and will not be producing any Carbon Dioxide soon, then will look at us evil Australians as Planet polluters.  Let's recap this hilarious fiction, then we can get back to reality.   

> There is a little more on that topic in today's _The Age_: 
> Professor Garnaut said the US had been more ''rational and realistic'' than Australia in realising new, high-emitting power plants would be shut down early as the world moved to cleaner energy. He said there was also a ''striking ignorance'' in Australia about how much China had accelerated its climate policies over the past year.
>               ''We have to do a lot more than we are doing now to just be an average performer compared to other developed countries and China,'' he said.  
> Full story at: Australia 'outpaced on climate'

   

> Rod, you have your head in the sand mate. the 'huge divide' you speak of is the divide between countries that have long term plans to escape the burden (and cashflow deficit) of a fossil fuel based economy and those that don't. 
> You can wail all you like, but you are a minority opinion in a tiny country and trying to swim against the tide. We are out of step with our major trading partners and the gap is widening all the time as we try to hang on to our old ways in the face of change. 
> You are against a carbon tax because you think it is unjust and an impost, but when our trading partners devalue our exports because they are 'dirty' you will realise that failing to act is unjust to future Australians on the basis of trade, without even considering the AGW impact. 
> woodbe.

   

> I'll tell you what champ, as soon as China starts refusing to buy our iron ore and coal cos they reckon it's too "dirty", we'll whack some carbon taxes on top of the price for them just to keep them happy.   Meanwhile, back in reality...

  Yes, let's get back to reality. 
First those happy go lucky Chinese dudes:    Chinas work on emissions indeed makes ours seem puny | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
So just one small province in China will soon burn more brown coal than Australia's entire annual coal exports. 
Now to those happy go lucky Indian dudes: 
"Australia's buoyant coal industry has received another positive signal that any extra export volumes will be eagerly snapped up by international buyers, particularly a rapidly-expanding market in India. 
Indian Government-owned Coal India is investing in new coal import facilities, boosting hopes for Australia's coal sector, which was already aware of projections this market would one day replace China as the dominant importer of raw commodities such as iron ore and coal...  
...By 2017 annual coal imports could reach 50 million tonnes. 
Indias domestic coal production is forecast at some 535 million tonnes, but this will increasingly fall short of demand... 
...However it is unclear how sustainable the demand for coal will be given the Indian Government's moves on renewable energy. 
About 10 per cent of the country's current energy demand is met from renewable sources...  Indian demand may boost Australian coal exports &mdash; Australian Journal of Mining 
So, what does all this mean? 
These two energy using giants are both self-avowed sceptics of AGW Theory. 
Yet they are both leading the world in quantum of renewable energy development. 
Pay attention now, this is the important bit.   
AGW Theory proponents will try to have you believe these giants are doing this just to support their theory and for environmental reasons.  If you're not already laughing, watch Foreign Correspondent this week.  They will especially try to convince you these giants are doing this to use renewable energy *instead of* fossil fuels. 
As you can see from the limited information above - (feel free to research more yourself) - the energy requirements of these giants are so huge, they need to develop renewable energy urgently to use *as well as* fossil fuels, to meet their massive and growing energy demands. 
So, over the next few months as our three new cherry-picked "climate committees" begin regaling us with tales of overseas green shangri-la's, just have a good laugh at the feeble games they have been reduced to since those "Chinese rat-f-ckers" did the world a favour at No Hopenhagen.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

"Fears of spiralling electricity bills in NSW has forced the state government to slash a generous scheme paying households for solar power fed back into the energy grid. 
             Just 10 months after the Solar Bonus Scheme was introduced, Premier Kristina Keneally announced the popular feed-in tariff would be slashed by 67 per cent to 20 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), from 60 cents, to curb its take-up... 
..."What we are doing today is slowing down the scheme in order to stop any further impact on electricity prices." 
             Ms Keneally also announced that the government would set up a formal inquiry to look into ways of putting "downward pressure" on electricity prices..."  Price hike fears spark NSW tariff cuts 
So, in summary, we can't afford for this scheme to work? 
It is designed to fail, because if enough people use it to bring down CO2 emissions, then we can't afford it.  But if we keep it affordable, then we don't bring down CO2 emissions. 
Who still trusts these idiots to cool down the entire Planet Earth?  :Youcrazy:  
Did you read the kicker? Here it is again:  *"...the government would set up a formal inquiry to look into ways of putting "downward pressure" on electricity prices..."* 
Really?  We're going to make electricity cheaper so people use it less?  
This is getting beyond ridicule... :Giveup3:

----------


## woodbe

For once, I agree with you Doc. 
Seems rediculous, but the Govt decides to 'support' PV installations by taking money from everyone who buys power and giving it to the people who put in PV. 
Then they have a different set of rules based on which state the PV install is in. 
Then they each change the rules.  
Repeatedly... 
At short notice. 
Seems entirely wrong-headed. I wonder how it is done in other countries with successful PV like Germany? 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

Blythe Solar Power Plant in California: 1,000MW. 
Rather than install thousands of tiny household PV generators via subsidy or waste 30+ billion on the NBN, we could have a bunch of these at $6Bn a pop. Probably, this would work out cheaper and more efficient on a national scale than the PV subsidy (RECs and FIT) 
Planned to be in production by 2013.   

> The technology that will be utilized in the project is parabolic  trough technology and it collects heat energy from the sun and  concentrates it onto a receiver tube located at the focal point of the  parabola. A heat transfer fluid is then heated to a temperature of  somewhere in the vicinity of 750 degrees F and this super-heated fluid  is then transferred to a storage unit where it generates high pressure  steam. The steam is then used in a traditional steam turbine generator  to produce the electricity.
>  The Blythe Solar Power Project is a major milestone in our nations  renewable energy economy and shows that the United States intends to  compete and lead in the technologies of the future, Interior Secretary  Ken Salazar said in announcing the approval.
>  The cost of the construction of the solar plant is estimated to be  around $6 billion and construction should start before the end of 2010  with electricity production starting in 2013. One of the reasons for the  quick start to the project probably has something to do with the fact  that solar projects that begin construction before December 31, 2010  qualify for a Treasury Department grant totalling 30 percent of a  projects cost. This bonus is part of the economic stimulus package from  last year.

  Also, South Africa has announced a Solar Power Park on the edge of the Kalahari desert: 5,000MW  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Blythe Solar Power Plant in California: 1,000MW. 
> Rather than install thousands of tiny household PV generators via subsidy or waste 30+ billion on the NBN, we could have a bunch of these at $6Bn a pop. Probably, this would work out cheaper and more efficient on a national scale than the PV subsidy (RECs and FIT) 
> Planned to be in production by 2013.  
> Also, South Africa has announced a Solar Power Park on the edge of the Kalahari desert: 5,000MW  
> woodbe.

  Mate, it would be great if we were investing more money directly into engineering base-load solar technology.  My own views on extra-terrestrial mounting were well documented earlier.  :2thumbsup:  
Unfortunately, all our taxpayer dollars are going to either researching AGW Theory, or setting up the giant financial bureaucracy required to control the new financial market derivative scheme linked to the new "Carbon Taxation Scheme". :Doh:  
Strange how we never hear anything about how this tax will actually cool the planet down.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

If you've been taking life too seriously recently, here's a good laugh.  :Biggrin:   *"IT is too late to avoid serious effects of climate change on Australia's economy, society and environment, the Gillard government has been warned. " * See, we can all relax, it's already too late!   :Biggrin:  
"A greater, more rapid amount of warming would occur this century unless there was a major reduction in global emissions and the consequences of even a moderate degree of warming would be serious." 
Wow!  I don't have time break down the idiocy of all the statements in this article in all its complexity, but let's look at just one issue. 
We have now achieved 100% certainty that the planet's temperature will increase much higher and much faster than previous measures: 
"A greater, more rapid amount of warming *would occur* this century..." 
We have also achieved 100% certainty that reducing anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions will stabilise global temperatures forever: 
"*unless* there was a major reduction in global emissions" 
It's just lucky we have so much control over planetary temperature, because if something else fictional like the Sun were to warm us up even a little, we would be in major trouble: 
"the consequences of even a moderate degree of warming would be *serious*" 
If you do need a good belly laugh, more here:  Labor told to act now on climate | The Australian

----------


## PhilT2

> Unfortunately, all our taxpayer dollars are going to either researching  AGW Theory, or setting up the giant financial bureaucracy required to  control the new financial market derivative scheme linked to the new  "Carbon Taxation Scheme".

  Do you have any actual figures to support this? You know, like real numbers from a budget or from the forward estimates. Maybe try here.  2010–11 Commonwealth Budget - Home

----------


## Dr Freud

> Do you have any actual figures to support this? You know, like real numbers from a budget or from the forward estimates. Maybe try here.  201011 Commonwealth Budget - Home

  There are now over 4000 posts in this thread. 
I just assume everyone starts at the beginning and reads them all. 
Obviously assumptions are fallible both here and in computer models.  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

Goodness me, free water is pouring out of the sky!  Just like it always has.    Melbourne has broken a 35-year-old rainfall record as a wet weekend continues with flood warnings easing across most of the state... The rainfall was widespread with totals of 50 to 60mm from west to east. Minor flooding was reported in Brunswick, Northcote and Kensington as police urged drivers to slow down... Flood watches have been issued for many river systems, including the Ovens, Murray and Goulburn, but the State Emergency Service (SES) is reporting that streams are coping better than expected and only minor flooding is now anticipated.  
Shame the greenies convinced state labor governments to stop building dams. 
"A dam on the Mitchell, producing three times the water, would have cost just $1.4 billion. But now the price of Labor’s green crusade starts to be felt: _THE true costs of Australia’s largest desalination plant are becoming clearer, with Melburnians said to be facing another doubling of water bills to pay for the Brumby government’s $5.7 billion plant._  _Consumers, who have already been slugged with a doubling of bills from 2009 to 2013, face further hikes as Melbourne Water’s costs soar, an analysis of Auditor-General figures shows._  _In the face of the government’s repeated refusals to reveal the bill increases for desalinated water, the opposition has analysed figures in the Auditor-General’s October finance report and found that Melbourne Water’s costs per kilolitre, or 1000 litres, could increase by up to 130 per cent._"_  Victorians now pay the price for Labor’s dam madness | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_  
I've said it before and I'll say it again, we don't have a water shortage,we have an intellectual shortage.

----------


## Dr Freud

The Greens fighting the good fight again.  :Biggrin:  
"Next theyll tell me he uses airplanes and lights his house with power from coal-fired power stations, too:  _THE Greens candidate for Melbourne in the state election is working for a company that mines dirty brown coal._  _Barrister Brian Walters is running for the key inner-city seat in the November 27 election while able to earn up to $7000 a day defending La Trobe Valley mining partner Downer EDI in a workplace death case._  _And financial documents show Mr Walters has also bought into the Queensland resources boom by investing in industrial factories at Rockhampton._  
(Thanks to readersmum of 5.) UPDATE  
 Greens leader Bob Brown this morning defended Walters, saying a barrister had a duty to accept a brief even from someone with whom they disapproved. 
  Lets leave aside the fact that a barrister can in fact pick and choose his cases, and look instead at Browns hypocrisy.  
  Here is a man who demands we refuse Singapores dollars - offered for a takeover of the Australian Securities Exchange - on the grounds that Singapores government threatens the human rights of its citizens, yet approves of a Greens candidate taking dollars from an industry it claims threatens all life on the planet."   Its the Greens way - to live off what they so lightly condemn | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## intertd6

AND they have to burn coal to run that desal plant.......now thats a good cycle to get into !!!!
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> AND they have to burn coal to run that desal plant.......now thats a good cycle to get into !!!!
> regards inter

  Yeh, price on "Carbon" drives prices on water now. 
Great cycle indeed!

----------


## Dr Freud

> There are now over 4000 posts in this thread. 
> I just assume everyone starts at the beginning and reads them all. 
> Obviously assumptions are fallible both here and in computer models.

  While you're adding up the billions in this thread and the links, here's some more gravy for the train. 
"Southern Cross University is set to lead a project testing the worlds first Personal Carbon Trading program conducted in a closed system island environment on Norfolk Island commencing early next year. 
This follows the announcement this week of a Linkage Projects grant by the Australian Research Council valued at $390,000. 
Leading chief investigator Professor Garry Egger, a Professor of Lifestyle Medicine and Applied Health Promotion at Southern Cross University, said the main goals of the project were to test the effectiveness of a Personal Carbon Trading scheme over a three year period; reduce per capita carbon emissions and reduce obesity and obesity related behaviours."  SCU - Communications and Publications - Media Releases 
Look out fatties!  The gravy train is after you too now... :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Lucky we have so much spare cash that we can afford to research how to make fat people skinny by forcing them to reduce their carbon footprint?  :Confused:    
So, the blue line is our income, and the red line is our expenses. 
Can someone please remind me what happens when your expenses continually exceed your income?  :Cry:  
No wonder we can't afford those solar power plants, huh.

----------


## woodbe

> Can someone please remind me what happens when your expenses continually exceed your income?  
> No wonder we can't afford those solar power plants, huh.

  No Causality there Doc.  :Biggrin:   
When you're the Government and your expenses exceed your income, you do a couple of things: 
* Print/Borrow more money
* Find a scapegoat
* Engage the spin machine 
All the while, hoping that the problem will self correct, claiming any success as your own, and any failure as the fault of the previous government. 
The quality of the spin, and whether the economy is on the up or the down cycle determines success at the next election. If you have quality spin but people have heard it several times before (Mr Howard for instance) you're probably on a hiding to nowhere. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> No Causality there Doc.   
> woodbe.

  Just as well I didn't claim it was a scientific law then.  Otherwise I'd be like those AGW Theory hypocrites claiming causality with absolutely zero evidence.  My statement is just an opinion (in my mind a very valuable and well informed one), but an opinion none the less.  :Wink 1:    

> When you're the Government and your expenses exceed your income, you do a couple of things: 
> * Print/Borrow more money
> * Find a scapegoat
> * Engage the spin machine 
> woodbe.

  What about the best one of all: 
* Raise taxes! 
Now if you can also make up some fictional reason to sell this, all the better. 
New Tax: Carbon Tax (actually should be called Carbon Dioxide Tax, but then people may ask if they have to pay tax every time they breathe out. Much simpler this way). 
Fictional reason: If we all pay this, the whole Planet Earth will cool down.  :Youcrazy:  
Issues: We don't even have proof yet that Carbon Dioxide is the predominant driver of planetary temperatures as claimed by AGW Theory.  And if you do think Australian's paying this tax is going to cool the whole planet down, I'd be interested in hearing how.

----------


## Dr Freud

"The weather bureau says Darwin has had its coldest November day on record."  Darwin has coldest November day on record - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  
"Darwin has recorded its wettest October in 24 years while Alice Springs has had its coldest October since records began, the Bureau of Meteorology says."  Weather records tumble as La Nina takes effect - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
This *weather* is unusually cold and wet!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Let's amuse ourselves for a moment and pretend in a few years we are all happily paying thousands of dollars in extra "Carbon" taxes. 
One rationale for us doing this is our supreme leader will then convince the rest of the worlds countries how wonderful this is, and they will follow suit. 
Let's take a look at how great she is at convincing countries to take these massive steps to restructure their entire economies, taxation systems and ways of life:  Column - Gillard drowns in Asia | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog  Miranda Devine: PM takes the heat | Herald Sun 
Plan B maybe?  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

These crazy guys obviously have not realised Joolia is our secret weapon to convince the world to act, even if our government has been advised it is already too late. 
"KERRY O'BRIEN: So this is the end of any action on climate change for the next two years? 
JAMES FALLOWS: Even when the Democrats held both houses of Congress, the President believed that he could not get a full climate bill through both houses with bloc unified Republican opposition. So, it is a dead certainty there will be no progress legislatively on this for the next two years."  The 7.30 Report - ABC 
"TONY JONES: Here's one of the elements of the Obama legislative agenda which certainly will be under threat: climate change or action on climate change. It's a very big deal in the rest of the world. Americans' economic woes have pushed it further and down the agenda, but now it may be off the agenda altogether. 
MICHAEL DUFFY: It is, I think. In fact, a lot of people who lost last night across the country, particularly in the lower chamber, lost because they took votes on climate change that were not popular, and the White House has never been as gung-ho about taking steps in that area as it has seemed.  
President Obama gave a lot of speeches about it, but their heart hasn't been in it since taking office. I think you're absolutely right, Tony: as far as the United States goes, the congressmen will not be adding to the climate change policy in the next two years. It's just not going to happen. They may put some more money in wind and solar and other things, but I don't see them taking further steps any time soon."  Lateline - 03/11/2010: Duffy talks live from Washington 
Did you notice Tony Jones' misguided optimism? 
"...action on climate change. It's a very big deal in the rest of the world." 
Really? 
China = No deal
India = No deal
USA = No deal
Australia = No deal 
So Tony, which "rest of the world" exactly is it a "big deal" in?  Maybe in all the countries due to receive "Climate Aid" from us mugs?  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

KRudd agrees with me that this is not a "big deal" for the rest of the world.  But he is optimistic Joolia will talk them into it. 
"KEVIN RUDD: I believe that in the preparations for Copenhagen, we didn't strike enough pre-agreement between the major developed countries, including the United States, ourselves and the Europeans and China and India on the other.  
As we move forward through Cancun and Durban and onto Rio again, we've gotta make sure that that work is done well in advance so we have manageable agendas for agreement on ambitious outcomes, because the planet cannot wait and cannot endure further delay."  Lateline - 03/11/2010: Rudd presents third way for China 
Gee, lots of environmentalists still flying around the planet constantly to lavish meetings trying to save the planet?  What was that "H" word again?  :Doh:

----------


## PhilT2

> While you're adding up the billions in this thread and the links, here's some more gravy for the train. 
> "Southern Cross University is set to lead a project testing the worlds first Personal Carbon Trading program conducted in a closed system island environment on Norfolk Island commencing early next year. 
> This follows the announcement this week of a Linkage Projects grant by the Australian Research Council valued at $390,000. 
> Leading chief investigator Professor Garry Egger, a Professor of Lifestyle Medicine and Applied Health Promotion at Southern Cross University, said the main goals of the project were to test the effectiveness of a Personal Carbon Trading scheme over a three year period; reduce per capita carbon emissions and reduce obesity and obesity related behaviours."  SCU - Communications and Publications - Media Releases 
> Look out fatties!  The gravy train is after you too now...

  Just want to put a few hints out there for people who appear to be experiencing difficulty in interpreting what they see in the media. 
The above grant, $130 000/yr for 3 years went to a Dr Egger. There are a few subtle hints, other than the number of zeros, that this does not represent "billions in climate research". Firstly Prof Egger of "gutbusters" is a medical doctor attached to the *health* dept of SCU and has a worked in *health* for many years and written a number of books on *health* issues. Climate research is usually carried out by people with different qualifications who work at universities that actually have climate research depts. 
A thoughtful look at where this health research is being carried out may give some hint to its purpose and value. Norfolk Island is 1600km from Sydney and 1100km from Auckland. Cost of a medical evacuation for a patient in an emergency is quoted at around $40 000. This is sometimes done by the RAAF at taxpayers expense. So it is not hard to see that improving the health of the locals can be a significant benefit. 
Many of the links posted on this topic lead to comment from media shock jocks or journalists seeking sensationalist headlines. Only the most gullible would regard them as having anything meaningful to contribute to an intelligent discussion on AGW.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I've said it before and I'll say it again, we don't have a water shortage,we have an intellectual shortage.

  Yes. On both counts.  
First, the human water security issue.  Taken from a paper, just published in Nature http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture09440.html and summarised on the Web at http://riverthreat.net/  
Of real concern, is that whilst we in Oz have plenty of water for human needs....the health and biodiversity values of the rivers that support this water security....are particularily poor...which threatens the HWS values down the track.  
Dams aren't the answer.  Intelligent use of water is cheaper. 
Which rings me to the 'intellectual shortage' part of the comment... 
....lamentably, much of this thread provides adequate demonstration of the truth behind that observation.

----------


## Dr Freud

Seriously guys, I've been running with the idea that you guys have just been taking the p-ss, but now I'm getting concerned.  It just may be that you actually believe the propaganda you're peddling?   

> The above grant, $130 000/yr for 3 years went to a Dr Egger. There are a few subtle hints, other than the number of zeros, that this does not represent "billions in climate research". Firstly Prof Egger of "gutbusters" is a medical doctor attached to the *health* dept of SCU and has a worked in *health* for many years and written a number of books on *health* issues. Climate research is usually carried out by people with different qualifications who work at universities that actually have climate research depts. 
> A thoughtful look at where this health research is being carried out may give some hint to its purpose and value. Norfolk Island is 1600km from Sydney and 1100km from Auckland. Cost of a medical evacuation for a patient in an emergency is quoted at around $40 000. This is sometimes done by the RAAF at taxpayers expense. So it is not hard to see that improving the health of the locals can be a significant benefit.

  Mate, this is a lovely story, but forgive me for throwing a few facts in the mix.  You seem to think this angelic doctor is pure of soul and conducting this study primarily for the health of all the fat souls out there. Let's take a look at the good doctors grant application:  *LP110100452*  Prof Garry Egger, Prof   Robyn A McDermott, Prof Boyd A Swinburn  *Approved*  *Project Title*  *The Norfolk Island Carbon and Health Evaluation Program: a case   study of personal carbon trading  for   reducing obesity and greenhouse gas emissions*  2011 $170,000.00  2012 $124,000.00  2013 $96,000.00  Primary FoR 0501 ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS  *Partner/Collaborating Organisation(s)* Administration of   Norfolk Island, Greatest Asset Pty Ltd, Sustainable Norfolk  *Administering Organisation* Southern Cross   University   *Project Summary* This project tests a   system of Personal Carbon Trading for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and   improving health. Carbon credit cards given to everyone on Norfolk Island are   designed to financially reward people for reducing energy use (fuel and fatty   food mainly) by increasing walking/cycling and improving nutrition to improve   health 
  Now you may notice under *Primary* FoR (Fields of Research Classification) the good doctor has listed code 0501-Ecological Applications, under division 5 - Environmental Sciences.  This is strange as there is an equally decent code 1111 - Nutrition and dietetics, under division 11 - Medical and Health Sciences, had the good doctor actually intend to primarily study the health issue of obesity. 
Full story here:    1297.0 - Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC), 2008 
and here:  FOR, RFCD, SEO and ANZSIC Codes - Australian Research Council (ARC) 
So, in summary, the good doctor has applied to the Australian Research Council to take our tax dollars under the auspices of studying Ecological Applications of Environmental Sciences. 
If I was a cynic, I'd agree with you that the good doctor is actually studying health issues, but has realised that the AGW Theory gravy train pours money to any study with the buzz words "climate change" or "carbon emissions", so has labelled his study as such to get his hands on our tax dollars. 
It either has to be that, or he is conducting a bona fide environmental study as he has claimed to get his hands on our tax dollars.  I'm not really a cynic, so I'm going with this option.   

> Many of the links posted on this topic lead to comment from media shock jocks or journalists seeking sensationalist headlines. Only the most gullible would regard them as having anything meaningful to contribute to an intelligent discussion on AGW.

  I don't think Southern Cross University would appreciate this description of their media release.  :Biggrin:  
And I like gullible, he was a great sailor and was really nice to the Lilliputians.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Just want to put a few hints out there for people who appear to be experiencing difficulty in interpreting what they see in the media.

  Champion idea mate, here's a few more hints: 
"Should journalists report the views of global warming sceptics - even just for balance? 
  A panel of  top journalists and journalism academics, as chosen by the University of Technology Sydneys far Left Centre of Independent Journalism and broadcast by the ABC, agree that on the whole the answer is ... no, or rarely. 
  Naturally, in accord with their commitment to debate, not one person on the panel is a sceptic, or challenges this group think.     The ABCs Sarah Clarke says she prefers to rely on material given the all clear by the IPCC, and praises the ABC and Fairfax papers for having been two responsible outlets that have been objective on global warming. 
  Monash Universitys Philip Chubb says the debate doesnt need to go outside the halls of climate change. 
  Warmist academic  Anne Henderson-Sellers, who says she sets her students the homework of watching the propagandist _An Inconvenient Truth_ and _The Age of Stupid_ to inform themselves, demands to know why journalists didnt describe Lord Monckton as a fruitcake so her hairdresser wouldnt be so impressed. Chubb calls him a clown.  No one panellist, because of this lack of debate, raises one of the more obvious questions. For instance:   - Where on earth is the evidence that media outlets have given an equal hearing to sceptics? For instance, which sceptical scientist here has got equal media time to Tim Flannery? Which sceptical film maker has received the air time of Al Gore? Which media outlets have backed a sceptical propaganda event as they have Earth Hour? Which media outlets have run sceptical specials as theyve run specials warning of apocalyptic warning? Where is the sceptic on this very panel? 
 - How would these journalists justify treating as the truth, not to be questioned by outsiders, of statements by the IPCC since proved to be false or highly questionable? Are they to be treated as true until the IPCC admits they are not? Are outsiders who point out their error to be ignored unless the IPCC gives the all clear to report them? 
 - How can journalists justify suppressing a debate when even the leading warmist authority, the IPCC, says the chances of its theories of man-made warming being correct are at least a 9 out of ten - which suggests theres perhaps a 10 per cent chance they are wrong? Does this mean the media cannot even report the IPCC scientists who doubt? And how can mere journalists justify ignoring the views of sceptics as learned and prominent in their field as, say, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT? Would these journalists have refused to report the views of Galileo? Of that mere post office worker Einstein? 
   - Why does the astonishingly certain and peremptory  Henderson-Sellers  praise _An Inconvenient Truth_, and use it as a teaching aide, yet demand the media not report the sceptics who have proved that it is in fact riddled with errors and exaggerations? Why must a warmist as untrained and prone to exaggerate as Al Gore be spared scrutiny?"Full story here:  Selling out their craft to the global warming cause | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
And here's some hints from Gillard's Government: 
The Minister for Science, Kim Carr, gave a speech recently in which he had this to say about climate change sceptics:     _We don't have to accord superstition and wishful thinking the same status as science. This is much more than fairness requires and much more than reason permits._   2010 George Munster Award Forum - Big Idea - 4 November 2010 
Hands up anyone who thinks I am superstitious?  :Yeahright:  
Well, the government seems to think name calling is reason enough to silence dissent against their new tax.  I remember the good ol' days when we lived in democracy when free speech was encouraged.   :Censored2:  
Then after a heated debate, the truth shall set us free.  Alas, no heated debate this time.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Dams aren't the answer.  Intelligent use of water is cheaper.

  You mean like this:   
For a good laugh, read Bolt Vs Egger here:  Column - Why you may soon need a warmists permission to eat | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog    

> Which rings me to the 'intellectual shortage' part of the comment... 
> ....lamentably, much of this thread provides adequate demonstration of the truth behind that observation.

  We are pretty cool, eh!  :Coolio:  
We can leave all that thinking stuff to the book learners.  :Smartass:

----------


## woodbe

Thanks for your insight Phil,  

> Many of the links posted on this topic lead to comment from media shock jocks or journalists seeking sensationalist headlines. Only the most gullible would regard them as having anything meaningful to contribute to an intelligent discussion on AGW.

  And thanks Doc for confirming Phil's assertion.    

> Selling out their craft to the global warming cause | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

   

> Column - Why you may soon need a warmists permission to eat | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Two out of three posts by the Doc contain links to sensationalist shock jocks since Phil made the observation. 
Well done both of you!  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Thanks for your insight Phil, 
> And thanks Doc for confirming Phil's assertion.  
> Two out of three posts by the Doc contain links to sensationalist shock jocks since Phil made the observation. 
> Well done both of you!  
> woodbe.

  It warms the cockles of my heart to see the anti-AGW brigade resorting to quoting from Bolt's opinions to support their views.  :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It warms the cockles of my heart to see the anti-AGW brigade resorting to quoting from Bolt's opinions to support their views.

  I feel no warmth......merely sadness....for both the writer for writing such drivel and feeling no pain and the readers that simply swallow the words whole,  without thought, for later regurgitation.  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

It's amazing how you guys are resoundingly silent when asked to prove causality for your failed theory, but you all crawl out of the woodwork ( :Biggrin: ) when it's time for a personal attack on someone.  I guess when you've absolutely failed to prove your case scientifically, and now it is failing rapidly politically, you must take some comfort from name calling and belittling others.  :Gossip:    

> Originally Posted by *PhilT2*   _Many of the links posted on this topic lead to comment from media shock jocks or journalists seeking sensationalist headlines. Only the most gullible would regard them as having anything meaningful to contribute to an intelligent discussion on AGW._

   

> Two out of three posts by the Doc contain links to sensationalist shock jocks since Phil made the observation. 
> woodbe.

   

> It warms the cockles of my heart to see the anti-AGW brigade resorting to quoting from Bolt's opinions to support their views.

   

> I feel no warmth......merely sadness....for both the writer for writing such drivel and feeling no pain and the readers that simply swallow the words whole,  without thought, for later regurgitation.

  At least there's no risk of scientific content in there.  :Wink 1:  
When you're done with the ad hominem, maybe you could dig up some facts to lend at least a little credibility to your failed theory.  
But now I'm going to cry cos you hurt my feelings... :Bigcry:

----------


## PhilT2

> you must take some comfort from name calling and belittling others.

  Checked out the comments on Bolts site recently? Apart from the abuse and death threats there is real paranoia there. They are really terrified that the nasty leftie commo socialist gubment will put a big tax on everything, like all goods and services and....oh wait...

----------


## PhilT2

Naomi Oreskes is coming to Brisbane flogging her new book "Merchants of Doubt"   Naomi Oreskes - Insights Seminar - The Global Change Institute - The University of Queensland, Australia
I think it's free and there's food... 
Anyone know if she is worth listening to?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Sheez Doc You have been busy, well unfortunately so have I, hence my absence from the thread. 
Can't see anything changing this side of Xmas to I'm afraid.  However I did come across this catchy tune. 
Enjoy. 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - I'm A Denier[/ame]

----------


## chrisp

> Naomi Oreskes is coming to Brisbane flogging her new book "Merchants of Doubt"   Naomi Oreskes - Insights Seminar - The Global Change Institute - The University of Queensland, Australia
> I think it's free and there's food... 
> Anyone know if she is worth listening to?

  I have no idea what she is like as a speaker, but if you are in the area, I'd suggest you go along. 
Oreskes is the one who has been comparing the number of research papers that pro-AGW to those that are anti-AGW.

----------


## woodbe

> you all crawl out of the woodwork () when it's time for a personal attack on someone.

  That's because you present such a large target Doc.  :Biggrin:  
Besides. Phil is right. He's only stating the obvious. You DO post an awful lot of opinion quotes from shock jock merchants and very little science, and that's only when you're not posting politics  :Wink:  
Back on topic Doc, this will make your day: UN calls for higher taxes to fund climate warning fight - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Checked out the comments on Bolts site recently?

  Checked 'em out? I wrote most of them.  :Biggrin:  
Nah, just kidding, I barely have enough time to harass this poor thread.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Anyone know if she is worth listening to?

  I would be interested in hearing her opinions.  They sound interesting: 
"aided by a too-compliant media" 
She believes the media is biased *towards* sceptics?  :Doh:  
"a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge" 
I've been *misled* by this cabal?  :Doh:  
"some of the same figures who have claimed that the science of global warming is not settled " 
Does she preach that the science is *settled*?  :Doh:  
"75 percent of the examined  abstracts either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view" 
Does she truly believe counting abstracts is *proof* of a scientific law?  :Doh:  
So if you do go, I'd be interested in getting her full story.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Sheez Doc You have been busy, well unfortunately so have I, hence my absence from the thread. 
> Can't see anything changing this side of Xmas to I'm afraid.  However I did come across this catchy tune.

  These guys are hilarious.  :Biggrin:  
But I'll keep plugging away here mate, you're probably in the pre-Christmas rush that seems to have started early this year.  :2thumbsup:  
If I do disappear, I'll probably just be in a Canberra basement getting some "Climate re-education".  :Grumble:  :Whip:

----------


## Dr Freud

> That's because you present such a large target Doc. 
> woodbe.

  Ah yes, the price I pay for fighting evil doers all over the world.  It's just me and Team America left now.  Thankfully you guys only got Al Gore and not "Alec Baldwin".   

> Besides. Phil is right. He's only stating the obvious. You DO post an awful lot of opinion quotes from shock jock merchants and *very little science*, and that's only when you're not posting politics 
> woodbe.

  I hope it's becoming apparent to everyone that when it comes to AGW Theory, there is *very little science*! 
But there are heaps of "experts" running around trying to convince us the science is incontrovertible.  Every time I meet one of these "experts", they have a very hard time explaining to me exactly what this incontrovertible science is.  :Confused:  
In terms of politics, that's exactly what this whole debacle is about, as your link proves.   

> Back on topic Doc, this will make your day: UN calls for higher taxes to fund climate warning fight - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
> woodbe.

  Not a single iota of information in this article about reducing global temperatures, is there?  Not one word about scientific outcomes, is there?  Not even the hint of global Carbon Dioxide reductions, is there? 
But what *is* in there, is socialist wealth redistribution with zero environment outcomes: 
"They proposed that the price of carbon emissions of between 20 and 25 dollars a tonne by 2020, when *the United Nations hopes to have 100 billion dollars a year available for the fund for developing nations*." 
So we pay lots of taxes for living lavish lifestyles, and this money goes to developing nations.  I'm just curious, where's the accountability?  Where's the guaranteed environmental outcomes?   
"The UN chief said there was "a gap of trust between developed and developing countries, that is why the (climate) negotiations have not been going very well."" 
Gee, I wonder why?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

This whole article is a great read.  The writing is on the wall my friends, and it doesn't look good for us Aussies.  Prime Minister's crisis of authority | The Australian 
Here's just a sample: 
"...President Barack Obama, in response to the mid-term election defeat, announced he would not proceed with "cap and trade" legislation, but would look for "other means" to confront climate change, thereby undermining Gillard's push to price carbon... 
...Yet Gillard has pledged to a carbon price as proof of her economic reform credentials. That means an Australian price without any US congress-approved price. It is almost certainly an impossible call. Tony Abbott will renew his campaign with fresh and simple ammunition: "If Obama says no, than Australia should say no." Understand the magnitude of Gillard's dilemma: she must press ahead or fall away. 
Pressing ahead will accentuate the lift in electricity prices and falling away will confirm Labor as a party in a systemic crisis over belief and commitment..." 
And this was the good news in the article.  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Did you notice Tony Jones' misguided optimism? 
> "...action on climate change. It's a very big deal in the rest of the world." 
> Really? 
> China = No deal
> India = No deal
> USA = No deal
> Australia = No deal 
> So Tony, which "rest of the world" exactly is it a "big deal" in?  Maybe in all the countries due to receive "Climate Aid" from us mugs?

   

> "They proposed that the price of carbon emissions of between 20 and 25 dollars a tonne by 2020, when *the United Nations hopes to have 100 billion dollars a year available for the fund for developing nations*."

  Score check:  
South Korea = No deal
Taiwan = No deal  *"SOUTH Korea and Taiwan are managing to produce cheaper power than Australia, even though they have to ship the Australian coal that fires their furnaces.                 *   
In self-sufficient Australia, households are paying one-third more for electricity than those in Taiwan and South Korea - two of the biggest buyers of Australian coal... 
..."They look upon the power sector as meeting the needs of the economy at a low price. But in Australia, the energy sector has become something of a plaything for politicians."... 
...Asciano chairman Malcolm Broomhead, who is a BHP Billiton board member, predicted that power prices would soar as Australia put a price on carbon... 
...The federal government's Australian Energy Regulator, which regulates the nation's wholesale electricity market, warned this week that consumers faced blackouts unless they paid more for power..."  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1225948045127  
Cool huh!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> No wonder we can't afford those solar power plants, huh.

   
Definitely not looking good for that renewable energy spending mate:   His comments came as his predecessor as chief executive, Future Fund chairman David Murray, backed the arguments of the major banks and said the federal government could help to reduce pressure by cutting its budget deficit.  "The deficit should be eliminated as soon as possible to reduce its draw on the debt markets," Mr Murray said.   Reducing the deficit?   The government has gambled its economic credentials on its plan to drag the budget out of the red by 2013, making this a core promise of this year's election campaign.  It raided the surplus it inherited in 2007 to help Australia through a global financial crisis that left other developed nations in recession. But its return-to-surplus pledge is already under pressure, with the budget deficit hitting a record $63.3bn in the year to September as a result of soaring government spending and stagnant revenue.   Oops!  :Sweat:   Giant Carbon Dioxide Tax to the rescue?

----------


## Dr Freud

> This farce is unraveling more every day.  Farmers pay for this anti-human agenda. But Windsor hangs up | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  After this farce that destroyed farmers votes, it's time to buy some back, as usual under the auspices of environmental salvation: 
"The Federal Government will provide close to a billion dollars to northern Victorian irrigators to improve their water efficiency."  PM unveils irrigation package for Vic farmers - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
I don't know why it's only in Victoria.  Are you guys having an election soon or something?  But who really cares, another billion borrowed from China we will pay interest on. Are you starting to get the idea that these loonies have no idea what they are doing.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

*"THE federal government is facing a raft of legal claims stemming from its disastrous green loans and home insulation programs... * ...Since February there have been 159 claims for compensation over the green loans program, according to the incoming government brief from the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency... 
...There are also 14 separate legal matters outstanding in relation to the scheme, says the brief released after a Freedom of Information request from The Weekend Australian... 
...The government announced it would spend over $400 million to conduct safety checks of every house that received insulation under the scheme. In addition to the safety checks of the more than 200,000 households that received insulation under the program, the department has received 20 separate legal claims since February... 
...The report released yesterday also identifies potentially serious problems with the government's so-called "cash for clunkers" scheme, under which motorists receive a $2000 rebate if they trade in a car manufactured before 1995 for a new one with the necessary greenhouse rating. The department observes "it will be important that a rigorous fraud prevention, investigation and prosecution mechanism be incorporated from program conception"."  Legal claims follow green bungle | The Australian 
It'd be hilarious if you weren't paying for it, wouldn't it?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Soon your kids will come home accusing you of being planet killers and trying to drown them, if they don't already.  *"CLIMATE change documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth' will be included in the national curriculum as part of a bid to educate students on environmental sustainability across all subjects. "*  Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth included in school curriculum | Herald Sun 
I wonder if it will be issued with the disclaimer required in the UK due to it's politicised message and lack of scientific credibility? 
          "Al Gore's environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday.  The judge declined to ban the Academy Award-winning film from British schools, but ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes to *prevent political indoctrination*.  But the judge ruled that the *"apocalyptic vision"* presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.  It is, he ruled, *a "political film"*."  Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths' - Telegraph  
Hmmm, political indoctrination of apocalyptic visions.  Just what young impressionable minds need?  :No:   
"Labor MP Kelvin Thomson had a different opinion.  "I think that the more people who are exposed to An Inconvenient Truth the better," he said, adding it was consistent with serious scientific opinion.  Another Labor MP, Amanda Rishworth, and independent Andrew Wilkie also backed the film's inclusion."  MPs at odds over An Inconvenient Truth in school curriculum | The Australian 
What a bunch of w-nkers.  Can't they at least leave the kids alone.

----------


## Dr Freud

How could I go a day without upsetting someone.  This is hilarious, and the fulls stories are at the links.  You too can also contribute to the poll at the survey link, or read all the results at the results link: 
"I doubt that  _Scientific American_ expected these results from its survey of readers after all its alarmist preaching:    
  (Thanks to half a dozen laughing readers,)"   Readers in revolt against warmist magazine | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog  
For the statisticians out there, the percentages over 100 have multiple responses possible.  Typical shoddy statistics from those AGW Theory scientists.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> "They proposed that the price of carbon emissions of between 20 and 25 dollars a tonne by 2020, when *the United Nations hopes to have 100 billion dollars a year available for the fund for developing nations*."

   

> The government has gambled its economic credentials on its plan to drag the budget out of the red by 2013, making this a core promise of this year's election campaign.  It raided the surplus it inherited in 2007 to help Australia through a global financial crisis that left other developed nations in recession. But its return-to-surplus pledge is already under pressure, with the budget deficit hitting a record $63.3bn in the year to September as a result of soaring government spending and stagnant revenue.

  
That's some big numbers getting thrown around there.  And how much are we spending on developing solar energy? 
"The Federal Government is investing *$50 million* on joint solar power research projects with the US, to cut the cost of the technology to that of conventional power sources."  Clinton, Gillard announce solar partnership - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
WOW! Staggering.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  
We would probably be solar powered now if we didn't waste billions on the many other failed green schemes such as this one:  Green is the mantra of Gillard the gullible | The Daily Telegraph 
And you guys want me to trust these bozo's to cool down an entire planet?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Clinton, Gillard announce solar partnership - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  And there was also this little gem in this article: 
"...Ms Clinton also said US president Barack Obama's decision to abandon his climate change policy should not stop other countries tackling the issue... 
..Julia Gillard agreed, saying the Government is still determined to put a price on carbon.  "We will determine our own national strategy in our own national interest," she said..."  
Can one of you AGW Theory supporters please email Joolia and explain what the G in the theory stands for.   Alternatively, we can change it to Anthropogenic National Warming (ANW) Theory to better fit her ideology?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Freud-y 
If you spent half as much time reading and thinking about the scientific literature with respect to our world in general as you seem to doing trawling and regurgitating the opinions of the 'Spawn of Murdoch' and the 'Acolytes of Eight Cents Auntie' then you might.....just might...have an opinion that is a) demonstrably your own and b) has a level of credibility that is a very great step above the level of giggling inanity.  
You might also be able to tell the difference between the science behind our climate and the politics about our climate.......frankly, the links you've provided in recent days all serve to demonstrate that the intellectual gap between them is widening all the time.  
We all agree (I think) that the politics of this debate are knackered, stupid and wrong headed........and probably unfixable.  That's what Rod was having a well justified whinge about way back on Day One when he gave a well justified smash to the ETS as it was then proposed. Nothing proposed (or done) since by our political friends (at any level or any flavour) has been any better. 
As for the AGW science......you don't agree with it. And after a couple of hundred pages worth of thorough but very subtle experimental testing by myself and my collaborative team on your attitude and technique (there weren't enough opinions to meaningful statistical analysis)...my scientific conclusion is that there's bugger all any of us can do about that. 
If you'd like to read the paper.....you can access it online but unfortunately you'll have to pay a US$32 one time access fee....because research and peer review is expensive and we have to have cost recovery somehow....such is the way of our self centred and self serving human selves and the system we serve. 
Therefore, might I humbly suggest that you simply accept our conclusion and move on?

----------


## Dr Freud

So much material, so little time.  I'll just try some bits:   

> Freud-y

  I like that, kinda reminds me of "Spidey".    

> then you might.....just might...have an opinion that is a) demonstrably your own and b) has a level of credibility that is a very great step above the level of giggling inanity.

  But that's the joy of opinions, no matter how plagiarised and unsubstantiated, they are all still just opinions.  Some researchers now even survey these to lay claim to scientific credibility.  :Shock:   I would never afford opinions such lofty virtues.    

> You might also be able to tell the difference between the science behind our climate and the politics about our climate.......frankly, the links you've provided in recent days all serve to demonstrate that the intellectual gap between them is widening all the time.

  We've covered this before, but just for those who came in late: "Some" scientists "believe" in a particular theory, but they can't prove it scientifically.  If anything, all recent scientific data refutes their theory, and they don't like this.  Search "hide the decline" and "travesty" in this thread for more details.  :Wink 1:   
But enough about the science, politicians are the people endowed with the authority to enact solutions to this "alleged" issue, and they don't believe the scientist's BS, cos they haven't done anything to fix the "alleged" issue.  Now don't get me wrong, lots of them say they "believe" but they actually don't.  This is called politics, we normal people call it BS.  You see, if they actually believed all humanity was about to be wiped out, and had the power to stop this, but did nothing to stop it, they would be psychopaths.  :Biggrin:     

> We all agree (I think) that the politics of this debate are knackered, stupid and wrong headed........and probably unfixable. That's what Rod was having a well justified whinge about way back on Day One when he gave a well justified smash to the ETS as it was then proposed. Nothing proposed (or done) since by our political friends (at any level or any flavour) has been any better.

  Hell yeh, and don't you just love me pointing out these moronic hypocrites antics?   

> As for the AGW science......you don't agree with it.

  See, here you guys go again, getting all these concepts confused.  Science is not something you get to agree with or disagree with, it just is.  But let's break it down so I understand what you are getting at.  In terms of an effect, lets say temperature measurements, these are very inaccurate and their compilation methods are extremely arbitrary.  But we are slowly getting better at this.  I don't have the luxury of agreeing or disagreeing with the amount of energy in the system.  But if you think we currently measure and compile this energy 100% accurately, I have some news for you. 
Now in terms of causes, if by "AGW science", you are referring to the computer models currently relied upon for attribution, then you are entirely correct.  But if you consider some boffins programming a computer with their assumptions to spit out an answer they want "AGW science", then good luck to you.  :Biggrin:    

> If you'd like to read the paper.....you can access it online but unfortunately you'll have to pay a US$32 one time access fee....because research and peer review is expensive and we have to have cost recovery somehow....such is the way of our self centred and self serving human selves and the system we serve.

  You guys are just trying to provoke me now.  :Biggrin:  
I know how expensive all this research is, what the hell do you think I've been trying to point out.  It's out f---ing tax dollars paying for heaps of this sh--.  Now you want us to pay extra to get the results of what we likely paid for in the first place.   And these scientists would rather see the world destroyed than lose 32 bucks? 
Who are you people? 
Oh yeh, you might want to point out to the US President that for just 32 bucks he could access TOP SECRET info to convince the US Congress to pass his ETS.  Maybe some AGW Theory supporter could have coughed up 32 bucks before Copenhagen and got a global deal with this TOP SECRET info.   
Seriously, who are you people?   

> Therefore, might I humbly suggest that you simply accept our conclusion and move on?

  Like the title says, you could convince me to believe in tooth fairies, but this wouldn't make them real. 
Might I humbly suggest that you simply accept reality?  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

I have a [s]dream[/s] nightmare... 
Obama 2008:  ...Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that...this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...  
Obama 2010:   

> "...Ms Clinton also said US president Barack Obama's decision to abandon his climate change policy should not stop other countries tackling the issue...

  Long live the King, for Obama rightly will be judged for the content of his character.  :Cool:

----------


## Dr Freud

"The last ARC grant Science Minister Kim Carr announced was $390,000 to study how to put us all on carbon rations. This week comes another just as startling - at least in dollar figures:   _TAXPAYERS will fork out $24 million for boffins to study emotions from hundreds of years ago while mental health research in modern Australia is desperately underfunded. "_  $24 million to study how people freaked at the Black Death? Im freaking now. | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog  
Do you reckon we'll have to pay 32 bucks to be able to read these reports as well.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

According to Joolia, Rudd had lost his way.  If this was her benchmark, she's followed the loony green brick road to the Bermuda Triangle:  
"Saving the planet really is turning out to be too expensive even for Julia Gillard:   _THE cash-for-clunkers scheme will be delayed by six months as the Gillard government seeks savings ahead of the mid-year economic review. _   
 Meanwhile, Julia Gillard recklessly ploughs on with her even more disastrous promise to give us an emissions trading scheme - or a carbon tax - even though President Barack Obama has now conceded that the US is joining China and India in not going ahead with any such schemes of their own:   _PRIME Minister Julia Gillard has flagged she wont be deterred from pursuing a carbon price by President Barack Obamas decision to formally abandon his efforts to implement an emissions trading scheme..._  _We will determine our own national strategy in our own national interest. I believe it is in Australias interest to tackle climate change, and it is in Australias interest to make sure we transform our economy to a low-pollution, low-carbon economy._  _The world is moving in that direction, it will require it of other economies, it will impact [on] competition, how people trade, what they buy. We cant afford to have our economy fall behind._  The world is moving in that direction? What planet is Gillard on? The very reason shes forced to make this statement is that Obama has just admitted the US is _not_ moving in that direction, and - far from our economy falling behind well be out in front, like a shag on rock, making sacrifices our competitors have no intention of making themselves. "    Yet another Gillard promise off to the junkyard | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## woodbe

Thought it might be time to post some facts here rather than opinion and Andre Bolt excerpts.   
That's the October sea ice _area_ trend from NSIDC Sea Ice News   
And that's the calculated total ice _volume_ trend (PIOMAS) from the same source.   

> Ice extent measurements provide a long-term view of the state of Arctic  sea ice, but they only show the ice surface. Total ice volume is  critical to the complete picture of sea ice decline. Numerous studies  indicate that sea ice thickness and volume have declined along with ice  extent;  unfortunately, there are no continuous, Arctic-wide  measurements of sea ice volume. To fill that gap, scientists at the  University of Washington have developed regularly updated estimates of  ice volume, using a model called the Pan Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS).

  Lastly, I refer you to a guest article on Watt's site by Dr Walt Meier in which he discusses many of the often repeated sceptic memes regarding the vanishing arctic ice.  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Seems like there is a bubble about to burst.  Wonder how the EU carbon exchange will go in the next few years?  Considering it is based on mandatory carbon exchanges under the Kyoto agreement that some fools rushed in and committed themselve to,  See that ends in 2012 with no replacement either in sight or required. 
Might be some nervous nellies around perhaps?   Pajamas Media » If Al Gore’s Chicago Climate Exchange Suffers Total Failure, Does the MSM Make a Sound?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> originally posted by *nsidc*  _ice extent measurements provide a long-term view of the state of arctic sea ice, but they only show the ice surface. Total ice volume is critical to the complete picture of sea ice decline. Numerous studies indicate that sea ice thickness and volume have declined along with ice extent; unfortunately, there are no continuous, arctic-wide measurements of sea ice volume. To fill that gap, scientists at the university of washington have developed regularly updated estimates of ice volume, using a model called the pan arctic ice ocean modeling and assimilation system (piomas)._

  How convienient the 30 year ice extent data does not obey the faithfull, so they invent another model to paint the disaster picture, using a different guide.   
Hmm now why dont you do the same thing with the antartic ice?? 
You really are easily conned.  Want to buy a bridge?

----------


## woodbe

> How convienient the 30 year ice extent data does not obey the faithfull, so they invent another model to paint the disaster picture, using a different guide.   
> Hmm now why dont you do the same thing with the antartic ice?? 
> You really are easily conned.  Want to buy a bridge?

  Rod mate, the 30 year trend is in rapid decline, and the 'another model' merely confirms the trend and extends it to total volume. If that was your savings account you'd be screaming at the bank manager and looking for another bank. 
Try actually reading Meier's piece on your beloved WUWT site.  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod mate, the 30 year trend is in rapid decline, and the 'another model' merely confirms the trend and extends it to total volume. If that was your savings account you'd be screaming at the bank manager and looking for another bank. 
> Try actually reading Meier's piece on your beloved WUWT site.  
> woodbe.

  Oh Mate, quite seriously, 30 years of "rapid decline" is of zero consequence over the billions of years the earth has been here. More so when it has been demonstrated that the decline has been due to prevailing wind and ocean currents rather than an increace in temps. 
This is a shocking example to put up as proof of warming temperatures, even if it was entirely due to rising temps, it does nothing to connect CO2 as the cause.  
Not when at the same time ice in the ANTartic has been increasing. So globally there is not much change. 
The 30 year period put up as evidence is so ludicrous, it is laughable, when you consider evidece of similar low ice extents are confirmed as happening in the past. EG sailing ships navigating the NWP etc,  
This really insults intelligence IMO and shows a bit of scurrilous cherry picking, by not providing the full global ice extents both present and past. 
Actually your analogy on similar relevant time scales would more likey be like me putting $1000 in my bank account at 20 years ago when interest rates were 10% then going back to day as screaming at the bank manager because now I'm only getting 3%. Maybe I dont look now but in 20 years time and see the rate is still 10% I think beauty I'm still getting 10% not realizing or considering that it was either above or below this rate in the past.  
Hey thanks for the tip on the analogy works great in the right context eh!  
Bit like climate one would think!!

----------


## Dr Freud

> The 30 year period put up as evidence is so ludicrous, it is laughable, when you consider evidece of similar low ice extents are confirmed as happening in the past. EG sailing ships navigating the NWP etc,  
> This really insults intelligence IMO and shows a bit of scurrilous cherry picking, by not providing the full global ice extents both present and past.

  Well said. 
Cherry pick an effect out of context, then just assume a cause. 
Welcome to the theory people.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Seems like there is a bubble about to burst.  Wonder how the EU carbon exchange will go in the next few years?  Considering it is based on mandatory carbon exchanges under the Kyoto agreement that some fools rushed in and committed themselve to,  See that ends in 2012 with no replacement either in sight or required. 
> Might be some nervous nellies around perhaps?   Pajamas Media » If Al Gores Chicago Climate Exchange Suffers Total Failure, Does the MSM Make a Sound?

  Who coulda figured this, an artificial financial derivatives scheme based on trading fresh air would fail?  :Doh:    

> You really are easily conned.  Want to buy a bridge?

  You're too late mate, they spent all their money on banking "carbon credits" and 100% offsetting their rampant CO2 lifestyles.  :Biggrin:  
Either that or they're hypocrites.  :Confused:

----------


## woodbe

> Actually your analogy on similar relevant time scales would more likey be like me putting $1000 in my bank account at 20 years ago when interest rates were 10% then going back to day as screaming at the bank manager because now I'm only getting 3%. Maybe I dont look now but in 20 years time and see the rate is still 10% I think beauty I'm still getting 10% not realizing or considering that it was either above or below this rate in the past.

  None so blind as those who will not see.   

> Figure 3. Monthly October ice extent for 1979 to 2010 shows a decline of 6.2% per decade

  Put $1000 in the bank 30 years ago and suffer those rates and it would be worth just over $800 today. The bit you seem to have missed is that the rate is negative - it's not the difference between 10% and 3% at all, the bank is taking your money. 
Read what Meier says about the Antarctic - it's not growing at anything like the rate the Arctic is receding, and in any case your 'team' has been denying that the Arctic has been decreasing at all so we've witnessed a bit of a quiet turn around here too.   

> Oh Mate, quite seriously, 30 years of "rapid decline" is of zero  consequence over the billions of years the earth has been here. More so  when it has been demonstrated that the decline has been due to  prevailing wind and ocean currents rather than an increace in temps.

  Really? You definitely didn't read Meier's piece. The 'wind and current' meme could not possibly account for the sustained multiyear loss. 
If you're happy ignoring rapid changes to the climate, ingore the reasons and sources of those changes clearly and repeatedly, independantly, confirmed in the science, blindly accept opinions over science, then you are insulting your own intelligence. 
Just in case it hasn't occurred to you, we weren't around billions of years ago. 
Would _you_ like to buy a bridge? 
Woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Woodbe....you're merely picking at scabs.   
If you are really patient....then...in time...they fall off by themselves.  So you might be best leaving them be - it's not like they are hurting anyone. 
Then again.....scabs can be tasty. 
So why not.... 
From the Climate Spectator Pricing carbon: More carrot, less stick | Climate Spectator   

> Pricing carbon: More carrot, less stick
> Published 12:45 PM, 9 Nov 2010
> Updated 7:18 AM, 10 Nov 2010 
> Michael Molitor 
> "Later this week two business meetings to discuss a carbon price have been scheduled by the federal government. One is being held under the auspices of the Parliamentary Committee on Climate Change and the other has been convened by Greens deputy leader Christine Milne.
> This process is unlikely to lead to a meaningful result for the simple reason that only the Greens want to see a sufficiently high carbon price emerge – everyone else will be pushing for a price and policy mechanism that will have little effect on Australia’s carbon emissions.
> The default position for a country that makes most of its export earnings selling thermal and coking coal, and which produces most of its baseload electricity burning black and brown coal, is to do nothing about carbon emissions.
> To appease the large number of people who are concerned about carbon emissions and climate change, this do-nothing government strategy includes some high profile announcements about climate change programs and numerous committees exploring the problem. 
> This was exactly the strategy undertaken by the Howard government. The joint announcement of the US and Australia this past weekend to provide insignificant funding for renewable energy and carbon capture technologies is much of the same; do nothing but make it appear as though progress is being made.
> ...

----------


## Dr Freud

> If you're happy ignoring rapid changes to the climate, ingore the reasons and sources of those changes clearly and repeatedly, independantly, *confirmed in the science*, blindly accept opinions over science, then you are insulting your own intelligence. 
> Woodbe.

  I assume by this wishy washy double speak you are trying to give the illusion that there is some sort of scientific credibility to AGW Theory? 
Or are you actually claiming that a causal relationship has been established?  We're not ignoring this, we just missed it.  Damn it, shoulda paid the 32 bucks.  :Wink 1:    

> Just in case it hasn't occurred to you, we weren't around billions of years ago. 
> Woodbe.

  Just in case it hasn't occurred to you, the climate was.  Pretty handy for comparing "unprecedented" climate changes don't you think?   
And as for the issue of the Arctic changes, are you for real?  Here's a fact for you.  The Arctic ice and climate, as for every other climate metric, will always be changing.  Depending on the arbitrary time scale used, the metric will be up or down. 
The main issue for your supported theory is it claims to know exactly why all these things change, yet is unable to prove this claim.  :No:    

> Would _you_ like to buy a bridge? 
> Woodbe.

  I'm trying to build one between AGW Theory and credibility.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> From the Climate Spectator Pricing carbon: More carrot, less stick | Climate Spectator

   

> Michael Molitor 
> "Later this week two business meetings to discuss a carbon price have been scheduled by the federal government. One is being held under the auspices of the Parliamentary Committee on Climate Change and the other has been convened by Greens deputy leader Christine Milne. 
> This process is unlikely to lead to a meaningful result for the simple reason that:

  A) The current government is inept; 
B) The Greens are ideological zealots; 
C) The world's main Carbon Dioxide emitting nations are currently all increasing emissions; 
D) Reality is uncompromising; 
E) All of the above.  
Here's a hint: E   :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> I assume by this wishy washy double speak you are trying to give the illusion that there is some sort of scientific credibility to AGW Theory?

  Mate, we've been there before. Where's my signature gone. 
The weight of science already supports AGW. The theory is there to be disproven, yet somehow it continues to stand. Now, if there was no scientific credibility for the theory this would simply not be the case. 
The science continues to support the theory every day a new paper is released, and as we know from our discussions of the scientific process, the theory is falsifiable and yet it has not been. 
Time to give your contrarian scientists a kick up the backside I reckon. If your opinion was correct it would be a walk in the park for them to slam dunk AGW theory. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> A) The current government is inept; 
> B) The Greens are ideological zealots; 
> C) The world's main Carbon Dioxide emitting nations are currently all increasing emissions; 
> D) Reality is uncompromising; 
> E) All of the above.  
> Here's a hint: E

  What on Earth made you think we needed a hint, Freud? You won't get any argument from me with respect to your simplistic observations quoted above. Only the underlying mechanisms...

----------


## chrisp

> More so when it has been demonstrated that the decline has been due to prevailing wind and ocean currents rather than an increace in temps.

  I wonder how the "prevailing wind and ocean currents" explains the increase in sea level?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I wonder how the "prevailing wind and ocean currents" explains the increase in sea level?

    
How do you explain it? Appears to be leveling out to me!!

----------


## Dr Freud

> I wonder how the "prevailing wind and ocean currents" explains the increase in sea level?

  I'll tell you how I explain it.  It's well within natural ocean level changes and accords with all pre-industrial trends. 
Remember this:    

> Comparison of two sea level reconstructions during the last 500 Ma. The scale of change during the last glacial/interglacial transition is indicated with a black bar. *Note that over most of geologic history, long-term average sea level has been significantly higher than today.* 
> Learn more here:  Sea level - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
> The inconvenient truth indeed!

  And I've posted this biased but informative link before:  USGS FS 002-00: Sea Level and Climate 
Reality is a real b-tch, ain't it?

----------


## Dr Freud

Bout time we had nuclear energy generation in the mix:  Gillard makes the case for nuclear power in Australia | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## chrisp

> How do you explain it? Appears to be leveling out to me!!

  Are you sure?

----------


## chrisp

> I'll tell you how I explain it.  It's well within natural ocean level changes and accords with all pre-industrial trends. 
> Reality is a real b-tch, ain't it?

  No, what you are doing is trying to confuse the matter with your reference to geologic time scales.  If you go back far enough in time you can have any temperature, CO2 level or sea-level you like.  We are presently living in the third atmosphere of earth.   
Yes, there has has been variations in the past - and there will also be in the future - due the natural causes.  What we are talking about here is mankind's influence on the atmosphere.  Mankind's influence has only seriously kicked in in the last 100 years or so (the industrial age).  This is why we can measure the abrupt changes in the environment (sea-level, temperature, CO2, etc.) - and we we can be certain that the changes are man-made. 
Are you arguing that the changes are (i) not man-made; or (ii) that the man-made changes are relatively insignificant relative to something in the geologic past?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> No, what you are doing is trying to confuse the matter with your reference to geologic time scales. If you go back far enough in time you can have any temperature, CO2 level or sea-level you like. We are presently living in the third atmosphere of earth.  
> Yes, there has has been variations in the past - and there will also be in the future - due the natural causes. What we are talking about here is mankind's influence on the atmosphere. Mankind's influence has only seriously kicked in in the last 100 years or so (the industrial age). This is why we can measure the abrupt changes in the environment (sea-level, temperature, CO2, etc.) - and we we can be certain that the changes are man-made. 
> Are you arguing that the changes are (i) not man-made; or (ii) that the man-made changes are relatively insignificant relative to something in the geologic past?

  I think natural changes wins hands down. Now where is your proof it is man made? 
Crikey we have been changing all the time.  Do you really thingk we can have a static climate?  If so who are you trying to kid. 
You cant fool all the people.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here you go boys some easy money for you!  http://ia700200.us.archive.org/0/ite...56for-post.PDF 
Go get it.  when you claim I will have a bit more respect for your argument.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Seems as though not everyone agrees with  CSIRO!   

> With regard to sea level, I have come to the view the IPCC and Australian Bureau of Meteorology, run by CSIRO, are unreliable sources of data after critically assessing their statements on this subject for some time. Direct studies of sea level are showing only small rises. You can see the sea level data for yourself for the United States and a few other countries here. Most stations show a rise of sea level of about 2mm per year, but note the considerable variation even within a single state.

  Full link No cause for alarm - On Line Opinion - 11/11/2010 
Enjoy.

----------


## chrisp

> Seems as though not everyone agrees with  CSIRO!   
> Full link No cause for alarm - On Line Opinion - 11/11/2010 
> Enjoy.

  There seem to be quite a few errors with the opinion:  The Australian BoM isn't "run by CSIRO".Taking a few sea-level reading trends does not make a global mean.Oh, and the graphs with the CSIRO logo - did you check where the data actually came from?  Hint - read the footnotes on the graph.
Anyway, the article is just opinion that uses cherry-picked data.

----------


## intertd6

> Are you sure?

  Mmmmmmmm, so what would explain this amount of sea level rise when the only places of water retention cabable of giving rises of this amount are antartica & greenland, which are not releasing water within a fraction of this amount, other variables maybe??
Ps; sea ice makes SFA difference to sea levels as its sea water anyway with less than 10% above the surface of the ocean
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> ... the theory is falsifiable and yet it has not been... 
> woodbe.

  So, all theories that are yet to be falsified are now regarded as scientific fact? 
I must have missed that one in kindergarten science class.  :Doh:  
Then, based on this assumption, we must spend trillions acting as if all these yet to be falsified theories were real, and all deserved mitigating strategies?  
I must have missed that one in kindergarten economics class.  :Doh:  
Creating a theory is *theorising* about what *might* be happening. 
Now, let's try again, anyone can come up with a theory.  Then when they prove it, it becomes a fact.  This theory my friend is fast turning into a farce.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> What on Earth made you think we needed a hint, Freud?

  Some of the posts in this thread made me think you guys needed a hint.  They are off the planet, so definitely not on Earth.  :Biggrin:    

> You won't get any argument from me with respect to your simplistic observations quoted above.

  I am a simple man.   

> Only the underlying mechanisms...

  I'm not sure what these are, but would be particularly interested in the mechanisms underlying reality?  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> No, what you are doing is trying to confuse the matter with your reference to geologic time scales.

  There is not just two time scales of 30 years and geological time scales.  That's why I used the word all.   

> This is why we can measure the abrupt changes in the environment (sea-level, temperature, CO2, etc.) - and we we can be certain that the changes are man-made.

  Certain? Really?  You're a famous wordsmith:  *1.*  Definite; fixed: *2.*  Sure to come or happen; inevitable: *3.*  Established beyond doubt or question; indisputable: 
Or do you use it in the mathematical certainty, meaning 100%? 
Once again, I must have missed this "science".  Gotta save me up that 32 bucks.   

> Are you arguing that the changes are (i) not man-made; or (ii) that the man-made changes are relatively insignificant relative to something in the geologic past?

  I'm arguing that you support a flawed and failing theory that requires faith to sustain it in the absence of scientific proof. 
You adherents are big fans of constantly saying "the science is so strong" yet no world leaders are willing to act on this.  Even when asked to present any evidence here proving this theory, pro-AGW Theory adherents consistently produce *zero* evidence.  What they do produce is an effect out of context, then try to mind-f-ck people into "believing" human carbon dioxide emissions is the sole "cause" of all their cited planetary woes.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Here you go boys some easy money for you!  http://ia700200.us.archive.org/0/ite...56for-post.PDF 
> Go get it.  when you claim I will have a bit more respect for your argument.

  This money is safer than putting it in Fort Knox.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

You guys are very easily confused.  You don't seem to understand that an opinion piece can consist solely of opinions, or can contain facts which the author then also presents his or her opinion on.  Similar to posts in this thread.  But hey, we've danced to this tune before and you still don't know the steps.   

> The Australian BoM isn't "run by CSIRO".

  My reading of this was that he was indicting the "data" was run by CSIRO in their models.  Admittedly it was a very badly worded sentence, but hey, that's modern journalism for you.  If you email Cliff I'm sure he'll clear it up.  If he thinks the United Nations is run by Australia's CSIRO, I'd be very surprised.  But then some of these egg-heads don't get out much: 
"Emeritus Professor Cliff Ollier is a geologist and geomorphologists. He is the author of ten books and over 300 scientific papers. He has worked in many universities including ANU and the University of the South Pacific, and has lectured at over 100 different universities."   

> 2.  Taking a few sea-level reading trends does not make a global mean.

  Really?  I'm curious if you also apply this standard to tree rings?   

> Anyway, the article is just opinion that uses cherry-picked data.

  Yeh, just like the IPCC reports.  :2thumbsup:  
Sucks when your opponents start using your own tactics against you.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Ps; sea ice makes SFA difference to sea levels as its sea water anyway with less than 10% above the surface of the ocean
> regards inter

  Ah yes my friend, even it melts, SFA is too true to describe the lack a link to sea levels. 
But I have asked them to dance to this tune before, but the shy little wall flowers didn't want to tango:   

> Ask someone else to bet with you Rod, I've been to the arctic, and its bloody cold in summer even with the warming. From my previous comment, clearly I think that there will be some ice there for a long time. There just won't be much of it.  
> Besides, betting on disasters isn't my idea of a nice way to behave. 
> woodbe.

   

> Gee, if all the Arctic ice floating at the North Pole melts, how much will the ocean rise?  
> Just curious as to the scale of this impending DISASTER?  
> Poor Santa.

  You see, they try to show that some ice is melting at the North Pole. Then they try to show that ocean levels are rising.  The next logical step of assumption is, uh oh, the melting North Pole is going to drown the Planet.  What a bunch of wacko's.  :Doh:  
Then they take that leap of faith and suddenly it's cows farting and cars driving that's causing the whole lot.  :Doh:  
So any answer lads, after the entire North Pole melts, how many Australian cities will be under water? 
What on Earth indeed?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

"This month, after a three-year investigation, Harvard University suspended a prominent professor of psychology for scandalously overinterpreting videos of monkey behaviour. The incident has sent shock waves through science because it suggests that a body of data is unreliable. The professor, Marc Hauser, is now a pariah in his own field and his papers have been withdrawn. But the implications for society are not great  no policy had been based on his research.  
 Yesterday, after a four-month review, a committee of scientists concluded that the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has assigned high confidence to statements for which there is very little evidence, has failed to enforce its own guidelines, has been guilty of too little transparency, has ignored critical review comments and has had no policies on conflict of interest.  
 Enormous and expensive policy changes have been based on the flawed work of these scientists. Yet there is apparently to be no investigation, blame, suspension or withdrawal of papers, just a gentle bureaucratic fattening of the organisation with new full-time posts...  
...Frankly, the whole process, not just the discredited Dr Pachauri (in shut-eyed denial at a press conference yesterday), needs purging or it will drag down the reputation of science with it. One of the most shocking things for those who champion science, as I do, has been the sight of the science Establishment reacting to each scandal in climate science with indifference or contempt. The contrast with the thorough investigation of the Hauser affair is striking..."  
Read the full link below, pro-AGW Theory rebuttal to follow that ties in nicely to the current desperation of our AGW Theory supporters.    Matt Ridley: This Discredited IPCC Process Must Be Purged

----------


## Dr Freud

"OK. First, *unprecedented* and *fast*  these terms are ill-defined, so are tricky to discuss.  If unprecedented refers to recent human timescales, Id suggest that the data do show that something unprecedented is going on. Look at the data on Arctic sea ice, for example. Heres the latest graph from Boulder:
 For most of the summer of 2010, the arctic sea ice extent has been about four standard deviations below the 1979-2000 mean. The summer ice extents in the years 2007, 2008, and 2009 were all more than two standard deviations below the mean. I find these sorts of data compelling."  
Compelling of what muppet?  
Read the full detailed rebuttal here:   David MacKay's letter | The Rational Optimist

----------


## Dr Freud

"To be honest, whenever that sea-ice graph is used as an argument, I become a little bit more sceptical. If that is the best evidence of something unprecedented, then the case must be weaker than I thought. It is a change that is not even likely to threaten human or animal livelihoods: even with a total late-summer melt (I presume you do not belong to the school of thought that the ice could fail to reform in winter), there is no great albedo feedback at such latitudes because of the angle of the sun in August, and polar bears will expand their range further north or will survive ice-free summer months onshore as they do already in Hudsons Bay, on Wrangel island and parts of Svalbard (where one once walked round my tent while I slept). 
 Then you say that if I mean `not unprecedented on 100m year timescales... But those are not the only two options! I mean not unprecedented in centuries and millennia, ie in human history. It is hugely relevant whether the warming of 1910-40 was as fast as 1980-2010 (it was). It is hugely relevant if the climate was as warm in 1100 AD as now (it probably was) both in attributing cause and in making conclusions about sensitivity.
 You will have seen this graph, one of many now making it amply clear that the warmth of the Holocene optimum, peaking about 7,000 years ago, was both global in extent and considerably warmer than today:   
  And this:    
  Next you disagree with my characterization that recent warming is not `fast. Phil Jones himself confirms that the rate of warming in 1975-2009 is statistically indistinguishable in rate from the two other periods of warming in the past 150 years: this is from his interview with the BBC ..." 
"You concede that the rise is running at just 1C per century over the past 50 years, though you do not recognise the degree to which even this is only true of the instrumental record, as adjusted and homogenised by the USHCN and similar bodies. These adjustments have come under question recently since it has become clear that far from correcting for urban warming they seem to be exaggerating it. So the true figure, without adjustments, is probably much closer to that recorded by the SST record and the satellite record, considerably lower than 1C.  Here is the US raw data:   
And here it is `adjusted:    
  The climate is going to have to get a move on if it is hit 3C this century. One-tenth of the century now over and no significant warming yet. This should have been the fastest bit:  since the curve is logarithmic, the first 100 ppm of CO2 should produce as much warming as the next 200 ppm..." 
Full and enlightening read here:  The best shot? | The Rational Optimist

----------


## woodbe

> So, all theories that are yet to be falsified are now regarded as scientific fact? 
> I must have missed that one in kindergarten science class.

  You must have. 
Theories that have been tested for some time and stood up to considerable scientific scrutiny and yet still stand as the current best theory become... the current best theory. 
So if you want this in Scientific 'fact' terms, the Scientific fact is that AGW is the _current best theory_ for the effect of human activity on our climate 
That's exactly where AGW stands today. Like I said before, the theory that you love to hate is out there and ready to be flushed down the toilet. All your tardy side has to do is to get your scientists to stop writing politics, playing with themselves, or whatever they are doing, and falsify it. 
It really is that simple.    
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Mmmmmmmm, so what would explain this amount of sea level rise when the only places of water retention cabable of giving rises of this amount are antartica & greenland, which are not releasing water within a fraction of this amount, other variables maybe??
> Ps; sea ice makes SFA difference to sea levels as its sea water anyway with less than 10% above the surface of the ocean
> regards inter

  Interd6, 
The points you have made are valid, but you have overlooked the main point - the *thermal expansion of water*.  Water (when above 4 degrees centigrade) expands as it is heated.  That is, a fixed amount of warmer water takes up more volume than colder water. 
The warmer earth --> a warmer sea --> larger volume of sea water  --> higher sea level.  *This is one of the simplest, and strongest, indicators that the planet is indeed warming.  If the warming was localised and off-set by cooling elsewhere, the global mean sea level would remain unchanged.*

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You must have. 
> Theories that have been tested for some time and stood up to considerable scientific scrutiny and yet still stand as the current best theory become... the current best theory. 
> So if you want this in Scientific 'fact' terms, the Scientific fact is that AGW is the _current best theory_ for the effect of human activity on our climate 
> That's exactly where AGW stands today. Like I said before, the theory that you love to hate is out there and ready to be flushed down the toilet. All your tardy side has to do is to get your scientists to stop writing politics, playing with themselves, or whatever they are doing, and falsify it. 
> It really is that simple.  
> woodbe.

  Woodbe this is so wrong, only someone with a religious fervor would try to make their theory stand up like this. 
This post is a total reflection on how disshonest this whole sham is and how corrupted the minds are of those who cant/wont accept any genuine challenge to their theory. 
I cant falsify mine but its true, you cant falsify yours so it must be false!! :Doh:  If you cant falsify mine either then is just has to be true, for godsake where do you get off making this stuff up.   
Who says it it is the "current best theory"  Oh! the corrupted IPCC what a joke what a stupid dangerous joke. 
This whole scam has only one direction to go IMO. For this reason. 
There is no way that you can convince more than a few that AGW is occuring.  But the skeptic can certainly convince many this it is not all mans fault. In other words more people are jumping off the sinking ship than getting on.  
You guys shoot yourself in the foot all the time while trying to come up with "evidence"  people just see through it now.   :Brava: brava

----------


## Dr Freud

> I cant falsify mine but its true, you cant falsify yours so it must be false!! If you cant falsify mine either then is just has to be true, for godsake where do you get off making this stuff up.

  Well said my friend.   :Yes:  
This is the greatest scientific argument these guys can now muster.  :Laughing1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> So if you want this in Scientific 'fact' terms, the Scientific fact is that AGW is the _current best theory_ for the effect of human activity on our climate 
> woodbe.

  So, your greatest scientific *fact* is that you have a *theory*!   :Roflmao2:    

> That's exactly where AGW stands today.  
> It really is that simple.    
> woodbe.

  You don't have to convince me of this.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So, your greatest scientific *fact* is that you have a *theory*!     
> You don't have to convince me of this.

  
That is sooo funny.   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

The smart ones are comming to their senses.   

> *Thursday, November 11, 2010*    *A response to some credulous comments on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show*  _An email sent on 10th. by Dr. Martin Hertzberg [ruthhertzberg@msn.com] below. Dr. Hertzberg is sure the email will be ignored but at least it is made public by my posting it here_  
> Dear Rachel: 
> Your reference last night to the investigations that "cleared" those involved in the climategate scandal ignores the fact that those investigations were complete "whitewashes" conducted by those same institutions who profited from the research contracts that the climategate scientists brought to their institutions. Those involved in the Parliamentary inquiry into the matter were similarly steeped in conflicts of interest. Those investigations are about as credible as a BP investigation of its explosion and oil spill in the Gulf. 
> I have studied the theory that human emission of CO2 is causing "global warming/climate change" for years, and the overwhelming evidence proves rather convincingly that the theory is completely false. Although I am a lifelong liberal Democrat, if the Republicans actually hold hearings on the issue, I would feel that it is my public duty to testify at such hearings and summarize the wealth of data available that proves the falsity of that theory. 
> But if the Republicans actually hold such hearings, they would be making fools of themselves because they would be "beating a dead horse". 
> You, on the other hand, are making a bigger fool of yourself, by trying to prop up the dead horse on its four legs so that you can ride it! Please, both of you, do the public a great favor and arrange for its decent burial.  _Received via email_

  full link here GREENIE WATCH

----------


## Dr Freud

> Interd6, *This is one of the simplest, and strongest, indicators that the planet is indeed warming.  If the warming was localised and off-set by cooling elsewhere, the global mean sea level would remain unchanged.*

  The theory you support is not called Global Warming (GW) Theory, it is called Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Theory.   
I'll argue the arbitrary and innacurate metrics in this area of science, but like I have consistently said, I'll concede that whatever temperature metric you want to use, I'll accept (Hockey Stick fiction and computer model output obviously excepted).  Here's a few to look at:   

> And this:     Here is the US raw data:   
> And here it is `adjusted:

  So, with this tiny fraction of measured warming, if we did have a "GW Theory", we could all agree, since the little ice age, the planet has been slowly warming again. 
Now this is where we diverge. 
Sceptics are open minded and say that this warming doesn't seem that aberrant, and while anthropogenic inputs are contributing to the climate, we are a long way away from determining any accuracy in that contribution, if measurable. 
I like this position as it fits well with my preferred theory, Chaos Theory.  (NOTE: I am not pushing for a new Chaos Tax). 
AGW Theory supporters suggest that anthropogenic inputs are primarily responsible for *all* of this recent warming.  Some supporters try to weasel down to saying, well not all, but the majority of the warming.  Then I ask them what percentage of the warming?  And then suddenly we are deep into comparing computer model output, with the disclaimer of "but humans are the major problem, we can control the majority of the warming". Er, percentage people, please focus now.  :Doh:  
Sp let's all agree for arguments sake that this warming is "unprecedented", "unstoppable", and "catastrophic", I say too bad cos it's natural.  Planet's been much hotter in the past, so this is well within normal limits.  No reason to suspect humans are having any effect.  Scientists call this the "Null Hypothesis", which means we are having no effect.  This does not have to be proven, it is accepted as the starting point for all research. 
You and your fellow supporters "believe" humans are "causing" this warming in accordance with AGW Theory. Yet you have *zero* evidence to prove your hypothesis, which is that we are having an effect. 
Hope this saves you guys some time.  I'll concede all warming, ice melts, ocean level rises, butterfly deaths, hurricane stories or whatever you believe are the effects, all I ask for is scientific proof for your claimed "cause". 
See, told you I was simple.  :Whatonearth:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The smart ones are comming to their senses.   
> full link here GREENIE WATCH

  Are we approaching the sceptics "tipping point"?  :Biggrin:  
The next article on this site is also hilarious!  :Biggrin:    

> *The vast imprecision of IPCC "science" renders it absurd*  _By geologist Marc Hendrickx,  commenting from Australia_

  Nothing funnier than the truth exposed! 
P.S. Chrisp, there's apples falling up in there, so it's not just us going nuts.  :Laugh bounce spin:

----------


## woodbe

> I cant falsify mine but its true, you cant falsify yours so it must be false!! If you cant falsify mine either then is just has to be true, for godsake where do you get off making this stuff up.

  Mate, you're shooting the messenger. I'm not making any of this up. This is not about you or your disbelief in the process. Science is not based on opinion, its based on people doing work and publishing it. 
If your theory had been put to the test for thousands and thousands of scientific papers, all based on the scientific principal of attempting to falsify the theory and not succeeding then your theory would stand as the current best theory until it was successfully falsified. That is where AGW theory is now.  
We know you don't like it, but unless it is flushed down the toilet its the best thing we have to explain what is happening. The only way of flushing it is to falsify it, and the people making the most political noise about that (and everyone else btw) are just not coming up with the goods. That's either because the theory is true, or they just haven't found a better one yet. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

Joolia's preferred Anthropogenic National Warming Theory is also crumbling:   

> MORE than $1 billion of taxpayers' money was wasted on subsidies for household solar roof panels that favoured the rich and did little to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, a scathing review has found... 
> ...All solar panel systems installed under the program combined reduced Australia's emissions by just 0.015 per cent...

  $1.1bn wasted on solar power  
Wow. For just under AUD$350,000,000,000 (that's 350 billion) we could reach our 5% target. 
I'll pay more tax for that, NOT!  :No:    

> *THE $80 billion savings the Treasurer claims credit for are more spin than substance...* He can't be allowed to get away with describing *tax increases* as budget savings to firm up the misleading statement that he has instituted "the fastest fiscal consolidation since the 1960s"... All politicians spin; that's their job. But Swan is doing more than spinning. His $80bn in savings isn't spin, it's @@@@@@@@.

  See how much you will pay for this BS here:  Master magician Swan's budget sleight of hand | The Australian

----------


## Dr Freud

> *A LINE has been crossed at last in the great global warming scare. The public is revolting and politicians retreating.   * Saving the planet from our evil emissions has suddenly become too expensive for everyone from the NSW Premier to the American President... 
> ...Now Prime Minister Julia Gillard is feeling the heat, too. Already she's forced to finance each new planet-saving program by slashing some other old budget-buster, to seem green without plunging us in the red. 
>  To pay for her promised "cash-for-clunkers" scheme - bribing people with $2000 to trade in their old bombs for a new green car - she cut spending on her solar flagship programs by $220 million, even stripping $25 million from University of NSW research into cheaper solar power. 
> But this week Gillard virtually reversed those decisions. Her much-mocked cash-for-clunkers plan will now be delayed by at least six months, while $50 million is to be put back into research to make solar power cheaper - only this time the cash won't go to an Australian university but an American.

  Full story here:  Green mantra crippling Prime Minister Julia Gillard | Herald Sun  
These people have no idea what they are doing!  :No:

----------


## chrisp

> AGW Theory supporters suggest that anthropogenic inputs are primarily responsible for *all* of this recent warming.  Some supporters try to weasel down to saying, well not all, but the majority of the warming.  Then I ask them what percentage of the warming?  And then suddenly we are deep into comparing computer model output, with the disclaimer of "but humans are the major problem, we can control the majority of the warming". Er, percentage people, please focus now.

  Answers to your questions can be easily found.  For example: Quantifying the human contribution to global warming 
Some excepts from the above link:   

> Humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by about 40% over the past 150 years.

   

> Using  this range of possible climate sensitivity values, we can plug  λ into  the formulas above and calculate the expected temperature  change. The  atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv. This gives us the value for 'C', and for 'Co' we'll use the pre-industrial value of 280 ppmv. 
> dT = λ*dF = λ * 5.35 * ln(390/280) = 1.8 * λ 
> Plugging   in our possible climate sensitivity values, this gives us an expected   surface temperature change of about 1–2.2°C of global warming, with a   most likely value of 1.4°C. However, this tells us the equilibrium   temperature. In reality it takes a long time to heat up the oceans due   to their thermal inertia. For this reason there is currently a planetary   energy imbalance, and the surface has only warmed about 0.8°C.

  So what 'percentage' is natural versus man-made?   
[Graph from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...ast_1000_years ] 
All you need to do is extrapolate the pre-1850's data to today and see where you would have ended up [eye-balling it would give about -0.4 degrees on the scale of the graph above] and compare it to the actual [eye-balling it gives about +0.4 degrees].  The man-made proportion is the difference = 0.8 degrees. 
BTW talking 'percentages' of temperature isn't a meaningful measure.  Different temperature scales have different zeros.

----------


## woodbe

> You and your fellow supporters "believe" humans are "causing" this warming in accordance with AGW Theory. Yet you have *zero* evidence to prove your hypothesis, which is that we are having an effect.

  Straw man argument (Like most of the Doc's output)   

> Echoing the scientific philosopher Karl Popper, Stephen Hawking in _A Brief History of Time states,_  "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must  accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a  model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make  definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes  on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense  that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many  times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never  be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On  the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single  observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The  "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a necessary  consequence of using inductive logic.

  I'm happy for you guys to continue the salmon run, but lets accept what the current theory is and what it means. And just in case you can't work that out for yourselves, it means that someone has to get out there, do and publish work to falsify it scientifically. Then you'll see the 'rats leaving the sinking ship' but not before.  
Sure, you can derail it politically, that's the easy bit. The problem with that approach is that it will come back and bite you on the backside if the work does not support your actions. There are several shining examples of this in recent history, I don't think we need to mention them as we all know them well, and our sceptics just hate to have them mentioned. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *AL Gore's flawed climate change film is to be included in the new English curriculum... * ...But while audiences reacted positively and emotionally to the film's message - which was that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming - some independent scientists pointed out that An Inconvenient Truth represented well-made propaganda for the warming cause and presented an unreliable, biased account of climate science.  
> For nowhere in his film does Gore say that the phenomena he describes falls within the natural range of environmental change on our planet. Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change...  
> It is, I suppose, some relief the film has not been recommended for inclusion in the science syllabus. Instead, Banquo's ghost has risen to haunt English teachers, doubtless in class time that might otherwise have been devoted to learning grammar...  
> ...Australia is rightly vigilant about preventing child abuse and guarding the freedom of the press. Why, then, are we so willing to tolerate the abuse of educational indoctrination of our children and the deliberate limitation on the scope of the media discussions they will be exposed to as adults?...

  Full story here:   Inconvenient nonsense infiltrates the classroom | The Australian

----------


## Dr Freud

> This is the level of desperation that this farcical movement has been debased to. 
> No hopenhagen was the lid closing on this farce.  Now that nation states have rejected this farce, proponents are reduced to chasing some local and state based window dressing to support their failed cause.  We had some trees planted around the neighborhood the other day.  There are probably your equivalents in other countries using this to brow beat their own countries about how much action Australia is taking and why they need to move urgently or get "crushed".

   

> So, over the next few months as our three new cherry-picked "climate committees" begin regaling us with tales of overseas green shangri-la's, just have a good laugh at the feeble games they have been reduced to since those "Chinese rat-f-ckers" did the world a favour at No Hopenhagen.

  Here tis:  
           "Look to Californias success in putting a price on carbon, Julia Gillard urges Laurie Oakes:  _LO:  Is there a point in us going ahead now that America has dumped the idea?_  _JG: Laurie, emissions Trading Schemes, or prices on carbon, different ways of tackling climate change are being developed around the world.  And yes, different countries are finding different paths, many have gone down the path of pricing carbon, you are talking now about America.  California has had a way of pricing carbon for quite a long period of time now. _ So we look to California:  _  With one in every eight workers unemployed and empty state coffers, California is borrowing billions of dollars from the federal government to pay unemployment insurance." _ Gillards California dreaming | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

> *THE $120 billion energy industry has warned that Julia Gillard's mining tax compromise could drive up electricity prices... 
> ...*"Although the precise impact of fuel price rises cannot be determined . . . it is reasonable to expect that they would put upward pressure on electricity prices," the submission states. "Domestic gas prices will more directly rise to the extent that producers are able to pass on the impact of the tax."...

  More good news here:  Mining tax 'to push up power costs' | The Australian

----------


## woodbe

Thanks for copying the Australian to the thread Doc, saves me from buying it. 
Could you possibly copy The top 10 reds in here from the James Halliday special too? 
Thanks Champ.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> AGW Theory supporters suggest that anthropogenic inputs are primarily responsible for *all* of this recent warming.

  I guess we can put into this camp then:   

> All you need to do is extrapolate the pre-1850's data to today and see where you would have ended up [eye-balling it would give about -0.4 degrees on the scale of the graph above] and compare it to the actual [eye-balling it gives about +0.4 degrees].  The man-made proportion is the difference = 0.8 degrees. 
> BTW talking 'percentages' of temperature isn't a meaningful measure.  Different temperature scales have different zeros.

  I'll ignore your scientific eye-balling for now, but let's agree that the .8 degrees of warming, which generally correlates to other metrics, is 100% anthropogenically caused. 
See how percentages are really meaningful.  If you believed that half of this .8 degrees was anthropogenically caused (ie. .4 degrees) and half naturally caused, then it would be 50%.  This is important for understanding alleged mitigations.  For example, if we are responsible for 100% of the warming, potentially we could mitigate 100% of this effect.  If however we were only  responsible for 50%, or 10%, it is easier to work out effective mitigating strategies, or bang for our buck vs wasted efforts. 
But let's stick with 100% of this .8 degree "effect" is caused by humans.   

> ...all I ask for is scientific proof for your claimed "cause". 
> See, told you I was simple.

----------


## Dr Freud

> "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." 
> woodbe.

  No problems with this definition of a good theory at all.  In fact I wholeheartedly support it.  Just a pity it doesn't apply to AGW Theory.   

> accurately describe a large class of observations 
> contains only a few arbitrary elements 
> make definite predictions about the results of future observations

   :Laughing1:  
Oh yeh, and even a good theory is still just a theory!  AGW Theory is far from good.   :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Thanks for copying the Australian to the thread Doc, saves me from buying it. 
> Could you possibly copy The top 10 reds in here from the James Halliday special too? 
> Thanks Champ.  
> woodbe.

  There's nothing wrong with being right.  :Biggrin:  
But I occasionally take a walk on the wild side:   

> $1.1bn wasted on solar power

  If I don't go left every now and then, I'll end up walking in circles.  :Arrow Left:   Halliday's top 100 | The Australian     :Sneaktongue:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Mate, you're shooting the messenger. I'm not making any of this up. This is not about you or your disbelief in the process. Science is not based on opinion, its based on people doing work and publishing it. 
> If your theory had been put to the test for thousands and thousands of scientific papers, all based on the scientific principal of attempting to falsify the theory and not succeeding then your theory would stand as the current best theory until it was successfully falsified. That is where AGW theory is now.  
> We know you don't like it, but unless it is flushed down the toilet its the best thing we have to explain what is happening. The only way of flushing it is to falsify it, and the people making the most political noise about that (and everyone else btw) are just not coming up with the goods. That's either because the theory is true, or they just haven't found a better one yet. 
> woodbe.

  Sorry substitute "you" with "they" not a personal attack  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

This bit is not a personal attack?   

> Woodbe this is so wrong, only someone with a religious fervor would try to make their theory stand up like this. 
> This post is a total reflection on how disshonest this whole sham is and how corrupted the minds are of those who cant/wont accept any genuine challenge to their theory.

  Really? 
Sure Rod. I forgive you anyway regardless of the spin. I've copped worse insults than that here, and I wouldn't post here if I didn't have a thick skin. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Yeah point taken Woodbe. I do not want to get into personal attacks here and yes that post does come across that way.  
My apologies to you.  A bit quick on the trigger I'm afraid. 
I really do believe that there are many people who know that this is a scam and promote it anyway. There are others who genuinely believe in AGW for no better reason that they "believe" it to me that has religious overtones. Others genuinly believe it because they cant believe that they could be duped by so called scientists. Well the science of AGW is well truely political. And has been bent into all kinds of shapes to appeal.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Let's amuse ourselves for a moment and pretend in a few years we are all happily paying thousands of dollars in extra "Carbon" taxes. 
> One rationale for us doing this is our supreme leader will then convince the rest of the worlds countries how wonderful this is, and they will follow suit. 
> Let's take a look at how great she is at convincing countries to take these massive steps to restructure their entire economies, taxation systems and ways of life:  Column - Gillard drowns in Asia | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog  Miranda Devine: PM takes the heat | Herald Sun 
> Plan B maybe?

   

> We have had, so far, some really strange performances abroad by Gillard, so strange they are almost inexplicable. They testify both to a dreadful tin ear for the area on the Prime Minister's part, and truly appalling staff work that leaves her with poorly designed messages that she is unprepared even to explain or defend properly. 
> It all feeds into the image of a desperately provincial prime minister who simply cannot master a message for an overseas encounter that goes anywhere beyond the scripted lines, and even the scripted lines are half the time rubbish. 
> Surely an Australian prime minister can do better than this.

  Julia's strange performances abroad | The Australian  
Definitely Plan B.  :Ok:

----------


## Dr Freud

Looks like it is bad news all round for this farcical theory, but good news for the biosphere.  The truth is finally surfacing that CO2 and warmth is good for plants, which means it is therefore good for animals (that's us).  Let's hope this little lava ball is warming up a little, eh?  A bad news week for AGW proponents | Watts Up With That?

----------


## Dr Freud

> ...Now Prime Minister Julia Gillard is feeling the heat, too. Already she's forced to finance each new planet-saving program by slashing some other old budget-buster, to seem green without plunging us in the red...  Green mantra crippling Prime Minister Julia Gillard | Herald Sun 
> These people have no idea what they are doing!

  Australians apparently need their *national climate* taken care of, rather than their *national health*.   

> The federal government has shelved its controversial diabetes reform plan that was meant to allow patients to sign up with a "home" GP practice for continuing care from mid-2012. 
>              Just four months ago, Health Minister Nicola Roxon said it would be "foolish" to walk away from the $450 million overhaul due to opposition from some doctors. 
>              But on Friday she did just that.

  Roxon shelves $450m diabetes care plan  
As long as the climate over Australia is healthy, I guess we should be happy.  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Who coulda figured this, an artificial financial derivatives scheme based on trading fresh air would fail?  
> You're too late mate, they spent all their money on banking "carbon credits" and 100% offsetting their rampant CO2 lifestyles.  
> Either that or they're hypocrites.

  This just gets better and better.  We are paying for similar rorts rather than our own healthcare.   

> BRUSSELS: The European Commission is planning to clamp down on a ?2 billion ($2.8 billion) carbon trading scam involving the deliberate production of greenhouse gases which the fraudulent manufacturers are then paid to destroy... 
> ...The most popular of these so-called offsets come from projects that destroy the greenhouse gas HFC-23, a byproduct of the manufacture of the refrigerant gas HCFC-22.  
> The Environmental Investigation Agency said in June that many Chinese chemical companies were manufacturing HCFC-22 primarily to earn money from destroying HFC-23, which can be five times the value of the refrigerant gas the plants are ostensibly set up to create.  
> In 2008-9, 134 million permits (84 per cent) of offsets used in the scheme were from industrial gas projects in China and India, according to data from the carbon trading think tank Sandbag.

  Financial Review - News Store 
Remind me again, how is this supposed to cool down the Planet Earth?  :Confused:

----------


## woodbe

Sorry to interrupt the flow of newspaper and bolt blogs Freud... 
Rod, thanks mate.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The smart ones are comming to their senses.  
> full link here GREENIE WATCH

  Mate, this site has given me quite a few laughs today.  I thought I'd share a few pearls of wisdom:  *The Greenie message is entirely emotional and devoid of all logic. They say that polar ice will melt and cause a big sea-level rise. Yet 91% of the world's glacial ice is in Antarctica, where the average temperature is around minus 40 degrees Celsius. The melting point of ice is zero degrees. So for the ice to melt on any scale the Antarctic temperature would need to rise by around 40 degrees, which NOBODY is predicting. The median Greenie prediction is about 4 degrees. So where is the huge sea level rise going to come from? Mars? And the North polar area is mostly sea ice and melting sea ice does not raise the sea level at all. Yet Warmists constantly hail any sign of Arctic melting. That the melting of floating ice does not raise the water level is known as Archimedes' principle. Archimedes demonstrated it around 2,500 years ago. That Warmists have not yet caught up with that must be just about the most inspissated ignorance imaginable. The whole Warmist scare defies the most basic physics. Sadly, what the Vulgate says in John 1:5 is still only very partially true: "Lux in tenebris lucet".  There is still much darkness in the minds of men.  * *There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts. - Duc de La Rochefoucauld, French writer and moralist (1613-1680)  * *'The closer science looks at the real world processes involved in climate regulation the more absurd the IPCC's computer driven fairy tale appears. Instead of blithely modeling climate based on hunches and suppositions, climate scientists would be better off abandoning their ivory towers and actually measuring what happens in the real world.' -- Doug L Hoffman * *Against the long history of huge temperature variation in the earth's climate (ice ages etc.), the .6 of one degree average rise reported by the U.N. "experts" for the entire 20th century (a rise so small that you would not be able to detect such a difference personally without instruments) shows, if anything, that the 20th century was a time of exceptional temperature stability. * *Recent NASA figures tell us that there was NO warming trend in the USA during the 20th century. If global warming is occurring, how come it forgot the USA?  
Warmists say that the revised NASA figures do not matter because they cover only the USA -- and the rest of the world is warming nicely. But it is not. There has NEVER been any evidence that the Southern hemisphere is warming. See here.  So the warming pattern sure is looking moth-eaten.  * *The chaos theory people have told us for years that the air movement from a single butterfly's wing in Brazil can cause an unforeseen change in our weather here. Now we are told that climate experts can "model" the input of zillions of such incalculable variables over periods of decades to accurately forecast global warming 50 years hence. Give us all a break!  * *There is a very readable summary of the "Hockey Stick" fraud here * 
A very funny site indeed.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

Well, I read the first paragraph you quoted, and thought WTF?   

> *The Greenie message is entirely emotional and devoid of all logic.  They say that polar ice will melt and cause a big sea-level rise. Yet  91% of the world's glacial ice is in Antarctica, where the average  temperature is around minus 40 degrees Celsius. The melting point of ice  is zero degrees. So for the ice to melt on any scale the Antarctic  temperature would need to rise by around 40 degrees, which NOBODY is  predicting. The median Greenie prediction is about 4 degrees. So where  is the huge sea level rise going to come from? Mars? And the North polar  area is mostly sea ice and melting sea ice does not raise the sea level  at all. Yet Warmists constantly hail any sign of Arctic melting. That  the melting of floating ice does not raise the water level is known as  Archimedes' principle. Archimedes demonstrated it around 2,500 years  ago. That Warmists have not yet caught up with that must be just about  the most inspissated ignorance imaginable. The whole Warmist scare  defies the most basic physics.*

   
Its easy to construct an argument that appeals to one side of the debate - you shoot down the opposition by ignoring the key point of their position. This is called the 'Straw Man Fallacy' The faithful will rally round and cheer and not even notice that you haven't actually addressed the issue at hand.  
Doc is pretty good at it (he's had a lot of practice)  :Biggrin:  and there are some notable excellent sources on the denier's favorite site WUWT. (Many denier sites I have visited  are pretty full of it) Its easy to see why the Doc likes Bolt, because Bolt is a past master at the same technique, they speak the same language... 
We all know there is an awful lot of ice in the northern hemisphere that is not at the north pole and is not floating in the sea. But we didn't mention it because...  :Confused:  
Now please remind me why we should be taking more notice of these opinion sites than papers researched and published under scientific rigour. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

I think you will find this is directed at the warmist scaremonger who points at the Artic ice mellt and says there see this is evidence of Agw see the oceans are going to rise, etc etc.   
It is a convienient "visual' lie they  promote to scare the pants out of young kids and gullible adults.  So even though we who have researched a little bit, know so well that melting artic ice will do nothing to sea levels, the scaremongers have those who simply take a message on face value believe it.  Not only will they have them believe that the Artic ice melt will drown us all but that the Artic ice will dissapear completely.  
These false and alarming claims are what alert the more thinking people to the facts. This is the undoing of the AGW Scam.  People are getting sick to death of hearing all the bull about what AGW will do.  We see these claims being dismantled over and over, you have to say wtf.  
It is people like Bolt and others that point this out to the public and should be applauded for doing so.   
Sorry but AGWTheory is dead just not burried yet.

----------


## chrisp

> *So where  is the huge sea level rise going to come from? Mars? And the North polar  area is mostly sea ice and melting sea ice does not raise the sea level  at all.*

  The sea-level rise is due the *thermal expansion* of the sea water (rather than drift ice melt).  When water is heated (assuming it is above 4 degrees C), it expands.    

> *'The closer science looks at the real world processes involved in climate regulation the more absurd the IPCC's computer driven fairy tale appears. Instead of blithely modeling climate based on hunches and suppositions, climate scientists would be better off abandoning their ivory towers and actually measuring what happens in the real world.' -- Doug L Hoffman*

  Gee, he makes it sound like the whole AGW is merely nothing more than a hypothetical output from a computer model!   

> *Against the long history of huge temperature variation in the  earth's climate (ice ages etc.), the .6 of one degree average rise  reported by the U.N. "experts" for the entire 20th century (a rise so  small that you would not be able to detect such a difference personally  without instruments) shows, if anything, that the 20th century was a  time of exceptional temperature stability. * *Recent NASA figures  tell us that there was NO warming trend in the USA during the 20th  century. If global warming is occurring, how come it forgot the USA?  
> Warmists say that the revised NASA figures do not matter because they  cover only the USA -- and the rest of the world is warming nicely. But  it is not. There has NEVER been any evidence that the Southern  hemisphere is warming. See here.  So the warming pattern sure is looking moth-eaten.*

  That sounds like cherry-picking again.  Lets look at the actual NASA global (not cherry-picked) results:        
(Graphs from: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif ) 
Isn't it annoying when *facts* get in the way of a good *story*!

----------


## woodbe

> It is a convienient "visual' lie they  promote to scare the pants out of young kids and gullible adults.  So even though we who have researched a little bit, know so well that melting artic ice will do nothing to sea levels, the scaremongers have those who simply take a message on face value believe it.  Not only will they have them believe that the Artic ice melt will drown us all but that the Artic ice will dissapear completely.

  So Rod, you can't think of any other ice in the northern hemisphere that would raise sea levels if it did melt? 
Are you party to the Straw Man, or just haven't thought this one through properly yet? I don't think you would deliberately do the former, so may I respectfully suggest you think about it a little more. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> We all know there is an awful lot of ice in the northern hemisphere that is not at the north pole and is not floating in the sea. But we didn't mention it because...  
> woodbe.

  I was just posting some funny quotes dude, not trying to re-write the scientific record. 
But Rod is right, this was hilarious because it highlights how AGW Theory proponents use the melting North Pole as a veiled (sometimes overt) threat of cities being drowned.  You yourself referred to this as a "disaster", yet failed to reply to my request for the scale of the flooding.  Yes, hilarious.  :Biggrin:  
But once again, I'll concede that every piece of ice in the north and south hemispheres (including in my bourbon and coke  :Biggrin: ) has melted in accordance with recent measured warming.  Let's call this the effect. 
Er, once again, any proof of your claimed cause being responsible?

----------


## Dr Freud

> The sea-level rise is due the *thermal expansion* of the sea water (rather than sea ice melt).  When water is heated (assuming it is above 4 degrees C), it expands.

  Thanks mate, I knew the IPCC were full of sh-- with all that ice melting BS.  2035 indeed!  :2thumbsup:    

> Gee, he makes it sound like the whole AGW is merely nothing more than a hypothetical output from a computer model!

  Er, because that's true.  :Biggrin:    

> That sounds like cherry-picking again.  Lets look at the actual NASA global (not cherry-picked) results: 
> (Graphs from: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif ) 
> Isn't it annoying when *facts* get in the way of a good *story*!

  Again, this is called the effect. I'll concede again that all these measurements are absolutely accurate in measuring the energy transfer around the entire planet.  We've already agreed to .8 degrees celsius.  I won't argue any inaccuracies around this for now. 
So again, where is your proof that human carbon dioxide emissions are solely responsible for 100% of this warming?  :2thumbsup:  
Or do you guys just intend to keep posting graphs showing .5 to .8 degrees warming over the last hundred years, with the occcasional graph of north pole ice slightly reducing, and hoping to mind f-ck some more people into believing that we're killing this giant lava ball?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> So Rod, you can't think of any other ice in the northern hemisphere that would raise sea levels if it did melt? 
> Are you party to the Straw Man, or just haven't thought this one through properly yet? I don't think you would deliberately do the former, so may I respectfully suggest you think about it a little more. 
> woodbe.

  Why does it have to be in the northern hemisphere? 
Do you want to start the Northern Hemisphere Warming (NHW) Theory now? 
I can think of lots of ice all around the planet that would raise sea levels if it melted (including in my bourbon and coke, cos then I'd drink it and flush it out to the ocean.) 
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to first prove all this ice is going to melt, then second prove that human carbon dioxide emissions are solely responsible.  Easy really.  :2thumbsup:  
Small reminder champ, climate predicting computer models are not proof of Jack --it! 
P.S. Us straw men had a party, and Rod definitely did not get an invite.  Scarecrow from Wizard of Oz was there, but not Rod.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> ...The opening session set the tone. Fred Palmer, vice-president of Peabody Energy, the world's largest coal company, noted that since the ''great debate'' on climate change began, coal consumption had gone from 3.6 billion tonnes a year to almost 7 billion tonnes. By 2030, he predicted it would be more like 11-12 billion. ''The climate change concerns of people everywhere are legitimate'', he said, but alleviating energy poverty was ''policy priority number one''. On the basis that it would leave billions in energy poverty, he declared it ''immoral to say 'we're not going to touch coal'.'' To those saying continued coal use depends on developing carbon capture and storage or low carbon coal, his message was blunt: ''We will use coal, and the world is going to use more coal.'' Furthermore, ''using more coal to generate electricity is good for our health and good for our wealth''... 
> ...The clear impression is that Asian-driven coal demand is a more powerful juggernaut than climate change. As one English delegate put it: ''The Chinese don't give a stuff about greenhouse emissions, and nor do I...''

  Full story here:  The coal bosses' plan: mine coal, sell coal, repeat until rich 
It's just a jump to the left... :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Australians apparently need their *national climate* taken care of, rather than their *national health*.  Roxon shelves $450m diabetes care plan  
> As long as the climate over Australia is healthy, I guess we should be happy.

   

> A university program which helped Australia's respond to major disease outbreak will be disbanded at the end of next year.
>  The Federal Government has cut funding to the Australian National University's Master of Applied Epidemiology (MAE) program.

  Full story here:  Epidemic research program runs out of funds - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
Less people means less emissions I guess.  :Shock:

----------


## chrisp

The ice posts has had me reading up more on this topic.   

> *Current sea level rise* has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century, and more recently, during the satellite era of sea level measurement, at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4 to 3.1 ± 0.7 mm per year (1993–2003). Current sea level rise is due significantly to global warming, which will increase sea level over the coming century and longer periods.  Increasing temperatures result in sea level rise by the thermal  expansion of water and through the addition of water to the oceans from  the melting of mountain glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets.  At the end of the 20th century, thermal expansion and melting of land  ice contributed roughly equally to sea level rise, while thermal  expansion is expected to contribute more than half of the rise in the  upcoming century.  
>  [From: Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]

  And the relative contributions of the top four contributors:   
From:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007: Working Group 1: The physical Science Basis

----------


## woodbe

> I was just posting some funny quotes dude, not trying to re-write the scientific record.

  I see.  
It wasn't _that_ funny when you posted it, but its becoming hilarious.   

> Why does it have to be in the northern hemisphere?

  Because that's where your posted straw man argument was based? 
What's really funny is that you're both avoiding mentioning the stack of ice that is the main source of the GW sea level rise predictions, perhaps so that the Straw Man argument you posted is not buried at your hands. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So Rod, you can't think of any other ice in the northern hemisphere that would raise sea levels if it did melt? 
> Are you party to the Straw Man, or just haven't thought this one through properly yet? I don't think you would deliberately do the former, so may I respectfully suggest you think about it a little more. 
> woodbe.

  No I am refering to what the Alarmists would have us believe because it is the most visible and emotional form of ice loss they can refer to.  Not only are they the strawmen but they are wrong also.   
All they are trying to do is scare the pants off the young and the gullible adults. 
We all know, (or should) that only ice on land melting will raise sea levels.  Now tell me the Green land ice sheet is melting away. and the glaciers are all melting to oblivian.

----------


## Dr Freud

> It wasn't _that_ funny when you posted it, but its becoming hilarious. 
> woodbe.

  I knew you guys had a sense of humour.  :Biggrin:    

> Because that's where your posted straw man argument was based? 
> What's really funny is that you're both avoiding mentioning the stack of ice that is the main source of the GW sea level rise predictions, perhaps so that the Straw Man argument you posted is not buried at your hands. 
> woodbe.

  To avoid disappearing down one the semantic sidetracks you guys like to steer into anytime we ask for evidence, I'll use whatever ice you want. Northern ice, southern ice, sea ice, land ice, old ice, new ice, even bourbon and coke ice.  That way we're not "avoiding" anything. So the questions still stand:  *Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to first prove all this ice is going to melt, then second prove that human carbon dioxide emissions are solely responsible. Easy really.*  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

When it dried up, they called it climate change, now that it's overflowing, I guess it's just that pesky weather change again.  *"Lake Bolac, Victoria* 
                                               Posted on 25 December 2008, 1:38pm                                                     
...Like many other lakes in Victoria, climate change has had a negative impact on water levels and tourism has declined...I dont know the science of climate change and I avoid the politics of it, but theres no doubt its happening..."   Lake Bolac, Victoria  
Yeh, no doubt at all champ.  Er, but wait, what's happening now, another change?   *"MELBOURNE is on track for its wettest year since 1996...*
But the wet weather has been welcomed by some towns.  Campers are beginning to return to places like Lake Bolac, which is overflowing for the first time in 15 years.  In late 2008, the lake dried up for only the second time..."    
                                                                                           Local      Reg Smith enjoys the water in Lake Bolac. Picture: Chris      Scott                                                  _Source:_ Herald Sun   Deluge leads to flash floods, landslip | Herald Sun  
Some of you climate change fanatics have obviously asked, well if the second dry lake event was in 2008, obviously the first must have been in the years just prior, cos apparently this is the hottest and driest the planet has ever been?  :Shock:   
"The last recorded instance of the lake drying up was in 1842, when a settler named Chirnside came across the dry bed of Lake Bolac."   Big dry hits lake and local economy - Local News - News - General - Ararat Advertiser  
Oops.  :Blush7:   There goes AGW Theory out the window again.  Unless it was all the coal power plants and all the cars back then too? 
Reality is an uncompromising b-st-rd!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> We all know, (or should) that only ice on land melting will raise sea levels.  Now tell me the Green land ice sheet is melting away. and the glaciers are all melting to oblivian.

  
The IPCC tried to pull this one off mate, and as a result they are now the laughing stock of scientific endeavour.   :Roflmao2:

----------


## woodbe

> No I am refering to what the Alarmists would have us believe because it is the most visible and emotional form of ice loss they can refer to.  Not only are they the strawmen but they are wrong also.   
> All they are trying to do is scare the pants off the young and the gullible adults.

  Ok, then, this is a diversion from the original straw man statement, but I think its still wrong. Where are all these claims that melting ice at the north pole will flood our cities?   Google couldn't find it Please put up.  :Smilie:  
By the way, do I detect a tacit agreement that we have ice loss?  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Ok, then, this is a diversion from the original straw man statement, but I think its still wrong. Where are all these claims that melting ice at the north pole will flood our cities?   Google couldn't find it Please put up.  
> By the way, do I detect a tacit agreement that we have ice loss?  
> woodbe.

  The Ice mass will always ebb and flow.  It, like our climate cannot remain static. Only fools would think so. 
Any Ice loss past of present is natural. I have never claimed there has been no ice loss just as I have never claimed it has not got warmer since the 70's.  My claim is that this is natural and NOT unprecidented as claimed by warmists.

----------


## woodbe

So, woodbe asked:  

> Where are all these claims that melting ice at the north pole will flood our cities?

  And Rod answered:  

> The Ice mass will always ebb and flow.  It, like our climate cannot remain static. Only fools would think so. 
> Any Ice loss past of present is natural. I have never claimed there has been no ice loss just as I have never claimed it has not got warmer since the 70's.  My claim is that this is natural and NOT unprecidented as claimed by warmists.

  I take it you couldn't find these 'warmist' scare tactics you referred to of ice melting at the north pole flooding our cities, trying to 'scare the pants off the young and the gullible adults'? 
Case closed.  
If you are at all interested in where the sea level rise comes from, chrisp's last past gives a good picture of it. None of it from the north pole either. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So, woodbe asked:  
> And Rod answered:  
> I take it you couldn't find these 'warmist' scare tactics you referred to of ice melting at the north pole flooding our cities, trying to 'scare the pants off the young and the gullible adults'? 
> Case closed.  
> If you are at all interested in where the sea level rise comes from, chrisp's last past gives a good picture of it. None of it from the north pole either. 
> woodbe.

  Oh come on Woodbe, we hear these claims all the time you know it I know so does everyone else who is sick of hearing the BS. 
Every time we hear dire warnings of an ice free Artic and rising sea levels in the one article or comment we all know that the idea is to scare the pants off people.  They know that the Artic Ice will not create sea level rises.  But they use the visual impact of melting Artic ice to promote the idea of rising sea levels. 
I don't need to point this out.   
Case closed

----------


## woodbe

> Oh come on Woodbe, we hear these claims all the time you know it I know so does everyone else who is sick of hearing the BS.

  You might be hearing these claims all the time, but I'm not. 
Show me where this claim about the north pole melting and causing sea level rise is made. I have yet to see it. Even the IPCC whom you love to hate make no such claim. 
Case reopened at your request. Waiting for evidence.  
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

> Any Ice loss past of present is natural.

  We understand that but natural what? Do you support Plimer's idea of natural warming caused by undersea volcanoes or Carter's theory of warming caused by extra clouds or Scafetta's galactic cosmic rays? And there are probably a few more out there, pick one and let's take a look at the science behind it. 
I caught the Naomi Oreskes talk at UQ last night, interesting but not anything about the actual science behind AGW but more about the history and ideology that drives some anti-AGW groups. I picked up a copy of her book while I was there, more when I've read it. 
UQ now has a Global Change Institute, apparently some rich bloke gave them $15mill to kick it off.

----------


## Dr Freud

> You might be hearing these claims all the time, but I'm not. 
> Show me where this claim about the north pole melting and causing sea level rise is made. I have yet to see it. Even the IPCC whom you love to hate make no such claim. 
> Case reopened at your request. Waiting for evidence.  
> woodbe.

  Waiting for evidence indeed! Why is you consistently produce *zero* evidence proving your theory despite numerous requests, yet demand evidence that scaremongering is the weapon of choice of you and your brethren. I will provide this evidence if for no other reason than to shut down yet again another semantic sidetrack that you guys use to consistently distract from the fact that you have *zero* evidence proving this farce you still call a theory!  
But first a point of order, if you now are happy to acknowledge as we sceptics always have that the arctic sea ice regularly melts, has melted prior to the industrial age, and through all these melts and refreezes, no "disaster" has occurred. Yet now you claim this disaster is upon us, after showing evidence of very slight recent ice decreases in sea ice. You have referred to sea ice, then "disaster", not Antarctic and Greenland land based ice melts over millenia. This is you on this post. Sea ice melting = disaster. You have ignored my previous requests to explain this "disaster", but given your buddy Chrisp's contiguous referral to sea level rises, a lay person could easily conflate these issues through your biased information. 
Here's some of the many examples:   

> Watts missing (sic) is the Arctic Ice *Volume* Anomoly from PIOMAS: 
> This is the graph that you know, shows how much ice is there rather than how far it has spread. I wonder why he would leave that out? Any ideas spring to mind Rod? 
> Cherry pick indeed. 
> I don't know about an ice-free Arctic, Rod, but it's sure looking like we'll have one with bugger-all summer ice pretty soon. 
> woodbe.

  So, you refer to Arctic *sea* ice volume as "Arctic ice volume", but we can come back to this later if needed.    

> Ask someone else to bet with you Rod, I've been to the arctic, and its bloody cold in summer even with the warming. From my previous comment, clearly I think that there will be some ice there for a long time. There just won't be much of it.  
> Besides, betting on *disasters* isn't my idea of a nice way to behave. 
> woodbe.

  I can't be bothered going on with this farce, there should be enough there to amuse you for now. But now, for your requested evidence...

----------


## Dr Freud

Why do we find it so reprehensible to abuse children's bodies, yet the AGW Theory movement has no qualms whatsoever in consistently abusing children's minds in their sick games? 
Let's look at some "evidence" of the most reprehensible type: abusing children again!  *"Polar Ice Caps - Here Today, Gone Tomorrow?                       *      Polar Ice Caps  
                 It's getting hot in here! *Climate change* is proving problematic for a lot of *different environments* but the changes it's causing at the polar ice caps may affect us all. June 5, 2007 is *World Environment Day* and this year's theme is *Melting Ice - Hot Topic*? We take a closer look at what's going on at the ends of the earth and what we can do to stop it .   *Polar Ice Caps - What Are They?* 
 Polar ice caps are *huge sheets of ice* that lie at a planet or moon's poles. Earth has ice caps at both the *North and South Pole*. The caps don't melt and re-freeze seasonally so they can be 10-13 feet (three to four meters) thick at the North Pole and *even thicker* at the South Pole(*Antarctica*). Polar ice caps get less exposure to the sun than the rest of the earth, which results in *lower surface temperatures*.   *Polar Ice Caps - Size Matters* 
 Polar ice caps can grow and shrink due to *climate variation*. During *ice ages*, the polar caps expanded to cover much more than the area they cover now. Currently, the polar ice caps are *shrinking*, most likely as a result of global warming. So what does this mean? *Fewer penguins*? A smaller backyard for Santa? Unfortunately the impact is much bigger than that. The sea level has risen *six to eight inches* (15 to 20 cm) in the last 100 years, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA. Some studies suggest that sea levels could rise as much as 20 feet by end of the century. Higher sea levels mean *less available land* due to increased flooding. Melted polar ice also changes the temperature of the oceans, which may lead to the *destruction* of marine plant and animal life.   *Polar Ice Caps - What Can You Do?*  Climate change is widely believed to be the cause of shrinking polar caps, so here are a few ways you can *do your part* to tackle global warming. 
Turn off the lights when you leave a room and don't leave the TV on when you're not using it. Switch to energy efficient light bulbs. *Walk to school* instead of getting the 'rents to drive you and take the bus when you go to the mall or your friend's house. *Tell your parents* what you know about global warming and the environment. It's important that they know as much as you do so they can *vote for politicians* who care about the environment."    Polar Ice Caps | Climate Change | Global Warming | Environmentalism | Melting | Animals | Enviroment | Flooding  
Is this sh-t for real?  :Confused:  
Just in case you missed it: 
"Polar ice caps can grow and shrink due to *climate variation*. During *ice ages*, the polar caps expanded to cover much more than the area they cover now. Currently, the polar ice caps are *shrinking*, most likely as a result of global warming. So what does this mean? *Fewer penguins*? A smaller backyard for Santa? Unfortunately the impact is much bigger than that. The sea level has risen *six to eight inches* (15 to 20 cm) in the last 100 years, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA. Some studies suggest that sea levels could rise as much as 20 feet by end of the century. Higher sea levels mean *less available land* due to increased flooding." 
Oh yeh people, and your kids are being taught it.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's some excellent suggestions for teachers to add to their lesson plans, for *7 year olds*: 
"Recent governmental reports and other statistics can leave us in no doubt that human activity is the main reason behind climate change...Globally, some believe that mean temperatures are likely to rise between 1.1 and 6.4°C by the end of this century. But this does depend on whether (or not) we stop emitting high levels of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. *The raising of temperatures could result in a further rise in global sea levels of between 20 and 60cm by the end of this century, continued melting of ice caps, glaciers and sea ice, changes in rainfall patterns and intensification of tropical cyclones.* For the UK, climate change means hotter, drier summers (more heat waves), milder wetter winters, higher sea levels and an increased flood risk to coastal areas. Across the globe, there will be more intense heat waves, droughts and more flooding... 
...Ask the pupils to find out how much scientists estimate the ice at the North Pole to have reduced in size and depth... 
...One of the key indicators of climate change is ice melting. Ask the pupils to find out about how a solid (such as ice) can be changed into a liquid (such as water)... 
...Ask the pupils to find out what impact they think climate change can have on plants and animals. If areas of land suffer from higher temperatures and lower levels of rainfall  plants will die and animals will have less and less to eat... 
...How is climate change affecting polar bears at the North Pole? The ice at the North Pole is getting thinner and melting  this means that there is less ice for the polar bears to travel on in the hunt for food... 
...Ask the pupils to think of a climatic change and how that would affect them, such as: less snow would mean people could not ski as much; more rain would mean that pupils could not play outside as often; hotter summers might mean that water use is restricted, so swimming pools might close..."  Learning about climate change: lesson ideas 
Seriously people, what a bunch of w-nkers!  :Annoyed:   They are 7 years old! 
They can no longer convince adults any more of their farce, so they have resorted to brainwashing the next generation with their BS.

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's an impact:   

> Sea level rise and loss of ice sheets. In the 20th Century global sea level increased by 15 - 20 cm. Currently sea level is rising at over 3 cm/decade, faster than projected in the model scenarios of the IPCC. Future rise by 2100 could exceed one meter. Even if warming is stopped at 3 ºC, sea level will probably keep rising by several meters in subsequent centuries in a delayed response (Fig. 3). Coastal cities and low-lying islands are at risk. What is now a once-in-a-century extreme flood in New York City (with ma-jor damage, including flooded subway stations) would statistically occur about every 3 years if sea level were just 1 meter higher.

  Followed closely by this:   

> These are only examples  the exact consequences of such a major change in climate are difficult to predict, and surprises are likely. In some cases, impacts have already proven to be more rapid or severe than expected, like in case of the dramatic loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. Ice extent in 2007 and 2008 was only about half of what it has been in the 1960s, ice thickness has decreased by 20-25% just since 2001, and in 2008 the North-East Passage and North-West Passage were both open for the first time in living memory.

  Wow, flooding risks in cities, followed by melting sea ice.  Did you spot the lengthy discussion about millenia "predictions" of Greenland and Antarctic land ice?  :No:  
Calling this a joke is doing it credit.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

How to paint a picture that is full of sh-t:   

> You see, they try to show that some ice is melting at the North Pole. Then they try to show that ocean levels are rising.  The next logical step of assumption is, uh oh, the melting North Pole is going to drown the Planet.  What a bunch of wacko's.  
> Then they take that leap of faith and suddenly it's cows farting and cars driving that's causing the whole lot.

  This is the art of BS in AGW Theory.  Lots of semantics, lots of short term "effects" taken out of context pasted together to paint a fake picture, then lots of scurrying around saying "We never said that" when held to account.   
Cr-p science followed by cowardice of conviction!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

Request for scientific evidence:   

> *Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to first prove all this ice is going to melt, then second prove that human carbon dioxide emissions are solely responsible. Easy really.*

  Cue more semantic sidetracks... :Biggrin:  
Bed time...more to follow...

----------


## Dr Freud

> We understand that but natural what?

  This is called the Null hypothesis.  It doesn't require experimentation, in a nutshell it means that nothing is happening until it is proved that something is happening.   

> Do you support Plimer's idea of natural warming caused by undersea volcanoes or Carter's theory of warming caused by extra clouds or Scafetta's galactic cosmic rays? And there are probably a few more out there, pick one and let's take a look at the science behind it.

  Just because you support some wacko climate theory, it doesn't mean we have to.  Don't try Woodbe's trick of trying to make us prove that your dodgy theory is not real.  You support it, you prove it.   

> I caught the Naomi Oreskes talk at UQ last night, interesting but not anything about the actual science behind AGW but more about the history and ideology that drives some anti-AGW groups. I picked up a copy of her book while I was there, more when I've read it.

  Gee, what a surprise, NO science! But plenty of time to criticise her critics.  What a loser.  :Biggrin:    

> UQ now has a Global Change Institute, apparently some rich bloke gave them $15mill to kick it off.

  Toot toot, the gravy train rolls on.  :2thumbsup:  
For $15 mill, even I'll believe.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

As expected, no evidence of 'warmists' or anyone else putting melting north pole as a cause for sea level rise has been shown in this thread. 
The Doc is claiming semantic sidetracks, but then he offers this nonsense:   

> You see, they try to show that some ice is melting at the North Pole.  Then they try to show that ocean levels are rising.  The next logical  step of assumption is, uh oh, the melting North Pole is going to drown  the Planet.  What a bunch of wacko's.

  So now we can see where the straw man comes from. No one said it, its an assumption by sceptics. Apparently they have special dispensation to only read the headlines and draw whatever conclusions they like.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  
wacko's indeed. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> So, you refer to Arctic *sea* ice volume as "Arctic ice volume", but we can come back to this later if needed.

  Well yes, I made a typo. Thanks for picking it up. Anyone reading the actual post would see that, because the words 'arctic sea ice volume' are on the graphic immediately below what I wrote:   

> Watts missing (sic) is the Arctic Ice *Volume* Anomoly from PIOMAS:    This is the graph that you know, shows how much ice is there rather than  how far it has spread. I wonder why he would leave that out? Any ideas  spring to mind Rod? 
> Cherry pick indeed. 
> I don't know about an ice-free Arctic, Rod, but it's sure looking like we'll have one with bugger-all summer ice pretty soon. 
> woodbe.

   
Quoting me without including the graphic sure makes it look like I'm rewriting history, but I assure you I'm not. Perhaps you were using your 'sceptic assumption logic' ?  
Good point about the sea ice there woodbe.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> This is called the Null hypothesis.  It doesn't require experimentation, in a nutshell it means that nothing is happening until it is proved that something is happening.

  You MUST have been exhausted.  Because even you with your deep, exquisite knowledge and grasp of scientific principles would be aware by now that your interpretation of what a null hypothesis is.....is very very wrong. 
Experimental design is based on making a hypothesis.  As in "I predict that the action of X on Exhibit A will produce a change of Y to the value of Z".  The null hypothesis of this prediction is that the action of X on Exhibit A will produce no significant change....no difference.....null change.   
In order to ensure good experimental design, one must design the experiment in such a way that both the hypothesis and the null hypothesis can be tested.   And one must be able to demonstrate to ones peers that the experiment has been conducted in such a manner to test both hypothesis'. 
In simplistic terms....a null hypothesis requires experimentation whether you like it or not.  
And it sure as heck doesn't mean that nothing is happening unless you prove otherwise....that's.....that's....well, that's just stupid.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Why do we find it so reprehensible to abuse children's bodies, yet the AGW Theory movement has no qualms whatsoever in consistently abusing children's minds in their sick games? 
> Let's look at some "evidence" of the most reprehensible type: abusing children again!  *"Polar Ice Caps - Here Today, Gone Tomorrow?*      Polar Ice Caps   It's getting hot in here! *Climate change* is proving problematic for a lot of *different environments* but the changes it's causing at the polar ice caps may affect us all. June 5, 2007 is *World Environment Day* and this year's theme is *Melting Ice - Hot Topic*? We take a closer look at what's going on at the ends of the earth and what we can do to stop it .   *Polar Ice Caps - What Are They?*  Polar ice caps are *huge sheets of ice* that lie at a planet or moon's poles. Earth has ice caps at both the *North and South Pole*. The caps don't melt and re-freeze seasonally so they can be 10-13 feet (three to four meters) thick at the North Pole and *even thicker* at the South Pole(*Antarctica*). Polar ice caps get less exposure to the sun than the rest of the earth, which results in *lower surface temperatures*. *Polar Ice Caps - Size Matters*  Polar ice caps can grow and shrink due to *climate variation*. During *ice ages*, the polar caps expanded to cover much more than the area they cover now. Currently, the polar ice caps are *shrinking*, most likely as a result of global warming. So what does this mean? *Fewer penguins*? A smaller backyard for Santa? Unfortunately the impact is much bigger than that. The sea level has risen *six to eight inches* (15 to 20 cm) in the last 100 years, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA. Some studies suggest that sea levels could rise as much as 20 feet by end of the century. Higher sea levels mean *less available land* due to increased flooding. Melted polar ice also changes the temperature of the oceans, which may lead to the *destruction* of marine plant and animal life. *Polar Ice Caps - What Can You Do?*  Climate change is widely believed to be the cause of shrinking polar caps, so here are a few ways you can *do your part* to tackle global warming. 
> Turn off the lights when you leave a room and don't leave the TV on when you're not using it. Switch to energy efficient light bulbs. *Walk to school* instead of getting the 'rents to drive you and take the bus when you go to the mall or your friend's house. *Tell your parents* what you know about global warming and the environment. It's important that they know as much as you do so they can *vote for politicians* who care about the environment."     Polar Ice Caps | Climate Change | Global Warming | Environmentalism | Melting | Animals | Enviroment | Flooding  Is this sh-t for real?   Just in case you missed it:  "Polar ice caps can grow and shrink due to *climate variation*. During *ice ages*, the polar caps expanded to cover much more than the area they cover now. Currently, the polar ice caps are *shrinking*, most likely as a result of global warming. So what does this mean? *Fewer penguins*? A smaller backyard for Santa? Unfortunately the impact is much bigger than that. The sea level has risen *six to eight inches* (15 to 20 cm) in the last 100 years, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA. Some studies suggest that sea levels could rise as much as 20 feet by end of the century. Higher sea levels mean *less available land* due to increased flooding."  Oh yeh people, and your kids are being taught it.

  
Thanks Doc it was so obvious that this brain washing was going on I wasn't going to bother producing "evidence" that it was. 
Just ask anyone in the street that hasn't researched this issue, what artic ice melt means fot earth.  You will be amazed at how many will answer, "the sea levels will rise".  Now where did they get that impression frm I wonder? 
The alarmist have smartened up a bit now and distance themselves from these erronous claims that are so embedded in the minds of laymen.  But they do nothing to change that false impression previously created. 
Yep this stinks alright..

----------


## woodbe

> Thanks Doc it was so obvious that this brain washing was going on I wasn't going to bother producing "evidence" that it was.

  I suspect that you didn't "bother" because you couldn't "find" any... 
Still waiting for direct evidence from either of you based on published 'alarmist' information that defines the melting of the north pole as a cause of sea level rise. 
And mentioning sea level rise and melting icecaps in the same article does not count unless one is attributed directly to the other. Just about any Global Warming discussion of the arctic will mention both issues. One is a sign of change, and the other is a result of change. 
Judging by the skirting around the issue and finger pointing we are seeing here, sure looks like its still a straw man argument. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> To avoid disappearing down one the semantic sidetracks you guys like to steer into anytime we ask for evidence, I'll use whatever ice you want. Northern ice, southern ice, sea ice, land ice, old ice, new ice, even bourbon and coke ice.  That way we're not "avoiding" anything. So the questions still stand:  *Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to first prove all this ice is going to melt, then second prove that human carbon dioxide emissions are solely responsible. Easy really.*

   

> Cue more semantic sidetracks...

  Yes indeed, read all the semantics above, but alas, still *zero* evidence proving this failed, farcical (and I use the term loosely) theory.  :Biggrin:  
But this semantic sidetrack has achieved it's objective.  The AGW Theory supporters in this thread at least realise the futility in posting melting sea ice and using this to claim impending "disaster".  
At least we can clear this one small part of the world of this baseless, and obviously indefensible scaremongering.  We now have the AGW Theory supporters on this site arguing furiously that melting sea ice is absolutely irrelevant in contributing to sea levels.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You MUST have been exhausted.  Because even you with your deep, exquisite knowledge and grasp of scientific principles would be aware by now that your interpretation of what a null hypothesis is.....is very very wrong.

  Yes, tiresome is one word for fighting the good fight.  I like how you again have *zero* evidence proving you theory but will happily argue down another semantic sidetrack.  But let's go for a walk:  
Please accept my apologies for not accurately representing NHST.  I suggest if people are truly interested in seeking detailed knowledge of this scientific method, they study it in more depth than one dodgy sentence written by me.  Start with Google and finish with a PhD, but certainly please don't start and finish with me.  :Biggrin:  
I'm sure I've posted at least two links previously to slightly more eloquent explanations, but I'm getting the feeling that you guys don't really pay much attention to non-semantic information, like actual evidence proving your theory.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The alarmist have smartened up a bit now and distance themselves from these erronous claims that are so embedded in the minds of laymen.  But they do nothing to change that false impression previously created. 
> Yep this stinks alright..

  It stinks like a fish market affected by global warming.  :Biggrin:  
But mate, I also think this is fantastic.  It shows how much back pedalling they now have to do to try and retain any semblance of credibility. 
We've got Flim Flammery back pedalling from his no rain claims, then the IPCC back pedalling from their glacier melting fiction, and because now no catastrophic ocean rises will occur, these guys are back pedaling from associating melting sea ice with "disasters".   
This theory needs to get a rear-vision mirror installed for safety reasons.  :Biggrin:  
Next thing you know, they'll tell us the BP oil spill was fantastic for sea life:  Obamas hype exposed; Gulf oil spill good for fish | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog   :Laughing1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> And mentioning sea level rise and melting icecaps in the same article *does not count unless one is attributed directly to the other*.  
> woodbe.

   :Rotfl:  :Rotfl:  :Rotfl:  
It's times like these that we cherish. 
You won't accept this for the blatant spurious associations we know AGW Theory supporters use to push their scaremongering.  We have not argued this a scientific law, but merely accuse you and your ilk of dodgy tactics, certainly nothing requiring scientific causality.  :No:  
But you will happily accept spurious associations as scientific proof of your dodgy supported theory.  :Biggrin:  
You guys do keep me amused.

----------


## Dr Freud

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pk3QDC84Go&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Fate of the World Trailer 1[/ame]

----------


## woodbe

> You won't accept this for the blatant spurious associations we know AGW Theory supporters use to push their scaremongering.  We have not argued this a scientific law, but merely accuse you and your ilk of dodgy tactics, certainly nothing requiring scientific causality.

  Ok, so now it's not a direct quote, not an assumption or 'conflation' but its a 'spurious association'   

> Oh come on Woodbe, we hear these claims all the time you know it I know so does everyone else who is sick of hearing the BS.

  It's be a lot less boring if you guys would just come out and say that you actually haven't been able to find a 'warmist' claiming that melting the north pole is raising the sea level. 
You're the people constantly asking for evidence to _prove_ the AGW theory (knowing that a scientific theory can never actually be proven) but when you are asked for evidence to back up one of your statements all we get back are wild imaginings and logical leaps. 
I guess the good thing for anyone reading this thread is that at least they will not suffer from insomnia.  :Cool:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Ok, so now it's not a direct quote, not an assumption or 'conflation' but its a 'spurious association'   
> It's be a lot less boring if you guys would just come out and say that you actually haven't been able to find a 'warmist' claiming that melting the north pole is raising the sea level. 
> You're the people constantly asking for evidence to _prove_ the AGW theory (knowing that a scientific theory can never actually be proven) but when you are asked for evidence to back up one of your statements all we get back are wild imaginings and logical leaps. 
> I guess the good thing for anyone reading this thread is that at least they will not suffer from insomnia.  
> woodbe.

  
LOL keep going like this and you will make us look better and better lol. 
It just shows you just don't get it do you?  
It must be a mental block or something, that just won't allow some people to see that a "spurious association" is just as good a comming right out and saying it directly.  For the intention is quite obvious to us.  
I see people "lying" like this all the time.  They end up believing their own lies.  I don't know what to call this. But for someone like me who calls a spade a spade it is easy to see through.  
Those that see the "technical" justification of their back tracking as being just,  believe this completely exonerates them from any "liability" for those who "mistakenly"  miss read what the "intention" was.   Those who see through this type of situation, should just shake your head in amusement.  For trying to do any more will just fuel the situation.   
The funny thing is, I see people caught in a subtle lie , *demand* that their dodgey excuse is recognised and go to great lenghts to get you to do so. 
This is so common that their has to be a name for this conduct surely?

----------


## woodbe

Good on you Rod, you just can't say it can you?   

> Oh come on Woodbe, we hear these claims all the time you know it I know so does everyone else who is sick of hearing the BS.

  You were wrong. We don't hear these claims all the time. We've never heard them, but if we were in climate change denial, we'd apparently be Imagining/Associating/Assuming them every time someone talks about the arctic. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Again, this is called the effect. I'll concede again that all these measurements are absolutely accurate in measuring the energy transfer around the entire planet.  *We've already agreed to .8 degrees celsius.*  I won't argue any inaccuracies around this for now.

  That's very kind of you. 
Let me make a list: Dr Freud acknowledges:  The global mean temperature has risen ~0.8 degrees Celsius (subject to retraction re: 'inaccuracies')  

> So again, where is your proof that human carbon dioxide emissions are solely responsible for 100% of this warming?

  There seems to be the implied acceptance that CO2 levels have indeed risen.  Let's add that to the list too (subject to confirmation)... Dr Freud acknowledges:  The global mean temperature has risen ~0.8 degrees Celsius (subject to retraction re: 'inaccuracies')Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen (TBC).  

> So again, where is your proof that *human carbon  dioxide emissions* are solely responsible for 100% of this warming?

  Actually, rereading it again, there seems to be a connoted acknowledgement that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made (anthropogenic).  Let's add it to the list too... Dr Freud acknowledges:  The global mean temperature has risen ~0.8 degrees Celsius (subject to retraction re: 'inaccuracies')Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen (TBC).The increased atmospheric CO2 is (mostly/probably) anthropogenic (TBC).  

> So again, where is your proof that human *carbon  dioxide emissions are solely responsible for 100% of this warming?*

  *Would fair to say that your doubts of the AGW theory are solely related to the causal connection between CO2 and warming?* 
One might claim that you are providing yourself with an '*out*' by using the word "*solely*" in your request for proof.  Let's put the semantics aside for a moment as we all know "solely" responsible is impossible to prove - and indeed it is not claimed.  It would be like demanding proof that smoking is "solely" responsible for lung cancer. 
Maybe you would accept "mostly" or "chiefly" instead of "solely"?  Let me rephrase.. 
It would seem that your doubts of the AGW are [s]*solely*[/s] related to the causal connection between CO2 and the warming?

----------


## woodbe

Hey chrisp. 1000 posts!  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> I'll tell you how I explain it.  It's well within natural ocean level changes and accords with all pre-industrial trends. 
> Remember this:  
>    Quote:
>                          Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*   _ 
> Comparison of two sea level reconstructions during the last 500 Ma. The scale of change during the last glacial/interglacial transition is indicated with a black bar. Note that over most of geologic history, long-term average sea level has been significantly higher than today. 
> Learn more here:  Sea level - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
> The inconvenient truth indeed!_   
> And I've posted this biased but informative link before:  USGS FS 002-00: Sea Level and Climate 
> Reality is a real b-tch, ain't it?

  Actually, I don't "remember" it at all - I wasn't around then to remember it!  What was it like back then?  :Smilie:  
Did the earth move for you too? 
The past major sea-level changes in the geological time scale are probably due to major tectonic actively as the continents moved about. Unless there has been some major tectonic activity of late, I don't think you could prove that the sea-level rise is tectonic related.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Still waiting for direct evidence from either of you based on published 'alarmist' information that defines the melting of the north pole as a cause of sea level rise. 
> woodbe.

   

> It's be a lot less boring if you guys would just come out and say that you actually haven't been able to find a 'warmist' claiming that melting the north pole is raising the sea level. 
> woodbe.

  You obviously have some sort of filtering problem, so I'll help you along.  Just read the red bits to help with your comprehension problem.  Then you may be able to see what the rest of the world sees.  I'll provide some evidence from the rest of the world in a minute. (Apologies to the moderators for the red, but it may help him).   

> Currently, the polar ice caps are *shrinking*, most likely as a result of global warming. So what does this mean? *Fewer penguins*? A smaller backyard for Santa? Unfortunately the impact is much bigger than that. The sea level has risen *six to eight inches* (15 to 20 cm) in the last 100 years, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA. Some studies suggest that sea levels could rise as much as 20 feet by end of the century. Higher sea levels mean *less available land* due to increased flooding.

  Now, as the South Pole is not melting enough to create 20 feet sea level rises, this must be the "Arctic sea ice" you keep referring to melting and creating this "disaster".  I call this the North Pole, cos Santa and Superman both live there. 
If you still don't get it, I'll post some more below, but this is tiresome.  You've now gotta be convinced that AGW Theory supporters have been scaremongering, while you consistently ignore your own scaremongering on this very topic in relation to sea ice and "disasters".  :Doh:    

> LOL keep going like this and you will make us look better and better lol.

  Too true mate, the more they squirm with their semantics, the dodgier they look.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Melting Icebergs in Polar Oceans Causing Sea Level Rise Globally, New Assessment Finds* 
>                                            ScienceDaily (Apr. 29, 2010)  *Scientists have discovered that changes in the amount of ice floating in the polar oceans are causing sea levels to rise* -- by a mere hair's breadth today, but possibly much more if melting trends continue.  
> The research, published in _Geophysical Research Letters_, is the first assessment of how quickly floating ice is being lost today.  
> "These changes have had major impacts on regional climate and, because oceans are expected to warm considerably over the course of the 21st century, *the melting of floating ice should be considered in future assessments of sea level rise.*"   *Journal Reference*:  Andrew Shepherd, Duncan Wingham, David Wallis, Katharine Giles, Seymour Laxon, Aud Venke Sundal. *Recent loss of floating ice and the consequent sea level contribution*. _Geophysical Research Letters_, 2010; (in press) DOI: 10.1029/2010GL042496

  Melting icebergs in polar oceans causing sea level rise globally, new assessment finds  
Published too!  I wonder if it was peer-reviewed?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> However, the melting back of this ice can lead to indirect contributions on sea level. For example, the melting back of sea ice leads to a reduction in albedo (surface reflectivity) and allows for greater absorption of solar radiation. More solar radiation being absorbed will accelerate warming, thus increasing the melting back of snow and ice on land. In addition, ongoing break up of the floating ice shelves will allow a faster flow of ice on land into the oceans, thereby providing an additional contribution to sea level rise.

  Climate Change and Sea Level Rise 
But hey, you obviously think 7 year old kids are savvy enough to extract the scaremongering, from the spurious predictions, from the very rare facts (usually taken out of context).   
Poor kids getting their heads filled with this sh-t before they have even learned how to distinguish between the shoes and the shine.  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *What are the main causes of sea level rises?*   
> Actually, the main causes of sea level rise is: the polar ice caps melting faster than it was expected and thermal expansion.

  Answers.com - What are the main causes of sea level rises     

> *Why would a rise in temperature cause a rise in sea level?*  
> The theory is that a raise in the Earth's temperature can cause the polar ice caps to melt. Because water increases in volume when going from a solid to a liquid, a subsequent rise in sea level can occur.

  Answers.com - Why would a rise in temperature cause a rise in sea level 
Where do people get these crazy ideas from?   :Confused:   Especially if all the AGW Theory supporters have been stridently pointing out that sea ice is absolutely irrelevant to ocean levels, and Antarctica and Greenland are not going to drown anything, just limited melting of northern sea ice is occurring.  
At least our AGW Theory supporters on this site will argue against this myth from now on.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You were wrong.  
> woodbe.

  You should be praying that we're right. 
If we're wrong, all humans are going to die according to your supported theory!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It would seem that your doubts of the AGW are [s]*solely*[/s] related to the causal connection between CO2 and the warming?

  This is not a doubt, it is a scientific principle that has not been satisfied with this dodgy theory.  That is why I am willing to concede all other points, just to get you guys to this point. 
Let me simplify it even more:  Is there any empirical evidence that proves that Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions are solely responsible for all of the measured warming, as you have claimed previously? 
If you don't have evidence they are the sole cause, please present other empirical evidence specifying what contribution they are having.  If they are responsible for 1% of the warming, not really a big deal is it? 
But make no mistake, I have no doubt that there is absolutely *zero* evidence proving AGW Theory.   
This is a scientific fact.  I understand that supporters of AGW Theory would not be entirely familiar with these.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Actually, I don't "remember" it at all - I wasn't around then to remember it!  What was it like back then?

  Temperature was a lot hotter, oceans were a lot higher, most ice was melted.  :Biggrin:    

> Did the earth move for you too?

  Yeh, it kept moving around the Sun.  Created all these weird wobbles and cycles of warming and cooling.  :Biggrin:    

> The past major sea-level changes in the geological time scale are probably due to major tectonic actively as the continents moved about. Unless there has been some major tectonic activity of late, I don't think you could prove that the sea-level rise is tectonic related.

  Seriously, is this part of Al Gore's tactical training package?  You guys either don't get it or have been trained to keep repeating this irrelevant mantra.  Let's go through it slowly again. 
1- You support a dodgy theory with *zero* evidence proving it. 
2- You can't find any evidence to prove it. 
3- We point this *fact* out to you. 
4- Then you guys throw some weird ideas around and ask us to prove them.  :Confused:  
These semantics do not distract from the fact that your theory is so bad, it has to keep changing it name.  Like some con artist running around hoping to find some new victims.  :Shifty:

----------


## Dr Freud

"A peer review study by the Met Office and the University College London finds that global warming since 1976 has saved the lives of many Britons, who are more likely to die from cold than from heat:   _ 
We present an example of an end-to-end attribution study that investigates recent mortality changes among people aged over 50 in England and Wales. Cold related mortality has decreased at a rate of 85 deaths per million population per year during 1976-2005, while heat related mortality has increased after 1976, but with a two orders of magnitude smaller trend.... The decrease in CRM far outweighs the moderate increase in HRM after 1976._Or as the graphic puts it:     Global warming could save lives | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

> *The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.* 
>   That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.  *That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.* 
>   Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.  *De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.* 
>   First of all, developed countries have basically expropriatedthe atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

  _  IPCC Official: 
Ottmar Edenhofer was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland. The deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology will be co-chairing the Working Group Mitigation of Climate Change with Ramón Pichs Madruga from Cuba and Youba Sokona from Mali._

----------


## woodbe

> You should be praying that we're right.

  Ok, I concede that I was wrong about _some warmists_ not claiming sea ice would raise ocean levels  :Biggrin:   
However. (there is always an however) *Those warmists were right.* Melting sea ice does increase the sea level! 
In the course of my review, I discovered a further straw man in the original post that started this thread:   

> *That  the melting of floating ice does not raise the water level is  known as  Archimedes' principle. Archimedes demonstrated it around 2,500  years  ago. That Warmists have not yet caught up with that must be just  about  the most inspissated ignorance imaginable. The whole Warmist  scare  defies the most basic physics.*

  Archimedes is right, but the application of his principal to floating sea ice is wrong. Floating sea ice is mostly pure water, and the sea is salt water. Melting a pure water iceblock in sea water increases the sea water by 2.9% of the ice block's volume! 
And again (this is freshwater ice in salt water):     
Photos from Physorg.com 
I must apologise for getting waylaid and sucked in by these denialist arguments, its an easy trap to fall into. I better get that book soon so I can keep up.  :Wink:  
I was also right about the original strawman that started this whole thing. The Greenland Ice Sheet is the missing piece of ice that would supply an enormous amount of water should it melt. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Ok, I concede that I was wrong about _some warmists_ not claiming sea ice would raise ocean levels   
> However. (there is always an however) *Those warmists were right.* Melting sea ice does increase the sea level! 
> In the course of my review, I discovered a further straw man in the original post that started this thread: 
> Archimedes is right, but the application of his principal to floating sea ice is wrong. Floating sea ice is mostly pure water, and the sea is salt water. Melting a pure water iceblock in sea water increases the sea water by 2.9% of the ice block's volume! 
> And again (this is freshwater ice in salt water):     
> Photos from Physorg.com 
> I must apologise for getting waylaid and sucked in by these denialist arguments, its an easy trap to fall into. I better get that book soon so I can keep up.  
> I was also right about the original strawman that started this whole thing. The Greenland Ice Sheet is the missing piece of ice that would supply an enormous amount of water should it melt. 
> woodbe.

  lmao

----------


## PhilT2

> I better get that book soon so I can keep up.

  I wouldn't rush out and get one just for that reason. Firstly this is mostly an historical story and secondly Oreskes claims that denialists don't have any new arguments, they just recycle the old ones. When the tobacco industry hired them to protect it from anti smoking legislation they set up phony institutes to generate doubt about all the studies linking tobacco to cancer. Themes like "there may be natural causes" and "there is still some doubt" "not all scientists agree" and " more research is needed" were used to delay action.Her book is basically about how they used these same strategies to counter the evidence against passive smoking, then the asbestos industry, DDT, acid rain, now global warming. Same people, same tactics, same message. Sell the doubt, even when there really isn't any 
According to Oreskes the origin of the main group, the George Marshall Institute, can be traced back to the Cold War. When Reagan announced the Star Wars project, there was a strong reaction against it from the scientific community. A group of physicists who were employed in the nuclear arms industry started the Institute to support the star wars project and promote the arms race. She names the main players and their roles. Her view is that they were not solely motivated by money but were people with strong conservative and fundamentalist economic views. Part of their creed is that the govt has no right to regulate business in any way and any attempt to do so is an impingement on the freedom of the America people. This concept comes from Milton Friedman, Capatilism and Freedom, 1962. So as the nuclear arms industry shrunk with the collapse of the USSR and these conservative physicists moved into retirement they took up directorships with various companies. Their philosophy attracted them to those industries that were most under threat of increased govt regulation; tobacco, asbestos, chemical and mining. 
In his book (Storms of my Grandchildren p15) James Hansen tells of a meeting with Dick Lindzen around 2001 and asking him did he still believe there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. Lindzen replied that there was still a lot of problems with the data linking the two. Clinging to a belief in the face of overwhelming evidence is what makes a true "Merchant of Doubt"

----------


## chrisp

> I wouldn't rush out and get one just for that reason.

  I happened to be in the local shopping strip and popped in to the local bookshop.   I had a look around and couldn't find a copy.  I asked at the counter and the lady behind the counter said (without having to look it up) that they had sold out - and that the local stock (wholesaler?) had also sold out.  The local shop had more on order from 'overseas' (Amazon or BookDepository me thinks  :Rolleyes:  ). 
It sounds like it is a popular book.  I didn't bother asking about the Pilmer book - I'd be too embarrassed to ask about that one - and I doubt they'd stock it!.  :Eek:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

There's actually a rather amusing & interesting article in the latest New Scientist written by a historian who looked at the response from the scientific and pseudoscientific communities with respect to Einstein's Theory Of Relativity....the upshot is that the response to Einstein's theory was not far removed from the kerfuffle around the Theory Of Evolution nor our current revolving door discussion on the actuality (one way or t'other) of anthropogenic climate change. 
Of course....one has to be a subscriber to read the article. But here's a quote to whet your whistle...   

> "THIS world is a strange madhouse," remarked Albert Einstein in 1920 in a letter to his close friend, the mathematician Marcel Grossmann. "Every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political affiliation."

  ...sound familiar? 
These days.....relativity is a largely accepted concept.  Although it has been suggested that it isn't quite a shut book now that we know much more about the universe than we did in Einstein's day...

----------


## PhilT2

There was about two hundred people at the presentation at UQ, the room was full and more standing up the back. They had the book for sale in the foyer, the line to buy the book and the line for a free drink were kind of mixed up so I couldn't say for sure how many copies were sold that night. I had got there early and bought my copy beforehand so I got to get mine signed and have a quick chat with Naomi while the others were still in the queue. 
While the story is interesting enough it's not exactly earth shattering news that big companies will do what they can to protect their profits. They will always be able to find people to help them push their agenda. Whether those people are motivated by greed or ideology matters little in the long term. The victims of tobacco and asbestos are just as dead either way. 
I had similar issues with Hansens "Storms of my Grandchildren". It has more of the internal politics and history of the political process than I want to know. I find the style of Plimers "Heaven and Earth with its focus on the science itself more to my liking. Pity its all bulls**t. When something is that bad that I can find errors then its really bad.

----------


## PhilT2

> THIS world is a strange madhouse," remarked Albert Einstein in 1920 in a  letter to his close friend, the mathematician Marcel Grossmann. "Every  coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is  correct. Belief in this matter depends on political affiliation."

  Generally true but the overwhelming weight of global warming is producing divisions in conservative ranks. I think our federal liberal party is divided on the issue but how deep the split in the ranks is and how they handle it will determine how long it keeps them out of office. In the US there are remarkable contrasts in republican ranks. Retiring California governator Arnie Shwarzenegger is retiring to take up a new career in the fight against global warming Governator pledges sequel as climate change hero 
Compared to this newly elected rep who brings his own answer to the problem Do you feel safer now? : Pharyngula

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I happened to be in the local shopping strip and popped in to the local bookshop. I had a look around and couldn't find a copy. I asked at the counter and the lady behind the counter said (without having to look it up) that they had sold out - and that the local stock (wholesaler?) had also sold out. The local shop had more on order from 'overseas' (Amazon or BookDepository me thinks  ). 
> It sounds like it is a popular book. I didn't bother asking about the Pilmer book - I'd be too embarrassed to ask about that one - and I doubt they'd stock it!.

  Greenie book shop! 
BTW don't bother going there with the smoking causes lung cancer argument.  It was done to death earlier in the thread.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Generally true but the overwhelming weight of global warming is producing divisions in conservative ranks. I think our federal liberal party is divided on the issue but how deep the split in the ranks is and how they handle it will determine how long it keeps them out of office. In the US there are remarkable contrasts in republican ranks. Retiring California governator Arnie Shwarzenegger is retiring to take up a new career in the fight against global warming Governator pledges sequel as climate change hero 
> Compared to this newly elected rep who brings his own answer to the problem Do you feel safer now? : Pharyngula

   :Sick:

----------


## woodbe

> Greenie book shop! 
> BTW don't bother going there with the smoking causes lung cancer argument.  It was done to death earlier in the thread.

  Yes it was. Both Rod and the Doc were very uncomfortable with any mention of it. I think this is what's called 'an elephant in the room'  :Biggrin:  
Rod, I've been trying to tell them that you guys don't like any parallels being drawn between the 32 organisations that have been involved in both  the denial campaign surrounding tobacco and that surrounding Anthropogenic Global Warming, but they just won't listen!   *I told you guys Rod wouldn't like it, now look what you've gone and done!*  :Yikes2:  
In Law, just because you have been found guilty of one crime in the past, there is  presumption of innocence, and we cannot assume they are guilty of the same crime just because there is circumstantial evidence.  
On the other hand, research into criminal behaviour tells us that 50-60% of offenders are likely to re-offend, so while we may not directly accuse any one of these companies of criminally abetting the AGW denial campaign like they did the tobacco denial campaign, we may accept that there is a very good chance that a fair number of them are. 
Definitely have to wait until the evidence becomes available to find out which of them is recidivist. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

I mean it.  :Confused:  
The way I see it, there are three possibilities: 
1- You have learning difficulties that actually means you don't understand simple concepts like "empirical evidence" and "semantic distraction"; 
2- You do understand these things, but have been following some form of AGW Theory obfuscation methodology to distract from the fact that you know your supported theory is as solid as CO2 gas; 
3- You actually truly believe that AGW Theory is real, and that Australia can fix it.   
If it's point 1, you have my sincerest sympathy and best wishes in your learning journey.  :2thumbsup:  
If it's point 2, you are part of a ridiculous greenie movement pushing ignorance onto our citizens costing us improved standards of living for no reason.  :Mad:  
If it's point 3, you really should get some help, seriously, book a few sessions.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> lmao

  I think I cracked a rib laughing.  :Roflmao2:  
Once I figure out what position these guys now have, I'll launch into some scathing rebuttals, unless they're still agreeing with us???  :Biggrin:  
I don't have time to research this "secret society" they are all referring to above in their "semantic distraction" posts. Apparently this secret society is controlling this whole issue from their star chamber.  Maybe one day their server will get released like the Climategate scandal, showing their ridiculously biased ideologies and methodologies.  :Biggrin:  
If you secret society guys are out there, I am willing to ramp up my efforts if you are offering dollars.  Apparently you secret society guys are making big dollars out of this by pumping out "fake" science.  I do this for free and primarily used IPCC reports to discredit this flawed farce.  Unless you secret society guys have infiltrated the IPCC now and are secretly adjusting their data. Oh hang on a minute, Michael Mann and all of his buddies already did this.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Archimedes is right... 
> woodbe.

  I'm sure he is eternally and posthumously grateful for your support.  :Wink 1:

----------


## woodbe

> I mean it.  
> The way I see it, there are three possibilities: 
> 1- You have learning difficulties that actually means you don't understand simple concepts like "empirical evidence" and "semantic distraction";

  On the contrary Doc, we recognise semantic distraction, just like you are doing now.  :Biggrin:  This one also raises Ad hominem.    

> 2- You do understand these things, but have been following some form of AGW Theory obfuscation methodology to distract from the fact that you know your supported theory is as solid as CO2 gas;

  Here's where the Docs favourite methodology comes into play: The Straw Man. Imagine a position and then cut it down, claiming victory. 
Sorry Doc, there is probably several other possibilities. Think harder.  :Rolleyes:    

> 3- You actually truly believe that AGW Theory is real, and that Australia can fix it.

  And again. Straw Man argument. Do I need to explain how the Straw Man argument works again? 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Sorry Doc, there is probably several other possibilities. Think harder.  
> woodbe.

  Why don't we just cut to the chase rather than play guessing games. 
What do you guys think is actually happening on the planet, and then depending on this response, what are effective mitigating strategies. 
In a nutshell, outline your supported theory and effective mitigation assuming it is real? 
I keep telling you I'm a simple man.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

> Why don't we just cut to the chase rather than play guessing games. 
> What do you guys think is actually happening on the planet, and then depending on this response, what are effective mitigating strategies. 
> In a nutshell, outline your supported theory and effective mitigation assuming it is real? 
> I keep telling you I'm a simple man.

  And here's another one of Doc's favorite ploys. If you're getting pushed back, drop the argument and start another one. 
You're on fire Doc! What's next?  :Harhar:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Ok, I concede that I was wrong about _some warmists_ not claiming sea ice would raise ocean levels   
> woodbe.

  Thanks champ, duly noted.   

> However. (there is always an however) *Those warmists were right.* Melting sea ice does increase the sea level! 
> woodbe.

  Yes, assuming current rates continue, and assuming many, many things, it will add just under 1 millimeter in about 20 years.  :Shock:  
All you NHST fanatics can now research the difference between both statistical significance and practical significance.    

> Melting a pure water iceblock in sea water increases the sea water by 2.9% of the ice block's volume!  
> woodbe.

  It was closer to 2.6%, but I'm not into semantics.  :Biggrin:    

> I must apologise for getting waylaid and sucked in by these denialist arguments, its an easy trap to fall into. I better get that book soon so I can keep up.

  Can you please explain what a "denialist argument" is?  I certainly don't want to fall into these traps either, but I have no idea what they are.  :Confused:    

> I was also right about the original strawman that started this whole thing. The Greenland Ice Sheet is the missing piece of ice that would supply an enormous amount of water should it melt. 
>  woodbe.

   It's gone missing? Really? We better find it, cos if they've hidden it somewhere warm like the equator (lots of CO2 there apparently), it may just melt like you said.  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

> And here's another one of Doc's favorite ploys. If you're getting pushed back, drop the argument and start another one. 
> woodbe.

  I thought the whole issue was AGW Theory and the ETS solution to it. 
Just curious if you 're still committed to the former.  No-one is committed to the latter (except Gillard trying to disguise it via name change yet again).  So was curious as to your preferred solution to your alleged "theory" you support? 
I think this is the same argument? 
Nothing to with secret society's, butterflies, haematology, tobacco, asbestos, or whatever you guys keep trying to use to distract away from this farce.   

> You're on fire Doc! What's next?  
> woodbe.

  The collapse of this farce?  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> Yes, assuming current rates continue, and assuming many, many things, it will add just under 1 millimeter in about 20 years.

   

> In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean  Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger  demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could  add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice,  or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of  sea-level rise.

  The 2.9% was from another paper I decided not to link. (there's a few of them if you look) The difference could have been the temperature of the water or the salt content or the time of year or phase of the moon or something, but 2.6% appears to be in the ballpark. 
Same link as my original post blowing this denialist claptrap out of the water. 
This rise is additional any rise due to thermal expansion or melting land ice.  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> You're on fire Doc! What's next?

   

> The collapse of this farce?

  I didn't think you'd give in so easily.  :Cool:  
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Greenie book shop!

  I checked Borders this afternoon - they're out of them too. 
It must be a popular title.

----------


## PhilT2

> I don't have time to research this "secret society" they are all referring to above

  Can't quite recall where I referred to anything as a "secret society" but whatever. The point I was trying to make is that I didn't feel there was anything surprising in Oreskes' book. Everything the tobacco companies did was made public when they got busted.The memos about how they knew what their product was doing and how much they paid scientists to throw doubt on good quality research and to make accusations of fraud without evidence against other scientists is all a matter of public record. 
Likewise the funding Exxon gives to Singers Institute is public knowledge. What they wanted for their money was leaked to the media long ago. That big companies will spend big dollars to protect their profits doesn't come as a surprise to most of us. That they can buy someone to push their agenda for them is not exactly earth shattering news either. 
So, sorry, no secret society, no star chamber, no secret handshake and worst of all no secret payoffs. Bugger.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The 2.9% was from another paper I decided not to link. (there's a few of them if you look) The difference could have been the temperature of the water or the salt content or the time of year or phase of the moon or something, but 2.6% appears to be in the ballpark. 
> woodbe.

  We are in furious agreement my friend.  After *all* the floating ice melts, it will add about 4cm, assuming we hold *all* other variables constant.  This will take about 1000 years assuming current melt rates are consistent over this entire period, over the entire planet, at an approximate rate of about 1mm per 20 years.  These figures are obviously all extrapolated from the melt models, so don't go relying on them for another semantic sidetrack.  My opinion on models is well documented so I certainly won't be vigorously defending these numbers.  Suffice to say, those ardent NHST fans will no doubt be able to determine whether these numbers are of either statistical significance or practical significance.    

> Same link as my original post blowing this denialist claptrap out of the water. 
> woodbe.

   :Roflmao2:    

> ...you really should get some help, seriously, book a few sessions.

   

> This rise is additional any rise due to thermal expansion or melting land ice.  
> woodbe.

  So, by the end of the century when oceans have risen by 250 feet based on the "other" inputs (watch the video posted soon  :Biggrin: ), an extra 5mm will come from sea ice. 
WOW! Every little bit helps I guess.  :Biggrin:  
Imagine if the full 4cms kicks in.  Better start building that Ark.

----------


## Dr Freud

You may want to keep a closer eye on your children's teachers after watching this.  
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCd6qAia0kQ"]YouTube - @LSU Part 1: Professor Tells Students "Blood Will Be On Your Hands"[/ame]  
  "Global warming preachers really are insane. From a Louisiana State University astronomy class comes this example of the fiery-eyed breed, Professor Bradley Schaefer.  
  A longer clip here."   Blood will be on your hands | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog  
I highly recommend setting aside 40 minutes to watch the full video. 
Disturbing is an understatement.  :Eek:  
Makes our AGW Theory supporters here seem quite normal.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> And the North polar area is mostly sea ice and melting sea ice does  not raise the sea level at all. Yet Warmists constantly hail any sign of  Arctic melting. That the melting of floating ice does not raise the water level is known as Archimedes' principle. Archimedes demonstrated it around 2,500 years ago. That Warmists have not yet caught up with that must be just about the most inspissated ignorance imaginable. The whole Warmist scare defies the most basic physics.

   

> We are in furious agreement my friend.  After all the floating ice melts, it will add about 4cm, assuming we hold all other variables constant.

  You've come a long way in a couple of days mate. Well done! 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> You've come a long way in a couple of days mate. Well done! 
> woodbe.

  Quoting out of context to misrepresent the truth again I see.  :Biggrin:  
One day you people may learn the difference between computer models and reality.  :No:  
Don't suppose you dug up any real(ity) evidence proving this theory yet?  Or is straight into the next semantic distraction.  :Tongue:

----------


## Dr Freud

*"In short, Climategate was quite probably the most important news story of 2009."   * http://asiancorrespondent.com/gavin-...ed-climategate 
This is the media that that muppet Oreskes believes is supporting a secret society of sceptical scientists over the believers of AGW Theory.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The University of the South Pacific is going to make the climate change a compulsory subject for all its students from next year.

  FBCL - News 
Again, what a bunch of w-nkers.  :Annoyed:  
The adults are finally grasping the ineptitude of this failed theory, so now they are forcibly brainwashing children to "believe" in this cult.

----------


## woodbe

> Quoting out of context to misrepresent the truth again I see.

  I don't think so. This mini-denialist saga started with you posting something you presumably believed: Archimedes principal meant that melting sea ice would not alter sea levels. After seeing clear evidence to the contrary you changed your belief. 
I simply juxtaposed those two opposing beliefs both posted by you within 8 days, and congratulated you for moving from supporting a denialist pseudo science belief to supporting a provable truth. 
Is it so hard to accept praise from your opponents?  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> You've come a long way in a couple of days mate. Well done! 
> woodbe.

  you might to want find out the difference between sea ice & fresh water ice, plus the how the 2.9% reference was given in the first place.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> you might to want find out the difference between sea ice & fresh water ice, plus the how the 2.9% reference was given in the first place.
> regards inter

  Good luck swinging them.  But I've learned that it's pointless arguing with the deluded.  They drag you into their delusion then beat you with experience and local knowledge.  :Biggrin:  
The more they push these ridiculous semantic distractions, the more people who know nothing about this farce turn away.  Even people with no knowledge of the farcical state of this theory begin to ask "If the science is so certain in proving AGW Theory, why can the supporters never post even one piece of evidence proving it?  They just keep posting semantic distractions." 
So keep up the good work lads, you guys actually turn more people off this farce than I do.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## Dr Freud

> All beer contains dissolved carbon dioxide.    
> What the hell, die happy!

  I've been polluting my body to hell ever since!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> ...two opposing beliefs...  
> woodbe.

  One is a scientific principle. 
The other is a computer model prediction. 
Neither is a belief, and they certainly are not opposing.   

> One day you people may learn the difference between computer models and reality.

  Or maybe not!  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> you might to want find out the difference between sea ice & fresh water ice, plus the how the 2.9% reference was given in the first place.
> regards inter

  Thanks inter,   

> Similarly, people also think that when ocean water freezes to  form sea ice and then melts, the water is merely going through a change  of state, so it wont affect sea level. However, in a visit to NSIDC in  May, Dr. Peter Noerdlinger, a professor at St. Marys University in Nova  Scotia, Canada, suggested otherwise.

  So you're suggesting that because sea ice has more salt in it than fresh water, but less than the sea, the effect will be somewhat less than if it were fresh water ice? 
Don't have a problem with that. The point of it is not the amount of the increase, but the fact that Archimedes principle cannot be applied to sea ice or any ice floating on the sea for that matter. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> "If the science is so certain in proving AGW Theory, why can the supporters never post even one piece of evidence proving it? "

  We have.  Numerous times throughout the last 238 pages.   
But because it isn't spelled out like a simplistic newspaper headline and because a great deal of the analysis is (by necessity) based on computer modelling....you don't accept it.   
You just judge our offerings based seemingly on these two irrelevant criteria and you go off on some self centred high horse rather than seriously & reasonably considering the validity of data, analysis and information on offer.  
...and you accuse us of being 'semantic' and 'simplistic'.   :brava:  
Let's make a deal.  You stop whinging about the 'scandal' of AGW and we'll stop whinging about your whinging.  And we can let this pointless thread fade away... 
The original point of discussion was on emission trading and I think history has demonstrated that it is a shot duck.  And the duck doesn't appear to have any siblings.  So sad, no bad.  Case closed. No need to keep banging on at something so irredeemably irrelevant and of obviously limited importance to the average citizen.  So why pretend otherwise?

----------


## jago

It's suddenly just got interesting again... :brava:

----------


## chrisp

*Here are a couple of excerpts from a report I stumbled across.  They make interesting reading:*   

> If the average rate of increase of combustion continues at 3.2 percent per year, the quantity injected into the atmosphere by the year 2000 will be about 42 percent; if the 5% rate of increase during the last 8 years persists the quantity injected will be close to 60 percent. Assuming further that the proportion remaining in the atmosphere continues to be half the total quantity injected, *the increase in atmospheric C02 in the year 2000 could be somewhere between 14 percent and 30 percent*. 
> [Appendix Y4 p.119]

   

> One of the most recent discussions of these effects is given by Moller (1963) . He considers the radiation balance at the earth's surface with an average initial temperature of 15°C (59°F), a relative humidity of 75 percent, and 50% cloudiness. We may compute from his data that *with a 25 percent increase in atmospheric C02, the average temperature near the earth's surface could increase between 0.6°C and 4°C (1.1* *°**F to 7°F)*, depending on the behavior of the atmospheric water vapor content. 
> [Appendix Y4 P.121]

  The report is: "_Restoring the Quality of Our Environment_", Report of The Environmental Pollution Panel President's Science Advisory Committee, The White House *November 1965  This report is 45 years old!  * Some scans of the report can be found at: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeir...nvironment.pdf  *A very impressive prediction for a pre-computer modelling era!* 
Some further excerpts can also be found at: Lyndon B. Johnson: Statement by the President in Response to Science Advisory Committee Report on Pollution of Air, Soil, and Waters.  
For example:  

> _We must rely on economic incentives to discourage pollution. Under this plan special taxes would be levied against polluters._

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It's suddenly just got interesting again...

  LOL it will keep getting interesting as temps fail to rise to predicted levels and we get cooler wetter summers and colder and snowier winters in the next five years or so. 
The PDO tells us so. 
Oh I forgot to mention that all the while Co2 will keep rising as well, for all our good intentions and all the effort Co2 output has only one way to go and that is up. 
Population growth and modernizing of 3rd world countries tells us so. 
Not to mention the 80% growth in coal mining forecast for QLD alone  :Biggrin:   
Oh lets shut Hazelwood and have blackouts might be a good idea.  Then we can sell our coal to China instead let them be the bad guys.  Getting better all the time, 
Stay tuned Jago.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *Here are a couple of excerpts from a report I stumbled across. They make interesting reading:* 
> The report is: "_Restoring the Quality of Our Environment_", Report of The Environmental Pollution Panel President's Science Advisory Committee, The White House *November 1965*  *This report is 45 years old!*  
> Some scans of the report can be found at: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeir...nvironment.pdf  *A very impressive prediction for a pre-computer modelling era!* 
> Some further excerpts can also be found at: Lyndon B. Johnson: Statement by the President in Response to Science Advisory Committee Report on Pollution of Air, Soil, and Waters.  
> For example:

  Yes and what happened to temps for the next 10 years after 1965? 
Great prediction.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Good news guys the Antartic ice is up. Great new does this mean we are saved?

----------


## Rod Dyson

More good news from the weather is not climate department.  *Extreme Cold To Grip Europe. Forecast -38°C in Switzerland…Will Be Even Colder Later…Pattern Not Seen in 70 Years.*  
Link Extreme Cold To Grip Europe. Forecast -38°C in Switzerland…Will Be Even Colder Later…Pattern Not Seen in 70 Years. 
I guess this has to be good news as we are so worried about warming "colding" must be good news?

----------


## chrisp

> More good news from the weather is not climate department.  *Extreme Cold To Grip Europe. Forecast -38°C in SwitzerlandWill Be Even Colder LaterPattern Not Seen in 70 Years.*  
> Link Extreme Cold To Grip Europe. Forecast -38°C in SwitzerlandWill Be Even Colder LaterPattern Not Seen in 70 Years. 
> I guess this has to be good news as we are so worried about warming "colding" must be good news?

  Rod, 
You are cherry picking and I suspect that you know that you are. 
It is called *global* warming - and yep, sure, some places will be colder, but the global *average* is hotter. 
Since you like cheery picking, why not quote a bit of local *weather* too... BBC News - Hottest night in Melbourne for 100 years    :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> You are cherry picking and I suspect that you know that you are.

   :Innocent:

----------


## PhilT2

I know Doc would have posted this but it must have slipped his mind. 
The remarks came during a debate on electricity prices in Parliament yesterday, and after Perth has sweltered through the *hottest October in 41 years* and the *warmest start to November* in more than a century.
from Air-conditioners 'Not Necessary' in Perth Says Colin Barnett

----------


## chrisp

> I know Doc would have posted this but it must have slipped his mind. 
> The remarks came during a debate on electricity prices in Parliament yesterday, and after Perth has sweltered through the *hottest October in 41 years* and the *warmest start to November* in more than a century.
> from Air-conditioners 'Not Necessary' in Perth Says Colin Barnett

  He is probably busy reading the *political opinion* section of the paper and hasn't made it to the weather section yet.    :Biggrin:

----------


## Daniel Morgan

:Yikes2:

----------


## Rod Dyson

MUST READ  
What a post on WUWT by Joe Bastardi, how smart is this guy? By that I mean his whole approach to AGW is right on IMO.   
Link http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/2...on/#more-28239  *Joe Bastardi* _says:_  November 24, 2010 at 4:18 am 
In response to Will, lets think globally. First of all, you can not have read anything I have said over the years, or watch what I do with the sea ice report, because everyone that has knows I have given time to the co2 argument, acknowledging the chance it may be right. However all I ask for is the 20-30 years to prove that it is not, not the shut down, nor the portraying as ignorant, those of us thathave a different opinion. The easy way out for me, and probably the much more profitable, is to simply side with the side that the money is on.  
However to me, all this is is a big forecast.. a grand one, 30 years long. And if I am right, who are people going to turn too when they want someone that can help them in long term planning. More important than that…it is a MATTER OF RIGHT AND WRONG on an idea. So I will try here to sum this up for those that think I dont even look at computers, or make willy nilly statements. So here we go: The southern hemisphere sea ice has COME UP the past 30 years almost as much as the northern hemisphere has come down. 
It really is intuitive as to what is going on. The warm PDO and AMO tandem warms the continents, of which most land mass is in the northern hemisphere. This means that the arctic ice cap, essentially land locked, has to shrink in response, because it is warming up around it for one, and for two, the AMOhas a direct way, with warm water, to attack the cap where it is more open. The simple test, without billions of dollars of research money, is to simply allow the cold pdo ( just started in 2007 ) and the coming cold amo ( should start around 2020) have their chance . Its easy and intuitive and of course very threatening to the multi trillion dollar industry and political and religious movement that this has become. I understand that. Now lets go to the southern hemisphere, mainly water.  
How is it that the sea ice has INCREASED, while the N hemisphere has decreased? The answer I propose, and again at the risk of blowing all the grant money out of the water, is that if we could accurately measurethe energy budget of the earth, we would find it is NOT CHANGING. That all that has happened is a northward distortion of where its warm, in response to a natural cyclical occurrence. So if you want to say the trend is down in the north, I have proposed a simple, and over the next 30 years, testable hypothesis.  
And I dont need billions of dollars of grant money or computer modeling to prove it. All I need , and others of good will out there, is to objectively and rationally watch what happens when the mechanism(s) that I believe have caused this, reverse, and are MEASURED WITHOUT ANY READJUSTMENT in a constant fashion by an objective method, which we did not have before, when the PDO was cold, we only started when it turned warm.  
The theory is simple… A warm PDO, then AMO, results in the appearance of global warming because of the response on the land masses, when in reality it is a distortion north of the warmth. And warming dry air over land takes much less energy than forcing an oceanic response. A look at the PDO, AMO values over the past 60 years reveals nearly any changes in those figures overall, and the problemmay indeed be that the current distortion of warming may be masking a cooling that is going on, that would put us in far worse shape than if there is warming.  
But we will know all this by 2030. In fact I think you should see it now. I made a forecast for global temps returning to normal or a bit below by March of 2011. I made this back when the earths temp was in the el nino spike. One can simply watch the antics of the global temps in response to the smaller scale enso movements and then understand why the large multi-decadal movements should lead to this.  
The threat here is that if correct, then the whole thing would be as Bill Gray has been saying for years, a hoax and a scam. But here is all I ask. lets let it play out. After all if the models are right, then we should quickly see a jump in temp back to their forecast from 20 years ago. The little known fact is while this decade has been warm, it has essentially flattened out from the rise that would have been a natural response to the phenomena I have pointed out.  
If there was a co2 induced tipping point, rather than a “governor” on the earths thermostat caused by the theory the total energy
IS NOT CHANGING and temperature is a measure of energy, then temps would have responded to the higher levels that the IPCC forecast had them. 
My point is this: It was high tide, but the tide is going out. I am not afraid of the answer, and simple logic and respect for nature and what has done, and can do, will prove that once again mans folly in thinking he can control what he did not create. 
And for those that scream and holler at all this, let me ask you..who are you going to believe, someone else, or your own “lying eyes” IT IS BEFUDDLING TO ME that we now have an OBJECTIVE WAY of measuring all this… NO READJUSTING temps,
no proxy this or that… we have the satellite measurements at the end of the last cold PDO, 1978 and beyond. If you are right, you have nothing to fear, the temps will continue up.  
But you at least have the way to watch. Lets give the cold PDO and AMO ( heck I didnt even bring up solar cycles, volcanoes, etc) their chance. The fact is that the true DENIERS out there simply want to deny the chance for a level playing field objective test. And the reasons, I believe, are not about getting the right answer, but force feeding a predetermined answer. 
If you are right, then you will carry the day anyway. Look at this as a bowl game
it will prove that you should have the title. 
as always.. cheers to all

----------


## chrisp

> MUST READ

  I'll take your word on that and read it....   

> *Joe Bastardi* _says:_ 
> [Paragraph #1 - cut] 
> ... So here we go: The southern hemisphere sea ice has COME UP the past 30 years almost as much as the northern hemisphere has come down.

  Did you look that up, or just accept it?  
From: SOTC: Sea Ice    

> It really is intuitive as to what is going on. The warm PDO and AMO tandem warms the continents, of which most land mass is in the northern hemisphere. This means that the arctic ice cap, essentially land locked, has to shrink in response, because it is warming up around it for one, and for two, the AMOhas a direct way, with warm water, to attack the cap where it is more open. The simple test, without billions of dollars of research money, is to simply allow the cold pdo ( just started in 2007 ) and the coming cold amo ( should start around 2020) have their chance . Its easy and intuitive and of course very threatening to the multi trillion dollar industry and political and religious movement that this has become. I understand that. Now lets go to the southern hemisphere, mainly water.

  So the argument is that the Southern Hemisphere is cooler while the Northern Hemisphere is warmer?    
From: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/ne...-temp-full.jpg    

> ...if we could accurately measure the energy budget of the earth, we would find it is NOT CHANGING.

  The energy budget has changed - the plant is warming.  
from: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...re_Anomaly.png  
From: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...re_Anomaly.png      

> The theory is simple… A warm PDO, then AMO, results in the appearance of global warming because of the response on the land masses, when in reality it is a distortion north of the warmth. And warming dry air over land takes much less energy than forcing an oceanic response.

  There may be differences in the heat capacity of the two hemispheres, but the theory falls down as both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are warming.  For the theory to hold, one would need to be cooling while the other is heating. 
The whole "Bastardi theory" (is that really his name?) is just unsubstantiated words that just don't hold up to scrutiny.

----------


## intertd6

> Thanks inter,   
> So you're suggesting that because sea ice has more salt in it than fresh water, but less than the sea, the effect will be somewhat less than if it were fresh water ice? 
> Don't have a problem with that. The point of it is not the amount of the increase, but the fact that Archimedes principle cannot be applied to sea ice or any ice floating on the sea for that matter. 
> woodbe.

  what I am suggesting is that nth pole sea ice makes SFA difference to sea levels when it melts or freezes because the minor difference it does make over a tiny percentage of the globes sea areas becomes insignificant when taking into consideration the high percentage the global area that is free of sea ice. Salinity
is a whole different kettle of fish .
Polar ice is a different description of ice, combining sea ice & fresh water ice which would include the greenland ice sheet & thats moving the goal posts to what the initial claim was about.... sea ice.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

Chrisp take your argument to Joe. Post it on WUWT. I would like to see the responses. Maybe I will send post a link and see what comes up. 
I like his attitude of makeing a prediction based on his knowledge of facts not cooked up graphs, un-proven theories or models.  
He is not saying anything other than here is my prediction and this is what it is based on. Now lets wait and see who is right. 
Makes a lot more sense to work with facts IMO. :Wink 1:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The whole "Bastardi theory" (is that really his name?) is just unsubstantiated words that just don't hold up to scrutiny.

   

> If you are right, then you will carry the day anyway. Look at this as a bowl game
> it will prove that you should have the title.

  And so. he says.   

> And for those that scream and holler at all this, let me ask you..who are you going to believe, someone else, or your own lying eyes IT IS BEFUDDLING TO ME that we now have an OBJECTIVE WAY of measuring all this NO READJUSTING temps,
> no proxy this or that we have the satellite measurements at the end of the last cold PDO, 1978 and beyond. If you are right, you have nothing to fear, the temps will continue up.

  I love that comment. If you are right you have nothing to fear. 
Something tells me this guy is practical and is on the money.

----------


## woodbe

> Polar ice is a different description of ice, combining sea ice & fresh water ice which would include the greenland ice sheet & thats moving the goal posts to what the initial claim was about.... sea ice.
> regards inter

  I'm with you, except that the original goal posts were sea ice as you say, and Archimedes principle. I can't get the original paper to see exactly what makes up their 4cm prediction, but I agree that the actual amount of increase is small, especially compared to the heavy lifters of sea level rise. 
Speaking of which; 
Note that Greenland Ice sheet is not floating on the sea, and I'm not sure it's classified as polar ice either? (maybe its calvings are though?) Perhaps they mean Polar Ice Packs but "Polar ice packs are large areas of pack ice formed from seawater in the Earth's polar regions," - that would exclude Greenland calvings. 
I don't know. Its a terminology minefield  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

MUST READ  
What a post on Open Mind by Tamino how smart is this guy? By that I mean his whole approach to AGW is right on IMO.   
Link All that data | Open Mind  

> * All that data* 
> This post is especially for those who arent sure whether  global warming is real or not, whether its man-made or not, whether  its dangerous or not.  Let me tell you what made up my mind. 
>   Readers may recall that not too long ago, I personally analyzed all the data in the entire GHCN  (global historical climate network).  I did this because Anthony Watts  and Joe DAleo published a document claiming that the GHCN data, and the  way it was processed, exaggerated estimates of how much the globe has  warmed over the last century or more.  They even claimed that the  scientists who managed, and who processed, these data had deliberately  manipulated both the data (by selectively removing or retaining data  locations) and the analysis (by their methods of applying adjustments)  to exaggerate the warming trend. 
> Although I trust the scientists who managed the data and did the analysis, and have no reason to mistrust them, *I tested the claims anyway*.   I processed the entire GHCN, to compare the temperature from the  stations which had stopped reporting to those which continued to report,  and to compare the temperature according to the raw (unadjusted) data  to that according to the adjusted data. 
>   I discovered that both claims by Watts & DAleo were wrong.  Station dropout did _not_ exaggerate the warming at all (it had almost no effect), and the adjustments didnt exaggerate warming either (in fact they _reduced_ it).  I challenged Watts to apologize,  not for getting it wrong but for accusing the scientists involved of  fraud.  His only response, as far as I know, has been to plead ignorance  because he didnt do the analysis  nor did DAleo.  They published a  document claiming fraud, but *they hadnt even done the analysis*. 
> I did.  I didnt just take somebodys word for it.  I didnt just look  at some graph of some cherry-picked data set and believe the story that  went along with it.  I analyzed the data myself.  All of it.  Doing so, I  started a minor ripple in the internet, because about half a dozen  other bloggers decided to reproduce my results  they actually analyzed  the data!  All of them came to the same conclusions that I did. 
>   Thats not the only time Ive actually analyzed data related to global warming. 
>   When Christopher Monckton made false claims about the growth rate of carbon dioxide, I analyzed that data too.   When Monckton objected that I had used data from Mauna Loa atmospheric  observatory rather than the NOAA global dataset that he used, I  analyzed the NOAA global dataset and showed that he was wrong again.  When Norman G. Purves at Climategate Country Club made false claims about sea level rise, I analyzed that data too.  When David Whitehouse made false claims about the trend in global temperature, I analyzed recent trends in the four most common global temperature records.  Ive done that often, and even estimated by strict mathematical analysis when the trend has changed. 
> When Anthony Watts and Steve Goddard made repeated posts with false  claims about sea ice, including its extent and its thickness, I actually  analyzed sea ice thickness data from submarines.  And of course I analyzed sea ice extent data from satellites,  and made my own prediction of the summer minimum extent of the arctic  ice pack.  My prediction turned out to be remarkably accurate  unlike  those of Watts and Goddard  although I admit that not only did I use  the right theory, I got lucky.  Ive also analyzed sea ice extent for more than a century, for both hemispheres, not just the satellite data covering the last three decades.  Hell, Ive even studied how ice extent relates to its latitudinal range, and the difference between sea ice extent and area. 
> ...

  _woodbe._

----------


## Rod Dyson

> MUST READ  
> What a post on Open Mind by Tamino how smart is this guy? By that I mean his whole approach to AGW is right on IMO.  
> Link All that data | Open Mind   _woodbe._

   I agree with you that earth has warmed since the 70's I just don't believe that is is not natural. It has also been flatlining since 1998. There has also been some fudging of data to make it appear warmer, like it or not. Creative adjustments is just one way. 
We can't and won't reduce Co2 even if it was the cause.  Like Joe says lets wait and see who is right. 
No way in any way have these scientists proved AGW. No way should we destroy our lives while this remains the case. And there is now way while Temps fail to meet the IPCC model predictions, will the puiblic fall for this charade. 
There rant over.

----------


## Dr Freud

> "If the science is so certain in proving AGW Theory, why can the supporters never post even one piece of evidence proving it?"

   

> We have.  Numerous times throughout the last 238 pages.

  You better chat to Woodbe about this, he thinks you're lying!  :Shock:    

> You've never really gotten hold of the scientific method, have you ... it will never be 100% proven.

    

> ...and you accuse us of being 'semantic' and 'simplistic'.

  From memory, I accused you of being semantic, but myself as being simple.  :Confused:  
But as I am simple, I could have gotten this mixed up.    

> Let's make a deal. You stop whinging about the 'scandal' of AGW and we'll stop whinging about your whinging. And we can let this pointless thread fade away...

  Deal or no deal? 
NO DEAL!  :Biggrin:  
I like whinging about this farce, and I think secretly you guys like me doing this so you can post more fictional propaganda to try and win more converts to your belief system.  You see, belief system is the technically correct term for this.  That is why all the converts say "I believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming".  :2thumbsup:    

> The original point of discussion was on emission trading...

  Scroll up or down and click first.  It was a while ago, but from memory there was more to it than that.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It's suddenly just got interesting again...

  Wait till the greenies convince idiot governments to start shutting down coal power stations. 
Then it will get interesting.  :Crash:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I know Doc would have posted this but it must have slipped his mind. 
> The remarks came during a debate on electricity prices in Parliament yesterday, and after Perth has sweltered through the *hottest October in 41 years* and the *warmest start to November* in more than a century.
> from Air-conditioners 'Not Necessary' in Perth Says Colin Barnett

  Sorry champ. I was so busy with beach parties, babes in bikinis and barbies that I didn't have time. 
This global warming is fantastic!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> 

   :2thumbsup:  
Boy are they gonna hate you.  Bringing up reality all unannounced.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> You better chat to Woodbe about this, he thinks you're lying!         Originally Posted by woodbe  You've never really gotten hold of the scientific method, have you ... it will never be 100% proven.

  I can't see that but you seem to be happy doing something you accuse others of:   

> Quoting out of context to misrepresent the truth again I see.

  Just in case you forgot, here's the rest for context: 
Once the dust settles, and a hypothesis becomes accepted as the ruling  theory, the idea is for scientists to try and make a better one. It gets  tested in every discipline. The only reason it stands is not because  its proven, but because no-one has been able to unseat it and disprove  it. Attempts to unseat a ruling theory generally land up confirming it.  This is where AGW is now - new studies are added to the thousands  already in the pile that confirm the theory, but it will never be 100%  proven. 
But don't take my word for this, here is what Stephen Hawking says about it:   

> "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must   accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a   model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make   definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes   on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense   that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many   times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never   be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.  On  the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single   observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The   "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a necessary   consequence of using inductive logic.

  woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

I wonder if the Doc is unwell?  He *only* posted 4 sequential posts last night. 
Doc, I hope you get better soon. 
It has been warm over your way so it might be heat exhaustion.   :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> what I am suggesting is that nth pole sea ice makes SFA difference to sea levels when it melts or freezes because the minor difference it does make over a tiny percentage of the globes sea areas becomes insignificant when taking into consideration the high percentage the global area that is free of sea ice. Salinity is a whole different kettle of fish .
> Polar ice is a different description of ice, combining sea ice & fresh water ice which would include the greenland ice sheet & thats moving the goal posts to what the initial claim was about.... sea ice.
> regards inter

  Give that man a cigar....or a decent drink at least.  Spot on. 
Sea ice and the extent thereof is not a significant contributor to sea level change.   
BUT 
it is one of the most sensitive ice forms (along with glaciers & permafrost) with respect to the surrounding climate.  It is also comparatively easy to measure. So it is an effective indicator of the relative impact of the climate upon ice.  If we get a trend towards declining extent and (more importantly) thickness of sea ice then than indicates either a warming atmospheric climate or even a warming ocean climate. 
The latter has been tested recently using temperature and depth loggers fitted to Narwhal (Arctic based small whale with the unicorn like horn).  These animals feed on the bottom of the Arctic Sea so they travel right through the water column making them ideal hosts for scientific equipment.  The data suggested that some layers of the water column in the Baffin Bay area were now warmer than the current oceanographic models suggest they should (original data came from buoys and human based survey). So some tweaking and investigation is called for. 
Just remember.....the things we typically measure in science are just indicators of a process....they are rarely the process itself.   
Sea ice extent, CO2, _Escherichia coli_ counts, education level, cholesterol, PSA......all are merely indictors of something potentially 'greater'. On their own....without context....they are just...numbers.

----------


## intertd6

> I'm with you, except that the original goal posts were sea ice as you say, and Archimedes principle. I can't get the original paper to see exactly what makes up their 4cm prediction, but I agree that the actual amount of increase is small, especially compared to the heavy lifters of sea level rise. 
> Speaking of which; 
> Note that Greenland Ice sheet is not floating on the sea, and I'm not sure it's classified as polar ice either? (maybe its calvings are though?) Perhaps they mean Polar Ice Packs but "Polar ice packs are large areas of pack ice formed from seawater in the Earth's polar regions," - that would exclude Greenland calvings. 
> I don't know. Its a terminology minefield  
> woodbe.

   2/3 rds of greenland is above the arctic circle & if that isn't polar then what is?
another thing that is overlooked, while the arctic ice is thawing at the other end of the globe the antarctic sea ice is forming (in increasing areas)
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> From: SOTC: Sea Ice         
> .

   

> Give that man a cigar....or a decent drink at least. Spot on. 
> Sea ice and the extent thereof is not a significant contributor to sea level change.  
> BUT 
> it is one of the most sensitive ice forms (along with glaciers & permafrost) with respect to the surrounding climate. It is also comparatively easy to measure. So it is an effective indicator of the relative impact of the climate upon ice. If we get a trend towards declining extent and (more importantly) thickness of sea ice then than indicates either a warming atmospheric climate

  If you look at the graph at the top it shoots the co2 theory down in one shot, what it does indicate is a northern hemishere trend of warming above the global average, why? where are most of the industrial regions of the globe? where is most of the atmoshperic pollution generated? which hemisphere is draped in a continuous cloud of greenhouse haze created by the above. co2 as the cause measured in PPM is a boffins wet dream come true.
regards inter

----------


## chrisp

> If you look at the graph at the top it *shoots the co2 theory down in one shot*, what it does indicate is a northern hemishere trend of warming above the global average, why? where are most of the industrial regions of the globe? *where is most of the atmoshperic pollution generated? which hemisphere is draped in a continuous cloud of greenhouse haze created by the above.* co2 as the cause measured in PPM is a boffins wet dream come true.
> regards inter

  I wonder what that "*pollution*" and "*greenhouse haze*" consists of?  It wouldn't be *CO2* by any chance. would it?   :Rolleyes:

----------


## woodbe

> 2/3 rds of greenland is above the arctic circle & if that isn't polar then what is?
> another thing that is overlooked, while the arctic ice is thawing at the other end of the globe the antarctic sea ice is forming (in increasing areas)
> regards inter

  Yep. True enough. The Antarctic doesn't grow as fast, but grow it does. 
Is everything within the arctic circle considered polar? I don't seem to be able to track down a concise definition. I think myself lucky to have been about 400km north of the circle, its a magical region. Trifle cold but  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> I wonder what that "*pollution*" and "*greenhouse haze*" consists of? It wouldn't be *CO2* by any chance. would it?

  the atmospheric pollution & greenhouse haze are the visible effects, (of burning fossil fuels) which is causing warming in the northern hemisphere faster than the southern,
its only a theory, but markedly more plausable than the co2 wet dream.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Yep. True enough. The Antarctic doesn't grow as fast, but grow it does. 
> Is everything within the arctic circle considered polar? I don't seem to be able to track down a concise definition. I think myself lucky to have been about 400km north of the circle, its a magical region. Trifle cold but  
> woodbe.

  I was lucky enough to have a beer or 3 with a mountaineer, about 400km south of the antarctic circle, who had sailed to the true north pole, set the BBQ & cooked lunch with some comrades who just wanted to say it was possible. The bit of ice under the BBQ is probably the only true bit of polar ice there is when it comes down to specifics
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> the atmospheric pollution & greenhouse haze are the visible effects, (of burning fossil fuels) which is causing warming in the northern hemisphere faster than the southern,
> its only a theory, but markedly more plausable than the co2 wet dream.
> regards inter

  What's the theory's mechanism inter? 
Have you got a link? 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

Its been a while since I have visited any sites relating to it but just look( google ) under global warming because of photochemical & particultes atmospheric pollution
regards inter

----------


## chrisp

> the atmospheric pollution & greenhouse haze are the visible effects, (of burning fossil fuels) which is causing warming in the northern hemisphere faster than the southern, *its only a theory*, but markedly more plausable than the co2 wet dream.
> regards inter

  I'll say it is only a theory!  :Eek:  
I'm not sure whether you are claiming the extra pollution in the Northern hemisphere is causing a *temperature rise due to increased CO2*. (in which case you are arguing CO2 is causing the temperature rise) or whether you are arguing that the *increased particulates in the air are causing a temperature rise - which is contrary to the global dimming theory*.  Dimming causes the temperature to fall. 
Here is a link on dimming  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming  
Theories need a sound scientific basis to be plausible.

----------


## intertd6

> I'll say it is only a theory!   1 I'm not sure whether you are claiming the extra pollution in the Northern hemisphere is causing a *temperature rise due to increased CO2*. (in which case you are arguing CO2 is causing the temperature rise) 2 or whether you are arguing that the *increased particulates in the air are causing a temperature rise - which is contrary due to global dimming theory*. Dimming causes the temperature fall. 
> Here is a link on dimming Global dimming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   3 Theories need a sound scientific basis to be plausible.

  thats no for 1 
partly yes for 2. also without the dimming reference 
3 is so true
read the post # 4272 for easy to read road signs pointing in the direction of the real culprit
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Not all Geologists are in denial, it seems:  *Climate change: evidence from the geological record* 
A statement by the Geological Society of London. November 2010   

> In the coming centuries, continued emissions of carbon from burning oil,  gas and coal at close to or higher than todays levels, and from  related human activities, could increase the total to close to the  amounts added during the 55 million year warming event  some 1500 to  2000 billion tonnes. Further contributions from natural sources  (wetlands, tundra, methane hydrates, etc.) may come as the Earth warms22.  The geological evidence from the 55 million year event and from earlier  warming episodes suggests that such an addition is likely to raise  average global temperatures by at least 5-6ºC, and possibly more, and  that recovery of the Earths climate in the absence of any mitigation  measures could take 100,000 years or more. Numerical models of the  climate system support such an interpretation44. In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.

  Link to full statement
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> MUST READ  
> What a post on Open Mind by Tamino how smart is this guy? By that I mean his whole approach to AGW is right on IMO.   
> Link All that data | Open Mind   _woodbe._

  This man is an idiot.(The Tamino dude, not Woodbe, you're just susceptible to persuasion) .   :Biggrin:  
He falls into the trap set for the weak minded that leads them to look for effects, then just assume the cause is humans because "anyone who's anyone" believes this. 
Seriously, what an idiot.  At least the IPCC tried to cover up their abject failure of attribution with computer models and just making up numbers from thin air.   

> Originally Posted by *Tamino*  _
> This post is especially for those who arent sure whether global warming is real or not, whether its man-made or not, whether its dangerous or not. Let me tell you what made up my mind._

  _
So, his mind is made up.  I guess for him, there is no doubt.  He has absolute belief in this farce with zero evidence proving it.       
			
				You know what? 
  The results are consistent: confirming global warming.  Every time.
			
		   Er, did you confirm the cause, moron!  
Er, did you confirm the danger, loony! _

----------


## Dr Freud

> I can't see that but you seem to be happy doing something you accuse others of: 
> woodbe.

  
First point, all my posts are just the sexy or relevant bits, but they also contain a link back to the original source material, so if people really care, they can link back and read the whole lot.   

> Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*  _We are in furious agreement my friend. After all the floating ice melts, it will add about 4cm, assuming we hold all other variables constant._

  I'm sure you just accidentally removed the link back to the full material you took this from. (Nothing a quick edit couldn't fix)  :Wink 1:  
Second point, I thought we had already distinguished between computer model predictions and a scientific principle, which you were mistakenly representing as being opposing "beliefs", without proper links to allow others to recognise your mistake. 
My fully linked post showed one AGW Theory supporter saying this theory will never be proven, and another saying it had already been proven.  Now unlike your proposition above, this appears to me to be "opposing" positions.  I was just seeking clarification as to which position was the "consensus" from the AGW Theory believers, as that seems to be the way you come to conclusions?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I wonder if the Doc is unwell?  He *only* posted 4 sequential posts last night. 
> Doc, I hope you get better soon. 
> It has been warm over your way so it might be heat exhaustion.

  Yeh, it's certainly warming up over here.  We've had some easterly's blowing recently and I think they're blowing all the CO2 into Perth from inland.  :Yes:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> If you look at the graph at the top it shoots the co2 theory down in one shot, what it does indicate is a northern hemishere trend of warming above the global average, why? where are most of the industrial regions of the globe? where is most of the atmoshperic pollution generated? which hemisphere is draped in a continuous cloud of greenhouse haze created by the above. co2 as the cause measured in PPM is a boffins wet dream come true.

  So close....yet so far. 
NO it does not shoot down the CO2 'theory'....as I've said before the graph merely an indicator of 'something' in which CO2 plays just a part.  Physical interactions are just NOT that simplistic. And that goes for both sides of this 'debate'.  
So all the graph indicates is the trends in ice extent.....nothing else. It does not suggest attribution to any particular causal factor.  For that we need a great many more graphs and statistical analysis of the enormous range of potential causal factors.  Now that work has in the large part been done in a huge number of papers....most of which are referenced in the IPCC reports.  But there's a few more since the last one.....

----------


## Dr Freud

"A new paper in the _Geophysical Research Letters_ says sea level rises in the past decade caused by melting are so far no more than 1mm a year: 
  The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites (GRACE) provide, for the first time, a method to directly measure mass exchange between the land and oceans over time Here, we determine the secular trend in these two components during the GRACE measurement era: 20032009. For each component, we model the distinct regional signatures or fingerprints of relative sea-level (RSL) change, obtaining maxima at low latitudes between ±40° N/S, but with particularly strong regional patterns. We estimate that the total ice and water mass loss from the continents is causing global mean sea-level to rise by 1.0 ± 0.4 mm/yr. 
  There will also be a small rise due to the warming-caused expansion of the oceans:   _One of the authors of the report, Riccardo Riva from the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, said that average annual rise in sea level rise due to meltwater entering the ocean is about 1 millimeter, but that an additional rise will come from that fact that as the average temperature rises so does the ocean temperature, which in turn causes the volume of the ocean to increase. _ They say the pace of the melting will take off later, but what we actually see so far is not of the scale the alarmists were predicting. 
  Reader Steve asked for comment from the ABCs science guru, Robyn Williams, who three years ago notoriously warned of sea level rises of up to 100 metres this century. Williams emailed response:   _I think were all fine._  _All contradictory info comes from foaming commies._ "   Williams sure wont get to 100 metres at this rate | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

*"Severe weather warnings for snow and ice across UK*     
More snow is forecast for the weekend and into next week    
It is the earliest widespread snowfall for 17 years. 
The latest severe weather warnings for Scotland are for Orkney and Shetland, the Highlands and Grampian, Central, Tayside, Fife, south-west Scotland, Lothian and Borders.  
         A heavy snow prediction for south-west England has been issued until 0200 GMT on Saturday.  
Sub-zero temperatures were recorded across the UK overnight into Friday, far lower than those normally experienced in November. "   BBC News - Severe weather warnings for snow and ice across UK  
  All of those carbon offset programs in Europe must be starting to work.  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

*"ROCKETING power prices are pushing hundreds of thousands of Victorians into "fuel poverty". *  			 		 		An estimated 211,000 households are already pouring more than 10 per cent of disposable income into electricity bills, new analysis claims.  
Upgrades needed for ageing infrastructure, electricity generation cost increases and a switch to more expensive, environmentally friendly wind and solar power are blamed for big price spikes.   *The harshest winter in a decade* also drove up bills as people cranked up heaters and consumed more electricity."   Surging prices create &#039;fuel poverty&#039; | Herald Sun    
So, the Planet's allegedly heating to hell, so we increase power prices to discourage use, and expect people to sit freezing at home.  :Confused:   
Great theory, great solution.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

How do you trick gullible people into feeling good about paying more taxes? 
Call it a green tax!  :Rotfl:  
"The Government today unveiled a raft of Budget measures to restore the State's finances by 2014... 
- Carbon tax charges will double to 30 a tonne, raising 330m... 
"It's to bring certainty for our people," Mr Cowen said."  Recovery plan unveiled - News, The Budget - Independent.ie  
It's brought certainty to all of us champ. 
We can now be certain carbon taxes are just another form of revenue with zero environmental credibility.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

*"Family pets are a big contributor to Australia's greedy use of resources.* 
          One of the most effective ways to save the world could be to eat your dog. When Robert and Brenda Vale of Wellington's Victoria University suggested such a measure in their book _Time to Eat the Dog?_ they did so to illustrate the drastic sort of action we would need to take to reverse the global problems we are facing. 
They were wildly criticised for this idea but maybe the time has come to take them seriously... 
...Dogs can't exactly take all the blame - a cat is the equivalent of a Volkswagen Golf. Two guinea pigs, funnily enough, have the same energy footprint as a plasma television..."  Dogs Leave Carbon Footprint 
They are insane.  But join the cult if this will make you happy.  :Screwy:

----------


## Dr Freud

*"PROBLEMS under Labor's failed home insulation program continue to surface. *                                The government has confirmed a house fire in Wagga Wagga in which three people died occurred after roofing insulation was installed at the property. 
Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said yesterday the cause of the fire this month was still to be determined but confirmed that the home had links to the botched insulation program. 
"On behalf of the government, I extend my deepest condolences to the family and friends of the three people who have died," Mr Combet said. 
John and Denise King, and their son William, 13, died in the blaze earlier this month. The family's dog was also killed."  Insulation link to fatal fire | The Australian  
If this saga was not so tragic for so many, that last line would have been suitable for much irony given the last post.  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

"Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore reportedly has had a change of heart on ethanol, telling a conference on green energy in Europe that he only supported tax breaks for the alternative fuel to pander to farmers in his home state of Tennessee and the first-in-the-nation caucuses state of Iowa...  ..."One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president," the wire service reported Gore saying...   ..The Media Research Center's Noel Sheppard noted that as vice president, Gore was the tie-breaking vote in 1994 when the Senate voted to authorize ethanol production. Sheppard said that those who question Gore's motives behind the climate change movement that landed the former vice president a Nobel prize and Oscar should also look to his comments on ethanol.   "So more than 10 years ago, Gore supported an expensive, 'not good policy' because he thought it would help him get elected president. Yet media don't believe he'd misrepresent the threat of manmade global warming in order to become extremely rich," Sheppard wrote Monday..."   FoxNews.com - Report: Al Gore Reverses View on Ethanol, Blames Politics for Previous Support 
Prophets of doom selling fake green propaganda for money and fame? Who woulda thought?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

*[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObsNCJjV0eE"]YouTube - Mad Men's Vincent Kartheiser Thinks Kids Hurt the Environment[/ame] * So, if it's "green" to not have kids, if we all went "green", then the human species would die out in about 100 years. 
Isn't that what AGW Theory believer's are most afraid of?  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

Some people really crack me up. 
If only we all had the time for irony on such a scale.  Heatball :: Home

----------


## woodbe

MUST READ. 
Personal Attack lesson below. 
Check this out. Tamino has really gotten under the Doc's radar. The Doc has dropped to the lowest common denominator with out answering any of Tamino's explanations for why he thinks the planet is warming, and why it's anthropogenic. 
Lets get on with the personal attacks, if you want to get into personal attacks, here is how to do it:   

> This man is an idiot.(The Tamino dude, not Woodbe, you're just susceptible to persuasion) .   
> He falls into the trap set for the weak minded that leads them to look for effects, then just assume the cause is humans because "anyone who's anyone" believes this. 
> Seriously, what an idiot.  At least the IPCC tried to cover up their abject failure of attribution with computer models and just making up numbers from thin air.  _
> So, his mind is made up.  I guess for him, there is no doubt.  He has absolute belief in this farce with zero evidence proving it.   
> Er, did you confirm the cause, moron!  
> Er, did you confirm the danger, loony! _

  Excellent Doc. This is textbook stuff!  :2thumbsup:  
Surprising really, as Tamino is one of those maths/stats people like you suggest to us you are. But hey, you're really showing us that you know how to challenge these people's personal positions better than we might. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> First point, [..] 
> Second point, [..]

  So Doc, I couldn't unravel from all that dribble whether you think a scientific theory can be proven or not? 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> This man is an idiot. 
> Seriously, what an idiot. _ 
> Er, did you confirm the cause, moron!  
> Er, did you confirm the danger, loony! _

  It appears to me that your friend Tamino is trying to convince the world AGW Theory is real without any proof by using entirely incomplete statistical arguments. 
I have given him the benefit of the doubt by attributing his failures to innocent ignorance or lack of ability:  *"id·i·ot* _n._* - 1.*  A foolish or stupid person.  *mo·ron* _n._* - 1.*  A stupid person; a dolt.  *loon·y* *- 1.*  Extremely foolish or silly." 
Now, if I wanted to be really mean, I'd accuse him of being in the pocket of big oil, making him a money grabbing fraud, but that's a bit harsh don't you think? 
But hey, I'm always happy to stand corrected.  I'm not a big Tamino reader, so when you post his statistical proof of anthropogenic causality of AGW Theory, with empirical evidence demonstrating the danger that *will* result, I will happily retract my descriptors above. 
Or, Tamino can admit he has no proof of anthropogenic causality or danger, and merely is relying on his belief of these things.  Then I will correctly re-label him an AGW Theory believer.  But while he incorrectly purports to have a statistically valid position in terms of attribution, then my descriptors above are entirely valid.   

> Excellent Doc. This is textbook stuff!  
> woodbe.

  Cool, I learned it on the street.  The textbooks must be right then.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> So Doc, I couldn't unravel from all that dribble whether you think a scientific theory can be proven or not? 
> woodbe.

  Sorry dude, I should stick to simpler things, let's try this:  
Is Woodbe right and SBD wrong? - Vote 1 
Is SBD right and Woodbe wrong? - Vote 2 
Are they both wrong? - Vote 3 
Are they both right? - Vote 4  
[Hint: It's not 4]  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Has this theory been proven?   

> *The Early Theory of a Round Earth*   From this point on, the shape of the Earth was in constant debate among philosophers, astronomers, Mathematicians and general thinkers alike (during the middle ages, many people fell back into a belief in a flat Earth). While it took Columbus' voyage to finally allow the divergent opinions to mesh together into a unified whole, he wasn't exactly breaking any new ground, scientifically  just *proving* what had already been *theorized* for more than two thousand years.

  From a Flat to a Round Earth: The History behind the Determination of the Shape of the Planet 
Crazy journalists.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Hazelwood power station SAVED? 
Libs win in Vic? 
I think so  :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

[quote=SilentButDeadly;821687] 
So all the graph indicates is the trends in ice extent.....nothing else. It does not suggest attribution to any particular causal factor. quote]
so all you guys put up & quote references like that indicating global warming caused by CO2 then do a flip flop as soon as they are shown to be in no way, shape, or form, following a conclusive trend.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> So all the graph indicates is the trends in ice extent.....nothing else. It does not suggest attribution to any particular causal factor. quote]
> so all you guys put up & quote references like that indicating global warming caused by CO2 then do a flip flop as soon as they are shown to be in no way, shape, or form, following a conclusive trend.
> regards inter

  Actually, inter, we don't even have to do that. Just showing warming is enough for some here. 
It may have escaped your notice, but there are people here who deny there is any warming. 
Don't get sucked in, you'll be posting here for years.  :Yikes2:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Actually, inter, we don't even have to do that. Just showing warming is enough for some here. 
> It may have escaped your notice, but there are people here who deny there is any warming. 
> Don't get sucked in, you'll be posting here for years.  
> woodbe.

  paying tax on CO2 emissions is what I don't want to be sucked into, but it would be a pity to be sucked along into the vaccum wake of the masses who are tricked into believing it.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> . 
> It may have escaped your notice, but there are people here who deny there is any warming.  
> woodbe.

  And who may they be?

----------


## chrisp

> NO it does not shoot down the CO2 'theory'....as I've said before the graph merely an indicator of 'something' in which CO2 plays just a part.  Physical interactions are just NOT that simplistic.

   

> so all you guys put up & quote references like that indicating global warming caused by CO2 then do a flip flop as soon as they are shown to be in no way, shape, or form, following a conclusive trend.

  I don't think there has been any 'flip flop' at all.  No one on the AGW 'side' has recanted the significance of CO2. 
I suspect that you may not be acquainted with SBD's slightly enigmatic posting style.  I suspect that SBD is indicating that there is a chain of factors involved, but man-made CO2 is the 'trigger' that started the warming. 
As I see it, the simplified sequence is something like:  Man-man CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuelresults in an increase in atmospheric CO2 which is a GHG.which results in an increase in the global temperature.which results in an increase in the water vapour (a GHG) in the atmosphere.which further warms the planet.which warms the ocean.which causes the ocean to release natural C02.(loop back to step 2)

----------


## Rod Dyson

> As I see it, the simplified sequence is something like:  Man-man CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuelresults in an increase in atmospheric CO2 which is a GHG.which results in an increase in the global temperature.which results in an increase in the water vapour (a GHG) in the atmosphere.which further warms the planet.which warms the ocean.which causes the ocean to release natural C02.(loop back to step 2)

  Hell we are all gonna fry man made Co2 or not. 
According to this loop theory we will just keep heating up anyway   :Yikes2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Hazelwood power station SAVED? 
> Libs win in Vic? 
> I think so

  Yeh, looks like many Victorians enjoy having electricity.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> And who may they be?

  Oh, you know. The Monckton/Carter (and now Bastardi) followers that claim the warming stopped in 1998. That the arctic 'recovered' in 2007, etc, etc. There's heaps of statements like that if we bothered to search the 280 pages of this thread. 
Of course the facts speak otherwise. As soon as you lay a climate relevant time series on the data, the trend matches warming. 1998 + 25 = 2023 btw.  :Smilie:   
And all the while, lets just ignore temps other than ground level air temps that inconveniently show warming. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Hell we are all gonna fry man made Co2 or not. 
> According to this loop theory we will just keep heating up anyway

  Rod, 
Don't panic.  It was a simplified explanation.   
We have lots of good scientist working with their computer models using real data (you know, actual measurements) to work out the likely 'settling' temperature of the complex chain of events (this is why they use computer models).  It is very much 'work in progress', but you can read the latest likely temperature rise on the web.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Hell we are all gonna fry man made Co2 or not. 
> According to this loop theory we will just keep heating up anyway

  Yeh, they haven't figured out yet that if this absurd theory was true, none of us would be here today, because the planet would have already ended in a fireball. That is why I use the terms idiots and morons with intent for the pseudo-scientists that push this loop theory, or more appropriately named "fruit loop theory".     

> We have lots of good scientist working with their computer models using real data (you know, actual measurements) to work out the likely 'settling' temperature of the complex chain of events (this is why they use computer models). It is very much 'work in progress', but you can read the latest likely temperature rise on the web.

    

> Really.  
> Did a computer model tell you that?  Then it must be true!  
> I've already proffered this wonderful fiction for scrutiny previously, but no-one was brave enough to stake their reputation on assumptions programmed into a computer. 
> Here's the link: This chick was hot.  
> But I'm glad you have now, and am curious as to your opinions on whether we can trust these computer programmers enough to change the entire course of human history based on the assumptions they put into their computer programs?

  
Did the computer models tell you why this effect has never happened on the planet before? Ever? Even with massively higher CO2 levels?  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It may have escaped your notice, but there are people here who deny there is any warming. 
> woodbe.

   

> And who may they be?

   

> Oh, you know. The Monckton/Carter (and now Bastardi) followers that claim the warming stopped in 1998.  
> woodbe.

  Oh, I see now.  What you meant to say is:    

> It may have escaped your notice, but there are people here who have pointed out the failure of computerised climate models, and they have also highlighted both the many inaccuracies and arbitrary practices used in this area of research, as well as highlighting quotes by "insider climate scientists" saying things like "it is a travesty that we can't account for the lack of warming".

  You see, saying people here "deny there is *any* warming" is a little bit silly.   

> Don't get sucked in, you'll be posting here for years.  
> woodbe.

  Stay a while, it's good fun.   :2thumbsup:  
Unless you believe using your computer is increasing CO2 emissions and killing the planet.   :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> so all you guys put up & quote references like that indicating global warming caused by CO2 then do a flip flop as soon as they are shown to be in no way, shape, or form, following a conclusive trend.
> regards inter

  Mate, this is their preferred methodology.  Lots of baseless scaremongering, then protestations of innocence when held to account.  Let's see the latest one in action:   

> As I see it, the simplified sequence is something like:  Man-man CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuelresults in an increase in atmospheric CO2 which is a GHG.which results in an increase in the global temperature.which results in an increase in the water vapour (a GHG) in the atmosphere.which further warms the planet.which warms the ocean.which causes the ocean to release natural C02.(loop back to step 2)

  Now, a lay person reading this would think the loop results in continuous heat increasing and the whole planet ending in a fireball. PANIC!  :Shock:  
But then our good friend Rod holds this scaremongering to account, and suddenly a back down.   

> Rod, 
> Don't panic.  It was a simplified explanation.   
> We have lots of good scientist working with their computer models using real data (you know, actual measurements) to work out the *likely 'settling' temperature* of the complex chain of events (this is why they use computer models).  It is very much 'work in progress', but you can read the latest likely temperature rise on the web.

  I wonder what step the *"likely 'settling' temperature"* was listed at.  I'm not a smart man, so I must have missed it.  :No:  
Can't wait for the computer to work out what it will be too.  Hopefully the computer will send an email back to reality to make it happen.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> paying tax on CO2 emissions is what I don't want to be sucked into, but it would be a pity to be sucked along into the vaccum wake of the masses who are tricked into believing it.
> regards inter

  I am sure like all good citizens, none of us has any issue about an accountable and honest taxation system feeding into improved services for all of our citizens.  :2thumbsup:  
But like hopefully many people soon will, some of us have reasoned that this tax is a fraud already being perpetrated on our citizenry.  :Annoyed:  
Take this to a science lab or an election and see what response you get: *
Australians paying extra tax will cool down the Planet Earth.* 
Oops, we already took this to an election, and lots of people believed it.  :Shock:

----------


## woodbe

> Oh, I see now.  What you meant to say is:     
> 			
> 				It may have escaped your notice, but there are people here who have  pointed out the failure of computerised climate models, and they have  also highlighted both the many inaccuracies and arbitrary practices used  in this area of research, as well as highlighting quotes by "insider  climate scientists" saying things like "it is a travesty that we can't  account for the lack of warming".
> 			
> 		   You see, saying people here "deny there is *any* warming" is a little bit silly.

  Except. 
1) putting words into people's mouths is yet another way of begging the question, especially when the words you craft are do not accurately reflect what that person might say. 
2) There is a difference in having trouble _accounting_ for a lack of warming reflected in a time series of temperatures that differs from other indicators, and outright _denying_ that the planet is warming. But that difference is probably a little subtle for a denialist to pick up when they view the world through their "it's not us" cooling glasses. 
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

The US house of Representatives sub committee on science and technology hearings on climate change are available on C Span C-SPAN Video Player - House Science & Technology Subcommittee Hearing on Climate Change Science 
Three panels of experts appear before the subcommittee, Lindzen is in the first, Michaels in the second and Curry in the last. Total time is 3.46hrs. It's interesting to see the differing approaches taken by Republican members during the question sessions. 
A few highlights, from the first panel at 1.10 there s a discussion on how a trace gas can have a major impact. Lindzens contribution is interesting. Richard Allen is on the second panel and speaks about sea level rise. His explanation of previous Arctic melting is interesting. At the end of the second panel Michaels and Santer get a bit excited. 
The third panel is not so interesting. A Rear Admiral appears for the Navy, it seems their own observations of the ice loss has led them to form their own conclusions on climate change.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Except. 
> 1) putting words into people's mouths is yet another way of begging the question, especially when the words you craft are do not accurately reflect what that person might say. 
> woodbe.

  Just having a stab mate.  :Biggrin:  
But I am grateful for your better clarification below. :2thumbsup:    

> 2) There is a difference in having trouble _accounting_ for a lack of warming reflected in a time series of temperatures that differs from other indicators, and outright _denying_ that the planet is warming. But that difference is probably a little subtle for a denialist to pick up when they view the world through their "it's not us" cooling glasses. 
> woodbe.

  So, you agree there has been a lack of predicted warming measured then? 
And are you now also agreeing to the lack of accuracy in these various data measures? 
Please let's not include computer models in these responses.  These computer models apparently think they know where all the heat is hiding.  :Doh:  
And as for these denialists, they seem to be everywhere denying something apparently.  Don't suppose you could point one out, and indicate what they deny?  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

"Was this an election that was settled by the weather? 
  It rained again on election day,after one of the most waterlogged campaigns in Victorian history:   _Melbourne ended up having its wettest October in 35 years with 135mm for the month, double the average._The problem for Labor was that this was an election in which one of big issues was government waste - and one of the big symbols of that waste was its desalination plant. It was first promised at $3.1 billion, but is being delivered for $5.7 billion - with water bills already soaring as a result. And with the rains filling the dams again, even Age reporters were jeering:   _IT NEVER rains but it pours. After years of severe drought shaping the spending and direction of the Labor government, the deluge of 2010 has created new challenges for John Brumby in the minefield of water policy. With nearly three years worth of water sitting in Melbournes dams, Labors massive desalination plant looks less like a salvation and more like a hip-pocket hazard for families facing soaring water bills._Had October been dry as a bone, panic about our draining dams would have made the desal plant seem less of a white elephant and more of a savior. 
  In case you think this is just a far-fetched theory from a dams campaigner and climate sceptic, know that Environment Minister Gavin Jennings agreed with me completely when I put this to him last night."   How the weather washed out a Labor Government | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## woodbe

> So, you agree there has been a lack of predicted warming measured then? 
> And are you now also agreeing to the lack of accuracy in these various data measures? 
> Please let's not include computer models in these responses.  These computer models apparently think they know where all the heat is hiding.

  Twist, twist, twist.  :Tongue:  
No I don't agree that there has been a lack of warming in any recent climate relevant time scale. 
Yes I do agree that there is variability in the climate that can mask warming in the short term. Thank you for pointing that out. 
No, I do not agree that temperature readings have been falsified or that any or all temperature series have been represented to be more accurate than they are, or that there is a organised conspiracy to carry out such acts.  
No computer models were used as part of, or in creation of this reply. I would point out though that your paranoia over computer models is somewhat misplaced. You use them every day of your life in modern times, and you're still here. (there are assumptions here, but its a safe bet)  :2thumbsup:  
The cat was out of reach, so I can also verify that no animals were harmed in creating this reply. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Please let's not include computer models in these responses.  These computer models apparently think they know where all the heat is hiding.

  We *must demand* that those *scientist* *stop* using those pesky *computer models* immediately!  *How dare* those *scientist* run those *computer models* that are causing the *actual average global temperature* to *rise* and the *actual global mean sea level* to *rise*! 
I thought the *anthropogenic* contribution was *mankind burning fossil fuels* and releasing *CO2* in to the atmosphere.  Now it seems that it is actually caused by some *boffins running some computer programs!*        
Oops!  Sorry, those *figures are actual - not modelled*!   :Doh:  
It would seem that reality is just too overwhelming for some to accept.  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Twist, twist, twist.  
> woodbe.

  Just call me Chubby Checker.  :Dancing:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Oops!  Sorry, those *figures are actual - not modelled*!

  I thought we had agreed that I would accept any effects you wanted to list.  :2thumbsup:  
I just want to see any proof of what the cause is.  :Biggrin:  
But hey, you guys just keep listing the effects in the hope we will all just believe in your cause ( :Biggrin: ).   

> It would seem that reality is just too overwhelming for some to accept.

  Tell me about it.  :Shrug:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The ABCs Sarah Clarke says she prefers to rely on material given the all clear by the IPCC, and praises the ABC and Fairfax papers for having been two responsible outlets that have been objective on global warming.

  Hey Sarah, being the ABC's premier environmental journalist, you presumable know this:  Carbon dioxide is colorless. 
So how objective is it to show this picture next to your story on Carbon Dioxide?    Carbon emissions on the way up, scientists say - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
An objective reporter would never show a picture of smog and try to misrepresent that as a clear and invisible gas, would they Sarah?  :No:  
How's that for reality.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

LOL very hard to sell AGW to a skeptical public when this is happening, I think they migh prefer a bit of global warming don't you think?  *PARTS of Britain have experienced record low temperatures, including minus 17 Celsius in Wales, forecasters say, amid warnings of more heavy snow to come.*  
"You are seeing some ridiculously low temperatures - it has been a bit like it is in the middle of Scandinavia," weather forecaster Michael Dukes said. 
The temperature in Llysdinam near Llandrindod Wells in Wales plunged to minus 17.3C at the weekend - the principality's lowest ever temperature for November and Britain's coldest for the month since 1985. 
The Met Office, Britain's national forecaster, issued severe weather warnings yesterday for large chunks of eastern and southern Scotland and eastern England, warning of heavy snowfalls.    
Read more: UK shivers in record low temperatures | News.com.au

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Hey Sarah, being the ABC's premier environmental journalist, you presumable know this:  Carbon dioxide is colorless. 
> So how objective is it to show this picture next to your story on Carbon Dioxide?    Carbon emissions on the way up, scientists say - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
> An objective reporter would never show a picture of smog and try to misrepresent that as a clear and invisible gas, would they Sarah?  
> How's that for reality.

  Not very real at all, Freud.  Since you of all people should know that reporters don't control how their articles are presented online or in print especially their news articles.  That's the job of the sub editors.....and the editor. 
In other words......you are engaging in a beat up.  :brava:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> LOL very hard to sell AGW to a skeptical public when this is happening, I think they migh prefer a bit of global warming don't you think?  *PARTS of Britain have experienced record low temperatures, including minus 17 Celsius in Wales, forecasters say, amid warnings of more heavy snow to come.*  
> "You are seeing some ridiculously low temperatures - it has been a bit like it is in the middle of Scandinavia," weather forecaster Michael Dukes said. 
> The temperature in Llysdinam near Llandrindod Wells in Wales plunged to minus 17.3C at the weekend - the principality's lowest ever temperature for November and Britain's coldest for the month since 1985. 
> The Met Office, Britain's national forecaster, issued severe weather warnings yesterday for large chunks of eastern and southern Scotland and eastern England, warning of heavy snowfalls.    
> Read more: UK shivers in record low temperatures | News.com.au

  
You are being deliberately simple minded again, Rod.  Surely you know better than that by now?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly   So all the graph indicates is the trends in ice extent.....nothing else. It does not suggest attribution to any particular causal factor.    so all you guys put up & quote references like that indicating global warming caused by CO2 then do a flip flop as soon as they are shown to be in no way, shape, or form, following a conclusive trend.
> regards inter

  Heck no!  I'm just saying that graphs showing trends (or not) in 'something' are, on their own, not so useful.  Because they are simplistic. 
Cause and effect is not straight forward. I could punch a climate sceptic in the face and then do the exact same to a AGW fundamentalist (I can dream can't I?) and the result would likely be quite different - they might both have broken nose....but one might have a fractured cheekbone as well while the other might get a fractured skull.  Same cause....different outcomes. 
Alternatively, if the required effect is a pile of rubble (converted from a building) then there are many possible causes... 
In our debate.....there's more than one causal factor on the extent of sea-ice....or any other biophysical effect we might see/feel.  The key is.....which causal factor is primary?

----------


## woodbe

> The *TRUTH* is out there.....but *IGNORANCE* is much easier to find.

  Tell me about it  
Listen to the audio if its still there when you look. 
Looks like editorial integrity is down the toilet at the Australian. Will we call this 'Australiangate'? 
On the other hand, its good to hear journalists talking frankly about their work, pity that it has to come this way and delivers such a message. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> As I see it, the simplified sequence is something like:  Man-man CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuelresults in an increase in atmospheric CO2 which is a GHG.which results in an increase in the global temperature.which results in an increase in the water vapour (a GHG) in the atmosphere.which further warms the planet.which warms the ocean.which causes the ocean to release natural C02.(loop back to step 2)

   

> Hell we are all gonna fry man made Co2 or not. 
> According to this loop theory we will just keep heating up anyway

   

> Now, a lay person reading this would think the loop results in continuous heat increasing and the whole planet ending in a fireball. PANIC!

  I don't know if this is the _if-I-don't-understand-it-it-can't-possibly-be-true_ syndrome or the _I-just-don't-want-to-hear-anything-that-challenges-my-preconceptions_ syndrome? 
What I portrayed is an example of positive-feedback system, however, to have a 'run-away' situation, the overall 'gain' of the system will need to be greater than unity.  It is quite possible to have positive feedback and not have uncontrolled run-away. 
What it does show is that a seemly small increase in the GHG contribution of anthropogenic CO2 can cause a disproportionate increase in temperature.  Oscillation is also another possibility. 
Maybe you might like to study up on feedback theory and see where the "tipping point" idea comes in to it.   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I don't know if this is the _if-I-don't-understand-it-it-can't-possibly-be-true_ syndrome or the _I-just-don't-want-to-hear-anything-that-challenges-my-preconceptions_ syndrome? 
> What I portrayed is an example of positive-feedback system, however, to have a 'run-away' situation, the overall 'gain' of the system will need to be greater than unity. It is quite possible to have positive feedback and not have uncontrolled run-away. 
> What it does show is that a seemly small increase in the GHG contribution of anthropogenic CO2 can cause a disproportionate increase in temperature. Oscillation is also another possibility. 
> Maybe you might like to study up on feedback theory and see where the "tipping point" idea comes in to it.

  Chrisp in case you haven't realized yet.  We are not interested in possibilities or "quite possible" we want to see something that is concrete and scientifically proven facts.  You may believe in these possibilities and be happy to sell your soul to it be we are not. You may be happy to mortagage your kids finacial future and living standards based on possibilities but we are not. 
This what you have described is a loop that can only keep increasing by virtue of increased temperatures causes increased temperatures.  Some people really need to get a grip on reality here and start calling a spade a spade. 
All I can see i people desperately trying to find arguments to support a theory of human caused warming that may or may not happen.  To say it has happened is to draw a very long bow indeed.  Becuase until something happens that is TRUELY un-precedented this is tripe. 
Point to all the hyped up and infalted graphs all you like it does not prove anything other than you have started at a point that serves your purpose. Don't try and tell me that the "scientists" producing these graphs don't "pick" the ones most suitable to push their theory. 
Come back and see me when you can show some real warming and can prove the cause. 
Until then this is a whole lot of bluster and time will prove it so.  Now when will you concede that there is some doubt behind AGW?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Tell me about it  
> Listen to the audio if its still there when you look. 
> Looks like editorial integrity is down the toilet at the Australian. Will we call this 'Australiangate'? 
> On the other hand, its good to hear journalists talking frankly about their work, pity that it has to come this way and delivers such a message. 
> woodbe.

  Yeah well who do you believe in that stoush? 
I have know idea who she is, she may be a rabid greenie trying to push every alarmist agenda with hyped up scare stories on AGW as far as I know.  As for the Editor he may be an honest man that requires proof of a storey before it get published, for all I know. 
You know just maybe there are more sides to this than meets the ONE eye.   
Just maybe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

But we knew this all along didn't we?  Just some folks wont admit it because it damages their pet theory which must be true becuse "everyone" BELIEVES its true. (has a religeous twang to it doesn't it?)   

> Dr. Bogataj admitted to what skeptics have long been saying and what the ice core proxy data shows: that rises in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) are proven to mostly, if not always, occur *AFTER* rises in temperature.

  And she is from your camp! Smart girl jumped ship early, she regains some credibility while she can.  LOL how many are sitting back thinking of doing the same? I bet their area few scientist sweating for their reputations and trying to sum up the mood ready to pull the trigger. 
Man I love seeing this unravel, get the popcorn out guys it gonna be a long show.  Another Top International Scientist Jumps off Global Warming ‘Titanic’

----------


## Rod Dyson

By the way here is an interesting graph for you Chrisp.   
I wonder what this will mean for Gloabal land temps.  Any clues?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Um, now where is this guys proof that AGW is accelerating?  Maybe he could ask the public in the UK if they agree?   

> United Nations leaders will demand "concrete results" from the looming Cancun climate summit as global warming is accelerating, a top UN organizer of the event said Monday.

  Next climate warming report will be dramatically worse: UN - Environment - The Independent

----------


## Rod Dyson

You just have to love the UK Met totally un-biased of course.  
But boy will they be relieved when they finaly get one of their warmist predictions right :brava:  
They are rapidly becomming the laughing stock of weather forecasters. :Roflmao2:   
Here is the reality

----------


## Rod Dyson

While I on the UK MET. 
Have a go at this bit of spin.   

> Professor Chris Folland from the Met Office said a re-analysis of weather science might even show that the actual temperature measurements have under-recorded recent warming - making the Met Office forecast even more accurate than it appears.

  Then followed by this!!   

> Professor Watson said the warming bias - first mooted on Paul Hudson's BBC weather blog - should not affect trust in the Met Office's climate projections, which are based on a different methodology. 
> But he said the medium-term projections were undermining public faith in the Met Office overall. 
> "I don't know why the Met Office bothers with these annual forecasts - [these forecasts] have a very low reputation in meteorology and climatology. No one really believes them anyway. They should just stop doing them," he said.

  Too right they ought to stop. so we should believe their QW predictions? :Rofl:  
So much material, what fun  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> Yeah well who do you believe in that stoush? 
> I have know idea who she is, she may be a rabid greenie trying to push every alarmist agenda with hyped up scare stories on AGW as far as I know.  As for the Editor he may be an honest man that requires proof of a storey before it get published, for all I know. 
> You know just maybe there are more sides to this than meets the ONE eye.   
> Just maybe.

  Just maybe Rod, Maybe we will find out.  
Unfortunately stories like this tend to confirm what we have heard about the press since forever.  
Having a bit of a rush of blood are we Rod?  :Yikes2:  
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> But we knew this all along didn't we?  Just some folks wont admit it because it damages their pet theory which must be true becuse "everyone" BELIEVES its true. (has a religeous twang to it doesn't it?)

  Psst! Rod.  Go and have a look at my theory again.  Image what happens if the solar input increased (hint: it gets warmer --> _then_ the ocean gives up some CO2). 
In the past, there has been a lag in CO2 concentration.  This would be because the extra warming came from an external source (such as extra solar activity, variation in the earth's orbit). 
However, this time around, the anthropogenic CO2 is the trigger.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> ). 
> However, this time around, the anthropogenic CO2 is the trigger.

  And we know this how? 
It is ASSUMED this is the "trigger" 
No proof this is so!!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Having a bit of a rush of blood are we Rod?  
> woodbe.

  
LOL just a bit.  Wife and kids are away. On my own, all my work caught up with (at last). 
Had to get it done to clear the decks for a bit of a golf week.  Royal Melbourne tomorrow and Huntingdale on Friday.  Cant let work get in the way of that line up!

----------


## intertd6

> 1 I'm just saying that graphs showing trends (or not) in 'something' are, on their own, not so useful. Because they are simplistic.    2 In our debate.....there's more than one causal factor on the extent of sea-ice....or any other biophysical effect we might see/feel. The key is.....which causal factor is primary?

  1 Funny how they are not so "useful" now
2 Now thats more on the mark, "which" being the million dollar question.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> Not very real at all, Freud.  Since you of all people should know that reporters don't control how their articles are presented online or in print especially their news articles.  That's the job of the sub editors.....and the editor. 
> In other words......you are engaging in a beat up.

  Hey, are you saying the editors at the ABC are misrepresenting this issue? 
And poor Sarah doesn't ever check her own reports to correct their misrepresentation? 
Or does she check them and is complicit in her editors misrepresentation? 
WOW! That's our tax payer dollars at work. 
Your accusations of this corruption and incompetence are far greater reaching than mine.  :Biggrin:  
In other words, the ABC is engaging in a beat up, and both you and I pointed it out.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> While I on the UK MET. 
> Have a go at this bit of spin.     
> 			
> 				Professor Chris Folland from the Met Office said a re-analysis of weather science might even show that the actual temperature measurements have under-recorded recent warming - making the Met Office forecast even more accurate than it appears.
> 			
> 		   Too right they ought to stop. so we should believe their QW predictions? 
> So much material, what fun

  Oh please stop, my sides hurt.    :Roflmao2:  
They are going to "adjust the data" again.    :Roflmao2:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yeah well who do you believe in that stoush? 
> I have know idea who she is, she may be a rabid greenie trying to push every alarmist agenda with hyped up scare stories on AGW as far as I know.  As for the Editor he may be an honest man that requires proof of a storey before it get published, for all I know. 
> You know just maybe there are more sides to this than meets the ONE eye.   
> Just maybe.

  There are many more sides and many more agendas to this.... 
Asa Wahlquist is actually an effective journo and a rather reasonable person to boot.  I met her (was interviewed by her actually) a few years back when she was doing a feature run down the Darling during the height of the drought.  She has a lot of time for both sides of every story and had a lot of respect out this way.  I think you'll find the primary reason she jumped ship is that she no longer had the opportunity to write the in-depth feature articles she preferred....instead she was required to write more news articles over which she had little editorial control. 
Her comments re the Oz editor and 'climate change' (whilst no doubt strongly held) appear to have been over emphasised to suit the agenda of a third party. Not an unusual occurrence in the modern twit driven world....

----------


## Rod Dyson

> when she was doing a feature run down the Darling during the height of the drought.

  She should try doing this again now!

----------


## Rod Dyson

Hmmm I seem to remember posts about this topic some time ago. Now I wonder hoe much damage this new book will do.   

> Mišo Alkalaj, is one of 24 expert authors of this two-volume publication, among them are qualified climatologists, prominent skeptic scientists and a world leading math professor. It is Alkalaj’s chapter in the second of the two books that exposes the fraud concerning the isotopes 13C/12C found in carbon dioxide (CO2).
> If true, the disclosure may possibly derail last-ditch attempts at a binding international treaty to ‘halt man-made global warming.’ At minimum the story will be sure to trigger a fresh scandal for the beleaguered United Nations body. *Do Human Emissions of Carbon Dioxide Exhibit a Distinct Signature?*
> The low-key internal study focused on the behavior of 13C/12C isotopes within carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules and examined how the isotopes decay over time. Its conclusions became the sole basis of claims that ‘newer’ airborne CO2 exhibits a different and thus distinct ‘human signature.’ The paper was employed by the IPCC to give a green light to researchers to claim they could quantify the amount of human versus natural proportions just from counting the number of isotopes within that ‘greenhouse gas.’
> Alkalaj, who is head of Center for Communication Infrastructure at the "J. Stefan" Institute, Slovenia says because of the nature of organic plant decay, that emits CO2, such a mass spectrometry analysis is bogus. Therefore, it is argues, IPCC researchers are either grossly incompetent or corrupt because it is impossible to detect whether carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is of human or organic origin.

  Climate Change Dispatch - Book Launch Exposes UN Climate Science in Another Scandal 
This may also add a bit of weight to this argument http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/ 
No doubt all the Authors of this book are insane nutters that don't know a thing about what they write, and besides they are in the pay of big oil I'm sure. 
Bit by bit guys they are pulling this charade apart. Not long now. Who is going to jump ship first to save some credibility? My oh my is this gonna be fun.

----------


## Rod Dyson

We hope and pray this editorial at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ols-in-cancun/ is correct.   

> The principal goal of this year's meeting seems to be to hang on to the meager gains made in 2009 and to discuss what to do about the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire at the end of 2012. The green utopians are up against more immediate problems than their imagined impending climate catastrophe. The debt crisis in Europe will blunt the enthusiasm of countries in the Eurozone to underwrite expensive new international initiatives. China, India, Brazil and South Africa, among others, will be even less willing to agree to cut back growth than they were when they scuttled the Copenhagen deal. The United States delegation will have to accept the fact that whatever schemes they would like to agree to, any treaty language would have to meet the approval of the incoming more conservative Senate, a highly unlikely proposition. Cancun will be dead on arrival.

----------


## PhilT2

> No doubt all the Authors of this book are insane nutters

  Watts (WUWT) seems to agree with you at least about one of them. Just how nutty do you have to be to get banned from WUWT? 
You could try this paper for some info on carbon isotopes. http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/i...PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

----------


## Rod Dyson

Great interview with Richard Lindzen. 
Gee it is nice to hear someone talk sensibly about AGW 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu9fprxnkEI]YouTube - Richard Lindzen on the State of Climate Science[/ame]

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Watts (WUWT) seems to agree with you at least about one of them. Just how nutty do you have to be to get banned from WUWT? 
> You could try this paper for some info on carbon isotopes. http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/service/i...PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

  Yes he was banned for bombing the site with posts about his theory on the make up of the center of the Sun. Nothing to do with Climate.  Nice to see Anthony Watts calls a spade a spade irrespective on which side of AGW they are.  No blind faith and support like we see from warmists.  Rather refreshing is my take. 
So we don't know if this precludes him from having a sensible position on this subject now does it? 
Also he is one of 24 Authors so I guess we should trash the book because of the comments from Anthony Watts on an un-related issue on one Author.  
Nice work.

----------


## woodbe

> Yes he was banned for bombing the site with posts about his theory on the make up of the center of the Sun.

  What was his theory? He wasn't that guy who reckoned the sun was made of iron was he? 
LOL You're a funny man Rod.  :Biggrin:  
Still, we shouldn't rubbish his theory just because he's a proven crackpot. 
Does he mention why the theory is published as a book rather than a scientific paper? Perhaps there is no Scientific journal with a humour section.  :Harhar:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> She should try doing this again now!

  Once the flood waters recede, I'm sure she'll race in there with Flim Flammery?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> We hope and pray this editorial at EDITORIAL: Climate craziness cools in Cancun - Washington Times is correct.

  Yeh, the rest of the world will continue to improve their standard of living.  But not us: 
"Im not sure Julia Gillard has read the lesson of the Victorian election properly, but its all too late now to retreat, I guess:    _As world climate talks got underway in Mexico, Gillard said the government would bring forward by a year a decision on how to price carbon, but left unclear whether a previous 2013 date for actual implementation of any scheme would remain in place._It may take a new leader and new Labor generation to cast off the green folly that is wrecking Labor governments. "   So the next election will be referendum on a great new tax | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

Bono in Tokyo in 2008:    _My prayer is that we become better in looking after our planet._And the Keen for Green group applauds:    _If your (sic) looking for an environmental role model, Irish rockstar, Bono (born Paul David Hewson, May 10, 1960), of the band U2 is a good place to start.  Bono ... participated in a tree planting ceremony in Tokyo Bay, Japan, in 2008, where efforts are being taken to turn a landfill into an 88 hectare forest.  Bono has also been active in the Greenpeace community since 1993 when his entire band participated in a protest against a nuclear power plant, Sellafield, in England.  And of course, Bono is self-reported avid recycler and drives a car which runs on ethanol instead of gasoline._Bono in Melbourne in 2010:  _U2S 360 Degrees tour, the most expensive rock spectacle ever, is here. The tour, with a daily running cost of $850,000, arrived on six 747 jets_  _You compare a tour by the number of trucks they use, production manager Jake Berry said. The Rolling Stones ran 46 trucks. We are running 55. This is the biggest._     The concert no warmist would applaud | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> We hope and pray this editorial at EDITORIAL: Climate craziness cools in Cancun - Washington Times is correct.

  No need to pray.  Cancun is indeed.....redundant.  
and honestly.....I couldn't be happier...especially given that such a circumstance continues to lend weight to my beliefs with respect to human nature.  :brava:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> No need to pray. Cancun is indeed.....redundant.  
> and honestly.....I couldn't be happier...especially given that such a circumstance continues to lend weight to my beliefs with respect to human nature.

   Can you elaborate on this? 
Cheers

----------


## Dr Freud

> Can you elaborate on this? 
> Cheers

  Along these lines perhaps? 
                  "What the warmists demand:  _Global warming is now such a serious threat to mankind that climate change experts are calling for Second World War-style rationing in rich countries to bring down carbon emissions._ Meanwhile, at the UN Cancun conference on global warming, its party, party, party as 15,000 warmist activists, politicians and bureaucrats ration themselves nothing at all:    
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q83CQ_7CGCg&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Bureaucrats Gone Wild in Cancun[/ame]   
  (Via Instapundit.)     
 UPDATE      Red Pill Junkie is astonished that the UNs warmists should chose Mexicos new Cancun resort centre for their global warming mass, when the place is the kind of ecological disaster zone they should deplore: _ 
The natural ecoosystem of the Quintana Roo region is mainly supported by the mangrove, a shrub that grows in saline coastal sediment. It is the mangroves that promoted the great fauna diversity in the region; but the mangroves also permitted the existence of the beautiful white beaches, because they serve as shields against the force of the seasonal hurricanes that affect the region._  _So whats the first thing you do when you want to build a five-starred tourist resort in Cancun? You guessed it: you cut off the mangroves._  _The National Institute of Ecology reports that 25% of the mangroves have been lost during this last decade alone, equivalent to four times the average global rate._  _But this is not only a problem for all those tree-hugging hippies in Greenpeace Remember that part about the mangroves serving as shields against the hurricanes? well, guess what happens when you take away the mangroves and the hurricanes come:_  _Your beautiful 5-starred hotel runs out of sand!_  _ 
During the past few years the problem of beach erosion in the Cancún tourist area has been so grave, that the governments been forced to take radical --and stupid-- measures: they replace the lost sand with hundreds of tonnes extracted from the nearby island of Cozumel, to the obvious discontent of the Cozumel islanders._"  If warmists wore the hairshirts theyre selling, Id trust them more | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

Hey, let's tell all these people that they can't turn on their heaters and burn energy, otherwise the planet will warm up a little bit... :Rofl:  
"Not what theyve have expected after all that fuss in nearby Copenhagen last year about warming doom,:   _Stockholm is forecast to experience its coldest seasonal temperatures for over 100 years this week as winter weather takes hold of the country, according to the Swedish Meteorological Institute (SMHI) Stockholm registered -11 degrees Celsius at the weekend, the coldest November temperature since 1965 and the mercury is set to plunge further on Wednesday and Thursday, dropping as low as -15.._  Nor are we seeing the disappearance of the snow predicted a decade ago by the University of East Anglia, otherwise known as Climategate Central. Remember how the warmists refused back them to distinguish between a a few years of warm weather and climate?:  _ 
Britains winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives_  _The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east...._  _Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community . According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event._  _Children just arent going to know what snow is, he said._In fact: _Snow and freezing temperatures severely disrupted airports in Germany and Britain and caused chaos and deaths on roads across Europe on Tuesday..._  _Large parts of Poland were covered in thick snow, causing hundreds of accidents on the roads and at least four people were killed on snowbound roads in the Czech Republic...._  _It was so cold in France that electricity network RTE warned of cuts in the supply as the country looked set to top record demand levels while 20 per cent of high-speed train services to the hard-hit south-east were cancelled._  _Switzerland suffered its coldest November night for 45 years as temperatures plunged below minus 30 degrees Celsius, according to national weather service Meteosuisse._  _Even Spain and Portugal were shivering after snow fell in the northern half of the Iberian peninsula._  _Britain has been taken by surprise by its earliest widespread snowfall since 1993..._ "   Not climate but weather, but  | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

"This deceitful rubbish, from a woman wasting millions on solar and wind power, and another $100 million a year on clean coal research: _JULIA Gillard has played down a push by senior Labor MPs for an inquiry into nuclear power, saying its not an economically efficient source of energy_  _The Prime Minister said today that she welcomed the debate on nuclear power, but warned that those arguing for its consideration in Australias future energy mix faced a tough argument"_  _Ms Gillard said that in Australia nuclear power doesnt stack up as an economically efficient source of power."_ 
Read the full sordid lie-ridden story you're being sold here:  Desperate Gillard deceives: nuclear not economically efficient | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

Perhaps the good Professor Oreskes who tells everyone how biased the media is *towards sceptics???* can explain this away in her secret society conspiracy?  *"2009* - the_ New York Times_ explains why it wont publish leaked documents exposing the Climategate scandal:   _A thick file of private emails and unpublished documents generated by an array of climate scientists over 13 years was obtained by a hacker from a British university climate research center and has since spread widely across the Internet starting Thursday afternoon The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they wont be posted here._ *2010* - the _New York Times_ explains why it will publish leaked documents that expose no scandal but do endanger national security:   _The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. The New York Times and a number of publications in Europe were given access to the material several weeks ago and agreed to begin publication of articles based on the cables online on Sunday. The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match._  These monstrous hypocrites, these kneejerk partisans do not have the brains to see the logical inconsistency in their position, or the self-perception to even attempt to rationalise it.  Scott Johnson:   _Today the Times cites the availability of the documents elsewhere and the pubic interest in their revelations as supporting their publication by the Times. Both factors applied in roughly equal measure to the Climategate emails._  _Without belaboring the point, let us note simply that the two statements are logically irreconcilable. Perhaps something other than principle and logic were at work then, or are at work now._ (Thanks to reader Terry and to Tim Blair.) "  The Times would rather hurt their country than hurt the warming alarmists | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

Brumby got the boot for his green farce with fake results but real costs.  *"HUNDREDS of thousands of Victorian households will be forced to pay up to $150 more for electricity and gas from January 1.* " 
Looks like Joolia is slowly learning that us Aussies don't like paying higher prices for no reason. 
"Plans for an even higher electricity price rise were suddenly scrapped when the Federal Government yesterday changed its solar power rebate scheme." 
What's up Joolia, is the next election more important than saving the entire Planet Earth?  :Doh:  
Full story here:  Victorian power companies to increase electricity bills again | Herald Sun

----------


## Dr Freud

> Bono in Tokyo in 2008:  _My prayer is that we become better in looking after our planet._And the Keen for Green group applauds:  _If your (sic) looking for an environmental role model, Irish rockstar, Bono (born Paul David Hewson, May 10, 1960), of the band U2 is a good place to start.  Bono ... participated in a tree planting ceremony in Tokyo Bay, Japan, in 2008, where efforts are being taken to turn a landfill into an 88 hectare forest.  Bono has also been active in the Greenpeace community since 1993 when his entire band participated in a protest against a nuclear power plant, Sellafield, in England.  And of course, Bono is self-reported avid recycler and drives a car which runs on ethanol instead of gasoline._Bono in Melbourne in 2010: _U2S 360 Degrees tour, the most expensive rock spectacle ever, is here. The tour, with a daily running cost of $850,000, arrived on six 747 jets_  _You compare a tour by the number of trucks they use, production manager Jake Berry said. The Rolling Stones ran 46 trucks. We are running 55. This is the biggest._   The concert no warmist would applaud | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Hey Bozo (oops, Bono), this keeps getting better and better:  *"FURIOUS motorists are stuck in a traffic jam on the Westgate Bridge with many taking two hours to get from the CBD to the other side.                 *                                Thousands of U2 fans making their way home from the concert and the ongoing night roadworks have created a traffic deadlock."   Thousands of U2 fans stuck in traffic jam on West Gate Bridge | Herald Sun  
Hey Bozo, maybe they were all using Ethanol after the preaching from Al Gore during his presidential campaign (albeit retracted now).  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> "Plans for an even higher electricity price rise were suddenly scrapped when the Federal Government yesterday changed its solar power rebate scheme." 
> Full story here:  Victorian power companies to increase electricity bills again | Herald Sun

   

> The cost to install solar panels has reduced substantially since the  Solar Credits mechanism was first announced in December 2008, driven by a  strong economy, a high dollar and falling technology costs, Mr Combet  said.
> In this time, demand for solar installations has also  increased rapidly, as the out-of-pocket cost to households has dropped  and generous State and Territory feed-in tariffs have provided  additional support to households. As a result, the phase out of the  Solar Credits multiplier will be brought forward by one year, from:
>     5 to 4 on 1 July 2011; 
>     4 to 3 on 1 July 2012;
>     3 to 2 on 1 July 2013; and,
>     2 to 1 from 1 July 2014.
> This  reflects the original intention to phase out the multiplier at a steady  rate, as the cost of installing solar systems is expected to decline  further over time.

  So, this is an existing plan, just brought forward by one year. Woopy do. 
Apparently the change will make all of $12 difference in 2011 to the average bill. 
Newspaper scaremongering as usual. Did you expect anything else? 
And yes, power prices will continue to rise as expected due to higher demand and aging infrastructure. If that concerns you, put some PV on your roof to displace some dirty coal  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> And yes, power prices will continue to rise as expected due to higher demand and aging infrastructure. If that concerns you, put some PV on your roof to displace some dirty coal  
> woodbe.

  And how much dirty coal do you think all the solar pannels on roofs to date has replaced?

----------


## chrisp

> And how much dirty coal do you think all the solar pannels on roofs to date has replaced?

  Rod, 
Let me reframe your question. 
If you have a modest 1.5kW PV system installed on your roof, in Victoria it would produce about 1800 ~ 2000 kWh of electricity each year (ref: http://www.renovateforum.com/f223/so...36/#post814557 ). 
In Victoria, each kWh generated by our generators (mostly brown coal) produces 1.22 kg CO2-e/kWh.  (ref http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/climate-ch...lectricity.pdf ). 
Therefore, a modest 1.5kW PV system on your home will replace/displace 1800~2000 kWh x 1.22 kg CO2-e/kWh = *2196 ~ 2440 kg CO2-e per year.* 
In Victoria, the typical household produces 10,700 kg CO2-e per year.  *A modest 1.5 kW PV system will reduce the average household CO2 production by 20.5% ~ 22.8%.* 
You'd double the savings by installing a 3kW PV system.

----------


## Daniel Morgan

How much dirty coal would be used in the manufacture of these solar panels, and what is their life expectancy?

----------


## chrisp

> How much dirty coal would be used in the manufacture of these solar panels, and what is their life expectancy?

  You could read up on it for yourself: Energy Payback of Roof Mounted Photovoltaic Cells | Energy Bulletin    

> *Conclusions* 
>   Through evaluating a range of previously published studies claiming  very different energy payback times, this study has attempted to draw  some conclusion as to the actual energy payback time of PV modules.  Alsemas (2000) study provided a best estimate based on several other  existing studies. Further embodied energy factors were added to Alsemas  figures. *An energy payback time of around four years was found for both  mc-Si and thin film modules.* Major limitations to the accuracy of this  assessment are the difficulties in determining realistic energy  conversion factors, and in determining realistic energy values for human  labour. For this reason an allowance of up to 100% has been allowed,  thus the range of payback is between 2-8 years. *Thus small-scale roof  mounted PV systems have a positive energy payback and are capable of  contributing to a sustainable energy future.*

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> Let me reframe your question. 
> If you have a modest 1.5kW PV system installed on your roof, in Victoria it would produce about 1800 ~ 2000 kWh of electricity each year (ref: http://www.renovateforum.com/f223/so...36/#post814557 ). 
> In Victoria, each kWh generated by our generators (mostly brown coal) produces 1.22 kg CO2-e/kWh. (ref http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/climate-ch...lectricity.pdf ). 
> Therefore, a modest 1.5kW PV system on your home will replace/displace 1800~2000 kWh x 1.22 kg CO2-e/kWh = *2196 ~ 2440 kg CO2-e per year.* 
> In Victoria, the typical household produces 10,700 kg CO2-e per year.  *A modest 1.5 kW PV system will reduce the average household CO2 production by 20.5% ~ 22.8%.* 
> You'd double the savings by installing a 3kW PV system.

  In theory you may be right. 
But in practice the coal plants are still chugging away irrespective of the puny amount put into the grid by these pannels. 
So in reality you have save a BIG FAT ZERO. 
Not to mention the additional out put due to population growth. 
How do you feel?

----------


## chrisp

> But in practice the coal plants are still chugging away irrespective of the puny amount put into the grid by these pannels. 
> So in reality you have save a BIG FAT ZERO.

  NO!  The energy output is proportional to the fuel input.  It is false (and ignorant) to state or imply that the coal usage rate is fixed regardless of the electrical load.

----------


## woodbe

> In theory you may be right. 
> But in practice the coal plants are still chugging away irrespective of the puny amount put into the grid by these pannels.

  Coal plants are chugging away LESS because of the installation of these panels. 
The thing I like, is that the people who act on PV get the benefits. The people who stand at the sidelines throwing rocks PAY for those benefits. 
I think I'll put 10kW on my roof, how about you Rod? Are you a rock thrower or someone willing to act?  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

I wont be installing any pannels any time soon.

----------


## woodbe

> I wont be installing any pannels any time soon.

  Excellent. Thanks for your support Rod. Much appreciated.  :Smilie:  
Its good to see sceptics put their hand in their pockets to help us AGW folk out  :2thumbsup:    
woodbe

----------


## chrisp

> I wont be installing any pannels any time soon.

  I take it that would be due to economic considerations rather than environmental considerations?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Let me reframe your question. 
> Therefore, a modest 1.5kW PV system on your home will replace/displace 1800~2000 kWh x 1.22 kg CO2-e/kWh = *2196 ~ 2440 kg CO2-e per year.* 
> In Victoria, the typical household produces 10,700 kg CO2-e per year.  *A modest 1.5 kW PV system will reduce the average household CO2 production by 20.5% ~ 22.8%.* 
> You'd double the savings by installing a 3kW PV system.

  Let me reframe you response with some context:  "According to the US Department of Energy (Energy Information Administration), the world consumption of energy in all of its forms (barrels of petroleum, cubic meters of natural gas, watts of hydro power, etc.) is projected to reach 678 quadrillion Btu (or 7.15 exajoules) by 2030  a 44% increase over 2008 levels (levels for 1980 were 283 quadrillion Btu and we stand at around 500 quadrillion Btu today).  Converting this to KWh [1 Btu = .0002931 kWh (kilowatt hours)] makes 198,721,800,000,000 kWh (199,721 TWh). This is for an entire year. As a comparison, the average household uses approximately 18,000 kWh per year (1/11 billion of the total world usage)."  Total Surface Area Required To Fuel The World With Solar 
Here's some pics to help:      
But hey, you guys just keep ignoring reality, every little bit helps.  :Biggrin:  
I might not flush tonight, just to help with keeping the ocean levels down.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> In theory you may be right. 
> But in practice the coal plants are still chugging away irrespective of the puny amount put into the grid by these pannels. 
> So in reality you have save a BIG FAT ZERO. 
> Not to mention the additional out put due to population growth. 
> How do you feel?

  They feel vulnerable because their theory is a farce and their mitigation strategies are useless anyway.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Excellent. Thanks for your support Rod. Much appreciated.  
> Its good to see sceptics put their hand in their pockets to help us AGW folk out    
> woodbe

  LMAO I will never fall for your name and shame routine. If you want to spend your money that way on a fruitless effort be my guest. 
Now come on that is not your place really? 
To me this is just like the insulation fiasco. Even though I am an installer of insulation I refused to do any jobs under Rudds scheme just on principle. I see this as just as big a con job. 
My buddy has a house at little pine lagoon in Tasmania where there is no mains power.  He uses a combo of wind and solar with a huge bank of very large batteries. The cost of the installation and replacement cost of batteries etc when required makes this very expensive power, albeit the only power he can get.  then he is very limited to what he can run on it and for how long.  He is always checking the input an output.  Anything that heats an element simply cannot be used.  So I have a bit of inside goss on how these systems operate, the cost and limitations. 
Never will I do this while I have a perfectly good coal plant giving me all the power I need.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I take it that would be due to economic considerations rather than environmental considerations?

  Both

----------


## Rod Dyson

> They feel vulnerable because their theory is a farce and their mitigation strategies are useless anyway.

  You have got that right. 
I refuse point blank to buy anything with the words ECO in there product literature.  Because it is a con to get suckers buying their products.  I will deal with honest people.

----------


## Dr Freud

> NO!  The energy output is proportional to the fuel input.  It is false (and ignorant) to state or imply that the coal usage rate is fixed regardless of the electrical load.

   

> Coal plants are chugging away LESS because of the installation of these panels. 
> woodbe.

  Well, according to your Global Warming mates at Wikipedia, coal usage is fairly well fixed for baseload generation.  It is the peaking power plants that are generally gas fired that regulate normal peak load fluctuations.   

> *Baseload plant*, (also *baseload power plant* or *base load power station*) is an energy plant devoted to the production of baseload supply. Baseload plants are the production facilities used to meet some or all of a given region's continuous energy demand, and produce energy at a constant rate, usually at a low cost relative to other production facilities available to the system...Baseload plants typically run at all times through the year except in the case of repairs or scheduled maintenance...Peaks or spikes in customer power demand are handled by smaller and more responsive types of power plants called peaking power plants, typically powered with gas turbines... 
> ...Power plants are designated _baseload_ based on their low cost generation, efficiency and safety at rated output power levels. Baseload power plants do not change production to match power consumption demands since it is more economical to operate them at constant production levels. Use of higher cost combined-cycle plants or combustion turbines is thus minimized, and these plants can be cycled up and down to match more rapid fluctuations in consumption. Baseload generators, such as nuclear and coal, often have very high fixed costs, high plant load factor and very low marginal costs. On the other hand, peak load generators, such as natural gas, have low fixed costs, low plant load factor and high marginal costs.[5] Typically these plants are large and provide a majority of the power used by a grid. Thus, they are more effective when used continuously to cover the power baseload required by the grid...  Base load power plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  So, in reality, as clouds come and go, these panels generating capacity rises and falls.  Unfortunately, coal power plants can't adjust on these time scales, so their generating capacities are reduced by a BIG FAT ZERO.  If anything is likely to be reduced, it will be the peaking power plants, but these are run on average energy consumption, which naturally factors in for the energy "inefficiency" of PV's, so they certainly are not reducing power generation on a direct ratio even from these sources. 
In a nutshell, p-ssing into the wind, after drinking a very expensive drop.  :Biggrin:     

> The thing I like, is that the people who act on PV get the benefits. The people who stand at the sidelines throwing rocks PAY for those benefits. 
> woodbe.

  So you agree that the government is taxing poor taxpayers to subsidise these ridiculous and ineffective rorts.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Its good to see sceptics put their hand in their pockets to help us AGW folk out  
> woodbe

  It's not just sceptics champ, it's all taxpayers paying for these rorts. 
But hey, if you're happy scamming hard working aussies to feed your green dreams, be my guest.   :Annoyed:  
Like Rod, I will not buy into this cr-p.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

To save the planet, they turn off the lights: _At 8.30pm, lights on the Sydney Opera House, Harbour Bridge and in homes and businesses across the city were switched off in an effort to lower the earths carbon footprint and raise awareness._To save people, they turn them back on: _To mark World Aids Day the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, the New South Wales Premier, Kristina Keneally, and Bono, the lead singer of U2, gathered last night to symbolically light the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House red._How symbolic | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

Alarmist of the Year Tim Fannery in 2005:  _  He also predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydneys dams dry in just two years._ And now for the reality:    _HEAVY rain and showers are set to drench Sydney for another week as the city wades through its wettest start to December in 20 years The wettest December this century was in 2007, when 123 millimetres fell..._UPDATE  
  The Weather Channel reports:  _Australia has recorded its wettest spring in 111 years of records with an average of 163.0mm of rain. The previous record was 140.1mm from 1975._And still people believe him | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

*"THE Tasmanian Government has been told it needs to pray for wind of "biblical proportions" to return Hydro Tasmania's wind-farm business to profitability.* 
A parliamentary committee scrutinising the operations of Hydro Tasmania was told yesterday that Hydro's wind-farm business, Roaring 40s, had run at a loss for the past five years because there had not been enough wind."   Wind fails to turn a profit Tasmania News - The Mercury - The Voice of Tasmania  
Wow, sometimes the wind doesn't blow and sometimes it gets cloudy.  But we need baseload power. 
Should we keep pumping money into failed green dreams, or build a nuclear power industry? 
Even Labor MP's are now realising that reality always wins. 
Read their reality check here:   Labor suffers from nuclear fission | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

More photo's here:  ABC News - Photos - Top stories in pictures, galleries and slideshows

----------


## Dr Freud

"Heavy snow caused travel chaos across much of northern Europe on Thursday, keeping London's Gatwick airport closed for a second day and disrupting road and rail travel in France, Germany and Switzerland. 
  Days of sub-zero temperatures and snow in Britain, beginning in Scotland and northern England and moving south, have halted flights and trains and could be costing the economy 1.2 billion pounds ($1.87 billion) a day, according to insurer RSA. 
Commuters struggled to get to work as Britain's worst early winter weather in almost two decades showed no sign of easing."   Northern Europe counts cost of big freeze | Reuters     
I wonder how their solar panels are coping?  :Question:

----------


## woodbe

> LMAO I will never fall for your name and shame routine. If you want to spend your money that way on a fruitless effort be my guest. 
> Now come on that is not your place really?

  How could it be?    

> I *think* I'll put 10kW on my roof, how about you Rod? Are you a rock thrower or someone willing to act?

   The solar industry is working its tail off, if I ordered today, the most optimistic installers are quoting a month. So no, that's not my barn...   

> Never will I do this while I have a perfectly good coal plant giving me all the power I need.

  That's the spirit!  :Biggrin:    

> So you agree that the government is taxing poor taxpayers to subsidise these ridiculous and ineffective rorts.

  Taxing? Nope. There's no Government money in either the RECS or the FIT payments. They are State and Federal Government mandated and administered schemes though. 
And Doc, a small 1.5kW system puts out between 3 and 7kWh per day average, and a 10kW system 35 - 50kWh. Doesn't matter how you dress up your denial, these systems do work, and they do reduce our requirements for fossil fuel. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Let me reframe you response with some context:  "According to the US Department of Energy (Energy Information Administration), the world consumption of energy in all of its forms (barrels of petroleum, cubic meters of natural gas, watts of hydro power, etc.) is projected to reach 678 quadrillion Btu (or 7.15 exajoules) by 2030  a 44% increase over 2008 levels (levels for 1980 were 283 quadrillion Btu and we stand at around 500 quadrillion Btu today).  Converting this to KWh [1 Btu = .0002931 kWh (kilowatt hours)] makes 198,721,800,000,000 kWh (199,721 TWh). This is for an entire year. As a comparison, the average household uses approximately 18,000 kWh per year (1/11 billion of the total world usage)."  Total Surface Area Required To Fuel The World With Solar

  Yep, I see that you have reframed it to confuse individual household energy usage with world total energy usage.  :Rolleyes:  
Did you really look at the link that you posted?  Maybe you are actually an advocate for solar power?  Or, did you miss those *small boxes* on the map?

----------


## woodbe

> Yep, I see that you have reframed it to confuse individual household energy usage with world total energy usage.  
> Did you really look at the link that you posted?  Maybe you are actually an advocate for solar power?  Or, did you miss those *small boxes* on the map?

  Caught switching the goal posts (again), and still getting it wrong. 
ROFL. Touché, chrisp. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> I wont be installing any pannels any time soon.

   

> I take it that would be due to economic considerations rather than environmental considerations?

   

> Both

   

> Never will I do this while I have a perfectly good coal plant giving me all the power I need.

  Rod, 
To me, somehow your claim that you wouldn't install solar due to 'environmental considerations' just doesn't ring true. 
However, from posts in this thread show you are concerned about the economy, I would concede that you wouldn't install solar due to 'economic considerations'.   
But don't stress, the 'economy', just like the English language, is alive and constantly changing.  It wouldn't be long before the 'economy' factors in the full(er) cost of using fossil fuel to power our society and introduces a price on carbon either in the form of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. 
These economic drivers will encourage the general population to change their ways and adopt newer, cleaner, energy technologies for the benefit of society as a whole. 
Think of it as a bit like when the government progressively increased the tax on tobacco to discourage smoking.  Not that many people will give up smoking solely because it is good for their future health, but when it starts to really hit their hip pocket too, well...   
The term "déjà vu" somehow comes to mind with the current AGW and carbon tax issues.  :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Can you elaborate on this? 
> Cheers

  Yep.  But it is merely my opinion. 
Cancun. Copenhagen.  Whatever. Wherever..... 
They are gatherings where competing vested interests all get together with the idea of making a difference vis a vis human induced climate change. As a result of the competition between self interests right across the spectrum...they cancel each other out.  So these things produce little of consequence. 
Although I hear some malarky about a 'deforestation' issue being addressed at Cancun.  What makes this doubly sad is that a recent similar 'conference' on global biodiversity (upon which deforestation presents one of the greatest threats) achieved precisely.....nothing.  
Self interest wins every time. And when self interest produces policy  paralysis and stagnation in the face of a challenge....then we are truly in trouble. 
Neither side of this ridiculous argument is capable of producing policies and actions that placate either end of the self interest spectrum....or more importantly the middle.   
You want a nuclear power station?  Just build the damn thing. New dam? Ditto.  Solar power plant? Ditto. Another coal fired power station? Go for it. $200 billion dollars for artificial tree research? Fine and dandy. Absolutely nothing? hell yeah. Whatever I want to do, whenever and wherever I want to, no questions asked and let the great unwashed wear the consequences? Where do I sign? 
DO SOMETHING. One way or the other.  Just don't have us sitting here whinging and sniping in the warm glow of the beatific aura's of Andrew Bolt and Tim Flannery or whoever your chosen deity is..... 
My major comfort in all this is that wherever we are going.....down, up or drunkenly sideways....we are all going to do it together.....shouting at each other while remaining ignorant of what's happening around us. 
That, my esteemed friend, is human nature.   And I REVEL in it!!!!

----------


## woodbe

> Like Rod, I will not buy into this cr-p.

  Good to hear Doc, we need people like you to selflessly support the installation of PV in Australia.  
By the way, the more power you use, the more support you donate to the cause. Keep up the good work.  :2thumbsup:  
Hilariously Ironic that 'our' sceptics are working so hard to support AGW  :Harhar:   
On behalf of the PV owners and industry in your respective states, I'd like to thank you for your donations. You have helped to reduce the amount of CO2 that would otherwise be emitted.  
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> "Heavy snow caused travel chaos across much of northern Europe on Thursday, keeping London's Gatwick airport closed for a second day and disrupting road and rail travel in France, Germany and Switzerland. 
>   Days of sub-zero temperatures and snow in Britain, beginning in Scotland and northern England and moving south, have halted flights and trains and could be costing the economy 1.2 billion pounds ($1.87 billion) a day, according to insurer RSA. 
> Commuters struggled to get to work as Britain's worst early winter weather in almost two decades showed no sign of easing."  Northern Europe counts cost of big freeze | Reuters

  Yep, its the 'weather' versus 'climate' confusion yet again. 
Let's see what the Met Office says about the *weather*:   

> *Why is it so cold and snowy?* 
>                                      30 November 2010 
>                                      Snow and icy conditions have been affecting  many parts of the UK through the late November but why has the weather  been so cold with heavy snow?
>                                      Ewen McCallum, Met Office Chief Meteorologist explains some  of the reasons behind the intense and prolonged cold weather that we  have been experiencing.
>                                      “Normally, our winds come from the west keeping our winters  relatively mild. However, during November (like last winter) we have  seen a large area of high pressure develop in the Atlantic, causing a  ‘block’ to the westerly winds that tend to keep us that little bit  milder. As a result this has allowed very cold Arctic air to move south  across mainland Europe. 
> (From: Met Office: Why is it so cold and snowy? )

  Did you note the date on the above article? 
Now have a look what they say about the *climate*:   

> *Near record temperatures in 2010 to be followed by cooler 2011* 
>                                      2 December 2010 
>                                      Global temperature has warmed to near  record levels in 2010 say climate scientists from the Met Office and the  University of East Anglia. Provisional figures for the three main  global temperature datasets put 2010 on track to become first or second  warmest in the instrumental record. 
>                                      The preliminary figure for January to October 2010 is  0.52 °C above the long-term average on the Met Office – Climatic  Research Unit (HadCRUT3) dataset, placing it equal with the  record-breaking 1998.   
> (From: Met Office: Near record temperatures in 2010 to be followed by cooler 2011 )

  I suppose it might be difficult for some to understand that the *weather* (a temporally and spatially limited phenomena) can be cold but the *global climate* (the long-term and globally averaged phenomena) is actually getting hotter - or are they just 'cherry picking' to support some unsubstantiated argument? 
BTW, what does the Met Office have to say about climate change:   

> *Climate change — your essential guide*  *It is now clear that man-made  greenhouse gases are causing climate change. The rate of change began as  significant, has become alarming and is simply unsustainable in the  long-term.* 
> (From: Met Office: Climate change &ndash; your questions answered )

----------


## intertd6

> Yep, I see that you have reframed it to confuse individual household energy usage with world total energy usage.  
> Did you really look at the link that you posted? Maybe you are actually an advocate for solar power? Or, did you miss those *small boxes* on the map?

    Now just mutliply those areas by a conservative $500 per square meter just for the PV cells & see what the cost comes out to.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Now just mutliply those areas by a conservative $500 per square meter just for the PV cells & see what the cost comes out to.
> regards inter

  There is no reason to believe that an effort to actually install solar in that scale would be PV based. More likely that utility scale Solar power would employ concentrating solar tech and economies of (huge) scale would kick in in any case. If you ordered your PV by the square km, I think you'd be up for  a substantial discount... 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> There is no reason to believe that an effort to actually install solar in that scale would be PV based. More likely that utility scale Solar power would employ concentrating solar tech and economies of (huge) scale would kick in in any case. If you ordered your PV by the square km, I think you'd be up for  a substantial discount...

  With the change of Government in Victoria, it is hard to predict if the Mallee Solar plant will still go ahead or not, but the following articles provide some cost figures for large scale solar.  Mildura to host Australia's biggest solar plant - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)    

> The *Mildura Solar Concentrator Power Station* is a photovoltaic (PV) heliostat solar concentrator power station is to be built in Mildura, Victoria by Solar Systems. The *154 megawatt (MW), A$420 million*, project will generate 270,000 MWh per year, enough for more than 45,000 homes. It will *reduce greenhouse gas  emissions by approximately 400,000 tonnes per year*, and will also aid  in reducing salinity and create jobs during manufacture, construction  and operation. Full commissioning is expected in 2013, with the first stage to be completed in 2010.  Mildura Solar Concentrator Power Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Solar Systems - The Technology 
I wonder how many square kilometres those open cut coal mines take up per year?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Yep. But it is merely my opinion. 
> Cancun. Copenhagen. Whatever. Wherever..... 
> They are gatherings where competing vested interests all get together with the idea of making a difference vis a vis human induced climate change. As a result of the competition between self interests right across the spectrum...they cancel each other out. So these things produce little of consequence. 
> Although I hear some malarky about a 'deforestation' issue being addressed at Cancun. What makes this doubly sad is that a recent similar 'conference' on global biodiversity (upon which deforestation presents one of the greatest threats) achieved precisely.....nothing.  
> Self interest wins every time. And when self interest produces policy paralysis and stagnation in the face of a challenge....then we are truly in trouble. 
> Neither side of this ridiculous argument is capable of producing policies and actions that placate either end of the self interest spectrum....or more importantly the middle.  
> You want a nuclear power station? Just build the damn thing. New dam? Ditto. Solar power plant? Ditto. Another coal fired power station? Go for it. $200 billion dollars for artificial tree research? Fine and dandy. Absolutely nothing? hell yeah. Whatever I want to do, whenever and wherever I want to, no questions asked and let the great unwashed wear the consequences? Where do I sign? 
> DO SOMETHING. One way or the other. Just don't have us sitting here whinging and sniping in the warm glow of the beatific aura's of Andrew Bolt and Tim Flannery or whoever your chosen deity is..... 
> My major comfort in all this is that wherever we are going.....down, up or drunkenly sideways....we are all going to do it together.....shouting at each other while remaining ignorant of what's happening around us. 
> That, my esteemed friend, is human nature. And I REVEL in it!!!!

   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> With the change of Government in Victoria, it is hard to predict if the Mallee Solar plant will still go ahead or not, but the following articles provide some cost figures for large scale solar.  Mildura to host Australia's biggest solar plant - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   Solar Systems - The Technology 
> I wonder how many square kilometres those open cut coal mines take up per year?

  
We hope not.  
You guys are surely kidding yourselves if you think solar is the way to go with electricity. It is the dearest form of alternative power of them all.  Reality is kicking in  as the governmenst are starting to wind back their (our) expensive, useless rebates to the hairshirts who think they are saving the planet.  Our high electricity prices are subsidising you yes, and that is why I will never take it up.  It is useless worthless, and will not achieve the desired result. 
The writing is on the wall and Labor has fallen into a trap.  Either blow our enonomy chasing a pipe dream of solar energy, in doing so cause finacial hardship and future blackouts. Then political oblivian. 
Or embrace nuclear energy  :2thumbsup: . 
They have wedged themselves LOL.

----------


## Dr Freud

> And Doc, a small 1.5kW system puts out between 3 and 7kWh per day average, and a 10kW system 35 - 50kWh. Doesn't matter how you dress up your denial, these systems do work, and they do reduce our requirements for fossil fuel. 
> woodbe.

  And Woodbe, a small 9 litre cistern system can keep out 9 litres average from the ocean if you don't flush it.  Doesn't matter how you dress up your denial, these systems do work, and they do reduce the level of the ocean.  :Biggrin:  
Maybe I should post simpler sarcasm.  You guys obviously don't get it.  Perhaps a simple question will help. 
How much cooler will the Planet Earth be because of *ALL* the solar panels being used in Australia?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yep, I see that you have reframed it to confuse individual household energy usage with world total energy usage.

   

> Let me reframe your response with some *context:*

  My apologies for not spelling out these issues in detail for you guys.  I too make mistaken assumptions about peoples processing levels, and I'm sure that you guys weren't the only ones mixed up here.  :2thumbsup:  
You see, context generally means: 
con·text  *1.*  The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning. *2.*  The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.  
Can you see now, household energy usage is a sub component of world total energy usage.  In this way, the world total energy usage is the setting or circumstance in which the household energy usage is the event. 
Can you see now how context works? Perhaps extracting some numbers from those passages will also help to clear things up? 
Assuming your house system: 1800 kWh 
Assuming projected world total energy usage: 198,721,800,000,000 kWh 
Approximate contribution: 0.0000000000000001% or thereabouts. 
But what is not assumed is the fact that this ridiculous farce is hideously expensive for all Australians and is absolutely ineffectual in its application. 
Now here's the kicker, *pay attention now*. 
It doesn't matter if every house in the world had one of these systems installed, because PV's don't suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.  If fossil fuel usage continued to increase alongside these PV's, they would be worthless, according to your supported theory.  So the quantity of these things is 100% irrelevant to the argument. 
When you can prove global CO2 emissions are *reducing* as a result of them, you might be able to see credibility from where you are. This is a standard not set by me, but by your own supported theory.  :2thumbsup:     

> Did you really look at the link that you posted?  Maybe you are actually an advocate for solar power?  Or, did you miss those *small boxes* on the map?

  Those *small boxes* on the map are not small on the ground.  As Inter suggests, the cost would be ludicrous even if the technology was invented yet for this fantasy land. But reality has never been a strong theme in AGW Theory.  I used a fruit loop greeny site with more fairy floss fantasy as you guys usually just believe these sites without launching into a "corrupted by big oil" semantic tirade.   

> But hey, you guys just keep ignoring reality, every little bit helps.  
> I might not flush tonight, just to help with keeping the ocean levels down.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Caught switching the goal posts (again), and still getting it wrong. 
> ROFL. Touché, chrisp. 
> woodbe.

  Gotta stop jumping on those bandwagons champ.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> But don't stress, the 'economy', just like the English language, is alive and constantly changing.  It wouldn't be long before the 'economy' factors in the full(er) cost of using fossil fuel to power our society and introduces a price on carbon either in the form of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. 
> These economic drivers will encourage the general population to change their ways and adopt newer, cleaner, energy technologies for the benefit of society as a whole.

  I don't know what Planet you guys live on, but you might like to try Earth for a little while. 
When you say "our society", I assume you mean our Global society, hence the "G" in AGW Theory.  Unless you too are a supporter of ANW Theory? 
And when you say "it wouldn't be long", just curious as to your predictions as to when Global CO2 emission levels will start to fall?  Don't worry about a day or month, just a year will do?  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> My major comfort in all this is that wherever we are going.....down, up or drunkenly sideways....we are all going to do it together.....shouting at each other while remaining ignorant of what's happening around us.

  Too true my friend.   

> Just remember, the Dinosaurs didn't die out because they farted too much, they died because they were so busy fighting amongst themselves, nobody was watching where they were going, and they crashed into a big rock.

   :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Good to hear Doc, we need people like you to selflessly support the installation of PV in Australia.  
> woodbe.

  Yes, there are plenty of people like me out here: pensioners, single parents, low-income earners, unemployed, self-employed with tight margins, single income households etc etc.   

> *"ROCKETING power prices are pushing hundreds of thousands of Victorians into "fuel poverty". * An estimated 211,000 households are already pouring more than 10 per cent of disposable income into electricity bills, new analysis claims. 
> Upgrades needed for ageing infrastructure, electricity generation cost increases and a switch to more expensive, *environmentally friendly wind and solar power are blamed for big price spikes.*  *The harshest winter in a decade* also drove up bills as people cranked up heaters and consumed more electricity."  Surging prices create 'fuel poverty' | Herald Sun 
> Great theory, great solution.

  Here's just one face of the many paying for your failed green dreams:    
But Merry Christmas to all of us out here not buying into this greenie farce, but having to pay to subsidise the green dream.  :Biggrin:  
But mate, you and your fellow "carbonistas" can live the green dream at the poor aussie taxpayers expense.   

> "...Those who fret about carbon footprints and have no faith in humans to solve the carbon problem, get short shrift from Williams. He labels them "carbonistas", highlighting the notion that such concern is merely fashionable. 
> "There's a divide occurring in society premised on carbon and how we handle it. It's become a moralistic split. It's not based on class, but being rich certainly helps when it comes to being seen to minimise carbon footprints. 
> "Certain people have smugly created a new low-carbon fraternity. It's a new way of reframing their contempt for the oiks, the chavs, the lower orders. It all has a very Victorian feel about it."..." 
> Full story here:  Sustainable? We're a lot smarter than that | The Australian

  And how much cooler is the Planet going to be thanks to our subsidies of your green dream Mr Carbonista?

----------


## Dr Freud

> There is no reason to believe that an effort to actually install solar in that scale would be PV based.  
> woodbe.

  So you have reason to believe it will be installed in that scale using other solar tech then?  :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

> So you have reason to believe it will be installed in that scale using other solar tech then?

  ??? 
I have no reason to believe it will be installed in that scale in the near future. I expect that we will see increasingly significant installations of utility grade solar, and that very few of them will be PV based. Solar concentration is easier to scale than PV.   

> Yes, there are plenty of people like me out here: pensioners, single  parents, low-income earners, unemployed, self-employed with tight  margins, single income households etc etc.

  The group of people you class yourself with pay very little subsidy for solar power. They have low incomes, and spend little on electricity.  
If you have a problem with Government policy, vote them out. I'd point out that recent governments of either persuasion have supported solar at the subsidy level, so maybe they are seeing things differently from you. 
In any event, there are very few things a home owner can do to offset costs of running a home. While governments offer solar subsidies and returns on investment of domestic solar exceed those of traditional investments, complaining about it is just peeing into the wind. Given the state of the nation's power infrastructure, and the lack of significant new power stations, the inevitable cost of carbon, etc. etc. power prices will continue to rise quickly.  
The economic facts are that your government wants to help you to install solar on your home. They have offered you a way of mitigating the power prices coming down the pipe, and even offered you a small income from the system if you are frugal with the power you use in the home. 
You have a choice of adapting and investing or paying and complaining.  
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Rod, 
> Let me reframe your question. 
> If you have a modest 1.5kW PV system installed on your roof, in Victoria  it would produce about 1800 ~ 2000 kWh of electricity each year (ref: http://www.renovateforum.com/f223/so...36/#post814557 ). 
> In Victoria, each kWh generated by our generators (mostly brown coal) produces 1.22 kg CO2-e/kWh.  (ref http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/climate-ch...lectricity.pdf ). 
> Therefore, a modest 1.5kW PV system on your home will replace/displace 1800~2000 kWh x 1.22 kg CO2-e/kWh = *2196 ~ 2440 kg CO2-e per year.* 
> In Victoria, the typical household produces 10,700 kg CO2-e per year.  *A modest 1.5 kW PV system will reduce the average household CO2 production by 20.5% ~ 22.8%.* 
> You'd double the savings by installing a 3kW PV system.

   

> Can you see now how context works? Perhaps extracting some numbers from those passages will also help to clear things up? 
> Assuming your house system: 1800 kWh 
> Assuming projected world total energy usage: 198,721,800,000,000 kWh 
> Approximate contribution: 0.0000000000000001% or thereabouts. 
> But what is not assumed is the fact that this ridiculous farce is hideously expensive for all Australians and is absolutely ineffectual in its application.

  *Here we have a reasonably good example of "framing"* *a response.* 
I responded to Rod's questions as to how much carbon (he actually asked 'coal') PV systems would save. 
To put the question in to a realistic context, I responded using a household system and household energy consumptions.  I used typical figures of the energy produced by the PV system in Victoria, the typical household CO2 produced from energy consumption in Victoria, and I used the CO2/kWh for Victorian generators. 
It clearly shows that an individual can make a difference to their household CO2 emissions.  They do even better by using other technologies as well (eg solar hot water). 
Dr Freud, "_to clear things up_", has then reframed the numbers to see how much *one individual PV system installed in Victoria Australia has on the whole worlds energy consumption!*  :Eek:   
I suppose it is like saying that if *one individual in the world gave up smoking*, that it would only make 0.0000000000001% (I made that figure up) difference to the cancer mortality rate in the world - so why bother? 
Its a form of the 'What can I make as an individual as the problem is global?'.  The answer is - we all can play our part, either as individuals by installing PV, solar hot water, sign up for green power.  Or we can encourage our governments to clean up the existing generators.

----------


## jago

What No wikileaks posts c'mon! :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

> What No wikileaks posts c'mon!

  Hey Jago. 
Welcome to the madhouse. 
You're very welcome to post wikileaks stuff if you think its relevant (or even if it isn't and you can find an excuse)  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## jago

WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord | Environment | The Guardian  
FYI the gaurdian is a very Liberal (not conservative) Bristish newspaper 
So far pretty tame not anything that most didnt think went on, I imagine! 
So the US bullies or pays countries to tow the line last year in Coppenhagen so that it can re-egineer the global economy to benefit them....whats new. Isn't this been argument on this forum, the economics of climate change the yays and nays.... 
wikileaks do have a section dealing with Global warming and BS from both side but I cannot regain access, since last night they have pulled the swiss dns :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The writing is on the wall and Labor has fallen into a trap.  Either blow our enonomy chasing a pipe dream of solar energy, in doing so cause finacial hardship and future blackouts. Then political oblivian. 
> Or embrace nuclear energy . 
> They have wedged themselves LOL.

  They certainly have mate.   

> Labor is desperate for green power, but cant even afford what its subsidising already. And every day of dithering brings us closer to blackouts. 
>   All over red rover, youd think. 
>  Except for nuclear power, banned by Labor but the only source of green power that can keep our factories humming without driving us broke. 
>  This is why Right-wing MPs, and Ferguson of the Left, are this week demanding at least a debate on ending Labors ban on nuclear power stations.     Column - Nuclear is Julias only real hope | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

> They have low incomes, and spend little on electricity.  
> You have a choice of adapting and investing or paying and complaining.  
> woodbe.

  One day you may realise people like you have a choice, but others are struggling to put food on the table, let alone spend thousands on fancy but useless green dreams.   

> And as for those people on aged and disability pensions habitually living beyond their means, they make me sick. Recharging their electric wheelchairs and running all that medical equipment, watching digital tv all day, greedy pricks.

  And it is strange how much energy we humans keep burning trying to not freeze to death.  :Confused:    

> "Unpaid bills and calls for help to charities are both pointing to increasing difficulties for West Australians in paying their electricity bills. 
>  The electricity retailer, Synergy, says there has been an $8 million rise in unpaid power bills in the last year.  
> The Premier, Colin Barnett says there are programs available for people who are struggling.  
>  "To family members, if you're concerned about parents, elderly relatives, please make sure that they're well looked after and that they're warm in these cold conditions," he said. 
>  "And, if you need assistance, contact the hardship utility grants scheme." 
>  Police have confirmed that two people in their seventies and eighties were found dead in their homes last night but the cause of death has not been established.  
>  In the past fortnight, the average minimum temperature in Perth has been 1.3 degrees.  
> The Society's Lucinda Adar says many people simply cannot afford to use heaters.
>  "Particularly at the moment in WA, it's a financial decision," she said.  
> ...

----------


## woodbe

> One day you may realise people like you have a choice, but others are struggling to put food on the table, let alone spend thousands on fancy but useless green dreams.

  How sanctimonious and judgemental of you. Your anti-solar argument is in tatters, so now we are shooting the messenger again. 
Vote, friend, don't take your self righteousness out on me, you have no idea... 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I suppose it is like saying that if *one individual in the world gave up smoking*, that it would only make 0.0000000000001% (I made that figure up) difference to the cancer mortality rate in the world - so why bother?

  Desperately trying to link everything back to your conspiracy theories just does more damage to your credibility. 
If all smokers shared one lung, there may be some credibility in your analogy, but they do not, and there is not (we share an atmosphere, just in case you didn't get it).  But I reckon you should continue down these semantic distractions, it just highlights how little credibility there is left in this farce.  :Biggrin:  
Now let's get back to reality:   

> Now here's the kicker, *pay attention now*. 
> It doesn't matter if every house in the world had one of these systems installed, because PV's don't suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.  If fossil fuel usage continued to increase alongside these PV's, they would be worthless, according to your supported theory.  So the quantity of these things is 100% irrelevant to the argument. 
> When you can prove global CO2 emissions are *reducing* as a result of them, you might be able to see credibility from where you are. This is a standard not set by me, but by your own supported theory.

   

> Its a form of the 'What can I make as an individual as the problem is global?'.  The answer is - we all can play our part, either as individuals by installing PV, solar hot water, sign up for green power.  Or we can encourage our governments to clean up the existing generators.

  This is nothing to do with individuals.  I specifically asked in a post above how much cooler the Planet will be as a result of the use of *ALL* PV's.  Happy to have your answer?  :Biggrin:  
See now, Rod's question was excellent because it actually asked how much coal would be "replaced". Your answer if correct, would have shown any reduction in coal mining volume as a direct result of PV use.  Feel free to *dig up* these reduction figures at your leisure.  :Lolabove:

----------


## Dr Freud

> How sanctimonious and judgemental of you. Your anti-solar argument is in tatters, so now we are shooting the messenger again. 
> Vote, friend, don't take your self righteousness out on me, you have no idea... 
> woodbe.

  *
"sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous* Feigning piety or righteousness: "a solemn, unsmiling, sanctimonious old iceberg that looked like he was waiting for a vacancy in the Trinity" (Mark Twain)." 
It will please you to know that my piety and righteousness is not feigned.  :Biggrin:  
I am 100% committed to bringing reality back to the forefront of this debate.  :2thumbsup:  
And as for being judgemental:    

> *They have low incomes, and spend little on electricity.*  
> woodbe.

  I'll pass this on to some people I know and I'll get their feedback for you.  :2thumbsup:    

> You have a *choice* of adapting and investing or paying and complaining.  
> woodbe.

  I don't know where you got your data from for these judgements, but let me explain in more detail for you. 
This is not a *choice* for some people who cannot afford to buy into these failed green dreams, and then have others subsidise their useless whims because governments *force* these price rises on all citizens.  There are many ideologies that would call this a *choice*, but I don't subscribe to them. 
Now, as to my judgements, the data I used to determine that you had made the *choice* to participate was provided by you.   

> I think I'll put 10kW on my roof, how about you Rod? Are you a rock thrower or someone willing to act?  
> woodbe.

  For you, this is no doubt a genuine choice.  :2thumbsup:  
Just please do not try to pretend the situation is the same for all Australians.  :No:  
P.S. It is well-documented in this thread that I am pro-solar energy.  I am however certainly anti-BS and anti-failed green dream schemes.  :Wink 1:

----------


## chrisp

> Dr Freud, "_to clear things up_", has then reframed the numbers to see how much *one individual PV system installed in Victoria Australia has on the whole worlds energy consumption!*

  I just wanted to repeat that part of an earlier post - I think it is a classic example of your logic.   :Smilie:    

> Desperately trying to link everything back to your conspiracy theories just does more damage to your credibility.

  "conspiracy theories"?  I think you may have mistaken me for someone on the other side of this argument.  Accepters of the AGW science don't claim the science is fraudulent, or that the IPCC is trying to take over the world government, or that all the scientist are 'in it together' for funding, etc.  Gee, every major scientific organisation on the world acknowledges that AGW is real.    *I'd reckon there'd be a Nobel Prize in it for anyone who can prove that AGW is not* *happening.*   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> In comparing the vast array of past climate changes in the Arctic with what climate alarmists claim to be the "unprecedented" _anthropogenic-induced_ warming of the past several decades, White _et al_. conclude that "thus far, human influence does not stand out relative to other, natural causes of climate change." In fact, they state that the data "clearly show" that "strong natural variability has been characteristic of the Arctic at all time scales considered," and they reiterate that the data suggest "that the human influence on rate and size of climate change thus far does not stand out strongly from other causes of climate change."

    CO2 Science

----------


## Dr Freud

> Alarmist of the Year Tim Fannery in 2005: _  He also predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydneys dams dry in just two years._ And now for the reality:

   The news today:   _Crops have been destroyed, towns cut off and at least one man has died as floods threaten parts of NSW and Queensland._ Brisbanes dams:   _100%_  Canberras dams:   _98.10%_Adelaides reservoirs:   _84%_Sydneys dams: _59.3%_   I suspect the Bureaus Jones is too eager to see the warming | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
And this:   

> A majority of dams are full, and heavy rains have forced the authority to release water into the swollen Murrumbidgee, Macquarie and Namoi rivers to maintain structural safety.

  Man washed away as flooding spreads - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## chrisp

An article from The Age on the world weather extremes...   

> *World of extremes in weather                *   *                 Adam Morton            *  
>      December 4, 2010  
>                                     THIS year is on track to be the world's hottest on record, also leaving a trail of worsening extreme weather events.  
> Yet in Australia temperatures, while historically warm,  are at their lowest in a decade and drought-busting rains have set new  benchmarks across much of the country.  
>  Such, scientists say, is the nature of a planet-wide warming trend - the rise is steady but uneven. 
> An annual climate report by the World Meteorological  Organisation says that provisional data to the end of October shows 2010  was the warmest year since instrumental measurement began 160 years  ago. 
>  WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud said it would almost  certainly be one of the three hottest years recorded. ''The decade from  2001 to 2010 has set a new record - it will be the warmest decade ever  since we have records,'' he said.  
> From: World of extremes in weather

----------


## Dr Freud

Let me spell it out for you loonies out there: 
Leave the kids alone!  :Annoyed:   
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX06r-NoCxQ"]YouTube - 1 - Green Santa: News Flash with Dr. Maurice Bergs![/ame]

----------


## Dr Freud

> The energy saving bulbs show mercury levels 20 times higher than regulations allow in the air surrounding them for up to five hours after they are broken, according to tests released Thursday by the Federal Environment Agency (UBA).   Consumer groups call for end to EU light bulb ban - The Local

  John Howard (and Turnbull) introduced this farce into Australia.  I hope they and others have learned the lesson of buying into half-baked green dream schemes without proper consideration.  :2thumbsup:  
Can't wait for lawyers to get a hold of this issue in the coming years.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> With United Nations climate negotiators facing an uphill battle to advance their goal of reducing emissions linked to global warming, it's no surprise that the woman steering the talks appealed to a Mayan goddess Monday.  
>   Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico, noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also "the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving. May she inspire you -- because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools."   Post Carbon - Cancun talks start with a call to the gods

  Maybe if you brought some scientific evidence instead  of prayer beads, this thing could get off the ground?  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The world's climate negotiations in Cancun were faced with deadlock at their outset yesterday after Japan insisted it would not agree to renewing the Kyoto Protocol, the current treaty under which rich countries are cutting their emissions of greenhouse gases.   Japan derails climate talks by refusing to renew Kyoto treaty - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

  Lucky the 15,000 people flew in for this!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Australias current main greenhouse response has so far been to provide incentives for* household solar and wind generation in particular. These are high cost measures and ones where the additional cost is added to the bills of all electricity consumers*

  Find out how this farce is both expensive and ineffective at the same time here: _  Green madness and Gillards dithering will hike your power bills | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

----------


## Dr Freud

> *I'd reckon there'd be a Nobel Prize in it for anyone who can prove that AGW is not* *happening.*

  Mate, you don't need to go that far.  Proving science is so yesterday.  :Biggrin:  All you have to do is either: 
Make a few speeches in 11 days - _2009 - Barack H. Obama; _ Prepare a flawed report on a farcical theory - _2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC);_ Or, 
Make an error ridden documentary - _2007 - (Al) Gore Jr_. 
Full hilarious read here:  The Nobel Prize for a Piece of the Action | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

> Such, scientists say, is the nature of a planet-wide warming trend - the rise is steady but uneven.

  Let's again take for granted all this information is 100% accurate. 
I guess the only question left then is can they    

> * prove*

  what is causing it?  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> what is causing it?

  CO2 - but you already knew that.     :Rolleyes:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> CO2 - but you already knew that.

  Yeah right. and we are supposed to believe that. 
BTW nice job DOC.

----------


## Rod Dyson

So the Warmist don't use a weather event to claim AGW eh? 
Read this Wonk Room » Global Boiling: Continental ‘Weather Bomb’ Hits Midwest With Power Of Cat Three Hurricane

----------


## woodbe

> This is not a choice for some people who cannot afford to buy into these failed green dreams, and then have others subsidise their useless whims because governments force these price rises on all citizens.  There are many ideologies that would call this a choice, but I don't subscribe to them.

  One of the primary reasons some people cannot afford to 'buy into these schemes' is that you need to own a house to put solar on it. Hate to break it to you, but housing affordability is a big problem for people on low incomes. Solar rebates are simply not aimed at them. 
If you don't like that, don't lecture me about it, talk to your government about it.   

> Just please do not try to pretend the situation is the same for all Australians.

  And I haven't. I have suggested that there is a choice, I have already pointed out one reason why people may not be able to avail themselves, but for those with homes there have been repeated offers of solar systems on very low outlays.    

> P.S. It is well-documented in this thread that I am pro-solar energy.  I am however certainly anti-BS and anti-failed green dream schemes.

  You're doing a great job of hiding it.  :Rolleyes:    

> In a nutshell, p-ssing into the wind, after drinking a very expensive drop.

  Perhaps you'd like to remind us of what a great supporter of solar energy you are.  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> what is causing it?

   

> CO2 - but you already knew that.

  Hang on a minute, who wrote this:   

> * prove*

   

> _                                              Last edited by chrisp; 4th Dec 2010 at 01:21 PM.                                                                   Reason: To highlight the word "prove" - I think someone below missed it!                                     _

  I think they did!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

After your request for proof, I posted this:   

> In comparing the vast array of past climate changes in the Arctic with what climate alarmists claim to be the "unprecedented" _anthropogenic-induced_ warming of the past several decades, White _et al_. conclude that "thus far, human influence does not stand out relative to other, natural causes of climate change." In fact, they state that the data "clearly show" that "strong natural variability has been characteristic of the Arctic at all time scales considered," and they reiterate that the data suggest "that the human influence on rate and size of climate change thus far does not stand out strongly from other causes of climate change."
> 			
> 		    CO2 Science

  My apologies if you mistook this for a response to your request for proof.  It was just a fortuitous timing of this post that it responded to the issue of scientific indicators that dispel this myth. 
I in no way intended that this article be taken as "proving" that AGW Theory was false. 
I have consistently said that the onus of proving this farce is on the people pushing it.  You can't just say something is real, unless others can prove it is not (well,with AGW Theory they have  :Annoyed: ). 
Hope that clears things up.  I am not now, nor ever will be, sucked into the game of trying to prove that something that is not real does not exist.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yeah right. and we are supposed to believe that.

  That's how the theory goes mate.  :Biggrin:    

> BTW nice job DOC.

  Hey, every little bit helps, apparently!  :Biggrin:  
I just can't wait for the Cancun outcome, something special like this maybe: 
"We all agree to limit global temperature rise to less than 3 degrees by 2100."   :Lolabove:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Perhaps you'd like to remind us of what a great supporter of solar energy you are.  
> woodbe.

  Sure can. 
I eat lots of plants that use solar energy to generate energy that I can use to live. 
I eat lots of animals that likewise eat these plants. 
I absorb solar energy through my skin and create Vitamin D to help me live as well. 
I use solar energy to light up my life so I can find or supply food, water, shelter etc. 
I also respect solar energy for keeping this rock from turning into an iceball in space. 
I miss solar energy when the planet spins around, so I type stuff on this thread then sleep through the darkness of no solar energy. 
I am truly a great supporter of solar energy.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> I have consistently said that the onus of proving this farce is on the people pushing it.  You can't just say something is real, unless others can prove it is not (well,with AGW Theory they have ). 
> Hope that clears things up.  I am not now, nor ever will be, sucked into the game of trying to prove that something that is not real does not exist.

  
I hate you break it to you Doc, but the scientific world has moved on (many years ago).  As far as the science is concerned, the AGW is accepted and is the prevalent theory - and that includes the CO2 bit that you are having trouble accepting.  Every major scientific body in the world has expressed support of the AGW theory.  It is an accepted scientific fact. 
Therefore, the onus of proof has indeed shifted - you have to find convincing evidence to disprove it if you want to discredit the theory.  Just about every day there are articles in the news that continually adding weight to the theory.  You'd have more luck trying to disprove the link between smoking and lung cancer. 
BTW, post excerpts from Andrew Bolt's opinion columns isn't proof.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Dr Freud

The first response while true, was a little mischevious.  :Innocent:  
Perhaps these are better?   

> Mate, it would be great if we were investing more money directly into engineering base-load solar technology.  My own views on extra-terrestrial mounting were well documented earlier.  
> Unfortunately, all our taxpayer dollars are going to either researching AGW Theory, or setting up the giant financial bureaucracy required to control the new financial market derivative scheme linked to the new "Carbon Taxation Scheme". 
> Strange how we never hear anything about how this tax will actually cool the planet down.

   

> My argument is against the massive waste and distraction from these important issues.  Why run some $114 billion dollar money go round, when a fraction of this money will likely solve the energy issues in much less time, for bona fide reasons.  Then we can make trillions selling this to the rest of the planet. Hell, I'd even pay 12% GST if the extra 2% was quarantined away from parliament and dedicated to private R&D into solar. 
> But no, lets cripple the economy instead, so no-one can afford to do any research, let alone development!

   

> I am a huge fan of renewable energy sources, particularly solar as opposed to others like wind and geothermal, as it exists in abundance across the universe.  Handy when traveling.  No doubt it will be replaced by anti-matter or gravitational drives in the future (or maybe not based on our latest science curriculum changes ), but it is a likely stepping stone for us hairless apes. 
> I particularly like the space based stuff like this  and maybe if we weren't wasting this money  in market based derivative trading scams, we could invest it all in solar and make it viable a lot quicker.

  But mate, there is a world of difference in well-funded R&D expenditure, compared to implementing a failed green dream scheme that is both inneffective and expensive.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

> BTW nice job DOC.

   :Rotfl:  
And here is me thinking just how much the poor Doc is struggling today.

----------


## intertd6

> I hate you break it to you Doc, but the scientific world has moved on (many years ago). As far as the science is concerned, the AGW is accepted and is the prevalent theory -   
> It is an accepted scientific fact.

  You have gone from a theory to a fact in just one paragraph.
the pattern emerges once again.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

Sorry for the exit, the boss told me I had to eat my dinner away from the computer.  :Blush7:  
But you guys do me keep me amused.   

> and that includes the CO2 bit that you are having trouble accepting.

  The "CO2 bit"?  :Roflmao2:  
Aside from this humour, I'm having *no* trouble accepting that there is *zero* evidence proving that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are causing any contemporary warming.  Let alone all the delusions that usually follow from this theory.   

> It is an accepted scientific fact.

  Cool, please direct me to the Laws of Anthropogenic Global Warming.  :Doh:    

> you have to find convincing evidence to disprove it if you want to discredit the theory.

  I have to, do I?    

> BTW, post excerpts from Andrew Bolt's opinion columns isn't proof.

  I thought I had clearly explained this previously:   

> Hope that clears things up.  I am not now, nor ever will be, sucked into the game of trying to prove that something that is not real does not exist.

  Obviously not clearly enough.  :Biggrin:  
So, in summary, you also subscribe to this fiction that we *treat all theories as real*, *and act as if they were real*, without any proof, until someone can disprove the theory? 
Or is your greenie theory special, compared to all the other theories?  :Banghead:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You have gone from a theory to a fact in just one paragraph.
> the pattern emerges once again.
> regards inter

  It must have been a really impressive paragraph.  :No:   :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> And here is me thinking just how much the poor Doc is struggling today.

  The only thing that has struggled since this thread began is the farcical AGW Theory.  :Biggrin:  
If you care to read some of the earlier posts, you will see clearly how this theory is dying a slow but inevitable death.  :2thumbsup:  
I'm happy to put the boots in as appropriate.  :Kick Can:

----------


## Dr Freud

> And it is strange how much energy we humans keep burning trying to not freeze to death.

   

> An Arctic chill killed a dozen people in Poland and snarled traffic and halted flights across Europe, freezing ducks in lakes and prompting animal lovers to open their cellars to shivering stray cats, officials said Friday.  Dozens dead in European deep freeze - USATODAY.com

   

> As Easterners prepare for the harsh outdoor chill with heavy jackets, scarves and hats, many will crank up the heat indoors, countering the effects of even more frigid air pushing in early next week...Cities such as Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Boston will experience this chilly air.  AccuWeather.com - Weather News | Cold Snap Means Increase in Heating Oil Prices

  Maybe we should hope this little ball does keep warming up.  :Biggrin:

----------


## PhilT2

> CO2 Science

  The article mentioned on the CO2 Science site is this one  *Past rates of climate change in the Arctic* Original Research Article _Pages 1716-1727_
James  W.C. White, Richard B. Alley, Julie Brigham-Grette, Joan J.  Fitzpatrick, Anne E. Jennings, Sigfus J. Johnsen, Gifford H. Miller, R.  Steven Nerem, Leonid Polyak 
Note that the second author is Richard Alley from Penn State, IPCC lead author, who appeared before the US House of Representatives subcommittee on energy and environment recently. The views stated on the CO2 Science site may not be a true representation of the findings of the extensive research that Prof Alley has done.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The article mentioned on the CO2 Science site is this one  *Past rates of climate change in the Arctic* Original Research Article _Pages 1716-1727_
> James  W.C. White, Richard B. Alley, Julie Brigham-Grette, Joan J.  Fitzpatrick, Anne E. Jennings, Sigfus J. Johnsen, Gifford H. Miller, R.  Steven Nerem, Leonid Polyak 
> Note that the second author is Richard Alley from Penn State, IPCC lead author, who appeared before the US House of Representatives subcommittee on energy and environment recently. The views stated on the CO2 Science site may not be a true representation of the findings of the extensive research that Prof Alley has done.

  
Maybe he is positioning himself further away from his colleague Mann and the other fruit loops, as he can now see that the scaremongering and data "adjusting" days are over. 
Better to be in the middle ground with plausible deniability for when the balloon goes up?   :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> But mate, there is a world of difference in well-funded R&D expenditure, compared to implementing a failed green dream scheme that is both inneffective and expensive.

  Implementing failed green dream schemes do not work, because people will eventually realise they are not getting what they are paying for:    

> It arose because the world's other extreme green jurisdictions -- to avert the economic and political ruin that comes of unaffordable green power -- recently swallowed their pride, slashed their subsidies and backstabbed their renewables industries.  On Friday, Spain slashed payouts for wind projects by 35% while denying support for solar thermal projects in their first year of operation.  Also Friday, France announced a four-month freeze on solar projects and a cap on the amount of solar that can be built, to nip a "veritable speculative bubble" by its rapacious renewables industry.  In October, the German Energy Agency, the country's official advisor on renewables, called for Germany's drive toward solar to be "cut back quickly and drastically" by capping its installations of solar panels at a mere one gigawatt per year, down from the estimated eight to 10 GW being installed this year.  Also in October, New South Wales, Australia's most populous state, slashed by two-thirds the revenue that homeowners who had installed solar panels would receive, from 60¢ per kilowatt-hour to 20¢. The state's solar manufacturers say this will put them out of business, and those out of state shudder that other Australian states will follow suit, effectively ending the country's solar boom.  Also in October, the U.K. government announced that withering spending cuts were coming to renewable projects, many of which have already been withering, and not just due to government austerity measures, or to the consumer backlash against rising power rates.  With the market for wind shrinking, Denmark's Vestas, the world's largest wind-turbine company, recently announced it is closing five production facilities in Denmark and Sweden and laying off 3,000 workers, or one-seventh of its global workforce.   In the U.S., state regulators in Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Rhode Island and Virginia have either cancelled or delayed renewable-energy projects that would raise rates on consumers, even when the rate hike that would have resulted was well under 1%. Explained Virginia's regulators, in rejecting a contract that would have raised rates by 0.2%: "The ratepayers of Virginia must be protected from costs for renewable energy that are unreasonably high."   With rising sentiment against renewables, new wind-power installations in the U.S. were down by more than 70% in the first three quarters of 2010, when compared with 2009. "What we're seeing here, I think, with these across-the-board rejections for [purchase power agreements] for wind is that [regulators] are saying that costs are too high," states the Illinois Wind Energy Association's executive director.   
> Full story here:  Green collapse

  
Bottom line is, whether you're buying a power drill or a green dream scheme, people get p-ssed off when they don't get what they paid for.  :Mad:  
People don't need a power drill, they need a hole in the wall. 
People are realising that they don't need failed green dream schemes, they were told they needed a cooler planet. 
The green dream schemes were just the tool. 
Hope there is a good warranty?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

Now here's a tool with grunt!   

> The ballroom of the Grand Hyatt on Beijings East Chang An Avenue was packed...What brought the foreigners was money: According to Michael Kruse, consultant on nuclear systems for Arthur D. Little, the Chinese are ready to spend *$511 billion to build up to 245 reactors*.  
> Developing clean, low-carbon energy is an international priority, says Zhao Chengkun, vice-president of the China Nuclear Energy Association. Nuclear is recognized as the only energy source that can be used on a mass scale to achieve this.   Nuclear Boom in China Sees Reactor Builders Risk Their Know-how for Cash - Bloomberg

  But hey, we'll run our factories on windmills instead. 
I'm sure we'll be competitive?  :Cry:

----------


## jago

China is not the only one looking to go Nuclear UAE and Saudi Arabia have both signed deals with USA looking to get agreement on building reactors in the middle east...UAE wants to be the leaders of renewable energy sources once their petrol dollars dwindle.  
Its called the 123 agreement, seriously, and UAE wants the worlds HQ for renewable energies  to be set up in Abu Dhabi if the Americans agree. USA wants Arabs to consider GE and other US companies to do building of the reactors.... 
Where is this leading well China, US and Petrol States do't care if Global Warming is a reality ...their reality and focus is how do we capitalise to re-egineer global economics in our favour, lets  not fix the cash cow thats presenting itself. :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Is the divine presence a Republican? Or is He/She/It running an inter-galactic fossil fuel conglomerate? As His name doesn't feature on the exxonsecrets site, the Congressional funding database or any of the other sponsored denier lists, we'll never know, but whatever the explanation may be, the Paraclete appears to be as determined as any terrestrial corporate frontman to prevent a successful conclusion to the climate talks. 
> How do I know? Because every time anyone gets together to try to prevent global climate breakdown, He swaths the rich, densely habited parts of the world with snow and ice, while leaving obscurer places to cook. 
> Now, as the talks begin in Cancún, there's scarcely an adult in this country who hasn't had the corny thought that we could do with a bit of global warming. Just look out of the window, Monbiot, the dolts who clutter my inbox insist, and tell me where your global warming is now. 
> But, perhaps in the throes of one of His Old Testament rages, He would rather you didn't know. God, alongside half the corporate world and many of its most powerful legislators, has declared war on the climate talks.   Cancún climate change summit: Is God determined to prevent a deal? | George Monbiot | Environment | guardian.co.uk

  These are the greenies.  First they pray to their own green gods for success, then they blame the monotheistic God for their failures.  :Doh:  
One day, hopefully soon, they will get back to scientific evidence, rational thought, and a resolute acceptance of reality.  :2thumbsup:  
Reality is always happy to help:   

> *Snow irony*  Vicky Pope, head of the climate predictions programme at the Met Office's Hadley Centre, was stuck at Gatwick airport this week, a victim of Britain's brutal cold snap. Ironically, she was on her way to Cancún to announce, together with the UN's World Meteorological Organisation, that 2010 had provisionally tied with 1998 as the hottest year on record. Scientists from the Noaaa and Nasa, the two other institutes that provide data on global temperatures were wisely staying put in the US, having already stated that it looked like being the hottest year ever.     Cancún climate change summit: the Zapatistas are coming | Environment | guardian.co.uk

   :Roflmao2:

----------


## woodbe

> Implementing failed green dream schemes do not work, because people will eventually realise they are not getting what they are paying for:       Also  in October, New South Wales, Australia's most populous state, slashed  by two-thirds the revenue that homeowners who had installed solar panels  would receive, from 60¢ per kilowatt-hour to 20¢. The state's solar  manufacturers say this will put them out of business, and those out of  state shudder that other Australian states will follow suit, effectively  ending the country's solar boom.

  This is not the case. 
It is true that NSW has slashed its Feed-In Tariff, it was way too generous, and gave those who chose to install very short payback times and for many, an income. The 60c is paid on gross power production of the solar system regardless of whether it is used in the home or pumped back into the grid. Surprising that it took so long for the pollies to catch on that this was a crazy high rate. 
What is not true is "_slashed  by two-thirds the revenue that homeowners who had installed solar panels_" If a homeowner had installed panels (or in fact ordered a system before the cut-off date) the 60c Gross payment scheme still applies. The cut only applies to new installations ordered and installed after the cut off date (Midnight on 27.11.2101) 
One can only hope that the Journalist's other examples of 'the sky is falling' are more accurate than this one. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> What the hell are you Victorians up to?  *
> "FEARS Victoria's coastline will be swamped by rising sea levels have led to an unprecedented ruling that ended a family's dream beachside development. * The ruling, blocking plans for eight townhouses in Lakes Entrance, could undermine coastal development worth millions. 
> A federal government report last year warned that up to 44,600 homes along Victoria's coast could be destroyed or damaged by rising sea levels over the next century. 
> After a four-year battle for planning permission to build the Lakes Entrance townhouses close to the town centre, they have been left with broken dreams and a major financial headache. They had planned to keep some of the homes for themselves and sell the others. 
>  "We meet all the criteria put in front of us and VCAT knocked us back," Mr Strini said. "We have invested $1 million and this has turned into a nightmare. Our dreams have been shattered." 
>  In his ruling, VCAT's Ian Potts said the Strini case had brought into focus climate change planning issues, and a cautious approach was needed. 
> "This decision effectively rules out almost any developments in existing commercial and residential areas that may be subject to sea level rises within the next 90 years - even if the buildings are above the flood level," he warned."  Fear of coastal swamping leads to unprecedented ruling on property | Herald Sun  
> Better tell those kids in the picture to run away or their parents might also get charged with putting their kids in danger being that close the rising ocean about to swamp them!

  I wonder if VCAT would have approved this airport:       

> *Maldives Plans For Drowning By Building Huge New Airport Next To The Ocean* 
>                                                Posted on December 4, 2010 by stevengoddard  
>                                                They are obviously really worried about global warming and sea level rise and any other way to scam money out of stupid bankrupt western governments.   Maldives Plans For Drowning By Building Huge New Airport Next To The Ocean | Real Science

   :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

> What is not true is "_slashed  by two-thirds the revenue that homeowners who had installed solar panels_" If a homeowner had installed panels (or in fact ordered a system before the cut-off date) the 60c Gross payment scheme still applies. The cut only applies to new installations ordered and installed after the cut off date (Midnight on 27.11.2101) 
> woodbe.

  I'm sure Lawrence won't mind me correcting his "past-tense to future-tense" error? 
Please read instead:   

> _slashed  by two-thirds the revenue that homeowners who will install solar panels_

   

> One can only hope that the Journalist's other examples of 'the sky is falling' are more accurate than this one. 
> woodbe.

  My own opinion on journalistic standards are well documented, but I'm sure Lawrence [s]has appreciated[/s] will appreciate an email from you highlighting his grammatical inadequacies.  :Biggrin:  
But we all make mistakes from time to time, perhaps involving time?  

> the cut off date (Midnight on 27.11.*2101*)

   :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> China is not the only one looking to go Nuclear UAE and Saudi Arabia have both signed deals with USA looking to get agreement on building reactors in the middle east...UAE wants to be the leaders of renewable energy sources once their petrol dollars dwindle.  
> Its called the 123 agreement, seriously, and UAE wants the worlds HQ for renewable energies  to be set up in Abu Dhabi if the Americans agree. USA wants Arabs to consider GE and other US companies to do building of the reactors.... 
> Where is this leading well China, US and Petrol States do't care if Global Warming is a reality ...their reality and focus is how do we capitalise to re-egineer global economics in our favour, lets  not fix the cash cow thats presenting itself.

  Mate, I'm with you on this one.  :2thumbsup:  
Now we just have to decide whether the rest of the world are idiots, or our PM is?   

> *Nuclear power doesnt stack up as an economically efficient source of power. Julia Gillard.*   *Column - Nuclear is Julias only real hope | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog*

  Joolia is backing the windmills and their ilk.  :Doh:  
You probably know who my money is on.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> My own opinion on journalistic standards are well documented, but I'm sure Lawrence [s]has appreciated[/s] will appreciate an email from you highlighting his grammatical inadequacies.

  Nah, it'd wreck his story if the truth was in there. 
Nice pickup on the date, I'll talk to my copy proofing team  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

> Maybe he is positioning himself further away from his colleague Mann and  the other fruit loops, as he can now see that the scaremongering and  data "adjusting" days are over.

  His position does not seem to have changed. The paper in CO2 Science was published in June, he appeared before the House subcommittee in November. The transcript of his evidence is here. http://democrats.science.house.gov/M..._Testimony.pdf 
The video link of the hearings I posted previously is no longer working but his oral evidence and response to questions is similar to this. 
 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NQPolcYoIc]YouTube - Richard Alley Dances to Explain Ice Ages, CO2 and Global Warming[/ame]
His explanations may appear simplistic but the statements and questions from the republican members of the subcommittee indicate their level of understanding of basic science.

----------


## chrisp

> His position does not seem to have changed. The paper in CO2 Science was published in June, he appeared before the House subcommittee in November. The transcript of his evidence is here. http://democrats.science.house.gov/M..._Testimony.pdf

  Phil, 
Thank you for the link to the transcript.  It makes interesting reading.   

> *Synopsis*. With high scientific confidence, human CO2 and other greenhouse gases are having a warming influence on the climate, and the resulting rise in temperature is contributing to changes in much of the worlds ice. Shrinkage of the large ice sheets was unexpected to many observers but appears to be occurring, and the poor understanding of these changes prevents reliable projections of future sea-level rise over long times. Large, rapid changes in the ice sheets, or in other parts of the Earth system, may be unlikely but cannot be excluded entirely, and such an event could have very large effects. 
> From: The Role of Warming in Melting Ice and Sea-Level Rise, and the Possibility of Abrupt Climate Changes.  Testimony of Dr Richard B. Alley, Pennsylvania State University

----------


## Dr Freud

> Phil, 
> Thank you for the link to the transcript.  It makes interesting reading.      *With high scientific confidence*, human CO2 and other greenhouse gases are having a warming influence on the climate

  It makes for very interesting reading indeed. 
I've bolded the opinion, now I don't suppose you care to supply any empirical evidence whatsoever to support this opinion? 
Maybe even quantify what he means by "influence"? 
Some numbers would be lovely.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

I see that the Powerhouse Museum has updated one of its permanent displays:  EcoLogic: creating a sustainable future    

> _EcoLogic_ has been completely redeveloped to explore one of the   world’s hottest topics today: climate change. Discover the science  behind  global warming and what we can do to prevent it from getting  worse.

  Maybe, next time Rod or the Doc (intertd6 is invited too) are up that way they can pop in and have a look.  And if not, they can always have a look that the "for teachers" link on the above quoted URL and see what is being taught to school children these days.    :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

*News Flash!*   

> *The Anthropogenic-Global-Warming-is-a-Hoax-Society has released a telex announcing that it will merge with the Flat Earth Society.* 
> The membership of the _Anthropogenic-Global-Warming-is-a-Hoax-Society_ has been steadily dwindling to the point that it is no longer a viable entity.  "This is by no means the end of the _Anthropogenic-Global-Warming-is-a-Hoax-Society_", said the Australian branch president Rod Dyson, "We will continue our campaign until this charade is unmasked as a hoax.  The AGW theory is just a computer model and has no relationship with the real world".   
> "There is not a shred of evidence that CO2 plays any part in warming the earth" said the _Anthropogenic-Global-Warming-is-a-Hoax-Societies_ Chief Scientist, Dr Freud in a wireless interview on 2SB this afternoon.  
> The merger of the _Anthropogenic-Global-Warming-is-a-Hoax-Society_ into the _Flat Earth Society_ is the latest of a number of successful mergers of like-minded societies.  The _Moon-Landing-was-a-Hoax-Society_, the _Automotive-Engine-that-runs-on-Water-Society_ (incorporating the _Special-Add-On-Device-that-Saves-Fuel-Society_), and the _Asbestos-Doesn't-Cause-Cancer-Society_ have all successfully merged under the umbrella of the _Flat Earth Society_ as their individual memberships have declined.  The _Flat Earth Society_ name has been retained for the merged societies, as it fits well with our foundation principle: *If it was good enough in the past, it is good enough now.* 
> As an inducement for the members of the _Anthropogenic-Global-Warming-is-a-Hoax-Society_ to accept the merger, the _Flat Earth Society_ offered free membership to its sister organisation, the _Smoking-Does-Not-Cause-Lung-Cancer-Society_.  However, it was a moot offer as it was found that all the members of the _Anthropogenic-Global-Warming-is-a-Hoax-Society_ are already members of the _Smoking-Does-Not-Cause-Lung-Cancer-Society_.  *The Flat Earth Society will continue to stand up of regressive society values.  We say that if it was good enough in the past, it is good enough.  Progress is a conspiracy and someone needs to stand up and say that enough is enough.*

   :Smilie:  
(Just in case anyone thinks that this story is real, I just made it up.)

----------


## woodbe

Chrisp, 
You left out some important societies recently annexed: 
Powerlines-cause-cancer-Society
Fluoride-is-a-conspiracy-society
Intelligent-design-not-evolution-society
The-sun-is-made-of-iron-society
World-government-society
A-global-elite-control-the-world-society
Your-TV-is-spying-on-you-society
Domestic-solar-power-is-a-hoax-society   :Biggrin:  
I think they're aiming for the GCFT (Grand Conspiracy and Fallacy Theory) which is a single theory that explains all of the conspiracies and fallacies under their banner, and will result in the discovery of the TOECAF (Theory Of Every Conspiracy and Fallacy) thus for the first time in history describing comprehensively the building blocks of SDWT (Self Delusional Wishful Thinking). Once the GCT, TOECAF and the SDWT have been properly described, the society itself is widely expected to itself disappear in a paradoxical puff of smoke. 
woodbe.

----------


## jago

> *News Flash!*   
> (Just in case anyone thinks that this story is real, I just made it up.)

  
Noice.... :Roflmao2:

----------


## intertd6

*"Synopsis*. With high scientific confidence, human CO2 and other greenhouse gases are having a warming influence on the climate, and the resulting rise in temperature is contributing to changes in much of the worlds ice. Shrinkage of the large ice sheets was unexpected to many observers but appears to be occurring, and the poor understanding of these changes prevents reliable projections of future sea-level rise over long times. Large, rapid changes in the ice sheets, or in other parts of the Earth system, may be unlikely but cannot be excluded entirely, and such an event could have very large effects. 
From: The Role of Warming in Melting Ice and Sea-Level Rise, and the Possibility of Abrupt Climate Changes. Testimony of Dr Richard B. Alley, Pennsylvania State University " 
Slowly the pendulum swings away from the wholey & solely CO2 cause
Also antarctica is experiencing more ice accumulation over its interior which in turn is providing more ice outfall at its extremities.
regards inter

----------


## chrisp

> *"Synopsis*. With high scientific confidence, human CO2 and other greenhouse gases are having a warming influence on the climate,

  No argument there - never was. 
It was Dr Freud that was demanding proof that CO2 was solely and exclusively responsible for all the warming.

----------


## intertd6

> No argument there - never was. 
> It was Dr Freud that was demanding proof that CO2 was solely and exclusively responsible for all the warming.

  I'm thinking thats what the tax will be on..... CO2
Also in the powerhouse reference is quoting  2.5% fresh water on the earth with less than 1% suitable to drink, looks like they have their facts wrong there, not good for credibility.
regards inter

----------


## chrisp

> I'm thinking thats what the tax will be on..... CO2

  Good idea!  The man-made CO2 certainly is a contributor to global warming.  It also 'triggers' further water vapour - which is also a strong GHG.   

> Also in the powerhouse reference is quoting  2.5% fresh water on the  earth with less than 1% suitable to drink, looks like they have their  facts wrong there, not good for credibility.

  The oceans are quite big.   

> Out of all the water on Earth, only 2.75 percent is freshwater, including 2.05 percent frozen in glaciers, 0.68 percent as groundwater and 0.0101 percent of it as surface water in lakes and rivers. 
> From: Freshwater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Which figure are you challenging?

----------


## PhilT2

> It was Dr Freud that was demanding proof that CO2 was solely and exclusively responsible for all the warming.

  I think that some of the confusion comes from the use of the term "carbon dioxide equivalent". Converting the different GHGs to CO2 equivalent seems to be an easy way to allow comparison when the production of different gases varies from year to year. The conversion factors show how small amounts of some gases has a huge impact. Methane is not too bad at 1 ton equal to 23 tons of CO2, nitrous oxide is about 1 to 300, but the fluorocarbons are off the scale. One ton of sulfer hexaflouride is equal to 22,800 tons of CO2. EIA - Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the U.S. 2008-Overview

----------


## The_Fixer

I used to be a believer, but now I am developing some serious doubts. 
The clincher for me here was the Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading Scheme. No matter what it's called it all spells 3 letters: TAX. 
There is an expression getting around that says: "No problem was ever solved by putting a tax on it." 
All I am seeing is another money grabbing scheme being imposed on us by the government. However, it's not just ours, this is global. The rabid greenie movement is simply chucking racing fuel on the fire to further their own agendas. Their arguments are largely emotional and irrational - just try and say something that doesn't agree with them and the reaction will rival a nuclear blast. 
A big question to be asking is who benefits from all this hooha? Accountants and police detectives are always told to "Follow the money trail".  
Even top scientists are divided about the fact and/or fiction side of this. Those in favour often have a vested interest - research funds and employment - maybe even recognition. A lot of research publications contain facts and figures but you can guarantee 60% - 90% of the publication is directed at justify the funding and demonstrating the need for further research and funding.
Note that I am not talking about public release information, but the reports back to government departments and/or other vested interests who are the financial providers. 
Look back in history at the scientific studies for smoking, asbestos, even heroin. There were always studies that promoted the benefits and dismissed the risks and vice versa. It all depended upon your viewpoint or vested interests at the onset of the study and the interpretation of data at the end. 
The governments (of _any_ political party) cannot be trusted to get it right. There are simply too many variables within the various political arenas to allow this to happen. Solutions are usually watered down to a point as to be ineffective or _worse_ than useless.  
As it stands, between the governments, greenies and certain scientists all that has been created is a runaway train that no one can stop. Us, the general public, will have to pick up the pieces - if there are any left. We will certainly be footing the bill. 
I believe we do have to do something about cleaning up our mess and keeping our world safe. It is our obligation in exchange for our right to live on this planet. I am simply objecting to the idiot factor that is taking over our world. 
I'll get off my soapbox now and put on my hard hat and body armour....

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> With the change of Government in Victoria, it is hard to predict if the Mallee Solar plant will still go ahead or not, but the following articles provide some cost figures for large scale solar.  Mildura to host Australia's biggest solar plant - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   Solar Systems - The Technology

  This project still has the strong support of the LibNats and the local National  Party member in particular.... 
....to do otherwise would seriously pIss off the locals and threaten the future electability of the new Party Whip.   
Besides neither flavour of Victorian government has invested in energy generation infrastructure of any sort in decades...and this would partially offset the political 'fallout' from any future investment in upgrading the ancient Hazelwood coal fired PS. 
So it'll be a political investment first....and a practical investment as a secondary consideration.  A fairly typical state of affairs these days....

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The governments (of any political party) cannot be trusted to get it right. There are simply too many variables within the various political arenas to allow this to happen. Solutions are usually watered down to a point as to be ineffective or worse than useless.

  So true it's scary....but the really amusing bit for me is that no-one seems to recognise that 'governments' belong to the people, they are the responsibility of the people and they are supposed to reflect the people's needs.   
It seems to me that in this case that our governments are actually reflecting the knowledge, comprehension and consensus of the community that they serve....and we are getting what we deserve. :brava:    

> I believe we do have to do something about cleaning up our mess and keeping our world safe. It is our obligation in exchange for our right to live on this planet.

  So how would you do it?  I've suggested appealing to the better nature of the Great Unwashed but it appears that they are merely human... 
As for the rest of your post: 
Given most government scientists and academics in the field of biophysical sciences (including climate science) are actually wage slaves like most of the rest of us....I reckon that the argument that you posit of personal financial gain driving biased research in this field is a crock (and personally....borderline offensive).  There is certainly an argument around ego (mine included)....for sure....but that works both ways in this media drivel driven field...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'll get off my soapbox now and put on my hard hat and body armour....

  Welcome to the discussion.  You better upgrade that body armour, you will need it. 
I agree with you this has become more of a political issue and nothing but wasted tax payers money will come out of it. 
It is very interesting just how many "used to" believers are now seeing through this garbage.  There is a time lag for the pollies to recognise this shift in public perception.  In my view they have no idea which way to jump and are just trying to appease both sides by seeming to be doing something usefull while not completely selling us out. 
What a huge waste of money!

----------


## woodbe

China could back binding carbon target - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   

> China is prepared to make its voluntary carbon  emissions target part of a binding United Nations resolution, a senior  negotiator said.
>  The concession may pressure developed countries to extend the Kyoto Protocol.
>  The ongoing UN climate talks in Mexico hinge on agreement to cement  national emissions targets after 2012, when the present round of Kyoto  carbon caps end.
>  Kyoto binds the emissions of nearly 40 developed countries.
>  Developing countries want to extend the protocol, but some  industrialised nations, including Japan, Russia and Canada, want a  separate new agreement that regulates the emissions of all nations.
>  China has previously rejected making its domestic emissions goals binding.
>  But Huang Huikang, the Chinese foreign ministry's envoy for climate  change talks, says a resolution could be created that would be binding  on China.
>  "We can even have a legally-binding decision. We can discuss the  specific form. We can make our efforts a part of international efforts,"  he said.
>  "Our view is that to address these concerns, there's no need to overturn the Kyoto Protocol and start all over again."

  
So, when your major trading partners buy into CO2 reductions and declares that they have a 86GW Nuclear power target what's a little country like Australia to do?  
Do we have a choice?  
Discuss.  :Biggrin:   
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> China could back binding carbon target - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)    
> So, when your major trading partners buy into CO2 reductions and declares that they have a 86GW Nuclear power target what's a little country like Australia to do?  
> Do we have a choice?

  *Its a farce!  
Its a hoax!  
Its all a charade!  
It a scientific conspiracy!  
Its a ploy for world domination!* 
Oops! Have I forgotten which side I'm on?  Nah, I just thought I'd get the obvious out of the way.  :Biggrin:

----------


## The_Fixer

> So how would you do it? I've suggested appealing to the better nature of the Great Unwashed but it appears that they are merely human... 
> As for the rest of your post: 
> Given most government scientists and academics in the field of biophysical sciences (including climate science) are actually wage slaves like most of the rest of us....I reckon that the argument that you posit of personal financial gain driving biased research in this field is a crock (and personally....borderline offensive).

  How would I do it? That's a question that's bigger than I am. At the moment I am only raising the issue of what is wrong, so hopefully we can begin to find some answers. I'll have to get back on that one. 
Let's face it, would a cigarette company finance research into the consequences of using their products? There would be a certain bias in the research terms of reference initially. Any findings would simply be collated and filtered as suits the desired outcome. This may sound offensive, but it does happen. 
By the same token, I am not trying to denigrate scientists in general. I am certain the majority of them are above board and reproach. At the end of the day, even they have to report to their superiors who would have to play the political game. These would be the guys perhaps at times enforcing some manipulation of results to keep _their_ bosses happy. You know the routine, downplay the bad and upsell the good or vice versa as necessary. Including omitting certain and sometimes vital data. I am definitely _not_ saying this is normal practice, just that it would happen _some_times. The trouble is we don't know for sure when it has happened and where. 
This happens everywhere in the world, not just with science research. Try thinking of a car salesman who tries to sell you a known lemon, for example. 
Perhaps a prime example I can think of here is the Erin Brokovich lawsuit. The chemical company she took to court would have worked with their own research and scientists , Erin did with hers. There is now serious doubts about the validity of the research and judgement over this case which ended up costing many jobs and the closing down of a town. The argument in question here is the manipulation of scientific facts and figures. Who is and isn't guilty here is another story. 
History also tells us they got it so wrong at times as well. A lot of scientific fact is not necessarily straight fact as such, but a culmination of endless seminars, forums and discussions among senior academics who arrive at an agreed conclusion. 
Pasteur (Pasteurization) and Jenner (Small Pox vaccine) were met with great scepticism and derision when they challenged the scientific community with their discoveries until they were proven right.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So, when your major trading partners buy into CO2 reductions and declares that they have a 86GW Nuclear power target what's a little country like Australia to do?  
> Do we have a choice?  
> Discuss.   
> woodbe.

  You sack the current Government, get rid of the Greens and start building Nuclear power stations and NOTHING else. No carbon tax, No useles wind or solar power. Scrap all subsidies and make any alternative power stack up on its own or die. 
Oh, and by the way just because these guys are politically forced into making stupid policy, does not mean we have to just as stupid. 
This is nothing more than emotional blackmail.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *Its a farce!*  *Its a hoax!*  *Its all a charade!*  *It a scientific conspiracy!*  *Its a ploy for world domination!* 
> Oops! Have I forgotten which side I'm on? Nah, I just thought I'd get the obvious out of the way.

  Most skeptics see it for what it is.  I dont have to go over old ground to explain myself again as I have in numerous posts. 
People like yourself truely believe in your cause and believe you are doing the right thing.  But that is because you can't accept that you may be wrong.

----------


## jago

> You sack the current Government, get rid of the Greens and start building Nuclear power stations and NOTHING else. No carbon tax, No useles wind or solar power. Scrap all subsidies and make any alternative power stack up on its own or die. 
> Oh, and by the way just because these guys are politically forced into making stupid policy, does not mean we have to just as stupid. 
> This is nothing more than emotional blackmail.

  I believe  that this country needs a grown up talk about Nuclear...the founder of Greenpeace is Pro nuclear these days....it is a green energy (if managed properly) but must be managed by Goverment not private companies. 
But I also believe we need to explore all alternatives but not a the cost of Joe public and their dwindling bank balances. 
I had an email exchange with Professor Dastoor (Newcastle Uni) after seeing his product on the New Inventors show his vision is for an affordable solution to producing electricty hundreds of $ instead of the mutiple thousands $,  as once he gets this product to market I am confident it will stack up as an alternative energy source for those seeking to come  off grid.

----------


## woodbe

> Oh, and by the way just because these guys are politically forced into making stupid policy, does not mean we have to just as stupid. 
> This is nothing more than emotional blackmail.

  China. 
Politically forced. 
Stupid Policy. 
hahahahahaha 
Very funny Rod. Well done. You must be one of Rudd's mates.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> I had an email exchange with Professor Dastoor (Newcastle Uni) after seeing his product on the New Inventors show his vision is for an affordable solution to producing electricty hundreds of $ instead of the mutiple thousands $,  as once he gets this product to market I am confident it will stack up as an alternative energy source for those seeking to come  off grid.

  http://www.newcastleinnovationenergy...0/flippingbook 
Thanks for this info Jago, that's quite interesting. Hope the Government doesn't back out and let the tech go overseas again. 
Reminds me of NanoSolar. They are using high speed printing processes to produce 'bendable' solar cells that are then assembled into panels. Already in production with 160-220w panels available for utility PV. These also run lower efficiency than domestic solar panels (Domestic are about 1.2m2 vs NanoSolar at about 2m2 for similar outputs)  Nanosolar: Technology Platform 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIXkB5nrEiY"]YouTube - Nanosolar Utility Panel[/ame] 
[edit] This video is more descriptive of what the difference is between NanoSolar and tradtional PV: 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38uMoU9VB1o"]YouTube        - The Big Energy Gamble - Nanosolar[/ame] 
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

> I used to be a believer, but now I am developing some serious doubts. 
> The clincher for me here was the Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading Scheme. No matter what it's called it all spells 3 letters: TAX. 
> There is an expression getting around that says: "No problem was ever solved by putting a tax on it." 
> All I am seeing is another money grabbing scheme being imposed on us by the government. However, it's not just ours, this is global. The rabid greenie movement is simply chucking racing fuel on the fire to further their own agendas. Their arguments are largely emotional and irrational - just try and say something that doesn't agree with them and the reaction will rival a nuclear blast. 
> A big question to be asking is who benefits from all this hooha? Accountants and police detectives are always told to "Follow the money trail".  
> Even top scientists are divided about the fact and/or fiction side of this. Those in favour often have a vested interest - research funds and employment - maybe even recognition. A lot of research publications contain facts and figures but you can guarantee 60% - 90% of the publication is directed at justify the funding and demonstrating the need for further research and funding.
> Note that I am not talking about public release information, but the reports back to government departments and/or other vested interests who are the financial providers. 
> Look back in history at the scientific studies for smoking, asbestos, even heroin. There were always studies that promoted the benefits and dismissed the risks and vice versa. It all depended upon your viewpoint or vested interests at the onset of the study and the interpretation of data at the end. 
> The governments (of _any_ political party) cannot be trusted to get it right. There are simply too many variables within the various political arenas to allow this to happen. Solutions are usually watered down to a point as to be ineffective or _worse_ than useless.  
> ...

  Welcome to the discussion Fixer, we badly need some fresh ideas in this topic. Doubt is ok, its a start to understanding rational thinking and how to present your point of view in a debate or to work out when someone is feeding you bull. 
For example, if someone were to say that "no problem was ever solved by putting a tax on it" you could point out that the medicare levy was introduced to solve the problem of funding healthcare. Or the GST was introduced to solve the problem of tax evasion by the cash economy. And different industries, such as wool, dairy and sugar have imposed levies at different times to solve problems.  
A point like "follow the money trail" would need some supporting evidence to back it up. You could use a comparison of the salaries of senior mining/oil co executives, usually over $1mill, against that of professor salaries, usually around $150,000-200,000. This would establish who has the most to lose if a tax was imposed on carbon. 
If you want to look back in history to the studies on smoking I recommend that you read a book by Naomi Oreskes called "Merchants of Doubt" She provides evidence that the people who gave evidence that smoking was harmless are exactly the same people who are now saying that global warming is harmless. She gives their names and the dates of their testimony before the American congress and transcripts of what they said.   
I understand that many people feel that the govt cannot be trusted to get anything right. But such a sweeping generalisation does not prove any point at all and can easily be discredited by asking if you feel that the last income tax cut was a govt error. Most will be reluctant to disagree with that. I have worked with both state and federal govts on policy issues and can assure you that they often get it right. But only the bad decisions make the headlines. 
This brings up an important point in the global warming debate. Some have trouble distinguishing between the science and the politics. They are related but separate issues. Interesting interaction here.   YouTube - Alley and Rohrabacher: Brain vs Bluster!

----------


## chrisp

> People like yourself truely believe in your cause and believe you are doing the right thing.  But that is because you can't accept that you may be wrong.

  Rod, 
I'm fairly certain that _at least_ one of us is wrong!   It could be you, me or both of us.  :Smilie:  
But more seriously, I don't see it as a you versus me thing.    *I thank you for this thread as it has been very interesting and thought  provoking.  I have been doing a great deal of reading on the topic as a  result of this thread.* 
My view is that the science very strongly (and that is putting it mildly) indicates that AGW is real.  The predictions and the modelling from the AGW theory seem to be playing out as predicted.  Scientifically, AGW is not a contentions issue.  Unfortunately, the issue has become very political. The only serious scientific questions seem to be to more accurately determine the extent and impact of AGW. 
I will very happily change my views and opinions about AGW when main stream science tells me they got it wrong.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Scrap all subsidies and make any alternative power stack up on its own or die.

  Show me a power station of any form anywhere in the world that was built in the last twenty years without any form of government subsidy, incentive, bribe, tax break etc. 
Show me how many governments there are in the world at the moment that actually have the resources to offer subsidies.... 
Whilst I applaud your sentiment....it doesn't fit with the capitalistic model of privatise financial profit and publicise financial loss. So unless you can find a way to alter the current economic model of the World in general this is just not going to happen. 
Perhaps [shock horror] we should use less electricity or [oh my Lord  :Yikes2: ] take personal responsibility for our own power generation rather than leave it to governments and big business....just a suggestion....given that this is, after all, something of a DIY promoting website.

----------


## intertd6

> Which figure are you challenging?

  Mmmmmmmm lets see "suitable to drink" subtract 1% claimed by PHM from just the 2.05% held in glaciers which is pure water, only 100% out. You can work it out from there I think.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> I'm fairly certain that _at least_ one of us is wrong! It could be you, me or both of us.  
> But more seriously, I don't see it as a you versus me thing.   *I thank you for this thread as it has been very interesting and thought provoking. I have been doing a great deal of reading on the topic as a result of this thread.* 
> My view is that the science very strongly (and that is putting it mildly) indicates that AGW is real. The predictions and the modelling from the AGW theory seem to be playing out as predicted. Scientifically, AGW is not a contentions issue. Unfortunately, the issue has become very political. The only serious scientific questions seem to be to more accurately determine the extent and impact of AGW. 
> I will very happily change my views and opinions about AGW when main stream science tells me they got it wrong.

  Read "you" as a collective of warmists in general. 
Not meaning to be so personal  :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> Mmmmmmmm lets see "suitable to drink" subtract 1% claimed by PHM from just the 2.05% held in glaciers which is pure water, only 100% out. You can work it out from there I think.
> regards inter

  I'm still confused  :Confused:    

> Learn  how our precious natural resources  like fresh water  are  managed. Did you  know that fresh water only makes up 2.5% of the water  in the world  and less  than 1% of that is suitable to drink?

   

> Out of all the water on Earth, only 2.75 percent is freshwater, including 2.05 percent frozen in glaciers, 0.68 percent as groundwater and 0.0101 percent of it as surface water in lakes and rivers.

  PHM quotes 2.5% fresh water, where as Wikipedia quote 2.75% (these figures are close) 
PHM quotes <1% drinkable; wikipedia quotes 0.68% as groundwater.+ 0.0101% surface-water.  (0.68% + 0.0101% < 1% which is consistent)  
I suppose it might depend upon whether frozen glaciers (which are classed as 'fresh water') are considered to be 'drinkable' too?

----------


## jago

Surely if there are clouds in the sky there is drinking water falling somewhere ...the weather systems are the ultimate recycling system.

----------


## chrisp

*Extraterrestrial Life?* 
If anyone is in doubt about how closely scientists scrutinise each others work, have a look at a recent breakthrough finding:  NASA finds new form of life ... on Earth  
The corresponding paper can be found at:  A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus | Science/AAAS  
While I have no idea whether the NASA finds are valid or not, have a look at what one scientist has to say:  RRResearch: Arsenic-associated bacteria (NASA's claims)  
With in two days of being published, this paper has been critically analysed and subject to rigorous questioning by peers.  Scientist love to tear each others arguments apart and test each and every individual claim.  Have a read of some of the comments that follow the analysis. 
The 'comment' will probably end up as a 'letter' or a 'Technical Comment' to the publishing journal.  What will eventually follow is that other groups will try to replicate the results - and if there are any inconsistencies, they will try to replicate those as well so as to explain what, if any, error was made.   These experiments will published as 'papers' - which in turn will be further scrutinised. 
It doesn't matter that the paper was produced by a high profile organisation like NASA, it will still be subject to critical analysis.  Actually, _because_ it is was produced by a high profile organisation, there will be scientist who will go all-out to make a name for themselves by being the person who _proved_ NASA wrong. 
My view is that, as far as this new life-form is concerned, the scientific jury is still out. 
You may wish to compare and contrast this with the AGW theory.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I suppose it might depend upon whether frozen glaciers (which are classed as 'fresh water') are considered to be 'drinkable' too?

  They can be....you just need an ice axe, a bottle of gin and some room temperature tonic water. 
Although there was a study published recently in the journal, _Soil Survey Horizons_ (Vol. 51, p72) that found potentially dangerous levels of cadmium and arsenic in the snows on Mount Everest.  The suggestion is that pollution from Asia is the source.  So perhaps you might be best to skip drinking a glacier just yet...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

In further news....the UK's Royal Society is celebrating 350 years of contributing to science. As a way of signing off they have published twelve useful little primers on areas of science where there is work still to do... http://royalsociety.org/further/ 
One of them is on greenhouse gases Greenhouse gases - Articles - The Royal Society but the gem of the piece is the one on uncertainty because I think that this is one area where the debate on climate science has failed - the climate science has been sorted but the 'uncertainty' that is implicit in this area of science has been spectacularly poorly explained, documented and most importantly articulated Uncertainty in science - Articles - The Royal Society 
Oh and there is a very cool PDF summary of the climate science to date (published Sept 2010) that is available to download and it's not a large download either http://royalsociety.org/WorkArea/Dow...?id=4294972963 It is only 19 pages including the cover and is very easy to read...I look forward to critiques from all sides

----------


## intertd6

> I'm still confused      
> PHM quotes 2.5% fresh water, where as Wikipedia quote 2.75% (these figures are close) 
> PHM quotes <1% drinkable; wikipedia quotes 0.68% as groundwater.+ 0.0101% surface-water. (0.68% + 0.0101% < 1% which is consistent)  
> I suppose it might depend upon whether frozen glaciers (which are classed as 'fresh water') are considered to be 'drinkable' too?

  Back to school for you.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

How this global warming is sure hard on the UK.  
HOW COLD IS IT? 
Gavin Partridge has supplied the details:  
The central England Temperature (CET) from the 1st-7th of December is -1.9, making this the coldest opening week of December since 1879; 1879 is the coldest opening week on CET record, so this week has been the second coldest opening week to December since CET records began in 1659. 
The two-week period, last week of November and first week of December is the coldest since CET records began in 1659.  
My addition: 
I guess when a lot of us started speculating about going back to the time of the Victorian era... we underestimated it. AccuWeather.com - Joe Bastardi European Weather Blog 
Also you have got to laugh at this._From the “weather is not climate department” – New record low temperatures set in Cancun for three straight days, and more new low temperature records are possible this week._  “Gore effect” strikes Cancun Climate Conference 3 days in a row | Watts Up With That?

----------


## Rod Dyson

This cant be right can it? Dam Media getting it wrong again? :Rolleyes:   *Cancun climate change summit: glaciers increasing despite climate change*  *Glaciers in many parts of the world are increasing, according to a new United Nations report, despite climate change.*   Cancun climate change summit: glaciers increasing despite climate change - Telegraph

----------


## woodbe

> This cant be right can it? Dam Media getting it wrong again?  *Cancun climate change summit: glaciers increasing despite climate change*  *Glaciers in many parts of the world are increasing, according to a new United Nations report, despite climate change.*   Cancun climate change summit: glaciers increasing despite climate change - Telegraph

  Riveting, Rod.   

> Glaciers have grown in western Norway, New Zealands South Island, parts of    Asia and the Tierra del Fuego in South America.  
>   However, overall ice and snow on mountains has been retreating since the    industrial age, according to scientists from around the world.

  Nothing like a misleading headline to suck in the gullible, is there. 
Glaciers around the world are generally in retreat: Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia however a handful of glaciers, including the NZ South Island, west coast Glaciers of Fox and Franz Joseph have been growing since about 1984/5 even though they are far away from their pre-industrial lengths so I have no idea how this is news today. 
Sounds like the denialists at the Telegraph are scratching for a story. 
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

In Young, NSW, rain has damaged the harvest and there will not be a lot of cherry picking done there this year. Cherries split at Young damaging a massive crop. 30 Nov 2010. Rural Online. (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
On the renovateforum however.....

----------


## woodbe

haha. 
This puts it all into perspective:   
Unfortunately, NZ isn't even on the map, it seems to be blotted out by a rather large thinning blob!  :Yikes2:   :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Riveting, Rod.   
> Nothing like a misleading headline to suck in the gullible, is there. 
> Glaciers around the world are generally in retreat: Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia however a handful of glaciers, including the NZ South Island, west coast Glaciers of Fox and Franz Joseph have been growing since about 1984/5 even though they are far away from their pre-industrial lengths so I have no idea how this is news today. 
> Sounds like the denialists at the Telegraph are scratching for a story. 
> woodbe.

   :Hmmm:   Gullible now thats an interesting word  :Wink:

----------


## chrisp

> In Young, NSW, rain has damaged the harvest and there will not be a lot of cherry picking done there this year. Cherries split at Young damaging a massive crop. 30 Nov 2010. Rural Online. (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
> On the renovateforum however.....

  Witty!   :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> Gullible now thats an interesting word

  Ok. So you're dropping any discussion of your Glacier post?  
Thanks for bringing it up by the way, it has enabled us to relay the real state of the glaciers, regardless of the spin at the Telegraph. 
Rod, here's another graph in case you still have any doubts.   
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Woodbe for one thing I don't believe we need further debate on Glaciers.  I pointed out that some are growing as per the post above, simply to counter the claims that "all' the glaciers are melting. I know some glaciers retreat as others grow. I also do not think that there is any way you can link this to mans Co2 emissions.   
It is a natural event that has been happening for years as we have climate shifts. There is nothing unusual about this as warmist would claim.  It is not unprecedented, and as things cool down again they will grow again.  Simple really when you think about it. 
Why do you think the shrinking of some glaciers are uncovering remnants from human habitation from centuaries ago. Has this ever crossed your mind? 
Don't kid yourself to believe this is a result of mans co2.  This is where gullible really comes into play IMO. 
There is no doubt we are shifting back into a cool phase,  the warmist can prolong acknowledgement for a long as they can cook the books but reality is what people see and feel year apon year, and that is it is getting colder. 
Like it or not the warmist argument is doomed.

----------


## intertd6

> Ok. So you're dropping any discussion of your Glacier post?  
> Thanks for bringing it up by the way, it has enabled us to relay the real state of the glaciers, regardless of the spin at the Telegraph. 
> Rod, here's another graph in case you still have any doubts.   
> woodbe.

  there is not much to reference that chart to as where its from or what glacier / glaciers it refers too. If you would like to go to the Australian Antarctic division website there is a nice polar view of the antarctic showing ice accumulation in blue & ice thinning in red, the blue being the greater in area.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

Tell these guys the world is heating up and going to hell in a hand basket.
LOL    

> Now the Army moves in to clear away snow in coldest December for 100 years as fuel runs out at petrol stations in Scotland and East Anglia

  UK big freeze: Army on standby in coldest December for 100 years | Mail Online 
How long before even the staunchest warmist will start to smell a rat.  
We are heading into a cool phase. You should be happy that we are not frying. 
Sheez I have my heater on in Melbourne tonight. My daughter comes out so much for bloody global warming. LOL don't you think you might be just a little bit wrong? 
BTW another record low in CANCUN Gore effect is working well. Hard to sell you warming message when people are freezing cold.  
Get your popcorn guys this is starting to be fun.  Pity so many have to suffer in the cold though because they cant afford heating.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe for one thing I don't believe we need further debate on Glaciers.  I pointed out that some are growing as per the post above, simply to counter the claims that "all' the glaciers are melting. I know some glaciers retreat as others grow. I also do not think that there is any way you can link this to mans Co2 emissions.   
> It is a natural event that has been happening for years as we have climate shifts. There is nothing unusual about this as warmist would claim.  It is not unprecedented, and as things cool down again they will grow again.  Simple really when you think about it. 
> Why do you think the shrinking of some glaciers are uncovering remnants from human habitation from centuaries ago. Has this ever crossed your mind? 
> Don't kid yourself to believe this is a result of mans co2.  This is where gullible really comes into play IMO. 
> There is no doubt we are shifting back into a cool phase,  the warmist can prolong acknowledgement for a long as they can cook the books but reality is what people see and feel year apon year, and that is it is getting colder. 
> Like it or not the warmist argument is doomed.

  Whatever Rod. Who said "all" the glaciers are melting? Certainly, I wouldn't disagree that glaciers in general are melting, would you? 
If the best you can do is to quote misleading headlines to support your beliefs then I'd be more worried about your own argument's doom than that of a theory that has been built upon the honest work of thousands of researchers. 
My response to your post was to point out its very simple flaws. The simple truth is that there is in no way any balance between the receding glaciers and the (very few) growing ones. This was not to support AGW or to attack sceptics, just to point out that the truth is under attack by the Telegraph. 
woodbe

----------


## woodbe

> there is not much to reference that chart to as where its from or what glacier / glaciers it refers too. If you would like to go to the Australian Antarctic division website there is a nice polar view of the antarctic showing ice accumulation in blue & ice thinning in red, the blue being the greater in area.
> regards inter

  inter, like most charts, its a graphical representation of tabular data, and it is referenced in the Wikipedia article posted earlier: Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
The tabular data for the chart comes from the WGMS and NSIDC but I'm sure you realise there are many Glaciers being monitored for both length and mass, but a sample of less condensed info here for you from the WGMS:   
Should you wish more information on the research and available measurements, there is masses of it available in the UNEP World Glacier Monitoring service "Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures" report (PDF 25MB) 
While your observation that antartica is growing is certainly interesting, this discussion began as a discussion of a misleading headline posted by Rod regarding _Glaciers_. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Woodbe irrespective of these charts, the simple facts are there is no link to co2 and galcier retreat. 
These glaciers have been growing and retreating for millions of years.  So I guess when they start to grow again that will be a sign that of global cooling?

----------


## chrisp

> Woodbe irrespective of these charts, the simple facts are there is no link to co2 and galcier retreat.

  There is a link - CO2 causes worldwide warming --> warming causes the ice to melt.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> There is a link - CO2 causes worldwide warming --> warming causes the ice to melt.

  We all have opinions, and you are welcome to yours.  :2thumbsup:  
Just a pity your theory has *zero* proof.  :Biggrin:  
This makes it faith based as opposed to science based.  Plenty of scientists share your opinion and faith, just a pity they also ignore the *fact* that your supported theory has *zero* proof.  :Doh:

----------


## PhilT2

This discussion on glaciers here is the same as the conversation from the House subcommittee hearings.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA]YouTube - Alley and Rohrabacher: Brain vs Bluster[/ame]

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe irrespective of these charts, the simple facts are there is no link to co2 and galcier retreat. 
> These glaciers have been growing and retreating for millions of years.  So I guess when they start to grow again that will be a sign that of global cooling?

  Rod, 'these charts' have been provided to discuss the truth of the Telegraph headline you posted. 
Clearly don't want to discuss that. Classic pump and dump. 
And yes, they will advance at the onset of the next ice age, I think we have a bit of a wait for that. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> This discussion on glaciers here is the same as the conversation from the House subcommittee hearings. YouTube - Alley and Rohrabacher: Brain vs Bluster

  PhilT2, that's classic! 
I saw a vid from the subcommittee hearing the other day with Pat '40% Oil support' Michaels vs Ben Santer: 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a4R1bKGsN8"]YouTube - Climate Scientist Beat Down!![/ame] 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I see that the Powerhouse Museum has updated one of its permanent displays:  EcoLogic: creating a sustainable future    
> Maybe, next time Rod or the Doc (intertd6 is invited too) are up that way they can pop in and have a look. And if not, they can always have a look that the "for teachers" link on the above quoted URL and see what is being taught to school children these days.

  What a bunch of scaremongering idiots:   

> See a large model of Sydneys  Circular Quay and Opera House under 10 metres of water... 
> Did you  know that fresh water only makes up 2.5% of the water in the world  and less  than 1% of that is suitable to drink?

  These are just some samples of the ridiculous scaremongering that we constantly see proponents for this failed theory put forward, without any factual basis whatsoever. 
What day exactly will Sydney be 10 metres underwater? 
After you name this date, please provide proof of the cause? 
What percentage the 100% of all freshwater on the Planet do humans currently use? 
When you find the answer to this, you will understand how f---ing ridiculous it is to even mention fresh water running out on Planet Earth using scaremongering phrases like that above. 
And when they start teaching this b-llsh-t to kids... :Mad:  :Mad:  :Mad:      

> If one of you guys in NSW could run down and check this out for me, I've been hearing it's happening faster than we think.

   

> Sorry for missing this one, didn't want to appear rude. 
> It's time to bust this myth that "greenies" have been selling for all too long. *
> We will NEVER be short of water.* 
> There is more water available, not only on this Planet, but throughout the universe, than we could ever fathom using.  As I have said before, what we are short of is intellect and will, to harness what is overly in abundance all around us. 
> As an example, think of the wonderful fresh rainwater that falls onto the houses, driveways, roads, factories, offices and all other surfaces just in the metropolitan areas.  What percentage of this resource do we currently capture?  Research just Brisvegas and let me know what you come up with? Desal indeed?  
> Here's a quick summary of what's up:  *"Earth's water distribution* 
>   Where is Earth's water located and in what forms does it exist? You can see how water is distributed by viewing these bar charts. The left-side bar shows where the water on Earth exists; about 97 percent of all water is in the oceans. The middle bar shows the distribution of that three percent of all Earth's water that is freshwater. The majority, about 69 percent, is locked up in glaciers and icecaps, mainly in Greenland and Antarctica. You might be surprised that of the remaining freshwater, almost all of it is below your feet, as ground water. No matter where on Earth you are standing, chances are that, at some depth, the ground below you is saturated with water. Of all the freshwater on Earth, only about 0.3 percent is contained in rivers and lakesyet rivers and lakes are not only the water we are most familiar with, it is also where most of the water we use in our everyday lives exists.      Water distribution: Where is water on, above, and in the Earth?"  
> We still primarily focus on the rivers: 2% of 0.3% of 3%.  
> Greenies emphasise this focus to avoid the abundant reality.  
> ...

  Given the current situation you people over there are facing, you should be embarrassed even trying to use lack of freshwater as a scaremongering issue.   
You'd have more credibility (as if  :Doh: ) sticking with your "extreme weather is proof of AGW Theory" mantra.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *News Flash!*     
> 			
> 				"There is not a shred of evidence that CO2 plays any part in warming the earth" said the _Anthropogenic-Global-Warming-is-a-Hoax-Societies_ Chief Scientist, Dr Freud in a wireless interview on 2SB this afternoon.
> 			
> 		    
> (Just in case anyone thinks that this story is real, I just made it up.)

  It would be nice to also have a disclaimer saying that as well as making up the story, I have also *completely misrepresented* the views of people whose real forum names I have used in my made up story.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

> Tell these guys the world is heating up and going to hell in a hand basket.
> LOL   UK big freeze: Army on standby in coldest December for 100 years | Mail Online 
> How long before even the staunchest warmist will start to smell a rat.  
> We are heading into a cool phase. You should be happy that we are not frying. 
> Sheez I have my heater on in Melbourne tonight. My daughter comes out so much for bloody global warming. LOL don't you think you might be just a little bit wrong? 
> BTW another record low in CANCUN Gore effect is working well. Hard to sell you warming message when people are freezing cold.  
> Get your popcorn guys this is starting to be fun.  Pity so many have to suffer in the cold though because they cant afford heating.

  Thanks for that Rod, I've got something from Matt Davies for you. I think you might find it useful. It's called Skepticemia   
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> No argument there - never was. 
> It was Dr Freud that was demanding proof that CO2 was solely and exclusively responsible for all the warming.

  CO2 has been the "poisonous" pollution that people of your ilk have isolated for removal. 
I initially asked for proof this was the sole cause and like all other AGW Theory supporters, you obfuscated by saying other GHG's also contribute.  I asked you (and many reputable climate scientists from all sides of the debate), and no-one on the Planet can specify any quantitative contribution rate of anthropogenic CO2 (if any) in a multi-variate environment. But I do always get plenty of computer model output presented as proof of "reality".  :Doh:  
In a nutshell, your supported theory is as about as solid as the CO2 it has convicted without evidence or hearing. 
So, if you have proof CO2 is the sole cause, provide it? 
If you have proof of CO2's percentage contribution to recent measured warming, provide it? 
If you have no proof of either, please feel free to maintain your belief system, we do live in a free country after all.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> Given the current situation you people over there are facing, you should be embarrassed even trying to use lack of freshwater as a scaremongering issue.

  Actually, if you care to read back in the thread, it was *intertd6* that brought up the freshwater issue. 
He seemed to have a fixation that Powerhouse Museum has got the percentage of freshwater or drinkable water wrong.  I'm not sure exactly what he is claiming is the error? 
Anyway, this was somehow evidence that the Powerhouse Museum can't be trusted. 
Is there any anything wrong with what they say?   

> *Learn  how our precious natural resources  like fresh water  are  managed. Did you  know that fresh water only makes up 2.5% of the water  in the world  and less  than 1% of that is suitable to drink?* Through a  hands-on interactive iPad game,  test your ability to manage a towns  water cycle.  Droughts, population growth and burst pipes  create chaos  amidst the effort to maintain dams, pumps, filtration plants,  storm  water and sewage systems. Beware of the poo-nami at the end!

  Perhaps you can help intertd6 with the maths - Oops, no hang on, no maybe not!  You're the one that thinks our lungs are contain 70% CO2!   :Doh:  
Maybe you are reading too much in to what they say?  Or maybe you are jumping at shadows.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I used to be a believer, but now I am developing some serious doubts.

  Good on ya.   
Read as much as you can about this cr-p and make up your own mind. 
An easy question to get you quickly to the truth is whenever someone shows you an effect (i.e. temperature rising, ice melting, blah blah), just ask them for proof of the cause. 
They really hate this!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> China could back binding carbon target - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
> So, when your major trading partners buy into CO2 reductions and declares that they have a 86GW Nuclear power target what's a little country like Australia to do? 
> Do we have a choice? 
> Discuss.  
> woodbe.

  
This is just spin that makes China look less obstructionist than they were in Copenhagen. 
Obviously Rudd's "Chinese Rat F-ckers" comment made an impact. 
You obviously missed this part of the story:   

> But Huang Huikang, the Chinese foreign ministry's envoy for climate change talks, says a resolution could be created that would be binding on China.
>  "We can even have a legally-binding decision. *We can discuss the specific form. We can make our efforts a part of international efforts*," he said.

  Gee, I wonder what the "specific form" will look like given China still classes itself as a developing nation and will want compensation from us. 
Gillard has also promised 25% cuts based on "international efforts".  It's great to be idealistic, but do you actually think this is going to happen?  :No:

----------


## chrisp

> Good on ya.   
> Read as much as you can about this cr-p and make up your own mind.

  Genuine doubt I can happily entertain.  Pigheadedness is another thing entirely.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Its a farce!  
> Its a hoax!  
> Its all a charade!  
> It a scientific conspiracy!  
> Its a ploy for world domination!* 
> Oops! Have I forgotten which side I'm on?  Nah, I just thought I'd get the obvious out of the way.

  You missed:  *It's spin to appease the gullible!*  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Surely if there are clouds in the sky there is drinking water falling somewhere ...the weather systems are the ultimate recycling system.

  Mate, reality is on your side here. 
Ever since the water arrived on Earth, this pattern has been happening for real (as opposed to a computer model). 
We humans will NEVER run out of fresh water and anyone that suggests or implies this is an idiot. 
If we overpopulate the Planet, other resources such as food will limit our growth LONG before water ever becomes even a minor consideration. 
I've said it before and I'll say it again, we don't have a water shortage, we have an intellectual shortage. 
The funniest part of the muppets pushing this scaremongering is that warming actually increases rainfall, evidenced by rainfall rates in warmer climates compared to colder climates.  So even if the Planet continues to warm (whatever the cause) we will get even more fresh water, not that we even use a fraction of what we already have.

----------


## Dr Freud

> One of them is on greenhouse gases Greenhouse gases - Articles - The Royal Society but the gem of the piece is the one on uncertainty because I think that this is one area where the debate on climate science has failed - the climate science has been sorted but the 'uncertainty' that is implicit in this area of science has been spectacularly poorly explained, documented and most importantly articulated Uncertainty in science - Articles - The Royal Society

  Yeh, lucky AGW Theory proponents (especially politicians) work so hard to explain the nuances:   

> Every major scientific body in the world has expressed support of the AGW theory.  It is an accepted scientific fact.

   

> There is a link - CO2 causes worldwide warming --> warming causes the ice to melt.

  Wow, how do we handle all that uncertainty?  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> woodbe.

  And what exactly is causing this?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Actually, if you care to read back in the thread, it was *intertd6* that brought up the freshwater issue.

  Actually, if you care to read back in the thread, it was you that brought up the freshwater issue by linking a site with this information on it, then inviting us to read about it. 
But semantics aside, these idiots calling fresh water a precious resource is like people in Alice Springs calling beach sand a precious resource.  Someone living on the Gold Coast would laugh at them.   
Then the people in Alice say "Did you  know that beach sand only makes up 2.5% of the sand in Alice Springs  and less  than 1% of that is suitable for sandpits?" 
What a crock of --it?   

> Is there any anything wrong with what they say?

  See above.    

> Maybe you are reading too much in to what they say?  Or maybe you are jumping at shadows.

  Maybe if they said "There is nothing precious about fresh water on the Planet Earth.  It is plentiful, but humans are very stupid about accessing and utilising it." 
But they didn't, because just like their drowning Sydney scaremongering, this baseless scaremongering is all they have left after the AGW Theory data manipulation and dodgy statistics have been uncovered.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Good on ya.   
> Read as much as you can about this cr-p and make up your own mind. 
> An easy question to get you quickly to the truth is whenever someone shows you an effect (i.e. temperature rising, ice melting, blah blah), just ask them for proof of the cause. 
> They really hate this!

   

> Genuine doubt I can happily entertain.  Pigheadedness is another thing entirely.

  I accept reality above failed computer models. 
I require scientific proof if someone claims to have a scientific fact. 
You call this pigheadedness, I call it the scientific method. 
I guess that's why we came to different conclusions?  :Wink 1:

----------


## woodbe

> The funniest part of the muppets pushing this scaremongering is that warming actually increases rainfall, evidenced by rainfall rates in warmer climates compared to colder climates.  So even if the Planet continues to warm (whatever the cause) we will get even more fresh water, not that we even use a fraction of what we already have.

  Yep, I think you're getting it.   :Biggrin:  
Warming will increase the availability of water. Heck, some people won't even have to go to the tap, it will be at their front door. A bit salty but. I guess those people won't be so concerned if there is more fresh water available somewhere else on the planet. 
woodbe

----------


## woodbe

> Rod, here's another graph in case you still have any doubts.   
> woodbe.

   

> And what exactly is causing this?

  Haha. Nice slip-up Doc. You should go back and reread chapter 2 of your denial handbook. You should be claiming the chart is fake or using falsified and cherry picked data. Then you should be mentioning that the Himalayan glaciers will not be gone by 2035, and therefore the whole thing is bunk. 
I was not actually suggesting what's causing this. I'm suggesting that Rod's post from the Telegraph was misinformation based on a misleading headline.  
But since you asked,  what's causing this is that the underlying data shows an overwhelming reduction in the length and mass of Glaciers all around the planet. That's what charts are, they are a visual representation of data that makes it easier for most of us to understand complex data. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I was reading for and against stuff on the interweb  in the last couple of days based on a comment piece by someone who accepted the science around the current trend in climate change. He was proposing some admittedly wild pie in the sky policy response which then inspired the 'shout before you think numpties' to scream 'totalitarian regime' without considering a logical tear down of the OP's ideas.... 
Not surprisingly many of the anti's said it was all crap because AGW wasn't happening, the science was wrong (or worse, fake) and all those who thought otherwise were childish fools...or words to that effect. 
Old mate's response to this was personally illuminating: "If you don't accept the current science AND you can not reasonably & logically explain why then we have nothing to debate with respect to climate change or a policy response to address it." 
I suspect that he may have a point.  A very bloody minded point.  But a point nonetheless.

----------


## chrisp

> Old mate's response to this was personally illuminating: "*If you don't accept the current science AND you can not reasonably & logically explain why then we have nothing to debate with respect to climate change or a policy response to address it.*"

  I like that line.  So I've quoted it again.  :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> Actually, if you care to read back in the thread, it was you that brought up the freshwater issue by linking a site with this information on it, then inviting us to read about it.

  Actually, lets shift the blame to Rod as he started this thread (that caused me to quote the PHM; that caused intertd6 to read it; that caused the Doc to go off on a tangent)    :Rolleyes:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Good on ya.   
> Read as much as you can about this cr-p and make up your own mind. 
> An easy question to get you quickly to the truth is whenever someone shows you an effect (i.e. temperature rising, ice melting, blah blah), just ask them for proof of the cause. 
> They really hate this!

   

> Haha. Nice slip-up Doc. You should go back and reread chapter 2 of your denial handbook. 
> woodbe.

   :Biggrin:     

> I was not actually suggesting what's causing this.  
> woodbe.

  So, we both agree then that it is *irrelevant* to any anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions due to a total lack of empirical evidence?  Or do you now want to start suggesting what is actually causing this?    

> I'm suggesting that Rod's post from the Telegraph was misinformation based on a misleading headline.  
> woodbe.

  Rod didn't write the article dude, he correctly posted a full link so you could read the *fact* that some glaciers around the world *are growing*.  This is inconsistent with AGW Theory, unless you now want to posit that parts of the Planet Earth are cooling as a result of global warming? 
If you don't like the headline, email the newspapers and tell them their headlines are sensationalist and increase readership in an effort to increase their circulation.  :Doh:    

> But since you asked, *what's causing this is that the underlying data shows an overwhelming reduction in the length and mass of Glaciers all around the planet.* That's what charts are, they are a visual representation of data that makes it easier for most of us to understand complex data. 
>  woodbe.

  So the data is causing the glaciers to melt?  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Heck, some people won't even have to go to the tap, it will be at their front door. A bit salty but. 
> woodbe

  See now, this is known as baseless scaremongering because all people with front doors start thinking it may be them.  If you could please provide the people whose front doors will have this problem, and when, I'll be very interested? 
Here's a tip, email the Maldives government who are building their new airport *at sea level*, and get their projected airport usage timeframe to get you started.  The Maldives government know all about this issue, they even held an underwater cabinet meeting as a stunt to increase the foreign aid they receive.  :2thumbsup:     

> I guess those people won't be so concerned if there is more fresh water available somewhere else on the planet. 
> woodbe

  Australia *was* constantly held up by greenie idiots as being the poster child for droughts caused by global warming.  They even banned the building of dams saying this was useless because there will never be rain again, and dams drowned the habitats of little critters.  What a bunch of idiots! 
Had we built more dams, we could have captured much of this recent rainfall, leaving us enough water for decades of decadent use. We also would have saved many natural habitats from the recent uncontrolled flooding, by holding much of this water in fewer controlled areas.  Agricultural damage and general property damage would be much reduced through less flooding, so national productivity and wealth would be increased. 
Win for farmers, win for little critters, win for Australia.  :2thumbsup:  
But no, let's listen to a minority group of scaremongering idiotic greenies to ban building dams, who now use the flood effects of their own failed cause to claim another "extreme event caused by global warming". 
Idiocy beyond contempt!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Had we built more dams, we could have captured much of this recent rainfall, leaving us enough water for decades of decadent use. We also would have saved many natural habitats from the recent uncontrolled flooding, by holding much of this water in fewer controlled areas.  Agricultural damage and general property damage would be much reduced through less flooding, so national productivity and wealth would be increased. 
> Win for farmers, win for little critters, win for Australia.  
> But no, let's listen to a minority group of scaremongering idiotic greenies to ban building dams, who now use the flood effects of their own failed cause to claim another "extreme event caused by global warming". 
> Idiocy beyond contempt!

  The story today:  

> *WATER is spilling from the Hume Dam at a rate of 26,000 Olympic pools as flood warnings were issued today for several of Victoria's main rivers.                 *                                The three million megalitre dam - the main storage in the Murray River system - was at just 20 per cent capacity in May and half full in August. 
> This time last year it was a third full, but yesterday 40,000 megalitres of water cascaded from the dam.
> The weather bureau warned of flooding by the Yarra, at Coldstream and Heidelberg, and the Avoca, Kiewa, Goulburn, Murray, King and Wimmera rivers. 
>  Along the Ovens River, between Wangaratta and Myrtleford, several farmhouses remained isolated by floodwaters.       Equivalent of 26,000 pools a day rushing from the Hume Dam | Herald Sun

  Hey, if we dammed all this, does that mean the ocean levels will stay lower as well?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Old mate's response to this was personally illuminating: "If you don't accept the current science AND you can not reasonably & logically explain why then we have nothing to debate with respect to climate change or a policy response to address it."

  Unfortunately, you have fallen into the trap of accepting a false premise.  Don't feel too bad as this is easy to do when an argument aligns with your own.  I myself have fallen for this trick a few times too.  :Biggrin:  
You see, his false premise is that people who disagree with AGW Theory don't "accept the current science".  This is an oldy but a goody used by AGW Theory protagonists to paint people who oppose their theoretical position as "anti-science".  I wholeheartedly accept all of the "current science", as do most of the people I know who disagree with AGW Theory. 
The real question that lay people unfortunately can't/won't/don't research, is what exactly is the "current science", as opposed to the current mainstream scientific opinion. 
That is why I like to spell it out regularly for the common folk like myself: *
There is* *zero scientific evidence proving AGW Theory!*  :2thumbsup:  
This is the "current science", and I accept it.   So I guess then we have something to debate, even based on the false premise you have quoted.  :Biggrin:     

> I suspect that he may have a point.  A very bloody minded point.  But a point nonetheless.

  
 I suspect that he may have an agenda.  A very bloody minded agenda.  But an agenda nonetheless.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Actually, lets shift the blame to Rod as he started this thread (that caused me to quote the PHM; that caused intertd6 to read it; that caused the Doc to go off on a tangent)

  Aha, at last I know how AGW Theory protagonists think. 
Now I can see how you started with a thermometer reading and worked your way back to cows farting as the cause.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

C'mon now, even you AGW Theory people must have a quiet chuckle about this:   

> The irony, it burns. Do you think maybe Gaia is trying to send the U.N. and the delegates a message? One record low was funny, three in a row was hilarious, a new record low for the month of December was ROFL, but now six straight days of record lows during the U.N. COP16 Global Warming conference? Thats _galactically inconvenient_. The whole month so far has averaged below normal:     Gore Effect on Steroids: Six straight days of record low temperatures during COP16 in Cancun Mexico  more coming | Watts Up With That?

  Even moving it from Copenhagen to Mexico didn't help create the heat. 
Maybe next year we could try the Sahara desert for effect?   :Lolabove:

----------


## Dr Freud

A pro-AGW Theory professor speaks out against the baseless scaremongering:   

> If we are to believe recent reports, the effects of climate change over the next 90 years will make up to 1 billion people homeless, deny 3 billion access to clean water and see the emergence of ''ghost states'' whose governments-in-exile rule over scattered citizens.  
>               The sensational claims in _The Observer_ were based on a scientific report presented this week at the start of climate negotiations in *Cancun, Mexico*. The report outlines the effects of human-induced climate change to be expected this century, largely because it now appears we cannot stop global temperatures rising by 4 degrees...  
> ...In fact, research shows that only very few of the poor - the people most heavily impacted by climate change - will move irregularly across an international border, and typically only if they have family links there. Financial restrictions, a close sense of attachment to land, family and culture inhibit movement abroad.  
>               There is also a more fundamental problem, which centres on climate change ''cause and effect''. As one government official in Kiribati, one of the ''sinking islands'' of the Pacific, observed, climate change overlays pre-existing pressures - overcrowding, unemployment and environmental and development concerns. Certainly the impacts of climate change are real, and affect people's ability to remain in their homes, but attributing displacement to climate change alone is impossible...   Cancun Climate Conference

  More and more scientists are speaking out against the real "travesty" that has occurred which is the baseless scaremongering, rendering this theory to its proper place in history.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

Should we pay Indonesia $100 million to figure out how many trees they didn't cut down because we gave them the $100 million?   

> The additional funding takes Australia's total support for Indonesia's REDD efforts to 100 million dollars, despite concerns from environmental groups like Greenpeace that corrupt officials and companies will hijack the scheme.  AFP: Australia boosts support for Indonesian forest scheme

  I'll be happy to write my next tax cheque knowing it is being spent so wisely.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

What a mess!   

> But most telling is this, about the ludicrous cost of green power schemes and other government measures to stop global warming: _Given the marked asymmetry between the costs and benefits of action by Australia - pending a significant global response - perhaps the strongest economic argument for carbon pricing is that it would displace more costly alternative measures targeted at particular products or technologies. If this were not achieved, the potential value of any new economy-wide instrument would be compromised. Unfortunately, most of the programs in question serve more as industry assistance than environmental assistance, and they will accordingly be difficult to terminate._How damning that is of the Labor Government, that the best argument for imposing its promised carbon tax or trading system is that at least it might prevent something even worse - like what its doing already.  
>  Banks is right about the difficulty of winding back some green-power technologies that cost far more than theyre worth. In fact, the problem is even more serious, given that the biggest investors in our wind power - an industry kept alive only by government subsidies, government-mandated green power quotas, and a government ban on cheaper nuclear power - are our union-dominated superannuation funds.  
>   Allowing such huge investments of workers super in an uneconomic industry kept alive only by government patronage is the height of political stupidity and irresponsibility, and it will take an exceptionally brave government to wind back the assistance, which costs us so much and gains us so little, when the unions members have so much to lose.   Try winding back wind power when unions super funds are so involved | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  And where is there even a shred of evidence that all this ridiculous calamity is actually even *able* to cool down the entire Planet Earth?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

Somebody is hot, something is not! 
Bolta makes the grade, AGW Theory starts to fade!  :Biggrin:     

> Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt made the top 10 of fastest-rising people, ahead of former PM Kevin Rudd. 
> Fastest-rising people 2010
> 1. Cody Simpson
> 2. Andy Irons
> 3. Justin Bieber
> 4. Julia Gillard
> 5. Lara Bingle
> 6. Katy Perry
> 7. Kim Kardashian
> ...

  Not much searching going on for AGW Theory or it's pseudonyms.  :No:    

> Fastest-rising searches 2010 
> 1. Chatroulette
> 2. Formspring
> 3. ABC3
> 4. World Cup 2010
> 5. tumblr
> 6. Ancestry.com.au
> 7. Event cinemas
> 8. Omegle
> ...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Actually, lets shift the blame to Rod as he started this thread (that caused me to quote the PHM; that caused intertd6 to read it; that caused the Doc to go off on a tangent)

  I've got broad sholders.

----------


## Dr Freud

Gullible is an understatement.  :Biggrin:    

> This year, CFACT students created two mock-petitions to test U.N. Delegates. The first asked participants to help destabilize the United States economy, the second to ban water. 
>  The first project, entitled Petition to Set a Global Standard sought to isolate and punish the United States of America for defying the international community, by refusing to bite, hook, line and sinker on the bait that is the Kyoto Protocol. The petition went so far as to encourage the United Nations to impose tariffs and trade restrictions on the U.S. in a scheme to destabilize the nations economy. Specifically, the scheme seeks to lower the U.S. GDP by 6% over a ten year period, unless the U.S. signs a U.N. treaty on global warming. 
>  This would be an extremely radical move by the United Nations. Even so, radical left-wing environmentalists from around the world scrambled eagerly to sign.
>  The second project was as successful as the first. It was euphemistically entitled Petition to Ban the Use of Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) (translation water). It was designed to show that if official U.N. delegates could be duped by college students into banning water, that they could essentially fall for anything, including pseudo-scientific studies which claim to show that global warming is man-caused. 
>  Despite the apparently not-so-obvious reference to H2O, *almost every delegate that collegian students approached signed their petition to ban that all too dangerous substance, which contributes to the greenhouse effect, is the major substance in acid rain, and is fatal if inhaled.*

  
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzZ_Zcp4PwY"]YouTube - UN Climate Kooks: Cripple US economy & ban H2O![/ame] 
Full story here:  Cancun COP16 attendees fall for the old dihydrogen monoxide petition as well as signing up to cripple the U.S. Economy | Watts Up With That?

----------


## Dr Freud

Just when you thought it was safe to drink fresh glacial bottled water:     

> Melting glaciers and ice sheets are releasing cancer-causing pollutants into the air and oceans, scientists say.  
> The long-lasting chemicals get into the food chain and build up in people's bodies - triggering tumours, heart disease and infertility.  
> The warning comes in new international study into the links between climate change and a class of man-made toxins called persistent organic pollutants...  
> ...Donald Cooper, of the United Nations Environment Programme which published the report at the UN climate talks in Cancun, Mexico, said melting glaciers and ice sheets were releasing POPs trapped years ago into the air and seas...

    

> ...We find them in mothers breast milk ...   'Climate change could give you cancer': UN report warns of deadly pollutants from glaciers | Mail Online

  
Just great, now cows farting are causing carcinogenic human breast milk?  :Doh:  
In the total absence of proof of AGW Theory, I guess we can just expect more baseless scaremongering?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Murray-Darling Basin Authority chairman Mike Taylor has resigned just two months after the authority's release of the controversial plan to restore the health of the ailing river system.  Murray-Darling boss resigns - ABC Newcastle NSW - Australian Broadcasting Corporation

  Maybe this greenie moron found it embarrassing *boating* out to farmers to explain how terribly short of water they all are? 
And how they will then have to pay more for their water allocations after all this fresh water flows unimpeded out to the ocean because greenies don't like building dams.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

If computer models can't even predict the past, why should we trust our entire species on them predicting the future? 
A good paper with a summary review here:  New peer reviewed paper shows just how bad the climate models really are | Watts Up With That?   

> However, we think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms. Several publications, a typical example being Rial _et al._ (2004), point out the difficulties that the climate system complexity introduces when we attempt to make predictions.  
> Complexity in this context usually refers to the fact that there are many parts comprising the system and many interactions among these parts. This observation is correct, but we take it a step further. We think that it is not merely a matter of high dimensionality, and that it can be misleading to assume that the uncertainty can be reduced if we analyse its sources as nonlinearities, feedbacks, thresholds, etc., and attempt to establish causality relationships. Koutsoyiannis (2010) created a toy model with simple, fully-known, deterministic dynamics, and with only two degrees of freedom (i.e. internal state variables or dimensions); but it exhibits extremely uncertain behaviour at all scales, including trends, fluctuations, and other features similar to those displayed by the climate. It does so with a constant external forcing, which means that there is no causality relationship between its state and the forcing. * 
> The fact that climate has many orders of magnitude more degrees of freedom certainly perplexes the situation further, but in the end it may be irrelevant; for, in the end, we do not have a predictable system hidden behind many layers of uncertainty which could be removed to some extent, but, rather, we have a system that is uncertain at its heart.*

  Lorenz' Chaos Theory continues to be vindicated by reality.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's more green dream schemes:   

> *SOUTH Australia is planning to introduce tough new carbon emissions standards that will ban construction of new coal-fired power stations.                 *                                Legislation to apply the new limits will go to Parliament next year after talks with the electricity industry and the release of a discussion paper.
> Premier Mike Rann outlined details of the move at the UN climate change conference in Cancun, Mexico, which is being attended by about 15,000 delegates from more than 190 countries and states.   Ban on growth of coal power | Adelaide Now

  Here's what happens when you wake up from the dream:    

> *SURGING numbers of Queenslanders are having their electricity cut off because they cannot afford to pay soaring power bills.                                 *  
> Latest figures show that 344 households were disconnected every week due to non-payment over the past year. The total of 17,913 was a 20 per cent jump on the previous year.
> Another 1683 small business customers also were cut off, up from 1414, the Queensland Competition Authority's annual report shows.
> Queensland Council of Social Service (QCOSS) president Karyn Walsh said the rising level of disconnections was a clear sign of the financial pressure on households.
> Electricity bills have climbed more than 18 per cent over the past year, with the industry predicting a further 60 per cent hike during the next five years.   Queenslanders getting power cut off as power bills soar | Courier Mail

  At least emissions are going down as more families, pensioners and small businesses get cut off from the electricity grid.  We may meet our targets after all.  Just a pity they weren't told the truth that emissions reductions means you now can't afford electricity.  :Annoyed:   
Maybe these sceptic bludgers should have just made the *"choice"* to have a massive PV system installed and been subsidised by the other taxpayers.  Oops, they are the other taxpayers whose bills were hiked to fund the "Carbonista's".

----------


## Dr Freud

> I've got broad sholders.

  Yeh, I get the impression you're happy to stand up to this farce.  :Biggrin:  
Luckily we aren't Robinson Crusoe's here:    

> Financial Post 
> Parker Gallant is a retired banker who looked at his electricity bills and didnt like what he saw.  *The end result: Ontario will have less actual electrical generation capacity in 2030 than in 2010  and will have spent $87-billion to accomplish this!*  Ontarios Power Trip: Plug your toaster into

  
No doubt the Gillard/Brown plan we get will make this fiasco look sensible.  :Cry:

----------


## woodbe

> So, we both agree then that it is *irrelevant* to any anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions due to a total lack of empirical evidence?  Or do you now want to start suggesting what is actually causing this?

  I can't see anything I have posted regarding the Glaciers that suggests I agree with anything you have said. Another Doc classic. Move the goal posts.    

> Rod didn't write the article dude, he correctly posted a full link so you could read the *fact* that some glaciers around the world *are growing*.  This is inconsistent with AGW Theory, unless you now want to posit that parts of the Planet Earth are cooling as a result of global warming?

  Rod didn't write the article, but he posted it and then ran away from discussing the misinformation in the headline that he posted.   

> If you don't like the headline, email the newspapers and tell them their headlines are sensationalist and increase readership in an effort to increase their circulation.

  On the contrary, I LOVE the headline. Its a first class example of the lengths denialists are prepared to go to to distort the truth. If I wrote to the Telegraph, it would be to exhort them to continue to prostrate themselves before the altar of anti-science and bad journalism. (I wouldn't do this, its not required as they are doing a fine job on their own)   

> So the data is causing the glaciers to melt?

  You asked for a cause for the trend in the chart. I answered your question, its because of the underlying data. 
Discussing the cause of the melting is outside the scope of pointing out the untruthfulness of the headline, but I am most encouraged that you accept that melting is happening.  
woodbe

----------


## woodbe

> And where is there even a shred of evidence that all this ridiculous calamity is actually even *able* to cool down the entire Planet Earth?

  Hint: Whatever the answer is, you won't find it on Bolt's blog.  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You asked for a cause for the trend in the chart. I answered your question, its because of the [s]under[/s]lying data.  
> woodbe

  Thats better.

----------


## woodbe

> Here's more green dream schemes: 
> Here's what happens when you wake up from the dream:  
> At least emissions are going down as more families, pensioners and small businesses get cut off from the electricity grid.  We may meet our targets after all.  Just a pity they weren't told the truth that emissions reductions means you now can't afford electricity.   
> Maybe these sceptic bludgers should have just made the *"choice"* to have a massive PV system installed and been subsidised by the other taxpayers.  Oops, they are the other taxpayers whose bills were hiked to fund the "Carbonista's".

  What does SBD say? Ignorance is easy to find? 
Banning new Coal fired power stations in SA is hardly a risky move. There is no decent coal within economical distance. Yes, we do have the burnable dirt (not joking!) from Leigh Creek, but they're already going pretty hard on that, and our Gas plants are already ancient (I think they might be among the oldest of their type still in use anywhere in the world) and there are still no plans to replace or enhance them. The current owners will probably flog them off soon to concentrate their activities elsewhere. 
Therein lies the real problem. Our Governments have failed to adequately invest in infrastructure (even co2 dirty infrastructure) for so long that maintenance and shortages are becoming a real issue. That is what is driving power price increases, and why we are being softened up for increases. The carbon effect is yet to hit, but its coming, sure as night follows day.  :Smilie:  
As far as your opinion regarding PV, as I said before:   

> The economic facts are that your government wants to help you to install  solar on your home. They have offered you a way of mitigating the power  prices coming down the pipe, and even offered you a small income from  the system if you are frugal with the power you use in the home.

   

> If you don't like that, don't lecture me about it, talk to your government about it.

  woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Thats better. I prefer innuendo to discussion

  Fixed it for you. 
If you have information showing the accuracy of the Glacier data in a bad light, I'd be happy to hear all about it. 
Put up. 
woodbe.

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> Therein lies the real problem. Our Governments have failed to adequately invest in infrastructure (even co2 dirty infrastructure) for so long that maintenance and shortages are becoming a real issue.

   

> If you don't like that, don't lecture me about it, talk to your government about it.

  Hello, could you put up some charts that shows historically that talking to the Government has ever helped.

----------


## woodbe

> Hello, could you put up some charts that shows historically that talking to the Government has ever helped.

  Welcome Daniel. 
Happy to help. The singularly best way of talking to the government is via your vote:  
(Chart from Roy Morgan) 
Of course, raising your issue with your local MP is often worthwhile, especially if your views are broadly held as your MP will get the message from multiple voters. I have direct experience of this in the last SA State election where Michael Atkinson (the then Attorney General) had arranged an attempt to Gag election debate on the internet, and after a public response of general outrage, quickly repealed the law. Full story here 
So yes, talking to the Government does help, as long as you're not representing a view held by 3 people and a dog (in which case, you'll be plumb out of luck) 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Welcome Daniel. 
> Happy to help. The singularly best way of talking to the government is via your vote:  
> (Chart from Roy Morgan) 
> Of course, raising your issue with your local MP is often worthwhile, especially if your views are broadly held as your MP will get the message from multiple voters. I have direct experience of this in the last SA State election where Michael Atkinson (the then Attorney General) had arranged an attempt to Gag election debate on the internet, and after a public response of general outrage, quickly repealed the law. Full story here 
> So yes, talking to the Government does help, as long as you're not representing a view held by 3 people and a dog (in which case, you'll be plumb out of luck) 
> woodbe.

  That chart & response to DM's question has about as much relevance as the price of pickled eggs in some back lane of a seedy city, its just hot air.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> Discussing the cause of the melting is outside the scope of pointing out the untruthfulness of the headline, but I am most encouraged that you accept that melting is happening.  
> woodbe

  If you don't know what is causing the some glaciers to melt and some glaciers to grow, you can just say so.  We will only laugh for a little while.  :Biggrin:  
But seriously, if you don't know, just Google it.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Hint: Whatever the answer is, you won't find it on Bolt's blog.  
> woodbe.

  Don't know that one either, huh?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Thats better.

   :Roflmao2:   
I think it must be hard for them to laugh when we take the p-ss, cos they think the world is about to end.  Armageddon is not that funny for them I guess.  :Firedevil:

----------


## woodbe

> That chart & response to DM's question has about as much relevance as the price of pickled eggs in some back lane of a seedy city, its just hot air.
> regards inter

  Thanks for your comment inter, I'll keep it in mind when next I'm looking for some pickled eggs in a seedy back lane.  :Biggrin:  
Respectfully, I'll wait for Daniel's response if its all the same to you. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> *Obfuscation highlights ignorance.* If you don't know what is causing the some glaciers to melt and some glaciers to grow, you can just say so.  We will only laugh for a little while.  
> But seriously, if you don't know, just Google it.

  I'll be happy to discuss Glacier melting when we have finished discussing the posting of misleading headlines. Your continued semantic sidetracks are very interesting but irrelevant to that discussion. 
'wwodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Our Governments have failed to adequately invest in infrastructure (even co2 dirty infrastructure) for so long that maintenance and shortages are becoming a real issue. That is what is driving power price increases, and why we are being softened up for increases. The carbon effect is yet to hit, but its coming, sure as night follows day.  
> woodbe.

  Yes, we have covered this before.   

> Find out how this farce is both expensive and ineffective at the same time here:    
> 			
> 				Australias current main greenhouse response has so far been to provide incentives for* household solar and wind generation in particular. These are high cost measures and ones where the additional cost is added to the bills of all electricity consumers*    _  Green madness and Gillards dithering will hike your power bills | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  Perhaps you didn't read the piece by the good Mr Bolt ( :Innocent: ), so I'll add some more here:   

> _Looking forward, at least four factors will drive increases in future electricity prices WITHOUT a carbon price. The first two are not driven by Australias response to greenhouse issues, the latter two are_  _- Continuing increases in network costs 
> - Rising coal and gas prices 
> - The fact that the market is already accepting that very few if any further coalfired electricity generation plants will be built, yet base load gas plants are difficult to make economic without a carbon price 
> - There are many current non market driven greenhouse schemes which result in high cost outcomes e.g. measures to support household solar in particular as it is an extremely expensive form of energy, but also the LRET and many others_  _Electricity prices in future will, however, even without a carbon price, now reflect high cost household solar schemes, and much more wind generation (due to the LRET) and the accompanying peaking plant, which are higher cost sources of generation.  _  ...In the meantime, note that Labors threat of a carbon price has killed investment in our cheapest source of electricity generation, while its failure to actually impose one has blocked investment into the higher-cost alternatives. Meanwhile its papering over the cracks by subsidising the most insanely expensive form of power you could possibly think of.    
>   Its hard to think of a more comprehensive stuff-up, and one more damaging to our future...

  You'd have to be an idiot to build or renovate a coal fired power plant with these greenie loonies running around threatening to tax them into oblivion. 
Nuclear is banned by the same greenie loonies. 
Let's run the country on PV's and windmills? Once again, idiocy beyond contempt!  :Doh:  
The down side is poor Aussies are suffering the ill effects of this farcical green dream scheme.  :Annoyed:    

> As far as your opinion regarding PV, as I said before: 
> woodbe.

  So you were strenuously supporting this policy position until it was shown to be useless and expensive, and now it is all the governments fault, because you don't agree with the policies effect of cutting the power supply to poor families, pensioners, and struggling small businesses?  :Confused:

----------


## woodbe

> I think it must be hard for them to laugh when we take the p-ss,

  Unfortunately, Rod failed to include a smiley in his post, so I can only assume he was serious, and expected a serious response. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

It seems that the "Charade", "Farce", "Hoax" just won't go away.  Cancun is just a small step, but it seems that global action on AGW is just getting stronger and stronger...    

> *Global climate fund set up in Cancun deal                *   *                 Shaun Tandon            *  
>      December 11, 2010 - 9:19PM      
>                                     Global talks on climate change on Saturday set up a new  fund to manage billions of US dollars in aid to poor nations in a  hard-fought package urging deep cuts in industrial emissions.
>              After two weeks of talks in Mexico and two virtually  sleepless final days, more than 190 countries reached a deal that leaves  open an extension of the Kyoto Protocol whose requirements expire in  two years.
>              "A new era in international cooperation in climate change  has begun," Mexican Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa told the talks  in the resort of Cancun. 
> From: Global climate fund set up in Cancun deal

  Funny, isn't it, how they didn't seem to debate the existence of AGW.  I suppose they must accept the prevailing scientific view that AGW is real.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Welcome Daniel. 
> Happy to help. The singularly best way of talking to the government is via your vote:   
> Of course, raising your issue with your local MP is often worthwhile, especially if your views are broadly held as your MP will get the message from multiple voters. I have direct experience of this in the last SA State election where Michael Atkinson (the then Attorney General) had arranged an attempt to Gag election debate on the internet, and after a public response of general outrage, quickly repealed the law. Full story here 
> So yes, talking to the Government does help, as long as you're not representing a view held by 3 people and a dog (in which case, you'll be plumb out of luck) 
> woodbe.

  Ah yes Woodbe finally something I can agree with you on. 
The one and only issue I contacted MP's on, was that of the emmisions trading scheme.  I am very proud to report that the popular campaign of view broadly held by many others was successful. 
It was voted down, and the Liberal wet behind the support got kicked out.  As you can see by your graph the result is quite stunning.   :2thumbsup:

----------


## intertd6

> Thanks for your comment inter, I'll keep it in mind when next I'm looking for some pickled eggs in a seedy back lane.  
> Respectfully, I'll wait for Daniel's response if its all the same to you. 
> woodbe.

  Mmmmmm!! you would be the only person in that lane, the rest of us will be focused on the relevance of the topic.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> Hello, could you put up some charts that shows historically that talking to the Government has ever helped.

  Welcome champ.   :2thumbsup:  
You'll have to become adept at chasing lots of rabbits down lots of rabbit holes. 
You may have already noticed a surprising lack of scientific evidence supporting a lot of "allegedly" scientific opinion.  :No:

----------


## Rod Dyson

:Biggrin:  :Biggrin:   

> Unfortunately, Rod failed to include a smiley in his post, so I can only assume he was serious, and expected a serious response. 
> woodbe.

   :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  oooops. 
Life is waaay to short to get hung up on that kind of stuff.  You should know me by now.

----------


## woodbe

> Yes, we have covered this before. 
> Perhaps you didn't read the piece by the good Mr Bolt (), so I'll add some more here: 
> You'd have to be an idiot to build or renovate a coal fired power plant with these greenie loonies running around threatening to tax them into oblivion. 
> Nuclear is banned by the same greenie loonies. 
> Let's run the country on PV's and windmills? Once again, idiocy beyond contempt!  
> The down side is poor Aussies are suffering the ill effects of this farcical green dream scheme.  
> So you were strenuously supporting this policy position until it was shown to be useless and expensive, and now it is all the governments fault, because you don't agree with the policies effect of cutting the power supply to poor families, pensioners, and struggling small businesses?

  I have to say, this is a very confusing post, even for you Doc. 
I fully support the implementation of solar technologies including domestic PV, always have, and have not changed my opinion on this.  
I have suggested that if you don't like the current policy that you should talk to the Government about it. This does not mean I have changed my support or opinion at all, I'm suggesting that if you want to do something about it, go to the source of the policy. 
As far as power infrastructure is concerned, we in Australia need someone to take the lead with whatever technology will deliver adequate power with minimal co2 emissions into the future. I'm happy to speculate just as you and Bolt are, but its the Government that has to get the process started or those people dear to your heart won't be able to boil their kettle because of market forces driving the price up regardless of whether there is a solar subsidy or not. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It seems that the "Charade", "Farce", "Hoax" just won't go away. Cancun is just a small step, but it seems that global action on AGW is just getting stronger and stronger...  
> Funny, isn't it, how they didn't seem to debate the existence of AGW. I suppose they must accept the prevailing scientific view that AGW is real.

  Well we will just have to move to Fiji or somewhere eh. We will be better off. 
Nah this won't hold together long term, anything built on sand without solid foundations is bound to fall over. My tip it will cause more trouble when defaults happen than it was worth. they were always going to try and get something out of this.  
I wonder how much this will change our temperatures? What a load of crock and what a lot of upset voters there will be i countries all over the world.  
What could you think of to do, that could be more destabilizing in the world right now. 
Lets sit back and see how this unfolds. Can only end in tears IMO.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'll be happy to discuss Glacier melting when we have finished discussing the posting of misleading headlines. Your continued semantic sidetracks are very interesting but irrelevant to that discussion. 
> 'wwodbe.

   :Rofl:  
You do crack me up sometimes.  :Biggrin:  
You posted what I can now only assume you purported to be "evidence" of AGW Theory? 
Please correct me if I am wrong? 
You then refuse to admit that this is why you posted it, or even acknowledge that it is vaguely related to AGW Theory? 
You then want to discuss journalistic integrity and editorial techniques because that is so relevant to your failed theory, and use this as an excuse to hide from your abject lack of credibility in dealing with some glaciers shrinking and some growing? 
And when I ask you to provide any evidence whatsoever proving your "effect" is even vaguely related to anthropogenic carbon dioxide levels, you accuse me of semantic distractions? 
No doubt people reading this little ditty are slowly realising how farcical AGW Theory is when it's proponents constantly run, hide, and obfuscate, but provide *zero* evidence proving their theory.  :2thumbsup:  
You do so much more damage to the credibility of AGW Theory than I ever could.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You do so much more damage to the credibility of AGW Theory than I ever could.

   :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

> That chart & response to DM's question has about as much relevance as the price of pickled eggs in some back lane of a seedy city, its just hot air.
> regards inter

   

> Mmmmmm!! you would be the only person in that  lane, the rest of us will be focused on the relevance of the topic.
> regards inter

   

> Ah yes Woodbe finally something I can agree with you on. 
> The one and only issue I contacted MP's on, was that of the emmisions  trading scheme.  I am very proud to report that the popular campaign of  view broadly held by many others was successful. 
> It was voted down, and the Liberal wet behind the support got kicked  out.  As you can see by your graph the result is quite stunning.

  So inter, Rod seems to like it? (And yes Rod, I think most people agree that the result is stunning)  :Confused:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> You posted what I can now only assume you purported to be "evidence" of AGW Theory? 
> Please correct me if I am wrong?

  You're wrong.  :Smilie:  
You have to learn to stop jumping at shadows. Not everything I post is posted as evidence of AGW. The Chart you responded to was posted as evidence that Glaciers are in retreat on a global scale.  
woodbe.

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> So yes, talking to the Government does help, as long as you're not representing a view held by 3 people and a dog (in which case, you'll be plumb out of luck)

  So if you haven't got the numbers, it doesn't help talking to the Government? 
What if the three people and the dog are correct? 
Do we four then have to pay for the others  who may be incorrect? 
What guarantees does the Government give that it will act on a more than 3 people and a dog scenario? 
What you're telling me is that the truth doesn't matter, numbers do.

----------


## Dr Freud

> It seems that the "Charade", "Farce", "Hoax" just won't go away.  Cancun is just a small step, but it seems that global action on AGW is just getting stronger and stronger...  
> Funny, isn't it, how they didn't seem to debate the existence of AGW.  I suppose they must accept the prevailing scientific view that AGW is real.

  So, we transfer at least $100 billion a year from us to poor nations to allegedly "mitigate" the effects of "climate change".   

> A broader issue is just how wealthy nations would raise the money, with some negotiators advocating levies on airplane and shipping fuel.

  So our taxes go up, then goes to developing nations in foreign aid.  This sounds like a socialist assistance program rather than an evironmental program.  But help me out here, how much will this $100 billion dollars a year cool down the Planet Earth?  The Cancun delegates forgot to mention this bit. Then I'd be curious on the mechanism and projected time frame for this miracle?  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> So if you haven't got the numbers, it doesn't help talking to the Government? 
> What if the three people and the dog are correct? 
> Do we four then have to pay for the others  who may be incorrect? 
> What guarantees does the Government give that it will act on a more than 3 people and a dog scenario? 
> What you're telling me is that the truth doesn't matter, numbers do.

  Truth does matter, and in Politics, when the chips are down, numbers tend to matter more than truth. Sad but true. 
If the 3 people and a dog are correct, there will be more than 3 and a dog. We Aussies can be thick sometimes, but not that thick... 
So yes, if you are 3 and a dog and you disagree with the (incorrect or otherwise) Government, you're in a sticky situation, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't make your views heard. Plenty of minority groups kick well above their weight by making a lot of noise. 
As citizens of the country of Australia, we all sacrifice some privileges and pay our taxes for the common good. If it was just you 4, and tax was involved, then yes, you may find yourselves paying your share of an incorrect policy. Wouldn't be the first time either. There's plenty of Government spending I'd rather not support, but I still pay my tax. 
The Government doesn't give much of a guarantee that it will act on a more than 3 people and a dog scenario, that's why you have a vote. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I have suggested that if you don't like the current policy that you should talk to the Government about it. This does not mean I have changed my support or opinion at all, I'm suggesting that if you want to do something about it, go to the source of the policy. 
> woodbe.

  So then you do agree with these effects of this policy you support then:   

> The down side is poor Aussies are suffering the ill effects of this farcical green dream scheme.  
> ...  the policies effect of cutting the power supply to poor families, pensioners, and struggling small businesses?

  And are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you honestly not get this?   

> ...because of market forces driving the price up regardless of whether there is a solar subsidy or not. 
> woodbe.

  Let's try again:   

> _Looking forward, at least four factors will drive increases in future electricity prices WITHOUT a carbon price. _ _- There are many current non market driven greenhouse schemes which result in high cost outcomes e.g. measures to support household solar in particular as it is an extremely expensive form of energy, but also the LRET and many others_  _Electricity prices in future will, however, even without a carbon price, now reflect high cost household solar schemes, and much more wind generation (due to the LRET) and the accompanying peaking plant, which are higher cost sources of generation._

----------


## Dr Freud

> Lets sit back and see how this unfolds. Can only end in tears IMO.

  Yeh, taxpayers around the world are gonna love seeing their hard earned going to third world dictatorial regimes with no strings attached, under the fictional guise of "climate aid".  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

This is like watching a squid eating spaghetti.  :Biggrin:    

> You're wrong.  
> You have to learn to stop jumping at shadows. Not everything I post is posted as evidence of AGW. The Chart you responded to was posted as evidence that Glaciers are in retreat on a global scale.  
> woodbe.

  And this glacial retreat in some areas is totally unrelated to the topic of AGW Theory then?   :Roflmao2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You'll have to become adept at chasing lots of rabbits down lots of rabbit holes. 
> You may have already noticed a surprising lack of scientific evidence supporting a lot of "allegedly" scientific opinion.

   

> Truth does matter, and in Politics, when the chips are down, numbers tend to matter more than truth. Sad but true. 
> If the 3 people and a dog are correct, there will be more than 3 and a dog. We Aussies can be thick sometimes, but not that thick... 
> So yes, if you are 3 and a dog and you disagree with the (incorrect or otherwise) Government, you're in a sticky situation, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't make your views heard. Plenty of minority groups kick well above their weight by making a lot of noise. 
> As citizens of the country of Australia, we all sacrifice some privileges and pay our taxes for the common good. If it was just you 4, and tax was involved, then yes, you may find yourselves paying your share of an incorrect policy. Wouldn't be the first time either. There's plenty of Government spending I'd rather not support, but I still pay my tax. 
> The Government doesn't give much of a guarantee that it will act on a more than 3 people and a dog scenario, that's why you have a vote. 
> woodbe.

  So you see, they will argue about everything from butterflies to editorial integrity, but will studiously avoid any discussion about the lack of proof of their farcical theory.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So if you haven't got the numbers, it doesn't help talking to the Government? 
> What if the three people and the dog are correct? 
> Do we four then have to pay for the others who may be incorrect? 
> What guarantees does the Government give that it will act on a more than 3 people and a dog scenario? 
> What you're telling me is that the truth doesn't matter, numbers do.

  Oh yeah. I like this. :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  
Just how they see it with the so called consensus :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

*NO DEAL!* 
Cancun ends in disgrace and farce. 
But wait, is this another sensationalist "misleading" headline we should debate instead of the substantial failure?  *Cancun climate talks reach 'historic' deal* 
So, let's sum up: 
No binding targets;
No agreement on required CO2 reductions;
No Kyoto extension;
No action on "climate change";
No evidence whatsoever proving AGW Theory;
No CO2 reductions guaranteed from USA, China or India;
No binding $100 billion dollar fund, just a promise -    

> It also reaffirms a *goal* of raising an annual $100 billion in aid for poor countries *by 2020*.

  How do  the participants describe this abysmal failure:   

> "It's really pretty historic," said Christiana Figueres, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat. 
> Australian Conservation Foundation executive director Don Henry has also described the agreement as a historic step forward.

  Cancun climate talks reach 'historic' deal - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
Historic farce is what it is!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *NO DEAL!* 
> Cancun ends in disgrace and farce. 
> But wait, is this another sensationalist "misleading" headline we should debate instead of the substantial failure?  *Cancun climate talks reach 'historic' deal* 
> So, let's sum up: 
> No binding targets;
> No agreement on required CO2 reductions;
> No Kyoto extension;
> No action on "climate change";
> No evidence whatsoever proving AGW Theory;
> ...

   I shoulda known.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I shoulda known.

  And they covered all the big issues:    
And I hope all their offsets work:    

> The climate change summit in Cancun will generate 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide, its Mexican hosts admitted last night. 
> That means the £43million event will produce as much greenhouse gas as an average-sized African country would over the same two-week period. 
> The figure includes the carbon generated by flights, transport, hotels and food  and means the conference is polluting at the same rate as Somalia or Mali.  The organisers of the UN talks say they will plant trees and pay farmers to protect forests to offset the emissions.  Cancun climate change summit will generate 25,000 tons of CO2 | Mail Online

----------


## woodbe

> So then you do agree with these effects of this policy you support then:

  I accept that there is an effect of the policy that everyone's power bill reflects the costs of subsidising the FIT. This is how the subsidy operates. Government decision. Even if they funded it out of general revenue, it would cost every taxpayer something. Claiming that it is the reason people are having trouble paying their bills is disingenuous however.  
I personally think it is a good idea that the nation has a significant installation of domestic PV, and I am happy that in this rare case, I agree with the Government. I'd point out that this solar support from the Government crosses both Liberal and Labor, despite the fact that they each tear down or modify each other's schemes as soon as they get into power. 
Are you going to complain that the Government has put in a system of power generation that pays peak power generators up to $8.00 per kWh? That's on their bill too you know. How about the sell off of our Power assets to private corporations that added a profit margin to the price, or the creation of a wholesale/retail electricity market that added another profit into the retail price? 
As a citizen, I am delighted to be able to do my bit to help the Government achieve its domestic solar goals. As SBD points out, its also in keeping with this forum's do-it-yourself outlook. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> And this glacial retreat in some areas is totally unrelated to the topic of AGW Theory then?

  I wouldn't agree with your suggestion, Doc. We know what creates Glaciers, and we know what takes them away. Unless you want to debate that there is net growth of Glaciers across the planet and support Rod's Telegraph headline, there is nothing to talk about. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I wouldn't agree with your suggestion, Doc. We know what creates Glaciers, and we know what takes them away. Unless you want to debate that there is net growth of Glaciers across the planet and support Rod's Telegraph headline, there is nothing to talk about. 
> woodbe.

  
LOL that headline has really got up your nose hasn't it. :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  
"Rods" headline indeed LOL

----------


## Rod Dyson

What fudged data? Who me? Hasen and Giss are a joke.

----------


## woodbe

> LOL that headline has really got up your nose hasn't it. 
> "Rods" headline indeed LOL

  Actually, its not the headline. I expect that sort of rubbish from outlets like the Telegraph.  
Its difficult to continue to accept you as a self proclaimed sceptic when you post denialist memes here, and don't respond when they are addressed. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> What fudged data? Who me? Hasen and Giss are a joke.

  That looks horribly like whoever made that graphic didn't shift their baselines 
Still looks wonky though. No doubt we'll hear all about it in due course.  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I accept that there is an effect of the policy that everyone's power bill reflects the costs of subsidising the FIT.  
> woodbe.

   

> ...the policies effect of cutting the power supply to poor families, pensioners, and struggling small businesses?

  I'm glad you find this cost "acceptable".  :No:  
We'll look at the benefits in just a minute.   

> Even if they funded it out of general revenue, it would cost every taxpayer something.  
> woodbe.

  If they didn't add useless but very expensive green dream schemes, over and above market prices, it would costs taxpayers *nothing*.   

> I personally think it is a good idea that the nation has a significant installation of domestic PV, and I am happy that in this rare case, I agree with the Government. 
>  woodbe.

  But seeing as you are willing for *others* to pay the cost above, just curious as to the benefits of this policy?  How much will it cool down the Planet Earth? In degrees Celsius will be fine.    

> Claiming that it is the reason people are having trouble paying their bills is disingenuous however.  
>  woodbe.

  Really?  :Confused:  So are you now arguing that sending a carbon price signal to the market has no effect in changing peoples behaviour by pricing carbon power above renewable power? 
Is this not the intent of your whole ethos?  Push peoples electricity bills *artificially* higher, so that renewables by comparison become attractive? 
One little problem champ, you and your Carbonista mates forgot the little people who lack the "choice".  Don't worry too much though, the little people will remind you and your Carbonista mates as the prices continue to rise, and the number of families living without electricity also starts to rise.  :2thumbsup:     

> Are you going to complain that the Government has put in a system of power generation that pays peak power generators up to $8.00 per kWh? That's on their bill too you know. How about the sell off of our Power assets to private corporations that added a profit margin to the price, or the creation of a wholesale/retail electricity market that added another profit into the retail price? 
>  woodbe.

  Market forces and government regulations are necessary to ensure efficient generation and distribution of the cheapest possible power to Australia.  No-one argues these points, although everyone has an opinion on exactly how regulations and markets interact.  This however is not the issue, and attempting more semantic distractions does your cause no justice.   

> Let's try again:      _Looking forward, at least four factors will drive increases in future electricity prices WITHOUT a carbon price. _ _- There are many current non market driven greenhouse schemes which result in high cost outcomes e.g. measures to support household solar in particular as it is an extremely expensive form of energy, but also the LRET and many others_  _Electricity prices in future will, however, even without a carbon price, now reflect high cost household solar schemes, and much more wind generation (due to the LRET) and the accompanying peaking plant, which are higher cost sources of generation._

  In a nutshell, again, this is an artificial expense that is imposed on us based on a misguided ideology that somehow all this "price signalling" is going to cool down the Planet Earth. 
Excuse me for not seeing the connection. :No:    

> As a citizen, I am delighted to be able to do my bit to help the Government achieve its domestic solar goals.  
>  woodbe.

  And again, how much will the governments domestic solar goals cool down the Planet Earth?  Because if they don't, then they are useless (but still very expensive).  I call this "window dressing", politicians call it "humouring the electorate".  :Wink 1:  
Not much humour when the power gets cut off though!  :No:

----------


## chrisp

*The world moves (slowly) on and the "sceptics" are still debating whether AGW is real or not.*  :Rolleyes:   
I wonder when they'll realise that the goal posts have (long ago) shifted and realise it is not a question of whether AGW is real or not, but it is a question of its impact and our response.   

> *Cancun deal puts pressure on Australia                *  
>                                                 December 12, 2010 - 1:08PM       
>                 A police officer stands guard at the surroundings of  the Moon Palace Hotel where the UN Climate Change Conference is being  held in Cancun, Mexico. _Photo: AP_ 
>                                  The federal government needs to "get cracking" on  establishing a price on pollution if it is to meet ambitious pollution  reduction efforts following the UN climate deal in Cancun, campaigners  say.
>               The Cancun Summit in Mexico produced a formal UN decision  anchoring pollution limitation and reduction targets covering over 80  per cent of global emissions.  Cancun deal puts pressure on Australia

   

> *Cancun climate talks reach 'historic deal'* 
>  By North America correspondent Lisa Millar, wires
>  Updated 8 hours 13 minutes ago   
>  After an all-night session of the UN climate talks in  Cancun, countries have reached a deal that commits all major economies  to greenhouse gas cuts. 
>  For the first time the pledges by developing and developed nations to  cut pollution have been brought under a UN agreement, despite vigorous  opposition from Bolivia.   Cancun climate talks reach 'historic deal' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

   

> *Australia must 'get cracking' on climate, says Climate Institute                             *  
>                                                             From:                                          AAP
>                                  December 12, 2010                                 1:21PM            *                                  AUSTRALIA needs to "get cracking" on setting a price on carbon if  it's to match international pollution reduction efforts following the UN  climate deal in Cancun, campaigners say.                                 *  
>                   The Cancun Summit in Mexico produced a formal UN decision anchoring  pollution limitation and reduction targets covering over 80 per cent of  global emissions.  Australia must 'get cracking' on climate, says Climate Institute | The Australian

   

> *UN climate talks hailed as 'a step forward'                             *  
>    Brad Norington, Cancun
>    From:                                          The Australian
>    December 12, 2010                                 1:09PM  *UN CLIMATE change negotiations in Mexico have ended with an  agreement to establish a multi-billion dollar aid fund for poor  countries adversely affected by greenhouse gas emissions.                                 *  
> A year after the failure in Copenhagen, both developed and developing countries agreed to pursue deep cuts to emissions.
> Under a dual track deal, 194 nations have agreed to make voluntary cuts to emissions.
> Wording  of a conference text from Cancun allows the Kyoto Protocol for about 40  wealthy nations, including Australia, to co-exist with pledges made by  low-income nations under last year's Copenhagen accord.
> The Kyoto Protocol is due to expire in 2012, but many developing nations want it extended.   UN climate talks hailed as 'a step forward' | The Australian

   

> *UN has got its mojo back on climate with Cancun deal, says John Connor                             *  
>                                                             From:                                          AAP                                                       
> December 12, 2010                                 1:03PM            *                                  THE Federal Government needs to "get cracking" on establishing a  price on pollution following the UN climate deal in Cancun, campaigners  say.                                 *  
>                   More than 190 countries represented at the United Nations-led talks  today agreed to seek "deep cuts" in carbon emissions, which science  links with global warming.   UN has got its mojo back on climate with Cancun deal, says John Connor | News.com.au

  I've even quoted articles from News and The Australian for the anti-AGWs.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I wouldn't agree with your suggestion, Doc. We know what creates Glaciers, and *we know what takes them away*.  
> woodbe.

  I have said before that I'm a simple man.  So I still don't get it.  :No:  
Do anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions have any effect at all on glaciers growing and shrinking? Or not?  :Confused:    

> Unless you want to debate that there is net growth of Glaciers across the planet and support Rod's Telegraph headline, there is nothing to talk about. 
> woodbe.

  What about "my" headline:   

> *Cancun climate talks reach 'historic' deal*

  I'm starting to feel left out here.  :Cry:

----------


## woodbe

> I have said before that I'm a simple man.  So I still don't get it.

  You're being deliberately obtuse. 
Google/Wikipedia says:   

> A *glacier* (pronounced UK: /ˈɡlæsiər/ _GLASS-ee-ər_ or US: /ˈɡleɪʃər/ _GLAY-shər_) is a large persistent body of ice. Originating on land, a glacier flows slowly due to stresses induced by its weight. The crevasses  and other distinguishing features of a glacier are due to its flow.  Another consequence of glacier flow is the transport of rock and debris  abraded from its substrate and resultant landforms like cirques and moraines.  A glacier forms in a location where the accumulation of snow and sleet  exceeds the amount of snow that melts. Over many years, often decades or  centuries, a glacier will eventually form as the snow compacts and  turns to ice. A glacier is distinct from sea ice and lake ice that form on the surface of bodies of water.
>  The word _glacier_ comes from French. It is derived from the Vulgar Latin _*glacia_ and ultimately from Latin _glacies_ meaning _ice_.[1] The processes and features caused by glaciers and related to them are referred to as *glacial*. The process of glacier establishment, growth and flow is called *glaciation*. The corresponding area of study is called glaciology. Glaciers are important components of the global cryosphere.
>  On Earth, 99% glacial ice is contained within vast ice sheets in the polar regions, but glaciers may be found in mountain ranges of every continent except Australia. In the tropics, glaciers occur only on high mountains.[2]
>  Glacial ice is the largest reservoir of freshwater on Earth. Many glaciers store water during one season and release it later as meltwater, a water source that is especially important for plants, animals and human uses when other sources may be scant.
>  Because glacial mass is affected by long-term climate changes, e.g., precipitation, mean temperature, and cloud cover, glacial mass changes are considered among the most sensitive indicators of climate change and are a major source of variations in sea level.

  
As to AGW, we already know our respective views. you will say this is normal and I will not. Nothing new here. You're still wrong.  :Smilie:   
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> This cant be right can it? Dam Media getting it wrong again?  *Cancun climate change summit: glaciers increasing despite climate change*  *Glaciers in many parts of the world are increasing, according to a new United Nations report, despite climate change.*   Cancun climate change summit: glaciers increasing despite climate change - Telegraph

  I thought I'd clarify your "intrepretation" of this headline, as it clearly does not state anything about "net growth".     

> Unless you want to debate that there is net growth of Glaciers across the planet and support Rod's Telegraph headline, there is nothing to talk about. 
> woodbe.

  I would prefer to give you a chance to clarify your "interpretation" rather than accuse you of "jumping at shadows".  
You see, the headline merely says "glaciers increasing despite climate change", which is your typically sensationalist headline, but then clarifies by saying in the byline "in many parts of the world".  Nothing about "net" increases, or "all" or "most" glaciers. 
As I have said before, Rod posted the full link. He even included the byline for further clarification.  What's your boggle citizen?  :Confused:  
Surely not just another semantic sidetrack away from the total lack of evidence proving this farcical theory?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *The world moves (slowly) on and the "sceptics" are still debating whether AGW is real or not.*   
> I wonder when they'll realise that the goal posts have (long ago) shifted and realise it is not a question of whether AGW is real or not, but it is a question of its impact and our response. 
> I've even quoted articles from News and The Australian for the anti-AGWs.

  Are you seriously believing the window dressing written about this abject failure? 
Please show me *one single molecule* of CO2 that this conference can enforce the reduction of?  :Biggrin:  
Then please show me the Global CO2 reduction pathway that *will* be followed, and how this *will* cool down the Planet Earth? 
Then please show me who will pay for this miracle, and how? 
If you can't answer any of these, please indicate what the actual "outcome" of this "historic deal" was?

----------


## woodbe

> Is this not the intent of your whole ethos?  Push peoples electricity bills *artificially* higher, so that renewables by comparison become attractive?

  Its the Government's policy to kick start renewables by offering subsidies, of which the domestic PV subsidy is but one. They made it, I agree with it.   

> One little problem champ, you and your Carbonista mates forgot the little people who lack the "choice".  Don't worry too much though, the little people will remind you and your Carbonista mates as the prices continue to rise, and the number of families living without electricity also starts to rise.

  One of the Government's jobs is to adjust welfare for the genuinely needy to cover the economic effects of changing policies. That will always be a problem in a changing world. It is not however an adequate reason to do nothing.   

> In a nutshell, again, this is an artificial expense that is imposed on us

  Correct so far.   

> based on a misguided ideology that somehow all this "price signalling" is going to cool down the Planet Earth.

  That bit is opinion. Not shared by me or apparently the Governments of most developed nations. Good luck swimming against the tide Doc.  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> You're being deliberately obtuse. 
> woodbe.

  Guilty as charged, your Honour!  :Whistling1:     

> As to AGW, we already know our respective views. you will say this is normal and I will not. Nothing new here. You're still wrong.   
> woodbe.

  I can't be wrong.  :Biggrin:  
You see, you support a theory that has yet to be proven or disproven.  If it is disproven one day, then you will be wrong.  :Cry:  
I say that until you theory is proven or disproven, it is just a theory like all the others out there.  You have no evidence proving your theory, and until you do, it is just a theory.  This is not my "belief", this is the scientific method.  Therefore, it's impossible for me to be wrong.  If you present evidence proving your theory, it will become a fact that I will accept.  Until then, it is just another theory.   
Either way, I am always right.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> GREG COMBET: Apart from the domestic action we are taking the Australian Government is also endeavouring to play a constructive role internationally. Today Australia announced further allocations under the $599 million of Australia's committed Fast Start Financing.  PM - Australia offers $599m to protect poor countries from climate impacts 10/12/2010

  And they are already booing her now:   

> Hello Melbourne, youre looking good Melbourne, Winfrey said as she entered the stage to join Ms Gillard and Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu, whose attempt to introduce his American guest was drowned out by the screaming crowd. 
> He fared better than the Prime Minister, who was booed.  'You're all so darn friendly'

  Maybe the people who are living without electricity were booing.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Actually, its not the headline. I expect that sort of rubbish from outlets like the Telegraph.  
> Its difficult to continue to accept you as a self proclaimed sceptic when you post denialist memes here, and don't respond when they are addressed. 
> woodbe.

  I have responded.

----------


## Dr Freud

> That bit is opinion. Not shared by me or apparently the Governments of most developed nations. 
> woodbe.

  Yes, we both have our opinions, yours aligns with the current governments, that's why I ask for proof.  As I have previously indicated, lowering the bar by deferring to political opinion is not scientific in the slightest.    

> And again, how much will the governments domestic solar goals cool down the Planet Earth? Because if they don't, then they are useless (but still very expensive). I call this "window dressing", politicians call it "humouring the electorate".  
> Not much humour when the power gets cut off though!

  And I'm not swimming anywhere, I'm floating along just fine in reality.  The water's warm, you should try it sometime.    

> Good luck swimming against the tide Doc.  
> woodbe.

  You're looking at a ripple and thinking it's the tide.  :No:  
Here's the tide champ, and I certainly ain't swimming against it.  :Biggrin:     

> Seeing as you guys can't find any science proving AGW Theory, (unless you've lowered the bar even further to include political opinion ), I thought I'd pose a logistical question. 
> If this is a proxy data temperature record, albeit very inaccurate:    
> And this is the committment from Copenhagen:  The document recognised that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of the present day and that actions should be taken to keep any temperature increases to below 2°C. 
> Then can someone, and I don't care who, please explain to me how in the hell we are going to negate all the "natural" forces that have been driving temperatures up and down for hundreds of millions of years, when we don't even understand how they work yet?

----------


## PhilT2

> I say that until you theory is proven or disproven, it is just a theory  like all the others out there.  You have no evidence proving your  theory, and until you do, it is just a theory.  This is not my "belief",  this is the scientific method.  Therefore, it's impossible for me to be  wrong.  If you present evidence proving your theory, it will become a  fact that I will accept.  Until then, it is just another theory.

  OT but some people have difficulty accepting some theories. Chiropractors and homeopaths have never accepted the germ theory of disease "if germs really did cause disease then none of us would be left standing" The germ theory of life | Chiropractic News
This is why many of them do not support the use of vaccines or antibiotics. To them Pasteur, Fleming and Lister were all frauds. No facts exist that can alter their view. Theory of Disease in Homeopathy 
The more rabid of the germs don't hurt you/anti-vaccine nutters believe that compulsory vaccination programs are a secret plot by the UN to achieve a socialist world government. 
Any facts that interfere with their beliefs are rejected.

----------


## chrisp

> Are you seriously believing the window dressing written about this abject failure? 
> Please show me *one single molecule* of CO2 that this conference can enforce the reduction of?  
> Then please show me the Global CO2 reduction pathway that *will* be followed, and how this *will* cool down the Planet Earth? 
> Then please show me who will pay for this miracle, and how? 
> If you can't answer any of these, please indicate what the actual "outcome" of this "historic deal" was?

  At this point, it seems it would be appropriate to remind ourselves of that wonderful line that SBD shared with us a few pages ago...   

> Old mate's response to this was personally illuminating: *"If you don't accept the current science AND you can not reasonably & logically explain why then we have nothing to debate with respect to climate change or a policy response to address it."*

  Seriously, Doc, the goal posts have long moved.  The AGW science is accepted and the onus of proof has also shifted.  If you don't like the AGW science, the burden is on you to disprove it. 
The political question is what - and when - the world will act.  It will require a significant change from everyone to move to a carbon free (or less intensive) life style.  It is a political hot-potato but it seems, although slowly, the world is moving towards a less carbon energy system. 
Jump on board or risk being left behind and becoming a dinosaur.   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> At this point, it seems it would be appropriate to remind ourselves of that wonderful line that SBD shared with us a few pages ago...   
> Seriously, Doc, the goal posts have long moved. The AGW science is accepted and the onus of proof has also shifted. If you don't like the AGW science, the burden is on you to disprove it. 
> The political question is what - and when - the world will act. It will require a significant change from everyone to move to a carbon free (or less intensive) life style. It is a political hot-potato but it seems, although slowly, the world is moving towards a less carbon energy system. 
> Jump on board or risk being left behind and becoming a dinosaur.

  Very typical, propaganda designed to whip people into line. What a joke this post is Chrisp. You may fool some people with this rubbish but not everyone will fall for it.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Interesting.   

> *"I'm 63 and I'm Tired"* *By*_ Robert A. Hall_    *I'm 63*. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard,since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.     *I'm tired* of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.     *I'm tired* of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.     *I'm tired* of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and mandrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America and Canada, while no American nor Canadian group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.     *I'm tired* of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate.  *I'm tired* of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off?   *I'm tired* of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.     *I'm real tired* of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.     *Yes, I'm damn tired*. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.     *Robert  A.. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate.  There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!
> This is your chance to make a difference.*

----------


## Dr Freud

> OT but some people have difficulty accepting some theories.

  I accept all theories.  As theories.  Not as facts.   

> Any facts that interfere with their beliefs are rejected.

  I accept all facts. As facts. There is no place in science for acting on "beliefs". 
So anyway, back to AGW Theory and those who "believe" it is real.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> Guilty as charged, your Honour!  
> I can't be wrong.  
> You see, you support a theory that has yet to be proven or disproven.  If it is disproven one day, then you will be wrong.  
> I say that until you theory is proven or disproven, it is just a theory like all the others out there.  You have no evidence proving your theory, and until you do, it is just a theory.  This is not my "belief", this is the scientific method.  Therefore, it's impossible for me to be wrong.  If you present evidence proving your theory, it will become a fact that I will accept.  Until then, it is just another theory.   
> Either way, I am always right.

  Which is why there is no point in continuing to discuss AGW with you.  
This is not scepticism, it is denial. 
Your position is against accepted scientific values for scientific theories. Same goes for your position on the models you love to hate. 
You are treating the shift between theory and fact as a binary event that happens before it is possible for it to happen, and introducing a paradox by requesting proof of that shift prior to its occurrence and then trading the inability to comply as your reason for denial. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> I accept all theories.  As theories.  Not as facts. 
> I accept all facts. As facts. There is no place in science for acting on "beliefs". 
> So anyway, back to AGW Theory and those who "believe" it is real.

  Isn't it *Ironic* and *hypocritical* of you to state that "There is no place in science for acting on 'beliefs'". 
Your refusal to accept the AGW theory means you don't accept science.  Therefore, your stance is a "belief".

----------


## Dr Freud

> At this point, it seems it would be appropriate to remind ourselves of that wonderful line that SBD shared with us a few pages ago...

  At this point, it seems it would be appropriate to remind ourselves of that wonderful response to SBD, shared with us a few pages ago...   

> Unfortunately, you have fallen into the trap of accepting a false premise.  Don't feel too bad as this is easy to do when an argument aligns with your own.  I myself have fallen for this trick a few times too.  
> You see, his false premise is that people who disagree with AGW Theory don't "accept the current science".  This is an oldy but a goody used by AGW Theory protagonists to paint people who oppose their theoretical position as "anti-science".  I wholeheartedly accept all of the "current science", as do most of the people I know who disagree with AGW Theory. 
> The real question that lay people unfortunately can't/won't/don't research, is what exactly is the "current science", as opposed to the current mainstream scientific opinion. 
> That is why I like to spell it out regularly for the common folk like myself: *
> There is* *zero scientific evidence proving AGW Theory!*  
> This is the "current science", and I accept it.   So I guess then we have something to debate, even based on the false premise you have quoted.

     

> Seriously, Doc, the goal posts have long moved.

  The scientific method has not changed, therefore the goal posts have not moved.  :No:  
Acceptance of opinions (scientific or political) over facts is a move I do not agree with if this is what you are referring to?    

> If you don't like the AGW science, the burden is on you to disprove it.

  "Liking" science is irrelevant.  The scientific method does not accept all theories as reality until disproven.  One day I hope this will sink in.  :No:    

> The political question is what - and when - the world will act. It will require a significant change from everyone to move to a carbon free (or less intensive) life style. It is a political hot-potato but it seems, although slowly, the world is moving towards a less carbon energy system.

  In the words of Darryl Kerrigan, "Tell him he's dreamin". 
Just out of curiosity, how much has China reduced it's coal mining volume by?
Just out of curiosity, how much has India reduced it's coal mining volume by?
Just out of curiosity, how much has USA reduced it's coal mining volume by?
Just out of curiosity, how much has Australia reduced it's coal mining volume by? 
I have previously pointed out to no avail that using renewables *"as well as fossil fuels"* is irrelevant, as they don't suck CO2 out of the air.  It is only renewables used *"instead of fossil fuels"* that will allegedly make a difference.  Not according to me, according to the theory you guys support.  A trillion windmills and a trillion PV systems will make *zero* difference if they do not *replace* any fossil fuels burnt. 
Unless you guys can demonstrate substantial CO2 *reductions* on a global scale, you are literally p-ssing into the wind turning your windmills. 
At least you got the political bit right, that's all this is.   

> Jump on board or risk being left behind and becoming a dinosaur.

  No thanks, bandwagons aren't my thing.  :Biggrin:  
But I do like dinosaurs.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Which is why there is no point in continuing to discuss AGW with you.  
> woodbe.

  Only if you agree that you have no proof of your theory.  If you have the proof, please present it and I will regard this farce as a fact.   

> This is not scepticism, it is denial. 
> woodbe.

  What am I denying?  Seriously, this one is not being obtuse.   

> Your position is against accepted scientific values for scientific theories. 
> woodbe.

  Please explain exactly how?  I constantly ask you and your cohort to apply the scientific method to your dubious theory, and you prefer to obfuscate.  I'm still waiting for any evidence whatsoever you choose to provide?  
And I constantly support all theories, as theories not realities, including this farcical one.   

> Same goes for your position on the models you love to hate. 
>  woodbe.

  I have no problems with models being assumption based flawed tools that  can "assist" scientific endeavours to varying degrees, depending on many assumptions and arbitrary variables.  But they are *not* proof of anything in real world, particularly these flawed models.  They certainly are *not* proof of AGW Theory. 
Or do you think they should be used as proof of AGW Theory?  Because the IPCC certainly does.  :Doh:    

> You are treating the shift between theory and fact as a binary event that happens before it is possible for it to happen, and introducing a paradox by requesting proof of that shift prior to its occurrence and then trading the inability to comply as your reason for denial. 
> woodbe.

  I am not treating anything my friend.  A theory is a theory.  Reality always triumphs over theories. 
So again, exactly what am I denying? That theories should supersede reality?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Isn't it *Ironic* and *hypocritical* of you to state that "There is no place in science for acting on 'beliefs'".

  Er, no.  This is neither ironic nor hypocritical, it is the scientific method.  :2thumbsup:    

> Your refusal to accept the AGW theory means you don't accept science.  Therefore, your stance is a "belief".

  Pay attention now, *I do accept AGW Theory* as a theory.  I can put this in bigger font if it still seems ambiguous, because I have said it over and over, but it doesn't seem to sink in. 
I *do accept the science* in this area of research. 
AGW Theory has *not been proven*! 
This is *not my belief, this is a fact*. 
Now, if your complaint is that I do not believe that something is real, that has not been proven to be real, then call me an *atheist* and be done with it.  :Biggrin:  
This "denial" cr-p is so misguided as to be nonsensical.  I still don't really know exactly who these "denialists" are, and what they are denying.  :Doh:

----------


## chrisp

> This "denial" cr-p is so misguided as to be nonsensical.  I still don't really know exactly who these "denialists" are, and what they are denying.

  Doc, I think you might be taking your denialism too far.  Its starting to sound like you are denying your own existence.  Maybe it a reverse form of "I think, therefore I am"? *"Climate change denial* is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.  Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate  scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that  debate. Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States. Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism. 
The scientific opinion on climate change is that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity. However, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions (including economic  ones), to take in response. Numerous authors, including several  scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations  and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of  climate change since the 1990s. On the other hand, some commentators have criticized the phrase as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views and portray them as immoral. 
The relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate  change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the  tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific  evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a  direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships. Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials."From: Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## woodbe

> Only if you agree that you have no proof of your theory.  If you have the proof, please present it and I will regard this farce as a fact. 
> What am I denying?  Seriously, this one is not being obtuse. 
> Please explain exactly how?  I constantly ask you and your cohort to apply the scientific method to your dubious theory, and you prefer to obfuscate.  I'm still waiting for any evidence whatsoever you choose to provide?  
> And I constantly support all theories, as theories not realities, including this farcical one. 
> I have no problems with models being assumption based flawed tools that  can "assist" scientific endeavours to varying degrees, depending on many assumptions and arbitrary variables.  But they are *not* proof of anything in real world, particularly these flawed models.  They certainly are *not* proof of AGW Theory. 
> Or do you think they should be used as proof of AGW Theory?  Because the IPCC certainly does.  
> I am not treating anything my friend.  A theory is a theory.  Reality always triumphs over theories. 
> So again, exactly what am I denying? That theories should supersede reality?

  I've got better things to do than to try and discuss a scientific theory that predicts the future with someone expecting proof to magically appear in the present. That's not how scientific theories work, and its not how science works. 
You're sacked.  :Exclaim:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Doc, I think you might be taking your denialism too far. Its starting to sound like you are denying your own existence. Maybe it a reverse form of "I think, therefore I am"? *"Climate change denial* is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States. Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism. 
> The scientific opinion on climate change is that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity. However, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions (including economic ones), to take in response. Numerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s. On the other hand, some commentators have criticized the phrase as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views and portray them as immoral. 
> The relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships. Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials."From: Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Thats a great reference to a explanation of a term but it really doesn't relate to why we should be pay a tax on CO2, when the industrial power house nations on the globe who produce most of it are willing to pay unitedly as well, Australia is not a industrial global power house & probably never will be in ours or childrens life times. All we are doing if we go down this path before the global community does it as a whole is just shooting our economy in the foot 
regards inter
Ps I'm not a warming sceptic, but I am a CO2 as the cause sceptic.

----------


## chrisp

> Thats a great reference to a explanation of a term but it really doesn't relate to why we should be pay a tax on CO2, when the industrial power house nations on the globe who produce most of it is willing to pay unitedly as well, Australia is not a industrial global power house & probably never will be in ours or childrens life times. All we are doing if we go down this path before the global community does it as a whole is just shooting our economy in the foot 
> PS I'm not a global warming sceptic, but I am a sceptical that CO2 is the cause of global warming  
> regards inter

  Inter, 
I don't know if you know just how dependent Australia is on CO2 intensive fuel sources?   

> *Australia    was the world's largest coal exporter and the fourth largest LNG exporter in 2009.* 
> From: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Australia/Background.html

  The world is moving away from fossil fuels, so if we just stuck our head in the sand and pretended that it isn't happening, we'll be in major economic trouble.

----------


## intertd6

> Inter,  1 I don't know if you know just how dependent Australia is on CO2 intensive fuel sources?  2 The world is moving away from fossil fuels, so if we just stuck our head in the sand and pretended that it isn't happening, we'll be in major economic trouble.

  
1. And ?
2. I'll add to the first bit, trying to move away from
the second bit, after you have pulled your head out of the sand you might want to find out how much of our economy is presently relying on these resources which in a way helped this country escape the GFC vertually unscathed, in a market society if Australia individually was to jack up the price of fossil fuels with an added CO2 tax all our fossil fuel exports would stop immediately, now that would be clever.
regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

*I've got to have a rant about this. Crap like this does the rounds on email all the time.  They are a mixture of  lies, half truths, exaggeration and generalisations. But people get sucked in by them. The language used is expressly designed to trigger an emotional reaction in people. For example he uses the term "govt will take my money, by force if necessary" instead of "I have to pay my taxes like everyone else" Attacks on the unemployed are par for the course too and his statement is intended to convey the impression that a large amount of taxes go to welfare benefits to support those who are "too lazy to earn it" and "don't have his work ethic" This allows him to avoid any responsibility the Republican govt may have for their economy going bad. In the right wing nutters world the unemployed are solely responsible for their fate. 
Islam is a popular target in the US, again because it revives a strong emotional response. The actions of a few are used to demonise a large population. It is unlikely that "every day I can read dozens of stories"is accurate but if so it ignores the reality that in the US  Muslim horror stories sell newspapers, and amongst an Islamic population of  over one billion, there might just possibly be a few extremists. 
These things only make sense if you turn off your brain. 
I'm 63*. Except for one semester in  college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between  jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard,since I was 18.  Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and  haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary,  but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I  am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired.  Very tired.    *Only 50 hrs a week, what are you bitching about? For your six figure salary, lots would be happy to take your place. *   *I'm tired* of being told that I have to  "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of  being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if  necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.    *Mostly your govt is taking your money to pay for the wars your fellow republican president committed to, found those  weapons of mass destruction yet? Better banking regulation might have helped too. *  *I'm tired*  of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can  read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and  daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight  offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't  "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning  teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the  genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an  and Shari'a law tells them to.     *Genital mutilation is not in the Qur'an, it's just a cruel tribal custom. Americans have never murdered innocent civilians, well, except when they bomb the crap out of their country. But yes religion is stupid.*   *I'm tired* of being  told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia  use our oil money to fund mosques and mandrassa Islamic schools to  preach hate in America and Canada, while no American nor Canadian group  is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi  Arabia to teach love and tolerance.    *Here's a thought. If you don't like what the Arabs do with the money you give them, how about you stop giving it to them*.  *I'm tired* of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. *For a politician you seem very ignorant of your own law, that one about free speech. Some one forgot to tell the whole internet about this ban on debating AGW. And your lower living standards are more due to taxes to fund wars and budget deficits, some of which your Republican collegues ran up, presumably with your approval. *  *I'm tired*  of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support  and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush  out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses  while they tried to fight it off?   *All crime is a cost to society. Why single out junkies? Who has done more harm to your economy recently, drug dealers or Wall St dealers? Who got the biggest handout? *  *I'm tired* of hearing  wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking  about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we  all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of  people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.     *Well off white folks can afford to feel this way*.  *I'm real tired*  of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions.  I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or  big-whatever for their problems.   *See below *  *Yes, I'm damn tired*.  But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to  see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my  granddaughter.  *As a politician you, and the Republican Party you support, have had a role in shaping the world. Take responsibility for your actions.* *Robert  A.. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate.  *

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Been doing some learning recently as a result of my professional association with water & sustainability and my interest in energy sustainability. 
And what have I been learning from?  This place The Natural Edge Project - Australian Sustainability Think Tank which is a collaboration between the CSIRO, a bunch of universities and The Institution of Engineers. 
They offer online training services for students and professionals - primarily with respect to engineering and supply systems development - with the intention of providing knowledge around how to developand manage such systems ina sustainable manner. 
The first is devoted to water TNEP Engineering Sustainable Solutions Program - Sustainable Water Solutions Portfolio The intent of the course is to provide water supply engineers with information that may help them adapt their systems to cope with the risks posed by climate change 
It is a massive course of material - over 500 pages of lecture notes and the like and certainly not aimed at the average punter on the street but if you are interested in how water supply systems in this country are managed then this might be of interest to you. 
The other ripper course is TNEP Engineering Sustainable Solutions Program - Sustainable Energy Solutions Portfolio and it's easier to explain using their words: 
"This                                  600+ page online education program provides free                                  access to a comprehensive education and training                                  package that brings together the knowledge of                                  how countries, specifically Australia, can achieve                                  at least 60 percent cuts to greenhouse gas emissions                                  by 2050. This resource has been developed in line                                  with the activities of the CSIRO Energy Transformed                                  Flagship research program which is focused on                                  research that will assist Australia to achieve                                  this target. This training package provides industry,                                  governments, business and households with the                                  knowledge they need to realise at least 30 percent                                  energy efficiency savings in the short term while                                  providing a strong basis for further improvement.                                  It also provides an updated overview of advances                                  in low carbon technologies, renewable energy and                                  sustainable transport to help achieve a sustainable                                  energy future. Whist this education and training                                  package has an Australian focus, it outlines sustainable                                  energy strategies and provide links to numerous                                  online reports which will assist climate change                                  mitigation efforts globally. This training program                                  seeks to compliment other initiatives seeking                                  to encourage the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions                                  through behaviour change, sustainable consumption,                                  and constructive changes in economic incentives                                  and policy." 
Fairly epic stuff from a bunch of engineers!  Recommended.

----------


## chrisp

> 1. And ?
> 2. I'll add to the first bit, trying to move away from
> the second bit

  Inter, 
Don't hold back.  We're all friends here.  Let it rip.   

> after you have pulled your head out of the sand you  might want to find out how much of our economy is presently relying on  these resources which in a way helped this country escape the GFC  vertually unscathed, in a market society if Australia individually was  to jack up the price of fossil fuels with an added CO2 tax all our  fossil fuel exports would stop immediately, now that would be clever.

  I have no doubt that we survived the GFC due to being 'China's quarry'.  However, it was a rather lucky and precarious outcome. 
There is no serious suggestion that Australia, and Australia alone, would solely implement a carbon price.  But the fact is AGW is happening and, eventually, the world will respond by reducing its "carbon footprint".  It is immaterial whether the reduction in carbon usage comes about by incentives to other technologies, or by disincentives to carbon technologies in the form of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme.  The demand of carbon will reduce - _and_ - the demand for other energy technologies will increase. 
Are you suggesting that we just continue on our merry way digging up coal and hoping someone will buy it? 
As hard as it is, and as uncomfortable as it might be, I think (to quote an old cliché) we ought to be part of the solution, and not part of the problem.  We may not get by being 'China's (or whosoever) quarry' next time.  *Anyway, I think you have opened up a very valid aspect of this topic for debate - our response to AGW.*   :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *Anyway, I think you have opened up a very valid aspect of this topic for debate - our response to AGW.*

  Option 1: No response necessary - Business as usual because its all either too hard, too expensive, simply bullsh_t or all of the above.
Option 2: Response necessary but easier leave it to some one else (also called 'The La-La-La Model')
Option 3: Response necessary but not right now (also called 'The La-La-La 2.0 Model')
Option 4: Response necessary...cue inarticulate bickering about the response then have an inquiry (also called 'The La-La-La 2.1 Model')
Option 5: Response necessary....everybody holds hands and adopts sustainable lifestyles  (also called 'The La-La-La Land Model')
Option 6: Response necessary...don't bother fixing anything just focus on enhancing adaption technology, techniques and behaviours (as known as 'The Still Broken Model') 
I'm sure there's many more....

----------


## chrisp

> The other ripper course is TNEP Engineering Sustainable Solutions Program - Sustainable Energy Solutions Portfolio and it's easier to explain using their words: 
> (clip) 
> Fairly epic stuff from a bunch of engineers!  Recommended.

  An excellent link.  Thanks for that. 
It warms the cockles of my heart to know that there are all those wonderful engineers and scientists quietly working away in the background solving our problems.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It warms the cockles of my heart to know that there are all those wonderful engineers and scientists quietly working away in the background solving our problems.

  Trying.....'trying' is the key word. Bear in mind that a 'problem' is only a problem if it is perceived to be a problem. If there is no perception of a problem then all that work on 'solutions' is merely......

----------


## chrisp

> I *do accept the science* in this area of research. 
> AGW Theory has *not been proven*! 
> This is *not my belief, this is a fact*. 
> Now, if your complaint is that I do not believe that something is real, that has not been proven to be real, then call me an *atheist* and be done with it.

  Let's have a look at a few Australian Government and research organisation websites to see what their stance is on climate change:Victoria  Tackling Climate Change in South Australia - Welcome  Department of Environment and Conservation - Our environment Office of Climate Change  Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency - Home - Think Change Climate Change  Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC) - University of New South Wales - Australia  Climate Change I could easily double this number of reputable websites in Australia, and probably increase it a further 100 times again by quoting reputable websites from around the world. 
Each and every one of them is a reputable organisation.  How many state that the is doubt about AGW? 
Either all of the above have got it wrong (or are corrupt, mislead, guarding their funding, etc.) or perhaps the science behind the AGW is proven (and you are just demanding unreasonable level of proof because AGW doesn't suit your agenda). 
The goal posts have long moved to discussing the *response* to AGW - not whether AGW is real or not.  The science has long moved on.  Just check any (or all) of the above websites. 
It is only a _denialist_ (n.b. not "_sceptic_" - that would be a misuse of the word) tactic to attempt to portray that the jury is still out on AGW science - it isn't.

----------


## intertd6

> Are you suggesting that we just continue on our merry way digging up coal and hoping someone will buy it?

  Since the pollies decided to enter the global free market & remove trade tariffs I think it will stay this way ( selling fossil fuels ) for a while untill a more economical clean fuel solution is developed (which hasn't a deadly half life in the thousands of years) or the resource is expended. We cant afford to do anything else at the present time
regards inter

----------


## chrisp

> Since the pollies decided to enter the global free market & remove trade tariffs I think it will stay this way ( selling fossil fuels ) for a while untill a more economical clean fuel solution is developed (which hasn't a deadly half life in the thousands of years) or the resource is expended.

  Up to this point, I think I completely agree with you.   

> We cant afford to do anything  else at the present time

  I think I sort of agree with this too.  But, I suspect that people will want to continue to use energy and will (grudgingly) pay whatever it costs.  I'm basing this on petrol prices - people complain and complain when petrol prices go up but continue to buy it.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Doc, I think you might be taking your denialism too far.  Its starting to sound like you are denying your own existence.  Maybe it a reverse form of "I think, therefore I am"?

  I don't think, therefore I amn't?  :Biggrin:    

> *"Climate change denial* is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States. Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.

  *Am I organised?* No, you guys constantly complain about my incoherence. *Do I downplay, deny or dismiss the consensus?* No, I fully agree it is there, just laughable. *Is this for commercial or ideological reasons?* No, consensus of opinion is not proof under the scientific method, I am neither paid for the scientific method, nor need to believe in it. *Do I avoid the principles of scientific debate?* No, I constantly annoy you lot by pointing them out, such as opinion is not scientific proof, regardless of whose opinion it is, or how many people have this opinion. *Do I work in or for the energy lobby or think tanks?* No, I wish they paid me for this, I could do it 24/7 then. *Do I care what descriptions idiot journalists (commentators) make up?* No, they're idiots.   

> The scientific *opinion* on climate change is that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity. However, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions (including economic ones), to take in response. Numerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s. On the other hand, some commentators have criticized the phrase as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views and portray them as immoral.

  So, at last we all now agree it's just their *opinion*.
But then in the next sentence, they seem surprised that some people don't treat their opinion as reality.
As for these secret societies, I've never heard of them.  Most of the science I use comes from the IPCC reports and references.
You cannot portray the scientific method as immoral, so this is a ridiculous statement.    

> The relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships. Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials."From: Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  That old chestnut.  You guys obviously aren't just happy falsely linking your opponents to the killing of millions of Jewish people, you also need to falsely link them to the killing of millions of smokers.  All of this character smearing and ad hominem attacks with no evidence whatsoever.  But then, I guess sharing farcical opinions without evidence is what you guys are best at.  
But thanks for this definition of what "denialism" is meant to be in your fantasy land. 
At least we can now all acknowledge that according to your definition, no-one contributing to this thread is an adherent of "climate change denial". 
I reiterate, what a load of cr-p.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I've got better things to do than to try and discuss a scientific theory that predicts the future with someone expecting proof to magically appear in the present. That's not how scientific theories work, and its not how science works. 
> You're sacked.  
> woodbe.

  So let me get this straight:   

> ...a scientific theory that predicts the future...  
> woodbe.

  *
You have a theory that uses computer programs to predict the future?*   :Rotfl:  :Rotfl:  :Rotfl:   
And I'm the one with the problem for asking for scientific proof? 
No wonder I got sacked, talking about reality in that little fantasy!  :Screwy:

----------


## Dr Freud

> ...The world is moving away from fossil fuels...

  Really?  Do you read any of my drivel?   

> In the words of Darryl Kerrigan, "Tell him he's dreamin". 
> Just out of curiosity, how much has China reduced it's coal mining volume by?
> Just out of curiosity, how much has India reduced it's coal mining volume by?
> Just out of curiosity, how much has USA reduced it's coal mining volume by?
> Just out of curiosity, how much has Australia reduced it's coal mining volume by? 
> I have previously pointed out to no avail that using renewables *"as well as fossil fuels"* is irrelevant, as they don't suck CO2 out of the air.  It is only renewables used *"instead of fossil fuels"* that will allegedly make a difference.  Not according to me, according to the theory you guys support.  A trillion windmills and a trillion PV systems will make *zero* difference if they do not *replace* any fossil fuels burnt. 
> Unless you guys can demonstrate substantial CO2 *reductions* on a global scale, you are literally p-ssing into the wind turning your windmills. 
> At least you got the political bit right, that's all this is.

  Let me help you out champ.  :Secret:  
You know those graphs you keep posting showing CO2 levels going *up*? 
When you start posting graphs with CO2 levels going *down*, then you might suspect that:   

> ...The world is moving away from fossil fuels...

----------


## Dr Freud

> Fairly epic stuff from a bunch of engineers!  Recommended.

  I admire your enthusiasm for R&D into more sustainable resource usage, as I too am an advocate.  But let's not get carried away with the hyperbole. 
This may be described as epic:   

> _Coal is cheap._  Coal can provide usable energy at a cost of between $1 and $2 per MMBtu compared to $6 to $12 per MMBtu for oil and natural gas, and coal prices are relatively stable.  _The United States is the Saudi Arabia of Coal._  At current consumption rates and with current technology and land-use restrictions, the U.S. coal reserves would last well over 250 years.With improved technologies, estimated recoverable coal reserves, at current consumption rates, are estimated to be sufficient for 500 years or longer.  _To meet their rising needs, China and India are certain to burn more coal._  It is estimated that 86 percent of incremental world coal demand between now and 2030 will come from China and India.  _Chinas coal output increased from 1.3 billion tons in 2000 to 2.23 billion tons in 2005 making China by far the worlds largest coal producer (next largest is the U.S. with 1.13 billion tons produced in 2005)._  About half of Chinas coal use is for electricity; and 80% of electricity generation is fueled by coal.China reportedly added over 90 gigawatts of new coal-fired power plant capacity in 2006 alone  the equivalent of almost 2 large coal power plants a week, and more than the entire fleet of generating plants in the United Kingdom. Coal and Climate Change Facts | Pew Center on Global Climate Change: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change

  I have fervently argued throughout this thread for more R&D dollars in to energy research as opposed to navel gazing about things such as termites contribution to global warming. 
But mate, it's gonna be a long time before we can shut down the coal plants, unless you like a subsistence lifestyle.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Let's have a look at a few Australian Government and research organisation websites to see what their stance is on climate change:Victoria  Tackling Climate Change in South Australia - Welcome  Department of Environment and Conservation - Our environment Office of Climate Change  Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency - Home - Think Change Climate Change  Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC) - University of New South Wales - Australia  Climate Change I could easily double this number of reputable websites in Australia, and probably increase it a further 100 times again by quoting reputable websites from around the world. 
> Each and every one of them is a reputable organisation.  How many state that the is doubt about AGW?

  If you had just *one fact* proving this farce, you wouldn't need to keep desperately quoting hundreds of opinions.  :Biggrin:    

> Either all of the above have got it wrong (or are corrupt, mislead, guarding their funding, etc.) *or perhaps the science behind the AGW is proven* (and you are just *demanding unreasonable level of proof* because AGW doesn't suit your agenda).

  If this farce is proven scientifically as you suggest, please provide just *one fact* proving this theory? 
Does this sound unreasonable, just *a single fact* rather than an opinion?   

> The goal posts have long moved to discussing the *response* to AGW - not whether AGW is real or not.  The science has long moved on.  Just check any (or all) of the above websites.

  You are right that supporters of AGW Theory try to skip over the scientific discussion now, because all their dodgy data has been refuted scientifically.  All they are left with is opinions.  That is why they, like you, try to skip over their lack of credibility and attempt to just convince people by repetition that *"AGW Theory is real, you just have to believe it, you don't need proof"*.  
Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me... :No:    

> It is only a _denialist_ (n.b. not "_sceptic_" - that would be a misuse of the word) tactic to attempt to portray that the jury is still out on AGW science - it isn't.

  Science doesn't have juries, juries express opinions based on what they see and hear. Juries often get it wrong (ask any prisoner  :Biggrin: ), that's why the scientific method does not rely on opinion, it relies on facts. 
And we've covered your bizarre definition of "denialism" already.  Let me spell it out for you:  *See* *Are* *Ay Pea!* Does that make it easier to comprehend? Say it out loud.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> But, I suspect that people will want to continue to use energy and will (grudgingly) pay whatever it costs.  I'm basing this on petrol prices - people complain and complain when petrol prices go up but continue to buy it.

  But, I suspect you live in a fantasy land!  :Doh:    

> Here's more green dream schemes: 
> Here's what happens when you wake up from the dream:      *SURGING numbers of Queenslanders are having their electricity cut off because they cannot afford to pay soaring power bills.*  
> Latest figures show that 344 households were disconnected every week due to non-payment over the past year. The total of 17,913 was a 20 per cent jump on the previous year.
> Another 1683 small business customers also were cut off, up from 1414, the Queensland Competition Authority's annual report shows.
> Queensland Council of Social Service (QCOSS) president Karyn Walsh said the rising level of disconnections was a clear sign of the financial pressure on households.
> Electricity bills have climbed more than 18 per cent over the past year, with the industry predicting a further 60 per cent hike during the next five years.   Queenslanders getting power cut off as power bills soar | Courier Mail    At least emissions are going down as more families, pensioners and small businesses get cut off from the electricity grid.  We may meet our targets after all.  Just a pity they weren't told the truth that emissions reductions means you now can't afford electricity.   
> Maybe these sceptic bludgers should have just made the *"choice"* to have a massive PV system installed and been subsidised by the other taxpayers.  Oops, they are the other taxpayers whose bills were hiked to fund the "Carbonista's".

  They are not buying your BS, and they are not buying electricity any more either pal.  :Doh:

----------


## PhilT2

I just want to leave this here and hopefully will get back to it tonight
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JkcHW_w114&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Nicotine is not addictive - www.logicalscience.com[/ame] 
So much material, so little time.

----------


## woodbe

> What fudged data? Who me? Hasen and Giss are a joke.

  As I thought, the truth would come out, and the result is that the only 'jokes' out of this are Stoddard and Watts:   
Image from Open Mind where there is a complete explanation of how these temperature series should be compared, in brief:   

> He also seems oblivious to the fact that if you want to compare two data sets, you must use the _same_  baseline.  Seriously, folks.  If you want to compare GISS and UAH, or  HadCRUT3v and RSS, you have to put them on the same baseline or your  comparison is meaningless.

  That's a pretty basic error, do you think it was accidental?   

> The present value of GISS _in comparison to UAH_ is nothing at all out of the ordinary.  In fact its in perfect accord with the idea that during the recent _el Nino_, the GISS-UAH difference would be less than average, but now that weve transitioned to _la Nina_ the GISS-UAH difference will be above average.  Explain that to Anthony.

  
So Rod, once again we see that your denialist idols are bereft of the ability or intention (or both) to deliver their doting congregation the truth. Both Anthony Watts and Steven Goddard have repeatedly failed to deliver valid criticism of the science behind AGW, and are so keen to show AGW and Hansen et al in bad light that they appear to engage in deliberate misinformation. 
What do you expect when a TV Weatherman starts attempting scientific AGW analysis on the basis of a preconception that it is wrong? 
Look elsewhere for valid scientific analysis and scepticism. 
woodbe

----------


## chrisp

> I admire your enthusiasm for R&D into more sustainable resource usage, as I too am an advocate.  But let's not get carried away with the hyperbole. 
> This may be described as epic:     _Coal is cheap._  Coal can provide usable energy at a  cost of between $1 and $2 per MMBtu compared to $6 to $12 per MMBtu for  oil and natural gas, and coal prices are relatively stable.  _The United States is the Saudi Arabia of Coal._  At  current consumption rates and with current technology and land-use  restrictions, the U.S. coal reserves would last well over 250 years.With  improved technologies, estimated recoverable coal reserves, at current  consumption rates, are estimated to be sufficient for 500 years or  longer.  _To meet their rising needs, China and India are certain to burn more coal._  It is estimated that 86 percent of incremental world coal demand between now and 2030 will come from China and India.  _China’s  coal output increased from 1.3 billion tons in 2000 to 2.23 billion  tons in 2005 making China by far the world’s largest coal producer (next  largest is the U.S. with 1.13 billion tons produced in 2005)._  About half of China’s coal use is for electricity; and 80% of electricity generation is fueled by coal.China  reportedly added over 90 gigawatts of new coal-fired power plant  capacity in 2006 alone – the equivalent of almost 2 large coal power  plants a week, and more than the entire fleet of generating plants in  the United Kingdom. Coal and Climate Change Facts | Pew Center on Global Climate Change: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change    I have fervently argued throughout this thread for more R&D dollars in to energy research as opposed to navel gazing about things such as termites contribution to global warming. 
> But mate, it's gonna be a long time before we can shut down the coal plants, unless you like a subsistence lifestyle.

  *You are cherry picking again!* 
If the reader cares to follow the Doc's link (which is a Carbon Capture and Storage website), you will see towards the end:*What we need to do in the face of these facts:* _Domestically, we need a multi-pronged approach to advancing CCS._  (a few points have been clipped)*Most recent estimates indicate that a price of at least $25 to $30 per ton of CO2 would be needed to drive coal-based electric power plants to install CCS.*And while you are there, why not read... Global Warming Basics | Pew Center on Global Climate Change: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change_"The science is clear: climate change is happening, and it is linked directly to human activities that emit greenhouse gases."_So the Doc has quoted a carbon-capture and storage website to support his premise that coal is cheap, but has neglected to mention that they also support a *carbon price* and state that* AGW is real*. 
... and he has the gall to feign offence at the term denialist!  :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I admire your enthusiasm for R&D into more sustainable resource usage, as I too am an advocate.  But let's not get carried away with the hyperbole. 
> This may be described as epic: 
> [Freud's acts about coal] 
> I have fervently argued throughout this thread for more R&D dollars in to energy research as opposed to navel gazing about things such as termites contribution to global warming. 
> But mate, it's gonna be a long time before we can shut down the coal plants, unless you like a subsistence lifestyle.

  Freud....my idea of epic in this case refers to the amount of quality information provided in those texts. 
Agree about the coal situation....because it is so cheap to dig up and burn to boil water for power then there is no apparent financial imperative to do anything else, like fund alternative energy research.  However, if one accepts that by burning the coal we are creating additional costs (through climate change) and then adds that to the "cost to dig & burn" which produces a price that suggests to some that power from coal is on the expensive side.....then you have a financial imperative for R&D. 
Coal fired PS in Oz won't be shut down until they reach the end of their economic life - in most cases that is decades away.  However, I reckon that if we really wanted to make the best use of alternative energy then we could do it in this country in the time it would take to design build and commision a nuclear power station on the Australian eastern seaboard (about 20 years)....these guys www.beyondzeroemmisions.org reckon we can do it in ten Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan available now - download or purchase your copy | Beyond Zero Emissions but I figure what is the hurry. 
As for alternative energy suiting only a subsistence lifestyle.....now who is scaremongering?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Up to this point, I think I completely agree with you.   
> I think I sort of agree with this too. But, I suspect that people will want to continue to use energy and will (grudgingly) pay whatever it costs. I'm basing this on petrol prices - people complain and complain when petrol prices go up but continue to buy it.

  Yes they do because they have to. 
Well, then we just pass the costs on to our clients, wages go up etc, inflation goes up and we are back where we started.  So what then artificially jack up energy prices some more to have another go on the merry go round? 
What a joke.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> As I thought, the truth would come out, and the result is that the only 'jokes' out of this are Stoddard and Watts:   
> Image from Open Mind where there is a complete explanation of how these temperature series should be compared, in brief:   
> That's a pretty basic error, do you think it was accidental?    
> So Rod, once again we see that your denialist idols are bereft of the ability or intention (or both) to deliver their doting congregation the truth. Both Anthony Watts and Steven Goddard have repeatedly failed to deliver valid criticism of the science behind AGW, and are so keen to show AGW and Hansen et al in bad light that they appear to engage in deliberate misinformation. 
> What do you expect when a TV Weatherman starts attempting scientific AGW analysis on the basis of a preconception that it is wrong? 
> Look elsewhere for valid scientific analysis and scepticism. 
> woodbe

  What ever dodgy data method floats your boat woodbe.   
Here is Watts response.  

> *Jack Greer* _says:_  December 12, 2010 at 12:54 pm 
> REPLY: Hansen is using an outdated base period. 1951-1980 to calculate anomaly, whereas other metric are using more recent periods.  Anthony
> ________
> What constitutes an outdated base period, Anthony? Whats your definition? Dont you think the Satellite measurement base periods might be different for reasons other than outdatedness? *REPLY:* Theres a WMO standard for normals and their periods. Used by NOAA for years, of using the last 30 years as a base period, rather than one 30 years ago, and updating every ten years. 
> From NOAAs FAQs http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/faqs/climfaq23.html Normals are best used as a base against which climate during the following decade can be measured. Comparison of normals from one 30-year period to normals from another 30-year period may lead to erroneous conclusions about climatic change. This is due to changes over the decades in station location, in the instrumentation used, in how weather observations were made, and in how the various normals were computed. The differences between normals due to these non-climatic changes may be larger than the differences due to a true change in climate.and Normals cover a 30year period of record, and are updated through the end of each decade ending in zero (e.g., 1951-1980, 1961-1990, etc.). Normals are generally computed shortly after all data for the period has been received by NCDC and quality control processing has completed.So in essence, using 1951 to 1980 GISS is thirty years behind the climate normal times. If I wrote a peer review paper today and used old base periods it would get tossed on that basis alone. But hey, if you are the GISS king of climate science, any old base period goes for your work.  Anthony

  Hansen feels the need to explain why GISS is high in the midst of frigid air | Watts Up With That? 
You see what happens here when you change the base lines don't you?  Giss comes back.  But Hanson would rather show the temps appearing higher.  Now why is that i wonder?   
See how crooked this is. Or don't you?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Can somebody explain this to me?  
Why didn't Co2 increase the temps in the past?  https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ature-and-co2/

----------


## chrisp

> Can somebody explain this to me?  
> Why didn't Co2 increase the temps in the past?  https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ature-and-co2/

  Have you tried searching the web?  Or maybe you don't really want to know the answer?  CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician 
BTW, to show just two variables and state there is no correlation is just a gross simplification at best, or deceptive at worst.  Do you think that CO2 levels are the only determinant of temperature over that long time period?

----------


## chrisp

> So, at last we all now agree it's just their *opinion*.
> But then in the next sentence, they seem surprised that some people don't treat their opinion as reality.

  The penny drops! 
It seems that you are confusing "*scientific opinion*" with everyday "*opinion*".  Do you know they are different and have quite different meanings?A "*scientific opinion*" is any opinion formed via the *scientific method*, and so is necessarily *evidence-backed*. A *scientific opinion* which represents the *formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment*, often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the scientific evidence upon which the opinion is based. "The scientific opinion" (or scientific consensus)  can be compared to "the public opinion" and generally refers to the  collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations  and entities and individual scientists in the relevant field.From: Opinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI'm sorry.  I should have picked up on your confusion earlier.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Have you tried searching the web? Or maybe you don't really want to know the answer?  CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician 
> BTW, to show just two variables and state there is no correlation is just a gross simplification at best, or deceptive at worst. Do you think that CO2 levels are the only determinant of temperature over that long time period?

  LMAO Nice little WARMISTS hand book you have there. You believe everything in it I guess? 
"The science says" LMAO

----------


## woodbe

> What ever dodgy data method floats your boat woodbe.   
> Here is Watts response. Hansen feels the need to explain why GISS is high in the midst of frigid air | Watts Up With That? 
> You see what happens here when you change the base lines don't you?  Giss comes back.  But Hanson would rather show the temps appearing higher.  Now why is that i wonder?   
> See how crooked this is. Or don't you?

  I absolutely don't. These are records, Rod. You clearly have not investigated this thoroughly. 
Dodgy data methods? I guess you're serious? This is a pretty amazing display of ignorance by Watts. Pity you cannot see through it. 
The temperature series is a long term record based on a chosen baseline. Once you know the baseline, you can do whatever you like with it to compare it against other temperature series. When you do that with GISS it corresponds with the other long term series - the trend is up in all of them.  
Trying to plug Hansen over this is just nuts. Its a temperature distribution. Its showing significant warming. Build a bridge and get over it. 
Here are some absolute gems coming out of Anthony's mouth in this thread:   

> *REPLY:* Hansen is using an outdated base period.  1951-1980 to calculate anomaly,  whereas other metric are using more  recent periods.  Anthony

  There is no such thing as an 'outdated' base period. There is a base period published with the data, that's it.   

> *REPLY:* The Y axis values would be different.  Exactly, and Novembers GISS value, the one everyone is yelling  about, would be different (higher or lower) depending on the base period  used .   Anthony

  Anwered succinctly on Watt's site by commenter _barry_   

> If you raised the baseline, thereby lowering the anomaly value, the  results would still be the same  the value for November would have the  same relationship to every other anomaly in the GISS record and the  trend wouldnt change. Similarly, the UAH values would have the same  relationship to UAH anomalies if they changed their baseline. The  problem here is that you have not noted that the baselines are  different, and therefore you are comparing apples to oranges. If you  want to compare apples to apples:  *UAH 0.38 GISS 0.46* (adjusted to match baselines) 
>  The correct difference is 0.08C, instead of 0.36C. Omitting the baseline adjustment magnifies the difference 6-fold. 
>  GISS explain their choice of baseline (they even point it out in the  parts you cited), as does UAH. When GISS compare their anomalies with  other data sets, they adjust baseline accordingly. So does UAH. So  should anyone comparing them. 
>  The public is generally not aware of the actual anomalies, and the  only people that compare anomalies across data sets are the small number  of climate bloggers and their followers. It would take no more than two  sentences to amend the oversight in your post.  
> GISS first began publishing on the temperature record in 1981. Their  baseline choice was then the most recent 30 years. All they have done  since is be consistent, and you surmise a strategic intent. There is no  good reason (only political ones) for them to use an alternative  baseline. 
>  Similarly, UAH have not changed their 20-year baseline choice, even  though they now have 30 years of data. They, too, have published values  and graphs based on the initial climatology, and they also seem to think  it practical to keep the baseline consistent.

  Amazing stuff this. If you are a denialist, you don't like to see warming, so you attack the records. I don't know a lot about the specifics of the GISS record, but from what I hear it has more emphasis on the arctic than other series, and we know that the arctic has significant warming so I'm not sure why you are surprised at the result?  
Oh, yea. I forgot. You think Hansen is a crook, so he must have done it. Never mind that his focus is on long term trends, trends that are reflected in every long term temperature series we have: Warming. Significant. 
You really don't get it do you?   

> Of course, for meaningful comparison we should put both series on the  same baseline.  I selected 1979.0 to 2000.0, reset both series, and got  this:  
> The present value of GISS _in comparison to UAH_ is nothing at all out of the ordinary.  In fact its in perfect accord with the idea that during the recent _el Nino_, the GISS-UAH difference would be less than average, but now that weve transitioned to _la Nina_ the GISS-UAH difference will be above average.  Explain that to Anthony.

  
woodbe.

----------


## twinny

there is a very serious risk that this thread which is increasing by many pages daily is contributing to global warming, and at the very least is sucking up much precious coal fired power that could be better given to bligh(t's) upper middle class poor who can no longer afford to boil the kettle so are pulling down their fences to boil the billy   :Rofl:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> LMAO Nice little WARMISTS hand book you have there. You believe everything in it I guess?

  You have yours.....we have ours. 
Do you believe yours? 
At least ours gives me the choice to make my own opinion by providing links to the source material which itself is largely peer reviewed literature. 
If you accept that the climate is indeed getting warmer (and I believe you do) then if it isn't greenhouse gases (that includes CO2) that are doing it.....what the hell is?  Oh and please prove it.  Tell me why I shouldn't be concerned because what's happening is actually a natural process...

----------


## woodbe

In case we need reminding that the Arctic is warming:       
Images from Arctic sea Ice News and Analysis 
woodbe

----------


## Dr Freud

> I just want to leave this here and hopefully will get back to it tonight YouTube - Nicotine is not addictive - www.logicalscience.com 
> So much material, so little time.

  How about you start another thread on the tobacco industry?   :Doh:  
Or you can continue to lose credibility with every post you guys try to distract from the fact you can't prove this farcical theory you support. 
Do you seriously think it does you any good to try and construct a conspiracy theory in an effort to smear anyone who correctly points out you have *zero* evidence proving this farcical theory?  :Biggrin:  
I am bored asking you for any evidence, and every day you can't provide it, more people get bored of this farce and realise it's a crock of --it.  :Slap2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *You are cherry picking again!*

  You are deluded again!  Do you want me to copy and paste the whole website in here. 
Better upgrade your gear Mr Watson.  :Shock:  
But seriously, I provide the full link so you can read to your hearts content, as you yourself point out.   

> If the reader cares to *follow the Doc's link* (which is a Carbon Capture and Storage website), you will see towards the end:

  And I must say, you've uncovered a great big secret!  This is a CCS site that advocates CCS technology.     

> *What we need to do in the face of these facts:* _Domestically, we need a multi-pronged approach to advancing CCS._  (a few points have been clipped)*Most recent estimates indicate that a price of at least $25 to $30 per ton of CO2 would be needed to drive coal-based electric power plants to install CCS.*

  WOW! Unbelievable.  If only I had realised this site supported it's own interests, I would certainly have cut and pasted that info.  :Doh:    

> _"The science is clear: climate change is happening, and it is linked directly to human activities that emit greenhouse gases."_

  Nice opinion.  Looks remarkably like your own.  Don't suppose you have any evidence to back your opinion?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):    

> So the Doc has quoted a carbon-capture and storage website to support his premise that coal is cheap, but has neglected to mention that they also support a *carbon price* and state that* AGW is real*.

  Ah, there you go.  You are starting to join the dots.  I posted *facts* from this site, because had I posted *the same facts* from a coal company, I'd have to put up with ridiculous conspiracies aligning people who support the scientific method with the killing of Jewish people and smoking cigarettes, or whatever the hell you crazy people continue to come up with.   But at least you have started to figure out that CCS companies may occasionally advocate for CCS technology.  Who woulda thunk? 
*** WARNING: Kids should not read any further. *** 
And yes, you correctly point out that they *state* it is real.  Most scientists I know *state* that Santa Claus is real and delivers presents globally (against the known laws of physics).  That is why the scientific method is so heavily reliant on evidence.  Because people can *state* whatever they want, and ignorant people (kiddies at Christmas) who defer to authority figures also *state* the same stuff, leading to lots of people *stating* the same thing. 
Does this then make it real, Santa?  :No:     

> ... and he has the gall to feign offence at the term denialist!

  I didn't feign offence. I pointed out step by step that the definition you provided was being used incorrectly by yourself.  Now I can understand that maybe you couldn't work this out for yourself, but after I have pointed out that you were using your own definition incorrectly, one would hope this ignorance had been abated.  Apparently not. 
Would you like me to outline in more detail why you are using your own term incorrectly?

----------


## Dr Freud

> However, I reckon that if we really wanted to make the best use of alternative energy then we could do it in this country in the time it would take to design build and commision a nuclear power station on the Australian eastern seaboard (about 20 years)....these guys www.beyondzeroemmisions.org reckon we can do it in ten Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan available now - download or purchase your copy | Beyond Zero Emissions but I figure what is the hurry.

  No issues here mate, but what difference would it make to global temperatures if Australia did this?  Also, what would it cost us in economic loss as we compete against coal powered nations using our windmills and solar thermals? And we may as well shut down coal exports immediately.  No point not burning it but selling it to others to burn?  Same for Iron Ore, you know how much energy this stuff uses to transport, smelt, convert, and manufacture?  How's that standard of living looking?   

> As for alternative energy suiting only a subsistence lifestyle.....now who is scaremongering?

  I didn't say anything about alternative energy.  I said if you shut down coal power plants, as the greenie lunatics are advocating.

----------


## chrisp

> Most scientists I know *state* that Santa Claus is real and delivers presents globally (against the known laws of physics).

  I suppose that those 'scientists' that you know that believe in Santa are the same ones that say AGW is a hoax.   :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yes they do because they have to. 
> Well, then we just pass the costs on to our clients, wages go up etc, inflation goes up and we are back where we started.  So what then artificially jack up energy prices some more to have another go on the merry go round? 
> What a joke.

  So, when business costs go up, then their prices go up accordingly to protect profit margins, otherwise they can't afford their power bills and they go out of business. 
See, that's basic economics, but not what Bob Brown promised me. 
He said he would only tax the "big polluters" and little old me wouldn't be affected by price rises. 
Wow, greenie lunatics lied to me for their ideological reasons.  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

Even if you know nothing about science, have a good look at this picture:   

> Can somebody explain this to me?  
> Why didn't Co2 increase the temps in the past?  https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ature-and-co2/

  Now read this quote from the site linked below:   

> Thus the CO2 record during the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.

  Can you see it? Look harder? Still can't see it, huh?  Don't worry, go down to the store tomorrow and get some rose coloured glasses, you will see it everywhere then.  :Biggrin:     

> CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician 
> BTW, to show just two variables and state there is no correlation is just a gross simplification at best, or deceptive at worst.  *Do you think that CO2 levels are the only determinant of temperature over that long time period?*

   :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  
Er, no!  We have been constantly arguing that CO2 levels are *not* the only determinant of temperature, over any time period. It is your farcical theory that now tries to convince us that a few hundred parts per million increase in CO2 levels is suddenly driving an unstoppable never before seen heating fury, and, er, without any evidence proving this whatsoever.  Right until reality gets in the way, now you're suddenly arguing "Oh, it's not just CO2 all the other times, just this time".  
Wait for it... :Lmfao:  :Lmfao:  :Lmfao:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The penny drops! 
> It seems that you are confusing "*scientific opinion*" with everyday "*opinion*".  Do you know they are different and have quite different meanings?A "*scientific opinion*" is any opinion formed via the *scientific method*, and so is necessarily *evidence-backed*. A *scientific opinion* which represents the *formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment*, often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the scientific evidence upon which the opinion is based. "The scientific opinion" (or scientific consensus)  can be compared to "the public opinion" and generally refers to the  collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations  and entities and individual scientists in the relevant field.From: Opinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI'm sorry.  I should have picked up on your confusion earlier.

  Thanks for this mate. 
I should have known to check Wikipedia for the "Opinion Hierarchy". 
From now on I'll be sure to distinguish between normal opinions and really, really important peoples opinions.  :2thumbsup:  
Especially after they formally agree they all have the same opinion?   

> *formally-agreed consensus*

   :Laughing1: You guys do crack me up.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You really don't get it do you?   
> woodbe.

   

> In case we need reminding that the Arctic is warming:       
> Images from Arctic sea Ice News and Analysis 
> woodbe

  These are marvelous short term effects, and very pretty pictures too.  :2thumbsup:  
Any proof of what's causing any of this? Anything? 
You really don't get it do you?

----------


## Dr Freud

> If you accept that the climate is indeed getting warmer (and I believe you do) then if it isn't greenhouse gases (that includes CO2) that are doing it.....what the hell is?

  Here's a *fact* champ, we don't know! 
Humans hate that answer to any question, it really humbles them, removes their Superego's and God complexes.  :Biggrin:  
But there's a very good chance it's what's always been doing it.  And based on current *facts* available, this is a very complex process with untold permutations that we are yet to unravel.     

> Oh and please prove it.

  What do you mean, you want proof that we don't know? 
Would you like this proof just since the hairless apes invented a thermometer, or for the last half a billion years?  Or the full 4.5 billion years the Planet Earth has been here?  The first few hundred million probably shouldn't count cos there was probably no water here then.   

> Tell me why I shouldn't be concerned because what's happening is actually a natural process...

  Be as concerned as you want, it's a free country.  There are plenty of doomsday cults that operate unimpeded.  :2thumbsup:  
But they don't ask for tax increases to be given away as foreign aid to avoid their doomsday scenario.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I suppose that those 'scientists' that you know that believe in Santa are the same ones that say AGW is a hoax.

  Roughly about 70% pro-AGW Theory, and 30% pro-scientific method.  :Biggrin:  
But 100% are pro-Santa Claus with the kiddies!  :Wmann3:  
I guess if we ran the scientific world on scientists *stating their opinions*, we'd be researching flying reindeer?  :Sleigh:

----------


## woodbe

Regarding Watts' failure to understand basic arithmetic, a poster to his blog has carefully and clearly described where Watts' analysis is wrong, and why. Note Watts' response at the end.  
(I've pasted the graphics linked within the original post for your viewing pleasure)   

> Alden Griffith says:                      December 13, 2010 at 6:17 pm 
>           Mr. Watts,
>  The matter that you put forth is that the GISS temperature anomaly  for November 2010 is the odd man out.  Your contribution is to compare  the temperature anomalies of this month from both UAH and GISS.  As  these numbers do not use the same base period, they clearly cannot be  compared at face value.  When compared using a common base period  (1980-1999), the November temperatures are UAH: 0.38  GISS: 0.50°C.   Yes, GISS is higher for November, but not nearly as high as the  incorrect comparison that you present to your readers. 
>  Lets go back to January 2010.  When using the same base period we  get UAH: 0.64  GISS: 0.46°C.  Now, UAH is higher.  It is clear that on a  month-to-month basis, different temperature datasets show  disagreements.  However, what matters most to the larger discussion is  obviously the long-term trend:  all temperature datasets agree that the  world is warming.  If we look at the 5 major temperature datasets from  1979 through 2009, they produce the following decadal trends: 
>  HadCRUT3: 0.158, GISS: 0.165, NOAA: 0.163, UAH: 0.128, RSS:  0.153°C/decade.  Of this group UAH is definitely the odd man out,  although if you include 2010 through November it brings UAH up  considerably.  The big picture is this: if the GISS analysis never  existed, our understanding of global temperatures would be fundamentally  the same. 
>  Now to your assertion that the most widely cited graph on AGW  would have a different look to it if using a different base period.   Starting with the monthly data, Ive recreated the GISS figure using the 1951-1980 base as well as the 1980-1999 base period.        
> The trend is identical and the scale is identical, only shifted.  Im  not sure how you think the choice of base period has significantly  altered the discussion or understanding of global warming  it hasnt.  I  am amazed that you accuse NASA of trying to deceive people by their  inconsequential choice of base period, when you have just deceived your  own audience by incorrectly comparing anomalies that use different base  periods.  Also, if we overlay the UAH data using the same base period,        
> the overall conclusion remains the same.  (If included, the UAH average for 2010 so far is off the scale.)      
>  You have yet to correct your comparison for the November 2010 UAH and  GISS data, nor have you actually addressed that it is entirely  incorrect to compare them using different base periods.  Instead, you  have talked about how using an outdated base period somehow makes  James Hansen even more scandalous, that the GISS dataset is  fundamentally flawed (without mentioning that it is corroborated by all  the other datasets), and you have tried to smear me by suggesting that  by labeling somebody a climate denier, I am labeling them a holocaust  denier.  The first two points do not surprise me, but the third is  insulting, absurd, and inappropriate to the conversation that we should  be having.  *REPLY:* You are right about #3 you shouldnt be using  the word denier as it is in fact insulting. May I suggest you take it  off your website to prove that you are on the level?  Anthony

  Watts thinks discussing the term 'denier' and instructing the poster to remove the word from his own website is somehow more important than engaging his grey matter, learning basic maths and correcting his mistake. 
This is great theatre. Its probably a Tragedy, and I can't help but feel a tiny bit sorry for Watts. He doesn't seem to realise what a fool he is making of himself. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> No issues here mate, but what difference would it make to global temperatures if Australia did this?
> Also, what would it cost us in economic loss as we compete against coal powered nations using our windmills and solar thermals?
> And we may as well shut down coal exports immediately.  No point not burning it but selling it to others to burn?  
> Same for Iron Ore, you know how much energy this stuff uses to transport, smelt, convert, and manufacture?  
> How's that standard of living looking?

  1. Bugger all. No matter which side of the AGW fence you sit.
2. Bugger all. We don't export our power to other countries. As for what we make & export (ie not much)....electrical energy is typically a tiny component of the total manufacturing cost...so still bugger all.
3. Why?  Think of the money we could make charging coal customers a carbon tax.
4. Why?  We only process iron ore for local use and this could be done with a zero emission power system.  How others do it is immaterial and if it produces GHGs then.....so be it.  if the international carbon trading scheme ever gets off the ground then they might have to sort it out.. 
5.  My standard of living is looking rather fine. It is honestly the least of my problems.

----------


## chrisp

> Watts thinks discussing the term 'denier' and  instructing the poster to remove the word from his own website is  somehow more important than engaging his grey matter, learning basic  maths and correcting his mistake.

  The term '*denier*' and '*denialist*' seems to have some a little toey over here too...   

> That old chestnut.  You guys obviously aren't just happy falsely linking your opponents to the killing of millions of Jewish people, you also need to falsely link them to the killing of millions of smokers

  Somehow, they confuse the context of this thread about *AGW denialism* with *holocaust denialism*.   Where did we discuss the Holocaust and accuse them of murder?   :Confused:  
From the above comment on smoking, I'm not sure if the definition of *analogy* is clear to them either. 
Personally, I think the term '*sceptic*' is also being inappropriately used.  After a little bit of reading up, I suspect the correct term might be *pseudo-scepticism*.     

> In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more  extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The  true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not  proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not  borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its  cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim  as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has  no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established  theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts  that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative  hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually  due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a  burden of proof.  - and also from the same piece - 
> Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics," often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on  them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary  to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical  evidence. Thus, if a subject in a psi experiment can be shown to have had an opportunity  to cheat, many critics seem to assume not merely that he probably did cheat, but  that he _must_ have, regardless of what may be the complete absence of evidence  that he did so cheat and sometimes even ignoring evidence of the subject's past reputation  for honesty. Similarly, improper randomization procedures are sometimes assumed to  be the cause of a subject's high psi scores even though all that has been established  is the possibility of such an artifact having been the real cause. Of course, the  evidential weight of the experiment is greatly reduced when we discover an opening  in the design that would allow an artifact to confound the results. Discovering an  opportunity for error should make such experiments less evidential and usually unconvincing.  It usually disproves the claim that the experiment was "air tight" against  error, but it does not _disprove      _ the anomaly claim.  – Marcello Truzzi, _On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, 1987_Can be found at: Commentaries: On Pseudo-Skepticism

  The above is just commentary and opinion. 
However, I do think that the term '*denialism*' has much merit:  

> Anthropologist Didier Fassin distinguishes between _denial_, defined as "the empirical observation that reality and truth are being denied", and *denialism, which he defines as "an ideological position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and truth"*.  *Individuals or groups who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists can engage in denialism when they use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.* Indeed, Seth Kalichman  summarizes the "several incarnations of denialism" by stating: "All  denialism is defined by rhetorical tactics designed to give the  impression of a legitimate debate among experts when in fact there is  none". 
> From: Denialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Doesn't that last line "_All  denialism is defined by rhetorical tactics designed to give the   impression of a legitimate debate among experts when in fact there is   none_" ring true!

----------


## woodbe

Solar systems in place and producing viable power reduce the load on existing power plants, and may extend the time before new power plants need to be built.    
I'm sure the Government also had this information in mind when they decided to subsidise small scale domestic power generation. 
Note the CO2 savings per year for this system of 4.5MW 
Also Note that the NSW Domestic PV Scheme is capped at 300MW - equivalent of 66 Ronneburg systems, and represents an annual CO2 saving of 171,600,000 kg 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> Most scientists I know *state* that Santa Claus is real and delivers presents globally (against the known laws of physics).

   

> I suppose that those 'scientists' that you know that believe in Santa are the same ones that say AGW is a hoax.

   

> Roughly about 70% pro-AGW Theory, and 30% pro-scientific method.  
> But 100% are pro-Santa Claus with the kiddies!  
> I guess if we ran the scientific world on scientists *stating their opinions*, we'd be researching flying reindeer?

  Ask the 'scientists' that you know if, in their *scientific opinion*, whether Santa exists. 
There is a distinct difference between (personal) *opinion* and *scientific opinion*.  Scientific opinion is supported by evidence, whereas personal opinion may just be a preference. 
And while you are at it, ask your scientist friends whether they'd seriously consider "researching flying reindeer"?  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Dr Freud

Nice prettty pictures.  You may recall that they represent things called *effects*.    

> (I've pasted the graphics linked within the original post for your viewing pleasure) 
> woodbe.

    

> These are marvelous short term effects, and very pretty pictures too.  
> Any proof of what's causing any of this? Anything? 
> You really don't get it do you?

    

> He doesn't seem to realise what a fool he is making of himself. 
> woodbe.

  Really?   

> So let me get this straight: *
> You have a theory that uses computer programs to predict the future?*

----------


## Dr Freud

> 1. Bugger all. No matter which side of the AGW fence you sit.

  So you agree it's pointless to the whole AGW Theory cause then.   

> 2. Bugger all. We don't export our power to other countries. As for what we make & export (ie not much)....electrical energy is typically a tiny component of the total manufacturing cost...so still bugger all.

  So you honestly believe that a massive increase in the cost of electricity will have no effect on our economy?   

> 3. Why?  Think of the money we could make charging coal customers a carbon tax.
> 4. Why? We only process iron ore for local use and this could be done with a zero emission power system. How others do it is immaterial and if it produces GHGs then.....so be it. if the international carbon trading scheme ever gets off the ground then they might have to sort it out..

  So if you don't care if they burn coal overseas, why shouldn't we burn it here? 
(P.S. A tariff across a market may work, at one outlet means bankruptcy.)   

> 5.  My standard of living is looking rather fine. It is honestly the least of my problems.

  As long as you're all right, hey Jack!

----------


## Dr Freud

> The term '*denier*' and '*denialist*' seems to have some a little toey over here too... 
> Somehow, they confuse the context of this thread about *AGW denialism* with *holocaust denialism*.   Where did we discuss the Holocaust and accuse them of murder?   
> From the above comment on smoking, I'm not sure if the definition of *analogy* is clear to them either. 
> Personally, I think the term '*sceptic*' is also being inappropriately used.  After a little bit of reading up, I suspect the correct term might be *pseudo-scepticism*.   
> The above is just commentary and opinion. 
> However, I do think that the term '*denialism*' has much merit:
> Doesn't that last line "_All  denialism is defined by rhetorical tactics designed to give the   impression of a legitimate debate among experts when in fact there is   none_" ring true!

  I'll tell you what champ, why don't you take your time and work out exactly which label you'd like to use, then provide us with what you consider to be the definition of that label. 
Then we can all have another laugh at your continuing attempt to define your opponents rather than provide any evidence whatsoever proving this farcical theory.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> What fudged data? Who me? Hasen and Giss are a joke.

   

> That looks horribly like whoever made that graphic didn't shift their baselines

   

> What ever dodgy data method floats your boat woodbe.

   

> You see what happens here when you change the base lines don't you?   Giss comes back.  But Hanson would rather show the temps appearing  higher.  Now why is that i wonder?   
> See how crooked this is. Or don't you?

   

> I absolutely don't. These are records, Rod. You clearly have not investigated this thoroughly. 
> Dodgy data methods? I guess you're serious? This is a pretty amazing  display of ignorance by Watts. Pity you cannot see through it.

   

> This is great theatre. Its probably a Tragedy, and I can't help but feel a tiny bit sorry for Watts. He doesn't seem to realise what a fool he is making of himself..

  How are you feeling about your position on this Rod?   *Rod? are you there?*  :Biggrin:  
Watts has just gone in and edited his reply to barry with this crap:   

> Two sentences is all it would take Anthony. Will you not shed some light in your post?  *REPLY*: Actually yes, but not right now, as this post  was bait for a social experiment, hoping to gather lots of comments to  use in the next story, and you are all doing a splendid job. Tamino went  after it too, but thats generally predictable anytime GISS is  mentioned, and he and many of you have provided what I need. All this  covered in the next post on this, probably sometime around the end of  December. Thanks for playing!  Anthony

  Oh yea. He knew all along that the post was wrong. Not that I believe him, but what he is now indicating is that baselines are ok, Rod. Rod? are you listening?  
Hello Rod? Are you going to stay out in the cold, or are you going to come inside and accept that its ok to adjust baselines so you can compare the temperature series? 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA  
Watts post now makes excellent reading, watching all the deniers line up behind him throwing rocks at GISS and Hansen, and resolutely defending Watts against the occasional sensible post pointing out the whole baselines thing, and now their puppetmaster has pulled out the rug! Hilarious! 
You couldn't make this any better if you paid for it.  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  
Must read. Here's the link  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Note the CO2 *savings* per year for this system of 4.5MW 
> Also Note that the NSW Domestic PV Scheme is capped at 300MW - equivalent of 66 Ronneburg systems, and represents an annual CO2 *saving* of 171,600,000 kg 
> woodbe.

  Hey, you guys keep posting all these pretty charts, where's the one showing Global human CO2 *savings*, where the little line turns downward? 
Or is it the *fact* that Global human CO2 emissions continue to rise unabated?  :Biggrin:  
You guys really should pay attention to this difference:  *"As well as fossil fuels"* Vs *"Instead of fossil fuels".* 
You praise the first which your supported theory says is useless, you ignore the second which your supported theory says is the only thing that matters.  :Doh:

----------


## chrisp

> Then we can all have another laugh at your continuing attempt to define your opponents rather than provide any evidence whatsoever proving this farcical theory.

  Actually, I find it interesting trying to work out why some people go to such lengths to deny accept scientific findings.  I find it difficult to accept that it is due to bona fide doubt of the science. 
With the smoking (causes cancer), I can understand the resistance to that message as smoking is addictive and it is hard to give up.  So it becomes human nature to try and discount the risk instead of changing habits. 
I have no idea what your source of resistance is, but I'm sure as hell it is not science based (because there is no creditable scientific basis to dismiss the AGW theory).   :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> Also Note that the NSW Domestic PV Scheme is capped at 300MW - equivalent of 66 Ronneburg systems, and represents an annual CO2 saving of 171,600,000 kg

  For anyone reading this that has a logic impairment, I'd like to point out that the saving referred to is in regards to the CO2 _Saved_.  
That is, an *additional* 171,600,000 kg of CO2 would be emitted by a coal plant *every year* if this solar scheme did not exist. 
So solar power *reduces the emissions of CO2 from what it would have been* _if all the power consumed came from a coal plant._ 
I do hope that this clarification has helped you, dear reader, to understand this simple logical puzzle. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Ask the 'scientists' that you know if, in their *scientific opinion*, whether Santa exists.

  Already did. I asked one of them if it was physically possible for the reindeer and Santa to deliver presents to all the kids on the one night.  They said that it certainly was, because Santa had a special sleigh that his reindeer pulled so fast, that time passed differently for Santa. 
(This was in earshot of their kids, and I was proving one of my ridiculous points many years ago.  Beware the audience the opinion is designed for.)    

> There is a distinct difference between (personal) *opinion* and *scientific opinion*.  Scientific opinion is supported by evidence, whereas personal opinion may just be a preference.

  I've read the science and formed a different opinion supported by the available evidence.   
Hundreds, if not thousands of scientists have also formed an opinion similar to mine after reviewing the available evidence.  This doesn't mean our opinion is a fact, just because we have numerous people sharing this opinion. 
Learn this you must young Jedi.  :Biggrin:     

> And while you are at it, ask your scientist friends whether they'd seriously consider "researching flying reindeer"?

  Too late, another scientist beat them to it:   

> *The scientific theory of Santa Claus *  _What do reindeer and little children know that we don't?_   _1. A flying reindeer detector._  
> Full story here:   The scientific theory of Santa Clause

   :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Are you going to stay out in the cold, or are you going to come inside and accept that its ok to adjust baselines so you can compare the temperature series? 
> woodbe.

  I don't care what arbitrary temperature series you want to post as an effect. 
I just want to know what you think is the cause of it? 
Is it the Sun? The lava? The cows farting?   :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Apologies for those getting bored with this, but here we go again:   

> Actually, I find it interesting trying to work out why some people go to such lengths to deny accept scientific findings.

  I have read the scientific [s]findings[/s] *facts* and I agree with all of them.  I disagree with the opinions of others who have also read these same facts and propose a theory based on these facts that is farcical.   

> I find it difficult to accept that it is due to bona fide doubt of the science.

  I don't doubt the science, I fully accept and wholeheartedly support it. 
It is the dubious opinions of some people that I disagree with.   

> With the smoking (causes cancer), I can understand the resistance to that message as smoking is addictive and it is hard to give up. So it becomes human nature to try and discount the risk instead of changing habits.

  I think PhilT was starting a new thread called "Irrelevant cr-p" after I pointed out how ridiculous it was to keep referring to this.  Have a search, he may have started it already.  :Wink 1:  
But these two threads will have something in common, *neither one* will have any evidence proving AGW Theory.  :2thumbsup:    

> I have no idea what your source of resistance is, but I'm sure as hell it is not science based (because there is no creditable scientific basis to dismiss the AGW theory).

  This seriously is getting tedious. 
Do you honestly believe that we should accept all theories as being facts, and engage the entire human population to act as though all theories are facts? 
Or is your little greenie theory just the special one?  :Unsure:

----------


## Dr Freud

> For anyone reading this that has a logic impairment, I'd like to point out that the saving referred to is in regards to the CO2 _Saved_.  
> That is, an *additional* 171,600,000 kg of CO2 would be emitted by a coal plant *every year* if this solar scheme did not exist. 
> So solar power *reduces the emissions of CO2 from what it would have been* _if all the power consumed came from a coal plant._ 
> I do hope that this clarification has helped you, dear reader, to understand this simple logical puzzle. 
> woodbe.

  So let me just be sure what you are saying here. 
You claim that 100% of installed PV generating capacity will result in a direct equivalent reduction of energy generation at the coal power plant level?  :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> How are you feeling about your position on this Rod?   *Rod? are you there?*  
> Watts has just gone in and edited his reply to barry with this crap:   
> Oh yea. He knew all along that the post was wrong. Not that I believe him, but what he is now indicating is that baselines are ok, Rod. Rod? are you listening?  
> Hello Rod? Are you going to stay out in the cold, or are you going to come inside and accept that its ok to adjust baselines so you can compare the temperature series? 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA  
> Watts post now makes excellent reading, watching all the deniers line up behind him throwing rocks at GISS and Hansen, and resolutely defending Watts against the occasional sensible post pointing out the whole baselines thing, and now their puppetmaster has pulled out the rug! Hilarious! 
> You couldn't make this any better if you paid for it.  
> Must read. Here's the link  
> woodbe.

  What is this Rod are you there BS Woodbe? This is bad taste for you and you should delete it and get back a bit of credibility. 
Perhaps you might realize that around Christmas we in the building industry get a bit franatically busy, couple that with spending a full day and night at my daughters uni graduation yesterday.  But hell why am I explaining my busy schedule to you?   
Maybe while you wait for my reply you could answer Doc and show us the facts that back up your theory.   
For now its back to work for me.

----------


## woodbe

> What is this Rod are you there BS Woodbe? This is bad taste for you and you should delete it and get back a bit of credibility. 
> Perhaps you might realize that around Christmas we in the building industry get a bit franatically busy, couple that with spending a full day and night at my daughters uni graduation yesterday.  But hell why am I explaining my busy schedule to you?   
> Maybe while you wait for my reply you could answer Doc and show us the facts that back up your theory.   
> For now its back to work for me.

  Fair enough Rod, I can imagine that you are real busy. Real glad that you had enough time to post at all. I am happy to wait for your reply. 
In the meantime, It would appear that we are famous. Someone called MarkB (not me) has pointed out your post in the comments at Tamino's Open Mind   

> MarkB                               |                                  December 15, 2010 at 6:05 pm                     |                     Reply                                                           So Watts is admitting the deceptive  information hes posting is just trolling or flame baiting.  Tell that  to the folks he duped.  His garbage is spread very quickly to various  corners of cyberspace.  http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...tml#post823734 
> Looks like the hole he dug just got a little deeper.
>  this post was bait for a social experiment, hoping to gather lots of  comments to use in the next story, and you are all doing a splendid  job. Tamino went after it too, but thats generally predictable anytime  GISS is mentioned, and he and many of you have provided what I need. 

  Hello world, and thanks for your good work Tamino!  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

Here is an interesting website on the possible impact to some of the coastal areas of Australia.  http://www.ozcoasts.org.au/climate/sd_visual.jsp  
You can click on the map and another more detailed map will open up (and so on).  Eventually, you'll get to a regional map and will be give three map option:"Images of three inundation levels have been prepared for each area using  sea-level rise values of 50cm, 80cm and 110cm. These inundation levels  are  relevant for the 2100 time period (low, medium and high scenarios based  on IPCC projections and more recent science)." There is also a story on The Age website too.  Rising sea a billion-dollar threat

----------


## chrisp

> spending a full day and night at my daughters uni graduation yesterday.

  Rod, 
Congratulations to your daughter on her graduation. 
She sounds like a very clever girl to me...   

> My daughter comes out so  much for bloody global warming.

   :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So you agree it's pointless to the whole AGW Theory cause then. 
> So you honestly believe that a massive increase in the cost of electricity will have no effect on our economy?  
> So if you don't care if they burn coal overseas, why shouldn't we burn it here? 
> (P.S. A tariff across a market may work, at one outlet means bankruptcy.)  
> As long as you're all right, hey Jack!

  Switching to a zero carbon energy generation system in Australia will not *directly* contribute to a significant mitigation of the greenhouse effect.  Obviously.  However, indirectly....it has the potential to provide a massive 'me too' effect.  Better still...the skills, expertise & capacity that Australians develop as a result of the transition would be worth a fortune on the world market. 
Massive increases in energy costs are coming anyway.  Regardless of carbon taxes or a transition to zero carbon systems.  Simply because Australians haven't significantly  invested in new energy generation infrastructure since the Seventies.  So the stock we have is a) at the top end of its capacity and b) more than half way through its economic life.  So it needs to be replaced.  That means cost.  Improved energy use efficiency programs like SA's decision to ban the sale of electric hot water systems mean that energy use doesn't grow like it used to so that makes it economically unattractive to private investors....so that's more money too.  Like I've said before....if you don't want to pay extra for it then do it yourself. 
Coal will continue to be burnt here for decades to come - at least until all the coal fired boilers reach the end of their economic lives.  And it'll be mined here until the resource runs out....the question is how much extra should we charge the foreign burners for it and what should we do with all that cash?  How about subsidised energy for Australians using energy sourced from low or zero carbon generators? 
You of all people should have realised by now that me and mine are very much first among the rest of you equals.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> Congratulations to your daughter on her graduation. 
> She sounds like a very clever girl to me...

   Thanks. 
Was the other daughter that made that comment and yes I agree with her. :Biggrin:  
BTW the other one who graduated in computer science, decided my computer needed cleaning up!   
After "we" fried the motherboard on Sunday I had to get a complete computer rebuild. 
I rang my computer guy Monday morning and had it back Monday night with a complete re-build.  Was I impressed!  LIV IT PH 9859 0399 They were fantastic. 
BTW Woodbe it may be monday before I get a chance to post anything that is going to require any degree of time.  But I will respond.

----------


## bklooger

this thread makes great bedtime reading zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

----------


## watson

> this thread makes great bedtime reading zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  Just part of the Friendly service provided by Renovate Forums - Powered by vBulletin  :Rotfl:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Just part of the Friendly service provided by Renovate Forums - Powered by vBulletin

  ....and a small group of slightly crazed 'individuals' more than willing to donate their limited world views to the Cause.  Either of them...

----------


## woodbe

One of the fallacies often quoted to support an anti-solar stance is that it won't provide power once the sun sets.    
Whilst that is true for solar PV technologies, that doesn't mean it applies to other solar technologies.   *Californias First Molten Salt Solar Energy Project Gets Green Light*    

> California has just approved a new solar project that could revolutionize how we use energy from the sun  namely because it will be able to keep producing electricity even after night falls. SolarReserves  Rice Solar Energy Project will end up looking a lot like the solar  thermal tower above but will have a secret weapon hidden underneath   molten salt. Since the salt will be able to reach temperatures over 1000  degrees Fahrenheit and retain most of the heat it collects during the  day, the plant will have the ability to keep churning out juice long  after the sun goes down. It will be the first project in California to  use the savory technology to store and distribute energy.

  The project is 150MW (About 33 Ronneburg systems, and half of the NSW PV Cap in one plant. 
woodbe.

----------


## jago

Watson what's the prize for posting the 5000th post...  it's surely not going to be the answer to the question. :Wink 1:

----------


## twinny

the prize is.......... another 5000 dribbling posts   :Russian roulette:  :Russian roulette:  :Russian roulette:  :Russian roulette:  :Russian roulette:

----------


## watson

> Watson what's the prize for posting the 5000th post...  it's surely not going to be the answer to the question.

  I hope it would be.....I have the answer.....but I'm not telling anybody  :Hahaha:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Switching to a zero carbon energy generation system in Australia will not *directly* contribute to a significant mitigation of the greenhouse effect.

   

> Coal will continue to be burnt here for decades to come - at least until all the coal fired boilers reach the end of their economic lives. And it'll be mined here until the resource runs out....

  Now if you could just convince the greenies, and the rest of the pro-AGW Theory supporters on this site, a lot of our disagreements will disappear.  Alas, I know they do not handle reality well.   

> Like I've said before....if you don't want to pay extra for it then do it yourself.

  Did you not read our "choice" discussions? 
You guys are regular humanitarians.  :Kissyou:

----------


## Dr Freud

> One of the fallacies often quoted to support an anti-solar stance is that it won't provide power once the sun sets.  
> Whilst that is true for solar PV technologies, that doesn't mean it applies to other solar technologies.  *Californias First Molten Salt Solar Energy Project Gets Green Light*  
> The project is 150MW (About 33 Ronneburg systems, and half of the NSW PV Cap in one plant. 
> woodbe.

  How many cloudy days will it continue to deliver energy demand for?  :Doh:  
Should we shut down the baseload generation now?  :Crash:

----------


## Dr Freud

"Pejar Dam in 2006, one year after Tim Flannery predicted that dams in nearby Sydney could run dry by 2007:     
As Flannery reminded people at the time,  water is important:   _Without water you cant make power, you cant wash, you cant clean your food, you cant have industry. So there are some quite severe problems if the current trend continues. I really do hope that that doesnt happen, but as I say, something will have to change in order for Sydney to get out of that predicted future._  Something did change. It rained:     
As for dams that serve Sydney  Pejar supplies Goulburn, two hours south  the news is similarly flantastic:   _The citys water storage system has reached its highest level since 2002, with dams at 72 per cent of capacity yesterday._  When alarmist Flannery spoke of a current trend in 2005, he was talking about a drought. Its a little like confusing climate with weather."  SOMETHING WILL HAVE TO CHANGE | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

Apparently Andrew Bolt caused all the illegal immigrants deaths in the boat crash...according to Bob Brown.   

> Dear Editor,  
>  Andrew Bolt has blood on his hands. He stridently insisted on the invasion and killings in Iraq which led to millions fleeing. Some of those millions ended up in the ocean off Christmas Island on Wednesday.  
>  Andrew Bolts call, while bodies were still in the ocean, for Julia Gillards resignation (but the Labor Party opposed the war in Iraq) lacked human decency. He should resign.  
>  Senator Bob Brown   Letter to the Editor regarding Andrew Bolt | Bob Brown

  No wonder he thinks cows farting are going to burn up the planet.   :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The Potsdam Institiute for Climate Impact Research says a new paper concludes that the snow now burying Europe and North America is just what global warming theory predicted:  _ The overall warming of the earths northern half could result in cold winters Recent severe winters like last years or the one of 2005-06 do not conflict with the global warming picture, but rather supplement it._  
>  But is that the sound of goalposts being shifted? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was once adamant that Europe was predicted to have not colder winters but warmer (see page 862 table 11.2) :  _Fewer cold outbreaks; fewer, shorter, intense cold spells / cold extremes in winter as being consistent across all model projections for Europe_

  _ Full story here:  Warmists predict the snow they once didnt, now its up to their ears | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_ 
Weather is not climate, but if you believe in AGW Theory, apparently *all* weather is evidence of AGW Theory_. _

----------


## Dr Freud

> Apparently Andrew Bolt caused all the illegal immigrants deaths in the boat crash...according to Bob Brown.   
> No wonder he thinks cows farting are going to burn up the planet.

  Maybe if Bob believed in the pretty graphs as much as you guys, he would be less confused?   
But it is always tough picking *causes* out of data this ambiguous, isn't it guys?

----------


## Dr Freud

> *JULIA Gillard's cash-for-clunkers proposal would cost 15 times more than an emissions trading scheme to reduce carbon pollution. * Bureaucrats charged with administering the Cleaner Car Rebate scheme have confirmed that compliance to ensure vehicles were scrapped was a "major concern" overseas. 
> But the Department of Innovation has now confirmed for the first time that the cost of abatement under the $430 million scheme is $429.70 per tonne over the decade. 
> "Kim Carr and Greg Combet have been like rabbits in the spotlight when asked about the carbon costs of this program," she said. "It's absurd. The government's own (emissions trading scheme) price was under $30 and this is now $429, it's just insane and there is no justification. It's disastrously inefficient from an environmental perspective.  Clunkers costs put ETS in the shade | The Australian

  Inefficient energy efficiency?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> like every green plan of the gllard government, it costs more than planned to achieve less than hoped:  _  an extra $5 billion could be needed to achieve the controversial reforms to the murray-darling river system, according to one of the nations top water market firms._  _broking firm waterfind ...  Analysed progress on the murray-darling reforms in its annual report and found the governments existing $8.9 billion spend would not secure enough water to reach the minimums sought in octobers guide to the murray-darling basin plan._meanwhile, as the government argues with farmers over how much water must be put back in the murray to save it:    _in victoria, people who have planned camping trips along the murray river, downstream of yarrawonga, are being warned about rising flood levels.__update_  _more evidence of one of the defining characteristics of the green faith - a trust of computer models and theories above the observations of the naked eye. Jennifer marohasy says come rain or high water, environmental flow releases will go on,even when the rivers need not more water but less:_    _yep! Blowering dam may be out of control, the water belting out of burrunjuck, the central murray likely to go under again as early as wednesday, but because of a formal agreement between nsw office of water and snowy hydro, involving an obligation to south australia, approximately 500,000 megalitres, equivalent to one sydney harbour of water, must be released as soon as possible as environmental flow._  _in short, senior bureaucrats have signed off on an agreement, which they are now honouring, which requires environmental flow releases into the already swollen murray and murrumbidgee rivers. Of course these men in suits dont live in the murray darling basin and they will continue to receive a salary, paid into their sydney bank accounts, regardless of how many extra wheat fields flood and extra homes are destroyed.__ But what’s an extra $5 billion to this government | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

----------


## woodbe

Renewable energy sceptics regularly raise objections to solar power on the basis that a cloudy day or two ruins the power production.  
If we had just one plant, that would likely be a valid criticism. I guess when all you have is a dirty coal plant, its hard to see any alternative but yet another dirty coal plant. The reality is, if your one coal plant goes down, you're in the same position. Except we don't have just one of those in the country either, so why would we have just one solar plant?  Here's some discussion regarding just one of the Solar Thermal companies' view of the options. This is Ausra, we've heard about them before in this thread, they're the Aussie technology company we scared away by not funding the tech.   

> *Cheaper electricity production costs than clean coal or nuclear*
>  Vinod Khosla, (the founder of SUN Microsystems and venture capitalist  investing in Ausra) has the following to say regarding the power  generation costs using Ausra’s CLFR system. 
>  “We think we can move much faster than nuclear and on an unsubsidised  basis, we will be cheaper than nuclear power, and we should be cheaper  than IGCC [integrated gasification combined cycle] coal-based power  generation,”  *Power, day and night*
>  Ausra have also developed a system of storing the heat that they  collect from the sun for up to 16-20 hours. This heat can then be  delivered to drive the turbines during the night or when cloudy weather  is experienced. 
>  So what happens when there is more than a couple of days cloudy  weather?. I posed this question to John O’Donnell, who is the Executive  Vice President of Ausra Inc. (see John’s reply below) 
>  “By placing plants in multiple locations the localized weather risk  can be drastically reduced.  Fossil-fired power plants and/or fossil  supplementation of solar plants (burning gas on cloudy days to maintain  energy output) can cover shortfalls, especially in the earlier phases  when less transmission links the regions.  Building long-range  transmission essentially eliminates weather risk.”

  Of course, the system would be even more resilient if we include wind and wave/tide options into the mix. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Renewable energy sceptics regularly raise objections 
> woodbe.

  Obviously you're not referring to me, because you know how much I love Ra.  :Throb:    

> objections to solar power on the basis that a cloudy day or two ruins the power production.  
> woodbe.

  Er, because it does.  That's why they have crazy ideas of building a duplicate fossil fuel powered system to sit idly alongside it waiting for all the cloudy days.  Great thinking there people, let's build *two less efficient systems* to run concurrently, to replace the *one efficient system* we currently run.  :Doh:    

> If we had just one plant, that would likely be a valid criticism.  
> "By placing plants in multiple locations the localized weather risk  can be drastically reduced." 
> woodbe.

  So we have to build 2, 5, 10?  times as many of these things than we actually need, to allow for when some of them are under cloud cover?  I guess if we install enough in each state to power the whole country, we'll have enough redundancy built into the system to allow for clouds.  :Doh:  Plus all the gas fired power plants just in case it's really cloudy one day?  :Doh:    

> I guess when all you have is a dirty coal plant, its hard to see any alternative but yet another dirty coal plant.  
> woodbe.

  Google "nuclear power plants".  There's this amazing technology that was developed in the mid 20th Century that you can learn about.  :Wink 1:    

> Of course, the system would be even more resilient if we include wind and wave/tide options into the mix. 
>  woodbe.

  Step 1 - Build solar towers.
Step 2 - Build heaps more solar towers in other places far away in case it's cloudy here.
Step 3 - Build heaps of gas powered plants as well just in case its really cloudy one day.
Step 4 - Build heaps of wave and wind power plants to feed into this already complicated unreliable system.
Step 5 - Connect all these parts via new infrastructure, and bill consumers accordingly.
Step 6 - Dismantle and scrap the previous cheap, simple and reliable energy infrastructure.  *Reason*: Some dudes wrote computer programs that can predict the future!  :Shock:    :Rofl:  
But don't worry, on days like this below, Tas, Vic, NSW and parts of SA & NT can buy power from us crazy sandgropers.  We'll just build hundreds of these things across the outback to help you guys out.  You take most of our GST now anyway, we may as well keep propping you up.  :2thumbsup:    
But I dunno if this is going to take off in the northern hemisphere, they get a helluva lot more cloudy days than we do.   
Space based R&D dude.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

How do those solar plants work with months of cloudiness and snowfall, while they're buried under several feet of snow?   

> British warming propagandist George Monbiot in 2005:    _It is now mid-February, and already I have sown eleven species of vegetable. I know, though the seed packets tell me otherwise, that they will flourish. Everything in this country - daffodils, primroses, almond trees, bumblebees, nesting birds - is a month ahead of schedule. And it feels wonderful. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/02/15/mocking-our-dreams/ title="Winter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are - unless the Gulf Stream stops - unlikely to recur. >Winter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are - unless the Gulf Stream stops - unlikely to recur. Our summers will be long and warm. Across most of the upper northern hemisphere, climate change, so far, has been kind to us_Poor, cold George, shivering in snow-bound Britain:    _The Big Freeze will hold us in its grip for at least another month, forecasters warn._  _Arctic conditions are expected to last through the Christmas and New Year bank holidays and beyond._  _With temperatures expected to fall to -15c (5f), the Met Office said this is almost certain to become the coldest December since records began in 1910._ __  _The winter Monbiot never saw coming | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_ __

  _ 
Maybe those future predicting computers need to get put out in the cold for a few nights, I think they need the reality check? _

----------


## Dr Freud

> Before the election:   _The Deputy Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, said last week that if Labor won the election there would be no carbon tax during its three-year term._  _Ms Gillard seemed to go a step further yesterday. There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead, she told Network Ten._ _After the election:_ _THE government is considering charging polluters a fixed price for greenhouse emissions before moving to an emissions trading scheme._  _Climate Change Minister Greg Combet canvassed the option in a speech in Sydney yesterday, saying it would provide immediate certainty on carbon pricing as well as long-term flexibility to adjust the nations cap on the pollutants through emissions trading._  _It would allow businesses, the regulator, consumers and government to bed down the system before embracing a fully flexible emissions trading scheme, the minister said.__ Her promises are worthless | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  To make up for this one that's now not likely to happen:   

> *MINING companies are planning a damaging new advertising campaign against the government. *                                They have accused Wayne Swan of deliberately misleading them earlier this year over Labor's ill-fated resource super-profits tax.  
> Mining giants *BHP Billiton,* Xstrata and *Rio Tinto* are convinced Labor is preparing to double-cross them a second time by refusing to honour an agreement to offset "all" state royalties as part of the new minerals tax.  
> Several industry sources have confirmed Mr Ferguson urged miners concerned about the prospect of a new tax to remain silent because they would be given a chance for consultation before the finalisation of the details of the tax.  
> Other miners claim senior Treasury officials gave them the same assurances as Mr Ferguson.  
> Mr Ferguson was not briefed in full about the finalisation of the tax until a few days before the May 2 announcement and was angry that he had been inadvertently misleading the industry.   'Betrayed' miners get set for war over tax | The Australian

  Just adjust the scaremongering up, then we can adjust the "carbon price/tax" up as well. 
What effect does all this have on Global temperatures?  :Doh:  
Mmmmmm?  :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

here is a quick one.  YouTube - Global Warming

----------


## woodbe

Despite continued scepticism from some quarters regarding solar power, Australia is slowly embracing alternative energy including solar. 
Recently, Alice Springs was in the spotlight with a 1MW PV solar power station approved and expected to be online in the first half of 2011 
Its nothing like the multi megawatt solar thermal plants that are being installed in those cloudy, snowy, cold northern hemisphere regions, but its a start for our sunny territory. 
Victoria, known for its, dark murky weather, has already committed to  possibly the largest PV installation in the world - 154MW - clearly these people know something our resident solar sceptics have not picked up. I guess it could be that we already have the dirty coal stations and we're working towards not having to build any more of them. 
Having an interconnected market for power means that a windfarm in SA's midnorth can provide clean power into Victoria when their dirty coal generating capacity just isn't quite up to it. It also means that capacity can be moved around the country to supplement power whenever there is a shortfall, be it cloudy weather or plant maintenance or failure. 
Readers who have been paying attention will remember the recent post of videos regarding NanaSolar. One of the points made in the videos was that the solar cell 'printing plant' outputs solar generating capacity equivalent to a Nuclear power plant _every year_. Given that a Nuclear plant takes multiple years to plan construct and initialise, there is a good case to say that rather than building a Nuclear plant, we should be building a NanoSolar plant. We'd be years ahead, and we couldn't build enough Nuke plants to catch up. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

It seems that the US does not agree with the sceptical use of weather as doom for solar power plants: 
Recently Approved: 
Abengoas Mojave (250 MW), Palen (500 MW) Rice (150 MW)  projects in Southern California, Beacon Solar (250 MW),  Tessera Solars  Calico Project (663.5 MW) Genesis Solar (250 MW), the (using the  Stirling technology)  Imperial Valley Solar (709 MW) Brightsources  Ivanpah SEGS (370 MW), and the worlds largest solar thermal project:  Blythe Solar Millennium (1,000 MW). 
Lets see, that's a total of just 4,142.5 MW of major solar power plant capacity approved in the US since August. To put it into context, Yallourn Power Station is 1,450 MW. 
Yeah. It'll never work, they forgot the decimal point.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> here is a quick one.  YouTube - Global Warming

   :Rotfl:  
It is hilarious that they now have to start a propaganda campaign to convince people who are freezing and drowning that the world is drying up into a giant dry heat ball. 
Look at this poor dude going to shovel the snow off his solar panels:     

> On what is normally one of the busiest days of the year for travel and shopping, most of western Britain, Northern Ireland and northern Scotland suffered blizzards, while heavy snow fell on London and the south. 
>  Up to 25cm of snow was reported in north-west England and temperatures were forecast to drop to minus 14 degrees Celsius in western Scotland. 
>  Many airports, trains and roads were brought to a standstill in what transport secretary Philip Hammond described as "extraordinary" conditions. 
> This December is likely to be Britain's coldest since 1910 if temperatures in the second half of the month are as low as they have been in the first, while media reports said Northern Ireland was suffering its worst weather in 25 years.

  And of course, what is the cause of all this freezing weather:    

> Mr Hammond said he had asked the government's chief scientific adviser to assess whether Britain was experiencing a *"step change" in weather patterns due to climate change* and needed to spend more money on winter preparations.   Snow, ice wreak holiday havoc - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  Of course, I forgot, *all* weather is *proof* of AGW Theory!    :Roflmao:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Despite continued scepticism from some quarters regarding solar power, Australia is slowly embracing alternative energy including solar. 
> woodbe.

  No one is doubting we are "slowly embracing" it, but at what cost and for what benefit?   

> Joolia's preferred Anthropogenic National Warming Theory is also crumbling:    
> 			
> 				MORE than $1 billion of taxpayers' money was wasted on subsidies for household solar roof panels *that favoured the rich and did little to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions*, a scathing review has found... 
> ...All solar panel systems installed under the program combined reduced Australia's emissions by just 0.015 per cent...
> 			
> 		   $1.1bn wasted on solar power  
> Wow. For just under AUD$350,000,000,000 (that's 350 billion) we could reach our 5% target. 
> I'll pay more tax for that, NOT!      *THE $80 billion savings the Treasurer claims credit for are more spin than substance...* He can't be allowed to get away with describing *tax increases* as budget savings to firm up the misleading statement that he has instituted "the fastest fiscal consolidation since the 1960s"... All politicians spin; that's their job. But Swan is doing more than spinning. His $80bn in savings isn't spin, it's @@@@@@@@.
> 			
> 		   See how much you will pay for this BS here:  Master magician Swan's budget sleight of hand | The Australian

    

> Yeah. It'll never work, they forgot the decimal point.  
> woodbe.

  Nah mate, they forgot the cost-benefit analysis.  Seems to be a pattern forming there.  :Biggrin:  
And Google what's required for base load power.  Current solar technology doesn't cut it while there's clouds on the planet. 
But it's great window dressing for the greenie shopfront.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

Here are more failed green dream scheme's that were heralded without dissent by all the "experts" at the time.  Those brave enough to point out the futility in these schemes were denigrated as "deniers", "flat earthers", "wreckers", "in the pockets of big oil"' and who knows how many other labels. 
Yet all the criticism was entirely valid:   

> Yet another green scheme collapses, having quite typically cost far more than expected for far less than was promised: _The Bligh Government has abandoned its controversial ZeroGen project after taxpayers pumped $150 million into the initiative._  _In a major blow to the states carbon reduction strategy, the Government will give away the state-owned company ZeroGen and scrap its planned $4.3 billion clean coal power station in central Queensland_  _The Federal Government yesterday attacked the decision after confirming it had also invested $47.5 million towards a pre-feasibility study for the now-aborted plant._  _About $40 million of the states $102.5 million investment in ZeroGen was spent after the Government was advised to withdraw from the project by a review which described the venture as speculative._  _Premier Anna Bligh yesterday confirmed the state would veto the 530MW power station, a project lauded as a world-first in cutting emissions_  _The plant, creating 2000 construction jobs, involved carbon-capture storage technology, taking CO2 emissions and burying them west of Rockhampton._Yet more evidence that clean coal technology, on which the Gillard Government is spending $100 million a year, is just a a wild promise made to make the government seem green, and bugger the cost. Bugger also the cheaper and most obvious alternative. 
>   Thats your money its wasting, folks, to fool you with what it knows will never work. Already the Bligh Government has had to mothball a desalination plant it built for $1 billion, having trusted the global warming spruikers who swore the rains would dry up. 
>    UPDATE 
>   Yes, just another of those green schemes Ive described before: _If its green, it will cost more than they say, deliver less, and be riddled with rorts to boot. Think of the Rudd Governments pink batts fiasco, sold as a green fix, only to become a honey pot for every scammer from Karachi to Bondi._  _Think of the Green Loans scheme or the solar hot water rebates - both scrapped, too, after being rorted until we bled._  _Think of wind farms, producing less green power than advertised. Or think of Victorias desalination plant, sold as the green alternative to a dam, yet costing taxpayers not the first-advertised $3.1 billion but since-admitted $5.7 billion - four times the price of a dam for just a third of the water._  _Or take the collapse of the NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, drained of millions by carpetbaggers who pushed boxes of free low-energy light bulbs and low-flow shower nozzles on to customers to cash in on the fistfuls of over-priced abatement certificates they got in exchange._  _Just why green schemes are so prone to flop or be fleeced is no coincidence. The word green - or sustainable - is like holy water. Sprinkle it on a sinner and even the greatest conman is redeemed._   _More obscene waste, thanks to green scammers | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  You pretend greenies need to listen to *the ultimate greenie*, who I do agree with: 
"Do, or do not.  There is no try!" Master Yoda.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I've read the science and formed a different opinion supported by the available evidence.   
> Hundreds, if not thousands of scientists have also formed an opinion similar to mine after reviewing the available evidence.  This doesn't mean our opinion is a fact, just because we have numerous people sharing this opinion. 
> Learn this you must young Jedi.

  The always gorgeous Jo Nova has summed this up wonderfully:  

> ...The point of the free press is surely for the press to be free to ask the most searching questions on any topic. Yet here is a supposed authority on journalism attacking _The Australian_ for printing views of scientists? And these scientists that McKnight wants to silence are not just the odd rare heretic. The swelling ranks of sceptical scientists is now the largest whistle-blowing cohort in science ever seen. It includes some of the brightest:  2 with Nobel Prizes in Physics, 4 NASA astronauts, 9000 PhDs in science, and another 20,000 science graduates to cap it off. A recent Senate Minority Report contained 1000 names of eminent scientists who are skeptical, and the term professor pops up over 500 times in that list. These are the people that McKnight, an Arts PhD, calls deniers... 
> ...Just because thousands of scientists support the skeptical view doesnt prove theyre right, but it proves it is nothing like the tobacco sceptics campaign that McKnight compares them to, in a transparent attempt to smear commentators he disagrees with... 
> ...McKnight has so little evidence to base his assumptions on, that he resorts to name-calling denier. He doesnt name any scientific paper that any skeptic denies, instead its just a pre-emptive bully boy technique designed to stop people even discussing the evidence about the climate... 
> ...If he had made the most basic enquiry, McKnight might also have found out that the entire case for the man-made threat to the climate rests on just the word of 60 scientists who reviewed Chapter Nine of the Fourth Assessment Report. Hed also know that the people he calls deniers, far from being recipients of thousands of regular Exxon cheques, are mostly self-funded, many are retirees, and that Exxons paltry $23 million for 1990  2007 was outdone by more than 3000 to 1 by the US government alone which paid $79 billion to the Climate Industry during 1989  2009...

  Read the full story here:  A journalist who confuses journalism with propaganda « JoNova 
Disclaimer: I think Jo Nova is really cute, so I am easily swayed by her opinion.  :Inlove:

----------


## Dr Freud

This will be fun to watch:  Brown demands I resign for what he’s done … and done again | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
Maybe we could get the two of them in the ring for charity?  
Alternate rounds of boxing and debating AGW Theory maybe.  :Biggrin:  
Brown's on the left, Bolt on the right.   :Boxing5:

----------


## woodbe

> It is hilarious that they now have to start a propaganda campaign to convince people who are freezing and drowning that the world is drying up into a giant dry heat ball. 
> Look at this poor dude going to shovel the snow off his solar panels:   
> And of course, what is the cause of all this freezing weather:   
> Of course, I forgot, *all* weather is *proof* of AGW Theory!

   
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

Once again, you fall for the old trick of assuming a false premise as being correct. 
The false premise in the cartoon is that weather events are being used to debunk "all accepted scientific global warming studies". 
I have consistently indicated that I fully support all of the scientific facts relating to both weather and climate, and therefore would not want to debunk any of them. 
I have pointed out many times in the past the irony of these cold weather events, and how they send the pro-AGW Theory brigade scurrying around trying to rebuild popular support for their cause.  You see, it is their total lack of scientific proof for their cause that results in their insecurities. 
The point of this post was to point out that they are now even seriously referring these weather events to be studied to see if they can be used as proof of AGW Theory.   

> It is hilarious that they now have to start a propaganda campaign to convince people who are freezing and drowning that the world is drying up into a giant dry heat ball. 
> Look at this poor dude going to shovel the snow off his solar panels:   
> And of course, what is the cause of all this freezing weather:       Mr Hammond said he had asked the government's chief scientific adviser to assess whether Britain was experiencing a *"step change" in weather patterns due to climate change* and needed to spend more money on winter preparations.    Of course, I forgot, *all* weather is *proof* of AGW Theory!

  So if you care to send your cartoon to Mr Hammond or Mr Beddington, it would be much better directed.  :2thumbsup:  
They appear to think that the weather getting colder may support the climate getting warmer.  :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

> They appear to think that the climate getting warmer may support short term extreme weather events.

  Fixed it for you. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

Here is a couple of articles from _The Age_:   

> *Global warming linked to humans: France                *   *                 Claire Snegaroff            *  
>      October 29, 2010       *                     AFP                *  
>                               Global warming exists and is unquestionably due to human  activity, the French Academy of Science has said in a report written by  120 scientists from France and abroad.
>              "Several independent indicators show an increase in  global warming from 1975 to 2003. *This increase is mainly due to the  increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide*," the academy said in  conclusion to the report.
>              "*The increase in carbon dioxide, and to a lesser degree  other greenhouse gases, is unquestionably due to human activity*," said  the report, adopted unanimously by academy members and published on  Thursday. Global warming linked to humans: France

  And a story today on the local (Victorian) winners and losers of climate change:   

> *Facing the hard local realities of a warming world                *   *                 Michael Bachelard            *  
>      December 19, 2010        
>                                  CLIMATE change has done Nat White a big favour. It has  provided his boutique Mornington Peninsula vineyard with the perfect  conditions for growing pinot noir and chardonnay.
>               Warmer temperatures in the hills that run down the spine  of the Mornington Peninsula mean Mr White is now virtually assured that  his grapes will ripen every year, even though he is harvesting them a  full month earlier than he did in 1975. 
> [...] 
> Derrimut wheat was bred for the dry, hot Wimmera region. But now John  Hamilton, and dozens of other farmers, are growing it south of the  Dividing Range. His farm is near Geelong, where it has previously been  too wet and cold for wheat. ''There's no doubt that it's happening  across the region; not just our farm,'' Mr Hamilton said.
>               Two decades ago, farms in his area west of Geelong had 60  per cent stock and 40 per cent crops. ''Now I'm 95 per cent crops,'' he  said.  Facing the hard local realities of a warming world

----------


## twinny

global warming debate or not, f**king cold here in greater greater greater Sydney today, coldest day for this time of year in over 60 years  :Shock: 
snowing in Jindy  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Fixed it for you. 
> "They appear to think that the climate getting warmer may support short term extreme weather events." 
> woodbe.

  However you spin it champ, it's becoming embarrassingly obvious that the "weather is not climate" mantra failed, so the new spin is "the warmer climates causing all the cold weather".   :Lolabove:    

> It is hilarious that they now have to start a propaganda campaign to convince people who are freezing and drowning that the world is drying up into a giant dry heat ball. 
> Of course, I forgot, *all* weather is *proof* of AGW Theory!

----------


## Dr Freud

> global warming debate or not, f**king cold here in greater greater greater Sydney today, coldest day for this time of year in over 60 years 
> snowing in Jindy

  See, back in the hey day, when the heat and the drought were here, Flim Flammery and Penny Wong used to tell us how the *weather* (no rain and a heat wave) were signs of global warming:  Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says the heatwave is consistent with global warming predictions; bad news for those sweating through the week.  
But now that we are freezing and drowning all around the planet:  Increasingly desperate travelers struggled to get home Monday in time for Christmas as Europe's key airports tried to dig their way out of snow and ice.   After seeing several feet of snow pile up over the weekend, parts of California could experience deja vu on Monday.   The town of Carnarvon is on track to break its annual rainfall average in less than two days.  It has already broken records for the wettest day and the wettest month.   Brisbane has picked up 269mm since the start of the December, making it the third wettest month in the 11 years of records. For Brisbane Airport, the 292mm picked up so far makes this the wettest month in 14 years.   Charlotte Pass in the Snowy Mountains received around 10cm of the white stuff yesterday and overnight. The temperature here fell to minus one degree, five below the December average.  Across the border in the Victorian Alps, Mount Buller and Mount Hotham received similar snowfalls as the temperature fell to a wintry minus two, eight degree below the average for this time of year. 
Suddenly, all this rain and snow is also proof of global warming?  :Doh:  
I guess AGW Theory "works in mysterious ways".  :Cold:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Here is a couple of articles from _The Age_:      *Global warming linked to humans: France                *   *                 Claire Snegaroff            *  
>      October 29, 2010       *                     AFP                *  
> Global warming exists and is unquestionably due to human activity, the French Academy of Science has said in a report written by 120 scientists from France and abroad.
>              "Several independent indicators show an increase in  global warming from 1975 to 2003. *This increase is mainly due to the  increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide*," the academy said in  conclusion to the report.
>              "*The increase in carbon dioxide, and to a lesser degree  other greenhouse gases, is unquestionably due to human activity*," said  the report, adopted unanimously by academy members and published on  Thursday.

  Couldn't quite work out the *new facts* that inspired them to repeat this tired old opinion? 
I don't suppose you caught the *new facts* they relied on the state the same old opinion? 
Or is there still not a single fact proving this farcical theory?  :No:  
Hey, SBD, you might want to write to these guys to explain how the blue bits don't really get those uncertainty concepts across real good!  :Doh:    

> If you had just *one fact* proving this farce, you wouldn't need to keep desperately quoting hundreds of opinions.  
> If this farce is proven scientifically as you suggest, please provide just *one fact* proving this theory? 
> Does this sound unreasonable, just *a single fact* rather than an opinion? 
> You are right that supporters of AGW Theory try to skip over the scientific discussion now, because all their dodgy data has been refuted scientifically.  All they are left with is opinions.  That is why they, like you, try to skip over their lack of credibility and attempt to just convince people by repetition that *"AGW Theory is real, you just have to believe it, you don't need proof"*.  
> Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me... 
> Science doesn't have juries, juries express opinions based on what they see and hear. Juries often get it wrong (ask any prisoner ), that's why the scientific method does not rely on opinion, it relies on facts.

----------


## Dr Freud

> And a story today on the local (Victorian) winners and losers of climate change:      *Facing the hard local realities of a warming world                *   *                 Michael Bachelard            *  
>      December 19, 2010        
> CLIMATE change has done Nat White a big favour. It has provided his boutique Mornington Peninsula vineyard with the perfect conditions for growing pinot noir and chardonnay.
> Warmer temperatures in the hills that run down the spine of the Mornington Peninsula mean Mr White is now virtually assured that his grapes will ripen every year, even though he is harvesting them a full month earlier than he did in 1975. 
> [...] 
> Derrimut wheat was bred for the dry, hot Wimmera region. But now John Hamilton, and dozens of other farmers, are growing it south of the Dividing Range. His farm is near Geelong, where it has previously been too wet and cold for wheat. ''There's no doubt that it's happening across the region; not just our farm,'' Mr Hamilton said.
> Two decades ago, farms in his area west of Geelong had 60 per cent stock and 40 per cent crops. ''Now I'm 95 per cent crops,'' he said.

  I can barely ridicule this, I almost feel sorry for them.   

> Climate changes are also beginning to affect human settlement patterns.
>               The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has rejected two coastal developments - one in Lakes Entrance and one near Wilsons Promontory - for fear of inundation by bigger, more frequent storms.

  He thinks a planning decision based on fear is actually "climate change".   

> The change in Victoria's climate happened 12 or 13 years ago

  Hey Woodbe, is twelve years good enough to measure climate change?   

> With drier conditions, water tables are sinking again.

  The only thing sinking is this farce!  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> Couldn't quite work out the *new facts* that inspired them to repeat this tired old opinion? 
> I don't suppose you caught the *new facts* they relied on the state the same old opinion? 
> Or is there still not a single fact proving this farcical theory?  
> Hey, SBD, you might want to write to these guys to explain how the blue bits don't really get those uncertainty concepts across real good!

  There is a difference between "opinion" and "scientific opinion". 
An example of_ opinion_ is saying something like "I prefer red cars to white cars". 
An example of _scientific opinion_ is saying something like "Obesity increases the risk of coronary heart disease". 
It is quite simple, one ("opinion") doesn't require evidence as it is just a personal belief, whereas the other ("scientific opinion") demands it. 
Maybe it is your confusion of these two terms that leads to the continued quoting of the *opinion* (not scientific opinion) of the likes of Bolt and co.

----------


## Marc

Global warming rebaptised Climate change, and again "rapid climate change" is the biggest con ever perpetuated on mankind. 
It is a new man made religion designed to manipulate the gullible and the naive who genuinley believe to be doing something good, for their own purpose, namely power shift and wealth redistribution. 
Electricity and gas prices are just a small sample. Any politician signing any treaty to "Combat global warming" should be charged with treason. :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Global warming rebaptised Climate change, and again "rapid climate change" is the biggest con ever perpetuated on mankind. 
> It is a new man made religion designed to manipulate the gullible and the naive who genuinley believe to be doing something good, for their own purpose, namely power shift and wealth redistribution. 
> Electricity and gas prices are just a small sample. Any politician signing any treaty to "Combat global warming" should be charged with treason.

  Welcome to the show. 
Here is what to expect.   :Minigun:   :Peepwall:   
Great to see there are other smart people out there.

----------


## PhilT2

> Global warming rebaptised Climate change, and again "rapid climate change" is the biggest con ever perpetuated on mankind. 
> It is a new man made religion designed to manipulate the gullible and the naive who genuinley believe to be doing something good, for their own purpose, namely power shift and wealth redistribution. 
> Electricity and gas prices are just a small sample. Any politician signing any treaty to "Combat global warming" should be charged with treason.

  The words "con" "fraud" "scam" etc appear now and again in different venues. It would help to reinforce your opinion if you were to list the names of the people who you believe have committed these crimes and the exact charges you believe they are guilty of. This would be a great help to those who are trying to prosecute AGW scientists and politicians who act on their advice. They appear to need all the help they can get. Of course, if your evidence turns out to be rubbish based on a blog written by someone with no real knowledge of climate science then you may possibly be sued for defamation.  
There have been a number of opportunities for those who believe that fraudulent conduct has occurred to put their evidence foward, eg in submissions to inquiries. The Independent Climate Change Email inquiry
They are also free to take civil action through the courts at any time, but seem to have chosen not to do so. Why do you think that is? 
There is of course some legal action going on in relation to AGW. A recent decision in the US has allowed some states to proceed with an action against power companies. http://www.eenews.net/assets/2010/08...ment_gw_01.pdf
If AGW is a con why have the courts let this happen?

----------


## Dr Freud

> There is a difference between "opinion" and "scientific opinion".

  Really?  :Whatonearth:    

> An example of_ opinion_ is saying something like "I prefer red cars to white cars".

  Oh, you mean something like this?   

> But the fact is AGW is happening...

   

> An example of _scientific opinion_ is saying something like "Obesity increases the risk of coronary heart disease".

  Oh, you mean something like this?   

> The swelling ranks of sceptical scientists is now the largest whistle-blowing cohort in science ever seen. It includes some of the brightest: 2 with Nobel Prizes in Physics, 4 NASA astronauts, 9000 PhDs in science, and another 20,000 science graduates to cap it off. A recent Senate Minority Report contained 1000 names of eminent scientists who are skeptical, and the term professor pops up over 500 times in that list.

    

> It is quite simple, one ("opinion") doesn't require evidence as it is just a personal belief, whereas the other ("scientific opinion") demands it.

  Gee, it is much simpler now that you've explained it.  You just have a personal belief, whereas those tens of thousands of scientists have a "scientific opinion" that is obviously evidence based.  :2thumbsup:  
Thanks for clearing up my confusion.  :Biggrin:    

> Maybe it is your confusion of these two terms that leads to the continued quoting of the *opinion* (not scientific opinion) of the likes of Bolt and co.

  Nah, on this score I'm full bottle mate. 
Bolta's opinion is only as valid as yours.  :Shiny:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Global warming rebaptised Climate change, and again "rapid climate change" is the biggest con ever perpetuated on mankind. 
> It is a new man made religion designed to manipulate the gullible and the naive who genuinley believe to be doing something good, for their own purpose, namely power shift and wealth redistribution. 
> Electricity and gas prices are just a small sample. Any politician signing any treaty to "Combat global warming" should be charged with treason.

  Sock it to them champ.  :2thumbsup:  
You can see above how sensitive they are to having their beliefs challenged.  :Fit:  
Give them heaps.  :Rambo:

----------


## Dr Freud

> They are also free to take civil action through the courts at any time, but seem to have chosen not to do so. Why do you think that is?

  Scientists who believe in the scientific method know that this theory fails on scientific grounds, and have demonstrated this regularly in the scientific domain by discrediting so much of the hype and scaremongering such as Michael Mann's hockey stick joke, the IPCC's peer reviewed claims joke, the worlds glaciers melting by 2035 joke, the drought is here forever joke, etc. etc. etc. 
Going to court would be a backward step for us sceptics, because we prefer to use facts via the scientific method, not the opinions of judges or juries via the legal method, which is obviously just an opinion (oops, sorry Chrisp, would you prefer "legal opinion").  :Biggrin:     

> There is of course some legal action going on in relation to AGW. A recent decision in the US has allowed some states to proceed with an action against power companies. http://www.eenews.net/assets/2010/08...ment_gw_01.pdf

  Oh? So are you saying that seeing as there is *no scientific proof* for AGW Theory, these bozo's are deferring to a lower standard of a judge or juries opinion to bully those whose opinions are different? 
Should we consult the hierarchy of opinions again to see whose opinion is the most valuable?  Or do we defer to numbers of opinions as in the "consensus of opinions" approach?  I lose track of whose opinion is more worthy with you guys.     

> If AGW is a con why have the courts let this happen?

  Maybe a better question is: 
If all the worlds governments truly believe in all this cr-p, then every year they don't ban coal mining, are they signing the death warrants of billions of people, if not the whole species?   
Rather than this, most are actually encouraging coal production. 
Are all the governments of the world f---ing psychopaths!!!  :Shock:

----------


## woodbe

1000+ MW of Solar power in Mojave Desert 
There's more evidence proving that Solar power is a total flop. No-one has any utility grade plants and no-one will invest in them anyway because really, haven't these people heard about clouds? What are they thinking?   :Cool:  
woodbe

----------


## Dr Freud

> Green hysteria costs us more and more - and what do these green schemes actually achieve?  _HOUSEHOLDS (in NSW) face even higher power prices from January 1 as electricity retailers recover the $360 million cost of the federal renewable energy scheme._  _About 370,000 AGL electricity customers will be the first hit. From next week a 3.8 per cent increase in charges will push up customers annual bills by $54._  _Its the first case of a NSW provider jacking up charges to recoup the cost of buying small-scale technology certificates, or STCs, which the Federal Government is introducing to help fund a shift towards green energy_  _The other 10 NSW retailers will follow, most likely in July In other states another 19 million certificates will need to be purchased, bringing the total to $1.12 billion next year alone._  _An STC is created for every megawatt hour of electricity generated by small-scale technologies such as solar water heaters, household photovoltaic systems and small-scale wind and hydro power systems._ _UPDATE_  _Yet another disastrous green scheme bites the dust, with the Gillard Government spending $30 million to fix what it spent millions in breaking:_  _THE Gillard government has pulled the plug on the troubled Green Loans program and its proposed Green Start successor scheme.  
> Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said $30 million would be set aside to assist Green Loans assessors now out of a job._  _Mr Combet said data collection for Green Loans had been deficient in a number of areas and that meant the government could not have confidence in the Green Start program._

  _ _ Power prices rise, just for a green piece of paper | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog  
As the rich Carbonista's rub their hands together in glee at the money they are taking out of the pockets of poor Australian's, those poor Australians will be rubbing their hands together to keep warm in the winter with no power.  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

> 1000+ MW of Solar power in Mojave Desert 
> There's more evidence proving that Solar power is a total flop. No-one has any utility grade plants and no-one will invest in them anyway because really, haven't these people heard about clouds? What are they thinking?   
> woodbe

  Wow, this is great, solar baseload power at last?  :2thumbsup:  
How many coal plants did they shut down to use this *instead*?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

What an [s]inspiring[/s] insipid bunch.  :Cry:   

> *Julia Gillard, November 2009:*  _We cant afford any more inquiries, reports or investigations into climate change._*Julia Gillard, November 2009:*  _We want to act now to deal with climate change.... Delay is denial._*Julia Gillards committee on climate change issues a communique, December 2010:*    _ 
> The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee held its third meeting in Canberra today.  The Prime Minister, the Hon Julia Gillard MP, the Deputy Prime Minister the Hon Wayne Swan MP and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency the Hon Greg Combet AM MP were joined by co-deputy chair of the Committee, Australian Greens Deputy Leader Senator Christine Milne, Australian Greens Leader Senator Bob Brown, Mr Tony Windsor MP, and Mr Rob Oakeshott MP...._  _The Committee adopted the Minutes from its 10 November 2010 meeting and agreed to release the Minutes on the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiencys website._  _The Committee agreed to adopt and publicly release the eleven policy principles that will provide a consistent basis for the Multi-Party Climate Change Committees deliberations on carbon price mechanisms. The policy principles are at Attachment A._  _The Committee acknowledges that some of these principles will be more relevant than others when examining each of the specific design issues, and further, that some design decisions may require a trade-off between two or more principles._  _The Committee notes that each of these principles builds on the fundamental need to develop and foster lasting community consensus and an understanding of the need for a carbon price._  _The Committee considered a range of different carbon pricing mechanisms and discussed the key features, advantages and disadvantages of each model._  _The Committee commenced consideration of the key design choices to be made when developing a carbon price including scheme architecture, impacts, assistance measures and the issues of scheme coverage and international linking_  _Professor Ross Garnaut provided an update to the Committee on the progress of the first two papers of the Garnaut Review Update (Paper 1  Weighing the Costs and Benefits of Climate Change Action, and Paper 2  Progress Towards Effective Global Action on Climate Change). _  _Mr Combet also gave an update to the Committee of the recent outcome at the United Nations Climate Conference held in Cancún._

  Delay is denial | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

> Bolta's opinion is only as valid as yours.

  Let's compare them.  :Biggrin:    

> Here is an interesting website on the possible impact to some of the coastal areas of Australia.  OzCoasts Climate change: Sea level rise maps  
> You can click on the map and another more detailed map will open up (and so on).  Eventually, you'll get to a regional map and will be give three map option:"Images of three inundation levels have been prepared for each area using  sea-level rise values of 50cm, 80cm and 110cm. These inundation levels  are  relevant for the 2100 time period (low, medium and high scenarios based  on IPCC projections and more recent science)." There is also a story on The Age website too.  Rising sea a billion-dollar threat

    

> The Gillard Governments latest scaremongering on global warming claimed we faced sea level rises of at least 50cm this century:  _ELEANOR HALL: Sydneys international airport would be partially submerged if one of the Federal Governments projections on future sea level rises eventuates._  _The Federal Government has released maps to help coastal councils plan for the potential long-term impacts of climate change_  _JENNIFER MACEY: Under the worst case scenario of more than a metre rise by 2100 the map shows part of Sydneys international airport flooded as if the map has been coloured in with a blue highlighter_  _The interactive maps have been developed by the CSIRO and the Co-operative Research Centre for Spatial Information  The maps model the long -term impacts of inundation using three scenarios, a 50 centimetre sea level rise, 80 centimetres and 1.1 metre rise._  _PETER WOODGATE (CSIRO): There are significant areas around inner Melbourne, around the airport and low lying areas of Sydney, likewise along the Gold Coast and around Brisbane, that all get inundated on the worst case scenario._Small problem. The sea level rises we actually see so far are just 3.1mm (plus or minus 0.4mm)  a year, not the Governments minimum of 5mm, let alone 11mm a year:     
>   And the US National Snow and Ice Data Center says climate models predict sea level rises this centiry of just 22cm to 44cm, and not the Gillard Governments 50cm to 110cm:  _Climate models based on the current rate of increase in greenhouse gases, however, indicate that sea level may rise at about 4 millimeters per year reaching 0.22 to 0.44 meters above 1990 levels by the period 2090-2099 (IPCC 2007)._Why these exaggerations, Prime Minister?     Drowning in the Gillard Governments hype | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Do you want my scientific opinion?  :No:  
Well you're gonna get it anyway.  :Biggrin:  
All of these models are based on assumptions that may not even eventuate, but out of the various model outputs, the lower ones are much closer to *reality*.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

> How many coal plants did they shut down to use this *instead*?

  More correctly, How many coal plants didn't get built because the demand was filled by solar? 
Coal's share of the generating capacity in the US has fallen in recent times, but the overall demand has increased, so like here, solar is supplying power that would have been generated with coal if the solar plants did not exist. 
This is essentially the same answer I gave you last time you raised that bogus meme. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> From next week a 3.8 per cent increase in charges will push up customers annual bills by $54.

  $54 a year to subsidise 300MW of PV plant?  
That's great value! Solar PV (Domestic) is like >$5 _per Watt._  
woodbe

----------


## Dr Freud

> More correctly, How many coal plants didn't get built because the demand was filled by solar? 
> woodbe.

  That's the same question as how many baseload solar power stations are there?   
Because that's exactly how many coal baseload power stations are not built? 
You obviously are too embarrassed to say the answer is *zero*.   

> Coal's share of the generating capacity in the US has fallen in recent times,* but the overall demand has increased*, so like here, solar is supplying power that would have been generated with coal if the solar plants did not exist. 
> woodbe.

  I'm just curious, doesn't AGW Theory ask for actual CO2 levels going down, as you indicate they clearly are not as a result of solar window dressing?   

> This is essentially the same answer I gave you last time you raised that bogus meme. 
> woodbe.

  So you think it is bogus that increasing CO2 levels are going to warm the planet in accordance with AGW Theory?

----------


## Dr Freud

> $54 a year to subsidise 300MW of PV plant?  
> That's great value! Solar PV (Domestic) is like >$5 _per Watt._  
> woodbe

  Read the previous posts, then read the article again, and you'll see where you went wrong. Hopefully you can print your retraction before everyone else figures it out.  :Biggrin:  
But let's get back to reality for a minute:  

> That's $360 million. In other states another 19 million certificates will need to be purchased, *bringing the total to $1.12 billion next year alone*.

  So, after us poor Australian's pay this amount, increasing each year, to subsidise the green dream scheme of you and your rich Carbonista mates, will CO2 emissions in Australia go up or down? 
It would really annoy poor people to get their power cut off in support of a scheme that results in CO2 emissions still going up, don't you think?  :Annoyed:    

> *Are you prepared to pay more for your electricity to make green energy more viable?*    *                                 Yes                            *                                                               7.29% (53 votes) *                                 No                            *                                                               92.71% (674 votes)
>                  Total votes: 727

  Maybe if it worked in bringing CO2 emissions down, they'd be prepared to pay for it.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> $54 a year to subsidise 300MW of PV plant?  
> That's great value!  
> woodbe

  How fortuitous, a job vacancy for a man of your talents:  :Biggrin:    

> Dr Henry, Australia's best-known public servant dropped a bombshell on the Gillard Government today, announcing he will leave before the May Budget.

  Uh oh, too late: :No:    

> Ms Gillard today said he would be replaced by a former Treasury official, Martin Parkinson, who is currently head of the Climate Change Department.

  Ken Henry to resign as Treasury boss in the new year | Herald Sun

----------


## PhilT2

> and the term “professor” pops up over 500 times in that list.

  The term "retired" pops up quite a bit too. How many on this list have actually published something on climate change?

----------


## woodbe

> That's the same question as how many baseload solar power stations are there?   
> Because that's exactly how many coal baseload power stations are not built? 
> You obviously are too embarrassed to say the answer is *zero*. 
> I'm just curious, doesn't AGW Theory ask for actual CO2 levels going down, as you indicate they clearly are not as a result of solar window dressing? 
> So you think it is bogus that increasing CO2 levels are going to warm the planet in accordance with AGW Theory?

  Those questions have already been answered in this thread. You are repeating them and ignoring the responses because they don't suit your AGW (and now) Solar Power denial. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> So, after us poor Australian's pay this amount, increasing each year, to subsidise the green dream scheme of you and your rich Carbonista mates, will CO2 emissions in Australia go up or down? 
> It would really annoy poor people to get their power cut off in support of a scheme that results in CO2 emissions still going up, don't you think?

  Guilt trip won't work with me. I guess you better line up all the entrepreneurs and business people in the country too because they are making a profit from poor people. 
Better line up the Government too, for failing to maintain and invest in power infrastructure over the last few decades and causing price hikes today. 
CO2 denial meme already answered. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The term "retired" pops up quite a bit too. How many on this list have actually published something on climate change?

  First, are you asserting that because someone is retired, they no longer have credibility? 
When these guys retire, will they be less knowledgeable?   

> Seven Eminent Physicists; Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize), Robert Laughlin (Nobel Prize), Edward Teller, Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg, all skeptical of "man-made" global warming (AGW) alarm.

  Here's a sample of what they did before retirement:   

> *Freeman Dyson*, Scholar, Winchester College (1936-1941), B.A. Mathematics, Cambridge University (1945), Research Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University (19461947), Commonwealth Fellow, Cornell University, (19471948), Commonwealth Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (19481949), Research Fellow, University of Birmingham (19491951), Professor of Physics, Cornell University (1951-1953), Fellow, Royal Society (1952), Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1953-1994), Chairman, Federation of American Scientists (1962-1963), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1964), Danny Heineman Prize, American Physical Society (1965), Lorentz Medal, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (1966), Visiting Professor, Yeshiva University (1967-1968), Hughes Medal, The Royal Society (1968), Max Planck Medal, German Physical Society (1969), J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize (1970), Visiting Professor, Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (1974-1975), Corresponding Member, Bavarian Academy of Sciences (1975), Harvey Prize (1977), Wolf Prize in Physics (1981), Andrew Gemant Award, American Institute of Physics (1988), Enrico Fermi Award, United States Department of Energy (1993), Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1994-Present), Member, London Mathematical Society (2000), Member, NASA Advisory Council (2001-2003), President, Space Studies Institute (2003-Present)  *Notable: Unification of Quantum Electrodynamics Theory. * *Ivar Giaever*, M.E., Norwegian Institute of Technology (1952), Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1964), Engineer, Advanced Engineering Program, General Electric Company (19541956), Applied Mathematician, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company (19561958), Researcher, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company (19581988), Guggenheim Fellowship, Biophysics, Cambridge University (1969-1970), Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1965), Nobel Prize in Physics (1973), Member, American Academy of Arts & Sciences (1974), Member, National Academy of Science (1974), Member, National Academy of Engineering (1975), Adjunct Professor of Physics, University of California, San Diego (1975), Visiting Professor, Salk Institute for Biological Studies (1975), Professor of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1988-2005), Founder and Chief Technology Officer, Applied BioPhysics (1991-Present), Professor Emeritus of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (2005-Present)  *Notable: Nobel Prize in Physics. * *Robert Laughlin*, A.B. Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley (1972), Ph.D. Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1979), Fellow, IBM (1976-1978), Postdoctoral Member, Technical Staff, Bell Laboratories (19791981), Research Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (19822004), Associate Professor of Physics, Stanford University (19851989), E.O. Lawrence Award for Physics (1985), Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1986), Eastman Kodak Lecturer, University of Rochester (1989), Professor of Physics, Stanford University (19891993), Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences (1990), Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1992Present), Professor of Applied Physics, Stanford University (1993-2007), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1994), Nobel Prize in Physics (1998), Board Member, Science Foundation Ireland (2002-2003), President, Asia-Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics (2004-2006), President, Korean Advanced Institute for Science and Technology (20042006)  *Notable: Nobel Prize in Physics.*

  * 
Heaps more to read here:  Popular Technology.net: Eminent Physicists Skeptical of AGW Alarm* 
Now, a little clarification:   

> In another blow to the UN IPCC's carefully crafted image, was Scientist Dr. William Schlesinger admission in that only 20% of UN IPCC scientists deal with climate. Schlesinger said, Something on the order of 20 percent [of UN scientists] have had some dealing with climate. By Schlesinger's own admission, 80% of the UN IPCC membership has no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies. Also note, that climate requires a wide range of disciplines: See: 'There are more than 100 expert sub disciplines involved in climate change studies' & Science magazine confused about who is a 'prominent climate scientist' -- 'there is no specific climate discipline' & Claims of 'overwhelming majority' of scientists exposed as laughable! 'There are just 94 authors responsible for compiling the report in which...the [UN IPCC's] modeling case for alarm rests'  http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's where you can go to find the scientists who know this is a crock, or you can keep believing what Julia Gillard now tells you is real:  Global Warming Petition Project     

> *31,487 American scientists have signed this      petition, including 9,029 with PhDs.* 
>      The current list of       petition signers includes      9,029 PhD;      7,157 MS;      2,586 MD and DVM; and      12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees.       
> Most of the MD and DVM signers also have  underlying degrees in      basic science.      
>           All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of      specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the      research data related to the petition statement.  
> Many of the signers      currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric,     environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields      directly involved in the climate change controversy.  
>            The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal      academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized      fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their      underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become      interested. 
>            Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by      educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven      categories. 
>            1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes      3,805 scientists      trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment      of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment. 
>            2. Computer and  mathematical sciences includes         935 scientists trained in      computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming      hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections      and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially      important in evaluating this hypothesis.      
> ...

  And just a reminder again of the IPCC:   

> During the question and answer session of last weeks William Schlesinger/John Christy global warming debate, (alarmist) Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists. It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist. This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority for his position. His answer was quite telling. First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had some dealing with the climate. His complete answer was that he thought, something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate. In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.  Christy/Schlesinger Debate, Part II@|@GlobalWarming.org

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's just a sample that we have already been through:  Popular Technology.net: 800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm 
You'll find heaps on the list in there, and you can tree reference to thousands of other published papers through this list. 
You'll also find this self-evident statement there:   

> *"I cant tell you how many times Ive been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. Its one thing to engage and refute. But its not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line." 
> - John H., comment at RealClimate.org*

  Yeh!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Those questions have already been answered in this thread.  
> woodbe.

  I know:    

> You obviously are too embarrassed to say the answer is *zero*.

  Me, ignore something?  :No:    

> You are repeating them and ignoring the responses because they don't suit your AGW (and now) Solar Power denial. 
> woodbe.

  I do not deny that AGW Theory is a theory.
I do not deny that it is yet to be proven.
I do not deny that Solar Power creates power. 
Seriously mate, what am I denying?  You're looking like some kind of parrot that just repeats the words over and over without actually understanding what they mean? 
Kinda like name calling when your argument runs out of logic.  :Biggrin:  
You yourself have said that *CO2 levels continue to rise* in spite of the ineffective solar "window dressing" currently used. 
Rising CO2 levels at these rates are not good according to the theory you support. 
You should be getting much more upset at this than I am, because according to AGW Theory, the solution you support will not work, and the end of the world is nigh.  :Shock:  
This window dressing is costing us a fortune for no reason. 
Solar power cannot supply baseload energy anyway. 
I do not deny or ignore any of this. 
In fact, I continually raise these issues as they are farcical. 
If you have data showing human CO2 emissions going down as a result of the billions we are spending, I'd be happy to see it.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Guilt trip won't work with me. 
> woodbe.

  It's not a guilt trip, it's simply the truth.  Whether you feel guilty or not is up to you, not me.  :Biggrin:    

> I guess you better line up all the entrepreneurs and business people in the country too because they are making a profit from poor people. 
> woodbe.

  What do "all the entrepreneurs and business people in the country" have to do with greenies forcing a futile subsidy on the poorest people for a futile renewable energy scheme?   

> Better line up the Government too, for failing to maintain and invest in power infrastructure over the last few decades and causing price hikes today. 
> woodbe.

  Stay with me here dude.  We've already clarified that the futile greenie subsidies go "on top of" these operational and market costs. 
The futile greenie subsidies are neither operational nor market costs, they are unnecessary ideologically driven price rises. 
Log that one in this time.  :2thumbsup:    

> CO2 denial meme already answered. 
> woodbe.

  I do not deny CO2 is a molecule made up of one Carbon atom and two Oxygen atoms, and it is essential for our life on Earth. 
Again, what exactly am I denying?  Ask your boss:   :Pir8:

----------


## woodbe

> II) Climatology (39)

  Says it all really. 
Merry Christmas all!  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> When these guys retire, will they be less knowledgeable?

  I looked up the first named person on your list: Freeman Dyson   

> *Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming  exists*, and has written that "[o]ne of the main causes of warming is  the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our  burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."  However, he has argued that existing simulation models of climate fail  to account for some important factors, and hence the results will  contain too much error to reliably predict future trends. 
> [...] 
> Since originally taking interest in climate studies in the 1970s, Dyson has suggested that carbon dioxide  levels in the atmosphere could be controlled by planting fast-growing  trees. He calculates that it would take a trillion trees to remove all  carbon from the atmosphere. 
> from: Freeman Dyson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Sorry, what was your contention in quoting the petition?   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Says it all really. 
> Merry Christmas all!  
> woodbe.

  Yes, your reply says it all! 
Merry Christmas to all, it's gonna be a scorcher in Perth.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I looked up the first named person on your list: Freeman Dyson      *he has argued that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends*    Sorry, what was your contention in quoting the petition?

  Getting you to realise the "scientific opinion" above exists. 
I'm glad you finally realise the computer models that predict the future are a crock.  :2thumbsup:  
Welcome to the facts.  :Biggrin:

----------


## PhilT2

I looked up one of the people on your list too. Does the fact that Seitz died two years ago affect the credibility of his opinion on current research?

----------


## Dr Freud

> I looked up *one* of the people on your list too.

  I know that this is a busy time of year, so take your time, you'll get to the other 31,486.  :Biggrin:    

> Does the fact that Seitz died two years ago affect the credibility of *his opinion on current research*?

  It depends.  
What is his opinion on current research?  :Doh:

----------


## PhilT2

[quoteHere's where you can go to find the scientists who know this is a crock,][/quote] 
Zack W Robinson from the Oregon Institute is there too. Opinions on climate change from fully qualified veterinarians are always welcome.

----------


## PhilT2

> Here's just a sample that we have already been through:  Popular Technology.net: 800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm 
> You'll find heaps on the list in there, and you can tree reference to thousands of other published papers through this list. 
> You'll also find this self-evident statement there: 
> Yeh!

  An anonymous quote from a blog, wow, how can anyone refute such a convincing argument. 
Doc do you actually read what you cut and paste? Try reading past the headline on that site. There are not 800 peer reviewed papers supporting skepticism of global warming, they say so themselves.  *the following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.* 
Some are about the "negative environmental or economic effects of AGW"  Which is what we have been saying all along. 
A small percentage of the articles also come from a journal known as JAPANDS, the journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. This journal is not listed in any major medical databases for a number of reasons, one of which is lacking a proper peer review process. The beliefs of the association that publishes it are quite strange and anyone seeking to maintain any sort of scientific credibility may be unwise to link to them. 
There are other examples too of selective editing. Some papers are cited based on the fact that they refute other papers supporting AGW. The Svensmark one that claims to refute Lockwood is one that comes to mind. Just from memory the Svensmark criticism was never accepted and was itself refuted with a number of other papers supporting Lockwood. 
Who made the judgement that these papers were all still valid?

----------


## PhilT2

> Going to court would be a backward step for us sceptics, because we  prefer to use facts via the scientific method, not the opinions of  judges or juries via the legal method, which is obviously just an  opinion (oops, sorry Chrisp, would you prefer "legal opinion")

  You forgot to let these guys know about that decision. Court action against Niwa 'stupid' - National - NZ Herald News

----------


## Rod Dyson

Woodbe here is a perfect example of why I do not trust the temperature records as presented to us full of adjustments etc.   

> Mr Treadgold described the replacement as a full exoneration of the criticism levelled at the Coalition by NIWA, saying: “All we ever asked for were the adjustments and the reasons for them. The discourteous reproaches and misleading academic references we received from them were surprising. For them finally to agree with us, throw away the series and recreate it is a complete vindication for us.”

  And    

> “NIWA makes the huge admission that New Zealand has experienced hardly any warming during the last half-century. For all their talk about warming, for all their rushed invention of the “Eleven-Station Series” to prove warming, this new series shows that no warming has occurred here since about 1960. Almost all the warming took place from 1940-60, when the IPCC says that the effect of CO2 concentrations was trivial. Indeed, global temperatures were falling during that period. “The new temperature record shows no evidence of a connection with global warming. Since that’s the reason this tempest in a teacup has brewed in the first place, it should simmer down now.”

  Full story here Climate Science Coalition Vindicated | Scoop News 
And I haven't forgotten I owe you a follow up post which I will get to soon.

----------


## PhilT2

The same story from a different perspective A Christmas cracker for the cranks

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The same story from a different perspective A Christmas cracker for the cranks

  LOL how pathetic how they hide any comment that disagrees with them. LMAO

----------


## Rod Dyson

BTW merry Christmas to all of you.

----------


## PhilT2

> LOL how pathetic how they hide any comment that disagrees with them. LMAO

  Only takes one click to bring them up.

----------


## PhilT2

> Who made the judgement that these papers were all still valid?

  Sorry, some were never valid in the first place. The Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009) paper is among the 800 peer reviewed papers. Many of the critics of this paper claim that it breached the law of thermodynamics. When the critics are using quotes from undergraduate textbooks to disprove a paper then it has hit an all time low.

----------


## Marc

> The words "con" "fraud" "scam" etc appear now and  again in different venues. Etc etc ... Of course, if your evidence turns out to  be rubbish based on a blog written by someone with no real knowledge of climate  science then you may possibly be sued for defamation.

  What a  load of hogwash 
When I can personally understand the Global Warming fraud  followers, I can not justify their actions, bias and attitude.
Mutatis  mutandis they act like the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusaders and the Vatican in  the dark ages all in one. There is no doubt in my mind that Global Warming is  just a new religion where one must have faith in what can not be seen nor  proven, kneel in front of the prophets and die if necessary for mother earth,  gaia or pacha mama if you like. "Nature" is the new spirit, and the new sin are  development, progress, dams, industries, mining, agriculture, cities, concrete,  roads, commerce, personal achievements, money, corporations, ships, plains, in  other words, anything that makes human life in this century possible. 
 The 'new' good guys are the alternative vegetarians, who besides  cultivating vast amounts of hair on different bodily regions, have a persistent  attachment to welfare and to generally unproductive and useless occupations like  making bio diesel or building straw houses and fertilising their veggie patch  with their own excrements. 
Their keen eye for the oppositions faults, is  only matched by their total blindness to the money trail that shows that the  whole mise-en-scène is a con that points  shamelessly to wealth redistribution and power shift. 
Clearly Global  Warming proponents are so keen and enthusiastic that their efforts deserve a far  more worthy goal.
 May I suggest taking up knitting?

----------


## Dr Freud

> What a  load of hogwash 
> When I can personally understand the Global Warming fraud  followers, I can not justify their actions, bias and attitude.
> Mutatis  mutandis they act like the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusaders and the Vatican in  the dark ages all in one. There is no doubt in my mind that Global Warming is  just a new religion where one must have faith in what can not be seen nor  proven, kneel in front of the prophets and die if necessary for mother earth,  gaia or pacha mama if you like. "Nature" is the new spirit, and the new sin are  development, progress, dams, industries, mining, agriculture, cities, concrete,  roads, commerce, personal achievements, money, corporations, ships, plains, in  other words, anything that makes human life in this century possible. 
>  The 'new' good guys are the alternative vegetarians, who besides  cultivating vast amounts of hair on different bodily regions, have a persistent  attachment to welfare and to generally unproductive and useless occupations like  making bio diesel or building straw houses and fertilising their veggie patch  with their own excrements. 
> Their keen eye for the oppositions faults, is  only matched by their total blindness to the money trail that shows that the  whole mise-en-scène is a con that points  shamelessly to wealth redistribution and power shift. 
> Clearly Global  Warming proponents are so keen and enthusiastic that their efforts deserve a far  more worthy goal.
>  May I suggest taking up knitting?

  Talk about hitting the nail on the head.  :2thumbsup:  
My friend, your firm grasp on reality is matched only by the greenies firm grasp on themselves.  :Biggrin:

----------


## The_Fixer

> Welcome to the discussion Fixer, we badly need some fresh ideas in this topic. Doubt is ok, its a start to understanding rational thinking and how to present your point of view in a debate or to work out when someone is feeding you bull. 
> For example, if someone were to say that "no problem was ever solved by putting a tax on it" you could point out that the medicare levy was introduced to solve the problem of funding healthcare. Or the GST was introduced to solve the problem of tax evasion by the cash economy. And different industries, such as wool, dairy and sugar have imposed levies at different times to solve problems.  
> A point like "follow the money trail" would need some supporting evidence to back it up. You could use a comparison of the salaries of senior mining/oil co executives, usually over $1mill, against that of professor salaries, usually around $150,000-200,000. This would establish who has the most to lose if a tax was imposed on carbon. 
> If you want to look back in history to the studies on smoking I recommend that you read a book by Naomi Oreskes called "Merchants of Doubt" She provides evidence that the people who gave evidence that smoking was harmless are exactly the same people who are now saying that global warming is harmless. She gives their names and the dates of their testimony before the American congress and transcripts of what they said.  
> I understand that many people feel that the govt cannot be trusted to get anything right. But such a sweeping generalisation does not prove any point at all and can easily be discredited by asking if you feel that the last income tax cut was a govt error. Most will be reluctant to disagree with that. I have worked with both state and federal govts on policy issues and can assure you that they often get it right. But only the bad decisions make the headlines. 
> This brings up an important point in the global warming debate. Some have trouble distinguishing between the science and the politics. They are related but separate issues. Interesting interaction here.  YouTube - Alley and Rohrabacher: Brain vs Bluster!

  The medicare issue is another classic point in government mismanagement. Before medicare we had to pay private health care or pay the bill. In Qld, Joh Petersen provided a free public hospital system. Hawke and his cronies cottoned onto that idea at a later stage.
Since medicare and various govt tinkerings, we now have another tax - Medicare levy, if you earn over a certain income (let's say about $73k). We now face up to a 3 year wait on the list to be fixed or pay private health insurance to be quicker. Either way, we still have to pay another tax with dubious benefit to the end user AND pay for quicker and/or better results. To my mind that ended up being a failure and a classic example of another tax to pay which does not solve the problem. 
GST has not cured the tax evasion and black money market issues - in some ways it is easier to evade paying taxes. It has simply simplified the tax system in some ways (not necessarily a bad thing I will admit), but has broadened the band of taxpayers paying tax. Hopefully this should have resulted in more govt income. When the govt starts selling off the family jewels to pay debts and gain a so called budget surplus - an income stream has been eliminated and needs to be replaced by ....sales?..... policies? (oh dear!)....income from govt owned assets (are there any left?). All that is left is increase the TAXES! 
But wait.... there's more! 
Let's give everyone a tax cut! But what happens with the income part when govt spending has increased? It has to be paid for sometime. Solution - increase the tax or duties in other areas, so that someone pays the bill. Perhaps this was one thought behind the mining Super Tax. I feel compelled to mention we also have to pay for that govt stimulus program that the fairy Ruddfather introduced as well. $100million per day has to be paid for somewhere. This was also a policy applied during the great depression. I think the jury is still out, but many think the govt interference in the markets (worldwide) actually prolonged the depression, rather than provided a resolution there, 
The green Australia hysteria has now introduced a whole new wave of govt spending and new taxes. Not to mention further taxes to be introduced in due course, many of which we have yet to hear about. This is part of the money trail I am talking about. Not just the scamsters who hopped onto the gravy train. Big business stands to make big bucks here - those who have the right (politically correct) policies. The govt stands to make huge income in taxes here (in it's various forms) - one of which is the emissions trading scheme. This is not necessarily about the individual scientists etc,. 
I am not a true disbeliever as such. There are definitely issues to be resolved. To my mind, this has become an overly emotional issue with the likes of the idiot (my opinion) greenpeace movement and their like and people with vested interests who are not really going to give us a balanced and UNBIASED opinion where the ultimate aim is other than the money and/or emotional trail. Greenpeace would have to be part of the money trail, or they would simply cease to exist. 
Not to mention the latest myriad of disastrous rushed govt policies? Surely they support the wanker greenie movement? Please pardon the naughty word.

----------


## The_Fixer

> What a load of hogwash 
> When I can personally understand the Global Warming fraud followers, I can not justify their actions, bias and attitude.
> Mutatis mutandis they act like the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusaders and the Vatican in the dark ages all in one. There is no doubt in my mind that Global Warming is just a new religion where one must have faith in what can not be seen nor proven, kneel in front of the prophets and die if necessary for mother earth, gaia or pacha mama if you like. "Nature" is the new spirit, and the new sin are development, progress, dams, industries, mining, agriculture, cities, concrete, roads, commerce, personal achievements, money, corporations, ships, plains, in other words, anything that makes human life in this century possible. 
> The 'new' good guys are the alternative vegetarians, who besides cultivating vast amounts of hair on different bodily regions, have a persistent attachment to welfare and to generally unproductive and useless occupations like making bio diesel or building straw houses and fertilising their veggie patch with their own excrements. 
> Their keen eye for the oppositions faults, is only matched by their total blindness to the money trail that shows that the whole mise-en-scène is a con that points shamelessly to wealth redistribution and power shift. 
> Clearly Global Warming proponents are so keen and enthusiastic that their efforts deserve a far more worthy goal.
> May I suggest taking up knitting?

  
Hear, hear. I guess this is the new version of the medieval witch hunts?

----------


## Marc

> Hear, hear. I guess this is the new version of the medieval witch hunts?

  You got it in one. 
The new soft leftish governments like our revolting  labour or the even more repulsive democrats in the US, have many things in  common with the nazional sozialism. They want to think for you, subsidise and  force on you what they think is popular to believe to be good for you and ban or make illegal what the populus believes to be bad for you.  Democracy is dead when the government ONLY aim is to legislate to please the non  thinking masses in order to perpetuate themselves in power with total disregard  of what is actually good for the country.

----------


## chrisp

T'is the Christmas festive season - t'is the season of make believe. 
Welcome all the new sceptics - the ones who don't believe in science.   :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> Woodbe here is a perfect example of why I do not trust the temperature records as presented to us full of adjustments etc

  Rod, 
I can sort of accept your questioning of the validity of temperature records, however, I don't share your scepticism or paranoia that the records have somehow been doctored to show warming that doesn't exist. 
There is a quite simple indicator that confirms that the temperature records are indeed accurate - that is the fact that the sea level has risen and is rising at an increasing rate. 
If the thermometer temperatures were rising and the sea-level was constant (or falling), I'd share your paranoia, however, the temperature recordings and the sea level rise are consistent.    *"Current Sea Level Rise* has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century, and more recently, during the satellite era of sea level measurement, at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4 to 3.1 ± 0.7 mm per year (19932003). Current sea level rise is suggested to be due significantly to global warming, which will increase sea level over the coming century and longer periods. Increasing temperatures result in sea level rise by the thermal expansion of water and through the addition of water to the oceans from the melting of mountain glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets.  At the end of the 20th century, thermal expansion and melting of land  ice contributed roughly equally to sea level rise, while thermal  expansion is expected to contribute more than half of the rise in the  upcoming century."
from: Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## PhilT2

Welcome back everyone, hope all had an enjoyable break. Brisbane had a wet weekend so there was little one could do but eat and drink; life's tough at times.   

> Welcome all the new sceptics - the ones who don't believe in science.

  Maybe this description fits better The New Scientist Debates Denialism : denialism blog

----------


## chrisp

> Maybe this description fits better The New Scientist Debates Denialism : denialism blog

  What a good read!  I liked this quote:   

> How to be a denialist Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and  Tropical Medicine who also studies denial, has identified six tactics  that all denialist movements use. "I'm not suggesting there is a manual  somewhere, but one can see these elements, to varying degrees, in many  settings," he says (The European Journal of Public Health, vol 19, p 2).  *Allege that there's a conspiracy*. Claim that scientific consensus has  arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.*Use fake experts to support your story.* "Denial always starts with a  cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of  credibility," says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.*Cherry-pick the evidence*: trumpet whatever appears to support your  case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive  evidence even after it has been discredited.*Create impossible standards for your opponents*. Claim that the  existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent  comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.*Use logical fallacies.* Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking  measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus  and then knock down your straw man.*Manufacture doubt*. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that  basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist "both sides"  must be heard and cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts  are rejected.

  I think the deniers have covered all 6 points very well in this thread.    :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

You proponents of AGW Theory truly amaze me.   
You fight so strongly for a cause that you are so ignorant of.   

> Zack W Robinson from the Oregon Institute is there too. Opinions on climate change from fully qualified veterinarians are always welcome.

  They certainly are by the IPCC.   

> Mader and Davis (2004) confirm that the onset of a thermal challenge often results in declines in physical activity with associated declines in eating and grazing (for ruminants and other herbivores) activity.

  IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)  
After being presented with over thirty thousand fully qualified professionals in many spheres of science that have all raised objections to the so called "consensus" (numerous times in this thread), the best you can come up with is: bleeting about some dude dying, some dude retiring, science continuing to be updated, and specialist scientists are required because of the many sub-disciplines in this complex area. 
And you think these bleetings will somehow dismiss the fact that these tens of thousands of scientists have investigated the many spurious claims for this farce and found them wanting. 
The numbers of these scientists does not mean AGW Theory is disproved, only scientific fact will determine this. What it does do is dispel the farcical myth that the scientific community is united behind this farce. 
They are not, and no amount of bleeting will dispel this *fact*.

----------


## Dr Freud

> LOL how pathetic how they hide any comment that disagrees with them. LMAO

  Is this the online version of peer-review?  :Biggrin:  
All the comments I saw agreed with the consensus.  :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Welcome all the new sceptics - the ones who don't believe in science.

  Just curious about how many people (regardless of their opinion), have admitted to not "believing" in science?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Just curious, what rate of ocean level rise would be required to achieve these upper projections in the next 90 years?   

> Rod, 
> I can sort of accept your questioning of the validity of temperature records, however, I don't share your scepticism or paranoia that the records have somehow been doctored to show warming that doesn't exist. 
> There is a quite simple indicator that confirms that the temperature records are indeed accurate - that is the fact that the sea level has risen and is rising at an increasing rate. 
> If the thermometer temperatures were rising and the sea-level was constant (or falling), I'd share your paranoia, however, the temperature recordings and the sea level rise are consistent.   *"Current Sea Level Rise* has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century, and more recently, during the satellite era of sea level measurement, at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4 to 3.1 ± 0.7 mm per year (19932003). Current sea level rise is suggested to be due significantly to global warming, which will increase sea level over the coming century and longer periods. Increasing temperatures result in sea level rise by the thermal expansion of water and through the addition of water to the oceans from the melting of mountain glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets.  At the end of the 20th century, thermal expansion and melting of land  ice contributed roughly equally to sea level rise, while thermal  expansion is expected to contribute more than half of the rise in the  upcoming century."
> from: Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   

> Here is an interesting website on the possible impact to some of the coastal areas of Australia.  OzCoasts Climate change: Sea level rise maps  
> You can click on the map and another more detailed map will open up (and so on).  Eventually, you'll get to a regional map and will be give three map option:"Images of three inundation levels have been prepared for each area using  sea-level rise values of 50cm, 80cm and 110cm. These inundation levels  are  relevant for the 2100 time period (low, medium and high scenarios based  on IPCC projections and more recent science)." There is also a story on The Age website too.  Rising sea a billion-dollar threat

  After you work this out, and we figure out how consistent these two posts are, we can return to any proof of what's actually causing this effect.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> What a good read!  I liked this quote: 
> I think the deniers have covered all 6 points very well in this thread.

  Let's try again shall we?  :Doh:  
This was the definition *you provided*:   

> Doc, I think you might be taking your denialism too far.  Its starting to sound like you are denying your own existence.  Maybe it a reverse form of "I think, therefore I am"?*"Climate change denial* is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.  Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate  scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that  debate. Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States. Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism. 
> The scientific opinion on climate change is that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity. However, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions (including economic  ones), to take in response. Numerous authors, including several  scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations  and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of  climate change since the 1990s. On the other hand, some commentators have criticized the phrase as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views and portray them as immoral. 
> The relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate  change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the  tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific  evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a  direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships. Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials."From: Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Due to your obvious misuse of your own defined term, this is the clarification *I provided*:   

> I don't think, therefore I amn't?   *Am I organised?* No, you guys constantly complain about my incoherence. *Do I downplay, deny or dismiss the consensus?* No, I fully agree it is there, just laughable. *Is this for commercial or ideological reasons?* No, consensus of opinion is not proof under the scientific method, I am neither paid for the scientific method, nor need to believe in it. *Do I avoid the principles of scientific debate?* No, I constantly annoy you lot by pointing them out, such as opinion is not scientific proof, regardless of whose opinion it is, or how many people have this opinion. *Do I work in or for the energy lobby or think tanks?* No, I wish they paid me for this, I could do it 24/7 then. *Do I care what descriptions idiot journalists (commentators) make up?* No, they're idiots. 
> But thanks for this definition of what "denialism" is meant to be in your fantasy land. 
> At least we can now all acknowledge that according to your definition, no-one contributing to this thread is an adherent of "climate change denial". 
> I reiterate, what a load of cr-p.

  Now, I haven't been able to identify these "denier's" in this thread, according to even the definition you have provided.  But obviously you have.  
Could you please point them out to me, and show me how they fit within your provided definition?  :Doh:  
Or do you wish to retract this definition and find a blog with a better one?  :Biggrin:  
Or, I guess a third alternative could be to continue to misuse this word in blissfull ignorance in the hope it could in some way smear or derogate the people who continually point out that you have absolutely *zero* evidence proving AGW Theory.

----------


## Dr Freud

Let's do a weather check! :Biggrin:  
We've already seen Europe buried in snow, causing massive travel disruptions. 
Now it looks like the USA is joining in:   

> A blizzard has pummelled the north-eastern United States, disrupting air, rail and bus travel and forcing motorists to deal with blowing snow and icy roads at the end of the busy Christmas weekend.
>  New York City, eastern New Jersey and western Long Island were the hardest hit by the storm, which unleashed powerful winds and dumped up to 74 centimetres of snow in some parts.

     New York lashed by powerful snowstorm - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
And how's the weather back home:   

> Residents are on evacuation alert in several rural Queensland towns cut off by near record-breaking flood levels, as torrential rain continues to lash the state.

    Qld towns cut off, residents evacuated - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
Seeing as Flim Flammery and Penny Wrong used a drought as verification of AGW Theory, will they now use these floods as verification of no AGW Theory? 
Oops, I forgot, this flooding is now also proof of AGW Theory, just like the record snowfalls.   :Doh:

----------


## Marc

_Skepticism is good. It is the opposit of naive._
Marc 
Definition:
THANK YOU WIKIPEDIA 
In ordinary usage, skepticism (Greek: 'σκέπτομαι' _skeptomai_, to think, to look about, to consider]
A scientific (or empirical)  skeptic is one who questions beliefs on the basis of scientific  understanding. Most scientists, being scientific skeptics, test the  reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a  systematic investigation using some form of the scientific method.[6] As a result, a number of claims are considered pseudoscience if they are found to improperly apply (or else completely ignore) the scientific method. Scientific  skepticism often does not address paranormal, or religious beliefs,  since these beliefs are, by definition, outside the realm of systematic,  empirical testing/knowledge. A scientific skeptic will usually be agnostic towards paranormal or religious beliefs. *Example of skeptic is those who challenged flat earth and geocentrism as it was taught to millions for centuries. 
..................................................  .....................
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'*   * The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea    rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. *    
              Christopher Booker             6:25PM GMT 28 Mar 2009                                       

> If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world    must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is    the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and    Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and    the result will be catastrophe.   
>   Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only    predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his    Oscar-winning film _An Inconvenient Truth_ went much further, talking    of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San    Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London    in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and    Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury    was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.   
>   But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else    in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner,    formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change.    And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using    every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is    that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare    story.   
>   Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he    says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this    century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an    uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the    hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed    to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by 
> Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.   
>   The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that    these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are    all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going    into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".  
>                   Related Articles    * The Pinzgauer Vector scandal shows there's no shortage of things for our 'bored' MPs to be doing*  
>       28 Mar 2009*Cancun climate conference: the warmists' last Mexican wave* 
> 28 Mar 2009*It's 'the hottest year on record', as long as you don't take its temperature* 
> ...

----------


## Marc

As for the label of "deniers" used against those who denounce the lies, cons,  fraud, misrepresentations, criminal acts, treason, and assorted confabulations  of the Global Warming instigators, I find it another low act that fits the  general attitude of the Global Warmist camp. 
The attempt is made, by the  use of this term denier, to make a link in the reader's mind that there is an  association between the holocaust deniers who say that the holocaust never  happened and those who refuse to believe this fraud.  
Interestingly  denying the holocaust has become illegal yet the numbers of the death at the  hands of the Germans has been dropped by millions even on the plaque at  Auschwitz without much of an explanation. Skepticism at the figures brandished  for all this years and a study on the feasibility of such large scale killings  would have given closure and brought some sense to the debate and peace to the  real victims. 
Global Warming had an initial stage of untouchable just  like the holocaust, or the existence of God in the dark ages, and we all thought  that soon it would be illegal to oppose such fraudulent claims by law.
We  have gone past that stage fortunately and this big con, to the politicians great  sorrow, is coming slowly undone by the ever growing number of skeptics who dare  to oppose the official "truth". 
Don't be afraid of speaking your mind,  the information is at hand as long as the Internet remains free.
The  desperation of the current government to force upon us a state owned monopoly on  the provision of Internet service may put this freedom in doubt.

----------


## PhilT2

Welcome back Doc, seems like you've had a good break.  

> Quote:
>      					Originally Posted by *PhilT2*   _Zack  W Robinson from the Oregon Institute is there too. Opinions on climate  change from fully qualified veterinarians are always welcome._ 
>  They certainly are by the IPCC. 
>    Quote:
>     			 				Mader and Davis (2004) confirm that the onset of a thermal challenge  often results in declines in physical activity with associated declines  in eating and grazing (for ruminants and other herbivores) activity.

  Mader and Davis, both veterinarians, wrote a paper on how heat stress affects feedlot cattle, something they were qualified to do. Robinson, also a vet, signed a petition stating that AGW would not have any detrimental effects, something outside his qualifications. See the difference? 
[QUOTE][/QAfter being presented with over thirty thousand fully qualified  professionals in many spheres of science that have all raised objections  to the so called "consensus" (numerous times in this thread), the best  you can come up with is: bleeting about some dude dying, some dude  retiring, science continuing to be updated, and specialist scientists  are required because of the many sub-disciplines in this complex area. 
And you think these bleetings will somehow dismiss the fact that these  tens of thousands of scientists have investigated the many spurious  claims for this farce and found them wanting.UOTE] 
Couple of things there. These people signed a petition, I can;t see where they say they have "raised objections" or "investigated the claims". Many would not be qualified to do so. 
Anyone who wants to look further into the background of this petition can find it under "Oregon petition". Take a look also at the organisation behind it the Oregon Institute of Science and Madicine which happens to share staff with the Assn of American Physicians and Surgeons. In the AAPS journal you will find "peer reviewed" articles about how evolution is not true, HIV does not cause AIDS, vaccines are harmful, abortion causes cancer and AGW is not true.  
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

----------


## PhilT2

In August 1989 one tobacco company executive wrote to another saying
"Bill told me that Dr Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice"  Fred Seitz[a-z]*\W%2Bseitz[a-z]*&#p1 
Nine years later he delivers an opinion on the current research on AGW for the Oregon petition. 
I was wrong, he wasn't dead when he signed the petition, just senile. Even the tobacco companies wouldn't manipulate an old person for their own benefit. But that didn't bother the people behind the petition.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Welcome back Doc, seems like you've had a good break.

  Thanks mate, but not long enough.  Just gearing back up for work now.  I keep writing to those big oil companies to put me on the payroll, but they say the scam is over, so they don't need to fund us sceptics any more.   :Biggrin:    

> Mader and Davis, both veterinarians, wrote a paper on how heat stress affects feedlot cattle, something they were qualified to do. Robinson, also a vet, signed a petition stating that AGW would not have any detrimental effects, something outside his qualifications. See the difference?

  Is cattle heat stress not a claimed detrimental effect of AGW Theory? 
See the similarity?  :2thumbsup:  
I've posted some info below that will help with understanding the numerous scientific disciplines inherent in this area of research and how they were put together by the IPCC into three different groups.  Both pro and anti AGW Theory scientists in all these areas generally argue in detail over their specialisations and in general about the overall theory based on their assessment of the data.  There are plenty of scientists across all of these specialisations that do not agree with the IPCC conclusions.  The veterinarians deal primary with animal claims, the medical scientists deal with health claims, the hydrologists deal with water claims, the climatologists deal with the climate claims, and there are even economists to deal with some mitigation claims etc. etc., and they all (just like us) no doubt have differing opinions on all of the claims in general.  Many scientists on all sides of this issue no doubt have differing opinions within their networks and outside their networks. 
Read the petition again in this context.  :2thumbsup:    

> Great post Rod.  It shows what frauds the IPCC (and its minions) are about all the "peer review" hoopla they carry on about.  As I said above, I don't put much weight in this process in the climate research area anyway, given their self-confessed corruption of this process.  But it is the standard the IPCC set for themselves, and yes FAILED to achieve.  But let's break down the WG's found here   and see what they do.  _"The IPCC Working Group I (WG I) assesses the physical scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change._  _The main topics assessed by WG I include:  changes in greenhouse gases and aerosols in the atmosphere; observed changes in air, land and ocean temperatures, rainfall, glaciers and ice sheets, oceans and sea level; historical and paleoclimatic perspective on climate change; biogeochemistry, carbon cycle, gases and aerosols; satellite data and other data; climate models; climate projections, causes and attribution of climate change"_  
> This is the Climategate group, which still just flogs their theory, but somehow these enviro-political types have an opinion we are the sole reason for this planet warming an alleged 0.5 of a degree celsius over 150 years.   _"The IPCC Working Group II (WG II) assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change, and options for adapting to it._ _It also takes into consideration the inter-relationship between vulnerability, adaptation and sustainable development. The assessed information is considered by sectors (water resources; ecosystems; food & forests; coastal systems; industry; human health) and regions (Africa; Asia; Australia & New Zealand; Europe; Latin America; North America; Polar Regions; Small Islands)."_  
> This is the causal group.  You can't mention anything to them at a barbecue, because they'll tell you "climate change caused it".  Rod's excellent post here  recently encapsulated the spirit of this group.  If you're ever charged with a crime, hire these guys, they'll convince anyone that climate change did it.    _"The IPCC Working Group III (WG III) assesses options for mitigating climate change through limiting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing activities that remove them from the atmosphere._ _The main economic sectors are taken into account, both in a near-term and in a long-term perspective. The sectors include energy, transport, buildings, industry, agriculture, forestry, waste management. The WG analyses the costs and benefits of the different approaches to mitigation, considering also the available instruments and policy measures. The approach is more and more solution-oriented."_ 
> This is my favourite group, the "Justin Case" group.  IF the opinions of the dudes in group one are right, and IF the opinions in group two are right, then we should do this stuff to stop it.  Must be a good day at the office figuring out how to fix hypothetical symptoms to a hypothetical problem with hypothetical solutions.  No wonder these guys don't get paid.  
> Personally, I think group three is the most potentially damaging, as the first two just rant and rave about the end of the world as we know it.  But group three actually has (had?) convinced people like RUDD that increasing our taxes will cool down this planet.  
> Apologies, didn't raise the tone much, did I?

   

> Couple of things there. These people signed a petition, I can;t see where they say they have "raised objections" or "investigated the claims". Many would not be qualified to do so.

  So you are asserting that all of these scientists signed this petition in complete ignorance of the scientific research into all of these sub disciplines outlined in AR4? 
They just woke up one day and for lark thought "You know what, let's all sign a petition without any investigations into this subject at all."? 
Once again, your incredulous ridiculing of over thirty thousand scientists does your cause more of a disservice than I ever could.   

> Anyone who wants to look further into the background of this petition can find it under "Oregon petition". Take a look also at the organisation behind it the Oregon Institute of Science and Madicine which happens to share staff with the Assn of American Physicians and Surgeons. In the AAPS journal you will find "peer reviewed" articles about how evolution is not true, HIV does not cause AIDS, vaccines are harmful, abortion causes cancer and AGW is not true.  
> Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

  Yes, keep name-calling, it highlights to those in doubt that you have no scientific evidence to present, but merely resort to name-calling and denigration of your opponents in an attempt to smear their reputation. 
There is another religion that also likes to call those who question their beliefs "dogs".  :Doh:  
I am sure the thirty thousand people above who dedicated their working lives to their fields appreciate being called names for not agreeing with what is an *unproven consensus among some scientists*.  Is your position so weak that you cannot concede there is any dissent in the scientific community whatsoever? 
But hey, you keep the name-calling coming, and the lack of presentation of any scientific proof coming, and you certainly do more harm to your credibility than the scientists who have signed this petition.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> In August 1989 one tobacco company executive wrote to another saying
> "Bill told me that Dr Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice"  Fred Seitz[a-z]*W%2Bseitz[a-z]*&#p1 
> Nine years later he delivers an opinion on the current research on AGW for the Oregon petition. 
> I was wrong, he wasn't dead when he signed the petition, just senile. Even the tobacco companies wouldn't manipulate an old person for their own benefit. But that didn't bother the people behind the petition.

  Why don't you dig up the good man's medical records, to see what medication he was on and all the relapses he went through in his twilight years.  :Doh:  
Keep digging, I'm sure you'll find others who may have syphillis, statutory rape charges, vehicular homicide incidents etc. etc., anything you can use to smear the names of a few people in an attempt to support the failed theory you believe in, by distracting from the many thousands of scientists now speaking out against this farce. 
I note that you don't waste your time looking for any evidence proving this failed theory.  Is that because you already know that this evidence *does not exist!*  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

For those who have forgotten all the ridiculous scaremongering that went on when this farce was at it's height, here's a reminder.  This is further clarification of the many areas of science dragged into this farce, that then required scientists in these various areas to look at these claims. 
Bear in mind a lot of these of these claims are based on the *unproven and false premise* that AGW Theory has been proven.  *A complete list of things caused by global warming* _ warmlist  _

----------


## Rod Dyson

Now lets see 25 years of cooling?   Embedded Display for mediaite

----------


## Marc

*Piers Corbyn goes global cooling*   

> Posted on December 27, 2010 by Ryan Maue  Piers Corbyn showed up on Fox and Friends this morning to discuss his _most accurate_  prediction of a bone-chillingly cold winter, and throw some ad hominem  attacks towards the global warming “cultists”.  Many comments in the  blizzard stories on WUWT have touted the achievements and skill of  Corbyn, but, as with any long-range forecaster, he has been embarrassed  by some spectacular failures.
>  So, is Corbyn a “broken clock” right twice-a-day or is he a visionary  that sees things in the tea-leaves differently and correctly? Well,  after this blizzard and the European deep-freeze, apparently we haven’t  seen anything yet! 
>  We report, you decide … or something.
>  From Mediaite (click for video link):Predicting in November that winter in Europe would be  “exceptionally  cold and snowy, like Hell frozen over at times,” Corbyn  suggested we  should sooner prepare for another Ice Age than worry about  global  warming.  Corbyn believed global warming “is complete nonsense,  it’s  fiction, it comes from a cult ideology.  There’s no science in  there, no  facts to back [it] up.”

  
from: Whats up with that.

----------


## Marc

Interview: Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner http://www.climatechangefacts.info/C...rinterview.pdf  

> Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud 
> Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and
> Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.
> He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission
> on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and
> leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has
> been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for
> some 35 years. He was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on
> June 6 for EIR.
> ...

----------


## Marc

.  

> Projected Sea-Level Rise in the Maldives
> June 22, 2007 
> Then we know that there was a Japanese
> pineapple industry which subtracted
> too much fresh water from the inland, and
> those islands have very little fresh water
> availible from precipitation, rain. So, if
> you take out too much, you destroy the
> water magazine, and you bring sea water
> ...

----------


## Marc

.  

> EIR: What were you telling me the other day, about 22 authors
> being from Austria?
> Mörner: Three of them were from Austria, where there is not
> June 22, 2007 EIR Economics 37
> even a coast! The others were not specialists. So thats why,
> when I became president of the INQUA Commission on Sea-
> Level Change and Coastal Evolution, we made a research
> project, and we had this up for discussion at five international
> meetings. And all the true sea level specialists agreed on this
> ...

----------


## Dr Freud

> Interview: Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner http://www.climatechangefacts.info/C...rinterview.pdf

  Thanks for this Marc, it's refreshing to hear from people who place reality above psychic computers.  :2thumbsup:  
And as for this:    

> A famous tree in the Maldives shows no evidence of having been swept away by rising sea
>  levels, as would be predicted by the global warming swindlers. *A group of Australian
>  global-warming advocates came along and pulled the tree down, destroying the evidence that their theory was false.*
>   down the tree by hand! They destroyed the evidence. What
>  kind of people are those? And we came to launch this film,
>  Doomsday Called Off, right after, and the tree was still
>  green. And I heard from the locals that they had seen the people
>  who had pulled it down. So I put it up again, by hand, and
>  made my TV program. I havent told anybody else, but this
> ...

  Makes you proud to be an Aussie!  :No:  
We went off at the Paki's for ball tampering and match fixing, and that was just some cricket matches.  :Erm Smile:

----------


## Marc

The logic behind the actions of Global Warming pushers simply does not exist.  
There are  the fanatics who have embraced this new fad as one would convert to the latest  Pentecostal church and walk over anything in their path because they are driven  by religious zeal and not logic nor science. 
Then there are the resentful who  would embrace anything that goes against personal achievements, (those rich  bastards) and find a way to channel their anger and get back at those they percieve have taken away their chances, in a socially acceptable  way. 
Then you have the politicians who have quickly realised that there is a  way to tax air, provide nothing in exchange and pocket the money for their own  political purposes. 
And then we have the string pullers. This are the  likes of Al Gore and Co that in alliance with bent so called scientist and  assorted social misfits, enjoy manipulation of the masses for a fee. Those are  the one that will ultimately benefit from wealth redistribution in their own  corporations and power shift towards so called green objectives that will retro  feed yet again their own corporations. 
Whoever can not see this, needs to  take a reality check, because it is far too obvious to overlook. It is becoming  very difficult to ignore the elephant in the room. 
I mean honestly... if you don't like knitting, what's wrong with your local bush brigade volonteers, art classes or join the followers of the late Michael Jackson

----------


## Dr Freud

Doesn't look much like the Hockey Stick.  :Biggrin:  
Read the full story here:  2010  where does it fit in the warmest year list? | Watts Up With That? 
For those of you looking to smear this scientist concerned, here is his resume'.  Don J. Easterbrook: Resume 
But he has been smeared for many years now, for correctly pointing out scientific facts, including the many lies and errors Al Gore has spread.  This was his reward:  

> W*HO ARE THESE GUYS? Is Easterbrook a bit of a nut? * Broadbaldly misleading his readerstells us that his leading Gore-critic is just a modest rank-and-file scientist. If he had told his readers the truth, a possibility might have entered their heads; many readers would have wondered if Easterbrook is a just a big, f*cking nut.

  Found here:  Daily Howler: Is Easterbrook a bit of a nut? William Broad didn't want you to ask 
Hey, they can't present any science, so they'll just name-call.  I wonder where we've seen these tactics before.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

The always gorgeous Jo Nova has already covered this much more eloquently than we ever could:    

> To see just how mindlessly puerile denier is, try the thought experiment of putting those-who-use-it in the same room as one of the more notable deniers.  
>  Julia Gillard (the new PM downunder) used denier 11 times in one recent speech. So imagine shes in a room talking with, say, Ivar Giaever. She studied arts and law, he got a PhD in theoretical physics two years before she was born, and won a Nobel Prize by the time she was nine. Picture him talking atmospheric physics and her telling him _hes a denier_.     How arrogant art thy name-callers? « JoNova

----------


## Dr Freud

Yeh, Joolia's renowned for her expertise in nuclear physics and economics:   

> Now we just have to decide whether the rest of the world are idiots, or our PM is?      *Nuclear power doesnt stack up as an economically efficient source of power. Julia Gillard.*   *Column - Nuclear is Julias only real hope | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog*    Joolia is backing the windmills and their ilk.

  Stick to name-calling Jool's, it is better than admitting you're clueless.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

Even the CSIRO now realises people are sick of hearing about drought and heat when they are drowning and freezing.  They have even issued a reminder for us idiots who can't look out the window about how we are all going to dry and fry some time in the next hundred years.  But, oops, we predicted less rain and less snow, but now that they've happened, we'll just revert back to "natural variation", which means we don't know --it!   

> A CSIRO scientist is warning authorities not to interpret floods in eastern Australia and snowstorms over Europe and North America as signalling the end of global warming.

  One would hope the CSIRO could warn the Commonwealth, state and local governments directly, rather than through the media, or is this just a bit of propaganda for those citizens losing the faith?   

> "The basic long-term trend over the next 100 years is for a steady global warming, and over most of Australia we can expect to see rainfall decline.
>  "Despite the variability from year to year, there will be a long-term drying trend over most of Australia."

  Full story here:   Floods, freeze not the end of global warming: CSIRO - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  
Drying trend huh?  This guy in Queensland is looking forward to it:     
And how is that skyrocketing temperature looking anyway since the last cooling phase ended in 1977?     
Wow, better man the fire extinguishers.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Let's set the stage for next years "action" on "climate change". 
Here's PM Joolia's track record: *
November 2009:* It's about the circumstances of this nation's children and their children.  Well there's nothing about another inquiry - we have had dozens of them - there's nothing about another inquiry that is going to change Nick Minchin's view. Delay is denial.  *July 2010:*  Ms Gillard has indicated she will revise Labor's climate change policy before the election, and ruled out a carbon tax as an interim measure.  She says the Government will stick with its intention of reviewing global progress at the end of 2012 before deciding whether to proceed with the trading scheme.  Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she will not revive the Government's emissions trading scheme until at least 2013.   *September 2010:* JULIA Gillard and Wayne Swan have appealed to the new parliament to let them put a price on carbon in this term to deliver certainty for business.Labor has since left the door open to introducing a carbon tax rather than an emissions trading scheme. Asked why she had shifted on a carbon tax, Ms Gillard told the Ten Network's Meet the Press yesterday "circumstances have changed" and said the government had to be realistic.  *
December 2010:* The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee held its third meeting in Canberra today.  The Prime Minister, the Hon Julia Gillard MP, the Deputy Prime Minister the Hon Wayne Swan MP and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency the Hon Greg Combet AM MP were joined by co-deputy chair of the Committee, Australian Greens Deputy Leader Senator Christine Milne, Australian Greens Leader Senator Bob Brown, Mr Tony Windsor MP, and Mr Rob Oakeshott MP....

----------


## Dr Freud

Yep, let's go it alone.   

> Labor is looking increasingly like the sole lemming on the cliff: _JAPANS decision to postpone its plans for an ETS by 2013 has increased pressure on Julia Gillard over her goal of pricing carbon next year_  _The decision by the worlds fifth-largest greenhouse gas emitter and Australias second-largest trading partner to postpone the scheme for a year comes after the US also stepped back from a national emissions trading scheme and as international firms remain concerned about lax pollution controls in China, which has no obligations under the Kyoto Protocol_  _The Japanese government move came after pressure from business, which was concerned an ETS would add to costs and limit their ability to compete against rivals in China and India who would not face the same restrictions._The same considerations apply to us, of course.   And a big difference wed make on our own | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Rod Dyson

Ok Woodbe and Chrisp put a lot of faith in believing scientists, trusting scientists etc. 
So here we have a list of 31 scientist all predicting up to 30 years of cooling. Now my question is do you trust these scientists or not. 
Or do we ignore what they are telling us?  
Or the other option is. Do we try and dig up some dirt on each of these guys to try and discredit them to show they could not possibly be right?   

> Here is a list of 31 different international climate scientists, academics, meteorologists, climate researchers and engineers who have researched this topic and who disagree with AGW science and IPCC forecasts, and are projecting much cooler weather for the next 1-3 decades.

  Full link here. Global Cooling Consensus Is Heating Up – Cooling Over The Next 1 To 3 Decades

----------


## PhilT2

> Full link here. Global Cooling Consensus Is Heating Up – Cooling Over The Next 1 To 3 Decades

  The misleading statements in the beginning of the article linked above were corrected over six months ago. http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uplo...PiPG-paper.pdf

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The misleading statements in the beginning of the article linked above were corrected over six months ago. http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uplo...PiPG-paper.pdf

  
And as for the rest of it..........................???

----------


## PhilT2

The first lie just stuck out like a sore thumb, Hulme and Jones have co-authored a number of papers, did they really expect that people would believe such obvious bull? 
As to the rest if you want to look at what these scientists and what they have published I'll go along with that. Here's how I usually evaluate a scientists work, first read what they've published, where it was printed, was it peer reviewed, has it been replicated by others etc. 
For example I had a quick look at Morner when his name came up a few pages back. I read the arrticle that was linked.Some things stick out straight away, he talks about Crichtons "State of Fear" as lf it was a real science. It's not, it's fiction, with fictious events and characters and a few half truths thrown in to make it more readable. Then I checked the committee that he was part of to see what they had published. First thing I found was a letter put up by his fellow scientists from that group saying they totally disassociated themselves from him and his findings. Also if he wants to accuse Aussies of doing something dodgey it would help if he posted some evidence. 
I haven't had time to look further at his work but in the search google bought up a couple of other things that might lead one to believe that at times he was not completely familiar with scientific methods. This doesn't mean all his work is invalid but makes me want to double check his work before I accept it. 
So, a couple of questions. Do you accept what these 31 scientists have found? Why do you accept their predictions as being accurate?

----------


## Marc

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/  

> *Suddenly, Skepticism of Peer-Reviewed Science is OK* 
>  				December 8, 2010, 9:06 am  _Cross-posted at Coyote Blog_
>  Wow, suddenly skepticism, and even outright harsh criticism, of peer-reviewed work is OK, as long as it is not in climate I suppose. On Thursday, Dec. 2, Rosie Redfield sat down to read a new paper called A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus.  Despite its innocuous title, the paper had great ambitions. Every  living thing that scientists have ever studied uses phosphorus to build  the backbone of its DNA. In the new paper, NASA-funded scientists  described a microbe that could use arsenic instead. If the authors of  the paper were right, we would have to expand our.
>  As soon Redfield started to read the paper, she was shocked. I was outraged at how bad the science was, she told me.
>  Redfield blogged a scathing attack  on Saturday. Over the weekend, a few other scientists took to the  Internet as well. Was this merely a case of a few isolated cranks? To  find out, I reached out to a dozen experts on Monday. Almost  unanimously, they think the NASA scientists have failed to make their  case. It would be really cool if such a bug existed, said San Diego  State Universitys Forest Rohwer,  a microbiologist who looks for new species of bacteria and viruses in  coral reefs. But, he added, none of the arguments are very convincing  on their own. That was about as positive as the critics could get.  This paper should not have been published, said Shelley Copley of the University of Colorado.The article goes on to describe many potential failures in the  methodology.  None of this should be surprising  I have written for  years that peer-review is by no means proof against bad science or  incorrect findings.  It is more of an  extended editorial process.  The  real test of published science comes later, when the broader community  attempts to replicate results.
>  The problem in climate science has been that its proponents want to  claim that having research performed by a small group of scientists that  is peer-reviewed by the same small group is sufficient to making the  results settled science.  Once published, they argue, no one  (certainly not laymen on blogs) has the right to criticize it, and  the researchers dont (as revealed in the Climategate emails) have any  obligations to release their data or code to allow replication.   This  is just fresh proof that this position is nuts.
>  The broken climate science process is especially troubling given the  budgetary and reputational incentives to come out with the most dramatic  possible results, something NASAs James Hansen has been accused of  doing by many climate skeptics.  To this end, consider this from the  bacteria brouhaha.  First, we see the same resistance to criticism,  trying to deflect any critiques outside of peer-reviewed journals Any discourse will have to be peer-reviewed in the same  manner as our paper was, and go through a vetting process so that all  discussion is properly moderated, wrote Felisa Wolfe-Simon  of the NASA Astrobiology Institute. The items you are presenting do  not represent the proper way to engage in a scientific discourse and we  will not respond in this manner.WTF?  How, then, did we ever have scientific process before peer-reviewed journals appeared on the scene? But Jonathan Eisen  of UC-Davis doesnt let the scientists off so easily. If they say they  will not address the responses except in journals, that is absurd, he  said. They carried out science by press release and press conference.  Whether they were right or not in their claims, they are now  hypocritical if they say that the only response should be in the  scientific literature.Wow, that could be verbatim from a climate skeptic in the climate debate.
>  And finally, this on incentives and scientific process: Some scientists are left wondering why NASA made such a  big deal over a paper with so many flaws. I suspect that NASA may be so  desperate for a positive story that they didnt look for any serious  advice from DNA or even microbiology people, says John Rothof UC-Davis.

----------


## Marc

www.climate-skeptic.com  

> *Example of Why Climate Science is Becoming a Laughingstock* 
>              October 26, 2010, 9:12 am 
>                                Some of you may have seen this at my other blog, where I ran it by  accident, thinking I was posting here.   From the Thin Green Line, a  reliable source for any absurd science that supports environmental  alarmism:Sending and receiving email makes up a full percent of a relatively green person’s annual carbon emissions, the equivalent of driving 200 miles.
> Dealing  with spam, however, accounts for more than a fifth of the   average  account holder’s electricity use. Spam makes up a shocking 80   percent of  all emails sent, but most people get rid of them as fast as   you can say  “delete.”
> So how does email stack up to snail mail? The per-message carbon cost    of email is just 1/60th of the old-fashioned letter’s. But think about    it — you probably send at least 60 times as many emails a year than you    ever did letters.
>  One way to go greener then is to avoid sending a bunch of short emails and instead build a longer message before you send it.This is simply hilarious, and reminds me of the things the engineers   would fool the pointy-haired boss with in Dilbert.  Here was my   response:This is exactly the kind of garbage analysis that is making the environmental movement a laughing stock.
>  In  computing the carbon footprint of email, the vast majority of the    energy in the study was taking the amount of energy used by a PC   during  email use (ie checking, deleting, sending, organizing) and   dividing it  by the number of emails sent or processed.  The number of   emails is  virtually irrelevant — it is the time spent on the computer   that  matters.   So futzing around trying to craft one longer email from   many  shorter emails does nothing, and probably consumers more energy   if it  takes longer to write than the five short emails.
>  This is exactly  the kind of peril that results from a) reacting to   the press release of  a study without understanding its methodology (or   the underlying  science) and b) focusing improvement efforts on the   wrong metrics.
>  The way to save power is to use your computer less, and to shut it down when not in use rather than leaving it on standby.If  one wants to argue that the energy is from actually  firing the bits   over the web, this is absurd.  Even if this had a  measurable energy   impact, given the very few bytes in an email,  reducing your web surfing   by one page a day would keep more bytes from  moving than completely   giving up email.
>  By the way, the suggestion for an email charge  in the linked article   is one I have made for years, though the amount  is too high.  A  charge  of even 1/100 cent per email would cost each of  us about a  penny per  day but would cost a 10 million mail spammer $1000,  probably  higher  than his or her expected yield from the spam.

----------


## PhilT2

> They just woke up one day and for lark thought "You know what, let's all  sign a petition without any investigations into this subject at all."?

  Read the SciAm report, some of them don't ever recall signing. 
[QUOTE][/Yes, keep name-calling, it highlights to those in doubt that you have no  scientific evidence to present, but merely resort to name-calling and  denigration of your opponents in an attempt to smear their reputation.QUOTE] 
The evidence against the Oregon Institute is out there for everyone to see. Their director also publishes JAPANDS. Go read some of it then come back and tell me you believe what they publish. I recommend you read the original documents but here's a shortcut. neurodiversity weblog: Strange Bedfellows
I have read much of their rubbish over the years and have come to the conclusion that they are barking mad, hence the label. It's not that I doubt the scientists, I doubt the Oregon Institute and anything they publish. No reputable scientist would sign anything associated with them if they were open and honest about what they stood for.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The first lie just stuck out like a sore thumb, Hulme and Jones have co-authored a number of papers, did they really expect that people would believe such obvious bull? 
> As to the rest if you want to look at what these scientists and what they have published I'll go along with that. Here's how I usually evaluate a scientists work, first read what they've published, where it was printed, was it peer reviewed, has it been replicated by others etc. 
> For example I had a quick look at Morner when his name came up a few pages back. I read the arrticle that was linked.Some things stick out straight away, he talks about Crichtons "State of Fear" as lf it was a real science. It's not, it's fiction, with fictious events and characters and a few half truths thrown in to make it more readable. Then I checked the committee that he was part of to see what they had published. First thing I found was a letter put up by his fellow scientists from that group saying they totally disassociated themselves from him and his findings. Also if he wants to accuse Aussies of doing something dodgey it would help if he posted some evidence. 
> I haven't had time to look further at his work but in the search google bought up a couple of other things that might lead one to believe that at times he was not completely familiar with scientific methods. This doesn't mean all his work is invalid but makes me want to double check his work before I accept it. 
> So, a couple of questions. Do you accept what these 31 scientists have found? Why do you accept their predictions as being accurate?

  Nice dirt digging and mud throwing just as expected. LOL I don't know if I should laugh or throw up. 
Now what do you have to say about their positions on climate? If you think they are wroing you might like to tell us why?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So, a couple of questions. Do you accept what these 31 scientists have found? Why do you accept their predictions as being accurate?

  To be honest I really don't know, I am not that clever to be able to say if they are right or not. 
But they are scientists and they are having their say. I think what they are saying makes a lot more sense to me than what the warmist are saying.   
It also shows that there is not the consensus warmists try to impose on us.   
It is not for me to accept what anyone says, unlike some who will blindly accept what others say.

----------


## chrisp

> I don't know if I should laugh or throw up.

  I would recommend that you throw up.  It seems to me that you have been swallowing some really bad information (I wouldn't call it science) - and that you should purge that crap from your system!   :Smilie:

----------


## PhilT2

I'm not trying to put myself across as an expert either but that tree story is suss to me. What scientist would use one tree to measure anything? If a few cm of sea level rise would have wiped it out then wouldn't a good storm do the same? Maybe the Boxing Day tsunami wiped it out. 
Here's the letter from his boss. http://www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf
Here's James Randi on Morner. The Randi Hotline -- 1998: End-of-month-notes
His belief in dowsing is not related to his work but it says something about how he understands science and how the scientific process works. 
John Church and Neil White from CSIRO have both published on sea level, I'll see if they have written anything refuting Morner.

----------


## Dr Freud

> For example *I had a quick look at Morner* when his name came up a few pages back. I read the arrticle that was linked.Some things stick out straight away, he talks about Crichtons "State of Fear" as lf it was a real science. It's not, it's fiction, with fictious events and characters and a few half truths thrown in to make it more readable. Then I checked the committee that he was part of to see what they had published. First thing I found was a letter put up by his fellow scientists from that group saying they totally disassociated themselves from him and his findings. Also if he wants to accuse Aussies of doing something dodgey it would help if he posted some evidence.

  You still don't get it, do you? 
You don't need to look at Morner, you need to look at his research, his data and his conclusions.  Then use your own brain to figure if what he's saying fits together. *On this subject.* Not his possible proclivities toward supporting the anal insertion of gerbils for fun  :Biggrin:  (not that he does this mind you, but even if he did, what the hell does it have to do with the facts *not proving* AGW Theory). 
What has your research into the facts on sea level rise uncovered? 
Here's a hint, go to the beach!  I've been going for nearly half a century, and it's still in exactly the same place.  Maybe a little lower if anything.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  
I have a strange feeling if I go the full century, it's still gonna be there, rather than "lapping at my front door".  :Doh:    

> I haven't had time to look further at his work but in the search google bought up a couple of other things that might lead one to believe that at times he was not completely familiar with scientific methods. This doesn't mean all his work is invalid but makes me want to double check his work before I accept it.

  When you are familiar with the scientific method, you will understand it means double checking *all work* before accepting it, not blindly accepting work based on a reputation or ideology.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yes, keep name-calling, it highlights to those in doubt that you have no  scientific evidence to present, but merely resort to name-calling and  denigration of your opponents in an attempt to smear their reputation.
> 			
> 		   The evidence against the Oregon Institute is out there for everyone to see. Their director also publishes JAPANDS. Go read some of it then come back and tell me you believe what they publish. I recommend you read the original documents but here's a shortcut. neurodiversity weblog: Strange Bedfellows
> I have read much of their rubbish over the years and have come to the conclusion that they are barking mad, hence the label. It's not that I doubt the scientists, I doubt the Oregon Institute and anything they publish. No reputable scientist would sign anything associated with them if they were open and honest about what they stood for.

  So hang on a minute, let me work this out: 
There's a scientist you're trying to smear because he signed a petition you disagree with.  So you track some staff working for the place organising the petition, figure some of these staff also work for another place, whose director also publishes another magazine, that some allegedly crazy people write in? And all of these links are designed to discredit the original scientist who signed a petition you disagree with.  At least this proves he isn't doing the gerbil thing, cos if he was, you would have dug it up and posted the video by now.  :Biggrin:  
If you need to go to these lengths to distract from the *total lack of evidence* proving AGW Theory, it is no wonder the public support is dropping faster than the snow, rain and temperature put together.  :Biggrin:  
Even my idiot family (uni-educated of course) were very acquiescent about AGW Theory at the Christmas party.  The info I keep feeding them is obviously finally sinking in, now that the doom mongers have been buried in snow. 
P.S. I didn't read the link about the Oregon institute (no idea who they are :No: ) and the evidence against them (whatever the hell that means :Confused: ).  I think I'll stick to AGW Theory and the total lack of evidence proving it.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I would recommend that you throw up. It seems to me that you have been swallowing some really bad information (I wouldn't call it science) - and that you should purge that crap from your system!

  Yeh Rod, you should trust reputable and trusty people, like those at the IPCC:   

> The IPCC cited a guide for Antarctica tour operators on decontaminating boots and clothing.   The reference is in the Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group II, section 15.7.2 Economic activity and sustainability in the Antarctic. The claim is:   "*The multiple stresses of climate change* and increasing human activity on the Antarctic Peninsula represent a clear vulnerability (see Section 15.6.3), and have *necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines* for tourist landings on the Antarctic Peninsula (IAATO, 2005)."   So the IPCC cites a boot and clothing cleaning guide as evidence that the "multiple stresses of climate change...have necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines". That might be laughable in and of itself, but the problem is _the article doesn't even mention climate change_. Once. Nothing at all about global warming, or temperature increase. *Nothing! *  More here.

  But don't walk down to the beach to see the ocean exactly where it's always been, reality doesn't stack up against psychic computers, that's what's called "science".  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> John Church and Neil White from CSIRO have both published on sea level, I'll see if they have written anything refuting Morner.

  Here's a better idea, how about you do some of your own research, trust your own brain to process the data, form your own opinion, and don't defer to the authority figures or institutions such as the CSIRO? 
But if you must defer to authority, please forward some of their stuff to the Maldives government.  They obviously have *NO IDEA* the psychic computers have foretold the drowning of their islands.    

> I wonder if VCAT would have approved this airport:    *Maldives Plans For Drowning By Building Huge New Airport Next To The Ocean* 
>                                                Posted on December 4, 2010 by stevengoddard  
> They are obviously really worried about global warming and sea level rise and any other way to scam money out of stupid bankrupt western governments.   Maldives Plans For Drowning By Building Huge New Airport Next To The Ocean | Real Science

  Yes, this will be built *at sea level*.  The blue bits are *the sea*.  
Here's the kicker, probably paid for in part by Climate Aid!  :Roflmao2:

----------


## Dr Freud

So, the red line is the Sun, the blue line is the teperature, and the green line is CO2 levels.      
And here we go... :Shiny:

----------


## Dr Freud

Numbers don't lie, but people do lie about the numbers.   

> Two recent studies have shown that 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers who actively publish peer-reviewed research on climate change agree that humans are significantly affecting Earth's climate.

  Sounds impressive huh?  *BIG* consensus huh?  Must be millions of them huh? 
Would you believe just 75 people make up this percentage? 
More here:  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...sus_opiate.pdf

----------


## jago

87.354% of statistics are made up including this one...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Here's how I usually evaluate a scientists work, first read what they've published, where it was printed, was it peer reviewed, has it been replicated by others etc.

  And here is why your statement is just pious grand standing.  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...sus_opiate.pdf

----------


## Rod Dyson

Maybe you could find some dirt on these guys as well?  http://myexcellentopinion.com/wp-con...010eegw-ew.pdf   

> Dr Madhav L Khandekar, former research scientist from Environment Canada and an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC 2007, says the evidence suggests winters have become colder and possibly longer in the past 10 years.

   

> There are numerous other cold weather events of recent years which have been archived by a US-based project ICECAP (International Climate & Environmental Assessment Project: http://www.icecap). What is of interest here is that cold weather extremes seem to be occurring with greater frequency in the last ten years than what has been reported in media or in scientific literature. IPCC climate change documents do not mention anything about cold weather extremes and their trends and/or changes in future climate projections

  Why don't you just face the reality that AGW is not a proven theory and that there is a long way to go before you can justify carbon taxes and carbon trading schemes base on this theory. 
We all know the physics behind CO2 as a "green house" gas contributer, but there is NO EVIDENCE that CO2 is a driver of climate change.  
In fact there is EVIDENCE to the contrary.    

> Sole, Turiel and Llebot writing in Physics Letters A (366 [2007] 184–189) identified three classes of D-O oscillations in the Greenland GISP2 ice cores A (brief), B (medium) and C (long), reflecting the speed at which the warming relaxes back to the cold glacial state: _“In this work ice-core CO2 time evolution in the period going from 20 to 60 kyr BP [15] has been qualitatively compared to our temperature cycles, according to the class they belong to. It can be observed in Fig. 6 that class A cycles are completely unrelated to changes in CO2 concentration. We have observed some correlation between B and C cycles and CO2 concentration, but of the opposite sign to the one expected: maxima in atmospheric CO2 concentration tend to correspond to the middle part or the end the cooling period. The role of CO2 in the oscillation phenomena seems to be more related to extend the duration of the cooling phase than to trigger warming. This could explain why cycles not coincident in time with maxima of CO2 (A cycles) rapidly decay back to the cold state. ”_

  The Antithesis | Watts Up With That? 
More scientist for you to disbelieve and dig up some dirt on. Maybe they are in the pay of big oil or something? 
Oh! and I forgot none of this could possibly be relevent because it appears on "watts up with that"
After all he is a discredited voodoo science promoter isn't he </sarc>

----------


## Rod Dyson

[quote=Rod Dyson;825944] 
We all know the physics behind CO2 as a "green house" gas contributer, but there is NO EVIDENCE that CO2 is a driver of climate change. 
 [/qoute] 
Just while we are on this subject............   

> The do you deny the simple GHG physics argument is also often an attempt to portray anyone that asks reasonable scientific questions about AGW and the complexity of climate science, as some sort of  an anti-science, flat earther denier.
> The realities and complexities and unknowns of climate science are described in the IPCC working Group 1 reports, but somehow get lost in translation into the Summary for Policymakers, for example (and everyone knows very few politicians even read beyond the executive summary of anything).
> IPCC (Chapter 14, 14.2.2.2, Working Group 1, The Scientific Basis) Third Assessment Report: In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that *long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible*.

   Simple Physics – In reality my feather blew up into a tree | Watts Up With That? 
I guess this guy is wrong too.

----------


## Marc

Besides the many serious field data collected in the last half a century and disregarding the bullexcrement projected computer forecast used to scare the masses, I will provide my own personal data.
My family has owned water front property in 3 continents from before ww1. I am personally familiar with brass plaques screwd on hardwood post that show flood levels since 1940 on 2 continents. the water level on all 3 properties (tidal waters mind you not inland rivers or lakes) is UNCHANGED showing NO DISCERNABLE TREND. 
Sea Level Rising is bullmanure just like Andropogenic Global Warming.   :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Marc

> More scientist for you to disbelieve and dig up some dirt on. Maybe they are in the pay of big oil or something?

  Yes, you are right. That smear is the most comon you read when someone is writing what is inconvenient for the global warming mafia cause. 
I have been accused to be on the take from the oil industry for years in different forums on this subject.
I invariably reply by saying that I would GLADLY take some money to type up common sense reply to all the bull that is being copy and pasted by well intentioned yet illinformed people, authored by bent and unscrupulous self apoointed experts. And I always ask if someone can tell me who to approach in order to get on their payroll. 
Sadly I never got a hint as to how to get this misterious money.
If you happen to think that there are oil industry spionen around every corner, I would gladly join their rank so please tell me how do I get paid to write against the AGW alarmist. 
If I wanted to get paid to write or talk in favour of the AGW agitators, I know a dozen different ways, but I would be unabel to keep down my dinner after every time I had this hipotetical pep talk so, I could not do it for health reasons.  :Biggrin:  
PS
Whats wrong with fibregass self adhesive tape? I use it all the time, good stuff....

----------


## Marc

*JaxConservative*     

> Just another WordPress.com weblog       	   GWW AKA JAXHAWK AKA JAXCONSERVATIVE 
>  	 				   		 			 				Posted by: *rotenochsen* | January 22, 2008  				*The Polar Bear Myth Is A Threat To US*  
>  			 				 			      		Recently, some scientists have claimed that human-caused  global warming poses a significant threat to the survival of many  species. For most species at risk, they argue, warming will cause the  range of suitable habitat to shift faster than either the species (or  their food sources) can move or adapt to a new range. For other species,  they say, suitable habitat will cease to exist altogether. Among the  species claimed to be at high risk of extinction from human-caused  global warming is the charismatic polar bear.
>  Indeed, in February 2005 the Center for Biological Diversity filed a  petition with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to list the  polar bear as endangered or threatened. The petition was  later joined by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace.  In response, the USFWS initiated a formal status review to determine if  the polar bear should be protected throughout its range.
>  A new NCPA study by Dr. David Legates, director of the University of  Delawares Center for Climatic Research and state climatologist,  examines the claim that global warming threatens to cause polar bear  extinction and finds little basis for fear. By and large, the study  finds that polar bear populations are in good shape.
>  The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that the World  Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international organization that has worked for  50 years to protect endangered species, has also written on the threats  posed to polar bears from global warming. However, their own research  seems to undermine their fears. According to the WWF, about 20 distinct  polar bear populations exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar  bears worldwide. Their study shows population patterns do not show a  temperature-linked decline. In Fact the conclsion is.  What seems clear  is that polar bears have survived for thousands of years, including  both colder and warmer periods. There may be threats to the future  survival of the polar bear, but global warming is not primary among  them.
>  Moreover, when the WWF report is compared with the Arctic air  temperature trend studies discussed earlier, there is a strong positive  (instead of negative) correlation between air temperature and polar bear  populations. Polar bear populations are declining in regions (like  Baffin Bay) that have experienced a decrease in air temperature, while  areas where polar bear populations are increasing (near the Bering  Strait and the Chukchi Sea) are associated with increasing air  temperatures. Thus it is difficult to argue that rising air temperatures  will necessarily and directly lead to a decrease in polar bear  populations.
>  People like  Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological  Diversitys Climate, Air and Energy Program, a liberal organization,  should concern themselves with the real killer of polar bears. The  Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, allow native Alaskans(eskimos) to  kill polar bears or food and clothing. They kill 60-100 polar bears a  year. This is a bigger threat than an oil spill that may or may not  happen.
>  People like her and the fool Democrat Congressman,   Rep. Ed Markey,  chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global  Warming, who last Thursday introduced a bill  that would require the Interior Department to delay the sale of oil  drilling rights in the Chukchi Sea (Sale 193)  currently scheduled for  Feb. 6  until it makes a decision on the polar bear. 
>                                               who is holding up the sale  of leases to oil companies in theChukchi/Bering Sea area are a threat  to our Countries way of life and oil independence from the Arabs.

----------


## Marc

Save The Polar Bear: Hysteria and Myth | Climate Realists Save The Polar Bear: Hysteria and Myth 
  					 							  								Saturday, May 16th 2009, 2:06 PM EDT 							 Co2sceptic _(Site Admin)_  *The More Science Learns, the More They Realize That Al Gore Is Simply A Snake Oil Salesman*     

> By Douglas V. Gibbs 
> While reading the New York Times this morning I came across a laughable  editorial titled: Practical Steps to Save the Polar Bear by Oh, wait,  no author was listed. 
> Pop Culture, Politicians, and a various array of village idiots are  continuing to be convinced that humanity is capable of affecting the  weather patterns on this planet by spewing a minuscule amount of  greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. People can be that way, I guess.  Show them a few manipulated graphs, a handful of images of hurricanes  and crashing waves, a piece of glacier falling into the sea, and a polar  bear struggling to pull itself on a floating block of ice, and mass  hysteria (devoid of true facts) is birthed. 
> The environmental lobby that is promoting Al Gores fantastic facts of  immense error proclaim that Global Warming is not a Republican Issue,  and not a Democratic Issue - but instead our dying planet is an American  Issue, and is becoming even more so a Global Issue that must be  addressed by all humanity. 
>  Agreement is awarded to the weasels for their worldwide issue argument  - I agree, the entire citizenry of the entire world is equally gullible  and sheeplike, and is more than willing to follow blindly an  agenda-driven proclamation because deep down we care about the world  around us and realize that we really should be good stewards of our  planetary home. 
> Our good nature toward our environment makes us easy targets for scam  artists and swindlers like Al Gore, and the environmental loonies. 
> The New York Times article cries out how even our meager efforts to slow  down the damaging effects of mythical man-made global warming is not  enough to protect the precious polar bear whos precarious existence is  being even more endangered by exploratory drilling in the bears  territory. 
> Hence, the arrival of the true reason for the piece by the author to be named later. 
> I wonder, as I review the article from The New York Times, if the piece  is actually concerned with saving polar bears. The editorial reminds us  that the dreaded Bush Administration listed the polar bear as threatened  last May, so this must be a bi-partisan issue - and then the  opinionated editorial begins to throw around false data like that the  polar bears habitat is melting away, and that three of the worlds four  major polar bear populations could be extinct by 2075. But the emphasis  on the Clean Air Act, capping emissions worldwide, and stopping oil and  gas exploration in the upper northern region of this planet tells me  that the polar bear is simply a tool. Those fuzzy white bears floating  on an ice chunk rubbing their tummies because they are hungry as a  result of mans destructive energy explorations is simply a tactic to  tug at your heartstrings so that you, too, may buy into the lies they  are feeding you, and support increasing government control over energy,  and the pursuit of clean air energy programs that are neither  cost-efficient, nor reasonably good for the planet and humanity. 
> ...

----------


## Marc

'It's the photo that became a symbol of global warming: polar bears stranded on a melting ice-floe in mid-winter. The truth? It was taken in summer' 
Read more: 'Polars bears on the brink? Don't you believe it' | Mail Online   Not long ago, this isolated outpost on Hudson Bay was in financial trouble. 
Then, wealthy tourists discovered the thrill of nature-watching breaks and Churchill, home to the most easily accessible polar bear population, became a fashionable - and newly prosperous - adventure holiday destination.
 Although the town is still accessible only by train or light aircraft, its guesthouses are packed during late summer and autumn, when the vast ice-sheet over the bay melts, forcing around 1,000 bears to lollop around for months on the shore.
 Lately, however, it is not only polar bear watchers who come flocking.
 With the clamour over global warming, it has become a magnet for an army of environmentalists and climatologists who have given Churchill an air of impending doom.
 The Arctic ice-cap is shrinking fast, is their message, and as it disappears, so too will the polar bears.
 Today, the polar bear population may hover healthily around 25,000 (they live in Russia, Alaska, Greenland, Norway and Canada).
 Yet, we are repeatedly warned, if the planet continues to overheat at the present rate, within four decades our biggest carnivore will be extinct, starved to death as its natural hunting grounds disappear.
 "Come up and see them while you still can," is the gist of their depressing refrain.
 To some Churchill residents, who base their opinions on personal experience rather than fancy charts and computer models, this is so much nonsense put about by scaremongers for their own dubious ends.
 When outsiders question whether anyone would be so cynical, they are reminded of that now-famous photograph of a polar bear which appears to be teetering precariously on an Arctic ice-floe, melting faster than ice-cream, in the depths of winter.
 For a while, it became a powerful symbol of the perils of global warming - until it was revealed to have been taken three years ago and during the height of summer.
 And so the battle lines between Churchill's optimists and pessimists have been drawn.
 Nigel Marven's new series does not pretend to answer the complexities of this increasingly heated debate.
 True to his easy-going style, he prefers to glory in the natural wonders of the Arctic.
 In addition to countless polar bears, he came eye-to-eye with musk ox and moose, blubbery great walruses and curious little lemmings which, we discover, aren't really suicidal after all.
 He also met fluffy white seal cubs, giant owls and snow buntings, and foxes whose coats change colour from cinnamon to silver with the passing seasons.
 He took an icy dip with mystical white beluga whales and marvelled at the most breathtaking light show on Earth: the Aurora Borealis.
 Inevitably, after studying the bears for 80 days and speaking to the people who live among them, he formed his own view about "the disappearing polar bear" controversy.
 Flying into Churchill, the weather seems cold enough.
 If minus 5C means the greenhouse effect is upon us, heaven knows what it was like before.
 According to my taxi driver, however, the seasons _have_ changed, and by rights it should be a whole lot colder.
 "Last week, it was minus 20C, but now it's suddenly warmed up again, and not long ago that never happened," he informs me.
 In Churchill, the effects of this odd upsurge in temperature are clear.
 By this time of year, Hudson Bay has usually refrozen and the bears are beginning to slide off to hunt seals on the fringe of the ice-sheet.
 After freezing briefly, however, it has now melted again, and so the bears are still very much among us.
 One morning, disconcertingly, I awake to learn that a family of five has been wandering around outside my hotel.
 Meanwhile, at the so-called "polar bear jail" - where bears who persistently loiter around town are held after being tranquillised, pending their re-release into the wild - all the concrete cells are full.
 This presents the local wildlife authorities with a major headache.
 Most of these errant bears are adolescents who haven't yet learned to behave.
 But you can hardly give a loutish bear an ASBO. Venturing out of town, we also find bears in abundance.
 Researchers have found that their weight has dropped by up to 20 per cent because the melting ice has reduced their feeding time and forced them to swim longer distances hunting for prey. But the ones we see look healthy enough.
 Filming these deceptively cuddly-looking creatures is a precarious business, but our cameraman, Peter Thorn, captures some amazing footage.
 One afternoon, we watch from a few yards as two fully grown adults stand on their hind legs and box one another, in a sparring context that seems specially staged for us.
 "This behaviour is unique to the Churchill bears," whispers Nigel.
 "We think they do it because this is the only place they congregate.
 "They're testing their mettle because, next spring, they will be fighting for real, over females."
 Later, out on the tundra, we encounter a big, ten-year-old old male with distinctive scars on his nose.
 "Old battle wounds," remarks Dennis Compayre knowingly.
 He calls to the animal which he knows well and has nicknamed Dancer - and the bear immediately pads over to us and rises up to the viewing platform on his hind-legs, coming so close that our minder can pat him on the head.
 The bond between bear and man looks uncanny until, with a wry grin, our minder explains that he used to share his breakfast with the bear - violating strictly enforced laws that forbid feeding them, for fear they may become sensitised to humans, and therefore more dangerous.
 "Well, why shouldn't we feed them, if they're really so hungry?" he says, hankering for the days when he was allowed to take to the ice with a bottle of Scotch (for himself) and a tub of lard (for the bears).
 "What do these do-gooders think we should do? Just let them starve?"
 Born and raised in Churchill, Dennis is among those who eye the new "experts" in town with deep suspicion.
 According to Polar Bears International, the most prominent and widely respected campaign organisation, the West Hudson Bay bear population has fallen by 22 pc since 1987 and its prospects are bleak.
 "If we lose the sea ice, we're going to lose the bears," says Dr Andrew, who serves on the group's scientific advisory council, arguing that they will not be able to adapt quickly enough to become vegetarians if and when the ice melts, leaving them with no hunting grounds.
 His world-renowned colleague, Dr Ian Sterling, who has studied the bears since the mid-1970s, says that the ice now breaks up about three weeks earlier and so the bears have a shorter time in which to store up fat.
 "There's a direct relationship between the date of the ice breakup and survival.
 "The health, or condition, of the bears has declined over the past 30 years."
 Dr Sterling says this is the reason why more "problem bears" are appearing in Churchill - and perhaps even why one came sniffing after Nigel Marven drank all that coffee.
 "A starving bear isn't going to lie down and die. It's going to look for an alternative food source.
 "In West Hudson Bay, that means either garbage dumps, hunting camps or, occasionally, people."
 Dennis Compayre raises bushy grey eyebrows as he listens to the environmentalists predict the polar bear's demise.
 "They say the numbers are down from 1,200 to around 900, but I think I know as much about polar bears as anyone, and I tell you there are as many bears here now as there were when I was a kid," he says as the tundra buggy rattles back to town across the rutted snowscape.
 "Churchill is full of these scientists going on about vanishing bears and thinner bears.
 "They come here preaching doom, but I question whether some of them really have the bears' best interests at heart.
 "The bear industry in Churchill is big bucks, and what better way to keep people coming than to tell them they'd better hurry to see the disappearing bears."
 After almost three months of working with those who know the Arctic best - among them Inuit Indians, who are appalled at the way an animal they have lived beside for centuries has become a poster species for "misinformed" Greens - Nigel Marven finds himself in broad agreement.
 "I think climate change is happening, but as far as the polar bear disappearing is concerned, I have never been more convinced that this is just scaremongering.
 "People are deliberately seeking out skinny bears and filming them to show they are dying out. That's not right.
 "Of course, in 30 years, if there's no ice over the North Pole, then the bear will be in trouble.
 "But I've seen enough to know that polar bears are not yet on the brink of extinction."
 Just then, spotting a red fox close to the ice track, Nigel calls for the driver to stop.
 The timid creature makes off across the snow-blanketed scrubland as Nigel, reaching for his binoculars, dashes off in pursuit.
 Within a few seconds, he has almost disappeared from view. Out in prime polar bear territory as darkness descends.
 "That Nigel's a hell of a nice guy, but he gets my old blood pressure up," sighs Dennis, reaching for his rifle.  
Read more: 'Polars bears on the brink? Don't you believe it' | Mail Online

----------


## Rod Dyson

> PS
> Whats wrong with fibregass self adhesive tape? I use it all the time, good stuff....

  It is prone to cracking

----------


## Marc

I thought it was the bees knees. The paper tape is a dog. They should make self adhesive paper tape!
M

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I thought it was the bees knees. The paper tape is a dog. They should make self adhesive paper tape!
> M

  They do but its a worse "dog'. 
Applied properly paper tape is great.  HAPPY NEW YEAR    And may we get a freezing winter with lots of snow so we can ski and have something to rant about for a few months.  Cheers Rod

----------


## Dr Freud

After predicting massive droughts, Flim Flammery saw all this and disappeared!   

> 

  But now he's popped up again. 
And like all cults, when his doomsday prophecies failed, he went even deeper into the delusion:   

> *Tim Flannery:* _Thats right. I was tempted in the book to simply give in and call it Earth System Science, because Gaia is earth system science and in many university departments around the world, as youll know, Robyn, earth system science is a very respectable science. But as soon as you mention Gaia of course, the scepticism comes out. I didnt do that though, because I think theres a certain elegance to Gaia, to that word and the concept, and also because I think that within this century the concept of the strong Gaia will actually become physically manifest. I do think that the Gaia of the Ancient Greeks, where they believed the earth was effectively one whole and perfect living creature, that doesnt exist yet, but it will exist in future. Thats why I wanted to keep that word._   *Tim Flannery:* _Well never be able to control the earth, theres no doubt about it. We cant control its systems. But we can nudge them and we can foresee danger. Once that occurs, then the Gaia of the Ancient Greeks really will exist. This planet, this Gaia, will have acquired a brain and a nervous system. That will make it act as a living animal, as a living organism, at some sort of level._   GAIA IS RISEN | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog

  Poor bloke!  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Mate, reality is on your side here. 
> Ever since the water arrived on Earth, this pattern has been happening for real (as opposed to a computer model). 
> We humans will NEVER run out of fresh water and anyone that suggests or implies this is an idiot. 
> If we overpopulate the Planet, other resources such as food will limit our growth LONG before water ever becomes even a minor consideration. 
> I've said it before and I'll say it again, we don't have a water shortage, we have an intellectual shortage. 
> The funniest part of the muppets pushing this scaremongering is that warming actually increases rainfall, evidenced by rainfall rates in warmer climates compared to colder climates.  So even if the Planet continues to warm (whatever the cause) we will get even more fresh water, not that we even use a fraction of what we already have.

  What fraction of this are we using?   

> Floodwaters have now inundated *an area greater than the size of New South Wales* and the RAAF is being brought in to deliver emergency accommodation for evacuated residents. 
>  The floods show no sign of easing as massive volumes flow across flood plains that used to be rivers and head for the coastal city of *Rockhampton*.   Queenslanders warned of worse to come - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  More dams may have been handy?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

> http://myexcellentopinion.com/wp-con...010eegw-ew.pdf

   

> BRITAINS winter is the coldest since 1683 and close to being the chilliest in nearly 1,000 years. 
> Although official weather records only go back to 1659, weather experts said the centuries from 1100 to 1500, dubbed the Medieval warm period, would not have produced winters as cold as today.                       
> So 2011 could end up  being the coldest winter of the last millennium.  Daily Star: Simply The Best 7 Days A Week :: News :: Winter may be coldest in 1000 years

  Wow, record cold weather *and* the MWP mentioned in the same article.  :Shock:

----------


## Marc

Tim F? Isn't he the guy who proposed to contaminate airline fuel with sulphure in order to block the sun rays? Smart guy! Belongs in an asylum.

----------


## Rod Dyson

I wonder when the Media is going to report this?  Area Of Thick Arctic Ice Has Doubled In The Last Two Years | Real Science

----------


## Marc

The funniest thing or the saddest depending how you look at it, is the FACT that warming weather conditions are GOOD for humans. We have historically done much better in warmer temperatures than colder. New field open up for large scale agriculture...but of course I forgot to mention that Greenpeace and Co are AGAINS HUMANITY since they want to reduce earth population to 1 or 2 billions. What they are not telling us is how do they plan to cull 66% of humanity. I say let them take the first step and check out. I will not stop them for sure. 
All this fussing about Global Warming being catastrophic is a load of crapparola. In fact IF weather would really be warming up, which it does not, mind you, this would be actually a good thing.
The worst that can happen and in deed it seems to be the more correct prediction, is that climate will cool down. By how much no one knows. 
I have another prediction of my own. In the not distant future, the global warming cult will fold and morph into a new Global Cooling religion who will flood the media and fund new churches of coldology and ask politicians to stop human from reproducing because they are all spoiling poor old gaia or perhaps annoying the pacha mama.
Heretics! Fornicators! Vade Retro! 
Haven't we all seen it before? 
Religion can not mix with politics. Every time they do, it becomes a gigantic problem for the ordinary person. From the times of the romans to our days we should have learned, but we did not. Check the coutnries who have a religious governemt namely middle east. They are real nice places right? Look at one that decided to keep religion and state separate. Turkey. Probably the only ME country I would consider visiting for their great boat building skills. Separation of religion and state is essential, and that includes modern day religions like the Andropogenic Global Warming Cult, or the Gaia cult or any other

----------


## Rod Dyson

Another interesting graph that show how UNprecidented our current temperatures are!! 
But I guess this graph has been produced by BIG OIL and should be trashed for the absolute garbage that it obviously is. 
You decide!

----------


## The_Fixer

By the looks of that graph, it appears that we are just emerging from a mini ice age, not entering a global warming phase. The little part at the very end shows a levelling off and entering a plateau phase. 
Assuming this graph is an accurate historical representation, is all this AGW hysteria emerging from the global warming happening _as we emerge from an ice age and temperatures revert to baseline levels?_ 
There is another assumption I will offer here using this graph. There are 3 distinct global warming periods here. *We are due for the next global warming period* working on the ~ 1000 year frequency shown here. However, since peak temperature levels drop in each cycle by approximately 30%, *the next event should peak about -31.25 degrees C.* 
Hardly appears to be a looming cataclysmic event about to occur here. 
Let's look at the graph for some further assumptions: 
1. Global warming is part of a natural cycle - with some variations 
2. Global warming events have been reducing in intensity and frequency since man has been on the scene. 
3. Global warming cycles were more intense and more frequent before man's population was high enough to impact on the environment significantly. 
4. Global *cooling* events have been more frequent and prolonged with man on the scene since the roman age. 
I only offer these suppositions based on Rod's graph. I do not state that they are fact, merely observational opinion with the *available* data set.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Just another scientist for warmist to dig up some dirt on to smear his reputation enough so that what he has to say could not possibly be credible. 
Author: Paulo Cesar Soares http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperIn...tm_campaign=01   

> The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence. The comparison of temperature changes and CO2 changes in the atmosphere is made for a large diversity of conditions, with the same data used to model climate changes. Correlation of historical series of data is the main approach. CO2 changes are closely related to temperature. Warmer seasons or triennial phases are followed by an atmosphere that is rich in CO2, reflecting the gas solving or exsolving from water, and not photosynthesis activity. Interannual correlations between the variables are good. A weak dominance of temperature changes precedence, relative to CO2 changes, indicate that the main effect is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to temperature rising. Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption. Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase. The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface. This is explained because band absorption is nearly all done with historic CO2 values. Unlike CO2, water vapor in the atmosphere is rising in tune with temperature changes, even in a monthly scale. The rising energy absorption of vapor is reducing the outcoming long wave radiation window and amplifying warming regionally and in a different way around the globe.

  HMM... could this graph be correct as well? If it is what could it possibly tell us?  

> Joe wrote then: Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the sun and oceans than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.

  In a post waaay back in this thread I said that where AGW will come unstuck is when the CO2 levels keep going up but the temps do not.
Seems to me that this is what is starting to become evident.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Now this is well put.  31-12-10 New Year message! from Piers Corbyn, WeatherAction   

> *This winter is the Stalingrad in the ‘Climate War’; it will be long and hard, those who understand this winter will win.*   *Now it is confirmed that Dec 2010 in Britain and probably West Europe, was indeed the coldest for 100 years (at least!)* – as we predicted* in the face of the opinion of all other forecasters; and that the USA has also been suffering exceptional cold and blizzards – including our specifically predicted ‘monster blizzard’ of Xmas 2010 in New York and NE / E USA, the beleaguered community of ‘warmist’ Climate ‘science’ and meteorology is in a ‘climate chaos’ of its very own. *See WANews10No38.pdf  
> Apart from certain charlatans who copy-cat our long range forecasts most standard meteorology holds, as always, that the weather should get back to ‘normal’ very soon and the warmist idealogues declare that cold means warm. In the face of this I say:   *1.Our forecast for an exceptionally cold and also snowy January in Britain & West Europe stands* and despite its unlikely occurrence according to standard views we expect with 80% confidence that much of Britain (eg Central England) to be in the three coldest Januaries in the last 100 years. It also follows that the winter of 2010-11 will probably be one of the two or three coldest in 100 years as suggested in our Essence of winter sponsored forecast made public on 30th November - WANews10No37.pdf . The CAUSE OF THIS IS PHYSICS which enables us to predict how solar-lunar effects change the jet stream for example *and is nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 from man or nature.*   *2.The ‘Cold means Warm’ incantations of the Global warmists are the last gasps of a failed cult* for whom some delusional expectation is not being realized. Recall this same Global Warmers movement - renamed Climate Change - had told us that snow in Britain would soon be a thing of the past, that winters in the USA would get warmer and warmer and Himalayan glaciers were disappearing and so on and on. All their predictions have failed. Their self-serving belief system – which is akin to a sect – is morally, intellectually and scientifically bankrupt and should be given no quarter.   *3.They will of course claim under their ‘data’ that 2010 was close to the warmest ever year. This is fraud.* On that one should note that since 1950 the coldest decade in their data set was around 1971 to 80 for which there were the most weather stations, and that since then they removed 62% of stations so the decade 2001-2010 with the least number of stations becomes the warmest! See slide 9 in the presentation News from WeatherAction What would be the result from the 62% of deleted stations?   *4.Their cold is warm pronouncement in fact mean that the measures of world temperature are of no value whatsoever in predicting what matters* – whether or not your freeway will become an ice rink or whether there will be floods next summer. If their measure of climate has no bearing on what we experience it is of no value. What is needed is real long range forecasts and these can be provided using physics – involving particle, magnetic and lunar effects – and are nothing to do with CO2 hocus pocus, which is a POLITICAL game.  
> This year this who care will have to fight like never before FOR evidence-based, science and policies and to call politicians to account and get rid of *all* the dangerous and crippling carbon scams and taxes and insist instead on only honest green measures such as defending biodiversity.  
> At the core we must put scientific advance to the benefit of people and not let pseudo-science strangle us. WeatherAction will continue to expand the scope and skill of long-range solar-lunar based forecasts and insist that Governments and media make use of our warnings to reduce misery and save lives.  
> Thank you.

  31-12-10 New Year message! from Piers Corbyn, WeatherAction | Climate Realists

----------


## The_Fixer

Having commented on Rod's previous post, I am certain the AGW advocates will come up with a graph that counters his one and tells an opposite story. 
Remember the old saying: 
"There are lies, and there is the truth. Then there are statistics......" 
Any data set can be used to prove anyone's point. It is usually how the data is interpreted, presented and manipulated to suit an argument. 
At the end of the day it comes down to who is going to believe who and who they are not going to believe, regardless of race, religion and/or qualifications. 
I'm pretty sure most of us have already figured this out by now.

----------


## Marc

> By the looks of that graph, it appears that we are just emerging from a mini ice age, not entering a global warming phase. The little part at the very end shows a levelling off and entering a plateau phase. 
> Assuming this graph is an accurate historical representation, is all this AGW hysteria emerging from the global warming happening _as we emerge from an ice age and temperatures revert to baseline levels?_ 
> There is another assumption I will offer here using this graph. There are 3 distinct global warming periods here. *We are due for the next global warming period* working on the ~ 1000 year frequency shown here. However, since peak temperature levels drop in each cycle by approximately 30%, *the next event should peak about -31.25 degrees C.* 
> Hardly appears to be a looming cataclysmic event about to occur here. 
> Let's look at the graph for some further assumptions: 
> 1. Global warming is part of a natural cycle - with some variations 
> 2. Global warming events have been reducing in intensity and frequency since man has been on the scene. 
> 3. Global warming cycles were more intense and more frequent before man's population was high enough to impact on the environment significantly. 
> 4. Global *cooling* events have been more frequent and prolonged with man on the scene since the roman age. 
> I only offer these suppositions based on Rod's graph. I do not state that they are fact, merely observational opinion.

  
  Hi Fixer, temperature graphs can be interpreted in many ways and predictions are 2 dimes a dozen, sorry not trying to detract from your logical conclusions. Perhaps we must keep in mind that the debate, or the war rather, is about acceptance or rejection of ONE hypothesis. Namely that humans are to blame for the planet heating up because of increased CO2 emissions due to human activity. 
Now, one way to rebuke this crap is by saying like you do, the planet is NOT warming.
We should say"the planet is not warming despite the CO2 emissions going up steadily"
So the first thing to note is that THERE IS NO correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature increase.
That is the first fallacy and there is of course a lot more to say to that but I am rather tired of writing the same thing over and over in different forums. (For free unfortunately unless some manager of a big oil company cares to throw me a line and pay me for it, gladly accepted)
The second fallacy is that CO2 is actually capable to change temperatures due to it's greenhouse effect.
Now this is a bit more technical and it is a fallacy simply because the concentration of CO2 and it's greenhouse effect do not follow a lineal relationship. Some like to explain it as you would coat of paint on a glass roof. Say you have a roof window you want to darken (sky and greenhouse effect) you apply one coat of paint on the glass. The effect is dramatic. Big reduction in light coming through. Your wife decides it should be darker, so you apply a second coat (increase of 100%) the effect is no where near as dramatic. Small change. You then apply a third coat for good measure (200% increase) and the effect is hardly noticeable. Same goes with CO2. 
There are of course a lot of associated bullmanure myth and old wife tales being pedalled in association with global warming. One is sea rises, global caps melting, droughts and a lot of other bullexcrement. 
Lets think about those for a moment. 
You noticed in the graph posted above that the planet has seen temperatures a lot higher than we are told to be catastrophic. So we must learn to separate this two essential criteria.
A) Andropogenic Global Warming is not happening, never was and never will with today's activity. If we have a nuclear war, things may be different, but so far with what we have done, no alteration to climate has occurred.
B) Climate changes all the time, just look at the above graph. There is nothing we can nor should do to change it. What arrogance to pretend we can tweek the weather. And think about it for a moment say we can. Say we invent the weather machine. WHO WILL BE IN CHARGE OF THE THERMOSTATE? Obummer? Ginger Rogers?
Who decides it is too hot so we must spread some sulphure in the sky? Tim the toolman? God help us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have we turned all raving lunatics? 
What we must understand is that we humans are the result of warm weather periods, with some brakes taken in colder periods. Heat equals life, cold equals death.
I say that whoever is cheering for a colder period, is not on humanity's side.

----------


## The_Fixer

Hi Marc, thanks for the input and, yeah, I kinda forgot about the CO2 bit. Thanks for the reminder. You are quite right about taking assumptions just from a single graph. However, this is how a lot of businesses and governments operate. 
My statements were simply taken from that graph without other considerations. This kind of reinforces the point of how raw data can be interpreted without viewing the big picture. 
It also completely ignored the CO2 part, which what this thread is discussing, whilst also assuming that global warming is a natural cyclical event. 
I also stated that man, if anything, has reduced the temperature on earth (assuming no other inputs) if you add in the prolonged cold events. 
Just from that graph alone, I would state that *Man is in danger of freezing the earth, NOT warming it up.* 
Without any other data available, I would run out and create the Global FREEZING religion, like L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology. But we both know it's a load of, well, we know... Come to think of it, I think AGW has become the new Scientology. The general public has fallen for it and now they have persuaded the governments to take it on, which they have, with a vengeance. They wouldn't dare otherwise or they would be unemployed politicians, a fate worse than dropping the H bomb.  
God help us all - the government is here to help.

----------


## Dr Freud

> God help us all - the government is here to help.

  No worries champ, they're on the case:

----------


## Dr Freud

I think the water policy is under control for a few years:

----------


## Dr Freud

And they call others "deniers".  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

I see that a lot of cherry-picking has been happening for the past few pages. 
It is _Anthropogenic Global Warming_. 
Not *weather*, not *localised temperature variations*, not isolated temperature examples, but the _average temperature over the whole world_! 
Check the facts:    State of the Climate | Global Analysis | November 2010 
These results are from measurements, not models - and regardless of all the snow, and the floods, etc...  *The average global temperature is still getting warmer.*

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I see that a lot of cherry-picking has been happening for the past few pages. 
> It is _Anthropogenic Global Warming_. 
> Not *weather*, not *localised temperature variations*, not isolated temperature examples, but the _average temperature over the whole world_! 
> Check the facts:    State of the Climate | Global Analysis | November 2010 
> These results are from measurements, not models - and regardless of all the snow, and the floods, etc...  *The average global temperature is still getting warmer.*

  Guess you didn't read this huh.   

> *3.They will of course claim under their ‘data’ that 2010 was close to the warmest ever year. This is fraud.* On that one should note that since 1950 the coldest decade in their data set was around 1971 to 80 for which there were the most weather stations, and that since then they removed 62% of stations so the decade 2001-2010 with the least number of stations becomes the warmest! See slide 9 in the presentation News from WeatherAction What would be the result from the 62% of deleted stations?

  Then again I suppose none of this could be true!!

----------


## chrisp

> Guess you didn't read this huh. 
> Then again I suppose none of this could be true!!

    

> How to be a denialist Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London  School of Hygiene and  Tropical Medicine who also studies denial, has  identified six tactics  that all denialist movements use. "I'm not  suggesting there is a manual  somewhere, but one can see these elements,  to varying degrees, in many  settings," he says (The European Journal  of Public Health, vol 19, p 2). *Allege that there's a conspiracy*. Claim that scientific consensus has  arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.*Use fake experts to support your story.*  "Denial always starts with a  cadre of pseudo-experts with some  credentials that create a facade of  credibility," says Seth Kalichman  of the University of Connecticut.*Cherry-pick the evidence*:  trumpet whatever appears to support your  case and ignore or rubbish  the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive  evidence even after it has  been discredited.*Create impossible standards for your opponents*.  Claim that the  existing evidence is not good enough and demand more.  If your opponent  comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the  goalposts.*Use logical fallacies.* Hitler opposed  smoking, so anti-smoking  measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent  the scientific consensus  and then knock down your straw man.*Manufacture doubt*.  Falsely portray scientists as so divided that  basing policy on their  advice would be premature. Insist "both sides"  must be heard and cry  censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts  are rejected.The New Scientist Debates Denialism : denialism blog

  I see that you are using good-old *Tactic #1* again.  :Wink:  
Seriously, though Rod, do you really believe that presentation you posted a link to - the one by "Piers Corbyn is the originator of the Solar Weather Technique of Long Range Forecasting and founder of WeatherAction"?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I see that you are using good-old *Tactic #1* again.  
> Seriously, though Rod, do you really believe that presentation you posted a link to - the one by "Piers Corbyn is the originator of the Solar Weather Technique of Long Range Forecasting and founder of WeatherAction"?

  He is a smart guy he is a scientist why should he not be believed just like any other scientist? 
Now maybe he just has a theory as well, maybe some of what he says is open for discussion, how would I know?  He is a contributer to this debate and has the skills required to contribute,  so If he is to be disbelieved maybe you could tell us why.  Without sliming him  :Smilie:  
Just attack the facts and tell us why and where he is wrong.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I see that you are using good-old *Tactic #1* again.  
> Seriously, though Rod, do you really believe that presentation you posted a link to - the one by "Piers Corbyn is the originator of the Solar Weather Technique of Long Range Forecasting and founder of WeatherAction"?

  Two questions for you. 
What conspiracy am I refering to? 
What am I supposed to be denying? 
Surely some one can only be a denier if they are refusing to accept a truth.  That the truth that they are accused of denying must be true and factual.  Not just someones idea of the truth not backed by facts.  Show me the facts that I am supposed to be denying?

----------


## chrisp

> He is a smart guy he is a scientist why should he not be believed just like any other scientist? 
> Now maybe he just has a theory as well, maybe some of what he says is open for discussion, how would I know?  He is a contributer to this debate and has the skills required to contribute,  so If he is to be disbelieved maybe you could tell us why.  Without sliming him  
> Just attack the facts and tell us why and where he is wrong.

  "Corbyn's predictions are based on what is called "The Solar Weather Technique."  The technique "combines statistical analysis of over a century of  historical weather patterns with clues derived from solar observations." He considers past weather patterns and solar observations and sun-earth magnetic connectivity. Conventional meteorology atmosphere. *Corbyn has declined to publish the details of his method*."--and-- "At the end of 2007, WeatherAction predicted that temperatures in  January could plummet to -17 °C in the Midlands, and that the average  temperature for January would be close to freezing. This prediction was  dismissed by the Met Office in a Guardian article on 2 January.  After the January prediction proved false, Mr. Corbyn blamed the  incorrect forecast on an undefined 'procedural error,' but insisted that  the second half of the month, specifically the period of 2127 January,  would be very cold, stating on his website:
"The period and forecast maps for the very cold dipole patterns  15-21st Jan will probably be shifted later to 21st- 23rd Jan. Some  exceptionally strong blizzard conditiuons _(sic)_ and very strong  cold winds are likely in this period. An ongoing similar situation with  widespread heavy snow, strong winds and blizzards will continue 24th-  27th Jan."
The period 2123 January continued very mild for the country as a  whole, but with a brief colder interlude for Scotland and the far north  of England, with some snow in the Highland and Pennine Mountain regions,  not out of the ordinary for January. The Met Office run Hadley Observation Centre had the CET  from the 122 January running at 6.4 °C, or 2.8 °C above normal for the  time of year. This made it highly unlikely that Corbyn's very cold  January forecast would come to fruition.
The final CET for January 2008 ended up over 3 °C above the standard  reference average making the predictions for a cold Jan very poor. In  fact it ended up being one of the warmest Januarys since records began."The two quotes above are from: Piers Corbyn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Rod Dyson

> "Corbyn's predictions are based on what is called "The Solar Weather Technique." The technique "combines statistical analysis of over a century of historical weather patterns with clues derived from solar observations." He considers past weather patterns and solar observations and sun-earth magnetic connectivity. Conventional meteorology atmosphere. *Corbyn has declined to publish the details of his method*."--and-- "At the end of 2007, WeatherAction predicted that temperatures in January could plummet to -17 °C in the Midlands, and that the average temperature for January would be close to freezing. This prediction was dismissed by the Met Office in a Guardian article on 2 January. After the January prediction proved false, Mr. Corbyn blamed the incorrect forecast on an undefined 'procedural error,' but insisted that the second half of the month, specifically the period of 21–27 January, would be very cold, stating on his website:
> "The period and forecast maps for the very cold ‘dipole’ patterns 15-21st Jan will probably be shifted later to 21st- 23rd Jan. Some exceptionally strong blizzard conditiuons _(sic)_ and very strong cold winds are likely in this period. An ongoing similar situation with widespread heavy snow, strong winds and blizzards will continue 24th- 27th Jan."
> The period 21–23 January continued very mild for the country as a whole, but with a brief colder interlude for Scotland and the far north of England, with some snow in the Highland and Pennine Mountain regions, not out of the ordinary for January. The Met Office run Hadley Observation Centre had the CET from the 1–22 January running at 6.4 °C, or 2.8 °C above normal for the time of year. This made it highly unlikely that Corbyn's very cold January forecast would come to fruition.
> The final CET for January 2008 ended up over 3 °C above the standard reference average making the predictions for a cold Jan very poor. In fact it ended up being one of the warmest Januarys since records began."The two quotes above are from: Piers Corbyn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  LOL do you want to do a review of the MET's long range forecasts?? 
LMAO I thought not. 
PS not all long range forecasts are accurate but some are more accurate than others,

----------


## Rod Dyson

> How to be a denialist Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who also studies denial, has identified six tactics that all denialist movements use. "I'm not suggesting there is a manual somewhere, but one can see these elements, to varying degrees, in many settings," he says (The European Journal of Public Health, vol 19, p 2).  *Allege that there's a conspiracy*. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.*Use fake experts to support your story.* "Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility," says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.*Cherry-pick the evidence*: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.*Create impossible standards for your opponents*. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.*Use logical fallacies.* Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.*Manufacture doubt*. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist "both sides" must be heard and cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts are rejected.The New Scientist Debates Denialism : denialism blog

  I find this very interesting this could also describe to a tee the warmists position.

----------


## chrisp

> Two questions for you. 
> What conspiracy am I refering to?

  This...   

> Guess you didn't read this huh. 
> Guess you didn't read this huh.      *3.They will of course claim under their data that 2010 was close to the warmest ever year. This is fraud.*  On that one should note that since 1950 the coldest decade in their  data set was around 1971 to 80 for which there were the most weather  stations, and that since then they removed 62% of stations so the decade  2001-2010 with the least number of stations becomes the warmest! See  slide 9 in the presentation News from WeatherAction What would be the result from the 62% of deleted stations?
> 			
> 		   Then again I suppose none of this could be true!!

   

> What am I supposed to be denying? 
> Surely some one can only be a denier if they are refusing to accept a truth.  That the truth that they are accused of denying must be true and factual.  Not just someones idea of the truth not backed by facts.  Show me the facts that I am supposed to be denying?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Well is this true or not?   

> *3.They will of course claim under their ‘data’ that 2010 was close to the warmest ever year. This is fraud.* On that one should note that since 1950 the coldest decade in their data set was around 1971 to 80 for which there were the most weather stations, and that since then they removed 62% of stations so the decade 2001-2010 with the least number of stations becomes the warmest! See slide 9 in the presentation News from WeatherAction What would be the result from the 62% of deleted stations?

  If it is how can we be certain that the graphs you have posted are accurate and if they are and they may well be, how does this proove that Co2 is the cause?   
You just cant show any evidence that Co2  is the driver of the temperature.  Those graphs are meaningless.  You cannot deny (or can you) that the data has been adjusted.  
Just because you have posted a couple of graphs up here as I have done as well you cant be certain they are correct, just as I can't.  There is enough contrary evidence around to cast doubt of the temperature record as shown.  That means it is doubtful.   
If the warmist were so sure of themselves,their science and "facts" why are they so paranoid about any challenge to their "facts"?   
Denial phaaaph! 
I believe it is the warmist that are in denial.  they deny that their theory is unproven and requires scientific proof and empirical proof before they can claim it is true.  They deny that there is science that is contrary to their theory.  they deny that there are historical temperature proxies that show the warming since the 80's is NOT unprecedented.  They deny that the ice core records show that Co2 follows temps rather thant lead them.  Who are the dinialist here?  we are skeptics show us why we should change our mind.   
A graph showing temp anomalies that may or may not be accurate will not do.  Even if it is accurate is it unprecedented?  NO. Now deny that.

----------


## Dr Freud

I've said many times that I am wiling to concede any *effects* you want to post, like these pretty pics below:   

> 

  So...   

> I don't care what arbitrary temperature series you want to post as an effect. 
> I just want to know what you think is the cause of it? 
> Is it the Sun? The lava? The cows farting?

  I'm assuming that you're assuming it's human produced CO2.  Just curious as to any proof you have of this?  You seem to want to keep all of this proof secret for some reason?  :Biggrin:     

> I see that a lot of cherry-picking has been happening for the past few pages.

  So when presented with hundreds of millions of years of data, then tens of thousands of years of data, you present about a 100 years of data and accuse others of cherry-picking?  I'll match my 500 million years against your 100 years any time in a "cherry-picking" contest.   

> It is _Anthropogenic Global Warming_.

  Again, just curious as to any proof you have of this?   

> These results are from measurements, not models - and regardless of all the snow, and the floods, etc...

  You have either not read or understood Smith et al. (2008). It is well worth a read (or re-read), as is the recent paper your dodgy mates at RC are sheepishly referring to.  The statistical ignorance of this whole debacle so far has been it's undoing from the start.  Mathematicians and statisticians have done a lot of damage to this farce.  But not as much as the blind followers chanting prohesies of doom without evidence.   

> *The average global temperature is still getting warmer.*

  Again, just curious as to any proof you have of what's *causing* this *effect*? 
You see, we could argue for years about how putrid the data manipulations have been (and no doubt we will), but this distracts from the immediacy of pointing out that there is *absolutely zero evidence proving AGW Theory.* 
In fact, as has been demonstrated numerous times, there are many more suitable arguments for any recent temperature measures, regardless of arguments over the accuracy of those measures. 
You AGW Theory protoganists always turn this into a distraction of "it is warming" vs "it's not warming", so I prefer to accept whatever dodgy data you present and simply ask what you think is causing this?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

It seems that AGW Theory supporters have a tough time figuring out how cause and effect is supposed to work?   

> Just curious, what rate of ocean level rise would be required to achieve these upper projections in the next 90 years? 
> After you work this out, and we figure out how consistent these two posts are, we can return to any proof of what's actually *causing* this *effect*.

  You see, I will concede whatever dodgy data you want to post, just to get you AGW Theory protagonists to figure this stuff out. 
But you seem to be studiously avoiding it? Or not understanding the cause and effect issue?   
Maybe it's time to produce another advertisement terrorising children I guess?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Just to avoid more wasted pages of posts, a quick question. 
Will any AGW Theory supporter acknowledge that there is even one (1) credible and reputable scientist (in whatever relevant field) out there who entirely disagrees with AGW Theory, or are there many, or are there absolutely none? 
I don't need resume's, just an opinion and a rough guess.  :Biggrin:

----------


## twinny

these dudes  :brava:

----------


## Marc

> *Allege that  there's a conspiracy*. Claim that scientific consensus has  arisen  through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.*Use  fake experts to support your story.*  "Denial always starts with a   cadre of pseudo-experts with some  credentials that create a facade of   credibility," says Seth Kalichman  of the University of Connecticut*Cherry-pick the evidence*:  trumpet whatever appears to  support your  case and ignore or rubbish  the rest. Carry on trotting  out supportive  evidence even after it has  been discredited.*Create  impossible standards for your opponents*.  Claim that the  existing  evidence is not good enough and demand more.  If your opponent  comes up  with evidence you have demanded, move the  goalposts.*Use  logical fallacies.* Hitler opposed  smoking, so anti-smoking   measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent  the scientific consensus   and then knock down your straw man.*Manufacture doubt*.   Falsely portray scientists as so divided that  basing policy on their   advice would be premature. Insist "both sides"  must be heard and cry   censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts  are rejected.

  How to become and Anthropogenic Global Warming cheerleader *Allege that  there's a conspiracy*. Claim that scientist on the opposing side are being paid by oil companies. Claim collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.*Use  fake experts to support your story.*  " Fake religions  always start with a   cradle of pseudo-experts with some  credentials that create a facade of   credibility," says Marc at "renovate forum". Al Gore is the perfect example.*Cherry-pick the evidence*:  trumpet whatever appears to  support your  case and ignore or rubbish  the rest. Carry on trotting  out supportive  evidence even after it has  been discredited. Remember to say that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas for example.*Create  impossible standards for your opponents*.  Claim that the  existing  evidence is not good enough and demand more.  If your opponent  comes up  with evidence you have demanded, move the  goalposts. Remember to disregard 12 years of temperatures stabilizing or falling and ignore CO2 rising*Use  logical fallacies.* Oil companies support research into the real causes of Global Warming. Therefore Oil companies are evil and pay all those who oppose Green schizophrenia.*Manufacture doubt*.   Falsely portray scientists as so united  that  basing policy on their   advice is absolute paramount. Cry   censorship when "dissenting" arguments  or experts  are allowed to speak up, and manufacture false evidence and destroy evidence to make your case..

----------


## The_Fixer

> How to become and Anthropogenic Global Warming cheer lieder  *Allege that there's a conspiracy*. Claim that scientist on the opposing side are being paid by oil companies. Claim collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.*Use fake experts to support your story.* " Fake religions always start with a cradle of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility," says Marc at "renovate forum". Al Gore is the perfect example.*Cherry-pick the evidence*: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited. Remember to say that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas for example.*Create impossible standards for your opponents*. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts. Remember to disregard 12 years of temperatures stabilizing or falling and ignore CO2 rising*Use logical fallacies.* Oil companies support research into the real causes of Global Warming. Therefore Oil companies are evil and pay all those who oppose Green schizophrenia.*Manufacture doubt*. Falsely portray scientists as so united that basing policy on their advice is absolute paramount. Cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts are allowed to speak up, and manufacture false evidence and destroy evidence to make your case..

  Hmmm..... Sounds like the "Techniques to Attain Absolute Power" policy by Adolph Hitler. Just substitute the appropriate words/slogan to suit the cause.
People never really change, do they.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It seems that AGW Theory supporters have a tough time figuring out how cause and effect is supposed to work?   
> You see, I will concede whatever dodgy data you want to post, just to get you AGW Theory protagonists to figure this stuff out. 
> But you seem to be studiously avoiding it? Or not understanding the cause and effect issue?  
> Maybe it's time to produce another advertisement terrorising children I guess?

   :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Has this man flipped out big time or what??   

> Flannery’s exact words: 
> ”I think that, within this century, the concept of the strong Gaia will actually become physically manifest."… 
> Flannery, a frequent ABC presence, continued: “I do think that the Gaia of the ancient Greeks, where they believed the earth was effectively one whole and perfect living creature, doesn’t exist yet, but it will exist in future.... 
> “This planet, this Gaia, will have acquired a brain and a nervous system. 
> “That will make it act as a living animal, a living organism, at some sort of level."…

----------


## Marc

> Has this man flipped out big time or what??

   

> ......at some sort of level."

  Delusional is a more accurate description.
And MORONS are those who give him time on TV
And braindead those who watch it

----------


## jago

IMHO you've all lost the plot ... none of you are making any cash out of these thousands of post which would have taken a lot of reading and research. 
Actually who cares crickets on, surfs up or the wife/girlfriend up for it! 
Ciao :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> Has this man flipped out big time or what??

  Who knows? 
However, did you look up the word to see what it means, and also look up the original story to see the context of the quotes? 
Have a look at Tim Flannery - reasons to be hopeful - Science Show - 1 January 2011 for the context: *Robyn Williams:  * _The Lord of the Flies,_ indeed, yes. *Tim Flannery: * The man that gave us that gave us Gaia as well. *Robyn Williams:  * So there you've got an image of the earth, the planet as a god, but also a very sophisticated and credible scientific idea. *Tim Flannery: * That's  right.  I was tempted in the book to simply give in and call it Earth  System Science, because Gaia is earth system science and in many  university departments around the world, as you'll know, Robyn, earth  system science is a very respectable science.  But as soon as you  mention Gaia of course, the scepticism comes out.  I didn't do that  though, because I think there's a certain elegance to Gaia, to that word  and the concept, and also because I think that within this century the  concept of the strong Gaia will actually become physically manifest.  I  do think that the Gaia of the Ancient Greeks, where they believed the  earth was effectively one whole and perfect living creature, that  doesn't exist yet, but it will exist in future.  That's why I wanted to  keep that word.  The various definitions of "Gaia" can be found at Wikipedia.  For example, this one Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia    The *Gaia hypothesis*, *Gaia theory* or *Gaia principle* is an ecological hypothesis or theory proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earthatmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeorhesis. Originally proposed by James Lovelock as the earth feedback hypothesis, it was named the Gaia Hypothesis after the Greek primordial goddess of the Earth, at the suggestion of William Golding, Nobel prizewinner in literature and friend and neighbour of Lovelock. The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the Earth as a single organism.It would seem that English is very much an alive language.    :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> Ok Woodbe and Chrisp put a lot of faith in believing scientists, trusting scientists etc. 
> So here we have a list of 31 scientist all predicting up to 30 years of cooling. Now my question is do you trust these scientists or not. 
> Or do we ignore what they are telling us?  
> Or the other option is. Do we try and dig up some dirt on each of these guys to try and discredit them to show they could not possibly be right? 
> Full link here. Global Cooling Consensus Is Heating Up  Cooling Over The Next 1 To 3 Decades

  Hey Rod, I see you have lots of time on your hands again with all these posts over christmas and new year. Hope Santa bought you what you wanted! 
As to me believing/trusting scientists? Close. No cigar. Trusting the scientific process would be closer. 
I expect scientists to do the research to prove or disprove their hypotheses. On their own, once they have stood up to peer review, these are interesting pieces of work, but they get real interesting when other scientists are able to replicate their conclusions using either the same or different data and the same or different test processes. That's where AGW is now. 
For your 31 scientists predicting cooling, we just need their theory to go through the same rigorous process. If they do that, then good luck to them. 
As I've said before, I'd be delighted if a true scientist could shut down AGW.  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> What fudged data? Who me? Hasen and Giss are a joke.

   

> That looks horribly like whoever made that graphic didn't shift their baselines

   

> What ever dodgy data method floats your boat woodbe.

   

> You see what happens here when you change the base lines don't you?   Giss comes back.  But Hanson would rather show the temps appearing  higher.  Now why is that i wonder?   
> See how crooked this is. Or don't you?

   

> I absolutely don't. These are records, Rod. You clearly have not investigated this thoroughly. 
> Dodgy data methods? I guess you're serious? This is a pretty amazing  display of ignorance by Watts. Pity you cannot see through it.

   

> This is great theatre. Its probably a Tragedy, and I can't help but feel a tiny bit sorry for Watts. He doesn't seem to realise what a fool he is making of himself.

   

> Are you going to stay out in the cold, or are you going to come inside  and accept that its ok to adjust baselines so you can compare the  temperature series? 
> Watts post now makes excellent reading, watching all the deniers line up  behind him throwing rocks at GISS and Hansen, and resolutely defending  Watts against the occasional sensible post pointing out the whole  baselines thing, and now their puppetmaster has pulled out the rug!  Hilarious! 
> You couldn't make this any better if you paid for it.  
> Must read. Here's the link

   

> *REPLY*: Actually yes, but not right now, as this post  was bait for a social experiment, hoping to gather lots of comments to  use in the next story, and you are all doing a splendid job. Tamino went  after it too, but thats generally predictable anytime GISS is  mentioned, and he and many of you have provided what I need. All this  covered in the next post on this, probably sometime around the end of  December. Thanks for playing!  Anthony

  When you're ready mate, no hurry. 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

Who cares what the temperature does? Up, down or sideways...the only thing that matters is IF human activity has anytying to do with it. 
To me it is rather clear that it does not.
Also that the measure of CO2 is irrelevant and that trying to tax us for producing it is criminal. 
That is the only thing that matters. The rest is another smoke screen.   

> *[edit] In Greek mythology*  Hesiod's _Theogony_ (116ff) tells how, after the birth of Chaos, arose broad-breasted Gaia, the everlasting foundation of the gods of Olympus. She brought forth Uranus, the starry sky, her equal, to cover her, the hills (Ourea), and the fruitless deep of the Sea, Pontus, "without sweet union of love," out of her own self through parthenogenesis. But afterwards, as Hesiod tells it, she is a great god of nature:  she lay with her son, Uranus, and bore the world-ocean god Oceanus, Coeus and Crius and the Titans Hyperion and Iapetus, Theia and Rhea, Themis, Mnemosyne, and Phoebe of the golden crown, and lovely Tethys. After they were born Cronus the wily, youngest and most terrible of her children, and he hated his lusty sire.Hesiod mentions Gaia's further offspring conceived with Uranus: first the giant one-eyed Cyclopes: Brontes ("thunderer"), Steropes ("lightning") and the "bright" Arges:  "Strength and might and craft were in their works." Then he adds the  three terrible hundred-handed sons of Earth and Heaven, the Hecatonchires: Cottus, Briareos and Gyges, each with fifty heads. Greek deities
> series     Titans and OlympiansAquatic deitiesPersonified conceptsOther deities *Primordial deities*  ChaosAether*Gaia*Uranus  ErosErebusNyxTartarus *Chthonic deities* Hades and Persephone, *Gaia*, Demeter, Hecate, Iacchus, Trophonius, Triptolemus, Erinyes
>     Uranus hid the Hecatonchires and the Cyclopes in Tartarus  so that they would not see the light, rejoicing in this evil doing.  This caused pain to Gaia (Tartarus was her bowels) so she created grey  flint (or adamantine)  and shaped a great flint sickle, gathering together Cronus and his  brothers to ask them to obey her. Only Cronus, the youngest, had the  daring to take the flint sickle she made, and castrate  his father as he approached Gaia to have intercourse with her. And from  the drops of blood and semen, Gaia brought forth still more progeny,  the strong Erinyes and the armoured Gigantes and the ash-tree Nymphs called the _Meliae_.
>  From the testicles of Uranus in the sea came forth Aphrodite. After Uranus's castration, Gaia, by Tartarus, gave birth to Echidna (by some accounts) and Typhon. By her son Pontus (god of the sea), Gaia birthed the sea-deities Nereus, Thaumas, Phorcys, Ceto, and Eurybia. Aergia, a goddess of sloth and laziness, is the daughter of Aether and Gaia.
>  Zeus hid Elara, one of his lovers, from Hera by hiding her under the earth. His son by Elara, the giant Tityos, is therefore sometimes said to be a son of Gaia, the earth goddess.
>  Gaia also made Aristaeus immortal.
>  Gaia is believed by some sources[4] to be the original deity behind the Oracle at Delphi. She passed her powers on to, depending on the source, Poseidon, Apollo or Themis. Apollo is the best-known as the oracle power behind Delphi, long established by the time of Homer, having killed Gaia's child Python there and usurped the chthonic power. Hera punished Apollo for this by sending him to King Admetus as a shepherd for nine years. Oaths sworn in the name of Gaia, in ancient Greece, were considered the most binding of all.
>  In classical art Gaia was represented in one of two ways. In Athenian  vase painting she was shown as a matronly woman only half risen from  the earth, often in the act of handing the baby Erichthonius (a future  king of Athens) to Athena to foster (_see_ example below).
>  Later in mosaic representations she appears as a woman reclining upon  the earth surrounded by a host of Carpi, infant gods of the fruits of  the earth (_see_ example below under Interpretations).

----------


## Marc

*Modern Man has Educated Himself into Imbecility*     

> _It has become abundantly clear in the second half of the  twentieth century that Western Man has decided to abolish himself.  Having wearied of the struggle to be himself, he has created his own  boredom out of his own affluence, his own impotence out of his own  erotomania, his own vulnerability out of his own strength; himself  blowing the trumpet that brings the walls of his own city tumbling down,  and, in a process of auto-genocide, convincing himself that he is too  numerous, and laboring accordingly with pill and scalpel and syringe to  make himself fewer in order to be an easier prey for his enemies; until  at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and  drugged himself into stupefaction, he keels over a weary, battered old  brontosaurus and becomes extinct._
>  - Malcolm Muggeridge, _Seeing Through the Eye_

----------


## Marc

*Against the long history of huge temperature variation in the earth's  climate (ice ages etc.), the .6 of one degree average rise reported for  the entire 20th century by the United Nations (a rise so small that you  would not be able to detect such a difference  personally without  instruments) shows in fact that the 20th century was a time of  exceptional temperature stability.   
There is an "ascetic instinct" (or perhaps a "survivalist instinct") in  many people that causes them to delight in going without material  comforts. Monasteries and nunneries were once full of such people --  with the Byzantine stylites perhaps the most striking example. Many  Greenies (other than Al Gore and his Hollywood pals) have that instinct  too but in the absence of strong orthodox religious committments they  have to convince themselves that the world NEEDS them to live in an  ascetic way. So their personal emotional needs lead them to press on us  all a delusional belief that the planet needs "saving". *      

> 31 May, 2010   *No global warming processes in Antarctic, says Russian expedition head*  _(Russia maintains  several scientific bases in the Antarctic)_ 
>  Allegations about global warming processes in the Antarctic have  nothing to do with real facts, a Russian polar explorer has said.    "They are of opportunistic and time-serving character, and have nothing  to do with the real weather and climate on the southern continent," Head  of Russia's 54th Antarctic expedition Viktor Venderovich told  Itar-Tass. 
> "The past summer on the south pole was cold and windy,  and ice floes in the offshore water failed to melt over the entire  season. 
> "The atmospheric air temperature near the Vostok station  deep on the continent reached the customary minus 70 degrees Centigrade  in the summer, and near the Novolazarevskaya station it never exceeded  minus 6-8 degrees," he said after staying at the Novolazarevskaya  station for a year. 
> The previous winter in the Antarctic, he said, "was remarkable for its unusual severity, with blizzards and snowstorms." 
> The  average air temperature was 0.5 degrees lower than usual, and there  were too much snow, he said, adding that a "slight warming was  registered only on the Antarctic peninsula, while the rest of the  continent has not been affected by the global warning and is not going  to be."

  SOURCE

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Originally Posted by *Anthony Watts*  _REPLY: Actually yes, but not right now, as this post was bait for a social experiment, hoping to gather lots of comments to use in the next story, and you are all doing a splendid job. Tamino went after it too, but thats generally predictable anytime GISS is mentioned, and he and many of you have provided what I need. All this covered in the next post on this, probably sometime around the end of December. Thanks for playing!  Anthony_

  Yes I agree with you this was not a bright thing to do! 
Yes I agree with you that base lines on graphs change everything. 
Yes this does not represent the true relationship of the graphs shown. 
No it does not change my view that these record keepers are not nudging the numbers a bit to support their theory. 
No it does not make every thing Anthony Watts says or does irrelevant. 
Neither side of this debate is guilt free of this type of thing.   
So now that is done and dusted, maybe you can continue telling us why we should believe that Co2 is the driver behind temperatures? 
It would help if you could provide at least one bit of evidence. 
Yep had a great break. You?

----------


## Dr Freud

> IMHO you've all lost the plot ... none of you are making any cash out of these thousands of post which would have taken a lot of reading and research. 
> Actually who cares crickets on, surfs up or the wife/girlfriend up for it! 
> Ciao

  Mate, if Rudd and Turnbull had initiated their ETS, we would be all be making a lot less cash than we are now (unless you wanted to jump on the subsidy gravy train).  Rudd dumped this the minute he saw the polling numbers start to change.   
But part of my motivation is not wanting to pay pointless taxes so f---wit politicians can give it to the  Maldives as "Climate Aid" to build a new airport at sea level.  :Doh:  
The other part is just relieving frustration at the level of idiocy and ignorance of the AGW theory crowd whose docile attitudes will affect my lifestyle for zero positive benefit.  I figure whatever keeps me away from a high vantage point is a good thing. 
But seriously, it is ordinary people like us reading this cr-p and presenting it to the AGW theory masses (who don't really care) that is slowly changing public opinion globally.  I personally have debriefed many out of the cult.  Most people read papers or watch tv and get the window dressing, but I am more than happy to put in some time to share different opinions to the mainstream one. 
I have said before that whoever released the Climategate emails deserves a Nobel prize a helluva lot more than Al Gore.  His/her contribution to scientific debate was certainly much better than Gore's.   Also probably just a bozo like us with nothing better to do, but who got sick of the condescending sycophantic religious diatribe being pumped out in the media. 
And the Poms won, Charlie don't surf, and I respect you too much to get involved with your wife or your girlfriend.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Delusional is a more accurate description.
> And MORONS are those who give him time on TV
> And braindead those who watch it

  What about those who defend Lord Gaia and the prophets?  :Shock:    

> However, did you look up the word to see what it means, and also look up the original story to see the context of the quotes? 
> Have a look at Tim Flannery - reasons to be hopeful - Science Show - 1 January 2011 for the context:

  This from someone who struggles to believe that the Sun is where the heat is coming from.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> these dudes

  Hey, I recognise all of them from our last "funded by big oil sceptics meeting".   :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

LOL I bet these guys are pissed off with global warming causing all that snow.  LiveLeak.com - Cars Piling Up On Icy Hill

----------


## woodbe

Had a good break Rod. Spent much of it in the bowels of a yacht doing repairs. Come back to normality for a rest, but it was fun and all worked out in the end. 
Amused that your side, (including you) are quoting weather with glee in a climate debate. Damages your argument muchly. 
More good analysis from Tamino:   
Full story Here 
Anthony Watts. He's a weatherman posting on climate. Just keep that in mind and take plenty of grains of salt with you... 
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

> Just to avoid more wasted pages of posts, a quick question. 
> Will any AGW Theory supporter acknowledge that there is even one (1) credible and reputable scientist (in whatever relevant field) out there who entirely disagrees with AGW Theory, or are there many, or are there absolutely none? 
> I don't need resume's, just an opinion and a rough guess.

  Wasted? Just because we're rehashing the identical issues that have been flogged to death on dozens of forums for years doesn't mean that we're not having fun. 
At a rough guess there might be two dozen who have a bit of credibility left and are capable of getting something published in a reputable journal. But without checking I couldn't say exactly what their current views on AGW are. Some now hold the opinion that co2 does cause warming but dispute that the degree is significant. Michaels I think has shifted recently but I haven't had time to check. Depends on what you mean by "entirely disagree" 
If I can find time I'll make a list.

----------


## Dr Freud

> LOL I bet these guys are pissed off with global warming causing all that snow.  LiveLeak.com - Cars Piling Up On Icy Hill

  The funniest part is all the *record freezing snowy weather* has taken more planes out of the sky and vehicles off the road than any AGW Theory message ever has!  :Roflmao2:  
But then people are *burning more energy* than ever trying not to freeze to death!  :Roflmao2:  
And now the AGW Theory message is freezing weather is an effect of climate change, so we will now *burn more energy* in the future trying not to freeze to death because the climate is actually warming up!  :Roflmao2:  
I'm sure that makes sense somehow!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Amused that your side, (including you) are quoting weather with glee in a climate debate. Damages your argument muchly. 
> woodbe.

  See now, once again you've got it all mixed up.  If we quoted weather and called it climate, that would damage our reputation, until we learned the difference, which doesn't take long.  Fortunately we didn't do this. 
What we did do is ridicule the fact thet AGW Theory scientists had projected much less snowy weather as a result of alleged AGW Theory, which did not eventuate.  Many drones jumped on this warming bandwagon of pointing out weather events in support of AGW Theory, or "climate change".  But then it snowed, hard, a lot. Then they changed their projections to say AGW Theory now predicts increased snowy weather. 
This is where we step in and royally take the p-ss.  :Laugh bounce:  
So you see, we are not saying weather is climate as you allude to above, we are saying that AGW Theory predictions are failed and farcical, and we are happy to point this out. Again, and again, and again.  :Biggrin:  
You may have missed my weather check below:   

> Let's do a weather check! 
> We've already seen Europe buried in snow, causing massive travel disruptions. 
> Now it looks like the USA is joining in:     New York lashed by powerful snowstorm - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
> And how's the weather back home:    Qld towns cut off, residents evacuated - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
> Seeing as Flim Flammery and Penny Wrong used a drought as verification of AGW Theory, will they now use these floods as verification of no AGW Theory? 
> Oops, I forgot, this flooding is now also proof of AGW Theory, just like the record snowfalls.

  So our argument is intact, but AGW Theory is certainly "damaged".  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Amused that your side, (including you) are quoting weather with glee in a climate debate. Damages your argument muchly. 
> woodbe.

  We also quoted some long term (Climate?) data, you may have missed it:   

> 

  And this:     
I've asked you guys how CO2 drove all these temperatures up and down over the years, decades, centuries, millennia, but you can't seem to figure it out.  Maybe you could email your mate Tamino for his "expert analysis"?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> woodbe.

   

> I've said many times that I am wiling to concede any *effects* you want to post, like these pretty pics [s]below[/s] above: 
> So... 
> I'm assuming that you're assuming it's human produced CO2.  Just curious as to any proof you have of this?  You seem to want to keep all of this proof secret for some reason?  
> The statistical ignorance of this whole debacle so far has been it's undoing from the start.  Mathematicians and statisticians have done a lot of damage to this farce.  But not as much as the blind followers chanting prohesies of doom without evidence. 
> Again, just curious as to any proof you have of what's *causing* this *effect*? 
> You see, we could argue for years about how putrid the data manipulations have been (and no doubt we will), but this distracts from the immediacy of pointing out that there is *absolutely zero evidence proving AGW Theory.* 
> In fact, as has been demonstrated numerous times, there are many more suitable arguments for any recent temperature measures, regardless of arguments over the accuracy of those measures. 
> You AGW Theory protoganists always turn this into a distraction of "it is warming" vs "it's not warming", so I prefer to accept whatever dodgy data you present and simply ask what you think is causing this?

   :Whatonearth:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Spent much of it in the bowels of a yacht doing repairs.  
> woodbe.

  I think you're taking this sea level rise stuff a little too seriously now.  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*   _I've said many times that I am wiling to concede any effects you want to post, like these pretty pics below above: 
> So... 
> I'm assuming that you're assuming it's human produced CO2.  Just curious  as to any proof you have of this?  You seem to want to keep all of this  proof secret for some reason?  
> The statistical ignorance of this whole debacle so far has been it's  undoing from the start.  Mathematicians and statisticians have done a  lot of damage to this farce.  But not as much as the blind followers  chanting prohesies of doom without evidence. 
> Again, just curious as to any proof you have of what's causing this effect? 
> You see, we could argue for years about how putrid the data  manipulations have been (and no doubt we will), but this distracts from  the immediacy of pointing out that there is absolutely zero evidence proving AGW Theory. 
> In fact, as has been demonstrated numerous times, there are many more  suitable arguments for any recent temperature measures, regardless of  arguments over the accuracy of those measures. 
> You AGW Theory protoganists always turn this into a distraction of "it  is warming" vs "it's not warming", so I prefer to accept whatever dodgy  data you present and simply ask what you think is causing this?_

  As far as I'm aware you've conceded in the past that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in that it is one of those gases that acts to trap reflected heat just like a blanket....true?  From a scientific perspective, this is a physical behaviour of CO2 (and other gaseous compounds) that has been established for a century or so - the links have been posted before. 
Considering this graphic that you favour...  
Assume then that this is the behaviour of the greenhouse effect (with respect to CO2) over time without the influence of the human species......essentially the result of the 'natural' carbon cycle.  The estimates are that the turnover each year of this cycle is in the order of 750 to 800 gigatonnes of CO2 released and absorbed each year through natural processes. 
Now put the human species into the mix.  In the carrying out of our day to day lives...it has been estimated that we release something in the order of 30 gigatonnes of CO2 per annum (and still rising) into the atmosphere in addition to the 750 gigatonnes or so that is released through the 'natural' carbon cycle. The difficulty comes from the fact that the 'natural' carbon cycle is still only absorbing the 'natural' amount of CO2 appears.....not the extra (or at least not all of it). 
These quantities are simplifications from figures available in quite a few locations but I got them from here http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/lequer...bon_budget.htm 
Soooo....and here comes the scary intellectual bit.....if we accept that CO2 is a GHG and that the energy flow for a given CO2 concentration and given infra red energy input has been established (there's a bunch of links to papers here http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/ )...and we know that the laboratory findings have been corroborated by real world observations of infra red radiation both within and above the atmosphere ("Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to  space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements  find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same  wavelengths" http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Pu..._harries_v.pdf and P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari) ...and we know that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing Climate Change: Key Indicators ..and we know that the amount of energy produced by the Sun has not changed significantly since 1750 (_Mike Lockwood, Solar Change and Climate: an update in the light of  the current exceptional solar minimum, Proceedings of the Royal Society  A, 2 December 2009, doi 10.1098/rspa.2009.0519; and 
Judith Lean, Cycles and trends in solar irradiance and climate, Wiley  Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, vol. 1, January/February  2010, 111-122.)_ ...and we know where the CO2 increase is coming from because the natural CO2 cycle is out of sync due to human activity (established earlier).....then only finding that I can personally make is that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the primary driving force behind the increasing trend in average temperatures  Climate Change: Key Indicators .....is in all likelihood the activity of the human species.

----------


## Rod Dyson

And in science we trust............  

> FoxNews fact-checks what it says are the eight worst environmental predictions - and asks the (usually shameless) experts responsible for their excuses:_ 1. Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.”</STRONG> Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000. 
> 2. “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers</STRONG>.” Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990. 
> 3. “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000</STRONG>.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972. 
> 4. “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010.” Associated Press, May 15, 1989. 
> 5. “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” Life magazine, January 1970. 
> 6. “If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in “Earth Day,” 1970. 
> 7. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971. 
> 8. “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970_Question: why do the worst predictions tend to be alarmist?

----------


## Marc

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html   *Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers* 
     || Global Warming || Table of Contents ||    

> *Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System*   *Just   how much of the "Greenhouse   Effect" is caused by human activity?* It is about *0.28%,* if *water vapor* is   taken into account-- about *5.53%*, if not. This point is so crucial to the debate over global   warming that how *water vapor is* or*isn't* factored   into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between   describing a *significant* human contribution to the greenhouse   effect, or a *negligible* one.

   

> *Water vapor* constitutes   Earth's most significant *greenhouse   gas*, accounting for about* 95%* *of   Earth's greenhouse effect* *(5)*. Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding   global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in   the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human   impacts as much as 20-fold. *Water vapor* is *99.999%   of natural origin.* Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, *carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous   oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.)*, are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter,   which is mostly anthropogenic). Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse   gas concentrations through *farming, manufacturing, power generation,   and transportation*. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison   to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the   most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small--   perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate. For those interested in more details a series of   *data sets* and *charts* have been assembled below in a 5-step   statistical synopsis. Note that the first two steps ignore *water vapor*. *1.*Greenhouse     gas concentrations *2.*Convertingconcentrationsto     contribution *3.*Factoring     in water vapor *4.*Distinguishing     natural vs man-made greenhouse gases *5.*Putting     it all together*Note:* _Calculations   are expressed to 3 significant digits to reduce rounding errors, not necessarily   to indicate statistical precision of the data. All charts were plotted   using Lotus 1-2-3._ *Caveat:*_   This analysis is intended to provide a simplified comparison of the various   man-made and natural greenhouse gases on an equal basis with each other.   It does not take into account all of the complicated interactions between   atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial systems, a feat which can only be accomplished   by better computer models than are currently in use._

   

> Greenhouse Gas Concentrations:   
> Natural vs man-made (anthropogenic)  *1.* The   following table was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department   of Energy *(1)*   summarizing concentrations of the various atmospheric greenhouse gases,   and supplemented with information from other sources *(2-7)*. Because some of the   concentrations are very small the numbers are stated in parts _per billion_.   *DOE chose to NOT show water vapor as a greenhouse gas!*  *TABLE 1.* *The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)* *U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1)* (all concentrations expressed in parts per billion) Pre-industrial baseline Natural additions Man-made additions Total (ppb) Concentration Percent of Total   Carbon Dioxide (CO2)  288,000 68,520  11,880 *(2)* 368,400  *99.438%*    Methane (CH4)  848 577  320  1,745  *0.471%*    Nitrous Oxide (N2O)  285 12  15  312  *0.084%*    Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)  25 0  2 27  *0.007%*    Total  289,158 69,109  12,217  370,484  100.00%                The chart at left summarizes   the % of *greenhouse gas* *concentrations* in Earth's atmosphere from *Table   1*. This is not a very meaningful view though because 1) the data has   not been corrected for the actual *Global Warming Potential* (GWP)   of each gas, and 2) *water vapor* is ignored. But these are the numbers one would use if the goal   is to exaggerate human greenhouse contributions:  Man-made and natural   *carbon dioxide (CO2)* comprises *99.44%* of all greenhouse gas   concentrations   (368,400 / 370,484 )--(ignoring *water   vapor*). Also, from *Table 1* (but not shown on graph):  *Anthropogenic* (man-made)*   CO2* additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or *3.207%* of all greenhouse   gas concentrations, (ignoring *water   vapor*).  *Total combined   anthropogenic* *greenhouse gases* comprise(12,217   / 370,484) or *3.298%* of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring *water vapor*). The various greenhouse gases are *not equal*   in their heat-retention properties though, so to remain statistically relevant   *%* *concentrations*must be changed   to *%* *contribution*relative to CO2.   This is done in *Table 2*, below, through the use of GWP *multipliers*   for each gas, derived by various researchers.

----------


## Marc

> Converting greenhouse gas*concentrations* to greenhouse effect*contribution*
> (using _global warming potential_ )  *2.* Using   appropriate corrections for the *Global Warming Potential* of the   respective gases provides the following more meaningful comparison of greenhouse   gases, based on the conversion: *( concentration   )**X* *(* the appropriate   GWP *multiplier* *(3) (4)* of each gas relative to CO2 *)* *= greenhouse contribution*.:  *TABLE 2.* *Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
> adjusted for heat retention characteristics, relative to CO2* This table adjusts values in *Table 1* to compare greenhouse gases equally with respect to CO2. ( #'s are unit-less) *Multiplier (GWP)* Pre-industrial baseline(new) Natural additions (new) Man-made additions (new) Tot. Relative Contribution Percent of Total (new)  Carbon Dioxide (CO2)  1  288,000 68,520  11,880  368,400  *72.369%*  Methane (CH4)  21 *(3)*  17,808 12,117  6,720  36,645  *7.199%*  Nitrous Oxide (N2O)  310 *(3)* 88,350 3,599 4,771  96,720  *19.000%* CFC's (and other misc. gases) see data *(4)* 2,500 0  4,791  7,291  *1.432%*   Total   396,658 84,236 28,162  509,056  100.000%    *NOTE:* GWP (Global Warming Potential) is used to contrast different greenhouse gases relative to CO2.            Compared to the concentration statistics   in *Table 1*, the GWP comparison in *Table 2* illustrates, among   other things:  Total *carbon dioxide   (CO2)* contributions are reduced to *72.37%* of all greenhouse gases (368,400   / 509,056)-- (ignoring *water   vapor*). Also, from *Table 2* (but not shown on graph):  *Anthropogenic* (man-made)*   CO2* contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or *2.33%* of total of all   greenhouse gases, (ignoring *water   vapor*).  *Total combined   anthropogenic greenhouse gases* becomes(28,162 / 509,056)   or *5.53%* of all greenhouse gas contributions,(ignoring *water vapor*). Relative to *carbon   dioxide* the other greenhouse gases together comprise about *27.63%*   of the greenhouse effect (ignoring *water   vapor*) but only about *0.56%* of total   greenhouse gas _concentrations_. Put another way, as a group methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and CFC's and other   miscellaneous gases are about *50 times more potent* than CO2   as greenhouse gases. To properly represent the *total relative impacts  * of Earth's greenhouse gases *Table 3* (below) factors in the effect of *water   vapor* on the system.

  [quote]*Water vapor* overwhelms all other   natural and man-made
greenhouse*contributions*.  *3. Table   3*, shows what happens when the effect of   *water vapor   is factored in,* and together with all other   greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect. *TABLE 3.* *Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases*  *(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"* Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics Percent of Total  Percent of Total --adjusted for *water vapor* *Water vapor*  ----- * 95.000%*   Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369%  * 3.618%*   Methane (CH4) 7.100%  * 0.360%*  Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000%   *0.950%*   CFC's (and other misc. gases) 1.432%  * 0.072%*   Total 100.000%   *100.000%*  As illustrated in this chart   of the data in *Table 3*, the combined *greenhouse contributions* *of* *CO2, methane, N2O   and misc. gases*are   small compared to* water vapor*! *Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both   man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect*--   a big difference from the 72.37% figure in *Table 2*, which ignored   water! *Water vapor*, the   most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible   for roughly* 95% of the greenhouse effect* *(5)*. Among climatologists this   is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups,   and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether. Conceding that it might be "a little misleading"   to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating   that it is "customary" to do so!  Comparing natural vs man-made*concentrations* of greenhouse gases  *4.* Of   course, even among the remaining 5% of *non-water vapor* greenhouse   gases, humans contribute only a very small part (and human contributions   to water vapor are negligible). Constructed from data in *Table 1,* the charts   (below) illustrate graphically how much of each greenhouse gas is *natural*   vs how much is *man-made*. These allocations are used for the next   and final step in this analysis-- total man-made contributions to the greenhouse   effect. Units are expressed to 3 significant digits in order to reduce   rounding errors for those who wish to walk through the calculations, not   to imply numerical precision as there is some variation among various researchers.  **

----------


## Marc

*Putting it all together:* total human greenhouse gas*contributions* add up to about *0.28%* of the*greenhouse   effect*.  *5.* To    finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2  contribution   to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration  from anthropogenic   (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only  (0.03618 X 0.03225) or *0.117%   of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity*.   The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized   below. *TABLE 4a.* *Anthropogenic (*man-made*) Contribution to the "Greenhouse* *Effect," expressed as % of Total (water   vapor INCLUDED)* Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention   characteristics    % of Greenhouse Effect   % Natural   % Man-made     Water vapor   95.000%     94.999% *0.001%*      Carbon Dioxide (CO2)   3.618%     3.502% *0.117%*      Methane (CH4)   0.360%     0.294% *0.066%*      Nitrous Oxide (N2O)   0.950%     0.903% *0.047%*      Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)   0.072%     0.025% *0.047%*      Total   100.00%     *99.72* *0.28%* When greenhouse contributions are   listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the *natural*   greenhouse effect, is readily apparent.  From *Table 4a,* both natural and man-made  greenhouse   contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and  green, respectively.   For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic)  contributions are labeled   on the chart.  *Water vapor*,   responsible for *95%* of Earth's greenhouse effect, is *99.999%   natural* (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing   to change this.  *Anthropogenic* (man-made)*   CO2* contributions cause only about *0.117%* of Earth's *greenhouse effect*,   (factoring in *water vapor*). This is insignificant!  Adding up all *anthropogenic*   greenhouse sources, the *total human contribution to the greenhouse effect  * is around *0.28%*(factoring in *water   vapor*).   *T*he   *Kyoto Protocol*  calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of   30% from developed  countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions   this much  would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating    effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce  your   winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from  automobiles to   zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more  sacrifices to come   later. Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on   all countries around the world, would reduce total *human greenhouse   contributions* from CO2 by about *0.035%*. This is much less than the natural variability of   Earth's climate system! While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high    human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they  would   yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable  impacts to   climate change. There is no expectation that any  statistically significant   global warming reductions would come from  the Kyoto Protocol.  *"    There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously  observed,   (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on  future temperatures   -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "*  *Dr. S. Fred Singer,* atmospheric physicist
Professor   Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, _Wall Street Journal  _ [/quote]

----------


## Marc

From the data above, it is blatantly obvious that all the BLA BLA about man made Global Warming is pure bullexcrement. 
Global warming and global cooling are natural proces that work independently from our presence or abscence, AND independent from how much tax the mafia in charge wants us to pay. 
AGW bullmanure artist can go jump. :Annoyed:   *Edited Post*

----------


## twinny

it's like a farking train wreck this thread........ you don't want to look but are strangely compelled to do so.......... obvious difference? the train wreck finishes..............  :Fingerscrossed:  :Pash:  :Stress:  :Club:  :Sueme:  :Sueme:  :Sueme:  :Sueme:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *From the data above, it is blatantly obvious that all the BLA BLA about man made Global Warming is pure bullexcrement.*  *Global warming and global cooling are natural proces that work independently from our presence or abscence, AND independent from how much tax the mafia in charge wants us to pay.*  *AGW bullmanure artist can go jump.*

  Nice, Marc you should tell us what you really think :2thumbsup:  
I agree with you,  Governments see this as a convienient way of control and taxes.   
Hey but that is a conspiracy theory only. No way it could be true. Could it?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> it's like a farking train wreck this thread........ you don't want to look but are strangely compelled to do so.......... obvious difference? the train wreck finishes..............

  Yes its a monster all right.  But we have to counter the AGW bull put out by the media and schools some how. 
What bull do you mean? Well the study of "Inconvenient Truth" for one thing.  Asking our kids to study a book so full of holes as if its a text book on AGW is a joke. So it is up to the internet to set people right and bring all these scare mongerers to account. 
So here we are enjoy and contribute!

----------


## twinny

ah well Rod, in schools it's may as well be AGW theory, instead of just Marxist theory, or some such bollocks......... only way to fix it is to kill all the socialist types  attracted to jobs like teaching!!!  :Doh:   *EDITED POST*

----------


## chrisp

> Yes its a monster all right.  But we have to counter the AGW bull put out by the media and schools some how.

  I suppose some of that "bull" they teach in schools and publish in the media includes?  Smoking causes cancer,Fluoridation of water supplies,Sun-Smart,Stranger-danger,etc...
How dare they affront your conservatism.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I suppose some of that "bull" they teach in schools and publish in the media includes?  Smoking causes cancer,Fluoridation of water supplies,Sun-Smart,Stranger-danger,etc...How dare they affront your conservatism.

  Here we go again  :Doh: 
What rot to make this comparison.

----------


## woodbe

> ah well Rod, in schools it's may as well be AGW theory, instead of just Marxist theory, or some such bollocks......... only way to fix it is to kill all the socialist type cnuts attracted to jobs like teaching!!!

  Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that. 
It's not immediately clear which side of this particular fence you sit on, but based on your input so far, I think you're probably on the anti-AGW side. You'll fit right in with Doc 'Reds under the bed' Freud, and Rod 'I read it in a newspaper' Dyson. 
woodbe.

----------


## watson

Nah....I've got a beauty....which has nothing to do with the thread (so report me already) 
Today was Tobacco buying day for me.
However, since Jan 1st we are not allowed to see tobacco products anymore. All behind closed doors now.
So....being the obnoxious old fart that I am.
I held up the whole queue...whilst the doors to the baccy cabinet where unlocked....shouting at the people.
"Please avert your gaze......lest your vision be contaminated by Images of Tobacco Products" 
Made me feel better........now I know why people look at me strangely  :Rotfl:  
OK ....I've had my say....back to the thread.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Nah....I've got a beauty....which has nothing to do with the thread (so report me already) 
> Today was Tobacco buying day for me.
> However, since Jan 1st we are not allowed to see tobacco products anymore. All behind closed doors now.
> So....being the obnoxious old fart that I am.
> I held up the whole queue...whilst the doors to the baccy cabinet where unlocked....shouting at the people.
> "Please avert your gaze......lest your vision be contaminated by Images of Tobacco Products" 
> Made me feel better........now I know why people look at me strangely  
> OK ....I've had my say....back to the thread.

  Now now Watson you should know the meer mention of tobacco on a Global Warming thread will stir up emotions of the Warmist with their fake gotchas on the tobacco lobby compared to the skeptic. 
How could you :Wink:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Yeah, Woodbee I am no fan of the way twinny has expressed himself here, But for you to take the opportunity to use it to slime the skeptics here is a bit rich.  
But it seems to be the only thing left in your arsenal at the moment slimming others. 
Tch Tch Tch The Woodbe if he could be scientist must come up with something better than that. :2thumbsup:  
OK personal slanging match OVER :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## intertd6

> From the data above, it is blatantly obvious that all the BLA BLA about man made Global Warming is pure bullexcrement. 
> Global warming and global cooling are natural proces that work independently from our presence or abscence, AND independent from how much tax the mafia in charge wants us to pay. 
> AGW bullmanure artist can go jump.  *Edited Post*

  You will notice that there will be no reply to or argument to your post above & the previous related data, because it really states the reality of the whole deal so simply. It will become the standard reply to the clowns peddling the fear monger stories.
well done
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Yeah, Woodbee I am no fan of the way twinny has expressed himself here, But for you to take the opportunity to use it to slime the skeptics here is a bit rich.  
> But it seems to be the only thing left in your arsenal at the moment slimming others. 
> Tch Tch Tch The Woodbe if he could be scientist must come up with something better than that. 
> OK personal slanging match OVER

  Fair enough. I'm still smarting from your dodgy data method comment Rod  :Smilie:  
I'm waiting for the existing science to be invalidated by a better theory. Lucky I'm not holding my breath, those sceptic scientists are really dragging the chain.  
What's this 'slimming' you're talking about? Are you on a diet, Rod? I put on a couple of pounds over the break but most of it has gone now...  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I've asked you guys how CO2 drove all these temperatures up and down over the years, decades, centuries, millennia, but you can't seem to figure it out.  Maybe you could email your mate Tamino for his "expert analysis"?

  Is this your total explanation?   

> As far as I'm aware you've conceded in the past that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in that it is one of those gases that acts to trap reflected heat just like a blanket....true?  From a scientific perspective, this is a physical behaviour of CO2 (and other gaseous compounds) that has been established for a century or so - the links have been posted before. 
> Considering this graphic that you favour... 
> Assume then that this is the behaviour of the greenhouse effect (with respect to CO2) over time without the influence of the human species......essentially the result of the 'natural' carbon cycle.  The estimates are that the turnover each year of this cycle is in the order of 750 to 800 gigatonnes of CO2 released and absorbed each year through natural processes. 
> Now put the human species into the mix.  In the carrying out of our day to day lives...it has been estimated that we release something in the order of 30 gigatonnes of CO2 per annum (and still rising) into the atmosphere in addition to the 750 gigatonnes or so that is released through the 'natural' carbon cycle. The difficulty comes from the fact that the 'natural' carbon cycle is still only absorbing the 'natural' amount of CO2 appears.....not the extra (or at least not all of it). 
> These quantities are simplifications from figures available in quite a few locations but I got them from here http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/lequer...bon_budget.htm 
> Soooo....and here comes the scary intellectual bit.....if we accept that CO2 is a GHG and that the energy flow for a given CO2 concentration and given infra red energy input has been established (there's a bunch of links to papers here http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/ )...and we know that the laboratory findings have been corroborated by real world observations of infra red radiation both within and above the atmosphere ("Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to  space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements  find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same  wavelengths" http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Pu..._harries_v.pdf and P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari) ...and we know that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing Climate Change: Key Indicators ..and we know that the amount of energy produced by the Sun has not changed significantly since 1750 (_Mike Lockwood, Solar Change and Climate: an update in the light of  the current exceptional solar minimum, Proceedings of the Royal Society  A, 2 December 2009, doi 10.1098/rspa.2009.0519; and 
> Judith Lean, Cycles and trends in solar irradiance and climate, Wiley  Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, vol. 1, January/February  2010, 111-122.)_ ...and we know where the CO2 increase is coming from because the natural CO2 cycle is out of sync due to human activity (established earlier).....then only finding that I can personally make is that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the primary driving force behind the increasing trend in average temperatures  Climate Change: Key Indicators .....is in all likelihood the activity of the human species.

  I just want to be sure before my usual unscientific rebuttal.  You see, I was hoping for an explanation of how the CO2 going up and down never matches the temperature going up and down.  I didn't really get that from your wonderful story above.   
I am a simple man though, so may have missed the bit where you explained the lines never matching.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm waiting for the existing science to be invalidated by a better theory.  
> woodbe.

  Why would the "existing science" need to be invalidated, as it *does not* prove AGW Theory?  :Confused:  
But while we are on the subject, an arbitrary temperature graph is not the "existing science", it is an arbitrary temperature graph. 
But why do you studiously avoid presenting the "existing science" proving that CO2 is the sole driver of temperature over time, as theorised in AGW Theory?   

> Lucky I'm not holding my breath... 
> woodbe.

  So it's you releasing all that CO2 then... :Roflmao:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> .  
> What's this 'slimming' you're talking about? Are you on a diet, Rod? I put on a couple of pounds over the break but most of it has gone now...  
> woodbe.

  
LOL I never claimed I can spell :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> From the data above, it is blatantly obvious that all the BLA BLA about man made Global Warming is pure bullexcrement. 
> Global warming and global cooling are natural proces that work independently from our presence or abscence, AND independent from how much tax the mafia in charge wants us to pay. 
> AGW bullmanure artist can go jump.  *Edited Post*

  
Dude!! 
So right.....and yet just enough wrong.  Correct about the water vapour bit - it is the greatest contributor to the GH effect, no question.  And that humans contribute bugger all to the water vapour component.   
But the GH effect is a system - water vapour is just one component - a big component true but not the only part.  Before we commenced the industrial revolution it worked fine enough in its quiet little wobbly way.  And then we tricked with it. 
Consider the Briggs and Stratton 4 stroke lawn mower engine.  Pretend the engine itself is the Earth, the fuel is the water vapour.  Those two ingredients alone are typically enough to get the thing going but imagine that the idle screw on the carburetor is CO2 (or any other GHG).....and you fiddle with it to try and get the engine running better....too much one way or the other - just a tiny percentage - and the damn thing either won't start or runs like it is trying to chew penguins... 
Not a great example? 
How about a neat and simple brick wall?   Mostly made of bricks.  But a small  percentage is mortar and and even smaller percentage is brick ties.  Take one of those small percentages away (or even put too many in) and what do you get?  System failure.  It might look like a brick wall but it is really just an accident waiting to happen... 
Basically.....you're thinking in a much too simplistic manner.  Consider the recipe and not just one part of the ingredients list.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You see, I was hoping for an explanation of how the CO2 going up and down never matches the temperature going up and down.  I didn't really get that from your wonderful story above.   
> I am a simple man though, so may have missed the bit where you explained the lines never matching.

  
Doesn't have to. 
CO2 is not the only GHG in town nor is it the only driver of the Greenhouse Effect.   
And CO2 is certainly not the only contributor to AGW (NOX & CH4 come to mind here) nor......AND THIS IS THE REALLY IMPORTANT BIT......never has it been in all previous episodes of climate variation as described in your graphic.  
Basically.....your graph (and so many others on both sides of this beautiful game) are selling the story short. Many of the previous wobbles in temperature were probably driven primarily by another factor within the GH system - be it physical or chemical, internal or external. 
Even today's wobble isn't influenced just by CO2 - NOX, CH4, chloroflurocarbons and many other wonderful compounds also influence the atmospheric process. Physical effects of soot, agricultural dusts, aeroplane wakes made of water vapour and someone probably knows what else play their part.  All these things have changed since the industrial revolution...not just CO2.  And they all play a part in influencing air and ocean temperatures. 
You can not take CO2 in isolation.....not in science, not in politics, not in economics and certainly not in life.  It simply isn't the only ingredient. 
The reason it has been targeted is because it a) it was obvious; b) it makes up a large part of human emissions; and c) it was something that was thought to be easy to change (based on previous success with CFC's)......not necessarily because it was a scientifically sensible or reasonable thing to do.  Basically, some genius spotted a way to make a quid or sixsquillion.  
Like Marc......I accuse you of simplicity. Unlike Marc......history suggests that you are smarter than that.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Oh boy Oh boy, I am so sorry S&D.   
They have got you bad.

----------


## Marc

> Dude!! 
> So right.....and yet just enough wrong.  Correct about the water vapour bit - it is the greatest contributor to the GH effect, no question.  And that humans contribute bugger all to the water vapour component.   
> But the GH effect is a system - water vapour is just one component - a big component true but not the only part.  Before we commenced the industrial revolution it worked fine enough in its quiet little wobbly way.  And then we tricked with it. 
> Consider the Briggs and Stratton 4 stroke lawn mower engine.  Pretend the engine itself is the Earth, the fuel is the water vapour.  Those two ingredients alone are typically enough to get the thing going but imagine that the idle screw on the carburetor is CO2 (or any other GHG).....and you fiddle with it to try and get the engine running better....too much one way or the other - just a tiny percentage - and the damn thing either won't start or runs like it is trying to chew penguins... 
> Not a great example? 
> How about a neat and simple brick wall?   Mostly made of bricks.  But a small  percentage is mortar and and even smaller percentage is brick ties.  Take one of those small percentages away (or even put too many in) and what do you get?  System failure.  It might look like a brick wall but it is really just an accident waiting to happen... 
> Basically.....you're thinking in a much too simplistic manner.  Consider the recipe and not just one part of the ingredients list.

  Mate, it is not a matter of simplicity or complexity, it is a matter of truth or falsehood.
But since you like simile, let me refer one that is not mine but taken from soneone who knows more about climate than most. 
Global warming is like a big large 4WD, say a Hummer.
The Global Warming alarmist and assorted cheerleaders ignore the Sun that is the engine, Ignore water vapor that is the fuel, and concentrate on one nut on one wheel, the rear p/s. That nut represents CO2. Now from that entire nut the human produced CO2 is represented by one turn of the thread. The first turn. 
Yet they want to turn the world upside down and make us all feel guilty and give up on our way of life and even cull humanity in order to REDUCE that ONE thread on ONE nut out of the entire Hummer?  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed: 
I don't think that there is anything intelligent in such pretence.   

> Unlike Marc......history suggests that you are smarter than that.

   , coming from someone who's avatar and nome the plume suggest some infantile wind-passing fixation....I can only laugh at your hyperbole

----------


## Marc

> You will notice that there will be no reply to or argument to your post above & the previous related data, because it really states the reality of the whole deal so simply. It will become the standard reply to the clowns peddling the fear monger stories.
> well done
> regards inter

  Well it can be hardly called "my" post. Clearly I am not the author but I agree that usualy AGW supporters prefer more convoluted post to debate. I suppose that there isn't much to replay to the plain truth. 
By the way what is that "EDITED POST" in red. Did I make a spelling mistake? Is mafia supposed to be spelled with ph?   :Blush7:

----------


## chrisp

*Heads-up* 
Tonight on *SBS 2* at 8:00pm  *The Truth About Climate Change* 
Can we really believe all the claims about climate change? In the wake  of the final report into so-called 'Climategate' and the vicious row  about the science behind climate change, this documentary goes back to  basics to ask what we really know about our climate and how it will  affect us, uncovering some surprising results. (From the UK)  (Documentary) PG

----------


## Marc

> *Heads-up* 
> Tonight on *SBS 2* at 8:00pm *The Truth About Climate Change* 
> Can we really believe all the claims about climate change? In the wake  of the final report into so-called 'Climategate' and the vicious row  about the science behind climate change, this documentary goes back to  basics to ask what we really know about our climate and how it will  affect us, uncovering some surprising results. (From the UK)  (Documentary) PG

  Another catastrophistic approach no doubt. The sky is falling the sea is rising, desertification and killing heat, we will all die an agonising death... no real surprises I venture.
I will in stead sit on my jetty's steps and splash my feet in the water that has been going up and down between the second last and the first step like clockwork for the last 35 years. I may even catch a fish before it becomes extinct... :2thumbsup:

----------


## Marc

> Nah....I've got a beauty....which has nothing to do with the thread (so report me already) 
> Today was Tobacco buying day for me.
> However, since Jan 1st we are not allowed to see tobacco products anymore. All behind closed doors now.
> So....being the obnoxious old fart that I am.
> I held up the whole queue...whilst the doors to the baccy cabinet where unlocked....shouting at the people.
> "Please avert your gaze......lest your vision be contaminated by Images of Tobacco Products" 
> Made me feel better........now I know why people look at me strangely  
> OK ....I've had my say....back to the thread.

  Not for long though. This business of shielding the poor candid and oh so impressionable consumers from the mere sight of tobacco brands violates a string of trade mark laws and the tobacco companies will have their victory in court no doubt.
It is the trademark of a tyrannical governemt to legislate for the "good" of the people and to take away choice again for their own good. Think for the people since they don't know what they are doing. Tell them how to live, eat drink, who to sleep with and when, and of course how to vote.  What was the name of that german guy again who did all this things and more for the sake of a better population? :Yikes2:

----------


## woodbe

> Think for the people since they don't know what they are doing. Tell them how to live, eat drink, who to sleep with and when, and of course how to vote.  What was the name of that german guy again who did all this things and more for the sake of a better population?

  Think about it. Advertising fits your description perfectly, and that is what drives many if not most of the 'wants' of the population. I don't blame the government for moving against smoking, it costs them (and therefore the rest of us) a packet in tax to look after the poor suckers who fall for it. (sorry Watson, puff away)  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change

----------


## chrisp

> Another catastrophistic approach no doubt. The sky is falling the sea is rising, desertification and killing heat, we will all die an agonising death... no real surprises I venture.

  Psst, Marc, your bias is showing.  The program isn't finished and you are already condemning it. 
Did you watch it? 
I hope Dr Freud did (or does in his time zone).  Even the sceptic scientist have no doubt that CO2 is a GHG gas.   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> "so-called 'Climategate' "

  Just the tone of this alone sets the agenda of this show and destroyes any chance that it might be bipartisan.

----------


## chrisp

> Just the tone of this alone sets the agenda of this show and destroyes any chance that it might be bipartisan.

  I take it that you didn't watch it?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I take it that you didn't watch it?

  Trying to find it online to watch have you got a link? 
Found this in stead  SBS Video Player

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Trying to find it online to watch have you got a link? 
> Found this in stead  SBS Video Player

  No problem found it  SBS Video Player

----------


## chrisp

> No problem found it  SBS Video Player

  Good on ya, Rod.   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Good on ya, Rod.

  Well I watched it chrisp. 
I don't even know where to start in picking fault with this propaganda film. 
I will give them a bit of credit in interviewing skeptics as well as warmists, but the questions asked were so slanted to give the dumb observer the warmist slant. 
The ending was pure crap. It brought in that there was some doubt yet the old discredited insurance policy argument finished off a pathetic film. 
No evidence, just the same old. Yes co2 is a GHG , yes we are putting more in the atmosphere, yes it DOES contribute to GHG effect. No one thats knows anything at all about this can answer no to these questions. It is NOT a gottcha. They simply cannot attribute Co2 as the sole, main or even slight cause of warming over the past 150 years. Miniscule might be a better term. 
The reference to the hockey stick left the viewer thinking this discredited bit of crap is real. 
The whole AGW scare is based on the increased temperatures over the past 150 years as being un-precedented. This is just not true. They use this to justify their claim that the only possible cause is Co2 again absolute bullchit. 
This whole film was about softening the damage done by the climategate emails and stuffups by the IPCC. 
Sorry Chrisp I did the right thing and watched it I looked for some truth and evidence of AGW and could not find anything other than propaganda and slanted questioning to present a particular point of view. 
Very dissapointing very wrong. I hope these sorts of films get rolled out in studies over the next 20 years to help mankind not fall for this type of claptrap again.

----------


## chrisp

> The reference to the hockey stick left the viewer thinking this discredited bit of crap is real.

  So _you_ keep saying.  However,  science hasn't discredited the hockey stick at all.  If anything, the hockey stick has been reconfirmed. 
Good on you for watching it anyway.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So _you_ keep saying. However, science hasn't discredited the hockey stick at all. If anything, the hockey stick has been reconfirmed.

  Oh please Chrisp you really cant insult our intelliegence here.  It was created pure and simple to hide the medieval warm period.  Even the IPCC are not game enough to reference it any more.     

> Good on you for watching it anyway.

  No problem my post is exactly as I see it though.  Fortunately I feel not many people will be swayed to beleive in AGW by this film.  They might catch a few with the insurance bit though. 
Then again there will be other that have never heard that there is any doubt and may look into it a bit further. 
So all in all no help to the Warmist and no damage to skeptics.  Just a waste of air waves. 
Interestingly there is a bit of concern in the warmist camp of how to get their message across.  They are lookng for a new Messiah as Al Gore has gone missing!  2010 in review: The year climate coverage 'fell off the map.' and Naked Bodies and a New Messiah: Green Groups Try to Sex Up Climate Change - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International 
All they have to do is show us the facts that prove their claims and it will be done and dusted.  Trouble is Co2 and temps will not co-operate.  It is set to get worse yet as China fires up its new coal fired plants with India following.  We have ZERO chance or reducing emissions even if we had to. (will find the link tomorrow)

----------


## Rod Dyson

This is a good read Consensus eh!   

> The questions posed to the Earth scientists were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming — quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say humans are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming.

  Read more: Lawrence Solomon: 97% cooked stats | FP Comment | Financial Post  
Puts your film into a bit better perspective chrisp.

----------


## chrisp

> Oh please Chrisp you really cant insult our intelliegence here.  It was created pure and simple to hide the medieval warm period.

  "Despite substantial uncertainties, especially for the period prior to  1600 when data are scarce, the warmest period prior to the 20th century  very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but *temperatures were  probably between 0.1°C and 0.2°C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and  significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980*."  Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  
Maybe it should be called the *Medieval Localised Warmish Period* (that only happened in a localised area).   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Anyone can put anything they like on Wikipedea it is also well known that one of the warmists spent his time making sure nothing got on wikipedea that compromised the warmist position. Cant remember his name. but remember when he got sacked. Someone may be able to help here. 
You totally ignore the graphs created from ice cores that show a very different result to the graph you are presenting here. So you would ignore any other data that is contrary to this and just blindly accept this as the real deal?   
There is very little doubt among scientist that the medieval warm period was warmer than today. That is if you choose to look a bit further into it.

----------


## Dr Freud

> But the GH effect is a system - water vapour is just one component - a big component true but not the only part.  Before we commenced the industrial revolution it worked fine enough in its quiet little wobbly way.  And then we *tricked* with it.

  You mean like Mikes Nature Trick  ?   

> Basically.....you're thinking in a much too simplistic manner.

  I keep telling you I'm a simple man.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Doesn't have to. 
> CO2 is not the only GHG in town nor is it the only driver of the Greenhouse Effect.   
> And CO2 is certainly not the only contributor to AGW (NOX & CH4 come to mind here) nor......AND THIS IS THE REALLY IMPORTANT BIT......never has it been in all previous episodes of climate variation as described in your graphic.  
> Basically.....your graph (and so many others on both sides of this beautiful game) are selling the story short. Many of the previous wobbles in temperature were probably driven primarily by another factor within the GH system - be it physical or chemical, internal or external. 
> Even today's wobble isn't influenced just by CO2 - NOX, CH4, chloroflurocarbons and many other wonderful compounds also influence the atmospheric process. Physical effects of soot, agricultural dusts, aeroplane wakes made of water vapour and someone probably knows what else play their part.  All these things have changed since the industrial revolution...not just CO2.  And they all play a part in influencing air and ocean temperatures. 
> You can not take CO2 in isolation.....not in science, not in politics, not in economics and certainly not in life.  It simply isn't the only ingredient. 
> The reason it has been targeted is because it a) it was obvious; b) it makes up a large part of human emissions; and c) it was something that was thought to be easy to change (based on previous success with CFC's)......not necessarily because it was a scientifically sensible or reasonable thing to do.  Basically, some genius spotted a way to make a quid or sixsquillion.  
> Like Marc......I accuse you of simplicity. Unlike Marc......history suggests that you are smarter than that.

  I must have appeared much smarter than I am.  :Biggrin:  
Probably all the cut and pastes from Andrew Bolt made me look smarterer!  :Wink 1:  
And while I do enjoy your stories, you wouldn't happen to have come across any proof or evidence while you out and about. 
Please keep it simple, or as Andrew Bolt would say, parsimonious.  :Biggrin:  
I reckon why use a big word when a diminutive one will do.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change

  I think they meant to call it "Ignoring the CO2 lag in past climate change". 
They say that CO2 has never driven temperature, but the Sun did it. Der!  :Doh:  
Then they just ignore this fact and say things are somehow different now.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Psst, Marc, your bias is showing.  The program isn't finished and you are already condemning it.

  The conclusion was finished before they started filming.   

> I hope Dr Freud did (or does in his time zone).

  Yeh, I endured it. 
There was only one redeeming feature (for you guys). 
This show was so pathetic, that it actually makes you guys look credible by comparison.   

> Even the sceptic scientist have no doubt that CO2 is a GHG gas.

  I still can't believe *any* of the guests answered the moron's questions.  I would have simply replied, "Mate, are you taking the p-ss, or are you some kind of f---wit?" 
I understand there are some seriously dumb ass people out there (like my family), but when have you ever heard anyone arguing that CO2 *is not* a greenhouse gas. 
Still, all that said, Gore set the bar pretty low, and they beat him in terms of credibility.  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Trying to find it online to watch have you got a link? 
> Found this in stead  SBS Video Player

  They must have all been sceptics.  AGW Theory supporters know there is no ice there, so wouldn't have got stuck.  :Biggrin:  
Oops, except the bloke in the canoe.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Well I watched it chrisp. 
> I don't even know where to start in picking fault with this propaganda film. 
> I will give them a bit of credit in interviewing skeptics as well as warmists, but the questions asked were so slanted to give the dumb observer the warmist slant. 
> The ending was pure crap. It brought in that there was some doubt yet the old discredited insurance policy argument finished off a pathetic film. 
> No evidence, just the same old. Yes co2 is a GHG , yes we are putting more in the atmosphere, yes it DOES contribute to GHG effect. No one thats knows anything at all about this can answer no to these questions. It is NOT a gottcha. They simply cannot attribute Co2 as the sole, main or even slight cause of warming over the past 150 years. Miniscule might be a better term. 
> The reference to the hockey stick left the viewer thinking this discredited bit of crap is real. 
> The whole AGW scare is based on the increased temperatures over the past 150 years as being un-precedented. This is just not true. They use this to justify their claim that the only possible cause is Co2 again absolute bullchit. 
> This whole film was about softening the damage done by the climategate emails and stuffups by the IPCC. 
> Sorry Chrisp I did the right thing and watched it I looked for some truth and evidence of AGW and could not find anything other than propaganda and slanted questioning to present a particular point of view. 
> Very dissapointing very wrong. I hope these sorts of films get rolled out in studies over the next 20 years to help mankind not fall for this type of claptrap again.

  Mate, you definitely are a gentleman.  I couldn't bring myself to write anything coherent in response to this pathetic propaganda piece.  :No:  
What a waste of CO2 emissions!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> However,  science hasn't discredited the hockey stick at all.  If anything, the hockey stick has been reconfirmed.

  I do wonder whether you're serious about this sometimes.  :Biggrin:  :Cry:  
I often take the p-ss, but are you really serious?  
Even it's creator Michael Mann in the dodgy movie you just suggested ran away from it like his mates had just woken him up with a hangover and a megafuggly.  :Roflmao:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Maybe it should be called the *Medieval Localised Warmish Period* (that only happened in a localised area).

  Brisbane should have dropped Fevola a long time ago, Megan Gale should have dropped Andy Lee a long time ago, and you should have dropped this debacle a long time ago. 
You may benefit by reading hundreds of scientific studies (yeeees, peer-reviewed even) rather than Dikipedia or the bozo's at RC:   

> The bottom line is that there are a mass of studies that show it was warmer in medieval times, and that it was global. Yet there is a disinformation campaign out there by the IPCC and others to promote the idea that it was a local phenomenon and that the Hockey Stick Graph has not been resoundingly, completely shown to be a baseless fraud.   Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data « JoNova

  This stuff (and heaps more) has been out for years, you have no excuses any more.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Anyone can put anything they like on Wikipedea it is also well known that one of the warmists spent his time making sure nothing got on wikipedea that compromised the warmist position. Cant remember his name. but remember when he got sacked. Someone may be able to help here.

  His name is Mud! But also known as William Connelley.   

> To reiterate the points from my good friend Rod: 
> Again you confuse theory with reality.  You claim this is a conspiracy "theory", when in "reality" he got sacked for doing it. 
> See what happens when you start confusing theory with reality. 
> For another reality check, check out Bolta:   _ All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didnt like the subject of a certain article, he removed it  more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred  over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement._  _Anyway, Connolleys latest escapade has proved to be the straw that broke the camels back for the Wiki administrators. He has now been banned from writing on Climate Change for Wikipedia.  
> Full story here:  The sliming of a sceptic is finally too much for even Wikipedia | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog  _

----------


## Dr Freud

> Al Gore exploited the Hurricane Katrina disaster in his film _An Inconvenient Truth _ to claim global warming was making hurricanes worse:   _Now Im going to show you, recently released, the actual ocean temperature. Of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms.  We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes. Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them. In the same year we had that string of big hurricanes; we also set an all time record for tornadoes in the United States And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases, the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And youll see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that Hurricanes eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there are no words to describe it.__My red dot on Dr Ryan Maues graphic - of accumulated energy of tropical cyclones around the world - marks the date Gore made that claim:_  __  _Oops. The total hurricane energy is falling, not strengthening._  _Dr Roger Pielke Jr says the extensive evidence suggests Gore was wrong. Yet again._  _What more does the weather have to do to prove the warming alarmists wrong? And what will it take for the Nobel committee to strip Gore of his prize for serial exaggeration? _   _Hot-air Gore runs out of puff | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

   _See now Woodbe, this is called taking the p-ss out of scaremongerer's failed weather predictions.  It is not about confusing weather with climate. _

----------


## Dr Freud

> Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, September 2008:    _There is a great deal of scientific advice about the impact of climate change on rainfall, particularly in southern Australia._  _Ill just give you a few examples. We know the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said by 2050 that Australia should expect around about a 25 per cent reduction in rainfall in the southern part of the Australia._  _We also know that in the two years before our election, what we saw were the lowest inflows into the River Murray in history, 43 per cent lower than the previous lows So there is a very, very sound body of evidence that indicates that climate change is and will have an impact on rainfall in the Murray-Darling Basin and in southern Australia.__Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, 2007: _   _  Over the past 50 years southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming.__Flannery again, 2007: _   _ Were already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although were getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, thats translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. Thats because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isnt actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and thats a real worry for the people in the bush._ _Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, 2007: _   _Given the current uncertainty about the likely impact of climate change on rainfall patterns in (South Eastern Queensland) over coming years, it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower than usual rainfalls could eventuate._ _The weather, 2010:_  _AUSTRALIA experienced its third-wettest year on record during 2010 and the La Nina conditions bringing heavy rains are likely to persist into autumn. The Bureau of Meteorology has reported that the second half of the year was the wettest on record for Australia as a 14-year long dry was broken by the rapid transition from El Nino to La Nina conditions.__What more does the weather need to do to prove that the warming alarmists have no credibility?  _   _Warmists see their credibility drowned | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

    
Cool, huh!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Only_ now_ does this problem occur to them?    _Wind farms in Britain generated practically no electricity during the recent cold spell, raising fresh concerns about whether they could be relied upon to meet the countrys energy needs._  _Despite high demand for electricity as people shivered at home over Christmas, most of the 3,000 wind turbines around Britain stood still due to a lack of wind._  _Even yesterday , when conditions were slightly breezier, wind farms generated just 1.8 per cent of the nations electricity  less than a third of usual levels._  _The failure of wind farms to function at full tilt during December forced energy suppliers to rely on coal-fired power stations to keep the lights on  meaning more greenhouse gases were produced._  _Experts feared that as the Government moved towards a target of generating 30 per cent of electricity from wind  while closing gas and coal-fired power stations  cold, still winters could cause a problem in the future._ _These experts realise only now that the when the wind dont blow, the power wont flow?  Next they might even start worrying that solar power wont work in the dark._  _  Shock. Shivering Britain realises wind power needs wind to work | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

   
Here's a pic:   
I wonder how much the PV's are generating under all that snow and cloud as well?  :Shock:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...coming from someone who's avatar and nome the plume suggest some infantile wind-passing fixation....I can only laugh at your hyperbole

  I always aim to entertain.....

----------


## SilentButDeadly

My work here is done.... 
....I shall now leave this thread alone and let it splutter to its logical conclusion.   
However, I will likely drop in occasionally to update myself on the latest in affronted yet purposeless ranting....because one must keep up to date in the latest techniques.  So feel free to continue amongst yourselves. 
Enjoy.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> My work here is done.... 
> ....I shall now leave this thread alone and let it splutter to its logical conclusion.  
> However, I will likely drop in occasionally to update myself on the latest in affronted yet purposeless ranting....because one must keep up to date in the latest techniques. So feel free to continue amongst yourselves. 
> Enjoy.

  How pious. 
And you want to find truth by showing complete ignorance to the mounting science and empircal observations against your holyer than thou blind acceptance of what YOU want to believe is TRUTH. 
What a mockery of the word TRUTH 
Sorry S&D you devalue yourself big time. 
I might add your "this is the truth" type ranting and "I only bring you the truth" type impression you give, smacks entirely of a religious devotion to your version of the truth.  Alarm bells ring when I see/here this type of self righteous type talk.

----------


## chrisp

> My work here is done.... 
> ....I shall now leave this thread alone and let it splutter to its logical conclusion.   
> However, I will likely drop in occasionally to update myself on the latest in affronted yet purposeless ranting....because one must keep up to date in the latest techniques.  So feel free to continue amongst yourselves. 
> Enjoy.

  Your contributions will be missed. 
The 'logical conclusion' is very apparent to most (and to 97% of scientists  :Smilie:  ), but it is fascinating to watch just how hard some will resist.  Sense will prevail in time - it is just a matter of how much time - and how much sense. 
All the best!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> "Despite substantial uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce, the warmest period prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but *temperatures were probably between 0.1°C and 0.2°C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980*."  Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  
> Maybe it should be called the *Medieval Localised Warmish Period* (that only happened in a localised area).

  And that graph is in direct conflict with this one.   
So yours is right ?

----------


## PhilT2

I have difficulty with comparing the two. One uses actual temps, the other uses temp anomaly. One is for a specific location, the other is northern hemisphere average(?) I'd agree that Wikipedia is not usually an acceptable source, quoting it in a paper at uni gets a F. Comparing graphs like the two above earns a similar score.

----------


## woodbe

> And that graph is in direct conflict with this one.   
> So yours is right ?

  Perhaps they're both right.  :Smilie:  
I haven't had much of a look at Easterbrook's reconstruction, but lets just assume for a minute that it is 100% correct. 
The little bit of reality that you have missed Rod, is that Easterbrook's graph is a reconstruction of temperature from a single ice core in Greenland:  The GISP2 Ice Coring Effort   
Whereas Chrisp's graph is a representation of 10 published worldwide mean temperature reconstructions.  2000 Year Temperature Comparison   
We would expect to see entirely different temperature series when comparing a single ice core temperature reconstruction from one of the coldest places on the planet with 10 worldwide mean temperature reconstructions. 
Why is this even raised as an issue?  
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

*Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically significant global warming?*   

> Answer from *Professor Phil Jones* of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit in a BBC interview in response to the question: *YES*  
> The latest warm period, needing anthropogenic CO2 to be explained (as  per the IPCC), began around 1975. This means we have had 35 years of it,  at its most, as RC loudly admits. It is clear from looking at the data  that it is composed of two distinct periods and it is not cherry picking  to identify these as they stand out in the data. There is the period  jan 1975  dec 1997 when the world warmed, and the period jan 1998   2010 (present) when it didnt significantly increase its temperature  (not to even talk from 1995, as Prof. Jones agrees with). It is  generally accepted that 30 years is about the minimum for statistically  significant climatic data to emerge. *If the present standstill  continues for four additional years, then it will become the dominant  climatic factor of the past 30 years (in that moment).* 
> It is interesting to also note that *the warming between 1975 and 1990 was not in itself statistically significant*. This means that *it was only the 8-year warming period 1990 - 1997 (before it ceased) that has made all the difference to the statistics* and significance of Earths warming in the past 35 years!  http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had.../to:2010/trend

----------


## Marc

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&feature=player_detailpage"]YouTube        - Global Warming -- The Current Status: The Science, the Scandal, the Prospects for a Treaty[/ame]

----------


## chrisp

> *Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically significant global warming?*  *YES*

  I think you are (or the source you are cutting and pasting from is) misrepresenting Professor Jones' answer. 
From the transcripts of the interview at BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones *B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming*
Yes,  but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009.  This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the  95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the  significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific  terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for  shorter periods. You have also posted a graph that gives the impression that it might be linked to Prof Jones' response.  From the same transcripts, the Prof provides a link to:

----------


## Dr Freud

> My work here is done.... 
> ....I shall now leave this thread alone and let it splutter to its logical conclusion.   
> However, I will likely drop in occasionally to update myself on the latest in affronted yet purposeless ranting....because one must keep up to date in the latest techniques.  So feel free to continue amongst yourselves. 
> Enjoy.

  I will try to focus my ranting more during your sabbatical.  :Biggrin:  
But don't stay away too long, we could all be under the oceans before long.  :Sneaktongue:

----------


## PhilT2

> I think you are (or the source you are cutting and pasting from is) misrepresenting Professor Jones' answer.

  That confuses me too. The link at the bottom of the text suggests that the text comes from the woodfortrees site but I can't find it there.

----------


## intertd6

As I said Its all quiet on the replys to the data of marcs post # 4870 & the endless dribble supporting CO2 driving a warming trend still keeps coming, honestly there is no need for higher education to understand it. But then all sorts of types get sucked into the lastest religion, trends, fashions or cults & will defend it to the enth degree because thats what their social instinct drives them to do. Safety in numbers.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> The 'logical conclusion' is very apparent to most (and to 97% of scientists  ), but it is fascinating to watch just how hard some will resist.

  What, all 75 of those scientists?  :Biggrin:    

> Sense will prevail in time - it is just a matter of how much time - and how much sense.

  Ahhh, if only this were true. 
Look around the world my friend.  :Biggrin:

----------


## PhilT2

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to1naH2A7GU&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Religious Right on Dangers of Environmentalism[/ame] 
That's settled it; it is now sinful to believe in AGW. We must instead put our trust in a book full of ancient middle east mythology. If I was anti AGW I'd switch sides just to avoid being associated with these god botherers.

----------


## chrisp

> That confuses me too. The link at the bottom of the text suggests that the text comes from the woodfortrees site but I can't find it there.

  I think (part) of the source is Nothing Wrong With Our Graph  
The Global Warming Policy Foundation seemed to get in to a little bother about the graph in its logo.  It seems it was misrepresenting the trend in global temperature! "When the GWPF's website was launched in November 2009, a graph used in the logo graphic on each page of the website of '21st Century global mean temperatures' showed a slow decline over the selected period from 20012008. Hannah Devlin of The Times found an error for 2003 and noted that if the period from 20002009 had been chosen, then a rise in temperature would have been shown rather than a fall. Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment said that the graph was contrary to the true measurements, and that by leaving out the temperature trend during the 20th century, the graph obscured the fact that 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred this century. The GWPF blamed a "small error by our graphic designer" for the mistake which would now be changed, but said that starting the graph earlier would be equally arbitrary." 
From: Global Warming Policy Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Dr Freud

> As I said Its all quiet on the replys to the data of marcs post # 4870 & the endless dribble supporting CO2 driving a warming trend still keeps coming, honestly there is no need for higher education to understand it. But then all sorts of types get sucked into the lastest religion, trends, fashions or cults & will defend it to the enth degree because thats what their social instinct drives them to do. Safety in numbers.
> regards inter

  The ability to ignore reality is the main feature of faith based systems. 
I wholeheartedly support any faith that goes about it's own business and doesn't purport to be scientific. 
These clowns dress up like scientists then close their eyes and pray.  :Doh:  
There are plenty of cults alive and well that have missed their armageddon dates, they just reset their doomsday with some more delusions and keep on rocking.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> YouTube - Religious Right on Dangers of Environmentalism 
> That's settled it; it is now sinful to believe in AGW. We must instead put our trust in a book full of ancient middle east mythology. If I was anti AGW I'd switch sides just to avoid being associated with these god botherers.

  Oh dear, this could be the new Gaza Strip developing.  :Shock:  
You see, if you had any scientific credibility whatsoever, you'd just present your scientific evidence of AGW Theory, and this woman would look like the idiot she is, and would argue no more.  :2thumbsup:  
Unfortunately, your faith based belief system has no scientific evidence, so you and your cohort will continue to argue with her and her cohort about whose beliefs are right.  :Doh:  
Meanwhile, the sceptics look on and laugh, as we live in reality, so know that neither of you have any scientific evidence proving your belief systems.  Hopefully one of your sides will back down, lest we start a new religious war. 
Us realists are sick of people killing each other because they believe in different Gods or Gaia's.  :Cry:

----------


## chrisp

> Meanwhile, the sceptics look on and laugh, as we live in reality...

  "Sceptics" like this one?The world's most high-profile climate change  sceptic is to declare that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the  chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must  confront" 
from: Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change | Environment | The GuardianYep, it seems that reality is looming.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

Seriously people, is this a natural sociological phenomenon, or do you guys go to classes.  :Doh:  
How can you argue a semantic argument over whose graph showed what logo over what time period on whose website? 
I'm starting to think you people are actually quite insane. 
Do you think that by arguing over these ridiculous semantics that everyone will ignore all of the previous mountain of evidence of the planet being *MUCH* warmer than today with *MUCH* higher CO2 levels *MANY* times and still ticking along quite happily? 
Or do you all go to classes in AGW Theory semantic distractions? 
I hope you all go to classes, otherwise I have concerns for your mental well-being.  :Biggrin:  
P.S. leaving all the semantic distractions aside, do any of you actually still believe the Hockey Stick, and are still willing to admit it?

----------


## Dr Freud

> "Sceptics" like this one?The world's most high-profile climate change  sceptic is to declare that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the  chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must  confront" 
> from: Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change | Environment | The GuardianYep, it seems that reality is looming.

  I thought you guys followed this issue more closely than you obviously do. 
Calling Lomborg a sceptic is like calling me a "believer".  :No:  
The nuances of this debate have been lacking in the public debate of this subject, but I was obviously misguided in assuming you guys knew of them, but were just intentionally overselling your faith.  :Doh:

----------


## chrisp

> P.S. leaving all the semantic distractions aside, do any of you actually still believe the Hockey Stick, and are still willing to admit it?

  Yes, and by implication, yes! 
I think you and Rod are playing silly games trying to imply that it has been discredited when, in fact, it has been validated several times. 
I suppose if you say something often enough, someone will eventually believe you - except I don't - nor does the data!

----------


## Dr Freud

> A wonderful moment on the ABC this week, when a report on eco alarmist Tim Flannery was accompanied with subtitles he failed to predict three years ago:    _ Were already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although were getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, thats translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. Thats because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isnt actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and thats a real worry for the people in the bush._ _And remember this Flannery goldie from 2007?:_  _ 
> Over the past 50 years southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming....Desalination plants can provide insurance against drought. In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.__This quote comes from ABC television, too. Now for the ABC to run both it and the subtitle together to fully hold this serial alarmist to account._  _ One of the things on this screen is wrong | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  _ 
Ah Flim Flam my friend, all that sulphur and nowhere to spread it. _

----------


## Dr Freud

Is "new reality" kinda like new age?   

> 2007:  _DROUGHT will become a redundant term as Australia plans for a permanently drier future, according to the nations urban water industries chief_  _The urban water industry has decided the inflows of the past will never return, Water Services Association of Australia executive director Ross Young said. We are trying to avoid the term drought and saying this is the new reality." Mr Young blamed climate change for the nations water woes._2011:    _Last year was Australias third-wettest year on record as a 14-year long dry was broken by the rapid transition from El Nino to La Nina conditions. The second half of the year (July to December) was the wettest on record for Australia._ _ Warmists said the drought would last forever | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  _ 
Yeh, I think I'll stick with reality, seems kinda self evident to me. _

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yes, and by implication, yes! 
> I think you and Rod are playing silly games trying to imply that it has been discredited when, in fact, it has been validated several times. 
> I suppose if you say something often enough, someone will eventually believe you - except I don't - nor does the data!

  Did you not read this link below and check the backgrounds of the hundreds of scientists and peer-reviewed papers they wrote? 
Do you think the hundreds of scientists whose thousands of data sets have contradicted a couple of tree rings stuck to a thermometer record by one bloke are all "silly games"? 
Then compared this to how few scientists are currently still willing to back the Hockey Stick? 
And ignore the fact that the IPCC dropped its use due to it's ineptitude? 
Then research the literally tens of thousands of scientists reviewing these studies and indicating this entire theory is farcical, partly due to the ignorance in this graph? 
Did you miss Michael Mann himself distancing himself from it in the propaganda film you recommended.  The man who created it places less emphasis on it than you do.  Does this not trouble you?  Are you holding on just a little too tight?   

> Brisbane should have dropped Fevola a long time ago, Megan Gale should have dropped Andy Lee a long time ago, and you should have dropped this debacle a long time ago. 
> You may benefit by reading hundreds of scientific studies (yeeees, peer-reviewed even) rather than Dikipedia or the bozo's at RC:     
> 			
> 				The bottom line is that there are a mass of studies that show it was warmer in medieval times, and that it was global. Yet there is a disinformation campaign out there by the IPCC and others to promote the idea that it was a local phenomenon and that the Hockey Stick Graph has not been resoundingly, completely shown to be a baseless fraud.   Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data « JoNova    This stuff (and heaps more) has been out for years, you have no excuses any more.

  Seriously mate, I'm hoping you have been ignoring all of these links and facts, because if you have read them all and just dismiss them as "big oil funded lies", then I do have concerns for you.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here is how the medieval warm period dissapeared in the IPCC reports.   
read about it here When the IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period | Watts Up With That? 
Facts are facts 
Surely this must raise just a little red flag in your faith?

----------


## Rod Dyson

HMMM Maybe we will get to the bottom of the hockey stick afterall.  Yes, Virginia, you do have to produce those 'Global Warming' documents | Washington Examiner

----------


## Dr Freud

> HMMM Maybe we will get to the bottom of the hockey stick afterall.  Yes, Virginia, you do have to produce those 'Global Warming' documents | Washington Examiner

  They say: they are scientists? 
They say: the fate of humanity is at stake? 
They say: the end of the world is nigh? 
So we ask to see the data. 
They say: no! 
What a bunch of w-nkers!  :Annoyed:

----------


## Marc

> I think you are (or the source you are cutting and pasting from is) misrepresenting Professor Jones' answer. 
> From the transcripts of the interview at BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones*B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming*
> Yes, etc etc

  Professor Jones is a warmist, his YES is there for effect and to show that warmist are  clutching at straws. Of course he will have to qualify it to save face. I am not interested in his "opinions"
The graph I posted is preceded by a series of letters in  blue. That means a link and that is the source of the graph. 
THe text of the  post is what matters, not your construed conspiracy theory that I have somehow  misrepresented one of the saints in the AGW religion and am therefore a heretic  that should be pushed off a cliff.  

> The latest warm period, needing  anthropogenic CO2 to be explained (as per the IPCC), began around 1975. This  means we have had 35 years of it, at its most, as RC loudly admits. It is clear  from looking at the data that it is composed of two distinct periods and it is  not cherry picking to identify these as they stand out in the data. There is the  period Jan 1975  DEC 1997 when the world warmed, and the period Jan 1998  2010  (present) when it didn't significantly increase its temperature (not to even  talk from 1995, as Prof. Jones agrees with). It is generally accepted that 30  years is about the minimum for statistically significant climatic data to  emerge. *If the present standstill continues for four additional years, then  it will become the dominant climatic factor of the past 30 years (in that  moment).* 
> It is interesting to also note that *the warming between  1975 and 1990 was not in itself statistically significant*. This means that  *it was only the 8-year warming period 1990 - 1997 (before it ceased) that has  made all the difference to the statistics* and significance of Earths  warming in the past 35 years!

  PS
And the graph is here by clicking on the blue/green link below (left click) http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had.../to:2010/trend
Do  you think that copy and paste is somehow sinful? Should I make penitence?  Perhaps sit and watch the inconvenient truth 10 times?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

How many of you have watched the you tube video I posted?
It addresses one by  one all the bovine faeces we have been fed for the last 20 years.
I think it  is fantastic and as usual I can not read any rebuttal to all the hundred of  points made

----------


## Marc

> Oh dear, this could be the new Gaza Strip developing.   
> You see, if you had any scientific credibility  whatsoever, you'd just present your scientific evidence of AGW Theory, and this  woman would look like the idiot she is, and would argue no more.  
> Unfortunately, your faith based belief system has no  scientific evidence, so you and your cohort will continue to argue with her and  her cohort about whose beliefs are right.  
> Meanwhile, the sceptics look on and laugh, as we live in  reality, so know that neither of you have any scientific evidence proving your  belief systems. Hopefully one of your sides will back down, lest we start a new  religious war. 
> Us realists are sick of people killing each other because  they believe in different Gods or Gaia's.

  Yes, from the perspective of an agnostic you are  spot on. However think for a moment from a Christian point of view. Christianity  is a religion based as all religions are, on faith. So there is no need to  provide scientific evidence of any part of the Christian faith nor anyone would  claim to have such evidence, at least not scientific. 
Anthropogenic  global warming on the other side, pretends to be based on science yet acts like  the Spanish inquisition, and demands blind faith like any religion does.  Christianity has all the right to feel threatened and I do not blame them for  denouncing AGW for what it is, an attempt at installing itself as an alternative  to a religious faith. 
I do not blame you for disliking the Christian  leaders who do the talking, but you must see their point of view for what it is  and from a religious perspective, or spiritual war as they would like to call  it.
Christianity has denounced spiritual warfare for two millennia, no  surprises they have spotted this one too. 
As for the agnostics like I  presume you are and like I am, the only thing to do is to keep on presenting the  real scientist who dare to put at risk their grants or already lost it by  denouncing the false pretend science behind this scam.
Religious leaders have  their own conflicts to confront

----------


## chrisp

> Do  you think that copy and paste is somehow sinful?

  No, just deceitful.   
You have misrepresented Prof Jones (Did he say it was cooling?  Did he say the temperature hasn't changed?).  Actually, he said it was warming, but it wasn't 95% statically confident.  I take it that you will change your view if, after more data is collected over time, and the statistical confidence reaches 95%? 
You have also wrapped up another two sources (a total of three sources) into the one response as if it was one source.  (At least that is what I assumed when I read it.) 
It is  both courteous and respectful to provide a reference or link to your source(s) if the words are not actually your own.  Not to do so may be considered to be plagiarism. 
BTW, most of the time I will look up the provided links to check the source of the information.  I'm happy the consider almost any argument, but it needs to be sensible and supported by facts or measurements. 
I'm thankful that Dr Freud does provide links to quotes he posts.  Therefore, when I see a reference to Andrew Bolt, I just skip over it as I know it is poorly researched shock-jock crap that I needn't bother with. (Yep, I've read enough, and looked up enough, Andrew Bolt claims to put him in to the trash information category.) 
Personally, I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are unaware of the conventions of quoting others.

----------


## chrisp

> Anthropogenic  global warming on the other side, pretends to be based on science yet acts like  the Spanish inquisition, and demands blind faith like any religion does.  Christianity has all the right to feel threatened and I do not blame them for  denouncing AGW for what it is, an attempt at installing itself as an alternative  to a religious faith.

  Are you serious?  Have you thought about your comment? 
The AGW theory is based upon science - religion isn't. 
To claim that AGW doesn't exist goes against accepted, prevailing, scientific opinion (check carefully before jumping on 'opinion' in this context  :Smilie:  ).  I'd argue that you have no scientific foundation for your view that AGW is not happening.  Therefore, I'd argue that your view is more like a religion (i.e not supported by observed fact).

----------


## Marc

As usual you are brushing over the appearance and not addressing the  facts.
Ignoring the patronising stated and implied in your post, I notice  that you have not addressed the insignificant influence human produced CO2 has  on greenhouse effect as described with a lot of detaile in an earlier post, skipped over it's significant benefits, and ignored the  many points made by others I have quoted.
However you say you are still fond  of the infamous Hokey Stick fraud.
Unbelievable :Yikes2: 
PS
Some thoughts on Belief and Science: 
Basically  the entity that we call "I" communicates to the outside world through senses.  
"I" has no way to determine what is true or false on its own unless it  collects all data himself and conducts all experiments himself. And even so,  strictly speaking he must rely on the credibility of some electric impulses  reaching his brain and belive they are real and not imaginary. 
So "I" must  sort out others and divide them into sheep and goats. The sheep are the one that  are credible the goats are not. The "sheep" scientist, the one to be believed  are the one "I" quotes and defends. The goats are to be attacked and roasted on  the spit. 
How does "I" know that scientist "A" is a sheep and "B" is a  goat?
"I" must make a choice. He bases his choice on an array of values "I"  has collected since birth up to age 10 or so. That cultural set of values is  what "I" uses to decide who to believe.
"I" has faith in "A".
"I" has  found religion. 
Science for "I" is simply placing his faith on some  people's quotes over others based on his own cultural values.

----------


## chrisp

> Some thoughts on Belief and Science: 
> Basically  the entity that we call "I" communicates to the outside world through senses.  
> "I" has no way to determine what is true or false on its own unless it  collects all data himself and conducts all experiments himself. And even so,  strictly speaking he must rely on the credibility of some electric impulses  reaching his brain and belive they are real and not imaginary. 
> So "I" must  sort out others and divide them into sheep and goats. The sheep are the one that  are credible the goats are not. The "sheep" scientist, the one to be believed  are the one "I" quotes and defends. The goats are to be attacked and roasted on  the spit. 
> How does "I" know that scientist "A" is a sheep and "B" is a  goat?
> "I" must make a choice. He bases his choice on an array of values "I"  has collected since birth up to age 10 or so. That cultural set of values is  what "I" uses to decide who to believe.
> "I" has faith in "A".
> "I" has  found religion. 
> Science for "I" is simply placing his faith on some  people's quotes over others based on his own cultural values.

  
I would say that 'science' is bases upon the 'scientific method' (see Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) where scientific theories are in principle disprovable.  As woodbe has pointed out many times, all it takes is one solid piece of scientific evidence that contradicts the AGW to blow it out of the water - it hasn't happened yet. 
Religion on the other hand isn't disprovable (and by implication, or definition, nor is it provable).  It is based upon 'faith' or 'trust' - science isn't. 
We have covered politics many times in this thread (well, at least Dr Freud has).  We have touched on religion.  Maybe someone can bring sex in to the debate too.  :Smilie:

----------


## Bedford

I didn't listen to my mum much, but from what I remember she said, is that you shouldn't get involved in discussions about Religion, Politics, or sex. 
Doesn't leave much to talk about. :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

> I would say that 'science' is bases upon the 'scientific method' etc etc .

  The so called scietific method, just as any other reality is based on the _belief_ that data, or samples or computer analysis are real or truth and to be _believed. _  Since my reality is not the same as your reality, we both can only base anything at all ONLY on belief. 
I have been in Antarctica. You have not. How do you know it even exists?
You must believe me. 
You have no choice.

----------


## chrisp

> I have been in Antarctica. You have not. How do you know it even exists?
> You must believe me. 
> You have no choice.

  You are *guessing* if I've been to the Antarctic or not. 
However, I *know* your logic is faulty!   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Are you serious? Have you thought about your comment? 
> The AGW theory is based upon science - religion isn't. 
> To claim that AGW doesn't exist goes against accepted, prevailing, scientific opinion (check carefully before jumping on 'opinion' in this context  ). I'd argue that you have no scientific foundation for your view that AGW is not happening. Therefore, I'd argue that your view is more like a religion (i.e not supported by observed fact).

  Chrisp, you are sounding like a minister that has just had their religion trashed. 
Also you are wrong about being able to falsify AGW theory. It is impossible to falsify it. As we agree that co2 is a GHG, we agree temps have risen, we agree on a lot of the "science" behind AGW theory. What we don't believe is true, is that Co2 is the main driver behind temperature rises. We don't dont agree that reducing our emissions will change the prevailing temperature. Now you tell me how this could be scientifically disproven? It cant. 
All we can do is sit back and observe the empirical data and match what is happening to the Co2 increace which is bound to happen regardless of what we do. 
So far Co2 is failing this test. All the information presented on both sides of the argument can only add weight to the results of the observations. At least that is untill we know more about the dynamics of climate shifts that have happened in the past and will in the future regardless of the tiny amout of Co2 we put in the air. 
So you can argue all the scientific points you want untill the cows come home. Until it is proven beyond doubt by empirical data that matches the rise in C02 and temperature in a way that can be quantified and predicted accurately all you have is a theory an unproven one at that. I might add with data sets that can be verified as accurate and MEANINGFUL. 
Until then I would just sit back and enjoy the ride. It is not looking so bright ATM for the warmists, not much is going your way :Biggrin: .  But hey maybe next year we will fry and go straight back into drought.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Chrips another thing that really bugs me is that the "purist warmists" simply WILL NOT acknowledge the slightest bit of doubt about their theory, while we see that doubt as plain as day. By not acknowledging doubt exists, (as we damn well know it does), warmist do come across as religious zealots.  
Sorry but thats just the way it is. I know you dont see it that way but I and many others do. It's getting to be like that 7th Day Adventist that comes to the door every year or so. People are just starting to poke fun at warmists. I know I am starting to see it as a big joke albeit a bloody serious one if the warmist religion prevails. Which I sincerely don't think it will. Pollies have been pushed into a corner or wedged, on AGW by a very aggressive enviromental lobby group.  
The cost are mounting though and public opinion is turning. Why else do you think they have been stalling on this for years now? Because they don't believe in AGW themselves. They are waiting for an escape route. Their back up plan is as plain as day, simply blame the scientists. Best out the pollies could ever get. You know, I can hear it now, "we were just taking the est course of action based on what the scientists told us, How were we to know they were wrong". 
How wonderful to have such an escape route from copping the blame for trashing our economy. They don't want to accept there is a skeptic point of view. They just appeal to higher authority, (IPCC). To accept that the science is not settled means they have to take responsibility for not taking heed.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Just to back up what I'm saying, how can you dispute the audacity of Penny Wong?   

> Climate Change Minister Penny Wong had an excuse worked out back in 2009, to explain why the world’s atmosphere had not warmed over the decade as the warmists had predicted. 
> No, no, no, she said when finally pressed for an explanation by Family First Senator Steve Fielding. The best evidence for global warming was not to be found in air temperatures but those of the seas:  _ (I)n terms of a single indicator of global warming, change in ocean heat content is most appropriate._ Small problem. The evidence even then suggested the seas weren’t actually warming.  
> Now Professors Robert Knox and David Douglass of Rochester University’s Department of Physics and Astronomy have even more bad news for Wong and the rest of the warmist Gillard Government. According to their latest paper, in the _International Journal of Geosciences_, the seas have been cooling, not warming, as measured by the Argo floats: _
> A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance._  So what’s the Government’s argument now? 
> This actually confirms a trend in Wong’s style of arguing the case - a trend of very dodgy, if not downright deceptive, behaviour. 
> For instance, Wong has also been far too eager to exploit any hot summer day as corroboration of global warming theory, while pooh-poohing the naturally corollary - that cold and wet summers must tend to contradict that same theory:   _
> ALI MOORE, PRESENTER: South-eastern Australia endured another scorching day today with temperatures in the 40s across South Australia, Victoria and southern New South Wales… Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says the heatwave is consistent with global warming predictions; bad news for those sweating through the week._She has also been far too eager to ascribe the usual changes in the weather - especially the recent drought - to global warming:   _ AUSTRALIA’S top climate scientist has contradicted Federal Government claims the drought in the Murray Darling Basin is due to global warming. 
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, Prof Neville Nicholls, said the claim was not backed by science. 
> “The current dry period (in the Murray Darling Basin) might still be just a fluke, or natural variability,” Prof Nicholls said. 
> ...

  But, Penny, if the seas are cooling…. | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## chrisp

> Also you are wrong about being able to falsify AGW theory. It is impossible to falsify it. As we agree that co2 is a GHG, we agree temps have risen, we agree on a lot of the "science" behind AGW theory. What we don't believe is true, is that Co2 is the main driver behind temperature rises. We don't dont agree that reducing our emissions will change the prevailing temperature. Now you tell me how this could be scientifically disproven? It cant.

  Rod, 
It is falsifiable, just like any well constructed scientific theory. 
You could falsify Newton's law of gravity by demonstrating an apple that falls up.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> It is falsifiable, just like any well constructed scientific theory. 
> You could falsify Newton's law of gravity by demonstrating an apple that falls up.

  OK tell me what would falsify it?

----------


## Marc

> You are *guessing* if I've been to the Antarctic or  not. 
> However, I *know* your logic is faulty!

  Just like you have not been to Antarctica (and there is  no shame in that) you do not know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, nor the  temperature trends, just like you don't know my birthday.
You must act on  faith in what others tell you.
The only difference between you and me is  _WHO _ you place your faith on.
The choice you make is based on your  values. Just like any other choice you make. 
That is why AGW supporters  and their opposition can be spotted from a mile for their different  characters. 
It is fascinating really.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Rod, 
> It is falsifiable, just like any well constructed scientific theory.

  
Well constructed huh? 
It's a pity you have *zero evidence proving it*. 
It's a pity you ignore all of the *scientific evidence showing what a crock* it is. 
It's a pity you keep deferring to a *farcical 75 scientists* who still purport to believe in this tosh. 
It's a pity you ignore the *tens of thousands of scientists refuting* *this farce*. 
It's a pity you keep saying "most scientists believe" as your strongest defence, when this *clearly has not been demonstrated*. 
It's a pity that you actually think that *developing a theory actually manifests reality*. 
It's a pity we just wasted *$16 billion building donga's at schools instead of putting the money into actual education*, because we will only see more of this in the future. 
But I'll give you an "A" for religious studies, your faith is unwavering in spite of the facts!   :Rotfl:  
P.S. I must have missed all "the science" you guys still haven't presented proving this farce.  Don't suppose you could dig it up in between falsely saying "most scientists believe in this theory".   :2thumbsup:  
Or you guys can just register as a religion, get the tax breaks etc.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Mate, this is Rod taking the p-ss out of Penny Wrong (and all the other jokes) who use *ALL* weather as evidence supporting their failed and farcical theory. 
Hilarious, huh? 
At least Combet is smart enough to keep his mouth shut rather than looking like an idiot.  :Biggrin:    

> Just to back up what I'm saying, how can you dispute the audacity of Penny Wong?    
> 			
> 				Climate Change Minister Penny Wong had an excuse worked out back in 2009, to explain why the worlds atmosphere had not warmed over the decade as the warmists had predicted. 
> No, no, no, she said when finally pressed for an explanation by Family First Senator Steve Fielding. The best evidence for global warming was not to be found in air temperatures but those of the seas: _ (I)n terms of a single indicator of global warming, change in ocean heat content is most appropriate._ Small problem. The evidence even then suggested the seas werent actually warming.  
> Now Professors Robert Knox and David Douglass of Rochester Universitys Department of Physics and Astronomy have even more bad news for Wong and the rest of the warmist Gillard Government. According to their latest paper, in the _International Journal of Geosciences_, the seas have been cooling, not warming, as measured by the Argo floats:_
> A recently published estimate of Earths global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 19932008. This value is not representative of the recent (20032008) warming/cooling rate because of a flattening that occurred around 20012002. Using only 20032008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from 0.010 to 0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance._  So whats the Governments argument now? 
> This actually confirms a trend in Wongs style of arguing the case - a trend of very dodgy, if not downright deceptive, behaviour. 
> For instance, Wong has also been far too eager to exploit any hot summer day as corroboration of global warming theory, while pooh-poohing the naturally corollary - that cold and wet summers must tend to contradict that same theory:  _
> ALI MOORE, PRESENTER: South-eastern Australia endured another scorching day today with temperatures in the 40s across South Australia, Victoria and southern New South Wales Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says the heatwave is consistent with global warming predictions; bad news for those sweating through the week._ She has also been far too eager to ascribe the usual changes in the weather - especially the recent drought - to global warming:  _ AUSTRALIAS top climate scientist has contradicted Federal Government claims the drought in the Murray Darling Basin is due to global warming. 
> ...

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm thankful that Dr Freud does provide links to quotes he posts.  Therefore, when I see a reference to Andrew Bolt, I just skip over it as I know it is poorly researched shock-jock crap that I needn't bother with. (Yep, I've read enough, and looked up enough, Andrew Bolt claims to put him in to the trash information category.)

  So after all the scientists, scientific data, and scientific facts that have been presented on this forum via the good Andrew Bolt indicating what a farce this theory is, you have not refuted a single fact or even countered an opinion from Bolta on "scientific" grounds.  :No:  
Instead, you just resort to smearing, name calling, and *ignoring the science*, as it conflicts with your "beliefs", and is presented by those who don't "believe" in your faith.  :Doh:  
Then you revert to your defence of "the science is settled" (or whatever euphemistic equivalent) without ever presenting any of this science.  We just have to "trust" you, because you "trust" the authority figures in this movement. 
I think we certainly have the measure of the AGW Theory movement based on the actions of you supporters in this forum.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> To claim that AGW doesn't exist goes against accepted, prevailing, scientific opinion (check carefully before jumping on 'opinion' in this context  ).

  Nothing "exists" scientifically until it is proven.  AGW Theory has not been proven.  Therefore it does not exist.  No one is claiming this.  It is a scientific fact. 
That is why it's theoretical. 
But at least you're now correctly attributing this farce to *opinion* rather than fact.  :2thumbsup:     

> I'd argue that you have no scientific foundation for your view that AGW is not happening.

  Then your argument is wrong.  Scientific principles dictate that AGW Theory is not real, therefore it is not happening, until proven.  Read the first paragraphs again to reinforce why.  Science dictates that AGW Theory is not real and is not happening.  We tend to agree with scientific methodology.  You prefer to trust the opinions of some people working in this area.  Your choice mate, it's a free country.   

> Therefore, I'd argue that your view is more like a religion (i.e not supported by observed fact).

  Hopefully by now you realise how wrong this argument is. Our view is supported by scientific methodology and observed reality (facts). 
Your view is predicated on trusting powerful authority figures with access to knowledge and understanding that ordinary people allegedly cannot achieve.  You have the priest's, the belief system, and the blind faith followers, all that's missing are the temples.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Graeme Wood makes his billions by helping people to travel more, emitting God knows how much more greenhouse gases:  _Four years ago, Mr Wood stepped back from executive duties at wotif, the online travel company he founded in 1999, but he remains a director and retains a 23 per cent stake, valued at $222 million based on yesterdays share price of $4.63.__But he bankrolls a party campaigning against the very emissions his own customers belch out: _  _Wotif founder Graeme Wood, whose wealth is estimated at $372 million, gave $1.6 million to fund the Greens television advertising campaign, helping to significantly increase votes for the party in key states.__Incidentally, wasnt Greens leader Bob Brown once against the super-rich using their wealth to influence politics? Why, yes: _  _This opposition is coming from some of the richest people in Australia We are seeing a contest between plutocracy and democracy. - the power of billionaires versus the rights of 22 million other Australians.__Being Green means losing track of how many times you contradict yourself._   _ Graeme demands the rest of us not do whats made him rich | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  Yeh Bob Greenie, take the moral high ground on advertising:   

> Greens leader Bob Brown says tax deductions for election campaigns run by tobacco companies should end.  He said the ads were indirectly promoting a product which was damaging not only to the people who smoke it, but to all Australians.  He said smoking had significant social impacts on Australians, but also placed an enormous economic burden on the hospital system.  Telstra BigPond News and Weather

  But taking money from companies directly promoting the increase of carbon emissions is fine, hey Bob?  :Doh:  
So *ordinary people*, start taking the tough action in your lives, but Bob the high priest is free to take millions of dollars of profit from companies promoting carbon emissions.  :Biggrin:  
What a bunch of w-nkers!  :Annoyed:

----------


## chrisp

*Thanks for the light entertainment!* 
I've been have been greatly amused by the shear hypocrisy shown in the past few posters' comments!  _Fancy claiming or suggesting (with some sort of sincerity) that 'AGW supporters' are somehow akin to a religion!_  
Let's look at some facts:    *1. The earth IS getting warmer (note the "hockey stick" shape) :*      
(from: Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )  *
2. Man-made CO2 (which is a GHG) HAS increased (there is that 'hockey stick' trend agian):*   
(from: Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )  *  3. NO (i.e. absolutely none, zero, zilch) scientific societies in the world hold a dissenting view about AGW:* (note the "A" in AGW)   

> No scientific body of national or international standing has  maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association  of Petroleum Geologists,  which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of  human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal  position.
> from: Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  *AND* you claim the supporters of AGW are some sort of religion!    :Rotfl:    _The anti-AGW hold a view opposed by every reputable scientific organisation in the world and they go on to claim anyone accepting the prevailing scientific view are some sort of religious fanaticism!_  Is the *HYPOCRISY* of this evident to the anti-AGW brigade at all? 
I think those that are banging on about '*religion*' need to look a little closer to home.  It is not the 'AGW supporters' that hold a view not supported by science!   
It would seem you me that one holding a view that is opposed to prevailing science is holding a view based upon 'faith', 'bias' or some other preconceived notion - which is akin to a 'religion'.   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Yes Chrisp but you haven't told me how the AGW theory can be falsified 
Go back and read some posts. 
We agree Co2 has risen.
We agree Temps have risen (but not un-precidented.
We agree CO2 is a GHG
We don't agree that the rise in temps is due to the Co2  
so stop telling us what we already agree on and address what we dont.

----------


## chrisp

> Yes Chrisp but you haven't told me how the AGW theory can be falsified

  Rod, 
The AGW theory is that man-kind has changed the atmosphere and caused additional global warming that is unprecedented naturally. 
A few examples of how you might go about disproving it, all you need to show is one of:   Man-kind hasn't changed to atmosphere in a way that has increased the warming, orthe warming can't be accounted for by man-made atmospheric changes, (i.e. the man-made contribution is insignificant), orthat natural changes can fully account for the observed changes (similar to the above - say, for example, the CO2 increase is due to natural causes),or, the average global  temperature hasn't changed (or is falling) - i.e the warming hasn't happened. or,the warming is due to increased heat input (say, increased solar activity, or the earth moving closer to the sun), or...
 The difficulty is that we are talking about a shift in the long-term baseline (i.e. global average temperature) and the daily/monthly/annual variations make the changes hard to observe.  Any claim 'your side' make that it is (now) cooling will have be to verified statically which will take many years/decades.  i.e., you can't just claim it is colder today than yesterday - therefore the AGW theory is false. 
There are many scientists working in the area, and I can assure you that if anyone of them could find verifiable (not 'cherry picking') evidence that the AGW theory is false, they'd make headlines around the globe. 
BTW, this is quite different to the 'faith' or the 'religious' situation where no can not prove, or disprove, the existence of a deity.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Thanks for the light entertainment!*

  How else do we deal with the end of the world.  :Biggrin:    

> I've been have been greatly amused by the shear hypocrisy shown in the past few posters' comments!

  Really, I can see how Bob Brown is a BIG hypocrite, but I'd be really grateful for your explanation of any other hypocrisy you have noted?   

> Let's look at some facts:

  Yes, let's.  :Clapping:    

> *1. The earth IS getting warmer (note the "hockey stick" shape) :*   *2. Man-made CO2 (which is a GHG) HAS increased (there is that 'hockey stick' trend agian):* * 3. NO (i.e. absolutely none, zero, zilch) scientific societies in the world hold a dissenting view about AGW:* (note the "A" in AGW)

  Yes for the umpteenth time, I am happy to agree with these points: Our current measures indicate a very slight warming (we can argue the accuracy later); anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased; and some scientists have an opinion about AGW Theory. 
I don't know why you keep saying these things over and over?  I suspect it's because you know the next step leads to your theory falling flat on it's face. 
You see, your step 1 is fine, you show an effect.  Your step 2 is fine, you propose a cause. Now step 3 is supposed to be where you demonstrate causality, that means you prove that step 2 causes step 1.  Unfortunately, your step just has a few opinions about some scientists beliefs, not what is proven.  :No:  
(I'll dig up my previous trend analysis to show how "scientific" your approach is.) 
And as for your "hockey stick" references, this is just getting embarrassing.  Are you seriously trying to compare a few hundred years of entirely different data to Mann's delusion just to keep the delusion alive? Surely you can't be that stuck in a mental rut that you cannot even let go of a delusion that even the IPCC has abandoned?   

> *AND* you claim the supports of AGW are some sort of religion!

  Authority figures issued their beliefs without proof.  Others defer to this opinion, and are guided into self-sacrifice and tithings based on their deference.  Blasphemers are mocked and ostracised unless they relent to the belief system.  These blasphemers present evidence contradicting the faith and are maligned, and the evidence ignored. 
What does that sound like to you?   

> _The anti-AGW hold a view opposed by every reputable scientific organisation in the world and they go on to claim anyone accepting the prevailing scientific view are some sort of religious fanaticism!_

  Yes, we oppose the church's opinion, what do you propose, burning at the stake?   

> Is the *HYPOCRISY* of this evident to the anti-AGW brigade at all?

  No. Once again, please explain.   

> I think those that are banging on about '*religion*' need to look a little closer to home.  It is not the 'AGW supporters' that hold a view not supported by science!   
> It would seem you me that one holding a view that is opposed to prevailing science is holding a view based upon 'faith', 'bias' or some other preconceived notion - which is akin to a 'religion'.

  Once again, I accept every single scientific fact in this area of science.   
I disagree with a few of the opinions. 
If I blindly believed these authority figures opinions without proof and acted as if these opinions were reality, then this would be akin to a "religion".  :2thumbsup:  
Hope that helps.

----------


## Dr Freud

> (I'll dig up my previous trend analysis to show how "scientific" your approach is.)

  Found it:   

> Consider this a light-hearted look at trend analysis. Please don't take it seriously as it's just for laughs. Seriously, I made it all up, don't go doing anything crazy while I'm away.  
> You see, I've been analysing a few trends, and I've figured out the real reason for the recent global warming is profits made from selling bicycles. Yes that's right, selling bicycles has been driving the economic engine of the modern economy, and the increased cycling has increased the spin rate of the planet, leading to increased atmospheric friction with the planets surface causing the warming. Sounds crazy I know, but go with me on this. 
> After looking at this chart: 
>    Quote:
>      					Originally Posted by *SilentButDeadly*   _   _  
>  I realised that all the warming was acually being caused by the population growth in the developing world, and not by us industrialised nations, as evidenced by this growth trend graph:    
> Now your obvious question is, but we have the industry, how can they be driving the temperature up? Well, they don't have as many cars as we do, so they ride bicycles. These bicycles are one person per unit on poorly maintained roads, so create more friction on the planet than our industrialised mass transit networks, leading to faster global rotation and more atmospheric heat. Now you know why there's not as much time in the day as there used to be. 
> Here's the commensurate bicycle increases to prove it.   
> See how inustrial populations and cars are flatter growth, but third world populations and bicycles match almost exactly to the temperature increases. But you might ask "What about the CO2 levels?". Well, don't you breathe harder when you ride a bike. Imagine this times a few billion, it's just a byproduct of all that bicycle riding. Now you might ask, "How can we allow this to continue?". Because we industrialised nations have made lots of money producing and selling the bicycles of course. Here's the proof:   
> ...

  Do you see how any idiot can put lines that match each other together (in the very short term) and make up a wonderful story? 
That's why we need scientific proof, to avoid new stories (religions) being created with lots of believers.  If you think the number of believers determines who wins, you are in the wrong belief system.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The AGW theory is that man-kind has changed the atmosphere and caused additional *global warming that is unprecedented naturally*.

  Consider this refuted!   

> 

  We're not even close to previous warming yet, so it's not unprecedented. 
Game over!  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> *1. The earth IS getting warmer (note the "hockey stick" shape) :*  *
> 2. Man-made CO2 (which is a GHG) HAS increased (there is that 'hockey stick' trend agian):*  * 3. NO (i.e. absolutely none, zero, zilch) scientific societies in the world hold a dissenting view about AGW:* (note the "A" in AGW)

   

> Yes for the umpteenth time, *I am happy to agree with these points*: Our current measures indicate a very slight warming (we can argue the accuracy later); anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased; and some scientists have an opinion about AGW Theory. 
> I don't know why you keep saying these things over and over?  I suspect it's because you know the next step leads to your theory falling flat on it's face. 
> You see, your step 1 is fine, you show an effect.  Your step 2 is fine, you propose a cause. Now step 3 is supposed to be where you demonstrate causality, that means you prove that step 2 causes step 1.  Unfortunately, your step just has a few opinions about some scientists beliefs, not what is proven.

  Maybe you missed my note about the "A" in AGW?  I deliberately added a note in brackets about the "A". 
Or maybe you are confusing "*scientific opinion*" with "*opinion*"?A "*scientific opinion*" is any opinion formed via the *scientific method*, and so is necessarily *evidence-backed*. A scientific opinion which represents the formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment, often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the scientific evidence upon which the opinion is based. "The scientific opinion" (or scientific consensus)  can be compared to "the public opinion" and generally refers to the  collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations  and entities and individual scientists in the relevant field.
from: Opinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia *Scientific organisation* don't have *scientific opinions* without *scientific evidence* to support those scientific opinions.  *3. NO (i.e. absolutely none, zero, zilch) scientific societies in the world hold a dissenting view about AGW:* (note the "A" in AGW) 
These scientific organisation don't just claim that the earth is warming, they claim it is *Anthropogenic* Global Warming.

----------


## chrisp

> Consider this refuted!

  I don't know if anyone else managed to catch it, but on SBS 1 tonight, there was the first of a 3-part series called "Catastrophe".  Dr Freud can probably still catch it tonight in WA land.  Snowball Earth - This three-part series, presented by Tony Robinson,  investigates the history of natural disasters, from the planet's  beginnings to the present, putting a new perspective on our existence  and suggesting that we are the product of catastrophe. Episode one looks  at the greatest climate disaster ever to have hit Earth. 650 million  years ago, a cataclysmic ice age sealed the entire planet beneath ice  and snow, almost destroying life and turning the world into one huge  snowball. (From the UK) Documentary Series) (Part 1)Interestingly, it deals with earth's climate history and in particular, it spends alot of time in the era of 650mya - Dr Freud's favourite time-scale to quote in this thread. 
I'd recommend it to both 'sides' of the debate.  It was quite interesting viewing.  It discussed 'tipping points' and CO2, but dealt with global cooling rather than warming. 
I haven't found out if it'll be available on the web yet (it's not on the SBS web site at the time of posting).

----------


## Dr Freud

Let's distract from the lack of step 3 again, just for something different.  :Doh:    

> Maybe you missed my note about the "A" in AGW?  I deliberately added a note in brackets about the "A".

  Er, no. I didn't miss it, you can see it quoted in my post.   

> Or maybe you are confusing "*scientific opinion*" with "*opinion*"?

  Wrong again.  *NO* opinion makes something manifest in reality.  Your personal opinion doesn't make AGW Theory real. *100% of ALL* scientists having the "scientific opinion" that AGW Theory is real does not make it real.  A lawyer having a "legal opinion" after reviewing the evidence in your posts that you are criminally insane doesn't make you criminally insane.  The Pope having a "religious opinion" that you are a blasphemer does not mean you are going to hell.  A doctor giving you a "medical opinion" of delusion induced anxiety does not mean that you have this.  That's why we call all of these opinions, not facts.  We put a label in front to tell you whose opinion it is. 
Bottom line champ, some opinions are more informed or less informed than others, but that still doesn't make them real. 
Or is your argument really that some scientists opinions actually equates to existential reality?    

> *Scientific organisation* don't have *scientific opinions* without *scientific evidence* to support those scientific opinions.

  Organisations can't have opinions, only people can.   
A few people in these organisations release these opinions.  Many people within these organisations have differing scientific opinions.  But you are happy to ignore all 30,000 plus of them.   

> *3. NO (i.e. absolutely none, zero, zilch) scientific societies in the world hold a dissenting view about AGW:* (note the "A" in AGW) 
> These scientific organisation don't just claim that the earth is warming, they claim it is *Anthropogenic* Global Warming.

  Er, yes. People within these institutions *claim* lots of things and *prove none*.   
Did I miss the bit where there was an argument over this? 
And referring to the "scientific organisations" is like religious people referring to the "church".  They say the church will sanction or won't sanction many things.  The church doesn't sanction anything, there are people with opinions hiding behind this front using it's reputation to push their own agenda's. 
If you want scientific credibility, don't hide behind authority figures working in "special organisations", as behind this front there are just people with opinions. _
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"_ - The Wizard of Oz.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I don't know if anyone else managed to catch it, but on SBS 1 tonight, there was the first of a 3-part series called "Catastrophe".  Dr Freud can probably still catch it tonight in WA land.

  Yeh, some creative theories there, but the main message seemed to be we need to heat this little ball up some more. 
Cold=Extinction, Heat=Life.   

> Interestingly, it deals with earth's climate history and in particular, it spends alot of time in the era of 650mya - Dr Freud's favourite time-scale to quote in this thread.

  My favourite time scale is actually 15 billion years ago.  That should be enough to get us ahead of the alleged big bang.  Then we'll have even more questions to answer.  :Biggrin:  
But the 600 mya appears to be when reasonably credible proxy data graphs are available from, like the one above.  I have previously indicated there are several variations and theories as to why (aren't there always), but this one seems to do the job well enough to get the point across.   

> I'd recommend it to both 'sides' of the debate. It was quite interesting viewing. It discussed 'tipping points' and CO2, but dealt with global cooling rather than warming. 
> I haven't found out if it'll be available on the web yet (it's not on the SBS web site at the time of posting).

  Yeh, it was very interesting.  Massive heating and cooling happening apparently.  No data mentioned whatsoever, so hard to tell if it was anthropogenic  :Wink 1: , but a great story nonetheless.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

> I don't know if anyone else managed to catch it, but on SBS 1 tonight, there was the first of a 3-part series called "Catastrophe".  
> ... 
> I haven't found out if it'll be available on the web yet (it's not on the SBS web site at the time of posting).

  I found this website that seems to have some of the videos: Catastrophe (2008) // Watch this Documentary online @ Streaming-Madness.net 
Some of the videos give a 'try again later' message.  :Frown:

----------


## Marc

All this talk about if the sea is warming or cooling, if the air is hot or cold, if the CO2 is increasing, is fascinating however lets get back to basics. 
The HYPOTHESES, not a theroy by a long shot, is that man made CO2 is increasing the average temperature of the planet. 
So the real debate and probably the only valid one, should be over how much does CO2 contribute to the greenhouse effect, what is the relationship between x increment in CO2 followed by y incremets in greenhouseefect, and finally how much of that final increment due to the marginal increment by human activity can be attributed to my 7L 4wd. 
The proven fact that a doubling of CO2 only amounts to a marginal increment in Greenhouse effect is overlooked and ignored simply because acknowledging this would result in declaring the whole hypotesis a fraud and dismissed point blank. 
That is why all this collateral side tracking debates come about.
The fact remains that the agw hypothesis has never and will never be proven and so will never turn into a workable theory that can predict anything at all. Those who promote this hypothesis knowing it is false, should face court and pay for damages.

----------


## mark53

I have resisted the urge to view the discussions and points of view made on this thread but then, like a moth to the flame, I  just couldn't help myself. As I have not followed this topic I don't know if the following points have been made regarding the hypothesis of GW. The following comments are from a person who was/ is a whistle blower who had their career destroyed as a result of having a clear ethical compass unimpeded by shades of grey. I have also witnessed how governments , both state and federal, abuse the power of government and the public service. It is in this context that I make the following observations.
Governments since,the early 1980's, have had substantial traction in the dissemination of dubious scientific opinion put forward by those hand picked individuals who would push government policy for financial gain. The Rand Corp. coined a phrase, which escapes me at the moment, which described how dissenters were identified, then marginalised, then would have there comments and opinions neutralised. In this case those dissenters have been branded GW heretics and had there careers destroyed. The evidence of this can be found in the email traffic from the East Anglia University hacked by the Russians. Further evidence of duplicity, fraud, malfeasance, deception and straight out distortion of "scientific" findings can also be found in this hacked email traffic. The simple point is this, if GW is so true, so accurate and so right  why do the leading scientist in the of the GW hypothesis have to lie, pervert, corrupt, distort and manipulate to prove it's so. I could go on but this will do for the moment.

----------


## mark53

Found it.The technique used by governments to essentially identify those who have a brain and the courage to use it is called the Delphi technique. In some cases this is a benign tool used by marketers. However it is far from being a benign tool when used by governments to influence opinion, promote government policy or cover up incompetence and corruption. Go to, home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/delphi.htm, for an enlightening experience.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Those who promote this hypothesis knowing it is false, should face court and pay for damages.

  I hope this happens in my lifetime, but I'm not counting any chickens yet. 
But I will guarantee that future generations will look back and laugh their arses off at this giant con job and the traction it got.   :Roflmao:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I have resisted the urge to view the discussions and points of view made on this thread but then, like a moth to the flame, I  just couldn't help myself.

  Welcome to the party pal.  :2thumbsup:  
A man of your outstanding moral's, integrity and intellect will soon be subjected to a barrage of abuse for daring to criticise the orthodoxy. 
But from your story, you have been through worse before.  Here are some words of wisdom from the story of another lone warrior:    

> Civilization...ancient and wicked. 
> Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing. 
> For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts. This you can trust. 
> Let not the riddle of steel trouble you, o Conan. For each riddle has its time, and its place, to which it can be solved. Let this, too, pass. 
> All that matters is that today, few stood against many. Valor pleases you Crom, so grant me this one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then the hell with you! 
> Be at rest, Conan; you have fought well! Have my blessings, and be still.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Found it.The technique used by governments to essentially identify those who have a brain and the courage to use it is called the Delphi technique. In some cases this is a benign tool used by marketers. However it is far from being a benign tool when used by governments to influence opinion, promote government policy or cover up incompetence and corruption. Go to, home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/delphi.htm, for an enlightening experience.

  Please forgive my expansion of this concept.  I think examples often help to solidify knowledge for some people.  Here is a brief rundown of the Delphi technique from your link:  

> *"The goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a pre-determined outcome, while giving the illusion of taking public input under the pretext of being accountable to the public. For Delphi to work, it is critical that the targeted group be kept away from knowledgeable people who could lead them away from the Delphier's pre-determined outcome.* * "One variation of the Delphi technique is to use a series of meetings. The attendees are often given a number or a colored card when they enter the room, to determine at which table they are to sit. The purpose of this is to break up the groups of potentially knowledgeable people who arrive together so that they will  be sitting with strangers and therefore be subdued.*   * "Typically, at each table is a facilitator, someone who will know which way to help "steer" the group. Usually, the people at each table are instructed to answer among themselves some of the questions and arrive at a table consensus. Someone is chosen to speak for the table, and most of the time it is the person who has been secretly pre-briefed about the desired Delphi outcome. The table spokesperson is the only one allowed to address the podium and the others have little opportunity to address the podium or the crowd directly.*   * "Anyone knowledgeable enough, or brave enough, to speak out in opposition will not be welcomed. Often they are told from the podium "we don't have time to discuss that now,"  or "we discussed that on another date," or "we can discuss that after the  meeting." They will attempt to quiet, isolate and discredit dissenters. After attending the Delphi meeting, participants may feel that they are in disagreement with the apparent majority. The Delphi technique is often successful in bluffing people into submission. Don't let them succeed. Call their bluff.*   * "The Delphi technique often uses a series of surveys to bring about "consensus." The surveys are promoted as information gathering regarding the wishes of the targeted public, but in reality they are designed to manipulate the desired outcome. The survey  will sometimes use gradings like: "agree all of the time; agree most of the time; agree some of the time; agree not much; agree never." Or the survey grading will ask the respondents to use ratings like "most important, moderately important, least important."*   * "The questions are typically "loaded" questions. An example is the question asked of Oregon teachers on a Delphi technique survey: "Do you agree or disagree that the following elements of H.B. 3565 [Oregon's Education Act for the 21st century] will lead to improved student learning if implemented?" The survey listed such items for the teachers to agree or disagree with: "site councils," "increased  accountability for school sites and districts," "full funding for preschool  programs to enable all students to enter school ready to learn," "extended  school year," "Certificate of Initial Mastery," et cet. The questions are  patently loaded. For example, site councils are not charged with improving  student learning as their function is to implement the state law, dole out professional development courses and money to selected teachers, and apply for grants from foundations and the federal government. For the teachers to answer agree or disagree that the site councils will lead to improved student learning is misdirecting the respondent.*   * "The Delphi surveys "educate" the people taking the survey. After the first survey is taken, the respondents are given an analysis and told that most people agreed or somewhat agreed on the pre-determined outcome. Then usually they are given another survey and asked if they can be flexible and try to rethink the "few remaining" areas of disagreement. When the series of surveys are accomplished, the respondents are told that the majority of respondents achieved "consensus"  with whatever direction the pollers wanted in the first place.*   * "These techniques were developed decades ago. The Rand Corporation has more recently been developing games that groups of business people, council members, organizations, et cet, can use to help "sell" people on collectivism, consensus vs. majority rule, et cet.*   * "Never, ever compromise when it comes to "right and wrong." With the right attitude you shouldn't care what people think, as long as you are standing up for what is right. Accept persecution gracefully."*   *http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/Delphi.htm*

  See below for the implementation.  :2thumbsup:    **

----------


## Dr Freud

So, let's see how that works in practice:   

> The Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd convened an _Australia 2020_ Summit at Parliament                             House on 19 and 20 April to help shape a long term strategy for the nations future. 
>                                                            The Summit brought together some of the best and brightest brains from across the country                                 to tackle the long term challenges confronting Australias future challenges which                                 require long-term responses from the nation beyond the usual three year electoral cycle. 
>                              Summit participants sought to debate and develop long-term options for the nation across 10 critical                             areas:                              The Productivity Agenda  education, skills, training, science and innovationThe Future of the   Australian EconomyPopulation, sustainability, climate change and waterFuture directions for rural industries and rural communitiesA long-term national health strategy  including the challenges of preventative health, workforce planning and the ageing populationStrengthening communities, supporting families and social inclusionOptions for the future of Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslandersTowards a creative Australia: the future of the arts, film and designThe future of Australian governance: renewed democracy, a more open government (including the role of the media), the structure of the Federation and the rights and responsibilities of citizensAustralias future security and prosperity in a rapidly changing region and   world.
>                               Participants were selected by a 10 member non-government Steering Committee. The Summit was                                 co-chaired by the Prime Minister and Professor Glyn Davis, Vice Chancellor of the University                                 of Melbourne. 
>                               This Steering Committee selected up to 100 participants in each of the Summit areas to attend                                 in a voluntary capacity. The participants were drawn from business, academia, community and industrial                                 organisations, the media and included a number of individual eminent Australians. Summit participants                                 were invited in their own right rather than as institutional representatives from any particular                                 organisation. Each of the 10 Summit areas were co-chaired by a Federal Government Minister and                                 a member of the Steering Committee. 
>                               The Summit had the following objectives:    To harness the best ideas across the nation To apply those ideas to the 10 core challenges that the Government                                     has identified for Australia  to secure our long-term future through                                     to 2020 To provide a forum for free and open public debate in which there are                                     no predetermined right or wrong answers For each of the Summits 10 areas to produce following the Summit                                     options for consideration by government For the Government to produce a public response to these options  with a view to shaping the nations long-term                                     direction from 2009 and beyond.
>                               In providing this response, the Government in providing may accept some options and reject                                 others  but will provide its reasons for embracing its course of action for the future. 
>                               The Government has no interest in a talkfest. The Governments interest is in harnessing                                 and harvesting ideas from the community that are capable of being shaped into concrete policy                                 actions. 
>                               Government, irrespective of its political persuasion, does not have a monopoly on policy wisdom.                                 To thrive and prosper in the future we need to draw on the range of talents, ideas and energy                                 from across the Australian community. 
> ...

  So, who fell for it?  :Pointlaugh:  :Oops:

----------


## Dr Freud

Uh oh! 
Looks like Flim Flam strayed off the reservation.  He started believing the BS instead of just shovelling it:   

> Alarmist of the Year and warmist guru  Tim Flannery on the ABCs _Science Show_ on January 1:    _I think that within this century the concept of the strong Gaia will actually become physically manifest. I do think that the Gaia of the Ancient Greeks, where they believed the earth was effectively one whole and perfect living creature, that doesnt exist yet, but it will exist in future_  _With our technology now, particularly computer based surveillance systems in agriculture and in the oceans and whatever else, were developing a sort of nervous system that allows us to convey that message to the planet. Well never be able to control the earth, theres no doubt about it. We cant control its systems. But we can nudge them and we can foresee danger. Once that occurs, then the Gaia of the Ancient Greeks really will exist. This planet, this Gaia, will have acquired a brain and a nervous system. That will make it act as a living animal, as a living organism, at some sort of level.  _ _Warmist scientists Roger M. Gifford, Will Steffen and John Finnigan ditch Flannery and try to repair the damage:_    _Tim Flannerys recent interview with Robyn Williams on The Science Show has generated some interesting debate (and a little confusion) about the Gaia hypothesis (see editorials in The Daily Telegraph, and The Australian)._  _For most scientists working in the relatively new area of Earth System Science, talk of the earth growing a brain trivialises the growing body of knowledge about the functioning of the whole-earth system._ _ “Trivialises”: warmists toss Flannery overboard | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog _

----------


## Dr Freud

Who woulda thought, a useless journalist spruiking AGW Theory BS... 
Luckily the good Lord Monckton was there to hold him to account:  Monckton skewers Steketee | Watts Up With That? 
And I thought you guys said the Australian was a sceptics rag?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Remember, you heard it here first! 
Shorten will knife Gillard for the PM's spot in the next twelve months!!!  :Shock:  
Here's the sound of knives sharpening:   

> Interesting choice of words by Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten, suggesting a big step back from the warming alarmism of the Rudd Government:   _Climate change requires a reduction in the carbon intensity of our economy and adaptation to changing weather patterns.__Lets assume Shorten chose those words very deliberately, and decode them._  _First, cutting carbon intensity is very different to cutting emissions. It means we could actually increase our total emissions if we at least produce the extra energy with less gassy technology. This is Chinas preferred option, and one less likely to choke economic growth - or cut emissions by what most warmists demand._  _Second, adaptation to climate change is very different to stopping it. It implies we should just cope with what turns up, rather than spend trillions to try to stop what we probably cant. This is the option recommended by Professor Bjorn Lomborg. author of The Sceptical Environmentalist, and one which could save us wasting yet more billions on wind farms, solar power and their useless like._  _Third, changing weather patterns are very different from changing climate. Shorten seems to be open to the idea that were experiencing the usual changes in the weather rather than man-made changes to the long-term climate._  _Lets keep a weather eye on Shortens future  climate talk. _   _Shorten cool on global warming | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  _ 
He's smart enough to realise the con is over, and Gillard has backed herself into a corner with only the Greens for cover.  Abbott will do a Ballieu, and Shorten will  do similar, and the Greens will be a memory at the next election.  Shorten reckons he can secure these votes with greener sounding policies than Abbott and take the next election.  He just needs Gillard to go in a peaceful transition to give him a good shot.  Then mummy in law can swear him in.  Should be fun to watch.  _

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Uh oh! 
> Looks like Flim Flam strayed off the reservation. He started believing the BS instead of just shovelling it: 
> [/i]

  Very nice bit of work there!

----------


## chrisp

> We agree Co2 has risen.
> We agree Temps have risen (but not un-precidented.
> We agree CO2 is a GHG
> We don't agree that the rise in temps is due to the Co2  
> so stop telling us what we already agree on and address what we dont.

  Rod, 
Let me turn your comment around a little. 
If you agree that average global temperatures have risen, but you don't think that the increase in temperature is due to increased CO2, what do you think it might be due to?

----------


## Marc

> Rod, 
> Let me turn your comment around a little. 
> If you agree that average global temperatures have risen, but you don't think that the increase in temperature is due to increased CO2, what do you think it might be due to?

  What a load of crook. Who cares "what do you _think_ might be"  
We already know CO2 is a very ineffective greenhouse gas. We already know that the minuscule percentage produced by humans in the overall picture is completely irrelevant, what is the point of even talking about this subject? 
Answer: The only reason we are talking about it, is because a group of people have gone about proclamating lie upo lie that WE are responsible for changes in the climate that are in fact completely normal and due to all the intricate miriad of reasons that make the climate change and has so for milenia. Humans have absolutely nothing to do with it and most important of all HAVE NO WAY TO CHANGE, REVERSE OR ALTER IT ANYWAY. 
So what is it that we ACTUALY talking about?
Politics and Religion. 
Certainly not Climatology.
I have asked this many times with no reply.
If I invent the weather machine that can alter the climate, can you please tell me who will be in charge of the thermostate? In other words who decides what is the "correct" temperature average? Kevin Rudd? Penny Wong? Mr Obummer?
And by the way what do you "_think_" is the correct temperature we "should" have?
The one this century, the past century, the one before?
Fancy to make a wish? 
It is so ridiculous even thinking about it.

----------


## chrisp

> We agree Co2 has risen.
> We agree Temps have risen (but not un-precidented.
> We agree CO2 is a GHG
> We don't agree that the rise in temps is due to the Co2  
> so stop telling us what we already agree on and address what we dont.

  Rod, 
There seems to be some noise in here, let me repeat my post just in case... 
Let me turn your comment around a little. 
If you agree that average global temperatures have risen, but you don't think that the increase in temperature is due to increased CO2, what do you think it might be due to?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> What a load of crook. Who cares "what do you _think_ might be"  
> We already know CO2 is a very ineffective greenhouse gas. We already know that the minuscule percentage produced by humans in the overall picture is completely irrelevant, what is the point of even talking about this subject? 
> Answer: The only reason we are talking about it, is because a group of people have gone about proclamating lie upo lie that WE are responsible for changes in the climate that are in fact completely normal and due to all the intricate miriad of reasons that make the climate change and has so for milenia. Humans have absolutely nothing to do with it and most important of all HAVE NO WAY TO CHANGE, REVERSE OR ALTER IT ANYWAY. 
> So what is it that we ACTUALY talking about?
> Politics and Religion. 
> Certainly not Climatology.
> I have asked this many times with no reply.
> If I invent the weather machine that can alter the climate, can you please tell me who will be in charge of the thermostate? In other words who decides what is the "correct" temperature average? Kevin Rudd? Penny Wong? Mr Obummer?
> And by the way what do you "_think_" is the correct temperature we "should" have?
> ...

   :What he said:  :What he said:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> There seems to be some noise in here, let me repeat my post just in case... 
> Let me turn your comment around a little. 
> If you agree that average global temperatures have risen, but you don't think that the increase in temperature is due to increased CO2, what do you think it might be due to?

  I might add that who really knows why we get fluctuations in our climate.  After all the $$ spent on this now one really knows for certain.   
Maybe you can tell me when was the last time our climate was static?  and what were the causes of past fluctuations? 
Until you can identify the causes of past climate change, with a degree of certantiy,  you have no abiltity to to apply cause to current climate change. 
You are looking at this whole deal with a very slanted opiniion.  You can't even bring yourself to allow any doubt whatsoever in your thinking.   
Crazy, crazy really.

----------


## PhilT2

*I might add that who really knows why we get fluctuations in our climate. After all the $$ spent on this now one really knows for certain. * 
I doubt that you would find any scientist from either side of the fence who would agree with that statement  *Until you can identify the causes of past climate change, with a degree of certantiy, you have no abiltity to to apply cause to current climate change.* 
So if I don't know the cause of every previous flood I have no ability to work out what caused this one? 
Some of the earliest work on how co2 was different to water vapor and how it reflected heat was done in the 50's. My understanding was that the math on how much heat is created by greater levels of co2 was done by Plass or Callender at around that time. Have you seen their work and do you disagree with their calculations?

----------


## chrisp

> I might add that who really knows why we get fluctuations in our climate.  After all the $$ spent on this now one really knows for certain.   
> Maybe you can tell me when was the last time our climate was static?  and what were the causes of past fluctuations? 
> Until you can identify the causes of past climate change, with a degree of certantiy,  you have no abiltity to to apply cause to current climate change. 
> You are looking at this whole deal with a very slanted opiniion.  You can't even bring yourself to allow any doubt whatsoever in your thinking.   
> Crazy, crazy really.

  Rod, 
Do you think that the climate changes without any cause? 
On a smaller time-scale (and somewhat localised), do the seasons just happen or does something change that causes them? 
And on an even smaller time-scale, why does it get colder at night - and warmer during day (does it 'just happen' or is there a cause)? 
What I'm trying to get at is that there is "cause and effect".  We seem to be in agreement that the earth is warming (an 'effect'), so what is causing it?  If you don't think it is due to increased CO2, what do you think it might be due to?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Who woulda thought, a useless journalist spruiking AGW Theory BS... 
> Luckily the good Lord Monckton was there to hold him to account:  Monckton skewers Steketee | Watts Up With That? 
> And I thought you guys said the Australian was a sceptics rag?

  Steketee strikes back, and makes some valid comments about the good Lord Monckton's hyperbole over his opinions. 
But like the true AGW Theory supporter, he defers to belief in the authority figures and the big institutions rather than trying to rebut any of the scientific issues around climate science.    

> *CHRISTOPHER Monckton offers me the opportunity to point out anything in his "scarewatch" that is unfair to me and that he will consider amending what he already has posted.                 *  
>                   I confine myself to pointing out the most serious misrepresentations. Experts in the field will continue to challenge his assertions about the science of climate change and the consequences of warming.   Mike Steketee's response to Christopher Monckton | The Australian

  This is a main stream media journalist who regular regurgitates the AGW Theory myth and doesn't even know enough about the science to rebut Monckton's assertions. 
He knows less than most people reading this thread, and he *writes articles on AGW Theory!*  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> What a load of crook. Who cares "what do you _think_ might be"  
> We already know CO2 is a very ineffective greenhouse gas. We already know that the minuscule percentage produced by humans in the overall picture is completely irrelevant, what is the point of even talking about this subject? 
> Answer: The only reason we are talking about it, is because a group of people have gone about proclamating lie upo lie that WE are responsible for changes in the climate that are in fact completely normal and due to all the intricate miriad of reasons that make the climate change and has so for milenia. Humans have absolutely nothing to do with it and most important of all HAVE NO WAY TO CHANGE, REVERSE OR ALTER IT ANYWAY. 
> So what is it that we ACTUALY talking about?
> Politics and Religion. 
> Certainly not Climatology.
> I have asked this many times with no reply.
> If I invent the weather machine that can alter the climate, can you please tell me who will be in charge of the thermostate? In other words who decides what is the "correct" temperature average? Kevin Rudd? Penny Wong? Mr Obummer?
> And by the way what do you "_think_" is the correct temperature we "should" have?
> ...

   

> 

   :Wat they said:  :Wat they said:  :Wat they said:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Do you think that the climate changes without *any* cause?

  Wasn't it you who highlighted the "A" in AGW Theory to keep us all on track?   

> If you don't think it is due to increased CO2, what do you think it might be due to?

  Gee, that sounds like a scientific method to get to the facts.  :No:  
But let's try it out: 
I think it might be due to the Sun. 
What would happen if we took the Sun away? 
I reckon it would get cold.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> what fraction of this are we using?  
> More dams may have been handy?

   

> an astonishing flash flood in toowoomba kills at least four people. Rods are turned into raging rivers:  
>   Cars are swept away like boats:  
>   The costs are astonishing:  _ 
> the financial toll of the queensland floods -- predicted to cost $6 billion and leave a $5bn clean-up bill -- is expected to soar further._  _yesterdays flash floods engulfed the urban areas of toowoomba and gympie and threatened to hit brisbane. _ one lesson - dams dont just harvest water cheaply but help protect from floods:   _a body of floodwater larger than sydney harbour threatens brisbane, with only the wivenhoe dams 2.3km-long earthen wall standing in its path_  _wivenhoe was rising fast, but it had the potential to go past 200 per cent capacity before overflowing. Cr newman said the dam was doing its job but could not fully protect the city because of the dimension of the floods.__premier anna bligh is grateful for the dam: _  _without a doubt the wivenhoe dam has already saved brisbane from a catastrophic flood in the next 48 hours but we have to keep releasing water from it so it can keep doing the job its doing.__update_  __  _police cannot tell if this family survived the wall the water that swept through toowoomba: _  _last night, four people were confirmed dead, taking the death toll related to the queensland floods to at least 15._  _up to four children are also missing from toowoomba and surrounding townships after west creek burst its banks, pouring a cascade of brown, debris-laden water into the city centre. Up to 2m of water gushed through the streets, sweeping up cars, washing off the facades of federation-era buildings, tearing up roads and blowing out shop-fronts.__update 2_  _gympie is flooded by the mary river: _  _the mary river at gympie north-west of the sunshine coast in south-east queensland has peaked at 19.3 metres, just below the 20 metre prediction.  Floodwaters have split the cbd in half and several businesses in the main street have been inundated._ _the mary was the site of a proposed dam banned by environment minister peter garrett:_ _federal environment minister peter garrett on wednesday said he made the interim decision to reject the controversial $1.8 billion plan to dam the mary river because evidence showed it could kill off endangered species_  _the project would have serious and irreversible effects on national listed species such as the australian lungfish, the mary river turtle and the mary river cod - both of those endangered.__gavin atkins quotes a queensland government document showing a dam on the mary could cut the flooding by four metres - enough to save all but four of the shops in gympies main street:_   _ a numeric hydraulic model for the mary river has been developed. The numeric model has been calibrated to ensure good correlation between measured historical data and simulated modelled behaviour with regards to peak flow, peak water levels, total volume and flood timings. The reduced outflow hydrograph for the 1999 flood event as determined above was input into this model._  _ the results of which demonstrate that had the dam been in existence at the time of the 1999 flood, the dam would have reduced peak water levels through gympie by approximately 4 metres.__update 3_  _shocking news: 72 people are still missing in the floods._  _update 4_  _premier bligh says she holds very grave concerns for the safety of those 72 and expects the known death toll of eight to rise dramatically._  _update 5_  _i talked today to jim ball on 2ue about dams. Listen here._  _ Toowoomba drowns | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  I'm sure the little critters are loving the greenies now.  :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> Do you think that the climate changes without any cause?

  Sure there is a cause, there are a lot of causes like, pdo, el nin,o la nina etc etc.  But what drives them etc?    

> On a smaller time-scale (and somewhat localised), do the seasons just happen or does something change that causes them?

  What has this comment go to do with anything?   

> And on an even smaller time-scale, why does it get colder at night - and warmer during day (does it 'just happen' or is there a cause)?

  Or this?     

> What I'm trying to get at is that there is "cause and effect". We seem to be in agreement that the earth is warming (an 'effect'), so what is causing it? If you don't think it is due to increased CO2, what do you think it might be due to?

  That is the crux of it becuase you cant find a natural cause DIRECTLY related to any warming since the LIA. You want to blame CO2, rather than consider that this might be totaly natural.  You draw a very long bow indeed to say that climate change is due to Man's CO2 emissions that are tiny compared to natural CO2 
There is a huge list of things that affect climate some that affect it more than others.  Co2 is only a tiny tiny item on that list.  To think scientist understand how all the things that affect climate work together to create changes is rather naive. and even more naive to think CO2 plays a main part.  
You are looking at this through very very rose coloured glasses. 
You didn't respond to my comment about you not having any room for doubt?  Do you see any room for doubt?  Or are you so convinced that there can be no doubt?

----------


## chrisp

> Sure there is a cause, there are a lot of causes like, pdo, el nin,o la nina etc etc.  But what drives them etc?

  Things like PDO/el nino/la nina are a cyclic weather/climate phenomena.  The seasons and the day/night patterns (i.e. my other questions/comments) are also cyclic.   
We (humankind) understand the day/night cycles and the seasonal cycles fairly well - they are driven by changes in insolation (i.e. solar radiation from the sun).  The PDO/el nono/la nina aren't understood to the same degree as the seasons, but it is cyclic with a stochastic element. 
There is data showing the contributions of the PDO on the climate:    
There hasn't been any significant changes in the solar output of the sun nor has there been any significant changes in the orbit of  the earth around the sun that explain the observed changes in the average global temperature on earth.* 
These cyclic patterns heat the earth as much as they cool the earth -  the long-term change is zero (no change in average global temperature).*    

> That is the crux of it becuase you cant find a natural cause DIRECTLY related to any warming since the LIA. You want to blame CO2, rather than consider that this might be totaly natural. You draw a very long bow indeed to say that climate change is due to Man's CO2 emissions that are tiny compared to natural CO2 
> There is a huge list of things that affect climate some that affect it more than others.  Co2 is only a tiny tiny item on that list.  To think scientist understand how all the things that affect climate work together to create changes is rather naive. and even more naive to think CO2 plays a main part.

  So, what is it that is causing the observed rise in average global temperature? 
If you are sure that it is not CO2, what is (likely to be) causing it?   

> You didn't respond to my comment about you not having any room for doubt?  Do you see any room for doubt?  Or are you so convinced that there can be no doubt?

  There is always room for doubt.  As far as I'm aware, only mathematics has perfect proofs.  The rest of the sciences have to rely on less prefect methods.  However, there is 'doubt' and there is 'doubt'.  I doubt that the observed global warming is due to aliens shooting the earth with some sort of undetectable ray (but I can't disprove it!  :Smilie:  ).  *I'd interested to hear your thoughts on the possible causes of global warming.*

----------


## mark53

Given my previous work history was "in government" I offer the following observations with a view to adding to, rather than subtracting from, the debate.
 Most, if not all, of the scientist, economists and pseudo luminaries and experts on the subject of the hypothesis of GW derive most, if not all, of their funding/ salary/ income  from government sources either directly or indirectly. Therefore it follows that any support for govt. policy by these individuals is suspect to the point of being compromised. Simply there is no degree of separation from government. Delphi-ed.This I have witnessed.
The other aspect of this debate which most people fall into the trap of is conceding that there is validity to some part of the policy which is proposed. This is linked to the truism that every lie has an element of truth. The truth- That over a very, very small time of the history of the earth the climate has warmed minutely. Therefore when one agrees with this small element of the lie then one is forced to defend their objection to, in this case, gov. policy and the hoax of GW. In short you are being Delphi-ed. There is a clear message for everybody, and it applies to this debate as well as others, always, always ask WHY. Because the answer is in the why of it.

----------


## chrisp

> Most, if not all, of the scientist, economists and pseudo luminaries and experts on the subject of the hypothesis of GW derive most, if not all, of their funding/ salary/ income  from government sources either directly or indirectly. Therefore it follows that any support for govt. policy by these individuals is suspect to the point of being compromised. Simply there is no degree of separation from government.

  I'm not sure of the logic behind your comments.  Maybe you can provide a verifiable example? 
I can think for an account where the government has tried to suppress government funded science that contradicts its policies on AGW.  It wasn't the individual scientists that were 'suspect' or 'compromised'! "the former CSIRO Climate Director and Chief of Atmospheric Research, Dr  Graeme Pearman, alleges that scientists at CSIRO were instructed by  management that they were not permitted to speak publicly on the policy  implications of climate change, and that he had been repeatedly censored  in the years immediately preceding his forced redundancy from CSIRO in  2004. Another former CSIRO scientist, Barney Foran, recounts an incident  in August 2005, when, after giving a few radio interviews about  ethanol, he received a phone call from a staff member in CSIRO's  corporate centre who claimed to be passing on a direct request from the  Prime Minister's Department that "They'd really appreciate it if you  didn't say anything about ethanol." Dr Foran and Dr Pearman argue that  the Howard Federal Government was sensitive to CSIRO scientists placing  government policies on climate change in an unfavorable light. They also claim that the censorship  of their views in recent years was completely unlike anything they had  experienced in over thirty years working for the organisation." 
From the Four-Corners program "Greenhouse Mafia" Greenhouse Mafia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Marc

http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/...l-warming.html      

> As the article that follows notes, 2008 was a bad year for sun spots and  as a result, a bad year for the "global warming" crowd as well.  The  illustration above compares the size of a single sun spot to the size of  planet earth.  Anyone feeling insignificant?  
> Looking at the  mass of a sun spot, let alone the gigantic proportions of the sun  itself, a fair minded, non agenda driven, neutral observer just might  start to think that the sun has more impact on climate change than say  those rather insignificant beings on that tiny little planet. 
> The  hoax of man made global warming is rapidly becoming increasingly  obvious to ever more people.  It is clear that the power of computer  projections to determine how our climate will change in the future  versus the power of, oh, the sun and it's spots is not a valid  comparison.  The sun drives life itself while computers do exactly what  they are told.  Especially when one is using junk science to drive  predetermined outcomes. 
> 2008 was a year of record low  temperatures world wide.  It was also a year when, in one month, there  were no sun spots at all.  That had not happened in, count them, 95  years.  Please note, that is not a computer projection, that is a fact.   Hmm... fewer sun spots, colder temperatures.  Sort of makes sense,  doesn't it? 
> There is nothing at all wrong with all of us going  greener.  Doing so is good for the planet and therefore good for us and  our posterity.  But the attempt to stampede everyone based upon a fear  of death due to "carbon footprints" is propaganda, nothing more.  Those  in public office, in the media, in business and in the tank for Al Gore  are either easily duped or guilty of out and out lying. 
> There  currently is no "global warming".  It stopped in 1998.  Yes, it will  return because, as past data proves conclusively, climate changes in  cycles.  Hot to cold to hot to cold.  Get it?  We also know that  sometimes it even gets extremely hot or extremely cold.  Not because we  drive our cars too much, although that is an act we need to clean up.   But it is because of natural forces like sun spots, over which we will  never have control, that climate varies. 
> To believe otherwise is  to be an arrogant fool or to have been wholly manipulated.  If  President-elect Obama really believes his own rhetoric when he said  that, if elected, the oceans would recede, by implication due to his  efforts to reverse "global warming", than we the people have elected a  foolish man to lead our government.  Not even Obama can reverse  something that does not exist today.  The planet is in a cooling cycle  which, hopefully, will not go too far.  If it does, Obama will need to  get busy regenerating sun spots.  Fat chance! 
> Global warmists  like to claim the debate is over.  In one sense, they may be right.  We  are in a cooling cycle and the hard data proves it beyond any doubt.  It  the debate is on the merits, it is indeed over. 
> Further, trying  to make the argument that "global warming" is the cause of the current  cooling trend and that the planet will again return begin to warm is to  overstate the obvious.  Everyone paying any attention to the scientific  record knows that our weather varies over time in relatively regular  cycles.  Of course it will get warm again.  And cold again thereafter.   Trying to pin that on man made carbon emissions cannot be scientifically  proven.  It is, in short, fantasy. 
> ...

----------


## PhilT2

> Most, if not all, of the scientist, economists and pseudo luminaries and experts on the subject of the hypothesis of GW derive most, if not all, of their funding/ salary/ income from government sources either directly or indirectly. Therefore it follows that any support for govt. policy by these individuals is suspect to the point of being compromised. Simply there is no degree of separation from government.

  Separation from which government? Some of our scientists have held consistent views through a few changes of govt. How does your theory hold up in those circumstances?  
I think that you got this whole Delphi thing from some conspiracy website. In nearly twenty years of being part of govt task forces, ministerial advisory committees, giving evidence before senate and productivity commission inquiries and numerous meetings with both state and federal ministers I have never heard of or experienced it. The politicians and public servants I know have never mentioned it.  
Try not to believe everything you read on the web.

----------


## PhilT2

[quoteI'm sure the little critters are loving the greenies now. ][/quote] 
More convincing evidence of the inaccuracies and half truths from Bolt. He conveniently omits to mention how vigorously the Liberal/National coalition opposed the Mary River dam. But that pales into insignificance compared to the stupidity of suggesting that a dam could have done anything to prevent much of the tragedy that occurred recently. Look at the footage next time it is on TV, note how flat many of the affected areas are, especially Grantham. Toowoomba is at the top of the dividing range, nobody thought to dam a creek that you can step over, same with the other towns on the Darling Downs. It's called that for a reason, downs is a fancy word for flat. Not that Bolt would let the facts get in the way of a good story, the faithful will lap it up anyway. It's all part of their religion.

----------


## Marc

There is one sure avenue to government funds. Just place the words global warming somewhere in the title of your research even if it is the masturbation of the femal patrania in siberia.
One sure way to lose funds and job: Attempt to make public, dissenting views on the Global Warming hypothesis.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I think that you got this whole Delphi thing from some conspiracy website. In nearly twenty years of being part of govt task forces, ministerial advisory committees, giving evidence before senate and productivity commission inquiries and numerous meetings with both state and federal ministers I have never heard of or experienced it.

  So you think the 2020 summit bore no resemblance whatsoever to this technique?   

> The politicians and public servants I know have never mentioned it.

   :Doh:    

> Try not to believe everything you read on the web.

  I try not to, especially this AGW Theory farce that has absolutely no evidence.  :Biggrin:

----------


## PhilT2

> So you think the 2020 summit bore no resemblance whatsoever to this technique?

  Don't know, wasn't there. Was the person who wrote the story there?

----------


## PhilT2

> he politicians and public servants I know have never mentioned it.

  Let me explain this one further, A lady that I worked with for a number of years has a daughter with a disability about the same age as mine. Our friendship goes back longer than her time as a senator. There's also a professor over there in WA that I have worked with before, he regularly comes over to work with Disability Services here in Qld. Again his loyalty is to people with disabilities and their families, if this were happening he would speak out. 
I don't know why I am treating this Delphi idea seriously, there is no real evidence for it and the possibility that it would work are remote. Most conspiracy theories make no sense at all, this one included.

----------


## Dr Freud

What the? 
You clowns support a theory that said rain was a thing of the past, and building dams was pointless as the rains were gone forever.  :Doh:  
Now that (surprise, surprise) the rains continue to fall as they always have, and your supported theory is ridiculed, you try to maintain your already failed position? 
Let's take a look shall we:   

> More convincing evidence of the inaccuracies and half truths from Bolt.

  Please point the innacuracies out?   
By half truths, I assume you mean he didn't write a 15,000 word thesis covering all possible items in this debate?  You are allowed to do your own research, you don't just have to only read what the good Mr Bolt writes.   

> He conveniently omits to mention how vigorously the Liberal/National coalition opposed the Mary River dam.

  Remind me again who had the authority to ban this dam, and who used that authority? 
Then you can list all the people who had an opinion on it one way or the other, but had no authority to ban it.   
I personally don't care what political persuasion idiots are, because stupidity crosses all divides.   

> But that pales into insignificance compared to the stupidity of suggesting that *a dam* could have done anything to prevent much of the tragedy that occurred recently.

  For starters, if they just built *one dam*, that would have to be a very big dam to make a difference to either flood mitigation or water storage.  Do you seriously believe anyone is suggesting we build just one more dam? 
As for the tragedy, most of that is idiots not listening to flood evacuation warnings.  There are people today still letting their kids play in flood waters, still driving through flood waters, and still not evacuating when being told to do so.  No one is saying more dam*s* would stop all of the *real* tragedies, but it is a mathematical fact that the amount of water behind dam walls would not be added to the flood waters.  This amount of water is easily calculated by the number x the size of the dams we build.   

> Look at the footage next time it is on TV, note how flat many of the affected areas are, especially Grantham. Toowoomba is at the top of the dividing range, nobody thought to dam a creek that you can step over, same with the other towns on the Darling Downs. It's called that for a reason, downs is a fancy word for flat.

  So you are saying there is no area anywhere in Queensland suitable for building any more dams?   

> Not that Bolt would let the facts get in the way of a good story, the faithful will lap it up anyway. It's all part of their religion.

  So, our predecessors who realised our lands of droughts and flooding plains could be better tamed by building dams were just religious nutters now, to suit your argument? 
Exactly what qualities does this religion have, a desire to store extra high volumes of rain water for long periods of drought? 
What a bunch of crazies we are!  :Laugh bounce spin:  
The funniest part of this is you were the same crowd whining about running out of water, now when it comes, you still argue against damming it, then it all flows out to the ocean, then when the droughts come again (yes, they will mate) then you complain again we have no water in storage.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Don't know, wasn't there. Was the person who wrote the story there?

  Heaps of government types were there.  I provided a link, you can email them and ask them if the author of that page was there.  :2thumbsup:    

> The politicians and public servants I know have never mentioned it.

  They obviously never mentioned the 2020 summit either? 
Must be just another conspiracy theory then.  If your mates in government didn't tell you about it, I guess it never happened.  :Biggrin:

----------


## mark53

> Separation from which government? Some of our scientists have held consistent views through a few changes of govt. How does your theory hold up in those circumstances?  
> I think that you got this whole Delphi thing from some conspiracy website. In nearly twenty years of being part of govt task forces, ministerial advisory committees, giving evidence before senate and productivity commission inquiries and numerous meetings with both state and federal ministers I have never heard of or experienced it. The politicians and public servants I know have never mentioned it.  
> Try not to believe everything you read on the web.

  Fraud, you were right. 
 Now Phil, I am finding it difficult to remain objective in addressing your comments given your stated CV. As I mentioned in my first post, not that long ago, global warming has been around since the early 1980s and, as such, has had 25 plus years to recruit sycophants, chameleons and survivors of every persuasion. I have known such men and woman. I'm surprised you didn't meet some of them.
Now for the "Delphi thing". I stumbled across the Delphi technique while researching systemic serial bullying and harassment and sociopathic behavior of senior public service managers,executive managers, directors general and ministers of the crown. I couldn't, for the life of me, understand why all of the above were so willing to pervert the course of justice. In the end I just put it down to natural selection. In so much as you have stated you attendance at meetings etc. Who hasn't. It gives you no more credibility than the typist on the front counter. The litmus test for credibility is " How many documents are on file with your signature as the author questioning government dogma. How many times does your name appear on ICAC files as the person reporting corrupt conduct. Etc". I suspect not many. One other free piece of advise Phil. If a person wants to be a good communicator and get their point across to a receptive audience they shouldn't be nauseatingly condescending. It's the practice of elitist fools.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Let me explain this one further, A lady that I worked with for a number of years has a daughter with a disability about the same age as mine. Our friendship goes back longer than her time as a senator. There's also a professor over there in WA that I have worked with before, he regularly comes over to work with Disability Services here in Qld. Again his loyalty is to people with disabilities and their families, if this were happening he would speak out.

  Ahhh, it's all makes sense now. 
If your two mates don't tell you about it, then the government isn't doing it. 
What the hell are all those politicians and public servants doing in all those offices then, nothing? 
Obviously they are doing nothing, because if they were doing something, your two mates would have described it to you in detail.  :Biggrin:  
Then you could tell us all in detail what the government is doing.  But hey, they didn't "speak out", so I guess the government isn't doing anything. 
Strange, but that kinda is true now that I think about it.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Fraud, you were right.

  Ah yes, a rare but beautiful happening!  :2thumbsup:    

> One other free piece of advise Phil. If a person wants to be a good communicator and get their point across to a receptive audience they shouldn't be nauseatingly condescending. It's the practice of elitist fools.

  I try to aim for cheekily sarcastic with comedic undercurrents.  :Wink 1:  
But my aim has always been off a little.  :Duck:

----------


## PhilT2

> As for the tragedy, most of that is idiots not listening to flood evacuation warnings. There are people today still letting their kids play in flood waters, still driving through flood waters, and still not evacuating when being told to do so

  Your remarks betray a total ignorance of the suddenness of the events that took place. There was no warning for the people of Toowoomba or Grantham, their houses were swept away with them inside. The people who lost their lives were going about their usual activities with no idea of what was about to happen. On what basis do you choose to call these people "idiots"? Some died heroically trying to save family members. Insulting the deceased is a new low for you. Check your facts. Teenager Jordan Rice killed by floods

----------


## Dr Freud

> Your remarks betray a total ignorance of the suddenness of the events that took place. There was no warning for the people of Toowoomba or Grantham, their houses were swept away with them inside. The people who lost their lives were going about their usual activities with no idea of what was about to happen. On what basis do you choose to call these people "idiots"?

  See below, a combination of what I posted in August 2010, the weather forecast in December 2010, and the predictable behaviour of pampered westerners should have given you an idea of exactly what was about to happen.   

> Some died heroically trying to save family members. Insulting the deceased is a new low for you. Check your facts. Teenager Jordan Rice killed by floods

  Check your facts:   

> As for the tragedy, most of that is idiots not listening to flood evacuation warnings.  There are people today still letting their kids play in flood waters, still driving through flood waters, and still not evacuating when being told to do so.  No one is saying more dam*s* would stop all of the *real* tragedies, but it is a mathematical fact that the amount of water behind dam walls would not be added to the flood waters.  This amount of water is easily calculated by the number x the size of the dams we build.

  Innocent victims are a tragedy, especially children. 
People that think humans can control this planet and ignore nature are idiots, especially if given all the advice they need and refuse to act on it:   

> Originally Posted by *SilentButDeadly*   _ 
> As an example, how long do you reckon it'll take to move Perth off the Swan River Plain....how much would it cost and who will pay for it? And then you add all that cost together from all the other coastal cities and towns in Oz... 
> What would you do, Freud?_     I fully agree with some your previous statements that collectively humans are idiots. We are also certainly very intelligent and can work cooperatively to achieve what is sometimes miraculous, but then on many occasions, we are morons.     
> 			
> 				    The problem is what's in the way. Which is a very large proportion of human civilisation. And it appears we are still arguing over whether we need to get out of the way.
> 			
> 		    Aaaah, at last we get to the real problem. Urban planning! Or more appropriately, lack of it. As you raise my home town, let's use it for discussion for a moment.  
> You referred to the:      
> 			
> ...

  Any guesses where they will rebuild? 
Combine that ditty with this:   

> Sunday December 26, 2010 
> As central and southern Queensland brace for major flooding, authorities are considering legal action against people who blatantly ignore public warnings about driving, swimming and playing in floodwaters.  
> Ex tropical cyclone Tasha, that weakened into a rain depression on Saturday, is dumping heavy rainfall up and down the state, and police say people are swimming and driving into floodwaters. 
> "The incident at Rockhampton in the early hours of this morning shows that we still have people who aren't using their common sense," he said. 
> "That could have been an absolute tragedy. 
> "Three young men entered a swollen creek. One of them was swept away and we had to put the lives of rescuers at risk to try and save that person which they did successfully." 
> The Bureau of Meteorology says there is no let-up in rainfall and communities in central and north Queensland will be battling floods for days to come. 
> The weather bureau says south-east Queensland will be next to receive a drenching, and a severe weather alert has been issued for heavy rainfall stretching from St Lawrence to the New South Wales Border.  Weather News - Qld mulls legal action for ignoring flood warnings

  Even earlier:   

> December 21, 2010 
> The controversial issue of driving through floodwaters  putting the lives of yourself and rescuers is danger  has reached a peak, with at least another 12 people needing rescuing in south-east Queensland in the past 24 hours. 
>      Magistrate Ross Risson noted that people had died in floodwaters in our region.
>       He said water could rise quickly and a situation could change dramatically so drivers had to heed road closed signs.  
>       People who dont heed the warning signs put themselves and others at risk, Mr Risson said.  
>       Treadwell was fined $500.   Fined for ignoring flood warning | Mackay News | Local News in Mackay | Mackay Daily Mercury

  There have certainly been a few real tragedies in this recent natural event.  However, most of it was inevitable and predictable, and most of the "alleged" human tragedies were humans doing what humans do best, being idiots and thinking that we control everything on the planet.  
Darwin would call this natural selection, but apparently it is politically incorrect to apply this theory to humans, unlike AGW Theory!  :Doh:

----------


## PhilT2

> not that long ago, global warming has been around since the early 1980s

  Conversations online are by their nature a little terse. They become more so when people come to the debate mis-stating basic facts. The first scientific paper on global warming was written over one hundred years ago. Arrhenius in 1896 wrote about his concerns that carbon dioxide could alter climate. Further work was done by Plass, Keeling, Callender and others in the 1950's. This is basic stuff that five minutes of google will give you.

----------


## Dr Freud

Do you see how easily distracted I am, I was supposed to be making silly statements about the Sun tonight.  :Doh:  
Oh well, just a little then:   

> There hasn't been any significant changes in the solar output of the sun...

  Really?   
Seems to match the Greenland proxies too?   

> 

  So you reckon the Sun's been flatlining? How long for?

----------


## Dr Freud

> So, the red line is the Sun, the blue line is the temperature, and the green line is CO2 levels.      
> And here we go...

  Looks real flat to me.  :No:

----------


## PhilT2

Both the above graphs are a bit useless in a discussion about AGW. The top one stops at the "present era" which is sometimes taken as 1950. As we don't know when it was published it's difficult to say. The lower one specifies that current is the year 2000 but the graph stops at 95 years before ie 1905. Both avoid showing in detail what the sun has been doing in the last thirty years.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Solar Schmolar[/ame]

----------


## PhilT2

My last post referred to the first two graphs that Doc posted. Lets take a quick look at this next set. The change in solar radiation is obviously huge, nearly 2 watts. As a percentage of the total of 1367 watts lets see a variation of .001 or something, it's too late do the math. A more honest effort might involve zeroing the left hand side but then it wouldn't show any change at all and we can't have that.

----------


## PhilT2

> My last post referred to the first two graphs that Doc posted. Lets take a quick look at this next set. The change in solar radiation is obviously huge, nearly 2 watts. As a percentage of the total of 1367 watts lets see a variation of .001 or something, it's too late do the math. A more honest effort might involve zeroing the left hand side but then it wouldn't show any change at all and we can't have that.

  My math really suck in the early hours. Percentage is more like .14, not big either way. Accurate graphs of the recent changes are on the Acrim site.  Current Projects

----------


## Marc

The Queensland Premier admitted that if not for the dam, Brisbane would be under an extra 2 meters of water.
 couple of more dams nad Brisbane would not have flooded. 
Some 50 or 60 more dams across Australia and we would have not only no floods but plentiful water for the time of drought and for irrigation and food export. 
You can thank the greens and assorted cheer leaders and morons that this was not done 30 years ago. 
As a sideline, can you imagine someone trying to build Waragamba Dam today? Or the Snowy Scheem? 
Fat chance, the frogs take priority. 
AGW, so called greens and generic environmentalist are a desease, a virus that has to be cured. The cure is truth and common sense, backed up with good science possibly not governemt funded. 
Greenpeace wants to cull humanity down to one billion. Why don't they start with themselves one wonders.

----------


## chrisp

*2010 tied with 2005 as the  warmest year  of the global surface temperature record* "According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the  warmest year  of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was   the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th   century average. For the contiguous United States alone, the 2010  average  annual temperature was above normal, resulting in the 23rd  warmest  year on record." 
From: NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record

----------


## chrisp

> *The Warm Turns* _INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY_ *Global thermometers stopped rising after 1998*, and have  plummeted in  the last two years by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius. The  2007-2008  temperature drop was not predicted by global climate models.  But *it was  predictable by a decline in sunspot activity since 2000*.

   

> So you reckon the Sun's been flatlining? How long for?

  *So, you you now have to show is how this (steadily flat cyclic oscillation):*  
(From: Wolf number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )  *Turns in to this (steadily rising with some superimposed oscillation):*  
(From: Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) 
Me thinks the quoted article is crap.  :Smilie:

----------


## mark53

I draw your attention to the you tube interview with Dr Tim Ball.
Phil,you wanted evidence of Delphi, watch and read on if you dare. But don't ever question again. Crisp, you wanted evidence of a selective breeding program for corrupt scientists, I say to you also, listen and read on if you if you dare. I make the observation that those who continue to push the dogma of the GW hypothesis appear to have a fundamentally flawed ethical compass.I observe this on the basis that a person can't claim to be ethical and spruik a lie at the same time. (  Fraud, if you can do a better job with posting this information with your superior computer skills please don't hold back. Regards Mark)      
Quote:Retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball joins us to discuss the significance of the recently leaked emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University which expose deceit, duplicity and collusion between climate researchers to maintain the fraud of the manmade global warming theory. These emails reveal stunning behind-the-scenes details about how this fraud has been developed and perpetuated, and Dr. Ball shares his insights on what they show. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac"]YouTube - Climategate: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails[/ame]
Partial transcript: 
Quote:*"[The Emails] confirm suspicions that I have had in 30 years of working in climate science that I saw the hijacking of climate science particularly by computer modelers and then by a small group of people associated with the intergovernmental panel on climate change. The difficulty was that even though I sensed there was these thing going on, proving it is extremely difficult. But now with the exposure of these public files it is not only a smoking gun, it's a battery of machine guns. ... On A global scale it's frightening. This group of people not only controlled the Hadley Center which controls the global data on temperatures, so that the global*Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry 
Well, the MSM will find it hard not to cover this! *Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data 'manipulation'*
By Matthew Moore
Published: 8:45AM GMT 23 Nov 2009
Quote:Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, has called for an independent inquiry into claims that leading climate change scientists manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming. 
Thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years.
This morning Lord Lawson, who has reinvented himself as a prominent climate change sceptic since leaving front line politics, demanded that the apparent deception be fully investigated. 
He claimed that the credibility of the university's world-renowned Climatic Research Unit - and British science - were under threat.
"They should set up a public inquiry under someone who is totally respected and get to the truth," he told the BBC Radio Four Today programme. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6634282/Lord-...   *Removed Cross Forum Links.*

----------


## mark53

Freud, my most humble apologies. My spelling is crap.

----------


## chrisp

> ( * Fraud*, if you can do a better job with posting this information with your superior computer skills please don't hold back. Regards Mark)

  Freudian slip.   :Smilie:

----------


## mark53

Chrisp, God hates those who take cheep shots.

----------


## mark53

Chrisp, have you commenced to read? If not you should get cracking. Edification is a wonderful thing.

----------


## chrisp

> Chrisp, God hates those who take *cheep* shots.

  Did a little bird tell you that one?     :Smilie:

----------


## watson

Grandma, without even looking at the squabbling children, walked across the room rattling the keys to the "Time Out" room.

----------


## Marc

> (From: Wolf number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
> (From: Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) 
> Me thinks the quoted article is crap.

  Me agrees, they both are.

----------


## Marc

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/pagan.htm  

> *The Effect Of Adopting Popular Paranoia As Truth*
>  By  Reverend Dr Peter Mullen _The Daily Telegraph_, UK     I AM trying to be a priest; but I haven't time.  
> When I was appointed  vicar of my first parish in 1977, the mornings were clear for study,  the afternoons for visiting and the evenings for socialising, family and  leisure.    
> There were occasional parish meetings, but these were regarded  as a necessary evil and we soon got them over and done with, then off  to the village pub. The diocesan annual returns were on one side of A4:  all I had to do was list how many I'd christened, married and buried,  how many people were on the electoral roll and how many came to church  at Christmas and Easter. The job of filling in this return could easily  be managed over morning coffee.    
> Nowadays, the annual returns are a foot  thick and a bundle of perfidious obscurity, hedged about with health and  safety and absurd questions about light bulbs, and serious inquiries as  to what the PCC is doing to reduce our carbon footprint all because the  Church has taken up the pagan fantasy of global warming.    
> I think the  returns are devised in some Kafkaesque archidiaconal madhouse and  calculated to be impossible to complete even over the whole year. They  are just the latest example of the Church following secular fashion, in  particular, to ape the most jargon-ridden claptrap of management-speak.

  The truth will make you free, environmentalist are a desease. :brava:

----------


## Marc

You will like this 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s&feature=player_detailpage]YouTube - Global Warming Panic explained[/ame]

----------


## Marc

_TEN MYTHS of Global Warming_   

> * MYTH 1:  Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate. FACT:  Accurate  satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last  three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term  rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings  do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is  well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The  ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the  globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and  industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher  readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). 
> There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.  MYTH 2: The  "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady,  very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a  sudden increase. FACT:  Significant changes in  climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For  instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the  Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the  Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the  "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate  mentioned above; although from 1940  1970 temperatures actually  dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare. 
> The "hockey stick", a  poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department,  ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been  proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a  computer construct and a faulty one at that. * *MYTH 3:  Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.* *FACT:   Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human  and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the  beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of  the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has  also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about  0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25  years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2  levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are  the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in  recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid  evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically  through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming  surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.*   *MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.*  *FACT: * *Greenhouse  gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of  varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the  remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2  constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are  more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the  latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and  in the  end  are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".* *Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.*   *MYTH 5:  Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.* *FACT:   Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of  the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and  positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove"* *anything.**Also,  computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly  including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is  a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its  received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in  cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be  correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the  Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar  heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the  currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar  radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the  amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.*  *MYTH 6:  The UN proved that manmade CO2 causes global warming.* *FACT:  In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are: 
> 1)      None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can  attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse  gases.
> 2)     No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to manmade causes* *To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.  *  * MYTH 7:  CO2 is a pollutant.* *FACT:  This  is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could  not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant  than nitrogen is.  CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary  for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased  atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow  more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included   CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the  Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control  it.* * MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.* *FACT:    There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that  supports such claims on a global scale.  Regional variations may occur.  Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in  coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing  frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function  of increasing population density, escalating development value, and  ever more media reporting.*  * MYTH 9:  Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.* *FACT:   Glaciers have been  receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of  years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very  cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off  for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers  growing and then retreating. Its normal. Besides, glacier's health is  dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.* *MYTH 10:  The earths poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.* *FACT:   The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat  warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the  Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer  Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic  continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on  Greenland and in Antarctica.*  *Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.*  *Source*: *Friends of Science* website.

----------


## chrisp

> I draw your attention to the you tube interview with Dr Tim Ball.

  Is it this Tim Ball?*"Dr. Timothy Ball* is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG). Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy. 
Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations." 
from: Tim Ball - SourceWatch  Was your post something to do with "corrupt scientists"?  Maybe it is _you_ who has been Delphi-ed?

----------


## Marc

> Is it this Tim Ball?*"Dr. Timothy Ball* is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG). Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy. 
> Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations." 
> from: Tim Ball - SourceWatch  Was your post something to do with "corrupt scientists"?  Maybe it is _you_ who has been Delphi-ed?

  Chrisp, how can you be so incredible naive. Since when is private enterprise automatically evil and government funded oh so virtuous?
If I had a private company that is threatened by environmentalist who corrupt the science in order to shut me down because of their religious beliefs, I too would enlist scientist to uncover their manipulations and lies. Nothing wrong with that  
The only important topic to discuss is who manipulated the data, who deleted data, who colluded to mislead and falsify information in order to achieve a political result in order to feed some misguided idea that they have the high moral ground to free the world of the sinful CO2. 
Really environmentalist are a desease.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Is it this Tim Ball? *"Dr. Timothy Ball* is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG). Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy. 
> Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations." 
> from: Tim Ball - SourceWatch  Was your post something to do with "corrupt scientists"? Maybe it is _you_ who has been Delphi-ed?

  LMAO Obviously you didnt watch the video on the previous page did you! 
I cant believe you still pull this stuff out as some kind of gottcha.   
Back to the old mantra eh.  Sorry but is stopped working long ago and only makes warmist look like fools now. I donn't mean you personally chrsip.  (sorry watson)

----------


## chrisp

> Chrisp, how can you be so incredible naive.

  Who knows why?   :Whatonearth:   Apparently, I need some edification.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Freud, my most humble apologies. My spelling is crap.

  No worries mate, unlike some, I don't get all wrapped up in semantics.  :Biggrin:  
I saw some hilarious "standardisation" on some site, I'll try to dig it up, but I lose track of all the delusions, it's too hard to keep up with them all. 
I feel sorry for those poor scientists who look at all the current data "adjusting" going on and realise their lifes work is being devalued by these reprobates.  Strangely, all the adjustments are made to fit the theory, because apparently all the measurements and observations are wrong. 
What a bunch of w-nkers!  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

> My math really suck in the early hours. Percentage is more like .14, not big either way. Accurate graphs of the recent changes are on the Acrim site.  Current Projects

  You guys go to so much trouble working out and commenting on the Sun not contributing to any warming whatsoever, and even calculate your own percentages. 
Yet you don't even mention the CO2 data that has been posted throughout this thread, most recently by Marc a few pages ago. 
Do you want to compare your Sun percentages to the CO2 percentages? 
Or are you still refusing to acknowledge reality.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Greenpeace wants to cull humanity down to one billion. Why don't they start with themselves one wonders.

  It's because they are the high priests who oversee the sacrificing.   
It's the common folk who need to do the sacrificing and be sacrificed.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *2010 tied with 2005 as the  warmest year  of the global surface temperature record*"According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the  warmest year  of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was   the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th   century average. For the contiguous United States alone, the 2010  average  annual temperature was above normal, resulting in the 23rd  warmest  year on record." 
> From: NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record

  Again, we can argue over the data "adjustments" later, but this is called the effect. 
Any proof of a cause?  :Doh:

----------


## chrisp

> Any proof of a cause?

  Rod knows the cause.  I'm just waiting for him to post it so I can check it.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *So, you you now have to show is how this (steadily flat cyclic oscillation):*  
> (From: Wolf number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )  *Turns in to this (steadily rising with some superimposed oscillation):*  
> (From: Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) 
> Me thinks the quoted article is crap.

  We've done Wikipedia to death, so no point carrying on about it's farcical AGW Theory info. 
But the desperation of the AGW Theory movement in general still astounds and amuses me more every day.  You use what is likely the most innaccurate measure of solar energy currently being used, and ignore all the data showing the contribution solar energy obviously has on the Planet.  And you do all this in an attempt to discredit the Sun as warming the Planet.  :Doh:  
All this to perpetuate a myth that a tiny fraction of a percentage of a gas is going to turn the entire planet into hell.  Phil will get us that percentage of the gas to compare, unless you want to help him out.  :Biggrin:  
In the interim, do you want to explain to people what the Wolf number actually measures, and how accurate it's observer adjustment calculations are? 
And you never did indicate if you believed the Sun was closely correlated with temperatures until recent decades.  Strange that as the data "adjustments" started, this correlation started reducing?   :Unsure:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Phil,you wanted evidence of Delphi, watch and read on if you dare. But don't ever question again. Crisp, you wanted evidence of a selective breeding program for corrupt scientists, I say to you also, listen and read on if you if you dare. I make the observation that those who continue to push the dogma of the GW hypothesis appear to have a fundamentally flawed ethical compass.I observe this on the basis that a person can't claim to be ethical and spruik a lie at the same time.   YouTube - Climategate: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails

  It is great to post these messages again and again for those innocent people who are still yet to understand the extent of the data, process and methodological bastardry that has gone on with this farce. 
But alas the true believers have not been swayed, even after being shown their faith is based on lies and deception.  It is perhaps too late for them.  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You will like this  YouTube - Global Warming Panic explained

  The funniest thing not in a mirror I have seen in a long time.   :Roflmao:  
Truth is stranger than fiction indeed!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod knows the cause. I'm just waiting for him to post it so I can check it.

  What sort of comment is that chrisp.  I really don't know what you are trying to achieve by making it chrisp? 
I said that there are many things that affect climate that are not completely understood so why would I claim to understand them. To say C02 is the main driver of recent rises it temperature is a complete leap of faith that cant be proven when we don't understand all the influences on climate and how they all interact with each other. 
If we (mankind) did understand it then we would not be having so much research money spent on trying to understand it would we?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Is it this Tim Ball?*"Dr. Timothy Ball* is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG). Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy. 
> Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations." 
> from: Tim Ball - SourceWatch  Was your post something to do with "corrupt scientists"?  Maybe it is _you_ who has been Delphi-ed?

  Seriously, what are you going to do next, hire Alec Baldwin? 
This ridiculous slinging of inferred mud at any scientist who disagrees with your opinion is seriously bringing your intellect into question.  Do you actually still believe this tactic is helping your cause? 
It's just a good thing you don't use any fossil fuel energy or petroleum based products, otherwise you risk being as a big a hypocrite as Bob Brown.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> What sort of comment is that chrisp.  I really don't know what you are trying to achieve by making it chrisp? 
> I said that there are many things that affect climate that are not completely understood so why would I claim to understand them. To say C02 is the main driver of recent rises it temperature is a complete leap of faith that cant be proven when we don't understand all the influences on climate and how they all interact with each other. 
> If we (mankind) did understand it then we would not be having so much research money spent on trying to understand it would we?

  Mate, they know their theory has failed.  This is the final desperate act of trying to distract people from this fact.  They have nothing. 
We have the joy of saying "We don't know", because we don't support some failed theory.  They have bought a ticket on the Titanic, now are starting to panic.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> LMAO Obviously you didnt watch the video on the previous page did you!

  
Too funny.  It's amazing how these responses are word for word by all AGW Theory supporters. 
I haven't seen that kind of political cult since Rudd's ministers stopped reading their daily paragraphs.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Mate, they know their theory has failed. This is the final desperate act of trying to distract people from this fact. They have nothing. 
> We have the joy of saying "We don't know", because we don't support some failed theory. They have bought a ticket on the Titanic, now are starting to panic.

  Yes I think you hit on something there Doc.  They (the warmists) can't dare say we dont fully understand the dynamics that create our climate because it throws too much doubt on their religion.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

Whaddaya reckon? 
Compare well to your pretty pictures, huh? 
Here's some rebuttal comments to get you started:   

> Graphs are a visual representation of statistics. They can convey very useful information. They can also be skewed to show exactly what the presenter wants. THESE graphs are providing very little information other than showing two lines following a same trend. I could create a similar graph showing the relationship of ice cream sales to the variance in skin cancer cases and thus prove that ice cream causes skin cancer.

  Smart person that one.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

> What sort of comment is that chrisp.  I really don't know what you are trying to achieve by making it chrisp? 
> I said that there are many things that affect climate that are not completely understood so why would I claim to understand them. To say C02 is the main driver of recent rises it temperature is a complete leap of faith that cant be proven when we don't understand all the influences on climate and how they all interact with each other. 
> If we (mankind) did understand it then we would not be having so much research money spent on trying to understand it would we?

  Rod, 
Please excuse my tone (I got carried away having a _cheep_ shot at _Dr Fraud_.  But don't worry, I'm doing some _edification_ as penance  :Smilie:  ). 
But more seriously, you seem to agree that there is global warming, and (I'm assuming) that you'd agree things happen due to a cause, but you seem adamant that CO2 plays little or no part in the observed global warming.   
Therefore, if you are certain that it is not the CO2, I'd be interested to hear what you might suppose the cause is.  [i.e. I'm confused as to how you can be certain that it is not the CO2 if you not certain as to what is the cause.] 
The Pacific Decadence Oscillation (PDO) and some other weather cycles were mentioned.  Also, Marc raised the possibility of sunspots.  Both these mechanisms don't account for the observed warming. 
As stated earlier, I'm interested to hear what you seriously think are (or might be) the real causes of global warming?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> Please excuse my tone (I got carried away having a _cheep_ shot at _Dr Fraud_. But don't worry, I'm doing some _edification_ as penance  ). 
> But more seriously, you seem to agree that there is global warming, and (I'm assuming) that you'd agree things happen due to a cause, but you seem adamant that CO2 plays little or no part in the observed global warming.  
> Therefore, if you are certain that it is not the CO2, I'd be interested to hear what you might suppose the cause is. [i.e. I'm confused as to how you can be certain that it is not the CO2 if you not certain as to what is the cause.] 
> The Pacific Decadence Oscillation (PDO) and some other weather cycles were mentioned. Also, Marc raised the possibility of sunspots. Both these mechanisms don't account for the observed warming. 
> As stated earlier, I'm interested to hear what you seriously think are (or might be) the real causes of global warming?

  I seriously think that the warming we have had since the LIA is not dangerous. Not un-precedented and not something we should be worried about.  I seriously think that there is a group pannic about warming now as there was cooling in the 70's.  I seriously think that green groups have exploited this pannic to further other causes.  I seriously think that grovernments around the world have been wedged on the issue and are caught between a rock and a hard place.  I seriously think the observed increases have been oversated by gatekeepers that have also wedged themselves on this issue. 
I seriously think that percieved problems expected to be caused by GW were overblown and just plain wrong, eg. no more rain in Australia, no more snow in th UK, no more ice in the Artic.   
I seriously think that the effect CO2 has on climate hs been severely overstated. 
I seriously think that blaming CO2 simply because you cant find anything else to blame is a crock of @@@@ and a ridiculous argument. 
I seriouly think that generations to come are going to look back at theis era and laugh like hell at how group stupid could happen like this. 
I seriously think our weather pattens (read climate) have reverted back to a cooling phase and this will kill your arguments. 
I seriouly think that those who can't see the facts for what they are have a mind set that cannot be altered because they have to admit they were part of "group stupid" 
I seriously think that it wll still take a long time for AGW to be dead and burried because there are so many with so much at stake they HAVE to keep the charade going.  That is money, reputations and the like. 
I seriously think the alterations to our climate are a combination of all sorts of factors, bit like the "perfect storm" not one cause but a multitude of factors all comming together to give us what we have got. 
I seriously think that there is not a god damn thing we can do to alter the climate we get by any meaniful degree, if any at all. 
I seriously think that anyone who is so committed to AGW being real, dangerous, the end of mankind, etc etc, really need to take a whole new look at the facts without a pre-concieved notion and get back to reality. 
I also seriously think that we should always be mindful of protecting the environment. 
I also seriously think we should always persue alternative energy but for commercial reasons not subsidised by tax payers on the pretence of AGW. 
I seriously think that under developed nations are going to keep increasing their CO2 out put regardless of what we do CO2 emissions are going to increase not decrease, so get used to it. 
There now you know what I SERIOUSLY THINK.  
Happy?

----------


## Rod Dyson

See Chrisp you just cant continue to ignore these facts. You just cant sit there and not see how stupid these claims look when you compare the facts. You cant just say "oh thats just Bolt, cant believe a word he says". You cant do these things without looking...... well....STUPID.   

> Indeed, the heavy rains that ended the drought in eastern Australia aren’t just a fleeting “event” but a phenomenon of many months - and nor are they unprecedented:   
> (Incidentally, does that rainfall record above indicate reveal any recent trend that seems to you evidence of “climate change”?) 
> When warmists start describing these rains which they didn’t predict as the “extreme events” which they actually did, we see how a trick of language or definitions makes their theory unfalsifiable. “Extreme events” becomes the label that’s stuck on anything that doesn’t fit with what was predicted, to make it the exception that _was_ predicted. And so no matter what happens, the warmist is always right.

  Now do yourself a favour and READ this article and without attacking Bolt, and come back and SERIOUSLY tell us where this is wrong. See the personal attacks on the messenger just makes people look.......... well............ stupid.   
LINK HERE. Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog  
Now come on give us a SERIOUS reason why this is wrong. 
Perhaps you could start by showing us why we should think the previous drought was unprecedented. then you could show us why this rain "event" is also unprecedented.  
Or you could agree that they are not and those that say they are were dare we say it.....  wrong.  If you don't agree they were wrong could you give us a SERIOUS explanation why they were not?

----------


## chrisp

> Whaddaya reckon? 
> Compare well to your pretty pictures, huh?

  What do I reckon?  We'll I do what I usually do - I look it up the source of the information. 
It seems it is based on a paper by Jasper Kirkby "_Beam Measurements of a CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) Chamber_" CERN, 1998.  (link here: http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/docum...ud_concept.pdf ).  The second image you have posted is directly from this paper (Figure 6). 
Interestingly, he confirms a contention of an earlier post of mine (and PhilT2 also pick up on this too) on sunspots:   

> My math really suck in the early hours. Percentage  is more like .14, not big either way.

  "The solar flux is slightly higher at sunspot maximum; although sunspots are cooler and have reduced emission, this is more than compensated by an associated increase in bright areas known as plages and faculae. *The mean irradiance changes by about 0.1 % from sunspot maximum to minimum which, if representative over a longer time interval, is too small (0.3 Wm−2, globally-averaged) to account for the observed changes in the Earth’s temperature.*" Kirkby goes on to show a plausible link between the duration of sunspots on the temperature (actually, it is an inverse relationship: shorter duration gives higher temperatures).  He then suggests a correlation between cosmic rays and northern hemisphere land (reduced) temperatures due to increased cloud cover (see the paper for the connection). 
All sounds reasonably plausible so far - and an interesting paper and scientific argument.   
However, science is about peer-review and repetition so it is important that we search the field and see what other have found. 
 Sloan and Wolfendale "_Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover_" Environ. Res. Lett. 3 (2008) 024001 (6pp) (link: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...3_2_024001.pdf ) looked at the data and the possible cloud formation mechanism.  They state:"We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it."Here are a few other scientific comments:"As Pierce and Adams report in a paper in press in Geophysical Research Letters, their model showed that changes in cosmic rays are two orders of magnitude too feeble to cause the changes in clouds."
( Science Magazine: Sign In | Science/AAAS ) 
"Previous research had shown a possible hint of such a correlation,  using the results of the International Satellite Cloud Climatology  Project, and this had been used to propose that global warming was all  down to cosmic rays. 
 The new research shows that change in cloud cover over the Earth does  not correlate to changes in cosmic ray intensity. Neither does it show  increases and decreases during the sporadic bursts and decreases in the  cosmic ray intensity which occur regularly."
( Climate Change Is Not Caused By Cosmic Rays, According To New Research ) "A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame  the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global  warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar  radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays (M.  Lockwood and C. Fröhlich _Proc. R. Soc. A_  doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880; 2007). Some researchers had suggested that  the latter might influence global warming through an involvement in  cloud formation. 
"This paper is the final nail in the  coffin for people who would like to make the Sun responsible for  present global warming," says Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at  the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany."
( Access : No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics : Nature )  Overall, I thought it was a good alternative theory to AGW (it has to be one of the best so far), but it didn't stand up to the rigours of scientific scrutiny.  
Please don't be deterred, I'm pleased to see some substantial scientific argument posted rather than political comments or shock-jock quotes.   :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> I seriously think that the warming we have had since the LIA is not dangerous. Not un-precedented and not something we should be worried about.  I seriously think that there is a group pannic about warming now as there was cooling in the 70's.  I seriously think that green groups have exploited this pannic to further other causes.  I seriously think that grovernments around the world have been wedged on the issue and are caught between a rock and a hard place.  I seriously think the observed increases have been oversated by gatekeepers that have also wedged themselves on this issue. 
> I seriously think that percieved problems expected to be caused by GW were overblown and just plain wrong, eg. no more rain in Australia, no more snow in th UK, no more ice in the Artic.   
> I seriously think that the effect CO2 has on climate hs been severely overstated. 
> I seriously think that blaming CO2 simply because you cant find anything else to blame is a crock of @@@@ and a ridiculous argument. 
> I seriouly think that generations to come are going to look back at theis era and laugh like hell at how group stupid could happen like this. 
> I seriously think our weather pattens (read climate) have reverted back to a cooling phase and this will kill your arguments. 
> I seriouly think that those who can't see the facts for what they are have a mind set that cannot be altered because they have to admit they were part of "group stupid" 
> I seriously think that it wll still take a long time for AGW to be dead and burried because there are so many with so much at stake they HAVE to keep the charade going.  That is money, reputations and the like. 
> I seriously think the alterations to our climate are a combination of all sorts of factors, bit like the "perfect storm" not one cause but a multitude of factors all comming together to give us what we have got. 
> ...

  Not really.  I don't see the 'cause and effect' reasoning I'm looking for.  i.e. - WHY is the temperature rising?

----------


## Rod Dyson

This is good timing, explains things pretty well I think. 
Must read the full article. Here.http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...tific-low.html   

> The summary of their argument is this: for the period after 1950, they claim their computer models cannot explain warming patterns without including a large effect from anthropogenic CO2. Since almost all the warming in the latter half of the century really occurred between 1978 and 1998, the IPCC core argument boils down to “we are unable to attribute the global temperature increase in these 20 years to natural factors, so it must have been caused by man-made CO2.” *See my video here for a deeper discussion.*
> This seems to be a fairly thin reed. After all, it may just be that after only a decade or two of serious study, we still do not understand climate variability very well, natural or not. It is a particularly odd conclusion when one discovers that the models ignore a number of factors (like the PDO, ENSO, etc) that affect temperatures on a decadal scale.
> We therefore have a hypothesis that is not based on observational data, and where those who hold the hypothesis claim that observational data should no longer be used to test their hypothesis. He is hilarious when he says that reversing the null hypothesis would make it trickier for his critics. It would make it freaking impossible, as he very well knows. This is an unbelievingly disingenuous suggestion. There are invisible aliens in my closet Dr. Trenberth — prove me wrong. It is always hard to prove a negative, and impossible in the complex climate system. There are simply too many variables in flux to nail down cause and effect in any kind of definitive way, at least at our level of understanding (we have studied economics much longer and we still have wild disagreements about cause and effect in macroeconomics).
> He continues: So we frequently hear that “while this event is consistent with what we expect from climate change, no single event can be attributed to human induced global warming”. Such murky statements should be abolished. On the contrary, the odds have changed to make certain kinds of events more likely. For precipitation, the pervasive increase in water vapor changes precipitation events with no doubt whatsoever. Yes, all events! Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal, they are still higher than they would have been, and so too is the atmospheric water vapor amount and thus the moisture available for storms. Granted, the climate deals with averages. However, those averages are made up of specific events of all shapes and sizes now operating in a different environment. It is not a well posed question to ask “Is it caused by global warming?” Or “Is it caused by natural variability?” Because it is always both.At some level, this is useless. The climate system is horrendously complex. I am sure everything affects everything. So to say that it affects the probability is a true but unhelpful statement. The concern is that warming will affect the rate of these events, or the severity of these events, in a substantial and noticeable way. It is worth considering whether the odds of the particular event have changed sufficiently that one can make the alternative statement “It is unlikely that this event would have occurred without global warming.” For instance, this probably applies to the extremes that occurred in the summer of 2010: the floods in Pakistan, India, and China and the drought, heat waves and wild fires in Russia.Now he has gone totally off the scientific reservation into astrology or the occult or something. He is saying that there is a high probability that if CO2 levels were 120ppm lower that, for example, the floods in Pakistan would not have occurred. This is pure conjecture, absolutely without facts, and probably bad conjecture at that. After all, similar events of similar magnitude have occurred through all of recorded history in exactly these locations.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> not really. I don't see the 'cause and effect' reasoning i'm looking for. I.e. - why is the temperature rising?

  oh please.............................  You are really insulting intelligence here now.

----------


## chrisp

> oh please.............................  You are really insulting intelligence here now.

  I'm not trying to insult your intelligence.  I'm trying to understand what you think is physically causing the temperature rise if it isn't the CO2.  (You do think something is causing it, right?)

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'm not trying to insult your intelligence. I'm trying to understand what you think is physically causing the temperature rise if it isn't the CO2. (You do think something is causing it, right?)

  Its not my intelligence you are insulting it is yours.

----------


## chrisp

> Now do yourself a favour and READ this article and without attacking Bolt, and come back and SERIOUSLY tell us where this is wrong. 
> LINK HERE. Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog  
> Now come on give us a SERIOUS reason why this is wrong.

  Rod, 
I was not too sure exactly which bit you wanted me to show was "wrong".  The small section quoted is difficult to respond to in isolation as I'm not too sure which claim is "unprecedented" claim.  It seems easier (if you can bear with me) to look at the article in its entirety.  
[Article by Andrew Bolt follows Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog   My comments and extra quotes are in red.] 
                  Warmists are now claiming they predicted these floods, with _The Age_ - that Bible of the Left - running two we-told-you-so pieces today. 
  One is from Ian Lowe, head of the Australian Conservation Foundation:_The Queensland floods are another reminder of what climate science has been telling us for 25 years,  like the recent long-running drought, the 2009 heatwaves and the  dreadful Victorian bushfires. As well as a general warming, increasing  sea levels and altered rainfall patterns, climate modellers confidently  predicted more frequent extreme events: floods, droughts, heatwaves and  severe bushfires._   _It is still too early to say with certainty that climate change is  responsible for the strong El Nino event that brought devastating  drought to eastern Australia and the equally strong La Nina event that  has produced the terrible floods.But they are exactly what climate  science has been warning us about since the 1980s. (quote from the same article)_ The other is from young enthusiast Ellen Sandell, head of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition:_Scientists such as Professor Vicky Pope, head of  climate change advice at Britain’s Met Office, and Dr Kevin Trenberth  from the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research have pointed to the  evidence showing a warmer world is a wetter world, due to increased water vapour and energy in the atmosphere leading to more frequent and intense storms._  _In The Age this week, Professor David Karoly from Melbourne  University’s school of earth sciences was quoted as saying that the wild  weather extremes were in keeping with scientists’ forecasts of more  flooding and more droughts as a result of high temperatures and more  evaporation._But this self-justification is curious. 
  First, warmists have insisted for years that the drought - which  affected large parts of now-flooded Queensland  - was in fact evidence  of global warming, and we should expect_ less_ dam-flling rains: 
   Example one: Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery in 2007: _  Over  the past 50 years southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its  rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming._  [chrisp comment] The above is a graph I got from the BoM website for Southern Australia.  I haven't crunched any numbers on the data, but the running average doesn't seem to support the 20% decline.    
Example 2: Flannery again, in 2007: _ We’re already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline  in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly  an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although  we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of  Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off  into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of  global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using  more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. _   _[chrisp comment]_ From the Victorian Water Accounts 2008-09 http://www.ourwater.vic.gov.au/__dat...-Resources.pdf    *1.2.1 Long term streamflow trends*
As mentioned above, average annual streamflows in the past 12 years have generally been 40% to 80% of the previous long term average in eastern and southwest Victoria. Streamflows have fallen more significantly in central and western Victoria over this period, with annual flows in the Wimmera basin having reduced to less than 15% of the long term average.  
The dam and stream-flow figures seem consistent with the claims.  
   Example three, the CSIRO’s global warming models in 2007: _5.2.1 Median precipitation change by 2030_  _Best estimates of annual precipitation change represent little  change in the far north and decreases of 2% to 5% elsewhere. Decreases  of around 5% prevail in winter and spring, particularly in the  south-west where they reach 10%. In summer and autumn decreases are  smaller  and there are slight increases in the east…_  _By 2050, under the B1 scenario, the range of annual precipitation  change is -15% to +7.5% in central, eastern and northern areas, with a  best estimate of little change in the far north grading southwards to a  decrease of 5%._  _The range of change in southern areas is from a 15% decrease to  little change, with best estimate of around a 5% decrease. Under the  A1FI scenario changes in precipitation are larger. The range of annual  precipitation change is -20% to +10% in central, eastern   and northern  areas, with a best estimate of little change in the far north grading to  around a 7.5% decrease elsewhere._ [chrisp comment] These are projections.  It is difficult to comment or verify before the event.  Note: they are projections on 'annual precipitation changes' - not _intensity_ changes. [psst, does anyone actually read these long posts?]   
Example four: Queensland Premier Peter Beattie in 2007: _Given the current uncertainty about the likely impact of climate  change on rainfall patterns in (South Eastern Queensland) over coming  years, it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower than usual rainfalls could eventuate._ Example five: warmist scientist David Karoly: _This drought has had a more severe impact than any other drought since at least 1950.... This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed._Example six: Climate Change Minister Penny Wong in September 2008: _There is a great deal of scientific advice about the impact of climate change on rainfall, particularly in southern Australia._  _I’ll just give you a few examples. We know the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said by 2050 that Australia should expect around about a 25 per cent reduction in rainfall in the southern part of the Australia._  _We also know that in the two years before our election, what we saw  were the lowest inflows into the River Murray in history, 43 per cent  lower than the previous lows… So there is a very, very sound body of  evidence that indicates that climate change is and will have an impact  on rainfall in the Murray-Darling Basin and in southern Australia._As it turns out, almost every big dam in Queensland is now full to  overflowing. The drought is gone. Floods have drowned parts of the state  for weeks. So how can the warmists still claim to have been vindicated  in their predictions and in their theory? 
  By “events”, dear boy.    [END - PART 1]

----------


## chrisp

*[PART 2]* 
Yes, say the warmists, we did say global warming will dry up the rains,   but it will also cause more extreme weather events that will give us   floods in between the longer dries:_Professor Karoly  stressed individual events could not  be attributed to climate change.  However, he said the wild extremes  being experienced on the continent  were in keeping with scientists forecasts of more flooding associated with increased heavy rain events and more droughts as a result of high temperatures and more evaporation._The question then is, are these floods in Queensland caused by a mere extreme weather event - most usually described in warmist literature as a storm, heatwave, sudden flood or hurricane.   Yes, that definition is also often mischievously stretched to include   longer-term droughts, but Isnt an event in fact something that is  out  of the ordinary, temporary, short term?   [chrisp comment] With reference to the "Climate Change  in Australia -Technical Report 2007".  See  http://www.climatechangeinaustralia....R_Web_Ch5i.pdf     There is a distinction between "*total precipitation*" which is the total rainfall over the year (referred to as "TR") and "_precipitation intensity_" which is  the intensity of the individual rainfalls rain-per-rain-day (referred to as "AI").  
The predictions for "*total precipitation*" are:*"5.2.1 Median precipitation change by 2030*
Best estimates of annual precipitation change represent little change in  the far north and decreases of 2% to 5% elsewhere. Decreases of around  5% prevail in winter and spring, particularly in the south-west where  they reach 10%. In summer and autumn decreases are smaller and there are  slight increases in the east."For "_precipitation intensity_", the predictions are:"Changes  in precipitation intensity and dry days are shown in Figures 5.25 and  5.26, respectively. Both of these indices show strong increases in  Australia over the 21st century, suggesting that the future  precipitation regime will have longer dry spells interrupted by heavier  precipitation events. Much larger increases are found over Australia  than globally, more than 50% larger for both indices."  The problem for the warmists is that these floods are  severe because the  rains have fallen for so very long, saturating the  soil and filling the  dams, meaning that the rain from any fresh  cloudburst  just feeds  straight into the flood waters. The amazing  downpour that triggered the  deadly Toowoomba floods may well be  described as an event, but is that  really the way to describe the  heavy, almost ceaseless rains that have  fallen on the rest of  Queensland for many weeks, inundating so much of  it? 
  Indeed,  the heavy rains that ended the drought in eastern Australia arent just a fleeting  event but a phenomenon of many months - and nor are they unprecedented:     
  (Incidentally, does that  rainfall record above indicate reveal any   recent trend that seems to you evidence of climate change?) 
  When warmists start describing these rains which they didnt predict  as  the extreme events  which they actually did, we see how a trick of   language or definitions makes their theory unfalsifiable. Extreme   events becomes the label thats stuck on anything that doesnt fit with   what was predicted, to make it the exception that _was_ predicted. And so no matter what happens, the warmist is always right.   [chrisp comment]  
It would seem to me that Bolt is confusing "*total precipitation*" with "*precipitation intensity*".   He is producing "total precipitation" data to refute "precipitation  intensity" events.  It is the precipitation intensity modelling that  predicts to number of dry-days increasing (not quoted here - see the  report) as well as the number of heavy-rain days increasing.  In a  nutshell, the modelling shows a small change to the total average annual  rainfall, but it shows that that rainfall will happen less often but  with greater intensity.  This is consistent with the prediction of  spells of drought followed by flooding. 
Recent events seem to bear this out, however, I wouldn't go so far as to say they are 'proof' of AGW, but rather, they are consistent with the predictions.

----------


## watson

> [psst, does anyone actually read these long posts?]

  
I do.

----------


## chrisp

> I do.

  Gee, that little Easter Egg didn't last long. 
Oh well, it is good to hear someone reads these posts (but surely you couldn't possibly read all of Dr Freud's posts, could you, without yawning, no way, surely that'd be impossible?)   :Smilie:

----------


## watson

I read 'em.......but decorum prevents me from commenting.   :Rotfl:

----------


## Marc

> Who knows why?    Apparently, I need some edification.

  You do my friend, you do and so do I.
The only think to worry about is who do you choose to do the edifying. 
Apparently there are 4 types of personality  
The one that wants always to be right.
The one that wants always to be comfortable.
The one that wants always to be liked.
And the one that wants to win. 
Success belongs to the last one and failure to the other 3   :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I seriously think that the warming we have had since the LIA is not dangerous. Not un-precedented and not something we should be worried about.  I seriously think that there is a group pannic about warming now as there was cooling in the 70's.  I seriously think that green groups have exploited this pannic to further other causes.  I seriously think that grovernments around the world have been wedged on the issue and are caught between a rock and a hard place.  I seriously think the observed increases have been oversated by gatekeepers that have also wedged themselves on this issue. 
> I seriously think that percieved problems expected to be caused by GW were overblown and just plain wrong, eg. no more rain in Australia, no more snow in th UK, no more ice in the Artic.   
> I seriously think that the effect CO2 has on climate hs been severely overstated. 
> I seriously think that blaming CO2 simply because you cant find anything else to blame is a crock of @@@@ and a ridiculous argument. 
> I seriouly think that generations to come are going to look back at theis era and laugh like hell at how group stupid could happen like this. 
> I seriously think our weather pattens (read climate) have reverted back to a cooling phase and this will kill your arguments. 
> I seriouly think that those who can't see the facts for what they are have a mind set that cannot be altered because they have to admit they were part of "group stupid" 
> I seriously think that it wll still take a long time for AGW to be dead and burried because there are so many with so much at stake they HAVE to keep the charade going.  That is money, reputations and the like. 
> I seriously think the alterations to our climate are a combination of all sorts of factors, bit like the "perfect storm" not one cause but a multitude of factors all comming together to give us what we have got. 
> ...

  I seriously think you are spot on!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Overall, I thought it was *a good alternative theory* to AGW (it has to be one of the best so far), but *it didn't stand up to the rigours of scientific scrutiny*.

  For all your posturing of scientific superiority and posting of definitions, you just don't get this stuff do you?  When I say the Sun is heating the Planet Earth, this is not a theory, it is a scientific fact.  There is no "Sun Theory".  There is also no requirement that there even be an alternative theoretical position for the theoretical position you hold to be a joke.  It can be a joke all on it's own. 
And by saying "it didn't stand up", I guess it was given the test and failed.  The science is now settled again by the peer-review process?  There will be no more research into this area of climate either, because it is now peer-reviewed out of the "trusted journals" controlled by the "authority figures"?  But no, luckily there are plenty of articles being published and scientists dissenting from the "party line". 
You have posted some conflicting opinions yourself!  :Shock:   It is almost unthinkable, but fantastic to see that you are finally acknowledging different positions to the myriad of sub-research areas in weather in climate science.  I'll dig up some more pro-Sun contributions and you can dig up some more anti-Sun contributions (and anti-CO2 if you get on a roll  :2thumbsup: ).   
Given the funding imbalance between these two topics and the "rigid" peer-review process, I doubt we'll come up even, but luckily you are so scientifically adept that you know science is not validated by counting the number of articles or opinions published, but is validated by empirical evidence. 
I'll try to post these on the weekend as I'm still looking for that really hilarious data "adjusting" story I read some time back.  I used to bookmark them, but got sick of deleting old ones, then the list got ridiculous.  BIG OIL where are you, I need funding for an admin assistant (or just pay me a full time wage  :Biggrin: ).   

> Please don't be deterred, I'm pleased to see some substantial scientific argument posted rather than political comments or shock-jock quotes.

  I'm far from deterred from representing reality as being superior to your failed computer models.  And posting some dodgy graphs showing Sun/temp trends overlayed are only as substantial as previous CO2/temp trends overlayed.  To spell it out, trends are indicative that a relationship *may* exist.  They are certainly *not proof* of anything, and certainly don't create a "theory" just because some data can be depicted showing a trend.  And don't worry, I've been off my game, but there will be plenty of political comments and shock-jock quotes to come.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Not really.  I don't see the 'cause and effect' reasoning I'm looking for.  i.e. - WHY is the temperature rising?

  Mate, I don't know how many times this has been said, but obviously it still needs saying: 
You and your ilk believe that AGW Theory is real, but it has been shown to be farcial and has failed every empirical test put to it. 
You are now scrambling around trying to confect some bizarre scenario whereby Rod or myself have developed some scientific theory that you can thereby rebut, in some sort of attempt to discredit us, which by some bizarre failed logic you think then makes the failed theory you support look better? 
This is seriously pathologically convoluted.  :Confused:  
Here's reality in a nutshell. 
You support the theory.  You show proof of the theory (or not to date). 
If you have no proof, nothing is happening. 
Case closed! 
Now Rod, myself, recently Marc, and many others along the way in this thread have relished posting over and over again the fact that there is *zero evidence proving this farcical theory*. 
Your semantic distractions do not hide this, but actually highlight the desperation in this failing movement.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> This is good timing, explains things pretty well I think. 
> Must read the full article. Here.http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...tific-low.html

  Mate, a fantastic link. 
It's called Trenberth and his cronies admitting defeat:   

> Given that global warming is unequivocal [1], to quote the 2007 IPCC report [2], the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence [3].

  They have given up.  After all the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on this farce and thousands of studies conducted, they cannot find one piece of evidence, not a single piece of empirical evidence proving their theory. Let this sink in...*not one!* 
So is it time to admit they were wrong?  No, first they said all the data was wrong, so they adjusted that.  Then they said the observations were wrong, so they adjusted that.  and still...nothing! Not a single piece of empirical evidence...*not one!* 
So is it time to admit they were wrong? No, *now they want to change the actual scientific method itself!!!* 
First they re-defined what the peer-review process was, now they want to re-define what reality is.  They are nuts!  
Trenberth is off the reservation, hopefully he'll get the Flim Flam treatment soon.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> [chrisp comment]  
> It would seem to me that Bolt is confusing "*total precipitation*" with "*precipitation intensity*".

  It would seem to me that you are confusing reality with delusions. 
Here was the claim:   

> *So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush.*

  Here's your reply:   

> *The dam and stream-flow figures seem consistent with the claims.*

  When you live your life in fudged data trends, that ridiculous response is what happens.  If you were plugged into the fossil fuel energy grid and being a hypocrite, you'd be able to conduct an "observational data study" on your big screen TV along with the rest of us, and you'd know *in reality* whether the rains are filing our dams and river systems. 
I'm not to going to tell whether they are or not, you will have to read a recycled newspaper to find out.  :Biggrin:    

> [chrisp comment]  
> Recent events seem to bear this out, however, I wouldn't go so far as to say they are 'proof' of AGW, but rather, they are consistent with the predictions.

  You wouldn't go this far because then you would be a big fat liar! 
But please continue with the vague, ambiguous insinuations, cos then I have more fodder to take the p-ss out of, like this: 
I was told that Santa Claus was real, and if I was good, he would leave presents under the tree at Christmas.   
Recent events seem to bear this out, however, I wouldn't go so far as to say they are 'proof' of SANTA, but rather, they are consistent with the predictions.  :Biggrin:   
I wouldn't go this far because then I would be a big fat liar!

----------


## Dr Freud

> I do.

   :Respect:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Oh well, it is good to hear someone reads these posts (but surely you couldn't possibly read all of Dr Freud's posts, could you, without yawning, no way, surely that'd be impossible?)

   

> Son, we live in a world that has rules, and those rules have to be        guarded by men with science. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Woodbe? I have a greater responsibility than you can _possibly_        fathom. You weep for AGW Theory, and you curse the Sceptics. You have that        luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that AGW Theory's        death, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while        grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.  You don't want  					the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about  					at parties, you want me on those rules -- you _need_ me on those rules.  We use words like "science," "proof,"        "evidence." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending        something. You use them as a punch line.   I have neither the time nor the        inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the        blanket of the very lifestyle that fossil fuels provide and then questions the manner        in which they provide it.   I would rather that you just said "thank you" and        went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up some proof and stand the        post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what tax scheme you think you're        entitled to!

  Thanks for the support Colonel.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I read 'em.......but decorum prevents me from commenting.

  Probably a good move, more prodding will likely just produce more output, just like a pustule.   :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It would seem to me that you are confusing reality with delusions. 
> Here was the claim:   
> Here's your reply:   
> When you live your life in fudged data trends, that ridiculous response is what happens. If you were plugged into the fossil fuel energy grid and being a hypocrite, you'd be able to conduct an "observational data study" on your big screen TV along with the rest of us, and you'd know *in reality* whether the rains are filing our dams and river systems. 
> I'm not to going to tell whether they are or not, you will have to read a recycled newspaper to find out.    
> You wouldn't go this far because then you would be a big fat liar! 
> But please continue with the vague, ambiguous insinuations, cos then I have more fodder to take the p-ss out of, like this: 
> I was told that Santa Claus was real, and if I was good, he would leave presents under the tree at Christmas.   Recent events seem to bear this out, however, I wouldn't go so far as to say they are 'proof' of SANTA, but rather, they are consistent with the predictions.   
> I wouldn't go this far because then I would be a big fat liar!

  Thanks Doc.

----------


## mark53

:Iagree:  and what the................Australian Youth Climate Coalition. Is the great hoax of AGW morphing from an unregistered religious group to a recruitment cell for a political party? Tell me it isn't so.

----------


## chrisp

> Son, we live in a world that has rules, and  those rules have to be        guarded by men with science. Who's gonna  do it? You? You, Woodbe? I have a greater responsibility than you can _possibly_         fathom. You weep for AGW Theory, and you curse the Sceptics. You  have that        luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know  -- that AGW Theory's        death, while tragic, probably saved lives;  and my existence, while        grotesque and incomprehensible to you,  saves lives.  You don't want                       the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about                      at  parties, you want me on those rules -- you _need_ me on those rules.  We  use words like "science," "proof,"        "evidence." We use these  words as the backbone of a life spent defending        something. You  use them as a punch line.   I  have neither the time nor the        inclination to explain myself to a  man who rises and sleeps under the        blanket of the very lifestyle  that fossil fuels provide and then questions the manner        in which  they provide it.   I would  rather that you just said "thank you" and        went on your way.  Otherwise, I suggest you pick up some proof and stand the        post.  Either way, I don't give a DAMN what tax scheme you think you're         entitled to!    Thanks for the support Colonel.

  *I like your parody - it is quite fitting too...*   

> *A Few Good Men
> written by Aaron Sorkin**Jessep:* You want answers? *Kaffee (Tom Cruise):* I think I'm entitled to them. *Jessep:* You want answers? *Kaffee:* I want the truth! *Jessep:* You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
> We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to! *Kaffee:* Did you order the code red? *Jessep: (quietly)* I did the job you sent me to do. *Kaffee:* Did you order the code red? *Jessep:* You're goddamn right I did!!
> (from: A Few Good Men

  *We all know how it worked out in the end.*    :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> You do my friend, you do and so do I.
> The only think to worry about is who do you choose to do the edifying.

  How about all of us get together and ... *Edify, drinkify, and be merrified!* :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *I like your parody - it is quite fitting too...*  *We all know how it worked out in the end.*

  I'm still hanging out for the sequel.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Sunday December 26, 2010 
> As central and southern Queensland brace for major flooding, authorities are considering legal action against people who blatantly ignore public warnings about driving, swimming and playing in floodwaters.   Weather News - Qld mulls legal action for ignoring flood warnings    People that think humans can control this planet and ignore nature are idiots, especially if given all the advice they need and refuse to act on it: 
> There have certainly been a few real tragedies in this recent natural event.  However, most of it was inevitable and predictable, and most of the "alleged" human tragedies were humans doing what humans do best, being idiots and thinking that we control everything on the planet. 
> Darwin would call this natural selection, but apparently it is politically incorrect to apply this theory to humans, unlike AGW Theory!

  Speaking of idiots:   

> The former prime minister was admitted to the Mater Private Hospital about 9:30pm (AEST).  
>  His spokesman says a small cut Mr Rudd picked up while "out and about" in Brisbane this week later became inflamed and needed medical attention. 
>  Mr Rudd was filmed on Wednesday wading through floodwaters as he helped evacuate inundated homes.  
>  He was treated at the hospital and discharged after about two-and-a-half hours.
>  Queensland Health chief Jeannette Young has warned residents to stay out of floodwaters because of the risk of contamination.   Rudd treated for infection from floodwater - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  So, just for a media stunt, he now places an even bigger burden on the health system when it least needs it.  :Doh:  
What a winner!

----------


## Dr Freud

Seeing as RUDD is disobeying health warnings and directives, maybe we should *put the coppers onto him* and see what happens.   

> Kevin Rudd helps out:    _GEARIN: The cameras captured you today meeting a man who didnt want to leave his house, and he was a veteran of the 1974 floods. Did you come across that a lot, and are you concerned for those people? _   _Rudd: Yeah, they kind of make you want to pull your hair out sometimes [laughs]. Theyve got water levels rising and youre having a Socratic dialogue with somebody about why they should be moving out. I mean, strewth. Anyway, I put the coppers on to him, so well see what happens._He has ways to make you helped | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Actions of a self-confessed Socialist. 
Me being a democratic pragmatist says do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else or expect them to pick up the tab for your choices.  Just don't whine about your own choices.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

> It would seem to me that you are confusing reality with delusions

  A couple of definitions:*Reality*: The state of being actual or real; The state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be.  *Delusion*: (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary, A mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea, The act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideasYour hypocrisy is astounding.  
I'll eagerly await your next reading from* St Andrew's Letter to the Contrarians.*  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *
> Reality*: The state of being actual or real; The state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be.

  You mean like this:  MORE than 3000 Victorians have been evacuated from their homes as flood waters continue to rise across the state.  State Emergency Services spokesman Lachlan Quick said the situation was deteriorating quickly with townships in almost a third of the state affected by floods or under threat.  Rising flood waters are also expected to impact Rupanyup, Broadwater, Skipton, Durham, Kerang and Rochester with residents told they may be forced to move to higher ground.  Major flood warnings are in place for the Avoca, Campaspe, Loddon and Wimmera Rivers.  Emergency warnings have been issued for Serpentine, Charleton, Durham, Bridgewater, Newbridge and properties on the Loddon river downstream from Malmsbury to Lauriston.   More than 1000 people are isolated in northern NSW as heavy rains wreak more havoc across the flood-stricken region.  As heavy rain persisted in the northeast of the state, minor flood warnings were issued for Wilsons River at Lismore, Richmond River at Kyogle and Coraki, the Bellinger River at Thora, and the Clarence River at Grafton and Ulmarra.  Rain and thunderstorms which may lead to flash flooding, are forecast for the Northern Rivers and Northern Tablelands districts, the bureau says.  West of Lismore, about 30 people on rural properties at Tabulam became isolated due to heavy rain and flooding on Monday along the Clarence River, Mr Campbell said.  In the state's far west, near the border with Queensland, floodwaters are expected to cut off the community of Goodooga on Tuesday or Wednesday.   The town of Carnarvon is on track to break its annual rainfall average in less than two days.  It has already broken records for the wettest day and the wettest month.  People living between Exmouth and Kalbarri are being told to prepare for heavy rainfall, coastal streams rising and flash flooding.   Parts of Northern Tasmania are experiencing flooding as the rain continues.  Marine and Safety Tasmania is warning recreational boaters about the dangers of floating debris because of the heavy rain, particularly in the north and east.  Peter Hopkins, Manager Recreational Boating at MAST, says MAST is receiving reports of a build up of debris in rivers, estuaries and coastal inshore areas.    

> *Delusion*: (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary, A mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea, The act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas

  You mean like this:   

> Tim Flannery claims: So even the rain that falls isnt actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and thats a real worry for the people in the bush.   _[chrisp comment]_  
> The dam and stream-flow figures seem consistent with the claims.

  Yeh, I think it's much clearer now, thanks for the definitions.  :2thumbsup:    

> Your hypocrisy is astounding.

  Really?   

> I'll eagerly await your next reading from* St Andrew's Letter to the Contrarians.*

  I'll see what I can dig up.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> You mean like this:

  No, you used the wrong quote.  I mean like this:   

> There is a distinction between "*total precipitation*" which is the total rainfall over the year (referred to as "TR") and "_precipitation intensity_" which is  the intensity of the individual rainfalls rain-per-rain-day (referred to as "AI").  
> The predictions for "*total precipitation*" are:*"5.2.1 Median precipitation change by 2030*
> Best estimates of annual precipitation change represent little change in  the far north and decreases of 2% to 5% elsewhere. Decreases of around  5% prevail in winter and spring, particularly in the south-west where  they reach 10%. In summer and autumn decreases are smaller and there are  slight increases in the east."For "_precipitation intensity_", the predictions are:"Changes  in precipitation intensity and dry days are shown in Figures 5.25 and  5.26, respectively. Both of these indices show strong increases in  Australia over the 21st century, suggesting that the future  precipitation regime will have longer dry spells interrupted by heavier  precipitation events. Much larger increases are found over Australia  than globally, more than 50% larger for both indices."

  Are you struggling with the difference between "total precipitation" and "precipitation intensity"? 
BTW, your quoted news stories actually support the AGW theory - if you understand the difference between the two terms above.  (oh, BTW, don't bother asking St Andrew about those terms either, he confuses them as well.)

----------


## Dr Freud

The holy church of AGW Theory, through a high priest Kevin Trenberth, has decreed they cannot find any evidence proving AGW Theory, so they want to alter the scientific method itself.  No proof at all, no evidence at all.  Still, as I keep saying it's a theory nonetheless. 
But is it a fact? 
Well, that is what the kids are being taught:   

> Recent, man-made climate change will be seen in the context of changes in climate that have occurred throughout the Earths history and by looking closely at our planets place in the Solar System.  Scienceworks: Our Living Climate

  So, no uncertainty, no teaching it as a theory, it is a fact - *"Recent, man-made climate change will be seen..."* 
For just $4.40 you can get your kids head filled with sh-t.  :Mad:  
And they have the nerve to call this "science" works.  They know adults aren't falling for this crud more, so brainwashing kids is all they've got left. 
What a bunch of w-nkers!  :Annoyed:

----------


## chrisp

> So, no uncertainty, no teaching it as a theory, it is a fact

  ... just like that theory of gravity. 
No one has proved the theory of gravity - but then again, absolutely no one has been able to *disprove* it either.  It only takes one apple to fall up and the theory of gravity is shot. 
Therefore, you only need one solid piece of evidence to disprove... (you know the rest)

----------


## chrisp

> Well, that is what the kids are being taught:   
> So, no uncertainty, no teaching it as a theory, it is a fact - *"Recent, man-made climate change will be seen..."* 
> For just $4.40 you can get your kids head filled with sh-t.  
> And they have the nerve to call this "science" works.  They know adults aren't falling for this crud more, so brainwashing kids is all they've got left. 
> What a bunch of w-nkers!

  On a different aspect of the above post, it is great that such matters are being taught.  We (our society as a whole) needs much more education in science.   
This thread is living proof of that.  It seems to me very few 'doubters' ever bother to even try to understand the science.  I'm not too sure of the reasons, but professional organisations are looking in to it Psychology and Global Climate Change: Addressing a Multi-faceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges ). 
There is also a saying about old ideas requiring a change of generation before they are truly accepted.  i.e. the die-hards need to die out (is there a pun in there?). 
Anyway, *bring on science education - and critical thinking too* (well, I'd settle for more 'thinking').  We need much more of both.

----------


## Dr Freud

> No, you used the wrong quote.

  Oops, my bad!  I was obviously confused.  I thought a prediction of less rain and empty rivers meant, um, er, um, well, empty rivers? 
So are you saying that AGW Theory has been predicting increasing river flows all this time, but you guys were just kidding about the AGW Theory predicting ongoing drought?  Why didn't you guys just say so, we could have built heaps of dams. 
You see, to us non-believers, it seems like you AGW Theory believers see proof of "climate change" in everything.  I guess AGW Theory does work in "mysterious ways". 
Let's check: 
Droughts: proof of AGW Theory
Floods: proof of AGW Theory
No rain: proof of AGW Theory
High rain: proof of AGW Theory
Heat: proof of AGW Theory
Cold: proof of AGW Theory
Hail: proof of AGW Theory
Snow: proof of AGW Theory
No ice: proof of AGW Theory
More ice: proof of AGW Theory. 
So I guess, if every weather and climate metric sits exactly on the average, and the Planet never changes for at least 30 years, then you guys may consider that AGW Theory is a farce? 
Oh, I just remembered, AGW Theory requires the data to be continually "adjusted", so it never can be the same. 
I think Rod is right, it seems it cannot be disproved after all.  It certainly won't be able to after they "adjust" the scientific method.    

> Are you struggling with the difference between "total precipitation" and "precipitation intensity"?

  Not at all.  Are you struggling to find anything credible to support this farce you call a theory? 
You see, these are just some of the previous issues you and your ilk have tried to use as proof of AGW Theory and failed: 
Global Temperature: Travesty there is a lack of warming apparently.
Ocean Temp: Now cooling.
Polar Ice: Now growing.
Glaciers melting: Not so fast now, and some growing.
Hot spot: Nowhere to be seen.
Droughts: Washed away.
No snow: Skiing more than ever. 
Now, after all these failures, you are left clutching at some fable that because the rain is now falling more often on some days, but less on others, this is somehow "consistent" (but not even proof) that cows farting are bringing about the end of the world?  :Doh:  
Here's a definition for you:  *grasp at straws* To seek substance in the flimsy or meaning in the insignificant; to find ground for hope where none exists. In common use since the 18th century, the expression derives from the even older self-explanatory proverb: A drowning man will catch at a straw.   

> BTW, your quoted news stories actually support the AGW theory

  Yes, my friend, apparently everything does.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> ... just like that theory of gravity. 
> No one has proved the theory of gravity - but then again, absolutely no one has been able to *disprove* it either.  It only takes one apple to fall up and the theory of gravity is shot. 
> Therefore, you only need one solid piece of evidence to disprove... (you know the rest)

  We have covered this before my friend.  There is not one theory of gravity, there are several.  I was taught this in school.  I was not taught that any theory was assumed to be a fact and should be acted on until disproven.  This bastardisation of science should not be taught to kids, regardless of your opinion on AGW theory.   

> Quote:    
> 			
> 				Originally Posted by *chrisp*   _Evidence:   Your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief  "the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling"An indication that makes something evident "his trembling was evidence of his fear"(law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved
> (Definition from WordWeb) 
> The evidence is the physically observed observation (i.e. the measurements of temperature, sea level rise, etc.).  The explanation of the observed climate changes is based on well know physical principles in a complex system - hence the numeric modelling._     With all due respect to your linguistic diligence, evidence in the scientific sense (which yes, I just assumed it would be taken as) is very different from other usages such as legal evidence or lay evidence. 
> The measurements you cite are certainly evidence of the effects as I have described above, but these measurements say nothing of the causes. Causation in the scientific sense has been explained ad nauseum to no avail, so I will not do so again. 
> Also previously explained ad nauseum is the fact that modelling is not evidence of anything, let alone this farce. 
> This may help in the evidence explanation:  Understanding Scientific Evidence  
>    Quote:    
> ...

  Gravity is the effect, temperature is the effect, there are theories about the causes. 
If AGW Theory supporters don't get this stuff already, what hope do these poor kids have? 
You want to teach them that theories are reality.  :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> We have covered this before my friend. There is not one theory of gravity, there are several. I was taught this in school. I was not taught that any theory was assumed to be a fact and should be acted on until disproven. This bastardisation of science should not be taught to kids, regardless of your opinion on AGW theory.   
> Gravity is the effect, temperature is the effect, there are theories about the causes. 
> If AGW Theory supporters don't get this stuff already, what hope do these poor kids have? 
> You want to teach them that theories are reality.

  Nice work Doc. 
But I am afraid Chrisp will be one on the last to "get it"  It is mind blowing how delusional some warmist are.   I just can't fathom on any level how they can't see how false and corrupt their thinking is.  It really has got me at a total loss. Seriously!!

----------


## Dr Freud

> On a different aspect of the above post, it is great that such matters are being taught.

  You think it is great that kids are taught to regard all theories as reality?  :Doh:  
FFSM, that is probably the most ridiculous comment in this thread, and we all know how low the bar has been set.    

> We (our society as a whole) needs much more education in science.

  After your last comment, we have ample proof of that.  But I fully support this, albeit not the Socialist version attempted:   

> Will we achieve this:  UNIVERSITY leaders are pressing for a public campaign to restore the intellectual and moral authority of Australian science in the wake of the climate wars.  Via this:  SCHOOL students will learn about Aboriginal Dreamtime stories, Chinese medicine and natural therapies but not meet the periodic table of elements until Year 10 under the new national science curriculum.   Maybe Rudd could teach kids what a causal relationship is rather than having political correctness supersede hard science?

   

> There is also a saying about old ideas requiring a change of generation before they are truly accepted. i.e. the die-hards need to die out (is there a pun in there?).

  I have a saying - Theories are not reality.  :Biggrin:    

> Anyway, *bring on science education - and critical thinking too* (well, I'd settle for more 'thinking').  We need much more of both.

  Consensus reached at last?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Nice work Doc. 
> But I am afraid Chrisp will be one on the last to "get it"  It is mind blowing how delusional some warmist are.   I just can't fathom on any level how they can't see how false and corrupt their thinking is.  It really has got me at a total loss. Seriously!!

  
Mate, if someone had just told me some of the stuff that's gone on here, I wouldn't believe them. 
Having a scientist actually propose reversing NHST just blows my mind.   
Having someone trying to claim a "volume of rain per day calculation" is consistent with some predictions...while ignoring all failures regarding empirical measures, even after "adjustments"...Wow. 
It bemuses me more and more every day.  The only comparison I have are cults, but they usually rely on physically isolating their members.  This movement has surpassed that and has managed to ideologically isolate their members.   :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

From Saint Andrew to you:   

> Associate Professor Stewart Franks of Newcastle University writes to the ABC to protest its repeated use of an alarmist who may say what it wants to hear, but is not actually an expert:   _Dear Mr Uhlmann_  _I would like to protest the repeated interviews with Prof David Karoly with regard to the Queensland floods._  _Since 2003, I have published a number of papers in the top-ranked international peer-reviewed literature regarding the role of La Nina in dictating Eastern Australian floods.   
> There has been no evidence of CO2 in affecting these entirely natural processes, irrespective of their devastating nature._  _Why is it then, that someone without any publication nor insight in this key area of concern for Australia is repeatedly called upon to offer his personal speculation on this topic?_  _This is not a new problem with Prof. Karoly._  _In 2003, he published, under the auspices of the WWF, a report that claimed that elevated air tempertatures, due to CO2, exacerbated the MDB drought. To quote_  _...the higher temperatures caused a marked increase in evaporation rates, which sped up the loss of soil moisture and the drying of vegetation and watercourses. This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed..._  _The problem with this is that Prof Karoly had confused cause and effect._  _During a drought, moisture is limited. The sun shines on the land surface, and as moisture is limited, evaporation is constrained, and consequently the bulk of the suns energy goes into surface heating which itself leads to higher air temperatures.  This effect can be as much as 8-10 degrees celsius._  _This is a common confusion made by those who have not studied the interaction of the land surface hydrology and atmosphere, as Prof. Karoly has not._  _Undoubtably Prof Karoly has expertise but not in the area of hydrology or indeed in many other areas on which the ABC repeatedly calls on him for expert comment._  _Could I please ask that you cast your net a little wider in seeking expertise?  These issues are too important for the media commont to be the sole domain of commited environmental advocates.  Surely objective journalism also requires objective science?_  _Sincere best wishes,_  _A/Prof Stewart W. Franks 
> Dean of Students_ _And to Karoly himself, this email: _  _David_  _Your comments on the role of CO2 in the Qld floods are speculative at best, immensely damaging at worst._  _When will you accept that CO2 is not the answer to everything?  When will you decline an interview for the lack of your insight?_  _Have you not learnt from your physically incorrect speculation about temperature and evaporation during the MDB drought? Do you have no shame to have confused cause and effect in such a brazen and public manner?_  _Is it enough for you that your pronouncements sound correct, irrespective of science?  Have you learnt nothing? 
> Shame on you_  _Stewart__Franks was interviewed by the ABC, as was Karoly, on the alleged affect of man-made warming on the floods.  The alarmists opinion was broadcast, and the experts was not._

  Full sordid story here:  Karolys global warming - wetter, drier, worse, better, whatever | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

> See below, a combination of what I posted in August 2010, the weather forecast in December 2010, and the predictable behaviour of pampered westerners should have given you an idea of exactly what was about to happen. 
> People that think humans can control this planet and ignore nature are idiots, especially if given all the advice they need and refuse to act on it: 
> There have certainly been a few real tragedies in this recent natural event.  However, most of it was inevitable and predictable, and most of the "alleged" human tragedies were humans doing what humans do best, being idiots and thinking that we control everything on the planet. 
> Darwin would call this natural selection, but apparently it is politically incorrect to apply this theory to humans, unlike AGW Theory!

  From someone who was there:   

> *WHAT happened to this city of mine?  *                                Never mind the inland tsunami, the bloody, muddy water or the smashed up shops, the pretty plastic cars piled up like a B-grade movie set or the dreadful grainy-graphic images of cars crashing down on trees and trees crashing down on men. 
> As soon as the water had cleared, the sun disappeared and a bleak heavy fog settled on the city for the night. And, for a moment, we found ourselves wandering through a shocked and silent landscape that seemed straight from another man's war.
> How did this happen in a wealthy city, famous for its gardens, sitting sweetly on the edge of the Great Dividing Range, a place so safe and so far from floods? 
> There are no soupy coastal flood plains around here, no ruthless moods of the tides, no bitter curses of outback isolation. Toowoomba has 90,000 people, a strong economy, neat city pavements, fashionable shopfronts and even pink seduction roses in the streets.  
> I am forced to ask these questions, the same as every other person has asked who has contacted me since the phones started to ring at daylight yesterday morning. Because what happened in Toowoomba on an ordinary Monday afternoon in January simply doesn't make sense. 
> I came to live in Toowoomba 10 years ago, married a local vet and took up life running a thoroughbred farm 14km west of the city. Before that, however, I had been a senior journalist for this newspaper and covered various disasters and big events across Australia for many years. 
> More significantly, perhaps, I came from a cattle station near Julia Creek in far northwest Queensland and grew up on the broad, muscular shoulders of the Flinders River, the southernmost of all the great Gulf country rivers. So I knew a bit about floods.
> We had been evacuated by the RAAF in 1974 after it rained for 40 days and 40 nights; we lost half of our cattle and sheep, and then came home to start all over again. My family had been in the north since the earliest days of the last century: we grew up close to the land, understood its rhythms and knew what it took to survive. 
> Tragically, it seems some of the most basic rules of survival - and certainly the most elementary rule of town planning - were forgotten in the case of Toowoomba, a city that is dissected by East Creek and West Creek, two deceptively innocent looking little creeks that seem to run as much water as a decent suburban gutter for most of the year. 
> ...

----------


## Dr Freud

> *THIS is the worst misuse of a word in recorded history or at least since the last time it happened.                                 *  * 
> Unprecedented? ABC News on Tuesday:*
> AUTHORITIES are urging people to stay calm as Brisbane and Ipswich prepare for unprecedented flooding over the next two days.  *Never mind the records! David Marr in The Sydney Morning Herald yesterday:*
> THE rain stopped but the water kept coming all day. In the face of this catastrophe, old records don't mean much any more.  *Unprecedented and unrecorded. Deborah's Diary on www.savethekoala.com:*
> I IMAGINE many of you are reading about the floods in Queensland. Mother Nature is obviously replenishing the tanks after many, many years of drought. That said, it is unprecedented and you have to think, is this normal (it has never been recorded before), or is this exactly what climate change predictions have said will occur in this amazing country of ours? I think this is the case but, like all of us, I have no idea where to start to try and change things.   *The precedents. The record. Bureau of Meteorology, known floods in the Brisbane & Bremer River Basin:*
> 14/1/1841 HIGHEST flood in Brisbane's recorded history. In 1896, JB Henderson, the government hydraulics engineer in an address to parliament, reported that he found by examination of earlier plans that the 1841 flood was [7cm] higher than the flood of 5th February 1893. 
> 4/2/1893 Disastrous floods in the Brisbane River; 8 feet of water in Edward Street at the Courier building. Numbers of houses at Ipswich and Brisbane washed down the rivers. Seven men drowned through the flooding of the Eclipse Colliery at North Ipswich. Telegraphic and railway communication in the north and west interrupted.  *Michael Collett, a producer for ABC News Online, on ABC Online's The Drum, on Wednesday:*
> AT first I was dumbfounded, amused even. Those from Toowoomba would have understood the joke. We're on a bloody mountain. We don't do floods. Puddles, occasionally. Well, we do floods now. The concept of flooding in Toowoomba is a joke no longer. Toowoomba does a flood.  _The Brisbane Courier_* for June 24,1873, on "The Floods in Toowoomba":*
> THE heaviest rainfall ever recorded in this district occurred on Wednesday morning last from 11 o'clock on Tuesday night until about 2 o'clock on Wednesday morning. Sharp heavy showers were of frequent occurrence, but from that hour until 5am the rain descended literally in torrents, flooding the streets in a manner that was never before witnessed by the oldest inhabitant. Ruthven St, from the corner of Margaret St to the post office, was covered with water, while Russell St presented the appearance of a large swift running river. The stream at this point was about 80 yards wide, the waters running over the middle rail of the bridge and flooding Mr Stirling's smithy and the butcher's shop.  *And another. The Advertiser, February 20, 1893:*
> FEBRUARY 18. It has rained incessantly in torrents here from Thursday afternoon until 6 o'clock last night, when the flood waters reached the highest level ever known at Toowoomba. Not only in Russell St was the flood higher than ever known before, but on East Swamp the waters [were] unprecedented in their height.   Unprecedented use of the word unprecedented for floods that do have precedents | The Australian

  That kind of scepticism is unprecedented, except for all the other times.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Where is our Prime Minister in all of this national crisis?   

> In news conferences and interviews she has looked and sounded robotic and rehearsed. Whether she is coached or coaches herself to punch out key words and phrases only Gillard and her staff can say, but all too often this week it looked that way. 
> It is self-administered poison for Gillard to continue to give that impression, because she is the one who, during last year's election campaign, constructed the framework of ''real Julia'' and ''fake Julia'' while trying to reignite Labor's faltering election effort. 
> Gillard was asked if she should set aside the commitment to return to surplus by the next election. Her answer is worth recording here: ''Well, we are committed to long-term funding for the rebuilding of Queensland and in the days ahead, as floodwaters ultimately subside, the rebuilding task will become clearer. And what we need to do and finance to enable Queensland to overcome the damage of these floodwaters will become clearer. We will do that, and bring the budget to surplus in 2012-13, and yes that will entail some tough choices.''  
>              Tough choices? That's putting it mildly. What this means is that if the recovery cost to the Commonwealth is, say, $12 billion, that amount will have to be cut out of government spending programs over the next two years.

  Full read here:  Lessons for Gillard  
Wait, can you hear that, yes, it's the sound of knives sharpening.  
Her tenure will soon be Shorten 'd.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> and what the................Australian Youth Climate Coalition. Is the great hoax of AGW morphing from an unregistered religious group to a recruitment cell for a political party? Tell me it isn't so.

  Sorry to break the news mate, it's  all true.  Green is the new red.  Idealistic youth were easily led into socialism, now they are easily led into environmentalism. Not the genuine look after nature types, the freaky control the planet type, like this:   
Full nightmare here:  Australian Youth Climate Coalition » Get Involved » Global Warming: Problem and Solutions

----------


## PhilT2

> At the intersections of Victoria, Margaret and Russell streets - where the boiling muddy tsunami was its fiercest and most graphically filmed - the city council had embarked on an ambitious beautification plan to turn the creek into a pleasing urban feature, complete with boardwalks, gardens, illumination and seating. Everyone thought it was wonderful, except for cynics such as my husband and me. In fact, every time we drove past the feature we would say to no one in particular: This little creek is going to make them sorry one day. Tragically, we were right.

  There is so much wrong with this story it is hard to know where to start. The Australian has truly become a fact free environment. Toowoomba is an old city. The decision to build things where they are were made over a hundred years ago. To blame some minor parkland development and flood mitigation work for the scale of this disaster requires a degree of delusion only achieved with illegal drugs. 
Mankind has always lived on floodplains. That is the best place to grow crops and graze livestock. We established wharves on riverbanks to trade with the world. To a degree we are stuck with the decisions made by our ancestors. 
20/20 hindsight is a marvellous thing.

----------


## Marc

> Mate, a fantastic link. 
> It's called Trenberth and his cronies admitting defeat:   
> They have given up.  After all the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on this farce and thousands of studies conducted, they cannot find one piece of evidence, not a single piece of empirical evidence proving their theory. Let this sink in...*not one!* 
> So is it time to admit they were wrong?  No, first they said all the data was wrong, so they adjusted that.  Then they said the observations were wrong, so they adjusted that.  and still...nothing! Not a single piece of empirical evidence...*not one!* 
> So is it time to admit they were wrong? No, *now they want to change the actual scientific method itself!!!* 
> First they re-defined what the peer-review process was, now they want to re-define what reality is.  They are nuts!  
> Trenberth is off the reservation, hopefully he'll get the Flim Flam treatment soon.

  
Perhaps it is pertinent to remind us the difference between a theory a hypothesis and a law. 
The proposition that human activity producing CO2 has an influence on the planets climate increasing temperature, and the corollary that such temperature increase is dangerously detrimental and the addition to this supposition of pictures of chaos and destruction plagiarised from a random selection of Mad Max movies, is not a theory. 
When we say that something is "only a theory" such expression refers to an often percieved difference between what should happen according to the books, and what really happens. However this popular expression misses the mark and is not giving the scientific theory the credit it deserves.  
A theory in order to deserve such title is a concept that has been scientifically tested and proven to produce consistent results and that can therefore be used to predict future events. The AGW proposal is not a theory. It is a simple hypothesis, an educated guess. It is not a workable theory that can be used to predict anything at all. 
A hypothesis that becomes popular by acclamation, because it fits an array of preconcieved notions and anti values from some marginal groups that have consistently failed to produce anything meaningful, does not make it true. Take the existence of the Yeti for example. Is it a theory? No. Is it a Hypothesis? Perhaps but in reality it fits the criteria of a myth because it requires faith in what can not be seen nor proven. (please note that I have purposley avoided to make a simile with religion) 
Antropogenic Global Warming is a Hypothesis or a myth tha can not be proven because it parts from a series of mistaken assumption not last the one that does not understand the non lineal relation between CO2 increments and greenhouse effect eficiency. 
One really bad habit of AGW supporters is the question they pose in answer to skeptisism : "If it is not CO2 that causes global warming what do you think it is"?
The onus of proof is on the AGW supporters to provide indisputalbe proof that CO2 and of that CO2 produced by humans is the only reason the climate is warming has been warming and will continue to warm and that such warming is something we should be concerned about and for what reason. It is not for the skeptic to produce an alternative explanation. It is perfectly sufficient to disproove the Antropogenic CO2 as the alleged cause of warming. I would however go further in demanding from AGW mythology not only proof of A.CO2 but also proof that alleged temperature increments are actually detrimental. There is ample historical proof that humans have thrived in hotter climate and succumbed to colder. The real enemy is not hotter weather but colder one. 
Also, the fact that we are unable to pinpoint ONE solo cause for temperature variation is clearly insufficient to extrapolate that therefore it must be CO2...what a crook! 
So please note that in any debate of this nature, this are the question to hammer home. The rest is decoration and light entretainment and no one should accept anything the governemt does to hijack our tax dollar or worst to demand more tax in order to fix what is not broken. On this note let me add that if something must be fixed, the governemt will have to provide indisputable proof that money can actually fix what allegedly needs fixing and the cost effectivenes of such proposed fix. 
Once you start thinking in this terms, it is blatantly obvious that we have been duped badly and that we should never pay a red cent towards anything to do with climate change hypotesis and that funds to this crooked scientist should be withdrawn instanlty and globaly and put to better use. Presently I am thinking that money could be better spend building us 50 or 60 dams around the country, starting on the Brisbane River. 
Bullexcrement environmantalism has already costed us the Canberra bushfires and the Queensland floods thanks to the ban direct or by elevation of backburning and dam building. What is the next catastrophy the greens are going to produce and we will let them do to us?  
Delenda est Global Warming myth

----------


## chrisp

Last time I looked:   Every science academy in the world that has issued a statement, everyone of those statements support the AGW theory.  Everyone of them - none (zero, zilch) have issued a statement to contradict the AGW theory.The scientific community virtually unanimously supports the AGW theory (and science has moved on many years ago - the existence of AGW is a non-issue scientifically).Just about every country/government in the world acknowledges that AGW is real and is planning action. (e.g. see Nations Reach Climate Agreement At Cancun Global Warming Summit, Bolivian Government Sulks. ) 
And a response that gets posted in this thread....   

> But I am afraid Chrisp will be one on the last to "get it"  It is mind blowing how *delusional* some warmist are.   I just can't fathom on any level how they can't see how false and corrupt their thinking is.  It really has got me at a total loss. Seriously!!

  *And you think I'm delusional?*    :Roflmao2:   
Your hypocrisy is truly astounding.

----------


## chrisp

> One really bad habit of AGW supporters is the question they pose in answer to skeptisism : "If it is not CO2 that causes global warming what do you think it is"?

  If that reference is (in part) about my questioning to Rod, my questioning is not so much about 'elimination' (although that is an important part of the scientific process).   
Rod has stated categorically that CO2 has very little or nothing to do with global warming.  He acknowledges the warming, and he is certain that it is not (significantly) due to CO2.  
Surely, these things (i.e. the long-term trend in warming) don't 'just happen' without cause, do they? 
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what Rod's next cause is.  (we've done the atmospheric oscillations and sunspots so far)

----------


## chrisp

> Sorry to break the news mate, it's  all true.  Green is the new red.  Idealistic youth were easily led into socialism, now they are easily led into environmentalism.

  Actually, it is science that is pointing out the global warming and its cause. 
It is you that is trying to politicising it.  Going by the stuff you post here, you seem to think that the AGW science can just be voted away by some political process? 
We can 'vote away' the CO2 emission (e.g. by the way of taxes etc.) - but that is a political _response_ to AGW.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> If that reference is (in part) about my questioning to Rod, my questioning is not so much about 'elimination' (although that is an important part of the scientific process).  
> Rod has stated categorically that CO2 has very little or nothing to do with global warming. He acknowledges the warming, and he is certain that it is not (significantly) due to CO2.  
> Surely, these things (i.e. the long-term trend in warming) don't 'just happen' without cause, do they? 
> Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what Rod's next cause is. (we've done the atmospheric oscillations and sunspots so far)

  Very mischievious post Chrisp and smacks of some desperation. 
I have answered this if you would read my posts.

----------


## mark53

Chrisp, please don't credit scientific bodies, or anybody else for that matter, that support the hypothesis of GW without naming the association, body, group etc.,and the person or persons credited with making that statement. Failing to do so erodes your credibility to a point where the comment becomes almost worthless. Freud, Rod and Marc, in the main, go to a lot of effort to provide evidence of whatever it is they are referring to which supports their argument or point. It behoves those with a contrary point to do the same.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Last time I looked:   Every science academy in the world that has issued a statement, everyone of those statements support the AGW theory. Everyone of them - none (zero, zilch) have issued a statement to contradict the AGW theory.The scientific community virtually unanimously supports the AGW theory (and science has moved on many years ago - the existence of AGW is a non-issue scientifically).Just about every country/government in the world acknowledges that AGW is real and is planning action. (e.g. see Nations Reach Climate Agreement At Cancun Global Warming Summit, Bolivian Government Sulks. )
> And a response that gets posted in this thread....    *And you think I'm delusional?*    
> Your hypocrisy is truly astounding.

  So appeal to higher authority is the way science is conducted now?   
Just because they say its so, it must be?  What evidence to they have to form their view?  How much peer pressure are they under to conform?   
You will just accept this without question?   
Don't worry it may take a bit of time to filter through but some of these authorities you appeal to are already starting to wind back due to the pressure brought about by their members. 
Once they see that it is politically safe to back away from AGW they will fall like dominos.  Last man standing is going to be the biggest idiot. 
Try to look at this with an objective view and you too will see how AGW is fast becomming the biggest most expensive joke in the history of mankind. 
Skeptics are growing fast and picking up pace while true believers are shrinking.  You too will be left behind Chrisp with copious amounts of humble pie to last a life time.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Chrisp, 
Please read this essay as it demonstrates exactly what we have been on about over the past pages.   http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...wuwt_essay.pdf 
If you do read it, and I hope you do, you may see why we have a valid reason why not to trust the likes of Trenberth.

----------


## mark53

> Sorry to break the news mate, it's all true. Green is the new red. Idealistic youth were easily led into socialism, now they are easily led into environmentalism. Not the genuine look after nature types, the freaky control the planet type, like this:   
> Full nightmare here:  Australian Youth Climate Coalition » Get Involved » Global Warming: Problem and Solutions

  Freud, this is a most worrying trend. Is this evidence of an hypothesis morphing into fanaticism? If so there are many examples of such like behavior throughout history. Who was it said " History dose not repeat itself, man does"?

----------


## chrisp

> Don't worry it may take a bit of time to filter through but some of these authorities you appeal to are already starting to wind back due to the pressure brought about by their members. 
> Once they see that it is politically safe to back away from AGW they will fall like dominos.

  Your prediction is noted. 
We'll await the outcome.  Out of interest, do you have a time-frame in mind for this prediction?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Your prediction is noted. 
> We'll await the outcome. Out of interest, do you have a time-frame in mind for this prediction?

  No I don't unfortunately, we will just have to sit back and wait.

----------


## chrisp

> Chrisp, please don't credit scientific bodies, or anybody else for that matter, that support the hypothesis of GW without naming the association, body, group etc.,and the person or persons credited with making that statement.

  Mark, 
I was going to provide a reference for the claim, but I thought I'd leave it out in the interests of brevity - and we have covered it before in this thread. 
However, if you are interested, start at Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and work your way through the reference links. 
Here is an excerpt from the above link:*"Scientific opinion on climate change* is given by synthesis reports,  scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of  opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities,  and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.  
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states: An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a  warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new  and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50  years is attributable to human activities.*No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,  which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of  human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal  position.* Some other organisations also hold non-committal positions."

----------


## PhilT2

> No I don't unfortunately, we will just have to sit back and wait.

  Only 166 days until the Greens take the balance of power in the Senate

----------


## mark53

> Chrisp, 
> Please read this essay as it demonstrates exactly what we have been on about over the past pages.   http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...wuwt_essay.pdf 
> If you do read it, and I hope you do, you may see why we have a valid reason why not to trust the likes of Trenberth.

    :brava: Great post Rod.

----------


## mark53

> Only 166 days until the Greens take the balance of power in the Senate

  
Yep and a pox on their green, wet leftist minority. God save us from the looney leftist for they will, at a disproportional level, consume oxygen at a vastly superior rate than the rest of the animal kingdom. They're called oxygen thieves. Maybe there could be some genetic engineering of them so that they could consume CO2 instead, thus making them useful. :Please2:

----------


## Marc

> Last time I looked:   Every science academy in the world that has issued a statement, everyone of those statements support the AGW theory.  Everyone of them - none (zero, zilch) have issued a statement to contradict the AGW theory.The scientific community virtually unanimously supports the AGW theory (and science has moved on many years ago - the existence of AGW is a non-issue scientifically).Just about every country/government in the world acknowledges that AGW is real and is planning action. (e.g. see Nations Reach Climate Agreement At Cancun Global Warming Summit, Bolivian Government Sulks. )

  This essay appeared on the website Watts Up With That on January 15th, 2011 Watts Up With That? and is free to redistribute and republish so long as a link is provided back to
the website.
Unequivocal Equivocation  an open letter to Dr. Kevin Trenberth
by Willis Eschenbach
I would like to take as my text the following quote from the recent paper (PDF, 270k also on web here)
by Dr. Kevin Trenberth:
Given that global warming is unequivocal, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null
hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is
no human influence [on the climate]. 
The null hypothesis in science is the condition that would result if what you are trying to establish is
not true. For example, if your hypothesis is that air pressure affects plant growth rates, the null
hypothesis is that air pressure has no effect on plant growth rates. Once you have both hypotheses, then
you can see which hypothesis is supported by the evidence.
In climate science, the AGW hypothesis states that human GHG emissions significantly affect the
climate. As such, the null hypothesis is that human GHG emissions do not significantly affect the
climate, that the climate variations are the result of natural processes. This null hypothesis is what
Doctor T wants to reverse.
As Steve McIntyre has often commented, with these folks you really have to keep your eye on the pea
under the walnut shell. These folks seem to have sub-specialties in the three-card monte sub-species
of science. Did you notice when the pea went from under one walnut shell to another in Dr. Ts
quotation above? Take another look at it.
The first part of Dr. Ts statement is true. There is general scientific agreement that the globe has been
warming, in fits and starts of course, for the last three centuries or so. And since it has been thusly
warming for centuries, the obvious null hypothesis would have to be that the half-degree of warming
we experienced in the 20th century was a continuation of some long-term ongoing natural trend.
But thats not what Dr. Trenberth is doing here. Keep your eye on the pea. He has smoothly segued
from the IPCC saying global warming is unequivocal, which is true, and stitched that idea so
cleverly onto another idea, and thus humans affect the climate, that you cant even see the seam.
The pea is already under the other walnut shell. He is implying that the IPCC says that scientists have
unequivocally shown that humans are the cause of weather ills, and if I dont take that as an article of
faith, its my job to prove that we are not the cause of floods in Brisbane.
Now, lest you think that the IPCC actually did mean that humans are the cause when they said (in his
words) that global warming was unequivocal, heres their full statement from the IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report Summary For Policymakers (2007) (PDF, 3.7 MB):
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of
increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and
ice, and rising global mean sea level (see Figure SPM-3).
Despite the vagueness of a lack of a timeframe, that is generally true, but it says nothing about humans
being the cause. So he is totally misrepresenting the IPCC findings (which he helped write, remember,
so its not a misunderstanding) to advance his argument. The IPCC said nothing like what he is
implying.
Gotta love the style, though, simply proclaiming by imperial fiat that his side is the winner in one of the
longest-running modern scientific debates. And his only proffered evidence for this claim? It is the
unequivocal fact that Phil Jones and Michael Mann and Caspar Amman and Gene Wahl and the other
good old boys of the IPCC all agree with him. That is to say, Dr. Ts justification for reversing the null
hypothesis is that the IPCC report that Dr. T helped write agrees with Dr. T. Thats recursive enough to
make Ouroboros weep in envy 
And the IPCC not only says its true, its unequivocal. Just plain truth wouldnt be scientific enough
for those guys, I guess. Instead, it is unequivocal truth. Heres what unequivocal means (emphasis
mine):
unequivocal: adjective: admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or
interpretation and leading to only one conclusion (Unequivocal evidence)
Notice how well crafted Dr. Ts sentence is. After bringing in global warming, he introduces the
word unequivocal, meaning we can only draw one conclusion. Then in the second half of the
sentence, he falsely attaches that unequivocal certainty of conclusion to his own curious conclusion,
that the normal rules of science should be reversed for the benefit of   well, not to put too fine a
point on it, hes claiming that normal scientific rules should be reversed for the benefit of Dr. Kevin
Trenberth and the IPCC and those he supports. Probably just a coincidence, though.
For Dr. Trenberth to call for the usual null hypothesis (which is that what we observe in nature is, you
know, natural) to be reversed, citing as his evidence the IPCC statement that the earth is actually
warming, is nonsense. However, it is not meaningless nonsense. It is pernicious, insidious, and
dangerous nonsense. He wants us to spend billions of dollars based on this level of thinking, and he has
cleverly conflated two ideas to push his agenda.
I understand that Dr. T has a scientific hypothesis. This hypothesis, generally called the AGW
hypothesis, is that if greenhouse gases (GHGs) go up, the temperature must follow, and nothing else
matters. The hypothesis is that the GHGs are the master thermostat for the globe, everything else just
averages out in the long run, nothing could possibly affect the long-term climate but GHGs, nothing to
see here, folks, move along. No other forcings, feedbacks, or hypotheses need apply. GHGs rule, OK?
Which is an interesting hypothesis, but it is woefully short of either theoretical or observational
support. In part, of course, this is because the AGW hypothesis provides almost nothing in the way of a
statement or a prediction which can be falsified. This difficulty in falsification of the hypothesis, while
perhaps attractive to the proponents of the hypothesis, inevitably implies a corresponding difficulty in
verification or support of the hypothesis.
In addition, a number of arguably cogent and certainly feasible scientific objections have been raised
against various parts of the hypothesis, from the nature and sign of the forcings considered and
unconsidered, to the existence of natural thermostatic mechanisms.
Finally, to that we have to add the general failure of what few predictions have come from the teraflops
of model churning in support of the AGW hypothesis. We havens seen any acceleration in sea level
rise. We havent seen any climate refugees. The climate model Pinatubo prediction was way off the
mark. The number and power of hurricanes hasnt increased as predicted. And you remember the coral
atolls and Bangladesh that you and the IPCC warned us about, Dr. T, the ones that were going to get
washed away by the oncoming Thermageddon? Bangladesh and the atoll islands are both getting
bigger, not smaller. We were promised a warming of two, maybe even three tenths of a degree per
decade this century if we didnt mend our evil carbon-loving ways, and so far we havent mended one
thing, and we have seen  well  zero tenths of a degree for the first decade.
So to date, the evidentiary scorecard looks real bad for the AGW hypothesis. Might change tomorrow,
Im not saying the games over, thats AGW nonsense that Ill leave to Dr. T. Im just saying that after a
quarter century of having unlimited funding and teraflops of computer horsepower and hundreds of
thousands of hours of grad students and scientists time and the full-throated support of the media and
university departments dedicated to establishing the hypothesis, AGW supporters have not yet come up
with much observational evidence to show for the time and money invested. Which should give you a
clue as to why Dr. T is focused on the rules of the game. As the hoary lawyers axiom has it, if you
cant argue facts argue the law [the rules of the game], and if you cant argue the law pound the table
and loudly proclaim your innocence

----------


## chrisp

> This essay appeared on the website Watts Up With That on January 15th, 2011 Watts Up With That? and is free to redistribute and republish so long as a link is provided back to
> the website.
> Unequivocal Equivocation – an open letter to Dr. Kevin Trenberth
> by Willis Eschenbach
> I would like to take as my text the following quote from the recent paper (PDF, 270k also on web here)
> by Dr. Kevin Trenberth:
> Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null
> hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is
> no human influence [on the climate]. 
> ...

  Psst, Rod's already posted it. 
Don't you _read_ his posts (I'd understand perfectly if you just skip over those posts from that other fellow)?  :Rolleyes:    :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The decision to build things where they are were made over a hundred years ago.

  Does this make it alright? 
We took lead out of paint and asbestos out of houses.  Doing something stupid is not grounds for continuation.   

> To blame some minor parkland development and flood mitigation work for the scale of this disaster requires a degree of delusion only achieved with illegal drugs.

  Actually she was blaming the *lack of* flood mitigation work, which was suggested by hydrologists and ignored.  If you want to keep the town there, mitigate effectively. This did not require hindsight my friend.  Have you heard about the planning and drainage being built for the next one?  Strange, me neither!   

> Mankind has always lived on floodplains.

  See point one.   

> That is the best place to grow crops and graze livestock.

  Crops and livestock are not towns and people.   

> We established wharves on riverbanks to trade with the world.

  And a good place for them, makes it easy for the boats to get to them.   

> To a degree we are stuck with the decisions made by our ancestors.

  We are stuck with stupidity.  Dredging, levees, dams, pipelines etc. etc. have not been used even though they would mitigate much of this damage, and also solve other problems such as water storage and distribution. 
Oops, sorry, we'll have to be evil developers to do all this and may run over a frog in our evil machines.  Sorry to the greenies for these evil ideas!  :Doh:    

> 20/20 hindsight is a marvellous thing.

  Hindsight means looking back.  This post below was from August 2010, the floods were in January 2011.  Precedents were set in 1873 and 1893.  This was predictable and inevitable.  It did not require hindsight at all.  It required intellectual and physical effort. 
I have already asked the question, where will they rebuild? 
Or instead do we all hold hands and congratulate each other on our great clean up efforts, then leave everything as is until the next "unprecedented" event.  :Doh:    

> I fully agree with some your previous statements that collectively humans are idiots.  We are also certainly very intelligent and can work cooperatively to achieve what is sometimes miraculous, but then on many occasions, we are morons. 
> Not only has it happened before, it will happen again.  
> Aaaah, at last we get to the real problem.  Urban planning! Or more appropriately, lack of it.   
> The reason it's plain is because every now and again, massive amounts of water come down and wash everything away, leaving it, well, plain! 
> Now, us freaky humans, being lazy, turn up and say oh look, cleared level building areas right next to the water we need, how perfect! The same goes for coastal developments at river delta's, fresh water and easy transport.  But these are urban planning issues, nothing to do with the planet changing regularly in total oblivion of our presence.  Let's not blame the poor planet for doing what it's always done because we built our cities in stupid places. 
> But these are all urban planning issues.  The planet is just being a planet, stop blaming it for our idiocy.  
> Stop building cities in stupid places for a start!

----------


## Dr Freud

> When we say that something is "only a theory" such expression refers to an often percieved difference between what should happen according to the books, and what really happens. However this popular expression misses the mark and is not giving the scientific theory the credit it deserves.  
> A theory in order to deserve such title is a concept that has been scientifically tested and proven to produce consistent results and that can therefore be used to predict future events. The AGW proposal is not a theory. It is a simple hypothesis, an educated guess. It is not a workable theory that can be used to predict anything at all.

  Champion effort mate.   :2thumbsup:  
These wacko's originally aligned AGW Theory with Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Darwin's Theory of Evolution to give them some credibility. 
They only got their theory status originally by "adjusting" untold amounts of data, much of which is now "lost" or "discarded".  As the scientific rigour has been forced on this "theory", it has quickly degenerated into farce. 
Then they had the affront to start calling it AGW, without even adding the theory bit. 
Now they just teach it to kids as scientific fact!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Actually, it is *science* that is pointing out the global warming and its cause.

   :Laughing1:  
By "science", do you mean quantitative empirical evidence that is both valid and reliable? 
Or by "science", do you mean press releases issued by some academic bureaucracies? 
Your past behaviour seems to indicate the latter.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Chrisp, 
> Please read this essay as it demonstrates exactly what we have been on about over the past pages.   http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...wuwt_essay.pdf 
> If you do read it, and I hope you do, you may see why we have a valid reason why not to trust the likes of Trenberth.

  Mate, this is an excellent summary of the degeneration of this farce. 
Highly recommended reading for anyone in doubt as to where this jokes at. 
If Australia gets a Carbon Tax, we will be the punchline.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Freud, this is a most worrying trend. Is this evidence of an hypothesis morphing into fanaticism? If so there are many examples of such like behavior throughout history. Who was it said " History dose not repeat itself, man does"?

  Moises P. Reconalla?   

> Through my observation of what happening in the society around the world, I've learned that there are three classes of people. The first learn from their own experience -these are the wisest people. The second learn from the experience of others - these are the happy ones. The third neither learn from their own experience nor from the experience of others - these are the fools! 
> Readers which in the three classes of people in the world are you belong? 
> Again I repeat, history does not repeat itself, but rather man is prone to make the same mistakes repeatedly!  
> Wish you many blessings to come and God Bless! 
>  Moises P. Reconalla
> About the Author
> Moises P. Reconalla is the School Guidance Counselor at North Davao College, Panabo City, Philippines. He has taught several courses at the college including: Guidance and Counseling and General Psychology.   Does History Repeat Itself?

----------


## Dr Freud

> By "science", do you mean quantitative empirical evidence that is both valid and reliable? 
> Or by "science", do you mean press releases issued by some academic bureaucracies? 
> Your past behaviour seems to indicate the latter.

  And so does your current behaviour.  :Biggrin:    

> Mark, 
> I was going to provide a reference for the claim, but I thought I'd leave it out in the interests of brevity - and we have covered it before in this thread. 
> However, if you are interested, start at Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and work your way through the reference links. 
> Here is an excerpt from the above link:*"Scientific opinion on climate change* is given by synthesis reports,  scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of  opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities,  and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.  
> National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states: An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a  warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new  and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50  years is attributable to human activities.*No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,  which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of  human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal  position.* Some other organisations also hold non-committal positions."

  Nice press releases mate, don't suppose those bozo's could scrounge up some evidence?  :No:

----------


## chrisp

> By "science", do you mean quantitative empirical evidence that is both valid and reliable? 
> Or by "science", do you mean press releases issued by some academic bureaucracies? 
> Your past behaviour seems to indicate the latter.

  I mean the former - I usually only quote reputable sources. 
You may have me confused with one of those people who quote opinion pieces written by Andrew Bolt.  Oops, it seems that you are just confused.  :Doh:

----------


## chrisp

> We took lead out of paint and asbestos out of houses.  Doing something stupid is not grounds for continuation.

  Too right!  
Science taught us about the risks of lead - we even took it out of petrol too for the same reasons.  Asbestos was much the same (remember a particular company denying the risk?), but we banned it too. 
It is good to see that you agree.  Reducing CO2 emissions is exactly the same.  Welcome to the present.

----------


## intertd6

> Too right!  
> Science taught us about the risks of lead - we even took it out of petrol too for the same reasons. Asbestos was much the same (remember a particular company denying the risk?), but we banned it too. 
> It is good to see that you agree. Reducing CO2 emissions is exactly the same. Welcome to the present.

  How can we argue with caveman logic like that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lets see we have CO2 represented as lead in our fuel or paint, we cant ever get rid of the lead, we spend trillions of dollars to reduce the lead by 0.001%.
Thank goodness for CO2 being what it is & not lead or another toxic product
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> Actually, it is science that is pointing out the global warming and its cause.

   

> By "science", do you mean quantitative empirical evidence that is both valid and reliable? 
> Or by "science", do you mean press releases issued by some academic bureaucracies? 
> Your past behaviour seems to indicate the latter.

   

> I mean the former - I usually only quote reputable sources.

  We've discussed Wikipedia already, so we'll ignore that last one.  :Biggrin:  
But here's your shot at redemption: 
The IPCC couldn't find any.
The "inner circle" of Climategate scientists who manufactured this charade couldn't find any.
Your buddies at Realclimate couldn't find any.
Prof David Karoly certainly couldn't find any. 
But hey, if you've got quantitative empirical evidence that is both valid and reliable that proves Anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for all the measured warming in accordance with AGW Theory, I'd love to see it.  :2thumbsup:  
I'm sure the clowns above wouldn't mind a look either.

----------


## chrisp

> But hey, if you've got quantitative empirical evidence that is both valid and reliable that proves Anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for all the measured warming in accordance with AGW Theory,* I'd love to see it*.

  Actually, I very much doubt that.  As one who quotes Andrew Bolt as evidence, you show that you are not the least bit interested in the science at all. 
As woodbe has said, I doubt your scepticism.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Science taught us about the risks of *lead* *Asbestos* was much the same 
> Reducing *CO2* emissions is exactly the same

  You seriously think what all animals (including all men, women and children) are currently breathing out is *exactly the same* as lead and asbestos?   

> How can we argue with caveman logic like that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
> regards inter

  You can't argue with that!  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Actually, I very much doubt that.

  Don't doubt it, I'm serious.  Like I said, the whole scientific community will love to see it.  :Yes:     

> As one who quotes Andrew Bolt as evidence, you show that you are not the least bit interested in the science at all.

  If you even fleetingly thought that anyone could regard an infotainment journalist as "evidence" of anything, then things are worse than I thought. 
The good Mr Bolt just throws info out there and then adds his "opinion" for entertainment.  I find it rather entertaining, and occasionally informative.  But my friend, there is certainly no suggestion it is "evidence". 
As well as this infotainment, I am *also* interested in the science. 
I await your posting of it.    

> As woodbe has said, I doubt your scepticism.

  
Don't doubt it, I'm sceptical.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

Is Someone seriously comparing lead in petrol and paint to CO2 ? :Yikes2: 
Lets see. CO2 is a trace element in the athmosphere and is essential for life on earth. Increments in CO2 have produced increments in crops and no demonstrable negative in any aspect whatsoever including the tooted yet false pretense of increase temperatures.
Fact. 
Lead is poisonous and when excelent for making paint and as an antidetonant and valve protector in petrol it was a good idea to eliminate it. What no one is saying is that they replaced lead in petrol with bencene that is an even worst pollutant and is carcinogenic. It would have been better to leave lead, the deleterious effects are not as bad as benecene.
Long live the greens NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :Thumbsdown3d:   :Thumbsdown3d:   :Thumbsdown3d:   :Thumbsdown3d:

----------


## chrisp

Let's follow the trail...   

> Toowoomba is an old city. *The decision to build things where they are were made over a hundred years ago*.  To blame some minor parkland development and flood mitigation work for  the scale of this disaster requires a degree of delusion only achieved  with illegal drugs

  Responding to PhilT2's post, and selectively quoting the bold text above, Dr Freud posted:   

> Does this make it alright? 
> We took lead out of paint and asbestos out of houses.  Doing something stupid is not grounds for continuation

  My response was:   

> Too right!  
> Science taught us about the risks of lead - we even took it out of  petrol too for the same reasons.  Asbestos was much the same (remember a  particular company denying the risk?), but we banned it too. 
> It is good to see that you agree.  Reducing CO2 emissions is exactly the same.  Welcome to the present.

  Then comes the twist of the message:   

> Is Someone seriously comparing lead in petrol and paint to CO2 ?
> Lets see. CO2 is a trace element in the athmosphere and is essential for life on earth. Increments in CO2 have produced increments in crops and no demonstrable negative in any aspect whatsoever including the tooted yet false pretense of increase temperatures.
> Fact. 
> Lead is poisonous and when excelent for making paint and as an antidetonant and valve protector in petrol it was a good idea to eliminate it. What no one is saying is that they replaced lead in petrol with bencene that is an even worst pollutant and is carcinogenic. It would have been better to leave lead, the deleterious effects are not as bad as benecene.
> Long live the greens NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  Aside from the factual errors (CO2 an 'element'!; CO2 in not a GHG!), the argument is not that the compound CO2 is same as lead (or asbestos). 
The argument (discussion) is that just because we have been using lead and asbestos for many years, is not a basis to continue to do so if new evidence shows a detrimental impact. 
We (as a society) have recognised some of these commonly used materials are not harmless and we have chosen to ban them. 
My argument is that those banning _processes_ (used in the past: lead, asbestos, CFCs, etc.) are exactly the same the _process_ that will be used to decarbonise the economy.

----------


## chrisp

> [chrisp comment] With reference to the "Climate Change  in Australia -Technical Report 2007".  See  http://www.climatechangeinaustralia....R_Web_Ch5i.pdf     There is a distinction between "*total precipitation*" which is the total rainfall over the year (referred to as "TR") and "_precipitation intensity_" which is  the intensity of the individual rainfalls rain-per-rain-day (referred to as "AI").  
> The predictions for "*total precipitation*" are:*"5.2.1 Median precipitation change by 2030*
> Best estimates of annual precipitation change represent little change in  the far north and decreases of 2% to 5% elsewhere. Decreases of around  5% prevail in winter and spring, particularly in the south-west where  they reach 10%. In summer and autumn decreases are smaller and there are  slight increases in the east."For "_precipitation intensity_", the predictions are:"Changes  in precipitation intensity and dry days are shown in Figures 5.25 and  5.26, respectively. Both of these indices show strong increases in  Australia over the 21st century, suggesting that the future  precipitation regime will have longer dry spells interrupted by heavier  precipitation events. Much larger increases are found over Australia  than globally, more than 50% larger for both indices."

  A story in _The Age_:   

> *Melbourne suburbs likely to flood more often                *   *                 Peter Ker            *  
>      January 17, 2011        
>                                MELBOURNE should expect more of its suburbs to be flooded  more frequently, according to an analysis of the metropolitan area  conducted by Melbourne Water and private experts.  
>               Modelling obtained by _The Age_ warns that  Melbourne's drainage infrastructure will be overwhelmed almost twice as  often by 2030, and the area affected by flooding may be 25 per cent  larger across most parts of metropolitan area.  
>               The warnings are based on *rainfall* events becoming *more  intense* under climate change, despite the expectation that Melbourne  will *ultimately be a drier place* in the future.

  There is that distinction again.   Higher precipitation intensity == heavier rains(somewhat) Lower total precipitation  == overall rainfall is reduced (say, over a year or decade).Heavy rains == flooding.

----------


## Marc

> Aside from the factual errors (CO2 an 'element'!; CO2 in not a GHG!), the argument is not that the compound CO2 is same as lead (or asbestos). 
> The argument (discussion) is that just because we have been using lead and asbestos for many years, is not a basis to continue to do so if new evidence shows a detrimental impact. 
> We (as a society) have recognised some of these commonly used materials are not harmless and we have chosen to ban them. 
> My argument is that those banning _processes_ (used in the past: lead, asbestos, CFCs, etc.) are exactly the same the _process_ that will be used to decarbonise the economy.

  Perhaps you need to check the dictionary and see what an element is. 
Perhaps you also need to realise that it is thanks to all the naturally occuring greenhouse gases like water and CO2 that we can live on earth, so it is not necessary to label CO2 as a GHG as if it was poison. The greenhouse effect is essential for life on earth.
FACT  
Another exxential fact to this debate is that no one has demonstrated that Human produced CO2 (that is the minuscule contributioin by humans) has produced any bad, deleterious or otherwise undesirable effect.
FACT
Lead, asbestos, pesticides, talidomide, arsenicus, lobotomy and boiling water to cure the plague are all examples of what was once part of what was believed to be a solution and became a problem. Neither can be compared to CO2 since there is nothing to be learned further from CO2. It's effect and inefficiency as GHG is very well understood. CO2 is essential for life, it's concentration has been historically many times higher and contributed in a huge increase in the phytosphere. Present increases in CO2 make no difference to temperatures and even if they did, the minuscule contributions by human CO2 can not even be measured in terms of temperatures. Furthermore even if temperatures would increase, there is no serious study that can provide any proof that such increase is to be feared at all.
FACTS
To even propose "decarbonisation" as a target for humanity is a fallacy only possible to live in an idle and or delusional mind that is grasping at a chance to have some form of goal in life. Unfortuantely the choice is so poor that it deserves no debate, only condemnation. Life is Carbon. "decarbonisation' is absurd and ridiculous and wrong. Reducing CO2 emissins is a futile and stupid attempt at controlling humanity and send it back to cave times.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> My argument is that those banning _processes_ (used in the past: lead, asbestos, CFCs, etc.) are exactly the same the _process_ that will be used to decarbonise the economy.

  Got news for you Chrisp, 
Nothing, not carbon trading, not carbon tax nothing will decarbonise the economy.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Sorry bloke but your blustering bullishness brings out the imp in me......and I can't help myself  :Smilie:    

> Perhaps you need to check the dictionary and see what an element is.

  So perhaps should you.......CO2 is a 'compound'...not an 'element'    

> "decarbonisation' is absurd and ridiculous and wrong.

  Perhaps.  But it is profitable too (even your super fund managers think so).  So 'wrong' doesn't count. And neither does your baseless backwards looking bluster......   

> Reducing CO2 emissions is a futile and stupid attempt at controlling humanity and send it back to cave times.

  Perhaps (but probably not. Truly, you look at the future with a blinkered & negative imagination).  
But then (if you think about it) so is maintaining or even increasing them...eventually you run out of the fossil source of all those emmisions - then where will you be.  Either way, we at least get where we eventually are going!  
Bye now.... :brava:

----------


## Marc

> CO2 is a 'compound'...not an 'element'

  I see you looked up the dictionary and found ONE definition. Bravo!! ... perhaps you can page down and see the 'other' definitions. 
Example: CH4 is one of the ELEMENT of your chosen name. 
I thought it was elementary. 
As for the rest of the swelling in your post ... well ... what can anyone say?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I see you looked up the dictionary and found ONE definition. Bravo!! ... perhaps you can page down and see the 'other' definitions. 
> Example: CH4 is one of the ELEMENT of your chosen name. 
> I thought it was elementary.

  Actually, I used a chemistry text book.  You appear to be using a thesaurus (badly) instead of a dictionary because a more appropriate wording for your example would be: 
"CH4 is one COMPONENT of your chosen name". 
As for the rest....at least I can recognise when I start talking crap.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Let's follow the trail...

  Yes, lets!   

> Too right!  
> Science taught us about the risks of lead - we even took it out of petrol too for the same reasons. Asbestos was much the same (remember a particular company denying the risk?), but we banned it too. 
> It is good to see that you agree.  Reducing CO2 emissions is exactly the same.  Welcome to the present.

  So, science taught us about lead and asbestos. 
This science was quantitative empirical evidence that was both valid and reliable that proved these toxic substances in even trace levels were deleterious to human health. 
This was the first step in the "process". 
And your claim is "Reducing CO2 emissions is *exactly the same*". 
Now, you're the wordsmith, I'm sure you know what "exactly" means. 
Hence my request for the evidence *you* claimed *you* had:   

> But hey, if you've got quantitative empirical evidence that is both valid and reliable that proves Anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for all the measured warming in accordance with AGW Theory, I'd love to see it.

  Now, according to your analogy, this is only step one, then after you demonstrate causality, you can also demonstrate how trace elements of CO2 are deleterious to human health. 
I'm sure you'll get it exactly right this time?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> A story in _The Age_:      *Modelling obtained by The Age warns that  Melbourne's drainage infrastructure will be overwhelmed almost twice as  often by 2030*

  Is this it? 
Is this the best you've got? 
You've dug up a greenie newspaper article about a computer model that predicts the future in one city? 
And this will instigate "International Decarbonisation". 
I never thought I'd say this, but even I'm starting to feel sorry for AGW Theory supporters!  :Shock:  
Maybe there's some human in me after all?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

The start:   

> This is the greatest moral challenge of our generation.

  The middle:   

> *The 10 big global challenges facing Australia                *   *                 Kevin Rudd            *  
>      January 16, 2011  *Challenge number seven embraces* food security, energy security and *climate change.*  The 10 big global challenges facing Australia

  Wow, the top six must be pretty serious?  
The end:  
Will it still be in the top 100 next year?

----------


## Marc

> Actually, I used a chemistry text book.  You appear to be using a thesaurus (badly) instead of a dictionary because a more appropriate wording for your example would be: 
> "CH4 is one COMPONENT of your chosen name".

  Hum ... I never thought I would argue over the English grammar. The point I was making is that CO2 is PART of a whole, one of the individual parts that a composit is made of. Therefore CO2 IS an element of the athmosphere.
The chemical composition of the part is irrelevant and not in discussion. 
What is in discussion is that CO2 is natural and indivisible ELEMENT of a mixture of gases that make up the athmosphere. It is not poison, it is not alien to what we call air and is supposed to be there in the small trace amount it is and always has been. So CO2 is an element of our athmosphere including the part we contribute, and no amount of "decarbonisation" will change that. 
If anything you could apply your punctilious observations to the expression "de-carbonisation"...  That is a moronic expression by definition.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Sea levels fall? Go figgure.   

> Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era. Since many followers of global warming believe that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, a significant drop in the global sea level highlights serious flaws in the IPCC projections. The oceans are truly the best indicator of climate. The oceans drive the world’s weather patterns. A drop in the ocean levels in a year that is being cited as proof that the global warming has arrived shows that there is still much to learned. If the ocean levels dropped in 2010, then there is something very wrong with the IPCC projections.

  Link Sea level may drop in 2010 | Watts Up With That?   

> This is yet another serious blow the accuracy of the official IPCC predictions for the coming century.  The fact that CO2 levels have been higher in the last 5 years that have the lowest rate of rise than the years with lower CO2 levels is a strong indicator that the claims of CO2 are grossly exaggerated.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The point I was making is that CO2 is PART of a whole, one of the individual parts that a composit is made of. Therefore CO2 IS an element of the athmosphere.
> The chemical composition of the part is irrelevant and not in discussion. 
> What is in discussion is that CO2 is natural and indivisible ELEMENT of a mixture of gases that make up the athmosphere. It is not poison, it is not alien to what we call air and is supposed to be there in the small trace amount it is and always has been. So CO2 is an element of our athmosphere including the part we contribute, and no amount of "decarbonisation" will change that.

  You just inspire me to contribute....I just can't help myself  :No:  
What you say in the quote above is all true. 
However, in a poorly ventilated or sealed environment (like a sealed glass jar or even a underground cavern), carbon dioxide can indeed be 'dangerous'  even fatal.  People use up the available oxygen and CO2 levels then build up to the point of asphixiation. And they don't have to build up very much to do so.  Very well known phenomenom. 
If you want to experiment with this phenomenon then try putting your  head in a garbage bag and then seal it around your neck.  After ten  minutes.....try telling me that too much CO2 isn't 'dangerous'.  
The Earth's atmosphere is akin to that same glass jar analogy.  Sure, it is highly unlikely that we can take CO2 levels to the point where the human species directly asphixiates itself (and much of the current biology) - but we are still living in a 'glass jar'.  A rock surrounded by a veneer of atmosphere in the middle of a hard vacuum.  And we are influencing our atmosphere by altering the concentrations of the components of the air that we breathe. 
It is very possible to have too much of a good thing. There's certainly a precedent for it (fat, sugar, alcohol, CFC's, cane toads, lawyers etc) in the human existance. 
Quite exactly how that 'too much' with respect to CO2 actually manifests itself in this case is open to conjecture (which the last 4,500 pages attests to).  Nonetheless, 'too much' remains a real possibility.  The risk is there.  Your head is in the garbage bag.  
Bye again.

----------


## chrisp

> Sea levels fall? Go figgure.     
> 			
> 				Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the  largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era.
> 			
> 		   Link Sea level may drop in 2010 | Watts Up With That?

  From the sound of the 'Watts Up' quote, the sea level has had a very large drop. 
It sure does look like it has taken a nose-dive to me  :Rolleyes:  :     
(From: :: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO & ACECRC :: )

----------


## Dr Freud

> However, in a poorly ventilated or sealed environment (like a sealed glass jar or even a underground cavern), carbon dioxide can indeed be 'dangerous'  even fatal.

  So can apple juice, flour and playdough indeed be 'dangerous' even fatal around a human in a sealed environment.  That's why smart people avoid these situations. Whether it is CO2, CO or playdough, please avoid being sealed in it if you can.  :Doh:     

> People use up the available oxygen and CO2 levels then build up to the point of asphixiation. And they don't have to build up very much to do so. Very well known phenomenom. 
> The Earth's atmosphere is akin to that same glass jar analogy. Sure, it is *highly unlikely* that we can take CO2 levels to the point where the human species directly asphixiates itself (and much of the current biology) - but we are still living in a 'glass jar'.

  Highly unlikely huh?  You've spent too much time reading IPCC likelihood scales I suspect? 
But just curious, we are currently about 380 ppm (yeh, whatever), so how many ppm would we need to get to, to make your analogy relevant, as opposed to irrelevant scaremongering?  :Blush2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> From the sound of the 'Watts Up' quote, the sea level has had a very large drop. 
> It sure does look like it has taken a nose-dive to me  :

  The only thing taking a nose dive is AGW Theory. 
Your pretty pictures once again just show an effect (but no cause - one day this will sink in!) 
The effect appears to be a perfectly natural rise out of the last ice age that has been occurring for a lot longer than CO2 has been able to have any effect.  There has been no discernible acceleration as predicted by AGW Theory.  Hence this:   

> One fact is certain.  A drop in sea level for 2 of the past 5 years is a strong indicator that a changing sea level is not a great concern.  In order for the IPCC prediction to be correct of a 1m increase in sea level by 2100, the rate *must be almost 11 mm/yr every year for the next 89 years*.  Since the rate is dropping, it makes the prediction increasingly unlikely.  Not even once in the past 20 years has that rate ever been achieved.  The average rate of 2.7 mm/yr is only 25% of the rate needed for the IPCC prediction to be correct. 
>  This is yet another serious blow the accuracy of the official IPCC predictions for the coming century.  The fact that CO2 levels have been higher in the last 5 years that have the lowest rate of rise than the years with lower CO2 levels is a strong indicator that the claims of CO2 are grossly exaggerated.

  Again, thanks for posting a pretty picture of what appears to be a perfectly natural effect, with absolutely *zero* scientific evidence attributing any specific cause/s.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

You can't hide the decline in the credibility of this farce:   

> *VICTORIAN Governor David de Kretser has blamed climate change for the floods sweeping Australia. 				 				* 			 		 		"I'm sorry, I'm one of these believers in climate change I'm afraid and if its doesn't get that message out I don't think its going to go away,'' Prof de Kretser told 3AW yesterday.

  A few short years ago, all the cool kids believed, now even the Governor has to apologise before professing his beliefs.  Then he says he is "one of these believers...I'm afraid".  :Biggrin:  
Yep, sounds like a fringe group of believers is holding on to the dream...you'd have to be a serious moron to sound less credible than this man.  But wait, from the same article:   

> Greens leader Bob Brown this week attracted harsh criticism for blaming the coal industry for the floods and other extreme weather events when he linked the disasters to climate change.  Victorian Governor David de Kretser blames floods on climate change | Herald Sun

  Oh good one Boob, now all the believers have to email you incessantly to explain that weather is not climate, and that individual weather events cannot be used as evidence for climate change.  Sort it out Boob, you're destroying what tiny amount of credibility these envirofascientists had left. 
Especially when one of the biggest complaints of flood victims is having their coal fired power supplies shut off.  They were outraged Boob, now you're criticising the providers of this coal fired power.  What are you Boob, some kind of wacko hypocrite?  It's like a crack ho hating Columbians.  You're smokin' like a champion, and blaming the pusher's. 
You just don't get it, do you Boob?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Where is our Prime Minister in all of this national crisis?     
> 			
> 				In news conferences and interviews she has looked and sounded robotic and rehearsed. Whether she is coached or coaches herself to punch out key words and phrases only Gillard and her staff can say, but all too often this week it looked that way. 
> It is self-administered poison for Gillard to continue to give that impression, because she is the one who, during last year's election campaign, constructed the framework of ''real Julia'' and ''fake Julia'' while trying to reignite Labor's faltering election effort. 
> Gillard was asked if she should set aside the commitment to return to surplus by the next election. Her answer is worth recording here: ''Well, we are committed to long-term funding for the rebuilding of Queensland and in the days ahead, as floodwaters ultimately subside, the rebuilding task will become clearer. And what we need to do and finance to enable Queensland to overcome the damage of these floodwaters will become clearer. *We will do that, and bring the budget to surplus in 2012-13, and yes that will entail some tough choices.*''  
> Tough choices? That's putting it mildly. What this means is that if the recovery cost to the Commonwealth is, say, $12 billion, that amount will have to be cut out of government spending programs over the next two years.
> 			
> 		   Full read here:  Lessons for Gillard  
> Wait, can you hear that, yes, it's the sound of knives sharpening.  
> Her tenure will soon be Shorten 'd.

  Obviously couldn't make the tough choices!  :No:    

> Gillards most solemn promise was always hostage to events:  _PRIME Minister Julia Gillards commitment to return the federal budget to surplus in 2012-13 is coming under more pressure as the likely damage bill from the most devastating series of floods in Australias recorded history continues to mount.With the still unfolding crisis in Victoria adding to a colossal damage bill in Queensland, Ms Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan yesterday conceded that the budget would be stretched by flood recovery and rebuilding costs for years._  _Pointedly, when discussing the financial implications of the floods, Ms Gillard did not repeat assurances earlier this month that the promised schedule for a return to budget surplus would be unchanged._  _We will be managing the federal budget so that we can meet the needs of recovery and rebuilding, Ms Gillard said_  _As Ms Gillard and Mr Swan avoided direct speculation on the surplus timetable, a leading economist discounted their chances of meeting the 2012-13 target. AMP head of investment strategy Shane Oliver cited predictions that flood recovery could cost $20 billion, and noted that for every dollar the states spent on rebuilding, Canberra must pay them back 75¢._  _Another broken promise seems almost inevitable. With money so badly needed, it hardly seems the right time to impose a growth-choking carbon tax or emissions trading system, either. _   _Surplus promise washed away | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  _ 
No worries mate, a BIG NEW TAX will pay some of the interest on the massive debts! _

----------


## Dr Freud

> You can't hide the decline in the credibility of this farce:     
> 			
> 				Greens leader Bob Brown this week attracted harsh criticism for blaming the coal industry for the floods and other extreme weather events when he linked the disasters to climate change.

  You're annoying the scientists Boob, stop it!   

> The Queensland floods are a disaster that demands our sympathy and earnest attempts to prevent similar damage in future.  But to do this properly we need to see the floods in the perspective of time, and see the history of flooding.  This is best done by concentrating on the Brisbane region simply because it has the longest historical record. 
>  This record has been admirably collated by the Bureau of Meteorology, and the details can be seen at this site, which gives a blow-by-blow summary of the floods. 
> Below are shown the records for Brisbane and the Bremer River at Ipswich.  The variation between the two is itself of interest, showing how different records can be at relatively close locations. 
>  This history is a necessary background to the following discussion.     
> One of the sidelines of disasters like the Queensland floods is that the leaders of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Campaign will try to relate the disaster to Global Warming, caused by increasing man-made carbon dioxide. This has been done for the Queensland floods by, for example,  David Karoly  who for some reason gets a lot of coverage in the press and Television in Australia (though he has no expertise in this area), and Michael Steketee, the resident AGW specialist in _The Australian_.
>  There are at least three arguments against relating the Queensland floods to Anthropogenic Global Warming. 
>  1.Even other people in the Global Warming game realize there is no relationship between broad disasters and carbon dioxide. The leading AGW institution is the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 
> Christopher Monckton wrote of an article in _The Australian_ in January 2011: _Mr. Steketees short article makes two dozen questionable assertions, [I refer only to point 18] which either require heavy qualification or are downright false. His assertions will be printed in bold face: the truth will appear in Roman face._ _18. EVEN CAUTIOUS SCIENTISTS TEND TO SAY WE CAN BLAME MANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE.
> Cautious scientists say no such thing. Even the excitable and exaggeration-prone IPCC has repeatedly stated that individual extreme-weather events cannot be attributed to manmade global warming; it would be particularly incautious of any scientist to blame the blocking highs that caused nearly all of the weather-related damage in 2010 on us when these are long-established, naturally-occurring phenomena._2. The second problem is that this is not an isolated event.  There was another flood of about the same dimensions in 1974.  There was no peak of CO2 at that time.  It was not an especially warm year, so Global Warming cannot be invoked (1998 was a hotter year, but no flood).   
> ...

  Just curious again, this is a scientist who has studied the available evidence and issued his opinion, so does this count as a "scientific opinion", especially as lots of other scientists concur with this opinion. 
Or did he once screw his neighbour's cat, or once put petrol in his car?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The effect appears to be a perfectly natural rise out of the last ice age that has been occurring for a lot longer than CO2 has been able to have any effect.  There has been no discernible acceleration as predicted by AGW Theory.  Hence this: 
> Again, thanks for posting a pretty picture of what appears to be a perfectly natural effect, with absolutely *zero* scientific evidence attributing any specific cause/s.

  Here is the rest of the graph showing the perfectly natural continuation of this rise out of the last ice age prior to 1870, long before AGW Theory can even begin to kick in.   
So if you're claiming AGW Theory caused the rises over the last few decades, I guess you're also claiming that "whatever" was causing the natural rises for the more than 100 years prior to this just "coincidentally stopped" at exactly the same time?  :Confused:  
And in reality, these mm's are actually irrelevant to the hundreds of metres of change we have recorded long before coal power plants were around to scapegoat:   
But if you must, ignore reality and scientific data, just believe the opinions printed in some press releases from academic bureaucracies based on computers that predict the future.

----------


## jago

Please detonate this thread its become imbecilic...   :Worthless:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

:What he said:

----------


## chrisp

> Please detonate this thread its become imbecilic...

   

> 

  Come on, guys, that's being a bit harsh, isn't? 
There are many good reasons to keep this thread going...  Rod is likely to change his view on AGW soon...Dr Freud has been providing many interesting (first-hand?) insights on the atmosphere in the Ediacaran Period...We can read Andrew Bolt's views without having the embarrassment of actually visiting his blog...Marc has been helping us along with our grammar...Noel finds that reading thread thread cures his insomnia...
 Hmm, come to think of it, maybe *it is time*?  It’s time for freedom,
It’s time for moving, It’s time to begin,
Yes It’s time  It’s time Australia,
It’s time for moving, It’s time for proving,
Yes It’s time 
It’s time for all folk,
It’s time for moving, It’s time to give,
Yes It’s time 
It’s time for children,
It’s time to show them, Time to look ahead,
Yes It’s time :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Please detonate this thread its become imbecilic...

  Very simple. Just don't come to the thread.  
There, do that and as far as you are concerned its gone.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *My overall impression is that Eschenbach is a bit hot under the collar over, and very sensitive to, the use of the terms "unequivocal" and "denier". Sometimes people do react with anger when confronted with reality.*

  I cant see any reality there Chrisp.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Come on, guys, that's being a bit harsh, isn't? 
> There are many good reasons to keep this thread going...  Rod is likely to change his view on AGW soon...Dr Freud has been providing many interesting (first-hand?) insights on the atmosphere in the Ediacaran Period...We can read Andrew Bolt's views without having the embarrassment of actually visiting his blob...Marc has been helping us along with our grammar...Noel finds that reading thread thread cures his insomnia...Hmm, come to think of it, maybe *it is time*? Its time for freedom,
> Its time for moving, Its time to begin,
> Yes Its time Its time Australia,
> Its time for moving, Its time for proving,
> Yes Its time 
> Its time for all folk,
> Its time for moving, Its time to give,
> Yes Its time 
> ...

  OH my I am embarrased by your little it time thingy.   

> Rod is likely to change his view on AGW soon...

  Dont hold your breath. 
....On second thoughts it would save the earth some Co2!!!

----------


## chrisp

> CO2 exists in the athmosphere in concentration of 0,038%
> (cut ...)
> Human contribution to overall natural contribution CO2 is 1.2% which is of courase a lot smaller than the total of CO2 existing already.

  Marc, 
You are correct that the present CO2 level is about 380ppm (0.038%).  [ Actually, it is 389.69ppm.  see CO2 Now | CO2 Home  ] 
The pre-industrial-age CO2 level was about 280ppm (0.028%). 
The CO2 level has increased 380ppm/280ppm = ~36% increase.

----------


## Marc

It is a real challenge to answer some of the post here. 
Each side posts links or part of post that support their position and that is fair enough. It is when you get opinions by the contributor that it becomes rather challenging. 
Not that I have not heard this argument before. CO2 is "bad" because if there is too much we will die, as demonstrated by the example of the plastic bag over my head. Cheap shot. 
CO2 exists in the athmosphere in concentration of 0,038%
CO2 may start to be noticeable at 2% and becomes dangerous at 5%
Human contribution to overall natural contribution CO2 is 1.2% which is of course are lot smaller than the total of CO2 existing already. 
I leave it to you to work out how much this human contribution is to the overall mass of CO2 but even if you only did 5th grade, you can tell that it would need millions of years to increase the CO2 to anything close to 0.1 that is 50 times lower than dangerous levels.
The argument of "too much of a good thing is bad" is so poor that it does not deserve a mention if it wasn't that ther are some that do push that line that has some form of popular wisdom logic. (like that other line ... eat manure, millions of flies can not be wrong) 
It is this type of emotional yet irrational appeals like senator brown that blames floods (inundations) onto the coal industry (Funny isn't it, not the one burning it, the one mining it haha) that has turned the whole of the AGW farse into a religion that can only be "believed" or "denied". 
The only comparison that carries any resemblance ot what is happening today is the witch hunts and the killings of God deniers or scientist who refuted geocentricity and flat earth.
We will laugh about this some day not too far, meantime we keep on wasting billions and losing opportunities to develop our land and compete with China India and Brasil. 
Sad really, makes you want to lobby for qualified voting

----------


## PhilT2

> Here is the rest of the graph showing the perfectly natural continuation of this rise out of the last ice age prior to 1870, long before AGW Theory can even begin to kick in.

  The Church and White (2006) paper that this graph comes from states that,from the few records available, it appears that sea levels have been flat for over a thousand years prior to the period covered by the graph. 
The lack of any rise in the 1700s' is shown here. http://www.psmsl.org/products/recons...ns/figure1.gif 
The paper is here.  http://naturescapebroward.com/Natura...006_024826.pdf 
More on the lack of sea level increases here http://people.rses.anu.edu.au/lambeck_k/pdf/242.pdf 
The reason for the rise beginning in 1880 can be found in coal consumption figures for that period. Records indicate that smog control inspectors were employed to reduce the pollution in American and Canadian cities about this time. By 1910 over 700 000 coal miners were employed in the US. Coal and the battle against smoke: the early days of A & WMA.(ASSOCIATION NEWS) - Entrepreneur.com

----------


## Dr Freud

> Please detonate this thread its become imbecilic...

  By definition, if you support Plato's theories, your views would be Platonic, or Socrate's theories, they would be Socratic. 
By definition, if you support AGW Theory, your views would be imbecilic.  :Biggrin:  
I'm sure the post preceding yours triggered this response. 
Lucky us sceptics are here to bring some reality to the thread.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Marc, 
> You are correct that the present CO2 level is about 380ppm (0.038%).  [ Actually, it is 389.69ppm.  see CO2 Now | CO2 Home  ] 
> The pre-industrial-age CO2 level was about 280ppm (0.028%). 
> The CO2 level has increased 380ppm/280ppm = ~36% increase.

  What exactly is this supposed to prove? 
Marc posted a very detailed description of the atmospheric constituents earlier, which you duly ignored through embarrassment. 
Are you now going to comment on that data?  :No:  
No worries mate, just throw in another in future predicting computer model.

----------


## chrisp

> *I'm sure the post preceding yours triggered this response.*

  I do believe that you are correct.   :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> Chrisp, 
> Please read this essay as it demonstrates exactly what we have been on about over the past pages.   http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...wuwt_essay.pdf 
> If you do read it, and I hope you do, you may see why we have a valid reason why not to trust the likes of Trenberth.

  Rod, 
I have read the article at the provided link and also the article that is the subject of the response ( http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/w...hts4AMS_v3.pdf ).   
I'm not too sure exactly what to make of the 'open letter' response.  It  certainly is a very vehement response to a presentation that is yet to  occur! 
Willis Eschenbach seems particularly upset at:(a) the claim that AGW is unequivocal.
(b) The suggestion that the burden of proof should be shifted.
(c) the use of the term "denier". If you read the actual article by Trenberth, he outlines  his argument for the change of the null hypothesis (This quote also  shows the basis of the "unequivocal" claim):"Given that  global warming is unequivocal, and is very  likely due to human  activities to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null  hypothesis should  now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof  on showing that  there is no human influence. Such a null hypothesis is  trickier because  one has to hypothesize something specific, such as  precipitation has  increased by 5% and then prove that it hasnt.  Because of large  natural variability, the first approach results in an  outcome  suggesting that it is appropriate to conclude that there is no  increase  in precipitation by human influences, although the correct   interpretation is that there is simply not enough evidence (not a long   enough time series). However, the second approach also concludes that   one cannot say there is not a 5% increase in precipitation. Given that   global warming is happening and is pervasive, the first approach should   no longer be used. As a whole the community is making too many type II   errors. "*On deniers, Trenberth offers this sage advice:* "Debating  them about the science is not an approach that is recommended. In a  debate it is impossible to counter lies, and caveated statements show up  poorly against loudly proclaimed confident statements that often have  little or no basis. Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion  because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate  actually gives alternative views credibility."*Trenberth makes some interesting observations about the  cautious language of scientists and how it can sound wishy-washy to the  general public:*'So we frequently hear that while this  event is consistent with what we expect from climate change, no single  event can be attributed to human induced global warming. Such murky  statements should be abolished. On the contrary, the odds have changed  to make certain kinds of events more likely. For precipitation, the  pervasive increase in water vapor changes precipitation events with no  doubt whatsoever. *Yes, all events! Even if temperatures or sea  surface temperatures are below normal, they are still higher than they  would have been, and so too is the atmospheric water vapor amount and  thus the moisture available for storms.* Granted, the climate deals  with averages. However, those averages are made up of specific events of  all shapes and sizes now operating in a different environment. It is  not a well posed question to ask Is it caused by global warming? Or  Is it caused by natural variability? Because it is always both. It is  worth considering whether the odds of the particular event have changed  sufficiently that one can make the alternative statement *It is unlikely that this event would have occurred without global warming.*  For instance, this probably applies to the extremes that occurred in  the summer of 2010: the floods in Pakistan, India, and China and the  drought, heat waves and wild fires in Russia. *It likely also applies to the flooding in Queensland, Australia In January 2011.*'*My overall impression is that Eschenbach is a bit hot  under the collar over, and very sensitive to, the use of the terms  "unequivocal" and "denier".  Sometimes people do react with anger when  confronted with reality.*

----------


## Marc

Chip, I think Freud means this post, Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers 
(Sorry I deleted my first post, my typo corrected post turned out as a second post. I am at a beach cottage with no internet connection so I am using a wireless service by Virgin. I don't know if all wireless services are that bad but this is the pits.) 
As for your reply, I am aware of the fluctuations of CO2 concentrations in the apthmosphere. I am sure that just as you can check CO2 levels pre industrial as you call it, you can check a bit further back and see how CO2 levels have been higher and lower with no relation to human activities. 
At the crux of the green debate is the desperate attempt to blame humanity for naturally occuring events. It is no different from the parasite priest of ancient times who had a hold on power by blaming the populace for their sins that enraged the gods and produced floods or earthquake or pestilence.  
The late wave of social misfits that have jumped on the AGW banwagon (present company excluded of course) are there only because they percieve it as the right vehicle for their bias and resentment against personal success, industrial and social progress, and national prosperity because they feel excluded. 
"Being green" is one way to justify personal failures and individual dislocation from ordinary society and goals.
What 30 years ago was the local weirdo with long hair and sandals squatting illegaly is today the one who wants to tell mainstream people that thye got it wrong and he got it right. Still out of work, still a misfit, yet alliance with obscure political forces have propelled this element into religious prophets of gloom. -"Turn from your wicked ways you successful professionals industrialist and developpers, you are hurting my godess gaia and will be doomed. Make penitence and resign your waterfron homes and marinas and turn your farms into national parks"  
The very fact that anyone has even considered this massive load of crap we must endure is astonishing. Clearly the past 20 years will deserve the title of the age of stupidity.

----------


## chrisp

> As for your reply, I am aware of the fluctuations of CO2 concentrations in the apthmosphere. I am sure that just as you can check CO2 levels pre industrial as you call it, you can check a bit further back and see how CO2 levels have been higher and lower with no relation to human activities.

  CO2 levels do fluctuate over time:   
(from: Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) 
Over the past 400,000 years it hasn't gone much over 300 ppm (and has probably averaged about 240ppm). 
You will notice at the end of the above graph, that CO2 levels suddenly shoot up.  That spike is the industrial age.  *The increase in atmospheric CO2 is unprecedented in the the past 400,000 years.* 
I know Dr Freud loves to point out CO2 graphs that are on geological time-scales, but there are many things that can change the CO2 levels and the average temperature.  On those time-scales many other processes were also happening that dramatically changed the atmosphere. 
In recent geological times, the earth has been relatively stable, so it is easy to attribute the increased CO2 to human activity.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> CO2 exists in the athmosphere in concentration of 0,038%
> CO2 may start to be noticeable at 2% and becomes dangerous at 5%
> Human contribution to overall natural contribution CO2 is 1.2% which is of course are lot smaller than the total of CO2 existing already. 
> I leave it to you to work out how much this human contribution is to the overall mass of CO2 but even if you only did 5th grade, you can tell that it would need millions of years to increase the CO2 to anything close to 0.1 that is 50 times lower than dangerous levels.

  <sigh> 
...lifted from a recent article discussing climate models and their pitfalls in New Scientist   

> To make sense of it all, it is worth retracing the beginnings of climate science. In the late 1850s, the Irish-born scientist John Tyndall showed that certain gases, including carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone, absorb heat more strongly than the atmosphere as a whole, which is composed mainly of nitrogen and oxygen. *Later, in 1895, Swedish physicist and chemist Svante Arrhenius calculated the effect of different amounts of CO2, which makes up about 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere.* _From this work he predicted that doubling the CO2 concentration would warm the Earth enough to cause glaciers to retreat."_ 
> More studies followed. In 1938, English engineer Guy Callendar calculated what is now called the Earth's climate sensitivity, which is the amount by which the planet will warm for every doubling in the amount of atmospheric CO2. The figure he came up with was 2 °C. 
> Callendar was not without his critics, and the criticisms foreshadow those surrounding modern climate science. What about feedbacks due to increasing water vapour as the atmosphere warms? What about clouds? Would warming not increase cloud cover, which would block sunlight and thus cool the Earth?

  The rest of the article is well worth a read.  It is of course by subscription....but that's moot since the thrust of this response is actually targeted at Marc's public guesswork. 
The point I'm making (along with Chrisp's post) is that Marc's assertions are plain wrong and have been since the late 19th century...    
Why the heck someone can't ban me from this thread is bloody mystery to me  :Annoyed:

----------


## watson

> Why the heck someone can't ban me from this thread is bloody mystery to me

  
You called my son???

----------


## chrisp

> Why the heck someone can't ban me from this thread is bloody mystery to me

   

> You called my son???

  I hope SBD decides to hang around... 
BUT, if he does decide go in to voluntary banishment, perhaps - in the interest of fairness of course - may be you could 'take out' one of the members of the other side too? 
I'm sure that Dr Freud will understand the circumstances for his sacrifice ...   :Unsure:

----------


## Daniel Morgan

Hello, 
 I refer to the 6 minute mark of this 1947 video, it can be started there. 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcEto_Q8MlY&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Redwood Lumber Industry, Northern California - 1947[/ame] 
 If CO2 leads to an increase in global warming,
 then perhaps
 it will melt the ice in Alaska Iceland and Greenland,
 this will allow the giant redwood, sequoia  to regenerate,
 and they will photosynthesize and absorb the excess CO2
 then the earth will cool down
 then we will  have an ice age
 then we will use technology to produce CO2
 then the  earth will warm
 the redwoods will grow
 the redwoods will photosynthesize
 absorb the excess CO2
 the ice will melt
 Get my drift.  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I do believe that you are correct.

  Hilarious!  :Annoyed:    :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I know Dr Freud loves to point out CO2 graphs that are on geological time-scales, *but there are many things that can change the CO2 levels and the average temperature.*  On those time-scales many other processes were also happening that dramatically changed the atmosphere.

  *
English translation:*  We will highlight all time scales that fit our theory and pretend the majority that don't are irrelevant.  We will pretend that natural effects turn on and off in coordination with our computer models.  We will not prove this scientifically.  These aren't the droids you're looking for... :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I hope SBD decides to hang around... 
> BUT, if he does decide go in to voluntary banishment, perhaps - in the interest of fairness of course - may be you could 'take out' one of the members of the other side too? 
> I'm sure that Dr Freud will understand the circumstances for his sacrifice ...

  Always willing to make other people do the sacrificing.  :Biggrin:    

> It's because they are the high priests who oversee the sacrificing.   
> It's the common folk who need to do the sacrificing and be sacrificed.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The reason for the rise beginning in 1880 can be found in coal consumption figures for that period. Records indicate that smog control inspectors were employed to reduce the pollution in American and Canadian cities about this time. By 1910 over 700 000 coal miners were employed in the US. Coal and the battle against smoke: the early days of A & WMA.(ASSOCIATION NEWS) - Entrepreneur.com

  So now you're claiming that 19th century coal use is the cause of an instantaneous global ocean level rise commencing in the mid-19th century? 
You have got to be kidding?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Hello, 
>  I refer to the 6 minute mark of this 1947 video, it can be started there.  YouTube - Redwood Lumber Industry, Northern California - 1947 
>  If CO2 leads to an increase in global warming,
>  then perhaps
>  it will melt the ice in Alaska Iceland and Greenland,
>  this will allow the giant redwood, sequoia  to regenerate,
>  and they will photosynthesize and absorb the excess CO2
>  then the earth will cool down
>  then we will  have an ice age
> ...

  Mate, you obviously place more stock in reality as opposed to computer models. 
Congratulations.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## PhilT2

If CO2 leads to an increase in global warming,
then perhaps
it will melt the ice in Alaska Iceland and Greenland,
this will allow the giant redwood, sequoia to regenerate,
and they will photosynthesize and absorb the excess CO2
then the earth will cool down *Got that, trees absorb CO2, earth cools, ice forms*
then we will have an ice age
then we will use technology to produce CO2
then the earth will warm
the redwoods will grow
the redwoods will photosynthesize
absorb the excess CO2 *This time trees absorb CO2, earth cools but ice melts???*
the ice will melt 
Reality?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I hope SBD decides to hang around... 
> BUT, if he does decide go in to voluntary banishment, perhaps - in the interest of fairness of course - may be you could 'take out' one of the members of the other side too? 
> I'm sure that Dr Freud will understand the circumstances for his sacrifice ...

  HMM I think SBD is being a bit of a drama queen!!!  :Wink:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> If CO2 leads to an increase in global warming,
> then perhaps
> it will melt the ice in Alaska Iceland and Greenland,
> this will allow the giant redwood, sequoia to regenerate,
> and they will photosynthesize and absorb the excess CO2
> then the earth will cool down *Got that, trees absorb CO2, earth cools, ice forms*
> then we will have an ice age
> then we will use technology to produce CO2
> then the earth will warm
> ...

  Only the message PhilT2 only the message.  Even I understand that.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> HMM I think SBD is being a bit of a drama queen!!!

  Don't like drama....much prefer dancing. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwmO3TXEm3c]YouTube - Andrew W.K. - It's Time to Party (lyrics)[/ame] 
Besides someone has to be the Yang to stop the Yin spinning out  :Kiss:

----------


## Marc

> ....but that's moot since the thrust of this response is actually targeted at Marc's public guesswork. 
> The point I'm making (along with Chrisp's post) is that Marc's assertions are plain wrong and have been since the late 19th century...

  Dearest gas man. 
If all you have to support your "assertion" is an article from 110 years ago that wrongly assumes that CO2 relationship to greenhouse effect is lineal, you actually have nothing at all. 
the Cycle of CO2 and its efficiency or rather lack of it as a greenhouse gas is well understood and current knowledge needs nothing from that article. Of course flat earthers who want to find any scrap of print that claims humans are changing the climate would use it do "demonstrate" that gaia is angry and is flooding the earth as punishment for our sins. Your choice.  
Just one observation. In order to double the present amount of CO2 that sits at 0.038 considering current human contribution is around 1.15% of natural contributions that are obviously only a fraction of that 0.038% of total CO2, and considering the various complex mechanism that would accelerate the cycle rather than accumulate it, would take several centuries. Furthermore considering that doubling of Co2 would result in only minimal increase in greenhouse effect since most important greenhouse gas is water and Co2 is only a trace gas the scaremongering of 2C temperature increase is just that, bulldust. 
And a parting shot. If temperature would really increase 2 degrees Fahrenheit or even Celsius in a couple of centuries, who decides that such is so bad? Senator Brown? Kevin Rudd? Peter Garret? Temperatures have been much higher than just 2 extra degrees and humanity thrived in those days. It is cooling that is dangerous not heating up.  
  I suggest that before posting politically taintet opinions from third parties, that people do a bit of research before posting. For example Chris seems to favour hokey stick contaminated graphs that have been dismissed as frauds and cons a long time ago. Why not do a google search with this string, "percentage of CO2 in the athmosphere" several dozen links will come up with a lot of information that shows CO2 content in the athmosphere before industrial era was far from flat and can not be flat since it is a variable component in the athmosphere regardless of our minuscule and irrelevant contribution.

----------


## Dr Freud

You and your mate Karoly with your mealy mouth insinuations like to make people think the floods were part of your "climate change" delusion:   

> *[PART 2]* _
> Professor Karoly  stressed individual events could not  be attributed to climate change.  However, he said the wild extremes  being experienced on the continent  were in keeping with scientists forecasts of more flooding associated with increased heavy rain events and more droughts as a result of high temperatures and more evaporation._

    

> *[PART 2* 
> Recent events seem to bear this out, however, I wouldn't go so far as to say they are 'proof' of AGW, but rather, they are consistent with the predictions.

  But the CSIRO scientist's are slowly buying out of your delusion:   

> At this stage, renewal of a rain-generating process with La Niña bringing higher rainfall to SEQ might be expected to last for 10 to 20 years, Dr Cai said. 
> Many of the wettest years for the region occurred in La Nina years such as 1956, 1971, and 1974. 
> "Since 1980, the IPO has been in a phase similar to El Niño  limiting the rainfall that La Niña brings to SEQ as a major rain-generating mechanism, Dr Cai said.
>  This is largely responsible for the recent drought.  
> Their results show that the recent drought in SEQ *is not consistent with climate change projected by the models.*   SEQ drought likely caused by climate variability (Media Release)

  Slowly stepping away from the lunatic fringe and slowly moving back to reality.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The moderate Left is belatedly gagging on Bob Brown and his Greens, with their mad climate catastrophism and sinister anti Zionism.  Nick Dyrenfurth, co-editor of _All Thats Left: What Labor Should Stand For_:   _ 
> According to Brown, coal barons were responsible for the climate change-induced natural disaster and soon-to-materialise severe and more frequent floods, droughts and bushfires in coming decades"_  _One day we might discover that climate change indeed played a role, but Browns ill-advised attempt to extract political capital out of a still-unfolding disaster is signal evidence that the Greens are simply another political party scoring cheap partisan points for electoral gain_  _If further evidence were required to prove the Greens are themselves capable of political bastardry, then witness billionaire Wotif founder Graeme Woods $1.6 million donation to party coffers, the largest single political donation by an individual in Australian history, despite Browns previous denunciations of such largesse_  _Particular attention should be directed towards the NSW Greens. At its December State Delegates Council, the party decided to officially support the anti-Israel boycott, sanctions and divestment movement._  _The Greens-controlled Marrickville council, in Sydneys inner west, quickly moved to implement party policy by officially backing the counterproductive and potentially anti-Semitic boycott in its entirety._Jack the Insider:   _LAST year Labor patrician, Graham Richardson described Greens leader, Bob Brown as the best politician in the country. Richardsons point was that Brown was able to put a kinder, gentler face on the Greens loony policies and personalities._  _If Browns comments (on coal miners) are anything to go by that modicum of sanity appears to have left him. Indeed, it seems Brown has popped on an over-sized top hat with a 10/6 price tag in the hatband and dived headlong in to the lunatic fringe_  _The flood crisis has exposed the Greens as bereft of political leadership, incapable of establishing a sound policy development process; preferring to impose themselves on the political landscape as a roving body of inquisition, quick to mete out blame and punishment according to their own narrow view of the world._ _The Left turns on Brown | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  "_The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers._" 
―Princess Leia to Grand Moff Tarkin

----------


## Dr Freud

> I have already asked the question, where will they rebuild? 
> Or instead do we all hold hands and congratulate each other on our great clean up efforts, then leave everything as is until the next "unprecedented" event.

  I had no respect for this woman whatsoever, but if she has the courage to enforce these intentions, she deserves plenty of respect:   

> "We owe it to future generations to bite the bullet and make the right (decisions). 
> "The last thing we want to do is rebuild in the same place and see that home flooded again in two or three years' time." 
> The rebuilding authority will have powers similar to those of a co-ordinator general and will replace the initial recovery taskforce headed by Major-General Mick Slater. 
> The statutory authority will have greater power than the taskforce and will co-ordinate the rebuilding program in 60 flood- affected communities, with Maj- Gen Slater chairing a board of five. 
> The authority will be established by an Act of Parliament in February. 
> Maj-Gen Slater said his recovery task had expanded exponentially. "The new authority will have the capacity and the legal authority to do what needs to be done . . . I'm actually looking forward to getting the expertise of the board around me," he said. 
> There would always be hard decisions, he added, "but it's not hard to make the right decisions".   Flood danger zones may not be redeveloped, Premier Bligh says | Courier Mail

  Spoken like a true soldier: "but it's not hard to make the right decisions".  :2thumbsup:  
Let's see if the politicians up there can live up to it?

----------


## Dr Freud

Billions wasted handing out $900 cheques straight to China.
Billions wasted burning down houses with idiot schemes.
Billions wasted building overpriced donga's at schools.
Billions wasted through foreign aid buying votes at the UN
Billions wasted in failed green dream schemes.
Billions wasted, and wasted, and wasted...
Billions still to be wasted on farcical schemes like NBN, cash-for-clunkers, carbon tax schemes, and wasted, and wasted, and wasted... 
OUR MONEY!!! 
Now that it's all being wasted, they want more:  "This is going to require some difficult decisions, spending cutbacks and there may even a levy," Ms Gillard said on ABC's 7.30 Report last night.  
Three words for you Joolia: Go  :Tapedshut:  yourself!   

> But Mr Abbott has slammed the prospect of special one-off flood levy. 
> "The Prime Minister is clearly softening us up for another new tax," Mr Abbott told ABC Radio today.

  You sort her out Mr Rabbit!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## mark53

> You called my son???

  
Aah Watson, you crack me up  :Laugh bounce: . Timing they say, is everything.

----------


## mark53

Chrisp, you would do well not to quote the scientifically blinkered Prof. Karoly, the obsequious ABC journo's' AGW dribbler of choice. Dear old Aunty is rapidly becoming less relevant as a reliable, unbiased and accurate news source.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Aah Watson, you crack me up . Timing they say, is everything.

  P'raps.  But I'm still not banned from this thread.   :Frown:

----------


## Dr Freud

Scaremongering works great while people are in the dark. 
Let there be light!    

> Just one year to go to check on the accuracy of this prediction, passed on by warming alarmist George Monbiot in 2002:  _Within as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the worlds animals or it continues to feed the worlds people. It cannot do both.The impending crisis will be accelerated by the depletion of both phosphate fertiliser and the water used to grow crops. Every kilogram of beef we consume, according to research by the agronomists David Pimental and Robert Goodland, requires around 100,000 litres of water. Aquifers are beginning the run dry all over the world, largely because of abstraction by farmers._Alarmist watch: Monbiot’s prediction of no animal feed by 2012 | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  
As the years tick over, the failed prophecies fall over.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Billions wasted handing out $900 cheques straight to China.
> Billions wasted burning down houses with idiot schemes.
> Billions wasted building overpriced donga's at schools.
> Billions wasted through foreign aid buying votes at the UN
> Billions wasted in failed green dream schemes.
> Billions wasted, and wasted, and wasted...
> Billions still to be wasted on farcical schemes like NBN, cash-for-clunkers, carbon tax schemes, and wasted, and wasted, and wasted...

  It's not just me who's noticed.   
You'll pay tax for CO2 that's causing the droughts, and you'll pay tax for floods caused by all the rain.  You'll pay both these taxes at the same time, regardless whether it rains a little, a lot, or not.  Whose the idiot?   

> Economist Julie Novak says Julie Gillard is considering a levy to pay for the flood damage only because Labor has recklessly squandered the surplus:   _That the Gillard government appears so eager to float speculation about a new tax is a direct product of the rather irrational policy response to the 2008 global financial crisis, which left insufficient carryover funds for an emergency of the proportion posed by the 2011 floods._  _As a result of fiscal panics in the form of $900 cheques, the infamous local government community grants program, the tragic home insulation program and over-costed school halls program, the commonwealth government budget is expected to remain in deficit this fiscal year to the tune of some $42 billion combined with a trail of public sector debt that will not be paid off until mid-decade._  _The Queensland government, managed by formerly the biggest-spending Treasurer in the states history and now led by the biggest-spending Premier, is also facing a structural budget deficit and significant public sector debt. Even NSW now puts Queensland to shame in terms of headline fiscal results. The longstanding policy trilogy of low taxes, budget surpluses and no (or low) debt, which would have averted the worst fiscal effects of a natural disaster, was well and truly trashed by the time that floodwaters raged down the Brisbane River._  _That governments engaged in a massive spending binge during the latter years of the previous decade, leaving them to now propose little more than a new tax not only on communities already suffering but on other communities that have already generously, and without government edict, donated their own money and time to assist, deserves nothing but the highest level of condemnation._UPDATE  Jennifer Hewett says Gillards suggestion of a flood levy is just the latest sign - and test - of a Prime Minister who is floundering:    _What she is actually trying to do is prepare the political ground for adding a surcharge on taxpayers to allow her to keep to her mantra of a budget surplus by 2013. Saying that there may be a levy is code for trying to assess public reaction before firmly committing._  _Her nervous colleagues are desperately hoping she can negotiate this treacherous terrain in the face of immediate attacks from Tony Abbott about more unnecessary new taxes. But their confidence, based on the experience of the past six months, is not high_  _Even before the Prime Ministers stilted personal style during the floods crisis attracted so many unflattering comparisons with the Queensland Premier, the mood within the party was one of sullen dismay at Labors persistent inability to get traction in selling its messages_  _We dont seem to have anyone in the leadership who can clearly sell a coherent story of what we are doing and what we want to do, grumbles one Labor MP...._  _Voters certainly wont be fooled by the nomenclature of a levy not equalling higher tax The underlying issue will be whether the Gillard government will use an increase in taxes to avoid making spending cuts it could and should make if it is serious about reform and change...._  _Gillard understands that the can-do image she brought to the prime ministership when she ousted Kevin Rudd vanished quickly under the weight of an ill-conceived and badly managed election campaign._  _But what has been more significant since the election has been her inability to recover any sense of political or policy momentum...._  _It is not just that the three issues the Prime Minister initially pledged to fix - the mining tax, Australias policy on climate change and border control - remain major dilemmas But the way the Gillard government has gone about dealing with this reality demonstrates so many glaring policy contradictions, that theres no sense Canberra knows how to extricate itself with minimum pain.__If Julia Gillard wraps it in a flag, will you buy it? From her speech in Adelaide yesterday:_    _As we prepare for Australia Day my message to you here and to Australians all, is simple - dont let go. We will hang on to each other in the worst times and in the best. We will hang on to our Aussie mateship and our Aussie fair go in the worst times and in the best.__The Herald Sun passes on what Gillards office seems keen to make known about the re-emergence of the real Julia:_    _It is believed the highly personalised speech was written entirely by Ms Gillard rather than her usual speechwriter.__Labor forgot to keep some cash for this rainy day | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

----------


## Dr Freud

> _TAXPAYERS are spending millions of dollars to subsidise the electricity bills of Cate Blanchetts Sydney Theatre Company and replace in-room fridges with green Eskies on Heron Island._  _Designed to demonstrate solar power and save water, the Gillard Government has spent $15 million on the Green Precinct program at just a dozen high profile demonstration projects._  _They include a grant of $1.2 million towards the Sydney Theatre Companys Greening The Wharf project that will reduce energy costs by just $100,000 a year. The total program cost is $5 million._  _The cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is sky high under the scheme compared to the Governments failed bid to introduce an emissions trading scheme with a carbon price of around $30 a tonne._  _Based on the projected savings under the scheme, the Opposition estimates the Green Precincts Fund comes with an estimated price tag of $2022 per tonne of carbon dioxide saved.._

  Awesome!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> To be charitable to the committee, let us take the UN's high-end estimate. The warming forestalled by cutting Australia's emissions would be very unlikely to exceed 57 per cent of 5.7 times the logarithm of 0.9997: that is - wait for it - a dizzying one-thousandth of a degree by 2050.  Earth&#039;s climate crisis ain&#039;t necessarily so | The Australian

  
That's 0.001 of a degree.  Is it worth it?  You voted, you already decided.  :Doh:  
And this is still assuming all the fiction they went on about is actually real.  This is best case scenario.  In reality, their farce has failed, and it will achieve nothing, but cost the same.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Nowadays Gillard's speeches seem punctuated by an uncomfortable tincture of self-embarrassment, as though the sentiments sound hollow even to her own ears - even though it is her own severe honesty that forces her to focus on the exercise of mere political competence.  
> But would we really prefer that she mimicked her predecessor, who carried other people's suitcases through the waters in pale imitation of Mahatma Gandhi, and supervised a barbecue with liturgical solemnity?   Languishing in a sea of torpor | The Australian

  I think we all preferred the fake Joolia.  :Doh:   
We've still got the fake Rudd.  
We're still listening to the fake scares.  
But rest assured people, the taxes these two made up will hurt for real.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

The one thing I have yet to hear from anyone in relation to "grants" and subsidies, in other words, millions and billions used to push and promote "green" alternative is the following: 
Has anyone considered that the money spent to subsidise green BS was made with the only activities that actually make money, that is traditional business who generate aboundant CO2? 
So in order to prop up one dollar of say solar energy we spend 6 dollars that have produced 6 times the amount of CO2 we want to prevent.
Now there is LOGIC!!!! Spend and spend, that money needs to be replaced with yet more CO2 generating activities, (remember those that actually make money) Oh how I HATE imbecillity :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You'll pay tax for CO2 that's causing the droughts, and you'll pay tax for floods caused by all the rain.  You'll pay both these taxes at the same time, regardless whether it rains a little, a lot, or not.  Whose the idiot?

  You are pal.   

> *AUSTRALIANS will pay more tax under a temporary flood recovery levy set to be announced by Prime Minister Julia Gillard tomorrow. *                                Ms Gillard and senior ministers, including Treasurer Wayne Swan, Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese and Finance Minister Penny Wong, met yesterday to sign off on a levy expected to raise $3.5 billion. 
> It is believed the favoured option is to increase the 1.5 per cent Medicare levy.   Julia Gillard to announce flood levy | Herald Sun

  Why would she do this on Australia Day?    :Aussie3:    
Surely not some cynical ploy to use our patriotism as a smokescreen to introduce a new tax to cover Labor's financial failures?    

> _If Julia Gillard wraps it in a flag, will you buy it? From her speech in Adelaide yesterday:_  _As we prepare for Australia Day my message to you here and to Australians all, is simple - dont let go. We will hang on to each other in the worst times and in the best. We will hang on to our Aussie mateship and our Aussie fair go in the worst times and in the best._

  She led with this:   

> She compared the flood response with the defiant mindset of Australian prisoners of war in Singapore's Changi prison during World War II.  
>  "The force of the story about Aussies in Changi isn't the mateship that was shown on the first day of imprisonment, it is that the mateship endured through the hell," she said.  
>  Despite the floods tragedy, Ms Gillard declared: "This Australia Day, mateship lives."

  Well done Joolia, use our war dead as a political tool to stifle anti-taxing opinion.  
What a b!tch.     :Ausflag:

----------


## PhilT2

News Ltd which owns The Australian and the Herald Sun announced yesterday that the organisation had become carbon neutral. It&#039;s good News on carbon footprint | Herald Sun

----------


## mark53

"She compared the flood response with the defiant mindset of Australian prisoners of war in Singapore's Changi prison during World War II.  
"The force of the story about Aussies in Changi isn't the mateship that was shown on the first day of imprisonment, it is that the mateship endured through the hell," she said.  
Despite the floods tragedy, Ms Gillard declared: "This Australia Day, mateship lives."   *Where does this frigging Prime Minister get of ! The unmitigated gall. For a few stinking political points she debases herself, the reputation of her government and draws a comparison so dissimilar as to be an affront to the memory of those so deviously incarcerated in that hell hole. I'm bloody livid. And so should all Australians.*

----------


## Marc

The ONLY action a sane, thinking and mentally balanced prime minister would do  is: 
A) Instruct all councils in Australia to request proof of current  insurance policy before council rates payments are accepted. Insurance must be  made compulsory. The public should not be made to pay not directly nor by elevation of increased insurance premium for the indolence of the few.
B) Enforce a standard definition of flood and make all  insurance policy with other convoluted definition with small print exceptions  illegal.
C) Instruct the states to investigate and prosecute all development  approved in flood prone areas of buildings who are not designed to withstand a  flood
D) Investigate and prosecute those who have willingly stalled,  cancelled, stopped or otherwise undermined the building of dams for flood  mitigation purposes. 
E) Actively promote the building of a minimum of 50  dams Australia wide for water storage and flood mitigation by stopping  immediately all foreign aid for 5 years and redirecting the funds to such  purpose.
F) Reassure all Australians that the purpose of the elected governemt is to govern and that such includes providing for emergencies and therefore it is completely unecessary to donate money since we already pay one of the highest tax rate in the western world and that taxes serve precisely such purpose.

----------


## Dr Freud

> News Ltd which owns The Australian and the Herald Sun announced yesterday that the organisation had become carbon neutral. It's good News on carbon footprint | Herald Sun

  Would you care to explain what "carbon neutral" means to us boof-head realists? 
Then could you please explain exactly how they achieved this as claimed?

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Where does this frigging Prime Minister get of ! The unmitigated gall. For a few stinking political points she debases herself, the reputation of her government and draws a comparison so dissimilar as to be an affront to the memory of those so deviously incarcerated in that hell hole. I'm bloody livid. And so should all Australians.*

  It is disgusting as you will see below, but she has no choice but to use as much emotional blackmail as possible to institute the raft of new taxes coming, including the carbon tax for no rain, the flood tax for heavy rain, the mining tax for...well who the hell knows anymore! 
The floods while sad for some and an inconvenience for others cannot and should not be compared as she has done.  If you doubt this see for yourself...and remember why...to sell more climate change mitigation BS. 
Here's the floods:   

> *FLOOD victim Sandy Kiddle hugged Julia Gillard as she told the Prime Minister of the prized possessions she'd lost as floodwaters surged through her Bundaberg home.                 *                                Ms Kiddle was one of about 60 people sheltering in an evacuation centre in Bundberg when Ms Gillard and Premier Anna Bligh visited this morning.
> The North Bundaberg resident was forced to leave her home a couple of days ago and has been told she may not be able to return for a week.
> It was just a sea of water, she told Ms Gillard, as she spoke of the household goods she had lost when her home was inundated.
> Ms Gillard said Ms Kiddle had wished her well for the new year, and described the hug as a humbling moment.
> It's amazing that someone who is here in these circumstances would actually be concerned about my welfare, the Prime Minister told reporters later.      Julia Gillard 'humbled' by Bundaberg flood victim's new year wishes | The Australian

  Here's Joolia's "comparison":   

> As 1942 moved on, death from dysentery and vitamin deficiencies became more common.  The mood of the Japanese changed for the worst when a POW tried to escape. The attempt was a failure and the Japanese demanded that everyone in the camp sign a document declaring that they would not attempt to escape. This was refused. As a result, 20,000 POWs were herded onto a barrack square and told that they would remain there until the order was given to sign the document. When this did not get the desired result, a group of POWs was marched to the local beach and shot.     Changi POW camp

  Now pay your new taxes and smile cos you did it tough shovelling some mud.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Here it is people, for those in any doubt as to the scam that is upon us:   

> Its not just the floods but the new taxes that prove the global-warming alarmists have made fools of us. 
>   Consider: the Gillard Government now threatens us with a carbon tax to stop the warming we were told would give us endless drought, but also a levy to deal with the floods we got instead. 
>   Hello? 
>   More fool taxpayers for ever having believed the warming preachers who so profited from the greenhouse scare. 
>   But more fool us if we now believe their latest claims that they predicted wed actually have a third of Queensland under water, the Murray-Darling Basin in flood and dams overflowing after a year of heavy rain and a summer only Noah would love. 
>  Just hear those brazen I-told-you-sos. Theres Greens leader Bob Brown, of course, pretending the Queensland floods followed his script, and even blaming our coal miners for them:  _ 
> Its the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now._ 
>   Ian Lowe, head of the Australian Conservation Foundation, also made the floods seem just as he predicted:  _ 
> The Queensland floods are another reminder of what climate science has been telling us for 25 years . . ._ 
> ...

----------


## PhilT2

> Would you care to explain what "carbon neutral" means to us boof-head realists? 
> Then could you please explain exactly how they achieved this as claimed?

  It might be best to go to the source and ask them. They have their own definition of reality too.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The ONLY action a sane, thinking and mentally balanced prime minister would do is: 
> A) Instruct all councils in Australia to request proof of current insurance policy before council rates payments are accepted. Insurance must be made compulsory. The public should not be made to pay not directly nor by elevation of increased insurance premium for the indolence of the few.
> B) Enforce a standard definition of flood and make all insurance policy with other convoluted definition with small print exceptions illegal.
> C) Instruct the states to investigate and prosecute all development approved in flood prone areas of buildings who are not designed to withstand a flood
> D) Investigate and prosecute those who have willingly stalled, cancelled, stopped or otherwise undermined the building of dams for flood mitigation purposes. 
> E) Actively promote the building of a minimum of 50 dams Australia wide for water storage and flood mitigation by stopping immediately all foreign aid for 5 years and redirecting the funds to such purpose.
> F) Reassure all Australians that the purpose of the elected governemt is to govern and that such includes providing for emergencies and therefore it is completely unecessary to donate money since we already pay one of the highest tax rate in the western world and that taxes serve precisely such purpose.

  Marc, that is too bloody obvious!
Nice post  
Back next week on holidays :Laugh bounce:  :Laugh bounce:  :Laugh bounce:

----------


## Dr Freud

> News Ltd which owns The Australian and the Herald Sun announced yesterday that the organisation had become carbon neutral. It's good News on carbon footprint | Herald Sun

   

> It might be best to go to the source and ask them. They have their own definition of reality too.

  Seeing as you appear to be back-pedalling from your propaganda piece, let me have a try. 
There is the usual "make it up as you go along" with the AGW Theory bandwagon, but these guys seem to have put some effort into this definition:   

> Carbon neutral means that  through a transparent process of measuring emissions, reducing those emissions and offsetting residual emissions  net calculated carbon emissions equal zero.  Consultation on the term Carbon Neutral - Department of Energy and Climate Change

  Does this sound like it "equals zero"?   

> *THE chairman and chief executive of News Limited, John Hartigan, yesterday announced that News Limited, owner of the Herald Sun, had become carbon-neutral and was on track to achieving its goal of reducing emissions by 20 per cent. *                                Mr Hartigan said News Limited had achieved emissions reductions of 18.4 per cent since launching its company-wide energy reduction plan, "One Degree", in June 2007.
> Efficiency measures introduced over the past three years had reduced carbon emissions by 8.4 per cent from 146,166 tonnes of carbon dioxide to 134,880 tonnes, with an additional 10 per cent reduction coming from renewable energy certificates.

  But hey, maybe they were using one of the many definitions used by tree huggers to suit their hypocritical position of the day:  Ask TreeHugger: What Does "Carbon Neutral" Mean Anyway? : TreeHugger 
That's why I was curious as to which definition you assumed they were using when you wrote this:   

> News Ltd which owns The Australian and the Herald Sun announced yesterday that the organisation had become carbon neutral.

  Are you now backing away from this sentence you wrote, or did you parrot the term "carbon neutral" while having no idea what it means?  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Julia Gillard says her flood levy is  very Australian, because well all share in footing the bill for the Queensland floods:   _The great majority of Australians are ready to contribute, I have no doubt about that. It is what Australians have a right to expect.... Doing it the Australian way. Sharing and sticking together. Everyone doing their part.__Except everyone isnt doing their part and sharing the pain with her levy. Gillard may claim the great majority may want to pay her levy, but shes Instead organised a crude rob-the-rich exercise that has that great majority paying nothing at all, while a wealthier few are looted of thousands or dollars each._  _As Gillard herself says:_  _Anyone earning under $50,000 will not pay the levy Under this levy, someone who has an income of $60,000 will pay just under $1 extra per week.__Since most Australians in full or part-time work earn less than $50,000, they do none of this sharing and sticking together. They are excused their part._  _And even people on around  the average full-time wage ($64,600, higher than the median income)  pay just $1.44 a week, or a total of around $75._  _But  earn well and youll be robbed blind by a government thats less Robin Hood than Al Capone. If youre on $150,000, you will pay a total of $750. Earn $200,000 and youll be hit for $1250. Earn $300,000, and this spendthrift Government will demand an extra $2250._  _This is not all-in-together. This is a smash-and-grab on just the wealthier Australians, while making every one feel good about having paid nothing._  _UPDATE_  _Menzies House has a petition: Stop the levy!_  _UPDATE 2_  _I suspect reader Darrel is not far wrong:_  _ 
> This is all about political strategy, Queensland Labor is facing a wipe-out at the next election. On top of that Queensland was devastating to Federal Labor at the last election._  _Gillard knows the opposition will - and wants the opposition to - vote against the levy. This all about turning Queenslanders against the coalition for ammunition at the upcoming state and next federal election.__ If were all in this together, how come only the rich pay? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  I guess "mateship lives" in divisive class warfare and playing politics with natural disasters.

----------


## Dr Freud

Controversial? Try Bullsh-t!   

> Australians across the country had banded together in the aftermath of the floods, and politicians would be expected to do the same, she said, despite admitting that the levy was "controversial".

  Yeh, we banded together to help people in need, not pay off your billions in debt racked up by financial ineptitude. 
And here's people getting behind the package:   

> From the right-  *Do you support, or oppose, the government's flood levy proposal?*    *                                 Support                            *                                                               18.39% (2470 votes) *                                 Oppose                            *                                                               81.61% (10958 votes)
>                  Total votes: 13428   Polls | The Australian  
> From the left-   *Poll: Are you for or against a flood levy?* 
> For: 27%
>            Against: 73%     Total votes: 50710.   Gillard confirms one-off flood levy

  No wonder the greenies aren't happy either:   

> The government will cut and cap spending in other areas too.
>               "I am abolishing, deferring and capping access to a number of carbon abatement programs," Ms Gillard said.
>               These include the Green Car Innovation Fund, Cleaner Car Rebate Scheme, the Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships and Solar Flagships, the Solar Hot Water Rebate, Green Start Program, Solar Homes and Communities Plan and the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.
>               "The key to these carbon abatement program savings is my determination to deliver a carbon price."
>               Some of these policies are less efficient than a carbon price and will no longer be necessary, Ms Gillard said.

  
Just like that, huh?  No longer necessary? 
All you guys that have been arguing how great and essential these programs are must be feeling like mugs.  But admittedly not as bad as when Kevvie neutered the ETS debacle.  Joolia is smarter than Ruddy and has figured taxes are easy.  Sell it with some BS excuse, and pump all funds directly into revenue.  No middle-men, no market derivatives, just using hard-working citizens as cash cows to fund their financial ineptitude.   
All sold to the weak minded as "mateship", the "Australian way", "saving the environment" or "saving the Planet". 
In reality (where I live), we call this increasing revenue.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Flood levy debate - Sunrise - Yahoo!7 TV

----------


## Dr Freud

What do you do when all your dodgy data fails you? When all your predictions fail you? When all your scaremongering fails you? When people treat you like a joke over your failed theory? 
You just blatantly lie.   

> Reuters was once a news agency, rather than a propagandist outfit. Heres the headline over a report its distributed on Julia Gillards flood levy:   _Australia Raises a Tax to Cover the Costs of Climate Change__We have? Can  Reuters name that scientist who says this not-unprecedented  La Nina flood was actually caused by man-made warming?_  _Shameful._  _ No, global warming causes bad journalism instead | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  _ _ See, that's how they work.  Now little greenies overseas will be running around their countries telling them how committed we are to climate change.  Notice how there is no mention of Joolia axing all the pointless and expensive green dream cr@p the greenies have been pushing down our throats for years. 
All gone in one announcement.  What a crock! 
No wonder all they have left is blatant lies.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Lies to help sell the "mateship tax":   

> JULIA GILLARD: We are seeing a natural disaster of unprecedented economic proportions still unfolding in our country.  AM - Government tries to sell flood levy 28/01/2011

  Really?   
From the authors:   

> Once the weather-related insured losses are normalised, they exhibit no obvious trend over time that might be attributed to other factors, including human-induced climate change.  ScienceDirect - Environmental Science & Policy : Normalised Australian insured losses from meteorological hazards: 1967&#x2013;2006

  Not unprecedented. Not AGW Theory. Not complicated.  :No:  
Now smile and pay all your new taxes.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Remember these gems you now have stuck all through your house:   

> The energy saving bulbs show mercury levels 20 times higher than regulations allow in the air surrounding them for up to five hours after they are broken, according to tests released Thursday by the Federal Environment Agency (UBA).   Consumer groups call for end to EU light bulb ban - The Local    John Howard (and Turnbull) introduced this farce into Australia.  I hope they and others have learned the lesson of buying into half-baked green dream schemes without proper consideration.  
> Can't wait for lawyers to get a hold of this issue in the coming years.

  Well, it gets better (or is it worse):  

> We were forced to switch to expensive compact fluorescent bulbs because we were told they were good for us. Theyd help save a planet that seems in no danger and theyd save us money. 
>   Oh, really? 
>  My own anecdotal experience is that they break too easily and burn out a lot faster than promised. And, indeed, it seems that one of the design problems is a factor the politicians didnt count on. Turning them off and on shortens their life:   _Many nations are relying on them to help cut emissions from power plants and stretch electricity supplies further. The United Nations says 8% of global greenhouse-gas emissions are linked to lighting, and that adoption of compact fluorescent lights could cut pollution._  _The World Bank has helped dozens of mostly poor nations begin the switch to the bulbs to make electric lighting more affordable. Last June, for example, Bangladesh gave away five million of the bulbs in a single day._  _No state has done more to promote compact fluorescent lamps than California.... (But) energy savings attributed to PG&E (the Pacific Gas and Electric Company) were pegged at 451.6 million kilowatt hours by regulators, or 73% less than the 1.7 billion kilowatt hours projected by PG&E for the 2006-2008 program._  _One hitch was the compact-fluorescent burnout rate. When PG&E began its 2006-2008 program, it figured the useful life of each bulb would be 9.4 years. Now, with experience, it has cut the estimate to 6.3 years, which limits the energy savings. Field tests show higher burnout rates in certain locations, such as bathrooms and in recessed lighting. Turning them on and off a lot also appears to impair longevity.__It may be that consumers - who preferred the cheaper conventional bulbs - were right, and the governments which banned them wrong._  _ Save the planet! Do not turn off your light bulb | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  For a really good laugh, read the source article about how the utilities will now be paid their subsidies whether they cut emissions or not.  They just have to attempt to cut emissions and taxpayers will still subsidise them. 
Luckily Joolia has noticed the folly of these failed green dream schemes and will instead just rip more taxes from us under the "greenie banner".  :Doh:  
And meanwhile back in reality, did the Planet really notice?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *FURIOUS Labor MPs have turned on Prime Minister Julia Gillard over the controversial $1.8 billion flood tax, labelling it one of the "dumbest decisions" by a federal government. * Labor MPs said they were being "belted" by the public reaction to the levy.
> "This is one of the dumbest decisions I have ever seen - the feedback is we have made an atrocious decision," one Labor MP said.   Labor MPs revolt over Julia Gillard&#039;s flood tax levy | Perth Now

  One of the "dumbest decisions"? Sheesh, where have these people been?  It's far from their dumbest.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Greens be dammed, we need protection | Herald Sun 
A great summary of the reasons to step away from the edge of the greenie abyss.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

Will we soon have a global unrest tax to pay for these flights?   

> Why free? Do these Australians consider their lives not worth the price of an air ticket?   _THE Gillard government has organised a Qantas charter flight to evacuate Australians trapped by the political crisis in Egypt The Prime Minister said today the Qantas 747 flight would take Australians to London or Frankfurt, free of charge, and other flights may be arranged, depending on demand_  _Obviously there is a cost of hiring an aircraft but we are going to bear that cost in order to put the safety of Australians first, she said. We will not be seeking a cost recovery arrangement for people who fly on that flight._Can we please stop flinging out free money? Can we please start treating each other as responsible adults and not helpless cot-cases?    Surely a flight out of Egypt is worth paying for | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  If you want to go to Europe cheap, just get a very cheap flight to Egypt (very cheap), and the ever ready Aussie taxpayer will pick up the rest of the trip. 
I am sure Joolia offset the emissions from these flights.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The chic World Economic Forum at Davos once considered global warming the greatest of threats to the planet:  _We are getting huge demand from our members to place climate change and issues of environmental security at the very heart of the programme, said Dominic Waughray, head of environmental initiatives at the World Economic Forum (WEF)._ But now it considers global warming so _yesterday_:   _Wesfarmers chief executive Richard Goyder told The Australian at the Swiss ski resort of Davos at the weekend ... (he) was struck by how climate change had taken a back seat at Davos to concerns about water scarcity and food security as the big emerging market economies drove global growth._ How can an existential threat to humanity suddenly become too boring for words? Impossible, unless it never was really a big threat to start with. 
>  How else to interpret the abrupt lack of interest in planet-saving at not just Davos but almost every big political occasion? Take Barack Obamas State of the Union address last week:  _Barack Obama has paid less attention to climate change in his State of the Union addresses than any other president in the past 20 years, an analysis by a British researcher has found._  _Obama made no mention of the words climate change, global warming or environment in his hour-long speech on Tuesday night...._Take the campaign launches of Australian Prime Ministers:   _Number of words that Kevin Rudd devoted in his 2007 campaign launch speech to tackling global warming, the great moral, environmental and economic challenge of our age:_  _237__Number of words that Julia Gillard devoted in her 2010 campaign launch speech to tackling global warming, a profound challenge for all of us:_  _12__Take the speech of the British Prime Minister to his partys annual conference:_  _Commenting on David Camerons speech to the Conservative Party conference today, Friends of the Earths Executive Director Andy Atkins said:_  _With not a mention of climate change, this was not the speech we would have expected from the Prime Minister of the self-declared greenest Government ever. _ _Something doesnt compute. Either the politicians were recklessly beating up the climate scare before, or theyre recklessly playing down the danger now. Shouldnt they tell us which? _   _How global warming became political poison | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

   
Yeh, tell us which?

----------


## Dr Freud

You'd laugh if it wasn't your money!  :Rotfl:    

> The Gillard Government is disgusted that people take the money it keeps shoveling out:  _AUSTRALIANS who claimed emergency aid for flood victims when all they suffered was a power outage are low lifes, Treasurer Wayne Swan has said._  _Centrelink payments of $1000 for adults and $400 for children were available to people without means testing, even if the only ill-effect the disaster had on them was 48 hours without power_  _If there are people who have been eligible for the levy but havent required it and have gone in and claimed it, I think they are simply low life, (Mr Swan) said._But youd think this lot would have learned how not to keep getting ripped off:  _PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd says he is disappointed in himself for not paying closer attention to the rollout of the governments bungled home insulation program_  _Plainly what has gone wrong is that those who were rorting the system, those who were shonky operators, were not picked up by the compliance mechanisms which were established._How many times has it had to admit its been played for a sucker:  _The Gillard Labor Government established the Building the Education Revolution (BER) Implementation Taskforce in April 2010 to assess whether value for money had been achieved ... Federal Labor also acknowledges the finding that in 2.7 per cent of schools, complaints about value for money have real merit. _  _We believe that there are lessons to learn for future investment in educational infrastructure and actions that can be taken to further improve the quality and value for money of projects yet to be completed._ Has any government been this easy to rip off? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  How ridiculous.  The same clowns who urge us to use less power, then provide $3000 compensation to average families who can't use any power for 2 days! Then abuse those families and call them "low lifes" for using a scheme those same clowns introduced!!!  :Doh:  
So get this logic:  You're legally eligible for it, but you need to make a subjective moral assessment and then not legally claim it.  Maybe they'll extend this failed logic to tax return time? 
And just when you thought this farce couldn't get any worse.  :No:

----------


## intertd6

_Centrelink payments of $1000 for adults and $400 for children were available to people without means testing, even if the only ill-effect the disaster had on them was 48 hours without power 
If there are people who have been eligible for the levy but havent required it and have gone in and claimed it, I think they are simply low life, (Mr Swan) said._ 
I would say that this the common persons way of finding a way to pay their power bill & mister swan should walk a mile in their shoes before he squanders squillions on wastefull stupid schemes he & his polly friends of all followings have been doing for decades.
The country is the laughing stock of the world / asia because we have not even a decent highway or rail system between major cities & we are paying our asian neighbors to build highways so they can be more efficient & run right over us on the world market
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

See our latest laugh from the resident loony Christine Milne. 
Before the cyclone even hits she is calling it a climate change disaster!!! 
Forget that Queensland always gets cyclones and even bigger ones in a strong La Nina year.

----------


## Dr Freud

> _Centrelink payments of $1000 for adults and $400 for children were available to people without means testing, even if the only ill-effect the disaster had on them was 48 hours without power 
> If there are people who have been eligible for the levy but havent required it and have gone in and claimed it, I think they are simply low life, (Mr Swan) said._ 
> I would say that this the common persons way of finding a way to pay their power bill & mister swan should walk a mile in their shoes before he squanders squillions on wastefull stupid schemes he & his polly friends of all followings have been doing for decades.
> The country is the laughing stock of the world / asia because we have not even a decent highway or rail system between major cities & we are paying our asian neighbors to build highways so they can be more efficient & run right over us on the world market
> regards inter

  The political reality slowly started to sink in to some polly's late last year:   

> Fears of spiralling electricity bills in NSW has forced the state government to slash a generous scheme paying households for solar power fed back into the energy grid.  Price hike fears spark NSW tariff cuts

  And closer to the election, reality prevails again:   

> *KRISTINA Keneally is promising to axe electricity bill rises of $100 in a $1.5 billion bid to calm voter anger over power prices.*                                The Premier also flagged she would soon announce an electricity rebate for households earning less than $150,000 a year. 
> The moves come after months of revelations and campaigning by The Daily Telegraph to ease the pain on working families around the state. 
> "I can't make bananas any cheaper, I can't make the cost of petrol any cheaper but I can do something as the Premier of this state about electricity prices and that's what I'm doing," she said yesterday. 
> Ms Keneally said the Government would pay the entire cost of its $1.5 billion solar bonus scheme, until 2016, rather than all electricity users being charged.
> To pay for the promise, the Government will strip its Climate Change Fund almost entirely of money for green projects until 2020, including scrapping its long-running rainwater tank rebate.   Kristina Keneally will cut your rising bills | The Daily Telegraph

  So NSW is now making power cheaper so people can create more carbon dioxide emissions, and they are paying for this by scrapping failed green dream schemes. 
So much for the end of the world scenarios!  :Doh:  
Reality will always win.  Learn this well young Jedi's.

----------


## Dr Freud

> See our latest laugh from the resident loony Christine Milne. 
> Before the cyclone even hits she is calling it a climate change disaster!!! 
> Forget that Queensland always gets cyclones and even bigger ones in a strong La Nina year.

  What a moronic bunch of ideologues.  Even my previously ignorant family have learned the idiocy of trying to link an individual weather event to AGW Theory.  But here's ACM ridiculing the deluded fool in all her glory:   

> Does anyone really give a flying f**k what the Greens think any more? Why yes, the ABC does, which reports their every petulant outburst with wholly undue reverence. It was only a matter of time before the eco-totalitarians in the Greens, desperate to advance their Marxist agenda by any means possible, blamed the (yet to arrive) Cyclone Yasi on climate change. Tell me Senator Milne, where is your evidence for that ludicrous statement? Oh, yeah, I remember, we don't need evidence, do we, just desperate appeals to ignorance and emotion.
>  I run these stories to demonstrate to my readers how irrelevant the Greens are in modern politics. I know it's painful, but it has to be done.The Australian Greens say Tropical Cyclone Yasi is a *"tragedy of climate change".*
>  The party was heavily criticised after it *linked the Queensland floods to climate change and blamed coal miners.*
>  Greens deputy leader Christine Milne says the cyclone is another example of why it is *important to cut carbon pollution.*
>  "This is a tragedy, but it is a tragedy of climate change," she said.
>  "The scientists have been saying that *we are going to experience more extreme weather events, that their intensity is going to increase, their frequency."* (source)To think that people have been stupid enough to vote these idiots into the balance of power in the Senate beggars belief.   Greens blame Cyclone Yasi on "climate change" | Australian Climate Madness

  It is getting sad now... :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

> What a moronic bunch of ideologues.  Even my previously ignorant family have learned the idiocy of trying to link an individual weather event to AGW Theory.  But here's ACM ridiculing the deluded fool in all her glory: 
> It is getting sad now...

  Geez, and I thought that was bad.   
What about this idiot trying to link faulty airconditioning to AGW Theory?   

> Julia Gillard has moved her carbon pricing plan to the top of her agenda, but the Greens say she has lost credibility. 
> JULIA GILLARD, PRIME MINISTER: It's a very hot day in Melbourne. Quite a hot room.  Lateline - 01/02/2011: Greens criticise Gillards carbon credibility

  Lost her marbles more like it. 
This is getting cringe worthy now.  :Sayitaintso:   *Zero* scientific evidence, but a cyclone formed in the pacific in a heavy La Nina year, and a room was hot in February. 
1974 - Heavy La Nina, heavy Qld floods, heavy cyclone Tracy.
2011 - Heavy La Nina, heavy Qld floods, heavy cyclone Yasi.   :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

> But she said a carbon price would be the key reform to drive economic transformation, re-pricing the benefits of environmental innovation.
> Hawke and Keating floated the dollar; we will price carbon, she told a Committee for Economic Development of Australia luncheon in Melbourne.
> A carbon price will drive another sweeping technological revolution like information technology did in the 1980s and 90s.
> New technologies bringing new jobs and demanding new skills; using the abundant resources of this nation - solar, wind, geothermal that currently go to waste; manufacturing more and exporting more.  Julia Gillard says a carbon price will be the key reform to drive economic transformation | The Australian

  If she has not yet realised none of these sources can provide base load power, she is an even bigger idiot than I thought.  Or she is just lying to appease the ignorant masses.  I hope she is lying, I'd rather have a liar than an idiot.  :Biggrin:  
We have seen all these green dream schemes fail again and again here, but lets see how these schemes turn out overseas:   

> Julia Gillard is thinking of saving the planet by hitting Australia with an emissions trading scheme. But lets first check how emissions trading schemes overseas are going.  *In Europe:* _ The European commissions emergency suspension last week of trading in carbon allowances to put a halt to rampant theft of credits by hackers has been extended indefinitely until countries can prove their systems are protected from further fraud. While the suspension had been expected to end last night, Brussels now says that the freeze in trades had been imposed to give the commission executive some breathing space to figure out what to do._*In the US:* _The nations first experiment in carbon emissions cap and trade has come to an end The second commitment period for member companies of the Chicago Climate Exchange ended as of Dec. 31, 2010, and there will be no new cycle Though celebrated by climate activists at its launch in 2003, CCX became plagued by a flood of credits from offset project generators that collapsed the CFI market, sending exchange prices to a nickel per unit. Highlighting this collapse, many in the U.S. carbon trading community openly questioned the legitimacy of the system itself, putting founder Richard Sandor and his team on the defensive at periodic carbon market conferences held in Washington, D.C., and New York._ Still, the Gillard Government is so highly competent in delivering complicated green schemes, that Im sure it will succeed where others have failed. Right?   Shock: trading in hot air can get you burned | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  And as for this gem:   

> But she said a strong budgetary position was also crucial after the reckless Howard years.  
> In the face of strenuous Coalition attacks over her own financial competence, Ms Gillard said the Howard government had spent $314 billion of the $334 billion in extra government revenue that flowed from resources boom mark II.

  Liar vs Idiot, tough call? She might have mentioned about half of this money was spent paying back the massive debts plus interest left by Labor after their last term in office.  How's it tracking since "Reckless Howard" left anyway?  

> Christopher Joye suggests the Gillard Governments promise of a return to surplus was already in deep trouble. He quotes a Royal Bank of Scotland analysis:  _The risk of a delayed return to surplus already seems possible in that the monthly Budget data show that the deficit was running at annual rate of $60bn as at November, larger than the $42bn deficit the Commonwealth is forecasting for 2010-11 as a whole._ Heres how it looks:   
>   Costello, gonged today, will get even more airtime with his opposition to a flood levy:   _Former federal treasurer Peter Costello says the Gillard government doesnt need a levy, or to dip into the Future Fund, to cover the cost of the flood recovery.__ This levy is save Gillard, not Queensland | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  When did "Reckless Howard" leave again? Oh yeh, late 2007!  
I'm sure you all don't need me to join the dots?  :Doh:    

> *Total Commonwealth Government Securities on Issue - $177,201m*  AOFM  Home

  $177 billion and climbing  :Arrow Up:  :Arrow Up:  :Arrow Up:  
Lucky she's not reckless.

----------


## Dr Freud

It's all okay. 
The oceans have been cooling for about the last decade, so we can all relax.   
(Or panic about the next ice age - caused by global warming  :Doh: ).   

> Then Climate Change Minister Penny Wong had an excuse in 2009 to explain why the worlds atmosphere had not warmed as global warmists had predicted. No, the real indicator of global warming was not the air temperature but that of the sea:  _(I)n terms of a single indicator of global warming, change in ocean heat content is most appropriate._ But, oops: the evidence even then suggested the seas werent actually warming.  
>   Double oops: as I posted a couple of weeks ago, a new study showed there hadnt actually been a warming of the seas since, according to a new paper in the _International Journal of Geosciences_:   _A recently published estimate of Earths global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 19932008. This value is not representative of the recent (20032008) warming/cooling rate because of a flattening that occurred around 20012002. Using only 20032008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from 0.010 to 0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance._ Triple oops: a new paper in the _Journal of Physical Oceanography_  makes even plainer to Wong that the oceans have in fact been cooling:  _An analysis of the five oceanographic cruises at this latitude shows that there has been a significant cooling of ?0.15°C in the upper ocean (6001800-dbar range) over the last 7 years, from 1998 to 2004, which is in contrast to the warming of 0.27°C observed from 1957 to 1998. Salinity shows a similar change in tendency, with freshening since 1998. For the upper ocean at 24.5°N, 1998 was the warmest and saltiest year since 1957. Data from the Argo network are used to corroborate the strong cooling and freshening since 1998, showing a ?0.13°C cooling in the period between 1998 and 2006..._This also gives the context that alarmists ignore when they try to make the Queensland floods seem almost unprecedented and perhaps a consequernce of global warming. Example:  _THE eastern States might be unseasonably cool, but the deluges devastating Queensland are being helped along by record-smashing warmth in the oceans surrounding Australia Australias oceans are currently the warmest they have been since records began in 1900, according to the Bureau of Meterology (BoM)._Also put into context is the alarmism of Dr David Jones, head of climate monitoring and prediction at the Bureau of Meteorology:  _The general view is that this is one of the strongest La Nina we have had in modern history where we have data going back to the early 1900s. The ocean temperatures last year were the highest on record and we know the oceans around Australia are warming quite quickly and thats the fuel for the storms and rain events. In 2010 we had the highest humidity on record and July to October was our wettest ever._But, Penny, look at the oceans you said were warming | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

> By 2020 the Chinese coal-fired power sector will be close to thirty times the size of ours and triple that of the US.  
> Is it entirely beyond the ken of even the simplest prime minister and cabinet to see the utter pointlessness of attacking our coal-fired power industry and hurting consumers by artificially pushing up power prices?   HSBC research reveals China's coal rush | Herald Sun

  Now smile and pay all your new taxes.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Because adults have realised this greenie farce is joke, the kiddie brainwashing continues:   

> He said, No mommy, you cant do that. Not a Ziploc,  Mr. Lanciault said.
> Through tears, the boy told his parents that the school had held a draw to win a stuffed teddy bear and only children who didnt have any plastic sandwich bags could enter. The family normally uses Tupperware, but it was all in the dishwasher, and so they had packed their sons ham sandwich in a plastic bag.   Sandwich bag gets boy excluded from class contest

  
What a bunch of w-nkers.  :Annoyed:  
We still see none of these hypocritical greenie idiots volunteering for carbon sequestration.  :Rip:

----------


## Rod Dyson

WOW   *Cars navigate a cleared road between giant snowbanks at Lee's Summit, Missouri. February 1, 2011. (Photo by Carlyle Hold)*

----------


## Dr Freud

Yeh, no doubt all this cold weather is further proof of global warming.  :Doh:  
This was last year:  

> *49 states with snow, 1180 new snowfall records set in the USA this past week  is February Headed For Record Snowfall?* 
>                                                Posted on February 13, 2010 by Anthony Watts  49 states with snow, 1180 new snowfall records set in the USA this past week  is February Headed For Record Snowfall? | Watts Up With That?

  This is now:   

> A thick blanket of snow is covering the US Northeast as the fifth major storm of the winter *set snowfall records*, delayed the opening of financial markets and clogged Washington highways with abandoned cars. 
> New York has now recorded its snowiest January on record after 48 centimetres fell on the city overnight, twice the amount forecast and just short of the 51 centimetres that paralysed the city on December 26-27 and created a political crisis for Mayor Michael Bloomberg because of a botched cleanup.
>  New York City has exhausted its snow budget of $38 million, forcing the city draw money from its general fund, a spokesman said. 
> After the snow grounded Obama's helicopter, his ground convoy could only inch its way along from Andrews Air Force Base in Virginia to the White House. Obama had been on a one-day trip to Wisconsin to sell his State of the Union speech, which he delivered to Congress on Tuesday.  Record snow again buries US Northeast, clogs highways | WORLD News

  Speaking of the State of the Union speech, how many times did O'bummer mention "global warming" or "climate change"?  Er, zero!   

> Obama also called for cutting billions in subsidies to oil companies: "I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own," he said. *No mention was made of "climate" or "global warming."*  Obama calls for clean energy and high-speed rail in state of the union | Environment | guardian.co.uk

  I guess his pollsters were smart enough to tell him people no longer appreciate being lectured about global warming while they're freezing to death buried in record snow falls and freezing temperatures.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Global average temperatures have again dropped to below average.   
Doesn't quite sell the "runaway greenhouse effect" very well, huh? 
We may have to "adjust the data" some more, they don't fit the models again.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Professor Garnaut argues that since his initial report, the science on climate change has developed in a way that heightens concerns about global warming.  Garnaut says Australia lagging on climate change - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  I'd love to see this science "professor".  All aboard the gravy train keep talking about it, but never can present it to me.  :No:  
And you've got to be some kind of lunatic to believe this garbage:   

> He says the fact that Australia has not yet put a price on carbon has held back international efforts to combat climate change.

  Yeh prof, China, India, USA, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Russia and all the rest of the Planet are just waiting with baited breath for Joolia to announce a new "tax".  Then the rest of the planet will swing into action behind us against all their pronouncements and actions to date.  Because we wield this kind of global control. 
What absolute and unmitigated cr@p!!!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Sheez Doc our warmists are awfully quiet. 
keep up the good work LOL

----------


## Dr Freud

In the same breath, our great ABC continues to show this great pic of carbon dioxide:    Garnaut says Australia lagging on climate change - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  *Can you see the CO2 emissions?* 
That was a trick question for the newbies, as you can't even see CO2 in the distance between your eyes and this screen you are reading, because it is f-cking invisible.  :Doh:  
Still don't believe me, then breath out hard and look closer.  :Doh:  
So why do these morons keep showing pictures of smoke or water vapour instead?  Is our national media agency so stupid that they have yet to figure out that CO2 is invisible?  If they do not even know this, can we trust anything else they put out on this subject? 
Because they are either this stupid, or they are intentionally scaremongering and misleading the innocent.  Liar vs idiot? You make the call.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Sheez Doc our warmists are awfully quiet. 
> keep up the good work LOL

  Mate, they're probably too busy working a second and third job to pay their rising electricity bills and trying to save for all their tax increases coming this year.   :Rotfl:  
Lucky we're in the pockets of big oil and have all the time in the world.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

Damn, the truth really does hurt!   

> Former Treasurer Peter Costello says Julia Gillard is just exploiting a disaster by levying a flood tax:  _Some political leaders show a lot less class (than the victims of the floods), such as Greens leader Bob Brown, when they appear at the scene of loss to advance their pet theories and wage war on their enemies as he did on the mining industry. Others are quite prepared to spend billions on pet projects, drive the budget into deep deficit, and then pretend it is a flood that makes a new tax necessary. It is truly amazing that victims can show such grace while government can show such cynicism._Call it the Gillard Memorial School Halls Tax instead | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Ouch.  :Guilty:

----------


## PhilT2

> Sheez Doc our warmists are awfully quiet. 
> keep up the good work LOL

  Just busy mate, something to do with how the weather has been up here lately.
Lots of other things on too
Australian Skeptics (real skeptics) are supporting the 10:23 campaign this Sat to raise awareness of quack medicine and reduce health insurance costs. The Millenium Project 
The Athiests Foundation is working on getting this years census to reflect the truth about how many people really support religion with the long term objective being to reduce the burden that religion puts on taxpayers. Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc | Founded 1970 
International Aspergers Day is coming up. Asperger Services Australia 
The second round of the Productivity Commission hearings into the NDIS is approaching. Disability Care and Support (Current) - Productivity Commission 
And the Greens take the balance of power in the Senate in 5 months 
Oh, and respond to Doc's cut and paste....

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *Can you see the CO2 emissions?* 
> That was a trick question for the newbies, as you can't even see CO2 in the distance between your eyes and this screen you are reading, because it is f-cking invisible.  
> So why do these morons keep showing pictures of smoke or water vapour instead?  Is our national media agency so stupid that they have yet to figure out that CO2 is invisible?  If they do not even know this, can we trust anything else they put out on this subject?

  1. The media paradigm is that you can't have words without pictures on a website.  So they put in a picture....any sort of picture...it's what the media do.
2. Unlikely.  But stranger things have happened...
3. This question, coming from a person who regurgitates Andrew Bolt for entertainment, is funnier than any answer I could possibly come up with....except 'no'.

----------


## Draffa

I'm not going to read all three thousand pages of this thread, but for the last page or two, at least, it seems as though Dr Freud is talking to himself.  And coincidentaly, Andrew Bolt has been 'on holidays'.  :Biggrin:  
FWIW, I 'believe' the scientific argument that
a) Anthropogenic Climate Change exists
b) publically-funded research has been toned down due to political interference
c) things are going to get bad 
Additionally
d) mainstream governments around the world are either gutless or actively hostile towards any mitigation actions. 
Call me a liar or a fool if you want.  I've been on Bolta's blog, so I've been called worse.  :Wink:  
The ALP went to the 2007 election with a promise to act on AGCC.  They were immediately captured by Big Miners, electricity generators, and energy-intensive exporters, and created possably one of the worst packages to come out of either side of politics: solved nothing, moved the problem overseas, and subsidised already profitable, mostly foreign-owned, companies and created one of the most expensive job-protection rackets in history.  Then the Big Miners, News LTD, and the Coalition (with no small amount of help from the gutless Faceless Men in the NSW Labor Right) managed to stage a Coup and toppled a Prime Minister.  This is the sort of unholy alliance and actions that happens in third-world hellholes, not one of the worlds most long-standing and stable democracies. 
So, forget about the ALP doing anything.  Even though many of their power base are convinced of AGCC (even the CFMEU is convinced), they won't do anything worthwhile, because they're gutless.  The ALPs Carbon policy is what many call greenwashing: all show and no engine.
Forget about the Coalition doing anything, because their current powerbrokers are actively hostile to the whole idea (which I find odd, since they claim to be 'Conservatives'.  True Conservatives would look at the Scientific debate and say that if AGCC theory is even half-right, some sort of 'insurance policy' is worthwhile).  The Coalition won't do anything worthwhile because their powerbase (typically older generations) are hostile towards the idea.
The Greens, interestingly, want more industry in Australia, because that provides useful jobs for Australians, instead of off-shoring all our manufacturing to China and third-world nations.  Think value-added: Iron Ore is cheap, plate steel is less so, finished steel products are expensive.  Why are we exporting cheap ore and importing expensive products?  At the same time they want that industry to be cleaner (less carbon-intensive) and smarter (high-technology).  Laudable goals: keep the value-adding in-country, and export the finished product to the world market.  Plus, Australian (Western) Industry tends to be cleaner than Industry from other countries. 
Something else that doesn't sit right:  The Coalition is currently rather pro-nuclear.  But nuclear power is expensive, why would we build nukes when we have nice cheap coal?  if Coal was more expensive, then nukes would be economically viable.  But they're not, so why even suggest them when they're not going to be built?  One policy (Nuclear Power) is directly at odds with another policy (AGCC = fraud)! 
Coal, Oil, and Gas are also Finite.  At some stage, we're going to have to find something else anyway, so... why not start now?  In any case, only a third of Anthropogenic Emissions come from electricity; another third is transport, and the rest is agriculture/land use changes. 
The ALPs Market-based strategy makes companies like GS rich(er), and dumps the problem onto poor countries by keeping them in poverty.  'Direct action' policies like the Coalitions aren't big enough. 
Statements like "save the planet" aren't actually, for the most part, about saving the planet, it's about keeping the planet livable for our (Western) civilisation, which arose at the end of a typical Interglacial, not a 'Snowball Earth' or a Cretaceous hothouse.  There's no guarantee that, if AGCC is accurate, (or understated) our civilisation will be able to cohesively mange the transition to a new climate, especially over the timeframes we're looking at.  While some say "prove AGCC is true", I say, prove our emissions won't cause a problem for us, coincidering we've been (and are) undertaking a chemical experiment on the biosphere that sustains us.  If we've got it wrong (and it's 'baked in the cake' at this point), there's no Restore Point.  There's a whole pile of money out there for someone to prove AGCC wrong, but as yet, no one has stepped up to the plate with anything more than nibbling at the edges. 
As for International action, the pollies are going about it all the wrong way.  Sure, I understand they want a big deal and lots of photographs and their names in the history books.  problem is that it's just not going to happen.  Any deal that does get inked will have so many loopholes and trade-offs that it'll be worthless.  Alternative idea: some 80% of global trade happens between some dozen countries/regions (G12 plus a few).  Coincidentally, those same regions are responsible for ~80% of Anthro emissions.  So instead of trying to get ~160 countries to sign up to some unholy deal, get a dozen to.  Much easier.  If you can get China and the US on-board you're almost there already.  Trade between Signed and Unsigned countries can have Tariffs added/removed to level the playing field (Signed exports to Unsigned countries have a 'Tariff Credit' to make them competitive against Unsigned goods, Unsigned Imports to Signed countries have a Tariff added for similar reasons). 
I'm convinced that AGCC is real, but I'm increasingly pessimistic that anything'll be done about it.  We'll keep making ineffectual laws and having photo ops and paying Big Coal to make coal a tiny bit less GHG intensive, but nothing near what we need to do.  And to be perfectly honest, I expect most of the most outspoken voices to be long dead (of natural causes) long before the @@@@@ well and truly hits the fan.  It'll be their grandchildren who have to deal with it.  But that's ok, cause they got their's, thanks, jack.  :Frown:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Global average temperatures have again dropped to below average.   
> Doesn't quite sell the "runaway greenhouse effect" very well, huh? 
> We may have to "adjust the data" some more, they don't fit the models again. [/IMG]

  All depends how you chose to skew the data. You skew one way, I'll skew the other....and we'll see who gets skewered first 
That's a running annual mean.  Yes it is interesting but perhaps not significant in the long term...   
This is the same graph.....but from only 1996.  And wasn't it soooooooo hard to find...not   
However, this one uses a five year running mean and is split into latitudes 
They all come from here Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots 
There's plenty more there.  Feel free to misinterpret them at your will   :Pash:  
As long as you share your findings.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I wonder if they can all be wrong...  Climate Change: News

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Courtesy of the First Dog...

----------


## Marc

> FWIW, I 'believe' the scientific argument that
> A)  Anthropogenic Climate Change exists
> B) publicly-funded research has been  toned down due to political interference
> C) things are going to get  bad 
> Additionally
> D) mainstream governments around the world are either  gutless or actively hostile towards any mitigation  actions.

  A) AGW now re baptised ACC is a hoax with no amount  of independent science in it. Every "scientific demonstration" is fully funded  to obtain skewed data and is therefore worthless.
B) Publicly funded research  (that is 100% of AGW supporters) is toned down because of the unsurmountable  mountain of evidence against their lies, and smoke and mirror tricks.
C)  Emotional mumbo jumbo means nothing. 
D) "Mainstream governments" (whatever  that means)  are salivating at the prospect of a tax that can be collected yet  that does not require to do anything in exchange. The first universal tax for no  reason is a god sent to anyone with something between their ears. The only  reason they are pussyfooting around it is because the REAL truth is out and the  con is over. It is all down hill from here for the warmist, their cheerleaders  and assorted tree huggers. The greens will have to flee to the mountains in  their straw huts and eat raw grubs for a long time since their credibility is  lower than an African government official in a Swiss bank. 
I think that  sincere climate change proposal Paraclete, should find a different hobby to  occupy their vast free time. I propose knitting, head banging, marble collecting  or train spotting, not necessarily in that order.

----------


## Dr Freud

I fully support your efforts mate, especially this one:   

> The Athiests Foundation is working on getting this years census to reflect the truth about how many people really support religion with the long term objective being to *reduce the burden that religion puts on taxpayers.*

  At last we agree that the Carbon Tax based on "beliefs" is wrong.  :2thumbsup:    

> Oh, and respond to Doc's cut and paste....

  Take is easy mate, there's plenty of time and reality ain't going anywhere.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> 1. The media paradigm is that you can't have words without pictures on a website.  So they put in a picture....any sort of picture...it's what the media do.

  Any sort of picture, like this from Google:      

> 2. Unlikely.  But stranger things have happened...

  Like people believing the last cyclone was caused by humans, but the billions of other cyclones over billions of years were all natural.  :Doh:    

> 3. This question, coming from a person who regurgitates Andrew Bolt for entertainment, is funnier than any answer I could possibly come up with....except 'no'.

  I'm glad you find Mr Bolt entertaining, but as I have said before, I prefer the term infotainment, as he presents factual information in an entertaining way by providing his opinion on the information.  But glad you agree the ABC's credibility on AGW Theory is zero.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm not going to read all three thousand pages of this thread,

  Welcome to the party pal.  We are always happy to hear from anyone with an opinion on this topic. 
But first, it's only 350 pages so far.  There are rows of numbers at the top and botttom that helps keep track.   :2thumbsup:  
And I'd highly recommend reading them.  Then you won't post any more of the factually incorrect information that constituted most of your earlier post.  See, it's fine to believe in whatever you want, even the tooth fairy, and it's fine to have whatever opinions you like, and change these every day, but you can't print fiction and claim it as fact (unless you are a journalist).  :Biggrin:  
I was going to point out the errors in your post, but it would be much less tedious for everyone if you just read the thread.    

> Call me a liar or a fool if you want.  I've been on Bolta's blog, so I've been called worse.

  We do try hard not to abuse each other here.  Occasionally we all go nuts and the mod squad give us a slap, but for the most part we are quite civil (albeit sarcastic smart arses). 
I do refer to idiots and morons regularly, but as long you don't claim to be one, you should be fine. For example:   

> We still see none of these hypocritical greenie idiots volunteering for carbon sequestration.

  So unless you are claiming to be a "hypocritical greenie idiot", then this does not apply to you.

----------


## Dr Freud

> All depends how you chose to skew the data. You skew one way, I'll skew the other....and we'll see who gets skewered first

  I didn't skew anything, I cut and pasted a graph. 
But incorrect accusations aside, I have said many times these graphs all represent effects (with varying degrees of accuracy). 
The question is, are you attributing human activity as "causing" these effects? 
If so, please present some evidence of this "cause and effect" relationship.  If not, what's your point?  :Biggrin:  
My point was that AGW Theory is a failed farce.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I wonder if they can all be wrong...

  Why would they all be wrong? 
They all show the perfectly natural rise of temperature out of the last little ice age.

----------


## Dr Freud

What words do we use for someone who says this:   

> A warming climate does lead to intensification of these sorts of extreme climatic events that we've seen in Queensland and I think that people are wishing to avoid those awful challenges in Queensland will be amongst the people supporting effective action on climate change.

  These emotionally vulnerable victims are being lied to that paying new taxes will stop naturally occurring cyclones and floods. 
It is being said to people still suffering the effects of these natural disasters. 
They are being deliberately lied to for money. 
What would you call this liar? 
Opportunist, disgusting, deceptive, misleading, malignant, slimy, moronic, idiotic, putrid? 
No my friends, you would call him professor!  Lateline - 03/02/2011: Garnaut warns Yasi is only the beginning

----------


## Dr Freud

I guess it's asking too much for Joolia's number one AGW Theory advisor to actually tell the truth:   

> Nott says Yasi could be the severest cyclone to directly affect Cairns since European settlement. 
> It could rival Cyclone Mahina in 1899, which hit land at Bathurst Bay north of Cooktown, destroying the pearling fleet and killing 400 people. 
> Given its width and intensity, Yasi could be worse than the twin cyclones of 1918, one of which put the central business district of Mackay under 5m of water.  *But it would still not rival more extreme weather events, the evidence of which is still carved into the tropical landscape.* 
> Nott is an expert on the incidence of super cyclones. By analysing ridges of broken coral pushed ashore by storm surges, he has catalogued the incidence of super-cyclones over the past 5000 years. 
> In a paper published in the scientific journal, Nature in 2001 his research shows the frequency of super-cyclones is an order of magnitude higher than previously thought.
> Nott's work puts into perspective current debate about whether climate change is responsible for the extreme weather events in Queensland.  *Over recent centuries, massive cyclones have been relatively common.* And after an extended period of relatively little activity their return is overdue regardless of rising global temperatures.  *Despite claims to the contrary, climate scientists say it is not possible say with any confidence whether there is a climate change signal in a single extreme event or even an extreme season.* 
> "It is difficult to make a strong case that we are seeing a change in tropical cyclones," Bureau of Meteorology climate specialist David Jones says. 
> "There is a strong physical basis for expecting cyclones to become stronger but it is challenging to see a particular trend in the data," Jones says. 
> Most of the cyclone data used by climate scientists only dates back to the 1980s.
> ...

  *"No one in the climate change area is willing to say it is possible to see an anthropogenic impact in single event or even a season of events.* 
Well actually that bits not quite right.  Joolia's premier advisor on AGW Theory is willing to claim an anthropogenic impact in a single cyclone 
But what would I know, I'm not a professor paid millions by the government for my professional climate knowledge. 
I'm just a bozo "cut and paster" with a cheap computer and a bad attitude.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Draffa

> A) AGW now re baptised ACC is a hoax with no amount  of independent science in it. Every "scientific demonstration" is fully funded  to obtain skewed data and is therefore worthless.
> B) Publicly funded research  (that is 100% of AGW supporters) is toned down because of the unsurmountable  mountain of evidence against their lies, and smoke and mirror tricks.
> C)  Emotional mumbo jumbo means nothing. 
> D) "Mainstream governments" (whatever  that means)  are salivating at the prospect of a tax that can be collected yet  that does not require to do anything in exchange.

  A) If it's a hoax, then do some research and refute it.  Surely it can't be that hard to prove it wrong.  And it's usually AGCC, not ACC.
B) Uh huh...
C) One can say the same for the vast 'anti AGCC' writings.  Especially when they just plain make up words like 'warmist' and 'leftist'
D) Uh huh...   

> I think that  sincere climate change proposal Paraclete, should find a different hobby to  occupy their vast free time. I propose knitting, head banging, marble collecting  or train spotting, not necessarily in that order.

  I like trains. :lol:   

> And I'd highly recommend reading them.  Then you won't post any more of the factually incorrect information that constituted most of your earlier post.

  They're only factually incorrect if you live in a parallel universe to the rest of us.   

> I was going to point out the errors in your post, but it would be much less tedious for everyone if you just read the thread.

  Much less tedious, but I don't think you'll be able to find too many factually incorrect statements, unless blinded by ideology. 
I'm happy to debate those who disagree with AGCC Science as it stands (that's how Science progresses, after all) but when the 'other side' is just plain making stuff up and calling names, I'm usually not that interested. 
I'd _love_ AGCC Science to be wrong.  Just love it.  It'd take a great big weight off my mind.  But unfortunately, It seems solid to me, despite the best efforts of the likes of renowned Climate Scientists the likes of Terry McCrann, Ian Pilmer, Lord Monkton, Tony Abbott, Barnaby Joyce, and Andrew Bolt to convince me otherwise. 
I don't get as wound up about it as I used to, though.  The Denialists* won.  They managed to delay effective actions just long enough that action is more and more likely to be less and less effective.  Profits now won out over the security of future generations.  Screw them, we got ours, eh?  I don't even have kids and I still worry about what future generations have to look forward to thanks the the short-sighted actions of TPTB and their acolytes. 
*I use Denialists quite distinctly from Skeptics.  Skeptics are people genuinely interested in Scientific Enquiry.  Look at the data, come to a conclusion, test the conclusion, expose the results to review, incorporate critisisms, improve theory, rinse and repeat.  Each iteration improves a theory, or debunks it.  Science is a blood sport.  I even class Richard Lindzen (of the Adaptive Iris Theory) as a skeptic, even though he's on the 'opposite' side of the fence to me.  Denialists, on the other hand, are simply not interested in valid scientific enquiry.  Many of them write for major newspapers.  If they are shown to be wrong, they ignore the critisism and continue on regardless, repeating the same falsified statements again and again.

----------


## Marc

> I guess it's asking too much for Joolia's number one AGW Theory advisor to actually tell the truth:  *"No one in the climate change area is willing to say it is possible to see an anthropogenic impact in single event or even a season of events.* 
> Well actually that bits not quite right.  Joolia's premier advisor on AGW Theory is willing to claim an anthropogenic impact in a single cyclone 
> But what would I know, I'm not a professor paid millions by the government for my professional climate knowledge. 
> I'm just a bozo "cut and paster" with a cheap computer and a bad attitude.

  The sad part is that all this paid morons full of self importance and self  appointed expertise, seem to be very disappointed with the failure of this  cyclone to do any real damage. I particularly love to see how the media, seeing  that it seemed until recently that it failed to kill a single soul, they have  decided to start the list of killed by the cyclone with the guy who died from CO  poisoning from his generator. Reminds me of Mark Twine story of the guy who had  an ingrown toe nail and was limping, tripped on a protruding stone and started  jumping on one leg backwards, tripped on the edge of a well and fell in it head  first and drowned.
Cause of death was ingrown toe nail...

----------


## Marc

> ...... [warmist] on the other hand, are simply not interested in valid scientific enquiry.  Many of them write for major newspapers.  If they are shown to be wrong, they ignore the critisism and continue on regardless, repeating the same falsified statements again and again.

  Interesting how easy it is to describe others.

----------


## Dr Freud

> They're only factually incorrect if you live in a parallel universe to the rest of us.

  Strike two.  :Biggrin:  
See, just by making that statement, you don't even realise you've already made an ambiguous assumption that you're purporting to be factual. 
Seriously mate, read some of the stuff here.  The pro-AGW Theory supporters here have made some very good arguments and on occasion have actually brought some credibility to their side of the debate. 
You're doing them a serious disservice by reducing this credibility.   

> Much less tedious, but I don't think you'll be able to find too many factually incorrect statements, unless blinded by ideology.

  My friend, you will very quickly learn I am blinded by reality.  :Private eyes:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Originally Posted by *Draffa*   _ ...... [warmist] on the other hand, are simply not interested in valid scientific enquiry. Many of them write for major newspapers. If they are shown to be wrong, they ignore the critisism and continue on regardless, repeating the same falsified statements again and again._

   

> Interesting how easy it is to describe others.

  Well done mate.  :2thumbsup:  
Draffa had me convinced for a moment there that you had changed sides. I thought you had become part of the "the rest of us" and I was out here all on my own.  :Cry:  
But let's see it in action, remember this stuff from page 3000:   

> I guess it's asking too much for Joolia's number one AGW Theory advisor to actually tell the truth:     
> 			
> 				Nott says Yasi could be the severest cyclone to directly affect Cairns since European settlement. 
> It could rival Cyclone Mahina in 1899, which hit land at Bathurst Bay north of Cooktown, destroying the pearling fleet and killing 400 people. 
> Given its width and intensity, Yasi could be worse than the twin cyclones of 1918, one of which put the central business district of Mackay under 5m of water.  *But it would still not rival more extreme weather events, the evidence of which is still carved into the tropical landscape.* 
> Nott is an expert on the incidence of super cyclones. By analysing ridges of broken coral pushed ashore by storm surges, he has catalogued the incidence of super-cyclones over the past 5000 years. 
> In a paper published in the scientific journal, Nature in 2001 his research shows the frequency of super-cyclones is an order of magnitude higher than previously thought.
> Nott's work puts into perspective current debate about whether climate change is responsible for the extreme weather events in Queensland.  *Over recent centuries, massive cyclones have been relatively common.* And after an extended period of relatively little activity their return is overdue regardless of rising global temperatures.  *Despite claims to the contrary, climate scientists say it is not possible say with any confidence whether there is a climate change signal in a single extreme event or even an extreme season.* 
> "It is difficult to make a strong case that we are seeing a change in tropical cyclones," Bureau of Meteorology climate specialist David Jones says. 
> ...

  Now watch and laugh  :Rotfl: :  Weekend Sunrise Channel 7 
It would be even funnier if naive people weren't out there believing this cr@p, hey Draffa.  You must be outraged at this media deception, or is it just idiocy. Liar vs Idiot? You decide.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> In 1974, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.
> My mother, a woman of faith, told us this would mean something.  Tough breed | The Australian

  Reality is a wonderful thing.

----------


## Dr Freud

> IT HADNT even hit yet, and already a gibbering horde was shrieking that Cyclone Yasi proved wed warmed the world.  
>   There was Christine Milne, of course, deputy leader of the Greens, the most deceitful party to shame Parliament. How fast she flapped up the microphones to crow: It is a tragedy of climate change.  
>  Then there was ABC Melbourne 774 host Jon Faine, snapping that sceptics should finally join the dots, and inviting alarmist scientist Graeme Pearman to say wed never had such cyclones before.  
>  Oh, and here comes John Hewson, the former Liberal leader and sniffer of business opportunities, saying warmists had predicted more frequent cyclones and thats what were seeing.  
>   John, give up the green, mate. The colour doesnt suit and that markets set to tank. 
>  Add to them the Gillard Governments warming guru, Professor Ross Garnaut (actually an economist), who groaned that a warming climate does lead to intensification of these sorts of extreme climatic events that weve seen in Queensland, and you aint seen nothing yet.  
>   Wrong, Ross. We have actually seen all this before, and worse. Nothing new here at all, expect this shameless scare-mongering. 
>   But the trouble is that we no longer remember our past, and thats what the warmists are exploiting: our deep forgetting.  
>  Take Channel 10 host George Negus, who told viewers this week that with an apocalyptic cyclone and floods in Queensland, and blizzards in the US, our climate had gone haywire.  
> ...

  Seriously people, if all this alleged (yet to be seen) scientific evidence is hiding out there somewhere, why latch onto a single average cyclone - much less worse than most - as "proof" of a failed and farcical theory? 
As for implying that paying more taxes will stop any more cyclones and La Nina rains, that's sheer stupidity.  :Doh:

----------


## looseless

Well my good doctor, I did follow the link and had a good laugh at the Sunrise clip.  BUT MAAAAAAAAAATE.......... you are stugglin' big time and have lost me if you have to use Prue MacSween to back up your 'wise' counsel. :Yikes2:  :No:   
Now watch and laugh  :Rotfl: :  Weekend Sunrise Channel 7 
It would be even funnier if naive people weren't out there believing this cr@p, hey Draffa. You must be outraged at this media deception, or is it just idiocy. Liar vs Idiot? You decide.  :Biggrin: [/quote]

----------


## Dr Freud

> Well my good doctor, I did follow the link and had a good laugh at the Sunrise clip.  BUT MAAAAAAAAAATE.......... you are stugglin' big time and have lost me if you have to use Prue MacSween to back up your 'wise' counsel.

  Don't panic dude, the clip was used to show our new friend how the media has a lot to answer for on all sides of this debate. 
Just because I disagree with the Sunrise teams idiocy doesn't mean I do agree with everything Prue has to say. 
Good old Prue is a hard worker and her hearts in the right place, but I think I've got enough back up from some of the lads here.   :Biggrin:  
Hope all is well over that side anyway, and get that beanstalk over there to build some dams now that he's in.  :Wink 1:

----------


## andy the pm

> I'm just a bozo "cut and paster" with a cheap computer and a bad attitude.

  
First accurate thing you have posted mate...

----------


## Dr Freud

> First accurate thing you have posted mate...

  Hopefully one day I will be able to repay the compliment.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Draffa

> Interesting how easy it is to describe others.

  I was meerly pointing out how I use the term 'Skeptic' as opposed to how others use it.  For what it's worth, there's plenty of people on the Pro AGCC side who are more or less mirror images of the Denialist.  I don't have much time for Tim Flannery, for example.   

> Seriously mate, read some of the stuff here.

  Sorry, but I've read hundreds, probably thousands of pages of debates on AGCC, reams of textbooks, and countless Scientific studies.  With all due respect to all posters, I seriously doubt there is anything in the previous pages that would alter my viewpoint one way or the other.
In any case, as I said earlier, the Denialists won, so not a lot of point, is there.  And this is the internet: you and I (and the other posters) don't matter unless we hapen to be part of a Focus Group or big campaign contributer to one of the 'big two' (call me cynical.  :Biggrin:  ).   

> Quote from Bolts blog

  My opinion of Bolt is that he is a blatant hypocrite (and not just when he's vilifying AGCC proponents and 'extreme greens', although that seems to be his favourite pastime), and hard-core Denier* (or maybe he's just happy to take the money and pretend to be a Denier, I don't know).  I think he's a hate-filled little man with a short temper, a chip on his shoulder, a thin skin, and an over-inflated opinion of himself.  Expecting an unbiased (as far as humans can actually be unbiased) article from him is like expecting Terry McCrann to disagree with the Reserve Bank.  Possible, but highly unlikely.
And seriously, a Cyclone is _weather_, not Climate.  Why people can't or won't understand that is beyond me.  A warmer ocean will intensify a Cyclone, but it won't necessarily make one. 
*Yes, Denier.  Not Skeptic.

----------


## Dr Freud

See, this is why people get annoyed at the tedium of this debate.  Because failure to learn the basics leads to circular arguments about nothing.  Let's go through all the semantics again, just because you already know it all.  :Doh:    

> Sorry, but I've read hundreds, probably thousands of pages of debates on AGCC, reams of textbooks, and countless Scientific studies.

  I was working under the assumption that *AGW Theory* was the scientific theory involving positive feedback warming loops allegedly triggered by human caused carbon dioxide emissions, which ultimately leads to catastrophic global warming.  Can you please describe for me exactly what this AGCC is?  Is it the same theory renamed in the media for political expediency when the temperatures didn't match the computer models, or is it something else?   

> With all due respect to all posters, I seriously doubt there is anything in the previous pages that would alter my viewpoint one way or the other.

  This wasn't designed to alter your view, it was recommended so we all wouldn't have to go over the same points we've already covered ad nauseum.  But what the hell, I'm sure no-one minds us going over it all again.    

> In any case, as I said earlier, the Denialists won, so not a lot of point, is there.

  Bob Brown and the Greens Party voted down the ETS.  Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party axed the ETS policy. Barack Obama and the Democratic Party axed their emissions trading legislation.  Julia Gillard and the Labor Party just axed most of their "climate change mitigation" policies.  Is this who you are referring to?   

> And this is the internet: you and I (and the other posters) don't matter unless we hapen to be part of a Focus Group or big campaign contributer to one of the 'big two' (call me cynical.  ).

  This is Australia on the Planet Earth.  We all get one vote no matter our opinion.  This is democracy.  You and I do matter.  We choose our elected officials (hopefully based on their policies we agree with) and hence we choose the country we live in. 
We just use the internet as one method of communicating.   

> My opinion of Bolt is that he is a blatant hypocrite (and not just when he's vilifying AGCC proponents and 'extreme greens', although that seems to be his favourite pastime), and hard-core Denier* (or maybe he's just happy to take the money and pretend to be a Denier, I don't know). I think he's a hate-filled little man with a short temper, a chip on his shoulder, a thin skin, and an over-inflated opinion of himself.

  As has already been stated, you are welcome to whatever opinion you want. 
Opinions are not reality and require no proof.   

> And seriously, a Cyclone is _weather_, not Climate. Why people can't or won't understand that is beyond me.

  So you agree then that Bob Brown, Christine Milne, all the greenies, Julia Gillard, Ross Garnaut, the Sunrise team etc etc are all either liars or idiots? 
Liar vs Idiot? You decide.   

> A warmer ocean will intensify a Cyclone, but it won't necessarily make one.

  Lucky the oceans are not warmer then, huh? 
Probably partly why Yasi was not as bad as many previous cyclones.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> If it's a hoax, then do some research and refute it.  Surely it can't be that hard to prove it wrong.

  This is not how NHST works.  Trenberth is trying hard to get this changed because of the abject failure of the AGW Theory machine.  Until he does (God forbid this should ever happen), your premise is scientifically incorrect.   

> And it's usually AGCC, not ACC.

  And in reality, it's a theory (or hypothesis depending on several parameters). 
But your response to the previous post should clear all this confusion up.  :Biggrin:    

> They're only factually incorrect if you live in a parallel universe to the rest of us.

  We've partly covered this.  I don't think the entire human population would like being counted as standing alongside you. 
But it is pretty funny that your statement rebuking your factual incorrectness is actually factually incorrect.  :Biggrin:    

> Much less tedious, but I don't think you'll be able to find too many factually incorrect statements, unless blinded by ideology.

  And the best is yet to come...   

> I'm happy to debate those who disagree with AGCC Science as it stands

  See, this is where it gets really tedious for those who didn't know it all and actually did read the well-informed input from all sides into this thread. 
No-one on any side of this argument "disagrees" with the science (not in this thread anyway).  This is a spurious argument foisted on the weak minded to create two fictional camps of "pro-science" and "anti-science". 
In reality, "science" is a field of human endeavour that has traditionally been based on empirical evidence.  This is where AGW Theory has failed spectacularly.  All sides interpret the empirical evidence that is available and develop different opinions on this evidence.  These opinions, however well or poorly informed, are just opinions.  They are *not* "the science". 
(I can hear the groans out there, but I didn't want to go over this all again either)  :No:    

> but when the 'other side' is just plain making stuff up and calling names, I'm usually not that interested.

  Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the least self-aware of them all:   

> Originally Posted by *Draffa*   _ My opinion of Bolt is that he is a blatant hypocrite (and not just when he's vilifying AGCC proponents and 'extreme greens', although that seems to be his favourite pastime), and hard-core Denier* (or maybe he's just happy to take the money and pretend to be a Denier, I don't know). I think he's a hate-filled little man with a short temper, a chip on his shoulder, a thin skin, and an over-inflated opinion of himself._

   :Doh:    

> I'd _love_ AGCC Science to be wrong.  Just love it.  It'd take a great big weight off my mind.  But unfortunately, It seems solid to me

  Hopefully after the last few paragraphs, you now understand just how wrong these statements are. 
Someone came up with a theory that has not been proved, has much evidence indicating it is flawed and failed, and this "weighs on your mind" because it "seems solid to you". 
If you develop a greater appreciation of both science generally, and specifically in relation to this issue, you would worry much less my friend. 
Parroting authority figures is not a good way to appreciate the nuances of the scientific debate.   

> The Denialists* won.

  Who are these people and what did they "win"? 
I find it hard to believe that people who "are simply not interested in valid scientific enquiry" could convince world governments to allow the human species to be eradicated by something that "seems solid to you".   

> They managed to delay effective actions just long enough that action is more and more likely to be less and less effective.

  Who are "they"?
By what mechanism did they "delay effective actions"?
What in your opinion would have been "effective actions"?
What would these "effective actions" have achieved?
What will future "effective actions" have to look like in your opinion, given these "delays"?
Do you have evidence that these future hypothetical "effective actions" will be less and less effective?
Do you have any scientific evidence to substantiate any of your answers to the previous questions, or is this all just your irrational opinion masquerading as fact again?   

> Profits now won out over the security of future generations.

  Please explain whose getting these profits, and how these current profits have removed the "security" of future generations?
What the hell is "security" anyway, food, water, financial, military, and how many generations, just the next one, all the rest forever? 
Generation Y could do with some hard times in my "opinion".  :Biggrin:    

> I don't even have kids and I still worry about what future generations have to look forward to thanks the the short-sighted actions of TPTB and their acolytes.

  Who are these TPTB people that hate our species so much? 
(But seriously dude, don't worry so much.  Stress will kill you a lot quicker than AGW Theory.)   

> Skeptics are people genuinely interested in Scientific Enquiry.

  This is everyone on this thread and every person I have ever met.  Bit of a broad definition don't you think?   

> Denialists, on the other hand, are simply not interested in valid scientific enquiry.

  This would be a very small group of people my friend, particularly involved in this debate.  Hopefully after the earlier clarification of your misunderstanding about scientific debate, you now understand this fact. 
There has been a serious amount of bastardising of the science in all areas of this debate, but it is incorrect to say that people pushing their various agenda's "are simply not interested in valid scientific enquiry". 
I'll also cut you some slack for adding the word "valid" to your denialist's definition, but not your "skeptics" definition.  This would give you an easy excuse when these anti-science people present some scientific evidence, then you can say it is not "valid" I guess?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

> FWIW, I 'believe' the scientific argument that
>  a) Anthropogenic Climate Change exists
>  b) publically-funded research has been toned down due to political interference
>  c) things are going to get bad

  Anthropogenic Climate Change is a fact.  So is mammalian climate change, reptilian climate change, solar climate change and oceanic climate change.  All of these things contribute to the climate changing.  That is not the issue, the issue is AGW Theory, it's assumptions and projections, none of which has been proven scientifically. 
If you had read some of this thread, you would know that it is a scientific *fact* that there is *zero* evidence proving AGW Theory. 
Public funding is political interference so this statement is nonsensical.  This is not "the scientific argument", it is a political one. 
What "things"?
How "bad"?
Any proof?
Or irrational opinion masquerading as fact again?   

> mainstream governments around the world are either gutless or actively hostile towards any mitigation actions.

  Which governments?  Show how they are "gutless"? Are they afraid to save our species because we wouldn't like it?  :Confused:  
Which governments are "hostile" to saving the human species from extinction?   

> The ALP went to the 2007 election with a promise to act on AGCC.

  I don't remember their AGCC policy. Don't suppose you have a link to this AGCC stuff, whatever it is?   

> and created possably one of the worst packages to come out of either side of politics: solved nothing, moved the problem overseas, and subsidised already profitable, mostly foreign-owned, companies and created one of the most expensive job-protection rackets in history.

  You got that one right.  :2thumbsup:    

> Then the Big Miners, News LTD, and the Coalition (with no small amount of help from the gutless Faceless Men in the NSW Labor Right) managed to stage a Coup and toppled a Prime Minister. This is the sort of unholy alliance and actions that happens in third-world hellholes, not one of the worlds most long-standing and stable democracies.

  Wow, it was the Coalition and the mining companies that staged the coup.  Luckily innocent and naive Joolia just happened to be there with her union cronies to take over after the Coalition and the mining companies had knifed Rudd in the back.  :Doh:  
Seriously champ, you didn't even mention her name in your tirade.  We all have blinkers on occasionally, but this is pretty shabby. If you had read the thread, you would know that a union leader called Paul Howes announced on Lateline that a serving Prime Minister would be stood down the next day.  This was before a leadership spill actually happened or a single vote was counted.  But it's all Mr Rabbit's fault now?   

> So, forget about the ALP doing anything.

  You mean anything useful?  :Biggrin:    

> The ALPs Carbon policy is what many call greenwashing: all show and no engine.

  I don't want to break the bad news to you champ, but they actually don't have a policy on this yet.  They have a committee working on one.   

> True Conservatives would look at the Scientific debate and say that if AGCC theory is even half-right, some sort of 'insurance policy' is worthwhile).

  We've also covered the "insurance policy" debate before, and this is a ridiculous analogy made by people with no scientific evidence to back their argument.  DO you have any scientific evidence to back you argument, or shall we do the "insurance policy" debate again? (Or you could just read the thread).   

> The Coalition won't do anything worthwhile because their powerbase (typically older generations) are hostile towards the idea.

  Are you saying old people are stupid?
Or they don't care about humans because they'll be dead soon anyway?
Or maybe they've been around long enough to have seen these scams before, and these weather patterns before as well?   

> The Greens, interestingly, want more industry in Australia,

   :Rotfl:  :Rotfl:  :Rotfl:    

> One policy (Nuclear Power) is directly at odds with another policy (AGCC = fraud)!

  Oh dear! You're going to have to spell this one out for me?   

> Coal, Oil, and Gas are also Finite. At some stage, we're going to have to find something else anyway, so... why not start now?

  Again, if you had read the thread, you would understand we all agree with this.  This is nothing to do with AGW Theory.  The greenies like to combine these issues in an attempt to give credibility to their argument where there is none.   

> There's no guarantee that, if AGCC is accurate, (or understated) our civilisation will be able to cohesively mange the transition to a new climate, especially over the timeframes we're looking at. While some say "prove AGCC is true", I say, prove our emissions won't cause a problem for us, coincidering we've been (and are) undertaking a chemical experiment on the biosphere that sustains us. If we've got it wrong (and it's 'baked in the cake' at this point), there's no Restore Point. There's a whole pile of money out there for someone to prove AGCC wrong, but as yet, no one has stepped up to the plate with anything more than nibbling at the edges.

  This wishy washy mumbo jumbo is great for scaring the kiddies, but is just plain nonsense.  Research the NHST issue above and you'll understand why.    

> If you can get China and the US on-board you're almost there already.

  Gee, why didn't anyone else think of this?  :Doh:    

> I'm convinced that AGCC is real

  Can't argue with that kind of evidence. And again, what exactly is AGCC anyway?   

> It'll be their grandchildren who have to deal with it.

  Deal with what exactly? 
Do you have any proof of this fictional scenario scaremongering, or are you hoping emotional blackmail will be enough to scare people into compliance? 
Chat again soon... :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Sorry Mr Watson, he made me do it.  :Ohcrap:

----------


## Marc

The anthropogenic global warming fairy tale is NOT a theory.
It is a  _hypothesis. _ Do not grace this con with a title it does not  deserve. 
The reason warmist never see reason and do not change their  minds despite countless evidence against their smoke and mirrors fraud, is  simple. Theirs is a _belief_ akin to a religious belief. Can you  tell a catholic that saint XYZ is a fake made up by the church? Not a  chance.
There is no "science" behind the belief in AGW there is dogma. The  dogma comes from preconceived ideas, bias, attitude, social background, a  peculiar view of the world and people. AGW fits certain people and supports some  of their views. Any pseudo science they can pick up here and there is only  collected as collateral. The main concept is adopted  because it fits the  rest of their adopted values and certainly not as a result of scientific  analysis. 
No different from Homeopathy or any other superstitios belief.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> This is not how NHST works. Trenberth is trying hard to get this changed because of the abject failure of the AGW Theory machine. Until he does (God forbid this should ever happen), your premise is scientifically incorrect.   
> And in reality, it's a theory (or hypothesis depending on several parameters). 
> But your response to the previous post should clear all this confusion up.    
> We've partly covered this. I don't think the entire human population would like being counted as standing alongside you. 
> But it is pretty funny that your statement rebuking your factual incorrectness is actually factually incorrect.    
> And the best is yet to come...   
> See, this is where it gets really tedious for those who didn't know it all and actually did read the well-informed input from all sides into this thread. 
> No-one on any side of this argument "disagrees" with the science (not in this thread anyway). This is a spurious argument foisted on the weak minded to create two fictional camps of "pro-science" and "anti-science". 
> In reality, "science" is a field of human endeavour that has traditionally been based on empirical evidence. This is where AGW Theory has failed spectacularly. All sides interpret the empirical evidence that is available and develop different opinions on this evidence. These opinions, however well or poorly informed, are just opinions. They are *not* "the science". 
> ...

    Love your work Doc.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The anthropogenic global warming fairy tale is NOT a theory.
> It is a  _hypothesis. _ Do not grace this con with a title it does not  deserve.

  You are absolutely correct my friend. 
We have been fighting the many vagaries and spurious arguments put forward by the AGW hypothesis ( :Biggrin: ) proponents for a long time, so I have kept calling it a theory to avoid another argument distracting from the fact they had no evidence. 
I think we have well and truly shown that their case has not been made, so I am happy to have this fight now. 
To demonstrate to others how correct you are, here are just a few differences between a hypothesis and a theory:   

> A hypothesis attempts to answer questions by putting forth a plausible explanation that has yet to be rigorously tested. A theory, on the other hand, has already undergone extensive testing by various scientists and is generally accepted as being an accurate explanation of an observation. This doesnt mean the theory is correct; only that current testing has not yet been able to disprove it, and the evidence as it is understood, appears to support it. 
> A theory will often start out as a hypothesis -- an educated guess to explain observable phenomenon. The scientist will attempt to poke holes in his or her hypothesis. If it survives the applied methodologies of science, it begins to take on the significance of a theory to the scientist. The next step is to present the findings to the scientific community for further, independent testing. The more a hypothesis is tested and holds up, the better accepted it becomes as a theory.    What is the Difference between a Theory and a Hypothesis?

   

> In popular usage, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy sort of fact and a  hypothesis is often used as a fancy synonym to `guess'. But to a  scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that  explains existing observations and predicts new ones. For  instance, suppose you see the Sun rise. This is an existing observation  which is explained by the theory of gravity proposed by Newton. This  theory, in addition to explaining why we see the Sun move across the  sky, also explains many other phenomena such as the path followed by  the Sun as it moves (as seen from Earth) across the sky, the phases of  the Moon, the phases of Venus, the tides, just to mention a few. You  can today make a calculation and _predict_ the position of the  Sun, the phases of the Moon and Venus, the hour of maximal tide, all  200 years from now. The _same_ theory is used to guide  spacecraft all over the Solar System.  A hypothesis is a working assumption.  Typically, a scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it ``holds  water'' by testing it against available data (obtained from previous  experiments and observations). If the hypothesis does hold water, the  scientist declares it to be a theory.     What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis?

  Our good friend Woodbe covered this concept briefly earlier in the thread, but we may as well get on with clarifying it now.  
At the styart of this fiasco, the pressure and one-sided nature of this debate led to the veneer that the status of "theory" had been achieved.  But since the brave few scientists who first stood up have now been joined by many, the AGW hypothesis gets weaker every day and certainly does not deserve the status of "theory" as you correctly point out.  :2thumbsup:  
Let the games begin... :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Love your work Doc.

  It was a quiet morning, things were heating up over here in the afternoon though. 
Some knuckle head with an angle grinder apparently.  :Doh:  
Already had at least 35 houses torched so far, firies say more are likely after the full count. 
Lesson learned: Don't angle grind steel in dry hilly bushland in 70 kmh gusting winds.  :No:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Hmm worth a read.   

> _What constitutes a “cli__mate change denier”?_
> To appropriately address what is a “climate change denier”, one must first address the position taken by those accusing others of being “climate change deniers.” Second, one must address the position of the accused “deniers.” Third, one must examine the physical, scientific evidence. From this, finally, one may conclude what constitutes a “climate change denier.”  
> Based upon the assertions in the letter, the writings, and presentations to public audiences by many who signed the letter, one may reasonably conclude that the position of the signees (accusers) is that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming. The authors of the letter invoke many of the familiar assertions of future disasters projected by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its followers. As stated in the NIPCC reports, many of these assertions, such as, water vapor amplifying atmospheric warming over the tropics, have been demonstrated as contrary to the physical, scientific evidence. 
> Most “climate change deniers” believe that human emissions of carbon dioxide may cause slight global warming, but not a warming that is unprecedented or dangerous to humanity. Further, many of these “deniers” assert that climate change is naturally occurring. Warming and cooling of this planet will continue to occur regardless of governmental policy concerning human emissions of carbon dioxide. This is not to say that human activity, such as, land use change, does not change local and regional climate. Many “climate change deniers” assert it does. The major difference in the opinions between the “deniers” and the “alarmists” is that “deniers” assert carbon dioxide emissions will not cause significant world-wide warming. 
> For the physical evidence supporting the views of the alarmists and the “climate change deniers,” one needs to look no further than the record from the Greenland GISP2 ice cores as reported by Don Easterbrook and referenced in the January 29, 2011, TWTW.
> “Temperature changes recorded in the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet show that the global warming experienced during the past century pales into insignificance when compared to the magnitude of profound climate reversals over the past 25,000 years.” 
> About 25,000 years ago, the measured temperatures were about -55 deg. C, today they are about -32 deg. C. As stated by Easterbrook, these data were reported in 1997, ten years before the latest IPCC report. Further, for over 80% of the past 10,500 years, the calculated temperatures have been warmer than today. These temperature changes, unrelated to carbon dioxide concentrations, were also shown in the 2008 NIPCC report. Based upon this research and other supporting research, Greenland ice cores are a good approximation of temperature changes in the mid-to-upper latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. 
> Such data showing frequent, naturally caused climate change unrelated to carbon dioxide are extensive. Yet the accusers claim “… no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate and why.”
> Such statements are contrary to the physical evidence and prompt the question: who are the true climate change deniers: (a) those who recognize that the physical evidence demonstrates climate change is natural, normal, and cyclical; or (b) those who ignore the physical evidence of natural climate change that contradicts their beliefs?

  link Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Hope all is well over that side anyway, and get that beanstalk over there to build some dams now that he's in.

   

> You thought Victorias desalination plant couldnt be an even bigger monument to the grotesquely irresponsible green follies of the thankfully dumped Labor Government? 
>  Then consider: the plant built at vast cost by a dam-hating government convinced that global warming had dried up the rain has been drowned by the floods we got instead - floods that have swept away its pipeline to Melbourne, according to Channel Nine news tonight. Oh, and it will cost billions more than the $5.7 billion Labor confessed to - which was already four times the cost of a dam that would have given us three times the water. 
>   Why did so few people dare stand against this madness when it could have been stopped? 
>   But lets first start with the background:   Years Melbourne has been on water restrictions:  _8_Where a new dam for Melbourne was planned:  _(T)he Mitchell has a huge catchment area - so big, in fact, that it would normally fill a dam the size of the Thomson, our biggest, three times faster than that dam fills now. Its a river that floods badly around every decade._The likely cost of such a dam:  _$1.35 billion._What happened to that planned dam:  _(The Labor Government)  turned the dam reservation on Gippslands Mitchell River into a national park._ The first excuse the dam-phobic Labor Government gave for not building the dam:    _After all, ommmed the then Deputy Premier and Minister for No Water, John Thwaites, all remaining water (was) currently used by the rivers.  _ _The second excuse the dam-phobic Labor Government gave for not building the dam:_  _Unfortunately, we cannot rely on this kind of rainfall like we used to.__What it said it had spent instead on a desalination plant to deliver just a third of the water: _  _  $3.5 billion (or actually $5.7 billion in net present cost over the next 30 years).__When the Mitchell last burst its banks:_  _2007_ _How much water went to waste in that single flood:_  _There is no doubt that had a dam the size of the Thomson dam (Melbournes biggest) been in place on the Mitchell River, all of the flooding in Bairnsdale, Paynesville and much, if not all, of the Gippsland Lakes and Lakes Entrance flooding would have been prevented Thwaites own department says more than 540 billion litres of flood water has gone down the Mitchell alone since June 19. In a dam, that would be more water than Melbourne uses in a year._ _Another river the Labor Government could have used: _  _Check also the Glenmaggie Reservoir on the Macalister, which (in 2009 was) so full that (it) had to tip out as much as 40 billion litres .... Thats as much water wasted as Melbourne uses in a whole month. You see, the Glenmaggie is not only another reservoir thats too small, but its even been left unconnected to Melbournes water network._ _How much the green madness has cost Victoria._  _Incalculable.__Desal pipes washed away by rain Labor claimed would never fill a dam | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

   
What about building a few, hey, just for giggles?  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The Australian Government's chief climate adviser Ross Garnaut says that an Australian move to put a price on carbon pollution would make it easier for the US and Canada to take action too. 
> Professor Garnaut says the three countries have been the largest drags on the global effort to lessen the effects of greenhouse gases. 
> But he says Australia could make a difference if it were to introduce a carbon price.  PM - Australian price on carbon would influence US: Garnaut 07/02/2011

  Yeh, we are so renowned and influential in the world:     

> *US media giant CNN's reporting of Cyclone Yasi blew Queensland off the map, when it depicted the weather-ravaged state as being in Tasmania.  * Britain's _Daily  Mail_ also redrew Australia's State boundaries last week in its flood coverage, splitting Queensland in half and adding a seventh state, Capricornia.

  They're hanging off our every word, hey Ross? 
And did you see the warning at the bottom, maybe we should change it to: 
Running a diesel engine in an airtight space poses "serious threat to life".

----------


## Draffa

> Can you please describe for me exactly what this AGCC is?  Is it the same theory renamed<SNIP>

  Yes, essentially.  AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change) is a more accurate name for AGW, since "global warming" doesn't accurately reflect the full range of changes predicted by the AGW theory.  Ironically, the change from "warming" to Climate Change" came about from a bunch of Deniers in the US (GWB and the likes  - and for clarity, I don't particularly blame GWB for anything much.  He was just the figurehead taking the blame/credit for others).
What should we call it?  Marc obviously thinks it should be called something like Anthropogenic Fairy Tale (see several posts above).   

> This wasn't designed to alter your view, it was recommended so we all wouldn't have to go over the same points we've already covered ad nauseum.

  My first post in this thread was my stance on AGCC.  Not a debate on technical mertis.  Not a plea for anyone to change their minds, not even an invitation to debate.  Just my stance.  No links to Papers, blogs, or anything else, no rehashing of previous posts, none of that.  Just my stance, and an explanation of such.  There are ~5300 posts in this thread, and nearly 1350 or them are yours.  If anyone is going to be rehashing old posts, it is you.   

> Bob Brown and the Greens Party voted down the ETS.  Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party axed the ETS policy. Barack Obama and the Democratic Party axed their emissions trading legislation.  Julia Gillard and the Labor Party just axed most of their "climate change mitigation" policies.  Is this who you are referring to?

  Would you have The Greens vote in favour of bad legislation?
The ETS (as put to the Senate) was little more than money cycling.  It excluded over a third of in-country Anthropogenic emissions.  It protected 'export sensitive' jobs at 200% of salary in some cases.  It did nothing to reduce emissions, and actually handed the 'slowdown' (GHG intensity per head of population was reduced, but absolute emissions increased) off to third-world countries (they do the hard yards, sell us the Emissions Trading Certificates, we buy them and claim we're 'green').  The Greens also weren't allowed any input into the Scheme, whereas the Coalition was.  Can you blame them for voting down a scheme which didn't achieve anything, yet cost money?   

> This is Australia on the Planet Earth.  We all get one vote no matter our opinion.  This is democracy.  You and I do matter.

  Once every three years or so, yes, I suppose we do.  Between elections, we can all go hang, because the Lobbyists control policy, not Opinion Polls.   

> So you agree then that Bob Brown, Christine Milne, all the greenies, Julia Gillard, Ross Garnaut, the Sunrise team etc etc are all either liars or idiots?

  I'm not aware of any sytatement by Brown, Milne, "all the greenies", Gillard, Garnault, or the Sunrise team which has said that a given weather event = Climate.  Well, maybe the Sunrise team.  Every expert interviewee I've seen (including on Sunrise), has been very careful to make the distinction between weather and climate.  Non-experts, such as certain blog opinion writers and several news outlets, have either not been making the distinction, or have changed statements from what they actually said to a much more juicy, attention-grabbing ones.   

> Lucky the oceans are not warmer then, huh?

  I guess it depends on what you define as 'normal'.   

> And in reality, it's a theory (or hypothesis depending on several parameters).

  And you should know perfectly well that a Scientific Theory is not the same thing as a Scientific Hypothesis.   

> We've partly covered this.  I don't think the entire human population would like being counted as standing alongside you.

  I never suggested they had to.  You're the one doing the either/or thing.   

> But it is pretty funny that your statement rebuking your factual incorrectness is actually factually incorrect.

  Your statement claiming to rebuke a factually incorrect statement is factually incorrect.  :Biggrin:    

> No-one on any side of this argument "disagrees" with the science (not in this thread anyway).  This is a spurious argument foisted on the weak minded to create two fictional camps of "pro-science" and "anti-science".

  You don't disagree with the science, but it's wrong anyway?   

> In reality, "science" is a field of human endeavour that has traditionally been based on empirical evidence.  This is where AGW Theory has failed spectacularly.

  And yet, despite this "spectauclar failure", Skeptics and Denialists have spectacularly failed to falsify AGCC Theory.  The best they can come up with is the Adaptive Iris Hypothesis and "climate scientists call us names in private emails".   

> Hopefully after the last few paragraphs, you now understand just how wrong these statements are.

  So you're not trying to convince me, but you're trying to convince me?   

> Parroting authority figures is not a good way to appreciate the nuances of the scientific debate.

  I'm not the one using Bolts' blog as a source of information.   

> Who are these people and what did they "win"?

  "these people" are the people and organisations interested in the Status Quo: being able to burn coal indiscriminately, ever-expanding populations with no thought to either carrying capacity or livability, maintaining their place in the wealth pyramid.  "Those" people.
An example, Coal companies.  By delaying (or eliminating) measures to reduce Anthropogenic GHG emissions, they get to keep digging coal up and selling it.  If we enacted measures to limit AGHG emissions, they'd have to find another line of work.  Much easier to keep doing what they're doing.  For the Coal industry, if any ETS did go ahead, they'd get funding to research CCS (which, by their own admission, won't be commercially viable until about 2017 at least), which would mean they get to sell coal to power the CCS equipment to capture some of the emissions from burning coal.  Brilliant!  No wonder their CEOs get those bonuses!  :Biggrin: 
Electricty companies which burn the coal should not be allowed to use the atmosphere as a dump.  I'm not allowed to dump old car batteries in the creek, why should they be allowed to do essentially the same thing on a larger scale (coal-fired power plant workers recieve higher radiation doses than nuclear plant workers, but we're afraid of Nuclear power?)?   

> I find it hard to believe that people who "are simply not interested in valid scientific enquiry" could convince world governments to allow the human species to be eradicated by something that "seems solid to you".

  Like I said before, you and I don't matter (at least between elections).  And the people to whom I referred have significantly more 'reach' than you or I do, even with the Internet as an enabler.  Money talks.   

> Who are "they"?

  See above.   

> By what mechanism did they "delay effective actions"?

  Lobbying, campaign donations, mangling statement made by others, "gay-for-pay" style editorials, that sort of thing.   

> What in your opinion would have been "effective actions"?

  An insurance policy.  Starting about ten years ago, a small fee on GHG emissions (a tax, not a market-based solution.  MBS' only make GS rich and we've already got the structure in place to get the tax proceeds).  Slowly ramp up at a rate of something like Inflation +1% (give or take), with the proposed increases announced well ahead of time (none of this annoucement-instant action garbage like with the ALPs Solar PV program).  Use the funds to subsidise Renewable technologies on various scales and offset the increased COL to low-income earners.  Also use the funds to promote local 'green' industries (subsidies are ok if they achieve a public good, like Public Transport, or steer a society where "it" wants to go).  Encourage non-private travel, fast trains (but not necessarily very fast trains) as an alternative to aircraft, equip the nation with a HVDC Smart Grid, decentralise populations (the NBN may have this "virtual" effect), and a range of other options.   

> What would these "effective actions" have achieved?

  Hopefully encouraged a shift from energy-intensive (and by default, emissions intensive) living.  Not to one which is "poorer", but one which requires less from the environment.  If I had a job "in the city", there's no way I'd drive.  Too much tension, too many idiots on the road, too much haste, too much wear-and-tear on my vehicle.  I'd take the train instead.  it'd take about the same amount of time, but it's cheaper and I can actually do something on the train (read a book, talk to someone, work on a laptop, etc).  Our houses would be more energy-efficient, requiring less electricity and/or gas to heat and cool, saving households money.  With changes in lifestyle we might even eat healthier and be more relaxed. 
Or maybe people would have said "I'll change when X gets to $Y" like most seem to do now.   

> What will future "effective actions" have to look like in your opinion, given these "delays"?

  Assuming the same end goals, they'll be more expensive, at least and have to be overbuilt (and/or overtaxed), due to the natural inertia in the climate.  Spread the cost out over a long period of time and over as much of the economy as possible means its the "lowest cost" option.   

> Do you have evidence that these future hypothetical "effective actions" will be less and less effective?

  (Climatic) Inertia.

----------


## Draffa

(Cont)...    

> your irrational opinion

  And thus we get to the crux of the matter.  You assume my opinion is irrational, which means yours must be rational, but if I suggest it is the other way around...   

> Please explain whose getting these profits, and how these current profits have removed the "security" of future generations?
> What the hell is "security" anyway, food, water, financial, military, and how many generations, just the next one, all the rest forever?

  I would call the "security of future generations" to be that which enables them to live a life at least as good as ours, or, at the very least, not significantly worse than ours.   

> Generation Y could do with some hard times in my "opinion".

  Given that they all seem to be living on Credit, can't afford a house, and are convinced that the "good times are just going to keep on rolling", I reckon they'll be in for some hard times soon enough.   

> Who are these TPTB people that hate our species so much?

  It's not that they hate our species (or any other species), it's just that they value the immediate/short-term more than they do the long-term.  I don't _particularly_ blame them for this, because humans are inherently short-term thinkers (we heavily discount the future), but since they're supposed to be the "best and brightest", I expect more from them than they deliver.   

> (But seriously dude, don't worry so much.  Stress will kill you a lot quicker than AGW Theory.)

  I said earlier, I don't stress about it anymore.  It's probably too late for it.   

> This is everyone on this thread and every person I have ever met.  Bit of a broad definition don't you think?

  If you say so.   

> This would be a very small group of people my friend, particularly involved in this debate.

  A small group of people can have an influence vastly out of proportion to their number.   

> Hopefully after the earlier clarification of your misunderstanding about scientific debate, you now understand this fact.

  I understand your opinion of the facts and that you want me to agree with you and that you think I'm wrong, yes.  :Biggrin:    

> I'll also cut you some slack for adding the word "valid" to your denialist's definition, but not your "skeptics" definition.  This would give you an easy excuse when these anti-science people present some scientific evidence, then you can say it is not "valid" I guess?

  If "these anti-science people present some scientific evidence" then they'll probably be in the Skeptics camp, not the Denialists.   

> Anthropogenic Climate Change is a fact.  <SNIP>  That is not the issue, the issue is AGW Theory, it's assumptions and projections, none of which has been proven scientifically.

  Fact and false at the same time?   

> If you had read some of this thread, you would know that it is a scientific *fact* that there is *zero* evidence proving AGW Theory.

  You opinion, not the opinion of most of the actual Climate Scientists, it seems.   

> Public funding is political interference

  Ah, I understand your stance now.  You're a Libertarian.   

> Which governments?  Show how they are "gutless"? Are they afraid to save our species because we wouldn't like it?

  I don't think our species is doomed or anything, just the life is going to be quite a bit tougher than it is now (although not back to the 1800's type tough).  Poorer.  Harder.  Less free time and money.  But not extinct.
As for Governments: Peter Costello claims he suggested a small GHG Tax in the early years of the Howards Government as an insurance policy and to get the kinks worked out.  He was allegedly knocked back.  Richo claimed on Q and A last night he was into the same thing.  The USA at a federal level won't introduce GHG tax measures because of so much lobbying power by self-interested companies (and Companies over there now have a measure of Free Speech).  Back here in Australia, the Rudd Government caved to pressure on their (shocking) ETS and didn't have the balls to take it to a DD election (which they probably would have won).  Then they didn't have a policy, then they did, then they didn't again, now they have a committee to study options that were off the table six months ago.  Europe has done ok but they're still working the kinks out of their largely market-based solution.  China is making pleasant noises about coming on board but only if the US does too (you go first, no you, no I insist).  The UK seems to have a Policy but not a strategy.   

> Which governments are "hostile" to saving the human species from extinction?

  Again, it's not about or extinction.  You're extrapolation my statements into something they're not.   

> I don't remember their AGCC policy. Don't suppose you have a link to this AGCC stuff, whatever it is?

  It's not on their website anymore, that's for sure.   

> Wow, it was the Coalition and the mining companies that staged the coup.

  They created the conditions for the change of PM.  If it wasn't for them, the Menless Faces in the NSW "Right" wouldn't have made a move.   

> Seriously champ, you didn't even mention her name in your tirade.  We all have blinkers on occasionally, but this is pretty shabby.

  That's because she was incidental.  If she wasn't there someone else would have been put forward (Wong?)   

> If you had read the thread, you would know that a union leader called Paul Howes announced on Lateline that a serving Prime Minister would be stood down the next day.

  I was watching that Lateline and that is not what he said.   

> You mean anything useful?

  No, I'm sure they'll do something useful to vested interests.  :Wink:   :Frown:    

> I don't want to break the bad news to you champ, but they actually don't have a policy on this yet.  They have a committee working on one.

  They had one, then they didn't, now their policy to to have someone make a policy.  All very Yes Minister.  :Biggrin:    

> (Or you could just read the thread).

  I'll read the whole thread when I've got a few hundred hours spare and have insomnia.  In the meantime I have other forums to read, a house, a Partner to lavish attention on, parents to take care of, a job, two cars to maintain (converting one to electric), and sundry other stuff like a homebrew solar-powered fridge and ice machine, not to mention my model building and computer interests.  I'm sure I'll get around to your 1300 posts some day.   

> Are you saying old people are stupid?
> Or they don't care about humans because they'll be dead soon anyway?

  No, and I don't blame them for their opinions.  They've grown up from hard times and have experienced nearly a whole lifetime of what they would consider positives: increased wealth, increased mobility, cheap hip replacements, banishment of childhood diseases, all that sort of thing.  They've had sixty plus years to form opinions, so it's not surprising they stick to them.  They see another forty years of good living ahead of them (followed, perhaps, by ten years rotting away in a nursing home) based on a lifetimes trends, so the here-and-now trumps the future.  "Why change when it's worked so far" many think.   

> Or maybe they've been around long enough to have seen these scams before, and these weather patterns before as well?

  Bill, is that you?
I see a 'weather' pattern every year.  That doesn't make it Climate.  Humans have a good ability to rationalise away inconsistencies, and things that happen over a long period of time are mulched into their general conciousness to form their worldview.  They may 'remember' what the weather was like in 1962, but that doesn't mean it's true (and if it is, it's only local and personal).  I "remember" the sky being a darker shade of blue when I was a kid, but that doesn't make it so.   

> Oh dear! You're going to have to spell this one out for me?

  Nuclear power is expensive, that's one of the reasons we don't use it (since we've got nice cheap coal).  To make Nuclear power economically viable, you have to increase the cost of alternatives (coal, in our case) or reduce the cost of Nuclear.  Since the cost of Nuke plants isn't coming down, if Nukes are to be viable, the cost of alternatives must go up.  If the Coalition is re-elected, they won't be putting in a GHG price, so why would the cost of coal go up?  If the price of coal isn't going up, there's no economic argument for Nuclear.  If there's no economic argument for nuclear, why suggest it?   

> The greenies like to combine these issues in an attempt to give credibility to their argument where there is none.

  Those evil greenies!  Damn them for caring about something other than themselves! /shakes fist
It's not about giving credibility, it's pointing out that there are other good reasons to encourage lower FF useage.   

> This wishy washy mumbo jumbo is great for scaring the kiddies, but is just plain nonsense.

  I suppose a black-and-white world is a lot easier.   

> Gee, why didn't anyone else think of this?

  They did (  :Doh:  ) but they're going about it the wrong way.  Much easier to get a dozen or so people to agree on something than 160.

----------


## Draffa

(Cont)...    

> Do you have any proof of this fictional scenario scaremongering, or are you hoping emotional blackmail will be enough to scare people into compliance?

  Only virtually every peer-reviewed paper on Climate Change.  But that's just a closed-shop, isn't it.  Can't be trusted, these _Scientists_.
And I'm not "hoping emotional blackmail will be enough", because, as I said, I think "the battle" (for the agreement of the Pollies) is already lost. 
Like I said, I'm not hung up about it.  Whatever happens, happens at this point.  Debating opinion on a web forums isn't going to change anything.  Frankly, I don't know if I'll bother replying here again, since your response has been essentially  "everyone has an opinion, but yours is irrational while  mine is right", and to post links from Bolts blog (which is specifically opinion).

----------


## intertd6

Draffa, after reading your posts of 5274 to 5276 I really feel none the wiser, could you add some substance to the next lot please.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> Draffa, after reading your posts of 5274 to 5276 I really feel none the wiser, could you add some substance to the next lot please.
> regards inter

  Mate, I only just stopped crying.  :Cry:  
Those oil and coal people are out to destroy the future of all the children and grandchildren (cos none of them have any).  And the denialist's are helping them to do it because they don't believe in science. 
This is just terrible.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

Mate, this could go on for years, but if you're gonna do the bolt ( :Blush7: ) then I'll just go over some of it. 
I'll assume you have renounced all the points you did not respond to?   

> AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change) is a more accurate name for AGW, since "global warming" doesn't accurately reflect the full range of changes predicted by the AGW theory.

  So if these "full range of changes" are only "predicted", then they have not happened yet.  Therefore it is a hypothesis not a theory.   

> Ironically, the change from "warming" to Climate Change" came about from a bunch of Deniers in the US

  Wow, these scientists must be pretty stupid if they let "deniers" who by your definition "are simply not interested in valid scientific enquiry" be the people to rename their hypothesis.   

> I'm not aware of any sytatement by Brown, Milne, "all the greenies", Gillard, Garnault, or the Sunrise team which has said that a given weather event = Climate.

   :2thumbsup:    

> And you should know perfectly well that a Scientific Theory is not the same thing as a Scientific Hypothesis.

  Yeh, I should.    

> You don't disagree with the science, but it's wrong anyway?

  Not quite sticking, is it?  "The science" isn't "wrong" it is measurements of varying accuracy.  The opinions based on these measurements are not "the science".  Reading the thread would have helped you avoiding the continual mistaking of opinion for fact.   

> And yet, despite this "spectauclar failure", Skeptics and Denialists have spectacularly failed to falsify AGCC Theory.

  I guess you in all that reading you've done, you never covered NHST, huh?   

> So you're not trying to convince me, but you're trying to convince me?

  Believe what you want, but it is scientifically incorrect to purport these beliefs as facts.   

> An example, Coal companies. By delaying (or eliminating) measures to reduce Anthropogenic GHG emissions, they get to keep digging coal up and selling it. If we enacted measures to limit AGHG emissions, they'd have to find another line of work. Much easier to keep doing what they're doing.

  Lucky you are operating a wind powered computer made of twigs and seashells that has never used any of this evil filth.  Otherwise you'd be some kind of hypocrite using all that modern technology and power.  Kinda like a druggie blaming his pusher for all his woes.  Druggies find it much easier to keep doing what they're doing.  If they stop buying, the pushers are out of business.  HINT:  There's a switch in the meter box and a tap near the verge you can turn off to do your bit.  
Sorry mate, that's all I can handle for now. 
I might try again on the weekend, but it's heavy going for a school night.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Warmists blame global warming for fires and drought at one end of the country:  _A shocking fire, but not a surprise to two Perth experts who fear this is a sign of worse to come.... Associate Professor Grant Wardell Johnson from Curtin University studies climate change and its effect on the environment. All the climate change models to south western australia show were getting drier and warmer and we are getting more extreme events._Warmists blame global warming for floods and rain at the other end of the country:   _  Senator Brown says the coal-mining industry should foot the bill for the Queensland reconstruction efforts, claiming their operations are partly responsible for the floods.  Its the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now, he said. _ Whatever it is, it’s global warming | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  *A shocking fire, but not a surprise to two Perth experts who fear this is a sign of worse to come* 
Well, we could shut down global infrastructure as we know it...OR..maybe these experts could ban idiots using angle grinders in hilly bushland in 70 kmh gusting winds.  :Doh:

----------


## mark53

[quote=Draffa;830928](Cont)...  
I suppose a black-and-white world is a lot easier.  
Well Draffa you finally got me excited.  
May I share with you my very simple philosophy to life. It starts with the statement .......  
They paint naval ships grey. 
 They do so for a very good and simple reason. It makes the ships more difficult to see and to judge speed and direction. In short it's difficult to see the objective, let alone pursue it. Now they paint targets black and white for a very good and simple reason, so that you can see them. In short you can see the objective.( Imagine a naval ship with a big black and white target painted amidships. The objective would be clear.) 
In short Grey = Obscured objective. Black and white =  A clear objective. 
Now if one was to transpose this philosophy into real life it would mean that those who view most things in B&W are those least likely to be confused and corrupted or in this case carried away by some nebulous alarmist argument. Grey on the other hand  allows for lies, deceit, corruption, false premise etc. to be disguised as fact, which of course it isn't. By that, in this case, I mean more likely to put forward a specious argument enveloped in mists of grey dogma and ideology based on a hypothesis now accepted by most people as false in a material particular. So Draffa I would suggest you concentrate on the B&W of life lest you be consumed by the grey mists of obfuscation which is the hoax of climate change alarmists. 
But, that's just my opinion.

----------


## Marc

If this was the sixties, warmist, greenies and assorted tree huggers and  cheerleaders would be either hippies doped out of their brains making piece  signs, or dressed in fatigues following some Che Guevara of sort.
Rabid  Global Warming Alarmist or RAGWA for short, become that because it fits their  view of the world where achievements are out of reach and must therefore be  denounced as unethical or corrupt. If you couple that with the anti value mantra  that rich is bad and poor is virtuous, you have the perfect combination to  produce a RAGWA. Throw in a few lame popularity seeking personalities and you  get a mass to manipulate at will.
RAGWA should review the "values" that they  have adopted well before age 10 and try to change them for some that serve them  better.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Courtesy of the First Dog.... 
As always he gets my vote.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here is a response to the letter to the US senate by the 19 Alarmists.   

> February 8, 2011
> To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate: _In reply to “The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change”_
> On 28 January 2011, eighteen scientists sent a letter to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate urging them to “take a fresh look at climate change.” Their intent, apparently, was to disparage the views of scientists who disagree with their contention that continued business-as-usual increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the burning of coal, gas, and oil will lead to a host of cataclysmic climate-related problems................................... 
> But don’t take our word for it. Read the two reports yourselves. And then make up your own minds about the matter. Don’t be intimidated by false claims of “scientific consensus” or “overwhelming proof.” These are not scientific arguments and they are simply not true.
> Like the eighteen climate alarmists, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change. We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible.
> Signed by:
> Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska1
> Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania
> James Barrante, Southern Connecticut State University1
> ...

  full link here  http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...openletter.pdf

----------


## mark53

Great post Rod.  :Clap2:  It is interesting to not the style of writing in both the RAGWA's and the bonafide scientists letters. Those scientists who have denounced the RAGWA's hysterical dogma have referenced their argument to published and unchallenged scientific reports. It is apparent that the RAGWA's are becoming increasingly desperate with the threat of government funds drying up. It is also apparent that Joolia doesn't read the above unchallenged scientific reports. If she had we would not have to suffer the illogical arguments of son of RAGWA, the one and only Tim Flannery. God help us hooray!

----------


## Rod Dyson

Silence!! 
Does this mean we won? :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Rod Dyson

This is how the warmist have an each way bet.  http://www.climatedepot.com/r/9753/U...global-warming
Link    

> Browse: Home / Hockey Team / Unfalsifiable Science – Proof Of Climate Change   *Unfalsifiable Science – Proof Of Climate Change* 
> By P Gosselin on 10. Februar 2011 
> Reader *Jimbo* provides us with data sources of why global warming is undeniable. No sense in denying it any longer. AGW warming and its impacts are real. Things caused by global warming: Warmer Northern Hemisphere winters due to global warming Colder Northern Hemisphere winters due to global warming Global warming to slow down the Earth’s rotation Global warming to speed up the Earth’s rotation North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty North Atlantic Ocean has become more salty Avalanches may increase Avalanches may decrease Plants move uphill due to global warming Plants move downhill due to global warming Monsoons to become drier in India Monsoons to become wetter in India Plankton blooms Plankton decline Reindeer thrive Reindeer decline Less snow in Great Lakes More snow in Great Lakes Gulf stream slows down Gulf stream shows “_small increase in flow_“ San Francisco more foggy San Francisco less foggy Less winter snow for Britain More winter snow for Britain Africa to get less rain Africa to get more rain Winds speed up [USA] Winds slow down [USA] Monsoons to become drier in India Monsoons to become wetter in India Bird migrations longer Bird migrations shorter

----------


## Dr Freud

> Silence!! 
> Does this mean we won?

  Mate, this farce has deteriorated so badly, you'd either have to be a blind ideologue or a government desperate for tax revenue to still pretend it is real.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Mate, this farce has deteriorated so badly, you'd either have to be a blind ideologue or a government desperate for tax revenue to still pretend it is real.

  Yes it sure is getting desperate in warming land. 
Brought to us from the age  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:   

> Link Climate tax  *Poll: Climate tax* 
> Would you support a climate tax? 
>   Poll formPlease select an answer.  Yes No View results
> Yes11%
> No89%
> Total votes: 1824.  *Would you like to vote?* You will need Cookies enabled to use our Voting Feature. 
> Poll closed 11 Feb, 2011
> Share this poll: Email (opens in new window)Facebook (opens in new window)Twitter (opens in new window) *Disclaimer:*
> These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.

----------


## Dr Freud

> In 1972, Hugh Lunn interviewed the director of the Bureau of Meteorology in Queensland, Arch Shields, and was warned that one day Brisbane would be hit by floods as it had been hit before:  _We mounted many flights of stairs to his new eyrie where he pulled out handfuls of dusty files. They showed that anyone who talks about a one-in-a-hundred-year flood in Brisbane is wrong._  _Between 1840 and 1900 (60 years) Brisbane had been hit by three floods much bigger than 1974two of them within a fortnight of each otherand another three at least as big._  _So? I said._  _Well, Shields said, I knew that sort of meteorological event would certainly recur. The only question was when._  _Shields spoke with a candour one rarely gets from senior public servants whose usual thought is to first protect the publicity rights of their minister. In one month in 1893, four different cyclones about the same size as Wanda had dropped their water on Brisbane. On just one day the city got an unbelievable Australian record rainfall of almost a metre (35 inches 71 points) in 24 hours compared with the 14 inches in 24 hours which set off the 1974 flood. (In 1974 the bureau used feet and inches.)_  _In three days 72 inches fell: the height of a tall man._  _On February 5, 1893 the Brisbane River reached its highest ever level of 31 feet 2 inches, 10 feet above the 1974 flood. Brisbane in 1893 was a small city of only 90,000, but still 10,000 of them were made homeless and 35 drowned. Two Queensland navy ships, the Elamang and the gunboat Paluma, were washed into the Botanic Gardens in the city and were left high and dry lying on their sides, immovable. There are photos of people walking around these ships scratching their heads._  _Not to worry. Exactly a fortnight later the fourth cyclone arrived lifting the river level back up to 30 feet 4 inches and washing the two ships out into Moreton Bay. In the 1893 floods, Shields said, many river areas of Brisbane had not been built on. If such an event came today the damage would be colossal. It would be beyond comprehension. It would make cyclone Althea look like a minor skirmish._  _Without consulting his political masters, Shields observed in The Australian of January 29, 1974 that, from a hydrologists point of view a lot of Brisbane people have built homes in the river and the creeks rather than on them. He said he felt this was because the Somerset Dam above Brisbane had created misplaced confidence (Wivenhoe had not yet been built)._In the four decades since, Queenslanders were spared such floods and thought this was the new normal.... 
>   Meanwhile, residents downstream from the Wivenhoe dam accuse the operators of not preparing for the wetter conditions of a La Nina, and causing the floods through mismanagement.   http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...bout_brisbane/

  Once every few decades idiots! Stop building in flood plains.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Here comes the great green tax, which would make no difference to the climate even without all the expensive giveaways that make it even more useless:   _  JULIA Gillard plans to introduce a carbon price from July 1 next year and defy the Greens by insisting on compensation for the coal and electricity industries, in a move that will infuriate its minority government partner._  _The Weekend Australian understands the government will present its multi-party climate change committee next week with a plan for a fixed carbon price to operate from July 1, 2012, until about 2015-16 when the regime will move to an emissions trading scheme...._  _But the government will seek to avoid a clash with the Greens over the scope of emissions reductions by presenting a preferred position that will not set a specific 2020 target or emissions trajectory._  _The government has already committed to an unconditional target of a 5 per cent reduction in emissions below 2000 levels by 2020 but the Greens have pushed for cuts of 25-40 per cent._  _Instead the government will now argue it should finalise a 2020 target only when the direction of international negotiations becomes clearer._  _The government is understood still to be considering the initial fixed price for the carbon scheme, but some industry sectors are anticipating a carbon price of about $20 a tonne, increasing at 4 per cent plus inflation each year._  _With the government sensitive to escalating community anger about rising electricity prices, sources have insisted they will not allow the climate change scheme to be viewed as an impost on electricity prices and will fight to protect jobs in the climate package._Good luck untangling all those mixed messages. The fact is that there is no way of slashing emissions without switching to much more expensive forms of power generation than coal. Prices _must_ rise, and by a lot.  
>   And all this pain for absolutely zero gain to the climate. Madness and Labor will be punished for it. 
>   Lets also not forget this solemn promise Julia Gillard made just months ago, and often, before the last election:  _There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead._Is Gillard saying her word is worthless?   Here comes Gillard great green tax - the one she promised we’d never get | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  
Do you understand what this means:  *Instead the government will now argue it should finalise a 2020 target only when the direction of international negotiations becomes clearer.*  
It means we will now have a massive new tax that reaches wider than the GST, with no reduction in state based taxes that the GST brought, which can be ramped up at any time on a greenie whim, that does not even have to achieve a single gram of CO2 reduction, and will run indefinitely! 
Wait till this sinks in! 
This scheme will ensure we will be paying massive new taxes while our CO2 emissions skyrocket at the same time.   
Who's stupid enough to argue this is still about the environment? 
Who's gonna cowboy up and admit this is a farce?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Who's stupid enough to argue this is still about the environment? 
> Who's gonna cowboy up and admit this is a farce?

  It has never been about 'the environment'. It has always been about 'the money'. So quit your bitching, bend over and pay up.  Take it like a sheep. 
Of course it's a farce.  Has never been anything else since power and money got involved.  And that was well before this thread began.  
Oh.....and no-one wins.  That is not how this game works. Haven't you figured that out yet.

----------


## Dr Freud

This is what Joolia indicated a few weeks ago:   

> In the absence of further policy action, strong growth in emissions is projected between now and 2020. This is primarily the result of strong demand for Australia‟s energy exports, in particular, coal and liquefied natural gas. Emissions are projected to reach 690 Mt CO2-e in 2020, or 24 per cent above 2000 levels.

  Here is the graph they made to show us how:   
If we have no targets, then I guess it's business as usual.  Let's follow the blue line anyway, but just pay massive new taxes.  :Biggrin:  
Here's the links and the source document from the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (December 2010).  Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Reality Check 
A reality check indeed!!!

----------


## Dr Freud

Joolia's two false prophets:  

> On page 17 of this speech Garnaut looks at the ideal insurance approach to AGW, which really is a restatement of Pascal. Garnaut says the remote chance of catastrophe, if AGW is left unchecked, can be prevented for, by comparison, minimal investment. 
> There are several layers of hypocrisy operating here. The first is that it has been the threat of catastrophe which has been selling AGW since day one; always expressed in dire and apocalyptic imagery. In response to Garnauts 2008 report David Stockwell examined two of Garnaut's threats and reported the results in a peer-reviewed journal. 
> The first showed that CSIRO modelling which predicted more and worse droughts was incorrect when compared with actual Bureau of Meteorology data. The second showed the claim that temperature increases were supposedly ahead of IPCC projections was based on incomplete data. This claim was based on a paper by AGW scientist Stephan Rahmstorf. Stockwell showed that when Rahmstorfs data was brought up to date the temperature trend had not increased. Rahmstorf had used data which had been influenced by the 1998 super El Nino. 
> In effect Rahmstorf used a natural event to try to prove exceptional threat. Rahmstorfs erroneous report was referenced 5 times in Garnauts 2008 interim report. Garnaut has obviously 'moved on' but still mistakes natural for exceptional, indicating that the upcoming Chapter 6 of the Review will look at the latest threat du jour  the effects of climate change on water resources and sea level rise. 
> The second level of hypocrisy is the notion of minimal cost. In a 2008 report The International Energy Agency estimated that to prevent CO2 emissions from more than doubling by 2050 will require $47,000 Billion, which is 47 times the entire Australian economys annual worth; that is today; if the current government brings in its various programs such as the wired NBN and the carbon tax measures the Australian economy wont be worth a pinch of guano; and dont forget that $47,000 Billion is to stop CO2 from more than doubling; to reduce it to just a doubling will be much more.  Wise words from Ross Garnaut - Unleashed (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  And:   

> This Alarmist of the Year is worth every bit of the $180,000 salary hell get as part-time chairman of the Governments new Climate Commission.  So before we buy a great green tax from Flannery, whose real expertise is actually in mammology, it may pay to check his record. Ready? 
>  In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydneys dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city facing extreme difficulties with water. 
>   Check Sydneys dam levels today: 73 per cent. Hmm. Not a good start. 
>   In 2008, Flannery said: The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009. 
>   Check Adelaides water storage levels today: 77 per cent. 
>  In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas and made the soil too hot, so even the rain that falls isnt actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... . 
>   Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbanes dam levels: 100 per cent full. 
>  All this may seem funny, but some politicians, voters and investors have taken this kind of warming alarmism very seriously and made expensive decisions in the belief it was sound. 
>   So lets check on them, too. 
> ...

  These false prophets have been sent from Gaia and recruited by Joolia to scare you into paying massive new taxes for absolutely no reason other than paying off Labor's spending and debts.   
It will be wrapped in " greenie catastrophic predictions " to scare you. 
Are you gonna encourage this and be an @rseh*le, are you gonna be scared and a p#ss!e, or are you gonna stand up, be a d!ck, and f--- these two.    :Hump:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Al Gore in _An Inconvenient Truth_ warns that global warning is melting the Himalayas:  _And now were beginning to see the impact in the real world In the Himalayas there is a particular problem because more than 40% of all the people in the world get their drinking water from rivers and spring systems that are fed more than half by the melt water coming off the glaciers. Within this next half century those 40% of the people on earth are going to face a very serious shortage because of this melting._ The IPCC then claimed:  _Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate._But a new study in _Nature Geoscience_ says many Himalayan glaciers are actually stable or increasing:   _Controversy about the current state and future evolution of Himalayan glaciers has been stirred up by erroneous statements in the fourth report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ...  More than 65% of the monsoon-influenced glaciers that we observed are retreating, but heavily debris-covered glaciers with stagnant low-gradient terminus regions typically have stable fronts . In contrast, more than 50% of observed glaciers in the westerlies-influenced Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya are advancing or stable. Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change..._Every day, and in every way, we’re getting calmer and calmer | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Ah, my old friend reality, how relentless you are!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Pre-election:   

> *Gillard rules out imposing carbon tax                *   *August 17, 2010*  Gillard rules out imposing carbon tax

  Post-election:   

> *Labor to impose carbon tax next year, ETS in 2015                *   *February 12, 2011*  Labor to impose carbon tax next year, ETS in 2015 | The Australian

  Any day now, Channel 7 will hold her to account with outraged headlines using the phrases "back flip" or "broken promises"? 
After all, look at the efforts they put into Mr Rabbit for something he didn't even do:  The first casualty of war damages Seven Network | The Australian

----------


## Rod Dyson

> JULIA Gillard plans to introduce a carbon price from July 1 next year and defy the Greens by insisting on compensation for the coal and electricity industries, in a move that will infuriate its minority government partner.  
> Read more: Labor to introduce a carbon tax next year and an ETS in 2015 | News.com.au

    Link Labor to introduce a carbon tax next year and an ETS in 2015 | News.com.au  Go to the story and check out the comments. 10 to 1 against this farce.  I just cant see how she can get this through with susch a revolt against it.  The fact she blatantly lied before the election.   My tip... Gillard is finished... done and dusted.

----------


## Dr Freud

> My tip... Gillard is finished... done and dusted.

  Yep, here was Shorten preparing his "alternate policy" for when it all goes pear shaped.   

> Remember, you heard it here first! 
> Shorten will knife Gillard for the PM's spot in the next twelve months!!!  
> Here's the sound of knives sharpening:    
> 			
> 				 Interesting choice of words by Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten, suggesting a big step back from the warming alarmism of the Rudd Government: _Climate change requires a reduction in the carbon intensity of our economy and adaptation to changing weather patterns.__Lets assume Shorten chose those words very deliberately, and decode them._  _First, cutting carbon intensity is very different to cutting emissions. It means we could actually increase our total emissions if we at least produce the extra energy with less gassy technology. This is Chinas preferred option, and one less likely to choke economic growth - or cut emissions by what most warmists demand._  _Second, adaptation to climate change is very different to stopping it. It implies we should just cope with what turns up, rather than spend trillions to try to stop what we probably cant. This is the option recommended by Professor Bjorn Lomborg. author of The Sceptical Environmentalist, and one which could save us wasting yet more billions on wind farms, solar power and their useless like._  _Third, changing weather patterns are very different from changing climate. Shorten seems to be open to the idea that were experiencing the usual changes in the weather rather than man-made changes to the long-term climate._  _Lets keep a weather eye on Shortens future  climate talk. _   _Shorten cool on global warming | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_    _ 
> He's smart enough to realise the con is over, and Gillard has backed herself into a corner with only the Greens for cover. Abbott will do a Ballieu, and Shorten will do similar, and the Greens will be a memory at the next election. Shorten reckons he can secure these votes with greener sounding policies than Abbott and take the next election. He just needs Gillard to go in a peaceful transition to give him a good shot. Then mummy in law can swear him in. Should be fun to watch. _

  And he's getting bolder:   

> Word is seeping out from the business community to the political community that Bill Shorten is telling anyone who will listen that he thinks he will be Labor Leader *(i.e. Prime Minister)* by the time of the next election.  Insiders - ABC 
> (Predictions and observations - 06/02/2011)

   
Tick tock Jooles!  :Shock:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Yep, here was Shorten preparing his "alternate policy" for when it all goes pear shaped.   
> And he's getting bolder:    Tick tock Jooles!

  I'm really starting to wonder what is behind how gillard has gone about this. 
Prior to the election it was "no carbon tax while I'm PM" 
(This is to win the public vote)  
Then when she needed the greens to get into the PM suddenly we will have a Carbon Tax.  
(This is to win the greens vote) 
Now she declares major concessions to the coal industries, which she knows damn well the greens won't accept. 
(This is to ensure it won't pass the senate)   
I think she really is NOT committed to a carbon tax but used it as a political tool to get into government.   
She is really starting to stink IMO.

----------


## Dr Freud

> My tip... Gillard is finished... done and dusted.

  Based on your track record, I'm not going to bet against you.  :Biggrin:    

> With a bit of luck she wont be there long enough for it to be her problem. 
> As a side.  I won a $50 bet with my business partner.  The bet was that Rudd would not contest the next election and that he will be axed and Gillard would take over. 
> When did I make that bet?  Election day last election.

----------


## PhilT2

> This is how the warmist have an each way bet.  'Unfalsifiable Science = Proof Of Climate Change' -- 'Things caused by global warming' | Climate Depot
> Link

  As I only have access to the abstracts of the articles linked to these points it's difficult to deal with all of them. But some are so obviously wrong it's hard to believe someone would take this seriously. The avalanche one is easy, one paper is about snow avalanches in the french massifs, the other is about rockslides and flooding caused by melting glaciers. The papers about bird migration are about different species and the authors are clear that different animals are affected differently by climate change. The paper about vegetation moving downhill states that the opposite is usually true but comments that in some circumstances there are exceptions. 
Some of the others are not so obviously wrong with only the abstract to go by but when you see such blatant errors its hard to find a reason to check further.

----------


## PhilT2

_the Greens will be a memory at the next election._ 
At the next election only half the senate has to stand for re-election. Not too many Green senators have to stand and the green vote will return to normal when the Labor voters who supported them over the Rudd axing will return to the fold. It is most likely that the greens will control the balance of power in the senate for the next six years. No matter which party is in power in the lower house or who is Prime Minister they need the support of the greens to get anything through the senate.  
Abbott or whoever leads the libs will make a deal with them to get and keep power. He would have done it this time if the independants would have supported him. It is useful to remember that under Turnbull the libs supported some form of carbon policy. Abbott won the leadership by one vote. If a conscionce vote was held a carbon policy would pass easily through both houses any time.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> If a conscionce vote was held a carbon policy would pass easily through both houses any time.

  You think?

----------


## PhilT2

The greens need to have a carbon policy or they risk losing a lot of support from their power base. So I think that they will do whatever it takes to get the legislation passed. If more time is taken to develop policy it will attract lib support. Two lib senators crossed the floor last time and may do so again. Both labor and greens have learned something from previous efforts and I hope this leads to better policy this time. 
We have survived large tax increases (GST) and being screwed by the govt (Telstra shares) before. A carbon tax will not be as big as the GST. Breaking a few "non core" promises never hurt Howard, Julia learned something from him. 
The tide of popular opinion swung away from AGW because of climategate. It can just as easily swing back, all it will take is some leaked emails showing some of the less savory aspects of the anti AGW supporters conduct or a major climate event (no matter what the cause) Or if Pope Ratzi decides that climate change is real then Abbott as a good catholic has to bend over and kiss his ring and do what Rome tells him to do.

----------


## Dr Freud

> As I only have access to the abstracts of the articles linked to these points it's difficult to deal with all of them. But some are so obviously wrong it's hard to believe someone would take this seriously. The avalanche one is easy, one paper is about snow avalanches in the french massifs, the other is about rockslides and flooding caused by melting glaciers. The papers about bird migration are about different species and the authors are clear that different animals are affected differently by climate change. The paper about vegetation moving downhill states that the opposite is usually true but comments that in some circumstances there are exceptions. 
> Some of the others are not so obviously wrong with only the abstract to go by but when you see such blatant errors its hard to find a reason to check further.

  
Mate, I think you need to step back a little and look at the big picture.  You have fallen into the trap laid by the AGW hypothesis brigade of arguing over the effects, and just assuming the authority figures are right when they tell you to "believe" in the cause they have stated.  You have actually gone a step further and argue the alleged effects of the alleged effects, none of which is proven. 
If you step back and look at the alleged evidence for the alleged cause, you will quickly realise that there is *zero* evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.  Therefore, you defending these effects as proof is incorrect.

----------


## Dr Freud

> _the Greens will be a memory at the next election._ 
> At the next election only half the senate has to stand for re-election. Not too many Green senators have to stand and the green vote will return to normal when the Labor voters who supported them over the Rudd axing will return to the fold. It is most likely that the greens will control the balance of power in the senate for the next six years. No matter which party is in power in the lower house or who is Prime Minister they need the support of the greens to get anything through the senate.

  The Greens survive primarily via preference flows from the two major parties bickering amongst themselves.  If you read the rest of my post, you will realise that at the last Victorian election, the major parties realised that the Tasmanian and Federal results allowing the Greens in were pathetic, so both parties rejected the Greens in preferences, and they became a bad memory. 
By the next election, it is likely interest rates will be rising, electricity bills will be rising, and government debt will still be skyrocketing.  The low income traditional Labor voter will flock back to Shorten and away from the Greens higher electricity policies, and both major parties will not preference the Greens.  Bandt will be gone, and 5 Green Senators will be on the block. 
Factor in the current rate of credibility deterioration in this farce.  By the next election, no one will care.  Just look at the last US mid-terms, this farce wasn't pushed by either side.   

> If a conscionce vote was held a carbon policy would pass easily through both houses any time.

  Er, what carbon policy.  You've already decided these people will vote for a bill that hasn't even been created.  Do you mean just any bill with the word "carbon" in it will do?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

I admire people like you who have faith to believe in things that have yet to be proven.  This is how some scientific breakthroughs have been made, but it is also where most faith based systems remain.   

> The greens need to have a carbon policy or they risk losing a lot of support from their power base.

  I think you mean they need to introduce legislation.  Here are some parts of their policy:    climate change poses the greatest threat to our world in human history and requires urgent local, national and global action.
Wow.   energy prices should reflect the environmental and social costs of production and use
Does mean they will rise or fall?  Australia to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as is feasible and by no later than 2050 with a minimum of 40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020
40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020.  I don't suppose you have any idea of the costs involved in this, and how that translates into pensioners electricity bills?    

> Both labor and greens have learned something from previous efforts and I hope this leads to better policy this time.

  Er, see above.  They haven't learned anything mate, so don't kid yourself cos this policy position hasn't changed throughout their negotiations.   

> We have survived large tax increases (GST)

  This was a consumption based tax scheme based on the real costs of production, engineered with state based tax reform, with every cent going back to the states.  It was ridiculed by Labor in opposition and threatened daily with rollback once in power.  Amazingly once in power Labor has been trying to steal this from the states under a grubby excuse to end the "blame game" in health.  How's that working out? 
But do not even try to compare this to a tax we pay for breathing out fresh air.  :Doh:    

> and being screwed by the govt (Telstra shares) before

  I made a fair bit of money out of these shares.  From memory I doubled my money in T1, and then sold out.  Howard used much of this to pay off Labor's massive debts they left.  I mate of mine jumped onto T2 (which I didn't) and lost some money.  He's lost lots of money in the share market on various investments.  Is his poor stock market investments the governments fault.   

> Breaking a few "non core" promises

  I thought our other visitor had the blinkers on.  Do you want to list all the things Labor has done well, has done badly, and has run away from for us to see? 
Do you seriously want to compare the last Liberal and Labor governments?   

> The tide of popular opinion swung away from AGW because of climategate.

  If only.  My friend, Climategate was just the messenger, people turned away because they got the message.  If there was no substance to the accusations in Climategate, it would have got the same treatment as Mark Riley's fictional (and disgusting  :Mad: ) report on Channel 7.  All Climategate did was get people to look closer, and they realised there was no substance to this sham.   

> It can just as easily swing back,

  Mate, people now know there is no evidence for this farce.  It will only swing back when there is evidence presented.  The scaremongering could not last forever, hence Rudd's desperation prior to Copenhagen.  Reality eventually sinks in.  People will keep going to the beach every summer and realise that it's not getting any closer.  Just as we have for the many decades previously.  That's why they keep targeting the kids, less context to fight.   

> all it will take is some leaked emails showing some of the *less savory aspects of the anti AGW supporters conduct* or a major climate event (*no matter what the cause*)

  So you are so ideologically blinded by your faith, you don't care if others join your "belief system" for irrational reasons, rather than scientific evidence? 
Gossip or lying scaremongering is okay, so long as they "believe", huh?   

> Or if Pope Ratzi decides that climate change is real then Abbott as a good catholic has to bend over and kiss his ring and do what Rome tells him to do.

  His belief system has been around much longer than yours, and has many more supporters (including many more scientists than yours has), so where's your credibility in denigrating his? 
I treat all faith based systems the same.  Believe what you want, just don't call it science.  :No:

----------


## mark53

Freud, you're a legend. :2thumbsup:  Couldn't hope to say it better myself.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Freud, you're a legend. Couldn't hope to say it better myself.

   I agree great post mate, just great.

----------


## PhilT2

_His belief system has been around much longer than yours_
And the myth of the rainbow serpent has been around much longer than his beliefs. Does that make aboriginal myths more valid than biblical myths?  _If there was no substance to the accusations in Climategate_
If there was any substance to climategate why couldn't the deniers spell it out in their submissions to the inquiry.  If there were people harmed by the people at CRU, why have none of them taken civil or criminal action?   _I made a fair bit of money out of these shares. From memory I doubled my money in T1_
One of the basic things in science is the difference between anecdotes and data. If you have money in a superannuation fund then you most likely lost money on Telstra shares.   _Mate, I think you need to step back a little and look at the big picture_
Go back and follow the link in Rod's post. The OP claimed that the papers he linked to were proof of contradictions in the research. I just posted evidence that he never read the papers properly of failed basic comprehension. Or lied.  _I think you mean they need to introduce legislation_
The greens control the balance of power in the upper house. Legislation is usually introduced in the lower house and needs majority support in that house to make it to the senate.  _The Greens_ survive_ primarily via preference flows_
Labor needs green preferences to survive so they will continue to do a preference swap with them.  The greens have the upper hand there as Labor needs them to win seats in the lower house. The one time they didn't preference the greens resulted in Steve Fielding getting a senate seat. At the last election Labor switched back to the greens to get rid of him.

----------


## Dr Freud

First we'll cover what you said, then we'll cover what you didn't.   

> _His belief system has been around much longer than yours_
>  And the myth of the rainbow serpent has been around much longer than his beliefs. Does that make aboriginal myths more valid than biblical myths?

  Yep. 
Rainbow Serpent
God
Gaia 
Yours will always be last on the list of belief systems in longevity terms, hence much less credible than all the others.   

> _If there was no substance to the accusations in Climategate_
>  If there was any substance to climategate why couldn't the deniers spell it out in their submissions to the inquiry. If there were people harmed by the people at CRU, why have none of them taken civil or criminal action?

  Don't keep hiding behind "authority figures" and their "institutions".  :No:  
Do you believe the Hockey Stick is accurate and there was no MWP?   

> _I made a fair bit of money out of these shares. From memory I doubled my money in T1_
>  One of the basic things in science is the difference between anecdotes and data. *If* you have money in a superannuation fund then you most *likely* lost money on Telstra shares.

   :Doh:  
So you think it's scientific to make wild psychic guesses and use words like "if" and "likely".  Did you get this "data" from one of those future predicting psychic computer models? 
Without disclosing too much personal information, you may want to actually do some research into the literally thousands of various investment instruments, starting here:  AustralianSuper - Property  SMSF BORROWING ONLINE 
But all these semantic distractions aside, I don't recall Howard ever being a Super fund manager, so how are these long losses his problem.  Some investors made a killing shorting these and other stocks, and still do every day. 
Remember this:   

> being screwed by the govt (Telstra shares)

   

> _Mate, I think you need to step back a little and look at the big picture_
>  Go back and follow the link in Rod's post. The OP claimed that the papers he linked to were proof of contradictions in the research. I just posted evidence that he never read the papers properly of failed basic comprehension. Or lied.

  So are you arguing there has been no contradictions at all in this sham, or are you just engaged in semantic distraction again?  Read this while you think about it:  But if the warming theory predicts it, the warmists will see it | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog   

> _I think you mean they need to introduce legislation_
>  The greens control the balance of power in the upper house. Legislation is usually introduced in the lower house and needs majority support in that house to make it to the senate.

   

> Proposed laws (known as Bills) have to be passed by both Houses and be          assented to by the Governor-General          before they can become Acts of Parliament. With the exception of laws          relating to revenue and taxation (which must be introduced in the House          of Representatives), a proposed law can be introduced in either House.  Parliament of Australia: Education - Parliament An Overview

  So, it's fine if you want to introduce a bill about environmental policy about pollution like this: _
Australia to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as is feasible and by no later than 2050 with a minimum of 40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020_ 
But if you admit it's all about a big grab for tax revenue, then, yes, it must begin in the lower house.   

> _The Greens_ survive_ primarily via preference flows_
>  Labor needs green preferences to survive so they will continue to do a preference swap with them. The greens have the upper hand there as Labor needs them to win seats in the lower house. The one time they didn't preference the greens resulted in Steve Fielding getting a senate seat. At the last election Labor switched back to the greens to get rid of him.

  Some light reading to help you along:  Bursting the Greens bubble | Australian Conservative  State Election 2010 results summary

----------


## Dr Freud

> 40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020.  I don't suppose you have any idea of the costs involved in this, and how that translates into pensioners electricity bills?  
> So you are so ideologically blinded by your faith, you don't care if others join your "belief system" for irrational reasons, rather than scientific evidence? 
> Gossip or lying scaremongering is okay, so long as they "believe", huh?

  
So you don't want to admit to the real cost Australians will pay for the imaginary evils of the lying scaremongering?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Freud, you're a legend. Couldn't hope to say it better myself.

   

> I agree great post mate, just great.

  No doubt a statistical probability achieved by the infinite monkey:  Infinite monkey theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   :Munky:   :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> But that pales into insignificance compared to the stupidity of suggesting that a dam could have done anything to prevent much of the tragedy that occurred recently.

  This guy thinks he knows different:   

> *THE equivalent of a year's supply of drinking water will be released from southeast Queensland's Wivenhoe Dam with further heavy rain forecast for the flooded region.  * Natural Resources Minister Stephen Robertson said the 290,000 megalitre release was needed to make space in the dam to mitigate any further flooding, with heavy rain forecast until April. 
> The second strongest La Nina weather pattern in history prevailing over Queensland made the "very conservative and precautionary" approach necessary, Mr Robertson said.  Dam release &#039;won&#039;t flood Brisbane&#039; | Herald Sun

  
Here's where you can provide some feedback to this clown:  Stephen Robertson MP - Labor State Member for Stretton 
P.S. Try to get him back on the AGW hypothesis song as well, he thinks it was caused by some natural weather pattern called La Nina.   :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

This is what Joolia thinks will give her credibility:   

> Climate Change Commissioner Tim Flannery, hired to teach us to cut our emissions, describes his own contribution:  _Im always in and out of airports, and in  and out of planes but its just one of the things you have to do these days if you want to be effective in the environmental movement._He says this while filming a car advertisement, and after helping Sir Richard Brazen spruik his Virgin Galactic joy rides into space. 
>   The ad is one deep, warm bath in sanctimony. Pop over to Tim Blairs for a look.   Frequent Flyer Flannery says it’s the green way | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Attention all environmentalists, if you're not being effective, you're just not flying enough!  :Doh:

----------


## Marc

Environmentalist greens are the modern version of the Spanish Inquisition  hunting down witches and heretics and burning them.
No different.
Their  authority is equally questionable.
Their methods are equally  questionable.
The grounds for action equally  questionable. 
Environmentalist are the by product of the decadence of the  church that has fallen into irrelevance in the last 40 years. The human need to  "believe in something" was quickly filled by this new religion for those the  church left behind. Environmentalism is for those who would celebrate  "festivus...for the rest of us" if you remember Seinfeld.  
Envirolarty as  I would like to baptise this religious movement, is carefully disguised as a non  religious and non political organisation, and like to use a cloak of science for  credibility yet act in the most corrupt and despicable manner blatantly stating  that the end justify the means. To a point that some propose humanity culling  down to 1 billion in order to save the object of their  idolatry. 
Politicians of all persuasions see this new mob as a source of  votes if they bow to some of their absurdities, no different from the kings of  old who allied with the church for their purposes allowing a kingdom within a  kingdom to exist for many centuries. 
Eventually this rotting cancer will  be extirpated but it will not be without pain. Humans ignorance and laziness  will account for that

----------


## andy the pm

> Environmentalist greens are the modern version of the Spanish Inquisition hunting down witches and heretics and burning them.
> No different.
> Their authority is equally questionable.
> Their methods are equally questionable.
> The grounds for action equally questionable. 
> Environmentalist are the by product of the decadence of the church that has fallen into irrelevance in the last 40 years. The human need to "believe in something" was quickly filled by this new religion for those the church left behind. Environmentalism is for those who would celebrate "festivus...for the rest of us" if you remember Seinfeld.  
> Envirolarty as I would like to baptise this religious movement, is carefully disguised as a non religious and non political organisation, and like to use a cloak of science for credibility yet act in the most corrupt and despicable manner blatantly stating that the end justify the means. To a point that some propose humanity culling down to 1 billion in order to save the object of their idolatry. 
> Politicians of all persuasions see this new mob as a source of votes if they bow to some of their absurdities, no different from the kings of old who allied with the church for their purposes allowing a kingdom within a kingdom to exist for many centuries. 
> Eventually this rotting cancer will be extirpated but it will not be without pain. Humans ignorance and laziness will account for that

   :Rotfl:   Its always good to inject some humour into the thread...

----------


## Dr Freud

If global warming continues like this, the whole planet will soon be covered in ice!  :Confused:    Winter storm: Map shows most of Northern Hemisphere covered in snow and ice | Mail Online

----------


## Dr Freud

Do you remember this lunatic rant?  Please read it all again to refresh yourself as to the high level of cultism this farce actually reached:  The PM's address to the Lowy Institute | The Australian 
But here's the funny part for those who like some humour injected into the thread:   

> Storm surges and rising sea levels – putting at risk over 700,000 homes and businesses around our coastlines, with insurance companies warning that preliminary estimates of the value of property in Australia exposed to the risk of land being inundated or eroded by rising sea levels range from $50 billion to $150 billion.

   
Surely this man would never spend $3.2 million dollars of his wife's money on a house right on the beach:   

> *KEVIN Rudd and his wife, Therese Rein, have spent $3.2 million on a luxurious holiday home on Queensland's Sunshine Coast.                  * Mr Rudd told The Australian last night his new getaway home was at Castaways Beach, tucked between Peregian and Sunshine Beach, which are just south of Noosa.  The Rudds had previously considered buying a home in the area as an investment, but the former Labor leader said they would use the five-bedroom residence during holidays and for weekends where possible.  The Rudds bought a house in Canberra last October for $2.2m, several months after Mr Rudd was deposed as prime minister.  The couple still own the family home in Brisbane.    Rudd invests in a family escape | The Australian

  We'll ignore the carbon footprint of three houses for one man who spends most of his time jetting around the world paid for by taxpayers (and we can only hope he offsets  :Doh: ). 
But if you believed this was "the greatest moral challenge of our generation" and believed over 700,000 coastal homes and businesses were at risk, why would you spend so much of your wife's money on one?  :Doh:  
Uh oh!   
Liar vs idiot? You decide.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Surely the Federal Minister for Climate Change would be smarter than Rudd?  

> The Federal Minister for Climate Change Greg Combet says the maps will help communities understand the potential risk to low lying property and infrastructure. 
> GREG COMBET: I think about 85 per cent of the Australian population lives around the coast line and in addition we've got very important economic infrastructure in ports and airports, transport routes and the like and any outcome that involves a rising sea level as a consequence of climate change is a real risk. 
> We need to understand and we need to be able to manage as well as we can.  The World Today - Coastal maps chart ocean levels 16/12/2010

  And at exactly the same time, he's also buying a nearly $1 million dollar house on the "beach front":  

> High-profile Labor candidate Greg Combet has bought a beach front house in one of Newcastle's most exclusive suburbs, 10 kilometres outside the blue-collar seat of Charlton he is contesting, and plans to live there after the election.  Combet's new luxury home - National - smh.com.au

   :Doh:    
Liar vs Idiot? You decide.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Global warming alarmism meets the Just Do Something syndrome that makes politicians so dangerous around your money:  _MORE than $5.5 billion has been spent by federal governments during the past decade on climate change programs that are delivering only small reductions in greenhouse gas emissions._  _An analysis of government schemes designed to cut emissions by direct spending or regulatory intervention reveals they have cost an average $168 for each tonne of carbon dioxide abated...By contrast, the proposed emissions trading scheme blocked by the Coalition and the Greens in the previous Parliament was expected to put a price on carbon of $20 to $25 a tonne in its early years...._  _The worst offenders have included the Labor governments rebates for rooftop solar panels, which cost $300 or more for every tonne of carbon abated...._  _The analysis of 17 federal programs with a total cost of $5.62 billion shows many of the schemes implemented by both sides of politics are at odds with the policy goal of tackling climate change at the lowest cost to the economy...._  _Fiscal abatement costs ranged from less than $1 a tonne for regulations phasing out greenhouse-intensive hot water systems and incandescent light bulb, to a high of $400 a tonne or more for tax breaks and production subsidies for ethanol introduced by the Howard government._  _The Rudd-Gillard governments household insulation program cost $172 a tonne, its rooftop solar panel rebates cost $300 or more a tonne, and its collapsed Green Loans program cost $120 a tonne. The Howard governments remote renewable power generation program cost as much as $340 a tonne._  _The weighted average fiscal abatement cost of all 17 programs examined came to $168 a tonne._  _They will will deliver about 25 million tonnes of carbon abatement in 2020 - less than a tenth of the total abatement needed to meet the governments target of reducing emissions in 2020 by 5 per cent on 2000 levels._All those billions spent - and for what? Has the worlds temperature gone down a flicker? Are we better off?  Has anyone been sacked for this gross mismanagement? 
>  One day others will look back on this past decade and marvel at how irrational people could be, and how rare it was to find those who dared to dissent.   All those billions, and the temperature hasn’t changed a flicker | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Can one of you supporters of this please explain exactly how Joolia's Carbon Tax will cool down the Planet? 
If you can't that's ok, it just means that your brain's working properly.  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

It won't. It was never supposed to. Happy, now? 
Thing is though.....do you know/care where that money went? Or are you so self interested to be satisfied simply that it was 'yours' and that it was 'wasted'? How do you know it was wasted? There may not have been much of a carbon benefit from the 5.5 billion but there might well have been a financial benefit for society or (more importantly) a financial return to the government via the GST and other consumption & income taxes.......which is after all how the Gov makes its money....by investing its community.  Same as when you throw your money at a bank or the stock market... 
And this is why your scaremongering rhetoric about butt plugging levels of taxation, your extremist weirdness and your one eyed fear based view of the world will inevitably fail to make an impact. 
It's not worth anything.  You can't invest in fear.  But you can invest in risk.  Like the risk associated with human induced climate change.  It might turn out to be not much of a risk but if money can be made and the economic wheels stay greasy then your fundamentalist rightwing autoerotic approach to scaring yourself about your doomed economic future in the face of the Rabid Greenie (who, incidentally, is no different to the Easter Bunny or Santa) is doomed to dismissal as a self obsessed insanity. Because you are turning down the opportunity of economic growth 
That's how our economic system works....if you don't pay to participate and merely shout drivel from the stands then you and your opinion is.....worth nothing. 
So even if your supposition about a climate conspiracy is correct.......you'll still be poor & marginalised for it.  Still happy?

----------


## intertd6

> It won't. It was never supposed to. Happy, now? 
> Thing is though.....do you know/care where that money went? Or are you so self interested to be satisfied simply that it was 'yours' and that it was 'wasted'? How do you know it was wasted? There may not have been much of a carbon benefit from the 5.5 billion but there might well have been a financial benefit for society or (more importantly) a financial return to the government via the GST and other consumption & income taxes.......which is after all how the Gov makes its money....by investing its community. Same as when you throw your money at a bank or the stock market... 
> And this is why your scaremongering rhetoric about butt plugging levels of taxation, your extremist weirdness and your one eyed fear based view of the world will inevitably fail to make an impact. 
> It's not worth anything. You can't invest in fear. But you can invest in risk. Like the risk associated with human induced climate change. It might turn out to be not much of a risk but if money can be made and the economic wheels stay greasy then your fundamentalist rightwing autoerotic approach to scaring yourself about your doomed economic future in the face of the Rabid Greenie (who, incidentally, is no different to the Easter Bunny or Santa) is doomed to dismissal as a self obsessed insanity. Because you are turning down the opportunity of economic growth 
> That's how our economic system works....if you don't pay to participate and merely shout drivel from the stands then you and your opinion is.....worth nothing. 
> So even if your supposition about a climate conspiracy is correct.......you'll still be poor & marginalised for it. Still happy?

  
I will tell you where the 5.5 billion didn't go to, a decent road between our state capitals, decent health care for our people, supporting Australian industries, infrastructure
Then in reality you have the costs quadrupled when every state & local Govt department is on the same bandwagon, crippling our country by political incompetence. A bit like mice in a cage busily going round & round on a wheel burning up energy but not getting anywhere   
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It won't. It was never supposed to. Happy, now? 
> Thing is though.....do you know/care where that money went? Or are you so self interested to be satisfied simply that it was 'yours' and that it was 'wasted'? How do you know it was wasted? There may not have been much of a carbon benefit from the 5.5 billion but there might well have been a financial benefit for society or (more importantly) a financial return to the government via the GST and other consumption & income taxes.......which is after all how the Gov makes its money....by investing its community. Same as when you throw your money at a bank or the stock market... 
> And this is why your scaremongering rhetoric about butt plugging levels of taxation, your extremist weirdness and your one eyed fear based view of the world will inevitably fail to make an impact. 
> It's not worth anything. You can't invest in fear. But you can invest in risk. Like the risk associated with human induced climate change. It might turn out to be not much of a risk but if money can be made and the economic wheels stay greasy then your fundamentalist rightwing autoerotic approach to scaring yourself about your doomed economic future in the face of the Rabid Greenie (who, incidentally, is no different to the Easter Bunny or Santa) is doomed to dismissal as a self obsessed insanity. Because you are turning down the opportunity of economic growth 
> That's how our economic system works....if you don't pay to participate and merely shout drivel from the stands then you and your opinion is.....worth nothing. 
> So even if your supposition about a climate conspiracy is correct.......you'll still be poor & marginalised for it. Still happy?

  What an absolutly ridiculous argument.  by far the most Stupid thing I have ever heard. 
WASTE IS WASTE. 
Like Interd said the money could just have easy been spent on something useful and had the same result of creating work. 
What have we got now.  Nothing but debt and the worst government Australia has ever ever had. 
What a joke Silent.  Gee at least some of your arguments made some sort of sense. 
Get a grip man wasted money is just that. 
OK rant over.

----------


## Dr Freud

> It won't. It was never supposed to. Happy, now?

  Blissfully.  :Biggrin:    

> Thing is though.....do you know/care where that money went?

  There's heaps of posts already about where it went, some of them are mine because I do care.    

> Or are you so self interested to be satisfied simply that it was 'yours' and that it was 'wasted'?

  Er, it's not mine, it's "ours", and yes it was wasted.   

> How do you know it was wasted?

  They were allegedly "climate change mitigation" programs.  Did you notice the climate mitigate?  :Doh:    

> There may not have been much of a carbon benefit from the 5.5 billion but there might well have been a financial benefit for society or (more importantly) a financial return to the government via the GST and other consumption & income taxes.......which is after all how the Gov makes its money....by investing its community. Same as when you throw your money at a bank or the stock market...

  Cool, just curious as to any proof you have as to annualised rate of return, or alternatively any proof of increase to GDP? 
And our good friend Inter has already covered the concept of opportunity cost, but we can go through this in more detail if you want.   

> And this is why your scaremongering rhetoric about butt plugging levels of taxation, your extremist weirdness and your one eyed fear based view of the world will inevitably fail to make an impact.

  Dude, I'm happy to pay more taxes, heaps more in fact.  Only if the taxes were worthwhile.  If they introduced a tax for cancer research, count me in.  Taxes for paying a national health insurance premium so all children born with disabilities will be cared for properly, count me in.  I'd happily go up to 55% or 60% tax rates for causes such as these.   
I will not pay 1c extra for the priviledge of breathing out fresh air under a lie that these taxes will cool down the Planet Earth.    You're welcome to think these views are weird, that's your opinion of my opinion.  I think paying tax for the priviledge of breathing out fresh air is weird, but you think this is ok, even though you admit it won't fix the problem its intended for.  That sounds pretty weird to me.  :Wink 1:    

> Like the risk associated with human induced climate change. It might turn out to be not much of a risk but if money can be made and the economic wheels stay greasy then your fundamentalist rightwing autoerotic approach to scaring yourself about your doomed economic future in the face of the Rabid Greenie (who, incidentally, is no different to the Easter Bunny or Santa) is doomed to dismissal as a self obsessed insanity. Because you are turning down the opportunity of economic growth

  So are you saying that Joolia's Carbon Tax is our economic salvation that will drive economic growth?  I hope not, but it was a long sentence, so I could have got it mixed up.   

> That's how our economic system works....if you don't pay to participate and merely shout drivel from the stands then you and your opinion is.....worth nothing.

  Are you implying that I currently do not pay any taxes?  It is possible to both pay taxes and shout drivel from the stands you know?   

> So even if your supposition about a climate conspiracy is correct

  Er, exactly where and when did I suppose this, and who did I suppose is involved in this conspiracy?   

> .......you'll still be poor & marginalised

  Story of my life champ.  :2thumbsup:  
But I've got plans... :Biggrin:    

> Still happy?

  Blissfully. I hope it's not the ignorance shining through.  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Obama proposed cutting the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides cash grants to senior citizens and families who can't afford their heating bills, from $5 billion to $2.57 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.  Obama's 2012 budget proposal would cut heating assistance | PennLive.com

  Maybe he's just being optimistic, cos if the Planet Earth does go into uncontrolled unstoppable warming as predicted, they won't need this household heating in the coming years. 
Unfortunately I'm a realist, people will probably just freeze to death.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> ...WASTE IS WASTE. 
> ...What have we got now.  Nothing but debt and the worst government Australia has ever ever had.

  The biggest fan of the Rudd/Gillard government is John Howard.  :Biggrin:  
How good are they making him look?   
As I have said before, old Johnny would regret his ETS foray at the end, pressured by the ignorant masses of the time.  His recent concessions via his ABC specials attest to this. 
But in hindsight, it was probably a good thing he got voted out.  Unlike Rudd/Gillard, he actually had the will to drive legislation through the parliament.  He most likely would have succeeded in introducing an ETS.  :Shock:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Turning up the heat on Bom and Csiro. 
About time I think.   

> Jo Nova, Senator Cory Barnardi and others send the Auditor General a formal request. Nova explains:  _A team of skeptical scientists, citizens, and an Australian Senator have lodged a formal request with the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) to have the BOM and CSIRO audited._ _The BOM claim their adjustments are neutral yet Ken Stewart showed that the trend in the raw figures for our whole continent has been adjusted up by 40%. The stakes are high. Australians could have to pay something in the order of $870 million dollars thanks to the Kyoto protocol, and the first four years of the Emissions Trading Scheme was expected to cost Australian industry (and hence Australian shareholders and consumers) nearly $50 billion dollars._  _Given the stakes, the Australian people deserve to know they are getting transparent, high quality data from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). The small cost of the audit is nothing in comparison with the money at stake for all Australians. We need the full explanations of why individual stations have been adjusted repeatedly and non-randomly, and why adjustments were made decades after the measurements were taken. We need an audit of surface stations. (Are Australian stations as badly manipulated and poorly sited as the US stations? Who knows?)_

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> WASTE IS WASTE. 
> Like Interd said the money could just have easy been spent on something useful and had the same result of creating work. 
> What have we got now.  Nothing but debt and the worst government Australia has ever ever had.

   :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin: 
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha  ha... 
And what makes you think that the other mob (any other mob really) will be any better?  Or for that matter.....different. 
They aren't. And they never will be........ 
Have you not watched 'Yes Minister' or 'The Hollowmen'?  Cause they are so much closer to the truth than any of the self obsessed right wing fantasies that you guys can dream up. 
What you call WASTE has been an implicit part of State and Federal Government policy since the 50's..... :brava:   Sixty years on.....it's rusted on.  The only thing that changes is the beneficiaries and the CPI weighted increase. 
Go and read a few Auditor General Reports from the Howard years......and tell with your hand on your heart that they were all roses according to your metaphorical concept of WASTE.   
In the meantime.....allow me to cynically snigger at your amazing levels of innocence as to how things really work.  :happy:

----------


## stevoh741

just took me 3 months to read this post so I figure I'm entitled to say something. So consider this post something said!

----------


## Dr Freud

> Turning up the heat on Bom and Csiro. 
> About time I think. 
> [/indent]

  
Mate, this will be one of the funniest things to watch in a long time.  An investigation that will certainly take much more time to complete than the time frame slated for introduction of the legislation.  What if the legislation is brought in then the investigation finds the data is spurious?  What if the investigation is buried, outcries of cover-up?  What if the investigation validates all the data, greenie outcries of inadequate action? 
Poor McPhee, his @rse has been designated the political football of the year, and it's gonna get some serious kicking from all players.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> And what makes you think that the other mob (any other mob really) will be any better?  Or for that matter.....different. 
> They aren't. And they never will be........

  Not very specific here dude.  But metrics and facts are much harder to argue than vague and inaccurate concepts.  Kinda running on a theme here, huh?   :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> just took me 3 months to read this post so I figure I'm entitled to say something. So consider this post something said!

  Mate, you deserve a medal if you got through all of our ramblings.  :2thumbsup:  
You must be one of those ex-special forces types, mentally tough!  :Biggrin:  
Feel free to add to our deranged ramblings at any time.  It is always good to get a new perspective on this farce.  But be warned lest you get stuck in here: _
Look at what they make you give._

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Not very specific here dude.  But metrics and facts are much harder to argue than vague and inaccurate concepts.  Kinda running on a theme here, huh?

  Not really.  I just assumed that the audience wasn't stupid.  Oh well. 
Once more for the dummies.....''The other mob' in this context is the Federal Liberal Party.  
'Any other mob' refers to any single party based consortium (or even a multi party combination) that might form an Australian Government in the future.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Mate, this will be one of the funniest things to watch in a long time.  An investigation that will certainly take much more time to complete than the time frame slated for introduction of the legislation.  What if the legislation is brought in then the investigation finds the data is spurious?  What if the investigation is buried, outcries of cover-up?  What if the investigation validates all the data, greenie outcries of inadequate action? 
> Poor McPhee, his @rse has been designated the political football of the year, and it's gonna get some serious kicking from all players.

  Bollocks. 
Unless you are a top tier one or two Commonwealth public servant with an eye for bureaucratic power to improve your CV and your chances of a well paid retirement as a political lobbyist then the Auditor-General is as scary as a pillow fight in a padded room with a bunch of four year olds on Phenergan.   
Unless the targeted organisation has wilfully defrauded the Commonwealth OR knowingly and wilfully mislead the Minister or Parliament OR the A-G report authors finds a way to embarrass said Minister or Parliament through careless wording of the final report AND the media notice....then the targeted organisation has very very little to fear from the A-G.  The Parliament of the day even less so.... 
And the A-G typically don't review data (the simply don't have the resources).....only the processes by which it is collected, managed, interpreted (perhaps) and stored.  If the processes are documented, considered 'best practise' and in accordance with National and equivalent international standards AND there is sufficient evidence that those processes are being followed then that's probably good enough for an auditor. 
Under the circumstances......I wouldn't mind betting that the A-G would come back from such an investigation with at least one recommendation suggesting that both organisations are under funded and under resourced to sufficiently carry out their legislative duties in accordance with their respective Acts.  That's par for the course too! 
In any case......since the ANAO looked twice at Oz Gov departments climate change responses in 2009/10 I reckon it could be a while before they could be bothered to do it again  http://www.anao.gov.au/download.cfm?...48F136462F0C40   http://www.anao.gov.au/download.cfm?...C720E73B5BACC5
...although it has been ten years since they looked specifically at BoM  http://www.anao.gov.au/download.cfm?...483932430299C1 
Oh and they are doing one right now on CSIRO management of some of the National Flagship programmes....to be tabled mid year or so.  May not get back to CSIRO for a while... 
So still no fear......tis only the sparrows in your Mind, chirping softly in a quiet, empty corner.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Not really.  I just assumed that the audience wasn't stupid.  Oh well. 
> Once more for the dummies.....''The other mob' in this context is the Federal Liberal Party.  
> 'Any other mob' refers to any single party based consortium (or even a multi party combination) that might form an Australian Government in the future.

  Real cute, but still no real facts or metrics.  :No:     

> And what makes you think that the other mob (any other mob really) will be any better?  Or for that matter.....different.  *They aren't.* And they never will be........

  You see, you have claimed that there is no difference in the outcomes from the two major parties.  You do this in an effort to mask the current governments ineptitude, by spuriously denigrating the previous governments success on so many metrics.  Why don't you list some of these metrics showing how they are "no different" in reality. 
Good luck!  :Biggrin:  
Or you can keep making vague and inaccurate references in keeping with the defence strategy of the AGW hypothesis.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Bollocks. 
> Unless you are a top tier one or two Commonwealth public servant with an eye for bureaucratic power to improve your CV and your chances of a well paid retirement as a political lobbyist then the Auditor-General is as scary as a pillow fight in a padded room with a bunch of four year olds on Phenergan.

  I think you have missed my point here.  I do not think the AG is going to make a difference to anything here.  Just like in Climategate, the freedom fighter who released the emails didn't make a difference to anything.  No facts changed, no measurements changed.  It was the intent of the emails and the politicisation of them that caused all the damage to the AGW hypothesis movement. 
Hence my term "political football".  Either or both sides may kick some political goals during this protest, but rest assured I am under no illusion that the AG is suddenly going to emerge with a watertight case in either direction.  Climategate did not do this, but still had a massive political impact. 
This farce is not about science, and it is certainly nothing to do with reality, it is about all about politics.  That's why public opinion was so easily swayed by the politics unveiled through Climategate. 
Or do you think public opinion could be so easily swayed against the round Earth theory just as easily?  Amazing how simple life is when you know the difference between fact and fiction.  :Biggrin:    

> So still no fear......tis only the sparrows in your Mind, chirping softly in a quiet, empty corner.

  Freud (hey, that's me) spoke of projecting.  I hope this is not where your talk of fear comes from.  I don't understand why you keep raising it, so would be curious for your clarification.  Are you suggesting I'm afraid of this political game? I clearly stated it was going to be fun to watch. 
Are you psychoanalysing me remotely and have determined that I am lying in order to hide some kind of irrational fear of government inquiries?  Hardly scientific my friend.  :No:  
But just cos you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Is there anyone brave enough to still support this "Flood" tax as being for helping our fellow poor Aussie battlers as it has been sold.   
Even if it worked properly, it was going to be used to rebuild mainly Qld state government infrastructure that Bligh failed to insure like all other states.  Understandably they can't afford the premiums due to their massive deficits and debts, ringing any bells people. 
But it gets much worse, the alleged "Flood" tax we will all be paying (sorry all of us rich bastards earning over $50k), will now be used for: 
75% to Qld government infrastructure, and 25% shared amongst Gillard's national Solar flagship subsidies program, the national rental affordability scheme, and the Australian Learning and teaching find. 
0% to mateship and the Aussie battlers. 
Now read this, pay your extra taxes under a false pretense, and smile:   

> Julia Gillards flood levy to rebuild Quensland is now also a Greens levy for mad green schemes that Labor admitted only two weeks ago were a huge waste of money:   _As she struggled to muster enough votes to win approval for her $1.8 billion flood levy, the Prime Minister yesterday scrapped $100m in proposed cuts to her solar flagships program and $264m to the national rental affordability scheme, to win Greens support. _ Thats 20 per cent of the $1.8 billion to be raised for Queensland flood damage - siphoned off to buy the Greens vote. 
>   Some of that money for the Greens project will simply be wasted:    _Senator Brown said he held intensive negotiations with Prime Minister Julia Gillard on the issue and funds which had been cut from some green programs have been restored._  _The solar flagships program has had the $60 million restored for the current program and $40 million which was to be put beyond the forward estimates bought back, he said._And what did Gillard herself say of the solar power schemes which shes now restoring, and government-funded green projects like them?  _There is complete consensus that the most efficient way to reduce carbon is to price carbon. Some of these policies are less efficient than a carbon price and will no longer be necessary - others will be better delayed until a carbon prices full effects are felt, Ms Gillard said...._  _We are obviously, always, looking to make sure that measures in the budget we spend taxpayers money on are the most effective measures we can design._But now shes obviously NOT spending taxpayers money on the most effective measures she can design. 
>   Then theres this: these programs Gillard has agreed to restore were all scrapped specifically to raise money for Queenslands rebuilding, as she explained two weeks ago:  _The Government will make $2.8 billion in spending cuts, with the funding to go towards the recovery and reconstruction effort, including:_  _Not proceeding with the Cleaner Car Rebate Scheme  
> Abolishing the Green Car Innovation Fund  
> Reducing and deferring spending on the Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships and Solar Flagships programs and the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute 
> Reducing the National Rent Affordability Scheme dwelling target 
> Discontinuing funding for the Australian Learning and Teaching Council  _ This isnt just an insight into Gillards weakness and the Greens shameless opportunism - demanding $364 million before agreeing to a tax to help fix flood damage. It also undercuts by 20 per cent the entire rationale for the levy in the first place, imposed to stop us from getting too much in debt while rebuilding Queensland. 
>   Even more reason then to drop it, and scrap these promises to the Greens, too. 
>   In the meantime, what other spending will Gillard now cut to make up for the $364 million shes just given away? 
> ...

  Anyone game?

----------


## Dr Freud

Climategate was the messenger, but here's the message loud and clear again people:  

> From the latest_ Spectator_, a gotcha on the corruption peer-review process that the Climategate emails suggested but which Nicholas Lewis and Matt Ridley now demonstrate. _Spectator_ editor Nelson Fraser sums up (the Lewis/Ridley article is behind a pay wall): _In January 2009, Nature magazine ran a cover story  conveying dramatic news about Antarctica: that most of it had warmed significantly over the last half-century. For years, the data from this frozen continent - with 90 percent of the worlds ice mass - had stubbornly refused to corroborate the global warming narrative. So the study, led by Eric Steig of the University of Washington, was treated as a bit of a scoop. It reverberated around the world. Gavin Schmidt, from the RealClimate blog, declared that Antarctica had silenced the sceptics. Mission, it seemed, was accomplished: Antarctica was no longer an embarrassment to the global warming narrative._  _He spoke too soon. The indefatigable Steve McIntyre started to scrutinise his followings along with Nicholas Lewis. They found several flaws: Steig et al had used too few data sequences to speak for an entire continent, and had processed the data in a very questionable way. But when they wanted to correct him, in another journal, they quickly ran into an inconvenient truth about global warming: the high priests do not like refutation. To have their critique (initial submission here, final version here) of Steigs work published, they needed to assuage the many demands of an anonymous Reviewer A - whom they later found out to be Steig himself. _  _Lewis and Matt Ridley have joined forces to tell the story in the cover issue of this weeks Spectator. Its another powerful, and depressing tale of the woeful state of climate science_My initial post on this in 2009, when Steigs work started to fall apart, explains some of the problems McIntyre uncovered.. 
>   (Via Watts Up With That.)   How sceptics are frozen out: the Antarctic example | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Marc

This reminds me of the time when, newly arrived to Australia I found a way  to make some money as a court interpreter. I got my license in Italian German  and Spanish but later wanted to do some less confrontational work in the peace  an quite of my office so I sat for a Translators test. When I passed German and  Italian, I failed in Spanish.
The "examiner" found no less than 11 mistakes  in my work.
I requested to see my exam and after paying a rather hefty fee I  was "allowed" to read the corrections. It did not take long to see that the  examiner was an illiterate moron and so I took some notes despite the loud  protest of the "examining authority" who said I was not allowed to do so. I  ignored her and copied all I had to including the name of the  "examiner". 
Armed with my evidence I wrote to the examiner and to the  director of the organisation stating that grammar and punctuation in Spanish are  not black magic and that anyone outside their circle of south American amateurs  would be able to determine who was correct.
I also sent the corrections to a  school in Spain who returned them with some rather sarcastic comments and  stating that from the 11 corrections only one was justified but only just since  it was subjective.
However, I was unsuccessful in my appeal, since the  authority of the examiner is unappealable and final. The examiner however in a  rapt of generosity sent me a photocopy of one page out of a translation  encyclopedia he used to prove his point.
The article in question went on for  almost a page on the use of the word development and...not once was there a hint  in the whole article that my translation was incorrect.
 The guy in his arrogance probably did not even read his source   :Roflmao: 
My final letter stated to the licencing organisation that I could not recognise in them any authority to issue a license if they couldnt support with facts the allegations used to refuse me a license.  
Peer review .... Yea right

----------


## Dr Freud

> Peer review .... Yea right

   :2thumbsup:  
The damage these bozo's have done to science is incalculable. 
But the personal attacks are unforgiveable:   

> *Veteran childrens television presenter Johnny Ball claimed today his career    was being wrecked by environmentalists.* 
> The 72-year-old said he had been subjected to a malicious harassment campaign    after dismissing climate change as alarmist nonsense.   
> In an interview, he told how websites had been set up in his name featuring    *pornographic images* and a blogger wrote that he should *not be allowed near    children*. 
>  But to deliberately smear my name in ways that are clearly criminal is so    very disappointing. I would hope it is not the way fair and sensible debate    is going in this far more open, modern society.  
>   Mr Ball, father of TV and radio presenter Zoë, rose to fame in the 1970s and    1980s presenting science and technology programmes including Think of a    Number, Johnny Ball Reveals All and Think Again.   
>   He has also written books on maths, produced five educational stage musicals    and regularly addresses groups of children and teachers.   
>   But Mr Ball claimed his public speaking appearances have dried up following    controversy over comments he made in 2009.    *Addressing a science conference* in central London, he said spiders flatulence    was more damaging to the environment than fossil fuels and criticised the    bad science of global warming. Mr Ball was reportedly *booed off stage    following the comments. *  
>  The reason I take this stance is because *several films have been introduced    into schools which imply that the earth may not be able to sustain human    life as we know it, in around 39 years time*, which is unscientific,    alarmist nonsense, he told the TES.   
>   Of course mankind is a great burden on the earth, but at every turn we are    learning to manage and better control our impact and the damage we do.   
>   However, my main concern is that the alarmism is actually frightening    schoolchildren to an alarming degree.   Johnny Ball 'abused by environmentalists' over climate change denial - Telegraph

  A man who has spent a lifetime teaching children to open their minds to the wonders of the world is painted as a "paedophile" and ridiculed for doing no more than he has done his entire life. 
It just so happens his teachings now disagree with these contemporary faith based zealots. 
This is censorship.
This is totalitarian.
This is witch hunting.
This is zealotry.
This is disgusting. 
This is not "science".  :No:  
These zealots know children are easy pickings, that is why they keep targeting them.  They know it is easier to raise another zealot than to create one.

----------


## Dr Freud

Ask yourself: would you give to a charity if you knew 25 cents in every dollar would be creamed off the top by middle men, even before a cent was spent? Same deal with a flood levy, right?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Turning up the heat on Bom and Csiro. 
> About time I think. 
> [/indent]

  Surely the timing is just coincidental?   

> AUSTRALIA'S chief scientist, Penny Sackett, has resigned half way through her  five-year appointment. 
> Many in Australia's scientific community were surprised by Professor Sackett's sudden resignation. In the past she has been critical of the government's lack of action on climate change. 
> Sources said she had a tense working relationship with Senator Carr, who came to regret appointing her to the role and over time increasingly looked to the CSIRO chief executive, Megan Clark, for science advice.  
>               Sources said Senator Carr found Professor Sackett too outspoken and opinionated, and felt she did not give sufficient regard to Labor's agenda and the processes of government. 
> ''Any action that is delayed puts us at higher risk of dangerous climate  change,'' she said.  
>               The government has begun searching for a replacement. Professor Sackett  finishes her appointment on March 4.   Tensions blamed as science chief quits

  I have a nomination, please apply Jo:   JoNova    

> This week the Australian government tells us that we ought to pay more tax to prevent the increase in natural disasters that are dead-set bound-to-occur, yet the government itself is budgeting _less_ for these events. Figure that. Theyve cut their expenditure projections for future natural disasters and apparently expect them to be _less_ expensive than what the previous conservative government spent  (way back in 2006), and far far less than recent bills.*LABOR has cut budget estimates to meet the cost of future natural disasters while simultaneously arguing that climate change is increasing the frequency of floods and cyclones.* 
>  Budget documents show Labor has allocated $80 million a year for the next three years  $23m less than in the last Howard budget and far less than the $524m spent last year.The Australian So it appears that the Australian Labor Party can warn us that natural disasters are on the rise (due to man-made emissions) but they estimate the costs of dealing with those disasters _are going to be quite a lot less at least for a while_. So either (a) they dont really think disasters are coming, but they are happy to deceive the people about the risk, or (b) they do think disasters are getting worse, but they are happy to deceive people about the budget. Or theres (c) no one is competent or organized enough to notice how these two things are wildly at odds with each other.
>  Once again, watch Penny Wong absolve herself of any responsibility. Apparently, the Minister of Finance doesnt have a role in this. The bureaucrats decide:Senator Wong said natural disasters varied in frequency, intensity, impact and cost and that budget estimates were based on a longer-run trend determined by agencies, not politicians.Why do we elect her, if its not her job to determine how much money we ought to spend? Can we elect the bureaucrats instead?

----------


## Rod Dyson

IPCC death by 1000 cuts. 
The day is fast approaching when these "political activists" scientists will be shamed for the alarmism and streched scientific 'evidence they have presented to support the defunct AGY theory.   

> Luetkemeyer: Scientists manipulated climate data, suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals, and researchers were asked to destroy emails, so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda. 
> Since then, more than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC, in this comprehensive 740-page report. These 700 scientists represent some of the most respected institutions at home and around the world, including the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, U.S. Air Force and Navy, and even the Environmental Protection Agency. 
> For example, famed Princeton University physicist Dr. Robert Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers and was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Austin told a congressional committee that, unfortunately, climate has become a political science. It is tragic the some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomenon which is statistically questionable at best. 
> Mr. Chairman, if the families in my district have been able to tighten their belts, surely the federal government can do the same and stop funding an organization that is fraught with waste and abuse. My amendment simply says that no funds in this bill can go to the IPCC. This would save taxpayers millions of dollars this year and millions of dollars in years to come. In fact, the President has requested an additional $13 million in his fiscal 2012 budget request. 
> My constituents should not have to continue to foot the bill for an organization to keep producing corrupt findings that can be used as justification to impose a massive new energy tax on every American.

  Link Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer : Home 
How I love wtching this all come unglued albeit too slowly.

----------


## Rod Dyson

More little slices to make it bleed a little bit more.   

> *Fred Singer on the BEST project* 
> Posted on February 19, 2011 by Anthony Watts  *Note:* I spent the day with the BEST team yesterday at Lawrence Livermore Berkeley Laboratories and I’ll have a report on it soon, but here in the meantime is what Fred Singer has to say about it, via Climate Realists. – Anthony  *By Dr. Fred Singer*
> The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia in November 2009 produced what is popularly called “Climategate.” They exposed the thoroughly unethical behavior of a group of climate scientists, mainly in the UK and US, involved in producing the global surface temperature record used and relied on by governments. 
> Not only did these climate scientists hide their raw data and their methodology of selection and adjustment of temperature data, but they fought hard against all attempts by independent outside scientists to replicate their results. They also undermined the peer-review system and tried to make it impossible for skeptical scientists to publish their work in scientific journals. There is voluminous evidence in the e-mails to this effect. In the process, they damaged not only the science enterprise — full publication of data and methods, replication of results, open debate, etc — but they also undermined the public credibility of all scientists. 
> However, the most serious revelation from the e-mails is that they tried to “hide the decline” in temperatures, using various “tricks” in order to keep alive a myth of rising temperatures in support of the dogma of anthropogenic global warming. There have now been a number of investigations of the activities of this group, mainly in the UK. These have all turned out to be complete whitewashes, aimed to exonerate the scientists involved. None of these investigations has even attempted to learn how and in what way the data might have been manipulated. 
> Much of this is described in the “Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the corruption of science” by A. W. Montford. Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and others have made a commendable effort to show how data might have been altered. But an independent effort to reconstruct the global temperature results of the past century really demands a dedicated project with proper resources. 
> The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Project aims to do what needs to be done: That is, to develop an independent analysis of the data from land stations, which would include many more stations than had been considered by the Global Historic Climatology Network. The Project is in the hands of a group of recognized scientists, who are not at all “climate skeptics” — which should enhance their credibility. The Project is mainly directed by physicists, chaired by Professor Richard Muller (UC Berkeley), with a steering group that includes Professor Judith Curry (Georgia Tech) and Arthur Rosenfeld (UC Santa Barbara and Georgia Tech). 
> I applaud and support what is being done by the Project — a very difficult but important undertaking. I personally have little faith in the quality of the surface data, having been exposed to the revealing work by Anthony Watts and others. However, I have an open mind on the issue and look forward to seeing the results of the Project in their forthcoming publications. 
> As far as I know, no government or industry funds are involved — at least at this stage. According to the Project’s website www.berkeleyearth.org, support comes mostly from a group of charitable foundations.
> ...

----------


## Rod Dyson

BTW I wonder where Woodbe is posting nowadays. Gee I miss him  :Biggrin:  
And it seems that our other resident warmers have gon a bit quite of late too.  :Frown:  :Frown:  
So much fun watching them try to defend the scam.

----------


## Rod Dyson

More little cuts in the AGW credibility.   

> Lewis and Matt Ridley have joined forces to tell the story in the cover issue of this week’s Spectator. It’s another powerful, and depressing tale of the woeful state of climate science. Real science welcomes refutation: with global warming, it is treated as a religion. As they say in their cover story: _“Nature’s original peer-review process had let through an obviously flawed paper, and no professional climate scientist then disputed it - perhaps because of fear that doing so might harm their careers. As the title of Richard Bean’s new play - The Heretic - at the Royal Court hints, young scientists going into climate studies these days are a bit like young theologians in Elizabethan England. They quickly learn that funding and promotion dries up if you express heterodox views, or doubt the scripture. The scripture, in this case, being the assembled reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”_

   
link http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehou...ca-myths.thtml 
This mud is sure starting to stick to the blanket.  We just have to keep slinging it.  The more this kind of stuff is exposed the better.

----------


## Dr Freud

> IPCC death by 1000 cuts. 
> The day is fast approaching when these "political activists" scientists will be shamed for the alarmism and streched scientific 'evidence they have presented to support the defunct AGY theory.  
> Link Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer : Home 
> How I love wtching this all come unglued albeit too slowly.

  Yeh mate, the rest of the world is waking up to this scam, reviewing the data, and cutting funding to it:   

> The U.S. House of Representatives today voted by a wide margin  244-179  to defund the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The $13-million cut, which garnered support from some Democrats, is part of the Houses budget for 2011. It now goes to the U.S. Senate.

  As they begin to unravel this farce, we still blindly follow Joolia who is using Flim Flammery to support her farcical and useless BIG NEW TAX. 
That's the reason the AGW hypothesis supporters have dried up.  Even they realise the farce is unravelling.  I'll happily accept their silence as capitulation.  :Biggrin:  
Even the vocal Penny Sacket at CSIRO realises the writing is on the wall.

----------


## Dr Freud

> IPCC death by 1000 cuts.

  Also by 1000 scientists:   

> More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321*-*page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming consensus -- features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun. The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal -- which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists -- detonated upon on the international climate movement. "I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple," said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore." Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been "captured" and demanded that "the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed." Tol also publicly called for the "suspension" of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [_Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report._] Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a "worthless carcass" and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in "disgrace". He also explained that the "fraudulent science continues to be exposed." Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. "'I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded...There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!" See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! 'Climate change - RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence...Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives' [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: "The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency."   http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

  Includes this dude:   

> *Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith...My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.* -- Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia's CSIRO's (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

   
Maybe a few more of these guys started having a chat with Penny Sackett at CSIRO, then she ran away, rather than stay and try to defend the indefensible.  
Full report of the 1000 here:  http://hw.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663fd...&l_mid=2336201

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Also by 1000 scientists: 
> Includes this dude:    Maybe a few more of these guys started having a chat with Penny Sackett at CSIRO, then she ran away, rather than stay and try to defend the indefensible.  
> Full report of the 1000 here:  http://hw.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663fd...&l_mid=2336201

  WOW!  Doc just that link alone would keep us busy for months showing how discredited this scam is. 
Can't see a warmist reading it all though they would get too heart broken.

----------


## Dr Freud

They wouldn't read it mate, they just classify them all as "deniers in the pockets of big oil". 
Joolia and Flim Flammery reckon all these scientists are just "deniers".  :Biggrin:  
The dude or dudette who created Climategate allowed these scientists the opportunity to speak out.  As time goes on, more scientists are feeling more comfortable about voicing their opinions that have been silenced due to the base tactics in this debacle. 
Mr or Ms Climategate truly deserve the Nobel Prize. 
Bring on the revolution brother.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> That's the reason the AGW hypothesis supporters have dried up. Even they realise the farce is unravelling. I'll happily accept their silence as capitulation.

  Yes I think they wil find it harder and harder to refute the evidence building up against this eco war, that is headed up by AGW and promoted by zealot scientist.  
The hangers on that are just in it for the money (read government grants), will keep the charade going as long as possilbe so they can continue to explore the doomsday results of AGW that they 'presume" is real because the scientifc zealots have told them so. 
When it all falls apart they can sit back and say well we were only researching what we were LED TO BELIEVE WAS A FACT. 
Blame those nasty Zealot scientists we were only doing our job! Same will go for the politicians.  
Nothing we can do but keep shelling out the grants untill then. 
I take great relief that very very few people I speak to now believe in AGW. Those that do have this hair shirt look about them so I would expect nothing less. 
A few years ago the reverse was true most un-suspecting public just accepted the bull ^$## they were fed.  
I speak to a LOT of people about this farce wherever I can get a way with it to gauge reaction. A good opener with this cold Febuary is "Global warming is hitting us hard this year thats for sure". Try it and see the reaction you get. Best fun you will ever get LOL.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

The more you talk about something amongst yourselves.....the more likely you are to believe that your interpretation is correct.   
Just saying... 
By the by....the reason almost no-one else is posting here in response to your 'observations' is that we (woodbe, crisp and myself) as a self elected cabal of the righteous and true (whomsoever they happen to be at the time) came to a considered understanding that a problem ignored is no longer a problem.  I elected to sacrifice my self on the sword of obfuscation and allow the others to safely melt into the shadows. 
I could also be slightly embellishing the dull truth of the matter....that your opinions (and, by association, our own), whilst closely held, are of little importance to a Forum of Renovation and are therefore no longer worth the bandwidth. 
Huzzar!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The more you talk about something amongst yourselves.....the more likely you are to believe that your interpretation is correct.  
> Just saying... 
> By the by....the reason almost no-one else is posting here in response to your 'observations' is that we (woodbe, crisp and myself) as a self elected cabal of the righteous and true (whomsoever they happen to be at the time) came to a considered understanding that a problem ignored is no longer a problem. I elected to sacrifice my self on the sword of obfuscation and allow the others to safely melt into the shadows. 
> I could also be slightly embellishing the dull truth of the matter....that your opinions (and, by association, our own), whilst closely held, are of little importance to a Forum of Renovation and are therefore no longer worth the bandwidth. 
> Huzzar!

  Ignoring us won't change the facts buddy.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Ignoring us won't change the facts buddy.

  Which ones?

----------


## mark53

> . 
> I could also be slightly embellishing the dull truth of the matter....that your opinions (and, by association, our own), whilst closely held, are of little importance to a Forum of Renovation and are therefore no longer worth the bandwidth. 
> Huzzar!

  Oh, if that were only the truth. The administrators of this forum, I believe, have displayed significant insight in providing an opportunity for people to express their point of view in what is a very topical subject. I would also point out that the number of visitors to this site gives it legitimacy and value. It is undeniable that people will form opinions on the value of the information provided. It just may be that some who have visited this sight, and who once believed the hypothesis of AGW, may no longer do so. As my dear old mum used to say " knowledge is never a burden". 
Although it must be conceded that some comments made in this thread are, in part, of a political nature what should not be lost sight of is that some renovators may make decisions based on the content which is not. 
 And remember, black and white will set you free. :2thumbsup:

----------


## Marc

> Ask yourself: would you give to a charity if you knew 25 cents in every dollar would be creamed off the top by middle men, even before a cent was spent? Same deal with a flood levy, right?

  I know of many charity organisations who spend 80% on administration and only 20% goes to the field. This in fact is considered normal. 
The only thing to ask to a charity is how much of the donations goes to the cause and how much goes to administration.
Some organisations like the Baptist Union send 100% to the field because they have alternative sources of income to support their administrative costs.
Yet most organisations do not.

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> The more you talk about something amongst yourselves.....the more likely you are to believe that your interpretation is correct.

  Is this how a peer review works?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Is this how a peer review works?

   :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  
Some interesting stats here for veiwbank this summer from nov to feb 21 only 8 days 30+ deg c and not a day in the 40's 
Melb Airport almost the same only 7 days 30+  
I know it is just weather 4 months of it. Just that I can't remember such a cold bloody summer.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Is this how a peer review works?

   :Rotfl:  
Very, very clever.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *THE Gillard government's renewable energy scheme will saddle consumers with more than $1 billion in extra electricity costs this year, and uncertainty created by its failure to implement a carbon pricing regime is forcing power bills higher than they would otherwise be.*  Carbon vacuum fuels cost of power | The Australian

  Yeh, hit those "big polluters" hard!!!   

> *SCHOOLS are being forced to fundraise to cover the costs of rocketing electricity bills, as power-hungry technology saps their budgets.*   Schools fundraise to cover rocketing electricity bills | Herald Sun

----------


## Dr Freud

> TAXPAYERS will soon be spending several hundred thousand dollars on rooftop solar at Parliament House in Canberra to save just $9500 a year in electricity costs.  Cost shadow falls on solar savings plan for federal parliament | The Australian

  *
Wow, that's some serious bucks, but it looks dope? *   

> *eco-bling also ecobling* 
>          noun         [uncountable] 
>                 ecological gadgets and technology which do not save or produce very much energy relative to their cost  
>                                                'British homes and offices are being plastered with useless *eco-bling* which makes little difference to the environment, a leading engineer has claimed.'  
> "classic examples of *eco-bling* are wind turbines and solar panels installed on residential homes which  only produce a trickle of energy"   Definition of Ecobling, BuzzWord from Macmillan Dictionary

----------


## Dr Freud

> Climategate was the messenger, but here's the message loud and clear again people: 
> Climategate was the messenger, but here's the message loud and clear again people:
>    Quote:
>                                  From the latest_ Spectator_, a gotcha on the corruption peer-review process that the Climategate emails suggested but which Nicholas Lewis and Matt Ridley now demonstrate. _Spectator_ editor Nelson Fraser sums up (the Lewis/Ridley article is behind a pay wall):_In January 2009, Nature magazine ran a cover story  conveying dramatic news about Antarctica: that most of it had warmed significantly over the last half-century. For years, the data from this frozen continent - with 90 percent of the worlds ice mass - had stubbornly refused to corroborate the global warming narrative. So the study, led by Eric Steig of the University of Washington, was treated as a bit of a scoop. It reverberated around the world. Gavin Schmidt, from the RealClimate blog, declared that Antarctica had silenced the sceptics. Mission, it seemed, was accomplished: Antarctica was no longer an embarrassment to the global warming narrative._  _He spoke too soon. The indefatigable Steve McIntyre started to scrutinise his followings along with Nicholas Lewis. They found several flaws: Steig et al had used too few data sequences to speak for an entire continent, and had processed the data in a very questionable way. But when they wanted to correct him, in another journal, they quickly ran into an inconvenient truth about global warming: the high priests do not like refutation. To have their critique (initial submission here, final version here) of Steigs work published, they needed to assuage the many demands of an anonymous Reviewer A - whom they later found out to be Steig himself. _  _Lewis and Matt Ridley have joined forces to tell the story in the cover issue of this weeks Spectator. Its another powerful, and depressing tale of the woeful state of climate science_My initial post on this in 2009, when Steigs work started to fall apart, explains some of the problems McIntyre uncovered.. 
>   (Via Watts Up With That.)   How sceptics are frozen out: the Antarctic example | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  You would expect this man to be hailed as a scientific hero for uncovering these errors and setting the scientific record straight, right?   

> The ABC assumes that someone finding errors in an alarmist paper on global warming MUST be a far-Right crank. Mark Hendrickx demonstrates:   _In late November last year Sara Phillips, ABCs environment editor, posted an opinion piece about climate negotiations at Cancun to her taxpayer-funded blog. I left a comment suggesting she might be better off covering a recent paper published in the Journal of Climate co-authored by Steve McIntyre. This work refuted an earlier study published in Nature in the summer of 2009 and widely covered by the ABC which claimed there was unusual warming in west Antarctica due to man-made global warming. McIntyre and co-authors ODonnell, Lewis and Condon proved the statistical methodology of the Nature study was flawed and the results erroneous_  _The following anonymous comment was posted to Phillipss blog shortly afterwards:_ _Annie : 03 Dec 2010 7:07:53pm_  _The denialist clowns return again . . . climateaudit.org . . . run by Stephen McIntyre a known climate denialist and extremist right-wing provocateur . . . you are a joke as are your answers . . . laughing hysterically.__On seeing the comment I alerted Phillips, suggesting the comment should be removed as it contravened ABC posting rules...After a day or so it was clear my request had been ignored, so I submitted a formal complaint to the ABC._  _This was turned down by the ABCs audience and consumer affairs. The reply I received on December 16 included the following rationale from Phillips: The moderator has explained this decision as follows: _  _ Mr McIntyre is described by Annie as being an extremist right wing provocateur. Mr McIntyres views are seen by some as extreme. Annie clearly believes they are. He could reasonably be described as right wing as a speaking member of the George C Marshall Institute, which is known for its right-leaning politically conservative views. Provocateur is a name given to describe those whose thinking goes against that of the status quo, another label that could reasonably be given to Mr McIntyre. As such, the comments from Annie are not unfounded and therefore not defamatory." _ _McIntyre responded to the ABC, in an email sent on December 17: _  _I am not a member of the George Marshall Institute. This allegation on your part is untrue. I once spoke at a briefing session sponsored by George Marshall Institute, but that does not make me a member or imply any endorsement on my part of their views. I would have been delighted to make the same presentation at a session sponsored by the Pew Centre. Nor is there any basis for characterising my political views as extremist right wing. I have seldom expressed political opinions, though I once said that, in American terms, I would have been a Bill Clinton supporter. My only recent political contributions have been to a left-wing municipal politician in Toronto, Pam McConnell. I challenge you to provide any evidence that I hold extremist right wing political views. The comments by Annie are totally unfounded and defamatory. Yours truly, Stephen McIntyre__That the ABC thought it necessary to even defend the smearing of McIntyre is one thing. Even more telling is that its environment editor, blog moderator and audience and consumer affairs section all assumed that he must of the Right, and probably the extremist Right.at that._  _And we know what we must think of that._  _The ABC of climate caricature | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

   
 More of your taxpayer dollars at work. Well spent you think? 
I will say it again.  All the scientific evidence refutes this farce. 
No supporter can present any evidence in any forum around the world supporting it. 
All they can do is bow down to a fictional "90%" number made up by a few zealots at the IPCC who they revere as "authority figures". 
Learn this well people, *zero* evidence proving this farce.

----------


## Dr Freud

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vmoErFbHao&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Inhofe Takes on Global Warming Alarmist Attempted Ambush[/ame] 
Note how around the world, these ignorant ideologues parrot the same lines. 
"All the institutions in the world believe..."
"98% of all scientists believe..." (They've finally realised the 90% certainty was just made up).
"All the other governments believe in action except ours..."
"There are a few fringe scientists who don't believe..."
"You don't care about the children... "
"We should have an insurance policy..."
"We need to lead the world by acting..." 
Cult like monotony. 
And where, and where, and where is the evidence? 
Oh yeh, that's all refuting the farcical and failed AGW hypothesis, so supporters will all wander the Earth chanting the cult like phrases trying to convince politicians that the world is coming to an end unless we surrender our technology to the God Gaia.  :Doh:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Is this how a peer review works?

  Technically, no.  Peer review is supposed to be done in isolation with each of the reviewers being unidentified to both the authors and the other reviewers.  It is not supposed to be a self absorbed round table discussion 
However.....it is a small world. And dumb things do happen.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The administrators of this forum, I believe, have displayed significant insight in providing an opportunity for people to express their point of view in what is a very topical subject.

  Insight?  Really....? 
I was of the opinion that they were doing it simply for the benefit of a consistent stream of giggles. 
Myself and many of my friends & colleagues certainly have enjoyed the laughs that this thread has provided over the years....

----------


## Marc

Hot Air   Global Warming Alarmists in Retreat. Glaciers, Not So Much. « Hot Air   

> *Global Warming Alarmists in Retreat. Glaciers, Not So Much.*  Share322 *posted at 4:32 pm on January 29, 2011 by Jimmie Bise, Jr						 printer-friendly*   
>  						The Church of Global Warming  has faced an uphill battle lately. The average person is not likely to  accept the message that the planet is warming and that only an  unprecedented shift of power and money to progressive policy makers will  brings things back to normal once theyve lived through a couple  horrible winters and witnessed the massive fraud perpetrated by the  climate science community. So it has come to pass that the number of Britons who believe that global warming is both real and dangerous has shrunk rapidly in the past four years.  The number of climate change sceptics has almost doubled in four years, official research showed yesterday.
>  A quarter of Britons are unconvinced that the world is warming  following successive freezing winters and a series of scandals over the  credibility of climate science.
>  The figures suggest that a growing proportion of the public do not  share the belief of all three major political parties and Whitehall   that climate change is a major and urgent challenge requiring radical  and expensive policies. According to the article, 86 percent of those surveyed were at least  fairly convinced that global warming was a big deal in 2006. That  number is now 75 percent and the number of those unconvinced has risen  from 12 percent to 23 percent. Whats worse for the climate science  alarmists is the part of the survey that asked if people were willing to  sacrifice to end the crisis. Less than half of those surveyed are  willing to switch from driving to using public transportation to help  the cause. That number drops even lower when it comes to giving up air  travel.
>  The reasons people see global warming alarmists are less credible is not limited to the Climategate fraud or cold winters. Better scientific studies are turning the tide from faith-based politics and toward  dare I say it  a more reality-based position (via memeorandum).  Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the  ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing  rather than shrinking.
>  The discovery adds a new twist to the row over whether global warming  is causing the worlds highest mountain range to lose its ice cover.
>  It further challenges claims made in a 2007 report by the UNs  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the glaciers would be  gone by 2035.
>  Although the head of the panel Dr Rajendra Pachauri later admitted  the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research, he maintained  that global warming was melting the glaciers at a rapid rate,  threatening floods throughout north India. Whats more, the new study, which included almost 290 glaciers, showed that global warming _isnt_  the chief reason a glacier melts, but terrain and how much debris  covers the glaciers surface. That makes sense, if you take a few  moments and noodle it through.
>  This study is just the latest scientific nail in the global warming  alarmism coffin. The general population is running away from the  alarmists and toward the far more reasonable position that the global  climate is an enormous beast whose course we can not easily nor  carelessly change but whose workings we should study more earnestly. To  quote Michael Rubin Ledeen in a different context, Faster, please. _
> Jimmie runs The Sundries Shack and has his own very entertaining podcast called The Delivery. He is also an amateur musician, an aspiring composer, an unrepentant geek and an avid fan of Twitter._

----------


## Marc

Putting an End to Global Warming Alarmism - by Joseph Bast - Opeds   

> *Putting an End to Global Warming Alarmism*
> Written By: Joseph Bast
> January 2009
> Publisher: The Heartland Institute 
> Global warming is the most important  environmental issue of our time. If those who are sounding the alarm  about a possible climate catastrophe are right, then governments must  raise energy costs directly, with taxes, or indirectly, with mandates  and subsidies, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Hundreds of billions  of dollars a year in wealth or economic activity will be sucked up and  redistributed by governments.
>  Reducing greenhouse gas emissions  even modestly is estimated to cost the average household in the U.S.  approximately $3,372 per year and would destroy 2.4 million jobs.  Electricity prices would double, and manufacturers would move their  factories to places such as China and India that have cheaper energy and  fewer environmental regulations.
>  If global warming is indeed a  crisis, billions of dollars taken from taxpayers will flow into the  coffers of radical environmental groups, giving them the resources and  stature to implement other parts of their anti-technology, anti-business  agenda. None of that money will go to actually reduce greenhouse gas  emissions. This explains the paradox that even though the scientific  community is deeply divided over the causes and consequences of global  warming, every single environmental advocacy group in the U.S. (and  probably the world) believes it is a crisis.  *Global Warming Is Not a Crisis*
>  But global warming is not, in fact, a crisis. Heres how we know this:  Since  2007, more than 31,072 American scientists, including 9,021 with  Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that says, in part, There is no  convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,  methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the  foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earths atmosphere  and disruption of the Earths climate.  A 2003  international survey of climate scientists (with 530 responding) found  only 9.4 percent strongly agreed and 25.3 percent agreed with the  statement climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.  Some 10.2 percent strongly disagreed.  A 2006  survey of scientists in the U.S. found 41 percent disagreed that the  planets recent warmth can be, in large part, attributed to human  activity, and 71 percent disagreed that recent hurricane activity is  significantly attributable to human activity.  A  recent review of 1,117 abstracts of scientific journal articles on  global climate change found only 13 (1 percent) explicitly endorse the  consensus view while 34 reject or cast doubt on the view that human  activity has been the main driver of warming over the past 50 years.
>  The mainstream of the scientific community, in other words, does not believe global warming is a crisis.  *The Public Is Skeptical*
> ...

----------


## Marc

Facts debunk global warming alarmism | The Australian   

> *Facts debunk global warming alarmism                             *                                     Bob Carter                             From:                                          The Australian                                 January 20, 2009                                 12:00AM    *                                  THE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that  October in the US was marked by 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest-ever  temperatures.                                 *  
>                   Over the past few years, similar signs of colder than usual weather  have been recorded all over the world, causing many people to question  the still fashionable, but now long outdated, global warming alarmism.  Yet individual weather events or spells, whether warmings or coolings,  tell us nothing necessarily about true climate change.
> Nonetheless,  by coincidence, growing recognition of a threat of climatic cooling is  correct, because since the turn of the 21st century all real world,  long-term climate indicators have turned downwards. Global atmospheric  temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has  been cooling since 2002. Some people, still under the thrall of the  Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's disproved projections of  warming, seem surprised by this cooling trend, even to the point of  denying it. But why?                                                                                                                          
>          There are two fundamentally different ways in which computers can  be used to project climate. The first is used by the modelling groups  that provide climate projections to the IPCC. These groups deploy  general circulation models, which use complex partial differential  equations to describe the ocean-atmosphere climate system  mathematically. When fed with appropriate initial data, these models can  calculate possible future climate states. The models presume (wrongly)  that we have a complete understanding of the climate system.
> GCMs are subject to the well-known computer phenomenon of GIGO, which translates as "garbage in, God's-truth out".
> Alternative  computer projections of climate can be constructed using data on past  climate change, by identifying mathematical (often rhythmic) patterns  within them and projecting these patterns into the future. Such models  are statistical and empirical, and make no presumptions about complete  understanding; instead, they seek to recognise and project into the  future the climate patterns that exist in real world data.
> In  2001, Russian geologist Sergey Kotov used the mathematics of chaos to  analyse the atmospheric temperature record of the past 4000 years from a  Greenland ice core. Based on the pattern he recognised in the data,  Kotov extrapolated cooling from 2000 to about 2030, followed by warming  to the end of the century and 300 years of cooling thereafter.
> In  2003, Russian scientists Klyashtorin and Lyubushin analysed the global  surface thermometer temperature record from 1860 to 2000, and identified  a recurring 60-year cycle. This probably relates to the Pacific decadal  oscillation, which can be caricatured as a large scale El Nino/La Nina  climatic oscillation. The late 20thcentury warming represents the most  recent warm half-cycle of the PDO, and it projects forwards as cooling  of one-tenth of a degree or more to 2030.
> In 2004, US scientist  Craig Loehle used simple periodic models to analyse climate records over  the past 1000 years of sea-surface temperature from a Caribbean marine  core and cave air temperature from a South African stalactite. Without  using data for the 20th century, six of his seven models showed a  warming trend similar to that in the instrumental record over the past  150 years; and projecting forward the best fit model foreshadows cooling  of between 0.7 and 1 degree Celsius during the next 20-40 years. In  2007, the 60-year climate cycle was identified again, by Chinese  scientists Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian, who used a novel multi-variate  analysis of the 1881-2002 temperature records for China. They showed  that temperature variation in China leads parallel variation in global  temperature by five-10 years, and has been falling since 2001. They  conclude "we see clearly that global and northern hemisphere temperature  will drop on century scale in the next 20 years".
> ...

----------


## Marc

The One Minute Case Against Global Warming Alarmism | One Minute Cases   

> *One Minute Cases* 
> A collaborative blog which will present a brief argument about a controversial issue that can be read in about a minute.  u  *The One Minute Case Against Global Warming Alarmism*  *Earth’s climate is complex and constantly changing*
> Earth’s  climate is an enormously complex system with thousands of variables in  constant flux.   Natural cycles of warming and cooling have existed as  long as earth has had a climate.  We only began to make large-scale  measurements in the last 100 years, so this system is poorly understood.
> Attempts  to manipulate climate are limited by the complexity and inertia of the  system.  Dr. James Hansen of NASA, the father of the global warming  theory, estimates the Kyoto protocol would only affect temperatures by  .13°C by 2100, and it would take 30 Kyotos to have an “acceptable”  impact on climate change.  “Should a catastrophic scenario prove  correct”, states Dr. Richard Lindzen, an MIT climate expert, “Kyoto will  not prevent it.”
> No single indicator can provide proof of a global change.  The thinning of the Greenland ice sheet may be due to  human causes, natural variations in snowfall, changes in ocean  currents, a long-term warming of the planet since the transition from  the last glacial period, continued warming since the end of the Little  Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period, or all of the above. *Politicians and the media are eager to embrace the latest crisis*
> Climate changes during the twentieth century were often accompanied  by widespread panic, only to be quickly forgotten when dire predictions  failed to materialize.  Intellectuals, the media, and political  institutions find it profitable to capitalize on emergencies which focus  public attention on the issues they champion.  Often their predictions  go far beyond the most alarmist of scientific bodies.  Science writer  David Appell, who has written for such publications as the New Scientist  and Scientific American believes that global warming will “threaten  fundamental food and water sources. It would lead to displacement of  billions of people and huge waves of refugees, spawn terrorism and  topple governments, spread disease across the globe.”  It would be  “would be chaos by any measure, far greater even than the sum total of  chaos of the global wars of the 20th century.”  This doomsday scenario  hardly follows from the hesitant estimates of a 1.1 to 6.4°C temperature  rise and 18 to 59 cm sea level rise by 2100 predicted in 2007 by the IPCC. *Attempts to halt climate change are not only costly and futile, but ignore the benefits of a warmer climate*
> Adapting to a warmer climate has many costs, but many benefits as well. According to NASA satellite data, higher levels of CO2 have dramatically increased biomass production and biodiversity worldwide. Global  warming may cause Africa to become more arid, but enormous territories  in Siberia and Canada might finally be open to settlement, and new  resources and shipping routes will become available. 
> The  focus of environmental movements is usually on reversing anthropogenic  causes of ecological change.  Such attempts are not only futile, but  ignore the large scale economic destruction caused by environmental  restrictions on human productivity.  Free societies and technological  innovation have allowed human ingenuity bring about vast improvements in  human life.  This change has almost doubled the life expectancy and  quadrupled the standard of living in the developed world – and is now  transforming the developing world. Disrupting the global economy would  have a snowball effect on future living standards, as well as retard  future technologies will help us adapt to a constantly changing world.
> A  genuine cost-benefit analysis should weight the costs of wealth  destruction and long term inhibition of technological progress against  the highly uncertain costs of adjusting to environmental changes.  Human  beings have never passively resigned themselves to environmental  changes, but adapted their society to make optimal use of their  environment. *Wealth, technology, and human ingenuity are our most powerful tools for dealing with change*
> Even the most alarmist of scientists generally agree  that there is little humanity can do to influence the global climate  for many decades, even if we wrecked an industrial civilization that has  allowed billions of people to leave immeasurably longer and better  lives. Our resources would be far better spent creating innovative  technology that allows us to make the best of a constantly changing  climate than crippling industrial civilization (our best tool for  dealing with a constantly changing world) in a futile attempt to stop  climate change. *Further reading:*  U.S. Senator James M. Inhofe: The Facts and Science of Climate ChangeGlobal Warming on the Objectivism WikiChannel 4: The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007)CBC:”Doomsday Called Off”: about; Google videoCNN: Exposed: The Climate of FearCEI: Inconvenient Truths for Al GoreMonte Hieb: Global Warming: A closer look at the numbersR. Warren Anderson: “Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming “GlobalWarming.org“Five strategies for debating global warming and environmentalism” by David VekslerEnvironmentalism.com: On “Global Warming”

----------


## Marc

Five strategies for debating global warming and environmentalism | Truth, Justice, and the American Way
By David Veksler  

> *Five strategies for debating global warming and environmentalism* 
>                       I held a debate on environmentalism last month, which  included a climate scientist as well as traditional evangelical  environmentalists. Not surprisingly, the discussion quickly bogged down  on the issue of global warming. My experience as a layperson taking a  stand against a coalition of true believers and technical specialists  presented some lessons on arguing against environmentalism. *1.) Focus on your strengths*
>  Global warming can be argued on several levels. You could argue that  There’s insufficient evidence for a long-term warming trendThe earth’s warming is not historically significantThe warming is not anthropogenicThe benefits of a warmer earth exceed the costsStopping warming is economically impractical or undesirableImplementing government controls is the wrong response to climate change.
>  Each response requires knowledge in a different field – climatology,  paleoclimatology, environmental geography, economics, and politics.  Unless you’re an expert in one of those fields, you should not make them  central to your position. You should also avoid original research or  original arguments in them.
>  For example, I have read arguments by amateurs whose entire position  centers around whether humans contribute to CO2 levels, and whether that  contribution affects climate. For example,  human CO2 output is 5.53% of the CO2 related greenhouse gases, and  0.28% of the total greenhouses gases. These numbers are not widely  disputed – but the difference that .28% percent makes is. Are you  prepared to discuss such details? Unless you’re a climatologist, don’t  make it the crux of your position.
>  There is a crucial field you cannot avoid – epistemology. The issue  of scientific methodology as well as the means by which reputable  research is recognized is crucial, and you should become thoroughly  familiar with it, since the use of junk science, non-scientific claims,  and the misuse of valid claims is one of the major problems of the  environmentalist movement.
>  My recommendation for non-experts is to establish that the actual  climate predictions from alarmists are moderate, and then focus on how  individuals are best equipped to deal with them. This sidesteps the  complex technical issues of climatology, and creates an opportunity to  educate the audience on capitalism. *2.) Start with a concession*
>  Not every argument made against global warming strengthens your case.  Decide beforehand which claims you want to argue, which are  unsupported, and which ones you’re not qualified to argue. Here are the  concessions I made when arguing my case:  Humans contribute to CO2 levelsThe earth has gotten slightly warmer during the 20th      centuryI’m not qualified to debate whether anthropogenic CO2      contributes to global warming
>  Conceding arguments which are not central to my position shifts the debate to areas I’m strong on.
> ...

----------


## mark53

*QUOTE/* The ABC assumes that someone finding errors in an alarmist paper on global warming MUST be a far-Right crank. Mark Hendrickx demonstrates:  _In late November last year Sara Phillips, ABCs environment editor, posted an opinion piece about climate negotiations at Cancun to her taxpayer-funded blog. I left a comment suggesting she might be better off covering a recent paper published in the Journal of Climate co-authored by Steve McIntyre. This work refuted an earlier study published in Nature in the summer of 2009 and widely covered by the ABC which claimed there was unusual warming in west Antarctica due to man-made global warming. McIntyre and co-authors ODonnell, Lewis and Condon proved the statistical methodology of the Nature study was flawed and the results erroneous  
The following anonymous comment was posted to Phillipss blog shortly afterwards: 
Annie : 03 Dec 2010 7:07:53pm 
The denialist clowns return again . . . climateaudit.org . . . run by Stephen McIntyre a known climate denialist and extremist right-wing provocateur . . . you are a joke as are your answers . . . laughing hysterically.On seeing the comment I alerted Phillips, suggesting the comment should be removed as it contravened ABC posting rules...After a day or so it was clear my request had been ignored, so I submitted a formal complaint to the ABC.  
This was turned down by the ABCs audience and consumer affairs. The reply I received on December 16 included the following rationale from Phillips: The moderator has explained this decision as follows:  Mr McIntyre is described by Annie as being an extremist right wing provocateur. Mr McIntyres views are seen by some as extreme. Annie clearly believes they are. He could reasonably be described as right wing as a speaking member of the George C Marshall Institute, which is known for its right-leaning politically conservative views. Provocateur is a name given to describe those whose thinking goes against that of the status quo, another label that could reasonably be given to Mr McIntyre. As such, the comments from Annie are not unfounded and therefore not defamatory."  McIntyre responded to the ABC, in an email sent on December 17:  I am not a member of the George Marshall Institute. This allegation on your part is untrue. I once spoke at a briefing session sponsored by George Marshall Institute, but that does not make me a member or imply any endorsement on my part of their views. I would have been delighted to make the same presentation at a session sponsored by the Pew Centre. Nor is there any basis for characterising my political views as extremist right wing. I have seldom expressed political opinions, though I once said that, in American terms, I would have been a Bill Clinton supporter. My only recent political contributions have been to a left-wing municipal politician in Toronto, Pam McConnell. I challenge you to provide any evidence that I hold extremist right wing political views. The comments by Annie are totally unfounded and defamatory. Yours truly, Stephen McIntyre_That the ABC thought it necessary to even defend the smearing of McIntyre is one thing. Even more telling is that its environment editor, blog moderator and audience and consumer affairs section all assumed that he must of the Right, and probably the extremist Right.at that. 
And we know what we must think of_ that. / End Quote._ 
 I am finding the political bias display by the upwardly mobile, vacantly thinking,  obsequiously sycophantic, brazenly socialist, pseudo intellectual propagandist ABC agenda boring in the extreme. I can hardly wait for some unbiased reporting or just reporting of the facts. It would be refreshing. Does one have to be a card carrying drongo ( or a member of any or all of the following- The pot smoking tree huggers association, ALP, Greens, Reds, Trots, The Grand United Order of Twerps, I can't get a job anywhere else journos benevolent hall, The Grand United Order of Grey Cardigan Wearers, the Royal and Ancient Order of Australian Journos Underpants Weavers, ETC,)  to get a job with dear old auntie ABC?  This is just a rhetorical question posed by a frustrated seeker of the truth. God help me hooray. :Annoyed:

----------


## Marc

Compared to the ABC, ANYONE with an average life, and average job and an average opinion is a RAVING RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE EXTREEM DINOSAUR ON THE VERGE OF EXTINTION. 
The ABC should be shut down, everyone sacked and then start again from scratch  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  :Annoyed:  
The two legged drongos that populate the ABC have a collective value of 1/2 drachma.

----------


## mark53

*QUOTE/* 
"I was of the opinion that they were doing it simply for the benefit of a consistent stream of giggles". 
Hay Silent,  you know the old adage- "Opinions are like @rsoles, every body has got one". This, for the empirically challenged, means just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's value is greater than anybody else's.
And just because you hang around with a bunch of giggling climate change fanatical bozos doesn't mean your right. 
 But that's just an opinion. :2thumbsup:

----------


## mark53

Excellent research Marc. Great post. Pity that bunch of girly boy, I've struck bottom and commenced to dig, climate change doomsday singing, grey cardigan wearers aren't up to the same level of committed research. Or it just may be there is nothing they can produce that can't be shot down with a handful of mothballs. :Biggrin:  ( Watson, oh bright and learned sage, if God didn't want me to do this then he wouldn't have invented Guinness)

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *QUOTE/* 
> "I was of the opinion that they were doing it simply for the benefit of a consistent stream of giggles". 
> Hay Silent, you know the old adage- "Opinions are like @rsoles, every body has got one". This, for the empirically challenged, means just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's value is greater than anybody else's.
> And just because you hang around with a bunch of giggling climate change fanatical bozos doesn't mean your right. 
> But that's just an opinion.

   :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *QUOTE/* 
> Hay Silent,  you know the old adage- "Opinions are like @rsoles, every body has got one". This, for the empirically challenged, means just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's value is greater than anybody else's.
> And just because you hang around with a bunch of giggling climate change fanatical bozos doesn't mean your right.

  I'm familiar with the saying. 
But, due perhaps to a lack of self confidence, you are distorting what you've quoted from that post..... 
I never said I was right. 
I only suggested that you (and your mates) are sometimes quite amusing.  
Oh, and just a piece of advice, referring to the moderators of this forum as "a bunch of giggling climate change fanatical bozos" (as you appear to have done) might be considered a career limiting move.   
My colleagues (who certainly aren't "a bunch of giggling climate change fanatical bozos", rather a bunch of mostly right leaning agricultural & emergency management realists) thought this part was especially hilarious and urge you to maintain the rage against no-one in particular. Hey, I'm only the messenger..

----------


## Marc

Read  more: FoxNews.com - Czech President Klaus: Global Warming Not Science, but a &#39;New Religion&#39;   

> *Czech President Klaus: Global Warming Not  Science, but a 'New Religion'* 
>  By Gene J. Koprowski
>  Published December 18, 2009
>  FoxNews.com
>     Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus 
>  As the Copenhagen climate conference drew to a close  Friday, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, long a global warming skeptic, had a  message for the world: do not dictate to humanity how to live based on an  "irrational ideology," which he sees as the product of political  correctness.
>  Global warming is a "new religion," not a science, he  said in an interview with FoxNews.com.
>  "I'm convinced that after years of studying the  phenomenon, global warming is not the real issue of temperature," said Klaus, an  economist by training. "That is the issue of a new ideology or a new religion. A  religion of climate change or a religion of global warming. This is a religion  which tells us that the people are responsible for the current, very small  increase in temperatures. And they should be punished." *Klaus, the second president of  the Czech Republic* since the fall of communism, is often called the  Margaret Thatcher of Central Europe. In the interview, he sounded more like  Winston Churchill, vowing to defend liberty and freedom from those who would  restrain global economic growth.
>  "I'm absolutely convinced that the very small global  warming we are experiencing is the result of natural causes," Klaus told  FoxNews.com. "It's a cyclical phenomenon in the history of the Earth. The role  of man is very small, almost negligible."
> ...

----------


## mark53

> I'm familiar with the saying. _Oh bonza. I thought you may have been just another global warming luddite_ 
> But, due perhaps to a lack of self confidence, you are distorting what you've quoted from that post.... _Always beware of the armchair psychologists for they project their own insecurities._ 
> I never said I was right.  _Go on!_ 
> I only suggested that you (and your mates) are sometimes quite amusing. _I aim to please._  
> Oh, and just a piece of advice, referring to the moderators of this forum as "a bunch of giggling climate change fanatical bozos" (as you appear to have done) might be considered a career limiting move.   *What career?* 
> My colleagues (who certainly aren't "a bunch of giggling climate change fanatical bozos", rather a bunch of mostly right leaning agricultural & emergency management realists) thought this part was especially hilarious and urge you to maintain the rage against no-one in particular. Hey, I'm only the messenger..

  *Oh, bloody name droppers, they're everywhere. But thanks for your CV. Your turn.*

----------


## Rod Dyson

Well we may get the carbon tax that we were told would not be introduced under a Gillard Government afterall. 
She will go down in history as the worst PM in history. I can't imaginge her getting another term after this. 
There are calls for protest against this tax.  I certainly hope so. 
This is such a grubby deal to hold onto power at all cost, it makes me sick.  Oh well the only positive that will come out of this, is that Labor will be out for many years to come.  Gillard confirms: she lied about about no carbon tax | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Rod Dyson

Really looks like that LIAR GILLARD has a lot of public support on this tax eh! 
Judging by this sample of comments this will sink lying .......   

> What I want to say about Gillard is unprintable but I am sure many will agree with what I am thinking.
> Comment 27 of 120  *kp* _Posted at 12:37 PM Today_ Egypt, Libya mmmmm, me thinks it is time to take to the streets. This is ridiculous !!!!Comment 28 of 120  *lewis of balmoral* _Posted at 12:38 PM Today_ Yeah another great idea from labor. it will only work if we levy it on all the coal and natural gas we export to china otherwise its better than useless. Comment 29 of 120  *Debs of Qld* _Posted at 12:40 PM Today_ This Government is going to send everyone into poverty before the next election - congratulations to all those who voted for Labor and the Greens in the last election, I hope you're feeling embarrassed right now at the mess you caused!Comment 30 of 120  *Frankie* _Posted at 12:41 PM Today_ Wait, she says that doing this will HELP people? In what way? It'll raise government worker salaries?Comment 31 of 120  *Ash of Melbourne* _Posted at 12:42 PM Today_ Why did anyone vote for Labor and the Greens with this on the horizon? I'm also assuming that all other countries are going to introduce a similar tax to play their part or is it just Australia shouldering the burden for the entire planet?Comment 32 of 120  *matt of Brisbane* _Posted at 12:43 PM Today_ @Annon: when the tax is on Polluting... thats how... say coal power is $100, solar power is $180... tax coal at 100%, then the company has to charge $200, but the $100 in tax goes to the families, so they can still get it, effectively, for $100 out of pocket... or... they could get solar power instead, and only be $80 out of pocket! of course, when everyone moves to solar, there is no one to tax, so there will be no rebates, and you will pay $180 out of pocket for power... except it will be cheaper, because everyone has invested R&D into it. ect... basically, yes, it will stop pollution, but make no mistake things WILL be more expensive in the long run. that's just the price you pay for still having trees in 50 years... though honestly, I'm fairly confident that in the long run, clean energy will be cheaper than dirty energy is today. certainly as we run out of fuel, it will be A LOT cheaper. It will hurt the wallet during the transition. It has to be done. now. its not just about saving trees... look at petrol prices and tell me you don't wish their was a viable mainstream alternative... Comment 33 of 120  *goldenboy of goldenland* _Posted at 12:44 PM Today_ This is the most dangerous and insidious tax in the history of this country. This will affect the price of everything you buy and do. This cannot be allowed to pass, as Australia cannot effect the climate or carbon pollution when we cause 0.1% of the world's pollution. We are on the road to the green economy, and look at the over 20% unemployment in Spain from them doing what we are trying to do. INDEPENDENTS DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!Comment 34 of 120  *Don't be stupid* _Posted at 12:44 PM Today_ Excuse me but we haven't even ascertained if carbon is the cause of climate change. Instead of taking more from our pockets how about the Government invests in green power, I'd buy an electric car if they were affordable & if you take more of my money they are going to become less affordable. If this goes ahead I will be rioting.Comment 35 of 120  *malcolm of Hobart* _Posted at 12:44 PM Today_ Time to wake-up, Australia. This tax, for that's what it is, will do absolutely nothing to address the imagined problem of AGW. Only the intellectually lazy and those who are easily scared will support this nonsense. Comment 36 of 120  *JaneB of Newcastle* _Posted at 1:12 PM Today_ Why the surprise? Now, be warned when voting independents. Labour have loaded the ballot box with labour independents like Oakshot and Windsor etc. Labour know they cannot win an election two party prefered. She even said it herself a great big tax will be Tony Abbotts response. Yep a great big TAX Comment 37 of 120  *Mike Elliott of Sydney* _Posted at 1:13 PM Today_ Carbon Dioxide is not pollution. The climate has always changed. The climate has begun and is set to cool for the next 30 years or so - due to known planetary and solar system cycles. There is no evidence that manmade Carbon Dioxide is contributing to climate change, there are only models, models can be made to produce any outcome. And for this reason models are not evidence. The proponents of a carbon tax - at $4000 pa per household - are acting politically only - they have no interest in science, rational thinking, or what is good for the nation or the planet. I am so cranky I'm on the verge of calling them criminals... but the really sad thing is they dont care, all they want is your money and with your money they gain more power and you in turn lose your capacity to defend your rights... sound familiar?Comment 38 of 120  *AMS of QLD* _Posted at 1:13 PM Today_ Not only is this going to have a severe impact on the cost of living, and the fact it will do nothing to halt so called "climate change", the fact also remains that any carbon producing industries (most) will simply move offshore! Think about it!! Why would any medium to large scale business continue to operate in AU when they can simply move offshore (to say, China) where they can pollute to their hearts content for free. Say goodbye to whatever remains of the Australian manufacturing industry plus others. Hello higher unemployment and reduction in our GDP. This is utter madness... utter madness. 
> Read more: Julia Gillard&#039;s carbon tax a betrayal, says Tony Abbott | News.com.au

----------


## mark53

*Prostitute.* 
3. Somebody who degrades talent for money (read power)
   --- Somebody who uses a skill or ability in a way that is considered unworthy- usually for financial gain. 
Does anything more need to be said of  Australia's socialist federal government and the "independents" that support it. 
.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I'm still trying to figure out what it is I should be scared about.....at least with respect to a carbon price. 
By my calculations, it might directly cost my mob an extra twenty cents per day in power [EDIT: No it won't as we already pay extra for accredited carbon neutral Green Power anyway]. A bit more for motor fuel (extra 9 cents per litre diesel for a $30 carbon price......so for me, 40 cents per day)....not much more for food since agriculture is embargoed or Oz manufactured goods since they'll almost certainly be compensated. 
In all.....I reckon I can afford a couple of bucks a week for a carbon price.....just have to forgo one or two double shot lattes each week.  
Certainly not much to be frightened of... 
The key question for Yours Truly is......what is our Government going to spend it on?

----------


## jago

I thought the thread would have been on fire since yesterday or has it killed the argument.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I thought the thread would have been on fire since yesterday or has it killed the argument.

  Just smouldering on like indignant compost....only really gets going when you give it a righteous poke. Or say something sensible. So it's pretty harmless and has been for quite some time.    
By the way.....what is this argument of which you speak?  :Sneaktongue:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

I don't necessarily think it is a bad policy idea *IF*: 
1. there is a global approach; and
2. the revenue raised is strictly legislated to be applied to its purpose (yeah right!) 
As to 1, there will never be a global approach. As to 2, ha - that'll be the day. I really wish it were otherwise but I trust the readers will understand, and most probably empathise, with my cynical perspective on this.  
World LEADERS? What a joke!

----------


## Oldsaltoz

Can anyone tell me who pays this tax, who collects this tax, and what will it be spent on?

----------


## olfella

> I don't necessarily think it is a bad policy idea *IF*: 
> 1. there is a global approach; and
> 2. the revenue raised is strictly legislated to be applied to its purpose (yeah right!) 
> As to 1, there will never be a global approach. As to 2, ha - that'll be the day. I really wish it were otherwise but I trust the readers will understand, and most probably empathise, with my cynical perspective on this.  
> World LEADERS? What a joke!

  What policy do you speak of?

----------


## olfella

This new tax Joolia is pushing is a not on.  All it is a grab for more cash to pay for all of labors spending since they have been in government.  If they were fair dinkum them they would just add a levy over and above the price that is set for export and not pass it onto the population.   
Any way, Joolia calls it a tax on carbon and the Greens say it is a Greenhouse Gas Tax... and I call it a grab for cash!

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> What policy do you speak of?

  Yeah - that's my point! 
No doubt the policy advisors, parliamentary draftspersons and the Minister are furiously scribing away.  
Let's wait and see what the outcome is however my previous contribution stands. The efficacy of the policy (when we see it) is shot unless there is an international approach that is tightly regulated. However, regulators are only as strong as the legislation allows!!! 
There should be a minimum quota, say 90% of surplus revenue associated with this tax, that is required by a legislative type mechanisms to be returned to renewable energy infrastructure etc..  
I commend the Government for doing something but the jury is out on whether this is the right way given all the micro and macro circumstances. Politically, wrong move Julia. Terrible advisors. Let's see if they do a better job at ensuring that the legislation and framework is watertight.

----------


## Ashore

> I'm still trying to figure out what it is I should be scared about.....at least with respect to a carbon price. 
> By my calculations, it might directly cost my mob an extra twenty cents per day in power [EDIT: No it won't as we already pay extra for accredited carbon neutral Green Power anyway]. A bit more for motor fuel (extra 9 cents per litre diesel for a $30 carbon price......so for me, 40 cents per day)....not much more for food since agriculture is embargoed or Oz manufactured goods since they'll almost certainly be compensated. 
> In all.....I reckon I can afford a couple of bucks a week for a carbon price.....just have to forgo one or two double shot lattes each week.  
> Certainly not much to be frightened of... 
> The key question for Yours Truly is......what is our Government going to spend it on?

  Where do you buy your food ? how is it delivered there by truck burning what, a fuel carbon taxed
The shop you get your food in does it have freezers , lighting,even paper in its cash registers, everything has to be made from raw materials or transported etc  using power or fuel that is to be carbon taxed
ETC ETC ETC ETC ,everything you buy will cost more, food , power , clothes, fuel, paper, whitegoods, , every item 
Nothing appears magically at your door , this is a huge tax on everything , being totally green is fine, but this tax will cost you far more than a couple of bucks a week and if you cant see that , or cant admit it ...........,then I have this realy great bridge for sale in Sydney that you would be intrestered in

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> I'm still trying to figure out what it is I should be scared about.....at least with respect to a carbon price. 
> By my calculations, it might directly cost my mob an extra twenty cents per day in power [EDIT: No it won't as we already pay extra for accredited carbon neutral Green Power anyway]. A bit more for motor fuel (extra 9 cents per litre diesel for a $30 carbon price......so for me, 40 cents per day)....not much more for food since agriculture is embargoed or Oz manufactured goods since they'll almost certainly be compensated. 
> In all.....I reckon I can afford a couple of bucks a week for a carbon price.....just have to forgo one or two double shot lattes each week.  
> Certainly not much to be frightened of... 
> The key question for Yours Truly is......what is our Government going to spend it on?

  Luv the avatar, who gets the GST component of all this and what do they do with it?

----------


## intertd6

It cost us 40 billion to get rid of a heavily eyebrowed idiot, which was in reality good money spent. But honestly I thought we would get a reasonable amount of time before the other clowns had to go. There is so much room for middle of the road political party, I'm wondering why it hasn't happened.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I don't necessarily think it is a bad policy idea *IF*: 
> 1. there is a global approach; and
> 2. the revenue raised is strictly legislated to be applied to its purpose (yeah right!) 
> As to 1, there will never be a global approach. As to 2, ha - that'll be the day. I really wish it were otherwise but I trust the readers will understand, and most probably empathise, with my cynical perspective on this.  
> World LEADERS? What a joke!

  Some very big if's

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I commend the Government for doing something but the jury is out on whether this is the right way given all the micro and macro circumstances. Politically, wrong move Julia. Terrible advisors. Let's see if they do a better job at ensuring that the legislation and framework is watertight.

  You have got to be joking!!! 
What have they got right yet??

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Where do you buy your food ? how is it delivered there by truck burning what, a fuel carbon taxed
> The shop you get your food in does it have freezers , lighting,even paper in its cash registers, everything has to be made from raw materials or transported etc using power or fuel that is to be carbon taxed
> ETC ETC ETC ETC ,everything you buy will cost more, food , power , clothes, fuel, paper, whitegoods, , every item 
> Nothing appears magically at your door , this is a huge tax on everything , being totally green is fine, but this tax will cost you far more than a couple of bucks a week and if you cant see that , or cant admit it ...........,then I have this realy great bridge for sale in Sydney that you would be intrestered in

  Yep. 
BTW this LIAR tells us that most of the money generated will go back to lower income families to off set the extra costs. Now what does this tell you? 
This is only a re-distribution of wealth with, zilch none effect on CO2. Which if by any chance does drop at all will increase anyway just because of population growth. 
The wealthier people won't give a stuff and will continue using whatever power, fuel etc they want. The middle income people will still use power and fuel they want as well, but they will have less money to spend on discretionary spending. 
Now who is that likely to hurt? yeah you guessed it the low income earners in retail, coffee shops etc. 
Name one good thing that this useless tax introduced by a lying ...... will achieve. Just one thing will do.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Anyone who thinks this thread is going to die off is horribly wrong, 
There will be post here showing what a scam this whole AGW affair is untill it is DEAD AND BURIED. 
Just because our resident warmist have given up the battle does not mean for a second that we have.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Just by the way the 23rd of March has been flagged as a protest day against way the chief LIAR has bull....ted the voters of this country. 
If she thinks the people want this useless TAX. let her call an election on the issue. 
Her actions on this major issue has treated the Australian voters with utter contempt and dragged the government down to new lows.

----------


## Rod Dyson

What does this tell you.   

> Voters don’t like being lied to, which seems to be something Julia Gillard overlooked:  _PUNTERS have written off Julia Gillard in favour of former union boss Bill Shorten__ and backed the coalition to win the next federal election._  _A day after the prime minister unveiled a plan to introduce a carbon tax from mid-2012, followed by an emissions trading scheme three to five years later, the coalition has firmed from $2.20 to $1.67 favouritism to win the 2013 poll, Sportsbet says._  _Labor are now $2.20 outsiders to win the election, out from $1.65 when the market opened in September last year._  _Haydn Lane, from sportsbet.com.au, said punters were also backing away from Ms Gillard to lead Labor to the next election._  _The prime minister has eased from $1.72 out to $2.50, while Labor powerbroker and minister Bill Shorten has firmed from $3 into a $2 favourite_

   
Link Punters ditch Gillard in favour of Shorten | The Australian

----------


## Rod Dyson

Listen to the Prime LIAR here.  Julia Gillard on the carbon tax - Sydney Talkback Radio 2GB 873AM - 2GB.com - News, Talk, Sport, Entertainment 
and listen to the Prime LIAR here  Julia Gillard's Carbon Tax

----------


## Dr Freud

> Name one good thing that this useless tax introduced by a lying ...... will achieve. Just one thing will do.

  They never could. 
They can't now. 
They never will. 
But they still "believe".  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm still trying to figure out what it is I should be scared about.....at least with respect to a carbon price.

  What is it with the fear, you don't need to be scared, you need to be thoughtful. 
Think about a bloke working two jobs so his wife can stay at home as a full time carer for their disabled child.  He is raking in $110k a year, but after medical expenses and power bills for home based equipment, he doesn't have much cash left at the end of the month for latte's.  Fuel bills are high driving between jobs and home.  Feels guilty for missing time from home, but balances that against bringing home the bacon.  Recently, his power bills have been rising, fuel is rising, the middle east situation is unsettling him as fuel will go higher, and inflation is set to rise with the boom.  He is qualified enough to go to the mines and earn more, but couldn't live with the guilt being away from home for so long. 
He's wondering if he'll get any compensation when all his bills start going up unnecessarily?  I don't think he will.  :No:  
I'll recommend he puts the kid in a government home, then his wife can work and he'll be buying latte's again before he knows it.  :Biggrin:  
But you don't need to be scared, just drop the latte' hey. 
And can we please now start calling it what it is: The Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
Carbon is atomic number 6 and has an atomic weight of 12.011.  _(Latin. carbo: charcoal) Carbon, an element of prehistoric discovery, is very widely distributed in nature. It is found in abundance in the sun, stars, comets, and atmospheres of most planets. Carbon in the form of microscopic diamonds is found in some meteorites.  Carbon is found free in nature in three allotropic forms:  graphite, diamond, and fullerines. A fourth form, known as "white" carbon, is now thought to exist. Ceraphite is one of the softest known materials while diamond is one of the hardest._   Carbon 
See, you'd have to be an idiot to pay a price for something that is found freely abundant in nature, so it's stupid to keep calling it a "Carbon price".  :Biggrin:  
So let's accurately call it the Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
And let's pay tax for fresh air.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Ashore

> And let's pay tax for fresh air.

  For god's sake don'ty give them any new ideas  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I don't necessarily think it is a bad policy idea *IF*: 
> 1. there is a global approach; and
> 2. the revenue raised is strictly legislated to be applied to its purpose (yeah right!) 
> As to 1, there will never be a global approach. As to 2, ha - that'll be the day. I really wish it were otherwise but I trust the readers will understand, and most probably empathise, with my cynical perspective on this.  
> World LEADERS? What a joke!

  There is no global approach and never will be. 
Consolidated Revenue Funds are just a big bucket of our money that the government of the day can spend however they want. 
Your premise is false and this dog's breakfast once designed will either fail in the parliament or cripple our economy. 
There is no silver lining my friend.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Can anyone tell me who pays this tax,

  Same old mugs, those with a work ethic who run their own business or study and work hard to achieve something with their life, try not to sponge off the government if they don't need to, and sometimes even when they do need a hand up, they just bite their lip and get on with the job.  :2thumbsup:     

> who collects this tax,

  The administrative burden will be paced on business and industry, that will increase their overheads and lead to even higher price rises and inflation.  There will be massive financial penalties for non-compliant businesses.  It will obviously flow very quickly into CRF after collection for spending as per below.   

> and what will it be spent on?

  Buying the votes of the usual bludgers who spent their $900 cheques stimulating China's economy by buying big screen TV's.  Any left over cash will hopefully pay down some of our billions in debt, but I'm pretty sure seeing as Bob Brown is now calling the shots, it will be spent on useless windmills and their infrastructure that still need fossil fuel generated energy to run.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Oldsaltoz

The GST windfall alone would be enough to rebuild the flood damaged areas, but I doubt they will see a cent, government coffers will swallow it all up never to be seen agian. 
Jul liar you are a disgrace and should be removed from office along with your so called advisors.

----------


## Dr Freud

> If they were fair dinkum them they would just add a levy over and above the price that is set for export and not pass it onto the population.

  See, that's one of the funniest parts.   
Our new Mining Tax relies on us increasing our exports of coal, gas, iron ore etc in ever increasing volumes, to massively drive up carbon dioxide emissions globally.  *All* of this will be *carbon dioxide tax free*. 
And for the tiny amount we use domestically, we will be taxed heavily, while our industries compete with those overseas burning this stuff for much less. 
I wonder if this looks good for the Planet Earth and good for the Australian domestic economy?  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

Juliar.  The real name for the real Juliar.  I like it.  :Biggrin:  
But not many like her any more based on the record backlash in talkbacks, polls and blog comments.  The mood was far from pro-labor out here in the west before this.  They are only left with 3 out of the 14 seats.  Could be down to zero over here at the next election based on the mood on the streets today.  :Mad:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I commend the Government for doing something but the jury is out on whether this is the right way given all the micro and macro circumstances. Politically, wrong move Julia. Terrible advisors. Let's see if they do a better job at ensuring that the legislation and framework is watertight.

  You may not like to hear this now, but you will respect it over time. 
The jury is in. 
This is a farce. 
It will do zero environmental good.   
It will damage our economy, that is the point of the whole idiotic sham in the first place. 
A small amount of research on your part will validate the information above. 
That's the sugar coated version.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Where do you buy your food ? how is it delivered there by truck burning what, a fuel carbon taxed
> The shop you get your food in does it have freezers , lighting,even paper in its cash registers, everything has to be made from raw materials or transported etc  using power or fuel that is to be carbon taxed
> ETC ETC ETC ETC ,everything you buy will cost more, food , power , clothes, fuel, paper, whitegoods, , every item 
> Nothing appears magically at your door , this is a huge tax on everything , being totally green is fine, but this tax will cost you far more than a couple of bucks a week and if you cant see that , or cant admit it ...........,then I have this realy great bridge for sale in Sydney that you would be intrestered in

   :2thumbsup:  
It's great to see at least a few of us have put some thought into this debacle. 
It would be nice to live in the dreamland where not buying a latte' will save the Planet Earth.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jncV6gRtIvw&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Julia Gillard's no carbon tax promise[/ame]   

> Remember that promise, just six months ago? 
>    Ill be on MTR 1377 from 8am (listen here) to discuss the most cynical and brazen breaking of an election commitment in my memory.  Join us as we talk to scientists, politicians and an economics guru on the carbon tax Gillard promised never to inflict. 
>   Postings will be light today. A surgeon calls, and Im hoping hes not an_ Age_ reader. 
>   UPDATE 
>  The Evil Right reminds us that Julia Gillard did not simply misspeak when she promised days before the election not to introduce a carbon tax. It was a promise she made several times - and by Treasurer Wayne Swan as well:  12 August 2010 - Swan on the ABC:  _Treasurer Wayne Swan has promised a re-elected Labor government will not put a tax on carbon during its next term of office._  _Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey pressed Mr Swan on the issue on Thursday, demanding to know whether Australia would be hit with a carbon tax in the next three years under Labor._  _We have made our position very clear, we have ruled it out, the treasurer told ABC Television__18 August 2010 - Swan on Meet The Press: _  _What we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax.__16 August 2010 - Gillard on Channel 10: _  _There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.__20 August 2010 - Gillard in The Australian. _  _ I rule out a carbon tax.__ Tips for Friday, February 25 | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  Sounds pretty clear. 
But is this what you actually heard:   

> *Today, Ms Gillard repeated her new mantra that pricing carbon is the right thing to do, and I said that during the election campaign.*  Tips for Friday, February 25 | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Liar Vs Idiot?  You don't have to decide any more, it's both.  :Biggrin:  
The question now is are you happy being treated like an idiot?  :Wink 1:

----------


## woodbe

> Just because our resident warmist have given up the battle does not mean for a second that we have.

  I'd just like to let it be known that I haven't given up the battle, just taken it elsewhere. 
I stopped posting here because you guys were doing such a good job on yourselves. I really couldn't do any better. 
Sometimes you have to know when to hold em. 
On top of that, it has become more and more apparent that this has become a party political thread, and I have no interest in debating politics or reading sequential re-posts of Andrew Bolt's 'blog'. 
Thanks anyway, its been fun! 
woodbe.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> You may not like to hear this now, but you will respect it over time. 
> The jury is in. 
> This is a farce. 
> It will do zero environmental good.   
> It will damage our economy, that is the point of the whole idiotic sham in the first place. 
> A small amount of research on your part will validate the information above. 
> That's the sugar coated version.

  Mate, I would consider a Law and Political Science degree ample research! 
Just because I am Switzerland, at least until some educated people prepare a Legislative Impact Statement does not mean I am for or against yet. I would appreciate it if you would read the whole post in context of the words and not pluck out one sentence and roll with it... Sort of like the liberals have done with the Carbon Tax issue.  
Sure, everyone would love to not have to pay more tax but until such time, let's be a little pragmatic here ey?! 
HOR has the numbers and it may, may, may also JUST squeeze through Senate.  
We shouldn't be justifying our independent stance on the 'yes' and 'no' votes. A more intelligible discussion should first centre around the 'why' and the 'how'. The 'yes' and the 'no' follows from the 'why' and the 'how'.  
Cheers.

----------


## chrisp

> Anyone who thinks this thread is going to die off is horribly wrong, 
> There will be post here showing what a scam this whole AGW affair is untill it is DEAD AND BURIED. 
> Just because our resident warmist have given up the battle does not mean for a second that we have.

  Rod, 
Your stance reminds me of the Monty Python Black Knight...The *Black Knight* is a fictional character who appears in a scene of the film _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_. As his name suggests, he is a black knight  who guards a "bridge" (in reality a short plank of wood) over a small  stream, for unknown reasons. Although supremely skilled in swordplay, he suffers from unchecked overconfidence and a staunch refusal ever to give up. 
Quote from: Black Knight (Monty Python) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690"]YouTube - Black Knight[/ame]  
To me, you seem to be fighting the inevitable - a price on carbon is inevitable. 
Placing a price/tax/cost on undesirable/unwanted/outdated technologies/products/behaviours is the way society changes.  *I'll let you (and the Doc, of course) get back to guarding your "bridge".*    :Smilie:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

I reckon Julia Gillard smashes Alan Jones in the radio interview.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'd just like to let it be known that I haven't given up the battle, just taken it elsewhere. 
> woodbe.

  A spirited tactical retreat no doubt. Cover those flanks.  :Biggrin:    

> I stopped posting here because you guys were doing such a good job on yourselves. I really couldn't do any better. 
> woodbe.

  Thanks mate, flattery will get you everywhere.   

> On top of that, it has become more and more apparent that this has become a party political thread, and I have no interest in debating politics or reading sequential re-posts of Andrew Bolt's 'blog'. 
> woodbe.

  We've already covered the fact before that this "alleged" environmental issue will require a political solution.  Did you miss the posts above where some politicians announced a direction for some policies, other politicians have opposed these policy directions.  International politics also *must* be involved for any effective action, unlike the window dressing above.  If you have no interest in debating politics, you will have to stick to the first part and navel gaze about the environmental catastrophe and the end of the world.   
And you don't have to read anything you don't want to champ, many soldiers died to earn you that right. Just scroll down the page.  :Wink 1:    

> Thanks anyway, its been fun! 
> woodbe.

  It still is, and the best is yet to come.  Hang around while we watch our economy tank and middle class become like the USA's working poor.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

Interesting comments in the Garnaut Review - Final Report: 
"...[T]he possibility that the incentives provided by a substantial and rising carbon price, and public fiscal support for investment in innovation, could lead to large reductions in the cost of structural transformation. In the nature of things, we will only learn by doing. It is important to start taking the measures we need to take within carefully designed institutional frameworks." 
And then, there is the Abstract from Dr Spash, CSIRO publication (Oh, the intrusion of politics suppressing this paper): 
"Human induced climate change has become a prominent political issue, at both national and international levels, leading to the search for regulatory solutions. Emission trading has risen in popularity to become the most broadly favoured government strategy. Carbon permits have then quickly been developed as a serious financial instrument in markets turning over billions of dollars a year. In this paper, I show how the reality of permit market operation is far removed from the assumptions of economic theory and the promise of saving resources by efficiently allocating emission reductions. The pervasiveness of Greenhouse Gas emissions, strong uncertainty and complexity combine to prevent economists from substantiating their theoretical claims of cost effectiveness. Corporate power is shown to be a major force affecting emissions market operation and design. The potential for manipulation to achieve financial gain, while showing little regard for environmental or social consequences, is evident as markets have extended internationally and via trading offsets. At the individual level, there is the potential for emissions trading to have undesirable ethical and psychological impacts and to crowd out voluntary actions. I conclude that the focus on such markets is creating a distraction from the need for changing human behaviour, institutions and infrastructure."

----------


## Dr Freud

> Mate, I would consider a Law and Political Science degree ample research! 
> Cheers.

  A person with a Law and Political Science degree would.  :Innocent:  
But seriously, I admire all people who engage in continual education, so kudos for your efforts so far.  But ample research in this area will not be achieved in our lifetimes.  If you believe what you see on TV about the simplistic "reduce carbon dioxide emissions and save the Planet" story, then you certainly do need to do more research. 
If you think a tax in Australia (whatever the policy structure) is going to do anything towards saving the Planet from unstoppable warming, then you need to do some post-grad studies at the school of hard knocks.  Plenty of Aussies will be studying here if this debacle is introduced.    

> Just because I am Switzerland, at least until some educated people prepare a Legislative Impact Statement does not mean I am for or against yet. I would appreciate it if you would read the whole post in context of the words and not pluck out one sentence and roll with it... Sort of like the liberals have done with the Carbon Tax issue.  
> Cheers.

  Dude, how do you get through university and not know the difference between Carbon and Carbon Dioxide?  :Doh:   
Oops, sorry, plucking again.  But we can go through your earlier post in context shortly.    

> HOR has the numbers and it may, may, may also JUST squeeze through Senate.  
> Cheers.

  You may have to get a refund dude, even us tradies know the Senate is about to change.   

> We shouldn't be justifying our independent stance on the 'yes' and 'no' votes. A more intelligible discussion should first centre around the 'why' and the 'how'. The 'yes' and the 'no' follows from the 'why' and the 'how'.  
> Cheers.

  There is no "why", which renders the "how" redundant?  No electives in philosophy by any chance? 
But let's go through in "context".    

> No doubt the policy advisors, parliamentary draftspersons and the Minister are furiously scribing away.

  This is the "how", that's the redundant part.   

> Let's wait and see what the outcome is however my previous contribution stands. The efficacy of the policy (when we see it) is shot unless there is an international approach that is tightly regulated. However, regulators are only as strong as the legislation allows!!!

  There is no international approach, therefore it is not regulated at all, tightly or otherwise.  This is a fact.  If you want to live in dreamland that's fine, but let's pretend China, India, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran etc etc are all going to be singing Kumbaya around a low emission candle. 
There are no global regulators, there are no global regulations.  The alleged problem is global warming.  Notice the word "global", surely they cover this concept at university.    

> There should be a minimum quota, say 90% of surplus revenue associated with this tax, that is required by a legislative type mechanisms to be returned to renewable energy infrastructure etc..

  See comments above from some tradies about CRF and the government of the day.   

> I commend the Government for doing something but the jury is out on whether this is the right way given all the micro and macro circumstances. Politically, wrong move Julia. Terrible advisors. Let's see if they do a better job at ensuring that the legislation and framework is watertight.

  So you commend them for "doing something", even if it makes the alleged problem worse, plus creates new problems.  Is it just the symbolism that you're happy with? 
And you need to understand that the jury is in.  This will not achieve its objective.  That is categorical and no one argues otherwise. 
And as for terrible advisors?  You definitely need to get a refund dude.  Did Menzies, Howard, Hawke or Keating hide behind their floozies.  Where does the buck stop again?  If you haven't read the thread, I always recommend this a good background to our ramblings as it saves covering the same arguments again. 
I hope that was enough context.   :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> Your stance reminds me of the Monty Python Black Knight... The *Black Knight* is a fictional character who appears in a scene of the film _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_. As his name suggests, he is a black knight who guards a "bridge" (in reality a short plank of wood) over a small stream, for unknown reasons. Although supremely skilled in swordplay, he suffers from unchecked overconfidence and a staunch refusal ever to give up. 
> Quote from: Black Knight (Monty Python) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaYouTube - Black Knight  
> To me, you seem to be fighting the inevitable - a price on carbon is inevitable. 
> Placing a price/tax/cost on undesirable/unwanted/outdated technologies/products/behaviours is the way society changes.  *I'll let you (and the Doc, of course) get back to guarding your "bridge".*

    Nice to see  you and woodbe are still tracking this thread  :Smilie:  
You are very much mistaken if you think this is all done and dusted.

----------


## Dr Freud

It is generally good form to add some links to your posts so people who are interested in the topic can read more about it, just to get the context I guess:   

> I would appreciate it if you would read the whole post in context of the words and not pluck out one sentence and roll with it...  
> Cheers.

  I think at university they call this "referencing"?  :Wink:  
Kinda woulda looked like this:    

> Interesting comments in the Garnaut Review - Final Report: 
> "...[T]he possibility that the incentives provided by a substantial and rising carbon price, and public fiscal support for investment in innovation, could lead to large reductions in the cost of structural transformation. In the nature of things, we will only learn by doing. It is important to start taking the measures we need to take within carefully designed institutional frameworks."  The Garnaut Climate Change Review 
> And then, there is the Abstract from Dr Spash, CSIRO publication (Oh, the intrusion of politics suppressing this paper): 
> "Human induced climate change has become a prominent political issue, at both national and international levels, leading to the search for regulatory solutions. Emission trading has risen in popularity to become the most broadly favoured government strategy. Carbon permits have then quickly been developed as a serious financial instrument in markets turning over billions of dollars a year. In this paper, I show how the reality of permit market operation is far removed from the assumptions of economic theory and the promise of saving resources by efficiently allocating emission reductions. The pervasiveness of Greenhouse Gas emissions, strong uncertainty and complexity combine to prevent economists from substantiating their theoretical claims of cost effectiveness. Corporate power is shown to be a major force affecting emissions market operation and design. The potential for manipulation to achieve financial gain, while showing little regard for environmental or social consequences, is evident as markets have extended internationally and via trading offsets. At the individual level, there is the potential for emissions trading to have undesirable ethical and psychological impacts and to crowd out voluntary actions. I conclude that the focus on such markets is creating a distraction from the need for changing human behaviour, institutions and infrastructure."  EconPapers: The Brave New World of Carbon Trading

  This helps the uneducated masses have a fighting chance in this game.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> It is generally good form to add some links to your posts so people who are interested in the topic can read more about it, just to get the context I guess:   
> I think at university they call this "referencing"?  
> Kinda woulda looked like this:    
> This helps the uneducated masses have a fighting chance in this game.

  Gees, someone's emotive. 
Mate, I respect that you reserve the right to your opinion and likewise, I. 
My point is I am still determining the balance of issues. They are complex issues and as you rightly assert, have quite serious ramifications.  
I don't think there is a place for ivory towers, just yet!  
Thanks for referencing for me - I should have done it. While your there you should have a read. Good and balanced perspectives.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Can someone explain the purpose of this useless tax again? 
Here is a quote by our lame duck "Swan"   

> Mr Swan said "every single dollar'' raised under the tax would be returned to assist individuals, households and business who will be impacted.  
> Read more: Wayne Swan refuses to rule out petrol tax in proposed carbon tax | News.com.au

----------


## Dr Freud

> a staunch refusal ever to give up.

  Thanks!  :2thumbsup:    

> To me, you seem to be fighting the inevitable - a price on carbon is inevitable.

  I've fought this fight before:  *Kim Jong Il*: Now you see, the changing of the worrd is inevitabre!   *Lisa*: I'm sorry, it's what?   *Kim Jong Il*: Inevit, inevitabre.   *Lisa*: One more time.   *Kim Jong Il*: [_shouts_] Inevitabre! Things are inevitabrey going to change! Goddamnit, open your f-cking ears!   Team America: World Police (2004) - Memorable quotes   

> Placing a price/tax/cost on undesirable/unwanted/outdated technologies/products/behaviours is the way society changes.

  *Australian* society is going to change alright!  Would you care to extrapolate?   

> Nice to see  you and woodbe are still tracking this thread  
> You are very much mistaken if you think this is all done and dusted.

  Man the ramparts champ.  The rest of the world has given up on this joke.  Downside for us is the greenie muppets in Oz have control of Juliar.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Can someone explain the purpose of this useless tax again? 
> Here is a quote by our lame duck "Swan" 
> [/COLOR]
> [/LEFT]

  I like that... "lame duck". 
Trouble is, even they don't know how they will roll out this policy yet. It's all speculative and if they had any brains they wouldn't go round committing themselves like that. It is just political suicide.  
One of the key features is that it is a "bridging" process toward the ETS. The very committee (MPCCC) set up to investigate these issues and accordingly deliver policy recommendations have not even finalised the research yet.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Gees, someone's emotive.

  Yeh, I get that way when people try to sell out my country for the "greater greenie good", while the rest of the world benefits from our misery. 
Unfortunately it's what comes with being an uncompromising patriot.    

> Thanks for referencing for me - I should have done it. While your there you should have a read. *Good and balanced perspectives.*

   :Biggrin:  
See, I admire that kind of humour. Hopefully you will continue to amuse us all.  Just don't get all grumpy like the others and run away when you realise your premise is flawed.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Yeh, I get that way when people try to sell out my country for the "greater greenie good", while the rest of the world benefits from our misery. 
> Unfortunately it's what comes with being an uncompromising patriot.      
> See, I admire that kind of humour. Hopefully you will continue to amuse us all.  Just don't get all grumpy like the others and run away when you realise your premise is flawed.

  When I form a opinion I'll let ya know - then a proper discussion can be had.  
Cheers.

----------


## Dr Freud

It would no doubt bring cheer to you that you are better informed in this area than the governments primary advisor on this debacle:   

> And then, there is the Abstract from Dr Spash, CSIRO publication (Oh, the intrusion of politics suppressing this paper):

  Good ole Flim Flammery knows none of this:  

> BARNABY JOYCE: Well, (indistinct) because I see what happened to people like Clive Spash at the CSIRO and how he was bundled out because he dared to differ. He dared to stand up and say, "I disagree." You know, I see what's happened to other people who have basically been ridiculed and persecuted so I think it's only fair that at times I stand up for the other side. 
> TONY JONES: Let me hear from - sorry, go ahead. You can respond to that. 
> TIM FLANNERY: No, look, I just know nothing about those particular cases but... 
> BARNABY JOYCE: You don't know about Clive Spash from the CSIRO? 
> TIM FLANNERY: No, I don't know about his bundling out or anything... 
> BARNABY JOYCE: You don't know about - well then (indistinct).  Q and A goes to Brisbane | Q&A | ABC TV

  He must not have access to Google, poor ole Flim Flam...   

> *SCIENTIST Clive Spash has resigned from the CSIRO and called for a Senate inquiry into the science body following the censorship of his controversial report into emissions trading.                 *                                Dr Spash has lashed out at the organisation which he said promoted self-censorship among its scientists with its unfair publication guidelines.
> He said he was stunned at the treatment he received at the hands of CSIRO management, including boss Megan Clark, and believed he was not alone.  Clive Spash resigns from CSIRO after climate report 'censorship' | News.com.au

    

> Dr Clive Spash left the CSIRO late last year as a result of the controversy surrounding the
> publication of this paper. In last months Senate estimates hearing, Science Minister Kim Carr
> quoted selectively from a referees report criticising Dr Spashs early draft of the paper.
> The referees report referred to an early draft of the paper prepared by Dr Spash which was
> subsequently rewritten  which is the whole point of peer review and part of the scientific process
> to ensure the integrity of the paper, Mrs Mirabella said.
> It was the peer reviewed paper that was accepted for publication by an international journal that
> was later banned by CSIRO managers.
> This is a clear violation of the peer review process.
> ...

  Flim Flam is the governments leading advisor on this, and knows none of this! 
Awesome huh, $180,000 of our taxes paying this ignorant "expert".  :Doh:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

Yeah I watched that episode on Q&A. It was last week I think.  
I was a little astounded to say the least.

----------


## Dr Freud

This guy is so scientifically illiterate, it defies belief!  And Juliar appointed him as her lead advisor on this issue.  Remember people, his claim is global warming, not local weather, and here's his "scientific" evidence:   

> TIM FLANNERY: *the last three months of last year, we saw sea surface temperatures across northern Australian and western Australia that broke all records*   Q and A goes to Brisbane | Q&A | ABC TV

  Three months of data quoted on one spot on the Planet to "prove" his case.  :Doh:  
Here's some global data:      

> TIM FLANNERY:  *Not surprisingly we saw rainfall across eastern Australia. It's telling us we're outside the historic envelope of occurrences.*   Q and A goes to Brisbane | Q&A | ABC TV

  First he said it would never rain again, now he's claiming this rain is unprecedented, and still not using "global" data, but a single weather event at a single time.  :Doh:  
Here's one picture proving both his premises wrong:      

> TIM FLANNERY:   *We can link individual weather events to the greenhouse gases.*   Q and A goes to Brisbane | Q&A | ABC TV

  This just fills me with a sense of dread that words cannot explain.  Remember, this man is being paid by your taxpayer dollars to advise Juliar how to massively increase your taxes based on this farce that he doesn't even understand.  :Doh:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

Although, we must say that he (Flannery) probably knows more than you and I and clearly, more than Barnyard Joyce (accountant having a hack at politics).

----------


## Dr Freud

> Although, we must say that he (Flannery) probably knows more than you and I...

  I will correct you as far as my knowledge compares to Flim Flam's, but feel free to rejoice in your own ignorance.  :Biggrin:  
Unfortunately the downside of contemporary university teaching is the indoctrination of the weak minded to blindly genuflect to authority figures. 
You were probably taught that the "Professors" were all powerful and all knowing and weren't to be questioned as they were "published or publishing". 
Open your mind first my friend, then open your eyes to the world around you.  Read this thread and you will quickly link to many examples that will show you that Flim Flam has no credibility on this issue.  He is a tool used by corporations and this government as a convenient mouthpiece.  He doesn't even realise he's being manipulated. 
He certainly knows nothing of the science as he evinced above. 
I have already demonstrated an instance where you do know more than him, and you said you were "astounded" at his ignorance.  If you still consider him more knowledgeable than you, then how would you describe your own ignorance?  :Confused:  
Read the thread.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> When I form a opinion I'll let ya know - then a proper discussion can be had.  
> Cheers.

  I assume you don't mean just any opinion since birth.  :Biggrin:  
I assume that you are referring to any effective political solution that may mitigate the alleged AGW hypothesis?  By proxy, you would then already subscribe to the "belief system" surrounding the AGW hypothesis. 
Or do you mean that you still have not yet formed an opinion on whether the AGW hypothesis has been scientifically proven? 
Just curious as to how far down the rabbit hole you are? (Not Mr Rabbit's  :Shock:  :Biggrin: )

----------


## Dr Freud

> Can someone explain the purpose of this useless tax again? 
> Here is a quote by our lame duck "Swan" 
> Quote: Mr Swan said "every single dollar'' raised under the tax would be returned to assist individuals, households and business who will be impacted.  
> Read more: Wayne Swan refuses to rule out petrol tax in proposed carbon tax | News.com.au 
> [/color]
> [/left]

  So whose gonna pay for all the windmills?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The very committee (MPCCC) set up to investigate these issues and accordingly deliver policy recommendations have not even finalised the research yet.

  Your innocence is both charming and refreshing. 
You've gotta be the only bloke here that doesn't know what the MPCCC is going to recommend. 
Here's a hint, it's not going to be in line with Abbot's "direct action plan".  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Whether you like him or not, he admits his mistakes:   

> Dear Kevin, 
>   You know how I claimed you were the worst prime minister since the war?  
>   You werent. 
>   In fact, knowing what came after, I should have stuck with you. 
>   Sorry about that. 
>   Oh, and remember my gush when Gillard got your job? Yeah, sorry about that, too.     Er, maybe Kevin wasn’t so bad, after all | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  I'm still happy I ordered I the Code Rudd!  
Juliar is next.  :Ninja Smile:

----------


## Dr Freud

If you want to send a message to Juliar, enter your name on this petition to refute this ineffective and destructive tax:  - Stop Gillard's Carbon Tax 
You were blatantly lied to. 
You were treated like an idiot. 
Send a message to these greenie lunatics!  :2thumbsup:  
Or call her direct to complain: *
Juliar Gillard 02 6277 7700*

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Your innocence is both charming and refreshing. 
> You've gotta be the only bloke here that doesn't know what the MPCCC is going to recommend. 
> Here's a hint, it's not going to be in line with Abbot's "direct action plan".

  Stop the tory pontification.  :Biggrin:  
Your arrogance and single mindedness is somewhat abhorrent. Apologies for the direct language. I think you can take it! 
I am purely trying to wade through the plethora of supported recommendations to make an informed decision on the issue of Taxation. I don't know whether you have taken the opportunity to inform yourself as to the current landscape of the Australian taxation legislation?  
If not, start reading and you should finish by the time 2014 comes around.    
Whilst your attempts to dismiss any opinion that is not right-ism is strongly admired, it is above all else, a demonstration of an inward and rigid focussed perspective.

----------


## Dr Freud

Congratulations, the greatest financial change in our nations history is being driven by a bunch of greenie ideologues:  

> As Ms Gillard tried to take control of the debate, Senator Milne said the climate change committee behind the carbon plan had been the Greens idea and the party had ownership of the scheme "because it's the one we put on the table ourselves".

  Is it any wonder it's gonna end in financial, social and structural chaos for this once great country:   

> But new figures released by the Department of Climate Change yesterday showed Australia's biggest energy companies would be put out of business if they had to pay the world price for carbon emissions under a carbon tax without compensation.
> The giant NSW power company Macquarie Generation, Australia's biggest emitter, would face a bill of $613 million if it had to pay the $26 a tonne the Rudd government's emissions trading scheme was based on. The tax bill would be more than three times the company's latest profit of $196m, while the second ranked Delta Electricity would face a bill of $538m or almost 10 times its last full-year profit.
> Compensation for the most energy-intensive companies will be one of the most contentious issues in the negotiations with the Greens.
> Ms Gillard was forced to defend her decision to proceed with a carbon price after her election-eve declaration: "I rule out a carbon tax."  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226012289558

  What a joke!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

Can we please stop sourcing from Andrew Bolt and from the Australian. There is no intermediate reflection or perspective in either.  *EDITED POST.*

----------


## Dr Freud

> Stop the tory pontification.

  That's how I do my best work.   

> Your arrogance and single mindedness is somewhat abhorrent. Apologies for the direct language. I think you can take it!

  Yeh, when you read the thread, you'll be shocked at the name calling from those intellectual types against us realists.  We can take it. Be much more effective though if you intellectual types actually showed evidence supporting your argument.  Name calling is just taking cheap shots, that why I do it.  :Biggrin:    

> I am purely trying to wade through the plethora of supported recommendations to make an informed decision on the issue of Taxation. I don't know whether you have taken the opportunity to inform yourself as to the current landscape of the Australian taxation legislation?

  I wouldn't consider myself a tax expert, but I know more than a lot of accountants I have met.  These guys study this stuff at university apparently.  Half of them couldn't even discuss why a discretionary trust is better than a unit trust for me, and some of them actually tried to talk me out of using a corporate trustee structure, because they "couldn't see the point".  I use it to look after my own interests.  But in all my reading of the tax legislation, I've never read anywhere how it cools down the Planet Earth.  I'd be happy to look this bit up if you provide the relevant section?   

> Whilst your attempts to dismiss any opinion that is not right-ism is strongly admired, it is above all else, a demonstration of an inward and rigid focussed perspective.

  Better to be right than wrong, hey? 
But this not about right and left politics, it is about scientific causation and effective scientific mitigation.  This will then be implemented by effective political action. 
I can guarantee you that none of this has happened, or will happen, hence my position is rigid, but correct. 
This may help inform your decision - a tax in Australia will not cool down the Planet Earth, regardless of the form of that tax.  You don't need to wade through any BS to figure that part out. 
And I can happily dismiss your opinion as you can mine, this argument is also well documented here.  If you represent your opinion or other opinions as fact, I will point this out.  And I will not be happy to pay tax because of these opinions.  If you want to pay more tax, go right ahead, I won't stop you.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

Mate, no cheap shot - just my (perhaps inappropriate) sense of humour. My apologies if I offended you.  
I do have to go now and do a hell of a lot of work.  
I will respond to you in full. Won't be back until second week in March.  
Take care all, speak then. 
PS  - don't know why you went to an accountant? Us lawyers are much better! You should see an Accredited Taxation Specialist. $750 - $1,000/hour but certainly worth it if you are looking at setting up Trust/s.  
As the great Chief Justice Barwick (I think??) said - "Tax avoidance is necessary but tax evasion is a crime".

----------


## Dr Freud

> Can we please stop sourcing from Andrew Bolt and from the Australian. There is no intermediate reflection or perspective in either.  *EDITED POST.*

  Calling for censorship of alternative views is no less base because you say please.  Democracy thrives on dissenting opinions and information (as does science strangely).  This is how we used to think before the AGW hypothesis "belief system" became popular, where stifling any dissenting voice is seen as being essential to maintaining the emotional and false argument. 
If what is being said is factually incorrect, point out how.  :Educate:  
If it is inciting violence in Australia, I'll bury the perpetrator for you. :Rip:  
If you just don't agree with their opinion, toughen up a little bit.  This is the real world champ.  :Boxing:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Mate, no cheap shot - just my (perhaps inappropriate) sense of humour. My apologies if I offended you.  
> I do have to go now and do a hell of a lot of work.

  None taken mate, after you read the thread, you'll realise I don't get offended, I just get even.  :Biggrin:  
Just leave the kids out of this farcical issue.  :Cool:  
Chat soon.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *TONY Abbott says Julia Gillard should hold an election before introducing a carbon tax.*  Tony Abbott calls for election on carbon tax | Herald Sun

  Let's do it!

----------


## Dr Freud

Who wants higher prices for everything in Australia that cripples our economy, while we export massive amounts of coal and gas to be burned tax free overseas? 
This crazy lady thinks you do: 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGXT_P0yX_0&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Senator Christine Milne - Climate price agreement 24 Feb 2011[/ame] 
Is she right?

----------


## Dr Freud

> *JULIA Gillard never met with her chief scientific adviser before Penny Sackett's shock resignation on Friday, a Senate committee has heard.                 *                                The outgoing chief scientist also admitted in a Senate estimates hearing today that she only directly briefed former prime minister Kevin Rudd once in her two and a half years in the job.
>   "I have not met in her in her role as prime minister, Prime Minister Gillard," Professor Sackett told the Senate's economics committee.
>  "I have met with prime minister Rudd to give a direct personal briefing once. I have been in the presence of prime minister Rudd at other functions, including of course at the prime minister's council."
>  She said Ms Gillard had not attended the last meeting of the Prime Minister's science council.
>  The role of the chief scientist is to provide high level advice to the prime minister.   Gillard never met chief scientific adviser Penny Sackett before she quit | The Australian

  Never met the chief scientist once, not once, for a meeting! 
But you are supposed to believe this farcical tax is allegedly driven by the "science". 
Who was Juliar actually meeting to drive this agenda:   

> But the plight of these people, which is supposed to be a top-order priority in the heartland of both the Greens and Labor, was a long way from the mind of a smirking Bob Brown as he wrested political power from a weak and desperate Prime Minister. 
> The Constitution gets in the way of Green and Labor attempts to dictate federal parliamentary terms, and restrictions on political donations affects only business, not Labor's union paymasters.  
> The one about *Julia Gillard having weekly meetings with Senator Brown is pretty funny*, when you consider she used to send a bodyguard to meetings of Cabinet's National Security Committee.  
> But the humour wears thin when we get to the pre-qualifications for a new, Parliamentary Climate Change Committee.  
> This is Bob Brown's way of enforcing a carbon tax on Australia - a move rejected by the Coalition and put on the back burner by Ms Gillard after the backflip by its strongest advocate, Kevin Rudd.  
> The Prime Minister, an experienced Parliamentarian, has agreed to establish an all-party Climate Change Committee made up of members "who acknowledge that reducing carbon pollution by 2020 will require a carbon price".
> It goes on: "... the parties will, by the end of September 2010, finalise the structure, membership and work plan of the committee".  
> In the Westminster system, parliamentary committees are supposed to start out with open minds, and make recommendations on legislation - particularly on issues as important as taxation legislation - on the evidence.  
> Membership of this committee is open only to those who already believe. 
> ...

  Those weekly meetings are not so funny now,  are they people. 
Seems everyone's lost their sense of humour all a sudden!  :Biggrin:  
The good news is, it's getting real, and real quick too. 
Hello greenie reality.  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Great job Doc, 
Guess I'm going to my first protest on the 23rd LOL

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Who wants higher prices for everything in Australia that cripples our economy, while we export massive amounts of coal and gas to be burned tax free overseas? 
> This crazy lady thinks you do:  YouTube - Senator Christine Milne - Climate price agreement 24 Feb 2011 
> Is she right?

  Doc I seriously don't think I can bring myself to watch this. :Mad:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Great job Doc, 
> Guess I'm going to my first protest on the 23rd LOL

  I'd love to fly over and join you mate, but I'm trying to cut down my carbon dioxide emissions.  :No:  
Flim Flammery will be there to convince you to "believe".  He loves flying and even spruiks an airline.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Doc I seriously don't think I can bring myself to watch this.

  Yeh, sorry about this.  It was tough to get through, but I try to follow the teachings of the wise such as Sun Tzu.  Know your enemy! 
I can't lie to you, it will hurt. 
Just have a punching bag nearby to let rip afterwards, get the demons out.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Yeh, sorry about this. It was tough to get through, but I try to follow the teachings of the wise such as Sun Tzu. Know your enemy! 
> I can't lie to you, it will hurt. 
> Just have a punching bag nearby to let rip afterwards, get the demons out.

  HMM I will try and work up the courage mate.

----------


## Dr Freud

Just for a quick recap, here's what she said just this past week: 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jncV6gRtIvw&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Julia Gillard's no carbon tax promise[/ame]         

> Remember that promise, just six months ago? 
>    Ill be on MTR 1377 from 8am (listen here) to discuss the most cynical and brazen breaking of an election commitment in my memory. Join us as we talk to scientists, politicians and an economics guru on the carbon tax Gillard promised never to inflict. 
>   Postings will be light today. A surgeon calls, and Im hoping hes not an_ Age_ reader. 
>   UPDATE 
> The Evil Right reminds us that Julia Gillard did not simply misspeak when she promised days before the election not to introduce a carbon tax. It was a promise she made several times - and by Treasurer Wayne Swan as well:  12 August 2010 - Swan on the ABC: _Treasurer Wayne Swan has promised a re-elected Labor government will not put a tax on carbon during its next term of office._  _Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey pressed Mr Swan on the issue on Thursday, demanding to know whether Australia would be hit with a carbon tax in the next three years under Labor._  _We have made our position very clear, we have ruled it out, the treasurer told ABC Television__18 August 2010 - Swan on Meet The Press: _  _What we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax.__16 August 2010 - Gillard on Channel 10: _  _There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.__20 August 2010 - Gillard in The Australian. _  _ I rule out a carbon tax.__ Tips for Friday, February 25 | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_     Sounds pretty clear. 
> But is this what you actually heard:       *Today, Ms Gillard repeated her new mantra that pricing carbon is the right thing to do, and I said that during the election campaign.*  Tips for Friday, February 25 | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog     Liar Vs Idiot?  You don't have to decide any more, it's both.  
> The question now is are you happy being treated like an idiot?

  Obviously, she got the poll results that people are saying she's a lying idiot.  She's been filmed and recorded saying it over and over before the election.  So now another backflip:   

> *PRIME Minister Julia Gillard has admitted she promised there would be no carbon tax during the election... * "Yes, I did say that and circumstances have changed," Ms Gillard told the Nine Network on Sunday.  Yes, I vowed no carbon tax: Prime Minister Julia Gillard | Herald Sun

  Self confessed lying idiot.  :Doh:  
If only that was the worst part of this farce... :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

JuLIAR is a poll dancer, holding onto power at the expense of our country:   

> *SO NOW we know, Julia Gillard is both dishonest and dumb. * What she is doing now, is also designed to win - albeit very different - votes. Those of the wacky duo in the lower house and the Greens in the Senate.
>  While relying on not being called to account by the Canberra Press Gallery - not a bad bet, if what happened on _Meet The Press_ is indicative.
>  Actually what did not happen. There were three prominent members of the Press Gallery on the program. Not one called her on her ludicrous dishonesty or her vote-buying cynicism.
>  Or on the dumbness.
>  Why did she rule out a carbon tax in the election campaign?
>  Why did she earlier lead the push in the Gang of Four to dump the Government's ETS - the move which destroyed Kevin Rudd's credibility and ultimately sealed his fate?  * Carbon tax promise has Julia Gillard choking on her words | Herald Sun*

----------


## Dr Freud

> Prime Minister Julia Gillard has given a spirited defence of her carbon tax policy, saying it is supported by business and will create jobs in the future.  Gillard says carbon tax will create jobs

  If increasing taxes increases jobs, why don't all countries just keep ramping up taxes and create all these wonderful "green jobs". 
Because the only job being created here is the snowjob her and Bob Brown are giving ordinary Australians. 
Here's a reply from an affected business:   

> PAUL O'MALLEY: Fundamentally, imports will get a free ride, and Australian manufacturing will be taxed, and there will absolutely be leakage because I don't think we have a commitment to carbon neutrality. 
> PAUL O'MALLEY: Oh in Australia. I think to really reduce greenhouse emissions we have to reduce global emissions. I think if you look at the experience in Europe, production emissions are flat since 1990, so Europeans are claiming victory, but carbon consumption has increased 47 per cent. 
> So there has been a hollowing out of manufacturing in Europe and a moving or a hiding of that carbon overseas. I think if the same program is put in place in Australia, effectively you're assuming that policy is that they don't want manufacturing in Australia. 
> PAUL O'MALLEY: So in the last half our industrial business at Port Kembla lost $100 million. In the last quarter of fiscal year 10, we made a couple of 100 million dollars. So as steel prices go up, which they are at the moment - steel prices have increased $250 to $300 dollars in the last four months - we can start to make money again. 
> But an incremental cost, which could be material. If you take one part of the policy, which is that there's no assistance for industry, we'd be paying an extra $300 million a year. That is clearly economic vandalism. It clearly says we don't want manufacturing in Australia. 
> Under the CPRS regime, what the policy said was 'We would prefer steel to be imported with the carbon produced overseas than produced domestically'. And that's the issue. It is unfair, and it basically says 'We don't want manufacturing in Australia'. 
> PAUL O'MALLEY: I think under the current environment with the CPRS, you have to look at the long-term and see, to your question, is steel making viable in Australia? 
> You also have to look at the intent of the policymakers to determine whether they want to support manufacturing in Australia. There is a huge question mark on that at the moment. 
> I've just spent the week talking to investors. They are aghast at the policy settings that we are being faced with and the additional costs, including the fact that we have to deal with a high Aussie dollar. 
> So the policy framework at the moment is wrong. It seems to be captured by people who don't care whether there are manufacturing jobs in Australia, and you just wonder whether there is an anti-manufacturing focus in Australia and that people want jobs to go offshore.  Carbon tax catches business unawares - Inside Business - ABC

  *
Prime Minister Julia Gillard* has given a spirited defence of her carbon tax policy, saying it is *supported by business and will create jobs in the future.* 
VS  *PAUL O'MALLEY:*  So the *policy framework at the moment is wrong.* It seems to be captured by people who don't care whether there are manufacturing jobs in Australia, and you just wonder whether *there is an anti-manufacturing focus in Australia and that people want jobs to go offshore.* 
One of these two is a lying idiot. 
Time will tell I guess, but you can guess who my money is on based on form!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Real jobs are paid for by private industry in an effective market. 
These will be lost! 
Green jobs are a myth paid for by the taxpayer so weak willed people can "feel better" about their carbon dioxide footprint. 
These will be created and paid for by us taxpayers!   

> Friday,  February 25, 2011 at 06:23am                    
>   At yesterdays joint press conference to announce a new carbon tax, Greens leader Bob Brown claimed that Germany showed how switching to green power would create thousands of jobs. 
>    In fact, the US Center for Policy Analysis warns that creating green jobs with massive public subsidies actually kills jobs elsewhere in the private sector, as weve seen in Spain, Denmark and Germay:   _According to a 2009 report from the Rhine-Westphalia Institute for Economic Research:_  _ * Germany instituted a feed-in tariff - which requires regional or national electric grid utilities to buy renewable electricity - and as a result, wind energy costs three times as much as conventional energy and solar power costs eight times as much._  _ * The total net cost of subsidies for wind and solar power production since 2000 has topped $101 billion, producing less than 7 percent of the electric power generated nationwide._  _    * The government spent an average of $240,000 in subsidies per each new green job.__Six studies cited in the report found that the net job effect of Germanys green job policies were either negligible or negative._   _Beware of Bob Brown’s “green jobs” | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  And because we lose these real jobs to other countries, global carbon dioxide emissions will actually go up due to leakage.  :Doh:  
Is there a single person out there brave enough to argue the positives for Australia in doing this?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

This is the biggest economic reform Australia has ever seen.  Here's where it came from:   
Two greenies and the self confessed lying idiot we have as a Prime Minister. 
This massive economic change, but: 
Where's the Treasurer?
Where's the Minister for Finance? 
Unfortunately we all now realise who's actually running this country now.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Poor old Greg Combet.  He used to be one of the few credible people in government.  I disagree with his opinions on many things, but he used to make his points credibly.  Now he is being dragged down to the level of idiocy of these zealots. 
He now calls carbon dioxide "pollution".   

> This is a very big challenge for an economy like ours. We have got to make sure we can grow over the long term, be competitive internationally, but at the same time *cut our levels of pollution*.  Insiders - 27/02/2011: Greg Combet joins Insiders - Insiders - ABC

  See that stuff you're currently breathing out (sorry, you can't, it's invisible), that's carbon dioxide.  Combet says that you're breathing out pollution.  You have to stop that kind of irresponsible behaviour.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Note what is *NOT* listed!   

> The National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) provides the community, industry and government with free information about substance emissions in Australia. It has emission estimates for 93 toxic substances and the source and location of these emissions. 
> The NPI contains data on 93 substances that are emitted to the environment. The substances included in the NPI have been identified as important because of their possible health and environmental effects.  
>   The following fact sheets describe how you might be exposed to a substance, common uses and sources of emissions, and physical and chemical properties.  AcetaldehydeAcetic acid (ethanoic acid)AcetoneAcetonitrileAcroleinAcrylamideAcrylic acidAcrylonitrile (2-propenenitrile)Ammonia (total)Aniline (benzenamine)Antimony & compoundsArsenic & compoundsBenzeneBenzene hexachloro - (HCB)Beryllium & compoundsBiphenyl (1,1-biphenyl)Boron & compounds1,3-Butadiene (vinyl ethylene)Cadmium & compoundsCarbon disulfideCarbon monoxideChlorine & compoundsChlorine dioxideChloroethane (ethyl chloride)Chloroform (trichloromethane)Chlorophenols (di, tri, tetra) Chromium (III) compounds Chromium (VI) compoundsCobalt & compoundsCopper & compoundsCumene (1-methylethylbenzene)Cyanide (inorganic) compoundsCyclohexane1,2-DibromoethaneDibutyl phthalate1,2-DichloroethaneDichloromethaneEthanol2-EthoxyethanolEthoxyethanol acetateEthyl acetateEthyl butyl ketoneEthylbenzeneEthylene glycol (1,2-ethanediol)Ethylene oxideDi-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)Fluoride compoundsFormaldehyde (methyl aldehyde)Glutaraldehyden-HexaneHydrochloric acidHydrogen sulfideLead & compoundsMagnesium oxide fumeManganese & compoundsMercury & compoundsMethanol2-Methoxyethanol2-Methoxyethanol acetateMethyl ethyl ketoneMethyl isobutyl ketoneMethyl methacrylate4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (MOCA)Methylenebis (phenylisocyanate)Nickel & compoundsNickel carbonylNickel subsulfideNitric acidOrgano-tin compoundsOxides of NitrogenParticulate Matter <2.5 m (PM2.5)Particulate Matter <10.0 m (PM10)PhenolPhosphoric acidPolychlorinated BiphenylsPolychlorinated dioxins and furans (TEQ)Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (B[a]Peq)Selenium  & compoundsStyrene (ethenylbenzene)Sulfur dioxideSulfuric acid1,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneTetrachloroethyleneToluene (methylbenzene)Toluene-2,4-diisocyanateTotal NitrogenTotal PhosphorusTotal Volatile Organic Compounds1,1,2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroethyleneVinyl Chloride MonomerXylenes (individual or mixed isomers)Zinc and compounds Substance factsheets - National Pollutant Inventory

  The greatest financial burden in our nations history to stop "pollution" will not address a single real "pollutant" that our own government acknowledges.  :Doh:  
You are being conned. 
If you fall for it, you deserve what you get.  :Biggrin:  
But surely we are smarter than this.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

Well, Greg Combet is now asking you to smell worse to make the Planet Earth better. 
If we don't use the aircon and don't shower as much, Australians are going to stink more than this ridiculous farce:  

> Climate Change Minister Greg Combet makes clear that the new carbon tax is going to make your poorer and hotter:  _ 
> Asked to name the top five things people could do to beat the carbon tax, Mr Combet said it was best to reduce energy consumption._  _And the main way to do that is by saving energy, to turn things off at the wall, he said._  _Maybe think about how often you use the airconditioner. Using a cheaper-to-run hot water system. Changing the light bulbs. Have you got insulation?..._  Do these people realise how intrusive and overbearing they sound? Still, I look forward to Combet passing on his times to Kevin Rudd, owner of this new beachfront home:     The idea is to make you hotter, not cooler | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  And Greg, you're also the one still wasting billions of our taxpayer dollars to fix the insulation debacle that burned down hundreds of Australians homes and killed people. 
Maybe you're not well placed to spruik insulation.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

Remember, all these job losses are not denied by Labor and the Greens, they are acknowledged as "necessary" to fight the Carbon Dioxide monster. 
They just plan on us taxpayers subsiding their "fake green jobs". 
Here's Labor Minister's on the effect of a Carbon Dioxide Tax:   

> *Martin Ferguson* told parliament that a call by think tank The Australia Institute for a $30 carbon tax on domestic flights and an end to the promotion of the aviation industry was "brazen in its simplicity". 
> "Air transport is ... responsible for 99 per cent of Australia's international passenger movements each year," he said.  
> "The Australia Institute would have us *kill the Australian aviation industry both domestically and internationally*."  
>  		Mr Ferguson's comments found support with Labor colleague *Craig Emerson*, who said Australia's aviation industry faced unique challenges based on the size of the continent and its distance from the rest of the world.   Carbon tax would kill aviation industry: Labor | The Australian

  Start assessing now whether your job will be "necessarily" lost due to this farce!  :Doh:  
I guess the silver lining is that when you are unemployed, you will be eligible for more welfare by the tax "compensation". Yay!  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

This farce is nuttier than a fruitcake:   

> _The Age_ doesnt realise this makes little sense:     _LABOR is preparing a multibillion-dollar carbon tax compensation package that could leave up to 2.6 million low-income households better off and a further 1.7 million middle-income households no worse off_  _A government source said it was likely the impact of the new tax - and the level of compensation - would be roughly similar._  _This suggests several things. First, that the tax is in effect a giant exercise in income redistribution, above and beyond the income tax scales that already are heavily skewed against higher-earning Australians. Secondly, its being sold as a financial winner for Australians when self-evidently the money must come from somewhere, which means other taxpayers. Third, the more that people are compensated for the carbon dioxide tax, the less incentive they will have to actually stop using coal-fired power, which is the whole aim of this futile exercise._  _Cant people see through this giant folly?_  _UPDATE_  _Professor Sinclair Davidson adds: _  _Its worse than that - the idea of a carbon tax/price is that over time people will substitute away from carbon usage and the revenue from the price/tax will decline. At that point the compensation should decline and low income households, everything else being equal, will experience a decline in their standard of living. The success of the policy will see harm being done to low-income households. This suggests that the government will have to permanently compensate for this policy - so its just an increase in welfare.   Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

   
So, the industry pay massive taxes for making the things we use.
These taxes go to the government.
Industry pass these taxes to us to avoid bankruptcy.
The government then gives the taxes back to the us to cover the price rises.
Bureaucracy increases.
The money go round creates massive waste.
Job losses abound.   :Cry:  :Cry:  :Cry:  
And magically out of this mess a cheap baseload renewable energy technology is *invented* to save us, and we sell this to the rest of the world and live in Nirvana.  :Doh:  
Seriously?

----------


## Dr Freud

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI4ZDAKgDA&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Deputy PM and Treasurer - Wayne Swan - No Carbon Tax[/ame] 
I wonder what they meant?

----------


## woodbe

I think this is the only science referred to in the thread for quite a while. Pity that the poster chose to denigrate a scientist based on something other than what they actually said.   

> This guy is so scientifically illiterate, it defies belief!  And Juliar appointed him as her lead advisor on this issue.  Remember people, his claim is global warming, not local weather, and here's his "scientific" evidence: 
> Three months of data quoted on one spot on the Planet to "prove" his case.

  To be accurate, this was a TV show and he was asked if there was any way science could link Cyclone Yasi to global warming. He was _not_ asked to explain AGW. His explanation was on topic and his information was relevant. As I remember he guardedly suggested that it was possible, and that work in the northern hemisphere is suggesting that it may be the case.  
Whether the cyclone or any other event can be linked to GW remains to be seen. Despite the screaming hordes, it certainly sounds like it not outside the bounds of possibility. 
Our poster chose to criticise Dr Flannery's explanation by presenting the graphic below; A graphic _claiming_ to be of global sea surface temperatures over 10 years, whereas the content of the graphic is of *just 5 years!* Not only is the graphic patently incorrect in its labelling, since when is a 5 year sample relevant to either the cyclone attribution or the AGW debate?   

> Here's some global data:

  Nice cherry pick!  
Additionally, the Argo network itself has only been in operation sice around 2003, there simply is no usable data from the network yet relevant to GW. It might be possible to use the Argo System to alert for tropic cyclone conditions.   

> The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change  signals.  Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present  6-year globally-averaged time series.  Sparse global sampling during  2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of  ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g.  Leuliette and Miller, 2009).  Analyses of decadal changes presently  focus on comparison of Argo to sparse and sometimes inaccurate  historical data.  Argo's greatest contributions to observing the global  oceans are still in the future, but its global span is clearly  transforming the capability to observe climate-related changes.

  Dr Flannery described recent high local SST events because the scientific evidence is that high SST's in the northern Australian region are associated with the formation of tropical cyclones.    

> *Tropical cyclones* derive their energy from the warm  tropical oceans and do not form unless the sea-surface temperature is  above 26.5C, although once formed, they can persist over lower  sea-surface temperatures. Tropical cyclones can persist for many days  and may follow quite erratic paths. They usually dissipate over land or  colder oceans.

  Perhaps you could consider this graphic, as it is actually relevant to the discussion:   
Source: NOMADS 
woodbe

----------


## Rod Dyson

THIS IS GOLD 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLLUcP7IwiE&feature=related]YouTube - Julia Gillard Carbon Tax - The Lies In Your Eyes[/ame]

----------


## Rod Dyson

Welcome bak into the fray Woodbe. 
Perhaps you can explain how this Carbon Tax will benefit Australia? 
Perhaps you can explain how it will reduce emissions even when our population is growing? 
Hell, nobody else can!

----------


## Rod Dyson

I wonder how labor will poll at the next election?  
One thing for sure it won't be JuLIAR leading it.  She is finished.

----------


## Oldsaltoz

> Welcome bak into the fray Woodbe. 
> Perhaps you can explain how this Carbon Tax will benefit Australia?  Put simply it won't. 
> Perhaps you can explain how it will reduce emissions even when our population is growing?  Emissions will be dramatically reduced because the increase in costs thanks to this tax, will mean some processing will be done overseas, so companies here will close increasing unemployment, but the products from overseas will increase in price. 
> Hell, nobody else can!

  Perhaps people will think rather than listen before voting at the next election. This legislation is driven by the greens. 
Good luck.

----------


## woodbe

> Welcome bak into the fray Woodbe. 
> Perhaps you can explain how this Carbon Tax will benefit Australia?

  My interest in this thread is to do with the science, not the politics.  
woodbe. 
PS. I am appalled at the hate campaign against fellow Australians within  this thread, and particularly from the thread starter. I have no problem with political  disagreement, but several here step over the edge IMHO and  damage their position by personalising their opinion against one or two  people.  
You yourself vehemently defend sceptics when they come under personal attack, (usually justified, I might add, vis. Monckton, Tobacco Industry apologists, Energy industry shills, etc) yet here you are carrying on as if there are two sets of standards. 
/rant.  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

> My interest in this thread is to do with the science, not the politics.

  Then you probably should look somewhere else, because AGW, has nothing to do with science just like the spanish inquisition had nothing to do with religion or faith.
The myth of antropogenic global warming was created to generate political shift towards the green religion and funds transfer towards the green industry. 
There is nothing else. You would be better served looking for the science behind the philosopher's stone or the perpetual motion machine. :2thumbsup:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Then you probably should look somewhere else, because AGW, has nothing to do with science just like the spanish inquisition had nothing to do with religion or faith.
> The myth of antropogenic global warming was created to generate political shift towards the green religion and funds transfer towards the green industry. 
> There is nothing else. You would be better served looking for the science behind the philosopher's stone or the perpetual motion machine.

  AGW has nothing to do with science? Are you serious?!! 
I thought Tony's sheep had admitted that the ol' "climate change is crap" line is no longer the issue. Yeah, just slap some trees in the ground and call it a Direct Action Policy - that'll do it. 
We, and I include the very intelligent Tony  :Confused:  when I say we, are now looking at the issue of various policy structures that deal with the issue of AGW.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

I'm so amazed that some people can't get over the fact that a politician lied! Anyone forgetting Ute-gate? 
Hell, they all do it. Move on and look at the policy.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

That's look at the policy when they get their sh** together and let the people decide.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> My interest in this thread is to do with the science, not the politics.  
> woodbe. 
> PS. I am appalled at the hate campaign against fellow Australians within this thread, and particularly from the thread starter. I have no problem with political disagreement, but several here step over the edge IMHO and damage their position by personalising their opinion against one or two people.  
> You yourself vehemently defend sceptics when they come under personal attack, (usually justified, I might add, vis. Monckton, Tobacco Industry apologists, Energy industry shills, etc) yet here you are carrying on as if there are two sets of standards. 
> /rant.

  Are you serious?

----------


## Rod Dyson

James there is no doubt at all that AGW has become a political issue niot a scientific issue.
There is no science that can proove AGW at this point and there is none that can positively disprove it. 
So it really comes down to who do you believe. that is political regardless of what you think. 
You choose to believe something that has not been established as a scientific fact that is up to you. If you chose to really look at the eviedence stacking up againts this fraud then you to might change you view. But my guess is that you wont due to you political views. Just a guess so don't go flaming me I am not accusing. that should keep wood be happy.  :Smilie:  
I guess you are not going to join the protest on the 23rd then James?

----------


## Rod Dyson

I would still like to explain to me the benefits of this tax? 
I am very confused?

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

Children, grand-kids anybody? 
Let's just pass the problem down. Gees, it's so much easier isn't?!  :No:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> James there is no doubt at all that AGW has become a political issue niot a scientific issue.
> There is no science that can proove AGW at this point and there is none that can positively disprove it. 
> So it really comes down to who do you believe. that is political regardless of what you think. 
> You choose to believe something that has not been established as a scientific fact that is up to you. If you chose to really look at the eviedence stacking up againts this fraud then you to might change you view. But my guess is that you wont due to you political views. Just a guess so don't go flaming me I am not accusing. that should keep wood be happy.  
> I guess you are not going to join the protest on the 23rd then James?

  Well, I haven't entirely formed an opinion yet mate. I am more leaning toward a bridging tax leading up to an ETS.  
Royally pisd though! Just bought a house. All these f*ing taxes! Thanks Prime Minister & Cabinet. Merry Christmas to you too! :brava:  
Anyway, I am sifting through the info and will make a decision when I am fully informed.   
Just don't think the Lib policy is robust enough and have no informed perspective from the other side of the fence either. Shambles - but the policy announcement has just been formally made.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'm so amazed that some people can't get over the fact that a politician lied! Anyone forgetting Ute-gate? 
> Hell, they all do it. Move on and look at the policy.

  This is not just a lie buddy this was a blatant lie with only one intention to gain power by keeping votes from those concerned about the carbon tax and not losing any due to green preferences. 
She sold the country down the river she knew when she said it that she had no intention of keeping her word.   
Look at what policy for god sake.  Just show us how this is a good policy. who and what benefits.  It will not achieve its goals, it is a bullsh... policy.  Gillard will go down for this make no mistake.  There are a lot of angry people out there buddy. 
Even rusted on Lobor voters I know are disgusted.  Some try and pull the GST bullsh#$% comparison, I really love that one.  Let us compare it then, now she has come out with this put it to a double dissolution.  Think you could win??

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

Yeah, going to be a very interesting one.  
She will be Bill Shorten's sacrificial lamb.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

RE: GST 
Australian's aren't that dumb. Johnny boy went to the public first. Julia didn't. 
Remember that storm. GST will never get up and so on and so forth.  
I think Australians are a little more pragmatic these days and less dogmatic. Especially that the young voters have grown up most of their life with a relatively vivid Green's presence. Like it or not, that's the way it is.  
This doesn't make the younger Australian voters dumb (as has been referred to in earlier postings), it is my opinion that it just allows for a wider appreciation of the brilliant and inherent functions of our democratic Wash-Minster system.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Look who is making a few extra billion out of the climate change alarmism.   

> As the great global warming scare continues to crumble, attention focuses on all those groups that have a huge interest in keeping it alive. Governments look on it as an excuse to raise billions of pounds in taxes. Wind farm developers make fortunes from the hidden subsidies we pay through our electricity bills. A vast academic industry receives more billions for concocting the bogus science that underpins the scare. Carbon traders hope to make billions from corrupt schemes based on buying and selling the right to emit CO2. But no financial interest stands to make more from exaggerating the risks of climate change than the re-insurance industry, which charges retail insurers for “catastrophe cover”, paid for by all of us through our premiums.

  Link Unscientific hype about the flooding risks from climate change will cost us all dear - Telegraph

----------


## Rod Dyson

> RE: GST 
> Australian's aren't that dumb. Johnny boy went to the public first. Julia didn't. 
> Remember that storm. GST will never get up and so on and so forth.  
> I think Australians are a little more pragmatic these days and less dogmatic. Especially that the young voters have grown up most of their life with a relatively vivid Green's presence. Like it or not, that's the way it is.  
> This doesn't make the younger Australian voters dumb (as has been referred to in earlier postings), it is my opinion that it just allows for a wider appreciation of the brilliant and inherent functions of our democratic Wash-Minster system.

  They don't expect the wool to be pulled over there eyse like JuLIAR has. 
This is not how democracy works buddy.  She tried to pull a shifty and will pay the price.

----------


## chrisp

> To me, you seem to be fighting the inevitable - a price on carbon is inevitable. 
> Placing a price/tax/cost on undesirable/unwanted/outdated technologies/products/behaviours is the way society changes.  *I'll let you (and the Doc, of course) get back to guarding your "bridge".*

   

> This is not just a lie buddy this was a blatant lie with only one intention to gain power by keeping votes from those concerned about the carbon tax and not losing any due to green preferences.

  Rod, 
You seem to be missing the point, a price on carbon is inevitable - period. 
It doesn't matter who is in power nor the colour of their party (red, green, blue...), a price will be put on carbon.  It is just a matter of when and the form of the price. 
The only difference a change of government would do is change the timing a little, but eventually a price on carbon will come in.  Regardless of the rhetoric, I'd bet that the Coalition too would also put a price on carbon (they'd have no choice - just as the present government has no choice). 
AGW is real - the science is clear for all who want know (I know there are some who just don't want to know).  Action on AGW will have to be taken.  A price on carbon is just a mechanism to discourage carbon intensive activity and make the alternative more viable. 
But you don't have to believe me (and I'm sure that you won't), all you need to do is watch how thing unfold in the coming years.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO ROD (sorry for any confusion)  
UK mate. 
Will creep its way over I am sure.  
I would actually wager my left lung that it is already drafted and ready to cut and paste into the PDS! 
The beef I have is that, comparatively, Australia is already one of the most expensive countries to live in the warming world.  
I do have a social conscience. If we were 100% sure that "x" would rectify the global issue, hell, I will forego my annual income. It is the unspoken cloud of uncertainty that holds me undecided and other issues, inter alia, China.   
We need to see this Legislative Impact Statement before we ride into town for asize.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> You seem to be missing the point, a price on carbon is inevitable - period. 
> It doesn't matter who is in power nor the colour of their party (red, green, blue...), a price will be put on carbon. It is just a matter of when and the form of the price. 
> The only difference a change of government would do is change the timing a little, but eventually a price on carbon will come in. Regardless of the rhetoric, I'd bet that the Coalition too would also put a price on carbon (they'd have no choice - just as the present government has no choice). 
> AGW is real - the science is clear for all who want know (I know there are some who just don't want to know). Action on AGW will have to be taken. A price on carbon is just a mechanism to discourage carbon intensive activity and make the alternative more viable. 
> But you don't have to believe me (and I'm sure that you won't), all you need to do is watch how thing unfold in the coming years.

  
NO thats where you are wrong. Just because you say its inevitable it does not make it so. 
People will protest over this make no doubt about it. This tax is wrong at every level it is NOT inevitable. Saying that just makes me sick. You would just love to see us lay down and just accept it. Well I have got news for you it will NEVER be accepted. Even if they bring it in it won't last. People will shut it down. YOU just don't understand how many people out there are steaming about this.  
They will fight it to the very end.  NO buddy it is not inevitable.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO ROD (sorry for any confusion)  
> UK mate. 
> Will creep its way over I am sure.  
> I would actually wager my left lung that it is already drafted and ready to cut and paste into the PDS! 
> The beef I have is that, comparatively, Australia is already one of the most expensive countries to live in the warming world.  
> I do have a social conscience. If we were 100% sure that "x" would rectify the global issue, hell, I will forego my annual income. It is the unspoken cloud of uncertainty that holds me undecided and other issues, inter alia, China.  
> We need to see this Legislative Impact Statement before we ride into town for asize.

  OH spare me what warming world?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO ROD (sorry for any confusion)  
> I do have a social conscience. If we were 100% sure that "x" would rectify the global issue, hell, I will forego my annual income. It is the unspoken cloud of uncertainty that holds me undecided and other issues, inter alia, China.  
> We need to see this Legislative Impact Statement before we ride into town for asize.

  Wow you really do have it bad don't you.  I won't contribute one cent to this fraud if I can help it. 
Fortunately I can jack my prices up to cover the cost un-like all you wage earners out there.  Thanks mate pay my share too.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Rod, 
> You seem to be missing the point, a price on carbon is inevitable - period. 
> It doesn't matter who is in power nor the colour of their party (red, green, blue...), a price will be put on carbon.  It is just a matter of when and the form of the price. 
> The only difference a change of government would do is change the timing a little, but eventually a price on carbon will come in.  Regardless of the rhetoric, I'd bet that the Coalition too would also put a price on carbon (they'd have no choice - just as the present government has no choice). 
> AGW is real - the science is clear for all who want know (I know there are some who just don't want to know).  Action on AGW will have to be taken.  A price on carbon is just a mechanism to discourage carbon intensive activity and make the alternative more viable. 
> But you don't have to believe me (and I'm sure that you won't), all you need to do is watch how thing unfold in the coming years.

  I am with ya - it's inevitable. 
Getting rid of Turnbull was the most dumb-ars* thing I have seen in a long time.

----------


## chrisp

> NO thats where you are wrong. Just because you say its inevitable it does not make it so.

  Rod, 
You have an error of logic.  It's not happening "because I say so", it's happening because AGW is real. 
I'm just making an observation - and a prediction - a carbon price is inevitable.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Wow you really do have it bad don't you.  I won't contribute one cent to this fraud if I can help it. 
> Fortunately I can jack my prices up to cover the cost un-like all you wage earners out there.  Thanks mate pay my share too.

  Mate, my profession get their fair share! Thanks for the thought anyway.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> You have an error of logic. It's not happening "because I say so", it's happening because AGW is real. 
> I'm just making an observation - and a prediction - a carbon price is inevitable.

  No your logic is wrong just because you and others say its real does not make it so. 
What is inevitable is that time will expose this fraud as impirical evidence will not support your theory. Science can't prove it not will the impircal evidence. Now that is a certainty.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I am with ya - it's inevitable. 
> Getting rid of Turnbull was the most dumb-ars* thing I have seen in a long time.

  Saved the Libs from oblivian. 
Only seen as dumb @@@@ by rusted on lefities.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Children, grand-kids anybody? 
> Let's just pass the problem down. Gees, it's so much easier isn't?!

  ??????waiting?????? 
This problem must be dealt with. It is how we go about it.  
Oh hang on... yes, I see - the solution is ignorance. Let's keep on going on and when we end up like China, you know - not being able to see 8m in front of you, maybe then we can have a chat about AGW.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Saved the Libs from oblivian. 
> Only seen as dumb @@@@ by rusted on lefities.

  Ah... no. It didn't actually. Hung parliament. Still in oblivion. And honestly, aint going to improve with the dahh dahh budgie smuggler.  
Come on man, even you, from what I can tell are intelligent enough to see that the guy is a total moron. Dead set idiot!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> ??????waiting?????? 
> This problem must be dealt with. It is how we go about it.  
> Oh hang on... yes, I see - the solution is ignorance. Let's keep on going on and when we end up like China, you know - not being able to see 8m in front of you, maybe then we can have a chat about AGW.

  Whats that got to do with CO2? 
Co2 is an odourless and invisible gas.  If its pollution your on about you don't need a tax on CO2 to reduce that.  Sheez  
Here is why the argument will never be deceided by science.  The science does not matter, that is why you ignore all the science that refutes AGW theory.   

> I cannot testify that this event actually occurred. But, I heard it as though it was a truthful report. In any case it haunts me because it demonstrates what I perceive to be something akin to the actual state of affairs in our efforts to quiet the Algorian scare predictions about the consequences of global warming. There are large segments of the population that believe the global warming pronouncements. They have heard them over and over again from people they trust and respect, in school, on television, in the news and in their communities. They have become "believers", not unlike those who believe in a set of religious beliefs. All good Democrats believe in global warming, after all, it is the science of one of their key heroes, former Vice President and Senator Al Gore. And all good environmentalists are aboard the global warming band wagon. And, for all of them, the Agenda is what is important. Their Agenda is to eliminate fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine from our civilization. The carbon dioxide, CO2, thing is simply the means to the end. And if the means is not true; who cares. It is only the Agenda that is important. To all of these people, my effort to debunk the CO2 greenhouse gas science is irrelevant.

  Read the full article. here KUSI News Weather Sports San Diego - Global Warming Blog

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Ah... no. It didn't actually. Hung parliament. Still in oblivion. And honestly, aint going to improve with the dahh dahh budgie smuggler.  
> Come on man, even you, from what I can tell are intelligent enough to see that the guy is a total moron. Dead set idiot!

  Now I don't want to get into a slanging match with you but this is just your opinion based on your own political bias.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Whats that got to do with CO2? 
> Co2 is an odourless and invisible gas.  If its pollution your on about you don't need a tax on CO2 to reduce that.  Sheez  
> Here is why the argument will never be deceided by science.  The science does not matter, that is why you ignore all the science that refutes AGW theory.   
> Read the full article. here KUSI News Weather Sports San Diego - Global Warming Blog

  Okie dokie.  
I trust that you are not aware that combusting coal creates CO2?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Okie dokie.  
> I trust that you are not aware that combusting coal creates CO2?

  Ok so I take it you believe Co2 is indeed pollution? 
Oboy is there some re-educating to be done when this farce is all over. 
We have a long way to go to contol REAL pollution for sure. But Co2 is NOT a pollutant. The wealthier countries have improved their REAL pollution levels in the past 30 year because they are wealthy countries.  
By sucking the wealth out of the country to try and controll a non pollutant is taking funds away from tackling the real pollutants.  
I shake my head in amazement. I just can't believe that you guys cant see through this.  I'm sure its because you just don't want too.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Whats that got to do with CO2? 
> Co2 is an odourless and invisible gas.  If its pollution your on about you don't need a tax on CO2 to reduce that.  Sheez  
> Here is why the argument will never be deceided by science.  The science does not matter, that is why you ignore all the science that refutes AGW theory.   
> Read the full article. here KUSI News Weather Sports San Diego - Global Warming Blog

  (Anthro) (pogenic)?????? Emphasis on the 'Anthro'

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Ok so I take it you believe Co2 is indeed pollution? 
> Oboy is there some re-educating to be done when this farce is all over. 
> We have a long way to go to contol REAL pollution for sure. But Co2 is NOT a pollutant. The wealthier countries have improved their REAL pollution levels in the past 30 year because they are wealthy countries.  
> By sucking the wealth out of the country to try and controll a non pollutant is taking funds away from tackling the real pollutants.  
> I shake my head in amazement. I just can't believe that you guys cant see through this.  I'm sure its because you just don't want too.

  Oh yeah, naturally occurring - no doubt about it. Take photosynthesis as a prime example.  
It is when the Anthro decide that they don't want to limit the amount in the atmosphere that at levels at 1% humans start to be effected.  
Ever wondered why on the movies... why people stick a hose in the exhaust? Yeah... that's right it kills.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Oh yeah, naturally occurring - no doubt about it. Take photosynthesis as a prime example.  
> It is when the Anthro decide that they don't want to limit the amount in the atmosphere that at levels at 1% humans start to be effected.  
> Ever wondered why on the movies... why people stick a hose in the exhaust? Yeah... that's right it kills.

  Oh my god. 
Now you are really showing your ignorance. 
The gas that Kills from the exhast is not CO2 anyone will tell you that LMAO. 
Try carbon monoxide (CO) 
Educate yourself and read all about it here. Carbon monoxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
I suggest you do some reading on Co2 which is Plant food. It is what you breath out.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e-plot.svg.png 
have not pasted a picture before - how the hell do you do it?

----------


## Dr Freud

Rod, you have done an exceptional job in responding to these inane comments with such patience. 
Jamesmelbourne, were you lying about going to university? I don't say this in a derogatory way, it is just that your reason, research and communication patterns don't seem to match this.  I apologise if my guess is wrong, but you just don't seem to be communicating at the level you have indicated.  I'll go through these issues in detail to clarify later, but please forgive me if I am off the mark. 
But if you are a qualified and practising lawyer, I hope you treat your clients cases with more diligence than you are this issue and this thread.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Oh my god. 
> Now you are really showing your ignorance. 
> The gas that Kills from the exhast is not CO2 anyone will tell you that LMAO. 
> Try carbon monoxide (CO) 
> Educate yourself and read all about it here. Carbon monoxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
> I suggest you do some reading on Co2 which is Plant food. It is what you breath out.

  Yeah I am quite aware that CO is not CO2 - cheers! 
Are you aware that CO is toxic and (my point) shi*s straight out your exhaust? Any AGW link? 
Are you aware that CO presence increases methane levels?

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Rod, you have done an exceptional job in responding to these inane comments with such patience. 
> Jamesmelbourne, were you lying about going to university? I don't say this in a derogatory way, it is just that your reason, research and communication patterns don't seem to match this.  I apologise if my guess is wrong, but you just don't seem to be communicating at the level you have indicated.  I'll go through these issues in detail to clarify later, but please forgive me if I am off the mark. 
> But if you are a qualified and practising lawyer, I hope you treat your clients cases with more diligence than you are this issue and this thread.

  Yeah well writing all day, and writing now at after 2am - after a bottle of red will do that Sigmund!

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> But if you are a qualified and practising lawyer, I hope you treat your clients cases with more diligence than you are this issue and this thread.

  Mate, quite honestly... if you have an issue in the area that I practise, I am one of, I'd say 3, of all the accredited specialists in Melbourne that you would come to.  
I know, sounds pigheaded but after reading your comments, fair game!

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

[QUOTE=Jamesmelbourne;833657]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e-plot.svg.png 
Apart from the obvious terrible sourcing of information (at least it is refreshingly not Andrew Fault) it is relatively accurate according to relevant comparable indicia.  
See the pattern? 
AGW? hmm... if not, as I have said, let's just mask our perspectives with blissful ignorance and pass the problem to someone else until such time as we can't see where we are walking (China) and then, we'll all be long gone, had the pleasure of (as previously posted by "the Sigmund" - sipped latte's) and all is swell.  
*toffey nosed - hahaha*

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

[QUOTE=Dr Freud;833658]Rod, you have done an exceptional job in responding to these inane comments with such patience. 
Jamesmelbourne, were you lying about going to university? I don't say this in a derogatory way, it is just that your reason, research and communication patterns don't seem to match this.  I apologise if my guess is wrong, but you just don't seem to be communicating at the level you have indicated.  I'll go through these issues in detail to clarify later, but please forgive me if I am off the mark. 
Sigmund would identify that the above post is very passive-aggressive.  
Toughen up sweetcheecks!

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

speaking of Freud - he was quite the Marxist.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Rod, you have done an exceptional job in responding to these inane comments with such patience. 
> I'll go through these issues in detail to clarify later, but please forgive me if I am off the mark.

  I impart that there is a gatekeeper to social and political opinion?

----------


## olfella

> Ah... no. It didn't actually. Hung parliament. Still in oblivion. And honestly, aint going to improve with the dahh dahh budgie smuggler.  
> Come on man, even you, from what I can tell are intelligent enough to see that the guy is a total moron. Dead set idiot!

  And the talent on the other side is???

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> speaking of Freud - he was quite the Marxist.

  In the circumstance that you are not aware that Dr. Sigmund Freud was aligned with Marxist, I refer to you the plethora of historical literature and nominate to assert that a definition of 'Marxisim' may be attributed as follows: 
"political, social, and economic theories of Karl Marx. Applied Marxism, in an economy, results in either a communist economy or a heavily socialist economy" 
Huh? how does that fit with your values?

----------


## Dr Freud

> I think this is the only science referred to in the thread for quite a while.
> woodbe

  Actually that is incorrect.  Both Rod, myself, Marc and many others have referred to several aspects of the science on many occasions.  For example, I have asked many times how some Australians paying this tax will cool down the Planet Earth?  This question revolves around causality.  I understand if you do not have a suitable answer to this scientific question, but to say that science has not been referred to for quite a while is incorrect.  I can link back to all the posts if you want, but to save everyone time and effort, please feel free to review them yourself.   

> Pity that the poster chose to denigrate a scientist based on something other than what they actually said.
>  woodbe

  I cut and pasted the exact quotes, he actually said that.  I even posted the link so you could verify this.  If you think I have doctored the ABC transcript, you can watch the video and see him say it.   

> To be accurate, this was a TV show and he was asked if there was any way science could link Cyclone Yasi to global warming.
>  woodbe

  To be scientifically accurate, the response should have been no. 
Here's how the transcript should have looked: 
TIM FLANNERY: No, there is no scientific evidence for that.    

> He was _not_ asked to explain AGW.
>  woodbe

  Thank Gaia for that.   

> His explanation was on topic and his information was relevant. As I remember he guardedly suggested that it was possible, and that work in the northern hemisphere is suggesting that it may be the case.  
>  woodbe

  Guarded, possible, suggesting, may?  Sounds like a tarot card reader I used to know. 
You don't have to remember anything, I pasted the quotes and you can follow the link to the transcript.    

> Whether the cyclone or any other event can be linked to GW remains to be seen. 
>  woodbe

  TIM FLANNERY: No, there is no scientific evidence for that.    

> Despite the screaming hordes, it certainly sounds like it not outside the bounds of possibility.
>  woodbe

  TIM FLANNERY: No, there is no scientific evidence for that. 
Mate, seriously, we are talking scientific empirical evidence here, not fairy tales.  It is not outside the bounds of possibility that there is fat guy in a red suit living at the North Pole who rides a reindeer driven sled.  But science is not about "believing" what is "not outside the bounds of possibility".    

> Our poster chose to criticise Dr Flannery's explanation by presenting the graphic below; A graphic _claiming_ to be of global sea surface temperatures over 10 years, whereas the content of the graphic is of *just 5 years!* Not only is the graphic patently incorrect in its labelling, since when is a 5 year sample relevant to either the cyclone attribution or the AGW debate?
>  woodbe

  I didn't label the graph, but the years are quite clearly stated on it.  These semantics are truly unbecoming.  But if it makes you feel better, all the graphs I have ever created have been labelled correctly. 
And the 5 year time period is not at all relevant to cyclone attribution or the AGW hypothesis debate.  The graph was there to demonstrate that contemporary global indications do not indicate record global ocean temperatures.  This highlights Flim Flams selection of warm ocean temperatures at a single spot.  This is nothing to do with the AGW hypothesis, so is irrelevant to the question, but designed to confuse the weak minded that AGW *may* play a part, when in fact it does not.  Listen again: 
TIM FLANNERY: No, there is no scientific evidence for that.   

> Nice cherry pick! 
>   woodbe

  Again with the semantics.  You should remember that I have previously posted ocean data (as well as much other data) going back over 500 million years.  This was contemporary data designed only to show that Flim Flams premise was false, which it does.  If you cannot remember the previous data, please feel free to read the thread again.    

> Additionally, the Argo network itself has only been in operation sice around 2003, there simply is no usable data from the network yet relevant to GW. It might be possible to use the Argo System to alert for tropic cyclone conditions.
>   woodbe

  See above response regarding the AGW hypothesis data.  And yes, ocean temperatures at point in time are very relevant for cyclone development.  This is a weather event, not climate.  So when Flim Flam was asked this question:   

> Many prominent figures in the media and political circles have been quick to link Queensland's summer of extreme weather to human induced climate change. Is it naive to make the connection between CO2 emissions and extreme weather, or are we really to blame for our state's worst natural disaster in living memory?

  This should have been the response: 
TIM FLANNERY: No, there is no scientific evidence for that.    

> Dr Flannery described recent high local SST events because the scientific evidence is that high SST's in the northern Australian region are associated with the formation of tropical cyclones.
>   woodbe

  Yes, this is called weather.  It happens all around the world.  The question was are human created CO2 emissions to blame.  The correct response should have been: 
TIM FLANNERY: No, there is no scientific evidence for that.    

> Perhaps you could consider this graphic, as it is actually relevant to the discussion:
>   woodbe

  January 2011 data is relevant only to weather formation, not the AGW hypothesis.  The question was not weather related asking "How do cyclones form?".  If it was, your chart would be relevant, but it was not, so your chart is irrelevant.  Unless you have evidence demonstrating that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions created that patch of warm water where the rain or the cyclone came from, the correct response is: 
TIM FLANNERY: No, there is no scientific evidence for that. 
But I have missed your forays into the thread.  :2thumbsup:  
As you can tell if you've been reading the thread, the recent supporters of the AGW hypothesis have been doing your side a disservice by remaining totally ignorant of any of the scientific information relating to this issue.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> THIS IS GOLD  YouTube - Julia Gillard Carbon Tax - The Lies In Your Eyes

  Hilarious!   :Rotfl:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> And the talent on the other side is???

  Whether you like it or not, ALP together with the greens and some independents have balance of power.  
Might even be x2 Libs that cross the floor! 
The only thing left is protests (that are fundamentally hippie!!!! - eh - news to some  :Yikes2: ), failure in a Reading Speech, failure in the Senate or a s. 128 deadlock.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Whether you like it or not, ALP together with the greens and some independents have balance of power.  
> Might even be x2 Libs that cross the floor! 
> The only thing left is protests (that are fundamentally hippie!!!! - eh - news to some ), failure in a Reading Speech, failure in the Senate or a s. 128 deadlock.

  And to that... even though, perhaps I wish it were otherwise... good luck to the romantic perspectives that think that it will not get through!

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Mate, seriously, we are talking scientific empirical evidence here, not fairy tales.  It is not outside the bounds of possibility that there is fat guy in a red suit living at the North Pole who rides a reindeer driven sled.  But science is not about "believing" what is "not outside the bounds of possibility".

  Perhaps you should check the "empirical data" that suggests that there is a direct correlation between human occupancy (industrialisation) and the Earth's temperature???

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Hilarious!

  Yeah - that's quite clever.

----------


## olfella

> And to that... even though, perhaps I wish it were otherwise... good luck to the romantic perspectives that think that it will not get through!

  I fail to see how this sort of Tax is going to provide a solution to a complex problem.  One side says it will cost $6.50 at the bowser - the other side says no it won't! - but cannot say definatly if it will or it won't! It is just another policy on the run that is going to turn sour.  Why the rush in announcing it prior to having any detail?  Why not provide more assistance to industry to find technical solutions to the issue? (apart from throwing millions to the hybrid car) What happened to the election 'promise' of an East Timor solution?  None of these buggers at the levers seem to have any vision or ethics - they just keep putting their hand in MY back pocket and there is less and less for ME.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> I fail to see how this sort of Tax is going to provide a solution to a complex problem.  One side says it will cost $6.50 at the bowser - the other side says no it won't! - but cannot say definatly if it will or it won't! It is just another policy on the run that is going to turn sour.  Why the rush in announcing it prior to having any detail?  Why not provide more assistance to industry to find technical solutions to the issue? (apart from throwing millions to the hybrid car) What happened to the election 'promise' of an East Timor solution?  None of these buggers at the levers seem to have any vision or ethics - they just keep putting their hand in MY back pocket and there is less and less for ME.

  And that is the sentiment of Australia at the moment - courtesy of the budgie smuggler campaign. But there is some efficacy in the argument.

----------


## Dr Freud

> My interest in this thread is to do with the science, not the politics.  
> woodbe.

  Well, if you want to focus on the alleged problem instead of implementing the alleged solution, that's your prerogative.  
Here's the science: 
There is *zero* evidence proving the AGW hypothesis! 
Here's arguably one of the greatest scientific minds of our time elucidating:   

> First,    the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics    but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things    like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very    poorly. Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on    balance doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places    like Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in    summer. Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human    activities, as we know from studying the past. Fourth, the carbon dioxide in    the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the    biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is    misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models    do, and ignore the other reservoirs. Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in    the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops and to natural vegetation.    The biological effects are better known and probably more important than the    climatic effects. Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of    the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to    understanding it.   Letters to a heretic: An email conversation with climate change sceptic Professor Freeman Dyson - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

     

> PS. I am appalled at the hate campaign against fellow Australians within this thread, and particularly from the thread starter. I have no problem with political disagreement, but several here step over the edge IMHO and damage their position by personalising their opinion against one or two people.  
> You yourself vehemently defend sceptics when they come under personal attack, (usually justified, I might add, vis. Monckton, Tobacco Industry apologists, Energy industry shills, etc) yet here you are carrying on as if there are two sets of standards. 
> /rant.

  I'm happy to retract any inaccurate statements I've made about anyone, if you point them out.  If I believe they were justified, I will explain why I made these statements.  A vague reference to a "hate campaign" is not really helpful, some evidence would be nice.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> AGW has nothing to do with science? Are you serious?!!

  Would you please care to enlighten us "non-educated" individuals as to exactly how the AGW hypothesis works, and what empirical scientific evidence you have that has proven it?  :Wink 1:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Would you please care to enlighten us "non-educated" individuals as to exactly how the AGW hypothesis works, and what empirical scientific evidence you have that has proven it?

  Enlighten yourself and don't take the lazy option. You seem quite capable of reviewing material that you find supports your argument.  
Maybe then you will realise you should wait until you have all the facts before your march up your ivory tower. It is a long way to fall. Do the numbers in Parliament and get back to me.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Children, grand-kids anybody? 
> Let's just pass the problem down. Gees, it's so much easier isn't?!

  If you read the thread, you will understand that we have already covered this ridiculous emotional blackmail.  You are wasting everyones time if you want us to go over it all again just for you. 
Surely you understand the concept of a precedent saving time.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

Again:   

> Do the numbers in Parliament and get back to me.

----------


## Dr Freud

> You seem to be missing the point, a price on carbon is inevitable - period. 
> It doesn't matter who is in power nor the colour of their party (red, green, blue...), a price will be put on carbon.  It is just a matter of when and the form of the price.

  Thanks Kim, we got your message loud and clear in Team America.  Inevitbre!   

> The only difference a change of government would do is change the timing a little, but eventually a price on carbon will come in. Regardless of the rhetoric, I'd bet that the Coalition too would also put a price on carbon (they'd have no choice - just as the present government has no choice).

  Why do they have no choice, is the world about to end or something?  :Doh:     

> AGW is real - the science is clear for all who want know (I know there are some who just don't want to know).

  I want to know.  Show me this empirical scientific evidence you've been hiding?  :Doh:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

Even if Julia is hated for her political lies (OMG - a politician has lied - is that the best the Libs can come up with?) Bill Shorten will roll it out, long after the Big Red has gone.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm just making an observation - and a prediction - a carbon price is inevitable.

  Do you mean just in Australia, or globally? 
I'm just curious as to when the Saudi's will stop selling oil, and USA will stop burning it?  I'm curious as to when we in Australia will stop selling coal, and when China will stop burning it? 
It is "global" warming apparently, isn't it?

----------


## Dr Freud

> I am with ya - it's inevitable. 
> Getting rid of Turnbull was the most dumb-ars* thing I have seen in a long time.

  Seriously, did you really study political science?

----------


## Dr Freud

> ??????waiting?????? 
> This problem must be dealt with. It is how we go about it.  
> Oh hang on... yes, I see - the solution is ignorance. Let's keep on going on and when we end up like China, you know - not being able to see 8m in front of you, maybe then we can have a chat about AGW.

  This is getting tiresome.  A rudimentary understanding of the difference between carbon dioxide and smog would be a good start.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Whats that got to do with CO2? 
> Co2 is an odourless and invisible gas.  If its pollution your on about you don't need a tax on CO2 to reduce that.  Sheez

  Mate, this was from an allegedly high paid specialist lawyer who has university level qualifications, whose job it is to research every aspect of an argument, then sway that argument in his clients favour. 
This does not bode well for the future of this great nation if this story is actually true.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Oh my god. 
> Now you are really showing your ignorance. 
> The gas that Kills from the exhast is not CO2 anyone will tell you that LMAO. 
> Try carbon monoxide (CO) 
> Educate yourself and read all about it here. Carbon monoxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
> I suggest you do some reading on Co2 which is Plant food. It is what you breath out.

  Something does not add up here mate.  His statements are bizarre.  As to atmospheric CO2 levels reaching 10,000 ppm due to anthropogenic influences?  Very strange indeed.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e-plot.svg.png 
> have not pasted a picture before - how the hell do you do it?

  Click on the yellow square with the mountain and Sun logo, then paste the image location. 
But don't bother posting this picture, it has been acknowledged by all sides to support the fact that temperature drives CO2 levels, not the other way around. 
This refutes your own argument. 
We don't need any help on this side mate, but thanks anyway!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yeah well writing all day, and writing now at after 2am - after a bottle of red will do that Sigmund!

  Mate, I just hope you aren't preparing any client files in this condition.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> In the circumstance that you are not aware that Dr. Sigmund Freud was aligned with Marxist, I refer to you the plethora of historical literature and nominate to assert that a definition of 'Marxisim' may be attributed as follows: 
> "political, social, and economic theories of Karl Marx. Applied Marxism, in an economy, results in either a communist economy or a heavily socialist economy" 
> Huh? how does that fit with your values?

  If you had read the thread, you would understand my interest in irony, so would realise it fits with my values just fine.  :Biggrin:  
But gotta get that referencing happening, I assume those quotations means that you got this information from "somewhere".

----------


## Dr Freud

> Perhaps you should check the "empirical data" that suggests that there is a direct correlation between human occupancy (industrialisation) and the Earth's temperature???

  I have no idea what you mean by "direct" correlation between "human occupancy" and the Earth's temperature.  But if you are referring to anthropogenic CO2 emissions and average contemporary global atmospheric temperature readings, then various bi-variate correlations have shown approximate values of about .7 between these two variables. 
You would obviously understand the shared proportion of variances indicated by this number. 
You would obviously realise the spurious nature of these bi-variate results in a chaotic system. 
You would also obviously realise that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. 
Seriously mate, read the thread, we've covered this several times already.  You keep saying you want to learn more to inform your opinion.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Enlighten yourself and don't take the lazy option. You seem quite capable of reviewing material that you find supports your argument.  
> Maybe then you will realise you should wait until you have all the facts before your march up your ivory tower. It is a long way to fall. Do the numbers in Parliament and get back to me.

  Exactly how do the "numbers in Parliament" affect the AGW hypothesis, or the abject lack of scientific proof for it?  :Doh:  
Must have been a bottle of scotch.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

LOL who was it that said this thread was dead? 
Roll on 10,000 posts we might do the 2nd 5,000 quicker than the first 5,000 at this rate. 
Waddaya think Watson, got enough band width??   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

There is a lot of focus lately that the warmists see the AGW claims as a means to an end, the end being a reduction in fossil fuel use.  It seems some people decided  some time ago that we needed to reduce the use of fossil fuels and saw AGW as a way to achieve this.  Noble as this might have been in theory, my view is that this initial concept has been hyjacked by the left as a means of wealth distribution.   
This is way they are trying very very hard to ignore the science that refutes the theory.  They have a lot to lose by backing down.  So as you can see it has become a very political issue rather than a scientific one.   
The internet will bring this down in the end.  Just see how our alarmists are trying to down play this thread, "the thread is dead" etc.  This thread and others like it are essential to end this farce.  We will be posting here until it is dead, buried, dug up and cremated, then wont be happy until the ashes are shot off into space.   
Read this.   

> Roy Spencer, who was with the IPCC at the beginning, praised the action and states that the climate change deniers have no one to blame but themselves – that is, the deniers who think that climate change began with their birth and deny natural climate change. Spencer also states the IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal. Consequently, the physical evidence that contradicts the central claim that carbon dioxide controls the climate is ignored.

  Link Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That? 
Winning this battle is eaqually as important as bringing down the Berin wall IMO.  But will be quicker thans to the internet.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Another quote from Dr Roy Spencer.   

> ” Making our most abundant and affordable sources of energy artificially more expensive with laws and regulations will end up killing millions of people. And that’s why I speak out. Poverty kills. Those who argue otherwise from their positions of fossil-fueled health and wealth are like spoiled children.”

  On the House Vote to Defund the IPCC « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Scientists are de-valuing their profession by politicising science. Soon a used car salesman will be held in higher esteem. 
See this reply on the Roy Spencers Blog. Hit the nail on the head IMO.   

> Stanley says:  February 19, 2011 at 12:51 PM
> Bingo Dr. Spencer!
> That is the real problem as far as I am concerned, the misuse of science in pursuit of political goals. And the problem is hardly unique to your area of studies. I find myself regularly disgusted with studies published in my own area. All too often scientists are either following ideology instead of the evidence or prostituting themselves for a share of politically linked government money. 
> I fear that our professions are squandering our hard earned credibility with the the public. If this doesn’t stop, we may well wake up an find our credibility long gone and suffer the consequences.

----------


## Rod Dyson

God how I love this guy.  YouTube - tuv5

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The internet will bring this down in the end.

  Bring what down?  
The idea that the internet is our information saviour is akin to the expectation that 'Wikileaks' will bring about open government. 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA <breathe> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAteeheeheeheeheeehahaha  hahahahhhhhh..... 
Mondays..................love em.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Exactly how do the "numbers in Parliament" affect the AGW hypothesis, or the abject lack of scientific proof for it?  
> Must have been a bottle of scotch.

  1 + 1 = 2. Yeah? Follow? And if you get a high enough number, a thing called policy gets made.

----------


## watson

> LOL who was it that said this thread was dead? 
> Roll on 10,000 posts we might do the 2nd 5,000 quicker than the first 5,000 at this rate. 
> Waddaya think Watson, got enough band width??

  Shhh! Don't mention bandwidth or the DR will post 20 a day  :Rotfl:  
We've plenty in the sack.

----------


## chrisp

> Shhh! Don't mention bandwidth of the DR will post 20 a day

  If I'm not mistaken, it seems that Rod is also doing the sequential-multiple-posts-in-a-row thing too. 
Maybe, it is a case of quantity over quality?  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Bring what down?  
> The idea that the internet is our information saviour is akin to the expectation that 'Wikileaks' will bring about open government. 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA <breathe> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAteeheeheeheeheeehahaha  hahahahhhhhh..... 
> Mondays..................love em.

  Information saviour is correct finally something you and I can agree on. 
You see the truth is like cream it always floats to the top.  As you will see the truth overcome the bullchit on AGW and it won't come from the MSM it will be the internet. 
Remember he who laughs last laughs the loudest.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> If I'm not mistaken, it seems that Rod is also doing the sequential-multiple-posts-in-a-row thing too. 
> Maybe, it is a case of quantity over quality?

  Back to sleep chrisp. 
but nice to see you are still reading.  Addictive isn't it.  S&D has said on many occasions that he will no longer post here too LOL.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Again:

  Again: still waiting... a simple yes or no answer is fine.  
Does the Parliament have the numbers to pass a proposed Bill? Yes, or no?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Again: still waiting... a simple yes or no answer is fine.  
> Does the Parliament have the numbers to pass a proposed Bill? Yes, or no?

  What on earth are you trying to prove here.? 
Providing no one gets spooked yes they do have the numbers. Thats why there will be plenty of spooking going on  :Smilie:  
Gaurantee you they wont have the numbers at the next election. 
Just one more thing, if they try and get transport included the will not have the numbers. So what does that tell you? 
A useless tax that achieves nothing achieves even less without transport making it an absolute joke. LOL I would love to be a fly on the wall while they negotiate this mess.
Think the greens will be happy? 
This has a loooong way to go buddy.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Right on time. 
This expalins exactly what I was saying.  Now do they have the numbers?  I doubt it.  This has sealed JuLIARS fate. 
No way will she get this deal through IMO she has wedged herself LOL. Way to smart by half.   

> Andrew Bolt. 
> It is in the Greens’ strong interest to go to the election looking tougher than Labor on global warming. They will not want to do what the Australian Democrats fatally did with the GST and trade off their hard-line position, which would lose them the purity that so appeals to their shiny-eyed and irresponsible audience. And so they may yet demand more than Gillard dare give- such as a carbon dioxide tax on petrol, too, or not compensation for “big polluters” - leaving Gillard with no deal and a fear campaign on petrol to hose down, too, with her credibility already shot to ribbons. 
> I’d start hitting the phones, Bill. Oh, yes, and you, too, Greg.

  I would be very worried if I were you guys. 
Read it all here.Abbott promises to repeal the tax Gillard promised not to pass | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Oldsaltoz

Can a group of scientists in California end the war on climate change? | Science | The Guardian 
This should get a few comments.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Right on time. 
> This expalins exactly what I was saying.  Now do they have the numbers?  I doubt it.  This has sealed JuLIARS fate. 
> No way will she get this deal through IMO she has wedged herself LOL. Way to smart by half.   
> I would be very worried if I were you guys. 
> Read it all here.Abbott promises to repeal the tax Gillard promised not to pass | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Mate, don't be so ignorant. We all know the numbers are there. We all know that (at this stage) 2 Libs are even going to cross the floor.  
Ignorance sits well with the line taken by people who think AGW is "a load of crap".

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Mate, don't be so ignorant. We all know the numbers are there. We all know that (at this stage) 2 Libs are even going to cross the floor.  
> Ignorance sits well with the line taken by people who think AGW is "a load of crap".

  Want to have a bet on 2 libs crossing the floor?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> SbD has said on many occasions that he will no longer post here too LOL.

  True. 
But ultimately this thread is better than recreational drugs.  And that is without taking the wider world issues that it claims to be discussing into account...no mean feat.  
I figure if I behave like the majority of posters and don't post anything logical, sensible or simply remotely *a)* informative; and/or *b)* sane.....then I won't be harming anyone, anything or even my reputation/s (which are typically neither anyone, anything or anyonething) by playing the primadonna card occasionally.  After all...you have to shut up and take stock even just occasionally. 
For instance, here's what I learned by staying quiet for ten whole pages this past weekend: Every bolt needs a nut - but one Bolt and a few thousand nuts is not going to help anyone.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Can a group of scientists in California end the war on climate change? | Science | The Guardian 
> This should get a few comments.

  Quite rightly.  It is an effort to lauded.  But it won't 'end the war'.  Just open/close/divert/divest yet another front. 
Put simply....many here in this place don't accept the fundamental physics of climate let alone whether the world is warming or not....or the reality (or otherwise) of human influence on these processes. This won't fix that 
And by their own admission, the Berkeley Project is only examining the question of temperature. 
To whit....and I quote:
"Our aim is to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions. Our results will include not only our best estimate for the global temperature change, but estimates of the uncertainties in the record."  Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2010) 
So....nope.  There will be no end to hostilities.  A shame...but there you go.

----------


## Marc

> Children, grand-kids anybody? 
> Let's just pass the problem down. Gees, it's so much easier isn't?!

  What a load of crqap. This is the typical psichop to be used when everything else fails.
We do it for the children   :Puke:   http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2011/0...s-hard-to.html  

> *PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS   After much reading in the relevant literature, the following  conclusions seem warranted to me.  You should find evidence for all of  them appearing on this blog from time to time:   
> THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "HEAT TRAPPING GAS".  A gas can become  warmer by contact with something  warmer or by infrared radiation  shining on it or by adiabatic (pressure) effects  but it cannot trap  anything.  Air is a gas.  Try trapping something with it!   
> Greenies are the sand in the gears of modern civilization  -- and they intend to be.   
>  The Greenie message is entirely emotional and devoid of all  logic.  They say that polar ice will melt and cause a big sea-level  rise.  Yet 91% of the world's glacial ice is in Antarctica, where the  average temperature is around minus 40 degrees Celsius.  The melting  point of ice is zero degrees.  So for the ice to melt on any  scale the  Antarctic temperature would need to rise by around 40 degrees,  which  NOBODY is predicting. The median Greenie prediction is about 4 degrees.    So where is the huge sea level rise going to come from?  Mars?  And  the North polar area is mostly sea ice and melting sea ice does not  raise the sea level at all. Yet Warmists constantly hail any sign of  Arctic melting.  That the melting of floating ice does not raise the  water level is known as Archimedes' principle.  Archimedes demonstrated  it around 2,500 years ago.  That Warmists have not yet caught up with  that must be just about the most inspissated ignorance imaginable.   The  whole Warmist scare defies the most basic physics.  Yet at the opening  of  2011 we find the following unashamed lying by James Hansen:   "We will lose all the ice in the polar ice cap in a couple of  decades".  Sadly, what the Vulgate says in John 1:5 is still only very  partially true:  "Lux in tenebris lucet".  There is still much darkness in the minds of men.   
>  The repeated refusal of Warmist "scientists" to make their  raw data available to critics is such a breach of scientific protocol  that it amounts to a confession in itself.  Note, for instance Phil  Jones' Feb 21, 2005 response to Warwick Hughes' request for his raw  climate data: "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I  make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find  something wrong with it?"  Looking for things that might be wrong with a  given conclusion is of course central to science.  But Warmism cannot  survive such scrutiny. So even after "Climategate", the secrecy goes on.   
> Most Greenie causes are at best distractions from real  environmental concerns (such as land degradation)  and are more  motivated by a hatred of people than by any care for the environment    
> Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an  absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the  evidence showing its folly.  Evidence never has mattered to real  Leftists    ‘Global warming’ has become the grand political  narrative of the age, replacing Marxism as a dominant force for  controlling liberty and human choices.  -- Prof. P. Stott   
> Comparing climate alarmist Hansen to Cassandra is WRONG.  Cassandra's (Greek mythology) dire prophecies were never believed but  were always right. Hansen's dire prophecies are usually believed but are  always wrong (Prof. Laurence Gould, U of Hartford, CT)   
> The modern environmental movement arose out of the wreckage  of the New Left.  They call themselves Green because they're too yellow  to admit they're really Reds. So  Lenin's birthday was chosen to be the  date of Earth Day.   Even a moderate politician like Al Gore has been  clear as to what is needed. In "Earth in the Balance", he wrote that  saving the planet  would require a "wrenching transformation of  society".    
> ...

----------


## Marc

Continued from above   

> *There is an "ascetic instinct" (or perhaps a "survivalist instinct")  in many people that causes them to delight in going without material  comforts.  Monasteries and nunneries were once full of such people --  with the Byzantine stylites perhaps the most striking example.  Many  Greenies (other than Al Gore and his Hollywood pals)  have that instinct  too but in the absence of strong orthodox religious committments they  have to convince themselves that the world NEEDS them to live in an  ascetic way.  So their personal emotional  needs lead them to press on  us all a delusional belief that the planet needs "saving".   
> The claim that oil is a fossil fuel is another great myth  and folly of the age.  They are now finding oil at around seven MILES  beneath the sea bed  -- which is incomparably further down than any  known fossil.  The abiotic oil theory is not as yet well enough  developed to generate useful predictions but that is also true of fossil  fuel theory   
> Help keep the planet Green!  Maximize your CO2 and CH4 output!   
> Global Warming=More Life; Global Cooling=More Death.      The inconvenient truth about biological effects of "Ocean Acidification"     SOME MORE BRIEF OBSERVATIONS WORTH REMEMBERING:    "The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" -- H L Mencken     'Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action' -- Goethe    Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire   
> Bertrand Russell knew about consensus:  "The fact that an  opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not  utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of  mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than  sensible.     There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts. - Duc de La Rochefoucauld, French writer and moralist (1613-1680)    "In science, refuting an accepted belief is celebrated as an advance in knowledge; in religion it is condemned as heresy".  (Bob Parks, Physics, U of Maryland).  No prizes for guessing how global warming skepticism is normally responded to.    "Almost all professors of the arts and sciences are egregiously conceited, and derive their happiness from their conceit"  -- Erasmus    "The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to  acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism  is the highest of  duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."  -- Thomas H. Huxley    Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood  of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic  development of the others. -- John P. Holdren, Science Adviser to President Obama.  Published in Science 9 February 2001    'The  closer science looks at the real world processes involved in climate  regulation the more absurd the IPCC's computer driven fairy tale  appears. Instead of blithely modeling climate based on hunches and  suppositions, climate scientists would be better off abandoning their  ivory towers and actually measuring what happens in the real world.' -- Doug L Hoffman     Time was, people warning the world "Repent - the end is  nigh!" were snickered at as fruitcakes. Now they own the media and run  the schools.    "One of the sources of the Fascist movement is the desire to avoid a too-rational and too-comfortable world" -- George Orwell, 1943 in  Can Socialists Be Happy?     The whole problem with the world is that fools and  fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full  of doubts -- Bertrand Russell    
> Against the long history of huge temperature variation in  the earth's climate (ice ages etc.), the .6 of one degree average rise  reported by the U.N. "experts" for the entire 20th century (a rise so  small that you would not be able to detect such a difference personally  without instruments)  shows, if anything,  that the 20th century was a  time of exceptional temperature stability.     Recent NASA figures  tell us that there was NO warming trend in the USA during the 20th  century.  If global warming is occurring, how come it forgot the USA?   
> Warmists say that the revised NASA figures do not matter  because they cover only the USA -- and the rest of the world is warming  nicely.  But it is not.  There has NEVER been any evidence that the  Southern hemisphere is warming.  See here.  So the warming pattern sure is looking moth-eaten.   
> The latest scare is the possible effect of  extra CO2 on the  worlds oceans, because more CO2 lowers the pH of seawater. While it is  claimed that this makes the water more acidic, this is misleading.  Since seawater has a pH around 8.1, it will take an awful lot of CO2 it  to even make the water neutral (pH=7), let alone acidic (pH less than  7).   
> In fact, ocean acidification is a scientific impossibility.  Henry's Law mandates that warming oceans will outgas CO2 to the  atmosphere (as the UN's own documents predict it will), making the  oceans less acid. Also, more CO2 would increase calcification rates. No  comprehensive, reliable measurement of worldwide oceanic acid/base  balance has ever been carried out: therefore, there is no observational  basis for the computer models' guess that acidification of 0.1 pH units  has occurred in recent decades.    
> ...

----------


## Marc

And some more    

> *The  Lockwood & Froehlich paper   was designed to rebut Durkin's  "Great Global Warming Swindle" film.    It is a rather confused paper --  acknowledging yet failing to  account   fully for the damping effect of the oceans, for instance  -- but it is   nonetheless  valuable to climate atheists.  The concession from a   Greenie source that  fluctuations in the output of the sun have driven   climate change for all but the last 20 years (See the first sentence of   the paper) really is invaluable.   And the basic fact presented in the   paper  -- that solar output has in general been on the downturn in   recent years -- is also amusing to see.   Surely even a crazed Greenie   mind must see  that the sun's influence has not stopped and that    reduced solar output will soon start COOLING the earth!  Unprecedented   July 2007 cold weather throughout the Southern hemisphere might even   have been  the first sign that the cooling is happening.  And the fact   that warming plateaued in 1998 is also a good sign that we are moving   into a cooling phase.  As is so often the case, the Greenies have got   the danger exactly backwards.  See my post of 7.14.07 and  very detailed critiques here and here and here for more  on the Lockwood paper and its weaknesses.   
> As the Greenies are now learning, even strong statistical correlations may disappear if a longer time series is used.  A remarkable example from Sociology: "The   modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by   Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on  the  number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an   acres yield of cotton. He calculated the correla@tion coefficient   between the two series at 0.532. In other words, when the economy was   doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green,   Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished   the alleged connection between economic condi@tions and lynchings in   Rapers data.  Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal@ysis in   1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and   economic condi@tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The   correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were  added."    So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the  data.  In the  Greenie case, the correlation between CO2 rise and global  temperature  rise stopped in 1998 -- but that could have been foreseen  if  measurements taken in the first half of the 20th century had been   considered.   
> Relying on the popular wisdom can even hurt you personally:  "The scientific consensus of a quarter-century ago turned into the arthritic nightmare of today."   
> Greenie-approved sources of electricity (windmills and solar  cells)  require heavy government subsidies to be competitive with normal   electricity generators so a Dutch word for Greenie power seems graphic   to me: "subsidieslurpers" (subsidy gobblers) *

----------


## Marc

Read the full version here:  Global Warming as Religion and not Science   

> *Global Warming as Religion and not Science* _Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
> Blaise Pascal_ It was Michael Crichton who first prominently identified environmentalism as a religion. That was in a speech in 2003, but the world has moved on apace since then and adherents of the creed now have a firm grip on the world at large. Global Warming has become the core belief in a new eco-theology. The term is used as shorthand for anthropogenic (or man made) global warming. It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, chemophobia and various other forms of scaremongering, but it represents the vanguard in the assault on scientific man. *Faith and scepticism* Faith is a belief held without evidence. The scientific method, a loose collection of procedures of great variety, is based on precisely the opposite concept, as famously declared by Thomas Henry Huxley: _The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin._  Huxley was one of a long tradition of British sceptical philosophers.  From the Bacons, through the likes of Locke, Hume and Russell, to the magnificent climax of Popper’s statement of the principle of falsifiability, the scientific method was painfully established, only to be abandoned in a few short decades. It is one of the great ironies of modern history that the nation that was the cradle of the scientific method came to lead the process of its abandonment. The great difference, then, is that religion demands belief, while science requires disbelief. There is a great variety of faiths. Atheism is just as much a faith as theism. There is no evidence either way. There is no fundamental clash between faith and science – they do not intersect. The difficulties arise, however, when one pretends to be the other. *Sin and absolution* It is in the nature of religion to be authoritarian and proscriptive. Essential to this is the concept of sin – a transgression in thought or deed of theological principles. Original sin in the older religions derived from one of the founts of life on earth – sex. The new religion goes even further back to the very basis of all life – carbon. Perhaps the fundamental human fear is fear of life itself. The amazing propensity of carbon to form compounds of unlimited complexity made the existence of life possible, while its dioxide is the primary foodstuff, the very start of the food chain. Every item of nutriment you consume started out as atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is therefore the ideal candidate for original sin, since no one can escape dependence on it. This manna that gave us life is now regularly branded in media headlines as “pollution” and “toxic”: surely one of the most perverse dysphemisms in the history of language.   *Proselytes and evangelists* Most religions seek to grow by means of proselytism. Science does not seek or need converts. It teaches those that are willing to learn, but it does not impose itself on those who are indifferent. Religions (at least those that are successful) have a different imperative. A growing cohort of believers reinforces the beliefs of existing adherents and participating in the quest for converts helps assuage the inevitable doubts they might harbour. Successful religions are structured to encompass this expansionary mechanism. Those who can recruit others to the cause are therefore held in high regard.   *Demagogues and hypocrites* Demagoguery is also, therefore, a feature of religion. Some people have the capacity to hold the masses in their thrall. It is a mysterious art, as their skills of oratory do not often stand up to any sort of critical examination. They are idols of the moment, who often turn out to have feet of clay, as so frequently seems to happen with charismatic TV preachers. One of the most notorious demagogues of the godless religion is Al Gore. He is certainly no great orator, but he makes up for it with chutzpah. His disregard for truth is exemplified by his characteristic and ubiquitous pose in front of a satellite photograph of hurricane Katrina. Even some of the most vehement climate “scientists” refrain from connecting that particular isolated and monstrously tragic event with global warming.   *Infidels and apostates* Religions vary in their treatment of unbelievers, which ranges from disregard to slaughter. The new religion relies at present on verbal assault and character assassination, though there are those who would go further. They call the infidels “deniers” – a cheap and quite despicable verbal reference to the Holocaust. There is a sustained campaign to deny the deniers any sort of public platform for their views.    *Sacrifice and ritual* It is part of human nature that we do not like to admit making a mistake, even to ourselves. So if, for example, we buy a magic device that by some mysterious means improves the fuel efficiency of our car, we drive a little more conservatively in order to prove that we have not been had. Religions exploit this weakness as a means creating and reinforcing commitment. If someone can be induced or coerced into making a sacrifice they then have a stake in the cause. Windmills, for example, are the symbols of power, not physical power (of which they are derisorily short) but political and religious power. They are like the great domes of temples, the statues of Saddam or the big “M” arch of MacDonald’s. Windmills are ugly: they destroy the visual (and aural) landscape, but that is their purpose. They are part of the sacrifice.  *Prophecy and divination* In the real world attempts at prophecy always come to a bad end. Only in religious texts and the currently popular fantasy fiction do prophecies come true. H G Wells, in _The shape of things to come_, successfully predicted the mechanised War, as did Winston Churchill, but little else, and the film that Wells closely supervised now provides rather comic entertainment (but wonderful music).   The main form of modern divination, however, is computer models. Forty odd years ago an instruction passed round the Faculty of Engineering of the University of London that no PhDs were to be awarded on the basis of computer models unsupported by measurement. As T S Eliot asked in _Choruses from The Rock_ _Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
> Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?_ Now, huge and generously funded university and government departments do nothing but develop computer models, involving assumptions about physical interactions that are still not understood by science. Their dubious (to say the least) results are used by the new international priesthood to frighten the people into conformity.    *Puritans and killjoys* No one has bettered Mencken’s definition of Puritanism – the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. It is an unfortunate characteristic of many varieties of religion that this characteristic is to the fore and Global Warming is far from being an exception. Nothing the proponents offer involves an improvement or even maintenance of human contentment, quite the opposite in fact. You might think that any philosophy of life would involve swings and roundabouts, good and bad, but think again. Virtually everything you enjoy is now sinful – holidays, driving your car, having a comfortable temperature in your home, being free from the stink of rotting garbage, and on and on. As with the flagellants of old, for some people a feeling of self-righteousness not only transcends all discomforts, but derives from them. The rest of us have to be coerced into conformity.

----------


## Marc

Continued    

> *Censorship and  angles* Freedom of  speech and publication is at the very heart of science. Even the most foolish of  hypotheses is allowed to be offered for examination. In much of religion the  opposite is true; challenging the established dogma is heresy, for which the  punishment has ranged from ostracism to horrific torture and death. One of the  greatest ironies produced by the successful policy of entryism by the  Eco-theologians is that it is none other than the Royal Society that has been  orchestrating the attempt to censor any deviation from establishment beliefs.  Authoritarian politicians, such as Congressman Brad Miller, would give such  suppression the force of law.   *Control and  taxation* Religion has  always played an important part in the imposition of authority. For many  centuries it took the form of the Divine Right of Kings or the Mandate of  Heaven. Once you get the people to believe, you can get away with almost any  imposition. The alliance between the shaman and the legislator has long been the  very foundation of authoritarianism. Even when the dogma is a godless one, such  as Marxism, it is imposed with religious fervour, for that is the way to induce  conformity. People now accept laws that  restrict their liberty and standard of living, which would once have provoked  riots, because they are cloaked in a quasi-religious formula of  environmentalism. So-called environmental burdens, for example, now greatly  outweigh the incremental effect of the poll tax that met with such violent  opposition in England, yet are now meekly accepted, as is the parasitic presence  of various forms of snooper, who even invade peoples  dustbins.   *Contradictions and irrationality* Traditional religions not only tolerated contradiction  and irrationality, they embrace them as part of the mystique. Words and phrases  are repeated _ad nauseam_ and in strange contexts, until they lose all  meaning and become self-preserving mantras.  Contradictions and irrationality also abound in the  modern theocratic world. The EU, for example, gratuitously destroys a tiny  industry making traditional barometers, on the grounds of an irrational fear of  mercury, then imposes the use of fluorescent light bulbs that distribute that  same dreaded substance in huge quantities across the continent, all on the basis  of the threat of global warming.   *Wealth and  power* Some organisms  develop the ingredients to survive and multiply, so it is with business and  religions. It is characteristic of businesses that they dispose of the  entrepreneurs who create them and are taken over by a different breed of  corporate manager: so it is with religions. The brutally suppressed troglodytes  who were the early Christians of Rome were a different breed from the cardinals,  bishops and abbots who bestrode mediaeval Europe and lived the opulent life.  There were also, of course, the humble and saintly mendicant friars. The  equivalents of all these varieties exist within the new  movement. Money is the basis of the new  religion. It poured in from various foundations (the so-called ketchup money)  and naïve donors. The activists found that they had to maintain and innovate  their product (anxiety) to keep the income rising, so they had to keep  increasing the imaginary threats both in intensity and  number.  *Confession and salvation* One of the last bastions of science to fall was the  British Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Science and Manufacture. It  has a Chief Executive who was formerly one of the most powerful green civil  servants. It now offers its fellows the opportunity to make public confession of  their sins in the form of their carbon footprint. They even have a programme  of Carbon Control directed at seven to fourteen year olds, urging them to take  control of their carbon emissions. Young children now have nightmares about the  burning planet, just as some of us once had nightmares about burning in hell  unless we believed, and then lay awake at night wondering whether we believed or  not, or what believe actually means. The ruthless exploitation of the  receptivity of the young, and their relentless indoctrination, is one of the  less pleasant characteristics of much of religion. As the Jesuits say Give me a  child until he is seven and I will give you the  man.    *Envoi* The  human spirit is sick. It soared during the enlightenment of the eighteenth  century. It flowered during the nineteenth. It beat off the tyrants of the  twentieth century. Now, at an alarming rate, it is surrendering its freedoms to  a concocted religion based on fraudulent science. Of course, it is not only  science that has suffered in the overwhelming cultural downturn. The great  artistic tradition has given way to displays of dead animals and soiled beds. In  much of what passes for literature and drama, the expletives remain while the  loftier aspirations of humanity are deleted. Entertainment is debased by  displays of banality, cruelty and vacuous, groundless celebrity. It was science,  however, that gave us lives of a length, comfort and healthiness that were  unthought-of, even within human memory; a gift that is cold-bloodedly, but  covertly, being denied to millions in poorer parts of the world. Extremists of  the new religion regard humanity as an inconvenience or a pestilence that can be  disposed of (not including themselves, of course). Above all, science represented the triumph of humanity  over the primitive superstitions that haunted our ancestors, a creation of pure  reason, a monument to that evolutionary (or, if you prefer, God-given) miracle  of the human brain. It is too valuable just to be tossed away like a used  tissue. But who will speak for science when the barbarian is already inside the  gate? John Brignell June 2007

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

I hope we all saw Windsor's comments re: Tony Abbot sucking up to him during the caretaker stage?   :Busted:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I hope we all saw Windsor's comments re: Tony Abbot sucking up to him during the caretaker stage?

  Who cares, what we have is now. He cant vote for it if it includes fuel period.  The greens cant vote for it if it does not.  Who will break first. 
Sharpen up your arguments.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Who cares, what we have is now. He cant vote for it if it includes fuel period.  The greens cant vote for it if it does not.  Who will break first. 
> Sharpen up your arguments.

  Who cares? 
Ok then, who cares about your footer given that it is a past event.  
True, what we have is the here and the now.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Who cares? 
> Ok then, who cares about your footer given that it is a past event.  
> True, what we have is the here and the now.

  Yes and what we have is a lying, coniving PM that will be dusted at the next election  :Smilie:

----------


## Daniel Morgan

Hello, 
What is the anticipated Australian revenue from this carbon tax? 
Taking into consideration all aspects of the tax. 
 The tax, 
 increased fuel cost,
 increased gst on fuel,
 increased transport costs,
 increased gst on transport costs,
 increased power costs,
 increased gst on power costs,
 increased cost of goods because of increased transport and power etc,
 increased gst because of increased cost of goods, 
 People pay tax 
 less spending money,
 decreased affordability,
 lower standard of living,
 less money spent,
 less workers required,
 less jobs, 
 more small businesses go to the wall,
 less jobs available, 
 More people on the unemployed/welfare, 
 Less people paying tax, 
 Mr Swan said - low income people will not be out of pocket, 
 So more money to these unemployed/welfare people, 
 But less taxpayers, 
 Get my drift, 
 How much is it going to cost Australia to have a carbon tax? 
E&OE.

----------


## PhilT2

> BTW I wonder where Woodbe is posting nowadays. Gee I miss him  
> And it seems that our other resident warmers have gon a bit quite of late too.  
> So much fun watching them try to defend the scam.

  I've been in Melbourne the last two weeks staying in this place in Kew that is a black hole for wireless broadband, but it didn't matter for long. The weather here killed my laptop so it's disappeared into Toshiba's service dept which is another black hole where nothing happens. Too busy enjoying what Melb has to offer (haven't been here for 30 years) to even check the forum. Had to borrow a laptop and drive down the road to find a spot where there is a connection to do this. Back in warmer climate next week (no, not Perth) In the meantime it looks like Julia has got things under control.

----------


## PhilT2

_How much is it going to cost Australia to have a carbon tax? _ Probably a lot less than it costs us when OPEC decides to jack up the oil price. We seem to survive those price hikes so we may handle this. Of course if previous govts had implemented energy independance policies we could have spared ourselves all the grief those oil price shocks have caused.  
Examples of previous tax increases are easy to find. Like the GST and Medicare. Some forum members struggle with the concept of computer modelling but economists from both sides of politics accept it as a valid method of assessing the impact of economic changes. So when this policy is fully developed there will be an assessment of its effects. There will be answers to all your questions by people who actually know something about the subject.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> _How much is it going to cost Australia to have a carbon tax?_ 
> Probably a lot less than it costs us when OPEC decides to jack up the oil price. We seem to survive those price hikes so we may handle this. Of course if previous govts had implemented energy independance policies we could have spared ourselves all the grief those oil price shocks have caused.  
> Examples of previous tax increases are easy to find. Like the GST and Medicare. Some forum members struggle with the concept of computer modelling but economists from both sides of politics accept it as a valid method of assessing the impact of economic changes. So when this policy is fully developed there will be an assessment of its effects. There will be answers to all your questions by people who actually know something about the subject.

  So.. if its that easy to get used to it will be a great waste of time then.  :Smilie:  
Alright for me cause I will have a price increase to cover it.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> [I]So when this policy is fully developed there will be an assessment of its effects. There will be answers to all your questions by people who actually know something about the subject.

  Thank god someone is sensible enough so as to not discount the global consensus.

----------


## Dr Freud

> 1 + 1 = 2. Yeah? Follow? And if you get a high enough number, a thing called policy gets made.

  A hypothesis is a scientific concept.   
Empirical evidence supports or refutes this concept. 
Perhaps a little more research than a Law and Political Science degree is going to be required after all.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> A hypothesis is a scientific concept.   
> Empirical evidence supports or refutes this concept. 
> Perhaps a little more research than a Law and Political Science degree is going to be required after all.

  It's not a hard question.   :Brick:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Shhh! Don't mention bandwidth or the DR will post 20 a day  
> We've plenty in the sack.

  When they push my buttons, I can't help but make noise and then pay out on them.   :Biggrin:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

I wish I could stay and chat.  
Gotta go and do some work.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Again: still waiting... a simple yes or no answer is fine.  
> Does the Parliament have the numbers to pass a proposed Bill? Yes, or no?

  The Parliament always has the numbers to pass a proposed bill, it is designed that way.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I would be very worried if I were you guys. 
> Read it all here.Abbott promises to repeal the tax Gillard promised not to pass | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  The biggest argument JuLIAR gave for this farcical Carbon Dioxide Tax was that it gave business certainty.  This argument was ridiculous at the time:   

> Ms Gillard said there were statements from the Business Council of Australia saying business needed certainty on carbon pricing  Gillard says carbon tax will create jobs

  With Mr Rabbit's move, there is now no certainty, so there is no point to the tax!   

> Seeking to concentrate the debate on the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard's honesty and ''lack of mandate'' for a carbon tax, rather than on climate science or the as-yet-unresolved details of the proposal, Mr Abbott said of the carbon price: ''We will oppose it in opposition. We will rescind it in government.''
>               The chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, said there was so much uncertainty about the details of Labor's plan as well as the Coalition's intended ''direct action'' alternative that all options had to stay on the table. This included the possibility of ''rolling back'' the tax.
>               But the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Peter Anderson, backed the rationale argued in shadow cabinet - that it was desirable and possible to scrap the proposed scheme during its first three to five years, when it was in effect working as a tax rather than as a market.   Business demands certainty on carbon

  There goes the certainty argument. 
There goes the reason for the tax.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Mate, don't be so ignorant. We all know the numbers are there. We all know that (at this stage) 2 Libs are even going to cross the floor.

  Wow! 
First, you admit that there is no policy. 
But then you use your psychic powers to predict this policy ahead of its release, then also use your psychic powers to predict how all MP's and Senators will vote on this fictional policy.  Down to the exact numbers!  I don't suppose you have next weeks lotto numbers? 
Did you learn these esoteric skills in your Law units or your Politics units?  :Doh:  
Didn't your Law lecturers mention a concept know as "evidence"? 
Didn't you learn that age old adage that "a week is a long time in politics"? 
If you did go to university to study these subjects, which I am highly doubtful of given your performance here, then our education system is in much more trouble than even I thought.   :Frown:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I hope we all saw Windsor's comments re: Tony Abbot sucking up to him during the caretaker stage?

  You claim to have a political science degree, yet you call negotiations for Westminster government "sucking up", even though both major parties are required to engage in this process to form government. 
You don't even have the political insight to understand why Windsor made these comments at this particular point in time. 
You obviously didn't even follow the federal election post-poll negotiations closely enough to understand Windsor's hypocrisy on this issue. 
This was a historic political moment in our nations history, and you do not even understand what happened. 
This is like Gyprock being banned and Rod not realising it, or me posting a dodgy graph and Woodbe not realising it.  :Biggrin:  
Seeing as you missed this historic political moment, and your legal research skills obviously don't include Google, allow me to show you some comments from Windsor at the time of the negotiations:   

> *Abbott didnt want the job: Windsor* 
> 11 Oct 2010. 
> Tony Windsor has revealed for the first time why Tony Abbott is not prime minister today. 
> Remarkably it was because in the crucial early days of negotiations over the formation of a minority government Abbott didnt want the job. 
> Windsor says the Liberal leader lost him because the formation of government seemed to come a clear second to Abbotts rush to get back to the polls and re-run the August 21 election. 
> Tony Windsor remains convinced that at the outset of their talks thats exactly what Abbott wanted  *to the point where he was actually disinterested in the talks.*  Abbott didn

  Windsor's not lying like JuLIAR, he's just engaged in the regular political spin of highlighting convenient points for political impact (a technique I quite like using  :Biggrin: ).  Surely you have been trained to recognise this. 
I find it hard to believe you effectively depose people or argue points of law effectively with the credulous attitude you have displayed thus far.  
This topic and the rules of this thread should be a cakewalk for a man of your talents and training.  No legislation, no discovery, no judges (ok, the moderators do lay down the law occasionally  :Biggrin: ). 
No wonder I am a sceptic and don't trust people claiming to be "experts".  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

> Sharpen up your arguments.

  Very succinct and very accurate!  :2thumbsup:  
I do tend to ramble.  :Blush7:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yes and what we have is a lying, coniving PM that will be dusted at the next election

  Yeh, apologies for the slow posts, but was trying to watch Q&A at the same time. 
Gotta love Turnbull, the right man for that show. 
But based on the crowd reaction and all feedback, JuLIAR is on the road out.   
Tony Jones even referred to the use of the name JuLIAR being used throughout the country after only a few days.  :2thumbsup:  (That's the internet for you SBD, Ruddy warned you it was the "toolbox of the 21st Century".  It's certainly full of tools.  :Biggrin: ). 
The Greens won't care who is in power as long as their base grows.  Bob Brown may even figure out that his party will grow much faster with an Abbott led Liberal government in power, by playing against Abbott's direct action plan. 
Maybe this is his plan by having Milne regularly spruiking petrol being in the scheme, to destabilise JuLIAR in the lower house. 
And how awesome was it when Piers Ackerman shut down that moronic girl.  She was complaining how racist and discriminatory we Australians are, usually aimed at the old white men in the "establishment".  Then Piers pointed out she was a very young female Muslim who Australia had selected to represent us at the UN for their youth committee. 
The look of realisation on her face when it dawned on her she was the evidence against her own argument was hilarious!  :Rofl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> In the meantime it looks like Julia has got things under control.

   :Rotfl:  
I'd hate to see the country when she goes pear shaped then!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> So.. if its that easy to get used to it will be a great waste of time then.

  Well done mate, nail this Catch 22 they cannot sell.  They say it has to hurt to have an effect, then say we will make sure it doesn't hurt to keep votes. Trapped!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Very succinct and very accurate!  
> I do tend to ramble.

  Hey that was directed at our friend Mr James.  Your rambling at least has some reasoning.  
Keep rambling man.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So.. if its that easy to get used to it will be a great waste of time then.

  Yes.  Certainly in the first few years.   
But down the track at bit.....the economists and day traders all on the hunt for new ways to make money will demand that this new financial instrument (the Australian Carbon Price) is floated on the international market in order to gain a greater level of access to the international trade in carbon 'credits' (which will also come simply because the Almighty God Of Endless Economic Growth must be kowtowed to). 
The carbon economy is a new type of currency.....it'll join national currencies, gold, oil and other commodities on international money train.  And like most mineral commodities...carbon 'credits' (if the process works correctly) should become increasingly scarce as carbon emissions from fossil fuels fall.  Unlike most commodities....this process of increasing scarcity should happen in an orderly, stable & forseeable fashion and markets like stability.  
The increasing scarcity will happen until a point where the 80:20 rule applies and there is nothing economic to be gained from mitigating the last 20% of fossil fuel carbon emissions because the cost of doing so will account for 80% of the total budget to date. 
This point will prove to be an interesting place.....by this time, fossil fuel carbon emmisions should be so expensive that they are spent on the really important things that only fossil fuels can provide....which is not fuel (or even heat) but hydrocarbons for industry. 
But since I expect to have naturally expired (one way or the other) by then......so it won't cost me much either.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Yes. Certainly in the first few years.  
> But down the track at bit.....the economists and day traders all on the hunt for new ways to make money will demand that this new financial instrument (the Australian Carbon Price) is floated on the international market in order to gain a greater level of access to the international trade in carbon 'credits' (which will also come simply because the Almighty God Of Endless Economic Growth must be kowtowed to). 
> The carbon economy is a new type of currency.....it'll join national currencies, gold, oil and other commodities on international money train. And like most mineral commodities...carbon 'credits' (if the process works correctly) should become increasingly scarce as carbon emissions from fossil fuels fall. Unlike most commodities....this process of increasing scarcity should happen in an orderly, stable & forseeable fashion and markets like stability.  
> The increasing scarcity will happen until a point where the 80:20 rule applies and there is nothing economic to be gained from mitigating the last 20% of fossil fuel carbon emissions because the cost of doing so will account for 80% of the total budget to date. 
> This point will prove to be an interesting place.....by this time, fossil fuel carbon emmisions should be so expensive that they are spent on the really important things that only fossil fuels can provide....which is not fuel (or even heat) but hydrocarbons for industry. 
> But since I expect to have naturally expired (one way or the other) by then......so it won't cost me much either.

  Wow what you have described is the precursor for the biggest finacial meltdown in history.  
The ignorance on this is breathtaking. 
So called intelligent people support this. Go figure!!

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> The Parliament always has the numbers to pass a proposed bill, it is designed that way.

  The above is a fine example of your intelligence.  :brava:  
My dog knows the answer.  
Do me a favour - before you make yourself look so incredibly, well silly (and that's being generous), don't pretend that your opinion is the only one that counts. 
There are some good ABC kids publications on the process of a Bill through Parliament if you would like to begin there.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Yeh, apologies for the slow posts, but was trying to watch Q&A at the same time. 
> Gotta love Turnbull, the right man for that show.

  He should be leading this country but the Libs are too dumb.    

> And how awesome was it when Piers Ackerman shut down that moronic girl.  She was complaining how racist and discriminatory we Australians are, usually aimed at the old white men in the "establishment".  Then Piers pointed out she was a very young female Muslim who Australia had selected to represent us at the UN for their youth committee. 
> The look of realisation on her face when it dawned on her she was the evidence against her own argument was hilarious!

  WTF? Mate, you need to get a perspective. That's an appalling interpretation of what happened.  
Your comprehension is ....ppffffttt!! Seriously? 
I can't believe you wrote that.  :Annoyed:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage Thesis is a pissa.  :Hahaha:  
He acknowledges that a Carbon Tax and market based mechanisms are the way to go! Ha?? :Rolleyes:  
Shadow environment policy (written by One Nation Party!!) is the farce. They don't even support each other. Don't know whether they are sheep or soldiers. They are the liars and the sham.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage Thesis is a pissa.  
> He acknowledges that a Carbon Tax and market based mechanisms are the way to go! Ha?? 
> Shadow environment policy (written by One Nation Party!!) is the farce. They don't even support each other. Don't know whether they are sheep or soldiers. They are the liars and the sham.

  James like I said before you really need to sharpen up on you arguments. 
We acknowledge people, even withing the liberal party have their own personal views on AGW, that is the nature of the beast.  The difference is that they are able to voice those opinions.  Unlike those in the Labour party who personally oppose a carbon tax that are unable to express those views. 
Try again you might find a gotcha yet!  But I doubt it.

----------


## mark53

It's taken me a few hours to catch up on the ten or so pages I have missed, just dealing with a family issue and couldn't use the computer in the hospital. Any way Freud, Rod, Marc and others well done for keeping the fanatical AGW zealots honest.  :brava: Congratulations Marc on your post a few pages back, extremely informative but completely lost on the socialists, tree huggers and grey cardigan wearers. 
I come to that old adage " you can lie to some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time". JuLIER is toast. And Brown will become just that, a stain of that colour on the political landscape. 
James I'm with Freud in questioning your stated scholastic achievements. If you studied ethics then I would respectfully suggest you have forgotten everything you learnt. A person of your stated academic achievements should be setting an example for the rest of us to follow and not act like an under achieving trade union wanna be pseudo intellectual. Also some free unsolicited advise,read the entire thread :2thumbsup:  lest you continue to be a boor.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> If you studied ethics then I would respectfully suggest you have forgotten everything you learnt. A person of your stated academic achievements should be setting an example for the rest of us to follow and not act like an under achieving trade union wanna be pseudo intellectual. Also some free unsolicited advise,read the entire thread lest you continue to be a boor.

  Lets be honest, this is a forum.  
The principles enunciated in Legal Ethics has absolutely nothing to do with this forum. 
Like Sigmund, go bury your head in a book and not the sand before you pontificate.  :Biggrin:

----------


## The Administration Team

*Play the ball, not the man.*

----------


## Spoodlehouse

Just joined this group to discuss renovation - but noticed this thread and couldn't let it go by. 
There is a good discussion paper produced by the Australian Academy of Science - leading scientists in all the fields relevent to climate change have put put it together.
Here is the link http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf
No real argument in the scientific community about the urgent need to reduce carbon pollution. 
Cheers

----------


## Rod Dyson

Welcome to the fray. 
Spoodle' maybe you can answer what other here have not been able to. That is, what scientific evidence is there that make you so sure AGW is real. We already acknowledge that climate changes and Co2 is a "greenhouse" gas. But maybe you can tell us how much Australia will reduce the temperature by reducing emission.   
Or perhaps you can explain how using 'every cent" raised by the carbon tax to offset the cost of the carbon tax will reduce our emissions.   
You may also tell us what temperature is perfect for us and should we expect this to be stable when emissions are reduced. 
That will help us skeptics understand the need for a carbon tax.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Oh one other thing, Spoodle' we are told the current temperatures are unprecidendted.  You might point to scientific evidence that this is so.

----------


## woodbe

> Just joined this group to discuss renovation - but noticed this thread and couldn't let it go by. 
> There is a good discussion paper produced by the Australian Academy of Science - leading scientists in all the fields relevent to climate change have put put it together.
> Here is the link http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf
> No real argument in the scientific community about the urgent need to reduce carbon pollution. 
> Cheers

  Welcome Spoodlehouse, 
Great to see someone speak up for the science. That's a pretty comprehensive paper you have linked there. 
I agree with you that there is no real argument in the scientific community about this, there's plenty here in the backwaters of politically inspired doubt and misinformation at the renovate forums though. Enjoy!  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Welcome Spoodlehouse, 
> Great to see someone speak up for the science. That's a pretty comprehensive paper you have linked there. 
> I agree with you that there is no real argument in the scientific community about this, there's plenty here in the backwaters of politically inspired doubt and misinformation at the renovate forums though. Enjoy!  
> woodbe.

   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Oh one other thing, Spoodle' we are told the current temperatures are unprecidendted.  You might point to scientific evidence that this is so.

  Read the link. You might get some answers there.  
Actually, there is the possibility of a literacy problem that I have not, until now, considered. This type of information has been in print for decades now. Further, if you don't comprehend by now, you just never will.  :Brick:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Hey that was directed at our friend Mr James.  Your rambling at least has some reasoning.  
> Keep rambling man.

  No worries mate, I knew the intended target.  :Biggrin:  
But remember, you encouraged any future ramblings, so if Mr Watson goes off, I'm gonna say I was just following orders.  :Evillaugh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yes.  Certainly in the first few years.   
> But down the track at bit.....the economists and day traders all on the hunt for new ways to make money will demand that this new financial instrument (the Australian Carbon Price) is floated on the international market in order to gain a greater level of access to the international trade in carbon 'credits' (which will also come simply because the Almighty God Of Endless Economic Growth must be kowtowed to). 
> The carbon economy is a new type of currency.....it'll join national currencies, gold, oil and other commodities on international money train.  And like most mineral commodities...carbon 'credits' (if the process works correctly) should become increasingly scarce as carbon emissions from fossil fuels fall.  Unlike most commodities....this process of increasing scarcity should happen in an orderly, stable & forseeable fashion and markets like stability.  
> The increasing scarcity will happen until a point where the 80:20 rule applies and there is nothing economic to be gained from mitigating the last 20% of fossil fuel carbon emissions because the cost of doing so will account for 80% of the total budget to date. 
> This point will prove to be an interesting place.....by this time, fossil fuel carbon emmisions should be so expensive that they are spent on the really important things that only fossil fuels can provide....which is not fuel (or even heat) but hydrocarbons for industry. 
> But since I expect to have naturally expired (one way or the other) by then......so it won't cost me much either.

  The Global Financial Crisis was based on real property assets and look how that ended.  Previously we have had many similar "market" corrections based on tangible assets and businesses, such as the dot.com debacle. 
But you think a speculative derivatives market based on underlying artificial arbitrary constructs regulated by a minority of nation states is foolproof?  :Doh:  
Words fail me! 
Please read "The Intelligent Investor" by Benjamin Graham.  He's the man who trained Warren Buffet, and Buffet still says he continually lives in awe of Graham's financial insights. 
After you read it, I'd be interested in your opinion on what Graham would say about your "utopian vision".

----------


## Dr Freud

> The above is a fine example of your intelligence.

  Thanks mate. Maybe one day you'll actually show a fine example of yours.  :Biggrin:    

> My dog knows the answer.

  Well, put it on the computer then.  Smart Dog Vs Infinite Monkey, very Chinese New Year.  :Biggrin:    

> Do me a favour - before you make yourself look so incredibly, well silly (and that's being generous), don't pretend that your opinion is the only one that counts.

  We've discussed opinions in depth already, you would do well to read the thread to avoid going over all this again.  My opinion on opinions is well documented, negating the need for you to interpret it.   

> There are some good ABC kids publications on the process of a Bill through Parliament if you would like to begin there.

  Things are a bit tight with this Great Big New Tax coming in.  Could I please just borrow your copy?  :Rotfl:  
Who said armageddon couldn't be fun? Armageddon all the laughs I can before we go.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I can't believe you wrote that.

  Would you believe the stuff you just breathed out is vile pollution that is going to turn the planet into a fireball?  
Cos if you believe this, I figured you'd believe anything.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage Thesis is a pissa.  
> He acknowledges that a Carbon Tax and market based mechanisms are the way to go! Ha??

  Mate, I still have serious doubts.  Greg Hunt has explained this concept in detail on many occasions.  He has consistently explained that the caveat to this is the effective global market.  Not just some European countries, global.  Even if you had zero familiarity with "political science", 30 seconds on Google will have provided numerous examples:   

> LEIGH SALES: You won an award for your university thesis 20 years ago on precisely this topic: on the merits of regulation versus emissions trading, versus carbon taxes to deal with climate change. What did you conclude was the best approach? 
> GREG HUNT: The best approach is this: that for each particular problem you can use any of the above tools. My view in many cases is that direct action is the case. If you have a global market, if you have a genuine global market, then you could use some form of trading scheme. But unless you have that genuine global market, then you have a real issue here with carbon leakage overseas, job destruction in Australia, and the impact on grocery prices on electricity prices, on basic goods for mums and dads and pensioners and farmers.  Lateline - 03/12/2009: Greg Hunt discusses shadow climate policy

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Wow what you have described is the precursor for the biggest finacial meltdown in history.

  Yep....it is. Thoroughly agree. 
But that is how our current growth based economic system works even now. So why put off the inevitable? 
Let's face it.....this thread is dominated by a bunch of pseudo-scientific fruitloops pretending that fundamental physics doesn't affect them so I figure that if I behave like a pseudo-economic fruitloop who naively believes he lives outside the Western economic model based on kowtowing to the God of Endless Economic Growth (who is impossible - ever heard of a perpetual motion machine?) then we are all getting somewhere down the track of cancelling each other out.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *Play the ball, not the man.* Attachment 83205

  We don't have a ball here......just an indistinct amorphous blob closely surrounded by mental pygmies.  So, if I happen to land a blow upon it, I occasionally go right through and deck a fellow pygmy.    
Poo happens.

----------


## watson

Just in case you missed this:  Tim Blair, Daily Telegraph 28.2.11.pdf

----------


## Marc

Environmental Science & Policy - Elsevier  http://www.sciencedirect.com   

> *IN SUPPORT OF SKEPTICISM* _"Most institutions demand unqualified faith;_   _but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue." _ (Merton, 1962)     Most scientists acknowledge the importance of making science relevant and useful in policy making, while recognizing that policy is not, and should not be, based on science alone.      In recent decades, investigations of major environmental issues such as climate change, acid rain, smog, and hypoxia have resulted in the conduct of complex integrated assessments. Such assessments organize information for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of policy making.     In policy making, especially in a political arena, consensus building is a key ingredient. In attempts to make science relevant and useful, the politics of democracy tend to promote, even in some cases demand "scientific consensus."  However, as a "community of belief" develops,  skepticism is no longer regarded as a virtue. In a civilization that is founded on science, this is an unfortunate state of affairs and detrimental to our future.     In order to appreciate this concern, it is necessary to revisit the central role of skepticism in science. Let us start with a dictionary definition of skepticism. Webster's Dictionary defines skepticism as: _"A critical attitude towards any theory, statement, experiment, or phenomenon, doubting the certainty of all things until adequate proof has been produced; the scientific spirit." _ The Greek root of skepticism is identified as _"skepticos",_ which means _"thoughtful, inquiring."_     For centuries, science has been founded on well-established methods of scientific investigation, which include recognition that "_A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory_"(Judge William R. Overton, in Science, 1982). Thus, a basic tenet of science is for scientists to posit and test hypotheses and theories. Scientific progress is made by accepting or rejecting hypotheses at specified levels of confidence, thus embodying skepticism in the heart of scientific methodology.     There are two dominant and somewhat opposing philosophies on testing hypothesis and theories. One philosophy is that the purpose of hypothesis testing is to validate - to support or corroborate - a hypothesis. The other philosophy is that the purpose of hypothesis testing is to attempt to invalidate a hypothesis. And the same applies to model testing; there are scientists who attempt only to validate models, and others who state that the true application of the scientific method includes attempts to invalidate models and to show the limits of applicability of models. In science, attempts to invalidate hypotheses and models - hard-core skepticism, by any definition - should be viewed as a necessary positive step in the pursuit of truth. Rigorous hypotheses and models will emerge as triumphant - at least for the time being. In a problem-solving and policy-development mode, healthy skepticism is needed to ensure the rigor and effectiveness of proposed solutions. Another way of expressing the difference between these two philosophies is to state that _"Blind commitment to a theory is not an intellectual virtue; it is an intellectual crime"_ (Lakatos, 1978).     This is why I regard  consensus science and the demise of scientific skepticism as an unhealthy combination. Without the boldness and perseverance of earlier skeptics, who risked ridicule and being branded as heretics, we would still believe Earth to be the center of the Universe and continents to be motionless.     Taking the issue of climate change as an example, there are healthy signs of increasing recognition of the importance of dealing with important methodological uncertainties. Petersen (1999), in an inspiring article entitled "Philosophy of Climate Science", states that, _"Climate science has to deal with important methodological problems concerning climate simulation. Among these are methodological problems related to climate model hierarchy and complexity, tuning and falsifiability, and uncertainty. All these subjects have only recently become topics of discussion within the climate science community."_  He finds that uncertainties are currently not thoroughly and methodologically assessed for the purposes of policy usefulness of climate science. Barnett et al. (1999), in a scholarly article summarizing the status of detection and attribution of an anthropogenic climate signal, also find that _"Only recently has detection work paid serious attention to the variety of uncertainties that attend the observations and model projections of an anthropogenic signal." _       We must find improved ways of preserving and strengthening the time-honored method of scientific investigation, which includes promoting skepticism in the search for truth. We must do this at the same time that we find improved ways of making science more useful in policy making. A stronger culture of critical debate and organized skepticism needs to be fostered.     One way of achieving these goals is for those who organize and conduct integrated assessment, and those who will use their results, to ensure that the assessments rigorously test multiple working hypotheses, identify clearly what we know and do not know, include minority (or seemingly external) views, and express confidence levels on the findings. In a political system that is based on checks and balances, substantial constituency input to and strong external oversight of the assessment process are needed to ensure the integrity of science. An Office of Science and Technology in Congress could provide the needed oversight.     The crux of the problem is how science is taught and practiced. To protect science in the long term, "a healthy dose of skepticism" should be introduced into every young scientist's education, and more training should be provided for studying and expressing uncertainty at all levels of professional development. The scientific community should raise the standards of peer review and the demands of "adequate proof."     If science is not to be subsumed by policy, and scientists are not to be turned into politicians, then_,_ as Jacob Bronowski recognized, science _".... must protect independence. The safeguards which it must offer are patent: free enquiry, free thought, free speech, tolerance"_ (Bronowski, 1958). While Bronowski went too far when he called for the _"disestablishment of science"_ - the separation, as complete as possible, between science and government - science today needs increased safeguards. *References*  Barnett, T.P.,_ et al_. 1999. Detection and attribution of recent climate change: a status report. Bull.Am.Met.Soc. 80(12), 2631-2659. Bronowski, Jacob. 1958. Science and human values. Penguin Books Ltd., p.68. Lakatos, Imre. 1978. Philosophical Papers 1, Cambridge U. Press, p.1 Merton, Robert K. 1962. Social theory and social structures. Free Press, NY., p.547.  Petersen Arthur C. 1999. Philosophy of climate science. Bull.Am.Met.Soc. 81(2), 265-271. Science, 1982.  Creationism in schools: the decision in McLean versus the Arkansas Board of Education. Science (215), 934-943.     *Acknowledgments*  The views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Derek Winstanley  Chief, Illinois State Water Survey  Illinois Department of Natural Resources  e-mail: dwinstan@uiuc.edu  tel: (217) 244 5459  fax: (217) 333 4983  http://www.sws.uiuc.edu

----------


## Rod Dyson

:2thumbsup:   

> Just in case you missed this:  Tim Blair, Daily Telegraph 28.2.11.pdf

   :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Environmental Science & Policy - Elsevier  http://www.sciencedirect.com

  Funnily enough....I reckon that is quite possibly the most sensible article that you have ever seen fit to post.  And I humbly and yet heartily support the findings. In fact I've supported that view since quite early in my scientific training.... 
Which just goes to show that scepticism (as with many things in life) comes in many flavours & personal preferences.  :Wink 1:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> 

  What he said...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

*KerryHomeopath [via Twitter]:* 
"Your brain is 80% water, you remember stuff. Water has memory. Therefore homeopathy works."  *Eric T. Cheng [response via Quarter to 3 forum]:* 
"Your brain uses electricity. Your coffee machine uses electricity. Therefore, your brain can grind coffee."   
It's logical ain't it?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> What he said...

  
You astound me sometimes SD

----------


## intertd6

> We don't have a ball here......just an indistinct amorphous blob closely surrounded by mental pygmies. So, if I happen to land a blow upon it, I occasionally go right through and deck a fellow pygmy.  
> Poo happens.

  I'd be saying the pygmies have well & truly feasted on the tripe bandied around here & (literally) pooed all over the new religion types wanting to believe in it. I wouldn't call a puff of hot air a blow that connected with anything.
The political football has done the full circle since this debate here started on the ETS. Now it will get interesting in cantberra
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> Just in case you missed this:  Tim Blair, Daily Telegraph 28.2.11.pdf

   :Laughcry:  :Laughcry:  :Laughcry:   
Yeh, I've been busy so hadn't seen that yet.  So much outrage over this latest debacle, even I can't keep up. 
That's gotta be the funniest thing I have read in a while.  Couldn't read some of it till the tears cleared!  :Biggrin:  
Funniest part was it's all true.  :Biggrin:  
Hairy Princess!   :Rofl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Just joined this group to discuss renovation - but noticed this thread and couldn't let it go by. 
> There is a good discussion paper produced by the Australian Academy of Science - leading scientists in all the fields relevent to climate change have put put it together.
> Here is the link http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf
> No real argument in the scientific community about the urgent need to reduce carbon pollution. 
> Cheers

  Welcome to the party pal.  :2thumbsup:  
First, you would do well to read the thread to avoid the duplication as indicated by posts below. 
Second, unlike consensual sex, legal contracts and pizza toppings, science does not work by agreement.  After you read this thread, you would have covered this concept several times.  Then if you choose to ignore this concept, it is up to you.  :Biggrin:    

> New report from Australian Academy of Science http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf

   

> Not a bad read compared to some of the drivel out there, especially surprising given Karoly was involved.  At least they use correct language some of the time, albeit in contradiction to their own statements.  But still, so many assumptions, computer models, conjecture, and appeals to authority figures.  Not a single fact in there proving AGW Theory! 
> And as for this picture, it looks like we're going to all burst into flames soon:

----------


## Dr Freud

> ...I agree with you that there is no real argument in the scientific community about this...
> woodbe.

   :Roflmao2:  :Roflmao2:  :Roflmao2:    
And you call others "deniers"!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> If increasing taxes increases jobs, why don't all countries just keep ramping up taxes and create all these wonderful "green jobs". 
> Because the only job being created here is the snowjob her and Bob Brown are giving ordinary Australians. 
> Here's a reply from an affected business:  *
> Prime Minister Julia Gillard* has given a spirited defence of her carbon tax policy, saying it is *supported by business and will create jobs in the future.* 
> VS  *PAUL O'MALLEY:*  So the *policy framework at the moment is wrong.* It seems to be captured by people who don't care whether there are manufacturing jobs in Australia, and you just wonder whether *there is an anti-manufacturing focus in Australia and that people want jobs to go offshore.* 
> One of these two is a lying idiot. 
> Time will tell I guess, but you can guess who my money is on based on form!

  The form guide grows:  

> Charlie Aitken from Southern Cross Equities reviews the rest of the news from the local share market. 
> TICKY FULLERTON: Now, the market seemed to retreat from solid early gains. What was damaging sentiment? 
> CHARLIE AITKEN: Well I've got to say, I think it's the carbon tax. Foreign investors are getting sick of the Gillard Government moving the regulatory goal posts in Australia.  
> Already this year we've had a flood levy, we've got carbon tax apparently, we've got changes to the resource rent tax and now even rumours to how pathology rebates are handled and you saw the two big pathology stocks, Primary Health Care and Sonic get smashed today.  
> So, regulatory risk is something foreign investors are getting a little upset in Australia and that's why we're underperforming, Ticky. 
> TICKY FULLERTON: And this shakes through to all sorts of sectors, does it? 
> CHARLIE AITKEN: It does. We've dealt with Telstra now, mining taxes, carbon taxes, flood levies which affect retailers, pathology changes. I mean, they got their finger in every pie and quite frankly the markets don't like it.  Lateline Business - 01/03/2011: Market news wrap

  
Pay attention people, your country is being sacrificed on a green altar!

----------


## Dr Freud

They have no idea what they are doing!   

> *CONSUMERS would be forced to pay more in GST, stamp duty, capital gains tax and even council rates under Julia Gillard's carbon tax.  * Monash University Professor Henry Ergas said a carbon tax would cause other taxes, levies and fees to rise. 
> "The carbon tax will increase the cost of supplying goods and services, particularly those that are relatively carbon intensive, and the amount of GST that will be payable will increase,'' he said. 
> "There's no obvious way you can quarantine that impact because the carbon tax applies at every stage of production.'' 
> Mr Robb said a grocery item that carried GST would have carbon tax on the transport costs, electricity for refrigeration and other inputs and the GST would be charged on the higher ticket price. 
> He questioned whether the Government's compensation would cover everyone and if it would be phased out. 
> "With a new home most of the materials are energy intensive. It would be carbon tax riddled and it could add many thousands in unforeseen costs that are not being compensated for,'' he said.  Carbon tax slug double whammy | Herald Sun

----------


## Dr Freud

JuLIAR is over.  This will end her!    

> DESCRIPTIONS of Windsor as "dingo" and "traitor" are not unknown on Inverell radio station 2NZ either. It ran a phone-in on the carbon tax, and in 30 minutes fielded 111 calls against and only three calls for. Tamworth's Northern Daily Leader ran a poll that found 75 per cent of people were against a carbon price.
> John "Wacka" Williams, a Nationals senator and farm machine supplier from Inverell, says New England locals are "very very angry" with Windsor, and worried about increased costs of electricity and fuel and job losses under a carbon tax, which will do nothing for the environment.
> "I think people are getting very annoyed with Tony Windsor," he told ABC radio yesterday.  
> Oakeshott's conservative Lyne electorate in northern NSW voted just 13 per cent for Labor and 4 per cent for the Greens at the last election, so they are none too happy about his embrace of the Brown-Gillard pact, as shown by the latest polling. His personal approval rating has plunged from 63 per cent net positive support to negative 12 per cent, a 75-point turnaround. Ouch.  
> As for Greens leader Bob Brown, now he's giving Wayne Swan public lectures on how to deal with the Opposition, and boasting about how the Government adopted his carbon tax platform. His cocky performance on Monday in the Senate shows hubris is coming early to the Greens.
>  Mr 13 Per Cent is ruling the roost, a cuckoo in the Labor nest who has given Gillard a policy and philosophy framework she never had, and the nation a nightmare it never asked for.  
> This is the whirlwind that the independents have reaped.   Tax betrayal haunts Independent MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott | Herald Sun

----------


## Dr Freud

Serves him right for being such a zealot, and arguing with all his guests who keep trying to explain reality to him:   

> TONY JONES: Well you've made the argument about Germany, for example - I've heard you make that publicly. But surely the real question about Germany is not the impact that what happens there has on global warming over the whole planet, it's the impact it has on the amount of renewable energy that's used for electricity generation, in particular in Germany. And the percentages have changed dramatically. For example, in 2000 they had six per cent of their energy come from electricity. A mere nine years later in 2009, it's up to 16 per cent. 
> BJORN LOMBERG: Sorry, and the question is? 
> TONY JONES: Well, I'm just saying that they're moving towards changing their energy mix through these targets. In fact, their future targets are even higher: they plan to get to 35 per cent by 2020. 
> BJORN LOMBERG: Absolutely. But, listen, Tony, the point here is to recognise we could basically shift all of the world to green energy right now. The technology is not the problem in the sense that if cost doesn't matter, then we can do it today. We could do it with 1950s technology.  
> The issue here is it's not going to happen as long as it's very, very expensive, and Germany is a good case for that. As long as they spend huge amounts of subsidies - and the biggest cost of course is with solar panels, which Germany's the biggest consumer per capita of in the world, they're essentially spending large sums of money to do very little for climate change.  
> I would much rather see them spend that same money, for instance on research and development, so you would get large impacts in the long run. This is not about us feeling good, this is about making sure that we do good in the long run. 
> TONY JONES: I've got to make the counter-argument, ... 
> BJORN LOMBERG: Sure. 
> TONY JONES: ... because you say they're doing nothing to fix climate change overall, but in Germany they're changing their mix of electricity, how they get their electricity, to renewables.  
> ...

  Tony, don't invite people on your show and try to shoot them down if you don't know what you're talking about.  You just strengthen their argument by looking like a foolish zealot! 
And Tony, this guy wholeheartedly believes in the AGW hypothesis.  He's just correctly pointing out that this fictional dream the greenies have some people believing is a fairy tale that will solve nothing.

----------


## Marc

> *KerryHomeopath [via Twitter]:* 
> "Your brain is 80% water, you remember stuff. Water has memory. Therefore homeopathy works."  *Eric T. Cheng [response via Quarter to 3 forum]:* 
> "Your brain uses electricity. Your coffee machine uses electricity. Therefore, your brain can grind coffee." 
> It's logical ain't it?

  Very logical  :2thumbsup:  
I like this other one too: 
Eat sh##, millions of flies can not be wrong .... 
(Sorry not you of course)  :Biggrin:

----------


## mark53

> Environmental Science & Policy - Elsevier  http://www.sciencedirect.com

  
Always informative and educational. Cheers mate. :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *ONCE again the Gillard government is seen to be following the lead and policy agenda of the Greens - this time on "territories' rights", which is code for euthanasia and same-sex marriage. The Greens have extracted Labor backing for their own agenda on issues that Labor MPs have been denied the chance to express views - or been given detailed briefings in return for one vote in a minority government. 				*  			 		 		Labor's agenda is being distorted by the Greens, and Julia Gillard's authority is being diminished as business fears grow she is losing control of the formulation of a carbon price.
> Only a few days after Greens' leader Bob Brown stood in the Prime Minister's courtyard and declared the plan for a carbon tax to be the Greens plan - and his deputy, Christine Milne, declared petrol had to be included in that tax - the Greens have again taken charge.
> Gillard signed a pact with the Greens to remain Prime Minister, a pact she knew was damaging her image among Labor supporters and a pact she tried to diminish by dumping a raft of inefficient, Greens-backed renewable energy programs in favour of giving flood assistance to Queenslanders.
>  			 		The Prime Minister had to rapidly rescind that decision and restore the solar energy funds at the Greens' behest. This was an abrupt reminder of the Greens' power, but the image of the Greens standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Gillard when announcing the carbon tax was one of Greens' leadership.
> Brown's presumptive power, based on Adam Bandt's election to the House of Representatives in August last year, is giving him the profile of national leadership at Gillard's expense.
> Already suffering prime ministerial confusion with Kevin Rudd acting as our leader on the international stage, Gillard has had to cede ground to Brown on flood funding, same-sex marriage, a carbon tax and euthanasia.   Brown crowding out PM on policy | The Australian

  Let's count JuLIAR's lies:  

> "I rule out a carbon tax." 
> While any carbon price would not be triggered until after the 2013 election 
> She would legislate the carbon price next term if sufficient consensus existed. 
> Ms Gillard's proposal for a citizens' assembly to discuss climate change, announced after she replaced Mr Rudd as leader, has been heavily criticised. 
> She now rules out any change in her opposition to same-sex marriage during the life of her government. She said she appreciated "our heritage as a Christian country" and believed "the marriage act has a special status in our culture".  Julia Gillard&#039;s carbon price promise | The Australian

  But unlike JuLIAR, the Labor back bench don't like being Greenie puppets:   

> *JULIA Gillard has agreed to consider overturning the government's support for an Australian Greens' plan that would open the way for the nation's first same-sex marriage laws after an angry revolt by Labor MPs.  * The Labor revolt culminated yesterday morning with a delegation of three senators to Ms Gillard's office to complain and seek a policy reversal.
> Labor senators were so incensed with Mr Crean's presentation as Regional Affairs Minister at the partyroom meeting on Tuesday morning, they secretly approached Coalition senators and organised for the Liberals to ask Senator Brown to agree to delay the introduction of his bill, due this week, and refer it to the legal and constitutional affairs committee for an inquiry.   Labor revolt on gay marriage | The Australian

    *"they secretly approached Coalition senators and organised for the Liberals to ask"*   **   
Please Liberal Senators, please help us stop the evil greenies, they've taken control of JuLIAR's brain.     :Roflmao2:   
It would be so much funnier if it wasn't our country going down the toilet.  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Heavy fall in Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence, 114.0 (down 6.6pts)
> After Prime Minister Gillard announced new plans for a Carbon Tax   [Roy Morgan Research] Morgan Poll

  Awesome, huh!

----------


## Dr Freud

In 2009, Australia accounted for 1.38% of CO2 emissions. 
This percentage is shrinking rapidly as China and India massively increase CO2 emissions. 
Just the annual increase in global CO2 emissions is twice the size of Australia's total emissions (2.8% per year). 
This means if Australia disappeared under the ocean today and had zero emissions, in six months the global CO2 emissions would be back on the same track. 
With these zero CO2 emissions from us, the global temperature may be 1/100th of a degree celsius cooler  (assuming all the computer models are correct  :Doh: ). 
We cannot even measure this change in the temperature! 
And we are not cutting by 100% today, the goal is 5% by 2020! 
At what financial and social cost to Australians lives. 
Another failed green dream scheme turning our great country into a nightmare. 
More info here:  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im..._australia.pdf

----------


## Dr Freud

> _The Prime Minister today failed to answer a question about the proportion of her carbon tax revenue that will be set aside for the United Nations Green Climate Fund, as agreed by the Australian Government at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference and reconfirmed at the 2010 Cancun Conference. _   _In contrast ALP backbenchers have been primed to mislead the public to say that all the carbon tax money will be spent on Australian families.  For example Deborah ONeil, the Member for Robertson, stated this morning that   the main message is that every cent that is raised by a carbon price is going to go back into assisting households with their household bills and thats what really matters to the people in my electorate._  
> In reality, the fact is that in the Report of the Secretary-Generals High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing released on 5 November 2010, but written earlier in the year with the assistance of then Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance - Bob McMullen MP - on behalf of the Australian Government (page 4), it was recommended that: Based on a carbon price of US$20-US$25 per ton of CO2 equivalent, auctions of emission allowances and domestic carbon taxes in developed countries with up to 10 per cent of total revenues allocated for international climate action could potentially mobilize around US$30 billion annually. (pages 5-6) ...  How many billions of this “carbon tax” will be hived off by the UN? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  This tax was ridiculous even when it was going to remain in Australia. 
This is approaching ludicrous!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Another green idea causes an almighty stink - and yet more of those big bills:   _San Franciscos big push for low-flow toilets has turned into a multimillion-dollar plumbing stink._  _Skimping on toilet water has resulted in more sludge backing up inside the sewer pipes, said Tyrone Jue, spokesman for the city Public Utilities Commission. That has created a rotten-egg stench near AT&T Park and elsewhere, especially during the dry summer months._  _The city has already spent $100 million over the past five years to upgrade its sewer system and sewage plants, in part to combat the odor problem._  _Now officials are stocking up on a $14 million, three-year supply of highly concentrated sodium hypochlorite - better known as bleach - to act as an odor eater and to disinfect the citys treated water before its dumped into the bay. _   _Save the planet! Drown in crud | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  You were warned:  EDITED POST

----------


## Dr Freud

> Instead of analysing the global warming issue  about which, more below  press commentary continues to endlessly recycle tired, stale, sanctimonious and entirely misleading clichés about carbon pollution, climate change and energy efficiency. Everyone, it seems, has a strong opinion, yet almost none of these opinions are grounded in the empirical science facts that society used to view as the essential basis for good public policy decisions. 
> Do you understand the meaning of the phrases empirical science and hypothesis testing?  
>  Do you understand that the correct null hypothesis is that gentle warmings, such as that which occurred between 1979 and 1998, and equivalent coolings, are to be viewed as due to natural causes unless and until evidence indicates otherwise. Gentlemen, where is that evidence, and why is it not presented in the voluminous reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that you and the government so often refer to? 
> Dragging another skeletal warhorse out of the cupboard, Mr Combet makes the highly original assertion that Business needs the certainty of a carbon (sic) price. Yes, it most certainly does, Minister, and as Terry McCrann has endlessly pointed out, that certainty should be a price for carbon dioxide emissions of zero dollars per tonne. Then the power utility companies can get on with planning the mix of new coal, gas and nuclear power stations that are now urgently needed to secure Australias future.
>  Never has an important national policy issue been so surrounded with public dishonesty and deliberate ambiguity of language as is the issue of dangerous, human-caused global warming.  
>  Choreographed over the years by green lobby groups, politicians and commentators alike now participate like puppets-on-strings in an entirely faux public gigue involving words or phrases like carbon (when they mean carbon dioxide), pollution (when they are referring to an environmentally beneficial trace gas), settled science (when the science is hotly contested, and the onus of proof of danger still rests, unattained, with the climate alarmists of a discredited IPCC), climate change (when they mean dangerous global warming), energy efficiency (in the same breath that they rule out the environmentally friendly baseload energy source represented by nuclear power) and international good citizen (at a time when international action on climate policy has never been less certain).  
>  It is therefore entirely unsurprising that there has been a swing in public opinion against alarmism on global warming, though nervous Labor politicians are doubtless already sucking in deep breaths of surprise at the apparent strength of the swing. One recent online poll, in _The Age_ of all places, received an 89% NO answer to the question Would you support a climate tax?; and another, in the _Herald-Sun_ and with more than 30,000 respondents, received an 85% NO to the question Do you support a price on carbon (sic)?.  Quadrant Online - Shhsshh â¦ donât talk about the science

  And who said we never put science up here.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> See what green madness, unchecked, can lead to. Ask why almost no journalists or academics even questioned this gigantic folly at the time:  _MELBURNIANS will face rocketing water bills over the next 30 years to pay for the states desalination plant. _  _Premier Ted Baillieu yesterday admitted the contract signed by the former Labor Government couldnt be broken and the white elephant desalination plant could cost a maximum $23.9 billion_  _The desalinated water will cost up to $13.50 a kilolitre - compared to just $1 for our current supplies._  _A review by PriceWaterhouseCoopers shows the cost of the project will run to $19.3 billion without any water being sent to homes._ _And think what the alternative was - the dam that the Labor Government would not even mention for years._  _Where a new dam for Melbourne was planned:_  _(T)he Mitchell has a huge catchment area - so big, in fact, that it would normally fill a dam the size of the Thomson, our biggest, three times faster than that dam fills now. Its a river that floods badly around every decade.__The likely cost of such a dam:_  _$1.35 billion.__What happened to that planned dam:_  _(The Labor Government)  turned the dam reservation on Gippslands Mitchell River into a national park._ _The first excuse the dam-phobic Labor Government gave for not building the dam: _   _After all, ommmed the then Deputy Premier and Minister for No Water, John Thwaites, all remaining water (was) currently used by the rivers.  _ _The second excuse the dam-phobic Labor Government gave for not building the dam:_  _Unfortunately, we cannot rely on this kind of rainfall like we used to._ _http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...orias_history/_

    
Multiply this failure by a billion and you'll be in the ball park of the Carbon Dioxide Tax failure they will try to force on us.

----------


## woodbe

Meanwhile, back in the real world:   
Don't worry, that's just the sea ice recovery spooling up...  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You astound me sometimes SD

  I only aim to please.  
My opinions on this entire topic are far too complicated expound here.  I know. I've tried before. 
Suffice to say....whilst I strongly support the scepticism exhibited here in this thread....I'm usually appalled at how misdirected it is, how uninformed it often is and (worst) how politically motivated it is. 
Scepticism to satisfy a personal political belief is a hollow charade of scepticism......and is therefore of no real value to anything other than a political debate.  
As for the proposed Carbon Tax....check out the attachment to see *one of the reasons* why it won't provide the benefits that are often being expounded for it.   
It is basically money (in millions) spent by the Federal Government on fossil fuel subsidies compared to  climate change mitigation/adaptation programs.... 
I'll let Bernard Keane from Crikey explain:  _"Earlier this week, the Australian Conservation Foundation released an analysis http://www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/..._subsidies.pdf comparing how much the Federal Government spent encouraging fossil fuel usage compared to how much it spent on climate change programs in recent years. 
We asked the ACF for their data and then supplemented it with our own research to try to provide a longer-term take on the comparison. The ACF has compiled data on climate change programs announced in budgets going back to 1997, so we tried to collate data on all the rebates, tax expenditures and other types of spending that encourage fossil fuel use back to 1997 as well. 
Some caveats are in order. The chief source for the data is Treasury's annual Tax Expenditures statement, which tries to nail down how much revenue is lost through tax concessions, exemptions and deductions. The quality of Treasury's Tax Expenditures work has improved each year, but that means the further you go back, the less data there is. Where necessary, we've used a deflator to simply reduce the value of a fossil fuel subsidy by inflation, and tried to err on the conservative side in doing so. We've also used the biggest figures we could find for climate change programs. 
In some years, the forecast expenditure on climate change programs hasn't eventuated, but rather than use the real figure, we've given government the benefit of the doubt and used the higher forecast figure, not the actual spending. On the other hand, we calculated the increase in the lost revenue from the 2001 ending of fuel excise indexation differently to the ACF to provide what we think is higher, more realistic figure. 
The first blush result confirms that the enormous disparity identified by the ACF from 2007-10 is only the worsening of an existing problem from the 1990s. This is the comparison of the ACF's identified fossil fuel subsidies versus climate change programs, in millions of dollars."_  
So....here's an idea.....instead of a carbon price right now.....why not simply cut back on those fossil fuel subsidies until such time as a world wide carbon mitigation regime is in play.....and then think about a carbon price. The money saved could then be spent on making industry and the general public more carbon efficient so when the price does come....the pain is mitigated.  Yeah I know......flying pigs

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Meanwhile, back in the real world:   
> Don't worry, that's just the sea ice recovery spooling up...  
> woodbe.

  Trouble is mate, no matter what you say to a backwards thinking tory, it will never get through the persistent arrogance.  
Perhaps if the tory's opened their minds to the possibility, then some well rounded discussions can be had.  
Until such time, they are going to deny even the most sensible and balanced rationale because they are too focussed on losing face. Shameful really. There are other people on this earth besides the arrogant few.  
Meanwhile, as they stew on the petty issues, others are getting on with the pragmatic and forward thinking approaches. I am confident they will look back, once this legislation is passed, and scratch their heads in bewilderment as to why they didn't focus on the macro issues that actually affect the globe and not just their staunch political stance.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Trouble is mate, no matter what you say to a backwards thinking tory, it will never get through the persistent arrogance.

  Another trouble could be you are looking through a window into another world....and that world is looking at you with much the same feeling. 
A clash of heads is rarely considered a compromise.

----------


## mark53

> Meanwhile, back in the real world:   
> Don't worry, that's just the sea ice recovery spooling up...  
> woodbe.

  The problem with graphs, charts, data etc. supposedly confirming the existence of AGW is that there are as many,if not more, of the for ma that disprove the hypothesis of AGW. And it should be stated by well credentialed scientists. As Silent has observed, in his view, they are concluded along political lines. In some cases this may well be the case, but I would argue not all. This premise is based on the belief that those who do not believe in the hypothesis of AGW are rusted on conservative voters. I believe this perspective does not take into consideration the mounting number of sceptics who want to challenge the hypothesis of AGW. From my perspective this is a false premise. I also acknowledge that we all get caught up in the heat of the debate :Shock: . That not withstanding I think most people search the argument which has the facts embedded in it. That leads me to climategate and the undeniable distortion of the facts by the sellers of AGW. And the question I continually ask, and which is never answered is WHY did they, the AGW salesmen, lie their collective @rses of or deliberately distort the facts? I've never heard an answer to this question. 
I'm nobody special other than I seek the truth and I vote. Just like a lot of other Australians. 
And, for the record, I'm not a rusted on conservative,I just hate being lied to by a government that wants to put its hand in my pocket and give my money to whomever it thinks is deserving ( like Flim bloody Flannery) (Grossly overpaid salesman extraordinaire).

----------


## woodbe

> The problem with graphs, charts, data etc. supposedly confirming the existence of AGW

  Nope. Not at all. Look again. 
The chart is just showing data. It doesn't have any text on it explaining a link with AGW. 
woodbe.

----------


## mark53

> Another trouble could be you are looking through a window into another world....and that world is looking at you with much the same feeling. 
> A clash of heads is rarely considered a compromise.

  
To true Silent, to true. But fundamentally ,is there a compromise to be found? On such a divisive subject it is difficult to find any middle ground. 
On one side there is a belief by the believers that they have been delivered copies of an environmental mantra to live by. On the other side they know that the believers have been delivered ten copies of the Kings Cross Whisperer ( a nineteen sixties seedy rag) which nobody should be living by.( I'm trying to find a compromise Silent, but it's extremely elusive). :2thumbsup:

----------


## mark53

> Nope. Not at all. Look again. 
> The chart is just showing data. It doesn't have any text on it explaining a link with AGW. 
> woodbe.

  
Yep I can see that Woodbe but climategate was all about data too. I'll leave it to the resident sleuths, Freud, Rod and Marc, to make it look like a piece of Jarlsberg. It's to late in the night for me. Cheers :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Nope. Not at all. Look again. 
> The chart is just showing data. It doesn't have any text on it explaining a link with AGW. 
> woodbe.

  No that is true so why post it here if not to represent some miss guided view that this is caused by AGW? 
You are trying to be too clever here Woodbee just a little bit like JuLIAR.  
Try calling a spade a spade life is much easier that way.

----------


## mark53

> Trouble is mate, no matter what you say to a backwards thinking tory, it will never get through the persistent arrogance.  
> Perhaps if the tory's opened their minds to the possibility, then some well rounded discussions can be had.  
> Until such time, they are going to deny even the most sensible and balanced rationale because they are too focussed on losing face. Shameful really. There are other people on this earth besides the arrogant few.  
> Meanwhile, as they stew on the petty issues, others are getting on with the pragmatic and forward thinking approaches. I am confident they will look back, once this legislation is passed, and scratch their heads in bewilderment as to why they didn't focus on the macro issues that actually affect the globe and not just their staunch political stance.

  Hey JamesMelbourne, what the bloody hell is a "Tory"? From your rant it sounds like a political being or is it an anal probe for the socialistically constipated? Could you please, using your most eloquent expensive ethical legal language, reference this description of a political being, or an anal probe, to the reality of Australian politics. Tah.

----------


## chrisp

> Hey JamesMelbourne, what the bloody hell is a "Tory"?

  He actually wrote "tory" not "Tory". 
A dictionary will provide the answer:  *tory*: A supporter of traditional political and social institutions against the forces of reform; a political conservative. 
and, just in case...  *conservative*: Resistant to change

----------


## woodbe

Interesting stuff SBD   

> _
> The first blush result confirms that the enormous disparity identified by the ACF from 2007-10 is only the worsening of an existing problem from the 1990s. This is the comparison of the ACF's identified fossil fuel subsidies versus climate change programs, in millions of dollars."_

   

> BJORN LOMBERG: I'd like to just  share this with the viewers, actually the German example, they've spent  $75 billion on subsidising solar panels

  So Australia with 22 Million people or therabouts has subsidised the fossil fuel industry for about $30bn in the last three years ($10bn/year), while Germany, with 80 Million people has subsidised a thriving PV industry since 2000 to the tune of $75bn ($7.5bn/year) That means we're spending about 5 times as much per capita on subsidies for fossil fuel than the Germans are for solar? 
Oh yea, those Germans are off their rockers. Building a renewables business like that for so little money.  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> No that is true so why post it here if not to represent some miss guided view that this is caused by AGW? 
> You are trying to be too clever here Woodbee just a little bit like JuLIAR.  
> Try calling a spade a spade life is much easier that way.

  I posted the graphic because it denounces a long running and common thread by denialists that the Arctic is not warming, with or without AGW. 
Please keep your liar smears to yourself. You are stepping over the line on this post Rod. 
woodbe.

----------


## chrisp

> My opinions on this entire topic are far too complicated expound here.  I know. I've tried before. 
> Suffice to say....whilst I strongly support the scepticism exhibited here in this thread....I'm usually appalled at how misdirected it is, how uninformed it often is and (worst) how politically motivated it is. 
> Scepticism to satisfy a personal political belief is a hollow charade of scepticism......and is therefore of no real value to anything other than a political debate.  
> As for the proposed Carbon Tax....check out the attachment to see *one of the reasons* why it won't provide the benefits that are often being expounded for it.

  SBD raises an excellent point.  One side here holds the untenable and unsupported position that AGW doesn't exist.  While many of us on the other side have been defending AGW (mainly for the benefit of the casual reader), the real debate should be on the form of our response to AGW and not the existence of AGW. 
Unfortunately, the deniers are pushing the ambit claim that AGW is false has moved the argument away from where is should be focused - the shape-and-form of the carbon price. 
I think that the deniers (they certainly aren't sceptics in the true sense of the word) do themselves a great disservice as to continually dismissing well researched and well reviewed science outright only makes their position look nonsensical.

----------


## Dr Freud

These hints may help explain why you find this all so complicated.   

> whilst I strongly support the scepticism exhibited here in this thread....I'm usually appalled at how misdirected it is, how uninformed it often is

  It is very easy to make vague claims.  Can you please quote any of my misdirected or uninformed scepticism?  Vague claims without evidence does tend to complicate things.  Now, where have we seen that before?  :Biggrin:     

> As for the proposed Carbon Tax

  There is no "proposed Carbon Tax".  There is a proposed Carbon Dioxide Tax.  Things get very complicated when people don't know the difference between a Carbon atom (C) and a Carbon Dioxide molecule (CO2).   

> compared to  climate change mitigation/adaptation programs

  If you refer to climate change, things get complicated because the climate always has changed, is changing now, and always will change.  As far as I am aware, there are no government programs to mitigate this. 
If you actually mean AGW hypothesis mitigation programs, then it is no wonder you find this so complicated.  But it does sound very silly trying to mitigate a hypothesis, doesn't it?  No wonder they keep changing the name?   

> instead of a carbon price right now

  See above for the Carbon bit again, but there will be no "Carbon Dioxide" price right now either.  There is a proposal for a Carbon Dioxide Tax right now (1 July 2012 actually).  There is some airy fairy idea about a Carbon Dioxide price possibly in the future sometime depending on various yet to be determined criteria, no doubt including the ubiquitous "global action", which will never happen, leaving us with a permanent Carbon Dioxide Tax that the government of the day can ramp up at will.  See, not so complicated when it is all sorted.   

> until such time as a world wide carbon mitigation regime is in play

  Combine all of the hints above and unscramble your sentence, then you will see why you think this is so complicated.   

> The money saved could then be spent on making industry and the general public more carbon efficient

  Why would we want to be more Carbon Dioxide efficient?  Does this mean we should stop exercising so we breathe out less?  Are the plants gonna be happy if we get rid of all the Carbon Dioxide?  Mate, this will be much less complicated if you just start using the correct scientific terms. 
For the people who claim to have "the science" on their side, you guys don't involve yourselves in it much.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Trouble is mate, no matter what you say to a backwards thinking tory, it will never get through the persistent arrogance.

  It's a good thing we have none of these "backwards thinking tory's" here then.  It would be interesting to hear some of their views if you can find one?  Ask one of them what the hell "backwards thinking" means as well.    

> Perhaps if the tory's opened their minds to the possibility, then some well rounded discussions can be had.

  Are you referring here again to only the backward thinking tory's, or do you include the forward thinking tory's? And maybe if you told them exactly what "possibility" they were supposed to open their minds to, they might.   

> Until such time, they are going to deny even the most sensible and balanced rationale because they are too focussed on losing face. Shameful really. There are other people on this earth besides the arrogant few.

  This is getting a bit vague now.  Don't the magistrates or judges pull you up on this stuff?   

> Meanwhile, as they stew on the petty issues, others are getting on with the pragmatic and forward thinking approaches. I am confident they will look back, once this legislation is passed, and scratch their heads in bewilderment as to why they didn't focus on the macro issues that actually affect the globe and not just their staunch political stance.

  This a very vague.  It appears that you have created a fictional future scenario and then used your psychic powers to project how "backwards thinking tory's" would feel about it?  Is this the type of "science" you guys keep referring to, because you never want to post any?

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm nobody special other than I seek the truth and I vote. Just like a lot of other Australians. 
> And, for the record, I'm not a rusted on conservative,I just hate being lied to by a government that wants to put its hand in my pocket and give my money to whomever it thinks is deserving ( like Flim bloody Flannery) (Grossly overpaid salesman extraordinaire).

  Mate, from all the people I have met, this representation fits most of them.  I have argued with left wing idiots and right wing idiots who blindly follow their own political ideologies on this subject, but it is fortunate they are both the minority.  Most people on both sides of mainstream politics just want to know who to believe. 
The first thing I teach them is that science doesn't work on beliefs, and that they should always ask for and search for empirical evidence or facts.  I explain the facts that I have ascertained to them, and ask then to go out and let me know if they ever find any empirical evidence to the contrary.  Guess how many have come back to disagree by presenting their evidence? 
But according to the AGW hypothesis brigade, we are all being funded by big oil to kill the futures of our children and children. I guess it doesn't get much more scientific than that.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

See post above.   :Arrow Up:   
You don't need to compromise, you need to arm yourself with facts and debunk the mantra that is based on fiction.   

> To true Silent, to true. But fundamentally ,is there a compromise to be found? On such a divisive subject it is difficult to find any middle ground. 
> On one side there is a belief by the believers that they have been delivered copies of an environmental mantra to live by. On the other side they know that the believers have been delivered ten copies of the Kings Cross Whisperer ( a nineteen sixties seedy rag) which nobody should be living by.( I'm trying to find a compromise Silent, but it's extremely elusive).

  
I live my life free of compromise, and step into the shadows without complaint or regret. *Rorschach.*

----------


## Dr Freud

The massive public backlash against JuLIAR's massive and useless Carbon Dioxide Tax has at least had one positive benefit.  The AGW hypothesis brigade has come out of hiding in a desperate attempt to build some credibility back in their argument. 
But they have nothing new:   

> Nope. Not at all. Look again. 
> The chart is just showing data. It doesn't have any text on it explaining a link with AGW. 
> woodbe.

  Neither does this chart:    
Because neither of them has any empirical scientific evidence proving they were caused by human CO2 emissions in accordance with the AGW hypothesis. 
By your own admission, even you have ceased trying to link this "data" by some spurious link to the AGW hypothesis. 
But Rod is right, no-one has been discussing this topic for many pages, so why the sudden graph, then dodgy reason for posting.  It does have the whiff of desperation about it?   

> Yep I can see that Woodbe but climategate was all about data too. I'll leave it to the resident sleuths, Freud, Rod and Marc, to make it look like a piece of Jarlsberg. It's to late in the night for me. Cheers

  We already have many times earlier in the thread.  It is well worth a read.  That is why Woodbe no longer tries to argue a link to the AGW hypothesis.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *conservative*: Resistant to change

  If they are impervious to change, no wonder they don't care about climate change. 
They'll be just fine.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Interesting stuff SBD 
> So Australia with 22 Million people or therabouts has subsidised the fossil fuel industry for about $30bn in the last three years ($10bn/year), while Germany, with 80 Million people has subsidised a thriving PV industry since 2000 to the tune of $75bn ($7.5bn/year) That means we're spending about 5 times as much per capita on subsidies for fossil fuel than the Germans are for solar? 
> Oh yea, those Germans are off their rockers. Building a renewables business like that for so little money.  
> woodbe.

  Yes, very interesting. 
See, this is good, you've worked out the cost of the two items you wish to compare. 
Now could you please work out the benefits of each. 
You will quickly realise the benefits of a vibrant economy in Australia through our use of fossil fuels has been immense, particularly in terms of standards of living. 
You will quickly realise the  benefits (if you can even call them that) to the Germans cannot even be compared in fractions of the benefits from our use of fossil fuels. 
You have perfectly described what is known is a false economy, by focussing on what appears to be a cheap purchase price, without realising you could have got so much more for your money. 
You have also perfectly highlighted why JuLIAR is loathe to perform a cost-benefit analysis for any of her "big" policies like the NBN and the Carbon Dioxide Tax.  :Biggrin:  
P.S. It's not a real "renewables business", it is a government subsidised fad that can be cut at any time, just like JuLIAR just did.  Oops, only to be rolled over by the greenies who are really determing Australia's future, so reinstated some of these.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I posted the graphic because it denounces a long running and common thread by denialists that the Arctic is not warming, with or without AGW. 
> Please keep your liar smears to yourself. You are stepping over the line on this post Rod. 
> woodbe.

  
Mate, we've already determined by many definitions that there are no "denialists" here.  So how are they conducting any long running anything? 
And if one part of the Planet Earth is losing some ice and we don't know why, then what's the relevance?  Why didn't you post a chart of the many parts of the Planet Earth that show ice growing, and assert there is no link suggested from this graph to the AGW hypothesis. 
Like these:     
See, all totally meaningless to the AGW hypothesis debate, as there is *zero* evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.

----------


## Dr Freud

> SBD raises an excellent point.  One side here holds the untenable and unsupported position that AGW doesn't exist.  While many of us on the other side have been defending AGW (mainly for the benefit of the casual reader), the real debate should be on the form of our response to AGW and not the existence of AGW. 
> Unfortunately, the deniers are pushing the ambit claim that AGW is false has moved the argument away from where is should be focused - the shape-and-form of the carbon price. 
> I think that the deniers (they certainly aren't sceptics in the true sense of the word) do themselves a great disservice as to continually dismissing well researched and well reviewed science outright only makes their position look nonsensical.

  I've argued with Jehovah's witnesses and Scientologist's that made more sense than this. :Doh:  
But it's late and I'm tired, so this one will have to wait for the weekend.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

AGW is a religion and not science
Their supporters are religious fanatics who's closed minds can be compared to the exploits of those who imposed the inquisition or the nazi extremist who thought Hitler was a god.
I find it rather humorous that they choose to label us "deniers" a term intentionally used to link by elevation with the holocaust deniers a term treasured by the zionist extremist.
Any way you look at it, the AGW movement is a radical extremist movement that is using the naive the idle and the convinced to achieve their goal of power shift and funds transfer to their own "alternative" industries.
I particularly enjoy John Brignell's article comparing religion and AGW, below is one of his comments http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm   

> *Puritans and killjoys* No one has bettered Mencken’s definition of Puritanism – the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. It is an unfortunate characteristic of many varieties of religion that this characteristic is to the fore and Global Warming is far from being an exception. Nothing the proponents offer involves an improvement or even maintenance of human contentment, quite the opposite in fact. You might think that any philosophy of life would involve swings and roundabouts, good and bad, but think again. Virtually everything you enjoy is now sinful – holidays, driving your car, having a comfortable temperature in your home, being free from the stink of rotting garbage, and on and on. As with the flagellants of old, for some people a feeling of self-righteousness not only transcends all discomforts, but derives from them. The rest of us have to be coerced into conformity. It is an unfortunate fact of life that there are people who get their kicks out of pushing other people around. The existence of little pleasures of life, such as savouring a fine wine or cigar (and even more so the proletarian equivalents) is intolerable to them. They will exploit any means – the distortion of science, the suborning of weak politicians, the repetition of mendacious propaganda – to achieve the elimination of the hated practices. The eleventh commandment for the killjoys is “Thou shalt not have fun”, and global warming provides a delightful playground for them.

----------


## woodbe

> Mate, we've already determined by many definitions that there are no "denialists" here.  So how are they conducting any long running anything?

  By your own measure perhaps, but in anycase, the general modus operandi of the denialists is to shorten the time periods, and to cherry pick locations or time periods in an effort to proclaim that black is in fact a very bright white. 
For instance: 
2007 was the year that the ice extent fell well below predictions and the lowest extent for some time was recorded. The following couple of years showed more ice extent than 2007 and the denialists screamed "RECOVERY" ignoring the fact that those years were still below the long term average. 
So, to 'refute' my post of the current data against the long term trend, you 'just happen' to post an old graphic showing 2007, 2008, 2009, no long term trend, no historical data reference. 
The graphic you posted is data correct, but the selection of it to refute the claim that the Arctic is warming is classic denialist behaviour. 
Posting this in 2011 is denialist behaviour:   

> 

  In 2011 this is fact:   
Data from the same source. (NORSEX) The data from your selected time period is clearly shown towards the far right of the graphic, and as you can see the long term trend is down, just as it was in the other graphic I posted. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> SBD raises an excellent point.

  He raises lots of them.  :2thumbsup:    

> One side here holds the untenable and unsupported position that AGW doesn't exist.

  It is a scientific fact that there is *zero* evidence proving the AGW hypothesis. 
This is not a "position", it is a scientific fact. 
Using big words like "untenable" and "unsupported" doesn't make you any less wrong.   

> While many of us on the other side have been defending AGW (mainly for the benefit of the casual reader)

  Why are you not defending the fact that the Earth is round?  When you figure this out, you will hopefully understand what empirical evidence is.   

> the real debate should be on the form of our response to AGW and not the existence of AGW.

  Why do we not debate our response to invasion by ET intelligent beings.  Their existence is just as scientifically valid as the AGW hypothesis, and the potential "catastrophic" consequences much more dire.   

> Unfortunately, the deniers

  Who are these people, and why do you keep talking about them?   

> are pushing the ambit claim that AGW is false has moved the argument away from where is should be focused - the shape-and-form of the carbon price.

  Do you mean the Carbon Dioxide Tax, or is there another BIG NEW TAX that I don't know about that you guys keep talking about? 
If so, does this Carbon Dioxide Tax need to be global to stop this alleged global warming, or will this Carbon Dioxide Tax just in Australia cool down the whole Planet Earth? 
Does the Carbon Dioxide Tax need this global "shape-and-form" to be effective?  Does this mean the Saudi's have to stop selling oil, and the Chinese and Indian's have to stop burning coal? 
Apologies if you consider these "ambit" questions, but I personally think they actually open the debate into the real world, heaven forbid.    

> I think that the deniers (they certainly aren't sceptics in the true sense of the word) do themselves a great disservice as to continually dismissing well researched and well reviewed science outright only makes their position look nonsensical.

  Dude, you really have to stop hanging out with these "deniers".  They don't sound like very sensible people. 
You are fortunate to have a quality debate against us sceptics here who will only refer to scientific facts as being a legitimate driver of political action.  :2thumbsup:  
We will join you in fighting these "deniers" who "believe" in acting contrary to empirical scientific evidence.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Woodbe, while it is good to have you back, compared to some of the less able contemporary protagonists of the AGW hypothesis, it is futile going over all this old ground again.  We did the arctic sea ice argument to death (please re-read that section if you don't remember), and it was patently evident that there was no scientific empirical evidence proving arctic sea ice data was being caused by the AGW hypothesis. 
In fact, contrary to this, global empirical data showed many instances of ice growth and formation that were contrary to the AGW hypothesis.  But we don't need to re-argue all these points, just go back and read them all. 
I don't know why you have misconstrued my last post so badly, it was designed in response to your illogical posting of point in time data, so I demonstrated this by posting other irrelevant point in time data, including illegal immigrants, just to further highlight irrelevant graphs. 
This is what I explicitly stated in the post to ensure no confusion:   

> And if one part of the Planet Earth is losing some ice and we don't know why, then what's the relevance?  Why didn't you post a chart of the many parts of the Planet Earth that show ice growing, and assert there is no link suggested from this graph to the AGW hypothesis.  See, all totally meaningless to the AGW hypothesis debate, as there is *zero* evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.

  Now that we have this clarification, back to your post:   

> By your own measure perhaps

  Actually, by the measure of many of you AGW hypothesis supporters.  Some of you have provided various definitions, and after having them all debunked, have just ignorantly kept referring to this term with some type of religious fervour that bemuses me.  :Biggrin:     

> the general modus operandi of the denialists is to shorten the time periods, and to cherry pick locations or time periods in an effort to proclaim that black is in fact a very bright white.

  I have previously given many datasets of various data going back over 500 million years showing the Planet Earth regularly cycling through massive climate changes, far greater than our current measured "blip".  You don't like this data as it entirely refutes the AGW hypothesis, so prefer to stick with using periods of 20th Century warming. 
I guess this proves I am not a "denier" and proves that someone is "cherry picking".   

> 2007 was the year that the ice extent fell well below predictions and the lowest extent for some time was recorded. The following couple of years showed more ice extent than 2007 and the denialists screamed "RECOVERY" ignoring the fact that those years were still below the long term average.

  You guys really have to stop hanging out with these "deniers", they don't sound too bright.  Why would we need to "recover" from natural weather and climate variability.  What are we going to recover to, some dream mean data figure that a computer model came up with?    

> So, to 'refute' my post of the current data against the long term trend

  Mate, I don't think you are getting the point.  I was not "refuting" anything.  I was pointing out that *you yourself had admitted that the graph you posted had nothing to do with the AGW hypothesis*.  I mimicked your post by also pointing out other graphs that had nothing to do with the AGW hypothesis. 
I even spelled this out to avoid any confusion:   

> See, all totally meaningless to the AGW hypothesis debate, as there is *zero* evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.

  This was in an effort to figure out your rationale for posting a graph that *you yourself had admitted that the graph you posted had nothing to do with the AGW hypothesis*? 
A question you still have not answered.   :No:  I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some point you were trying to make in your original post.  As usual, we then deteriorate into semantic argument about "deniers" to avoid admitting the fact that there is *zero* evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.   

> The graphic you posted is data correct

  Thanks champ.  :2thumbsup:    

> Posting this in 2011 is denialist behaviour

  So, I cannot even show any data (that you admit is factually correct) that even gives the perception that the AGW hypothesis is the joke that it is.  Even if I explicitly state that it is no way meant to support any argument related to the AGW hypothesis:   

> See, all totally meaningless to the AGW hypothesis debate, as there is *zero* evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.

  Would you like me to run any data past you or Michael Mann, or any other church leaders before I post this blasphemous material. 
Have you heard of a witch hunt? Have you heard of the Spanish inquisition? Have you heard of the crusades? Have you heard of the Taliban? What other religious censorship comes to mind?  :Doh:    

> and as you can see the long term trend is down

  Again, I thought over 500 million years was a good long term trend indicator, but if you wish to keep using the data showing the Planet Earth gently and naturally coming out of the last ice age, be my guest.  :2thumbsup:  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Interesting stuff SBD 
> So Australia with 22 Million people or therabouts has subsidised the fossil fuel industry for about $30bn in the last three years ($10bn/year), while Germany, with 80 Million people has subsidised a thriving PV industry since 2000 to the tune of $75bn ($7.5bn/year) That means we're spending about 5 times as much per capita on subsidies for fossil fuel than the Germans are for solar? 
> Oh yea, those Germans are off their rockers. Building a renewables business like that for so little money.  
> woodbe.

   

> You have perfectly described what is known is a false economy, by focussing on what appears to be a cheap purchase price, without realising you could have got so much more for your money. 
> You have also perfectly highlighted why JuLIAR is loathe to perform a cost-benefit analysis for any of her "big" policies like the NBN and the Carbon Dioxide Tax.

  Not only a false economy, but also based on flawed data.  A *long term trend* is definitely forming when it comes to environmentalists pushing a dodgy agenda.  :Biggrin:    

> The Australian Conservation Foundation gets an excoriating fact-checking on a blog that it escapes from the friendly mainstream journalists of Fairfax and the ABC:   _ I think its worth a post on the fossil fuel subsidy canard that green groups regularly peddle, but which rarely gets corrected by the media._  _The latest example is the ACFs Don Henry claiming that the fossil fuel industry gets $12b of subsidies._  _If you click through to the accompanying document, its clear the ACFs definition of a subsidy bears no resemblance to reality._  _The biggest item is Fuel tax rebates ($4.99b). Thats a deduction that any business which uses a vehicle is able to claim for the cost of using that vehicle - just like any other ordinary deductible item. How that constitutes a subsidy is beyond me._  _The second biggest item is Lack of indexation on fuel excise ($3.235b). John Howard stopped indexing the fuel excise after the GST was introduced. Basically, what the ACF is re saying is that because an additional tax isnt levied on a particular class of business or fuel consumer, thats a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry!_  _The third biggest item is FBT company car concession ($1.11b). Its not a concession at all - its one method of determining how FBT is levied on a company car so that an employer is taxed for a non-cash benefit provided to an employee._  _I guess this sort of ignorance and/or deception is to be expected from environmentalists, but what gets my goat is that these claims get reported untested._  Beware the Australian Con Foundation | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

> *JULIA Gillard's proposed carbon tax is mugging NSW Labor in the lead-up to the state election, with more than three-quarters of voters not convinced the measure will do anything to help the environment. * The finding is even worse news for NSW Premier Kristina Keneally, who launched Labor's campaign for a fifth term last month with a $913 million package aimed at easing pressure on the cost of living. 
> Mr Textor's analysis of the poll concluded that "the tax is seen as compounding their cost of living pressures, uncertainties and fears just when they want their political leaders to ease them". 
> Asked how the carbon tax would help the environment in practical terms, 76 per cent of those polled were confused by the issue. They were negative about the promised compensation package. While 62 per cent said compensation would be insufficient or worse, 57 per cent found a tax followed by a rebate "an illogical situation".   Carbon tax mugs Kristina Keneally | The Australian

  I wonder if this will end Kristina or JuLIAR first? 
JuLIAR should not be leaving the country with a disgruntled back bench and an ambitious Shorten in the shadows.  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Julia Gillard has just scraped back into office as Prime Minister after the independent MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott announced they would support Labor to form a minority government.  *Mr Windsor said providing stability for the country had been a key factor in his decision.*  Julia Gillard Wins Election, Stays Prime Minister of Australia

  And let's see how that's working out for your Tony:   

> The nation's commercial broadcasters, accused of inciting hatred this week by independent MP Tony Windsor, say they're picking up a new level of frustration in their audiences they've not heard before. 
> They put it down to two factors - Julia Gillard's proposed carbon tax and the realities of minority government. 
> Mr Windsor blamed "shock jocks" for death threats he'd received, including one he played on national television. 
> But Sydney broadcaster Ray Hadley said the independent was "stark, raving mad" to play the threat on television. 
> "He should have contacted the Australian Federal Police; he chose not to do that," he said. "He chose to go to Mark Riley in Channel Seven in an attempt to take the pressure off himself because he's not at this moment representing his constituents. 
> Analysis by Media Monitors this week showed a highly unfavourable reaction to the carbon tax on commercial radio, and a favourable reaction to the policy on ABC radio in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra.Byner said the carbon tax was a "tax on living" and many of his listeners were upset about it. 
> Melbourne's Neil Mitchell, who has clashed repeatedly with the Prime Minister in recent weeks, said t*here was a feeling of uncertainty pervading federal politics.*  *He said it was a feeling evident in the tone of the debate and in the demeanour of the nation's MPs.*   Talkback climate heats up on carbon tax | The Australian

----------


## Rod Dyson

> He raises lots of them.    
> It is a scientific fact that there is *zero* evidence proving the AGW hypothesis. 
> This is not a "position", it is a scientific fact. 
> Using big words like "untenable" and "unsupported" doesn't make you any less wrong.   
> Why are you not defending the fact that the Earth is round? When you figure this out, you will hopefully understand what empirical evidence is.   
> Why do we not debate our response to invasion by ET intelligent beings. Their existence is just as scientifically valid as the AGW hypothesis, and the potential "catastrophic" consequences much more dire.   
> Who are these people, and why do you keep talking about them?   
> Do you mean the Carbon Dioxide Tax, or is there another BIG NEW TAX that I don't know about that you guys keep talking about? 
> If so, does this Carbon Dioxide Tax need to be global to stop this alleged global warming, or will this Carbon Dioxide Tax just in Australia cool down the whole Planet Earth? 
> ...

  Such a nice reply Doc

----------


## Dr Freud

> Gotta love Turnbull, the right man for that show.

   

> He should be leading this country but the Libs are too dumb.

  On the contrary, he was great for this particular episode as he still remains arguably the most consistent and credible politician in the country on this issue.  Consistently wrong in my opinion.  :Biggrin:  
But he has not proven to be a suitable leader of the Liberal Party.  Any person with training and education in political science would be able to recognise this fact. 
Here's Mr Rabbit:   

> The Federal Opposition has opened up an eight-point lead over Labor in the latest opinion poll.    
>  The Nielsen poll in the Sydney Morning Herald gives the *Coalition 54 per cent* of the two-party preferred vote, with *Labor on 46 per cent*.  
>  The Coalition leads Labor by 46 per cent to 32 per cent on the primary vote.   Coalition builds two-party lead - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  Here's Mr Turnbull:   

> In assessing the qualities of Malcolm Turnbull, I do think Dennis Atkins should distinguish between Left enough to please journalists and good enough to please voters:  _If leadership was decided on merit alone, Turnbull is the natural in the Liberal ranks. But merit is often a secondary issue for politicians, who look more to someone who fits with the team and sings from the same song sheet as their colleagues._  _When Turnbull fell out with his colleagues - and lost the leadership by one vote in a ballot with Abbott - it was his style and attitude that mattered as much as his staunch support for an emissions trading scheme to deal with greenhouse gas pollution._  _And most of them have not forgotten or forgiven what they saw as disloyalty to colleagues and the Liberal Party._  _Malcolm hasnt a chance of coming back (as leader), said one senior and sometimes sympathetic colleague. People are still angry with him. They remember the (Laurie) Oakes interview and it still pisses them off._  _That was the interview on the eve of the leadership ballot Turnbull lost in which he accused Abbott and Nick Minchin of recklessly destroying the Liberal Party. As well as being littered with gratuitous character references, it was a high-handed lecture on politics that infuriated other Liberals._Two critical facts are omitted here to put Turnbulls leadership credentials into proper perspective.  
>   First, this is what  the natural leader of the Liberals achieved when he last had that job:   
>   Second, since Abbott ditched the global warming policies Turnbull disastrously pushed, the Liberals have toppled a Labor leader, nearly won an unwinnable election and now look favorites to win the next - once again demonstrating how little faith can be put on Turnbulls political judgment    _...the climate-change war that Nick Minchin and his wreckers have started will continue to destroy the Liberal Party until such time as we are destroyed by Kevin Rudd in an election._ _Oops._  _This omitted context explains so much. _   _If Turnbull is such a natural leader, why did he fail? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  _  _ Coalition from 43 to 54, that's + 11 for those still counting.   
Labor from 57 to 46, that's - 11 for those still counting.  
And a self-proclaimed political scientist says the "Libs are too dumb" for achieving this shift?  
Definitely get a refund dude!  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Such a nice reply Doc

  Yeh, thanks mate.  It's exhausting, but someone has to do it.  Otherwise we can all just revert to religious based political policies determining national and international economics. 
I'm happy to tithe voluntarily as most Aussies are, but these clowns certainly won't dictate to us what we should believe. 
Freeeeeedom!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *VICTORIANS are feeling the brunt of the nation's fastest-rising electricity and gas bills. *  			 		 		Official figures confirm the extent that shock costs for basic services are stretching family budgets.  
> It comes amid predictions costs for power, petrol and groceries will jump under plans to put a price on "dirty" carbon pollution.  
> Power bills surged an average 20 per cent last year - the biggest in Australia - adding $250 to $300 to a typical family bill. Gas bills climbed another 9 per cent, also the highest annual rise.  
> Melbourne's water costs have blown out almost 80 per cent in five years, the biggest increase of any capital.  
> Electricity bills skyrocketed almost 60 per cent because of price rises and extra consumption - at quadruple the city's general inflation rate.  
> "Pensions and other welfare benefits are simply not keeping anywhere near the pace of skyrocketing increases in essentials," Mr Dufty said.  
> "For battlers, that's all they've got money to spend on. This shows the lie of the CPI."
> The Baillieu Government has extended electricity bill discounts to a year for pensioners and other concession card holders.   Victorian families suffer most from power hikes | Herald Sun

  You  Victorian's are gonna love paying billions more for a desal plant not being used while your dams are full, and then paying billions more again for breathing out all that "dirty" carbon pollution under the Carbon Dioxide Tax.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Chesapeake environmentalist Mike Tidwell prepares for Climategeddon:  _Ten years ago, I put solar panels on my roof and began eating locally grown food. I bought an energy-efficient refrigerator that uses the power equivalent of a single light bulb. I started heating my home with a stove that burns organically fertilized corn kernels. I even restored a gas-free lawn mower for manual yardwork._  _As a longtime environmental activist, I was deeply alarmed by new studies on global warming, so I went all out. I did my part._  But times have changed:  _Today, underneath the solar panels, theres a new set of deadbolt locks on all my doors. Theres a new Honda GX390 portable power generator in my garage, ready to provide backup electricity. And last week I bought a starter kit to raise tomatoes and lettuce behind barred basement windows._  Gotta protect your salad, man.  _It was the global food riots of 2008 and 2010 that led me to replace the 50-year-old locks on all my doors last fall. Im not normally the paranoid type, but when extreme weather alternately baked and flooded wheat fields in Australia and Russia, helping to jack up grain prices more than 40 percent worldwide and leading hungry people to protest from Mexico to Mozambique to Serbia, I took notice._  Those Serbs swarming across Maryland towards Tidwells tomatoes will just have to eat somewhere else.  _Were running out of time. The proof is everywhere  our weather has gone haywire  Im not crazy. Just wait ..._  Youre growing lettuce in a cage. Of _course_ youre not crazy.   _People dont sit still when food gets scarce. Indeed, when the options are extreme hunger or pillaging the neighboring village, history tends to favor pillaging._  _So I even took my first-ever lesson in firearms use last December  wouldnt even a level-headed person want to be ready to defend his family if climate chaos goes to the max?_  A level-headed person wouldnt have mentioned that lettuce in the first place. Now the Mozambicans _know_. Its only a matter of time.  _My wife and son, meanwhile, have obviously noticed the changes Im making around the house._  I bet they have.  _Our trees are going to keep falling in ways weve never seen before._  Theres a new way other than down? Tidwell  whose piece is published, by the way, in the _Washington Post_  takes his cues from the Stare Master:  _In his new book, Eaarth, the great nature writer Bill McKibben purposely misspells the name of our planet because that old planet no longer exists; the once-dependable seasons and crop-nourishing rains that gave rise to human civilization are gone. McKibben worries about security, about fighting other adult males over the fall harvest, as he puts it _  Id pay good money to see McKibben fight an adult male. Or even an infant male, to make things even.  _The era of consequences, at every conceivable level, has entered our world._  How? Did someone leave the triple-bolted electrified security gate open? 
>   UPDATE. Unless hes got some Claymore mines around there, Tidwells house is clearly vulnerable to food raiders. Starve him out by throwing a tarp over his solar panels, then the lettuce will be yours.   ATTACK OF THE TOMATO KILLERS | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog

  Pure genius:* 
Starve him out by throwing a tarp over his solar panels, then the lettuce will be yours.*   :Rotfl:  
See, Tidwell, like most nutters, don't realise that if things get that bad, he will be the food!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

How is it that someone now in England has to point out how our own country works to us:   

> In my day we sometimes had to recite it ourselves, and weren't allowed to go home until we had given evidence that we could remember at least the first four lines of the second stanza, which runs like this. I love a sunburnt country,
> A land of sweeping plains,
> Of ragged mountain ranges,
> Of droughts and flooding rains.
> I love her far horizons,
> I love her jewel-sea,
> Her beauty and her terror 
> The wide brown land for me.
> Core of my heart, my country!
> ...

  
The full article is a great read. 
Learn these lessons well my friends.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> So.. if its that easy to get used to it will be a great waste of time then.

  You nailed it mate. 
This will be fun to watch as JuLIAR squirms between two equally ridiculous positions:   

> Christine Milne is perfectly right - if you really believe man-made gases are destroying the planet, then you must of course end coal mining. Which means the Gillard Government lacks the courage of its own (claimed) convictions:  _CLIMATE Change Minister Greg Combet has declared the coal industry will have a good future under Labors carbon pricing regime and says he is confident of striking a compensation deal with the Greens to protect jobs in heavy polluting industries. _  _Speaking to The Weekend Australian, Mr Combet seized on Greens leader Bob Browns signal last week that his party was open to looking at the impact on trade-exposed industries as evidence it was prepared to negotiate on transitional assistance for sectors such as coal and aluminium._  _But Senator Browns deputy, Christine Milne, yesterday renewed her attack on the coal industry, writing on The Punch website that to prevent the climate crisis, we need to transform our economy away from the dead end of coal to the exciting opportunities of baseload solar and other renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies...._  _NSW Greens MP Cate Faehrmann, who is also the partys mining spokeswoman, yesterday praised a decision to refuse the Wallarah 2 coalmine expansion on the NSW central coast, but said unfortunately the refusal was an exception to the rule in the state and there were 17 major proposals for new mines or expansions being assessed._If Combet is right and coal miners have a good future under his scheme, hes is confessing that this scheme is a complete fraud - failing to shut down a massive source of emissions while making us pay a new huge tax were told will slash those very gases. 
>   UPDATE 
>   Lets see if the Bob Brown will compromise with the Government he leads by the nose from the position he put four years ago:    _http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/category/issues/energy/economy/environment/fossil-fuels/mining/coal/coal-mining?page=2 title="Australia should develop a plan, in the next three years, to reduce and phase out coal exports">Australia should develop a plan, in the next three years, to reduce and phase out coal exports, Greens Leader Bob Brown said today._And:     _The main parties are living in fairyland if they think they can have an emissions trading scheme that cuts emissions and protects the coal industry. You cannot address climate change by protecting the industry at the heart of the problem.  It is inevitable that jobs will be lost in the Australian coal industry__ Combet admits to the great carbon tax con | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

----------


## Dr Freud

> NSW Liberal leader Barry OFarrell knows Gillards carbon tax is actually a federal issue, but hes forced to fight it because NSW voters are too steamed up to talk about anything else:_YouTube - O'Farrell's Stance On@Carbon Tax_There is more in this to terrify federal Labor than these bald polling figures. First, OFarrell is acknowledging the fact that this tax is galvanising voters, making it an issue that Gillard will struggle to put to sleep. Second, having it become a big issue in the NSW election means the repercussions from the expected Labor wipe-out are more likely to rock Julia Gillard.    
>   All the signs for Gillard  now point to exit.    
>  Bottom line: Gillard now cannot afford to back down on her tax, but Labor cannot afford not to. *The logic is merciless: Gillard must go for Labor to save itself. *  If OFarrell is campaigning on the tax, then Gillard is finished | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  This is definitely not a good time to leave Shorten alone with the back bench.  :No:

----------


## woodbe

> I was pointing out that *you yourself had admitted that the graph you posted had nothing to do with the AGW hypothesis*.  
> [..] 
> This was in an effort to figure out your rationale for posting a graph that *you yourself had admitted that the graph you posted had nothing to do with the AGW hypothesis*? 
> [..]

   

> I posted the graphic because it denounces a long  running and common thread by denialists that the Arctic is not warming,  with or without AGW.

  Nothing more to say on this. If people cannot or will not read what is written then discussion is pointless. 
I've also been called a liar by someone here who should know better. I'll put up with a bit of crap, but my meter is pushing into the red. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> No that is true so why post it here if not to represent some miss guided view that this is caused by AGW? 
> You are trying to be too clever here Woodbee just a little bit like JuLIAR.  
> Try calling a spade a spade life is much easier that way.

  Toughen up a bit Woodbe I did not call you a liar Yes JuLIAR is one for sure but I said you were being "clever" a "bit" like JuLIAR 
Being a bit clever does not mean you are a liar it means .... well a bit clever.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Nothing more to say on this.
> woodbe.

  It's a free country mate, you have the right the right to remain silent.   

> If people cannot or will not read what is written then discussion is pointless.
> woodbe.

  I read it just fine, it just doesn't make sense.  I asked for clarification above to no avail, but let's try again.   

> I posted the graphic because it denounces a long running and common thread by denialists that the Arctic is not warming, with or without AGW.
> woodbe.

  First, the question is why post it now?  We are in the depths of burying this idiotic tax, and the idiot government that introduced it, so it seems odd to post an arctic ice coverage graph in the middle of this, except for some semantic distraction, which it has achieved.  When was the last post commenting that the arctic was not warming?  I can't even remember it.  I don't suppose you would mind linking it for us?  It must have been pretty memorable to instigate your graph posting. 
Second, can you please name the denialists that you refer to?  I'm still having a tough time figuring out who you guys are referring to. 
Third, if it is temperature you are concerned about, why not post some temperature graphs?  Seasonal ice coverage is a very poor graph to post if you are making an argument for temperature.  I have posted some temperature graphs below to get you started. That's the kinda guy I am, very helpful.  :2thumbsup:  
Fourth, when you say "with or without AGW", it is good to see that at least you have recognised that there is *no* empirical evidence proving that AGW hypothesis caused any of these changes. 
But here are some temperature graphs and info from the arctic and surrounds to show what's been going on up there:  
Gee, CO2 levels must have plummeted massively after 1930 for about 50 years!   
And you hate "cherry picking", so let's look at temperature further back.  *In another recently published paper, nine researchers decided to test the global warming alarmists claims that human CO2 emissions will cause an amplified increase in polar temperaturesthis, they claim, will doom all of humanity.  Well, the scientific facts speak otherwise.  The nine researchers examined a mountain of evidence and research related to Arctic temperatures and determined that current Arctic temperatures are well within natural variability and no CO2-induced polar-amplification is to be found.*  *In comparing the vast array of past climate changes in the Arctic,  human influence does not stand out relative to other, natural causes of climate change. In fact, they state that the data clearly show that strong natural variability has been characteristic of the Arctic at all time scales considered, and they reiterate that the data suggest that the human influence on rate and size of climate change thus far does not stand out strongly from other causes of climate change.* *(2)*  Research confirms that unprecedented Arctic warming occurred a thousand years ago, not today « Thetruthpeddler's Blog     
See, no denialists in sight.   :Biggrin:  
Now, can we get get back to this absolute disaster that is the Carbon Dioxide Tax that is about to decimate our country, and ship our wealth out to third world countries via the UN to be squandered by God only knows who?

----------


## Dr Freud

> No wonder Bob Brown looks pleased with himself, striding around Canberra like the Deadly Mantis, dispensing his wisdom to all and sundry. He can't believe his luck, as Gillard cedes her power and authority. He smells total capitulation to his world view, with the shadowy shock troops of GetUp at his disposal. 
> It was his carbon tax that opened up the fault line Gillard is struggling to straddle now, as angry voters bombard Labor MPs' offices with emails complaining about the Green colonisation of Labor's soul. 
>  They're the people who really count -- Labor's authentic base, the working families in suburban seats, the aspirational classes for whom soaring electricity and fuel costs aren't some theoretical exercise but a painful daily reality. Working people employed by BlueScope Steel are Labor's base, not inner-city greenies with protected salaries. 
> The Greens are the party of punishers and straighteners, the wowsers of the 21st century, the fun police, the Malthusian pessimists, the pinched-faced moralists lecturing the rest of us on our sins. 
>  They are defined by what they are against: humans, mainly, and everything that makes life civilised, from cars and air-conditioning to industry and traditional families. 
> Look at how Ted Baillieu was rewarded in Victoria for his decision not to preference the Greens. 
>  Barry O'Farrell looks set to do the same in NSW in three weeks, billing the election as a referendum on a carbon tax. 
>  It is shaping up to be a bloodbath for Labor, with polls showing the Keneally Government has sunk to a 23 per cent primary vote. 
>  Most people have figured out the tax will do nothing to stop global warming, since Australia accounts for only 1.4 per cent of global emissions. Internal Liberal polling in NSW marginal seats reportedly shows 75 per cent of voters don't see the tax as helping the environment; more than half regard it as a cost-of-living issue.  Gillard sidelined by greening of life | Herald Sun

  JuLIAR is in a lot of trouble!  :Biggrin:  
Here's why:  *Most people have figured out the tax will do nothing to stop global warming* 
And no amount of semantic distractions about arctic ice will change this! 
How many people will vote to pay higher taxes for no reason?  We'll find out on 26 March 2011.  :Wink 1:

----------


## woodbe

> No that is true so why post it here if not to  represent some miss guided view that this is caused by AGW? 
> You are trying to be too clever here Woodbee just a little bit like JuLIAR.  
> Try calling a spade a spade life is much easier that way.

   

> Toughen up a bit Woodbe I did not call you a liar Yes JuLIAR is one for sure but I said you were being "clever" a "bit" like JuLIAR 
> Being a bit clever does not mean you are a liar it means .... well a bit clever.

  Sorry Rod, but no. I read your comments as calling me a liar regardless of your weaseling after the fact. I've told you that, and if this is the response I have no interest in continuing to debate under a dishonourable cloud. 
I am an honest, hardworking, family man. I take my honour seriously, I stake my reputation on it. 
This is the end of woodbe's participation in this thread. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Sorry Rod, but no. I read your comments as calling me a liar regardless of your weaseling after the fact. I've told you that, and if this is the response I have no interest in continuing to debate under a dishonourable cloud. 
> I am an honest, hardworking, family man. I take my honour seriously, I stake my reputation on it. 
> This is the end of woodbe's participation in this thread. 
> woodbe.

  
What do you want me to say Woodbe? You post a graph of the artic ice here for one reason only IMO then when called on it you claim no no no it was not to support the AGW argument. That in my opinion is being "CLEVER" not lying. And I am calling you on it, I am not weaseling in any way, as you put it.  Just calling a spade a spade. 
If you cant handle that what can I say.

----------


## olfella

> JuLIAR is in a lot of trouble!  
> Here's why:  *Most people have figured out the tax will do nothing to stop global warming* 
> And no amount of semantic distractions about arctic ice will change this! 
> How many people will vote to pay higher taxes for no reason?  We'll find out on 26 March 2011.

  I am one of the ones who WILL be there in March.  This is just a grab for cash to bail them out of their (financial) mismanagement.  A tax is a tax is a tax.  The best way to soften the blow is to 'compensate' those poor misfortunate buggers in our society.  It gets their approval (cause they get cash!) and it makes the gov look good.   
But after the mining tax, the disaster tax, and now a carbon tax, I have had it.  How come she can give millions and millions to other countries when they have a disaster, but when we have one, we get another TAX.   
AND what about this 20 Billion they have promised to the UN!!! :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Woodbe, you have been calling many people "deniers" for a long time (including myself) with all it's disgusting connotations that the greenies intended when they started using it.  You do this despite numerous facts constantly proving your use of the term incorrect.   

> I don't think I've ever been to a "denier opinion site", whatever that is, but the reason I know this theory has not been proven is called the scientific method, not because of the media (certainly not the media ) or a "denier opinion site". 
> Note to self: Google "denier opinion site", might be some good stuff there?

   

> Two results included for bottom of page suggestions:  Searches related to _denier opinion site_  *climate change* denier*  holocaust* denier 
> Says it all really, sticks and stones hey gents.

  And you persist in incorrrectly labelling me and others with this greenie intended derogation.   

> The graphic you posted is data correct, but the selection of it to refute the claim that the Arctic is warming is classic denialist behaviour. 
> Posting this in 2011 is denialist behaviour: 
> woodbe.

  Now you want to cry crocodile tears because Rod accuses you of "trying to be too clever", and "*just a little bit* like JuLIAR". 
Which is in fact a true statement as you still have not responded to why you show a few months of ice data for no apparent reason.  Then state it is not designed to support the AGW hypothesis anyway.   
You could have linked the last "denier" post denying arctic warming that you were allegedly responding to, and we would be satisfied, but you did not. 
It seems that your side continually claims to have "the science" on their side, but as soon as we start pointing out that you do not, we get name calling, semantic distractions, protestations of affront, or silence.  *I wonder why???*  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I am one of the ones who WILL be there in March.  This is just a grab for cash to bail them out of their (financial) mismanagement.  A tax is a tax is a tax.  The best way to soften the blow is to 'compensate' those poor misfortunate buggers in our society.  It gets their approval (cause they get cash!) and it makes the gov look good.   
> But after the mining tax, the disaster tax, and now a carbon tax, I have had it.  How come she can give millions and millions to other countries when they have a disaster, but when we have one, we get another TAX.   
> AND what about this 20 Billion they have promised to the UN!!!

  Mate, my mother has never used a computer in her life, but is now learning how to send emails so she can email all the MP's about this! (I explained that if she wrote letters, the TAX would be in before she finished them all  :Biggrin: ) 
Two of my mates who were rusted on Labor voters have written to Labor MP's saying they are not voting Labor at the next election because of this TAX. (And they are serious, surprised the hell out of me). Downside is,they are already living in Liberal held seats, so no gains there, and probably will just not turn up rather than vote Liberal. 
But the point is, people over here are majorly pissed off at this.  A lot of people. 
Even the two Labor blokes said they could put up with the previous "mistakes" (I call it incompetence) like burning down houses and wasting billions.  But now they realise they were blatantly lied to, to steal their money. 
Not happy JuLIAR!!!  :Mad:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I am an honest, hardworking, family man. I take my honour seriously, I stake my reputation on it. 
> woodbe.

  No doubt mate, but most of us are.   
How you would you feel then, if some loony greenies designed a term "denier" that was designed to link you to denying the slaughter of millions of innocent humans, because they knew they had no scientific evidence to fight on, then used this term (incorrectly by their own definitions) every time you tried to point out they had no scientific argument? 
We just dry our eyes and cowboy up!  :2thumbsup:    

> This is the end of woodbe's participation in this thread. 
> woodbe.

  That would be a shame if you do depart as you were probably the most scientifically credible proponent supporting the AGW hypothesis in this thread. 
Without your oversight, I could be posting all sorts of dodgy graphs.  :Wink 1:  
But seriously, you're always welcome to join us whenever you feel like it.  I promise no jokes about broken promises.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> EXPLAIN what it is you are trying to do and consult us in helping you to do it effectively and efficiently - without damaging a huge chunk of the Australian economy. 
>               This is the message industry and business want to send to Prime Minister Julia Gillard on her controversial carbon tax, potentially now 15 months away. 
>               Like the rest of the community, businesses were unprepared for the PM's recent about-face on carbon. But now that the tax issue is back, they want some input - and soon - into what could be the most radical tax move in Australia since the GST was introduced. 
>                                Business and industry groups fundamentally support moves to cut carbon emissions - but how this happens is what matters to them. Should Australia go it alone, potentially harming competitiveness when there is no global agreement on carbon and little sign of action in the United States, China and Japan? 
>               What is the point of an Australian carbon tax if all it does is push more manufacturing offshore into countries that don't have it? The net effect on carbon emissions worldwide would remain unchanged, and could even rise. 
>               How will the trade-exposed rebate scheme work? It seems complex if it involves the federal government doling out money as it sees fit -where are the proposals to make the system revenue neutral? What about corporate tax rates, fuel excises, personal tax rates? 
>               These are just some of the  questions the business community wants answered.  Making sense of carbon confusion

  15 months. 
To design, consult, amend, legislate and implement the greatest structural economic and lifestyle change this country has ever seen. 
Business will have much less time to adjust. 
By a government with the most incompetent and disastrous record that this country has ever seen. 
All that by their own admission *will make zero difference to the environment or climate! * There's a very good reason so many people are so concerned.  :Cry:

----------


## chrisp

> *Denialism* is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth:  "[it] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is  an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a  historical experience or event". *In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.*  
>  It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the  common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the  generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus  exists. The terms _Holocaust denialism_ and _AIDS denialism_ have been used, and the term *climate change denialists* has been applied to those who refuse to accept that climate change is occurring.  Several motivations for denial have been proposed, including religious  beliefs and self-interest, or as a psychological defense mechanism  against disturbing ideas. 
> From: Denialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> 

  How is it that you post information supporting my argument and then smile?  :Doh:  
I don't know if I can spell it out much more.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> And this week exposed the myriad difficulties that Gillard faces in this long and unpredictable battle. 
> First, Gillard is breaking a clear and deliberate election promise. This is not a matter of semantics. There is no grey area here.
> On Friday August 20, the day before the election, in her interview with this newspaper featured on page one under a banner heading, Gillard said: "I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a carbon pollution reduction scheme, a market-based mechanism. I rule out a carbon tax."
> It was an unwise comment but calculated to check Abbott's final push. Media excuses during the past week suggesting Gillard is not really breaking a promise are craven polemics. 
> Second, global momentum for action is distinctly weaker now than during 2008 and early 2009 when Kevin Rudd was devising his scheme.
> This will become pivotal later in the debate. The turning point was the Copenhagen conference. Before Copenhagen, Rudd looked forward to "an ambitious agreement", as he told the Lowy Institute the month before. But Copenhagen failed and the world lives in the shadow of that failure.
> Any hope for a new globally binding legal agreement is remote. Gillard is right to say Australia's response must be proportionate with the rest of the world, neither leading nor lagging.
> Her problem, however, is that she proposes to price carbon when national governments in the US, China and India have no such policy. This has the potential to become a deal-breaker. 
> Third, the situation for much of Australian industry is far different and much harsher than in 2009. Witness comments from the Australian Industry Group's Heather Ridout, to this paper: "It is doubtful we will see another Kyoto Protocol any time soon. That means we are unlikely to have a verifiable international agreement.
> ...

  The picture attached to this article is priceless.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> Mark Hoofnagle  has described denialism as "the employment of rhetorical tactics to  give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality  there is none."  It is a process that operates by employing one or more of the following  five tactics in order to maintain the appearance of legitimate  controversy:  *Conspiracy theories*  Dismissing the event by suggesting opponents have an ulterior motive for their position or are conspiracy theorists.*Cherry picking*   Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using  outdated, flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their  opponents look like they base their ideas on weak research.*False experts*  Paying an expert in the field, or another field, to lend supporting evidence or credibility.*Moving the goalpost *  Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by  continually demanding some other (often unfulfillable) piece of  evidence.*Other logical fallacies*  Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to consequences, straw man, or red herring.
> From: Denialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> *denialism*  *Etymology*
> From denial + -ism.  *Noun*  *denialism* (plural *denialisms*)   describes the position of those who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence and seek to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly. 
> From: denialism - Wiktionary

   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

Mate, continually posting Wikipedia entries that support my argument seems odd.  :Confused:  
Are you now agreeing with me that you guys have been using this term incorrectly all this time?  :2thumbsup:  
And rather than re-posting this same information, why not just link back to when you first posted the same information? 
You do remember that you have posted this same information on previous occasions?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> 

  
LOL these Wiki posts are put there purely to support the warmists by the look of them.  Appeal to authority?? 
Puts a smile on my dial.

----------


## mark53

> See post above.   
> You don't need to compromise, you need to arm yourself with facts and debunk the mantra that is based on fiction.    
> I live my life free of compromise, and step into the shadows without complaint or regret. *Rorschach.*

  Point taken Freud. I withdraw my previous statement your worship.

----------


## Marc

> What do you want me to say Woodbe? You post a graph of the artic ice here for one reason only IMO then when called on it you claim no no no it was not to support the AGW argument. That in my opinion is being "CLEVER" not lying. And I am calling you on it, I am not weaseling in any way, as you put it.  Just calling a spade a spade. 
> If you cant handle that what can I say.

  Rod, you should know better than debating religion with religious men. 
Try this one : Saint Mambukelek, was not a saint but a paedophile  :Yikes2:  
Shock horror, end of debate, you heretic you.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Point taken Freud. I withdraw my previous statement your worship.

  No worries mate, you keep taking the fight to these clowns. 
We will emerge bloody but victorious. 
But I certainly ain't no judge.  If I was it would be more like Judge Dredd.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *
> Prime Minister Julia Gillard* has given a spirited defence of her carbon tax policy, saying it is *supported by business and will create jobs in the future.* 
> VS  *PAUL O'MALLEY:*  So the *policy framework at the moment is wrong.* It seems to be captured by people who don't care whether there are manufacturing jobs in Australia, and you just wonder whether *there is an anti-manufacturing focus in Australia and that people want jobs to go offshore.* 
> One of these two is a lying idiot. 
> Time will tell I guess, but you can guess who my money is on based on form!

  
The answer is no surprise really!   "Woodside believes the company's trade-exposed exports should be exempt from any price on carbon, given the absence of an international agreement on pricing greenhouse gas emissions," it said.  "The company accepts the Government's intention to put a price on emissions associated with products consumed domestically such as natural gas, but recognises this will lead to an increase in costs for consumers."   MINING giant Rio Tinto has put Julia Gillard on notice that business will demand her carbon pricing plan offer more generous compensation and industry protection than Kevin Rudd's 2009 scheme because of the international community's failure to reach a global deal on carbon prices.   He warns that a carbon price will "inevitably be disastrous" in a downturn for businesses unable to pass on the extra costs to their customers.   Both Onesteel and Bluescope are already having to contend with lower-cost producers from both China and the rest of Asia, and Australia's unilateral policy will make it that bit harder to compete.  They will not be alone in feeling a negative impact from a carbon tax. We will all feel the effects in everything we buy as the additional cost compounds and flows through the supply chain.  This is a very difficult area to get right. It is a noble gesture for Australia to take the lead in reducing greenhouse emissions, but there will be serious economic impacts flowing from any change. Jobs and industries will be lost overseas, and they may well end up in higher-polluting countries, defeating the outcome this country is seeking.   First, across very many industries, our trade competitiveness is reduced. One response will be to reduce output and shift to competitor countries not imposing a carbon price. This includes agriculture, due to carbon pricing of its inputs, despite its proposed exemption. Australia loses activity and jobs. Emissions reductions here are partly offset by increases overseas. This does not mean Australian consumption of greenhouse gas emissions declines relative to business as usual.  Our consumption of emissions will increase. We'll buy more imports from countries to which our economic activity shifted. We'll be economic losers and environmental hypocrites.   INDUSTRY has slammed Julia Gillard's plans to force it to pay for carbon pollution, warning the strategy could "kill" manufacturing and that power stations will still baulk at desperately needed investments. The Business Council of Australia warned that companies did not have the certainty they needed to invest because the initial fixed carbon price, implementation arrangements and criteria for moving to emissions trading were all unknown.

----------


## Dr Freud

The rationale is that other countries will look at all this and think "Hey, what a great idea".  :Doh:    

> *JULIA Gillard is under pressure from the states to roll back generous subsidies for rooftop solar schemes amid predictions that escalating costs from the federal renewable energy scheme will add as much as $90 to yearly household power bills. *                                The jump in electricity prices is also expected to drive water bills up by raising the costs of treating and transporting water and to run energy-guzzling desalination plants. 
> The situation could further complicate attempts by Ms Gillard to compensate families for the costs of her plan to put a price on carbon pollution from the middle of next year. 
> The Queensland pricing regulator has proposed a $26 rise to the average quarterly power bill of $440 from July 1. Half of this is related to changes to the federal renewable energy target system, which requires energy retailers to buy high-cost power pumped back into the grid by households with rooftop solar schemes and from bigger wind farms. 
> AGL Energy, Origin Energy and EnergyAustralia say the proposed price rises do not go far enough and are demanding an even bigger price rise in the regulator's final decision, due in late May. 
> It emerged this week that even if no water is purchased from the owners of Victoria's desalination plant, Aquasure, householders will still have to pay $19.37bn in service payments over three decades. 
> Labor governments have also signed contracts guaranteeing desalination plants in Sydney and Adelaide will run at or near full capacity for their first two years of operation. 
> "Water utilities use quite a bit of energy to transport and treat water," said Water Services Association of Australia executive director Ross Young. "With electricity prices predicted to increase, there's no doubt that the operating expenses of a water utility are also going to increase. That has to be passed on."  States call for solar subsidy cut | The Australian

  Now my fellow Australians, as ALL your bills continue this pointless spiral upwards, remember this:  *Zero* environmental benefit.  *Zero* temperature change.  *Zero* big emitters joining us. 
Do you feel like a mug.  :Redface:  
Greenies are selling out our country and prosperity and JuLIAR is bending us all over to take it.  :Sos:

----------


## Dr Freud

Read through this shambles and you will understand why people are confused and business is concerned: 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMVc0IbtyAQ&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan - No Carbon Tax promise[/ame]     

> Treasurer Wayne Swan suddenly doesnt like that tax word, after all, but Laurie Oakes isnt letting him get away with his deceit:  _WS: Now, I accept theres a lot of confuse about the fact that we are bringing in an interim price which people described as a carbon tax. But the fact is that Mr Hockeys description and Mr Abbotts description of a carbon tax is absolutely incorrect. It is not operating in a way where the government goes in and takes the money out of pay packets, and puts it in the revenue. What happens is...._  _LO: Bbit.._  _WS: a very small_  _LO: Hang On_  _WS: very big polluters_  _LO: The Prime Minister herself has said for the first three to five years it will operate as a tax._  _WS: It will operate with a fixed price, which is described by some as a carbon tax, and that is legitimate.,._  _LO: Including??_  _WS: Yes, but it doesnt operate like a traditional tax. Like Mr Abbott says it is operating. It is not the case that the Government is going to take the carbon price out of your pay packet, Laurie. Not going to do that and were not going to put it in the revenue. It is paid, by a small number of large polluters, and that revenue is then used to assist industry and households..._Lets get a few things straight. First, Julia Gillard herself concedes her carbon tax is, well, a tax: _People were going to say Well isnt that going to work effectively like a tax, and we were going to have one of those silly debates about whether or not I would say the word tax. So I just clarified yesterday that the first few years with the fixed price do work effectively like a tax._Again: _A carbon tax is where you fix price.... Ive agreed that there will be a fixed-price period, effectively a tax for the first few years._Second, Swan says its not really a tax because its not as if the Government takes the money out of pay packets. Which I guess means a Goods and Services Tax isnt a tax, either, right, Wayne? Fact is, its a tax on business costs which every consumer will pay for through higher prices, just like a GST. 
>   Third, Swan claims its not really a tax because that revenue is then used to assist industry and households. 
>   What, like the revenue from other taxes is used to hurt them? Is hidden and never seen again?   
>   Dear God. First they lie to you and bring in the tax they said they wouldnt (above). Then they lie to you again and say the tax isnt the tax they just said it was. 
>   No wonder Oakes warns Swan: _Well, Ive rarely seen an issue that has inflamed anger to the extent that this one has. A friend of mine in Brisbane told me two days ago that he thought it was running so hot up there that if there was an election now you would lose your seat._ UPDATE 
>   Reader Bruce catches Swan telling yet another porkie:   _Wayne Swan said this to Meet the Press on the weekend: _  _ The Chinese are taking dramatic action to reduce their emissions__(China is) still building a new coal fired power station each week. Analysts dont expect their CO2 emissions to even peak for at least 20 more years. And Wayne Swan says they are taking dramatic action to reduce emissions. He is either delusional or is redefining reduce to mean skyrocket.  _ _Or hear it from the US Energy Information Administration how China is the biggest and fastest-growing source of emissions:_  __   _ 
> For non-OECD countries, total energy-related carbon dioxide emissions increase by an average of 2.0 percent per year from 2007 to 2035 (Figure 107). The highest rate among non-OECD countries is for China, at 2.7 percent annually from 2007 to 2035, reflecting the countrys strong economic growth and heavy reliance on fossil fuels, especially coal....  China accounts for 78 percent of the total increase in the worlds coal-related carbon dioxide emissions from 2007 to 2035, and India accounts for 7 percent._ _I know, I know, Ill be accused by another Fairfax journalist of fomenting hate and encouraging disrespect of such fine politicians, but Swan is a two-faced and shameless deceiver. I even think hes not very good at his job._  _There, Ive said it. _   _Swan: that wasnt a promise and this isnt a tax | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  Do you trust these clowns to run our country?  :No:

----------


## Rod Dyson

maybe a boycott of Westpac might be in order!!   

> *WESTPAC bank's CEO Gail Kelly says she wants an emissions trading scheme up and running ahead of the government's proposed timetable.* 
> Under its timetable, Labor wants to fix a price on carbon from mid-2012 before moving to an ETS three to five years later. 
> Ms Kelly welcomed a price on carbon as a "first step" towards an ETS, which she wants implemented ahead of the Gillard government's proposed timeframe. 
> "As quickly as we can get to an actual trading scheme would be best," she told ABC Television's 7.30, suggesting the scheme could be ready one year after the carbon price begins. 
> "Certainty is the most important thing."

  The banks cant wait to get their fingers on the ETS Money IMO.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Now for some good.... no no GREAT NEWS.   

> *JULIA Gillard's carbon tax plan has sent Labor's primary vote support reeling to its lowest level on record, with the Prime Minister also suffering a significant slide in her personal standing.*

    *Link Labor falls to historic lows: Newspoll | The Australian*

----------


## Dr Freud

This is a very good summary of the scientific argument without lapsing too much into the technical jargon that makes your eyes glaze over.  Quadrant Online - The Intelligent Voter's Guide to Global Warming 
Well worth the read if you want a general summary of the scientific debate in a nutshell.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> But you think a speculative derivatives market based on underlying artificial arbitrary constructs regulated by a minority of nation states is foolproof?

   

> "As quickly as we can get to an actual trading scheme would be best,"
> 			
> 		   The banks cant wait to get their fingers on the ETS Money IMO.

  Mate, the banks and brokerage houses are gonna clean up if this debacle goes ahead.  They are so much smarter than JuLIAR and Swan.  They will skim billions of dollars in "administrative costs and commissions" from this inept mob that are still trying to figure out exactly how their own scheme will work. 
These billions will be our tax dollars going straight into bank profits because our PM and Treasurer are morons.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

The shonks looking to get their hands on our taxpayer dollars are coming from everywhere, now that they realise there's idiots running this country. 
First it was the UN, now the banks, and even the unions wants their piece of your taxpayer dollars.   

> *THE union movement is demanding Julia Gillard develop a comprehensive industry plan to sustain jobs and refocus production under her proposed carbon price. *  			 		 		ACTU president Ged Kearney told The Australian Online that a detailed plan, similar to the Button Plan of the 1980s, was the price of union support for Labor's climate change response.  
> Ms Kearney said tackling climate change would involve the biggest structural change to the economy in a generation.  
> Industry policy during the transition to a low-pollution economy must include assistance to emissions intensive-trade exposed industries, incentives to source locally to generate jobs and demand, investment in clean energy jobs and industries, and skills development and retraining to tool the workforce for the low-carbon economy.  
> A spokesman for Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said some of the money raised by the carbon tax would go towards industry adjustment, but it was too early to say how that would occur.  
> If the government is to agree to the unions' demands, it will have to act swiftly. An interim carbon tax is due to be introduced by July next year.   Unions demand jobs plan in return for supporting carbon price proposals | The Australian

  This huge complicated money-go-round will take our taxpayer dollars and deliver much of it to shonks and middle men.   
All for no environmental difference.  
Be a real shame to instead put all this effort and money into education and health care.

----------


## Dr Freud

How much of this cr@p does she think Australians will put up. 
Her lies grow bigger and bigger even after she has been caught lying so many times!!!   

> JULIA GILLARD: Well, I think you will make assumptions about the future of the world and other countries in our world which aren't warranted. Already 32 countries have emissions trading schemes. 10 American states do as well. They haven't waited for action at the national level, they are acting themselves. And when we talk about American states we can be talking about very sizeable economies. 
> CHRIS UHLMANN: But Prime Minister, those states you're talking about, in fact there's a retreat by states in the United States. States like New Hampshire and New Mexico are pulling out of those systems that you're talking about, so in fact rather than there being an advance in the United States, there is a retreat in the United States. And John Boehner, who you met today, the head of the Republicans in the US House of Representatives, he actually wants to cut the budget of the EPA by $3 billion so it can't regulate carbon prices. So, I ask again: without the United States being in on this, why should Australia put a price on carbon?  7.30 Report - 08-Mar-2011

  JuLIAR is in the USA and telling blatant lies about what the Americans are doing.  While she is still in their country! Imagine the outrage if George Bush started telling the world we intended building heaps of nuclear reactors when he was here in Oz. 
She has no shame. 
How bad is it that even the ABC cannot tolerate her lies anymore?  :Shock:  
And what about this one:   

> CHRIS UHLMANN, POLITICAL EDITOR: When you met with President Obama, did you press him on when the US will put a price on carbon? 
> JULIA GILLARD: We did talk about climate change. Obviously I am committed to pricing carbon in Australia. It's the right thing to do for our economy to make sure we have a clean energy economy for the future. President Obama is taking a different course for here in the United States. That's a recognition of the political circumstances he finds himself in with the Congress, and so he too is looking for a clean energy future but will pursue it differently because he couldn't secure a price on carbon through the Congress.

  And what actually happened, she raised it and he ignored it:   

> No wonder: one leader has a plan for pricing carbon dioxide he dares not put to his Congress, and other has a plan she must now wish shed never mentioned:  _AS debate heats up in Australia over the proposed carbon tax, climate change has been sidelined in talks between Prime Minister Julia Gillard and US President Barack Obama. _  _Speaking after Ms Gillards first visit to the White House as Prime Minister, Mr Obama did not mention climate change as an issue._  _Ms Gillard only mentioned the issue in passing when listing the things which the two countries hope to work on._  _From the most urgent issue to the most embarrassing | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

----------


## Dr Freud

As usual, the silent majority have to work and pay taxes so will likely be too busy to go to the rally.  But if you can spare a few hours: 
CANBERRA - the big one!
 Date: 23 March
Time: 12:00pm
Location: Parliament House
Register/more info: Click here for the facebook group or go to  http://www.nocarbontaxrally.com/ 
MELBOURNE
Date: 12 March
Time: 9:30am for 10:00am start
Location: Julia Gillard's Electorate Office, 6 Synnot Street Werribee, Vic
Email: stopcarbontax@gmail.com
Register/more info: Click here 
Date: 23 March
Time: 10:30am
Location: Parliament House, Spring Street, Melbourne
Register/more info: Click here 
SYDNEY
Date: 2 April
Time: 10:30am
Location: NSW Parliament House, Macquarie Street, Sydney
Register/more info: Click here 
BRISBANE
Date: 23 March
Time: 10:30am
Location: Qld Parliament, Cnr George and Alice Streets
Register/more info: Click here  ADELAIDE
Date: 23 March
Time: 10:30am
Location: Parliament House
Email: shirl.162@bigpond.com  
 PERTH
Date: 23 March
Time: 10:30am
Location: Parliament House, Harvest Terace, Perth
Contact: Janet Thompson 0417 815 595, mmattjanet@westnet.com.au 
Register on Facebook: Click here  
Come on pensioners, do yourselves a favour.  :Biggrin:   
I'm gonna put in a few hours for the Perth one.  Cos freedom isn't free, it costs folks like you and me, and if you don't put in your buck o' five, who will?   
But play nice, don't go waving your walking frames around and knocking out some nice old lady's dentures.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

See, if you're smart, you lie well and get away with it. 
They are not smart and now will slowly be called to account for their lies:   

> *OAKES:*
>   On climate change, and your scheme, I've been getting a lot of angry emails about the tax, as I'm sure you have and other politicians and journalists. Let me throw a couple of questions at you from one of the emails, the question is a typical. The writer asks: 'Tell me how giving poor people money for the money they spend on electricity is going to stop them using it? - can you answer that?  *TREASURER:* 
>   Well, the most important thing here, Laurie, is to get a price on carbon. As I said before, I don't think a lot of people realise that when we talk about a price on carbon, we are talking about the major polluters, a small number of large polluters, paying a fee for the issue of permits to emit pollution. What that does is send a price signal through the economy. The most important price signal that is sent through the economy is the price signal to business so that business can drive investment in green technologies and emission reduction technology. What that does over time is make us much more efficient. Some prices are passed on, the consequence of that is that we assist those households - particularly those low income households who are experiencing higher prices. But the most important price signal is sent to business to invest in the green technology to make us much more efficient to reduce our carbon pollution.  *OAKES:*
>   I'm not sure that answers the question - are you saying that you don't want  these people to use less electricity?  *TREASURER:* 
>   No, I'm saying we do want them to use less electricity, and of course, innovation will produce a situation where new products are produced, they will use less electricity over time, there's a whole range of programs we can work with people on to use less electricity. But the most important price signal is the one that is sent to business so that it gets the certainty to invest in the new technology that reduces emissions.     Transcript - Governor-General Expenses; Politicians Pay; Carbon Price, Interview with Laurie Oakes, Weekend Today [06/03/2011]

  So, does all that make sense.  The ATO collects the Carbon Dioxide Tax paid by business, that drives up prices to make you use less everything, but you will be compensated by Centrelink for those prices rises, so you can give the money back to the business, who then pays it back to the government in Carbon Dioxide tax. Then the Planet Earth gets cooler. Got it? Believe it?  :No:   
Let's try another one if you still don't "believe":  

> *OAKES:*
>   Well, the second question my email correspondent poses - and I'm getting this question from a lot of people too, he says: 'Tell me just how much the temperature is going to drop by if this stupid tax comes into effect?' *TREASURER:* 
>   Well Laurie, this is a long-term problem, and the longer we delay, the bigger the damage to both the environment and to the economy. Countries right around the world are putting in place emissions trading systems and other policies to dramatically reduce their use of energy. And indeed, China in the last couple of days has put in place new policies. We've got to make a start, because if we don't, the environmental consequences of that and the economic consequences of that over time are absolutely horrendous.

  For those still converting into degrees celsius, let me help - 0 degrees celsius.  :Biggrin:  
This clown is the Treasurer of Australia!  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

It's getting hard to keep up:   

> *ASTONISHINGLY, the PM, the Cabinet and members of the Canberra Press Gallery don't know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide. * There are two great lies told about the need to "put a price on carbon". Lies which I can't recall a single member of the gallery ever confronting the liars with -- far less the prime liar herself. 
> The first is that "climate change policies" are aimed at "carbon pollution". No they are not; they are aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide. 
> To suggest that it is about stopping dirty bits of grit -- the very real carbon pollution of yesterday's coal-burning home fires which gave London its sooty smog and killed thousands every year. 
> The great sick irony is that to the extent we do cut our emissions of CO2, it will merely relocate those emissions in developing countries where they will be accompanied by bits of grit. Most notably and significantly: China. 
> The second great lie is that so-called "de-carbonising our economy" as a consequence of "putting a price on carbon" is the 21st century equivalent of the tariff reforms of the 1980s. 
> In fact it is the exact opposite: it is the equivalent of imposing tariffs on the Australian economy. This is true whether or not the rest of the world follows. It's just that much worse if we do it solo. 
> This lie has been peddled not just by the government but also by Treasury. Be afraid, be really afraid that we have a Treasury which is that incompetent.  Carbon not the same thing as CO2 | Herald Sun

----------


## Dr Freud

Combet will now learn how quickly and easily you can lose credibility by supporting this farce. 
He is now being twisted into knots and joining JuLIAR's lying brigade:   

> How a single poll changes the climate  
>   Climate Change Minister Greg Combet discovers that even warmist Fran Kelly of ABC Radio National will no longer buy the spin or overlook the deceit in selling a useless tax that is actually designed to hurt - not that Combet wants to admit _that_:   _FRAN KELLY:_  _Tony Abbott is arguing, as weve said, the case against this and in a speech last night he was saying, pointing out the carbon tax in his words would transform Australias way of life by making it harder for Australians to drive or turn on the air condition._   _GREG COMBET:_  _See? What garbage. _   _FRAN KELLY:_  _Its true though, isnt it?_   _GREG COMBET:_  _But its garbage, honestly. I mean, this guy, he really is nothing but a mobile scare campaign. _ 
> Garbage? Heres Combet himself not two weeks ago: _Asked to name the top five things people could do to beat the carbon tax, Mr Combet said it was best to reduce energy consumption._   _And the main way to do that is by saving energy, to turn things off at the wall, he said. _   _Maybe think about how often you use the airconditioner. Using a cheaper-to-run hot water system. Changing the light bulbs. Have you got insulation?..._

  Full sordid story here:  Combet wont now admit to the transformation Gillard once boasted | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
Rod nailed it with the Catch 22.  If it don't hurt voters, it don't work in theory.  If it does hurt voters, it does hurt JuLIAR. 
She's gone. 
Anybody notice how Bill Shorten has been avoiding this farce. 
Bill who you say?  *I wonder why???*

----------


## Rod Dyson

> As usual, the silent majority have to work and pay taxes so will likely be too busy to go to the rally. But if you can spare a few hours: 
> CANBERRA - the big one!
> Date: 23 March
> Time: 12:00pm
> Location: Parliament House
> Register/more info: Click here for the facebook group or go to http://www.nocarbontaxrally.com/ 
> MELBOURNE
> Date: 12 March
> Time: 9:30am for 10:00am start
> ...

  
 Count on me being at the Melbourne Rally.

----------


## Rod Dyson

This whole fiasco and fallout in the polls just reminds me of a saying. "I just love the smell of napalm in the morning" 
Gott love this wedge the stupid liar has put herself in.   
If the final make up of this tax returns all the money back to those it is ment to change the habbit of, it will be ridiculed as ineffective  and be pillared by those who want action on AGW and by those who dont. 
if it does hurt us as it is ment to it will be pillard by those it hurts. 
No win situation for this one term idiot who is too clever by half and brought herself undone. What an idiot.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Far too funny stuff from today's Crikey.....the other one may well be a liar but at least she's a) consistent and b) knows she does it.   
Saddest thing of all? Abbotillard is all we have to choose from.   <sigh>   

> As the Gillard government's plan for a carbon prices sends Coalition stocks soaring, attention is increasingly focusing on what opposition leader Tony Abbott believes in about climate change and how to deal with it. Today in Crikey, Tony Abbott debates one of his most formidable opponents on the issue -- Tony Abbott. 
> Tony Abbott: Climate change is a relatively new political issue, but it's been happening since the earth's beginning. The extinction of the dinosaurs is thought to have been associated with climate change. 
> Tony Abbott: I’ve always thought that climate change was real because I’ve always known about the ice age and other things which indicate that over time climate does change. 
> Tony Abbott: I am, as you know, hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have significantly increased since the spread of industrialisation, but it seems that noticeable warming has only taken place between the 1970s and 1990s. 
> Tony Abbott: We have a clear policy on climate change. Climate change is real. 
> Tony Abbott: I mean in the end this whole thing is a question of fact, not faith, or it should be a question of fact not faith and we can discover whether the planet is warming or not by measurement. And it seems that notwithstanding the dramatic increases in man-made CO2 emissions over the last decade, the world’s warming has stopped. Now admittedly we are still pretty warm by recent historical standards but there doesn’t appear to have been any appreciable warming since the late 1990s. 
> Tony Abbott: It’s quite likely that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has had some effect on climate, but debate rages among scientists over its extent and relative impact given all the other factors at work. 
> Tony Abbott: We can’t conclusively say whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to climate change. If they are, we don’t know whether they are exacerbating or counteracting what might otherwise be happening to global climate. Even if they are adding to climatic extremes, humanity may be able to cope with only modest adjustments.  
> Tony Abbott: What we can say, though, is that we should try to make as little difference as possible to the natural world. As well, prudent people take reasonable precautions against foreseeable contingencies. It’s the insurance principle. 
> ...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Far too funny stuff from today's Crikey.....the other one may well be a liar but at least she's a) consistent and b) knows she does it.  
> Saddest thing of all? Abbotillard is all we have to choose from. <sigh>

  I dont have a problem with anything he is saying here. 
Smart I think to show he is dubious about the science yet is still prepared to act in a form that is not going to hurt us nor is will it permanently change our economics.  It can be stopped when the science has been proven a dud. 
Very smart IMO.

----------


## Rod Dyson

This could be a game changer for Mann   

> Sources confirm that a federal inspector has questioned Eugene Wahl and Wahl has confirmed that Mann asked him to delete emails. Wahl has also informed the inspector that he did delete emails as the result of this request]

  Link To Serve Mann | Watts Up With That?

----------


## Dr Freud

> I dont have a problem with anything he is saying here. 
> Smart I think to show he is dubious about the science yet is still prepared to act in a form that is not going to hurt us nor is will it permanently change our economics.  It can be stopped when the science has been proven a dud. 
> Very smart IMO.

  Too right. 
They scrounge a lot of quotes out of context over two years to try and find a sliver of inconsistency, and still can't! 
They do this to distract from JuLIAR's massive blatant LIES! 
They are a joke.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> This could be a game changer for Mann  
> Link To Serve Mann | Watts Up With That?

  
Lucky O'Bummer hasn't closed Guantanamo Bay!  :Biggrin:  
He could be playing "Hide the Salami" soon instead of "Hide the decline".  :Shock:  :Biggrin:

----------


## paintstripper

After watching JuLiar crying over man walking on the moon & no-one died, how many tears were shed over the pink batt fiasco here in Australia by JuLiar & her cronies. The flowers on the graves havent started wilting, yet here we have tears. 
JuLiar is sinking in a bucket of her own swill & hopefully taking a few of the human oil slicks with her.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> After watching JuLiar crying over man walking on the moon & no-one died, how many tears were shed over the pink batt fiasco here in Australia by JuLiar & her cronies. The flowers on the graves havent started wilting, yet here we have tears. 
> JuLiar is sinking in a bucket of her own swill & hopefully taking a few of the human oil slicks with her.

  Well the knives are out and getting sharpened as we speak.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *The Government has missed the point. Instead of slugging us for fossil fuels, it should provide green energy that is cheap to use.  * But it is not the missing detail that is the problem; it is the tax itself, as Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg points out. On Tuesday night, Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, outlined the flaws with the Government's approach. 
> His data comes from a climate-change summit of the world's top economists -- including three Nobel laureates -- he organised under the banner of the Copenhagen Consensus in 2009. They examined 15 of the most credible solutions to climate change, from climate engineering solutions, such as whitening clouds, to planting trees and cutting methane. They ranked them by cost effectiveness and the amount of climate damage they would avoid. 
> Carbon dioxide taxes ranked rock bottom. 
> Lomborg also describes the common climate alarmist mantra that the "cost of inaction is more than the cost of action" as a "fraud", because the action proposed by a carbon tax does virtually nothing to prevent future climate damage.  
> Windsor, whose conservative electorate is seething with anger over his role in bringing Labor to power and his apparent complicity in the carbon tax announcement, may have had his spine stiffened by Coalition rats. 
> But he still has been backpedalling at a million miles an hour since Labor recorded its lowest ever primary support in Newspoll, showing what a blunder the carbon tax is. 
> Meanwhile, Windsor, who holds one of the deciding votes on the tax, is looking increasingly rattled, hanging up on interviewers left, right and centre, including his own local radio station, 2NZ in Inverell, where calls ran 111 to three against a carbon tax in one phone poll. 
> Any legitimate complaint is labelled a "scare campaign", intemperate phone calls become "death threats" and criticism by the Opposition is the equivalent of the US Tea Party. The pattern here is partisan abuse, hyperbole and misrepresentation, worthy of a used-car salesman. 
> Windsor seems to be in denial about the fact that the electorate he represents is conservative. It's about time he listened to the people whose votes took him to Canberra. If he were properly representing New England he wouldn't need to be told that Gillard's misbegotten carbon tax is anathema to most of his electorate. 
> It doesn't matter how many details are added to it or how slickly it is sold. It is a dog.  Carbon tax looks like disaster | Herald Sun

  Woof.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Sheez I've opened a can of worms here LOL So you still don't believe in climate change?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Woof.

  Yes she makes sense.

----------


## Dr Freud

Yes, still more lies.  Can't stop once you start. 
Shorten is laughing as Combet's credibility is shredded, leaving him the only one able to take over from JuLIAR after she falls.  

> *A SENIOR Gillard government minister has been accused of deception after appearing to claim Labor would return the entire proceeds of its carbon tax to families.  * "The cost to the families will be compensated," Mr Crean told ABC radio this morning.
>  "We have made that clear. We will ensure that the compensation is totally adequate.
>  "We will return *all of the monies* raised to people through the tax mechanism."  
> Climate Change Minister Greg Combet is another who has sent mixed messages on where the carbon tax proceeds will be directed.  
>  He told the ABC on March 7: "*Every dollar* that is raised by the payment of a carbon price by the companies that are emitting large amounts of pollution will be used towards supporting households, with a particular emphasis on pensioners and low-income households."  
> Mr Combet was also quoted in The Daily Telegraph on March 1 saying: "The government has committed to use *every dollar* raised by a carbon price paid by big polluting businesses to help people with any price impacts."   Labor minister accused of deception over compensation for carbon tax | The Australian

  No energy industry compensation means blackouts around Australia. 
No manufacturing industry compensation means massive job losses and increased emissions via CO2 leakage. 
No renewable R&D money means no new technology. 
Great plan, huh?  :Biggrin:  
JuLIAR has got them all lying now.

----------


## Dr Freud

It's getting so bad that even the Labor Party no longer likes the Labor Party!  

> Currently there is a dispute within the Government over who decided to bring forward the climate change debate while a committee was still discussing such a key issues as compensation for price rises and the sectors to be subjected to emission penalties. 
> Some ministers are blaming Ms Gillard and others Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, who has the job of selling the carbon pricing plan without critical elements being available to him. 
> One minister blames both, saying they are "joined at the hip".
> One minister has pointed to the joint press conference in which Ms Gillard was flanked by two independents, two Greens and Mr Combet. 
> "Suddenly it became a carbon tax issue and people were asking poor old (Treasurer) Wayne Swan why he wasn't at the press conference," said the source. 
> In a related issue, there is considerable anger over the public comments from Greens deputy leader Christine Milne who has embarrassed the Government by insisting petrol would be subjected to a carbon price before a formal decision has been made. 
> Senator Milne also has insisted her party has part of the Government. The remarks would have led to a sacking had any Labor minister made them. 
> There are fears that her hardline approach might be intensified when the new Greens senators take up their seats in July.  		 Senior Labor figures attack Prime Minister Julia Gillard&#039;s dealings with carbon price, Greens | News.com.au

  It's pretty funny that when you mix red and green you get Brown!  :Roflmao2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Sheez I've opened a can of worms here LOL So you still don't believe in climate change?

  Mate, you'll have that lot whining like school girls in no time. 
I almost fell off my chair laughing when one of them asked for "peer-reviewed science" to prove the world has stopped warming. 
Ask them to pop over here for a full read of the thread.  It'll drive them to tears.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It's getting so bad that even the Labor Party no longer likes the Labor Party!  
> It's pretty funny that when you mix red and green you get Brown!

  Very clever

----------


## Dr Freud

This is the worlds leading expert on the EU that is the only group to have implemented this farce.  Their emissions have increased 44% through their increased imports from developing nations. 
We used to call this "sweeping it under the carpet" before we all starting treating experts opinions as facts. 
Remember now, worlds leading expert, talking to a "shock-jock". 
Watch her get owned:   

> The two basic questions with any purchase. How much does it cost? Will it do the job?  Jill Duggan is from the European Commissions Directorate General of Climate Action. She is the ECs National Expert on Carbon Markets and Climate Change. She was head of Britains International Emissions Trading. She is in Australia to tell us how good Europes emission trading system is and why we should do something similar. 
>   No one, therefore, should better know the answers to the two most basic questions about this huge scheme. The cost? The effect?. 
>   So on MTR yesterday, I asked them. Duggans utter inability to answer is a scandal - an indictment of global warming politics today.= (listen here):  _ 
> AB:  Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europes emissions by 20% by 2020?_  _JD:  Yes._  _AB:  Can you tell me how much - to the nearest billions - is that going to cost Europe do you think?_  _JD:  No, I cant tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that its cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so  its cheaper to do it now rather than put off action._  _AB:  Right.  You wouldnt quarrel with Professor Richard Tol - whos not a climate sceptic - but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin?  He values it at about $250 billion.  You wouldnt quarrel with that?_  _JD:  I probably would actually.  I mean, I dont know.  Its very, very difficult to quantify.  You get different changes, dont you?  And one of the things thats happening in Europe now is that many governments - such as the UK government and the German government - would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy._  _AB:  Right.  Well you dont know but you think it isnt $250 billion._  _JD:  I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of different figures._  _AB:  Thats right.  You dont know but thats the figure that Ive got in front of me.  For that investment.  Or for whatever the investment is.  Whats your estimation of how much - because the object ultimately of course is to lower the worlds temperatures - what sort of temperature reduction do you imagine from that kind of investment?_  _JD:  Well, what we do know is that to have an evens chance of keeping temperature increases globally to 2°C - so thats increases - youve got to reduce emissions globally by 50% by 2050._  _AB:  Yes, I accept that, but from the $250 billion - or whatever you think the figure is - what do you think Europe can achieve with this 20% reduction in terms of cutting the worlds temperature?  Because thats, in fact, whats necessary.  What do you think the temperature reduction will be?_  _JD:  Well, obviously, Europe accounts for 14% of global emissions.  Its 500 or 550 million people.  On its own it cannot do that.  That is absolutely clear._  _AB:  Have you got a figure in your mind?  You dont know the cost.  Do you know the result?_  _JD:  I dont have a cost figure in my mind.  Nor, one thing I do know, obviously, is that Europe acting alone will not solve this problem alone._  _AB:  So if I put a figure to you - I find it odd that you dont know the cost and you dont know the outcome - would you quarrel with this assessment:  that by 2100 - if you go your way and if youre successful - the worlds temperatures will fall by 0.05°C?  Would you agree with that?_  _JD:  Sorry, can you just pass that by me again?  Youre saying that if Europe acts alone?_  _AB:  If just Europe alone - for this massive investment - will lower the worlds temperature with this 20% target (if it sustains that until the end of this century) by 0.05°C.  Would you quarrel with that?_  _JD:  Well, I think the climate science would not be that precise.  Would it?_  _AB:  Ah, no, actually it is, Jill.  You see this is what Im curious about;  that youre in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy.  You dont know what it costs.  And you dont know what itll achieve._  _JD:  Well, I think you can look at lots of modelling which will come up with lots of different costs._  _AB:  Well whats your modelling?  Thats the one that everyones quoting.  Whats your modelling?_  _JD:  Well, ah, ah. Let me talk about what we have done in Europe and what we have seen as the benefits.  In Europe, in Germany you could look at, theres over a million new jobs that have been created by tackling climate change, by putting in place climate policies.  In the UK theres many hundreds of thousand of jobs._Don’t know the cost, don’t know if it works | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Read the full transcript at the link. 
And this woman is lecturing us on a farce she doesn't even understand.

----------


## Dr Freud

Why would you keep making up lies to justify something that is supposed to be so good?   

> How much can you trust a warmist? Heres Prime Minister Julia Gillard on the ABCs _7.30_ this week, selling her great new tax on carbon dioxide:    _CHRIS UHLMANN: But if the United States doesnt put a price on carbon, why should Australia?_  _JULIA GILLARD: Well we have to look at our own national interest and our own national circumstances. The reality is we are bigger emitters of carbon pollution per head of population than the United States of America. _   Climate Change Minister has made the same claim:    _Australia is the largest per capita emitter of carbon pollution among the developed economies.__False. Check the latest figures from the United Nations. Australia is out-ranked on per-capita emissions not only by the United States, but Aruba, Bahrain, Brunei, Falkland Islands, Kuwait, Netherlands Antilles, Qatar, Trinidad and Tobago and the United Arab Emirates._  _Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop has confirmation:_  _According to a Reuters report of November 14, 2010, which used data from the US Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre, the top per capita emitters of fossil fuel carbon dioxide (in tonnes) in 2007 were: Qatar 51.3, Kuwait 34.0, United Arab Emirates 30.9, Bahrain 29.5, Trinidad and Tobago 27.7, Luxembourg 24.2, Brunei 19.5, United States 19.0, Australia 17.7 and Saudi Arabia 16.9._  _In the context of a global picture, the level of emissions per capita is less important than total emissions._  _Again Reuters has reported, based on data from the German renewable energy institute IWR, that the top national emitters of carbon dioxide (in millions of tonnes) in 2009 were: China 7426.4; US 5951.0; Russia 1534.4; India 1529.1; Japan 1225.2; Germany 796.6; South Korea 664.2; Canada 605.9; Saudi Arabia 544.4; Iran 544.4._  _On this list, Australia comes in 16th, with 374 million tonnes - or 1.28 per cent of global emissions.__Yet thoughtless Labor MPs repeat the easily disproved deceit as they sell their pointless, damaging tax. Take Kirsten Livermore, the Member for Capricornia: _   _With the highest emission per capita in the world, higher even than the United States, Australias household and businesses are at risk of being left behind.__Gavin Atkins tracks down the source of Gillards fake claim:  _   _It came from reports of a few years back from a British firm called Maplecroft. However this report is about energy production only and excludes many of the things the IPCC uses to complete its figures such as transport, agriculture and land use. When you add these things, Americans emit more CO2 than Australians per capita and of course, vastly more over all._  _So just like her predecessors repeated lie that Australia was the hottest and driest continent, and Gillards pre-election commitment that there would be no carbon tax, her rationale for action on climate change is a lie._  _So if the argument for a tax is so good, why have Rudd and Gillard found it necessary to fabricate so much information?__Indeed. _  _And also a lie, incidentally, is Gillard and Combets use of the phrase carbon pollution. They are talking, in fact, about carbon dioxide - and to call this pollution makes as much sense as calling water pollution even if you have more of it in a flood than you want._  _ Gillard tells yet another porkie | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

   
Lies, lies, lies? 
Their contempt for ordinary Australians is phenomenal?  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

If you are sick of all the lies, here's a scientist presenting some facts as well as his opinion on those facts:   

> Greens leader Bob Brown   claimed the Brisbane floods were caused by coal-miners:  _Its the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now._That one statement alone - nonsensically false, alarmist and opportunist - should have reduced him permanently to a figure of fun in a healthy democracy. 
>  And now Julia Gillard claims we need nothing less than a great tax on carbon emissions, to totally transform our economy, if we are to help save the planet from apocalyptic man-made warming. 
>  Why do journalists credit these two shameless alarmists and their fraudulent, ruinous schemes to fix a problem that exists nowhere but in discredited computer models? 
>   On Monday this week,  one of the worlds top climate scientists exposed both Brown and Gillard for the dangerous shysters they are  
>  Heres some of that that damning testimony of John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabamas State Climatologist, Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and former Lead Author of IPCC assessments.  *The floods were nothing unusual, and part of natural variability*  _The tragic flooding in the second half of 2010 in NE Australia was examined in two ways, (1) in terms of financial costs and (2) in terms of climate history._  _First, when one normalizes the flood costs year by year, meaning if one could imagine that the infrastructure now in place was unchanging during the entire study period, the analysis shows there are no long-term trends in damages. In an update of Crompton and McAneney (2008) of normalized disaster losses in Australia which includes an estimate for 2010, they show absolutely no trend since 1966._  _Secondly, regarding the recent Australian flooding as a physical event in the context climate history (with the estimated 2010 maximum river height added to the chart below) one sees a relative lull in flooding events after 1900. Only four events reached the moderate category in the past 110 years, while 14 such events were recorded in the 60 years before 1900. Indeed, the recent flood magnitude had been exceeded six times in the last 170 years, twice by almost double the level of flooding as observed in 2010. Such history charts indicate that severe flooding is an extreme event that has occurred from natural, unforced variability._*The world isnt warming anything like as fast as the global warmists models warned it would*  _As noted earlier, my main research projects deal with building climate datasets from scratch to document what the climate has done and to test assertions and hypotheses about climate change...._  _I have repeated that study for this testimony with data which now cover 32 years as shown above (1979-2010.) In an interesting result, the new underlying trend remains a modest +0.09 C/decade for the global tropospheric temperature, which is still only one 
> third of the average rate the climate models project for the current era (+0.26°C/decade.)_  _There is no evidence of acceleration in this trend. This evidence strongly suggests that climate model simulations on average are simply too sensitive to increasing greenhouse gases and thus overstate the warming of the climate system ..._*Trying to stop global warming with things like a carbon dioxide tax or emissions trading is a waste of money*    _The evidence above suggests that climate models overestimate the response of temperature to greenhouse gas increases. Even so, using these climate model simulations we calculate that the impact of legislative actions being considered on the global temperature is essentially imperceptible. These actions will not result in a measurable climate effect that can be attributable or predictable with any level of confidence, especially at the regional level Thus, if the country deems it necessary to de-carbonize civilizations main energy sources, sound and indeed compelling reasons beyond human-induced climate change need to be offered._Why on earth are we persisting in this folly?   Top climate scientist warns: the warming is exaggerated and we can’t stop it anyway | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  It's amazing how many scientists keep saying they are *not* part of this "consensus" that politicians and greenies keep including them in.

----------


## Dr Freud

> And the business lobby is growing restless:  _BIG business will press Julia Gillard to delay the start of her carbon tax planned for July 1 next year and demand she top the compensation offered to industry by Kevin Rudd in his 2009 climate change plan._  _The move is flagged in a submission to the governments key climate change committee from a body representing more than 20 leading Australian companies...._  _There was evidence yesterday that the furious political debate between the Prime Minister and Tony Abbott on the carbon tax was also starting to cause concern among consumers, with retailer Gerry Harvey linking the dispute to a fall in household confidence._But Gillards authority and credibility as now so bankrupt that she cannot afford any delay. Moreover, a delay would only strengthen arguments that she wait a little longer still and first get a mandate for her tax at the next election, as John Howard did when he changed his mind on the GST.    
>  Any change now on the timing of the tax or on implementing it at all must also come with a change of Labor leader. This is now the terrible dilemma for Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, whose own ambitions may be scuppered by having his leg tied to Gillards disastrous tax, which is his job to sell. Combet is fast running out of time to distance himself from this debacle.   Labor Right knows Gillard is as bad as conservatives say | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  It is likely already too late for Combet.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

He now uses John Howard in his defence to his first question:   

> I had occasion today to reflect on this and how John Howard approached, for example, developing the GST and I pulled out the announcement.

  He conveniently fails to mention John Howard issued this policy *prior* to an election and asked Australians to vote on it.  JuLIAR lied to Australians and tried to sneak a real tax for a fake problem after an election. 
Combet, you are turning into a joke!  :Doh:    

> And what is going to be important as this debate goes on is that we get onto the underlying reasons for why it is important for us to take action on climate change, why we need a carbon price in the economy, what a carbon price will do. And *what it will do, will cut pollution in our economy* - we need to do that - and it *will also drive investment in clean energy sources*.

  Greg, Carbon Dioxide is what you are breathing out.  Pollution is a real problem and your department has a list of it.   
And if you are giving "every dollar" back to households, where is the investment in clean energy coming from. 
Combet, you are turning into a joke!  :Doh:    

> What's important in that industry is to see that there is going to be a carbon price and what will happen with it over time and how an emissions trading scheme for example will operate over time and how it will link internationally.

  You mean link to the EU Greg, no other countries are engaged in this farce, let alone any big emitters. 
Combet, you are turning into a joke!  :Doh:    

> But Australia is not going it alone here. We're not out on our own. We're not leading the world, but we shouldn't be left behind. A report released some months ago by Vivid Economics, a UK-based firm, had a look at the effective carbon prices in a number of countries, and I mentioned $29 in the UK. It was actually $14 a tonne in China and about $5 a tonne effectively across the US. And guess where Australia was: $1.68 a tonne. 
> TONY JONES: OK, I've got to interrupt you there. So you're saying that Australia is doing less to fight climate change than China? 
> GREG COMBET: Well China is doing quite a lot. In several weeks' time ...

  Greg Combet is now trying to convince Australians that we are more of a problem than China by using a farcical calculation called "effective Carbon prices"?  Greg, seriously, you are making yourself look like an idiot. 
Combet, you are turning into a joke!  :Doh:  
Watch Greg Combet spiral down into a joke here:  Lateline - 09/03/2011: Combet: An early announcement was appropriate 
Lesson for Greg: Just because you get handed a $#!t sandwich doesn't mean you have to eat it.

----------


## Dr Freud

Surprise, surprise, more lies!   

> Professor Garnaut says new science since the 2007 International Panel on Climate Change research has strengthened the position that the Earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.
>  He also released specific data on temperature, sea level rises and extreme events from recent years.  
>  "On the measurable phenomena, it does seem that certainly there's been no evidence of overstatement," he said.   Garnaut says climate science is stronger - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## Rod Dyson

Yep a Carbon dioxide tax is sure the way to go. 
Just ask Penny Wrong.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69KoyIYWSGs"]YouTube - Penny Wong on Carbon Tax[/ame]   

> Labor is a mess. We all know Julia Gillard lied before the election when she said “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. But did you know Labor’s former Climate Change Minister and current Finance Minister, Penny Wong, previously criticised the carbon tax they now want to impose on Australian families? You can see it for yourself in our new video. In Senator Wong’s own words: _“I have been very upfront about why I think a carbon tax isn't the most sensible thing for Australia.”_ (Press Conference, 3 November 2009) Here’s more of what Senator Wong has had to say about a carbon tax: • _“A carbon tax is not the silver bullet some people might think.”_ (Speech, CEDA State of the Nation Conference, 23 June 2010) • _"The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore. There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain."_ (Speech, Australian Industry Group, 6 February 2008) • _"A carbon tax or regulatory mechanism would take not allow Australia to take advantage of emerging international economic opportunities."_ (Speech, Australian Business Economists Lunch, 20 February 2009) • _"A carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions.”_ (The Australian, 23 February 2009) • _“A carbon tax … is a recipe for abrupt and unpredictable changes, as the government would need to adjust the tax frequently to try to meet the emissions reduction target."_ (The Australian, 23 February 2009) • _"A carbon tax is a less efficient way in the Australian Government's view of dealing with this issue.”_ (Interview, ABC News Radio, 16 April 2010) • _"We know that you can't have any environmental certainty with a carbon tax."_ (Interview, Sky News, 30 April 2009) At a time when Australians are already doing it tough, the Labor-Greens carbon tax will unnecessarily lift electricity, grocery and petrol prices and attack jobs in our key industries. The Coalition knows there is a better way. Our direct action plan on climate change is economically responsible and won’t cost Australian jobs.

----------


## Marc

*Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'*   * The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea    rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. *    
 	 		Christopher Booker 			6:25PM GMT 28 Mar 2009 		 		 				    
 	  If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world    must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is    the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and    Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and    the result will be catastrophe.   
  Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only    predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his    Oscar-winning film _An Inconvenient Truth_ went much further, talking    of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San    Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London    in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and    Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury    was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.   
  But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else    in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner,    formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change.    And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using    every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is    that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare    story.   
  Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he    says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this    century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an    uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the    hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed    to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by 
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.   
  The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that    these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are    all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going    into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".

----------


## Marc

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea  level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined  the findings.  

> The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience

   

> , one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would  rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.
> At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results".  The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100,  though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet  melting and that the true rise could be higher.
> Many scientists  criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers  since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of  the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of  the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.
> Siddall  said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea  level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.
> Announcing  the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's  one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes  happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes  in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was  published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction,  because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.
> "Retraction  is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a  complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as  checks and balances."
> Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.
> The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements  to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the  peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming  over the next few decades.
> In a statement the authors of the paper  said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two  mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise.  This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding  21st  century sea level rise from this study without further work.
> ...

----------


## Marc

One of my biggest pet hate is the claim that "sea level are rising" 
I lived on a water front farm for 3 decades and currently own a water front property on a tidal river.
Do you think that after living on the water edge and boating for all my natural life I would have perhaps noticed that in the last 60 years there has been a rise in the water level?
I have seen brass plates bolted to steel post dated 1854 and later, with water levels that are exactly the same as they are today.
I have built jetty and steps from the jetty to the water in hardwood. Do you think that steps are a good way to see the water level? 
Hi tide is up to the second step, low tide is down to the 8 step. Year in year out. 
Today the Telegraph resucitated the scare mongering claim of sea level rising. 
When is this crap going to stop?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Are you off to Canberra Marc?  I am for sure.

----------


## Dr Freud

> When is this crap going to stop?

  As more and more people begin to understand what a giant con-job this is, it will slowly fade into history as one of those bizarre phenomenon that future generations look back ad think "What a bunch of wacko's".   
Unfortunately due to the zealots involved, it will not go quickly. 
They will continue to scream their bizarre claims with little reason and no scientific basis whatsoever.

----------


## Dr Freud

These people truly are insane!  :Screwy:    

> Hours after a massive earthquake rattled Japan, environmental advocates connected the natural disaster to global warming. The president of the European Economic and Social Committee, Staffan Nilsson, issued a statement calling for solidarity in tackling the global warming problem.
>  “Some islands affected by climate change have been hit,” said Nilsson. “Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity — not least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global warming?”
>  “Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need to do,” he added. Global  enthusiasts have also taken to Twitter to raise awareness of the need to respond to the earthquake by finally acting on climate change. And the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Lee Doren compiled some of the best ones.
>  Some examples:
>  AliceTMBFan said “2 hours of geography earlier talking about Japan has left me thinking…maybe global warming is way more serious then we thought…”
>  Arbiterofwords tweeted “I’m worried that Japan earthquake, on top of other recent natural ‘disasters’, is a sign we’ve passed point of no return for climate change.”
>  MrVikas said “Events like the #Japan #earthquake and #tsunami MUST keep #climate change at forefront of policy thought: Protecting the Rights of Planet Earth | Thought Economics #environment
>  Tayyclayy noted her frustration by tweeting “An earthquake with an 8.9 magnitude struck Japan.. And some say climate change isn’t real?!”
>  DanFranklin postulated “Never really believed all this global warming talk, but after the earthquake in NZ and today in Japan. Maybe we’ve ruined the world.”
>  And TeamIanHarding tweeted “While Japan witnessed an earthquake we were talking about the problems that global warming leads to in school. Think. Pray. And change.”  Twitter Blames Japan Earthquake on Global Warming | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

  
Seriously people, where are the "IPCC climate scientists" outraged at this farce making clear statements to the media that these claims are a joke!  :Doh:  
You won't hear a peep from them because they can't afford dissention in their thinning ranks.  They can't afford to alienate any supporters, no matter how wacko they are.

----------


## Dr Freud

It is truly heartening to see that Australians are smart enough to realise when they are being blatantly lied to, and will not put up with it. 
JuLIAR tried to dud us all to appease the greenies who are keeping her in power. 
Hopefully she will dudded instead of us taxpayers.     

> *FORMER US vice-president Walter Mondale once said that creating a political image is like mixing cement.                                 *                                When it's wet you can move it around and shape it, he said. But at some point it hardens and then there is almost nothing you can do to reshape it.
>   I wonder if Julia Gillard thought about these words when details of the latest Newspoll reached her in Washington as she prepared for her meeting with President Barack Obama.
>  Labor's biggest fear is that people have made up their minds about the Prime Minister. She herself must be terrified that the concrete has hardened and her image is set.
>  If Gillard's broken election promise on carbon tax has cemented the belief that she cannot be trusted, the Government can probably kiss the next election goodbye, no matter how hard the spin doctors try to reshape that perception.   Julia Gillard is following Kevin Rudd's spiral | Herald Sun

----------


## Dr Freud

> _Faced with a perceived problemglobal warmingthe Gillard Government had four options open to it:_ _1. Do nothing._  _2. Introduce a solution that fixes the problem: reduces global warming (not possible but technically a solution")_  _3. Introduce a solution that doesnt fix the problem but doesnt have too many deleterious effects._  _4. Introduce a solution that doesnt fix the problem and also has many negative economic effects. _ _They chose option #4._   _The country’s in the very best of hands | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  __  
JuLIAR is telling you option 4 will solve the problem and has no negative effects.  :Doh:  
For the record, Mr Rabbit chose option 3, which is only slightly better IMHO. 
A realist would pick option 1.  :Biggrin:  
Believers in the AGW hypothesis would pick option 2.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  
It is a sad indictment that neither side of politics has the courage of their convictions to fight for either option 1 or 2, not even the greenies! 
The reason for this is that most of the voting public have no idea what is real so could change their minds based on the next pretty graph produced, and they would be politically decimated. 
Such is the failure of the IPCC that so many people believe climate science can alter from day to day. 
Shame, shame, shame!

----------


## Dr Freud

> *DYING is bad for the environment if people are buried in traditional ways. *                                So says Labor MLA Carryn Sullivan. 
> She called for an investigation into "green" burials that minimise pollution. 
> More environmentally friendly methods of burial include using simple wooden or biodegradable cardboard coffins, liquefying a corpse through chemical treatment or even freezing and "shattering" it into a fine powder using vibrations.  Labor MP Carryn Sullivan calls for environmentally friendly burials and cremations | Courier Mail

  So we can't breathe out carbon dioxide because then we kill the planet. 
So we stop breathing and then we die. 
But we now are not even allowed to decompose because of the greenies.  
Who let these loonies run our country?  :Doh:  
Are we gonna round up all the dead animals decomposing around the whole planet to stop them "polluting" the environment as well?  :Doh:  
Somebody stop the planet, I'm getting off at the next stop.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

There are new coal fired power plants being opened every week all over the planet, and this is what the greenies focus on:   

> Well, Redditch Council has come up with a fantastic, and some might say ghoulish, plan to save energy, and, in the process, money.   
> The idea is to heat the new Abbey Stadium sport centre's pool by using the heat that would otherwise go to waste from the next door crematorium. 
> And personally, I'm supportive too. As long as the filters are working. 
> http://www.biggreensmile.com/green-news/energy-saving/Energy-saving-council-plans-to-use-crematorium-to-heat-local-swimming-pool$11044.aspx

  So much for resting in peace.  
We'll just squeeze a few more joules out of you after you die!  :Firedevil:

----------


## chrisp

*What does a couple of degrees matter?*   

> According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18°C (1.33 ± 0.32°F) during the 20th century. 
> Climate model projections summarised in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4°C (2.0 to 11.5°F) during the 21st century.

  So, what does a degree to two matter?  :Confused:   What does it matter if the forecast top temperature is 32°C instead of 30°C?   :Confused:  Or for that matter, so what if it is 12°C instead of 10°C?   :Confused:  In the cooler months, I think we'd all welcome and extra degree or two. 
And we all live through quite large temperature variations.  Melbourne can easily get down to the low single-digit temperatures, and can reach highs in the forties.  So, what does an extra degree or two matter?  :Confused:  
It may seem trivial to be concerned about a degree to two increase in temperature, so why are the climate scientists concerned?  :Confused:  
The quote above in the box refers to *climate*, whereas the rhetorical questions above are about the *weather*. 
Take a look at the monthly mean maximum temperature statistics for Melbourne (Mean Maximum Temperature - 086071 - Bureau of Meteorology )Statistic (Annual) *Mean                19.8°C* *Lowest            18.6°C* *Median            19.8°C* *Highest            21.8°C*The *highest* annual-average-mean-maximum-temperature is *2°C* higher than the *average* annual-average-mean-maximum-temperature  *A temperature rise of two degrees would make the average year in the the future the same as the hottest year in the past.*

----------


## Dr Freud

> *What does a couple of degrees matter?*

  Apparently not much, especially in law and political science.  :Dunno:    

> The quote above in the box refers to *climate*, whereas the rhetorical questions above are about the *weather*.

  Well then why ask questions about the weather?  Woodbe would not like this.  :No:    

> Take a look at the monthly mean maximum temperature statistics for Melbourne

  Is this part of a new Anthropogenic Melbourne Warming (AMW) hypothesis you are going to be raising?  One city does not constitute a global phenomenon. But one city may constitute a UHI.  :Wink 1:    

> The *highest* annual-average-mean-maximum-temperature is *2°C* higher than the *average* annual-average-mean-maximum-temperature

  I would hope the highest was higher than the average. Similarly I would hope the lowest was lower than the average.     

> *A temperature rise of two degrees would make the average year in the the future the same as the hottest year in the past.*

  What's your point. 
A temperature drop of only 1.2 degrees would make the average year in the future the same as the coldest year in the past. 
Just for Melbourne, of course.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *A CARBON tax will have to be set at $60 a tonne -- three times the expected $20 tax to be set next year -- to force electricity generators to switch from dirty brown coal in southeastern Australia to cleaner gas to reduce greenhouse emissions. * Industry and investment analyses have also found compensation lower than Kevin Rudd promised would destroy up to 60 per cent of the value of brown coal electricity generators, place the electricity network "at risk", cut power, create cost spikes and close generating companies. 
> Confidential analyses conducted by global financial services giant Morgan Stanley and Victorian power companies examining Labor's plans, obtained by The Weekend Australian, find a carbon price of $20 a tonne will not significantly cut carbon emissions but will damage companies and push up retail power costs. 
> The research paper said that without compensation the debt burden on the brown coal electricity plants would place "the network at risk". 
> Other industry analysis has found that investment in the medium term, taking into account rising gas prices and a "carbon price of $20-$25 a tonne, simply destroys existing coal-fired generation without providing financial incentive replacement gas generation".  Carbon price 'would need to be tripled' to force change from coal-fired electricity | The Australian

  Read the full story and you will realise our government have no idea what they are doing.  :No:  
They are selling a champagne future on a beer budget.  :Beer:  
Their cost projections do not even make gas viable, but they are promising a solar and wind nirvana that is many multiples more expensive.  :Doh:  
And remember, all designed to save about .05 percent of human caused CO2 emissions by 2020, assuming we do not increase coal exports, which we intend to based on the governments mining tax projections, which will render our domestic efforts useless anyway. 
It will costs us taxpayers hundreds of billions in *real dollars*, all for *zero environmental benefit*. 
JuLIAR's selling it.  The question is, are we buying it?

----------


## Dr Freud

> *THE enthusiastic applause in the US couldn't drown out the angry clamour at home. While Julia Gillard was making her address to congress, Tony Abbott was making a visit to a steel factory in Gillard's Victorian electorate.*                                No policy nuances necessary. The Opposition Leader knows that for all the government talk of "doing the right thing" with its carbon tax, the public is hearing a very different and much more disturbing message. 
> The key message is one of electricity costs jumping even more sharply than they are already. And to achieve what, exactly? Few people, even within the ALP, sound quite so convinced of the logic or the timing any more. 
> This is not only because Gillard's personal credibility is badly frayed given she is going back on her election commitment that no government she led would adopt a carbon tax. The larger problem of policy credibility extends well beyond that. Increasing numbers of voters don't comprehend why Australia is proceeding in this direction when its main trading partners, competitors and much larger emitters are backing away. The vague hopes of an international agreement at Copenhagen, always overblown, have become a sharp-edged mirror recording the lack of any such advance for the foreseeable future. 
>                       And for those still wanting Australia to "do the right thing", it is obvious that a national contribution of 1.5 per cent of the world's emissions will hardly tip the balance in limiting climate change if the scales are so weighted the other way.   Climate subject to politics | The Australian

  A great summary of the current state of this mess. 
A long but accurate picture of how this debacle is sucking the life out of our nations progress.  We should be discussing how to build our economic prosperity, how to improve our health system, how to better educate our children, how to influence international policy to mirror our own.  But no, we are instead planning our own sacrifice on a giant green altar.  :Doh:

----------


## PhilT2

Still in Melbourne, contract has been extended for a few weeks. Still in this black hole in Kew where no TV, mobile or wireless broadband can penetrate. It's all the fault of them greenies, planting all those trees on the footpath. If they got rid of them then people could park on the footpath like we do in Qld then traffic would flow better too. 
I was working yesterday so I missed the carbon tax rally here. According to the Herald Sun which prints nothing but pure gospel a huge crowd of 400 turned up to protest against the tax and a mere 8000 turned up to support it. A clear victory for those opposing the tax. 
It's the new "denier math"

----------


## Dr Freud

> I was working yesterday so I missed the carbon tax rally here.

  Yes, that point has already been made, as us working types don't have the time to play dress up and March in the street like the usual hand out brigades who receive the taxes we give:   

> *As usual, the silent majority have to work and pay taxes so will likely be too busy to go to the rally.*  But if you can spare a few hours: 
> CANBERRA - the big one!
>  Date: 23 March
> Time: 12:00pm
> Location: Parliament House
> Register/more info: Click here for the facebook group or go to  http://www.nocarbontaxrally.com/ 
> MELBOURNE
> Date: 12 March
> Time: 9:30am for 10:00am start
> ...

   

> According to the Herald Sun which prints nothing but pure gospel a huge crowd of 400 turned up to protest against the tax and a mere 8000 turned up to support it. A clear victory for those opposing the tax.

  A clear victory? No wonder you guys are so easily misled by flawed statistics.  :Biggrin:  
Here's the organiser, just a Joe Bloggs like the rest of us:   

> As key organiser of the No to Carbon Tax Community Rally, Tony Hooper responded best when he said: _These activists groups are nothing more than an extension of left wing government policy, whose protests are filled with paid activists and professional agitators. The rally at Werribee was a true grass roots campaign and we began with 5 people in a café two weeks ago, and ended with 500 in the streets of Labor heartland, never before has Melbournes west seen a turn out like it against a sitting ALP member_ _This is the problem with this issue, groups like Getup send out a note and hey presto a couple of thousand turn up, but this not representative, these are activists who would protest at anything, we have seen them before in the streets during summits and visits by the US officials._ _Our group was a true reflection of the community, not of an organised left wing movement, and the anger is there and growing and from what I understand the crowd in Canberra on March 23 will eclipse anything that groups like Getup and their left wing cohorts can arrange, and they will be true community representatives, not just a group of paid activists._ _The rally was a huge success in Werribee and far exceeded the expectations of the organisers and a clear sign of the pain that the community feels that this tax will cause. _  _Over 500 Australians Rally Outside Gillard's Office - Menzies House_

  And I understand a few different types of mathematics, but have never heard of this one. Please explain?  :Biggrin:    

> It's the new "denier math"

  Perhaps understanding that consistent national polling is showing a shift away from the government pushing this farce to the factor of about *1.5 million voters* should help your understanding of what is a "clear victory".  :Wink 1:    

> Coalition from 43 to 54, that's + 11 for those still counting. 
> Labor from 57 to 46, that's - 11 for those still counting.

  Just providing some context for the Get Up! stunts.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> WAYNE SWAN: The science is there. I know it's disputed by sceptics like Mr Abbott and others. The science is clear...  Insiders - 13/03/2011: Japan faces crisis in wake of tsunami - Insiders - ABC

  The science is clear is it Wayne? Does anyone believe this man?  :No:    

> WAYNE SWAN: ... so essential to our children and grandchildren.

  So, we are back on the emotional blackmail bandwagon again, so much for arguing the science.  :Doh:    

> WAYNE SWAN: All those climate change sceptics out there that want to deny the science, they can keep their head in the sand but we're going to get with the 21st century Barrie.

  Every sceptic I know and have read about fully supports all the scientific facts.  What's this idiot on about?   

> WAYNE SWAN: I notice there's been some criticism that we announced an emissions trading scheme and then didn't provide all of the detail.

  Er, Wayne, you announced a Carbon Tax, that is actually a Carbon Dioxide Tax that you are still lying about.  IF, and that's a big IF you sort yourself out, there MAY be an ETS somewhere in the never never future. Stop Lying Wayne!  :Doh:    

> WAYNE SWAN: And we'll put a final emissions trading scheme up and of course people can make their judgment.

  Carbon Dioxide Tax, liar.    

> WAYNE SWAN: But we're up for the argument Barrie because we're right, it's good for the economy, good for the country and it's good for the environment.

  Economy, country, environment.  Liar, liar and liar.    

> WAYNE SWAN: And when you're a Queenslander and you look north to the Great Barrier Reef you understand that climate change is something you've got to deal with.

  Can any of you Queenslander's up there see this.  I have not seen anything on the news. (Doh, fell for the emotional blackmail again).  :Doh:    

> WAYNE SWAN: What happens with emissions trading is a few of the largest polluters have to buy permits. That delivers revenue. That revenue is then delivered if you like to households and industry by way of assistance. That's how the scheme works.

  Oh, now I see. Just one thing Wayne, where's the bit where the Planet Earth starts to cool down??? Huh???  :Laughing1:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The science is clear is it Wayne? Does anyone believe this man?  
> So, we are back on the emotional blackmail bandwagon again, so much for arguing the science.   
> Every sceptic I know and have read about fully supports all the scientific facts. What's this idiot on about?  
> Er, Wayne, you announced a Carbon Tax, that is actually a Carbon Dioxide Tax that you are still lying about. IF, and that's a big IF you sort yourself out, there MAY be an ETS somewhere in the never never future. Stop Lying Wayne!   
> Carbon Dioxide Tax, liar.  
> Economy, country, environment. Liar, liar and liar.   
> Can any of you Queenslander's up there see this. I have not seen anything on the news. (Doh, fell for the emotional blackmail again).   
> Oh, now I see. Just one thing Wayne, where's the bit where the Planet Earth starts to cool down??? Huh???

   nice work 
Doc

----------


## chrisp

> *What does a couple of degrees matter?*    
> 			
> 				According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental  Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased  0.74 ± 0.18°C (1.33 ± 0.32°F) during the 20th century. 
> Climate model projections summarised in the latest IPCC report indicate  that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to  6.4°C (2.0 to 11.5°F) during the 21st century.
> 			
> 		   So, what does a degree to two matter?   What does it matter if the forecast top temperature is 32°C instead of 30°C?   Or for that matter, so what if it is 12°C instead of 10°C?   In the cooler months, I think we'd all welcome and extra degree or two. 
> And we all live through quite large temperature variations.  Melbourne can easily get down to the low single-digit temperatures, and can reach highs in the forties.  So, what does an extra degree or two matter?  
> It may seem trivial to be concerned about a degree to two increase in temperature, so why are the climate scientists concerned?  
> The quote above in the box refers to *climate*, whereas the rhetorical questions above are about the *weather*. 
> Take a look at the monthly mean maximum temperature statistics for Melbourne (Mean Maximum Temperature - 086071 - Bureau of Meteorology )Statistic (Annual) *Mean                19.8°C* *Lowest            18.6°C* *Median            19.8°C* *Highest            21.8°C*The *highest* annual-average-mean-maximum-temperature is *2°C* higher than the *average* annual-average-mean-maximum-temperature  *A temperature rise of two degrees would make the average year in the the future the same as the hottest year in the past.*

   

> Is this part of a new Anthropogenic Melbourne Warming (AMW) hypothesis you are going to be raising?  One city does not constitute a global phenomenon. But one city may constitute a UHI.  
> (....) 
> What's your point. 
> A temperature drop of only 1.2 degrees would make the average year in the future the same as the coldest year in the past. 
> Just for Melbourne, of course.

   *So, do you think if we enlarge the geographic zone we averaqge over it will make a difference to the outcome?  Say, what if we considered the Victorian average annual temperatures?  Or, perhaps we could consider the Australian average annual temperatures?  Why don't we consider global average annual temperature?   Will it make a difference to my statement?* 
The graph below shows the global average temperatures year-by-year.  The data points are the little black squares on the graph.  Note, the difference between a hot year and an average year is quite small - very small compared to a 2 degrees temperature rise.   
(from: Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots )  *A couple of degrees temperature rise would make the typical year far hotter than any year beforehand.*

----------


## Dr Freud

GC is Greg Combet.  :Wink 1:    

> GC: Well it is very early days.  We have been two weeks since we announced a *framework for carbon pricing* and that is of course designed to create the incentive for large polluters in our economy to *cut their pollution* and to drive investment in clean energy but it is going to be a long debate and there is a long way to go and we understand there responsibility to explain the issues to people and explain why we are doing this and at the end of the day, the foundation for tackling climate change and *cutting pollution levels in our atmosphere* of course is *the science of climate change* and we are doing a lot to try and make sure that information is available to people so that they can *understand what those arguments are* and just last week Professor Garneau who is advising the government about these issues, released an update on a science paper and people can access through our department of climate change website if they wish to.    http://www.international.to/index.ph...news&Itemid=74

  *framework for carbon pricing =* Carbon Dioxide Tax  *cut their pollution +* *cutting pollution levels in our atmosphere =* This is what you are currently breathing out that is *not* on Greg Combet's own departments pollution list.  Under this scheme, all companies can actually *increase* their output of soot, carbon dust, cyanide, sulphur dioxide, increasing smog, acid rain and atmospheric toxins without any penalty.  *the science of climate change* *+ understand what those arguments are =* Greg, if you keep calling Carbon Dioxide a pollution, and keep calling it Carbon instead of Carbon Dioxide, how the hell is the average person suppose to figure out what the hell you people are on about.  Sort yourself out man, you used to be so much better than this!  :Doh:    

> GC: Well, I think it is a fiercely contested issue in the public arena, and we're seeing it play out of course in the current debate between the government and Tony Abbott. And of course, the government respects the climate science and *once you respect what the scientists are telling you*, then you have a public responsibility, public policy responsibility to tackle climate change. And what that means is that you have to *reduce the levels of pollution*, of greenhouse gases going into our atmosphere and play a responsible role internationally. And so in the public policy sphere, it is well established of course that if you want to *reduce pollution* at the least cost to your economy, and the least impact across the economy, then you use a market mechanism and that's what a carbon price is and that's what the government has announced and of course we announced our board policy intentions a couple of weeks ago, and that was to allow the community and relevant stakeholders, particularly the business community to know what the policy intention is, and engage in the discussion, understand the issues better and particularly for business to engage in the detailed discussion of the design of the policy and we think that's the right approach to have taken.

  *once you respect what the scientists are telling you -* I've got tens of thousands of scientists I can arrange for you to talk to Greg.  Are you free?  :No:   *reduce the levels of pollution +* *reduce pollution =* Every time you say this Greg, you leave us no choice but to begin deciding whether you are *a liar or an idiot*?  At least update the list on your own department's website to give yourself at least  a veneer of credibility.  I know you won't do this, because the last thing you need now is an argument of chemists about whether carbon dioxide is actually pollution.  :No:    

> GC: Well, because the policy is nonsense of course. He's basically suggesting that he will pay tax - use taxpayer funds I should say, to pay some selected polluters a subsidy to reduce some pollution. It's all a cost to the budget, its all a cost to taxpayers. We've indicated through proper analysis that it represents a $30 billion hole in the fiscal position, which represents about a *720 dollar hit per household*. Now, Tony Abbott doesn't have a credible policy and he doesn't, because he doesn't respect the science and doesn't think anything is necessary, but what I describe it as is a fig leaf, for his smear campaign. The government does take it seriously, we look to do it at the lowest economic cost in the fairest way and it must be remembered at this point in particular, what a carbon price is, is a requirement on the large polluters in the economy to purchase a permit for every tonne of pollution that they emit and the money that they pay for those permits the government has committed to do as follows: firstly to ensure that households are assisted with any price impacts and in particular of course we will be concerned to provide generous assistance to low income households and pensioners; secondly, that money will be used to support the jobs in the most effected industries and that is particularly the trade exposed part of the economy, that is very emissions-intensive. Areas like the steel industry and aluminium and thirdly we will use those funds to support clean energy, climate change programmes so that we're making the technological change we need to for the long-term future. And that's very important to understand. *This is a tax* effectively on polluters that goes to an emissions trading scheme after a transitional period.  The funds that are raised will be used to help households, industry and climate change programmes.

  *720 dollar hit per household -* Greg, how is it that you can cost Mr Rabbit's policy down to the exact dollar in less than a week (based on more lies), but you cannot cost your own policy after years of economic research with all the power of treasury? Credibility is in the toilet now Greg.  :Doh:   *This is a tax -* Albeit late but true admission.  :2thumbsup:  
LO is Laurie Oakes.  :Biggrin:    

> LO: On that very issue, can I show you something that President Obama said when he was still trying to push his scheme through Congress.  Look at this. *Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily sky rocket.*  That's what I call straight talking, Minister?  
> LO: On our existing power stations, let me play the rest of what the President said.  Watch this.  *Regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas, you know, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money, they will pass that cost on to consumers.*  Now why isnt it the same in Australia, and if it is, why are you not speaking as plainly as the President? 
> LO: But what the President says there, speaks directly to fears among *Australian families that they are going to have their cost of living hit for six*. Now, can you give us assurance now that that will not happen?

  Wow, Obummer *told the truth* and got smashed! No wonder JuLIAR and her team are lying like champions.  :Biggrin:    

> GC: Well, what we anticipate to be the case is that there will be a *modest increase* in the cost of living, and can I emphasise it again - this is effectively a tax on pollution that transitions to an emissions trading scheme. It is applied to the large polluters in the economy who will have the obligation to purchase a permit for every tonne of pollution that they produce, and the revenue that that raises will be used to assist households and assist industry and assist in climate change programmes, but in respect of households, to assist with the cost of living impact and will have a particular emphasis on low income households and assisting pensioners because we are at the end of the day a Labour Government and we are going to make sure that important economic reform like this is fair in how it is applied. *There will be price impacts*, the Prime Minister has been right up front with that. *We expect them to be modest*. But we will assist people to meet them.

  *modest increase -* If you haven't even designed the scheme yet Greg, how do you know what the increases will be?  :Doh:   *There will be price impacts -* Thanks champ. Some people were still wondering.  :Doh:   *We expect them to be modest -* You didn't expect to burn down hundreds of houses either Greg, how's that insulation inspection program going for you?  That was a fairly simple program Greg, National Energy reform, economic reform, tax reform and cost of living reform, all driven by the greenies should work out much better?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> nice work 
> Doc

  Swan is such a clown.  I was actually missing JuLIAR while he was in charge.  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *A couple of degrees temperature rise would make the typical year far hotter than any year beforehand.*

  *A couple of degrees temperature fall would make the typical year far colder than any year beforehand.* 
Again, what's your point? 
These statements of the blatantly obvious are futile. 
Are you trying to argue that the "psychic computers output" should be treated as scientific facts? 
I hope not.  :No:  
And we can all go through the re-posting of the same pretty pictures again if you want, but I bet my 500 million years of data makes your few decades look like the "cherry pick" as you guys so often accuse others of.  :Biggrin:  
And still, you keep only showing the effects with no causes stated.  This is dangerous as when we asked Woodbe about it, he did the runner.  We'd hate to lose another opponent by pointing out the flaws in their logic.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> *A couple of degrees temperature fall would make the typical year far colder than any year beforehand.* 
> Again, what's your point? 
> These statements of the blatantly obvious are futile. 
> Are you trying to argue that the "psychic computers output" should be treated as scientific facts?

  I'm very pleased that you agree that it "blatantly obvious" that the earth is warming (you'd have to be a fool, or just extremely ignorant, to argue otherwise against actual measurements).  2 degrees cooler would be a real concern, but as we all know the FACTS show that the earth is warming.   
BTW, what computer models did I refer to?   I only quoted FACTS and historical MEASURED RESULTS.  But. yep, the models to indicate that more warming is going to happen above and beyond what we have already experienced.

----------


## chrisp

> I was working yesterday so I missed the carbon tax rally here. According to the Herald Sun which prints nothing but pure gospel a huge crowd of 400 turned up to protest against the tax and a mere 8000 turned up to support it. A clear victory for those opposing the tax. 
> It's the new "denier math"

  Are you referring to this...   

> Outside Prime Minister Julia Gillard's electorate office in Werribee  on Saturday, *400 protesters gathered with Liberal Victorian senators  Mitch Fifield and Scott Ryan to protest against the federal government's  plan to put a price on carbon.*
>              Meanwhile, at Treasury Place in Melbourne's CBD, an  estimated *8000 protesters gathered to support the prime minister's  carbon tax* plan and call for action on climate change.  
> From: Carbon tax protesters rally Victoria

  Isn't it heart warming to know that a basic science education hasn't been lost on the masses.  But, I suppose it is hard to ignore the hard scientific facts (increased CO2 levels, increased global temperatures, rising sea-levels). 
I don't understand why some make out that AGW is a political issue.  The fact is that it is a scientifically observed phenomena - it is real.  It is only our response to mitigating AGW is a political issue. 
However. it is good to see that we have moved on somewhat and the focus has now shifted to the carbon price mechanism (tax, trading scheme, incentives, etc.). 
I think I may have said it before, but just in case I didn't, I think that a price on carbon is inevitable (regardless of which party is is in political power), the science is overwhelming and governments around the world are acting (or reacting) accordingly.  Ecomonic incentives and disincentives are just political tools for changing behaviour. 
BTW, welcome to Melbourne PhilT2!

----------


## olfella

I found this article interesting.  Basically it is an exercise in 'life cycle analysis' of a computor product following the introduction of a carbon tax.  It highlights one other aspect of this tax, and that is the added GST on a product.  I hope you find it as enlightening as I did. Macs and the carbon tax - Australian Macworld

----------


## chrisp

> Sheez I've opened a can of worms here LOL So you still don't believe in climate change?

  It would seem that you have indeed...   

> Sadly for Rod nothing changes just the same cicular arguments, the same  reaching for any piece of information no matter how poor, no matter how  baseless no matter even if there is any truth as long as it supports his  cherished position. On the other hand mindless dismissal of anything  that doesn't support a preformed view of the world, regardless of  credibility. 
> Running an argument without being able to bend a view in the weight of  evidence is not the sign of intelligence quite the opposite. Science is  about forming views then accepting if evidence contradicts that view you  build or develop an idea that supports what is available. Our  understanding of the world around us is growing greatly as a result of  the work of climate scientists amongst others. There is no doubt that  something is changing regardless of whether we think it is a natural  progression or man made.  
> I've an open mind to what is continually coming forward and what we are  doing about it. Quite frankly I can see little point in continuing  threads to humour an individual who seems to think the earth is flat, we  all have our views and this group is a broad church and we do generally  accept the right of everyone to hold a view, so if you don't believe in  global warming that's fine, but if you think a lot of the replies you  post are proving anything at all it is that you really don't understand  what you are on about other than displaying a petty condescending  attitude towards others that do not agree with you. You are probably  better off saving your rubbish for the fawning sycophants on the  renovators forum that agree with your poorly defined opinions. 
> I do believe climate change exists and that those countries that respond  to it early such as the Europeans and the Chinese are going to do very  well out of it economically and those countries that turn their backs on  new and emerging technologies will become industrial backwaters.  certainly if we do nothing I fear for my children and grandchildren.                  
> (From: search for yourself - hint: post #95 from Rod's link - no cross-forum link from me)

  It is nice to see that your "fawning sycophants" rated a mention too.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

Mate, you've gotta get some new material.  We've already covered all of this.   

> I'm very pleased that you agree that it "blatantly obvious" that the earth is warming (you'd have to be a fool, or just extremely ignorant, to argue otherwise against actual measurements).

  Again, the Planet Earth has been cooling and warming since it first formed about 4.5 billion years ago.  This is not in dispute by anyone and never has been (a few nutters aside).  The issue you keep avoiding is that you believe a hypothesis that proposes that humans caused the last few decades of warming in the late 1900's in the absence of any scientific empirical evidence.   

> 2 degrees cooler would be a real concern, but as we all know the FACTS show that the earth is warming.

  Mate, with CO2 levels at their highest point since we began the industrial revolution, what sort of astronomical temperature rise have we seen over the last decade?  *Is* warming? That means currently, right? Or over what arbitrary time scale?   

> BTW, what computer models did I refer to?

  None.  That's why I was curious where you got the 2 degrees from?   

> *What does a couple of degrees matter?*  *A temperature rise of two degrees would make the average year in the the future the same as the hottest year in the past.*

  Surely you didn't just make it up as you *"only quoted FACTS and historical MEASURED RESULTS."*  :Doh:     

> But. yep, the models to indicate that more warming is going to happen above and beyond what we have already experienced.

  A simple trend line would also "indicate that more warming is going to happen above and beyond what we have already experienced" .  You could do this with a pencil and a ruler.  Both of these are future predictions and both are not empirical scientific evidence.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Isn't it heart warming to know that a basic science education hasn't been lost on the masses.

  So you think calling Carbon Dioxide by the name of one part of it, Carbon, is a scientifically correct label? If we call Carbon Dioxide - Carbon, what are we going to call Carbon - Car?  Have you heard the masses outraged by this?  :Doh:    

> But, I suppose it is hard to ignore the hard scientific facts (increased CO2 levels, increased global temperatures, rising sea-levels).

  Again, (this is tiresome), no-one is ignoring any facts.  We sceptics fully support that CO2 levels have gone up and that measured temperature has increased.  Again, we can argue issues like UHI and station selection later, but for now lets agree all temperature measurements are 100% accurate.   
What your AGW hypothesis brigade has to prove is that one causes the other.  Your supported hypothesis says that CO2 caused all of the temperature change.  You need to understand that two variables changing concurrently does not causation make.  :No:  
The limited time scales you and the AGW hypothesis brigade refer to while ignoring the 99.99% of timescales where data shows these two variable have no correlation is not only unscientific, it is farcical.    

> I don't understand why some make out that AGW is a political issue.   It is only our response to mitigating AGW is a political issue.

  No-one "makes out" this is the case, it is a constitutional fact. 
Again, even if, and that's a big IF, this farce was real, then it would require a political solution.  Scientists do not introduce legislation or have constitutional authorities for CRF expenditure, and thankfully so.  And it would *need ALL* nations to act simultaneously and immediately to provide this solution.  This is not going to happen!   

> *The fact is* that it is a scientifically observed phenomena - *it is real*.

  Stop the presses, the AGW hypothesis is now a scientific fact!  :Doh:  
What was it you said about science education?   

> I think I may have said it before, but just in case I didn't, I think that a price on carbon is inevitable (regardless of which party is is in political power), the science is overwhelming and governments around the world are acting (or reacting) accordingly.

  You did, and I asked whether this inevitability was global, and when? 
I also asked when the Saudi's would stop selling oil to the USA, or when we would stop selling coal to China? 
But you failed to answer Mr Kim? 
The only thing overwhelming around here is the BS.  :Biggrin:    

> Ecomonic incentives and disincentives are just political tools for changing behaviour.

  I think we have more than enough political tools in government trying to change behaviour!  :Laughing1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It is nice to see that your "fawning sycophants" rated a mention too.

  It is nice to see that you guys still prefer baseless name calling rather than presenting any scientific evidence supporting your "believed" hypothesis.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *We expect them to be modest -* You didn't expect to burn down hundreds of houses either Greg, how's that insulation inspection program going for you?  That was a fairly simple program Greg, National Energy reform, economic reform, tax reform and cost of living reform, all driven by the greenies should work out much better?

  How timely.   

> *THE Federal Government is facing fresh criticism about wasting money on the safety clean-up for its controversial roof insulation scheme.   *                                The _Herald Sun c_an reveal that in some cases inspectors are travelling across the country for jobs at taxpayers' expense. 
> Documents show two different inspection companies - one from Surfers Paradise and the other from Sydney - were sent to the same location in Hamilton, southwest Victoria, to conduct safety checks for a group of six units. 
> The Government said it paid reasonable travel costs for inspectors, but was unable yesterday to detail exactly how much. 
> The agent who manages the Hamilton properties, David Morrison, said all six units were to be inspected after batts were installed as part of the Government's axed rebate scheme. 
> Mr Morrison, from Lanyon's Real Estate, said he was surprised when the first inspector came from Queensland on February 2, but was only able to check four of the six units. 
> A second inspector from a company based in Sydney arrived on February 25 to check the other two units. 
> "It seems like a blatant waste of money to me to send two different companies," Mr Morrison said. 
> "I'm confused why they needed to send two different groups, and why they had to come from so far. Are there no inspectors in Victoria?" 
> The _Herald Sun_ has also learnt of another case where safety inspectors travelled from Queensland to WA.  First the batts installation fiasco, now the inspection shambles | Herald Sun

  First, you can't organise the installation of roof insulation.
Second, you can't organise it's inspection without massive waste.
Third, you want to re-organise our entire economy in much less time? 
If it wasn't for cleaning up this mess, we wouldn't even need a flood tax!  JuLIAR failed to mention that one. 
There are serious trust issues here people.  :Cry:

----------


## Marc

Global warming is a hoax, invented in 1988 « The Global Warming Hoax   

> *Man-Made Global Warming Hoax* 
>  Excerpts reprinted with permission from Tom Gremillion
> Tuesday, January 25, 2005 
>              Global warming is a hoax, invented in 1988, that combines  old myths including limits to growth, sustainability, the population  growth time bomb, the depletion of resources, pollution,  anti-Americanism and anti-corporate sentiment and, of all things, fear  of an ice age. Those that espoused and supported the old myths have  joined forced into a new group called “Environmentalists.” 
> Most environmentalists have no technical or  scientific credentials whatsoever. What they have are major news outlets  ready and willing to publicize their every utterance regardless of  whether or not they are backed up by scientific proof. Atmospheric  science requires highly technical knowledge and skills, not possessed by  the vast majority of the so-called environmentalists, who yet feel  qualified to demand that human activity subjugate itself to the whims of  their new deity, Mother Nature. 
> Environmentalists claim that the Earth’s atmosphere  is getting hotter. They claim that the polar icecaps and glaciers will  melt and sea levels will rise over two hundred feet, flooding most  coastal cities. They claim that many areas of the Earth will turn into  deserts. They make all these claims but cannot substantiate them with  real scientific evidence. Parts of the polar icecap and glaciers are  melting but other areas of the polar icecaps and glaciers are  thickening. The environmentalists base their “proof” of the existence of  global warming on the melting areas but are strangely silent, even  militant to the point of violence, if anyone mentions the areas that are  thickening, and those thickening areas are many. 
> In the past, there have been many times when the  global mean temperatures were warmer, sometimes much warmer and colder,  much colder than they are now. Global mean temperatures are cyclical  with the seasons but also with other normal cycles, as they have been  for the entire history of the Earth. Scientific data from ice cores,  tree rings and other indicators of global mean temperatures prove this.  Human activity has never been the cause of these global temperature  swings as the “global warming” advocates claim. If human activity was  the cause, where were the SUVs, the power plants and industries in our  historical past? They did not exist. If human activity was not the cause  of these global temperature swings, what was? 
> The energy output of the Sun is far greater in one  second than human activity could produce in a million years. The Earth  rotates around the Sun. Its orbit is slightly elliptical. The energy  reaching the Earth from the Sun varies slightly as the distance from the  Sun to the Earth varies due to its elliptical orbit. The Sun activity  increases and decreases with fluctuations in the solar flares emitted by  the Sun. Differences in these fluctuation rates cause increases and  decreases of solar energy hitting the Earth. This causes fluctuations in  the global mean temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. 
> In 2004, the energy from massive solar flares  bombarded the Earth with solar energy. This solar energy caused heating  of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. Most of the energy of the solar  flare eruptions dissipated into space. The amounts of energy ejected  were massive, much greater than normal. Had the Earth received a full  blast of the solar energy from one of the numerous flare eruptions in  2004, the consequences to life on Earth could have been disastrous. The  higher than usual amounts of energy that struck the Earth’s atmosphere  did have their effects, however, including some heating of the  atmosphere. 
> ...

----------


## Marc

Global warming is a hoax, invented in 1988 « The Global Warming Hoax   

> Rocky Says:	 		 May 30, 2008 at 1:59 pm   	As a geologist and earth scientist for over 40 years, I have a  fairly strong understanding of the history of the earth and cyclic  events.  In the geologic record (fossil/ice caps, etc.), corroborated by  more recent historical records, tree rings, flora/fauna, a roughly  1500-year warming/cooling cycle is evident for at least 2 million years.
>  CO2 is generally as a byproduct of warming as seas warm and release  gases, which leads to times of plenty as plants thrive and expand their  ranges and provide more food for fauna, increasing biodiversity.  By  contrast, cooler periods are times of want, tracked in human history by  wars for food, pestilence and famine.
>  The 0.03% CO2 content of the atmosphere is minimal and has less  impact and is lower in volume than, for example, methane given off by  termites (who outweigh humans by 30x).  During much colder periods, such  as the Ordovician, CO2 content was 10x higher than today.
>  Man is arrogant indeed if he feels he can influence weather, except  on a very local basis, such as in urban heat islands, where much of the  data have shown an increase in temperature, as cities grow and generate  more heat.  The atmosphere is not warming, the seas as a group are not  warming, the Antarctic ice sheet has never been bigger or thicker,  Greenlands ice sheet is thickening, the 160,000 glaciers are both  advancing and retreating and Polar Bear populations have grown 5-fold  since the 1970′s.
>  Lets have a little respect for facts and scientific method instead  of using computer-generated predictions (none have been accurate),  manipulated by investigators whose paychecks, perks and prominence  depend upon keeping the funds flowing from misled concerned individuals  and from politicians and corporations reaping 10′s of  from  enviro products, taxes and control.
>  Check it out.        -Rocky- Reply  	Frank of Oz Says:	 		 August 14, 2008 at 10:50 am   	Global warming 
> It would be funny, if it was not sooo sad.
> Rocky, you hit the nail on the head. Pity that there are so many  intellectually handicapped people on this planet. This entire episode  reminds me of the building of St. Peters Basilica in Rome.
>  In the 15 century, Pope Julius (and others) decided to build the  biggest and best Basilica befitting the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
> ...

----------


## Rod Dyson

And More on the way the hoax is perpertrated.   

> The ten statements below comprise the main arguments that are made in public in justification for the government’s intended new tax on carbon dioxide. Individually and severally these arguments are without merit. That they are intellectually pathetic too is apparent from my brief commentary on each. _It is a blight on Australian society that an incumbent government, and the great majority of media reporters and commentators, continue to propagate these scientific and social inanities._  *1. We must address carbon (sic) pollution (sic) by introducing a carbon (sic) tax.* 
> The argument is not about carbon or a carbon tax, but rather about carbon dioxide emissions and a carbon dioxide tax, to be levied on the fuel and energy sources that power the Australian economy.
> Carbon dioxide is a natural and vital trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere, an environmental benefit without which our planetary ecosystems could not survive. Increasing carbon dioxide makes many plants grow faster and better, and helps to green the planet.  *To call atmospheric carbon dioxide a pollutant is an abuse of language, logic and science.*  *2. We need to link much more closely with the climate emergency.* 
> There is no “climate emergency”; the term is a deliberate lie. Global average temperature at the end of the 20th century fell well within the bounds of natural climate variation, and was in no way unusually warm, or cold, in geological terms.  *Earth’s temperature is currently cooling slightly*.  *3. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will punish the big polluters (sic).* 
> A price on carbon dioxide will impose a deliberate financial penalty on all energy users, but especially energy-intensive industries. These imaginary “big polluters” are part of the bedrock of the Australian economy. Any cost impost on them will be passed straight down to consumers.  *It is consumers of all products who will ultimately pay, not the industrialists or their shareholders.*  *4. Putting a price on carbon (sic) is the right thing to do; it’s in our nation’s interest.* 
> The greatest competitive advantage of the Australian economy is cheap energy generated by coal-fired power stations.  *To levy an unnecessary tax on this energy source is economic vandalism that will destroy jobs and reduce living standards for all Australians.*  *5. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will result in lower carbon dioxide emissions.* 
> Economists know well that an increase in price of some essential things causes little reduction in usage. This is true for both energy (power) and petrol, two commodities that will be particularly hit by a tax on carbon dioxide emissions.
> Norway has had an effective tax on carbon dioxide since the early 1990s, and the result has been a 15% INCREASE in emissions.  *At any reasonable level ($20-50/t), a carbon dioxide tax will result in no reduction in emissions.*  *6. We must catch up with the rest of the world, who are already taxing carbon dioxide emissions.* 
> They are not. All hope of a global agreement on emissions reduction has collapsed with the failure of the Copenhagen and Cancun climate meetings. The world’s largest emitters (USA and China) have made it crystal clear that they will not introduce carbon dioxide tax or emissions trading.
> ...

----------


## chrisp

> Global warming is a hoax, invented in 1988 « The Global Warming Hoax

  *If you are going to tell lies, or quote factitious or deceptive information, at least try to make your story sound slightly plausible.*  
My (much) earlier post shows that the concept of AGW has been around much earlier than 1988...   

> *Here are a couple of excerpts from a report I stumbled across.  They make interesting reading:*    
> 			
> 				If the average rate of increase of combustion continues at 3.2 percent  per year, the quantity injected into the atmosphere by the year 2000  will be about 42 percent; if the 5% rate of increase during the last 8  years persists the quantity injected will be close to 60 percent.  Assuming further that the proportion remaining in the atmosphere  continues to be half the total quantity injected, *the increase in atmospheric C02 in the year 2000 could be somewhere between 14 percent and 30 percent*. 
>  [Appendix Y4 p.119]
> 			
> 		      
> 			
> 				One of the most recent discussions of these effects is given by Moller  (1963) . He considers the radiation balance at the earth's surface with  an average initial temperature of 15°C (59°F), a relative humidity of 75  percent, and 50% cloudiness. We may compute from his data that *with a  25 percent increase in atmospheric C02, the average temperature near  the earth's surface could increase between 0.6°C and 4°C (1.1* *°**F to 7°F)*, depending on the behavior of the atmospheric water vapor content. 
>  [Appendix Y4 P.121]
> ...

  Oops, sorry, I keep forgetting that the denialists don't give a crap about the facts.  :Doh:

----------


## chrisp

> And More on the way the hoax is perpertrated.     *Preparation for, and adaptation to, all climate hazard is the key to formulation of a sound national climate policy.* *Professor Bob Carter is a geologist, environmental scientist and Emeritus Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.*

  Rod, 
Are you quoting this Bob Carter?   

> Carter is a committee member in the "Institute for Public Affairs"  (IPA), an Australian-based organization that has received funding from  the tobacco and fossil fuel industries (amongst others). The NIPCC report, which Carter contributed to, was published by the Heartland Institute,  an industry-funded organization that has worked with Philip Morris to  question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks, and has  received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.  Robert M. Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Dr Freud

> *If you are going to tell lies, or quote factitious or deceptive information, at least try to make your story sound slightly plausible.*

  Sorry champ, we can't all afford Bruce Hawker.  :Biggrin:  
But your 1945 text is just one of the parents of the current "Global Warming Hoax" mentioned above. 
Here's one of the grandparents:   

> *The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.*  *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.*  *Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.* You ask, I provide. November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt. | Watts Up With That?

  Yes, that's 1922 when they were worrying about the north pole melting and the oceans warming.  And here we all are going over it all again, now reincarnated as the AGW hypothesis. 
Same s#!t, same s#!t, huh?   

> My (much) earlier post shows that the concept of AGW has been around much earlier than 1988...

  They (Global Warming Hoax) are referring to the current "scary" version with psychic computers. 
But I agree with you, it's the same s#!t, same s#!t, huh?   

> Oops, sorry, I keep forgetting that the denialists don't give a crap about the facts.

  Mate, you seriously have to stop hanging out with these dudes.  :Doh:  
Stick with us, we'll keep pointing out how all the facts *don't* prove the AGW hypothesis.  :Biggrin:  
Don't you feel lucky to have us around?  :Console:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Rod, 
> Are you quoting this Bob Carter?

  Chrisp, 
Are you still quoting Wikipedia's smear campaign?   
But don't worry champ, no one here has noticed your continual failure to refute a single scientific fact quoted by any sceptics.  :No:  
No one has noticed your convenient failure to answer any of the questions of science put to you.  :No:  
You secret is safe with me dude, I won't tell anyone how you have no scientific evidence proving your hypothesis.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Rod, 
> Are you quoting this Bob Carter?     
> 			
> 				Carter is a committee member in the "Institute for Public Affairs" (IPA), an Australian-based organization that has received funding from the tobacco and fossil fuel industries (amongst others). The NIPCC report, which Carter contributed to, was published by the Heartland Institute, an industry-funded organization that has worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks, and has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.  Robert M. Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Seriously champ, you need some new material:   

> But the more I see of this gentleman, the thinner grows my esteem. Rather than using logical or scientific arguments, Mr. Gore frequently smears people who hold opinions that are different from his own. He recently told CBS news:Some of the largest carbon polluterstry to convince people   *as the tobacco industry did years ago* *on the link between smoking cigarettes and lung disease* - that there really isnt a link  between global warming-pollution and global warming. [bold added]The CBS website highlighted this tobacco comment by incorporating it into the title of its online report: ___Gore: Carbon Polluters Like Big Tobacco__._
>  One day Im going to make a list of all the environmentalists who use the tobacco smear. Based on my reading so far, I expect it will be a long one. For now, suffice it to say that it is highly offensive for _anyone_ to equate well-informed, good-faith individuals who have doubts about a theory_ that predicts what will happen in the future_ with those who repudiated well-established medical facts. The two scenarios are not scientifically or historically equivalent. To pretend that they are is to value cheap politics over objective reality.
>  What is really beyond the pale, however, is that such a smear should be wielded by Mr. Gore  whose family grew tobacco, who has boasted about his hands-on involvement in the farming of it, and who  drum roll, please  accepted political donations from the tobacco industry over a ten-year period.
>  According to the _New York Times_, in a speech in North Carolina in 1988, Mr. Gore declared:Throughout most of my life, Ive raised tobaccoI want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. Ive hoed it. Ive chopped it. Ive shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.This same newspaper article observes that, despite Mr. Gores current characterization of tobacco as a great evil, even after his sister died of lung cancer it took _several years_ for his family to walk away from the income they earned from tobacco. In other words, they knew firsthand that it killed people, but they continued to profit from it.
>  Mr. Gore knew, because he had knelt beside his sisters bedside, that tobacco led to bad things. Yet six years later he was still accepting campaign donations from tobacco industry political action committees.   Al Gores Tobacco Hypocrisy « NoFrakkingConsensus

  This smear campaign against scientists correctly pointing out the flaws in your logic is tired and old.  When the average person in the street can see through it, it is definitely wearing too thin. 
Gore is a moron and a hypocrite, but you don't need to debase yourself by chanting the failed mantra from his church. 
Get an idea of scientific causation, get some evidence, and get back to reality. It's ugly, but it's all we've got.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> Are you quoting this Bob Carter?

  Chrisp I though we gave up on attacking a person rather than what he says a long time ago. 
How about challenging what he says instead. 
I a really getting sick of this crappy method of distraction it only goes to show how shallow your arguments are.

----------


## Dr Freud

Wasteful bunch of ........! 
Why have we spent tens of millions of our taxpayer dollars advertising Labor Party policies that have never even become law.  This is us paying for their broken and failed election promises. 
How much you ask? 
$14 million - CPRS
$38 million - RSPT
$20 million - MRRT (the original now defunct one, plus health and NBN non-events) 
And the best is yet to come: 
$30 million - CNAT (the Carbon "Not A" Tax)  *$102 million* just in advertising failed Labor policies that have not passed the Parliament.  :Doh:  
That's our taxes people. 
Did you also notice that most of these policies are actually new taxes (or stealing state taxes).  They're spending our taxes to convince us to pay more taxes.  :Annoyed:  
Remember that when you're paying the Flood Tax!  :Doh: 
No wonder JuLIAR had to LIE about not bringing in the current tax she is bringing in.

----------


## Dr Freud

How many times have you heard this excuse from the government over the last few weeks: 
"But John Howard did it too". 
Hiding behind good old Johnny, eh.  :Biggrin:  
Nice try liars:  

> This Gillard Government lurches from one lie to the next. Here is Treasurer Wayne Swan yesterday trying to excuse the government should it go ahead and spend taxpayers dollars to sell its disastrous carbon dioxide tax:  _I discovered John Howard had in his last budget before he went to the people with his emissions trading scheme which Tony Abbott supported and didnt say that it would destroy jobs, that John Howard had a $50 million allocation in his last budget to advertise his emissions trading scheme._So lets go to that last Budget and see what that $50 million was really for:   _Climate change  small business and household action initiative_  _Department of the Environment and Water Resources_  _The Government will provide $52.8 million over five years to increase community understanding of climate change and assist households and small businesses to reduce and offset their greenhouse gas emissions._  _This measure involves funding of $29.1 million in 2007-08, $16.4 million in 2008-09, $5.9 million in 2009-10, $0.5 million in 2010-11 and $0.4 million in 2011-12. It also includes $0.5 million in capital funding in 2007-08 to develop an interactive intranet site to assist users to reduce their emissions._  _Provision for this funding has already been included in the forward estimates._  _Further information can be found in the press release of 4 March 2007 issued by the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources._Swan lied again. That is _not_ money to flog Howards stupid promise of an emissions trading scheme but to flog Malcolm Turnbulls silly scheme to make houses greener, which at least had the merit of giving us more trees and suggesting ways to cut power bills:  _Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Malcolm Turnbull, said the Government was acting to help Australians use less energy and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. _  _If we have greener homes, we can contribute to a cooler planet, Mr Turnbull said. _  _Under the initiative the Government will send Australians information about climate change and how to become more energy efficient, as well as helping them calculate their greenhouse gas emissions._  _The Government will also offer households the opportunity to become a carbon neutral household through its Greenhouse Friendly programme. This will involve purchase of abatement measures such as tree plantings._ No mention there of John  Howards emissions trading scheme. 
>   Another lie from the most dishonest government since Whitlam. Ugh.   What’s your next lying excuse, Wayne? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

JuLIAR claimed to have "discussions" with O'Bummer regarding this stuff, so must already know all this. 
But let us mere mortals have a quick look:   

> GC is Greg Combet.  *reduce the levels of pollution +* *reduce pollution =* Every time you say this Greg, you leave us no choice but to begin deciding whether you are *a liar or an idiot*?  At least update the list on your own department's website to give yourself at least  a veneer of credibility.  I know you won't do this, because the last thing you need now is an argument of chemists about whether carbon dioxide is actually pollution.

  Like these arguments?   

> Under President Barack Obama, the EPA has been one of Washington's busiest agencies. Responding to a 2007 Supreme Court decision, Ms. Jackson has invoked the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide and other gases linked to climate change. Those moves have prompted lawsuits from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and other industry groups.  EPA Tangles With New Critic: Labor - WSJ.com

  And unlike your farce:   

> GC is Greg Combet.  *cut their pollution +* *cutting pollution levels in our atmosphere =* This is what you are currently breathing out that is *not* on Greg Combet's own departments pollution list.  Under this scheme, all companies can actually *increase* their output of soot, carbon dust, cyanide, sulphur dioxide, increasing smog, acid rain and atmospheric toxins without any penalty.

  
At least the USA actually tries targeting real pollution:  

> Several unions with strong influence in key states are demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency soften new regulations aimed at pollution associated with coal-fired power plants. Their contention: Roughly half a dozen rules expected to roll out within the next two years could put thousands of jobs in jeopardy and damage the party's 2012 election prospects. 
> The companies and the unions have said a new regulation targeting mercury and other toxic pollutants, due to be proposed this week, could lead to higher electric bills, billions of dollars in new costs and the closing of plants that employ thousands of workers. 
> The EPA rule stirring the most anxiety will be proposed this week: It seeks to reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants, including mercury, which can cause neurological disorders in children. 
> But a report last September from bank Credit Suisse said the mercury rule, along with another regulation in the works targeting sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, could lead to the closure of nearly 18% of the nation's coal-fired generation capacity, mainly facilities more than 40 years old that lack emissions controls.

  Yeh, that's right,the same Mercury found in those enviro friendly light bulbs.  Just not so human child friendly, huh? 
But if the USA is fighting measures to control real pollution, what are the chances they will eventualy choose to sabotage their economy by controlling CO2?  :No:  
Sorry JuLIAR, we are not buying what you are shovelling.

----------


## Dr Freud

So, JuLIAR won't run a cost benefit for us, so we can just run our own.  :Biggrin:  
At a minimum, it will cost us tens of billions, and depending on whether Bob Brown gets his way again, maybe up to hundreds of billions. 
And what cooling will we get? 
Well, IF, and that's a big IF all the IPCC models are correct, by 2050 we will cool the Planet by: 
0.0007 degrees celsius! 
Yay... :Cry:  
A real scientist worked this out here:  Carbon Tax Australia? Welcome to Futility Island « JoNova 
There's formulae and everything. 
Oh yeh, Chrisp, to save you some time. 
The scientist is a mathemetician named Dr David Evans.  Here is his bio:   

> Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australias carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.

  To save you some smearing time, he once put oil in his car engine and has a friend who smokes cigarettes.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The earthquake and tsunami will clearly have a severe impact on the economic and social activities of the region. Some islands affected by climate change have been hit. Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity  not least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global warming? Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need to do. 
> Could the earthquake that triggered Japans devastating tsunami be linked to climate change? 
> While its unlikely that scientists will be able to provide a definitive answer anytime soon and Japan has long been a hotbed of seismic activity, past research suggests there may indeed be a link between climate change and earthquakes in some parts of the world 
> Todays Tsunami: this is what climate change looks like. 
> In  addition, climate change may cause tsunamis directly, so its possible  well someday see more images like this as a result.  Did 'climate change' cause the Japanese earthquake?  Telegraph Blogs

  Ideological whacko's!  :Doh:  
But this was hilarious (notwithstanding the unfortunate deaths  :Frown: ):  

> Nuclear fatalities in the last ten years: 7  Wind farm fatalities in the last ten years: 44. 
>  In those ten years nuclear provided thirty times the energy of wind. This means in the last decade, nuclear has been around 200 times safer than wind on an energy produced/accidents basis.

----------


## Marc

> *If you are going to tell lies, or quote factitious or deceptive information, at least try to make your story sound slightly plausible.*

  Chrisp  
The only liers in this moronic smuck of a blunder are those promoting it as the panacea of virtue. I feel sorry for anyone sucked in this pathetic religion, yet have not sympaty nor time for those who resort to call me a lier shielded by the distance of the internet.
As  rule of thumb, and I have big thumbs, do not use words you would not be game to use in person.   :2thumbsup:

----------


## watson

*Just calm down girls......and cover your homework!!* 
Back to facts or opinions please.

----------


## mark53

> Global warming is a hoax, invented in 1988 « The Global Warming Hoax

  Well done Marc. Again informative and educational for those who do not have a closed mind.

----------


## Marc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abd81S-Syzo

----------


## Marc

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt4hhYR56J0]YouTube - Man-made Global Warming is a lie... and not a very good one[/ame]

----------


## Marc

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related]YouTube - Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud / John Coleman[/ame]

----------


## mark53

I venture the following theory. I'm reminded of similarities between these stone age characters of James A. Michener's Novel "The Source" and the current AGW believers insomuch as there is a need to believe in the intangible. Given the religious fervour by those desperate to believe in something they, the AGW hypothesises, have seized on a pseudo scientific hypothesis or a current day God Baal. It's just a theory.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> YouTube - Man-made Global Warming is a lie... and not a very good one

  LOL nice vid they wont listen eh!

----------


## Rod Dyson

Move along boys and girls NO WARMING HERE   
Feb dips under the 30 year average.  Not bad seeing the 30 year average is taken from a warm period. 
Link Global Cooling Underway?! Temps -0.02 C below 30-year average for February' | Climate Depot

----------


## Dr Freud

*These are the lies.*   

> JULIA GILLARD: We've certainly had a year of it, haven't we, and let's hope we don't see anything else for the rest of the year in this country. I think there's a live debate about how we make provision for disasters in the future. Certainly Senator Nick Xenophon opened up a conversation about insurance and I think we should have that conversation. Realistically we make proper provision for natural disasters. You know, normally we're able to step up and do it through our natural disaster arrangements, working with the states. *What was different this year was the size and scale of the economic damage. What happened in Queensland with the floods particularly is probably the most costly natural disaster we've ever seen in economic terms. That's why we had to strike some special measures like the flood levy.* But I think it is worth thinking our way through. Can we do this better for the future and that conversation will continue. 
> JULIA GILLARD: Well, I think it includes looking at these insurance questions and we've got a process now to do that. In terms of making budget provision, you know, we are normally able to make budget provision. That's been the history. *What was different this time was just the size and scale of the disaster.*  
> CHRIS TRAVERS: Prime Minister, how much of your recent poor polling results do you attribute to your lie on the carbon tax? 
> JULIA GILLARD: Well, poor polling I'll - questions of polling I'll let other people talk about *but I'm actually glad you asked me that question* because it gives me an opportunity to explain and *I do want to talk to the Australian people about what I said in the last election.* Now, I did say during the last election campaign - I promised that there would be no carbon tax. That's true and I've walked away from that commitment and *I'm not going to try and pretend anything else.* I also said to the Australian people in the last election campaign that we needed to act on climate change. We needed to price carbon and I wanted to see an emissions trading scheme. Then we had the election and the 17 days that were and we formed this minority government. *Now, if I'd been leading a majority government I would have been getting on with an emissions trading scheme.* *It's what I promised the Australian people.* As it is, in this minority parliament, *the only way I can act on climate change by pricing carbon it to work with others and so I had a really start choice. Do I act or not act?* Well, I've chosen to act and we will have a fixed price, *like a carbon tax*, for a period *and then get to exactly what I promised the Australian people, an emissions trading scheme.* *Now, when I said during the election campaign there would be no carbon tax I didn't intend to mislead people.* *What I believed then is an emissions trading scheme is right for this country.* I believe that now and we will get to that emissions trading scheme. 
> DENIS GOW: Is the proposal for a carbon tax coming from the real Julia and was it the other Julia that before the election stated that "there would not be a carbon tax?" All Australians are totally confused in regard to your two personalities. 
> JULIA GILLARD: Well, maybe I can help on that. *There's only one Julia.* That's the one that's sitting here. *That's the one Julia who has always believed in an emissions trading scheme* and *fundamentally here to act on climate change we've got to put a price on carbon pollution.* *At the moment you can put it into the atmosphere for nothing.* *If we put a price on it businesses will innovate.* There will be change in our economy. *There's two ways to do it and it relates to the question I just answered from over here. There's two ways to do a carbon price.* You can fix a price, a tax, and say for every tonne of carbon pollution you have to pay X amount or you can cap supply and say whole economy, we're not going to generate more carbon pollution than a fixed amount and you can let a market trading permits set the price. I believe this is the better system. Fix the amount, let a market trading permits fix the - get to the price. That's where we'll get to. Yes, *we have to go through the carbon fixed price, the carbon tax on the way through working with this parliament.* I chose action. 
> AUDIENCE MEMBER: How much is the carbon tax going to be and if you do not known, why did you announce it? 
> JULIA GILLARD: *That's a good question too and I thank you for that.* Look, this is going to be a big change to our economy, a big change to the way we live. *It's a necessary change* because I genuinely do believe that climate change is real. *It's going to cause, you know, more droughts, more bushfires, more extreme weather events. It's going to affect the barrier reef. It's going to affect food production. We've got to act.* *Now, when you're doing a big public policy reform like this,* *I actually think the best way to do it is for me to lead and to give people a sense of the direction we're going to go. We're going to go in this direction and then to consult on the details.* If you* look at what Prime Minister Howard did with the Goods and Services Tax, that was a big change too. He basically went out and said we're going to have a tax on goods and services. Everybody went, gee, I don't know about that and started debating it and it was 15 months before he then put out all of the details the way that tax would work.* So *it was a process*. 
> TONY JONES: But you know the fundamental difference is that after he did that he then took that policy to an election and he let people vote on it. 
> ...

  The worst Prime Minister in our history.  The worst government in our history.   *The lies now flow constantly.* 
Still, even I think it's a bit harsh to make her watch a cartoon showing herself swallowing testicles live on our national broadcaster.  Her foolish giggling through the sordid mess was massively embarrassing.  :Redface:

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's Mr Rabbits version:  

> Speaking at a community forum in Perth, Mr Abbott said: ''I don't think we can say that the science is settled here.  'There is no doubt that we should do our best to rest lightly on the planet and there is no doubt that we should do our best to emit as few waste products as possible, but, having said that, whether carbon dioxide is quite the environmental villain that some people make it out to be is not yet proven.              ''We should take precautions against risks and threats, potential ones as well as actual ones, but I don't think we should assume that the highest environmental challenge, let alone the great moral social and political challenge of our time, is to reduce our emissions,'' Mr Abbott said in response to a question.   Carbon dioxide not the bad guy, says Abbott

  The Canberra press gallahery praised JuLIAR for her effort and pilloried Mr Rabbit for his. Weird, huh?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Julia Gillard last July, on government plans to cut emissions:  _We need a deep and lasting consensus._Consensus achieved:  _A Nielsen telephone poll, published in Fairfax newspapers on Tuesday, surveyed 1400 voters last week and shows found 56 per cent were opposed to the introduction of a carbon price..._Gillard success: consensus achieved on “carbon tax” | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Obviously, JuLIAR lied about needing a consensus as well.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> JULIA GILLARD: We've got the multiparty climate change committee, which is _the government, the Greens, Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott_ and I think it was the lady here who asked this question. Yes, we did talk about all of this in that multiparty climate change committee. *Now, the government makes its own decisions* but we work through that committee *because unless we can get a consensus in that committee we won't be able to get legislation through the parliament.* *That's just the practical mathematical reality of the parliament that the Australian people voted for.* *So once again, you know, I had to make a decision, given the position of others in that committee, given the need to get legislation through the parliament,* am I for action or am I for inaction? I chose action

  Well, apparently the MPCCC wants a Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
So let's see: 
JuLIAR says she massively supports an ETS. 
The Greens massively support an ETS. 
Windsor just said he prefers starting with an ETS. 
Oakeshott has said many times he favours an ETS. 
So JuLIAR, who is calling the shots so heavily that they influenced all these people above to instead announce a Carbon Dioxide Tax??? 
Or are you *lying again*??? 
Please explain JuLIAR???

----------


## Marc

> I venture the following theory. I'm reminded of  similarities between these stone age characters of James A. Michener's Novel  "The Source" and the current AGW believers insomuch as there is a need to  believe in the intangible. Given the religious fervour by those desperate to  believe in something they, the AGW hypothesises, have seized on a pseudo  scientific hypothesis or a current day God Baal. It's just a  theory.

  A combination of factors have contributed to the relative  popularity of this myth.
Early unfunded and tentative hypothesis put forward  by fringe people of different persuasions, were picked up by scientist who  Margaret Tatcher paid to find a "scientific" tool to discredit coal in the face  of a one year coal miners strike. Her little scheme was funded for just that  purpose but was later used by Al Gore and others for a much larger political  deception. 
The little apostles and assorted believers that pop up in  Internet debates all over the world are of course genuinely convinced to be the  real anointed by gaia, to save the world from white middle aged prosperous  westerners who exploit the thrid world and the victimised underlaying masses for  their own evil and egotistic purposes. 
What was once a red flag with a  Che Guevara face on it is now the "save he planet" flag. The slogan "death to  the Yankee imperialist" is changed by stop the electricity supply and go on a  push bike. This insane message that if followed even to 10% of it's proposed  reach, would make the economy grind to a halt, would of course make the fringe  lunatic rejoice since they don't work, are social parasite of one description or  another and have a social axe to grinde and this is their opportunity to strike  and pretend to do it for altruistic causes.  
The coal fired plants will  of course never stop, the "alternative" energy supply does not exist so will not  eventuate unless someone actually invents a real new energy source. 
Meantime  those who have orchestrated this lunacy, are rejoicing and counting the money  that shifts into their coffers in the form of grants and subsidies to  "renewables" and hoping more politicians attempt to purchase more votes with our  money by applying more taxes to the so called polluters. 
One day we will  laugh at all this but it will not be tomorrow and the damage will be  substantial.
Meantime the climate will keep on changing, and the temperature  go up and down as it has done for millennia and the sea level? Well it will  remain as steady as it has ben for the forseable future.

----------


## johnc

So all this was invented by Margaret Thatcher to discredit a bunch of coal miners, how interesting. So following on from that Mrs Thatcher created the Hadley Institute in 1990 to crush the miners in 1984/85 during the coal miners strike. A strike brought about to end the high price and unreliability of supply of British coal as a result of political activity by the powerful miners unions in pursuit of higher wages and employment. Justified by some rubbish I assume in her first speech at home in 1988 and later to the UN in 1989 about the risk of three issues, acid rain, the ozone hole and greenhouse gases.  
Perhaps none of these exist? in which case you would need to prove the impossible on both acid rain and the ozone hole which are very well documented and not in despute by anyone with an ounce of credibility.  
Christie, a climate scientist and pin up of the skeptics corner states that CO2 does cause warming, although he argues that other counterbalancing factors will limit those rises, so I don't think warming through CO2 release should be ignored. also don't ignore that CO2 in only one of four major greenhouse gases. I use Christie because he has previously been posted here. 
As for the remaining political twaddle, other than revealing the writers prejudices it tells us nothing of substance. Those who believe man is affecting the enviroment are not a single group but just like the "other side" consist of people and groups with a very wide range of views, it is this context that it would be best if we leave the emotional twaddle and political bias out and concentrated instead on an adult discussion which focuses a bit more on the quality of information that is being brought forward.  
Even the attempted comparison between nuclear and wind turbine deaths was deeply flawed. Turbine deaths included a woman who accidently hit a turbine while sky diving and out of 44 deaths 17 were transport related incidents. It also included deaths outside of the main operating area. Nuclear deaths if they are believed do not have one transport or construction death (highly improbable) and overlook the data on cancer spikes that occur near nuclear facilities or the ongoing deaths in that decade as a result of the Chernobyl disaster. What it does show is both industries have low death rates compared to coal and hydro but it is not comparing like with like. 
The continual "hey look at this" cut and pastes lack context and are often from highly dubious blogs and uninformed sources, surely you blokes can do a bit better than this and try to ascertain if some of these sources are more than some clown venting his spleen and may actually have at least a superfical veneer of respectability..

----------


## Marc

I read you opinion and get nothing out of it.
I know a person who is the  opinion that humanity should be culled down to one billion.
I offered him a  rope but he declined.
I know another who is adamant that cucumber should be  banned. 
The debate is about the introduction of a Carbon Dioxide  tax.
Even for those religious people who believe firmly that reducing CO2 is  imperative for our salvation, such move is as futile as fitting an ashtray on  the handlebars of a motorbike. 
If Australia would stop all human activity  including breathing, and if those left would slaughter all the animals before  committing suicide, such would make no difference to the world climate, not even  if measured in 1/1000 of degrees and not even if in Farenheit. 
If the US  and Europe would follow suit, the reduction in CO2 production would be matched  by China's new coal fired plants in less than a few years and surpassed if you  count India's 
The efficiency of CO2 as a green house gas is poor, and is  not lineal. The doubling of CO2 would not follow a doubling of its greenhouse  effect, in fact at saturation point, its effect to each increment will be  zero. 
The increments in CO2 in the atmosphere however are not free of  very strong effects. Crop yields increase of 30% are not uncommon due to this  atmospheric fertiliser. 
If a complete elimination of CO2 production has  nil effect, the introduction of a tax on CO2 production would of course have  also nil effect on climate.
However the effect on the economy and on our way  of life will be catastrophic if ever implemented as the greens would like  it. 
So why do it? Are our politicians mad? Misinformed? Coerced?
None  of the above. Politicians are well aware of the futility of such tax or the  reduction of CO2 production for that matter in relation to climate... However  they play it twofold.  
One, they please the professional fringe lunatics  that chain themselves to the power towers whilst collecting unemployment  benefits and also the assorted cheer leaders of the latte society in Oxford  street and Newtown.  
Two they collect a lot of money but do so in a  measured way not to kill the goose of the golden eggs by "gradual"  implementation. They have been long of the view, in line with the distribution  of tasks as announced by Bush senior some years ago that Australia is to produce  raw materials and that China India Korea and Japan are to manufacture so the  loss of a few deluded manufacturers remaining here is of no consequence to their  "global" way of thinking. 
Anyone who believes the hoax that the future of  the planet will be compromised by CO2 has some serious issues and a very poor  understanding of basic chemistry and climate cycles. Why am I so sure? Well for  once because I have years of study in climatology and can see the lies with a  bit more ease than some. But beside that, I don't think anyone needs to  understand anything about climate because the political strategy behind this  farce is much easier to spot than any inconsistency in the warmist  hypothesis. 
The "save the planet" flag just like the Che Guevara flag, is  a cute story for those who avoid shaving and washing, are on the dole and make  mud brick huts whilst lying to Centrelink in the interviews. Once it goes  outside the fringe, it is the case of the animal farm and it must end. The  sooner the better.

----------


## johnc

If you have years of study in climatology please share with us your qualifications and experience, or was it just a throw away line to justify a rather rambling and incoherent response.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> If you have years of study in climatology please share with us your qualifications and experience, or was it just a throw away line to justify a rather rambling and incoherent response.

  The response came across pretty clear to me. 
What part of it did you disagree with? and on what basis?

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> I am dead set againt the introduction of an ETS  for several reasons. 
> First even if Global Warming was true we could never reduce emissions to a degree that would have any effect on global temperatures. 
> Second an ETS will cripple the Australian economy for no net benefit. 
> Third I believe that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming and that there need to be irrefutable evidence both scientific and imperical to proove CO2 is warming the planet and that any warming would be as damaging as they claim. 
> Interested to know your thoughts? 
> Cheers Rod

   

> If you have years of study in climatology please share with us your qualifications and experience, or was it just a throw away line to justify a rather rambling and incoherent response.

  It's got nothing to do with climatology as no one has produced the proof, it's to do with Tax and crippling the economy. 
I ask this, when John Howard put a levy on to finance the gun buy back in the late '90s, was this levy removed after the buy back ended, or do we still pay it into the coffers? 
It's too easy for Governments to prosper by bowing to the vocal minority, at the expense of the silent majority and achieving nothing for the community in the process.

----------


## johnc

> The response came across pretty clear to me. 
> What part of it did you disagree with? and on what basis?

  read this extract, 
" One, they please the professional fringe lunatics that chain themselves to the power towers whilst collecting unemployment benefits and also the assorted cheer leaders of the latte society in Oxford street and Newtown" 
This sort of drivel would indicate the writer would need to remove their head to undergo a prostrate examination, do me a favour most of that post actually says nothing at all. What it does indicate is a level of condescending bigotry that implies the "other side" should be discredited as a bunch of welfare grasping parasites. At the same time it implies some scientific knowledge as a result of study. If that is the case put up or shut up, if the study is simply reading a few skeptic websites then come clean as that is not study by any definition. 
There is an economic logic to either a carbon tax or an ets, and that is through the pricing mechanism. to argue otherwise goes against logic. What needs to be argued if you look to the alternative view is that the mechanism will be self defeating, which you can't actually do until we see what the government proposes.

----------


## Marc

> If you have years of study in climatology please share  with us your qualifications and experience, or was it just a throw away line to  justify a rather rambling and incoherent response.

  Tell me John,  which part pricked you most, the fringe lunatic, the latte society, the oxford  street, the not shaving or washing, the mud brick or the welfare part of my  post? 
Because to be honest those are just to yank the chain of whoever  happens to be chained on. 
Anyone with an intelligent interest in the subject  would have replied to the many points I made.
You are welcome to have an  opinion, you are welcome to reply to my point of view. 
As for your 'demands'  ...huhu...I share personal information when I choose so.
However if you don't  have any tertiary qualifications, don't feel less for it. The Global Warming  hoax has nothing to do with science even when part of the hoax is supported by  well paid self appointed experts. 
It is all about politics and social  engineering.
So see the part about the socially maladjusted is perfectly  pertinent even when not politically correct.
 Face it, AGW is a joke yet only a selected few are laughing, and they are  not on the skeptic side.

----------


## Marc

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZldlyeR8DU]YouTube - Animal Farm[/ame]

----------


## johnc

> The response came across pretty clear to me. 
> What part of it did you disagree with? and on what basis?

  What? are you serious, your English comprehension can't be that poor that you misunderstood to this extent, so I will take this as beligerent stupidity which is what it is. Do you get a lot of pleasure from firing a series of poisonous arrows then attempting to pretend that they are not there? Maybe we should just call you Mar-liar instead, these threads have a common theme they are dominated by the four drongos, maybe we could send you all on a course of basic manners and how to respond to a question, or how to compose a response without pettiness as poor as the latte sipping childishness in your earlier effort.

----------


## johnc

> It's got nothing to do with climatology as no one has produced the proof, it's to do with Tax and crippling the economy. 
> I ask this, when John Howard put a levy on to finance the gun buy back in the late '90s, was this levy removed after the buy back ended, or do we still pay it into the coffers? 
> It's too easy for Governments to prosper by bowing to the vocal minority, at the expense of the silent majority and achieving nothing for the community in the process.

  The levy they are talking about isn't of the economy crippling type, it is meant to shift demand and ultimately be neutral in the economy. However we do not know the rate nor the counterbalancing measures. What you are expressing is a natural fear of the unknown ramped up by a bit of hype from a few commentators and opposition politicians. Views are already polarised and I for one do not expect to change yours, however you should wait to see what is` announced before jumping to a conclusion.

----------


## watson

:Spyme:

----------


## Dr Freud

> 

  All that agro.  Just throw in a "hockey stock" and let em sort it out.  :Shock:  
I expect more from our supporters of the AGW hypothesis though.  :Biggrin:  
No matter, emotional vitriole is always more persuading than empirical evidence. 
That's why I use it.  :2thumbsup:  
Only difference is, I'm not trying to convince anyone of a farcical hypothesis.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The continual "hey look at this" cut and pastes lack context and are often from highly dubious blogs and *uninformed sources*

  "Hey look at this cut and paste"  :Arrow Up:   :Lolabove:  
Just kidding mate, welcome aboard.    

> surely you blokes can do a bit better than this

  Sorry, this is as good as we get.  Misspent youth and all that.   

> try to ascertain if some of these sources are more than some clown venting his spleen and may actually have at least a superfical veneer of *respectability*..

  You do realise this thread is about the AGW hypothesis and the ETS, now morphed into the proposed Carbon Dioxide Tax.  :Slap2:  
You may be confused like a lot of people are, and may have heard of something called a "Carbon Price that is like a tax".  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> The debate is about the introduction of a Carbon Dioxide  tax.

  I agree that the debate should be on the shape and form of the carbon  price (alright, alright "carbon dioxide price" for the Doc  :Smilie:  ). 
However, it seems to me that the anti-carbon price side seems to like to  run with the ambit claim (and argument) that AGW is a hoax or that the  planet isn't warming.  In the meantime, governments are introducing a  price on carbon and the argument has been distracted to the existence of  AGW. 
So, why aren't you arguing the merits, shape and from of a carbon price?   

> Even for those religious people who believe firmly that reducing CO2 is  imperative for our salvation

  It is nothing to do with "religion" nor "salvation".  It is a  scientifically well supported position that CO2 contributes to global  warming.  It seems to me that to hold a contrary position - one which is not  supported by science - is akin to being "religious".   

> If Australia would stop all human activity  including  breathing, and if those left would slaughter all the animals before   committing suicide, such would make no difference to the world climate,  not even  if measured in 1/1000 of degrees and not even if in  Farenheit.

  This is a good example of a poorly constructed argument and poor logic.  You are using a inappropriate basis for your comparison.  To be valid, you need to compare what Australian's can do to Australia's CO2 emissions. 
Your argument is like saying "I won't give up smoking as it will only make 0.000000015% difference to the worlds fatality rate".   

> If the US  and Europe would follow suit, the  reduction in CO2 production would be matched  by China's new coal fired  plants in less than a few years and surpassed if you  count  India's

  It is true that China is the worlds biggest emitter of CO2, But have you tried re-framing your argument on a per capita basis to see how the figures stack up?   

> The efficiency of CO2 as a green house gas is poor,  and is  not lineal. The doubling of CO2 would not follow a doubling of  its greenhouse  effect, in fact at saturation point, its effect to each  increment will be  zero.

  "lineal" or "linear"? 
it is true that the isolated effect of CO2 is logarithmic, however, the amplification isn't. 
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming.  The warming increases the water vapour in the atmospheric.  water vapour is also a greenhouse gas and causes further warming...   

> The increments in CO2 in the atmosphere however are  not free of  very strong effects. Crop yields increase of 30% are not  uncommon due to this  atmospheric fertiliser.

   

> "Crops have higher yields when more [carbon dioxide] is available, even  if growing conditions aren't perfect," said Peter S. Curtis, an  ecologist at Ohio State University and co-author of the study. "But  there's a trade-off between quantity and quality. While crops may be  more productive, the resulting produce will be of lower nutritional  value."  Global Warming May Boost Crop Yields, Study Says

   

> If a complete elimination of CO2 production has  nil  effect, the introduction of a tax on CO2 production would of course have   also nil effect on climate.

  For your conclusion to follow your premise, the premise needs to be true.  However, your premise is false - and so is your conclusion.   

> However the effect on the economy and on our way  of life will be  catastrophic if ever implemented as the greens would like  it.

  How so?  Or is this just conjecture?   

> So why do it? Are our politicians mad? Misinformed? Coerced?
> None  of the above. Politicians are well aware of the futility of such  tax or the  reduction of CO2 production for that matter in relation to  climate...

   Conjecture?   
I seem to recall that there are many politicians on both sides of politics that support the idea of a carbon price.   

> One, they please the professional fringe lunatics   that chain themselves to the power towers whilst collecting unemployment   benefits and also the assorted cheer leaders of the latte society in  Oxford  street and Newtown.

  What a strange argument!  I don't think I'll waste my time responding to such tripe.   

> Two they collect a lot of money but do so in a   measured way not to kill the goose of the golden eggs by "gradual"   implementation. They have been long of the view, in line with the  distribution  of tasks as announced by Bush senior some years ago that  Australia is to produce  raw materials and that China India Korea and  Japan are to manufacture so the  loss of a few deluded manufacturers  remaining here is of no consequence to their  "global" way of  thinking.

  ??? what issue are you arguing?    

> Anyone who believes the hoax that the future of  the  planet will be compromised by CO2 has some serious issues and a very  poor  understanding of basic chemistry and climate cycles. Why am I so  sure? Well for  once because I have years of study in climatology and  can see the lies with a  bit more ease than some. But beside that, I  don't think anyone needs to  understand anything about climate because  the political strategy behind this  farce is much easier to spot than  any inconsistency in the warmist  hypothesis.

  In reality, I don't place a whole lot of weight solely on formal qualifications.  I know many intelligent people who don't hold any formal qualifications.  I certainly don't hold anything against people who haven't had the opportunity, fortune, or inclination to undertake tertiary education. 
I'm happy to listen to anyone who can put up a logical, rational and substantiated argument.  All I've heard from you, in my opinion, is illogical, biased and unsubstantiated argument.   

> The "save the planet" flag just like the Che Guevara  flag, is  a cute story for those who avoid shaving and washing, are on  the dole and make  mud brick huts whilst lying to Centrelink in the  interviews. Once it goes  outside the fringe, it is the case of the  animal farm and it must end. The  sooner the better.

  As above - I'm happy to listen to anyone who can put up a logical, rational and  substantiated argument.  All I've heard from you, in my opinion, is  *illogical, biased and unsubstantiated* argument.   
Thank you for demonstrating my contention yet again.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> There is an economic logic to either a carbon tax or an ets, and that is through the pricing mechanism. to argue otherwise goes against logic. What needs to be argued if you look to the alternative view is that the mechanism will be self defeating, which you can't actually do until we see what the government proposes.

  Economic logic is great for an economic problem. 
I assume you wholeheartedly support the AGW hypothesis so you believe this is an environmental problem. 
We're all ears for your environmental "logic" for JuLIAR's Carbon Dioxide Tax?  
Exactly how will this cool down the Planet Earth?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> What? are you serious, your English comprehension can't be that poor that you misunderstood to this extent, so I will take this as beligerent stupidity which is what it is. Do you get a lot of pleasure from firing a series of poisonous arrows then attempting to pretend that they are not there? Maybe we should just call you Mar-liar instead

  I don't think this guy likes you Rod.   
Lucky I'm still Switzerland here, a regular peacemaker.  :Fart2:    

> these threads have a common theme they are dominated by the four drongos, maybe we could send you all on a course of basic manners and how to respond to a question

  Yeh, these AGW hypothesis supporters do go on a bit, and never respond to those pesky questions about scientific evidence to support their farcical hypothesis. 
I'm glad you've finally called them up on this. I've been meaning to do it myself.  :Biggrin:  
But you'll get used to them, and after a while even learn to enjoy their innocence.  :Innocent:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The levy they are talking about isn't of the economy crippling type

  Is it of the Planet cooling type?  :Cool:

----------


## chrisp

> Why am I so sure? Well for  once because I have years  of study in climatology and can see the lies with a  bit more ease than  some. But beside that, I don't think anyone needs to  understand  anything about climate because the political strategy behind this  farce  is much easier to spot than any inconsistency in the warmist   hypothesis.

  Would this be the "years of study in climatology" that you are referring too?    

> I lived on a water front farm for 3 decades and currently own a water front property on a tidal river.
> Do you think that after living on the water edge and boating for all my natural life I would have perhaps noticed that in the last 60 years there has been a rise in the water level?
> I have seen brass plates bolted to steel post dated 1854 and later, with water levels that are exactly the same as they are today.
> I have built jetty and steps from the jetty to the water in hardwood. Do you think that steps are a good way to see the water level? 
> Hi tide is up to the second step, low tide is down to the 8 step. Year in year out.

  I suppose all those decades ago you said to yourself, I wonder if the sea-level is rising?  Maybe I'll build some steps to see if the sea-level is rising. 
It seems to me that the rise has been too slow for you to be able to note any change from day to day. 
But, by all means, if you are happy with your anecdotal sea-level observations, and for some reason choose to ignore the measured scientific facts, you are perfectly free to do so.  But don't expect me to take your account seriously.  
(graph from: Future Climate Change - Future Sea Level Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA )

----------


## johnc

> I don't think this guy likes you Rod.     
> Yeh, these AGW hypothesis supporters do go on a bit, and never respond to those pesky questions about scientific evidence to support their farcical hypothesis. 
> I'm glad you've finally called them up on this. I've been meaning to do it myself.  
> But you'll get used to them, and after a while even learn to enjoy their innocence.

  Interesting isn't it, you claim that this is a debate about carbon tax yet we have these continual jibes and references about global warming itself. Do yourself and the rest of us a favour and stop the absurdity of making continual references to global warming and then refusing to answer any questions these references pose on the basis of the fact you are not discussing it. which quite plainly you are. 
You can generally tell when someone is on shaky ground, they run away from the argument and in the most extreme cases resort to demonising the opponent. We get occasional jibes at our politicians such as Barnaby Bananas or Julia Dullard but in the main in this country the serving prime minister or our leading politicians get the benefit of being called by their correct names, with a jibe being rare. Goebels knew only to well that when you have nothing to justify your position you need to demonise so you can dehumanise your subject and once that is achieved you can do as you want. Ju-liar is a dehumanising term demeaning both the subject and the user of the term especially the subliminal inuendo of Ju . When you consider that these forums are open to not just Australians but people from overseas then the use of only that term when talking about our PM casts all of us in a bad light and is bluntly pissing in the face of your fellow citizens. It is about time the mods stepped in and considered the wider implications of this purile term appearing in signature lines. How about some of you tidy up your act a bit and attempt to get the tone of this discussion out of the gutter it currently resides in.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> What? are you serious, your English comprehension can't be that poor that you misunderstood to this extent, so I will take this as beligerent stupidity which is what it is. Do you get a lot of pleasure from firing a series of poisonous arrows then attempting to pretend that they are not there? Maybe we should just call you Mar-liar instead, these threads have a common theme they are dominated by the four drongos, maybe we could send you all on a course of basic manners and how to respond to a question, or how to compose a response without pettiness as poor as the latte sipping childishness in your earlier effort.

  Your joking right?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Interesting isn't it, you claim that this is a debate about carbon tax yet we have these continual jibes and references about global warming itself. Do yourself and the rest of us a favour and stop the absurdity of making continual references to global warming and then refusing to answer any questions these references pose on the basis of the fact you are not discussing it. which quite plainly you are. 
> You can generally tell when someone is on shaky ground, they run away from the argument and in the most extreme cases resort to demonising the opponent.

  
Sheez which side are you on I am confused. This is exactly how the warmist operate. 
The thread is about ETS, Carbon TAX (Chrisp is obviously challenged by the TAX word), Global warming and anything even remotely to do with this farce. 
Please can you answere the question, HOW MUCH WILL THE TEMPERATURE DROP IF WE HAVE A CARBON TAX? AND WHAT WILL IT COST US? 
Also could you please explain how, (if all the revenue that is raised is given back in compensation), will this work. You realise of course business will pass on the cost to consumers! 
Maybe you could explain how population growth will affect Co2 emissions too? 
Bit hard selling a dead horse is it not? the only buyers would be blind, deaf, and not be able to smell.

----------


## Marc

Chris, your data on sea level "increase" is computer generated.
Those who  have collected data in the field disagree with all those projections and  predictions. The sea level is not changing. I posted a lot of info from  reputable specialists in sea level. Since you are so clever in cutting and  pasting past post, be so kind as to do so for me with that publication. 
A  classic is the fraud of the Maldive that are disappearing. Check out the tree  that stands not thanks to the Australians who tore it down to eliminate the  proof of this fraud. 
As for my own personal data collection of the past  60 years plus my observation of marks dated over 100 years ago, it seems to me  that they out doo your little colourful graph based on computer  modelling.
Your data starts in 1870, the marks on my grandparents property  are from 20 years earlier. 
The funny thing about all this shamozzle is  that claims by computers that the planet is heating up or the sea is rising or  the beaches disappearing or the ice cups melting, are so easily  contested.
Ordinary people have common sense, generally speaking. Own a  thermometer can visit places that hold old data, have photographs of the beach  from 100 years ago, and the arctic and the antarctic ... Well, there is Google  Earth for those who can't be bothered to see by themselves. 
When I was at  uni in the seventies, the little people from the fringe who liked to agitate,  filled our ears with noises of the Perito Moreno never again to bridge the  Magallanes peninsula.
In 88 it seemed they had their wish, yet in 2003 it  happened again. So much for global warming.  
As for my studies, all I can  say is that I have forgotten more about climatology than you will ever  know. 
However, I will not hold that against you for the very valid  reasons you listed.  
Plus, and this is the most important to remember.  Global Warming and it's alleged remedy, Carbon Dioxide Tax, are both a political  and a social experiment that uses the fringe people to give them a flag to waive  and a hope that they will finally have their day against those horrible rich  white who extort the surplus value from the masses the oppressed and the third  world at large for their own evil purposes.
Chris, you faith is noted...  However I think it is worthy of a better cause.

----------


## Marc

.  

> Dr. Don Easterbrook responded today to Andy Revkin with this email, cc:d to me  Andy,  I just read your article  on sea level alarm in the Maldives.  You may not be aware of  a study there by Nils-Axel Morner, a Swedish  sea level expert (former president  of the INQUA Commission of Sea Level  Changes and Coastal Evolution). Attached is photographic evidence by  Morner that sea level in the Maldives is *not*  rising relative to the coasts but has indeed fallen! Global sea level  has been  rising at a rate of about a foot per century but the Maldives  are either rising or  subject to a local sea level anomaly related to  ocean currents and evaporation  rates. Thus, the poster child of  Gores sea level alarm is invalid.  Don

----------


## johnc

> Tell me John, which part pricked you most, the fringe lunatic, the latte society, the oxford street, the not shaving or washing, the mud brick or the welfare part of my post? 
> Because to be honest those are just to yank the chain of whoever happens to be chained on. 
> Anyone with an intelligent interest in the subject would have replied to the many points I made.
> You are welcome to have an opinion, you are welcome to reply to my point of view. 
> As for your 'demands' ...huhu...I share personal information when I choose so.
> However if you don't have any tertiary qualifications, don't feel less for it. The Global Warming hoax has nothing to do with science even when part of the hoax is supported by well paid self appointed experts. 
> It is all about politics and social engineering.
> So see the part about the socially maladjusted is perfectly pertinent even when not politically correct.
> Face it, AGW is a joke yet only a selected few are laughing, and they are not on the skeptic side.

  This is the point Marc, you fire those little arrows then disown them, what made you think you are yanking anyones chain? Quite frankly all it shows is bigotry and an inability to even get a point across with any clarity. You mentioned you had studied in this area so is this another chain wank or have you really? Who knows but if I had to pick a few marks on a tree against evidence gathered by reputable scientists I know which is likely to be taken the most seriously. 
However I'm glad you think you have made a pertinent point, however pathetic mud slinging is hardly a social critique is it, it is what the moronic use when they have nothing of substance.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> However I'm glad you think you have made a pertinent point, however pathetic mud slinging is hardly a social critique is it, it is what the moronic use when they have nothing of substance.

  Johnc you are really doing a good job of this yourself stirring the pot! 
We might be a bit smarmy here sometimes bordering on personal attacks. But most of us here in this debate know how we respond and usually don't step over the line.   
But you are certainly trying hard to rouse up some intense response IMO. 
I would settle down a bit and maybe try and prove your point with some scientific facts, or perhaps try and answer a few of the questions that have been posed to you, rather than attacking the people making points or their method of doing so. 
Yes we are all a bit guilty of taking our eye off the ball occasionally and going for the man but you are excelling in this area ATM.

----------


## Dr Freud

You really should read the whole thread from the start.  You can avoid making so many factual errors that way.  :Biggrin:  
But anyway, let's press on:   

> Interesting isn't it, you claim that this is a debate about carbon tax yet we have these continual jibes and references about global warming itself.

  I claim nothing.  Read the thread from the start and you will understand this.  It will save you running off half-cocked again.  At least then you'll be a full...well, you'll figure it out.  :Biggrin:    

> refusing to answer any questions these references pose on the basis of the fact you are not discussing it. which quite plainly you are.

  Mate, not sure what you're on about here, but I'm happy to answer any questions.  Based on your obvious emotional involvement in this issue, I don't think you're going to like the answers, but feel free to ask, it's a free country.   

> You can generally tell when someone is on shaky ground, they run away from the argument and in the most extreme cases resort to demonising the opponent. We get occasional jibes at our politicians such as Barnaby Bananas or Julia Dullard but in the main in this country the serving prime minister or our leading politicians get the benefit of being called by their correct names, with a jibe being rare.

  You obviously haven't read the thread then.  :Kissing:    

> Goebels knew only to well that when you have nothing to justify your position you need to demonise so you can dehumanise your subject and once that is achieved you can do as you want.

  You're not a paid up member of the Labor Party by any chance.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  :Wink 1:   It's just that they've been trotting out this line lately.  You could at least use an original smear.  I try to make mine creative.  :2thumbsup:    

> Ju-liar is a dehumanising term demeaning both the subject and the user of the term especially the subliminal inuendo of Ju .

  Wow, you must have got an A in your philosophy subjects.  Here I was thinking it was taking the name Julia, then adding an R and having a creative and accurate word play of JuLIAR. 
Say it out loud, JuLIAR. Oooh, I feel demeaned.  :Cry:  
See a different philosophy student might look as deeply into this as you have and say that the *Ju* is to represent the Japanese indication of soft or gentle, indicating that JuLIAR is a term to indicate a soft lie, rather than a hard lie.  But hey, when you read the thread, you'll understand I much prefer reality.   

> When you consider that these forums are open to not just Australians but people from overseas then the use of only that term when talking about our PM casts all of us in a bad light and is bluntly pissing in the face of your fellow citizens.

  This is outrageous! No-one told me the WWW. was World Wide?  When did this happen? 
And I don't want to break the bad news champ, but it is the PM herself who is "pissing in the face" of all of us citizens.  I'll point this out every day of the week, just like I'll sing her praises when IMHO she is achieving something useful.  Welcome to democracy Comrade!  :Biggrin:    

> It is about time the mods stepped in and considered the wider implications of this purile term appearing in signature lines.

  I'll have to buy those shares in Kleenex.  Maybe you could contact the UN and ask them to censor the internet against maniacal tradies that think the AGW hypothesis is farcical and taxing Australians is not going to cool down the Planet Earth.  :Doh:  
Welcome to democracy Comrade!  :Biggrin:    

> How about some of you tidy up your act a bit and attempt to get the tone of this discussion out of the gutter it currently resides in.

  You've seriously gotta read the thread dude!  If you think this stuff is bad, you'll be crying into your organically grown cereal when you see what we've already been through.  That's maybe why we're all not sensitive wallflowers anymore. 
And I also love all the scientific evidence you've added to this debate.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

> Your joking right?

  I think he's the serious type mate.  :Cry:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I think he's the serious type mate.

  Very
And sensitive if he thinks it is bad to call a bloddy liar a liar. 
As in JuLIAR. Like you say when she earns respect she will get it. 
But I think she has her own actions to blame for her total loss of credibility. 
JuLIAR is a liar FULL STOP. 
Yep lucky we are in a free country or I would be sent to Siberia! 
BTW I believe in calling a spade a spade.  or a liar a liar.

----------


## Dr Freud

> This is the point Marc, you fire those little arrows then disown them, what made you think you are yanking anyones chain? Quite frankly all it shows is bigotry and an inability to even get a point across with any clarity. You mentioned you had studied in this area so is this another chain wank or have you really? Who knows but if I had to pick a few marks on a tree against evidence gathered by reputable scientists I know which is likely to be taken the most seriously. 
> However I'm glad you think you have made a pertinent point, however pathetic mud slinging is hardly a social critique is it, it is what the moronic use when they have nothing of substance.

  Like most proponents of this farcical theory, your prose is designed to bury any scientific facts, or more specifically the lack of them. 
More than happy to keep reading your literary delights, but if you want to help your own cause, you'd do well to get some facts!  :Biggrin:  
Let me get you started in the right direction: 
There is *zero* evidence proving the AGW hypothesis. 
JuLIAR's Carbon Dioxide Tax will make *zero* difference to Global Temperature measurements. 
How do you like them apples.  :Shiny:  
(Oh yeh, if you're still feeling a little sensitive, please consider *JuLIAR* in the Japanese subcultural philosophical framework, as opposed to the German subcultural philosophical framework.  I'll just stick to reality.)  :Wink 1:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Great view on EARTH HOUR.   

> *Earth Hour: A Dissent*  *by Ross McKitrick*  Image via Wikipedia  
> In 2009 I was asked by a journalist for my thoughts on the importance of Earth Hour. 
> Here is my response. 
> I abhor Earth Hour. Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance in the 20th century depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable electricity. 
> Giving women the freedom to work outside the home depended on the availability of electrical appliances that free up time from domestic chores. Getting children out of menial labour and into schools depended on the same thing, as well as the ability to provide safe indoor lighting for reading. 
> Development and provision of modern health care without electricity is absolutely impossible. The expansion of our food supply, and the promotion of hygiene and nutrition, depended on being able to irrigate fields, cook and refrigerate foods, and have a steady indoor supply of hot water. 
> Many of the world’s poor suffer brutal environmental conditions in their own homes because of the necessity of cooking over indoor fires that burn twigs and dung. This causes local deforestation and the proliferation of smoke- and parasite-related lung diseases. 
> Anyone who wants to see local conditions improve in the third world should realize the importance of access to cheap electricity from fossil-fuel based power generating stations. After all, that’s how the west developed. 
> The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonizes electricity. I cannot do that, instead I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity.
> ...

  I know how I celebrate EARTH HOUR . I go around and turn on every light in the house for 1 hour. 
Plus turn on any appliance I can. Thats celebrating electricity and the freedom it has given us.

----------


## Dr Freud

> (Oh yeh, if you're still feeling a little sensitive, please consider *JuLIAR* in the Japanese subcultural philosophical framework, as opposed to the German subcultural philosophical framework. I'll just stick to reality.)

  How timely, here's a very smart man with a good explanation of reality:   

> Very
> And sensitive if he thinks it is bad to call a bloddy liar a liar. 
> As in JuLIAR. Like you say when she earns respect she will get it. 
> But I think she has her own actions to blame for her total loss of credibility. 
> JuLIAR is a liar FULL STOP. 
> Yep lucky we are in a free country or I would be sent to Siberia! 
> BTW I believe in calling a spade a spade.  or a liar a liar.

  See how easy life can be!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

JuLIAR: Julia that is a LIAR = JuLIAR.  

> Once again, Julia Gillard tells an untruth in her speech last night on her carbon dioxide tax:  _Ms Gillard said human-induced climate change was real and opinion polls could not change that. I ask, who would I rather have on my side? she said. Alan Jones, Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt?_  _Or the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, the US National Atmospheric Administration, and every reputable climate scientist in the world?_Every? 
>   Here are just some of the climate scientists whod object to Gillard including them in her list of supporters:   Professor Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is known for his work on the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry, and has published more than 200 books and scientific papers.   Professor Nir Shaviv  is a member of the Racah Insitute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research interests cover a wide range of topics in astrophysics. ...His studies on the possible relationships between cosmic ray intensity and the Earths climate, and the Milky Ways Spiral Arms and Ice Age Epochs on Earth were widely echoed in the scientific literature.  Professor Henrik Svensmark is the head of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, at DTU Space, Technical University of Denmark.  Professor Willie Wei-Hock Soon   is an astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.  Dr. Fred Singer is the President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia.   Professor Roger Pielke Sr is Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado in Boulder and Professor Emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.   Professor John Christy is Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. In 1989 Christy and Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a NASA/Marshall scientist, developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASAs Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991.  Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASAs Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.   William Kininmonth is  a former head of Australias  National Climate Centre. Here are scientists in directly related fields who would object to Gillards statement:    Professor Bob Carter is an adjunct Research Fellow at James Cook University (Queensland). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.  Professor Vincent Courtillot  is professor of geophysics at the University of Paris Diderot and Director of the Institut de Physique du Globe in Paris. He is past president of the European Union of Geosciences and currently chairs the scientific council of the City of Paris.   Professor Freeman Dyson FRS, a world-renowned theoretical physicist, is Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton where he held a chair for many years. He is the author of numerous widely read science books.  Professor William Happer is a physicist who has specialised in the study of optics and spectros-copy. He is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University.   Professor Anthony Kelly, CBE, FRS is Emeritus Professor of Materials Science and presently Distinguished Research Fellow, Department of Materials Science, University of Cambridge, U.K. He was Vice-Chancellor of the University of Surrey from 1975 until 1994.  Here is a climate scientist who agrees man is heating the world but thinks Gillards plans wont work:       Professor Roger Pielke Jr is professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.  Here are economists who says policies such as Gillards are ineffectual responses to a dubious problem:    Professor David Henderson was formerly Head of the Economics and Statistics Department of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris. He is currently a Fellow of the Institute of Economic Affairs in London.   Professor Ross McKitrick joined the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph in 1996. He received a BA in economics from Queens University and an MA (1990) and PhD (1996) from UBC. His main area of interest is environmental economics. He is currently working on projects relating to state-contingent environmental policy, econometric methods for measuring global warming, and evaluation of climate models. Journals in which he has published include the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Geophysical Research Letters, Energy Journal, Empirical Economics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and Canadian Journal of Economics.  Here are hundreds of other scientists whod say Gillard is wrong. 
>   So against Gillards question, Id put this: 
>   Who would you rather have on your side, a proven liar, alarmist Tim Flannery and extremist Bob Brown, or Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor Roger Pielke and Professor John Christy? 
>   UPDATE  Professer Roger Pielke Jr says Gillard hasnt faced up to the pain shes about to cause - if she isnt replaced:   _ 
> Carbon pricing is supposed to create jobs by making fossil fuels appreciably more expensive, thereby creating a market signal that disfavors carbon-intensive industry and stimulates less carbon-intensive economic activity. The economic parts of theory seem sound enough._  _However, it is the political realities that the theory does not account for.  Australias economy is very carbon intensive ... Thus, if carbon pricing were to work exactly as the Prime Minister describes, it will necessary lead to a great deal of economic dislocation and changeConsider that to meet the 5% emissions reduction target (from 2000 levels), without relying on offsets or other tricks, implies that Australias economy would need to become as carbon efficient as Japans by the end of this decade. How such a profoundly disruptive transitional period would be managed is the one issue that advocates of a high carbon price have never really dealt withthe markets invisible hand will take care of it I guess...._  _The oft-stated idea that the proceeds of a carbon tax will be used to compensate those who fact higher costs does not address the issue of dislocation in the economy...._  _There are only two realistic outcomes here. One is that the carbon tax proposal is scrapped. With this speech it seems highly unlikely that Gillard will be the one doing any scrapping.  So it would probably be via an election or a change in leadership, such as if Kevin Rudd becomes captain of the Brisbane Broncos. The second possible outcome is that the carbon pricing is watered down so far that its enactment allows Labor to claim success while limiting any actual impact from the tax on the economy.  Of course, that would undercut its stated purposeto transform the economy._  _Either way, I do not see a good outcome here for Gillard or for carbon pricing._ Gillard deceives again: I am not alone | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

> by reputable scientists

   

> _Ms Gillard said..."reputable climate scientist" _

  Based on your Labor Party Nazi smears and the similarity in language here, are you actually Julia Gillard blogging under a pseudonym???  :Shock:  
Is that why you are so sensitive about the label JuLIAR??? 
Or am I way off target here???  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

At least she admits she has no idea, rather than lying! 
Kudos to you Kristina.  :2thumbsup:    

> Some guy at the debate between NSW Premier Kristina Keneally and Opposition leader Barry OFarrell asks the very basic question that journalists always miss: by how much is your carbon tax going to lower the temperature? 
>   And the answer is a scandal:    _But it was a clash with questioner Rob over Ms Keneallys support for the federal governments carbon tax that heated up her 60 minutes at the microphone._  _Asked what impact the tax would have on global temperatures and emissions, Ms Keneally replied she was not a scientist so she could not give an answer. _ _No idea if it will work. Never even asked. But lets do it anyway.   Keneally admits: no idea how much the tax will cut temperatures. If at all | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

   
Can one of you NSW people help her out and email her the correct answer:  *IF* the psychic computers are all 100% accurate, then 0.0007 degrees celsius. 
In reality, it will be irrelevant and immeasurable.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Well, apparently the MPCCC wants a Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
> So let's see: 
> JuLIAR says she massively supports an ETS. 
> The Greens massively support an ETS. 
> Windsor just said he prefers starting with an ETS. 
> Oakeshott has said many times he favours an ETS. 
> So JuLIAR, who is calling the shots so heavily that they influenced all these people above to instead announce a Carbon Dioxide Tax??? 
> Or are you *lying again*??? 
> Please explain JuLIAR???

   

> On Monday, Ms Gillard said she was compelled to introduce a carbon tax due to the fact she was leading a minority government.
> "If I'd been leading a majority government I would have been getting on with an emissions trading scheme (ETS)," she said.
> But asked on Wednesday who exactly had forced her to change tack, the prime minister *refused to name names.*   Gillard coy on Greens role in tax backflip

  Remember this:   

> Ms Gillard *promised* to deliver a more *accountable and transparent government*, saying she had learnt the lesson of the close election result and promised that a Labor government would hold to "higher standards". 
> "*Let's draw back the curtains and let the sunshine in,*" she said. 
> However, she also warned that if she failed in this task she would be "judged harshly" at the next election. 
> Ms Gillard hoped that the new parliament and the focus *transparent* and collaborative politics could achieve a "new way" forward on climate change.  $10bn for regions a fair share: Gillard | The Australian

  Those curtains are still closed JuLIAR!!!

----------


## Marc

If you are a religious man and you therefore think that gaia has anointed you to  save the planet from us the infidels...well...good for you. I am of a different  persuasion yet I will let you be and hope you will pay me in kind. That is, let  me be.
Yet you are not. You want to convert me. You are a crusader. I hate  crusaders of all persuasions, particularly those that knock at my door and  pretend to know and impose what they think is better for me. Get a life will  you! 
However since my opinion of you will not make you desist from your  crusade against the infidels, let me do some reasoning about your  methods. 
If your belief system and doctrine elaborates that CO2 is a sin  and must be reduced at all cost, a tax on CO2 is hardly the way to go and I can  tell you why. 
A punitive tax on a good or service is effective in  reducing the demand on such service only if it is of elastic demand. Elasticity  depends on the good or service in question, namely if such is non essential or  if a non taxed alternative of an equivalent price is available. 
So a tax on  mint scented toothpaste would probably be very effective since alternatives of a  different scent are available. A tax on a non essential service like Thai  massage for example would be a good deterrent. 
If professor guano wakes up  today with a brainwave and decides that a tax on kitchen salt would be a good  way to reduce blood pressure he would be once more badly mistaken. Why? Simple.  No amount of tax on salt would make the consumer reduce its use. The demand on  salt is inelastic and no amount of price hike will stop people from using the  amount they always do. 
So if you have not spotted the problem yet, let me  help you. Taxing a product or service of inelastic demand will have no effect on  the level of usage but would be extremely effective in the collection of money  since the consumer will pay and continue to use it.
A tax on a product of  elastic demand will be very effective in stopping it's use but be less effective  in collecting money since the usage will quickly stop. 
Electricity is an  essential service and a CO2 tax will not reduce it usage but will produce a  large amount of money. It will at the same time make imports from non CO2 taxed  countries more competitive and reduce Australia to a state of  dependency. 
"carbon tax" promoters should be taken to court and charged  with treason.

----------


## johnc

You have totally missed the mark on your view of a carbon tax, and the lever it is intended to apply to. For a start we know that at times of high fuel prices sales of fuel drop as people become more careful in fuel use. There is certainly a set amount of fuel that will be used in transport that is going to be consumed but there is also an amount of discretionary use that does shift with price. There is also a similar response to electricity and other utilities, raising price will reduce consumption as we look to either more efficient (less waste) usage or move to other cheaper alternatives. 
However the aim of a carbon tax is not to reduce demand by driving up price at all quite the opposite in fact. It is an economic lever that if designed correctly will make high carbon producing products more expensive, the main one of these in Australia is electricity followed by petrol and oil. By shifting some of the tax raised to compensate the consumer we leave the general public no worse off than before. However what you have done is make coal generated power more costly so the energy retailers will start to look at alternatives, and the application of some of the carbon tax to help along those industries will lead to an increase in power from alternatives taken up by the retailers. That power could be wind, tidal, gas turbine, human waste, nuclear, solar, all of which produce lower levels of greenhouse gas. We actually have a form of carbon tax already with the credits that come with solar HWS and solar power household instalations that are used by the energy retailers, although this form of credit is not as effective as it could be. 
It is not unreasonable to hit the coal generators on the basis of social cost either, their emissions do create health problems in the areas they operate especially respitory related illnesses. 
Marc you make a number of totally unfounded assumptions about religious persuasion, and attempt to tie it in to a disconected assortment of illogical steps to move to treason charges for holding an opposite view to yourself. Don't you think that is a little over the top, Calm it down a bit, just because I hold a different view to yours is no reason to be offensive. The fact that I got into the gutter for a few posts doesn't mean I intend to stay there, it just seemed to be where you and a couple of your mates like residing and I thought I'd try it for size but the odour get's a bit offensive after a while.

----------


## johnc

> Johnc you are really doing a good job of this yourself stirring the pot! 
> We might be a bit smarmy here sometimes bordering on personal attacks. But most of us here in this debate know how we respond and usually don't step over the line.  
> But you are certainly trying hard to rouse up some intense response IMO. 
> I would settle down a bit and maybe try and prove your point with some scientific facts, or perhaps try and answer a few of the questions that have been posed to you, rather than attacking the people making points or their method of doing so. 
> Yes we are all a bit guilty of taking our eye off the ball occasionally and going for the man but you are excelling in this area ATM.

  
To all of you go back over these posts from number one all the way through. There is a theme commencing from number one that people like Rod and the Dr seldom attempt to answer any questions posed and often reply with a string of quotes that don't even come close to what was asked. There is also a trend to question the character or the intelligence of the poster, none of this is particularly pleasant reading and often hard to follow. we all have a right to a view, but on this there has been no acceptance of the right of anyone to hold a seperate view. Everything is so black and white, you are either a believer in climate change or a total disbeliever  there is no middle ground. What I have read I would describe as bullying behaviour and it works as those who have tried to argue against the main protagonists eventually give up against the vile tide of insults and misquotes flung against them. This is not edifying, it is disrespectful and ignores the rights of everyone to hold differing views. 
It was obvious that appearing here and asking a question would have got no direct answer, and you did not disappoint by ever providing one, following the old path of ignoring then attacking in the style of a schoolboy debating team. However giving you back what you dish out did get your attention and that of others and what I would say to everyone here is stop feeding the trolls it is not worth the effort because they are deaf to reason and blind in their ignorance.  
Show dignity by refering to those with opposing views by thier correct names, respect the views of others, and if you hold very strong views temper your responses least you appear ignorant. 
I'm finished here, this is a great forum and a great resource don't destroy it by allowing petty politics to damage the fabric of what you have.

----------


## chrisp

> (graph from: Future Climate Change - Future Sea Level Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA )

   

> Chris, your data on sea level "increase" is computer generated.

  The middle section is *measurement* - and the sea level is *rising*.  Do you disagree with that basic fact?

----------


## chrisp

Oops!  It seems that you do...   

> Quote:
> Dr. Don Easterbrook responded today to Andy Revkin with this email, cc:d to me Andy,  I just read your article  on sea level alarm in the Maldives.   You may not be aware of  a study there by Nils-Axel Morner, a Swedish   sea level expert (former president  of the INQUA Commission of Sea  Level  Changes and Coastal Evolution). Attached is photographic evidence  by  Morner that sea level in the Maldives is *not*   rising relative to the coasts but has indeed fallen! Global sea level   has been  rising at a rate of about a foot per century but the Maldives   are either rising or  subject to a local sea level anomaly related to   ocean currents and evaporation  rates. Thus, the ‘poster child’ of   Gore’s sea level alarm is invalid.  Don

  What an interesting fellow to quote! 
You must have looked long and hard to find that "study" - how many others did you choose to ignore along the way? 
Did you check out the credibility of the source and why his conclusions are so out of kilter with every other study?  Nils-Axel Mörner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
I suppose that if you need a bit of dowsing done, he is your man...   

> He was elected "Deceiver of the year" by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for "organizing university courses about dowsing..."

  It all sounds like junk science to me.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> To all of you go back over these posts from number one all the way through. There is a theme commencing from number one that people like Rod and the Dr seldom attempt to answer any questions posed and often reply with a string of quotes that don't even come close to what was asked. There is also a trend to question the character or the intelligence of the poster, none of this is particularly pleasant reading and often hard to follow. we all have a right to a view, but on this there has been no acceptance of the right of anyone to hold a seperate view. Everything is so black and white, you are either a believer in climate change or a total disbeliever there is no middle ground. What I have read I would describe as bullying behaviour and it works as those who have tried to argue against the main protagonists eventually give up against the vile tide of insults and misquotes flung against them. This is not edifying, it is disrespectful and ignores the rights of everyone to hold differing views. 
> It was obvious that appearing here and asking a question would have got no direct answer, and you did not disappoint by ever providing one, following the old path of ignoring then attacking in the style of a schoolboy debating team. However giving you back what you dish out did get your attention and that of others and what I would say to everyone here is stop feeding the trolls it is not worth the effort because they are deaf to reason and blind in their ignorance.  
> Show dignity by refering to those with opposing views by thier correct names, respect the views of others, and if you hold very strong views temper your responses least you appear ignorant. 
> I'm finished here, this is a great forum and a great resource don't destroy it by allowing petty politics to damage the fabric of what you have.

  I have nothing to say!! except I am gob smacked. Try reading again.  Just because you don't like the answer it does not mean we haven't answered.  Says it all.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'm finished here, this is a great forum and a great resource don't destroy it by allowing petty politics to damage the fabric of what you have.

  
Seems to be a pattern forming here.  Refuse to answer some pretty basic questions, accuse others of the same, get highly indignant and slam the realists here, take the moral high ground, then spit the dummy and leave. 
This my friend achieves nothing.   
The argument will go on and on and on until the ordinary folk out there who trusted the authorities claiming AGW realize they have been dudded.  As for you and the like you will never change and will always have a  "cause" to fight for. irrespective of how just that cause is for the ordinary folk. 
Bye Bye now and we will see you in another 5000 posts somewhere.  You will find it can be pretty lonely at the top of the moral high ground.

----------


## chrisp

> The thread is about ETS, Carbon TAX (*Chrisp is obviously challenged by the TAX word*), Global warming and anything even remotely to do with this farce.

  Yes-and-no.  Yes - you are correct in the sense I have been avoiding the term 'tax', but - no - it isn't due to any fear of the word as such.   
Rather, I'm trying to keep my terminology general.  i.e. "carbon price" covers price mechanisms such as "carbon tax", "emissions trading scheme", and many other possibilities without being drawn in to an argument as to the merits of one over the other - or to be seen as favouring one over the other. 
I am of no doubt that some form of price will be placed on carbon dioxide emissions.  It is really just a matter of when and the form of the 'price'.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Yes-and-no. Yes - you are correct in the sense I have been avoiding the term 'tax', but - no - it isn't due to any fear of the word as such.  
> Rather, I'm trying to keep my terminology general. i.e. "carbon price" covers price mechanisms such as "carbon tax", "emissions trading scheme", and many other possibilities without being drawn in to an argument as to the merits of one over the other - or to be seen as favouring one over the other. 
> I am of no doubt that some form of price will be placed on carbon dioxide emissions. It is really just a matter of when and the form of the 'price'.

  I see your point except that we have now evolved from discussing "pricing" mechanisims to having  a TAX on the table to achieve this.  So now we can call the "price' what it is, that is a TAX. 
When people call it a "carbon price" rather than a "CARBON DIOXIDE TAX" it comes across as having something to hide by trying to call it a "softer" name. 
The effect of this is to question other things these people say.  It will further damage Gillards credibility (if thats possible), if she continues this charade. 
You will only fool some people with this wordsmithing, but will turn off the masses, this is showing in the polls. 
Call a spade a spade.

----------


## chrisp

> When people call it a "carbon price" rather than a "CARBON DIOXIDE TAX" it comes across as having something to hide by trying to call it a "softer" name.

  There is another side to the 'price' or 'tax'. 
Money will be collected from CO2 emitters - but where will that money go? 
A likely scenario is that CO2 producers will be taxed and the equivalent non-CO2 industry will be subsidised. 
For example, if you sign up for green power at present, you pay a premium.  However, if the coal fired power station has to pay an additional tax the cost differential will be less. 
Also, if the revenue from the CO2 tax is used to subsidise the non-CO2 power (solar, wind, geo-thermal, etc), then the price differential may even change to make the renewable energy the cheapest to the consumer. 
Most likely, this sort of change will be brought in progressively over many years or decades by changing the tax rate at each budget time. 
Investment in the fossil fuel power industry will decline and the investment in renewable energy will increase.  CO2 emissions will progressively drop - and eventually global warming will abate.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Investment in the fossil fuel power industry will decline and the investment in renewable energy will increase. CO2 emissions will progressively drop - and eventually global warming will abate.

  Ok assuming all the rest of the post is true.  On what basis do you make the statement that global warming will abate? How much can we expect the temperature to drop from current levels?   
Personally I think trying to reduce emissions of CO2 is like pissing in the ocean to warm the water.

----------


## chrisp

> Ok assuming all the rest of the post is true.  On what basis do you make the statement that global warming will abate? How much can we expect the temperature to drop from current levels?   
> Personally I think trying to reduce emissions of CO2 is like pissing in the ocean to warm the water.

  Rod, 
The answer is simple and staring you in the face - *we can cool it as much as we have warmed it*.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The best way to protect the poor from the ravages of the climate is to make them middle-class, and that takes energy. The fact that we are depriving the world’s poor of energy now, in order to save them from a hypothesized and ill-supported possible calamity fifty years from now, is a monstrous aberration of basic justice that history will rightly condemn.

  Very good comment.  Read the article here Not Evil, Just Destructive | Watts Up With That?  This bloke makes sense.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> The answer is simple and staring you in the face - *we can cool it as much as we have warmed it*.

  
I can't believe that you can really be sincere in believing this. I just cant fathom the giant leaps of faith required to come to this conclusion. I can't see how when you weigh up all the information for and against that you can believe this can be achieved. 
I don't doubt your belief, I just can't comprehend how you can come to this conclusion. 
BTW how much have WE warmed it as opposed to natural variations?

----------


## chrisp

> btw how much have we warmed it as opposed to natural variations?

  *0.7°c*

----------


## Marc

Ishtar's Gate &bull; View topic - World Sea Levels Are Not Rising   

> *World Sea Levels Are Not Rising*  by *Cognito* » Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:37 am 
>   			  			This thread may grab some people's attention,  and hopefully some of KABOOM's friends. While reviewing an article a few  days ago I became interested in locating raw data that would tell me  how much worldwide sea levels have increased in the last 20 years. Of  course, everyone knows that sea levels are on the rise, just ask Al  Gore. The IPCC's latest report projects a 0.18m to 0.59m rise by the  year 2100 (that's 7 to 23 inches for you Yanks in the crowd).  So here  is a graph of global main seal level increases:   *Source: Univ of Colorado Jason-1 Project - Data from 1992 through 2010* *Website: University of Colorado Global mean sea level
> Raw data: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.txt* 
> Sure looks like sea levels are on the march to the upper right of the chart, right? No wonder climate experts are wringing their hands over the impending doom as seawater threatens to inundate our coastal cities!!!    
> Hmm,  the 60-day smoothed line over that 18-year period starts at -0.24mm and  ends at +.30mm, an increase of 0.54mm over 18 years. That equates to  3mm per year. If I extrapolate that for the next 90 years, then I get a  270mm (0.27m, or 10½ inches) sea level increase which is somewhat on the  low side of the IPCC estimate above. However, if I start with the  beginning data point of -0.28mm and then use the ending data point of  +0.20mm, I have a 0.48mm increase over 18 years, or an average of 2.67mm  per year and that number extrapolated over the next 90 years equates to  240mm (0.24m, or 9½ inches) which is getting near the low point of the  IPCC estimate. 
> What's going on here, anyway? 
> Taking this further, I calcuated the last fives years' increase and came up with this:   
> WTF?  Worldwide sea levels decreased in the last 5 years? Getting suspicious  and wondering what happened over the last decade, I came up with this:   
> In  the last decade sea levels only increased by 10.6mm, or a rate of  1.06mm/yr. Extrapolating that number to 2100 gives me 90mm, 3½ inches!!  Now, I don't know about you, but if I promised someone 10½ or even 9½  inches, and only came across with 3½ inches, I would be flung from the  bed! 
> ...

----------


## Marc

> A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy  based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.To "attack a straw  man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by  substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent  proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having  actually refuted the original position.

  Chris, you cheap attack of Dr Mörner because you don't believe in divination and he does is a strawman argument. You have yet to say one credible iota to provide support for your data.
I believe there are aliens, in fact I claim to have seen a large number of UFO. Does that make my knowledge or opinion less credible? 
Do you know what is the most expensive thing in the world?
A CLOSED MIND

----------


## Marc

*Re: World Sea Levels Are Not Rising*  by *Digit* » Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:16 pm 
                            Measuring sea levels from a land platform is  impossible. We have no absolute base line to work from as land also  rises and falls, so certain enthusiasts quote satelite measurements.
So perhaps someone would tell me how accurate those can be as satelite orbits are not consistant.
The figures used in the UK are from the official site at Newquay, Cornwall. Snag, the land is sinking! 
Roy.
              First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt  Digit *Posts:* 1008*Joined:* Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:57 pm               Top   *Re: World Sea Levels Are Not Rising*  by *ColoradoBruce* » Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:05 pm  http://www.climatechangefacts.info/Clim ... erview.pdfClaim That Sea Level Is
Rising Is a Total FraudEvery Rock Tells a Story   ColoradoBruce *Posts:* 14*Joined:* Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:59 pm                  YIM Top   *Re: World Sea Levels Are Not Rising*  by *Ishtar* » Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:33 pm 
                            Blaming ourselves for global warming is the new Original Sin. 
Now that the scientists have deleted God, we've got to have something to feel guilty about.  
Personally,  I'm just going to stick to feeling guilty about eating too many  chocolate-covered raisins. That's quite enough guilt for one lifetime,  thank you very much!  *The only difference between history and mythology is that mythology is true.*   Ishtar *Posts:* 4602*Joined:* Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:05 pm*Location:* Glastonbury, England                  Website Top   *Re: World Sea Levels Are Not Rising*  by *Cognito* » Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:30 am Measuring sea  levels from a land platform is impossible. We have no absolute base line  to work from as land also rises and falls, so certain enthusiasts quote  satellite measurements.That's my point, Roy. By  estimating that sealevels could change anywhere from negligible to half a  metre in 90 years, we are simply in the statitiscal variation range. If  that is true (which it is), why bother throwing billions and billions  at a non-existent problem? 
Unfortunately, the answer appears to  be greed. This entire debacle is only meant to provide for people's  livelihood who cry doom. How can a potential half metre rise in sea levels in 90 years be considered a disaster? *The pen is mightier than the sword, and considerably easier to write with.*   Cognito *Posts:* 880*Joined:* Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:36 pm*Location:* Southern California               Top   *Re: World Sea Levels Are Not Rising*  by *Cognito* » Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:00 am Blaming ourselves for global warming is the new Original Sin.And  befitting an appropriate punishment, of course. The nouveau Original  Sin that is to be burned from our souls is wrapped up in CO2 so tightly  that people cannot see straight. Here is one possible solution that  recently hit the media, a "small nuclear war":   *Mururoa atoll in French Polynesia in the early seventies (AP)* 
See: Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years 
I  sincerely hope that the geniuses who thought up that article don't move  into the cost/benefit ratio of a "small nuclear war", being the  inconvenient death of millions or billions of humans played off against  the illusory benefit of cooling the planet.  *The pen is mightier than the sword, and considerably easier to write with.*   Cognito *Posts:* 880*Joined:* Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:36 pm*Location:* Southern California               Top   *Re: World Sea Levels Are Not Rising*  by *Ishtar* » Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:00 am 
                            That makes perfect sense according to SnowyWereWolf on Twitter's theory: 
"The trouble with science is that it comes from a Christian mindset but without their god." 
This  latest scenario is Armegeddon, where only the good (for good, read  'rich') survive and go to the Promised Land (for Promised Land, read  'the Earth without all those other skanky humans on it') and the bad  (for bad, read 'poor) are sent to Hell.  
To paraphrase  Revelations. 19: 11-20, Rev. 20: 1-3, 7-10: Fire will come down from God  (for God, read 'Bill Gates'), out of heaven (for heaven, read 'the  heavens') and devour Gog and Magog after the Millennium, and the Devil  who deceived them is thrown into Gehenna (the Lake of Fire and brimstone  or Hell). *The only difference between history and mythology is that mythology is true.*   Ishtar *Posts:* 4602*Joined:* Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:05 pm*Location:* Glastonbury, England                  Website Top   *Re: World Sea Levels Are Not Rising*  by *Chris* » Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:20 am 
                            Agenda 21 was a revelation for me.
I think it's a UN superplan.  Agenda 21

----------


## chrisp

> I believe there are aliens, in fact I claim to have seen a large number of UFO. Does that make my knowledge or opinion less credible?

  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Carl Sagan) 
"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." (Pierre-Simon Laplace)

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *0.7°c*

  Ok so no warming is natural in your opinion.  Psst got a good bridge for salle cheap!!

----------


## chrisp

> Chris, you cheap attack of Dr Mörner because you don't believe in divination and he does is a strawman argument. You have yet to say one credible iota to provide support for your data.

  True - it was a cheap shot.  But do you REALLY believe him over all the other well regarded evidence? 
BTW, I did quote a reputable source to the graph.  AND you posted evidence of the rise yourself! 
BTW2, why didn't you correct the mathematics errors ("increase of *0.54mm* over 18 years" when it is actually *54mm)*  - or didn't you read it (or perhaps you prefer the lower, wrong, number)?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Carl Sagan) 
> "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." (Pierre-Simon Laplace)

  yes you have nailed the AGW theory in one. 
it is an extraordinary claim that we have the power to affect something as dynamic as climate.   
Now can you provide any proof of this/  I will let you off the extraordinary evidence.  Any will do.

----------


## chrisp

> Ok so no warming is natural in your opinion.

  There is very little natural warming in the 0.7*°*C.  

> Psst got a good bridge for salle cheap!!

  ... just like you've got a plausible anti-AGW theory too!!!

----------


## chrisp

> Now can you provide any proof of this/  I will let you off the extraordinary evidence.  Any will do.

  The evidence is all around you to see.   CO2 levels are up.The CO2 increase is almost purely due to man-made causes.The average global temperature has increased.Sea-levels are increasing (due to thermal expansion of water, and partially some ice melt).
BTW, the sea-level bizzo is more of an secondary effect of the warming rather than primary concern in itself.  It adds significant weight to the world-is-warming argument - how could the world warm without the sea-level rising?

----------


## chrisp

> Ishtar's Gate &bull; View topic - World Sea Levels Are Not Rising     
> 			
> 				Hmm,  the 60-day smoothed line over that 18-year period starts at  -0.24mm and  ends at +.30mm, an increase of 0.54mm over 18 years. That  equates to  3mm per year. If I extrapolate that for the next 90 years,  then I get a  270mm (0.27m, or 10½ inches) sea level increase which is  somewhat on the  low side of the IPCC estimate above. However, if I  start with the  beginning data point of -0.28mm and then use the ending  data point of  +0.20mm, I have a 0.48mm increase over 18 years, or an  average of 2.67mm  per year and that number extrapolated over the next  90 years equates to  240mm (0.24m, or 9½ inches) which is getting near  the low point of the  IPCC estimate. 
> What's going on here, anyway?

  And just to address this one further.  What's going on?  (Other than the obvious mathematics errors - but the 3mm/year is right). 
The projection will cover the *thermal expansion* of the ocean and the sea-level rise due to that expansion. 
What the quoted article hasn't factored in the the sea-level rise due to *ice melt*.  The ice melt is somewhat time delayed.

----------


## chrisp

> As for my studies, all I can  say is that I have forgotten more about climatology than you will ever  know.

  I reckon that you might be right!   :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

*Is the planet still warming?* 
 			 				Paul MacRae, March 9, 2008 *If the temperature data since 2001 is correct, climate change is clearly not due primarily to carbon dioxide levels.*  
 Has global warming stopped? Thats the title of an article published in December in _The New Statesman_ by respected British science journalist David Whitehouse.
 Surely not, writes Whitehouse. What heresy is this? Havent we  been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and  that all thats left to the so-called skeptics is the odd errant  glacier that refuses to melt?
 Yet an end to the warming, at least temporarily, is what the climate  data since about 2001 shows. The average temperature of the Northern  Hemisphere has been warming only slightly or flat-lined. Average  temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere are falling. And the average of  the two temperatures is flatno warming for the past seven years.
 Readers can check the data for themselves at the *British Meteorological Office website* or *Anthony Watts site.* The data not only shows flatlined warming, but a temperature plunge in the past year (see Figure 1).  	Figure 1  *The planet isnt warming* 
 The various official climate bodies, such as the UNs  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, arent saying much, if  anything, about this non-warming trend, and no wonder. Its a very  inconvenient truth for those who believe that carbon dioxide, and  especially human-caused carbon dioxide, is the main cause of global  warming.
 No warming is very inconvenient because carbon dioxide levels are  still rising steadily; as seen in Figure 2 below in green, they make a  45-degree line. And if carbon dioxide is the _principal_ cause of global warming, as environmental crusaders like Al Gore tell us, then the planet should be warming, period.
 But if the planet isnt warming, even temporarily (and seven to ten  years of not warming is a bit more than a statistical blip), then  something else besides CO2 must be the main driver of both the warming  and cooling of our planet.  	Figure 2. Carbon dioxide and temperature levels compared 
 Figure 2 shows carbon dioxide levels (green) and temperatures (blue)  since 1979 shown together. Does it look like carbon dioxide is the main  driver of temperature change?
 That CO2 isnt the culprit is almost certain since carbon dioxide  represents barely .04 per cent of atmospheric gases, or about 400 parts  per million. Thats the equivalent of 40 people in a 100,000-seat sports  stadium. Meanwhile, the human-generated portion of total carbon  emissions each year is only about three per cent of that (Environment  Canadas website puts human-caused carbon dioxide at a mere two per  cent). The rest  97 per cent  comes from natural sources like decaying  vegetation, volcanoes, and the oceans.
 That means the human contribution to carbon dioxide per year is about  12 parts per million. In a stadium holding 100,000 cheering people,  that would be one person. Its unlikely youd be able to pick out the  signal-thats the climatologists term for the anthropogenic CO2  contribution to warming -from one voice in such a throng.
 How an increase in carbon dioxide that tiny could be causing the  warming we saw from the 1970s to the start of the 21st century is hard  to imagine. In fact, its absurd. Yet, thats what were told is gospel  truth by the global-warming believers. *Flatline warming an inconvenient truth* 
 This flat-lined warming is also an inconvenient truth for those  whove demonized global-warming skeptics. Normally in scientific debate  there is a belief that other theories are in error, but a mutual respect  for differing points of view. This has not been the case on the global  warming issue. Those skeptical of the human-caused global warming  consensus have been attacked as immoral, irresponsible,  scientifically illiterate and even dangerous. Worse, they have  labeled as deniers, and therefore on a par with Holocaust deniers.
 In other words, the issue of global warming has gone beyond science  into the realm of ideology and even religion. For many warming  supporters, the idea that humans are causing climate change has taken  the place of Original Sin, and human-caused warming has become a dogma  impervious to facts.
 Its very possible that over the next century the climate will warm  up again, and cool again, and warm again. Thats what climate doesit  changes, sometimes rapidly. In the last 200 years the climate has gone  from cold in the 1800s to very warm up to the 1940s, to cold up to the  1980s, to warm from the 1980s on. The earlier fluctuations cant have  been caused by humans; nor, it seems, is the most recent shift to  warming and now, apparently, cooling.
 That we may be entering another spell of cold for the next decade or  two isnt good news, though: History shows that cold times are tough  times for human beings, while warm times are better.
 Even worse: our planet has been in an ice age for the past two and a  half million years. The cold, glacial times go on for 80,000 years or  so, while the warm, interglacial periods, like the one were in, last a  mere 10,000-20,000 years. Were past the mid-point of our interglacial.
 In other words, carbon dioxide emissions arent humanitys enemy; if  the temperature data since 2001 is correct, warming is clearly not due  primarily to carbon dioxide levels. Nor is technological civilization  our enemy, nor is global warming itself, however caused. The latest  climate figures hint that our most ancient and deadly enemy   two-kilometre-high mountains of ice  may be returning. A new Ice Age   thats the doomsday to worry about, not warming. Back to home page 
 			 				7 Comments 				Climate change  *7 Responses to Is the planet still warming?*    			Gilles-L.Caisse on 15 Jun 2008 at 10:02 pm #   
 			When I was in school, I was thought that it was warming that generated CO2, not the opposite. 
 And that tropical forests were generating more CO2 than transforming  it into oxygen, which would  disqualify  them as the planets ultimate  lungs. 			Benson on 06 Sep 2009 at 2:19 pm #   
 			You know, the debate going on about global warming made my mind spin.
Both sides wanted to pull me in, and there were irrefutable evidence on both sides. They all sounded good.
 All of you should read State of Fear by michael chrichton. 			Richard Lock on 24 Nov 2009 at 11:12 am #   
 			Hers a link to information I found at the NASA website. When  looking at overall global temperatures and removing the 1998 spike which  was caused by El Nino there is a strong warming trend from 1999 to  2008. Also the warming trend over the last 50 years (about 0.13° C or  0.23° F per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.  Climate Change: News Paul MacRae on 26 Nov 2009 at 4:30 pm #   
 			Richard,
 I find the same frustration with this kind of argument that, I guess,  global warming believers feel when skeptics like myself challenge them  on whether warming is human-caused or not. It is true that the record  shows warming or cooling depending on when you start the series. If you  start in 2001, you get no warming, on average. If you start earlier, you  get warming.
 The key thing, for me, is that not one of the IPCC models predicted  the current non-warming, even though they must have been aware at the  very least of the alternating cooling and warming of the Pacific and  Atlantic currents, and perhaps the reduction of solar activity, too. Why  dont the models show cooling, then? They do, actually, but only if the  anthropogenic influence is removed. In other words, the models are *overestimating*  the human influence, which is what most skeptics believe. We dont  believe that warming has stoppedwere in an interglacial, after all,  which means overall the planet is warming. And thank heavens it is; the  alternative is cooling. Warming doesnt mean humans are principally at  fault, although we may be contributing slightly.
 As for the NASA figures: this site is run by James Hansen, and the  Goddard temperature figures are consistently higher than the other three  climate auditing institutes (UAH, RSS and Hadley). I dont think Hansen  is a trustworthy guide to whats happening with the climate, given his  extreme political position on the topic.
 Even RealClimate has admitted that the planet hasnt warmed, on  average, for the past 10 years. But you can find definitive proof, I  think, in the East Anglia University CRU emails. What they are about is  non-warming (or, as Stephen Schneider calls it, 10 years of stasis),  and how they can keep the public from finding out (hide the decline). 
 The emails also reveal a pattern of trying to suppress alternative  points of view (if the AGW view is correct, theres no need to suppress  other points of viewthey will be obviously wrong) and of fixing the  data to show warming. Theres no reason to believe Goddard isnt doing  the sameits all the same gang (Schneider, Mann, Trenberth, etc.).
 I could be wrong, of course, but at least Im not deliberately trying to deceive the public.
 Paul Larry L. Olson on 16 Mar 2010 at 3:36 pm #   
 			My study on planetary gravitational interactions accounts for 81%  of the unexplained heat input to the earth.  You may want to give it a  look. 			Bill Grant on 01 Jul 2010 at 5:20 pm #   
 			Hi
 I am a scientist.  It appears to me that you are not objective.  You  are trying to prove your thesis, and are cherry-picking data (e.g.  showing temperature data for North America and not global temperature,  when there has been localised abnormally cool conditions going against  the global trends; repeating the myth that additional greenhouse gases  will not absorb any more heat; and rerunning may other theories that  have been tested and found to not explain warming as well as the AGW  thesis.).  According to your logic, there was cooling during the early  1990s (similar to now  there were some cooler years and people who  dont understand statistics  like yourself  could have claimed a  cooling trend).  Answer this  how much cooler is Earth today compared  to 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990?  
 I hope you are right about AGW, but to imply that there is no  evidence is frankly deceptive and shows a lack of impartiality.  As I  see it:  Greenhouse gases cause warming.  Increasing these will result  in some warming and some climate change.  There is risk that doubling or  trebling pre-industrial levels will result in catastrophic climate  change.  Prudent risk management is to show caution until we better  understand how much impact there will be.  Short term cooling/slowing  in the warming trend during a period of very low solar/sun spot activity  and increased dimming smog throughout China, India, SE Asia does not  disprove the risk.
 You want to sell a book  and you will not let logic get in the way.   But for the sake of the future dont try to claim an objectivity. Paul MacRae on 02 Jul 2010 at 11:30 am #   
 			Bill, 
 Actually, events have overtaken this post, which was written in 2008.  Since then weve learned, via no less a source than Phil Jones, former  head of the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University, that there  has been no statistically significant warming since 1998, and some  cooling since 2002 (although he says its not statistically  significantapparently, for Jones, nothing but warming can be  statistically significant). 
 A gadget on the NOAA website shows cooling, on average, in the continental U.S. since 1997 (see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html).  In general, temperatures in the U.S. mirror global temperatures, in  part because the U.S. has the best temperature record. The temperature  claims in this post, however, are not for the U.S., as you state, but  the global record as recorded by the Hadley institute (HADCRUT). 
 In other words, theres been no warming, on average in 12 years.  During this whole time, the public has been bludgeoned with fears about  warmingthe 2007 IPCC report even declared that the warming in the 21st  century was unequivocal when no warming has occurred. 
 You are right that the planet is cooling because of a lack of solar  activity and, although you dont mention it, a cooling of the Pacific  Ocean is also involved. In other words, natural variation has  overwhelmed carbon dioxide (and definitely overwhelmed anthropogenic  carbon dioxide) as a source of temperature change. When the solar  activity returns, and the PDO goes into its warm cycle, the planet will  warm again. No humans need apply.
 On a decadal scale, the earth was a bit warmer than today during the  1930s, and the 21st century is slightly cooler than the 1990s.
 As for carbon dioxide saturation (the myth you mention): even  alarmist climatologist William Ruddiman (and many others) acknowledges  that the warming effect of additional carbon dioxide decreases  logarithmically. So, Ruddiman has written: Earths temperature reacts  strongly to small changes in CO2 values at the lower end of the range  (less than 200 ppm), but changes much less at the high end of the range  (greater than 800 ppm).
 We are well past the point where additional carbon dioxide will cause  more than minimal additional warming, perhaps a degree or two Celsius,  not more. Which is pretty much what the current climate record is  telling us (no warming, despite additional CO2). Id say its illogical  to argue that we are facing oblivion if we add more CO2. Other factors  are far more important.

----------


## Marc

*No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off* 
 					 						Veröffentlicht am 27. Februar 2009 von *infowars* in Klimalüge/Ökofaschismus, UN, Wissenschaft/ Technik   1  *UN scientists admit that natural              weather occurrences more powerful than CO2 emissions* Paul Joseph Watson
Prison *Planet*
April 4, 2008
 Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather  occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2  emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global *warming* since 1998.  But despite overwhelming signs of global           cooling  Chinas           coldest winter for 100 years and record           snow levels across Northeast           America  allied with temperature records showing a decline  global *warming* advocates still cling to the notion that _the world is cooling because of global warming!_  Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a  result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN  meteorologists have said, reports             the BBC. The World Meteorological Organizations  secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La  Nina would continue into the summer. _This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory. _ The report admits that La Nina and its counterpart, El           Nino, are two great *natural* Pacific currents           whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.
 Wait a minute.
 According to man-made global *warming*  advocates, CO2 emissions are the main driver of climate change and  natural weather patterns caused by sun activity and other native  contributors play second fiddle.
 But here we have UN climate scientists admitting that natural climate  change contributors have eclipsed the effect of CO2 emissions for the  past 10 years, even as carbon belchers like China and India have  increased CO2 output at record levels! Global temperatures have remained reasonably flat since a  decline in 1998 and cooling trends are now being observed despite the  fact that carbon dioxide levels have increased in the atmosphere (see  graph below).  Indeed, the           latest evidence from climatological surveys shows that the earths upper oceans and the troposphere, the primary indicators of climate change, have *not* been *warming* for the last four years.  On the whole, the world is getting colder (see above), which is why global *warming* suddenly became climate change when temperature levels since 2003 started to prove the alarmists wrong. Carbon           emissions have never driven climate change because as ice core samples           clearly show, carbon dioxide _is a consequence of temperature increase_ and *not* a cause of it, sometimes lagging behind by as much as 800 years. 
 Following the accelerated industrialization period of 1940-1970, when  carbon emissions reached a crescendo, global temperatures plummeted,  prompting an international fearmongering campaign about the deadly  consequences of _global cooling_. So-called           experts were lavished with media platforms  to tell us that all animal life in the sea would be extinct by 1979 and  England would be underwater by the year 2000, amidst a myriad of other  outlandish proclamations.
 As the graph above shows, an expected downturn in global temperatures  over the next 15 years will force climate change alarmists to become  even more feverish.
 Al Gores army are going to have to get more creative and blame any  weather event whatsoever, be it hurricanes, tsunamis, or floods that  have battered the *planet* for eons, and yes even _global           cooling,_  on their favorite justification to tax, regulate and control           every aspect of our life  _global warming_.   Share  StumbleUponDiggRedditPrintE-MailFacebook     Like
Sei der Erste, dem dieser post gefällt. 
 	Kommentare

----------


## Marc

http://www.fcpp.org/files/1/Tim%20Ba...2002092011.pdf

----------


## chrisp

> *Is the planet still warming?* 
>                               Paul MacRae, March 9, 2008 *If the temperature data since 2001 is correct, climate change is clearly not due primarily to carbon dioxide levels.*  
>  Has global warming stopped? Thats the title of an article published in December in _The New Statesman_ by respected British science journalist David Whitehouse.
>  Surely not, writes Whitehouse. What heresy is this? Havent we  been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and  that all thats left to the so-called skeptics is the odd errant  glacier that refuses to melt?
>  Yet an end to the warming, at least temporarily, is what the climate  data since about 2001 shows. The average temperature of the Northern  Hemisphere has been warming only slightly or flat-lined. Average  temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere are falling. And the average of  the two temperatures is flatno warming for the past seven years. Readers can check the data for themselves at the *British Meteorological Office website* or *Anthony Watts site.* The data not only shows flatlined warming, but a temperature plunge in the past year (see Figure 1).      Figure 1

  What an excellent suggestion - readers, please check the data for yourselves.  My experience with these blogs that claim to re-analyse datasets, is often they misrepresent the data or hone in on some short-term change.   
From: Global temperatures - Met Office   *I wonder why Paul MacRae hasn't updated his blog with the latest information?*

----------


## Dr Freud

> I agree that the debate should be on the shape and form of the carbon price (alright, alright "carbon dioxide price" for the Doc  ).

  Carbon Dioxide Tax please, not for me, for reality.  :Biggrin:    

> However, it seems to me that the anti-carbon price side seems to like to run with the ambit claim (and argument) that AGW is a hoax or that the planet isn't warming.

  The AGW hypothesis states that human emissions are responsible for all of the measured temperature increases since the industrial age.  We sceptics argue that this has not been proven, so we will not pay a tax for a hypothesis.  Many people have hyped this hypothesis into a hoax, and any measured warming is yet to be accurately attributed.  This is very different to saying there is no warming.  You AGW hypothesis believers like to misdirect the debate with these semantics to avoid the uncomfortable truth that you have zero scientific evidence proving this farce.   

> In the meantime, governments are introducing a  price on carbon and the argument has been distracted to the existence of  AGW.

  The AGW hypothesis is yet to be proven.  This is not a distraction, this is a scientific fact.  One day, hopefully soon, the balance of the population will understand this scientific fact and this farce will be over.   

> It is a  scientifically well supported position that CO2 contributes to global  warming.

  So does the Sun, the mantle, water vapour, and your farts, among many other things.  No one argues these things.  The question that twists our noodles is what proportions and when.  The AGW hypothesis says only human CO2 emissions.  All the others are are miraculous zero net contributors according to the psychic computers.  That is why it is a farce.   

> It seems to me that to hold a contrary position - one which is not  supported by science - is akin to being "religious".

  Let me say it again, the AGW hypothesis is yet to be proven.  This is not a distraction, this is a scientific fact.  This "position" is not "supported" by the science, it is the science.   

> This is a good example of a poorly constructed argument and poor logic. You are using a inappropriate basis for your comparison. To be valid, you need to compare what Australian's can do to Australia's CO2 emissions.

  So you think that Australia uses a separate atmosphere to the rest of the world?  :Doh:    

> Your argument is like saying "I won't give up smoking as it will only make 0.000000015% difference to the worlds fatality rate".

  It was clearly explained to you earlier in the thread when you first used this flawed analogy that it is useless.  If all these smokers shared the same lung, your analogy would be close, but they do not.  Get some new material mate.   

> It is true that China is the worlds biggest emitter of CO2, But have you tried re-framing your argument on a per capita basis to see how the figures stack up?

  As has also been clearly confirmed previously in this thread, discussing reducing CO2 emissions on a "per capita" basis is less than useless.  Read it again to refresh yourself.   

> CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming. The warming increases the water vapour in the atmospheric. water vapour is also a greenhouse gas and causes further warming...

  So now you admit that the CO2 is not going to cause any catastrophic warming, it's going to be the clouds.  :Doh:  
I guess we'll be needing a cloud tax instead?

----------


## Dr Freud

See now, this is well worth reading again.   

> If you are a religious man and you therefore think that gaia has anointed you to  save the planet from us the infidels...well...good for you. I am of a different  persuasion yet I will let you be and hope you will pay me in kind. That is, let  me be.
> Yet you are not. You want to convert me. You are a crusader. I hate  crusaders of all persuasions, particularly those that knock at my door and  pretend to know and impose what they think is better for me. Get a life will  you! 
> However since my opinion of you will not make you desist from your  crusade against the infidels, let me do some reasoning about your  methods. 
> If your belief system and doctrine elaborates that CO2 is a sin  and must be reduced at all cost, a tax on CO2 is hardly the way to go and I can  tell you why. 
> A punitive tax on a good or service is effective in  reducing the demand on such service only if it is of elastic demand. Elasticity  depends on the good or service in question, namely if such is non essential or  if a non taxed alternative of an equivalent price is available. 
> So a tax on  mint scented toothpaste would probably be very effective since alternatives of a  different scent are available. A tax on a non essential service like Thai  massage for example would be a good deterrent. 
> If professor guano wakes up  today with a brainwave and decides that a tax on kitchen salt would be a good  way to reduce blood pressure he would be once more badly mistaken. Why? Simple.  No amount of tax on salt would make the consumer reduce its use. The demand on  salt is inelastic and no amount of price hike will stop people from using the  amount they always do. 
> So if you have not spotted the problem yet, let me  help you. Taxing a product or service of inelastic demand will have no effect on  the level of usage but would be extremely effective in the collection of money  since the consumer will pay and continue to use it.
> A tax on a product of  elastic demand will be very effective in stopping it's use but be less effective  in collecting money since the usage will quickly stop. 
> ...

----------


## Dr Freud

> You have totally missed the mark on your view of a carbon tax, and the lever it is intended to apply to.

  Someone certainly missed something.  :Doh:  
One thing missed is that it is a Carbon Dioxide Tax.  Carbon is represented by "C", Carbon Dioxide is represented by "CO2", (i.e. One "C" and two "O"s).  You should look this stuff up sometime, it makes this issue much easier to understand.  :Biggrin:    

> For a start we know that at times of high fuel prices sales of fuel drop as people become more careful in fuel use.

  These tiny amounts were never the richer people who didn't notice, and the poorer people will now be compensated *more than* the increases, so no-one will notice.  No decreased use!  Good plan, huh?   

> There is certainly a set amount of fuel that will be used in transport that is going to be consumed but there is also an amount of discretionary use that does shift with price.

  JuLIAR said compensation ensures no financial pain for those poorer, and the richer will not care.  No reductions. Good plan, huh?   

> There is also a similar response to electricity and other utilities, raising price will reduce consumption as we look to either more efficient (less waste) usage or move to other cheaper alternatives.

  JuLIAR said compensation ensures no financial pain for those poorer, and the richer will not care.  No reductions. Good plan, huh?   

> However the aim of a carbon tax is not to reduce demand by driving up price at all quite the opposite in fact. It is an economic lever that if designed correctly will make high carbon producing products more expensive, the main one of these in Australia is electricity followed by petrol and oil.

  Again, CO2! But mate, you've got some serious issues here.  You are trying this tax will not be "driving up price", but will do the "opposite" of making products "more expensive".  :Doh:  
Champ, on this Planet, driving up prices is exactly the same as making things more expensive, not the opposite.  Who are you, Wayne Swan???   

> By shifting some of the tax raised to compensate the consumer we leave the general public no worse off than before.

  What, all of the general public will be no worse off? What happened to:   

> there is also an amount of discretionary use that does shift with price.

  If the consumer is no worse off, there is no price signal, so there is no shift, so there is no reduction.  Are we there yet?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):    

> However what you have done is make coal generated power more costly so the energy retailers will start to look at alternatives, and the application of some of the carbon tax to help along those industries will lead to an increase in power from alternatives taken up by the retailers.

  Do you not understand the change in economies of scale you are talking about? It is not going to happen at $26 a tonne per CO2 (note that is Carbon Dioxide, if it was $26 a tonne per C, that would be a Carbon Tax).  I think we are there now, huh???  :Biggrin:  
And that is assuming base load technologies.  Current renewable base load technology *does not exist!* 
Your green dream scheme is that coal power plants will magically invent it in the few years before they go bankrupt.  :Doh:  
Don't believe the LIES you are being told by JuLIAR and her cronies my friend.    

> That power could be wind, tidal, gas turbine, human waste, nuclear, solar, all of which produce lower levels of greenhouse gas. We actually have a form of carbon tax already with the credits that come with solar HWS and solar power household instalations that are used by the energy retailers, although this form of credit is not as effective as it could be.

  Not as effective as it could be, surely you jest.  I feel cooler already.   

> It is not unreasonable to hit the coal generators on the basis of social cost either, their emissions do create health problems in the areas they operate especially respitory related illnesses.

  Now a Social Cost Tax as well?  Wow, don't stop there Comrade, let rip!  Casino's and Pubs are gonna love that one.

----------


## Dr Freud

> There is a theme commencing from number one that people like Rod and the Dr seldom attempt to answer any questions posed and often reply with a string of quotes that don't even come close to what was asked.

  Why do you keep saying we don't answer questions when you don't ask any? 
Ask and you shall receive.  Seek and you shall find.  Knock and the door shall be open to you.   

> There is also a trend to question the character or the intelligence of the poster, none of this is particularly pleasant reading and often hard to follow. we all have a right to a view, but on this there has been no acceptance of the right of anyone to hold a seperate view.

  Have whatever opinion you want, but if you try to masquerade opinions as facts, you will be advised that this is scientifically incorrect.  If you persist, it is your behaviour that calls your intelligence into question.  I am just happy to point it out.  :Biggrin:    

> Everything is so black and white, you are either a believer in climate change or a total disbeliever there is no middle ground.

  Er, everyone knows that the climate changes, you don't have to "believe" this, it is a scientific fact.  The climate has always changed and always will.  This is black and white.  Unless you are a believer in climate stagnation?  :Doh:    

> What I have read I would describe as bullying behaviour and it works as those who have tried to argue against the main protagonists eventually give up against the vile tide of insults and misquotes flung against them. This is not edifying, it is disrespectful and ignores the rights of everyone to hold differing views.

  Let me spell it out for you: 
Your brigade tells us they "believe" all this hokum and there is so much "science" supporting it.
We ask to see this science.
They present a few scientists opinions.
We point out opinions are not facts.
They insist they are.
We explain that it is idiotic to suggest that.
They post graphs showing effects.
We ask for proof of the causes.
They insist the effects are the proof.
We explain that it is idiotic to suggest that.
They have a dummy spit and leave because their religious "beliefs" are questioned. 
This *is not* bullying, it *is* scientific accountability.   

> It was obvious that appearing here and asking a question would have got no direct answer, and you did not disappoint by ever providing one, following the old path of ignoring then attacking in the style of a schoolboy debating team.

  Dude, what the hell is this question you want answered so badly?  Just ask it.  :Doh:    

> However giving you back what you dish out did get your attention and that of others and what I would say to everyone here is stop feeding the trolls it is not worth the effort because they are deaf to reason and blind in their ignorance.

  I dish out logic and common sense, with some sarcasm for dessert. 
If you're up late, you can have some brutal honesty for a night cap.  :Minigun:  
You haven't given any of this back yet.   

> Show dignity by refering to those with opposing views by thier correct names, respect the views of others, and if you hold very strong views temper your responses least you appear ignorant.

  This isn't the UN pal.  You have your ROE's and we have ours.  Sheesh, who are you now, Mother Theresa, Ghandi, Yoda?   

> I'm finished here, this is a great forum and a great resource don't destroy it by allowing petty politics to damage the fabric of what you have.

  Our politics are far from petty they are awesome!  
But hey, you can run from here, but you can't hide from the truth.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The middle section is *measurement* - and the sea level is *rising*.  Do you disagree with that basic fact?

  
Let's say we accept all of these effects as 100% accurate. 
Any proof of a cause?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Rather, I'm trying to keep my terminology general.  i.e. "carbon price" covers price mechanisms such as "carbon tax", "emissions trading scheme", and many other possibilities without being drawn in to an argument as to the merits of one over the other - or to be seen as favouring one over the other.

  Your terminology is not general, it is incorrect! 
Remember how we discussed Carbon is C and Carbon Dioxide is CO2. 
These things are different you know. 
Email some of those climate scientists and ask them to explain it to you if you don't "believe" me.  I know that you do "believe" what these authority figures tell you.

----------


## mark53

> If you are a religious man and you therefore think that gaia has anointed you to save the planet from us the infidels...well...good for you. I am of a different persuasion yet I will let you be and hope you will pay me in kind. That is, let me be.
> Yet you are not. You want to convert me. You are a crusader. I hate crusaders of all persuasions, particularly those that knock at my door and pretend to know and impose what they think is better for me. Get a life will you! 
> However since my opinion of you will not make you desist from your crusade against the infidels, let me do some reasoning about your methods. 
> If your belief system and doctrine elaborates that CO2 is a sin and must be reduced at all cost, a tax on CO2 is hardly the way to go and I can tell you why. 
> A punitive tax on a good or service is effective in reducing the demand on such service only if it is of elastic demand. Elasticity depends on the good or service in question, namely if such is non essential or if a non taxed alternative of an equivalent price is available. 
> So a tax on mint scented toothpaste would probably be very effective since alternatives of a different scent are available. A tax on a non essential service like Thai massage for example would be a good deterrent. 
> If professor guano wakes up today with a brainwave and decides that a tax on kitchen salt would be a good way to reduce blood pressure he would be once more badly mistaken. Why? Simple. No amount of tax on salt would make the consumer reduce its use. The demand on salt is inelastic and no amount of price hike will stop people from using the amount they always do. 
> So if you have not spotted the problem yet, let me help you. Taxing a product or service of inelastic demand will have no effect on the level of usage but would be extremely effective in the collection of money since the consumer will pay and continue to use it.
> A tax on a product of elastic demand will be very effective in stopping it's use but be less effective in collecting money since the usage will quickly stop. 
> ...

  
Once again. crystal clear :2thumbsup: .

----------


## mark53

[quote=johnc;836145] Everything is so black and white, you are either a believer in climate change or a total disbeliever there is no middle ground.  
 Two most wonderful colours, eliminates the ability to hide in the grey. One either believes in the hypothesis of AGW or you don't. It's as simple as that. There is no need to obfuscate the issues in a shroud of grey.

----------


## johnc

[quote=mark53;836302]  

> Everything is so black and white, you are either a believer in climate change or a total disbeliever there is no middle ground.  
> Two most wonderful colours, eliminates the ability to hide in the grey. One either believes in the hypothesis of AGW or you don't. It's as simple as that. There is no need to obfuscate the issues in a shroud of grey.

  This is not aimed at anyone in particular, however in defence of the view that black and white thinking is not a sign of either intelligent or mature thought processes I draw your attention to the following article, Put Away Childish Thinking
when attempting to argue a case for a complex proposition a mature thinker acknowledges the possibilty that no matter how well founded their view happens to be there is always the chance that newer information can bend or alter that view. Those who do think in black and white only tend to be people who have failed for some reason to allow their thought processes to mature as they progress through adulthood. 
Think of Newtons law of gravity, an object may well accelerate at 32'/sec2 which is a black and white proposition, however since then we have come to understand resistance and terminal velocity, the later could be described as the grey that came later.

----------


## johnc

> Why do you keep saying we don't answer questions when you don't ask any? 
> Ask and you shall receive. Seek and you shall find. Knock and the door shall be open to you.   
> Have whatever opinion you want, but if you try to masquerade opinions as facts, you will be advised that this is scientifically incorrect. If you persist, it is your behaviour that calls your intelligence into question. I am just happy to point it out.    
> Er, everyone knows that the climate changes, you don't have to "believe" this, it is a scientific fact. The climate has always changed and always will. This is black and white. Unless you are a believer in climate stagnation?    
> Let me spell it out for you: 
> Your brigade tells us they "believe" all this hokum and there is so much "science" supporting it.
> We ask to see this science.
> They present a few scientists opinions.
> We point out opinions are not facts.
> ...

  No, what you are doing is appointing yourself as judge and jury, and in doing so only being critical of the opposing view, and showing total uncritical acceptance of the views that support your pre held belief.  There is absolutely no reason to accept the proposition that your are capable of showing any impartiality at all let alone to the extent that you would be able to come to a reasoned, well thought out conclusion based on solid factual evidence. In fact your obvious disdain for anyone connected to the main research institutes or reputable peer supported research indicates infact that you are so overwhelmed with seething prejudice as to be incapable of such a decision. As for being awesome I will allow you to bask in the glory of your self proclaimed omniscience. :Biggrin:

----------


## johnc

> If you are a religious man and you therefore think that gaia has anointed you to save the planet from us the infidels...well...good for you. I am of a different persuasion yet I will let you be and hope you will pay me in kind. That is, let me be.
> Yet you are not. You want to convert me. You are a crusader. I hate crusaders of all persuasions, particularly those that knock at my door and pretend to know and impose what they think is better for me. Get a life will you! 
> However since my opinion of you will not make you desist from your crusade against the infidels, let me do some reasoning about your methods. 
> If your belief system and doctrine elaborates that CO2 is a sin and must be reduced at all cost, a tax on CO2 is hardly the way to go and I can tell you why. 
> .

  Lets look at this again will we, what amazing deductions you come up with. So I am a worshiper of the obscure Greek god Gaia, not only that but I am out to convert all infidels or non believers to this obscure faith (non existent let's face it) especially the amazing and not easily fooled Mr Marc. Not only that but part of this ancient piece of mythology CO2 is the devil to be reduced at all costs. Amazingly observant these ancient Greeks aren't they. Then on the basis of this perposterous nonsense you go on with yet another diatribe, If the basis is rubbish then it follows the conclusion is rubbish, why cheapen an opinion by the absurd adventures into fairy land that do nothing to add to your view point. 
I could ask how you came up with this amazing conclusion, but I suspect even you don't know what dark recess it appeared from. :Wink:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Welcome back Johnc,  enjoy your time away?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Welcome back Johnc,  enjoy your time away?

  Maybe it was not a core promise.  :No:  
Maybe he found himself in a minority government and was forced to break his word?  :Shock:  
But hey, the more the merrier I guess. 
Welcome back chumbawamba!  :Boxing5:

----------


## johnc

> Maybe it was not a core promise.  
> Maybe he found himself in a minority government and was forced to break his word?  
> But hey, the more the merrier I guess. 
> Welcome back chumbawamba!

   Nope you all seemed to be talking about me in such glowing terms that I thought you must be missing me, so here I am back again. I'm sure a suitable welcome awaits. :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Mate, you really shouldn't believe everything you see on tv.  You'll end up with an abs machine, a food processor and a Carbon Dioxide Tax!  Just ignore all those glossy infomercials, they are filled with hype.   

> There is another side to the 'price' or 'tax'.

  There are lots of sides to it, most of them bad.   

> Money will be collected from CO2 emitters - but where will that money go?

  If you want to see a CO2 emitter, go find a mirror.  :Doh:  
We know where it will go, it's called CRF.   

> A likely scenario is that CO2 producers will be taxed and the equivalent non-CO2 industry will be subsidised.

  Seriously mate, you can't be this brain-washed.  We don't have any "equivalent non CO2 industries".  Do you have any idea of what you're talking about.  JuLIAR is selling a stupid message that people will get to choose between an expensive "dirty" product, and it's cheap "green" alternative from the "equivalent non-CO2 industry". 
Look around wherever you are and make a list of every product you can see.  These are all procured, produced, transported and consumed using fossil fuel technology.  All of these things will be more expensive. 
Now, write a list for an alternative for every one of these products that will be produced without using any fossil fuels.  If you haven't yet realised the futility of this farce, you are one of only 22 million Australians on a Planet of nearly 7 billion people.  As the esteemed Mr Bolt has already pointed out, if you decide not to piss in the ocean, it will technically be cooler. 
The "cheaper" products under this farce will be the ones produced with brown coal in China NOT subject to the idiotic Carbon Dioxide Tax.  Australian CO2 industries will definitely shut down in accordance with JuLIAR's idiot scheme, but consumers won't switch to fictional expensive green alternatives, when cheap and freely available Chinese products are everywhere.  CO2 emissions globally will *increase* under this farce.  Are you happy with that?   

> For example, if you sign up for green power at present, you pay a premium. However, if the coal fired power station has to pay an additional tax the cost differential will be less.

  You wishy washy talk about "cost differentials" is a deceptive.  Don't toe the party line with these deceptions mate.  People will respect you more if you do like Rod says and call a spade a spade.  What you are saying is all products and services based on fossil fuels will be *more expensive*.  All these *costs will go up*.  The plan is to drive these prices *so high* that idiotic green alternatives actually start to look almost attractive in terms of pricing. 
Read Marc's post about inelastic demand again and you will understand the economic idiocy of this farce.   

> Also, if the revenue from the CO2 tax is used to subsidise the non-CO2 power (solar, wind, geo-thermal, etc), then the price differential may even change to make the renewable energy the cheapest to the consumer.

  You don't seem to get it do you.  These are not base-load power sources.  They *cannot* replace fossil fuel power.  They *are not* an alternative.  Even if we all chose to pay thousands of dollars each to build these things today, we *cannot*, because the technology *does not exist!*  Read again, *it does not exist!*  Read again, *it does not exist!*  No matter how expensive you make fossil fuel power, there is no alternative renewable for base-load power.  *It does not exist!* 
I hope that wasn't too ambiguous for you.  :Biggrin:    

> Most likely, this sort of change will be brought in progressively over many years or decades by changing the tax rate at each budget time.

  As Australia engages in this futility (over years or decades), how much will global CO2 levels have increased regardless of our farcical tax schemes?  :Doh:    

> Investment in the fossil fuel power industry will decline and the investment in renewable energy will increase.

  Base-load renewable equivalents *do not exist!* 
Pretty black and white, huh, Johnc?   

> CO2 emissions will progressively drop - and eventually global warming will abate.

  Mate, if you truly believe that reducing CO2 emissions in Australia will abate global warming, then you need better medication.  You used to be so much better than this.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Nope you all seemed to be talking about me in such glowing terms that I thought you must be missing me, so here I am back again. I'm sure a suitable welcome awaits.

  You know how friendly we always are.  :Blush7:  
But it is good to have you back.   :2thumbsup:  
You guys keep us sceptics on the straight and narrow.  :Laugh bounce spin:

----------


## chrisp

> This *is not* bullying, it *is* scientific accountability.

  *Actually, what you are doing is nothing to do with scientific accountability or scientific debate.  To simply outright ignore and outright dismiss scientific data and outcomes from some of the worlds most reputable scientific organisations because it doesn't abide with your political position isn't scientific debate.* 
BTW can you name one - yep, just one, reputable scientific body that dismisses AGW? 
For all the other readers:   the scientific evidence is that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased - scientific fact.  The increase in CO2 concentrations is almost entirely due to the combustion of fossil fuels - scientific fact.  CO2 is a greenhouse gas - scientific fact.  Greenhouse gasses cause the atmosphere to retain more heat - scientific fact.  The average global temperature has been observed to be rising at an unprecedented rate (climbing steeper)  - scientific fact.  Past climatic temperature variations have been accompanied by other changes such as changes in the intensity of the sun's solar emission, orbital tilts, asteroid strike, massive geological changes, etc..  None of those have accompanied the recent sudden change in temperature.  The increase in CO2 (and its amplification by increasing water vapour) explains the observed temperature increase - scientific fact.  While many alternative explanations have been proposed, none of them have been able to provide a scientifically plausible explanation for the increase in temperature.  One of the verifications that the world is actually warming (and that the measured temperature rise isn't an error) is that a temperature rise will cause other follow on effects such as warming the oceans causing the water to expand - causing the sea level to rise.  The sea level has been observed to be rising - scientific fact.  *To simply state that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for AGW is not scientific debate.* 
It might be ignorance, bias, prejudice, a lack of understanding, ill-manners, bullying, etc.  But it is certainly not scientific debate. 
The continued confusion between _opinion_ and _scientific opinion_ also shows a lack of understanding of the methods of science.  _Scientific opinion_ *is an evidence based opinion.*  It is not a personal preference view at all.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *0.7°c*

  So then you actually believe that *all* natural forces have magically been suspended since human industrialisation?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> There is very little natural warming in the 0.7*°*C.

  "Very little"? 
Wow, how many decimal points does that go to?   

> ... just like you've got a plausible anti-AGW theory too!!!

  You don't need one hypothesis to refute another one. 
You just need the original hypothesis to be proved, which this one has not been.

----------


## johnc

We need to keep focus on the fact that we have nothing more than an announcement on carbon tax, other than the governments chief adviser commenting on a few possible details there really is very little detail to go on and certainly not enough to be forming opinions on its effect on industry. In fact industry objections should at this stage be seen as posturing and not a sign of outright rejection. Once detail is announced we can expect industry will shift its view to respond to the specifics and how they impact on that particular group. 
There is a publication from ethical investor that puts a reasonably balanced view detailing the objectors amd also supporters comments. At this point it is an interesting read and should be seen as commentary. The liklihood the tax will be hard hitting is low, it will most likely be looking hard at power generation and transport, the flow on to many manufactured goods will also be low, as the areas we expect to be hit by this tax will only be a small portion of business inputs and the corresponding impact on final price will not be large. Infact it is debatable if a tax on fuel will do much at all as any increase will be lost within the regular movements in pump price as a result of shifts in crude oil prices. The main attack of the tax is at the production end, not the consumer.  
i.e. more efficient transport, cleaner power generation. 
The link to the letter is Ethical Investor - Industry rails against carbon tax plan

----------


## chrisp

> You don't seem to get it do you.  These are not base-load power sources.  They *cannot* replace fossil fuel power.  They *are not* an alternative.  Even if we all chose to pay thousands of dollars each to build these things today, we *cannot*, because the technology *does not exist!*  Read again, *it does not exist!*  Read again, *it does not exist!*  No matter how expensive you make fossil fuel power, there is no alternative renewable for base-load power.  *It does not exist!*

  Maybe you should let those people in the outback know that too.  You wouldn't believe it, but some of them have their own off-grid electric systems that use solar panels and small wind turbines - and guess what?  They can actually use electric power at night too. 
There are technologies that do work.  Have you heard of pumped hydro?  Have you heard of batteries? Have you heard of thermal storage technologies?  Have you heard of geo-thermals?  Have you heard of wave/tidal energy?  The technologies are there, but some do need further development. 
Also, every increase in the amount of solar and wind energy into the grid is energy that doesn't need to be supplied by fossil fuels.  We could retain coal powered stations for base load, but reduce their load until other technologies mature and become widely available.  Every kWh not delivered by fossil fuels is CO2 emission saved.

----------


## chrisp

> You don't need one hypothesis to refute another one.

  *Scientifically speaking, you do have to propose an alternative.* 
The facts are that there are observed global temperature, sea-level, CO2 changes.  AGW explains them.. You can't scientifically dismiss AGW without proposing an alternative that explains to observed measured changes.

----------


## chrisp

> So then you actually believe that *all* natural forces have magically been suspended since human industrialisation?

  No.  But they are insignificant compared to the 0.7 degrees rise.

----------


## mark53

[quote=johnc;836310]  

> This is not aimed at anyone in particular, however in defence of the view that black and white thinking is not a sign of either intelligent or mature thought processes I draw your attention to the following article, Put Away Childish Thinking
> when attempting to argue a case for a complex proposition a mature thinker acknowledges the possibilty that no matter how well founded their view happens to be there is always the chance that newer information can bend or alter that view. Those who do think in black and white only tend to be people who have failed for some reason to allow their thought processes to mature as they progress through adulthood. 
> Think of Newtons law of gravity, an object may well accelerate at 32'/sec2 which is a black and white proposition, however since then we have come to understand resistance and terminal velocity, the later could be described as the grey that came later.

  *Sunshine, if, in a former life, I was working with you and you stated that it was a big grey world out there I'd paint you hot pink and call you corrupt. You sound remarkable like a NSW labour politician to me. I suggest you focus more on the substance and less on the feathers. And for the record I make no pretence of being any sort of luminary in any particular field. As I have stated in the past, if you had cared to read it,  I'm just an ordinary Australian and I vote.*

----------


## watson

Thank Dog,
With all this black and white talk I thought we had a Collingwood supporter.

----------


## chrisp

> Thank Dog,
> With all this black and white talk I thought we had a Collingwood supporter.

  Heaven forbid! Anti-AGW supporters are bad enough!   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> This is not aimed at anyone in particular, however in defence of the view that black and white thinking is not a sign of either intelligent or mature thought processes I draw your attention to the following article, Put Away Childish Thinking
> when attempting to argue a case for a complex proposition a mature thinker acknowledges the possibilty that no matter how well founded their view happens to be there is always the chance that newer information can bend or alter that view. Those who do think in black and white only tend to be people who have failed for some reason to allow their thought processes to mature as they progress through adulthood. 
> Think of Newtons law of gravity, an object may well accelerate at 32'/sec2 which is a black and white proposition, however since then we have come to understand resistance and terminal velocity, the later could be described as the grey that came later.

  
Piaget specialised in researching childhood psychology, primarily by studying his own children.  These case studies led to very impressive leaps in understanding human psychological development. 
It is tragic that you have misapplied his concept this badly. 
Issues that exist on a spectrum require abstract thought.  For example, one of the examples similar to your link is the construct of happiness.  Humans obviously are not either happy or unhappy, but exist somewhere along this spectrum from being morose to being blissfull. 
Issues that are categorical require black and white thinking.  For example, if you were changing some wiring in your house, you need to know whether the power is off or on.  This is black and white. 
Both abstract and concrete thinking have their places in science and in the everyday world.  Some say wisdom is knowing which one to use and when. 
But that's enough psychobabble, any more and I'll start billing you.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Bedford

Re the Tax per tonne, how much of this stuff does it take to make a tonne and who does the measuring  to calculate the tax? 
What are the costs of administering this process?

----------


## Dr Freud

> No, what you are doing is appointing yourself as judge and jury,

  Yes, that's called democracy.  I get to judge, juror and execute my vote (and my opinion unfortunately for everyone else).  :Biggrin:    

> and in doing so only being critical of the opposing view,

  That's generally how debates work mate.  :Confused:    

> and showing total uncritical acceptance of the views that support your pre held belief.

  Er, actually I first subjected them to critical analysis, then held them, so it is fact critical acceptance.  By this definition, they could not have been pre-held. 
If you had read the thread, you would have read earlier how I first started researching this topic because I became alarmed at the information suggesting the catastrophic outcomes facing us.  I initially accepted this proposition and began researching how to combat the alleged issue.  Then I realised after reading the scientific facts that the mouthpieces on the nightly news were full of --it.  I guess you could call me a convert to scepticism, but I would argue I started with an open mind slightly inclined to believe the AGW hypothesis, which was then cemented firmly against the spurious claims that are clearly discordant with all scientific empirical evidence.   

> There is absolutely no reason to accept the proposition that your are capable of showing any impartiality at all let alone to the extent that you would be able to come to a reasoned, well thought out conclusion based on solid factual evidence.

  See response above.   

> In fact your obvious disdain for anyone connected to the main research institutes or reputable peer supported research indicates infact that you are so overwhelmed with seething prejudice as to be incapable of such a decision.

  My disdain is for scientists who misrepresent their own and others research.  Some do this for political, financial, career, or "greater good" motives.  Some do it simply by trying to oversimplify concepts for the public. 
This is not "anyone connected to", far from it.  Most of the scientists sceptical of this farce are member of various institutes and peer review networks. 
Trying to perpetuate this myth of "scientists in credible institutions" vs "a few fringe crackpot scientists" does your credibility no favours.  If you read the thread, you will see all of these tens of thousands fo scientists who have already spoken out against this farce.  And while their "opinions" all exist on a very wide spectrum, they do not have to agree on the scientific facts that are black and white.    

> As for being awesome I will allow you to bask in the glory of your self proclaimed omniscience.

  If you had read the thread, you would understand that I refer to this as "automonotheism".  :Biggrin:  
Oh, the irony!  :Roflmao:

----------


## Dr Freud

> yes you have nailed the AGW theory in one. 
> it is an extraordinary claim that we have the power to affect something as dynamic as climate.   
> Now can you provide any proof of this/  I will let you off the extraordinary evidence.  Any will do.

  Yes, very interesting quotes coming from a supporter of the AGW hypothesis.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

> The evidence is all around you to see.   CO2 levels are up.The CO2 increase is almost purely due to man-made causes.The average global temperature has increased.Sea-levels are increasing (due to thermal expansion of water, and partially some ice melt).
> BTW, the sea-level bizzo is more of an secondary effect of the warming rather than primary concern in itself.  It adds significant weight to the world-is-warming argument - how could the world warm without the sea-level rising?

  Still not there yet. 
You see, this whole farce falls over on the scientific concept of causation. 
That is why the IPCC jsut made up numbers to try and cover up the fact they did not demonstrate causation. 
Here's the missing bit:   

> The CO2 increase is almost purely due to man-made causes.The average global temperature has increased.

  This is referred to statistically as correlation. Average people call it coincidence.  Scientists try to prove that one causes the other, or that something else may be causing both.  They develop hypotheses to cover these various ideas. 
There is no causation for the AGW hypothesis. 
Average people would say it is therefore not "real". 
Measured fact: CO2 has increased between 1970 and 2000.
Measured fact: Temperatures have increased between 1970 and 2000. 
Scientific fact: This is referred to as correlation. 
Statistical fact: Range restriction renders this correlation invalid. 
Average people would say "you want us to pay how many billions for this crock"! 
Reality never compromises, so neither do I.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> Re the Tax per tonne, how much of this stuff does it take to make a tonne and who does the measuring  to calculate the tax? 
> What are the costs of administering this process?

  I can approximately answer the chemistry part of your question. 
The atomic weight of carbon is ~12 and oxygen ~16.  CO2 has an atomic weight of 44. 
The weight ratio is therefore 44:12 
i.e 12 kg of carbon will produce 44 kg of carbon dioxide. 
Or 273 kg of carbon will produce 1 ton of CO2 
What we'd need to do is work out how much usable carbon there is in coal (of whatever colour).

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Still not there yet. 
> You see, this whole farce falls over on the scientific concept of causation. 
> That is why the IPCC jsut made up numbers to try and cover up the fact they did not demonstrate causation. 
> Here's the missing bit:   
> This is referred to statistically as correlation. Average people call it coincidence. Scientists try to prove that one causes the other, or that something else may be causing both. They develop hypotheses to cover these various ideas. 
> There is no causation for the AGW hypothesis. 
> Average people would say it is therefore not "real". 
> Measured fact: CO2 has increased between 1970 and 2000.
> Measured fact: Temperatures have increased between 1970 and 2000. 
> ...

  
You saved me a post Doc.   
And they call us deniers :Confused:  :Confused:  go figure!

----------


## Bedford

> What we'd need to do is work out how much usable carbon there is in coal (of whatever colour).

  Would I be right in assuming if we don't know how much usable carbon is in coal, but we know how much coal we're using,  we would be unable to calculate the tax?

----------


## chrisp

> Would I be right in assuming if we don't know how much usable carbon is in coal, but we know how much coal we're using,  we would be unable to calculate the tax?

  I have a report somewhere that I think has the figures (for CO2/kWh for different power stations in each state) in it.  I'll see if I can find it. 
I'm sure that the figures are known, it is just I don't know them off the top of my head.  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Actually, what you are doing is nothing to do with scientific accountability or scientific debate. To simply outright ignore and outright dismiss scientific data and outcomes from some of the worlds most reputable scientific organisations because it doesn't abide with your political position isn't scientific debate.*

  I don't know what language I have to use to make it clear! 
I wholeheartedly accept *ALL* of the scientific facts relating to climate science! 
I just question some of the opinions involved. 
This is not a "political position", it is the scientific method. 
Why is this concept so hard to grasp?   

> BTW can you name one - yep, just one, reputable scientific body that dismisses AGW?

  I have never spoken to a "scientific body" in my entire life.  I have spoken to and corresponded with hundreds of scientists who are employed by or are members of these "scientific bodies".  I have already said that in my experience, the weighting is about 70% pro and 30% anti AGW hypothesis amongst these scientists.   

> the scientific evidence is that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased - scientific fact.

  Incorrect. This is not accurate enough without a time frame.  Over what limited time frame do you refer to?   

> The increase in CO2 concentrations is almost entirely due to the combustion of fossil fuels - scientific fact.

  Incorrect. This is not accurate enough without a time frame.  Over what limited time frame do you refer to?   

> CO2 is a greenhouse gas - scientific fact.

  Correct.   

> Greenhouse gasses cause the atmosphere to retain more heat - scientific fact.

  Correct, but be wary of extrapolating this general concept by attributing specific causalities to individual GHG's.   

> The average global temperature has been observed to be rising at an unprecedented rate (climbing steeper)  - scientific fact.

  Incorrect.   

> Past climatic temperature variations have been accompanied by other changes such as changes in the intensity of the sun's solar emission, orbital tilts, asteroid strike, massive geological changes, etc.. None of those have accompanied the recent sudden change in temperature.

  Speculation regarding the past and incorrect assertion regarding the present. 
Good to see you did not list this as a scientific fact.  :2thumbsup:    

> The increase in CO2 (and its amplification by increasing water vapour) explains the observed temperature increase - scientific fact.

  Incorrect.  If you are using the word "explains" to avoid admitting that causality has not been proven, then this is misleading to say the least.  That is assuming you understand the concept of causality? 
If you are using the word "explains" to describe an assumption about positive feedback hypotheses programmed into many computer models, this is a very different thing to a scientific fact my friend. 
The effect of water vapour and clouds in climate science is ambiguous at the least, and many contemporary facts indicate there are no positive feedbacks currently operating.   

> While many alternative explanations have been proposed, none of them have been able to provide a scientifically plausible explanation for the increase in temperature.

  Correct, no explanation, including the AGW hypothesis, has been proven.   

> One of the verifications that the world is actually warming (and that the measured temperature rise isn't an error) is that a temperature rise will cause other follow on effects such as warming the oceans causing the water to expand - causing the sea level to rise. The sea level has been observed to be rising - scientific fact.

  Making a second causal error does not correct the first.  :No:    

> *To simply state that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for AGW is not scientific debate.*

  To state that there is zero scientific evidence proving the AGW hypothesis is a *scientific fact!*  
You are correct that there is no debate over this. 
We can discuss this and other limited scientific facts available, and various opinions over these facts.  This is where the debate currently is at.   

> It might be ignorance, bias, prejudice, a lack of understanding, ill-manners, bullying, etc. But it is certainly not scientific debate.

  See above.   

> The continued confusion between _opinion_ and _scientific opinion_ also shows a lack of understanding of the methods of science.  _Scientific opinion_ *is an evidence based opinion.*  It is not a personal preference view at all.

  We've danced this dance before.  Please re-read it to save me re-typing it.  :Biggrin:  
But for the new arrivals, a doctor might look at you in the room and say "In my medical opinion, you have cancer in you leg and we need to amputate it". 
Do you just cut your leg off, or do you wait for the scans, the blood tests, the x-rays, the second opinions, the third opinions. 
Then after these "expert opinions" and facts do you still not then form your own opinion, rightly or wrongly? 
The AGW hypothesis church says you must believe just their opinion only.  Just ignore all the dissenting other opinions, and start cutting CO2 emissions immediately. 
If you had lots of dissenting medical opinions about your leg, would you just start cutting, or would you first consider the other "expert" opinions, and maybe get more "facts".  :Confused:  
The AGW hypothesis church will scare you all the way along to all your other appointments telling you how you will *die* if you do not cut immediately.  Then your children and grandchildren will also *die*. 
Good scientific argument, huh? 
No emotional blackmail at all, huh?  :Doh:

----------


## chrisp

> But for the new arrivals, a doctor might look at you in the room and say "In my medical opinion, you have cancer in you leg and we need to amputate it". 
> Do you just cut your leg off, or do you wait for the scans, the blood tests, the x-rays, the second opinions, the third opinions.

  I very much doubt that a doctor would form a "medical opinion" without the results of the scans, blood tests, the x-rays, etc. 
Just as a scientist will not form a scientific opinion without evidence. 
Your analogy is erroneous. 
Are you starting to understand the difference between *opinion* and *scientific opinion*?

----------


## Dr Freud

> We need to keep focus on the fact that we have nothing more than an announcement on carbon tax, other than the governments chief adviser commenting on a few possible details there really is very little detail to go on and certainly not enough to be forming opinions on its effect on industry. In fact industry objections should at this stage be seen as posturing and not a sign of outright rejection. Once detail is announced we can expect industry will shift its view to respond to the specifics and how they impact on that particular group. 
> There is a publication from ethical investor that puts a reasonably balanced view detailing the objectors amd also supporters comments. At this point it is an interesting read and should be seen as commentary. The liklihood the tax will be hard hitting is low, it will most likely be looking hard at power generation and transport, the flow on to many manufactured goods will also be low, as the areas we expect to be hit by this tax will only be a small portion of business inputs and the corresponding impact on final price will not be large. Infact it is debatable if a tax on fuel will do much at all as any increase will be lost within the regular movements in pump price as a result of shifts in crude oil prices. The main attack of the tax is at the production end, not the consumer.  
> i.e. more efficient transport, cleaner power generation. 
> The link to the letter is Ethical Investor - Industry rails against carbon tax plan

  So, if the impact is so low, behaviour won't change, and we'll all keep using the same fossil fuels. 
How will this cool the planet again?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Maybe you should let those people in the outback know that too.  You wouldn't believe it, but some of them have their own off-grid electric systems that use solar panels and small wind turbines - and guess what?  They can actually use electric power at night too.

  I have used satellite communications in the desert for a long time powered only by a solar panel and battery. 
So why doesn't Telstra just switch to solar power only? 
Once you understand what base-load power is, you will not use these dodgy analogies.   

> There are technologies that do work. Have you heard of pumped hydro? Have you heard of batteries? Have you heard of thermal storage technologies? Have you heard of geo-thermals? Have you heard of wave/tidal energy? The technologies are there, but some do need further development.

  Have you heard of base-load power? 
Equivalent renewable base-load technology *does not exist!*   

> Also, every increase in the amount of solar and wind energy into the grid is energy that doesn't need to be supplied by fossil fuels. We could *retain coal powered stations* for base load, but reduce their load until other technologies *mature* and become widely available. Every kWh not delivered by fossil fuels is CO2 emission saved.

  We will retain them, because there is no alternative. 
When you say mature, you mean they will be invented, because they *do not exist!* 
That is what will make switching to them difficult.  :Doh:

----------


## johnc

> So, if the impact is so low, behaviour won't change, and we'll all keep using the same fossil fuels. 
> How will this cool the planet again?

  You really should read more closely, in Australia the bulk of carbon emissions come from power and transport. It is the link between the power generators and the power retailers that the carbon tax needs to stike hardest at so we use less coal sourced power and more from lower carbon sources. The tax will impact at a lesser level on the general public providing the alternative power can be generated at reasonable rates .

----------


## Dr Freud

> I very much doubt that a doctor would form a "medical opinion" without the results of the scans, blood tests, the x-rays, etc. 
> Just as a scientist will not form a scientific opinion without evidence. 
> Your analogy is erroneous. 
> Are you starting to understand the difference between *opinion* and *scientific opinion*?

  No analogy is perfect, they're analogous by definition. 
But mine is awesome!!!  :Biggrin:  
But seriously, when you walk into the doctors, he has to form a medical opinion, that's his job.  If he had no "medical opinion", why would he send you for the scans or tests. He obviously doesn't send every patient for these.  If in his "medical opinion" there is nothing wrong with you, he will send you home.  If in your "personal opinion" you think there is something wrong with you, you will get a second "medical opinion".  This doctor may then run the tests, or further tests. 
For the AGW hypothesis, some scientists formed a "scientific opinion" that it was CO2 emissions causing it.  By definition, they had to form this "scientific opinion" before they had all the facts, otherwise there would be no such thing as a hypothesis.  After trillions of dollars testing, there is still no factual evidence proving this.  Along the way, many scientists have had many "scientific opinions" and many people have had personal opinions, based on both the facts and the "scientific opinions".  All of these opinions and scientific opinions can and do change. 
The facts have not proved the AGW hypothesis.  Tens of thousands of scientists globally have formed the scientific opinion that AGW does not exist.  It is a scientific fact that it has not been proven.  Lots of people have personal opinions about it.   
I have a scientific opinion according to you!  :2thumbsup:  
Luckily opinions, personal, medical or scientific are all still just opinions.  They are *not reality.*  
Are you starting to understand the similarity between all opinions?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Scientifically speaking, you do have to propose an alternative.* 
> The facts are that there are observed global temperature, sea-level, CO2 changes.  AGW explains them.. You can't scientifically dismiss AGW without proposing an alternative that explains to observed measured changes.

  The null is the alternative. 
No-one has to propose an alternative hypothesis to counter some measurements used by the AGW hypothesis. 
This is certainly not scientific, and your research into NHST will point this out.

----------


## Dr Freud

> No.  But they are insignificant compared to the 0.7 degrees rise.

  From "very little" to "insignificant". 
Not very scientific mate. 
Is there a decimal or percentage, or this "opinion" or "scientific opinion" at work again?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Thank Dog,
> With all this black and white talk I thought we had a Collingwood supporter.

  Did you know it was a Collingwood supporter who invented the toothbrush. 
If it was any other supporter, they would have called it a teethbrush.  :Roflmao:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Re the Tax per tonne, how much of this stuff does it take to make a tonne and who does the measuring to calculate the tax?

  Mate, these calculations are all arbitrary and easily rorted as has been shown in the EU examples. 
As our current government has no idea what they are doing, we are are yet to even be issued their arbitrary measurement guidelines.  Apparently businesses loves this sort of certainty.   

> What are the costs of administering this process?

  Two words come to mind, unnecessary and exorbitant. Let's check their track record:   

> Almost $10 million was spent on administration costs for an Indigenous home ownership scheme that resulted in just 15 loans worth $2.7 million, the Australian National Audit Office has found.  $10m admin cost for 15 Indigenous home loans - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  Scale that up across the whole economy!  :Shock:  
But hopefully we'll get some facts and figures from the upcoming $30 million advertising blitz to sell the Carbon Dioxide Tax.  It should be very detailed.  :No:

----------


## chrisp

> Luckily opinions, personal, medical or scientific are all still just opinions.  They are *not reality.*

  It appears that you are still having trouble comprehending the difference between (feeling. preference, bias) *opinion* and (evidence based) *scientific opinion* (see Opinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for a basic primer).   
It would seem to me that if you can't comprehend the distinction between (personal) *opinion* and *scientific opinion* (or for political bias reason you choose to ignore the distinction) then I  very much doubt that that you could possibly comprehend the basics of AGW (let alone mount a scientific case against it) or even begin to understand the *scientific method* (see Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). 
(Sorry for the blunt reply.  I should be more leant as you are having such a bad run of late - or much more of a bad run than usual.  I suppose it goes with the territory of trying to scientifically refute the scientifically well established AGW.) 
Responding to your comments is like the proverb 'shooting fish in a barrel'.  :Rotfl:

----------


## chrisp

> The null is the alternative. 
> No-one has to propose an alternative hypothesis to counter some measurements used by the AGW hypothesis. 
> This is certainly not scientific, and your research into NHST will point this out.

  If - and only if - you can show null temperature change and null sea-level change.

----------


## chrisp

> Re the Tax per tonne, how much of this stuff does it take to make a tonne and who does the measuring  to calculate the tax?

   

> Mate, these calculations are all arbitrary and easily rorted as has been shown in the EU examples. 
> As our current government has no idea what they are doing, we are are yet to even be issued their arbitrary measurement guidelines.  Apparently businesses loves this sort of certainty.

  That'a boy!  Don't worry about quantifying anything - just state your biased personal opinion - and dismiss it outright!   

> "In physical science the first essential step in the direction of  learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and  practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I  often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and  express it in numbers, you know something about it; but *when you cannot  measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a  meagre and unsatisfactory kind*; it may be the beginning of knowledge,  but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of _Science_, whatever the matter may be."  
> Lord Kelvin

  [Oops, that was a little bit 'below the belt'.  I think Bedford might have been trying to get the thread on topic and you and I have mucked it up.]

----------


## chrisp

> Re the Tax per tonne, how much of this stuff does it take to make a tonne and who does the measuring  to calculate the tax? 
> What are the costs of administering this process?

   

> I can approximately answer the chemistry part of your question. 
> The atomic weight of carbon is ~12 and oxygen ~16.  CO2 has an atomic weight of 44. 
> The weight ratio is therefore 44:12 
> i.e 12 kg of carbon will produce 44 kg of carbon dioxide. 
> Or 273 kg of carbon will produce 1 ton of CO2 
> What we'd need to do is work out how much usable carbon there is in coal (of whatever colour).

   

> Would I be right in assuming if we don't know how much usable carbon is in coal, but we know how much coal we're using,  we would be unable to calculate the tax?

  Bedford, 
Good, and very relevant questions.   
There is an interesting report here  http://www.climatechange.gov.au/~/media/publications/greenhouse-acctg/national-greenhouse-factors-july-2010-pdf.pdf 
It gives useful figures:  Black coal (other than that used to produce coke):    0.663 tC/t fuel Carbon content factor.
Brown coal: 0.260 tC/t fuel Carbon content factor.The report also provides information in a much more usable form.  For example:   
In Victoria (which has the worst CO2 emission electricity system), each kWh of electricity produces 1.23 kg of CO2-e (equivalent GHG). 
If the carbon tax is $25.00 per tonne, then each kilogram would be taxed 2.5 cents/kg ($0.025/kg). 
At present, a typical consumer pays about $0.22 per kWh of electricity.  If the full carbon tax is passed on, the price would increase by $0.025/kgCO2-e  x 1.23 kgCO2-e/kWh  = $0.031/kWh.   The fully taxed price would be $0.251/kWh.  An increase of ~14%. 
It is refreshing to see some serious and constructive, questions, comment and debate.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Ahhhh Warm good cold no good. 
Thought so.   

> A WARM front in northeast Japan has brought some respite to hundreds of thousands of homeless tsunami victims after days of freezing temperatures carpeted the region in snow and ice.

----------


## chrisp

> Ahhhh Warm good cold no good. 
> Thought so.    
> 			
> 				A WARM front in northeast Japan has brought some respite to hundreds of  thousands of homeless tsunami victims after days of freezing  temperatures carpeted the region in snow and ice.

  I don't suppose that you might have considered that Japan has just came out of winter? 
I think your post is in very poor taste.  As too is the Doc's post about nuclear vs wind deaths.  :Frown:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I don't suppose that you might have considered that Japan has just came out of winter? 
> I think your post is in very poor taste. As too is the Doc's post about nuclear vs wind deaths.

  No disrespect to Japan indended here, simply pointing out that warmth is better than cold.  But I guess you knew that.

----------


## Dr Freud

Just pretend for a minute that I'm an idiot (shouldn't be too hard, right  :Biggrin: ). 
So let's go through it slowly:   

> You really should read more closely, in Australia the bulk of carbon emissions come from power and transport. It is the link between the power generators and the power retailers that the carbon tax needs to stike hardest at so we use less coal sourced power and more from lower carbon sources.

  Start with the power I guess.  So, these evil dudes get whacked with this massive carbon dioxide tax.  They now have a choice, increase their income (i.e. higher electricity prices) or go bankrupt.  So they increase prices.  The plan is here for people (us) to now cease using electricity due to the "price signal".  But now the government gives the tax raised back to us (minus admin costs and shonks commissions) so we can keep using the electricity.  We pay this money back to the evil dudes via the higher prices.  People and businesses in the middle ground that miss out on the handouts but aren't rich enough go to the wall.  Emission reductions irrelevant.  Planetary temperature unaffected. 
Anyway, if you've got a different version, I'm happy to hear the one where the Planet cools down at the end of the fairy tale.  :Biggrin:    

> The tax will impact at a lesser level on the general public providing the alternative power can be generated at reasonable rates .

  Did you miss the bits about equivalent renewable base-load energy not existing, let alone at reasonable rates. 
Forgot about that minor detail for a moment.  Pretend it does and send me your version of the fairy tale.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It appears that you are still having trouble comprehending the difference between (feeling. preference, bias) *opinion* and (evidence based) *scientific opinion* (see Opinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for a basic primer).   
> It would seem to me that if you can't comprehend the distinction between (personal) *opinion* and *scientific opinion* (or for political bias reason you choose to ignore the distinction) then I  very much doubt that that you could possibly comprehend the basics of AGW (let alone mount a scientific case against it) or even begin to understand the *scientific method* (see Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). 
> (Sorry for the blunt reply.  I should be more leant as you are having such a bad run of late - or much more of a bad run than usual.  I suppose it goes with the territory of trying to scientifically refute the scientifically well established AGW.) 
> Responding to your comments is like the proverb 'shooting fish in a barrel'.

  I can see this is a sticking point in our relationship.  :Frustrated:  
In order to save you linking these same Wikipedia links over and over, let's try to clarify. 
In your opinion (personal, scientific or otherwise), please answer yes or no as you please: 
Is scientific opinion equal to scientific fact?
Is personal opinion equal to scientific fact?
Is scientific opinion equal to scientific proof?
Is personal opinion equal to scientific proof?
Is scientific opinion equal to existential reality?
Is personal opinion equal to existential reality? 
(For those unsure, the answers are all *NO*.) 
No opinion is either fact, proof or reality.  No doubt some opinions are more informed than others, but they are still not real, and are still just opinions. 
The AGW hypothesis brigade has to hold onto this point because they have no causation that can be proved.  Therefore, they have to rely on people trusting the opinions of the authority figures.  If there is no absolute acceptance of these opinions, the next line is looking at the facts, which do not add up.  This defence of authority figures opinions is their last line of defence. 
Will you "believe" their opinions based on faith? 
Now as I have stated many times, there are tens of thousands of scientists who have formed the scientific opinion that the AGW hypothesis is not real.  There are also many scientists who have formed the scientific opinion that the AGW hypothesis is real. 
Which scientists are right and which scientists are wrong??? 
Which are we to "believe"??? 
Lucky we don't have to guess. 
In this enlightened age we can all access the facts and use our own brains to figure out that this farce has not been proven. 
There is not a single scientist on the Planet that will tell you that the AGW hypothesis has been proved, because they will be laughed out of the room. 
Every single scientist on the Planet knows that there is zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.  They all know this because it is a scientific fact. 
Then they all diverge in their opinions of these facts.  Some believe and others don't.  This is normal for most scientific endeavours.  The only difference here is some lunatics think a new tax is going to cool down the Planet? 
What the f--k? 
No seriously people, just think about that for a minute?  :Wtf1:  
A tax in Australia cooling down the Planet Earth?  :Roflmao2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> If - and only if - you can show null temperature change and null sea-level change.

  This is not what the null is. 
It will get very boring if we go through this in detail here, so here is a crude summary.  It does not include all of the explanations required for NHST, that is why I suggested you research it.  It will save much typing. 
The AGW hypothesis proposes that human CO2 emissions *are* responsible for measured increases in global temperatures and that this process will lead to catastrophic warming in the near future. 
In this scenario, the null hypothesis proposes that human CO2 emissions *are not* responsible for measured increases in global temperatures and that this process will lead to catastrophic warming in the near future. 
When the weight of scientific and statistical evidence reaches significance, we reject the null and accept the AGW hypothesis.  Until this happens, the null stands. 
Currently, the null stands, so: 
The null hypothesis proposes that human CO2 emissions *are not* responsible for measured increases in global temperatures and that this process will lead to catastrophic warming in the near future. 
The null is nothing to do with explaining any other attributions of any variables concerned.  It does not seek to "explain" or "show" anything.  It is a statistical concept to set a high bar for proving causality. 
The AGW hypothesis did not clear the bar. The null stands.  :2thumbsup:  
Very simplified, but your research will no doubt flesh out the details.

----------


## Dr Freud

> That'a boy! Don't worry about quantifying anything - just state your biased personal opinion - and dismiss it outright!

  I'm not psychic, and I have no idea what this wacko government will actually come up with in terms of what they will include and will exclude in their CO2 tax guide.  The Greens want petrol in, the farmers want agriculture out, except for feed in credits.  We can play guessing games till the farting cows come in, but to save some conjecture, how about we wait for the disaster to unfold according to JuLIAR's schedule.  But for now, I cannot quantify anything champ, once JuLIAR finishes designing her debacle and releases it publicly, you can be sure I'll comment on it then.  :Biggrin:    

> "In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but *when you cannot  measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a  meagre and unsatisfactory kind*; it may be the beginning of knowledge,  but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of _Science_, whatever the matter may be."  
> Lord Kelvin
> 			
> 		   [Oops, that was a little bit 'below the belt'.  I think Bedford might have been trying to get the thread on topic and you and I have mucked it up.]

  That quote is not below the belt, I fully support Lord Kelvin's views.  That is why it is disappointing you cannot express your measures in numbers:   

> From "very little" to "insignificant". 
> Not very scientific mate. 
> Is there a decimal or percentage, or this "opinion" or "scientific opinion" at work again?

  *your knowledge is of a  meagre and unsatisfactory kind   *

----------


## Dr Freud

> I don't suppose that you might have considered that Japan has just came out of winter? 
> I think your post is in very poor taste.  As too is the Doc's post about nuclear vs wind deaths.

  I think that's a little precious coming from someone who posts Wikipedia links describing Climate Deniers alongside Holocaust Deniers, then regularly calls people here deniers. 
But hey, if you don't like the taste, don't lick the ice-cream.  :Bleh:  
If you want really poor taste, go ask these idiot journalists why they have blanket coverage over this allegedly "dangerous" nuclear reactor issue that has not made a single person sick or suffer unhealthy exposure, and they are virtually ignoring the massive human tragedy of tens of thousands of people dead and hundreds of thousands homeless.  I have not seen a single media campaign for donations to survivors, but have seen blanket coverage of idiot greenies running through catastrophic "what if" scenarios and mentioning Chernobyl at every chance.  :Doh:  
The nuclear vs wind deaths was designed to highlight these hypocritical greenie attitudes that are given air time disproportionate to the facts.  If you think this was poor taste, I'll remind you of your previous sensitivities soon. 
You'll see why I think you need to redirect your poor taste meter my friend.

----------


## Dr Freud

Seriously people, don't let the kids watch the you tube ones.   

> * 
> WARNING: Please don't let the real kids watch!*  
> Welcome to our little shop of horrors. 
> First they hung the kiddies: 
>    Quote:
>                          Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*   _     _    
> Then they brainwashed them into divisive anger:  * YouTube - Greenpeace Video  
> Now they just blow them up:   YouTube - How to Cut Carbon Emissions 
> Damn kids have had it coming for a while now. Running around all the time, breathing in and out like carbon dioxide wasn't some type of pollution killing the planet. Selfish little pricks probably dream of having* [s]kids[/s]* polluting units of their own one day too.  
> Wait, what do I hear? Oh that's right, the sweet sounds of silence as AGW Theory proponents once again don't speak out against this insanity due to their own insecurities about the weakness of their position. *

  Your silence was deafening at the time.  
Is your poor taste meter reset yet?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> No disrespect to Japan indended here, simply pointing out that warmth is better than cold.  But I guess you knew that.

  They certainly do. 
Mate, it is a good sign when they have to resort to refuting your style. 
It means they cannot refute your substance.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

> In your opinion (personal, scientific or otherwise), please answer yes or no as you please: 
> Is scientific opinion equal to scientific fact?
> Is personal opinion equal to scientific fact?
> Is scientific opinion equal to scientific proof?
> Is personal opinion equal to scientific proof?
> Is scientific opinion equal to existential reality?
> Is personal opinion equal to existential reality? 
> (For those unsure, the answers are all *NO*.)

  Doc, why not put your bias aside for 10 minutes and read up for yourself.  I didn't provide the links for decoration.   

> A "scientific opinion" is any opinion formed via the scientific method, and so is necessarily evidence-backed. A scientific opinion which represents the formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment, often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the scientific evidence upon which the opinion is based. "The scientific opinion" (or scientific consensus)  can be compared to "the public opinion" and generally refers to the  collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations  and entities and individual scientists in the relevant field. Opinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   

> *Scientific method* refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary  says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has  characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in  systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the  formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
>  Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry  to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from  other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose  hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results. Theories  that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently  derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure.  Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of  hypotheses into context. Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   

> *Scientific evidence* has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is generally expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method  such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. Standards for  evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among  the natural sciences or social sciences. Evidence may involve understanding all steps of a process, or one or a few observations, or observation and statistical analysis of many samples without necessarily understanding the mechanism.  
> ...   *Evidence* is information, such as facts, coupled with principles of inference (the act or process of deriving a conclusion), that make information relevant to the support or negation of a hypothesis.  Scientific evidence is evidence where the dependence of the evidence on  principles of inference is not conceded, enabling others to examine the  background beliefs or assumptions employed to determine if facts are  relevant to the support of or falsification of a hypothesis. Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  *Perhaps, after you have read up a bit and understand it, you may like to correct your erroneous assumption that "the answers are all NO".*   :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> No disrespect to Japan indended here, simply pointing out that warmth is better than cold.  But I guess you knew that.

   

> They certainly do. 
> Mate, it is a good sign when they have to resort to refuting your style. 
> It means they cannot refute your substance.

  So why did you both separately make light of a natural disaster in Japan:  The Doc claiming nuclear power is much safer than wind power soon far the reactor failure in Japan (tell that you all those exposed to fall-out);and Rod with his 'warmth is better' comment and a quote about the Japanese survivors (tell the survivors in cold conditions that the world is warming). *I hardly call that "style" nor is there any "substance" to refute.* 
Lift your game guys - that sort of thing is just very poor taste and offensive.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Doc, why not put your bias aside for 10 minutes and read up for yourself.  I didn't provide the links for decoration.  *Perhaps, after you have read up a bit and understand it, you may like to correct your erroneous assumption that "the answers are all NO".*

  I've put a lot of time and effort into developing my very well informed and valid bias, so why would I put it aside.  :Biggrin:  
You've posted these links enough that I think by now everyone has read them a few times, as I certainly have.  They have also further informed and weighted my bias, and you can imagine how.  :2thumbsup:  
But hey, the questions were put there for you to answer. 
If you disagree, please provide your own answers: 
Is scientific opinion equal to scientific fact?           Yes/No
Is personal opinion equal to scientific fact?            Yes/No
Is scientific opinion equal to scientific proof?          Yes/No
Is personal opinion equal to scientific proof?           Yes/No
Is scientific opinion equal to existential reality?        Yes/No
Is personal opinion equal to existential reality?        Yes/No 
I'm sure your extensive and accurate scientific training at the University of Wikipedia will hold you in good stead.  :Doh:  
Go on, be brave, it's a simple yes or no. 
Or just keep hiding behind flawed logic and irrelevant Wikipedia cut and pastes.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

If these semantic distractions are all you have mate, your scientific argument must really be in the toilet. 
But one more time for the camera's:   

> So why did you both separately make light of a natural disaster in Japan:

  Neither one of us made light of the disaster in Japan. I made light of the idiotic scaremongering from greenies who know they are scaring civilians for no reason. There are serious issues to address to maintain safety at these reactors which the Japanese have conducted successfully with no current ill-health effects, and none are likely at current estimates. So why are these idiotic greenies focussed on this when here are the real tragic numbers being ignored:   

> The national police agency said 7,653 people had been confirmed dead and 11,746 officially listed as missing - a total of 19,399 - as of 11:00 pm (1400 GMT) Saturday as a result of the March 11 catastrophe.  Japan disaster death toll, missing edge near 20,000 - Channel NewsAsia

  And from you:   

> The Doc claiming nuclear power is much safer than wind power soon far the reactor failure in Japan *(tell that you all those exposed to fall-out)*;

  This is exactly the baseless scaremongering I refer to.  Why don't you validate your baseless scaremongering by describing in detail the exact number of people killed or sickened by this "fall-out" you refer to? This is making light of the tragedy by focussing on greenie scaremongering as opposed to the real deaths and tragedy. 
As for Rod's comments, he didn't make light of the tragedy either.  He made light of the AGW hypothesis scaremongering about the Planet "maybe" being a bit warmer. 
If you don't get these nuances, then I guess we can spell this out for you more in the future.  :Doh:     

> Lift your game guys - that sort of thing is just very poor taste and offensive.

  My game is great mate!  :2thumbsup:  
But obviously your taste meter didn't get that well needed reset.  Your continued silence on child exploitation remains deafening.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Is there anyone, and I mean anyone, out there that can explain how the Planet Earth will cool down from this economic joke about to be foisted on us all:   

> *LOW- and middle-income earners will receive tax cuts under a plan by Julia Gillard to compensate families for jacking up the cost of living. *                                The Prime Minister will give battlers the tax break to offset the $600 a year hit family budgets will take when the Government imposes a tax on carbon emissions - part of its plan to fight climate change. 
> ``I know many people are concerned about prices, but we will be using the money we take from polluters to help families out with tight budgets through generous assistance, as well as protect jobs and invest in climate change programs.  Julia Gillard offers tax cuts for some to offset price on carbon | The Daily Telegraph

  Once upon a time in the land of Oz, a princess called JuLIAR decided: 
Government increases tax on business.
Business increases price for consumers.
Government gives tax back to consumers.
Consumers give tax back to business in higher prices.
Business continues unabated.  
And then the whole Planet Earth started cooling down and JuLIAR lived happily ever after.  :Roflmao:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Once upon a time in the land of Oz, a princess called JuLIAR decided: 
> And then the whole Planet Earth started cooling down and JuLIAR lived happily ever after.

  Guess who else believes the fairy tale:   

> ROSS GARNAUT: And in addition, future generations of their family will be protected from dangerous climate change.   Insiders - 20/03/2011: This week on Insiders - Insiders - ABC

   _Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles._

----------


## Dr Freud

> *MANUFACTURERS are mocking the Prime Minister's claim that "low-carbon" goods will cost less, with the carbon tax calculated to add $210 to the price of a new car. *  			 		 		Grocery processors insist food produced in Australia would cost more than food imported from countries that don't have a carbon tax.  
> Julia Gillard said on Monday that "products made with relatively less carbon pollution *will be cheaper* than products made with more carbon pollution".  
> Referring to Ms Gillard's claim of cheaper prices, Ms Carnell replied: *"How can it be true?* This makes imports cheaper because they are not subject to a carbon charge. Australian manufactured groceries will be proportionately more expensive.  
> "Does Australia want a food and grocery manufacturing industry in this country?"
> A spokesman for Ms Gillard yesterday *did not provide any examples of products that would be cheaper* under a carbon trading regime.   PM&#039;s cheaper cost promise mocked | The Australian

  What a joke!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> On Q&A she asserted that it was simply not true that we were the only ones moving to attack carbon pollution (sic). China was closing down a dirty coal-fired power-generation facility at the rate of every one to two weeks, she asserted. And it was putting up a wind turbine at the rate of one every hour, she added.
> The picture she set out to paint was of China replacing dirty coal with clean wind. The truth is, as we've noted through the week, that China is not simply replacing coal with coal but dramatically increasing coal-fired generation.
> Yes, it is closing really dirty coal-fired stations: the ones that pump out those little bits of grit that used to blanket our cities and which Gillard & Co are deliberately seeking to inject into the community's consciousness with their references to carbon pollution.
> Real pollution has long since been banished from our coal-fired power stations and our cities. Smog no longer kills thousands of Londoners every year. But it is still killing thousands in Chinese cities.
> And not just in China. A World Health Organisation report in 2005 noted that more than half the world's population relied on dung, wood, crop waste or coal to meet their most basic energy needs.
> Cooking and heating with such solid fuels on open fires or stoves without chimneys led to indoor air pollution, including small soot or dust particles that were able to penetrate deep into the lungs.
> Every year, this sort of real carbon pollution was responsible for the death of 1.6 million people, WHO wrote in 2005. If anything it would be worse today.
> That is the real carbon pollution. Not the carbon dioxide that is the target (the only target) of her tax; the real pollution that is precisely avoided by our centralised existing clean, yes clean, coal-fired power stations.
> The facts on China are simple and irrefutable. It has a coal-fired system equal to more than 13 times our entire electricity generation. Between now and 2020, it is going to add between 400GW and 500GW to its existing 670GW of coal-fired power generation.
> ...

  Gee, I wonder who is actually a real polluter of this soot then:    

> Cooking and heating with such solid fuels on open fires or stoves without chimneys led to indoor air pollution, including small soot or dust particles that were able to penetrate deep into the lungs.
>  Every year, this sort of real carbon pollution was responsible for the death of 1.6 million people, WHO wrote in 2005. If anything it would be worse today.
>  That is the real carbon pollution.

       
Nice pollution Bob!  :Doh:    
And that's not steam (H2O) like in the ABC pictures.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

To all the warmist out there known and unknown:   

> Your brigade tells us they "believe" all this hokum and there is so much "science" supporting it.
> We ask to see this science.
> They present a few scientists opinions.
> We point out opinions are not facts.
> They insist they are.
> We explain that it is idiotic to suggest that.
> They post graphs showing effects.
> We ask for proof of the causes.
> They insist the effects are the proof.
> ...

  By Doc Freud

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Your brigade tells us they "believe" all this hokum and there is so much "science" supporting it.
> We ask to see this science.
> They present a few scientists opinions.
> We point out opinions are not facts.
> They insist they are.
> We explain that it is idiotic to suggest that.
> They post graphs showing effects.
> We ask for proof of the causes.
> They insist the effects are the proof.
> ...

  In a nut shell Doc

----------


## Rod Dyson

> If these semantic distractions are all you have mate, your scientific argument must really be in the toilet. 
> But one more time for the camera's:   
> Neither one of us made light of the disaster in Japan. I made light of the idiotic scaremongering from greenies who know they are scaring civilians for no reason. There are serious issues to address to maintain safety at these reactors which the Japanese have conducted successfully with no current ill-health effects, and none are likely at current estimates. So why are these idiotic greenies focussed on this when here are the real tragic numbers being ignored:   
> And from you:   
> This is exactly the baseless scaremongering I refer to. Why don't you validate your baseless scaremongering by describing in detail the exact number of people killed or sickened by this "fall-out" you refer to? This is making light of the tragedy by focussing on greenie scaremongering as opposed to the real deaths and tragedy. 
> As for Rod's comments, he didn't make light of the tragedy either. He made light of the AGW hypothesis scaremongering about the Planet "maybe" being a bit warmer. 
> If you don't get these nuances, then I guess we can spell this out for you more in the future.     
> My game is great mate!  
> But obviously your taste meter didn't get that well needed reset. Your continued silence on child exploitation remains deafening.

  Nuff said Doc you got it squared up again while I am out enjoying this great WARM march day :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

> But for the new arrivals, a doctor might look at you in the room and say "In my medical opinion, you have cancer in you leg and we need to amputate it". 
> Do you just cut your leg off, or do you wait for the scans, the blood tests, the x-rays, the second opinions, the third opinions. 
> Then after these "expert opinions" and facts do you still not then form your own opinion, rightly or wrongly? 
> The AGW hypothesis church says you must believe just their opinion only.  Just ignore all the dissenting other opinions, and start cutting CO2 emissions immediately. 
> If you had lots of dissenting medical opinions about your leg, would you just start cutting, or would you first consider the other "expert" opinions, and maybe get more "facts".

  The Doc still seems to have trouble distinguishing between _opinion_ and _scientific opinion_.    *Let's work with the analogy that he has provided...* 
In the analogy, we'll be using _opinion_ and _medical opinion_. 
Firstly, I very much doubt that any doctor will simply "_look at you in the room and say 'In my medical opinion, you have cancer in you leg and we need to amputate it'_" as the Dr Freud has proposed. 
That certainly wouldn't be a 'medical opinion'.  In this case, the doctor might examine the leg and form the _medical opinion_ that there is something that ought to be further investigated.  The doctor might even have a suspicion that it is something serious, but at that stage they won't be in a position to give a _medical opinion_ that it is cancer. 
The doctor would send the patient off for some more non-invasive medical tests - x-rays, ultrasounds, or whatever.  These tests may only confirm that there is something wrong - perhaps a tumour is found, but would not conclusively provide a diagnosis.  Even at this stage the doctor wouldn't be able to provide a _medical opinion_ that the diagnosis is cancer. 
The patient would probably undergo further invasive medical tests where (perhaps) a sample of the tumour is taken and sent to a pathologist for analysis.  The pathologist determines that the tumour is cancer and sends a report to the doctor.  Only at this stage is the doctor able to form a *medical opinion*.    *Is the distinction apparent?  medical opinions (just like scientific opinions) require  evidence to substantiate the opinion.*  *Let's continue with the analogy...* 
The doctor then refers the patient on to a specialist.  The specialist informs the patient that the tumour can be treated with chemo/radio therapy and they will have about a 80% chance of surviving another 5 years. 
The patient, understandably concerned, seeks another opinion.  The second specialist, who likes to treat aggressively, recommends radical surgery (amputate) as this has a 90% chance for a 5-year survival. 
Both treatment options are valid.  Both are acknowledging the existence of the cancer.  *Let's go on with the analogy some more...* 
The patient is quite upset and somewhat traumatised by the diagnosis and the proposed treatment options.  Naturally, they'll probably go through some of the Kuber-Ross 5 stages of grief (denial, anger, bargaining...). 
Convinced that the diagnosis is wrong - it is only a pathologist's medical opinion after all, the patient goes back to the first doctor and asks if the pathology could be wrong.  The doctor explains that is is very unlikely to be wrong, but seeing that the patient is having trouble accepting it, agrees to have it repeated.  The pathology is repeated and the results are identical to the first test. 
The patient is still in denial, and suspects that the pathology service is incompetent and demands the test be repeated again by another pathology service.  The doctor agrees to the additional test.  The pathology is repeated yet again and the results are identical to the first test. 
The patient now suspects that the first doctor is wrong - it is only his medical opinion after all.  The patent go to yet another doctor and the tests are all repeat.  The diagnosis is identical. 
The patient is now convinced that the whole medial system is wrong - it is only a medical opinion after all.  The patient declares that 'there is absolutely zero medical evidence that shows absolutely conclusively that I have cancer'.  They then seek alternatives.  The first alternative medical practitioner, realising it is cancer suggests that the patient return to the original specialist. 
The patient doesn't like this ('opinion' stuff again), so seeks other alternatives.  Eventually, they find someone who claims, after a quick look at the leg, that there is nothing wrong with their leg. If there is any cancer it is small and insignificant.  In any case, cancer is natural and has been occurring for a long time.  It might even just go away by itself.     Also, how can a pathologist tell absolutely for sure it is a problem cancer. They explain that the conventional medical system likes to make up conditions such as cancer to keep themselves in the job - and that they are all in on it.  Don't worry about it, it is probably nothing. 
The patient is happy as they have finally found a 'partitioner' who has provided a diagnosis that they are comfortable with.  *Most of us would clearly see that the patient is in denial.*  *It is quite a relevant analogy for this thread.  It doesn't matter how much scientific evidence there is for AGW, some just won't accept any of it and seek out very dubious and fringe sources to support the view that they are comfortable with. * Just to finish off...
The astute reader would recognise that the patient in the analogy didn't need more medical evidence, they need grief counselling too.

----------


## Bedford

Was it his left or right leg? :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> Was it his left or right leg?

  I'm absolutely, definitely, sure that it was the right leg.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Nuff said Doc you got it squared up again while I am out enjoying this great WARM march day

  A quick 18 holes followed by an icy cold beverage by any chance? 
But stay away from beer and soft drinks, full of pollution apparently.  :Biggrin:  
I had a lovely afternoon in the sun digging septic tanks out.  :Cry:

----------


## chrisp

> I had a lovely afternoon in the sun digging septic tanks out.

  How..., How..., How fitting!   :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Was it his left or right leg?

  IMHO, you always get more trouble from the left.  :Biggrin:    

> My advice to patients to prevent wrongful amputation is simple. Make the surgeon place his initial on the correct extremity while youre still awake. 
> If you know of any wrong-side surgeries, let me know.  _Dr. Gifford-Jones is a medical journalist with a private medical practice in Toronto.  How to Prevent the Wrong Leg Being Amputated | Health | Epoch Times_

----------


## Dr Freud

> How..., How..., How fitting!

  I dunno if it was God or Gaia, but paybacks a b-tch.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Mate, if you put this much effort into researching causation, you would already know what a crock the AGW hypothesis is. 
I won't go through your whole story in sympathy for the mods, but I'll extract some relevant bits.   

> The Doc still seems to have trouble distinguishing between _opinion_ and _scientific opinion_.

  I have clearly (or obviously not) explained the differences between these in much detail, and they both are still not facts.   

> Firstly, I very much doubt that any doctor will simply "_look at you in the room and say 'In my medical opinion, you have cancer in you leg and we need to amputate it'_" as the Dr Freud has proposed.

  It was an analogy to highlight a concept, not a quote.  But let's assume there is a dumb doctor out there (trust me, there are lots).   

> That certainly wouldn't be a 'medical opinion'.

  It certainly wouldn't be a good medical opinion, but it is a medical opinion.  Remember, opinions are not reality, and can well-informed or ill-informed.  At this stage, the medical opinion is ill-informed (other than the training and experience of the doctor).    

> In this case, the doctor might examine the leg and form the _medical opinion_ that there is something that ought to be further investigated.

  Yes, this is another possible medical opinion, there are many possible.   

> The doctor might even have a suspicion that it is something serious, but at that stage they won't be in a position to give a _medical opinion_ that it is cancer.

  If he is a great oncologist who has seen thousands of those cases before, he may give the patient the medical opinion that it is "very likely" to be cancer.  This great doctor would obviously order confirmation tests.   

> The patient would probably undergo further invasive medical tests where (perhaps) a sample of the tumour is taken and sent to a pathologist for analysis. The pathologist determines that the tumour is cancer and sends a report to the doctor. Only at this stage is the doctor able to form a *medical opinion*.

  See, this is where your confusion crosses the line to factual error. Once a biopsy is conducted, we have scientific empirical evidence that the tissue sample is cancerous or not.  This is where black and white thinking is appropriate.  The test will be factual, scientific and requires no opinions. 
The patients personal opinion is now irrelevant, the doctors medical opinion is now irrelevant, and the pathologists scientific opinion is now irrelevant.  The biopsy will give the patient a YES or a NO.  No opinion required.  This is now a scientific fact, and a medical fact.  The doctor can have a medical opinion as to the best treatment, and the patient may have a personal opinion that homeopathy is better (hope not).    

> *Is the distinction apparent?  medical opinions (just like scientific opinions) require  evidence to substantiate the opinion.*

  Yes, the doctors evidence was the clinical examination leading to his medical opinion the patient "very likely" had cancer.  The biopsy was empirical evidence that *proved* the patient had cancer, rendering all opinions irrelevant. 
If the doctor had no biopsy facility, he would still have given the patient his medical opinion based on whatever evidence he could gather (fatigue, loss of appetite, temperature, headaches etc), but the patient runs the risk here that he's relying only on his medical opinion, without the diagnosis being *proved* by the biopsy facility.   

> Convinced that the diagnosis is wrong - it is only a pathologist's medical opinion after all

  It is not the pathologist's medical or scientific opinion, it is a scientific fact. The patient could run the test a million times and he'll get a million results exactly the same as the first.  This is scientific fact, this is empirical evidence, all opinions are now irrelevant.   

> The patient is still in denial, and suspects that the pathology service is incompetent and demands the test be repeated again by another pathology service. The doctor agrees to the additional test. The pathology is repeated yet again and the results are identical to the first test. 
>  The patient now suspects that the first doctor is wrong - it is only his medical opinion after all.

  The denial and repeat tests are fine and normal, but it is *not* "only his medical opinion", it is a scientific fact based on a scientific test.  Most scientists only dream of the definitive accuracy of a biopsy in their fields.   

> The patent go to yet another doctor and the tests are all repeat. The diagnosis is identical.

  Yes, scientific fact is determined by reliability and validity through statistical rigour.   

> The patient is now convinced that the whole medial system is wrong - it is only a medical opinion after all.

  No, it is not "only a medical opinion", it is a scientific fact.   

> The patient declares that 'there is absolutely zero medical evidence that shows absolutely conclusively that I have cancer'.

  The patient is wrong, there is.   

> The patient doesn't like this ('opinion' stuff again), so seeks other alternatives.

  It is not "opinion stuff again" it is a scientific fact.   

> Eventually, they find someone who claims, after a quick look at the leg, that there is nothing wrong with their leg. If there is any cancer it is small and insignificant. In any case, cancer is natural and has been occurring for a long time.

  This "someone" is an idiot, as are they if they listen to them.   

> Also, how can a pathologist tell absolutely for sure it is a problem cancer.

  Because they have a definitive scientific test called a biopsy.   

> They explain that the conventional medical system likes to make up conditions such as cancer to keep themselves in the job - and that they are all in on it. Don't worry about it, it is probably nothing.  The patient is happy as they have finally found a 'partitioner' who has provided a diagnosis that they are comfortable with.

  So, they went with homeopathy after all.  They are both idiots for ignoring valid and reliable scientific facts.   

> *Most of us would clearly see that the patient is in denial.*

  The patient is an idiot.   

> *It is quite a relevant analogy for this thread.*

  Thanks.    

> *It doesn't matter how much scientific evidence there is for AGW, some just won't accept any of it and seek out very dubious and fringe sources to support the view that they are comfortable with.*

  There is absolutely zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis. 
Are you now using the word "for" to hide from the lack of causality.  You should have stuck with "explaining", it sounded much more credible. 
I have said several times throughout this thread, that it was only after reading the IPCC reports that I realised this whole sham was farcical. 
Is the IPCC one of these "fringe sources" you refer to? 
And I am very comfortable with my view, it is based on scientific facts.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

This is a physicist who believes that the AGW hypothesis is real, and is disgusted at the lies and deception run by core climate scientists as highlighted via Climategate: 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller[/ame]  
Did you spot the difference between science fact and science fiction?  :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Mate, if you put this much effort into researching causation, you would already know what a crock the AGW hypothesis is. 
> I won't go through your whole story in sympathy for the mods, but I'll extract some relevant bits.   
> I have clearly (or obviously not) explained the differences between these in much detail, and they both are still not facts.   
> It was an analogy to highlight a concept, not a quote. But let's assume there is a dumb doctor out there (trust me, there are lots).   
> It certainly wouldn't be a good medical opinion, but it is a medical opinion. Remember, opinions are not reality, and can well-informed or ill-informed. At this stage, the medical opinion is ill-informed (other than the training and experience of the doctor).    
> Yes, this is another possible medical opinion, there are many possible.   
> If he is a great oncologist who has seen thousands of those cases before, he may give you the medical opinion that it is "very likely" to be cancer. This great doctor would obviously order confirmation tests.   
> See, this is where your confusion crosses the line to factual error. Once a biopsy is conducted, we have scientific empirical evidence that the tissue sample is cancerous or not. This is where black and white thinking is appropriate. The test will be factual, scientific and requires no opinions. 
> The patients personal opinion is now irrelevant, the doctors medical opinion is now irrelevant, and the pathologists scientific opinion is now irrelevant. The biopsy will give you a YES or a NO. No opinion required. This is now a scientific fact, and a medical fact. The doctor can have a medical opinion as to the best treatment, and the patient may have a personal opinion that homeopathy is better (hope not).    
> ...

  Wow Doc you have excelled here mate. 
I cant believe anyone could dispute this breakdown you are far far to patient IMO. 
Well they could but they would be totally wrong or plan mischievious, blinkered or a bloody idiot. 
Nice work.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Wow Doc you have excelled here mate. 
> I cant believe anyone could dispute this breakdown you are far far to patient IMO. 
> Well they could but they would be totally wrong or plan mischievious, blinkered or a bloody idiot. 
> Nice work.

  Thanks mate. 
Shovelling sand in the sun cooked the noodle a bit. 
It's probably the dehydration talking.  :Sweatdrop:

----------


## chrisp

> The patient is an idiot.

  I thought I'd be rude if I explicitly took the analogy that far, but if you insist, I won't disagree.   :Smilie:

----------


## johnc

> Thanks mate. 
> Shovelling sand in the sun cooked the noodle a bit. 
> .

  
We wont be rude and disagree.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I've put a lot of time and effort into developing my very well informed and valid bias, so why would I put it aside.  
> You've posted these links enough that I think by now everyone has read them a few times, as I certainly have.  They have also further informed and weighted my bias, and you can imagine how.  
> But hey, the questions were put there for you to answer. 
> If you disagree, please provide your own answers: 
> Is scientific opinion equal to scientific fact?           Yes/No
> Is personal opinion equal to scientific fact?            Yes/No
> Is scientific opinion equal to scientific proof?          Yes/No
> Is personal opinion equal to scientific proof?           Yes/No
> Is scientific opinion equal to existential reality?        Yes/No
> ...

  
After ten days or so of doing something useful....I'll take bite on the nonsense candy: 
Is scientific opinion equal to scientific fact? No....since there are very few facts in Science (or even Life) and a great many opinions. 
Is personal opinion equal to scientific fact? No....for the same reason. 
Is scientific opinion equal to scientific proof? No.....because a proof is the demonstration of a valid hypothesis to a confidence interval of 95% or greater (which means that if you repeat an experiment 100 times then the same result will be obtained on more than 95 attempts).  Therefore, opinion...doesn't enter into it. 
Is personal opinion equal to scientific proof? No....for the same reason. 
Is scientific opinion equal to existential reality?        Yes. Because opinions and the experience of reality is unique to the individual 
Is personal opinion equal to existential reality?        Yes....for the same reason.  
In the end, Freud (and others)...what you are buggering up is the difference between a proof and a hypothesis.  And then smearing politics over the lot... 
In simple terms: 
Anthropogenic climate change (as in the impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere) has been demonstrated as real and observable in repeated analysis of the data in a number of papers, many of which have been refered to in this thread over the years.  *What remains in contention* is the many hypothesis about how the impacts of that anthropogenic climate change will be manifest right across the biosphere.  We know impacts will occur (ice retreat, sea level rise etc etc) but we are not very certain about how much and where and what we can do about it. They could be great or they could be unmeasurable....it could be realised in a few decades or a few centuries.  We might have taken it too far to have a chance of preventing any impact or they may still be decades.  Either way there's plenty of material out there already to support every possible alternative of those three you could care to dream up.  
Why the truck most of you sceptics don't focus on this part of the  problem is a thorough mystery to me....instead you meander around  slinging ignorance & conspiracy theories and generally discrediting  yourselves on the rocks of fundamental physics that have defined & demonstrable  since the 17th Century.  If you actually focussed your energies on the stuff that  genuinly requires frequent and logical scepticism then the World would be a much much better place. 
The basic problem with understanding potential impacts arising from AGW is that there only two ways to find out - the first is tinker with the Earth (like a patient in a medical trial) except there's only one planet which kind of increases the risks associated with ballsing it up.  The other is to plug what we know about the way our planet works into hundreds of different computer models containing all the knowledge and assumptions we have....and pretending to run the planet in a million different ways to see what happens most often...and then compare that to what we see in real life....and repeat ad infinitum.   
The first option is slow to give an answer (and it could be definitive in a negative trajectory) and comes with ridiculously high risks.  The second gives you many answers, even more questions but a lot of hints as to which direction the answer might be heading....but no definitive answer on way or the other 
A bit like most weather models - if 8 out of 10 models say that there's a better than 50% chance of 50mm of rain tomorrow then that's a pretty each way bet that you might need an umbrella if you are going out....but not enough to stake a million bucks on a 20:1 shot of getting 75mm exactly. 
If a bet has to be made (using risk to my life as the stake) then I much prefer each way bets in the absence of real knowledge about the proverbial horse...... 
Says the Goat to his flock of Sheep....<sigh>

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> See, this is where your confusion crosses the line to factual error. Once a biopsy is conducted, we have scientific empirical evidence that the tissue sample is cancerous or not.  This is where black and white thinking is appropriate.  The test will be factual, scientific and requires no opinions. 
> The patients personal opinion is now irrelevant, the doctors medical opinion is now irrelevant, and the pathologists scientific opinion is now irrelevant.  The biopsy will give the patient a YES or a NO.  No opinion required.  This is now a scientific fact, and a medical fact.  The doctor can have a medical opinion as to the best treatment, and the patient may have a personal opinion that homeopathy is better (hope not). 
> Yes, the doctors evidence was the clinical examination leading to his medical opinion the patient "very likely" had cancer.  The biopsy was empirical evidence that *proved* the patient had cancer, rendering all opinions irrelevant.

  
I can easily disagree with Frued's supopsed refutation.....and so would I suspect most medical doctors. Or anybody else with a whiff  
Pathology reports (or any other lab or field based observation of an event) are not simple or definitive YES or NO answers. They are observations of presence/absence, poopulation size etc with confidence levels based on the observation methodology and the degree to which that methodology was followed. They require interpretation which is derived from the training and experience of both the pathologist AND the doctor involved.  If they required no interpretation then why the hell do we need doctors...we could simply rely on the yes/no answer from the technician.  No thanks. 
Observations that are repeatable to a 95% confidence intervals (what Freud appears to  blithely call a 'fact') *can not, do not and never will* render opinions irrelevant.  If that were the case then neither scientists nor sceptics in any and every field would have nothing to be sceptical about...which is clearly not true.

----------


## chrisp

> Pathology reports (or any other lab or field based observation of an event) are not simple or definitive YES or NO answers. They are observations of presence/absence, poopulation size etc with confidence levels based on the observation methodology and the degree to which that methodology was followed. They require interpretation which is derived from the training and experience of both the pathologist AND the doctor involved.

  I find it somewhat amusing and somewhat ironic that 'Dr Freud' can somehow accept  pathology reports as black-and-white (some that simply involve staining some cells and look at them under a microscope.  Let alone the possible mix ups in taking, labelling and shipping samples and reports).  Whereas AGW science has to be proved to the same level as the proof of the irrationality of the square-root-of-two, and agreed to by every living scientist in the world, before he'll even consider it. 
Unfortunately, the superfluous and ambit argument over the existence of AGW is distracting us for some of the more relevant issues and matters such as those raised by Bedford. 
It seems that SBD's prophecy might just be right.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Dont tell me another AL Gore Prediction has bitten the dust.   

> *Kilimanjaro regaining its snow cap* 
> Posted on March 21, 2011 by Anthony Watts 
> Paging Dr. Lonnie Thompson and Al Gore. From ETN: 
> “Global warming” has nothing to do with this, it’s all about rainfall, deforestation, and evapotranspiration. I’m not ashamed to say: “We told you so”, several times:  More proof that Kilimanjaro’s problems are man-made; but not what some think it is OSU’s Dr. Lonnie Thompson pushes gloom and doom, still thinks the snows of Kilimanjaro are melting due to global warming Kilimanjaro’s snow – it’s about land use change, tree cutting Oh no, not this Kilimanjaro ice rubbish again! Another dumb climate stunt from NBC – climbing Kilimanjaro Gore wrong on Kilimanjaro snow: Its the trees and “freezer burn” Yet another inconvenient story ignored by the MSM.
> h/t to ClimateDepot and Steve Goddard

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here you go boys something for you to take apart.  Be sure to go to the link now!   

> Ten Major Failures of Consensus Science  By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow 
> INTRODUCTION The US congress sub-committee on Energy and Commerce Committee held hearings on whether to restrict in some way the EPA’s regulatory authority relative to greenhouse gas emissions. 
> There were 7 scientists invited to testify. Three of the four who argued not to restrict the EPA played a key role in the last IPCC report (and will also in the next one) and generally started with the position that IPCC science was sound and there was a consensus of all real scientists. 
> In the attached analysis we take a look at the IPCC based science. We are going to ignore all the many 'gates' that were uncovered like the Himalayan glaciers, Amazon rain forests, how many real scientists there were who authored the key summaries and all the issues as to whether the summaries truly reflected the scientific information in the chapters and despite claims to the contrary, how a significant percentage of citations were not peer reviewed. 
> We will not attempt to address the issues of sensitivity for CO2 or solar and cloud and water vapor feedbacks relative to the models. We will also ignore the many model shortcomings - like inability to forecast regional patterns, ocean oscillations, etc. We will focus on how actual data compares to the consensus science, model based virtual world view of climate.

   
Link part 1 http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_failures_part_1.pdf 
Link part 2 http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_...es_part_II.pdf 
empirical evidence is mounting against you LOL

----------


## Dr Freud

Lads, it still amazes me how much effort you put into arguing about analogies rather than the lack of evidence proving your farcical theory.  :Biggrin:  
If you put that much effort into the AGW hypothesis, you would likely have proved it by now. 
I'll response to your bizarre fixations with biopsies above tomorrow, as I wasted my valuable posting time watching Q&A.  Rest assured your incorrect assertions above will be highlighted in detail.  :2thumbsup:  
But good on you Rod for continuing to fight the good fight while I wrestle with these semantic distractions. 
And as luck would have it, I have a work commitment during the anti Carbon Dioxide Tax rally now.  :Annoyed:  
I'm trying to get my mum to go instead.  :Protest:

----------


## johnc

To believe D'Alio you have to accept his view that the data from the major climate centres is falsified because the only way he can run his bull dung is to ignore the data which does not support his conclusions. In his case that is most of the available data, although there is plenty of proof that D'Alio is not arguing a supportable proposition. It doesn't stop those who want to suspend there own belief in reality from referencing him, in the relentless pursuit of a preheld view in the hope that the ever expanding brown haze surrounding skeptics in general will hide the fact that they actually don't like facts at all. 
You can read this article that gives both sides of the d'alio view. Right-wing media forward conspiracy theory that NASA, NOAA manipulate climate data | Media Matters for America

----------


## chrisp

> I wasted my valuable posting time watching Q&A.

  If you managed to tune in early, you might have also managed to see Media Watch too.  Media Watch: Balancing a hot debate (21/03/2011)    

> And as luck would have it, I have a work commitment during the anti Carbon Dioxide Tax rally now.

  Too bad, Doc.  Maybe you'll be able to make it to the Flat Earth rally instead?   :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Here you go boys something for you to take apart.  Be sure to go to the link now! 
> Link part 1 http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_failures_part_1.pdf 
> Link part 2 http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_...es_part_II.pdf 
> empirical evidence is mounting against you LOL
> [/size]

  Errrrr......no it isn't.  These ten 'failures' relate to exactly the problems | was talking about earlier in my last diatribe.  In summary, you and way to many of your ilk are being 'sceptical' about the wrong end of the stick. 
As for being a failure of 'consensus' science....what is the alternative that the author is proposing?  'Dictatorial Science'?  'Lets Vote On it Science'? 'No Science'? 'Religous Science'? 'Let The Market Decide Science'?  My predicition is that is is 'Politically Driven Ignorance'....as in "the Politicians are smarter than the Scientists so you the [s]Voter[/s] Sheep should trust us".  Thuck Fat (as my Vietnamese friend used to say).  *None of these 'failures' identified have anything to say about whether AGW is happening or not.*  They all refer to predicted impacts as a result of AGW......with the apparent expectation that if the impacts don't occur then AGW is equivalent to the Tooth Fairy.  However, D'Aleo's analysis does show that impacts are occuring in some of the indictors assessed but they are not necessarily tracking in exact lock step with modelled predictions.  This doesn't constitute a refutation of AGW....it is merely a refutation of a selection of some of the model findings. 
Those of us familiar with models and modelling are so unsurprised by this finding.  Have been for ages.  Models only predict a trend (+ve or -ve) and a rate of change with a lower and upper confidence limit.  Humans (scientists mostly but media does it too) then use those predictions to create simplified numbers that might be palatable for a wider audience. 
Models are only as good as the combination of the available data, the available knowledge about the behaviour of the systems being modelled, the rigor behind the assumptions included in the model and _the rigor of the analysis of the modelled output_. They are about providing a simple sense of how complex systems might behave. That they don't mimic real life is extremely well understood and accepted.   
However, the general public, politicians want certainty.....empirical results...before taking a tentative step forward. 
Sorry.....that will *never* happen.  Observations only happen in real time.  There is no forewarning - we can only see a trend by tooking back.   
Let me ask....would you prefer to observe an earthquake firsthand? Or would you prefer to use the observations you have to date to try to predict that one might be coming with sufficient timeliness to allow you to get out of harms way?  Earthquake predictive modelling and climate change predictive modelling are basically the same thing applied to two different fields.....and nether produce perfect results - but both have form (in the modern day) in using available data to suggest probabilities that poo will happen. 
D'Aleo's analysis and many of his findings are perfectly valid.  One could quibble over his selective choice of timeframes and many of the details but his general thrust of criticism over modelled predictions compared to the actual data collected in the years following publication of those predictions is perfectly valid.  It is all grist to the mill in terms of making our predictive capacity better into the future.  But it does not counter the reality of AGW....nor does it suggest that the world climate isn't changing under its influence (or that of its other drivers).  It does suggest that we still aren't smart enough to descibe it as exactly as we'd like but it also suggests that neither are we smart enough to take even a hint of the warning on offer....  
Forewarned is forarmed so the story goes.  The rest is up to you.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And as luck would have it, I have a work commitment during the anti Carbon Dioxide Tax rally now.

  I can see it now....   

> *HEADLINE* 
> Perth Anti Carbon Tax Rally suffers 10% fall in attendance due to Intrusion Of Real Life. 
> Significance of this blow is lost on those few remaining truly committed to the Cause. 
> The Faceless Men now considering pushing Pensioners to the Front to face the Challenge.

  
What you are saying, Freud is that your Job is far more important than what last week was, to you, the most dangerous social, economic and political implement that Australia has faced.....ever.  And that your Mum will fix it instead. 
THAT is the funniest thing I reckon I'll read all year....  Freud's New Catchcry: Mum will fix it!!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> To believe D'Alio you have to accept his view that the data from the major climate centres is falsified because the only way he can run his bull dung is to ignore the data which does not support his conclusions. In his case that is most of the available data, although there is plenty of proof that D'Alio is not arguing a supportable proposition. It doesn't stop those who want to suspend there own belief in reality from referencing him, in the relentless pursuit of a preheld view in the hope that the ever expanding brown haze surrounding skeptics in general will hide the fact that they actually don't like facts at all. 
> You can read this article that gives both sides of the d'alio view. Right-wing media forward conspiracy theory that NASA, NOAA manipulate climate data | Media Matters for America

  Like this Johnc? NASA GISS Busted: 'GISS reports that the average temps in Tromo, Norway during July and August, 1922 &ndash; were a cool 14.8 and 11.9 C' | Climate Depot

----------


## johnc

> Like this Johnc? NASA GISS Busted: 'GISS reports that the average temps in Tromo, Norway during July and August, 1922 &ndash; were a cool 14.8 and 11.9 C' | Climate Depot

  
Busted on the strength of a single paragraph from a newspaper, of course papers never get it wrong, do they? 
An impartial reader would wonder what coroborating evidence is available to lead to a sensible opinion, a skeptic just grasps for the one that supports their view, nothing new there. :Tongue:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

How's for the Homily of The Day......   *Denial v's Progress*  
From Denial vs. Progress. | Indexed

----------


## Marc

> The Doc still seems to have trouble distinguishing between _opinion_ and _scientific opinion_.

  Skipping piously over the pretense of the post and the condescending and  patronising content and wording of the "analogy" by our very own part time  amateur tree hugger and AGW cheer leader Chris ......rrrrrrrr (drum  roll) 
Lets try another analogy 
Suddenly and out of the blue,  governments around the world start advertising that a 
Horrible calamity is  upon us. 
A virulent strain of Zegoaroo flue has been unleashed by the  Javanese bush fires that has pushed this creature from it's habitat up in the  mountains of Bongo Bongo. The flu pandemic has spread to the volunteers helping  out and they have brought it back to their countries. 
Everyone needs to  vaccinate. Scientific proof of the virus strain is clear from the many people  that show flue like symptoms during flue season. There has been a 0.3% increase  in the number of ill people and this proves beyond reasonable doubt that the  Zegoaroo flue strain is going to decimate human population in 2013, the horizon  level is going to rise at least 13 meters and hair growth particularly in middle  aged men is going to be a thing of the past. Pubic hair is already falling off  as we speak in massive proportions and the bacteria count on the Arctic ice is  so high that no amount of anti-idiotic spray will be able to stop  it. 
All-Gore & Co, the only drug lab in the west able to provide the  massive number of vaccines in time for this pandemic is ready and able to  deliver. Millions oblige and que up for the shot despite its cost of $1,957.50.   
Suddenly the interest for the remedy takes off. Germany is trading the  vaccine on the share market, in Spain it is sold in the black market during  siesta time and in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, large shipments of fake vaccine is  ready to cross the frontier. 
Politicians of all persuasions stand on their  respective podium, pontificating on it's necessity and virtues, for the sake of  humanity and the planet. Their paid scientist draw graphs that look like a hokey  stick with the projection of flue case numbers going viral. 
However  problems soon start becoming public. The vaccine seems to trigger an immune  reaction that leaves some people paralysed, others dead. The first cases are  hidden, others are given a different diagnosis in their death certificate. Most  only point at the problems as PROOF that the virus is deadly and that we must  vaccinate without hesitation. The world must know of our determination to save  the planet! 
It does not take long for Wikileaks to releases email among  the scientist involved in the discovery of the Zegoaroo virus strain  acknowledging that the death and paralysis are undeniable and that thy are an  inconvenience for the science behind the flue vaccine and must be hidden at all  cost. New cases are denied, proof is deleted and the debate for the need of a  vaccination continues. 
 Russia and China announce to provide the vaccine  and let their citizen pay in kind with 10 hours of community service a week.  Europeans pay reluctantly, the US provides people on low income with coupons to  offset 50% of the cost and the Labour government in Australia announces that  Centrelink will pay a refund of the total price via one off cheque for every  citizen in their database regardless if they have received the vaccine or not.  Refugees will get two cheque.      
 [IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Mark/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-4.png[/IMG]
Zegoaroo in the Javanese jungle

----------


## watson

Sheeit...I think I just caught that.

----------


## chrisp

> Sheeit...I think I just caught that.

  Which leg?

----------


## watson

:b: 
Blush

----------


## mark53

> Piaget specialised in researching childhood psychology, primarily by studying his own children. These case studies led to very impressive leaps in understanding human psychological development. 
> It is tragic that you have misapplied his concept this badly. 
> Issues that exist on a spectrum require abstract thought. For example, one of the examples similar to your link is the construct of happiness. Humans obviously are not either happy or unhappy, but exist somewhere along this spectrum from being morose to being blissfull. 
> Issues that are categorical require black and white thinking. For example, if you were changing some wiring in your house, you need to know whether the power is off or on. This is black and white. 
> Both abstract and concrete thinking have their places in science and in the everyday world. Some say wisdom is knowing which one to use and when. 
> But that's enough psychobabble, any more and I'll start billing you.

  Thanks Doc. I appreciate your searchlight on the truth.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Sheeit...I think I just caught that.

  And I just caught a bus to Canberra

----------


## watson

Now I hope that's not catching  :Hahaha:

----------


## Dr Freud

Lads, I'll do some of the big errors, cos I'm falling behind in my Andrew Bolt reading, so will have to ignore all your minor discrepancies for now.  :Biggrin:    

> since there are very few facts in Science (or even Life) and a great many opinions

  There are very many facts in science (and life) today that weren't previously accepted or acknowledged.  Just because we stand on the shoulders of giants, we should not stomp on their great work.   

> Anthropogenic climate change (as in the impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere) has been demonstrated as real and observable in repeated analysis of the data in a number of papers, many of which have been refered to in this thread over the years.

  This is too confused to go through in detail.  There is the AGW hypothesis.  This "climate change" is a ridiculous joke designed to confuse the weak-minded after the AGW Church realised the Planet stopped warming over a decade ago.  Cowboy up and argue your position, rather than hiding behind the latest spin cycle. 
And it would be nice for you to "quantify" something.  I know for a fact that Dr Freud Climate Change exists.  Everything I do effects the climate in some way.  But quantifying that effect is the issue.  Why has not one AGW hypothesis supporter every produced this empirical evidence between human CO2 emissions and warming.  I have scoured the IPCC reports and not found it (plenty of psychic computers, assumptions and just plain made up numbers).  Care to post a link for my "quantification"?   

> *What remains in contention* is the many hypothesis about how the impacts of that anthropogenic climate change will be manifest right across the biosphere.

  No. What remains in contention is whether the AGW hypothesis is real or not.  The reason for this is that there is zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis. 
This is not to say there is an argument whether CO2 is a GHG, this is a scientific fact. 
You people may need to read what the AGW hypothesis actually is and you may actually change your mind.   

> We know impacts will occur (ice retreat, sea level rise etc etc) but we are not very certain about how much and where and what we can do about it. They could be great or they could be unmeasurable....it could be realised in a few decades or a few centuries. We might have taken it too far to have a chance of preventing any impact or they may still be decades. Either way there's plenty of material out there already to support every possible alternative of those three you could care to dream up.

  Sit down for this one mate.  The Planet's been doing this for about 4.5 billion years.   

> Why the truck most of you sceptics don't focus on this part of the  problem is a thorough mystery to me

  Because we have super duper intelligence and we don't see problems, we see reality.   

> ....instead you meander around  slinging ignorance & conspiracy theories

  I know you guys are light on when it comes to proof, but proof of this would be nice.   

> and generally discrediting yourselves on the rocks of fundamental physics that have defined & demonstrable since the 17th Century.

  I know you guys are light on when it comes to proof, but proof of this would be nice.   

> If you actually focussed your energies on the stuff that genuinly requires frequent and logical scepticism then the World would be a much much better place.

  See Al Gore, he got the world peace prize dude.  I'm just batting for Australia's properity and way of life. 
And if you think we shouldn't be sceptical of JuLIAR saying her BIG NEW TAX will cool down the whole Planet Earth and save our grandchildren from the end of the world, then you must have some even bigger myths and delusions to fight than I do.   

> (and it could be definitive in a negative trajectory)

  (and it could be definitive in a positive trajectory)   

> and comes with ridiculously high risks

  See, there you go with baseless scaremongering again.  Is "ridiculously high" near the top of the scientific DEFCON scale?   

> Says the Goat to his flock of Sheep....

  It's time to goat the flock outa here.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I can easily disagree with Frued's supopsed refutation.....

  You usually do.  :Biggrin:    

> Pathology reports (or any other lab or field based observation of an event) are not simple or definitive YES or NO answers. They are observations of presence/absence, poopulation size etc with confidence levels based on the observation methodology and the degree to which that methodology was followed.

  Geez this is hard work.  How can you say "any...field based observation of an event" are not definitive? Do you not believe in reality?  But to avoid another semantic sidetrack, let's finish this one now and get back to your's and JuLIAR's reality, or "the fairy tale" as I refer to it. 
A confidence level is a specific measure of a confidence interval, which is a measure of effect size or statistical power based on a subset of data extracted from a full population of data.  This is a statistical measure based on data sets.   
If you are looking for a cancer cell in a tissue sample, you only to see one cell, you still have cancer.  These observations are not statistical, they are categorical.  It is a YES/NO answer.  There are plenty of medical tests that do require statistical interpretation,  cancer biopsy is not one of them.  For a lot of these cancer biopsies, a well-trained pathologist will not only say yes, they will tell you exactly what type of cancer it is, as opposed to any others.  This is categorical, not statistical evidence.  They look at it and they see it.  I refer to this as reality.   

> They require interpretation which is derived from the training and experience of both the pathologist AND the doctor involved. If they required no interpretation then why the hell do we need doctors...we could simply rely on the yes/no answer from the technician. No thanks.

  I didn't say we could hand these tests out in weetie packets.  Doctors, including pathologists, are trained to label these cancers according to recognising them and categorising them according to various recognition techniques, such as dyes.  But when they see them and categorise them, this is categorical and definitive.  There is no confidence interval required.  We need the doctors to get their opinion on what tests prior to, and what treatments post diagnosis.  We don't ask if in their medical opinion we have cancer, they will show you the slide and point out the cancer cells if you ask, then you can see them too.   

> Observations that are repeatable to a 95% confidence intervals (what Freud appears to  blithely call a 'fact') *can not, do not and never will* render opinions irrelevant.

  If you observe a train pulling into the station, it is a train.  If you observe tree falling toward you, it is a tree.  You need to learn to separate reality from the statistical world.  Confidence intervals ( as I have explained many times in this thread ) are statistical measures relating to data subsets where true populations are not measureable.  When you see the tree falling, this is the entire population so you don't need statistics to tell you to get out of the way.  This is a categorical and definitive observation.  I call this reality. 
I don't know how I explain it any clearer that statistics are used to help us determine attributes of population parameters that are pragmatically immeasurable.  If we can observe the reality, these are the facts. 
This truly is tiresome...there are heaps of good NHST sites out there (NOT the Trenberth ones!!!).  :Banghead:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I find it somewhat amusing and somewhat ironic that 'Dr Freud' can somehow accept pathology reports as black-and-white (some that simply involve staining some cells and look at them under a microscope.

  Cancer biopsies are black and white.  They will either see cancer cells (and name them) or they will not.  This is definitive.  Obviously if they take the tissue sample out of a healthy tissue area, there will be no tissue cells.  This does not mean the biopsy is flawed, it means the person taking the sample is flawed.  The fact they see no cells is still a definitive diagnosis of no cancer cells in that tissue.   

> Let alone the possible mix ups in taking, labelling and shipping samples and reports).

  Humans being moron's does not indicate the actual biopsy test is responsible.   

> Whereas AGW science has to be proved to the same level as the proof of the irrationality of the square-root-of-two, and agreed to by every living scientist in the world, before he'll even consider it.

  Mate, there is not even a valid correlation yet for CO2 and temperature.  This is so far from empirically observed facts that I still can't believe I'm actually explaining this stuff.  As I've said many times before, the best the AGW hypothesis can claim is a short term trend analysis result.  This is as compelling as a Kevin Rudd essay.    

> Unfortunately, the superfluous and ambit argument over the existence of AGW is distracting us for some of the more relevant issues and matters such as those raised by Bedford.

  Remember, there is zero empirical evidence proving the AGW hypothesis. 
The issues raised by Bedford could be very environmentally relevant if the whole world was acting (and the AGW hypothesis was real), and they will be very economically relevant for Australians as we watch our standard of living reduced for no reason.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Here you go boys something for you to take apart.  Be sure to go to the link now!   
> Link part 1 http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_failures_part_1.pdf 
> Link part 2 http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_...es_part_II.pdf 
> empirical evidence is mounting against you LOL
> [/size]

  Had a quick skim mate, but looks like another nail in the coffin.  I'll have a full read on the weekend.  But the yanks were over this farce a long time ago anyway, they are just filling in the dirt on the carcass over there.  They will never have an ETS now.

----------


## Dr Freud

> As for being a failure of 'consensus' science....what is the alternative that the author is proposing?  'Dictatorial Science'?  'Lets Vote On it Science'? 'No Science'? 'Religous Science'? 'Let The Market Decide Science'?  My predicition is that is is 'Politically Driven Ignorance'....as in "the Politicians are smarter than the Scientists so you the [s]Voter[/s] Sheep should trust us".  Thuck Fat (as my Vietnamese friend used to say).

  Er, how about we stick to fact based science.   

> But it does not counter the reality of AGW....

  Reality counters the AGW hypothesis.

----------


## Dr Freud

> What you are saying, Freud is that your Job is far more important than what last week was, to you, the most dangerous social, economic and political implement that Australia has faced.....ever.  And that your Mum will fix it instead.

  Again, you are so easily confused.  Your false dichotomy is not reality.  My attendance will not stop this farce, so it is not a choice between my job and stopping the tax.  I think I am that powerful, but I didn't think you also believed I was this powerful that my attendance alone would stop the tax.  It is a choice between my families livelihood and a symbolic political event.  I obviously chose my families livelihood.  But even if every person in WA turned up it would not stop this farce. 
This farce threatens a lot of jobs, so no need to mindlessly add mine to the list for zero outcome.  As this protest is symbolic, I would never ask people (myself included) to put their family in jeopardy to make a symbolic point.  I'll be at the protest that counts, it's called the election (so will my mum  :Rofl5: .   
But I have been juggling some appointments today and just might make it now.  I'll let you know tomorrow how I go.  :2thumbsup:  
But as I said before, good old mum is strongly against this is and going anyway.  Maybe  she'll get some of her blue rinse cronies out there as well.  As I have previously indicated, the majority of us taxpayers don't have the luxury of every day free like the handout brigade I see regularly hanging out at shopping centres causing trouble. 
Over the last few weeks I've started answering their request for "got any change mate" with the response "just the climate".  They just look confused.   :Biggrin:    

> THAT is the funniest thing I reckon I'll read all year....

  That's because the Carbon Dioxide Tax legislation isn't written yet.  :Biggrin:    

> Freud's New Catchcry: Mum will fix it!!

  Oh, the irony!  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  
She is a tough old bird, but like the rest of us only gets one vote.  The majority of Australians are needed to fix this mess.  If they don't, they can live with the consequences.  I will try to inform them until either the election or reality hits Canberra.  :Doh:  
My instinct tells me the election will hit first.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

See, now it's late and I'm tired. 
May need energy to wave the banner tomorrow. 
And no time to cut and paste from the esteemed Andrew Bolt.  :Annoyed:   
Well, just one then, seeing as you looked so disappointed.  :Biggrin:    

> It is deliberate and it is grossly offensive - a foul smear acceptable only to the shameless:  _THE Liberal Party has accused Julia Gillard of drawing parallels between climate change and the Holocaust after she branded Tony Abbott a climate change denier. _  _The manager of opposition business Christopher Pyne said that after 11 years as chair of the Parliamentary Friendship Group on Israel, he was offended by the form of words - which he likened to the term Holocaust denier._  _Amid uproar in the House of Representatives, Mr Pyne asked the Prime Minister to withdraw the comment_  _We know that she is trying to allude to the Holocaust. It is offensive and it must stop._  _Speaker Harry Jenkins refused to accept the basis of the complaint._Then Jenkins is woefully ill-informed into how low his colleagues will stoop. Here former Greens candidate Professor Clive Hamilton, a warming extremist, makes that foul link explicit:   _ 
> Instead of dishonouring the deaths of six million in the past, climate deniers risk the lives of hundreds of millions in the future. Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust, but climate deniers, if they were to succeed, would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming So the answer to the question of whether climate denialism is morally worse than Holocaust denialism is no, at least, not yet._Fellow extremist  Professor Robert Manne has endorsed that link and that abuse of AGW sceptics:  _Scepticism is in general, as it should be, a positive word, denoting scientific or humanistic curiosity and in particular the presence of an open mind Denialism, a concept that was first widely used, as far as I know, for those who claimed that the Holocaust was a fraud, is the concept I believe we should use._ So Jenkins should be in no doubt what the term really signifies and how despicable it is. 
>    But while Abbott shows the appropriate sensitivity, Combet insists on appropriating the horror of a genocide to make his cheap political smear:  _Opposition Leader Tony Abbott accepted the Speakers judgment but placed on the record that he found the term climate change denier offensive and untruthful._  _Climate Change Minister Greg Combet was undeterred by the oppositions sensitivity to the term._  _When you stop denying the climate science, well stop calling you a denier. Thats the fact of the matter, he told parliament._ Combet should realise that people with a historical memory and a love of reason find his language contemptible.     Six million Jews didn’t die so Combet could smear a sceptic | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Greg Combet has now lost all credibility. 
Does anyone think that he actually knows any of this "climate science" he so condescendingly refers to. 
Just remember Greg, you drew First Blood!  :Rambo:

----------


## johnc

It's just Pyne up to his usual tricks, and it will be no surprise that Bolt will jump onto the coat tails of Pynes smear. Denier is not a unique word and it is a long bow to say it is the identifier to the death of so many Jews in the 1940's. This is just part of the juvenile antics politicians of all persuassions get up to and shouldn't be encouraged. Holocaust and Pogrom are words one would associate with the massacre of so many Jewish innocents and it is very poor form to use these deaths to score a cheap political shot from the opposition benches. The press with the exception of Liberal cheer leaders like Bolt seem to be painting this as kindergarten standard behaviour, and not a very edifying performance at all. Denier is in common usage and applies to much more than those against the global warming view and this link has not been mentioned before so why on earth would anyone bring it up now.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Geez this is hard work.  How can you say "any...field based observation of an event" are not definitive? Do you not believe in reality?  But to avoid another semantic sidetrack, let's finish this one now and get back to your's and JuLIAR's reality, or "the fairy tale" as I refer to it. 
> A confidence level is a specific measure of a confidence interval, which is a measure of effect size or statistical power based on a subset of data extracted from a full population of data.  This is a statistical measure based on data sets.   
> If you are looking for a cancer cell in a tissue sample, you only to see one cell, you still have cancer.  These observations are not statistical, they are categorical.  It is a YES/NO answer.  There are plenty of medical tests that do require statistical interpretation,  cancer biopsy is not one of them.  For a lot of these cancer biopsies, a well-trained pathologist will not only say yes, they will tell you exactly what type of cancer it is, as opposed to any others.  This is categorical, not statistical evidence.  They look at it and they see it.  I refer to this as reality.   
> I didn't say we could hand these tests out in weetie packets.  Doctors, including pathologists, are trained to label these cancers according to recognising them and categorising them according to various recognition techniques, such as dyes.  But when they see them and categorise them, this is categorical and definitive.  There is no confidence interval required.  We need the doctors to get their opinion on what tests prior to, and what treatments post diagnosis.  We don't ask if in their medical opinion we have cancer, they will show you the slide and point out the cancer cells if you ask, then you can see them too. 
> If you observe a train pulling into the station, it is a train.  If you observe tree falling toward you, it is a tree.  You need to learn to separate reality from the statistical world.  Confidence intervals ( as I have explained many times in this thread ) are statistical measures relating to data subsets where true populations are not measureable.  When you see the tree falling, this is the entire population so you don't need statistics to tell you to get out of the way.  This is a categorical and definitive observation.  I call this reality. 
> I don't know how I explain it any clearer that statistics are used to help us determine attributes of population parameters that are pragmatically immeasurable.  If we can observe the reality, these are the facts. 
> This truly is tiresome...there are heaps of good NHST sites out there (NOT the Trenberth ones!!!).

  My only conclusion from reading this drivel is that it is very difficult to argue with a box of left handed hammers.  
Freud, the evidence suggests that you know very little about the collection of environmental (or medical, for that matter) data and even less about its analysis and interpretation.   
As someone who does this (among other things) for a living.....reading your bunkum about how you think this works is what is truly tiresome.  I tend to find watching the wilful demonstration of ignorance in public by others really difficult to tolerate.....and you do it time and time again. 
Suffice to say I shoot these two sentences only... 
"How can you say "any...field based observation of an event" are not definitive?" 
Easy.  Many parameters make up an event.  Trees don't fall on you for no reason nor is it ever the same tree. Have you ever see two cyclones that are identical in every way? Observing an event is a one time instantaneous observation.  All you've seen is one way that an event (and the parameters that created it) behaves in one little moment - this single observation does not provide a definitive definition of the event.  But more importantly, events almost never happen the same way twice for exactly the same reason....they are unique, similar certainly but never exactly the same. So to adequately describe, define and understand an event you need many observations of many similar events.  You then use statistics to try and understand the significant components of what you've observed....but I'm not going there as it just isn't worth the effort for a box of hammers. 
"Do you not believe in reality?" 
Yes.  But not your cretinously simple monotone version of it.  Mine's a far more colourful, attractive, optimistic, happy, mysterious and beautiful reality than yours will ever be. I'd invite you in but I already have a hammer...I don't need a whole box. 
<kisses>

----------


## Dr Freud

Great news! 
The world can sleep easy, I made it to the rally.  A few minutes late, but happy to put in my buck o' five.  Got to meet and chat to Jo Nova, what an awesome lady.  Beauty, brains, heart, conviction,  :Blowkiss: . 
David Evans was also there, JuLIAR refers to him regularly as a "climate change denier".  He was a little affronted and was happy to discuss "the science" and the total lack of evidence with JuLIAR. 
By my count, about 300 in attendance not including the greenie protesters and plain clothes police.  Some excellent speeches including this gem:  *"If taxes cooled down the Planet Earth, we would be living in a very chilly world by now."*   :2thumbsup:  
Overall, very average people from all walks of life have now spoken directly with David Evans.  This grass roots level of interaction is very powerful when he explains how the message from idiot politicians via the media are so badly manipulated.  I personally witnessed dozens of people realising how their "gut feelings" were substantiated by all empirical data currently available.  The "people's revolution" has begun.  :Biggrin:  
And the truth shall set you free...

----------


## Dr Freud

> this link has not been mentioned before so why on earth would anyone bring it up now.

  Not really paying attention, are you?  :Biggrin:

----------


## stevoh741

whats the point in argueing about the government. Like they give a chit about anyone but themselves. They just try to get people emotional about something so they can fleece us some more.

----------


## Dr Freud

> My only conclusion from reading this drivel is that it is very difficult to argue with a box of left handed hammers.

  Maybe you're just not trying hard enough?  :Wink 1:    

> Freud, *the evidence* suggests that you know very little about the collection of environmental (or medical, for that matter) data and even less about its analysis and interpretation.

  Why is it you are happy to talk about "the evidence" for everything except the failed AGW hypothesis?    

> As someone who does this (among other things) for a living.....reading your bunkum about how you think this works is what is truly tiresome.

  Well, I didn't know you were such as expert, I just learn this stuff as I go.  But I'm always keen to learn new things.  Perhaps you could share your wisdom about when the doctor comes back in with the biopsy result and says "You have the following type of cancer".  I have had several friends have this diagnosis and the doctor has never yet said "You have cancer subject to the confidence interval we used, so you may not have it depending on our data assumptions". 
I'm just curious as to how the doctor comes back not just with the cancer diagnosis, but actually names the particular type of cancer cells "definitively and categorically identified".  Yet you say these results rely on a data set being collected and then statistical confidence intervals being used to give an uncertain diagnosis? 
Just curious for your expert opinion of this strange anomaly? I am obviously not so learned.  That's how I started with climate science too.  See how far I've come.  :Wink 1:    

> I tend to find watching the wilful demonstration of ignorance in public by others really difficult to tolerate.....and you do it time and time again.

  Practice makes perfect I guess.  :Biggrin:    

> So to adequately describe, define and understand an event you need many observations of many similar events. You then use statistics to try and understand the significant components of what you've observed....

  As for the rest of it, when tree falls over, I get out of the way.  That's not just my observation, but also my reaction.  What can I say, I like reality.  The tree fell over. 
If you don't adequately "describe, define and understand" that the tree is falling until you run some numbers and get a "confidence interval", feel free to ignore reality and wait for the psychic computers to tell you if the tree actually fell and if other trees may fall in the future.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> whats the point in argueing about the government. Like they give a chit about anyone but themselves. They just try to get people emotional about something so they can fleece us some more.

  Yeh, it is very annoying when a Prime Minister actually lowers herself and debases that office to the level of blatantly and continually lying to the Australian people to get them emotionally invested in this farce, that will enable her to cling to power. 
She has now started the selling the message of "Cooler Planet, cheaper prices, tax cuts for workers, pension increases for all and Chinese CO2 reductions as well". 
JuLIAR, you have been well and truly named correctly by the term *JuLIAR*. 
She is now even professing her belief in the bible!  
She can answer to God on that one.   :Devilred:

----------


## Dr Freud

> David Evans was also there, JuLIAR refers to him regularly as a "climate change denier". He was a little affronted and was happy to discuss "the science" and the total lack of evidence with JuLIAR. 
> Overall, very average people from all walks of life have now spoken directly with David Evans. This grass roots level of interaction is very powerful when he explains how the message from idiot politicians via the media are so badly manipulated. I personally witnessed dozens of people realising how their "gut feelings" were substantiated by all empirical data currently available. The "people's revolution" has begun.  
> And the truth shall set you free...

  Sorry, for those who didn't read the previous info on David Evans.   

> The scientist is a mathemetician named Dr David Evans.  Here is his bio:     
> 			
> 				Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australias carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic. 
> Website: sciencespeak.com    To save you some smearing time, he once put oil in his car engine and has a friend who smokes cigarettes.

  And his manner and admissions were congruent when he said he was not enthused about being outspoken on this issue.  The bastardisation of science by some scientists and the lies told by politicians has led to his action against this farce. 
His speech is on his website if you want to begin researching the evidence showing how the claims made by the AGW hypothesis brigade are farcical.

----------


## Rod Dyson

What a trip! 
I had a fnatastic ttrip to the Cannberra Rally go back early this morning.   Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time to write about it as I'm off to Sydney tomorrow.   
We went up on a bus , I could not believe the acceptance of fellow panssengers it was like we knew each other for years,  never have I felt so good about a group of people.  So many concerned people from ordinary walks of life.  Most over 50 but a few young guys.   
Got to meet Tony Abbot and Barnaby Joyce.  Went to Question time (what a joke).  Gillard continues her lies.  Gotta love this. Finally, Julia Gillard says something absolutely true | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
We all got a kick out of being called extremists etc.  
The anger over this tax will only grow for sure. 
Federal police in attendance told me it was the best behaved rally they have had there.  They were impressed at the average age of the protesters. 
Cheers Rod

----------


## johnc

> What a trip! 
> I  
> Federal police in attendance told me it was the best behaved rally they have had there. They were impressed at the average age of the protesters. 
> Cheers Rod

  
Or impressed that age outnumbered IQ scores? Still for those of you who went it was a good chance for some hero worship, Pauline, Barnaby, Sophie,  aging rockers, right wing nutters in abundance and a bus arranged by some right wing arm of the Lib's know doubt. So who was responsible for all the vandalism around Canberra that night then? a class act it wasn't.

----------


## watson

I've gotta re-instate the Funniest Post Of the Week Award.
I'm terminally impartial......but geez that made me have a giggle.   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Or impressed that age outnumbered IQ scores? Still for those of you who went it was a good chance for some hero worship, Pauline, Barnaby, Sophie, aging rockers, right wing nutters in abundance and a bus arranged by some right wing arm of the Lib's know doubt. So who was responsible for all the vandalism around Canberra that night then? a class act it wasn't.

  Hmm you may choose to guess the IQ of these concerned Australians but this post confirms yours :Wink:

----------


## Dr Freud

> So many concerned people from ordinary walks of life.   
> Cheers Rod

  Well done mate.  :2thumbsup:  
Matches the Perth rally very closely. Ours was about 1/3 elderly (sorry old folks), 1/3 middle aged, and 1/3 gen Y (good on ya's, earning some kudos for your generation). 
But that means JuLIAR is LYING AGAIN! 
She made out like the place was filled with extremist violent racist anti-semitic right wing lunatics out to burn down the country (more on this later).  What a whack job! 
But kudos to you mate.  Nothing like the ordinary people in this country heading off to the nations capital to remind the public servants what their job title means.  They are there to serve the public, not have the public serve them! 
God bless democracy in action!!!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> So who was responsible for all the vandalism around Canberra that night then?

  It is good to see you AGW hypothesis supporters apply the same rules of evidence collection and causation to all areas of your life in exactly the same way you do to the AGW hypothesis. 
If two things happen even remotely close to each other, then one definitely caused the other. No evidence or causation required. Reality is over-rated to you guys, huh?   :Wavetowel2:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Well done mate.  
> Matches the Perth rally very closely. Ours was about 1/3 elderly (sorry old folks), 1/3 middle aged, and 1/3 gen Y (good on ya's, earning some kudos for your generation). 
> But that means JuLIAR is LYING AGAIN! 
> She made out like the place was filled with extremist violent racist anti-semitic right wing lunatics out to burn down the country (more on this later). What a whack job! 
> But kudos to you mate. Nothing like the ordinary people in this country heading off to the nations capital to remind the public servants what their job title means. They are there to serve the public, not have the public serve them! 
> God bless democracy in action!!!

  So many people took time off work to attend it shows how concerned people are.  I would say this is a huge difference to the rent a crowd/unemployed  types at other protest.  I know I am generalizing but I think you get my point.  
There will be another one in Sydney soon I expect that will generate a huge crowd.  I will say in contact with a few I met there. 
Well done to you getting to the Perth Rally.  I just don't think that I could have justified not going to Canberra given my views on this Tax. 
Cheers Rod

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It is good to see you AGW hypothesis supporters apply the same rules of evidence collection and causation to all areas of your life in exactly the same way you do to the AGW hypothesis. 
> If two things happen even remotely close to each other, then one definitely caused the other. No evidence or causation required. Reality is over-rated to you guys, huh?

  What amazes me the most is that they don't think average people can see through this. 
They seem to be stuck in their own little world.

----------


## Dr Freud

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, once ACTU secretary, is horrified by this peaceful protest:    
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgoCZ1veHNk&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - News headlines - Carbon Tax rally ruffles feathers[/ame]   
  In fact, hes so shocked that he demands Opposition leader Tony Abbott apologise: _I really think he needs to do that in a decisive way ... He needs to apologise for being associated with it._Greg Combet in 1996 attended this ACTU rally, also outside our Parliament, and also attended by an Opposition leader - Labors Kim Beazley: _Unfortunately, it was apparent that some of the demonstrators were affected by alcohol. This group was supported by participants from the more general demonstration who were incited to join those involved in riotous behaviour by a speaker from the official platform._  _Police formed a protective line along the perimeter of the Great Verandah, which was subsequently were forced back to the main doors. The police line was withdrawn from this area due to the level of violence being experienced by officers and then redeployed to an area inside the front doors in support of parliamentary security personnel. This deployment stabilised for a short period. However, demonstrators using increasing force broke through the first line of doors_  _Once inside the area, demonstrators used weapons including a large hammer, wheel brace, steel trolley and stanchion torn from the internal doors to break open the internal doors. Simultaneously, a second group of demonstrators used other weapons to break into the Parliament House shop but were held at the internal doors. The shop was ransacked and major damage occurred by persons who subsequently occupied the area._Watch footage of the riot here, and see Combet bob up alongside ACTU president Jennie George. 
   But did the ACTU apologise for its involvement in a rally infinitely more extreme and dangerous than anything we saw yesterday? Did Beazley apologise for his? Hell, no: _GREG COMBET: No, we wont accept responsibility for the actions of a small renegade group that broke away and had no authority to carry out-or any relationship to the main rally-and carried out in the way that they did at the doors of Parliament House. We certainly regret what occurred and I think what needs to be appreciated is that it caused the whole of the union movement considerable concern. We certainly condemned the type of violence that occurred._(No link to ABC PM interview.) 
  Second hypcrite: 
  Greens leader Bob Brown was yesterday so shocked by one sign at a peaceful rally that he demanded Opposition Leader Tony Abbott say sorry for even being _near_  the 3000 peaceful protesteres: _I hope Mr Abbott apologises._ 
  Bob Brown in 2000 attended this protest (above), outside Melbournes Crown Casino, against the World Economic Forum and even gave a speech: _SO this is what a non-violent protestas promised by the totalitarians behind the S11 campaignlooks like. 
It means sending two police to hospital. 
It means roughing up a medic who tries to help one, and stealing the keys to his ambulance. 
It means keeping West Australian Premier Richard Court prisoner for an hour in his car, which you jump on, paint on, menace with a butane aerosol and cigarette lighter, and disable by slashing its tyres. 
It means trapping Opposition Leader Denis Napthine in his car, too, and vandalising it. 
It means damaging hire cars and terrorising their drivers. It means putting in hospital a Crown casino officer. 
And lets not forget the ``non-violent slogans, either. Scrawled on the barriers around the casino, which is holding the World Economic Forum, I saw ``Die Pig Die, ``F--- the Pigs and ``F--- off Pigs._(No link to my 12 September 2000 column.) 
  Did Bob Brown apologise for being associated with such violence and intimidation? Hell, no:  _Premier Court gets the title of spoiler/bully of the day, Senator Brown said Todays S11 protest has sent the world a positive message, Greens Senator Bob Brown said today._UPDATE Senator Eric Abetz calls out Bob Brown for this hypocrisy, too:    
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuSj5DdKmfA&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Senator Bob Brown's Hypocrisy[/ame]   
Bob Brown you are a LIAR! Greg Combet you are a LIAR!  JuLIAR you are a....well der!!!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Excruciating gibberish from Julia Gillard on Neil Mitchells show, Tuesday morning:    *CALLER:* _Good morning Prime Minister, Neil. Prime Minister, if your scheme is entirely successful and we bear the pain of this, whats going to be the result? Are we going to save the world? Are we going to save the environment, or in fact isnt the truth, Prime Minister, that without the big polluters like China, India and America on board, that were going to achieve absolutely nothing, and well all bear this pain to achieve absolutely nothing in the real world._  *PM:* _Thats a really good question and I thank you for it and I think its a question thats on a lot of peoples minds. First and foremost, I think sometimes theres a sort of dialogue out in the community that were the only ones who are doing anything. Thats actually not true. China is acting. Its closing down small, inefficient, dirty coal-fired power stations at the rate of one every 1-2 weeks, and replacing them with more economically and environmentally efficient power stations _  *HOST:* _So whats the optimum we can achieve? Whats the best we can achieve?_  *PM:* _If I can just, Neil, go though  India, taxing coal in order to fund clean energy changes; President Obama out there promising that the United States will have 80 per cent of its energy from clean energy sources by 2035. These are big changes. So, what does that mean for us? What that means is we will price carbon in order to make sure we dont get left behind, and I can say very _  *HOST:* _And what will the impact of that be, Prime Minister, for us?_  *PM:* _I can say very confidently to the nation the impact of that will be that we will have made a contribution to tackling climate change and we will have a more prosperous economy as a result, because the world will have moved to a clean energy future and we cannot afford to be left behind with an old-fashioned, high emissions economy as the rest of the world moves._  *HOST:* _How much will we have reduced the worlds carbon emissions?_  *PM:* _Well, the Governments target is for us to reduce our emissions, to reduce them by 5 per cent by 2020._  *HOST:* _And what affect will that be in world carbon emissions, Prime Minister?_  *PM:* _Well, Neil, I cant forecast for you what Chinas action is going to mean for world carbon emissions or Indias action is going to mean or Americas action is going to mean, but what I can tell you is they are acting. If they are acting for a clean energy future, then it makes sense for us to use the most efficient mechanism  which is pricing carbon  to transform our economy into a cleaner energy economy._  468 DAYS UNTIL LABORS ACTING TAX | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog

  JuLIAR now is forced to keep LYING to cover up her previous lies. 
You see, if we don't pay this new tax, the Great Barrier Reef will disappear, the ocean's will rise and cover our cities, and then the Planet will turn into a fireball. 
These are big issues, maybe Australian's need to *pay even more tax* to make an even bigger difference???  :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> JuLIAR now is forced to keep LYING to cover up her previous lies. 
> You see, if we don't pay this new tax, the Great Barrier Reef will disappear, the ocean's will rise and cover our cities, and then the Planet will turn into a fireball. 
> These are big issues, maybe Australian's need to *pay even more tax* to make an even bigger difference???

  Keep up the good work Doc I'm off for 4 days but i will be watching!  I might be able to get the odd post or two in. 
Cheers

----------


## johnc

Treasury have released modelling on the ditched cap and trade scheme, this revealed that if implemented it would have pushed Australia's inflation up by a bare 1.1% over a two year period, keeping it with-in an acceptable range and the cost to the average households food bill would have been a mere $1.30 per week. A tiny fraction of the recent tax cuts. These numbers don't support the absurd hype we keep getting about costs of climate mitigation. The truth of the matter is that truth itself has been suspended in the mindless ranting about costs. Most of those making the loudest noise have absolutely nothing to base there comments about crippling costs in fact it shows the level of dishonesty these individuals are prepared to go to in supporting their baseless assertions.

----------


## johnc

We now have evidence of a big increase in wind and wave activity over the last 25 years with higher winds and bigger waves. Although a possible culprit could well be warming oceans at this stage we can only say the measurement is there but more work needs to be done on the cause. Scientists blown away by rising wind speeds - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
Just one more piece of information highlighting the ever changing climate, if it is temperature effecting it then we have to wonder what it is likely to do to coastal communities in the future. If we get rising sea levels and bigger waves it poses big problems for small low lying island communities and there survival.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Treasury have released modelling on the ditched cap and trade scheme, this revealed that if implemented it would have pushed Australia's inflation up by a bare 1.1% over a two year period, keeping it with-in an acceptable range and the cost to the average households food bill would have been a mere $1.30 per week. A tiny fraction of the recent tax cuts. These numbers don't support the absurd hype we keep getting about costs of climate mitigation. The truth of the matter is that truth itself has been suspended in the mindless ranting about costs. Most of those making the loudest noise have absolutely nothing to base there comments about crippling costs in fact it shows the level of dishonesty these individuals are prepared to go to in supporting their baseless assertions.

  The only dishonesty around here is comming from scaremongering warmest and the lefty government

----------


## Dr Freud

> Keep up the good work Doc I'm off for 4 days but i will be watching!  I might be able to get the odd post or two in. 
> Cheers

  Have a good time mate. 
You know they'll pick on me while you're away.  :Biggrin:  
I'll try not to cry... :Crybaby:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Treasury have released modelling on the ditched cap and trade scheme, this revealed that if implemented it would have pushed Australia's inflation up by a bare 1.1% over a two year period, keeping it with-in an acceptable range and the cost to the average households food bill would have been a mere $1.30 per week. A tiny fraction of the recent tax cuts. These numbers don't support the absurd hype we keep getting about costs of climate mitigation. The truth of the matter is that truth itself has been suspended in the mindless ranting about costs. Most of those making the loudest noise have absolutely nothing to base there comments about crippling costs in fact it shows the level of dishonesty these individuals are prepared to go to in supporting their baseless assertions.

  Mate, looks like you've done the hard yards here with some hard core research. 
Don't waste it, please give us your calculation of the total cost of the new version, being the Carbon Dioxide Tax?  Use $25 a tonne as a rough benchmark. 
Then you can tell us how much the Planet will cool by for this "investment"? 
Lo and behold, a cost-benefit analysis.  You alluded to the costs in your post, didn't see much of the benefits.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> We now have evidence of a big increase in wind and wave activity over the last 25 years with higher winds and bigger waves. Although a possible culprit could well be warming oceans at this stage we can only say the measurement is there but *more work needs to be done on the cause.* Scientists blown away by rising wind speeds - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  Mate, when you figure this farce out, you'll realise they have no idea what is the "cause", just like your other pet hypothesis.  Maybe these guys will also program some assumptions into a psychic computer and believe as gospel whatever cr@p it spews out?   

> Just one more piece of information *highlighting the ever changing climate, if it is temperature effecting it* then we have to wonder what it is likely to do to coastal communities in the future. If we get rising sea levels and bigger waves it poses big problems for small low lying island communities and there survival.

  Mate, you seriously have to lift your game.  Your stuff is so vague, I can't even refute it as being wrong.  Of course the climate changes, we don't need this highlighted, it's not a national secret.  Of course temperature affects waves and wind, you just need a brain to figure this out.  The reason we have science is to quantify these issues.  Well, we sceptics have science anyway, you guys have your psychic computers.  :Biggrin:  
And what about glass half full dude, surf's up!  :Surfing:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Bob Brown demands that Tony Abbott apologise for standing in front of this banner:    Professor Sinclair Davidson wants to know if Bob Brown will apologise for standing in front of this banner, promoting a sick theory that the September 11 terrorism attacks were actually an inside job:   
>   The footage here:   A sign of Browns hypocrisy | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuSj5DdKmfA&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Senator Bob Brown's Hypocrisy[/ame]  
But why should even the banner holder apologise for telling the truth (on two counts) about a woman who continually tells LIES!  bitch - definition of bitch by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.    *a.*  *A woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing.* 
Then it was the Prime Minister's turn.  "Here is this bitter, hollow man. A man with no judgement who never gets the big calls right.  "I say to the Leader of the Opposition I believe Australians are increasingly disgusted with his negativity and revolted by his arrogance.  "They see them on display every day. This puffed-up arrogance as he pursues his narrow political interests and goes about spreading fear and negativity in the community.  "There are members on his backbench who will leave this place and sit in their electorate offices and they will think to themselves, 'Did I take out a Liberal Party ticket all of those years ago in order to follow a man like this?'"  Abbott and Gillard up insult stakes - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  *b.*  *A lewd woman.* 
 Note also the complete absence once more of any mention of Gillards own past. 
  This report seems the work of Labors muckrakers, trying to destroy Abbotts female vote. Which has reader Andrew V wondering why it doesnt cut both ways: _Even better, if these guys are gonna hammer Abbott for a thirty year joke, why dont they investigate, as has been mentioned by readers of this blog a number of times, her relaionship with Craig Emerson, which resulted in him leaving his wife!?_  _Wanna turn women off Gillardine, imagine if they find out she was The Other Woman, someone which most women seem to despise. Indeed, it is damn near impossible to find any information about it, as I tried this search, and wasnt able to find much on the details of the Emerson split! Why ignore that over Abbotts joke?_  _ This media has a lot to answer for!!_Why is Gillards past off-limits, but Abbotts not? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
The truth hurts, doesn't it JuLIAR!  :Protest:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Freud.....you are talking about members of the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Liberal Party and the Australian Greens.  All political entities. With political agendas. 
Since when were concepts of 'truth' ever related to any of these entities or the people that operate under their banners? 
Just how simplistic are you? For Huey's sake.....they are politicians!!!  Lies and dissembling are their stock in trade.  Get over it, move on and make a contribution to the debate rather than farting on about whether one or more of them lied or not. Or is your whinging merely symbolic like your participation in the anti-tax rally? 
By the by....are you planning to rally against your insurance company?  They're about to slug you more than the carbon price ever will.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Freud.....you are talking about members of the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Liberal Party and the Australian Greens. All political entities. With political agendas.

  Yes, we've covered this concept many times.  The AGW hypothesis is a failed scientific farce, but even if you believe in it, it will still require a political solution.  Scientists don't develop and implement government policy.  Just between you and me, two of those parties agendas you mentioned want to tax us for breathing out perfectly fresh air.   
No thank you!  :No:    

> Since when were concepts of 'truth' ever related to any of these entities or the people that operate under their banners?

  They can all lie as much as they want.  It's when they lie to steal my money and hurt my country that they will know what war is about.  :Wink 1:    

> Just how simplistic are you?

  Very.  :Biggrin:    

> Or is your whinging merely symbolic like your participation in the anti-tax rally?

  Not merely symbolic (which all rally's are), also well informed infotainment.  :2thumbsup:    

> By the by....are you planning to rally against your insurance company? They're about to slug you more than the carbon price ever will.

  I rang my insurance company and asked if I can stop paying premiums.  They said "Yes, whenever you want".  
I rang the Australian Tax Office (ATO) and asked if I can stop paying taxes.  They said........well, there was just an awkward pause and then some giggling, but I think you get the message.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

They all lie, but who faces the Australian people with the courage of their convictions and who doesn't:   

> After only three months as Prime Minister, John Howard stood before one of the most hostile crowds he would face in more than a decade in the job. With a bulletproof vest hidden under his sports jacket, Howard was jeered while explaining his new gun laws - including a ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns - to about 3000 sport shooters, hunters, gun collectors and farmers assembled at the Sale football ground on a wintry Sunday morning in June 1996.    Anger lingers among those who lost their firearms - National - theage.com.au

  Howard's reflection:   

> FRAN KELLY: The Prime Minister wasnt about to back off.
>   But in Sale, Victoria, he received a warning. 
>   A warning that made clear the kind of emotions he had unleashed.
>  GRAHAME MORRIS, PMS CHIEF OF STAFF 1997: Head of security came to the Prime Minister and he said PM weve just had a report that weve never had before. This is really, really serious.
>  JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER 1996-2007: The AFP (Australian Federal Police) tell me they have quite an explicit warning. The local police have had a quite explicit warning, that someone is going to shoot you.
>  GRAHAME MORRIS, PMS CHIEF OF STAFF 1997: And they were saying you know we we get lots of reports, but this one is more dangerous than anything weve ever had, and will you please wear this flak jacket. 
>   JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER 1996-2007: And youve got to wear it or not go to the meeting. And I said well this is ridiculous. 
>  GRAHAME MORRIS, PMS CHIEF OF STAFF 1997: I dont know if theyre right or wrong, but I have no idea how I would go and tell Janette and your family that we were warned for you to wear this flak jacket, you didnt and you go shot. Ive just no idea how I would say that to your family.  
> (Excerpt of footage of Sale rally from ABC News, 16 June 1996)  
> ...

  Here's the "EXTREMISTS" that JuLIAR and Combet would not face: 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvURnIyt6yA&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - CANdo Anti Carbon Tax Rally[/ame] 
Now watch the rally that Greg Combet organised at Parliament House, attended and supported by Bob Brown: 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW0yxPbZq40&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Parliament riots, August 1996[/ame]  
Full story here:  Greg Combet | Australian Climate Madness  
Greg Combet, you are now a dead set joke!  :Pointlaugh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Yes, more proof that this lying government is introducing new taxes NOT for environmental reasons, but to cover up for their gross financial ineptitude:   

> *THE federal government-appointed taskforce into the $16.2 billion schools stimulus program "misinterpreted" data to conclude the scheme had achieved value for money in state schools, a Senate inquiry has found.  * The final Senate committee report into the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program - released late last night without the notification of the Liberal Party chairman - found there was insufficient evidence to conclude the objective of stimulus had been achieved. 
> It also took aim at several conclusions of the Building the Education Revolution Implementation Taskforce, headed up by former chief executive of UBS Australia Brad Orgill at a cost of $14 million. "In particular, the committee disagrees with the taskforce's conclusions in some cases that value for money had been achieved," the report says. 
> Last month the opposition-controlled Senate inquiry heard mismanagement of the $16.2bn school halls program had resulted in $2.6bn of waste which, if prevented, could have saved taxpayers from the $1.8bn flood levy. 
> The report also revealed that almost one-third of the program's stimulus injection, $5.4bn, was still to be rolled out despite the threat of recession having long passed.  BER criticism dumped in dead of night | The Australian

  Ineptitude is a compliment to these bozo's.  They intend to spend another $5.4 billion stimulating the economy from recession at the same time that the Reserve Bank is raising interest rates trying to slow it down. 
They are morons.  They want billions more of your hard-earned dollars under some greenie fairy tale that they are going to cool down the Planet Earth.  :Doh:  
Then they will "misinterpret" where all that money goes too!!!  :Clap:

----------


## Dr Freud

What will it cost?  What will it achieve? 
Then we can decide if we are getting "value" for our money!  :2thumbsup:    

> You see, I have asked warming activists like Flannery - now paid by the Government to talk us into accepting its carbon dioxide tax or emissions trading scheme - two critical questions you’d ask any time someone tries to sell you anything from a ShamWow to a new car.  
>   How much will this cost?  
>   What will it do?   
>   But now watch Flannery try to avoid confessing to that secret: that Gillard’s plans would effectively make no difference to the world’s temperature.   * Bolt:* How much will it cost to cut our emissions by the Government’s target of 5 per cent by 2020 and how much will world temperatures fall by as a consequence?   * Flannery* :  In terms of how much it will cut temperatures, that really very much depends upon how Australia’s position is seen overseas.    * Bolt:* No, no, we’ll get onto that, Tim .... On our own, cutting our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, what will that lower the world’s temperatures by?   * Flannery:*   See, that’s a bogus question because nothing is in isolation.    * Bolt:* Everyone understands that that is the argument. But we’re just trying to get basic facts, without worrying about the consequences - about what those facts may lead people to think. On our own, by cutting our emissions ...  what will the world’s temperatures fall by as a consequence?   * Flannery:*  Look, it will be a very, very small increment.    * Bolt:*  Can you give us a rough figure?    * Flannery:*  Sorry, I can’t because it’s a very complex system and we’re dealing with probabilities here.    * Bolt:*  Are you talking about a thousandth of a degree? A hundredth of a degree? What sort of rough figure?    * Flannery:* Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as 1000 years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed ...   * Bolt:* That doesn’t seem a good deal ... So you don’t know about Australia, (but) you wouldn’t dispute that it’s within about a thousandth of a degree, around that magnitude, right?   * Flannery:*  It’s going to be slight.   
>   Notice?  Flannery either does not know what we’ll gain from the pain, or does not dare say. But he does not question the truth - that even if Gillard’s plans work as she hopes, the difference they’ll make to the world’s temperature is measured in mere thousandths of a degree. If that. 
>   Don’t think Flannery is alone in being evasive on this critical point.  
>   I put the very same questions to Professor John Daley of Melbourne’s Grattan Institute, a taxpayer-funded warmist think-tank which this week reported we’d already wasted $6 billion on global warming schemes that had done next to nothing to cut emissions.    * Bolt:* To get to Julia Gillard’s target of cutting emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, how many more of these billions would we need to have spent?   * Daley:* If you’re going to do the whole lot through rebate schemes, you’d have to spend in the order of about $300 billion. (Emissions trading) is a much more efficient way to go.   * Bolt:*  By how much will the world’s temperatures fall if we go to this emissions trading scheme that Julia Gillard recommends?    * Daley:*  Well, it of course depends on what other countries in the world ...   * Bolt:*  No, no, just ours, John. I’m just looking at us. Us alone.    * Daley: *  This is a classic collective action problem.  If every country in the world looks at how much will their reductions make a difference, the answer for any individual country, even for the United States, even for China, is not that much.   * Bolt:* What I’m trying to do is just get to the bottom-line facts: if we spend these umpteen billions on cutting emissions further, to the 5 per cent by 2020, how much will Australia’s action alone cut the world’s temperature by? That must be measured somewhere ...   * Daley:*  Well, I think it’s not been measured anywhere because it’s not seen as being the right way to think about this.    * Bolt:* Well it would be. People want to know the gain for the pain ... I know it’s got all those caveats, but just tell us how much the world’s temperature will fall if we do what you recommend and what Julia Gillard plans.   * Daley:*  As I said, we haven’t run  the numbers on how much it will  make a difference if Australia acts completely alone.    * Bolt:*  You should have.    * Daley:*  The reason we haven’t done that is because Australia is not acting alone. Therefore it’s not a very helpful thing to analyse.   
>   Not ``helpful’’? Pardon?  
>   If the bloke selling a ShamWow cloth refused to say what it actually did, saying the answer was ``not helpful’’, would you still hand over your cash or walk away? 
>   Now, if you wouldn’t even buy a $29 kitchen wipe with answers like these, why buy a global warming scheme that would cost us billions of dollars - and possibly cost you your job?   Column - Flannery admits no gain from this carbon tax pain | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  So let's see, what have we learned from all that waffle: 
We pay *hundreds of billion$* and the temperature *might* reduce by *thousandths of a degree* in* thousands of years?* 
And Flim Flammery is PAID our taxpayer dollars to sell us this --it!!!Hands up those in favour?   :No:  :No:  :No:  :No:  :No:  :No:  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

It is categorical, definitive, proved, and black and white!  *Our Prime Minister is a LIAR!!! * Now who cares if she lies to Libya, China or Iran, but... *
She is lying to the Australian people!!!*  
She has done it pre-emptively, deliberately and purely to disguise other previous political lies. 
See for yourselves:   

> *JULIA Gillard has told Labor MPs to warn voters that a failure to back a carbon tax will lead to more bushfires and droughts as well as coastal inundation and shorter skiing seasons.*   
> MPs have also been instructed to *warn constituents that unchecked climate change would lead to people in northern NSW experiencing a climate like that of Cairns, in far north Queensland.* 
> The Prime Minister has given her troops scripted lines they should use with journalists or constituents, *which justify the use of public money on government advertising in an apparent bid to soften up the electorate for a coming campaign in favour of the tax*. 
> Political parties routinely distribute talking point briefs to MPs containing lines they should use to ensure consistency of political messaging. 
> The latest talking points document distributed to Labor MPs, obtained by The Weekend Australian, *exhorts MPs to accuse Tony Abbott of conducting a fear campaign about the carbon tax, but is liberally peppered with scary lines about the effects of not acting on climate change.* 
> Proposed warnings to be offered include: *"If we don't act then we will see more extreme weather events like bushfires and droughts. We will have more days of extreme heat and we will see our coastline flooded as sea levels rise.*  *"People in northern NSW will feel like they live in Cairns. That will affect the crops we grow, it will affect our native animals, and it will affect our lifestyles."*  *MPs are also urged to warn that extreme weather leads to associated additional deaths.* 
> "Sea levels could rise by up to a metre and possibly even more by the end of the century," the document says. *"Up to 250,000 existing homes are at risk of inundation. 
> "Climate change will see the average snow season contract by between 85 per cent and 96 per cent by 2050, and disappear by the end of the century."*  
> MPs are also given lines aimed at demonising the Opposition Leader, attributing his refusal to back a carbon tax and his condemnation of Ms Gillard's broken promise on the issue to the claim that he "does not care about climate change" and is engaged in a scare campaign. 
> ...

  Listen for these lies coming out of a Labor politician near you any time now. 
JuLIAR, tell all the lies you want, but don't order your MP's to become as corrupt and malignant as you are.  :No:  
Some of those MP's are now facing a choice they didn't want to make.  :No:

----------


## johnc

John Howard may well have received a death threat from some brainless wanker however look at the photo, a bunch of people standing with arms crossed they may not have been happy about the buy back but the jeers came from a very small corner of the crowd. most on the day stood and listened. A bit different to a bunch of right wing toss pots and bludgers yelling out "Browns bitch" and happily rubbing shoulders with scum like the League of Rights and One Nation. You are defined by the company you keep mate. 
Howard came to address legitimate concerns, the carbon rally was arranged by a mix of those who hold extreme and absurd views on a whole range of issues extending well beyond carbon and climate.

----------


## Dr Freud

I'll be turning on all lights and appliances tonight during Earth Hour.  I will even leave the truck idling with all the lights on just to help out.  I'll light this baby up like a beacon in the darkness of ignorance and fear, so all those praying to Gaia in the darkness will have a choice to move out into the light and join human progress.  :2thumbsup:    :Bbq2:      

> *COPENHAGEN'S central square hardly competes with New York's Times Square for glitz, but it is prime commercial space in my home, Denmark. *                                Now there's a new advertiser among the neon signs: a brightly lit billboard exhorts everyone to participate in Earth Hour, the 60 minutes tonight in which the whole world is urged to dim the lights to cut greenhouse emissions. There is a certain irony in renting brightly lit advertising space to exhort us to save electricity for one hour, but this is apparently lost on the organisers.  
> Actually, the only real result will be to make it harder to see. The environmental effect of the past three annual lights-out hours has been negligible. If everyone in the world participated in this year's Earth Hour, the result would be the same as turning off China's carbon emissions for roughly 45 seconds.  
> When we switch off the electricity, many of us turn to candlelight. This seems natural and environmentally friendly, but unfortunately candles are almost 100 times less efficient than incandescent light bulbs and more than 300 times less efficient than fluorescent lights. Using one candle for each extinguished bulb cancels the CO2 reduction; two candles emit more CO2.  
> Germany is a good example. Despite being a fairly cloudy country, it has led the world in solar panel subsidies, spending  $75 billion putting inefficient, uncompetitive solar technology on rooftops. 
> This delivers a trivial 0.1 per cent of Germany's total energy supply and will postpone the effects of global warming by just seven hours in 2100.
> With the financial crisis, Germany and others have to rein in lavish subsidies. It is easy to forget that while sunlight is renewable, subsidies certainly aren't.  
> Similarly, many environmentalists enthusiastically endorsed government financial support for biofuel as a silver bullet to cut carbon emissions. The subsidies are now massive and entrenched, and one-sixth of the world's corn supply is burned just to help fuel cars in the US, contributing to the highest food prices ever and increasing starvation.  
> It is time to look to a smarter solution to global warming that would do more than just make us feel good about ourselves. We will not make a sustainable shift away from dependence on fossil fuels so long as the alternatives remain so expensive. Solar panels are still about 10 times costlier than fossil fuels in terms of cost a unit of energy output. That's the reason only well-heeled Westerners (being paid significant subsidies by their governments) can afford to install them.  
> The harsh reality is that the shift away from fossil fuels will not be easy. Reducing carbon emissions is a lot more difficult than dimming the lights for an hour. It requires genuine willpower and investment. Instead of just dimming our lights, we need to get much brighter about solving global warming.   _Bjorn Lomborg is the subject of the film Cool It, out on DVD on March 29. He is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre at Copenhagen Business School._    _Vote for mother Earth gets dimmer by the hour | The Australian_

----------


## Dr Freud

> John Howard may well have received a death threat from some brainless wanker however look at the photo, a bunch of people standing with arms crossed they may not have been happy about the buy back but the jeers came from a very small corner of the crowd. most on the day stood and listened. A bit different to a bunch of right wing toss pots and bludgers yelling out "Browns bitch" and happily rubbing shoulders with scum like the League of Rights and One Nation. You are defined by the company you keep mate. 
> Howard came to address legitimate concerns, the carbon rally was arranged by a mix of those who hold extreme and absurd views on a whole range of issues extending well beyond carbon and climate.

  Apologies, I always assume these things.  :Blush7:  
You obviously didn't watch the video footage.  The two bottom pictures in my post are actually videos.  If you turn the sound up on your computer and press the triangle shape in the middle of the pictures, you can watch the videos. 
The first video is a sample of the "extreme absurd scum" you refer to protesting a new tax based on a lie, an issue you consider "illegitimate". 
The second video is a gentle get together organised by Greg Combet and supported by Bob Brown.  Neither has yet apologised to the then Prime Minister.   
But MOST importantly, neither apologised to the Australian People.  That was and is OUR house.  We paid for it, we retain it, we own it, we elect who gets to use it.   
Where's our apology Greg, you lying hypocrite!  :Mad:  
And thanks for your timely and well-informed "threat assessment".  I don't recall the Admiralty System having a "brainless wanker" rating.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

More of JuLIAR's *LIES!!!*    

> *JULIA Gillard has ordered MPs to explicitly deny the government is in a power-sharing deal with the Australian Greens, as she tries to sell her carbon tax plan.                 *   
> A talking points document distributed to Labor MPs *also suggests they are being asked to soften up voters for a taxpayer-funded advertising campaign about the proposed carbon tax.* 
> Political parties routinely distribute talking point briefs to MPs containing suggested lines they should use in media interviews or public forums. 
> The Australian Online was today leaked what purported to be the latest Labor talking points document, reflecting many of the messages at the heart of Labor's sales job over the carbon tax plan. 
> The proposed carbon tax has provoked a strident opposition campaign accusing Ms Gillard of lying to voters before last year's federal election. 
> Tony Abbott has also seized on the plan as evidence of his claim that Labor is in a virtual coalition with the Greens, based on the fact that the minor party was the first to propose a carbon tax as a stepping stone to a carbon emissions trading scheme. 
> According to the brief to MPs, *the government wants its troops to fight the perception, raised recently by Greens senator Christine Milne, that Labor is sharing power with the Greens.* 
> Under a section of the document suggesting how MPs should answer any question about whether Senator Milne was correct about power-sharing, MPs were told to say: *That's like suggesting (former Democrats leader) Meg Lees was prime minister because John Howard negotiated with her on the shape of the GST, or (former Tasmanian independent) Brian Harradine was in a power-sharing arrangement because he won concessions from John Howard in order to pass the sale of Telstra.
> MPs were also advised to reject any suggestion that Ms Gillard wilfully misled voters last year, when, before the election, she ruled out a carbon tax.* 
> ...

  Let's take a closer look at just one of these blatant *LIES* to the Australian people:  

> According to the brief to MPs, *the government wants its troops to fight the perception, raised recently by Greens senator Christine Milne, that Labor is sharing power with the Greens.*

  Apparently, this is just a "perception" is it JuLIAR? 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW8uPviTQfE&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Labor, Greens Deal, Aust Election 2010 | 1 Sep - ABC News[/ame] 
JuLIAR is treating Australian's like we are idiots.  :Doh:  
If we vote for her or the Greens after this lying shambles, then we are.  :Cool look:  
Oh yeh, don't forget to click on the triangle.  :Biggrin:

----------


## johnc

In the cut and paste article, it should be pointed out that the Australian is wrong about German solar power by a factor of 10, they produce about 17GW or more of solar power and more than 1% of total power use in 2009 and growing, not the .1 quoted. there are a few other inconsistancies in that article that indicate the writer has been using either old data or is just throwing numbers together in the hope that no one notices. Never let the truth get in the way of the argument.

----------


## Dr Freud

Yeh, he must have got his dot in the wrong spot.  What do you expect from a guy who believes the AGW hypothesis is real.  Obviously he has problems with data and numbers.  :Biggrin:  
But yes, spending $75 billion dollars on 1% of your national energy is much better value for money. 
Especially when it is unreliable and cannot replace base-load, so you have to keep paying for this infrastructure as well. 
We should do the same, huh?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

They were gone anyway, but shows this ridiculous tax didn't help. 
What a team player JuLIAR is, announcing this disaster a few weeks before their election, just to suit her political timetable.  :Doh:    

> LABOR'S electoral armageddon in New South Wales has raised fears the party will only be able to govern in the future in alliance with the Greens. 
>  But while true believers maintain reports of the death of the ALP are greatly exaggerated, the result can only deepen the soul searching surrounding the carbon tax and the 2010 federal election result. 
> The Liberals ran hard on the carbon tax issue in the NSW campaign, launching a mobile billboard that showed Kristina Keneally whispering in Julia Gillard's ear.
>  While the outcome was regarded as a foregone conclusion, Labor MPs at a state and federal level complained the Prime Minister's decision to announce a carbon tax hurt the campaign. 
>  One NSW Labor powerbroker said there was "no doubt the carbon tax has been a very big issue and the Liberals have capitalised on it." 
>  "They've been driving carbon tax trucks around. Clearly their polling indicates it's a hot issue." 
>  A federal Labor MP who asked not to be named said that "some of the candidates told me they thought they were doing alright until the carbon tax was announced." 
>  "They said once it was announced that's all they were doing, answering questions on that without any detail from the PM, and they suspended door-knocking on that basis." 
> Federal Liberal Party campaign director Brian Loughnane said the carbon tax was a big issue with NSW voters. 
>  Cost of living is a huge issue for Australian families. The fact that Julia Gillard is seeking to introduce a carbon tax highlighted to voters just how out of touch Labor has become, he said.   Election leads to Labor's bloodbath | Herald Sun

  And a warning to the hairy princess!   

> Peter Besseling has conceded defeat to Nationals candidate Leslie Williams.
>  With 60 per cent of votes counted there was a massive swing against Mr Besseling of 30 per cent.  
>  Mr Besseling has strong ties to the region's federal MP, Rob Oakeshott, who also previously held the state seat.  
>  Prior to election day there was speculation that Mr Besseling would suffer because of Mr Oakeshott's decision to support Labor after last year's federal election.   Besseling drubbing a warning for Oakeshott - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  The predicted count: 
LNP: 69
LAB: 21
IND:   3
GRN:  0

----------


## Dr Freud

Flim Flammery has now ensured that the USA will *never* act on the AGW hypothesis. 
He has told them that it will not make any discernible difference for thousands of years. 
That puts paid to the emotional blackmail about your children and grandchildren.  *IF* this farcical hypothesis is even true, our actions *might* make a difference to your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandchildren.  :Doh:    

> Even if every country in the world adopts economy-killing carbon caps, theyll have to wait about 1,000 years for global temperatures to fall, says Australias newly appointed climate commissioner. 
>  Tim Flannery, a zoologist and author of an acclaimed 2005 book on climage change, The Weather Makers, compares skeptics of global warming to flat Earth believers. 
> But he made a point that most global warming alarmists gloss over when he threw down this lightning bolt in an interview with Macquarie Radios Andrew Bolt: If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.Thats not just in Australia, mind you. Thats cutting emissions worldwide. 
>  Under continued questioning by Bolt, Flannery said: Just let me finish and say this: *If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years*_ because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly._ 
>  A stunned Bolt says in a classic understatment: That doesnt seem a good deal Someone surely must have done the sums that for all these billions of dollars were spending in programs that its got to have a consequence in terms of cutting the worlds temperature. So you dont know about Australia, you wouldnt dispute that its within about a thousandth of a degree, around that magnitude, right? 
>  Flannery  agrees: Its going to be slight. 
>  A thousand years is a long time to wait for results.   Spend trillions now, and world temperatures might fall in 1,000 years | Barbara Hollingsworth | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

  The Republicans will be posting this up all around Capitol Hill. 
Well done Tim, you're now convincing people around the world of the futility of taking any action for this farce.  :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

For those who celebrated Earth Hour, welcome back to the 19th Century.  :Biggrin:  
I thought you may enjoy this little story now that your power is back on:   

> Its that time of year again when that rag‑tag coalition of conspicuously compassioned doctors wives, tambourining hippies still living as if theyre in the 60s, hug a whale do‑gooders, humanity = _camphylobacter_ misanthropes, anti‑coal wowsers, and eco‑warriors brainwashed by standardised school curricula exhort the Australian general public to replicate North Korea by turning off the lights for Earth Hour 2011.  The practical curiosity and problem-solving inclination of previous generations to seek to transform night into day, for mass convenience, started to produce real outcomes from 1800. The English chemist Humphry Davy connected two pieces of wire to a battery with a piece of charcoal between the ends of the wires. The carbon fragment glowed, producing light.  Successive generations of scientists, such as Joseph Wilson Swan, Henricg Globel, and Charles Francis Bush, made significant steps towards improving the durability of electric lighting. In the case of Bush, he manufactured carbon arcs that successfully lit up a public square in Cleveland, Ohio.  It wasnt until the exhaustive efforts of Thomas Alva Edison that carbon filaments were developed that could deliver quality output of light for lenthy hours. In 1879, Edison discovered that a carbon filament in an oxygen‑free bulb could glow for 40 hours. Eventually, he produced a light bulb that could glow for over 1,500 hours.  One can only imagine the expressions of bemusement, and perhaps shock, on the faces of these great men if they were alive today to witness the deliberate shunning by a considerable minority across Australia today of the wondrous things they created.  Of course, in a free society, people can choose to simulate the miserable existence of a world without electric lighting, be it produced in Australia primarily by black or brown coal. The Earth Hour devotees are certainly free to practice what technological regress feels like for a period of one hour per annum.  The freedom of these people to partially throw back to an era prior to the Stone Age, thankfully, does not interfere with my freedom to act as though Earth Hour doesnt exist or even to throw on all my light switches in celebration of the marvel of living in the modern world.  The turn off the lights Earth Hour‑style campaigning starts to become objectionable, to my way of thinking, when its advocates seek, in other instances, coercive government interventions to make it harder for ordinary folk to enjoy numerous, consecutive Human Achievement Hours (aka just getting on with life) in the most inexpensive manner possible.  The merry‑go‑round of eco‑churn, in which governments fork out hard‑earned taxpayers money to environmental NGOs that, in turn, lobby the same governments to introduce artificial carbon pricing regimes was highlighted by recent research from my IPA colleague Asher Judah. As I indicated in a recent piece this churning is really the thin edge of the wedge when it comes to the emergent climate change state, which will certainly expand rapidly if a carbon tax is imposed upon the Australian populace.  If the Earth Hourettes want to huddle together in a darkened camp-out under their own rooves then leave them to their own sorry devices. By the same token, they will, hopefully, have the good sense and civility to not make it more difficult for the majority to keep using the gift of lighting to their hearts content, and at affordable prices.   http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/03/25/earth-achievement-hour/

   But in your defence, it did feel a little cooler last night.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

Stop the press! 
The science is not settled!!!  :Shock:    

> *Climate scientist and warmist Andy Pitman on Thursday:*    _If we could stop emissions tomorrow we would still have 20 to 30 years of warming ahead of us because of inertia of the system.__ 
> Climate Commissioner and warmist Tim Flannery on Friday: _   _If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years_ _Twenty years or 1000? One of these “experts” is hopelessly wrong | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  _ _ 
You AGW hypothesis supporters better get these "scientists" sorted.  The farcical "consensus" argument is as well and truly over.

----------


## chrisp

*6000 posts! * 1 opening post + 5999 replies! 
Each and every word read and digested by Watson.  :Eek:   *Well done, Noel!*

----------


## Dr Freud

If you have to lie over and over again, and fudge the data over and over again, after spending hundreds of billion$ looking for something you still can't prove, maybe, just maybe, you could consider it doesn't exist!!! 
Here is some more of the mountains of fudging these crooks have engaged in that JuLIAR is now lying about even more to steal our hard-earned income.  The pink lines were erased from the final results in that little "trick" the IPCC scientists like to use:      

> Just when you think the bottom of the Hockey Stick rabbit hole has been reached, Steve McIntyre finds yet more evidence of misconduct by the Team. 
>  The research was from Briffa and Osborn (1999) published in Science magazine and purported to show the consistency of the reconstruction of past climate using tree rings with other reconstructions including the Mann Hockey Stick. But the trick was exposed in the Climategate dossier, which also included code segments and datasets. 
>  In the next picture, Steve shows what Briffa and Osborn did  not only did they truncate their reconstruction to hide a steep decline in the late 20th Century but also a substantial early segment from 1402-1550: 
> As Ive written elsewhere, this sort of truncation can be characterized as research misconduct  specifically falsification. But where are the academic cops? Any comment from Science magazine? 
>  Steve also discusses the code underlying the plot and you can see how the truncation is a clear deliberate choice  not something that falls out of poorly understood analysis or poor programming. 
>  In the comments, Kip Hansen posts the following:In reference to Manns Trick.obliquely, yesterdays Supreme Court ruling on Zicam (a homeopathic nasal spray) ruled in part: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/he....html?_r=1&hpwThe Supreme Court has said that companies may be sued under the securities law for making statements that omit material information, and it has defined material information as the sort of thing that reasonable investors would believe significantly alters the total mix of available information.
>  Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the court on Tuesday, roundly rejected Matrixxs proposal that information can be material only if it meets standards of statistical significance.
>  Given that medical professionals and regulators act on the basis of evidence of causation that is not statistically significant, she wrote, it stands to reason that in certain cases reasonable investors would as well.Thus, hiding or omitting information, even if one feels it is erroneous or outlying (or whatever they claim) is still possibly fraudulent ( or in this case, scientifically improper) if it would add to the total mix of available information. Statistical significance is not to be the deciding factor.In the case of Briffa and Osborn, no statistical fig leaf was applied that justified the truncation of data, so far as I can see.   Steve McIntyre uncovers another hockey stick trick  where are the academic cops? | Watts Up With That?

  Trust no-one. _Fox Mulder _   :Sofa:

----------


## johnc

> *6000 posts!* 1 opening post + 5999 replies! 
> Each and every word read and digested by Watson.   *Well done, Noel!*

  Or has Watson just concluded it's the infants play pen and left the mugs to it. :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *6000 posts! * 1 opening post + 5999 replies! 
> Each and every word read and digested by Watson.   *Well done, Noel!*

  It should be all over totally discredited by the time we hit 12000. We are nearly there now. Mostly rusted on believers and apathetic left.

----------


## chrisp

> It should be all over totally discredited by the time we hit 12000. We are nearly there now. Mostly rusted on believers and apathetic left.

   :Roflmao2:

----------


## watson

> *6000 posts! * 1 opening post + 5999 replies! 
> Each and every word read and digested by Watson.   *Well done, Noel!*

  Well done uze mob.
With the exception of Headpin and two others who are no longer with us (read banned) its been an interesting read............hope you all work it out eventually.  :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Well, apparently the MPCCC wants a Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
> So let's see: 
> JuLIAR says she massively supports an ETS. 
> The Greens massively support an ETS. 
> Windsor just said he prefers starting with an ETS. 
> Oakeshott has said many times he favours an ETS. 
> So JuLIAR, who is calling the shots so heavily that they influenced all these people above to instead announce a Carbon Dioxide Tax??? 
> Or are you *lying again*??? 
> Please explain JuLIAR???

  Bob Brown confirmed last week that he did not push for the Carbon Dioxide Tax!!!  :Shock:    

> CHRIS UHLMANN: It wasn't you is the short story? 
> BOB BROWN: Absolutely.   7.30 - ABC

  
This only leaves Windsor and Oakeshott. 
Windsor confirmed in the wash-up that he wanted an ETS. 
By a procees of elimination, this means Rob Oakeshott is the only MP who forced this Carbon Dioxide Tax on us all.  :Mad:  
I will email all the MP's and ask them to get to the bottom of this. 
If true, Oakeshott is finished!!!  :Annoyed:  
If it was not Oakeshott, who is LYING? 
Why is everyone denying it is their idea if it is such a good thing???  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Well done uze mob.
> With the exception of Headpin and two others who are no longer with us (read banned) its been an interesting read............hope you all work it out eventually.

  Appreciate you putting up with our nonsense. 
Good news is you can now get a gig at the UN IPCC as you are now probably the most well-informed moderator on the www.  :Biggrin:  
But this should be all over in the next 2 -3 years.  :Shock:   :Laugh bounce:

----------


## johnc

For those after a site that gives counter arguments to the stuff skeptics continually come up with including the rather silly hocky stick feel free to have a review. This has been referenced before but may provide some interest.  Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says 
It's one of many and includes the Monckton myths.

----------


## Dr Freud

> For those after a site that gives counter arguments to the stuff skeptics continually come up with including the rather silly hocky stick feel free to have a review. This has been referenced before but may provide some interest.  Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says 
> It's one of many and includes the Monckton myths.

  This nonsense on this site has been well and truly rebuked previously in the thread. 
Just a hint as well, you don't have to counter sceptics arguments, you have to prove the hypothesis, then the sceptics will concur.  If you check some real scientific sites as opposed to the the one you've linked, this process will be described.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

That is so typical. If you argue with a new earth creationist, he will call you a heretic and point at the bible. The scripture says the earth is 6000 years old. End of story.   :2thumbsup:  
If you dare to comment that the 6000 years came from some dude who counted the generations listed and worked out the years ignoring the fact that it was customary only to name the important people you will be stoned.  :Doh:  
Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.  Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.  Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.  Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.  Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.  Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.  Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.  Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.  Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.  Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.  Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.  Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.  Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.  Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.  Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.  Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.  Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.  Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.  Global warming is crap. Global warming is crap.
Did I mention that Globa Warming is total bullmanure?

----------


## Marc

*"There are four kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, statistics, and computer models" - kps*  
  Climate science is often reported as if a 'run' of a computer model is an experiment (it is not!). A computer model can not discriminate theories into true and false because it is not measuring reality. (Such models may give one an idea where to experiment, but to claim they "prove" anything is pure fiction and should lead one to discount the source. At best you can use a computer model to disprove a theory.)  
  Computer models were used to convince the SEC to remove regulations that led to the current (Oct 2008) economic melt down. From a NY times article: 
  A lone voice of dissent in the 2004 proceeding came from a software consultant from Valparaiso, Ind., who said the computer models run by the firms  which the regulators would be relying on could not anticipate moments of severe market turbulence. 
With the stroke of a pen, capital requirements are removed! the consultant, Leonard D. Bole, wrote to the commission on Jan. 22, 2004. ... 
  The public needs to recognize that just because something is modeled on a computer - it need not represent reality, and the result of erroneous public policy are not with out great cost. 
  Computer models are sometimes used to simulate electronic circuits for engineers - in an electronics circuit (which is a closed system) - these computer models sometimes predict behavior quite different from the real circuit. If such a models adjusted until the results give the expected result, it is often to the folly of the engineer. The proof of such a circuit must wait until a real circuit is built: *reality must be tested, not a model.* (Common electronic circuits can be modeled quite well, and these models are of practical use, yet these models still can mislead engineers at times. Be aware that circuit models, besides being a closed system, are several magnitudes less in complexity and size compared to the simplest climate models.) 
  Freeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton has this to say about the computer models:  "... I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."   The full text of the above quote is worth a read.  Global warming - Scientific conclusions?

----------


## Marc

*To infer a connection between man emissions of CO2 and warming is not an easy jump for the scientifically minded*    First, you have to prove that the increase in CO2 is caused by humans - the venting of CO2 by volcanoes (including those under the ocean) and geysers and other natural sources (and also the natural absorption or sinking of CO2) is a estimate that defies error analysis. To what error band are we certain of the amount of emission of CO2 by natural causes?Second, the elevation of CO2 needs to be shown to be historically real, but there were no analytical tools to measure even crudely thousands of years ago - the best work has been done with ice samples, but there is a great problem with how to calibrate such measurements. What size should the error bands be? I believe that man is responsible for a small increase in CO2 - this is supported by a lot of historical data.Third, there has to be a hypothesis that can predict the past (only then can we start guessing about the future) including the temperatures in the upper atmosphere. *Any model that can't fit past data has to be called wrong.*Fourth, as this is an open system where we can't build several earths and vary only one constant, any conclusion at best is still just a theory - a educated guess - it is not scientific fact. Science is more than looking scientific; just because things are measured to several decimal points means naught when there is no control or false logic.Fifth, to look at the past temperatures honestly, one would have to show no past periods of higher temperature. The idea that we '_know_' the inferred data - is simply wrong. We only have accurate records of solar output from the recent past and we are ignorant of the magnitude of long term historic variations that are possible. Explaining the small drift (less than what appears to be the noise in the system) can be accomplished with confounding variables. It might help to remember that 10,000 years ago Milwaukee was under 40' of ice, so we really do know that temperature can vary on its own. See Dpace Weather at DMI We also have reason to believe that glaciers world wide have been shrinking for the last 300 years - this means that things other than CO2 change our climate.Solar output has been shown as a link in weather. 
Also see a rigorous paper that clearly links changes in climate to sunspot activity : Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource developmentSix, one really has to subtract the effects of variations of solar output, and changes in land use (irrigation) from any temperature trends. There is no way to do this with any meaningful accuracy. Four of the six points above have serious problems 
  I remember reading a news article when I was in 5th or 6th grade by "scientists" that predicted that we were going into a new ice age because of man made pollution. Here is a later one. I thought it was true and worried about it for years. I followed every global climate article I got my hands on, until I realized they didn't have any way to truly support the claims they were making. Some of these same people are in the global warming business now.
 Supporters of global warming will say, "I've known of hundreds of scientists with diverse political backgrounds (from all over the world) who have come to the same conclusion", but taking polls on the opinion of people whose income is tied to the existence of a problem is not science. A poll of PC (Politically Correct) scientists from the year 1400 would have put the earth rather than the sun at the center of our solar system. While there are quite a few PC scientists today claiming to "know" that man is causing global warming, there are other scientists that honestly and humbly disagree.  *A politically popular opinion doesn't make it correct. No poll of scientists has anything to do with science. Science is not a democratic process!* 
Supporters will further say, "Many of these scientists are established, world-renowned, tenured professors who do research in numerous areas and whose jobs are certainly _not_ dependent on the existence of global warming". 
But let us consider the peers of Copernicus; did _their_ being "established, world-renowned, tenured professors" make them right? Would publication of balanced humble papers without dire conclusions effect the issuance of research grants? This link may be over hyped, but his detractors can only rebut with ad hominem attacks as he points out the difference between a scientific forecast and forecasts by scientists.   http://lrak.net/globalwarming.htm

----------


## Marc

*Confounding Variables*  
  Real science spends lots of time getting rid of or correcting for confounding variables. Confounding variables is THE reason that we can not 'know' that man produced CO2 is driving climate change. (It is also the same reason we don't 'know' the opposite.) 
 The following list of confounding variables is a work in progress - at the rate that new ones are added it is quite likely that there are other climate drivers that have not yet been identified.   Irrigation (Why is so little in the press about irrigations effect on climate?)(There is *no* occurrence of the word irrigation in _Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers_ and only a few references in the full report - often expressing it as unknowable._)_(The argument that the water vapor is only in the air for about a week is strange as some of the water re-evaporate as it hits the ground. There is also the fact that aquifers levels and river flows into the ocean really have gone down. Almost all of the Colorado river flow of 100 years ago now travels over the USA as water vapor.)Changes in solar output in the IR and visible spectrum space_weather (short term variations seem too small a factor on their own)Changes in shielding of cosmic radiation from the sun due to changes in magnetic storms (provides nucleation sites for condensation of water vapor)Changes in plant coverage (deforestation etc)The Milankovitch cycles; changes in earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession over time. The way the earth orbits around the sun can create ice ages and warming periods. You might want to look at the wikipedia article and pay attention to the problems section.Ground level OzoneChanges in particles that come from the sun.Genetic changes in ocean algae over time Finding the climate key - UQ News Online - The University of QueenslandChanges in earths magnetic field.Changes in volcanic emissions (CO2 and other substances)Changes in the amount and elevation of pollution particulate (provides nucleation sites for precipitation)Changes in CO2 absorption and emission due to changes in plant coverage and ocean temperature.Changes in ozone thickness (secondary to solar cycles?)Changes in methane emission by plants (genetic evolutionary driven changes).Changes in ocean salinity due to water use - (causing changes in ocean currents).Changes in land reflectivitySnowballs from space (an open system - and there is debate if these snowballs are only a sensor artifact - such material would introduce water vapor and nucleation sites at an unknown rate with unknown changes over time )Changes in ice crystal reflectivity due to the temperature, water saturation, mineral content and wind speed when they are formed. (see American Scientist Jan-Feb 2007)

----------


## Marc

*What would Richard Feynman say about Global warming?*  
  Richard Feynman was a physicist, who was not only closely associated with QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics), but also wrote about the scientific method and scientific rigor. I first ask you to read his bit about cargo cult science. Pay close attention for the part about the oil drop numbers - and realize that it applies here. 
  When a hypothesis fails to explain the given data, it follows that it must be abandoned. Non of the models I've read about can explain the lack of elevated temperatures at higher elevation. (As of 2006 there is now some hand waving about the ozone hole causing stratospheric cooling). 
  Feynman also became a bit of an artist on the side. This is important because drawing depends more on being a good honest observer than on talent. If you draw a picture and notice that the chin isn't where it belongs, it is easier to overlook after one starts inking over the pencil lines. What makes art truly art, is the discrepancies between reality and the art. It tells us as much about the artist as it does the subject. The way slight distortions are adjusted and blended in. Being a real scientist means we have to bend over backwards in order to find our human induced distortions of the object we are trying to draw conclusions about. This takes honesty and courage to report all warts and wrinkles in the subject AND the observer. 
  I am told that, "... meteorologists I know that are skeptical about global warming are weather forecasters (not researchers) and have little expertise in the science of climate change -- their jobs do not require it." Well if changing weather isn't climate change what is it? Meteorologists are trained to look at numbers trends and graphs and form conclusions about the probability of future events. They know that seeing patterns in data can be the playground of fools (are there any fool-proof computer programs that accurately predict the stock market?) More importantly, a meteorologist's experience will have taught them to be very careful about making claims about the future with limited data. Perhaps this experience has given them a better feel for what is knowable than the global climate researchers? The "science of climate change" was quite wrong when they were predicting a "new Ice age". Real science requires something that is beyond the combinations of a bunch of estimates plugged into human choice tainted computer models.  *The only way to have real success in science ... is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good about it and what's bad about it equally. In science you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty. Richard Feynman*  
  I truly wish Richard Feynman was alive to day to comment on the scientific vigor in global warming. Research can often look like science, yet fail to be real science in the end. Where is the "whats bad about it" part in the AGW papers? Why? Could it be that the AGW rhetoric is not real science?     Global warming - Scientific conclusions?

----------


## Marc

*Correlation does not show cause and effect - Limitations on what is knowable*  
  The idea that because CO2 has gone up and surface temperatures have also gone up means nothing. It is a correlation only in the sense that both variables are headed in the same direction. The odds of this being the case are 50% A similar correlation exists between CO2 and breast cancer. There is no cyclic variable in the global warming studies. (If we include proxy measurements, ice core samples - they have CO2 lagging temperature not leading) If CO2 had gone up and down 4 times and ground temperature had followed - that could be interesting, but would only start to mean something after 10 to 100 cycles. If CO2 had gone up and down several times and global temperatures had followed there would be a meaningful correlation, _yet that would still fail to show cause and effect - (they both could be caused by a third factor)._  __
  We've been told that "The atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen 30% since the Industrial Revolution (~1780) and 18% since1959". Yes,CO2 has increased slightly, and there is input from man, but even that can not be shown conclusively. In an open system it is entirely possible that other variations of natural CO2 sources and sinks may be more responsible. There could be natural sources and sinks of CO2 that have not been identified. In an open system, there _is no control of other variables_, thus _what we can know is quite limited_.     Global warming - Scientific conclusions?

----------


## Marc

*What is the difference between science and beliefs?*  
  The key to separating scientific knowledge from beliefs that science can be demonstrated. We may never have good enough error bands on the data about global temperature data; thus it is something that is just not knowable. Opinions on things unknowable are called beliefs. Because of the inapplicability of the scientific method when dealing with open systems, opinions on global warming are beliefs akin to a sort of religious view and not scientific fact. (this applies equally to folks that say warming is disproved).  
  "Climate science" as reported in the press is not really science. In real sciences the scientists first job is to prove himself wrong - that is to list the numerous way that the results my be in error and how the conclusions are limited. No forthright "bending over backwards" efforts are made by the global warming proponents. Instead, there are efforts to state things in emotional terms and a disturbing pattern of data errors and omissions. When claims are made dealing with an open system using correlations of data without knowable error bands, it fails to be science. There is no way to separate out the increased use of irrigation and the resulting increase of low altitude water vapor (very much a green house gas). Could changes of global low altitude humidity be a plausible competing theory? The correlation of temperature and variations of solar output is ignored. 
  Open systems, like the stock market are the subject of randomness - and much has been written about the "black swan" effect and the inability of professional stock pickers to come out ahead of amateurs in the long term. To infer a long term trend in what appears to be mostly noise - or randomness is a game of chance at best. All that can possibly be determined are floors of probability in an open system, and even those don't mean that much if one considers "black swan" effects. 
  I fail to see even an estimate of the amount of error of natural emissions of CO2 prominently displayed in the bandied documentation. Using real science, means you figure the answer and then you do the hard part of calculating the minimum, maximum, and probable errors. It is not possible in this case to even have hard numbers on CO2 venting - thus we are again not looking at science, but only estimates and speculation. Attaching numbers to speculation does not elevate it to science. 
  We are told that, "Carbon dioxide is measured directly at Mauna Loa in Hawaii", but it is really just a much better estimate of just one place and not really a direct measurement (There is no pipe to install a calibrate-able flow meter.) How much CO2 is emitted from underseas vents? To what accuracy is it known? 
Satellite data is extremely important, as it is the best data available and has no micro-climate artifacts. The satellite data is the only data that comes close to measuring anything that could be called global temperature and not effected by micro-climate and would be most difficult to fudge. According to the MSU/NASA UAH data, the atmosphere as a whole seems to be cooling or warming slightly depending on what level of the atmosphere you look at. The data below is the best >> GLOBAL <<< data we have. Ground stations of various designs and distributions, or combined bucket types and engine intake ship data can not come close to this NOAA satellite data.  
  But do you know what I see in that data? (And I'm really good at looking at statistics) - Not much that is significant -- mostly some noise - noise that is much higher than any trend. You could pick selected start and end points to show either cooling or warming. There is obviously no hokey-stick. Some indirect temperature trends track with solar output with a fairly good correlation. Will the new solar activity change solar output and cause more warming? What are you willing to bet on it? I wouldn't, as I am rather certain that we don't know. 
  One more reason to take the above graph data seriously - it comes from real scientists who share their data and lean over backwards to show possible errors. This is what real science looks like. 
  To claim as a "fact" something from a trend who's amplitude (and direction) can be changed by changing end points due to the noise involved not science; it is politics.     Global warming - Scientific conclusions?

----------


## chrisp

> *To infer a connection between man emissions of CO2 and warming is not an easy jump for the scientifically minded*

  I don't know why you post such miss-information.  The fact is most - actually, it is very close to all - scientists support the AGW theory.  I don't think the 'scientifically minded' have any problems with the AGW theory. 
All the points you have raised (actually, I think you just might have copy-and-pasted them without bothering to understand them at all), have all been addressed by the science. 
Perhaps you should take some time and read the IPCC reports before posting all the cut-and-paste rubbish. 
Perhaps it is just the politically biased and/or unscientifically minded that have the trouble accepting the AGW theory.  It certainly isn't a scientifically contentious issue at all. 
Politically, I see that the Federal Government accepts it, as too the Victorian Government ( Baillieu sticks to emission targets ).  Gee, even the Federal senate will change soon adding even more pressure and support for a carbon price.  I suspect that many members of the federal opposition also support the AGW theory and a price on carbon. 
The debate over the existence of the AGW theory is practically non-existent in scientific circles.  The world has moved on and we'll soon have a price on carbon here in Australia. 
Perhaps you should focus your energy on the form and structure of that carbon price.  It seems we are set to have a carbon tax very soon and maybe an ETS soon after. 
The science of AGW is practically signed-and-sealed and universally accepted, a price on carbon (CO2 emissions for Dr F) will inevitably follow. 
I reckon Rod might be right, by the time this thread hits 12,000 posts, a carbon price will be firmly in place.   :Smilie:

----------


## johnc

Marc, Are you really good at statistics :Shock:  That entire post is just a paste from the link. When you present something in a form that doesn't acknowledge the source its just plagerism. The original author should be given the credit but other than put it there can you actually give it some context that at least implies that you may have understood the article or even what point you think you are making.

----------


## Blocklayer

I haven't read this whole thread, but:
Has anyone ever heard an answer to the often asked question; 
If the government/s agree on global warming or climate change, or whatever the latest lingo is and whatever the reason, why isn't every publicly owned building in the country completely covered in solar panels? 
They must work. They give us rebates to install them. 
Will they use the money from the carbon tax to install solar panels on every publicly owned building? 
Canberra would power the whole country! 
Oh, wait -- they already do. 
:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Supporters of global warming will say, "I've known of hundreds of scientists with diverse political backgrounds (from all over the world) who have come to the same conclusion", but taking polls on the opinion of people whose income is tied to the existence of a problem is not science. A poll of PC (Politically Correct) scientists from the year 1400 would have put the earth rather than the sun at the center of our solar system. While there are quite a few PC scientists today claiming to "know" that man is causing global warming, there are other scientists that honestly and humbly disagree.  *A politically popular opinion doesn't make it correct. No poll of scientists has anything to do with science. Science is not a democratic process!*

  Well done mate, very easy to understand. 
Then someone goes and proves exactly the point you're making by appealing to opinion polls rather than demonstrating any scientific methodological rigour or showing any scientific evidence.  :Doh:    

> The fact is most - actually, it is very close to all - scientists support the AGW theory.  
> It certainly isn't a scientifically contentious issue at all. 
> Politically, I see that the Federal Government accepts it, as too the Victorian Government.   
> Gee, even the Federal senate will change soon adding even more pressure and support for a carbon price.   
> I suspect that many members of the federal opposition also support the AGW theory and a price on carbon. 
> The debate over the existence of the AGW theory is practically non-existent in scientific circles. 
> The science of AGW is practically signed-and-sealed and universally accepted, a price on carbon (CO2 emissions for Dr F) will inevitably follow.

  Still, I guess the other side proving your point shows you had a very good point.  :2thumbsup:   _In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. --Galileo Galileo_ 
And again, calling Carbon Dioxide by it's real name of Carbon Dioxide, instead of the wrong name of Carbon is not for me, it's for reality.  :Biggrin:   *"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."*   *-- Philip K. Dick* 
(I plagiarised the quotes from Marc's link  :Biggrin: )

----------


## Dr Freud

> I haven't read this whole thread, but:
> Has anyone ever heard an answer to the often asked question; 
> If the government/s agree on global warming or climate change, or whatever the latest lingo is and whatever the reason, why isn't every publicly owned building in the country completely covered in solar panels? 
> They must work. They give us rebates to install them. 
> Will they use the money from the carbon tax to install solar panels on every publicly owned building? 
> Canberra would power the whole country! 
> Oh, wait -- they already do. 
> :

  Great question, and the answer is this will not work.  JuLIAR's own consultants have already told her this:   

> For Labor, the road ahead is filled with policy obstacles. Comments this week from expert adviser to the multi-party committee, Rod Sims, and Productivity Commission chairman Gary Banks prove the point. 
> Both accept the broad market-based approach adopted by Labor and rejected by the Coalition. But Sims said Australia's 5 per cent reduction target by 2020 was a big 25 per cent reduction from business as usual and that solar panels, energy efficiency and wind farms couldn't get there. 
> A carbon tax did not create certainty. It neither established a forward price trajectory nor allowed full purchase of overseas offsets. Going to the critical issue, Sims said the reason Australia now faced a hybrid model was because Labor and the Greens could not agree on the targets. The hybrid was a means to delay that decision. 
> Banks said Labor's pivotal request to the Productivity Commission to estimate the effective carbon price in other nations was "challenging". Because no other country applied economy-wide CO2 emission taxes but opted instead for "a myriad of less transparent more narrowly focused interventions", then "comparable measurement becomes highly problematic". 
> What's he saying? That Labor's political imperative to justify Australia's action by reference to an effective carbon price in China and America is riddled with methodological holes.   Abbott and Gillard down and dirty | The Australian

  The next good question may be, why hasn't JuLIAR told Australian's this? 
Even more importantly, JuLIAR's next blatant LIES will be about her "effective carbon _dioxide_ prices" in other countries.  This is when she pretends that "other countries like China are acting and we can't be left behind".  What a load of bull--it! 
I'll bookmark this post and remind you when the "expert report" is released in a few months.   It wouldn't surprise me if these "effective carbon _dioxide_ prices" are the subject of JuLIAR's advertising propaganda.  She'll spend another $30 million of our money telling us more lies.   :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Marc, Are you really good at statistics That entire post is just a paste from the link. When you present something in a form that doesn't acknowledge the source its just plagerism. The original author should be given the credit but other than put it there can you actually give it some context that at least implies that you may have understood the article or even what point you think you are making.

  John we have already argued this point to death waaaay Back in the thread it holds no more water now than it did then.  If you disagree argue the points raised rather than throwing up this furphy.  This diversion rather than disputing points raised is what you do when you have no answer and want to deflect the truth.  P.s. Gotta love I phones

----------


## Dr Freud

Politics can be brutal, Bob. 
It all started so well:   
Then reality bit:   
Now the honeymoon is over, Bob:    
Bob, if she doesn't believe in marriage, and doesn't support gay marriage, what made you trust her in this marriage of convenience?

----------


## Dr Freud

> P.s. Gotta love I phones

  Welcome to the technology revolution mate. 
Human achievement based on fossil fuel energy is awesome, huh?  :2thumbsup:  
I'm sure you turned it off for Earth Hour?  :No:

----------


## andy the pm

A balanced view in the Sydney Morning Herald on the proposed carbon tax.    

> *Carbon won't cost the clever consumers*  *Alan Pears*  
> March 22, 2011 
> The recent hysterical claims that carbon pricing will make it too expensive to run an airconditioner, or that many industries will be destroyed, are simply ridiculous.
> The reality is that costs are changing all the time, and the carbon cost is likely to be ''in the noise'' for most Australians, even for electricity prices.
> The objective of placing a price on carbon dioxide emissions is clear. Emitters now make free use of the limited global atmosphere. Placing a price on emissions means they will ''pay to pollute''.
> When an activity costs more, there is a tendency to do less of it, and to find ways to deliver services that involve less of the more costly activity.
> Consider a typical annual household electricity cost of $1500. If you've bought a new fridge in the past few years, your bill is up to $200 lower than it would have been if you still had the old fridge. Improved energy efficiency has cut running costs.
> On the other hand, if you have those trendy halogen downlights, your bill is probably $200 more than it would have been with traditional lighting, because you are running many more lights. If you have a drinks fridge in your shed, you're paying about $200 for the convenience.
> If Tony Abbott is concerned about the cost of running airconditioners, he should be looking at the time-of-use tariffs being brought in with smart meters: in some cases, these are doubling the price of electricity on hot summer afternoons to reflect the ''real'' cost of electricity at those times.
> ...

  Carbon won't cost the clever consumers

----------


## chrisp

> Still, I guess the other side proving your point shows you had a very good point.   _In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. --Galileo Galileo_ 
> And again, calling Carbon Dioxide by it's real name of Carbon Dioxide, instead of the wrong name of Carbon is not for me, it's for reality.   *"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."*   *-- Philip K. Dick* 
> (I plagiarised the quotes from Marc's link )

  Actually, I think you are off-track.  Certainly, there is no 'opinion poll' in science as such.  The point I'm making is that those who are trained in the field, and those trained in related fields, have a better understanding of the science, and the methodologies of science, than the average man-on-the-street. 
Those who have such training are most likely to support the AGW theory.  *AND, yes, it will only take one single person who can produce sound scientific evidence against the AGW to disprove it.  No one has managed to do that yet.* 
Maybe you should try some _reasoning_ sometime?

----------


## PhilT2

> Maybe you should try some reasoning sometime?

  Is this reasoning available as "cut and paste"?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Flim Flammery has now ensured that the USA will *never* act on the AGW hypothesis. 
> He has told them that it will not make any discernible difference for thousands of years. 
> That puts paid to the emotional blackmail about your children and grandchildren.  *IF* this farcical hypothesis is even true, our actions *might* make a difference to your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandchildren.  
> The Republicans will be posting this up all around Capitol Hill. 
> Well done Tim, you're now convincing people around the world of the futility of taking any action for this farce.

  
What you fail to recognise is that sometimes (OK most times).......we have to push into the wind....just to remain at a stand still. 
So it is in this case.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Stop the press! 
> The science is not settled!!!    
> [/i][/i]
> You AGW hypothesis supporters better get these "scientists" sorted.  The farcical "consensus" argument is as well and truly over.

  Pigs bum.  They are both right. In their own way. Reality is not a light switch. So it is with natural systems. 
To use an oil based analogy.....it takes a fully loaded oil tanker many kilometres to pull up once at cruising speed....even with the engines in reverse.  So it will be with the atmosphere with respect to greenhouse gases and their impacts.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> A balanced view in the Sydney Morning Herald on the proposed carbon tax.     Carbon won't cost the clever consumers

  Wow so much to tear apart here. Way to much for the iPhone    Sheez these gooses want to sell this bad don't they.  Reminds me of the saying how to tell some one how f@@@ off in a way they ejoy the trip.

----------


## chrisp

> Wow so much to tear apart here.

  Come Rod, be a sport and tear it apart.  I'd be interested to see your analysis. 
How much would a carbon tax add to the price of electricity?  How much would a carbon tax add to the cost of a litre of fuel?

----------


## Marc

> Marc, Are you really good at statistics That entire post is just a paste from the link.

  Nooooooo  :Yikes2:  
Oh ... yes and the link is there highlighted for you to click on whenever you are ready. 
I post it again in case you missed.
It is at the bottom of every post as a signature.
It is highlighted in blue.
you take your mouse to it and press with the left side of your right hoof.  Global warming - Scientific conclusions?

----------


## Marc

> I don't know why you post such miss-information.    *please grace me with an explanation what is wrong with the information?* 
> The fact is most - actually, it is very close to all - scientists support the AGW theory.  I don't think the 'scientifically minded' have any problems with the AGW theory.  *talking about consesnus here? You must be joking* 
> All the points you have raised (actually, I think you just might have copy-and-pasted them without bothering to understand them at all), have all been addressed by the science.  *Which science? Care to explain ...Or is it witch science?* 
> Perhaps you should take some time and read the IPCC reports before posting all the cut-and-paste rubbish.  *Oohhh the IPCC "reports" are now "science" are they?* *The rest is the usual bullexcrement the science is settled, there is no debate, we will get and ETS if we want it or not, you know better wat is best for me. * [s]*Typical fascist religious trash.*[/s]  *EDIT..Tut Tut Tut  (Watson)*

  .

----------


## johnc

Quoted by Marc "*Oohhh the IPCC "reports" are now "science" are they?"*  
You may not agree with the IPCC reports but that does not alter the fact that they are based on Climate Science infact "*The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC was established in 1988 by the WMO and the UNEP. The role of the IPCC is " to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change*." (lifted from an IPCC discussion paper) 
Facile denigration of those with an opposing view does nothing to express the merits of your view. Once you step aside from the cut and pastes there really isn't much there other than ridicule. 
The IPCC reports are based on science, and formulated around the science, and supported by around 97% of climate scientists. You can point to minor errors and contradictions but none are sufficient to alter the view that carbon is a problem and the world is warming.

----------


## chrisp

> First, you have to prove that the increase in CO2 is caused by humans - the venting of CO2 by volcanoes (including those under the ocean) and geysers and other natural sources (and also the natural absorption or sinking of CO2) is a estimate that defies error analysis. To what error band are we certain of the amount of emission of CO2 by natural causes?

   

> I don't know why you post such miss-information.    *please grace me with an explanation what is wrong with the information?*

  Let's take the first point.    
(figure from: 7.3 The Carbon Cycle and the Climate System - AR4 WGI Chapter 7: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry )   
(graphs from: FAQ 7.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 7: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry )   

> *Carbon Dioxide *  
> Emissions of CO2  (Figure 1a) from fossil fuel combustion, with contributions from cement  manufacture, are responsible for more than 75% of the increase in  atmospheric CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times. The  remainder of the increase comes from land use changes dominated by  deforestation (and associated biomass burning) with contributions from  changing agricultural practices. All these increases are caused by human  activity. The natural carbon cycle cannot explain the observed  atmospheric increase of 3.2 to 4.1 GtC yr1 in the form of CO2 over the last 25 years. (One GtC equals 1015 grams of carbon, i.e., one billion tonnes.)    
> Natural  processes such as photosynthesis, respiration, decay and sea surface  gas exchange lead to massive exchanges, sources and sinks of CO2 between the land and atmosphere (estimated at ~120 GtC yr1) and the ocean and atmosphere (estimated at ~90 GtC yr1; see figure 7.3). The natural sinks of carbon produce a small net uptake of CO2 of approximately 3.3 GtC yr1  over the last 15 years, partially offsetting the human-caused  emissions. Were it not for the natural sinks taking up nearly half the   human-produced CO2 over the past 15 years, atmospheric concentrations would have grown even more dramatically.    
> The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is known to be caused by human activities because the character of CO2  in the atmosphere, in particular the ratio of its heavy to light carbon  atoms, has changed in a way that can be attributed to addition of  fossil fuel carbon. In addition, the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen in the  atmosphere has declined as CO2 has increased; this is as  expected because oxygen is depleted when fossil fuels are burned. A  heavy form of carbon, the carbon-13 isotope, is less abundant in  vegetation and in fossil fuels that were formed from past vegetation,  and is more abundant in carbon in the oceans and in volcanic or  geothermal emissions. The relative amount of the carbon-13 isotope in  the atmosphere has been declining, showing that the added carbon comes  from fossil fuels and vegetation. Carbon also has a rare radioactive  isotope, carbon-14, which is present in atmospheric CO2 but  absent in fossil fuels. Prior to atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons,  decreases in the relative amount of carbon-14 showed that fossil fuel  carbon was being added to the atmosphere.  
> (quote from AR4:WG1 FAQ 7.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 7: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry )

  The quote you quoted implies that many factors haven't, or can't be, considered as the analysis is too difficult.  The quote provides absolutely no basis for these assertions - either analytical reasoning or quantification.  The facts are that these very issues have been analysed and the error bands have been calculated. 
You can read further for yourself if you follow the links.  If you are truly curious, you may even like to follow up on the papers referenced in AR4 (and the paper referenced by them too). 
Consider yourself 'graced'.  :Smilie:  
The other points are just as factually erroneous and mischievous in their intent.

----------


## andy the pm

Here's another one for you to 'tear apart' Rod, knock yourself out...  Clearing the air   

> *Clearing the air*  
> March 24, 2011    *How is the world reducing carbon emissions? In the first of a two-part series on tackling climate change, Adam Morton writes that progress is being made on some surprising fronts.*
> JOHN Gummer and Tony Abbott have a thing or two in common. Like Abbott, Gummer is a socially conservative Catholic who has huge admiration for former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. More than admiration actually: Gummer was agriculture secretary in the final years of the Thatcher government, and is said to have shed tears when the Iron Lady resigned at the end of 1990.
> There is at least one key subject, though, where Abbott and Gummer are miles apart: climate change. The Australian Coalition leader is cautious on climate science and has mocked the idea that the world is moving to tackle human greenhouse gas emissions.
> Gummer, who was later environment secretary under John Major and assumed the title of Baron Deben upon moving to the House of Lords last June, is so convinced of the need to address the problem that he signed on as president of GLOBE, a body dedicated to bringing together parliamentarians from around the world to campaign on green issues.
> This week he is in Australia meeting politicians, delivering lectures and making himself available to the media. He speaks at Melbourne University tonight.
> While he aims to keep his message apolitical - he stresses that each country must decide its own path in cutting emissions - he says he has been struck by what he sees as Australians' poor understanding of what is being done elsewhere.
> "I am surprised how few of the most vociferous here understand that the rest of the world is doing very, very significant things," he tells _The Age_.
> On China, he says: ''To listen to talk in Australia you'd think nothing was happening there at all.''
> ...

----------


## Dr Freud

> A balanced view in the Sydney Morning Herald on the proposed carbon tax.   Carbon won't cost the clever consumers

  Dude, you seriously need to recalibrate your vestibular system.  *Alan Pears is an adjunct professor at RMIT University and co-director of Sustainable Solutions, an environmental consultancy.* Alan Pears needs to take a good long drink of reality. 
Why don't you email the good professor and ask him to qualify the fairy tale he just told. 
Maybe after he realises the error of his ways, he'll also turn into a real little boy or a pumpkin at midnight.   

> The objective of placing a price on carbon dioxide emissions is clear.  
> In many cases, we can save ourselves money while saving the planet.

  Dear sweet professor, if Australian's don't pay this (according to you miniscule) tax by turning off their fridges, exactly how will this miniscule effort save the entire Planet Earth? 
And dear sweet professor, what exactly will Australian's "save" the Planet Earth from?  The cookie monster?  :Doh:  
Or do you have a date in mind for Armageddon?  :Doh:  
And as you are a professor in Sustainability, how exactly does the planetary population of humans shifting from 6 billion to 9 billion work out for you, and seeing as you are a professor after all, you should have no issue factoring in global increases in standard of living and consumerism. 
We can get onto China's coal burning expansion and our coal exporting expansion after we finish your humiliating happy ever after story. 
But enough reality hey prof, let's get back to life on campus, eh?    

> RMIT produced 63,890 t-CO2 of greenhouse gas emissions in 2010*ATN greenhouse gas reduction target of 25% by 2020, based on 2007 levelsWe need to save approximately 175kg CO2-e per student to reach the 2020 target.
>    *Excluding 20% green power purchase

  Hey prof, if all you really smart people just don't breathe out every second day, you'll get your 175kg savings. I reckon after the first day of this, we'll get permanent CO2 reductions with bonus carbon sequestration.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Actually, I think you are off-track.

  You can't think a train off the track champ, you've got to derail it.  :Biggrin:    

> Certainly, there is no 'opinion poll' in science as such.

  You're the one who keeps referring to it.  :Confused:    

> The point I'm making is that those who are trained in the field, and those trained in related fields, have a better understanding of the science, and the methodologies of science, than the average man-on-the-street.

  So you want to run an opinion poll of these dudes then?   

> Those who have such training are most likely to support the AGW theory.

  Obviously you do?   

> *AND, yes, it will only take one single person who can produce sound scientific evidence against the AGW to disprove it. No one has managed to do that yet.*

  Still haven't got it yet, huh?   

> Maybe you should try some _reasoning_ sometime?

  Nah, I think I will stick with reality thanks.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Pigs bum.  They are both right. In their own way. Reality is not a light switch. So it is with natural systems. 
> To use an oil based analogy.....it takes a fully loaded oil tanker many kilometres to pull up once at cruising speed....even with the engines in reverse.  So it will be with the atmosphere with respect to greenhouse gases and their impacts.

  They are both right? 20 = 1000? 
If you are standing in front of your oil tanker going at cruising speed, would you like to know whether it pulls up in 20 metres or 1000 metres??? 
Reality bites, hard sometimes.  :Driving:  
Nice to have mathematical and empirical science at times like that, not fairy tales and esoteric belief systems.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> How much would a carbon tax add to the price of electricity?  How much would a carbon tax add to the cost of a litre of fuel?

  How much would this Carbon *Dioxide* Tax cool the Planet Earth? 
Why do you people keep focussing on the cost, but keep ignoring spelling out the benefit. 
Even if it only cost each Australian 1 cent, what's the f---ing point if it does nothing!  :Doh:  
But it will cost us billions, then tens of billions, then hundreds of billions.  This is how the scheme is designed.  Not spent on hospitals, education, roads, rail, or R&D, but on shonks, spivs and charlatan's trading "Carbon Dioxide Credits", whatever the hell they are supposed to represent.  :Doh:  
So I ask again:  
How much would this Carbon *Dioxide* Tax cool the Planet Earth? 
This may help you with the basic chemistry concept you can't seem to grasp: 
C = Carbon
CO2 = Carbon Dioxide      
Once you've got a handle on this concept, you might want to email JuLIAR and Combet, they have no idea of the difference, and they're the ones writing the policy.  :Shock:  :Shock:  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You may not agree with the IPCC reports but that does not alter the fact that they are based on Climate Science infact "*The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC was established in 1988 by the WMO and the UNEP. The role of the IPCC is " to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change*." (lifted from an IPCC discussion paper) 
> Facile denigration of those with an opposing view does nothing to express the merits of your view. Once you step aside from the cut and pastes there really isn't much there other than ridicule.

  Strange criticism from someone cutting and pasting their response? 
But back to the issues at hand:   

> This is not a debating tactic, it is called the scientific method. 
> I have tried many times to explain this to many AGW Theory proponents, who continually ignore it.  *This primarily is the fault of the IPCC who themselves have bastardised scientific integrity.  Now many people see their methods as being scientifically valid, whereas they have attempted a meta-analysis and instead produced science fiction.* 
> I do not blame you and others for not realising the error of the IPCC's method, but I do implore you to research and learn the correct scientific method for yourselves. 
> Again: If you propose a theory, you need to validate it.  It does not stand as "assumed to be reality" until someone disproves it.  This is called religion, and is perfectly valid as religious dogma. Just don't call it science.

    

> The IPCC reports are based on science, and formulated around the science, and supported by around 97% of climate scientists.

  Mate, read the thread!  It will avoid us repeating ourselves over and over, which becomes tedious.  This 97% figure you quote is actually 75 scientists out of 10,257 questioned.  If you use fuzzy maths of 20=1000, you may get 97% from this too:   

> The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout  97% of the worlds climate scientists accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim. 
>  This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers  in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.   Lawrence Solomon: 75 climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming | Full Comment | National Post

  75/10,257= 0.7% -  OOPS!   

> The IPCC reports are based on science, and formulated around the science, and supported by around *[0.7] %* of climate scientists.

  What was the word, oh yeh, embarrassment!   

> You can point to minor errors and contradictions but none are sufficient to alter the view that *carbon is a problem* and the world is warming.

  Carbon is not a problem, it is an atom!  :Doh:  
Am I the only one sensing a reality disconnect here?  :Biggrin:

----------


## andy the pm

> Am I the only one sensing a reality disconnect here?

  No, most of us have realised you have been disconnected from reality for some time doc, I'm sure there is medication you can take, good luck with that.

----------


## andy the pm

> Dude, you seriously need to recalibrate your vestibular system.

  Why? I don't fall over when I stand up, my vestibular system is just fine thanks.  *    
			
				Alan Pears is an adjunct professor at RMIT University and co-director of Sustainable Solutions, an environmental consultancy.
			
		  * 
And your an idiot from Perth that hides behind a mask of anonymity to criticize, whats your point?    

> Why don't you email the good professor and ask him to qualify the fairy tale he just told.

  Why don't you, after all your the one with an issue with it.   

> Dear sweet professor, if Australian's don't pay this (according to you miniscule) tax by turning off their fridges, exactly how will this miniscule effort save the entire Planet Earth?

  You have lost me doc, what are you saying here?   

> And as you are a professor in Sustainability, how exactly does the planetary population of humans shifting from 6 billion to 9 billion work out for you, and seeing as you are a professor after all, you should have no issue factoring in global increases in standard of living and consumerism.

  You need to ask the professor that one doc, I'm sure he would be happy to provide you with a response, after all, the article was about the proposed carbon tax not about global population increase.   

> We can get onto China's coal burning expansion and our coal exporting expansion after we finish your humiliating happy ever after story.

  We could also get onto Chinas increase in renewable energy sources, currently 8% (compared to Australia's 5%) and up to 11.4% by 2015 as well as reducing carbon dioxide by 17%. Read more here Clearing the air    

> But enough reality hey prof, let's get back to life on campus, eh?  RMIT produced 63,890 t-CO2 of greenhouse gas emissions in 2010*ATN greenhouse gas reduction target of 25% by 2020, based on 2007 levelsWe need to save approximately 175kg CO2-e per student to reach the 2020 target.*Excluding 20% green power purchase   
> Hey prof, if all you really smart people just don't breathe out every second day, you'll get your 175kg savings. I reckon after the first day of this, we'll get permanent CO2 reductions with bonus carbon sequestration.

  Here is a link to RMIT RMIT - Think green at RMIT where you can read about the efforts the University are going to to reduce their cabon (dioxide) footprint. I wouldn't expect the doc to provide a *balanced* view.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> They are both right? 20 = 1000? 
> If you are standing in front of your oil tanker going at cruising speed, would you like to know whether it pulls up in 20 metres or 1000 metres??? 
> Reality bites, hard sometimes.  
> Nice to have mathematical and empirical science at times like that, not fairy tales and esoteric belief systems.

  Might suggest you read those quotes again, Doc. 
Never said that 20 = 1000.  Only that they were both, essentially, correct.  About different things. 
The 20 year figure referred to the time taken for the continued warming effect to run its course after the trend in rising greenhouse gas concentration's stabilises (or better still, stops).  The response we are seeing in the climate today is probably lagged by 20 to 30 years....so it was the GHGs we emitted prior to and during the 80's that have us where we are today. 
The 1000 year figure is little more than an educated guess but there's evidence in the fossil and ice core records for something like it. Flannery was referring to the period required before (assuming no other GHG injections) the average air temperature (or for that matter CO2 levels) would return to levels akin to the end of the 20th century (say).  This is because lag is always longer on the tail of an environmental event (a river rises fast and recedes more slowly). 
Your version of reality from my perspective is getting more and more limited all the time.  Are you sure you're actually enjoying yourself in there?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> How much would this Carbon *Dioxide* Tax cool the Planet Earth? 
> Why do you people keep focussing on the cost, but keep ignoring spelling out the benefit. 
> Even if it only cost each Australian 1 cent, what's the f---ing point if it does nothing!  
> But it will cost us billions, then tens of billions, then hundreds of billions.  This is how the scheme is designed.  Not spent on hospitals, education, roads, rail, or R&D, but on shonks, spivs and charlatan's trading "Carbon Dioxide Credits", whatever the hell they are supposed to represent.  
> So I ask again: 
> How much would this Carbon *Dioxide* Tax cool the Planet Earth?

  And I keep telling you (and your acolytes)......it won't cool Planet Earth. 
None of the carbon pricing, cap & trade , whatever systems anywhere in the world both now and in the next twenty years will do anything whatsoever to cool Planet Earth. 
We've already s##t the nest.....so to speak.  The extra GHG's (that were locked away for millennia) are already out there doing their thing - the natural system is out of kilter. We've essentially locked in to a new system that will be around a couple of degrees warmer on average.  And there's sweet FA we can do about that. 
What they should do (if they work properly) is prevent the s##t in our nest getting deeper.  If you have deep @@@@ then you run an increased risk of drowning in it. Manage the s##t, minimise the future risk.  Basically if we as a human population can flatten the rising trend in GHG emissions then we can stall any increases in average temp to around 2 degrees - it needn't get any worse. 
Essentially, all these systems will do is provide us the opportunity to run while standing still.  And not get any deeper in the s##t. 
Remember, life doesn't come with push buttons to make it do your bidding...but it does comes in many colours and hues.  My reality might frighten you.....but it is a wonderfully exciting and funky place to be.....and well prettier than yours too.

----------


## Marc

> very little there conceded nice colourful pictures though

  Chris, unfortunately for the warming alarmist and their quotes  from junk science as used by the IPCC and all the cheer leaders below them  (present company excepted of course) proof that CO2 CAUSES a world warming trend  that is significant statistically or in any other way excluding religious  dogma.... Is non existent.  
Some weak link is present yet no one can  decide if it is man made or natural ocean release. Furthermore the increases of  CO2 lags behind temperature increases, so really you have almost nothing at  all. 
CO2 hysteria re baptised "carbon" to confuse the masses in believing  they are dealing with sooth or particulate emissions serves however a much more  practical purpose. It is a powerful political tool.
Just like Catholicism was  a powerful tool once, Islam is a political tool for some countries to keep a  tight rein on their citizen, envirolatry is a practical tool to bend citizen  into submission and achieve a shift in resources and a power shift towards the  politically useful yet fringe lunatic who represent this new force I baptize  envirolatry. 
The fact that envirolatras reject any form of skepticism is  proof of the absolute lack of scientific method in their opinions that are  brandished as flags and weapons beyond reproach or scrutiny. The science is  settled, there is consensus and the usual trash in their language just  highlights the dogmatic essence of such belief that makes no sense to the  ordinary person.  
Different fringe proposals of taxes to "save the  planet" are the perfect mirror image of the indulgence sold by the Vatican. The  very idea that such tax would reduce CO2 emissions in any way is lunacy but hold  on...we already established that CO2 increase by human contribution has no  effect on climate and I have yet to talk about the fact that temperature  increases, (if they could be achieved at will by humans ... What an arrogant  idea!) are actually beneficial and we lived and thrived through them  already. 
What is left to say? 
To the little green fringe people  out there :Yippy: ....get a real job.
or at least a proper hobby. This forum is excelent for wood work enthusiasts  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Marc

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBf8dPLyYLs]YouTube - NWO Depopulation Plans Exposed, Agenda 21 Club of Rome EnvironMentalism[/ame]

----------


## Dr Freud

> Here's another one for you to 'tear apart' Rod, knock yourself out...  Clearing the air

  Most of this article is junk information designed for the ignorant masses. 
Anyone who has paid attention while reading the thread would understand this. 
As an example, once you understand what this means:   

> the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of gross domestic product

  you will realise how easy it is to con the weak minded.  :2thumbsup:  
Don't you just love the way reality always triumphs over fairy tales.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> We could also get onto China...by 2015 as well as reducing carbon dioxide by 17%.

  Mate, this is great news. 
As China is allegedly reducing Carbon Dioxide by 17% by 2015, we don't need a Carbon Dioxide Tax anymore.  This level of reduction is massive. 
Just curious, I have never heard China say they will do this.  Even Bob Brown doesn't know China will do this.  How did you get this great information? 
Surely you didn't fall that old Jedi mind trick?  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Might suggest you read those quotes again, Doc.

  Yep, read 'em again, got it now, thanks. 
Humans stop emitting all CO2 today, it warms for 20 years, then stable for 1000 years. 
Very accurate predictions here champ!  Let's compare your fairy tale to the empirical data:   
WOW!!! We must have stopped emitting all CO2 over 50 years ago, because the atmospheric temperature has stabilised for more than 30 years!!!  We are actually .02 degrees LOWER than the average.  The 1000 year slow cooling phase has possibly started already.   :Biggrin:     

> The 20 year figure referred to the time taken for the continued warming effect to run its course

  Yep, definitely past that point according to the empirical data.  :Biggrin:    

> The 1000 year figure is ... the average air temperature ... would return to levels akin to the end of the 20th century (say).

  Yep, definitely past that point according to the empirical data (actually .02 below it).  :Biggrin:  
Your fairy tale came true!!! 
Oops, except for the fact us humans have not reduced all our CO2 emissions to zero.  :Doh:  
So close, but no cigar.  :No:  
But lest I be accused of cherry picking, let's see how your 20 year lag of temp to CO2 model works, then the 1000 year stabilisation afterwards.  550 million years should be long enough to see the trend, huh?    
OOPS!!! 
Sorry dude, can't see it, still no cigar. 
But wait, is that CO2 levels peaking at 7000 parts per million, then lowering, then rising again to 3000 parts per million, then lowering, er naturally?  I thought you guys said that we had to "Save the Planet" by avoiding the catastrophic 500 parts per million???  :Doh:  
The Planet's still here, in my black and white reality anyway, in your colourful version it may have been destroyed and this is all another fairy tale.  :Wink 1:  
Gee, and average global temps recently increased to 22 degrees quite naturally, and then they reduced to 12 degrees quite naturally, now they are gently rising out of the last little ice age, er naturally? 
Yeh, I think I'll stick with reality mate.   :2thumbsup:  
But you guys keep the fairy tales coming, I like stories that begin with once upon a time.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> And I keep telling you (and your acolytes)......it won't cool Planet Earth.

  Yeh, we sceptics know this mate. 
Tell it to JuLIAR, Greg Combet, and Bob Brown who all believe it will. 
If they don't believe it and are just plain LYING, well, I think we've covered this already.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Once upon a time, the omnipotent psychic computers predicted that the oceans would all rise up and swallow all the evil polluters, and the high priests spread this frightful news to the people:   

> Professor Garnaut cites new models that suggest the upper predictions of sea-level rise are now as high as 1.9m by 2100.  Climate change may be worse than feared: Ross Garnaut | The Australian

  But then the fairy princess got scared, so asked the good prince to check the emipirical facts freely available throughout the kingdom, and the good prince saved the whole Planet with just a trip to the beach:   

> Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S.
> tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each
> time period we consider, the records show small decelerations
> that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of
> worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain
> are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less
> than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to
> reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf
> (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted,
> ...

  Then the good prince realised the disparity was the kingdoms thermometers were right in the middle of the castle amongst all the fireplaces, so the temperature readings were badly compromised. 
But then the wise wizard said "Lo, look skyward at the magic floating thermometers I have conjured, they are beyond the warm bricks of the castle". 
And it came to pass that the kingdom went about it's business, except for a few high priests who held mass to invoke the warming spirits, with prophecies of doom for all the non-believers.  These masses were held in the dark lest the lighting sticks offend the warming spirits. 
And in the kingdom, the princes and the princesses lived happily ever after in their new beach houses right on the water, next to the high priest Greg Combet's luxury beach front house.  :Biggrin:  
See, I can tell fairy tales too!  :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

An inconvenient truth...   

> Remember how Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery refused to answer my very basic  question?   _Bolt:  On our own, cutting our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, what will that lower the worlds temperatures by? _  _Flannery:  See, thats a bogus question because nothing is in isolation _  _Bolt: Everyone understands that that is the argument But were just trying to get basic facts, without worrying about the consequences - about what those facts may lead people to think. On our own, by cutting our emissions, because its a heavy price to pay, by 5 per cent by 2020, what will the worlds temperatures fall by as a consequence?_  _Flannery: Look, it will be a very, very small increment. _  _Bolt: Have you got a number? .... _  _Flannery:  I just need to clarfy in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years._  _Bolt: Right, but I just want to get to this very basic fact I want to know the cost of cutting our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and will it do the job: how much will the worlds temperatures fall by if Australia cuts its emissions by this much._  _Flannery: Look, as I said it will be a very, very small increment. _  _Bolt: Can you give us a rough figure? A rough figure. _  _Flannery: Sorry, I cant ...._  _Bolt:  Is it about, I dont know, are you talking about a thousandth of a degree? A hundredth of a degree? What sort of rough figure?_  _Flannery: Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly._  _Bolt: That doesnt seem a good deal_ But dont despair! Lord Monckton has been kind enough to give me the straight answer that Flannery et al will not - and his answer explains exactly Flannerys embarrassed silence:  _Q. What is the central estimate of the anthropogenic global warming, in Celsius degrees, that would be forestalled by 2020 if a) Australia alone and b) the whole world cut carbon emissions stepwise until by 2020 they were 5% below todays emissions?_  _Answer a). Australia accounts for (at most) 1.5% of global carbon emissions. A stepwise 5% cut by 2020 is an average 2.5% cut from now till then. CO2 concentration by 2020, taking the IPCCs A2 scenario, will be 412 parts per million by volume, compared with 390 ppmv now. So Man will have added 22 ppmv by 2020, without any cuts in emissions. The CO2 concentration increase forestalled by almost a decade of cap-and-tax in Australia would thus be 2.5% of 1.5% of 22 ppmv, or 0.00825 ppmv. So in 2020 CO2 concentration would be 411.99175 ppmv instead of 412 ppmv_  _So the proportionate change in CO2 concentration if the Commission and Ms. Gillard got their way would be 411.99175/412, or 0.99997998. The IPCC says warming or cooling, in Celsius degrees, is 3.7-5.7 times the logarithm of the proportionate change: central estimate 4.7. Also, it expects only 57% of manmade warming to occur by 2100: the rest would happen slowly and harmlessly over perhaps 1000 years (thats the real meaning of Flannerys 1000-year point, and it doesnt do him any favours).  
> So the warming forestalled by cutting Australias emissions would be 57% of 4.7 times the logarithm of 0.99997998: that is  wait for it, wait for it  a dizzying 0.00005 Celsius, or around one-twenty-thousandth of a Celsius degree. Your estimate of a thousandth of a degree was a 20-fold exaggeration  not that Flannery was ever going to tell you that, of course.  
> Answer b) . Mutatis mutandis, we do the same calculation for the whole world, thus:  
> 2.5% of 22 ppmv = 0.55 ppmv. Warming forestalled by 2020 = 0.57 x 4.7 ln[(412-0.55)/412] < 0.004 Celsius, or less than four one-thousandths of a Celsius degree, or around one-two-hundred-and-eightieth of a Celsius degree. And that at a cost of trillions. Whom the gods would destroy   
> If you'd like chapter and verse from the IPCC's documents and from the peer-reviewed for every step of this calculation, which takes full account of and distils down the various complexities and probabilities Flannery flannelled about, you'll find it in this paper  
> A cautionary note: the warming forestalled will only be this big if the IPCCs central estimate of the rate at which adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming is correct. However, its at least a twofold exaggeration and probably more like fourfold. So divide both the above answers by, say, 3 to get what will still probably be an overestimate of the warming forestalled._   _The answer Flannery refused to give: just 0.00005 degrees | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_ __

  _ 
OK, cost-benefit time now I guess??? _

----------


## andy the pm

> Just curious, I have never heard China say they will do this. Even Bob Brown doesn't know China will do this. How did you get this great information?

  Hardly surprising, you need to read more than right wing blogs...and you would need to ask the author of the article where they got the information from, but here's a helping hand...  China adopts 5-year blueprint, aiming for fairer, greener growth

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yep, read 'em again, got it now, thanks. 
> Humans stop emitting all CO2 today, it warms for 20 years, then stable for 1000 years. 
> Very accurate predictions here champ!  Let's compare your fairy tale to the empirical data:   
> WOW!!! We must have stopped emitting all CO2 over 50 years ago, because the atmospheric temperature has stabilised for more than 30 years!!!  We are actually .02 degrees LOWER than the average.  The 1000 year slow cooling phase has possibly started already.      
> Yep, definitely past that point according to the empirical data.    
> Yep, definitely past that point according to the empirical data (actually .02 below it).  
> Your fairy tale came true!!! 
> Oops, except for the fact us humans have not reduced all our CO2 emissions to zero.  
> So close, but no cigar.  
> ...

  For a bloke who claims to hate psychic computers.....you are doing a wonderful job relying on their data.  Both of those plots were created by psychic computers.....  
So why should _I_ accept either of them? 
Discuss.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Thanks, Frootie for the JCR article link....a very useful paper.  Although it does rely pretty heavily on analysis by psychic computers.  So your belief in its findings are slightly baffling to Yours Truly. 
The implications of the paper are interesting....findings indicate that observations of sea level to date don't fit those of various predictive models output (based on required acceleration rates) but also that the various sources of sea level data aren't necessarily showing comparable data. 
Curiously, the authors don't say that sea level rise as a result of AGW is bunkum (as our resident sex analyst seems to suggest).  Only that what was expected to happen isn't happening yet and that there's a data issue that requires urgent attention. Caution over catchphrase...  
Well worth a read for all.

----------


## mark53

> Quoted by Marc "*Oohhh the IPCC "reports" are now "science" are they?"*  
> You may not agree with the IPCC reports but that does not alter the fact that they are based on Climate Science infact "*The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC was established in 1988 by the WMO and the UNEP. The role of the IPCC is " to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change*." (lifted from an IPCC discussion paper) 
> Facile denigration of those with an opposing view does nothing to express the merits of your view. Once you step aside from the cut and pastes there really isn't much there other than ridicule. 
> The IPCC reports are based on science, and formulated around the science, and supported by around 97% of climate scientists. You can point to minor errors and contradictions but none are sufficient to alter the view that carbon is a problem and the world is warming.

  *Oh, give me a break. The IPCC rank amongst the worst peddlers of happy horse digest God ever puffed breath into.* *You insult the intelligence* *of those individuals who who are aware that the IPCC is a discredited bunch of oxygen thieves hell bent on distorting scientific information for god knows what end. The observation I make is that one places no value in their credibility by quoting this bunch of prostitutional scientist.*

----------


## Dr Freud

Why do blondes laugh at jokes three times? 
Once when you tell it, once when you explain it, and once when they get it.  :Biggrin:  
Let's try again. 
See, the first article told you this:   

> It means it has promised to reduce by 17 per cent the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of gross domestic product generated by 2015.  Clearing the air

  And the second article explained this:   

> carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP should be reduced by ... 17 percent ... during the five years  China adopts 5-year blueprint, aiming for fairer, greener growth

  And you said this:   

> We could also get onto Chinas ... reducing carbon dioxide by 17%.

  Get it?  :Biggrin:  
See, it's not so much what you read, but what you comprehend.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> For a bloke who claims to hate psychic computers.....you are doing a wonderful job relying on their data. Both of those plots were created by psychic computers.....

  I don't recall ever saying I "hate" psychic computers, but if you have proof of this, feel free to provide it?  Proof of claims is not your bailiwick, but give it a go. 
I have regularly ridiculed them and people who treat their farcical output as scientific evidence, like this:   

> I've got better things to do than to try and discuss a scientific theory that predicts the future with someone expecting proof to magically appear in the present. That's not how scientific theories work, and its not how science works. 
> You're sacked.  
> woodbe.

   

> So let me get this straight: *
> You have a theory that uses computer programs to predict the future?*   
> And I'm the one with the problem for asking for scientific proof? 
> No wonder I got sacked, talking about reality in that little fantasy!

  Now, I will credit you with being mischievous by trying to pretend that the graphs I posted existed in the future.  The dates on them clearly show they are from the past.  They do not rely on "psychic computers data" as the climate model future predictions need to, they rely on proxy data and measured data.  The computers do not generate this data as they do for future models, the data is gathered from a place called reality, you should visit it occasionally.  :Biggrin:  
One is made up from proxy data measurements, on which my views are well documented, and the other is based on empirical historical satellite measurements.  My views on the accuracy and arbitrariness of all of these measurements is also well documented, but for the point of this discussion, all of these measurements are historical, as opposed to psychic predictions of the future. 
I do hope your efforts are mischievous, as differentiating between historical measurements and future predictions is not a difficult concept to grasp.   

> So why should _I_ accept either of them?

  You don't have to accept anything, it's a free country.  :Biggrin:  
But if you say (as you do) that you "believe" what a computer program tells you the temperature will be in 100 years, but you don't believe what a satellite thermometer measurement tell you the temperature was yesterday, then we have the epitome of the AGW hypothesis supporter. 
The future prediction matches your "beliefs", but the current empirical evidence does not. 
So you place your faith in the future prediction, but deny the empirical evidence. 
Like I said, it's a free country!  :Biggrin:    

> Discuss.

  Just did.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Thanks, Frootie for the JCR article link....a very useful paper.

  Thanks mate, I'm touched.  Not in the dirty, need a shower afterwards kinda touched, but in the warm fuzzy variety.  :Hug:    

> Although it does rely pretty heavily on analysis by psychic computers.

  Covered this above, but in a nutshell, there is a world of difference between analysing data and just making it up.  Mann and his buddy's "analysed" real data and misrepresented it very badly in their hockey stick, but at least it was data, albeit very innaccurate proxy data.  The psychic computers just create fictional data 100 years into the future.   

> So your belief in its findings are slightly baffling to Yours Truly.

  Using computers to analyse data is very different to using computers to create data. You don't need to "believe" this data, as the event has already occurred and has already been measured.  Science refers to this as empirical evidence.  Hopefully this is somewhat unbaffling?    

> The implications of the paper are interesting....findings indicate that observations of sea level to date don't fit those of various predictive models output (based on required acceleration rates) but also that the various sources of sea level data aren't necessarily showing comparable data.

  Welcome to the revolution brother!  :2thumbsup:    

> Curiously, the authors don't say that sea level rise as a result of AGW is bunkum (as our resident sex analyst seems to suggest).

  My official position (no, it's not missionary :Biggrin: ) is that there is zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.  By extension, the further claim that any measured sea level change (up or down) is caused by the warming that is caused by the human CO2 emissions also falls under the fact that there is zero evidence proving it. 
This paper supports that same position.   
As you suggested earlier, it also goes further by demonstrating that empirical evidence directly contradicts future modelled predictions estimated by computer assumptions.  Empirical evidence trumps psychic computer output every time.    

> Only that what was expected to happen isn't happening yet and that there's a data issue that requires urgent attention. Caution over catchphrase...

  Well said.  Be alert not alarmed!  :Biggrin:    

> Well worth a read for all.

  Aw shucks, there's that warm fuzzy feeling again... :Realbighug:

----------


## johnc

> *Oh, give me a break. The IPCC rank amongst the worst peddlers of happy horse digest God ever puffed breath into.* *You insult the intelligence* *of those individuals who who are aware that the IPCC is a discredited bunch of oxygen thieves hell bent on distorting scientific information for god knows what end. The observation I make is that one places no value in their credibility by quoting this bunch of prostitutional scientist.*

  
Oh Please don't get worked up, I wasn't accusing you of being intelligent there is no need to feel insulted. However the baseless and  vindictive insults aimed at those who have a different view to your own cherished position indicates that you may have a very slim grip on reality.

----------


## Marc

“Change” Is Not New | FrontPage Magazine
By Thomas Sowell 
When ancient fossils of creatures that live on the ocean floor have  been found in rock formations at the summit of Mount Everest, that ought  to give us a clue that big changes in the earth are nothing new, and  that huge changes have been going on long before human beings appeared  on the scene. 
 The recent statement that the earth was warmer in the Middle Ages  than it is today, made by the climate scientist who is at the heart of  the recent scandal about global  warming statistics, ought to at least give pause to those who are  determined to believe that human beings must be the reason for climate  change.  
Other climate scientists have pointed out before now that the earth  has warmed and cooled many times over the centuries. Contrary to the  impression created in much of the media and in politics, no one has  denied that temperatures change, sometimes more than they are changing  today.  
 Three years ago, a book by Singer and Avery was published with a  title that says it all: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years.
 Contrary to clever political spin that likened those who refused to  join the global warming hysteria to people who denied the Holocaust,  no one denied that climates change. Indeed, some of the climate  scientists who have been the biggest critics of the current hysteria  have pointed out that climates had changed back and forth, long before  human beings created industrial societies or drove SUVs.  
 It is those who have been pushing the hysteria who have been playing  fast and loose with the facts, wanting to keep crucial data from  becoming public, and even losing some of that data that supposedly  proved the most dire consequences. It has not been facts but computer models at the heart of the global warming crusade. 
Nothing is easier than coming up with computer models that prove almost anything. Back during the 1970s, there were computer models predicting mass starvation and global cooling. The utter failure of those predictions ought to make us at least skeptical of computer models, especially computer models based on data that advocates want to keep from public view or even lose when investigators start closing in.  
On climate issues, as on many other issues, the biggest argument of the left has been that there is no argument.
 The word science has been used as a magic mantra  to shut up critics, even when those critics have been scientists with  international reputations as specialists in climate science.  
Stealing the aura of science for political purposes is nothing new  for the left. Karl Marx called his brand of Utopianism scientific  socialism. Even earlier, in the 18th century, the Marquis de Condorcet  referred to engineering society. In the 20th century, H.G. Wells referred to the creation of a lasting peace as a heavy and complex piece of mental engineering.  
Genuine science is the opposite of dogmatism, but that does not keep  dogmatists from invoking the name of science in order to shut off  debate. Science is a method of analysis, rather than simply a set of  conclusions. In fact, much of the history of science is a history of  having to abandon the prevailing conclusions among scientists, in light  of new evidence or new methods of analysis.  
When the scientists in England who were promoting global warming  hysteria sent e-mails out to colleagues, urging them not to reveal  certain data and not to let the fact become widely known that there was a  freedom-of-information act in Britain, they were behaving like  politicians, rather than scientists.  
The huge political, financial and ideological investment of many  individuals and institutions in the global warming hysteria makes it  virtually impossible for many of the climate crusaders to gamble it all  on a roll of the dice, which is what empirical verification is. It is  far safer to dogmatize and to demonize those who think otherwise.
 Educators who turn schools into indoctrination centers have been  going all out to propagandize a whole generation with Al Gores movie,  An Inconvenient Truth which has in fact carried a message that has  been very convenient for Al Gore financially, producing millions of  dollars from his green activities.   “Change” Is Not New | FrontPage Magazine
By Thomas Sowell

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here ya go. I'm back.  Now this article answeres the preivious artilce on the Tax nicely.   

> *GLOBAL warming is not a myth. There are questions about the science but, as Rupert Murdoch put it, the planet deserves the benefit of the doubt. There are a number of myths about a carbon tax.* 
> 1. The greatest myth is that if we lead the world in carbon pricing the rest of the world will follow. We produce 1.5 per cent of the world's CO2; China and America account for 40 per cent. A 5 per cent reduction in Australia's emissions would be cancelled out by as little as a 0.3 per cent increase in China's emissions.
> 2. Another myth is that we have to lead the world because we are a carbon-based economy and will be more affected when and if the world introduces carbon pricing. Our carbon-based economy is one of our main competitive advantages. To lead on a carbon tax puts our industry at a serious disadvantage against our competitors.
> Eighty per cent of power is generated from coal. This low-cost power has underpinned our standard of living by encouraging manufacture and giving low-cost electricity to consumers.
> Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.     
> End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.  
> A carbon tax on imports from countries without CO2 pricing is unworkable. We would need to significantly increase the Customs Department and we would still be at risk. Such a move would undo the hard won reforms of the 1990s.

  read the rest here. Eight myths of a carbon tax | The Australian

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Now, I will credit you with being mischievous by trying to pretend that the graphs I posted existed in the future.  The dates on them clearly show they are from the past.  They do not rely on "psychic computers data" as the climate model future predictions need to, they rely on proxy data and measured data.  The computers do not generate this data as they do for future models, the data is gathered from a place called reality, you should visit it occasionally.  
> One is made up from proxy data measurements, on which my views are well documented, and the other is based on empirical historical satellite measurements.  My views on the accuracy and arbitrariness of all of these measurements is also well documented, but for the point of this discussion, all of these measurements are historical, as opposed to psychic predictions of the future. 
> I do hope your efforts are mischievous, as differentiating between historical measurements and future predictions is not a difficult concept to grasp.

  And I say again.....you don't really understand computer models do you?  
Models are used to fill in gaps in available hard data based on: the available data in question; other data & knowledge about the things that might influence the data; and (potentially) assumptions - mostly about systems behaviour. 
Models work in both temporal directions - past and future.  They work (not surprisingly) better into the past....because there's more hard data themre but often only as far as the period of human observation (last 500 years but more typically the last 200 years).  Distant past is like trying to look out the windows of 747 to get a 360 degree view - you only get to see bits of it and you have to 'model' the rest. 
Looking into the future.....is like looking out the windows of a submarine.  But if you understand even partially how the environment outside the submarine works (using data from the present) then you can model how it might look or behave given a change in one or more parameters.  A low resolution image if you will.....but nothing specific. 
Either way....it is the same technique....looking back or looking forward.   

> But if you say (as you do) that you "believe" what a computer program tells you the temperature will be in 100 years, but you don't believe what a satellite thermometer measurement tell you the temperature was yesterday, then we have the epitome of the AGW hypothesis supporter. 
> The future prediction matches your "beliefs", but the current empirical evidence does not. 
> So you place your faith in the future prediction, but deny the empirical evidence.

  There is no way in the world that I would believe any model at the moment if it told me what the temperature will be in one hundred years.....no way.  It simply isn't possible for any climate model to be that precise....and that simplistic. 
You might call this semantics but if a suite of models all suggest that the expected trend in average surface air temperature based on the climate knowledge to date is such that the average surface air temperature is going to increase by 2 degrees by 2100 and that the confidence level of the modelled trend is greater than 95%.....then I'm happy enough with that.  However, I understand that it is based on the climate knowledge to date....and there's some whacking great gaps in that (the JRC paper served as an example of that). 
I do accept the current satellite temperature data........just not your analysis of it.  There is a big difference.  
Future prediction does not accord with my beliefs.....if that were the case I'd win Lotto every other week.   The only thing I believe in, in any certainty, is the generic self centredness and shortsightedness of the human animal....yet some would say there's no evidence of that.  I've not seen much proof to the contrary. 
When it comes to AGW....I accept the analysis and consensus of general climate science based on my own efforts at a type of peer review with respect to the human impact on the atmosphere (increase in GHG []'s)....yet, I'm also aware that there is still much to learn about that atmosphere and how it interacts with the rest of our world....so | take with a few grains of salt most of the predictions with regard to quantifying the impact of that GHG....we remain sufficiently ignorant as a species to make it more than likely that many of the specifics will be incorrect and guite possible that some of the generalities could be too. 
I don't support AGW.....sadly, like you, I merely contribute to it  :No:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Eight myths of a carbon tax | The Australian

  I don't agree that they are myths......yet I do agree that many are bloody good reasons to not have a 'Carbon Tax'.  Plus a few simple truths.  _Homo sapien_......in summary, often invididually brilliant but collectivly too stupid to do even the simplest things.

----------


## Rod Dyson

And here is where all cap and trade schemes and carbon taxes end up.   

> The New Hampshire House of Representatives, the largest legislative body in the world, voted yesterday to end the state’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap-and-trade program. The House voted 251-108 after less than 5 minutes of debate to repeal the law under which the state joined RGGI. A number of Democrats refused to attend due to other legislation voted the same day to declare state employees to be employed at-will rather than having collective bargaining rights.

  At lest some people are getting wise, yet we a planning to embark on this journey.

----------


## chrisp

> Households will face a $16.60 rise in the cost of living under a $30 carbon tax, new Treasury modelling shows. 
>               That equates to an extra $863.20 a year for petrol, electricity, gas and food. 
>               The new modelling, released this afternoon under the  Freedom of Information act, does not include extensive compensation for  households or industry promised by the government to compensate for the  price impacts of a carbon tax. 
>                                The modelling suggests under a $30 carbon price the cost  of electricity will rise $4.20 a week, $2.20 a week for gas, $1.70 for  food, and $3.60 for petrol.

  From: Carbon tax to cost households $16.60 a week

----------


## Marc

Ways to stop producing carbon dioxide    
      Stop breathing - When you exhale you release carbon dioxide  
Dont drive - We all know how bad driving is  
Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity -    
Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars.  
Don't wear shoes or any sort of clothing produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand.  
Quit school - Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years.  
Eat meat raw - Whether you're using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide.  
Turn off this monitor and computer - You hypocrite.  
Don't use toilets, urinate or poo in your back yard.- The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity.  
Stop exercising - Increasing your heart rate increases the amount of oxygen you take in and turn into carbon dioxide.  
Die - Dying younger  means you will do all of the above less. Living one year less means you  will save the earth 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide every year you're not  here!
From http://www.globalwarminglies.com/

----------


## Marc

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Mark/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-5.png[/IMG]

----------


## Marc

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwJJTXCkp8M&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Climate Catastrophe Cancelled Part 5[/ame]

----------


## andy the pm

> Here ya go. I'm back. Now this article answeres the preivious artilce on the Tax nicely.   
> read the rest here. Eight myths of a carbon tax | The Australian 
> 7. Then there is the myth that renewable energy can replace coal and gas-fired energy production without a substantial cost to the consumer or business. 
> Putting aside the serious issues of reliability, availability and transmission, the cost of all of the available renewables, such as wind, is far higher than coal.

  Well mr CEO of Transfield Services, why do you currently operate 3 windfarms and are investigating the potential of 12 more sites? Windfarm website

----------


## Rod Dyson

Well Marc, nice posts but will they fall on deaf ears? 
Cheers Rod

----------


## PhilT2

> [IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Mark/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-5.png[/IMG]

  Marc could you check that this is an accurate copy of what was originally created by the authors. The temps displayed at the right hand side of the graph seem strangely out of proportion. The baseline shows 57F, directly above this is a peak of 58F, then below is a point marked 56.3F. Any idea why the distance representing .7 degrees is much longer than the distance 1 degree? 
Also one event marked exists only in myths, the exodus from Egypt is not supported by any evidence.

----------


## chrisp

> Marc could you check that this is an accurate copy of what was originally created by the authors. The temps displayed at the right hand side of the graph seem strangely out of proportion. The baseline shows 57F, directly above this is a peak of 58F, then below is a point marked 56.3F. Any idea why the distance representing .7 degrees is much longer than the distance 1 degree? 
> Also one event marked exists only in myths, the exodus from Egypt is not supported by any evidence.

  
Maybe it is a denialist's abacus modelling error?   :Smilie:

----------


## PhilT2

There is another version here with different figures. Which is correct? Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Well mr CEO of Transfield Services, why do you currently operate 3 windfarms and are investigating the potential of 12 more sites? Windfarm website

  Because he can make a fortune from government subsidies.

----------


## Dr Freud

> And I say again.....you don't really understand computer models do you?

  I understand their output is not reality (*not real*).  This is the most important part to understand.  :Biggrin:  
But yes, at a deeper level, I do understand both the concept of modelling (computer or otherwise), as well as the specifics of various models, including scientific, financial and statistical.  By no means am I an "expert", but have realised understanding the limitations of modelling is far more important than understanding the output.  This is another area where the AGW hypothesis supporters have massively failed.   

> Models are used to fill in gaps in available hard data based on: the available data in question; other data & knowledge about the things that might influence the data; and (potentially) assumptions - mostly about systems behaviour.

  Yes, gaps and assumptions!   

> Models work in both temporal directions - past and future.

  Yes, what's your point?   

> They work (not surprisingly) *better into the past....because there's more hard data* themre but often only as far as the period of human observation (last 500 years but more typically the last 200 years). Distant past is like trying to look out the windows of 747 to get a 360 degree view - you only get to see bits of it and you have to 'model' the rest.

  I don't want to break the bad news to you mate, but there is not *more* hard data in the past than the future, there is *only* hard data from the past.  Unless you have access to a Gallifreyan you are keeping secret, there is *NO* hard data from the future.  :Doh:  
Any predictions are entirely suppositional based on assumptions, primarily around historical trends and limited knowledge. 
I personally have a non-linear philosophy in regards to the space-time continuum, so at a theoretical level will agree that all time and space exists simultaneously, but to indicate that we currently have any access to hard data from the future is disturbing!  :Frown:    

> Looking into the future.....is like looking out the windows of a submarine. But if you understand even partially how the environment outside the submarine works (using data from the present) then you can model how it *might* look or behave given a change in one or more parameters. A low resolution image if you will.....but nothing specific.

  Might. A very good word.   

> Either way....it is the same technique....looking back or looking forward.

  Wrong.   
Looking back, we plug the gaps within known parameters. 
Looking forward *is* the gap.  There are no parameters.  We do not even know if it will exist yet!  :Shock:  
Here's a crude example. 
Past temperature record: 2 4 ? ? 10 12. 
We'll model a 6 and 8, whaddya reckon?  Could be -10 and -20 for all we *know*, but let's *assume*. 
Future temperature record: 
The Sun explodes tomorrow and destroys the Solar System, entirely unforeseen due our massive knowledge gaps in stellar science and astrophysics.  :Biggrin:    

> There is no way in the world that I would believe any model at the moment if it told me what the temperature will be in one hundred years.....no way. It simply isn't possible for any climate model to be that precise....and that simplistic.

  Excellent.  :Biggrin:    

> You might call this semantics but if a suite of models all suggest that the expected trend in average surface air temperature based on the climate knowledge to date is such that the average surface air temperature is going to increase by 2 degrees by 2100 and that the confidence level of the modelled trend is greater than 95%.....then I'm happy enough with that. However, I understand that it is based on the climate knowledge to date....and there's some whacking great gaps in that (the JRC paper served as an example of that).

  It does not matter if it is 1 model or a trillion models, it is still not real.  Computer models of the future climate programmed with AGW hypothesis assumptions are junk science at best, and outright deception at worst. 
Unlike the psychic computers you still believe in, I cannot predict the future.  But I am 95% confident that this sham will be laughed at loudly in the future.  :Biggrin:    

> I do accept the current satellite temperature data........just not your analysis of it.  There is a big difference.

  I haven't analysed it mate, I was just taking the p!ss out of the 20 yr and 1000 yr claims. 
I just presented it as measured. Currently .2 degrees LOWER than the average since the 70's, when some scientists were worried about the next ice age coming. 
Atmospheric CO2 levels rising and no heat hiding anywhere.  Tough data for the AGW hypothesis supporters to argue with, huh?  Maybe we should give it to Michael Mann and the IPCC, they could do their "trick",and we'll have a new satellite "hockey stick"?  :Doh:    

> Future prediction does not accord with my beliefs.....if that were the case I'd win Lotto every other week.

  Yes, and predicting future climate numbers is infinitely more complicated than predicting future lotto numbers. 
A lotto system is a simple, closed, finite and quantifiable system, that we created, we understand and can easily control.  And we still have no idea what next weeks numbers will be.  :No:  
The climate system is a complex, open, infinite, and interactive system, that we did not create, do not understand, and do not control. 
Mate, your lotto numbers will come in before your climate numbers.  :2thumbsup:    

> we remain sufficiently ignorant as a species to make it more than likely that many of the specifics will be incorrect and guite possible that some of the generalities could be too...I don't support AGW.....sadly, like you, I merely contribute to it

  We all contribute to the climate in some way, as do butterflies.  If only we had the knowledge and technology to quantify the amount of contribution.  I have spoken of Lorenz' work before, particularly in relation to Chaos Theory, and it continues to hold valid today. 
Bottom line is humans desire certainty.  At some level, these future predictions give them some comfort, as they can assume for a start there will be a future.  Prophets have been making profits from this human weakness for a long time now.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Because he can make a fortune from government subsidies.

  Yeh mate, Diehard's like you and I stand in front of the greenie gravy train. 
Smart business people are jumping aboard.  Gail Kelly of Westpac is very keen for her profits to start climbing. 
Taxpayers utimately will be fueling this greenie gravy train with their new Carbon Dioxide Taxes.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Yeh mate, Diehard's like you and I stand in front of the greenie gravy train. 
> Smart business people are jumping aboard. Gail Kelly of Westpac is very keen for her profits to start climbing. 
> Taxpayers utimately will be fueling this greenie gravy train with their new Carbon Dioxide Taxes.

  Its amazing that the original post on this could be made as if to say he believes so much in AGW that he must build all these wind farms to save the earth. 
I personally know businessmen jumping on the gravy train and laughing at the government stupidity.   
I remain dumbfounded that people cant see this :Confused:  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

> That equates to an extra $863.20 a year for petrol, electricity, gas and food.
> 			
> 		   From: Carbon tax to cost households $16.60 a week

  Wow, and that's only modelling using* four cost assumptions!* 
What will happen to costs of: 
School fees
School uniforms
Stationery
Vehicles
Houses
Plumbers
Electricians
Tools
Building materials
Furniture
White goods
Clothes
Shoes
Cinema's
Rent prices
Caravan parks
Holiday costs
Public transport
Air travel
etc etc etc. 
Hands up if you are self-employed or a small business owner who will *NOT* pass these increased costs to your customers.   :Doh:  
Because you can be d@mn sure big business will. 
And that certainly includes the "big polluters".

----------


## Dr Freud

> Marc could you check that this is an accurate copy of what was originally created by the authors. The temps displayed at the right hand side of the graph seem strangely out of proportion. The baseline shows 57F, directly above this is a peak of 58F, then below is a point marked 56.3F. Any idea why the distance representing .7 degrees is much longer than the distance 1 degree? 
> Also one event marked exists only in myths, the exodus from Egypt is not supported by any evidence.

  You argue about whether a picture without a scale is drawn to scale:  :Doh:     
When there are literally hundreds of scientific studies based on proxy data supporting the Medieval Warm Period that AGW hypothesis supporters continue to deny existed:    
And yet, when it has been demonstrated that the "hockey stick" was a fictional creation, you AGW hypothesis supporters still "believe" that it is real:   
You claim to care more about a picture that's not drawn to scale, as opposed to a scientific fraud that was quietly swept under the carpet by the IPCC never to reappear in any of their reports, and never to be spoken about since, but that AGW supporters still support.  What a joke.  :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You argue about whether a picture without a scale is drawn to scale:     
> When there are literally hundreds of scientific studies based on proxy data supporting the Medieval Warm Period that AGW hypothesis supporters continue to deny existed:    
> And yet, when it has been demonstrated that the "hockey stick" was a fictional creation, you AGW hypothesis supporters still "believe" that it is real:   
> You claim to care more about a picture that's not drawn to scale, as opposed to a scientific fraud that was quietly swept under the carpet by the IPCC never to reappear in any of their reports, and never to be spoken about since, but that AGW supporters still support. What a joke.

  This is the sort of blinkered hypocrisy that really get up my goat.  When the fence sitters see this they too realize what a joke the AGW farce is. 
Just tell me why you guys don't see that this "battle" of the graphs does not raise some concern in your minds?

----------


## andy the pm

> Because he can make a fortune from government subsidies.

  You sure that fortune hasn't come from subsidised fuel for coal power??  :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You sure that fortune hasn't come from subsidised fuel for coal power??

  And this changes what? about my comment.

----------


## andy the pm

> And this changes what? about my comment.

  You really need help figuring it out??

----------


## PhilT2

_Just tell me why you guys don't see that this "battle" of the graphs does not raise some concern in your minds?_ 
One is about northern hemisphere temp, the other is Europe only. One shows temp anomally, the other shows straight temp

----------


## Marc

> Marc could you check that this is an accurate copy of what was originally created by the authors. The temps displayed at the right hand side of the graph seem strangely out of proportion. The baseline shows 57F, directly above this is a peak of 58F, then below is a point marked 56.3F. Any idea why the distance representing .7 degrees is much longer than the distance 1 degree? 
> Also one event marked exists only in myths, the exodus from Egypt is not supported by any evidence.

  Phil, I'll ask Cliff Harris to hand me an autographed copy next time I see him.
As for the historical accuracy of the exodus from Egypt, there is ample evidence and a match between the biblical account ant the history of Egypt. There is however an inaccuracy in the dates. The more probable date is around 2450 BC and not what is traditionall thought as 1450
. Check "A history of ancient Egypt" by Nicolas Grimal.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You really need help figuring it out??

  Yes actually I would.  I know what you are trying to do I would like to see you explain it. 
Like to see how your mind works here.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> _Just tell me why you guys don't see that this "battle" of the graphs does not raise some concern in your minds?_ 
> One is about northern hemisphere temp, the other is Europe only. One shows temp anomally, the other shows straight temp

  So no concern there at all? 
Not even that the Hockey stick is a fabrication?

----------


## Marc

How does the mind of a religious fanatic work? 
I arrived my weekend house this morning and had to maneuver around a group of people that were standing in front of my gates. 
As I entered my front yard a couple of the more ancient followed me inside uninvited, pacing around my new courtyard congratulating me on the job. I refrained from any unpleasantness because my wife asked me to and said...what can I help you with.
 The guys told me their names and said they were working on a Christian Ministry in the area. This is a new one I thought, that a JW presents himself as a christian missionary but I let it slide and said politely that I was not interested in religion.  
To what this prick replied....Ah, so you are an atheist ! 
It is not possible to have a civil exchange of information with a fanatic, it is dangerous to attempt any communication with one if you disagree with him.

----------


## chrisp

> Wow, and that's only modelling using* four cost assumptions!* 
> What will happen to costs of: 
> School fees
> School uniforms
> Stationery
> Vehicles
> Houses
> Plumbers
> Electricians
> ...

  
Did you look at the figures?  Maybe you should take another closer look and add up the four items.  You will see that after adding the four listed items, that there is another  $4.90 per week left over.   
It seems that you have wrongly assumed that the modelling only used "*four cost assumptions!*" 
I think that you'd find that the $4.90 will be to cover all those other items, such as those you have listed.

----------


## PhilT2

_Phil, I'll ask Cliff Harris to hand me an autographed copy next time I see him_. 
See if you can get the data that he used to compile the graph as well while you're there. And give him a few pointers on how to draw graphs with the both x and y axis. On second thoughts don't bother, it's expecting too much. He's only a TV weatherman after all. But he does have divine inspiration as he uses the bible to help with his weather predictions.  _As for the historical accuracy of the exodus from Egypt,_ 
The only evidence is on questionable god-botherers web pages and books. Check the views of real archeologists and bible scholars, it's like most of the bible, pure mythology.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> did you look at the figures? Maybe you should take another closer look and add up the four items. You will see that after adding the four listed items, that there is another $4.90 per week left over.  
> It seems that you have wrongly assumed that the modelling only used "*four cost assumptions!*" 
> i think that you'd find that the $4.90 will be to cover all those other items, such as those you have listed.

  you think?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> , it's like most of the bible, pure mythology.

  Like AGW eh!

----------


## Dr Freud

> You sure that fortune hasn't come from subsidised fuel for coal power??

  Why not, yours has.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> _Just tell me why you guys don't see that this "battle" of the graphs does not raise some concern in your minds?_ 
> One is about northern hemisphere temp, the other is Europe only. One shows temp anomally, the other shows straight temp

  Enough with the wishy washy comments and irrelevant semantics about this temp vs that temp.  We've covered all this already and you can read the thread to rebut your comments above. 
How about you demonstrate the courage of someone else's convictions. 
Are you saying the MWP never happened? 
Are you saying the "hockey stick" is a valid representation of the proxy data? 
You guys love hiding behind semantic sidetracks, how about you ante up.  :Scareboo:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Did you look at the figures?  Maybe you should take another closer look and add up the four items.  You will see that after adding the four listed items, that there is another  $4.90 per week left over.   
> It seems that you have wrongly assumed that the modelling only used "*four cost assumptions!*" 
> I think that you'd find that the $4.90 will be to cover all those other items, such as those you have listed.

  Instructions to Treasury were to model four specified costs, being electricity, gas, fuel and food. 
This was not my "wrong assumption", but the governments instruction to Treasury.  
Another part of that instruction was to model an "overall impact" assessment.  This was not a specific cost but a generic assumption as to how households would be affected overall.  The gap is the difference between the four specified costs and the "overall impact" assessment. 
So yes, the gap can be assumed to cover all of the costs *not* modelled (a tiny sample I have listed).  If you believe $4.90 will cover the price increases of every other business and household expense not modelled, then feel free.  Like I always say, we live in a free country.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> See if you can get the data that he used to compile the graph as well while you're there. And give him a few pointers on how to draw graphs with the both x and y axis.

  You persist in criticising an internet picture.  
Yet you continue to support data splicing using truncated data from differing data-sets without disclosure that was willfully used to influence government policy and expenditure with real world detrimental outcomes.  :Clap:  
Well done champ.  Maybe your reality check is in the mail?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Marc

> _Phil, I'll ask Cliff Harris to hand me an autographed copy next time I see him_. 
> See if you can get the data that he used to compile the graph as well while you're there. And give him a few pointers on how to draw graphs with the both x and y axis. On second thoughts don't bother, it's expecting too much. He's only a TV weatherman after all. But he does have divine inspiration as he uses the bible to help with his weather predictions.  _As for the historical accuracy of the exodus from Egypt,_ 
> The only evidence is on questionable god-botherers web pages and books. Check the views of real archeologists and bible scholars, it's like most of the bible, pure mythology.

  Phil, what is your point? 
You dislike my graph because it is not in scale.
However the graph is a very good ILLUSTRATION with nice colours and a historical date line to make the following point...in case you missed it: The current temperature is perfectly within the normal and shows no record of any "human generated warming" when seen in a historical context. Also makes another point showing the volcanic eruptions and their link to temperature. In order to make such illustration scale is irrelevant and time accuracy is usually within the + - 100 years or so. 
You try to discredit such graph not by providing proof to support the hockey stick graph that made off with the medieval warm period but by saying that one of the author is not credible because he is only a weather man. Also you claim it is not right because in your personal opinion the exodus from Egypt did not happen. 
Now, lets see: This weather man, irritates you why? because he makes a shitload more money than you? (and we all know that money is evil right?) Because he makes a point you can not rebut? Because he happens to be right and you wrong yet you would like it to be the other way around? Because he is a christian and you are not? 
All very valid reasons to hate him, but Phil, I am afraid that such arguments are valid in year 3 and perhaps year 4 but not further than that.  I think you will have to refine your arguments a tad.
But hey...that is only my opinion not to be taken too seriously OK?  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Phil, what is your point? 
> You dislike my graph because it is not in scale.
> However the graph is a very good ILLUSTRATION with nice colours and a historical date line to make the following point...in case you missed it: The current temperature is perfectly within the normal and shows no record of any "human generated warming" when seen in a historical context. Also makes another point showing the volcanic eruptions and their link to temperature. In order to make such illustration scale is irrelevant and time accuracy is usually within the + - 100 years or so. 
> You try to discredit such graph not by providing proof to support the hockey stick graph that made off with the medieval warm period but by saying that one of the author is not credible because he is only a weather man. Also you claim it is not right because in your personal opinion the exodus from Egypt did not happen. 
> Now, lets see: This weather man, irritates you why? because he makes a shitload more money than you? (and we all know that money is evil right?) Because he makes a point you can not rebut? Because he happens to be right and you wrong yet you would like it to be the other way around? Because he is a christian and you are not? 
> All very valid reasons to hate him, but Phil, I am afraid that such arguments are valid in year 3 and perhaps year 4 but not further than that. I think you will have to refine your arguments a tad.
> But hey...that is only my opinion not to be taken too seriously OK?

  Sweet exposure of the hollow arguments put forward here.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Read it and weep boys!   

> *Climate facts Labor overlooked* 
> by Bob Carter, Alan Moran & David Evans
> April 3, 2011 *Addressing the facts on climate change and energy*
> An internal strategy paper has been provided to Labor MPs for use in the promotion of the Government’s proposed new carbon dioxide tax.
> We offer critiques of the two most substantive parts of that paper, namely “Carbon Price” and “Climate Impact on Australia”. The full text of the paper is posted (pdf) here...

  Read the pdf of what the government put out for "talking points" 
Then go and read the response here http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doo...e-change-facts

----------


## Marc

Quadrant Online - Climate facts Labor overlooked   

> *THE ALL IMPORTANT DATA* In the real world, over the last ten years, and despite a 5% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide:
>  Global temperature has declined slightly (Liljegren, 2011)
>  Ocean heat content has declined slightly (Knox & Douglass, 2011); and
>  Global sea-level rise has remained stable, with no net acceleration (Houston & Dean, 2011) *In addition:*
>  Tropical storm energy shows no upward trend, and is near its lowest since records began in 1977 (Maue, 2011);
>  The number of cyclones in northern  Australia has declined since the 1970s (BOM, 2011); seven times as many  extreme tropical storms traversed north Queensland and the GBR between  1600 and 1800 as occurred between 1800 and 2000 (Nott _et al_., 2007).
>  No evidence exists that current Australian  climatic phenomena - including droughts, floods, storms, heat waves and  snow storms – differ now in intensity or frequency from their historic  natural patterns of strong annual and multi-decadal variability; and
>  Tourists continue to flock to a Great  Barrier Reef that (outside of very local resort areas) remains in the  same excellent natural health that Captain James Cook observed in 1770.  *The headline-seeking, adverse environmental outcomes that  are highlighted in the strategy paper are therefore as inaccurate and  exaggerated as were Hansen’s 1988 temperature projections.* *There is no global warming crisis, and model-based alarmist  projections of the type that permeate the strategy paper are  individually and severally unsuitable for use in public policy making.*

----------


## Rod Dyson

Now we are talking, a PEER REVIEWED paper that makes sense.   

> On Friday my new paper on climate change science and economics was published in the _International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health_, a peer-reviewed journal. The paper is unusual from a number of different perspectives. From a policy perspective, the paper’s conclusions include the following: · The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting.
> · The costs of CO2 emissions reductions are perhaps an order of magnitude higher than usually estimated because of technological and implementation problems recently identified.
> · CO2 emissions reductions are economically unattractive since the few benefits remaining after the corrections for the above effects are quite unlikely to economically justify the much higher costs unless much lower cost geoengineering is used.
> · The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.

  Link Former EPA researcher Alan Carlin publishes his paper | Watts Up With That? 
ah! but it cant be any good can it because it is reported in Wattsupwiththat. 
Come on guys shoot the message this time rather than the messenger. Try it for once you will feeel good about it. 
This is interesting don't you think?   

> It is also particularly noteworthy for appearing in a peer-reviewed journal rather than the “gray literature,” such as a report to EPA, where many skeptic analyses end up—something that warmists never fail to point out.  Although this article was not written for EPA, it has major implications for the scientific validity (or lack thereof) of the December 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding and the economics that EPA and many economists have used to justify current efforts to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, cap-and-trade schemes, and other approaches to controlling climate change. From  a scientific perspective, the paper starts with a detailed examination of the scientific validity of two of the central tenets of the AGW hypothesis.  By applying the scientific method the paper shows why these two tenets are not scientifically valid since predictions made using these hypotheses fail to correspond with observational data.  (See primarily Section 2.).

----------


## Rod Dyson

This is really getting nuts.   

> from a post in WUWT 
> Here is what the EPA (for once telling the truth) estimates the effects on temp and sea level of lowering CO2.
> “the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be
> reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean
> temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.015 °C by 2100 and sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by
> approximately 0.06–0.14cm by 2100.
> Top of second column http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-3d6a101db11f

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Now we are talking, a PEER REVIEWED paper that makes sense

  Of course it makes sense.....it is an economic analysis based on some fairly definitve assumptions by the author about what we know....or at least by the limited hard data offered by the IPCC. 
It is a not surprising analysis to be honest.  It simply all comes down to whether one accepts the indeterminate risks suggested by analysis of model scenarios.....or the observational data that comes afterwards. 
One hints that there might be a bump in the road up ahead (which offers you the choice of taking early action to avoid it against the prospect that it mightn't be a significant bum) while the other shows you the bump in the road (but you risk that it might be too close to avoid regardless of its severity). 
This has always been the conundrum of AGW (and more than a few other environmental challenges).  Do we do something now on the hint of future challenges....or do wait until the challenge appears on our doorstep and deal with it then? 
There is no answer to this..... 
I suspect that our response will be a hybrid of both.  And quite possibly more powerful as a result.  As a species, it is not our nature to be proactive as a group but equally neither are we uniformally reactive - we do a mixture of both and (to date) it has got us to where we are today as a species. 
The paper Rod refers to is available here as a PDF http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/4/985/pdf and is well worth a squiz.  It does contain some slightly infuriating comments with respect to model scenarios vis a vis observational data.....mostly around why there is lots of the former but not much of the latter without recognising why we try to model in the first place (it's mostly because models are used in the absence of data - we just don't have it....and it is a sad fact that we don't often have data because of a combination of time, resources, effort and political will - it costs too much, takes too long and requires way too much patience).  However, that doesn't make it any less important or any less of a useful contribution.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> This is really getting nuts.

  Give that man a cigar.  He's finally starting to get it. 
We've crapped the bed [EDIT: and in so many more ways that just with respect to GHG's].  But there's no washing machine anywhere to be found....or soap.  And we're a bit short on water. 
Now if we'd only thought about that before we went to bed..... 
Now all we can do is a) not make the problem any worse and b) try to sort out a way of making the bed as comfortable as possible for the forseeable future.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> How does the mind of a religious fanatic work? 
> I arrived my weekend house this morning and had to maneuver around a group of people that were standing in front of my gates. 
> As I entered my front yard a couple of the more ancient followed me inside uninvited, pacing around my new courtyard congratulating me on the job. I refrained from any unpleasantness because my wife asked me to and said...what can I help you with.
>  The guys told me their names and said they were working on a Christian Ministry in the area. This is a new one I thought, that a JW presents himself as a christian missionary but I let it slide and said politely that I was not interested in religion.  
> To what this prick replied....Ah, so you are an atheist ! 
> It is not possible to have a civil exchange of information with a fanatic, it is dangerous to attempt any communication with one if you disagree with him.

  Perhaps if you actually tried to engage with them then you might find out.....and learn something new.  Your apparent intolerance is somewhat concerning but not surprising. It is demonstrated time and time again in the world's media.....*religous intolerance is still religous intolerance even when the intolerant don't consider themselves religous.* 
JW's (and many others) prosletyse as a requirement of their faith...they are oblidged to do it in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven....or whatever spiritual nivana they think they'll enjoy when they pass on.   
They don't have to succeed....they just have to try.  Think of it as bureaucratic box ticking - it says it on the form so you just have to do it. 
The thing is.....they are people....like everyone else, they also have an Imp of the Perverse (a built-in poo stirrer).  If you antagonise them (like you seem to try and do)...then they are just as likely to stir the pot for their own personal pleasure.  They have their own personal superiority blanket to absorb any 'blows' you might be able to land so they'll pick you like a scab.   
Try being polite and merely flat...like Teflon.  And these religous numpties will slide right off...satisifed but still empty.  And you can spend the rest of your day knowing that you have played a tiny but productive part in Life's rich tapestry....instead of trying to unpick it.

----------


## Marc

Silent, I can't but notice that you are a tad assuming and patronising in this  last post.
I am well aware of the JW doctrine plus... In my line of work, I  know all the strategies necessary to approach people correctly and respectfully  and always practice what I expect from my team. Your assumptions are noted yet  completely wrong. 
Furthermore you missed my point altogether. May be I  was not clear enough. 
It is not possible to have a normal conversation  with a religious fanatic. Fact
It is dangerous to disagree with a religious  fanatic. Fact 
There is a similarity between the behaviour of JW ( or any  other fanatic, I happen to have an experience  with them this time) and  environmentalist. 
Both want me to change for my own good according to their  parameters and ignoring mine.
Both want me to give up my way of life without  asking me if I agree since they know better.
Both invade my privacy and are  rude and condescending and ignore private property and personal values and want  to ram their 'law' down my throat for my own good. 
And I can go on for  another page or two with similarities between this rather irritating bunch of  people who think they know everything and I know nothing and need rescuing from  my ignorant and sinful ways. 
So in a nutshell, that was my point. Your  preaching is lost on me and uncalled for.  
Best luck next time  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Well there's a thing.    

> CSIRO in 2010:  _The State of the Climate snapshot, drawn together by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology ... shows that Australia’s mean temperature has increased 0.7 degrees since 1960.... 
> The report states that temperature observations, among others indicators, ‘’clearly demonstrate climate change is real’’..._CSIRO in 2011:   _Maximum temperatures nationally were the coldest on record with a national anomaly of -2.19°C. Most of Australia recorded below average mean maxima with parts of the north and south of the country recording their coldest March on record.... 
> Rainfall averaged over Australia was 117% above-normal and ranks as the wettest March on record with most of the country recording above average falls. _ And why did this concession have to get chiselled out of the CSIRO with a freedom-of-infornation request?

  why is this not spread all over the news?? 
link CSIRO’s warming gets a chill | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## andy the pm

> Well there's a thing.    
> why is this not spread all over the news??

  Probably because its just misdirection on the behalf of Andrew Bolt... 
The top quote is from CSIRO State of the Climate - Snapshot (Fact Sheet) 
The second quote is actually from BOM Australia in March 2011
and relates to one month, March 2011.

----------


## andy the pm

Here is a helping hand for those that struggle with the difference between *Climate* and *Weather*   

> *Climate* encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological elemental measurements in a given region over long periods of time. Climate can be contrasted to *weather*, which is the present condition of these same elements and their variations over shorter time periods

  Climate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## mark53

[quote=johnc;837829]Oh Please don't get worked up, I wasn't accusing you of being intelligent there is no need to feel insulted. [*A.B.Paterson's line "their eyes were dull, their heads were flat, they had no brains at all" fits just right for you here sunshine.]*However the baseless and vindictive insults aimed at those who have a different view to your own cherished position indicates[*I* *haven't even got warmed up yet !]* that you may have a very slim grip on reality.[/quote*][ Not as slimmer grip on reality as the global alarmist headless chooks. I believe I'm beginning to feel the love.]*

----------


## Dr Freud

The funniest Q&A show in history tonight.  :Roflmao:  
Rudd pretty much accused JuLIAR of being a lying backstabbing b!tch. 
He was even so bold as to say he didn't need to name names, as everyone had read the stories in the paper.  Gee Kev, I wonder how Laurie Oakes got that info? 
All the tweets were hilarious and showed that everyone knew JuLIAR was throwing vases at Kev's face on the TV. 
He's making Latham look like team player.  :Biggrin:  
Here's a taste:   

> Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd says he was wrong to abandon the Federal Government's emissions trading scheme (ETS) when he was prime minister.  
>  But he says he was trying to find the middle ground after some members of Cabinet argued the scheme should be scrapped for good.  
> He says he also faced the difficulty of placating party colleagues who wanted to "kill the ETS" completely.  
>  "You had some folk who wanted to get rid of it altogether, that is kill the ETS as a future proposition for the country. I couldn't abide that," he said.  
> Leaked Cabinet documents have suggested it was Ms Gillard, along with Treasurer Wayne Swan, who urged Mr Rudd to shelve emissions trading.   Shelving ETS the wrong call, says Rudd - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  So is our born again bible supporting Greens hating climate change convert who is the real unmarried marriage supporting JuLIAR the same person who called for the ETS to be abolished forever?  :Laughing1:   
Kev, you're gold.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Here is a helping hand for those that struggle with the difference between *Climate* and *Weather*    Climate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Andy you may call it weather.  But we call it La NINA you know that climate thingy that causes colder wetter climatic conditions in Australia.. quite the opposite to that EL NINO climate thingy that causes warmer climatic conditions in Australia.

----------


## Marc

> Probably because its just misdirection on the behalf  of Andrew Bolt... 
> The top quote is from CSIRO  State  of the Climate - Snapshot (Fact Sheet) 
> The second quote is actually  from BOM  Australia in  March 2011
> And relates to one month, March 2011.

  Andy,  besides the fact that you are straining the gnat and swallowing the camel, the  CSIRO and BOM produce this information in conjunction so there is no  "misdirection".
Of course if you don't like the author because of his views,  you can always say so. I suggest you try for example...What do you expect from  A.Bolt? He is Nuts !  That would be a good line.  
The (very) tired line  of "climate is not weather" from the envirolatras who want to pontificate over definitions provides no value  whatsoever. When an encyclopedia may provide some support for the needy, a form  of intellectual crutches, there is more to this than quotes.
When it is true  that climate refers in general to recurring events that provide a recognisable  pattern, the events are what we call weather.  
So in fact climate is made  up by nothing else than weather patterns that repeat themselves. So that does  not make one month weather irrelevant. In fact any Climatology graph will show a  series of wether events placed on a line and each is very relevant particularly  if one is the highest, lowest hottest or coldest ever registered. That one will  make it to the top or the bottom of the graph with a mention. Disregarding it is  foolishness 
The problem with debating an area of study that is alien to  the person making such attempt, is that he will need to read and use other folks  opinion without the ability to screen for unwanted or unknown bias hidden in  such third party information. The debate over Global Warming is riddled with  biased, skewed, flase and misdirecting information, plus purposely laid traps for the naive and the  fanatic  in order to achieve political miles by elevation.

----------


## Dr Freud

Whoa, these new colours are freakin me out man! 
But not as much as Ruddy is freakin out JuLIAR.  :Rotfl:  
Gotta love change.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Whoa, these new colours are freakin me out man! 
> But not as much as Ruddy is freakin out JuLIAR.  
> Gotta love change.

  Yes it will take some getting used too.  ruddy is preparing himself for another shot. God help us.  The Labor party may as well implode.

----------


## Rod Dyson

pretty picture for you.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Still well higher than most of the other low points on that graph......and if you drew a trendline through that lot then which way do you think it'd be going even now, eh?  
Up, I'd reckon. Most of the data is higher than the starting point. 
Which only goes to show that we all interpret pretty pictures in different ways.

----------


## chrisp

> pretty picture for you.

  Rod, 
You need to be careful here. If you are going to claim that this is evidence of cooling, or no warming, then you'll have to also wear it as evidence of warming if/when the graph reverts to the long term trend.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, 
> You need to be careful here. If you are going to claim that this is evidence of cooling, or no warming, then you'll have to also wear it as evidence of warming if/when the graph reverts to the long term trend.

  For what its worth I will take the chance.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> For what its worth I will take the chance.

  Brave but foolish man. It will almost certainly wobble up and down wildly around the currently upwards trend for quite sometime to come.  So it will come back up....it is inevitable. 
Personally....I'd never put such a low value on my own credibility.  And I'd certainly not encourage it others.  Even you, Rod.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Brave but foolish man. It will almost certainly wobble up and down wildly around the currently upwards trend for quite sometime to come. So it will come back up....it is inevitable. 
> Personally....I'd never put such a low value on my own credibility. And I'd certainly not encourage it others. Even you, Rod.

  What on Earth are you on about here. Are you on drugs or something? Of course I realize it will go up and down. So what are you trying to make of this and why would I be concerned about my credibility?? 
You guys pushing the warming scam are the only ones that have their credibility at risk IMO. 
I am quite happy to say that this DOES NOT represent run away warming as claimed by the warmists and pedicted by the phoney models.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here is a very down to earth interview on AGW  From a scientist that even Flannery endorses!!  MTR1377 Media Player - Professor Richard Lindzen on the carbon tax

----------


## Rod Dyson

More solid reading for you guys.   

> From the Global Warming Policy Foundation by Dr. David Whitehouse  
> How many times have you seen, read or heard some climate ‘expert’ or other say that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are largely responsible for the unprecedented warming we have seen over the past century, and especially what we have seen over the past 30 years. It is as if to some that nature has stepped back leaving mankind to take over the climate. In reality, whatever one’s predictions for the future, such claims are gross exaggerations and misrepresentations. Natural and human climate influences mingle and even today natural effects dominate.

  Slowly the facts come to the top of the rubbish heap. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/0...ne/#more-37414

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> What on Earth are you on about here. Are you on drugs or something? Of course I realize it will go up and down. So what are you trying to make of this and why would I be concerned about my credibility?? 
> You guys pushing the warming scam are the only ones that have their credibility at risk IMO. 
> I am quite happy to say that this DOES NOT represent run away warming as claimed by the warmists and pedicted by the phoney models.

  I was merely trying to point out that you were hanging your credibility on the possibility that the recent fall in the monthly mean data in that graph represents a step change in the general upward trend towards a declining trend (which means incidentally that you were doing the same thing as those pesky phoney models - prediction).  This may indeed actually happen....but it takes a great deal of 'potential' to create a change in trend....So it is more likely that the current trend demonstarted by the data will continue.  Either way.....it'll take ages to find out who is correct. It takes a great deal of time, money and observations to recognise a change in trend from observations alone. 
Essentially.....what I'm saying.....you are interpreting the graph incorrectly by focusing in on a small period of time.  My medical status is of no consequence to the discussion and it was crass of you to think so.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Slowly the facts come to the top of the rubbish heap. Stratospheric water vapor may have contributed about a third of the warming 1980-2000 but now is in decline | Watts Up With That?

  Facts?  Ummm. No.  Untested supposition based on an interpretation of the findings of a couple of papers. Definitely.  Worth investigating?  Sure.  Especially with respect to this bit...."_What is at issue are questions of climate  sensitivity, feedback mechanisms and the relative strengths of other  variations_." simply because this is so very true. 
Should we do nothing to mitigate potential risks in the meantime?  Probably not. But we probably will.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I was merely trying to point out that you were hanging your credibility on the possibility that the recent fall in the monthly mean data in that graph represents a step change in the general upward trend towards a declining trend (which means incidentally that you were doing the same thing as those pesky phoney models - prediction). This may indeed actually happen....but it takes a great deal of 'potential' to create a change in trend....So it is more likely that the current trend demonstarted by the data will continue. Either way.....it'll take ages to find out who is correct. It takes a great deal of time, money and observations to recognise a change in trend from observations alone. 
> Essentially.....what I'm saying.....you are interpreting the graph incorrectly by focusing in on a small period of time. My medical status is of no consequence to the discussion and it was crass of you to think so.

  Yes well it was a complete and utterly un-justified over reaction.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yes well it was a complete and utterly un-justified over reaction.

  Yours or mine?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> yours or mine?

  ha ha you just found your ignorance

----------


## Dr Freud

> And here is where all cap and trade schemes and carbon taxes end up.     
> 			
> 				The New Hampshire House of Representatives, the largest legislative body in the world, voted yesterday to end the states participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap-and-trade program. The House voted 251-108 after less than 5 minutes of debate to repeal the law under which the state joined RGGI. A number of Democrats refused to attend due to other legislation voted the same day to declare state employees to be employed at-will rather than having collective bargaining rights.
> 			
> 		   At lest some people are getting wise, yet we a planning to embark on this journey.

  Hopefully we will not waste hundreds of billions of aussie dollars learning this same lesson. 
That would make us just plain stupid!

----------


## Dr Freud

> Read it and weep boys! 
> Read the pdf of what the government put out for "talking points"

  This blatant lying to us Australians is beyond a disgrace. 
We are continually being treated as idiots.   

> Then go and read the response here Quadrant Online - Climate facts Labor overlooked

  I'll read this on the weekend.  If I get worked up again, I'll provide some creative rebuttals as well.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Now we are talking, a PEER REVIEWED paper that makes sense.   
> Link Former EPA researcher Alan Carlin publishes his paper | Watts Up With That?  
> ah! but it cant be any good can it because it is reported in Wattsupwiththat. 
> Come on guys shoot the message this time rather than the messenger. Try it for once you will feeel good about it. 
> This is interesting don't you think?

  Another one for the weekend, been busy this week unfortunately, so not up to much reading.  
Looks like a good step taken towards reality from a quick glance.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ha ha you just found your ignorance

  Still way better than your idea of the 'truth', sunshine.

----------


## Rod Dyson

I will be very quiet on this thread for the next 10 days. 
Keep up the good work guys. 
No comment to you silent, these post starting to get too petty and personal.

----------


## Dr Freud

> It simply all comes down to whether one accepts the indeterminate risks suggested by analysis of model scenarios.....or the observational data that comes afterwards.

  This one (me) does not "accept" psychic computer output, I accept the observational data.  This observational data is often called "reality".   

> One hints that there might be a bump in the road up ahead (which offers you the choice of taking early action to avoid it against the prospect that it mightn't be a significant bum)

  Thanks for the hint.  If I see a bump, I'll deal with it.   

> while the other shows you the bump in the road (but you risk that it might be too close to avoid regardless of its severity).

  Relax champ, I've got Ninja like reflexes.  :Ninja Smile:    

> Do we do something now on the hint of future challenges....or do wait until the challenge appears on our doorstep and deal with it then?

  There are lots of hints of lots of challenges.  Let's stick to reality, eh?  :Wink 1:    

> There is no answer to this.....

  Er, yes there is.  See above.    

> I suspect that our response will be a hybrid of both.

  I suspect our progeny will just laugh at our generation thinking they could treat the Planet Earth like an air-conditioned house, just tweak the thermostat to get it a bit cooler or warmer.  Pump a little CO2, it gets a bit warmer.  Reduce a little CO2, it gets a bit cooler.  Just paying a new tax will achieve this apparently.  :Doh:  
I will carve into my Tombstone that "I never believed Australian's paying more tax will cool down the Planet Earth".  This will ensure that future generations laughing out loud at their idiot ancestors will at least know there were a few who weren't such easily duped egocentric "believers".    

> The paper Rod refers to is available here as a PDF http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/4/985/pdf and is well worth a squiz.

  Great article Rod, firmly based in reality.  Recommended to anyone having any doubts about whether increased taxes in Australia will cool down the whole Planet Earth! 
But just out of curiosity, does anyone reading this actually believe increased taxes in Australia will cool down the whole Planet?  Polls still show this tax has about 30% support.  If one of you supporters are reading this, I'd love to hear from you?????   

> It does contain some slightly infuriating comments with respect to model scenarios vis a vis observational data

  Yes, reality can sometimes be infuriating.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Now all we can do is a) not make the problem any worse

  Er, what problem?  :Confused:    

> and b) try to sort out a way of making the bed as comfortable as possible for the forseeable future.

  We've been doing this since before we started banging rocks together.  What's your point?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Still well higher than most of the other low points on that graph......and if you drew a trendline through that lot then which way do you think it'd be going even now, eh?  
> Up, I'd reckon. Most of the data is higher than the starting point. 
> Which only goes to show that we all interpret pretty pictures in different ways.

  That observational data (reality) can be infuriating, huh?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Rod, 
> You need to be careful here. If you are going to claim that this is evidence of cooling, or no warming, then you'll have to also wear it as evidence of warming if/when the graph reverts to the long term trend.

  You guys still don't get it, do you? 
We never have to "be careful".  We just accept reality for what it is.  There is no "claim" that this is evidence, it is self-evident that it is evidence. It shows what it shows, whether we or you like it.  Reality bites, huh? 
But maybe some other people need to "be careful".  Cos we aren't the ones believing some future prediction from some psychic computers, then believing some greenie whack jobs that increased taxes will prevent the future predictions from the psychic computers. Do these people realise what they sound like? 
And as for the graph "reverting" to the long term trend, the graph is "creating" the long term trend.  You must have missed Marc's great explanation of how weather adds up to climate, it's well worth a read. But just curious, what do you call long-term? 10 years, 30 years, 100 years, 1 million years, 100 million years???

----------


## Dr Freud

> Brave but foolish man.

  So you think it is brave and foolish to accept reality?   

> It will almost certainly wobble up and down wildly around the currently upwards trend for quite sometime to come.

  That's how the Planet Earth generally comes out of ice ages.  :Doh:    

> So it will come back up....it is inevitable.

  Yes, temperature going up and down is inevitable. Over all time scales.  Welcome to reality.  :Biggrin:    

> Personally....I'd never put such a low value on my own credibility.  And I'd certainly not encourage it others.  Even you, Rod.

  Come on champ, surely it can't be that infuriating?  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I was merely trying to point out that you were hanging your credibility on the possibility that the recent fall in the monthly mean data in that graph represents a step change in the general upward trend towards a declining trend *(which means incidentally that you were doing the same thing as those pesky phoney models - prediction)*.

  Mate, you either still don't get this, or are deliberately trying to conceal the weakness in your position. 
Rod posted data that is historical measured evidence of atmospheric temperature. 
The psychic computers you believe are predicting what the climate *might* be in 100 years time, assuming a big asteroid doesn't suddenly arrive.  Can you not distinguish between a past measurement and a future prediction?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Facts?

  SWV is declining.   

> Ummm. No.

  Ummm. Yes.   

> Worth investigating? Sure. Especially with respect to this bit...."_What is at issue are questions of climate  sensitivity, feedback mechanisms and the relative strengths of other  variations_." simply because this is so very true.

  Gee, I wonder what assumptions climate models use with respect to water vapour feedback???   

> Should we do nothing to mitigate potential risks in the meantime?

  What risks at what potential?  Then what mitigations at what costs?   
Restructure Australia's entire economy? As Al would have said "I don't think so Tim".  :No:

----------


## Marc

"CO2 for  different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a  pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product  of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis,  it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if  you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to  driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness  to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of  Atmospheric Science, MITCarbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution, and  Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been  misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about,  greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution. People  are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with  the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide  (CO2). Pollution is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and regulating  Carbon Dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breathe  "cleaner". Regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions through either 'Carbon  Taxes', 'Cap and Trade' or the EPA will cause energy prices (electricity,  gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, heating oil, etc...) to skyrocket.  *"CO2 is not a  pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us  would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a  time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today.  Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by  the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing  concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet."* - John R.  Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of  Alabama  *"Carbon  dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in  the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state  of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no  empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be  harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis,  carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of  life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet.  To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and  science."* - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth  Sciences, James Cook University  *"Carbon dioxide is not a  pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic  analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and  therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to  expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is  primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime  issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view,  climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the  additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who  favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon  dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority  for EPA as a first step in that direction."* - S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.  Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of  Virginia  *"Carbon and  CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless,  odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in  numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated  drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2  from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back  to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned."* - Tom V.  Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of  Oslo  *"To suddenly  label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous  role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth.  Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant."* - Robert C.  Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University   Thomas Carney said...                                               
                                                      This  is utter insanity.  Declaring CO2 to be a pollutant.  This is worse  than the old "dihydrogen monoxide" scam put out years ago...  
  This is how the Left grabs power... they "manufacture" a crisis...  take "crisis" to high levels of hysteria... "hysteria" lets idiots think  the only one who can save them is the government... government gets  MORE power.  
  This is *MUCH WORSE than the inmates running the asylum, because even the inmates are SHOCKED at what the EPA is doing.*  
                                                                                Mongol gone jamin, adios! said...                                               
                                                      It is all politics, corrupt politics.  They don't give a @@@@ about the real dangers.
  I have friends who are sick from drinking poisoned well water and the  EPA is not allowed to regulate the chemicals or the process that put  the chemicals in the ground water: 
"Hydraulic fracturing is one of the more dangerous aspects of natural  gas production. Americans get over half their drinking water from  underground sources, especially in the rural West where most of this  drilling is occurring. In 2005, industry was granted an exemption from  the Safe Drinking Water Act making this the only industry allowed to  directly inject toxic fluids directly into your drinking water without  oversight from the EPA. Few of the chemicals used in fracturing are  required to be reported. Therefore, neither the government nor the  public can evaluate the risks or the consequences of exposure to these  chemicals." 
Tax us for breathing but give the ground water toxins a pass??  WTF?
  Note:  I have nothing against drilling as long as it does not poison  our aquifers as is the case in several states right now.  We can live  without gas, not without water.   myx0mop said...                                               
                                                      You've  got to give it to these hustlers... This "global warming/climate  change" thing is the largest scam ever perpetrated in history. They are  trying to fleece everyone. What better way than to get people to pay for  things like weather changes and breathing? 
  And, of course, the multitudes of the stupid are easy to recruit, as  they always ready and willing to fight for any evil cause, as long as  you give them a mission to save something. In this case they are "saving  the planet".. 
  The sheer audacity of this scam is mind-blowing!!! Madoff is just an amateur schmuck compared to the "global warming" criminals.  Transpower said...                                               
                                                      Pamela,  great job.  I am one of over 31000 scientists and engineers who signed  the petition drafted by Dr. Frederick Seitz, a distinguished physicist.   The petition reads:  "We urge the United States government to reject  the global warming agreement that was written in Kyota, Japan in  December, 1997, and any other similar proposals.  The proposed limits on  greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of  science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.   There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon  dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the  foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere  and disruption of the Earth's climate.  Moreover, there is substantial  scientific evidence that increases in atmosphere carbon dioxide produce  many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments  of the Earth."  Go to www.petitionproject.org to see the list of  signatories.
  Regards,
Ronald W. Satz, Ph.D.

----------


## Dr Freud

Listen then learn my friends.  You are being lied to!!!   

> What is more, Garnaut said that since his 2008 review the science has only become more alarming. ''The general trend is to confirm that the [UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its fourth assessment report of 2007] underestimated the impacts of climate change. All the measurable impacts  are tracking right at the top of the range of possibilities identified by the [panel], or in some cases above them.  Garnaut updates gloomy review

  Let's check that infuriating battle of psychic computers vs reality:      

> The Arctic ice refuses to  go away, which forces the warmists to keep modifying their predictions. Take Al Gore. 
>   In December 2008, he said The entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years 
>   In April 2009, after a big refreeze, Gore pushed out his prediction of a possible ice-free Arctic to 2014:   _    (R)esearchers at the Naval Postgraduate School have told us that the entire Arctic ice cap may totally disappear in summer in as little as five years if nothing is done to curb emissions of greenhouse gas pollution.__In October 2009, after a summer in which the Arctic ice hung around as per recent usual, Gore adjusted again, extending his prediction to 2019: _  _    The North Pole ice cap is 40 percent gone already and could be completely and totally gone in the winter months in the next 5 to 10 years.__Back in 2008, plenty of other alarmists were also spreading fear that the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. There was NASA Goddard Institute, for instance:_   _Marian Wilkson, reporting for The Age and the ABCs Four Corners, faithfully passed on the hype as if it were deadly serious: _  _Theres a group that makes a very strong case that in 2012 or 2013 well have an ice-free (summer) Arctic, as soon as that. Its astounding whats happened, said Ted Scambos, another research scientist from the Snow and Ice Data Centre._ _And the ABCs AM likewise  uncritically reported  the claims of the alarmists: _  _A US-based team has told a conference in California that the northern polar waters could be ice-free in summer by 2013 Professor Wieslaw Maslowski from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, has been presenting his work to a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.... As the world meets in Bali, Al Gore went on to repeat his calls for tough action on climate change. The trouble is, it looks increasingly like it may already be too late._ _Ah, Professor Maslowski? Well, now, hes back in the news this week, and events have forced him to stretch out his prediction, just as Gore has been doing: _ _Scientists who predicted a few years ago that Arctic summers could be ice-free by 2013 now say summer sea ice will probably be gone in this decade._  _The original prediction, made in 2007, gained Wieslaw Maslowskis team a deal of criticism from some of their peers.   Now they are working with a new computer model  compiled partly in response to those criticisms  that produces a best guess date of 2016.  _ _Yeah, right._  _Tell me: if global warming really is happening even faster than the warmists predicted, why do they need to keep readjusting like this? _   _Gore and his fellow alarmists are on thin ice | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  Oops, Garnaut's either ill informed or misleading, and neither is a good look for JuLIAR's leading advisor for her new tax.  If he doesn't have any idea of the scientific reality, how can he be advising JuLIAR on the scientific solution. 
This farce deteriorates by the day.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> 

  What an evil child! 
Blowing all that "pollution" over those plants. 
Someone has to stop these "polluters". 
Are you "polluting" now. Stop it! Hold all that pollution in, don't breathe it out.  :Doh:  
Seriously, anyone calling Carbon Dioxide "pollution" is raving mad!!!  :Wacko:

----------


## Dr Freud

Just think about this scaled up across our entire economy? 
Run by the government who brought us the insulation debacle?   

> Whod have thought that a trade in hot air might be rorted? The _Sydney Morning Herald_ alleges:  _A SYDNEY carbon credits company thought to have been running some of the worlds biggest offsets deals appears to be a fake, shifting paper certificates instead of saving forests and cutting greenhouse emissions._  _Shift2neutral says it has made high-profile events such as the Australian PGA golf championship and the Sydney Turf Clubs world-first green race day carbon neutral._  _But deals to generate more than $1 billion worth of carbon credits by saving jungles from logging in the Philippines, the Congo and across south-east Asia do not seem to exist.__Even the legit green schemes seem a con, after all:_ _Britains wind farms produce far less electricity than their supporters claim  and cannot be relied upon to keep the lights on, a study from a conservation charity showed yesterday. 
> A damning report from the John Muir Trust found the UKs heavily subsidised wind farms were working at just 21 per cent of capacity last year._  _Yet the renewable energy industry claims their turbines work at 28 to 30 per cent efficiency on average._  _The Trust also found that for extended periods all the UKs wind turbines linked to the National Grid muster less than 20 megawatts of energy at a given point, enough power for fewer than 7,000 households to boil their kettles._  _Stuart Young, author of the report, said: Over the two-year period studied, the wind farms in the UK consistently generated far less energy than wind proponents claim is typical._  _Sadly, wind power is not what its cracked up to be and cannot contribute greatly to energy security in the UK._ _(Thanks to many readers.)_  _UPDATE_  _Greg Sheridan discovers that nowhere else in the world are politicians mad enough to do what Julia Gillard will do to us next year: _  _If the carbon tax goes ahead, to be replaced in due course by an emissions trading scheme with a fixed carbon emissions target, Australia will have among the most extreme climate-change policies in the world.__UPDATE  David Evans says carbon taxes are no solution to what isnt actually a problem: _  _Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off_   _The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades._   _We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government - how exciting for the political class!_   _Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold -in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!   Of windy schemes and windless power | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  P.S. For all you guys and girls that love Mr Bolt:   

> ANDREW Bolt has been given his own Sunday morning soapbox on Channel Ten. _The Bolt Report_ will air for 30 minutes each Sunday at 10am, starting on May 8. The timeslot avoids a clash with the controversial columnist's former program, _Insiders_,  between 9am and 10am  on the ABC.  Andrew Bolt show for Channel Ten

  The comments are very supportive.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Just remember, he's costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to us taxpayers to give us these wise words:

----------


## Dr Freud

A great step in the right direction. 
A judge telling dodgy scientists to argue their case based on their evidence, rather than trying to silence critics who rightly expose their flawed scientific integrity and methodology. 
Science is driven by evidence, not "hyperbowl", unlike our JuLIAR!  :Doh:   

> Commissions decision in the case of
> University of East Anglia v The Daily Telegraph  
>  The complainants, acting on behalf of the University of East Anglia (UEA), complained that three blog posts by James Delingpole were inaccurate and misleading and contained distorted information in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors Code.  In particular, the complainants were concerned that the blog posts described Professor Phil Jones as disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method abusing.  They explained that Professor Phil Jones had been exonerated of any dishonesty or scientific malpractice by a series of reviews.  They were concerned that a second blog post repeated accusations that had been demonstrated as untrue, concluding that the Universitys scientists were untrustworthy, unreliable and entirely unfit to write the kind of reports on which governments around the world make their economic and environmental decisions, and a third blog post referred to the scientists work as shoddy and mendacious.  
> The Commission emphasised that the articles in question were blog posts and were clearly identifiable as such to readers generally, as they were posited in the Telegraph Blogs section of the website and written under the columnists prominent by-line.  The Commission was satisfied that readers would be aware that the comments therein represented the columnists own robust views of the matters in question.  
> This is a necessary consequence of free speech. The Commission felt that it should be slow to intervene in this, unless there is evidence of factual inaccuracy or misleading statement.  
> Through its correspondence the newspaper had provided some evidence in support of the statements under dispute, and the columnist had included some of this evidence in the second blog post under discussion.  In relation to the columnists description of Professor Jones as FOI-breaching, email-deleting, the newspaper had provided extracts from an email from Professor Jones in which he had written If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone, and another email in which he had written Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?.  With respect to the columnists assertion that Professor Jones was scientific method-abusing, the newspaper had provided an extract from an email from Professor Jones in which he had written Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline.  In view of this, the Commission considered that there were some grounds for the columnists opinion  which readers would recognise was subjective  on these points.  
> The Commission was satisfied that readers would be aware of the context of the columnists robust views  clearly recognisable as his subjective opinion  that the scientists were untrustworthy, unreliable and entirely unfit to write the kind of reports on which governments around the world make their economic and environmental decisions, and that their work was shoddy and mendacious.  In the circumstances, it did not consider that there had been a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code.   *The Commission noted that the newspaper had offered the complainants an opportunity to respond on the blog post.*  It considered that this would inform readers of the full context of the dispute and the complainants position.  The Commission welcomed this offer, and hoped it would remain open to the complainants.   UEA: the sweet smell of napalm in the morning  Telegraph Blogs

  *The Commission noted that the newspaper had offered the complainants an opportunity to respond on the blog post.*  
They preferred to sue and try to silence some random blogger who was telling the truth, rather than front up with their "science" and have it subjected to reliability and validity testing.  
Proves the point really, doesn't it.  
These ideologues are not interested in facts, they are pushing an agenda, and they want us to pay for it.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud



----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Mate, you either still don't get this, or are deliberately trying to conceal the weakness in your position.

  One could suggest the same thing to you....    

> Rod posted data that is historical measured evidence of atmospheric temperature.

  Yes, he did. 
Except that we are interpreting it differently.   
I see a rising trend in the graph between 1979 and the present day.......with a few interdecadal shifts around the general trend.  Plus there is a precipitous plunge in the data in the last few months (which finds us with a mean monthly temp anomaly that is still greater than the levels recorded back in 1979). Most interesting to me is that each of the shifts in the anomaly seem to be getting greater....which suggests increasing instability in temperature levels. 
You and Rod only seem to see the precipitous plunge.  
And you also don't seem to see that the data represented is the anomaly from the long term average.....and the greater part of the data is in positive territory.  In other words...it is warmer than average more often that it is cooler.  Which also suggests that it will take a few decades of negative anomaly to counteract what has come before......and one dive does not a downwards trend make.....no matter how much wishful thinking you might entertain. 
In summary, I would humbly suggest that you are interpreting the graph incorrectly.  You are supposed to 'read' the whole graph....not just little bits of it.  What you are doing is akin to trying to interpret the plot of a novel by simply reading the last chapter! Which, yet again, is akin to what computer modelling is for.... 
<kisses>

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's a quick recap of the data Rod posted.  It is the full satellite LT temperature record since it began in 1979 from UAH.  No cherry picking, the full data set.   

> pretty picture for you.

  Now, if we wanted a graph that cherry picked, we could use this one, but didn't.    
See, CO2 and temps going in opposite directions.  Weird huh? 
But luckily we don't cherry pick data like the dudes who made this graph.  :Biggrin:  :Wink 1:  :Biggrin:    

> Except that we are interpreting it differently.

  We are all looking at the same data. 
We accept it for what it is, a temperature record with very little change.  You and other AGW hypothesis believer's have a "belief" that this temperature record somehow supports this wacko hypothesis, with no proof.   

> I see a rising trend in the graph between 1979 and the present day.......with a few interdecadal shifts around the general trend. Plus there is a precipitous plunge in the data in the last few months (which finds us with a mean monthly temp anomaly that is still greater than the levels recorded back in 1979). Most interesting to me is that each of the shifts in the anomaly seem to be getting greater....which suggests increasing instability in temperature levels.

  While that is a lovely story, I don't suppose you could hurry along to the bit about proof, evidence, validity, etc etc, you know all those scientific things, not required in story telling.   

> You and Rod only seem to see the precipitous plunge.

  Huh?  I must have missed that part, it looks kinda steady to me, just gently rising out of the last little ice age, like we have been since before the 1800's when people used to ice skate on the frozen River Thames in London. 
But it is weird how satellites and radiosondes regular show very little temperature change in the atmosphere, but ground thermometers placed in hot city's show much more warming as these cities grow bigger and hotter.  Weird huh?   

> And you also don't seem to see that the data represented is the anomaly from the long term average.....and the greater part of the data is in positive territory. In other words...it is warmer than average more often that it is cooler. Which also suggests that it will take a few decades of negative anomaly to counteract what has come before......and one dive does not a downwards trend make.....no matter how much wishful thinking you might entertain.

  You still don't get it do you?  It doesn't matter whether temps go up or down, and how fast or slow.  What matters is can we prove what is causing it?  Future temps may skyrocket up or plummet down, neither of these events alone proves or disproves the AGW hypothesis due to our lack of knowledge of all variables and interactions in the climate system. 
For whatever reason, you AGW hypothesis supporters have this weird belief that if temps go up, AGW hypothesis is proved, and if temps go down, AGW hypothesis is disproved.  As I have said many, many times, these are effects, you need to prove the causes.   

> In summary, I would humbly suggest that you are interpreting the graph incorrectly.

  Again, I am accepting it, not interpreting it.   

> You are supposed to 'read' the whole graph....not just little bits of it.

  Er, I did, see above for clarification.  In actual fact this whole graph is only a subset of all the data needed.   

> What you are doing is akin to trying to interpret the plot of a novel by simply reading the last chapter! Which, yet again, is akin to what computer modelling is for....

  Past data vs future predictions. 
Not akin at all mate.  Continually trying to compare the psychic computers you believe about climate predictions 100 years into the future, with recently measured empirical data, just highlights the total lack of credibility these computer models have to stand on their own.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Tee-hee.....now I'm entirely comfortable in the knowledge that you are doing it wrong.... 
1> Graphs are not simply made for acceptance....they are a tool for data interpretation;
2> The graph Rod provided runs from 1979 to the present day...so how or why you made this statement - "it looks kinda steady to me, just gently rising out of the last little  ice age, like we have been since before the 1800's when people used to  ice skate on the frozen River Thames in London." is a demonstration that we are unlikely to ever occupy the same wavelength since you don't seem to be able to read timescales on graphs very well;
3>  Modelling data is all about filling in gaps in the available record using available observational and behavioural data plus scientifically valid (even tested!) assumptions about behaviour...past, present or future, it matters not.  You don't agree with that. Fine.    

> *[I Said]*
> And  you also don't seem to see that the data represented is the anomaly  from the long term average.....and the greater part of the data is in  positive territory. In other words...it is warmer than average more  often that it is cooler. Which also suggests that it will take a few  decades of negative anomaly to counteract what has come before......and  one dive does not a downwards trend make.....no matter how much wishful  thinking you might entertain. *[You Said]* 
>     You still don't  get it do you?  It doesn't matter whether temps go up or down, and how  fast or slow.  What matters is can we prove what is causing it?  Future  temps may skyrocket up or plummet down, neither of these events alone  proves or disproves the AGW hypothesis due to our lack of knowledge of  all variables and interactions in the climate system. 
> For whatever reason, you AGW hypothesis supporters have this weird  belief that if temps go up, AGW hypothesis is proved, and if temps go  down, AGW hypothesis is disproved.  As I have said many, many times,  these are effects, you need to prove the causes.

  Ummm....how the heck did you manage to run off on that tangent? I was merely providing one possible interpretation of the graph..... 
Frued....I don't need temps to go up (or down) to suggest that AGW is a proven phenomenom.   I'm of the opinion that AGW, as a process, is actually proven (I've provided links to the key papers before - you don't accept them - so don't whinge about yet again - you sound like a trodden-on guinea pig when you do - I can't fix that)......*what remains in doubt is the details in changed behaviour of the atmosphere and the responses of our environment to that*....the fact that much of the detail in the modelled climate response data to date has not (unsurprisingly) been borne out in the observational data to date (especially with respect to timing) bears this out.   
We simply don't know enough - and we never will because we'll never be able to invest enough resources (money, bodies, equipment, whatever) to find out for sure.  Never have. Never will.  From a purely financial perspective, scientific research budgets simply aren't big enough (or available for long enough) for most large scale work....and scientific funding is always considered as merely discretionary spending by politicians. 
The thing is....the AGW process is still in train....and some reported response observations (eg. biology, some ice behaviour, ocean chemistry) are either a) concerning and b) not unexpected.  So something is happening....

----------


## PhilT2

SBD, even in a battle of wits it is unfair to attack unarmed civilians.
To paraphrase Humpty, when Doc posts a graph, it means exactly what he says it means, nothing more and nothing less.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Tee-hee.....now I'm entirely comfortable in the knowledge that you are doing it wrong....

  So you think accepting reality as we have measured it is "doing it wrong"? 
Yet you believe what a computer program tells you what the climate will be in 100 years?  :Doh:    

> 1> Graphs are not simply made for acceptance....they are a tool for data interpretation;

  Yes, and thousands of scientists have interpreted this data in hundreds of different ways.  
I have read many of these interpretations and they all have various levels of plausibility, some more than others, none *proven* to be valid.  That's why I accept the data, the interpretations will change as our knowledge base expands.  The data will remain the same (unless the IPCC dudes also turn this data into a hockey stick).  :Biggrin:  
Remember, this is the measured past that they still argue over when interpreting. 
As for the fantasy future predictions that you lot go on about... :Doh:    

> 2> The graph Rod provided runs from 1979 to the present day...so how or why you made this statement - "it looks kinda steady to me, just gently rising out of the last little ice age, like we have been since before the 1800's when people used to ice skate on the frozen River Thames in London." is a demonstration that we are unlikely to ever occupy the same wavelength since you don't seem to be able to read timescales on graphs very well;

  Mate, if this is the best you've got, there is no hope for the other AGW hypothesis supporters who are trailing your efforts by a long way. 
It's pure desperation trying to claim anyone (let alone a superstar like me  :Biggrin: ) thought that there were satellites gathering temperature data in the 16th Century.  These semantic tactics reek of the desperation this whole movement now has since JuLIAR has announced her Carbon Dioxide Tax, and everday aussies have realised what a financially wasteful and environmentally ineffective rort it is.  :Wink 1:  
But I did try to cater for the intellectually bereft with this clarification:  *"In actual fact this whole graph is only a subset of all the data needed.*" 
Obviously you're not used to dealing with facts, actual or otherwise. :Biggrin:    

> 3> Modelling data is all about filling in gaps in the available record using available observational and behavioural data plus scientifically valid (even tested!) assumptions about behaviour...past, present or future, it matters not. You don't agree with that. Fine.

  What I agree with is irrelevant.   

> *is all about filling in gaps in the available record*

   

> *future, it matters not*

  You obviously still don't get this, so just to ensure you haven't taken up a H G Wells machine, please show us your "available record" of the future, then show us where you are "filling in gaps"???  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):     

> Ummm....how the heck did you manage to run off on that tangent? I was merely providing one possible interpretation of the graph.....

  Yes, and it was a lovely story.  But like all things AGW hypothesis related, it was not factual and had no evidence. I just enjoy continually pointing this out.  :Biggrin:    

> I'm of the opinion that AGW, as a process, is actually proven

  You can't have an "opinion" that something is scientifically proven.  No wonder you lot are still so confused.   

> (I've provided links to the key papers before - *you don't accept them* - so don't whinge about yet again - you sound like a trodden-on guinea pig when you do - I can't fix that)

  I accept them all.  None of them have proven the AGW hypothesis.  Pay attention now:  *There is zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.*   

> We simply don't know enough

  At least you got that bit right!  :2thumbsup:    

> the AGW process is still in train

  *There is zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.*   

> So something is happening....

  Certainly is, and we'll have a great time figuring it all out.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> SBD, even in a battle of wits it is unfair to attack unarmed civilians.

  So what are you, half armed, eh?   

> To paraphrase Humpty, when Doc posts a graph, it means exactly what he says it means, nothing more and nothing less.

  It is data. I accept it. What's your point?  Do you even know?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Great article Rod, firmly based in reality.  Recommended to anyone having any doubts about whether increased taxes in Australia will cool down the whole Planet Earth! 
> But just out of curiosity, does anyone reading this actually believe increased taxes in Australia will cool down the whole Planet?  Polls still show this tax has about 30% support.  If one of you supporters are reading this, I'd love to hear from you?????

  Ask your family and friends, surely there must be someone we know who is willing to put their case forward for this ridiculous farce????? 
JuLIAR says Australian's voted for this and want it. 
Is this farce so shameful that no one will speak for it?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's the good news, you'll get the much worse news once it's finalised!   

> *IN implementing its carbon tax the Gillard government is involved in a massive campaign of misinformation. * On the ABC's Insiders yesterday, Finance Minister Penny Wong said: "This is not a tax that people pay; this is a tax that polluters pay." That sounds all very reassuring, until we remember that Treasury thinks that household expenditure will go up by $860 per year for a $30 a tonne carbon tax. 
> As both Leigh and Wong know the argument that only the big polluters will pay is nonsense, some might say dishonest. 
> So we know the carbon tax will be paid out of the household budget through higher prices and in some cases job losses. 
> The reality is that while big polluters will have to pay money to government , the burden will fall on people.  
> People should be worried that the government won't define what middle-income households are until late in the piece. Many households are going to be unpleasantly surprised.   Carbon illusion we can&#039;t afford | The Australian

  Well worth a full read.  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *THE carbon tax becomes a more intractable problem for the Gillard government every day. *  			 		 		Negotiations and campaigns with business leaders, households and the Greens become more complex and more contradictory with every meeting and every compromise or concession to any of the groups involved.  
> Against a background of a weakened minority government, forced to appease its Greens partners to have any chance of meeting Julia Gillard's deadline of a carbon tax by July 1 next year, industry has become emboldened and is beginning to speak out.  
> There have been warnings of job losses in the coal and steel industries, oil refining is a threatened species under a carbon tax, marginal manufacturing ventures face a final cost hit and now liquefied natural gas is declaring its objections.  
> LNG's objections are also raising the fundamental issues of whether Australia needs to or can afford to "go it alone" on a carbon tax and whether such a tax is designed to cut global greenhouse gas emissions or just redistribute and recycle wealth through tax.  
> But the Greens are still insisting the 2009 industry compensation -- which they voted down in the Senate with Tony Abbott's Coalition -- is too generous, while industry, now much more assertive against a minority government, is arguing it doesn't go far enough.  
> It's little wonder Wayne Swan left business leaders last week with the clear impression that a carbon tax was the last thing he wanted to talk about and Greg Combet made clear his views on the Greens.   Pressure mounts as industry speaks out | The Australian

  What a debacle! Our treasurer won't discuss the largest economic reforms in Australia's history with our industry leaders.  It's due to roll across our economy and our country in a few hundred days.  It wont even be calculated in the May budget.  :Doh:   
This started as a sh-t sandwich, now it's getting soggy.     
And they want us Aussie taxpayers to eat it from July 1 next year.  :Yucky:  :Puke:

----------


## Dr Freud

More emotional blackmail. 
This movement is reeking of desperation more and more every day.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So you think accepting reality as we have measured it is "doing it wrong"?

  No.   The "doing it wrong" was targeted at your interpretation...amongst other things.  The data is fine.    

> Yet you believe what a computer program tells you what the climate will be in 100 years?

  No.  Yet again.  No.  That is not possible.  No model can do that.  All they can do is provide an intimation of how different particular aspects of the climate might be compared to a baseline period.  Essentially....they provide the graph that's awaiting to be interpreted.   

> You can't have an "opinion" that something is scientifically proven.

  After four hundred and elevelen pages it amazes me that you can offer any new insights.......and here I am amazed by a new insight into the shallowness of your intellect. 
Why can I not have an opinion about something that is scientifically proven?  You obviously do (even if it is incorrect and without meaningful justification) and yet I cant! What makes you the Opinion Nazi?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> SBD, even in a battle of wits it is unfair to attack unarmed civilians.
> To paraphrase Humpty, when Doc posts a graph, it means exactly what he says it means, nothing more and nothing less.

  Frued is neither unarmed nor a civilian.  And there is some past evidence of wit.  But I have to admit he is getting a bit monotonoly strident and inward looking of late.  And his most recent statements that seem to suggest his opinion is all are of real concern..... 
...we might have to go easy on him for a time lest he fall over the edge of something.  Can't have our old and cherished toys breaking on us now can we?

----------


## Dr Freud

> No model can do that. All they can do is provide an intimation of how different particular aspects of the climate might be compared to a baseline period.

  *Intimate:* To make known subtly and indirectly; hint.  *Might:* Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than _may._ 
Wow! So much for the 90% certainty, huh?  I'd back your version over the IPCC any day. 
But your version is not much of an argument for global re-engineering, is it?   

> After four hundred and elevelen pages it amazes me that you can offer any new insights.......and here I am amazed by a new insight into the shallowness of your intellect. 
> Why can I not have an opinion about something that is scientifically proven? You obviously do (even if it is incorrect and without meaningful justification) and yet I cant! What makes you the Opinion Nazi?

  Allow me to clarify for your semantics (or genuine misunderstanding?). 
Obviously you can have an opinion about whatever you want. 
But scientifically proving a hypothesis requires empirical evidence produced via the scientific method. 
The AGW hypothesis has *not* achieved this. 
There is *zero* evidence proving the AGW hypothesis. 
This is a *scientific fact.* 
Now, you can have the opinion that this hypothesis has been proven contrary to scientific fact.  You can have any opinion you want.  You can have the opinion that the tooth fairy has been scientifically proven.  It's your opinion. 
My point was, *your opinion that the AGW hypothesis is proved does not make it scientifically proved.*  *The scientific fact remains that it is not proved*, but you are free to have the opinion that it is. 
But you are the one calling into question peoples credibility. 
How credible would you rate someone who's opinion is the opposite of scientific fact?  :Roflmao:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> But scientifically proving a hypothesis requires empirical evidence produced via the scientific method. 
> The AGW hypothesis has not achieved this. 
> There is zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis. 
> This is a scientific fact.

  Really?  Are you entirely certain? Can you provide evidence to support this seemingly definitive fact?  Or is that just your opinion?  
My opinion is that your statement is merely your opinion and this opinion actually has no basis in fact....scientific or otherwise.    

> How credible would you rate someone who's opinion is the opposite of scientific fact?

  What's really funny is that we both have the same opinion of each other......fancy that....it's a stalemate.  Fun's over. Let's move on.

----------


## intertd6

> Really? Are you entirely certain? Can you provide evidence to support this seemingly definitive fact? Or is that just your opinion?   I'm thinking you must missed or cant understand what has been posted so far. 
> My opinion is that your statement is merely your opinion and this opinion actually has no basis in fact....scientific or otherwise.  Many base their opinions on opinions, others use scientific evidence to base theirs on.

  regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> Originally Posted by *SilentButDeadly*  
>  Really? Are you entirely certain? Can you provide evidence to support this seemingly definitive fact? Or is that just your opinion?   I'm thinking you must missed or cant understand what has been posted so far. 
> My opinion is that your statement is merely your opinion and this opinion actually has no basis in fact....scientific or otherwise.  Many base their opinions on opinions, others use scientific evidence to base theirs on.    regards inter

  Cheers Inter, it's encouraging to see that others recognise this nonsensical position. :2thumbsup:  
I'll demonstrate how nonsensical tomorrow, cos it's late and I'm tired.  :Zzsoft:

----------


## andy the pm

I love it!  *A nation of fickle fools*   *Clive Hamilton*  
April 13, 2011   *OPINION*  *The Australian public keeps changing its mind on climate change. No wonder our leaders don't know where to step.* 
Most Australians say they don't want a carbon tax. So what do they want? After all, over the past year, Australians have transformed themselves from a citizenry worried about global warming, and asking for something to be done, into an outraged mob indignant to discover that their noble desire to protect the future means they must pay a bit more for petrol and power.
How easily the public's penny-pinching is exploited by a handful of ranting shock jocks. "The carbon tax is a terrible injustice, foisted on the battlers by out-of-touch elites," they fulminate, before turning off their spittle-flecked microphones to return to their harbour-side penthouses. 
Read the full article here Row Over Carbon Tax | Climate Change

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> regards inter

  Inter....as I've said before....what you apply to me - I can (and do) just as easily apply to you. And feel just as pointlessly smug.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

NOAA Climate Services 
NOAA have kicked off a new Climate Services Portal and I have to say that the breadth and depth of it is pretty impressive......no matter what your political leaning is with respect to this topic 
I trust that our own BoM is watching and learning....

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I love it! 
> [

  
The sheep are...as always...restless (and easily spooked).

----------


## intertd6

> Inter....as I've said before....what you apply to me - I can (and do) just as easily apply to you. And feel just as pointlessly smug.

  No need to take it personally, I'm just cutting through the jargon & commenting at whats been presented. Being quite happy with my unbiased views I have no need to feel as smug as a bug in a rug.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> Really? Are you entirely certain? Can you provide evidence to support this seemingly definitive fact? Or is that just your opinion?

  Your semantics are as sad as they are see through.  Your argument has run out of steam, unlike all the coal fired power plants.  :Biggrin:  
You are the only person in this sad saga that actually argues that the AGW hypothesis has been scientifically proven, against scientific fact.  Even Michael Mann never tried this ridiculous argument, and he loved just making --it up.  Your own dwindling colleagues also insist that you are scientifically ignorant of this scientific fact (see posts after this). 
Now you ask me to provide evidence that something does not exist?  Would you also like me to cover the tooth fairy and aliens while I'm at it?  :Doh:  
As Inter has already indicated, you either haven't read this thread or have some serious amnesiac condition.  But just search for "IPCC likelihood scales" and you will find all the evidence you need.  You see, once something is proven, you don't need opinions on how likely they "might" be.  This logic is generally referred to as common sense.   

> My opinion is that your statement is merely your opinion and this opinion actually has no basis in fact....scientific or otherwise.

  Like I said, no wonder you guys are so confused when you cannot distinguish between scientific fact and opinion.  At least Woodbe knew this concept.  His departure has definitely been to your detriment.     

> What's really funny is that we both have the same opinion of each other......fancy that....it's a stalemate. Fun's over. Let's move on.

  I know you'd love to move on from your support for this embarrassing farce, but let's not.  :Biggrin:  
Your opinion that this farce has been scientifically proven is opposite to the scientific fact. 
The scientific fact requires no opinion, least of all mine. 
Your opinion is not comparable to mine, it is the opposite of scientific fact. 
One day this will hopefully become apparent to you.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> NOAA Climate Services 
> NOAA have kicked off a new Climate Services Portal and I have to say that the breadth and depth of it is pretty impressive......no matter what your political leaning is with respect to this topic 
> I trust that our own BoM is watching and learning....

  Here ya go. _hope our Government is watching and learning!!!_   

> _RIP: Obamas National Climate Service_  _Posted on April 12, 2011 by Steve Milloy| 13 Comments_  _Last Fridays budget deal blocks funding for the Obama administrations National Climate Service (NCS)._

   :Shock: RIP: Obamas National Climate Service | JunkScience.com   

> SEC. 1348. None of the funds made available by this division may be used to implement, establish, or create a NOAA Climate Service as described in the Draft NOAA Climate Service Strategic Vision and Framework published at 75 Federal Register 57739 (September 22, 2010) 24 and updated on December 20, 2010: Provided, That this limitation shall expire on September 30, 2011.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Yes i found a computer to get on for a while back next Tuesday.  See you then.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Freud...you probably wouldn't know a 'scientific fact' if it introduced itself to you and then bit you on the @@@@.  But you are hardly alone in that <sigh> 
It is just unrewarding to argue with ignorance.....and I'll probably just get reprimanded anyway.   
So it's time (yet again) to retire from the Field of Fools and return to the Real World.  I'm out.

----------


## andy the pm

*Scientist Beloved by Climate Deniers Pulls Rug Out from Their Argument*  Read full article here Scientist Beloved by Climate Deniers Pulls Rug Out from Their Argument - Environment - GOOD

----------


## intertd6

> So it's time (yet again) to retire from the Field of Fools and return to the Real World. I'm out.

  Ah! some think that the real world is just an illusion caused by the lack of mind altering substances.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

I caught an interesting tidbit of info the other day, for a years normal use a small car emits roughly the same amount of co2 as a human does a year, if co2 was ever proven to be the culprit of climate change, this would place restraints on global populations eventually.
regards inter

----------


## chrisp

> I caught an interesting tidbit of info the other day, for a years normal use a small car emits roughly the same amount of co2 as a human does a year, if co2 was ever proven to be the culprit of climate change, this would place restraints on global populations eventually.
> regards inter

  Inter, 
Did you stop and think about this "interesting tidbit" before posting it? 
Do you know - even roughly - how many kilograms of CO2 a litre of petrol produces?
Do you know - again, even very approximately - how many kilograms of CO2 a typical human exhales per day or per year? 
A quick search of the web will soon provide you with the answers.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I love it!  *A nation of fickle fools*   *Clive Hamilton*  
> April 13, 2011   *OPINION*  *The Australian public keeps changing its mind on climate change. No wonder our leaders don't know where to step.* 
> Most Australians say they don't want a carbon tax. So what do they want? After all, over the past year, Australians have transformed themselves from a citizenry worried about global warming, and asking for something to be done, into an outraged mob indignant to discover that their noble desire to protect the future means they must pay a bit more for petrol and power.
> How easily the public's penny-pinching is exploited by a handful of ranting shock jocks. "The carbon tax is a terrible injustice, foisted on the battlers by out-of-touch elites," they fulminate, before turning off their spittle-flecked microphones to return to their harbour-side penthouses. 
> Read the full article here Row Over Carbon Tax | Climate Change

  He got it all wrong. 
For a start, it's not a nation, it's a planet.  :Doh:  
But great fairy tale.  This guy tells wonderful fictional stories.  Does he do any non-fiction?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Here ya go. _hope our Government is watching and learning!!!_  RIP: Obamas National Climate Service | JunkScience.com

  Mate, great point.  And this is just a band-aid, wait for the bad medicine.  When the citizens in the USA figure their nation is just about bankrupt, they'll freak.  Expensive boutique greenie dream schemes will go the way of the dodo.   

> Failure to raise the so-called debt ceiling, or the statutory limit on federal debt, could drive the United States to default.  
>  The U.S. government had $14.216 trillion in total debt outstanding as of Monday, the latest available data. The cap is $14.294 trillion.  
>  The ceiling is projected to be breached in about 30 days, although the U.S. Treasury Department said it could make adjustments through early July.   http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/04/15/US-debt-ceiling-deficit-cut-talks-loom/UPI-11001302854400/

    
A nice summary here:  It Is Now Mathematically Impossible To Pay Off The U.S. National Debt 
And JuLIAR thinks if we cripple our economy with massive subsidies to failed green dream schemes that the USA and the rest of the world will follow. 
The USA will soon be in receivership to China, and green dream schemes will rightly be relegated to irrelevance.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The sheep are...as always...restless (and easily spooked).

  Spooked sheep run away.  :Scareboo:  
Brave lions stand their ground.  :Boxing:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yes i found a computer to get on for a while back next Tuesday.  See you then.

  Hope you are enjoying the rest of the trip mate.  :2thumbsup:  
It is unusually warm in Perth at the moment.  :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Freud...you probably wouldn't know a 'scientific fact' if it introduced itself to you and then bit you on the @@@@.  But you are hardly alone in that <sigh> 
> It is just unrewarding to argue with ignorance.....and I'll probably just get reprimanded anyway.   
> So it's time (yet again) to retire from the Field of Fools and return to the Real World.  I'm out.

  You can run from the thread, but you can't hide from the truth. 
The AGW hypothesis is a farce.
The Carbon Dioxide Tax is a farce. 
The truth shall set you free my friend.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Scientist Beloved by Climate Deniers Pulls Rug Out from Their Argument*  Read full article here Scientist Beloved by Climate Deniers Pulls Rug Out from Their Argument - Environment - GOOD

  So, he used the same data to get the same answer? Wow, I'm underwhelmed. 
Mate, this farce is much easier to understand when you actually read the output rather than believing wacko greenie ideology. 
Just search this thread for "effects" and "causes" and you will learn how ridiculous that article is.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I caught an interesting tidbit of info the other day, for a years normal use a small car emits roughly the same amount of co2 as a human does a year, if co2 was ever proven to be the culprit of climate change, this would place restraints on global populations eventually.
> regards inter

   The real end game for the greenie zealots is human population reduction in the billions, this way they get rid of the pesky humans and the cars they drive.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Inter, 
> Did you stop and think about this "interesting tidbit" before posting it? 
> Do you know - even roughly - how many kilograms of CO2 a litre of petrol produces?
> Do you know - again, even very approximately - how many kilograms of CO2 a typical human exhales per day or per year? 
> A quick search of the web will soon provide you with the answers.

  Rough equivalent is 10 kms driving equals 1 human breathing per day, both about 1kg (roughly). 
Per year 3650 kms equals 1 human breathing. 
If it is a fit human running and cycling more (i.e. breathing more), they can drive more equivalent kms obviously. 
I don't currently commute so my car does about this per year due to weekend use.  If you drive to work only within 5 kms of home, you also achieve equivalency, with 20kms for weekend trips.  If you drive over 10kms per day, better hit the bicycle or treadmill to breathe out your equivalency.  :Biggrin:  
Bottom line, the farcical calculations resulting from this myth is so arbitrary that it's embarrassing even making these (rough) calculations.  :Pipe1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Apologies if the truth upsets your sensibilities, but I am just quoting the real world.  If the real world is upsetting, you may want to hibernate away from all information.   
> The inglorious PM is now being seriously questioned from many quarters (including the high school kids he thought he could hide behind). 
> This clown is trying to tax me for breathing out fresh air, and he tried to cast me as some sort of child killing fiend for pointing out his assumptions were flawed. 
> If what I am posting is inaccurate, please advise me and I will recant immediately.  If you can't handle the truth, then maybe ignorance (ignoring) could be your salvation.  
> I would ignore the clown if I could, but this is like asking the British in WW2 not to mention Hitler, or the Sunni's in Baghdad in Desert Storm not to mention Bush.   
> Pretty hard to combat the enemy when political correctness and sensibilities start dictating tactics.  I think I've been fairly polite to most members, except for the occasional outburst when censorship policies  start to infiltrate. 
> But in a nutshell:    You're damn right I ordered the code RUDD!

  Greg Combet was warned.  His political and personal credibility is over due to this farce. 
I will post some info over the weekend showing how many people and interest groups detest JuLIAR's con job of a Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
If this is the result of women leading on the front bench, I can't wait to see how it works out when they're leading on the front line.  :Cry:  
Socialist prats!   

> You f---in' people. You have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did was weaken a country today, SMITH. That's all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams, son.

  A Few Good Men - Wikiquote

----------


## chrisp

> Rough equivalent is 10 kms driving equals 1 human breathing per day, both about 1kg (roughly). 
> Per year 3650 kms equals 1 human breathing.

  Using 1 litre of petrol will produce 2.28 kg of CO2.  Therefore, about 160lts of fuel equates to one human breathing for a year. 
I take it that you drive a Prius?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Using 1 litre of petrol will produce 2.28 kg of CO2.  Therefore, about 160lts of fuel equates to one human breathing for a year. 
> I take it that you drive a Prius?

  As if?  Do I sound like a brainwashed greenie? 
What a waste these greenie green dreams are:   

> With this in mind, unless you do very high mileage or have a real gas-guzzler, it generally makes sense to keep your old car for as long as it is reliable  and to look after it carefully to extend its life as long as possible. *If you make a car last to 200,000 miles rather than 100,000, then the emissions for each mile the car does in its lifetime may drop by as much as 50%, as a result of getting more distance out of the initial manufacturing emissions.*  Manufacturing a car creates as much carbon as driving it | Environment | guardian.co.uk

  Don't you see how arbitrary all these voodoo economic calculations are made by wacko greenies that have absolutely no grasp on reality.  Greenie freaks make all these calculations while we are ramping up coal and iron ore production every year to make all these new cars. 
To quote an old phrase, "Wake up and smell the coffee!".  :Coffee:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *REMEMBER actor Peter Finch's famous line from his film, Network, in 1976 when he said "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more"?                 *   
> Well that's how I feel about the corrupting of the political process in Canberra at present. 
> Sadly, the actions of some ministers are totally spoiling it for those better ministers who are working diligently in their portfolios in the public interest.
>   It has only been 10 months since the forming of the Gillard Government and I am exhausted. I feel covered in soot. 
> This is not how it was meant to be! Governments, regardless, are meant to go about their business. Yes, making hard decisions from time to time, but in the main growing a better society, in which we the community have confidence in the Government, believing it is heading in the right direction. 
>  It is anything but that right now. 
> As exhibit number one can I present their handling of the carbon tax issue. 
>  1. The Prime Minister and the Labor Party in government went to the last election promising they would not introduce a carbon tax. 
>  2. Many in the community voted for the Labor Party on that assurance. Be sure many who did vote for Labor would not have done so if Ms Gillard indicated a carbon tax was part of her policy. 
> ...

  Some minor corrections Jeff, this farce is not designed to reduce a single atom of pollution, it is designed to reduce what you breathe out, Carbon Dioxide.  So please stop referring to pollution, and call it the Carbon Dioxide Tax, not the Carbon Tax.  :2thumbsup:  
And I don't care what others say Jeff, I love your new shoes!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *THE policy incoherence of the Gillard government was deliciously captured by successive speeches during the week from two senior ministers. *                                First, Trade Minister Craig Emerson gave a ringing, if at times somewhat schoolmasterly, simplistic recitation of the benefits of international trade and in particular its liberalisation.  The striking benefits identified by Emerson were the big price falls delivered by trade liberalisation, and the boost to domestic productivity.  
> So Emerson's bottom line: the best trade policy is domestic economic reform destined to "boost the productivity and international competitiveness of Australian businesses".  
> Hear, hear. This was Emerson and a minister of the crown at his best. Emphatic and accurate.  
> Then the next day we got the exact opposite. From Greg Combet, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency -- his ministerial title itself a parody of truth.  
> Combet's title commenced and captured the speech's fatuousness and dishonesty. "Tackling climate change is in the national interest." How exactly do we tackle climate change, when nothing -- absolutely nothing -- we do can make the slightest difference to tomorrow's climate?  
> In sharp contrast to the clarity and accuracy of Emerson's speech, Combet's was littered with verbosity and the deliberate lies incumbent on campaigners like him.  
> From the 48 times he used the term "carbon pollution" to quite deliberately foster the false impression of bits of dirty grit, to the pretence that China is not embarked on dramatically increasing its absolute levels of emissions of carbon dioxide.  
> Has he, or the Prime Minister, ever thought what would happen if China actually did what they purport to want?   *Saying in Mandarin: you are of course right. The planet comes first. We'll stop buying your coal and iron ore.*   Producing CO2 is what we&#039;re good at | The Australian

  The greenies goal and wet dream is to have this as front page news all over Australia:   *China stops buying our resources.*  :Doh:  :Doh:  :Doh:   
And JuLIAR and Combet are encouraging this, knowing full well China will buy resources very easily from other countries.  
Think about that while your unemployed butt sits in the dark.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> There are many other phrases of this deceitful kind I could cite. Human rights now means fewer rights, so an activist demanding, say, a new law on free speech is actually wanting a law that curbs that speech to save certain favoured people from offence.  
>  Progressive means a retreat to tribalism, reform means to restrict, rights means a freedom from responsibility, and refugees means people fleeing nothing but poverty. 
>  Such sludge has crept on us over some time, but the latest two examples have crossed my line.  
> Let Prime Minister Julia Gillard demonstrate them both in the one sentence: _(I) will work through all options for putting a price on carbon pollution in the national interest._Enough! This phrase national interestnow babbled by Labor relentlesslymeans nothing more than Labors interest, hidden under our flag in the desperate hope you might salute what you should kick.  
>  And carbon pollution means neither carbon, that sooty stuff, nor pollution. Gillard instead means carbon dioxide, an invisible gas which plants absorb to live.  
>   So why call it carbon pollution?  
>   To make you hate a gas you should not fear. To make you vote for policies you should scorn. 
>   Its a con, and only the silver-tongued (meaning liar) could admire such an abuse of language or of truth.    Column - The real pollution is these lying words | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Greg Combet was forced to eat this --it sandwich by JuLIAR!  
I bet you're feeling a bit sick in the stomach now, eh Greg?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Ill say it again, Julia Gillard is finished and can no longer rely on the support even of the union leader who did most to install her: _Mr Howes, one of the so-called faceless men who helped elevate Ms Gillard to the prime ministership by removing support for Kevin Rudd last year, hardened his approach, declaring himself agnostic about whether a carbon tax was the best way to deal with climate change._Or put it this way:  _With his own job under threat from a hostile membership, the national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Paul Howes, demanded yesterday that the steel industry be given a complete exemption from the carbon scheme and that there be generous compensation for the aluminium, cement and glass sectors._  _Mr Howes issued the demand after a fiery crisis meeting with nine union branch secretaries from across Australia. It is understood Mr Howes, who is up for re-election before the next federal election, faced being dumped if he did not issue the demands._  _The AWU is influential in the Right faction of the ALP and was instrumental in Julia Gillards coup against Kevin Rudd last year._  _Immediately after Mr Howess announcement, he was backed by the powerful Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, which influences the partys Left_  _Tony Maher, from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, said Mr Howes has got a very good argument and I would urge the government to consider it._The union leaders must now choose: do they represent the Gillard Government to their members or their members to the Government? Specifically, do they back the Gillard Governments useless, unwanted and job-killing tax or do they fight for their members jobs? 
>  It really is as simple as that, and what you are slowly seeing is union leaders belatedly realising this as their members mutiny. 
>   UPDATE 
>   Reader Mick:   _I have just resigned from the C.F.M.E.U.(mining), after being a member for 32 years. The leadership of this union is betraying its members.It has not consulted the members on what direction should be taken concerning the carbon (DIOXIDE) price(TAX)._  _They are promoting and pushing the stupid ALP/GREENS tax. They are not concerned with job security. They are not concerned that power stations may close down. They are not concerned on the costs of living for all Australians._  _I have chosen not to be a defacto greenie.__Howes steps away from Gillard and her poisonous tax | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  
Greg Combet has spent his entire life fighting for the rights of workers and their jobs. 
Now he is willing to sacrifice them all on the greenie altar for no good reason. 
Why turn your back on those who put you where you are Greg? 
It's never a good idea to walk all over the people who raised you up. 
Give it up now and you may win back some of your integrity. 
Or you can keep swallowing the --it sandwich JuLIAR is feeding you.  She has a plenty more where that came from, the Baker Bob Brown delivers them daily for your consumption.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Greg Combet this week gave two examples in arguing how little the carbon dioxide tax would hurt business:   _Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said under CPRS-level assistance and a $20 a tonne carbon price, the steel industry faced a $2.60 hike in the cost of making a tonne of steel, which currently sells at $800._  _He said the aluminium industry would face an additional cost of $18.70 a tonne, out of a price of about $2500 a tonne._Wrong, says Bluescope Steel:   _ Bluescope Steel chief Paul OMallley says Department of Environment data shows the Government will collect more then three times the figure Mr Combet presented in his climate change speech yesterday._  _We are at a loss to explain how Minister Combet has calculated a year-one carbon cost of $2.60 per tonne of steel, Mr OMalley said, arguing that calculations the company undertook using Environment Department data showed a carbon cost of more than $8 per tonne of steel...._  _If you include costs passed through from suppliers, including inputs such as coal, this figure would rise to more than five times the Ministers calculation for year one._Wrong, says the Australian Aluminium Council:  _AAC executive director Miles Prosser said Mr Combets analysis was misleading...._  _(Mr Combets) simple calculations miss many of the costs of a carbon pricing regime, including higher pass through of electricity costs, higher domestic gas costs and any caps or constraints on permit allocation to industry._I think the Gillard Government is now in a credibility hell, where no one believes any longer a word it says.   Who trusts Combet on anything to do with this ludicrous tax? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Sorry Greg, you should have studied politics more before you entered it. 
You're what's known as the bunny.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *THE Gillard government has been warned that union support will be withdrawn from Labor's campaign to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions if it looks like "one job" will be lost because of the proposed carbon tax. *  			 		 		Australia's biggest manufacturing union has called on the government to urgently release details of its protection for industry and householders under a carbon tax, in the face of a growing workers' revolt on the workshop floor, where union officials are being challenged and jeered for supporting Julia Gillard's plan.  
> As Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes prepared for a crisis meeting of union officials today to discuss the impact of the carbon tax, he said his union wanted to ensure that "this carbon price won't cost a single job".  
> Mr Howes, who went on television the night Kevin Rudd was removed as prime minister to declare his union's support for Ms Gillard as the coup was unfolding, told The Australian last night: *"If one job is gone, our support is gone."*  
> In response to questions about today's meeting of AWU branch secretaries in Sydney, Mr Howes said he had attended six mass meetings of workers in the past 10 days and was facing angry demands to take action.  
> "I now appreciate just how upset workers are about the carbon tax," he said.  Key union puts Julia Gillard on notice over carbon tax | The Australian

  I don't think JuLIAR and Combet appreciate how upset Australian's are Paul. 
They will find out at the next election, just like the clowns in NSW Labor did.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *WEST Australian Opposition Leader Eric Ripper has suggested the federal government's proposed carbon tax is responsible for his poor showing in the latest Newspoll.  * If you look at the duration of that poll it was conducted over a three-month period ... when the federal government announced a price on carbon, Mr Ripper told Fairfax Radio.  WA Labor leader Eric Ripper cites carbon tax in poll slump | The Australian

  Your lies are killing Labor across the nation JuLIAR.  Watch your back.  You know what can happen all too well!

----------


## Dr Freud

> *How much compensation? Greg Combet on ABC online, March 7: * _Every dollar_ that is raised by the payment of a carbon price by the companies emitting large amounts of pollution _will be used towards supporting households_, with an emphasis on pensioners and low-income households.   *Think of a number. ABC Radio's AM, March 10:* 
> Minister for Regional Australia Simon Crean: We will ensure that the compensation is totally adequate.  
> Journalist Bronwyn Herbert: What defines totally adequate?  
> Crean: The fact that _we will return all of the money raised to people_ through the tax mechanism.   *Halve it. Combet on ABC AM yesterday:* 
> What we're making clear today is that more than _50 per cent of the carbon price revenue will be used to assist households_ and that we expect that millions of households will be better off under the carbon price arrangements and the assistance will be permanent. This is important and obviously as a Labor government we're concerned to help lower-middle income households as much as we can.  Well at least someone is prepared to stand up for the rights of the rhetorically retarded | The Australian

  
Remember people, that LIE was the good news.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> "It has price impacts. It's meant to, that's the whole point," Ms Gillard said. "If you put a price on something, then people will use less of it."  Gillard&#039;s greenhouse tax to push prices higher | Courier Mail

  So hang on JuLIAR, prices going up means people use electricity less. 
But you will give them MORE money than the price rises, so they can use MORE electricity and pay your compensation back to the electricity company.  So it has NO price impacts. 
So they will burn more coal as their Carbon Dioxide Tax costs are being paid by the taxpayer, who is being paid by your government, who is getting this money from the taxpayer.  :Doh:  
Now while it's very stupid, I get that bit.   
I'm really confused about the bit where the Planet Earth cools down.  :Confused:  :Confused:  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Just how stupid does the prime minister and her climate minister think you are? Pretty damn stupid has to be the answer. 
> She then managed to say with a straight face: "That means millions of Australian households will be better off under a carbon price." 
> Combet seems well suited to this. I don't think I've seen any previous minister who has managed to so seamlessly combine the most basic stupidity and the most shameless dishonesty. While at the same time demonstrating he actually doesn't have a clue that's what he is doing! 
> The stupidity and dishonesty is also captured and projected in the claim that on the one hand "only" the so-called big polluters will pay. But about half of you will be "compensated", indeed over-compensated.  
> Compensated for what? If only the polluters are paying?  
> Further Combet - and Gillard - continue to tell lies about China. They must know they are lying. But again incredibly, they also appear to believe what they say - having a bizarre ability to "not see" all the new coal-fired power stations that China is opening. 
> That a government could be so inept in both political and policy terms is almost beyond belief.  
> Except it is happening, right out there before your eyes in plain view, personified and projected by Gillard and Combet.    
> They are starting to make Bob Brown look like the voice of reason and sanity.   Combet, Gillard and Brown are trying to sell us a used tax | Herald Sun

  Do you remember the good old days when we had a functioning adult government and we had the luxury of criticising what they did with their surpluses???    

> *Key Budgetary measures*
>  The following initiatives were announced by the Treasurer:  Personal tax cuts comprising of lower personal income tax rates and higher income thresholds from 1 July 2006Major superannuation reforms from 1 July 2007 estimated to cost $6.2 billion over 4 years. Superannuation benefits paid from taxed funds to taxpayers aged 60 and over will be exempt from tax. Other proposed modifications will limit post-tax contributions to $150,000 a year, remove the compulsory drawing of superannuation amounts, and permit the self employed to claim a full tax deduction for their superannuation contributions and be eligible for the Government's super co-contributionTaxes on small business will be cut by $435 million over four years to reduce compliance costs for small business and increase access to small business tax relief arrangements and CGT concessionsThe FBT rate will be reduced from 48.5% to 46.5% effective from 1 April 2006 and other FBT concessions will be madeThe diminishing value rate for depreciating assets increased from 150 per cent to 200 per cent. Companies will now be able to write of plant and equipment at a faster rate for all eligible assets acquired on or after 10 May 2006. The measure is worth $3.7 billion over 4 yearsNew Apprenticeships Centres to receive an additional $107 million to increase contact by Centres with apprentices and their employers and provide assistance to encourage retention and completion.New road and critical rail transport infrastructure spendingIntroduction of an early stage venture capital limited partnership investment vehicle providing investors with a complete tax exemption on capital and revenue gainsAdditional $200 million for the Innovation Investment Fund which helps small companies commercialise their research workExtra 25,000 childcare places and the removal of limits on government funded placesExtension of family tax benefitsAdditional funding to promote medical researchDeferment of an increase in the present 19.6 cents a litre heavy vehicles road user charge, which was to have taken effect from 1 July 2006A new $1.1 billion measure to introduce a new "access card" for health and social services to replace 17 existing cards and vouchers *Budget Forecasts*
>  The budget is forecasting an underlying budget surplus of $10.8 billion for financial year 2006-2007 and $10.6 billion for the following year. The expenditure side of the budget is forecast to increase from 21.6 per cent of GDP in 2005-2006 to 21.8 per cent by 2006-2007, while revenues are forecast to decline from 23.3 per cent of GDP during 2005-2006 to 23.0 per cent of GDP for 2006-2007.
>  Economic growth is expected to rise to 3.25 per cent with growth forecast to be driven by business investment, household expenditure, government expenditure and exports.
>  Inflation is forecast to remain within the Reserve Bank target range averaging 2.75 per cent during 2006-2007 financial year.
>  Wage growth is expected to remain unchanged at 4.0 per cent.  PrintNet | Huge Budget Surplus Delivers Tax Relief

  Seems like a different country, huh?

----------


## Dr Freud

You may ask why they are pushing all these taxes so much.  Mining taxes, flood taxes, Carbon Dioxide Taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes, taxes on taxes on taxes??? 
Someone has to pay back all this DEBT from useless spending and waste.  JuLIAR has nominated you!  :Biggrin:    
This is an old graph that only went to $130 billion. 
It is currently about $190 billion and rising every day. 
Cool huh!  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Former Al Gore senior aide Leslie Dach dared to dream:  _In July 2006, Dach was installed as the public relations chief for Wal-Mart. He drafted a number of other progressives into the company, seeking to change the companys way of doing business: its culture, its politics, and most importantly its products._  _Out went drab, inexpensive merchandise so dear to low-income Americans. In came upscale organic foods, green products, trendy jeans, and political correctness. In other words, Dach sought to expose poor working Americans to the good life of the wealthy, environmentally conscious Prius driver._  How did that all work out?  _After suffering seven straight quarters of losses, today the merchandise giant Wal-Mart will announce that it is going back to basics, ending its era of high-end organic foods, going green, and the remainder of its appeal to the upscale market. Next month the company will launch an Its Back campaign to woo the millions of customers who have fled the store._  Further from the _Wall Street Journal_:  _Starting in May, Wal-Mart shoppers in the U.S. will see signs in stores heralding the return of fishing tackle, bolts of fabric and other heritage merchandise that Wal-Mart reduced or cut out altogether as it attempted to spruce up its stores ..._  Theres a lesson here for all manner of mass-consumer businesses.   GORE STORE NO MORE | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog

  The American's have figured out it is better to make money and pay back their debt rather than lose money in failed green dream schemes to make greenies feel better about themselves. 
Which way will Australia go? 
You vote, you decide.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Do we learn from their mistakes, or make the same mistakes ourselves?   

> Julia Gillard last month claimed we had to back her carbon dioxide tax if we wanted to keep up with the rest of the world:    _Already 32 countries have emissions trading schemes. 10 American states do as well. They havent waited for action at the national level, they are acting themselves._ _Er, they are? In fact, those 10 states could soon be just seven:_    _The goal of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is to make polluters pay while raising millions of dollars for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects_  _But now, some lawmakers in three states  New Hampshire, Maine, and New Jersey  want to get out of RGGI_  _Legislation to repeal New Hampshires participation in RGGI recently passed the house, but has yet to pass the Senate_  _Critics of the program point out that New Hampshire, New Jersey and New York diverted some of that RGGI revenue to fill their budget gaps_  _In Maine, Republican Senator Tom Saviello is sponsoring a bill that would withdraw his state from RGGI._  _We need to ask this question, number one do we want to put the extra cost on our electricity, and number two if these energy efficient projects are that good, which everybody says they are, well then a business should be willing to put their own money into it, why should we be subsidizing that_  _ New Jerseys Governor is also talking about withdrawing from RGGI Anthony Leiserowitz, with the Yale University Project on Climate Change, says if New Jersey steps out it could deal a death blow to RGGI._ _ 10 green states, hanging on a wall, but if one green state were to… | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

   
JuLIAR is a joke!!! 
Combet will be the punch line.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

JuLIAR spends massive taxpayer dollars on this clown to promote reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions, but he's paid more money to spruik air travel and electrical equipment.       

> Panasonic Australia Managing Director Steve Rust interviews Panasonic Chair in Environmental Sustainability Tim Flannery about Panasonic  and, despite it being the most awkwardly shot and edited conversation in media history, extracts a surprising admission:  
> Says Flannery: _Ive also been carrying the flag for Panasonic in everything else I do, the books I publish, in the television series that Im making at the moment, and of course in the new position as the chief of the Climate Commission._  So Flannery is carrying the flag for his multinational sponsor in a television series to be aired on the ABC and paid for with your taxes. Is this, to use Jonathan Holmess phrase, appropriate?    
>   More seriously, Flannery is also carrying the flag for Panasonic in his four-year, $720,000 government role as the head of Julia Gillards Climate Commission. Although Flannery declared his Panasonic interests prior to accepting the Climate Commission post, that presumably wouldnt cover any ongoing Panasonic promotion  if thats an accurate way to describe corporate flag carrying  during his tax-funded talks around Australia. Tim Flaggery might have some questions to answer.   PROFESSOR PANASONIC | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog

  Flim Flam must think Aussies are brain-dead to spruik this cr@p. 
Buy a "green" 54 inch plasma.  Remember to turn it off at the wall now.   :Doh:  
And when you fly my airline, remember to offset. :Doh:  
Who can take anything this clown says seriously?

----------


## Dr Freud

Greg Combet is starting to feel like the kid who cr@ps his pants at school.  Everyone starts to smell the stink and slowly moves away.  The down side is that this is Bob Browns lump that JuLIAR stuffed in his trousers.   

> *Mr Howes* warned the Government would lose his union's support if there was just one job lost as a result of the tax.  *
>  OneSteel* has now joined in on the criticism, saying competition in the steel industry is very fierce and it does not have the protection of trade barriers.  
>  Its chief, *Geoff Plummer*, says he is not confident the Federal Government understands how a carbon tax would affect the industry. 
> "The [Climate Change] Minister's ruled out any sort of border taxes or border measures, so what you're really saying is, 'we'll tax Australian production, we won't tax offshore production'. It has to be detrimental to jobs and the Australian industry."  *Council of Trade Unions president Ged Kearney* says the Government needs to do more to explain how business will be affected, including "how jobs are going to be protected and what the future of those industries are in Australia in a low carbon economy." 
>  "Give those industries some assurances that they have a plan," he added. 
>  Earlier in the week, the head of *BlueScope Steel* voiced his concerns over the carbon tax. *CEO Paul O'Malley* told New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell that thousands of jobs would go if the tax was introduced.  *The Opposition* says jobs will move offshore under a carbon tax and that the Government should ask the Treasury to model how the carbon tax will affect Australian jobs.   Steelmaker echoes calls for carbon compo - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  Hey Greg, the stench is overwhelming now.  Grab that lump and throw it back to Bob Brown where it belongs.   :Fart2:

----------


## Dr Freud

You are supposed to make our country better, not destroy it!   

> Just as Rudd's policy failure morphed into a questioning of his political ability and leadership, so is the union frustration with the failure to sell properly the carbon tax becoming a wider political issue for Gillard. 
> While Howes is prone to hyperbole, his declaration - if one job went, so would the AWU's support for a carbon tax - in The Australian yesterday has struck a responsive chord, even though the modelling on the original scheme warned there would be job losses.  
> Combet's offer to householders didn't stop him being jeered at a steelworks, as unions and industry fear the Greens' demands on how to use the carbon tax revenue - to the extent of suggesting it should be used to build aged-care facilities - mean there's at least an estimated $800 million less on the table for industry protection from job losses than there was in 2009. 
> This is why unions and affected industries are speaking out: they are being told to speak out and act in their workers' interests. Tony Abbott's visit to steel mills and cement plants has allowed him not only to challenge Gillard and the carbon tax but also the union leadership for not speaking out in defence of jobs.  
> The union movement is using brute public force to get Gillard to appreciate the depth of community opposition to the carbon tax because of workers' concerns about their jobs. The unions, particularly the king and queen-makers of the AWU, are flexing their policy and political muscle as backbiting within the cabinet get worse as Labor's heartland rebels.
> There is the risk for the Gillard government that so much ground has been lost, so many groups turned into enemies, that union, industry and community demands will be impossible to meet and no amount of compensation can bridge the divide between faith and fear.   Jobs concern hardens carbon tax opposition | The Australian

  What an absolute mess!

----------


## Dr Freud

They need the weed, but the weed needs the power and extra CO2.  They want to remove the power and the CO2 but need more weed.  Oh dear, what to do now???  :Roflmao2:    

> In Australia, weve already seen a split in the ranks of the Greens because of disagreements about policies regarding Israel.
>  Looks like things aint going to get much better for our freaked-out furry friends, following the release of this report, The carbon footprint of indoor cannabis production.
>  It might sound like a joke, but this brief paper is full of some serious revelations:following the legalization of cultivation for medical purposes in California in 1996, Humboldt County experienced a 50% rise in per-capita residential electricity use compared to other areas.9 Cultivation is today legal in 17 states, albeit not federally sanctioned. In California, 400,000 individuals are authorized to grow Cannabis for personal medical use, or sale to 2,100 dispensaries.  Official estimates of total U.S. production varied from 10,000 to 24,000 metric tons per year in 2001, making it the nations largest crop by value
>  Driving the large energy requirements of indoor production facilities are lighting levels matching those found in hospital operating rooms (500-times greater than recommended for reading) and 30 hourly air changes (6-times the rate in high-tech laboratories, and 60- times the rate in a modern home). Resulting electricity intensities are 200 watts per squarefoot, which is on a par with modern datacenters.In fact, each cannabis joint produced indoors has a carbon footprint of about one whole kilogram. Not only does the author, Dr Evan Mills note that the production of cannabis indoors produces huge demand for energy, he also writes:Indoor carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are often raised to four-times natural levels in order to boost plant growth.You mean, more carbon dioxide means more dope? Now theres something to make a hippies head spin. Dr Mills concludes:Current indoor Cannabis production and distribution practices result in prodigious energy use, costs, and greenhouse-gas pollution. The hidden growth of electricity demand in this sector confounds energy forecasts and obscures savings from energy efficiency programs and policies.Where does this leave the Greens policy of introducing cannabis for medical use? Do they believe indoor cannabis producers should be compensated under a carbon tax?  The carbon footprint of indoor cannabis production | Asian Correspondent

  It ain't easy being green!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

The UN has been discredited so many times that it's becoming the new benchmark for imbecilic socialist policies.   

> The United Nations Environment Programme has tried to erase one of its glaring failed predictions about climate refugees by removing a a map from its website purporting to show where 50 million climate refugees will come from by 2010.
>  After _Asian Correspondent_ reviewed its findings earlier this week, the story has been linked to by websites around the world such as Investor News, American Spectator and was referred to in yesterdays _Australian_ newspaper and even got a mention on Fox News.
>  However, the website which is maintained by GRID-Arendal, an official United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) collaborating centre, has now deleted the map.
>  Whats more, the error message dishonestly claims:Dear visitor, it seems like the map you are navigating by is maybe not fully up-to-date, or that it might have an error in it, or is it that your GPS is not loaded with the correct data?However, if you are quick, you may yet be able to download a copy via google cache here.
>  In 2007, UN Under-Secretary General and Head of the UNEP, Aachim Steiner told a conference in Africa:So I have initiated a number of reforms that will begin in the next few weeks.
>  Some however have already begun in terms of looking at how we can improve the transparency and accountability of this institutionHe also received the Steiger Award for straight-forwardness, honesty, fairness and helpfulness.
>  Is the deletion of this map without adequate explanation an example of Mr Steiners transparency and accountability? I will be emailing him to seek a response.
>  Thanks are due to US blogger, Aaron Worthing from Pattericos Pontification for alerting me to the UNs deceit. Aaron has also taken some screen shots of the map the UN doesnt want you to see, which I have attempted to replicate below. To leave no doubt about what the map shows, it is titled Fifty million climate refugees by 2010″.       Cover up: UN tries to erase failed climate refugee prediction | Asian Correspondent

  It is good that all of this baseless scaremongering of the last few years is being shown for the LIES that they now clearly are. 
Dodgy data, dodgy scientists, kick backs and hand outs, what a rort! 
The rest of the world hasn't fallen for it, but JuLIAR wants Aussies to pay for these LIES. 
She is a joke and must go!!!

----------


## chrisp

> *Scientist Beloved by Climate Deniers Pulls Rug Out from Their Argument*  Read full article here Scientist Beloved by Climate Deniers Pulls Rug Out from Their Argument - Environment - GOOD

  *Berkeley Earth Project*
For those of you who are not aware of it, there is a project afoot to study all the temperature records in the world with the aim of "to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to  prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further  criticism or suggestions."  See Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011)  
This team has been receiving considerable sponsorship from the AGW-denialists amongst others.  (see Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011) ). 
The project has released some preliminary findings:   

> Figure: Land average temperatures from the three major programs, compared with an initial test of the Berkeley Earth dataset and analysis process. Approximately 2 percent of the available sites were chosen randomly from the complete set of 39,028 sites. The Berkeley data are marked as preliminary because they do not include treatments for the reduction of systematic bias.
> from: http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resourc..._31_March_2011

  *Conspiracy or Bias in the research world?*
The Muller Testimony ( http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resourc..._31_March_2011 ) also looked into bias in the temperature records.  Here are some more quotes:   

> *We have also studied station quality. Many US stations have low quality rankings according to a study led by Anthony Watts. However, we find that the warming seen in the poor stations is virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the good stations.*

   

> Many temperature stations in the U.S. are located near buildings, in parking lots, or close to heat sources. Anthony Watts and his team has shown that most of the current stations in the US Historical Climatology Network would be ranked poor by NOAAs own standards, with error uncertainties up to 5 degrees C.  *Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming? Weve studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no.* 
> The Berkeley Earth analysis shows that over the past 50 years the poor stations in the U.S. network do not show greater warming than do the good stations.

  The results - and the report - so far are preliminary.  The Berkeley Earth Project will be interesting to watch.

----------


## andy the pm

Just in case your sick of reading the verbal diarrhea from Doc Fraud...  *Carbon still fires up industry*  
April 17, 2011      *Key players are making their case for a waiver but experts say it'll only hurt a bit, writes Melissa Fyfe.*    
Read more: Carbon still fires up industry

----------


## intertd6

> Inter, 
> Did you stop and think about this "interesting tidbit" before posting it?  Stop? For that to happen I would have top start first.  
> Do you know - even roughly - how many kilograms of CO2 a litre of petrol produces?  Yes, for an average small car 
> Do you know - again, even very approximately - how many kilograms of CO2 a typical human exhales per day or per year?  Yes, it seems you maybe using resting / asleep 1st world human data for your sums, 
> A quick search of the web will soon provide you with the answers.  Depends what answers your after

  regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

I moved from Tamworth down to Dungog today, a few days work around here then home for Easter. Abbott must be doing his bit to stop global warming, he passed through here on his pushbike last Friday. Got his picture in the Dungog Chronicle, page 5; the big stories of the week took up the front pages, a new pedestrian crossing outside the old folks home and a vintage car rally both rated higher than Abbotts visit. A few pages further on is a story about a farmer who now restores tractors for a living. He is probably not worried about the carbon tax as his farming business was destroyed by the dairy industry deregulation years ago. I remember that at the time many farmers claimed that the whole dairy deregulation process and industry assistance package was botched by the Howard govt. Landline - 27/06/2004: Dairy farmers rue deregulation. Australian Broadcasting Corp 
Of course job losses never happened under a Liberal govt, programs never got botched and they never ever imposed a great big tax on everything. Well not in Docs reality it never happened anyway. And it is important that we don't move to a low carbon economy as it is important we keep sending oil money to the middle east. Gaddafi and his mates depend on us. The right to drive a V8 is one of the cornerstones of democracy. A govt that tells you what type of light bulbs you have to use is much more evil than one that tells you what sort of gun you can have. 
I don't pretend that the Gilliard govt has got this properly sorted but at least they understand what the problem is. I don't believe Abbott does. A logging truck on Thunderbolts Way could have done the Liberal Party a big favour.

----------


## chrisp

> I caught an interesting tidbit of info the other day, for a years normal use a small car emits roughly the same amount of co2 as a human does a year, if co2 was ever proven to be the culprit of climate change, this would place restraints on global populations eventually.
> regards inter

   

> Do you know - even roughly - how many kilograms of CO2 a litre of petrol produces?  Yes, for an average small car 
> Do you know - again, even very approximately - how many kilograms of CO2 a typical human exhales per day or per year?  Yes, it seems you maybe using resting / asleep 1st world human data for your sums, 
> A quick search of the web will soon provide you with the answers.  Depends what answers your after

  If you accept the Doc's 1kg CO2/person/day which equals 365kg CO2/person/year, all you'd need to do is use about 160 litres of fuel (it won't matter waht sized car) and you have equaled a human breathing for one year.  The Doc stated that driving 3650km equaled one human breathing for a year.  I figured he must drive a Prius to do that mileage - but he took offense at that! 
Mind you, he also thought human lungs contain 70% CO2! - so we all know he is absolutely crap at science.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Berkeley Earth Project*
> For those of you who are not aware of it, there is a project afoot to study all the temperature records in the world with the aim of "to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions." See Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011)  
> This team has been receiving considerable sponsorship from the AGW-denialists amongst others.  (see Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011) ). 
> The project has released some preliminary findings:  *Conspiracy or Bias in the research world?*
> The Muller Testimony ( http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resourc..._31_March_2011 ) also looked into bias in the temperature records.  Here are some more quotes: 
> The results - and the report - so far are preliminary.  The Berkeley Earth Project will be interesting to watch.

   

> So, he used the same data to get the same answer? Wow, I'm underwhelmed.

  Obviously I need to expand this a little.  He is only using the surface temperature data.  The key to not being duped is to look at what people are *not* saying and what they are *not* doing. 
Did you ask why this review is deliberately ignoring the most accurate, comprehensive and contemporary data we have?  Radiosondes and satellites are ignored in this data review. Why? 
Here's a clue why:   
Surface data - in.
Satellite data - out.
Radiosonde data - out. 
Can you work it out?  :Doh:     

> Just search this thread for "effects" and "causes" and you will learn how ridiculous that article is.

  And again, these records are measuring effects.  We certainly need much more accuracy and standardisation of them globally, as we have been getting with radiosondes and satellites.  The surface records are notoriously flawed as already admitted in this preliminary review.  And it is good that he recognises the great work from Watts showing just some of these flaws:   

> Here is the comparison of raw rural and urban data: 
>  And here is the comparison of adjusted rural and urban data:

  Cool adjustments huh?  They just take the cooler data and make it warmer.  When all of this data corruption is uncovered in the decades to come, future statisticians will look back at this with utter contempt. 
But the reason he isn't concerned about figuring out what the causes of these effects may be is that he already assumes the warming is caused by humans CO2 emissions.  He is even so bold as to assume an amount.  I have asked you people to quantify "most" warming, but you sensibly have never tried.  He just plucks 0.6 of the 0.7 out of his @rse.  He just assumes nature is taking care of the other 0.1.  Just because you're a physicist, it doesn't mean you just get to make --it up.  :No:  
But yes, it will be good to clarify much more accurately exactly what effects we are dealing with.  This will no doubt assist in attributing proportions of these effects to the causes if we can prove them sometime in the future.   
But if he is like you AGW hypothesis supporters and is willing to believe psychic computers output, rather than work towards uncovering empirical evidence, then his findings will be treated with the usual contempt.  :Biggrin:  
Can't wait for his "peer-reviewed" paper to appear.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

> Just in case your sick of reading the verbal diarrhea from Doc Fraud...  *Carbon still fires up industry*  
> April 17, 2011   *Key players are making their case for a waiver but experts say it'll only hurt a bit, writes Melissa Fyfe.* 
> Read more: Carbon still fires up industry

  People delivering the pain often say that it'll only hurt a bit.  Strangely, I've never heard the person taking it say this.  :No:  
But it's endearing how you ignore both the workers and the employers in the actual business, but rather trust some academic "expert" doing research on industry averages. 
Did he use a psychic computer too? 
Here's a cool thought:   

> *Idiom Definitions for 'At the coalface'* 
>                                                                                                               If you work at the coalface, you deal with the real problems and issues, rather than sitting in a office discussing things in a detached way.

  Oh the irony!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Abbott must be doing his bit to stop global warming, he passed through here on his pushbike last Friday.

  Damn environmental vandal, breathing out all that extra Carbon Dioxide.  How dare he???   

> I remember that at the time many farmers *claimed* that the whole dairy deregulation process and industry assistance package was botched by the Howard govt.

  They can claim whatever they want.  I am buying milk today produced by local Australian Dairy farmers for $1 a litre.  Are you even trying to compare this to the Carbon Dioxide Tax and electricity prices and manufacturing industry jobs?  Do you seriously believe there will be comparable electricity prices in 7 years time after the Carbon Dioxide Tax starts ramping up? 
If you care that much about milk, I'm sure one of these submissions was yours:  Parliament of Australia: Senate: Committees: Economics Committee: The impacts of supermarket price decisions on the dairy industry    

> Of course job losses never happened under a Liberal govt, programs never got botched and they never ever imposed a great big tax on everything. Well not in Docs reality it never happened anyway.

  Are you seriously trying to compare the Rudd/JuLIAR monetary and fiscal policies to the Howard/Costello years?  :Doh:  
The Howard government made mistakes, as all governments do. 
This current government is a mistake!  :Biggrin:    

> And it is important that we don't move to a low carbon economy as it is important we keep sending oil money to the middle east.

  Why is it important that we move to a "low carbon economy", whatever the hell that is?  Does that mean buying "green" 54 inch plasma tv's from Tim Flannery, or "offsetting" as we jet around the world like him?  :Doh:  
And Combet is allegedly exempting fuel from the Carbon Dioxide Tax, so no change to oil purchases.  You've gotta get with the program dude.   

> Gaddafi and his mates depend on us. The right to drive a V8 is one of the cornerstones of democracy.

  Yes and yes.  :Biggrin:    

> A govt that tells you what type of light bulbs you have to use is much more evil than one that tells you what sort of gun you can have.

  Geez, Howard did both!  :Shock:  
He was right about the guns and wrong about the light bulbs.  I told you he made mistakes.  :Biggrin:    

> I don't pretend that the Gilliard govt has got this properly sorted but at least they understand what the problem is.

   :Roflmao2:  
If they understood what the problem was, they'd sack themselves.   

> I don't believe Abbott does.

  He understands just fine that there are still many Australians that have been duped into believing this farce, and the political reality is he has to appease the majority of constituents in order to win the next election.  He has chosen an option that has tangible environmental outcomes with no economic damage in the short term, but can be very easily wound back in the medium term when this farce fades into irrelevance. 
And he rides a bicycle.  :2thumbsup:    

> A logging truck on Thunderbolts Way could have done the Liberal Party a big favour.

  Lucky you didn't say this about Tony Windsor or Andrew Wilkie.  Those princesses would have gone running to the media crying about "death threats".  Big girls! 
But Tony Abbott is Chuck Norris tough, he's already scared a truck off the road.  :Boxing:

----------


## Dr Freud

> If you accept the Doc's 1kg CO2/person/day which equals 365kg CO2/person/year, all you'd need to do is use about 160 litres of fuel (it won't matter waht sized car) and you have equaled a human breathing for one year.

  Roughly.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):    

> The Doc stated that driving 3650km equaled one human breathing for a year.

  Roughly.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):    

> I figured he must drive a Prius to do that mileage - but he took offense at that!

  I don't - and I did!  And I pointed out why due to the futility of it.  When wacko greenies start making futile calculations accounting for who the hell knows what, it deflects from the fact the entire topic is farcical.  It is like arguing whether the tooth fairy has pink wings or white wings.  But I know you guys much prefer talking about semantics rather than admitting this AGW hypothesis you support is an absolute farce.  The solution you support being the Carbon Dioxide Tax can't even be called a farce any more, I'm trying to come up with a name that does it an injustice.  :Biggrin:    

> Mind you, he also thought human lungs contain 70% CO2! - so we all know he is absolutely crap at science.

  Geez, you must be upset to drag this old song and dance back.  Like I've said before, if you go back and read all posts, you will see exactly what it is I said, and all the clarifications after all your continued earlier bleatings.  As I also said before, if you still don't undertstand the detailed clarifications, then it is not my problem.  Woodbe understood it just fine and accepted it after I rebutted one of his assumptions on the topic.  Obviously you never got this. 
But again, as for all your continued semantic distractions, start new threads on haematology, smoking, butterflies, corporate funding, small car fuel efficiency, CO2e arbitrary calculations, or whatever you feel like, and I will happily argue these topics in much more detail. 
But what are the odds you will ever provide empirical evidence proving the AGW hypothesis?  :No:  
What are the odds you will ever provide even one loony who thinks a tax in Australia will cool down the Planet Earth?  :No:  
Keep the semantic distractions coming champ, they certainly highlight the end of the line for your argument.  SBD realised this when he ran out of excuses and also quit.  When reality bites, it bites hard.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

What do you do when business tells you your policy will bankrupt them and ruin Australia's economy? 
Bully them and censor them of course!!!   

> *Business warned to stop carbon tax attack* 
> Climate Change Minister Greg Combet is putting pressure on businesses to stop making public claims about the carbon tax and instead negotiate privately with the Government. 
> "People need to sit down at the table seriously, do their sums and work carefully with the Government on the design of the arrangements that are of importance to business," he said.  Business warned to stop carbon tax attack - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  Er Greg, how do they "do their sums" with no numbers???  :Doh:    

> Nationals Senate Leader Barnaby Joyce has told ABC1's Insiders program there is now wide community consensus against the tax.  
>  The more the Labor Government pursue this issue the more they're peeling off their own people," he said.
>  "I have to say Mr Paul Howes he's had a dramatic turn of fortune lately, he seems to be listening to his own membership. 
>  "Paul, quite obviously jobs are going to be lost. *It would be insane to suggest jobs aren't going to be lost."*

  Who would be that insane?   

> Treasurer Wayne Swan says the carbon tax will not necessarily lead to job losses.

   :Doh:  :Doh:  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

He spruiks plasma tv's, frivoulous air travel, and wastefully buying new cars while your old one is perfectly satisfactory. 
And he flies around the planet trying to convince others to stop flying around the planet. 
Now, here's a Prius Person.   

> Tim Blair discovers Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery is actually being sponsored by Big Electricity. Well, by Panasonic at least. 
>   So does he want us to switch on or switch off?  
>   UPDATE 
>   If you think thats the most bizarre kind of sponsorship deal for a professional warmist, try this: _Australias most famous environmentalist, Tim Flannery, has lent his name to a scheme by the worlds most infamous self-publicist, Richard Branson, to burn untold tonnes of greenhouse gases so rich people can become space tourists._  _Flannery will speak at a promotional event for Virgin Galactic at the Powerhouse Museum on Tuesday._ Then theres his Toyota deal:     Another nice little earner for our Alarmist of the Year | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

    
Nope, I'm definitely not a Prius person.

----------


## Dr Freud

How many people have to say it before she believes it?  

> *Food giants join war on carbon tax*    *BUSINESS opposition to Julia Gillard's carbon tax has intensified, with food and grocery producers falling into line with miners to warn the levy could destroy jobs and slash living standards. *                                And negotiations between the government and business appear close to flashpoint, as seven out of the government's hand-picked 15-member industry advisory group have signed a letter to the Prime Minister warning the tax could drive investment overseas.  
> Corporate tempers flared yesterday as Climate Change Minister Greg Combet urged business leaders they were "better off inside the room" and should keep talking to the government over the implementation of the carbon tax, due to take effect from July 1 next year.  
> But yesterday it was revealed that 19 food and grocery manufacturers had joined the resistance, alongside mining and power companies, to sign a letter to Ms Gillard warning of dire consequences if the tax was not carefully designed.  
> Companies represented included Goodman Fielder, George Weston Foods, Nestle Australia, CSR, Laucke Flour Mills, Yakult Australia and Bundaberg Sugar.  
> Crucially, seven of the signatories -- mainly from mining companies -- went public despite their membership of the government's business roundtable, which is advising Ms Gillard on the design of the tax.  
> "This could lead to a perverse outcome whereby global greenhouse gas emissions actually increase as market share or new investment shifts to nations using less-efficient production methods."  
> Australian Food and Grocery Council chief executive Kate Carnell said imported food and grocery items produced overseas without the imposition of carbon taxes would be cheaper than locally produced products facing the carbon tax through their supply chains.  
> "These products are already relatively cheaper as a result of the high Australian dollar, so the proposed carbon tax will just make Australian products less competitive, and that will cost jobs," Ms Carnell said last night.  
> "Whatever decision is made, the government must ensure that Australian-manufactured food and groceries will not be made less competitive as a result of the carbon tax."  
> ...

  If JuLIAR doesn't dump the tax, Labor will dump her.  If they don't, voters will dump the lot of them.  :Biggrin:

----------


## andy the pm

*The industries that cried wolf* 
April 18, 2011 Dr Richard Denniss
The introduction of a carbon price in Australia in July 2012 will raise more than $10 billion per year, help influence industrial and household decision making and, inevitably, increase the costs and reduce the profits of some businesses. Such increases in cost and the subsequent change in behaviour are, of course, the objective of introducing a carbon price.  
Prime Ministers John Howard, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have all stated their belief that Australia needs to introduce a carbon price to help curb greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this, small sections of Australian business that represent a large percentage of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions continue to express surprise and alarm at the prospect. For example, the managing director of Brickworks, Mr Lindsay Partridge, argues that:
The end result will be an exodus of manufacturing industries and investment offshore, jobs will be lost, the cost of housing will increase and there will be no change to carbon emissions. The sooner the current plan is abandoned the better. 
Similarly, the Chairman of BlueScope recently stated:
The implementation of such a carbon tax in its current form runs a high risk of the steel industry reaching a tipping point where it will no longer be able to maintain the investment required for viable production in Australia. This may mean moving future investment offshore. The broader impact would be devastating for Australian manufacturing across the value chain, and for working families, particularly in regional areas.  
These comments by the representatives of some of Australia's largest polluters are likely to leave their audience in little doubt that the introduction of a carbon price will destroy the Australian economy. But should these comments be believed?  
This paper places the claims being made about the likely impact of the introduction of a carbon price into a broader context and concludes that such claims are presented in such a way as to exaggerate their significance.  
Follow the link to download the paper, an interesting read.  https://www.tai.org.au/index.php?q=n...42&act=display

----------


## Daniel Morgan

*Strange Old Tool 
Do you know what it is? Look below, read and learn.  
This old tool has been reintroduced in Australia 
by the Gillard Government. 
It will be part of the 
Carbon Tax Emissions Trading Program.                *

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Freud...you probably wouldn't know a 'scientific fact' if it introduced itself to you and then bit you on the @@@@. But you are hardly alone in that <sigh> 
> It is just unrewarding to argue with ignorance.....and I'll probably just get reprimanded anyway.  
> So it's time (yet again) to retire from the Field of Fools and return to the Real World. I'm out.

  Sheez Doc, I'm away for a week and you scare em away on your own!

----------


## andy the pm

*Therell never be a better time for a carbon price* 
by Bernard Keane
Theres something faintly ridiculous about the Australian Food and Grocery Council. More ridiculous, that is, than most peak business groups, whose CEOs and media people can often be found, hand on heart, averring that black is white and one plus one equals 387, in the interests of their members.
Maybe its the presence of Kate Carnell, who comes with all that baggage from her time as ACT Chief Minister. Perhaps its the sheer stupidity of the sorts of campaigns that the AFGC mounts. Last year it was the laughable food protectionism campaign launched by the council, in relation to which Carnell said were not asking for a government handout  but we are after a [supportive] regulatory environment.
I had a whack at this food security garbage but it seemed to personally offend Ross Gittins, who undertook quite the most savage and forensic takedown I can recall reading from him in nearly three decades.
Now, typically, the Food Council has jumped on the anti-carbon tax bandwagon being pushed by big polluters and their media champions. All the usual clichés were there in the councils press release yesterday. Carnell, of course, doesnt oppose a carbon price, but industry is opposed to a tax that will increase the cost of food and grocery manufacturing in Australia.
What sort of impact will a carbon price have on food manufacturing? Well, Treasury modelled the impact on food prices, so we at least know how much food manufacturers will, in Treasurys estimation, pass through to consumers. Under the highest carbon price modelled, with no petrol offset, food prices will go up a massive  $2.30 a week. With a petrol offset, its $1.60, for a grand total of $83.20 a year.
Based on a $20 carbon price, which Greg Combert used as his example last week, suggesting thats where Labor will come out on its initial price, food will go up  ready? Brace yourself: 80 cents a week with a petrol offset.
Thats a shocking $41.60 a year on households doing it tough in the face of rising prices.
This, of course, isnt the actual direct impact on food manufacturing of a carbon price. Its only what would be passed on to consumers. Perhaps the food industry thinks that it would be unable to pass on the impact, that the almost negligible impacts found by Treasury are just a fraction of the overall costs. But they dont say that. That would require them advancing some evidence or reasoning, rather than mere assertions about how apocalyptic a carbon price would be.
The constant claim from business that they support a carbon price, but not one that will affect them (usually, cost jobs), is, literally, nonsensical. You cant support a carbon price if you dont want it to change anything. Its like declaring in 1988 I support the removal of tariffs, but not if it costs any jobs. The purpose of a carbon price  the _only_ purpose  is exactly to change things, to start decarbonising the worlds most emissions-intensive economy, so that at least we catch up with the rest of the world in per capita carbon usage, even if were in no danger of leading the world.
But at least when the Hawke government unleashed its second round of tariff reform in 1991, the economy was already plunging into recession. The reform, necessary as it was, exacerbated a serious downturn and helped turn it into a years-long period of high unemployment that wrecked tens of thousands of lives, not to mention the Keating governments budgets. For anyone prescient enough, it would have made sense back then to warn of the impacts of reform and urge delay.
Now, unemployment is below 5% and one of the biggest dangers to the economy is skills shortages. Even if you accept the more absurdly dire claims advanced by the likes of Bluescope Steel, there will never be a better time to introduce a carbon price.
Yet the manufacturing sector  companies and unions  want to freeze the Australian economy in time, to turn it into a living museum to a carbon-era economy. They want to keep the prop of carbon protectionism, the insistence that the implicit subsidy provided by allowing big polluters to not pay the costs of carbon emissions should be retained when other forms of protectionism have mostly been stripped away. 
The stripping away of that protectionism has cost far more jobs than a carbon price ever will, but theyve been more than offset by new jobs elsewhere in a more competitive economy. Just like what will happen after a carbon price is introduced.
But rather like climate deniers, theres a sense in which a carbon price is simply the excuse for more fundamental concerns. Manufacturing has been steadily shrinking as a proportion of the Australian economy since the 1980s, even before tariff reform. It slipped below 1 million workers last year and continues to fall. The high Australian dollar and high energy and commodities prices caused by the resources boom are only relatively recent, but they look like continuing to pressure manufacturing for years to come  how will Bluescope Steel ever make a profit again if the dollar goes to 110 US cents and iron ore prices remain at historic highs? But thats a relatively recent phenomenon.
Other longer-term trends are shrinking manufacturing, especially the preferences of Australian consumers. Local car manufacturers continued to churn out large family vehicles when Australians increasingly wanted smaller cars, which they happily bought from importers despite tariffs. Local food and grocery manufacturers complain about rising food imports and demand government action, but theres no one forcing Australians to buy foreign-made  they do it because they want to.
Compared to these factors  and certainly compared to the impact of tariff reform  the impact of a carbon price, even without compensation, is trivial. The so-called carbon price revolt is good old-fashioned protectionism by another name. And like the old variety that Labor took the historic decision to end, it wont work in an open economy.  Carbon price revolt is maunfacturing protectionism | Crikey

----------


## andy the pm

*A way to tackle carbon and keep everybody happy*   *As if we needed any reminding, the latest flare-up of politicking over putting a price on carbon shows just how difficult it will be to gain sufficient community agreement to take effective action against climate change.* *ROSS GITTINS: A way to tackle carbon and keep everybody happy*      *And here is the link to the paper by Frank Jotzo that Ross Gittens refers to;* *http://ccep.anu.edu.au/data/2011/pdf...P1104Jotzo.pdf*

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *A way to tackle carbon and keep everybody happy*   *As if we needed any reminding, the latest flare-up of politicking over putting a price on carbon shows just how difficult it will be to gain sufficient community agreement to take effective action against climate change.* *ROSS GITTINS: A way to tackle carbon and keep everybody happy*       *And here is the link to the paper by Frank Jotzo that Ross Gittens refers to;* *http://ccep.anu.edu.au/data/2011/pdf...P1104Jotzo.pdf*

    
Andy can you please show me something that can say that the Carbon Tax, if indroduced, will actually work, that is, it will cut emmissions by an amount that will have a meaningful and measurable diffence on both world carbon emmissions and temperature.  
I presume this is available seeing how this is such a major change to our lives.  I'm sure someone has done the numbers so they can sell us on the importance of this tax.  
Thanks mate.

----------


## andy the pm

> Andy can you please show me something that can say that the Carbon Tax, if indroduced, will actually work, that is, it will cut emmissions by an amount that will have a meaningful and measurable diffence on both world carbon emmissions and temperature.

  Here you go,  Key points | Update Paper 6: Carbon pricing and reducing Australia's emissions | Garnaut Climate Change Review

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Here you go,  Key points | Update Paper 6: Carbon pricing and reducing Australia's emissions | Garnaut Climate Change Review

   :No:  :No:  This does not answer the questions in any way shape or form.  bzzzzt try again.

----------


## andy the pm

So you downloaded and read a 50+ page report in under 15 minutes? wow, I'm impressed...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So you downloaded and read a 50+ page report in under 15 minutes? wow, I'm impressed...

  No I did not read the entire report, perhaps as you know where the answeres are you might post them here for all of us to see. 
Just to add the summary of key points would or should have answered those key questions asked that would justify a Carbon Tax. Nowhere to be seen though!! You have obviously read the report and know where these answers are within the report. So it should not be too hard for you to identify this for us an post the answers here for all to see. Then we may be able to put this thread to bed!  Enlighten us!!

----------


## Rod Dyson

Brrrrrr   

> *coldest march on record in australia : Government calls for new taxes to reduce the heat* 
> posted on april 17, 2011 by stevengoddard  **

----------


## Rod Dyson

Twisting the truth??   

> *NOAA NCDC bends the truth big-time in release*  _By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM_ 
> In this special report, NOAA claims rapid warming of the oceans and record ice melt. 
> ”_Analysis by the National Climatic Data Center revealed that March 2011 was the 13th warmest on record since 1880. Temperatures in much of the U.S., Siberia, and Africa yielded land surface temperatures that were 1.49 deg F (0.83 deg C) warmer than the 1971-2000 comparison period; Canada, China and Southeast Asia, and Australia were cooler than average. The average global ocean surface temperature was 0.65 deg F (0.36 deg C) above normal, but as La Nina continues to weaken, this number may actually increase.”_ 
> Lets look at the UAH plot of temperatures:    Enlarged. 
> Dr. Roy Spencer notes: _“The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for March 2011 fell to -0.10 deg. C, with cooling in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheric extratropics, while the tropics stayed about the same as last month. ”_This is relative to the 1979-2010 mean. *March 2011 was the 15th coldest March in the 33 of satellite data for the globe using the much more reliable UAH data set. That of course can’t be the case and be the 13th warmest in 122 years as NOAA claims.* 
> Ocean temperatures also stayed below normal in March (UAH reports that sea surface temperatures were 0.12C below normal).

  Full sorid story here. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

----------


## intertd6

> *There’ll never be a better time for a carbon price* 
> by Bernard Keane
> There’s something faintly ridiculous about the Australian Food and Grocery Council. More ridiculous, that is, than most peak business groups, whose CEOs and media people can often be found, hand on heart, averring that black is white and one plus one equals 387, in the interests of their members.
> Maybe it’s the presence of Kate Carnell, who comes with all that baggage from her time as ACT Chief Minister. Perhaps it’s the sheer stupidity of the sorts of campaigns that the AFGC mounts. Last year it was the laughable food protectionism campaign launched by the council, in relation to which Carnell said “we’re not asking for a government handout … but we are after a [supportive] regulatory environment.”
> I had a whack at this food security garbage but it seemed to personally offend Ross Gittins, who undertook quite the most savage and forensic takedown I can recall reading from him in nearly three decades.
> Now, typically, the Food Council has jumped on the anti-carbon tax bandwagon being pushed by big polluters and their media champions. All the usual clichés were there in the council’s press release yesterday. Carnell, of course, doesn’t oppose a carbon price, “but industry is opposed to a tax that will increase the cost of food and grocery manufacturing in Australia”.
> What sort of impact will a carbon price have on food manufacturing? Well, Treasury modelled the impact on food prices, so we at least know how much food manufacturers will, in Treasury’s estimation, pass through to consumers. Under the highest carbon price modelled, with no petrol offset, food prices will go up a massive … $2.30 a week. With a petrol offset, it’s $1.60, for a grand total of $83.20 a year.
> Based on a $20 carbon price, which Greg Combert used as his example last week, suggesting that’s where Labor will come out on its initial price, food will go up … ready? Brace yourself: 80 cents a week with a petrol offset.
> That’s a shocking $41.60 a year on households doing it tough in the face of rising prices.
> ...

   

> *A way to tackle carbon and keep everybody happy*   *As if we needed any reminding, the latest flare-up of politicking over putting a price on carbon shows just how difficult it will be to gain sufficient community agreement to take effective action against climate change.* *ROSS GITTINS: A way to tackle carbon and keep everybody happy*      *And here is the link to the paper by Frank Jotzo that Ross Gittens refers to;* *http://ccep.anu.edu.au/data/2011/pdf...P1104Jotzo.pdf*

   

> Here you go,  Key points | Update Paper 6: Carbon pricing and reducing Australia's emissions | Garnaut Climate Change Review

  These fellows & a handfull of others are the only ones in the country believing this stuff now.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Sheez Doc, I'm away for a week and you scare em away on your own!

  It is no fun hanging out with just one wilfully stupid person......

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It is no fun hanging out with just one wilfully stupid person......

  Welcome Back SBD.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Peer review accurate?  I don't think so.   

> Professor Ross McKitrick on how “peer review” has corrupted the global warming debate:_Starting in 2007, I spent two years trying to publish a paper to refute an important claim in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (on how real-world data allegedly confirmed models predicting a recent man-made warming)._  _The claim in question was not just wrong but was based on fabricated evidence. Showing that the claim was fabricated was easy: it suffices merely to quote the section of the report, since no supporting evidence is given.... 
> Showing that the IPCC claim is also false took some mundane statistical work, but the results were clear. Once the numbers were crunched and the paper was written, I began sending it to science journals. Having published several against-the-flow papers in climatology journals, I did not expect a smooth ride, but the process eventually became surreal. In the end, the paper was accepted for publication, but not in a climatology journal. Fortunately for me, I am an economist, not a climatologist, and my career doesn’t depend on getting published in climatology journals. If I were a young climatologist, I would have learned that my career prospects would be much better if I never wrote papers that question the IPCC. The skewing of the literature (and careers) can only be bad for society, which depends on scientists and the scientific literature for trustworthy advice for wise policy decisions.... 
> Of course, differences of opinion exist and vigorous disputes play out among opposing camps. But what is happening in climate science is very different, or at least is on a much more intense scale. I know of no parallels in modern economics. It appears to be a profession-wide decision that, due to the conjectured threat of global warming, the ethic of scientific objectivity has had an asterisk added to it: there is now the additional condition that objectivity cannot compromise the imperative of supporting one particular point of view. 
> This strategy is backfiring badly: rather than creating the appearance of genuine scientific progress, the situation appears more like a chokehold of indoctrination and intellectual corruption._

   
link How “peer review” corrupts the warming “science” | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

> *The industries that cried wolf* 
> April 18, 2011 Dr Richard Denniss
> The introduction of a carbon price in Australia in July 2012 will raise more than $10 billion per year, help influence industrial and household decision making and, inevitably, increase the costs and reduce the profits of some businesses. Such increases in cost and the subsequent change in behaviour are, of course, the objective of introducing a carbon price.  
> Prime Ministers John Howard, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have all stated their belief that Australia needs to introduce a carbon price to help curb greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this, small sections of Australian business that represent a large percentage of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions continue to express surprise and alarm at the prospect. For example, the managing director of Brickworks, Mr Lindsay Partridge, argues that:
> The end result will be an exodus of manufacturing industries and investment offshore, jobs will be lost, the cost of housing will increase and there will be no change to carbon emissions. The sooner the current plan is abandoned the better. 
> Similarly, the Chairman of BlueScope recently stated:
> The implementation of such a carbon tax in its current form runs a high risk of the steel industry reaching a tipping point where it will no longer be able to maintain the investment required for viable production in Australia. This may mean moving future investment offshore. The broader impact would be devastating for Australian manufacturing across the value chain, and for working families, particularly in regional areas.  
> These comments by the representatives of some of Australia's largest polluters are likely to leave their audience in little doubt that the introduction of a carbon price will destroy the Australian economy. But should these comments be believed?  
> This paper places the claims being made about the likely impact of the introduction of a carbon price into a broader context and concludes that such claims are presented in such a way as to exaggerate their significance.  
> Follow the link to download the paper, an interesting read.  https://www.tai.org.au/index.php?q=n...42&act=display

  First, this Australian Greens Party supporting "expert" is an economic illiterate.  Either that, or he is deliberately feeding misinformation into this debate because he knows his dear greenie cause is lost to common sense. 
Did you read the full paper? 
Do you accept all of his ridiculous assumptions and suppositions? 
His argument is at best flawed and useless, and at worst deliberately designed to fool the weak-minded into believing this pathetic green dream scheme.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Strange Old Tool 
> Do you know what it is? Look below, read and learn.  
> This old tool has been reintroduced in Australia 
> by the Gillard Government. 
> It will be part of the 
> Carbon Tax Emissions Trading Program.          *

  
Hilarious!  :Biggrin:  
I found a classic today:   

> *PENNY Wong has denied breaking an election promise by announcing a rise in the efficiency dividend to reap an extra $465 million from the public service, arguing it is temporary.                 *                                The Finance Minister said today that "an efficiency dividend of 1.25 over the forward estimates was an election commitment - that remains. What we're doing is a temporary increase to 1.5 for two years''.   Gillard government to reap extra $465m from public service by raising efficiency dividend in budget | The Australian

  Cool huh?  It's not breaking ANOTHER promise, it's just temporarily adjusting the last election promise until after the next election.  :Rotfl:  
No wonder they need the Carbon Dioxide Tax, to pay back all this financial mismanagement.  Then *if* we ever get back to surplus, the massive ramping up of the Carbon Dioxide Tax rates can start paying back the massive debt. 
Has everyone figured out by now this is an economic fix for a useless government, not an environmental fix for the Planet Earth?  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Sheez Doc, I'm away for a week and you scare em away on your own!

  I was trying to be nice, but they still believe people breathing heavy are going to torch the entire Planet.  :Burnt:  
I was just pointing out their fantasy was not real, then they got upset again.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I was trying to be nice, but they still believe people breathing heavy are going to torch the entire Planet.  
> I was just pointing out their fantasy was not real, then they got upset again.

  Sad I was really enjoying the debate we are running very short of warmists they are a dying breed.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *ThereÂll never be a better time for a carbon price* 
> by Bernard Keane   Carbon price revolt is maunfacturing protectionism | Crikey

  Mate, if your only pretense at credibility is to rehash failed greenie macro-economic theory masquerading as fact, then your position is more dire than even I suspected.  :Biggrin:  
This effort was the watered down version from Richard Denniss' above, but basically the same drivel. 
It is clear how economically illiterate these greenie freaks are when they try to continually compare the FOREX markets to sovereign risk issues coupled with legislated fixed tax increases.  :Doh:  
You'd get more sense out of a lamington.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Sad I was really enjoying the debate we are running very short of warmists they are a dying breed.

  Maybe they've had a hypocritepiphany?  *Hypocritepiphany:* When one suddenly comes to the realisation that ones position is ridiculous and untenable. 
(I've submitted this to Macquarie, but not holding my breath ( :Sneaktongue: ) on it being accepted). 
Yes, I think they all finally eventually realise that using electricity to fight against using electricity is hypocritical, so they walk out to the meter box and disconnect.  :Biggrin:  
Much respect to these true believers!  :Crash:  
Not like the Flim Flam's flying around the planet trying to reduce emissions.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

I heard that a massive JuLIAR Labor Government failure had led to this carnage!!!        
I was shocked, but I couldn't figure out what had happened:   
1) Had Global Warming come true and Australia was now burning to hell?
2) Was this a candle knocked over during Earth Hour causing more emissions?
2) Or was this another "pink batts insulation debacle" ceiling fire gone haywire?
3) Or was this poor traumatised refugees showing their gratitude for our taxpayer dollars paying for their free housing, food, healthcare etc etc? 
Then I found out the truth.    Guards retreat as detainees set Villawood alight | The Australian  
Phew, RELAX, it's *not* Global Warming writ large. Us sceptics are still right!  :2thumbsup:  
Australia won't burn to hell, but under this government, it'll just go to hell.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *A way to tackle carbon and keep everybody happy*   *As if we needed any reminding, the latest flare-up of politicking over putting a price on carbon shows just how difficult it will be to gain sufficient community agreement to take effective action against climate change.* *ROSS GITTINS: A way to tackle carbon and keep everybody happy*      *And here is the link to the paper by Frank Jotzo that Ross Gittens refers to;* *http://ccep.anu.edu.au/data/2011/pdf...P1104Jotzo.pdf*

  What a joke. 
These people are living a fairytale and literally have no idea what they are talking about.  I can't be bothered going through all of their failed assumptions and suppositions that they again try to con people into believing, but here's just one:   

> The first step is to ensure that, wherever the initial carbon price is set, *it should be increased over time* so that the price in the medium term (from 2015 to 2020) is high enough to create confidence that Australia's domestic emissions will begin to *trend downwards* *within the next few years.*

  
Greg Combet is conning Aussie's into voting for this farce by quoting his Carbon Dioxide Tax at $20 - $30 a tonne, saying this will cost households less than $1000 per year. 
Industry and Greg Combet agrees that a cost of about $90 a tonne is needed just to shift from coal to gas, which will still result in emissions *trending upwards!* 
To switch to (intermittent) power sources like wind and solar to commence the trend downwards will cost around ten times quoted prices, which in a basic calculation would cost households around $10,000 per year! 
This doesn't even factor in the economic damage and sovereign risk in having a nation with no baseload power capacity.  The real financial cost is incalculable.  For zero change whatsoever to Global temperatures.  These people are idiots!!! 
The good news is that the boat people situation will reverse as Aussies jump on boats to get out of the debacle that these greenie freaks want to turn our country into.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> What a joke.  
> The good news is that the boat people situation will reverse as Aussies jump on boats to get out of the debacle that these greenie freaks want to turn our country into.

  Maybe we could seek asylum in countries that we will still export billions of tonnes of coal and gas to for burning that will still have baseload power:   

> *JULIA Gillard has assured Japan's captains of industry they can continue to count on Australia being a reliable source of coal and liquefied natural gas exports well into the future despite her push to put a price on carbon.  * "Over the next few years Australia will become Japan's most important supplier of liquefied natural gas, as we are already with coal and iron ore. 
> "Japan can certainly continue to rely on Australia at a time when you have never needed these resources more.'' 
> Earlier, _Ms Gillard told reporters she had confidence about the future of Australian coal_ and LNG exports despite Australia's move to a "clean energy future''.   Gillard reassures Japanese business leaders on carbon price during Tokyo trip | The Australian

  Awesome huh? 
Aussies are not allowed to burn our own cheap resources because it is allegedly killing the Planet. 
But we will ship them to other countries to be burned there! 
Maybe they use a different atmosphere??? 
This whole con job is now exposed for the absolute farce and tax grab it has always been. 
JuLIAR is relying on Aussies being so afraid and gullible, that they just buy all the emotional blackmail about children and grandchildren having no Planet blah blah blah... 
What a crock.  Is there still no-one, not one person who can explain how this MASSIVE NEW TAX will cool down the Planet Earth??? No one???  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> No I did not read the entire report, perhaps as you know where the answeres are you might post them here for all of us to see. 
> Just to add the summary of key points would or should have answered those key questions asked that would justify a Carbon Tax. Nowhere to be seen though!! You have obviously read the report and know where these answers are within the report. So it should not be too hard for you to identify this for us an post the answers here for all to see. Then we may be able to put this thread to bed!  Enlighten us!!

  Well done mate, the answers aren't in there. 
I think if Andy the PM actually read the whole document, he'd realise how nonsensical his position is. 
I guess he'll never raise that issue again.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Twisting the truth??   
> Full sorid story here. ICECAP

  Yeh, the more they continue to misrepresent the data, the more stupid they continue to look. 
The desperation over their failed psychic computer models is now palpable.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It is no fun hanging out with just one wilfully stupid person......

  That's false, I was having fun hanging out with you.  :Biggrin:   :Rofl:

----------


## Dr Freud

Do they sound like they can spend trillions on green dream schemes, even if they wanted to, which they don't:   

> THE United States is facing the possible loss of its prized AAA credit rating for the first time, as global markets begin to question the ability of the world's biggest economy to rein in its ballooning debt. 
>               In an unexpected move that sent shivers through the markets, ratings agency Standard & Poor's has cut its outlook on the US from ''stable'' to ''negative''. 
>               The move was widely seen as a warning to Washington to overcome bitter political disputes over how to handle its $US14 trillion in public debt. 
> The move  means there is now a one-in-three chance that the agency could cut the US credit rating within  two years. 
>               A lower credit rating would force the US government to pay more to borrow money, and to *sharply curb its spending*. And it could stall any US economic recovery, as American consumers and businesses also face higher interest rates.  Ailing America may lose its AAA rating

  
This farce is over as far as the rest of the Planet is concerned. 
The only question left is what will we in Australia do?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> THE Labor Party was once different. So different, that even I twice worked for it.  
> But three things this past week showed why itÂs now nothing like the party it was . . . and which it desperately needs to be again.   
> First,  _The_ _Australian_Âs front page yesterday showed Liberal leader Tony Abbott drinking with workers in the once heavily unionised Pilbara - like he belonged there.   
>  Could either of LaborÂs past two Prime Ministers - Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard - seem half at home at the bar, talking about jobs, wages and prices?  
>  Before that we heard the Australian Workers Union boss, Paul Howes, warn Gillard, whom heÂd helped to install, that heÂd fight her carbon dioxide tax Âif one job is goneÂ - an impossible test.  
>  More ominous for Labor was the reason he gave for this threat. He said heÂd gone to six mass meetings of his members in 10 days and ÂI now appreciate just how upset workers are about the carbon taxÂ.  
>  Here is a union leader being told by his members that Labor is madly out of touch, pushing policies of the Left that heÂd better damn well block.  
>  Never before will Howes have had to face such a stark choice between his party and his union, and I doubt heÂs finished showing which heÂll stick with.  
>  The third warning came from another AWU leader, SA state secretary Wayne Hanson, who claimed the industrial cities of Whyalla and Port Pirie would be Âwiped off the mapÂ by GillardÂs tax.  
> ...

  The Carbon Dioxide Tax will destroy JuLIAR long before CO2 destroys the Planet Earth.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The Business Council of Australia declares war on Julia Gillards carbon dioxide tax in this letter to the Prime Minister:       
> Its astonishing that the BCA should only now - years too later, when Gillard cannot retreat - point out the bleeding obvious about this tax. First. that its suicidal for Australia to lead a reluctant world in slashing our emissions and giving up the competitive advantage of cheap coal-fired electricity. Second, that its is madness to do something so expensive that will do zero to cut the worlds temperature. 
>  Gillards response is just typically petty politics, entirely without substance, pointing out that the Coalition also backs her stupid and unrealistic target of cutting emissions by five percent of 2000 levels by 2020:   _  JULIA Gillard has challenged big business to declare whether it supports Australias bipartisan 5 per cent emission reduction target and a market-based approach to get there_  _ I would appreciate it if, on behalf of the BCA, you are able to indicate whether or not you support [it]. I would also appreciate your views on whether the BCA agrees that the preferred means of achieving this unconditional target is through using a market mechanism to put a price on carbon._Journalists who have for so long failed to ask the right questions about a mad tax they support, are now badgering the BCA with empty objections. Heres Michelle Grattan, claiming to detect an international will that simply isnt there:   _Many other countries, however, have already taken action. The BCA has previously acknowledged the bipartisan targets. It supports a market approach._ _Paul Kelly reads the real import - that Gillards tax is finished, and so is she:_ _The omens are now unmistakable - the governments effort to price carbon is a policy that is losing support in the community, within industry, inside the trade union movement and silently within the Labor Party_  _Finally, remember that industry has its eyes and its ears open. Beyond this, it can smell the weakness of Gillard Labor, the loss of its authority, the stench of Labors vulnerability. It is emboldened because Labor is weak and because Labor is weak it is failing to consult properly with industry._  _This is a lethal political atmospheric for Julia Gillard._  _Terry McCrann:_ _The only positive note to take from that, is that this is a government and a Prime Minister in utter self-destruction mode. They are careering to disaster._  _Bradley has a simple, very clear answer to the question the PM intended to ask him. No._  _Expanded, he might want to say something like: unconditionally reducing our emissions by 5 per cent in a world that is going to increase global emissions by hundreds of times that makes no sense. Indeed, it is pointlessly destructive._  _He could then follow through with a question: Why exactly has this government and this PM embarked on an attack on the nations prosperity, to no point?_  _The fact that it is bi-partisan merely demonstrates the yawning gap between the political class and reality - the reality in which the other 22 million Australians live._  _Lights are going on all over Canberra. Peter van Onselen: _ _Labors carbon tax is fast becoming the sort of political dead animal you cant bury fast enough to get rid of the smell. Yet as the days go by in this debate the chances of it even being legislated are looking less likely._  _What was assumed to be a first step that couldnt fail could now be blocked from a variety of directions: the Greens, unhappy with the amount of compensation going to business; one or more of the independents worried community support for climate change action has dissipated; even by sceptics in the government.__ Julias tax: rejected by voters and unions, and now business says no | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  We're all just counting down now to the demise of another failed Labor Prime Minister!  :Biggrin:  
10 - 9 - 8...

----------


## Dr Freud

The worst part is JuLIAR also forces other people to tell her lies!   

> Prime Minister Julia Gillard claims carbon dioxide is   pollution:   _ 
> I would reiterate my call to Tony Abbott today not to continue to play the role of wrecker, but to actually join the multi-party committee, which will work through all options for putting a price on carbon pollution in the national interest._Really? 
>    I think calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is a deliberate falsehood, intended to deceive. Why else is carbon dioxide not listed as a pollutant by the Gillard Governments own Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities?     http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...iving_governm/

  LIAR, LIAR, LIAR, your [S]pants [/S] detention centres are on FIRE.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

We better dump this tax before we get taxed to take a dump:     Groceries to rise 5 per cent under carbon tax, says lobby group | Herald Sun 
Leave our toilet paper alone. 
Is this the future for Aussies everywhere?

----------


## Dr Freud

> The Gillard Governments target has become so preposterously vast that only a fool or a liar could pretend its achievable:    _A National Greenhouse Inventory report for the December quarter 2010 shows Australia still has a long way to go to meet its Copenhagen Summit commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 5 per cent of year 2000 levels by 2020._  _The nations 543 million tonne carbon output, which excludes agricultural emissions, is well above the 475 million tonne cap Australia would have to reach to meet its international obligations.__Consider: weve already had governments commit $12 billion to cutting emissions, which nevertheless are still going up, not down.  _  _This means the Gillard Governments target has blown out from a cut of 5 per cent of emissions 11 years ago to a cut of 12.5 per cent of emissions today._  _Meanwhile, the time were given ourselves to reach this target has been slashed from 20 years to just nine._  _Twice the cut in half the time, when nothing weve done so far seems to work. Hands up anyone who still thinks the target can be reached - without massive an unprecedented pain?_  _Now check how many journalists writing on global warming policy will point out how farcical is this talk of targets._  _ Gillard’s target blow-out: twice the cut in half the time | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

    
And they call sceptics the deniers?  :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Maybe we could seek asylum in countries that we will still export billions of tonnes of coal and gas to for burning that will still have baseload power: 
> Awesome huh? 
> Aussies are not allowed to burn our own cheap resources because it is allegedly killing the Planet. 
> But we will ship them to other countries to be burned there! 
> Maybe they use a different atmosphere??? 
> This whole con job is now exposed for the absolute farce and tax grab it has always been. 
> JuLIAR is relying on Aussies being so afraid and gullible, that they just buy all the emotional blackmail about children and grandchildren having no Planet blah blah blah... 
> What a crock.  Is there still no-one, not one person who can explain how this MASSIVE NEW TAX will cool down the Planet Earth??? No one???

  Hehehehe LOl sure got it right here Doc. 
BTW you are making up for a day or 2 out? 
Good work Sir.  Very hard to come back and dispute this logic.  Maybe thats why our residents have gone shy? 
Personally I now doubt that we will see the Carbon Tax get through the house of reps.    Either way Juliar is gone finito can not win an election Carbon Tax or not.  The problem with Labor is they are stuck they have no one credible to take her out.  Yet they know that she will decimate the ALP with the Carbon Tax. 
Grab the popcorn and watch this slow motion train wreck self destructs LOL.

----------


## chrisp

For those who like to read something of substance, the CSIRO has published:  *"Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia"*     

> *Readership* 
>  This book is an accessible guide to underpin  decisions that need to be made in business, in government, and in  general to respond to the challenges of climate change. It is an  important resource for:  business community leadersfederal, state and local government membersresearchers and academics involved or interested in climate change science, adaptation and mitigationeducators and mediageneral public with an interest in climate change science.

  The book can be download from: Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia (Publication - General)

----------


## Rod Dyson

> For those who like to read something of substance, the CSIRO has published:  *"Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia"*

  I could possibly bring myself to read it except when the first paragraph on the first chapter contains such an outlandish incorrect bull_hit statement like this:  

> *Overview*  
> Global average temperatures have risen in line with climate model projections for the last 20 years, while global average sea levels are rising near the upper end of the climate model projections.

    
Seriously, do these freaks want to be taken seriously?    
Do you like being brainwashed Chrisp?  this publication is beyond a joke.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I could possibly bring myself to read it except when the first paragraph on the first chapter contains such an outlandish incorrect bull_hit statement like this:     
> Seriously, do these freaks want to be taken seriously?    
> Do you like being brainwashed Chrisp?  this publication is beyond a joke.

  Here Chrisp if you like listening to so called scientist try these predictions.   

> *Failed Mirth Earth Day predictions* 
> Posted on April 22, 2011 by Anthony Watts Earth day flag - Image via Wikipedia  
> Via iHateTheMedia, here are a few of the predictions made on the first Earth Day. Don’t these sound like the predictions today that fail, like the 50 million climate refugees by 2010 followed by the moving of the goalposts to 2020?  *“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”*  _• Kenneth Watt, ecologist_  *“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”*  _• George Wald, Harvard Biologist_  *“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”* _• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist_   *“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”* _• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist_  *“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”*  _• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day_  *“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”* _• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University_  *“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”*  _• Life Magazine, January 1970_  *“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”*  _• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist_  *“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”* _• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist_  *“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”* _• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist_  *“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”* _• Sen. Gaylord Nelson_ _and this classic:_  *“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”* _• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist_

----------


## Rod Dyson

> For those who like to read something of substance, the CSIRO has published:  *"Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia"*   
> The book can be download from: Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia (Publication - General)

  
Chrisp, Climate Scientsits have damaged the reputation of scientists every where by putting out crap like this.    They do themselves no favors.  It will take years, if ever for people to put their trust in climate scientists again. 
The profession ranks lower than a used car salesman.  
No I have not read the entire book the first chapter was enough to show me that it is a propaganda piece to have us swallow an unproven theory by trying to put an official stamp on it. 
Wow just wow.  What has become of a once proud institution.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here is a very apt comment from 'The lack of warming has caused much of the global warming community to cross the line into blatant fraud. Cold is not caused by heat or lack of ice...' | Climate Depot   

> *Robert of Ottawa* _says:_ 			April 21, 2011 at 9:30 pm
> I see twwo groups: The scientist believers who originally thought they had a good theory, and are now so wedded to it that they delude themselves about the facts. Then there are the dishonest who profit, or hope to profit, from what has moved from an errant theory to a downright lie. Included in this group are many scientists who’s funding is dependent on it.  Reply

----------


## Rod Dyson

So much for the worry warts concern about permafrost melting and releasing methane.   

> We keep hearing scare stories about cow farts and peat bogs emitting methane that will destroy the planet. *Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together.* Methane is 23 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled. http://www.drmcdougall.com/I tried an experiment on RRTM – the radiative transfer model used in NCAR’s climate and weather models. A 10X increase in methane in the tropics increases downwelling LW radiation by less than one fourth of one percent. A 100X increase in cow farts increases downwelling LW radiation by less than one percent. A 1000X increase in methane increases downwelling LW radiation by a little over one percent.
> Now consider water vapor – normal changes in humidity from day to day can easily alter the amount of downwelling longwave radiation by 10%.
> Runaway methane is yet another climate superstition being preached by the world’s #1 rated scientist. There just isn’t a lot of methane in the atmosphere. It is a reactive gas with a short residency time.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Trust a climate scientist?  Yeah right.  'The lack of warming has caused much of the global warming community to cross the line into blatant fraud. Cold is not caused by heat or lack of ice...' | Climate Depot   

> *Climate Models Predicted A Dry Climate Before They Predicted A Wet Climate* 
> Posted on April 23, 2011 by stevengoddard
> Climate models are simply amazing at retroactively predicting whatever the weather is at the present time. 2007 – Projections of climate change caused by human activities conducted by 19 different climate modeling groups around the world, using different climate models, show widespread agreement that southwestern North America, and the subtropics in general, are heading toward a climate even more arid than it is today. http://www.ens-newswire.com/
> 2011 – A panel of scientists has said that climate change was behind this years heavy snow and extreme storms that struck much of the planet. As temperatures continue to rise, affecting weather patterns, they are also warning that spring could come early, bringing with it devastating floods. The researchers say it has led to more moisture in the air is likely to bring about extraordinary flooding across huge areas when deep snow-pack melts and heavy rain falls as spring arrives.

----------


## Dr Freud

> BTW you are making up for a day or 2 out?

  Yeh, been busy, but trying to keep up with this unravelling debacle.  :Biggrin:    

> Good work Sir.  Very hard to come back and dispute this logic.  Maybe thats why our residents have gone shy?

  Yes, their silence is as good as surrender I guess.  Unless they are brave enough to hold fast to this titanic failure as it sinks???  I don't think we'll get many takers.  :No:  
Gotta admire the true grit of Chrisp though, last man standing, on an eight count.   

> Personally I now doubt that we will see the Carbon Tax get through the house of reps.    Either way Juliar is gone finito can not win an election Carbon Tax or not.  The problem with Labor is they are stuck they have no one credible to take her out.  Yet they know that she will decimate the ALP with the Carbon Tax. 
> Grab the popcorn and watch this slow motion train wreck self destructs LOL.

  It will be fun to watch.  :Biggrin:  
It's just a shame they are dragging the country down with them.  :Annoyed:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Very Funny  YouTube - Green Fakers from Irony Curtain at iOwnTheWorld.com

----------


## Dr Freud

> For those who like to read something of substance, the CSIRO has published:  *"Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia"*   
> The book can be download from: Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia (Publication - General)

  This drivel is laughable. 
The damage these bozo's are doing to the reputation of the CSIRO is unforgiveable. 
The only lip service they pay to attribution is a reference to the useless IPCC AR4 report. ( I guess it at least gives them some deniability when this myth goes belly up). 
What a JOKE!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The Prime Minister told attendees the Australian government would commit $10 million towards an environmental program.  
>  The money will go to the Global Green Growth Institute, which South Korea established last year to support the development of environmentally friendly growth strategies in developing countries.  
>  The announcement was met with applause.     Gillard talks up trade ties in Seoul - ABC News

   
You'd applaud too if someone gave you $10 million for absolutely no reason! 
That's more of our taxpayer dollars wasted.   :Doh:  
Still enjoying paying your taxes?  Still looking forward to paying your BIG NEW TAX? 
Gee, I wonder why we are racking up huge deficits and have debts of $200 billion dollars with nothing to show from it.   :Mad:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Anthony Cox:  _ 
> (Climate Change Minister Greg) Combet boasts that Every dollar raised by the carbon price will be dedicated to supporting households with any price impacts, and supporting businesses through the transition to a clean energy economy._  _This is impossible. Under the Fast Start Finance commitment from Cancun, which Combet announced, $599 million will be given to the IPCC under Australias combating AGW obligations. This $599 million is on top of the commitment made by Australia at Cancun to give 10% of revenue raised from a carbon tax to the IPCC. Then there will be the bureaucratic expansion to run the tax, checking compliance and eligibility criteria; these administration costs apparently run at 50% for the Australian government._JoNova presents this table from the United Nations-associated  Fast Start Programsite:   
>   Some questions:  
> - Why is the Gillard Government handing over so much money? 
>   - How much more does it intend to give to United Nations programs on global warming? 
>   - What steps has the Government taken to ensure the money is not wasted, as so much UN funding is? 
>   - By how much will the worlds temperature fall as a consequence of all this spending? 
>   - Is some of this spending properly described as a bribe to get countries to sign up to a UN deal on emissions? 
>   - Is any of this spending to be paid for by the carbon dioxide tax? 
>   - How much of this funding on warming projects has been diverted from aid programs meant to help the poor?How we shipped off $599 million to the United Nations’ warmists | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  
JuLIAR is excelling at her trade. 
How many times can she LIE to Aussies with a straight face. 
She is basically stealing our Aussie taxpayer dollars under a false pretence to redistribute it to who knows what countries??? 
We're not far off treason charges based on her current form.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> JuLIAR is excelling at her trade. 
> How many times can she LIE to Aussies with a straight face. 
> She is basically stealing our Aussie taxpayer dollars under a false pretence to redistribute it to who knows what countries??? 
> We're not far off treason charges based on her current form.

  Yes Doc even Laurie Oaks is saying shes gone.  Now thats something!

----------


## Dr Freud

> Media Releases  14th April 2011  Barley Australia Opposes the Proposed Carbon Tax   PDF Version 
>  CARBON TAX WILL HURT AUSTRALIAN FARMERS. 
>  Barley Australia Ltd, Australias peak body for barley, has expressed its concern at the Labor Governments intention to impose a carbon tax on the agricultural industry. 
>  This tax will hurt Australias agriculture overall, which is one of the countrys key industry sectors. A carbon tax will have real and significant impact on the barley industry in particular, along with the all other areas of agricultural production. 
>  The Australian barley industry accounts for around 8 million tonnes of grain in a normal year, of which some 4 million tonnes are exported. The malting barley segment in particular is a major value-adding industry in Australia, with around 1,000,000 tonnes of malting barley converted to malt. Of this, around 600,000 tonnes of malt is exported into the Asian regions, with earnings of approximately $300,000,000.  
>  Malting barley and energy are the major cost inputs in the production of malt, so any tax which raises these costs substantially threatens our ability to compete with malt supplied into Asia from Europe, China, and Canada. 
>  A carbon tax will impact on farm inputs, especially energy, with the resultant increases in farm costs affecting the export value of malt, with knock-on effects on jobs, the demand for malt and the demand for barley.  
>  The government has in part acknowledged the problems that such a tax will have on agricultural production and has amended its Carbon Farming Initiative, but the government must now address the broader issues of the carbon tax on the farming community generally. 
>  Australias farmers are world-renowned as leaders in high quality, efficient and sustainable food and fibre production. The Australia barley and malting industry has worked extremely hard over the past decades to establish itself as a reliable and competitive supplier of barley to a range of key markets from the Middle East to all countries of Asia.  
>  A punitive tax on carbon emissions, which will not be imposed on our competitors in China, Europe and North America, will definitely have an adverse effect on the market dynamics of this commodity and place Australian exports at risk.   Media releases

  This TAX is a disaster for this country, for absolutely ZERO environmental gain. 
Everyone now knows this, so why is JuLIAR still peddling this tripe??? 
To pay back the deficits and debts maybe?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *BUSINESS and consumer confidence is fraying at the edges, worn down by higher petrol prices, interest rate rises and uncertainty.                 *   
> As the Gillard government's popularity plummets, consumers and businesses are bracing for a tough federal budget next month, concerned about the implications of a carbon tax and wary of the next moves from the minority government in Canberra. 
> "What is coming out of Canberra is scary," RCG chairman Ivan Hammerschlag said.
> RCG owns the Athlete's Foot and Shoe Superstore chains.  "Carbon tax, flood levy, green policies: all this has made consumers very worried and nervous," Mr Hammerschlag said. 
> And small business is also becoming increasingly frustrated with the Gillard government.
> According to the April MYOB Business Monitor, released this week, fewer than a quarter of small business owners would vote for the Gillard government if an election was held soon. 
> Mr Reed said small business felt the government had "lost touch with the real demographics of Australian business". 
> Speaking at a lunch of the Financial Services Council in Sydney this week, Macquarie Group head of banking and financial service Peter Maher reminded his audience that it was just on a year since the Rudd government surprised the mining industry with its mineral resources tax, which had had a direct hit on broader business and consumer confidence. 
> "We saw the direct impact of public policy: creating some ... loss of confidence which had a massive impact on our industry," he said. 
> ...

  All these businesses and more will suffer. 
But strange how the financial derivative traders and big banks are rubbing their hands with glee over all their commissions due out of this money go round!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> A CARBON tax is likely to drive up council expenses and rates, according to the local government association.  
>    There is no doubt a carbon tax will have a cost impact for councils, Municipal Association of Victoria president Bill McArthur said last week.  
>      If the carbon price is set at $25 per tonne, rate increases in excess of 3 per cent are likely.  WEIGH IN: Carbon tax to lift council rates, governing body says - Council - News - Northcote Leader

  All these cost rises will be passed from everywhere onto you! 
Remember now, that's the starting price.  Just wait till it starts ramping up... :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *IF claims of climate calamity over periods as short as five years can be so wrong, what hope is there of securing widespread public support for expensive action to stop problems predicted to occur in 100 years? *                                This question is at the heart of the credibility crisis engulfing a UN climate change organisation that is distancing itself from earlier support for predictions that the world would be awash with climate refugees by last year.  
> The overblown environmental refugee prediction joins a long list of overhyped expectations made in the heat of the politically inspired chest-beating that accompanied the release of Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth.  
> Observation has always been the ultimate scientific reality check; in this case, the refugee exodus did not happen. Exaggerated claims of sea-level rises, melting ice caps and displaced populations have clearly damaged public confidence in the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and undermined acceptance of the core scientific concern about unchecked build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere.  
> Belated recognition of this fact has prompted welcome discussion of the uncertainties of climate science among scientific bodies.   Furphy gives debate needed reality check | The Australian

  Finally, the eyes and minds are opening.  
And they are seeing through all the LIES.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> For those who like to read something of substance, the CSIRO has published:  *"Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia"*      *Readership* 
>  This book is an accessible guide to underpin  decisions that need to be made in business, in government, and in  general to respond to the challenges of climate change. It is an  important resource for:  business community leadersfederal, state and local government membersresearchers and academics involved or interested in climate change science, adaptation and mitigationeducators and mediageneral public with an interest in climate change science.    The book can be download from: Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia (Publication - General)

   

> I could possibly bring myself to read it except  when the first paragraph on the first chapter contains such an  outlandish incorrect bull_hit statement like this: 
> Seriously, do these freaks want to be taken seriously?    
> Do you like being brainwashed Chrisp?  this publication is beyond a joke.

   

> Chrisp, Climate Scientsits have damaged the  reputation of scientists every where by putting out crap like this.     They do themselves no favors.  It will take years, if ever for people to  put their trust in climate scientists again. 
> The profession ranks lower than a used car salesman.  
> No I have not read the entire book the first chapter was enough to show  me that it is a propaganda piece to have us swallow an unproven theory  by trying to put an official stamp on it. 
> Wow just wow.  What has become of a once proud institution.

   

> This drivel is laughable. 
> The damage these bozo's are doing to the reputation of the CSIRO is unforgiveable. 
> The only lip service they pay to attribution is a reference to the useless IPCC AR4 report. ( I guess it at least gives them some deniability when this myth goes belly up). 
> What a JOKE!

  Two comments:  I did say it was an article for those who want some substance - I wasn't thinking of you two.The CSIRO didn't include die-hard AGW, ACC denialists in the suggested 'readership' list.   :Smilie:

----------


## PhilT2

Don't be too hard on them Chris, it's just that they can barely control their excitement; it's only two more months until the Greens take the balance of power in the senate.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Don't be too hard on them Chris, it's just that they can barely control their excitement; it's only two more months until the Greens take the balance of power in the senate.

  And you think that is a good thing??

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Two comments:  I did say it was an article for those who want some substance - I wasn't thinking of you two.The CSIRO didn't include die-hard AGW, ACC denialists in the suggested 'readership' list.

  
You may like to point us to the area of substance that confirms the AGW theory?? 
Or any other areas of "substance" as you call it.   
The CSIRO have put out a political booklet not a scientific one.  Shame on them . 
No they only can appeal to the rusted on AGW warmist for everyone else can see through this propaganda

----------


## Rod Dyson

You warmists are flogging a dead horse.   

> Paul Sheehan explains why Julia Gillard’s proposed carbon dioxide tax is mad and illegitimate:  _
> 1. There is no mandate for the carbon tax. It was expressly singled out by Gillard during the last election as a no-go, which helped save her government._  _2. The tax will have almost zero effect on global carbon dioxide emissions. 
> 3. It is a tax on everything, as higher energy costs flow through the economy. 
> 4. It is regressive, harming households and small businesses on tight budgets. 
> 5. It is a massive exercise in tax churning. 
> 6. It does not address the structural inefficiencies in the energy sector. 
> 7. It is a prelude to a emissions trading scheme, a derivatives market. 
> 8. Large-scale carbon trading is inherently vulnerable to fraud, manipulation and speculation, as seen in Europe. 
> 9. It will introduce a new layer of complexity to the economy. 
> ...

----------


## chrisp

> You warmists are flogging a dead horse.     
> 			
> 				Paul Sheehan explains why Julia Gillards proposed carbon dioxide tax is mad and illegitimate:

  Hey Rod, 
Is this the same Paul Sheehan you are quoting?   

> Sheehan's columns in the Sydney Morning Herald are generally written from a conservative viewpoint and are noted for their criticism of the "human rights industry" and Australia's Muslim community. Other topics covered by Sheehan include criticism of the Australian legal system's handling of sexual assault cases as well as criticism of the neo-conservative ideology.  *Sheehan attracted criticism for writing an article promoting "Miracle Water", without seeking validation from scientific experts.*
> (from: Paul Sheehan (journalist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Hey Rod, 
> Is this the same Paul Sheehan you are quoting?

  LOL hear we go again get into the mesenger forget the message.  You try to devalue the message by attacking the man great work, nice to see you try something new. 
I think we are all over this method of operation from warmist.  It is about time you justify your position by properly addressing the issues.  You really make yourself look weak with this.   
Give it up man and go for the message.

----------


## chrisp

> LOL hear we go again get into the mesenger forget the message.  You try to devalue the message by attacking the man great work, nice to see you try something new. 
> I think we are all over this method of operation from warmist.  It is about time you justify your position by properly addressing the issues.  You really make yourself look weak with this.   
> Give it up man and go for the message.

  I'm waiting for you (and your side) to come up with a reputable and scientifically well supported argument in support of your position.  All you (and your side) seem to only be able to quote opinions or comments of highly suspect commentators or shock-jocks with political agendas to push. 
But, then again, good luck coming up with a compelling scientific argument against AGW - there isn't any!  Hint: Are there any - even ONE - reputable scientific bodies denying AGW? 
Perhaps it is time that you get with reality.

----------


## PhilT2

> And you think that is a good thing??

  It's called democracy mate, that's what people voted for.

----------


## PhilT2

> LOL hear we go again get into the mesenger forget the message.  You try to devalue the message by attacking the man great work, nice to see you try something new. 
> I think we are all over this method of operation from warmist.  It is about time you justify your position by properly addressing the issues.  You really make yourself look weak with this.   
> Give it up man and go for the message.

  I think you misunderstand what Chris is trying to say. In the past this writer promoted magic water, an idea that had no scientific basis at all. Now he promotes anti-AGW ideas. See the similarity?

----------


## PhilT2

We now hand over to Doc for the late night infomercials from the liberal party. 
Doc?

----------


## chrisp

> We now hand over to Doc for the late night infomercials from the liberal party. 
> Doc?

  Good analogy!   What they both lack in substance and credibility, they try to make up for in repetition and quantity (Warnie on hair loss treatment; Bolt on AGW - does anyone seriously believe them?).  
I take Doc's posts just as seriously as I take those late night  infomericals - i.e. I just ignore them as I know they are a waste of  time.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here is a great comment...   

> *4 eyes* _says:_ 			April 25, 2011 at 2:01 am
> Just venting.  The engineer in me squirms when the Australian Govt makes its endless condescending (trust us), intolerant (if you don’t agree with us you’re a denier), illogical (the science is settled, we won’t entertain any new facts or theories) and at times childishly immature (we had better do something just in case) statements on AGW.  It is both frustrating and embarassing when the Govt refuses to consider either the latest facts (i.e. flat temperatures and possibly a reversal of sea level rise and the enormous implications that a drop in sea level implies) or an alternate hypothesis.  They still maintain the outrageously simplistic position that the science is settled.  Science has nothing to do with the debate anymore in Australia – it is all politics and the end game will all be about saving face, not saving the country or, more grandiosely, saving the world.  The last thing the Australian Govt wants to hear now is that AGW is not a significant issue and not a risk, even if it comes from the IPCC itself. The naivity of the Govt in accepting what they are told without serious question, second opinion or robust PUBLIC debate by a cross-section of the scientists, not the lobbyists and the pollies, is almost criminal.  And it is a horrifying scenario for them because they have flatly refused to listen to all qualified opinions – in short they have taken a punt.  One thing Bob Carter and co. can do and must do is to make sure their qualified opinions are published widely and then take no prisoners when the facts finally win out.  I maintain that any climate focussed professional scientist in Australia including any in the CSIRO who refuses to at least publicly acknowledge that the facts do not strongly support AGW and that there may be other more significant factors driving climate change does so at his or her own risk.  Sounds rather unforgiving but most of us in our professional lives have to make a decision on ethical behaviour over self interest.  It is now the turn for scientists involved in climate issues.

  On this..........   

> *Wrong advice, wrong policy* 
> by Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks, Bill Kininmonth & Des Moore
> From Quadrant Online April 25, 2011 *Government misadvised on global warming*
> On November 10 last year, the government’s Multi-party Climate Change Committee (MCCC) received a summary of the state of global warming science from its sole scientist member, ANU’s Professor Will Steffen. (see Powerpoint presentation here…).
> All policy discussion conducted within the committee since has been predicated upon the accuracy of Professor Steffen’s advice, which was that a high risk of human-related dangerous warming exists and that urgent steps need to be taken to curtail carbon dioxide emissions.

  Link Australia’s bad carbon policy advice dissected | Watts Up With That?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It's called democracy mate, that's what people voted for.

  Great.  you still didn't answer the question... Do you think its a good thing?

----------


## PhilT2

We could turn this topic into a cut and paste competition. One side pastes from blogs that support their side, the others counter with cut and pastes from blogs that support them. Nobody has to do any thinking at all. I think when you get to that stage it's called politics.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I think you misunderstand what Chris is trying to say. In the past this writer promoted magic water, an idea that had no scientific basis at all. Now he promotes anti-AGW ideas. See the similarity?

  No you misunderstand, he is bringing up an issue from the past that the commentator may have been wrong about, (i don't know if he was or wasn't), so you try to imply that because of that he must be wrong about everything.   
This makes no logical sense at all.   It is so wrong on any level to make assumptions like that and then try to influence others views on what is written, based on  that assumption.  It's saying because a person was wrong once it means they can never be right.  Now who understands what?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> We could turn this topic into a cut and paste competition. One side pastes from blogs that support their side, the others counter with cut and pastes from blogs that support them. Nobody has to do any thinking at all. I think when you get to that stage it's called politics.

  Been there and done that with this argument. Go back and read from the beginning.  We will continue to cut and paste relevent information on this topic thank you very much. 
If you don't like it, then bury your head in the sand and keep believing the drivel you have been fed on AGW.  If not then read what is posted and get enlightened to the real argument. 
Like it or not the truth on AGW will come out in the end no matter how you try to bury the dissenting argument. 
In fact the more you try to opress it the more it is likely to come back and bite you on the ars-. 
So keep it comming we have a lot more to dish up yet. :Wink:

----------


## chrisp

> Like it or not the truth on AGW will come out in the end

  Rod, it is already out.  It seems that you don't want to see it.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> We could turn this topic into a cut and paste competition. One side pastes from blogs that support their side, the others counter with cut and pastes from blogs that support them. Nobody has to do any thinking at all. I think when you get to that stage it's called politics.

  You don't know it yet that we are sick to death of semantic arguments put forward by the AGW crowd.  We have come a long way since"Inconvenient Truth"  You now need to come up with some substance or be laughed out of town.  Semantics will not do it for you now.  You ran that race and have lost.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, it is already out.  It seems that you don't want to see it.

  Yeah right, and what truth may that be?  You can shout it all you like..... "the science is settled" "all scientists agree" 'all scientific organisations agree"  etc etc Saying it does not make it true buddy.  
example   

> In December, 2008, 103 scientists, including 24 Emeritus Professors, wrote to the Secretary General of the United Nations about what they saw as the unsubstantiated, alarmist projections of warming by the IPCC, concluding that the “_approach of curbing CO2 emissions is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it – because attempts to drastically cut CO2 emissions will seriously slow development”._

   
People are awake to this sort of argument now, thank god for the internet.

----------


## PhilT2

> Great.  you still didn't answer the question... Do you think its a good thing?

  Overall yes, a green senator has replaced Steve Fielding from Family First, but replacing him with anyone would have been a positive step. I've only ever spoken to two green senators Brown and Seiwert, both strike me as realistic sort of people with an understanding of the reality of politics. I worry about the others including the new ones as most are a little too young to have had enough real world experience and the party is short of older mentors for them. 
I would prefer that one of the major parties had won a clear majority to govern in its own right. I could have lived with the libs under Turnbull, he has the financial brain to make an ETS work and work well and understands the science. He also supports the disability policy I want for my daughter and people like her. Abbott can't be trusted on the two most important things that influence my vote. environmental and disability policy. So I am happy that the greens are there so that if he gets in next term he hopefully will not have the numbers in the senate to do as he pleases. 
Does this mean that I totally trust the greens? No some of their ideas are a little wacky and I've already mentioned their inexperience. But they're still only a minority and hopefully Julia will not cave in to anything stupid. If Shorten happens to replace her one day I'll try not to be too upset. But then I doubt Abbott will lead the libs to the next election. I don't want to see the lib/nats go down the tea party road where stupidity is a virtue.

----------


## Marc

And here we go again.
 What is this great scheme called global warming / climate change / rapid  climate change ?
 It is a political scheme that uses the green/enviro religious fringe as  leverage for their own political purposes. 
 So what is wrong with yet another pseudo political party? After all we have  the free marihuana party, the open borders party, the euthanasia party, what is  the harm in a GW party right?
 Not much if it was just a harmless waco party to be thrown in with the KKK  and free Willie party. 
 The problem as I see it is that this political movement was masqueraded as  a genuine environmental concern and fooled a lot of people in the beginning.  This is not the case anymore however the inertia of over 20 years of political  pressure, media and the teaching profession have created a monster. 
 The number of religious fanatics who would support GW "action" at all cost  is so large that it has become political poison to oppose them up front.  Furthermore the GW movement has created a further incentive for politicians to  go with this flow, and it is called money. Very large amounts of it in the form  of a TAX with altruistic pretenses. 
 So who are those that support "action" against this phantom called Global  Warming?
  Take away politicians who see the opportunity to please the ignorant masses  whilst collecting votes and money, take away the usual deranged imbeciles, who  are all this  supporters? 
 I classify them in 3 distinct categories:
 A) Teachers, professors and assorted scientist who's livelihood pivots  around their blind endorsement of anything to do with "climate change". 
 B) Those who assent in ignorance too busy or lethargic to form an  opinion. They go along  tolerating bike lines, changing light bulbs with new  poisonous one and switch off the lights once a year for the new religious kum ba  ya "earth day" 
 C)Those with an axe to grind. The rich haters, those who don't help  themselves, live off the public purse and hate anyone who holds a good position,  owns assets, produces goods or services, or is successful in any way shape or  form. This fringe dwellers who have night time call back radio phone numbers on  their speed dial want something for nothing and think that those who work and  produce own them a living. They have worked out long ago that there is an  opportunity to bring down the tall poppy through Climate Change hysteria and  that some new tits to suck from will emerge as a consequence. In Australia they  vote Labour or Green and dream to make the "bastards" pay. 
The largest group, the axe grinder type have yet to figure out that when this fad eventualy fizzels out, the swing against them will be so bad that it will kill off even the genuine welfare recipient and make poverty a reality in Australia.
Good luck and remember to thank the Greens for it.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I once wrote a scientific paper on the ignorance associated with grinding a good axe whilst struggling with a dope addiction on Welfare......and no Green ever thanked me for it.  I feel cheated. 
But I thank You, Marc. I thank you. For injecting such refreshingly 'ridiculous' sociological light into this dimly (because of the CFLs) lit tunnel of intellectual excrement......and making me giggle like a drain. 
If we do slide off into the deeper murk (be it political, scatological or icthyomythical) then I do hope you'll give me a reassuring cuddle before we go....

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Here's a question for the Peanut Gallery: 
When the Gillard Labor Government takes its last fatal swan dive (yes it can happen more than twice) onto the hatchet block of political butt-pokery that is the Australian democracy.......what will actually change for the better? 
Instead of Gillard & Rudd....we'll have Abbot & Turnbull.
We'll still have the Greens.
We'll still have Barnaby Joyce.
We'll still have 5% unemployment.
We'll still have an economy in a comparatively excellent condition to that of our allies.
We'll still have a resources boom.
We'll still have worn out social infrastructure.
We'll still even have Andrew Bolt.  
.....so what will actually be better? 
C'mon give me a good reason why I should give a poo as to whom by and how this country is run..

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Here's a question for the Peanut Gallery: 
> When the Gillard Labor Government takes its last fatal swan dive (yes it can happen more than twice) onto the hatchet block of political butt-pokery that is the Australian democracy.......what will actually change for the better? 
> Instead of Gillard & Rudd....we'll have Abbot & Turnbull.
> We'll still have the Greens.
> We'll still have Barnaby Joyce.
> We'll still have 5% unemployment.
> We'll still have an economy in a comparatively excellent condition to that of our allies.
> We'll still have a resources boom.
> We'll still have worn out social infrastructure.
> ...

  Welcome back S&D you just cant stay away. 
But to come back with this.........  surley you can do better than that.  We will have less boat people, more public money, less waste,  a brighter future. No carbon tax. Less greens in Government, an even better economy....... need I say more? 
Any you claim to have the moral high ground on ignorance vs truth LMAO

----------


## Rod Dyson

This exposes another great lie by our Pime Liar.  What a joke she is.   

> *Hold the accolades on China’s ‘green leap forward’*   *By Bjorn Lomborg, Wednesday, April 20, 7:50 PM*  
> As the world’s factory floor, China is not an obvious environmental leader. It is beleaguered by severe pollution and generates more carbon emissions than any other nation. Yet many have trumpeted it as an emerging “green giant” for its non-carbon-based energy production and its aggressive promises to cut carbon emissions. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman described China’s “green leap forward” as “the most important thing to happen” at the end of the first decade of the 21st century. *But the facts do not support this “green” success story*.

  Link Hold the accolades on China&rsquo;s &lsquo;green leap forward&rsquo; - The Washington Post

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> C'mon give me a good reason why I should give a poo as to whom by and how this country is run..

  This Do?

----------


## PhilT2

> No you misunderstand, he is bringing up an issue from the past that the commentator may have been wrong about, (i don't know if he was or wasn't), so you try to imply that because of that he must be wrong about everything.   
> This makes no logical sense at all.   It is so wrong on any level to make assumptions like that and then try to influence others views on what is written, based on  that assumption.  It's saying because a person was wrong once it means they can never be right.  Now who understands what?

  You missed the point. Sheehan made a claim without having any evidence to support them. Whether he is right or wrong is not the issue, it's making the claim without backing it up that is the issue.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You missed the point. Sheehan made a claim without having any evidence to support them. Whether he is right or wrong is not the issue, it's making the claim without backing it up that is the issue.

  *No, I have not missed the point at all*.   
You want to play semantics by pointing this out to discredit other things he may say, without addressing the point he is making regardless of where he got the infomation from.   
Totally wrong wrong wrong.  You have missed the point entirely and still want to try and play games.

----------


## PhilT2

> *No, I have not missed the point at all*.   
> You want to play semantics by pointing this out to discredit other things he may say, without addressing the point he is making regardless of where he got the infomation from.   
> Totally wrong wrong wrong.  You have missed the point entirely and still want to try and play games.

  How can I address the point he is making when he doesn't give any reasons for his opinions? Anyone can claim this tax will stuff the economy but if you are going to make that claim you need to back it up with some evidence. Remember the last time the govt put a great big tax on everything? It was called the GST; some said that would wreck our economy too but they were wrong. We survived.  
I think we will survive this one too. The GST made more work for small business, BAS statements, and some got themselves into trouble by spending the gst money they had collected. But most managed. Did the GST achieve what it set out to do? Well, the govt ended up with more money so from their perspective it worked perfectly. Will this tax do what it is meant to do? We won't know till we run it for a while. But like I said in a previous post I believe Turnbull would do the better job of making it work than Swan can. 
I understand that you don't believe that there is a problem so I expect you will never accept any measure of any kind to combat AGW. If you can find a way of not paying the tax good luck to you.

----------


## chrisp

> And here we go again.
>  What is this great scheme called global warming / climate change / rapid  climate change ?
>  It is a political scheme that uses the green/enviro religious fringe as  leverage for their own political purposes. 
>  So what is wrong with yet another pseudo political party? After all we have  the free marihuana party, the open borders party, the euthanasia party, what is  the harm in a GW party right?
>  Not much if it was just a harmless waco party to be thrown in with the KKK  and free Willie party. 
>  The problem as I see it is that this political movement was masqueraded as  a genuine environmental concern and fooled a lot of people in the beginning.  This is not the case anymore however the inertia of over 20 years of political  pressure, media and the teaching profession have created a monster. 
>  The number of religious fanatics who would support GW "action" at all cost  is so large that it has become political poison to oppose them up front.  Furthermore the GW movement has created a further incentive for politicians to  go with this flow, and it is called money. Very large amounts of it in the form  of a TAX with altruistic pretenses. 
>  So who are those that support "action" against this phantom called Global  Warming?
>   Take away politicians who see the opportunity to please the ignorant masses  whilst collecting votes and money, take away the usual deranged imbeciles, who  are all this  supporters? 
> ...

  *Delusions of persecution?* 
It sounds like you have you have quite a few issues with quite a few different groups of people.  AGW sounds like it is the least of your concerns.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I did say it was an article for those who want some substance - I wasn't thinking of you two.

  I always look for substance, so I read it. 
Guess what I did NOT find, that's right, the issues of susbtance!  :Doh:  
But perhaps I missed the substantial bits, could you please highlight the pages showing: 
1) Scientific evidence proving anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing the measured warming? 
2) How the proposed Carbon Dioxide Tax will cool down the Planet Earth? 
You see champ, this is the premier scientific organisation for our nation.  If they cannot show proof of the AGW hypothesis, then it does not exist.  :No:  
And if they cannot show scientifically how this disastrous tax will improve their alleged issue, then what is the point of it?  
Please let's skip your usual list of banal opinion lists and psychic computer predictions.  :Doh:  
Any evidence in this puff piece in relation to the two questions above will be appreciated.  Unless there actually is no substance in this pathetic puff piece.   

> The CSIRO didn't include die-hard AGW, ACC denialists in the suggested 'readership' list.

  Once again, exactly who are these people you keep referring to?  :Doh:

----------


## chrisp

> *No, I have not missed the point at all*.   
> You want to play semantics by pointing this out to discredit other things he may say, without addressing the point he is making regardless of where he got the infomation from.   
> Totally wrong wrong wrong.  You have missed the point entirely and still want to try and play games.

  Rod, I think you have missed the point totally. 
Rather than attempt to read, understand and discuss the science that underpins AGW and then form an opinion, it seems that you have first formed an opinion (based upon some sort of gut feeling?) and now you seek out any and all 'science' and opinions that support your preformed view.  Unfortunately for you, such sources of support are very fringe and highly questionable to say the least. 
It seems that you are happy to go out and support any charlatan that claims AGW is a hoax, and yet you will happily overlook any of their past duperies. 
It sounds to me like you are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Don't be too hard on them Chris, it's just that they can barely control their excitement; it's only two more months until the Greens take the balance of power in the senate.

  Every person with an ounce of sense realises these greenie extremists are hell bent on destroying our country just to push their greenie religious dogma. 
Even JuLIAR has realised the error of her ways and describes them now as extremists with no idea of national policy development:    

> ''Neither of the extremes in Australian politics can deliver this reform,'' she said. ''The Coalition has surrendered itself to fear-mongering and denying the power of the markets. *The Greens are not a party of government and have no tradition of striking the balance required to deliver major reform.*''
> The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, said if Ms Gillard regarded the Greens as extremists, ''Why has she formed government with them?''  
>               ''Why would any rational politician form a government with people whom she now thinks are extreme?'*'*   Carbon tax | Tony Aboot mocks Labor's ties to Greens 'extremists'

   
But wait, there's more:   

> Last night Ms Gillard used a speech in Sydney to accuse the Greens - who prop up her minority Government - of not valuing work or family.  
>  In an extraordinary attack on her political partners, she said: "*The Greens will never embrace Labor's delight at sharing the values of everyday Australians, in our cities, suburbs, towns and bush, who day after day do the right thing, leading purposeful and dignified lives, driven by love of family and nation.*"   Brown hits back in brawl with Gillard - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

   
Mate, the *Prime Minister of Australia* has described these extremists as not being driven by love of family or nation, and they lead undignified and useless lives.  They do not share our values.   
And you want them running the country???  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> LOL hear we go again get into the mesenger forget the message.  You try to devalue the message by attacking the man great work, nice to see you try something new. 
> I think we are all over this method of operation from warmist.  It is about time you justify your position by properly addressing the issues.  You really make yourself look weak with this.   
> Give it up man and go for the message.

  Mate, they have to turn this in to personal attacks to deflect from the fact that his message is spot on. 
Note the resounding silence from them on the relevant issues he actually raised. 
It's astounding that people who claim in parrot fashion that "the science" is on their side can never actually present any of this science.  Weird, huh? 
Any fence-sitters need to go back and read the 15 points again, to learn exactly what it is these pathetic semantic distractions are trying to remove attention from. 
They are truly pathetic at this stage guys.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

See, you don't even have to back page now.  :Biggrin:  
You fence sitters can enjoy.   

> You warmists are flogging a dead horse. 
> Paul Sheehan explains why Julia Gillards proposed carbon dioxide tax is mad and illegitimate: _
> 1. There is no mandate for the carbon tax. It was expressly singled out by Gillard during the last election as a no-go, which helped save her government._  _2. The tax will have almost zero effect on global carbon dioxide emissions. 
> 3. It is a tax on everything, as higher energy costs flow through the economy. 
> 4. It is regressive, harming households and small businesses on tight budgets. 
> 5. It is a massive exercise in tax churning. 
> 6. It does not address the structural inefficiencies in the energy sector. 
> 7. It is a prelude to a emissions trading scheme, a derivatives market. 
> 8. Large-scale carbon trading is inherently vulnerable to fraud, manipulation and speculation, as seen in Europe. 
> ...

----------


## johnc

> Welcome back S&D you just cant stay away. 
> But to come back with this......... surley you can do better than that. We will have less boat people, more public money, less waste, a brighter future. No carbon tax. Less greens in Government, an even better economy....... need I say more? 
> Any you claim to have the moral high ground on ignorance vs truth LMAO

  Fairy land again is it, Labor inherited a budget with chronic overspending as a result of Howards middle class welfare in which we squandered booming revenues on vote buying rather than infrastructure. Labor did the right thing stimulating the economy but is failing to rein in inherited and newly created spending which is outstripping revenue (tax) growth. there is a lack of honesty on both sides of the political spectrum at the moment. It will be interesting to see to what extent the next budget will redress these problems but it would seem Swan is aware of them from his public statements. As for less Greens, it is loss of faith in the to main parties that fuels Green gains don't assume any Liberal ascendancy will automatically mean less green votes.  
Lastly there are many regional factors other than tough border protection policies that see people arriving by boat, and the Liberals really don't have a magic panacea plus it is difficult to determine to what extent various policies have influenced the fluctuating tide of arrivals. 
The rise in prices from a carbon tax will not bring about a financial disaster, argue all you like but the impact is nothing compared to the rises we are experiencing in fuel and power at the moment from other forces. 
Other than show political leanings I don't think you really have anything of substance here.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm waiting for you (and your side) to come up with a reputable and scientifically well supported argument in support of your position.

  Our position is that the AGW hypothesis has not been proven. 
This is a scientific fact!  :Biggrin:    

> All you (and your side) seem to only be able to quote opinions or comments of highly suspect commentators or shock-jocks with political agendas to push.

  You obviously have a brain injury.  If your memory cannot retain the posts of the tens of thousands of scientists and studies refuting and opposing this hoax, I suggest you re-read them, or get cue cards made up.  :Biggrin:  
But yes, the people above and all these scientists understand the reality of the scientific fact above.   

> But, then again, good luck coming up with a compelling scientific argument against AGW - there isn't any!

  Wrong.  See point 1.   

> Hint: Are there any - even ONE - reputable scientific bodies denying AGW?

  Still studying opinion polls I see.  :Doh:  
Mate, science works best on facts, not opinions, get with the program.   

> Perhaps it is time that you get with reality.

  In reality, you keep quoting opinions, and we keep quoting scientific facts. 
See, we can both agree on reality.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I take Doc's posts just as seriously as I take those late night  infomericals - i.e. I just ignore them as I know they are a waste of  time.

  They do say that ignore(ance) is bliss!  :Biggrin:  
I'm sure you'll be very happy. 
Does this truly mean no more scientifically illiterate rebuttals to my scientifically rigorous posts? 
Or is this just rhetoric again?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, I think you have missed the point totally. 
> Rather than attempt to read, understand and discuss the science that underpins AGW and then form an opinion, it seems that you have first formed an opinion (based upon some sort of gut feeling?) and now you seek out any and all 'science' and opinions that support your preformed view.  Unfortunately for you, such sources of support are very fringe and highly questionable to say the least. 
> It seems that you are happy to go out and support any charlatan that claims AGW is a hoax, and yet you will happily overlook any of their past duperies. 
> It sounds to me like you are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

  Can't argue with a brick wall, I know the point you are making but it is wrong totally wrong. but you cant see past your idea that if you bad mouth a guy because he may have said something wrong in the past that he must be always wrong in the future.  this is illogical and makes no sense at all. 
Not unlike the charlatons that are pushing a faile theory that promises to hurt our economy for ZERO gain.  All base on some flimsy correlations and failed computer models.  Come on give me a break I am no idiot.  I smell bull chit a mile deep on this, while you smell roses, cause it fits your ideas of being a good guy feeling good while saving the world.   I don't buy it because the evidence is pilling up against this scam while no evidence is supporting it except in your dreams.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Mate, they have to turn this in to personal attacks to deflect from the fact that his message is spot on. 
> Note the resounding silence from them on the relevant issues he actually raised. 
> It's astounding that people who claim in parrot fashion that "the science" is on their side can never actually present any of this science.  Weird, huh? 
> Any fence-sitters need to go back and read the 15 points again, to learn exactly what it is these pathetic semantic distractions are trying to remove attention from. 
> They are truly pathetic at this stage guys.

  You are not wrong Doc you have to laugh how they have persisted with the line "you don't get it".  You are right anything to distract away from valid points. 
Come on guys get to and attack the point made.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Time to earn your pay guys,    REWARD: Take the climate change challenge: 'Believers global warming, you now have chance to spread the word and make yourself $10,000 richer! | Climate Depot 
$10,000 up for grabs I expect the warmist here will be lining up to collect in the next few days? 
What say you guys?

----------


## Dr Freud

> I could have lived with the libs under Turnbull, he has the financial brain to make an ETS work and work well and understands the science.

  So, exactly how would the good Mr Turnbull cool down the Planet Earth by making his ETS "work"? 
If he understands "the science" as you say, he would understand that this is what's allegedly required. 
Please explain???  :Confused:    

> I would prefer that one of the major parties had won a clear majority to govern in its own right.

  Yet you support a minor party having a balance of power?  :Doh:  
Sort yourself out mate, I can't contradict your argument as being ridiculous if you already have:   

> So I am happy that the greens are there so that if he gets in next term he hopefully will not have the numbers in the senate to do as he pleases.

   

> But then I doubt Abbott will lead the libs to the next election.

  Obviously based on psychic computer predictions? 
The last two-party results under Turnbull: 
Labor: 57
Coalition: 43 
The last two-party results under Abbott: 
Labor: 44
Coalition: 56 
Don't bother counting, it's 13 points difference. 
He began as leader against Australia's most popular PM in history, and tore him a new one so bad his own party knifed him about 6 months later. 
This means that in a little over a year, Tony Abbot has swung nearly 2 million of the 14 million voters in Australia from Labor to the Coalition. 
If JuLIAR had not blatantly LIED to us Aussies and run squealing on her "girlie" ticket to an early election, Abbott would be PM today! 
And you think the Coalition will sack him.  :Doh:  
I think if you followed your head more and not your ideologies, you would find yourself on the right side of facts more often.

----------


## Dr Freud

> This exposes another great lie by our Pime Liar.  What a joke she is.   
> Link Hold the accolades on China&rsquo;s &lsquo;green leap forward&rsquo; - The Washington Post

  Good ol' Ruddster could spin like a champion. 
But JuLIAR just delivers crude, easily disproved LIES!!! 
She is treating our highest office with contempt, and deserves no less in return.  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

> This Do?    Attached Files    Vote_Greens.wmv‎  (5.03 MB, 3 views)

  I hadn't seen this before, it was great!  :Clap2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Remember the last time the govt put a great big tax on everything? It was called the GST; some said that would wreck our economy too but they were wrong.

  Mate, just in summary, you obviously have no idea how either of these taxes work, or what they are intended to do, otherwise you would not be comparing them.  You may have read this in some greenie propaganda rag, but let me assure you these greenies are economic morons. 
Just because they are both called "taxes", the greenies assume they can be compared. This is so stupid as to defy belief.  By way of a small example, let me describe a crude comparison: 
Imagine the GST was sold as starting at 10%, then increasing at 8% per annum for a few years, then having the rate floated on the market and subject to a financial derivative fluctuating price, based on yet to be clarified "allowable international inputs" into the system, not based on sound economic rationalisation, but because we in Australia are going to save the Planet Earth.  :Doh:  
This ridiculous comparison trotted out by the greenie propaganda machine is demeaning to sound minded Australians.  I urge you to research these issues more so you can also rebut their nonsense. 
Funnily enough, none of these taxes will be in our national tax summit according to our idiot Treasurer, so no wonder Aussies are so easily duped.   

> How can I address the point he is making when he doesn't give any reasons for his opinions? Anyone can claim this tax will stuff the economy but if you are going to make that claim you need to back it up with some evidence.

  You obviously are ignoring my posts.  When similar schemes are rorted and inneffectual in Europe, you still don't think he has any reasons for his opinions?  When just about every business, industry, union and social group in the nation are warning against the effects of this tax, you still don't think he has any reasons for his opinions?  This is based on the starting price only, not the ten-fold increase likely required to make any difference in Australia.  This is also based on the SCIENTIFIC FACT nothing will change regarding global temperature.  No reasons for his opinion huh?  Maybe your ignore(ance) is being highlighted rather than his.   

> Well, the govt ended up with more money so from their perspective it worked perfectly.

  How much money do you think the federal government keeps from the GST?   

> Will this tax do what it is meant to do?

  You mean cool down the Planet Earth?   

> We won't know till we run it for a while.

  I know, and lots of other people know.  When you figure it out, let me know that you know.  :Biggrin:    

> But like I said in a previous post I believe Turnbull would do the better job of making it work than Swan can.

  So you think JuLIAR and Swan can't cool the Planet, but Turnbull can.  :Doh:    

> I understand that you don't believe that there is a problem so I expect you will never accept any measure of any kind to combat AGW.

  You sound like a reasonable man, but if you insist on repeating that a tax in Australia will cool down the Planet Earth, I will start to question your intellect.  :Doh:  
Even for those who believe the loony AGW hypothesis, this will NOT combat it. 
Geez, I'll start arguing for a decent Planet cooling mechanism soon, just to give your side some credibility.  :Doh:    

> If you can find a way of not paying the tax good luck to you.

  It's called voting Liberal/National coalition!  :2thumbsup:  
If you want to pay it, vote Labor/Green coalition!  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Fairy land again is it, Labor inherited a budget with chronic overspending as a result of Howards middle class welfare in which we squandered booming revenues on vote buying rather than infrastructure.

  Mate, if you're going to have a sledge, at least get your facts straight first, rather than believing what some Labor stooges have told you (either directly or through the media). 
Labor inherited a budget with a $20 billion dollar surplus, $60 billion in savings in the future fund, and zero net debt.  Overspending means you are spending more than you are earning, so you are left with a deficit.  This is what Labor does all the time.  If Labor believed they were facing an economically termed "structural deficit" over the forward estimates after being elected in 2007, they had the opportunity to adjust this in the *budget in May 2008*.  Did they?  Or did they CHOOSE to deliver further tax cuts and middle class welfare.  What about *May 2009, May 2010*?  All Howards fault for these budgets too in your daft logic.  Howard paid for his policies out of a surplus, Labor as usual do this from borrowings, now need higher taxes (Carbon Dioxide Taxes) to pay back their debt, again!   
As for your flawed infrastructure argument, despite paying back all the debt and interest, public infrastructure spending maintained its average rate under the Howard government, with private infrastructure spending increasing due to business and consumer confidence in the Howard government and it's policies.   
If you want to re-write history, at least get some good propaganda.  :Doh:    

> Labor did the right thing stimulating the economy but is failing to rein in inherited and newly created spending which is outstripping revenue (tax) growth.

  Labor did the wrong thing by overspending, an accusation you falsely made above, yet fail to correctly make here.  They have also now racked up over $200 billion in debt and rising.  Who's going to pay it back this time?  That's right, us taxpayers, with interest.  :Mad:    

> there is a lack of honesty on both sides of the political spectrum at the moment.

  No, JuLIAR is lying, everyone else is pointing it out.  :Biggrin:    

> It will be interesting to see to what extent the next budget will redress these problems but it would seem Swan is aware of them from his public statements.

  Wayne Swan is a moron!  Business leaders across the country have met him and have left astounded at his incompetence.  Great for business confidence, huh?  Between him and JuLIAR we are in a world of hurt my friend.   

> Lastly there are many regional factors other than tough border protection policies that see people arriving by boat, and the Liberals really don't have a magic panacea plus it is difficult to determine to what extent various policies have influenced the fluctuating tide of arrivals.

  Yeh, it's amazing that just after Rudd announced globally he was reversing Howard's border protection policies (red dot), the boats started arriving (old graph, now nearly 7000 people in detention).     

> The rise in prices from a carbon tax will not bring about a financial disaster, argue all you like but the impact is nothing compared to the rises we are experiencing in fuel and power at the moment from other forces.

  This argument is ridiculous.  It is again trotted out by greenie propaganda machines to be parroted by eager but ignorant supporters. 
What other forces? How much are they forcing up prices? Are they affecting the globe or just Australia?  Are they specifically designed to increase annually at a massive rate to dissuade use of the products themselves?  Etc, etc, etc!!! 
Don't buy into this greenie cr@p!  They are economic morons.  :Doh:    

> Other than show political leanings I don't think you really have anything of substance here.

  Really? Nothing of substance huh?  Unlike your politically neutral and well researched post?  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Time to earn your pay guys,    REWARD: Take the climate change challenge: 'Believers global warming, you now have chance to spread the word and make yourself $10,000 richer! | Climate Depot 
> $10,000 up for grabs I expect the warmist here will be lining up to collect in the next few days? 
> What say you guys?

  His money is safer there than in Fort Knox mate.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

AGW hypothesis supporters in this thread claim they see disastrous upward trends in this data:    
And disastrous downwards trends in this data:    

> 

  But they fail to see any trends in these data:   

> 

   

> 

  Can you spot the trends?  :Biggrin:  
Maybe help the AGW hypothesis supporters a little if you spot them. It will aid their cause greatly to understand trend analysis better.  :Wink 1:  
Then they will realise the Carbon Dioxide Taxes aren't needed to cool down the Planet Earth, they're needed to pay down this useless governments debts and deficits from all their failed policies.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Is she still LYING? 
Or could she possibly be this stupid?   

> *JULIA Gillard believes Asian demand for Australian coal and liquefied natural gas will remain so strong in coming years that her proposed carbon tax will not cost mining industry jobs as energy exports continue to rise.  * But while *the Greens want to phase out coal-fired energy production*, with a shift in employment from mining to renewable energy production, Ms Gillard said last night she remained absolutely confident that Australia's mining industry had a bright future.     *"Our region is hungry for energy," she said. "We are a reliable supplier to each of the countries that I'm visiting on this trip."*  
> She said her meetings in Japan and her understanding of demand in South Korea and *China gave her a high level of confidence that Australian exports of energy resources would rise*, not fall.  
> "*The prospects in each country is for growth -- for wanting more of our resources*, particularly more of our LNG," Ms Gillard said.  PM Gillard believes carbon tax won&#039;t cost mine jobs | The Australian

  I have to admit, even I am now questioning whether she actually understands what she is saying.  :Confused:  
She'll tax us to hell so we don't burn any fossil fuels cos they're allegedly killing the Planet. 
But she's also spruiking these same fossil fuels to be burned all over Asia tax free. 
I always thought she was LYING outright to us Aussies to get this tax passed. 
But I now suspect JuLIAR could actually be *the most stupid person on the Planet.*  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

What is this green lunacy costing our country?  :Doh:    

> Victorias former Labor Government claimed it had to build a $5.7 billion desalination plant - rather than a $1.4 billion dam that would have given it three times more water - because global warming was drying up the rains:  _Unfortunately, we cannot rely on this kind of rainfall like we used to...__Today:_ _THE companies building Victorias multibillion-dollar desalination plant are seeking compensation from taxpayers because of the impact of this years floods on construction.__ Warming shysters exposed - $5.7 billion too late | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  We can work out the billions in dollars cost wasted. 
We can only imagine the opportunity cost wasted.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Is she still LYING? 
> Or could she possibly be this stupid? 
> I have to admit, even I am now questioning whether she actually understands what she is saying.  
> She'll tax us to hell so we don't burn any fossil fuels cos they're allegedly killing the Planet. 
> But she's also spruiking these same fossil fuels to be burned all over Asia tax free. 
> I always thought she was LYING outright to us Aussies to get this tax passed. 
> But I now suspect JuLIAR could actually be *the most stupid person on the Planet.*

  hmm you might be right Do.  Except I think she is just trying to be all things to all people and hopes nobody notices.

----------


## Dr Freud

> hmm you might be right Do.  Except I think she is just trying to be all things to all people and hopes nobody notices.

  Yeh, you could be right mate. 
But rest assured I'll notice, and I'm always happy to point it out.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Yeh, you could be right mate. 
> But rest assured I'll notice, and I'm always happy to point it out.

  Yeah well check this out.  

> *
> THE Government will bank on a big boost to families with teenage students in the May Budget to ease concerns it is lumping extra costs onto struggling households. * 
> It hopes payments of up to $4000 a year extra per child will help counter Coalition claims that rising household expenses will be made worse by the economic statement which Treasurer Wayne Swan has said will be his toughest yet.   
> Read more: Wayne Swan banking on family budget boost as homeowners brace for rate rise | Federal Budget 2011 - Government Budget | News.com.au

  These idiot have NO IDEA.  Seriously if he thinks this will buy the votes back I think he has another thing comming judging by the comments. 
Here is a sample... not much joy here for this dick head.   

> Will of SA Posted at 5:16 PM April 27, 2011   Dont worry about single working people, they dont need to pay extra living costs.... so out of touchComment 1 of 36 
> Brendan from Perth Posted at 5:17 PM April 27, 2011   Yay more money for "families". What about the single male between 25-40. I pay more tax than most families and get nothing year after year whether Liberal or Labor are in. How about spreading the tax load and benifits evenly.Comment 2 of 36 
> HeatherG of Brisbane Posted at 5:21 PM April 27, 2011   Here's a thought, Mr Swan: rather than giving handouts then taxing the eff out of us, not giving the handouts and NOT taxing everyone else for it? (From the mother of 3 teenagers who would rather my food was cheaper and my rent affordable for *everyone* rather than the attempt at buying my vote). How about not rolling out a system that will be useless by the time it's done and using that $43bn-odd to "balance" the budget?Comment 3 of 36 
> Steve Nosympathy Posted at 5:21 PM April 27, 2011   When will this poor excuse of a government realise it is not just families with school age children doing it tough. NEVER have they given to single households - HELLO WE VOTE TOO - but not for your inept governments stumbling in officeComment 4 of 36 
> AndrewR Posted at 5:22 PM April 27, 2011   Really..? more money to breed rather than encouraging work. erghComment 5 of 36 
> Martin of Planet Sceptica Posted at 5:22 PM April 27, 2011   When will these figures also include all the new fines and fees we are forced to pay these days? The camels back is about to break!Comment 6 of 36 
> Sonya of Melbourne Posted at 5:24 PM April 27, 2011   Help for families with teenagers is all well and good, but what about the people trying to survive on a meagre age pension?Comment 7 of 36 
> Shaun Posted at 5:25 PM April 27, 2011   What about singles??? We get nothing except new charges and taxes are are quickly becomming legalised slaves with our earnings forcably redistributed. If read one more article on new family benefits I'm going to be sick.Comment 8 of 36 
> Tim of Bris Vegas Posted at 5:25 PM April 27, 2011   And for all those without children, massive mortgages and increased cost of living expenses? More taxes of course.Comment 9 of 36   
> Read more: Wayne Swan banking on family budget boost as homeowners brace for rate rise | Federal Budget 2011 - Government Budget | News.com.au

----------


## Dr Freud

> Now even BHP, for too long too acquiescent in this madness, is backing away:   _JULIA Gillard is under mounting pressure to give exporters a special deal under her proposed carbon tax after BHP Billiton chief executive Marius Kloppers yesterday became the latest business leader to warn that Australias go-it-alone approach would be a dead weight on high-polluting industries_  _Any carbon tax had to be designed to cut emissions - not simply raise revenue - and had to be trade-friendly, he said in Beijing_  _Mr Kloppers said that in the absence of a global scheme, any carbon taxes you impose on an exported product basically is just dead weight _  _A BHP spokesman confirmed that Mr Kloppers believed there should be some form of treatment to recognise export sector industries under the carbon tax, echoing growing calls for special deals across the economy, including from the steel industry, cement manufacturers, food and groceries, oil, gas and aluminium_  _Just weeks after last years federal election, Mr Kloppers became the first chief executive of a major company to support a price on carbon, urging Australia to act before any international agreement in order to protect the nations long-term economic interests. _ _With all the exemptions and all the rebating being considered, the carbon dioxide tax becomes even more useless and even more purely symbolic, if that were possible. A tax that doesnt effect BHP and the other huge emitters isnt a tax that will do the job the Government wants._  _Then again, even the purest form of the tax will at the very best cut the worlds temperature by just 0.00005 degrees. Essentially zero. All pain, no gain._  _UPDATE_  _Ive said Gillards leadership is dead. But now Gary Johns, Special Minister of State in the Keating Government, predicts shell be gone soon, too: _  _Having cost the political lives of one prime minister (Kevin Rudd) and two opposition leaders (Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull), Australia is now in the end game for pricing carbon. Pricing seemed like a good idea 10 years ago: it is now looking very sick Gillard will be the fourth political life lost to carbon abatement.__UPDATE_  _Reader Sherlock:_ _Its only going to get worse for the Gillard government. One huge firm is weeks away from making an announcement that its moving offices from Australia to Singapore in order to minimise the impact from both the carbon and mining taxes.Keep watching folks.__UPDATE_  _Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott tours the country talking to the very people Labor once represented and now threatens: _  _ 
> Mr Abbotts travel schedule has been almost solely dictated by the governments problems. In the past 10 days alone, he has been to three mine sites in the Pilbara to exploit worker and industry fears over the carbon tax and the mining tax._  _Over Easter, Mr Abbott went to the Christmas Island detention facility to highlight the governments asylum seeker problems._  _Since January, he has visited a number of small businesses and his appearances at a OneSteel plant in Laverton, Victoria, a cement factory in Gladstone, Queensland, and the BlueScope Steel Port Kembla plant in March helped stir worker discontent over the carbon tax to the point where Mr Howes was forced to shift support.__ Now even BHP backs off Gillards carbon dioxide tax | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  This joke is over.
JuLIAR will just have to learn the hard way.  :Smack:

----------


## Dr Freud

Gary Johns (Keating's Minister's) article in the link above requires an in depth reading. 
This information will be vital in unravelling the massive propaganda campaign that JuLIAR is preparing.  The LIES she is about to spread will make her record to date look honest. 
JuLIAR will try to convince sound minded Aussies that Australia is one of the biggest Carbon Dioxide problems on the Planet Earth, but China is clean and green!  :Doh:  
Here's some snippets to open your eyes and your mind to the truth:   

> Instead, the Gillard government walks headlong to its political death with its Climate Change Minister Greg Combet spruiking nonsense. For example, Combet is softening up the electorate for Labor's carbon tax by arguing China puts a higher price on carbon than Australia. 
> Combet, on ABC's Lateline this year, cited the Chinese and Australian implicit price for carbon from the 2010 Vivid Economics report for The Climate Institute: $8 per tonne for China and $2 per tonne for Australia. The idea is to tell Australians they are not pulling their weight. The Chinese must think Gillard a fool. Vivid Economics has been colourful with its analysis. They wildly overstate China's and wildly understate Australia's implicit carbon price. For a start, Chinese energy policies have not been developed with the aim of promoting greenhouse gas emission reductions. 
> Moreover, the Chinese subsidise coal fuel. As most new generation in China is coal, this implies that at the margin, China has a negative carbon price. Combet, the Climate Institute, and the Climate Change Department are knowingly feeding the electorate complete bunkum. 
> Australia's average carbon price is assessed by Vivid across a variety of programs, including feed-in tariffs, Renewable Energy Target (the old scheme), the Qld Gas scheme and the NSW GGAS scheme. 
> There is no assessment of the state government policies opposing coal-fired power stations that make gas the fuel of choice for non-renewable generators. At the margin this imposes a significant carbon price particularly in NSW and Queensland. Even in Victoria it implies a marginal cost of carbon in excess of $10 per tonne. Vivid ignores these policies. The current marginal cost of carbon in the generation sector would be well above $10 per tonne and for some parts of the sector (in particular RET) more than $40 per tonne. 
> That China is just now scheduling plants in merit order (from lowest cost to highest cost), which means that more competitive plants are built over conventional plants is simply the way it happens anyway in market-based economies in order to minimise the cost of production and maximise welfare. In essence, 94 per cent of the implied carbon price estimated for China is based on removing a mandate to dispatch plants inefficiently and then promote action to shutdown plants that would probably not have been built in the first place on efficiency grounds. 
> The Productivity Commission has been asked to report on the price of carbon production in other countries. Already, chairman Gary Banks has warned about the difficulties of comparison, and that proper comparison will not deliver the government the picture it wants. 
> The electorate is becoming less enamoured with the climate change cause. Once they sniff brumby figures, Gillard will be the fourth political life lost to carbon abatement.  Dodgy figures, wrong questions plague debate | The Australian

  Learn this well now, it will hurt just a bit, but in time it will allow you to see through the Matrix of LIES to what is reality!  :Cool look:    *Morpheus*: Welcome to the real world.   *Neo*: Why do my eyes hurt?    *Morpheus*: You've never used them before.

----------


## Dr Freud

A much better description would be a circus filled with @rse clowns!  :Biggrin:    

> Cuts in carbon emissions by developed countries since 1990 have been cancelled out many times over by increases in imported goods from developing countries such as China, according to the most comprehensive global figures ever compiled. 
> Campaigners say this allows rich countries unfairly to claim they are reducing or stabilising their emissions when they may be simply sending them offshore  relying increasingly on goods imported from emerging economies that do not have binding emissions targets under Kyoto.  
> According to standard data, developed countries can claim to have reduced their collective emissions by almost 2% between 1990 and 2008. But once the carbon cost of imports have been added to each country, and exports subtracted  the true change has been an increase of 7%. 
> Much of the increase in emissions in the developed world is due to the US, which promised a 7% cut under Kyoto but then did not to ratify the protocol. Emissions within its borders increased by 17% between 1990 and 2008  and by 25% when imports and exports are factored in.  
> In the same period, UK emissions fell by 28 million tonnes, but when imports and exports are taken into account, the domestic footprint has risen by more than 100 million tonnes. Europe achieved a 6% cut in CO2 emissions, but when outsourcing is considered that is reduced to 1%.  
> "Our study shows for the first time that emissions from increased production of internationally traded products have more than offset the emissions reductions achieved under the Kyoto Protocol  this suggests that the current focus on territorial emissions in a subset of countries may be ineffective at reducing global emissions without some mechanisms to monitor and report emissions from the production of imported goods and services."  
> China alone accounts for a massive 75% of the developed world's offshored emissions, according to the paper.  
> "It's important to recognise that the countries which have ratified the Kyoto Protocol are roughly on track to hit their targets by the standards it sets out. But, as these figures show, there is a flaw in the accounting, because the rich countries are not held accountable for effectively exporting emissions to the developing world."   Carbon cuts by developed countries cancelled out by imported goods | Environment | The Guardian

  JuLIAR is LYING that this will work.  She knows full well it will not! 
Our greatest exports from her farce will soon be jobs and Carbon Dioxide emissions. 
These jobs and CO2 emissions will both remain on the Planet Earth, just not in Australia under JuLIAR's joke of a plan.  :Doh:    

> *Morpheus:* You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. Remember -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more.  *(Neo takes the red pill and swallows it with a glass of water)*

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Welcome back S&D you just cant stay away. 
> But to come back with this.........  surley you can do better than that.  We will have less boat people, more public money, less waste,  a brighter future. No carbon tax. Less greens in Government, an even better economy....... need I say more? 
> Any you claim to have the moral high ground on ignorance vs truth LMAO

  True.....hard to stay away from the unhealthy stuff. 
Actually, I was (and remain) truly curious.  Frankly, your assertions don't ring particularly true to me - there's not much evidence to support your prediction that any of those things will or won't happen.   
Less waste? My experience suggests that similar amounts are usually 'wasted' regardless of the political association of the Fat Controller - just what on is what varies.
A brighter future?  My future is looking spectacular from here.....and typically always done so....even since the days of Malcolm Fraser - hard to see that changing regardless of who is the Fat Controller
Less Greens in Government?  Not in the medium term - we get more in July and we are stuck with them for four years.  Long term? For sure.....but what difference will that actually make?
No carbon tax?  Quite possibly - but if the Reds get it up (and then get nutted by the electorate) then the Blues won't be able to do anything about it until they can control the Senate - but the Greens have that until 2015 so the Blues may have to win a second term AND control of the Senate to boot.......so the Carbon Tax might end up a default proposition for a little while......
Less boat people? There's been an almost constant trickle of nautical refugees since the early seventies.....unless things get less desperate everywhere else then the Lucky Country will continue to be a goal of choice for every man, woman and child not blessed with the opportunity to be born here.  Red, Blue, Brown or Green.....no-one can truly stop a group of determined human beings from doing anything that they feel is necessary to survive. 
I still contend that there is little to separate Red from Blue in terms of the difference either would make to the country - Rudd/Gillard is little different to the Howard that came before.....and Abbott is a Howard acolyte if ever there was one.....hence more of the same. And no reason to really give more (or less) of a stuff. 
As for the so-called high moral ground upon which I squat......what a load of old bollocks.  I don't know where truth is any more than you do - but I know it is out there.  But at least I can accept that personal failure and recognise (and come to terms with) my own ignorance.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I don't know where truth is any more than you do - but I know it is out there.  But at least I can accept that personal failure and recognise (and come to terms with) my own ignorance.

  This is quite obvious, given your last post. 
I guess this graph is wrong then?
Red marks the spot on the Immigration Department graph when Rudd last weakened our boat people laws:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Now back to the job at hand. 
How accurate does this make you computer models look?   

> Communicating the value of climate modelling … requires confronting such *apparent contradictions* as the fact that increasing a model’s complexity — by *adding the behaviour of clouds*, people or ecosystem feedbacks, for example — *may actually increase the uncertainty in climate projections*. Atmospheric scientist Kevin Trenberth of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, has explicitly warned that unless such *seemingly paradoxical results* are communicated carefully, the more complex modelling being used in climate simulations for the upcoming fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may confuse both the public and decision-makers, thereby reducing their willingness to act. [My *emphasis*]“Apparent contradictions”? Heck yes, and more than simply “apparent”! The Warmists finally understand that including the major _natural_ cycles and processes that affect climate change in their models will make it that much harder for them to convince the public that human activities are the _main_ cause and, therefore, changing our activities the _main_ solution! 
> Yet, the title of the paper that includes the above quote is The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks – as if _communications_ was the major problem, rather than the fact it is largely _nonsence_ they are trying to communicate.

  LINK Uncertain Climate Risks (Nature Climate Change) | Watts Up With That?  
This farce gets better by the minute.  Now you may wonder why public opinion is turning away from AGW

----------


## johnc

> This is quite obvious, given your last post. 
> I guess this graph is wrong then?
> Red marks the spot on the Immigration Department graph when Rudd last weakened our boat people laws:

  The graph is not wrong but it only tells part of the story, the Pacific solution stopped people hitting our shores as the navy intercepted them and took them elsewhere. Eventually it did stop boat departures for a time, although that was at the expense of countries like Indonesia. What was said is that people will still try to come here and what you conveniently ignore is that the whole package was very expensive, demonised boat people, led to unfortunate mental health issues and very long periods of detention. The issue of illegal arrivals has become very politicised to the point that it is difficult for it to be discussed rationally or humanely.  
To be discussed reasonably we have to set aside prejudice and look at this with new eyes,  many of these people are fleeing violence, around 90% of those that hit our shores will get visa's. They have been a convenient political tool exploited to boost electoral positions and much of what is said at a national level is so riddled with spin that it is difficult to know what the truth is. John Howard used a tough stance for his own advantage, however in reality immigration has been fairly tough on this group since the Hawke era.  
There is no easy answer, however as sure as the sun rises in the east we will continue to have refugees heading for Australian shores, with volumes varying according to unrest and violence in their home countries. It is about time we acknowledged that the Pacific solution did not fix the problem it just masked it and for a time reduced not eliminated those getting visas under that arrangement. 
The spike would have some pent up demand but some of it has been fueled by unrest in Sri Lanka, and the fact that we are reasonably accessable for those fleeing that area by sea.  
Rather than posting little economic and statistical graphs and tables that you discover why don't you take a little more time and try to turn this into a discussion rather than the tiresome debate this has become. The reason this is tiresome is that some seem to think that using ridicule and insults somehow strengthens their postion when in fact it only reveals childish arrogance and an inflated sense of their own self importance.

----------


## chrisp

> This is quite obvious, given your last post. 
> I guess this graph is wrong then?
> Red marks the spot on the Immigration Department graph when Rudd last weakened our boat people laws:

  I suspect Rod's graph has come from Boat people praise Rudd | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog  
I would suspect that most people, seeing that it is an Andrew Bolt blog, would be somewhat cautious of the graph and the contention. 
Fuller information can be found at http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports...ll-version.pdf  
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship report provides the following graph:   
As johnc has pointed out, it is a somewhat more complex than a simple relationship between the detention numbers and who is in government. 
BTW, what has this to do with AGW?

----------


## Marc

> ... Labor inherited a budget with chronic overspending as a result of Howards middle class welfare in which we squandered booming revenues on vote buying rather than infrastructure. Labor did the right thing stimulating the economy ... etc

  Repeat with me in in chorus: 
Rich is evil, poor is virtuous, rich is evil poor is virtuous. 
Kum Ba Ya... tra lala ... we love the working families (<$100k), 
We hate the greedy families (>$100k)
We are the party with the minute braeen.
We are the Labogreen

----------


## Marc

> It sounds like you have you have quite a few issues with quite a few different groups of people.  AGW sounds like it is the least of your concerns.

  I would like to hear from you which group of people you find have been unjustly treated in my post.
Is it the marihuana party? The KKK perhaps? night talk back radio callers?
What is the "issue" Chris?

----------


## chrisp

> I would like to hear from you which group of people you find have been unjustly treated in my post.
> Is it the marihuana party? The KKK perhaps? night talk back radio callers?
> What is the "issue" Chris?

  The can always start at the beginning.  Why not work through your list from the start?  What is your issue with teachers?

----------


## Dr Freud

> I still contend that there is little to separate Red from Blue in terms of the difference either would make to the country

  Contend all you want, but get your colour vision tested!  :Biggrin:    

> 

  With your stunning data analysis skills, you could work for the IPCC!  :Biggrin:  
Given a bit of funding, you could probably turn that into a "Hockey Stick"!  :Wink 1:  
Then the data would match your assumptions. Cool trick, huh!  :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Less boat people? There's been an almost constant trickle of nautical refugees since the early seventies

  You call this a constant trickle, from near zero 3 years ago to currently approaching 7000 and rising?   

> Red marks the spot on the Immigration Department graph when Rudd last weakened our boat people laws:

  I guess you also consider this a constant trickle as well then???   
I think you just blew your chance at the IPCC job by calling their data a constant trickle.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> No carbon tax?  Quite possibly - but if the Reds get it up

  Federal Labor backbenchers just saw the NSW Labor government reduced to about 20 seats for defying constituents. 
They barely hung onto some of those. 
Federal Labor currently has a little over 30% support. 
The Carbon Dioxide Tax currently has a little over 30% support. 
About 70% of Australians want NEITHER!  :Biggrin:  
When JuLIAR starts the war between greenie interests on one side and business and union interests together on the other side, do you think these numbers will improve? 
What will the caucus do? 
That's right, another knifed PM. 
But wait, salvation is at hand.  Would they knife a bride to be? 
While our republican, anti-marriage, atheist PM was attending the royal wedding in the abbey, she appears to have had another change of heart:   

> *AS she prepares to attend the wedding of the century, Julia Gillard has playfully suggested it might be time for long-time partner Tim Mathieson to pop the question.  * Asked whether she might also be preparing to take the plunge, Ms Gillard gave her strongest hint to date that a prime ministerial marriage could be on the horizon.  Julia Gillard teases her partner Tim Mathieson about a wedding proposal | The Australian

  Surely they could never knife a bride to be???    :Inlove:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Now back to the job at hand. 
> How accurate does this make you computer models look? 
> LINK Uncertain Climate Risks (Nature Climate Change) | Watts Up With That? 
>  This farce gets better by the minute.  Now you may wonder why public opinion is turning away from AGW

  Awesome stuff. 
"Apparently" the psychic computers lost their psychic powers!  :Roflmao2:  
Lorenz is quietly chuckling in the background.  :Hihi:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I suspect Rod's graph has come from Boat people praise Rudd | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog  
> I would suspect that most people, seeing that it is an Andrew Bolt blog, would be somewhat cautious of the graph and the contention.

  Why? He gets the same data from the same place you do, the Federal Government. 
His facts are accurate and based on the data.  As you are now such an Andrew Bolt fan, you obviously also see the regular updates he provides, such as this:   

> *Andrew Bolt* 
>          Saturday,  July 24, 2010 at 12:13pm           
>   On Channel 9s _ Today_ show this morning I again was asked if Tony Abbott could really stop the boats, as if this trade was somehow beyond the power of politicians to affect. I think the best proof that Abbott can indeed stop the boats, and that Julia Gillard has increased them lies in the above Department of Immigration graph, two which Ive added the two dots and the explanatory words.    
>   The yellow dot marks when John Howard turned back the Tampa and introduced the Pacific Solution, in August and September 2001. The red dot marks on 31 July 2008, when  Kevin Rudd, having already abolished the Pacific Solution four months earlier, announced a dramatic weakening of Howards other boat people laws. Rudd was following a blueprint largely of Julia Gillards own design.    
>   What the graph doesnt show is that since that red dot, up to 170 boat people have died at sea trying to get here. We might with justice say that Labor lured them to their deaths. 
>   (Just an aside, but why have the Liberals never used this case-closed graphic themselves?)     Proof that Gillard brought in the boats that Howard stopped | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  You see, the Department of Immigration used to produce the truncated version of the graph in their reports (Rod and my initial versions). 
Then, amazingly after Andrew Bolt added the red dot and started publishing the data, the Department of Immigration started producing the extended version (early in 2010) posted here, to include the spike prior to Howard's pacific solution.  A cynic would say this was ordered by the government to make them look less ridiculous.  But good old Andrew Bolt then added the yellow dot and made them look ridiculous again.  :Biggrin:  
So, there's no need to be cautious of the graphs as per your smear attempt, they are all cut and pasted from the Department of Immigration. 
But feel free to disagree with the contention, I'm sure the yellow dot and red dot are just absolutely coincidental.  This *factual data* is nowhere near as conclusive as your psychic computer predictions you believe!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Fuller information can be found at http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports...ll-version.pdf  
> The Department of Immigration and Citizenship report provides the following graph:

  Seriously, why quote a year old data report when the data on their website is updated weekly here:  Statistics - Facilities - Detention Services 
Surely you're not trying to hide the fact there are now over 7000 people in detention and climbing rapidly.  Surely you wouldn't stoop to such lows?  Although the weekly stats have not been uploaded since 11 March 2011.  A cynic could think these delays are the government in damage control hiding the bad news. 
A realist could think that the poor bureaucrats can't figure out whether to count all the detainees on the roof tops as officially "in detention" or not???  :Rotfl:

----------


## PhilT2

> Why? He gets the same data from the same place you do, the Federal Government. 
> His facts are accurate and based on the data.  As you are now such an Andrew Bolt fan, you obviously also see the regular updates he provides, such as this:   
> You see, the Department of Immigration used to produce the truncated version of the graph in their reports (Rod and my initial versions). 
> Then, amazingly after Andrew Bolt added the red dot and started publishing the data, the Department of Immigration started producing the extended version (early in 2010) posted here, to include the spike prior to Howard's pacific solution.  A cynic would say this was ordered by the government to make them look less ridiculous.  But good old Andrew Bolt then added the yellow dot and made them look ridiculous again.  
> So, there's no need to be cautious of the graphs as per your smear attempt, they are all cut and pasted from the Department of Immigration. 
> But feel free to disagree with the contention, I'm sure the yellow dot and red dot are just absolutely coincidental.  This *factual data* is nowhere near as conclusive as your psychic computer predictions you believe!

  Do you have any idea what caused the spike in 2000?

----------


## Dr Freud

> As johnc has pointed out, it is a somewhat more complex than a simple relationship between the detention numbers and who is in government.

  Johnc's ramblings are so delusional as to not justify a response.  We are all trying to get back to the other delusions being the AGW hypothesis and the Carbon Dioxide Tax.  :Biggrin:    

> BTW, what has this to do with AGW?

  What do you think all of this is costing us taxpayers?  Not just the boat people debacle, but all the failed and costly policies of this government wasting our money?  Here's just a taste:   

> Chris Merritt reports:     _Last November, the High Court cleared the way for more legal challenges by asylum-seekers whose claims for residency are not treated with procedural fairness._  _Looked at in isolation, there can be no real argument against the need for fairness, but context is everything: that decision took place against the background of a policy-induced surge in boatpeople. It created the conditions for a court-induced litigation boom._Indeed. Peter Faris counts:    _ 
> There were about 550 cases in 2010 in the Federal Magistrates Court_  _There were about 300 cases in the Federal Court last year._  _There were about 40 in the Federal Courts Full Court _ This is utterly ludicrous. Who is paying for this industrial-scale justice? How many Australians are missing out on justice of their own, thanks to this tsunami of cases? 
>   UPDATE 
>   Peter Faris QC asks:  _1.      How much does it cost the Commonwealth in legal fees to defend all of these actions?_  _2.      How much does it cost the taxpayer to keep litigants in custody during the course of their litigation?_  _3.      How do these penniless litigants pay their legal fees for silks, barristers and solicitors?_  _4.      Or do they get their lawyers paid for by the taxpayer?_  _5.      Who funds the various refugee legal centres?_  _6.      Is there any foreign money behind this?_  _7.      Do the local ethnic communities fund it?_  _8.      Who is making the money here?  Which lawyers?  What is their tie up with the refugee advocates? _ _Asylum seekers go the full court press | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  __ 
We are in the midst of a bigger mining boom than ever, yet we are running massive deficits and racking up hundreds of billions of dollars in national debt.  Why?  Because of all this governments waste and failure that us taxpayers are going to pay for? How? 
1) Get a BIG NEW TAX;
2) Paint it green; 
3) = The Carbon Dioxide Tax!!! 
That's what this has to do with it.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Do you have any idea what caused the spike in 2000?

  Who cares! 
Why focus on the prior cause of a solved problem when you already had the solution?  :Doh:  
A better question you might want to ask JuLIAR is what caused the spike from 2008?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  
(HINT: Red dot indicates something). 
An even better question to ask JuLIAR is why has the temperature NOT spiked?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> We are in the midst of a bigger mining boom than ever, yet we are running massive deficits and racking up hundreds of billions of dollars in national debt.  Why?  Because of all this governments waste and failure that us taxpayers are going to pay for? How? 
> 1) Get a BIG NEW TAX;
> 2) Paint it green; 
> 3) = The Carbon Dioxide Tax!!! 
> That's what this has to do with it.

  Where is all of OUR money going???   

> The strength of commodity markets is already boosting the budget bottom line by $35bn this year, according to a review of the budget outlook by the consulting firm Macroeconomics to be released today.  
> Using modelling methods drawn from Treasury, the firm estimates that the mining boom's contribution will rise to $42bn in 2011-12. Were it not for the record commodity prices, the budget would be in deficit by $77.1bn.   Don&#039;t waste the mining boom: IMF | The Australian

  These numbers are staggering: 
20 billion surplus + 60 billion future fund + 77 billion mining revenue = $157 billion surplus cash. 
All wasted somewhere??? 
Plus when Labor's finished, we'll also be left with a $200 billion dollar debt on top of this. 
Only then will Australians ask "What the f#@<".?  :Wtf:  
By then we may actually need a big new tax to pay all the interest on the debt.  :Cry:  
But let's not paint it green.  :No:

----------


## Marc

> What is your issue with teachers?

  Teachers teach to unsuspecting kids a bold face lie. The Global Warming fraud as a fact, and do so to conform and protect their jobs.
I find that comparable to what North Korea teaches in their classrooms, no different.
If you don't teach that good for you...however I don't like my chances of such being so.

----------


## Marc

> The graph is not wrong but it only tells part of the story, the Pacific  solution stopped people hitting our shores as the navy intercepted them and took  them elsewhere. Eventually it did stop boat departures for a time, although that  was at the expense of countries like Indonesia. What was said is that people  will still try to come here and what you conveniently ignore is that the whole  package was very expensive, demonised boat people, led to unfortunate mental  health issues and very long periods of detention. The issue of illegal arrivals  has become very politicised to the point that it is difficult for it to be  discussed rationally or humanely.  
> To be discussed reasonably we have to  set aside prejudice and look at this with new eyes, many of these people are  fleeing violence,

  So John, you want Australia to be the Social  Security of the world.
"Humane"
[S]What is so clever and humane about  importing violence, crime, prejudice, bias, religious fanaticism? What is so  good about allowing the enemy to come in our country and pay them for the  privilege of living among us as pariahs who plot a way to destroy us and convert  us to their way of life?
To make a character assessment of a person it is not  necessary to have fancy resources. Simply look at the country they come from.  The state of that country is the direct result of that person's character. Their  government is made up of people like him, their enemies are hacking at them  because they hacked to death their wives and daughters a generation earlier. The  hatred and violence is a consequence of this person's hatred and violence. None  of them have a place in Australia because living here will not change their  values nor their genetic make up yet will make our country worst and will lower  the average standard of living significantly and will introduce enemies who will  make war to us from within. Do you remember the cheering of the Lakemba crowd on the 11 September ? I do.
If you can not see that your are either  intellectually blind or have a socio-political agenda that is part of the  problem.[/S]  *EDITED POST:* Even though its still readable. *Even I won't cop this stuff.....enough please*

----------


## chrisp

> Teachers teach to unsuspecting kids a bold face lie. The Global Warming fraud as a fact, and do so to conform and protect their jobs.
> I find that comparable to what North Korea teaches in their classrooms, no different.
> If you don't teach that good for you...however I don't like my chances of such being so.

  Interesting, "unsuspecting kids" and a "bold face lie".  What is the 'lie'?  It is well know and well accepted that science supports AGW.  To teach otherwise would amount to deception. 
Is it the case that you think students should only be taught your own view of the world - even if it is wrong? 
BTW, what are you basing your assertion on?  Are you still at school, or do you know what is taught at school?  Are you a school teacher? 
How does the logic behind the "protect their jobs" bit go?  Are you saying they'll be sacked if they don't teach facts?  I'm not sure why teachers' jobs would be threatened? 
Did, or do, you have issues with your teachers?

----------


## chrisp

> Why? He gets the same data from the same place you do, the Federal Government. 
> His facts are accurate and based on the data.  As you are now such an Andrew Bolt fan, you obviously also see the regular updates he provides, such as this:

  Nah, he tends to selectively use data to 'prove' some biased contention.  These contentions are easily dismissed when considering the whole (or at least, more of the) dataset. 
It is a bit like the anti-AGW brigade - they point out small localised datasets and say this is 'proof' that AGW is wrong.  Meanwhile, the long-term global temperature continues to rise... 
Using the same logic as you and Bolt, I suppose you'll be crediting the high Australian dollar purely to the current Government?

----------


## johnc

> So John, you want Australia to be the Social Security of the world.
> "Humane"
> [S]What is so clever and humane about importing violence, crime, prejudice, bias, religious fanaticism? What is so good about allowing the enemy to come in our country and pay them for the privilege of living among us as pariahs who plot a way to destroy us and convert us to their way of life?
> To make a character assessment of a person it is not necessary to have fancy resources. Simply look at the country they come from. The state of that country is the direct result of that person's character. Their government is made up of people like him, their enemies are hacking at them because they hacked to death their wives and daughters a generation earlier. The hatred and violence is a consequence of this person's hatred and violence. None of them have a place in Australia because living here will not change their values nor their genetic make up yet will make our country worst and will lower the average standard of living significantly and will introduce enemies who will make war to us from within. Do you remember the cheering of the Lakemba crowd on the 11 September ? I do.
> If you can not see that your are either intellectually blind or have a socio-political agenda that is part of the problem.

   [/S]
Thankyou, I'll keep a copy of this as an example of blind uninformed prejudice. I'm not sure how you make the quantum leap to Australia being "the social security of the world" but it seems to make sense to you. Do you have a problem with teachers or just anyone with an education? You really are a strange fellow.

----------


## watson

*I rarely interfere in this thread.
But..if there is anymore of the stuff from post 5902 I will close and delete the whole bloody lot. 
Lift your friggin' game people.*

----------


## Rod Dyson

Back to the carbon tax and AGW battle folks.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Back to the carbon tax and AGW battle folks.

  The real battle is over mate.  We're just mopping up some pockets of resistance now. 
Australians will not allow JuLIAR to give away all our resources to China to burn tax free while Australian families are put on rations. 
What country is she really looking after?    
That Panda's gonna have some serious emissions.  
But here's how far back JuLIAR has been planning this socialist tax, now painted green!   

> *SCRAPPING the ANZUS treaty, twinning Melbourne with Leningrad and introducing a super-tax on the rich were among radical policies devised or backed by Julia Gillard as a student activist.  * Yesterday, Ms Gillard said she could not remember the forum discussing radical policies.  Will Julia Gillard&#039;s past cause red faces? | Herald Sun

  She forgot discussions at the meetings, but remembered the tax policies?   :Doh:  
This tax is not about "saving" the Planet Earth, and not a single person anywhere in the country (including in this thread) has said differently.

----------


## Dr Freud

It's getting ugly!   

> The outlook for the Gillard Government is bleak. 
> A primary vote in the low 30s shows no sign of reviving and a trio of diabolical political problems will beset federal Labor for the next year or so. 
> After the last national public poll was published putting Labor's support at a 15-year low one senior party figure pondered the ALP's fortunes. 
> "I can see a way out of this hole but not for about 18 months," he said, desolately. 
> That trio of problems is the perils of pricing carbon, the pervasive influence of the Greens and the persistent presence of Kevin Rudd. 
> Statements on carbon pricing by senior Labor figures points to accepting defeat on the policy. 
> At the moment everyone declares it's the Government's plan to price carbon but forces are conspiring to make it extremely difficult to get any legislation through the Parliament. 
> Demands by business and unions that any scheme be weak enough to protect companies and workers from harsh impact will not be acceptable to the Greens, who will hold the whip hand. 
> Ministers have stopped talking about a carbon price being inevitable. Privately, senior figures mutter darkly about business "paying a high price" if they stop this attempt to legislate.
> ...

  It's not a perception, the Greens have been pushing this governments agenda since the election!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Now its mining giant Rio Tintos belated turn to question the madness of making useless and damaging sacrifices ahead of the rest of the world:    _In an exclusive interview with The Weekend Australian, Rio Tinto chairman Jan du Plessis urged the Gillard government to rethink its carbon pricing policy and timing, saying it threatened the Australian economy when other leading economies appeared to be stalling on climate change action._  _ The question is, how and when does Australia move in the light of the disappointment of the Copenhagen conference and in light of the fact there are very few signs the big gorillas - the US and China - really are going to be moving, the London-based Mr du Plessis said in Sydney._Rio to Gillard: er, why are we cutting our own throat? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  I can see it now: 
Union leader Paul Howes and industry leader Gina Reinhart holding hands at a future anti-Carbon Dioxide Tax rally!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Hmm just wondering if the warmist here would agree with this comment?   

> *the current uncertainties in the TSI and aerosol forcings are so large that they preclude meaningful climate model evaluation by comparison with observed global temperature change*

----------


## Rod Dyson

Wow, here is a very good reason to have a thread like this.  The average knowledge of the ordinary person on the street about co2 is appaling.   

> A survey just conducted in the streets of Perth, Australia shows a disturbing lack of basic understanding of the roles carbon and carbon dioxide play in life processes on planet earth. It also highlights some monumental elementary misapprehensions regarding climate change issues.
> A staggering 37% of carbon-based-life-form respondents are keen on reducing carbon in the human body. Perhaps the amputation of an appendage at the end of the leg will be the new way to reduce one’s carbon footprint. 
> Equally remarkable is the finding that 44% of respondents wish to eliminate carbon and carbon dioxide from food and drink altogether. Nonplussed are the 28% of respondents who don’t think there is any carbon or carbon dioxide in food and drink in the first place. 
> Another alarming finding is that 47% of respondents think carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Marginally less at 44% give poor old carbon, the sixth element of the periodic table (and my personal favourite, since without it we would not exist), the big thumbs down. 
> A solid majority of 77% know that carbon dioxide is invisible which is encouraging. Yet, there are still many labouring under the misconception that carbon dioxide is black, grey or white – and in some fanciful imaginings, green, blue, yellow or even purple. Thankfully no polka dots.

  How can the public knowledge be so bad?  Maybe this     

> *What do we make of the results of this survey?*  
> Why is public knowledge of basic scientific facts so poor? No doubt people’s general educational levels play a part, but many of the perceptions are so fanciful that they could not have come from a misremembered science class.  No, it is most likely the media who are responsible, creating a huge bogey out of carbon dioxide and carbon in the minds of the public with their incessant and indiscriminate alarmism regarding global warming/climate change. If the public has been so comprehensively duped what hope is there for rational discussion of the issue formerly known as “the great moral and economic challenge of our time”?

  Link http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest...-on-carbon.pdf 
and Carbon — demonized by climate propaganda &#171; JoNova

----------


## Marc

Chrisp = Interesting, "unsuspecting kids" and a "bold face lie". What is the 'lie'?  It is well know and well accepted that science supports AGW. To teach otherwise  would amount to deception.  _Is it that hard to understand? Kids take  anything you teach them without screening it. Teaching Global warming mythology  as fact is equivalent to teaching them any other form of political extremism as  desirable. Do I have to post again the video that scared a generation of school  kids with lies and more lies about wide spread catastrophe?_ 
Is it the  case that you think students should only be taught your own view of the world -  even if it is wrong?  _The above is rather poor. AGW may be your own  little pet hypothesis but it is far from fact. Not even qualifies as theory.  Would you like teachers to teach the existence of alien with green skin and  funnel noses as fact?_  _Do I know what is thought at school? Of  course, don't you? If you do not, you should._ 
How does the logic  behind the "protect their jobs" bit go? Are you saying they'll be sacked if they  don't teach facts? I'm not sure why teachers' jobs would be  threatened?  _Pretending to be disingenuous does not do anything for  your credibility I must say. Have you ever heard of the word curriculum? Do you  think you could deviate from it, teach opposite views? How long would you last  in a public school? I sure hope you are only pretending_ 
Did, or do,  you have issues with your teachers?  _Oh now, this one is soo clever  really._

----------


## Marc

John, the only blind is the one that does not want to see. 
Pretending that a  problem does not exist, does not make it go away. I disagree with the term  uninformed, because I am much better informed than you will ever be on this  matter, yet not because of any personal quality mind you, just happens to be  so. 
As for prejudice, let me tell you that prejudice is extremely  important and is exercised by every human being every day for survival. You  exercise prejudice when you choose the timber for a job, when you apply your  brakes at an intersection, and when you chose a blond partner over a brunette.  Politicians, sociologist and the judiciary turned it into a bad word peddling a  concept of universal equality. Funny however how lawyers start some of their  correspondence "with extreme prejudice" and also more funny how the bible  happens to be one of the more prejudiced books you can find. 
So I accept  to be prejudiced without offense, on the contrary.

----------


## PhilT2

> Hmm just wondering if the warmist here would agree with this comment?

  The rest of the quote says that the authors opinion is that climate sensitivity for doubling of CO2 at 3 degrees, plus or minus 1.5, is not sufficient to inform policy making. What degree of accuracy in the estimate of global warming would you consider sufficient?

----------


## johnc

> John, the only blind is the one that does not want to see. 
> Pretending that a problem does not exist, does not make it go away. I disagree with the term uninformed, because I am much better informed than you will ever be on this matter, yet not because of any personal quality mind you, just happens to be so. 
> As for prejudice, let me tell you that prejudice is extremely important and is exercised by every human being every day for survival. You exercise prejudice when you choose the timber for a job, when you apply your brakes at an intersection, and when you chose a blond partner over a brunette. Politicians, sociologist and the judiciary turned it into a bad word peddling a concept of universal equality. Funny however how lawyers start some of their correspondence "with extreme prejudice" and also more funny how the bible happens to be one of the more prejudiced books you can find. 
> So I accept to be prejudiced without offense, on the contrary.

  It is "without prejudice" and in laymans terms means the words contained within can't be used by the receiver. As for the rest Watson has made his view clear, just drop any connection to the offending post and any earlier reply to it.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The rest of the quote says that the authors opinion is that climate sensitivity for doubling of CO2 at 3 degrees, plus or minus 1.5, is not sufficient to inform policy making. What degree of accuracy in the estimate of global warming would you consider sufficient?

  The full quote.  

> The analysis by Hansen et al. (2005), as well as other recent studies (see, e.g., the reviews by Ramaswamy et al. 2001; Kopp et al. 2()05b; Lean et al. 2005; Loeb and Manalo-Smith 2005; Lohmann and Feichter 2005; Pilewskie et al. 2005; Bates et al. 2006; Penner et al. 2006), indicates that *the current uncertainties in the TSI and aerosol forcings are so large that they preclude meaningful climate model evaluation by comparison with observed global temperature change*. These uncertainties must be reduced significantly for uncertainty in climate sensitivity to be adequately constrained (Schwartz 2004).

----------


## Marc

John, in and adversarial justice system the adoption of military terms is comon. Extreme prejudice is one of them. I'm afraid that google will not help you much this time.

----------


## Marc

Rod, have you noticed that the enviro-left all they want is for the  conservative/skeptic to shut up? 
Shut them down with as much arguments as  possible. No debate, case settled, heretics, enemies of human kind, racists,  exploiters of the third world, anything to stop opposing views to  surface. 
I for once and I am sure you too, all we want is for them to  keep on talking. Let's hear from Greenpeace and how they are going to cull  humanity down to one billion. Let's hear from those who want to turns us into  vegetarians. Let hear more bout shutting down coal fired stations, about putting  sulphur into aviation fuel to screen the sun out, go to work on a motorbike  fuelled by cow excrement. We don't even need to ridicule them. They do it all by  themselves. 
Gravity is killing the AGW hypothesis. I hope it's supporters  can find another cause worthy of their time which they seem to have plenty. I  proposed knitting and train spotting in the past. I may add false teeth  collecting and metal detector beach combing. 
Whilst the ABC pontificates on the good deed that 24 millions represents in the erradication of rabbits from Macquarie Island, our fellow humans from Queensland live in tents and will do so for many years, just like those who's houses were wiped out by fire in Victoria years ago yet to be rebuilt.

----------


## chrisp

> John, in and adversarial justice system the adoption of military terms is comon. Extreme prejudice is one of them. I'm afraid that google will not help you much this time.

  Maybe you are thinking of this Terminate with extreme prejudice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  
Or, perhaps, you have noted a similar term on one of your dismissal notices?  

> Conversely, a person can be *terminated with prejudice*,  meaning an employer will not rehire the former employee to a similar job  in the future. This can be for many reasons: incompetence, misconduct  (such as dishonesty or "zero tolerance" violations), insubordination or  "attitude" (personality clashes with peers or bosses).
> (from: Termination of employment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

   :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Now back to the job at hand. 
> How accurate does this make you computer models look?   
> LINK Uncertain Climate Risks (Nature Climate Change) | Watts Up With That?  
> This farce gets better by the minute.  Now you may wonder why public opinion is turning away from AGW

  
That's just it......they aren't.  And their findings are appalingly communicated - both by scientists and the media.  And this is PRECISELY what all *the wind bags on BOTH sides of the 'debate'* SHOULD be getting up and grumpy about.   
Not dicking about with the fundamental physics that has been sorted for quite some time......we know how much GHG's there are in the atmosphere AND the rate by which they are increasing AND we know that they are major drivers of climate behaviour....after that it is really all about risk.  
 But they don't talk about that..... 
Instead they come up with conspiracies, carbon taxes, loopy ideas, humourous rants, dumb politics and questionable social ideas.....and then ramble on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about the same damn things in some poor unfortunate home renovation forum.... 
No wonder the Human Planet seems such a ridiculous place........buut at least we are all in it together.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Gravity is killing the AGW hypothesis.

  And here's you guys saying before that it hasn't even got off the ground..... 
Actually, gravity is one of the weakest fundamental forces in the known universe.  It is so weak that it takes decades and millions of dollars to determine a measurement and when one does come along it is both confounding and comparitively imprecise.   
So the prospects of it being, on its own, lethal to the so-called AGW hypothesis......spectacularily unlikely.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Hmm just wondering if the warmist here would agree with this comment? 
> "The analysis by Hansen et al. (2005), as well as other recent studies  (see, e.g., the reviews by Ramaswamy et al. 2001; Kopp et al. 2()05b;  Lean et al. 2005; Loeb and Manalo-Smith 2005; Lohmann and Feichter 2005;  Pilewskie et al. 2005; Bates et al. 2006; Penner et al. 2006),  indicates that *the current uncertainties in the TSI and aerosol  forcings are so large that they preclude meaningful climate model  evaluation by comparison with observed global temperature change*.  These uncertainties must be reduced significantly for uncertainty in  climate sensitivity to be adequately constrained (Schwartz 2004)."

  There is little there to disagree with...... 
The real question is what are the implications of this finding? Does that make the models, the underlying knowledge behind and even their findings to date, completely valueless and just plain wrong? Or just 'uncertain'? 
Something is still happening...the basic parameter of global warming (GHG concentration) is still rising...and yet some of the responses & behaviours (especially the more complex ones) we observe in some parameters that should be influenced by this....don't conform that well to our best guesses to date.   
But not all..... 
There's the rub.........we are uncertain. But uncertainty isn't necessarily wrong......just.....uncertain.

----------


## johnc

> John, in and adversarial justice system the adoption of military terms is comon. Extreme prejudice is one of them. I'm afraid that google will not help you much this time.

  You have got to be joking, you clearly refer to the phrase at the start of a lawyers correspondence, which is "without" prejudice. Then to top it off we get a claim that it is what? an unknown military term that is "adopted". Extremely prejudiced is just you getting over excited in a response. What wonderful leap of fancy will we get next.

----------


## johnc

> That's just it......they aren't. And their findings are appalingly communicated - both by scientists and the media. And this is PRECISELY what all *the wind bags on BOTH sides of the 'debate'* SHOULD be getting up and grumpy about.  
> Not dicking about with the fundamental physics that has been ......we know how much GHG's there are in the atmosphere AND the rate by which they are increasing AND we know that they are major drivers of climate behaviour....after that it is really all about risk.   *But they don't talk about that..... 
> Instead they come up with conspiracies, carbon taxes, loopy ideas, humourous rants, dumb politics and questionable social ideas.....and then ramble on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about the same damn things in some poor unfortunate home renovation forum.... * No wonder the Human Planet seems such a ridiculous place........buut at least we are all in it together.

  And we devote a small amount of our time helping them demonstrate their collective inability to never question their own logic or ever exercise the slightest doubt that they might be wrong. Isn't the sign of great intelligence to be able to always question and that includes especially our own beliefs and understanding?

----------


## Marc

> Mumbo jumbo

  Hi, gas man. Clearly metaphor is lost on you.
Must be your "prejudice"...  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

> You have got to be joking, bla bla etc

  Sorry John but I told you that Goggle wouldn't help you much.

----------


## Marc

* Australian Government offers $10,000, provide empirical evidence that CO2 is the cause of Global Warming*    To  the Oxfams; ChristianAids; WWFs and Greenpeaces; we encourage you to  take up this unbelievable offer by the Australian Government. You have  always claimed that climate change is a fact; real and happening due to  the accumulation of CO2. Just provide the empirical evidence and claim  $10,000 from the Australian Government.   This  challenge is a great victory for climate sceptics as the Australian  government inadvertently admitted that todate no empirical evidence  exists that links global warming to CO2.*REWARD: Take the climate change challenge Courtesy:ThePunch.co.au*      Believers  in the science of global warming, you now have the chance to spread the  word and at the same time make yourself $10,000 richer. 
This  has to be really simple, as almost everyone from PM Julia Gillard down,  including much of our mainstream media, has been telling us it’s a fact  - the science says so, anybody who thinks otherwise is a  fringe-dwelling extremist, a denier who won’t accept the evidence and  doesn’t deserve to be heard. 
According  to Ms Gillard, climate change is happening and the time is right for a  carbon tax. This could cost Australian families $863 a year, according  to a Treasury forecast, but then you might still end up making a profit. 
It’s pretty much a moving target, so it depends who you believe and what they are saying this week. 
The  Treasury forecast was based on a moderate carbon price of $30 a tonne,  but chief climate advisor Professor Ross Garnaut [pronounced guano by me] (an economist, not a  climate scientist, certainly not a rocket scientist) seems to think we  will get it all back at the end of a merry money-go-round where the “big  polluters” pay, but you won’t; or not a lot, providing you are a low to  middle-income earner. 
The  PM originally said it won’t lighten your wallet because all the tax  proceeds would be paid back in compensation, but now Climate Change  Minister Greg Combet says we will only get about half back, yet millions  of us will actually end up with more in our wallet. 
The  other half will go to compensating the big polluters but ours will be  permanent, theirs will be “transitional”, which probably means at least  until the next election. 
They  haven’t quite figured how the compensation will apply equitably to  pensioners, the unemployed, self-funded retirees or mature-aged workers  who now pay little or no tax, but we can trust them to sort all that out  by about July. And they are not saying how many will still be worse  off. 
Treasurer  Wayne Swan initially claimed the new tax wouldn’t really be a tax  because it won’t show on your payslip. But when electricity generators,  oil companies, transport operators, food suppliers and major  manufacturers pass on their costs, try telling that to your mortgage  holder or landlord while you wait for your compensation package. 
If  all this sounds too confusing, that’s when the lazy $10k prize on offer  could really come in handy. All you have to do is come up with  empirical evidence that “increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning, drives global warming”. 
Victorian locomotive engineman Peter Laux  has pledged the prize in a statutory declaration witnessed by a police  officer, and the challenge is open for 20 years . 
Ms Gillard says the overwhelming evidence of “climate change” (I think she means the human-caused variety) is “accepted by every reputable climate scientist in the world”, so just hop on to Google and track that evidence down. 
But  wait, there are just a few apparent “disreputables” who don’t accept  it, so perhaps you should check them out too: international scientists  Profs Richard Lindzen, Henrik Svensmark, John Christy, Dr Ferenc  Miskolczi, Dr Miklos Zagoni, our own Profs Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Dr  David Evans and many others including more than 30,000 scientists who  signed a petition in the US stating that CO2 was not causing dangerous  climate change. 
Prof  Carter and Dr Evans have written numerous articles on the topic,  including one in Quadrant Online co-authored by Alan Moran, an economist  specialising in energy policy. They debunk the government’s case for  human- induced climate change and a carbon tax, point by point. 
But  don’t be put off, surely with the overwhelming scientific consensus we  keep hearing about, the truth really is out there? Peter Laux just wants  you to find it. 
He  describes himself as a “militant trade unionist” - a member of the  oldest rail union in the world, the Locomotive Division of the Rail Tram  and Bus Union (RTBU) , and vice-president of his local branch. He says: "I  have watched over the past couple of decades as the so-called left side  of politics has been easily duped, co-opted and corralled by the  Northern Hemisphere elite over the issue of the Greenhouse Effect or  Global warming or Climate Change or Climate Chaos or whatever new slick  PR advertising spin they need to use today. 
AGW proponents constantly claim “overwhelming evidence” and yet incredibly never show any….  For  those who despise the source of their prosperous lives and wish to  burden those who can least afford it with carbon taxes and cripple the  development in the Third world, I offer you $10,000 (AUS) for a  conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric  CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming."
That won’t be as easy as we first thought, but are you up to the challenge?              
   Posted by Rajan Alexander   at 11:15 PM

----------


## Rod Dyson

> * Australian Government offers $10,000, provide empirical evidence that CO2 is the cause of Global Warming*

  We tried this before no takers on this site anyway.  I would have thought it would be an easy 10k for someone? 
Maybe not!

----------


## chrisp

> * Australian Government offers $10,000, provide empirical evidence that CO2 is the cause of Global Warming*

  I suppose that comment is as about as accurate as any of your other posts.   :Rolleyes:

----------


## johnc

> Sorry John but I told you that Goggle wouldn't help you much.

  So you must have looked and found nothing then, otherwise why would you even bother mentioning it. Any halfwit should be able to work out that your hollow cover up is nothing but a smoke screen.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Hi, gas man. Clearly metaphore is lost on you.
> Must be your "prejudice"...

  Metaphore is certainly lost on me.  But I'm quite adept at metaphor. 
As for prejudice......pot, kettle, black.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> We tried this before no takers on this site anyway.  I would have thought it would be an easy 10k for someone? 
> Maybe not!

  It simply isn't enough money to make it worth the necessary effort.  Certainly not at typical consultancy fees. Only buy you about eight days effort which allows less than half that for research and data compilation.  Perhaps if he offered another $90K and a publishing deal? 
Besides, if you are hardlined enough to put up your own ten grand then you are going to be almost hardwired to not accept what you are presented with.......

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It simply isn't enough money to make it worth the necessary effort.  Certainly not at typical consultancy fees. Only buy you about eight days effort which allows less than half that for research and data compilation.  Perhaps if he offered another $90K and a publishing deal? 
> Besides, if you are hardlined enough to put up your own ten grand then you are going to be almost hardwired to not accept what you are presented with.......

   It's pretty clear to me. He will accept empirical evidence.  if you have such evidence present it and collect your 10 grand.  It should'nt require intesive research, remember the science is settled. 
Should be a piece of cake. Except the reason its not taken up is that the evidence is not there.  You have diddly squat zero evidence. Now that is the truth that IS OUT THERE. Pathetic isn't it.

----------


## Marc

Ha ha John, you are correct. I hoped to point you to an easy link but couldn't find much of value in relation to the use of legal jargon in the 30 second I dedicated to such task. 
As for hollow and the rest, I am afraid you are missing the point entirely. We have debated the inane, wicked, destructive, retrograde, false, moronic, troyan horse presented as fact by a few powerful that use the idle envirolefties and the professional agitators ready to jump on roofs, for their own agenda. Agenda that is obvious to all but those involved in the defence of the biggest con humanity has ever managed to manufacture.
That is the point worth debating. We are taken for a ride by those with an agenda that use the well intentioned like you for their purpose. You and your ideals are being used and trampled on yet you don't even notice.

----------


## Marc

> It simply isn't enough money to make it worth  the necessary effort. Certainly not at typical consultancy fees. Only buy you  about eight days effort which allows less than half that for research and data  compilation. Perhaps if he offered another $90K and a publishing  deal? 
> Besides, if you are hardlined enough to put up your own ten grand  then you are going to be almost hardwired to not accept what you are presented  with.......

  What a load of hogwash. We are not talking quantum  physics here. How long would it take to provide proof of something that has  scientific consensus and proof beyond reasonable doubt? Say the existence of  gravity? The mechanism of photosynthesis? 
 Easy money no need for research, just quote all that massive amount of  evidence and irrefutable proof.
I would if I had a scrap of evidence that  could go past the most superficial of analysis. Yet I don't neither have you nor  anyone more informed than all of us put together.
The 10 grands are as safe  as houses.
PS thank you for pointing out my spelling mistake. Dutifully corrected.

----------


## Marc

Home » Irish Weather » Features » The Death Blow To Anthropogenic Global Warming  *The Death Blow To Anthropogenic Global Warming* 
 			 			 							By Stephen Wilde - Sat Apr 30, 4:54 pm  11 Comments1,780
 			 Edited byStephen Wilde   Also WroteHow The Sun Could Control Earths TemperatureClimate Change And Extreme Weather Events   *Over the past 3 years since the  initial publication of this article the most recent climate data have  been substantially verifying the opinion expressed. In this updated  version a few minor adjustments have been made in the light of more  recent events, Stephen Wilde* *writes for Irish Weather Online.*
 The influence of the sun has been  discounted in the climate models as a contributor to the warming  observed between 1975 and 1998. Those who support the theory of  anthropogenic global warming (AGW), now known as anthropogenic climate  change (even more recently described as climate disruption) so that  recent cooling can be included in their scenario, always deny that the  sun has anything to do with recent global temperature movements.
 The reason given is that Total Solar  Irradiance (TSI) varied so little over that period that it cannot  explain the warming that was observed. I dont yet accept that TSI tells  the whole story because it is ill defined and speculative as regards  its representation of all the different ways the sun could affect the  Earth via the entire available range of physical processes.
 Despite the limitations of TSI as an  indicator of solar influence I think there are conclusions we can draw  from the records we do have. Oddly, I have not seen them discussed  properly anywhere else, especially not by AGW enthusiasts.  	The pattern of TSI from 1611 to 2001.  
It is true that, as the alarmists say, since 1961 the average level of  TSI has been approximately level if one averages out the peaks and  troughs from solar cycles 19 through to 23. However, those solar cycles show substantially higher levels of TSI than have ever previously occurred in the historical record.
 Because of the height of the TSI level one cannot simply ignore it as the IPCC and the modellers have done.
 The critical issue is that having  achieved such high levels of TSI by 1961 the sun was already producing  more heat than was required to maintain a stable Earth temperature. On  that basis alone the theory of AGW cannot be sustained and should now  die.
 Throughout the period 1961 to about  2001, there was a steady cumulative net warming effect within the oceans  from the sun. The fact that TSI was, on average, level during that  period is entirely irrelevant and misleading.
 It is hardly likely that such a high  level of TSI compared to historical levels is going to have no effect at  all on global temperature changes and indeed during most of that period  there was also an enhanced period of positive Pacific Decadal  Oscillation that imparted increasing warmth from the oceans to the  atmosphere. My link below to article 1041 contains details of my view  that the sun drives the various oceanic oscillations which in turn drive  global temperature variations with all other influences including CO2  being minor and often cancelling themselves out leaving the  solar/oceanic driver supreme.
 It could be said that the increase in  TSI from a little over1363 to a little under1367 Watts per square metre  over the 400 year period shown is pretty insignificant. However a square  metre is a miniscule portion of the surface of the planet so that even a  tiny increase or decrease in the heat being received on average over  each such tiny area translates into a huge change in total heat budget  for the entire planet. The smallness of the apparent range of variation  is a function of the smallness of the area subdivision used rather than  an indication of insignificance. It is fortunate for us that the sun is  not more variable.
 The observation of a historically high  level of TSI from 1961 to 2001 tends to fit with the theories set out in  my other articles about the real cause of recent warming and the real  link between solar energy, ocean cycles and global temperatures. Global Warming and Cooling - The Reality by Stephen Wilde | Climate Realists The Real Link Between Solar Energy, Ocean Cycles and Global Temperature by Stephen Wilde | Climate Realists
 Amongst other things the above link to  article 1302 shows how the negative PDO from 1961 to 1975 cancelled out  the warming effects of solar cycles 18 and 19 by imparting less warmth  from oceans to air and led to a slight cooling trend during those years  despite the relatively high TSI levels. The switch to a positive PDO  from 1975 to 2001 allowed the solar warming influence in the air to  resume. We now have both a falling TSI and a negative PDO which is an  entirely different (indeed opposite) scenario to the one which led to  the concerns about runaway warming.
 If the current scenario continues for a  few more years then real world observations will resolve most of the  disputed issues. For the past 10 years the real world has been moving in  the direction predicted by the solar driver theory and in my articles I  have described the oceanic mechanism that transfers solar input to the  atmosphere and then to Space.
 If global temperatures were to resume  warming despite a reduction in solar activity and/or a negative PDO then  the alarmist position might be vindicated. The alarmist camp is  predicting such a resumption of warming. The Hadley Centre suggested  2010 but others have more recently suggested 2015.  If there is no  resumption of warming by 2015 then AGW is dead as a theory. It would not  count in favour of AGW if any resumed warming were accompanied by  increased solar activity or a positive PDO because that would put the  solar driver back in control.
 My own view is that there is plenty of  evidence currently available that should demonstrate from an objective  viewpoint that the theory of AGW is already dead, namely:
 1)    Real world temperature observations which are diverging from model expectations more and more as time passes
 2)    The clear recent decline in solar activity
 3)    The return to a negative (cooling) Pacific Decadal Oscillation) which may last 30 years on past performances
 4)  A change in global weather patterns  which I noticed as long ago as 2000 whereby the jet streams moved back  towards the equator from the positions they adopted during the warming  spell. The observation that a global warming or cooling trend can be  discerned from seasonal weather patterns seems to be unique to me and  has been dealt with by me in more detail in other articles.
 Those who still believe in AGW have to  be able to show that any CO2 driver is powerful enough to seriously  disrupt the solar and oceanic drivers. If all that CO2 does is to  marginally raise global temperature over the period of a natural solar  driven warming and cooling cycle then there is nothing to fear because  the mitigating effect in cool periods will outweigh any discomfort from  the aggravating effect at and around the peak of the warm periods.
 In fact, it is possible that even the  extra warmth around the natural warm peaks will be entirely beneficial.  The proposal that we are facing imminent climate catastrophe ought to be  comical.
 There are other interesting implications to be drawn from the TSI history referred to above.
 Applying a little logic it must be the  case that at a certain level of TSI the global temperature budget will  be balanced i.e. neither warming nor cooling. During the 400 years since  the world experienced the relatively low TSI levels of the 1600s that  point of balance must have been crossed and re crossed many times as the  TSI numbers varied with time. That is why the world has experienced  warming and cooling spells regularly over the centuries (though with an  average warming trend since 1601)
 As it happens the chart shown covers TSI  from the depths of the Little Ice age to the recent warm spell so it is  clear that the point of transition from net cooling to net warming is  somewhere within the range 1363 to 1367 Watts per square metre. Indeed  on the basis of just a brief glance at the chart that point of  transition is obviously lower than the average TSI between 1961 and 2001  hence my assertion that during those years there was a steady solar  warming effect which adequately explains the observed warming without  reliance on rising CO2. This is such a simple and obvious point that I  really do not understand why the IPCC and the modellers did not see it.
 The information that we need and which  is critical to the whole global warming debate is some idea of the level  of TSI and associated solar activity at which the Earth switches from  net warming to net cooling. It will be hard to identify because, as I  have mentioned in my other articles, the filtering of the solar signal  through the various oceanic cycles is neither rapid nor straightforward  and it appears that the effects are caused not by solar irradiance in  itself but rather by changes in the mix of wavelengths and particles  from the sun as solar activity varies.
 As I have explained elsewhere the solar  changes appear to alter the vertical temperature profile of the  atmosphere so as to shift the main cloud bands latitudinally thereby  altering total cloudiness and global albedo and so affecting the rate of  energy input to the oceans.
 In fact that point of transition from  net warming to net cooling and vice versa will itself vary over time  depending on whether, at any given moment, the oceanic cycles are  working against or in support of the solar changes. Similarly the speed  of response will vary for the same reasons.
 I really do not see how any climate  model can operate meaningfully without that fundamental piece of  information.  Clearly the elephant is missing from the room.
 Finally, in view of the widespread  concerns about the involvement of CO2 I should emphasise that if solar  energy is the primary driver of global temperature then the only  consequence of a stronger greenhouse effect is going to be a slight  upward movement of the prevailing temperature throughout the natural  warming and cooling cycles.
 Because of the logarithmic decline in  the greenhouse warming effect of increased amounts of CO2 there is never  going to be enough greenhouse effect from any amount of increased CO2  to overturn the primary solar driver or the regular movements from  warming to cooling and back again.
 The only tipping point we need be  concerned with is the level of global temperature at which warming  switches to cooling and vice versa. Due to the much greater threat from  natural cooling the higher we can lift the global temperature at that  tipping point the better. On balance we need more CO2 rather than less.
 The band of TSI in which the switch from  warming to cooling and back again is a variation of less than 4 Watts  per square metre of heat arriving at the Earths surface.
 In view of the size and volatility of  the sun we can be boiled or frozen at any time whatever we do. The only  reason the sun seems stable enough for us to live with it is that in  relation to astronomic timescales our whole existence as a species is  but a flash of light in darkness.
 The whole of modern civilisation has  been made possible by a period of solar stability within a band of less  than 4 Watts per square metre. It will not be a result of anything we do  if solar changes suddenly go outside that band. On a balance of  probability it is more likely that the TSI will soon drop back from the  recent unusual highs but remaining within the band of 4 Watts per square  metre. It would need the arrival of the next ice age to go  significantly below 1363 but even a reduction down to 1365 from present  levels could introduce a dangerous level of cooling depending on where  the tipping point currently lies.
 A period of several decades of reduced  solar activity will quickly need more emissions producing activity to  SAVE the planet yet nonetheless the populations of most living species  will be decimated. At present human population levels a repeat of the  Little Ice Age a mere 400 years ago will cause mass starvation  worldwide. Does anyone really think that the CO2 we produce is effective  enough to reduce that risk to zero when we have plenty of astronomic  evidence of an imminent reduction in solar activity?
 And, moreover, the real world  temperature movements are currently an increasingly good fit with the  solar driver theory (subject to oceanic modification) both as regards  the warming spell, the subsequent stall and the recent turn downwards.
 The AGW risk analysis process (if anyone ever bothered with one) is seriously flawed.
 Article originally published 4th June 2008 at *climaterealists.com*. *Stephen Wilde LLB (Hons.)*

----------


## Rod Dyson

The article above is good, but Marc you need to edit it and break it up into paragraphs so it can be read.

----------


## johnc

You lot constantly whine about people being qualified to comment and questioning the quality of the scientists working for the various bodies, yet to support your rubbish you trot out another piece of drivel written this time by a solicitor, how about a bit of variety can we have the local butcher next. As usual anything that sits on your side of the fence is fine, as long as it doesn't have integrity attached that is.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Wow, here is a very good reason to have a thread like this.  The average knowledge of the ordinary person on the street about co2 is appaling. 
> How can the public knowledge be so bad?  Maybe this     
> Link http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest...-on-carbon.pdf 
> and Carbon  demonized by climate propaganda &#171; JoNova

  Mate, when I realised this survey was taken in Perth, I was embarrassed for this wonderful city.  :Blush7:  
But it was so f---in funny, I still couldn't stop laughing.  :Roflmao2:  
Here's some highlights: 
About 20% of people think the climate NEVER changed before humans recently caused it. 
Over 50% of people think humans CO2 emissions cause Tsunami's. 
Over 20% of people think CO2 is coloured either black, white, grey or other (green? purple?). _(This was while they were breathing the stuff out)._ 
Over 10% of people think Carbon and Carbon Dioxide are the same thing. _(These were mostly Labor ministers)._ 
44% think food and drink would be safer with no Carbon or Carbon Dioxide in it. _(Gotta love that low-carb diet)._ 
About 65% think that JuLIAR's Carbon Dioxide Tax will cool down the Planet Earth. _(FFS, words fail me on this one!)_ 
But great post mate.  Compares wonderfully with the AGW supporters above who still prefer semantic sidetracks and personal attacks.  They still cling to the myth their argument has some credibility, but still cannot produce a single piece of empirical evidence. 
But I guess the more they rant in the woeful manner above, the less credible their position becomes.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Any halfwit should be able to work out that your hollow cover up is nothing but a smoke screen.

  Is that why you worked it out?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's what will get you the $10,000:   

> All you have to do is come up with empirical evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning, drives global warming.

  And you reckon you can do it:   

> It simply isn't enough money to make it worth the necessary effort.  Certainly not at typical consultancy fees. Only buy you about eight days effort which allows less than half that for research and data compilation.  Perhaps if he offered another $90K and a publishing deal?

  So the IPCC and other research enterprises around the globe run by arguably some of the worlds best physicists cannot find this empirical evidence by spending hundreds of billions of dollars on research.   :No:  
But you can organise it for $100k and a book deal?  :Roflmao2:  
You guys do crack me up sometimes.  :Lolabove:  
JuLIAR should give you Flim Flam's $180k per year salary and it's case closed in just over 6 months! No more discussion around the whole Planet.   :Rotfl:  Please, stop, it's hurts when I laugh this much...

----------


## Dr Freud

> You lot constantly whine about people being qualified to comment and questioning the quality of the scientists working for the various bodies

  No, we constantly point out that your argument is flawed because you have *no evidence*.  If any other person, self-proclaimed expert or not, makes the same argument as you, they similarly have *no evidence*. 
Both you and these other people by definition have no scientific integrity. 
Whatever "qualifications" they hold are irrelevant.  The *evidence* determines the "quality" of the argument, be it from a scientist or not.   

> yet to support your rubbish you trot out another piece of drivel written this time by a solicitor

  Again, you miss the point.  His qualifications are irrelevant. Examine his hypothesis, data and conclusions.  He certainly has *no evidence* proving his hypothesis either, as your argument similarly DOES NOT. 
You want to know the major difference between you and him, it's that he's not pushing a massive socialist wealth redistribution and government debt reduction strategy based on a BIG NEW TAX attached to his hypothesis. 
Weird, huh?    

> how about a bit of variety can we have the local butcher next

  If he or she has empirical evidence proving the AGW hypothesis or the TSI hypothesis, or any other hypothesis, then yes. 
One day you will learn that science is built on facts, not consensus of opinion, or academic qualifications held.   

> As usual anything that sits on your side of the fence is fine

  Once again, empirical evidence does not sit on any side of the fence, it just is.  Us sceptics accept all empirical evidence.  Your statement again demonstrates that you still do not grasp the concepts of scientific rigour.  If you ignore all the hype, spin, titles and qualifications of all the people who you trust to be really smart, and instead research the evidence for yourself, you will learn that there is *zero* evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> No, we constantly point out that your argument is flawed because you have *no evidence*.  If any other person, self-proclaimed expert or not, makes the same argument as you, they similarly have *no evidence*. 
> Both you and these other people by definition have no scientific integrity. 
> Whatever "qualifications" they hold are irrelevant.  The *evidence* determines the "quality" of the argument, be it from a scientist or not.   
> Again, you miss the point.  His qualifications are irrelevant. Examine his hypothesis, data and conclusions.  He certainly has *no evidence* proving his hypothesis either, as your argument similarly DOES NOT. 
> You want to know the major difference between you and him, it's that he's not pushing a massive socialist wealth redistribution and government debt reduction strategy based on a BIG NEW TAX attached to his hypothesis. 
> Weird, huh?    
> If he or she has empirical evidence proving the AGW hypothesis or the TSI hypothesis, or any other hypothesis, then yes. 
> One day you will learn that science is built on facts, not consensus of opinion, or academic qualifications held.   
> Once again, empirical evidence does not sit on any side of the fence, it just is.  Us sceptics accept all empirical evidence.  Your statement again demonstrates that you still do not grasp the concepts of scientific rigour.  If you ignore all the hype, spin, titles and qualifications of all the people who you trust to be really smart, and instead research the evidence for yourself, you will learn that there is *zero* evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.

  
Such a great reply, nothing furthur to add.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *The Death Blow To Anthropogenic Global Warming*

  Too right.   

> *"OSAMA bin Laden expressed concern about global climate change and flooding in Pakistan in a reported audio recording that hit the internet on Friday... 
> ...*In one of two tapes issued in January, bin Laden blamed major industrial nations for climate change - a statement the U.S. State Department said showed that he was struggling to stay relevant..."  New Osama bin Laden speech says climate change is worse than wars | Herald Sun 
> Peddling fear to remain relevant in the face of reality, how poignant for these kindred spirits.

  He was fine while he was just a terrorist.  Once he jumped on the AGW bandwagon, his days were numbers. 
Let's just chalk up one carbon unit to a very successful carbon sequestration mission by the Navy Seals. 
Well done my fine flippered friends.  :Patriot:

----------


## johnc

> Is that why you worked it out?

  Lets face it, after 5941 posts going in ever decreasing circles in what is a renovation forum it is only the half wits left (or perhaps you would have to be a halfwit to still be here), and the lie was so basic I doubt anyone missed it anyway.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You want to know the major difference between you and him, it's that he's not pushing a massive socialist wealth redistribution and government debt reduction strategy based on a BIG NEW TAX attached to his hypothesis.

  I don't think either side of the argument here is pushing for either of those things (I sure as Clouds ain't)....do you have any actual evidence to the contrary (or is that merely your opinion)?   

> ...there is *zero* evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.

  Following on from your arguement.....there's not much evidence to support this statement either.  Perhaps two nulls make a nothing?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It's pretty clear to me. He will accept empirical evidence.  if you have such evidence present it and collect your 10 grand.  It should'nt require intesive research, remember the science is settled. 
> Should be a piece of cake. Except the reason its not taken up is that the evidence is not there.  You have diddly squat zero evidence. Now that is the truth that IS OUT THERE. Pathetic isn't it.

  Now you are being disingenuous.   Myself and a number of others have provided you and your colleagues with much empirical evidence regarding AGW just as you have provide much of the same as a counter to AGW. 
I suspect that a few links and some pithy comments would be insufficient to claim ten grand.  I also suspect that the proponents response would be not dissimilar to yours regardless of the additional effort so the effort on my behalf has a good chance of being wasted.....leaving me out of pocket rather than ten grand in the black. 
It isn't worth it.

----------


## johnc

> Too right.   
> He was fine while he was just a terrorist. Once he jumped on the AGW bandwagon, his days were numbers. 
> Let's just chalk up one carbon unit to a very successful carbon sequestration mission by the Navy Seals. 
> Well done my fine flippered friends.

  Really? an interesting and rather stupid spin don't you think. There is  absolutely no evidence that the USA is killing off climate activists to start with and secondly and most importantly this man brought death and destruction to thousands of innocents and we should pay suitable respect to those innocents by not trivialising this mans death. Isn't the saying "live by the sword, die by the sword" and Osama has probably got the martyrs death he wanted so he can get to those virgins he thinks await him in heaven.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I don't think either side of the argument here is pushing for either of those things (I sure as Clouds ain't)....do you have any actual evidence to the contrary (or is that merely your opinion)?

  You might want to read the paper occasionally.  The federal government is planning on introducing a Carbon Dioxide Tax.  This tax will be paid by what is termed "rich" people, which pretty much means those people who work hard and smart to earn money.  Then this money will be transferred to what is termed "poor" people, or those who do not work hard and smart to earn money (no value judgement, just facts).   
On the way through, this money sits in CRF in accordance with Section 81 of the Constitution, so counts towards the governments fiscal position, thereby offsetting its debt position.  Without going into the voodoo economics JuLIAR and Swan are planning, their budget will be "balanced" and their debt position reduced by this money sitting in CRF between collection and distribution phase, hence the urgent 1 July 2012 start date, so the promised 12/13 budget "surplus" will magically materialise.  Then we can have another election and reveal the truth again afterwards.  Cool huh! 
Did you miss the bit where the Planet Earth cools down, I always seem to.  :Doh:    

> Following on from your arguement.....there's not much evidence to support this statement either. Perhaps two nulls make a nothing?

  Are you again asking me to provide evidence that something does not exist?  :Doh:  
I thought you had learned the tooth fairy lesson already.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Myself and a number of others have provided you and your colleagues with much empirical evidence *regarding* AGW just as you have provide much of the same as a counter to AGW.

  Nice word that, *regarding*! Not *proving*. 
There is *zero* evidence proving the AGW hypothesis! 
Care to respond yes or no to that, or just waffle on with more semantics to distract from the reality you continually fail to accept? 
I say again, us sceptics accept all empirical evidence.  There is absolutely none that proves this farce.    

> It isn't worth it.

  It isn't possible! 
But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night champ.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Really? an interesting and rather stupid spin don't you think.

  Yes, that's what it was intended to be.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):    

> There is absolutely no evidence that the USA is killing off climate activists to start with

  Mate, you need to lighten up a little.  Life's too short, especially with the Planet warming so rapidly.  :Doh:    

> and secondly and most importantly this man brought death and destruction to thousands of innocents and we should pay suitable respect to those innocents by not trivialising this mans death.

  Those innocents were shown respect, are shown respect, and will always be shown respect. 
But if I was lucky enough to find this clown, I would have certainly given him a much more fitting send off.  :Whatonearth:  
And what kind of warped world do you live in where you show respect for victims by supporting the perpetrators?  Are you a lawyer or a judge by any chance? 
If you want to try and play "moral high ground games", you might want to get a credible position first.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *2007:*   _Oscar-winning actress Cate Blanchett yesterday visited drought-ravaged North Pine Dam, north of Brisbane, to promote a new Australian Conservation Foundation online campaign whoonearthcares.com._  _I actually have little races with myself, thinking Oh no, Im not washing my hair. I only need to have a two-minute shower, Blanchett revealed._  _Blanchett and Australian Conservation Foundation director Don Henry visited the dam  presently at just 16 per cent of capacity  to see the effects of the drought and to share her passionate views about climate change._* 
> 2011:*  _ 
> THE dam at greatest risk of failure during the January floods was not Somerset or Wivenhoe, but North Pine Dam, north of Brisbane, according to the State Governments dam safety expert_  _Operators were forced to wade through water to operate the sluice gates and electrical switchgear came within 55cm of being submerged as a volume of water almost equal to its own capacity passed through the already full dam in a matter of hours._Good for a scare while it lasted | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Where's Cate gone?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> April 13, and Michael Ignatieff, the leader of Canadas Liberal Party,  sells his plan for an emissions trading scheme: _Whats good about this country is all Canadians, whether youre easterners or westerners want to face the challenge of climate change._ On the other hand, Conservative leader Stephen Harper goes a bit sceptic, offering only a pie-in-the-sky carbon-capture scheme: _On the domestic front, Harper defended Canadas Arctic claims, while appearing to show little interest in climate change._Election day yesterday, and Canadians tell Ignatieff exactly how keen they are on tackling climate change: _With 99 per cent of polls reporting, the Conservatives won 167 seats, followed by the NDP with 102, Liberals with 34 and the Bloc Québécois with four and the Green Party with one._ Canada cools on warming - and on a Labor-style ETS | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Another country votes: Hell NO! 
And Flim Flam gets a reality check:   

> "I watched (the debates) with great interest but I was mystified to see that the environment just didn't rank at all," said Flannery Canadian election giving climate change and the environment the cold shoulder, says Autralian author and scientist

  
But poor Flim Flam is still very deluded, like so many AGW hypothesis supporters:   

> Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery: _You know, 60 per cent of people consistently now, for a number of years, have wanted something done about climate change. Thats why the government is acting.  _  In fact:  _...the latest Newspoll survey reveals 60 per cent of voters are opposed to the governments plan to put a price on carbon next year and only 30 per cent remain in favour._Flannery 100 per cent wrong about that 60 per cent | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Poor Flim Flam, at least he still gets to fly around the Planet promoting his new book on reducing CO2 emissions.  :Doh:

----------


## johnc

> Yes, that's what it was intended to be.    
> Mate, you need to lighten up a little. Life's too short, especially with the Planet warming so rapidly.    
> Those innocents were shown respect, are shown respect, and will always be shown respect. 
> But if I was lucky enough to find this clown, I would have certainly given him a much more fitting send off.  
> And what kind of warped world do you live in where you show respect for victims by supporting the perpetrators? Are you a lawyer or a judge by any chance? 
> If you want to try and play "moral high ground games", you might want to get a credible position first.

  If it is a joke present it as one, which you didn't, secondly the comment did not support the perpetrators, how about less hot air for once.

----------


## Dr Freud

If this is the best you've got, you certainly exemplify the reason this farce loses more credibility every day. 
Let's play with your semantics for now, as they definitely reduce your credibility.  It's been a quiet news day anyway, but we can get back to that in a minute.   

> If it is a joke present it as one

  I could say the same thing for the AGW hypothesis.  :Rotfl:    

> which you didn't

  So you *seriously believed* that the Federal Administration in the USA had issued executive orders to special forces Navy Seals to hunt down and kill AGW hypothesis supporters.  And just because they wanted a challenge, they started with UBL, cos the other AGW hypothesis supporters should be much easier to kill after getting him.  Hell, if that plan went well, we could get Delta Force involved, kill them all much quicker. 
Well done champ.  :Screwy:    

> secondly the comment did not support the perpetrators

  Let's take a look:   

> not trivialising this mans death

  Let's assume for a minute you are correct that I triviliased this (which I did not), you then recommended this should not happen, see the word *"not"* you used above. 
So in summary, I responded opposing the perpetrator, you opposed this and responded *supporting* the perpetrator.   

> *3.** support* - something providing immaterial assistance to a person or cause or interest.

  Hang in there people, hopefully this lesson in semantic drivel will sink in, but I'm not holding my CO2.   

> how about less hot air for once

  After you read and digest the whole thread, which you obviously haven't, you will see that I've posted science, politics, bad jokes, sarcasm, opinions, and assorted rantings.  After your comment about hot air, I tracked back through *your* recent posts and noted all the AGW hypothesis science or solutions you've posted?  
Strangely, here are *all your most recent posts in chronological order:*   

> ...why don't you take a little more time and try to turn this into a discussion rather than the tiresome debate this has become. The reason this is tiresome is that some seem to think that using ridicule and insults somehow strengthens their postion when in fact it only reveals childish arrogance and an inflated sense of their own self importance.

   

> Thankyou, I'll keep a copy of this as an example of blind uninformed prejudice. I'm not sure how you make the quantum leap to Australia being "the social security of the world" but it seems to make sense to you. Do you have a problem with teachers or just anyone with an education? You really are a strange fellow.

   

> It is "without prejudice" and in laymans terms means the words contained within can't be used by the receiver. As for the rest Watson has made his view clear, just drop any connection to the offending post and any earlier reply to it.

   

> You have got to be joking, you clearly refer to the phrase at the start of a lawyers correspondence, which is "without" prejudice. Then to top it off we get a claim that it is what? an unknown military term that is "adopted". Extremely prejudiced is just you getting over excited in a response. What wonderful leap of fancy will we get next.

   

> And we devote a small amount of our time helping them demonstrate their collective inability to never question their own logic or ever exercise the slightest doubt that they might be wrong. Isn't the sign of great intelligence to be able to always question and that includes especially our own beliefs and understanding?

   

> So you must have looked and found nothing then, otherwise why would you even bother mentioning it. Any halfwit should be able to work out that your hollow cover up is nothing but a smoke screen.

   

> You lot constantly whine about people being qualified to comment and questioning the quality of the scientists working for the various bodies, yet to support your rubbish you trot out another piece of drivel written this time by a solicitor, how about a bit of variety can we have the local butcher next. As usual anything that sits on your side of the fence is fine, as long as it doesn't have integrity attached that is.

   

> Lets face it, after 5941 posts going in ever decreasing circles in what is a renovation forum it is only the half wits left (or perhaps you would have to be a halfwit to still be here), and the lie was so basic I doubt anyone missed it anyway.

   

> Really? an interesting and rather stupid spin don't you think. There is absolutely no evidence that the USA is killing off climate activists to start with and secondly and most importantly this man brought death and destruction to thousands of innocents and we should pay suitable respect to those innocents by not trivialising this mans death. Isn't the saying "live by the sword, die by the sword" and Osama has probably got the martyrs death he wanted so he can get to those virgins he thinks await him in heaven.

   

> If it is a joke present it as one, which you didn't, secondly the comment did not support the perpetrators, how about less hot air for once.

  Lack of insight truly is tragic. 
Instead of inane personal semantics, how about you post something *supporting* the AGW hypothesis.  :Biggrin:    *Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way! Thomas Paine.*

----------


## Dr Freud

> Opposition swells to the Gillard Government’s carbon dioxide tax: _THE Northern Territory’s Legislative Assembly has passed a motion calling for the territory to be exempted from a carbon tax for at least 50 years, or until a global consensus is been reached on reducing carbon emissions…_  _The Country Liberal Party motion was passed last night after crossbench independent Gerry Wood spoke in its support…_  _Mr Wood, who supports Labor in a minority government arrangement, said a carbon tax would be potentially damaging to the NT economy._  _“We eat meat and we need to grow food, and if we are going to be penalised for growing food because we have got long distances to our markets, then I think that that is certainly a backwards step,” he said._  _“Transport is by diesel. Diesel will be taxed.”_NT says no to Gillard’s tax | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Wait till the States hear about this.  I'll be pushing our clowns over here in Parliament to follow suit.  Should be no issue with our house allocations.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Wait till the States hear about this.  I'll be pushing our clowns over here in Parliament to follow suit.  Should be no issue with our house allocations.

  This is a very wise move by the NT government.  Hope a few others take note.

----------


## Dr Freud

What a debacle. 
A scheme designed so badly that it cannot achieve it's objective. 
Greenomics in action here:  

> Climate Change Minister Greg Combet is expected to announce the changes in response to soaring electricity prices and an overheating renewable energy market.  The changes mean federal subsidies for rooftop solar panels will end in mid-2013, a year earlier than previously promised. 
> Some energy market experts, including government climate change adviser Rod Sims, have blamed rising power bills on the massive increase in rooftop solar panel installations. 
>               The sale of solar panels in effect floods the power market with extra renewable energy credits, which has an inflationary effect on electricity bills.  Cuts to solar subsidies to be sped up

   This farce has to stop.  :Doh:  
If AGW hypothesis supporters believe in this garbage so much, at least provide a credible solution to your imagined problem.  :Slap2:

----------


## Dr Freud

Gail Kelly is to be admired for her efforts to boost Westpac Banks shareholder's profits. 
She has realised that: ETS = bank commissions and boost for bank profits; TAX = CRF and fiscal boost for government.   

> *WESTPAC chief executive Gail Kelly has joined the growing criticism of Labor's carbon tax, declaring an emissions trading scheme better for business and warning the "uncertainty" caused by the lack of policy detail is affecting her customers.  * Mrs Kelly's criticism came as Julia Gillard met key business leaders at her Kirribilli House residence in Sydney last night in a bid to win support for the tax, but that fanned anger from brown-coal producers and electricity generators who were not invited. 
> They will meet Climate Change Minister Greg Combet in Canberra next week as the government battles increasingly dismal polls and Labor backbenchers fend off opposition from constituents increasingly concerned about cost-of-living pressures. 
> Business critics of the tax yesterday intensified their campaign, with a group of companies including BlueScope Steel, CSR, Boral and packaging giant Amcor, launching a new website called manufacturingaustralia.com.au. It contains criticism of the carbon tax's impact on manufacturing industries already hit hard by the soaring Australian dollar. 
> The Australian has also learned that frustration is growing among key negotiators from the electricity industry, who believe progress in compensation talks is being held back by the fact the government has been unable to provide firm commitments to proposals because of its minority position in parliament. 
> A source close to the discussions with the electricity industry - which continued yesterday with Climate Change Secretary Blair Comley and other key officials flying to Melbourne to meet industry figures - said a key problem facing the negotiations was that the Greens had rejected the electricity adjustment package offered in Kevin Rudd's carbon pollution reduction scheme. "All discussions are on a without commitment basis," the source said. 
> CSR chief executive Rob Sindel said his company, which employed more than 4000 people in manufacturing across Australia in some highly trade-exposed industries, was "obviously very concerned about the proposed tax framework".
> "A carbon tax without full transitional assistance to industry sacrifices jobs and puts Australian manufacturing at a competitive disadvantage," he said.  Westpac chief Gail Kelly joins carbon tax revolt | The Australian

  Lessons in how to kill an economy!  
(Sorry Johnc, I don't mean kill it in reality.  The Australian Government has not issued orders to our SASR or Commando's to hunt down little aussie dollars and take them out of circulation.  :Biggrin: ) 
Think of something more like this:

----------


## johnc

Just for Mr Frued, a small something fo you from Crikey on your hero Andrew Bolt, it looks at some of his comments from an older article and posts replies to those points. Although your mind is probably closed to anything that doesn't agree with your view I am sure you will have fun with the usual level of ridicule and criticism we have come to expect. Climate myths? Andrew Bolt’s claims scientifically tested | Crikey

----------


## johnc

> What a debacle. 
> A scheme designed so badly that it cannot achieve it's objective. 
> Greenomics in action here:  This farce has to stop.  
> If AGW hypothesis supporters believe in this garbage so much, at least provide a credible solution to your imagined problem.

    
To be fair the problem does not stem from the actual installation of the panels, but rather from the prices the energy retailers have to buy surplus power back from the household. It is also worth noting that at the rate solar panels are falling in price it is only a matter of time before they become competitive to other sources of power generation. 
Some panels are now being installed at the remote ends of the grid to boost coal fired power back up to the level it needs to be for those far flung sections, and these are without subsidy. Solar power has a growing place in generation but the models used by both sides of the political divide have caused pressure on energy prices. However our aging transmission system is also at a point where it needs upgrading and this to is lifting prices. The incentives have given solar power a chance to become competitive and we are starting to see these being wound down, it is only a matter of time before the very generous buy back prices will also reduce to a sustainable level. Government subsidy of power generation is not new and to single out solar or wind is a little unfair unless you also look at how other emerging technologies such as nuclear and even coal have been treated over the years.  
One thing that can be said with certainty is that at this stage solar will never be our only source of power generation.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Just for Mr Frued, a small something fo you from Crikey on your hero Andrew Bolt, it looks at some of his comments from an older article and posts replies to those points. Although your mind is probably closed to anything that doesn't agree with your view I am sure you will have fun with the usual level of ridicule and criticism we have come to expect. Climate myths? Andrew Bolts claims scientifically tested | Crikey

  After you read the thread, you will understand that these discussions are over things called effects.  We have varying degrees of accuracy in measuring effects, but for the sake of this argument lets assume all these effects are measured 100% accurately.  None of these points addressed any PROOF of the causes of these effects.  If we are already arguing over various interpretations of the effects, we have no hope in terms of PROVING what the causes (yes, plural) are! 
But you can catch up on these concepts as you read through the thread.  :2thumbsup:  
If you want a brief rebuttal of this loony Glikson's pathetic efforts, please see here:  Glikson flicked | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
If I can work up the motivation, I'll thoroughly ridicule his paltry (and outdated) efforts on the weekend.  :Biggrin:  
But here's some more from his "scientific" preachings:   

> Nature is full of examples of parasites, viruses destroying their host, sea anemones seducing their prey, but _Homo sapiens_ has perfected untruths to a form of fine art. Defying the scientific method and the peer review system, so-called "sceptics", lured by ego and money, serve as mouthpieces of air-poisoning lobbies, which have already delayed humanity's desperate attempt at mitigating the fast deteriorating state of the atmosphere by more than twenty years.  Planet eaters: Chain reactions, black holes and climate change | Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

  Reminds me of this bloke:   

> *Agent Smith*: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.

  The pathetic Glikson attempts you have linked actually inspired Bolt to continue his "anti-AGW hypothesis" mission.  He realised after Glikson's attempted rebuttal that there was no scientific evidence proving the AGW hypothesis. 
And there still isn't.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> To be fair the problem does not stem from the actual installation of the panels, but rather from the prices the energy retailers have to buy surplus power back from the household. It is also worth noting that at the rate solar panels are falling in price it is only a matter of time before they become competitive to other sources of power generation. 
> Some panels are now being installed at the remote ends of the grid to boost coal fired power back up to the level it needs to be for those far flung sections, and these are without subsidy. Solar power has a growing place in generation but the models used by both sides of the political divide have caused pressure on energy prices. However our aging transmission system is also at a point where it needs upgrading and this to is lifting prices. The incentives have given solar power a chance to become competitive and we are starting to see these being wound down, it is only a matter of time before the very generous buy back prices will also reduce to a sustainable level. Government subsidy of power generation is not new and to single out solar or wind is a little unfair unless you also look at how other emerging technologies such as nuclear and even coal have been treated over the years.  
> One thing that can be said with certainty is that at this stage solar will never be our only source of power generation.

  Seriously mate, if you read the thread, you will see where all of your points above have been well and truly repudiated, except of course the last one.  :Biggrin:  
I can go through your post and rebut these same points in detail again, but people were already sick of my ramblings the first time round. Suffice to say solar power is not the solution to what is not a problem.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

The workers are telling their union bosses to tell JuLIAR to dump this joke.   

> Protectionist Labor senator Doug Cameron supports a carbon tax, but his anti-trade mates clearly dont: _I get emails every week from working people who tell me that having seen free trade policies destroy manufacturing jobs, they are not about to support a carbon tax._  The great national convergence continues. Besides protectionists, the tax is already rejected at various levels by Rio Tinto, Alcoa, dairy farmers, barley growers, insurance companies, local councils, state governments, CFOs, food and grocery producers, miners, union members, Gerry Harvey, G&S Engineering, Sam Gadaleta, BHP and Queensland Labor members  and now by the Noosa Chamber of Commerce, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Northern Territory parliament. 
>   UPDATE. The big end of town rolls up for their charm offensive  and encounter someone whos paying the bill. 
>   UPDATE II. A powerful claim from Julia Gillards carbon buddies in the Greens: Were more responsible than Andrew Wilkie!   425 DAYS UNTIL LABORS DOUG TAX | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog

  She is ignoring workers because she thinks they don't understand anything because they are so stupid!  She thinks they are happy to be the sacrificial lambs on the greenie altar. 
What you don't understand JuLIAR is these people voted for you last time, and they don't like being treated like idiots! 
Remember this:   

> Prime Minister John Howard, in a move hailed by the timber industry and condemned by environmentalists, yesterday vowed to allow logging of Tasmania's old-growth forests to proceed indefinitely at existing planned levels. 
> Addressing about 1500 cheering timber workers in Launceston, Mr Howard said his policy struck a balance between environmental concerns and the needs of local communities. 
> "Many Australians would like to see an end to old-growth logging. I would too, but that should not occur at the expense of jobs and not at the expense of individual regional communities," he said. 
> Mr Howard said that on the advice of timber industry groups, no jobs would be lost under the Coalition's plan. 
> His forests announcement was condemned by Labor, the Greens, the Democrats and environment groups.

  JuLIAR, listen up! 
Workers care about the environment, but they care about their families standard of living too.  Sitting in a dark caravan as a symbolic moral gesture to the rest of the world is not our idea of a good time or a good policy.  :No:    

> 7 All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea does not overflow: unto the place from whence the rivers come, they return, to flow again. 8 All things are hard: man cannot explain them by word. The eye is not filled with seeing, neither is the ear filled with hearing.  9 What is it that has been? The same thing that shall be. What is it that has been done? The same that shall be done.  10 Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it has already gone before in the ages that were before us.  11 There is no remembrance of former things: nor indeed of those things which hereafter are to come, shall there be any remembrance with them that shall be in the latter end. 
> Ecclesiastes 1.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Nice to see someone come to their senses and admit they were wrong.   

> *Pawlenty on past cap-and-trade support: ‘I was wrong, it was a mistake, and I'm sorry’* 
> By Ben Geman					-															05/06/11 09:21 AM ET					 
> White House hopeful Tim Pawlenty used Thursday night’s first GOP presidential debate to ask voters’ forgiveness for once supporting cap-and-trade as a means to cut greenhouse gas emissions — a policy that has become politically toxic among Republicans. 
> Pawlenty backed cap-and-trade when he was governor of Minnesota and agreed to participate in the multistate Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord.  
> He also cut a radio ad for the Environmental Defense Fund in 2008 that urged Congress to “get moving” and “cap greenhouse gas pollution now.” 
> But in last night’s GOP presidential debate in South Carolina, Pawlenty made his latest of several statements calling that past support a mistake. Pawlenty said he signed a law as governor to explore the state-level emissions-capping program, but subsequently decided it was bad policy.
> “We signed up to look at it, to review it, to study it, to join with other states to look at it. And we did. And what I concluded subsequently is it's really a bad idea,” Pawlenty said in response to a question on the issue.
> “And this is not in the last six months. I sent a letter to Congress, I think, about two years ago and at other times have said, I was wrong, it was a mistake, and I'm sorry. It's ham-fisted, it's going to be harmful to the economy,” he said. 
> Pawlenty described his past support as a “battle scar” that comes with the territory in an executive position. 
> ...

----------


## Marc

> You lot constantly whine about people being qualified to comment and questioning the quality of the scientists working for the various bodies, yet to support your rubbish you trot out another piece of drivel written this time by a solicitor, how about a bit of variety can we have the local butcher next. As usual anything that sits on your side of the fence is fine, as long as it doesn't have integrity attached that is.

  John. As usual, and as all of your predecessors in this thread, you have nothing to say in reply to the article which you probably did not read or did not understand or both.  I give you it is a bit hard to read because the paragraphs are notspaced out, and I can not edit it anymore. This website has a time window for editing, rather strange for a woodwork forum, but hey, gift horse and all that.  
Yet you were quick in your un-flattering comment about a person you do not know from a bar of soap. He is a lawyer you say. Is that a derogatory comment in your nick of the woods? 
Would it be better if he is a long-haired-out-of-work-slightly-smelly-on-a- bike kind of guy? 
Let's see what he has to say to something that seems to be a pattern among AGW agitators, cheer leaders and assorted supporters.   

> Stephen WildeMon May 02 at 12:32 pm        
>           It is an interesting feature of some critical comments that I am  said to be somehow disqualified from being able to comment on climate  matters simply because in my professional life I am a lawyer yet a  fundamental feature of legal training is the ability to weigh  contradictory pieces of evidence against one another in order to arrive  at a reasonable conclusion.                                 Anyway, I am  not ‘just’ a lawyer. I have been a weather and climate enthusiast since  I was less than 5 years of age, have observed the natural world closely  throughout my life so far and have read everything I could find on the  subject for nearly 60 years. My membership of the Royal Meteorological  Society dates back to 1968 and at that time one of my options was  considering a career in meteorology and/or climatology.                                                                                  Thus by  merging my legal analytic skills with my observational experience of  weather and my technical knowledge of climate I believe I have something  useful to contribute to the ongoing debate. Reply

  As you can see I left a link for you to reply to the author. You can tell him directly what is your opinion of him being a lawyer and having a website dedicated to rebuke climate change con artist. Just click on the word "reply"...

----------


## Marc

*The Death Blow To Anthropogenic Global Warming* 
                                                       By Stephen Wilde - Sat Apr 30, 4:54 pm  14 Comments2,355  *Over the past 3 years since the  initial publication of this article the most recent climate data have  been substantially verifying the opinion expressed. In this updated  version a few minor adjustments have been made in the light of more  recent events, Stephen Wilde* *writes for Irish Weather Online.* 
 The influence of the sun has been  discounted in the climate models as a contributor to the warming  observed between 1975 and 1998. Those who support the theory of  anthropogenic global warming (AGW), now known as anthropogenic climate  change (even more recently described as climate disruption) so that  recent cooling can be included in their scenario, always deny that the  sun has anything to do with recent global temperature movements. 
The reason given is that Total Solar  Irradiance (TSI) varied so little over that period that it cannot  explain the warming that was observed. I don’t yet accept that TSI tells  the whole story because it is ill defined and speculative as regards  it’s representation of all the different ways the sun could affect the  Earth via the entire available range of physical processes.
 Despite the limitations of TSI as an  indicator of solar influence I think there are conclusions we can draw  from the records we do have. Oddly, I have not seen them discussed  properly anywhere else, especially not by AGW enthusiasts.      The pattern of TSI from 1611 to 2001.  
It is true that, as the alarmists say, since 1961 the average level of  TSI has been approximately level if one averages out the peaks and  troughs from solar cycles 19 through to 23. However, those solar cycles show substantially higher levels of TSI than have ever previously occurred in the historical record. 
Because of the height of the TSI level one cannot simply ignore it as the IPCC and the modellers have done.
 The critical issue is that having  achieved such high levels of TSI by 1961 the sun was already producing  more heat than was required to maintain a stable Earth temperature. On  that basis alone the theory of AGW cannot be sustained and should now  die. 
Throughout the period 1961 to about  2001, there was a steady cumulative net warming effect within the oceans  from the sun. The fact that TSI was, on average, level during that  period is entirely irrelevant and misleading. 
It is hardly likely that such a high  level of TSI compared to historical levels is going to have no effect at  all on global temperature changes and indeed during most of that period  there was also an enhanced period of positive Pacific Decadal  Oscillation that imparted increasing warmth from the oceans to the  atmosphere. My link below to article 1041 contains details of my view  that the sun drives the various oceanic oscillations which in turn drive  global temperature variations with all other influences including CO2  being minor and often cancelling themselves out leaving the  solar/oceanic driver supreme. 
It could be said that the increase in  TSI from a little over1363 to a little under1367 Watts per square metre  over the 400 year period shown is pretty insignificant. However a square  metre is a miniscule portion of the surface of the planet so that even a  tiny increase or decrease in the heat being received on average over  each such tiny area translates into a huge change in total heat budget  for the entire planet. The smallness of the apparent range of variation  is a function of the smallness of the area subdivision used rather than  an indication of insignificance. It is fortunate for us that the sun is  not more variable. 
The observation of a historically high  level of TSI from 1961 to 2001 tends to fit with the theories set out in  my other articles about the real cause of recent warming and the real  link between solar energy, ocean cycles and global temperatures.  Global Warming and Cooling - The Reality by Stephen Wilde | Climate Realists The Real Link Between Solar Energy, Ocean Cycles and Global Temperature by Stephen Wilde | Climate Realists 
Amongst other things the above link to  article 1302 shows how the negative PDO from 1961 to 1975 cancelled out  the warming effects of solar cycles 18 and 19 by imparting less warmth  from oceans to air and led to a slight cooling trend during those years  despite the relatively high TSI levels. The switch to a positive PDO  from 1975 to 2001 allowed the solar warming influence in the air to  resume. We now have both a falling TSI and a negative PDO which is an  entirely different (indeed opposite) scenario to the one which led to  the concerns about runaway warming. 
If the current scenario continues for a  few more years then real world observations will resolve most of the  disputed issues. For the past 10 years the real world has been moving in  the direction predicted by the solar driver theory and in my articles I  have described the oceanic mechanism that transfers solar input to the  atmosphere and then to Space. 
If global temperatures were to resume  warming despite a reduction in solar activity and/or a negative PDO then  the alarmist position might be vindicated. The alarmist camp is  predicting such a resumption of warming. The Hadley Centre suggested  2010 but others have more recently suggested 2015.  If there is no  resumption of warming by 2015 then AGW is dead as a theory. It would not  count in favour of AGW if any resumed warming were accompanied by  increased solar activity or a positive PDO because that would put the  solar driver back in control. 
My own view is that there is plenty of  evidence currently available that should demonstrate from an objective  viewpoint that the theory of AGW is already dead, namely: 
1)    Real world temperature observations which are diverging from model expectations more and more as time passes 
2)    The clear recent decline in solar activity 
3)    The return to a negative (cooling) Pacific Decadal Oscillation) which may last 30 years on past performances 
4)  A change in global weather patterns  which I noticed as long ago as 2000 whereby the jet streams moved back  towards the equator from the positions they adopted during the warming  spell. The observation that a global warming or cooling trend can be  discerned from seasonal weather patterns seems to be unique to me and  has been dealt with by me in more detail in other articles. 
Those who still believe in AGW have to  be able to show that any CO2 driver is powerful enough to seriously  disrupt the solar and oceanic drivers. If all that CO2 does is to  marginally raise global temperature over the period of a natural solar  driven warming and cooling cycle then there is nothing to fear because  the mitigating effect in cool periods will outweigh any discomfort from  the aggravating effect at and around the peak of the warm periods. 
In fact, it is possible that even the  extra warmth around the natural warm peaks will be entirely beneficial.  The proposal that we are facing imminent climate catastrophe ought to be  comical. 
There are other interesting implications to be drawn from the TSI history referred to above. 
Applying a little logic it must be the  case that at a certain level of TSI the global temperature budget will  be balanced i.e. neither warming nor cooling. During the 400 years since  the world experienced the relatively low TSI levels of the 1600’s that  point of balance must have been crossed and re crossed many times as the  TSI numbers varied with time. That is why the world has experienced  warming and cooling spells regularly over the centuries (though with an  average warming trend since 1601) 
As it happens the chart shown covers TSI  from the depths of the Little Ice age to the recent warm spell so it is  clear that the point of transition from net cooling to net warming is  somewhere within the range 1363 to 1367 Watts per square metre. Indeed  on the basis of just a brief glance at the chart that point of  transition is obviously lower than the average TSI between 1961 and 2001  hence my assertion that during those years there was a steady solar  warming effect which adequately explains the observed warming without  reliance on rising CO2. This is such a simple and obvious point that I  really do not understand why the IPCC and the modellers did not see it. 
The information that we need and which  is critical to the whole global warming debate is some idea of the level  of TSI and associated solar activity at which the Earth switches from  net warming to net cooling. It will be hard to identify because, as I  have mentioned in my other articles, the filtering of the solar signal  through the various oceanic cycles is neither rapid nor straightforward  and it appears that the effects are caused not by solar irradiance in  itself but rather by changes in the mix of wavelengths and particles  from the sun as solar activity varies. 
As I have explained elsewhere the solar  changes appear to alter the vertical temperature profile of the  atmosphere so as to shift the main cloud bands latitudinally thereby  altering total cloudiness and global albedo and so affecting the rate of  energy input to the oceans. 
In fact that point of transition from  net warming to net cooling and vice versa will itself vary over time  depending on whether, at any given moment, the oceanic cycles are  working against or in support of the solar changes. Similarly the speed  of response will vary for the same reasons. 
I really do not see how any climate  model can operate meaningfully without that fundamental piece of  information.  Clearly the ‘elephant’ is missing from the room. 
Finally, in view of the widespread  concerns about the involvement of CO2 I should emphasise that if solar  energy is the primary driver of global temperature then the only  consequence of a stronger greenhouse effect is going to be a slight  upward movement of the prevailing temperature throughout the natural  warming and cooling cycles. 
Because of the logarithmic decline in  the greenhouse warming effect of increased amounts of CO2 there is never  going to be enough greenhouse effect from any amount of increased CO2  to overturn the primary solar driver or the regular movements from  warming to cooling and back again. 
The only ‘tipping point’ we need be  concerned with is the level of global temperature at which warming  switches to cooling and vice versa. Due to the much greater threat from  natural cooling the higher we can lift the global temperature at that  tipping point the better. On balance we need more CO2 rather than less. 
The band of TSI in which the switch from  warming to cooling and back again is a variation of less than 4 Watts  per square metre of heat arriving at the Earth’s surface. 
In view of the size and volatility of  the sun we can be boiled or frozen at any time whatever we do. The only  reason the sun seems stable enough for us to live with it is that in  relation to astronomic timescales our whole existence as a species is  but a flash of light in darkness. 
The whole of modern civilisation has  been made possible by a period of solar stability within a band of less  than 4 Watts per square metre. It will not be a result of anything we do  if solar changes suddenly go outside that band. On a balance of  probability it is more likely that the TSI will soon drop back from the  recent unusual highs but remaining within the band of 4 Watts per square  metre. It would need the arrival of the next ice age to go  significantly below 1363 but even a reduction down to 1365 from present  levels could introduce a dangerous level of cooling depending on where  the tipping point currently lies. 
A period of several decades of reduced  solar activity will quickly need more emissions producing activity to  SAVE the planet yet nonetheless the populations of most living species  will be decimated. At present human population levels a repeat of the  Little Ice 
Age a mere 400 years ago will cause mass starvation  worldwide. Does anyone really think that the CO2 we produce is effective  enough to reduce that risk to zero when we have plenty of astronomic  evidence of an imminent reduction in solar activity? 
And, moreover, the real world  temperature movements are currently an increasingly good fit with the  solar driver theory (subject to oceanic modification) both as regards  the warming spell, the subsequent stall and the recent turn downwards.
 The AGW risk analysis process (if anyone ever bothered with one) is seriously flawed. 
Article originally published 4th June 2008 at *climaterealists.com*.  *Stephen Wilde LLB (Hons.)* View articles
 U.K. Private Client Solicitor and lifelong Weather and Climate enthusiast.
 Born and brought up in Cheshire England.  From age 5 to 17 always  anticipated becoming a TV weather presenter  but eventually chose Law due  to a marginally better facility with words  rather than the number  crunching of physics in those days.
 Nevertheless maintained an intense  interest in the subject and kept  up to date with developments  throughout the past 50 years. Well able to  understand complex science  and express it in simple language. Joined  Royal Meteorological Society  1968. Now runs own Law Firm specialising in  a good quality clientele  with significant property work. In spare time,  purely for pleasure,  continues to keep up with all aspects of weather  and climate and writes  articles attempting to bridge the gap in  understanding between  scientists and the general public.

----------


## Marc

*Latest Global Temps*   *Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures* 
  (_Want to see how the current months temperatures are shaping up? Check this  out._)
 Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which  measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the  atmosphere.  The signals that these microwave radiometers measure at  different microwave frequencies are directly proportional to the  temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere.  Every month,  John Christy and I update global temperature  datasets (see here and here)that  represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of  eleven instruments flying on eleven different satellites over the years.  As of early 2011, our most stable instrument for this monitoring is the  Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASAs Aqua  satellite and providing data since late 2002.
 The graph above  represents the latest update; updates are usually made within the first  week of every month.  Contrary to some reports, the satellite  measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based  thermometer record of temperature.  They instead use their own on-board  precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers calibrated to a  laboratory reference standard before launch.   Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

----------


## Marc

Read the whole article and see all the graphs here  Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2 | Watts Up With That?   _Since temperatures have stabilized in the last  decade, we looked at the correlation of the CO2 with HCSN data.  Greenhouse theory and models predict an accelerated warming with the  increasing carbon dioxide._  _Instead, a negative correlation between USHCN and  CO2 was found in the last decade with an R or Pearson Coefficient of  -0.14, yielding an r-squared of 0.02._  According to CO2 theory, we should see long term rise of  mean temperatures, and while there may be yearly patterns of weather  that diminish the effect of the short term, one would expect to see some  sort of correlation over a decade. But it appears that with an _R_2 correlation of only 0.02, there isn’t any match over the past ten years. As another test, this analysis was also done on  Britain’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) data and MSU’s (John  Christy) satellite temperature data:  _To ensure that was not just an artifact of the  United States data, we did a similar correlation of the CO2 with the CRU  global and MSU lower tropospheric monthlies over the same period. We  found a similar non existent correlation of just 0.02 for CRU and 0.01  for the MSU over troposphere._   So with _R_2 correlations of .01 and .02 what this shows is that the rising CO2 trend does not match the satellite data either. Here are the different test correlations in a summary table:  And his conclusion:  _Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last  century have correlated far better with cycles in the sun and oceans  than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have  vanished or even reversed in the last decade._  _Given the recent cooling of the Pacific and Atlantic  and rapid decline in solar activity, we might anticipate given these  correlations, temperatures to accelerate downwards shortly._ While this isn’t a “smoking gun” it is as close as  anything I’ve seen. Time will give us the qualified answer as we have  expectations of a lower Solar Cycle 24 and changes in the Pacific now  happening.

----------


## Marc

*CO2 driven global temperatures my foot. 
Rather CO2 drivel*

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> There is *zero* evidence proving the AGW hypothesis! 
> Care to respond yes or no to that, or just waffle on with more semantics to distract from the reality you continually fail to accept? 
> I say again, us sceptics accept all empirical evidence.  There is absolutely none that proves this farce.

  There _IS_ plenty of evidence that proves both global warming and the human role in it........you just don't accept it or acknowledge it.   
But hey that's your reality....not mine. As you know....mine is much more colourful,  sparkly and mysterious than your seemingly dull black & white/right & wrong version.  Perhaps you are simply jealous that you can live here with the rest of us?  The Big Picture  Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming  The human fingerprint in global warming

----------


## Rod Dyson

> There _IS_ plenty of evidence that proves both global warming and the human role in it........you just don't accept it or acknowledge it.   
> But hey that's your reality....not mine. As you know....mine is much more colourful,  sparkly and mysterious than your seemingly dull black & white/right & wrong version.  Perhaps you are simply jealous that you can live here with the rest of us?  The Big Picture  Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming  The human fingerprint in global warming

  Oh come on S&D, how can you claim this is evidence of AGW what a load of crock.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Oh come on S&D, how can you claim this is evidence of AGW what a load of crock.

  I can in the same way that you pontificate that it's a load of crock....why is that so difficult to understand? 
I mean....it's not like I thought it would give you an epiphany.  Even I'm not that unrealistic..... 
BUT 
Freud asks for 'evidence'......I give him 'evidence'.  Or at least a bloody good jab at a logical assemblage of it.  For every Jo Nova there is a John Cook.......Huey be praised!

----------


## johnc

> Oh come on S&D, how can you claim this is evidence of AGW what a load of crock.

  Only a load of crock to you Rod, you have a rigid and inflexible mind set on this issue which is why you dismiss it. Quite simply the information is changing all the time in regard to the effect man has on his surroundings. If those that think and act in this world had the same approach man would still be without fire and the invention of the wheel an impossibility.

----------


## johnc

> John. As usual, and as all of your predecessors in this thread, you have nothing to say in reply to the article which you probably did not read or did not understand or both. I give you it is a bit hard to read because the paragraphs are notspaced out, and I can not edit it anymore. This website has a time window for editing, rather strange for a woodwork forum, but hey, gift horse and all that.  
> Yet you were quick in your un-flattering comment about a person you do not know from a bar of soap. He is a lawyer you say. Is that a derogatory comment in your nick of the woods? 
> Would it be better if he is a long-haired-out-of-work-slightly-smelly-on-a- bike kind of guy? 
> Let's see what he has to say to something that seems to be a pattern among AGW agitators, cheer leaders and assorted supporters. 
> As you can see I left a link for you to reply to the author. You can tell him directly what is your opinion of him being a lawyer and having a website dedicated to rebuke climate change con artist. Just click on the word "reply"...

  
What you seem incapable of grasping is that at no point did I attack his profession just it's relevence, he has written an opinion piece in his blog and that is all it is.

----------


## Marc

John, I am not surprised at your answer, just dissapointed. If this person's presentation against the AGW case has no authority because of his main occupation, it would be much easier for you to reply since your main occupation is equally irrelevant. You are at equal footing with him and you can make your case against his claims. 
What happens in this cases as he well points out, is that plenty of people rush into telling him he is just a lawyer therefore not qualified, yet no one is putting anything forward to make an opposing view besides the personal remarks.  
Please tell us which part of his many points made are wrong in your own opinion. You can have a look at the other points I posted and tell me which one is wrong. I would gladly debate points of view with you and leave out all the personal stuff.

----------


## Marc

Silent...
I followed your link to the "empirical evidence that man is warming  the planet"  

> *What the science says...* 
>  Direct  observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite  and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption  wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet  continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human  CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

  I know this is not the only point made, but the rest is  equally disconcerting. If there was a direct link between heating and CO2 I  suppose one could skip this and assume it as fact and make such point as posted  above...Say for example, the iron is on the forge. The faster I turn the handle  that fans the fire, the higher the heat. Ergo...I am increasing the temperature  of the iron.
Easy equation no one will argue that it is my  doing. 
However, I point you to my previous post that comes from a larger  article  Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2 | Watts Up With That?   that provides detailed relationship between three of the main drivers of average  temperatures. 
CO2 - TSI (total solar irradiance) and PDO (pacific decadall oscillation) 
After all the rubbish we had to endure  for the last 30 years you would think that the correlation between the CO2 data  and temperature would have some relationship going and we only have to debate that it actually FOLLOWS temperature rather than driving it. 
 Not so.  
CO2 had a correlation of 0.44, TSI 0.57 and PDO 0.83  
They looked into the last decade that is claimed to have been "The hottest  ever on record" and the correlation was NEGATIVE that means the more CO2 the  lower the temperature. Because the data is squared the correlation is a positive  number 0.02 
I leave it to you to check this out but the reality is  simple. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is the weakest of the  drivers and the correlation in the last 10 years does not exist at  all. 
So to claim that a minute fraction of the total CO2 in the  atmosphere, the one that correspond to human production is altering the  temperature average when such correlation not even exists for the total of the  CO2, puts this claim in the realm of pure fantasy and belongs to the category of  JOKE.

----------


## Marc

And...Mr Silent...it seems I am not the only of that opinion. From the many answers to your link, answer 2 put's it very simple:
From your own website:   

> *Den siste mohikanen* at                          09:00 AM on 19 March, 2008 
>                      "here is a clear empirical evidence that CO2 is rising, CO2 causes warming and the expected warming is observed." 
> -Yes, Yes and No. CO2 is rising and we expect that to cause warming. But  "the expected warming" is not observed. If by expected you mean that we  have seen warming that yes, but not from CO2 alone. In fact, the IPCC  uses "aerosols" to explain the cooling from 1944 to 1975, and kindly  explain that we do not know much about the climatic impact of aerosols.  So to say that the "expected" warming is observed is to mislead: the  expected warming from KNOWN factors (i.e. such the IPCC says we know  lots about) would have been a steady increase from 1944, interupted by a  few volcanoes and La Ninas.  
> And to answer your question:
> "What is causing the warming if not CO2?"
> The suns irradiance, cosmic rays, a positive PDO, and a range of other factors, along with CO2. 
> "Why isn't rising CO2 causing the warming?"
> Well, IT DOES, albeit not all of it, but from there, it's a long way to  prove that a warming of half a degree until now will translate into an  additional 5 degrees to year 2

  The realiyt of the AGW hypothesis is that the factors that alter temperature are complex, are many and are mostly unknown or their mechanism is unknown to science.
The equation CO2 is a greenhousgas = greenhouse traps heat = planet heats up... is simplistic, misleading and plain wrong. 
The fact remains that this is a POLITICAL event, that claims to be environmental. As all political events, it is attempted to be made simple to put a point across, by political self appointed experts who can only parrot a half baked hypothesis that has not even graduated to thesis yet. And as all political force it tries to use the enthusiast and the convinced to support them, just like Che Guevara used volonteers for his cause. 
Tree huggers beware, you have been conned and the pay will be dear. Even the most just cause you support will be swept away with extreem prejudice by the turn of the tide.

----------


## johnc

> John, I am not surprised at your answer, just dissapointed. If this person's presentation against the AGW case has no authority because of his main occupation, it would be much easier for you to reply since your main occupation is equally irrelevant. You are at equal footing with him and you can make your case against his claims. 
> What happens in this cases as he well points out, is that plenty of people rush into telling him he is just a lawyer therefore not qualified, yet no one is putting anything forward to make an opposing view besides the personal remarks.  
> Please tell us which part of his many points made are wrong in your own opinion. You can have a look at the other points I posted and tell me which one is wrong. I would gladly debate points of view with you and leave out all the personal stuff.

  
There is a big and possibly insurmountable divide between those that believe that man has to change the way he affects the planet and those who believe that man is not responsible. From my point of view depletion of resources, water and food security and growth in world population present unique challanges that the human race has to address as continual growth in population is not possible without a lot of pain. Also we have increased acidification of the oceans, warming of water and air, industrial gases (air quality), the depletion of ice in the artic and antartic, increased cyclonic activity and other signals that point to changes happening. 
Those who don't believe often seek simple answers, a quick debunking, or repudiation of single statements. Those who do believe in warming (exluding extremists) in the main understand we have a lot to learn about how climate changes and what drives it. Continual debunking is shallow because you actually aren't in possession of enough interconnecting information to be certain your are correct, and the analogy can be applied in reverse. 
The article put forward raises solar radiation as the cause of global temperature increase. It is quite plausable that solar radiation may have some effect, however it also very likely that greenhouse gases are also responsible. If solar radiation is partly responsible then we need to know how it counterbalances or accelerates temperature change. A USGCRP Seminar: What's Driving Climate Change in the 20th Century - Changes in Solar Radiation or the Buildup of Greenhouse Gases? study attached to the link indicates solar to be a minor link while gases a major link to warming.  
The writer of your article has gone to a lot of trouble, and to his credit written in a reasonable manner, but it doesn't mean he has an answer. At best what he has is some information and I doubt anyone here has sufficient knowledge to debunk or confirm his view. However on the balance of probability I don't believe he offers more than a compilation of numbers that indicate solar activity may have an impact, the reason articles are reviewed is so they can be tested and this field is so interconnected that a person of the writers standing is unlikely to have enough knowledge to either understand or draw in those links.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I can in the same way that you pontificate that it's a load of crock....why is that so difficult to understand? 
> I mean....it's not like I thought it would give you an epiphany.  Even I'm not that unrealistic..... 
> BUT 
> Freud asks for 'evidence'......I give him 'evidence'.  Or at least a bloody good jab at a logical assemblage of it.  For every Jo Nova there is a John Cook.......Huey be praised!

  That is not evidence of AGW

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Only a load of crock to you Rod, you have a rigid and inflexible mind set on this issue which is why you dismiss it. Quite simply the information is changing all the time in regard to the effect man has on his surroundings. If those that think and act in this world had the same approach man would still be without fire and the invention of the wheel an impossibility.

  I don't dispute what was shown, but I do dispute that what was shown is evidence of AGW.

----------


## Marc

> There is a big and possibly insurmountable divide between those that  believe that man has to change the way he affects the planet and those  who believe that man is not responsible. From my point of view depletion  of resources, water and food security and growth in world population  present unique challanges that the human race has to address as  continual growth in population is not possible without a lot of pain.  Also we have increased acidification of the oceans, warming of water and  air, industrial gases (air quality), the depletion of ice in the artic  and antartic, increased cyclonic activity and other signals that point  to changes happening.

  John. If a person wants to drum up support for a cause, all he needs to do is piggyback the cause on some common ground causes that no one would oppose. "depletion  of resources, water and food security and growth in world population" have of course no supporters and anyone that claims to have a solution will be heard. Yet none of those problems have anything to do with the claim that CO2 produced by humans DRIVES temperature changes as demonstrated by the last 13 years of NEGATIVE correlation between temperatures and CO2. 
This is not to say that those who oppose such drivel do not want to make the world a better place by reducing pollution (the real one not the one made up) and protect our sources of food. 
To support a political stunt that has as only objective the shifting of money and power is rather disingenuous. The last thing on the AGW politicians and string pullers mind is food and water security and the rest you correctly claim to be important.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Silent...
> I followed your link to the "empirical evidence that man is warming  the planet"
> I know this is not the only point made, but the rest is  equally disconcerting. If there was a direct link between heating and CO2 I  suppose one could skip this and assume it as fact and make such point as posted  above...Say for example, the iron is on the forge. The faster I turn the handle  that fans the fire, the higher the heat. Ergo...I am increasing the temperature  of the iron.
> Easy equation no one will argue that it is my  doing. 
> However, I point you to my previous post that comes from a larger  article  Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2 | Watts Up With That?   that provides detailed relationship between three of the main drivers of average  temperatures. 
> CO2 - TSI (total solar irradiance) and PDO (pacific decadall oscillation) 
> After all the rubbish we had to endure  for the last 30 years you would think that the correlation between the CO2 data  and temperature would have some relationship going and we only have to debate that it actually FOLLOWS temperature rather than driving it. 
>  Not so.  
> CO2 had a correlation of 0.44, TSI 0.57 and PDO 0.83  
> ...

  Thanks Marc, nice reply.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The fact remains that this is a POLITICAL event, that claims to be environmental. As all political events, it is attempted to be made simple to put a point across, by political self appointed experts who can only parrot a half baked hypothesis that has not even graduated to thesis yet. And as all political force it tries to use the enthusiast and the convinced to support them, just like Che Guevara used volonteers for his cause.

  This is the most sensible thing I've read from you in a very long time. I do however trust that you have sufficient self awareness to recognise that this statement works on both sides of the political divide (and AGW argument). 
I was asked (perhaps even challenged) to provide evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis in the face of a claim that there was none......I have done so.  Nothing more, nothing less. I make no claims about its validity or otherwise and I care sixth fifths of sod all about whether anyone here believes it, supports it or dismisses it out of hand.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> However, I point you to my previous post that comes from a larger  article  Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2 | Watts Up With That?   that provides detailed relationship between three of the main drivers of average  temperatures. 
> CO2 - TSI (total solar irradiance) and PDO (pacific decadall oscillation) 
> After all the rubbish we had to endure  for the last 30 years you would think that the correlation between the CO2 data  and temperature would have some relationship going and we only have to debate that it actually FOLLOWS temperature rather than driving it. 
>  Not so.  
> CO2 had a correlation of 0.44, TSI 0.57 and PDO 0.83  
> They looked into the last decade that is claimed to have been "The hottest  ever on record" and the correlation was NEGATIVE that means the more CO2 the  lower the temperature. Because the data is squared the correlation is a positive  number 0.02 
> I leave it to you to check this out but the reality is  simple. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is the weakest of the  drivers and the correlation in the last 10 years does not exist at  all. 
> So to claim that a minute fraction of the total CO2 in the  atmosphere, the one that correspond to human production is altering the  temperature average when such correlation not even exists for the total of the  CO2, puts this claim in the realm of pure fantasy and belongs to the category of  JOKE.

  I am honestly curious to know what it is about this analysis that triggers you to say "Yes. That's right!" as opposed to many other analyses out there with respect to this subject that make you sneeze "BullPoo".....how is it possible to be so accepting and yet so dismissive?  A mystery of human nature I suppose...... 
And before you say it.....I've never said that your link is bullpoo.....to me, it is just another analysis of the problem.  And I don't know enough about the particular work to come to any sort of singular, definitive response one way or the other.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> That is not evidence of AGW

  So what, in your humble opinion, is? 
By that logic, where does that leave Watt's Up and its ilk with respect to the evidence that there isn't AGW? Both sides are using the same data and similar data analysis techniques.  
Worse......if you expand that logic (as I understand it)........any form of scientific research on any topic one cares to name is now apparently without any basis. Quite curious...... 
Still...no biggie...life goes on.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Here are the different test correlations in a summary table:

  It is telling how very few numbers always trump so many words. 
The tiny 25 year period of time between 1973 and 1998 produced the highest R squared value of about 0.49. 
These are analyses run on empirical data, not future predictions from psychic computers. 
Data vs fairytale? 
You decide.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> But hey that's your reality....not mine. As you know....mine is much more colourful, sparkly and mysterious than your seemingly dull black & white/right & wrong version. Perhaps you are simply jealous that you can live here with *the rest of us?*

  The rest of us?  So you assume everyone else is on your side? Obviously numbers, mathematics and statistics are not your strong point?  :No:  
If you think that 30% is "the rest of us", that makes me 70% of Australia.  :Doh:    

> There _IS_ plenty of evidence that proves both global warming and the human role in it........you just don't accept it or acknowledge it.

  Do you even know what it takes to scientifically prove a theory? 
Obviously not by posting this pathetically ill-informed and misleading website:    

> The Big Picture  Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming  The human fingerprint in global warming

  Here's just a small sample of the ineptitude:   

> Sometimes people ask "what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?". Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on.

  So, the only way to disprove this farce is to prove our fundamental understanding of physics is wrong?  :Rotfl:  
These people are ideological idiots masquerading as a scientific site. 
Don't believe the hype mate, do your own research.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I can in the same way that you pontificate that it's a load of crock....why is that so difficult to understand?

  I'm seriously starting to think you actually don't even understand the basics of scientific methodology.   

> Freud asks for 'evidence'......I give him 'evidence'. Or at least a bloody good jab at a logical assemblage of it. For every Jo Nova there is a John Cook.......Huey be praised!

  I ask for empirical evidence proving the AGW hypothesis (there is none by the way, but keep looking  :Biggrin: ). 
Just stating I ask for 'evidence' either reinforces your lack of knowledge in scientific methodology, or highlights your preference for semantic distractions over factual discussions. 
As for a "jab at a logical assemblage"???  Not exactly compelling champ.  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It is telling how very few numbers always trump so many words. 
> The tiny 25 year period of time between 1973 and 1998 produced the highest R squared value of about 0.49. 
> These are analyses run on empirical data, not future predictions from psychic computers. 
> Data vs fairytale? 
> You decide.

  
It isn't data.....it's an analysis of data using statistical methods.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The rest of us?  So you assume everyone else is on your side? Obviously numbers, mathematics and statistics are not your strong point?  
> If you think that 30% is "the rest of us", that makes me 70% of Australia.

  How'd you make that leap?  I was merely refering to the people around me.  I've no idea as to their political preferences with respect to climate change.   

> Do you even know what it takes to scientifically prove a theory?

  Yes. It's quite hard.     

> So, the only way to disprove this farce is to prove our fundamental understanding of physics is wrong?

  No.  The quote you refer to used the word falsify' as in 'make it up'.  What you'd have to do to "disprove this farce" is demonstrate that it is actually made up.     

> Don't believe the hype mate, do your own research.

  I don't - hype is for amateurs, politicians & journalists.   
And I have.....and it continues with a wide open mind.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I'm seriously starting to think you actually don't even understand the basics of scientific methodology.

  I understand it far too well.  I'm aware of both its strengths and its failings.  It is a human construct after all and one I use quite frequently.   

> I ask for empirical evidence proving the AGW hypothesis (there is none by the way, but keep looking ).

  Empirical evidence on its own does not provide or represent proof of anything.  'Evidence' and 'proof' are two different things that are joined only through the use of 'analysis' and 'interpretation'.  You might call it semantics but that's the scientific method for you.  Ultimately, the empirical evidence that is available supports the arguments of both sides of the debate.  So each side is joined by 'evidence' but seperated by 'analysis' and 'interpretation'.  Such has been the case since the scientific method was devised.  It is probably why we created 'politics'. 
Your reaction was not unexpected.  Truth be told it was the most likely outcome of this little experiment and it certainly was my null hypothesis.  Chalk up another victory for the scientific method, eh?

----------


## Marc

> I was asked (perhaps even challenged) to provide evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis in the face of a claim that there was none......I have done so.  Nothing more, nothing less. I make no claims about its validity or otherwise and I care sixth fifths of sod all about whether anyone here believes it, supports it or dismisses it out of hand.

  Silent, the issue is not as simple as some want it to be and I don't claim to be an expert, however in order to make some inroads into understanding some of the facts it is a good idea to only look at data, real data from reputable soruces, and not computer generated predictions based on cristal balls and skewed by politics. 
The data in that link is real data taken from the past, that invalidates any claim that CO2 drives average temperatures. 
If thta is so and it appears to be cristal clear, everything said so far has no value since human activity then is doing NOTHING to the average temperature. 
Yes, we pollute with soot, chemicals, heavy metlas etc.
That has nothing to do with the histeria of AGW 
AGW is clearly a fraud and we have data to back this claim up.

----------


## johnc

We have the asertion that CO2 is not linked to temperature change yet we do have something that seems popular here and, wait for it, a graph that shows the correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature. On its own it is just a graph and part of a wider picture. Another aspect of temperature is the moderating effect the ocean mass also has along with the variables from La Nina and El Nino events. All the same 2010 was the equal hottest on record despite a strong La Nina event keeping temperatures down in this part of the pacific. However there are indications that the oceans may well be warming also and if this is a long term trend then we will see greater temperature increases in the future. We can't get away from the fact that there are many aspects that control and affect temperature and we are still trying to work out how they interrelate. However what is certain is that we are warming and that is consistant with the view that CO2 levels have an impact on temperature.

----------


## johnc

> Silent, the issue is not as simple as some want it to be and I don't claim to be an expert, however in order to make some inroads into understanding some of the facts it is a good idea to only look at data, real data from reputable soruces, and not computer generated predictions based on cristal balls and skewed by politics. 
> The data in that link is real data taken from the past, that invalidates any claim that CO2 drives average temperatures. 
> If thta is so and it appears to be cristal clear, everything said so far has no value since human activity then is doing NOTHING to the average temperature. 
> Yes, we pollute with soot, chemicals, heavy metlas etc.
> That has nothing to do with the histeria of AGW 
> AGW is clearly a fraud and we have data to back this claim up.

  
No AGW is not clearly a fraud, however in your opinion it is a fraud. Your opinion is fine but you are not judge and jury and a conclusion to your satisfaction only means something to you. Also you do have data but it is debatable (and unlikely) that your analysis and conclusion is correct. 
Perhaps you would like to take the time to read the link, RealClimate: The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.) not a site you would approve of but it does go into a bit more detail on the link between CO2 and temperature than a simple graph.

----------


## Marc

John, that graph you posted has no dates, without dates it means nothing. There  are many times in history where CO2 and temperatures go hand in hand. That does  not mean correlation, it means coinciding. A lot of data coincides without any  correlation. The number of people claiming the age pension in autumn may coincide  with the surge of white cedar caterpillars but has no correlation. 
Statistical  analysis of data correlation is more than just pasting one graph over another  and hope it has the same shape. 
This website gives some examples of this technique Correlation - Statistical Techniques, Rating Scales, Correlation Coefficients, and More - Creative Research Systems 
The graphs and data I posted is the  result of analysing data going back several decades, to see the relation between  the two, CO2 and temperatures. It does not matter if there is a lag, a drive or  a delay, correlation is just that the link between two set of data.  
Such link  can be poor, fair, good etc. and is found not by superimposing graphs. The result from real data not computer simulation  is that the link is poor. If the last 10 years are taken then there link is  negative. It is not even poor, it simply does not exist. 
Other data was  analysed and found to be more meaningful to temperature changes. The OVERALL CO2  is the worst performer.
If you then take the minuscule contribution of humans  to this overall CO2, the correlation is imaginary and requires faith to be  belived, just like any other religious belief.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> John, that graph you posted has no dates, without dates it means nothing. There  are many times in history where CO2 and temperatures go hand in hand. That does  not mean correlation, it means coinciding. A lot of data coincides without any  correlation. The number of people claiming the age pension in autumn may coincide  with the surge of white cedar caterpillars but has no correlation. 
> Statistical  analysis of data correlation is more than just pasting one graph over another  and hope it has the same shape. 
> This website gives some examples of this technique Correlation - Statistical Techniques, Rating Scales, Correlation Coefficients, and More - Creative Research Systems 
> The graphs and data I posted is the  result of analysing data going back several decades, to see the relation between  the two, CO2 and temperatures. It does not matter if there is a lag, a drive or  a delay, correlation is just that the link between two set of data.  
> Such link  can be poor, fair, good etc. and is found not by superimposing graphs. The result from real data not computer simulation  is that the link is poor. If the last 10 years are taken then there link is  negative. It is not even poor, it simply does not exist. 
> Other data was  analysed and found to be more meaningful to temperature changes. The OVERALL CO2  is the worst performer.
> If you then take the minuscule contribution of humans  to this overall CO2, the correlation is imaginary and requires faith to be  belived, just like any other religious belief.

   Another nice reply Marc.

----------


## johnc

A link for Marc on the graph without dates. It contains the graph and discusses the link between temperature and CO2 it also talks about the statistical methods employed which should appeal to some who understand the basis for that analysis. More Grumbine Science: Does CO2 correlate with temperature? Dismissing someones view as a result of "religious belief" because you believe the connection to be untrue is a step to far, it highlights contempt of others views and their right to hold them especially when those views are supported by reasonable evidence. The difference in view is the result of interpretation and has a factual basis, has it occured to you that if the evidence is as weak as you say then it is probably weak for both sides. 
We should all remember we have no one here who is an expert, this is just a thread by interested bystanders to the real work going on to understand climate and how it works and is influenced by mans activities.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Silent, the issue is not as simple as some want it to be and I don't claim to be an expert, however in order to make some inroads into understanding some of the facts it is a good idea to only look at data, real data from reputable soruces, and not computer generated predictions based on cristal balls and skewed by politics. 
> The data in that link is real data taken from the past, that invalidates any claim that CO2 drives average temperatures. 
> If thta is so and it appears to be cristal clear, everything said so far has no value since human activity then is doing NOTHING to the average temperature. 
> Yes, we pollute with soot, chemicals, heavy metlas etc.
> That has nothing to do with the histeria of AGW 
> AGW is clearly a fraud and we have data to back this claim up.

  You started so well.....and then.....oh well. 
Your data is indeed real data and I have no particular grumble with the analysis but your interpretation (as set in stone with conviction that it is) is suspect to my eyes.  mainly because there is such a thing as 'lag'
and a bunch of other physical interactions that make the certainty about which you rule out temp/CO2 interactions as a result of that analysis...your interpretation....well less certain.  Certainly to a cautious fellow such as myself.   

> AGW is clearly a fraud and we have data to back this claim up.

  I'm not so certain you do.......but hey whatever floats your boat.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> If you then take the minuscule contribution of humans  to this overall CO2, the correlation is imaginary and requires faith to be  belived, just like any other religious belief.

  Faith is not required.  Understanding the difference between balanced and un-balanced physical systems and a little knowledge with respect to fundamental physics is all that is required.  The 'little bit' of GHGs that we have contributed (and by comparison it is indeed a very little bit) is all that is needed to set a balanced system askew.  Just like a little mud caught in your perfectly balanced wheels after an off road sojourn. 
So here's a question/challenge for everyone: 
Forget correlations between CO2 and air temp......whether they exist or not is immaterial.  Can anyone provide some data analysis/interpretation of the absence or presence of a correlation between all GHGs, their total concentrations and atmospheric temperature (preferably at different altitudes in the atmosphere) over time.....to date?  I'm not certain there is one.....and I'm happy to make this the null position.  
Oh and did anyone notice that I claimed the sixth thousandth post?  Do I get a prize (mmmm....chocolate)....or a smack in the ear?

----------


## twinny

come on global warming, 'cos fark it's been cold in the 'gong lately

----------


## Marc

I was hoping for some warming myslef today. Frozen my butt off installing my new sliding gate. 
John. Faith is the belief in what can not be seen nor proven. AGW fits the definition nicley. 
Silent. A 12 year "lag" is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

----------


## Marc

http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/22/s...lobal-cooling/ 
Not here to worship what is known, but to question it. Free  commentary from Germany on climate science and energy policy - by P  Gosselin 
By P Gosselin on 22. Januar 2011  Blue planet 
 Climatic cyclic history repeats itself, even if you ignore it.
 And it does so because it is so powerful that it neither allows  itself to be suppressed nor appeased. Guest writer Matti Vooro presents  here his latest work on why the future is looking cooler. This is also  the view of a growing number of scientists. Expect cooling over the next  30 years. And look at *Bastardi’s 8-minutes of education*  *SIGNS OF GLOBAL COOLING*   *by Matti Vooro*
 For about 2 decades we have been told to urgently act against  unprecedented global warming or else there will be fiery gloom and doom  for the world. Yet, the opposite seems to be happening.
 The entire planet has stopped warming since 1998 and, more  significantly, has started to cool since 2003. Instead of warning people  of cooler weather for the next 30 years, there’s still the  distinct false sense of expectation of unprecedented warming. People and  governments are being urged to go entirely in the wrong direction for  the wrong reasons – and at a potentially horrendous price.
 Just look at what happened in UK. Ten years ago Britons were told to  expect global warming only and that snow would be a thing of the past.  Yet the opposite has arrived, three winters in a row. This winter it  crippled the entire nation for nearly a month in December 2010. *Periods of cooling and warming in the past*
 Alternating periods of warm and cooler weather have been with us as  far back as our climate records go. Some of the past cooler periods have  been more severe than others, like the Sporer, Maunder and Dalton  Minimums. Professor Don Easterbrook has *documented some 20 such cool periods over the last 500 years*, see Figure 1. Figure 1 
 Easterbrook also said:
” “Climate changes in the geologic record show a regular pattern of alternate
warming and cooling with a 25-30 year period for the past 500 years.”
• “There is a strong correlation between solar changes, the PDO, glacier
advance and retreat, and global climate allow us to project a consistent
pattern into the future.”
• “Expect global cooling for the next 2-3 decades that will be far more
damaging than global warming would have been.”
 Figure 2 shows the kind of cooling Professor Easterbrook projects into the future: Figure 2 
 Source: Looming Threat of Global Cooling
 So why are the IPCC and AGW science so silent about the possibility  of global cooling? It’s because the IPCC never had a mandate to study  all causes of global warming - only the *man induced*  component. Now other scientists are finding that the man-made warming  seems to be dwarfed by natural planetary factors. Here is what IPCC said  what Europe should expect in the future:Annual mean temperatures in Europe are likely to increase  more than the global mean. The warming in northern Europe is likely to  be largest in winter, and largest in the Mediterranean area in summer.  The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average  winter temperature in northern Europe, and the highest summer  temperatures are likely to increase more than average summer temperature  in southern and central Europe.”The last winters are showing the contrary is true.  Let’s take a look  at the last period [26 years] of cooler weather in Europe [1962-1987]  and the most frequent climate variables present during that period: *Last UK and European cold period, what were the more common climate factors present?*
 An analysis winter temperatures for Central England’s last cold  period of 1962 -1987 shows that 20 of 26 years were below the winter  normal of about 4.8°C. Of these 20 years, negative winter AOs were  present 90%  of the time [18 years], negative winter AMOs were present  85% of the time [17 years ], negative winter NAOs were present 65% of  the time [13 years] and negative winter PDOs were present 45% of time [9  years].  
 It would appear that for UK, the presence of negative or cool AO,  AMO  and NAOs was significant in predicting below normal winters and  these below normal winters happened more frequently – about 2 out of  every 3 years during this cooler period. The ENSO sign was fairly  equally distributed, 5 La Nina years, 8 El Nino years and 7 neutral  years. El Nino years seem to set up more negative winter AOs, which  allow more cold Arctic air to come south [like the 2009/2010 winter]. *What does the UK Met Office say about global cooling?*
 The UK MET Office says that a decade of cooling is possible but only  once in every 8 decades. And so they have already played their card as  the past decade 2001-2010 had a flat temperatures trend. So by their  predictions, there will be no further periods of cooling or flat global  temperatures for another 8 decades. In order for the Met Office  prediction of a temperature rise of 4° C by 2060 to occur, our current  rate of warming trend would have to 18 times faster than today (Using  data from WOOD FOR TREES). *What about the warm year 2010?* It is a no-brainer to have an extra warm year like 2010 during a  strong El Nino. The year 1998 was also such a warm El Nino year. These  are natural causes that drive up the temperatures during the El Nino  years. Yet there has been no statistical warming since 1995. Also we  have had 4 El Ninos during the last 9 years. This is more frequent than  in the past when they happened once every 4-7 years. Eight of the last  10 years have been affected by the natural occurring El Nino to some  degree. Thus the prime reason for the warm decade and the warm the 2010  winter in Canada is the El Nino and PDO. This has very little to do with  global warming or increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
 For Canada, if you exclude the El Nino winters of 2003, 2005, 2007,  and 2010 the Canadian winter temperature departure [anomaly] from the  1948-2010 norm has actually been dropping during the last 10 years since  2000 from 2.5C in 2000 to 0.3C in 2009, the last very cold winter. Some  regions like the Prairie Provinces and Northwestern region have seen as  much as 7.1 C drop in winter temperatures from the 2006 to 2009 winter. *What is behind our changing climate?* 
 The answer appears to be the natural variability of ENSO events and  the regular variation in the Pacific Ocean and Atlantic surface  temperatures as measured by the PDO and AMO indices, changes in the  Arctic Oscillation or AO, volcanic activity, and solar cycles. Let’s  look back at quite recent history of these real climate makers. Table 1

----------


## Marc

*What is happening to global mean temperature anomalies?*
 Let’s do some fact-checking about our current global mean temperature anomaly. Figure 3 
 The HADCRUT 3GL GLOBAL temperature anomalyshown in Figure 3 has been  flat now for ten years in a row andis actually decreasing at least  square trend slope of -0.0026 C per year. IPCC forecast called for an  increase of 0.21 C per decade [+.0021C /year] for each of the next two  decades [from 2000]. They predicted an anomaly of 0.6 by 2010. The  actual is 0.392 C and it is falling.
 Something seems very wrong with the IPCC science and their  predictions as the actual temperatures are going in the opposite  direction to what they predicted despite the CO2 changes and this is  only after the first decade of their forecast
 Here are the global mean temperatures from 4 different datasets(least  square trend line slope Jan-2001 to Oct-2010, last 118 months – Wood  for Trees):
 HADCRUT 3GL – 0.0026 C/year
RSS: + 0.0034 C/ year
GISS: + 0.0080 C/year
UAH: +0.0093 C/year *Composite + 0.0044 C/year* 
 Can any sane people detect four thousandths of a degree C change per  year and measured it across the entire globe? This is how absurd the  global warming alarmism game has gone.  
THERE IS MUCH MORE, FAR TOO MUCH TO POST HERE. CHECK IT OUT ON THIS LINK  Signs Of Strengthening Global Cooling

----------


## Marc

*What are the AGW forecasts for the future?*  *IPCC forecast*: 2.4 to 6°C by 2100, or  0.02 to 0.06°C/year, which is 4 to 13 times the current observed rate of rise. *Met Office forecast*: 4°C by 2060, which is 0.08°C/year [18 times the current observed rate of rise.  *What do non-AGW scientists project?*
There is a growing list of over 30 different international climate  scientists, academics, meteorologists, climate researchers and engineers  who have researched this topic and who disagree with AGW and IPCC  forecasts of unprecedented warming, and are projecting  cooler weather  for the next 1-3 decades. Few are even AGW supporters but disagree with  warming projected for the next decade (See Global Cooling Consensus Is Heating Up – Cooling Over The Next 1 To 3 Decades)  .Each of the writers gives their views about why they feel global  cooling is ahead during the next 10-30 years. These authors expand on  the natural  factors affecting our future climate especially the impact  of the possible reduced solar cycles in the future  which this writer  did not expand on  at this time for brevity sake. *What do past planetary cycles project?*
 We just peaked on the last warm cycle in the early 2000s and may  have now started a 30 year cool cycle which will drop the global  temperature anomaly by 0.42°C by 2030. There will still be some warm El  Ninoyears as well but the overall trend will be cooler than the last 30  years. Based on the colder anomaly of 0.06C by 2030, the temperatures  are likely to be similar to those of the late 1970s and early 1980s.  The Hadcrut3 temperature anomaly is as of Sept/2010 0.391°C and it could  drop to 0.16°C by 2020 and probably bottom out at about 0.06°C by  2030. The IPCC prediction is for 0.2°C increases for each of the next  two decades andthe anomalies to be around 0.8°C by 2020. The two  different projections, namely the natural planetary cycle forecast and  the IPCC forecast are rapidly diverging.
 Figure 4 is a graph of  past and projected global mean temperature  anomaly rise as presented by Syun-Ichi Akasofu (Founding Director and  Professor of Physics, International Arctic Research Center, University  of Alaska): Figure 4 
 Figure 5 below is taken from a paper called _Predictions of Global Man Temperatures & IPCC Projections_by  Girma Orssengo and was previously posted on WUWT. It is a simple  mathematical model or over-fit empirical model based on curve fitting  for the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly[GMTA] based on Hadcrut3. The  equation or model is not calculated from any measurable parameters other  than actual past global temperature anomalies. Although it is not  calculated from any physics, energy mechanisms or physical realities  underlying the equation, it is still an informative graph to some  degree. It is based on actual past empirical data [hadcrut3] since 1880.
 There is no guarantee that any future projection of this graph will  actually materialize [neither is there evidence that the current agw  computer models have any credibility yet either]. However, the graph  below may still be useful. It is like the poor mans global  temperature model and indicates the following;
 * The graph is a general climate trend indicator only based on historical past pattern [ is the cycle heading up or down?]
* There exists a repetitive 60 year climate cycle of 30 years of warming followed by 30 years of cooling.
*There could be two cooling cycles before we reach 2100 which may dwarf and over-ride any greenhouse gas warming
*It is probably more useful and accurate in the short term [next 10-30 years]
* http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.c.../04/image2.jpg Figure 5 
 Figure 6 is a graph showing  the possible  future GMTA anomalies by  year by showing the HISTORIC NATURAL PLANEATARY CYCLES and  the middle  IPPC projected scenario of 3.0°C rise by 2100]. Some of the other IPCC  scenarios see temperatures rising in the range of 2.4 to 5.3°C by 2100  and which would have even steeper rates of temperature rise. Figure 6 
 See the web page reference and paper below by Girma Orssengo for  further details of the GMTA FORECAST model and equation and especially  Figure 3 on page 4 illustrating the GMTA graph for the years 1880 -2100.  Much of the GMTA information comes from his paper posted on *WUWT * http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...ons-of-gmt.pdf *Why there could be less warming in the 21 st century than the past 2O TH Century [quote from the above Girma Orssengo paper]* the century [20th] started when the  oscillating anomaly was at its minimum near 1910 with GMTA of 0.64 deg C  and ended when it was at its maximum near 2000 with GMTA of 0.48 deg C,  giving a large global warming of 0.48+0.64=1.12 deg C. This large  warming was due to the rare events of two global warming phases of.77  deg C each but only one cooling phase of 0.44 deg C occurring in the  20th century, giving a global warming of 2*0.77-0.42=1.12 deg C.
 In contrast to the 20th century, from Figure 3, there will be nearly  no change in GMTA in the 21st century. This is because the century  started when the oscillating anomaly was at its maximum near 2000 with  GMTA of 0.48 deg C and will end when it is at its minimum near 2090 with  GMTA of 0.41 deg C, giving a negligible change in GMTA of  0.41-0.48=-0.07 deg C. This negligible change in GMTA is due to the rare  events of two global cooling phases of 0.42 deg C each but only one  warming phase of 0.77 deg C occurring in the 21st century, giving the  negligible change in GMTA of 0.77-2*0.42=-0.07 deg C.Noteworthy is that none of the predictions based on planetary  cycles project global temperatures to go up by 2 or 4  or 6 degrees C as  forecast by the IPCC or Met Office. These forecasts based on planetary  cycles like those of Professor Easterbrook and Professor Syun-Ichi  Akasofu predict a rise of less than 1 C by 2100, similar to what  happened during the past 20th century.  
 Also Dr Roy Spencer of University of Alabama and Professor R. Lindzen  of MIT feel that the global temperature rise might only be around 1°C  by the end of the current century. *Summary* 
 During the next 10-30 years we may experience cooler weather rather  than unprecedented warming only. It does not mean that all of the next  10 -30 years will be colder, as there will be some warm El Nino years as  well, but the overall trend for the next 2-3 decades may be cooler  rather than unprecedented warming that AGW supporters claim.
 There is no one on this planet who can tell with any certainty what  the climate will be like 1 year ahead, next decade and most certainly  not the 100 years. The purpose of this article was to show that there  are other possible climate futures which do not necessarily require  major reduction of carbon dioxide emissions up front. Another version of  this climate which is based on natural planetary cycles may manifest  much more likely with much more global impact and could occur much  sooner than unprecedented global warming. Some of the winters could be  quite severe like we saw during the latter part of the 1970s. The  initial observed signs from the real world are that the cooling option  has already started in many parts of the globe.
  Matt Vooro, P. Eng
  Also refer to the following for further information about global cooling option
 - Ice Age Now
- Temperature Projections for the 21st Century
- Is there global cooling? The answer might not be what you expected. - Home
- Cooling
- Watts Up With That?
 - Freezing Winters In Europe Could Be The Norm

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Cooling (in the short to medium term) is indeed possible given the amount of fresh water entering the oceans and diluting the salinity driven oceanic currents like the Gulf Stream etc.  There has been much work done on this very topic by some very skilled oceanographers and climate scientists for quite some time...."The Day After Tomorrow" may have been a daft movie but its basic premise has some basis in real life....who'd have thought? 
Still not convinced that this is a positive move though....

----------


## chrisp

> *What is happening to global mean temperature anomalies?*
>  Let’s do some fact-checking about our current global mean temperature anomaly. Figure 3 
>  The HADCRUT 3GL GLOBAL temperature anomalyshown in Figure 3 has been  flat now for ten years in a row andis actually decreasing at least  square trend slope of -0.0026 C per year.

  If you look at a smaller enough interval, you can extrapolate almost any trend you like.  10 years is a small interval in global warming terms. 
Maybe you should look at a longer term graph using the same data...    
Maybe you should do some fact checking yourself?

----------


## johnc

> I was hoping for some warming myslef today. Frozen my butt off installing my new sliding gate. 
> John. Faith is the belief in what can not be seen nor proven. AGW fits the definition nicley. 
> Silent. A 12 year "lag" is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

  The definition of faith is more expansionary than that and should we also look at bad faith on the part of those who intend to deceive? Really a rather tedious and circular argument that does nothing to enhance an opinion in the end.

----------


## Marc

Issue                                          
                             A&A                                                      
                    Volume 529, May 2011                      
                                                                                                    Article Number                                              
                    A67                                                                                                        Number of page(s)                                              
                    8                                                                                    Section                 
                The Sun                                                                    DOI                 
                10.1051/0004-6361/201016173                                                                    Published online                 
                                     04 April 2011                                                                                     
     A&A 529, A67 (2011)*A new approach to the long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing⋆*  
 A. I. Shapiro1, W. Schmutz1, E. Rozanov1,2, M. Schoell1,3, M. Haberreiter1, A. V. Shapiro1,2 and S. Nyeki1
 1             Physikalisch-Meteorologishes Observatorium Davos,  World Radiation Center,  7260   Davos Dorf,  Switzerland          
          e-mail:  alexander.shapiro@pmodwrc.ch 
2             Institute for Atmospheric and Climate science ETH,  Zurich,  Switzerland          
3             Institute for Astronomy ETH,  Zurich,  Switzerland           
 Received: 19 November 2010
Accepted: 22 February 2011
 Abstract _Context._ The variable Sun is the most likely candidate  for the natural forcing of past climate changes on time scales of 50 to  1000 years. Evidence for this understanding is that the terrestrial  climate correlates positively with the solar activity. During the past  10 000 years, the Sun has experienced the substantial variations in  activity and there have been numerous attempts to reconstruct solar  irradiance. While there is general agreement on how solar forcing varied  during the last several hundred years – all reconstructions are  proportional to the solar activity – there is scientific controversy on  the magnitude of solar forcing. _
Aims._  We present a reconstruction of the total and spectral solar irradiance covering 130 nm–10 _μ_m from 1610 to the present with an annual resolution and for the Holocene with a 22-year resolution.  _
Methods._  We assume that the minimum state of the  quiet Sun in time corresponds to the observed quietest area on the  present Sun. Then we use available long-term proxies of the solar  activity, which are 10Be isotope concentrations in ice cores  and 22-year smoothed neutron monitor data, to interpolate between the  present quiet Sun and the minimum state of the quiet Sun. This  determines the long-term trend in the solar variability, which is then  superposed with the 11-year activity cycle calculated from the sunspot  number. The time-dependent solar spectral irradiance from about 7000 BC  to the present is then derived using a state-of-the-art radiation code. _
Results._  We derive a total and spectral solar  irradiance that was substantially lower during the Maunder minimum than  the one observed today. The difference is remarkably larger than other  estimations published in the recent literature. The magnitude of the  solar UV variability, which indirectly affects the climate, is also  found to exceed previous estimates.We discuss in detail the assumptions  that lead us to this conclusion. 
       Key words: solar-terrestrial  relations / Sun: UV radiation / Sun: atmosphere / radiative transfer /  line: formation / Sun: surface magnetism 
    ⋆ Appendix is only available in electronic form at  http://www.aanda.org

----------


## Marc

Alarmists Offer a Perfect Global Warming Challenge - by James M. Taylor  

> *Alarmists Offer a Perfect Global Warming Challenge*  Climate Change                  > Alarmism  Climate Change                  > Extreme weather   Email a Friend  Written By: James M. Taylor
>           Published In: Forbes.com
>                Publication date:      05/09/2011      
>                Publisher: The Heartland Institute
>                With an issue as scientifically complex as  global warming, nonscientists can often feel they simply don’t know  enough about the scientific complexities to make an informed judgment  for themselves. The debate over last week’s tragic tornado outbreak,  however, has given us an unexpected opportunity to present much of the  global warming debate in straightforward terms that non-scientists can  understand and judge for themselves. If there is any global warming  topic non-scientists should examine as an understandable proxy for the  global debate as a whole, the alleged link between global warming and  tornadoes is it 
> On the one hand, global warming alarmists have  launched a full court press to exploit last week’s tornado outbreak to  sell their message of global warming doom and gloom. With a ferocity not  seen since Hurricane Katrina, the alarmists are taking every  opportunity to sell the notion that global warming was a significant  causal factor behind the unusually strong tornadoes. NBC News anchor  Brian Williams couldn’t contain himself trying to get Weather Channel  meteorologist Greg Forbes to say people caused the strong tornadoes via  global warming.  
> USA Today published a one-sided article the day  after the Tuscaloosa super-tornado titled “Climate change could spawn  more tornadoes.”  The liberal advocacy group Center for American  Progress, in an article titled “Storms kill 250 Americans in states  represented by climate pollution deniers,” asserted that all weather  events are affected by global warming. This is just a small sampling of  the alarmist call to arms in the wake of last week’s tornadoes.   
> On  the other hand, scientists such as climatologist and NASA Science Team  leader Dr. Roy Spencer, meteorologist Anthony Watts, and Past President  of the American Association of State Climatologists Dr. Patrick Michaels  have vigorously explained why global warming will, if anything, reduce  the frequency and strength of tornadoes.  
> Tornadoes are most likely  when exceptionally cold, dry air plunges south to violently clash with  warm, moist air originating in the Gulf of Mexico. The alarmists claim  global warming will cause more and stronger tornadoes because the Gulf  of Mexico will become warmer, enhancing the contrast between the two air  masses. Skeptics point out that global warming is expected to warm  Arctic air masses more than Gulf of Mexico air masses, which will  therefore diminish the contrast between the two air masses and reduce  the strength and likelihood of tornadoes.  
> ...

----------


## johnc

Perhaps Marc could indicate what the point is with post 6010 as it will be lost on most. 
As for Hurricanes, Cyclones and Monsoons it is worth bearing in mind that post 6011 appears to support the fact that warming exists. It does note frequency and at present much of what you read from reputable sources does not necessarily contradict that interpretation. What is particularly relevent is that intensity is increasing so we seem to be going through a period of more severe but less frequent events. As a reference look at the bom site Tropical Cyclone Trends the main point we should remember is that we are going through a period of change and that change is complex with cause and effect obscured by counterbalancing mechanisms with-in nature. You can't say anything is settled because there is much to learn but if we don't start to get serious about this then we may well be to late to reverse the worst aspects of these changes.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Perhaps Marc could indicate what the point is with post 6010 as it will be lost on most.

  It means he suddenly likes computer models... 
As for #6011.....it is worth remembering that 'alarmism' resides on both sides of the divide.......but most people sit firmly (but with varying levels of comfort) on the fence and try to duck the stupidity coming from either side.

----------


## chrisp

*Who is still in denial about anthropogenic climate change?  It seems that even the coal mining companies acknowledge the impact of CO2.*   

> COAL mining companies have conceded that polluting industries should  pay for some of their greenhouse gas emissions, but argued that the cost  should be small until there is a binding global deal on climate change. 
>               And they said that ''fugitive'' emissions from coal mines  - the gas that escapes during the mining process and makes up most of  their carbon dioxide output - should be excluded  until there is a cost  in other countries. 
> Read more: We'll pay for carbon, just not now: miners

----------


## Marc

*John, the article refers to the minimisation apparently in the order of six of the real effect the sun (TSI) has on warming by the good old IPCC*     *New solar reconstruction paper suggests 6x greater solar forcing change than cited by the IPCC* 
                                               Posted on May 10, 2011 by Anthony Watts 
                                               This is interesting. This recent paper published in the journal _Astronomy & Astrophysics_ here  has done a reconstruction of TSI using Beryllium 10 isotope records  combined with sunspot records. The paper suggests that the Total Solar  Irradiance (TSI) has increased since the end of the Little Ice Age  (around 1850) by up to 6 x more than cited by the IPCC. Modulation  potential (lower panel) and TSI reconstructions (upper panel) for the  last 2500 years. Data prior to 1600 AD are based on the modulation  potential derived from 10Be records from the Greenland Ice core Project  (red curves). Data since 1600 AD are based on the two composites shown  in Fig. 1 (red and cyan curves). The grey-shaded area indicates the  intrinsic uncertainty. 
 Here is how they did it:  _For the reconstruction to the past this amplitude is scaled with  proxies for solar activity. Two proxies are available for the  reconstruction: Group sunspot number, which is available from the  present to 1610 AD, and the solar modulation potential extending back to  circa 7300 BC. The latter is a measure of the heliospheric shielding  from cosmic rays derived from the analysis of cosmogenic isotope  abundances in tree rings or ice_ _cores, and is available with a time resolution of 2-3 solar cycles  (Steinhilber et al. 2008). Although sunspot number dropped to zero for a  long time during the Maunder minimum, the solar cycle was uninterrupted  (Beer et al. 1998; Usoskin et al. 2001) and the modulation potential  did not fall to zero. Hence, a reconstruction based solely on sunspot  number may underestimate the solar activity during theMaunderminimum.  Therefore in our reconstruction we used the solar modulation potential  to calculate the long-term variations and sunspot number to superpose  them with the 11-year cycle variations (see the Online Section 6.2)._ _The modulation potential used in the calculations is based on the  composite of data determined from the cosmogenic isotope records of  10Be and neutronmonitor. 10Be data are available up to about 1970  (McCracken et al. 2004) and neutron monitor data, which are used to  calculate the current solar modulation potential, are available since  the 1950s._

----------


## Marc

Silent, to compare reconstruction of past events with the help of computers to the divination of future events by computer models based on hunch and faith is rather disingenuous.

----------


## Marc

.http://translate.google.com/translat...ium-vom-20411/  

> *"Extreme weather events and sea level"*  
>   After the coffee break Mr. pulse began his lecture on _"extreme weather and sea level (see_  Talk in Long version ).   Mr. Pulse had initially indicated that the public was flooded in the  past 10 years with numerous and sometimes absurd alarm messages on  weather and climate, highly stylized, mostly to signals already  initiated a climate catastrophe.   Furthermore: (! Media and politicians) in the public published by the  Air institutions results from climate models is usually shown as  projections, without any indication that it is merely scenarios is  associated with even greater uncertainty than forecasts already are.   Pulse suggested this - similar to one of meteorologists has just been  voted "Hamburg Declaration" to weather long-range forecasts - adopt a  jointly PIK + EIKE to be developed "Potsdam Declaration" with the goal  of common corrections to incorrect and / or excessive air  seek-announcements in the media.  , There was no response from the PIK, not even in the final-conclusion (Schellnhuber). 
>    Pulse resulted in the following manner from graphs, statistics and  quotes from various institutions around the world that even after 150  years, global warming, the weather service to find any trend in  century-middle latitude cyclones, tropical cyclones, tornadoes, floods  and other weather events.   Similarly, showed P. On the basis of a series of gauge measurements and  satellite data that is of some institutions and climate by the IPCC  expected acceleration in sea-level rise can not be found so far.  Mr Rahmstorf pointed out that there would be other records.  Rahmstorf pulse and agreed to share their data.  Respect of the K.-E.   Behre (B., NIHK Wilhelmshaven) for thousands of documented trends at  the German North Sea coast had pulse in a debate with Mr. Kropp out that  Behre has been no temperature observations, and that Behre within the  last 400 years, a weakening of the sea-level rise has found, especially  for the 20  Century.

----------


## Marc

Sorry forthe poor translation, the original is in the PDF file  

> *Global long-term temperature series "*  
>   At 17:00 Mr. Luedecke began his lecture on _"Global temperature-long time series (see_  Abstract ).  Even before the different views were clearly at the Mann's reconstruction of the temperature of the last 1000 years.  Mr Luedecke and others they described as a clear forgery, as Mr Rahmstorf demanded evidence for this claim.  He was referred to the comprehensive work of McIntyre and McKitrick do so.  Very well summarized in the book " The Hockey Stick Illusion " by A. Montford. 
>    The main message from the study of Liidecke and Ewert - confirmed by  intensive statistical study of the autocorrelation (persistence) of many  thousands of temperature time series is: "Warming of the 20th   Century is not unusual to be found. "After a lowering of the  temperature in the years before there was now a substantially natural  warming caused, apart from man-made influences such as the UHI.  But that is clearly visible.  Similar and often even greater fluctuations in the past 2000 years proved.  All had natural causes.  The Lord Schellnhuber and Kropp involved vividly the following discussion.   Mr Schellnhuber recorded as co-authored a paper cited by Mr. Liidecke,  which confirmed the absence of warming, Mr. Kropp was project manager of  the operations carried out by the University of Giessen project to this  study.   Mr Schellnhuber noticed, this result is still no "smoking gun" (for a  CO2-induced warming?), While Mr Rahmstorf interjected, this statistic is  "blind" to the physics.  Was challenged by the Liidecke and link.  Mr. Kropp threw one more, the method used is still in development.  *  Conclusion*  
>    Apparently, the caller, broad agreement in the perception of the facts -  the unchallenged by PIK absence of extreme weather increases as this is  representative.  The method of assessment of these facts seems different.   While the representatives of the absolute priority EIKE emphasize the  physical measurements must be based Climate Impact Research for their  future relatedness necessarily model projections.  These can and will remove himself from the facts counted and measured with high probability.  It would be desirable if this opposition of the largely uninformed public would be better known.   For truthful information by lay therefore are popular presentations by  expert scientists, reported in which, contrary to all facts of  measurement already made catastrophic increases in extreme weather will  also be yet another human-induced climate change associated with not  helpful.

----------


## Marc

Chrisp, you are obviously not familiar with the term politics.
I like this part of the definition: "Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives". 
Or...if you can not beat them join them. Some minign company have joined the chorus of the lunatics singing and dancing Kumbayah with a hat on with little bells attached.

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc

*http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/1...l-perspective/ 
Why it seems that severe weather is “getting worse” when the data shows otherwise – a historical perspective* 
                                               Posted on April 19, 2011 by Anthony Watts  Dr. Roger Pielke Jr  on his Blog, April 18th writes: *A new analysis of floods around  the world has been called to my attention. The new analysis is contrary  to conventional wisdom but consistent with the scientific literature on  global trends in peak streamflows. Is it possible that floods are not  increasing or even in decline while most people have come to believe the  opposite?*
 Bouziotas et al. presented a paper at the EGU a few weeks ago (PDF) and concluded: _Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception,  in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods  in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005)  and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change  neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood  magnitudes in their analysis._
 Note the phrase I highlighted:_“Despite common perception”. _ I was very pleased to see that in context with a conclusion from real data.
 That “common perception” is central to the theme of “global climate disruption”, started by John P. Holdren in this presentation, which is one of the new buzzword phrases after “global warming” and “climate change” used to convey alarm.
 Like Holdren, many people who ascribe to doomsday scenarios related  to AGW seem to think that severe weather is happening more frequently.  From a perception not steeped in the history of television technology,  web technology, and mass media, which has been my domain of avocation  and business, I can see how some people might think this. I’ve touched  on this subject before, but it bears repeating again and in more detail.
 Let’s consider how we might come to think that severe weather is more frequent than before. Using this Wikipedia timeline  as a start, I’ve created a timeline that tracks the earliest  communications to the present, adding also severe weather events of note  and weather and news technology improvements for context.   Prior to 3500BC – Communication was carried out through paintings of indigenous tribes.3500s BC – The Sumerians develop cuneiform writing and the Egyptians develop hieroglyphic writing16th century BC – The Phoenicians develop an alphabetAD 26-37 – Roman Emperor Tiberius rules the empire from island of Capri by signaling messages with metal mirrors to reflect the sun105 – Tsai Lun invents paper7th century – Hindu-Malayan empires write legal documents on copper plate scrolls, and write other documents on more perishable media751 – Paper is introduced to the Muslim world after the Battle of Talas1305 – The Chinese develop wooden block movable type printing1450 – Johannes Gutenberg finishes a printing press with metal movable type1520 – Ships on Ferdinand Magellan‘s voyage signal to each other by firing cannon and raising flags.1776 The Pointe-à-Pitre hurricane  was at one point the deadliest Atlantic hurricane on record. At least  6,000 fatalities occurred on Guadeloupe, which was a higher death toll  than any known hurricane before it. It also struck Louisiana, but there  was no warning nor knowledge of the deaths on Guadeloupe when it did. It  also affected Antigua and Martinique early in its duration.1780 – The Great Hurricane of 1780,  also known as Hurricane San Calixto is considered the deadliest  Atlantic tropical cyclone of all time. About 22,000 people died when the  storm swept over Martinique, St. Eustatius and Barbados between October  10 and October 16. Thousands of deaths also occurred offshore. Reports  of this hurricane took weeks to reach US newspapers of the era.1793 – Claude Chappe establishes the first long-distance semaphore telegraph line1812 – The Aug. 19, 1812 New Orleans Hurricane that didn’t appear in  the Daily National Intelligencer/(Washington, DC) until later  September. _Daily National Intelligencer. Sept. 22, 1812, p. 3. Dreadful Hurricane_. T_he  following letters present an account of the ravages of one of those  terrific storms to which the Southern extreme of our continent is so  subject._ Extract of a letter from Gen. Wilkinson, dated New Orleans, August 22.1831 – Joseph Henry proposes and builds an electric telegraph1835 – Samuel Morse develops the Morse code1843 – Samuel Morse builds the first long distance electric telegraph line1844 – Charles Fenerty produces paper from a wood pulp, eliminating rag paper which was in limited supply1849 – Associated Press organizes Nova Scotia pony express to carry latest European news for New York newspapers1851 – The New York Times newspaper founded1876 – Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas A. Watson exhibit an electric telephone in Boston1877 – Thomas Edison patents the phonograph1889 – Almon Strowger patents the direct dial telephone1901 – Guglielmo Marconi transmits radio signals from Cornwall to Newfoundland1906 – Reginald Fessenden  used a synchronous rotary-spark transmitter for the first radio program  broadcast, from Ocean Bluff-Brant Rock, Massachusetts. Ships at sea  heard a broadcast that included Fessenden playing _O Holy Night_ on the violin and reading a passage from the Bible.1914 – teletype intrduced as a news tool The Associated Press  introduced the “telegraph typewriter” or teletype into newsrooms in  1914, making transmission of entire ready to read news stories available  worldwide.1920 – The first radio news program was broadcast August 31, 1920 by  station 8MK in Detroit, Michigan, which survives today as all-news  format station WWJ under ownership of the CBS network.1925 – John Logie Baird transmits the first television signal1928 – NBC completed the first permanent coast-to-coast radio network in the United States, linked by telephone circuits1935 – Associated Press launched the Wirephoto network, which allowed transmission of news photographs over telephone lines on the day they were taken.1942 – Hedy Lamarr and George Antheil invent frequency hopping spread spectrum communication technique1946 – The DuMont Television Network, which had begun experimental broadcasts before the war, launched what _Newsweek_ called “the country’s first permanent commercial television network” on August 15, 19461947 – Douglas H. Ring and W. Rae Young of Bell Labs proposed a cell-based approach which lead to “cellular phones“1947 – July 27th. The WSR-1 weather surveillance radar, cobbled together from spare parts of the Navy AN/APS-2F radar was put into service in Norfolk, NE. It was later replaced by improved models WSR-3 and WSR-41948 – Network TV news begins. Launched in February 1948 by NBC, _Camel Newsreel Theatre_ was a 10-minute program anchored by John Cameron Swayze, and featured newsreels from Movietone News. CBS soon followed suit in May 1948 with a 15-minute program, _CBS-TV News_, anchored by Douglas Edwards and subsequently renamed _Douglas Edwards with the News_.1948 – The first successful “tornado forecast” issued, and successfully predicted the 1948 Tinker Air Force Base tornadoes which were two tornadoes which struck Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on March 20 and March 25.In 1953, Donald Staggs, an electrical engineer working for the  Illinois State Water Survey, made the first recorded radar observation  of a “hook echo” associated with a tornadic thunderstorm.1957 the WSR-57 the first ‘modern’ weather radar, is commissioned by the U.S. Weather Bureau1958 – Chester Carlson presents the first photocopier suitable for office use1960 – TIROS-1 the first successful weather satellite, and the first of a series of Television Infrared Observation Satellites, was launched at 6:40 AM EST[1] on April 1, 1960 from Cape Canaveral, Florida.1962 – The first satellite television signal was relayed from Europe to the Telstar satellite over North America.1963 – First geosynchronous communications satellite is launched, 17 years after Arthur C. Clarke‘s article1963 CBS Evening News establishes the standard 30 minute network news broadcast. On September 2, 1963, the show expanded from 15 to 30 minutes.1966 – Charles Kao realizes that silica-based optical waveguides offer a practical way to transmit light via total internal reflection1967 – The National Hurricane Center is established in the Miami, FL National Weather Service Forecast Office.1969 – The first hosts of ARPANET, Internet‘s ancestor, are connected.1969 – August 14-22 Hurricane Camille, a Category 5 storm, gets widespread network news coverage from correspondents “on the scene”.1969 – Compuserve, and early dialup text based bulletin board system  is launched in Columbus, Ohio, serving just that city with a1971 – Erna Schneider Hoover invented a computerized switching system for telephone traffic.1971 – Ray Tomlinson is generally credited as having sent the first email across a network, initiating the use of the “@” sign to separate the names of the user and the user’s machine.1972 – Radio Shack stores introduce “The Weather Cube”, the first mass marketed weather alert radio. (page 77 here) allowing citizens to get weather forecasts and bulletins in their home for only $14.951974 April 3rd – WCPO-TV in Cincinnati carries the “Sayler Park Tornado” live on television as it was crossing the Ohio river. It was part of the biggest tornado super outbreak in history.  It is the largest tornado outbreak on record for a single 24-hour  period. From April 3 to April 4, 1974, there were 148 tornadoes  confirmed in 13 US states. Lack of timely warnings demonstrated the need for an expanded NOAA weather radio warning system.1974 – The first Synchronous Meteorological Satellite SMS-1 was launched May 17, followed later by GOES-1 in 1975.1974 the WSR-74  the second modern radar system is put into service at selected National  Weather Service office in the United States and exported to other  countries.1975 – The Altair 8800, the world’s first home computer kit was introduced in the January edition of popular electronics1975-1976 NOAA Weather Radio network expanded from about 50  transmitters to 330 with a goal of reaching 70 percent of the populace  with storm warning broadcasts.1977 – Radio Shack introduces a weather radio with built in  automatic alerting that will sound off when the National Weather Service  issues an alert on the new expanded NOAA Weather Radio network with  over 100 stations. Page 145 here1977 – The Apple II, one of the first highly successful mass-produced home microcomputers was introduced.1978 – NOAA Weather Radio receivers with automatic audio insertion  capabilities for radio and TV audio began to become widely installed.1979 – The first commercially automated cellular network (the 1G)  was launched in Japan by NTT in 1979, initially in the metropolitan  area of Tokyo. Within five years, the NTT network had been expanded to  cover the whole population of Japan and became the first nationwide 1G  network.1980 – Cable News Network  (CNN) is founded by Ted Turner.Upon its launch, CNN was the first  channel to provide 24-hour television news coverage, and the first  all-news television channel in the United States.1980 -  A heatwave hit much of the United States, killing as many as 1,250 people in one of the deadliest heat waves in history.1981 – Home satellite dishes and receivers on C-band start to become widely available.1981 – The IBM Personal Computer aka IBM model number 5150, and was introduced on August 12, 1981, it set a standard for x86 systems still in use today.1982, May 2nd – The Weather Channel  (TWC) is launched by John Coleman and Joe D’Aleo with 24 hour  broadcasts of  computerized weather forecasts and weather-related news.1983 – Sony released the first consumer camcorder—the Betamovie BMC-100P1983 America Online (then as _Control Video Corporation_, Vienna, Virginia) debuts as a nationwide bulletin board system featuring email.1983 – The first 1G cellular telephone network launched in the USA was Chicago-based Ameritech using the Motorola DynaTAC mobile phone.1984 – The Apple Macintosh computer, with a built in graphical  interface, was announced. The Macintosh was introduced by the now famous  US$1.5 million Ridley Scott television commercial, “1984“. The commercial most notably aired during the third quarter of Super Bowl XVIII on 22 January 1984 and is now considered a “watershed event”.1985 – Panasonic, RCA, and Hitachi began producing camcorders that  recorded to full-sized VHS cassette and offered up to 3 hours of record  time. TV news soon began to have video of news and weather events  submitted from members of the public.1986 July 18th, KARE-TV in Minneapolis dispatches a news helicopter to catch live video of a tornado in progress, live at 5:13 PM during their news broadcast.1988 – Doppler Radar goes national – the construction of a network consisting of 10 cm (4 in) wavelength radars, called NEXRAD or WSR-88D (Weather Service Radar 1988 Doppler), was started.1989 – Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau built the prototype system which became the World Wide Web at CERN1989 – August Sony announced the Sony ProMavica (*Ma*gnetic *Vi*deo *Ca*mera)  electronic still camera, considered the first widely available  electronic camera able to load images to a computer via floppy disk.1991 – Anders Olsson transmits solitary waves through an optical fiber with a data rate of 32 billion bits per second.1991  – The 1991 Perfect Storm  hits New England as a Category 1 hurricane and causes $1 billion  dollars in damage. Covered widely in TV and print, it later becomes a  movie starring George Clooney.1992 – Neil Papworth sends the first SMS (or text message).1992 – August 16-28 Hurricane Andrew, spotted at sea with weather  satellites, is given nearly continuous coverage on CNN and other network  news outlets as it approaches Florida. Live TV news via satellite  coverage as well as some Internet coverage is offered. It was the first  Category 5 hurricane imaged on NEXRAD.1993 – The Great Mississippi Flood was carried on network television as levees breached, millions of viewers watched the flood in real-time and near real-time.1994 – Internet2 organization created1994 – Home satellite service DirecTV launched on June 17th1994 – An initiative by Vice President Gore raised the NOAA Weather Radio warning coverage to 95 percent of the US populace.1995 – The Weather Underground website was launched1995 – DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) began to be implemented in the USA1996 – Home satellite service Dish Network launched on March 4th1996 – Fox News Channel was launched on October 7, 1996 with 24 hour news coverage1996 – The Movie “Twister” was released on May 10, showing the drama and science of severe weather chasing in the USA midwest.1999 – Dr. Kevin Trenberth posts a report and web essay titled _The Extreme Weather Events of 1997 and 1998_  citing “global greenhouse warming” as a cause. Trenberth recognizes  “wider coverage” but dismisses it saying:   “While we are indeed exposed  to more and ever-wider coverage of the weather, the nature of some of  the records being broken suggests a deeper explanation: that real  changes are under way.”2002 – Google News  page was launched in March. It was later updated to so that users can  request e-mail “alerts” on various keyword topics by subscribing to Google News Alerts.2004 – December: A freak snowstorm hits the southernmost parts of  Texas and Louisiana, dumping snow into regions that do not normally  witness winter snowfall during the hours leading up to December 25 in  what is called the 2004 Christmas Eve Snowstorm.2004 – DSL began to become widely accepted in the USA, making broadband Internet connections affordable to most homes.2004 – On November 19, the Website “Real Climate” was introduced,  backed by Fenton communications, to sell the idea of climate change from  “real scientists”.2004 – December The website “Climate Audit” was launched.2005 – August, Hurricane Katrina  caused catastrophic damage along the Gulf Coast of the United States,  forcing the effective abandonment of southeastern Louisiana (including  New Orleans) for up to 2 months and damaging oil wells that sent gas  prices in the U.S. to an all-time record high. Katrina killed at least  1,836 people and caused at least $75 billion US in damages, making it  one of the costliest natural disasters of all time. TV viewers worldwide  watched the storm strike in real time, Internet coverage was also  timely and widespread.2006 – Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth premiered at the 2006  Sundance Film Festival and opening in New York City and Los Angeles on  May 24. It went on to limited theater release and home view DVD. It was  the first entertainment film about global warming as a “crisis”, with  hurricane Katrina prominently featured as “result” of global warming.2006 – The short instant message service Twitter was launched July 15, 20062006 – November 17th, Watts Up With That was launched.2007 – The iPhone, with graphics and Twitter instant messaging capabilities was released on June 29, 2007.2007 – The reality show “Storm Chasers” debuts on the Discovery channel on October 17, 2007, showing severe weather pursuit as entertainment.2007 – On October 10th, in Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills Al Gore’s AIT movie  was challenged in a UK court, and found to have nine factual errors. It  was the first time “science as movie” had been legally challenged.The 2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak  was a deadly tornado outbreak affecting the Southern United States and  the lower Ohio Valley from February 5 to February 6, 2008. With more  than 80 confirmed tornados and 58 deaths, the outbreak was the deadliest  in the U.S. since the May 31, 1985 outbreak that killed 76 across Ohio and Pennsylvania. It was widely covered live on US media.2010 – A heat wave in Russia was widely reported by global media as being directly a result of “global warming”. Scientific research from NOAA released later in 2010 and 2011 showed that to be a false claim.2011 – On January 4th, the Pew Research Center released a poll showing that Internet had surpassed television as the preferred source for news, especially among younger people.2011  – March, notice of an Earthquake off the coast of Japan was blogged near real-time  thanks to a USGS email message alert before TV news media picked up the  story, followed by A Tsunami warning. A Japanese TV news helicopter  with live feed was dispatched and showed the Tsunami live as it approached the coast of Japan and hit the beaches.  Carried by every major global news outlet lus live streamed on the  Internet, it was the first time a Tsunami of this magnitude was seen  live on global television before it impacted land.
 Compare the reach and speed of communications and news reporting at  the beginning of this timeline to the reach and speed of communications  and news reporting technology around the beginning of the 20th century.  Then compare that to the beginning of the 21st century. Compare again to  what we’ve seen in the last 10 years.
 With such global coverage, instant messaging, and Internet enabled  phones with cameras now, is it any wonder that nothing related to severe  weather or disaster escapes our notice any more? Certainly, without  considering the technological change in our society, it would seem as if  severe weather events and disasters are becoming much more frequent.
 To borrow and modify a famous phrase from James Carville:*It’s the technology, stupid.*

----------


## Dr Freud

Hi all, 
Apologies for the break, was very busy, but kept an eye on you lot. 
I hope you are not all frozen solid over there on the East Coast. 
Soon you can pay heaps of tax to make it even colder, so JuLIAR says. 
Here's the good news, she's lying and no matter how much tax you pay her, it won't get any colder (thankfully).  :Biggrin:  
But hey, nice and warm over in the West here, must be all the CO2 over this side.  :Wink 1:  
But I'll try to catch up this weekend.

----------


## johnc

So we have a graph that shows one picture and here is a more up to date one that shows the opposite. Shall we devote the next 100 posts to trawling for yet another graph so we can successfully bore everyone to deathth?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So we have a graph that shows one picture and here is a more up to date one that shows the opposite. Shall we devote the next 100 posts to trawling for yet another graph so we can successfully bore everyone to deathth?

  You may note that in the graph mark prestented it is "strong" and "violent" Tornados.  Where the graph you present is all tornados.  bit of a difference there I would say.  Not to mention that modern technology allows for all tornados to be recorded where in the past this was not possible. 
Thought you might like that explaination.

----------


## johnc

> You may note that in the graph mark prestented it is "strong" and "violent" Tornados. Where the graph you present is all tornados. bit of a difference there I would say. Not to mention that modern technology allows for all tornados to be recorded where in the past this was not possible. 
> Thought you might like that explaination.

  Interesting that in this case we almost get something resembling balance, when many of the graphs presented by the denier side often only represent one side of the argument and often presented in a way that is misleading. Leaving out in Marc's case any mention of frequency and only plotting a narrow band of intensity.  
Also in looking at land based tornadoes it would be remiss not to mention anything about water derived hurricanes (aka monsoon, typhoon etc) Below is a graph of cyclonic frequency and we should remember our recent thumping up north which would not appear on this type of figure just yet.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Silent, to compare reconstruction of past events with the help of computers to the divination of future events by computer models based on hunch and faith is rather disingenuous.

  Not the word I'd have picked.  Sorry to prick your bubble but it is almost exactly the same technique.......the only significant difference is in the question and the assumptions.  Both techniques use historical data. Often the same data set.  Oh and the results.....looking back is usually only certain to two orders of magnitude but looking forward of course worse....more like five orders at least.  But no-one ever talks about that do they, eh? 
Faith is not a part of either looking back or looking forward.  But you'll have to take that on trust....do you have any to spare?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You may note that in the graph mark prestented it is "strong" and "violent" Tornados.  Where the graph you present is all tornados.  bit of a difference there I would say.  Not to mention that modern technology allows for all tornados to be recorded where in the past this was not possible. 
> Thought you might like that explaination.

  This is *just fantastic*.  Given the choice between 'more' and 'fewer stronger' with respect to tornadoes......I just have no idea which sort of tornadoes I'd prefer.   Other than none. 
Blimey, lads.  That's not even worth an argument over!!!

----------


## Marc

*The Claim:* 50 million climate refugees will be  produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be  river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific.  The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said:  …*it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.* *The Test:* Did population go down in these areas during that period, indicating climate refugees were on the move? The answer, no. *The Proof:* Population actually gained in some  Caribbean Island for which 2010 census figures were available. Then when  challenged on these figures, the UN tried to hide the original claim  from view. See: *The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt* *The Change in claim:* Now it is claimed that it will be 10 years into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *The Claim:* 50 million climate refugees will be  produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be  river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific.  The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said:  *it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.* *The Test:* Did population go down in these areas during that period, indicating climate refugees were on the move? The answer, no. *The Proof:* Population actually gained in some  Caribbean Island for which 2010 census figures were available. Then when  challenged on these figures, the UN tried to hide the original claim  from view. See: *The UN disappears 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt* *The Change in claim:* Now it is claimed that it will be 10 years into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020.

  I see your Watts waffle and raise you a New Scientist......  Sign in to read: Searching for the climate refugees - environment - 27 April 2011 - New Scientist   

> _
> There were supposed to be 50 million climate refugees by the end of last year, so where are they? New Scientist investigates_ 
>                                                                                                            WHATEVER happened to the climate  refugees? Six years ago, several UN bodies endorsed the statement that  by the end of 2010, there would be 50 million of them around the planet,  fleeing rising sea levels, droughts and other climate catastrophes. Was  it all a myth, as climate sceptics suggested last week? Or are the  refugees out there, but escaping our attention because they never make  it onto CNN? 
>                                                                                                            A _New Scientist_ investigation  reveals how international agencies failed to make even the most cursory  calculations to support this headline figure. We found that while there  are undoubtedly millions of people - overwhelmingly in poor nations -  who have had to abandon their homes due to factors linked to climate, no  one has counted them. As a result, the only quantitative statement that  seems solid is that several hundred people have fled their homes on  low-lying islands and along Arctic shores. 
>                                                                                                            Only one person has ever tried to  count environmental refugees: British environmental academic Norman  Myers. In 1995, he claimed in a report funded by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the UK and US governments and others  that the planet had at least 25 million of them, most classifiable as  victims of climate. Myers predicted the number would double to 50  million by 2010 - the headline figure cited by UN agencies - and reach  200 million by mid-century. 
>                                                                                                            Since then, his numbers have turned up  in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UK's  Stern review of the economics of climate change, and statements from the  UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the United Nations University's  Institute for Environment and Human Security and, until last week, on  the UNEP website. 
>                                                                                                            Myers said his numbers were a "first  cut assessment" but no one has attempted to refine them. The problem is,  while millions of people are displaced worldwide, it is difficult to  get a firm handle on numbers and determine the root cause of their  migration. Climate is frequently a contributor, though. A 2009 study for  the European Union, for example, found that climate was a factor in  significant migration in Mongolia - where it was destroying pastures -  and in north Africa and the Sahel. 
>                                                                                                            Most of those interviewed for the report, _Environmental Change and Forced Migration Scenarios_,  said they moved for economic reasons, but the researchers found that  the "root causes" of their economic hardship were climatic. They also  noted that migration was a routine way of coping with floods and  droughts in the Sahel, Bangladesh and elsewhere. 
>                                                                                                                                                      Ecuadorians, they found, had left for  Europe in large numbers after El Niño floods. And the EU study agreed  with Myers that Mexico had been the source of as many as 1 million  environmental refugees a year during the 1990s. Increased hurricanes and  floods had accelerated decisions to migrate, they found, though the  root cause lay in Mexico's economic crisis. 
> ...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Greenland ice in no hurry to raise seas - environment - 16 May 2011 - New Scientist   

> Good news is rare when it comes to the Greenland ice  sheet. Yet a model that accurately mimics the way the ice responds to  rising temperatures by slipping and sliding into the sea suggests the  resulting rise in sea levels may be smaller than feared.                                                            
> In its 2007 forecasts of sea-level rise, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change famously excluded contributions from the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets because the physics were too poorly understood and complex to model. As a result, the IPCC's estimate that seas could rise by 18 to 59 centimetres by 2100 is almost certainly too low. Indeed, levels are already rising faster than the models predicted.                                                                            
> Using data from the last decade, Stephen Price  of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico has shown that his  modelled ice sheet moves in the same way as the real one does. In  particular, the model accurately reproduces how disruptions to the edge  of the ice sheet leads to a large initial movement, which is followed by  several decades of smaller movement. *Best guess* 
>                                                                                                                     Price has calculated that changes  which the ice sheet experienced between 1997 and 2007 in response to a  thermal disruption in the early 2000s will eventually lead to a rise of  0.6 centimetres. Assuming that similar thermal disruptions happen every  decade, the moving ice sheet will raise sea levels by about 4.5  centimetres by 2100.
>                                                                                               That is about half of a widely quoted  previous estimate of 9 centimetres, calculated by Tad Pfeffer at the  University of Colorado at Boulder, and colleagues. But Pfeffer's study  was a worst-case scenario, in which all the processes driving sea-level rise were pushed to their absolute limits (_Science_, DOI: 10.1126/science.1159099).
>                                                                                                                         Pfeffer says Price's study is a more  plausible estimate of what might actually happen. "They use a much more  realistic scenario," he says, "and their model is really grounded in  physics." *Wonderful leap* 
>                                                                                                                     The model is "a wonderful leap forward," says Richard Alley  of Pennsylvania State University in University Park. But he says the  study does not come up with an upper limit on the sea-level rise, as  Pfeffer's worst-case scenario model did.
>                                                                                                            "In a warming future the [thermal]  perturbations might become bigger, or even more frequent," he says –  something that Price's model doesn't consider.
>                                                                                                            Pfeffer counters that, while the  pulses of warm seawater disrupting the ice sheet may well become warmer  later in the century as global temperatures rise, that doesn't  necessarily mean they will have a bigger effect on the ice. "The  response is dictated by what the glaciers are capable of doing," he  explains. "You can yank the plug out harder but it doesn't make the  water run out any faster."
>                                                                                                            Journal reference: _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.101731310

----------


## johnc

In the end it is only a forcast, let's face it even raising the thing is only applying hindsight. We forcast all sorts of outcomes to assist with possible planning, most are never intended as being anything more than a basic tool in that process. As Silent said another beat up, firstly see it for what it is, secondly the "test" and "proof" are even more dodgy than the star gazing it was based on.

----------


## Marc

_My forecast:_
Faced with rising opposition economic and morally bankrupt politicians turn to  other sources of money and abandon the global warming gravy train. 
New  sources could be but are not limited to:
Tax to arm the world against a  Martian invasion.
Tax for the use of atmospheric oxygen.
The friction  tax. 
Meantime, environmentalist, sympathisers and assorted cheer leaders'  discredit is limited by the collective media induced lobotomy.  
The  climate? Keeps changing of course as it has for millennia, getting cooler only  to then turn hotter and cooler ... And did I mention changing? 
Ooops, we  can not have the CLIMATE CHANGING !!!! OH NO !!!  WE MUST DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING  !!!!

----------


## Marc

Friends of the Earth Australia: A Citizens Guide to Climate Refugees 
And if you had something dodgy to eat and want to get rid of it, read the above articles about "environmental refugees. 
Clearly capable to induce much needed vomit.

----------


## Marc

Review & Outlook: Climate Refugees, Not Found - WSJ.com 
In 2005, the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) published a color-coded  map under the headline "Fifty million climate refugees by 2010." The  primary source for the prediction was a 2005 paper by environmental  scientist Norman Myers.
 Six years later, this flood of refugees is nowhere to be found,  global average temperatures are about where they were when the  prediction was made—and the U.N. has done a vanishing act of its own,  wiping the inconvenient map from its servers.  
 The map, which can still be found  elsewhere on the Web, disappeared from the program's site sometime after  April 11, when Gavin Atkins asked on AsianCorrespondent.com: "What  happened to the climate refugees?" It's now 2011 and, as Mr. Atkins  points out, many of the locales that the map identified as likely  sources of climate refugees are "not only not losing people, they are  actually among the fastest growing regions in the world." * View the UNEP's climate-refugee prediction map*    
The program's spokesman tells us the map  vanished because "it's not a UNEP prediction. . . . that graphic did not  represent UNEP views and was an oversimplification of UNEP views." He  added that the program would like to publish a clarification, now that  journalists are "making hay of it," except that the staffers able to do  so are "all on holiday for Easter."
 The climate-refugee prediction isn't  the first global warming-related claim that has turned out to be  laughable, and everyone can make mistakes. More troubling is the impulse  among some advocates of global warming alarmism to assert in the face  of contrary evidence that they never said what they definitely said  before the evidence went against them.
 These columns have asked for some time  how anyone can still manage to take the U.N.-led climate crowd  seriously. Maybe the more pertinent question is whether the climateers  have ever taken the public's intelligence seriously.

----------


## Marc

*What happened to the climate refugees?*  _By Gavin Atkins Apr 11, 2011 8:14AM UTC_ 
                                                                             In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted  that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010.  These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea  level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and  disruption to food production.
 The UNEP even provided a handy map. The map shows us the places most at risk including the very sensitive low lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean.
 It so happens that just a few of these islands and other places most  at risk have since had censuses, so it should be possible for us now to  get some idea of the devastating impact climate change is having on  their populations. Let’s have a look at the evidence: Bahamas:Nassau, The Bahamas – The 2010 national statistics  recorded that the population growth increased to 353,658 persons in The  Bahamas.  The population change figure increased by 50,047 persons  during the last 10 years.St Lucia:The island-nation of Saint Lucia recorded an overall  household population increase of 5 percent from May 2001 to May 2010  based on estimates derived from a complete enumeration of the population  of Saint Lucia during the conduct of the recently completed 2010  Population and Housing Census.Seychelles:Population 2002, 81755
 Population 2010, 88311Solomon Islands:The latest Solomon Islands population has surpassed half a million – that’s according to the latest census results.
 It’s been a decade since the last census report, and in that time the population has leaped 100-thousand.Meanwhile, far from being places where people are fleeing, no fewer than the top six of the very fastest growing cities in China,  Shenzzen, Dongguan, Foshan, Zhuhai, Puning and Jinjiang, are absolutely  smack bang within the shaded areas identified as being likely sources  of climate refugees.
 Similarly, many of the fastest growing cities in the United States also appear within or close to the areas identified by the UNEP as at risk of having climate refugees.
 More censuses are due to come in this year, and we await the results  for Bangladesh and the Maldives - said to be places most at risk - with  interest.
 However, a very cursory look at the first available evidence seems to  show that the places identified by the UNEP as most at risk of having  climate refugees are not only _not_ losing people, they are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world. _(Footnote: As requested, credit goes to the cartographer of the UNEP map, Emmanuelle Bournay.)_
 UPDATE: What’s it all about then? Find the response from the UNEP here and a theory as to why they were so keen about the 50 million refugees claim.
 UPDATE: Some other published reactions to the story.
 UPDATE: A little background about the claim.

----------


## Marc

Why the claim you say?
Easy. You can get away with mass murder this days providing you open and close your statement with words that include climate change, environment and refugees. 
And you can ask money for whatever you wish. How about 7.5 billions for non existing  "Climate Refugees"   http://www.ugandaclusters.ug/dwnlds/...ppeal_2011.pdf 
I wonder if someone migating from Norway to Australia in search of milder weather is considered a Climate refugee? After all he is taking refuge from inclement climate right?
THe Poms are Climate refugees for sure! Can we drum up a bit of donations please?

----------


## johnc

I find the above rubbish bordering on the offensive, it is little more than a purile attempt to create trouble. The UN along with other groups is a major provider of humanitarian aid for those effected by disaster. That can be weather extremes such as the Pakistan floods or Indonesian Tsunami, it can be those displaced by civil war or famine. It is doing essentially the work the UN was created for. In working out how much they need for future events various forcasts are made and member nations asked to contribute. Any fool can see the loose hook Marc is basing this on as these are nothing other than guestimates, there is an aid fund and stockpiles of supplies and resources that can be called upon. When disasters are called a whole range of countries and organisations respond with the UN often in a major role. 
In anything like this there will be waste, misapplied resources and a lot to learn so it hopefully can be done better next time. There is plenty for the average moron to complain about. However we live in a civil society and to try to pretend that somehow climate change views are fund raisers is not sustainable. It is the events themselves that open wallets, not some forcast of what might happen.  
In the end regardless of what is raised the money ends up being spent on real refugees and victims, not the office christmas party, there is never enough and never a huge pile of unspent cash. Go find another area to demonstrate yet another aspect of personal bias on, perhaps you could do one on human decency you might learn something. 
You only have to read the links to see that the 50,000,000 is not refering to enviromental refugees, they mention countries affected by civil unrest and corruption. This applies to people effected by violence, persecution, starvation, forced removal, rape, murder and summary execution.

----------


## johnc

For the benefit of anyone interested not only doesn't the UN request $7.5B for "climate refugees" it specifically mentions the countries it is meant for which are shown below. These are all areas of political and civil unrest and of course Haiti can throw in a non climate natural disaster. When it comes to lies, dam lies and statistics we can summarise Marcs efforts as lies, there is no redeeming feature. :No:  The 2011 Humanitarian Appeal is the biggest Appeal in dollar terms ever launched since the creation of the Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP) in 1991. It comprises appeals for the West Africa region and 13 countries: Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Haiti, Kenya, Niger, the occupied Palestinian territory, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. 
The link from his post is http://www.ugandaclusters.ug/dwnlds/...ppeal_2011.pdf

----------


## Marc

John, your attitude when not surprising is disappointing. 
The UN when  originally founded after the war had a noble intention of avoid war. 
It  failed abysmally. We had since the UN was founded more wars than ever, many coniceved inside the Un itself, adding another layer of corruption and political intrigue to the world's problems. 
It's function now is to undermine individual countries  sovereignty, gives a platform to tyrants and mass murderers, and provides a  venue to plot sanctions and war against whoever they think deserves punishment.  Criminal gangster states have a vote and a voice in the UN. The best that could  happen is that the UN be shut down permanently. Any of the UN "initiatives" is  tainted and reeks of interventionism, social engineering, authoritarianism and  none-of-your-business. 
If you believe the UN is still a good idea, you  are as ill informed as you are in relation to the so called threat of so called  AGW.
 As for "foreign aid" there is no need for the UN to be the middle man at a  cost of hundreds of millions to maintain an army of clowns and puppets.  Furthermore, aid is no solution to any of humanity ills, but that is another  topic.

----------


## Marc

Phil for Humanity   

> *Why The United Nations is a Useless Failure*  
>  The main purpose for the United Nations  (U.N.) is to resolve issues between countries through diplomacy before  countries resort to military force and before conflicts escalate.   Unfortunately, the U.N. has consistently failed this goal and will  continue being useless for these several reasons.   
>  First, the United Nations is primarily a forum for debate.  As a  result, the U.N. is an international organization where countries send  representatives to argue for or against issues.  These representatives  are typically just spokesmen for their country's agendas and are  relatively powerless in their own country.  Furthermore, countries  governed by non-peaceful dictators and regimes typically use these  debates to delay and obfuscate issues in their favor.  Over the fifty  years that the United Nations has existed, these debates alone have not  resolved a single issue.  Direct military actions, back room  negotiations, and threats, that were not sponsored by the United  Nations, have had the only real positive affects for change.    
>  For instance, Iraq was under U.N. backed economic trade sanctions for  over a decade.  As a result, the Iraqi people suffered greatly while  Saddam Hussein continued playing games with the United Nations by only  periodically allowing inspections for weapons of mass destruction,  inconsistent disarmament of known weapons, and illegally finding ways  around the oil for food agreements that the U.N. imposed.  As a result,  economic sanctions were an abyssal failure.  Only the United States of  America had the courage of breaking this stalemate that had the Iraqi  people caught in the middle.  Yet again, the United Nations is  considering this same solution that has never worked to be used  against North Korea because of its nuclear weapons program and testing.   And Iran is keeping a close eye on what the world does to North Korea,  since Iran has similar nuclear ambitions for their non-peaceful agenda  too.   
>  Second, the United Nations is unable to take direct and independent  actions without support from its members.  In other words, the U.N. is  completely powerless and pacifistic.  In a world filled with  war-mongering dictators and suppressing regimes who know the U.N. lacks  any real power, regimes are almost completely free to do whatever they  want.  For example, North Korea has tested nuclear weapons and threatens  to do so again, with the United Nations only considering sanctions.   
>  The only solution that I can imagine is for each country that is a  member of the United Nations to equally contribute a military force or  equivalent money to the United Nations.  And the United Nations could  use these resources without approval from any individual country.  As  you can imagine, this is not likely going to ever happen.   
>  Third, the United Nations has five nations that can veto any resolution  that the majority of the U.N. members agreed upon.  The countries with  this veto power are China, France, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union),  the United Kingdom, and the United States of America.  These countries  have this power because they were the founding countries of the United  Nations that wrote the rules for the U.N. after World War 2.   Unfortunately, this non-democracy fails for several reasons.  First,  only a true democracy among nations is unbiased and fair.  Thus, the  complete structure of the U.N. needs a major overhaul.  This too is not  likely to happen, since the countries with vetoing power are unlikely to  unanimously agree to give up this right for fairness sake.    
>  Additionally, since a lot of the countries in the United Nations are  not for peace, these nations have very questionable voting practices.   The only possible solution is to deny voting rights for non-peace loving  nations.  This includes any non-free and non-democratic country who  would be biased towards dictators and regimes.  I do not think that the  U.N. is capable of only allowing free countries the right to vote.  This  is contradictory to the purpose of the United Nations, since nations  would only debate in the forum of the United Nations if they can vote in  the Security Council of the U.N.  Similarly, the United Nations prides  itself as an international humanitarian group, yet allows  non-humanitarian members, such as China, to continue having voting  rights on humanitarian issues, even though these countries greatly  suppress and ignore the humanitarian rights of their own people too.   This would further reduce the number of members capable of voting.   Again, this is not likely to happen.   
>  The fourth and final reason why the United Nations is useless is  terrorism.  The U.N. does not formally recognize any country as a  terrorist state.  Furthermore, terrorists are not interested in the  politics of debating in a public forum, such as the United Nations, to  discuss and work out their issues.  Therefore, the U.N. does not get  involved in politics with terrorist groups.  As a result, the United  Nations is completely blind to terrorist groups, has no plans of address  terrorism, and has no intentions of changing.  The fact that the United  Nations, as the largest international organization that promotes peace,  is completely unable to address terrorism is further proof that the  U.N. is ineffective.   
>  In conclusion, the United Nations has proven itself as a failure for  its entire history and will continue being useless.  Maybe if peaceful  countries withdraw their membership and stop participating in the United  Nations in protest, will force the United Nations to abandon its old  methods of dealing with non-peaceful and non-humanitarian nations.

----------


## chrisp

> _My forecast:_
> Faced with rising opposition economic and morally bankrupt politicians turn to  other sources of money and abandon the global warming gravy train.

  It'll be interesting to see how your predictions go...   

> *Chris Huhne pledges to halve UK carbon emissions by 2025* 
> The UK announces the most ambitious targets on greenhouse gases of any developed country, after a week of cabinet rifts. 
> The UK is to put in place the most ambitious targets on greenhouse  gases of any developed country, by halving carbon dioxide emissions by  2025, after a tumultuous week of cabinet rifts on the issue. 
> Agreeing the targets took weeks of wrangling among ministers, but late on Tuesday afternoon the energy and climate secretary, Chris Huhne, announced to parliament  that the "carbon budget"  a 50% emissions cut averaged across the  years 2023 to 2027, compared with 1990 levels  would be enshrined in  law. 
> Source: Chris Huhne pledges to halve UK carbon emissions by 2025 | Environment | The Guardian

----------


## johnc

> John, your attitude when not surprising is disappointing. 
> The UN when originally founded after the war had a noble intention of avoid war. 
> It failed abysmally. We had since the UN was founded more wars than ever, many coniceved inside the Un itself, adding another layer of corruption and political intrigue to the world's problems. 
> It's function now is to undermine individual countries sovereignty, gives a platform to tyrants and mass murderers, and provides a venue to plot sanctions and war against whoever they think deserves punishment. Criminal gangster states have a vote and a voice in the UN. The best that could happen is that the UN be shut down permanently. Any of the UN "initiatives" is tainted and reeks of interventionism, social engineering, authoritarianism and none-of-your-business. 
> If you believe the UN is still a good idea, you are as ill informed as you are in relation to the so called threat of so called AGW.
> As for "foreign aid" there is no need for the UN to be the middle man at a cost of hundreds of millions to maintain an army of clowns and puppets. Furthermore, aid is no solution to any of humanity ills, but that is another topic.

  This is straying to far from the topic, and is best brought to a close. The UN is notable for both success and failure. It is to be remembered the UN was set up to replace the League of Nations that failed to prevent WW2. We have not had a third world war so perhaps it has been a success. It has been involved in many peace keeping missions that have acted as a stabilising force. It has also been to late in some interventions.  It has its faults which you are keen to list but also it has its positives which you choose to ignore.

----------


## Marc

The UN is as useless as an ashtray on a motorbike, however , and contrary to your opinion,   

> This is straying to far from the topic, and is best brought to a close.

  the UN has a lot to do in perpetuating and coordinating the largest CON in history, namely the "global warming" caused by bad boys like me who drive large 4wd and big boats.
I like their mention that "global warming started more than a century ago", (my emphasis) I venture that it started by all those beens in people's diet in 1900...   

> What does FAO do? :: Global warming :: _The United Nations and global warming_
> Global  warming is a global problem. To understand it, cope with it and try to  keep it from getting worse, all the countries of the world need to work  together. 
>  And when nations need to unite, they turn to the United Nations. 
>  The United Nations is playing a central role in clarifying the science  of global warming and preparing a global plan of action to deal with it.  Because UN organizations like FAO are neutral, their scientific and  technical reports are trusted and they can negotiate agreements among  countries with different political viewpoints and economic interests.  *The process of global warming began more than a century ago*. Our  response has just begun. Here’s a timeline of the major events in the  UN’s efforts to help the countries of the world deal with global  warming.  *1988 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)* 
>   Two United Nations organizations – the World Meteorological Organization  (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – establish  the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Panel doesn’t  do its own research. Its job is to bring clarity to the highly political  and controversial debate over global warming and its causes. 
>  It prepares comprehensive, objective, and transparent assessments of the  state of international research on climate change, its causes and its  consequences.  *1990 – The IPCC’s first assessment* 
>   The Panel’s first assessment confirms that global warming is a reality,  and that it is caused by an accumulation of greenhouse gases released  into the atmosphere by human activities.  
>  Find out more about the science of global warming. 
>  On the basis of this assessment, the UN General Assembly calls for  countries to negotiate an international agreement to address global  warming.   *1992 – UN Framework Convention on Climate Change* 
> ...

----------


## Marc

Ahyone wants to buy cheap CO2 Tech Ltd shares?

----------


## johnc

Much has been written about the effect or otherwise that CO2 has on the enviroment particularly temperature but to date little if anything in this thread has mentioned CO2 and it effect on the ocean. We are aware that the ocean mass does obsorb CO2 which helps reduce CO2 impact on warming. What is often overlooked is the impact this has on the ocean itself. CO2 absorbtion is leading to increased acidity (approx 30% to date) in the ocean. This is partly blamed for coral bleaching but recent research has indicated that it is leading to the reduction of shell mass or a particular molusc that forms an integral part of the food chain. Recent Australian research has been on one species off the coast of Tassie and there is much to learn. However this should concern all of us as it has the potential to effect the food chain and more importantly food security as many in the world are reliant on fish stocks as an essential part of protein intake. 
The attached is to an article that discusses some of the detail.  Acid Oceans- warning to Copenhagen negotiators

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *Chris Huhne pledges to halve UK carbon emissions by 2025*  
> The UK announces the most ambitious targets on greenhouse gases of any developed country, after a week of cabinet rifts. 
> The UK is to put in place the most ambitious targets on greenhouse  gases of any developed country, by halving carbon dioxide emissions by  2025, after a tumultuous week of cabinet rifts on the issue. 
> Agreeing the targets took weeks of wrangling among ministers, but late on Tuesday afternoon the energy and climate secretary, Chris Huhne, announced to parliament  that the "carbon budget" – a 50% emissions cut averaged across the  years 2023 to 2027, compared with 1990 levels – would be enshrined in  law. 
> Source: Chris Huhne pledges to halve UK carbon emissions by 2025 | Environment | The Guardian

  If they are so stupid to do this let em. 
They will be the first economy destroyed by AGW.

----------


## KBA

> Much has been written about the effect or otherwise that CO2 has on the enviroment particularly temperature but to date little if anything in this thread has mentioned CO2 and it effect on the ocean. We are aware that the ocean mass does obsorb CO2 which helps reduce CO2 impact on warming. What is often overlooked is the impact this has on the ocean itself. CO2 absorbtion is leading to increased acidity (approx 30% to date) in the ocean. This is partly blamed for coral bleaching but recent research has indicated that it is leading to the reduction of shell mass or a particular molusc that forms an integral part of the food chain. Recent Australian research has been on one species off the coast of Tassie and there is much to learn. However this should concern all of us as it has the potential to effect the food chain and more importantly food security as many in the world are reliant on fish stocks as an essential part of protein intake. 
> The attached is to an article that discusses some of the detail. Acid Oceans- warning to Copenhagen negotiators

  You should be quite releived to hear John that you no longer have to worry about that pesky C02 and if you have been following any of the scientific discussions on those blogs Ocean acidification is just a catchy made up attempt to re-package a scare about the alkaline ocean being slightly diluted to an alkaline ocean, but anyway that is of no consequence as tghere are now two studies that don't even bother to mention C02 - follow this link hopefully to this talk by Jasper Kirkby of the CERN Cloud experiment outlines some interesting correlations   YouTube - Jasper Kirkby: The CLOUD experiment at CERN 
There is also a new peer reviewed paper by Danish Researchers on the same issue it seems that solar influence  is a more dominating factor along with sulphuric acid (lots from  volcano and other natural emissions) along with ozone and amonia that are a far bigger influence in the CERN experiments 
So wont be long before the whole C02 (carbon Dioxide) scary scenario will be over  - if  you also closely watch that talk by Jasper Kirkby,  he pretty well lays it on the line that none of  the modeling currently in use for GCM's are fit to predict anything. 
You may learn same things to be happy about, though likely to get colder it seems. 
Ken

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The UN is as useless as an ashtray on a motorbike

  The UN is a reflection of the society that keeps it going.....just like our posts here reflect on our character. 
I'm begining to think that Marc is actually an anarchist. Or at least not a fan of consensus driven political structures.  Who'd have thought?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> They will be the first economy destroyed by AGW.

  You could argue that that fate has already overtaken Portugal if you are sufficiently devious and simplistic.... 
In any case......'they' saved the relatively tiny economies of Greece, Portugal and Ireland.  What makes you think 'they' would allow the UK economy to tank?   
Certainly when it would take out the current growth at all costs economic system in doing so......<ohhhh>.....in that case, perhaps they should let it tank!!

----------


## johnc

> You should be quite releived to hear John that you no longer have to worry about that pesky C02 and if you have been following any of the scientific discussions on those blogs Ocean acidification is just a catchy made up attempt to re-package a scare about the alkaline ocean being slightly diluted to an alkaline ocean, but anyway that is of no consequence as tghere are now two studies that don't even bother to mention C02 - follow this link hopefully to this talk by Jasper Kirkby of the CERN Cloud experiment outlines some interesting correlations  YouTube - Jasper Kirkby: The CLOUD experiment at CERN  There is also a new peer reviewed paper by Danish Researchers on the same issue it seems that solar influence is a more dominating factor along with sulphuric acid (lots from volcano and other natural emissions) along with ozone and amonia that are a far bigger influence in the CERN experiments  So wont be long before the whole C02 (carbon Dioxide) scary scenario will be over - if you also closely watch that talk by Jasper Kirkby, he pretty well lays it on the line that none of the modeling currently in use for GCM's are fit to predict anything.  You may learn same things to be happy about, though likely to get colder it seems.  Ken

  The work of Jasper Kirkby and in particular the CERN cloud project is indeed interesting. It is unfortunate that (as far as I know) he has been unable to get the funding required to progress his work further. However in terms of his work I don't see why it should be seen as any more than a part (albeit an important part) of the jigsaw that is gradually giving us a better idea of how the enviroment works.  
As for getting rid of the CO2 impact I am at a loss on the connection, this perhaps challenges some views but it doesn't indicate CO2 will vanish overnight. In terms of the oceans you can say they are less alkaline if you like, which is another way of saying more acidic. The ocean will not become an acid bath either. The current fear is that CO2 in the ocean mass has increasing levels of carbonic acid and  thus weakening the shells of those little creatures that have calcium carbonate shells and that this will in turn effect the food chain, it is also damaging our coral reefs.  Will Howard in field studies off Tasmania has found signs of shell thinning in zooplankton there, which is consistant with the notion that changing alkaline levels will  result in shell thinning. This is more likely to occur in colder southern ocean waters which had something I suspect to do with the site chosen.  
Both these areas of research need more work, there is no silver bullet or stake through the heart that is going to confirm any view. It is the gradual improvement in understanding of how the enviroment works, the way it is triggered and the way it reacts and modifies that will tell us what we have to worry about and what we can change.

----------


## cherub65

Heard this author speak on a radio program and thought of this thread, sounded very interesting.  Merchants of Doubt | Bloomsbury Press

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Heard this author speak on a radio program and thought of this thread, sounded very interesting.  Merchants of Doubt | Bloomsbury Press

  Oh dear, No wonder they cant accept that there is a legit argument against their bogus claim on AGW if they think this is all that is behind it. 
A joke, a smoke screen just attempting to discredit ALL those who disput the AGW claims.  It may be true what is said here. I have no idea one way or the other. 
The issue is that there is more behind the total rejection on the AGW theory than these people like to imply.  By linking these people true or not is a blatant attempt to discredit those with legitimate scientific studies that disput this hoax. 
Sorry big FAIL.

----------


## chrisp

> The issue is that there is more behind the total rejection on the AGW theory than these people like to imply.  By linking these people true or not is a blatant attempt to discredit those with legitimate scientific studies that disput this hoax.

  And in there lies part of the problem with your theory that AGW is a hoax.  There might be some legitimate studies that question the cause or the extent of global warming.  However, there are far more, and far more reputable studies, that support the AGW theory. 
I don't understand your insistence that AGW is a 'hoax'.  What do you base that claim on?  It isn't the science - the science is very clear.  So what is this there is 'more behind the total rejection of AGW theory' that you are implying?

----------


## Marc

John, to say that an alkaline solution is "less alkaline" and therefore "more acidic" is in line with all the other hunch tuchy feely stuff that AGW is made off. Any 7th grader would be able to see the error in such claim. 
I have however good news for you. 
CO2 has been going into the ocean in massive amounts for millenia, amounts AGW supporters can not even dream about...with no ill effect. 
Furthermore, the PH necessary to "weaken the shells" of those pesky mollusk you worry about and I eat for dinner, must be by definition under 7 and therefore is a mirage, balloney, never to be achieved not even with 100 volcanic eruptions at the same time, let alone our flimsy human emissions. 
Lets have a look at the worst case scenario, pedalled by Wikipedia a well known bastion of bull excrement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification 
I see nothing to indicate that, even accepting the above immaginary concentrations of CO2, the water in the ocean will be able to go under PH7. If it does not, the water will still remain alkaline, that is giving up HO- and not H+ and therefore unable to dissolve CO3Ca.
Yes, unfortunatley for those sounding the alarm, "Less alkaline" does not cut the mustard. 
Sorry...best luck next time.

----------


## Marc

*Even At CO2 Levels of 3,000+ ppm, New Research Shows That Sea Life Is Safe From Ocean Acidification*  
 		 		 			 				Read here. As has been widely noted by the hysterical MSM, Hollywood bimbo celebrities and the IPCC's climate change alarmists  have predicted that CO2 levels higher than the current 390 ppm level  will bring great harm to all ocean life, especially to the early  development of calcifying invertebrates. A new peer-reviewed study, by  actual non-Hollywood scientists, reveals that the predicted larval death  by acidification is the usual liberal/left, anti-science hysteria on  steroids.
 Martin et al. analyzed the effects of incredibly high CO2 levels (low  ocean pH) on Mediterranean sea urchins. Other than a slower larval  growth at ~3560 ppm, the sea urchins were unaffected by the ludicrously  low pH levels imposed on the test subjects. _"The authors  write that "ocean acidification is predicted to have significant  effects on benthic calcifying invertebrates, in particular on their  early developmental states," and they note that "echinoderm larvae could  be particularly vulnerable to decreased pH, with major consequences for  adult populations."...explored the effect of a gradient of decreasing  pH from 8.1 to 7.0 -- corresponding to atmospheric CO2 concentrations of  ~400 ppm to ~6630 ppm -- on the larvae of the sea urchin...The eleven  researchers found that "Paracentrotus lividus appears to be extremely  resistant to low pH, with no effect on fertilization success or larval  survival.""_ [Sophie Martin,  Sophie Richier, Maria-Luiza Pedrotti, Sam Dupont, Charlotte Castejon,  Yannis Gerakis, Marie-Emmanuelle Kerros, François Oberhänsli, Jean-Louis  Teyssié, 0. Ross Jeffree, Jean-Pierre Gattuso 2011: The Journal of Experimental Biology]
 Additional ocean-acidification, failed-prediction and peer-reviewed postings.

----------


## Marc

*Do Sea Corals Like Ocean Acidification? Peer-Reviewed Research Indicates They Do* 
 		 		 			 				Read here.  There exists corals in several locations already thriving in open  waters that possess the attributes of sea water under a condition of CO2  levels 2 to 3 times higher than today. The empirical evidence suggests  that corals are fully capable of adapting to a wide range of conditions,  including much higher levels of atmospheric CO2.  _"...the two researchers report  that "today, several reefs, including Galapagos, areas of Pacific  Panama, and Jarvis (southern Line Islands), experience levels of  aragonite saturation equivalent to that predicted for the open ocean  under two times and three times pre-industrial CO2 levels"....."Probably  the most important deduction to flow from these observations is the  observable fact, in the words of Cohen and Holcomb, that "naturally  elevated levels of inorganic nutrients and, consequently, high levels of  primary and secondary production, may already be facilitating high  coral calcification rates in regions with naturally high dissolved CO2   levels," which further suggests that earth's corals, with their  genetically-diverse symbiotic zooxanthellae, are likely well equipped to  deal successfully with whatever increase in the air's CO2 content will  ultimately result from the burning of fossil fuels before other energy  sources become viable..."_Additional sea coral postings.__

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc

And in fairness to keep the balance

----------


## Rod Dyson

> And in there lies part of the problem with your theory that AGW is a hoax.  There might be some legitimate studies that question the cause or the extent of global warming.  However, there are far more, and far more reputable studies, that support the AGW theory. 
> I don't understand your insistence that AGW is a 'hoax'.  What do you base that claim on?  It isn't the science - the science is very clear.  So what is this there is 'more behind the total rejection of AGW theory' that you are implying?

  
Well that article is impliying that the "Skeptic" view is tainted and not reliable because of something these people were involved in, in the past.  They make it appear that the entire skeptics argument is based around these people.  Now we both know thats not true and we also both know the linking of someones past is not a good basis in which to argue points they make now.  We have had that argument. 
More of the studies you refer to are more related to the effects of AGW if it were so. Not ones that support the theory.  Studies that actually support the theory are few and far between and rely on dogy data such as the hocky stick. 
Computer models don't count as we all know they will put out only what they want to see. 
Yes sir you are very thin on the ground as far as studies that support AGW.  There are none that are conclusive. Remember we agree that temps have risen, we agree Co2 is a GHG, we agree that Co2 is increasing.  We just don't agree that it is Co2 that drives the temperature and you have so far failed to prove this.  All we have been presented with is some loose correlations that are no longer correlating so well.   
Why is it a hoax? because I believe it is now more political motivation driving AGW than science.

----------


## Marc

I am not sure I like the word hoax in this case. I think that hoax has a connotation of some form of trick done in order to make a practical joke. For example spreading the misinformation that soda drinks' pull-ring contains titanium and that collecting them can go towards making prostesis for amputees. Now that ws a succesful hoax that sucked in large institutions who contributed in a big way. In very poor taste but just a hoax. 
The Global Warming deception is many things but is not a practical joke. 
I think con or fraud is a better description.

----------


## johnc

On ocean acidification, this is an older post on a denier blog. CO2 absorbed by the oceans has to reduce the PH making them less alkaline and effecting some plants and animals more than others and in different ways.  *Bill D* _says:_  February 1, 2009 at 1:46 am 
The effect of changes in ocean pH on calcifying organs, such as corals, clams (and other molluscs) and certain plankton is a very active area of scientific experimental research. This research can be accessed in Goggle Scholar. Various key words, such as (ocean acidification and calcifying organisms) give thousands of hits (try it!). Maybe 20% of these articles are available to the general public as PDFs but the majority require subscriptions (because many scientific journals are for profit and even journals published by scientific societies are sustained by subscriptions). 
I have enough expertise in aquatic invertebrate physiology and ecology to readily understand this literature. Although I have not published on the specific topic, I have, in the past few months been a reviewer of two papers on calcium balance in freshwater crustaceans submitted to peer reviewed journals, reflecting my specific expertise (search W.R. DeMott in Goggle scholar). 
Freshwater organisms experience a much broader range in pH than marine organisms. Different species occur at lakes of different pHs, for example. However, when we get to lakes of increasingly lower (more acidic) pH (and calcium concentrations), molluscs (snails and bivalves) are among the first to disappear followed by crustaceans and fish. Depending on lake pH we find different species that are adapted to a specific pH range. This has been very helpful for determining which lakes have been acidified by acid rain and which were naturally acidic (search under fossil diatoms and lake pH). Diatoms skeletons in sediment cores of mud allow reconstruction of past lake pH to the nearest 0.1 pH units. 
Unfortunately, the rate of acidification of the worlds oceans is about 100X faster than in the past and current rates of CO2 increase will quickly (within the next century) lead to more acidic oceans than have ben experienced in the last 10 million years (see review articles). This means that the coral species that now present will have difficulty surviving. This does not mean that all corals will go extinct. If acidification is not too fast, perhaps adaptations will occur that allow coral reefs to be rebuilt over the next thousands or 10′s of thousands or 100s of thousands of years. However, it is naive to think that the animals that currently occupy the worlds oceans are the same ones that occurred millions of years ago when the worlds atmospheric CO2 was higher and the oceans were more acidic. Animals (including corals) may have difficulty adapting to the rapid acidification (decades and centuries are short-term for evolutionary adaptations). The calcification of marine organisms is very sensitive to pH and does not require acidic (pH < 7.0) conditions to be markedly reduced.
This posting is the understanding of a scientist with a peripheral understanding of the relevant literature. Clearly, if I had the time and motivation to read more of the literature on this topic (say 100 of the top peer reviewed papers) I would be better informed. However, our understanding of the effects of pH change is solidly ground in 1000′s of scientific papers. This literature shows that ocean life is already being effected and will become much more serious in the coming decades, given current levels of human CO2 release. There is no need to readers here to speculate that the recent and ongoing changes in ocean pH are not important. As mentioned in the first line of this post, this is a topic of very intensive, experimental research.

----------


## Marc

Perhaps you missed the point made further up. 
 Experiments conducted with artificial increases of CO2 twice and three  times the current levels reduced PH slightly yet not past 7 that is still  alkaline. 
 Marine life used in the experiments did not have any problem  adapting.
Please note this experiment did not take hundreds of thousands of  years it was somehow quicker than that. No coral nor sea urchin was harmed  during this study. 
 Ocean "acidification" is a beat up for the simple reason that even if the  whole of atmospheric CO2 would increase tenfold, a completely absurd  proposition, sea water will not reduce it's PH below 7 therefore remaining  alkaline and not turning to acid. 
Like all the other Global Warming con,  this beat up relies on a play of words and on the poor understanding the general  population has, in this case, of chemistry.  
 If a solution has a PH above 7 it is an alkali and can not by definition  corrode, 
 soften or somehow destroy calcium carbonate for the simple reason that the  balance of ions is towards the HO- and therefore not enough H+ is available. A  solution that goes from say PH 7.8 down to 7.5 has it's PH reduced yet remains  an alkali.
In order to turn to acid or to use the word "acidification" it is  necessary to turn it down to at least 6.999 
 From there on, it depends on the grade of acidity or rather how much H+ is availalbe in the solution as to how  much the equilibrium of calcium carbonate/bicarb can be shifted one way or another. 
 However considering that fresh water bodies are slightly acid and marine  life including shell fish lives happily there, the beat up/con is even more  obvious since in order to harm shell fish it is necessary to lower the PH  substantially to degrees that have never existed not even in prehistoric times.   
Fortunately some still use their head for more than holding a hat and so  the acid ocean has not gotten too far beyond Wikipedia and some other  scaremongers sites or the "scientist" who are addicted to grants and  handouts. 
It is interesting to note also that sea water is far from  uniform. Just like the oceans have surprisingly valleys and mountains and are  not perfectly leveled, water has large variations in salinity, PH, and there are  even large pools of  fresh water that exist under the sea and that do not mix.  Marine life adapts to this changes on a daily basis. 
Let's remember that  this whole beat up is based on an ASSUMPTION magnified and shouted from the roof  tops by interested parties, that humans CO2 emissions that contribute 0.4% to  the total emissions, are responsible for turning the oceans acid and therefore  calcium shells will be damaged, weakened or dissolve.  
 Remember also that CO2 in water does not produce sulphuric acid but rather  a very weak acid called carbonic acid H2CO3 that gives up a ridiculously small  doses of H+ and will be needed in astronomical concentrations to alter the sea  water PH by even 0.001 moles. 
 This simply means the following, and this is the most important point I  will make on this topic:  *If total atmospheric CO2 increase, FROM ALL SOURCES, is incapable to make any harmful change to the PH  of the oceans. If experiments using 3 times the amount still can not produce any harmful situation. 
Since human contribution to atmospheric CO2 add a  negligible, unmeasurable amount to PH reduction in the ocean, any proposal to  tax, reduce, suppress or alter in any way shape or form human CO2 is as futile  as pretending to increase the sea level by urinating in it.  *   
The Ocean "acidification" beat up equates to Orson Wells end of the word and does not deserve any attention

----------


## johnc

It is not about anything coroding, it is about a shift in PH effecting shell development amongst other things.  http://www.gg.mq.edu.au/rep/websites/docs/paper.pdf  
The PDF link is to an article that goes into a little more detail, and hopefullt moves the reply to something beyond what constitutes an acid, and more to the effect of CO2 saturation in seawater and it's effects. Also the change in PH will not effect all organisms in the sea, only some will be effected and for some it may be a positive. However the negative impact may see a problem arising in the food chain and fish stocks as the bottom end of the chain is effected.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Perhaps you missed the point made further up. 
>  Experiments conducted with artificial increases of CO2 twice and three  times the current levels reduced PH slightly yet not past 7 that is still  alkaline. 
>  Marine life used in the experiments did not have any problem  adapting.
> Please note this experiment did not take hundreds of thousands of  years it was somehow quicker than that. No coral nor sea urchin was harmed  during this study. 
>  Ocean "acidification" is a beat up for the simple reason that even if the  whole of atmospheric CO2 would increase tenfold, a completely absurd  proposition, sea water will not reduce it's PH below 7 therefore remaining  alkaline and not turning to acid. 
> Like all the other Global Warming con,  this beat up relies on a play of words and on the poor understanding the general  population has, in this case, of chemistry.  
>  If a solution has a PH above 7 it is an alkali and can not by definition  corrode, 
>  soften or somehow destroy calcium carbonate for the simple reason that the  balance of ions is towards the HO- and therefore not enough H+ is available. A  solution that goes from say PH 7.8 down to 7.5 has it's PH reduced yet remains  an alkali.
> In order to turn to acid or to use the word "acidification" it is  necessary to turn it down to at least 6.999 
> ...

  
Sorry to say, Marc, but your knowledge of oceanic chemistry and biochemistry is leading you down some very simple roads at the moment.  Your view is like trying to compare a slide rule to a supercomputer. Suffice to say that there is more to it than the simple 'it's all bull' approach you dogmatically maintain. 
There is a definite problem with ocean acidification but like all simplistic titles.....there's more to it than simply acidifying an ocean. It is all about the balance of things and the rate at which that balance changes.  As you point out...it has all happened before.  But it has never happened quite this quickly before. 
But if you don't seem to think that's a problem then....more fool you.

----------


## chrisp

> There is a definite problem with ocean acidification but like all simplistic titles.....there's more to it than simply acidifying an ocean. It is all about the balance of things and the rate at which that balance changes.  As you point out...it has all happened before.  But it has never happened quite this quickly before. 
> But if you don't seem to think that's a problem then....more fool you.

  I thought Marc's response was a very example of black-and-white-thinking.  The ocean is either acidic or alkaline - the degree or extent just doesn't seem to matter!  False dichotomy!

----------


## Marc

Chris / Silent... 
You can argue at your hearts content, but the  definition of acid or alkali is not debatable. Until a solution balance is  tilting towards providing H+ it can not be  acid/acidic/acidified/vinagrey/tickely or any other name you care to  use. 
I am aware of the complexity of calcium carbonate / bicarbonate  balance and it's link to PH but in light of the experiments conducted with way  higher amounts of CO2 on live specimen with no ill effect, the slight and  natural variations of PH in the ocean, all within the range of ALKALINITY have  nothing to do with humans and their negligible CO2 contribution. 
You have  to be able to dissociate variations that occur in nature due to variable beyond  our control and what is caused by humans and that can be rectified. 
When  the weather is hot, you get the lunatics jumping up and down, it is GLOBAL  WARMING!!!!
I say, so what? The globe gets hotter, it has nothing to do with  us, so why bother worrying for something you can not change? 
THe PH is  lowering in the ocean in some infinitesimal way?
What do you care? It wasn't  anything we did, it happened before, and we can not change it nor should change  it. 
Once again we are faced with a beat up with the target on our money.  Guilt trip to justify some absurd research into the life of the 3 toed frog.   
 As for simplification, since you have not been able to answer not even in a  simplified way or rebate anything at all, I find I have in fact posted more than  necessary.

----------


## chrisp

I thought this might be of interest to those of you how consider AGW to be a political, rather than a scientific, phenomena...  

> *Big banks 'no' to coal plant*  
> AUSTRALIA'S four major banks have rejected funding a coal-fuelled power  plant proposed for Victoria, raising doubts about its viability despite  its controversial approval by the Environment Protection Authority.
> Read more: Big banks 'no' to coal plant

  I suppose many interpretations are possible (nothing is that black-and-white).  Consider a few...   Banks consider coal technology too risky to invest in.  These plants are long-term so I doubt that it has much to do with who is in power today (Oops, the Libs are in power in Vic).Maybe, the banks just don't want to be seen to be investing in unpopular technologies?Could it be that the banks know (like scientifically aware people) that AGW is real and that coal is by-gone technology.  Perhaps like investing in tobacco or asbestos?The gasification technology, while an improvement over existing brown coal powered stations, just isn't a big enough improvement to warrant the investment.The EPA seemed in favour of a new coal station, but only approved one half to size sought.  Maybe this tipped the economics over?
I keep reading posts by someone here saying that all this AGW stuff will soon go away - it seems to be well and truly here to stay. 
It seems that even conservative banks and conservative governments - and even coal miners - agree.

----------


## Marc

Chris, you can not be that naive, come on.... 
Banks would not invest  in anything who's political risk, economical risk or image risk outstrips the  benefits.
Therefore would think it over many times and probably pull out from  a wind farm.  
 Coal, thank you to the AGW hysteria has uncertainty in relation to the cost  of CO2 tax and therefore as a consequence of mass hysteria, the bank is sitting  on its hand for now.  
 If you think for a moment that banks are adjusting their investment  strategy because they got religion, you have something else coming. 
Banks  would invest in refining heroin if it is legal and does not affect their  image.
Do you really think that the tobacco industry has difficulties finding  funds? 
 Asbestos? No funds only because it is banned, make it legal again and the  funds will come quick smart. In fact Bendix was making brakes with asbestos  until only a few years ago. Do you think that a bank will not fund Bendix? 
As for coal being old technology, you must be kidding. Do you really  think that you can replace coal with anything that is not hydro or  nuclear? 
 There is no "alternative" energy yet. There is only political confabulation  and scientific con and fraud in order to make a shift towards what otherwise  would be as viable as pedal power. 
I particularly like how the AGW mob  strains the gnat and swallows the camel. We have "banned" (how tough we are  yea!) the incandescent light globe that use to cost as low as 20 cents, for  supposedly energy saving globes that cost ten times more, burn and fail at the  same rate or worst and don't illuminate no wear near enough. So we have  subsidised an expensive useless globe that would if not for the AGW fraud, be  unmarketable, (check who owns the "energy saving my foot" globes factories) and  traded supposed CO2 pollution that harms no one for Mercury pollution that  accumulates in fish and comes back in our food chain.  
We are so smart  right! Congratulations!

----------


## chrisp

> If you think for a moment that banks are adjusting their investment  strategy because they got religion, you have something else coming. 
> Banks  would invest in refining heroin if it is legal and does not affect their  image.

  You maybe right about the morality (or lack thereof) of the bank's decisions.  However, coal is legal and the project was approved by the EPA - and the big banks are not touching it!  (Aside: I think Westpac does state it has an ethical/environmental investment strategy.) 
Maybe they can see the future better than you?   

> We have "banned" (how tough we are  yea!) the incandescent light  globe that use to cost as low as 20 cents, for  supposedly energy saving  globes that cost ten times more, burn and fail at the  same rate or  worst and don't illuminate no wear near enough. So we have  subsidised  an expensive useless globe that would if not for the AGW fraud, be   unmarketable,

  Do I take it that you haven't done your sums on the dollar savings of energy efficient bulbs?  CO2 issues aside, these bulbs do save money.  If you are concerned about your hip pocket, you'd happily use them even if you had a choice between incandescent and CF.  I do take your point about the disposal problem.  Probably, Australia needs to improve its recycling collection strategies to include things like florescent bulbs and batteries (like many other countries already do). 
But don't let that put you off saving money (and CO2).  If the disposal of the bulbs worries you, save them up for a bit as there will be collection services somewhere, or sometime in the future.

----------


## johnc

[QUOTE=Marc;843780]I particularly like how the AGW mob strains the gnat and swallows the camel. We have "banned" (how tough we are yea!) the incandescent light globe that use to cost as low as 20 cents, for supposedly energy saving globes that cost ten times more, burn and fail at the same rate or worst and don't illuminate no wear near enough. So we have subsidised an expensive useless globe that would if not for the AGW fraud, be unmarketable, (check who owns the "energy saving my foot" globes factories) and traded supposed CO2 pollution that harms no one for Mercury pollution that accumulates in fish and comes back in our food chain. QUOTE  
Do your homework, the CFL uses a lot less power and releases a lot less mercury into the enviroment (assuming coal fired power aka mainland Australia) and lasts a good deal longer than the incandescent globe. The following is a cut and paste from Beacon lighting. *Do incandescent light bulbs contain mercury?*
Incandescent light bulbs do not contain mercury however their use ultimately releases much more mercury into the environment throughout each bulb’s lifetime when compared to CFLs. This is because the biggest source of mercury pollution is coal-fired power plants. 
Burning coal to illuminate incandescent lamps releases about five times the mercury into the environment compared to burning the same coal to illuminate CFLs. This is significantly more than the mercury contained in the CFL. 
Ultimately, the net benefit of using a low energy CFL is positive, particularly if the mercury in lamp is recycled and kept out of landfills. *Q2**3**How much mercury is found in CFLs?*
CFLs contain trace amounts of mercury, usually around 3 to 5 mg, with some ‘low-mercury’ CFLs containing as little as 1.4 mg. According to the Australian government the maximum allowable amount of mercury in a CFL is 15 mg. 
5 mg is 100 times less than a mercury thermometer or dental filling and one fifth of that found in a watch battery. *Q2**4**Is the mercury found in CFLs dangerous?*
The trace amounts of mercury sealed within glass tubing in CFLs is not dangerous to users when the CFL is in tact or in use because no mercury is released.  
However mercury is a toxic substance therefore it’s important that CFLs are handled carefully and disposed of responsibly. *Q2**5**What if I break a CFL?*
If you break a CFL you can release mercury into the atmosphere. Gently sweep up the glass fragments and use a damp cloth to pick up fine particles. If the breakage is on carpet, use sticky tape then a damp cloth to clean up the debris prior to vacuuming. Place all debris into a sealed plastic bag for disposal and ventilate the room where possible.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Well that Liar Gillard has got her cronies to back her stance on climate change.  Big deal,  who can believe a word out of a labour funded report. 
Just got to read a sample of comments from this news report to find out LOL.  Climate change beyond denial and planting trees won&#039;t cut it - Climate Commission report | News.com.au

----------


## johnc

> Well that Liar Gillard has got her cronies to back her stance on climate change. Big deal, who can believe a word out of a labour funded report. 
> Just got to read a sample of comments from this news report to find out LOL.  Climate change beyond denial and planting trees won&#039;t cut it - Climate Commission report | News.com.au

  If you are going to read a biased opinion piece out of the News group to form your view then there is only one answer. Actually have a look at the press release it doesn't slam either sides views. It considers both sides plans of action and gives both credit in different ways.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> If you are going to read a biased opinion piece out of the News group to form your view then there is only one answer. Actually have a look at the press release it doesn't slam either sides views. It considers both sides plans of action and gives both credit in different ways.

  Oh wow are you saying news.com is biased. 
This is bias.   

> _The Australian:_   _
> THE Queensland floods were probably not the result of climate change but a natural part of climate variability, the Climate Commission has concluded…_  _The report, by Climate Commissioner Will Steffen, says “the floods across eastern Australia in 2010 and early 2011 were the consequence of a very strong La Nina event and not the result of climate change”._ _The Age:_   _THE government-established Climate Commission has dismissed the sceptics and warned of dire consequences if adequate action to cut emissions is not taken in this ‘’critical’’ decade…_  _It also says this year’s Queensland and Victorian flooding ‘’raised the question of a possible link between the floods and human-induced climate change’’._

----------


## johnc

Nit picking don't you think? one says probably another possible, neither are finite statements. there isn't much doubt that La Nina brought the floods, but did climate change amplify the result? There is not a great deal of substantive difference in the statements, and as neither of us have read the report how do we now if we are looking at bias or simply a normal journalistic deviation brought about by the pressure of the deadline and time constraints.

----------


## chrisp

> Oh wow are you saying news.com is biased. 
> This is bias....
>  [/INDENT]

  Rod, 
They are all biased in some way or another.

----------


## Marc

Compact fluorescent light bulbs: Mercury a concern when CFLs aren't recycled - Los Angeles Times   

> *Unrecycled new light bulbs release mercury into the environment*   *Energy-efficient  CFLs are increasingly popular but few people recycle the bulbs. As a  result, U.S. landfills are releasing more than 4 tons of mercury  annually into the atmosphere and storm water runoff, a study says.*     
> The manufacture of incandescent lightbulbs is being phased out in the United… (Willis Glassgow, AP)  April 07, 2011|By Suzanne Bohan
> The  nation's accelerating shift from incandescent lighting to a new  generation of energy-efficient bulbs is raising an environmental  concern: the release of tons of mercury every year.
> The most  popular new bulb — the compact fluorescent light bulb, or CFL — accounts  for a quarter of new bulb sales. Each contains up to 5 milligrams of  mercury, a potent neurotoxin that's on the worst-offending list of  environmental contaminants.     
> Demand  for CFL bulbs is growing as government mandates for energy-efficient  lighting take effect, yet only about 2% of residential consumers and  one-third of businesses recycle the new bulbs, according to the Assn. of  Lighting and Mercury Recyclers.
> As a result, U.S. landfills are  releasing more than 4 tons of mercury annually into the atmosphere and  storm water runoff, according to a study in the Journal of the Air and  Waste Management Assn.
> A San Francisco hardware store owner is all too familiar with the bulb issue.
> "They're  promoting them and giving them away, but there's nowhere to drop them  off," said Tom Tognetti, co-owner of Fredricksen's Hardware.
> The  federal Clean Energy Act of 2007 established energy-efficiency standards  for light bulbs that dimmed the future for old-fashioned incandescents,  which don't meet those standards. Incandescents are to be phased out by  2014 in the U.S., and California passed even stricter rules, calling  for store shelves to be cleared of them by 2013.
> ...

----------


## Marc

.  

> *Thursday, February 22, 2007  ... /////*   * Incandescent vs fluorescent light bulbs*   *See also:* Klaus: hoard Edison's light bulbs before EU bans them on Sep 1st, 2009This topic was recently discussed by James Annan and Clifford Johnson, among others. 
> Two years ago, Fidel Castro switched his communist island from classical  incandescent light bulbs to more efficient fluorescent light bulbs. The  reason is simply that electrical blackouts are common on this island  plagued by the criminals and the leader has the power to dictate similar  things to the whole nation. Needless to say, Hugo Chavez, the most  active communist rock star of the present world and a Stalin who  returned from a fattening station, is planning something similar in  Venezuela. 
> But would you expect that the government of a decent and wealthy country  such as Australia would promote a similar policy as the losers above?  It's kind of surprising but it's true. ;-)    *Figure 1:* Spectrum of "cool white" fluorescent light bulbs. It doesn't look like a natural black body curve, does it? Well, blacklight lamps are worse. 
> As a generic consumer, I find the classical light bulbs based on the  black body radiation somewhat superior. They resemble the actual  spectrum of the Sun more closely - the full interval of visible  frequencies is represented. They don't blink 60 times a second. (These  two problems are solved by the newest fluorescent models.) You don't  have to be afraid that they're constantly emitting a lot of UV rays with  unpredictable health consequences. In general, their environmental  impact is more predictable.    *Figure 2:* Count the number of light bulbs in the clip "eSeMeS" by Lucie Bílá, a Czech singer. 
> Fluorescent light bulbs are more efficient energetically but they don't  share the advantages of the incandescent light bulbs explained in the  previous paragraph. The photographs taken under these light bulbs don't  look great. Moreover, they use mercury. Most people discard them in  uncontrollable ways and mercury is a poison that pollutes unpredictable  places of the environment. The mercury from one fluorescent light bulb  pollutes, according to some activist groups, 6000 gallons of water beyond levels safe for drinking. In 43 U.S. states, it is legal to dispose fluorescent bulbs as universal waste.*Update February 2008:* The  New York Times about the real and growing dangers of mercury in the  fluorescent light bulbs - a call for a better system of recyclingThere  are positive features and negative features of both of them. The  incandescent light bulbs have not disappeared and there are very good  reasons why they have not disappeared. All the aspects - energy  consumption, friendliness of the color spectrum, difficulties with  recycling etc. - have been considered by the market and the result is  that both technologies have survived. The energy consumption is already  accounted for - because people do pay for energy. The energy consumption  is simply not a big problem which is why people use both types of light  bulbs. In fact, the heat produced by the conventional light bulbs is  not lost: especially during winter, it's often useful to add some extra  source of heat to your living room. 
> It's unjustifiable if someone wants to double-count and pretend, for  purely ideological reasons, that the energy consumption is more  important than it is - while he bravely neglects other issues such as  the difficulties with recycling. 
> As these blinded people promote hysteria against a perfectly innocent  gas called carbon dioxide, people suddenly start to forget about some  threats that are somewhat more real. Once again, one teaspoon of mercury  can contaminate a 20 acre lake  forever: the U.S. companies still emit roughly 30 tons of mercury a  year. Be careful: I can't independently verify these numbers and I was  told that this quantification of the toxicity of mercury is a myth. 
> The government may buy efficient fluorescent light bulbs for various  public places in order to save energy and taxpayers' money. But I just  find it scary to imagine that a government would get the right to  effectively ban an innocent and popular technology from usage by general  consumers for no good reason - unless you consider the megalomanic  propaganda of global warming to be a reason and a magic tool that can  defeat any rational argument. 
> For me, such brutal plans to cripple the freedom of civilized countries  are just way too serious, and I would immediately join anyone who would  start to fight  against these shameful communist tendencies. ;-) 
> ...

----------


## chrisp

Marc, 
If you are so concerned about Hg, then perhaps you SHOULD be using CFLs?  I'm not sure how the figures stack up with respect to Australian coal.  Anyway, it is food for thought.   
from: Compact fluorescent lamp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Dr Freud

Apologies for the break lads and ladies, have been very busy, but trying to keep up with the amazingly fantastical beliefs the AGW supporters still cling to in the total absence of empirical evidence.  :Biggrin:  
Some wacko said the world was going to end on the weekend, and I just assumed it was Flannery or one of those Climate Commission wacko's, but apparently there are still lots of other doomsday cultists running around out there.  :Doh:  
But good to see that still no-one has found *any* evidence proving this fictional story.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> These are analyses run on empirical data

   

> It isn't data.....it's an analysis of data using statistical methods.

  Thanks for clarification...???  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> We should all remember we have no one here who is an expert

  Thank Gaia for that.  :Biggrin:    

> this is just a thread by interested bystanders to the real work going on to understand climate and how it works and is influenced by mans activities.

  Too late champ.  Flim Flammery (the expert) said the science was settled last night after releasing his Climate Commission report.  :Roflmao:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Understanding the difference between balanced and un-balanced physical systems and a little knowledge with respect to fundamental physics is all that is required.

  Fundamentally respect this champ.   

> 

  
Something is certainly unbalanced around here.  :Biggrin:    

> The 'little bit' of GHGs that we have contributed (and by comparison it is indeed a very little bit) is all that is needed to set a balanced system askew. Just like a little mud caught in your perfectly balanced wheels after an off road sojourn.

  Yeh, the CO2 was certainly "balanced" before we invented the automobile, huh?  :Doh:    

> Forget correlations between CO2 and air temp

  We don't have to forget them champ, they don't exist in reality.  :Doh:    

> whether they exist or not is immaterial

  They do not exist in reality, so are immaterial in reality. 
However, they are crucial to the failed and farcical AGW hypothesis that you continue to profess your unwavering devotion to. 
No wonder you try to distract from the abject lack of proof of this failed theory at every opportunity.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> 

  Do you really think Aussies paying more tax is going to make the Planet get colder? 
JuLIAR actually thinks Aussies are this stupid.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> but if we don't start to get serious about this then we may well be to late to reverse the worst aspects of these changes.

  Jeez mate, this might work on kindergarten kids, but get real. 
It's this kind of mindless drivel that bemuses me. 
The end of the world loonies figured out on the weekend they were full of --it, and again pushed their mindless drivel scaremongering further into the future. 
The AGW supporters also just keep pushing their doomsay further into the future.   :Pointlaugh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> .....it is worth remembering that 'alarmism' resides on both sides of the divide.......but most people sit firmly (but with varying levels of comfort) on the fence and try to duck the stupidity coming from either side.

  JuLIAR says increasing taxes in Australia will cool down the Planet Earth to save us from disaster. 
"Your side" of AGW hypothesis agrees with this. 
"My side" of sceptics says even IF the AGW hypothesis were 100% correct, increasing taxes in Australia will *not* cool down the Planet Earth. 
Which "side" is the alarmist stupidity coming from???  :Doh:  
Not complicated stuff, huh?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> So we have a graph that shows one picture and here is a more up to date one that shows the opposite. Shall we devote the next 100 posts to trawling for yet another graph so we can successfully bore everyone to death?

  How about you dedicate your next post to some empirical evidence proving the failed and farcical hypothesis you continue to support based purely on faith?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Heard this author speak on a radio program and thought of this thread, sounded very interesting.  Merchants of Doubt | Bloomsbury Press

  Oreskes has proven herself to be a joke.  
Search this thread for some of the evidence.  
Still, she makes lots of money from the gravy train, flying around promoting low carbon dioxide emissions, so she can't be that stupid.  :Biggrin:  
Wish I could say the same for the people paying her.

----------


## PhilT2

> Apologies for the break lads and ladies, have been very busy, but trying to keep up with the amazingly fantastical beliefs the AGW supporters still cling to in the total absence of empirical evidence.  
> Some wacko said the world was going to end on the weekend, and I just assumed it was Flannery or one of those Climate Commission wacko's, but apparently there are still lots of other doomsday cultists running around out there.  
> But good to see that still no-one has found *any* evidence proving this fictional story.

  Welcome back Doc. we were about to send out a search party, been away myself, just got back in time to catch the last day of the Brisbane Timber show. Did you catch the latest from Greg Hunt, shadow minister for climate action? Seems LIbs now "support the science" Maybe you could ask him where he found the evidence? But he also said that the libs were united and I have to agree that there is absolutely no evidence for that.
 Latest is that a few want to cross the floor over the tobacco issue, but Tony is still out looking for a policy on that issue. Hope he finds one soon. Didn't happen to see any evidence of Bolts' credibility while you were away, we're still searching for that. Maybe these guys can help. YouTube - &#x202a;6. The Bolt Report - The Steaming Toad with HG Nelson&#x202c;&rlm;

----------


## johnc

> How about you dedicate your next post to some empirical evidence proving the failed and farcical hypothesis you continue to support based purely on faith?

  Ah yes, the usual arrogance, but isn't it up to you to prove that global warming is a failed and farcial hypothesis not those you rail against? The assertion that it is based on faith is a trap of your own making, it is just a convenient handle to trivialise, used as an alternative to actually coming up with anything substantive. 
The link is to a series of temperature records continually updated by NASA, which show a rising trend not a cooling one as you alude to. Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots
Please note it is NASA, so at this point we can sit back and wait for the usual "attack the player" as we read yet again the twisting of names to insults, or the inability to accept information that deviates from pre conceived ideas. So pile on the bombastic slurs, the lack of respect and the incredulous diatribe you rely on to drown out the lack of substance in the denier camp. 
A sample from the link.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> JuLIAR says increasing taxes in Australia will cool down the Planet Earth to save us from disaster. 
> "Your side" of AGW hypothesis agrees with this. 
> "My side" of sceptics says even IF the AGW hypothesis were 100% correct, increasing taxes in Australia will *not* cool down the Planet Earth. 
> Which "side" is the alarmist stupidity coming from???  
> Not complicated stuff, huh?

  My side?!  What makes you think I'm on one side of the other.  I'm on the fence laughing and pointing at the ignorant numbnuts on both sides.... 
I've said it before and (once more for the dummies) I'll say it again.......I certainly don't agree with Julia or for that matter your interpretation of what she thinks she thinks.    *TAXING CARBON WILL NOT COOL THE PLANET* 
...nor will any other tax increase. 
Is that clear enough for you? Good.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Fundamentally respect this champ.

  I do.  But I also fundamentally respect your right to thoroughly misunderstand and misrepresent that graph repeatedly. And I giggle a little every time.  What is it about balance that so mystifies you?   

> Yeh, the CO2 was certainly "balanced" before we invented the automobile, huh?

  In simplistic terms......yes.   
Technically, the Industrial Revolution (and with it the large scale burning of coal) predated the invention of the motor vehicle by more than a century and its ubiquity by nearly two centuries....but that's just quibbling.   
But yes.....prior to our large scale ignition of these huge stores of ancient hydrocarbons.....the cycle of CO2 emission and absorption in the biosphere was in relative balance.....but certainly not stable (hence the squiggly line in your graph).

----------


## Marc

*beral     *   *Friday, March 21, 2008*  *            Warming models baffled by a cooling ocean.          *    National  Public Radio has an interesting report on global warming and the oceans  which, if my link works correctly, you can hear it here. Here are the basics. 
A few years ago scientists put 3,000 robots into the oceans of the world, which are all part of the Argos System  to monitor world climate patterns.  NPR says that Josh Willis at  NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter  when it comes to global warming. They go on:  _In  fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up  ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So  Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments  called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure  ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has  recorded no warming of the global oceans._
Got  that? Since 2003 there has been no discernible warming of the oceans  which defies the theories. In fact, Willis says: There has been a very  slight cooling, but not anything really significant. Of course when all  your models tell you that there ought to be warming and you get very  slight cooling that in itself is significant. Certainly, it is  troubling. 
Oddly, while Willis tells NPR the cooling was "not  anything really significant" the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration said otherwise. "The average temperature of the water near the top of the Earth's oceans has *cooled significantly*  since 2003." Two years ago Willis was dismissing the cooling as just  "natural variability" implying that this would end very soon. But  another two years have gone by and the data still shows a cooling trend.   Even more oddly, a pdf of a paper prepared by Willis and others for _Geophysical Research Letters,_ Vol. 33 says: "A new estimate of sampling error in the heat content record suggests that both *the recent and previous global cooling events are significant*  and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling." They wrote:  "The decrease [in ocean temperature] represents a signficant loss of  heat over a 2-year period amounting to one-fifth of the long-term  upper-ocean heat gain between 1955 and 2003..." They emphasized "the  cooling event is real". They also argued this heat probably is not being  stored anywhere on earth but "could be the result of a net loss of heat  from the Earth to space." 
The problem is that the experts simply  arent sure what is happening or why. They think it might be something  to do with El Nino. It gets more confusing because warming is supposed  to increase sea levels while cooling would reduce them. While they cant  find any warming they do find sea levels have risen and they cant  explain why. One possibility is that... scientists are somehow  misinterpreting the data... 
But if the data is correct they have  to figure out where the heat has gone. And right now they dont know.  One theory is that is going back into space. NPR reports: _The  Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can  either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and  help cool the planet._ _That can't be directly measured at the moment, however._Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research confesses:  Unfortunately, we dont have adequate tracking of clouds to determine  exactly what role theyve been playing during this period. Clouds have  always played a major role in climate change but there is are lots of  holes in human knowledge regarding clouds and their impact. If humans  dont have the information it doesnt get factored into their warming  models. NASA said: clouds are not well represented by the models... Yet  clouds clearly play a crucial role in climate change due to their  influence on humidity, precipitation and albedo (the percentage of solar  energy reflected back into space as light.) 
And the report in _Geophysical Research Letters_  noted that interannual variability in ocean heat content "are not yet  well understood" and that this "variability is not adequately simulated  in the current generation of coupled climate models used to study the  impact of anthropogenic influences on climate." 
At this time the  slight cooling of the oceans over the last few years raises many  questions and provides little answers. It is a phenomenon which  shouldnt exist given current warming models yet it does exist. Of  course, a re-examination of the data must take place to see if this  discrepancy holds up. If it does then once more the models failed to  account for reality and that implies there are problems in the models.  Perhaps they can be fixed, perhaps the entire climate is far more  complex than the models we are capable of building. 
Economies, it  has been noted, are like miniature ecosystems with all the feedback  loops and intricacies of nature. Since the rise of scientific Marxism  it was believed that man could create models which would allow him to  scientifically plan the economy. These models were to lead to greater  prosperity for all. But, even in the relatively small economies of many  of the nations where this experiment was tried, the models failed. In  the great economic calculation debate a bevy of socialists held out the  hope that with the rise of computers centralized planning would become  more and more accurate. 
With great amusement it was discovered,  after the collapse of central economic planning, that the Soviets were  convinced that U.S. prosperity resulted from a secret, central planning  agency that had to be directing everything. Their mindset was such that  they couldnt conceive of things working any other way. 
It may be  that all the factors which play roles in the complex system we call  the climate are, in fact, much simpler than the economy of some place  like Albania. Or, perhaps there really are modelers out there who are  far more capable than any turned out under socialism, who will be able  to turn that complex system into a series of equations that will  accurately portray what is happening and explain why it is happening. On  the other hand the data may determine that no matter how often the  models are tweaked, changed, or modified the climate is still far more  complex than the model is able to understand.  _Science_ magazine published a study by Gerard Roe and Marcia Baker of the University of Washington. _Nature_ magazine described  that report: Over the past 30 years, climate models have not  appreciably narrowed down the precise relationship between greenhouse  gases and the planet's temperature  despite huge advances in computing  power, climate observations and the number of scientists studying the  problem, say Gerard Roe and Marcia Baker. The researchers now argue that  this is because the uncertainty simply cannot be reduced. 
So  there are serious scientific arguments to made for the inherent  unreliability of climate models. I happen to have a lot of confidence in  the growth of knowledge but Im not convinced these models will every  be accurate. 
For me that means cautionary actions not brash ones.  For many warming alarmists it means the opposite. They argue that the  uncertainties of the models means that policy has to be set as if the  models are correct because they just might be. As _Nature_  reported these individuals are now calling on policy-makers to make  decisive policies on avoiding dangerous climate change, even if we dont  have perfect models. 
Ive run into this argument before. There  is a perceived danger to the world. Experts believe the danger is real  and that it must be addressed. Policy-makers argue that even if their  information is wrong the risk of not acting is too great to contemplate  waiting for more information. It was incumbent upon us to rush in and  take action to solve the problem, even if the problem didnt actually  exist, merely because we thought it could exist. The net result of that  thinking was the war in Iraq.

----------


## Marc

Global Sea Surface Temperature Update: The Cooling Continues « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.*Global Sea Surface Temperature Update: The Cooling Continues* 
              July 30th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.                                Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) measured by the AMSR-E instrument  on NASAs Aqua satellite continue the fall which began several months  ago.  The following plot, updated through yesterday (July 29, 2010)  shows that the cooling in the Nino34 region in the tropical east Pacific  continue to be well ahead of the cooling in the global average SST,  something we did not see during the 2007-08 La Nina event (click on it  for the large, undistorted version; note the global SST values have been  multiplied by 10):        *30 Responses to Global Sea Surface Temperature Update: The Cooling Continues*  
       Toggle Trackbacks                                                     Miroslav Pavlíček says:         July 30, 2010 at 10:12 AM
          It is interesting! Nevertheless, NOAA feeds us with tales about the  hottest year, even hotter then 1998, and the fastest warming over the  decade though the trend was slightly declining. I believe they are going  to invent a homogenization that will proof that the South America and  Pacific are actually warming within La Nina time.                                                   JayKay says:         July 30, 2010 at 2:50 PM
          After examining the figure, would Al Gore conclude that the sea temperature has triggered la nina?  Pardon the sarcasm.                                                   markinaustin says:         July 30, 2010 at 5:28 PM
          is there a graph that goes back further?  i would be curious to see  when the last time (besides 2008) that the nino 3.4 got this low.  of  course, i think i can just look at the data page eh?                                                    Anonymous says:         July 31, 2010 at 12:31 AM
          To my mind data sets from a different source then the Aqua would be  requested and these sources are from the ice-hockey stick maker  workshops.                                                   Anonymous says:         July 31, 2010 at 7:41 PM
          If you want to look at more SST data I recommend Bob Tisdales  Blog. He updates the NINO 3.4 anomalies as well as by region world wide.  I have seen him look at NASAs OIv2 SST dataset, HADSST2 dataset,  HADISST dataset and the NOAA ERSST.v3b dataset. Climate Observations: An Overview Of Sea Surface Temperature Datasets Used In Global Temperature Products
 And for NINO 3.4 fo June the OIv2 SST dataset has data back to the  early 80s and it shows the largest dip in 1989 and another big dip in  2000. Climate Observations: June 2010 SST Anomaly Update Bob Tisdale says:         July 31, 2010 at 1:00 AM
          Markinaustin:  You asked, is there a graph that goes back further?
 For satellite based data, (different satellite than the one Roy is  using) theres the Reynolds (OI.v2) SST dataset that runs as far back as  November 1981 for monthly data: http://i46.tinypic.com/254y4o0.jpg
 The weekly data is broken down into two phases. Heres the most current through July 21.  It starts in Jan 1990. http://i30.tinypic.com/21l066f.jpg
 The update for the past week (and the preliminary monthly data for July) will be out on Monday.  Heres my update link page: Climate Observations: LINKS TO SST ANOMALY UPDATES                                                   Steve Fitzpatrick says:         July 31, 2010 at 8:12 AM
          The failure of the global average to track the Nino3.4 trend may be  related to the remaining heat from the El Nino that just ended.  The  ocean heat released by an El Nino event appears to gradually propagate  from the tropics to higher latitudes over about 18 months, and so  continues to contribute to a higher global average temperature, even  though the El Nino event itself is officially over based on the  Nino3.4 index.  The 2008 La Nina event did not follow an El Nino, so the  global average tracked the Nino3.4 temperature more closely.  
 See the rather nifty graph at the RSS site: http://www.ssmi.com/data/msu/graphic..._Lat_v03_2.png 
 El Ninos show up as C shaped temperate increases in the plot  (suggesting time propagation of heat to higher latitudes), while La  Ninas do not seem to show this C-shaped pattern at all.  This suggests  that La Nina is a period where solar heat is accumulated in the surface  layer of the tropical Pacific, while El Nino is a release of the  accumulated heat from the tropical pacific.  It would be interesting to  compare calculated ocean heat content (from ARGO) to the ENSO cycle; is  there really a significant net accumulation/release of ocean heat during  the ENSO, or is there just a redistribution from one part of the ocean  to another?                                                   J. D Lindskog says:         July 31, 2010 at 1:01 PM
          Dr. Spencer
It is interesting that this current oceanic negative thermal excursion  is occurring at a point in time when solar irradiation is proceeding off  the SC23 minimum.  Per theory, La Nina like conditions allow marginally  greater oceanic thermal absorption due to reduced winds.  This should  be a period of oceanic heat accumulation, however it appears that  magnitude of this process will likely be diminished. The implication is:  the expected low output solar cycle co-incident with cool oceanic  periodic oscillation conditions will affect a planetary climate regime  excursion.  Your thoughts on these events would be appreciated.
 Old Submarine Sailor  Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:         August 2, 2010 at 6:59 AM
          ?? But La Nina experiences greater wind speeds, not lower wind  speeds. But I agree, the rate of heat absorption by the ocean probably  increases during La Nina.                                                    J. D Lindskog says:         August 2, 2010 at 7:14 PM
          Dr Spencer,
Thanks for the reply.
My understanding of conventional wisdom is such that during La Nina  conditions, diminished (shear) wind flows into the equatorial Atlantic  basins enhance hurricane development. I remain open to consider  alternate mechanisms. 
 My personal view is that relatively cooler equatorial Pacific SSTs  allow higher local (seasonal) atmospheric pressure anomalies, reduction  of vertical convection, with affects on the NH jet stream N/S latitude  and energy levels.  A quick look at the current Bermuda High pressure  pattern Experimental forecast Tropical Cyclone Genesis Potential Fields (GFS panel)
presents a less than organized appearance as result of NH jet stream distortions (IMO).
 Again, thanks for your time and thoughts.                                                    Dan Pangburn says:         July 31, 2010 at 10:44 PM
          Does anyone want to bet on which way the average global temperature  is headed? How about the trend for the next 20 years? Anyone? Joe Bastrdi says:         August 1, 2010 at 12:23 PM
          As per forecast ideas from back in  Feb
1) la Nina coming on
2) hot summer, big hurricane season
( hurricane season will cool atlantic basin, hot summer is simply analogging low solar and reversing ninos1995,1998,2007  etc)
3) Global temp crashes to  post 97-98 nino levels  by March  2011. with   50% chance of it reaching as low as post Pinitubo levels   for at least   3 months of next  year ( shorter term forecast
4) by 2030, global temps back to where it was at start of sat era, which btw was near
the end of the cold PDO
 5) Interesting ditty:  soi  has not been this high for July since the cold PDO of the  50-s through mid 70s.
 note: The crashing of global temps over the  next year, to levels   not seen since the  90s, and perhaps even the earlier part, should put  to rest the co2 argument. Since  1998 we have had a  5% increase in co2,  since 1993 closer to  7 or  8. If co2 is the driver, its intuitive we  have no business seeing the  temps  go down to those levels. Since one  will be able to note the  temp drop occurring after the nina, the   intuitive inference has to be its the ocean that is a prime driver.. in  the shorter term, the enso shows us this, but in the longer term, the  pdo, amo etc  will be the bigger players.
 cheers ( and roebuck)
JB Joe Bastrdi says:         August 1, 2010 at 12:32 PM
          One more thing..
 what you are seeing now with global temps is  what one sees in back bays  at high tide.
High tide occurs  later in the back bays then on the ocean front since  there is a cumulative affect of water rising, and temperatures  have a  similar effect. In fact  the  large scale temps
over the multiyear are still high, but not rising because the earth did  not reach a tipping  point, but quite the contrary, the  high tide  mark.  The proof will be over the coming year.. the tide is starting to  go out now ( the main driver that caused the warming, the pdo is  reversing)  and, to borrow from civil war lingo by  paraphrasing   the  high water mark of the Conspiracy ( AGW)  will  be beaten back.
 I wonder who Pickett is when it comes  to global temps and will have to deliver the response
which paraphrases Picketts when asked by Lee where his men were:  General Lee, I have no division now.
 There is no global warming..caused by man                                                    Anonymous says:         August 1, 2010 at 11:16 PM
          Dont underestimate the ability of the warmists to prove that a  fall in temperatures is actually due to global warming and/or climate  change and/or CO2 emissions and that the models predicted it all along.                                                   Anonymous says:         August 10, 2010 at 12:16 PM
          The credible warmists are very much aware of the fact that the  ENSO cycle is trending cool, and the PDO went cool 2 years ago.  These  effects should cause the planet to cool, at least from the record temps  set in each of the past 5 months.  I understand your contention that  theres a bit of a lag before PDO especially, but also the SO, is  reflected in the global temperature.  Any good studies on how long that  lag is?  The fact that June and July were the warmest ever, despite  being 2 years removed from a warm PDO and 3 months removed from el Nino  conditions, as well as the fact that were at the end of a prolonged ebb  in solar irradiation levels, almost demands that we articulate how long  the lag is before we should see the cooling predicted by you and, to  some extent, Dr. Spencer.  While these two ocean cycles trend cool, we  should be pulling out of the solar low  so they could very well cancel  each other out.                                                   janama says:         August 1, 2010 at 3:44 PM
          Good question markinaustin.
 heres Roys temperature chart scaled over the NINO3.4 chart from here. NINO3.4 Index
 they relate really well except for the temperature drop after the Pinatubo volcano which of course is explainable. http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stu...3.4_v_temp.jpg                                                   JohnGalt says:         August 1, 2010 at 6:06 PM
          Dr. Spencer,
 You do a great service, many thanks.  Is there any similar data from  the argos floats?  I would think they would yield SST as well.  As a  physicist, I alway like to see similar data from independent sources.                                                   Michael hauber says:         August 1, 2010 at 10:16 PM
          I see a strong La Nina response, and slow cooling global ocean temperatures, which is clear evidence of warming.
 I would think that a weak La Nina response and a fast cooling of  global temperatures would be much better evidence for global cooling.
 As an AGW believer, I doubt we will see temperatures significantly  cooler in 2011 than we saw in 2008.  I consider the temperatures  comparable to cool events during the 90s to be impossible. Ian Holton says:         August 1, 2010 at 10:53 PM
          All sounds right to me Mike! Looks pretty well on track, as solar downturn with lag is only just starting to work.
I consider the temperatures comparable to cool events during the 90s to  be impossible Quote MikeWe will see how that one works out Mike!  impossibleHow many times have we heard that word being contradicted  over time!!! Joe Bastardi says:         August 2, 2010 at 2:59 AM
          A duel.. competition  (my name now spelled correctly) Mike  thanks  for taking  stand as  we need more people willing, on your side of the  debate to actually make a forecast..and  doubt is trumped by impossible.  Duly noted and logged.
 According to the objective sat temps by uah http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
 The  1999  post nino  yearly  temp  was  .05 C. So there is the target as the base point
of my  forecast.   If it falls to lets say , within .1 of that, from the warmth of this year
you still must admit we have no business running   year that cool if co2  is
the culprit. After, all if we are hitting a tipping point, why cool at all?
 So the forecast here is we get to the  1999  levels  for  2011,  and   we may even get as low as 1993. Now  if its stays this warm and doesnt  fall off, then I will be forced to rethink my position ( which I do all  the time anyway, as one does not blindly accept anything about the  future) Perhaps next year at this time, if we see my forecast being  closer than yours, you will at least rethink yours. 
 It is a simple, though risky proposition if ones belief system is  challenged.. Being someone who  only is paid if correct enough to be of  value, I  do have sympathy for people  who have not gone through that  type of testing. But the test is in front of us.
 Now mike, one more thing. What will  the  2011 temp be, via UAH,  which is an objective record since the end of the last cold PDO? I  better not see a forecast form anything lower than what it is now, since   the key here is the overall temps should be going up.. not up and down   in a way they are balanced out to no significant change since the   90s.
 So is it .5?   It cant be much lower because then you have to admit  it must be the change in the ocean that is causing it, and a cold PDO  over the coming year does not bode well
for your argument it simply says it is the pdo. ( and  other drivers)
 In any case  we have  a test case in front of us!!!! 
 Competition and free exchange of ideas.. A wonderful  thing for  society to have! Lets all cherish  it while it still actually exists                                                   harrywr2 says:         August 2, 2010 at 6:46 AM
          Ill land in the middle.
 Using the eyeball method of estimation.
 The slopes of 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 trends using Haldey CRU data  are not significantly different. There is about 4/10 degree difference  in the troughs and peaks. I.E. 1970 is about 4/10 a degree warmer then  1910, and 2000 is about 4/10 a degree warmer then 1940. 
 So Ill put 2030 at 4/10 a degree warmer then 1970 but cooler then 2000.                                                   Michael hauber says:         August 2, 2010 at 6:00 PM
          Three previous years which were cool ENSO following warm are  2008,2006,1999,1995, and 1988.  If I add 0.18 degree warming trend for  Co2 to each of those years and average I get a forecast for 2011 of  0.28.
 I can think of three reasons why this would be biased warm: the solar  minimum, the fact that 2011 looks like being a strong La Nina and that  my prediction is modelled on a set of years including weaker cool events  such as 2006, and the fact that the actual warming trend in Uah is a  little lower than the model warming trend of 0.18/decade. 
 If 2011 is as low or lower than 2008 (say 0.1) I would consider that  unexpected.  Warming for Co2 between 2008 and 2011 is only 0.054 deg, so  assuming a stronger La Nina response in 2011, it would seem quite  reasonable that 2011 could get cooler than 2008.  However 2008 seems to  have been rather cool in comparison to the longer term warming trend  than a typical La Nina, and counts in my mind as an unusal cooling event  than can be expected from time to time, but if it happens regularly it  becomes a trend.
 What I consider impossible could perhaps be better worded very  unlikely.  It is what I consider my personal falsification criteria.  A  temperature similar to 1993 of say lower than -0.1 should not happen  according to my belief, based on a La Nina and Co2 warming.  I would  need a reason to explain this.  If an appropriate volcanic eruption  occurs, that could be the reason (if strong).  A La Nina could not be  the reason, unless it is exceptionally strong (equivelant of 1998).   Without such a reason then I would have to consider co2 doesnt warm as  much as I think the likely cause.
 I note that the last daily value for Uah channel 5 is 0.37 degrees  warmer than same day in 2007.  I will be watching with great interest to  see whether this value will stay higher than same day 2007 for the rest  of this year, and same day 2008 early next year. Geoff Sharp says:         August 2, 2010 at 8:56 PM
          I am with Joe on the long term prediction, the NAO and AAO also  looking to help out the expected cooling. The AAO especially looking to  boost the La Nina.
 This graph showing an interesting correlation between the SOI and AAO. http://www.landscheidt.info/images/soi_sam.png
 I dont think all these oscillations coming together is a coincidence,  maybe it is just a normal trend influenced by low EUV during times of  solar slowdown.                                                   BenjaminG says:         August 3, 2010 at 11:04 AM
          Joe Bastardi wrote:

What will the 2011 temp be, via UAH,  I better not see a forecast form  anything lower than what it is now, since the key here is the overall  temps should be going up.. not up and down in a way they are balanced  out to no significant change since the 90s.
 So is it .5? It cant be much lower because then you have to admit it must be the change in the ocean that is causing it,


 There is nothing about the theory of AGW that predicts the influence  of ENSO will decrease. It predicts will continue to see large  oscillations around a warming trend.
 The warming trend observed in the UAH TL2 dataset is .14°C/decade or  .014°C/year. We have an example of what a strong La Nina combined with  the solar minimum gives us as recently as 2008. In 2011 we will remain  under the influence of the longest and deepest solar minimum in 100  years, and this La Nina has started out gangbusters, so I would predict a  similar temperature for 2011 as observed in 2008, plus the .014°C/year  warming trend. 
 That would give us .051 + 3*.014 = .09°C as an average predicted  temperature for 2011 in the UAH dataset, assuming the warming trend  continues and we see similar influences at play as in 2008. 2008,  though, did see the influence of back to back La Ninas, which is  unusual, so Id probably bump the prediction up some to account for a  more normal recovery to neutral conditions by mid 2011. So Id put my  final prediction around .2°C.
 .09°C is right about what Mr. Bastardi predicts, being only a little  higher than the .04°C seen for 1999, so I would say that if his  prediction comes true it in no way would disprove AGW. How is it  consistent with AGW? 1999 saw a warmer input from the sun than we saw  for 2008 or can expect for 2011, and it had the lingering influence of  the monster El Nino of 1998, both boosting temperatures over the  influences at play in 2008 or, probably, 2011.
 On the other hand he gives a 50% chance of seeing temps as low as  during the influence of Pinatubo. Monthly anomalies reached as low  -.39°C and trailing 12 month average as low as -.25°C in 92-93. If we  were to observe such lows in 2011, it would be a shocker that would  bring mainstream theories into question, no doubt. Id rate the chance  of that happening in the absence of a major volcanic eruption to be very  slim indeed.                                                   Paul K2 says:         August 4, 2010 at 8:06 PM
          Dr. Spencer, I see the AMSU-A site now shows much higher record  highs on the graph labeled AQUA ch05 v2 than previously shown.  Is this  data from the AQUA satellite, or from previous data from another  satellite?                                                   Buzz Belleville says:         August 9, 2010 at 2:26 PM
          Well, yeah, the el Nino/la Nina cycle has entered a phase that  brings cooler water to the surface.  Im having a hard time figuring out  how that is pertinent to the discussion about climate change.  I  thought the scientific literature was pretty settled that, once we go  down to 2000 meters, the oceans are still accumulating heat.  So its  cooler on the surface due to well-known cycles   so what?  What am I  missing?  Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:         August 9, 2010 at 2:49 PM
          hmmmwhere do I begin?
 The last 30 years has experienced more frequent El Ninos, and we  know they cause quasi-global warming.  What if More El Ninos have been  responsible for most of the warming during that time?  Whet if we start  having more La Ninas, which might be happening now as the Pacific  Decadal Oscillation looks like it has switched phase?  
 Also, ENSO is the most important climate cycle of interest to weather-sensitive industries.  So, I report on its progress.  
 Also, when we have unusual warmth from El Nino, the media reports  that this is what we can expect more of with global warming.  If they  are going to be objective, they need to state that unusual cold is NOT  consistent with global warming. Otherwise, their reporting can not be  relied upon to give an unbiased view of whats happening in climate.  
 Im sure others can think of more answers to your questionthese were off the top of my head.                                                    Anonymous says:         August 9, 2010 at 4:40 PM
          Thats fair Dr. Spencer.  And I am very interested in continuing to  expand my understanding of the global warming/cooling effect of the  various oceanic and atmospheric cycles (Ive read both your books  carefully, and teach their basic premises in my Sustainable Energy Law  class).  But that seems like a different issue that what this report  concerns  the fact that the water temps at the surface of the oceans  are cooling, which does not correspond with the ocean heat accumulation  at greater depths (and to ocean temps as a whole) and which is the  result of the ENSO cycles, just doesnt seem to add much to the serious  issues surrounding AGW theory.
 With respect to the global temperature effect of the various oceanic  and atmospheric cycles, I have studied them carefully (though admittedly  not with your trained scientific eye).  Obviously, like you say, the  ENSO cycle has the greatest global effect.  And as your most recent work  suggests, there is certainly some rough correlation between warming and  cooling phases and the PDO.  Broadening to include the NAO, SOI, AO,  ANO, AAO, etc., it doesnt seem that theres really any question that  ocean and atmospheric oscillation cycles greatly affect the annual and  even decadal variability in temperatures.  I havent seen a serious AGW  proponent who would argue to the contrary.  But heres the fundamental  problem that I keep coming back to  over the course of the last century  (1910-2010), each of these oscillation cycles averaged neutral, zero,  no warming or cooling.  The average global temp over that same century  rose nearly 1 degree C.  I want to try to understand how the cycles  could be the dominant CLIMATE (as opposed to weather) forcing during  that period.
 We can even assume that, cumalitively, the combination of cycles was  warm from 1977-2009, when temps went up 0.6 degrees C.  And that they  were warm from 1910-1942, when temps went up 0.4 degrees C.  I assume  youd say the combination was cool from 1880-1910 (or at least the PDO  was), but temps fell only 0.05 degrees C.  I assume youd say the  combination (or the PDO) was cool from 1942-1977, but temps fell only  0.1 degrees.  The warming during warm cycles is greater than the cooling  during cool cycles.  So, yes, the combination of oscillation cycles has  an impact, even a significant one, on global temps.  But Im having a  hard time understanding how, for long-term global average temps, the  cycles can possibly be in control.  The only data we have that  correspond with the long-term average global temp is CO2 concentration  levels in the atmosphere.  Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:         August 10, 2010 at 3:37 AM
          good question.  Because the ocean has inherently long time scales  associated with its circulation, it would take only a small change in  the coupled ocean-atmosphere circulation to cause a slight change  in  cloud cover.  
 Decreased cloud cover would then cause long term warming, which will  show up more strongly over land (even if the ocean is the source).  Climate scientists, though, assume cloud cover has always been the  sameeven though they know clouds are very complex!
 Yes, increasing CO2 should have some warming effect, but assuming ALL  of the warming is from CO2 is as much faith-based as it is  science-based.
 If you look at the 18-proxy average temperature reconstruction for  the last 2,00 years, you will see evidence that nearly every century has  experienced substantial warming or cooling.
 While we know very little about natural climate variability, we do  know a great deal about CO2  because WE produce it!  Blaming climate  change entirely on humans is too anthropocentric for me.                                                    Anonymous says:         August 10, 2010 at 5:28 AM
          Thanks again for the response Dr. Spencer.  I admire your availability.
 No question theres been warming and cooling over the past 2000 years  (and for the past hundreds of thousands of years).  My understanding is  that, for many of those shifts, there is a decent understanding of the  natural forcing that caused them (whether prolonged solar minimums  (Little Ice Age), prolonged NAO warming (MWP), or the various  Milankovich cycles, volcanic activity or natural GHG releases for  millenia in the distant past).  But were really struggling to  articulate a natural forcing to explain the current warming trend.   Certainly if the warming continues for the next few years despite a cool  PDO, the low solar irradiance levels, the slight ice accumulation  effects of current orbital (Milankovich) cycles, and the current la  Nina, at some point were going to need to concede a greater causal  effect for non-natural forcings.
 Thanks in large part to your work and that of Dr Lindzen, there seems  to be emerging some consensus that thin, low-level clouds cause  warming, and a viable theory that increased moisture in the troposphere  caused by something (the PDO from your view, anthropogenic warming from  their view) will result in greater cloud cover.  at the very least, you  and Dr. Lindzen have succeeded in getting all of the major scientific  compilations to acknowledge that clouds (whether as a feedback or a  forcing) remain the great unknown in the global warming puzzle.  Have we  made any progress in accumulating empirical data as to the quantity of  cloud cover glob

----------


## chrisp

> Oddly, while Willis tells NPR the cooling was "not  anything really significant" the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration said otherwise. "The average temperature of the water near the top of the Earth's oceans has *cooled significantly*  since 2003." Two years ago Willis was dismissing the cooling as just  "natural variability" implying that this would end very soon. But  another two years have gone by and the data still shows a cooling trend.

  *And if you look hard, you will see the dip that they are talking about a little after 2005...*    *But after that the temperature goes back to the long term trend.* 
I suppose you can cherry-pick very small sections of the dataset to invalidly claim any trend you feel comfortable with.  Gee, today is cooler than yesterday <> global cooling.

----------


## johnc

Good grief, not only do we have Marc's usual cut and paste rubbish but somehow he manages to double up, we know you exist mate it is not necessary to be even more objectional than usual. Pleased you could Google Ocean cooling and got a hit you really must be feeling quite chuffed by now. However as your 2008 piece of misinformation is now out of date perhaps you could move your attention to the fact that Hemispheric Temperature Change is showing a very strong upward trend. That and a highly suspect ocean temperature dip makes those using that info looking a bit like that emperor with no clothes.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Nit picking don't you think? one says probably another possible, neither are finite statements. there isn't much doubt that La Nina brought the floods, but did climate change amplify the result?

  Very ambiguous questions with no answers. 
Throw in some baseless scaremongering. 
Welcome to the AGW hypothesis.  :Biggrin:  
There is a concept called science where mathematics and statistics are used to answer these types of questions, or admit "we don't know yet" when the numbers don't add up. 
You should research this concept more, then you'll know better than to use a useless phrase like "climate change" to indicate the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis. 
Climate changes all the time.  Always has, always will. 
You kids really should get used to this "scientific fact".  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Welcome back Doc.

  Thanks champ, ditto.   

> we were about to send out a search party

  Nah, too many Carbon Dioxide emissions.  Humans are just measured in carbon units now, so I don't feel bad if you AGW supporters just write off lost units as "carbon offsets".  :Biggrin:    

> Seems LIbs now "support the science"

  Nope! If they did, they would call JuLIAR an idiot. 
She says increasing taxes in Australia will make the Planet Earth colder.  :Doh:  
Have you seen the scientific formula for that yet???  
The Libs still support political expediency, like all politicians.    

> YouTube - &#x202a;6. The Bolt Report - The Steaming Toad with HG Nelson&#x202c;&rlm;

  Compare that to reality here:  The Bolt Report | Channel Ten - Watch Full Episodes and Video

----------


## Dr Freud

> but isn't it up to you to prove that global warming is a failed and farcial hypothesis

  No.  The Null Hypothesis is currently already doing this. 
Did you miss the bit where Trenberth called for this scientific standard to be reversed, so he and his cronies wouldn't look like such idiots. 
Perhaps when you read the whole thread, you will pick up on all this "scientific stuff".   

> The assertion that it is based on faith is a trap of your own making

  No.  This is not an assertion, it is a scientific fact. 
There is *zero* evidence proving the AGW hypothesis. 
But you can "believe" in whatever you want. Freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution:   

> *116.* The Commonwealth shall not make any law for          establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or          for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test          shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under          the Commonwealth.

  Parliament of Australia: Senate: Constitution - Chapter 5    

> The link is to a series of temperature records continually updated by NASA

  Yes, these records are called "effects".  You have faith in a hypothesis that posits a "cause" but cannot prove it.  There are lots of faiths that posit lots of causes, but these are certainly not science.   

> So pile on the bombastic slurs, the lack of respect and the incredulous diatribe you rely on to drown out the lack of substance in the denier camp.

  I certainly will continue to highlight issues that deserve no respect. 
But you shouldn't call them "the denier camp", I prefer to call them "the AGW hypothesis supporters".  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> My side?! What makes you think I'm on one side of the other.

  Errr, I dunno, your posts are so ambiguous, I can't tell whether you "believe" in the AGW hypothesis or not:   

> There _IS_ plenty of evidence that proves both global warming and the human role in it.

  Gee whiz, that fence must be uncomfortable.  :Biggrin:    

> I'm on the fence laughing and pointing at the ignorant numbnuts on both sides....

  You're so impartial, you've probably got one numb nut on each side, eh?  :Biggrin:        

> *TAXING CARBON WILL NOT COOL THE PLANET* 
>  ...nor will any other tax increase.

  Do you mean taxing Carbon *Dioxide* will not cool the Planet either?  :Biggrin:  
So you agree then that JuLIAR is lying to us Aussies? 
Or is she really that stupid? 
Do you consider a levy, tariff, price or fee a tax as well? 
As in the artificial "price" that the ETS will add to the cost of all goods and services that are transferred via subsidies to other industries, just like the Carbon Dioxide Tax will? 
Are you then also saying an ETS will not cool down the Planet either? 
Just in Australia only?  What if the whole Planet was on board?   

> Is that clear enough for you?

  Apparently not.  :No:  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You're so impartial, you've probably got one numb nut on each side, eh?

  Entertainment this good is never without cost    

> Do you mean taxing Carbon *Dioxide* will not cool the Planet either?  
> So you agree then that JuLIAR is lying to us Aussies? 
> Or is she really that stupid? 
> Do you consider a levy, tariff, price or fee a tax as well? 
> As  in the artificial "price" that the ETS will add to the cost of all  goods and services that are transferred via subsidies to other  industries, just like the Carbon Dioxide Tax will? 
> Are you then also saying an ETS will not cool down the Planet either? 
> Just in Australia only?  What if the whole Planet was on board?

  And in order of your questions: 
Sure.... 
No.  She's dissembling.  She is a politician.  That's what they do. 
Hope not. Politicians reflect the people they represent. Half the country voted for her.  
If you want to be simplistic...yes. 
Umm.....that'd still be yes. 
Yes. 
Yes.  Still yes.  
So that's your questions dealt with.....are you still unclear?

----------


## johnc

*116.* The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.  
Well Mr Freud, other than the side benefit of reducing any decent constitutional lawyer to a fit of hysterical laughter do you really think the basis exists for the formation of a religion? It has to be a little more than some crackpots opinion that  those that support the view that humans are effecting the planet through CO2 and other emissions have formed a religion. The group has to actually exist in a formal sense, although you may amuse yourself with little diversions I am more than amused that you have extended that to a reference to the constitution itself. Next you will be setting up a republic and pretending you don't have to pay tax aka the Hut River Province.

----------


## Marc

*UAH Temperature Update for March, 2011: Cooler Still -0.10 deg. C* 
  			April 5th, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.  			  				 
    YR  MON  GLOBAL   NH    SH    TROPICS
    2010   01   0.542   0.675   0.410   0.635
    2010   02   0.510   0.553   0.466   0.759
    2010   03   0.554   0.665   0.443   0.721
    2010   04   0.400   0.606   0.193   0.633
    2010   05   0.454   0.642   0.265   0.706
    2010   06   0.385   0.482   0.287   0.485
    2010   07   0.419   0.558   0.280   0.370
    2010   08   0.441   0.579   0.304   0.321
    2010   09   0.477   0.410   0.545   0.237
    2010   10   0.306   0.257   0.356   0.106
    2010   11   0.273   0.372   0.173  -0.117
    2010   12   0.181   0.217   0.145  -0.222
    2011   01  -0.010  -0.055   0.036  -0.372
    2011   02  -0.020  -0.042   0.002  -0.348
    2011   03  -0.099  -0.073  -0.126  -0.345  *La Nina Coolness Persists*
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for March 2011  fell to -0.10 deg. C, with cooling in both the Northern and Southern  Hemispheric extratropics, while the tropics stayed about the same as  last month.  (Im on the road in Virgina, so the temperature graph will  not be updated until I return on Thursday.)       *52 Responses to UAH Temperature Update for March, 2011: Cooler Still -0.10 deg. C*  
   	Toggle Trackbacks   				 				 				Martin says:		 April 5, 2011 at 5:40 AM
  		Ah I have predicted -0,2 Neverthless, I still do think that this  cooling trend will stop this month, followed by slight increase.  				 				 				Ray says:		 April 5, 2011 at 6:45 AM
  		I was expecting -0.11c, based on a March AQUA CH5 figure of -0.23c, and the formula y = 1.0035x + 0.1168.
The formula for April looks like y = 0.7879x + 0.1164, so the UAH  anomaly for April would be much smaller for a similar anomaly in the  AQUA CH5 to that in March.  For example, the current April AQUA CH5  anomaly of -0.243c is equivalent to a UAH anomaly of only -0.075c.  				 				 				John Christensen says:		 April 5, 2011 at 6:56 AM
  		Still; the main thing going on appears to be the continued cool  equatorial waters caused by the ongoing La Nina. Any news of whether La  Nina is weakening?  salvatore del prete says:		 April 5, 2011 at 7:17 AM
  		Posted by, salvatore del prete (not verified)
First of all solar activity has been very strong up to year 2005, not  year 1985, so that is the first false fact ,that is talked about in this  article. 
 Secondly the writer of this article has left out many significant  correlations between solar activity and items it effects on earth ,that  in turn ,control earths climatic system.
 HE NEEDS TO DO MUCH MORE HOMEWROK IN THIS AREA.
 Thirdly, the lag times are greater then 10 years, and are more  related to the solar magnetic cycle of 22 years, as far as temperature  response.
 Fourth , the CO2 man made global warming theory is a bunch of BS ,  and the global models they use to show this theory is correct, have been  proven wrong ,on several fronts. 
 WHERE THE MODELS HAVE FAILED(I will mention some)
 1. The models said the atmospheric circulation would be evolving into  an ever increasing +AO ,the reality is the atmospheric circulation has  been evolving into an ever increasing -AO.
 2. DROUGHTS IN AUSTRALIA,reality is floods in Austrialia.
 3. The equatorial lower troposheric hot spot,reality is there is no hotspot.
 4. The constant increase in temp., reality is temp. has leveled off for the past 8 years or so.
 5. More EL NINOS /WARM PDO,the reality is PDO is cold ,with more LA  NINAS ,now ,and this will be the case going forward. AMO to follow soon.
 What the above shows are the global warming models cant forecast the  atmospheric circulation correctly, and if you cant do that ,you cant  forcast the climate correctly ,for the future.
 MY THEORY FOR COOLING
 1. Weak sun in general say (90%) of the time. Solar flux less then  100 most of the time,with spurts to 160 at times ,or even more. Sun  ,with this kind of activity, sets things up. 
 2. The above leads to more geological activity,especially high lat.  volcanic eruptions. Explosive index of 5 or more ,will have great  impacts to earths climate,nevermind, the lesser eruptions ,which also  have impacts.
 3. 1 and 2 lead to a more -AO atmospheric circulation. The Key, value -1.5 or greater.
 4. 1 leads to the likelyhood of a cold PDO/AMO ,aids in the cooling. Value -2.0 c or more.
 5. 1 leads to a more +SOI oscillation ,aids in cooling. Water temp -1.0 c or greater.
 6. 3 then leads to more arctic intrusions further south,and causes  the polar regions to warm, in contrast to the lower latitudes. The key  in my opinion is the warming of the polar latitudes,in contrast to say  latitudes 40 to 70 degrees north latitude, which undergo more cooling  due to the -AO ,and the positive feedbacks for cooling this atm.  circulation will give the N.H. for cooling,due to an increase in cloud  cover,snow cover and precip.
 7. More clouds ,precip., and snow cover ,then increase earths albedo  ,especially between lat. 40 to 70 north ,reinforcing the -AO  circulation. A positive feedback for cooling.
 8. l leads to less solar irradiance. Value .1 or more.
 9. This opinion is depended upon how everything phases in, and not  only how everything phases in, but to what degree of magnitude the items  phase into a cold/warm mode ,along with the duration of time the phase  in last. Not to mention the lag times that have to be applied. As one  can see I gave some guideline parameters for the phase in, of what I  feel will be needed to accomplish the cooling,which is very likely to  happen this decade.
 Milankovich cycles, can magnify the effects ,I mentioned above, and  can lead to major glaciations ,when combined with periods of prolong  solar activity. Whereas, the prolong period of lower solar activity  alone ,can lead to a cooling, and perhaps abrupt temperature changes ,if  thresholds should be met, due to the degree of magnitude and duration  of time the items that control earths climatic system phase into. Still  however, major glaciation for long periods of time ,probably need  favorable Milankovich cycles, in addition.
Also, all that I talked about, can be shown to have a big effect in the  N.H. of the globe, in contrast to the S.H. of the globe ,even though the  same process is taking place. Reason being the drastic gegraphical  difference between the N.H. and the S.H.
 TIME WIL PROVE WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG, AND WE SHOULD KNOW BEFORE THIS DECADE IS OUT.
 Monday 4th April 2011  10:20am  salvatore del prete says:		 April 5, 2011 at 7:23 AM
  		The above is something I wrote n the climate realist web-site. I am pleased with how the temperatures are reacting.
  It is proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that C02 is a non player when it comes to earths climatic system.
   This decade is going to be very interesting.  				 				 				Baa Humbug says:		 April 5, 2011 at 7:55 AM
  		@John C: According to the Australian BoM, SSTs indicate a continued  climb towards neutral conditions, however atmospheric conditions (SOI)  remain strongly in La Nina territory.
 To me, the SOI indicates strong trade winds. Added to that the newly  emerging cold upwelling waters off the coast of Peru point to a renewing  La Nina conditions.
The Nino 3.4 index usually swings in the months of January and/or July.  We shall know by the middle of July whether Nino 3.4 will continue to  rise towards an El Nino or swing back down to a La Nina. My money is on  La Nina.  Joe Bastardi says:		 April 5, 2011 at 10:05 AM
  		That drop in the tropics  is astounding since last year (1C).  The  implications  as to  the  ENERGY  budget of the ocean-atmosphere system,  which I feel  is the real  measuring stick here, not global temps  (   warm moist air has much more energy than cold dry air, and a reduction  of a smaller amount where air is warm and moist  more than offsets a  large rise in temp in cold dry air, if we are talking energy  considerations  which is what has to be quantified to solve this  problem).  This is like turning down the thermostat, and  borders on  alarming to me in that this could be even more of  a crash  than  even  I previously thought  ( 2011 returns to near normal in the  30 year  running mean)
 The Bejing model  is out with a vey cold look globally to the  850  and  500 mb  levels evolving even more strongly later in the year, and   given what I  hold  near and dear about the role of the tropics   in the  global climate,  I can see why its seeing that!!!
 I certainly dont support the idea of any nino coming on before  2012  salvatore del prete says:		 April 5, 2011 at 11:51 AM
  		I am with Joe Bastardi ,on what he has to say.  				 				 				nofreewind says:		 April 5, 2011 at 12:36 PM
  		John Christensen says:
> Any news of whether La Nina is weakening?
 John, ringside seat to La Nina/El Nino is here. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/product...-fcsts-web.pdf
report updates every Monday with that link.  Olav H Dahlsveen says:		 April 5, 2011 at 3:22 PM
  		All you guys are missing the point which is that The IPCC science  team has, as yet, not had the opportunity to adjust these temperatures  to a standard that is expected from such an organisation.  				 				 				AndyW says:		 April 5, 2011 at 11:30 PM
  		Is there a reason for the delay or lag from the onset of El Nina  and cooler surface temperatures to the drop in temp at this level of  atmosphere?
 Andy     				 				 				Rob P says:		 April 6, 2011 at 7:33 AM
  		Andy, 
 The lag has to do with energy transfers.  As Joe Bastardi mentions  in his comment above, temperature is just how we measure energy in one  part of the system and you have to think of these differences (between  surface water temperature and air temperature) in terms of where the  energy is coming from and going to.  
 La Nina is defined as colder surface water temperature and the energy  lost (at least some of it) goes into the atmosphere, in the first  instance, thus raising the air temperature (or at least not letting it  cool).  Once the cooling levels off, the air temperatures drop because  there is no little further energy transfer and maybe even less as the  water warms during recovery from La Nina.
 This is a horribly simplistic view  as you can imagine there are a  lot more places for the energy to move to  but since the basic energy  in/energy out varies only very slightly over time, these big changes in  temperature can only be explained by energy transfers between parts of  the climate system.   				 				 				rbateman says:		 April 6, 2011 at 11:49 PM
  		If the Arctic/Antarctic warm in constrast to the rest of the globe  cooling, then the energy transported there is lost the majority of the  year to space.  Some have called this a heat pump to the poles.  I like  to think of it as having a window open upstairs while attempting to heat  the house.  nige cook says:		 April 7, 2011 at 3:39 AM
  		Hi Dr Spencer, Ive tried to include your highly technical evidence  clearly stated in a draft article compiling the facts on cloud cover  forming from evaporated water after a slight warming, which then  increases earths albedo (negative feedback), currently located at viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:1104.0013, Summary of Anti-Greenhouse Co2 Evidence from Noaa, Spencer, et Al.
 Im concerned that the key mechanism involved is not being  communicated clearly together with the evidence.  There is also some  interesting humidity evidence from NOAA for the period 1948-2008 which  indicates that the total vertical column integral of H2O vapour content  (as opposed to condensed cloud water) in the atmosphere has fallen by  the equivalent to the rise in CO2.
 The climategate scandal arose because the tree ring proxy data failed  after 1960 due to increasing mean cloud cover (which affects tree ring  growth, which isnt merely affected by air temperature), to Dr Phil  Jones spliced that data up to 1960 to other data after 1960.  Much of  the 1960-80 data is surface temperature readings affected by local heat  sources (growing cities, insustry), not CO2 heating effects.
 After 1980, theres a curious problem with all the satellite surface  temperature data.  Being unable to see temperatures under clouds, the  satellite data implicitly excludes all negative freeback effects.   Please let me know any comments you have if you get the time to look at  my paper!  				 				 				MikeN says:		 April 7, 2011 at 1:15 PM
  		What is the baseline anomaly period?  Trina Flury says:		 April 8, 2011 at 2:14 AM
  		I must i always had been a little leary of all of the hype going on  around solar.  After thinking about many programs and buy options we  decided to take the plunge.  We finished up getting solar without money  down and now we immediatly started putting money aside the very first  month is was installed. I must say that this benefits of solar seem to  be real and I am happy we decide to proceed with it.  				 				 				Ray says:		 April 8, 2011 at 3:06 AM
  		MikeN says:
What is the baseline anomaly period?
If you mean UAH, it was rebased to 1981 to 2010 at the beginning of this year.
Since this is the most recent base period of the other main sources of  anomaly data, it will appear to show that the anomalies are lower than  other sources.  				 				 				Ray says:		 April 8, 2011 at 3:09 AM
  		Trina Flury says:
I must say that this benefits of solar seem to be real and I am happy we decide to proceed with it.
Do you mean personal financial benefits?
If so, isnt that entirely due to heavy subsidies?  				 				 				Ray says:		 April 8, 2011 at 9:57 AM
  		For about a week now, I have been unable to see any graph on the Discover AMSU-A Temperature Trends website: Error!
Is this just me, or is there a problem with the site?
I can still download the daily data and according to that,
the cumulative AQUA CH5 anomaly at April 5th., was -0.27c, which  converts to a UAH of about -0.098c, based on past values, so it looks  like the current anomaly is about the same as that for March.  				 				 				crandles says:		 April 9, 2011 at 5:02 PM
  		In the last two days Ch5 has risen from 252.311 to 252.429 to 252.542 a rise of 0.231
 The largest previous 2 day rise that I can find is 0.181 between 3 to  5 April 2005. There are several 2 day rises of between .16 and .181 so I  wonder if that forms some natural limit to the amount of warming that  can occur in 2 days. .231 seems a long way above .181 when there a  several in the range .16 to .181.
 A new record by a surprisingly large margin or is something going wrong?
 (BTW Ray I can still see graphs.)  				 				 				Ray says:		 April 10, 2011 at 4:01 AM
  		crandles says: 
 In the last two days Ch5 has risen from 252.311 to 252.429 to 252.542 a rise of 0.231″
Yes, I had noticed that too.
While, the daily and cumulative anomalies remain negative, if this  continues we may see some positive daily anomalies soon.  Actually, I  had expected the March UAH anomaly to be the low point for this year,  and the April anomaly to be about zero.
Like you, what puzzles me is whether this is a genuine change in the  pattern (if so, what is the cause?), or a measurement problem.
Strange about the graphs.  I still cant see them.  I emailed the  discover website and got a reply saying that they were working on  getting the error corrected!
I thought it might be a problem with IE, so I tried Google Chrome and I  get a message saying that the Java 6 plug-in is out of date, which seems  strange, because I always seem to be downloading and installing new  versions of Java.  				 				 				Dallas says:		 April 10, 2011 at 8:23 AM
  		Dr. Spencer,
 After a discussion on the utility of back radiation, I proposed a  climate puzzle to predict the Energy Budget in the year 2100 should CO2  doubling cause a 3C increase it temperature.  After an embarrassing  error that grew like a snowball, I revised the puzzle slightly and made  major changes to my answer. 
 While I am sure there is nothing unique about my little theory, I am  curious how badly I screwed up the logic of my final answer.  If you  care to, I would like your input, or anyone elses for that matter.   Here is the link. Our Energy Future: Hydrogen: How Did I Screw Up My Energy Budget Answer and What is the Thermosphere Sink?  				 				 				crandles says:		 April 10, 2011 at 5:57 PM
  		3 day rise of .311 is larger than previous 3 days rises; previous largest rises .264, .261, .251, .243, .242,  ftp://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/pub/data/m...onamg.2011_5.4
 compared to same file name with 2010 in name instead of 2011 seems to  me to indicate last data received is a bit to steady. I am only  guessing that this is a further indicator of a problem with the data.  				 				 				John Christensen says:		 April 11, 2011 at 7:23 AM
  		The comment section is intended for comments related to the  article, not to market your own work, however valid it may be. Put this  stuff on your own blog or website, as it really has no place here. 
 Thanks  				 				 				John Christensen says:		 April 11, 2011 at 7:26 AM
  		Sorry about that; my previous comment was related to the longer piece posted by Salvatore on April 5.  Werner Brozek says:		 April 11, 2011 at 8:15 PM
  		Is it purely a coincidence that the recent upward spike in sunspot  number comes at a time when the lower troposphere spiked up? See: Update on solar cycle 24 | Watts Up With That?  salvatore del prete says:		 April 12, 2011 at 7:18 AM
  		John Christensen, this blog is about CLIMATE! Therefore anything written about the climate ,is valid for this site.
  I have much to say, and if you dont agree ,which I am sure you dont, dont read it!! 
  At least when I post ,I come up with a comprehensive argument why it  is the sun ,that sets the tables, which controls the climate,rather  then try to prove the global man made warming models being wrong, which  has already been proven over and over again. A waste of time,because we  have the answer to that question. It is now time to look at past  history, and see what has happened then,and try to extrapolate that into  what we have today, and then try to extrapolate what that mya mean  going forward.That is what I have been trying to do, and I like what I  have come up with.
  What Dr. Spencer should be doing, is trying to put together a model  that incorpotrates very low solar activity and high volcanic activity  just to see what kind of results it would give for the atmospheric  circulation and temperatures. That is my suggeastion to him.  salvatore del prete says:		 April 12, 2011 at 8:26 AM
  		It just simply unbelivable,how someone could object to someone else  posting, his/her thoughts ,about climate,on a climate site. I mean,if I  were posting about sports,or the economy or something else,I would see  the point. 
  No, I wil keep positng my thoughts here,until,unless this is no  longer a climatic website. That is what this site is all about, the  climate. Give me a break.  				 				 				Ray says:		 April 12, 2011 at 9:00 AM
  		Werner Brozek,
Is it purely a coincidence that the recent upward spike in sunspot  number comes at a time when the lower troposphere spiked up? 
I believe that the sunspot number relates to the number of sunspot  groups and individual spots on the sun, irrespective of size.  In early  March, there were relatively few groups of larger spots than there are  now, but I believe that resulted in lower sunspot numbers. Also, by  definition it counts only spots on the sun facing the Earth. In my  opinion, it is only coincidence.  				 				 				Ray says:		 April 14, 2011 at 8:36 AM
  		The GISS global temperature anomaly for March is +0.57c, which I  estimate is equivalent to a UAH figure of about +0.21c after adjustment  from the GISS base
period of 1951-80 to the UAH base period of 1981-2010.  This means that  the GISS global figure for March is approximately 0.31c higher than the  UAH anomaly, over the same base period.
Most of the difference seems to be due to the GISS N.H. anomaly, which  was +0.87c, which by my calculations is equivalent to a UAH figure of  +0.49c, and
which is approximately 0.56c higher than the UAH N.H. anomaly.   The  difference between the GISS N.H. and S.H. anomalies, prior to  adjustment, is approximately 0.6c, whereas the difference between the  UAH N.H. and S.H. anomalies is only 0.053c.
I suppose that a response to these apparent differences between the UAH  and GISS anomalies might be that it is trends which are important,  rather than the
monthly values.  However in the case of UAH, (and RSS), the temperature  anomaly trend so far this year is downwards, whereas the GISS trend is  upwards.
I dont expect Dr. Spencer to comment on other anomaly sources, but I  would be interested in any other possible explanations for the apparent  differences between these anomaly figures.  				 				 				harrywr2 says:		 April 14, 2011 at 10:10 AM
  		Ray says:
April 14, 2011 at 8:36 AM _I dont expect Dr. Spencer to comment on other anomaly sources,  but I would be interested in any other possible explanations for the  apparent differences between these anomaly figures_
 The Lower Troposphere temperature doesnt correspond to surface temperature on a month to month basis.  				 				 				Ray says:		 April 14, 2011 at 11:38 AM
  		harrywr2 says:
The Lower Troposphere temperature doesnt correspond to surface temperature on a month to month basis.
As I pointed out, the trends over the last three months are in different directions.
Also, last year, UAH and RSS anomalies tended to be above GISS, while  this year the opposite is the case.  Is this normal during the  transition from El Nino to La Nina?  salvatore del prete says:		 April 14, 2011 at 12:32 PM
  		I just hope that long before this decade is out, the man made global warming co2 myth, will be put to rest once and for all.
  It is a travesty to have this theory destroy the field of  climatalogy,which it has. I have respect for very few climatalogist,  since most of them are either taken in ,or in on the man made global  warming scam.
  I wish I had substancial funds ,if I did ,I would probably be able  to get more play with what I have to say about what they have to say,and  my thinking. Money is where it is at for now, but in the end who will  be right or wrong will rule the day.
  Barry Bickmore   I had proposed to him many questions   to give him  an opportunity to defend his position on climate change, he never  responded.  
  They are constantly manipulating data and ignoring any past history, that does not fit their agenda.
  I am enjoying what I am doing ,because I have my own company and I  dont have any pressure from anyone ,other then what I put on myself, to  try to promote my thoughts.
  I will admit it is tough to get very far in this arena especially  when one as myself, has the sun as the central conerstone of earths  climatic system. Hard to believe that is a minority opinion, but then  again, as I have said ,the field of climatalogy is in ruines.  Werner Brozek says:		 April 15, 2011 at 9:50 PM
  		Ray says:
April 14, 2011 at 8:36 AM
 I would be interested in any other possible explanations for the apparent differences between these anomaly figures.
 I do not trusts GISS. Here is why:
I have read that GISS is the only record that is accurate since it  adequately considers what happens in the polar regions, unlike other  data sets. I have done some back of the envelope calculations to see  if this is a valid assumption. I challenge any GISS supporter to  challenge my assumptions and/or calculations and show that I am way out  to lunch. If you cannot do this, I will assume it is the GISS  calculations that are out to lunch.
 Here are my assumptions and/or calculations: (I will generally work to 2 significant digits.)
1. The surface area of Earth is 5.1 x 10^8 km squared.
2. The RSS data is only good to 82.5 degrees.
3. It is almost exclusively the northern Arctic that is presumably way  warmer and not Antarctica. For example, we always read about the  northern ice melting and not what the southern areas are gaining in ice.
4. The circumference of Earth is 40,000 km.
5. I will assume the area between 82.5 degrees and 90 degrees can be  assumed to be a flat circle so spherical trigonometry is not needed.
6. The area of a circle is pi r squared.
7. The distance between 82.5 degrees and 90.0 degrees is 40,000 x 7.5/360 = 830 km
8. The area in the north polar region above 82.5 degrees is 2.2 x 10^6 km squared.
9. The ratio of the area between the whole earth and the north polar  region above 82.5 degrees is 5.1 x 10^8 km squared/2.2 x 10^6 km squared  = 230.
10. People wondered if the satellite record for 2010 would be higher  than for 1998. Let us compare these two between RSS and GISS.
11. According to GISS, the difference in anomaly was 0.07 degrees C higher for 2010 versus 1998.
12. According to RSS, it was 0.04 degrees C higher for 1998 versus 2010.
13. The net difference between 1998 and 2010 between RSS and GISS is 0.11 degrees C.
14. If we are to assume the only difference between these is due to GISS  accurately accounting for what happens above 82.5 degrees, then this  area had to be 230 x 0.11 = 25 degrees warmer in 2010 than 1998.
15. If we assume the site at COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut  can be trusted for temperatures above 80 degrees north, we see very  little difference between 1998 and 2010. The 2010 seems slightly warmer,  but nothing remotely close to 25 degrees warmer as an average for the  whole year.
 Readers may disagree with some assumptions I used, but whatever issue  anyone may have, does it affect the final conclusion about the lack of  superiority of GISS data to any real extent?  				 				 				Ray says:		 April 16, 2011 at 3:04 AM
  		I am not sure that Latitude is the only difference between the  various measures, and if harrywr2 is correct, altitude is a factor as  well.  I appreciate that I am displaying my ignorance of how these  anomalies are arrived at, and clearly more study is required on my  behalf.  One thing I do know is that all of the sources are supposed  to be measures of global temperature, but it seems that we are not  comparing like with like.  When the UKMO published its conclusions  about the 2010 global temperature, it was forced to rely upon GISS to  prove that 2010 was warmer than 1998, not its own measure, HadCRUT3. 2010 — a near-record year - Met Office
Now that the main anomalies for March are published, I thought it would  be interesting to compare them, (last months figure in brackets), in  order of size, all adjusted to the HadCRUT3 base period of 1961-90:
 GISS/NASA  = 0.460c (0.330c)
NOAA/NCDC  = 0.352c (0.266c)
HADCRUT3   = 0.318c (0.264c)
UAH        = 0.153c (0.235c)
RSS        = 0.121c (0.198c)
 So, there is a difference of about 0.34c between the highest and  lowest figures and UAH and RSS show a decrease in warming and the others  an increase. These differences are even more pronounced in the N.H.  anomaly figures while in the S.H., HadCRUT3 and NOAA show rises, while  GISS and UAH show falls.
The result is a very confusing picture on temperature anomalies, from which it is difficult to draw conclusions.
Isnt it time that we had a standard and reliable method of measuring global temperaturs?  Werner Brozek says:		 April 16, 2011 at 1:57 PM
  		Ray says:
April 16, 2011 at 3:04 AM
 I am not sure that Latitude is the only difference between the  various measures, and if harrywr2 is correct, altitude is a factor as  well.
 From the site you quote, Hadcrut3 has 2010 at 0.02 C cooler than  1998. Compare this to 0.07 degrees warmer for GISS. Both are land based  sites. So using the area ratio of 230 to 1 indicates that the Arctic  should be 230 x 0.09 = 20.7 degrees warmer. However in this case, the  230 figure from my earlier post is not totally valid. Hadcrut3 does not  have data high up so it does not use any data. But GISS has very little  data high up and extrapolates the missing rest. In the opinion of many  people, the extrapolation of GISS is hugely in error. Latitude is one  thing. But assuming missing data is something totally different again.  Now as for altitude, there are genuine differences which may be very  large over a very specific monthly time period but which should cancel  out over a longer period. However while the RSS is also global I  understand the satellites just cannot see north of 82.5 degrees north,  so parts are missing.
By the way, from where are you seeing the March Hadcrut3 data? The site at the following still only shows to February: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...hadcrut3gl.txt  				 				 				CatrunJ says:		 April 16, 2011 at 2:33 PM
  		>Isnt it time that we had a standard and reliable method of >measuring global temperaturs?
 You talk about this like it is weighing an apple or
something.  You want an average temperature of a PLANET!
And you want it everyday, with less than .3C variation!
I challenge you to even define a precise global temperature.
What does that mean?
 I am sure the climate science community in the US would love to  launch more satellites and stick weather stations all over the arctic.  I  suggest we write the Republicans in the house and ask them to add a few  billion dollars to the budget for climate measurement.
 But seriously, if each of the measures listed by Ray
have an error which is somewhat decorrelated, then taking
an average each month should give a more reliable number.
Of course there is no way of knowing if this is true, nor if the average will be closer to some global average. But
the fact that satellite measurements give the same decade scale trends  as land based temperature goes a long way toward validating both.  On  shorter time scales, there is too much uncertainty to decide which is  better.  Take a ten year running average of all the data and you will  see they all paint the same picture.  				 				 				Ray says:		 April 17, 2011 at 3:54 AM
  		CatrunJ says:
You talk about this like it is weighing an apple or
something. You want an average temperature of a PLANET!
And you want it everyday, with less than .3C variation!
I challenge you to even define a precise global temperature.
What does that mean?
I didnt start this discussion. It was the warmists who started and  continue the comparison of annual and monthly figures, claiming that  certain years and/or months are the warmest on record.  All I am saying  is that if it is ALLEGED that the planet is getting warmer, then we need  a reliable method of measurement.
Also, if the monthly figures are so unreliable, why dont they stop publishing them and ONLY publish 10 year means?
As far as decadal trends are concerned, the 10 year linear trends for  HadCRUT3 and NOAA/GISS are currently NEGATIVE, while those for UAH and  NCDC/NASA are currently POSITIVE, although it seems that UAH will also  be negative by July.  				 				 				Ray says:		 April 17, 2011 at 5:36 AM
  		Werner, just a quick reply on the source of HadCRUT3.
I will reply in more detail on your other comments later.
There are two sources of the HadCRUT3 data.  One is the CRU site, which  you were using, but the UKMO Hadley Centre also publish the figures,  usually sooner.  Those files can be found here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/h.../nh+sh/monthly
By the way, while the CRU and Hadley monthly figures are always the same, the annual figures are usually different.
This is due to the different methods used to calculate the annual averages.  (see 1998 annual figure!)  				 				 				harrywr2 says:		 April 17, 2011 at 11:47 AM
  		CatrunJ says:
April 16, 2011 at 2:33 PM _I am sure the climate science community in the US would love to  launch more satellites and stick weather stations all over the arctic._
 The atmosphere holds so little heat its only interesting from an academic and research standpoint.
 Ocean Heat Content is the number that matters.  				 				 				catrunJ says:		 April 17, 2011 at 6:44 PM
  		Ray:
 Your comments reveal that you dont understand how to separate trend  from variation.  I didnt say one should look at 10 year trends, I said  ten year averages.  The fact that the 10 year trends change so much  should tell you that they are not a good indicator of long term warming  (or lack of it).
 The predicted warming is 0.1C to 0.2C per decade.  The variations  from El Nino and La Nina are regularly 0.5C over 18 months.  Hence if  you fit a line to a ten year chunk of data that starts during El Nino  and ends in La Nina, it aint hard to get a negative slope.  It is like  starting a fit of daily temperatures at 3:00 p.m. and ending at 3:00  a.m. during spring time.  You could certainly show that there is no  warming happening (and hence conclude that summer isnt coming).
 To see the trend through the effects of Nino/Nina you need to either  choose a time window large enough so that it is insensitive to start and  stop time, or average the data over a time longer than the period of  Nino/Nina (typically at least three years for a full cycle).  The longer  the average the easier it is to see long term trend. Or you could do  proper signal analysis, or even use a more appropriate data fitting than  a linear least squares fit.
 Yearly averages are used by both sides of the debate for the wrong  reason.  How many millions of times have we heard that there has been no  warming since 1998?  I have asked Dr. Spencer why he doesnt plot at  least a 3 year average instead of 13 months on this site (no answer).  I  think one reason why is that 13 months is the longest period one can  choose and still have the peak at 1998 higher than the following years.
 If you are an AGW skeptic, you should be happy that all this data  exists.  Imagine if all the agencies did a sensible thing and decided  that a meaningful measure of global temperature was a 10 year global  average, and they announced this number once every ten years.  We would  have 4 data points in the satellite era and they would suggest (gasp!)  global warming.
 CJ  				 				 				Ray says:		 April 18, 2011 at 2:28 AM
  		CatrunJ,
 You said:
But the fact that satellite measurements give the same decade scale  trends as land based temperature goes a long way toward validating  both.
I pointed out that two measures show negative trends and two show  positive trends.  Actually RSS also shows a negative trend, so at the  moment, its 2 land + 1 satellite negative, 1 land + 1 satellite  positive, although they are all generally moving towards negative  territory.  				 				 				Ray says:		 April 18, 2011 at 5:40 AM
  		The rapid increases in the AQUA CH5 daily anomalies seem to have  stopped but as yet, there is no sign of a return to the large negative  anomalies seen at the start of the month.
As a result, the cumulative anomaly up to the 15th., is now about -0.1c,  which I estimate is equilvalent to a UAH anomaly of about +0.04c.  				 				 				catrunJ says:		 April 18, 2011 at 7:57 AM
  		Ray:
 You didnt read what I wrote.
Decade scale trends does not mean a linear
fit to  monthly or daily averages over a ten
year period.  It means a linear fit to ten year
averages.  They are vastly different. 
 Pleased fit a line to a ten year moving average
of all the different temperature indexes and tell
us how much they differ.  (Hint: they are all the same
sign)
 I thought I explained why a linear fit to short
term averages over a decade is not an accurate measure
of long term trend.  I guess you were too busy
looking at at daily temperature readings to think
about it.  				 				 				Ray says:		 April 18, 2011 at 10:28 AM
  		catrunJ,
Pleased fit a line to a ten year moving average
of all the different temperature indexes and tell
us how much they differ. (Hint: they are all the same
sign)
I am not sure that calculating a linear trend of a ten
year moving average is a valid approach.     				 				 				catrunJ says:		 April 18, 2011 at 12:04 PM
  		Ray,
 I am not sure that calculating a linear trend of a ten
year moving average is a valid approach.
 Why are you not sure?  Because you dont understand signal processing, perhaps?  
 You have no problem fitting lines to daily, or monthly averages and misinterpreting the results to be indicative
of long term trends.  Why not longer averages?  How
about 5 year averages?  
 If you arent sure, here is a practice problem:
take the function f(t) = 0.01*t + 0.6*sin(2*pi/3*t)
and sample it at some discrete values.
There can be no arguing that the linear trend is 0.01
for this function.  Now pretend you dont know that the
linear part is 0.01 and try to compute it by sampling
this function on intervals [T, T+10].  Your trends will
depend on what T is. 
 Here is matlab code to do it in case you are short on time.
 for k = 0:200
    c = k*0.05;
    tc = [0:0.1:10]+c;
    f = 0.01*tc + 0.6*sin(2*pi/3*(tc));
    pf =polyfit(tc,f,1);
    trend(k+1) = pf(1);
end
plot(trend); title(Linear trend)
 Now instead take a ten year moving
average of the function f(t) and fit a linear curve.
Which one is more valid?  Are you sure?
This is beginners data analysis.
If you dont understand it, you are hopeless.
 This example is far easier than trying to find the trend in
global temperatures because
1.  There is no error included in f(t) (although for fun you can add a random perturbation to each value).
2.  The period and amplitude of the oscillation is fixed (unlike Nino/Nina which varies in both).
 But this issue with finding a trend in noisy data is the same.   				 				 				John Christensen says:		 April 18, 2011 at 2:16 PM
  		Estimating normal seasonal variability.. 
 Has anyone measured or calculated the expected seasonal variations in  temperature, i.e. that the globe should be cooling early in the  calendar year, due to most landmass being in the N.H., and then slowly  warming to peak around August? 
 Im wondering since you would expect landmass to warm and cool much  faster than the ocean, then this could be measured and potentially even  refine the concept of a temperature anomaly.     				 				 				CatrunJ says:		 April 18, 2011 at 5:01 PM
  		John,
 Yes, seasonal variation are included in the  computation of the  anomaly in the temperature indices.  More important than what you  mention is that the earths orbit is not a circle, but rather an  ellipse, so the distance from the sun varies  by over 3 million miles  from perihelion to aphelion.  
 MM     				 				 				CatrunJ says:		 April 24, 2011 at 12:20 AM
  		I should probably correct myself here.  I am not
a climate scientist, so sometimes I think I know
something that in fact I dont.  There is a seasonal
trend in the global temperature indices, and it is
indeed factored into the published indices as I wrote.  
 But . . .
 The earth is closer to the sun during northern hemisphere
winter than summer, but the global average temperature
is actually warmer in N.H. summer.  This is true because
of the issue John Christensen asked about. Since there
is a greater land mass in the N.H., the globe warms more
when the N.H. is pointing toward the sun even though
it is farther away.  
 So, my comment above about the eccentricity of the earths
orbit being more important than the distribution of land
mass, is off target.
 Sorry, my training is in math and statistics not climate, so I am  still learning.  If only others would learn some math and stat . . . 
 CJ   				 				 				Dallas says:		 April 25, 2011 at 11:53 AM
  		Whats up Doc?
 Sorry this is off topic, but I am an off topic kinda guy.  I was  playing around with the UAH and RSS data while trying to beat the  Openoffice suite into submission, when I noticed the lower atmosphere  trends extended to 2100 were remarkable stable for the tropics, global  and even the USA 48 (~1.5 by 2100).  By comparison the upper atmosphere  trends are all over the map.  
 I have been toying with the Tropopause, because it has a touch more  complex radiative balance issue than most layers, and wondered if there  was a way to filter the MSU/AMSU data for a better break at the  tropopause. That should result in a more stable upper temperature  series. It doesnt look like it would all that simple to do.  It might  be more informative if it is doable though. 
 Dallas  				 				 				Ray says:		 April 26, 2011 at 2:24 AM
  		The cumulative AQUA CH5 anomaly remains at about -0.1c, as at April  23rd.  This still points to a UAH anomaly of about + 0.04c, if the past  relationship holds true, although there are signs that the anomaly may  be entering a downward phase for the last few days of the month.  				 				 				Ray says:		 April 26, 2011 at 2:55 AM
  		Ive just noticed that the NOAA-15 near surface layer (ch04) and  other channels are now showing data again, on the discover website, from  April 20th. Error!

----------


## Marc

*On Recent Criticisms of My Research* 
              April 2nd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.                                 
One of the downsides of going against the supposed “consensus of  scientists” on global warming — other than great difficulty in getting  your research funded and published — is that you get attacked in the  media.  In the modern blogging era, this is now easier to do than ever. 
I have received many requests recently to respond to an extended blog critique by Barry Bickmore of my book, _The Great Global Warming Blunder_.    The primary theme of my book was to present evidence that scientists  have mixed up cause and effect when diagnosing feedbacks in the climate  system, and as a result could have greatly overestimated how sensitive  the climate system is to our addition of carbon dioxide to the  atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.   
For those interested, here is our most extensive peer reviewed and published evidence for my claim.
 But for now, instead of responding to blog posts,  I am devoting all  the time I can spare to responding to peer-reviewed and published  criticism of my work.  The main one is Andy Dessler’s paper in _Science_  from last fall, which claimed to find positive cloud feedback in the  same 10 years of NASA satellite radiative energy balance (CERES) data we  have been analyzing.   
In his paper, Dessler dismissed all of the evidence we presented with  a single claim: that since (1) the global temperature variations which  occurred during the satellite record (2000-2010) were mostly caused by  El Nino and La Nina, and (2) no one has ever demonstrated that “clouds  cause El Nino”, then there could not be a  clouds-causing-temperature-change contamination of his cloud feedback  estimate. 
But we now have clear evidence that El Nino and La Nina temperature  variations are indeed caused in large measure by changes in clouds, with  the cloud changes coming months in advance of the temperature changes.   
 And without going into detail, I will say it now appears that this is  not the only major problem with Dessler’s diagnosis of positive cloud  feedback from the data he presented.  Since we will also be submitting  this evidence to _Science_, and they are very picky about the newsworthiness of their articles, I cannot provide any details. 
Of course, if _Science_ refuses to publish it, that is another matter.  Dick Lindzen has recently told me _Science_ has been sitting on his critique of Dessler’s paper for months.  _Science_ has demonstrated an editorial bias against ’skeptical’ climate papers in recent years, something I hope they will correct. 
In the meantime, I will not be wasting much time addressing blog  criticisms of my work.  The peer-reviewed literature is where I must  focus my attention. 
0*68 Responses to “On Recent Criticisms of My Research” On Recent Criticisms of My Research « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.*

----------


## Marc

John, your comments are noted, yet just as meaningless as usual in this context I must say. 
As for your little graph I presume of your own personal doing, not copied like the one I post, can you tell me John how you collected the data?

----------


## johnc

> John, your comments are noted, yet just as meaningless as usual in this context I must say. 
> As for your little graph I presume of your own personal doing, not copied like the one I post, can you tell me John how you collected the data?

  The point you miss is much of what you post is just cut and paste, often without a word of explanation or introduction. At least most others go to the trouble of providing some connection to either an earlier post or just what they are trying to draw peoples attention to. :Doh:

----------


## chrisp

Marc, 
I see that you are hunting for short-term trends to support your views on AGW.   Variations from month to month doesn't make a lot of sense for tracking long-term trends. Since you've gone to the trouble of cutting and pasting a blog from another website (comments and all - even the author is expecting the temperature to rise again), why don't you use the latest one?   
Perhaps, next time you could try posting the hourly temperatures.  Say, from 3pm to 9pm.  I'm fairly sure that will show the cooling trend you are looking for. 
Also, I take it that you'll be the first to repost the graph when the temperature returns to the long-term trend?   
BTW, I think this is the same graph that Rod is also betting on to prove the world is cooling.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Tomorrow on _The Bolt Report_ on Ten at 10, and again at 4.30pm: *we nail some of the false prophets of global warming*. Niki Savva and former Labor speechwriter Dennis Glover on Turnbull and Rudd (just which is the biggest nuisance?), and we debate SlutWalk with organiser Clem Bastow. And theres Spin of the Week.   Tips for Saturday, May 28 | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  This will be hilarious!  :Biggrin:  
Will it be the oceans rising over the Sydney Opera House?
The "unstoppable global warming"?
The often reported death of the Great Barrier Reef?
The 50 million climate refugees?
The 100 metre ocean inundation of millions of Australian homes?
The deaths of all the children and grandchildren?
The end of the world? 
A warning to all those who feel the warming: You will probably not enjoy this. 
Having your cult exposed as fraudulent on national TV is always a painful experience.   :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  :Roflmao2:

----------


## ringtail

Cant wait, go the boltsta

----------


## chrisp

> This will be hilarious!      
> 			
> 				Tomorrow on _The Bolt Report_ on Ten at 10, and again at 4.30pm:  we nail some of the false prophets of global warming. Niki Savva and  former Labor speechwriter Dennis Glover on Turnbull and Rudd (just which  is the biggest nuisance?), and we debate SlutWalk with organiser Clem  Bastow. And there’s Spin of the Week. Tips for Saturday, May 28 | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog    Will it be the oceans rising over the Sydney Opera House?
> The "unstoppable global warming"?
> The often reported death of the Great Barrier Reef?
> The 50 million climate refugees?
> The 100 metre ocean inundation of millions of Australian homes?
> The deaths of all the children and grandchildren?
> The end of the world?

  I suppose he'll be following up with some programs on "Why smoking dosen't   cause cancer" and "Asbestos - no absolutely conclusive causal  proof  it  is harmful". 
Feel free to add any other non-scientifically supported analogy that you wish.   

> A warning to all those who feel the warming: You will probably not enjoy this. 
> Having your cult exposed as fraudulent on national TV is always a painful experience.

  I see that your stand-of-proof is highly flexible when it suits you! 
Who cares what Andrew Bolt "thinks" (to use the word very very loosely).   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I suppose he'll be following up with some programs on "Why smoking dosen't   cause cancer" and "Asbestos - no absolutely conclusive causal  proof  it  is harmful". 
> Feel free to add any other non-scientifically supported analogy that you wish.   
> I see that your stand-of-proof is highly flexible when it suits you! 
> Who cares what Andrew Bolt "thinks" (to use the word very very loosely).

  Watch it you might just learn something

----------


## ringtail

Why just a taste Boltsa. Should have dedicated the whole show to it. Definitely need a national televised debate on the subject, hosted by someone other than Tony Jones. Time to get the wool off peoples eyes.

----------


## chrisp

> Watch it you might just learn something

   

> Why just a taste Boltsa. Should have dedicated the whole show to it. Definitely need a national televised debate on the subject, hosted by someone other than Tony Jones. Time to get the wool off peoples eyes.

  In deference to Rod and Ringtail, I did watch the show. 
As to ringtail's comment, I doubt that he could fill a 'whole show' on the AGW topic.  The show as so superficial and didn't explore and analyse anything in detail.  The "fallacy" argument for AGW ignored long-term trends and ignored the time delay in such processes.  AND ignored all the science.  Oh well, I suppose it sounds good to the converted. 
The "debate" on the instability within the two parties was interesting.  Bolt seemed to be trying to manufacture an issue of instability in the Labor camp whereas the instability is really in the Libs.  He certainly doesn't seem to like Turnbull. 
It is just my opinion, but at this stage I'd reckon that the Libs would easily win government with Turnbull as the leader.  With Abbott as leader, they are betting on Gillard loosing government - and loosing very badly - to "win" government. 
The gaffe segment was amusing - Obama giving the speech; and Abbott welcoming Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, back. 
I summary, the program certainly isn't informative - and I doubt that it is meant to be.  I suppose there is a small market for a program to nurture anti-progressive and ignorant views.

----------


## ringtail

Actually, a senate inquiry would be better. Where both sides "experts" could be cross examined. I wont hold my breath though

----------


## chrisp

> Actually, a senate inquiry would be better. Where both sides "experts" could be cross examined. I wont hold my breath though

  An inquiry in to what?  Surely you are not questioning AGW?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> An inquiry in to what?  Surely you are not questioning AGW?

  I am sure he is and as he should. 
BTW the Libs will not have Turnbul back under any circumstance.  If they do the party will split.  He is hated amoung many lib voters.

----------


## ringtail

The real science proves AGW is a myth. All the alarmist have done put is ridiculous figures out there and are now manipulating data to try and prove their cause. The hockey stick is a perfect example, as is compressing a axis on a graph to produce a steep curve and showing steam vapour coming out of cooling towers -its all a fraud.

----------


## chrisp

> BTW the Libs will not have Turnbul back under any circumstance.  If they do the party will split.  He is hated amoung many lib voters.

  But it is not the Lib voters that they need to win government!  Lib voters will vote Lib regardless of who is the leader.  It is the people in the middle that they need.  Abbott only appeals to the hard-right-extremists (who are probably Lib/Nat voters already). 
Anyway, it is only my opinion, but I think the Libs would do very well with Turnbull as leader.

----------


## chrisp

> *The real science proves AGW is a myth.* All the alarmist have done put is ridiculous figures out there and are now manipulating data to try and prove their cause. The hockey stick is a perfect example, as is compressing a axis on a graph to produce a steep curve and showing steam vapour coming out of cooling towers -its all a fraud.

  The validity of your argument doesn't even get past the first sentence!  What "real science" proves AGW is a myth?  I doubt that you can find any support of that statement that holds water. 
Anyway, the world has moved on.  AGW is real and the question now is how we respond to AGW.

----------


## Hoff

> Abbott only appeals to the hard-right-extremists (who are probably Lib/Nat voters already).

   Yet he still managed to get more votes and win more seats than Julia.  Imagine if she hadn't treated the public as fools and lied to them so disgustingly.

----------


## ringtail

Spoken like a true alarmist. AGW is real because we say it is and you can all just conform. All you alarmists can take the moral highground, but it is a sandbank, and the tide is coming in.

----------


## chrisp

> Spoken like a true alarmist. AGW is real because we say it is and you can all just conform. All you alarmists can take the moral highground, but it is a sandbank, and the tide is coming in.

  Thanks for the invite to watch "The Bolt Report".  I think I'll stick with the real world where we recognise AGW and work out what to do about it (even if it is a little uncomfortable), rather than a comfortable make-believe world where we pretend everything is just hunky-dory.  i.e. I'll take scientific finds over denialist paranoia any day . 
BTW, you better watch out for that "tide" - it isn't going the way you wish.   :Smilie:

----------


## ringtail

I think the general public and more specifically the skeptics, are just so frustrated that no one is willing to have a frank and open debate - televised or not. To say this matter is done and dusted is just wrong. It needs to be discussed openly if for no other reason than to give the general public both sides of the story and then they ( the public ) can have a informed opinion. To pay actors ( caton and blanchette) to preach to the masses is so TV week. Why are the believers so afraid to be scrutinised ? Surely if they are that confident with the " settled science" they would have no problem with a open forum. Its no wonder that things get heated between the two sides when only one side receives a medium (TV) in which to display their wares. Lets get it out in the open ( even if it is a little uncomfortable).

----------


## johnc

> Yet he still managed to get more votes and win more seats than Julia. Imagine if she hadn't treated the public as fools and lied to them so disgustingly.

  Spoken as if you feel cheated however dont fall for the spin. The Australian constitution doesn't mention parties in the sense of the modern party system, the group with the majority in the lower house get to form government and that is what happened. Having a different mix in the upper house has the result of the senate fullfilling its role as the house of review. It doesn't matter what we think of the result it was done according to the constitution and that means we have a valid result that will run full term if it can hold itself together. Yes, the two right wing parties do have more seats in the upper house at present but they don't have the majority in either house. 
As for lies don't be naive they all bend the truth to suit themselves with unending spin and they should all be condemed for it.

----------


## johnc

> I think the general public and more specifically the skeptics, are just so frustrated that no one is willing to have a frank and open debate - televised or not. To say this matter is done and dusted is just wrong. It needs to be discussed openly if for no other reason than to give the general public both sides of the story and then they ( the public ) can have a informed opinion. To pay actors ( caton and blanchette) to preach to the masses is so TV week. Why are the believers so afraid to be scrutinised ? Surely if they are that confident with the " settled science" they would have no problem with a open forum. Its no wonder that things get heated between the two sides when only one side receives a medium (TV) in which to display their wares. Lets get it out in the open ( even if it is a little uncomfortable).

  Both sides get plenty of media time, in fact if anything the skeptics do exceptionally well considering the scientific end of the debate has only a small number as a percentage that fall firmly in the skeptic camp, you could argue that the skeptic side is over represented. The thinking end is more interested in proper anylsis regardless of what camp you are in, and those that challenge the data do have a roll to play. However putting your head in the sand and pretending nothing is happening is very Ostrich like because things are happening around us and it is important that we know why and what we can do in the future. Climate change is only part of that but the rabid end distorts decent policy response to things like peak oil, resource depletion, population and all the other matters that we should be focusing on. Right at the moment the strenthening dollar is threatening to do far more damage than any two bob carbon tax. Our other major problem here is that eventually when the mining boom turns down we are going to have some very larger problems funding government outlays as a result in a massive increase in spending over the past decade particularly in middle class welfare. What we should be worried about is the lack of spending on infrastructure and the fact that neither side has a vision for where we are heading as a country and which industries will provide employment for a growing population. The carbon tax is a sideshow, it does not have the potential to make the impact that Mr Abbot would have you believe.

----------


## Hoff

> Spoken as if you feel cheated however dont fall for the spin. The Australian constitution doesn't mention parties in the sense of the modern party system, the group with the majority in the lower house get to form government and that is what happened. Having a different mix in the upper house has the result of the senate fullfilling its role as the house of review. It doesn't matter what we think of the result it was done according to the constitution and that means we have a valid result that will run full term if it can hold itself together. Yes, the two right wing parties do have more seats in the upper house at present but they don't have the majority in either house. 
> As for lies don't be naive they all bend the truth to suit themselves with unending spin and they should all be condemed for it.

  Actually, spoken like someone who was responding to the quote I quoted - that Abbott only appeals to hard right extremists.  Wasn't a comment on our system of government which I understand perfectly well. 
With regard to you characterising Julia's lie as bending the truth - you are a very generous spirit.  I have no doubt that the election result would have been different if only she were honest.

----------


## Marc

*Global-warming Alarmism Dying a Slow Death 
More to Come*
The fight is not over yet. But no matter what happens in the coming  months and years — trials and convictions for climate swindlers, or  taxes on breathing for everyone on Earth — the alarmist campaign will  eventually fall.   
“There’s a lot more to come out yet about the [Climategate] e-mails, and  how they cooked the computer models,” said Canadian climatologist Dr.  Tim Ball, who emphasized that he never received money from oil companies  and that he was also against the “global cooling” alarmism of a few  decades ago.  
He told The New American that the Internet played a pivotal role in  exposing the scandals, and that this phenomenon will continue. “It’s no  coincidence that so much of what was exposed came through the blogs.…  The mainstream media is ignoring the issues almost completely. And it’s  because most of them were complicit and bought into the argument.” As a  consequence, the complicit media is becoming increasingly irrelevant.   
But the battle against the alarmist agenda will likely be protracted and  difficult. “It won’t die — it simply won’t die — until the economies  start to suffer,” Dr. Ball said about the carbon tax and cap-and-trade  schemes, citing Spain’s experience with new “green jobs” causing an  overall loss of jobs as an example of the economic price of alarmist  policies. But, he added, the truth will inevitably triumph eventually.  
“Reality always comes through, sooner or later, it’s just that sometimes  it takes a long time,” agreed Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, one of the  world’s foremost experts on sea levels and the head of the  Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University until  he retired in 2005. He told The New American that as an expert reviewer  for the sea-level section of the IPCC report, he had the opportunity to  understand the inner workings of the IPCC. And it is doomed to fail  eventually. 
The sea-level chapter he was supposed to review was “of very poor  quality,” Mörner said. And the hysteria surrounding sea-level rises,  like most of the IPCC scaremongering, “is not grounded in reality.” The  panel chose authors based on loyalty, not credentials, Mörner explained.  And though he warned the IPCC of errors, they mostly ignored the  advice. But the anti-science attitude came back to haunt them.  Climategate was “wonderful,” Mörner exclaimed. He called the scandal an  “iceberg of shame,” noting that there was still much to be discovered.  
“The first thing which has to come now is the restoration of scientific  values,” he said, explaining that the climate campaign had  “autocratically” tried to impose beliefs on the public that were not  based on science. “Al Gore is a salesman, not a scientist, and we don’t  need salesmen.” Mörner is optimistic.   
Despite all the trouble and wasted resources expended on the movement,  there is certainly a bright side emerging as the climate-crisis crusade  self-destructs. For one, more people may begin to think twice before  blindly trusting governments and the media. Additionally, the whole  episode illustrates the crumbling gate-keeping ability of “Big Media” in  the age of the Internet. This is an encouraging sign for the future of  freedom.  
Scaremongering to swindle the public out of money and freedom is an old  trick. But hopefully, people will know better than to fall for it again  next time.

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc

*http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpre...n-credit-firm/*   *Revealed: scandal of carbon credit firm April 10, 2011*  _Posted by honestclimate in Discussions. 
Tags: carbon credits, carbon neutral, climate change, global warming trackback_  *Revealed: scandal of carbon credit firm*  Sydney Morning Herald
8 April 2011
 A SYDNEY carbon credits company thought to have been running some of  the world’s biggest offsets deals appears to be a fake, shifting paper  certificates instead of saving forests and cutting greenhouse emissions.
 Shift2neutral says it has made high-profile events such as the  Australian PGA golf championship and the Sydney Turf Club’s world-first  ”green race day” carbon neutral.
 But deals to generate more than $1 billion worth of carbon credits by  saving jungles from logging in the Philippines, the Congo and across  south-east Asia do not seem to exist.
 The global network of investors and carbon offset certifiers supposed  to be brokering deals with foreign presidents and the World Bank can be  traced to a modest office in a shopping village in Westleigh, staffed  by shift2neutral’s founder, Brett Goldsworthy.
 Mr Goldsworthy insists every certificate for carbon offsets he issues  has value and represents a real reduction in greenhouse emissions  somewhere in the world. That is what he has told puzzled investors and  companies who have unwittingly sought to reduce their carbon footprint.
 But when pressed for examples of any specific project that has cut  emissions to generate the carbon credits the company offers for sale, he  was unable to provide even one.
 Read the rest here

----------


## Marc

*Revealed: scandal of carbon credit firm « An Honest Climate Debate*   *Revealed: scandal of carbon credit firm April 10, 2011*  _Posted by honestclimate in Discussions. 
Tags: carbon credits, carbon neutral, climate change, global warming trackback_  *Revealed: scandal of carbon credit firm*  Sydney Morning Herald
8 April 2011
 A SYDNEY carbon credits company thought to have been running some of  the worlds biggest offsets deals appears to be a fake, shifting paper  certificates instead of saving forests and cutting greenhouse emissions.
 Shift2neutral says it has made high-profile events such as the  Australian PGA golf championship and the Sydney Turf Clubs world-first  green race day carbon neutral.
 But deals to generate more than $1 billion worth of carbon credits by  saving jungles from logging in the Philippines, the Congo and across  south-east Asia do not seem to exist.
 The global network of investors and carbon offset certifiers supposed  to be brokering deals with foreign presidents and the World Bank can be  traced to a modest office in a shopping village in Westleigh, staffed  by shift2neutrals founder, Brett Goldsworthy.
 Mr Goldsworthy insists every certificate for carbon offsets he issues  has value and represents a real reduction in greenhouse emissions  somewhere in the world. That is what he has told puzzled investors and  companies who have unwittingly sought to reduce their carbon footprint.
 But when pressed for examples of any specific project that has cut  emissions to generate the carbon credits the company offers for sale, he  was unable to provide even one.
 Read the rest here

----------


## Marc

UN Coverup of "Climate Refugees" Scandal Fails | Print |  E-mail		 					     	 		 			Written by Alex Newman		 		   	    	 		Monday, 18 April 2011 12:59	      2  The United Nations was caught attempting to cover up evidence  of its wildly inaccurate prediction that there would be some 50 million  so-called “climate refugees” by 2010, embarrassing the international  body already under fire for its misleading global-warming advocacy.
     	The UN Environment Program (UNEP) had warned  in 2005 that sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification  caused by man-made climate change would lead to massive population  disruptions. In a map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable, such as the Caribbean. 
	But it turns out that, not only did those areas fail to produce any  “climate refugees,” their populations are actually booming. The first  reporter to pick up the story, Gavin Atkins with _Asian Correspondent_, reviewed some of the most recent censuses and made a mockery of the UN’s alarmist claims. 
	For example, the population of the Bahamas, a low-lying nation of  islands off the coast of Florida, grew by more than 50,000 people  according to a 2010 census.  It now has more than 350,000 — up from around 300,000 a decade ago. The  population of St. Lucia grew by five percent during the same period.  The population of the Seychelles and the Solomon Islands grew  significantly as well. 
	“Meanwhile, far from being places where people are fleeing, no fewer  than the top six of the very fastest growing cities in China, Shenzzen,  Dongguan, Foshan, Zhuhai, Puning and Jinjiang, are absolutely smack bang  within the shaded areas identified as being likely sources of climate  refugees,” noted Atkins in the piece, entitled “What happened to the climate refugees?” A similar situation was observed in America. 
	Atkins concluded that “a very cursory look at the first available  evidence seems to show that the places identified by the UNEP as most at  risk of having climate refugees are not only not losing people, they  are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world.” More  census data will be available later this year. 
	After Atkins’ April 11 report, news outlets around the world began to  pick up the story. And the UN responded immediately with a half-baked  attempt at damage control. But instead of admitting its predictions were  way off the mark, the organization tried to take down all evidence that it had ever made them. Now it claims the 50 million “environmental refugees” will materialize by 2020. 
	But it was too late to hide the truth. Google has a function that  allows people to view a “cached” file of a web page even after it is  taken down. So the UN’s bogus prediction is still available for the world to see online. And critics have pounced on the story, lambasting the global body for its false alarmist claims.   
	Meteorologist Anthony Watts, who runs the world's most-visited website  about climate science, called the incident “government idiocy at its  finest.” In a piece entitled “The UN ‘disappears’ 50 million climate refugees, then botches the cover-up,”  Watts said attempts to conceal evidence of its bogus prediction were  “hilariously inept,” adding that “they’ve now brought even more distrust  onto the UN.”  _Investor’s Business Daily_ also savaged the  UN in an editorial, calling its claims a hoax. “The endless fraud  perpetrated by the climate hucksters knows no bounds. Neither does the  inaccuracy of climate models that cannot predict the past,” explained  the piece. “Yet they keep trying, like the cartoon prophet carrying the  sign predicting the world will end tomorrow.” 
	The UN and its climate “science” have been exposed  in recent years as misleading, alarmist, and in many instances,  completely false. Its most recent IPCC report made significant errors on  everything ranging from the percent of the Netherlands that is below  sea level to an outrageous claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt  by 2035. Many of its errors were later shown to be taken from alarmist  organizations’ press releases. 
	At least one critic suggested  in a piece about the climate-refugee scandal that sinister motives  behind all of the fear-mongering could be identified. “One is to  increase the institutional UN’s governance responsibilities, authority,  legitimacy, and power,” wrote columnist Kenneth Anderson for _FavStocks_.  “The other is to increase the amount of money that runs through UN  mechanisms from rich countries to poor countries, with an administrative  cut to the UN itself.” 
	But despite the exposure, the international organization is still acting as if nothing had happened. It continues hosting expensive conferences around the world to deal with allegedly man-made climate change even as scientists ridicule the theories underpinning the hysteria. 
	As the organization and its claims become ever-more discredited in the  public mind, fewer and fewer people are taking notice of its aims. But  even with the global-warming movement on the verge of collapse and the exposure of its links to eugenics efforts, proponents of climate theories are becoming increasingly militant, hysterical, and irrational. 
	And the danger of an international treaty limiting economic activity,  transferring wealth, and creating global taxes still persists. The next  major UN climate summit is set for December in Durban, South Africa. And  by 2012 — the 20th anniversary of the global-warming campaign — the UN hopes to have its “green world order” fully in place.

----------


## ringtail

But we have to do something, what will happen to Michael Catons grandkiddies ???

----------


## chrisp

Psst, Marc, don't bother doing the cut-and-paste of web opinions.  I just can't be bothered reading them. 
It is easy to find just about any opinion article on the web on any view one has (e.g. the world is ending - last weekend!).  However, opinion and fact are quite different. 
I'm interested in your opinions and views - particularly if you can make a reasonable argument - *but please leave those web opinions of others where you found them*.  They are just outright boring and don't contribute anything meaningful.   :Smilie:

----------


## watson

All interesting stuff the cut & paste and quoting TV performers.
I reckon you should watch a show this week on Gem.
The Bermuda Triangle Exposed.
It'll have the same amount of factual information. 
Cheeses Twice. 
I'll go now  :Hahaha:

----------


## johnc

> Actually, spoken like someone who was responding to the quote I quoted - that Abbott only appeals to hard right extremists. Wasn't a comment on our system of government which I understand perfectly well. 
> With regard to you characterising Julia's lie as bending the truth - you are a very generous spirit. I have no doubt that the election result would have been different if only she were honest.

  Not a generous spirit, we have Julia's quote which sits in the same basket as children overboard and every other lie served up by politicians of all sides in their desperate lust for power. For Abbot it is the fact he doesn't care if Australia goes down the toilet so long as his no approach makes him PM. For Labor it is the desperate attempt to present a small target to stay in power. A pox on both houses while they all sell the country short.

----------


## chrisp

> All interesting stuff the cut & paste and quoting TV performers.
> I reckon you should watch a show this week on Gem.
> The Bermuda Triangle Exposed.
> It'll have the same amount of factual information. 
> Cheeses Twice. 
> I'll go now

  I suppose it just goes to prove a point - even Marc doesn't even read what Marc has posted!  He has posted the same cut-and-paste twice! 
Not that I actually read it.  :Smilie:

----------


## johnc

> I suppose it just goes to prove a point - even Marc doesn't even read what Marc has posted! He has posted the same cut-and-paste twice! 
> Not that I actually read it.

  Not only that but sometimes when you can be bothered following one of the links you find the opposing argument as well, I doubt he reads much of the rubbish he puts up at all.

----------


## Rod Dyson

No they would implode and the party would split.  There is no way on gods earth Turnbul will lead the libs again.  So stop dreaming.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Anyway, the world has moved on.  AGW is real and the question now is how we respond to AGW.

  Making stupid statements like this assures that you will be held to ridicule by thinking people. 
This is a dam joke trying to pull this off.  it just shows how shallow your thoughts on this are.

----------


## johnc

> No they would implode and the party would split. There is no way on gods earth Turnbul will lead the libs again. So stop dreaming.

  They said that about Howard once, never say never in politics.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Spoken as if you feel cheated however dont fall for the spin. The Australian constitution doesn't mention parties in the sense of the modern party system, the group with the majority in the lower house get to form government and that is what happened. Having a different mix in the upper house has the result of the senate fullfilling its role as the house of review. It doesn't matter what we think of the result it was done according to the constitution and that means we have a valid result that will run full term if it can hold itself together. Yes, the two right wing parties do have more seats in the upper house at present but they don't have the majority in either house. 
> As for lies don't be naive they all bend the truth to suit themselves with unending spin and they should all be condemed for it.

  Come on Johnc even you can recognise a BLATANT LIE when you see one. 
Stop trying to defend this Lying B  by pointing out someone else once told a lie.

----------


## chrisp

> Making stupid statements like this assures that you will be held to ridicule by thinking people.

  Actually, I don't think I'd be held to ridicule by "thinking people" at all.  It is the unthinking people who seem to have trouble with my views.   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *Revealed: scandal of carbon credit firm « An Honest Climate Debate*   *Revealed: scandal of carbon credit firm April 10, 2011*  _Posted by honestclimate in Discussions. 
> Tags: carbon credits, carbon neutral, climate change, global warming trackback_  *Revealed: scandal of carbon credit firm*  Sydney Morning Herald
> 8 April 2011
>  A SYDNEY carbon credits company thought to have been running some of  the world’s biggest offsets deals appears to be a fake, shifting paper  certificates instead of saving forests and cutting greenhouse emissions.
>  Shift2neutral says it has made high-profile events such as the  Australian PGA golf championship and the Sydney Turf Club’s world-first  ”green race day” carbon neutral.
>  But deals to generate more than $1 billion worth of carbon credits by  saving jungles from logging in the Philippines, the Congo and across  south-east Asia do not seem to exist.
>  The global network of investors and carbon offset certifiers supposed  to be brokering deals with foreign presidents and the World Bank can be  traced to a modest office in a shopping village in Westleigh, staffed  by shift2neutral’s founder, Brett Goldsworthy.
>  Mr Goldsworthy insists every certificate for carbon offsets he issues  has value and represents a real reduction in greenhouse emissions  somewhere in the world. That is what he has told puzzled investors and  companies who have unwittingly sought to reduce their carbon footprint.
>  But when pressed for examples of any specific project that has cut  emissions to generate the carbon credits the company offers for sale, he  was unable to provide even one.
>  Read the rest here

  This is how all these scams will end up.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> They said that about Howard once, never say never in politics.

  No this one is a NEVER (at least while he is a warmist), there would be a mutiny in the party and it will split simply as that.  He is poison to the libs as a leader they know it.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Actually, I don't think I'd be held to ridicule by "thinking people" at all.  It is the unthinking people who seems to have trouble with my views.

  No mate that is where you are soooo wrong. It is making statements like this while your side are refusing to debate the issue is a major turn off to thinking people.  It invokes an imediate distrust and sets the bullchit meters running off the clock.  You just have no idea how this looks to people, your thinking will not allow you to see the damage you are doing to your cause.  I really want to see you keep doing this because it will turn off another then another.  People will demand the debate the warmist avoid like poison.   
Comments like this are made to try an bully people into sharing your views.  Yet I am sure you would be the first to scream if you kid was bullied at school.  You are doing no less than that. 
We want an election on this issue and we want the alarmists to open debate the issue.  Nothing less will do.  If they are so certain they would have no issue with an open debate.

----------


## Rod Dyson

This is the direction this scam is going.   

> DEAUVILLE, France:   Russia, Japan and Canada told  the G8 they would not join a  second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks   this year and the US reiterated it would  remain outside the treaty, European  diplomats have said. 
> Read more: Kyoto Protocol deal loses four big nations | Russia Japan Canada

  It is a dead duck that LIAR we have for a PM just does not see it yet.

----------


## ringtail

:What she said: 
If they are so certain they would have no issue with an open debate.

----------


## johnc

> No this one is a NEVER (at least while he is a warmist), there would be a mutiny in the party and it will split simply as that. He is poison to the libs as a leader they know it.

  Maybe to you, he appeals to the small l Liberal, an articulate speaker and a thinker, it is to early to write him off. His current appeal is to do with public perception and that shifts over time, as does political direction. The party mutiny is an over reaction, Abbot has created deep divisions with in the party that he will have trouble controlling as well, but they will not lead to mutiny either. The Libs prefered weapon of choice is a quick execution and then back to business as usual. If you are worried about anyone look to Barnaby Joyce, he is often inarticulate, mangles his message and numbers and often appears angry and agitated, a loose cannon of Lathamesque proportions who runs the risk of exiting the same way doing damage to his team in the process. He is a bigger worry than Mr Turnbull.

----------


## Marc

The facts of the matter are that global warming is a fraud.
The facts of the matter are that AGW supporters are a cult that nods and wink to each other "for the cause" and thinks that "the force is with them". 
Eppur si muove. 
(Lets see who is the first to say that Galileo did not say the above)    

> Psst, Marc, don't bother doing the cut-and-paste of web opinions.  I just can't be bothered reading them.  _Psst, Chris...you are not the center of the universe_ 
> It is easy to find just about any opinion article on the web on any view one has (e.g. the world is ending - last weekend!).  However, opinion and fact are quite different.  _Psst Chris, what about addressing the facts outlined in my last post?_ or any other post for that matter.

----------


## ringtail

http://podcasts.mrn.com.au.s3.amazon...imothyball.mp3 
Listen and learn

----------


## Marc

Dual posting is a website matter. The system accepts the initial post yet  appears not to, and instructs you to do it again in xx seconds. Now that  _is_ funny. 
As for other people's opinion, when it is true that you  can find anything you want on the web, I take the views of Dr Spencer, or  any  of the other authors over those who are just parroting what they like to hear  anytime. 
Usually the loosing side in a debate resorts to attacking the  messenger rather than debating the message. I avoid as much as possible to  question the credentials of the authors posted by others on this thread, (cut  and paste as they all are). 
 I rather address their findings or find  opposing views. Everyone on this thread copies what they find appealing to their  point of view, I don't see any authors listed on this website. Furthermore I can  say that perhaps I am the only one who has tertiary studies in Climatology. If  someone else has , I would like to know.

----------


## chrisp

> The facts of the matter are that global warming is a fraud. The facts of the matter are that AGW supporters are a cult that nods and wink to each other "for the cause" and thinks that "the force is with them".

  It is not that "the force" is with us, it is that "*the science*" is with us.  :Smilie:  
Actually, it is the other way around, we believe in AGW because that is what the science says.  What is the basis of your belief that AGW is a fraud?  (Hint: you can't use science - we have that on our "side").  :Smilie:    

> Eppur si muove. 
> (Lets see who is the first to say that Galileo did not say the above)

  Who knows?  (and why are you asking?) 
Judging by the age of your views, it sounds like you might have been there in person.  Perhaps you can tell us?  :Rolleyes:

----------


## johnc

> The facts of the matter are that global warming is a fraud.
> The facts of the matter are that AGW supporters are a cult that nods and wink to each other "for the cause" and thinks that "the force is with them". 
> Eppur si muove. 
> (Lets see who is the first to say that Galileo did not say the above)

  No, the facts are that the denier camp doesn't like facts, well not scientific ones from the mainstream anyway. :No:  
What is the context of your Latin phrase? :Confused:  it's attribution is supposedly (yes i did google) to the inquisition that could not accept the science that the world does indeed move. Is the connection the inability of the denier camp to accept the majority scientific view despite the weight of evidence. Although the point as usual is so vague it has no meaning. did you get excited when you found it and feel an urge for show and tell perhaps.

----------


## ringtail

http://podcasts.mrn.com.au.s3.amazon...imothyball.mp3    
I'll post this again on the current page in case it was missed. Its is a long interview but absolute gold. If this doesn't sow even the tiniest seed of doubt into a alarmists mind there is something seriously wrong.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It is not that "the force" is with us, it is that "*the science*" is with us.  
> Actually, it is the other way around, we believe in AGW because that is what the science says.  What is the basis of your belief that AGW is a fraud?  (Hint: you can't use science - we have that on our "side").    
> Who knows?  (and why are you asking?) 
> Judging by the age of your views, it sounds like you might have been there in person.  Perhaps you can tell us?

  Oh chrisp, chrisp, you only think science is ONLY on your side.  That is your problem you are blind to any science that you don't agree with.

----------


## chrisp

> Oh chrisp, chrisp, you only think science is ONLY on your side.  That is your problem you are blind to any science that you don't agree with.

  Rod, 
The sheer bulk of science, and just about every reputable scientific body in the world supports the AGW theory - and NONE disagree with AGW.  The science that is anti-AGW is fringe.  I'll happily accept anti-AGW science that is reputable. 
So, why do you support the anti-AGW position?  If you are impartial, it can't be the science.

----------


## ringtail

I take it that you have not listened to the interview then chrisp ? If you had , your last post may have read differently

----------


## johnc

> I take it that you have not listened to the interview then chrisp ? If you had , your last post may have read differently

  Prof Tim Ball is a retired professor of geography and a very prolific writer for the anti AGW lobby. He makes some very fanciful claims but he has never been as far as I konw part of anything other than the lunatic fringe. however he does do a good line on conspiracy theories along with Ozone depletion never happened amongst others. 
Here is an extract from a 2007 blog while everyone is posting little snippets here is a taste of the reaction to the amazing Mr Ball.  *Why Tim Ball is Wrong* 
(c) 2007 by Barton Paul Levenson   
Dr. Timothy Ball is a retired (since 1996) University of Winnipeg professor of geography, though he lists himself as "Emeritus Professor of Climatology." He is also an often-quoted global warming skeptic. One of his most famous lines is that "[T]he global temperature has declined since 1998 while human addition and levels of CO2 continue to rise." Deniers often summarize this quote as "Global warming stopped in 1998!"
Let's examine this assertion.
First of all, 1998 was an exceptionally hot year because it was an El Nino year. The choice of dating from 1998, when we actually have more than 120 years of time series data available, is called "cherry-picking," and is considered a mistake in data analysis. You can't pick out _part_ of the data that seems to support your hypothesis, you have to use _all_ of the data. Dr. Ball must have taken some kind of course in statistics in his years as a scientist; he must know that basing a trend on nine years of data when 120 years are available is a beginner's mistake that would get him a flunking grade in any introductory data analysis class. But let's allow his cherry-picked start date and examine the numbers.
Here are the mean global annual temperature anomalies (in hundredths of a degree) for the years 1998 through 2006, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies:  
19987119994620004120015720026820036720046020057620  0665  
I entered these columns into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and ran a linear regression of the anomalies on the years. As expected from the small sample size, the regression was statistically insignificant (p = 0.22). But -- here's the kicker -- what trend seems to exist in the data is _UP,_ not _DOWN._ The regression equation is:
Anom = -3742.577778 + 1.9 Year
I.e., on average, the temperature anomaly increased by 0.019 degrees K. each year in the period discussed. This brings up another point about statistical analysis -- you can't tell a trend from drawing a line from the starting point to the end point. That gives too much weight to "outliers" instead of weighing all the points equally. What you do is what I did -- run a linear regression. And if you do that, Dr. Ball's idea turns out to be wrong. The trend is up. Not in a statistically significant way, though it becomes very significant indeed if you run the regression from, say, 1880 to 2006. But up, not down. So global warming did not stop in 1998, and Dr. Ball, and anyone else who uses the line "Global warming stopped in 1998!" is *WRONG.*

----------


## PhilT2

> I take it that you have not listened to the interview then chrisp ? If you had , your last post may have read differently

  
Tim Ball hasn't had a lot of success in the courts before, it will be interesting to see how he goes this time. he doesn't sound like he is looking foward to his big chance to back up his allegation of fraud against Mann. Considering that the hockey stick article was published in 1998 nobody else seems to have been able to come up with something concrete either. Seems to me that if you want to call someone a fraud then you either produce the evidence or stfu. It's one thing to disagree or believe some math is incorrect but to make an accusation of fraud means you have proof of malicious intent. It will be interesting to see Ball produce that. 
A lot of what Jones and Ball discussed seems wrong to me. Near the end they talked about the scarcity of ocean temp measurements like as if the Argos, Triton and other buoy networks didn't exist, same with the satellite measurements of remote regions. He made claims about the CO2 measurements that contradict all the established monitoring stations, without giving any source for his information. The claim that the hockey stick has not been verified cannot be sustained unless about eight other papers that found similar results can be discredited. To make sense of the Ball conspiracy theory you have to believe that all the meterology organisations in the world are conspiring with the Labor govt to bring in a tax that will almost certainly cause them to lose the next election. 
I have to give credit to Jones as a shock jock he is one of the best. The emotive language, the quick pace , the repitition of key points are all good tricks to get listeners emotionally involved and keep them tuned in for more.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Entertainment this good is never without cost

  It'll cost alright, wait till your Carbon Dioxide TAX power bills come in.  :Biggrin:    

> And in order of your questions: 
> Sure.... 
> No.  She's dissembling.  She is a politician.  That's what they do. 
> Hope not. Politicians reflect the people they represent. Half the country voted for her.  
> If you want to be simplistic...yes. 
> Umm.....that'd still be yes. 
> Yes. 
> Yes.  Still yes.

  Thanks champ, I'll call JULIAR a LIAR, you can call her a dissembler. 
I'll write to Samuel Baum and get him to rename his TV show "Dissemble to me".  :Biggrin:  
What other euphemisms do you use: Burglar=Unwanted guest???  :Doh:  
But for the record, less than 0.5% of the voting constituents voted for her.  If you meant her party, then it's just over a third (38%).  That's with her LIES.  Now that just some of these LIES are uncovered, it is barely floating above the 30% mark!  :Biggrin:  
You guys are not strong on the numbers stuff, so let me summarise: *70% of voters DO NOT want to vote for the current Labor government in power.* 
Real reflective, eh?   

> So that's your questions dealt with.....are you still unclear?

  No, crystal now, thanks!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It is just my opinion, but at this stage I'd reckon that the Libs would easily win government with Turnbull as the leader. With Abbott as leader, they are betting on Gillard loosing government - and loosing very badly - to "win" government.

  No wonder you keep just parroting "the science, the science" like chicken little.  If you can't understand even rudimentary numbers like those already provided, we certainly shouldn't expect you to look at the numbers actually behind your parroting of the "the science, the science".   

> So, exactly how would the good Mr Turnbull cool down the Planet Earth by making his ETS "work"? 
> If he understands "the science" as you say, he would understand that this is what's allegedly required. 
> Please explain???   
> The last two-party results under Turnbull: 
> Labor: 57
> Coalition: 43 
> The last two-party results under Abbott: 
> Labor: 44
> Coalition: 56 
> ...

  SAY YES! 
To a new election.  :Biggrin:

----------


## PhilT2

> It'll cost alright, wait till your Carbon Dioxide TAX power bills come in.    
> Thanks champ, I'll call JULIAR a LIAR, you can call her a dissembler. 
> I'll write to Samuel Baum and get him to rename his TV show "Dissemble to me".  
> What other euphemisms do you use: Burglar=Unwanted guest???  
> But for the record, less than 0.5% of the voting constituents voted for her. If you meant her party, then it's just over a third (38%). That's with her LIES. Now that just some of these LIES are uncovered, it is barely floating above the 30% mark!  
> You guys are not strong on the numbers stuff, so let me summarise: *70% of voters DO NOT want to vote for the current Labor government in power.* 
> Real reflective, eh?   
> No, crystal now, thanks!

  What percentage of that 70% voted greens? And now only 31 days till the greens take the balance of power in the senate, a position they will most likely hold for the next six years. Which means that Abbott will not be able to remove the carbon tax even though he has said he will. Does that make him a liar if he can't keep that promise?  
Just something to compare the Ball nonsense to. YouTube - &#x202a;John Abraham: Radio Interview&#x202c;&rlm;

----------


## chrisp

> I take it that you have not listened to the interview then chrisp ? If you had , your last post may have read differently

  Hi Ringtail, 
No, I haven't listened to that interview yet.  I'll try and get around to it when I have a chance. 
But, just for the record, I don't particularly consider the Alan Jones Breakfast program a quality source of information.  You may can to have a look at Media Watch Media Watch: Lessons in hyperbolic gestures (30/05/2011) and have a read for yourself. 
I don't consider Timothy Ball to be particularly reputable or impartial on AGW.   

> The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$  2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about  climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate  change by outright denial of the evidence".  In 2006, the Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw  funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the  media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to "politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate. Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Each to his own, I suppose.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The validity of your argument doesn't even get past the first sentence!  What "real science" proves AGW is a myth?  I doubt that you can find any support of that statement that holds water. 
> Anyway, the world has moved on.  AGW is real and the question now is how we respond to AGW.

  There is no such thing as real science, there is just science.  The science that proves the AGW hypothesis is a myth is contained in all of the IPCC reports, and every peer-reviewed scientific paper ever published on the subject.  Had you heeded my advice all through this thread and learned something about the scientific method, as opposed to just parroting "the science, the science", you would realise this. 
But let's try again. 
A handfull of scientists proposed and supported a hypothesis called the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis. 
Now, some of these scientists lied (sorry, dissembled), cheated, hid data, "lost" data, fudged data, doctored graphs, avoided scrutiny and obfuscated, and they still could not produce a single piece of evidence proving this farce. 
Not a single statistic in a single study. 
None. 
Nil. 
0.   :Biggrin:  
There is zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis! 
That is "the science", as you say. 
Everything else is opinion, however well informed or ill informed that opinion may be. 
Your oft referred to "consensus" is a group of people with the same opinions. 
There is a consensus of the "believers". 
There is a consensus of the "sceptics". 
Neither of these are proof. 
The Null stands. 
Therefore your argument does not.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> What percentage of that 70% voted greens? And now only 31 days till the greens take the balance of power in the senate, a position they will most likely hold for the next six years. Which means that Abbott will not be able to remove the carbon tax even though he has said he will. Does that make him a liar if he can't keep that promise?  
> Just something to compare the Ball nonsense to. YouTube - &#x202a;John Abraham: Radio Interview&#x202c;&rlm;

  I smell a double comming on in a future election  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Thanks for the invite to watch "The Bolt Report".  I think I'll stick with the real world where we recognise AGW and work out what to do about it (even if it is a little uncomfortable), rather than a comfortable make-believe world where we pretend everything is just hunky-dory.  i.e. I'll take scientific finds over denialist paranoia any day .

  Wouldn't want you to miss out on the highest rating political discussion show on Australian TV.  Insiders had a ten year head start and has been number 1 by a country mile, until the Bolta started highlighting "The Inconvenient Truth".   

> It seems many of you have switched to watching _The Bolt Report_ at 4.30pm, rather than 10am - 178,000 to 101,000. 
>   Cumulative audience yesterday  _The Bolt Report_:  279,000 (up 12,000).  _Insiders_ (ABC1 and ABC24) : 225,000This week’s ratings | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  I wonder what lunatic climate crazy's he'll denounce next week?  :Rotfl:    

> BTW, you better watch out for that "tide" - it isn't going the way you wish.

  Numbers again champ, concentrate now:   

> _Q. Do you support or oppose the Governments recent announcement to introduce a carbon pricing scheme from 1 July 2012, which will require industries to pay a tax based on the amount of carbon pollution they emit?_

  First, spot all the LIES.  Pricing scheme?, not TAXATION scheme! Industries to pay a tax?, not consumers to pay! Carbon pollution?, not odourless, clear healthy Carbon Dioxide! 
But in spite of these LIES:   

> *38% support* the Governments proposed carbon pricing scheme and *48% oppose*.  Support for Carbon Pricing « Essential Media Communications

  Imagine if they told the truth.  :Eek:  
But just in case you're still in doubt:   

> A rally organised by the Youth Climate Coalition in Martin Place yesterday was expected to attract more than 300 people but barely 50 took part. Cate's climate ads

  
Awesome "tide" mate.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I smell a double comming on in a future election

  Just because JULIAR's terrified of an election, these blokes think Mr Rabbit will be as well.  As soon as he's in, he'll introduce the repeal, then wait for the Greens to say no twice, then clear out the upper house.  After incumbency and dragging the many skeletons out of the closet, he may even pick up a few more seats in the lower house as well.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> To pay actors ( caton and blanchette) to preach to the masses is so TV week. Why are the believers so afraid to be scrutinised ? Surely if they are that confident with the " settled science" they would have no problem with a open forum.

  They have actors spruiking their wares?  :Roflmao2:   
Not scientists presenting empirical evidence?  :Confused:   
Why????????????????  
Because there is zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.  :No:   
Cate Blanchett is the closest they can get to credibility.  :Roflmao2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Its not just the let them eat cake attitude but the hypocrisy that makes this a bad career move:  _CATE Blanchett ...  has teamed with Packed to the Rafters actor Michael Caton to be the faces of a series of TV ads branded Say Yes, which will screen nationally from tonight._  _The ads are aimed at convincing the average Australian that a carbon tax is a good idea, even if it is tipped to raise the cost of living_  _In 2009, BRW estimated the Oscar winners wealth at $53 million, putting creature comforts like a $10 million mansion in Hunters Hill on Sydneys North Shore well within the budget_  _Its nice to have a multi-millionaire who wont be impacted by it telling you how great it is, Terri Kelleher, from The Australian Families Association, said...._  _Blanchett, who is actually an ambassador for luxury car brand Audi, could not be reached for comment._UPDATE 
>  The deceit is astonishing. Apparently, cutting emissions of carbon dioxide will somehow turn our allegedly black skies into the clearest youve ever seen:     
>   UPDATE    
>  Reader Walter spots another con in Blanchetts ad, which features an ominous power station that Gillards tax will allegedly shut down:  _ 
> Good Lord - isnt that Londons Battersea power station in the background?  Surely no one could be that stupid. _  
>   Reader Popular Front confirms - the power station that Gillards tax will shut is actually in Britain and actually closed already:    _Youre right Walter - it IS Battersea Power Station (now just a shell btw) and they ARE that stupid. Maybe they should add a giant inflatable pig over it, or maybe Richard III doing a swan dive off it._ _Reader the sunshine grocer explains: _   _ 
> They have shown the old Battersea power station in England because of the Australian Cringe Our coal fired power stations are not old and evil enough._ _So this ad claims falsely Gillards tax will clean the skies from soot which the ad falsely shows belching from a British station which the ad falsely claims is pumping out pollution today. Could it get any more deceitful? _   _UPDATE _  _Professor Sinclair Davidson wonders why the ad asks us to say yes to Gillards tax:_  _To the best of my knowledge there is no referendum or election scheduled before the proposed introduction of the carbon tax._ Count the lies in this one still from the ad in which Michael Caton and Cat Blanchett tell us to say yes to Julia Gillards carbon dioxide tax:    - No, our skies arent black with soot. 
>   - No, this tax wont clear the skies. 
>   - No, this isnt about carbon but carbon dioxide. 
> ...

  _  _ 
Oops, so much for credibility.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Both sides get plenty of media time, in fact if anything the skeptics do exceptionally well considering the scientific end of the debate has only a small number as a percentage that fall firmly in the skeptic camp, you could argue that the skeptic side is over represented.

  I'd be keen to hear your estimate of this fictional percentage, and how you came up with this?  :Biggrin:  
You obviously still have not read the thread yet.  :Doh:    

> The thinking end is more interested in proper anylsis regardless of what camp you are in, and those that challenge the data do have a roll to play.

  You don't "challenge" the data, you collect it.  Accuracy and scope of collection methods are always debatable, hence reliability and validity measures in the analysis and interpretation phases of statistics. 
What you certainly DO NOT DO is fudge the data, like the AGW hypothesis clowns have.  :No:    

> However putting your head in the sand and pretending *nothing is happening* is very Ostrich like because things are happening around us and it is important that we know why and what we can do in the future.

  Who has ever said "Nothing is happening"?  This is physically impossible, although philosophically could be contemplated.  :Whatonearth:    

> Climate change is only part of that

  Mate, the climate has always been changing, always will change.  No one doubts this. 
Are you referring specifically to the AGW hypothesis?  Otherwise things get complicated.  Science is specific like that.  :Biggrin:    

> but the rabid end distorts decent policy response to things like peak oil, resource depletion, population and all the other matters that we should be focusing on. Right at the moment the strenthening dollar is threatening to do far more damage than any two bob carbon tax. Our other major problem here is that eventually when the mining boom turns down we are going to have some very larger problems funding government outlays as a result in a massive increase in spending over the past decade particularly in middle class welfare. What we should be worried about is the lack of spending on infrastructure and the fact that neither side has a vision for where we are heading as a country and which industries will provide employment for a growing population.

  This (previously proved) incorrect rambling really has nothing to do with the AGW hypothesis or the Carbon Dioxide Tax.     

> The carbon tax is a sideshow, it does not have the *potential* to make the impact that Mr Abbot would have you believe.

  Really? Even at $1000.00 a tonne with no compensation to households? Are you saying there is absolutely no "potential" for the TAX *to rise* and any dubious compensation *to fall*? 
Admittedly this idiot government haven't even designed a scheme yet that they plan to legislate in a few weeks  :Doh: , but aside from this idiocy, are you really saying that there is not even the "potential" that Treasury modelling is accurate! Because that's what Mr Abbott has been quoting.  You did know this, didn't you?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

First, he proves that there has been no warming since 1998:   

> *Why Tim Ball is Wrong* 
> (c) 2007 by Barton Paul Levenson 
> As expected from the small sample size, the regression was statistically insignificant (p = 0.22).

  So this Levenson bozo admits by his own numbers that he can prove no warming since 1998, which means the previously measured "natural" warming trend stopped in 1998. 
But then he asserts the exact opposite to his results:   

> So global warming did not stop in 1998, and Dr. Ball, and anyone else who uses the line "Global warming stopped in 1998!" is *WRONG.*

  I've never heard of this Levenson character, but he's obviously an idiot. 
All he's done is proven: *Why Tim Ball is Right.*

----------


## Dr Freud

> Considering that the hockey stick article was published in 1998 nobody else seems to have been able to come up with something concrete either.

  Are you seriously still defending this farce? 
Do you seriously still believe "The Hockey Stick" scientific fraud perpetuated by Mann after his data "adjustments" is the most accurate data record of temperature over that time period? 
You might want to search this thread for "Hockey Stick" before you respond.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> What percentage of that 70% voted greens?

  About 12% and holding steady.  Once they capitulate to less than $40 a tonne starting price, with fuel and farming exempt, with compensation to the "big polluters", I'll laugh my @@@@ off.   :Roflmao:  
A token and symbolic gesture designed to guarantee doom to the entire Planet Earth by the once mighty environmental giants, The Greens Party! 
They'll be on the same slide the Democrats went through, compromising with the major parties eroding their voting base back to the centre.  As time goes on and we all don't drown by 100m ocean rises, then everyone will be laughing their arses off at all the greenie clowns.   

> And now only 31 days till the greens take the balance of power in the senate, a position they will most likely hold for the next six years. Which means that Abbott will not be able to remove the carbon tax even though he has said he will.

  Rudd didn't have the courage for a double dissolution. 
Labor have massively underestimated Abbott. 
Don't make their same mistake.  Abbott is a fighter, he has to concentrate on NOT fighting for what he believes in at every opportunity.  Remember his Mark Riley response?    

> Does that make him a liar if he can't keep that promise?

  Damn skippy!!! 
If the Carbon Dioxide Tax is introduced and he chooses to keep it after he wins the next election, then YES, he certainly will be a LIAR!  And rest assured he will lose many more votes and much more respect than JULIAR has for her LIES and BETRAYAL of all Aussies she blatantly LIED to before the last election. 
But rest assured, he has well and truly learned from her mistakes.   
JULIAR's legacy as the first female Prime Minister of Australia will be that of a shrill lying hand puppet.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". In 2006, the Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to "politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate. Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  You have to go back to 2006 via a Wikipedia reference to a 100% scientifically correct statement from Exxon that some prima donna's at RS found confronting.   
And these big bad scientists at RS, rather than trying to scientifically refute any of this information, go sulking to Exxon to stop funding other scientists who disagree with their opinion.  What a bunch of whining b-tches! 
But the much later CLIMATEGATE revelations showed why they were, and still are, so afraid to argue their opinions publicly.  :Doh:  
Truly pathetic behaviour by these clowns.  Imagine a scientific society afraid to argue it's scientific position, it's pathetic, truly pathetic!!!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Julia Gillard yesterday claimed Australia would not be alone in slashing its emissions:  _ ...because the world is moving too_Oh, really? Almost at that very moment, the _Guardian_ reported:  _Greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount last year, to the highest carbon output in history, putting hopes of holding global warming to safe levels all but out of reach, according to unpublished estimates from the International Energy Agency_  _Last year, a record 30.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide poured into the atmosphere, mainly from burning fossil fuel  a rise of 1.6Gt on 2009..._Thats a 1,600 million tonne increase in a single year. 
>   Now lets see what Gillards tax will evenutally do to stop this rise, if she really does manage to meet her increasingly impossible target of a five per cent cut of our 2000 emissions by 2020:  _...we are confident our plan will reduce Australias emissions by 160 million tonnes in 2020._ If the rest of the world is cutting, why are emissions rising? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Anybody think this TAX is going to make the Planet colder??? 
Anybody??? 
Anybody??? 
Surely one of the 30% who support this idiocy must be reading this??? 
What about you AGW hypothesis supporters, any of you support this TAX??? 
Fill in the blank:  Carbon Dioxide TAX=(   ) degrees colder on Planet Earth!  :Biggrin:

----------


## johnc

> It'll cost alright, wait till your Carbon Dioxide TAX power bills come in.    
> Thanks champ, I'll call JULIAR a LIAR, you can call her a dissembler. 
> I'll write to Samuel Baum and get him to rename his TV show "Dissemble to me".  
> What other euphemisms do you use: Burglar=Unwanted guest???  
> But for the record, less than 0.5% of the voting constituents voted for her. If you meant her party, then it's just over a third (38%). That's with her LIES. Now that just some of these LIES are uncovered, it is barely floating above the 30% mark!  
> You guys are not strong on the numbers stuff, so let me summarise: *70% of voters DO NOT want to vote for the current Labor government in power.* 
> Real reflective, eh?   
> No, crystal now, thanks!

  Who is not strong on the numbers Mr Freud? 
As always selective use of numbers tells only part of the story. Let's face it while Labor and the Greens polled 49.75% combined the Liberal/Nats managed only 43.31%. So let us keep things in perspective it is worth remembering the party that scored the most votes is actually Labor. As for polls, they shift with time at the moment they favour Mr Abbot, for a number of reasons, however your claimed 70% will not all want Mr Abbot either. 
Poll results for anyone that gives a flying fig First Preferences By Party

----------


## johnc

> First, he proves that there has been no warming since 1998:   
> So this Levenson bozo admits by his own numbers that he can prove no warming since 1998, which means the previously measured "natural" warming trend stopped in 1998. 
> But then he asserts the exact opposite to his results:   
> I've never heard of this Levenson character, but he's obviously an idiot. 
> All he's done is proven: *Why Tim Ball is Right.*

  It is amazing that if the view is the opposite to yours it is your natural reaction to attack the author, in actual fact Mr Ball is a crank and it is pretty obvious who the idiot is here Champ.

----------


## johnc

> I'd be keen to hear your estimate of this fictional percentage, and how you came up with this?  
> You obviously still have not read the thread yet.    
> You don't "challenge" the data, you collect it. Accuracy and scope of collection methods are always debatable, hence reliability and validity measures in the analysis and interpretation phases of statistics. 
> What you certainly DO NOT DO is fudge the data, like the AGW hypothesis clowns have.    
> Who has ever said "Nothing is happening"? This is physically impossible, although philosophically could be contemplated.    
> Mate, the climate has always been changing, always will change. No one doubts this. 
> Are you referring specifically to the AGW hypothesis? Otherwise things get complicated. Science is specific like that.    
> This (previously proved) incorrect rambling really has nothing to do with the AGW hypothesis or the Carbon Dioxide Tax.    
> Really? Even at $1000.00 a tonne with no compensation to households? Are you saying there is absolutely no "potential" for the TAX *to rise* and any dubious compensation *to fall*? 
> Admittedly this idiot government haven't even designed a scheme yet that they plan to legislate in a few weeks , but aside from this idiocy, are you really saying that there is not even the "potential" that Treasury modelling is accurate! Because that's what Mr Abbott has been quoting. You did know this, didn't you?

  My my, lets get really carried away, Mr Abbott has been rather selective and not all the numbers bandied about are from Treasury modelling by any means. $1000 a ton? are you on drugs? although we are yet to see a package which means we still don't have anything to base results on, it will have compensation for low income earners. We are yet to see the adjustment mechanism to allow big CO2 producers like the power generators to adjust.  
Mr Abbott is scaremongering, using whatever is handy, and I would love to see the Treasury model for the change to Wheatbix price, lets face it to say that all his numbers come from Treasury models is a poor joke, because that is not the case.

----------


## ringtail

Heres a thought, all you duck hugger alarmists out there, go and through yourself into the abyss ( that we are apparently on the edge of at the moment) and this will reduce our emissions nationally. You fools put all your faith in a man that believes the the earth will develop a brain and a nervous system for christs sake. As for the carbon tax, it is nothing more than typical communist labor and green policy to re distribute wealth to those who couldnt be bothered looking after themselves.

----------


## johnc

> Heres a thought, all you duck hugger alarmists out there, go and through yourself into the abyss ( that we are apparently on the edge of at the moment) and this will reduce our emissions nationally. You fools put all your faith in a man that believes the the earth will develop a brain and a nervous system for christs sake. As for the carbon tax, it is nothing more than typical communist labor and green policy to re distribute wealth to those who couldnt be bothered looking after themselves.

  Strong words there Mr Ringtail, a carbon tax is not unique to Australia and is based on the demand/supply equation. To be communist in fairness it would be a command style approach, not a market based one. The carbon tax is appropriate to a free or capitalist market approach. You are right about the abyss, our main problem is to many people, so tossing a large percentage of the worlds population into a large pit and back filling would be a solution albeit a rather brutal one. Obviously I would prefer all those who don't believe there is a problem to lead the way and be tossed in first. 
We have far to much middleclass welfare in this country as it is, if we just put an end to all that PartA PartB, newstart, pensions, sickness benefit, medicare, tax sops to wealthy retirees, HECS, youth allowance, drought assistance, flood relief and so on we could cut taxes and still have enough to fix the problem wouldn't we.

----------


## ringtail

You can't pick out _part_ of the data that seems to support your hypothesis, you have to use _all_  of the data. Dr. Ball must have taken some kind of course in statistics  in his years as a scientist; he must know that basing a trend on nine  years of data when 120 years are available is a beginner's mistake. 
The above is taken from johnc post # 6157  
This is all that the alarmists do, cherry pick data to try and prove the impossible

----------


## johnc

> You can't pick out _part_ of the data that seems to support your hypothesis, you have to use _all_ of the data. Dr. Ball must have taken some kind of course in statistics in his years as a scientist; he must know that basing a trend on nine years of data when 120 years are available is a beginner's mistake. 
> The above is taken from johnc post # 6157  
> This is all that the alarmists do, cherry pick data to try and prove the impossible

  The point I was making was not the data but the fact that Dr Ball is not a climate scientist but a professor in a different field, in fact from what I could work out he is not a scientist but a geography professor. Feel free to correct me if I was wrong, I think the author that I cherry picked had a physics qualification.

----------


## ringtail

Fortunately, the abyss doesnt exist, but surely a nice open cut mine will suffice.  Whats wrong with creating wealth ? The government makes the rules and those that become wealthy by playing by the rules have no case to answer.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You guys are not strong on the numbers stuff, so let me summarise: *70% of voters DO NOT want to vote for the current Labor government in power.*

  My numbers work fine. It just means that neither of us are keen on the current government so we do have something in common after all.  But since most Australian governments are unpopular with at least 50% of their population more that 80% of the time then that doesn't strike me as a unique situation...

----------


## johnc

> Fortunately, the abyss doesnt exist, but surely a nice open cut mine will suffice. Whats wrong with creating wealth ? The government makes the rules and those that become wealthy by playing by the rules have no case to answer.

  There is absolutely nothing wrong with creating wealth, but why should someone over the age of 60 on a self funded pension that they have received generous tax concessions on the way through pay absolutely no tax at all on the pension. They could have a six figure plus income with no tax while drawing on Medicare and other services. A fair tax system means people pay their fair share. However the problem really is that by about 2040 we have estimates that we may only have 2.5 workers for every retiree as opposed to 5 currently. It stands to reason at some point these very generous concessions are not affordable and we will have to cap the tax free amount at some point. This isn't ideology it is just the reality of our nations current demographic. 
On the other point we do have plenty of space, the open cut at Hazelwood isn't being used and it would hold plenty of people. Might cause a few groundwater problems though.

----------


## ringtail

And are Tim Flannery, Juliar Gillard, Greg Combet, Jonathon Holmes, Clive Hamilton, Simon Sheikh, Ross Garnaut, Penny Wong etc... climate scientists - I dont think so. Not a original thought amonst them. All specialists at preaching to the gullible, nothing more. If only they would choke on the 40,000 ppm of co2 coming out of their mouths.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> This is all that the alarmists do, cherry pick data to try and prove the impossible

  Works both ways.....to wit: 
This is all that the [alarmists/sceptics] do, cherry pick data to try and [prove/deny] the [impossible/possible].  
And both options are correct.....  
The funniest @@@@ing thing about this is that neither side denies that the climate is changing and changing in ways that will be a challenge to adapt to.  One side is ducking about trying to work up a non-solution. The other is pontificating about the non-solution without offering an alternative non-solution.......and all the while, quietly in the background, the climate is still inexorably doing its changing trick. 
It's like arguing over which type of candle to use whilst holding a lit match and the room dimming around you.....no-one wants to sit in the dark - just light the @@@@ing candle! 
As for hugging ducks......it's a good way to press in the herbs & spices before you cook it.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And are Tim Flannery, Juliar Gillard, Greg Combet, Jonathon Holmes, Clive Hamilton, Simon Sheikh, Ross Garnaut, Penny Wong etc... climate scientists - I dont think so. Not a original thought amonst them. All specialists at preaching to the gullible, nothing more. If only they would choke on the 40,000 ppm of co2 coming out of their mouths.

  Flipping again: 
And are Ringtail, Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, Dr. Freud, Marc, Rod Dyson, Silentbutdeadly, JohnC, Chrisp etc... climate scientists - I dont think so. Not a original thought amonst them. All specialists at preaching to the gullible, nothing more. If only they would choke on the 40,000 ppm of co2 coming out of their mouths.

----------


## chrisp

> And are Tim Flannery, Juliar Gillard, Greg Combet, Jonathon Holmes, Clive Hamilton, Simon Sheikh, Ross Garnaut, Penny Wong etc... climate scientists - I dont think so. Not a original thought amonst them. All specialists at preaching to the gullible, nothing more. If only they would choke on the 40,000 ppm of co2 coming out of their mouths.

  And are Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, Tony Abbott, Gina Rhinehart, Barnaby Joyce, Christopher Monckton, Angry Anderson , Pauline Hanson etc... climate  scientists - I don't think so. Not a original thought amongst them. All  specialists at preaching to the gullible, nothing more. If only they  would choke on the 40,000 ppm of co2 coming out of their mouths.   :Smilie:

----------


## ringtail

Self funded pension - theres the key right there. Accumulating enough wealth to be a self funded retiree doesnt just happen. Unless you inherit the money or win lotto, you have to work your hump off and take risks. A lot of self funded people out there are former small business owners who have employed countless thousands of people, paid company tax and benefits to employees. I dont know what the answer is but while the rules exist, those that can take advantage will do so. One thing I do know though is where there is a trough, you will find pigs.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Sobering report.   

> _The scientific advice contained within The Critical Decades is an inadequate, flawed and misleading basis on which to set national policy. The report is emotive and tendentious throughout, ignores sound scientific criticism of IPCC shibboleths that has been made previously, and is shotgun in its approach and at the same time selective in its use of evidence. The arguments presented depend heavily upon unvalidated computer models the predictions of which have been wrong for the last 23 years, and which are are unremittingly and unjustifiably alarmist in nature…_  _
> Notwithstanding the misassertions of the Climate Commissioners, independent scientists are confident overall that there is no evidence of global warming at a rate faster than for the two major 20th century phases of natural warming; no evidence of sea level rise at a rate greater than the 20th century natural rise of ~1.7 mm/yr; no evidence of acceleration in sea-level change in either the tide gauge or satellite records; and nothing unusual about the behaviour of mountain glaciers, Arctic sea ice or the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets._

----------


## chrisp

Sobering report   

> *Carbon emissions 'reach a record in 2010'                *  
>                               Carbon-dioxide emissions hit a record high last year, the  International Energy Agency said, dimming the prospects of limiting the  global temperature increase to two degrees Celsius.
>              "Energy-related carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2010  were the highest in history, according to the latest estimates," the  International Energy Agency (IEA) said in a statement.  Carbon emissions 'reach a record in 2010'

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Sobering report

   

> *Carbon emissions 'reach a record in 2010'                *  
>                               Carbon-dioxide emissions hit a record high last year, the  International Energy Agency said, dimming the prospects of limiting the  global temperature increase to two degrees Celsius.
>              "Energy-related carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2010  were the highest in history, according to the latest estimates," the  International Energy Agency (IEA) said in a statement.  Carbon emissions 'reach a record in 2010'

  Yes very sobering indeed. 
What can we make of this? 
Co2 hits a high but temps haven't moved :Confused:  
It also shows we haven't got a snowflakes chance in hell of reducing emmisions even if it would effect the climate.   
China is gonna keep spewing it out baby!  Nothing we can do will stop than juggernaught. 
This has got to tell you something about how useless it is to introduce an ineffective Tax on Co2.  
Just think about for a second.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Ask yourself SERIOUSLY is it worth it?   

> Last year, global CO2 emissions rose by 1.6 gigatonnes to 30.6 gigatonnes, according to the International Energy Agency, The Guardian newspaper has reported. That increase alone is equal to nearly four times our total emissions.
> And we intend to cut by 5 per cent by 2020. That is to say, the world will "make up" for the cuts that it will take us nine years to achieve, in five days!
> What's gone missing in the "debate" is that the seemingly mild 5 per cent target reduction is actually more than 15 per cent, because of where we are starting from.
> So the Business Council's call for the tax to start at an all-but insignificant and barely noticeable $10 a tonne is only marginally less disgraceful than the Government's behaviour.

  McCRANN: Carbon debate tars spruikers | Courier Mail

----------


## Rod Dyson

Pretty scathing stuff justifiably so.    

> Just that when she chooses to tell the same lies about carbon dioxide and your punitive tax that you and Julia and Greg keep reciting so shamelessly, she also can and will be called to account.
> There was Julia herself at it again today using the term "carbon pollution" or variants no less than 23 times in one column. She managed an extraordinary six uses of the term in just two successive sentences.
> We all know the utterly disgraceful game that you and she and the rest of your colleagues are playing - lying about "carbon pollution", to create the impression your climate policy is designed to stop the emission of dirty bits of grit.
> And who could possibly be against that? Except that your policy has got nothing to do with bits of grit; it's all and only about taxing life-enhancing carbon dioxide.       
> Yes, the very stuff you sputter out with every one of your lies.
> That a prime minister and a deputy prime minister and indeed every member of Cabinet would be so relentlessly dishonest with the country is utterly beyond - very grubby - comparison. It is unbelievable but for the fact it is happening.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yes very sobering indeed. 
> What can we make of this?

  Quite a lot.  Except blathering on about the obvious gets few rewards and I'm only in it for the cash and kudos.  Neither of which is on offer here.    

> Co2 hits a high but temps haven't moved

  Bollocks....and you know it.  You keep telling us they are going down.  Even though a proper look at the data says otherwise.....   

> It also shows we haven't got a snowflakes chance in hell of reducing emmisions even if it would effect the climate.   
> China is gonna keep spewing it out baby!  Nothing we can do will stop than juggernaught. 
> This has got to tell you something about how useless it is to introduce an ineffective Tax on Co2.

  Absolutely......Yes. Yes. Yes.  Now what?    

> Just think about that for a second.

  
Upon thinking about it for a second......I just break into giggles.   
My thought arising from that second is that human life is a triangle. One side is stupid. One side is incompetent and the last side is full of chickens.  The stupid and the incompetent are punching on while the chickens just sit there waiting for direction from either 'stupid' or 'incompetent'. 
See what only one second gets you, Rod?  Nothing useful.  Same as we got from Our Fearless Leaders, Our Frank and Open Media and Our Fellow Community for the last two decades.....

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Quite a lot.  Except blathering on about the obvious gets few rewards and I'm only in it for the cash and kudos.  Neither of which is on offer here.

  This makes no sense.   

> Bollocks....and you know it.  You keep telling us they are going down.  Even though a proper look at the data says otherwise.....

  No it has not been going up sideways at best but nothing like any prediction.   The data does not say temperatures are still increasing.   

> Absolutely......Yes. Yes. Yes.  Now what?

  Now what? Continue looking at economical and cost effective means of renwable energy because we will need it one day. We certainly haven't got it now thats for sure. 
If you really believe all the consequenses of AGW then you better start looking at ways to deal with it for we know we cant stop it.  For me I think do NADDA.    

> Upon thinking about it for a second......I just break into giggles.   
> My thought arising from that second is that human life is a triangle. One side is stupid. One side is incompetent and the last side is full of chickens.  The stupid and the incompetent are punching on while the chickens just sit there waiting for direction from either 'stupid' or 'incompetent'. 
> See what only one second gets you, Rod?  Nothing useful.  Same as we got from Our Fearless Leaders, Our Frank and Open Media and Our Fellow Community for the last two decades.....

  Explain it how you like I think we have people of the left thinking and those of the right. Then you have those that will follow the most dominant at the time.  That is until the pendulum swings too far the other way then we will have a nice big war that clears the air for a while longer. I think AGW certainly has the potential to cause massive dissruption to humanity, but not the way you envisage.

----------


## Marc

> There is absolutely nothing wrong with creating wealth,  but why should someone over the age of 60 on a self funded pension that they  have received generous tax concessions on the way through pay absolutely no tax  at all on the pension. They could have a six figure plus income with no tax  while drawing on Medicare and other services. A fair tax system means people pay  their fair share.

  Absolutely agree. The ONLY fair tax system is  one that has a FLAT RATE. In our case a change to be revenue neutral means we  probably need to pay a 15 or 20% flat rate tax starting from one dollar. That's  right. The kid making $3000 at MacDonalds should learn to pay tax. That is a  fair tax system. 
 Pensions and savings and payments towards pensions/super be it private or  public should be completely tax free and tax deductible and so should be super  payments once retired. In Singapure workers pay 4% personal income tax and 40%  superannuation contributions. The governemt operates based on the super fund and  is completely debt free.  
As for your previous ex abrupto in relation to  Galileo's quote, I am afraid that Google once more let you down. Ah and don't  bother with Wiki either, their translation from Italian (not Latin) into English  is rather poor. 
I find it hard to believe you don't know the relevance of  the quote for those that know oppression by authoritarian rulers, be it  government, religion or fanciful cults. Clearly you have not lived outside a  very small ideological perimeter.
How old are you by the way?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Interesting to put things into some sort of perspective. 
From a blog comment.  

> Dear Helen: Picture an Olympic swimming pool: it has about 2500 cubic meters of water in or 2 500 000 litres. If this represents the atmosphere then of that amount 950 litres represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Now all of mankind adds about 28 litres to it and out of that Australia contributes one half of one litre - once a year!  If we now reduce that amount by 5% as proposed we remove exactly 20ml. To some heavy drinkers it would be the equivalent of having one less shot of vodka from a year of drinking.

----------


## chrisp

> Interesting to put things into some sort of perspective. 
> From a blog comment.

  Psst, Rod, you are using a false basis (or you are quoting one). 
5% of Australia's emissions is 5% - it is quite simple (and nowhere near enough - as you will agree).

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc

Cults operate at a different level. 
The sinners must be flogged, the earth must be purified. Logic means nothing at all.  
If Australia would cut 100% of CO2 emissions including from humans and animals today, the change in the athmosphere would be impossible to measure and, the variation in average temepratures of course would be ZERO. 
Of course Greenpeace would be happy if we cull humanity, they are planing a cull down to one billion, yet have not revealed their method of choice. Bill Gates on the other hand is happy to go on record talking about virus and vaccines to reduce "surplus" population.

----------


## chrisp

> If Australia would cut 100% of CO2 emissions including from humans and animals today, the change in the athmosphere would be impossible to measure and, the variation in average temepratures of course would be ZERO.

  Is your premise that Australia and only Australia is to reduce CO2 emissions?

----------


## ringtail

Hope everybody is watching Insight on SBS at the moment. This show is a year old BTW and the alarmist is deceased.

----------


## johnc

> Absolutely agree. The ONLY fair tax system is one that has a FLAT RATE. In our case a change to be revenue neutral means we probably need to pay a 15 or 20% flat rate tax starting from one dollar. That's right. The kid making $3000 at MacDonalds should learn to pay tax. That is a fair tax system. 
> Pensions and savings and payments towards pensions/super be it private or public should be completely tax free and tax deductible and so should be super payments once retired. In Singapure workers pay 4% personal income tax and 40% superannuation contributions. The governemt operates based on the super fund and is completely debt free.  
> As for your previous ex abrupto in relation to Galileo's quote, I am afraid that Google once more let you down. Ah and don't bother with Wiki either, their translation from Italian (not Latin) into English is rather poor. 
> I find it hard to believe you don't know the relevance of the quote for those that know oppression by authoritarian rulers, be it government, religion or fanciful cults. Clearly you have not lived outside a very small ideological perimeter.
> How old are you by the way?

  I suspect you have zero knowledge of Latin and why on earth you would try to inject a dead language in such a way is beyond me, however sit there in your smugness if you wish. 
I'm surprised you mention Singapore, it is a very paternalistic state, and you my friend would not be able to sit there and enjoy your 4WD and large boat and you would be told what to do I don't think it would suit you. 
Singapore is an example of what can be done with no natural resources but good location it has done very well, with a worlds best practice education system, excellent superannuation, high level of home ownership and low level of corruption and almost no racism or ethinic tension. It also has a very low incarceration rate, on many levels it is an example of what can be achieved if people co operate. 
A tax system needs to be based around obligation and fairness, a flat rate could only work with complex adjustments for high and low income earners. Throughout most of Asia there are thresholds below which people don't pay tax, taxpayers tend to be the middle class and above.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Who is not strong on the numbers Mr Freud?

  Er, you! 
Not too good with titles either.  :Biggrin:    

> As always selective use of numbers tells only part of the story.

  They told my whole story. 
But if you want a seat by seat count, including separation of absentee, postal and informal votes, do some research. 
If you don't want this and it's pointless, your comment is irrelevant.   

> Let's face it while Labor and the Greens polled 49.75% combined the Liberal/Nats managed only 43.31%.

  Labor and the Greens were not in a formal coalition prior to the election, but Liberals and Nats were, hence your assumptions are flawed and your conclusions are useless.  You'd make a great IPCC climate scientist.  :Rofl:    

> So let us keep things in perspective it is worth remembering the party that scored the most votes is actually Labor.

  Er, that's what I said.  Look at the numbers in your own link. Concentrate on the numbers more and the spin less, and you'll eventually find reality.  :2thumbsup:    

> however your claimed 70% will not all want Mr Abbot either.

  That's not what I said.  Have another read mate, focus on the numbers now. 
Working out stuff like this will make you stronger on the numbers.  :Weight Lift2:  :Weight Lift:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It is amazing that if the view is the opposite to yours it is your natural reaction to attack the author, in actual fact Mr Ball is a crank and it is pretty obvious who the idiot is here Champ.

  You obviously didn't follow the numbers again. 
Levenson's view is *opposite to his own numbers.* 
My view or Ball's view has nothing to do with the fact that he is an idiot. 
Even if I "believed" in the AGW hypothesis faith, I'd still call him an idiot, because he is.  :Biggrin:    

> *id·i·ot*  (d-t)_n._*1.*  A foolish or stupid person.

  Yeh, it is pretty obvious.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

Mate, it's tiring having to explain all this stuff to you all over again, if you take a few days out and read the thread, I could focus more of my time on ridiculing this hilarious Planetary Airconditioner called the Carbon Dioxide TAX.  :Biggrin:    

> My my, lets get really carried away

  Ok then, lets... :2thumbsup:    

> Mr Abbott has been rather selective and not all the numbers bandied about are from Treasury modelling by any means.

  This is a free country you realise, he can say pretty much whatever he wants.  I was referring to the prices he quotes in terms of the costs to households, which are from Treasury, modelled on a $26 a tonne "price" on Carbon Dioxide. (Yes Johnc, that's the stuff you are currently breathing out, it's certainly not smog, soot or pollution.  :Doh: ) 
If he wants to estimate costs based on the abject lack of information coming from the government, can you guarantee he is wrong? No. Calling him a scaremongerer is like calling you a Pollyanna. Both are equally irrelevant in the absence of detail.  Calling the government inept however is right on the money.  :Biggrin:    

> $1000 a ton? are you on drugs?

  Nope, can't afford ém any more, saving up for my Carbon Dioxide Tax bills.  :Biggrin:  
But Labor governments are certainly on something:   

> THE NSW government spent *$104,000* from its Climate Change Fund *to save a single tonne of carbon dioxide* - worth about $35 under international carbon prices - the fund's annual report shows.

  I was being unusually generous and beneficent:   

> *More than half the 26 public projects funded in the 2008-09 financial year valued carbon at more than $1000 a tonne*, almost 30 times its estimated market value  http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/re...3CCFAnnRep.pdf

  Are you beginning to see how reasonable and well balanced I am.   :Innocent:   :Rotfl:    

> We are yet to see the adjustment mechanism to allow big CO2 producers like the power generators to adjust.

  You are a big CO2 producer Mr Pot.  Feel free to stop "polluting" at any time. 
And adjust to what exactly?  When you read the thread, you'll learn what base load power is and just how ridiculous your comment above is.

----------


## johnc

> Are you beginning to see how reasonable and well balanced I am.     
> .

  I would have thought that the mere fact we are contributing to this thread is a sign that no poster can claim to be well balanced :Wink 1:

----------


## Marc

Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science « The Greenroom
Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science  Share318   * posted at 10:05 am on May 12, 2011 by Bruce McQuain 
     [ Enviro-nitwits ]             printer-friendly*  
      David Evans is a scientist.  He has also worked in the heart of  the AGW machine.  He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse  Office (now the Department  of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and  part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling  Australia’s carbon in plants, debris,  mulch, soils, and forestry and  agricultural products.  He has six  university degrees, including a PhD in  Electrical Engineering from  Stanford University.  The other day he said: The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous  proportions and is  full of micro-thin half-truths and  misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was  on the carbon gravy train,  understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but  am now a skeptic.And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and  methods by which the  AGW scare has been foisted on the public.
 The politics: The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of  the recent global  warming is based on a guess that was proved false by  empirical evidence during  the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big,  with too many jobs, industries,  trading profits, political careers, and  the possibility of world government and  total control riding on the  outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the  governments, and  their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the  fiction  that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.He makes  clear he understands that CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas”,  and makes the point  that if all else was equal then yes, more CO2 in  the air should and would mean a  warmer planet. But that’s where the  current “science” goes off the tracks.It is built on an assumption that  is false.
 The science: But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
 Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given  increase in  the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s  temperature, if just the extra  carbon dioxide is considered. These  calculations come from laboratory  experiments; the basic physics have  been well known for a century.
 The disagreement comes about what happens next.
 The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, _which changes  everything_.  Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to  evaporate from  the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the  height of  moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and   rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew.  The  alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air  around the  planet, which would warm the planet even further, because  the moist air is also  a greenhouse gas. [emphasis mine]But it didn’t increase the height of the moist air around the planet  as  subsequent studies have shown since that time. However, that theory  or premise  became the heart of the modeling that was done by the  alarmist crowd.
 The modeling: This is the core idea of every official climate model:  For each bit of  warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up  causing three bits of  warming due to the extra moist air. The climate  models amplify the carbon  dioxide warming by a factor of three — so  two-thirds of their projected warming  is due to extra moist air (and  other factors); only one-third is due to extra  carbon dioxide.
 That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and  misunderstandings  spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this  guess about moisture in the  atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence  for the amplification that is at the  core of their alarmism.
 What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?
 Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s,  many  thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that  as the planet  warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the  tropics about 10 kilometres  up, as the layer of moist air expands  upwards into the cool dry air above.  During the warming of the late  1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found  no hot spot. None at  all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the  climate models  are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the   temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
 This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.Evans is not the first to come to these conclusions.  Earlier this year, in a  post I highlighted, Richard Lindzen said the very same thing. For warming since 1979, there is a further problem. The  dominant role of  cumulus convection in the tropics requires that  temperature approximately follow  what is called a moist adiabatic  profile. *This requires that warming in  the tropical upper  troposphere be 2-3 times greater than at the surface. Indeed,  all  models do show this, but the data doesn’t and this means that something  is  wrong with the data*. It is well known that above about 2 km  altitude,  the tropical temperatures are pretty homogeneous in the  horizontal so that  sampling is not a problem. Below two km (roughly the  height of what is referred  to as the trade wind inversion), there is  much more horizontal variability, and,  therefore, there is a profound  sampling problem. *Under the  circumstances, it is reasonable to  conclude that the problem resides in the  surface data, and that the  actual trend at the surface is about 60% too  large*. Even the  claimed trend is larger than what models would have  projected but for  the inclusion of an arbitrary fudge factor due to aerosol  cooling. The  discrepancy was reported by Lindzen (2007) and by Douglass et al   (2007). *Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with  models,  a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the   data.*Evans reaches the natural conclusion – the same conclusion Lindzen  reached: At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a  science. In  science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no  matter how much you are in  love with the theory. If theory and evidence  disagree, real scientists scrap the  theory. But official climate  science ignored the crucial weather balloon  evidence, and other  subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to  their carbon  dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs   with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their  government  masters.And why will it continue?  Again, follow the money: We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate  science, which is  funded and directed entirely by government, promotes  a theory that is based on a  guess about moist air that is now a known  falsehood. Governments gleefully  accept their advice, because the only  ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes  and extend government  control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a  world scale  might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political   class!Indeed.  How extraordinarily unexciting for the proletariat who will  be the  ones stuck with the bill if these governments ever succeed in  finding a way to  pass the taxes they hope to impose and extend even  more government’s control  over energy.
 While  you’re listening to the CEOs of American oil companies being  grilled  by Congress today, remember all of this.  They’re going to try  to punish an  industry that is vital to our economy and national  security, and much of the  desire to do that is based on this false  “science” that has been ginned up by  government itself as an excuse to  control more of our energy sector, raise untold revenues for its use and  to pick  winners and losers.  All based on something which is,  according to Evans and other scientists, now demonstrably false.
 –
 Bruce McQuain blogs at Questions                  and Observations (QandO), Blackfive, the Washington                  Examiner and the Green Room.  Follow him on Twitter:       @McQandO

----------


## Marc

The "science" is "settled" cry the lunatic fringe. 
It appears that even the greenhouse theory is on shaky ground.
Can energy flow from Cold to hot? Can a black body increase its heat by reflecting its onw heat? Not according to the laws of thermodinamic. 
Read the whole article here: http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.inf...nt.php?aid=275 
Theory of the Greenhouse Effect vs. the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect 
Now that we‟ve developed a decent understanding of the way the atmosphere behaves according to the accepted Laws of Thermodynamics, we can compare this understanding to the inherent precepts of the Theory of the Greenhouse Effect. 
A-
a. The greenhouse theory states that the reason the ground is warmer than -18C is because the atmosphere, via greenhouse gasses like CO2, re-emits thermal radiation towards the ground and therefore amplifies the heat at the ground from -18C up to +14C 
b. Thermodynamics says that no object in the universe can heat itself by its own radiation, nor can heat flow from cold to hot. Thermodynamics explains the ground temperature, on average, as a result of the adiabatic temperature distribution of a gas in a gravitational field. This matches what we understand about thermodynamic temperature averages: there has to be some parts of a complex aggregate system which are hotter, and some which are cooler, but most will be at the average. Hotter should be found at the ground, cooler should be found high in the atmosphere. It does not matter that some energy is re-emitted back down to the ground, because it can never be enough energy to heat itself. 
B- 
a. The greenhouse theory states that it is Earth‟s ground surface which should be in equilibrium with the energy from the Sun, but greenhouse gasses raise the temperature of the ground above the equilibrium temperature 
b. Thermodynamics says that it is only the ground + atmosphere aggregate average temperature which should be in equilibrium with the Sun, at an average temperature of -18C, and that this temperature will not be found at the ground, but well above it in the atmosphere. The average ground temperature will be warmer than the average equilibrium temperature with or without greenhouse gasses. 
C- 
a. The greenhouse theory does not explicitly explain a hot sunny day at the beach 
b. Thermodynamics easily explains a hot sunny day at the beach via radiative heating from the Sun along with atmospheric extinction and ground albedo 
23 
D- 
a. Greenhouse theorists treat the entire Earth as a fully-illuminated disk (with no night-time) at -18C in their models. This requires one-quarter of the incident solar flux to adjust for the correction factor ratio in going from a sphere (p = 4) to a disk (p = 1) 
b. Thermodynamics says that this is a physically incorrect model, even as an approximation. It may seem mathematically equivalent to reduce the solar flux by a factor of four, but it is not physically equivalent because the real Earth, which is a sphere, would only come to -59C on average with 1/4th the solar energy. This is obviously not what is observed!
Not only is this model physically incorrect even as an approximation, it requires all ground temperatures above -18C (or is it -59C?...they don‟t specify) to be from radiative self-amplification. It does not describe, for example, the surface area of Earth larger than North America continually heated by the Sun every second of every day to potentially anywhere between 40C and 80C, or the entire sun-facing hemisphere of the Earth which has a 30C equilibrium temperature. Clearly, the real source of heating is already explained as being from the Sun, and the average adiabatic atmosphere temperature distribution. 
E- 
a. The greenhouse theory says that if greenhouse gasses increase, the Earth will become hotter 
b. Thermodynamics says that the only source of heating is from the Sun, with the Laws of Thermodynamics then setting up a temperature distribution going from warm-to-cold off of the ground, with the average temperature in-between. The Earth cannot be out of equilibrium with the Sun in the long term because the Sun is the only source of heat for the ground + atmosphere aggregate (assuming negligible geothermal effects). The Earth cannot emit more energy than it absorbs, nor can it less, in the long run. The only way to heat or cool the Earth in the long run is to change the amount of solar energy which is absorbed. This can be done by several methods such as a long-term change in brightness of the Sun, a change in Earth‟s albedo or atmospheric extinction, a change in Earth‟s orbital parameters, etc. Thermodynamics does not say it can be done by greenhouse gasses, because these 
24 
gasses do not change the input energy. If you do not change the absorbed input energy, you cannot change the output energy. 
F- 
a. The greenhouse theory says that greenhouse gasses act like a greenhouse around the Earth 
b. A real greenhouse gets warm because the glass ceiling prevents atmospheric convection. Like the example of the beach, the surfaces inside a greenhouse get warm from the solar energy. The air which is in contact with the surfaces inside the greenhouse then also warms by conduction, and then tries to convect and expand and cool. The glass ceiling prevents this however, and so the warm air stays inside the greenhouse, and the greenhouse will warm up to the temperature corresponding to however much total solar energy is being absorbed inside it. And so in fact, a real greenhouse actually prevents the atmosphere from doing what it naturally wants to do, which is cool itself. We build greenhouses because they do the opposite of what the atmosphere actually does.
Therefore, calling back-scattered radiative amplification a “greenhouse effect” is not even an accurate name for the theory, in any way. 
G- 
a. The greenhouse theory says that greenhouse gasses trap infrared radiation, and this then warms the surface 
b. Thermodynamics says that infra-red radiation emitted from the ground can only warm the atmosphere, and cannot be returned to the ground for further warming. Additionally, the direction of heat flow is always only from hot (the ground), to cold (outer space). Infra-red energy leaves the atmosphere in only a few milliseconds, even if it gets scattered a couple of times from gasses, so it is unclear how this could possibly cause significant heating in the first place. It is informative to consider a vacuum-sealed thermos vs. a thermos sealed with CO2 (the CO2 sealed thermos will cool much faster than the vacuum-sealed thermos – the CO2 does not “trap” any heat). 
H- 
a. The greenhouse theory says that the ground surface of the Earth heats the atmosphere exclusively through radiative transfer 
25 
b. Thermodynamics says that the atmosphere is partially heated directly by the Sun via extinction, but is mainly heated from conduction and convection off of the warmer ground. Radiation from the ground can contribute some heat to the atmosphere, but this must be a very tiny amount compared to conduction and convection since the adiabatic temperature distribution already describes the atmospheric temperature, without need for additional forcing from radiation. This is simply because the radiation emitted in the atmosphere is a result of its temperature, not the cause of its temperature. 
I- 
a. The greenhouse theory says that the thermal radiation from the atmosphere is the cause of the temperature of the atmosphere 
b. The laws of thermodynamics say that the thermal radiation is a result of the temperature of the atmosphere. Radiation can only cause heating the first time it is absorbed from the Sun, and after that, no further heating is possible from any re-emission or re-exchange of that energy. 
Conclusion 
So we see that in every single instance of comparison, the Theory of the Greenhouse Effect appears to contradict what the Laws of Thermodynamics have to say about the exact same physical situation. This is very curious because as a scientific theory, it should be in agreement with the pre-established laws of physics. It may be possible that the Greenhouse Theory is correct, but, this would require that the Laws of Thermodynamics be not correct. However, if science does not understand the Laws of Thermodynamics, then it must be by pure coincidence that engineers have created such things as refrigerators, internal combustion engines, nuclear power plants, solar panels, and steam engines, just to name a few examples. This doesn‟t seem likely. Nor would such a conclusion be necessary, when it is the exact same laws of physics which created those examples of our modern technology, which can already readily explain our observations of the temperature of the lower atmosphere. We do have to conclude therefore, that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, and the theory which describes it, is a failed theory. What we do have is a Theory of the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect, and it is this name, or something like it, which should be used to describe the observed temperatures on the Earth and in the atmosphere, from this point forward.

----------


## Marc

One   

> Eppur' si muove  _for Hawking_  The first day was a Thursday, and I was uncomfortably relaxed.  A soft rain hissed on my window as all the dark and soft places of earth  Groped out, like mammals in the sand, found ways to the surface  To gasp at the silences.  And all the way outside*I saw the colors fade*into brilliance  the plants and sky weigh down to the earth,  unnerved, unnumbered, undead by years,  Untrusted by men with  Less than eight hours'  Sleep in their eyes.    You Fool,  I've bit in to dead dogs tastier than you  Chewed on faiths and foreign tongues  clamped up tight like a mercy killing  slept in the barrel of a gun and lived  never to tell the tale    There's something Greek about the way we move  in soft, sloping gestures,  desperate to portrait lovers,  feeling guilty in the silences,    touching in the spaces  between words.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Nice post, explained in layman's terms. 
Now guys how do you explain this?   

> So we see that in every single instance of comparison, the Theory of the Greenhouse Effect appears to contradict what the Laws of Thermodynamics have to say about the exact same physical situation. This is very curious because as a scientific theory, it should be in agreement with the pre-established laws of physics. It may be possible that the Greenhouse Theory is correct, but, this would require that the Laws of Thermodynamics be not correct. However, if science does not understand the Laws of Thermodynamics, then it must be by pure coincidence that engineers have created such things as refrigerators, internal combustion engines, nuclear power plants, solar panels, and steam engines, just to name a few examples. This doesn‟t seem likely. Nor would such a conclusion be necessary, when it is the exact same laws of physics which created those examples of our modern technology, which can already readily explain our observations of the temperature of the lower atmosphere. We do have to conclude therefore, that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, and the theory which describes it, is a failed theory. What we do have is a Theory of the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect, and it is this name, or something like it, which should be used to describe the observed temperatures on the Earth and in the atmosphere, from this point forward.

----------


## chrisp

> Nice post, explained in layman's terms. 
> Now guys how do you explain this?

   

> It may be possible that the Greenhouse Theory is correct, but, this  would require that the Laws of Thermodynamics be not correct.

  Rod, 
Could it be that you are quoting stuff you don't understand yourself - and holding it up as some sort of proof there is a problem with the AGW theory? 
Perhaps you would like to explain which part of the laws of thermodynamics are being violated so we can address your concern?

----------


## PhilT2

When greenhouse theory is not stated correctly it appears to contradict the laws of thermodynamics. But it's just basic physics, state how greenhouse works properly and the differences disappear. Jonova had a discussion of exactly this on her site recently and there is some more detailed stuff on Judith Curry's Climate Etc. Look for it under a discussion on the book "Slaying the sky dragon" which I think, has this same basic error in it. One of the keys is understanding the action of CO2 and the difference between radiation and heat.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Perhaps you can explain how the greenhouse theory makes the Laws of Thermodynamics not correct. 
I think the article itself explains the question you ask perfectly.  Over to you to explain where this article fails. 
This is not a debate about my understanding of Thermodynamics.  I can and will take this article on face value until someone as clever as you are able to explain to me why I should not.   
Want to try?

----------


## johnc

> Nice post, explained in layman's terms. 
> Now guys how do you explain this?

  Seeing as how it is laymans terms can you explain how the second law applies to the smoke and steam coming from this power station on surrounding temperature. No effect? heating?, cooling? and reference it for the benefit of the rest of us thanks.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> When greenhouse theory is not stated correctly it appears to contradict the laws of thermodynamics. But it's just basic physics, state how greenhouse works properly and the differences disappear. Jonova had a discussion of exactly this on her site recently and there is some more detailed stuff on Judith Curry's Climate Etc. Look for it under a discussion on the book "Slaying the sky dragon" which I think, has this same basic error in it. One of the keys is understanding the action of CO2 and the difference between radiation and heat.

  Exactly where has he incorrectly stated the greenhouse theory?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Seeing as how it is laymans terms can you explain how the second law applies to the smoke and steam coming from this power station on surrounding temperature. No effect? heating?, cooling? and reference it for the benefit of the rest of us thanks.

  Nice attempt at distraction fella. 
I don't claim to understand the theory of thermodynamics but I can understand what he has written. Now where exactly has he got it wrong? 
Come up with an equally clear explaination of why this is wrong then we will have something to talk about.

----------


## chrisp

> I think the article itself explains the question you ask perfectly.  Over to you to explain where this article fails. 
> This is not a debate about my understanding of Thermodynamics.  I can and will take this article on face value until someone as clever as you are able to explain to me why I should not.

  Rod, 
The premise of the article is that AGW violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  Please explain how it is violated - or do you just accept any rubbish that supposedly supports your view?

----------


## chrisp

> Nice attempt at distraction fella. 
> I don't claim to understand the theory of thermodynamics but I can understand what he has written. Now where exactly has he got it wrong? 
> Come up with an equally clear explaination of why this is wrong then we will have something to talk about.

  Try searching the web: Greenhouse theory violates the laws of thermodynamics : A Few Things Ill Considered

----------


## PhilT2

Link to where this is discussed  So what is the Second Darn Law? &#171; JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax  Slaying a greenhouse dragon | Climate Etc. 
If you don't find what you want from these I am happy to go through each point one by one and prove that (1) that are misstatements of real greenhouse theory and (2) wrong.
The first one says that CO2 emits radiation and warms the earth. This is the cold body heating a warm one that Jonova discusses in detail but basically yes there is radiation coming from the atmosphere but is not as great as the radiation coming from the earth so the net heat transfer is from the earth to the atmosphere. When both pro and anti AGW sites agree on this the only logical conclusion is that the statement is wrong. 
Happy to deal with the others but I have an early start tomorrow, if anyone wants to chip in feel free. Science of Doom has some good stuff too, but this is all basic physics and the best source is a high school textbook.

----------


## PhilT2

Just checked that site where Marc got that article, there's a post there from a bloke who thinks both Einstein and Hawking are both wrong. Not a scientist, a lawyer. Credibility everywhere on that site.

----------


## johnc

> Nice attempt at distraction fella. 
> I don't claim to understand the theory of thermodynamics but I can understand what he has written. Now where exactly has he got it wrong? 
> Come up with an equally clear explaination of why this is wrong then we will have something to talk about.

  What a load of bull, my physics study only went as far as year 11 and even that is sufficent to see that the article doesn't ring true. You may have understood the words but not their meaning, what is obvious is that as usual you are only to willing to accept anything that agrees with your prejudistic view. If you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics you can't possibly understand what lies behind the statements in the article let alone discuss them.

----------


## Ankapro

I agree. The scientific community commented that around 98% of them all are spending their time on other more important things than global warming as they see it is not an issue. The remaining 2% are well know and share their biased views with the media, whipping them into a frenzy over their opinions. It has been constantly said that we are experiencing an increasing global temperature based on recorded historical weather. Problem - we have been recording weather (in one form or another) for around 5,000 years. The planet is 4 billion years old, constantly changing temperature to its position on the galaxy and, as we have seen, does more damage to itself than we could ever do. 5,000 years is an eye blink in time. Suggestion to the 2% - find a cure for cancer.
Cheers Andrew

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Just checked that site where Marc got that article, there's a post there from a bloke who thinks both Einstein and Hawking are both wrong. Not a scientist, a lawyer. Credibility everywhere on that site.

  Careful, Phil.   
Einstein has retrospectivly been found to be wrong in more than one aspect of his work.  And Hawking has actually admitted to being incorrect with some of his interpretations in past work....plus there's a few assertions that he's currently put out there that many in his field are indeed doubtful about. 
Still...that doesn't make them 'wrong' unless you are a simpleton.  It just makes them wrong about some of the things they do.  
Happens to us all.....

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I agree. The scientific community commented that around 98% of them all are spending their time on other more important things than global warming as they see it is not an issue. The remaining 2% are well know and share their biased views with the media, whipping them into a frenzy over their opinions. It has been constantly said that we are experiencing an increasing global temperature based on recorded historical weather. Problem - we have been recording weather (in one form or another) for around 5,000 years. The planet is 4 billion years old, constantly changing temperature to its position on the galaxy and, as we have seen, does more damage to itself than we could ever do. 5,000 years is an eye blink in time. Suggestion to the 2% - find a cure for cancer.
> Cheers Andrew

  Has it ever occurred to you that 98% of the scientific community actually don't give a flying @@@@ about the 'Planet' and what it does to itself (as you so blithley put it)?   
I suspect that you'll find they are more interested in the human species of which they are a part and how they might (as a species and a collection of civilisations) adapt to that 'constant change' of which you speak.   
The historical evidence suggests that human civilisations don't respond well to external shocks particularily with respect to changing climactic conditions.....and the climate is indeed a changing right about now.  And probably at a faster rate than any time in the history of the human species.  Not only that it is doing it on a global scale rather than a regional or even continental scale.....so there's nowhere to go to isolate yourself from change. 
No-one wants to repeat the lessons learned already......

----------


## chrisp

> Suggestion to the 2% - find a cure for cancer.

  Welcome to the fray! 
I wonder if it was those 2% that claimed that there is no causal link between smoking and cancer?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> What a load of bull, my physics study only went as far as year 11 and even that is sufficent to see that the article doesn't ring true. You may have understood the words but not their meaning, what is obvious is that as usual you are only to willing to accept anything that agrees with your prejudistic view. If you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics you can't possibly understand what lies behind the statements in the article let alone discuss them.

  I don't claim to know about thermodynamics.  What is written there made sence to me and I have no reason to dissbelieve what is written but I did asked for you to tell my why I should not believe it.   
Now if you can tell me why exactly without all the bulshit then I may be very happy to change my view. Unlike some of you that refuse to conceed any point that disagrees with you.

----------


## Marc

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.inf...nt.php?aid=275
I must say you guys are real fun.
If you object to this explanation please post an alternative explanation that makes equal sense.  Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect    Joseph E. Postma  (M.Sc. Astrophysics, Honours B.Sc. Astronomy)  December, 2010  *Introduction*    This article began as a brief two-page summary of the  theoretical development of the "Greenhouse Effect". After having several  discussions with colleagues, it became apparent that its theoretical basis was  not widely understood, even though the theory appeared to be believed in  implicitly. In a scientific institution it is generally expected that  individuals understand the theories they support and believe in, rather than  simply being aware of them and believing in them. Therefore it was curious that  there seemed to be so little academic understanding of the theory of the  Greenhouse Effect, as opposed to simple awareness of it.    It should be pointed out immediately that the "Greenhouse  Effect" is indeed a theory - it is not a benign empirical fact, such as the  existence of the Sun, for example. As a theory it has a scientific development  which is open to inspection and review. It is extremely curious, from a  scientific standpoint, that the word "theory" is almost never associated with  the term "Greenhouse Effect" in public and academic circles. Undoubtedly, this  fact is related to why even academics are unfamiliar with the theoretical  development, let alone the general public‟s awareness of the theory. Therefore  from this point on, the "Greenhouse Effect" will be referred to as the  "Greenhouse Theory", indicative of the fact that it is a proposition which needs  to be supported by observation and which also needs to agree with other  well-established laws of physics. This is analogous to the theory of gravity:  just like the atmosphere, no one questions that gravity exists, obviously. What  we do question is the theory that describes how it works, and just like  Einstein‟s theory of gravity which breaks down and fails under certain  conditions, and isn‟t compatible with some other branches of physics, we can  examine if the Greenhouse Theory also breaks down and fails under the conditions  it is supposed to describe. This distinction needs to be stressed because many  scientists, who really should know better, will make the claim that the effect  of the Greenhouse Theory is a "scientific fact", when in reality a scientist  should understand that there is no such thing as a scientific fact, but 2     Only scientific theories. These are created with the intention  to explain or describe the workings and behaviour of otherwise benign empirical  datum. For example, again, it goes without question that the Earth has an  atmosphere, that the weather changes, and that some force pulls things down to  the ground; these are facts of reality, and there is absolutely no need to  qualify them with the adjective "scientific". No one questions these things.  These facts belong to and are acknowledged by everyone everywhere, independent  of science. What scientists attempt to do is create theories which can describe  the way these facts of reality work, in a logical way, and in a way consistent  with other scientific theories. For example, you may often witness a person  insinuate that, if you question the theory of gravity, then you should test it  by jumping out a window. This is an extremely anti-scientific thing to say,  because indeed, scientists question the theory of gravity one-hundred percent!  We don‟t question that gravity exists, but we do question the scientific theory  which describes how it works. And so what we are similarly concerned with here  is questioning the theory of the Greenhouse Effect.    The Greenhouse Theory is the proposition that the atmosphere  warms the surface of the Earth to a temperature warmer than it would otherwise  be without an atmosphere, _via a process_ called "back-scattered infrared radiative transfer". This is just a fancy  way of describing the idea that greenhouse gasses act like a blanket around the  Earth which trap infrared radiation, with the radiation causing it to be warmer  than it otherwise would be, and this is supposed to be loosely analogous to how  a botanist‟s greenhouse works. We will examine the proposition of the Greenhouse  Theory and see if it is a theory which satisfactorily can explain our  observations of the temperature of the surface of the Earth.    The word "radiative" in "radiative transfer" means "of or  pertaining to light"; "transfer" is referring to transfer of energy. So  radiative transfer means the transfer of energy by light. In this article the  word radiative will sometimes be replaced with the word "radiation", but the  type of radiation it will be referring to is always "radiative" radiation, again  simply meaning light. It is not the type of radiation you would associate with  nuclear radioactivity, for example. In physics, light is also called radiation  because it "radiates energy away" from its source, be it light-energy from a  match, or a star.    The reason why it is important to examine the Greenhouse Theory  is because it fundamentally underpins the concern over "global warming",  sometimes called "anthropogenic (I.e. 3  Human) climate change". These two terms are generally used  interchangeably, but are somewhat mutually ambiguous. Anthropogenic climate  change can mean any type of change in the climate, be it warming, cooling, more  rain, less rain, etc, caused by humans for any reason. Of course, natural  climate change has been ongoing at all times throughout Earth‟s history, and so  anthropogenic climate change needs to be distinguished from this. In fact the  only constant of climate is that it is constantly changing, for there have been  no identifiable periods of climate stasis in Earth‟s geologic history.   Anthropogenic global warming, on the other hand, means a general  warming of the atmosphere theorized to be due to human emission of carbon  dioxide (CO2), which is then theorized to cause a strengthening of the effect of  the Greenhouse Theory, which is what actually causes said warming. It is this  latter definition which is more fundamental and which directly relates to the  Greenhouse Theory, because atmospheric warming via CO2 can be theorized to lead  to various changes in the climate, such as precipitation changes, etc. And it is  also possible that small-scale local cooling can take place, even though the  average trend of the entire atmosphere would still be towards general warming.  Therefore "anthropogenic climate change" falls under the theory of global  warming caused by anthropogenic emission of CO2 and the effect of the Greenhouse  Theory. To be perfectly clear, we call it "anthropogenic" global warming (AGW)  in order to distinguish it from natural warming, for example from natural  changes in the brightness of the Sun, and from natural emission of CO2 from the  biosphere (all life, such as plants, animals and, bacteria) and lithosphere (all  geologic activity, such as volcanoes, weathering of rocks such as limestone,  etc). So Anthropogenic Global Warming caused by anthropogenic emission of CO2  depends upon the Greenhouse Theory to actually create said anthropogenic  warming. And this is distinguished from Natural Global Warming (NGW) which could  be theoretically caused by natural emission of CO2 which would also depend upon  the Greenhouse Theory to actually create said natural warming. In other words,  the Greenhouse Theory states that an increase of atmospheric CO2 (or any other  "greenhouse" gas, but CO2 is the one we‟re most concerned with), be it human or  naturally sourced, should cause global atmospheric warming on average via  back-scattered infrared radiation, although there may be small-scale local  cooling in some locations also. So there are two parts in the analysis of the  Greenhouse Theory: Does back-scattered infrared radiative transfer act like a  blanket upon, and explain the temperature of, the surface of the Earth,  analogous to the way a greenhouse building works; and do changes in atmospheric  CO2 drive significant changes in atmospheric temperature via this type of  radiative Greenhouse Theory? 4    In order to answer these questions we must go through the  physics and mathematical development of some basic facts about the way the Sun  and the Earth work together in exchanging radiation. We are going to have to  look at some mathematics in the upcoming section, but I want to stress one very  important thing: I do not require the reader of this article to fully understand  or follow along with the development of the math equations. When I read a  scientific paper that has lots of math in it, usually I can just skip over the  math parts and keep on reading the text to see what the point of it all is.  Unless it is a scientific paper that is specifically about the development of  some new equations that someone isn‟t sure of, it is usually sufficient simply  to acknowledge that the equation has been written down and showed to you, but  you are not required to work it out for yourself. You just have to keep reading  along to find out what the point is. The reason why I‟m making this point and  talking to the reader in the first person here, is because I realize that not  everybody reading this has a degree in physics or likes mathematics, and so I  don‟t want them to stop reading along when I start discussing them. The physics  involved here is what you would find in current senior-year high-school math  classrooms, and first-year undergraduate physics at universities. If it‟s been  decades since you did any math, or physics is your most hated class in school,  don‟t worry about it! Just read along and I‟ll try to describe what‟s happening  clearly enough so that those who are interested can also work it out for  themselves.  One concept needs to be introduced before we continue with some  math, which is called a "blackbody". In physics, a blackbody is an extremely  important conceptual tool because the behaviour of a blackbody relates to  fundamental concepts in physics, such as the Laws of Thermodynamics. A blackbody  is simply exactly what it sounds like: an object which is completely black. The  reason why it is black is because it absorbs 100% of all the light that strikes  it, and doesn‟t reflect any of it back. Therefore it appears black! This is one  part of the "behaviour" we refer to when discussing blackbodies: the behaviour  that it has when struck by light. And the behaviour is that it absorbs it all.  It should be pointed out that in the real world, most objects will reflect some  of the incident light and absorb only the rest. But even in this case many  objects can still be very closely approximated by a theoretical blackbody, and  you do this by factoring out the amount of radiation lost to reflection. For  example, if 30% of the light is reflected, then 70% is absorbed and you can take  account for this in the math.    When a blackbody absorbs the energy from light and there‟s no  other heat or light sources around to warm it, then it will warm up to whatever  temperature is possible given the amount of 5  energy coming in from the light being absorbed. If the source of  light is constant, meaning it shines with the same unchanging brightness all the  time, then the blackbody absorbing that light will warm up to some maximum  temperature corresponding to the energy in the light, and then warm up no  further. When this state is reached it is called "radiative thermal  equilibrium", which means that the object has reached a stable and constant  temperature equilibrated with the amount of radiation it is absorbing from the  source of light. This is distinct from regular "thermal equilibrium", which is  when two objects which are in physical contact eventually come to the same  temperature, if they started out at different temperatures. In radiative thermal  equilibrium, the object absorbing the light will not come to the same  temperature of the source emitting the light, and actually will always be cooler  than it.    This leads us to the second part of the behaviour of a blackbody  which makes them so great. When a blackbody has reached thermal equilibrium, it  can no longer absorb more light for heating and therefore has to re-emit just as  much light-energy as it is absorbing. Because the blackbody can‟t just reflect  the light, it has to re-emit it as thermal radiation. The spectrum of this  re-emitted light follows a very well known equation called the Plank Blackbody  Radiation Law, after the German physicist Max Planck who helped discover it in  the early 1900‟s. This law allows us to calculate the total amount of energy in  a blackbody spectrum, and what the temperature the object actually needs to be  at in order to emit that amount of energy. We can determine exactly what the  equilibrium temperatures must be. For a real-world object that actually reflects  some light but absorbs the rest of the light, when we factor this is into the  equations we find that the object still closely approximates the ideal  blackbody, and this is of course confirmed by observation. We can therefore  calculate the "effective" temperature the object would need to have if it were a  perfect blackbody emitting that amount of radiation.    So strictly speaking, although the blackbody absorbs all the  light that strikes it, it wouldn‟t actually appear perfectly black at all  wavelengths because the thermal energy it re-emits is also a form of light. But  it appears black because this re-emitted light is of a much lower energy than  the light being absorbed. For example if the object absorbs visible light, then  it will re-emit infra-red light which we can‟t see, and therefore it still  appears black. The object would need to heat up to some very high temperature  indeed for it to re-emit visible light; a red-hot oven element, for example, can  approach 10000C (but it heats up due to the electricity being run through it).  And as mentioned earlier, in the real world many objects which you wouldn‟t  necessarily expect to behave like blackbodies, also act like blackbodies.   Basically, everything tries to act like a blackbody as best as   their physical conditions allow for. And so even entire stars  like the Sun emit radiation very close to the way a blackbody does, according  with the Plank Blackbody Radiation Law. You can therefore understand why the  blackbody is such an important conceptual tool in physics. Rarely do you find an  actual _perfect _ blackbody in nature; but everywhere you  look you find things acting very similar to one. As amazing as this sounds, the  only thing that really does seem to perfectly resemble a blackbody is the entire  universe itself! And probably Black Holes, but that‟s an entirely different  discussion.    Lastly, there is one fundamental law of physics that relates to  blackbody emission of thermal energy: it is absolutely fundamentally impossible  for a blackbody to further warm itself up by its own radiation. This is actually  true for _all _ objects, but we‟ll just keep referring to  blackbodies here since that‟s what the subject is about. For example, imagine a  blackbody which is absorbing energy from some hot source of light like a  light-bulb, and it has warmed up as much as it can and has reached thermal  equilibrium. The blackbody will then be re-emitting just as much thermal  infra-red energy as the light energy it is absorbing. However, because the  blackbody doesn‟t warm up to a temperature as hot as the source of light, its  re-emitted infra-red light is from a lower temperature and thus of a lower  energy compared to the incoming light that it is absorbing. Now here‟s the  clincher: imagine that you take a mirror which reflects infra-red light, and you  reflect some of the infra-red light the blackbody is emitting back onto itself.  What then happens to the temperature of the blackbody? One _might _ think that, because the blackbody is now  absorbing more light, even if it is its own infra-red light, then it should warm  up. But in fact it does _not_ warm up; it‟s  temperature remains exactly the same. The reason why is very simple to  understand but extremely important to physics: the blackbody is already in  thermal equilibrium with a _hotter_ source of  energy, the higher radiative energy spectrum light from the light-bulb. You  cannot make something warmer by introducing to it something colder, or even the  same temperature! You can only make something warmer, with something that is  warmer! This reality is called the 2nd Law of   Thermodynamics, and is so central  and fundamental to modern physics it cannot be expressed strongly enough.     To make the idea more intuitive, imagine a simple ice-cube. Even  though an ice-cube is at zero degrees Celsius, it is still 273 Kelvin degrees  above absolute zero and therefore has quite a bit of thermal energy inside it,  which it does radiate away as thermal infra-red energy. Of course, we don‟t  sense this radiation because we‟re warmer than the ice-cube (hopefully!), and we  don‟t see it because our eyes aren‟t sensitive to that low frequency of light  radiation. Could you then simply bring in another ice-cube which is also at 00C  and also of course also radiating its own thermal 7  energy at that temperature, and thereby heat up the first  ice-cube by placing this second one near it? Or could you heat up the first  ice-cube by placing it in a freezer at -100C? In both cases, there‟s lots of  thermal energy from the secondary sources which falls on the first ice-cube, so  shouldn‟t this energy "go into it" and warm it up? Of course not! You could only  heat up the first ice-cube by introducing it to something warmer than it, like  the palm of your hand, or a glass of water at 10C, or the radiation from the  Sun. Or imagine the example of a burning candle: could you use a mirror to shine  the candle-light back onto the flame, and thereby make the flame burn hotter?  Such conjecture is not the way reality works, and remember, these concepts are  true for any object, not just blackbodies. The main point is: heat naturally  always flows from hot to cold, whether through conduction or radiation, and most  importantly, can never flow back into itself and raise its  own temperature.

----------


## johnc

> I don't claim to know about thermodynamics. What is written there made sence to me and I have no reason to dissbelieve what is written but I did asked for you to tell my why I should not believe it.  
> Now if you can tell me why exactly without all the bulshit then I may be very happy to change my view. Unlike some of you that refuse to conceed any point that disagrees with you.

  There is a lot of information out there and we should all consider that what we are reading is another persons opinion in some cases or an interpretation of facts in others. There is nothing in the data that should be assumed to be either set in concrete or debunked. Although figures certainly indicate we are experiencing change we are some way from working out how everything links. We also have the problem of population growth, food supply and resource depletion, as well as enviromental stress. The picture I posted which may well be a cement factory is on the Yangtse and that was on the clearest part of the day you wouldn't have seen it three hours earlier. Despite endless solar HWS all over China they have very serious air quality issues they are belatedly trying to address, but in doing so they will reduce CO2 emmissions. In China's case they have immediate air pollution issues they have to deal with just to minimise respitory risk but in doing so they will reduce CO2 as well.    
I'm not interested in changing your view, the conclusions you have made are yours not mine and it is not for me to decide you shouldn't hold those views. However what this thread shows is the poisonous level this discussion descends to in the wider community, this is not a civil discourse and it is not helped by either side posting continual links to the plethora of rubbish from various sites on the net. 
If you want to move to the truth it is a different attitude to asking that you be shown that you need to change your mind. You have to accept that the information you have is imperfect, and future information is likely to modify any current view. There just isn't the data to confirm that climate change doesn't exist and plenty to show that aspects of the world around us are altering. Those of us who believe that there is a strong probability that we are affecting the enviroment , that things like acid rain and ozone holes are real and caused by man are open to the view that man needs to be careful of what we do to the world around us. Coal causes a lot of health issues, deaths and leaves whopping great holes, it stands to reason that reducing our dependancy on coal would produce a community good. Base load remains an issue even if we increase natural gas as a generation source.  
Managed change from old technology power stations, maximising hydro, wind and solar all would help long term economic gains diversifying power generation and improving air quality and reducing the amount of productive land destroyed by coal mining. 
As far as the economic impacts of a carbon tax, it is just one impact of many in our economy, we have more to worry about from the weakness in Europe and the USA and their on going debt issues. At home we have larger issues with our dependance on exports to China, the unsustainable increase in Government outlays over the last decade and an aging population along with our housing bubble which is starting to get the wobbles. A carbon tax at the moment is not our biggest economic risk, our biggest risk is an economy reliant on mining for growth and a drop in consumer confidence coupled with to much private sector debt while our manufacturing sector continues to decline. Our biggest negative is a political class that has lost the plot and has no vision.

----------


## chrisp

> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.inf...nt.php?aid=275
> I must say you guys are real fun.
> If you object to this explanation please post an alternative explanation that makes equal sense.

  [S]Have you studied thermodynamics at all?[/S]  Actually, don't worry about that question - I think I know the answer. 
Regarding the greenhouse effect being a theory - do you have any idea what the temperature of the earth would be if it didn't have an atmosphere?

----------


## Marc

> [S]Have you studied thermodynamics at all?[/S]  Actually, don't worry about that question - I think I know the answer. 
> Regarding the greenhouse effect being a theory - do you have any idea what the temperature of the earth would be if it didn't have an atmosphere?

  Oh how I like it when people are opinionated based on their own set of perceived values with total disregard to any other possible fact. Reminds me of the logic of young earth creationist. 
Thermodinamics...yes, I have probably forgotten more than you will ever know in your lifetime, but anyway, to your question, what would be the temperature of the earth without an atmosphere?...the answer is rather simple: 121C max. 
I suggest you read the next chapter I posted below.
Unfortunately the formulas are turned into garble. If you are interested you must go to the link and read it there. http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.inf...nt.php?aid=275 
Here is part of the chapter that explains this   

> *The Temperature of the Ground Surface at Sea Level *  Via equations *{1} * and *{3}* it can be calculated that a  perfect blackbody sphere surrounding the Sun at a radius of one astronomical  unit (1 a.u., the distance of the Earth from the Sun) would heat to an  equilibrium temperature of 121C. This is the  maximum temperature any conceivable object could reach from solar radiative  heating, and corresponds to the equivalent energy flux density of solar  radiation at this distance. The Laws of Thermodynamics tell us that there is no  possible natural re-exchange of this radiation which can cause further heating.  When the Sun is directly overhead some part of the Earth, the local ground is  disk-like and therefore has the potential to warm up to this temperature as  well, but local variations in albedo will cause a reduction from this.   Let‟s consider an example which should be intuitive for most  people. Sand can have a range in albedo from slightly under 20% and up to 40%,  and for beach sand we‟ll take the average value of 30%. This is convenient  because it‟s the same value as the average for the entire Earth. On a hot sunny  day at the beach, in mid-summer, the Sun is very close to being directly  overhead for a few hours around solar-noon. During this time, the  Stefan-Boltzmann equation calculates a local equilibrium temperature of  87C. We are all familiar with running across the hot sand  trying to keep our bare feet from being scalded, but the sand temperature is not  nearly 87C, and is actually closer to 45C -  55C. What is the source of the discrepancy  here?  In astronomy, the process of measuring the brightness of a star  is called photometry. It has been well understood by astronomers for hundreds of  years that the brightness of a star is reduced when its light travels from empty  outer-space and then into and through the atmosphere down to the ground where  the telescope is. Basically we can imagine the atmosphere of the earth acting as  a fog, which thereby reduces the brightness from a light source compared to if  there was no fog at all. The very first step an astronomer calculates in order  to determine the brightness of the star they are measuring  is to mathematically apply to the measured brightness data what is called a  "photometric correction".  There are various observational methods to determine the actual  mathematical values for this correction, which we needn‟t go into here, but  after this correction is applied to the data the astronomer is left with what is  called the "outside atmosphere" brightness of the star. This atmospheric effect  is in fact mathematically identical to how vehicle headlights are reduced in  brightness over distance when driving on a foggy night. In astronomy and physics  this phenomenon is generally called "atmospheric extinction".

----------


## Marc

A greenhouse works because the glass roof stops the air inside from conducting heat by convection. The glass traps the air.  
CO2 does not and can not stop atmospheric convection and therefore does not produce any so called greenhouse effect. 
The concept of CO2 as a blanket around the earth is wrong and intentionally deceiving. The laws of thermodynamics make it impossible for the atmospheric heat to heat back the earth. Atmospheric heat originates in solar light extinction and infra-red heat from the earth, yet no heat can be transferred from the colder object (air) to the hotter object (earth) just like water can not flow up stream.

----------


## Marc

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...707.1161v4.pdf 
Falsication Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects
Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later
Gerhard Gerlich
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany g.gerlich@tu-bs.de
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov  
4.3.3 Conclusion
A statistical analysis, no matter how sophisticated it is, heavily relies on underlying models
and if the latter are plainly wrong then the analysis leads to nothing. One cannot detect and
attribute something that does not exist for reason of principle like the CO2 greenhouse eect.
There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems in non-linearity and the climatologists
believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations leading to unphysical results
that have been corrected afterwards by mystic methods, 
ux control in the past, obscure
ensemble averages over dierent climate institutes today, by excluding accidental global cooling
results by hand [154], continuing the greenhouse inspired global climatologic tradition
Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects : : : 91
of physically meaningless averages and physically meaningless applications of mathematical
statistics.
In conclusion, the derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global
warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science.
92 Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
5 Physicist's Summary
A thorough discussion of the planetary heat transfer problem in the framework of theoretical
physics and engineering thermodynamics leads to the following results:
1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses
and the ctitious atmospheric greenhouse eect, which explains the relevant physical
phenomena. The terms \greenhouse eect" and \greenhouse gases" are deliberate misnomers.
2. There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet
 with or without an atmosphere,
 with or without rotation,
 with or without infrared light absorbing gases.
The frequently mentioned dierence of 33 C for the ctitious greenhouse eect of the
atmosphere is therefore a meaningless number.
3. Any radiation balance for the average radiant 
ux is completely irrelevant for the determination
of the ground level air temperatures and thus for the average value as well.
4. Average temperature values cannot be identied with the fourth root of average values
of the absolute temperature's fourth power.
5. Radiation and heat 
ows do not determine the temperature distributions and their
average values.
6. Re-emission is not re
ection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the
actual heat 
ow without mechanical work.
7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum
mobile of the second kind. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity
in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer
a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the \average" ctitious radiation balance,
which has no physical justication anyway, was given up.
8. After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the infrared
radiation in the Earth's atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is
absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does
not change considerably by raising its partial pressure.
Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects : : : 93
9. Infrared absorption does not imply \backwarming". Rather it may lead to a drop of
the temperature of the illuminated surface.
10. In radiation transport models with the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, it is
assumed that the absorbed radiation is transformed into the thermal movement of all
gas molecules. There is no increased selective re-emission of infrared radiation at the
low temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere.
11. In climate models, planetary or astrophysical mechanisms are not accounted for properly.
The time dependency of the gravity acceleration by the Moon and the Sun (high
tide and low tide) and the local geographic situation, which is important for the local
climate, cannot be taken into account.
12. Detection and attribution studies, predictions from computer models in chaotic systems,
and the concept of scenario analysis lie outside the framework of exact sciences, in
particular theoretical physics.
13. The choice of an appropriate discretization method and the denition of appropriate
dynamical constraints (
ux control) having become a part of computer modelling is
nothing but another form of data curve tting. The mathematical physicist v. Neumann
once said to his young collaborators: \If you allow me four free parameters I can build a
mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you
allow me a fth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will 
y." (cf. Ref. [185].)
14. Higher derivative operators (e.g. the Laplacian) can never be represented on grids with
wide meshes. Therefore a description of heat conduction in global computer models is
impossible. The heat conduction equation is not and cannot properly be represented on
grids with wide meshes.
15. Computer models of higher dimensional chaotic systems, best described by non-linear
partial dierential equations (i.e. Navier-Stokes equations), fundamentally dier from
calculations where perturbation theory is applicable and successive improvements of the
predictions - by raising the computing power - are possible. At best, these computer
models may be regarded as a heuristic game.
16. Climatology misinterprets unpredictability of chaos known as butter
y phenomenon as
another threat to the health of the Earth.
In other words: Already the natural greenhouse eect is a myth beyond physical reality. The
CO2-greenhouse eect, however is a \mirage" [205]. The horror visions of a risen sea level,
94 Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are ctitious consequences
of ctitious physical mechanisms as they cannot be seen even in the climate model
computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models,
because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse
gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-explanations, which are
not part of the academic education or even of the physics training. A good example are the
radiation transport calculations, which are probably not known by many. Another example
are the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are introduced to amplify an eect which is
not marginal but does not exist at all. Evidently, the defenders of the CO2-greenhouse thesis
refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and have resorted to unreproducible
ones. A theoretical physicist must complain about a lack of transparency here,
and he also has to complain about the style of the scientic discussion, where advocators of
the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is closed, and others are discrediting justied
arguments as a discussion of \questions of yesterday and the day before yesterday"25. In
exact sciences, in particular in theoretical physics, the discussion is never closed and is to
be continued ad innitum, even if there are proofs of theorems available. Regardless of the
specic eld of studies a minimal basic rule should be fullled in natural science, though,
even if the scientic elds are methodically as far apart as physics and meteorology: At least
among experts, the results and conclusions should be understandable or reproducible. And it
should be strictly distinguished between a theory and a model on the one hand, and between
a model and a scenario on the other hand, as claried in the philosophy of science.
That means that if conclusions out of computer simulations are to be more than simple
speculations, then in addition to the examination of the numerical stability and the estimation
of the eects of the many vague input parameters, at least the simplications of the physical
original equations should be critically exposed. Not the critics have to estimate the eects of
the approximation, but the scientists who do the computer simulations.
\Global warming is good : : : The net eect of a modest global warming is positive."
(Singer).26 In any case, it is extremely interesting to understand the dynamics and causes of
the long-term 
uctuations of the climates. However, it was not the purpose of this paper to
get into all aspects of the climate variability debate.
The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric
eect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric
greenhouse eect, in particular CO2-greenhouse eect, in theoretical physics and engineering
thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting
solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.
25a phrase used by von Storch in Ref. [1]
26cf. Singer's summary at the Stockholm 2006 conference [1].
Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects : : : 95
Acknowledgements
This work is dedicated (a) to the late Professor S. Chandrasekhar, whom R.D.T. met in
Chicago in 1991, (b) to the late Professor C. F. v. Weizsacker, a respected discussion partner
of both authors, and (c) the late investigative science journalist H. Heuseler, whom G.G. owes
valuable information on the topic.
Both authors would like to thank many people for discussions, email exchanges, and
support at various stages of this work, in particular StD Dipl.-Biol. Ernst-Georg Beck, H.
J. Labohm, Professor B. Peiser, H. Thieme, Dr. phil. Wolfgang Thune, and Professor A.
Zichichi for sending them the manuscript of his talk presented at the Vatican conference.
Mrs. S. Feldhusen's rst translation of Ref. [104] is greatly appreciated.
Gerhard Gerlich would like to express his gratitude to all those who contributed to this
study either directly or indirectly: Students, Sta Members, Research and Teaching Assistants,
even collegues, who listened to his lectures and talks, who read his texts critically, who
did some successful literature search. In particular, he is indebted to the Diploma Physicists
(Diplomphysiker) Dr. V. Blahnik, Dr. T. Dietert, Dr. M. Guthmann, Dr. F. Homann, Dr.
G. Linke, Dr. K. Pahlke, Dr. U. Schomacker, H. Bade, M. Behrens, C. Bollmann, R. Flogel,
StR D. Harms, J. Hauschildt, C. Mangelsdorf, D. Osten, M. Schmelzer, A. Sohn, and G.
Toro, the architects P. Bossart and Dipl.-Ing. K. Fischer. Gerhard Gerlich extends his special
gratitude to Dr. G.-R. Weber for very early bringing his attention to the outstanding DOE
1985 report [91] to which almost no German author contributed. Finally, he is pleased about
the interest of the many scientic laymen who enjoyed his talks, his letters, and his comments.
Ralf D. Tscheuschner thanks all his students who formulated and collected a bunch of
questions about climate physics, in particular Elvir Donlc. He also thanks Professor A.
Bunde for email correspondence. Finally he is indebted to Dr. M. Dinter, C. Kloe, M. Kock,
R. Schulz for interesting discussions, and Professor H. Gral for an enlightening discussion
after his talk on Feb. 2, 2007 at Planetarium Hamburg. A critical reading by M. Mross and
Dr. M. Dinter and a translation of Fourier's 1824 paper in part by Melanie Willer's team and
by Dr. M. Dinter are especially acknowledged.
The authors express their hope that in the schools around the world the fundamentals of
physics will be taught correctly and not by using award-winning \Al Gore" movies shocking
every straight physicist by confusing absorption/emission with re
ection, by confusing the
tropopause with the ionosphere, and by confusing microwaves with shortwaves.

----------


## Marc

Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner 
Abstract 
The atmospheric greenhouse eect, an idea that many authors trace back to the
traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which
is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a ctitious mechanism, in
which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is
radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. Ac-
cording to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary
literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a rm sci-
entic foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying
physical principles are claried. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws
between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the ctitious atmospheric green-
house eects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature
of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned dierence of 33 C is a meaningless number
calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the
assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction
must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsied.

----------


## chrisp

> CO2 does not and can not stop atmospheric convection and therefore does not produce any so called greenhouse effect. 
> The concept of CO2 as a blanket around the earth is wrong and intentionally deceiving. The laws of thermodynamics make it impossible for the atmospheric heat to heat back the earth.

  Wow!  This is getting hard to keep up with!  *I wonder what the AGW denialists' argument is exactly?  Is it:*  The planet isn't warming at all, it is just corrupt scientists taking false measurements?The planet is warming, but it is just natural?The planet is warming, and mankind might be the cause, but so what?The planet is warming, and if it is man-made, so what? warming is good of everything?Mankind is too insignificant to possibly affect the atmosphere is the huge, enormous, gigantic planet.Australia's CO2 is only some (miscalculated) small percentage of the total atmosphere of the world and no one else is doing anything?The last couple of months show a strong cooling trend - the warming is over?The planet is actually cooling, but it is just corrupt scientists taking false measurements that imply it is warming?CO2 isn't a GHG?The greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics so the greenhouse effect is a scientific lie - at least in regard to CO2 in the atmosphere?AGW is just an attempt to install a new world order/government by stealth?AGW is a socialist plot to redistribute wealth from the rich (or the aspirational-rich-want-a-be's) to the poor (green/hippy/tree hugger/poor/lay-about)?AGW is a scheme to secure research funding for science (but never mind to truck loads of cash the coal mine owners make - they're capitalists and therefore completely honourable)?A Liberal/National will stop all this AGW nonsense (except, that they too are 'committed' to CO2 emissions cuts - to help solve a problem they don't think exists)?The Liberal/Nationals don't believe in AGW (aka "crap!") and will stop this AGW nonsense (but they say different things to different audiences)? *The anti-AGW argument sure is getting confusing! *    :Rolleyes:

----------


## chrisp

> yet no heat can be transferred from the colder object (air) to the hotter object (earth) just like water can not flow up stream.

  Damn!  I'll have to toss the refrigerator out - there is no way it can possibly work! 
Gee, those sure scientists had me fooled in to thinking that refrigeration could work!  :Doh:

----------


## PhilT2

Chrisp, if your fridge has broken the second law of thermodynamics then it is in serious trouble and all its beer may have to be forfeited. If however you have wisely plugged it into a powerpoint and turned it on then it is using energy to transfer heat, in which case the second law does not apply.

----------


## chrisp

> Chrisp, if your fridge has broken the second law of thermodynamics then it is in serious trouble and all its beer may have to be forfeited. If however you have wisely plugged it into a powerpoint and turned it on then it is using energy to transfer heat, in which case the second law does not apply.

  It still applies - _"No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from  a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature._" - Rudolf Clausius. 
The key word here is "sole".  Essentially, the 2nd law is a statement that heat flows from hot to cold unless driven the other way by external work.   My understanding is that it is a matter of where you draw your boundaries around the system and accounting for the energy flows across that chosen boundary.  Alternatively, you can move the boundary to include the (what were) external influences - and make it a closed system. 
My thermodynamics knowledge is quite rusty and it wasn't one of my majors - but I can still tell when Marc is cutting-and-pasting crap.  Actually, I don't think any knowledge of thermodynamics is required to know when Marc is cutting-and-pasting crap.  :Smilie:

----------


## PhilT2

Agreed,cut and paste without any critical review leads one to put up stuff like his last post on the work of Gerlich and Tscheuschner  http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/p...707.1161v4.pdf
a paper so bad it defied comment.

----------


## johnc

In Marc's defence he did say he had forgotten nearly all he had learnt (or words to that effect) and his most recent effort may well support that. :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

Apologies for interrupting your Captain Kelvinator semantics, but let see how other LIES and distractions from your fellow "believer's" keep trying to distract from the fact that the AGW hypothesis is a farce: 
This was Thursday, when Cate still had a veneer of credibility:   

> On _The Bolt Report_ on Sunday: *Simon Sheikh on his Cate Blanchett ad*, and former politicians Ross Cameron and Belinda Neale on politics, meows and the art of the political insult. Plus cane toads and the worst spin of the week.   Tips for Friday, June 3 | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  This is today when she has none:   

> On _The Bolt Report_ tomorrow - on Channel 10 at 10am and 4.30pm: 
>  - *why GetUp boss Simon Sheikh isnt appearing* 
>   - if the truth of global warming is so clear, why these lies? Some people get held to account. 
>   - Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison on celebrities and hypocrites. 
>   - Belinda Neale and Ross Cameron on meow and the art of the political insult. 
>   - embracing cane toads and rejecting the eco-fascists. A chat with director Mark Lewis. 
>   - spin of the week. Not.   Tips for Saturday, June 4 | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Why so scared Mr Simon [S]Fake[/S], oops, Sheik. 
If you're going to blatantly LIE, at least have the courage to front the media and keep the LIES going.  We have to give credit to JuLIAR for at least doing this.  :Biggrin:  
This farce is over. Even it's zealots can't LIE for it any more.  :Pointlaugh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Their "science" is apparently so compelling, that they need Hollywood actors to tell LIES to dupe innocent Australians into a paying an environmentally useless and economically destructive tax. 
Even if you understand nothing about science, common sense should tell you this is a fraud. 
Fake Sheik is running and hiding, his fellow LIARS will soon join him.    

> Its not just the let them eat cake attitude but the hypocrisy that makes this a bad career move:_CATE Blanchett ... has teamed with Packed to the Rafters actor Michael Caton to be the faces of a series of TV ads branded Say Yes, which will screen nationally from tonight._  _The ads are aimed at convincing the average Australian that a carbon tax is a good idea, even if it is tipped to raise the cost of living_  _In 2009, BRW estimated the Oscar winners wealth at $53 million, putting creature comforts like a $10 million mansion in Hunters Hill on Sydneys North Shore well within the budget_  _Its nice to have a multi-millionaire who wont be impacted by it telling you how great it is, Terri Kelleher, from The Australian Families Association, said...._  _Blanchett, who is actually an ambassador for luxury car brand Audi, could not be reached for comment._UPDATE 
> The deceit is astonishing. Apparently, cutting emissions of carbon dioxide will somehow turn our allegedly black skies into the clearest youve ever seen:     
>   UPDATE    
> Reader Walter spots another con in Blanchetts ad, which features an ominous power station that Gillards tax will allegedly shut down:_ 
> Good Lord - isnt that Londons Battersea power station in the background?  Surely no one could be that stupid. _  
>   Reader Popular Front confirms - the power station that Gillards tax will shut is actually in Britain and actually closed already:  _Youre right Walter - it IS Battersea Power Station (now just a shell btw) and they ARE that stupid. Maybe they should add a giant inflatable pig over it, or maybe Richard III doing a swan dive off it._ _Reader the sunshine grocer explains: _  _ 
> They have shown the old Battersea power station in England because of the Australian Cringe Our coal fired power stations are not old and evil enough._ _So this ad claims falsely Gillards tax will clean the skies from soot which the ad falsely shows belching from a British station which the ad falsely claims is pumping out pollution today. Could it get any more deceitful? _   _UPDATE _  _Professor Sinclair Davidson wonders why the ad asks us to say yes to Gillards tax:_ _To the best of my knowledge there is no referendum or election scheduled before the proposed introduction of the carbon tax._ Count the lies in this one still from the ad in which Michael Caton and Cat Blanchett tell us to say yes to Julia Gillards carbon dioxide tax:  - No, our skies arent black with soot. 
>   - No, this tax wont clear the skies. 
>   - No, this isnt about carbon but carbon dioxide. 
> ...

----------


## Marc

Both your post are so stupid that do not merit any answer. To suggest that a refrigerator proves that energy can flow from lower to higher temperture is bad even for a 7 grader.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Both your post are so stupid that do not merit any answer. To suggest that a refrigerator proves that energy can flow from lower to higher temperture is bad even for a 7 grader.

  its how they roll marc

----------


## PhilT2

*Second Law of Thermodynamics* 
 There is more than one way of stating the second law. All are equivalent, in that one statement can be used to derive the others.   Heat, by itself will always flow from a region of high temperature to one of lower temperature No heat engine can convert heat into work with 100 % efficiency No refrigerator can be made to move heat from one region to one of higher temperature without the input of work (from some external energy source such as the electrical system of your house.) _For an isolated system_, the entropy will always tend to increase.

----------


## Bedford

> *Second Law of Thermodynamics*
> Heat, by itself will always flow from a region of high temperature to one of lower temperature

  Can you explain this please, my understanding is that hot air rises, and if what you say is correct, the higher temperature air in a room would actually be at floor level?

----------


## johnc

Cold air is denser, so the hot air doesn't rise so much as it is forced up by the denser cold air. Gravity provides the impetus.

----------


## PhilT2

> Can you explain this please, my understanding is that hot air rises, and if what you say is correct, the higher temperature air in a room would actually be at floor level?

  This is not about me being correct or not. The laws of thermodynamics have stood the test of time and are considered proven. The difficulty is in our understanding of how they apply in particular circumstances and I doubt that my ability is any better than yours in working that out. 
I am happy to accept that hot air rises, the balloonists I see regularly are proof enough. I'm just not clear on why you would think what I said meant differently. If you could explain it more I'm sure we can work it out.

----------


## chrisp

> Can you explain this please, my understanding is that hot air rises, and if what you say is correct, the higher temperature air in a room would actually be at floor level?

  Hi Bedford, 
There are three main ways heat is transferred: conduction; radiation; and convection. 
The "hot air rises" is an example of convection.  Most (but not all) things expand as they are heated.  It retains the same mass, but its volume increases.  Or its density decreases.  Cold air is denser than hot air and tends to sink to the bottom. 
The second law of thermodynamics is just a mathematical way of stating (amongst other things) that if you have two objects at different temperatures, energy will flow from the hotter one to the colder one.  It effectively inhibits the possibility that the hotter one will take even more energy from the colder one - unless outside work is used to force it. 
The argument over the 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't really relevant to the argument of the existence of the  greenhouse theory.  The second law of thermodynamics holds - as does the law of gravity; as does Einstein's theory of relativity; as do Maxwell's equations, etc.  But they don't explain the greenhouse effect - nor contradict it. 
In a simplified nutshell, energy enters the earth's atmosphere in one part of the light (or electromagnetic radiation) spectrum.  It is absorbed by objects on the earth and re-radiated back at a different wavelength.  The CO2 is a greenhouse gas as it absorbs the reflected/re-radiated energy more than it impedes the incoming radiation.  This is the greenhouse effect.  In a glasshouse, shorter wavelengths pass through the glass easier than the longer wavelength (e.g. heat) radiation.     :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

Chris if you had even bothered to read part of the two works I have posted from people with credentials and published works, you wouldn't make a fool of yourself parroting back what you read on the newspapers about the greenhouse theory.   

> Those who find Gerlich's essay hard to understand, may find some of  Heinz Thieme's essays useful.  Thieme doesn't have the credentials of  Gerlich, but his essays are directed to a more general audience. 
> Scientists take two approaches to determining the validity of theories.   One approach involves efforts to prove the theory is valid which  sometimes is difficult to do.  The other approach attempts to disprove  the theory, or falsify it.  If the theory can be falsified,then there is  no need to attempt to prove it.   
> Heinze Thieme has published several essays demonstrating that the  greenhouse gas theory is false. In "On the Phenomenon of Atmospheric  Backradiation" he shows that "An assessment conducted in the light of  the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the principles of vector algebra of  the key greenhouse theory concept of 'atmospheric backradiation'  suggests that it is simply a mirage. The only 'Backradiation Phenomenon'  that needs explaining is how this physical nonsense maintains its place  in numerous earth sciences textbooks at both school and university  level." 
> Greenhouse gas devotees believe the such back radiation by CO2 is supposed to heat the ground and water.  http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/backrad.htm  
> In the article "Does Man really affect Weather and Climate? Are the Interactions really understood? "   http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/Influence.htm  
> he discusses how humans may be affecting climate by adding water rather  than by adding CO2.  This affect occurs because of the thermal  characteristics of water, especially water vapor rather than radiation.   
> The third article "The Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect - explained stepwise"  http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/atmos.htm 
> he demonstrates that atmospheric pressure is more important in  determining temperature than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  In  the case of Venus he provides data indicating it would actually be  warmer if the atmosphere was comprised of gases other than CO2.  "To  avoid misunderstandings in the future it would be wise not to use the  term 'greenhouse effect' anymore for the description of conditions  within an atmosphere. It would be more correct to speak of an  'atmosphere Effect' [6], to describe and explain the thermodynamic  temperature effects of an atmosphere."

----------


## chrisp

> Chris if you had even bothered to read part of the two works I have posted from people with credentials and published works, you wouldn't make a fool of yourself parroting back what you read on the newspapers about the greenhouse theory.

  Marc, 
I can assure you my knowledge of the greenhouse theory, and response, did not come from newspapers.   :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

I stumbled across this report "_Public Risk Perceptions, Understandings and Responses to Climate Change in Australia and Great Britain: Interim Report_", Joseph P. Reser, Nick Pidgeon, Alexa Spence, Graham Bradley, A. Ian Glendon and Michelle Ellul, Griffith University, Climate Change Response Program, Queensland, Australia, and Understanding Risk Centre, Cardiff University, Wales. 
The report can be found at http://www.nccarf.edu.au/sites/defau...0pm%281%29.pdf 
The report isn't dated, but the Australian survey was taken mid last year.   

> *More specific joint findings include the following:*    *74% of Australian respondents* and 78% of British respondents *believed 'that the world's climate is changing'*, with 8% reporting 'not knowing' in both countries. *71% of Australian respondents* either 'strongly agreed or 'tended to agree' with the statement, *'I am certain that climate change is really happening'*. *90% of Australian* respondents and 89% of British respondents believed that *human activities were playing a causal role in climate change*. 54% of Australian respondents and 41% of British respondents believed that they were already experiencing the effects of climate change. Australian respondents provided many examples of direct encounters with what they viewed as evidence of climate change in open-ended survey items. 66% of Australian respondents and 71% of British respondents reported that they were 'very concerned' or 'fairly concerned' about climate change, with an additional 22% and 19% respectively, indicating some level of concern.

----------


## Marc

If anyone really wants to "believe" that the atmosphere acts like a greenhouse, I don't mind. It is not easy to understand the laws of thermodynamics, except for Chris of course. 
However consider this. 
CO2 is a minute fraction of the total mass of gases that constitute the atmosphere, and the list below does not take into accountthe biggest of them all, water vapour.
Nitrogen (N2) 78.084%
Oxygen (O2) 20.946%
Argon (Ar) 0.934%
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.0383 %
Neon (Ne) 0.001818 %
Helium (He) 0.000524 %
Methane (CH4) 0.0001745 %
Krypton (Kr) 0.000114%
Hydrogen (H2) 0.000055 % 
So have you ever pondered why are we so fixated in CO2 when in fact ALL gases including water are capable of absorbing heat? 
Lets forget for a minute the scientific fact that the heat absorbed by the gases regardless of the origin can not be "irradiated back" to earth since we already discussed this is impossible besides in Chris fridge of course. But I said forget that fact for a minute.   
If the greenhouse fallacy is true, why don't all gases act like the bad CO2 ?
Below is an explanation very simple terms.  

> *The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory*  *By* *Alan Siddons*   Insulated  by an outer crust, the surface of the earth acquires nearly all of its  heat from the sun. The only exit for this heat to take is through a door  marked "Radiation." And therein lies a tale...   Recently, I chanced upon an _Atmospheric Science Educator Guide_ [PDF] published by NASA. Aimed at students in grades 5 through 8, it helps teachers explain how so-called "greenhouse gases" warm our planet Earth.  These guides are interesting on a number of levels, so I recommend that you look them over. But what caught my eye was this:   Question: Do all of the gases in our atmosphere absorb heat? _Answer: (Allow students to discuss their ideas. Don't provide the answer at this time.)_  Indeed, that's a good one to think over yourself. Almost all of what we're breathing is nitrogen and oxygen -- do _these_  gases absorb heat? Lakes and rocks absorb heat, after all, and  thereby reach a higher temperature. So can nitrogen and oxygen molecules  do the same?   Well, I won't keep you hanging. After allowing students to discuss it, the instructor is instructed to give them the final verdict.   _Answer: No. Only some gases have the unique property of being able to absorb heat._  These are the infrared-absorbing "greenhouse gases," of course, substances like carbon dioxide and water vapor, and not nitrogen and oxygen.   Now,  is something wrong here? Most definitely, for NASA has a finger on the  scale. Let's review a few basics that NASA should have outlined.   _Heat_ consists of vibrating and colliding molecules. The motion of these molecules jostles their electrons around, and this emits _light_.  Heat and light are thus strongly related, but they aren't the same. For  instance, heat can't actually be radiated; only the light that heat  brings about can. By the same token, light itself has no temperature  because temperature is an index of molecular motion, and a beam of light  isn't composed of molecules. In short, "heat" can be regarded as  molecular excitement and light as electromagnetic excitement.   Observe how NASA describes this relationship, however.    Question: What is the relationship between light and heat?_Answer: Things that are hot sometimes give off light. Things under a light source sometimes heat up._  Utterly false. Heated masses always emit light (infrared). _Always_. That's  a direct consequence of molecules in motion. And while it's true that  some substances may be transparent to infrared light, it doesn't follow  that they can't be heated or, if heated, might not emit infrared. Yet  NASA's misleading formulation implies precisely that.   There  are three ways for heat (better to say thermal energy) to move from one  zone to another: by conduction, convection, and radiation. Conductive  heat transfer involves direct contact, wherein vibrations spread from  molecule to molecule. Convective transfer involves a mass in motion:  expanded by heat, a fluid is pushed up and away by the denser fluid that  surrounds it. Radiative transfer arises when molecules intercept the  light that warmer molecules are emitting, which brings about a resonant  molecular vibration -- i.e., heating.   Heat is transferred and absorbed in several ways, then, and no substance is immune to being heated, which means that _all_ gases absorb heat -- contrary to what NASA tells children.   So how  does NASA go wrong? By consistently confusing light and heat, as you  see in the illustration below, where infrared light is _depicted_ as heat. Elsewhere, NASA expresses heat transfer in terms that pertain to radiant transfer alone:  The  Earth first absorbs the visible radiation from the Sun, which is then  converted to heat, and this heat radiates out to the atmosphere, where  the greenhouse gases then absorb some of the heat.Nowhere  in its teacher's guide are conductive and convective heat transfer even  mentioned. By selective context and vagueness, then, NASA  paints an impression that only light-absorbing substances can be heated.  Thus, since nitrogen and oxygen don't respond to infrared, NASA feels  justified to say that "only some gases have the unique property of being  able to absorb heat."  Astonishing.   But a mixup like this raises a deeper question: _Why_  does NASA go wrong? Because it has a flimsy yet lucrative theory to  foist on the taxpaying public, that's why. As the space agency explains  in the Main Lesson Concept, the core idea of greenhouse theory is that  downward radiation from greenhouse gases raises the earth's surface  temperature higher than solar heating can.      To make this idea seem plausible, therefore, it's crucial to fix people's attention on the 1% of the atmosphere that _can be_ heated by radiant transfer instead of the 99% and more that _is heated_  by direct contact with the earth's surface and then by convection.  NASA is stacking the deck, you see. If they made it clear  that every species of atmospheric gas gets heated mainly by conductive  transfer, and that _all_ heated bodies radiate light, then even a  child could connect the dots: "Oh. So the whole atmosphere radiates  heat to the earth and makes it warmer. All of the atmosphere is a  greenhouse gas."   Crash,  boom, there goes the theory. And there goes the abundant funding that  this fear-promoting "science" attracts so well. For what CO2 and water vapor emit is miniscule compared to the buzzing multitude of heated nitrogen, oxygen, and even argon, all of it radiating infrared, too. Keep in mind that thermal radiation from this forgotten 99% has _never_ been  proposed or imagined to increase the earth's temperature, although  by the theory's very tenets, it should. You simply take the NASA  formulation:  Greenhouse  gases absorb heat that radiates from Earth's surface and release some  of it back towards the Earth, increasing the surface temperature ... ...and make allowance for conductive transfer, too...  All gases  in the atmosphere absorb heat from the Earth's surface and radiate  infrared back towards the Earth, increasing the surface temperature.Consider too that since most air molecules are infrared-transparent, they can't be _heated_ by the infrared that CO2 and water vapor emit. This means that downward radiation from "greenhouse gases" can only explain how the earth's _surface_  might get warmer, not the rest of the atmosphere. This underscores, of  course, how much the surface is heating this 99% by conduction and  convection alone, since radiative transfer can't do the job.  To  repeat: Irrespective of the manner of transfer, all gases absorb heat,  and all heated gases radiate heat (infrared light) in close proportion  to their temperature. Major gases like nitrogen and oxygen, then, do  not just radiate heat to the earth below, but the total of this  radiation vastly exceeds what minor players like carbon dioxide and water vapor contribute. Ironically, another NASA publication [PDF] reinforces this point.   In  solids, the molecules and atoms are vibrating continuously. In a gas,  the molecules are really zooming around, continuously bumping into each  other. Whatever the amount of molecular motion occurring in matter, the  speed is related to the temperature. The hotter the material, the faster  its molecules are vibrating or moving.  Electromagnetic  radiation is produced whenever electric charges accelerate - that is,  when they change either the speed or direction of their movement. In a  hot object, the molecules are continuously vibrating (if a solid) or  bumping into each other (if a liquid or gas), sending each other off in  different directions and at different speeds. Each of these collisions  produces electromagnetic radiation at frequencies all across the  electromagnetic spectrum.   ...  Any matter that is heated above absolute zero generates electromagnetic  energy. The intensity of the emission and the distribution of  frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum depend upon the temperature  of the emitting matter.Accordingly, any heated gas emits infrared. There's nothing unique about CO2.  Otherwise, substances like nitrogen and oxygen would truly be miracles  of physics: Heat 'em as much as you wish, but they'd never radiate in  response.    Yet  this amounts to a double-whammy. For meteorologists acknowledge that  our atmosphere is principally heated by surface contact and convective  circulation. Surrounded by the vacuum of space, moreover, the earth can  only dissipate this energy by radiation. On one hand, then, if  surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen do _not_ radiate the thermal  energy they acquire, they rob the earth of a means of cooling off --  which makes them "greenhouse gases" by definition. On the other hand,  though, if surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen _do_ radiate infrared, then they are _also_  "greenhouse gases," which defeats the premise that only radiation from  the infrared-absorbers raises the Earth's temperature. Either  way, therefore, the convoluted theory we've been going by is wrong.  An  idea has been drummed into our heads for decades: that roughly 1% of  the atmosphere's content is responsible for shifting the earth's surface  temperature from inimical to benign. This conjecture has mistakenly  focused on specifically light-absorbing gases, however, ignoring  heat-absorbing gases altogether. Any heated atmospheric gas radiates  infrared energy back toward the earth, meaning that the dreadful power  we've attributed to light-absorbing molecules up to now has been wildly  exaggerated and must be radically adjusted -- indeed, pared down  perhaps a hundred times. Because all gases radiate the heat they  acquire, trace-gas heating theory is an untenable concept, a long-held  illusion we'd be wise to abandon.

----------


## PhilT2

Marc's cut and paste comes from this #6251 Physicist Falsifies GH gas theory [Archive] - Physics Forums
The links don't work over there either.
 Of course if greenhouse theory is now disproven then Christy, Lindzen, Spencer and Plimer are all wrong. Someone should let them know.

----------


## Marc

Miskolczi destroys greenhouse theory | ClimateTruth  

> *Miskolczi destroys greenhouse theory* 
>   					 						Posted on July 17, 2010 by kirkmyers  *Editors note:* In response _to reader interest in Dr. Ferenc Miskolczis provocative greenhouse theory challenging  the widespread belief in man-caused global warming, Climate Truth has  asked the former NASA researcher to explain his work further. Earlier  this week he attacked the prevailing climate-change theory, calling it  a lie._  _At Dr. Miskolczis request, we also have posted his letter sent last year to the_ _Environmental Protection Agency__,  summarizing his research and questioning the agencys efforts to  declare CO2 a harmful pollutant that poses a threat to earths climate._  *Climate Truth:* Has there been global warming? *Dr. Miskolczi:*No one is denying  that global warming has taken place, but it has nothing to do with the  greenhouse effect or the burning of fossil fuels.  *Climate Truth:*  According to the conventional  anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, as human-induced CO2  emissions increase, more surface radiation is absorbed by the  atmosphere, with part of it re-radiated to the earths surface,  resulting in global warming.  Is that an accurate description of the  prevailing theory?   *Dr. Miskolczi:* Yes, this is the classic concept of the greenhouse effect.  *ClimateTruth:*  Are man-made CO2 emissions the cause of global warming? *Dr. Miskolczi:* Apparently not. According to my  research, increases in CO2 levels have not increased the global-average  absorbing power of the atmosphere.  *ClimateTruth:*  Where does the traditional greenhouse theory make its fundamental mistake? *Dr. Miskolczi:*  The conventional  greenhouse theory does not consider the newly discovered physical  relationships involving infrared radiative fluxes. These relationships  pose strong energetic constraints on an equilibrium system.  *ClimateTruth:* Why has this error escaped notice until now? *Dr. Miskolczi:* Nobody thought that a 100-year-old  theory could be wrong. The original greenhouse formula, developed by an  astrophysicist, applies only to the stars, not to finite,  semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. New equations had to be  formulated.  *ClimateTruth:*  According your theory, the  greenhouse effect is self-regulating and stabilizes itself in response  to rising CO2 levels. You identified (perhaps discovered) a greenhouse  constant that keeps the greenhouse effect in equilibrium.  Is that a  fair assessment of your theory? *Dr. Miskolczi:* Yes. Our  atmosphere, with its infinite degree of freedom, is able to maintain its  global average infrared absorption at an optimal level. In technical  terms, this greenhouse constant is the total infrared optical  thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87. Despite  the 30 per cent increase of CO2 in the last 61 years, this value has not  changed. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorption power as was  predicted by the IPCC.  *ClimateTruth:*  You used empirical data, rather than models, to arrive at your conclusion. How was that done? *Dr. Miskolczi:* The computations are  relatively simple. I collected a large number of radiosonde observations  from around the globe and computed the global average infrared  absorption. I performed these computations using observations from two  large, publicly available datasets known as the TIGR2 and NOAA. The  computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations,  using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code. In both  datasets, the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be  1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.     *ClimateTruth:*  Have your mathematical equations been challenged or disproved? *Dr. Miskolczi*_:_ No.  *ClimateTruth:*  If your theory stands up to  scientific scrutiny, it would collapse the CO2 global warming doctrine  and render meaningless its predictions of climate catastrophe. Given its  significance, why has your theory been met with silence and, in some  instances, dismissal and derision?   *Dr. Miskolczi:* I can only guess.  First of all, nobody likes to admit mistakes. Second, somebody has to  explain to the taxpayers why millions of dollars were spent on AGW  research. Third, some people are making a lot of money from the carbon  trade and energy taxes.  *ClimateTruth*:  A huge industry has arisen out of the study and prevention of man-made global warming. Has the world been fooled? *Dr. Miskolczi:*Thanks to censored science and the complicity of the mainstream media, yes, totally.    *Dr. Miskolczis letter  to the EPA* 
>  June 20, 2009 
>  Environmental Protection Agency
>  EPA DocketCenter (EPA/DC)
>  Mailcode 6102T
>  Attention Docket IDNo. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171
>  1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
>  Washington, DC 20460 
> ...

----------


## Marc

> I stumbled across this report "_Public Risk Perceptions, Understandings and Responses to Climate Change in Australia and Great Britain: Interim Report_", Joseph P. Reser, Nick Pidgeon, Alexa Spence, Graham Bradley, A. Ian Glendon and Michelle Ellul, Griffith University, Climate Change Response Program, Queensland, Australia, and Understanding Risk Centre, Cardiff University, Wales. 
> The report can be found at http://www.nccarf.edu.au/sites/defau...0pm%281%29.pdf 
> The report isn't dated, but the Australian survey was taken mid last year.

  Which proves that propaganda works very well. 
I remember what we used to say at uni when we had the lefties shelling their lies.
"Eat sh#t, millions of flies can not be wrong"

----------


## chrisp

> Of course if greenhouse theory is now disproven then Christy, Lindzen, Spencer and Plimer are all wrong. Someone should let them know.

  ... and whoever disproved it ought to be reading up on the tourist attractions in Stockholm.  They probably end up there to receive an award.   :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

> Carl Sagan - the "scientist" who first postulated the whole notion of a  planetary "Runaway Greenhouse Effect" did incredible damage to science  in another way. 
> Sagan's "best attribute" was his ability to seduce senators and  congressmen to fund science. One of the biggest was for SETI - the  Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. 
> Michael Crichton gave a very interesting speech about how SETI - and the  justification behind it - gave junk science a serious foothold into  mainstream science, particularly physics. 
> Up until SETI, 99% of physicists working on government-sponsored  projects worked solely for military purposes. They couldn't get real  work ( outside of academia ) that would pay any bills until SETI. 
> SETI's notion, that there MUST be life out there because, damnit, there  are so many planets that, well, there MUST be life out there. Let's  start trying to find it. 
> Anthropogenic Global Warming is the bastard step-child of SETI and its junk-science mistress. 
> Funny how the same man did both. 
> Only the Ozone Hole Scare's junk science seems to have been the brainchild of a different science quack. 
> Here's the link to Crichton's San Francisco Speech, "Aliens Cause Global Warming" :

  *Aliens Cause Global Warming*
by Michael Crichton - Caltech Michelin Lecture - January 17, 2003 
My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am  going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to  speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials  has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global  warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today. Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming | Climate Realists

----------


## Marc

The above article is an eye opener for those who like history. 
However I would like to post a few paragraphs dedicated to the subject of "Consensus" from the same link in my previous post.   

> I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the  rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus  science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped  cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the  first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that  the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of  scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because  you're being had.  
> Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with  consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the  contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which  means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the  real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is  reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great  precisely because they broke with the consensus.  
> There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.  
> In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.  
> In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following  childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander  Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes,  and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver  Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented  compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss  demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal  fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a  Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no  agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century.  Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at  the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics"  around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite  the constant ongoing deaths of women.  
> There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of  thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called  pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what  was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a  brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause.  Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus  remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he  could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease  was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into  himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their  noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules  containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's  filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to  disagree with him.  
> There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the  idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was  required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a  twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.  
> Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to  fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that  the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at  continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied  by the great names of geologyuntil 1961, when it began to seem as if  the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty  years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.  
> And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and  smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed  memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therap6yï¿½the list  of consensus errors goes on and on.  
> Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is  invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is  not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that  E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles  away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

----------


## chrisp

> Can you explain this please, my understanding is that hot air rises, and if what you say is correct, the higher temperature air in a room would actually be at floor level?

  My apologies to Bedford.  I think I misunderstood and overlooked an aspect of his question. 
I think Bedford is suggesting that the hot air above will radiate heat to the colder air below and thus make the temperature more uniform in the room.  To an extent this is correct.  In the case of a solid material (such as a block of metal) this would happen where the hotter part would conduct heat to the colder part and make the temperature uniform. 
In the case of air, we are not dealing with a solid and the hotter air rises due to the reasons I posted earlier.  Air is a relatively good insulator so not much conduction occurs.  Also, the temperature difference is relatively low as thus the radiation flow is low.  In this case, the drive from convection dominates.   :Smilie:

----------


## johnc

As a reminder to all of us, there is every reason to maintain a level of respect for all sides, which includes avoiding the temptation to characterise opponents in terms that dehumanise or subscribe to the view that there is an absurd religious connection or that somehow they should be swept aside. When we do there are the unbalanced amongst us that take things to heart and we get the following. (From the ABC this evening)  
Several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security.
Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research.
Vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says the scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street if they continue their research.
He says it has been happening for the past six months and the situation has worsened significantly in recent weeks.
"Obviously climate research is an emotive issue at the present time," he said. 
"These are issues where we should have a logical public debate and it's completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse and to threats like this.
"I think it is totally outrageous and the vast majority of Australians would think it is totally unacceptable for anybody in society to be subjected to this sort of behaviour."
Professor Young says the outrageous behaviour has left the scientists shaken. 
"Academics and scientists are actually really not equipped to be treated in this way," he said.
"The whole scientific process is one of open debate and discussion, but the concept that you would be threatened for your scientific views and work is something that is completely foreign to them."
He says the climate change issue is emotive, but all the key players should take a breath and debate the issue calmly.

----------


## PhilT2

There is discussion on the Miskolczi theory on a number of sites, Watt, ClimateAudit, Realclimate and others. Science of Doom has Miskolczi show up in the comments but he suddenly has to go just when the questions get intense. Opinion seems to be that he has got the math wrong.

----------


## Dr Freud

AGW Hypothesis supporters do not understand "the science". 
They rely on their farcical beliefs, and here's a look at some of them: 
1) They believe Australians support JuLIAR's Carbon Dioxide Tax.
2) They believe the Coalition is worse off under Tony Abbott.
3) They believe they have proof that humans can control Planet Earth's entire atmospheric temperature at will. 
They are wrong, wrong, wrong! 
1)  
37% (down 1%) support the proposed carbon tax 
2)  *The latest telephone Morgan Poll conducted over the last three nights, May 31  June 2, 2011, shows the L-NP (59%) with its biggest winning lead over the ALP (41%) since the Morgan Poll began recording Two-Party preferred results in early 1993.*   
3) 
The NULL stands, Trenberth is a joke, and AGW supporters need Cate Blanchett to convince Australians they need to pay more tax, while she jets around the world from her Hollywood mansion, and we sell hundreds of billions of tonnes of EXTRA coal to China to burn TAX FREE. 
Their beliefs are ridiculous, their faith is flawed, their argument is over.  :Harhar:  
That's why they keep engaging in semantic distractions, like talking about fridges.  :Doh:

----------


## PhilT2

Figures coming in on numbers at the climate change rallies throughtout Aus today, some estimates say about 40,000 all up. Brisbane rally says 'yes' to carbon price
Approx 5000 here in Brisbane

----------


## chrisp

> Figures coming in on numbers at the climate change rallies throughtout Aus today, some estimates say about 40,000 all up. Brisbane rally says 'yes' to carbon price
> Approx 5000 here in Brisbane

  It been a 'good news day' for both sides of the AGW debate:  The rally was well attended; and Bob Katter has announced that he is forming a new political party.  I'm sure Rod will approve of the latter.

----------


## PhilT2

Katter's new party if it gets off the ground, will split the conservative vote and under qld's optional preference system will help to ensure Bligh's re-election. Right when the LNP in Qld looked like they might have a chance of becoming organised enough to get elected, this is the last thing they wanted.  
Two state national party members have also split from the Qld LNP and formed a new organisation, the Qld Party. This group will also draw votes away from the conservatives. One of them, Aiden McLindon was the local council member here in Logan before becoming the state member for Beaudesert. 
As part of the disability organisation I belong to I went with other parents of kids with disabilities to speak with political parties about their policies before upcoming elections. I rate the Qld Nationals as the most likely to cause long term harm, through ignorance and stupidity, to people with a disability. One Nation was worse but thankfully they have gone. But the nutters who voted for them are still out there.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It been a 'good news day' for both sides of the AGW debate:  The rally was well attended; and Bob Katter has announced that he is forming a new political party.  I'm sure Rod will approve of the latter.

    

> *AUSTRALIANS are demanding Julia Gillard call a fresh election, saying she has no mandate for a carbon tax.*   With less than a third of all voters now claiming to support the tax, the federal government is facing a nationwide backlash if it proceeds. An exclusive Galaxy poll commissioned by _The Daily Telegraph_ has revealed 73 per cent of people claim they will end up worse off under the tax. Just 7 per cent believe they could end up better off in some way. More fatal for the Prime Minister, however, was the overwhelming support for an election to be called on the issue - confirming widespread anger over her broken election promise not to introduce a carbon tax. A total of 64 per cent said they wanted a fresh election. Only 24 per cent believed the PM had a mandate. And in a growing sentiment that the tax would not help solve the climate change problem, 75 per cent believed it would have only a minor impact on the environment - or no impact at all.  Read more: Julia Gillard feels the heat over carbon tax backlash as voters call for new election | News.com.au

  Suck it up sweetheart.  This is where it counts baby.  You know where you can put your rent a crowd from get up.

----------


## ringtail

" Suck it up sweetheart.  This is where it counts baby.  You know where you can put your rent a crowd from get up." 
x 2

----------


## Dr Freud

> Suck it up sweetheart.  This is where it counts baby.  You know where you can put your rent a crowd from get up.

  x3  :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  
Bring on the election, it could be just after Christmas when JuLIAR is knifed:   

> Ive argued for months that Julia Gillard is finished, and only a lack of a clear alternative leader is propping her up. 
>   Now Glenn Milne agrees, but adds that Labor backbenchers are growing so desperate that they could vote for Anyone But Julia:  _IN a despairing counterpoint to the imminent first anniversary of Julia Gillards brutal installation into the prime ministership, Labor MPs have, for the first time, begun to put a deadline on her failing leadership. In recent internal discussions, backbenchers have set December - the traditional killing season for political leaders - as the first timeline for any move against her, with the default position being early in the New Year _   _This suggests, if it does come, it will be backbench driven and therefore unpredictable and unco-ordinated. _   _Proof of this fact also came this week with disaffected Labor MPs throwing up a third way candidate for the leadership should Gillard prove terminal. To date all speculation has centred on Bill Shorten and Greg Combet as successors. Now some Labor MPS have raised the prospect of Defence Minister Stephen Smith as a possible contender. According to this school of thought, two factors count against Shorten (the more popular of the two) and Combet (regarded as the more competent). Both are former union leaders in a climate where, say some Labor backbenchers, the governments ACTU-driven workplace reforms could soon begin to count against the administration in an economy running up against capacity constraints and skills shortages. _   _Second, goes the argument, neither Combet nor Shorten has enough parliamentary experience to qualify them for the top job. Enter, in the minds of some, Smith, as a safe pair of hands. Note that Wayne Swan figures nowhere in the leadership discussions currently being conducted behind the backs of Labor hands. Swan is now bracketed as part of the flailing Gillard experiment._Smith is in fact not a safe pair of hands of all, to judge by his wild overreaction to Skype Affair. And what makes Gillards incompetence an even great tragedy for Labor is that its dragging down the reputation of people like Immigration Minister Chris Bowen, given a toxic portfolio that damages his own standing as a potential leader.     Gillard gone by December? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Marc

I like to post this once more, for those who think that the consensus is with AGW. 
Well it probably is ... :Biggrin:    

> I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the   rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus   science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped   cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the   first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that   the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of   scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because   you're being had.  
> Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with   consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the   contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which   means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to  the  real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is   reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great   precisely because they broke with the consensus.  
> There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here we go!  great ski season ahead.   

> "On May 11 we had snow down to very low levels around Melbourne and they've  had on-and-off snowfalls fairly continuously and now another quite extensive  dump.
> "I can't remember many times the alpine areas had good cover like that (for  an opening weekend)."  
> Read more: Get ready to freeze tomorrow

  Remember these claims  

> *Snow 'will be gone soon'*   
> Modelling by the CSIRO shows climate change could see 95 per cent of Australia's snow cover disappear altogether by the year 2050

  Or    

> "Unfortunately because our current emissions and our current rises in temperatures are at the high end of the predictions, it's definitely coming to us sooner and faster. 
> "By 2020, we've found that the amount of water that the ski resorts are going to need to make snow, just to match current conditions, is going to exceed the amount of water that's used by Canberra

  Thanks for the scaremongering  ABC

----------


## Rod Dyson

I wonder if they might retract statements like this............... dont hold your breath.   

> *Warming threatens Aussie ski fields: expert*  
> Posted Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:29pm AEST 
> Updated Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:28pm AEST  
> An academic has a pessimistic outlook for Australian snow resorts because of climate change. 
> Associate Professor Catherine Pickering, of Griffith University, says global warming has reduced the amount of snow falling on resorts and has increased the fire risk in summer. 
> She says lower altitude ski resorts will be affected first. 
> "[There will be a] 60 per cent decline in the areas that receive 60 days of snow, so we're going to have a lot less snow," she said. 
> "If you're looking at the total amount of snow, there's already been a 30 per cent reduction in the last 30 years. If your looking at the maximum depth, we're looking at a 40 per cent reduction already."

  Hang on maybe its all the hot weather we are having thats creating this snow.

----------


## Marc

For anyone still believing there is a great big scary greenhouse effect that will burn us all  No such thing as â€œGreenhouse effectâ€

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Hi Rod.
> I cant find a way to post the text in this link No such thing as â€œGreenhouse effectâ€
> Do you think you can help?
> Marc

  It is in the web page as an "image" not text thats the problem I think. 
I just tried to get it by saving the image but no go.

----------


## Marc

Another cut and paste that shows that the greenhouse theory is false   

> _Contribution to  the discussion about Climate Change__:_  *Greenhouse Gas  Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics*  _By Dipl.-Ing. Heinz  Thieme_  *Deutsche Version  siehe:*http://real-planet.eu/treibhauseffekt.htm  The relationship between so-called greenhouse gases  and atmospheric temperature is not yet well understood.  So far,  climatologists have hardly participated in serious scientific discussion of the  basic energetic mechanisms of the atmosphere.  Some of them,  however, appear to be starting to realise that their greenhouse paradigm is  fundamentally flawed, and already preparing to withdraw their theories about the  climatic effects of CO2 and other trace  gases. At present, the climatological profession is chiefly engaged in  promoting the restriction of CO2 emissions as a means of  limiting atmospheric warming.  But at the same time, they admit  that the greenhouse effect - I.e. The influence of so-called greenhouse gases on  near-surface temperature - is not yet absolutely proven (Grassl et al.,  see: http--www.dmg-ev.de-gesellschaft-aktivitaeten-pdf-treibhauseffekt.pdf ).  In other words, there is  as yet no incontrovertible proof either of the greenhouse effect, or its  connection with alleged global warming. This is no surprise, because in fact there is no such  thing as the greenhouse effect: it is an impossibility.  The  statement that so-called greenhouse gases, especially CO2,  contribute to near-surface atmospheric warming is in glaring contradiction to  well-known physical laws relating to gas and vapour, as well as to general  caloric theory. The greenhouse theory proposed by the climatological  fraternity runs as follows:  Outgoing infra-red radiation from the  earths surface is somehow re-radiated by molecules of CO2  (mainly) and also O3, NO2, CH4 in the atmosphere. This backradiation produces warming of the  lower atmosphere.  To convince the public of the greenhouse effect,  composites of temperature measurements since the 19th century are  exhibited that show a certain warming.  Measurements of the CO2 content of the air also show a rise in recent decades  (Note CO2).   Climatologists then claim that the CO2 rise has  caused the temperature rise (see: http://earth.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html). A second source of misconceptions about the relation  between temperature and the CO2 content of air arises from  an erroneous explanation of conditions on the planet Venus.  The  Venutian atmosphere is 95% CO2, and its near-surface  temperature is approximately 460oC (see also: http://www.uni-erlangen.de/docs/FAU/...ppl/klima1.htm ).  What climatologists  overlook is that atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is 90 bar, and  that it is this colossal pressure that determines the  temperature. Strict application of physical laws admits no  possibility that tiny proportions of gases like CO2 in our  atmosphere cause backradiation that could heat up the surface and the atmosphere  near it: 1. The troposphere cools as altitude increases: in  dry air, at a rate of around 1oC per 100m; under typical atmospheric  humidity, by around 0.7oC per 100m.  This cooling  reflects the decrease of atmospheric pressure as altitude increases.   Higher is cooler, both by day and by night. 2. Backradiation of the heat radiation outgoing from  the earth's surface would only be possible by reflection, similarly to the  effect of aluminium foil under roof insulation.  But the CO2 share in our atmosphere cannot cause reflection in any  way.  Within homogeneous gases and gas mixtures no reflections  occur.  As is well known in optics, reflection and even refraction  occur only at the boundaries of materials of different optical density, or at  phase boundaries of a material or a material mixture (solid-liquid,  liquid-gaseous, solid-gaseous).  Thus it occurs with suspended  water drops or ice crystals, or at the boundary between surface water and air -  but never within homogeneous materials, e.g. Air, water, glass. 
> 3. If  outgoing thermal radiation from the earths surface is absorbed in the  atmosphere, the absorbing air warms up, disturbing the existing vertical pattern  of temperature, density and pressure, I.e. The initial state of the air  layers.  It is well known that warmed air expands and, because it  is then lighter than the non-warmed air around it, rises. The  absorbed warmth is taken away by air mass exchange.  Just this  occurs with near-surface air that is warmed by convection from earth's surface,  vegetation, buildings and so on.  For the same reason the windows  of heated rooms are kept closed in winter  otherwise the warm air would  escape. These facts are slowly but surely dawning on  climatologists.  Grassl and others state (see above) that radiation  absorbed by CO2-molecules will warm the atmosphere *if  no other reactions occur in the physical (in particular dynamic) processes in  the earth/atmosphere system*.  In these "idealised  conditions", they say the greenhouse effect would be inevitable.   Such "idealised conditions" must obviously include the proviso that air  is stationary.  It is really quite absurd that even now something  so obvious as that hot air rises is not properly taken into account by the  climatological profession.  When air is heated up locally, it  ascends and the warmth is removed.   It also expands with  decreasing atmospheric pressure at higher altitude, and cools so that no  remaining warming can be observed.  The warmth taken over by the  absorbing air is transported toward the upper troposphere.  The  greenhouse effect does not occur. The same process applies to individual CO2-molecules that absorb outgoing radiant heat from the earth's  surface or from lower layers of the troposphere.  These individual  molecules remain at the same temperature as their surroundings.   Due to the high density of molecules in the troposphere, an immediate  exchange of absorbed radiated energy takes place by convection with the  surrounding molecules of air.  The CO2-molecules in the air are not isolated and therefore cannot reach  a higher temperature than their environment.  If energy is  absorbed, the molecules in the immediate vicinity will warm  up. 4. A prerequisite for any type of heat transfer is  that the emitter is warmer than the absorber.  Heat transfer is  determined by the ratio of the fourth powers of the temperatures of the emitting  and the absorbing bodies.  Because temperature is uniform within  minute volumes of gas in the air, and temperature decreases with increasing  altitude, back transfer to near-surface air of radiation from higher CO2-molecules is impossible.  In fact, this is just as  impossible as it is to use a cold heat radiator toheat up a warmer area. 5. The energy discharge from the troposphere takes  place at its upper boundary layer, at the transition of the atmosphere from its  gaseous state to a state approaching a vacuum. Only in this zone do gases start  to emit even small quantities of energy by radiation.  The other  energy transfer mechanisms - thermal conduction and convection - which at denser  pressure are far more efficient than radiation, no longer operate because of the  low density of the atmosphere there.  But from the surface where  man lives and up to 10 to 17km altitude (depending on geographical latitude), gases transfer the small quantities of energy they  might acquire from absorbed radiation by convection and conduction - not by  radiation. The climatologists derived the theoretical foundation  of the greenhouse hypothesis from the concept of radiative equilibrium over the  entire gas area of the atmosphere, right down to the earths surface.   But the fundamental premise of radiative equilibrium - a balance of  incoming and outgoing radiation - is correct only as long as it is limited to  the vacuum-like zone of the upper atmosphere.  In the lower regions  of the atmosphere, the heat balance is essentially determined by thermal, i.e.  thermodynamic equilibrium, which includes the thermodynamic characteristics of  the components of the atmosphere as well as their changes in  status. 6. From the upper atmosphere down to earths surface,  air pressure rises continuously.  The determinant of atmospheric  pressure is the mass and the weight of that part of the atmosphere above the  point in question.  And as pressure increases, so does  temperature.  The rise in temperature is caused by the  thermodynamic characteristics of the main components of the atmosphere, i.e.  N2 and O2.  Everyone knows  that compression causes gases to warm: the effect is noticeable even when  inflating bicycle tires. The atmosphere is no different. The relations between temperature, pressure and  volume within the gas area of an atmosphere are determined by the following  equations:  General gas  equitation                      p  x v          =     R x  T  Adiabatic change of  state                 p x v _k_          =     constant                                   or                T  x v _k_-1       =     constant  _k_   =  relation of the specific thermal values  _cp_ to _cv_  
> Estimates of the effects of CO2 concentrations on air temperature are often  as mentioned  before  derived from conditions on Venus.  If one assumed that the  atmosphere of Venus was similar to that of the earth, rather than being 95%  CO2, and that it still had a pressure of 90 bar, then the  surface temperature would be about 660°C, i.e. about 200°C more than at  present.  The difference arises from the somewhat smaller  _k_   value for triatomic as against biatomic gases  (_k_Air: 1.4;_k_   CO2: 1.3). Thus it would actually be somewhat colder on earth if  our atmosphere consisted of CO2 rather than  air. 7. A special feature of our atmosphere is its water  content.  Water occurs in three states. The solid and liquid forms  (clouds) show radiation characteristics completely different from gases: they  reflect radiation. Thus only water in its liquid or solid states shows qualities  to some extent comparable to a greenhouse (i.e. mimicking, however locally, the  effect of fixed and airtight glass or foil).  Naturally clouds do  not prevent vertical air exchange.  Moreover condensation and  solidification of the water in air releases substantial amounts of heat, which  largely determines the temperature of the lower atmosphere.  By  contrast, the heat transport and storage characteristics of trace gases like  CO2 are negligible factors in determining air  temperature. An interesting sidelight is that human life and most  human activities add humidity to the lower atmosphere.  Examples  include the spread and intensification of agriculture; irrigation; hydraulic  engineering, i.e. dams and reservoirs; burning of fossil fuels; other water use  by humans, e.g. in industrial production processes; as well respiration by  humans and livestock.  It could therefore be assumed that the water  content of the atmosphere has increased over the last 100 years.   And the resulting cloudier skies, especially at night, would lead to a  measurable increase in near-surface air temperature.  But  climatologists have largely neglected the possible influence on temperature of  changes in the water content of the atmosphere.    *Conclusion* Commonly held perceptions of the climatic relevance  of CO2  and other so-called greenhouse gases rest on a staggering failure to grasp some  of the fundamentals of physics.  Correct interpretation of the  Second Law of Thermodynamics and sound appreciation of the necessary physical  conditions for emission of radiation by gases lead to the understanding that  within the troposphere no backradiation can be caused by so-called greenhouse  gases.  Therefore it is not at all correct to speak of a thermal  effect of these gases on the biosphere. The thermal conditions in our and any atmosphere are  determined by its pressure and the mass of its main components.   Higher concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere  at  least until they reached 2% (a 60-fold increase) and thus became injurious to  health  would endanger neither the climate nor mankind.  To avoid  further misunderstanding, the terms *greenhouse effect* and  *greenhouse gases* should be avoided in describing the functioning  of the atmosphere.  A more correct term would be *atmosphere  effect*.  The operation of this effect is described in "The  Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect" atThe Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect - explained stepwise*.)* *It  is completely incomprehensible and unjustified to imagine that mankind can or  must protect the climate by attempting to control trace amounts of CO2 in the air. *   Note CO*2*: However, doubts about the estimation that the preindustrial  CO*2*-level would have been at 0,028%, at present it is about  0,038%, arose in recent publications: http://www.realco2.de/

----------


## Marc

*
Cut and paste from http://real-planet.eu/error.htm 
Conclusion* Commonly held perceptions of the climatic relevance  of CO2   and other so-called greenhouse gases rest on a staggering failure to  grasp some  of the fundamentals of physics.  Correct interpretation of  the  Second Law of Thermodynamics and sound appreciation of the  necessary physical  conditions for emission of radiation by gases lead  to the understanding that  within the troposphere no backradiation can  be caused by so-called greenhouse  gases.  Therefore it is not at all  correct to speak of a thermal  effect of these gases on the biosphere. The  thermal conditions in our and any atmosphere are  determined by its  pressure and the mass of its main components.   Higher concentrations of  CO2 in our atmosphere – at  least until they  reached 2% (a 60-fold increase) and thus became injurious to  health –  would endanger neither the climate nor mankind.  To avoid  further  misunderstanding, the terms *greenhouse effect* and  *greenhouse gases* should be avoided in describing the functioning  of the atmosphere.  A more correct term would be *atmosphere  effect*.  The operation of this effect is described in "The  Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect" atThe Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect - explained stepwise*.)* *It   is completely incomprehensible and unjustified to imagine that mankind  can or  must protect the climate by attempting to control trace amounts  of CO2 in the air.*

----------


## chrisp

> I like to post this once more, for those who think that the consensus is with AGW. 
> Well it probably is ...

  A figure from this paper http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf    
Fig. 1. Response distribution to our survey question 2. The general public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll (see Environment). 
I suppose you can argue the semantics of the word "consensus", but, *the overwhelming majority of scientists agree with AGW.* 
Oh, and you're right about it only taking "one (reputable) investigator" to disprove it - we are still waiting.   :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> Suck it up *sweetheart*.  This is where it counts baby.  You know where you can put your rent a crowd from get up.

   

> " Suck it up sweetheart.  This is where it counts baby.  You know where you can put your rent a crowd from get up."  *x 2*

   

> *x3*  
> Bring on the election, it could be just after Christmas when JuLIAR is knifed:

  
Out of interest, do you think the price on carbon (call it a tax, ETS, or whatever) will go away with a change of government?  And, if so, how long do you think it'll go away for. 
I'll look forward to hearing back from you sweeties.  :Snog:    :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

professor Lindzen, Interview on 2gb 2GB Media Player - Professor Richard Lindzen on the carbon tax

----------


## Marc

YouTube - &#x202a;Prof. Dr. Vincent Courtillot Präsentation&#x202c;&rlm; *Prof. Dr. Vincent Courtillot Presentation*

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Out of interest, do you think the price on carbon (call it a tax, ETS, or whatever) will go away with a change of government?  And, if so, how long do you think it'll go away for. 
> I'll look forward to hearing back from you sweeties.

  Well if you really want my view, I doubt if it will ever get introduced.  If it does it will be axed and will never see the light of day again. 
This tax will NOT do zip zilch to change our emissions.  For one they will try to set it so low they can hide the pain and therefore it would never be effective even if AGW were true.   
This tax is worse than dog chit on your shoes, make no mistake people are against it who ever you talk to. Soon the stink is going to hit everyone in the room. 
LOL just wait until they come up with the INEFFECTIVE PLAN it will get shot down in flames and people will see it for the useless exercise it is.   Now if they come out with an ""EFFECTIVE"" plan people will howl with pain.   
I have gotta say I am enjoying the destruction on Gillard and the Labor party with great rellish.  It brings joy to the heart to see her demollished.  You cant blatently lie to people like she did and get away with it.   
Now do you want to know what I really think??

----------


## Marc

Clearly Chris, you either do not read what I post, you do not understand it or you are completely blinded by your new found faith. 
Consensus is the realm of politics not science. Consensus is used when the science is shaky. No one would say that there is consensus on gravity, consensus on the formula for water. Only controversial political subjects need a "consensus" to draw strength in numbers. Religious beliefs need consensus. 
In science, skepticism is not only necessary but paramount for the scientist to find any meaningful data. In politics, skepticism is a dirty word, in religion the unbeliever must be outcast or killed. 
The late debate on AGW has prostituted all science and shown to be a political/religious debate where "believers" are embraced and unbelievers cast out. 
Never in the history of humanity has so much money being wasted on believes that are 90% wrong and the remaining 10% dubious at best, when there is so much more need for resources in areas that are 100% tangible and true, be it drinking water, food production, chemical pollution and so much more. 
The well intentioned "believer" would be so much better off investing his energy and talents in causes that are equally altruistic but that are not tainted nor manipulated by politics and foreign interest. 
The so called man made global warming will soon be a thing of the past and it will be hard to find a supporter just like you can not find someone admitting to have voted a bad government.
However the sequel of this sad saga is that we will have squandered trillions of public funds chasing a chimera and made the few clever one rich in the process, yet we will all be the poorer and the biggest loser is in fact the environment. 
Just like blind opposition to dams and dredging on "environmental" grounds is absurd, so is keeping on pounding on this notion that CO2 reduction is a meaningful target in order to reduce global temperatures. To begin with there is no "global temperature" since temperatures can not be added up. There can be and there only is local temperature averages, each with a different variable and influence. 
Media and politicians spurned by commercially interested lobbyist have had their time in the sun. 
It is time for us, those who work and fund this clowns to get them to drop the act.
Enough is enough.

----------


## PhilT2

I like the part in the link posted by Marc where the writer calls Roy Spencer a liar and a fraud.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Clearly Chris, you either do not read what I post, you do not understand it or you are completely blinded by your new found faith. 
> Consensus is the realm of politics not science. Consensus is used when the science is shaky. No one would say that there is consensus on gravity, consensus on the formula for water. Only controversial political subjects need a "consensus" to draw strength in numbers. Religious beliefs need consensus. 
> In science, skepticism is not only necessary but paramount for the scientist to find any meaningful data. In politics, skepticism is a dirty word, in religion the unbeliever must be outcast or killed. 
> The late debate on AGW has prostituted all science and shown to be a political/religious debate where "believers" are embraced and unbelievers cast out. 
> Never in the history of humanity has so much money being wasted on believes that are 90% wrong and the remaining 10% dubious at best, when there is so much more need for resources in areas that are 100% tangible and true, be it drinking water, food production, chemical pollution and so much more. 
> The well intentioned "believer" would be so much better off investing his energy and talents in causes that are equally altruistic but that are not tainted nor manipulated by politics and foreign interest. 
> The so called man made global warming will soon be a thing of the past and it will be hard to find a supporter just like you can not find someone admitting to have voted a bad government.
> However the sequel of this sad saga is that we will have squandered trillions of public funds chasing a chimera and made the few clever one rich in the process, yet we will all be the poorer and the biggest loser is in fact the environment. 
> Just like blind opposition to dams and dredging on "environmental" grounds is absurd, so is keeping on pounding on this notion that CO2 reduction is a meaningful target in order to reduce global temperatures. To begin with there is no "global temperature" since temperatures can not be added up. There can be and there only is local temperature averages, each with a different variable and influence. 
> ...

   Yep Marc i agree with this completely they just DO NOT know how much damage they are doing to the real problems facing us by diverting funds to this bull @@@@. 
My gandkids are gonna be really pissed with these frauds. 
Having said that I really believe there are good intentions amoung many "believers" as they just dont see the woods for the trees. But there are no excuses for those that preach this junk when they have had the benefit of reading this thread.   
Seriously you guys can't you see the damage you are doing to science?  it is going to take decades before people trust so call scientists after this fiasco.  Scientist are seriously worse than used car salesmen. (sorry if I offend any used car salesmen, said tounge in cheek), (and a bottle of red). 
The wheel will turn and these so called experts reputations will be trash.

----------


## chrisp

> I like the part in the link posted by Marc where the writer calls Roy Spencer a liar and a fraud.

  It sure is hard to keep up with the anti-AGW arguments.  They sure are having trouble telling a straight story. 
Maybe this is what Marc is referring to when he says there is no consensus?

----------


## Rod Dyson

You know seriously, I just cant understand why we are at such odds on this whole thing if the science is so clear. 
I am not a stupid person, (at least I think), surely if the science is so settled and so convincing that someone could post something here that could convince me that AGW is a fact.  Please guys CONVINCE ME.  Give me a real reason why I should join your side!   Just give me something other than the crap that has been dished up so far.  Show me how this tax will reduce emissions in the face of economic and population growth.  Give me some real evidence that renewable energy can replace base load power in the next 10 years.   
You have not provided ANYTHING that even comes close to cutting through my bull @@@@ meter.   
Come on get busy convince us!!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It sure is hard to keep up with the anti-AGW arguments.  They sure are having trouble telling a straight story. 
> Maybe this is what Marc is referring to when he says there is no consensus?

  Hey unlike you guys not every skeptic has it right you know.  We accept that, (not saying who is right or wrong here) but seriously some skeptics are cranks as well.

----------


## johnc

It is impossible for renewables to replace baseload power in a decade, it would take a major investment not only in power generation but also transmission lines. Even Germany which is considering phasing out its nuclear plants which is the closest we get to a real example would have to import power and expand its grid to get the reliability it needs to bring more renewables on line. I really don't give a flying F for the idiots on either side, it does make sense to increase generation from renewables and at the same time work hard on power saving efficiencies through better building and equipment design. It is a waste of resources (cash) building generation capacity for items on standby or heating and cooling badly designed buildings, or machinery that wastes power. It is money off the bottom line and out of household pockets. Large open cut mines impact the water table, cause land subsidence, damage air quality and cause real health issues. We need to reduce coal use although it would be difficult to eliminate it. 
Economic growth may not be the issue, as it depends on the sectors that are growing, however population growth does remain the Elephant in the room. It is the one thing we need to bring under control, but we are locked into the idea we must have growth to survive. The challenge facing Western economies remains the baby boomers shifting through the system. It was partly the cause if high unemployment from the '70s through to the early nineties as was the participation rate of women in the work force. We will see a massive transfer of wealth as the boomers fall off the perch, and with it may well come a massive fall in housing prices here but that will depend on immigration rates holding up demand. 
Paul Keating once described the economy as something you steer by pulling the right levers. In one way it is just a huge engine that each successive government steers a bit but not a lot. Our recessions, surplus/deficit, trade balance, interest rates are all a combination of overseas forces plus previous and current goverment actions. Our current budget woes are partly the huge increase in government spending under Costello which increased at about 50% above the Keating era in real terms. A lot of the gain in our financial position was a result of booming mining revenues as well as other factors. The impact of demographic change also has a major impact on us. 
This does not downplay Howard, however benign economic times post a rosier picture than he deserves while economic clouds make labor look worse than they should.

----------


## PhilT2

Chrisp, have a look at #6276 from Marc, there is stuff there that seems to run contradictory to some basic laws of physics. Point 5 where he says that radiation occurs only in the upper atmosphere seems wrong to me. Any thoughts?

----------


## PhilT2

We might see this again during the next election campaign. YouTube - &#x202a;Tony Abbott:"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax?"&#x202c;&rlm;

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You know seriously, I just cant understand why we are at such odds on this whole thing if the science is so clear.

  The science is clear on the fundamentals....the what, how, why of 'climate change'.....but woefully inadequate on the impacts and the means to mitigate the what, how and why.  Which undermines the perception of the fundamentals.  By all and sundry. 
We are at odds simply because of our personal interpretations of all the above and the underlying personal politics that drive those interpretations.......built in human nature.  Can't fight it, can't change it but we can work with it.   

> Please guys CONVINCE ME.  Give me  a real reason why I should join your side!   Just give me something  other than the crap that has been dished up so far.

  Why? What possible benefit could that serve? Besides I suspect that such a conversion is unlikely regardless of the information presented (yet again). My personal preference is that you become a better informed sceptic.  You certainly have the nous and the conviction for it.  You also accept that some things do have to change.  Do what you are good at....but don't ask us to do the ridiculous.   

> Show me how this  tax will reduce emissions in the face of economic and population growth.

  It probably won't.  It may reduce emissions on a per capita basis but given typical economic & population growth then our total emissions will still rise in the short to medium term.  Where the 'tax' might make a difference is as a trigger for something else...something more.  Essentially the carbon price is a tax on consumption, just like our GST.  In this case, the consumption of resources that produce CO2.  The human nature of taxation is to pay as little of it as possible.  So a tax on carban may well act as a lever for something else......like investment in renewable energy for example.  Like individuals taking a bit of personal responsibility for themselves.  Like [shock horror] people being more efficient with energy and resources. 
Like......ahhhh.........who the @@@@ am I kidding?  It's not like the GST achieved anything useful.  Or did it?  (:    

> Give me some real evidence that renewable energy can replace base load  power in the next 10 years.

  From a technical perspective (science & engineering).......it could easily be done in a decade. Forms of both solar and geothermal sources have demonstrated technical capacity for baseload generation for nearly a decade now - some even longer (and then add hydro into the mix as well).  This was introduced and blithely dismissed in this very space some time back so I couldn't be stuffed pointing out the links yet again. 
From a practical and financial perspective......not a chance.  Even building a conventional power station takes the best part of a decade.  Renewables is even harder because to make it work really well then the national grid also requires significant investment.....but in the end.....we have barely even begun to try!   
Things aren't looking that great because as at this point, we can't even agree (apparently) about whether we need a fancy phone line. Or an integrated health system. So I don't have much hope for a traditional political, social or economic solution to a revitalised national energy grid & generating capacity any time soon. 
But in the end......economic development has to come from somewhere and the human species is never satisfied with where they are......so.....no matter what......stuff will happen.

----------


## johnc

For something a little different a Q&A link that some might enjoy. Essential listening for others. YouTube - &#x202a;Tony Abbott:"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax?"&#x202c;&rlm;

----------


## chrisp

> For anyone still believing there is a great big scary greenhouse effect that will burn us all  No such thing as â€œGreenhouse effectâ€

  
Marc has quoted an interesting diagram.  Let's have a look at it and work though some of the thermodynamics of it.  BTW, I'm very rusty at thermodynamics so I'll be relearning as I go.     
(Diagram from: Earth's Radiation Budget Facts ) 
The diagram shows the energy flows in and out of the earth. 
So, how do we apply some of the laws of thermodynamics to this?  To apply thermodynamic principles, I find it useful to consider a process as a system and to place a boundary around the system.  For example, I placed a black line around my chosen system:       
The *first law of thermodynamics* is a statement of conservation of energy: Energy can be transformed, but it cannot be created or destroyed. 
One interpretation of the first law of thermodynamics is:"_In all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a  quantity of heat is consumed which is proportional to the work done; and  conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work an equal  quantity of heat is produced."_This is a long winded way of saying that "the energy that comes out equals the energy that goes in".  i.e. energy is not created or destroyed. 
So, how does the diagram above stack up with regard to the first law?  The energy entering our chosen 'system' (the black ellipse) is from the sun as "100%".  The out goings from our system are 6% plus 20% plus 4% plus 64% plus 6% = 100%.   
Therefore, the total energy leaving the system is equal to the energy leaving the system. 
But hang on.  If the energy leaving has to equal the energy entering, then nothing could possibly heat or cool.  We know we can heat and cool objects, so doesn't this violate the first law? 
The interpretation of the first law of thermodynamics above assumes that there is no change in the energy stored within the system.  A more generalised statement of the first law is:_"In a thermodynamic process, the increment in the internal energy of a  system is equal to the difference between the increment of heat  accumulated by the system and the increment of work done by it._"This statement of the first law of thermodynamics allows for the possibility of changes in the internal energy of a system.  i.e. it accounts for the possibility for energy being stored, or released from, the internals of the system. 
For example, during the day the solar energy entering will be grater than the energy leaving the system and the region of the earth will store this energy as heat - i.e. it will get warmer.  During the night, the energy entering the system is reduces (the sun isn't shining) but the energy leaving the system will be continue.  The 'internal energy' will decrease and the place will get colder.  *The diagram quoted by Marc does not violate the first law of thermodynamics but nor does it require the earth to remain at a constant temperature.*

----------


## Marc

Chris, what's your point? Answer you have not made one at all. 
The earth is a system in equilibrium and has been so for many millions of years.
That diagram taken from CERN, the European centre for nuclear energy, shows precisely such equilibrium in the earth energy budged.
No Greenhouse "trapping" anything at all. 
Air, is a mixture of N2, O2, Ar, HO2 and CO2 plus other bits and pieces. Air is a MIXTURE of gases and as such there is no "blanket" of CO2. There is a small 0.039% of CO2 molecules MIXED among vast amounts of other gases. The greenhouse theorist would make you believe that there is some mythical layer of CO2 up thee somewhere acting as a giant mirror of sort.
Such is only true in the prolific imagination of mercenary scientist. 
Gases are gases by virtue of heat. Air absorbs heat each substance according to their conductivity or they would be frozen solid.
Once air has absorbed all the heat it can, it will reflect heat. At that point the system is in equilibrium. No more heat can be stored so it flows out in space. !00% No substance can "trap heat".  
Another problem the greenhouse theorist have is the second law of thermodynamic... heat does not flow spontaneously from an object of lower temperature to one of higher. Meaning that the heat reflected by ALL gases, not just CO2, can not flow back to earth since the temperatures of the air are progressively LOWER as you go up. No heat can flow back to earth just like water will not flow up stream against gravity.  
The comparison of the atmosphere to a blanket, when closer to reality is equally wrong. A blanket regulates the exit of energy by keeping air from flowing away from our body via convection. In reality air is the conveyor belt that carries heat away from the surface out into space. 
All the different complicated explanations about variable infra-red absorption according to the substances in question again imply the existence of pure layers of one single substance CO2. The reality is that air behaves as a homogeneous mixture of gases with a mixture of molecules vibrating and as such uniform mass air is responsible for conveying heat away from the ground and up into space.  
The "greenhouse theory" is wrong. The deception of the CO2 "layers" are bold face lies. Air is a mixture of gases that acts as one single solitary mass of gases in equilibrium. Heat in = heat out 
No such thing as greenhouse effect. Only another ill-conceived fallacy to dupe the masses

----------


## Marc

Lets talk about temperature. 
In the war of the graphs, one figure is spoken about constantly and that is the "global average temperature" 
Such term is as meaningful as an average telephone number. It does not make any statistical sense. 
Temperatures are by definition local. To obtain data from Sydney and average it with Tokyo makes no sense at all because temperature is the result of external variables that act upon a local environment to produce the said temperature at one point in time. 
The variables that produce different temperatures in Sydney can only be compared and averaged with Sydney or we have the proverbial apples and oranges.

----------


## Marc

Copy and paste:   

> Says Andresen, "It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined _only for a homogeneous system_. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single  temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes  and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the  climate."(Italics added.) Andresen is a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. His article appeared in _The Journal of Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics_,  with coauthors Essex and McKitrick. The journal deals with energy  systems that are too complex to come to equilibrium, unlike a cup of hot  tea, which behaves in a highly predictable way. A lot of important  physical systems, like the climate, appear to be non-equilibrium  systems. They are not well understood, which is why they are a hot  frontier topic in physics.   Mathematically,  there are several different "measures of central tendency," which is  what an "average" really is. When we think about "average global  temperature" we are usually thinking about the _arithmetic mean_.  But there is also a geometric mean, a mode, a median, and more  complicated expressions that can be used as numerical indices for the  heat content of a physical system. But as Andresen points out, which of  those "averages" you use _depends upon your model of the atmosphere_.   The current evidence cited for "global warming" could even mean a _decrease_  in the physical heat density of the atmosphere, if a different  mathematical average is used. And because the climate is driven by _differences_ in heat between different regions --- leading to the daily weather, as well as hurricanes and snow storms --- the right predictor  for global climate may not be an average heat density at all, but  rather the regional differences in heat content. Weather systems flow  from high to low pressure regions, which are in turn dependent upon  complex heat exchange mechanisms.   All the standard arguments for global warming rely upon conventional "equilibrium" models of the atmosphere, all of which may be false.   As Andersen suggests, global warming hype may be more politics than science.   Reference.   C. Essex, R. McKitrick, B. Andresen: Does a Global Temperature Exist? _Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics_ (2007).

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Victoria will endure one of the coldest June days in nearly 20 years today and the state as well as its northern neighbour are forecast to experience strong winds, thunder, hail and highland snowfalls.  
> Read more: It&#039;s time to rug up, as a cold snap across south east Australia brings wind, rain and snow | News.com.au

   
Will you blokes turn up the thermostat please.

----------


## chrisp

> Chris, what's your point? Answer you have not made one at all. 
> The earth is a system in equilibrium and has been so for many millions of years.
> That diagram taken from CERN, the European centre for nuclear energy, shows precisely such equilibrium in the earth energy budged.
> No Greenhouse "trapping" anything at all.

  The diagram you attempted to post, was with the stated claim that "For anyone still believing there is a great big scary greenhouse effect that will burn us all". 
I have shown that the diagram is consistent (i.e. obeys) the first law of thermodynamics.  And that the first law of thermodynamics does not prevent heating or cooling - therefore does not contradict the greenhouse effect. 
What is it that you were claiming?

----------


## Marc

I am sorry Chris, your logic is too circular for me to follow.

----------


## PhilT2

I don't think that it's the first law but the second that is the issue and this is the one that is partially wrong in Marc's post. If the atmosphere is warm then it will radiate heat. It does this in all directions including towards the earth. This infra red radiation can be measured and I'm sure you could find the data available online somewhere. Look for downward longwave radiation. The difficulty here is understanding the difference between heat and radiation. And also understanding the influence of having the earth which is trying to radiate heat but is covered by an atmosphere which is also trying to radiate heat at many levels. 
The gases in the atmosphere all have different characteristics and I don't see why they would lose those traits that they have because of their molecular structure just because there are other gases present. No chemical reaction has taken place. An infrared gas analyser works by using infrared radiation to detect gases in the atmosphere. So the presence of co2 and its characteristic trait of absorbing infrared radiation can be easily established. A gas analyser can detect the proportion of different gases in the atmosphere because each individual gas responds differently to infra red radiation. If the atmosphere acted a one single solitary mass this would not happen. Co2 does not need to be in a separate "blanket" to influence infrared radiation.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I don't think that it's the first law but the second that is the issue and this is the one that is partially wrong in Marc's post. If the atmosphere is warm then it will radiate heat. It does this in all directions including towards the earth. This infra red radiation can be measured and I'm sure you could find the data available online somewhere. Look for downward longwave radiation. The difficulty here is understanding the difference between heat and radiation. And also understanding the influence of having the earth which is trying to radiate heat but is covered by an atmosphere which is also trying to radiate heat at many levels. 
> The gases in the atmosphere all have different characteristics and I don't see why they would lose those traits that they have because of their molecular structure just because there are other gases present. No chemical reaction has taken place. An infrared gas analyser works by using infrared radiation to detect gases in the atmosphere. So the presence of co2 and its characteristic trait of absorbing infrared radiation can be easily established. A gas analyser can detect the proportion of different gases in the atmosphere because each individual gas responds differently to infra red radiation. If the atmosphere acted a one single solitary mass this would not happen. Co2 does not need to be in a separate "blanket" to influence infrared radiation.

  I may be real dumb but I've never heard of anyone wearing a bikini at 10,000 feet in a hot air balloon.  How can the atmosphere be warmer than earth and radiate enough heat to warm the earth more than the sun?   
This just doesnt make sense to me.

----------


## PhilT2

Can't see where I said the atmosphere is warmer than the earth, can you point that bit out for me. The atmosphere is not as warm as the earth but as a warm body it still radiates heat.

----------


## johnc

> I may be real dumb but I've never heard of anyone wearing a bikini at 10,000 feet in a hot air balloon. How can the atmosphere be warmer than earth and radiate enough heat to warm the earth more than the sun?  
> This just doesnt make sense to me.

  Read what was said again, that is not what was said, and I am surprised you would come up with the idea that the atmosphere at upper levels is warmer because absolutely nothing that has gone before alludes to such a fanciful notion.

----------


## chrisp

> I don't think that it's the first law but the second that is the issue and this is the one that is partially wrong in Marc's post.

  I realise.  However, the diagram Marc posted was a energy budget - 1st law stuff.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I may be real dumb but I've never heard of anyone wearing a bikini at 10,000 feet in a hot air balloon.  How can the atmosphere be warmer than earth and radiate enough heat to warm the earth more than the sun?   
> This just doesnt make sense to me.

  
Of course not. Because it's wrong.   
Our atmosphere does *absorb* a small amount of heat energy....but it *radiates* almost nothing.   
What it does do is both *transmit* and *reflect* heat energy.  Sunlight roars in from space and smacks into the atmosphere - many wavelengths are reflected, some are absorbed but most are transmitted through to the ground.  And the process is repeated. Most wavelengths are absorbed, some are reflected but none are transmitted.  What's reflected then strikes the atmosphere where some wavelengths are reflected, a few are absorbed and a portion are transmitted through to space. And the process is repeated yet again.... 
Changing the composition of the atmosphere changes the performance of the atmosphere with respect to absorption, transmission and reflection of various light wavelengths (and hence energy).  Greenhouse gases like CO2, CH4 and water vapour affect the reflection of infrared wavelengths - the more there are of them....the more reflection.  But only of some infrared wavelengths.....which is the ones that are reflected back from the surface of the Earth. There's a paper somewhere that describes this process far better than I'm doing.....I've provided a link to it before. 
Our atmosphere is retaining heat energy simply by reflecting it about like a box of mirrors until it finds a place to be absorbed - mostly in our oceans but also in the ground and the biodiversity.....and a relatively tiny amount in the atmosphere itself (simply because it doesn't have the capacity - gaseous bonds are already chock full of energy).   
And the simplistic scenario is.....more GHG's, more reflection, less escape, more absorption.....more. More. More. Must have more.

----------


## Marc

Copy and paste :Biggrin:   

> *Miskolczi destroys greenhouse theory* 
>                                                Posted on July 17, 2010 by kirkmyers  *Editors note:* In response _to reader interest in Dr. Ferenc Miskolczis provocative greenhouse theory challenging  the widespread belief in man-caused global warming, Climate Truth has  asked the former NASA researcher to explain his work further. Earlier  this week he attacked the prevailing climate-change theory, calling it  a lie._  _At Dr. Miskolczis request, we also have posted his letter sent last year to the_ _Environmental Protection Agency__,  summarizing his research and questioning the agencys efforts to  declare CO2 a harmful pollutant that poses a threat to earths climate._  *Climate Truth:* Has there been global warming? *Dr. Miskolczi:*No one is denying  that global warming has taken place, but it has nothing to do with the  greenhouse effect or the burning of fossil fuels.  *Climate Truth:*  According to the conventional  anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, as human-induced CO2  emissions increase, more surface radiation is absorbed by the  atmosphere, with part of it re-radiated to the earths surface,  resulting in global warming.  Is that an accurate description of the  prevailing theory?   *Dr. Miskolczi:* Yes, this is the classic concept of the greenhouse effect.  *ClimateTruth:*  Are man-made CO2 emissions the cause of global warming? *Dr. Miskolczi:* Apparently not. According to my  research, increases in CO2 levels have not increased the global-average  absorbing power of the atmosphere.  *ClimateTruth:*  Where does the traditional greenhouse theory make its fundamental mistake? *Dr. Miskolczi:*  The conventional  greenhouse theory does not consider the newly discovered physical  relationships involving infrared radiative fluxes. These relationships  pose strong energetic constraints on an equilibrium system.  *ClimateTruth:* Why has this error escaped notice until now? *Dr. Miskolczi:* Nobody thought that a 100-year-old  theory could be wrong. The original greenhouse formula, developed by an  astrophysicist, applies only to the stars, not to finite,  semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. New equations had to be  formulated.  *ClimateTruth:*  According your theory, the  greenhouse effect is self-regulating and stabilizes itself in response  to rising CO2 levels. You identified (perhaps discovered) a greenhouse  constant that keeps the greenhouse effect in equilibrium.  Is that a  fair assessment of your theory? *Dr. Miskolczi:* Yes. Our  atmosphere, with its infinite degree of freedom, is able to maintain its  global average infrared absorption at an optimal level. In technical  terms, this greenhouse constant is the total infrared optical  thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87. Despite  the 30 per cent increase of CO2 in the last 61 years, this value has not  changed. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorption power as was  predicted by the IPCC.  *ClimateTruth:*  You used empirical data, rather than models, to arrive at your conclusion. How was that done? *Dr. Miskolczi:* The computations are  relatively simple. I collected a large number of radiosonde observations  from around the globe and computed the global average infrared  absorption. I performed these computations using observations from two  large, publicly available datasets known as the TIGR2 and NOAA. The  computations involved the processing of 300 radiosonde observations,  using a state-of-the-art, line-by-line radiative transfer code. In both  datasets, the global average infrared optical thickness turned out to be  1.87, agreeing with theoretical expectations.     *ClimateTruth:*  Have your mathematical equations been challenged or disproved? *Dr. Miskolczi*_:_ No.  *ClimateTruth:*  If your theory stands up to  scientific scrutiny, it would collapse the CO2 global warming doctrine  and render meaningless its predictions of climate catastrophe. Given its  significance, why has your theory been met with silence and, in some  instances, dismissal and derision?   *Dr. Miskolczi:* I can only guess.  First of all, nobody likes to admit mistakes. Second, somebody has to  explain to the taxpayers why millions of dollars were spent on AGW  research. Third, some people are making a lot of money from the carbon  trade and energy taxes.  *ClimateTruth*:  A huge industry has arisen out of the study and prevention of man-made global warming. Has the world been fooled? *Dr. Miskolczi:*Thanks to censored science and the complicity of the mainstream media, yes, totally.

----------


## Marc

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. 
Take the time to read through this list of "greenhouse conjectures" and it's disproof before repeating outdated and mistaken theories. 
Unlike you, I studied climatology at uni and I was thought and examined on the greenhouse effect. I never questioned it because I did not have to. It seem to make sense. 
Now it is used as a weapon to attack our way of life and to shift power and resources to the lunatic fringe.
Now it is time to use the head for more than just holding on to your hat. 
quote:   http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...707.1161v4.pdf 
3.3 Different versions of the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture 
3.3.1 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Moller (1973)
In his popular textbook on meteorology [89, 90] Moller claims:
\In a real glass house (with no additional heating, i.e. no greenhouse) the window
panes are transparent to sunshine, but opaque to terrestrial radiation. The heat
exchange must take place through heat conduction within the glass, which requires
a certain temperature gradient. Then the colder boundary surface of the window
pane can emit heat. In case of the atmosphere water vapour and clouds play the
role of the glass." 
Disproof: The existence of the greenhouse effect is considered as a necessary condition for
thermal conductivity. This is a physical nonsense. Furthermore it is implied that the spectral
transmissivity of a medium determines its thermal conductivity straightforwardly. This is a
physical nonsense as well.  
3.3.2 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Meyer's encyclopedia (1974) 
In the 1974 edition of Meyer's Enzyklopadischem Lexikon one nds under \glass house effect"
[133]:
Name for the influence of the Earth's atmosphere on the radiation and heat
budget of the Earth, which compares to the effect of a glass house: Water vapour
and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere let short wave solar radiation go through
down to the Earth's surface with a relative weak attenuation and, however, reflect
the portion of long wave (heat) radiation which is emitted from the Earth's surface
(atmospheric backradiation)." 
Disproof: Firstly, the main part of the solar radiation lies outside the visible light. Secondly,
reflection is confused with emission. Thirdly, the concept of atmospheric backradiation relies
on an inappropriate application of the formulas of cavity radiation. This will be discussed in
Section 3.5 
3.3.3 Atmospheric greenhouse eect after Schonwiese (1987) 
The prominent climatologist Schonwiese states [111]:
Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects : : : 39
\: : : we use the picture of a glass window that is placed between the Sun and
the Earth's surface. The window pane lets pass the solar radiation unhindered
but absorbs a portion of the heat radiation of the Earth. The glass pane emits,
corresponding to its own temperature, heat in both directions: To the Earth's
surface and to the interplanetary space. Thus the radiative balance of the Earth's
surface is raised. The additional energy coming from the glass pane is absorbed
almost completely by the Earth's surface immediately warming up until a new
radiative equilibrium is reached." 
Disproof: That the window pane lets pass the solar radiation unhindered is simply wrong.
Of course, some radiation goes sidewards. As shown experimentally in Section 2.4, the panes
of the car window are relatively cold. This is only one out of many reasons, why the glass
analogy is unusable. Hence the statement is vacuous. 
3.3.4 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Stichel (1995) 
Stichel (the former deputy head of the German Physical Society) stated once [134]: 
Now it is generally accepted textbook knowledge that the long-wave infrared
radiation, emitted by the warmed up surface of the Earth, is partially absorbed
and re-emitted by CO2 and other trace gases in the atmosphere. This effect leads
to a warming of the lower atmosphere and, for reasons of the total radiation
budget, to a cooling of the stratosphere at the same time." 
Disproof: This would be a Perpetuum Mobile of the Second Kind. A detailed discussion
is given in Section 3.9. Furthermore, there is no total radiation budget, since there are
no individual conservation laws for the different forms of energy participating in the game.
The radiation energies in question are marginal compared to the relevant geophysical and
astrophysical energies. Finally, the radiation depends on the temperature and not vice versa. 
3.3.5 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Anonymous 1 (1995) 
The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lets the radiation of the Sun, whose maximum
lies in the visible light, go through completely, while on the other hand it
absorbs a part of the heat radiation emitted by the Earth into space because of
its larger wavelength. This leads to higher near-surface air temperatures." 
Disproof: The first statement is incorrect since the obviously non-negligible infrared part of
the incoming solar radiation is being absorbed (cf. Section 2.2). The second statement is
falsified by referring to a counterexample known to every housewife: The water pot on the
stove. Without water filled in, the bottom of the pot will soon become glowing red. Water is
  an excellent absorber of infrared radiation. However, with water filled in, the bottom of the
pot will be substantially colder. Another example would be the replacement of the vacuum
or gas by glass in the space between two panes. Conventional glass absorbs infrared radiation
pretty well, but its thermal conductivity shortcuts any thermal isolation. 
3.3.6 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Anonymous 2 (1995) 
If one raises the concentration of carbon dioxide, which absorbs the infrared light
and lets visible light go through, in the Earth's atmosphere, the ground heated
by the solar radiation and/or near-surface air will become warmer, because the
cooling of the ground is slowed down." 
Disproof: It has already been shown in Section 1.1 that the thermal conductivity is changed
only marginally even by doubling the CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere. 
3.3.7 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Anonymous 3 (1995) 
If one adds to the Earth's atmosphere a gas, which absorbs parts of the radiation
of the ground into the atmosphere, the surface temperatures and near-surface air
temperatures will become larger." 
Disproof: Again, the counterexample is the water pot on the stove; see Section 3.3.5. 
3.3.8 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after German Meteorological Society (1995)
In its 1995 statement, the German Meteorological Society says [135]: 
As a point of a departure the radiation budget of the Earth is described. In
this case the incident unweakened solar radiation at the Earth's surface is partly
absorbed and partly reflected. The absorbed portion is converted into heat and
must be re-radiated in the infrared spectrum. Under such circumstances simple
model calculations yield an average temperature of about ��18C at the Earth's
surface : : : Adding an atmosphere, the incident radiation at the Earth's surface
is weakened only a little, because the atmosphere is essentially transparent in the
visible range of the spectrum. Contrary to this, in the infrared range of the spectrum
the radiation emitted form the ground is absorbed to a large extent by the
atmosphere : : : and, depending on the temperature, re-radiated in all directions.
Only in the so-called window ranges (in particular in the large atmospheric window
8 - 13 m) the infrared radiation can escape into space. The infrared radiation that
is emitted downwards from the atmosphere (the so-called back-radiation) raises
the energy supply of the Earth's surface. A state of equilibrium can adjust itself
if the temperature of the ground rises and, therefore, a raised radiation according
to Planck's law is possible. This undisputed natural greenhouse eect gives rise
to an increase temperature of the Earth's surface." 
Disproof: The concept of an radiation budget is physically wrong. The average of the
temperature is calculated incorrectly. Furthermore, a non-negligible portion of the incident
solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. Heat must not be confused with heat radiation.
The assumption that if gases emit heat radiation, then they will emit it only downwards, is
rather obscure. The described mechanism of re-calibration to equilibrium has no physical
basis. The laws of cavity radiation do not apply to fluids and gases. 
3.3.9 Atmospheric greenhouse eect after Gral (1996) 
The former director of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) climate research program,
Professor Hartmut Gral, states [136]:
In so far as the gaseous hull [of the Earth] obstructs the propagation of solar
energy down to the planet's surface less than the direct radiation of heat from the
surface into space, the ground and the lower atmosphere must become warmer
than without this atmosphere, in order to re-radiate as much energy as received
from the Sun." 
Disproof: This statement is vacuous, even in a literal sense. One cannot compare the temperature
of a planet's lower atmosphere with the situation where a planetary atmosphere
does not exist at all. Furthermore, as shown in Section 2.2 the portion of the incoming infrared
is larger than the portion of the incoming visible light. Roughly speaking, we have a
50-50 relation. Therefore the supposed warming from the bottom must compare to an analogous
warming from the top. Even within the logics of Gral's oversimplied (and physically
incorrect) conjecture one is left with a zero temperature gradient and thus a null effect. 
3.3.10 Atmospheric greenhouse eect after Ahrens (2001) 
In his textbook \Essentials in Meteorology: In Invitation to the Atmosphere" the author
Ahrens states [137]:
The absorption characteristics of water vapor, CO2, and other gases such as
methane and nitrous oxide : : : were, at one time, thought to be similar to the
glass of a florists greenhouse. In a greenhouse, the glass allows visible radiation to
come in, but inhibits to some degree the passage of outgoing infrared radiation. For
this reason, the behavior of the water vapor and CO2, the atmosphere is popularly
called the greenhouse effect. However, studies have shown that the warm air inside
a greenhouse is probably caused more by the airs inability to circulate and mix
with the cooler outside air, rather than by the entrapment of infrared energy.
Because of these findings, some scientists insist that the greenhouse effect should
be called the atmosphere effect. To accommodate everyone, we will usually use
the term atmospheric greenhouse effect when describing the role that water vapor
and CO2, play in keeping the Earth's mean surface temperature higher than it
otherwise would be." 
Disproof: The concept of the Earth's mean temperature is ill-defined. Therefore the concept
of a rise of a mean temperature is ill-defined as well. 
3.3.11 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics,
and Astronomy (2001)
The Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy says [138]:
Greenhouse Effect: The enhanced warming of a planets surface temperature
caused by the trapping of heat in the atmosphere by certain types of gases (called
greenhouse gases; primarily carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and chloro
fluorocarbons).
Visible light from the Sun passes through most atmospheres and
is absorbed by the body's surface. The surface reradiates this energy as longerwavelength
infrared radiation (heat). If any of the greenhouse gases are present in
the body's troposphere, the atmosphere is transparent to the visible but opaque
to the infrared, and the infrared radiation will be trapped close to the surface and
will cause the temperature close to the surface to be warmer than it would be
from solar heating alone."
Disproof: Infrared radiation is confused with heat. It is not explained at all what is meant by
`the infrared radiation will be trapped". Is it a MASER, is it \superinsulation", i.e. vanishing
thermal conductivity, or is it simple thermalization? 
3.3.12 Atmospheric greenhouse eect after Encyclopaedia of Astronomy and
Astrophysics (2001)
The Encyclopaedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics denes the greenhouse eect as follows
[139]: 
The greenhouse effect is the radiative influence exerted by the atmosphere of
a planet which causes the temperature at the surface to rise above the value
it would normally reach if it were in direct equilibrium with sunlight (taking
into account the planetary albedo). This effect stems from the fact that certain
atmospheric gases have the ability to transmit most of the solar radiation and
to absorb the infrared emission from the surface. The thermal (i.e. infrared)
radiation intercepted by the atmosphere is then partially re-emitted towards the
surface, thus contributing additional heating of the surface. Although the analogy
is not entirely satisfactory in terms of the physical processes involved, it is easy to
see the parallels between the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere-surface system
of a planet and a horticultural greenhouse: the planetary atmosphere plays the
role of the glass cover that lets sunshine through to heat the soil while partly
retaining the heat that escapes from the ground. The analogy goes even further,
since an atmosphere may present opacity `windows' allowing infrared radiation
from the surface to escape, the equivalent of actual windows that help regulate
the temperature inside a domestic greenhouse." 
Disproof: The concept of the \direct equilibrium with the sunlight' is physically wrong,
as will be shown in detail in Section 3.7. The description of the physics of a horticultural
greenhouse is incorrect. Thus the analogy stinks. 
3.3.13 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Encyclopaedia Britannica Online
(2007)
Encyclopaedia Britannica Online explains the greenhouse effect in the following way [140]:
\The atmosphere allows most of the visible light from the Sun to pass through and
reach the Earth's surface. As the Earth's surface is heated by sunlight, it radiates
part of this energy back toward space as infrared radiation. This radiation, unlike
visible light, tends to be absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,
raising its temperature. The heated atmosphere in turn radiates infrared radiation
back toward the Earth's surface. (Despite its name, the greenhouse effect is
different from the warming in a greenhouse, where panes of glass transmit visible
sunlight but hold heat inside the building by trapping warmed air.) Without the
heating caused by the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface temperature
would be only about ��18 C (0 F)." 
Disproof: The concept of the Earth's average temperature is a physically and mathematically
ill-defined and therefore useless concept as will be shown in Section 3.7. 
3.3.14 Atmospheric greenhouse effect after Rahmstorf (2007)
The renowned German climatologist Rahmstorf claims [141]:
\To the solar radiation reaching Earth's surface : : : the portion of the long-wave
radiation is added, which is radiated by the molecules partly downward and partly
44 Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
upward. Therefore more radiation arrives down, and for reasons of compensation
the surface must deliver more energy and thus has to be warmer (+15 C), in order
to reach also there down again an equilibrium. A part of this heat is transported
upward from the surface also by atmospheric convection. Without this natural
greenhouse effect the Earth would have frozen life-hostilely and completely. The
disturbance of the radiative balance [caused by the enrichment of the atmosphere
with trace gases] must lead to a heating up of the Earth's surface, as it is actually
observed."
Disproof: Obviously, reflection is confused with emission. The concept of radiative balance
is faulty. This will be explained in Section 3.7. 
3.3.15 Conclusion
It is interesting to observe,
 that until today the \atmospheric greenhouse effect" does not appear
{ in any fundamental work of thermodynamics,
{ in any fundamental work of physical kinetics,
{ in any fundamental work of radiation theory;
 that the definitions given in the literature beyond straight physics are very different
and, partly, contradict to each other. 
3.4 The conclusion of the US Department of Energy 
All fictitious greenhouse effects have in common, that there is supposed to be one and only
one cause for them: An eventual rise in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is
supposed to lead to higher air temperatures near the ground. For convenience, in the context
of this paper it is called the CO2-greenhouse effect.14 Lee's 1973 result [109] that the warming
phenomenon in a glass house does not compare to the supposed atmospheric greenhouse effect
was confirmed in the 1985 report of the United States Department of Energy \Projecting the
climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide" [91]. In this comprehensive pre-IPCC publication
MacCracken explicitly states that the terms \greenhouse gas" and \greenhouse eect" are
misnomers [91, 142]. A copy of the last paragraph of the corresponding section on page 28 in
shown in Figure 15. 
The following should be emphasized: 
14The nomenclature naturally extents to other trace gases. 
F

----------


## johnc

It is a bit difficult sometimes to work out where Marcs cut and pastes start and end. The last one could have included this reference of the counter discussion. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...802.4324v1.pdf   Neither Gerhards paper or this one are pier reviewed as far as I know. However continual block pastes are a very poor substitute to some effort to explain what you are on about or what you are trying to say.

----------


## chrisp

I suppose Marc will also find that this paper "seems to make sense" too.  http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...802.4324v1.pdf    

> Gerlich and Tscheuschner state, among more extravagant claims, that Unfortunately, there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse effect is introduced in harmony with the scientific standards of theoretical physics. The above analysis I believe completely establishes, within perfectly simple and appropriate theoretical physics constructs, the main points. Namely that assuming the atmosphere is transparent for visible light but opaque for
> infrared radiation leads to a warming of the Earths surface relative to firm limits established by basic physical principles of energy conservation, for the case of an atmosphere transparent to both visible and infrared. 
> In particular, it has been shown that:
> 1. An average surface temperature for a planet is perfectly well defined with or without rotation, and with or without infrared absorbing gases
> 2. This average temperature is mathematically constrained to be less than the fourth root of the average fourth power of the temperature, and can in some circumstances (a planet with no or very slow rotation, and low surface thermal inertia) be much less
> 3. For a planet with no infrared absorbing or reflecting layer above the surface (and no significant flux of internal energy), the fourth power of the surface temperature always eventually averages to a value determined by the incoming stellar energy flux and relevant reflectivity and emissivity parameters.
> 4. The only way the fourth power of the surface temperature can exceed this limit is to be covered by an atmosphere that is at least partially opaque to infrared radiation. This is the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
> 5. The measured average temperature of Earths surface is 33 degrees C higher than the limit determined by items (2) and (3). Therefore, Earth is proved to have a greenhouse effect of at least 33K. 
> The specific contributions of individual gases such as CO2 to Earths greenhouse effect are covered well by the standard treatments of the subject.

  Personally, I'm finding it quite amusing and interesting that some how the "greenhouse effect" supposedly violates the fundamentals of science, and that (believe it or not) it is "Now it is used as a weapon to attack our way of life"! 
Paranoia abounds!

----------


## johnc

> I suppose Marc will also find that this paper "seems to make sense" too. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...802.4324v1.pdf  
> Personally, I'm finding it quite amusing and interesting that some how the "greenhouse effect" supposedly violates the fundamentals of science, and that (believe it or not) it is "Now it is used as a weapon to attack our way of life"! 
> Paranoia abounds!

  The part of Marc's posts that I find amusing is that when he feels the need we get the reference to studying in a particular field or possessing an intimate knowledge of the area as an alternative to actually demonstrating that knowledge beyond the usual suspect cut and pastes. I would actually be interested in what he thinks beyond trawling up google references. 
Nobody should be afraid to put forward an opinion providing they are prepared to also listen.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. 
> Unlike you, I studied climatology at uni and I was thought and examined on the greenhouse effect. I never questioned it because I did not have to. It seem to make sense. 
> Now it is used as a weapon to attack our way of life and to shift power and resources to the lunatic fringe.

  So.....in summary.....it made sense to you until it started contradicting your politicial beliefs?  That's.......well.....a bit sad really.

----------


## Marc

Yea yea yea, I understand. When you have little to say try the personal attacks.
Not interested. 
However I have posted a long list of greenhouse conjectures each dutifully refuted.
Can you please pick ONE...not asking for much....and support it?  
After all, I have written some post on my own,  and no one answered in any meaningful way, that is, answering the subject in question.
When I copy someone else's post you find it is your duty to either google some dirt on the author or throw some on me. 
I find your childish remarks on me amusing but they do not put your point across in any way shape or form. Clearly. 
The reality of science is that it changes because of skepticism. Skeptics are the soul of evolving science. Believers are the science's poison because they precisely "believe" without any critical thinking.  
Students mainly believe their teachers because they want to pass the exam. 
Teachers are not paid to put forward new theories nor challenge old ones but to teach what is in the text book someone got paid to write. The whole process is deprived from critical thinking. 
It is only when there is a challenge to our values that we get out of the comfort zone and start thinking. 
It would do you a world of good to start challenging your own values if you want to achieve anything at all different from what you already have.

----------


## Marc

Chris, the paper you linked provides abundant proof of what no one disputes, that is that the atmosphere absorbs heat. 
The greenhouse effect fallacy wants you to believe that the atmosphere  acts like the glass on your greenhouse and that is untrue.
It is untrue because the glass in the greenhouse is a physical barrier  to CONVECTION. No such thing in the air last time I checked unless it is  cloudy. 
The fairy tail that CO2 because it is more reactive to IR acts as  "greenhouse gas" sits on the notion that a layer of CO2 (that does not  exist) "reflects back" (atmospheric counter-radiation) to earth heat  that increases the net heat intake. Therefore the more CO2, the more  heat is reflected back. 
There are a few errors in the above.
The fact that CO2 is more responsive to IR spectrum is irrelevant because O2, N2, Ar HO2 all can be heated and do get heated. 
Air is a MIXTURE. Just like water in the ocean is not pure HO2 but a  mixture and behaves as such, Air gets heated by incoming radiation from  the sun AND outgoing heat from the earth. This capacity to absorb and  give off heat is what makes the planet habitable and please don't tell  me you believe that only 0.039% of the total air is capable to be heated  and the rest is impervious. If that would be so we would be in a whole  heap of trouble and icy cold.
Air, and I use this term intentionally because the gas mix we breathe  behaves thermodynamically as one substance, transports the most heat by  convection to the upper atmosphere where it goes out into space. Air  gets also heated by IR. 
Now here is when the greenhouse illustration is used wrong.  
You hear that CO2 "reflects back to earth" IR and heats it up. It almost  seems to say that each CO2 molecule hits the earth with some sort of  laser beam that is shot back to earth to heat it up, passing through all  the other molecules who let it pass and say "ole"
Two thoughts on this.
One, any object that is heated above zero kelvin emits IR.
Two, the FLOW of heat ALWAYS goes from the hotter to the colder. 
So to our fallacy; in order for the mythical CO2 to heat the earth, it  will have to be hotter than the earth and have an amount of energy  capable to heat everything in it's path from that CO2 molecule down to  the rocks or ocean below since CO2 molecules do not possess laser  cannons to shoot heat down to earth unimpeded. 
When it is true that CO2 is easier to heat via IR, it is not true that  such heat can be transmitted "back" to earth, reflected, or any other  fancy term. In fact what happens is that such heat is transmitted to the  molecule of N2 or O2 or Ar or HO2 that is next to it and the end result  is that AIR is heated. No shooting. 
So now then, if AIR is heated then it can heat back earth right?
Wrong.
Second law states heat goes from hot to cold and no one can dispute that  the temperature in the atmosphere is gradually colder as you ascend, so  all that poor solitary molecule of CO2 can do is give up that minuscule  extra heat to its next door neighbour and the whole mixtrue end up  behaving like a unifided substance that when heated expands, and goes  UP. Convection is a thermo-regulator to our planet and it is not  possible to any form of heat to claim back through zillions of layers of  ever increasingly hotter gases and hit pay dirt and cook us all. 
There are a lot of other mechanism to take into account, not the last,  the fct that the system is and has been in equilibrium for millions of  years and that therefore the amount of energy in = energy out.
Another is the fact that this thermo regulator effect is self adjusting.  The more the ground heats the air the more it expands and the quicker  it lifts up taking heat to the colder air and ultimately to space.

----------


## Dr Freud

Dear Australians, 
You are being conned. 
JuLIAR is trying to convince you that Aussies paying more tax will make the Planet Earth COLDER.  :Doh:  
This is FRAUD writ large. 
And some Aussies are actually protesting to PAY MORE TAX!!! 
But there are always "believers", here are some of the weak minded and brainwashed:   
They say "Kick the CO2 habit", yet they are all still breathing it out.  :Doh:  
And they think increasing taxes in Australia will make the Planet Earth COLDER.   
These people are moving beyond religion. 
They are literally losing their minds. 
The question is, are you a "believer"?  :Screwy:

----------


## Dr Freud

My, what powerful scientific evidence they must have?   

> Ive noticed the same cowardly tactic that Perth radios Howard Sattler describes:  _THE Gillard Government and its carbon tax supporters are running scared._  _How else can I explain the reaction of its chief climate change adviser, Prof. Ross Garnaut, to my request for an interview on the subject. _   _During the negotiations my producer was grilled about my views on the proposed impost and global warming. _   _Told I was a sceptic, the response was:"That changes everything. _   _Needless to say, the interview did not materialise. _   _Snubbing talkback radio commentators who disagree with the Governments policy is one ingredient in the campaign to derail opposition to the tax._This is a deliberate tactic to avoid awkward questions, marginalise sceptics and pretend theres no debate. What you should conclude is not just that these people have no real confidence in their arguments.    
>  You should also conclude that every time you hear a journalist interview a government mouthpice or scientist on global warming, that this is one journalist who is trusted not to ask a hard question.     Debate is the enemy of the warmist | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Frauds. Liars. Cowards. The lot of them.  :Biggrin:

----------


## PhilT2

Shock jocks: the cane toads of journalism and an affront to intelligence « melange

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Chris, the paper you linked provides abundant proof of what no one disputes, that is that the atmosphere absorbs heat. 
> The greenhouse effect fallacy wants you to believe that the atmosphere  acts like the glass on your greenhouse and that is untrue.
> It is untrue because the glass in the greenhouse is a physical barrier  to CONVECTION. No such thing in the air last time I checked unless it is  cloudy. 
> The fairy tail that CO2 because it is more reactive to IR acts as  "greenhouse gas" sits on the notion that a layer of CO2 (that does not  exist) "reflects back" (atmospheric counter-radiation) to earth heat  that increases the net heat intake. Therefore the more CO2, the more  heat is reflected back. 
> There are a few errors in the above.
> The fact that CO2 is more responsive to IR spectrum is irrelevant because O2, N2, Ar HO2 all can be heated and do get heated. 
> Air is a MIXTURE. Just like water in the ocean is not pure HO2 but a  mixture and behaves as such, Air gets heated by incoming radiation from  the sun AND outgoing heat from the earth. This capacity to absorb and  give off heat is what makes the planet habitable and please don't tell  me you believe that only 0.039% of the total air is capable to be heated  and the rest is impervious. If that would be so we would be in a whole  heap of trouble and icy cold.
> Air, and I use this term intentionally because the gas mix we breathe  behaves thermodynamically as one substance, transports the most heat by  convection to the upper atmosphere where it goes out into space. Air  gets also heated by IR. 
> Now here is when the greenhouse illustration is used wrong.  
> ...

  Nice post marc

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Shock jocks: the cane toads of journalism and an affront to intelligence « melange

  PULEEEAAASE,  how pathetic.

----------


## chrisp

> Chris, the paper you linked provides abundant proof of what no one disputes, that is that the atmosphere absorbs heat. 
> The greenhouse effect fallacy wants you to believe that the atmosphere  acts like the glass on your greenhouse and that is untrue.
> It is untrue because the glass in the greenhouse is a physical barrier  to CONVECTION. No such thing in the air last time I checked unless it is  cloudy. 
> The fairy tail that CO2 because it is more reactive to IR acts as  "greenhouse gas" sits on the notion that a layer of CO2 (that does not  exist) "reflects back" (atmospheric counter-radiation) to earth heat  that increases the net heat intake. Therefore the more CO2, the more  heat is reflected back.

  Marc, 
You can quote a fringe paper if you wish.  And I can quote mainstream papers back. 
I don't think we'll change each other's minds.  So, I think we should just agree that I'm right!   :Biggrin:  
I find it somewhat amusing that you are going to the extremes of questioning the validity of the greenhouse effect, AND to claim that there is a natural regulator that strictly locks the temperature of the earth.  IN ORDER to make the claim the that the level of CO2 doesn't have any impact on global temperature. 
Do I take it that because your argument is the level of CO2 has no effect on temperature, that you are acknowledging that CO2 is increasing and that it is man-made?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The reality of science is that it changes because of skepticism. Skeptics are the soul of evolving science. Believers are the science's poison because they precisely "believe" without any critical thinking.  
> Students mainly believe their teachers because they want to pass the exam. 
> Teachers are not paid to put forward new theories nor challenge old ones but to teach what is in the text book someone got paid to write. The whole process is deprived from critical thinking. 
> It is only when there is a challenge to our values that we get out of the comfort zone and start thinking. 
> It would do you a world of good to start challenging your own values if you want to achieve anything at all different from what you already have.

  Absolutely.....couldn't agree more.  Although more than one of my uni lecturers did actually encourage us to not accept what they were telling us at face value.  The best example of this was a wonderful (and well published) ecologist who also happened to be a rather devout Christian.  He strongly encouraged us to read widely and accept nothing - something I've held on to for over 20 years.  The bloke in question may be familiar to those who have read any of Peter Andrew's works like 'Back from The Brink'. 
My problem, Marc, with your work to date is that your scepticism appears to be driven in the first instance by your political beliefs rather than being truly sceptical of the facts presented.   So you've already fixed yourself into trouble....

----------


## johnc

> PULEEEAAASE, how pathetic.

  Actually the cane toad comparison is quite amusing, and really those blokes are just there to entertain the thick and the weak minded most are to self opinionated to ever conduct an interview designed to flesh out the truth.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Actually the cane toad comparison is quite amusing, and really those blokes are just there to entertain the thick and the weak minded most are to self opinionated to ever conduct an interview designed to flesh out the truth.

  No it is just you do not agree with their views. You don't like the truth told in forum that can wake people up to the spin from others. 
Very simple really.   Not that I always agree with them.   The weakest minds are those that accept the spin they are dished up. 
And yes this woman's cry that only she can be right an questions the right of free speech in indeed pathetic, really really pathetic.  And this is from the lefties that cried free speach was under threat from Howard.  Even moer pathetic.  I just cant say how much I hate this luvvie @@@@@@@@.

----------


## johnc

> No it is just you do not agree with their views. You don't like the truth told in forum that can wake people up to the spin from others. 
> Very simple really. Not that I always agree with them. The weakest minds are those that accept the spin they are dished up.

  Firstly the shock jocks are no open forum, it is merely opinionated commentary, what I don't like about the format is that most promote bigitory and we have the infamous escapade with Alan Jones and the racial tensions he inflamed at Bondi. They are simply a very ordinary group with a solid following. You get a caller that doesn't agree with their view and it is a quick cut off, but get someone agreeing regardless of the venom and hate and they get a good hearing. It is not balanced and it is not journalism worth having.

----------


## johnc

> No it is just you do not agree with their views. You don't like the truth told in forum that can wake people up to the spin from others. 
> Very simple really. Not that I always agree with them. The weakest minds are those that accept the spin they are dished up. 
> And yes this woman's cry that only she can be right an questions the right of free speech in indeed pathetic, really really pathetic. And this is from the lefties that cried free speach was under threat from Howard. Even moer pathetic. I just cant say how much I hate this luvvie @@@@@@@@.

  
How rude of me to post a reply before you finished editing, however let's get one thing straight she does not state that only she should have the right to speak she actually makes a tongue in cheek comment about censorship, this is an article that shouldn't be taken to seriously. You are most likely only getting annoyed because it cuts across your own beliefs, lighten up, lefties Howard and all the rest of it are just a figment of your political imagination on this one.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Firstly the shock jocks are no open forum, it is merely opinionated commentary, what I don't like about the format is that most promote bigitory and we have the infamous escapade with Alan Jones and the racial tensions he inflamed at Bondi. They are simply a very ordinary group with a solid following. You get a caller that doesn't agree with their view and it is a quick cut off, but get someone agreeing regardless of the venom and hate and they get a good hearing. It is not balanced and it is not journalism worth having.

  Have you ever called them?  They welcome the otherside to comment.  I think you are getting confused with the ABC.

----------


## PhilT2

Just posting this link for Marc so he can head over there and let Jonova and her engineer know that they have their post on the laws of thermodynamics all wrong.  Why greenhouse gas warming doesn 
Others may want to go there to check the Monckton tour dates, next best thing to a papal visit for the faithful. 
And be sure to let Roy Spencer know he's got it wrong too http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/...-warmer-still/

----------


## Marc

Hey Dr Freud, if paying more taxes will make things colder, If we stop paying taxes then it will makes things hotter right?  
I think I found a way to heat up my place without having to collect firewood.

----------


## Marc

Hum fringe paper?
I posted works from people who have a lifelong dedication to physics, astronomy, climatology, and more. Most if not all peer reviewed (for what it is worth this days not much) I posted a list of quotes from major text books each with its refutation.
I have taken the time to write in some detail a vulgata of the greenhouse claims and the reasons why it is wrong. 
To date no one has taken the time to reply in kind. Only critics of character not substance. Oh but Marc copies and pasts...haha that is the best critique of them all 
As for the medium used for some of the publications, do you venture a guess as to why this scientist must resort to on line publications rather than mainstream. Would you think that the ABC or the Sydney Morning Herald would be willing to publish them? Venture why?
This is a religious war my friend, a battle of dogma over reason nothing else and you are a willing and I must say ignoramus participant
Not that I am surprised, after all this is not a physics forum. 
However it stands to reason that if you support a position like the AGW hypothesis, you should be able to support somehow its basic claims. Only religious converts, defend their faith based on their own faith and believes and those who challenge them are called names like heretic and are threatened with hell for eternity. 
I particularly enjoy encouragements to tell Dr Spencer he got it wrong when I already posted (copy and paste) extensive works that criticise precisely Dr Spencer for his deceiving explanations on the subject of greenhouse hypothesis. 
All in all it has been good fun.
Enjoy it while it lasts. At the rate the labour fringe and the lunatic greens are systematically destroying our economy, and at the rate the democrats in the US are doing likewise I wouldn't be surprised if we will have another market crash of gargantuan proportions.
Then we can all kiss our super good by and the capital gain of 20 years will be in the toilet. 
All for a false dogma supporter by believers who can not read a science paper.

----------


## chrisp

> Hum fringe paper?
> I posted works from people who have a lifelong dedication to physics, astronomy, climatology, and more. Most if not all peer reviewed (for what it is worth this days not much) I posted a list of quotes from major text books each with its refutation.
> I have taken the time to write in some detail a vulgata of the greenhouse claims and the reasons why it is wrong.  *To date no one has taken the time to reply in kind.* Only critics of character not substance. Oh but Marc copies and pasts...haha that is the best critique of them all

  Did you read post #6310?  I quoted a paper directly addressing the paper you quoted.

----------


## Marc

> Absolutely.....couldn't agree more.  Although more than one of my uni lecturers did actually encourage us to not accept what they were telling us at face value.  The best example of this was a wonderful (and well published) ecologist who also happened to be a rather devout Christian.  He strongly encouraged us to read widely and accept nothing - something I've held on to for over 20 years.  The bloke in question may be familiar to those who have read any of Peter Andrew's works like 'Back from The Brink'. 
> My problem, Marc, with your work to date is that your scepticism appears to be driven in the first instance by your political beliefs rather than being truly sceptical of the facts presented.   So you've already fixed yourself into trouble....

  It is true that some creationist feel safe in their belief and having studied some of the errors in the evolutionist story would encourage you to find out for yourself. They are not that confident this days, but that is another story. 
As for the motivations of my skepticism, you couldn't be more wrong. When I don't hide my conservative preference in politics, (and my outright support for a flat rate tax with no free threshold) you should know that the demonisation of CO2 precedes the works of AlGore and all the fringe left wing of today and was picked up by Margaret Thatcher long before the current mob. 
Furthermore many conservative government are using the AGW fallacy for political purposes. Conservative purposes.
It was false then and it is false now and always had a political agenda. 
Yet never in the history of humankind, perhaps with the exception of the Roman Catholic Inquisition, has a political/religious/social dogma being used in a more destructive way directed at the foundations of the world economy with a purpose of redistribution of wealth and power shift. 
What terrorist can do to the Judeo Christian culture is nothing compared to what the AGW mob will do to the entire world if they are not stopped. A crash that will sink us into chaos is just one possibility. The environmentalist and their pet friends the animal liberation lunatics should be classified as terrorist and enemies of the country.

----------


## PhilT2

I_ posted works from people who have a lifelong dedication to physics,  astronomy, climatology, and more. Most if not all peer reviewed (for  what it is worth this days not much) I posted a list of quotes from  major text books each with its refutation _ Marc, could you give us the name of the textbooks from which those quotes came? They do not appear to represent the position of any significant scientific body. Also the G & T paper that supplied your cut and pastes has been widely criticised. Have you considered the possibility that they cannot get published in a credible journal because their work is crap? I posted the link to Spencer because, while not perfect, his model demonstrates where you are wrong and I hoped that even the most devout anti AGW fan would take the trouble to read his work. Do you ever take the time to read the critics of articles you paste?

----------


## johnc

> Yet never in the history of humankind, perhaps with the exception of the Roman Catholic Inquisition, has a political/religious/social dogma being used in a more destructive way directed at the foundations of the world economy with a purpose of redistribution of wealth and power shift. 
> What terrorist can do to the Judeo Christian culture is nothing compared to what the AGW mob will do to the entire world if they are not stopped. A crash that will sink us into chaos is just one possibility. The environmentalist and their pet friends the animal liberation lunatics should be classified as terrorist and enemies of the country.

  This is where you become a tad hysterical in your argument, there is nothing to sustain a notion that this is a driven religious vendetta to redistribute wealth quite the opposite infact. It has come from science and it would be best if we stuck with science. We can see your right leaning views and there is nothing wrong with that but you don't help yourself when you launch into quasi religious rants linking refo's, terrorists, animal liberationists and anyone left of the far right as part of a world wide conspiracy.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> This is where you become a tad hysterical in your argument, there is nothing to sustain a notion that this is a driven religious vendetta to redistribute wealth quite the opposite infact. It has come from science and it would be best if we stuck with science. We can see your right leaning views and there is nothing wrong with that but you don't help yourself when you launch into quasi religious rants linking refo's, terrorists, animal liberationists and anyone left of the far right as part of a world wide conspiracy.

  Johnc I accept you believe whole heartedly in AGW and a few others here, and you have no sinister thoughts on it and truely believe you efforts are in fact to save the world.  As noble a sentiment as this is,  this sentiment is surely what drives many to accept the AGW mantra as a given without question.  
You will defend your right to save the world and the AGW mantra all the way.  But your sentiment has blinded your judgement on this issue as it has with many others.  It is the perfect political set up absolutely perfect.  Except 2 things, first not everyone's bull chit meter is on the blink and second the climate is not co-operating. 
The first one you should be very grateful because in the fullness of time they will save you from yourself.  The second, well you should be grateful for that as well. 
Thankfully there is enough of one and two happening to temper the government response.  This will at least minimize the damage,  of which will be substancial in any event.   
Hysterical, hell no this has the potential to really destroy society as we know it.  Just thank god that the temps have not followed the IPCC prediction to date as this would spped up the damage.  This has got many years to run IMO, so you have quite a few years to go feeling good about AGW, this is going to be better than feeling rather stupid. 
It will be a political solution coupled with empirical evidence that eventually kills this off and forces the luvies to find another cause, for there will be one, only never again will they get one as good as this.  They know this too, hence the "HYSTERIA" surrounding their scare mongering.  I believe they also know they are losing the battle, but hang in in vain hope there will be a teperature spike that can give it some more motion.  The fence sitters and un-informed are the ones that will direct proceedings from here.  They will either fold in more with the AGW crowd or they will start firing up there own bull chit meters and join the skeptics. 
I was horrified when listenening to street interviews on the subject, to see just how missinformed people are on the matter, and thats from both sides of the argument. 
Any way batten down the hatches for a long drawn out fight, cause it aint over yet.   
It will be interesting to see how people of England and other countries that have dived in the deep end react when they see what fools their governments have been.  What are they going to do when they see other countries like china increase emissions at an ever increasing rate while despite their own efforst their own keep going up too.  If it wasn't so serious it would be absolutely laughable. 
Yes, keep going with your feel good save the world thoughts, we do after all need a bit of balance, thats how society has improved in western countries.  Only in counties where the balance is tiped in favor of either side, are the people suffering, oh boy and how they suffer.

----------


## Dr Freud

Their LIES show how weak their positions are. 
The 30% support for the tax shows how weak minded 30% of Australians are. 
I have long argued for more real pollution controls, and thankfully we are continuing to move in this direction.  Bear in mind, this is not anything new, but a continuum of Australia being an environmentally responsible country that we have been for many decades.   

> In a move resisted by car manufacturers for years, the government will phase in new design regulations over the next seven years, forcing car makers to cut three major pollutants known to cause cardiovascular and respiratory illness. 
> The new standards will apply a 50 per cent cut to the emission of hydrocarbons, a 70 per cent cut to oxides of nitrogen and a 90 per cent reduction on particulate matter.
> The government says the measures will save more than $1.5 billion in public health expenditure over the next 20 years as a result of illness linked to smog.  
> Andrew McKellar, chief executive of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI), joined Mr Albanese at the official announcement and said cars with the new standards were already available in Australia.  
> "So the cost is fully factored in already in many instances," Mr McKellar told reporters.   No jobs lost over new car design: Albanese : World News Australia on SBS

  All good you say, so where's the lie? 
Let's see:  

> Mr Albanese also stressed that Saturday's announcement was solely about the particles emitted from cars that cause health problems.  He said the government would make a future announcement about vehicle standards that relate to carbon dioxide emissions.     *"We didn't want to confuse the issues,"* Mr Albanese said.

  So, you continually refer to Carbon Dioxide as "Carbon Pollution", even though it is a clear, colourless, odourless, harmless natural gas that humans, plants and animals breathe in and out all day, and is in fact essential and beneficial for all life on the Planet Earth.  
You support a calling a scheme to reduce Carbon Dioxide as the "Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme".  
You support calling measures to reduce Carbon Dioxide as a "Carbon Price" and "Carbon Tax".  
You tell and support blatant lies such as the recent Blanchett/Get up LIES showing smoggy skies being cleaned by reducing Carbon Dioxide, which again you know to be clear, colourless, odourless, and essential for life.  
Now, when your argument has fallen apart, your government is detested by most Australians, and your beloved TAX is dying a slow an horrible death, you still cannot come clean with us Aussies. You instead tell this even more blatant bare faced LIE:   *"We didn't want to confuse the issues,"* Mr Albanese said.  
Never before in our history has this country been run by such a bunch of lying half wits!  
I can accept that they continually tell these LIES, but what amazes me is that 30% of Australians still believe them. Kudos to us 70% anyway, hey.  :2thumbsup:   
For the other 30% who obviously are a bit slow, here is Carbon Dioxide:      
And here is Carbon Pollution:      
Now watch for the LIES to continue to get worse. 
They will refer CORRECTLY to this new policy as "Carbon Pollution" and show lots of pictures of smog. 
It will now be very easy to confuse the weak minded who have already been brainwashed to "believe" that Carbon Dioxide is also "Carbon Pollution". 
Is the timing of this new policy just a coincidence? 
Are you still a "believer"?  :Wink 1:

----------


## PhilT2

_Never before in our history has this country been run by such a bunch of lying half wits!_ 
Doc,so does that mean that Julia can't count on your vote next election? Never mind, it seems that the independents are supporting the tax and with the greens taking over in the senate soon, it is likely to go ahead. I hear that Monckton is coming over to preach to the true believers. Will you be going to hear him?

----------


## Dr Freud

> _Never before in our history has this country been run by such a bunch of lying half wits!_

  I note no disagreement from you or any other AGW hypothesis supporters in this regard. 
Can I add you to the 70% who understand that increases taxes in Australia will NOT make the Planet Earth colder?   

> Doc,so does that mean that Julia can't count on your vote next election?

  I base all my voting decisions on the policies parties present prior to the election.  I'll make my mind up at the next one.  But based on her clear and explicit comment prior to the last election: *
"There will be no Carbon Tax under the government I lead".* 
I will certainly factor in this uncertainty into my thinking. 
And I do admire your optimism that she'll still be PM come the next election.  :Biggrin:    

> Never mind, it seems that the independents are supporting the tax and with the greens taking over in the senate soon, it is likely to go ahead.

  Windsor, Oakshott and Bandt achieved less than 0.9% of the primary vote at the last election. 
146 Seats of the 150 seats voted NO to a Carbon Tax. 
JuLIAR is now a puppet to Bob Brown to Australia's detriment. 
If she introduces this, which she is too weak not to, Labor will wear the consequences at the next election.  The Greens will then be over, either by capitulating to it's repeal, or being cleaned out at a double dissolution. 
Australians have never enjoyed it when the tail wags the dog.  The numbers here aren't event the tail, but the @rse of the flea on the dog.   

> I hear that Monckton is coming over to preach to the true believers.

  It would be good if he is preaching to AGW hypothesis supporters. 
Maybe he could convince the brainwashed true believers that increasing taxes in Australia will NOT make the Planet Earth colder.   

> Will you be going to hear him?

  Depends where and when he is presenting.  We don't get many resources sent back to us here in the west.  But the Feds are always happy to take all of our taxes and redistribute them to you people in the east.  Thanks also for shutting down our cattle export industry.  Next the mining industry, then the farming.  What a brilliant government.  :Biggrin:  
The greenies will be happy, soon we can all be vegans living with very little electricity.  :Wink 1:  
But a man of your capabilities must also be pretty desperate talking about voting and Monckton.  Surely you can dig up some credible evidence proving your supported hypothesis? Surely you can explain how increasing taxes in Australia will make the Planet Earth colder? 
Or just stick to inane semantic distraction like the rest of them?   :Sigh:

----------


## Marc

> I_ posted works from people who have a lifelong dedication to physics,  astronomy, climatology, and more. Most if not all peer reviewed (for  what it is worth this days not much) I posted a list of quotes from  major text books each with its refutation _ Marc, could you give us the name of the textbooks from which those quotes came? They do not appear to represent the position of any significant scientific body. Also the G & T paper that supplied your cut and pastes has been widely criticised. Have you considered the possibility that they cannot get published in a credible journal because their work is crap? I posted the link to Spencer because, while not perfect, his model demonstrates where you are wrong and I hoped that even the most devout anti AGW fan would take the trouble to read his work. Do you ever take the time to read the critics of articles you paste?

  I can not help you if you can not, or do not want to read. Smug post get no attention. The list of text book and encyclopedia definitions of Greenhouse effect is long and clear. Like I said. Try reading it.

----------


## Marc

Who said "this is a hysterical reaction of the opposition there will be no carbon tax"? 
Sorry to say John but when your left leaning views are clear, you do not help yourself by making such weak counterarguments. If you want this to be "scientific" I have given you all the opportunities to no avail. 
However the problem is and remains political. A tax will not change climate even the most staunch imperialist opponent on welfare knows that. Even the most bitter of green environmentalist on steroid knows that the propaganda used to drum up support for the carbon tax is a blatant boldface lie.
The only reason you accept such lies is because you think that the end justifies the means. And there is where my simile with the Inquisition fits in. 
As for the hysterical idiocy of those who think to have achieved a victory for the welfare of cattle by shutting down an industry with 50,000 animals on their way and another similar number in pens in Indonesia...I don't think I can write down the list of epithet they and the imbeciles in Canberra deserve. Present company excepted of course, :Smilie:

----------


## johnc

Interesting twisting of words Mr Marc, I was referring to your absurd linking of unconnected events and you can't help yourself this time either with cattle.  
Let's not bring the cattle issue into this it has nothing to do with carbon tax or global warming (beyond cattle farts) as we all well know. Our own slaughter operations run on certain standards including making sure the animal is not overly stressed at the time it is killed. Don't get all touchy feely on this it has a dual purpose, a stressed beast produces less than optimum meat so in the interest of quality product they need to be kept in good condition and as relaxed as possible prior to getting the chop. The issue of the method of killing in Indonesia is not something most of the breeders of these beasts wants to see, it is not in the interests of the industry in Indonesia either. There was meant to be sufficient oversight and training from our end that hasn't happened, and we no longer have the capacity to process these animals ourselves even if we wanted to. 
For the sake of Australian breeders, the beef industry in general, and for the future of this important market to the Australian economy lets hope those that were meant to be ensuring adequate training and assistance manage to get reaccreditation of sufficient Indonesian operations for trade to resume.

----------


## chrisp

> Windsor, Oakshott and Bandt achieved less than 0.9% of the primary vote at the last election.

  I see your understanding of our election system equals your understanding of AGW...  *With 150 seats, it would be difficult for ANY candidate to hold more than 100%/150 seat = 0.666%*  
What were the election results? First preference votes 
New England
WINDSOR, Tony    61.88% House of Representatives Division First Preferences 
Lyne
OAKESHOTT, Robert  47.15% House of Representatives Division First Preferences 
Melbourne
BANDT, Adam   36.17% House of Representatives Division First Preferences  
First Preference by Party 
Australian Labor Party     37.99%
Liberal             30.46%
Liberal National Party of Queensland     9.12%
The Greens     11.76%
The Nationals     3.73%  First Preferences By PartyI see *you are using a false basis for your percentages*.  BTW, using the same logic, how many seats should The Greeens have won? 
It is a bit like the argument that Australia only produces some small percentage of emissions - another false basis.  Actually, some even go so far as to misquote Australia's CO2 emissions relative to the whole world atmosphere - not just the whole world CO2 emissions.

----------


## PhilT2

_Depends where and when he is presenting.  We don't get many resources sent back to us here in the west._ 
Moncktons schedule has been up on Jonovas site for a while now, but I just rechecked and apparently the Perth event is not open to the general public.

----------


## Marc

See John, here is where you are at a complete loss.  

> Let's not bring the cattle issue into this it has nothing to do with  carbon tax or global warming (beyond cattle farts) as we all well know.

  Have you checked the green's policies wish list? 
If we turned vegetarians, there would be a reduction in greenhouse gases of 0.bullshyte%
One way to reduce the meat market is by destroying the industry, make the product dearer. Beans burrito here we come. 
Politicians and lobbyist, know they can count on you to say "conspiracy theory" and ignore everything with some idea of knowing it all better. Just like with "Global warming" you think that you can turn it all into a neat "scientific" debate even if you do not know much about it. "The scientist know what they are talking about so shall be right mate" 
It won't this time and if Global Warming alarmist can be stopped in Australia as they stopped them elsewhere, it is only thanks to those who can discern a lie from another lie.

----------


## Marc

The falsification of the Greenhouse conjecture  

> _It cannot be overemphasised that a microscopic theory providing the  base for a derivation of macroscopic quantities like thermal or  electrical transport coefficients must be a highly involved many-body  theory.  
> Of course, heat transfer is due to inter atomic electromagnetic  interactions mediated by the electromagnetic field. But it is misleading  to visualise a photon as a simple particle or wave packet travelling  from one atom to another for example. Things are pretty much more  complex and cannot be understood even in a (one-)particle-wave duality  or Feynman graph picture.  
> It is an interesting point that the heat conductivity of CO2 is only  one half of that of nitrogen or oxygen. In a 100 percent CO2 atmosphere a  conventional light bulb shines brighter than in a nitrogen-oxygen  atmosphere due to the lowered heat conductivity of its environment. But  this has nothing to do with the supposed CO2 greenhouse effect which  refers to trace gas concentrations.  
> Global climatologists claim that the  Earth's natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth 33 C warmer than it  would be without the trace gases in the atmosphere. 80 percent of this  warming is attributed to water vapour and 20 percent to the 0.03 volume  percent CO2. If such an extreme effect existed, it would show up even in  a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO2 as a heat  conductivity anomaly. It would be manifest itself as a new kind of  `super insulation' violating the conventional heat conduction equation.  However, for CO2 such anomalous heat transport properties never have  been observed._

----------


## Marc

If CO2 "traps" the infra read radiation, how come it does not shield us from the infra red coming from the Sun? It is over 40% of the total energy from the sun. CO2 must have a discriminatory behaviour. let the Sun's IR pass and "block" the earth's IR.
Oh what a load of crackpot rubbish!      http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/8430 
The priests of IPCC assume the sun generates more visible light than  infrared, and it is the infrared radiation from the earth which is  heating the atmosphere. They assume the heat from the Earth is trapped  because the atmosphere captures the infrared but passes the visible. But the reality is the Sun produces radiation in the following bands  and percentages based on black-body radiation models (used to model  suns): Ultraviolet (UV) – 10%, *visible light 44.8%, Infrared (IR) 45.2%*!  The Sun produces more energy in the IR than in the visible. Those same  atmospheric molecules absorbing the Earth’s IR is also absorbing the  Sun’s IR – and guess which IR source is orders of magnitude larger? Does  the Earth glow and shed light to planets across this solar system?Â 
 This really is just a stunning point. The Green House effect would  have to work both ways. If trapped IR radiation by CO2 (which only  accounts for 7% of the so called green house gases) is the driver behind  global warming then it should be taking off like a rocket given how  much IR is coming from the Sun. The Sun is an IR generator that dwarfs  whatever heat is coming from the Earth’s surface.

----------


## Marc

*Professor denies greenhouse effect*  Home » News » Regions
                                                                    By Rosie Manins on Fri, 30 Jan 2009The Regions: Central Otago | Project Hayes 
                             Click photo to enlarge                        Hugh Rennie        
Theories of climate change were challenged during an     Environment Court appeal hearing for Meridian Energy's proposed     $2 billion Project Hayes wind farm yesterday.                Sediment concerns raised
            As a witness for appellant Roch Sullivan, climate scientist       Prof Christopher de Freitas was questioned on his evidence,       which had been contested in the evidence of other climate       witnesses called in the hearing.     
            Prof Freitas, of the University of Auckland, said there was       no evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of       climate change.     
            "Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we       thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact       increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural       variation.     
            "People are being misled by people making money out of this,"       Prof de Freitas said.     
            He said mild warming of the climate was beneficial,       especially in a country such as New Zealand, which had a       prominent agricultural industry.     
            "One could argue that carbon dioxide is quite beneficial.       There may be benefits of wind farming that I may not be aware       of, but there is no data to show benefits in terms of       mitigating potential dangerous changes in climate by       offsetting carbon dioxide," he said.     
            Prof de Freitas said the Kyoto Protocol was a "politically       and economically motivated instrument to deal with a       perceived problem".     
            "I don't think anyone will benefit one way or another by       adhering to it. It's not a well-formulated treaty . . . the       so-called or claimed environmental benefits, I am not aware       of," he said.     
            Prof de Freitas was questioned by Meridian Energy lawyer Hugh       Rennie QC, about an article published in _The New Zealand       Herald_ in 2004, in which Prof de Freitas expressed his       thoughts on wind power, the Kyoto Protocol, and climate       change.     
            "You refer to New Zealand's need to meet its commitments to       the Kyoto Protocol [in the article].     
            "Would you accept that any selection of generation which       avoids the emission of substances controlled by that protocol       is beneficial to New Zealand?" Mr Rennie asked Prof de       Freitas. 
       Prof de Freitas took exception to the question.     
            "You are using legal gymnastics to corner me into a position       I would not otherwise take," he said.     
            Prof de Freitas admitted there was debate about climate       change, when questioned during cross-examination by Central       Otago District Council lawyer Graeme Todd.     
            "The debate centres on causes. There is a possibility climate       change could be impacted by human beings, but it is not a       significant impact," he said.     
            In response to a question by commissioner Alex Sutherland,       Prof de Freitas said the jury was out on climate change, and       preemptive action could be dangerous.     
            "There's no basis for alarm. We might be shooting ourselves       in the foot if we act on what turns out to be a bubble-less       pot," he said.

----------


## johnc

> See John, here is where you are at a complete loss.
> Have you checked the green's policies wish list? 
> If we turned vegetarians, there would be a reduction in greenhouse gases of 0.bullshyte%
> One way to reduce the meat market is by destroying the industry, make the product dearer. Beans burrito here we come. 
> Politicians and lobbyist, know they can count on you to say "conspiracy theory" and ignore everything with some idea of knowing it all better. Just like with "Global warming" you think that you can turn it all into a neat "scientific" debate even if you do not know much about it. "The scientist know what they are talking about so shall be right mate" 
> It won't this time and if Global Warming alarmist can be stopped in Australia as they stopped them elsewhere, it is only thanks to those who can discern a lie from another lie.

  What a load of mindless garbage, a little less contempt and a bit more intelligence would go a long way!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> If CO2 "traps" the infra read radiation, how come it does not shield us from the infra red coming from the Sun? It is over 40% of the total energy from the sun. CO2 must have a discriminatory behaviour. let the Sun's IR pass and "block" the earth's IR. 
> Oh what a load of crackpot rubbish!

  See! There you go bollocking up a few good facts.....with a hilariously clueless blog quote too.  Extra points. 
The greenhouse effect is discriminatory to infrared....infrared light does not confine itself to a single wavelength.....it is a band of wavelengths.  The atmosphere filters (reflection &absorbtion) out percentages of each wavelength on its way in through the atmosphere, it also changes some wavelengths.  The Earth absorbs a great percentage more of each wavelength but it reflects a goodly percentage too - and again some are altered.  These travel back outwads through the atmosphere....and some are transmitted through but some are filtered again.  
Greenhouse gases 'filter' (mostly via reflection) particular wavelengths depending on their physical properties....the interaction of the infrared bandwidth with the atmosphere and earth surface mixes up the bandwidth rather impressively.  So what comes back towards the atmosphere from the earth is not precisely the same as what comes in from the Sun....and so it is treated a little differently. 
CO2 may only account for a small proportion of the atmosphere's composition......but it is one of the only parts of the total composition that is experiencing a significant change in concentration.  And its effects on the infrared bandwidth are certainly established in science.  Hence the focus on Co2 in this little tale.... 
Unfortunately, Marc, life (and physics) is far more complicated than you might like to think.  A bit like politics really!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Have you checked the green's policies wish list? 
> If we turned vegetarians, there would be a reduction in greenhouse gases of 0.bullshyte%
> One way to reduce the meat market is by destroying the industry, make the product dearer. Beans burrito here we come.

  I'm struggling to find 'destruction of the meat market' in the list of Green's policies on their website.....mind you....I have struggled to find actual & articulated Greens policies for decades.  Come to think of it....same goes for the Libs, Labs and Nats.  One Nation was the only one I was able to grasp back in the day - but 'hate everyone except people like me' seemed a little precious so I didn't pursue it. 
You aren't a bit precious are you, Marc? 
By the by.....have you ever eaten a vegetarian?  Bloody delicous.

----------


## Marc

Silent, your attempt at explaining the greenhouse effect is laudable but confuses the issue.
There are two main problems with it. The infra-red bandwidth coming from the sun is 43% of the total sun irradiation.
Yet the mythical CO2 allegedly let's it through no problem.
Sun irradiation in all it's spectrum hits the black object and is reflected back mainly as IR.
This time CO2, (mind you in the massive proportion of a 0.03%) stops it dead in its tracks, heat's up and sends it back straight to earth. (alleged "greenhouse effect") 
More problems. CO2 is not alone but is a minute part of a MIXTURE of gases called air. so CO2 heated by IR radiation heats up its molecule that in turn heats up all the other molecules. In other words, IR radiation heats the AIR.
IR originating from this heated AIR can not and does not heat the earth as the AGW alarmist pretends to tell us it does. Second law of thermodynamics, high school stuff. Not possible, the AIR is cooler than the EARTH. No way Jose. 
More problems. CO2 mixed with the rest called AIR...IF...it gets heated by earth counter radiation, why doesn't it heat up by direct IR radiation when it comes from the sun?
Answer: it does, in fact most of the heating is done by direct IR from the sun. THe IR radiation does not need any changes to heat up the AIR. 
Scattering absorption and reflection are a visible light process and not an IR radiation. The question remains, if 43% of total solar irradiation is IR, it works both ways. 
So where does this leave us?
No such thing as "greenhouse effect". Just air being heated xx% by direct IR from the sun, and x% by earth radiation. Total result 
nothing new. The system is in equilibrium and has been for billions of years. Variations to the specific heat of the air by adding CO2?
Since you are so keen on physics you can work it out, simple maths, but I can tell you the result is negligible and not worth any one's bother.

----------


## Marc

As usual John your post is a reaction to what you dislike yet you don't really know what it is. Probably don't even knowwhat you like. 
Sort of like kids with veggies, only kids know they like ice cream.

----------


## johnc

[QUOTE=Marc;845999]As usual John your post is a reaction to what you dislike yet you don't really know what it is. Probably don't even knowwhat you like. 
Sort of like kids with veggies, only kids know they like ice cream.[/QUOTE 
????? Have you any idea what you are on about or are you just at the wrong end of the meths bottle..

----------


## chrisp

There is a humorous letter in today's _The Age_:   

> *How to play the great denial game* 
>               CLIMATE-CHANGE  denial can be a rewarding hobby. Do you  love conspiracy theories? Did  you fail science at school? Then  climate-change denial could be for you.  It  requires no financial  outlay and almost no intellectual effort.    Here are some  hints to get   started:
>               ■Deny that you are a denier. You are a sceptic or a realist.
>               ■If someone claims 97 per cent  of researchers are  convinced of man-made  climate change, and no national science body  disagrees, blame it on a  ''great global-warming swindle''.
>               ■Say that most scientists think as you do.
>               ■Say that carbon dioxide  is plant food.
>               ■Have a crack at Tim Flannery.
>               ■Say that it's getting cooler. If someone proves the past decade was the hottest in human history, say it's cold today.
>               ■If anyone  demonstrates that you are lying or  bonkers,  wait a while,  then troll out the same furphies again.
> ...

  It seems that Steve missed the one about the Greenhouse Effect being debunked.   :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

So John, since you are so keen on personal stuff and avoid the scientific stuff like the plague... yet keep on telling me it is all scientific... 
What is your ice cream? What is that you REALLY want from life, besides of course me paying "Carbon" tax?

----------


## Marc

*AGW: Fact or Political Lie?* 
                                                 May 16, 2011 in Environment, News Media, Politics by Alan | No comments 
                                                                                           Anthropogenic Global Warming has been a hot button topic over the past several years. The concept, as “settled science”, has  been a major factor in the worlds political climate, the regulatory  structure of many countries, as well as being the subject of much debate  within the academic and scientific communities.
 Over time, some former AGW alarmists have begun to change their  positions on the issue. David Evans, a former full-time consultant for  the Australian Department of Climate Change from 1999 to 2005, who  modeled Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry  and agricultural products, is the latest scientist to discount the  affect of carbon dioxide on our climate. According to Evans: “The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous  proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings.  I am a scientist who was once on the carbon gravy train, understands  the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic…
 The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent  global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical  evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too  many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the  possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome.  So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame  climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon  dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.”Evans says that he understands that CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas”  and if all things were equal then more CO2 in the air would mean a  warmer planet. He asserts that the science goes wrong when it fails to  account for the planets reaction to that increased CO2 in favor of  computer models which have been proven false. “The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which  changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water  to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and  increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply  create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide  theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would  increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the  planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.”He says that the official climate models are based upon the premise  that the extra moist air would amplify the level of warming by a  factor of three, while carbon dioxide accounted for one third of their  projections. “That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and  misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this  guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence  for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism….
 Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s,  many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that  as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the  tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands  upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late  1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at  all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models  are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature  increases due to carbon dioxide.”Most of our recent cap & tax initiatives, investment in green  energy, demonization of carbon based energy production, and our enhanced  regulatory environment is based upon this flawed climate model and the  results it predicts.
 We’ve had every reason to doubt it since the mid 1990′s. I wonder what makes us continue on that path?

----------


## Rod Dyson

I like you post on the GHG theory Marc.  
I am just waiting for someone to come in with a killer punch that proves you wrong  :Smilie:  
Hmm.........waiting. 
Might be a long time.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Gee I wonder if this will effect climate in any way?? Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predicts

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Silent, your attempt at explaining the greenhouse effect is laudable but confuses the issue.
> There are two main problems with it. The infra-red bandwidth coming from the sun is 43% of the total sun irradiation.
> Yet the mythical CO2 allegedly let's it through no problem.
> Sun irradiation in all it's spectrum hits the black object and is reflected back mainly as IR.
> This time CO2, (mind you in the massive proportion of a 0.03%) stops it dead in its tracks, heat's up and sends it back straight to earth. (alleged "greenhouse effect")

  No confusion at my end.  Your end is looking a bit suspect though  :Cool:  
With respect to your 'problems':
"The infra-red bandwidth coming from the sun is 43% of the total sun irradiation.
Yet the mythical CO2 allegedly let's it through no problem." 
Not all of that 43% gets through.  CO2 doesn't work alone in the atmosphere.  
"Sun irradiation in all it's spectrum hits the black object and is reflected back mainly as IR.
This time CO2, (mind you in the massive proportion of a 0.03%) stops it dead in its tracks, heat's up and sends it back straight to earth." 
Can't argue too much with the first sentence. But the second....I say again CO2 does not work alone.  There's a whole host of other compounds that function in much the same way. And the reflected IR is not stopped dead in its tracks - much is reflected back to Earth, some is transmitted back out into space and a tiny amount is absorbed.    

> More problems. CO2 is not alone but is a minute part of a MIXTURE of gases called air. so CO2 heated by IR radiation heats up its molecule that in turn heats up all the other molecules. In other words, IR radiation heats the AIR.
> IR originating from this heated AIR can not and does not heat the earth as the AGW alarmist pretends to tell us it does. Second law of thermodynamics, high school stuff. Not possible, the AIR is cooler than the EARTH. No way Jose.

  The atmosphere has the capacity to store heat but as you point out...not very much.  You assume that the concept of global warming/greenhouse effect relies on the atmosphere itself being warm....which is thoroughly incorrect.  It is the warming of a combination of physical assets - earth, ocean and atmosphere.  And it is the oceans that have the greatest capacity to store heat energy.  The atmosphere only has to function as a better reflective 'blanket' to upset the energy balance....not as an energy store.   

> More problems. CO2 mixed with the rest called AIR...IF...it gets heated by earth counter radiation, why doesn't it heat up by direct IR radiation when it comes from the sun?
> Answer: it does, in fact most of the heating is done by direct IR from the sun. THe IR radiation does not need any changes to heat up the AIR. 
> Scattering absorption and reflection are a visible light process and not an IR radiation. The question remains, if 43% of total solar irradiation is IR, it works both ways.

  Correct.  All heating of the earth, oceans and atmosphere comes for direct action from the Sun.  However, some of that heat energy is trapped & retained under the atmosphere.  Imagine warming your hands in front of a heater.  Your hands are the Earth without an atmosphere.  Now put gloves on.  The gloves are our atmosphere.  Same principle applies. [hint: I am requiring you, the Reader, to use your imagination here rather than assuming you are incapable of independent thought  and explaining everything]  
But you are ever so wrong with the statement that "Scattering absorption and reflection are a visible light process and not an IR radiation.".  These processes apply to all forms of energy that is delivered in a waveform.....after all....your microwave still works does it not? How about your radio?  Your oven? Your room heater?  :Doh:  :Doh:  :Doh:    

> So where does this leave us?
> No such thing as "greenhouse effect". Just air being heated xx% by direct IR from the sun, and x% by earth radiation. Total result 
> nothing new. The system is in equilibrium and has been for billions of years. Variations to the specific heat of the air by adding CO2?
> Since you are so keen on physics you can work it out, simple maths, but I can tell you the result is negligible and not worth any one's bother.

  <sigh>  How can you be so simplistic and still be able to intellectually function? 
Without the 'greenhouse effect', life on this planet would be biologically impossible.  All we have done as a species is unintentionally experimented with this fundamental process....our biggest problem is not the experiment itself but the unintended (and still largely unknown) outcomes. 
I say AGAIN....climate change, the greenhouse effect, global warming (call it what you will) is not simply about the atmosphere getting warmer.....it is FAR FAR less simple that that. Try not to be simple.  Or simply stupid. It does no-one no credit.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Gee I wonder if this will effect climate in any way?? Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predicts

  Perhaps...but given the solar cycles are mostly associated with magnetic activity rather than fluctuations in energy outputs...and the linkage between solar magnetic activity and climate behaviour on Earth is only weakly associated (to date)...then I suspect that any climate effects will be minor.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Perhaps...but given the solar cycles are mostly associated with magnetic activity rather than fluctuations in energy outputs...and the linkage between solar magnetic activity and climate behaviour on Earth is only weakly associated (to date)...then I suspect that any climate effects will be minor.

  Funny it was pretty dramatic in past solar minimum events.  Why not now?  what has changed?

----------


## Marc

Silent, you keep on repeating the benefits of the atmosphere and call it what it is not.
As discussed before, a real greenhouse works due to a physical barrier to convection. 
The atmospheric cover acts completely different. No one argues the benefits of the thermo regulation it offers. This is hardly a greenhouse effect. If CO2 would act as a greenhouse, it would do so both ways, and if CO2 can "block" heat coming from the earth, it also "blocks" heat coming from the sun, therefore more CO2 should equate to less heat coming in and colder weather.
The reality is that the variations in CO2 are not linked to variations in temperatures and the whole claim of CO2 being the reason for "Global Warming", Floods, hurricanes, curdling of milk and the advance of left handed herpes zoster ,  is a complete fabrication and a fraud of gargantuan proportions.

----------


## Marc

http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2011/01/blackbody-radiation-and-consensus.html   

> There are many problems with the physics  of these diagrams.  This will not be a general discussion of all of  these problems.  I will note that it is interesting that the  Kiehl-Trenberth diagram allows for some cooling of the surface by  evaporation and by thermals or air convection currents, but these  apparently become operative only after all of the direct solar warming  radiation has already been doubled by the re-emission of infrared  radiation back to the surface!  One should note that no radiation is  emitted by the nitrogen, oxygen, and argon that make up most of our  atmosphere in this model.  They are warm, as implied by the thermals,  but they emit no radiation in their theory.  Another interesting  implication is that the absorbing greenhouse gas molecule always  re-emits 100% of the infrared radiation it absorbs.  It never transfers  any energy to nitrogen, oxygen, or argon due to collisions, despite the  molecular collisions occurring at the rate of 6.9 billion per second at  sea level in this theory.  In reality, such collisions do occur before  re-emission does and the absorbed energy often is transferred to  nitrogen, oxygen, and argon molecules or atoms.  
> As we know, heat is not transferred  from cooler bodies to warmer bodies.  The flow of heat is always from  the warmer to the cooler body.  This creates a problem since as one  ascends in height in the lower atmosphere, called the troposphere, which  extends to an altitude of about 15,000 meters, the temperature drops.   Where the average surface temperature is 288 K, the temperature at 1000  meters altitude is 281.7 K, and at 5,000 meters it is 255.7 K, or about  the same temperature the Earth appears to be as seen from space and  assuming it is a black body radiator.  Of course it is not a black body  radiator, despite that fact that greenhouse gas theorists almost always  assume it is.  The everyday objects of our lives do emit infrared  radiation, but with a reduced efficiency compared to a black body  radiator.  The Earth's surface is full of everyday objects and  materials, none of which are black body radiators.  Greenhouse gas  theory says that the greatest increase in temperature due to added CO2  occurs at an altitude of 8,000 to 12,000 meters above the equator and  the lower latitudes.  At 10,000 meters, the gas temperature is 223.3 K.   A greenhouse gas molecule at any of these altitudes is colder when at  equilibrium with the surrounding gas molecules than the surface of the  Earth at 288K.  Even if we compare to the black body temperature  corresponding to the 161 W/m^2 said to come straight from the sun, the  molecules at 10,000 meters are colder than that surface would be and  they could not heat it according to thermodynamics principles.   Apparently, the greenhouse theorists believe the greenhouse gas molecule  absorbs the infrared radiation it is able to absorb and that raises the  temperature of the molecule to a higher temperature than the  surrounding molecules in the atmosphere at that elevation and before the  greenhouse gas molecule has a collision and transfers energy to those  surrounding molecules, it re-emits infrared energy to the ground and  warms it.

   

> Gas molecule collisions in the lower troposphere are so frequent that an  excited CO2 molecule due to its absorption of IR radiation from the  surface will in many cases not de-excite with the emission of the same  frequency IR.  It will transfer energy to other molecules in many cases  and much the most often those other molecules will be nitrogen or oxygen  molecules.  Warming nitrogen and oxygen molecules hundreds and  thousands of meters above the surface is not an effective way to heat  the surface either.  This will put more energy into rising thermals or  convection currents as opposed to bringing more energy to the surface.

   

> When there are competing theories in science, the first recourse should  always be to experimental evidence that can decide the issue.  See  Venus:  No Greenhouse Effect 
> The  temperature difference between the atmospheres of Venus and Earth is  entirely and precisely due to their different distances from the Sun,  nothing else--not to the planetary albedo (Venus is covered by dense  clouds that reflect much of the visible solar radiation, while Earth is  not), not to the IR absorptive properties of the surface (Earth is 70%  covered by deep ocean, Venus is solid crust), and above all not to the  concentration of CO2 or any other IR-absorbing gas in the atmospheres.   So first of all, the evidence of two whole planetary atmospheres  undeniably and unambiguously tells us there is no greenhouse effect as  envisioned by climate scientists.  Secondly, it tells us the atmospheres  of both planets are warmed by the same IR portion of the Sun's incident  radiation, by direct absorption of that portion in the atmosphere, not  by warming of the surface first.  The "debate" put forth by Judith Curry  and other believers in the greenhouse effect is incompetent in the face  of the Venus/Earth evidence.  There is no need to waste time now on  competing theories, with that overwhelming evidence on hand.  The  consensus is incompetent, period.

----------


## Marc

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps | Co2 Insanity   

> *Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps*  *By: John O’Sullivan*
>  A group of international scientists find that carbon dioxide is a  coolant, the calculations in the greenhouse gas theory are wrong and  humans are not killing the planet.
>  It may have taken the Climategate controversy to prompt a growing  band of specialist scientists to come forward and work together to help  climatologists get themselves out of an almighty mess. But at last we  know for sure that the doomsaying equations behind the man-made global  warming new research shows the numbers were fudged, the physics was  misapplied and group thinking perpetuated gross errors.
>  Yes, the greenhouse effect has now been proven to be a fabrication.  That mythical concept called ‘back radiation’ whereby heat was supposed  to be recycled in the atmosphere and worsened by the dreaded burning of  fossil fuels is contradicted. In reality it’s now been shown that the  atmosphere acts like a coolant of Earth’s surface, which, otherwise,  would have a temperature of 121 Degrees Celsius, or 394 Kelvin (K).
>  A team of dedicated international experts, known as the ‘Slayers,’  all highly qualified in their respective fields, spent the past year  deliberating over the deep-rooted errors in the calculations employed in  the greenhouse gas theory. Their findings are devastating to all those  who claim carbon dioxide and the ‘greenhouse effect’ heats our  atmosphere.
>  The standard argument of a clique of climatologists associated with  the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is as follows:  A warm body (the earth) radiates heat to a cool body (the atmosphere)The cool body “back-radiates” (IPCC term) heat to the warm body.This process continues perpetually, with heat flowing round and round in a continuous cycle.The result of this perpetual process is that the warm body becomes warmer.
>  This is the so-called greenhouse effect (GHE) examined closely by a  team of professors of physics, mathematics, astrophysics, chemistry and  biology who joined forces to put the numbers under a fresh microscope.
>  This group of 20+ specialist scientists has given the infant (and  generalist) science of climatology a much-need shake up. Indeed, the  ‘Slayers’ say a monumental paradigm shift is now very much under way.
>  Below, in simplified form, we examine in three parts how their  brilliant analysis has eviscerated one of the most costly and mistaken  theories of modern science, man-made global warming. *Part One: Coolant Carbon Dioxide*
> ...

----------


## chrisp

> The atmospheric cover acts completely different. No one argues the benefits of the thermo regulation it offers. This is hardly a greenhouse effect. If CO2 would act as a greenhouse, it would do so both ways, and if CO2 can "block" heat coming from the earth, it also "blocks" heat coming from the sun,

  You do show a fine misunderstanding even the most basic physics.   
The radiation from the sun is in the shorter wavelengths.  This hits the earth and some is reflected (the earth is not a black body) and some is re-radiated at longer wavelengths (infrared, heat) .  The greenhouse gases can absorb infrared and re-radiate it - in all directions.  Some goes back towards the earth (continuing the cycle); some heads out of the atmosphere. 
You like to quote the black-body radiation, so I assume you will be familiar with Planck's law.  Also, you like to repeatedly state that radiation flows from hot to cold.  So, perhaps you would like to point out the part of Planck's law that takes in to account the temperature of the object receiving the radiation (so that it doesn't accidentally head towards a hotter object)?

----------


## Marc

> The radiation from the sun is in the shorter wavelengths.  This hits the  earth and some is reflected (the earth is not a black body) and some is  re-radiated at longer wavelengths (infrared, heat) .  The greenhouse  gases can absorb infrared and re-radiate it - in all directions.  Some  goes back towards the earth (continuing the cycle); some heads out of  the atmosphere.

  You got it in one.
This is what has been parroted for the last 100 years.
And it is wrong.
I am tired of repeating myself and posting long explanations as to why it is wrong.
Perhaps you want to go back a read what I have posted at nauseam in stead of asking rhetorical questions. 
Do you really think that CO2 can be heated by IR from the earth and "re-radiate" it back to earth without heating the molecules of N2 and O2 that sit next to them? And what do you think it will happen when the air mixture is heated at 10,000 meters?
And do you really think that the "radiation from the sun is [all] in the shorter wavelength" How much is not? And what does this Ir from the Sun do? And are you sure that the heat from CO2 can reach the earth and bounce back and forth at 100% efficiency as stated by the IPCC. 
You can believe that if you wish. After all other do believe in re-incarnation, 6000 years old earth, 100 virgins in heaven and other mythological events.

----------


## chrisp

> Do you really think that CO2 can be heated by IR from the earth and "re-radiate" it back to earth without heating the molecules of N2 and O2 that sit next to them?.

  *Absolutely! *  
O2 and N2 are effectively invisible to infrared.  (O2 and N2 can be heated - but it is not via radiation). 
If you want to uncritically believe the junk science you have been cutting and pasting, then by all means go ahead.  I figure that neither I nor anyone else will be able to change your mind.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> If CO2 would act as a greenhouse, it would do so both ways, and if CO2 can "block" heat coming from the earth, it also "blocks" heat coming from the sun, therefore more CO2 should equate to less heat coming in and colder weather.

  It'd probably help you no end if you don't fixate on just CO2....just saying. You are starting to sound like a politician. 
Suffice to say....greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do (like most things in life) work both ways - if they didn't then there'd be no life on this planet.  They attenuate IR wavelengths coming in (reducing them in both intensity and wavelength [AKA frequency]) and going back out.  Except the make-up of the IR bands coming in and going out are completley different in terms of frequency and energy.....so the greenhouse gases are more effective on the IR going out so it reflects (_it doesn't re-radiate!!!!!_) some of that IR back down into the biosphere....

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Funny it was pretty dramatic in past solar minimum events.  Why not now?  what has changed?

  
The nature of certainty? The rise of the Internet? The decline in the Power of The Creator?  Increased availability and access to useless information?  
Dunno.  Does it matter?

----------


## Marc

> O2 and N2 are effectively invisible to infrared.  (O2 and N2 can be heated - but it is not via radiation).

  So you think that a molecule of CO2 will vibrate when energised without ever hitting any molecule of nitrogen or oxygen or argon and so never heat them. N2 and O2 may be less susceptible to IR but they are certainly able to be heated up. The only way such archaic concept of greenhouse conjecture can work is if CO2 exists in layers in pure form.  
Fortunately it does not and is an even mix in a minuscule proportion so the chances of a molecule of CO2 transferring energy to the rest of the air is very high and therefore no IR is delivered back to earth, not to mention that such is not possible anyway.
Air when it is heated by IR => CO => N2+O2+the rest, does what it must and that is go UP and cool down. No greenhouse effect to be seen.

----------


## chrisp

> [O2 and N2 are effectively invisible to infrared.  (*O2 and N2 can be heated - but it is not via radiation*).

   

> So you think that a molecule of CO2 will vibrate when energised without ever hitting any molecule of nitrogen or oxygen or argon and so never heat them.

  Do you have trouble reading too?  I placed the high-lighted text to include that possibility. 
You seem to be placing all your energy transfers in to the conduction basket.  You also need to consider radiation, and the fact that certain molecules (usually the triatomic molecules and some diatomic molecules with different elements) will absorb radiation of some wavelengths and re-emit it at a different wavelength.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Hey Dr Freud, if paying more taxes will make things colder, If we stop paying taxes then it will makes things hotter right?  
> I think I found a way to heat up my place without having to collect firewood.

  Hey, these AGW supporters might actually be right???  :Eek:  
Maybe it gets really cold in the middle of the year cos Aussies are preparing and paying their taxes at the end of the financial year. 
Then by December to January, most of Australia's taxes are not being paid, so the Planet Earth starts warming up again. 
We could test this hypothesis, we can all just not pay any taxes this year, then this freezing weather should warm up.  If it gets too hot, we can all just pay heaps of tax, then the Planet Earth will get colder. 
These people are so awesomely massively smart, so why don't we believe them?   :Roflmao2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> As a reminder to all of us, there is every reason to maintain a level of respect for all sides, which includes avoiding the temptation to characterise opponents in terms that dehumanise or subscribe to the view that there is an absurd religious connection or that somehow they should be swept aside. When we do there are the unbalanced amongst us that take things to heart and we get the following. *(From the ABC this evening)*

  Maybe they could swallow a teaspoon of cement and harden up.  :Cry:  
And maybe you shouldn't believe everything you see in the media.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I note no disagreement from you or any other AGW hypothesis supporters in this regard. 
> Can I add you to the 70% who understand that increases in taxes in Australia will NOT make the Planet Earth colder? 
> Surely you can explain how increasing taxes in Australia will make the Planet Earth colder?

  Wow!!!  :Shock:  
Maybe the polls over estimated the mindless drones who believe this drivel? 
Does anyone at all believe that increasing taxes in Australia will make the Planet Earth COLDER? 
If not, we better all email the MPCCC and tell them to not introduce the tax increases, cos they're not gonna work.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I see your understanding of our election system equals your understanding of AGW...  *With 150 seats, it would be difficult for ANY candidate to hold more than 100%/150 seat = 0.666%*  
> What were the election results? First preference votes 
> New England
> WINDSOR, Tony    61.88% House of Representatives Division First Preferences 
> Lyne
> OAKESHOTT, Robert  47.15% House of Representatives Division First Preferences 
> Melbourne
> BANDT, Adam   36.17% House of Representatives Division First Preferences  
> First Preference by Party 
> ...

  Er, that's what I said. 
You obviously don't understand why I said it.  :Biggrin:    

> It is a bit like the argument that Australia only produces some small percentage of emissions - *another false basis*. Actually, some even go so far as to misquote Australia's CO2 emissions relative to the whole world atmosphere - not just the whole world CO2 emissions.

  Geez mate, you almost started bluffing your way to sounding credible with your "First Law of Thermodynamics" stuff.  
Best you not try to substantiate this hilarious statement.  :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *AGW: Fact or Political Lie?* 
>                                                  May 16, 2011 in Environment, News Media, Politics by Alan | No comments 
>                                                                                            Anthropogenic Global Warming has been a hot button topic over the past several years. The concept, as settled science, has  been a major factor in the worlds political climate, the regulatory  structure of many countries, as well as being the subject of much debate  within the academic and scientific communities.
>  Over time, some former AGW alarmists have begun to change their  positions on the issue. David Evans, a former full-time consultant for  the Australian Department of Climate Change from 1999 to 2005, who  modeled Australias carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry  and agricultural products, is the latest scientist to discount the  affect of carbon dioxide on our climate. According to Evans:The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous  proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings.  I am a scientist who was once on the carbon gravy train, understands  the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic
>  The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent  global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical  evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too  many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the  possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome.  So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame  climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon  dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.Evans says that he understands that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas  and if all things were equal then more CO2 in the air would mean a  warmer planet. He asserts that the science goes wrong when it fails to  account for the planets reaction to that increased CO2 in favor of  computer models which have been proven false.The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which  changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water  to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and  increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply  create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide  theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would  increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the  planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.He says that the official climate models are based upon the premise  that the extra moist air would amplify the level of warming by a  factor of three, while carbon dioxide accounted for one third of their  projections.Thats the core of the issue. All the disagreements and  misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this  guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence  for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.
>  Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s,  many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that  as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the  tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands  upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late  1970s, 80s and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at  all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models  are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature  increases due to carbon dioxide.Most of our recent cap & tax initiatives, investment in green  energy, demonization of carbon based energy production, and our enhanced  regulatory environment is based upon this flawed climate model and the  results it predicts.
>  Weve had every reason to doubt it since the mid 1990′s. I wonder what makes us continue on that path?

  I have also previously quoted some excellent work from David Evans in this thread, and had an opportunity to meet him recently.  He is so down to Earth and speaks so humbly in laymans terms that at first I found it difficult to link him with his work.  But after his talk, his simple explanations of extremely complex issues was the ultimate determinant of his knowledge.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Gee I wonder if this will effect climate in any way?? Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predicts

  Mate, they'll lock you up if you keep suggesting that the Sun is where all the heat is coming from.  :Biggrin:  
That's crazy talk, you should know by now it's the cows. And Camels too now apparently!  :Doh:  
Hell, why not cull all the feral vegetarian animals that produce Carbon Dioxide and Methane.  Hang on, doesn't that include the greenies?  :Shock:  
P.S. Relax, that's not a death threat Johnc, that's called taking the p-ss.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

> Australians will become wealthier, even under a carbon tax, as the economy continues to expand to make every *man, woman and child as much as $8000 better off* by the end of the decade, Federal Government modelling shows.  
>  Treasury has estimated 1.6 million jobs will have been created when Australia reaches its five per cent target in cutting emissions in 2020 through putting a price on carbon.

  Taxing our way to prosperity « Down under on the right side  
Spinning out of control.  :Biggrin:   
Why don't we all pay even heaps more tax, then we'll be even better off, and the Planet Earth will be even COLDER?  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The above picture is that of a global warming @#$%wit on an ice sculpture of a polar bear, apparently this moron and his warmist buddies have flown this @#$%ing thing on a plane from London all the way down here to Australia to brow-beat us into swallowing their global warming bull@#$% and presumably their carbon dioxide tax as well. 
> According to the *article* were all supposed to waffle on down to Sydney so that we can watch the thing melting, then get all emotional and start holding the hand of the panty-waist next to us and share our @#$%ing feelings before we demand our government impose a carbon tax on us.  
> The time for rational discourse is over, these fascist @#$%holes have made it crystal clear that they dont give a rats @#$% what we think. Theyre determined to shove their @#$%ing tax down our throats one way or another.  
>  @#$% you warmist @#$%heads, shove your bear, your half-baked stunts and your tax up your @#$%!   *Update*  I thought should give you some context to my anger folks. Its to do with this carbon tax that the fascist left in this country wants to impose on us . Over the last couple of weeks Ive been observing group after group, from celebrity halfwits to religious leaders, come out to lecture us about climate change and each one is supporting the carbon tax our PM is proposing. Incidentally, this very PM promised us hand-on-heart that she would never, ever impose this on us before the election. The lying sack of @#$%.  
>  What angers me the most is that the majority of Australians dont want this, enough of us have figured all this out for the stinking bull@#$% it is. Heck, one of these warmists even admitted that whatever we do, including tossing this computer into the sea and going back to scratching around in the dirt outside a hut *wont do* @#$%* to the global temperature for a 1000 years*. Yet they insist we must do the equivalent of shooting ourselves and our children in the @#$%.  
>  They go so far as to tell us with a straight face that the imposition of a new tax will make us financially better off, yes really. Ive never heard so much bull@#$% in my life!
>  @#$% like this really @#$% me off.

  Warmist @#$%wits « Down under on the right side  
I've added some edits due to his eloquence.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Reasons to Oppose a Carbon Tax #3* 
>   May 5th, 2011 by Warwick Hughes 
> Dear Government Member of Parliament,  
>  Let us look quickly at your Government plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
>  From the above link  I have assumed your Government is aiming to reduce its emissions by between 5 and 15 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. I have chosen the mid-range 10% reduction for the graphic below.     
> Let us further assume that Australian voters come to agree with your GreenLabor Government Carbon Tax plan  that the huge national sacrifice is worth the pain  to reduce our emissions by the ~80 million tonnes from current levels which gets us down to 10% below 2000 levels by 2020.   All those jobs exported to Asia  all those mortgage foreclosures  all those chilly winters as we try to reduce our rocketing electricity bills  all those rocketing grocery bills  fuel prices heading skywards  all will be worth it to do our bit to save the planet.  
>  What will our decade long sacrifice mean in global terms if the above fairy story came to pass.
>  The figures show that China alone  not adding in the rest of the world  just China  will wipe out our tens years of painful ~80 million tonnes of carbon dioxide reductions in just 48 days of their emissions increase from 2008-2009.   *48 days respite*  that is what our decade of financial sacrifice will buy just from Chinese emission increases.  
>  Luckily my little scenario was a fairy story  because Australian voters will not return your GreenLabor Government at the next election  whenever that is. An election could be held sooner than 2013 of course if the GreenLabor Government was to lose a seat in a byelection.  
>  Your Government should do the decent thing  call a fresh election now and campaign on a platform to introduce your Carbon Tax  and then your Government could earn the mandate to introduce this colossal change to our national life.

  http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=942  
Even if JuLIAR called an election, can we believe her?  
Would she actually have one, or would the "independents" prevent her running one?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

How weak must their position be for them to continue LYING like this.  

> Steve McIntyre was amazed:   _On May 9, 2011, the IPCC announced:_  _Close to 80 percent of the worlds energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.__In accompanying interviews, IPCC officials said that the obstacles were not scientific or technological, but merely a matter of political will._Now, anyone with sense would think that IPCC claim a very big one. So what was its source?  _The report was based on 164 scenarios and the up to 80% scenario in the lead sentence of their press release was not representative of their scenarios, but the absolute top end. This sort of press release is not permitted in mining promotions and it remains a mystery to me why it is tolerated in academic press releases or press releases by international institutions._  _The underlying report was scheduled for release on June 14 and was released today on schedule. Naturally, I was interested in the provenance of the 80% scenario and in determining precisely what due diligence had been carried out by IPCC to determine the realism of this scenario prior to endorsing it in their press release._ And having dug and dug - the link gives McIntyres account - heres the true author of this claim by the United Nations highest body on global warming - a claim based on a Greenpeace paper:   _ 
> The Lead Author of the IPCC assessment of the Greenpeace scenario was the same Greenpeace employee who had prepared the Greenpeace scenarios, the introduction to which was written by IPCC chair Pachauri It is totally unacceptable that IPCC should have had a Greenpeace employee as a Lead Author of the critical Chapter 10, that the Greenpeace employee, as an IPCC Lead Author, should (like Michael Mann and Keith Briffa in comparable situations) have been responsible for assessing his own work and that, with such inadequate and non-independent due diligence, IPCC should have featured the Greenpeace scenario in its press release on renewables._ Sack them all. Start again.   Greenpeace writes an IPCC paper | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  The IPCC was already a joke. 
This is just further evidence of their farcical structure and function.

----------


## Dr Freud

Never mind the financial cost, what is the Carbon footprint of manufacturing and installing all this wasted material and transportation to move it in and out?   

> My God, the waste: _TWENTY schools targeted for closure by the Tasmanian government in yesterdays state budget received more than $10 million in combined Building the Education Revolution funds to build new halls, libraries and classrooms_  _The biggest one-off grant of $2m went to Warrane Primary School for a new library, while seven other primary schools received $850,000 grants, many of which were used to build multi-purpose halls.   Building the education scrap-heap | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  _ 
Thanks JuLIAR._

----------


## Dr Freud

> Henry Ergas warns you are being told falsehoods about the Gillard Governments latest report on global warming policies:     _CONTRARY to repeated assertions by the Prime Minister, the Productivity Commission did not endorse an economy-wide emissions trading scheme.  _ If they cannot tell the truth about even their own report… | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  These zealots tell a helluva lot of lies given they apparently have this compelling science "hidden away" somewhere with the "scientists". 
LIE as much as you want JuLIAR, most people aren't listening anymore.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Wasteful bunch of ........! 
> Why have we spent tens of millions of our taxpayer dollars advertising Labor Party policies that have never even become law.  This is us paying for their broken and failed election promises. 
> How much you ask? 
> $14 million - CPRS
> $38 million - RSPT
> $20 million - MRRT (the original now defunct one, plus health and NBN non-events) 
> And the best is yet to come: 
> $30 million - CNAT (the Carbon "Not A" Tax)  *$102 million* just in advertising failed Labor policies that have not passed the Parliament.  
> That's our taxes people. 
> ...

  Looks like they're not going the full $30 million first up for the CNAT, sneak a little $12 million in first:   

> Utterly shameless:  _TAXPAYERS are set to foot the bill for a $12 million advertising campaign on the governments plans for a carbon price.  _  _ _  _Climate Change Minister Greg Combet today announced plans for the campaign, which must be signed off by the multi-party climate change committee and meet government advertising guidelines He said the campaign would proceed before the carbon tax passed through parliament as long as it conforms with the guidelines and there is an announced policy._This is not advertising to explain a government program to those affected by it. It is advertising to sell a proposal to those hostile to it.     Labor helps itself to $12 million for a Save Gillard fund | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Don't you just love your taxes being spent on advertising stupid Labor Party ideas that never even become laws. 
Be a shame to spend all that directly on mental health funding, eh?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Its fascinating how Ross Garnauts grand vision pops at the slightest pressure from some sceptical citizen off the street:   _Ms (Lynda) Waller, 63, owns Riggalls Drapery in Morwell, a town in the heart of the valley that is home to Victorias brown-coal power stations _   _Professor Garnaut last night addressed a public meeting in Churchill, about 10km south of Morwell, to explain his recent climate change review. He admitted the Latrobe Valley was under particular threat, with unemployment likely to rise significantly.... _   _But ... theres a rich menu of innovation options that could turn those (coal) resources into low emissions. _   _One is geosequestration, the capture and storage of carbon in geological structures. If its going to work anywhere in the world its going to work in this region (and) it should be a major focus of effort. _   _Ms Waller wasnt convinced by the carbon capture-and-storage suggestion. Has it been proven? she asked. Isnt it all a little bit airy-fairy? _   _Professor Garnaut conceded geosequestration wasnt yet a proven technology, and innovation around the use of brown coal might ultimately not work._Oh. So is there a plan B?     First, assume there’s a can-opener | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Wow!  
Just one question is all it takes to turn the LIE of _"a rich menu of innovation options"_ into *"wasnt yet a proven technology, and innovation around the use of brown coal might ultimately not work"*. 
Menu's not so rich after all, huh? 
Imagine if we asked these LIARS more than just one question?  :Biggrin:

----------


## PhilT2

Graph of the downward infra red from the atmosphere SurfRad Plot

----------


## johnc

> Hey, these AGW supporters might actually be right???  
> Maybe it gets really cold in the middle of the year cos Aussies are preparing and paying their taxes at the end of the financial year. 
> Then by December to January, most of Australia's taxes are not being paid, so the Planet Earth starts warming up again. 
> We could test this hypothesis, we can all just not pay any taxes this year, then this freezing weather should warm up. If it gets too hot, we can all just pay heaps of tax, then the Planet Earth will get colder. 
> These people are so awesomely massively smart, so why don't we believe them?

  Very amusing, except that it is around March that business people pay the tax they owe from the previous financial year, July, August is when the wage slaves are getting refunds and big companies pay employee taxes every month regardless of time of year.  In actual fact the vast bulk of Australian tax revenue is being collected steadily throughout the year which includes all PAYG and GST taxes. 
Nobody pays taxes at the end of the financial year, at the very most they may have received the bill.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Very amusing, except that it is around March that business people pay the tax they owe from the previous financial year, July, August is when the wage slaves are getting refunds and big companies pay employee taxes every month regardless of time of year.  In actual fact the vast bulk of Australian tax revenue is being collected steadily throughout the year which includes all PAYG and GST taxes. 
> Nobody pays taxes at the end of the financial year, at the very most they may have received the bill.

  You're a very literal man, aren't you? 
But now that you've had experience debunking a flawed hypothesis, take a good look at the AGW hypothesis. 
It is nowhere near as robust as JuLIAR's and the Greens "Planet Cooling Tax Hypothesis" I outlined above.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

This useless and pathetic excuse for a government are destroying whatever little credibility Hawke and Keating had built for their party. 
The only downside is that they are taking our country down the toilet with them.  :Cry:    
A primary vote of 27%.   :Doh:  
Wait till people figure out that *the Carbon Dioxide Tax will keep getting bigger and bigger over time.* 
Then watch this useless fiasco of a government go off the cliff, with their useless Carbon Dioxide Tax dragging them over the edge.  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Where the hell is the Governor General in all of this. 
This woman has gone quite mad. :Screwy:  
She is now claiming that the best thing she can do is screw the economy up so badly, that when Tony Abbott tries to fix it, he won't be able to:   

> So, what is Gillard's plan? 
> "I would be astounded if the stakeholders support [Abbott's] repeal. I've lived through one of these political cycles before with the GST. And we opposed the GST. Once prime minister Howard had secured the legislation I know what the feedback was from Australian business about trying to unscramble this egg. It would have been the worst of all possible worlds to say: 'Let's try and undo this.'  
> "What that meant was Labor went to the 2001 election with a very, very limited proposition for change. I actually anticipate the same cycle here - that whatever view stakeholders have expressed in the run-up, the loss of certainty and the mechanics of trying to unwind a reform as big as this, means they will say to Tony Abbott: 'Don't do this; don't repeal it.' 
> "Tony Abbott's definitely going to take the assistance away, so the dollars come out of your wallet," Gillard says. "He's then pretending to Australians he can really remove every price impact. Well, that's as unbelievable as saying that if Labor had repealed the GST we could have made every retailer in Australia put every price sticker on every good, in every shelf in every shop in the nation down by 10 per cent the next day. Now that's unbelievable." *In short, she says Abbott can abolish the compensation but he can't guarantee to remove the price effect.*  Julia Gillard outlines her plans for survival | The Australian

  This is un-f---ing-believable!!!  :Mad:  :Puke:  
She is now claiming that her "plan" is to cause price rises so badly and so permanently that even Tony Abbott won't be able to unwind it. 
And because he tries to unwind her unholy f---up, then people won't vote for him. 
That's her plan? 
What happened to using this TAX to make the Planet Earth COLDER? 
What happened to using this TAX for global energy transformation? 
She is now only planning on screwing the economy to wedge Tony Abbott politically. 
She is screwing our country. 
She is now just plain screwy!   :Frown:  
God forgive me for saying this, but where's Ruddy?  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

Maybe it's back to the CPRS for us all???  :Confused:  
But remember JuLIAR, you started it, so don't go crying and playing the girlie card when your turn comes:     

> Kevin Rudd tells hes colleagues hed be better next time:  _ 
> In an important step towards reconciliation with the Labor caucus, the former leader said some painful conversations with colleagues and soul-searching had led him to realise three key mistakes_  _I made the wrong call on deferring the emissions trading scheme for two years, the decision which first fractured public support for Labor _    _Rudd applies for his old job | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

    __   
Do you remember those much happier days?

----------


## Dr Freud

> AGAIN I must ask: if global warming is so clear a threat, why all these deceits?    
>   You see, the Gillard Government and its paid alarmists this week stooped to even more despicable lows to panic you.   
>  The claim that skiers will weep for warming is based on a suspect CSIRO 2003 study, which warned that ski resorts could already lose a quarter of their snow by 2018.    
>  Yet most of the snow seasons since have been great, and this years has opened early. One day the CSIRO will admit it was wrong. Again.    
>  The death scare is even dodgier. That bizarrely precise prediction that 1318 older Melburnians could die of heat in 2050 plays down two critical things.    
>       First, this prediction was first made by the CSIRO and National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health in 2002, and over the past decade the world - surprise! - hasnt warmed at all.    
>  And even the Department of Climate Change is forced to admit, after first scaring us about heat-related deaths, that in fact, with the lives saved by a warmer winter, there would overall be a slight decrease in the total number of temperature-related deaths.    * Isnt that the real headline? Global warming actually saves lives?*    
>  Hear it again from the _British Medical Journal_, which in 2000 reported a study by scientists in Britain, Italy, Holland and France, who concluded: Our data suggest that any increases in mortality due to increased temperatures would be outweighed by much larger short-term declines in cold-related mortalities.    
>   Same story here. An Adelaide University study, _Temperature and direct effects on population health in Brisbane, 1986-1995_, published in the _Journal of Environmental Health_, noted that even in warm Queensland, winters were deadlier than summers.    
> ...

  Even with all these LIES, they can't sell this dog of a hypothesis, and with even MORE LIES, they certainly can't sell their dog of a TAX to allegedly fix their alleged problem.  
Whatever you believe, you should at least ask, "Why all the lies?".

----------


## Dr Freud

> *FORMER ACTU president and Labor MP Jennie George has called for the steel industry to be kept out of the carbon tax until similar regimes are operating in competitor countries. *  			 		 		Ms George, who as a Rudd government MP was involved in negotiations between the government and the steel industry on the carbon pollution reduction scheme, has written to her local newspaper backing Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes's call for steel to be exempted from the carbon tax until there is a level playing field with international competitors.  
> She told The Australian last night: "I don't think you can exclude it forever, but certainly until such time as our competitor nations have an impost on steel, I think we need to look carefully.  
> "Because I think Australians would agree we have to have a viable domestic steelmaking industry in Australia."   Ex-ACTU head Jennie George calls for no tax on steel | The Australian

  If the Party can't convince JuLIAR to dump this TAX, then it's up to Ruddy.  :Eek:   
We all now know that JuLIAR's plan is to drive all prices so high permanently (just in Australia), that future governments won't be able to bring them down again.  
Great plan JuLIAR.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> As if?  Do I sound like a brainwashed greenie? 
> What a waste these greenie green dreams are: 
> Don't you see how arbitrary all these voodoo economic calculations are made by wacko greenies that have absolutely no grasp on reality.  Greenie freaks make all these calculations while we are ramping up coal and iron ore production every year to make all these new cars. 
> To quote an old phrase, "Wake up and smell the coffee!".

  
At least some are finally smelling the coffee:   

> *ELECTRIC cars could produce higher emissions over their lifetimes than petrol equivalents because of the energy consumed in making their batteries, a study has found. *  			 		 		An electric car owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.  
> The British study, which is the first analysis of the full lifetime emissions of electric cars covering manufacturing, driving and disposal, undermines the case for tackling climate change by the rapid introduction of electric cars.  
> Greg Archer, director of Low CVP, said the industry should state the full lifecycle emissions of cars rather than just tailpipe emissions, to avoid misleading consumers. *He said that drivers wanting to minimise emissions could be better off buying a small, efficient petrol or diesel car.*   Electric cars may not be so green after all, says British study | The Australian

  Amazing, huh?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

These people are seriously mentally impaired. 
How can you claim that we should stop using coal in Australia by a tiny amount because burning coal is bad for the atmosphere, BUT THEN, claim we are massively ramping up exports of coal to be burnt in China? 
Does China use a different atmosphere to us? 
I'm no astrophysicist, but I reckon we all use the same atmosphere. 
Maybe someone should explain this to our idiot government:   

> *RESOURCES Minister Martin Ferguson says only a few coal mines would be in danger of closing under the carbon tax, with demand from China ensuring a "huge expansion" of coal exports.  * We accept that there are some gaseous mines that are going to be challenged under a carbon tax, that's why we are engaged in discussions with the industry, Mr Ferguson told ABC radio. 
> Martin Ferguson has finally admitted what the rest of the Gillard government ministers have dodged and evaded - that Labor's carbon tax is toxic to jobs, Mr Macfarlane said.  
> No matter what spin the government tries to put on its carbon tax, the truth is that it will cost Australian jobs as well as send up the cost of living for Australian householders.  
> But Mr Ferguson said *demand from China would keep the industry afloat* even under a carbon tax.   *There is a huge expansion that is going to create record commodity export opportunities and record profits for Australia, he said.*  
> This industry, as the investment shows, *is going to continue to expand. just look at the demand out of places such as China.*  Martin Ferguson says China demand will protect coal industry from the carbon tax | The Australian

  These people are mad, stark raving mad!!!  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

Hey JuLIAR, where's China getting all this coal from to BURN BABY BURN?      
Surely not from YOU, cos you "believe Climate Change is real"? 
You would have to be some kind of IDIOT to sell all of this stuff to China when you wholeheartedly "believe" your actions are killing off humanities future? 
Are you that kind of idiot JuLIAR? 
Are all the other "believers" that "believe" your fantasies as well?

----------


## Dr Freud

Look out JuLIAR, he's looking good by comparison!

----------


## Dr Freud

Best they make their protests louder while they still can make a change to this fiasco.     

> In 2007, at the height of global warming alarmism, CFMEU boss Tony Maher was a global warming extremist who demanded coal companies pay for their fossil fuel pollution:  _So they have to be cleaned up Whos going to pay for that. Well, it has to be the mining companies. BHP, Rio Tinto, Xstrata Were prepared to head a coalition of mainsteam evnironmental groups and others, community groups, that want to force mining copanies to invest their massive wealth into solving the worlds problem of climate change._Mahers suddenly singing another tune, now that he realises that coal companies hit with those extra costs might just start sacking his own members:  _  ONE of Australias largest unions has threatened a blue-collar revolt should the nations dirtiest coalmines fail to receive the same level of assistance as they were promised under the original emissions trading scheme. _   _With industry compensation still being thrashed out behind closed doors, the national secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Tony Maher, said he is worried coalminers will be dudded to appease the Greens_  _Most coalmines are open-cut, low-emitting projects, and a price on carbon would have only a minor effect on the price of each tonne of coal they produce. _  _But there would be a significant increase on the price of coal produced by the 23 so-called gassy mines, which emit large amounts of methane_  _It is understood the government is again pushing for the gassy mines to be looked after (with compensation), but the Greens, who are hostile to coalmining, are resisting. _   _Mr Maher said 5000 jobs were at stake if the Greens prevailed, and he warned that the backlash would extend beyond the mining sector.... _   _Job security and household compensation are paramount. The Greens are in la-la land. I am calling on all the members of the [multi-party committee] to say where they stand on miners jobs in gassy coalmines._   _The price of its alarmism suddenly becomes clear to the CFMEU | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  The prospect of being unemployed and sitting in the cold and dark can be motivating.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

And this is before the Carbon Dioxide Tax kicks in:   

> *HOUSEHOLD electricity bills are set to skyrocket up to 30 per cent by mid-2013, with the Gillard government's renewable energy scheme responsible for 11 per cent of that increase, a report by the government's chief energy adviser has found.*   Renewable schemes to force up electricity bills by 30pc | The Australian

  Just wait till the TAX kicks in, then starts to ramp up every year.  :Biggrin:  
Cool, huh?  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

Is this the best time to massively disrupt Australia's economy?   

> This is very serious, in geo-political as much as financial terms:   _ 
> The International Monetary Fund cut its forecast for U.S. economic growth on Friday and warned Washington and debt-ridden European countries that they are playing with fire unless they take immediate steps to reduce their budget deficits_  _The Washington-based global lender forecast that U.S. gross domestic product would grow a tepid 2.5 percent this year and 2.7 percent in 2012. In its forecast just two months ago, it had expected 2.8 percent and 2.9 percent growth, respectively._A bankrupt US will struggle to defend anyone | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Maybe not?  :No:

----------


## chrisp

> At least some are finally smelling the coffee:      *ELECTRIC cars could produce higher emissions over their lifetimes  than petrol equivalents because of the energy consumed in making their  batteries, a study has found. *                                An electric car  owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net  saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their  lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a  single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven  160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.  
> The British study, which is the first analysis of the full lifetime  emissions of electric cars covering manufacturing, driving and disposal,  undermines the case for tackling climate change by the rapid  introduction of electric cars.  
> Greg Archer, director of Low CVP, said the industry should state the  full lifecycle emissions of cars rather than just tailpipe emissions, to  avoid misleading consumers. *He said that drivers wanting to minimise emissions could be better off buying a small, efficient petrol or diesel car.*   Electric cars may not be so green after all, says British study | The Australian    Amazing, huh?

  *Maybe you should find some more reliable sources of information?*  
Check out what The Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership report actually says...   

> The study found that some of the CO2 savings made during the use of low  carbon vehicles are offset by increased emissions created during their  production and, to a lesser extent, disposal. *However, overall electric  and hybrid vehicles still have lower carbon footprints than normal cars.*

  and...   

> For example, a typical medium sized family car will create around 24  tonnes of CO2 during its life cycle, while an electric vehicle (EV) will  produce around 18 tonnes over its life. For a battery EV, 46% of its  total carbon footprint is generated at the factory, before it has  travelled a single mile.

  Quotes from: LowCVP | Vehicle & Cars Carbon Footprint News | Lower Carbon Transport Updates 
Fancy The Australian publishing misleading information - but then again...

----------


## Dr Freud

The Carbon Dioxide Tax may be going the way of the CPRS?   

> On_ The Bolt Report_ tomorrow on Channel 10 at 10am and 4.30pm: strategists Bruce Hawker and Mark Textor explain why Julia Gillard fell so far so fast after in just 12 months as Prime Minister. 
>   Rudd hits out at an ABC ambush. Nerves are taut as he stalks Gillard.  *Labor MP Michael Danby on why he prefers even the Liberals to the Greens.* And psychologist Sandy Rea on the selling of the First Partnership.     Tips for Saturday, June 18 | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  This backbencher could instigate a revolt to shore up Labor's political decimation that is currently occurring, then bye bye to the Greens alliance.  
Things are looking shaky already:    

> THE Greens are demanding billions of dollars of carbon tax revenue be dedicated to a renewable energy financing corporation to push technological change faster than can be achieved by the low carbon price proposed as part of the multi-party climate deal. 
> It is understood that the proposed fund, to be run by an independent board, would be able to offer loans, underwrite financing and possibly even pay for any new feed-in tariffs or subsidies that could otherwise put more pressure on household power bills. Labor, Greens are not across climate lines yet

  
Do you trust the Greens to set up another money laundering scheme to direct your taxes into their daft green dream schemes? 
How have these schemes worked out before? 
Yeh, that's right, utter disaster.  :Biggrin:  
But don't laugh too loud, that's your money. 
Remember that next time you hear about hospital waiting lists.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Maybe you should find some more reliable sources of information?*  
> Check out what The Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership report actually says... 
> and... 
> Quotes from: LowCVP | Vehicle & Cars Carbon Footprint News | Lower Carbon Transport Updates 
> Fancy The Australian publishing misleading information - but then again...

  You obviously didn't read the article very well, did you? 
Read it again (carefully) then go to page 74 of the original report, you'll see what they were all talking about. 
Then think a bit about our earlier discussions about not junking perfectly viable vehicles to "live the green dream", and hopefully you'll figure out the futility of all this.  :Biggrin:  
But you AGW hypothesis supporters have never been good with numbers, but you are all "experts" at treating assumptions as facts.  :Wink 1:

----------


## chrisp

> You obviously didn't read the article very well, did you? 
> Read it again (carefully) then go to page 74 of the original report, you'll see what they were all talking about. 
> Then think a bit about our earlier discussions about not junking perfectly viable vehicles to "live the green dream", and hopefully you'll figure out the futility of all this.  
> But you AGW hypothesis supporters have never been good with numbers, but you are all "experts" at treating assumptions as facts.

  You obviously didn't read the comments by the producers of the report to The Times article:   

> *LowCVP / Ricardo response to Press Coverage on Life Cycle CO2 Report* 
> The study has received considerable media interest including an article in the Times on the 10th June 2011 that misrepresented the study findings using inappropriate analysis. In response to the article the LowCVP and Ricardo submitted a letter to the Times on the 13th June 2011 that reads:  
> Dear Sir 
> RE: Life cycle carbon emissions of Electric Vehicles 
> The article by Ben Webster, Want a green car? Electric may not be the best choice, The Times, June 10, was in my view misleading in its representation of the findings of the recent Ricardo-Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership study on the life cycle carbon emissions of electric vehicles (EVs). 
> It is true that our analysis indicated a high level of embedded carbon in the production process for EVs, but this is significantly off-set by their comparatively lower carbon emissions in use as compared with conventional fossil fuelled cars. Whilst I would agree with Ben Websters view that a requirement for a replacement battery during a vehicles useful life would significantly negate any carbon savings, we believe that this is unlikely for any volume produced vehicles and this has not been the case for the well-known battery electric hybrid vehicles in series production. 
> The major vehicle manufacturers offering electric vehicles have invested heavily in ensuring that the battery will last for the useful life of the vehicle. This is analogous to a modern petrol or diesel vehicle requiring an engine replacement. By effectively doubling the projected carbon emitted in manufacture, Ben Webster skews his argument on potential carbon savings in favour of fossil fuelled vehicles and against EVs. Electric Vehicles are not a panacea for low carbon transport but they offer a potentially attractive solution for city and urban based consumers. 
> The report highlights the need to focus future research on reducing the carbon emitted in manufacture and the importance of battery life. However, all current evidence suggests that volume produced EVs will offer a lower carbon alternative to fossil fuelled vehicles. 
> Yours faithfully 
> ...

  But feel free to spin any conclusion you want - as you always do.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Hmmm maybe we can toss a coin. 
Which way is it gonna go? 
Then agin acording to S&D sunspots don't affect the modern day weather only back in the old days. LOL
Link Easterbrook on the potential demise of sunspots | Watts Up With That? 
It is worth reading.

----------


## johnc

I think those blue lines are a tad over exagerated when you look at the previous actuals don't you, I dare say the red line is victim of the same treatment.

----------


## johnc

Looks like Australia after a few aborted attempts may finally be getting commercial solar farms, in this case sufficient to power about 115,000 homes.  Solar power stations set for NSW, Qld - Yahoo!7  At this stage we still have only about 2% of Aussie houses with panels on their roof tops and these come at a fair cost, commercial banks should ultimately be more cost effective.

----------


## Dr Freud

> You obviously didn't read the comments by the producers of the report to The Times article:

  I actually read the original report and worked it out for myself. 
I pointed out exactly where you could find the answer and work it out for yourself too. 
But again you just quote someone else's opinion about assumptions. 
Maybe you could form your own opinion about the assumptions and post that?  :Wink 1:    

> But feel free to spin any conclusion you want - as you always do.

  My opinion is based on information in the report.  If you think the report is "spin", then complain to the authors. 
And again, you run down these semantic sidetracks while ignoring reality.  This may help:    
Read the report about the 150k assumption as well, then read my original posts, then factor in the graph above, then realise the futility of these failed green dream schemes.  :2thumbsup:  
And for the record, electric vehicles are certainly going to be an integral part of our transport future into the medium and longer term.  But this will be nothing to do with their Carbon Dioxide footprint.  It will have everything to do with energy security, to which this AGW hypothesis farce is causing enormous harm. 
Now have a read of the report and feel free to form your own opinion.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I think those blue lines are a tad over exagerated when you look at the previous actuals don't you, I dare say the red line is victim of the same treatment.

  Are you saying this is not what the IPCC projected as the warming we should expect? 
The blue lines are subjective and are the authors estimation of what may happen. Over exagerated? Maybe!  but anywhere in between the Blue and .05 line will be the end of AGW.  Nice thought eh!

----------


## chrisp

> I actually read the original report and worked it out for myself. 
> I pointed out exactly where you could find the answer and work it out for yourself too. 
> But again you just quote someone else's opinion about assumptions. 
> Maybe you could form your own opinion about the assumptions and post that?    
> My opinion is based on information in the report.  If you think the report is "spin", then complain to the authors.

  *You must be a highly selective reader!* 
You have either overlooked or chosen to ignored the results in the body of the report that and chose to only one scenario in Appendix 2 which is "Mid-Size EV (with battery replacement)".  The report provides no comparative result of internal combustion engine replacement.  AND yet, the EV _including_ the possibility of a battery pack replacement still *shows a net carbon reduction* over the equivalent sized gasoline vehicle _excluding_ a possible engine replacement. 
But then again we have noticed that this highly selective use of information seems to be your _modus operandi_ in this debate. 
But in fairness to you, you are only parroting a report you found in _The Australian_ and took on trust without checking the source (but then again, neither did _The Australian_).

----------


## Dr Freud

> Looks like Australia after a few aborted attempts may finally be getting commercial solar farms, in this case sufficient to power about 115,000 homes.  Solar power stations set for NSW, Qld - Yahoo!7  At this stage we still have only about 2% of Aussie houses with panels on their roof tops and these come at a fair cost, commercial banks should ultimately be more cost effective.

  Did you read this link I posted earlier:   

> Henry Ergas warns you are being told falsehoods about the Gillard Governments latest report on global warming policies:   _CONTRARY to repeated assertions by the Prime Minister, the Productivity Commission did not endorse an economy-wide emissions trading scheme.  _ If they cannot tell the truth about even their own report | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Read the full report here:  Research report - Carbon Emission Policies in Key Economies - Productivity Commission 
It tells how truly inept this government is. 
Swan the moron was waving this thing around like an evangelist with a bible, not realising it contradicted most of their policies on energy generation and use.   
The fact that they announce these renewable plants after Swan's bible waving sermon is indicative of their idiocy. 
Let our friend Terry McCrann spell it out for you:   

> If we go down the carbon tax/ETS route, all -- and I, or rather the PC, mean all -- other mechanisms for purportedly cutting carbon dioxide emissions should be abandoned. It should be the carbon tax/ETS and nothing else. No 20 per cent renewable energy target/requirement. No high-cost solar (or wind) feed-in tariffs. No subsidies for 'alternative' energy research or into CCS (carbon capture and storage). Nothing.  Least stupid approach is still stupid | Herald Sun

  Put's the Green's money laundering scheme into perspective, huh? 
Show's how economically inept they remain. 
This Green/Labor government are moronic beyond belief.   :Doh:  
You certainly should not be cheering their ineptitude.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> ** *You must be a highly selective reader!*

  Nah, I'll read anything, even fiction like the AGW hypothesis.  :Biggrin:    

> ** You have either overlooked or chosen to ignored the results in the body of the report that and chose to only one scenario in Appendix 2 which is "Mid-Size EV (with battery replacement)". The report provides no comparative result of internal combustion engine replacement. AND yet, the EV _including_ the possibility of a battery pack replacement still *shows a net carbon reduction* over the equivalent sized gasoline vehicle _excluding_ a possible engine replacement.

  See, now you're getting the hang of it.  These things are called assumptions.  They are not real.  They're assumed to happen under different scenario's.  Based on these many varied assumptions, you can now form your own opinion.  Factor in things like cost, feasibility, utility (particularly distance and load), and figure out if the whole world is going to make this change based purely on "estimated" Carbon Dioxide reductions. 
Will this happen, or is this destined to be another failed green dream scheme? In your opinion?  :Biggrin:    

> ** But then again we have noticed that this highly selective use of information seems to be your _modus operandi_ in this debate.

  What am I, the internet gatekeeper? 
You and others can access whatever information you want to form your own opinions, I regularly encourage this.  If for no other reason than one day you AGW hypothesis supporters may actually mount a credible argument for this farcical and failed cult. 
I have said many times, if people can't even be bothered doing some research and some reading into this farcical subject, they obviously don't believe it. Or they just don't care about their children and grandchildren, eh?  :Wink 1:    

> ** But in fairness to you, you are only parroting a report you found in _The Australian_ and took on trust without checking the source (but then again, neither did _The Australian_).

  It was cutting and pasting actually, much more accurate than parroting.  :Biggrin:  
But the Australian did not list the assumptions, the report did. 
If anything, the original report was actually reflective of my opinions from months ago that the green dream schemes used to sell these cars is as false as all the other AGW hypothesis nonsense that abounds. 
Interesting that the Productivity Commission report also supports my position, not idiotic schemes like JuLIAR's cash-for-clunkers non-event, or this similarly farcical electric car green dream scheme.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> This Green/Labor government are moronic beyond belief.   
> You certainly should not be cheering their ineptitude.

  Yes.  They're our Government - they reflect the people they represent.  Although to call it Green might be gilding the lilly a bit....after all there's only one of them (but hey that's good old scary reactionary Freud for you) in amongst the other numpties. 
As for ineptitude....I can only give thanks that they ain't Greek...or Irish. 
But in the end...what is the alternative?

----------


## Marc

*Wisdom From Wenchypoo's Old Bat Cave: The Farce That is Alternative Energy (L-O-N-G)—2007 Redux*   **   * The Farce That is Alternative Energy (L-O-N-G)2007 Redux*   
  Solar, wind, ethanol, hybrid carsnone of them is going to be our savior  when the oil music stops playing. Youre wondering why? Efficiency,  thats why--energy in vs. energy out. 
To oils benefit, it took  less energy to get for the energy it gave. Even at $40/barrel, it was  the cheapest source of energy, with the most output, per barrel (or even  BTU). Now that cheap source is destined to come to a thin trickle, if  not a screeching halt. What do we have as replacements? 
Solar  panels, made from petroleum, only provide us with about 10% of our  current energy needs, and wed have to line I-5 in California with solar  panels just to make 6 megawatts of power (the standard used in todays  electric generation plants)the golden rule used to measure the electric  needs of an average U.S. city. Six megawatts equals ONE power plant. It  takes 12 solar panels working constantly just to run 1 refrigerator,  and we dont live in the land of the midnight sun.  *Note:   even the current off-the-grid guru Ed Begley Jr. says his  rooftop-covered solar panels are no longer enough to supply his energy  needs, and succumbs to sending money to a third party green power  source for his additional energy needs.  Al Gore even spends an  additional and needless $600/month in guilt money to get his power from a  green source.  Is conservation in the cards for either of these  households?  Not on your life!  Its so much easier to spend money to  assuage guilttheirs and others.* 
To use wind energy, wed  have to cover hillsides and mountain ranges with windmills to get the  equivalent of that magic 6 megawatts13,000 turbines, spinning  constantly at maximum speed, equal one 555 megawatt plant (enough to run  an average sized state). Turbines are purported to cause all kinds of  havoc with flying wildlife, particularly bats, because of the low noise  they emit while spinning...and lets not forget appearance. Cape Cod  turned down a project proposal for an offshore wind farm earlier this  year because residents feared that seascape aesthetics would be ruined.  Heavens! 
Ethanol is a laughable story in itselfit takes 27-29%  more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the ethanol itself will  provide. When the energy it takes to plant, maintain, and harvest the  crop (corn or soy), then distill and refine it to a useable state,  youre already in the hole before you even turn the key in the ignition!  All this serves is to help prop up our already over-producing farm  community, namely Big Farm-a (Con Agra, Cargill, and Archer Daniels  Midland). Wed never eat corn again, because all the crops would be  going toward wasteful ethanol productionnot only our crops, but also  those of other countries who can least afford to lose food sources. When  it comes to a driving fuel, ethanol provides 25% fewer miles/tank than  ordinary gasoline. Biodiesel has a slightly better energy return, but  only slightlyand still has the same energy problems of ethanol before  the key is turned.  *Note:  one  day, Leonardo DiCaprio and his buddies will get this through their thick  skullsprobably AFTER they get booted out of Hollywood and cant find  work elsewhere.  Also, on the corn frontwe have to import sugar cane  ethanol and ethanol crops because we cant grow enough right here at  home to supply our current needsnever mind the future.* 
Hydrogen  is almost as big a joke, simply because the largest, cheapest source  for it is the moonwhen was the last time we made it there? We cant  even get our shuttles back into orbit, let alone send something to the  moon again! Forget trying to crack water or airtoo expensive, even at  its cheapest.  *Note:  we DID  manage to get a few shuttles back into orbit, but just barely.  Still,  we find ourselves woefully unequipped to take advantage of the cheapest  hydrogen source of all.* 
Then we come to the most laughable  crutch of all, the hybrid car. Yes, it may use less gas and yes, it may  burn cleaner, but it, too is made from petroleum products (plastics and  polycarbonates). Where will these cars come from when the fields run  dry? It currently takes 27-54 barrels of oil to produce one hybrid  vehicle. When oil reaches $72/barrel, as its been suggested to in late  2006, just who is going to be able to afford THE CAR, let alone the gas  for it? Remember that the Toyota Prius was unreasonable at $17,000 back  when oil was $44/barrel. Imagine what it would cost when oil reaches  $72/barrel.   *Note:  the prices  have come down, but so have the mileage estimates (by some 20%)now they  are slightly better than my ten-year-old Park Avenue.  I gladly  sacrifice 6 miles per gallon for the spaciousness, interior  conveniences, and cheap cost of insurance.  My original article on  hybrid cars* here. 
At  least solar, wind, and hydroelectric energy come from free sources to  begin with, but we all know what that means: unreliability. It also  means that harnessing the power isnt without costs as wellsolar panels  (plastic), wind turbines (fiberglass), and dams (concrete) are  expensive matters relative to the efficiency of energy theyd help  provide. Couple this with power loss from line transmission (from the  source to your house), and the costs escalate relative to efficiencies.  
Did  you know that electric power starts out at 440 volts from the source,  and ends at 110 volts at your home? The lost power transmission along  the way to your home (mostly in heat) is 330 volts, or 75% of the  original energy generated. Thats how much extra energy is required to  get power from the originating source, down the power grid, to the home,  and thats why wed have to cover the country with windmills and solar  panels to replace the oil, gas, and coal that now generate our power  plants. 
The real answer to the looming oil catastrophe is to use  less, and by that I mean FIND OTHER MATERIALS TO MANUFACTURE FROM.  Plastics manufacture is the worldwide #1 user of oilnot cars or driving  (driving is the #1 user in the U.S.). Until we find something else to  use or shun plastics altogether, were headed right toward the stalled  oil derricks and disaster in record time. Simply using less on a  personal level wont make a dent in the situationwe need to find other  ways of manufacturing and transport without the use of oil and  distillates as a country, and as a world. Ending the extremely wasteful  practice of fueling cruise ships, which get a whopping 3 gallons to the  mile, would be a good start.  *Note:   new oil deposits are being discovered every day, so the once-dreaded  oil crisis is being pushed back further out over the horizon.  For every  cry of crisis, we hear another cry of Eureka! afterward.* 
Natural  gas, unfortunately, isnt an answer either, because manufacturers will  make the shift to gas first, assuring quick drainage of that supply as  well. When thats gone, then where will they go? This is where they need  to be thinking about now rather than later. 
Studies suggest that  coal may be our manufacturing answer, and it might, but getting to an  adequate coal supply will be easier said than done. We sit on the Saudi  Arabia of coalfields--right under Colorado--and the residents arent  about to let us come in and dig them up so life can go on as usual. 
So  by this point, youre probably wondering how youre going to get by  when the pumps run dry, and the so-called alternatives arent being  manufactured any more. My advice: power down. Simply put, try to pull  the plug on as many of your appliances and vehicles as possible, and  learn to live without their convenience. Electricity generation (like  water and kerosene) will likely be rationed, and there will probably be  times of light and brownouts (much like Iraq suffers from today). Making  and doing more with less wont be enough; youll need to think make  something from nothing. Remember: nearly ALL the alternatives to oil  come from oil itself in some formplastics, polycarbonates, fuel for  tractors, pesticides, fertilizers, etc. Fiberglass wind turbines may be  the only exception, but they do require the use of petroleum products in  maintenance (gear lube, hydraulic fluids, etc.)  *Note:   why wait?  Start finding ways to power down NOW, saving money and  hassle in the end, not to mention already being accustomed to the coming  eventual limited energy availability and/or anticipated astronomical  costs.* 
As comical as this may sound, we might want to get  acquainted (or re-acquainted) with horseback and bicycle riding. We  might also want to get re-acquainted with hurricane lamps, cooking with  fire, and an in-depth knowledge of machinery so that we may convert it  from gas and diesel to hydraulic and pneumatic power. Older Boy Scout  manuals (pre-80s) will come in handy for lessons in building shelters,  fires, picking wild foods, and for general emergency preparedness (I say  old because the newer manuals rely heavily on pre-packaged convenience  items and manufactured camping gear--affordability may be an issue to  some). Books on Amish and Mennonite living may provide useful reference. 
We  may also want to consider living in a dwelling thats underground, or  at least partly underground, for temperature modulation. Central heat  and A/C will probably be things of the past, and many areas of this  country will be totally unbearable to live in without them. Caves  usually have an environment at a steady 50 degrees or so, depending on  depth, and its a reliable year-round source of modulation. Underground  homes can also have this same sort of modulation, albeit at a different  temperature (usually 70 degrees or so). 
In short, youll need to  do more for yourself from home to avoid expensive travel and frivolous  spending (frivolous becoming a relative term). This means everything  from telecommuting and freelancing to gardening and sewing. Currently  cheap Chinese goods will become dear when transportation costs are added  in---theirs AND ours (never mind the re-valuating of their currency).  The car as we know it will only serve as a hauling device, and todays  SUVs will become luxurious hauling devices indeed!  *Note:   in the future, public entitlement programs will most likely be paid  for with tax hikes in the form of tariffs on once-cheap Chinese goods,  and/or a VAT tax on Medicare.  We may be discovering new oil nearly  every day, but new sources of tax revenue are in short supply (and  getting shorter) as jobs get downsized, off-shored, or eliminated  altogether.  Lets face itminimum-wage jobs dont bring in the revenue  that union-wage ones do.* 
On the national preparedness  front, were looking at nuclear plants for electrical generation (and  high time, too, since the technological advent of better waste disposal  means through laser use), different materials for manufacture (more  fiberglass and natural renewables), and mass transit improvements (fuel  changes and infrastructure upgrades). Individual businesses are even  getting into the act, and I bet you havent even noticed it yetthrough  eminent domain, theyre grabbing up suburban neighborhood property for  building future stores in residential neighborhoods. Why, you ask?  Simplethey see the coming trend toward less driving, and want to bring  their stores to you, the new bike rider, walker, and mass transit rider.  They know that trips to the mall and big-box stores will be vanishing,  along with discretionary dollars to spend, and this is how they intend  to stay in business. Malls will eventually dry up, along with suburbia,  and the next logical move for them would be to acquire old derelict  properties in downtown areas to demolish or refurbish into new stores.  The new walker, bike rider, or mass transit user will surely find THAT  accommodating (if only they could fit a big screen TV on a bus or on the  back of a bicycle). Downtowns everywhere will get much-needed  renovations and remodels to make room for the resurgence of permanent  residents returningthe revival of walkable communities will be at  hand. Imagine Target as a Mom & Pop storea store without all the  trappings of suburban comfort creatures, a store that only carries what  youd need to live in an urban setting. An urban Best Buy wouldnt carry  any electronics you couldnt fit on a bus or carry away by yourself  sans cart, making for a vastly smaller store. Wally World may even have  to split into two storesone for groceries, and one for general  merchandise.  
The next logical move for them after that would be  to go all cyberspace. Then, the store overhead would be eliminated, and  we could rely on (expensive) home delivery for that big-screen TV.  Shipping costs would then soar to astronomical levels due to fuel and  maintenance bills for USPS, UPS, and FedEx.  *Note:   this too will be pushed back because of the new oil depositsbut it  may come to fruition in your great-grandchildrens time (or later).* 
Just  close your eyes and imagine all this. It will start happening when we  stop resisting the idea that oil will come to an end. We need to be  thinking about other living arrangements now before this event becomes a  national and personal catastrophic disastera long emergency with no  end. It may not happen in your lifetime, but there are undoubtedly  little lifetimes behind you (kids), and they will need to be prepared  and versed. This is where the experience, knowledge, and sage advice of  grandparents and great-grandparents will come in handy. Valuable  depression-era wit and wisdom will get along nicely here, and  unfortunately, that generation is disappearing faster than we  realizeyet another valuable commodity wastefully slipping through our  fingers.  *Note:  Oil will not come  to an end before individual countries start nationalizing  their  supply, choking off deliveries, raising prices, and therefore escalating  the delivery costs to the states in the process (tankers need gas  too!).  Politics will be our undoing on the energy front long before we  actually run out of oil.*

----------


## Marc

OPNTALK: Alternative Energy Farce**   *Sunday, March 27, 2011*  * Alternative Energy Farce*    *I keep trying to caution you. WAIT and SEE.* 
Hey folks,  Yes,  I'm talking about Energy again. Why? We NEED it. There is starting to  be more and more talk about the higher Gas Prices. We have already  discussed this in depth. Now more and more Liberals are starting to call  for investigations once again. We already KNOW one of the BIGGEST  contributing factors. Obama. 
Him and his Ilk, LOVE this. They  WANT people out there talking about speeding up the switch to  Alternative Energy as a way to combat the Higher Gas and Heating Costs.  The higher Electric Bills. The higher Food Costs. But as we have also  discussed in depth, it is THEIR Policies that are driving the cost of  EVERYTHING up. 
But here we are again, Alternatives. Lets look at three. Solar, Wind, and Ethanol. 
First up, Solar. Remember this? *OPNTalk -* *First Ever US Hybrid Solar Energy Center* * 11  Thousand Homes, out of a Population of around 18,537,969 at a cost of  about $340 Million dollars. So that's about $30,900 a home.*Maybe a good start, but only 11,000 homes in one County, in one State.  * However,  my Brain tells me that even though this may work in Florida, it will  not in Washington. They do not have enough Sunshine there. So they will  have to come up with something else. So Solar will NEVER be Universal.  What works here, may not work elsewhere. FPL spent $688 Million the  these three Projects. like I said, for this one, a cost of about $30,900  a home. Where is that money coming from? Of whom are they going to pass  the cost onto? What will Seattle do? Will it work? We should know in  about 5 years. So what are we going to do in the meantime? What about  the other around 18,526,969?*So what about Wind?  For a Windmill to be efficient, the Wind must be blowing at a content 30  miles an hour. However, it makes so much noise, the residents that live  near them, SUED. So now they will turn them OFF when the Wind hits 23  MPH. I'm not kidding. According to *Human Events Online -* *Painful Lessons for Wind Power* by Brian Sussman 03/24/2011 * Wind energy took another blow—this time in Massachusetts. 
Wind  One is the 400-foot-tall wind turbine owned by the town of Falmouth, on  the southwestern tip of Cape Cod. The residents of Falmouth initially  welcomed Wind One as a symbol of green energy and a handy way to keep  local taxes down. Electricity generated by the turbine would be used to  power the municipality’s infrastructure, thus shaving about $400,000 a  year off its utility costs. 
Installed in the spring of 2010 at a  cost of $5.1 million (with some $3 million derived through grants,  government kickbacks, and credits), the huge turbine cranks out 1.65  megawatts of electricity during optimum conditions. 
The  topography of Falmouth is stunningly beautiful. Small ponds, creeks,  pines, and oaks rest adjacent to the rocky beachfront. What’s totally  out of place is a monstrous pillar of white steel rising from the  countryside, topped with its whirling three-bladed rotor. However,  proving that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, one local told a  Public Radio reporter the turbine is “quite majestic.” 
But as soon as her majesty was switched on, residents began to complain—Wind One was as loud as an old Soviet helicopter. 
Neil  Anderson lives a quarter of a mile from the turbine. He’s an avid  supporter of alternative energy, having owned and operated a passive  solar company on Cape Cod for the past 25 years. “It is dangerous,” he  told WGBH in Boston. “Headaches. Loss of sleep. And the ringing in my  ears never goes away. I could look at it all day, and it does not bother  me … but it’s way too close.” 
Tired of the constant chopping  sound, pained residents decided to lawyer up. This month a deal was  struck with the town to disengage the turbine when winds exceed 23 miles  an hour. This is problematic because giant windmills such as Wind One  operate at optimum efficiency at about 30 miles an hour. 
So now  Falmouth’s investment has taken a hit. According to Gerald Potamis, who  runs the wastewater facility, shutting off the turbine during higher  winds will cost the town $173,000 in annual revenue, because now they’ll  have to rely more on natural gas. 
Truth is, wind turbines have  always suffered from the NIMBY—not in my backyard—syndrome. Look no  further than the largest concentration of wind turbines in the world,  constructed in the 1970s just east of the San Francisco Bay. Some 4,500  windmills are ensconced atop 50,000 acres of grassy hills, generating a  modest 576 megawatts of power. Officially known as the Altamont Pass  Wind Resource Area, one would suppose the wind farm is an icon of  greenness. But instead, Altamont Pass is the poster girl of  eco-infighting. 
Ever since the multitude of windmills was  installed, a significant increase in the numbers of dead birds has been  reported. Activists immediately went ballistic, demanding action. Over  the decades, lawsuits have been filed and millions of dollars spent  procuring studies to track the bird body count in an effort to determine  how to address the problem. 
In 2008, a two-year, taxpayer-funded  examination of the problem was conducted by the Altamont Pass Avian  Monitoring Team. During the study period, the monitoring team determined  that 8,247 birds were wacked dead by the turbine blades. 
In  2010, a settlement was finally reached between the Audubon Society,  Californians for Renewable Energy, and the company running the wind  farm, NextEra Energy. Nearly half of the smaller turbines will now be  replaced by newer, more bird-friendly models. The project is expected to  be complete by 2015 and includes $2.5 million for raptor habitat  restoration, all of which is expected to increase the price of energy  being supplied to the grid by this portrait of green power. 
Painful  to the ears, and especially painful to the birds, the painful lesson  environmentalists need to learn is that the answer to America’s growing  energy needs is not blowing in the wind.*Be right back with Part Two.
Peter 
Sources: *OPNTalk -* *First Ever US Hybrid Solar Energy Center**
Human Events Online -* *Painful Lessons for Wind Power**
Ecopolitology -* *Cornfields vs. Oilfields (Infographic)*

----------


## Marc

*Sunday, March 27, 2011*  * Alternative Energy Farce Part Two*    *Solar, Wind, Ethanol*  
Hey folks.  
We're back.   OK.  So we just got done talking about Solar and Wind. Remember also, when  done Drilling, the Platforms go away and there is no real evidence that  they were even there. Windmills? Well, they are just left in place. Cost  too much to remove them. Just a bit of a side not there.  
So what about Ethanol? As we have already discussed in the past:  
Not tested. 
Not Cheaper. 
Causing Food Riots. 
And some want to INCREASE the usage.  
So is it a great Alternative? I just got this last week in the Emails.  *  Hello Peter!  
Kate here, and we've created an interesting infographic that I think  you might enjoy. With today's ever increasing gas prices, it's a wonder  why we don't push harder for alternative sources of fuel. But at the  same time, these alternative sources aren't as amazing as you would  think. We've highlighted the pros and cons regarding corn ethanol, and  presented information about just how effective an energy source it  really is.*Now this was put together by *Timothy Hurst* over at Ecopolitology.  Although this guy IS a Environmentalist,  I would not call him an  Environut. He is a guy that is concerned about the Environment and takes  the time to really study things like this. Here is the Chart of the  Pros and Cons of Ethanol.     
So what is more important to you? Food, or taking even more land  away to grow "energy." Now I appreciate that there may be some  positives. Just like there are positives with Solar and Wind, IN THEORY.  But the problem is, bringing the THEORY into Reality. To wake up from  the "Green Dream" and realize that this is DECADES out in the future,  and we have $4.00 a gallon Gas Prices NOW. And going up as we speak.  There is no magic switch to switch to. There are no Alternatives on a  mass and affordable scale.  
As I keep saying folks, lets do it. Lets keep taking these baby  steps toward a "Greener" future. But in the meantime, lets use what we  have, and get more of it. Lets USE OUR OWN RESOURCES. Lets increase  supply, American Security, and lets lower prices. The answer is right  here, in front of our faces. 
Peter  
Sources:  *OPNTalk -* *First Ever US Hybrid Solar Energy Center** 
Human Events Online -* *Painful Lessons for Wind Power * *Ecopolitology -* *Cornfields vs. Oilfields (Infographic)*

----------


## PhilT2

Sea ice in the arctic dropped to a new low over the weekend. AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L
As the weather warms and if the clouds clear as predicted there should be good pictures coming off the satellite of the breakup of ice in the north west passage. MODIS Rapid Response System Subset - Arctic_r03c02: 2011/170 - 06/19/11

----------


## Dr Freud

> Sea ice in the arctic dropped to a new low over the weekend. AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L
> As the weather warms and if the clouds clear as predicted there should be good pictures coming off the satellite of the breakup of ice in the north west passage. MODIS Rapid Response System Subset - Arctic_r03c02: 2011/170 - 06/19/11

  Come on champ, you can't just post a weekend weather report. 
What the hell is this supposed to prove, that the weather changes? 
You need to throw in some serious scaremongering about dead polar bears or something.  Maybe cities going underwater?  Any equally ridiculous scare previously used by your cohort will do. 
Or have you finally realised that most people are now wise to your baseless fear mongering and these ridiculous fake scares just cost you more credibility? 
Well, I don't want to break the bad news buddy, but readers of this thread also realise you can't just post an effect, then assume everyone will assume the cause is the same one that you assumed. Uh uh.  :No:  
This costs your credibility even more. 
Best you stick to the dying polar bears, here, let me show you how:   

> They cling precariously to the top of what is left of the ice floe, their fragile grip the perfect symbol of the tragedy of global warming.
> The plight of the bears was highlighted as the prospect of a gloomy future emerged from leaks of the most comprehensive report into global warming yet undertaken, which is to be published on Friday.  
>  Concluding that it is "highly likely" that mankind is to blame for climate change, it talks of more droughts, torrential rains, shrinking Arctic ice and glaciers, and rising sea levels for the next century.  
> But the scientists have observed that in the struggle for survival, the bears - and females especially - are now much thinner.  
>  Scientists believe that four bears which recently drowned off the coast of Alaska had simply been unable to cope with a violent storm.   Global warming sees polar bears stranded on melting ice | Mail Online

     Now that's a tearjerker right there!  :Bawl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yes.  They're our Government - they reflect the people they represent.

  Wrong! 
JuLIAR lied and said "There will be no Carbon Tax under the government I lead". 
The "people" voted in 146 seats out of 150 seats in the lower house saying NO to a Carbon Tax. 
The government is not reflecting the "people", because JuLIAR is a gutless PM who has become Bob Brown's bec and call girl. 
But here's a way for the government to accurately reflect the people they represent:   

> The question Mr Abbott would like to put voters is: "Are you in favour of a law to impose a carbon tax?"  
>  Mr Abbott admitted the cost of the plebiscite would be high, but it was lower than the cost of the carbon tax.  
>  "What I want is for the Australian people to have a direct say over the biggest economic change in our history," he told ABC radio.  
>  "This is the vote that the prime minister didn't allow the Australian people to have at the last election. I want that vote to happen.  
>  "It wouldn't be cheap, but let's not forget that this is an $11.5 billion a year tax that the prime minister wants to impose on people, a tax that she wasn't honest about before the last election."  
>  Asked if he expected to gain the support of cross bench MPs, Mr Abbott said: "In the end, it's their call.  
>  "I accept that they're independents but I very much hope that they will believe this is in everyone's interests that we have a plebiscite, a public vote, a popular vote on this very important issue."   Tony Abbott defends a $70m plebiscite on the carbon tax that would give Australians a say | The Australian

  Do you think JuLIAR wants to "reflect the people", or just keep playing the gimp?  
I think we all know the answer involves desperately hanging onto power regardless of the damage to our country.  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Just 155,800 jobs lost to make an utterly meaningless gesture? What a great deal:  _The Energy Users Association of Australia has released a new report it gained from forecaster Deloitte Access Economics on the impact of a carbon tax combined with renewable energy targets. It shows that by 2020, the price of electricity on the wholesale market may increase by 121%. _   _ That claim, and a prediction for up to 155,800 jobs to be lost, will put pressure on the Federal Government to promise compensation measures for certain high-emissions sectors. Much will hinge on whether a global emissions trading scheme is operational or not. _    _And the temperature won’t change a flicker | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  _  _ 
So we plan to introduce the Carbon Dioxide Tax to send a price signal. 
Then the polls say Aussies don't want a "price signal". 
So we compensate money so that they are "better off". 
So now there's no price signal. 
So everyone keeps doing what they've always done. 
Let's go through the steps. 
1) Industry pays TAX to Government.
2) Government gives compensation to consumer.
3) Consumer spends money on higher prices by industry.
4) Repeat from step 1 
What a bunch of idiots!  :Doh:  
Oh yeh, and then the Planet Earth somehow gets COLDER.  :Roflmao2:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Wrong!

  Wrong? 
Frued.....Governments of any and every flavour reflect the people that they represent.  Regardless of who claims leadership and how righteous or appropriate others believe that claim to be. 
You claim that our current government is "stupid" and "inept".  I certainly don't disagree with you.  I claim that our stupid and inept government reflects an equally stupid and inept population.  But most of all....our Government reflects what we lack as a both individuals and as a group....a sense of personal responsibility. For example, "It's not my fault - I didn't vote for them" or "It's not my fault - it's those pesky _insert preferred nationality here_". 
In the end......we all get back what we put in.  
As for the plebiscite.....what is the point of voting for something that still only exists as an idea rather than an actual piece of proposed legislation?  The idea as it currently stands is, to my mind, stupid (there's no price signal if ithere's compensation - so there's no point having the signal) .....but until the legislation is actually written then it's just a idea.  Ideas are to be explored so as to determine possible options (or even a range of options). Then you vote on the options.......

----------


## johnc

To ask for a plebiscite on the one hand and then state a yes vote would only see any carbon tax thrown out by a future Liberal government does make you wonder why waste 70 million or so in the process, it is very poor to ask one side to abide by a vote and refuse to accept the will of people in the same process yourself (assuming a yes vote got up). Australian politics is at a very low ebb with silly political stunts like this matched by some fairly dumb comments from all sides on many issues.  
Perhaps it is time to bin the focus groups and get some real policy from both sides.

----------


## johnc

> Come on champ, you can't just post a weekend weather report. 
> What the hell is this supposed to prove, that the weather changes? 
> You need to throw in some serious scaremongering about dead polar bears or something. Maybe cities going underwater? Any equally ridiculous scare previously used by your cohort will do. 
> Or have you finally realised that most people are now wise to your baseless fear mongering and these ridiculous fake scares just cost you more credibility? 
> Well, I don't want to break the bad news buddy, but readers of this thread also realise you can't just post an effect, then assume everyone will assume the cause is the same one that you assumed. Uh uh.  
> This costs your credibility even more. 
> Best you stick to the dying polar bears, here, let me show you how:         Now that's a tearjerker right there!

  
The US coastguard has plenty of information on ice berg movement and ice cover in the Artic, and the ice area really is shrinking, however the Dr Fraud denials come with their usual tedious spin, at least some things are constant. For the benefit of our resident skeptics melting of sea ice does not change water levels by the way, it is water from melting glaciers and other land based ice that will cause the rise in sea levels.  
The reducing ice cover is causing problems for amongst other things shipping information, and is stretching the resources in that region to monitor the change.  I'm pleased  someone feels sorry for the polar bears.

----------


## Marc

Climate change: The elements conspire against the warmists - Telegraph   

> *Climate change: The elements conspire against the warmists*  * An international team of scientists has used the latest electro-magnetic    induction equipment to discover that the Arctic ice is in fact "twice as    thick" as they had expected, says Christopher Booker. *    
>  	 		By Christopher Booker
>  			6:15PM BST 09 May 2009 55 Comments   
>  	  As the clock ticks down towards December's historic UN Copenhagen conference    on climate change, the frenzied efforts of the warmists to panic us over all    that vanishing Arctic and Antarctic ice are degenerating into farce.  
>   That great authority Ban Ki-moon, the UN's Secretary-General, solemnly tells    us that the polar ice caps are "melting far faster than was expected just    two years ago". Yet the latest satellite information from the US National    Snow and Ice Data Center (passed on by the Watts Up With That blog) shows    that, after the third slowest melt of April Arctic ice in 30 years, the    world's polar sea ice is in fact slightly above its average extent for early    May since satellite records began in 1979.   
>   This news came as the skiinfo.com website was reporting "It's snowing all over    the world". Snow was still falling in the Alps after a record winter, while    in the southern hemisphere the skiing season was starting "five weeks early".  
>   Meanwhile, up in the Arctic, after yet another delay for bad weather, the    hapless Catlin trio, sponsored by an insurance firm which hopes to make    money out of alarm over global warming, continue their painful progress    towards the distant North Pole, measuring the ice with an old tape measure    and assuring Prince Charles by satellite telephone that it is "thinner than    expected".  
>   When the trio heard a passing aircraft, which they hoped was bringing    much-needed supplies, they little realised it was a DC-3 carrying an    international team of scientists, using the latest electro-magnetic    induction equipment to discover rather more efficiently that the ice was in    fact "twice as thick" as they had expected.

----------


## PhilT2

Never thought it possible; an idea so stupid that even Sen Fielding won't support it. Tony Abbott under fire for plebiscite bungle after Steve Fielding effectively kills bill | The Australian 
Despite this recent outbreak of common sense from the Family First god botherer, the senate will be richer on his departure at the end of the month.

----------


## PhilT2

_Do you think JuLIAR wants to "reflect the people", or just keep playing the gimp?_ 
Mr Abbott proposed the poll yesterday, but said he would still oppose a carbon tax even if voters gave it the thumbs up. Fielding kills Abbott's carbon plebiscite - Yahoo!7

----------


## chrisp

I didn't usually bother to read the crap that Marc cuts-and-pastes - and I somehow doubt that he even bothers to read then himself. 
Let's look at *some* of the crap he has posted and check a few facts.  See the text in *bold* and comments in *red*.  There is just too much erroneous information to correct it all.   

> *Wisdom From Wenchypoo's Old Bat Cave: The Farce That is Alternative Energy (L-O-N-G)—2007 Redux*     * The Farce That is Alternative Energy (L-O-N-G)—2007 Redux*   
>   Solar, wind, ethanol, hybrid cars…none of them is going to be our savior  when the oil music stops playing. You’re wondering why? Efficiency,  that’s why--energy in vs. energy out. 
> To oil’s benefit, it took  less energy to get for the energy it gave. Even at $40/barrel, it was  the cheapest source of energy, with the most output, per barrel (or even  BTU). Now that cheap source is destined to come to a thin trickle, if  not a screeching halt. What do we have as replacements? 
> Solar  panels, made from petroleum, only provide us with about 10% of our  current energy needs, and we’d have to line I-5 in California with solar  panels just to make 6 megawatts of power (the standard used in today’s  electric generation plants)—the golden rule used to measure the electric  needs of an average U.S. city.  *Six megawatts equals ONE power plant*.  *Maybe you should search and see the typical size of a generator.  500MW is typical for a single generator.  A power plant is considerably bigger - usually in the GW range.*    *It  takes 12 solar panels working constantly just to run 1 refrigerator,  and we don’t live in the land of the midnight sun.*  *A 1.5kW solar system is usually made up of 9 panels.  These will produce about 1,800kWh per year (without running 'flat out').  A typical fridge uses 600~900 kWh per year.* 
> Note:   even the current off-the-grid guru Ed Begley Jr. says his  rooftop-covered solar panels are no longer enough to supply his energy  needs, and succumbs to sending money to a third party “green power  source” for his additional energy needs.  Al Gore even spends an  additional and needless $600/month in guilt money to get his power from a  green source.  Is “conservation” in the cards for either of these  households?  Not on your life!  It’s so much easier to spend money to  assuage guilt—theirs and others. 
> To use wind energy, we’d  have to cover hillsides and mountain ranges with windmills *to get the  equivalent of that magic 6 megawatts—13,000 turbines, spinning  constantly at maximum speed, equal one 555 megawatt plant (enough to run  an average sized state).*   *On shore turbines are typically between 1MW and 2MW.  they have a utilisation factor of about 35%. To generate an average of 6MW using 1MW turbines will require 6MW/(1MW x 0.35) = 17 turbines - a long way different to 13,000 quoted in Marc's cut-and-paste crap article.  These turbines are not "spinning constantly at maximum speed", they are just doing typical average duty.  Hang on!  A "power plant" is now 555MW.  it was 6MW before!* *  Let's do the calculations again for 555MW:  to make an average of 555MW using 1MW turbines will  require 555MW/(1MW x 0.35) = 1585 turbines - still a very long way different to 13,000  quoted in Marc's cut-and-paste crap article. *  *These turbines are not "spinning constantly at maximum speed", they are just doing typical average duty.*

  I think you will get the drift.  The article quotes numbers and some might just accept the numbers even though they don't make any sense.  Perhaps it is because it supports their "gut feeling" as to what is "right"?  *The bottom line to me is that the article is fabricated rubbish.  I don't know why Marc wastes his time cutting-and-pasting such rubbish.  It only makes him look foolish. 
Does Marc actually read and analyse the stuff he cuts-and-pastes?  I doubt it!  *

----------


## johnc

> I didn't usually bother to read the crap that Marc cuts-and-pastes - and I somehow doubt that he even bothers to (critically) read then himself. 
> Let's look at *some* of the crap he has posted and check a few facts. See the text in *bold* and comments in *red*. There is just too much erroneous information to correct it all.   
> I think you will get the drift. The article quotes numbers and some might just accept the numbers even though they don't make any sense. Perhaps it is because it supports their "gut feeling" as to what is "right"?  *The bottom line to me is that the article is fabricated rubbish. I don't know why Marc wastes his time cutting-and-pasting such rubbish. It only makes him look foolish.*

  I suspect he thinks he is being clever, however the cut and paste responses usually just demonstrate thet he has either not read or not understood what he is attempting to respond to. 
As to Artic ice thickness there is no getting away from the fact that it is thinning and shrinking over recent decades. The attached link gives a few graphs and comments. Arctic Ice June 2010 might be of interest to anyone with an open mind but Marc might prefer to google "ice thinning is crap" or resort to the usual denier favorites.

----------


## PhilT2

Some of the rubbish in his cut and pastes is really weird. The story of scientists using a DC-3 in the arctic is off the planet, these aircraft are over 60 years old. Anyway aren't these guys supposed to be on the funding gravy train, where's the lear jet? Posting a two year old quote from a pommy tabloid is as far from science as you can get.

----------


## PhilT2

> I didn't usually bother to read the crap that Marc cuts-and-pastes - and I somehow doubt that he even bothers to read then himself. 
> Let's look at *some* of the crap he has posted and check a few facts.  See the text in *bold* and comments in *red*.  There is just too much erroneous information to correct it all.   
> I think you will get the drift.  The article quotes numbers and some might just accept the numbers even though they don't make any sense.  Perhaps it is because it supports their "gut feeling" as to what is "right"?  *The bottom line to me is that the article is fabricated rubbish.  I don't know why Marc wastes his time cutting-and-pasting such rubbish.  It only makes him look foolish. 
> Does Marc actually read and analyse the stuff he cuts-and-pastes?  I doubt it!  *

  A blogger has devised a word to describe the way they do math over at wuwt, mathturbation. Chaos | Open Mind

----------


## chrisp

> A blogger has devised a word to describe the way they do math over at wuwt, mathturbation.

  So that's how Marc 'produces' those numbers!  It all makes sense now.   :Smilie:

----------


## johnc

> Are you saying this is not what the IPCC projected as the warming we should expect? 
> The blue lines are subjective and are the authors estimation of what may happen. Over exagerated? Maybe! but anywhere in between the Blue and .05 line will be the end of AGW. Nice thought eh!

  For your benefit, the red line in the carefully selected graph is a prediction at a point in time on the information available at that time that hasn't come to pass. The blue lines look exagerated and equally are unlikely to come to pass. As a result the graph is an illusion, it tells us little other than that there are plenty of experts making guesses which surprise! surprise! are all predictions are. This is a worthless graph when quoted out of context, even if you read the link it is contained with-in it is no more than a minor illustration of the authors main thrust. The thrust is sun spots not the predictive capacity of the science community and the work of Easterbrook, a well known skeptic, has it's own critics as you would be well aware. It is no more than a highly selective grab of a tiny piece of information in an attempt to bolster the authors argument.

----------


## Marc

*Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science « Hot Air*   *Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science*     *posted at 6:00 pm on May 15, 2011 by Bruce McQuain						 printer-friendly*   
 						David Evans is a scientist.  He has also worked in the heart of  the AGW machine.  He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse  Office (now the Department  of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and  part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling  Australia’s carbon in plants, debris,  mulch, soils, and forestry and  agricultural products.  He has six  university degrees, including a PhD in  Electrical Engineering from  Stanford University.  The other day he said: The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous  proportions and is  full of micro-thin half-truths and  misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was  on the carbon gravy train,  understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but  am now a skeptic.And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and  methods by which the  AGW scare has been foisted on the public.
 The politics: The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of  the recent global  warming is based on a guess that was proved false by  empirical evidence during  the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big,  with too many jobs, industries,  trading profits, political careers, and  the possibility of world government and  total control riding on the  outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the  governments, and  their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the  fiction  that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.He makes  clear he understands that CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas”,  and makes the point  that if all else was equal then yes, more CO2 in  the air should and would mean a  warmer planet. But that’s where the  current “science” goes off the tracks.It is built on an assumption that  is false.
 The science: But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
 Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given  increase in  the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s  temperature, if just the extra  carbon dioxide is considered. These  calculations come from laboratory  experiments; the basic physics have  been well known for a century.
 The disagreement comes about what happens next.
 The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, _which changes  everything_.  Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to  evaporate from  the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the  height of  moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and   rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew.  The  alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air  around the  planet, which would warm the planet even further, because  the moist air is also  a greenhouse gas. [emphasis mine]But it didn’t increase the height of the moist air around the planet  as  subsequent studies have shown since that time. However, that theory  or premise  became the heart of the modeling that was done by the  alarmist crowd.
 The modeling: This is the core idea of every official climate model:  For each bit of  warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up  causing three bits of  warming due to the extra moist air. The climate  models amplify the carbon  dioxide warming by a factor of three — so  two-thirds of their projected warming  is due to extra moist air (and  other factors); only one-third is due to extra  carbon dioxide.
 That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and  misunderstandings  spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this  guess about moisture in the  atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence  for the amplification that is at the  core of their alarmism.
 What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?
 Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s,  many  thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that  as the planet  warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the  tropics about 10 kilometres  up, as the layer of moist air expands  upwards into the cool dry air above.  During the warming of the late  1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found  no hot spot. None at  all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the  climate models  are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the   temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
 This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.Evans is not the first to come to these conclusions.  Earlier this year, in a  post I highlighted, Richard Lindzen said the very same thing. For warming since 1979, there is a further problem. The  dominant role of  cumulus convection in the tropics requires that  temperature approximately follow  what is called a moist adiabatic  profile. *This requires that warming in  the tropical upper  troposphere be 2-3 times greater than at the surface. Indeed,  all  models do show this, but the data doesn’t and this means that something  is  wrong with the data*. It is well known that above about 2 km  altitude,  the tropical temperatures are pretty homogeneous in the  horizontal so that  sampling is not a problem. Below two km (roughly the  height of what is referred  to as the trade wind inversion), there is  much more horizontal variability, and,  therefore, there is a profound  sampling problem. *Under the  circumstances, it is reasonable to  conclude that the problem resides in the  surface data, and that the  actual trend at the surface is about 60% too  large*. Even the  claimed trend is larger than what models would have  projected but for  the inclusion of an arbitrary fudge factor due to aerosol  cooling. The  discrepancy was reported by Lindzen (2007) and by Douglass et al   (2007). *Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with  models,  a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the   data.*Evans reaches the natural conclusion – the same conclusion Lindzen  reached: At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a  science. In  science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no  matter how much you are in  love with the theory. If theory and evidence  disagree, real scientists scrap the  theory. But official climate  science ignored the crucial weather balloon  evidence, and other  subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to  their carbon  dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs   with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their  government  masters.And why will it continue?  Again, follow the money: We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate  science, which is  funded and directed entirely by government, promotes  a theory that is based on a  guess about moist air that is now a known  falsehood. Governments gleefully  accept their advice, because the only  ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes  and extend government  control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a  world scale  might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political   class!Indeed.  How extraordinarily unexciting for the proletariat who will  be the  ones stuck with the bill if these governments ever succeed in  finding a way to  pass the taxes they hope to impose and extend even  more government’s control  over energy.
 While  you’re listening to the CEOs of American oil companies being  grilled  by Congress today, remember all of this.  They’re going to try  to punish an  industry that is vital to our economy and national  security, and much of the  desire to do that is based on this false  “science” that has been ginned up by  government itself as an excuse to  control more of our energy sector, raise untold revenues for its use and  to pick  winners and losers.  All based on something which is,  according to Evans and other scientists, now demonstrably false.

----------


## Marc

Clearly to support the false theory that supports the corrupt government who support taxing us to support their gravy train that supports the crooked scientist that feed the lies that support a false theory you must be either be on the gravy train (good for you) or extremely stupid.

----------


## Marc

The Inconvenient Skeptic » How Quickly does the Climate Respond to Change? Part 1  
This is one of the least discussed aspects of global warming, but it  is absolutely critical for future projections of warming.  If there is  little to no time lag, then the full effects of current CO2  emissions are already being felt.  If the lag is 50 years, then we are  only starting to feel the effects of the emissions from 1960 when the CO2  level was still around 320 ppm.  The importance of understanding how  quickly the climate responds is critical to future projections. Not surprisingly the warmists relentlessly claim that the time lag is  long, often decades or centuries, but sometimes even longer.  This  belief shows up in multitudes of comments that most of the warming has *yet to happen*,  but we are always assured that it will happen.  The statement “yet to  happen” is a vague statement, but one that shows the belief that the  time lag is long.  Implicit in that statement is the belief that the  time lag is greater than 50 years which is when CO2 levels started to show significant increase.

----------


## CPE W&C

Heres Kris Sayce' take on the carbon rip off...  *Now let’s say the carbon tax comes in...*   And food, fuel and transport providers – just to  name a few – have to fork out $20 for each tonne of carbon they emit. 
   And in order to cover this cost, these companies  add 10% to the  cost price of their goods/services. And then recalculate their  margins.  And at the end of the day, you’re stuck paying 15% on top of today’s   prices for your semi-fixed living costs and the same for your  discretionary  items.
   (That’s probably conservative.)
   So semi-fixed living costs leap to 40.25% of your  income. 
   Leaving you with 21.75% for discretionary  spending and saving.
   But the 17% you were spending on ‘luxuries’ has  now been bumped up to 19.55%.
   That would leave you 2.2% of your pay cheque to  put away for a  rainy day.  We don’t know  about you, but that doesn’t leave us much for  saving.
   What does it mean?  It means you’ll need to rely even more on   government handouts… which apparently the government wants to cut.
   But somehow we’re told a carbon tax won’t harm  the economy.  According to Ross Gittins  in _The Age_, he reckons: _“Sometimes I suspect many business people regard it as quite ethical  to lie and mislead the public…”_
   We don’t know if individuals or business people  are lying and misleading about the carbon tax.   And we don’t care.
   But we do know this: it’s every person’s right –  and obligation –  to do all they can to stop the government from taking their  money and  the money of their shareholders.
   Strip away the emotions of the  carbon tax and  global warming, what you’re really left with is another  excuse for the  government to take more of your money and give it to someone else.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Heres Kris Sayce' take on the carbon rip off...  *Now let’s say the carbon tax comes in...*   And food, fuel and transport providers – just to  name a few – have to fork out $20 for each tonne of carbon they emit. 
>    And in order to cover this cost, these companies  add 10% to the  cost price of their goods/services. And then recalculate their  margins.  And at the end of the day, you’re stuck paying 15% on top of today’s   prices for your semi-fixed living costs and the same for your  discretionary  items.
>    (That’s probably conservative.)
>    So semi-fixed living costs leap to 40.25% of your  income. 
>    Leaving you with 21.75% for discretionary  spending and saving.
>    But the 17% you were spending on ‘luxuries’ has  now been bumped up to 19.55%.
>    That would leave you 2.2% of your pay cheque to  put away for a  rainy day.  We don’t know  about you, but that doesn’t leave us much for  saving.
>    What does it mean?  It means you’ll need to rely even more on   government handouts… which apparently the government wants to cut.
>    But somehow we’re told a carbon tax won’t harm  the economy.  According to Ross Gittins  in _The Age_, he reckons: _“Sometimes I suspect many business people regard it as quite ethical  to lie and mislead the public…”_
> ...

  Nice to see you dip you big toe into the mud hole! 
This is about right!

----------


## johnc

> Heres Kris Sayce' take on the carbon rip off...  *Now let’s say the carbon tax comes in...*And food, fuel and transport providers – just to name a few – have to fork out $20 for each tonne of carbon they emit. 
> And in order to cover this cost, these companies add 10% to the cost price of their goods/services. And then recalculate their margins. And at the end of the day, you’re stuck paying 15% on top of today’s prices for your semi-fixed living costs and the same for your discretionary items.
> (That’s probably conservative.)
> So semi-fixed living costs leap to 40.25% of your income. 
> Leaving you with 21.75% for discretionary spending and saving.
> But the 17% you were spending on ‘luxuries’ has now been bumped up to 19.55%.
> That would leave you 2.2% of your pay cheque to put away for a rainy day. We don’t know about you, but that doesn’t leave us much for saving.
> What does it mean? It means you’ll need to rely even more on government handouts… which apparently the government wants to cut.
> But somehow we’re told a carbon tax won’t harm the economy. According to Ross Gittins in _The Age_, he reckons: _“Sometimes I suspect many business people regard it as quite ethical to lie and mislead the public…”_
> ...

  
Your figures are rubbish and anyone who has read anything regarding the Treasury modelling would be well aware of that. Under the GST we faced an average price rise of 5% a pain most have probably forgotten as it happened 14 years ago. Under a proposed $20 a tonne cost it is proposed that we drop fuel excise to compensate for the change in fuel. Fuel price rises due to demand/supply are expected to push up prices far more than any carbon tax anyway. Price rises are expected to average a mere .7% for households with the average weekly food bill tipped to rise .80c, electricity $2.70 and gas $1.40. don't forget lower income earners will receive compensation so the impact should not be felt by that group. 
The link is to a West Australian newspaper article that contains these figures and is a reprint of a release that appeared in several publications and news sites. Start price set for carbon tax - The West Australian 
By all means join in CPE W&C but you have to decide if you want to expand peoples knowledge or mislead with false information and hyperbole.

----------


## PhilT2

The press seem to be over reacting to Monckton's use of nazi terms to describe his critics, something he has done for years. Some are saying this is the silliest thing he has ever said. 
Not by a long shot.

----------


## Marc

The correlation between labour/green-red apologist and global warming is irrefutable. 
The debate is closed on that one more labogreenred, more heat. 
Just like the rise in labour-green-red cheerers and clappers brought along the global warming we had to have, clearly, and due to the reverse effect, the demise of the labo/green-red will bring along global cooling.
Start stocking firewood guys, and don't forget to jump on the solar panels gravy train before it stops, we are in for a long winter.

----------


## Marc

As for the link between Nazional Sozialism and Greens, try a search and amuse yourself with what you find. There is the libertarian nazi, the ecofascist, and many more. No need to call the greens names. They do it all by themselves.

----------


## chrisp

> The correlation between labour/green-red apologist and global warming is irrefutable. 
> The debate is closed on that one more labogreenred, more heat.

  Marc, 
It is great to see some non-cut-and-paste posts from you - keep up the good work! 
BTW, regarding your contention, is this a local (i.e Australia only) phenomena or is it a global phenomena? 
I didn't know Australia had so much world influence that it could generate a globally recognised atmospheric issue.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Well this is good news. Lawrence Solomon: Supreme skeptics | FP Comment | Financial Post  

> The justices of the United States Supreme Court this week became the world’s most august global warming sceptics. Not by virtue of their legal reasoning – the global warming case they decided turned on a technical legal issue — but in their surprising commentary. Global warming is by no means a settled issue, they made clear, suggesting it would be foolhardy to assume it was.

  
Slowly but surely we are winning the race against this farce.  People skeptical of AGW are growing all the time as more stuff like this hits the media.

----------


## PhilT2

This decision by the US Supreme Court follows on from a similar decision they made in 2009. There the court decided that the congress had given the power to the EPA to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act. In that decision they determined that CO2 was a pollutant and a greenhouse gas and that the Act gave the EPA the authority to regulate them. 
In this recent decision they adhere to that, stating that "federal judges lack the scientific, economic and technical resources" to determine what are acceptable limits on greenhouse gases. I think that the court has decided correctly here, acknowledging that it is not the proper role of the courts to make decisions on what standards the community wants to impose on industry. This should be left to the legislature which has the capacity to consult with communities and experts that the courts do not have. I don't see this as having been decided on a "legal technical issue" but the courts deciding that there are areas that are outside their jurisdiction. 
If congress were to remove the authority from the EPA to regulate in this area then I think that would invalidate this decision and leave the way open for action against the power companies to begin again. But the EPA has regulations in the pipeline. 
I found a copy of the decision here. 10-174 American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut (06/20/2011)

----------


## Marc

← HB 198 Eminent Domain is Stalled in Senate Committee Dear Gov: Please Veto HB 161 Repeal medical marijuana law →  *Scientific Report says to end Global Warming Programs and Regulations* 
  					 						Posted on April 1, 2011 by Dr. Ed  *The global warming alarm is an anti-scientific political movement.*  *Research to date on Forecasting for the Manmade Global Warming Alarm*
 Testimony to Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
Committee on Science, Space and Technology  March 31, 2011 (Rev)
 Professor J. Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania,
with Kesten C. Green, University of South Australia,
and Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics *Abstract* (Full Report PDF) *The validity of the manmade global warming alarm requires the support of scientific forecasts of*   a substantive long-term rise in global mean temperatures in the absence of regulations,serious net harmful effects due to global warming, andcost-effective regulations that would produce net beneficial effects versus alternatives such as doing nothing. *Without scientific forecasts for all three aspects of the alarm, there is no scientific basis to enact* *regulations.* In effect, it is a three-legged stool. *Despite repeated appeals to global warming alarmists, we have  been unable to find scientific forecasts for any of the three legs.*
 We drew upon scientific (evidence-based) forecasting principles to  audit the forecasting procedures used to forecast global mean  temperatures by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)  leg 1 of the stool. *This audit found that the procedures violated 81% of the 89 relevant forecasting principles.*
 We also did an audit of the forecasting procedures used for two  papers that were designed to support proposed regulation related to  protecting polar bears  leg 3 of the stool. On average, these  procedures violated 85% of the 90 relevant principles. *The warming alarmists have not demonstrated the predictive validity of their procedures.* 
 Instead, their argument for predictive validity is based on their  claim that nearly all scientists agree with the forecasts. Such an  appeal to voting is contrary to the scientific method. It is also  incorrect.
 We conducted a validation test of the IPCC forecasts based on the  assumption that there would be no interventions. This test found that  the errors for IPCC model long-term forecasts (91 to 100 years in the  future) were 12.6 times larger than those from an evidence-based no  change model. *Based on our analyses, we concluded that the global warming alarm is an anti-scientific political* *movement.*
 We then turned to the structured analogies method to forecast the  likely outcomes of this movement. In this ongoing study, we have, to  date, identified 26 historical alarmist movements. None of the forecasts  for the analogous alarms proved correct.
 In the 25 alarms that called for government intervention, the  government imposed regulations in 23. None of the 23 interventions was  effective and harm was caused by 20 of them. *Our findings on the scientific evidence related to global warming forecasts lead to the following recommendations:*  End government funding for climate change researchEnd government funding for research predicated on global warming (e.g., alternative energy; CO2 reduction; habitat loss)End government programs and repeal regulations predicated on global warmingEnd government support for organizations that lobby or campaign predicated on global warming

----------


## Marc

*Climate Change (Proof).*  Printing Tips |  Print selected text  | Full Day Hansard Transcript « Prior Item |  Item 47 of 48  | Next Item »  
 About this Item
Speakers - Phelps The Hon Dr Peter 
Business - Adjournment, ADJ       *CLIMATE CHANGE*Page: 72  *The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS* [9.55 p.m.]: Tonight I plan once again  to travel up the Congo of government largesse into the heart of darkness  of anthropogenic global warming swindlers. Two weeks ago the Hon. Peter  Primrose rather ill-advisedly repeated the outrageous claims that  anthropogenic global warming scientists at the Australian National  University [ANU] were subjected to death threats and had to be moved to  high-security complexes. That has now been exposed as a complete and  utter fabrication. I give full credit to Andrew Carswell from the _Daily Telegraph_, who wrote:  Claims prominent climate change scientists had recently received  death threats have been revealed as an opportunistic ploy, with the  Australian National University admitting that they occurred up to five  years ago. 
Only two of the ANU's climate change scientists allegedly received death  threats, the first in a letter posted in 2006-2007 and the other an  offhand remark made in person 12 months ago. 
... Reports also suggested the threats had forced the ANU to lock away  its climate change scientists and policy advisers in a high-security  complex. _The Daily Telegraph_ has discovered the nine scientists  and staff in question were merely given keyless swipe cards—routine  security measures taken last year. 
... ANU communications director Catriona Jackson would not reveal the  exact wording of the threats, but added: "Abusive emails are par for the  course for most climate change scientists."
 The poor petals—abusive emails! As I understand it, the scientists have  tonight left their steel and concrete bunkers to emerge through the  death threats and abusive emails to tell politicians that the campaign  being run against scientific evidence of man-made climate change "is  undermining the nation-building work of all scientists". The  nation-building work of all scientists! What happened to neutral  objectivity in science? Is this a bit of mission creep creeping in? Why  would scientists need nation-building as part of their work unless they  were instruments of the state? If the anthropogenic global warming  disciples displayed more credibility and ceased their relentless  Lysenkoism, perhaps they would not draw such ire from the community. If  the science is settled, why do they keep lying about it? 
In recent times we had reports that anthropogenic global warming  scientists have artificially inflated sea rise by three centimetres.  Why? Because it is not recording that the continents are actually rising  up. They have had to fabricate a three-centimetre rise in water to give  their ideas some credibility. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate  Change issued a report last month suggesting:  ... renewable sources could provide 77 per cent of the world's  energy supply by 2050. But in supporting documents released this week it  emerged that the claim was based on a real-terms decline in worldwide  energy consumption over the next 40 years, and that the lead author of  the section concerned was an employee of Greenpeace. Not only that, but  the modelling scenario used was the most optimistic of the 164  investigated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 
That just about says it all about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate  Change and its reports. There is an unquestionable nexus between  funding and political outcomes. I refer to Matt Ridley in today's _Australian_, whonoted:  ... the deep prejudice towards pessimism that dominates the intelligentsia. 
... What is more, pessimism has become a hallmark of the Left, chiefly because it justifies activism. 
... Today, infected by Malthusian ecology, the Left relentlessly  preaches millennial doom and technological risk: ... A dramatic change  in human stewardship of the planet is needed. 
Members can guess who wants to be the steward, who wants to be in charge. The article continued:   There's a broad constituency for pessimism. No pressure group ever  got donations by telling its donors calamity was unlikely; and no  reporter ever got his editor's attention by saying that a scare was  overblown; and no politician ever got on television by downplaying doom.
 There is always a crisis in the great global warming swindle—water level  rises of 100 metres, Sydney dams becoming empty, Perth having to be  abandoned. There are always crises because crises demand government  funding and government intervention. As Jonah Goldberg stated in his  recent study on totalitarianism:  Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism  because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation. Hence all  fascist movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened  state of emergency.

----------


## Marc

It is increasingly becomming necessary to skip most post written by contributors and concentrate on copies of articles and graphs avoiding with surgical precision all foolish and patronsign comments wich seem to constitute the bulk.  
A bit like a visit to the newsagency where you skim the newspapers headlines, pass over cleo, playboy and those magazine dressed in plastic to check out the boats or blacksmithing magazine. Just like in the shop, it is an additional satisfaction to ignore the crap and still enjoy what I like. 
I must say that I increasingly concurr with Silent's signature.
Crap is so much aboundant!

----------


## johnc

How on earth the Libs could have made the mistake of selecting a loonie like Phelps is beyond me, well known for his comments linking scientists with Nazi's he makes Brandis look like a left winger. What makes his only two deaths comment repugnant is that it is not even true, and it is not hard to work that out. 
Marc is not going to read any posts? there was never any sign that you did mate, or if you have you seem incapable of either understanding or writing plain English.

----------


## Dr Freud

Hey JuLIAR, 
You forgot to mention this about your negotiations:   

> Greens leader Bob Brown says ultimately the carbon price has to result in shutting down the coal industry.  Brown says coal industry will be replaced - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  Another LIE, huh, JuLIAR?  :Doh:  
This country is getting well and truly f---ed by greenie idiots dominating a gutless lying PM!

----------


## Marc

Global warming - Scientific conclusions?*Emissivity and the so called "greenhouse effect"*  
  Emissivity is a problem in the screens that hold ground based thermometers. White paint does not exactly have low emissivity. Picking a best surface is complicated. TiO2 (the stuff that makes white paint white - used to be lead oxides) has an emissivity of 0.77. White paint with :
 a = 0.28
e = 0.87
a/e =.32 
  Obviously does not have an A/e of 1. 
  It is also important to note that painting the inside of screens can also make a difference. 
  Other emissivities of interest:
Wood - planed oak 0.90
Snow 0.85
Water 0.96
Dry soil 0.92
Wet soil 0.95
Brick - common 0.93
Concrete 0.92
Aluminum Polished sheet (I would guess aluminum foil would be similar) 0.05 
  Emissivity changes with temperature a bit. These numbers are from _Infrared System Engineering_ by Richard Hudson JR. 
  Two things to keep clear when thinking about emissivity, it is commonly under stood that emissivity = absorptance. This is just not true for solar radiation. (Comes close for some materials, but not for others. Polished aluminum has an a/e of over 14!) 
  Also, the darkness of a color is not a good judge. I quote from Hudson's fine book:     "We must resist the temptation to estimate the emissivity of a material on the basis of its visual appearance. A good illustration of this point is furnished by snow "   White Paint a = 0.28 e = 0.87 a/e =.32
Sherwin Williams (A8W11)
Concrete a = 0.60 e = 0.88 a/e =.68
Aluminum foil a = 0.15 e = 0.05 a/e = 3.00 (aluminum foil get very hot in the sun for this reason)
Asphalt a = 0.9 e = 0.95 a/e =0.95 (not sure I believe this number?) 
  So the best selection of a surface for a screen would be a low e value combined with a/e close to 1. The understanding of emissivity was not so good when the standards for screens was developed - during the space program it became critical to have craft with an a/e close to 1 and low emissivity so as to not cook or freeze the electronics. 
  It is important to note that solar radiation at the earths surface is *not* black body radiation! 
  The confounding issues I've come across are : 
 1- Negative feed back by the water vapor heat-pump - the moving of the condensation layer to a higher altitudes as temperatures increase - this is further confounded with the strength of convection currents dependent on temperature gradients and has me convinced that clouds would need to be much better modeled to claim any meaningful error band for AGW. 
 Much of cloud formation and precipitation is nonlinear to the point of chaos - even lightning strikes induce changes in rain rates. Prediction of chaos even on small scale systems is computationally intensive. There are also effects of nucleation triggers such as cosmic rays, dust etc that don't seem to be controlled for. 
 2- The interplay of irrigation - a spot check on Wichita I found a historic RH increasing about 5% (I would like to see historical graphs of this (and in other locations) - or just a source of raw data). How can I know that changes in water vapor aren't totally confounding the CO2 story? (The argument that the water vapor is only in the air for about a week is strange as water re-evaporate as it hits the ground and aquifers really have gone down.) 
 3- The interplay of the black body radiation and absorption of CO2 and H2O, spectral emission/absorption, and kinetic transfer.  *Relevant Quotes*  
  Religion provides the means for the ignorant to declare with absolute certainty that they know the unknowable. 
  True wisdom is knowing how little we know for certain 
  "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it." Andre Gide: 
  In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. --Galileo Galileo 
  I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know. -- Mark Twain 
  Inconsistent Truth

----------


## Marc

Global warming - Scientific conclusions?  *Why is Water Vapor Swept Under the Rug?*  
  One of the biggest confounding issues is that of man caused changes in humidity. Almost the entire flow of the Colorado river now goes across the content by air, rather than flowing into the Gulf of California as it did 100 years ago1. Water vapor is also a green house gas - it differs from CO2 in an important way in that it is limited to the lower part of the atmosphere - if it goes higher it condenses, dumping heat in the upper atmosphere. If the temperature is higher, water vapor rises higher and pumps heat to a higher altitude thus forming a negative feed back system that should tend to stabilize temperatures. On the other hand, water vapor is a potent 'green house' gas that blocks the heat flow from the earths surface even better than CO 2. Further complications are due to the fact that the altitude of condensation are effected by dust and even cosmic rays. Much of the water used in irrigation evaporates and only stays in the air for a number of days before being rained out - yet this rain evaporates again continuing the elevated humidity and the heat that is pumped to the upper atmosphere is a climatic effect..On the other hand, CO2 stays in the atmosphere much longer, but once it is removed from the atmosphere tends to stays out. Water vapor in the form of clouds blocks the warming of the earths surface by the sun. Temperature can effect humidity and humidity can effect temperature. This total process is played out in the clouds, something that is not at all well modeled at this time. 
  Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect with carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%. Water vapor, a potent green house gas, averages 25,000ppm of the lower atmosphere compared to CO2 which is only about 360 ppm. The Atmospheric CO2 change is only about +60 ppm. Realize that we are talking about a change in CO2 from 0.030% to 0.036% or a 0.006% change as a percentage of the atmosphere. The global warmers don't use these numbers instead 'warmers' say it increased 30% (for maximum rhetorical effect?). Over the same periods specific humidity has increased several percent and could be a change of 25,000ppm to 26,250ppm or 2.5% to 2.6% or a 0.1% change. This change in water vapor (probably due to irrigation) is about 16 times larger than the change in CO2 near the ground. (remember in the stratosphere is possibly cooling and has very little water vapor). see:  Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis 
  Both CO2 and water vapor have similar emissivityso that any change in greenhouse effect due to CO2 would be swamped by changes in water vapor. One could also speculate that this explains the change in global temperatures at lower altitudes with out effecting the upper atmosphere. But lets not draw conclusions based on speculations. 
  Here is a quote from Reid Bryson, Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences)  *"Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay? ...: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."*If (and I mean IF) man is causing climate change it seems possible it is due to irrigation - not CO2. (Would banning irrigation be a popular political movement?) 
  Atmospheric CO2 may have a slight effect, but there is no proof that man's contribution as a source of CO2 (ESTIMATED at about 4% of all sources) is the reason temperature is slowly trending upward. It is entirely possible that CO2 is going up due to natural variations more than mans contribution - probably not - but the point is that even this is not a scientific fact.(BTW I think we should be taxing oil imports (in place of income taxes) for other reasons.) 
  One other detail - the ice core data shows that increases in CO2 follow warming periods - instead of proceeding them. This is expected, because sea water holds less CO2 as it warms and absorbs more as it cools (a established testable fact!). 
  Low altitude warming has not been established as anything historically out of the ordinary. The data just isn't there to do this. At this time and into the foreseeable future it is unknowable. Being unknowable is the heart of the problem of calling climate speculations,"climate science".

----------


## Marc

*“It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful.”*
Anton LaVey

----------


## Marc

*Global warming - Scientific conclusions?*   *Beware of Regressions - Polynomial and Otherwise: they can fool you*  
  Back when punch cards ran the world, they called it dynamic programing, You would vary all the coefficients of an equation via nested loops until the equation would produce the data with some amount of accuracy. It is a useful tool to help tease out hypotheses from data. 
  Once it works on past history and predicts the set of data it is tempting to think it means something. To really test it, you have to run it and make predictions to be tested with experiment. If the prediction is complex (ie. wave forms) and matches we can assign a confidence. Of course if all we have is a trend - there is only a 50:50 chance that it means anything. The idea that once it predicts the past it will also predict the future is just wrong. If on the other hand, they froze the computer model and collected data over several solar cycles and then ran the model, - over several such runs, we could start to attach a probability of the model's output being predictive.

----------


## Marc

*By H.L. Mencken, famous columnist:* "The  whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and  hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless  series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save  humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."

----------


## Marc

*Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official:*  "We   redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically   it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major   themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion  that  international climate  policy is environmental policy. This has  almost  nothing to do with  environmental policy anymore."

----------


## Marc

*Quote by Noel Brown, UN official:*  "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea   levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.   Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of   "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos." (Editor: Yes, he meant the   year 2000.)  *Quote by George Monbiot, a UK Guardian environmental journalist:*  "...every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an  airline  executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned." *Quote by Jill Singer, Australian green and "journalist":* "I'm prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics - put your strong views to the test by *exposing   yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some   other colourless, odourless gas - say, carbon monoxide."*

----------


## Marc

*Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace:* "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." *Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, and large CO2 producer:*  "I  believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual   presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up  the  audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is  that  we are going to solve this crisis." *Quote by Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency:*  "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less  true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the  environment." *Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist:*  "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have   to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and   make little mention of any doubts we might have." *Quote by Sir John Houghton, pompous lead editor of first three IPCC reports:* If we want a good environmental policy in the future well have to have a disaster.  *Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist:*  "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to   opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the   future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is,   only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get   politicians  and readers  attention. So, yes, climate scientists   might exaggerate, but in todays world, this is the only way to assure   any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the   scientific uncertainty." *Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister:*  No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral   environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance   to bring about justice and equality in the world. *Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator:*  Weve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of   global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of   economic policy and environmental policy. *Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat:* "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect." *Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21":*  "Effective  execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound  reorientation of all  human society, unlike anything the world has ever  experienced a major  shift in the priorities of both governments and  individuals and an  unprecedented redeployment of human and financial  resources. This shift  will demand that a concern for the environmental  consequences of every  human action be integrated into individual and  collective  decision-making at every level." *Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire elitist, primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer:*  Isn't  the only hope for the planet that the industrialized  civilizations  collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that  about? *Quote by Gus Hall, former leader of the Communist Party USA:*  "Human  society cannot basically stop the destruction of the  environment under  capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that  makes it possible." *Quote by Peter Berle, President of the National Audubon Society:* "We reject the idea of private property." *Quote by Jack Trevors, Editor-in-Chief of Water, Air, & Soil Pollution:*  "The capitalistic systems of economy follow the one principal rule: the  rule of profit making. All else must bow down to this ruleThe current  USA is an example of a failed capitalistic state in which essential  long-term goals such as prevention of climate change and limitation of  human population growth are subjugated to the short-term profit motive  and the principle of economic growth."

----------


## Dr Freud

Hands up any Aussies who want to pay more TAX to make the Planet Earth colder?  :Biggrin:  
You see, you usually have your hands up when you're being robbed.  :Wink 1:  
But I think the Planet is cold enough where I am.  I'd love it if we could heat it up a few degrees. 
Apologies for the break, but I'll try to get back into the saddle this weekend. 
Can't wait for BIG NEW TAX Sunday.  
Oh yeh, can someone remind me again how much colder the Planet will be after we wreck our economy?  :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Hands up any Aussies who want to pay more TAX to make the Planet Earth colder?  
> You see, you usually have your hands up when you're being robbed.  
> But I think the Planet is cold enough where I am.  I'd love it if we could heat it up a few degrees. 
> Apologies for the break, but I'll try to get back into the saddle this weekend. 
> Can't wait for BIG NEW TAX Sunday.  
> Oh yeh, can someone remind me again how much colder the Planet will be after we wreck our economy?

   *Zero Degrees*

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Zero Degrees*

  That's good.   
I don't want it getting any colder.   

> It's not only southeastern Australia feeling the chill, Perth residents are facing their longest cold spell in 25 years. Since last Friday it has stayed colder than 17 degrees, the longest run of cold in the city since June 2005, when there were also six consecutive days as cold. It will take at least until this weekend before it warms past 17, so Perth is on target for its longest run since 1986.  Meteorology.com.au, current BOM weather forecasts, warnings, radar and satellite images

  Where's all the heat hiding, my power bills are skyrocketing while I try to stop from freezing to death!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Deputy Greens leader Christine Milne is just the latest to confirm that this carbon dioixde tax wont change the climate. From her press conference this morning:   _The (tax level of $23 a tonne) price will not be high enough to drive the transition to renewables._She twice refused to give a guarantee that this tax would even achieve the Governments target of a 5 per cent cut in our 2000 emissions by 2010. Which wouldnt cut the temperature, either.     Milne confirms: the tax won’t push us to renewables | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Utterly useless environmentally, yet economically destructive. 
Lucky the moronic Greens have hijacked billions of our tax dollars to spend on more failed green dream schemes:   

> How is it that the Greens, with just a single member in the House of Representatives, get to announce the latest policy of the Gillard Government?   _AN independent authority has been established to manage $3.2 billion of renewable energy funding. _   _ The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) will disperse funds as it sees fit in order to best support renewable energy research, development, commercialisation and demonstration, Australian Greens deputy leader Christine Milne said today. _   _It has been obvious for years that renewable energy programs in Australia are a mess of badly designed schemes run as photo opportunities rather than helping build the industry, Senator Milne told reporters in Canberra._  _ARENA will change all that._And trust that policy to be yet another green bureaucracy, devoting billions to the kind of green schemes that the Productivity Commission last month warned were wasteful.

  That's more of your billions they're going to waste.  How do I know?    

> _When comparing the rates achieved by Catholic Schools to those achieved by public schools in those states $1.53 billion was wasted under the program. Although it is fairest to compare public schools with Catholic schools because they have similarly centralised control structures, when comparing public schools to independent schools that figure blows out to $2.57 billion._   _BER waste tops $1.5 billion | The Australian_

   
JuLIAR wants you to pay more tax so she can turn your hard work into green waste.  
Awesome, huh?  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Disgraceful:  _Activist group Get Up has been accused of blackmail after sending a warning letter to 150 companies including Coca-Cola, Heinz, Kraft, McDonalds, Schweppes and Nestle._  _Get Up says it will urge its 570,000 members to boycott goods and services that are linked to the scare campaign._  _Get Up confirmed it was prepared to mount a national boycott of the products of any company that was holding our climate to ransom by supporting a multi-million-dollar anti-tax advertising campaign by business._Merely holding the wrong opinion can have a Labor-linked activist group threaten you with ruin:    _Weve asked company CEOs to answer a series of questions, including whether they accept the science of climate change, whether they back a carbon price, and whether they would consider resigning from the industry body, and we intend to make that information public..._ _Its time more people realised the GetUps power is wildly overstated. Those more than 400,000 members it boasts are just names on petitions. Fewer than 18,000 people have actually sent it money - less than $100 each on average._  _Time we heard from Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten, a founding director of GetUp, what he thinks of this latest attack on free speech. _   _The new warming McCarthyists | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  __ 
Their scientific argument failed cos it was based on psychic computers.  :Doh: 
Their economic argument failed cos it was based on greeneconomic fiction.  :Doh: 
Their public support failed cos JuLIAR is, well, a LIAR.  :Doh:  
So these AGW hypothesis believers resort to threats and blackmail, against Australian workers.  :Doh:  
This joke would be hilarious if it was another country.  :Cry:

----------


## jross

Cripes I signed up in this forum because I thought this thread had died from exhaustion, silly me.
 Ah well Ill try again in a month or so. Bye.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Cripes I signed up in this forum because I thought this thread had died from exhaustion, silly me.
>  Ah well Ill try again in a month or so. Bye.

  Don't bother champ, I'll still be here next month.  I've just been busy recently earning more money to pay my power bills and trying to keep warm.  Lucky I'm not a pensioner, eh. 
But I already have the exact date this thread will end. 
It will be the day after the next election when Prime Minister Tony Abbott declares the Carbon Dioxide Tax *dead, buried and cremated!*  :Biggrin:  
I guess we'll chat again after that.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

JuLIAR executed the political murder of Kevin Rudd. 
She's now in the final stages of her political suicide over this ridiculous Carbon Dioxide Tax:    
Turning your back on the elected representatives of Australians is contemptible.   

> In 2011, only 38 per cent of Australians support a [S]price on carbon[/S]sic (CARBON DIOXIDE TAX would be less?), but Julia Gillard looks likely to win parliamentary approval for hers. Climate policy turning politics upside down

  Turning your back on Australians themselves is political suicide. 
Goodbye JuLIAR! 
How long till Kev's back?   

> Laurie Oakes: _Labors desperation was reflected in gossip about the leadership in Parliament House over the past few days._  _A small group of MPs from the partys right was said to have discussed leadership options early in the week._  _It was claimed Bill Shorten had told colleagues he did not believe he would be ready to assume the role this side of the next election._  _Other names were allegedly canvassed._If not Shorten, then its someone who can at least manage the slide to defeat with dignity (Simon Crean) or someone who is the last hope of a party so depserate theyd rather win under someone they despised than lose under someone they liked. 
>   Hello, Kevin.     Oakes: leadership talks, but Shorten shy | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  These people are supposed to be leading this great country of ours to increased prosperity and security. 
Is that the feeling you're getting?  :No:  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *PRIME Minister Julia Gillard has acknowledged many Australians are worried as she prepares to sell her carbon emissions tax plan to the nation.  * "Most people will find that when all is said and done, they are not a cent behind," she said.  
> "And many will come out ahead."   Gillard acknowledges many are worried about carbon tax plan | Herald Sun

  So there is no incentive to use less electricity then. 
If anything, those coming out "ahead" will have more money and can leave the HEATER on longer. 
So carbon dioxide emissions actually go up using this ridiculous scheme. 
If I believed in the AGW hypothesis religion, I'd be very angry at this useless, if not counterproductive measure to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.  :Biggrin:   
JuLIAR, you're the Australian that's most worried, and you should be!  :Biggrin:   
And if you watch her speech tomorrow, concentrate VERY HARD. 
You need to listen for how much COLDER the Planet Earth will be after this debacle, cos I'm already freezing.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Given what we know about the cost structures of the various means of generating electricity, it is absolutely clear the tax will not be high enough to induce the behavioural change that is the purpose of the tax in the first place. It is what I like to call a homeopathic approach to dealing with CO2 emissions. 
> The first thing is that providing compensation to households actually operates against the purpose of the tax -- which is to change behaviour in order to reduce emissions. And to over-compensate some households suggests that the government has snuck in a redistributive objective to the tax. 
> Rather than simply reducing CO2 emissions in Australia, the real point of the carbon tax is to make a contribution to reducing global emissions. Only if there is a global effort will there be any impact on the climate and average temperatures.  
> Using the theorem of the "tragedy of the commons", however, the notion that all nations will get on board to reduce their emissions is fanciful. As a consequence, Australia's efforts alone -- contributing under 2 per cent of global emissions -- will be insignificant. An heroic assumption is required that our efforts will prompt other countries to follow our example. 
> Without equivalent global action, particularly among our competitor nations, measures will be necessary to prevent carbon leakage whereby local emissions-intensive operations shut down, only to be replaced by a similar operation in another country.  
> But measures to protect or exempt emissions-intensive industries only further complicate the tax package.  
> To secure top marks, overall, students need to point out that the tax must be set high enough to induce behavioural change. Without this, the tax is all compliance costs and unwarranted redistribution. Dealing with the equity considerations by compensating households mutes any behavioural impact and there are many losers from the imposition of the tax in addition.  
> To offset carbon leakage and to accommodate politically dictated special deals means the tax also fails the test of simplicity.   Carbon scheme fails on three key levels | The Australian

  Any wonder why JuLIAR's joke of a policy stinks like a wet dog?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> STEPHEN LONG: A group of international economists, historians and scientists is warning the Gillard Government that moving to an emissions trading scheme is a mistake. The Hartwell Group cautions that the European Union's ETS has been little more than a means for banks and hedge funds to make money. 
> GWYN PRINS: There's not credible evidence that it's had any affect in accelerating reductions in carbon dioxide in Europe. 
> EMMA ALBERICI: Carbon emissions have come down in Europe over the past seven years, but economists say that's down to a deep recession that's seen a slump in production. 
> According to the Hartwell Group, not only has the emissions trading scheme not delivered a difference in emissions, it's also opened opportunities for corrupt behaviour, allowing people to buy credits in one country only to sell them in another where GST-style taxes are higher. The difference in the prices can net the seller big money. 
> EMMA ALBERICI: Among the dodgy deeds Professor Prins speaks of is a practise that sees companies invest in scams in China that don't lower emissions but distribute carbon credits. Earlier this year, millions of dollars worth of credits were also stolen from the Czech Republic. 
> EMMA ALBERICI: According to many reputable economists, the de-carbonisation of industry in the EU has occurred not faster than it has in the US; a country that has no ETS and in fact has rejected Kyoto.  PM - Europeans warn of ETS perils 08/07/2011

  Any wonder why the banks and investment brokers fully support these schemes?  :Biggrin:  
It'd be real hilarious if it wasn't your money being scammed, eh?  :Roflmao:

----------


## Dr Freud

The impost of JuLIAR's Carbon Dioxide Tax makes the EU ETS version look like chump change. 
Is it any surprise that the rest of the world now sees investing in Australia as risky and expensive.     

> *THE Australian named as co-chair to President Barack Obama's newly created committee on manufacturing has a message for the Australian government: the carbon tax is ill-timed and bad for investment. *  			 		 		Darwin-born Andrew Liveris, who runs the $US54 billion ($50bn) Dow Chemical, thinks a price signal on carbon fails to appreciate that fossil fuels will continue to be the dominant source of energy and suggests the government needs to appreciate the problem more holistically.
> "I think it's not well timed," Liveris told _The Australian_.  
> "The problem with carbon pricing in isolation is that Australia will be on its own in doing this and it may end up becoming a very difficult place for people to come and invest in.   Impost &#039;ill-timed&#039; and puts Australia at a disadvantage | The Australian

  
That's called "sovereign risk" to investors.   
We call it the "The Current Labor Government".  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yesterday she insisted the carbon tax was the right thing to do.    
> "It's the equivalent of saying 'eat your vegetables', I suppose," she told Sydney radio.  
>  But the public doesn't like the taste, according to Newspoll.  Prime Minister Julia Gillard suffers double blow, Newspoll reveals | News.com.au

    
This is just the entree' size.  Wait till your portion sizes start ramping up. 
But just swallow it, don't ask questions, JuLIAR knows what's good for you.

----------


## Dr Freud

This stuff makes me want to vomit.  :Mad:    

> *PRIMARY school children are being terrified by lessons claiming climate change will bring "death, injury and destruction" to the world unless they take action.* 
> On the eve of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's carbon tax package announcement, psychologists and scientists said the lessons were alarmist, created unneeded anxiety among school children and endangered their mental health. 
> Climate change as a "Doomsday scenario" is being taught in classrooms across Australia.
> Resource material produced by the Gillard government for primary school teachers and students states climate change will cause "devastating disasters". 
> Australian National University's Centre for the Public Awareness of Science director Dr Sue Stocklmayer said climate change had been portrayed as "Doomsday scenarios with no way out". 
> Dr Stocklmayer said she was not a climate-change sceptic but worried that "too much time was spent presenting scary scenarios, especially to young people". 
> "(Children) feel incredibly despondent and helpless in the face of all this negative information," she said. "To put all of this before our children ... is one of the most appalling things we can do to (them). 
> Child psychologist Kimberley O'Brien also said the language of climate change should be "toned down". 
> "(Educators) should stick to the facts," she said. 
> ...

   This is not science. 
This is religious indoctrination based on fear.    :Death:

----------


## Dr Freud

You can watch this actual climate scientist first. 
Then watch JuLIAR's speech on her TAX and how it will make the Planet Colder. 
Then watch the climate scientist again in the afternoon to check how JuLIAR's TAX fits into the science.   

> On _The Bolt Report_ on Sunday - Professor Richard Lindzen, the climate scientist even Tim Flannery recommends, tells us the brutal facts about Julia Gillards carbon dioxide tax.    
>   Norm Sanders, the first green campaigner elected to an Australian parliament, and _Australian_ columnist Janet Albrechtsen discuss the Greens today. The beginning of the end? 
>   Gerard Henderson on GetUp - and a prize for the Hypocrite of the Week. 
>   Channel 10 at 10am and 4.30pm.    
>   UPDATE    
>   Tomorrows program will put the lie to this:  _What debate? There is no debate in the scientific community about this, says Steffen, 64, the executive director of the ANUs Climate Change Institute_ Tips for Saturday, July 9 | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Oh yeh, don't forget to eat your vegies and terrify your kids like *nanny-state* wants.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

It starts with "I'll just put it in for a minute", then before you know it you have 5 kids and a mortgage.  :Biggrin:  
This is a heads up for the young people looking for a greenie quickie feel good moment:   

> *THE government's claim that it will provide permanent compensation to 70 per cent of households for its carbon tax is based on a false premise: that the Australian government will receive the revenues from the tax and of permit sales in the subsequent emissions trading scheme.  * For the government knows the community has no stomach for the costs its tax will impose. No wonder it has abandoned the politics of conviction for those of make-believe. And no wonder it is poised to promise compensation it has no way of providing.  Black hole in government&#039;s carbon tax compensation plan | The Australian

  If you care about your country, read this to avoid hurting the country you care about. 
If you care more about the Planet's environment, read this to see how it won't be helped at all. 
If you care about neither, then you are Julia Gillard looking for a political fix.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Julia Gillard confrirms on Sky News that she will start spending taxpayer dollars on advertising her carbon dioxide tax a full year before it comes into force, and before its even legislated. 
>   Your taxes, Labors propaganda.     Gillard says she’ll take your cash to sell her tax | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Cool, huh! 
Just rack up the debt we owe to China to fund Labor Party TV ads. 
From $0 to $200,000,000,000 ($200 billion) in just 4 years. 
That's not even including the approx $100,000,000,000 ($100 billion) of *our* savings that have disappeared in the last 4 years. 
And what do we have to show for it?  :Confused:    

> *Total Commonwealth Government Securities
>          	  on Issue - $194,442m  AOFM – Home*

  I reckon they could easily double that debt with another term in office.  :Biggrin:  
And as a result of excising fuel, there will likely now be a budgetary drain from their carbon dioxide tax.  More debt?

----------


## Dr Freud

Suddenly 500 of the 1000 "evil polluters" are the now "good guys".   

> Fewer companies means the rest must pay even more, or the tax will be even more useless in cutting emissions - and the worlds temperature:   _  JULIA Gillards decision to exclude fuel has narrowed the reach of the carbon tax to about 500 companies - half the 1000 biggest polluters the Prime Minister insisted should pay._  _Government sources cited the fuel decision as the major reason the reach of the scheme had been pared back to cover fewer companies than the 700-800 that would have been liable to pay for emissions under Kevin Rudds aborted 2009 carbon pollution reduction scheme._Then again, the whole point of the governments strategy is to introduce the tax in a deceptively painless way, relatively speaking, and only crank it up after the election. 
>   UPDATE 
>   More useless, and more ruinous:   _But the cost of the plan, which was to be broadly revenue neutral, has blown out to about $4 billion over four years from its start on July 1 next year. Most of the extra costs come upfront, from implementing the scheme._Remember: this is an investment to make us less competitive, not more. 
>   And the starting price, according to The Age? $23 a tonne.    Even more pointless | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  What a debacle!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Our own government MP's have no idea what will be announced tomorrow. 
But the Greens do. 
Who do you think is running the country now?   

> Signs of stress: _PRIME Minister Julia Gillard will hold an unprecedented national telephone conference with her entire backbench on Sunday to soothe anger among MPs left in the dark about the carbon tax. _  _The teleconference was booked for all 103 Labor MPs and senators to give them a few hours notice of what is in the tax package before it is released to the public on Sunday._  _Many are expressing anger over Ms Gillards refusal to tell her own MPs what is in the carbon tax plan, despite independent MPs and Greens already being in the loop._  _The frustrations within Ms Gillards caucus have reached new levels, with some MPs reportedly having confronted Ms Gillards office about it this week. _   UPDATE    
>   Gillard will *brief Greens MPs* on her carbon dioxide tax *on Saturday*.    
>   She will *brief Labor MPs* on her carbon dioxide tax *on Sunday*.    
>   Says it all.   Labor MPs get toey | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Certainly does say it all.  :Biggrin:

----------


## PhilT2

From $0 to $200,000,000,000 ($200 billion) in just 4 years. 
Where did you get that $0 from?
And did you get to hear Monckton while he was in Perth?

----------


## chrisp

> Cripes I signed up in this forum because I thought this thread had died from exhaustion, silly me.
>  Ah well Ill try again in a month or so. Bye.

  You could try coming back after Sunday night.  The carbon price and mechanism will have been set (and set to pass in parliament) and announced. 
BTW, welcome to the forum!   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> From $0 to $200,000,000,000 ($200 billion) in just 4 years. 
> Where did you get that $0 from?

  These numbers are an over-simplification of factors including net debt, gross debt, budget surpluses, budget deficits, forward estimates, future funds, infrastructure funds, national asset values, and GDP calculations. 
If you want the lowest gross debt figure to match the current approx. $194 billion one, from memory when Howard left it was about $55 billion. 
But if you cared that much about economics, you wouldn't be voting Green anyway, so just more semantic distraction again. 
I love how you are interested in these semantic calculations, yet care not about the state sanctioned terrorising of Australian children. 
Or the flagrant waste of our taxpayer money. 
Or the blatant LIES continually told by an Australian Prime Minister. 
I guess you guys sure have your priorities set right, huh?  :Doh:    

> And did you get to hear Monckton while he was in Perth?

  Unfortunately no, busy with work.  It was a freezing cold night, so I would have loved the irony of attending a global warming sceptics presentation with the buildings heating going full throttle burning coal.  :Biggrin:  
Plus Jo Nova was probably there too, and she's a hotty, so would be enough to warm up the building anyway.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You could try coming back after Sunday night.  The carbon price and mechanism will have been set (and set to pass in parliament) and announced.

  So are you saying that you support a carbon dioxide tax because you think it will make the Planet Earth COLDER? 
Or are you just flying the greenie flag for ideologies sake?   

> BTW, welcome to the forum!

  Probably won't get a reply for about a month mate.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Oh no.  Do I watch Insiders or The Bolt Report (or stay in my warm bed  :Cold: ).   

> *Our Perth edition will be shown at 9am*, not 10am, because of Julia Gillards tax announcement.  
>   Everywhere else stays on 10am, but my 4.30pm edition will have an update on the package with Terry McCrann.    
>   Ill also be back at 9pm on Sunday night for a carbon dioxide tax special, with Hugh Riminton hosting, and John Hewson and Erwin Jackson - two warmists.

  We always get the short end of the stick over here in the West.  Gotta start building that wall... :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Julia Gillard on Thursday:  _The plan I will announce on Sunday will be a plan to cut 160 million tonnes of carbon pollution by 2020._So what difference would this make to the worlds temperatures? 
>   Lets assume the climate really is as sensitive to carbon dioixde as the IPCC has claimed - a very big assumption - and lets accept the calculations presented in _Nature_:  _The team used a combination of global climate models and historical climate data to show that there is a simple linear relationship between total cumulative emissions and global temperature change Until now, it has been difficult to estimate how much climate will warm in response to a given carbon dioxide emissions scenario because of the complex interactions between human emissions, carbon sinks, atmospheric concentrations and temperature change. The new research shows that, despite these uncertainties, each emission of carbon dioxide results in the same global temperature increase, regardless of when or over what period of time the emission occurs._  _These findings mean that we can now say: if you emit that tonne of carbon dioxide, it will lead to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change._So the calculations. Gillards massive taxes and billions in subsidies for green powers will over the next decade avert 0.00024 degrees of warming, providing she does all she claims she will, and provided global warming theory works as advertised.    
>   And to achieve even that, how much will Gillard have to rachet up her tax over the next decade?    
>   UPDATE  
> Double oops. I was right the first time. My correction to my correct calculations has been omitted. Sorry,   For all that pain, here’s a calculation of the gain | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

   *over the next decade avert 0.00024 degrees of warming* 
Does anyone have a thermometer with five decimal places so we can check if it actually worked?  :Doh:  
And I'm sure the economic destruction will be worth it.  :No:  
I wonder if JuLIAR will mention this temperature change tomorrow?  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> So are you saying that you support a carbon dioxide tax because you think it will make the Planet Earth COLDER? 
> Or are you just flying the greenie flag for ideologies sake?

  I'm not flying the "greenie flag" for any political ideologies (you need to look closer to home regarding ideological motives).  It is simply a scientific fact that man-made CO2 is effecting the environment and we (collectively) need to do something about it.  How much "COLDER" will it become?  who knows at this early stage - it is mainly an aim of reducing the RISE at this stage.  Anyway, you are well aware of all this.   
The "carbon" tax is pretty much *inevitable* at this stage - and this is a good thng.  Without some sort of price mechanism, there won't be much change.  All you can do is pin your hopes on Mr Abbott remaining opposition leader _and_ winning the next election _and_ having the ability to rescind the carbon tax (somehow without the support of the Senate) - good luck!  More likely, Malcolm will be leader of the opposition and the tax will remain. 
Bring on Sunday!  :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> *over the next decade avert 0.00024 degrees of warming* 
> Does anyone have a thermometer with five decimal places so we can check if it actually worked?  
> And I'm sure the economic destruction will be worth it.  
> I wonder if JuLIAR will mention this temperature change tomorrow?

  So, DO I take it that you and Andrew Bolt both now agree that CO2 is driving temperature change?  Gee it is hard to follow the denialists arguments at times - just what is their argument?  Someone is even arguing that the greenhouse-effect is false! 
Also, maybe you would like to redo Andrew's shonky calculation - but work out Australia's reduction to Australia's contribution.  As you know, Andrew is using a *false basis* for his calculation.  It is a bit like the Alan Jones' claim of reducing CO2 over the whole atmoshpere (i.e. the whole world - and the whole atmosphere - NOT just the CO2 component). 
So (here is a trick question), how much extra tax will you pay under the proposed carbon tax?

----------


## Dr Freud

It used to be a land of droughts and flooding plains.  (Unless you believe in the AGW Hypothesis). 
But what has become of this wide brown land for me?   

> HERE are some things I never thought Id see in this country I love.  
>  I never thought Id see academics sign a petition demanding someone be stopped from simply arguing.    
>   But in Western Australia last week, thats just what was done by 50 academics, from professors to a PhD candidate specialising in the representation of the Salvation Army in Finnish cinema, who demanded the University of Notre Dame stop warming sceptic Christopher Monckton from speaking there.    
>  Ive seen pictures of people being silenced for heresy before, of course, but they were in history books, drawn from inquisitions centuries ago, in another continent.    
>   But this is Australia. Today.    
>  Ive read another professor, this time Emeritus Professor David Shearman, of Doctors for the Environment Australia, propose the world be run by an authoritarian government of environmental guardians.    
> And last week I watched in amazement as Greens leader Bob Brown suggested we give up our sovereignty to a global peoples assembly.    
>  Id heard of such things in pre-Nazi Germany or the more oppressive Muslim theocracies, or read them in the pages of the wildest-eyed dreamers of a century ago.    
>   But this is Australia. Today.     Column - Things I never thought I’d see here | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  More at the link, comrades.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *TAXPAYERS are paying nearly $1 million to market test the Gillard government's carbon tax sales pitch. 				 * The contracts are funded under an $8.2 million allocation in the latest federal budget for a climate change information campaign.  
> The government has also announced a $12 million taxpayer-funded advertising campaign on its carbon tax.  
> Ms Gillard used the clean energy future phrase on Monday when announcing a carbon tax deal had been reached by the multi-party climate change committee. 
> It's understood the government favours the phrase clean rather than renewable, as it can also be used to refer to cheap and plentiful natural gas.  
> The market research contract with Open Mind Research was published on the government tenders site early last month. 
> Open Mind describes itself as one of Australia's leading market and social research consultancies.  
> "We build understanding from the ground up, testing assumptions about how people think and behave," its website says.  
> "A key aspect of what we do is to develop models of the complex attitudes and behaviours that people exhibit when they are living their lives and making choices."  Taxpayers fund focus group testing of Gillard government&#039;s carbon price campaign | The Australian

  Awesome investment of our taxpayer dollars, huh?  :Doh:  
Aussies have spat out this sh-- sandwich, and rather than remake it, JuLIAR's using our money to convince us we got it wrong, and this sh-- actually tastes good. 
You'll get to see the start of this latest spin campaign tomorrow, paid for by you.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You could weep for this nation. The Govenrment thats just accidentally killed the live cattle trade now promises not to kill power stations, too - well, not immediately - if we just let it spend more billions on its perfectly useless plan to save the world from global warming: _COAL-FIRED power stations facing losses as a result of the $20-$25 a tonne carbon price to be announced this weekend will be offered immediate access to emergency federal government loans to head off financial failure and ensure energy supplies for southeast Australia._  _But compensation for the coal industry, which faces a carbon tax bill of $18 billion to 2020, has been cut by $275 million from Kevin Rudds offer under the carbon pollution reduction scheme._  _Labor has long flagged that its carbon pricing plan, to be unveiled on Sunday, would be budget-neutral, with compensation to help households and business cope with higher costs fully funded by the money raised from the tax._  _But political decisions to exempt petrol and lift household compensation - along with the Greens insistence that carbon tax revenue not be used to compensate big polluters - means the government is being forced to rely on its taxpayer-funded budget contingency fund to support power plants._  _The move marks a departure from previous policy for Julia Gillard. In late January, the Prime Minister declared the contingency fund was not a rainy-day fund when asked why the government did not tap it for the Queensland flood reconstruction._This is complete madness.  _The loans will be on offer before the carbon tax legislation is scheduled to be introduced in September, amid fears high carbon-emitting power stations such as Loy Yang in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria and Playford in Port Augusta in South Australia will be hit hard by the carbon price and will be unable to refinance their debts, maintain their generating plant or continue profitably._  _Power industry sources last night said the loan guarantees did nothing to protect investors equity in the assets, and an impairment of equity could represent a sovereign risk issue and deter future investment._And for what? The worlds temperature, which hasn;t risen in a decade anyway, wont be affected at all. 
>   This Government is putting our power supplies and tens of thousands of jobs at risk simply to make the most futile gesture. 
>   UPDATE 
>   Boiler-maker John Webb tries to stop it: _DEAR Julia Gillard, _  _I have lived in the community of Morwell and worked in the power industry all my life. I want you to know how your carbon tax will affect us._His letter makes powerful sense. 
>   UPDATE 
>   Oops. Just another unforeseen consequence of a tax thats supposed to make us do planet-friendly stuff like catch public transport: _PUBLIC transport could become collateral damage from the governments carbon tax, says a leading transport expert. Professor John Stanley from the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies at Sydney University told a transport summit in Canberra that the governments carbon tax, to be announced on Sunday, could harm public transport._  _Under the carbon tax agreement between Labor, the Australian Greens and independent MPs only fuel for cars and light commercial vehicles will be exempt._  _At the moment we (public transport) probably look like were collateral damage, Prof Stanley said._And what difference to the temperature will killing our power stations make? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Great huh? 
- Power plants going bankrupt purely through this inept government (sovereign risk). 
- Now more billions of our dollars from the contingency fund will also disappear into a green dream scheme uncovering more of JuLIAR's previous LIES:   

> Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard on Friday defended her plan for a one-off tax to pay for the flood disaster, insisting there was no "big pile of money" to fund the rebuilding. 
> But on Friday Gillard said she could not dip into a government contingency fund, held to cover unexpected blowouts 
> "It doesn't just sit there, this is not a magic pot of money that can be rolled out in the face of an *unprecedented natural disaster*." 
> Gillard said the contingency reserve was designed to keep the budget on track and was only dipped into if funded programmes, such as demand-driven ones such as subsidised doctors appointments, needed to be topped up.  Australian PM defends floods tax - FRANCE 24

  So if we can't use the contingency fund for an *unprecedented natural disaster*(which it wasn't, JuLIAR), this means JuLIAR's TAX plan must be worse than an *unprecedented natural disaster,* cos now we are set to use it. 
- And cos petrol is now exempt, but public transport fares are going up, there is more incentive to drive more. 
I am truly stunned that a third of Australians still say they support this farce.  But then again, they could be the terrified school kids answering the phone poll.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

I think it is worthwhile hearing from John. 
His sentiments no doubt reflect those of many Aussies in relation to this debacle:      

> *DEAR Julia Gillard, * 
> I have lived in the community of Morwell and worked in the power industry all my life. I want you to know how your carbon tax will affect us. 
> In this region, weve already been through the privatisation of the industry which saw a lot of jobs fall by the wayside and we cant afford to lose any more with the carbon tax.  
> This time around it will be worse, because last time around the facilities were still there but they wont be if the power stations have been shut down because its not a wise business decision for these power companies to continue. 
> The station where I work as a boilermaker, Hazelwood, its more than likely that will be the first station that will close.  
> There are approx 880 direct employees, so I would say in the region it would cost 3500 odd jobs in the area gone if all were to close and these jobs are not replaced with anything.
> The people that are going to hurt the most are the people who try to reduce their power usage. So its the pensioners, low income earners, families on tight budgets, because theyve got very limited ability to use less power. 
> A carbon tax will lead to the closure of the power stations which will affect the housing market and the prices in Morwell.  
> We wont be able to give houses away. Our properties wont be worth anything, we wont be able to sell them no matter what price tag we put on them. 
> ...

  You're a good man John.  You know we can get rid of this nonsense at the next election.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Learn from Germanys solar power, insists Greens leader Bob Brown:   _SENATOR BOB BROWN: Well, it is the way to go. The Greens have recently rescued the proposals for base load solar power stations, which will go in rural and regional Australia to make sure they are progressing.... We want this country to be at the cutting edge. I repeat, the example is firm and true. In Germany, where they did this because the Greens were in the balance of power, they have created 350,000 jobs. It was the strongest component of the German economy during the recent recession. Its good economics._Two years ago, Germany unveiled its latest planet-saving (and heavily subsidised) solar park: 
>   The_ Leipziger Volkszeitung_ newspaper trilled:   _The park is finally realized, beams mayor Carina Radon (CDU) nowadays, and praised the 7.5 million Euro investment. 36,300 modules will be installed in the weeks ahead. It will generate an annual amount of 2.7 million kilowatt-hours. The facility will produce a peak amount of 2722 kilowatts._ No, it wont. Not now:     Germany’s solar plans have weeds on it | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  More failed green dream schemes.  :Doh:

----------


## johnc

The only way to save Morwell is if they stop coal mining, Just like the nearby town of Yallourn that was raised to get the coal beneath it eventually Morwell will be raised for the extensive reserves it sits on.  
You only have to look at the health statistics of the town to find out how great coal is, particularly respitory illness and longetivity, not great reading. Despite all of that it is an area that has had a tough time from the damage done to it by the Liberals under Kennett, and if we transition from coal the Latrobe Valley will need assistance and it didn't get enough when the power plants were privatised. The biggest issue is the loss of well paid positions as many of these people would have difficulty ever getting similar pay with their particular skill sets.

----------


## Dr Freud

> It is simply a scientific fact that man-made CO2 is effecting the environment

  It is simply a scientific fact that my farts are too, but it's scientific empirical proof of the quantum of the effect that matters.   

> and we (collectively) need to do something about it.

  Do you mean WE Australians paying the TAX? 
Cos no-one else is paying this TAX.   

> How much "COLDER" will it become? who knows at this early stage - it is mainly an aim of reducing the RISE at this stage. Anyway, you are well aware of all this.

  Okay question dodger, how much will we reduce the RISE in temperatures by? (Just ignore that in reality global average temperatures pretty much stopped increasing a decade ago anyway from our gradual natural rise out of the last Little Ice Age.)   

> The "carbon" tax is pretty much *inevitable* at this stage - and this is a good thng.  Without some sort of price mechanism, there won't be much change.

  According to your response above, you believe there won't be much change with this sort of price mechanism, being a carbon dioxide TAX.  So please explain why this is a good thing, either *environmentally* or *economically*??? JuLIAR says that it is a good thing on both counts, just cut and paste some of her LIES if you can't come up with anything.    

> All you can do is pin your hopes on Mr Abbott remaining opposition leader _and_ winning the next election _and_ having the ability to rescind the carbon tax (somehow without the support of the Senate)

  Call me an optimist.  :Biggrin:  
And he will have the support of a Shorten led Labor opposition in the Senate.  :2thumbsup:  
If Shorten doesn't back the repeal, we can go back for double dissolution and wipe out the Greens for good, plus lose a few more Labor seats for again treating Australians with contempt.  :Wink 1:    

> More likely, Malcolm will be leader of the opposition and the tax will remain.

  You must have missed my posts comparing Turnbull to Abbott.  You may want to read them to avoid making these hilarious comments.  :Biggrin:    

> Bring on Sunday!

  Yes, bring it on.  I haven't seen a political suicide this good in years. 
The biggest winner from all this is Whitlam, he will never be used as the benchmark for Prime Ministerial incompetence again.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> So, DO I take it that you and Andrew Bolt both now agree that CO2 is driving temperature change? Gee it is hard to follow the denialists arguments at times - just what is their argument? Someone is even arguing that the greenhouse-effect is false!

  So, DO I take it that you can't read or can't comprehend? 
From me:  

> *IF*, and that's a lotta big *IF's*...

  From Bolta:  

> *Lets assume* the climate really is as sensitive to carbon dioixde as the IPCC has claimed - *a very big assumption* - and *lets accept* the calculations presented in _Nature_:

  *If* I have been incorrectly *assuming* you know what these words mean, then lets *accept* that I am at fault?  :Doh:    

> Also, maybe you would like to redo Andrew's shonky calculation - but work out Australia's reduction to Australia's contribution.

  You mean for Australia's atmosphere?    

> As you know, Andrew is using a *false basis* for his calculation.

  Please explain how, it looked like a pretty good psychic prediction to me?  :Biggrin:    

> It is a bit like the Alan Jones' claim of reducing CO2 over the whole atmoshpere (i.e. the whole world - and the whole atmosphere - NOT just the CO2 component).

  Sorry, I don't listen to Alan Jones, so have no idea what he said.   

> So (here is a trick question), how much extra tax will you pay under the proposed carbon tax?

  So (here is NOT a trick answer), once we see the legislation, I'll let you know.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The only way to save Morwell is if they stop coal mining, Just like the nearby town of Yallourn that was raised to get the coal beneath it eventually Morwell will be raised for the extensive reserves it sits on.  
> You only have to look at the health statistics of the town to find out how great coal is, particularly respitory illness and longetivity, not great reading. Despite all of that it is an area that has had a tough time from the damage done to it by the Liberals under Kennett, and if we transition from coal the Latrobe Valley will need assistance and it didn't get enough when the power plants were privatised. The biggest issue is the loss of well paid positions as many of these people would have difficulty ever getting similar pay with their particular skill sets.

  So in your fantasy world, do we compensate all these families, households and businesses after we shut down the valley?  
And all the other coal power plants in accordance with the governments intention? 
Do you have any idea what this will cost? 
Or do we send them all to Centrelink with bankrupt mortgage loans and business loans? 
That will no doubt do wonders for their health, eh?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> AUSTRALIA risks falling desperately behind in much-needed improvements to the nation's transport, ports and water infrastructure and may not be able to fund up to $86 billion in projects without urgent reforms, a key Gillard government adviser has warned in a report that sounds alarm bells on productivity.   Infrastructure boss Rod Eddington warns of $86bn threat to productivity | The Australian

  The governments racked up so much debt they can't afford it, and their carbon dioxide TAX in now likely budget negative, as opposed to budget neutral, meaning more debt. 
Private investors don't trust this government so they won't pay for it, and the carbon dioxide TAX is just one sovereign risk that terrifies them.  Would you invest in energy, mining, or cattle industries in Australia?  Which industry is next? 
Now they're chasing your superannuation funds to pay for it. 
Happy retirement?  :Cry:  
Socialists are certainly good at one thing, spending other peoples money.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

This is JuLIAR's so called solution:   

> *THE Gillard government is putting together a $3 billion package to promote clean energy, pay for the closure of Australia's dirtiest brown coal-fired power plants and avoid systemic failure of electricity supply in southeast Australia.  * But having exempted petrol from the carbon tax, lifted the renewable energy fund to satisfy Greens' demands and provided finance to keep power stations operating, the government's pledge to keep the carbon tax "revenue-neutral" and not draw directly from taxpayers' funds is under pressure. 
> Sources told The Australian last night that unless there were more funds available to refinance coal-fired power stations and pay for cutting capacity and closing some of the biggest carbon-emitting power plants in Victoria and South Australia, there would be "systemic failure". 
> Coal-fired power generators are faced with devaluation of assets, losses of equity for shareholders and an inability to borrow because of the carbon tax.  
> They need to refinance loans of between $9 billion and $10bn over the next five years as the tax takes effect from July 1 next year.  Climate pact near as PM offers $3bn energy fund | The Australian

  To what is not even a problem:    

> Tweaking computer models like this proves nothing. The real test is in the real world data. The temperature hasnt increased for over a decade. For there to be any faith in the underlying scientific assumptions the world has to start warming soon, at an enhanced rate to compensate for it being held back for a decade.  
>  Despite what the authors of this paper state after their tinkering with an out of date climate computer model, there is as yet no convincing explanation for the global temperature standstill of the past decade.  Breaking: A peer reviewed admission that “global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008″ – Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper Kaufmann et al. (2011) | Watts Up With That?

  We'll just pay more taxes anyway, and instead ship out all our coal to China for them to burn for free. 
But those emissions go into China's atmosphere and don't count for Australia's atmosphere, eh Chrisp?  :Doh:

----------


## johnc

> So in your fantasy world, do we compensate all these families, households and businesses after we shut down the valley?  
> And all the other coal power plants in accordance with the governments intention? 
> Do you have any idea what this will cost? 
> Or do we send them all to Centrelink with bankrupt mortgage loans and business loans? 
> That will no doubt do wonders for their health, eh?

  Are you that blind and that stupid you can't see in front of your nose. The bloke expressing his fears has every reason to be worried. His town has been screwed by every side of politics, instead of endless propagnda why can't you see things for what they are instead of lying continually with selective data and carefully manipulated statistics.

----------


## Dr Freud

Did you link back to the wrong post? Cos yours didn't make much sense.  :No:  
I'll break it down for you.   

> Are you that blind and that stupid you can't see in front of your nose.

  No.   

> The bloke expressing his fears has every reason to be worried.

  That's what I said.   

> His town has been screwed by every side of politics

  So has mine and yours, and they've all also been built and supported by every side of politics, so what's your point?   

> instead of endless propagnda why can't you see things for what they are instead of lying continually with selective data and carefully manipulated statistics.

  So you happily accuse me of lying when I maintain a consistent and coherent argument that is scientifically and economically validated, including links back to all my source data, while at the same time defending JuLIAR's record? 
But aside from that little issue, do you know what a question is*?*  They end with these little thingy's (????) just to avoid ambiguity.  You see, I asked 5 questions that you failed to answer, but instead read some "selective data" and "carefully manipulated statictics" from somewhere?.  Too much mescaline or D9THC by any chance? 
But please allow me to assist, here's a sample of how you might have hypothetically answered:   

> So in your fantasy world, do we compensate all these families, households and businesses after we shut down the valley?

  johnc: Yes, of course.   

> And all the other coal power plants in accordance with the governments intention?

  johnc: Yes, of course.   

> Do you have any idea what this will cost?

  johnc: Ballpark, about half a trillion dollars ($500,000,000,000)   

> Or do we send them all to Centrelink with bankrupt mortgage loans and business loans?

  johnc: No, that's a bit harsh for zero global temperature difference.   

> That will no doubt do wonders for their health, eh?

  johnc: Good point Freud, that could be very traumatic for a lot of men, women and children.  Psychological distress, secondary somatic conditions and other unintended consequences could be a massive social and health impost.  
See, that's wasn't hard was it.  The I would say "Good work johnc, it seems that you've actually thought a bit about what you say rather than just parroting greenie philosophy."

----------


## Dr Freud

This is what happens when you have "A bad tax based on a lie".   

> Vent here while venting is still legal. 
>   The Climate Change Committee deal here.  
>   UPDATE 
>   Some initial, quick thoughts: 
>   - $4.3 billion over four years is going to be spent above what the tax raises to buy off the public with tax cuts and handouts. That’s one wild way to sell a tax, spending more than it raises. 
>  - the compensation must soon run out if the Government doesn’t want to broke. The deal says that after three years, companies can buy offsets overseas for up to half their emissions. This means that costs here will rise, but the revenue to compensate for these rises is sent overseas. 
>  - The Government claims this package will reduce emissions by 160 millions tonnes by 2020. But the immediate tax and spending levels cannot do that. This target can be achieved only with a dramatic raising of the tax. No figure is given for how much of our emissions will be cut by the tax as it. 
>   - The Government refuses to nominate employment effects on the specific industries involved. 
>   - No figure is given for what effect this will have on the world’s temperature. 
> ...

  What a joke! 
How do you introduce a TAX that *costs* the budget billions of dollars a year? 
How do you introduce a TAX that simultaneously *increases* personal income tax rates? 
How do you introduce a TAX that the *Prime Minister says* only 1 in 10 people may pay? 
How do you introduce a TAX to stop the Planet Earth warming and then *admit it won't*?  
What an absolute joke!  
Of the 160 million tonnes to be abated: 
100 million will be bought by shipping *our money* out to overseas countries to buy offsets. 
20 million will be bought by *direct action* means indicated in the coalition policy. 
40 million will *allegedly* be achieved by this massively complex and useless TAX.  
I say allegedly because it relies on a "price signal" changing behaviours.  But with the "price signal" at $9.90 and the "compensation signal" at $10.10, then the price signal actually should work to increase emissions, by being able to afford to leave the HEATER on longer.  :Doh:  
Bring back Whitlam!  :Roflmao2:

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's what JuLIAR thinks:   

> In its essence, it's *incredibly simple*, she said.  Julia Gillard to hand out $1.5bn in cash to sweeten carbon tax impact | The Australian

  What a LIAR! 
You read just the prelim info, let alone the legislation, then let me know if you think it's incredibly simple?  http://www.climatechange.gov.au/gove...eement-pdf.pdf

----------


## watson

I want to know how many free Tim Tams I get

----------


## Dr Freud

I'm still getting my head around how a government introduces a new TAX, but actually costs the budget $3 billion dollars, then overall $4 billion dollars. 
This is bizarre!  How inept can they be? 
Then tries to increase some prices to change behaviour, then overcompensates those increases to most to remove the "price signal".  Then sends most of those billions of taxpayers dollars overseas to dodgy derivative based investment structures that are known to be well rorted. 
Then the Planet Earth gets COLDER? 
Somebody stop the Planet, I'm definitely getting off at the next stop!   

> With all these exclusions and these giveaways, this carbon dioxide tax increasingly seems to be a mere revenue raiser for a government out to redistribute wealth:  _PRIME Minister Julia Gillard will use todays carbon scheme launch to unveil sweeping reform of personal income tax, tripling the tax-free threshold to let most Australians keep at least the first $18,000 they earn each year._  _The Sunday Age can also reveal that fuel for heavy vehicles outside the mining sector will not be subject to the carbon tax, helping to explain why Treasury modelling tips food prices to rise by just 80¢ a week...._  _Overall the scheme is expected to cost consumers a little under $10 a week or $520 a year - including $3.30 a week more for electricity and $1.50 for gas_  _Labor wants to reframe the debate on the carbon tax by entwining it with personal income tax reform based on key elements of the blueprint authored by former Treasury secretary Ken Henry last year._So huge sources of carbon dioxide such as farming, petrol and many heavy vehicles are excluded. Big emitters get compensated. Lots of people are given more money to buy more stuff, like electricity.     *Something doesnt compute, if this really is about stopping apocalyptic global warming.*    
>   Still it will at least make it likelier that we run out of electricity:    _ 
> The Sunday Age understands that Treasury modelling also predicts the scheme will begin to drive dramatic changes in the electricity-generation sector - forecasting that it will not be commercially viable for any new coal-fired plants to be built in Australia. _ Small detail, that. 
>   Then there are those other small little sacrifices -small, for the rest of us, that is:  _IT is the town that built Sydney, supplying cement for the Harbour Bridge and other landmarks, but Kandos in the states central west is the first casualty of the carbon tax.  The towns cement plant will close in four months after Cement Australia said the carbon tax would exacerbate pressures on the business._  _Some of almost 100 workers to lose their jobs have family links with the mill spanning almost a century, with their fathers and grandfathers working there before them.__Another small detail:_  _It was also revealed the scheme will likely cost about $4 billion more than it raises from tax receipts in its the first four years.__ Green tax in pocket, the Government spends, spends, spends | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  _  _ This stuff is truly bizzare! 
Wait till you get all the details about GILLARDBANK.  :Doh:  
Incredibly simple?  Maybe you are JuLIAR.

----------


## watson

Please all check http://www.renovateforum.com/f186/20...87/#post848250

----------


## Dr Freud

> I want to know how many free Tim Tams I get

  The price fix is in Mr Watson (according to Treasury assumptions for Chrisp) :Biggrin: :   

> Tim Tams will increase 0.012c

  Now all you have to do is work out what compensation you will receive, divide that by all the assumed price rises you will have based on maintenance of lifestyle, extract the pro-rata amount allocated to the proportion of grocery prices spent on Tim Tam's, then you will have the surplus or deficit Tim Tam quantity.  :Biggrin:  
Incredibly simple!  :2thumbsup:  
The one thing I can guarantee, they certainly won't melt on the way home in this weather.  :Biggrin:  
But if you were a real greenie, you wouldn't eat Tim Tam's, as there's too much embedded carbon dioxide in their production.  Bean sprouts are chocolatey if close your eyes and imagine hard enough.  :Biggrin:  
But how's this for spooky action at a distance:   

> *over the next decade avert 0.00024 degrees of warming*

   

> *Weet-Bix cereal to rise by 0.00024 cents a biscuit*  Carbon tax: Julia Gillard announces a $23 per tonne price on carbon | Herald Sun

  Oooooooooooh!!!!!!  :Eek:

----------


## intertd6

I'm thinking in the grand scheme of things they are wanting to move to a paper economy, not produce anything, flog the country dry of agriculture, mining, any sort of regional manufacturing & create a vast national park which starts at the edge of capital cities. If it were to keep going this would be the outcome eventually. For so called intelligent people they are ASDADS . And the other side is not much better either.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> *ANGRY Australians have vowed to vote Prime Minister Julia Gillard from office at the next election after today's controversial carbon tax announcement. * Almost 100,000 votes were cast by more than 25,000 people across four polls in News Limited's "Carbon Tax Plebiscite" by 5pm today, with 87.1 per cent saying they planned to change their vote at the next election in light of the tax. 
> "They're calling it 'Carbon Sunday' but I like to refer to today as 'Suicide Sunday' for a PM and three independents," one reader wrote. 
> "I cannot wait until the next election. The Labor Party the Greens and the Independants will answer to the Australian people for what they are inflicting upon us. Revenge is a dish best served cold," wrote another.   Carbon tax: Julia Gillard announces a $23 per tonne price on carbon | Herald Sun

  Love ya work JuLIAR! 
Why don't you waste more of our taxpayer dollars trying to convince us to swallow this *#@&.   

> Ms Gillard confirmed a taxpayer-funded advertising campaign on the carbon price would begin soon.

  Yeh, that'll win us over.  :Doh:  
Maybe it will be starring Cate Blanchett?  :Wink 1:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Being a bit silent on this ATM. 
But welcome to the destruction of Gillard.  It cant make the greens happy, surely? It cant make business happy. It cant make anybody happy.  Totally useless. Totally disgusting politics. 
The Labor party will pay dearly for this.

----------


## chrisp

> I say allegedly because it relies on a "price signal" changing behaviours.  But with the "price signal" at $9.90 and the "compensation signal" at $10.10, then the price signal actually should work to increase emissions, by being able to afford to leave the HEATER on longer.

  Maybe you should check what the price signal is actually doing (and we are only 24 hours out from the announcement):   

> *Shares in carbon sink firms soar* 
> Shares in Carbon Conscious and CO2 Group jumped more than 12 per cent  as investors bet the carbon sink developers would be key beneficiaries  of the governments carbon pricing scheme.
>               In early afternoon trade, Carbon Conscious shares gained 4  cents, or 12.9 per cent, to 35 cents, the highest since December 2009.  Shares in CO2 Group added 3.5 cents, or 14.29 per cent, to 28 cents,  also the highest since December 2009. 
> Read more: Shares in carbon sink firms soar

   

> *Origin says CO2 plan will keep lights on                *   
> Read more: Origin says CO2 plan will keep lights on Origin Energy says consumers can expect the lights to stay on under  the carbon pricing scheme, as it provides enough certainty to the  electricity sector for continued investment in power generation.
>               The energy producer and retailer says arrangements for  the electricity industry are "such that consumers can expect to enjoy a  continued reliable supply of electricity."
>               Managing director Grant King said the carbon price of $23  per tonne was high enough to bring about real progress in reducing  carbon emissions. 
> Read more: Origin says CO2 plan will keep lights on

   

> *Carbon tax pushes airfares higher* 
> Domestic airline passengers will face a price hike after the Gillard government's carbon tax is introduced on July 1 next year.
>               In a statement released today, Qantas said the  government's carbon pricing scheme would  cost the company up to $115  million in the 12 months following the introduction of the new tax, and  it is customers who will pay the bill.
>               Qantas said it would "need to fully pass on the carbon  price to customers, with the price of a single domestic flight ticket to  increase on average by about $3.50 in 2012-13". 
> Read more: Carbon tax pushes airfares higher | Qantas | Virgin

   

> *Coal industry predicts spate of mining closures                *  
> AUSTRALIA'S coalmining axis will shift to the north and west on the  back of the Gillard government's carbon tax, according to industry  leaders left frustrated by the plan revealed yesterday by Prime Minister  Julia Gillard.
>               Despite unveiling a $1.264 billion assistance package for  what it believes will be the worst-affected coal mines, the Gillard  government was accused by the Australian Coal Association of wrongly  anticipating where the tax pain would be felt. Market analysts have long  predicted that small, pure-play coalminers - such as Whitehaven Coal,  New Hope and Gujarat NRE - would be the most affected by the tax and  could have profits fall by close to 4 per cent. 
> Read more: Coal industry predicts spate of mining closures

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I want to know how many free Tim Tams I get

  PM me your address.  I'd be happy to send you a pack just for putting up with this bollocks.

----------


## chrisp

> PM me your address.  I'd be happy to send you a pack just for putting up with this bollocks.

  Careful!  You'll blow your entire tax cut in one go.

----------


## watson

:Rotfl:

----------


## Rod Dyson

How well do you think Our lying PM will fair in the polls in the comming weeks? 
Anyone game to think she will get a lift? 
I am still confident that this tax will not see the light of day.   There are still many hurdles to cross.   The greens refused to back the compensation to the Coal Mines so they need the support of the liberals to get it through.  Fat chance!!   
I cant see any way that the libs will support any part of this scam.  Without it there will be no Carbon Tax.   
Can one of you guys please explain to me how this tax will reduce carbon dioxide levels in Australia?  Also can you please explain how this tax can have an effect on global temeratures.   
Gillard has failed in trying to hood wink the Australian people.   Even the dumbest Australians can see through this farce.  Only those who believe that the resultant wealth re-distibution of this policy is good for Australia will support this Tax.  For surely no-one could possibly justify it on environmental terms, (at least not with any sincerity).   
When it becomes crystal clear,  (not that it's not to most of us already), that her attempt to buy off people has failed to generate any support for this tax, This lying @### will be kicked out of office by her own people.   That is if they can find anyone with balls enough to stand up.  I suspect that the only independent that may get the shakes so bad that he buckles is Windsor.  He may wake up that his only chance and I mean ONLY chance of re-election, is to pull the plug on this Government and "save" Australia. 
Surely you guys who so whole heartedly believe in AGW couldn't be happy with this do nothing farce?  Surely you can call a spade a spade and condem it for its complete and utter failure to address the problem you believe is going to destroy us all.  Be honest with yourself for a minute and anyalize just how this is going to make a difference.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Oh Joy, Oh how sweet, what has she done to the ALP?   She has blown it!!   

> Latest Newspoll shows Labor support collapsing   	  *LABOR'S support has slumped to a record low, with the Coalition at an all-time high as Tony Abbott extends his lead as preferred prime minister over Julia Gillard.				*
> In the two-week lead-up to Sunday's release of the full details of the government's carbon tax package, Labor's primary vote fell three percentage points to a record low of 27 per cent.
> Support for the Coalition rose three percentage points to 49 per cent  its highest primary votes since October 2001.
> Based on preference flows at the 2010 election, the Coalition leads Labor 58 per cent to 42 per cent on a two-party preferred basis.
> Full details of the Newspoll, conducted exclusively for _The Australian_ last weekend, will be published in the newspaper tomorrow.

  To be a fly on the wall in the back bencher's rooms.

----------


## chrisp

> How well do you think Our lying PM will fair in the polls in the comming weeks? 
> Anyone game to think she will get a lift?

   

> Oh Joy, Oh how sweet, what has she done to the ALP?   She has blown it!! 
> Latest Newspoll shows Labor support collapsing             *LABOR'S  support has slumped to a record low, with the Coalition at an all-time  high as Tony Abbott extends his lead as preferred prime minister over  Julia Gillard.               * 
> In the two-week lead-up to Sunday's release of the full details of the  government's carbon tax package, Labor's primary vote fell three  percentage points to a record low of 27 per cent.
> Support for the Coalition rose three percentage points to 49 per cent  its highest primary votes since October 2001.
> Based on preference flows at the 2010 election, the Coalition leads  Labor 58 per cent to 42 per cent on a two-party preferred basis.
> Full details of the Newspoll, conducted exclusively for _The Australian_ last weekend, will be published in the newspaper tomorrow.
> 			
> 		   To be a fly on the wall in the back bencher's rooms.

  Rod, you will be able to look at tomorrow's News Poll and use it as a *base* (it was taken over the 2 weeks leading up to Sunday) as to whether support for Gillard falls or increases.  Who knows which way it'll go?   
Anyway, it sure looks like the carbon tax/ETS will get up. 
BTW, how is Joe Bastardi's Arctic sea ice prediction going?

----------


## Rod Dyson

So Chrisp,  will this Carbon Tax achieve your goals?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Careful!  You'll blow your entire tax cut in one go.

  Well played, sir!  And very true.  But it'd be a small price to pay.   
Mind you....Watson would have to wait quite a while if I was planning to take it out of my tax cut - won't see it for two years and it'll be swamped by our galloping CPI in any case.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So Chrisp,  will this Carbon Tax achieve your goals?

  One could alternatively ask....will it impede them?

----------


## chrisp

> So Chrisp,  will this Carbon Tax achieve your goals?

   

> One could alternatively ask....will it impede them?

  Rod, 
You propose your question in an interesting way.  I've not thought of the carbon tax/ETS/price on carbon (call it what you want) as a solution or "end" in itself nor do I think of it as "my" goal.  It doesn't "achieve" "my" goals in itself.  However, I certainly think it is a big step in the right direction for society as a whole (rather than just me). 
I doubt that a carbon tax of $23/tonne on the top 500 CO2 producers is going to completely change the landscape overnight - but it isn't intended to. 
The tax will help tilt the balance a little more in favour of longterm sustainable energy production technologies (i.e. lower emission or renewable energy).   
In my view, the quality of the political debate has been extremely  poor.  We haven't seen very much leadership.  Governments should be  providing leadership on issues on national (and international)  importance.  I apprecaite that climate change, and the impact of climate  change, is a difficult concept to convey to the general public,  however, governemnts should be educating the general masses better  rather than letting the misinformation persist unchallenged.  Maybe some of the media is pushing its own agendas and distorting the information too? 
I think that Australians have (perhaps unwittingly) installed a very good government.  I find it somewhat strange the references to the "Labor government", or the claims that the Greens or the independents are calling the shots.  The actual reality is that we have a Labor-Green-Independent-Independent-Government.  Individually they can do very little but collectively they govern. 
I doubt that we'd have a (to use the most generic term) price-on-carbon if either of the major parties won government outright.  I think a price-on-carbon is a political hot-potato which neither of the major parties would touch.  However, having a diverse group being forced to work together and make concessions to each other's views has, in my opinion, produced a very good package.

----------


## jross

It surprises me that this keeps going. You have the fat and the ugly on one side paying 
oddles for people who sign as some doctor. Doctor of what, it sounds good doesnt it
 but we all can get doctorates by mail order. Now let us assume this is not so, what is
 this guy doing spending hours of research into post on a fairly obscure websit.
   Eh no Gena has her methods and her billions. Im too old to believe in fairies.
 So what is the arguement, Is carbon destroying our planet?
  Well Im not sure. But I do know this.
   If it is and we dont act now, chances are it will be too late to save us.
   second is that most governments of the world now accept that global warming is real.
   I am reminded of the wise words of an American Indian chief, In two statements and
 from memory
  If you dont know what effect it will have on your childrens children, dont do it.
 And, When all the trees are felled and all the buffalo are dead, then you will find out 
you cant eat money.

----------


## ringtail

" I think that Australians have......installed a very good government " 
Surely you jest ? 
 " (perhaps unwittingly) " Absolutely - Even the labour voters didnt think they were voting for the commu, err, greens. Look what we have now, the commu, err, greens, cupping the nuts of the softly softly commies. I said it before and I'll say it again. All labour has ever done is take from the rich ( in this case 80 k / year is rich) and give to the poor or those who cant be bothered working. Now the single fella earning $80 k a year with a $400 k mortgage paying child support and all the usual costs of living will have less disposable income than joe bumcrack who sits on his @@@@ all day drinking cask goon. Wealth redistribution = Labour, nothing has changed.

----------


## chrisp

> Surely you jest ?

  No.   

> I said it before and I'll say it again. All labour has ever  done is take from the rich ( in this case 80 k / year is rich) and give  to the poor or those who cant be bothered working.

  It seems to me that you are perpetuating the old myth or sterotype that somehow: hard work = rich and weathyand, therfore... poor = lazy I don't know if you seriously believe your own comment, but I certainly don't.  I know many hard working people who aren't wealthy. 
There are many people who work very hard.  Some are fortunate or lucky to earn big bucks doing so.  Other work very hard and only just manage to keep their heads above water. 
Don't fall for using false logic to claim that the poor are lazy or undeserving.  Count yourself lucky if you are fortunate enough to be rich or fortunate enough to be born in the right country/family/time.  There are millions living in povety in the world and I doubt that it is because they are lazy.   :Smilie:

----------


## johnc

> " I think that Australians have......installed a very good government " 
> Surely you jest ? 
> " (perhaps unwittingly) " Absolutely - Even the labour voters didnt think they were voting for the commu, err, greens. Look what we have now, the commu, err, greens, cupping the nuts of the softly softly commies. I said it before and I'll say it again. All labour has ever done is take from the rich ( in this case 80 k / year is rich) and give to the poor or those who cant be bothered working. Now the single fella earning $80 k a year with a $400 k mortgage paying child support and all the usual costs of living will have less disposable income than joe bumcrack who sits on his @@@@ all day drinking cask goon. Wealth redistribution = Labour, nothing has changed.

  
Other than displaying a high level of bigotry what is your point. There is nothing about green policy that is anything but green. There is nothing about either Stalinist or Maoist regimes that resembled green. Read your history and try to gain a basic understanding before posting ignorant rubbish. There is no link between green and communist view points and any one with any honesty would realise that. 
Your economic analysis is anything but, the most compensated group is actually self funded retirees on about $80,000, pensioners and dole recipients actually don't get that much but they should end up in front. families earning more than $150,000 should feel no more than a few hundred dollars worth of pain. 
So what did we learn from your little rant other than your abysimal political knowledge and your inability to understand numbers. Not much really did we. :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

> Maybe you should check what the price signal is actually doing (and we are only 24 hours out from the announcement):

  If the price signal doesn't start until 1 July 2012, how can it be "actually doing" something now?  :Doh:  
I think you are trying to say that the announcement of this green farce has reinforced the whimsical green fantasy for some taxpayer handout driven industries, while driving real businesses to despair.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Surely you guys who so whole heartedly believe in AGW couldn't be happy with this do nothing farce?  Surely you can call a spade a spade and condem it for its complete and utter failure to address the problem you believe is going to destroy us all.  Be honest with yourself for a minute and anyalize just how this is going to make a difference.

  Mate, if they were honest with themselves, they'd quit the cult.  :Biggrin:  
But I'm not holding my CO2.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I apprecaite that climate change, and the impact of climate  change, is a difficult concept to convey to the general public,  .

  Yes it is always difficult to sell a lie to masses of sensible people. 
The difference from the days when Goebbels said, if you repeat a lie often enough it will be accepted as truth, is information.  We are better informed and you nor the government can pull the wool over our eyes.  This is a lie this is a scam this is coated in lathers of spin and it will be defeated.  Because we are too smart to be bull chitted to by socialist.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I think that Australians have (perhaps unwittingly) installed a very good government.  .

  You have GOT to be joking right?  Now you are just trying to pull our chain.  This is the worst government we have ever had 60% of the Australian public agree. 
I need a chuck up bucket.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It surprises me that this keeps going. You have the fat and the ugly on one side paying 
> oddles for people who sign as some doctor. Doctor of what, it sounds good doesnt it
>  but we all can get doctorates by mail order. Now let us assume this is not so, what is
>  this guy doing spending hours of research into post on a fairly obscure websit.
>    Eh no Gena has her methods and her billions. Im too old to believe in fairies.
>  So what is the arguement, Is carbon destroying our planet?
>   Well Im not sure. But I do know this.
>    If it is and we dont act now, chances are it will be too late to save us.
>    second is that most governments of the world now accept that global warming is real.
> ...

  I suggest you start at the brginning and read the whole thread,  You will find all your answers there.   BTW even if what you believe is true this tax will HAVE ZERO EFFECT ON CLIMATE. 
You surely are old enough to see through spin?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Other than displaying a high level of bigotry what is your point. There is nothing about green policy that is anything but green. There is nothing about either Stalinist or Maoist regimes that resembled green. Read your history and try to gain a basic understanding before posting ignorant rubbish. There is no link between green and communist view points and any one with any honesty would realise that. 
> Your economic analysis is anything but, the most compensated group is actually self funded retirees on about $80,000, pensioners and dole recipients actually don't get that much but they should end up in front. families earning more than $150,000 should feel no more than a few hundred dollars worth of pain. 
> So what did we learn from your little rant other than your abysimal political knowledge and your inability to understand numbers. Not much really did we.

  Johnc you need to open your mind a bit.  People everywhere can see the greens have been overrun by socialist.  This is a fact.  Why do you think they are now called water mellons green on the outside and red in the middle. 
But you have kicked and own goal.  You are dead right the commies don't give a stuff about the enviroment.  Look at it this way these people have hyjacked your cause, the environment is only the trojan horse.  if you truely are concerned about the environment then you would see this and see how it is a cancer to your cause.

----------


## Dr Freud

> (call it what you want)

  Call it what it is - The Carbon Dioxide Tax.   

> I doubt that a carbon tax of $23/tonne on the top 500 CO2 producers is going to completely change the landscape overnight

  It can't change it overnight, cos the solar panels don't work at night.  :Doh:    

> The tax will help tilt the balance a little more in favour of longterm sustainable energy production technologies (i.e. lower emission or renewable energy).

  Surely you can't be that deluded?  :Confused:    

> I apprecaite that climate change, and the impact of climate change, is a difficult concept to convey to the general public, however, governemnts should be educating the general masses better rather than letting the misinformation persist unchallenged.

   :Lolabove:  
Well, maybe you can.   

> I think that Australians have (perhaps unwittingly) installed a very good government.

  Yep, definitely a cult.  Reality is out there somewhere mate.    

> produced a very good package

  You may have just qualified for Mensa with that one.

----------


## Dr Freud

> It surprises me that this keeps going. You have the fat and the ugly on one side paying 
> oddles for people who sign as some doctor. Doctor of what, it sounds good doesnt it
>  but we all can get doctorates by mail order. Now let us assume this is not so, what is
>  this guy doing spending hours of research into post on a fairly obscure websit.
>    Eh no Gena has her methods and her billions. Im too old to believe in fairies.
>  So what is the arguement, Is carbon destroying our planet?
>   Well Im not sure. But I do know this.
>    If it is and we dont act now, chances are it will be too late to save us.
>    second is that most governments of the world now accept that global warming is real.
> ...

  Wow, has it been a month already.  :Wink 1:  
And I hope you weren't calling this websit obscure.  I learned how to make a wooden door frame and an internal cavity sliding door here.  :Biggrin:  
And is this the Gena you were referring to?    
See the benefits of a warmer planet!  :Biggrin:   
Or the other one spelled with an I? I won't post a pic of her in the bathers.  :Cry:  
But Rod's right, read what's here you'll see the redundancy in your points above.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## ringtail

_Here is some more ignorant rubbish, just for comrade johnc_     _Taxation_    		reduce inequities in the current personal tax system by:   		reducing tax breaks for high income earners; 		removing Fringe Benefits Tax concessions which promote increased use of motor vehicles; 		removing the concessional arrangements for Capital Gains Tax; 		only allowing losses from an investment to be offset against income from the same investment; 		abolishing the 30% Private Health Insurance Rebate in order to increase funding for public hospitals; 		taxing family trusts in the same way as companies; 		eliminating high rates of effective marginal taxation for those on welfare benefits; and 		introduce a new top marginal tax rate of 50 per cent on incomes of $1 million or over.   		introduce an estate tax with full provisions to protect the family  farm, the family home and small business with a threshold of $5 million  as indexed from the year 2010. 		conduct an inquiry with a view to implementing changes to the tax system that address the negative impacts of the GST on:   		income distribution; 		environmental sustainability; and 		business administration costs.   		oppose any increase or extension to the GST. 		implement a gradual and long term shift in the tax system from work  based taxes to taxes on natural resources and pollution including:   		a carbon tax levied on generators of mains-supplied electricity or gas 		a national carbon trading scheme; and 		other ecological taxes and charges at a level sufficient enough that  their prices reflect the full environmental cost of their production,  use or disposal.   		introduce a system of minimum personal and corporate tax legislation  to reduce the opportunities for individuals and companies to use  loopholes to minimise their tax obligations. 		conduct a full review of the superannuation system with the aim of  reducing its complexity and establishing progressive rates of  superannuation taxation. 		return the company tax rate to 33% and broaden the company tax base by reducing tax concessions. 		limit tax deductibility for salaries & salary-related expenses for any individual employee to $1million per year.  
Looks like income redistribution to me

----------


## johnc

> Johnc you need to open your mind a bit. People everywhere can see the greens have been overrun by socialist. This is a fact. Why do you think they are now called water mellons green on the outside and red in the middle. 
> But you have kicked and own goal. You are dead right the commies don't give a stuff about the enviroment. Look at it this way these people have hyjacked your cause, the environment is only the trojan horse. if you truely are concerned about the environment then you would see this and see how it is a cancer to your cause.

  Other than an insight as to how you mind works it says nothing constructive. Aside from the enviroment the Greens policies are left of centre if anything. It is more a grab bag of ideas you could argue that some aspects of their policy agenda occupy old Labor territory. Their main tenant is social responsibility and both Labor and the two conservative parties have strong socialist agendas when you consider their social welfare agendas and the generous support to families, low income earners, pensioners and the unemployed. There is no elected group that resembles anything to do with "old" communism at all.

----------


## johnc

> _Here is some more ignorant rubbish, just for comrade johnc_     _Taxation_   reduce inequities in the current personal tax system by: reducing tax breaks for high income earners;removing Fringe Benefits Tax concessions which promote increased use of motor vehicles;removing the concessional arrangements for Capital Gains Tax;only allowing losses from an investment to be offset against income from the same investment;abolishing the 30% Private Health Insurance Rebate in order to increase funding for public hospitals;taxing family trusts in the same way as companies;eliminating high rates of effective marginal taxation for those on welfare benefits; andintroduce a new top marginal tax rate of 50 per cent on incomes of $1 million or over.introduce an estate tax with full provisions to protect the family farm, the family home and small business with a threshold of $5 million as indexed from the year 2010.conduct an inquiry with a view to implementing changes to the tax system that address the negative impacts of the GST on: income distribution;environmental sustainability; andbusiness administration costs.oppose any increase or extension to the GST.implement a gradual and long term shift in the tax system from work based taxes to taxes on natural resources and pollution including: a carbon tax levied on generators of mains-supplied electricity or gasa national carbon trading scheme; andother ecological taxes and charges at a level sufficient enough that their prices reflect the full environmental cost of their production, use or disposal.introduce a system of minimum personal and corporate tax legislation to reduce the opportunities for individuals and companies to use loopholes to minimise their tax obligations.conduct a full review of the superannuation system with the aim of reducing its complexity and establishing progressive rates of superannuation taxation.return the company tax rate to 33% and broaden the company tax base by reducing tax concessions.limit tax deductibility for salaries & salary-related expenses for any individual employee to $1million per year.
> Looks like income redistribution to me

  Does it really? it looks like an agenda to iron out inconsistancies in our current system. There are a couple of more radical claims consistant with a green platform but much of it is just a view on the current system not a new world order and out with the old. There are well known inequities with the clashing of tax and welfare policies that provide a disincentive for those that are returning to work that are recognised by all parties but so far not well addressed. Our entire system like any other is founded on redistribution of wealth through taxation to fund the various arms of government, social welfare and national security, there really isn't anything in the above extract that invokes a departure from the system we have which is continually changing and evolving since we kicked off personal taxation in 1939. Some of it suggests an unwinding, at one point companies had been taxed at 49% in the 80's and at even higher rates before that. We didn't have the 50% discount on capital gains until Howard changed the orginal inflation adjustment on gains. We previously had state based estate taxes so nothing new there either.  
However what does it matter, the greens do not have the numbers to make even these changes, they are currently in a position where they can negotiate along with three independants and either Labor, Liberal or the Nationals if they wish to introduce legislation. In some ways this is better for the country than one party dominating both houses and getting it's own way. After all if Work Choices had been rejected by the Senate the chances are Howard would not have lost both his seat and Government and his party would still be in power.

----------


## ringtail

Its just my opinion Johnc that taking from those who have worked their freckles off to give to those who havent is not a fair system. I'm not for one moment saying that those who work hard are rich and those that are poor are lazy, as chrisp eluded to earlier. I do, however, firmly believe that the creation of individual wealth is the hands of all of us and those that choose to not create their own wealth shouldnt get it at the expense of those who have. Now I dont necessarily agree with how the wealthy protect their money, but I do agree with necessity for them to do so. Just my 2c.

----------


## chrisp

> I'm not for one moment saying that those who work hard are rich and those that are poor are lazy, as chrisp eluded to earlier.

   

> I  do, however, firmly believe that the creation of individual wealth is  the hands of all of us and those that choose to not create their own  wealth shouldnt get it at the expense of those who have.

  Two quotes from the one post.  Maybe you have "eluded" yourself?  :Rolleyes:

----------


## johnc

> Its just my opinion Johnc that taking from those who have worked their freckles off to give to those who havent is not a fair system. I'm not for one moment saying that those who work hard are rich and those that are poor are lazy, as chrisp eluded to earlier. I do, however, firmly believe that the creation of individual wealth is the hands of all of us and those that choose to not create their own wealth shouldnt get it at the expense of those who have. Now I dont necessarily agree with how the wealthy protect their money, but I do agree with necessity for them to do so. Just my 2c.

  We have a system that is essentially democratic socialist/free enterprise. The Menzies era saw basic pensions and income support, Whitlam saw abolition of student fees and a big increase in pensions paid to government retirees, the Hawke/Keating years saw student fees back with the introduction of HECS, and some winding back of some social welfare along with some favorable targetting of families. Howard saw an explosion in family benefits and very generous concessions to self funded retirees, in view of the later probably more generous than we can afford. Rudd/Gillard we really only had the stimulus and not that much tinkering. 
This notion of hard workers being penalised by being taxed to cover the bludgers doesn't wash with me. We do have a number of people who get payments that don't make any effort, but by paying them to sit at home and watch the idiot box they aren't breaking into our homes and causing insurance premiums to rise on top of the social disruption. We just don't want them encouraged to bludge which is why we have the work tests.  
There is a group at the moment who if they have been able to shift enough into superannuation can easily earn $200,000 or whatever they like tax free from those pensions. Is it a fair system that taxes childless couples paying off a home on say $80,000 a year between them to be lumbered with a $10,000 tax bill when a wealthy home owner sitting on his backside and using the government system free of charge gets away without paying a dollar. Is it fair that a childless couple also subsidise families through the web of family payments available, probably yes as the same opportunity exists if they start a family themselves although the size of middle class welfare is a tad out of control. 
We should all pay our share, we should also be continually aware that our system is never perfect and anomolies do creep in and distort the fairness we should aim for and accept that some things need to change. 
However a basic tenent should be that we pay tax according to our income, with rates adjusted to ensure taxation doesn't push anyone under the poverty line. Not all people with wealth are hard workers, most of those amongst the poor are not there through laziness, and broad assumptions along those lines are wrong. I'd go as far as saying we need to protect all of us from those who make no effort and bludge on the system, and those on large incomes who fail to contribute and push the tax burden on those less able to pay. 
I may not agree with everything in the Greens policy but in broad terms it is consistant with the view that the tax burden should be shared by those most able to pay. It is not socialist in any radical sense and conforms generally with the notion of fairness that our tax system operates on. I might add that I would hate to see all those items get up as I would be adversely effected.

----------


## ringtail

"Two quotes from the one post.  Maybe you have "eluded" yourself?  :Rolleyes: " 
How so ? 
Unless the money in inherited or a lotto win, at some stage the wealthy have worked to, or taken risks to create wealth. I say good luck to them. If they are not breaking the law, hide every dollar. Those who make the rules know that people will use them for their benefit.  I wish I was in a position to even need an accountant. I think a fair system is a flat rate tax. Want more money ?, work harder, get another job, upgrade yours skills, go to uni - whatever it takes. Some will make it happen, some couldnt be bothered.

----------


## johnc

> "Two quotes from the one post. Maybe you have "eluded" yourself? " 
> How so ? 
> Unless the money in inherited or a lotto win, at some stage the wealthy have worked to, or taken risks to create wealth. I say good luck to them. If they are not breaking the law, hide every dollar. Those who make the rules know that people will use them for their benefit. I wish I was in a position to even need an accountant. I think a fair system is a flat rate tax. Want more money ?, work harder, get another job, upgrade yours skills, go to uni - whatever it takes. Some will make it happen, some couldnt be bothered.

  Have you considered some people get wealthy through speculative gains and not hard work, why should they get a free ride for bludging and getting lucky? 
There is virtually no jurisdiction in the world that has a flat rate on everything earned and for very good reason. You don't want a system that has everyone that earns a penny lodging a tax return. The proportional system we have is the most sensible. If you introduced a flat rate even with a threshold what you would end up with is income support to help those harmed by the change and an army of public servants hired to administer the mess it would create. It has been suggested and dropped very smartly once it is realised that it is a very poor substitute to what we have.

----------


## chrisp

> "Two quotes from the one post.  Maybe you have "eluded" yourself? " 
> How so ?

  My response was pitched at two levels.   
Firstly, you have contradicted yourself.  In the first quote you acknowledge that there maybe no connection between being poor and being lazy.  In the second quote you are saying that anyone can be wealthy if they choose to be. 
Secondly, you have used the word "elude" (escape, incomprehensible, avoiding) instead of "allude" (disguised reference).  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

It is very interesting to confirm once more how the marxist have  taken over the greens and how the "environment" is just an excuse to attempt to  further the red communist agenda that has failed so abysmally when it was  preached directly as a "solution".  So we know from past experience that the communist method does not  work and produces only dictatorship and corruption, poverty and regressive  economies. Yet that is what the communist dressed in green want us to adopt:  "Lets try again, after all it is not our money we are squandering" The new  environazism... I particularly enjoy the ignorance of those who are convinced that  the tax system is the appropriate tool to administer social justice.  The notion that someone who earns $20,000 a year must pay 3% yet  someone earning $200,000 must pay 49% is so utterly dishonest and damaging to  any progressive society that only those who are in the throes of intellectual  misery can entertain this as a fair and equitable concept.  Only an economic illiterate and intellectually handicapped can  consider abolishing negative gearing and capital gain tax  concessions and not see the catastrophic consequences such action will have. It  is only from ignorance and want that someone can see the apparent gains  made in real estate after decades of paying interest and expenses and  maintenance and after capital gain tax at time of selling as real gains  deserving to be jealous about. How childish!  In every society there is those who have changed their thinking  and earned the goals they set up to achieve, and then those who choose the easy  wide and beaten track of the masses who go with the flow, get fat, mediocre and  poor and blame everyone else but themselves. From time to time a political party uses the mediocre and the  disillusioned, the resentful and the deluded to rise to power with promises of  "equality" and "redistribution". From time to time they succeed, and it is during those times that  it becomes interesting to observe who talks about equality and distribution, and  who is checking the markets and hopes for the next election that will flush the  toilet. We await eagerly for the next opportunity. Meantime we will make  ourselves a bit more money just in case.

----------


## Marc

*taken from some pathetic website out there.*     *Green Communism* 
                               Posted on January 4, 2010          Thesis. *The  current capitalist-industrial System is incapable of surmounting the  limits to growth on planet Earth because markets and technology, today’s  salvation gospel, are no* _deus ex machina_ *to the energy-and-pollution predicament of industrial civilization.* Nor  is this System in principle capable of preventing ecological overshoot  because growth in physical throughput is the very basis of its  existence. *As such, we need to transition to an entirely new way of thinking about politics, society, and the economy – Green Communism.*  This is a system based on technocratic planning using the latest tools  of operations research and networking; political control based on  ubiquitous 2-way sousveillance  to detect corruption and free-riding; and spiritual succor from  transcendental values linked to ecotechnic sustainability, instead of  today’s shallow materialist values embodied in the System’s “myth of  progress”.
 By repressing the economic potential of eastern Europe and China  throughout much of the 20th century, one of Marxism-Leninism’s greatest  legacies is to have indirectly postponed humanity’s reckoning with the Earth’s limits to industrial growth  in the form of resource depletion and AGW. Had Eastern Europe and  Russia become industrialized, consumer nations by the 1950′s-1960′s  instead of the 2010′s-2020′s; had China followed the development  trajectory of Taiwan; had nations from India to Brazil not excessively  indulged in growth-retarding import substitution, it is very likely that  today we would already be well on the downward slope of Hubbert’s curve of oil depletion, and burning coal to compensate – in turn reinforcing an already runaway global warming process.

----------


## Daniel Morgan

Carbon Tax Explained.

----------


## johnc

> It is very interesting to confirm once more how the marxist have taken over the greens and how the "environment" is just an excuse to attempt to further the red communist agenda that has failed so abysmally when it was preached directly as a "solution".   
> So we know from past experience that the communist method does not work and produces only dictatorship and corruption, poverty and regressive economies.  
> Yet that is what the communist dressed in green want us to adopt: "Lets try again, after all it is not our money we are squandering" The new environazism...  
> I particularly enjoy the ignorance of those who are convinced that the tax system is the appropriate tool to administer social justice.   
> The notion that someone who earns $20,000 a year must pay 3% yet someone earning $200,000 must pay 49% is so utterly dishonest and damaging to any progressive society that only those who are in the throes of intellectual misery can entertain this as a fair and equitable concept.   
> Only an economic illiterate and intellectually handicapped can consider abolishing negative gearing and capital gain tax concessions and not see the catastrophic consequences such action will have. It is only from ignorance and want that someone can see the apparent gains made in real estate after decades of paying interest and expenses and maintenance and after capital gain tax at time of selling as real gains deserving to be jealous about. How childish!   
> In every society there is those who have changed their thinking and earned the goals they set up to achieve, and then those who choose the easy wide and beaten track of the masses who go with the flow, get fat, mediocre and poor and blame everyone else but themselves.  
> From time to time a political party uses the mediocre and the disillusioned, the resentful and the deluded to rise to power with promises of "equality" and "redistribution".  
> From time to time they succeed, and it is during those times that it becomes interesting to observe who talks about equality and distribution, and who is checking the markets and hopes for the next election that will flush the toilet.  
> We await eagerly for the next opportunity. Meantime we will make ourselves a bit more money just in case.

  
Charming, so well balanced and such a mature assessment :Doh:  
Are you so absolutely clueless that you actually believe the ignorant drivel you write? Assuming that you do I would suggest you book yourself into rehab to get your dillusional fantasies under control, either that or get off the mind bending drugs.

----------


## johnc

> Carbon Tax Explained. http://www.renovateforum.com/attachm...-explained.pdf

  Welcome to this corner of the forum, your link is a good article and well worth a read.

----------


## Marc

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41010.html*         12 November 2010*   *The ideological drive behind the Greens*  714  Comments  Kevin Andrews   The Greens operate out of a set of ideological principles and beliefs  that extend beyond the warm, cuddly environmentalism they wrap  themselves in. [i]  
While ‘environmentalism’ lies at the core of  the Greens ideology, their policies, if ever enacted, would radically  change the economic and social culture of Australia. 
This has  been true from the outset. In the 1970s, Jack Mundey’s BLF campaigned  for a range of radical issues beyond the immediate industrial interests  of the union. He appealed beyond the blue collar construction workers to  the new left alliance of what has become known as “doctors’ wives” and  tertiary students and academics. [ii] 
John Black has analysed Green voters over a series of elections. In a recent report, he categorises Green voters.[iii] 
First, those who vote Green as their primary vote: “This is the _Don’s Party_  group that used to be in the ALP in the ‘60s and ‘70s: young university  students or graduates, frequently working or still studying in  academia, no kids, often gay, arts and drama type degrees or  architecture where they specialise is designing environmentally friendly  suburbs, agnostic or atheist, often US or Canadian refugees from  capitalism, but well paid in professional consulting or media jobs.”  [iv] 
These groups swung more heavily to the Greens in 2010. “They  were led by arts, media or architectural graduate, twenty-somethings,  atheists and agnostics, Kiwis, the highly mobile university student  groups, gays and the Green family group, which is a professional or  admin consulting couple with one child attending expensive private  schools.” [v] 
While the Greens appeal to an alliance of young,  tertiary educated students and professionals, the party has increasingly  been infiltrated at the parliamentary level by members of the hard  left. Let me take two examples. New South Wales senator-elect, Lee  Rhiannon, is a former member of the Moscow-aligned Socialist Party of  Australia. Her parents were prominent members of the Communist Party. 
The  new Member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, was a radical student activist.  He once attacked the Greens as a “bourgeois” party. Writing on a Marxist  website in the 1990s, Mr Bandt attacked capitalism, arguing that  ideological purity was paramount. It is clear from his 1995 comments -  “Communists can’t fetishise alternative political parties, but should  always make some kind of materially based assessment about the  effectiveness of any given strategy come election time” - that Bandt  views the Greens as a vehicle for his ideological pursuits.  *Ecological Marxism* 
There  are many descriptions that could be applied to the Greens, but none  seems more accurate than Jack Mundey’s own description of “ecological  Marxism”. This description sums up the two core beliefs of the Greens.  First, the environment or the ecology is to be placed before all else.  This is spelt out in the first principle in the _Greens Global Charter_:  _“We  acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we  respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human  species.”_ [vi] 
Secondly, the Greens are Marxist in their  philosophy, and display the same totalitarian tendencies of all previous  forms of Marxism when applied as a political movement.  By  totalitarian, I mean the subordination of the individual and the impulse  to rid society of all elements that, in the eyes of the adherent, mar  its perfection. 
Let me expand. 
According to the Greens  ideology, human dignity is neither inherent, nor absolute, but relevant.  [vii] Humans are only one species amongst others. As Brown and Singer  write: “We hold that the dominant ethic is indefensible because it  focuses only on human beings and on human beings who are living now,  leaving out the interests of others who are not of our species, or not  of our generation.” [viii] 
Elsewhere, they equate humans with  animals: “The revolutionary element in Green ethics is its challenge to  us to see ourselves in universal terms... I must take into account the  interests of others, on the same footing as my own. This is true,  whether these others are Victorians or Queenslanders, Australians or  Rwandans, or even the non-human animals whose habitat is destroyed when a  forest is destroyed.” [ix] 
What is revolutionary about this  statement is not that the interests of another should be considered in  an ethical judgment. Judeo-Christian belief extols consideration of  others, as does Kant’s Golden Rule. Burke wrote of society being a  compact across generations. What is revolutionary is the equation of  humans and animals. 
Peter Singer expands these notions in his  other works on animal liberation. He charges that humans are guilty of  ‘speciesism’, that is, preferring their own species over all others. It  leads him to argue in favour of infanticide and doctor-assisted suicide  on one hand; and bestiality on the other, provided there is mutual  consent! [x] 
Peter Singer’s influence is evident in the Greens’ ideology. The author of a series of books, including _Animal Liberation_,  Singer not only co-authored the Greens’ manifesto with Bob Brown, but  stood as a candidate for the party in the Kooyong in 1994, and  subsequently as a Senate candidate. [xi]  *Gaia and ecological wisdom* 
The  Green movement projects the whole planet with a spiritual dimension.  The British chemist, James Lovelock, described the Earth as a complex  living organism, of which humans are merely parts. He named this  planetary organism after the Greek goddess who personified the earth -  Gaia - and described “Her” as “alive.” [xii] 
Singer and Brown are  correct to describe this as revolutionary. It involves the creation of a  new pagan belief system, concerned not with the relationship between  humans and a creator, but based on a deification of the environment. 
For  the Greens, a pristine global environment represents earthy perfection.  It underpins their “ecological wisdom” [xiii] and is at the core of the  new ethic. [xiv] It is to be protected and promoted at all costs.  Hence, all old growth forests are to be locked up; [xv] logging is to be  prohibited; wealth is to be scorned; [xvi] economic growth is opposed;  [xvii] exclusive ownership of property is questioned; [xviii] there  should be a moratorium of fossil fuels exploration; [xix] dam  construction should be discouraged; [xx] genetic engineering and  agricultural monoculture is rejected; [xxi] world trade should be  reduced; [xxii] and a barter economy encouraged. [xxiii] 
It  explains why the Greens believe the world’s population is excessive and  should be reduced, [xxiv] and why human consumption should be cut. [xxv] 
The  Greens also “Call for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be  amended to include rights to a healthy natural environment and  intergenerational rights to natural and cultural resources”. [xxvi] In  turn, the Greens would be able to rely on international courts and _fora_  to press their agenda. It also explains their concept of  “intergenerational rights”: [xxvii] It is a concept squarely aimed at  the defence of their belief in “Gaia”, or the perfect pristine earthly  environment. 
It explains why the Greens support the “right of  Indigenous peoples to self-determination, land rights, and access to  traditional hunting and fishing rights for their own subsistence”  [xxviii] and reject measures such as the Northern Territory intervention  and income management against the efforts of both major political  parties.  *Faith and belief* 
For many Greens  supporters, environmentalism is ultimately an article of faith and  belief. This is no better illustrated than in the controversy  surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has  become increasingly clear that the process of “establishing”  human-caused global warming has been manipulated by a small group of  people, using mutual peer processes, and claiming to speak for many more  scientists who had little input and no real opportunity to review the  final documents. The closed-shop nature of the process is counter the  scientific empiricism of the enlightenment, and marks another  significant break with traditional western culture. 
To Greens believers, this is of little consequence. Ultimately, global warming is a matter of faith. 
Similarly Al Gore’s _An Inconvenient Truth_.  Perhaps one of the most dramatic scenes in the film is the depiction of  an ice-wall collapsing. Viewers are led to believe that they are  watching footage of an actual collapse. The truth, however, is that the  scene was taken from the opening credits of a Hollywood movie, _The day after tomorrow_. [xxix] 
Despite  the fact that a British court found the film contained significant  errors, [xxx] many environmentalists continue to believe it is true.   For these environmentalists, the errors are merely inconvenient mistakes  that fail to negate the Armageddon the world faces unless drastic  measures are taken. Again, this is an example of belief, rather than  reason. “Evidence” can be manufactured. Scientific empiricism is a  vehicle to be manipulated for a political cause. Worse still, the film  is now being proposed for the National Curriculum in Australian schools. 
The Greens belief in their environmental nirvana manifests itself in a new coercive utopianism. 
Unless  we understand the ideological foundations of the Greens, we will fail  to effectively address the challenge of their revolution. We will be  left debating instrumental outcomes, as if they are based on the same  cultural and philosophical foundations that underpin western  civilisation. What the Greens present is the cutting edge of a clash  within western civilization itself. [xxxi]   _A shorter version of this article was delivered as a speech to the News Weekly annual dinner in Melbourne on November 10, 2010._  _Kevin Andrews__ is the Federal Member for Menzies and the shadow minister for families, housing and human services._  *Notes:*
[i] See for example _The Charter of the Global Greens_, Canberra, 2001 [hereinafter _Charter_] The Charter is a set of “the core beliefs and ideals” that Green parties hold in common: www.global.greens.org.au  The Australian Greens are members of the Global Greens and were  instrumental in the conference and charter. In 2008, the Greens leader,  Senator Bob Brown, announced that Australian would establish and host a  Global Greens Secretariat and Information Centre.
[ii] _Mundey interview_
[iii] John Black, _2010 election profile and some relevant documents_, [Australian Development Strategies Pty Ltd, 2010] See also: John Black “Wealthy Greens the new DLP” _Online Opinion_, June 11, 2010
[iv] _Ibid_, 14
[v] _Ibid_., 16
[vi] _Charter_, 3
[vii]  The Australian Greens do not refer to any inherent dignity of the human  person. The Victorian Greens state that “every human being has  inherent, inalienable human rights by virtue of birth” but it this is  not the same ‘human dignity’ as understood in the western,  Judeo-Christian tradition.
[viii] _The Greens_, 44
[ix] _The Greens_, 55
[x] Peter Singer (2001) “Heavy Petting”, _Nerve_
[xi] _The Greens_, 87
[xii] James E Lovelock, (1989) _The ages of Gaia_ [Oxford University Press, Oxford] Many environmentalists subscribe to Lovelock’s theory, although many scientists question it.
[xiii] _Charter_, 3
[xiv] _The Greens_, 51 ff
[xv]  _Greens website_, Environmental principles
[xvi] _The Greens_, 49-51
[xvii] _The Greens_, 43
[xviii] _Charter_, 8
[xix] _Charter_, 9
[xx] _Charter_, 10
[xxi] _Charter_, 10
[xxii] _Charter_, 10 – 11
[xxiii] _The Greens_, 149
[xxiv] _The Greens_, 5, 42, 190; _Charter_, 1
[xxv] _Charter_, 5
[xxvi] _Charter_, 12
[xxvii] _Charter_, 12
[xxviii] _Charter_, 12
[xxix] Noel Sheppard, “Gore uses fictional video to illustrate ‘inconvenient truth’ “ _Newsbusters_, April 22, 2008, quoting script from the ABC TV (US) program _20/20._
[xxx] _Dimmock_ v _Secretary of State for Education and Skills_ [2007] EWHC 2288
[xxxi] On the idea of a clash within western civilization more generally, see James Kurth, (1994) ‘The real clash’, _The National Interest_, 3 – 15. See also Robert P George (2001) _The clash of orthodoxies_ [ISI Books, Wilmington, Delaware]
[xxxii] Up yours

----------


## ringtail

My bad on the grammer, but while we are at it, please explain how I have contradicted myself ? I cant see it. 
"Have you considered some people get wealthy through speculative gains and not hard work" 
Of course, and speculation is risky. They may have taken a punt and it paid off. It could have gone the other way just as easily. If I borrow $ 100k and go to the casino and put it all on red( pun intended),there is a 50/50 chance of it paying off. If I win, good on me, why should I be punished for taking a risk ? You have to have the money, or the ability to finance the investment in order to take the risk in the first place.

----------


## johnc

You have to go to work to earn a wage why should that person pay twice the tax as someone who as made a capital gain on a property investment.

----------


## chrisp

*Now that the Carbon Tax/ETS is practically a done deal, perhaps we can have an...*  *ETS Thread Tax*  
The ETS Thread Tax (ETSTT) is in its consultative phase at the moment, but to start the ball rolling, I suggest the following: *The ETS Thread Tax Table:*      Three straight posts in the ETS Thread from the one poster: ETS Thread Tax (ETSTT) = 3 Tim Tams to Watson (TTtW)    Four straight posts in the ETS Thread from the one poster: ETSTT = 3 TTtW    Five straight posts in the ETS Thread from the one poster: ETSTT = 6 TTtW    Six to nine straight posts in the ETS Thread from the one poster: ETSTT= 1 Packet of Dark Chocolate Tim Tams to Watson (PDCTTtW)    10 or more straight posts in the ETS Thread from the one poster: ETSTT = 1 PDCTTtW plus 1 small jar of Maccona Coffee (sjMC)    Cutting-and-pasting without accompanying comments: 2 TTtW    "Great Post!" posts without accompanying comments: 2 TTtW    Links (only) without accompanying comments: 2 TTtWThe aim of this tax is to reduce the drivel and boredom in the ETS.  We'll aim to limit drivel and boredom posts to 5% by 2020 and 1% by 2050.  We may need to progressively raise the ETSTT rates over time to achieve our targets. 
If all goes well, in 3 years time we'll move to a market based system where we'll issue Drivel and Boredom permits and place a cap on Drivel and Boredom.  The forum will be able to trade permits as set the price.  This scheme will be know as the Crap and Trade Scheme (CTS) 
I the meantime, the moderators will receive Tim Tams and coffee to help compensate them for having to read the unnecessarily boring and repetitious posts. 
The scheme has been modelled, but as we could afford a good economic modeller, we had to rely on the same economic modeller used by Mr Abbott and Mr Joyce.  Unfortunately, the modelling isnt very good (aka "crap") and we cant say for sure if itll cut down the excessively boring posts, but we have worked out  assuming Dr Freud continues to post  that Mr Watson will be very well endowed in Tim Tams and coffee. 
If the "Packet of Dark Chocolate Tim Tams to Watson" (PDCTTtW) are those special mint ones, we'll be able to claim that they are "brown on the outside and green in the middle".  I'm not sure of the significance of this but it is apparently an important claim.   :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

> *Now that the Carbon Tax/ETS is practically a done deal, perhaps we can have an...*  *ETS Thread Tax*  
> The ETS Thread Tax (ETSTT) is in its consultative phase at the moment, but to start the ball rolling, I suggest the following: *The ETS Thread Tax Table:*  Three straight posts in the ETS Thread from the one poster: ETS Thread Tax (ETSTT) = 3 Tim Tams to Watson (TTtW)Four straight posts in the ETS Thread from the one poster: ETSTT = 3 TTtWFive straight posts in the ETS Thread from the one poster: ETSTT = 6 TTtWSix to nine straight posts in the ETS Thread from the one poster: ETSTT= 1 Packet of Dark Chocolate Tim Tams to Watson (PDCTTtW)10 or more straight posts in the ETS Thread from the one poster: ETSTT = 1 PDCTTtW plus 1 small jar of Maccona Coffee (sjMC)Cutting-and-pasting without accompanying comments: 2 TTtW"Great Post!" posts without accompanying comments: 2 TTtWLinks (only) without accompanying comments: 2 TTtWThe aim of this tax is to reduce the drivel and boredom in the ETS. We'll aim to limit drivel and boredom posts to 5% by 2020 and 1% by 2050. We may need to progressively raise the ETSTT rates over time to achieve our targets. 
> If all goes well, in 3 years time we'll move to a market based system where we'll issue Drivel and Boredom permits and place a cap on Drivel and Boredom. The forum will be able to trade permits as set the price. This scheme will be know as the Crap and Trade Scheme (CTS) 
> I the meantime, the moderators will receive Tim Tams and coffee to help compensate them for having to read the unnecessarily boring and repetitious posts. 
> The scheme has been modelled, but as we could afford a good economic modeller, we had to rely on the same economic modeller used by Mr Abbott and Mr Joyce. Unfortunately, the modelling isnt very good (aka "crap") and we cant say for sure if itll cut down the excessively boring posts, but we have worked out  assuming Dr Freud continues to post  that Mr Watson will be very well endowed in Tim Tams and coffee. 
> If the "Packet of Dark Chocolate Tim Tams to Watson" (PDCTTtW) are those special mint ones, we'll be able to claim that they are "brown on the outside and green in the middle". I'm not sure of the significance of this but it is apparently an important claim.

  Just like the ETS & Carbon TAX this proposal has the same chance of being sucessful, BTW the tims tams soon will becoming out of china or india after that business is shipped offshore.
regards inter

----------


## ringtail

What do you mean ? Guy 1 goes to work and gets taxed. Guy 2 goes to work and gets taxed, but sells an investment property and pays CGT at his nominal tax rate - whats the issue ? 
Or is the question why should joe average pay tax, while a savvy property investor who took a risk, got a second mortgage, sold and made a profit, split the profit amongst the family trust which is made up of 3 kids so he pays bugger all CGT ? 
Dunno, ask the ATO, they make the rules for everyone to exploit. I think it was packer who said its every Australians right to pay as little tax as possible - well he should know.

----------


## johnc

Remember Ringtail we are talking about tax. You are running the line that the Greens are into redistributing from the rich to the poor via the tax dollar and that is somehow Marxist or Leninist. In the screed you posted they have as one of their aims the removal of the concessional tax treatment of capital gains tax. The impact of that tax concession is that someone who makes a capital gain pays tax at only half the normal rate, while someone doing something productive pays tax at full rate on that income. 
So the question remains for someone in favour of a flat rate of tax across the board wouldn't that aspect of Greens policy actually be in line with your wish for a flat rate. I am pointing out the obvious that your political bias may prevent you seeing the truth in what you read, ie green bad, blue good, even if blue goes against your belief. It was Howard that made the change to such a generous concession. Keating was far less generous when he created the tax. You can't have it both ways I'm afraid.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Rod, you will be able to look at tomorrow's News Poll and use it as a *base* (it was taken over the 2 weeks leading up to Sunday) as to whether support for Gillard falls or increases.  Who knows which way it'll go?

  She's gone mate.  There's only two people in Oz left in denial about it, JuLIAR and you.  :Biggrin:    

> *AUSTRALIANS have given the carbon tax the thumbs down, with 68 per cent saying it will leave them worse off and 63 per cent calling for Julia Gillard to bring on an early election.   Australians demand carbon tax vote | Herald Sun*

  GAWN!  :Biggrin:  
Think about something that leaves a bad taste in your mouth, then think about how you'll feel about someone who rams it down your throat for 2 years AFTER you tell them you hate it. 
Yeh, Aussies love being lied to, then treated like they're the f---wits!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Read your history and try to gain a basic understanding before posting ignorant rubbish. There is no link between green and communist view points and any one with any honesty would realise that.

  Would you believe it coming from a staunch left-wing unionist who was there?     Rhiannon remembers Howes’ past no better than her own | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
Nope, no link there that I can see.  :Doh:  
It's easy to read with your eyes open, it's much harder to read with your mind open.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Australians now fighting Australians because JuLIAR is lying on behalf of a minority watermelon agenda:   

> *EMOTIONS are boiling over as the carbon tax debate unfolds, with Julia Gillard accosted by a vocal opponent to her carbon tax plan in Brisbane.         *                                The Prime Minister was confronted by a woman while campaigning in Brisbane, where she was she was challenged her over her broken "no-carbon tax" promise.
> Tempers flared at Brisbane's Fairfield shopping centre as the Prime Minister tried to convince voters of the merits of her climate plan. 
>  "Why did you lie to us and why are you continuing to lie?" one woman said. 
>  Gillard: "I can give you an answer right now if you'll let me. What I want to do is put a price on carbon pollution. The big polluters are going to pay. 
>  Woman: *"I understand that. I'm not stupid."* 
>  Another woman, Ros Brown, carried a sign "Most incompetent government since Whitlam".   Supporters and opponents of the carbon tax plan are passionately speaking out | The Australian

  In democracy, we have elections to sort out massive issues like this. 
In communism, we just ramp up the propaganda and push the socialist redistribution of wealth. 
Which system is JuLIAR following? You decide.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Does it really? it looks like an agenda to iron out inconsistancies in our current system. There are a couple of more radical claims consistant with a green platform but much of it is just a view on the current system not a new world order and out with the old.

  Doesn't it? Really?  
Hear about the new world order from the horses mouth: 
"Global governance" to ensure tax redistribution on a global scale to transfer funds from the worlds rich to the worlds poor.    
Nope, no link there either I guess?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You have to go to work to earn a wage why should that person pay twice the tax as someone who as made a capital gain on a property investment.

  So you assume one PAYE tax paying person goes to work and earns a wage, while some rich prick just sits on a couch and just magically "has" a property investment with net capital growth?  :Doh:  
It would take me too long to explain how ridiculous your logic is. 
But while we're on the subject, home much will the Carbon Dioxide Tax add to the cost of a new home? 
Any aspiring first home buyers out there interested? 
When you figure it out, you'll realise your 20c per week average over compensation is not gonna help.  :No:  
Oops, did JuLIAR "forget" to mention this, or just LYING again.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *THERE are many aspects of Julia-in-Wonderland's carbon (dioxide) tax that just don't make any sense. *  			 		 		But the single craziest aspect of  the  carbon (dioxide) tax lunacy is that it actually aims to have us paying perhaps $4 billion a year to foreigners just for the right to keep our lights on.
> We wouldn't actually get anything tangible for the $4 billion - that's around $170 for every Australian, $680 a year for a family of four. Just the 'right' to keep producing electricity from our coal-fired power stations.  
> That's right, we'd be *shipping $4 billion off overseas each year in return for nothing* more than a book entry.   Paying foreigners for our power | Herald Sun

  
Oops, did JuLIAR "forget" to mention this, or just LYING again.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

I guess us taxpayers will also be paying for this new giant bureaucratic mess to administer this disaster.  I guess someone has to figure out how much of our money needs to be pointlessly shipped off to shysters tin pot dictators in the third world.   

> And six brand new  green bureaucracies to strangle us:   _o       Clean Energy Finance Corporation_  _o       Climate Change Authority_  _o       Energy Security Council_  _o       Clean Energy Regulator_  _o       Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Advisory Board_  _o       Australian Renewable Energy Authority_

  _ 
How much extra will this cost us all? _ Oops, did JuLIAR "forget" to mention this, or just LYING again.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *One question still left unanswered, PM, is this: how will your carbon policy affect global temperatures?* 
> On the related issue of credibility, PM, are voters and backbenchers right to be concerned that yours is in tatters for three simple reasons?  
> First, the way you came to power by politically knifing Rudd when voters prefer to choose their leaders. Second, for recommending Rudd ditch his emissions trading scheme, which only fast-tracked his end. Third, you promised us at last year's election there would be no carbon tax. We now have a carbon tax.  
> Just one final question. On Sunday we listened to you begin the big sell for your carbon tax. But is this really your carbon tax or is it the Bob Brown tax? Forgive us for being worried by the sight of Milne smiling more than she has ever smiled on camera before. Is the senator smiling because she and the Greens have secured $10 billion from taxpayers to fund their pet renewable projects even after the Productivity Commission recently found that existing renewable abatement policies were expensive and achieved little? *Or could the senator's grin signal that you, who promised there would be no carbon tax under a government you lead, have been demoted to the climate change minister in a Brown government?* After all, Milne is smiling about something. Just a question, PM.  Please explain, Prime Minister | The Australian

  Well, actually a few questions there JuLIAR.

----------


## Dr Freud

*The Carbon Dioxide Tax budget forecasts are already blowing out at the rate of a billion dollars a day!* 
And these blowout are based on more LIES! 
And they're not even good lies, they're LIES about JuLIAR's incompetence:   

> *TAXPAYERS face a slug of up to $3 billion to close the nation's dirtiest coal-fired power stations in addition to the $4.3bn hit to the budget over the next four years to finance Julia Gillard's clean energy plan.  * Amid confusion between the government and the Greens about whether the money to close the plants was coming from carbon tax revenue or general taxpayers' funds, Ms Gillard has confirmed the money - not accounted for in Sunday's carbon package - has already been "set aside" in the budget contingency fund. 
> Labor last year ridiculed opposition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey's proposal to count $2.5bn drawn from the contingency fund as a budget saving, saying it was not a "rainy day" fund and was used to smooth the budget over the forward estimates. 
> As recently as last week, Finance Minister Penny Wong and Wayne Swan dismissed suggestions the contingency fund would be used to support dirty coal-fired power stations.  Shutting power plants will cost extra $3bn | The Australian

  These clowns have absolutely no idea what they are doing. 
They couldn't coordinate a ceiling insulation program without doubling their budget, killing four people, and burning down hundreds of houses. 
This debacle is going to make that program look like a raging success! 
TRUST? Anyone? 
And where does the VERY EXPENSIVE electricity come from after we shut down these powers plants?   

> To replace Macquarie Generation's Bayswater power station in the Hunter Valley with renewables would require 3500 wind turbines. He said this would require building windmills along the coast from Brisbane to Melbourne.

  Oh yeh, only when the wind is blowing at just the right speed, otherswise no power.  :Doh:  
Oops, did JuLIAR "forget" to mention this, or just LYING again.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

The Prime Minister of Australia is forcing this cr-- down our throats, so Aussies rightly ask if we are paying all these hundreds of billions, what difference will it make to "climate change"? 
One would think this is a reasonable cost-benefit question.  Based on the economic cost, what is the environmental benefit? 
I mean seeing as we taxpayers have spent billions already to Garnaut, Flannery and their ilk, this should be a very easy question to answer. Apparently not:   

> SO HOW much will Julia Gillards tax change the temperature? Whats the gain for all this pain?   
> The Prime Minister yesterday once again refused to say, telling a Melbourne radio station: *Im not going to play the Andrew Bolt game.*   Column - Playing “the Andrew Bolt game” with Gillard | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  So now the lives and jobs of Australians and spending our billions is just a "game"to her! 
What a condescending LYING joke she is. 
JuLIAR, you are turning our Prime Ministerial Office into a MF joke! 
If you don't want to play this game, wait till you play the "No Labor seats left in the lower house game"! That's gonna be a cracker.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Make no mistake people, democracy is dying in this country!  *Three days* before this farce was announced, apparently with this detail omitted from the sales pitch:   

> Ms Gillard has confirmed the money - not accounted for in Sunday's carbon package - has already been "set aside" in the budget contingency fund.

  This happened in Parliament:   

> _After The Australian reported on July 6 that the government would rely on the contingency fund to support power plants as they were slugged with the carbon price, opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey raised the issue in federal parliament with Wayne Swan. _   _Mr Hockey asked: Is the government planning to use the contingency reserve of the budget to provide loans or to guarantee risk on behalf of power companies that cannot finance their debt as a result of the carbon tax? _   _The Treasurer: No._Buyout of dirtiest power stations will push out cost of carbon plan | The Australian

  Misleading Parliament used to be punished by dismissal in this country. 
This government uses LYING to Parliament (that means directly and knowingly lying to us citizens) as a regular political tool. 
They are a disgrace.  :Yuk:

----------


## ringtail

"The impact of that tax concession is that someone who makes a capital  gain pays tax at only half the normal rate, while someone doing  something productive pays tax at full rate on that income." 
You mean productive people like these ones 
"We do have a number of people who get payments that don't make any  effort, but by paying them to sit at home and watch the idiot box they  aren't breaking into our homes and causing insurance premiums to rise on  top of the social disruption."  
This why property investment ( and others) is encouraged and rewarded. Who owns the house that these people inhabit ? More than likely its a private investor, paying income tax to support the slob sitting in his rental property. If there were no concessions it wouldnt worth investing and countless thousands would be living in cardboard boxes.

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> If there were no concessions it wouldnt worth investing and countless thousands would be living in cardboard boxes.

  Provided and maintained by the Government at tax payers expense. :Rolleyes:

----------


## ringtail

Could be worth investing in cardboard boxes

----------


## johnc

The cardboard boxes would be a lower cost to the taxpayer than all the tax dollars handed out to the negatively geared half broke private investor, :Wink 1:

----------


## chrisp

> If the price signal doesn't start until 1 July 2012, how can it be "actually doing" something now?  
> I think you are trying to say that the announcement of this green farce has reinforced the whimsical green fantasy for some taxpayer handout driven industries, while driving real businesses to despair.

  Some companies plan, you know.  If the price is going up on a product, they look at changing the way they do things.  I suppose you think they'll all set back and wait for 1 July 2012? 
Remember, as it stands now, the proposed Cabon Tax/ETS package will pass into law.   

> *Price scheme encourages companies to come clean                *  
> PACKAGING company Visy has launched a drive to cut its energy use by  10 per cent in a sign the carbon price could encourage businesses to cut  their carbon dioxide emissions.
>               In a letter to staff, Visy executive chairman Anthony  Pratt said the company would face an initial carbon tax bill of at least  $12 million a year, reflecting annual emissions of about 1.6 million  tonnes.
>               He said Visy    spent about $150 million a year on energy   and needed to urgently embrace less carbon-intensive fuels, cut energy  use and improve  energy efficiency. 
> Read more: Price scheme encourages companies to come clean

----------


## chrisp

> She's gone mate.  There's only two people in Oz left in denial about it, JuLIAR and you.

  I suppose we can find a poll to suit any occasion. 
There certainly will be interesting times ahead... 
It would seem to me that Mr Abbott's stance and position is untenable.  The science doesn't support his position, economists don't support his position, and as we all know, many in his own party don't support his position...   

> *Poll: Who is your preferred Opposition Leader?* 
>                         Tony Abbott       15% *Malcolm Turnbull  79%*
> Other                 6%     
> Total votes: 6775. CAST YOUR VOTE   Read more: Turnbull stirs pot on carbon tax

   

> *Economists give Gillard, themselves thumbs up                *   
> IF AUSTRALIA'S economists had the vote, Julia Gillard's carbon tax would win a landslide.              A survey of 145 delegates attending the Australian  conference of economists in Canberra finds 59 per cent think the tax is  "good economic policy", compared with just 11 per cent for Tony Abbott's  alternative. 
> Read more: Economists give Gillard, themselves thumbs up

   

> *Turnbull stirs pot on carbon tax                *  
> MALCOLM Turnbull has undermined Tony Abbott's attack on the  government by again exposing opposition divisions over carbon policy.
>               The former opposition leader, whose fall was triggered by  his support for the Rudd emissions trading scheme, again effectively  distanced himself from the Abbott policy. He made it clear he was  staying in line because he is in shadow cabinet and loyal, rather than  agreeing with the policy. 
> Read more: Turnbull stirs pot on carbon tax

----------


## Marc

John 
Your understanding of the economic principles, commerce and taxation is comparable to your understanding of climate science.
That is zilch knowledge and understanding yet heaps of religious zeal.
Your marxist remarks are ridiculously outdated.

----------


## johnc

> John 
> Your understanding of the economic principles, commerce and taxation is comparable to your understanding of climate science.
> That is zilch knowledge and understanding yet heaps of religious zeal.
> Your marxist remarks are ridiculously outdated.

  Coming from an idiot like you I will take that as a compliment. Your inabilty to grasp economic and enviromental basics can be summed up as "no one is going to take my boat or 4WD" (insert dummy spit here) Really besides most of your illogical rants you have consistantly relied on absurd nonsense to justify your views, continual references to gods, claims of expertise you don't have and a tendancy to pathological lying are your hallmark.

----------


## The Administration Team

Righto Fellas............. :Mad:

----------


## ringtail

> The cardboard boxes would be a lower cost to the taxpayer than all the tax dollars handed out to the negatively geared half broke private investor,

  
You know what, I seriously doubt it would be. Labour being Labour, there would have to be 100 commitees, 500 focus groups and the unions of course to make sure no one got a raw deal putting up cardboard boxes. All the boxes would have to be identical because thats the red way, and no one could have a better view from their box than anyone else. No 2 storey boxes allowed as this is extravagant. And of course, all boxes must be brown - can be red on the inside though.

----------


## johnc

> You know what, I seriously doubt it would be. Labour being Labour, there would have to be 100 commitees, 500 focus groups and the unions of course to make sure no one got a raw deal putting up cardboard boxes. All the boxes would have to be identical because thats the red way, and no one could have a better view from their box than anyone else. No 2 storey boxes allowed as this is extravagant. And of course, all boxes must be brown - can be red on the inside though.

  Red faux leather and waterproof as well :Smilie:  Luxury in a box.

----------


## Dr Freud

> But while we're on the subject, home much will the Carbon Dioxide Tax add to the cost of a new home? 
> Any aspiring first home buyers out there interested? 
> When you figure it out, you'll realise your 20c per week average over compensation is not gonna help.  
> Oops, did JuLIAR "forget" to mention this, or just LYING again.

  No takers, huh?  Let me give it a burl...  * 				 						Materials hike will add $5000 to home price*      

> "With the housing market slowing, it's going to be more difficult to absorb those costs," he said.
> Homes Australia founder Bob Day said the impact on housing and the economy would be huge.   Materials hike will add $5000 to home price | The Australian

----------


## Dr Freud

> Some companies plan, you know.  If the price is going up on a product, they look at changing the way they do things.  I suppose you think they'll all set back and wait for 1 July 2012?      *Price scheme encourages companies to come clean                *  
> PACKAGING company Visy has launched a drive to cut its energy use by 10 per cent in a sign the carbon price could encourage businesses to cut their carbon dioxide emissions.
> In a letter to staff, Visy executive chairman *Anthony Pratt* said the company would face an initial carbon tax bill of at least $12 million a year, reflecting annual emissions of about 1.6 million tonnes.
> He said Visy spent about $150 million a year on energy and needed to urgently embrace less carbon-intensive fuels, cut energy use and improve energy efficiency. 
> Read more: Price scheme encourages companies to come clean

  The Pratt's aren't as dumb as the prats running this farce (remember the collusion scandal). 
The Pratt's are thrilled because they're about to get access to our billions of tax dollars to expand their business thanks to idiot JuLIAR giving the Greens the cheque book to our dollars. 
You must have missed this in your article:   

> But Visy will *get most of the carbon permits* it needs to cover its recycling and paper-making operations *free in the early years of the carbon scheme.* 
> Visy also *hopes to win some of the $10 billion funding* allocated to the new Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in projects to convert waste into clean energy.

   
If I was lined up for generous taxpayer handouts, I'd be thrilled too! 
Just like the ridiculous $900 cheque giveaway costing taxpayers $20 billion.  :Doh:  
But this rort is designed to cost Aussies hundreds of billions.  :Cry:    

> Remember, as it stands now, the proposed Cabon Tax/ETS package will pass into law.

  That's funny, both JuLIAR and Bob Brown/Green/Red say that it is still being negotiated.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It would seem to me that Mr Abbott's stance and position is untenable.   
> The science doesn't support his position, economists don't support his position, and as we all know, many in his own party don't support his position...

  There is bipartisan goals for 5% emissions by 2020.  If the science doesn't support his position, then it certainly doesn't support JuLIAR's.  :No:  
Economists change their minds on most of their predictions every day.  Just Googe their opinions of interest rate changes, they change every month.  These same economists didn't notice, let alone predict, the Global Final Crisis until they were buried in it.  That's why I keep telling you not to believe other people's opinion's, but to form your own.  :Wink 1:  
All (-1) in his party support his position, because his position means they win government.  That's why Turnbull's ego can't stand it.  :Biggrin:  
But you again, like JuLIAR, treat us Aussie voters with contempt.  Nearly 50% of Aussies directly support his position, rising to nearly 60% after preferences, compared to JuLIAR's 27% primary.    

> IF AUSTRALIA'S economists had the vote

  They do, just one like the rest of us.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *BRISBANE home owners face rate rises of two per cent next year as a direct result of the carbon tax. 				* 
> The rate increases will not be audited by a new carbon squad within the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission because the consumer watchdog does not have the authority over local councils. 
> The open landfill facility at Rochedale accounts for close to 200,000 tonnes of emissions a year and is likely to attract at least $1.5 million a year in carbon tax after the emissions are offset.  
> But the Council could be hit with between $15 million and $20 million in direct and indirect costs from the carbon tax, Mr Quirk's office said.  
> Prime Minister Julia Gillard visited a part of the Rochedale facility that generates electricity from methane gas emitted as landfill decomposes.  
> ``It's this kind of clean energy future that will be turbo-charged by putting a price on carbon, as we create the circumstances where new clean energy ventures can proper,'' Ms Gillard said.
> But she did not mention that the rest of the facility will create a huge carbon tax bill for Brisbane homeowners.  Carbon tax will mean rates rise of 2 per cent in 2012, says Lord Mayor Graham Quirk | Courier Mail

  Wow, council rates to have a huge carbon dioxide tax increase passed directly to home owners too.  That 20c per week is starting to get stretched already.  :Doh:  
Oops, did JuLIAR "forget" to mention this, or just LYING again.  :Biggrin:  
And wait for the bonus round, all prices up and real wages down:   

> It came as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry warned the government's own modelling showed the carbon tax would cut into pay packets.  
> "Real wages in 2050 will be almost 6 per cent lower than they would have been in the absence of the carbon tax,'' ACCI's director of economics Greg Evans said.

  
Oops, did JuLIAR "forget" to mention this, or just LYING again.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Oh, that's right.  It's because she's a lying bit--.  :Biggrin:  
Remember this promise from back in March:   

> *MANUFACTURERS are mocking the Prime Minister's claim that "low-carbon" goods will cost less, with the carbon tax calculated to add $210 to the price of a new car.  * Julia Gillard said on Monday that "products made with relatively less carbon pollution will be cheaper than products made with more carbon pollution". 
> A spokesman for Ms Gillard yesterday did not provide any examples of products that would be cheaper under a carbon trading regime.  PM&#039;s cheaper cost promise mocked | The Australian

  I have scoured the policies and press releases, and can find no mention of these "cheaper products".  Has anyone found any in the Treasury modelling?  Like one loaf of bread going up, but another low carbon dioxide loaf going down in price.  Then we can choose to buy low carbon dioxide products in accordance with the price signal. Apparently.  What a crock of --it.  :Biggrin:  
So NO cheaper products? 
Oops, did JuLIAR "forget" to mention this, or just LYING again.  :Biggrin:

----------


## ringtail

I'm pretty sure I heard on the radio that the HIA reckon $ 8 k + rise in the cost of a new home

----------


## johnc

> I'm pretty sure I heard on the radio that the HIA reckon $ 8 k + rise in the cost of a new home

  
$5,000 to $6,000 seems to be the number they expect average house and land packages to rise, the $8k may be more hype than anything else this early in the guessing games. 
As an observation affordability has not been an issue discussed that much while land prices soared which is surprising because the price of land has gone through the roof over the last few years, We may well be entering a period that sees the rapid rises of recent years not only peaking but possibility declining. Most prices that get out of kilter with historic multiples eventually move back, if housing starts to retreat to its old average income multiple we can have some hope that any building cost increase will be offset by a reduction in land costs.

----------


## ringtail

I'm hoping for a big correction so I can get me some investment properties. We are seeing it up here at the moment. Nothing is selling except a few flood properties. Market up the sunny coast is as bad as it ever has been. People loosing millions up there (Noosa).

----------


## johnc

> I'm hoping for a big correction so I can get me some investment properties. We are seeing it up here at the moment. Nothing is selling except a few flood properties. Market up the sunny coast is as bad as it ever has been. People loosing millions up there (Noosa).

  Certainly for those wanting to get into the market there has never been a worse time than now in terms of rental yield and price of property to average weekly earnings. There is a very strong chance that if the market starts to fall there could be a solid correction as those who have borrowed beyond their capacity to pay are forced to sell into a declining market. The market is a fickle thing though and falls can be patchy and not in all areas even if they occur. Forced sales happen all the time in varying numbers but in a rising market no one gets hurt and it is not that noticable. 
We are on the other side, with property, however our main interest is yield so a fall wouldn't hurt but then no one likes to go backwards.

----------


## johnc

A bit of light hearted satire with a message, probably not suitable for rightwing fascists but for everyone else including those dreadful Greens, commies, Laborites and conservative voters this may appeal.  Find More Stories  *14 July 2011*    *$10? Feeling the pain? Carbon class war? You must be joking*  791 Comments  Geoff Lemon   
Four days on from Julia Gillard's policy announcement, and the most striking characteristic of the carbon tax debate is just how closely it resembles a dozen drunken idiots trying to root a doorknob. Really, everyone needs a few deep breaths and a spell in the quiet corner.
Sure, the weeks leading up have been all hysteria: Tony Abbott marching that bulldog grimace up and down the length of the country, like a Cassandra made of old leather and stunted dreams, cawing grim warnings of imminent ruin and destruction at the gates of Troy. But you might have expected, once the details were released, we'd get a little more perspective.
Nothing doing.
Far from being objective carriers of information, media outlets have been trying to manufacture furore. "Families earning more than $110k will feel the pain of the carbon tax," warned the Herald-Sun, straightfaced. "Households face a $9.90 a week jump in the cost of living."
$9.90.
Cry me the mothertrucking Nile.
Households on less than $110k would be even less affected. Some would have their 10 bucks a week partly compensated, others would be fully or over-compensated.
The tax, after all, was not on people, but on 500 high-polluting companies. The compensation was to guard against costs those companies might pass on to their customers.
So, no big deal, I said to myself. Surely this'll all blow over. And then, found myself more than a little surprised when a Herald-Sun commenter wrote: "Somebody needs to assassinate Julia Gillard NOW before she totally destroys our way of life."
Ten bucks a week? Our way of life? Aside from incitement to murder a head of government being ever so slightly illegal, the response just doesn't make sense. Here is legislation that might make some things marginally more expensive. Probably not much. It isn't going to drive industries offshore, because things like power generation and mining Australian resources kind of have to be done in Australia.
And yet the hysteria has been constant throughout, led by the paper who defines ten bucks a week out of a hundred grand as "feeling the pain".
Quoted in the Sun: "Social demographer David Chalke said the tax threatened values at the core of Australian society. "To an extent it will make people question, 'is it really worth the bother?' They'll smell in this something of a class war," Mr Chalke said."
Ten bucks. Core values. Class war.
Then, "Generous payments to those on low incomes and higher taxes for high income earners would anger hard-working Aussies". Because, people on less than $110,000 don't have to work hard. That's why they get paid less! Scrubbing toilets is easy and only takes five minutes, while high-level boardroom execs spend 20-hour days chained to some kind of awful lunch machine being beaten with lobster foam.
Then we had: "Treasurer Wayne Swan was unable to say how the carbon tax would affect a Falcon. He also couldn't say what the price change for a can of tomatoes would be."
The random grocery quiz had undone the Treasurer yet again. "Wait, wait, wait, got oneuh large box of Libra Fleur? Nope. Uh, Sara Lee Chocolate Bavarian? Hah, you got nothin', Swanny!"
And of course the headlines about airfares set to "soar" (geddit!). Well-meaning travellers were interviewed saying higher airfares would make it much harder to afford family holidays.
Very sad, especially when Qantas "said it would need to fully pass on the carbon price to customers, with the price of a single domestic flight ticket to increase on average by about $3.50."
Three dollars. Fifty cents. They currently charge you more than that for a bottle of water. On top of $7.50 to buy a ticket online, $8 for a cup of noodles, $25 to use their check-in counter, and $6 to board the plane first. The best comment left after that article was, "So people won't be able to buy a newspaper for the boarding lounge anymore? Good."
Let's never hear any talk of ABC bias ever again, because the Herald Sun has well and truly picked its horse on this one. All their online content was headlined by a video of the lovely Andrew Bolt saying it was "the greatest act of national suicide we've ever seen." Funny, I thought that was when they let him on television. There was also a great line from the weird little guy with him about "so-called solar energy"  because now solar energy is just a theory too. Like gravity, or Adelaide.
At times, I work as a journalist. In that sense, the staff in the Herald and Weekly Times building are my colleagues. This makes me feel a bit like whorehouse linen. No doubt they all say they're just doing their jobs, looking for opportunities. Nonetheless, they're still actively promoting harm for the sake of attracting an audience. Concentration camp guards are just doing their jobs, too.
And with that level of reporting, the effort from their readers is no surprise. "CO2 is not a pollutant. It is vital for life on Earth. Without it, trees will die," said John. Get that man on the climate panel.
"How much will Australia's temperatures decline once the tax is implemented?" asked Marty. Well, Marty, the atmosphere takes notes about where its constituent particles come from, so we'll get a full report from the Hole in the Ozone Layer each quarter. He wears a jaunty hat, and gives every boy and girl a delicious melanoma.
The dumboitis was also evident in the audience of the Prime Ministerial Q and A on Monday, where the average question could be summarised as, "I'm a person, and I don't like paying money. Can I not ever pay money for things?" My favourite line, from a surgical swab of a man towards the end of the show, was that because he earned too much to be eligible for low-income handouts, "I feel I'll be taxed into poverty."
This taps into a very prominent feature of our political landscape: the constant line from Tony Abbott that Australian families are hurting, that Aussies are doing it tough, that life is somehow getting harder, that the cost of living is on the rise.
Shenanigans, Tony. Let's get one thing very clear. Australians, en masse, are enjoying a better standard of living than has ever been enjoyed in this country's history.
And not just marginally, but by a huge degree. Really, along with a few other developed countries, we are enjoying a better standard of living than any group of people has in human existence.
We have every kind of food and beverage from around the world deliverable to our doors. We have technological advances that make a decade ago look archaic. We have goods and luxuries of every conceivable kind; cheap and accessible. We have more and better options with transport, entertainment, comfort, place and style of residence. We have the most advanced medicine and best life expectancy of all time.
While there is still poverty in Australia, it does not even touch the kinds of poverty experienced in most countries on earth. Support systems and sufficient wealth exist to cover at least basic needs. The small proportion of genuinely homeless usually have other factors that keep them away from those systems. Being poor in Australia means living in a crappy house, in a crappy area. Maybe a commission flat.
It means living on welfare, getting by week to week, not having any money for nice things. It means the kids have to go to their friend's house to play X-Box, or that they don't get sweet Christmas presents. It sucks, most definitely, but it's safe. It's solid. It keeps you alive. It's a level of stability and security that half the world would kill for, and even the basic amenities of a commission flat are amenities that half the world doesn't have.
Poor people in Australia do not often starve to death. Few die of cold. There is clean water running in any public bathroom. If they're ill, they can walk into a hospital and be treated. If they're broke, they can get welfare. They can get roofs over their heads, even if they're temporary. They have options. If the utilities are shut off, they can find a tap, or a powerpoint. They can make it through the night.
And those poor aside, the rest of the country is doing very damn nicely indeed, thanks very much. Reading these stories of parents bitching about working long hours to afford their private school fees just makes me want to give their little tow-headed spawn a spew bath. The lack of perspective is astonishing. Their kids are safe and fed and healthy and getting every opportunity to do whatever they want with their lives. Theyre not getting sent out to sling sex to tourists for enough US dollars to get their siblings through the week.
We should be ashamed that there are people with good earnings ready to claim victim status on national television over 500 bucks a year. This is what is driving people into a panicky rage. Five hundred if you can afford it. Less if you can't. A red light camera in Victoria docks you $300. Forty kilometres over the limit costs $510.
If we get fines, we bitch about it, but inherently accept the rationale of how a society works. We all abide by certain rules as a form of insurance, to make sure that we don't cop the negative consequences of lawlessness. When people refuse to abide by those rules, they're censured by, or removed from, that society.
So if we obtain energy by burning irreplaceable fuel, and the consequences threaten the safety of our society, then surely we should pay a penalty for that (adding to a fund to guard against those consequences)? The rule is basic: you make the mess, you clean it up. Ten bucks a week is a sweet deal.
But in being part of the luckiest couple of generations of people to yet walk the earth, most of us still like to imagine we've got it tough. When you grow up with a certain standard of living, you get a sense of entitlement. If someone threatens that standard, they are depriving you of what is fundamentally yours. To your mind, you have a right to live like this, because you're lucky enough to have lived like this.
Except you don't. So if you claim you can't afford 10 bucks a week, I call Shenanigans, with a healthy dash of You're a Dill. One schmick dinner would make up your year's liability in one hit. The less well-off will get compo, but even they could afford it if they had to. One less deck of smokes a week. Two less beers. Leave off the Foxtel subscription.
Whatever it is, remember that you live in a country where drinkable water comes out of a tap inside your house, and the power runs 24 hours a day. This in itself is a goddamn privilege, and if you are going to bitch and moan about having to _pay_ for that privilege, you can bugger off and die in a ditch.
Because you do not have a right to this way of life. No-one does. We just have the extreme good fortune of enjoying it, and that won't last forever. We should appreciate it while we can.
Perversely, part of me wants to see what would happen if the sea levels rise a couple of metres, the coastal cities get swamped, the rainfall dries up, the power goes out, the militias take to the streets. Part of me would love to see the squawking indignant right-to-luxury crowd learning how to live in the dust, scraping out dried plants from the earth and hoarding their remnants from the Beforetime.
It'll be a sight if it happens. Dirty red skies will rise up from the ground each morning like a curse. The only creatures that seem to thrive, the cockroaches and carrion birds, will swarm black against the sand and the sunset, rasping dry songs with their throats and with their legs. The water will be gone. The world will not remember ice floes. And for her sins, for ten dollars a week from each and every one of us, Julia Gillard will hang from the garret at the gates of Troy. _Geoff Lemon is a satirist, writer, and the editor of Going Down Swinging. He's on Twitter @geofflemon, or his site at HeathenScripture.com._

----------


## Dr Freud

> A bit of light hearted satire with a message, probably not suitable for rightwing fascists but for everyone else including those dreadful Greens, commies, Laborites and conservative voters this may appeal.  *$10? Feeling the pain? Carbon class war? You must be joking*

  You must be joking.  This was the biggest load of drivel ever written on the internet in relation to this subject.  If you think that's overstating it, then you didn't read it.  :Biggrin:  
He must be an economist with those financial insights.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

You would have to be a moron to think that.  :Biggrin:  
Where are the economists when you need them:   

> *WITH the US fiscal crisis nearing a dramatic finale, downgrades of European debt ratings continuing and the euro crisis deteriorating, the global financial crisis has just moved into a new phase. *  			 		 		This may come as a surprise to observers who believed the worst of the GFC was already behind us. And it proves that fundamental problems cannot be solved by treating their symptoms.  
> Trying to stabilise their ailing economies, they spent billions and trillions on stimulus programs.  
> Instead of preparing for the aftermath of the next and more severe phase of the global financial crisis, Australia has been wasting its energies. 
> Domestic debates pale into insignificance in comparison with the financial storm that is brewing on the horizon. Why are we even contemplating new taxes that damage our international competitiveness at a time of the utmost economic uncertainty? Australia may have been an island of tranquillity post Lehman, but for how much longer?   A bad time to damage our economy as the next stage of the GFC looms | The Australian

  What a great time to shackle our economy and suck the life out of our greatest economic strengths.  For ZERO climate difference anyway. What lunacy!  :Doh:   
Australians will be driven into poverty for more failed green dream schemes, and then *freeze* because they can't afford their heating bills, to stop global *warming*!.  :Annoyed:   
What is it with Labor racking up massive national debt then leaving the country in recession:    

> Westpac today reversed its outlook for official interest rates, saying it now expects a series of rate cuts, starting with 25 basis points in December and continuing throughout 2012.  
> "We now expect a sequence of rate cuts beginning with 25 basis points in December 2011 and through 2012 totalling 100bps prior to a period of steady rates in 2013," Westpac said in a statement.  
> "*While the catalyst for the first rate cut is likely to come from offshore, we do not expect it to be a one off,*" Westpac said.  
>  		"Interest rates are too high in Australia given the state of the non-mining sectors of the domestic economy and a downward adjustment is required to avert a damaging round of contraction.   Westpac predicts interest rates wil be cut before Christmas | Latest Business & Australian Stock market News | Perth Now

  These are the same economists that were predicting rapid rate rises all through this year. 
Maybe Tony Abbott was right after all, hey? 
Pity it will take the destruction of our economy to prove to most that the failed green dream schemes from JuLIAR are killing our country.  At least we'll get massive emission reductions as the country tanks!  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

This keeps getting better and better:   

> *BIG banks, accountants and lawyers are among the big winners to cash in on the carbon plan, as companies wrestle with reporting requirements arising from the tax. * Financial services firms are also likely to profit from the overhaul of the tax system announced as part of the carbon plan.  
> Banks will be involved in trading carbon permits when emissions trading starts in 2015, and will develop new products to help polluters reduce their carbon exposure.  
> Australian Bankers' Association chief executive Steven Munchenberg said the Government's carbon price was "essentially creating a new market".  
> "We would therefore expect to see a range of instruments developed to help companies manage their carbon exposure,"  Revealed: The real winners of Gillard&#039;s carbon price plan | Latest Business & Australian Stock market News | Perth Now

  Just great.  The yanks tanked their entire economy and created the global financial crisis by creating false financial derivatives.  Now we will create something even more useless, wasteful and unstable, and bet our whole economy on it.  
You would have to be a green f---ing muppet to believe in this fairy tale. :Doh:  
Here's Bob and JuLIAR's economic adviser at work:

----------


## Dr Freud

The Labor backbench better grow a backbone, otherwise they'll make the NSW Labor party result look respectable:  

> *BATTERED and bruised from her encounter with mainstream Australians, Julia Gillard retreated to the solace of Canberra yesterday.  * For all the comfort she might draw, by seeking to play to the Canberra insiders and soak up their affirmation, Gillard is repeating the mistakes of Kevin Rudd and Mark Latham. It is not charming the gallery that counts; it is winning over the public. 
> She had been confronted by some disappointed voters and in a community forum in Brisbane encountered this: 
> "Good evening, Julia. My name is Eliza and I work in higher education. My question is that, I am not sure as an ordinary Australian, whatever that means, that I can trust you anymore.  
> "I'm 30 years old, I'm a single female, single income, just bought my first home. My parents were flooded in the recent floods, I wasn't . . . and I'm bearing the brunt of your taxes.  
> "I have seen you backflip on many things, your determination that you weren't going to overthrow Kevin Rudd, you've backflipped on the carbon tax. . .  
> "You've even done things that in opposition you would've found abhorrent, like sending asylum-seekers to Malaysia . . . How can anyone trust you with this record? Because I don't think I can anymore."  
> Little wonder the Prime Minister sought the warm bosom of the press club, where she gave another speech about her carbon tax plan.  
> This is patronising to all the Australians who have real doubts about the policy. Just maybe, some Australians understand that other countries are not acting. Perhaps they understand Australia's tax will have no material effect on climate, and some people might even think that promises are worth keeping.  
> Drawing warm applause from Canberra insiders does not alleviate these doubts. Gillard needs to understand that Rudd and Latham enjoyed the support of Canberra insiders. But mainstream Australians long ago developed the endearing habit of making up their own minds.   PM feels chill of the public | The Australian

  Treating the voting public like they are half wits will end you JuLIAR.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Bye bye Bob after the next election:   

> The Opposition Leader told a community forum in Brisbane last night that if elected prime minister, he would call a double dissolution election if Labor and the Greens blocked him from repealing the carbon tax.  
> There are provisions for dealing with a deadlock and we won't shy away from those provisions, he said.   Tony Abbott dared to carry out double dissolution poll threat | The Australian

  But I have no doubt that a Shorten led Labor opposition will capitulate in the Senate.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's the biggest LIE of all. 
JuLIAR told Treasury to ASSUME that all nations on the Planet will join us on this idiotic crusade. 
If they do not, then ALL Treasury forecasts are JUNK and our economy will be even more destitute!   

> *THE one thing you need to know about Treasury's modelling of the carbon tax is this: it assumes that by 2016, the US and all the other developed economies that do not have carbon taxes or emissions trading systems in place will have them up and running. * Treasury's report does not address any of these issues. Rather, it starts from implausible assumptions to reach conclusions that are no less implausible for being rigorously derived. That may suit the government, which determined the scope of Treasury's work.  
> But it is not what proper policy analysis requires. And it is not what the community, as it grapples with these issues, demands and can legitimately expect.   Fatal flaw in case for a carbon tax | The Australian

  JuLIAR is LYING and LYING and LYING!  
All to save her political career, to the massive detriment to our country and standard of living.

----------


## johnc

> Australians now fighting Australians because JuLIAR is lying on behalf of a minority watermelon agenda:   
> In democracy, we have elections to sort out massive issues like this. 
> In communism, we just ramp up the propaganda and push the socialist redistribution of wealth. 
> Which system is JuLIAR following? You decide.

  
Other than the fact that your slant is nothing more than purile right wing bull you are spreading hate and mistrust with your continual lies and half truths. You don't get it do you, there is nothing smart about what you are doing it is this type of talk that is destroying consumer confidence, and causing unnecessary fear. It is you and others like you that are currently causing damage in this country and the legacy this misinformation leaves will be long lasting, and far worse than anything Labor are doing. The actions of the current government are legitimate whether we like it or not, and if we had an election tomorrow do you really thing the Liberals are fit to lead, because there is nothing Abbot is offering beyond negativity and there is no sign that there are any policy ideas other than situation normal, which is what we have now. There may be no Carbon tax, but what idea does he have other than that, absolutely none.

----------


## chrisp

> Other than the fact that your slant is nothing more than purile right wing bull you are spreading hate and mistrust with your continual lies and half truths. You don't get it do you, there is nothing smart about what you are doing it is this type of talk that is destroying consumer confidence, and causing unnecessary fear. It is you and others like you that are currently causing damage in this country and the legacy this misinformation leaves will be long lasting, and far worse than anything Labor are doing. The actions of the current government are legitimate whether we like it or not, and if we had an election tomorrow do you really thing the Liberals are fit to lead, because there is nothing Abbot is offering beyond negativity and there is no sign that there are any policy ideas other than situation normal, which is what we have now. There may be no Carbon tax, but what idea does he have other than that, absolutely none.

  Well said! 
I must admit that I'm somewhat perplexed by the relatively poor standard of infromation and debate on this topic in the mainstream media. 
Relatively little seems to have been done to inform the public on the issue.  unfortunately, the general standard of political leadership on this issue (and perhaps in general?) has been lacking.  It is amazing to see that good leaders are being sidelined and the whole issue seems to be driven by public "outcry" and media souces pushing their own interests.  We seem to have "political followers" rather than "political leaders". 
I have absolutely no doubt that Australia will have a price on carbon.  Even if Mr Abbott manages to overturn the proposed system, it'll only be a matter of time before it is reinstated.  Australia will certainly look like a backwater internationally if it were establish a cabon price and then remove it. 
Regardless of the political environment, the science is still the same and AGW is truely here.  It is certainly scary to see that some are so naive that they think they can simply "vote" the problem away!  To me, its like saying you can vote for the earth to be flat!

----------


## PhilT2

From the conference in Melbourne &#x202a;CEC Confronts British Empire&#39;s Schellnhuber&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
about one minute in

----------


## Dr Freud

Gee whiz, I thought my ego was out of control before, and now you're encouraging my God complex.  :Biggrin:  
According to you, I am more powerful than the Australian government.  :Doh:  
Now, while ignorance is a naturally occurring condition, it can be easily treated with factual information.  Unfortunately for too many, ideology and religion get in the way.  Allow me to assist:   

> Other than the fact that your slant is nothing more than purile right wing bull

  I report the facts champ, you have my apologies if the truth hurts.  :Biggrin:    

> you are spreading hate and mistrust with your continual lies and half truths.

  I have not spread hate of anything, except ignorance.  Mistrust of JuLIAR is all of her own making, she keeps telling lies and breaking promises. Out of all of my "continual lies" that you refer you, you cannot even post one.  I'm happy to retract any factual errors I have inadvertently made when they are pointed out to me, but you never have, you just name call, using your really mature debating technique.  Or are you just lashing out at opinions that threaten your ideology? 
And what the hell is a half-truth, do you want me to cut and paste the whole friggin internet?   

> You don't get it do you

  Apparently not.  :No:    

> there is nothing smart about what you are doing

  Not even the green muppet monopoly money photo, I thought that was pretty smart?  :Biggrin:    

> it is this type of talk that is destroying consumer confidence, and causing unnecessary fear

  Wow! I thought it was the $200 billion of national debt (not including the $50 billion NBN stuff), the incompetent government wasting tens of billions, plus spending ALL of our savings, an inept Prime Minister allowing the Greens to rule the country, massive sovereign risk increases reported by international investors due to this governments idiocy, like shutting down our cattle export industry, or taxing our best industries into paralysis, or now proposing a massive economy slowing tax on the brink of a global financial crisis worse than the last one...shall I continue...or does the truth still hurt too much. 
Or you can just keep believing the country is being shut down by a few crazy right wing bloggers.  Whatever keeps the cognitive dissonance at bay.  :Biggrin:    

> It is you and others like you that are currently causing damage in this country and the legacy this misinformation leaves will be long lasting, and far worse than anything Labor are doing.

  After my last paragraph, hopefully you haven't lost your sense of humour and are now laughing as hard as I was when I first read this sentence above.  :Roflmao:    

> The actions of the current government are legitimate whether we like it or not

  Yes, that's the problem, they are legitimate as endorsed by the constitution and the Westminster system.  But that does not mean the decisions they make (or Bob Brown makes) are good for the country.  And all evidence indicates they are not.   

> and if we had an election tomorrow do you really thing the Liberals are fit to lead

  Yes, absolutely! 
But a better question is: Could they possibly do anything to screw the country up any worse?  :Sneaktongue:    

> because there is nothing Abbot is offering beyond negativity and there is no sign that there are any policy ideas other than situation normal, which is what we have now. There may be no Carbon tax, but what idea does he have other than that, absolutely none.

  Remember how earlier we learned about ignorance being cured by factual information, you'll have hours of fun here:  Home - Liberal Party of Australia 
It doesn't appear that you are an avid reader, but the tabs at the top link to all their policies.  Some of these will be updated at the calling of the next election, as the caretaker period will allow a better reconciling of our nations despair.  :Wink 1:  
"Absolutely none" huh?  Now that made me laugh again.  :Laughing1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Well said!

  I think we've already covered this one.  :Biggrin:    

> I must admit that I'm somewhat perplexed by the relatively poor standard of infromation and debate on this topic in the mainstream media. 
> Relatively little seems to have been done to *inform the public on the issue*.

  Too right, let's take a look at how terribly confused and uninformed these poor souls really are:   

> I have absolutely no doubt that Australia will have a price on carbon.

  Really? I've never heard of this, and I've been paying attention.  Are we really going to "have a price on *Carbon*"? Let's check it out:  Carbon is found in many different compounds. It is in the food you eat, the clothes you wear, the cosmetics you use and the gasoline that fuels your car. Carbon is the sixth most common element in the universe. In addition, carbon is a very special element because it plays a dominant role in the chemistry of life. 
What about some pics for those who don't like to read:  *Basic Information*   *Name:* Carbon  *Symbol:* C  *Atomic Number:* 6  *Atomic Mass:* 12.0107 amu  *Melting Point:* 3500.0 °C (3773.15 K, 6332.0 °F)  *Boiling Point:* 4827.0 °C (5100.15 K, 8720.6 °F)  *Number of Protons/Electrons:* 6  *Number of Neutrons:* 6  *Classification:* Non-metal  *Crystal Structure:* Hexagonal  *Density @ 293 K:* 2.62 g/cm3  *Color:* May be black    *Atomic Structure*    *Number of Energy Levels:* 2  *First Energy Level:* 2  *Second Energy Level:* 4    Chemical Elements.com - Carbon (C)    

> Regardless of the political environment, the science is still the same

  Yep, the periodic table looks the same to me.  :Biggrin:    

> It is certainly scary to see that some are so naive that they think they can simply "vote" the problem away!

  The problem is this inept government, and we certainly can vote them away!  :2thumbsup:  
You keep saying "the science" is on your side, but you don't even know the difference between an atom of Carbon and a molecule of Carbon Dioxide?  But don't panic, I'm always happy to help you guys out:  Rader's CHEM4KIDS.COM   :Biggrin:    

> Relatively little seems to have been done to *inform the public on the issue*.

  Consider the public a bit more informed.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

These are real Australian families being LIED to their faces by their own Prime Minister. 
They are left with uncertainty, when she knows for certain their jobs are gone!   

> "There's a lot of anxiety there and that's why I'm here to talk issues through with people, to be there directly available to have a conversation," she told reporters. 
> "I am very confident that the Latrobe Valley has a bright future," she said.  
> But Ms Gillard was unable to say if any Latrobe Valley power station would definitely close, saying it had to go through a tender process and any closure would take a number of years.  Tony Abbott, Wayne Swan clash over carbon tax | The Australian

  Does anyone seriously believe we will have brown coal power plants running into the future concurrently with a target for 80% CO2 reductions, especially with domestic petrol use exempt? 
JuLIAR has already calculated the buy out package for when they go bankrupt! 
How can she continue to LIE to her own citizens faces?  :Doh:  
They are real people with lives now hijacked by lunatic greenies.  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Im not yet confident enough to make this a firm prediction. But the odds are rapidly shortening on Julia Gillard being out by late September. 
>   - This tax wont sell - and cant. It is all pain and no gain, and makes no sense at all,  
>   - The economy is rapidly weakening, in part because of Labors terrible weakness. Voters will feel frightened at having such a weak government in charge at this moment, making things even worse. 
>   - Gillards media supporters are less vocal, feeling more pity than respect. No one wants a leader they pity. 
>  - The Greens have become dangerously extreme and arrogant, further undermining Gillard. Brown demanding restrictions on a media that criticises him must be a last straw. 
>  - The polls have their own logic and bring their own pressure. Im tipping the next Newspoll will give Gillard little lift, and quite possibly will show her plumb new depths. 
>  - Union support is fracturing. Consider the Transport Workers Union. The AWU will soon back Gillards tax, thanks to the handouts, but few unions will actively fight for her. 
>  - Growing panic in business sectors over falling sales and rising costs will force more business leaders to speak out, let Labor do its worst. 
>  - Gillards record of mismanagement means another scandal could happen at any time. The NBN, for one, is always ripe to blow, but remember the cattle trade disaster? Whats next? 
> ...

  Crean looks like a safe pair of hands and has had very little to do with this disaster, so could "delay" it with some credibility.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *WHEN historians begin to analyse how the Gillard government fell apart, they're likely to pay close attention to three telltale events of the past week. *                                Niki Savva predicted in her column in The Australian some weeks back that it was only when people started to feel sorry for Julia Gillard we'd know her political career was irretrievable. 
> Her press club performance on Thursday may have been that point. We saw Julia the tearful recalling the shy, reserved girl at Unley High who always held back, who had difficulty dealing with emotion and engaging with people, who was content to work hard, get through university and join Slater & Gordon's law firm. 
> The second of the week's events likely to take on an emblematic quality is the publication on Tuesday of Newspoll, with the most highly regarded pollster confirming the trends evident in other published research. It was a tale of unprecedented lows for Gillard personally and for federal Labor. The ALP's primary vote has fallen to 27 per cent, compared with the Coalition's 49 per cent. 
> Given that in polling on a carbon price, 18 per cent of Labor supporters described themselves as somewhat against the policy, 11 per cent said they were strongly against it and 16 per cent said they were uncommitted, there may even be room for that record low primary vote to fall further. 
> The two-party split has blown out from 45-55 to 42-58, a record 16-point lead for the Coalition and the second largest in Newspoll's history. 
> Even more encouraging for Tony Abbott was the consolidation of his lead in the preferred prime minister category, a lagging indicator where he is now ahead by five points at 43 per cent to Gillard's 38 per cent. 
> The third telltale event of the week was the announcement of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, under which $10 billion worth of public money is to be dedicated to assisting renewable energy schemes. What's more, Bob Brown announced the Greens had successfully insisted none of the money would be available to help carbon capture and storage. 
> I've seen a lot of disastrous plans from state and federal Labor in my time. 
> I remember the Whitlam government's unorthodox money-raising arrangements with the legendary Tirath Khemlani and the scheme -- hailed at the time as visionary -- whereby the then treasurer, Jim Cairns, persuaded his colleagues to give hippies lavishly appointed communes. But I'm sure even the Whitlam cabinet at its worst would have baulked at a Clean Energy Finance Corporation. 
> The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will be a lender of last resort to every otherwise financially untenable green scheme Brown and his cronies decide to fund. There is practically no end to the number of ways this scheme could and will throw good money after bad. Any self-respecting, minimally competent government could see it for what it is: a series of accidents waiting to happen.  The beginning of Labor&#039;s end | The Australian

  Who could possibly argue for such a disaster to continue?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> WHAT an incredible scene it was this week, to see a voter telling the Prime Minister to her face that she was a liar, not worthy of respect. It cannot have been an accident that the next day Julia Gillard went close to breaking down during her National Press Club address as she engaged in self-reflection and talked about why she was in politics. 
> It must be a shock for anyone to wake up every day to the knowledge that they are loathed by an increasing number of fellow citizens.    
> Most voters will probably never like her. Perhaps most won't trust her again. But if she starts behaving like a prime minister who will assert the power of her office - no giggles, no stroking the arm of a woman who's telling her she's a contemptible liar, but rather sticking up for herself - she has a faint chance of getting them to respect her.   *Shaun Carney is an Age associate editor.*   *Gillard's increasing lack of authority no laughing matter*

   
"Faint" chance? More like invisible.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *THERE is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the government's policy of "pricing carbon" that has clearly escaped not only Prime Minister Julia Gillard but also her expert advisers in Treasury, to say nothing of the economists who have rushed like well-trained seals to bark their approval. *  			 		 		The contradiction is an extension of the basic incoherent notion that a tonne of our coal going into a Chinese power station or steel mill is just wonderful, but a tonne going into a local station/mill is the very encapsulation of planet-destroying evil. 
> While Gillard might actually believe the nonsense from Climate Change Minister Greg Combet that China "is taking action on climate change" that shames us in our tardiness, he must know *the simple truth that it is actually going to double its CO2 emissions by 2020.* 
> Despite what he keeps saying, Combet surely knows this.  Carbon cuts here will be offset by more from China | The Australian

  If JuLIAR knows this, then she is LYING again. 
If she does not, then she is a moron, and cannot and should not be running this country.  :No:  
And what of this:   

> A single Indian state is  to build a new fleet of  coal-power stations that could make it one of the world's top 20 emitters of carbon emissions  on a par with countries such as Spain or Poland. 
> In an echo of the Chinese economy in the 1990s which depended on the exploitation of vast reserves of coal, India *last year approved plans for 173 coal-fired power stations* expected to provide an extra 80-100 gigawatts (GW) of electricity capacity within a few years. *Many are expected to be fuelled by cheap coal imported from Australia*, Indonesia and southern Africa, but *applications to mine more than 600m tonnes of coal in India have been lodged.*  Andhra Pradesh at the forefront of Indian 'coal rush' | Environment | guardian.co.uk

  All of Treasury modelling has assumed all of this won't happen in China, India and the rest of the world, because apparently their going to shut all this down and use windmills.  :Doh:  
Treasury assumptions are flawed, no-one knows how much damage this will do to the economy.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

Maybe I am all powerful:   

> Crean looks like a safe pair of hands and has had very little to do with this disaster, so could "delay" it with some credibility.

   

> Big money is suddenly being laid on Simon Crean to become the new Labor leader. From $101 or even more last week, Crean has come back to:    $11 on SportsBet  $11 before betting was suspended on BetStar    Crean firming | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Did us bloggers  (or me?) "cause" this too, just like we are apparently derailing the economy. 
Or is it that you guys still don't get the difference between correlation and causation. 
You see, maybe us "bloggers" aren't causing these things to happen, maybe we just figure it out the same time as other sensible people.  In other words, our opinions are correlated with each other.  It's those pesky extraneous variables again.  :Biggrin:  
Doh, just spurious correlations again, just as I was starting to feel all powerful too... :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

And pays for her party political propaganda with our tax payer dollars:   

> PRO-CARBON tax television ads to be unleashed on Australia tonight are part of a $25 million taxpayer-funded campaign to win over the public as the Gillard government struggles to explain its message. 
> It is understood the television advertisements feature real Australians who work in large and small organisations and *are involved in creating a clean-energy future.* http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/its-war--carbon-ad-battle-hits-tv-screens-20110716-1hizt.html#ixzz1SIXUGTec

  
So you get to see hand picked stooges who already support the party propaganda.  They are already "involved in creating a clean-energy future".  That's truly amazing as this phrase was only confirmed by a polling committee a few weeks ago.  These stooges were very quick off the mark as they are already involved in this spin. 
But she won't allow real workers to air their views through the media:   

> *In an event closed to the media*, Ms Gillard met 120 workers at the Hazelwood power station.  
>               ''I've met with workers who were anxious, prepared to ask some very hard questions, prepared to have very direct exchange with me,'' she said.  Hard sell: Gillard clashes with Hazelwood workers

  
Now where have I seen this type of campaign before? Oh yeh, now I remember:   

> It isnt that North Korea doesnt have traffic lights; its that they dont have the electricity to power them. Pyongyang goes almost totally dark after nightfall, and they use human traffic lights during the day. Kim Jong Il himself dictated the creation of the Traffic Girls, and supposedly designed their uniforms as well.  
>  Despite how sad it is that a nation should need traffic girls, they seem to be an iconic part of North Korean culture - I guess if youre bad enough off that you cant power your own traffic lights, youd might as well make something of it:       _North Korean actresses play traffic girls in the North Korean propaganda movie A Traffic Controller On Crossroads  HSB · North Korean Traffic Girls: An Endangered Species_

----------


## Dr Freud

> On Thursday, the PM told   Australia's most cynical political journalists that she was shy.
> And who wants to vote for a weak leader? 
>              Many would find it hard to believe that someone who has become the first Australian female PM could be timid. Julia Gillard usually presents herself publicly as calm, confident and in control; in her own words, a woman of ''steely determination''. 
>               So, by tacitly ascribing any of these stereotypical shy attributes to herself, positive or negative, she risks being perceived as ''Ju-liar'' again, only this time we'll assume she's lying about her own personality. 
>               Commentators are already joking about ''the _real_ real Julia Gillard'', and one _Age_ correspondent described her as ''looking like a woman trying to get out of a speeding fine''. If she's not directly lying, then at best she appears to be trying to make excuses for her failings. 
> The shy Prime Minister sought our understanding, perhaps our pity. I fear she is more likely to have lost our respect. Shy another one: PM's revelation a no-win play in politics

  
And that's written by a woman at The Age!  :Wink 1:  
Maybe those crazy "right wing bloggers" also "caused" her to write this stuff?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Wow, it appears JuLIAR also LIED about price and cost increases. 
Who woulda thunk?   

> *ELECTRICITY bills under a carbon tax will rise by more than double what the federal government has claimed - adding as much as $300 to an average family's yearly bills - according to forecasts by NSW Treasury officials. *                                The rise would come on top of the 17 per cent increase customers were hit with on July 1. And councils facing massive bill rises say they will cut childcare services, aged care and roadworks or dramatically raise rates, wiping out the 20c compensation buffer offered by the government to compensate families.  
> Some councils' power bills will rise by as much as $300,000. General manager Max Eastcott at Gwydir Shire said: "We need a carbon tax like a hole in the head." 
> There is also dispute between NSW and federal Treasury modelling over the real price impact of the tax on NSW delivered services.  Carbon tax means $300 power bill surge, says NSW Treasury | thetelegraph.com.au

  Wow, that 20c buffer is getting stretched a looooooong way now, isn't it?  :Biggrin:  
But relax, I'll stop pointing out the blatantly obvious and apparently business confidence and consumer confidence will recover, then the Australian economy will improve and all the debt will disappear. Just Like Magic.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

> I must admit that I'm somewhat perplexed by the relatively poor standard of infromation and debate on this topic in the mainstream media. 
> Relatively little seems to have been done to inform the public on the issue.

  Rest assured that you're not alone, plenty have been duped.  Check out what your pals at The Age have been publishing:   

> One of the masterstrokes of this Governments propaganda has been to persuade even educated journalists ("even"?) that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, threatening even the air they breathe.   Terry McCrann produces an example:  _There is rubbish and then there is utterly unadulterated sludge. Nothing has arguably been more unadulterated than the column from The Ages Ian Verrender on Tuesday._   _Verrender ...  proceeded to patronisingly explain how cleaning up was a costly business. But wed been prepared to spend the money on world-class sewage systems, paying the cost of stopping companies dumping dioxin or acids into Sydney Harbour or the Yarra, and so on and on._   _Then came a world-class sentence of idiocy. But when it comes to polluting the atmosphere, the air we breathe..._   _Could somebody down at The Age - anybody? - explain to the poor chap about carbon dioxide._   _Which if the atmosphere wasnt polluted with, life on earth would not exist. All plants would die. He wouldnt actually have any air to breathe._   _And which - just to break it to him gently - he, ahem, breathes out in concentrations that are 10 times that of the polluted atmosphere._We can laugh, but this meme has escaped. I heard a woman on ABC talkback assert, without contradiction from the host, that if we didnt stop emitting carbon dioxide, her children would not be able to breath. On Channel 10 on Sunday, former Liberal leader John Hewson, on being told be me that Gillards carbon dioxide tax would have close to zero effect on temperatures, insisted that cleaning the air would still be good, regardless.   Polluting our reason, not the air | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *Now that the Carbon Tax/ETS is practically a done deal, perhaps we can have an...*  *ETS Thread Tax*  
> The ETS Thread Tax (ETSTT) is in its consultative phase at the moment, but to start the ball rolling, I suggest the following: *The ETS Thread Tax Table:*       Three straight posts in the ETS Thread from the one poster: ETS Thread Tax (ETSTT) = 3 Tim Tams to Watson (TTtW)    Four straight posts in the ETS Thread from the one poster: ETSTT = 3 TTtW    Five straight posts in the ETS Thread from the one poster: ETSTT = 6 TTtW    Six to nine straight posts in the ETS Thread from the one poster: ETSTT= 1 Packet of Dark Chocolate Tim Tams to Watson (PDCTTtW)    10 or more straight posts in the ETS Thread from the one poster: ETSTT = 1 PDCTTtW plus 1 small jar of Maccona Coffee (sjMC)    Cutting-and-pasting without accompanying comments: 2 TTtW    "Great Post!" posts without accompanying comments: 2 TTtW    Links (only) without accompanying comments: 2 TTtW The aim of this tax is to reduce the drivel and boredom in the ETS.  We'll aim to limit drivel and boredom posts to 5% by 2020 and 1% by 2050.  We may need to progressively raise the ETSTT rates over time to achieve our targets. 
> If all goes well, in 3 years time we'll move to a market based system where we'll issue Drivel and Boredom permits and place a cap on Drivel and Boredom.  The forum will be able to trade permits as set the price.  This scheme will be know as the Crap and Trade Scheme (CTS) 
> I the meantime, the moderators will receive Tim Tams and coffee to help compensate them for having to read the unnecessarily boring and repetitious posts. 
> The scheme has been modelled, but as we could afford a good economic modeller, we had to rely on the same economic modeller used by Mr Abbott and Mr Joyce.  Unfortunately, the modelling isnt very good (aka "crap") and we cant say for sure if itll cut down the excessively boring posts, but we have worked out  assuming Dr Freud continues to post  that Mr Watson will be very well endowed in Tim Tams and coffee. 
> If the "Packet of Dark Chocolate Tim Tams to Watson" (PDCTTtW) are those special mint ones, we'll be able to claim that they are "brown on the outside and green in the middle".  I'm not sure of the significance of this but it is apparently an important claim.

  
Sorry bloke.....this scheme is far too simple and straightforward to be sensible and practical in this modern world.  Perhaps you should get Centrelink and the Department of Human Services to add their special brand of incomprehensible to it in order to make it more likely to succed? 
The other problem is that there is already an extensive trade in Tim Tam knockoffs....

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Has anyone picked up the similarities? 
"Climate change is going to destroy us blah blah blah" and "The carbon tax is going to destroy us blah blah blah" 
There are times when I wish both of them were right.....

----------


## chrisp

> Has anyone picked up the similarities? 
> "Climate change is going to destroy us blah blah blah" and "The carbon tax is going to destroy us blah blah blah" 
> There are times when I wish both of them were right.....

  I must admit, I initially found your view of human behaviour somewhat pessimistic...  However, on reevaluation, I'm not so sure that your view is pessimistic at all. 
What a weird species we are.  :Cry:

----------


## johnc

I'm sure there are many species that would have been better off if the human race had been wiped out by a carbon tax/climate change man specific extermination about 150 years ago. Where are those handy little events when the earth really needs them. :Wink 1:

----------


## watson

For  a tax that hasn't been passed yet............ :Shrug:   Carbon Price Household Assistance Measures Veteran Community.pdf

----------


## Daniel Morgan

Hello, 
I find it ironic that a Government charges a royality for mining coal, then wants to tax the consumption of it in order to reduce the amount that is used. 
To the best of my knowledge the tax is only on Australia, not the exported coal, perhaps someone could clarify that and also how the Government intends to control the emissions from the exported stuff, remembering that their coal royalties run into the millions!

----------


## Marc

The good thing about a thread like this, is that it exposes the participants ugly side by repetition and via their outburst when their ego is in the way.
The 'conclusions' the assumptions, the dogma, the fanaticism, the ignorance, the principles worthy of the asylum, all points to one and one only FACT. 
Global warming is not about the environment, it is about Marxist dictatorship, econazism, enviroextremism, social engineering at it's worst.  
Supporters of "action" on global warming , would like to see humanity culled by several billions, hope for economic decline, market crashes, famine and poverty in order to "restore the equilibrium" 
Block dam building, close power stations, end animal farming, stop fossil fuel production and burning. 
Everyone has a wish list. Conservatives dream of free markets and prosperity world wide, Western leaders dream of all countries turning to a democratic system, religious leaders dream of mass conversions and peace, greens dream of mass murder shaped in any form at hand of the human race, and the return to a farming society from 500 years ago for the one left behind. 
Voters are in general rather slow in taking up what is not too obvious.
My prediction however for the next election is that the labor/green/cretin(independent) coalition will loose so many seats that will become irrelevant for over a decade, hopefully two. 
That is my wish list. Annihilation at the polls of the enemies of the human race.
As for those supporters that write bull manure at every opportunity, I wish them no harm.
 After all they have to contend with the intellectual mirror every day. That must be a task all by itself.

----------


## Marc

*Tuesday, May 31, 2011*  * Eco-Nazism V democracy and freedom - Today Germany, Tomorow the World*     Germany has decided it is going to close down all its nuclear plants by  2022 and Scotland's SNP are saying that proves they also should do so  (though the logic of German infalibility is not given). This is from a recent article  by a German Social Democrat MP disagreeing with the German government's  appointed political advisors who believe the conflict between  democracy/freedom and fascism/Luddism in Germany should be won by the  latter.  
The SNP claim that the majority in Scotland oppose nuclear though the  most recent poll showed us 2:1 on favour, but then the SNP are also  still claiming nuclear is more expensive than wind so I do noy think  anybody need be concerned that there is a liklihood anything they say be  treated as truthful.  
Germany's green government advisors admit frankly that decarbonization  can only be achieved by the limitation of democracy - both nationally  and internationally.  
When it comes to environmental and climate policy, Germanys Scientific  Advisory Council on Global Environmental Change (WBGU) is an influential  advisory committee for the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The  chairman of the council is Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director  of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.... 
"The reorganization of the world economy has to happen quickly; nuclear  energy and coal have to be given up at the same time and very  soon..... comparable with the Neolithic Revolution and the Industrial  Revolution. These were, however, unplanned, natural historical  processes. The "Great Transformation" however, must be consciously  planned and controlled. It would be a historical novelty. 
All nations would have to relinquish their national interests and find a  new form of collective responsibility for the sake of the climate: "The  world citizenry agree to innovation policy that is tied to the  normative postulate of sustainability and in return surrender  spontaneous and persistence desires. Guarantor of this virtual agreement  is a formative state [...]." 
This strong state provides, therefore, for the "social problematization"  of unsustainable lifestyles. It overcomes "stakeholders" and "veto  players" who "impede the transition to a sustainable society." ...."In  order to anchor future interests institutionally, the Council recommends  expanding the parliamentary legislative process with a deliberative  future chamber. To avoid interference by interest group and political  parties,...
Internationally, the WBGU calls for a "World Security Council" for  sustainability. The members of the proposed "future chamber" for Germany  would explicitly not be chosen democratically and would limit the  powers of Parliament....
The WBGU compares the decarbonization of the global economy to the  Neolithic and the Industrial Revolution. It is wrong to claim that such a  deliberately planned and radical transformation of economic and social  systems is without precedent.
At least partial models of such transformations are the  industrialization of the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s, or the  "Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution in Mao's China. _(note that the author, a German SPD MP has forgotten an attempted German transformation of society after 1933)..._
If Germany wants to do without nuclear energy, then the expansion of  renewable energy will have be accompanied by both coal and natural gas  in the long term. Otherwise, decarbonization will mean nothing else but  de-industrialization. Sometimes one gets the impression that this is  exactly what many political actors intend to achieve.
Article's author Fritz Vahrenholt is a member of the Social Democratic Party   Labels: eco-fascism, International politics, Scottish politics 
          // posted by neil craig @ 4:00 PM   
                        Comments:                                                            Interesting that the SNP hold  up the German nuclear strategy as the way to go and at the same time  ignore Canada, Japan, USA, Russia, Italy, France and others who are  abonding the Kyoto Protocol. India and China didn't join and won't. 
The  UK and Scotland in particular plough on. All that the SNP wish to gain  and the prosperity that they will have to deliver is dependent on cheap  energy. It underpins everything we do. 
I don't think the SNP  Government have actually got near the starting blocks nevermind actually  got ready to run. Yet here they are talking about following Germanys  lead.  
I'd suggest that energy may well become the downfall of  the SNP. Are they really going to throw away their chance of  independence on the back of indefinsible greenie twaddle? # posted by  petem130 : June 01, 2011

----------


## jross

Please get your facts together if you are talking about Scotland an atomic power. Just google Dounreay and read
 what happend there at that plant. What it doesnt meantion is the large spike in childhood lukemia in the Orkneys
 Japan is in the process of trying to find other means as well. So is japan and the SNP following Germany, I think not.
  We have had 3 major desasters with atomic power plants since their conception. Would you want one in your back yard?.

----------


## johnc

> *Tuesday, May 31, 2011*  *Eco-Nazism V democracy and freedom - Today Germany, Tomorow the World*  # posted by  petem130 : June 01, 2011

  Sadly this is about all Marc is able to manage, much of this dreadful rubbish is not disimilar to the drivel we used to read from the League of Rights in the 1970's, it is ancient, there is no factual basis, it is dredged from the minds of the feeble, the weak and the dim witted amongst us. 
The German government has aging nuclear plants that have a finite life, their reaction rightly or wrongly is a direct response to what happened in Japan with the legacy of Chernobyl in the back ground. They are worried about the potential for the same thing to happen at home and the cost in lives and productive land. It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, Nazi's, Communists, Greens or any of the other bogey men you seem to think exist. I think we have all given up on the possibility that you may have sufficient intelligence to discuss these things like an adult, so please feel free to demonstrate the deranged state of whatever you have that passes for a mind.

----------


## Dr Freud

I thought we were done with cults in the eighties, then the greenies came along.  We rid ourselves of the orange people over here in WA, hopefully we as a nation can rid ourselves of the green people cult too. 
Make no mistake, this does not include people with genuine environmental concerns like myself, but whacko subjective statements like this:   

> I'm sure there are many species that would have been better off if the human race had been wiped out by a carbon tax/climate change man specific extermination about 150 years ago.

  By what bizarre criteria do you rate all species in terms of their right to live on this Planet? 
And in what sick mind do you gladly countenance the extermination of your entire species?  This is degrees of magnitude worse than genocide, and even the useless UN thinks genocide is a bad thing.  I thought we were all paying extra taxes to save children and grandchildren?  But now you're happy for them all being exterminated?  The real cult philosophy leaking out maybe?  You are just providing real life support for Marc's position, yet you still try to argue against it. 
Like I said, cults!   

> Where are those handy little events when the earth really needs them.

  Ask the next Dinosaur you meet.  :Doh:  
The Planet Earth must have really "needed" that.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

> For  a tax that hasn't been passed yet............  Carbon Price Household Assistance Measures Veteran Community.pdf

  They still haven't even finalised the policy yet, yet alone written the legislation, and we are also paying $25 million to advertise the "facts" and being told to "count how much money we are all going to be ahead by".  
I'll double that  :Whatonearth:  :Whatonearth:  and raise you a  :Wtf1: . 
And what if it doesn't get through:   

> The rub for Julia Gillard is that only one quarter of the country backs her. That's not enough to push through such a landmark reform. The public mandate is too skinny, the risk of parliamentary defections too fat. Only one member has to cross the floor. And bear in mind, Liberals crossed the floor to support the CPRS when Kevin Rudd was in power. It happens.  Carbon Tax numbers a line-ball call

  And they're not happy, Jan:   

> In the responses to my column yesterday, reader Mark says:  _Andrew, I spoke to our local federal MP about a different matter to the carbon tax, however being the Liberal minded person I am I had to mention it. She is a sitting Labor federal MP. And she said to me, off the record that the carbon tax is the craziest idea her government has ever come up with, she added, I dont why they are going ahead with it, I cant understand their logic. Then she said, there are many who are quietly objecting to it however there was not a lot she could do. I will not mention her name publicly as that would be terrible for her as she is a good person, and she worked hard to get elected and was better than the Liberal candidate they put up in the area. So one thing for certain Labor is not united in this crazy scheme.  Mark W of QLD_ All Right Already isnt so sure about the goodness of such an MP:  _No, she is not a good person.  Any elected representative who publicly supports an irrational policy though privately considering it crazy (whether from motives of party-solidarity or tribalism or for any other reason) or who publicly condones incompetent government whilst privately condemning it or who worked hard to get elected but, once elected, fails to represent electors is not a good person._  _    [T]here was not a lot she could do[.]__On the contrary, she could, for a start, say publicly what she thinks._  _In Queensland (supposing Mark W. of Queensland was speaking of a local MP in Queensland) only two of the Labor MHRs are female: Mrs Yvette DAth (representing Petrie) and Ms Kirsten Livermore (of Capricornia).  I have written to both these representatives, and I shall report any response I receive._How much longer before Labor MPs save us from this mad tax? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  More on this later, but the backbench is still without a backbone.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

The backbench need to understand, *this is different to Rudd.* 
You are now complicit by sitting back and saying nothing when your constituents are screaming out for you to do something. 
When you lose your seat to some no-name oncer Liberal stooge, don't blame Gillard, go look in the mirror. 
You know who you are, cos your names not on this list:   

> Reader Jordan calculates whod Labor have left in the House of Representatives if the Nielsen poll is repeated at the election, and evenly across all electorates:  _Isaacs (VIC) ALP 0.02% DREYFUS, Mark 
> Jagajaga (VIC) ALP 0.5% MACKLIN, Jenny 
> Ballarat (VIC) ALP 0.7% KING, Catherine 
> Wakefield (SA) ALP 1.0% CHAMPION, Nick 
> Throsby (NSW) ALP 1.1% JONES, Stephen 
> Makin (SA) ALP 1.2% ZAPPIA, Tony 
> Blaxland (NSW) ALP 1.2% CLARE, Jason 
> Lyons (TAS) ALP 1.3% ADAMS, Dick 
> Chifley (NSW) ALP 1.3% HUSIC, Ed 
> ...

  *Backbenchers alert*, your government just promised to give away tens of billions of dollars to most Australians, and your support then dropped to the lowest ever recorded in Australian history.  What will happen when the real numbers get out?  What will happen after the next budget blowout?  Here's what you're being told, best you listen and learn:    

> David Jones chief executive Paul Zahra says the Gillard government is partly to blame for the department stores shock profit downgrade, as a string of tax increases have stung its core customer base and triggered a sales collapse.
>  Australias smaller airlines say the Governments carbon tax may force them to cut services, leaving some towns stranded.
>  Truck drivers threaten carbon tax blockades.
>  The tourism industry fears Labors carbon tax has the potential to severely damage the sector as it grapples with the effects of a high dollar and the two-speed economy.
>  A rise in aviation fuel excise will be passed to travellers through higher fares, airlines have warned.
>  Iron triangle towns Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie fear the worst under carbon tax.
>  Penrice Soda in fear of carbon tax wipeout
>  The Queensland Dairy Organisation says the carbon price could be the final nail in the coffin for struggling dairy farmers.
>  Brisbane ratepayers could be slugged an extra two per cent on their rates bills next year as a result of the federal governments carbon tax.
> ...

----------


## Dr Freud

> THE carbon price package has dragged Julia Gillard and Labor down to  record depths in an _Age_/Nielsen poll showing people don't believe the government's claims about compensation and want an early election.  
>               Labor's two-party vote has fallen a further 2 points, leaving it trailing the Coalition by a massive 39-61 per cent. *The ALP primary vote* is down 1 point to *26 per cent* - the lowest for either major party in the poll's 39-year-history.  
>               Over the past month, Tony Abbott has opened an 11-point lead as preferred prime minister - the first time he has been ahead of Ms Gillard. The government would be wiped out in a huge landslide if an election were held now.   Labor plumbs new depths as carbon tax bites

  And JuLIAR LIES again to sell another policy fiasco based on a LIE.   

> Ms Gillard was on the back foot yesterday as she defended the government's $12 million TV advertising campaign, which started yesterday and will be accompanied by $13 million in spending on other information to sell the carbon price.  She rejected suggestions she was breaking promises not to abuse taxpayer-funded advertising.

  
The reason for this is obvious, it's called failed green dream schemes.    

> The Nielsen poll director, John Stirton, said Labor was facing a wipe-out on par with the thrashing NSW Labor received on March 26.  
>               ''There is just one reason: the carbon tax is alienating voters like nothing before it,'' he said.   Gillard down for count

----------


## Dr Freud

> Hello, 
> I find it ironic that a Government charges a royality for mining coal, then wants to tax the consumption of it in order to reduce the amount that is used. 
> To the best of my knowledge the tax is only on Australia, not the exported coal, perhaps someone could clarify that and also how the Government intends to control the emissions from the exported stuff, remembering that their coal royalties run into the millions!

  Treasury modelling for the Carbon Dioxide Tax is based on massive increases in Coal and Iron Ore (smelted overseas) exports.  JuLIAR herself has said that she intends to massively increase our Coal exports to China, India and many other countries. 
None of these export nations will pay the Carbon Dioxide Tax.   
The miners here will, and the users here will. 
I asked our learned AGW hypothesis supporters if they support this farce, and do they believe these foreign nations use a different atmosphere?  They did not respond. 
I thought they were too cowardly to admit their position was ridiculous, but then I realised they actually don't know the difference between Carbon and Carbon Dioxide.  Now I think they actually haven't even thought that far ahead about what happens to our exports.  :No:  
So how does this Carbon Dioxide Tax policy deal with exported emissions, it just plain ignores them.  :Biggrin:  
Now stop asking sensible questions, or they'll start calling you names.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> We have had 3 major desasters with atomic power plants since their conception. Would you want one in your back yard?.

  Why do they keep building them in peoples backyards.  All the greenies keep saying this.  My backyard is quite small, so probably wouldn't fit anyway.  But if it fits, bring it on. 
And you claim there is an occasional spill?  Who f---ing cares! 
The IPCC claims fossil fuels are about to damage the entire Planet Earth and destroy humanity as we know it! 
So assuming you believe all this fiction: 
The choices are 1) Nuclear, 2) Dead Planet, 3) Lights out. 
Gee, number 1 is looking pretty good to me.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

*Read this whole article.* 
Labor will recover in the polls between now and the next election, as morbid disillusionment cannot last. 
But this article explains why they will NEVER be re-elected if they introduce the Carbon Dioxide Tax:   

> *ASKED the mood of the government at the end of the week that saw the carbon tax battle finally joined, a Labor Party figure with roots stretching back to the Hawke-Keating era and deep networks inside the ALP replied: "Dispirited". *                                Asked how Labor MPs had viewed Julia Gillard's attempt to turn the tide of the carbon tax debate the same operative replied: "Disastrous". "MPs don't even want to raise the carbon tax with the punters. It is just too divisive. They're likening it to the Keneally government in its last days. Voters have just switched off." 
> Voters assess something is amiss here, leading to Abbott's killer line last week: "What's the point?" 
> Senior Labor strategists admit this is the government's achilles heel. 
> According to Canavan's analysis the government argues that Treasury modelling shows a carbon tax won't generate higher unemployment. But what they don't say is this result is achieved by the assumption that employment is maintained by a reduction in real wages. 
> As a result real wages will fall by about 0.8 per cent by 2020 and about 5.8 per cent by 2050. 
>  The average adult full time wage is $1341 a week at the moment or $69,732 a year. An 0.8 per cent fall in wages amounts to $558 a year in 2020.  
> A 5.8 per cent fall in wages amounts to a $4044 a year in 2050 in today's dollars. And they are greater than the predicted $9.90 ($515 per year) increase in household costs resulting from the carbon tax. 
> In an internal note Canavan is driven to the obvious conclusion: "This demonstrates just how far the Labor Party has come. A party that was established on the back of the fight for higher wages for shearers now finds itself adopting a policy that lowers the wages of shearers (and other farm workers) as a means to keep open the farming sector while we unilaterally reduce our carbon emissions." 
>  He would appear to have a point. It will be interesting to hear Gillard's riposte. That's if anyone is still listening. 
>  Canavan's point is that there is no compensation for these effective wage cuts.  Policy that will leave workers shorn | The Australian

  All this "compensation" cr-p JuLIAR is carrying on about will not even cover the loss in real wages for Australians as a result of this tax. 
This means the compensation will run out BEFORE you even get to calculate the prices rises. 
What an absolute f---ing shambolic mess!!!  :Doh:  
And no-one has even had time to investigate the $7.5 billion dollar blowout in the costings that have already occurred in the past week since this national joke was announced.  :No:

----------


## johnc

> I thought we were done with cults in the eighties, then the greenies came along. We rid ourselves of the orange people over here in WA, hopefully we as a nation can rid ourselves of the green people cult too. 
> Make no mistake, this does not include people with genuine environmental concerns like myself, but whacko subjective statements like this:   
> By what bizarre criteria do you rate all species in terms of their right to live on this Planet? 
> And in what sick mind do you gladly countenance the extermination of your entire species? This is degrees of magnitude worse than genocide, and even the useless UN thinks genocide is a bad thing. I thought we were all paying extra taxes to save children and grandchildren? But now you're happy for them all being exterminated? The real cult philosophy leaking out maybe? You are just providing real life support for Marc's position, yet you still try to argue against it. 
> Like I said, cults!   
> Ask the next Dinosaur you meet.  
> The Planet Earth must have really "needed" that.

  
Oh dear, I thought even a right wing born again nutcase like you Dr Fraud would have been capable of seeing the little wink at the end, obviously not, so best you untie those knickers and try growing up a bit. A bit of humour doesn't hurt when faced with the endless repetition of the rubbish and lies you post.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *Read this whole article.* 
> Labor will recover in the polls between now and the next election, as morbid disillusionment cannot last. 
> But this article explains why they will NEVER be re-elected if they introduce the Carbon Dioxide Tax:   
> All this "compensation" cr-p JuLIAR is carrying on about will not even cover the loss in real wages for Australians as a result of this tax. 
> This means the compensation will run out BEFORE you even get to calculate the prices rises. 
> What an absolute f---ing shambolic mess!!!  
> And no-one has even had time to investigate the $7.5 billion dollar blowout in the costings that have already occurred in the past week since this national joke was announced.

  So your cool with economic modelling out to 2050 and all the generalisations, assumptions and wild but educated guesses that go with it but uncool with climate modelling out to 2050 and all the generalisations, assumptions and wild but educated guesses that go with it?   :Doh:  
The human species.....oh how I love thee.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I must admit, I initially found your view of human behaviour somewhat pessimistic...  However, on reevaluation, I'm not so sure that your view is pessimistic at all. 
> What a weird species we are.

  I'm not pessimistic at all - how can one be pessimistic in the face of so much that's worth laughing at? 
Climate change is simply going to make life interesting over the next fifty years.  This kerfuffle about a carbon price.....will have the lifespan and impact of the oh so scary Y2K bug.  Both on the economy and on carbon emissions.   
If nothing else......this hilariously stupid policy 'debate' from the Left, Right and The Great Unwashed makes great fodder for another series of 'The Hollowmen'......I mean if the BBC can bring back 'In The Thick Of It' then Aunty should commision Working Dog to take another blat at Hollowmen....or something similar based in a Federal Gov department with environment and climate change in its remit - "see the bureaucratic reaction to the policy madness of our elected representatives!". Trust me.  Comedy gold source material.

----------


## jross

If you write something to destroy an arguement, getting it wrong makes you look foolish. The unwise doctor suggests my phrase "back yard" suggests something close. Well lets look at 2 back yards of Atomic plant disasters. The radiation spill of the Japanese plant now  covers all of Japan, plus parts of the mainland.
   Chernobyl sent out a cloud of radiation that greatly affected northern Europe. The Danish dairy and bacon industry suffered for reasons not of their making, whilst the cloud can still be tracked as a band around the world.
   What effect will it have? No one knows for sure. But one thing is sure Scandinavia and Scotland did not ask for, or welcome it.
  So please unwise doctor, look at reality, not your greedy little "I want it all now and to hell with tomorrow" policy.

----------


## chrisp

Here is something that may be of interest to those who love to quote Christopher Monckton:   

> Dear Lord Monckton 
>  My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010,  and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member  of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been  drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims. 
>  In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam  Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether  or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said "Yes, but  without the right to sit or vote". You later repeated, "I am a Member of  the House". 
>  I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have  never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a  Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in  terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a  Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House.  This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry  of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated: "In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to 'a  member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit  and vote in that House ... In a nutshell, membership of the House of  Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean  entitlement to the dignity of a peerage."I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a  Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and  also that you desist from claiming to be a Member "without the right to  sit or vote". 
>  I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that  anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of  Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not. 
>  David Beamish
> Clerk of the Parliaments
>  15 July 2011 
> Source: A letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from the Clerk of the Parliaments - UK Parliament

----------


## Hoff

> Here is something that may be of interest to those who love to quote Christopher Monckton:

  I thought he handled this Ad Hominem reasonably well at the press club today.

----------


## PhilT2

If the cut and pastes from the Murdoch press that appear here frequently are insufficient to convince you of the poor quality of their reporting you could try viewing the debate between Monckton and Dennis &#x202a;Lord Christopher Monkton Debate Dr Richard Dennis at the, National Press Club Address 19/07/2011&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube to see first hand evidence that many journalists struggle to develop intelligent questions.  
By comparison watching the ice melt in the Arctic is rivetting stuff. Sea Ice Satellite Images, Greenland | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

----------


## Daniel Morgan

Hello Dr Freud, 
Thank you for the reply, I was hoping your opponents would have been able to answer. 
It seems like daylight robbery. 
"It would be nice to locate the origin of this phrase, so let's go back to the 1690s. Like many English monarchs, William III was short of money, which he attempted to rectify by the introduction of the much-despised Window Tax." 
"Taxes are rarely popular, but the Window Tax, which was considered to tax the very stuff of life, i.e. light and air, was singled out for particular loathing".   Daylight robbery

----------


## Rod Dyson

Sorry for not many posts lately but riveting stuff from Doc.  Nice to see some others into the fray.  The only good thing to come out of this tax is that it will destroy Labor for many elections to come.

----------


## jross

In reply to Rod.
 you once suggested I should read the complete thread before I critisise your good Dr. Well sorry, Id rather stick pins in my eyes than read the drivel his ultra right mob is given, or drags from the discredited and seemingly corrupt right wing Murdoch press.
  The people will decide who governs, and once your right wing cronies here become entangled in the News corps web, the tide will turn.
   We now see The police in Victoria seemingly involved and if you want to bet, it wont stop there. The ultra right wing is in the process of blasting off toes world wide, to suggest as you do that this tax is the defining issue of two years hence is your wishful
 thinking. Your Bob Santamaria clone aint gonna do it, Malcolm may.

----------


## johnc

> Sorry for not many posts lately but riveting stuff from Doc. Nice to see some others into the fray. The only good thing to come out of this tax is that it will destroy Labor for many elections to come.

  Thank you Rod for your lack of posts, no need to apologise, it can only raise the quality of the thread. Although you and Dr Fraud may need a separate room, the mutual love in is just a bit to vomit inducing for public display don't you think. :Wink 1:

----------


## chrisp

> In reply to Rod.
>  you once suggested I should read the complete thread before I critisise your good Dr. Well sorry, Id rather stick pins in my eyes than read the drivel his ultra right mob is given, or drags from the discredited and seemingly corrupt right wing Murdoch press.
>   The people will decide who governs, and once your right wing cronies here become entangled in the News corps web, the tide will turn.
>    We now see The police in Victoria seemingly involved and if you want to bet, it wont stop there. The ultra right wing is in the process of blasting off toes world wide, to suggest as you do that this tax is the defining issue of two years hence is your wishful
>  thinking. Your Bob Santamaria clone aint gonna do it, Malcolm may.

  The News Corp drama is quite interesting.  It makes me think about the appropriateness of newspapers editorialising political views at all. 
If it is okay for newspapers to publish an editorial recommending a vote for a particular political party, imagine if it was a publically owned entity publishing such an editorial.  i.e. *What if the ABC was to express the view that a particular party should win government, and urge you to vote accordingly?*  I'd imagine the public would be outraged.   
How is this different if a privately owned or privately controlled entity does the same thing?  I'd certainly question the impartiality and integrity of a profit orientated entity over a publically funded one.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The only good thing to come out of this tax is that it will destroy Labor for many elections to come.

  'They' said that about the Liberals in the period shortly before the GST.....

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Hello Dr Freud, 
> Thank you for the reply, I was hoping your opponents would have been able to answer. 
> It seems like daylight robbery. 
> "It would be nice to locate the origin of this phrase, so let's go back to the 1690s. Like many English monarchs, William III was short of money, which he attempted to rectify by the introduction of the much-despised Window Tax." 
> "Taxes are rarely popular, but the Window Tax, which was considered to tax the very stuff of life, i.e. light and air, was singled out for particular loathing".   Daylight robbery

  I think you'll find it was unpopular because it only taxed the rich (because glass was expensive)....and (unlike the poor at the time) they were the only ones with the resources to complain....and the education to set their complaints down in writing for history to record it.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> In reply to Rod.
>  you once suggested I should read the complete thread before I critisise your good Dr. Well sorry, Id rather stick pins in my eyes than read the drivel his ultra right mob is given, or drags from the discredited and seemingly corrupt right wing Murdoch press.
>   The people will decide who governs, and once your right wing cronies here become entangled in the News corps web, the tide will turn.
>    We now see The police in Victoria seemingly involved and if you want to bet, it wont stop there. The ultra right wing is in the process of blasting off toes world wide, to suggest as you do that this tax is the defining issue of two years hence is your wishful
>  thinking. Your Bob Santamaria clone aint gonna do it, Malcolm may.

  Wow thats showing your colours.  LOL nothing more to be said.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The News Corp drama is quite interesting.  It makes me think about the appropriateness of newspapers editorialising political views at all.

  
Great idea silence critcs. Go democracy. 
Sheez what a stupid thing to say.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Great idea silence critcs. Go democracy. 
> Sheez what a stupid thing to say.

  It'd only silence the right wing critics at the moment.  And when the Right is in the ascendency....many of those same critics were actually sycophants instead.  Left is just as bad - just not as numerous. 
Honestly?  I cringe at the idea of preventing political editorialising.  If for no other reason than it makes life less entertaining for those of us easily amused by it.....

----------


## chrisp

> Great idea silence critcs. Go democracy. 
> Sheez what a stupid thing to say.

  I suppose some people need others to tell them how to "think" (to use the word extremely loosely) and how to vote.  I'd prefer that people just worked it out for themselves based upon their own values and aspirations. 
How would it be silencing critics?

----------


## johnc

> Great idea silence critcs. Go democracy. 
> Sheez what a stupid thing to say.

  
How on earth do you get silencing critics from that, quality in journalism should see editorial comment clearly shown as that with the rest of the paper giving reasonable balance in it's reporting. When you have media concentration there must be a greater responsibility to balanced reporting so the community remains informed. The unfolding Murdoch mess in the UK is about illegal behaviour, unethical conduct, corruption of the political process with cosy and unhealthy relationships between politicians, press and police.  
In that sense editorial opinion has over ruled balance and the power that can give has led to political acquiesence and possible corruption. There is such a thing as decent and proper corporate governence and we may well be looking at that failure leading to the illegal and corrupt behaviour on both a local (UK) and world wide scale. Readers of the Murdoch press tend to be a mix of right wingers and the stupid so they should be even more carefull to ensure these two special little groups of the mentally challenged do not disengage any more of their limited grey matter. 
The real point is that this does not silence critics, we still keep the shock jocks fed for the benefit of the average whining moron that enjoys that negativity and covers that particular flock of fools.

----------


## jross

Rod makes the fatal error of believing all thats not ultra right is either ultra left or a greenie. Actually I am neither. I am a swinging voter
  So if you look at it, my view matters as does my vote. Rods does not. Bob Santamaria Junior will never get my vote, Malcolm
  Just might, we will see when the time comes.

----------


## johnc

> Rod makes the fatal error of believing all thats not ultra right is either ultra left or a greenie. Actually I am neither. I am a swinging voter
> So if you look at it, my view matters as does my vote. Rods does not. Bob Santamaria Junior will never get my vote, Malcolm
> Just might, we will see when the time comes.

  Same here although those with rigid political views do tend to provide some stability with "safe" seats that help provide continuity in those electorates that have a concentration of "one side"

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod makes the fatal error of believing all thats not ultra right is either ultra left or a greenie. Actually I am neither. I am a swinging voter
>   So if you look at it, my view matters as does my vote. Rods does not. Bob Santamaria Junior will never get my vote, Malcolm
>   Just might, we will see when the time comes.

  OMG this does not deserve a response.  Except to say in your view, if you don't agree with AGW and want to get rid of the worst government that hoodwinked the electorate to get elected over a major issue such as this,  then you are a ULTRA RIGHT.   Great work son.

----------


## jago

So why reply?

----------


## jross

Perhaps Rod you should read what I wrote and understand why. 
 I commented and you then said "Wow showing your colours. Well no I was not. Now when I do
 show my colours and with respect its not what you believed, you accuse me of calling you
 ultra right.
  Well SON I did not. There is a government in power due to a coalition. You know what a coalition is,
 its when bargains have to be entered into to form government. What did Liberals offer we will never know
 but they lost out. So stiff cheese get over it, petty insults dont do it
  As to global warming, regardless of what you read here, the vast majority of the world seems to accept
 that carbon is an issue.
  Australia can then be at the front of innovation, or we can wait till its forced apon us,
 there are no other choices. The Scandinavian countries are experimenting with pumping waste gasses from
 burning coal deep underground to solve their issues as but one example
  We are a smart country, we need smart ideas not this negative trash from the right.

----------


## chrisp

> Australia can then be at the front of innovation, or we can wait till its forced apon us, there are no other choices. The Scandinavian countries are experimenting with pumping waste gasses from burning coal deep underground to solve their issues as but one example.

  Actually, there are some pilot post combustion capture (PCC) systems in Australia.  See CO2CRC - Leaders in research into Carbon Capture and Storage and http://www.csiro.au/science/Post-com...n-capture.html  
PCC is contentious technology, but I suspect, it has some merit as a bridging technology to reduce CO2 emissions until better technologies come online.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Oh dear, I thought even a right wing born again nutcase like you Dr Fraud would have been capable of seeing the little wink at the end, obviously not, so best you untie those knickers and try growing up a bit. A bit of humour doesn't hurt when faced with the endless repetition of the rubbish and lies you post.

  Yeh, you guys are hilarious.  First you sanction the "artful" hanging of little girls by the neck, just to sell your cult.  Then you laugh at the blowing up of little kids in a bloodbath, just to sell your little cult.  Then you support the terrorising of our Aussie kids in classrooms, just to sell your little cult.  Now you joke about the extinction of our species, which your greenie mates have certainly *not* been joking about for years, as I have posted in this thread, just to sell your little cult. 
News flash champ, most Aussies ain't buying your little cult.  :No:  
But please keep up religious fervour of your inane insults, it demonstrates continually how little scientific or economic evidence or understanding your cult has on these issues if that's all you've got to post.  :Biggrin:    

> cult   *1.* *a.*  A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. *b.*  The followers of such a religion or sect.  *2.*  A system or community of religious worship and ritual. *3.*  The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual. *4.*  A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease. *5.* *a.*  Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. *b.*  The object of such devotion.  *6.*  An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

----------


## Dr Freud

> So your cool with economic modelling out to 2050 and all the generalisations, assumptions and wild but educated guesses that go with it but uncool with climate modelling out to 2050 and all the generalisations, assumptions and wild but educated guesses that go with it?   
> The human species.....oh how I love thee.

  Let me explain it slowly.  I have said many times that these numbers are based on assumptions, and I continually use the word IF.  So IF the Carbon Dioxide Tax gets in, and IF it all goes according to Treasury modelling (which is ridiculous anyway as I have already demonstrated), and IF all the compensation works as planned, then we are still royally screwed, based on Treasury's own figures.  The point was, even IF all these things come to pass as predicted, then JuLIAR is still a lying cow, because she did not mention any of this, and specifically is selling the opposite message, telling most Aussies they will (or can be) better off financially under this farce. 
The best news is, Aussies have finally wised up to this cult, and like all cults, its very few devout adherents will be relegated to the wilderness very soon. Then they can bay at the moon until their doomsday arrives.   :Biggrin:  
And it is again noteworthy that your best contributions remain the criticism of people posting facts refuting this cult.  I guess you never found that scientific evidence, and gave up even trying to post an economic basis for this farce.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> If you write something to destroy an arguement, getting it wrong makes you look foolish. The unwise doctor suggests my phrase "back yard" suggests something close. Well lets look at 2 back yards of Atomic plant disasters. The radiation spill of the Japanese plant now  covers all of Japan, plus parts of the mainland.
>    Chernobyl sent out a cloud of radiation that greatly affected northern Europe. The Danish dairy and bacon industry suffered for reasons not of their making, whilst the cloud can still be tracked as a band around the world.
>    What effect will it have? No one knows for sure. But one thing is sure Scandinavia and Scotland did not ask for, or welcome it.
>   So please unwise doctor, *look at reality*, not your greedy little "I want it all now and to hell with tomorrow" policy.

  I'd be really keen to hear if you know the WHO stats for deaths attributable to both Chernobyl (the Chernobyl Forum reviewed this extensively) or Fukushima? (You may have figured out I kinda know these)  Then we can compare them to the numbers below, which closely match the WHO numbers. 
But at last, a fellow adherent to the principles of reality. 
You also seem to be an avid student of nuclear disasters, so let's see how strong a grip you have on reality. 
Here's a nuclear disaster that dwarfs all of those pitiful events you mention above, and literally "pollutes" both your back yard and mine with radiation.  Have you studied it?  Here's a few clues: 
It easily causes over 50,000 deaths *every* year from radiation contamination cancers; 
It creates hundreds of thousands of victims of potentially lethal radiation contamination cancers *every* year, who would die without massive medical intervention; 
It creates millions of victims of non-lethal radiation cancers *every* year requiring treatment; 
And here's the kicker: 
The greenies call this nuclear radiation contamination "clean energy"! 
Riddle me that Mr Reality?  :Biggrin:  
If you read the thread from the start, there's heaps of clues.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Here is something that may be of interest to those who love to quote Christopher Monckton:

  No-one here has ever quoted information related to the bona fides of his peerage, but we love his views on the farce of the AGW hypothesis.  But as your argument on this has failed (thanks is part to *LORD* Monckton  :Biggrin: ) you may want to read this (and it is just as irrelevant as your tripe):   

> *The truth about the Lord claim*  *I care not about the UK peerage, but for the record, when people mockingly claim Christopher Monckton is not a Lord it shows just how desperate they are to attack the man and distract people from hearing his arguments.*
>  The correct answer when people say: Hes not a Lord is one line. *The Letters Patent grants him a peerage, and his passport lists him as a Viscount. You really are scared of talking about scientific evidence arent you?* Attacks on his title are ad hominem remarks  designed to suggest he cant be trusted to speak about anything else. The truth is a complex legal debate borne from that the centuries old messy ancient liaison between the British monarchy and UK Parliament. Do you want to talk historic legal technicalities or science?
>  There is no deception on the part of Christopher Monckton. He has never claimed he was a voting member of the House of Lords in the UK. He inherited the title the _Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley_ from his father and grandfather before that. It is indeed inscribed on his passport as such, I can confirm.
>  For we uninformed Australians, the title Viscount is ranked above the more common  Baron, but beneath that of Dukes, Marquess, and Earls. All of the above can use the term Lord.
>  Monckton explains the complex legal situation: The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to  but did not  remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent  granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law. The then Government, realizing this defect, took three maladroit steps: it wrote asking expelled Peers to return their Letters Patent (though that does not annul them); in 2009 it withdrew the passes admitting expelled Peers to the House (and implying they were members); and it told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members: but a written Parliamentary Answer by the Lord President of the Council admits that general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent, so I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise.Do I think that this an unwelcome distraction and he should stop using the title? I used to. Now though I am convinced that were Monckton to appear completely untouchably reasonable, like say Anthony Watts or Dr David Evans, the media would ignore him too. Its part of his clown disguise, and it reels the small minds in. Its rather pathetic that the level of discourse is so damningly poor that this sort of theatrical flag has any place in the public debate about whether we should spend billions on trying to change the weather. Its as if the *kindy kids* escaped into the Editorial Department of major mastheads.   Lord Christopher Monckton, and that waste-of-time “Lord” debate &#171; JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

  Maybe you should read more of the "Chem4kids" and less of the "kindy kids" irrelevant stuff?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's LORD Monckton's recent Press Club debate. 
The audience was stacked by Get Up and "AGW hypothesis believing journalists", yet he was regarded as a resounding leader and winner of the debate, even by "believing" journalists. 
But make up our own mind:   

> The National Press Club Climate change debate between Lord Christopher Monckton and Richard Denniss. The ABC appear to have lost the debate for their 10pm Channel 24 slot. Somehow I dont think they would have lost the footage if Christopher Monckton had made a mistake
>  Had he made a gaffe, it would have been on the 7pm news, and every hourly update after that.
>  Watch it here instead. Who needs the ABC?   The Real Monckton Debate &#171; JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

  The ever gorgeous Jo Nova.  :Inlove:     
See who provides scientific evidence, and who appeals to the "authority figures consensus". 
This is why AGW hypothesis believers hate debating this subject.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I thought he handled this Ad Hominem reasonably well at the press club today.

  Well said. 
Or as my mate says, "Lordy, Lordy".  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> If the cut and pastes from the Murdoch press that appear here frequently are insufficient to convince you of the poor quality of their reporting you could try viewing the debate between Monckton and Dennis &#x202a;Lord Christopher Monkton Debate Dr Richard Dennis at the, National Press Club Address 19/07/2011&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube to see first hand evidence that many journalists struggle to develop intelligent questions.  
> By comparison watching the ice melt in the Arctic is rivetting stuff. Sea Ice Satellite Images, Greenland | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

  I've said many times that most journalists are as sharp as a wet sponge. 
That's all ideologies, I'm much more balanced in my political persuasions as you all know.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> In reply to Rod.
>  you once suggested I should read the complete thread before I critisise your good Dr. Well sorry, Id rather stick pins in my eyes than read the drivel his ultra right mob is given, or drags from the discredited and seemingly corrupt right wing Murdoch press.
>   The people will decide who governs, and once your right wing cronies here become entangled in the News corps web, the tide will turn.
>    We now see The police in Victoria seemingly involved and if you want to bet, it wont stop there. The ultra right wing is in the process of blasting off toes world wide, to suggest as you do that this tax is the defining issue of two years hence is your wishful
>  thinking. Your Bob Santamaria clone aint gonna do it, Malcolm may.

  See Johnc, I told you it wasn't me killing this country, jross reckons it is Rupert?  :Confused:  
Apparently Rupert wasted all our savings, spent all our money on useless green dream schemes, racked up hundred of billions in debt, and is taxing us to hell with LIES? 
JuLIAR is the apparently golden girl with all the authority of the Prime Ministerial Office who has no control over all this and does no wrong, but all these "evil right wing forces" are 'all powerful" and tearing us down.  :Doh:  
You people need Hubble just to see reality from where you are. 
And if you did read the thread, you would stop embarrassing yourself with comments about Turnbull.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Thank you Rod for your lack of posts, no need to apologise, it can only raise the quality of the thread. Although you and Dr Fraud may need a separate room, the mutual love in is just a bit to vomit inducing for public display don't you think.

  There's plenty of love to go around champ. 
Once we bust you out of that cult, we can all have a group hug.  :Hug:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The News Corp drama is quite interesting.  It makes me think about the appropriateness of newspapers editorialising political views at all. 
> If it is okay for newspapers to publish an editorial recommending a vote for a particular political party, imagine if it was a publically owned entity publishing such an editorial.  i.e. *What if the ABC was to express the view that a particular party should win government, and urge you to vote accordingly?*  I'd imagine the public would be outraged.   
> How is this different if a privately owned or privately controlled entity does the same thing?  I'd certainly question the impartiality and integrity of a profit orientated entity over a publically funded one.

  The ABC should be bipartisan because it is publicly funded, so ALL taxpayers should be represented. 
Private people and companies can do whatever they want with their money.  If you don't like it, move to Cuba or North Korea. 
There are likely very poor anti-carbon dioxide tax citizens out there resenting the hell out of you being a rich bastard and affording a computer to sprout your AGW hypothesis fantasies.  They might want to regulate you spreading your opinion to the entire internet population by misusing your inequitably large wealth?  :Shock:  
To them I'd say leave Chrisp alone, he has his view and his vote.  He can spread his views however he chooses, because this is democracy.  Hell, if he converts enough people to the cult, they may even vote him in as PM one day.  Welcome to democracy Comrades!  :Aus:  
As for your editorial nonsense, it's much cheaper to buy a front page than a whole newspaper.  :Doh:  
And who would take any journalists opinion on who to vote for anyway?  I've said many times that most of them are morons, regardless of their ideology.  Must be the "university learning" they get?  :Biggrin:

----------


## johnc

Wow, 10 rambling posts of the usual rubbish from Dr Fraud, he seems incapable of writing anything in a manner resembling coherent thought. Posting several times at once is hardly the way to get an idea across. Although I do note he thinks it is perfectly acceptable for Monkton to lie, so we can conclude it is all right for skeptics to lie about anything and everything but not what you would consider the other side.

----------


## chrisp

> But please keep up religious fervour of your inane insults, it demonstrates continually how little scientific or economic evidence or understanding your cult has on these issues if that's all you've got to post.

  The irony is astounding! 
Here is a fellow who profusely posts about his disbelieve of accepted scientific findings - and HE is accusing others of religious fervour!   :Rotfl:

----------


## jross

I never read the rubbish from our idiot Dr for two reasons. I believe he is a fake, a payed spoiler for the WA miners. But I made an    exception when he wrote to me
  Well Dr try my quiz. There is a source of energy required to sustain all life. That source can create the weather and rain. But that source can also be harmful if man messes things up. Have you enough clues?

----------


## The Administration Team

Mornin' People,
Just a quick word.
There are two of us here who have to read everything you write in here......not that we believe any of it either way  :Rotfl: 
As a request....can you keep the name calling like *IDIOT.... MORON..... NUMBNUTS* etc   down to a dull roar, as being the sensitive souls we are, it really buggers our day, and we are actually starting to swear and curse amongst ourselves.  :Shock:   :Shock:   :Shock:  
Thank you for your co-operation

----------


## johnc

Actually the last two pages are almost insult free, we have been very good and behaving ourselves nicely. Even the idiots morons and numbnuts have been unusually civil. :Biggrin:  The tone may be confusing the mods perhaps.

----------


## chrisp

> it really buggers our day, and we are actually starting to swear and curse amongst ourselves.

  Maybe in the next session of the Forum Parliament, we'll try and move the ETS Thread Tax (ETSTT).  The constant Tim Tam revenue from Dr Freud should help quell the disquiet (and hopefully, that language!  :Shock:  ) in the Administration Team.   :Smilie:

----------


## watson

> Actually the last two pages are almost insult free, we have been very good and behaving ourselves nicely. Even the idiots morons and numbnuts have been unusually civil. The tone may be confusing the mods perhaps.

    :Hahaha:

----------


## jross

Sorry Mr moderator, I shall try to behave. I will say sorry to the Dr for calling him an idiot
 I may have been mistaken in my terminology. It reminds my of the Robin Day Malcolm Mugeridge interview. 
 Muggeridge,"You called me a son of a bitch.
 Day, "Sorry! at the time I was unsure as to what your relationship to the bitch was.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Let me explain it slowly.......The point was, even IF all these things come to pass as predicted, then JuLIAR is still a lying cow, because she did not mention any of this, and specifically is selling the opposite message, telling most Aussies they will (or can be) better off financially under this farce.

  And I say again...equally slowly.... 
She...........is.......a..........politician.   
They are paid to lie...or at least dissemble....as well as lead.  It is in their job description.  That's what they do.  Even our much beloved current Opposition Leader famously admitted to doing it. In fact they've all done it..... 
Why get so vehemently self righteous about it now? [That's a rhetorical question, Freud, no need to pontificate further.....]

----------


## johnc

For the benefit of those that wonder this is the journalistic code of ethics, if we apply it to post 6662 there is no requirement to retract the word idiot as the term applied is a statement of fact and should not be construed as an insult.   *AJA CODE OF ETHICS*  _Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities. MEAA members engaged in journalism commit themselves to_ *Honesty**Fairness**Independence**Respect for the rights of others* 1.  Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts.  Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis.  Do your utmost  to give a fair opportunity for reply.2.  Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability. 3.  Aim to attribute information to its source.  Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source.  Where confidences are accepted,  respect them in all circumstances. 4.  Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence. 5.  Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism.  Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain.   6.  Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence. 7.  Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories. 8.  Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material.  Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast.  Never exploit a person’s vulnerability or ignorance of media practice. 9.  Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate.  Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed. 10.  Do not plagiarise. 11.  Respect private grief and personal privacy.  Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude. 12.  Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors.*Guidance Clause* _Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden._   The guidance clause of the AJA Code of Ethics gives journalists an out to pursue their own politically correct agendas._"Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden."_ See How to be a journalist in one easy lesson.

----------


## watson

> Sorry Mr moderator, I shall try to behave. I will say sorry to the Dr for calling him an idiot
>  I may have been mistaken in my terminology. It reminds my of the Robin Day Malcolm Mugeridge interview. 
>  Muggeridge,"You called me a son of a bitch.
>  Day, "Sorry! at the time I was unsure as to what your relationship to the bitch was.

  Funny Stuff   :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

The Journalists Code of Ethics is probably interpreted by journalists in much the same way that Pirates and Politicians interpret theirs.... 
How about we adopt this Code of Ethics for this place?  That'd be a rucking fipper!!  Number 4 would cut this thread down by hundreds of pages alone!!!

----------


## watson

> For the benefit of those that wonder this is the journalistic code of ethics, if we apply it to post 6662 there is no requirement to retract the word idiot as the term applied is a statement of fact and should not be construed as an insult.   *AJA CODE OF ETHICS*  _Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities. MEAA members engaged in journalism commit themselves to_  *Honesty**Fairness**Independence**Respect for the rights of others* 1.  Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts.  Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis.  Do your utmost  to give a fair opportunity for reply.2.  Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability. 3.  Aim to attribute information to its source.  Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source.  Where confidences are accepted,  respect them in all circumstances. 4.  Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence. 5.  Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism.  Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain.   6.  Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence. 7.  Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories. 8.  Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material.  Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast.  Never exploit a person’s vulnerability or ignorance of media practice. 9.  Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate.  Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed. 10.  Do not plagiarise. 11.  Respect private grief and personal privacy.  Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude. 12.  Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors. *Guidance Clause* _Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden._   The guidance clause of the AJA Code of Ethics gives journalists an out to pursue their own politically correct agendas._"Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden."_ See How to be a journalist in one easy lesson.

  
Even funnier stuff

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Even funnier stuff

  Journalists are part of the entertainment business after all....

----------


## Marc

PA Pundits  International
  		                "the relentless pursuit of common sense"    A Variety of Opinions From Various Writers  *CO2 Tax Australia  Unions Sacrifice Their Members For A Useless Sacrifice To Gillard*    _Posted on 07/17/2011_ 			     				     					    by _papundits_  2    By *Andrew Bolt*
 What the hell are unions doing to protect their workers from the  pointless madness, none of which will lower temperatures by a flicker?: _ PRIME Minister Julia Gillard met with anxious workers of Australias dirtiest power generator today, which will be closed under the new carbon tax._ 
 Hazelwood power station, in Morwell, is one of the Governments  targeted closures as it has said 2000 megawatts of the nations dirtiest  power generators will shut by 2020.
 The PM talked with up to 60 workers assuring them there was a future in electricity in the Latrobe Valley
 Hazelwood worker Gary Sevenson said he was apprehensive that the PM promised nothing.
 She has just basically said she was not going to leave us in the  lurch but she has given us no idea of how she is going to accomplish  that, Mr Sevenson.
 The station, which provides about 25 percent of the states power  supply, directly employs 540 people and at least another 300  contractors. _ Ms Gillard said she could not answer questions on how many jobs  would be lost or how much funding would be received during the  transition to cleaner energy sources, while the tender process was being  undertaken._But here comes the union, seeming to represent the Government to the workers, not the workers to the Government:  _ Australian Manufacturing Workers Union organiser Steve Dodd said workers were happy Ms Gillard finally visited the valley._If they were that damn happy, why did Julia Gillard keep the TV  cameras away from her meeting with the workers?  The only reason:  to  avoid another ugly confrontation being beamed to the nation. *UPDATE*
 No wonder the meeting was closed to the media: _ In an event closed to the media, Ms Gillard met 120  workers at the Hazelwood power station. She took questions on her plan  to shut down 2000 megawatts of energy from coal-fired power stations and  replace it with cleaner energy generation._ 
 Ive met with workers who were anxious, prepared to ask some very hard questions, prepared to have very direct exchange with me, she said.*UPDATE 2*
 You werent allowed to see Gillard meeting real workers, because  Labor would perfer you to see real Australians its got in its  advertising: _PRO-CARBON tax television ads to be unleashed on  Australia tonight are part of a $25 million taxpayer-funded campaign to  win over the public as the Gillard government struggles to explain its  message._  _ It is understood  the television advertisements feature real Australians who work in  large and small organisations and are involved in creating a  clean-energy future._Note also how seamlessly a deceitful government slogan  a clean-energy future  is adopted and repeated by the journalist? _Andrew Bolt__ is a journalist and columnist writing for_ _The Herald Sun__ in Melbourne Victoria Australia._ _Andrew Bolts columns appear in Melbournes Herald Sun, Sydneys  Daily Telegraph and Adelaides Advertiser. He runs the most-read  political blog in Australia and hosts Channel 10s The Bolt Report each  Sunday at 10am. He is also heard from Monday to Friday at 8am on the  breakfast show of radio station MTR 1377, and his book _ Still Not Sorry_ remains very widely read._

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I never read the rubbish from our idiot Dr for two reasons. I believe he is a fake, a payed spoiler for the WA miners. But I made an    exception when he wrote to me
>   Well Dr try my quiz. There is a source of energy required to sustain all life. That source can create the weather and rain. But that source can also be harmful if man messes things up. Have you enough clues?

    :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  
You have to be joking.   
You need to stop slanging off at everyone here and try and post something that cofirms your views.   
When all you have is personal attacks as an argument you know you have lost the argument. 
I can assure you both myself and Doc are ordinary working people that are greatly concerned about this Tax, the uselessness of this government and AGW in general. 
The use of personal attacks, smears, exagerated claims, refusal to debate etc.  are all the red flags that ordinary thinking people need to start questioning the legitimacy of this fraud. 
Still you guys just don't see that this type of thing is what is killing your argument. 
Personally I don't want you to stop, ramp it up even, because the more you make these types of claims and the more ordinary people read them the more people will start to doubt your objectives.   
Love it keep it comming.

----------


## Marc

February 15, 2011                         *The Nazi Origins of Apocalyptic Global Warming Theory*  *By* *Mark Musser*  One of the primary pioneering theorists on apocalyptic global warming is Guenther Schwab (1902-2006), an Austrian Nazi.[i]  In 1958, Schwab wrote a fictional novel built off of Goethe's (1749-1832) Faustian religious play entitled "Dance with the Devil."  While a few scientists since the late 1800's  had contemplated the possibility of minor global warming coming from  industrial pollution, Schwab used Goethe's dramatic approach to convert  the theory into an apocalyptic crisis.  The book outlines many looming  environmental emergencies, including anthropogenic global warming.   Guenther Schwab's very popular novel was an apocalyptic game changer.   By the early 1970's, it had been translated into several languages and had sold over a million copies.    At  one point in his novel, Schwab opines on the fragile relationship  between oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.   Assuming the  planet has only about 100 years remaining, Schwab frets over the  continuing rise of carbon dioxide that "will absorb and hold fast the  warmth given out by the earth.  This will cause the climate to become  milder and the Polar ice will begin to thaw.  As a result, there will be  a rise in the level of the ocean and whole continents will be flooded."  Schwab  had been a strong nature lover since boyhood, and by the 1920's he  became very active in the emerging environmental movement in Austria.   Later, he joined the Nazi Party.  While this may sound odd to many who  have bought into the Marxian propaganda over the years that the Nazis were right wing capitalistic extremists, greens who signed up for the Nazi Party were actually very typical of the day.  The most widely represented  group of people in the Nazi Party was the greens, and Guenther Schwab  was just one of among many.  The greens' interest in lonely places found  a solitary niche in the singleness of Adolf Hitler, who ruled the Third  Reich from his spectacular mountain compound, high in the Bavarian Alps called the _Berghof_.  In English, this could easily be translated as Mountain Home, Bavaria.  After the war in the 1950's, Guenther Schwab's brand of environmentalism also played a fundamental role in the development of the green anti-nuclear movement in West Germany.  The dropping of the atom bomb and the nuclear fallout of the Cold War helped to globalize the greens  into an apocalyptic 'peace' movement with Guenther Schwab being one of  its original spokesmen.  The unprecedented destruction in Germany  brought on by industrialized warfare never before seen in the history of  the world only served to radicalize the German greens into an  apocalyptic movement.   Their hatred toward global capitalism became  even more vitriolic precisely because the capitalists were now in charge  of a dangerous nuclear arsenal that threatened the entire planet.    Later, Guenther Schwab joined the advisory panel of "The Society of Biological Anthropology, Eugenics and Behavior Research."  Schwab was especially concerned with the burgeoning population explosion of the Third World  that he was sure would eventually overrun Europe.  By advocating modern  racial science based on genetics, Schwab believed that the population  bomb, together with its associated environmental degradation, could be  averted.  Here, Schwab shows his basic commitment to the Nazi SS  doctrine of 'blood and soil' -- an explosive concoction of eugenics and environmentalism loaded with eco-imperialistic ambitions that had devastating consequences on the Eastern Front in World War II.    The success of Schwab's book helped him to establish an international environmental organization called "The World League for the Defense of Life."  Not surprisingly, Werner Haverbeck, former Hitler Youth member and Nazi environmental leader of the _Reich's League for Folk National Character and Landscape_, later became the chairman of Schwab's organization.   In 1973, Haverbeck blamed the environmental crisis in Germany on  American capitalism.  It was an unnatural colonial import that had  infected Germany like a deadly foreign body.    Both Schwab's organization and Haverbeck were also instrumental in establishing the German Green Party  in 1980.  Such embarrassing facts were later managed with a little  housecleaning and lots of cosmetics, which was further buoyed by  characterizing such greens as extreme 'right wing' ecologists -- a  counterintuitive label that continues to misdirect and plague all  environmental studies of the Third Reich.  Worst of all is that Haverbeck's wife is also a Holocaust denier.  Long before Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth,"  green Nazi Guenther Schwab played a large role in catalyzing the  frightening theory of global warming.  With no small thanks to Schwab,  the Great Tribulation of Global Warming was ushered into the modern  consciousness behind the collapse of the Millennial 1,000 year Third  Reich.  There is therefore a swastika in the German woods that needs to be closely watched here.    *Mark Musser** is the author of "**Nazi Oaks: The Green Sacrificial Offering of the Judeo-Christian Worldview in the Holocaust**" and a commentary on the warning passages in the book of Hebrews called "**Wrath or Rest: Saints in the Hands of an Angry God**."*  [i]  Gert Gröning, Joachim Wolschke-Bulmahn, Stiftung Naturschutzgeschichte,  Naturschutz und Demokratie!?: Dokumentation der Beiträge zur  Veranstaltung der Stiftung Naturschutzgeschichte und des Zentrums für  Gartenkunst und Landschaftsarchitektur (CGL) der Leibniz Universität  Hannover in Kooperation mit dem Institut für Geschichte und Theorie der  Gestaltung (GTG) der Universität der Künste Berlin, Martin Meidenbauer  Verlag, 2006, p. 113.    40 Comments  on "_The Nazi Origins of Apocalyptic Global Warming Theory_"

----------


## Marc

*Global Warming:How It All Began*
by *Richard Courtney*
 (See Review Comments at the end of this Paper)  *   Imagined risk* 
All available evidence indicates that man-made global warming is a physical impossibility, but if the predicted warming could be induced it would probably provide net benefits. However, there is a widespread imagined risk of the warming and politicians are responding to it. Responses to imagined risk are often extreme and dangerous. For example, somebody with a fear of mice may see a mouse and as a response try to jump on a chair causing damage to the chair and injury to himself. There is no point in telling the injured person that mice are harmless because fear is irrational so cannot be overcome by rational argument. 
Widespread imagined risk is to be expected as the end of the twentieth century (the end of the second millennium) approaches. Prophets of doom have occurred when the end of each past century approached. They always proclaimed that “the end of the world is nigh” unless people changed their ways and accepted great hardship. So, history suggests that the global warming scare or something like it can be expected at this time. 
Global warming proponents call for reduced CO2 emissions and this equates to a call for cuts in the use of energy, but the energy industries have done more to benefit mankind than anything else since the invention of agriculture. And global warming proponents often call for use of ‘renewables’ to replace fossil fuels, but that is a call for a return to preindustrial society: the industrial revolution occurred when fossil fuels replaced biomass and windpower. It is physically impossible for wind and solar energies to supply the energy needs of the developed world, and the peoples of the developing world are insisting on their right to develop too. 
The past prophets of doom have all been wrong, so it is reasonable to expect today’s doom-mongers to justify their arguments. And this is especially the case when they attack something so clearly beneficial to mankind as the use of fossil fuels. But imagined risk is not rational, so reasonable expectations do not apply. The simple fact that it is physically impossible for CO2 emissions to cause man-made global warming has no effect on imagined fear of global warming. (It is a simple fact that a mouse cannot eat a person, but some people try to jump on chairs at the sight of mice.) 
Also, some global warming proponents are accepting a good financial income from the global warming scare and have become global warming propagandists to promote their interests. These include some researchers who obtain research grants and some environmental organisations who need donations. They are making a living by promoting fear of man-made global warming. Their behaviour is similar to that of the ‘snake oil salesmen’ in the nineteenth century. Snake oil salesmen sold snake oil that did not require real snakes to make it. Global warming propagandists are selling fear of man-made global warming and that does not require real man-made global warming to make it. 
The success of the global warming propaganda has induced some observers to argue that a conspiracy has created the imagined risk in the public’s perception (e.g. Böttcher, 1996). But consideration of the origins of the global warming scare deny the existence of any such conspiracy. Interests coincided and supported each other. And *a coincidence of interests usually has a more powerful effect than a group of conspirators*. The origins of the scare are political and have resulted in political policies that now threaten serious economic damage for the entire world.  *  The origins of the global warming scare*
The hypothesis of man-made global warming has existed since the 1880s. It was an obscure scientific hypothesis that burning fossil fuels would increase CO2 in the air to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus cause global warming. Before the 1980s this hypothesis was usually regarded as a curiosity because the nineteenth century calculations indicated that mean global temperature should have risen more than 1°C by 1940, and it had not. Then, in 1979, Mrs Margaret Thatcher (now Lady Thatcher) became Prime Minister of the UK, and she elevated the hypothesis to the status of a major international policy issue. 
Mrs Thatcher is now often considered to have been a great UK politician: she gave her political party (the Conservative Party) victory in three General Elections, resided over the UK’s conduct of the Falklands War, replaced much of the UK’s Welfare State with monetarist economics, and privatised most of the UK’s nationalised industries. But she had yet to gain that reputation when she came to power in 1979. Then, she was the first female leader of a major western state, and she desired to be taken seriously by political leaders of other major countries. This desire seemed difficult to achieve because her only experience in government had been as Education Secretary (i.e. a Junior Minister) in the Heath administration that collapsed in 1974. She had achieved nothing notable as Education Secretary but was remembered by the UK public for having removed the distribution of milk to schoolchildren (she was popularly known as ‘Milk Snatcher Thatcher’.) 
Sir Crispin Tickell, UK Ambassador to the UN, suggested a solution to the problem. He pointed out that almost all international statesmen are scientifically illiterate, so a scientifically literate politician could win any summit debate on a matter which seemed to depend on scientific understandings. And Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry. (This is probably the most important fact in the entire global warming issue; i.e. Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry). Sir Crispin pointed out that if a ‘scientific’ issue were to gain international significance, then the UK’s Prime Minister could easily take a prominent role, and this could provide credibility for her views on other world affairs. He suggested that Mrs Thatcher should campaign about global warming at each summit meeting. She did, and the tactic worked. Mrs Thatcher rapidly gained the desired international respect and the UK became the prime promoter of the global warming issue. The influences that enabled this are described in Figure 1 and the following paragraphs.   *Figure 1. Influences leading to UK imagined risk of global warming.*
Overseas politicians began to take notice of Mrs Thatcher’s campaign if only to try to stop her disrupting summit meetings. They brought the matter to the attention of their civil servants for assessment, and they reported that - although scientifically dubious - ‘global warming’ could be economically important. The USA is the world’s most powerful economy and is the most intensive energy user. If all countries adopted ‘carbon taxes’, or other universal proportionate reductions in industrial activity, each non-US industrialised country would gain economic benefit over the United States. So, many politicians from many countries joined with Mrs Thatcher in expressing concern at global warming and a political bandwagon began to roll. Mrs Thatcher had raised an international policy issue and thus become an influential international politician. 
Mrs Thatcher could not have promoted the global warming issue without the support of her UK political party. And they were willing to give it. Following the General Election of 1979, most of the incoming Cabinet had been members of the government which lost office in 1974. They blamed the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) for their 1974 defeat. They, therefore, desired an excuse for reducing the UK coal industry and, thus, the NUM’s power. Coal-fired power stations emit CO2 but nuclear power stations don’t. Global warming provided an excuse for reducing the UK’s dependence on coal by replacing it with nuclear power. 
And the Conservative Party wanted a large UK nuclear power industry for another reason. That industry’s large nuclear processing facilities were required for the UK’s nuclear weapons programme and the opposition Labour Party was then opposing the Conservative Party’s plans to upgrade the UK’s nuclear deterrent with Trident missiles and submarines. Unfortunately, the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents had damaged public confidence in nuclear technology. Then, privatisation of the UK’s electricity supply industry exposed the secret that UK nuclear electricity cost four times more than UK coal-fired electricity. Global warming became the only remaining excuse for the unpopular nuclear power facilities needed for nuclear weapons. Mrs Thatcher had to be seen to spend money at home if her international campaign was to be credible.
So, early in her global warming campaign - and at her personal instigation - the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research was established, and the science and engineering research councils were encouraged to place priority in funding climate-related research. This cost nothing because the UK’s total research budget was not increased; indeed, it fell because of cuts elsewhere. But the Hadley Centre sustained its importance and is now the operating agency for the IPCC’s scientific working group (Working Group 1). Most scientists’ work depends on funds fully or partly provided by governments. Also, all scientists compete to obtain their share of this limited resource. Available research funds were shrinking, and global warming had become the ‘scientific’ issue of most interest to governments. Hence, any case for funding support tended to include reference to global warming whenever possible. Much science in many fields may be conducted under the guise of a relationship to global warming. Activities which have obtained funds by this method include biology, meteorology, computer science, physics, chemistry, climatology, oceanography, civil engineering, process engineering, forestry, astronomy, and several other disciplines. Now, funds for this work are provided to most UK Universities and several commercial research establishments.
Much peer pressure deters scientists from damaging potential sources of research funds. There is especial pressure - loss of future career - to avoid being the first to proclaim the scientific truth of global warming and thus damage the research funding of colleagues. But failure to proclaim the scientific truth does not mean that many scientists believe in the global warming hypothesis. In 1992 - at the height of the global warming scare - Greenpeace International conducted a survey of the world’s 400 leading climatologists. Greenpeace had hoped to publicise the results of that survey in the run-up to the Rio summit, but when they completed the survey, they gave very little publicity to its results. In response to the survey, only 15 climatologists were willing to say they believed in global warming, although all climatologists rely on it for their employment. Also, the Leipzig Declaration disputes the IPCC assertions about man-made global warming. It was drafted following the Leipzig Climate Conference in November 1995 and has been signed by over 1,500 scientists from around the world. 
The global warming issue is political. It induced the ‘Earth Summit’ that was attended by several Heads of State in Rio de Janeiro during June 1992 and is the reason for the Kyoto Summit in Japan in December 1997. Governments have a variety of motives for interest in global warming. Each government has its own special interests in global warming but, in all cases, the motives relate to economic policies. In general, the USA fears loss of economic power to other nations while this is desired by those other nations. Universal adoption of ‘carbon taxes’, or other universal proportionate reductions in industrial activity, would provide relative benefit to the other nations. Unfortunately, if a few nations adopted the changes they would increase their manufacturing, transportation and energy costs and thus lose economic competitiveness and industrial activity to all other nations. Developing nations cannot afford technological and economic advances that would benefit them and also reduce their increases to CO2 emissions as they develop, so they are seeking gifted technology transfers and economic aid from developed countries.
The press are interested in selling papers and the TV companies want to gain viewers. Threat of world-wide disaster makes a good story, and the statements and actions of politicians together with great increase in scientific publications gave global warming an apparent authority. The media began to proclaim the worst imagined horrors. For example, massive floods were predicted due to melting of polar ice. and one UK TV programme went so far as to assert that the polar bears would die out because their habitat would melt. The public rely on the media to provide them with their information, so they came to believe the global warming scare because they were only given one side of the story. Politicians respond to public concern, so the politicians actions began to gain popular support.
On face value global warming is an environmental issue. Many environmentalists joined the bandwagon. Governments were offering money and the public were concerned at global warming. Any environmental issue which could be linked to global warming was said to be involved in the matter. But the environmentalist interest was aroused by the impact of the issue. Contrary to common belief, environmentalists did not raise awareness of global warming, they responded to it. Simply, environmentalist organisations were part of the general public and decided to use the issue when it became useful to them.   *Figure 2. Positive feedbacks supporting UK imagined risk of global warming.*
Aspects of the global warming issue began to feed on each other. Many positive feedback loops exist in the system and the major ones are shown in Figure 2. The system amplifier is the politicians’ support of global warming. The issue is assisted by gaining political approval each time it passes around a loop shown in Figure 2. 
The UK Government lost interest in global warming when Mr John Major replaced Mrs Thatcher as Prime Minister. The flow of Government money began to stop for conduct of global warming research. UK scientists then began to speak out in denial of the global warming hypothesis. It seemed that the issue was dying a natural death. Then the ‘coal crisis’ arose in October 1992 when the public protested at the scale of pit closures. This gave the UK Government a new need to find an excuse for its policy of closing coal mines. Global warming fitted this need and so the Government committed £16,000,000 to an advertising campaign which scaremongered about global warming, and re-established the funding priorities for climate research.
Later, at the start of May 1997, the Conservative Party lost office to the Labour Party and Mr Tony Blair became UK Prime Minister. The UK had initiated the global warming issue and a change of UK policy may have had a significant effect on the widespread imagined risk, but by then the global warming issue had become important in its own right. Many countries had a stated global warming policy, 122 of them had signed a declaration of intent to reduce CO2 emissions at the Rio Summit, and the Kyoto Summit was scheduled. The UK was one of the very few countries that had reduced its CO2 emissions since the Rio Summit because the UK had replaced coal-fired generating capacity by gas-fired generating capacity. This provided the UK with a position of authority in this international affair, and Mr Blair committed the new UK government to strict action to cut CO2 emissions.  *   Governments’ global warming policies*
Man-made global warming has become a major international political issue. The imagined risk has become a real risk in the form of proposed government policies to inhibit CO2 emissions. The Rio Summit in 1992 proposed actions to constrain the emissions and the Kyoto Summit in December 1997 is intended to establish binding agreements that will commit nation states to the constraints. Although there are no real and potential risks of the global warming, the effects of the constraints will cause real and severe economic damage. 
All industrial and economic growth requires an abundance of available energy supply. Anything that inhibits energy supplies reduces economic activity. At Kyoto, governments will be pressured to reduce CO2 emissions to far below their 1990 levels. This requires cutting fuel supplies and, therefore, economic activity. The effects would be much more severe than the ‘oil crisis’ in the 1970s because the constraint on fossil fuel usage would be greater, the increases to energy costs would be larger, and energy demand has increased since then. 
Already, OECD countries (Europe, Japan and the US) have agreed in principle to adopt the ‘Berlin Mandate’ that requires them to cut their CO2 emissions to 15% below their 1990 levels by year 2010. The US Department of Energy (DoE) estimates that this would increase US domestic energy prices by between *80* and *90%* and would increase the coal price to US consumers by *300%*. Also, the DoE study determines that the Berlin Mandate would not reduce world-wide emissions of CO2. Energy intensive industries would be forced to move from the US to places where the emission constraints did not exist or were not enforced. This could even result in an increase to the emissions because the less-controlled places are likely to have less energy efficient industries. The DoE study goes further by saying that its findings are not specific to the US but apply to every industrialised country. 
The US DoE study is supported by a similar study commissioned by the German government. That determined the cost to Germany of fulfilling the Berlin Mandate would be about *US$500 billion* and the loss of 250,000 jobs. 
Industrialised countries would not suffer alone. The economy of every country is affected by the performance of the world economy. The economic disruption in the developed world would harm economic activity everywhere. The largest affects would be in the developed countries because their economies are largest. But the worst effects would be suffered by the world’s poorest peoples (people who are near to starvation are starved by economic disruption.). 
A rational assessment of appropriate policies would include cost/benefit analysis, but imagined risk is not rational. All the proposed responses to the imagined risk of man-made global warming would increase starvation and poverty while inhibiting economic development throughout the entire world. And CO2 emissions would not be reduced and may be increased. In practice, politicians are accepting the predictions of climate models as being predictions of the future, and they are acting to change that future. This is similar to the behaviour of people who believe horoscope predictions of future harm so they avoid situations where that harm could happen.   *Review Comments* Subject:* How It All Began* 
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 12:14:55 +0200 
From: 091335371-0001@t-online.de (P. Dietze) 
Reply-To: 091335371@t-online.de 
To: richard@courtney01.cix.co.uk 
CC: daly@vision.net.au, vincegray@xtra.co.nz, jarl.ahlbeck@abo.fi, ssinger1@gmu.edu, Nigel Calder <nc@windstream.demon.co.uk>, Mueller.ics@t-online.de, Onar Åm <onar@con2.com>, Krahmer@t-online.de, h.heuseler@businessnet.de, HVolz@t-online.de, gvst_ure.weber@t-online.de, OWildgruber@csi.com, Wolf Grüner <green.wolf@t-online.de>, boettiger@wiesbaden.netsurf.de, Gerd.Zelck@t-online.de Dear Richard, congratulation and thanks for your new web paper (among Vincent's and Jarl's on John Daly's guest site) with interesting and valuable informations. Now you gave Maggie T. a late blow from the coal & mining industry. Your closed loop governments-scientists-media explains the situation very well. You only forgot to mention us Germans who contributed most to the hype and pressure in Europe and planning to take over 75% of the EU's reduction (to my knowledge), but first quit nuclear energy. Our former enviro minister Klaus Töpfer became director of the UNEP head office, Nairobi. Very good is your "The imagined risk has become a real risk in the form of proposed government policies to inhibit CO2 emissions". But I am puzzled about your GW statement that "man-made global warming is a physical impossibility". So all what we (including you) had discussed and worked out for many years (and all IPCC's stuff including the 'great' recent CO2 modelling paper of Joos et al. in SCIENCE of 16 April, based on 3.7 °C for eq. doubling) would turn irrelevant as GW would just only be a natural variation and independent of any IR absorption from CO2 increment. If that was so, you could have told us earlier (and publish a note on the Web) and we, specially John, could have saved a lot of work. Or did you mean the CO2 impact is quite small (like Dr. Hug that you never discussed about)? But *impossible* means principally no impact at all. Do you think of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (like Dr. Thüne) or what? Best regards, *Peter*  Subject: RE: *How It All Began * Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 10:13:20 -0400 
From: "*Onar Aam*" <onar@con2.com> 
To: <091335371@t-online.de>, <richard@courtney01.cix.co.uk> 
CC: <daly@vision.net.au>, <vincegray@xtra.co.nz>, <jarl.ahlbeck@abo.fi>, <ssinger1@gmu.edu>, "Nigel Calder" <nc@windstream.demon.co.uk>, <Mueller.ics@t-online.de>, <Krahmer@t-online.de>, <h.heuseler@businessnet.de>, <HVolz@t-online.de>, <gvst_ure.weber@t-online.de>, <OWildgruber@csi.com>, Wolf Grüner <green.wolf@t-online.de>, <boettiger@wiesbaden.netsurf.de>, <Gerd.Zelck@t-online.de>  >But I am puzzled about your GW statement that "man-made global warming >is a physical impossibility". I second that puzzlement. While it is generally believed among global warming skeptics that 
1) future CO2 increase is exaggerated, 
2) future warming is exaggerated, 
3) negative consequences of the warming are exaggerated and 
4) positive effects are neglected, 
to my knowledge almost none believe that human induced global warming is *impossible*. *Onar.*  *Richard Courtney responds to Peter Dietze and Onar Am* Peter Dietze and Onar Am make good points that I agree. Peter Dietze accurately observes that my essay does not mention the contribution of Germany to growth of the global warming issue. But my essay explains how and why 'global warming' first came into being as an international policy issue. The issue began in the UK and was first promoted by the UK. I am not willing to comment on the subsequent German history because I am not sufficiently familiar with it. Perhaps Germany significantly amplified the issue ? If anyone knows the facts of this perhaps they could add them as comment on my essay ? I would be interested to learn more of the contributions to growth of the issue made by several countries.  Both Peter Dietze and Onar Am dispute my statement that "man-made global warming is a physical impossibility", but Peter Dietze indicates that he recognises my meaning. I am pleased to clarify the matter. I did mean that man-made global warming would be much smaller than natural fluctuations in global temperature and, therefore, it would be physically impossible to detect the man-made global warming. Of course, human activities have some effect on global temperature. For example, cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas. Similarly, the global warming from man's emissions of greenhouse gases would be too small to be detected. Indeed, for reasons I have repeatedly reported, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a real existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection). Perhaps I should have been pedantic and said "Real man-made global warming is a physical impossibility". I hope this clarifies my views on these matters. All the best *Richard*  *     FastCounter by bCentral* *Return to "Still Waiting For Greenhouse" Main Page*

----------


## chrisp

*Meanwhile....*    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

----------


## chrisp

*And....*   Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

----------


## johnc

A question for Marc, do you actually believe any of that stuff you have in post 6771 and 6772, given this comes from some seriously weird individuals I am genuine in this question.

----------


## Dr Freud

> As to global warming, regardless of what you read here, the vast majority of the world seems to accept that *carbon* is an issue.

  You must have me on ignore I guess? 
But if you missed the explanation of what "Carbon" is, then you could Google it. 
When you learn the difference between "Carbon" and "Carbon Dioxide", then maybe you will begin the journey of understanding the subject you appear very opinionated yet very ignorant of.  :Biggrin:  
I think the vast majority of the world that know what Carbon is do not have an issue with it, as they are "it".  :Doh:    

> Australia can then be at the front of innovation, or we can wait till its forced apon us, *there are no other choices.*

  Wow, no other choices? Not one? 
You can't even think of one other scenario that could conceivably eventuate? 
I'm getting the feeling that you're not the creative type?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Rod is spot on.  All we have to do is encourage you guys to post more, and the AGW hypothesis losers more supporters every time you do. 
People out there are figuring if you guys are posting the most credible argument there is trying to support the AGW hypothesis, it must be even weaker than they already thought it was.  :Biggrin:    

> Wow, 10 rambling posts of the usual rubbish from Dr Fraud, he seems incapable of writing anything in a manner resembling coherent thought.

  I'm getting the feeling you find a lot of things incoherent.  :Biggrin:    

> Posting several times at once is hardly the way to get an idea across.

  There is no Tx issue champ, it's an Rx issue.   

> Although I do note he thinks it is perfectly acceptable for Monkton to lie

  See, again with ridiculous insults with no proof.  Once you guys actually figure out the difference between "Carbon" and "Carbon Dioxide", you'll actually be able to begin understanding we are all talking about.   

> so we can conclude it is all right for skeptics to lie about anything and everything but not what you would consider the other side

  And here I was thinking you had no creativity.  :Wink 1:

----------


## chrisp

Here is an interesting - and very sensible - comment coming from the Liberal Party....   

> *Turnbull defends scientists*  
> MALCOLM Turnbull has urged people to speak out loudly on behalf of the science of climate change.  
>               In a strong assault on sceptics such as Lord Christopher  Monckton who attack the science, Mr Turnbull declared: ''We cannot  afford to allow the science to become a partisan issue as it is in the  United States.''  
> Believing in the science did not put a Liberal at odds with party  policy, he stressed in a lecture in Sydney last night. He said there had  been a very effective campaign against climate science by those opposed  to cutting emissions, and this had affected the carbon tax debate.  
>              But rejecting the science was ''like  ignoring the advice  of your doctor to give up smoking on the basis that somebody down the  pub told you their uncle Ernie had lived to 95 and smoked like a train  all his life''.  
>               Mr Turnbull supports emissions trading but as a shadow  minister is bound to support the opposition policy, which now opposes a  carbon tax or trading system.  
>               He said that the CSIRO and other science agencies were  listened to with respect on most issues. ''Yet on this issue there  appears to be a licence to reject our best scientists  and rely instead  on much less reliable views.'' he said. ''Those of us who do not  believe the CSIRO is part of an international Green conspiracy to  undermine  Western civilisation should not be afraid to speak out and  loudly,  on behalf of the science.'' 
> Read more: Turnbull defends scientists

----------


## Dr Freud

> Here is a fellow who profusely posts about his disbelieve of accepted scientific findings

  Yet you post no proof of this? 
Just again with the ridiculous insults with no proof whatsoever. 
If you can find a single post where I have "disbelieved" empirical scientific evidence, please post it.  
If you instead still haven't really figured out the difference between "believing" the opinion of someone you think is smarter than you, rather than forming your own opinion, then you can choose to genuflect to your authority figures. 
I will instead study all empirical scientific evidence (which cannot be "disbelieved"  :Doh: ) and form my own opinion.    

> and HE is accusing others of religious fervour!

  Yes I am.  :2thumbsup:  
But just a capital H is fine thanks:   

> *And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.*

----------


## Dr Freud

Ahhh, you had me going for a minute there.  :Blush7:  
I actually truly thought you were serious about being a supporter of reality, but alas no.  :No:    

> I never read the rubbish from our idiot Dr for two reasons...But I made an    exception when he wrote to me

  So if you "never read" it, then how do you know I "wrote to" you?  :Doh:  
But I suspect there's a helluva lot that you truly have "never read".  Chem4kids is on that list.  :Biggrin:    

> I believe he is a fake, a payed spoiler for the WA miners.

  Now see, if you read the thread from the start, you'll actually understand that I'm in the pockets of "big oil".  Geez, with all this money, I could outsource this to a call centre in India and dictate to them from Tahiti.  It's just a shame I actually live in reality.  You should visit some time, it's really cold here and the country's got a sh-- government.  It's a very different place to where you live.  :Wink 1:    

> Well Dr try my quiz.

  I would, but I "never read" what you post either.  :Confused:    

> There is a source of energy required to sustain all life. That source can create the weather and rain. But that source can also be harmful if man messes things up. Have you enough clues?

  No I need more clues please.  :Biggrin:  
Greg Combet and JuLIAR said the answer was "pollution". 
They both said they were going to remove 160 million tonnes of this "pollution". 
Greg Combet was on Channel Nine this morning and he said words to the effect "We will remove 160 million tonnes of pollution from the atmosphere and create a cleaner world for our children"? 
Are they right???  :Confused:  
They've been asked to specify the answer a bit more, but they've just looked back blankly.  
And while you're still trying to riddle my clues, Google can definitely help.  :2thumbsup:  
Just let me know if you need more clues to get the answer.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Sorry Mr moderator, I shall try to behave.

  Do, or do not, there is no try.  _Yoda_   

> I will say sorry to the Dr for calling him an idiot

  I will graciously accept it when you do.  :Biggrin:  
id·i·ot  (d-t)_n._*1.*  A foolish or stupid person. 
Not understanding the difference between "Carbon" and "Carbon Dioxide" after having it explained many times definitely qualifies.  :2thumbsup:    

> I may have been mistaken in my terminology.

  On so many issues. 
But I only have so many hours in the day.  Those billionaire miners don't pay us crazy right wing bloggers nearly enough to address all of your issues. We're too busy destroying the country, according to your latest conspiracy theory.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> And I say again...equally slowly.... 
> She...........is.......a..........politician.   
> They are paid to lie...or at least dissemble....as well as lead.  It is in their job description.  That's what they do.  Even our much beloved current Opposition Leader famously admitted to doing it. In fact they've all done it..... 
> Why get so vehemently self righteous about it now? [That's a rhetorical question, Freud, no need to pontificate further.....]

  Still struggling with that democracy concept I see. 
Yes, they will all get away with lying as much as we let them. 
You obviously set the bar very low for standards of your elected representatives, I'll continue to push for higher standards for all of them, regardless of ideology. 
Call me old-fashioned.  :Biggrin:  
BUt JuLIAR has far surpassed anything this country has seen before.  Even globally we probably have to go back to Comical Ali to find a peer plumbing the same depths as JuLIAR.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You have to be joking.   
> You need to stop slanging off at everyone here and try and post something that cofirms your views.   
> When all you have is personal attacks as an argument you know you have lost the argument. 
> I can assure you both myself and Doc are ordinary working people that are greatly concerned about this Tax, the uselessness of this government and AGW in general. 
> The use of personal attacks, smears, exagerated claims, refusal to debate etc.  are all the red flags that ordinary thinking people need to start questioning the legitimacy of this fraud. 
> Still you guys just don't see that this type of thing is what is killing your argument. 
> Personally I don't want you to stop, ramp it up even, because the more you make these types of claims and the more ordinary people read them the more people will start to doubt your objectives.   
> Love it keep it comming.

  Too true mate.  Hopefully we can keep them posting until support for this farce is in the single digits.  They kill it much better than we ever can, as they claim they "believe" in this fiction passionately, and with every post they further reinforce they have no proof of their cult to post. Just inane insults and semantic distractions.  
But the backbenchers are going to sit tight for a few more polls as they still have no backbone.  If they go down any further, then JuLIAR will resign for Crean to take over and start bailing out the Titanic.  JuLIAR claims she has does not believe in God, but when Ruddy goes in for his heart surgery, she'll be praying more than anyone has prayed before that he makes it out alive and well. 
Stay well and come back Ruddy. It's gonna be fun to watch your reaction during the Crean transition.   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Bedford

> Greg Combet was on Channel Nine this morning and he said words to the effect "We will remove 160 million tonnes of pollution from the atmosphere and create a cleaner world for our children"?

  Did he happen to mention where he was going to put this stuff after he removed it? 
I doubt it would fit in his pocket, so he's going to need a pretty big hole somewhere, maybe they're going to put it in the hole where the coal came out of?

----------


## chrisp

> Yet you post no proof of this?

  There is plently of evidence - more than enough to satisfy the standard of proof accepted by most scientists and most scientific organisations. 
Perhaps you unreasonably demanding "absolute proof" - a very difficult standard to reach.  If that is the standard you demand, how are you feeling about gravity?  There is no absolute proof that gravity exists.   

> I will instead study all empirical scientific evidence (which cannot be "disbelieved" ) and form my own opinion.

  While you say that, you actually seem to do the opposite: you seem to form an opinion and then hunt out "evidence" to support that opinion. 
Did you come up with "JuLIAR" all by yourself?   :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

> A question for Marc, do you actually believe any of that stuff you have in post 6771 and 6772, given this comes from some seriously weird individuals I am genuine in this question.

  Well considering post number 6771 let alone 6772 has yet to be written I wonder what you really mean with your genuine question.
However I gather that you probably refer to post 6671/2 and if so, here is my genuine answer: 
If I decide to copy and post an article, it is because I think the author may be onto something that is worth your while to read.
Now that is s far as I am concerned. 
You on the other hand, the reader, have a few different avenues. 
a) You can ignore it because it was me, Marc who posted it, and based on the fact that Marc is very much anti-marxism-green-nazionalsocialism-labor you ignore it. 
b) You can ignore the content and check out the author, and in a wide sweeping generalization you will tar the content based on the political convictions of the author. If he is conservative you attack it, if he is a lefty, you embrace it, either way the content remains unchecked. 
c) You can make rhetorical questions and abusive remarks in any direction you please in order for (in your mind) discredit the post, the author, or the poster (me).
Content of the post remains unread and unchallenged. 
d) You can actually read the content, and attempt to find a fault in it. For example you could verify if there was such person that wrote such book and was he a member of the such organization or not...riveting stuff. 
Knowing from experience your superior eloquence I await with baited breath the series of fact that will bring the content of those two post tumbling down in the dust never to be read again....or not?

----------


## Marc

Global Warming - Facts and History December 2004 Index Section 1 Bottom  Global Warming Facts and History *L D HOWE*  Serco Assurance*,
  	B150, Harwell, Didcot, Oxon., OX11 0RA, UK  * This paper has not been supported  officially by Serco Assurance and does not necessarily represent the  official view of the company.            		This paper is published on the World Wide Web under the strict condition        	that it is the author's copyright. Any use, or copying, of any part of its        	contents, or the author's original ideas, is allowed only on condition that        	it is acknowledged by citation to be the work of the original author.  	       *Abstract* 
         This  paper attempts to explain the history of the theory of global warming  and set it in the context of scientific and public opinion.  From about  1960 onwards, calculations began to be carried out which led to  predictions that global warming would take place over the coming  century.  The prediction was that the rate of heat input would be  greater than the rate of heat loss if the power consumption were in the  region of 100TW, resulting in what is now termed global warming.  The  popular conception today is that global warming is caused by emissions  of "greenhouse gasses".  On the other hand, volconologists suggest that a  major eruption could precipitate another ice age.  One of the outcomes  of energy calculations was the idea of using renewable energy sources.   Many forms of renewable energy have been advocated over the years.  Most  of them are capable of addressing only a small fraction of our need for  energy.  Many renewable energy sources have environmental side effects.   The effect of the use of energy resources during the construction  phase needs to be considered when calculating the effectiveness of any  power generation capability.  The Earth has been getting colder over a  period of four thousand million years.  Given the fractal nature of the  climatic variations, any measurements of climate change must be treated  with considerable caution.    Top       	Index       		Section 2 Bottom *1. Introduction* 
      Global warming has become a topical issue in recent  years.  Much has been written and said, in many cases without any real  knowledge of the issues involved.  It has become a rallying call of  various factions, many of whom have legitimate concerns, but some of  whom are seemingly bent on simply asserting their own views over those  of others.  Sometimes these factions act with good intent, but often  they are led by unreasonable emotion.  The existence and consequences of  global warming are now so widely accepted that people who have little  knowledge of the facts or history of the subject routinely talk about it  as though all the popular assumptions were well proven.  
      In order to aid the understanding of the issues and  identify the facts, fiction and assumptions, both reasonable and  unreasonable, this paper attempts to explain the history of the theory  and set it in the context of scientific opinion.  The development of the  world and the future development of society also need to be considered,  because these have a significant impact on the whole issue.
      It does not set out to justify either the creation  of emissions or energy misuse.  Indeed, there are many reasons why  emissions should be reduced and there are many useful means of reducing  energy consumption or using alternative energy sources.  It is often the  case that measures adopted to counter global warming are prudent for  other ecological reasons.  In this sense, the drive to counter global  warming may have some very good side effects.  However, this paper sets  out to eradicate some of the gloom and despondency that now seems to  accompany almost all predictions about the future of wildlife and the  environment in general.  Top Section 1        	Index       		Section 3 Bottom *2. 	Calculations* 
      From about 1960 onwards, calculations began to be  carried out which led to predictions that global warming would take  place during the following century.  These calculations were based on  three main assumptions:  Â·	That the so-called "developed" world would continue to  increase its energy usage per person at a rate calculated to be an  inverse exponential function, which would level off in the mid twenty  first century at about twice the current level;Â·	That the population of the "developing" world would expand,  again calculated as an inverse exponential function, which would also  level off in the mid twenty first century;Â·	That the energy demand per person in the "developing" world  would increase until it approached that predicted for the "developed"  world.
      Based on these three premises, the calculations  predicted the energy generation and, consequently, heat output caused by  human activity.  The estimates generally indicate a stable global rate  of energy consumption of between 50 and 100 TW by about 2070 (1 TW is  one thousand million kilowatts).  Circulation models of the Earth's  climate, which are very complex and not very accurate, add the rate of  heat flow from the Earth's core to the surface and the power absorbed  from the Sun's radiation (heat and light) and the heat losses from the  surface of the Earth caused by radiation.  The prediction was that the  rate of heat input would be greater than the rate of heat loss if the  power consumption were in the region of 100TW, resulting in what is now  termed global warming.  At this stage there was no reference to carbon  dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gasses.  Before we move on, it  would be useful to consider the validity of the three main assumptions.   
      Firstly, the increase in energy use in the  "developed" world was based in part on trends during the previous  decades.  However, mass energy consumption was a recent phenomenon that  began in the late nineteenth century with the expansion of heavy  industry and continued into the second half of the twentieth century  with an expansion in the demand for space heating.  The calculations  took no account of either the effects of energy efficient building  designs or the introduction of low power electronics, among other  possible factors.  If these calculations were still considered an  important contribution to the argument in favour of global warming, it  would be useful to revisit this assumption on the basis of recent  trends.
      The second assumption is probably broadly valid,  although it is probably still too early to make an accurate assessment  of its validity.
      The third assumption neglects the fact that most of  the "developed" world is situated in colder climatic regions where the  major contribution to energy consumption is space heating.  Most of the  "developing" world consists of land where there is much less cold  weather.  There is a counter argument, which maintains that hot  countries consume energy because of the demand for air conditioning.   However, this assumes that every culture desires the same form of dress,  surroundings and working environment as the energy hungry "developed"  nations.  One could argue that the "developed" world has much to learn  about values and standards from the cultures of the "developing" world.   In addition, it takes no account of the fact the efficient heat  exchangers in well-designed buildings are much less energy hungry than  conventional space heating systems.  Top Section 2        	Index       		Section 4 Bottom *3.	Other Theories* 
      There has been much confusion between scientific  theory and popular belief.  In many cases the two have become convoluted  in such a way that it is difficult to separate them.  In the nineteen  seventies and eighties some scientist became extremely interested in  global warming.  Their interest was based initially on the calculated  predictions.  An important concern was aerosols.  Aerosols are small  liquid droplets, mainly water, suspended in the atmosphere.  The effect  of aerosols is twofold: they absorb high frequency radiation from both  the Sun and re-radiate it as lower frequency heat which is less easily  reflected from the Earth's surface.  They also reflect the lower  frequency radiation from the surface, reducing the heat loss.  Thus, for  circulation calculations, they have an important effect on the result.   
       During this time, scientists became aware of a  hole in the ozone layer in the Antarctic (and later one in the Arctic).   Confusion in the popular understanding was about to appear, because the  main theory placed the blame on CFCs, the most common propellants for  spray-cans, which are unfortunately known widely as aerosols.  This was  one strand in the move against emissions.  Also popular at the time was  the theory that life on Earth began with a high temperature atmosphere  consisting largely of carbon dioxide and methane.  These became known as  the greenhouse gasses.  There is evidence of some increase in the  carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere over the last century.  Thus,  the popular conception today is that global warming is caused by such  emissions, which are believed to cause the "greenhouse effect".  The  scientists who proclaim global warming see their names in the headlines,  sell their publications and are rewarded with good jobs.  This is not a  new phenomenon in the world of science (see Section 3 below).  Nor can  it be used to discredit the theory of global warming.  But it does help  to explain the widespread nature of popular belief in gloomy  predictions.
       Another quite different theory is popular amongst  volcanologists (who study volcanoes).  The theory suggests that a major  eruption could precipitate another ice age.  Those who remember the  eruption of Mount St Helens in 1980 will recall that the following two  years were noted for reduced temperatures and poor summers, at least in  Europe.  This was attributed to many thousands of tonnes of ash  particles emitted by the volcano and carried into the upper atmosphere.   It is not known if the explosion of Krakatau in 1883 caused a change in  climatic conditions, but it emitted about 20 times more ash than Mount  St Helens.  75,000 years ago, Mt Toba emitted about 3,000 times more ash  than Mount St Helens.  This may have contributed to the effects of the  last ice age.  The existence of such a contrary theory with serious  scientific support must be given due weight when considering the  importance of global warming.  Top Section 3        	Index       		Section 5 Bottom *4.  Environmentalists* 
      People who proclaim the global warming theory  usually regard themselves as environmentalists.  There is a popular  misconception that the term environmentalist equates to a branch of  science.  In reality, environmentalists can be physicists, chemists,  earth or biological scientists or simply lay people interested in  conservation in general.  Environmentalism is a state of mind.   Physicists concerned with the effects of energy equilibrium and  ecologists concerned for the effect of human activity and development  were probably the first real environmental force to influence public  opinion.  The concept spread to planners, politicians and people from  all walks of life.  Unfortunately, the success of the concept has  contributed towards the disrepute of the term environmentalist.  Anyone  can take up the cause of environmentalism, without much, if indeed any,  grasp of the issues involved or understanding of the implications of the  actions they advocate.  So while environmentalism is a worthwhile  cause, when taken in perspective with human ideals and desires, it needs  to be treated with some caution.  When anyone declares her/himself to  be an environmentalist, her/his credentials need to be checked.
      There have always been fashions in science, some  with substance and some without.  In 1988, there was the cold fusion  fashion, which lasted only a few months.  Two decades before that, there  was the Jupiter theory, which predicted a large impact on the Earth  when several planets aligned with the Earth simultaneously.  Thirty or  so years earlier, there was a great movement for the rejection of  Wegner's theory of continental drift, because it was counter to all  established theory.  Such fashions in science become particularly potent  when combined with popular belief and when their champions include  those whose knowledge base has little substance.  Top Section 4        	Index       		Section 6 Bottom *5. Renewable Energy* 
      One of the outcomes of energy calculations was the  idea of using renewable energy sources.  Over hundreds of millions of  years, plants such as trees and animals, such as crustaceans, converted  carbon dioxide to minerals, using energy from the Sun to drive the  chemical reactions.  The result was that some of the surface energy was  locked up in what has become regarded as capital energy.  Burning fuels  such as coal and oil unlock the energy stored over millions of years and  release it at a far greater rate than it was stored.  Nuclear fuels are  also regarded as capital energy, because the reactions are irreversible  in practical terms on our timescale.  The obsession with greenhouse  gasses has reached a point where a website that claims to be serious  advocate of environmentalism, has stated that nuclear energy does not  contribute to global warming because it does not produce carbon dioxide.   Nothing could be further from the truth.  Any energy production  process that releases capital energy is a potential source of global  warming.
      The concept of renewable energy is to use some of  the existing energy on the surface of the Earth to satisfy our needs.   The use of renewable energy sources reduces the human input factor in  the energy calculations.  It also reduces the emission of "greenhouse"  gases, which satisfies the popular belief that these are the main  drivers of global warming.  Unfortunately, it has also become synonymous  with a desire to turn away from progress and return to a more basic  form of life.  
      Many forms of renewable energy have been advocated  over the years.  Most of them are capable of addressing only a small  fraction of our need for energy.  Wood burning is a practical option,  but it would require a large renewable forest to supply a single power  station.  Contrary to popular belief, wood burning is a truly renewable  system.  The trees use the Sun's energy to convert carbon dioxide to  cellulose and the power station reconverts the cellulose back to carbon  dioxide, releasing the energy for our use.  Another concept, popular in  the 1980s, was the Ocean Thermal Energy Converter, where it was proposed  to use the difference in temperature between the surface and deep water  in tropical seas.  The product, either hydrogen or ammonia, was to have  been transported ashore by tankers.  
       Many renewable energy sources have environmental  side effects.  For example, river barrages cause rivers to silt up and  change the habitat in the region of the barrage.  large wind farms are  often regarded as unsightly, a blot on the landscape.  The construction  of a large wind farm, like the construction of a large, rural power  station, either powered by nuclear or conventional fuel, consumes  enormous energy resources during the construction phase, as compared  with the energy output.  The require many years operation to recover the  initial energy usage.  The effect of the use of such resources needs to  be considered when calculating the effectiveness of any power  generation capability. 
       Taking the energy out of waves may convert a rocky  coastline into a sandy beach.  Thus, if global warming really were a  problem, a reduction in the use of energy (_i.e._ lESS energy) would be preferable to _renewable_ energy.  Top Section 5        	Index       		Conclusions Bottom *6. Weather and Climate* 
      The Earth is getting colder.  It has been doing so  over a period of four thousand million years.  However, this is not a  constant process.  On a scale of hundreds of thousands of years, there  is a cyclic pattern, where the low temperature excursions are known as  ice ages and the high temperature excursions are known as inter-glacial  periods.  Currently, the climate is getting warmer.  There can be no  doubt about it.  50,000 years ago the Earth was in the grip of an ice  age.  20,000 years ago, the ice age had finished but temperate zones  were considerably colder than they are today.  Convincing geological  evidence supports the existence of such long-term cycles.
      It is not clear whether or not there are any  patterns associated with a timescale of thousands of years.  Such  periods are too short to be supported by geological evidence, yet  stretch too far into the past to be supported by either anecdotal or  observational evidence.
      In the shorter term, on a scale of a few centuries,  the climate also varies.  The evidence for this is mainly anecdotal.   Detailed records do not exist for much more than a century and, even  then, their usefulness decreases as one goes back in time.  There is  both observational and anecdotal evidence that the climate varies on a  scale of a few decades.  There is also good observational evidence that  there are short-term variations on a scale of a few years.
      When even shorter-term variations are considered,  these are usually regarded as variations in weather (as opposed to  climate).  Thy occur on a seasonal basis, on the scale of a few months,  on a weather system basis, on a scale of a few days and on day to day  basis within individual weather systems.
      Such patterns display all the characteristics of a  fractal system[1], where, without a scale notation, it is impossible to  determine the scale length of the observed data.  It is widely accepted  that the average surface temperature of the Earth has increased by  between 0.25ÂºC and 0.5ÂºC over the last 100 years.  However,  measurements at higher altitudes do not reflect this.  Given the fractal  nature of the problem, such measurements must be treated with  considerable caution.  Differentiating between climate change and  various weather patterns is difficult, if not impossible.  Also, if any  changes are observed, it is all but impossible to tell whether they are  caused by long-term trends or by cyclic effects.  To be fair to the  advocates of global warming, it is better to err on the side of caution.   But that does not mean we have to adopt the gloomy outlook that  currently prevails.  Top Section 6        	Index       		Bottom *7. Conclusions*  
      The foundation for the global warming theory is at  best tenuous.  It depends on empirical calculations made more than four  decades ago.  The nature of climatic change has the characteristics of a  fractal system.  The evidence for global warming would be more  conclusive if it were set against a background of a steady climatic  state.  Although global warming cannot be refuted, it is likely that the  evidence has been presented in a manner likely to enhance the  reputations of those who may benefit from its promulgation. *References* 
      	[1]	B B Mandelbrot _Fractals, Form and Chance_ Freeman (1977)   Top Section 6       	Index             		Global Warming - Facts and History December 2004

----------


## chrisp

> An important concern was aerosols.  Aerosols are small  liquid droplets, mainly water, suspended in the atmosphere.  The effect  of aerosols is twofold: *they absorb high frequency radiation from both  the Sun and re-radiate it as lower frequency heat* which is less easily  reflected from the Earth's surface.  They also reflect the lower  frequency radiation from the surface, reducing the heat loss.  Thus, for  circulation calculations, they have an important effect on the result.

  So... do I take it that you now believe in the greenhouse effect?

----------


## johnc

> Well considering post number 6771 let alone 6772 has yet to be written I wonder what you really mean with your genuine question.
> However I gather that you probably refer to post 6671/2 and if so, here is my genuine answer: 
> If I decide to copy and post an article, it is because I think the author may be onto something that is worth your while to read.
> Now that is s far as I am concerned. 
> You on the other hand, the reader, have a few different avenues. 
> a) You can ignore it because it was me, Marc who posted it, and based on the fact that Marc is very much anti-marxism-green-nazionalsocialism-labor you ignore it. 
> b) You can ignore the content and check out the author, and in a wide sweeping generalization you will tar the content based on the political convictions of the author. If he is conservative you attack it, if he is a lefty, you embrace it, either way the content remains unchecked. 
> c) You can make rhetorical questions and abusive remarks in any direction you please in order for (in your mind) discredit the post, the author, or the poster (me).
> Content of the post remains unread and unchallenged. 
> ...

  No underlying motive, just curious, a yes or no would have done. I did read it and wasn't sufficently interested to look any further, and yes the fingers did mis-type the numbers.

----------


## Marc

I believe in many things none pertinent to the case in question. 
If you find something factual in the article you want to address, be my guest.
remember my "belief" is irrelevant.

----------


## PhilT2

My understanding is that the term aerosols is used mainly to refer to solid particles in the atmosphere, mostly dust and sea salt, but volcanic ash, carbon and exhaust particles. I'm not sure that their impact is correctly described in that paper.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> There is plently of evidence - more than enough to satisfy the standard of proof accepted by most scientists and most scientific organisations. 
> Perhaps you unreasonably demanding "absolute proof" - a very difficult standard to reach.  If that is the standard you demand, how are you feeling about gravity?  There is no absolute proof that gravity exists.   
> While you say that, you actually seem to do the opposite: you seem to form an opinion and then hunt out "evidence" to support that opinion. 
> Did you come up with "JuLIAR" all by yourself?

   No she came up with it herself by being such a liar.

----------


## jross

I often look at the posts here, and to be frank its hard to maintain the grip on the perch. MarkC has us with Nazis, Man that took a great deal of control to maintain balance. Rod says I slag off. Well for someone who comes out with second hand Ju liar thats a bit hard to swallow. I could go through right wing lies if Rod wishes, there are many But that one is offensive and how it hits WWw is beyond me. The great doctor is much as Marc C, a patch and paste merchant. He has never ever posted  on any other thread  other than this, And here most of it is patch and paste, almost 1/3 of this thread is him. So Do you believe me. Well quitefrankly my dear, I dont give a damn. Just look and use what you were given in the cells above your neck.

----------


## Atilla

> The great doctor is much as Marc C, a patch and paste merchant. He has never ever posted  on any other thread  other than this

  Quoted for truth. :Rolleyes:  
And you haven't posted on any other thread in your whole ten posts. :Doh:  
You're doing a great job here Fella, keep up the good work.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You're doing a great job here Fella, keep up the good work.

   You forgot the /sarc

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I often look at the posts here, and to be frank its hard to maintain the grip on the perch. MarkC has us with Nazis, Man that took a great deal of control to maintain balance. Rod says I slag off. Well for someone who comes out with second hand Ju liar thats a bit hard to swallow. I could go through right wing lies if Rod wishes, there are many But that one is offensive and how it hits WWw is beyond me. The great doctor is much as Marc C, a patch and paste merchant. He has never ever posted  on any other thread  other than this, And here most of it is patch and paste, almost 1/3 of this thread is him. So Do you believe me. Well quitefrankly my dear, I dont give a damn. Just look and use what you were given in the cells above your neck.

  I try very hard not to "slang off" at posters on this site irrespective of their political view.  However you are pressing all the right buttons with your personal attacks.  As for our PM she is a liar fair and square.   
I can sense your rage at those with a different view than your own, it is that kind of attitude that shows up some very shallow thinking.  Try posting something positive to support your views.

----------


## jross

So Rod. John Howard wasnt a liar when he allowed the children overboard thing to run and win him an election.
  John howard wasnt a liar  when he got warfies training overseas  to break the back of the melbourne docks. How soon you forget
 Can you emagine your horror if you were a genuine refugee and John Howard accused you of throwing your kids in the sea.
 And yes, dont tell me. Howard as Murdoch didnt know, well tough it was, and is their ship.

----------


## chrisp

> No she came up with it herself by being such a liar.

  I suspect you have that wrong.  I very much doubt that Ms Gillard came up with the "JuLIAR" - try again. 
BTW, why not sort-of-try for a little balance and recall some of the lies from other politicians as well - on both sides of the politics. 
It might be worth repeating - AGW is NOT a political phenomenon - you can't simply vote it away (just as you can't vote gravity away).

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I suspect you have that wrong.  I very much doubt that Ms Gillard came up with the "JuLIAR" - try again. 
> BTW, why not sort-of-try for a little balance and recall some of the lies from other politicians as well - on both sides of the politics. 
> It might be worth repeating - AGW is NOT a political phenomenon - you can't simply vote it away (just as you can't vote gravity away).

  My Bad, should have been she brought it on herself. 
As for the lie itself? Well plain as day she told us the lie to get elected as she knew she could not will by proposing a carbon tax.  It is as shameful as any lie by any politician anywhere. 
Hell, why do you think so many people from both sides are mad as hell about this. 
I cant understand why you aren't mad as hell about it. 
i cant understand how you can be happy with a tax that has NO HOPE of achieving any of the stated objectives. 
Perhaps if there was clear reasoning behind it with clear achievable objectives and not built on a lie some people might just accept it. (not me)

----------


## jross

Rod you accuse me of negative thinking yet you as far as I can remember you have only one aim, to destroy the government and the  and to do this you use the carbon tax.
    I have shown that the world is trying to get to grips with fossil fuel depletion and pollution invarious ways. You though still scream about lies though dont answer to all the other lies. Nor do you answer to what Abbott promised the greens. nor do you answer to Abbott accepting man is poluting the atmosphere.
 You sir have no solutions, all you have is howls of disaproval. Like Tony Abbott your only policy is destroy the government. It is the most negative campeign I have ever witnessed and I suspect, my clock has ticked longer than yours

----------


## johnc

Abbot lied on the medicare safety net which he maintained was set in stone then reneged on it after the next election. In other words a big fat lie, and you can draw comparisons to the carbon tax debate. Howard and Reith on the children overboard. Howard claiming there would never be a GST under any goverment he led.  
Those bleating on about lies and the masogonistic scum using the offensive Juliar coined by that escapee from the UK law Jones are really just showing their own lack of decency, and encouraging Abbots race to the bottom.

----------


## intertd6

When the less than blessed get past their political & ideological preferences they may see why the party in question have a dug a hole so deep they cant see out of it now. Just like the heavily eyebrowed clown did before them. If the policy is no good & the masses say it isn't then their future is not very promising .
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

For those who came in late and can't be bothered reading the rest of the thread, Chrisp has been trying hard to learn how "cause and effect" works in science. 
And all kudos to him for continually posting these effects in an effort to learn this.   

> *Meanwhile....*    Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

  Now, can we please have some empirical scientific evidence as to what you "believe" is causing it? 
Here's a time saving tip: gathering up a group of scientists opinions and calling this a consensus is not empirical scientific evidence.  Just because you "believe" the opinions of authority figures, this does not mean that your beliefs are then reality.  If this was the standard for scientific endeavour, we would be living in a very different world indeed.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

I held Mr Turnbull in very high regard and have said so on many occasions during this thread, due to his impressive intellect, excellent business acumen and ferocious dedication to victory in all that he does. 
However, some of those attributes, particularly his inability to accept failure, are going to tarnish a legacy that was formidable.  Turnbull has never been as comprehensively and publicly defeated and humiliated as he has been by Tony Abbott, but through no malice on Abbott's part.  Turnbull struggled to make any headway toward reigning in Rudd, or even getting close to challenging the government.  His Utegate over reaching was recoverable, but he did not get time.   
Conversely, Abbott has destroyed, and utterly destroyed, Rudd, JuLIAR, and in the process, the entire Labor brand, and has made it look easy.  Abbott was massively underestimated by most, and has used very simplistic tactics that are impressively effective, and have equally shocked political insiders of both left and right temperaments. 
Turnbull loathes this fact, but at the same time still respects Abbott's achievements with a begrudging and envious admiration.  But his inability to accept defeat is unfortunately leaving him with the delusion that his party will take him back, if only he can convince them that  Abbott is a one trick (No Carbon Dioxide Tax) pony.  He still has not learned the essence of the political game, that  the likes of Howard, Hawke, Menzies and Chifley all knew to their core, and that Abbott has quickly learned.  Politics is a team sport.   
Turnbull now has to resort to the cultish mantra in an attempt to discredit Abbott's authority.  Allow me to highlight (again) just some of this cultish nonsense:   

> Here is an interesting - and very sensible - comment coming from the Liberal Party....        *Turnbull defends scientists*  
> MALCOLM Turnbull has urged people to speak out loudly on behalf of the science of climate change.  
> In a strong assault on sceptics such as Lord Christopher Monckton who attack the science, Mr Turnbull declared: ''We cannot afford to allow the science to become a partisan issue as it is in the United States.''  
> Believing in the science did not put a Liberal at odds with party policy, he stressed in a lecture in Sydney last night. He said there had been a very effective campaign against climate science by those opposed to cutting emissions, and this had affected the carbon tax debate.  
> But rejecting the science was ''like ignoring the advice of your doctor to give up smoking on the basis that somebody down the pub told you their uncle Ernie had lived to 95 and smoked like a train all his life''.  
> Mr Turnbull supports emissions trading but as a shadow minister is bound to support the opposition policy, which now opposes a carbon tax or trading system.  
> He said that the CSIRO and other science agencies were listened to with respect on most issues. ''Yet on this issue there appears to be a licence to reject our best scientists  and rely instead on much less reliable views.'' he said. ''Those of us who do not believe the CSIRO is part of an international Green conspiracy to undermine Western civilisation should not be afraid to speak out and loudly, on behalf of the science.'' 
> Read more: Turnbull defends scientists

    

> *Turnbull defends scientists*

  Scientists do not need defending.  If a scientist cannot cite empirical evidence proving their position, then they are an opinionated academic.  A scientist produces reliable and valid results that stand on their own merits, the scientist does not enter the equation, literally.  The numbers stack up, or they do not.  If they do not, then let's all throw our opinions out there, wherever they lie on the informed to uninformed scale.   

> MALCOLM Turnbull has urged people to speak out loudly on behalf of the science of climate change.

  Monckton, Watts, Rod, myself and most sceptics have been doing this since this farce began.  If only the AGW hypothesis "believers" would speak out as loudly on behalf of "the science", as opposed to the scientists opinions.   

> In a strong assault on sceptics such as Lord Christopher Monckton who attack the science

  Monckton has never attacked "the science", in fact he fully supports the empirical scientific evidence, and regularly presents it during his discussions.  What he does attack are opinions masquerading as "facts".   

> He said there had been a very effective campaign against climate science by those opposed to cutting emissions

  These blatant lies by parroting the cultish commentary on this farce is bringing ridicule upon what used to be a very capable performer.   

> But rejecting the science

  No sceptic rejects "the science", they wholeheartedly support it. 
I will email these rebuttals to Turnbull, with some much more personal and direct feedback that will hopefully spark what little reason he has left amongst the bitterness now consuming him.  His future in politics is bleak if he cannot pull his head out of his @r$#.  
What a pity, so much potential.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod you accuse me of negative thinking yet you as far as I can remember you have only one aim, to destroy the government and the  and to do this you use the carbon tax.
>     I have shown that the world is trying to get to grips with fossil fuel depletion and pollution invarious ways. You though still scream about lies though dont answer to all the other lies. Nor do you answer to what Abbott promised the greens. nor do you answer to Abbott accepting man is poluting the atmosphere.
>  You sir have no solutions, all you have is howls of disaproval. Like Tony Abbott your only policy is destroy the government. It is the most negative campeign I have ever witnessed and I suspect, my clock has ticked longer than yours

  Mate when a government has so many continuous blunders and contentious policies mad up on the run, they deserve to get kicked out.  Regardless of which side of politics you come form this is worst blundering government we have ever had.   
Just name a main objective on this government both Rudd and Juliar that has been successful.  I am only one of few that are disgusted with where this government has taken Australia.   
Mate she is a gonner be it in the next few months or next 2 years.  With the way they are throwing our money away like confetti and then raising taxes every where to try and balance the books, the longer she stays the worse the long term affect it will have on the Labor Party.  
Hell for the sake of democracy in this Country I don't want to see a decimated labor party, but this is where it is headed like it or not.  People on mass see this government as poison for Australia and it is.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Did he happen to mention where he was going to put this stuff after he removed it? 
> I doubt it would fit in his pocket, so he's going to need a pretty big hole somewhere, maybe they're going to put it in the hole where the coal came out of?

  In reality, there will be a new financial derivatives market set up that transfers massive amounts of our money to overseas rorts.  During this process, these financial instruments will change ownership in a computer somewhere and the giant government bureaucracy tracking all these markets will register carbon "credits" in a database in Canberra, and this is how the "pollution" magically disappears in some computer code somewhere in "The Matrix".  
Aussies are slowly waking from the green dream scheme world, into reality:  

> *Morpheus*: Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?   *Morpheus*: You've been living in a dream world, Neo.   *Morpheus*: Welcome to the real world.

  And in the real world, JuLIAR promises to massively increase our coal exports to India and China to burn "until the coal mines run out of coal":   

> Ms Gillard told workers at Mandalong's Centennial Coal, in the Hunter Valley, that *the mine would stay open for as long as there was coal in the ground.*  Julia Gillard tells the coal city of Newcastle that its future is safe | The Australian

  JuLIAR indeed.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> There is *plently* of evidence - more than enough to satisfy the *standard of proof accepted* by most scientists and most scientific organisations.

  Perhaps if you studied more of "the science", and "believed" less of the opinions of those you think are smarter than you, then you would stop making these same mistakes over and over again. 
Empirical scientific evidence does not need to be "accepted" by anyone, scientists or otherwise.  There is no "standard of proof" as this is not a court of law, where incomplete information requires subjective opinions to be formed.  There is no need for "plenty" of evidence, just one valid and reliable result.  The two words you need to learn about are reliable and valid.  This quantification is why you are reading this screen right now, as opposed to bowing at some temple to authority figures who you think are smarter than you.    

> Perhaps you *unreasonably* demanding *"absolute proof"* - a *very difficult* standard to reach.

  There you go again, what the hell is "absolute proof".  This is as meaningful to science as "absolute c%@p".  It is not unreasonable to ask for valid and reliable quantification in results.  This is the essence of the scientific process.  This is not a "very difficult" standard, it is a valid and reliable standard.  That is why it is essential to "the science".   

> If that is the standard you demand, how are you feeling about gravity?

  I'm feeling heavy about gravity?   :Confused:    

> There is no absolute proof that gravity exists.

  Empirical scientific evidence demonstrates that measurements of gravity are reliable and valid. 
Next time you are in a department store, line up some bathroom scales or floor scales, then step on them to see this empirical scientific evidence before your very own eyes. 
These results are reliable and valid and do not have to be "accepted" by anyone (unless you are a big fat b@st@rd in denial  :Biggrin: ). 
See, science can be so much fun.  Use donuts over time to make the scoring fun by linking gravity with mass.  :Biggrin:  
Conversely, there is ZERO empirical scientific evidence demonstrating that the AGW hypothesis is either reliable or valid. 
Or as I usually say: 
There is ZERO evidence proving the AGW hypothesis. 
Save your "absolute proof" chats for your philosophical pursuits, not these scientific ones.   

> While you say that, you actually seem to do the opposite: you seem to form an opinion and then hunt out "evidence" to support that opinion.

  You seem to have forgotten, but I have mentioned many times in this thread that I first started reading the IPCC reports after I saw the "Hockey Stick" on TV.  Up to this point, the whole "Global warming" issue was a non-event to me.  But after hearing that reputable scientists had constructed this graph from empirical data, I was amazed at the effect size in the graph.  I immediately was alarmed, because if this effect was real, we certainly were in a world of hurt. 
The I read the IPCC reports and started figuring out how inept these clowns actually were.  I was truly amaze that they had even gotten as far as thay had at that point.  Their work was truly ridiculous.  It was only many years later that the "Hockey stick" was laughed out of the IPCC reports, until now the entire IPCC reports themselves are held up for the ridicule they deserve. 
So I originally formed the opinion the world was warming uncontrollably and unstoppably, and sought "evidence" to clarify this.  And look where I am now... :Biggrin:     

> Did you come up with "JuLIAR" all by yourself?

  Nope, but wish I had.  Whoever did is a champion.  Probably some crazy right wing blogger in the pockets of big oil and billionaire miners.  :Roflmao:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Rod you accuse me of negative thinking yet you as far as I can remember you have only one aim, to destroy the government and the and to do this you use the carbon tax.

  I don't want to burst your ideological bubble jross, but Rod didn't introduce the Carbon Dioxide Tax, JuLIAR did. After she explicitly promised (over and over again) not to. 
She is destroying her own government using her own TAX!  :2thumbsup:  
We are all just discussing why she is, over a useless TAX.  :Biggrin:    

> I have *shown* that *the world* is trying to get to grips with fossil fuel depletion and pollution invarious ways.

  Wow, I must have missed that showing.  :Doh:  
But what do either of these subjects (fossil fuel depletion and pollution) have to do with Carbon Dioxide and the AGW hypothesis? 
I myself am on the record as a big fan of energy security measures and a cleaner environment.  These are not the rationale as to why we are paying new taxes.    

> You though still scream about lies though dont answer to all the other lies. Nor do you answer to what Abbott promised the greens. nor do you answer to Abbott accepting man is poluting the atmosphere.

  Trust me, if Abbott introduces a Carbon Dioxide Tax when he is PM, he'll be wishing he got the treatment that JuLIAR currently is.  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

Is the irrelevant drivel of the last few pages the best argument you passionate AGW hypothesis people can mount for how Aussies going it alone paying this massive tax will make the Planet Earth colder? 
No wonder even the disinterested masses aren't buying this bullsh-- any more! 
Let's examine this incessant whining:   

> Abbot lied on the medicare safety net which he maintained was set in stone then reneged on it after the next election.

  A little research here will help you correct this nonsense.   :Doh:   

> and you can draw comparisons to the carbon tax debate.

  Really?  Please explain how?   

> Howard and Reith on the children overboard.

  Did we get an economy wide tax for this as well?  :Doh:   

> Howard claiming there would never be a GST under any goverment he led.

  And there wasn't, until the Australian people asked him to bring the GST in at an election, then he listened to them. 
Is JuLIAR offering the Australian people an election to have their say, like the very admirable effort from John Howard asking the people for their voice to be heard? 
Don't bother answering that one, just hide.  :Biggrin:    

> Those bleating on about lies and the masogonistic scum using the offensive Juliar coined by that escapee from the UK law Jones are really just showing their own lack of decency, and encouraging Abbots race to the bottom.

  I didn't know the word LIAR was gender specific.  Can you please explain how it is?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

If you do, let your local MP know, then we can have our say, like these Aussies:    

> Coalition of Industries supporting a vote of
> NO CONFIDENCE
> in the Federal Government and sponsored by the National Road Freighters Association.
> Come one, come all, join the Convoy from your location, show your disapproval for the current Federal Government.
> The Convoy will start on the 17th of August and will arrive at Parliament House Canberra on the 22nd of August.
> Convoys will be on all major highways leading to Canberra, come in your truck, car, camper,
> caravan, bus or horse & cart, anything that moves, just join in!
> Together we can force an Election!

  More here:  Convoy of No Confidence in the Federal Government - Routes. - Just Grounds Community

----------


## Dr Freud

> *BUSINESS leaders have slammed the Gillard government's handling of the economy, with corporate captains saying relations are the worst in recent memory with a government that is not on top of major issues. * "It's probably the most difficult relationship I've seen between business and a federal government," Mr Maxsted said. 
> Former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski, who is the chancellor of RMIT University, said there was a "whiff of illegitimacy" about the Labor government, in part due to how the carbon tax has been introduced, following an election campaign pledge by Prime Minister Julia Gillard that no such tax would be imposed.   *The carbon tax is a prime reason the mistrust between government and business is high.*   Business leaders warn of difficult relationship with Gillard government | The Australian

  This TAX is doing wonders for our country, huh?  :Doh:

----------


## johnc

Phoney Tony and lies.  Print Email Share Comments (124) *Freed from facts, Abbott goes ballooning* 
By ABC's Annabel Crabb 
Updated July 22, 2011 16:29:48  *Photo:* Mr Abbott's one-man battle against demonstrable logic has entered a new and compelling phase. (AAP Image: Joe Castro)  
The Opposition Leader's discomfiture in the face of certain large repositories of expertise is a matter of record.
He disapproves of climate scientists, of Australian economists on the whole, and he has no time at all for the work of Treasury officials, which should make things fairly interesting should the public distaste for Julia Gillard bear its probable fruit two years hence, and install Mr Abbott as their lord and master. Awkward.
After several months spent demanding details of the Government's carbon tax, Mr Abbott has not let the details themselves break his stride for a nanosecond. Treasury can predict until it's blue in the face that the cost of living will rise by a modest 0.7 per cent; Mr Abbott doesn't believe it, and campaigns accordingly.
In one sense, he's living the dream. A political campaign that is 100 per cent rhetoric is - to any politician - as a milkshake that is 100 per cent Milo would be to any child. And after all, as Reagan famously told the Republicans in 1988: "Facts are stupid things".
Once you've severed the guy ropes of obeisance to empirical evidence, many happy hours of ballooning lie ahead. Mr Abbott's liberation from such constraints allows him to lead a free-market party while advocating a carbon reduction scheme that is interventionist to its core. Or to deplore, for instance, a goal of reducing Australian emissions by 5 per cent over the next nine years as "crazy", while simultaneously holding that goal as sworn Coalition policy. Last week, when the Leader of the Opposition assured a group of Victorian voters that carbon dioxide was a tricky gas on account of being "weightless", it seemed for a glorious moment as if he was hedging his bets even on the work of Newton.
But Mr Abbott's one-man battle against demonstrable logic has entered a new and compelling phase.
After a long period of ignoring expert opinion where it does not mesh with his own, the Opposition Leader has taken the ambitious next step, and spent this week ignoring himself.
First, he claimed that he had never supported a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme, a proposition for which the contradicting evidence is so plentiful that it seems insulting to list it, although Crikey's Bernard Keane summarised the material recently, formatted entertainingly as a long argument between the Opposition Leader and himself.
Then, he claimed - while in Victoria - that the Coalition's national emissions reductions could be accomplished without touching a hair on the head of any brown coal-fired power stations. This is precisely at odds with his own policy's promise to shutdown at least one brown coal station, and to pay generators to move to gas.
In fairness, no-one can claim that Mr Abbott didn't warn us about this. Twelve years ago, during the republic referendum campaign, he did point out rather forcefully that politicians weren't to be trusted. In the first of two memorable interviews with Kerry O'Brien last year, he warned voters not to believe anything he said unless he put it in writing. In the second, he warned especially that he shouldn't be asked anything much about the internet, seeing as he knew diddly-squat about all that stuff (he is a papyrus-to-the-node kind of guy).
This is why Mr Abbott is a very, very effective Opposition Leader. He pursues his opponent all day, and sleeps soundly at night unhaunted by the ghosts of his own inconsistency. Rather blackly, Mr Abbott's central case against Julia Gillard is that you can't believe a word she says.
Malcolm Turnbull, a man whose own consistency on the topic of carbon pricing borders on the unfashionable, is in trouble today for his speech last night suggesting that people listen to the experts on climate change.
Mr Abbott, when interviewed in 2009 by Tony Jones about his thoughts on climate change, confessed to have read none of the IPCC report and just a bit of the sceptic Ian Plimer's book before arriving at his opinion that climate change was a bit overdone. "I don't claim to have immersed myself deeply in all of these documents," he told Jones. "But look, I think I am as well-versed on these matters as your average politician needs to be."
Mr Turnbull, who has read widely on the subject, delivered a lecture last night in which he encouraged voters to draw reasonable conclusions from empirical evidence, and to listen to the science on climate change.
Everything he said was well-contained within the Coalition's formal policy position. One suspects it was checked and triple-checked so as not to offend a single strand of the party's official position on climate change. And yet the whole thing was deeply, Turnbullishly off-message.
Why? Because on climate change in the Coalition, it's not loyal simply to recite the party's formal policy line. Loyalty demands you deliver the policy with a wink, to show you don't mean it. _Annabel Crabb__ is the ABC's chief online political writer._

----------


## johnc

Lifted from the Telegraph, 
" I followed Julia Gillard around Australia this week, and found myself appalled by the way some Australians speak to her. We can all decide whether to support a politician or not.
We can despise Gillard or Abbott as much as we like.
Everyone enjoys the right to free speech. I don't have any particular reason to speak up for Gillard.
She is a tough lady who can handle herself very well.
She knew, when she made an alliance with the Greens and became Prime Minister, that she would have to price carbon, and that would lead to the accusation that she lied.
As Gillard herself says, she is a calm person with a fairly thick skin. Still, I don't think any of us has the right to harangue or insult anyone - be it a politician, a fellow voter or anyone else. I'm disgusted every time I hear someone say "Juliar", a juvenile and extraordinarily rude nickname popularised by broadcaster Alan Jones and employed by vitriolic people whose last witty riposte was in year two. Gillard told me in an interview this week that she is not offended by "Juliar", and she doesn't think it's sexist.  
I disagree. Did anyone ever open an interview with Paul Keating or Bob Hawke by calling them "Ap-paul" or "Slob"? Can you imagine the fireworks that would have ensued? Gillard - like her or not - is Prime Minister of Australia. How about a little respect?
Sure, people used to call John Hewson and Gough Whitlam names. But not like this." 
There is little doubt in the minds of many that the lack of respect currently shown to the holder of the office of prime minister has more to do with the fact she us female than anything else. There has never been this much attention to dress, appearance, voice and other personal attributes than we have at the moment. Even holders of the office who have upset many have not had this type of sustained and venal level of insult hurled at them. Those who continue to use the term Juliar are probably the same tossers who think it is ok to wolf whistle women or engage in childish and purile banter during there tea breaks or in the company of like minded scum. The fact that they are only copying a term coined by some limp wristed shock jock who panders to the extreme right just points to the fact that they are probably incapable of anything approaching human decency and civil conduct.

----------


## chrisp

> Or as I usually say: 
> There is ZERO evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.

  *I do love the way you repeatedly discredit yourself by say that with such conviction!* 
Do you you really think there is *zero* evidence?  
The average global temperature IS rising, sea levels are rising. 
Then you squirm your words to claim there is no _causal link_ between CO2 and temperature rise. 
Not only does the vast majority of scientist and scientific organisations state that warming is happening - they also state that it is man-made - No question, No "ifs", no "buts", No "maybes".  _The warming is real - and it is man-made. _  *However, you arrogantly claim that all these scientists and scientific organisations in the world have got it wrong!* 
If you claim the science is wrong, then the burden is on you to provide the proof for your claim.

----------


## chrisp

> Empirical scientific evidence demonstrates that measurements of *gravity* are reliable and valid.

  Just as empirical scientific evidence demonstrates that measurements of *AGW* are reliable and valid.

----------


## jross

OK Rod now lets look at what you say is waste by this and the Rudd government. When the crash came the government set up a stimulus package and Australia avoided recession
 You still sold plaster and your firm plastered walls. The USA was held back by the right, Son doing masters in international finance and banking stated this at the time. 
 'Their spend is 1/3 of what is needed, all that is is a waste of money". Now USA looks like it might just double dip. 
   If she does, the liberals have suceeded in blocking a mining tax, Will Gina Reinhart give some of her 13 billion profit, you bet she wont. In these very tough times 
  Australia needs a buffer and the liberals are blocking that.
     What happens if the USA goes down as looks likely, well liberals have blocked any means of the government
 gaining fat, Though Im not religious, for those that are, Phaero listened to the dreams of fat years and lean years, the liberals are not. So please, if USA goes pear shaped, dont come here crying it was due to the labor government that your business is in the toilet.
  So Rod you can say that insulation was a mess if you like, but it injected money into the economy. And yes some tradies were rip off merchants, but is that not always so.
 If you look at some of the renovation shows on TV you will see one thing, you have to know and see what you get from a tradesman, they come in all shades.
   If like Norway we valued our resources we could have a lovely little buffer for the future. Norway with North sea oil, taxed it and put that money into their pension  and hospital fund. They now have such a pool of money that the interest alone is enough to run these services, their oil will never run out.
   After Gena pulls out the last of the ore, thats it, its back to relying on the sheeps back. This is not smart thinking, its just the greed of the wealthy and the way they use their money to muddy the water.
To the Dr you said you thought I had you on ignore, didnt know the site had that, but no, I just dont read most of your stuff, I believe you are a payed spoiler or a member of the DLP and "How du yu do" never did much for me.
  Finally Rod, I ask you to note the date of this. On another site 10 years or so ago, I predicted  some woeful weather in the future. I cant prove that now. But please note the date,  World weather will deteriorate, give or take a year or so. Now I did predict earthquakes in that post, Now. perhaps not so much. Why? Well earthquakes are something that will happen. Create issues and it may hasten them but the earth will move in time regardless, and has done so. Tornadoes, hurracanes and the like, no. They keep going.
   So I believe there is a very high chance USA will have one bitch of a year when the tornado season opens. If so Australia can look at another likely Banana free year or lucky escape.
   So Rod, put your money where your mouth is and place your bet. My bets out there, match it. Tell me USA aint going to do a woopsie. tell me Aus aint going to be in strife due to that. Tell me there aint going to be some once a lifetime weather events in USA and Aus in the next 2 years. Put your money where your mouth is Son. I have, can you.
  The date is 23/7/2011 In 23/7/2013 I am willing with the moderators support to revisit this post at that time, lets see if Rod is.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> OK Rod now lets look at what you say is waste by this and the Rudd government. When the crash came the government set up a stimulus package and Australia avoided recession
>  You still sold plaster and your firm plastered walls. The USA was held back by the right, Son doing masters in international finance and banking stated this at the time. 
>  'Their spend is 1/3 of what is needed, all that is is a waste of money". Now USA looks like it might just double dip. 
>    If she does, the liberals have suceeded in blocking a mining tax, Will Gina Reinhart give some of her 13 billion profit, you bet she wont. In these very tough times 
>   Australia needs a buffer and the liberals are blocking that.
>      What happens if the USA goes down as looks likely, well liberals have blocked any means of the government
>  gaining fat, Though Im not religious, for those that are, Phaero listened to the dreams of fat years and lean years, the liberals are not. So please, if USA goes pear shaped, dont come here crying it was due to the labor government that your business is in the toilet.
>   So Rod you can say that insulation was a mess if you like, but it injected money into the economy. And yes some tradies were rip off merchants, but is that not always so.
>  If you look at some of the renovation shows on TV you will see one thing, you have to know and see what you get from a tradesman, they come in all shades.
> ...

  Are you a weather man now? 
I predict that there will be, somewhere in the world, some really really bad weather.  EVERY YEAR. 
BTW I will still be here in 2 years.  Will you?

----------


## jross

Come on Rod, dont chicken out, Its USA and Aus. And look at it Rod. I cant win. If I am correct its not 
 something to boast about. People will be dead. I dont want to win, but chances are I will. So dont chicken
  out, put up or shut up.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Come on Rod, dont chicken out, Its USA and Aus. And look at it Rod. I cant win. If I am correct its not 
>  something to boast about. People will be dead. I dont want to win, but chances are I will. So dont chicken
>   out, put up or shut up.

  I dont really dissagree with you.  There are bound to be events that are out of the norm.  What with no el nino and all, not to mention a quiet sun.  Crikey I would be betting against myself!!  Now what you think is the cause on these events, if and when they occur, is another matter altogether. 
So I guess I wont be either putting up or shutting up real soon.

----------


## jross

Are you not ashamed of yourself Rod. You know the weather has gone queer, You know that Queensland and NSW have had a
 whackimg never experienced before, You know the USA is having tornadoes beyond normal. You dont deny that.
 Yet you will not consider anything that may just help. Is it greed, I dont know, but your colours are now on display. 
   Will I be here in 2 years Rod, will you. That is a question for the future, How is your clock ticking etc. I dont bet
 on that, thats chancing it. But Sir you dissapoint me.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Are you not ashamed of yourself Rod.

  Not in the slightest.  

> You know the weather has gone queer,

  The weather always changes getting back to a more 70's type patten   

> that Queensland and NSW have had a
>  whackimg never experienced before,

    Never is a long time are you certain about this lose claim?  

> tornadoes beyond normal. You dont deny that.

  No I dont deny that, now what is the cause of this again? surely you wouldn't be one of very few linking this to AGW, would you?  

> Yet you will not consider anything that may just help.

  Can you explain to me again exactly, how gillard tax might help?  

> Is it greed, I dont know, but your colours are now on display.

  Come on now surely you can do better than making wild assumptions like this.  Attempting to smear or shame me into you way of thinking has zero chance of success.  Read the posts above. It is this sort of comment that turns people away from the church of AGW.   

> Will I be here in 2 years Rod, will you. That is a question for the future, How is your clock ticking etc. I dont bet
>  on that, thats chancing it.

   who is to know?  

> But Sir you dissapoint me.

  If I did not dissapoint you, I would surely dissapoint myself more.

----------


## jross

I have seen many people travel from here to wherever, and in doing so Rod, its not tomorrow they fear, its what
 happened yesterday. So your flim flam to me doesnt matter, I wont face that. But look in the mirror, He is the guy
 to spin your yarn to if you can. You just lost your credibility with me

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You just lost your credibility with me

  Sorry mate I'm all tears.

----------


## jross

Well I think it may be time for me to call it quits on this thread.
  When you look at the main anti global warming writers
 One guy believes its a Nazi plot, They will get you, you know
 Our Perth friend is a spoiler, He would sell snake oil if payed and every post of his is on this thread.
 And Rod is like Abbott, both believe in climate change, but will block anything that may help.
  So continuing on here is like arguing with these religious nuts at the door. it just incourages them.
 my advice is have a strike, Boy wont that get up their nose.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Well I think it may be time for me to call it quits on this thread.
>   When you look at the main anti global warming writers
>  One guy believes its a Nazi plot, They will get you, you know
>  Our Perth friend is a spoiler, He would sell snake oil if payed and every post of his is on this thread.
>  And Rod is like Abbott, both believe in climate change, but will block anything that may help.
>   So continuing on here is like arguing with these religious nuts at the door. it just incourages them.
>  my advice is have a strike, Boy wont that get up their nose.

  Bye bye

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> Well I think it may be time for me to call it quits on this thread.

  Hello, I think your side will really thank you for that, you're making them look bad. 
Maybe they can explain this?  
"ONE of Australia's foremost experts on the relationship between climate change and sea levels has written a peer-reviewed paper concluding that rises in sea levels are "decelerating". "  Sea-level rises are slowing, tidal gauge records show | The Australian

----------


## Dr Freud

Annabel is very cute, and I like her style and manner, it's fun and bubbly. 
It's a pity she is so poor at research and comprehension.  Here's just a few examples of the many flaws in what you have posted:   

> _Annabel Crabb__ is the ABC's chief online political writer._

  Lift your game Annabel, you make it too easy for people like me to rebuke your lazy efforts.   

> Treasury can predict until it's blue in the face that the cost of living will rise by a modest 0.7 per cent; Mr Abbott doesn't believe it, and campaigns accordingly.

  Have you assessed the underlying assumptions to these "predictions" Annabel? 
If you did (as I and Abbott have) you would also realise the narrow mandate they were given by JuLIAR leading to these ridiculous figures.  This is not to say the treasury officials are ridiculous, they were just serving what they were told to.  If we asked them to model economic scenarios where the rest of the world failed to act, these numbers would be very different, but JuLIAR did not ask for this scenario, even though it the most likely one. 
Do you homework Annabel.  :Wink 1:    

> Or to deplore, for instance, a goal of reducing Australian emissions by 5 per cent over the next nine years as "crazy", while simultaneously holding that goal as sworn Coalition policy.

  It's very different aiming for 5% with a scheme that's very easy to scrap if the rest of the world does nothing, or scrap when people suddenly realise that the "the science" does not prove the AGW hypothesis.  The "crazy" part is having an economy wide crippling TAX that will cripple us even worse if the two likely scenarios above eventuate, that will cost the government hundreds of billions to unwind once the financial derivatives markets are established. 
Neither scheme will make any difference to the temperature of the Planet Earth, one is crazy because of it's crippling of the economy while *not* making any difference. 
I would prefer Abbott to just admit this is all a crock of sh--, but there still many Australians that need educating about the lies and the rorts that created this green dream scheme industry rorting Aussie taxpayers funds.  He is smart enough to know he needs to appease all of these interests to form government.  Then time will tell how soon we can educate the Australian public.  They are very fast learners based on recent polls.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Labor has screwed the country again, so cue the moral boo hoo teary stories from the zealot defenders about how sensitive they are, and how evil everyone is for rightfully pointing out their idiocy, especially with this TAX. 
Next thing you know they'll be calling for new media censorship laws to stop us democratically criticising their idiocy. 
Oops, I forgot, that was last week.  :Doh: 
And as for your hypocritical nonsense:   

> " I followed Julia Gillard around Australia this week, and found myself appalled by the way some Australians speak to her. 
> Still, I don't think any of us has the right to harangue or insult anyone - be it a politician, a fellow voter or anyone else. I'm disgusted every time I hear someone say "Juliar" 
> I disagree. Did anyone ever open an interview with Paul Keating or Bob Hawke by calling them "Ap-paul" or "Slob"? Can you imagine the fireworks that would have ensued? Gillard - like her or not - is Prime Minister of Australia. How about a little respect?
> Sure, people used to call John Hewson and Gough Whitlam names. But not like this." 
> There is little doubt in the minds of many that the lack of respect currently shown to the holder of the office of prime minister has more to do with the fact she us female than anything else. There has never been this much attention to dress, appearance, voice and other personal attributes than we have at the moment. Even holders of the office who have upset many have not had this type of sustained and venal level of insult hurled at them. Those who continue to use the term Juliar are probably the same tossers who think it is ok to wolf whistle women or engage in childish and purile banter during there tea breaks or in the company of like minded scum. The fact that they are only copying a term coined by some limp wristed shock jock who panders to the extreme right just points to the fact that they are probably incapable of anything approaching human decency and civil conduct.

  Geez, imagine how outraged you'd be if someone threw shoes at her on Q&A? 
And I also think some of your lefty mates would be concerned at your reference to "limp-wristed" people. Not very Politically Correct now, is it, given the left's current push for marriage amendments?  
It is strange how you try to argue against insulting people by constantly insulting other people.  That sounds hypocritical to me. 
I prefer to insult all those who I think deserve it.  Insults where they are due, I reckon (except to fellow forum members, no matter how deserving  :Innocent: ).  :Biggrin:  
Hey, if you guys get JuLIAR to sign up to the forum, I may have to stop using that label.  :Shock:  :Shock:  :Shock:

----------


## PhilT2

> Hello, I think your side will really thank you for that, you're making them look bad. 
> Maybe they can explain this?  
> "ONE of Australia's foremost experts on the relationship between climate change and sea levels has written a peer-reviewed paper concluding that rises in sea levels are "decelerating". "  Sea-level rises are slowing, tidal gauge records show | The Australian

  I realise that Doc and yourself have faith in what you read in the Murdoch press but you may like to take a look at what the author actually said. An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

----------


## Dr Freud

You guys are hard work you know.  :Biggrin:  
I taught my 6 and 7 year old nieces about Carbon Dioxide in about 5 minutes the other day. 
We (adults) were discussing paying for the Carbon Dioxide Tax and they asked what we were paying to buy.  They assumed that if you pay money, you get something in return, as they are currently learning to budget and pay for their own stuff at the shops. 
I asked them to take a deep breath in, then blow a deep breath out.  They did.  I said that their body added extra Carbon Dioxide to the air when they breath out, compared to the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the air when they breath it in.  This went on until we were all a bit dizzy.  I then explained that Carbon Dioxide gas not only comes from all animals like us breathing out, but from lots of other places like fires and volcanoes and other reactions. 
I then said that we will pay money to the government and then we will be allowed to keep lighting fires and breathing out as much as we want.  They then said that we can do this now without paying anything.  I then said to them that if we all move to America, we can still keep doing these things for free, because they don't have this tax.  Then came the kicker, one of them asked:  *Then why do we have it?* 
I laughed, and laughed, and laughed.  :Rotfl:  
That was easy, now for this effort:   

> *I do love the way you repeatedly discredit yourself by say that with such conviction!* 
> Do you you really think there is *zero* evidence?

  It needs no conviction, it is a scientific fact.  Science is not about the strength of your convictions, unless you "believe" in something religious, then it is all about your conviction. 
And I do not "really think" this, it is a scientific fact 
There is ZERO scientific evidence proving the AGW hypothesis. 
If you want to "discredit" (not me) but this scientific fact, please post one piece of empirical scientific evidence proving the AGW hypothesis, and I will gladly retract, the debate will then be over, and "the science will be settled" as you people say.  Just one piece, not plenty.  :Doh:    

> The average global temperature IS rising, sea levels are rising.

  Let's assume you actually cared to quantify these notions with timeframes and amounts, then let's assume I agree with your quantifications, we then agree that these EFFECTS are being measured fairly accurately over the relevant time periods.  We can then start discussing what is causing these effects.  This is a quaint scientific notion called cause and effect that AGW Hypothesis supporters hate, because they can't demonstrate it.  This leads to their cultish behaviour.   

> Then you squirm your words to claim there is no _causal link_ between CO2 and temperature rise.

   :Roflmao2:  
This is one of the funniest things I have read in this thread. 
After repeating the mantra of "the science" constantly, you now just dismiss the scientific method as "squirming". Hilarious.  But you then place all your faith in the opinions of people you think are smarter than you.   

> Not only does the vast majority of scientist and scientific organisations *state that warming is happening* - they also state that it is man-made - No question, No "ifs", no "buts", No "maybes". _The warming is real - and it is man-made._

  Well, if they "state" that it is happening, I guess we better all believe them, and send them billions of dollars in research money to "state" the next opinion they may have?  :Doh:    

> *However, you arrogantly claim that all these scientists and scientific organisations in the world have got it wrong!*

  This is not arrogance, it is a scientific fact.  Read it again: 
There is ZERO scientific evidence proving the AGW hypothesis. 
Email them and ask them if you don't want to "believe" me.  :Doh:    

> If you claim the science is wrong, then the burden is on you to provide the proof for your claim.

  How many times do I have to say this until you "get it"? 
I do not claim "the science" is wrong.  I have said that I fully accept and support all empirical scientific evidence, and have read most of it in relation to the AGW hypothesis (no, not every paper for my semantic friends, but most empirical evidence published).  I support the data measurements in all of these papers, subject to their relevant assumptions and limitations. 
The subjective opinions that people draw from this data is not "the science", as you continually refer to it, but the opinions of some auuthority figures, but not all of them.  Many many scientists have formed an opinion similar to my own after reviewing the empirical evidence.  One day, not likely in our lifetimes, or our children's or grandchildren's, there may be technological and intellectual advances that allow us to develop empirical evidence one way or the other.   
But a TAX today in Australia to "save the planet Earth" is so farcical, it makes animal sacrifices look scientific.  :Doh:  
But let me know if your "authority figures" email you empirical evidence proving the AGW hypothesis?  I look forward to retracting my statement.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Just as empirical scientific evidence demonstrates that measurements of *AGW* are reliable and valid.

  Really? 
What units does the AGW scale work in? 
You see, you always post the temperature "effects" that are measured in degrees, by a variety of thermometers. 
Or you post see depth "effects" that are measured in millimeters, by a variety of depth gauges.  
(Does this mean all heights above sea level are now wrong?  :Confused:  Can pilots fly lower over mountains now?  :Confused: ) 
But back to your comments,    

> demonstrates that measurements of *AGW* are reliable and valid.

  I'd love it if you could post some of these "measurements of AGW"?  What scale are you using?  :Doh:

----------


## chrisp

> Maybe they can explain this?  
> "ONE of Australia's foremost experts on the relationship between climate change and sea levels has written a peer-reviewed paper concluding that rises in sea levels are "decelerating". "  Sea-level rises are slowing, tidal gauge records show | The Australian

  Lets have a look at the data...   
(Graph from: Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) 
The present rate of the sea-level rise is in the range of *2.9-3.4 ± 0.4-0.6 mm per year* (19932010). 
So just how much is Phil Watson saying the rise is deaccelerating.  *-0.016 mm/yr/yr* - and hardly significant compared to the error band.  
From the abstract:   

> These long records have been converted to relative 20-year moving average water level time series and fitted to second-order polynomial functions to consider trends of acceleration in mean sea level over time. The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000. Short period trends of acceleration in mean sea level after 1990 are evident at each site, *although these are not abnormal or higher than other short-term rates measured throughout the historical record*.  An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

----------


## Dr Freud

> OK Rod now lets look at what you say is waste by this and the Rudd government. When the crash came the government set up a stimulus package and Australia avoided recession
>  You still sold plaster and your firm plastered walls. The USA was held back by the right, Son doing masters in international finance and banking stated this at the time. 
>  'Their spend is 1/3 of what is needed, all that is is a waste of money". Now USA looks like it might just double dip. 
>    If she does, the liberals have suceeded in blocking a mining tax, Will Gina Reinhart give some of her 13 billion profit, you bet she wont. In these very tough times 
>   Australia needs a buffer and the liberals are blocking that.
>      What happens if the USA goes down as looks likely, well liberals have blocked any means of the government
>  gaining fat, Though Im not religious, for those that are, Phaero listened to the dreams of fat years and lean years, the liberals are not. So please, if USA goes pear shaped, dont come here crying it was due to the labor government that your business is in the toilet.
>   So Rod you can say that insulation was a mess if you like, but it injected money into the economy. And yes some tradies were rip off merchants, but is that not always so.
>  If you look at some of the renovation shows on TV you will see one thing, you have to know and see what you get from a tradesman, they come in all shades.
> ...

  Dear Moderator's,  
jross is making a startling prediction that there will be bad weather sometime in the next two years, either in the northern or southern hemisphere. And he'd like you to monitor this prediction. 
If you start a betting pool, I'd like to bet everything Gina and the oil Sheik's pay me on jross.  He could be onto something.  There just may be bad weather in the next two years, either in the northern or southern hemisphere. 
Look out Nostradamus!  :Roflmao2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Come on Rod, dont chicken out, Its USA and Aus. And look at it Rod. I cant win. If I am correct its not 
>  something to boast about. People will be dead. I dont want to win, but chances are I will. So dont chicken
>   out, put up or shut up.

  And when does the spaceship arrive to save us all?    :Roflmao2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Sorry mate I'm all tears.

  Just breaks your heart, don't it?  :Cry:    :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

Profit is evil. Subsidy is virtuous.
Rich is evil, poor is virtuous.
Big is evil, small is virtuous. 
I wonder why people with this sort of mentality live in Australia at all. Why not choose Cuba? There you can dance 'la pachanga' all day long, blame the bad evil americans for all your own shortcomings, parrot drunken bulls##t with fellow mediocrity lovers and go to bed with the satisfaction of a full day accomplished.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Really? 
> What units does the AGW scale work in? 
> I'd love it if you could post some of these "measurements of AGW"?  What scale are you using?

  Is this your Agwarmometer data?   

> Lets have a look at the data...   
> (Graph from: Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) 
> The present rate of the sea-level rise is in the range of *2.9-3.4 ± 0.4-0.6 mm per year* (19932010). 
> So just how much is Phil Watson saying the rise is deaccelerating.  *-0.016 mm/yr/yr* - and hardly significant compared to the error band.  
> From the abstract:

  Oops, no, just another singular data effect size measurement.  :Doh:  
Where's the causation? 
Or as promised, where's the empirical Agwarmometer data?  :Biggrin:

----------


## watson

> Dear Moderator's,  
> jross is making a startling prediction that there will be bad weather sometime in the next two years, either in the northern or southern hemisphere. And he'd like you to monitor this prediction. 
> If you start a betting pool, I'd like to bet everything Gina and the oil Sheik's pay me on jross.  He could be onto something.  There just may be bad weather in the next two years, either in the northern or southern hemisphere. 
> Look out Nostradamus!

  Computer says NO

----------


## Dr Freud

> Bye bye

  He was going for a month last time, and came back very quickly instead. 
I think we'll be hearing more from our good friend soon.  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Computer says NO

  That's probably a good thing. 
Otherwise we could end up with one of those AFL betting scandals.  :Biggrin:  
Which reminds of a joke I think I may have told here already: 
How do we know that a Collingwood supporter invented the toothbrush? 
Because if it was anyone else, they would have called it the teethbrush.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I realise that Doc and yourself have faith in what you read in the Murdoch press but you may like to take a look at what the author actually said. An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

  I don't believe everything I read, I just cut and paste it.  :Biggrin:  
But I have to go clean the house now, the boss is looking angry.  :Mad:  
Coming dear...Yes dear...(She's a gem really).  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Computer says NO

  No need to worry Watson, jross has left the building.  His work here is done.

----------


## Marc

*Bombshell conclusion – new peer reviewed  analysis: “worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration  of global sea level over the past 100 years”* 
  					 						Posted on March 28, 2011 by Anthony Watts 
  					 						The paper is currently in press at the Journal of Coastal Research  and is provided with open access to the full publication. The results  are stunning for their contradiction to AGW theories which suggest  global warming would accelerate sea level rise during the last century.  “Our first analysis determined the acceleration, a2, for  each of the 57 records with results tabulated in Table 1 and shown in  Figure 4. There is almost a balance with 30 gauge records showing  deceleration and 27 showing acceleration, clustering around 0.0 mm/y2.”
 …
 The near balance of accelerations and decelerations is mirrored in worldwidegauge records as shown in Miller and Douglas (2006)*Abstract:* *Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses* **   *J. R. Houston† and R. G. Dean‡* †Director   Emeritus, Engineer Research and Development Center, Corps of  Engineers,  3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, U.S.A. 					james.r.houston@usace.army.mil
 ‡Professor  Emeritus, Department of Civil and Coastal  Civil Engineering, University  of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, U.S.A.  					dean@coastal.ufl.edu
 Without  sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of  1.7 mm/y  would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to  2100;  therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of  projected  sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze   monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent   Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of   60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records   are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having   data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain   small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with   worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an   additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006)   from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar   to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records. 
  Received: October 5, 2010; Accepted: November 26, 2010; Published Online: February 23, 2011  _Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses_, J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean *Discussion: (excerpt)*
 We analyzed the complete records of 57 U.S. tide gauges that had  average record lengths of 82 years and records from1930 to 2010 for 25  gauges, and we obtained small decelerations of 20.0014 and20.0123 mm/y2,  respectively. We obtained similar decelerations using worldwide-gauge  records in the original data set of Church andWhite (2006) and a 2009  revision (for the periods of 1930–2001 and 1930–2007) and by extending  Douglas’s (1992) analyses of worldwide gauges by 25 years.
 The extension of the Douglas (1992) data from 1905 to 1985 for 25  years to 2010 included the period from 1993 to 2010 when satellite  altimeters recorded a sea-level trend greater than that of the 20th  century, yet the addition of the 25 years resulted in a slightly greater  deceleration. *Conclusion:*
 Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide  gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we  consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a  number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations  that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude  less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to  reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009),  Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and  Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide  temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.
 It is essential that investigations continue to address why this  worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global  sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has  possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.
 Full paper available online here
WUWT download (faster) here: jcoastres-d-10-00157.1
 h/t to John Droz and to Dr. Willem de Lange

----------


## Marc

*Sea levels rising? Not exactly*  *May 9th, 2011, 4:08 pm · 39 Comments · posted by Mark Landsbaum*    Share17  
Apparently it took a while to get it right, but the folks over at the Hockey Schtick are reporting: Following a long delay and some controversial adjustments, the University of Colorado sea level satellite data was recently released. A plot of the rate of sea level rise shows a stable rate between 2003 and 2007, and declining rates since 2007.
 Did you catch that?
 Sea levels were stable for about four years up to 2007. And since?
 The rate has been declining.
 Hm. But CO2 has been increasing. And that causes global warming,  right? And global warming causes polar ice to melt, right? And that  causes sea levels to rise, right?
 Not exactly. _RELATED POSTS:_ Tornadoes from global warming or cooling or none of the above? Global warming, temperatures, turtles and toilets. We kid you not  Global Warming Oops Moment: Another European fast-shuffle Earth Day retrospective  Earth Day global warming perspective What happen to those 50 million global warming refugees? Oops  Global warming disaster just ahead, well, maybe a little later than that

----------


## Marc

*UN Climate Body Struggling to Pinpoint Rising Sea Levels*    The United Nations’ forecast of how quickly global sea  levels will rise this century is vital in determining how much money  might be needed to combat the phenomenon. But predictions by researchers  vary wildly, and the attempt to find consensus has become fractious.
 …Furthermore, the more rapid rise since 1993, even if it existed, may   not be out of the ordinary, says Guy Wöppelmann of the Université de  La  Rochelle in France. The *sea level rise increased in rate at times during  the 20th century, only to slow down again later.*
 The same thing can be observed now, says Eduardo Zorita, from the   Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht Centre for Meterials and Coastal Research. * In the last eight years, he says, the rise of the oceans has slowed* —  and what the future may hold is uncertain.
 …As a result, researchers don’t agree on what to expect. Whereas* James  Hansen expects a five meter rise*, his colleague Simon Holgate says that  *“I think that even in the highest emission scenario we won’t exceed a  global average of one meter* of sea level rise by 2100.”  Read more… Don’t forget that sea levels have been rising naturally for hundreds  of years, at 1.5-3mm/year as we come out of a mini ice age, and current  rate of rise of 3 mm/year has been slowing down for 8 years, when it and  global temperatures should be rising according to IPCC models. That  projects to a rise less that 30cm by 2100. *This is sounding almost like the science is not settled after all, Julia….*  
   July 19th, 2011 |   *7 comments to UN Climate Body Struggling to Pinpoint Rising Sea Levels*    DhrTressie   		July 21, 2011 at 1:51 am 
 		“You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed  and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you  stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.”  -Morpheus
 Here’s the red pill on the Australian Carbon Tax issue: http://dhrtressie2.xanga.com/ 
 Beware, you may not be comfortable with what you will discover, and might be happier with the blue pill of ignorance. DhrTressie   		July 21, 2011 at 6:21 am 
 		Our Digger Nation’s Defence.
 Friday the 29th of July has been declared an ‘Australian Carbon Tax  National Sickie’. Please spread the word far and wide, and enjoy your  day of National inaction.
 Resulting from the state’s failure to preserve, against superordinate  authoritarian coercion, the overall best interests of our Nation, the  exercise of sovereignty transferred to the state by majority consent of  the Australian people has become subject to the question of legitimacy.  In order to reaffirm the mutual obligations inherent within our  society’s social contract, our Nation’s path is to ‘dig the toe in’. Ding Dong, the Climate Witch is dead « No Carbon Tax Website   		July 22, 2011 at 10:54 am 
 		[...] This data supports the an earlier US study by Robert Dean and James Houston, commented on here recently. [...]

----------


## Marc

*Sea-level rises are slowing, tidal gauge records show 				 			*    								EXCLUSIVE Stuart Rintoul 							From: 							 	        The Australian 								July 22, 2011 								12:00AM125 comments   Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrint 	 	Email Share     
  										 												Author of the NSW government's  sea levels report, Phil Watson, at Terrigal beach on the NSW central  coast yesterday. Picture: Dan Himbrechts   												_Source:_ The Australian 										    * 				 				ONE of Australia's foremost experts on the relationship between  climate change and sea levels has written a peer-reviewed paper  concluding that rises in sea levels are "decelerating". 				 				* 
 		 		The analysis, by NSW principal coastal specialist Phil Watson,  calls into question one of the key criteria for large-scale inundation  around the Australian coast by 2100 -- the assumption of an accelerating  rise in sea levels because of climate change.
Based on  century-long tide gauge records at Fremantle, Western Australia (from  1897 to present), Auckland Harbour in New Zealand (1903 to present),  Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour (1914 to present) and Pilot Station at  Newcastle (1925 to present), the analysis finds there was a "consistent  trend of weak deceleration" from 1940 to 2000.
Mr Watson's  findings, published in the Journal of Coastal Research this year and now  attracting broader attention, supports a similar analysis of long-term  tide gauges in the US earlier this year. Both raise questions about the  CSIRO's sea-level predictions.
 			 				Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.  *Related Coverage*      *Bjorn Lomborg:* 									Bootleggers hijack climate change debate 								  *Revelation:* 									'Man-made pollution reflects sun' 								  Only when the tide goes out . . . _The Australian_, _1 day ago_Town being shrunk by climate angst _The Australian_, _6 days ago_CSIRO scientists on climate doomsday _The Australian_, _4 Jul 2011_Kakadu climate-change floods threat _The Australian_, _2 Jun 2011_Left, media pander to carbon scare _Herald Sun_, _24 May 2011_     
 				End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.  
 		Climate change researcher Howard Brady, at Macquarie University,  said yesterday the recent research meant sea levels rises accepted by  the CSIRO were "already dead in the water as having no sound basis in  probability".
"In all cases, it is clear that sea-level rise,  although occurring, has been decelerating for at least the last half of  the 20th century, and so the present trend would only produce sea level  rise of around 15cm for the 21st century."
Dr Brady said the  divergence between the sea-level trends from models and sea-level trends  from the tide gauge records was now so great "it is clear there is a  serious problem with the models".
"In a nutshell, this factual  information means the high sea-level rises used as precautionary  guidelines by the CSIRO in recent years are in essence ridiculous," he  said. During the 20th century, there was a measurable global average  rise in mean sea level of about 17cm (plus or minus 5cm).
But  scientific projections, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate  Change, have suggested climate change will deliver a much greater global  tide rise in mean sea level this century of 80-100cm.
The federal  government has published a series of inundation maps based on the  panel's predictions showing that large areas of Australia's capital  cities, southeast Queensland and the NSW central coast will be under  water by 2100.
Without acceleration in sea-level rises, the 20th-century trend of 1.7mm a year would produce a rise of about 0.15m by 2100.
Mr  Watson's analysis of the four longest continuous Australian and New  Zealand records is consistent with the findings of US researchers Robert  Dean and James Houston, who analysed monthly averaged records for 57  tide gauges, covering periods of 60 to 156 years.
The US research  concluded there was "no evidence to support positive acceleration over  the 20th century as suggested by the IPCC, global climate change models  and some researchers".
Mr Watson cautioned in his research and  again yesterday that studies of a small number of northern hemisphere  records spanning two or three centuries had found a small acceleration  in sea-level rises. He said it was possible the rises could be subject  to "climate-induced impacts projected to occur over this century".
Mr  Watson's research finds that in the 1990s, when sea levels were  attracting international attention, although the decadal rates of ocean  rise were high, "they are not remarkable or unusual in the context of  the historical record at each site over the 20th century".
"What  we are seeing in all of the records is there are relatively high rates  of sea-level rise evident post-1990, but those sorts of rates of rise  have been witnessed at other times in the historical record," he said.
"What remains unknown is whether or not these rates are going to persist into the future and indeed increase."
He  said further research was required, "to rationalise the difference  between the acceleration trend evident in the global sea level  time-series reconstructions (models) and the relatively consistent  deceleration trend evident in the long-term Australasian tide gauge  records".
With an estimated 710,000 Australian homes within 3km  and below 6m elevation of the coast, accurate sea-level predictions are  vital for planning in coastal areas anticipating predicted sea-level  rises of almost a metre by 2100.

----------


## Marc

*Texas Temperatures Not Rising- Wisconsin Temperatures Not Rising* 
  					 						Posted on April 25, 2011 by stevengoddard 
  					 						Below are the HadCRUT graphs for Texas and Wisconsin.  http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/data/HadCRUT3v.nc
 Texas since the 1870s. 
 Wisconsin since 1850.
 Why do climate scientists keep spreading misinformation?

----------


## chrisp

> Why do climate scientists keep spreading misinformation?

  They're NOT.  *YOU ARE!* 
If you are open minded (a big call, perhaps?) you will see that the global temperature and the global sea-level are both RISING - NO QUESTION.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> They're NOT.  *YOU ARE!* 
> If you are open minded (a big call, perhaps?) you will see that the global temperature and the global sea-level are both RISING - NO QUESTION.

  BUT by how much? and why?  Are the records accurate and relevant? Lots of lose ends Chrisp.  Giant leap of faith to say it is all because of CO2 man made or otherwise.  An even bigger leap of faith to say that both temps and sea levels will continue rising, and a massive leap, to say that the rises will accelerate.   
Particularly when there is research pointing to the opposite.   
Meanwhile more and more ordinary folk are starting to see the folly of AGW.  If you want to hold ground or get some supporters back you will have to come up with some new material.  So far all the new science we a hearing about is negative toward AGW.  The smear and reputation trashing has lost you a lot of support and really you should start counter arguing with scientific facts that support your faith.   
Just pointing to charts and saying, "see they are going up" just does not cut it anymore either.  Smarter people are now wanting to see the evidence of the cause rather than having to go on the "trust me" theory.   
People are waking up to the political nature of AGW and can see through the spin.  NOW is the time to come up with the goods or ALL is lost for you. 
You may yet get an ineffective tax introduced, but the stink of this tax can only get worse, never will it get better as Gillard hopes.  End game for Labor. 
You have been at this game a while now, surely you can feel the tide against AGW has turned?  I can't believe the difference from 2 years ago, just in the golf club on Saturday someone brought it up out of 20 people only one supported the tax, and he is a Bob Brown supporter to the bone. 
We just have to flush the notion out of the heads of our kids that have been brain washed at school.

----------


## chrisp

> *Sea-level rises are slowing, tidal gauge records show*   
>                                                                                            Author of the NSW government's  sea levels report, Phil Watson, at Terrigal beach on the NSW central  coast yesterday. Picture: Dan Himbrechts                                                   _Source:_ The Australian                                             *                                  ONE of Australia's foremost experts on the relationship between  climate change and sea levels has written a peer-reviewed paper  concluding that rises in sea levels are "decelerating".                                 *

  A repeat of my post as Marc seems to be posting without reading (as well as without thinking!)...   

> Lets have a look at the data...   
> (Graph from: Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) 
> The present rate of the sea-level rise is in the range of *2.9-3.4 ± 0.4-0.6 mm per year* (19932010). 
> So just how much is Phil Watson saying the rise is deaccelerating.  *-0.016 mm/yr/yr* - and hardly significant compared to the error band.

  _The Australian_ is well known for its anti-AGW stance.  I would suggest that readers carefully examine any "claim" made by _The Australian_ on AGW.  The above headline and story doesn't give a true picture of the research paper.  The "deacceleration" is slight and insignificant.  Also, the statistical analysis of the paper has been questioned - it using a running-mean over cyclic data. 
The Anti-AGW brigade need to latch-on to any whiff of evidence that might support their position - and mistake evidence of warming for evidence of cooling.  The reality is that there is no evidence to suggest that the planet is  cooling.  Maybe it is time for them to enter the real-world of the present rather than live in the euphoric past?

----------


## chrisp

> BUT by how much? and why?  Are the records accurate and relevant? Lots of lose ends Chrisp.  Giant leap of faith to say it is all because of CO2 man made or otherwise.  An even bigger leap of faith to say that both temps and sea levels will continue rising, and a massive leap, to say that the rises will accelerate.

  Rod, 
You are playing word games... 
"All" the rise may not be man-made - but most of it is. 
And the principle agent is the extra GHG - mostly man-made. 
And, yes, both the sea-level and the temperature will continue to rise long-term. 
The rate?  I'm not sure, but I don't see any evidence of a significant deacceleration.  I suppose time will tell. 
Maybe you should remove that political chip-on-your-shoulder so you can see the data for what it is and get over your political hang-ups.   Your politics is clouding your objectivity.

----------


## Marc

« Expert Analysis of Empirical Evidence Confirms Hail Size Not Tied To Global Warming | 	Main 	| Global Warming Alarmists Again Try The Lame 'Aerosol Masking' Excuse To Explain Cooling - U.S. Data Refutes »  *Latest Global Temperature Data Confirms That Unequivocal Global Cooling Is Accelerating* 
 	 	 		 			Note: Just prior to this posting, it became public that a new _Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS)_ study confirms that global warming has been missing since 1998.  This new study refutes James Hansen, Al Gore and all the IPCC  Climategate scientists claims of "unequivocal," "unprecedented," and  "accelerating" global warming they have made over recent years. Global  warming skeptics have proven to be correct, which the below material  also supports. 
 In a previous post, we reviewed the last 15 years of HadCRUT temperature records, which show that global warming has become insignificant.  In fact, one could accurately state that a global cooling trend is now  replacing a global warming trend in an "unequivocal" and "accelerating"  manner, using the greens' own favored warming alarmist terms. (click on  each image to enlarge) 
 When examining the past 15 years of monthly global temperature  anomalies, the per century change from a warming trend to a cooling  trend becomes clear. Calculating 10-year linear trends from the monthly  anomalies, the above chart plots end of year per century trends (plus  the May 2011 10-year trend).
 As can be seen, since 2001 the per century trends have conclusively  switched from a global warming direction to a global cooling direction.  In addition, the early 2011 temperature anomalies confirm what has  actually been taking place since 2001. If the May 2011 10-year trend  continues, the global temperature by 2100 will have decreased by  -0.67°C.
 This warming to cooling reversal has happened in the face of "business as usual"  increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. And this global temperature  phenomenon reversal has occurred despite the "consensus" claims of IPCC  "climate scientists" and predictions of the bureaucrats' climate models.  (The lower left chart clearly depicts how badly the climate models have  failed.)
 The lower right chart depicts a similar global cooling trend outcome  over the last 15 years. Using the same monthly anomaly data, this  chart's per century trends are based on 5-year linear calculation.  
 Regardless of how the temperature anomaly records are examined, the  last 15-year span has seen the global warming trend fade as the world  seemingly moves into a global cooling mode (the continental U.S. 15-year  record of temperatures confirms this cooling trend).  How long this will persist and how deep the cooling trend may become is  pure speculation. And indeed, there is no concrete, empirically proven,  scientific reason to assume the cooling will continue - the climate is  complex and chaotic, which makes accurate predictions impossible.
 These are the take home facts:
 1. Global warming is neither unequivocal, accelerating, or even unprecedented.
 2. Global cooling is becoming a trend but  it's not clear whether that trend is accelerating and unequivocal -  circumstantial at this point.
 3. Rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels have not caused the requisite acceleration of global temperature increases.
 4. CO2 levels appear to have little impact on global temperatures.
 5. Global temperatures are in a deceleration mode, totally contrary to IPCC's climate models.
 6. Recent severe weather events (2010 and  2011) are not a result of increasing global temperatures; based on the  actual temperature evidence since 2001, recent severe weather would more  likely be a result of accelerating cooling.
 7. Climate models have been stupendously wrong about global warming and associated climate change, time after time.
 Additional modern temperature charts. Unequivocal fake warming, temperature fabrication charts.  
 	 			 				July 04, 2011 at 03:35 PM | Permalink 			ShareThis

----------


## Marc

Chris, as usual your answers are empty and irrelevant. 
Sea levels are not rising as stated by those who have dedicated a lifelong to sea level measurements.
Sea levels are rising by the meter according to computer models. 
You keep on cuddling computer models, I stick with actual measurements. 
I find it very amusing how when you don't like a post, in stead of replying with actual facts you state political positions of either the author or the paper. Chris, clearly you need to start heading to Cuba and learn to dance "La Pachanga" You will be that much more happy there....and you get to blame the bastard Americans every day!

----------


## chrisp

> Chris, as usual your answers are empty and irrelevant. 
> Sea levels are not rising as stated by those who have dedicated a lifelong to sea level measurements.
> Sea levels are rising by the meter according to computer models. 
> You keep on cuddling computer models, I stick with actual measurements.

  What computer model?  I didn't quote one.  I just posted a graph of collated measuremnts - no forecasts. 
As to you sticking to actual measurements  :Rotfl:

----------


## Marc

&#x202a;Mueve la Pachanga - David Blanco&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube

----------


## johnc

> Profit is evil. Subsidy is virtuous.
> Rich is evil, poor is virtuous.
> Big is evil, small is virtuous. 
> I wonder why people with this sort of mentality live in Australia at all. Why not choose Cuba? There you can dance 'la pachanga' all day long, blame the bad evil americans for all your own shortcomings, parrot drunken bulls##t with fellow mediocrity lovers and go to bed with the satisfaction of a full day accomplished.

  Odly enough you may be right, Cuba is into renewable energy as the fall of the USSR meant easy access to oil ended and they had to look elsewhere.  
The little bit at the top though is just your usual sillyness, do you really think it makes any sense.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Maybe you should remove that political chip-on-your-shoulder so you can see the data for what it is and get over your political hang-ups.   Your politics is clouding your objectivity.

  Your starting to sound like someone else chrisp,  Don't belittle yourself.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The "deacceleration" is slight and insignificant.  Also, the statistical analysis of the paper has been questioned - it using a running-mean over cyclic data. 
> The Anti-AGW brigade need to latch-on to any whiff of evidence that might support their position - and mistake evidence of warming for evidence of cooling.  The reality is that there is no evidence to suggest that the planet is  cooling.  Maybe it is time for them to enter the real-world of the present rather than live in the euphoric past?

  I kinda like the euphoric past.  It is handy for providing context for the present. 
I've posted this stuff before, but for the new readers, let's check out more of the charts and info from your beloved Wikipedia about sea levels:   

> Comparison of two sea level reconstructions during the last 500 Ma. The scale of change during the last glacial/interglacial transition is indicated with a black bar. Note that over most of geologic history, *long-term average sea level has been significantly higher than today.* 
> Sea level has changed over geologic time. As the graph shows, sea level *today is very near the lowest level ever attained* (the lowest level occurred at the Permian-Triassic boundary about 250 million years ago).  
>  During the most recent ice age (at its maximum about 20,000 years ago) the world's sea level was about 130 m lower than today, due to the large amount of sea water that had evaporated and been deposited as snow and ice, mostly in the Laurentide ice sheet. The majority of this had melted by about 10,000 years ago.   Sea level - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Amazing, huh? 
Sea levels are constantly going up and down whether humans are here or not. 
The current changes are well within natural variability ranges already recorded. 
You wouldn't think so given the paranoid hysteria of the "believers" of this cult.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Australian physicist Professor Brian J OBrien has worked on the Apollo moon missions. In this interview with the ABC, just 8:15 from the end, he suddenly cuts loose on man-made global warming, and commits a series of heresies that pin back the ears of the interviewer.  - Its been wildly exaggerated. When he first started researching the topic, I got rather frightened at the exaggerations that were going around. 
>   - Its *certainly not proven* than man is largely to blame for any warming.  
>   - The sad part was that there were no senior scientists  that were independent in the field. 
>  - He discovered that the funding for climate change research was only going to what you call true believers and when that happens inevitably you get a bias. 
>  - An Australian professor of physics told him he completely supported his concern but had to keep his team of 65 researchers going with work, and the only funding I can get for them and to get their PhDs is greenhouse funding from Canberra or whereever. 
>  - For 20 years people have been indoctrinated with the abuse of language so that climate change is meant to suggest that all change is man-made. Of course, theres climate change. Thats not the question 
>   - Hes worried were going ahead of the world in cutting emissions.A professor speaks out: money has corrupted our global warming debate | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  This ridiculous farce is turning to dust, so it is appropriate that a renowned physicist who is a lunar dust expert weighs in.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

METUS EST PLENUS TYRANNIS   

> *HUGE numbers of voters in Julia Gillard's heartland Labor seat have turned against her in the wake of her plan to tax carbon, according to a new poll conducted exclusively for the Sunday Herald Sun. * Less than a year after 64 per cent of voters in the western suburbs electorate of Lalor gave the PM their primary vote, Labor would be forced to rely on preferences to hold her seat.  
> Since August, Labor's primary vote in the seat has dropped by 18.3 per cent to 46 per cent, according to research by pollster JWS Research. 
> A senior Labor insider said the poll was consistent with what the state party believed was happening in Victoria. "The carbon tax is hitting us hardest in our safest areas," he said. "Our blue-collar base is disappearing up the road."  Voters in Julia Gillard&#039;s electorate revolt after her carbon tax | Herald Sun

  Salvation will come with Crean's ascendancy.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *AN industry group representing millions of businesses will today launch a mass television campaign against the carbon tax, claiming it would hurt Australian families. *  			 		 		In a blow to Prime Minister Julia Gillard's bid to sell the unpopular tax, the Australian Trade and Industry Alliance is opposing the Government.  
>  Spokesman Greg Evans yesterday said the tax was the world's "largest and most damaging carbon tax" and one of the most "ill-conceived policy responses in a generation".An alliance advertisement, due to be aired tonight, compares the $4.9 billion revenue from the first six years of Europe's emissions trading scheme with a predicted $71 billion from Australia's carbon tax over six years.  
>  The ad says the tax will hurt families, businesses and the country's export market.  Trade and Industry Alliance latest opponent of carbon tax | thetelegraph.com.au

  Most Australians don't want this TAX and millions of businesses are actively advertising against it. 
It's time for the back bench to speak now, or forever be complicit in the destruction of the Labor Party.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Kate Jones is fighting to keep her Queensland seat of Ashgrove, against a challenge from LNP leader Campbell Newman.    
>   Odd thing, though. Which party is she with?   Don’t mention the party | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  When you disown your own party brand through shame, it's not a good sign.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Injection of hot air  
> TRASHING a motel room is so 20th century. These days the bad boys of rock 'n' roll poke society in the eye through the politically incorrect practice of emitting carbon, or at least that's what Cold Chisel songwriter Don Walker seemed to be saying as the band announced a reunion tour of Australia and New Zealand yesterday. Walker, generally a quiet man who was a rocket scientist before music claimed him, said he wanted to make it clear the tour would be "carbon positive". "We're flying everywhere and we'll be emitting as much as we possibly can," he said *to much applause*. Appropriately, the impending Chisel tour is called Light the Nitro, a reference to the practice of injecting nitrous oxide into a car's carburettor to increase its performance, not to mention its carbon emissions.   Action men | The Australian

  People now applaud when the cult is ridiculed.  
How quickly has this farce unravelled.  :Biggrin:   
And yes, he was a rocket scientist:   

> Having completed a degree in physics in the 70s, Walker was working for the Weapons Research Establishment, modelling airflow for F-111s, when he formed Cold Chisel.  Don Walker (musician) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Dr Freud

> Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery warned that global warming could leave Sydney parched:   _  In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydneys dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city facing extreme difficulties with water._ Instead:  _SYDNEY has record its wettest July in more than 50 years_ And:  _Dam levels: 76.4%_ Has Flannery yet said sorry? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  And us taxpayers pay this man ridiculous amounts of money.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *AUSTRALIA'S carbon tax is being sold to the public with government-funded ads in which representatives from renewable energy companies make the case for the government policy.  * One cites the example of Germany, which has led the world in subsidising solar panels. 
> Yes, Germany has spent more than $75 billion on inefficient solar technology delivering a mere 0.1 per cent of its total energy supply. And this will postpone global warming by how much? A whole seven hours by the end of the century.  Bootleggers hijack climate change debate | The Australian

  Read the full article for more IPCC fraud as well.

----------


## johnc

I see we still believe everything we read in the ethical and honourable Murdoch press, that bastion of truth would have to be right wouldn't it with the statement that Germany only has .1% of power coming from solar. 
However Germany currently produces 2% of its power from solar and expects that to grow to 10% by 2020, and by 2009 was already producing 7% of its power from wind generation. The intention is to get to 45% from renewables by 2020 and that would  more than cover the impact of retiring their nuclear  
Of course Dr Fraud produces 100% wind from hot air :Smilie:  but that is what happens when you are not interested in the real facts.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Don't *any* of you lads have anything better to do on a weekend? Something more important perhaps?  Something that makes a useful contribution to the society you are a part of? 
Obviously not.

----------


## ringtail

> Are you not ashamed of yourself Rod. You know the weather has gone queer, You know that Queensland and NSW have had a
>  whackimg never experienced before, You know the USA is having tornadoes beyond normal. You dont deny that.
>  Yet you will not consider anything that may just help. Is it greed, I dont know, but your colours are now on display. 
>    Will I be here in 2 years Rod, will you. That is a question for the future, How is your clock ticking etc. I dont bet
>  on that, thats chancing it. But Sir you dissapoint me.

  
Really ? Never before eh. So the floods of 1841 ,1844,45,57,63,64,70,87,93,1974 never happened ?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So the floods of 1841 ,1844,45,57,63,64,70,87,93,1974 never happened ?

  Were they peer reviewed? I always miss a good peer reviewed flood.  These days they only ever seem to get reported in the mass media....

----------


## johnc

> Really ? Never before eh. So the floods of 1841 ,1844,45,57,63,64,70,87,93,1974 never happened ?

  That's amazing, not one flood between 1893 and 1974. :Wink:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Floods are funny things.....they only seem to happen when there is a man made structure in the way.  How do they know?

----------


## ringtail

Sorry, forgot to mention these few 
3/2/1893        Lower part of Brisbane submerged, and water still on the rise; the "Elamang" and the gunboat "Paluma' were carried by the flood into the Botanical Gardens, and the "Natone" on to the Eagle Farm flats.                    4/2/1893        Disastrous floods in the Brisbane River; 8 feet of water in Edward Street at the Courier building. Numbers of houses at Ipswich and Brisbane washed down the rivers. *Seven men drowned through the flooding* of the Eclipse Colliery at North Ipswich. Telegraphic and railway communication in the north and west interrupted.                     5/2/1893        The lndooroopilly railway bridge washed away by the flood. Heaviest floods known in Brisbane and suburbs.                     6/2/1893        The lower part of South Brisbane completely submerged. The flood rose 23'9" above the mean spring tides and 10 feet above flood mark of 1890; north end of the Victoria Bridge destroyed.                    7/2/1893        Flood waters subsiding. Sydney mail train flood bound at Goodna, unable to either proceed or return.                     13/2/1893        Second flood for the year in the Brisbane River.                     16/2/1893        More rain in the south east districts; another rise in the Brisbane; further floods predicted.                    17/2/1893        A third flood occurred in the Brisbane River for the year.                     18/2/1893        The 'Elamang" floated off from the Botanical Gardens. Business at a standstill in Brisbane. Ipswich and other towns. *Several deaths by drowning reported*.                    19/2/1893        The gunboat "Paluma" safely floated off the Gardens, and the "Natone" off Eagle Farm flats. Another span of the lndooroopilly railway bridge carried away. The third flood reached its maximum height at 12 noon, viz. 10 inches below the first flood.                     21/2/1893         Flood waters subsiding.                    11/6/1893        Flood waters of the Brisbane River still rising.                     10/6/1893        A fresh in the Brisbane River.                    12/6/1893        Flood at Brisbane reached a height of 10 feet 10 inches above low water or 1'4" above the level of the flood of 1887; water stationary at 10 am.                    28/2/1907        Brisbane: Considerable rise in the Brisbane after the recent heavy rains; immense quantities of water hyacinth washed down to the city reaches of the river.                    15/3/1908        At Brisbane the river rose to 14'8 1/2" above low water springs. Serious flood at Rosewood.                    Mar 1908        Esk: Heaviest rain and floods since 1903. All traffic practically suspended for many days. Extraordinary season. Goodna: River Height at 2 pm 15th 38'4". Harrisville creeks all bankers 13th to 17th and all low lying lands flooded. Ipswich: Bremer River in flood rose to 48'. Laidley: Excessive rains throughout district from 14th to 17th cause local floods and washaways and some damage to crops. Pinkenba floods in river, and half of Pinkenba under flood for three days. Redbank: Flood covering all low lying lands. Rocklea: Owing to heavy rains on 14th and 15th, flood prevailed in this district but did not reach quite as high as 1903 flood.                    Mar 1910        Crohamhurst River constantly in flood. Esk: River 12' over normal. Goodna: Slight fresh during month. Cedar Pocket: Creek in a continual fresh. Harrisville: Warrill Creek in flood twice.                     13/1/1911        Floods at Rosewood.                    5-10/2/1915        *Two men drowned in Stanley River at Woodford.*                     1-4/2/1916         Local heavy flooding in Brisbane district.                    11/4/1916        Stanley River flooded.                    1-10/2/1922        A heavy fresh in Brisbane River.                    4/2/1924        Low-lying areas of Brisbane submerged; *boy drowned at Zillmere*.                    11/2/1924        Flooding in Lockyer district.                    16-18/3/1925        The Stanley, Caboolture, Pine, Logan and Albert Rivers flooded.                    18-22/6/1925        Most south coast rivers and creeks rose considerably. Flood in Stanley River. Railway line washaways and damage to bridges and roads.                    1-8/1/1926        Local heavy flooding coastal districts south from Mackay and in sub-tropical interior. Numerous line washaways and several bridges damaged. *Boy drowned at Ipswich*.                     16-31/12/1926         Flood in Stanley River disorganized traffic between Woodford and Kilcoy. Loss of stock in Brisbane River Valley.                    Jan 1927        Local flooding during first half of month notably in Brisbane on 4th when low-lying parts under water.                    15-31/1/1927        Stanley and Upper Brisbane Rivers flooded; strong fresh only in lower reaches of Brisbane but many metropolitan suburban districts submerged. Low-lying parts of Ipswich under water.                    5-14/3/1927        Stanley flooded and railway line damaged between Woodford and Kilcoy.                    & 24-26/3/1927        The Murrumba and Wivenhoe Bridges (Upper Brisbane) covered. Crops damaged.                    1-2/4/1927         Minor flooding in several southeastern rivers, chiefly the Stanley, Burnett, and Mary. Numerous bridges submerged; dislocation of traffic and damage to roads and railway tracks.                    1-4/10/1927         Heavy local flooding in southeastern districts, including low-lying parts of metropolis. Many bridges submerged and some damaged.                    13-22/2/1928        Floods in Stanley and Upper Brisbane very high but in metropolitan reaches of latter only moderate fresh experienced.                     18-21/4/1928        Only a big fresh in lower reaches of Brisbane River, but many of the low-lying parts of the metropolitan suburbs were inundated and the damage to city streets, bridges etc. was estimated at 50,000 pounds. *Lad was drowned at Graceville.*                    18-21/4/1929        Stanley and Upper Brisbane Rivers flooded but a strong fresh only in city reaches of the Brisbane.                    2-10/2/1930        Some bridges over Stanley River submerged.                     2-8/2/1931        Brisbane experienced its first flood for 23 years. Most city wharves submerged and water reached almost to Stanley Street, South Brisbane. More serious inundations in parts of suburbs, notably the Milton, Oxley, Rocklea, Fairfield and Sherwood districts. Bridges and roads in Greater Brisbane area damaged to extent of about 25,000 pounds.
 TC entered the Coral Sea near Cooktown and moved southward to Hervey Bay. Initially serious flooding occurred in north Queensland with one (1) drowning. As the system moved south towards Hervey Bay, major floods developed over southeast Queensland with thirteen hundred (1300) homes inundated in Brisbane on the 5th February. *Two (2) people drowned.* A storm surge of 0.76 m was recorded on the Moreton Bay tide gauge. Most of the flooding in Brisbane was in Breakfast Creek where one thousand and fifty six (1056) houses were flooded (three hundred and ninety six (396) above floor level). Around midday on the 5th February, before the heavy rain in the creek catchment, high tide level at the mouth of Breakfast Creek was 1.1 m above ordinary high water spring levels. The subsequent flood levels above Bowen Bridge exceeded the February 1893 flood levels. 
 Ipswich: "From a maximum height of 47ft 6 ins about 3 o'clock on Saturday morning (February 7) the Bremer early this morning had dropped to 16ft 6 ins." (From Queensland Times, Mon 9 Feb 1931, Ref 1.)                    6/3/1931        Low lying parts of Brisbane inundated.                     9/12/1931        Low lying suburbs of the metropolitan area were submerged. Much damage to roads and bridges, cost of repairs to latter estimated at between 2,000 and 3,000 pounds.                    15-31/1/1935        Laidley Creek reached its highest level for 40 years.                    4/4/1933        *Man drowned in Stanley River. Low lying part of metropolis inundated and some damage to property particularly in Nundah district where several fences washed away.*                    11/12/1933        Some flooding of creeks in the metropolitan area; *a lad drowned in Ekibin Creek.*                    30 & 31/1/1934        Disorganization of traffic in coastal districts south from Maryborough.                    20-23/2/1934        Low-lying suburbs of Brisbane again submerged.                    1-4/4/1934         Flooding in many streams between Brisbane and Gympie, submerging bridges and roads, and seriously dislocating transport services.                    12/4/1934         Further flooding between Gympie and Brisbane.                     21/12/1934        Some flooding of creeks and inundations of low-lying parts in the metropolitan area.                    17/10/1935        Low-lying parts of Brisbane suburbs flooded, especially in Wynnum district where roads damaged to extent of about 10,000 pounds.                    10/3/1937        Local flooding between Brisbane and Coolangatta.                    15-20/3/1937        Low-lying parts of Brisbane and Ipswich inundated. Floods at Harrisville highest since 1911.                     19-21/1/1938        Local flooding in Moreton section of South Coast division, chiefly Stanley River. Low-lying parts of Brisbane inundated.                    31/1/1938        Low-lying suburbs of Brisbane submerged.                    23-27/5/1938        Kilcoy isolated for few days; low-lying parts of Brisbane submerged on two occasions.                    11-17/3/1939        Extensive flooding of low-lying suburbs of Brisbane.                    Apr 1939        Local flooding in Esk district.                    5/7/1939         Some flooding in Stanley River and the adjacent reaches of the Brisbane River.                    Dec 1943        At 0900 on the 30th a small cyclonic centre was indicated a little to the north of Cape Moreton. The formation of this depression was responsible for flood rains from 28th to 30th. The rain spell lasted approximately 36 hours, but fortunately eased by Monday 31th when the centre, filling in, was located 250 kilometres to the north-east of Lismore. Much flooding of low lying areas in South Moreton districts with rapid rises in creeks and main streams on 29th and 30th, but no excessive heights were reached on the Brisbane River. Local reports for 30th included Stanley River at Villeneuve - over railway bridge, Caboolture River at Caboolture Post Office - traffic bridge submerged, Pine River at Dayboro - main street under water.                     Jan 1946        On 23rd rain stations west and south of Brisbane reported 75 to 125mm and up to 165mm (Kalbar and Laidley). These falls caused local flooding, mainly in Lockyer Creek, but main streams in the Moreton and Port Curtis districts were not affected.                     Apr 1946        The rainfall accompanying the offshore cyclonic depression from 2nd to 5th caused moderate rises in the Mary and Stanley rivers where local flooding occurred. At Murrumba, where the Brisbane River rose over the traffic bridge on 6th, conditions were indicative of the temporary traffic dislocation which occurred in these areas.                     Jan 1947        Flooding was particularly heavy in the Logan and Albert river basins, the highest since 1887 and 1893. At Slacks Creek, floodwaters reached telephone wires. On 25th the Logan River peaked at Dulbolla and Beaudesert and the Albert River peaked at Bromfleet and Lumeah. The following peaks were reported from the lower tributaries of the Brisbane River. Warrill Creek at Harrisville on 25th, highest since 1893, and Bremer River at Ipswich on 26th, highest since 1931.                    26/1/1947         Ipswich: Bremer River in major flood, highest since 1931.                    Jan 1951        Flooding was most severe over the South Coast Moreton where 500 to 750mm seven day rainfall totals caused strong rises in the Mary and Brisbane river systems and in other smaller coastal streams. All transport services were disrupted and low level flooding caused considerable property damage and covered all roads from Brisbane to a depth of a metre or more. Many houses were evacuated particularly in the Maroochy River districts where flooding was very severe. *One life was lost at Currumundi Lake near Caloundra.*                    31/1/1951         Ipswich: Bremer River peaked just below major flood height, two households evacuated, widespread disruptions to traffic. Brisbane-Ipswich road closed at Woogaroo Ck. Brisbane: Brisbane River in flood, severe disruptions to road traffic, most roads out of Brisbane closed due to inundation from flooding caused by metropolitan and adjacent stream.                     1/2/1951        Brisbane: Brisbane River in flood between Brisbane and Ipswich backing up creeks, flooding of low lying areas extensive. Oxley Creek 5' over Oxley road.                    2/2/1951        Brisbane River flood threat did not eventuate; rain and flooding easing.                    Mar 1955        Serious flooding was also reported in the upper Brisbane River, as well as the small coastal streams north of Brisbane, namely the Pine and Maroochy rivers, as a result of 125 to 375mm rains on 27th. Flood heights in the Brisbane River were generally the highest since 1931, resulting in moderate flooding in the lower Brisbane catchment on 29th and 30th. *One life was lost.* The Port Office gauge at Brisbane peaked at 3am on 30th, resulting in flooding of some low lying suburbs.                     29/3/1955        Ipswich: Bremer River in major flood, severe disruption to traffic, widespread inundation of low lying areas; highest flood since 1947.                     30/3/1955        Brisbane: Brisbane River in minor flood, some inundation of low lying areas. Great quantities of debris in river.                    18/2/1959        Brisbane River in flood Brisbane Valley Highway cut at Wivenhoe.                     Nov 1959        Laidley. Local severe flooding resulted in 1 metre of water in some streets of Laidley, flooding business premises. Hundreds of acres of small crops were inundated in the Lockyer Valley with damage proving very costly. Marburg. Heavy flood run-off damaged three bridges, destroyed a garage and covered the western highway to in excess of 1 metre of water.                     May 1960        Further heavy rain, 125 to 150mm in 48 hours, brought about flash flooding in the upper Stanley River on 26th.                    Feb 1961        Flash flooding in the Bundamba Creek at Booval on 25th swept a car off a culvert, killing two people.                    Nov 1961        On 17th intense one hour 75 to 125 rains in the Upper Brookfield area led to flash floods which caused destruction of roads and bridges. In the Brisbane Metropolitan area heavy rains on the 20th caused local flash flooding in many suburbs, the worst hit areas being Mt. Gravatt and Sandgate. The Brisbane Valley Highway was cut between Esk and Toogoolawah, due to flash flooding of Gallanani Creek, and rail traffic was slowed because of erosion. Heavy rain in the Bremer catchment on 17th, followed by further falls in the next few days, caused a rise in the river, submerging the bridge at Rosewood for some days. Freshes in other tributaries of the Brisbane River resulted in a slight rise in the main river in its lower reaches.                     Mar 1963        From 13th to 18th heavy rain in south-east districts produced 250mm totals with some totals up to 500mm. Local flooding and traffic disabilities were reported in the Mary and Brisbane rivers as well as the shorter Moreton streams. The Stanley River at Peachester reported peak flows as did the Brisbane River at Murrumba and Wivenhoe Bridge.                     Mar 1967        On 18th falls of up to 150mm associated with Cyclone "Elaine" were recorded in the south-eastern corner of the State. Minor flooding and traffic disabilities occurred as a small flood moved down the Brisbane River, while the Logan River peaked at Macleans Bridge on 19th.                     12/6/1967        Ipswich: Bremer River, in major flood but below 1955 levels. Brisbane: No flooding from Brisbane River itself but widespread severe local flooding from metropolitan creeks with damage estimated in the excess of $1million. Traffic at a standstill; rail traffic halted on some suburban lines. 500 people evacuated from low lying areas. Rainfalls averaging 200 to 250mm in the South Coast Moreton district during the week ending 14th resulted in moderate flooding in the Brisbane and Mary rivers and adjacent coastal streams. The Brisbane River peaked at Vernor on 12th, the highest recorded since 1955, and the Mary River peaked at Gympie on 11th, the highest since 1963. Worst flooding was in the Nerang River, which peaked at Numinbah Valley early on 12th, highest since 1954, and flooded some residential areas on the Gold Coast. Traffic disabilities occurred throughout the Moreton district, but were worst in coastal areas south of Brisbane. Serious local flooding in Brisbane itself on the night of 11th.                    Jan 1968        Seven day totals of over 750mm were common in the headwaters of the Mary River, while slightly lower totals were recorded in the headwaters of neighbouring coastal streams and in the headwaters of the Stanley River. The Mary River peaked at Gympie on 10th, and all coastal roads from Brisbane to the north of Bundaberg were impassable to traffic for a few days as the flood peak moved downstream. Many people in Gympie and other centres downstream were forced to evacuate their homes as flood waters approached, and *at least one life was lost*. Slightly lower rainfalls in the Brisbane River sub-catchments other than the Stanley were sufficient to cause minor to moderate flooding in parts of the Brisbane Valley, while moderate falls on the border ranges produced only minor flooding in coastal streams south of Brisbane.                     14/1/1968        Ipswich: Bremer River in moderate flood; Moogerah Dam spills for the first time since construction, widespread traffic disabilities throughout catchment, most roads cut in low areas or by washouts.                    15/1/1968        Brisbane: Brisbane River in minor flood causing some inundation of low river front reaches in the metropolitan area in conjunction with high tides and heavy local runoff.                    Oct 1970        On Saturday 24th there was flash flooding in the Brisbane City metropolitan area in Kedron Brook and Enoggera Creek resulting in damage to furniture and fittings in private homes. *Several people were drowned.*                    4/2/1971        Moderate to major flooding in the Bremer caused inundation of low lying parts of Ipswich. Widespread disruptions to traffic throughout the catchment area considerable damage to roads and bridges.                    Feb 1972        During the second and third weeks of the month, major flooding occurred in the upper and middle reaches of the Mary, upper Brisbane and Stanley rivers in association with heavy rainfall from Cyclone "Daisy". Flooding, with traffic disabilities, also occurred in Sunshine Coast streams and the Pine and Nerang rivers. Severe local flooding occurred in Brisbane City metropolitan creeks on the morning of Saturday 12th, following general falls of 175mm to 225mm in the 24 hour period.                    Apr 1972        During the first week of the month heavy rains in south-east Queensland, associated with Cyclone "Emily", caused moderate flooding in the Mary, Stanley and upper Brisbane rivers. Flooding also occurred in the Kolan and Curtis Coast streams, the Burnett, Albert, Logan, Nerang and Pine rivers, and Sunshine Coast streams. There was widespread traffic disruptions in the above catchments as Easter holiday traffic returned to Brisbane. On the night of Sunday 2nd to Monday 3rd, heavy rain in Brisbane City metropolitan creek catchments caused major flooding in suburban areas, resulting in much damage to property and household furniture.                    Jul 1973        During the period 6th to 10th, heavy rain in south-east Queensland caused moderate to major flooding to the coastal strip between Brisbane and Bundaberg. *Several lives were lost.* Minor flooding occurred in the Brisbane City metropolitan creeks, in particular Enoggera-Breakfast creeks and Kedron Brook, and also in the Nerang River. Major flooding also occurred in the upper Brisbane River and Stanley River, but flooding was not significant in the lower reaches.                    27 & 28/1/1974        Ipswich: Bremer River reached the highest levels this century and the highest since 1893. Flood damage through the Ipswich City area was devastating, some 2,000 homes and properties were affected, many being totally destroyed, countless others were affected, many beyond repair and business, property and damage to services running into millions of dollars. *Two people were drowned or killed as a result of the flooding during this period.*                    25-29/1/1974        Brisbane: The Brisbane River also reached the highest level this century and the highest level since 1893. Similarly to Ipswich, the lower flood prone areas suffered extreme damage; *14 lives were lost, some 8,000 householders were affected*, many totally destroyed, others damaged to the tune of thousands of dollars as a result of inundation and battering from both strong currents and water borne debris. Business houses and industry generally suffered countless millions of dollars in losses due to damage to premises, stock and loss of business. Estimated damage approximately $200 million in 1974 money values.                    Nov 1974        On 27th moderate flooding downstream from Harrisville and Rosewood in the Bremer River.                     Jan 1976        Between 20th and 23rd, stream rises and some flooding occurred in the south-east quarter, including the Brisbane and Mary rivers, from heavy rain associated with Cyclone "David". Laidley Creek recorded a major flood in this period with flood waters entering the town of Laidley.                    Feb 1976        By mid month, major flooding was occurring in most streams in the Brisbane Valley, the Albert and Logan rivers, the Macintyre, Moonie and Weir rivers, the Condamine, Balonne, Bulloo and Paroo rivers, the Warrego, Thomson and Barcoo rivers, and Cooper Creek, plus Diamantina and Georgina rivers and Eyre Creek . Major flooding in these rivers was caused by the low pressure system formally Cyclone "Alan".                    May 1980        Most streams in the Nerang, Albert and Logan rivers and Brisbane City metropolitan creeks reached minor flood levels on 7th and 8th. Traffic disabilities occurred through the area, especially along Oxley Creek. No damage reports were received.                     Nov 1981        Local to minor flooding occurred in the Bremer River from 2nd to 4th and local flooding with traffic disabilities for Brisbane City metropolitan creeks on 3rd.                    Jan 1982        Widespread moderate to heavy rainfall in the Moreton South Coast district caused local flooding in the Brisbane City metropolitan area on 21st. Minor to moderate flooding occurred in the Mary River from 21st to 25th, the coastal streams from Brisbane to Noosa on 21st, the Bremer and Warrill creeks on 21st and 22nd and the Stanley River and upper Brisbane River from 21st to 23rd.                    May 1982        Moderate to heavy early morning rain in the Brisbane City metropolitan area on 30th, caused local flooding and traffic disabilities in some flood prone suburbs.                    May 1983        On the afternoon of 28th moderate flooding occurred in the Bremer River with minor flooding at Ipswich the next day.                     Apr 1984        Stream rises and local flooding were reported from Brisbane metropolitan area and the Macintyre and Dumaresq river systems on 8th due to heavy rainfall in the southeast corner. Gale force winds and heavy rainfall on 8th caused widespread electrical failures, local flooding and traffic disabilities and property damage in the Brisbane metropolitan area and the Gold Coast. Twelve people were rescued from disabled yachts in Moreton Bay and coastal waters of the Moreton Coast.                    Aug 1985        During the evening of the 17th, thunderstorms in the Brisbane metropolitan area caused local flash flooding.                    Oct 1985        Flooding in low lying areas of metropolitan Brisbane due to heavy rain during the morning of the 27th.                    Feb 1988        A severe thunderstorm over Cooyar Creek catchment on the evening of Friday 12th caused the highest flood since European settlement in the township of Cooyar. Several houses and buildings were washed away and *two lives were lost*.                    Jun 1988        Widespread moderate with local heavy rain on the 3rd and 4th in the South Coast districts caused moderate flooding in Warrill Creek near Amberley on the 5th                     Jul 1988        *A man drowned when his car was swept away in a flooded creek in one of the southern Brisbane suburbs.*                    Apr 1989        During the first few days of the month, the Albert and Logan rivers experienced moderate flooding, and local to minor flooding occurred in creeks in the greater Brisbane area during the same period. A renewed heavy rain period commenced in southeast Queensland on 25th causing major flooding to re-occur at Gympie on the Mary River, and in the upper Brisbane River, the Albert and Logan rivers to the south of Brisbane and other coastal streams between Maryborough and the New South Wales border. Severe local flooding also occurred in the Brisbane metropolitan area overnight on Tuesday 25th.                     May 1989        Very heavy rain re-developed in the southeastern districts during the 16th and 17th. Minor to moderate flooding was recorded in the Albert and Logan rivers, and also in the Bremer River and Warrill Creek.                     Feb 1990        Moderate to heavy rainfall in the Brisbane Metropolitan /Sunshine Coast area on the 24th produced flooding in low lying areas of Brisbane and parts of the southern Sunshine Coast. Flooding became more extensive the next day, causing traffic disabilities.                    Feb 1991        On the night of Thursday 7th very heavy rain of around 200mm fell over areas of the Logan system and Warrill Creek catchments to the south of Brisbane. *Three people drowned at flooded road crossings* during the flash flooding that followed. Extensive damage occurred to rural properties, fencing and crops in the Boonah, Rathdowney and Kalbar areas and a school at Kooralbyn was destroyed. Flooding subsequently developed in the Logan River and record flood levels were recorded at several locations. Flooding of low lying properties, roads and bridges accompanied the flood peak. Several houses were flooded in the suburbs of Logan City in the Waterford area during the weekend of 9th and 10th.                    Dec 1991        Severe flooding of some coastal streams occurred in south east Queensland from Thursday 12th to Saturday 14th. Areas of major flooding along the Bremer River, Bundamba and Warrill Creeks caused significant property loss and damage. In the Bundamba Creek area, forty two people were rescued from flooded homes.                    Feb 1992        Major flooding.in the upper reaches of the Stanley River occurred during Saturday 22nd and *one motorist was drowned* attempting to drive across a flooded river crossing.                     Mar 1992        Major flooding occurred in the upper reaches of the Brisbane and Stanley rivers. No reports of damage were received. Minor flooding occurred in some of the Brisbane Metropolitan Creeks causing minor traffic problems.                    Feb 1995        Rainfall around the Sunshine Coast during the middle of February caused moderate flooding in the Mary and Upper Stanley rivers to 17th.                     Nov 1995        Moderate flooding occurred in the upper reaches of the Bremer River and Warrill Creek from the 20th to 21st but only small rises resulted in the lower reaches of the Bremer.                     May 1996

----------


## SilentButDeadly

See what I mean?

----------


## ringtail

I had no idea there were that many floods, better lift the house, or fuel the boat

----------


## johnc

We have now had 25 years of consecutive above average temperatures. At what point do skeptics open their eyes and see the truth?  Report: 25 years since temps below average - US news - Environment - Climate Change - msnbc.com

----------


## Dr Freud

Full kudos to the Mods.   :Hooray:  
I just exercised my democratic right to vote on the Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
At least we have this last little bit of democracy left. 
I also love the colours you guys picked, you troublemakers.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Floods are funny things.....they only seem to happen when there is a man made structure in the way.  How do they know?

  Yeh, why don't we have records of all the floods that happen from where there are no people there to record them?  :Doh:  
If a tree falls in the forrest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a noise?  :Biggrin:

----------


## OFG

Yep............sure does.
Its that noisy bugger with one hand.......clapping.  :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I had no idea there were that many floods, better lift the house, or fuel the boat

  A great example of "extreme" weather events.  Amazingly not just in the last part of the 20th century since the temperature went up a fraction. 
We should also write a poem about this wide brown land, include the droughts as well as these flooding plains, and maybe throw in some rugged mountain ranges too.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *JULIA Gillard faces new pressure over her climate change convictions as Tony Abbott seized on a report that she previously pushed for a bipartisan approach that didn't involve a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme. * Mr Abbott today questioned what Ms Gillard stood for, saying her post-election carbon tax plan had been dictated by the Greens.  
> What that shows is that the Prime Minister's attacks on our policy aren't genuine, Mr Abbott told ABC radio today.  
> It demonstrates that the policy that the government is currently adopting is Bob Brown's policy. Not Julia Gillard's policy.  
> The Australian Financial Review reported that Ms Gillard, as deputy prime minister, had encouraged the Rudd government's kitchen cabinet to shelve plans for a carbon price in favour of other alternatives.  
> The report was potentially extremely damaging for Ms Gillard, who with Treasurer Wayne Swan urged Kevin Rudd to dump his emissions trading scheme.  
> In a paper titled The bipartisan solution , Ms Gillard reportedly urged senior colleagues to set aside contentious aspects of the government's climate change policy for so long as Mr Abbott remained opposition leader.  
> She reportedly lobbied for a new policy to achieve Australia's five per cent emissions reduction target by 2020 *without pricing carbon*, submitting the proposal for consideration to the Strategic Priorities and Budget Committee of Cabinet.   Tony Abbott says cabinet paper reveals Julia Gillard once backed Coalition&#039;s climate policy | The Australian

  Very strange how Ruddy's out of the country whenever these "leaks" occur?  :Biggrin:  
Or is it Crean (or his supporters) having a tilt? 
Someone in Labor's Cabinet is still doing more damage to JuLIAR than the Carbon Dioxide Tax is.  :2thumbsup:  
And now she is saying that the "leaker" is the LIAR? 
Do you believe her?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *ONE of the nation's biggest trade unions has turned on the Gillard government, savaging Workplace Relations Minister Chris Evans as incompetent and unworthy of his office. *  			 		 		Days after strident criticism of the government by business leaders, Transport Workers Union national secretary Tony Sheldon yesterday likened Senator Evans to a corpse, accusing him of failing to implement Labor policy and endangering the lives of truck drivers. 
> While the government has anticipated attacks from businesses affected by the tax, it was blind sided by Mr Sheldon's assault, based on the fact the impost -- which he on Friday called a "death tax" -- will apply to the heavy transport industry from 2014.  
> Mr Sheldon, whose 90,000- member union represents truck drivers, wants the government to prevent trucking companies from passing the cost impact to drivers and owner-drivers. The TWU argues that passing on the costs to drivers will lift stress and drive up accident and fatality rates on roads, not just for truck drivers, but also for all motorists.  Union joins business to savage ALP | The Australian

  A death tax!  :Death:  
The ultimate carbon sequestration agenda? 
And that's coming from a staunch left wing union. 
And you guys think us realists are harshly opposed to this joke.

----------


## Dr Freud

This is what JuLIAR is spending your hard earned taxpayer dollars on.  Advising you to do these things because your power bills are now unaffordable:   

> AUSTRALIANS are being urged to play board games and snuggle up under a rug with a pet or their families to help cut power bills.  
>               On its LivingGreener website, the federal government urges switching off the TV and heater and finding old-fashioned ways of keeping snug and occupied.  
>               ''There are heaps of ways to have fun 'unplugged' - go retro and break out the board games or visit your local library and share the heating and computers with your community,'' the site says.  
>                                ''To reduce the energy you use while watching TV, take another tip from grandma and share the warmth. Snuggle up under a rug, snuggle with your family or cuddle your favourite pet. You could avoid the TV and snuggle up in bed with a good book (or with someone who's read one lately).''  
>               A spokesman for the Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet, defended the advice, saying many households were seeking tips on how to save energy.  
>               ''Improving energy efficiency is a way households can help lower carbon pollution while saving money,'' he said.  
>               However, the opposition climate change spokesman, Greg Hunt, branded the government's advice farcical.  Energy saving tip: try a board game

  
So, we're building a National Broadband Network with prices so high that most Aussies won't be able to afford it, let alone the electricity to power it, and now that same government that build it is saying don't use it, even though we all need to use constantly or us taxpayers will foot the bill for its bankruptcy? 
Good plan heading into a global recession, huh? 
If you think this is some kind of joke, here's the taxes you pay in action:  Top tips for living greener this winter - LivingGreener.gov.au 
Now turn off your computer and go sleep with your dog.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Don't *any* of you lads have anything better to do on a weekend? Something more important perhaps?  Something that makes a useful contribution to the society you are a part of? 
> Obviously not.

  I think educating myself more about this farce is a useful contribution, and convincing other citizens to do the same is even more useful. 
If society then decides they want to pay a massive new tax that is environmentally useless (agreed by JuLIAR and the Greens) and economically limiting (agreed by JuLIAR and treasury modelling), then society can vote it in.  We'll see at the next election I guess.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I see we still believe everything we read in the ethical and honourable Murdoch press, that bastion of truth would have to be right wouldn't it with the statement that Germany only has .1% of *power* coming from solar.

  It's good to see you still think that vexatiously smearing the messenger is the best tactic you can use to advance your cause.  I mean, something like presenting some credible scientific or economic position is just too hard for you AGW hypothesis "believers" I guess? 
But still, like Rod says, every time you guys do this a few more people no doubt lose the "faith".  :Biggrin:  
But to compensate for your comprehension issues, let's read that again shall we:   

> Germany has spent more than $75 billion on inefficient solar technology delivering a mere 0.1 per cent of its *total energy supply.*

  Does a car burn energy? Does a diesel generator burn energy? Does an oxy-torch burn energy? Does a wood stove burn energy? Look at the board game posted earlier, does a candle burn energy? 
What does "total" mean?  Does it just mean electricity or "power" as you put it?   

> However Germany currently produces 2% of its *power* from solar

  Just because JuLIAR excludes agriculture and petrol from her scheme for political reasons, it doesn't mean you should be brainwashed to believe "power" is the only source of carbon dioxide emissions from "energy" on the Planet Earth (more on this in a minute). 
But to avoid more semantic distractions, let's assume we are talking just about electricity and use your 2% figure.  Again you people just don't understand what a cost benefit analysis involves.  You need to factor the cost against the benefit.  Let's try: 
Cost:      $75 billion dollars (That's 2 x NBN's in Australia)
Benefit:   2% of unreliable electricity (still requiring coal back-up as not baseload) 
So, ball park Germany could replace their reliable energy with unreliable energy for a little under $4 trillion.  Cool huh?  I'm sure electricity prices won't rise at all.  And remember, that's just the electricity, the rest of the energy is still happily "polluting" the environment with clear, colourless, odourless plant food.  :Biggrin:  
If you're still happy with that cost-benefit analysis  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): , run the numbers for the whole planet.  :Doh:    

> Of course Dr Fraud produces 100% wind from hot air but that is what happens when you are not interested in the real facts.

  Hopefully like Chrisp you are slowly learning that Wikipedia, while massively biased as previously demonstrated in this thread, will not give this farce any legitimacy whatsoever.  :No:  
You would be much better placed watching The Bolt Report:  From the Bolt Report yesterday | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
Then you would have learned how we Aussies could cut Carbon Dioxide emissions by nearly 15% overnight for free and keep using all the "power" we want. 
That's right, not a single cent. 
The downside is even if we did this overnight FOR FREE, the UN still would not count these reductions. 
Can you say "arbitrary c#@p"!  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So, we're building a National Broadband Network with prices so high that most Aussies won't be able to afford it.....

  Really?  I don't think so....looks pretty similar to the plain old ADSL2+ plans pricing to me. But with faster connection speeds  http://www.internode.on.net/news/2011/07/236.php  Internode :: Residential :: Fibre To The Home :: NBN Plans

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I think educating myself more about this farce is a useful contribution, and convincing other citizens to do the same is even more useful.

  Got any empirical evidence of either of those 'contributions'?   
Based on my analysis of this thread (admittedly a likely small sample of the entire effort).....the first one is moot and the second is............unlikely.

----------


## andy the pm

> Got any empirical evidence of either of those 'contributions'?   
> Based on my analysis of this thread (admittedly a likely small sample of the entire effort).....the first one is moot and the second is............unlikely.

   :Rotfl:  
Post of the year there SbD

----------


## Marc

When imbecility meets patronizing.
Do you love the advice given to save on your electricity bill?
Get rid of your car, play board games and go to bed with your dog. 
As for the Hendra virus spread by the pest infestation of fruit bats, according to the Queensland moronic PM, the bats spread the virus when they are stressed by humans. So you see it is all our fault, we must check out.
I wonder what a happy bad does? Happiness produces constipation in bats apparently.

----------


## ringtail

Just had this emailed to me and thought I would share. I must admit I have not read it all ( yet) as the pillow calls. Hope the link works.  https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...hl=en_GB&pli=1

----------


## Dr Freud

> Really?  I don't think so....looks pretty similar to the plain old ADSL2+ plans pricing to me. But with faster connection speeds  Internode :: About :: News and Media :: Internode unveils initial retail pricing for NBN services  Internode :: Residential :: Fibre To The Home :: NBN Plans

  So Treasury says real wages are going down under the Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
And Treasury says electricity prices will go up under the Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
And these industries are high electricity users with no compensation so will pass on costs. 
And currently about a two thirds of low income homes have no broadband. 
But let's ignore your semantic distraction for a moment, and go back to JuLIAR's LIES:   

> *The following is a transcript provided by the Prime Minister's office*.
> This reform will enable us to deliver high-speed broadband to homes, businesses, schools and hospitals *while making sure its available at a price that families can afford.* This *will mean lower prices*, more choice and more innovation in service delivery to Australian households.   Transcript: Julia Gillard releases NBN business case summary

  So you said:     

> looks pretty similar

  which means you are calling JuLIAR a LIAR! 
Because this is not lower prices and two thirds of poorer Aussies have much less chance of being able to afford this as their power and general household costs go up. 
But as I said, because JuLIAR says we now can't use too much electricity, who wants to have their computer running anyway.  They'll all be playing boardgames by candlelight.  :Doh:  
It's just as well that JuLIAR hasn't done a cost-benefit analysis for this policy either, otherwise then people would ask how is it that they ask people to buy and use computers to avoid bankruptcy of the NBN, then tell them not to turn them on because they'll use too much electricity. 
This government in made up of Morons! 
And they're wasting our taxes.

----------


## Dr Freud

So you ask a question requiring an opinion:   

> Don't *any* of you lads have anything better to do on a weekend? Something more important perhaps? Something that makes a useful contribution to the society you are a part of? 
> Obviously not.

  And I reply with my opinion, clearly indicating that these responses are based on my subjective thoughts, or opinion:   

> *I think* educating myself more about this farce is a useful contribution, and convincing other citizens to do the same is even more useful.

  And then after asking a subjective question and getting a subjective answer, you ask for empirical evidence:   

> Got any empirical evidence of either of those 'contributions'?

  You really have no idea how this science stuff works, do you?  :No:  :Doh:  
Stick with philosophy.  COGITO ERGO SUM

----------


## SilentButDeadly

hahahahahahahahhaha... 
Perhaps I should've been more specific and asked about evidence of any results that could be attributed to your efforts.... 
...but that'd be taking your efforts (and this thread) more seriously than they deserve.

----------


## Atilla

In The Know: Coal Lobby Warns Wind Farms May Blow Earth Off Orbit | The Onion - America's Finest News Source | Onion News Network

----------


## Dr Freud

> When imbecility meets patronizing.
> Do you love the advice given to save on your electricity bill?
> Get rid of your car, play board games and go to bed with your dog. 
> As for the Hendra virus spread by the pest infestation of fruit bats, according to the Queensland moronic PM, the bats spread the virus when they are stressed by humans. So you see it is all our fault, we must check out.
> I wonder what a happy bad does? Happiness produces constipation in bats apparently.

  Well said mate, these people are pushing the bounds of human stupidity. 
Here's a good joke: 
What do you get when you cross a moronic state premier who doesn't want to scare let alone kill bats carrying a fatal disease, with an idiot prime minister who encourages people to return to living in the dark ages by sleeping with dogs to keep warm, all to appease the greenie cult? 
Answer, kids exposed to lethal diseases.   

> *THE owners of a dog that tested positive to the Hendra virus now hold grave fears for their young son. 				 * Owners Neil and Liz Fearon now say they are concerned for the health of their 11-year-old son who has slept with the dog in his bed.  Fearon family plead with authorities for stay of execution for Hendra positive dog Dusty | Herald Sun

  Who put these morons in charge???  :Doh:  :Doh:  :Doh:  
Here's a comment from the article:   

> *Annette of Lalor*  _Posted at 7:59 PM Today_  *Why on earth would you allow your dog sleep IN BED with your 11 year old child????* And now they are concerned for their son because the dog has a virus... By the way I love dogs, but that is just not right....

  Hey Annette, stop being a denier! Go here and join the greenie cult.   

> If you think this is some kind of joke, here's the taxes you pay in action:  Top tips for living greener this winter - LivingGreener.gov.au 
> Now turn off your computer and go sleep with your dog.

  
How long until these idiots are throwing people into volcanoes again?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Just had this emailed to me and thought I would share. I must admit I have not read it all ( yet) as the pillow calls. Hope the link works.  https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...hl=en_GB&pli=1

  Thanks for this link mate. 
A great summary of reality, as opposed to the greenie cults rambling about children and grandchildren dying all the time, and still not figuring out the difference between Carbon and Carbon Dioxide.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## johnc

> When imbecility meets patronizing.
> Do you love the advice given to save on your electricity bill?
> Get rid of your car, play board games and go to bed with your dog. 
> As for the Hendra virus spread by the pest infestation of fruit bats, according to the Queensland moronic PM, the bats spread the virus when they are stressed by humans. So you see it is all our fault, we must check out.
> I wonder what a happy bad does? Happiness produces constipation in bats apparently.

  
Off on another tangent aren't we, aren't the conflicting priorities that flying foxes are important pollinators, while Hendra virus is more prevalent in stressed communities of bats and that the disease is believed to spread from the urine, spats and saliva (bats spit a lot) falling to the ground and then picked up by horses as they feed.  
Culling bats is probably not a solution as there are so many of them and they are quite mobile, plus eliminating them may have adverse impacts on the enviroment. Also they can't actually prove beyond doubt that bats actually transmit the virus to horses. 
So this is the conundrum isn't it, if we shouldn't do anything about global warming on the basis that there are some doubts by a minority of scientists then doesn't it hold true on that basis that you do nothing about bats until you can prove beyond doubt that link. :Rolleyes:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Culling bats is probably not a solution as there are so many of them and they are quite mobile, plus eliminating them may have adverse impacts on the enviroment.

  Never stopped us before with other species.....and the odd 'non-compliant' human culture too for that matter.

----------


## johnc

> Never stopped us before with other species.....and the odd 'non-compliant' human culture too for that matter.

  No. and many of us have been part of that pest culling as well. I think the reason they give for culling not being the solution is that the virus is well entrenched in the bat population and that culling cannot eliminate the illness as a result. Plus the pesky little devils are pretty mobile and move around a lot. However I can't see why we can't thin them down a bit there seems a lot of them and you can net them when they settle during the day. Anyway don't lick the ground under trees they occupy and keep away from horses, so I reckon I'm safe. :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

Oh how they LIE for your money!   

> Four years ago, Tim Fannery was sure global warming would drown entire houses:  _We were making the planet heat so fast with our filthy gases, Flannery insisted, that the ice caps were vanishing and we had to picture an eight-storey building by a beach, then imagine waves lapping its roof._ So why does Climate Commissioner Flannery have a waterfront property at Coba Point, a tributory of the Hawkesbury, just four or five metres from the waters he claims he will drown hundreds of thousands of properties?        Why does warmist Flannery live waterside? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

    
These people want more of your money in taxes.  :Doh:

----------


## PhilT2

_These people want more of your money in taxes_.  :Doh: 
Whereas the GST was introduced because....

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> 

  Hate to be picky [not!] but that image shows a part of the Hawkesbury that is nowhere near Coba Point.  That's the towns of Mooney Mooney [foreground left], Brooklyn [background right], Dangar Island [far background centre] and Little Wobby [behind Dangar Island]. Right out the back right is Bronwen Bishop's personal fiefdom of Pittwater....[just before the ocean]. 
Personally, though, I think that our good Doctor would much prefer to live on the beautiful little island [Peat Island] in the immediate foreground.....great services available there for a person of his standing. 
Coba Point is up around the mouth of Berowra Creek which is at least 15km further up river from this reach....   
As for why Flannery might own a property there.....it's a bloody nice spot.....and not ridiculously expensive either compared to typical Sydney region waterfronts.  He's probably like the rest of us.....comfortable with his choices and with the risks he believe he's taking.  Oh and I'd be very surprised if he actually lives there....

----------


## PhilT2

What! Bolt wrong again. Well, at least he is consistent.
A bit meaningless too, in terms of the science. But again another Bolt feature. Climate myths? Andrew Bolt’s claims scientifically tested | Crikey

----------


## Marc

Comparing GST with the "carbon" tax is an amazing show of ignorance. 
Taxes are a way to collect money in order to pay administration and development cost of a country. Real taxes come out of economic activity and have no moral or doctrinal component.
Taxes designed to punish behavior for social engineering purposes are an abuse of power and should be outlawed. 
Taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, just like "carbon" tax designed to change the population's behavior punishing perfectly legal activities are notoriously incapable to change anything at all but government coffers content and rely for their continuity on an unhealthy doses of moronic bias and pretentious righteousness of the cretin of the day.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> What! Bolt wrong again. Well, at least he is consistent.
> A bit meaningless too, in terms of the science. But again another Bolt feature. Climate myths? Andrew Bolt’s claims scientifically tested | Crikey

  Want to check the date out on that!! 2009

----------


## johnc

> Comparing GST with the "carbon" tax is an amazing show of ignorance. 
> Taxes are a way to collect money in order to pay administration and development cost of a country. Real taxes come out of economic activity and have no moral or doctrinal component.
> Taxes designed to punish behavior for social engineering purposes are an abuse of power and should be outlawed. 
> Taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, just like "carbon" tax designed to change the population's behavior punishing perfectly legal activities are notoriously incapable to change anything at all but government coffers content and rely for their continuity on an unhealthy doses of moronic bias and pretentious righteousness of the cretin of the day.

  Isn't the emission of carbon a result of economic activity? and don't "normal taxes" get used for social engineering by topping up the incomes of those on lower incomes etc and not just administration and nation building. Trouble with all the emotive stuff in the last sentence is that bile has overtaken rational thought.

----------


## PhilT2

_Want to check the date out on that!! 2009_ 
He was wrong then, he is wrong now, like I said, consistent isn't he?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> _Want to check the date out on that!! 2009_ 
> He was wrong then, he is wrong now, like I said, consistent isn't he?

  no

----------


## Ashore

If this tax which JuLIAR has decided is good for us, gets in she will be able to say

----------


## Daniel Morgan

"A NEW carbon cop will be given sweeping powers to enter company premises, compel individuals to give self-incriminating evidence and copy sensitive records under a carbon tax package that will force about 60,000 businesses to pay 6c a litre extra for fuel."   Carbon cop handed tough new powers | The Australian

----------


## Dr Freud

> _These people want more of your money in taxes_. 
> Whereas the GST was introduced because....

  If you don't even know the difference between these two, it's no wonder you can be led to believe a Carbon Dioxide Tax in Australia will make the Planet Earth colder.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Hate to be picky [not!] but that image shows a part of the Hawkesbury that is nowhere near Coba Point.  
> Coba Point is up around the mouth of Berowra Creek which is at least 15km further up river from this reach....

  I'd fly over there and get a photo of the house for you champ, but the Carbon Dioxide emissions would likely upset you more than I can imagine.   

> Personally, though, I think that our good Doctor would much prefer to live on the beautiful little island [Peat Island] in the immediate foreground.....*great services available there* for a person of his standing.

  They're not there any more, but it's good to see you haven't lost your sense of humour.  :Biggrin:    

> Oh and I'd be very surprised if he actually lives there....

  In a pragmatic sense he doesn't.  Most of his time is spent jetting around the world and living in hotel rooms spewing out more Carbon Dioxide emissions than a small country.  :Doh:  
That was the point that your little semantic distraction again tried to hide.  *Hypocrisy* writ large. 
Business as usual for AGW hypothesis supporters.   :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> What! Bolt wrong again. Well, at least he is consistent.
> A bit meaningless too, in terms of the science. But again another Bolt feature. Climate myths? Andrew Bolts claims scientifically tested | Crikey

  Please get up to speed, my time is valuable.  :Biggrin:    

> After you read the thread, you will understand that these discussions are over things called effects. We have varying degrees of accuracy in measuring effects, but for the sake of this argument lets assume all these effects are measured 100% accurately. None of these points addressed any PROOF of the causes of these effects. If we are already arguing over various interpretations of the effects, we have no hope in terms of PROVING what the causes (yes, plural) are! 
> But you can catch up on these concepts as you read through the thread.  
> If you want a brief rebuttal of this loony Glikson's pathetic efforts, please see here:  Glikson flicked | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog 
> If I can work up the motivation, I'll thoroughly ridicule his paltry (and outdated) efforts on the weekend.  
> But here's some more from his "scientific" preachings: 
> Reminds me of this bloke: 
> The pathetic Glikson attempts you have linked actually inspired Bolt to continue his "anti-AGW hypothesis" mission. He realised after Glikson's attempted rebuttal that there was no scientific evidence proving the AGW hypothesis. 
> And there still isn't.

  Crikey mate!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> "A NEW carbon cop will be given sweeping powers to enter company premises, compel individuals to give self-incriminating evidence and copy sensitive records under a carbon tax package that *will force about 60,000 businesses* to pay 6c a litre extra for fuel."   Carbon cop handed tough new powers | The Australian

  Well spotted mate, now business owners can go to jail for 10 years just for not reporting how much petrol they use accurately. 
This cult gets more farcical by the day. 
And did you notice how somehow can't count:   

> *The Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has used a final, rowdy, day in parliament to confirm that the emissions trading scheme (ETS) that her minority Labor government will launch on Sunday will target only 500 of the countrys biggest polluters.  PM confirms carbon price will hit 500 biggest polluters | Eco News*

  Either that or she's a LIAR? 
Which is it JuLIAR?  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

In Australia, we even let people like these speak regularly:   

> AN AL-QAEDA recruiter, described as the No. 1 terrorist threat to America, was engaged by a Sydney youth group to address hundreds of young people - a decision that has caused deep divisions at one of Australia's largest mosques.  
>               At the same time as Anwar al-Awlaki was advising the extremist later charged with killing 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas, he was in talks with a group, Sydney Muslim Youth, about delivering a sermon to young Australians. He was already well known to security agencies as the spiritual guide to three of the hijackers on September 11, 2001.   Al-Qaeda's Anwar al-Awlaki at Lakemba mosque in Sydney

  And this one:   

> "I participated in this exchange (of gunfire) under the orders and supervision of Captain Ali. We did not fire upon Indian soldiers or any other people. We only participated in the symbolic exchange of fire."  
> The consequences of this "symbolic exchange of fire"? Two dead children.  
> Perhaps Hicks' book is a symbolic telling of the truth.   David Hicks&#039; book erasing truths | Herald Sun

  But the AGW hypothesis cult is even more dangerous than these extremists above.  
When was the last time in this country any movement tried so hard to silence debate. 
To remove the very rights of Australians to free speech.  
Bob Brown is currently on a crusade to silence any media outlets that tell the truth about his cult and JuLIAR is happy to support this erosion of democracy and free speech.  
Now those wannabe greenies at Get Up are joining the silencing debate cult:    

> The creeping totalitarianism of the Left:   _THE Australian Communications and Media Authority is investigating a complaint about alleged inaccuracies in statements on climate change by broadcaster Alan Jones._ _ _  _GetUp! had made a complaint, which it believed was not being pursued by the broadcasting regulator, but the Herald has learned ACMA is investigating the GetUp! complaint, and some others, concerning Mr Jones. _   _If the complaint is upheld, Mr Jones may be asked to acknowledge the statement was wrong and promise not to repeat it. _   _The complaint says the 2GB broadcaster was wrong when he stated human beings produce only 0.001 per cent of carbon dioxide in the air. _   _Several climate scientists have insisted the claim is inaccurate, and the proportion of carbon dioxide in the air today for which human beings are responsible is closer to 28 per cent. They base this on the difference between the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 (about 280 parts per million) and the current concentration of about 390 parts per million.. _   _GetUp! has also alleged Mr Jones contravenes another section of the code of conduct which requires broadcasters to give reasonable opportunities to significant viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance._  _A healthy society would not tolerate the attempt to regulate debates. And the rules in practice discriminate against conservatives, since they tend to believe in free speech, while the Left seems far more minded to close it down. _   _After all, how many conservatives have asked ACMA to demand broadcasters correct the most frequently repeated lie of this debate - that carbon dioxide is carbon? _   _GetUp turns to ShutUp | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

     
The environmental "beliefs" of this cult have been well and truly ridiculed by the facts.  
The economic "beliefs" they have about making the Planet Earth colder and therefore saving the Great Barrier Reef should be certifiable.  
Their only viable tactic now is bullying their opponents into silence.  
That's what all losers do when they know they are losing the debate.  
How long until the book burning begins?    

> *Book burning*, *biblioclasm* or *libricide* is the practice of destroying, often ceremoniously, books or other written material and media. In modern times, other forms of media, such as phonograph records, video tapes, and CDs have also been ceremoniously burned, torched, or shredded. The practice, usually carried out in public, is generally motivated by moral, religious, or political objections to the material.  
>  Some particular cases of book burning are long and traumatically remembered - because the books destroyed were irreplaceable and their loss constituted a severe damage to cultural heritage, and/or because this instance of book burning has become emblematic of a harsh and oppressive regime. Such were the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, the obliteration of the Library of Baghdad, the burning of books and burying of scholars under China's Qin Dynasty, the destruction of Aztec codices by Spanish conquistadors and priests, and the Nazi book burnings of Jewish literature.   Book burning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Dr Freud

> A LEADING business group has attacked the Gillard government for legislating a new, deeper long-term greenhouse gas reduction target without consultation, despite Labor having promised to seek an electoral mandate before doing so.  
>               The Business Council of Australia said it was ''disappointing'' this week's draft carbon tax legislation would lock in a 2050 emissions reduction target of 80 per cent when *Labor promised in 2008 to go to an election and seek a mandate before toughening its target of a 60 per cent reduction.*  
>               The council's deputy chief executive, Maria Tarrant, said the new target had been included in the draft legislation ''without discussion or assessment of the economic impact and what other emitting countries will be doing in over 30 years' time''.   Emissions cut plan for 2050 attacked by business lobby

  Do you remember when we used to live in a democracy?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Jut one of a million entities that wont be compensated, and might have to sack to make up the losses:   _THE new carbon tax will blow out the Hobart City Council budget by more than $1 million and force up rates, says Alderman Jeff Briscoe. _   _Carbon tax will apply to practically everything we buy: electricity for offices and streetlights, fuel for our heavy vehicles, running the tip, everything, he said._  _Its a bit of a shock to us because we havent budgeted for it. Were just hoping that if we put enough pressure on the Federal Government, we can get compensated for it because this will affect every council in Australia._And the climate won’t even notice | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Are you getting the feeling your costs are going to rise *much, much* more than you've been told?  :Cry:  
Are you getting the feeling jobs are going to be shed rather than have businesses going under?  :Cry:  
Did JuLIAR forget to mention that these are your costs rising and your job gone?  :Biggrin:  
And how much colder will the Planet Earth be as a result?  
Surely she wouldn't LIE about this stuff, would you JuLIAR?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

How many times do how many people have to warn against this cult before we listen? 
JuLIAR is Bob Brown's imp doing his greenie bidding, and we'll all pay for it eventually.  :Doh:    

> Its incredible that we should do ourselves so much harm by doing something so useless to fight whats a non-problem anyway:  _ANGLO American chief executive Cynthia Carroll says Julia Gillards carbon tax could lead the miner to favour new coal investments in Colombia over Australia...._  _Ms Carroll said the tax would make the nation less competitive in an industry already facing rising costs around the globe. _   _The problem we face is the significant headwinds on inflation, and input costs, she said If you top that off with something that got put on top with no schedule, no plan, no ability to adjust for it, like the carbon tax, it is very, very difficult and puts us on the back foot as a competitor in the global market._  _Anglo is planning about $US4 billion ($3.6bn) of investment in Australian coal operations over the next five years but has said the carbon tax would cut in half the net present value of these projects _   _But she said the carbon tax could lead it to press the button on Anglos Colombian coal projects at the expense of Australian investment. _   _That is very possible, she said. There is no other country imposing this sort of carbon pricing scheme, so it puts Australia in a difficult competitive position when comparing it to countries that havent taken this position, like the US, like Mozambique, like Mongolia and like Colombia.__So the Government deceives you when it claims the rest of the world is acting, its tax wont hurt, its tax will help stop global warming, global warming is continuing, the science is in that global warming is man-made, global warming is dangerous and the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of action. All of the above is false, yet see what madness is unleashed in its name._  _ Gillard’s tax is Colombia’s gain | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

   
Just remember, Bob Brown has explicitly said time after time that the Greens goal is to shut down the coal industry in Australia.  Pay attention now: In Australia! Not across the entire Planet Earth.  This man is an ideological idiot because he thinks then the Great Barrier Reef will be saved.  :Doh:  
He has brainwashed even people posting in this thread to believe that Australia's emissions only affect what happens to Australia's atmosphere and environment.   :Doh:  
These people are in a cult with lunatic beliefs and we have given them the green light to run our country. Pun intended.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> We all know now that early warmist claims that polar bears were severely endangered by global warming were severely exaggerated. So this is interesting:  _A US Federal wildlife biologist whose observation that polar bears likely drowned in the Arctic helped galvanise the global warming movement seven years ago was placed on administrative leave as officials investigate scientific misconduct allegations._  _Although it wasnt clear what the exact allegations are, a government watchdog group representing Anchorage-based scientist Charles Monnett said investigators have focused on his 2004 journal article about the bears that garnered worldwide attention._Sure did. Heres an example of the poley panic Monnett unleashed:  _SCIENTISTS have for the first time found evidence that polar bears are drowning because climate change is melting the Arctic ice shelf._  _The researchers were startled to find bears having to swim up to 60 miles across open sea to find food. They are being forced into the long voyages because the ice floes from which they feed are melting, becoming smaller and drifting farther apart...._  _According to the new research, four bear carcases were found floating in one month in a single patch of sea off the north coast of Alaska, where average summer temperatures have increased by 2-3C degrees since 1950s._  _The scientists believe such drownings are becoming widespread across the Arctic, an inevitable consequence of the doubling in the past 20 years of the proportion of polar bears having to swim in open seas._  _Mortalities due to offshore swimming may be a relatively important and unaccounted source of natural mortality given the energetic demands placed on individual bears engaged in long-distance swimming, says the research led by Dr Charles Monnett, marine ecologist at the American governments Minerals Management Service. Drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice continues._ But the fame! The money! The influence!    _ 
> Charles Monnett, a wildlife biologist, oversaw much of the scientific work for the government agency that has been examining drilling in the Arctic. He managed about $50m in research projects...._  _ Monnett and a colleague published an article in the science journal Polar Biology, writing: Drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues._  _The paper quickly heightened public concern for the polar bear. Al Gore, citing the paper, used polar bear footage in his film Inconvenient Truth. Campaigners focused on the bears to push George Bush to act on climate change, and in 2008, the government designated the animal a threatened species._  _It was the first animal to be classed as a victim of climate change._From an Inspector General investigators interview of Monnett, this glimpse of the issues and the integrity of peer review: _CHARLES MONNETT:  that right after we saw these bears swimming, this storm came in and caught them offshore, all right? And so if, um, if you assume that the, the, the 36 all were exposed to the storm, and then we went back and we saw tentially 27 of them, that gives you your 25 percent survival rate. Now thats, um, statistically, um, irrelevant. I mean, it, its not statistical. It?s just an argument. Its for, its for the sake of discussion. See, right here, Discussion._  _ERIC MAY: Um-hm [yes]._  _CHARLES MONNETT: Thats what you do in discussions is you throw things out, um, for people to think about. And so what we said is, look, uh, we saw four. We saw a whole bunch swimming, but if you want to compare them, then lets do this little ratio estimator and correct for the percentage of the area surveyed. And just doing that, then there might have been as many as 27 bears out there that were dead. There might have been as many as 36, plus or minus. There could have been 50. I dont know. But the way we were posing it was that its serious, because its not just four. Its probably a lot more. And then we said that with the further assumption, you know, that the bears were exposed or, you know, the ones were measuring later that are carcasses out there, it looks like a lot of them, you know, didnt survive, so  but its, its discussion, guys. I mean, its not in the results. ..._  _ERIC MAY: So combining the three dead polar bears and the four alive bears is a mistake?_  _CHARLES MONNETT: No, its not a mistake. Its just not a, a, a real, uh, rigorous analysis. And a whole bunch of peer reviewers and a journal, you know _  _ERIC MAY: Did they go through  I mean, did they do the calculations as you just did with us?_  _CHARLES MONNETT: Well, I assume they did. Thats their purpose._Warmist scientist investigated over Gore’s polar bear scare | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  This is the type of scientific rigour that JuLIAR is basing this cults giant TAX grab on:   

> _CHARLES MONNETT: No, its not a mistake. Its just not a, a, a real, uh, rigorous analysis. And a whole bunch of peer reviewers and a journal, you know _

  So much for peer review by IPCC climate scientists, huh?  :Doh:  
Our economy is about to be hobbled because these morons don't understand statistics. 
And JuLIAR is so stupid, she doesn't even understand any of this.  :Doh:  :Doh:  :Doh:  
The good news, there's heaps of polar bears!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

JuLIAR has promised 160 millions tonnes of CO2 reduction: 100 in offsets bought from overseas, 20 in direct action measures like the Coalitions policy, and only 40 tonnes in Australia removed by the Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
So here's an interesting question. 
John Howard removed about double the Carbon Dioxide emissions than JuLIAR currently promises to inside Australia, without a Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
How did he do it?   

> *MALCOLM TURNBULL:* Yeah, but Liz it's not a question of what you sign, it's a question of what you do. 
> I mean we are a lot of our critics are full of symbols and slogans, you know, they want to say things and sign things. We're about doing things. The Howard Government is committed to reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions and has done so.  *By 2010 we'll be putting 87 million tonnes less of carbon into the atmosphere than we otherwise would've. That's thanks to the Howard Government's policies.* 
> That's equivalent to eliminating all of the emissions from the entire transport sector.  AM - Turnbull says Govt on track in adapting to climate change

  
And remember this gem from Malcolm, that is the factual logic of any ETS or Carbon Dioxide Tax Policy:    

> *MALCOLM TURNBULL:* Kyoto is a flawed Kyoto One, if you like, is a flawed agreement. Everyone accepts that. You are not going to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions without a global agreement. Kyoto only includes one third of the world's emitters. 
> Now whether we sign Kyoto or not, it is not going to change whether we meet our Kyoto target, because we are going to meet it. We're on track to meet it. *The only thing that will reduce global emissions, that will make a material difference to the to greenhouse gas forcing of global warming, is if there is a global agreement and that requires the world's largest emitter, the United States, to be committed and above all it requires the fastest growing emitters, the big developing countries, in particular China and India.*

  No wonder Malcolm is so upset! 
The fastest growing emitters have ignored this cult, and continue to grow their emissions faster than ever, so Malcolm knows that whatever Australia does or does not do is irrelevant. 
That is why he can't argue for either policy. 
They are both equally useless if you "believe" in the AGW hypothesis cult.  :Doh:  
At least the Coalition's is not economically destructive and can be dropped at a minutes notice.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> New resarch into why the planet hasnt warned this past decade suggests - crazy, I know - that the global warming models may be wrong: _ 
> Data from NASAs Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earths atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to believe._  _The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville._  _The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades._  _In research published this week in the journal Remote Sensing http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf, Spencer and UA Huntsvilles Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011._  _The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show, Spencer said. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans._UPDATE 
>    RMIT University is hosting a lecture on why the global warming models cant be trusted:  _Guest presenter and forecasting expert, Dr Kesten Green, has conducted a systematic analysis of the processes used by those who make forecasts of manmade global warming and found that the processes violated basic scientific procedures_   _Are global warming forecasts scientific? Evidence from a forecasting audit and a validation study_  _Seminar presented by RMIT Universitys School of Economics, Finance and Marketing_  _Presenter: Dr Kesten Green, International Graduate School of Business and Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science, University of South Australia_  _When: 1pm-2pm (preceded by lunch from 12.30pm to 1pm)_  _Where:  RMIT University Building 108, Level 12, Seminar Room 84 (239 Bourke Street, Melbourne) _  _UPDATE_  _Andy Semples presentation, with links, on Carbon Dioxide and the Politics of the Carbon Tax._  _ Planet loses heat, climate models lose credibility | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  _ _ 
The last link is particularly informative if you want perspective on this cult:  http://www.andylsemple.com/userfiles..._July_2011.pdf 
Lots of science on the facts and figures debunking this cult and its green dream schemes too!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

> JuLIAR has promised 160 millions tonnes of CO2 reduction: 100 in offsets bought from overseas, 20 in direct action measures like the Coalitions policy, and only 40 tonnes in Australia removed by the Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
> So here's an interesting question. 
> John Howard removed about double the Carbon Dioxide emissions than JuLIAR currently promises to inside Australia, without a Carbon Dioxide Tax.

  *Speaking of interesting questions...* 
Just what is it that you are arguing?  You have been running an AGW-isn't-happening/real/proven/unnatural/related-to-CO2 line and NOW you are lending support of a former government's CO2 reduction campaign. 
If you are so convinced that AGW isn't real, how come you are supporting CO2 reductions?  It seems that your position on AGW is purely political - who would have guessed!   :Rotfl:

----------


## chrisp

AND speaking of politics, it seems that Tony Abbott's position on AGW is becoming even more untenable.  Firstly, his position on AGW defies science, his direct action plan defies economics ...   

> *British PM backs Gillard over Abbott on carbon                *   JULIA Gillard's bid to impose a carbon tax in Australia has won a  glowing endorsement from British Prime Minister and Conservative Party  leader David Cameron, undercutting a fierce campaign against the scheme  by his conservative ally, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. 
>               Mr Cameron  praised the Australian Prime Minister's  carbon plan as bold, ambitious, and a spur to other nations. In May his  government approved a binding 50 per cent cut to carbon emissions by  2025, while Australia's non-binding target is a 5 per cent cut by 2020. 
> Read more: British PM backs Gillard over Abbott on carbon

----------


## Dr Freud

> What a lot of biased and unsubstantiated opinion and rumour you have been posting.   
> Fancy quoting *Barnaby "Millions, um no, Billions, um no, Trillions, um a number with lots of zero" Joyce* for projections on government spending when Gillard has only been in office one day

  _We mock that which we do not understand._ Obi Wan Kenobi. 
So how has Barnaby's predictions panned out:   

> TONY Abbott's new finance spokesman, Barnaby Joyce, believes the American Government may default on its debt, triggering an ''economic Armageddon'' that will make the recent global financial crisis pale into insignificance. 
> In an interview   with _The Age_, Senator Joyce said he did not want to alarm the public, but there needed to be a debate about Australia's ''contingency plan'' for a sovereign debt default by the US or even by an Australian state government.  
>              ''A default by the US means complete economic collapse around the world and the question we have got to ask ourselves is where are we in that?'' he said.  
>              He said the chances of a US debt default were distant but real, and politicians were not doing the electorate a favour by refusing to acknowledge the risk.  http://www.theage.com.au/national/joyces-armageddon-warning-20091210-km90.html#ixzz1QijWH5OW

  Rest assured you weren't the only ignorant critic of his:   

> Senator Joyce came under attack from several ministers, including Treasurer Wayne Swan, who said he had been elevated ''straight from the reactionary fringe of our economic debate to the second most senior economic policy-making job in the alternative government''. 
> Dr Henry warned then that public figures had to be careful about discussing ''hypotheticals that are that extreme'' because such discussions could be misinterpreted in the community.

  And where are we today:   

> The US government risks a default - with a potential financial catastrophe - in four days that could trigger a global recession if Congress fails to give authorisation on raising the borrowing limit by a Tuesday deadline, Washington time.  Democrats defeat Boehner&#039;s US debt-crisis bill | The Australian

   Maybe we should listen to Barnaby about the economic destruction coming from the Carbon Dioxide Tax as well, huh? 
Or should we just keep trusting Swanny and JuLIAR's lack of economic credibility???  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Speaking of interesting questions...* 
> Just what is it that you are arguing? You have been running an AGW-isn't-happening/real/proven/unnatural/related-to-CO2 line and NOW you are lending support of a former government's CO2 reduction campaign. 
> If you are so convinced that AGW isn't real, how come you are supporting CO2 reductions? It seems that your position on AGW is purely political - who would have guessed!

  If you still do not understand that my position is that the AGW hypothesis is a cult based on false beliefs, then there is obviously a problem with your comprehension. 
I think most people reading my ramblings would at least understand that, even if they don't agree with it.  :Biggrin:  
But to avoid these silly semantic games that is the last desperate tactic of your cult, I still put these comments in occasionally, just to ensure there is no ambiguity of my position, even when describing others positions:   

> They are both equally useless *if you "believe"* in the AGW hypothesis cult.

  My point was that even if you "believe" in this cult (which I obviously DO NOT), neither of these policies would make any difference to your "beliefs" anyway. 
According to the AGW hypothesis cult itself, both of these policies are equally useless, even if you believed that the AGW hypothesis was real, which all empirical scientific evidence indicates that it is not. 
In simple language, the Carbon Dioxide Tax will not make the Planet Earth any colder, even *if* the AGW Hypothesis was real. 
But John Howard achieved similar *USELESS* emissions reductions without an economically destructive Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
Crystal?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

First, don't believe everything you read in the newspapers:   

> In May his government approved *a binding 50 per cent cut* to carbon emissions by 2025, while Australia's non-binding target is a 5 per cent cut by 2020.

  This is binding *IF* the rest of Europe acts as well:   

> But, the prime minister added, Europe has yet to make the same commitment "so there is a review clause in what is being announced in 2014 to make sure that if they are not on that pathway, then we shouldnt put ourselves on it too."  Quotes from The Washington Post - News, photos, topics, and quotes

  But enough of the how, let's look at the why. 
What better way to sneak in 8 new nuclear power reactors, than by painting them in some fanciful green dream scheme to confuse the weak minded. 
Nuclear power stations being greenwashed!  :Biggrin:  
If Cameron just announced he wanted to build nuclear power stations across the UK, then there would have been outrage.  But now, these new reactors are part of the "Clean Energy Future", replacing expensive and useless renewable schemes.    

> *A £30bn scheme to harness green electricity from the Severn Estuary has been scrapped by the Government as it confirms the location of eight new nuclear power plants.*   *The Department of Energy and Climate Change* said there was no strategic case for spending taxpayers' money on the project to harness tidal power with a 10-mile barrage.  It has also paved the way for eight nuclear plants, all of which are near to existing locations.  *Energy Secretary Chris Huhne*said: "I'm fed up with the stand-off between advocates of renewables and of nuclear which means we have neither. 
> His statement was welcomed by the *GMB union*.  
>   "New nuclear power stations are absolutely essential and we need to get on and build them without further delay," national officer Gary Smith said.  
>   "These are very big investments and the financing has to be properly underpinned. Carbon capture and storage and *nuclear are the only real shows in town in terms of supplying the base load for electricity in a carbon-free way.*  
>   "*Other sources have a role but* *they cannot supply the base load* of electricity the UK needs."  Severn Estuary Tidal Power Barrage Scrapped By Decc But New Nuclear Plants Announced | Politics | Sky News

  Now, when JuLIAR shuts down our baseload energy generation, will we have nuclear power stations to replace it?  :No:  
Dumb doesn't even get close to describe JuLIAR. Cameron is using her to push his domestic nuclear agenda and she doesn't even realise it. 
And apparently neither do some Australians:   

> Firstly, his position on AGW defies science,

  Please explain how? 
Last time I checked both policies would achieve 5% CO2 reductions, so both should have the same scientific effect?  Assuming again you believe in all this fantasy?  :Biggrin:  
Or is this just rhetoric built on ignorance again?   

> his direct action plan defies economics ...

  Please explain how? 
You could run a cost-benefit analysis on both policies and then we can compare them? 
Or is this just rhetoric built on ignorance again? 
A warning to all Australian's - DO NOT underestimate the stupidity and LIES of this government!  :Biggrin:

----------


## johnc

> _We mock that which we do not understand._ Obi Wan Kenobi. 
> So how has Barnaby's predictions panned out:     
> Rest assured you weren't the only ignorant critic of his:   
> And where are we today:     Maybe we should listen to Barnaby about the economic destruction coming from the Carbon Dioxide Tax as well, huh? 
> Or should we just keep trusting Swanny and JuLIAR's lack of economic credibility???

  I would hardly call Barnabys rambling and half connected ideas a prediction, those statements were littered with inaccuracies as were his numbers as you well know.

----------


## Marc

John
You are wrong and you know it.
The "purpose" of the so called "carbon" tax is to force down the use of electricity on the (wrong) assumption that CO2 heats up the planet. The purpose is to change behavior. 
All behavior changing taxes originate from an assumption of higher moral ground. "We know what is better for you", and I am sure you also know that this is the calling card of all dictatorship that have ever walked the earth, or resided in the sky.
Attacks on freedom, private property, free market and freedom of speech should be extremely worrying to anyone with a few grams of functioning brain between his ears, EVEN IF THE CLAIM OF CO2 BEING A 'POLLUTANT' IS TRUE, WHICH OF COURSE IT IS NOT. 
But hey...don't get too exited because the tax will either never get off the ground or be shot down so quickly at the next election that the greens will not even be able to utter "vegetarian" and it will be over.

----------


## Marc

> "A NEW carbon cop will be given sweeping powers to enter company premises, compel individuals to give self-incriminating evidence and copy sensitive records under a carbon tax package that will force about 60,000 businesses to pay 6c a litre extra for fuel."   Carbon cop handed tough new powers | The Australian

  Yes, absolutely, what is the surprise? I have been saying this for years. Global warming is a cult comparable to the Spanish inquisition. First set the law, then ramp up the compliance team with "sweeping" power. The religious police is not new and was in force for centuries and still is in the most backward countries.

----------


## Marc

If the tip fees go up and the council wants to charge more rates, I'll start burning my rubbish. A few more grams of CO2 are always helpful for my tomatoes.

----------


## johnc

> John
> You are wrong and you know it.
> The "purpose" of the so called "carbon" tax is to force down the use of electricity on the (wrong) assumption that CO2 heats up the planet. The purpose is to change behavior. 
> All behavior changing taxes originate from an assumption of higher moral ground. "We know what is better for you", and I am sure you also know that this is the calling card of all dictatorship that have ever walked the earth, or resided in the sky.
> Attacks on freedom, private property, free market and freedom of speech should be extremely worrying to anyone with a few grams of functioning brain between his ears, EVEN IF THE CLAIM OF CO2 BEING A 'POLLUTANT' IS TRUE, WHICH OF COURSE IT IS NOT. 
> But hey...don't get too exited because the tax will either never get off the ground or be shot down so quickly at the next election that the greens will not even be able to utter "vegetarian" and it will be over.

  
??????? what on earth are you rabbiting on about, you really should book your self into rehab I think you have lost it this time.

----------


## chrisp

> ??????? what on earth are you rabbiting on about, you really should book your self into rehab I think you have lost it this time.

  I'm pleased someone else had trouble reading Marc's post.  I couldn't work out what he was arguing.  :Confused:

----------


## mcsmart

This is the sort of commentary I like.    Commentary and Update  4th Quarter FY2011
DSC  The Renewable Energy of Choice 
The positive impact of worldwide initiatives to address climate change on the uptake of our DSC technology begs comment from us in this quarterly commentary, in which we also provide as appropriate an update on Dyesol's own activities. 
When Dyesol listed on the Australian Stock Exchange in 2005 the climate change debate was newly emerging and the Federal Government somewhat reactionary in its treatment of a particularly "hot" topic. Rather than explore the climate change hypothesis from a scientific perspective, self-interest quickly surfaced to prevent proactive initiatives by those best positioned to act, government. Sadly, this was in the context of numerous supportive polls and clearly did not reflect the concerns of the electorate. 
The 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference provided even the most cynical with substantial hope for international co-operation in tackling the challenge. Again, the outcome was disappointing - lame emissions targets and failure to reach a common and binding agreement, except for our benefit commitments in Europe. Yet, the optimistic delegates recounted that the debate had significantly progressed - less scaremongering, more reasoned, scientific argument, only failure to agree on whose responsibility it was to clean up the mess (and the Chinese went away with an industrial agenda). 
In 2011, we again witness significant progress. The introduction of a carbon tax is a bold initiative by the Federal Government in a hostile political environment where negativism and engendering fear is the order of the day. Pricing carbon, however, is only the beginning. A policy platform that supports emerging industries is critical in achieving sustainable economic growth. It is these new industries that create employment growth. This is especially relevant during periods of economic uncertainty, where there is evidence that the Australian economy is becoming increasingly skewed towards the cyclical mining industry. At Dyesol, as the world leader in DSC technology, we therefore warmly welcome the actions of the Federal Government and look forward to working with it in creating the platform to promote more balanced economic and responsible environmental behaviour. 
The Merkel government in Germany has also taken action which puts its political mandate at risk. In light of the Fukushima nuclear accident, it has accepted the considerable challenge of nuclear-free energy by 2022 and commensurately expanded its renewable energy targets. In her words, the German Chancellor sees this not as a threat, but as an opportunity. In Wales, Japan and Italy similar actions are emerging and they too reflect the same irrefutable trends: (1) there is a mandate for strong government action and (2) the renewable energy solutions will not necessarily come at unacceptable economic sacrifice. 
This is Dyesol's view and a view clearly shared by the world's leading corporations. Both Tata and Pilkington are industry leaders - recognised for innovation and the longevity of their brands. Yet, they are challenged by the emergence of the carbon economy. They see it not as a threat, however, but as an opportunity to work with multiple partners - innovators, government and industry - to meet common objectives, including the financial expectations of their shareholders. Hence, we take enormous confidence in being so closely aligned to their future economic success. 
In March 2011, Tata made known its intention to progress from pilot line to large-scale manufacture in its collaboration with Dyesol. In June 2011, it presented its outlook - Buildings as Power Stations, a visionary, commercial objective for 2013, capable of transforming the global solar landscape and delivering the promise of grid competitive electricity. Dyesol and its partners are jointly committed to these objectives and are currently adding the necessary financial and human resources to make this happen. Civil work has also commenced at Shotton, Wales to accommodate the significantly expanding manufacturing capacity. 
Elsewhere, the Japanese METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) sponsored establishment of a materials research and development facility to allow close co-operation with Japan's world-class materials companies is taking shape. This will underpin our commitment to next generation technology and improved DSC efficiency and durability. 
Dyesol, thus, took the opportunity to strengthen its balance sheet during the quarter. It announced an institutional placement of A$5.5 million, a share purchase plan (SPP) and the establishment of a structured equity line of credit of up to A$22 million. This funding mix provides certainty, financial flexibility and the prospect of minimal dilution whilst Dyesol navigates the less chartered waters leading it to global commercialisation and ultimate profitability. The challenge is great, but the technology is game-changing and the potential is to rank alongside the great international solar companies. 
In relation to the SPP, the board considers that shareholders will be better positioned to assess the investment opportunity should international markets calm and positive price trends re-establish themselves. Certainly, Dyesol appreciates the importance of its domestic and international retail shareholders, especially as their number and percentage ownership swells in recent months. 
In terms of spend, Dyesol also reports that the reduction and stabilisation predicted in recent quarterly reports is now confirmed. Nett monthly cash burn is now established in a range between A$800,000 and A$900,000. Short-term revenue has also reduced. However, this is a deliberate outcome as the Company becomes more partnership focused and confidently applies its limited resources to projects with the greatest financial potential. As they say, we have a tiger by the tail and our risk management practices are ever alert to any threat to our long-term commercialisation objectives. 
We look forward to keeping you updated with each important and exciting step we take.  
Aaaaah, it warms the cockles of my heart.  Don't ya just love a positive attitude. :2thumbsup:

----------


## Geno62

It is good to see positive articles this third generation solar stuff it is what innovation and evolution is all about. When you look at the U.S. rust belt you can draw all sorts of comparisons about old technologies that couldn't or wouldn't improve and get replaced by more efficient plant elsewhere and contrast it with Silicone Valley and the wealth it generates. The economic future of a country comes down to those who innovate, increase productivity and efficiency  and embrace change, which includes far more efficient use of power and the type of energy consumed in its production.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> First, don't believe everything you read in the newspapers

  Ooooooohhhhhhh..........the hypocrisy.......it hurts thine eyes!!!!!    

> A warning to all Australian's - DO NOT underestimate the stupidity and LIES of any government!

  There.....fixed that for you.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> That was the point that your little semantic distraction again tried to hide.  *Hypocrisy* writ large. 
> Business as usual for AGW hypothesis supporters.

  
Sadly.....I wasn't trying to hide anything.....there's nothing worth hiding.  Like most of your windbaggery.....you and your rants here typically have all the significance of a fart in a jar. As do my responses..... 
However, I am here merely to entertain (being informative is something I've given up on) ....and your eleventyhundreth post represented an opportunity to do just that. 
As for hypocrisy.......I still feel the need to bow to the Freudian Master and his Acolytes of Truthiness on that front.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> If this tax which JuLIAR has decided is good for us, gets in she will be able to say

  I never realised that a carbon price was so flammable.....or is it that it may make some incredibly self absorbed baby boomers spontaneously combust in their own homes with imbecilic rage?  If that's the case, Ashore, then you'd best be checking you're covered for that on your insurance policy....

----------


## mcsmart

[QUOTE=SilentButDeadly;850874]However, I am here merely to entertain [QUOTE] 
Halelujah baby, I'm getting entertained. Damn good sport what....!

----------


## mcsmart

Here is another on...go you good thing.  I thought I should colour it green..... How is the foresight of our Indonesian brothers.  Bless them.  *12 July 2011 ASX ANNOUNCEMENTPanax Welcomes Clean Energy Incentives*Panax Geothermal Limited (Panax) welcomes the Federal Governments carbon tax scheme and commitment to provide $13.2 billion in funding to the renewable energy industry. The funding will be provided through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency to foster development of renewable energy in Australia. These initiatives are needed to drive the necessary further investment in geothermal technology, Managing Director Kerry Parker said. Geothermal is the only renewable energy capable of providing zero emission, base-load power with the capacity to replace fossil fuels. With the introduction of a price on carbon there is great potential for large-scale commercial renewable energy development. Geothermal energy has the capability to provide a significant portion of these base-load renewable energy requirements, he said. We look forward to seeing how the funds are distributed, as the right investment into geothermal energy will mean a big step forward in cutting Australias emissions and working towards a sustainable future. The carbon pricing and clean energy funding initiatives represent the single most significant government assistance package for renewable energy, and for the geothermal sector. Panax has two projects underway in Australia, located in the Otway Basin in South Australia and Great Artesian Basin in Central Australia. We are well placed to take advantage of the funding to invest further into our Australian projects, Mr Parker said. Our Penola geothermal project would particularly benefit from this funding as its directly positioned under the national electricity transmission grid, he said. Panax has recently expanded operations internationally, securing four projects with 160 megawatts potential generating capacity in Indonesia. Its success in the international market can be attributed to the carbon strategy implemented by the Indonesian Government which guarantees a feed-in tariff of US$97 per megawatt hour, plus carbon credits  providing investment certainty for renewable energy projects that hasnt previously been provided in Australia.Kerry Parker*Managing Director*

----------


## mcsmart

:Thumbdown:  
I don't know the history of this photo but my guess is it is from a disaster and people might have died, lost family, precious belongings, pets and even lesser things. Like losing houses, the common thread I would like to think between all of us. Look at the wrought iron bedhead, possibly generational history. And that house was likely renovated in "country kitchen"manner. I sincerely hope they are ok. 
It is healthy that people have passion about political debate but please be considerate and show respect to those that have lost, what is most likely, a lot.

----------


## Marc

> I don't know the history of this photo but my guess is...

  _"And in a gutless act of political correctness, 'Pizza Day' will now be known as 'Italian-American Sauced Bread Day.'"_

----------


## Marc

I think that since we find fit to tax tobacco, alcohol, speed and CO2 emissions, we should think seriously in taxing other equally damaging behaviors. 
I propose to tax the immoral, the obese, the unorthodox religious and the left handed. All place a burden on society and should be taxed for it. 
The best part of the above taxes is of course the compliance police.

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc

*http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=...climate-change 
The Immorality Of Climate Change* 
                                                 Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 14:01          After  decades of trying to argue the case for catastrophic human caused  climate change, aka global warming, based on its scientific merits, AGW  proponents are now shifting their focus to a more abstract argument.  Instead of trying to establish a causal relationship between human CO2  emissions and the planet's modest warming trend, the new tactic is to  re-brand global warming as a moral dilemma. Because the perceived  problem is global in scope and the science so tentative, the result of  the  debate so far has been distributed blame and  inequitable impact on  the world's poor. According to a new book, this leads to a kind of  moral corruption where we let ourselves be persuaded by weak or  deceptive arguments, with disastrous consequences for our ability to act  on climate change. Can not acting in response to wild speculation based  on incomplete science be immoral? Can actions based on a lie be moral?
  In _A Perfect Moral Storm_,  University of Washington philosopher Stephen Gardiner argues that the  deepest challenge posed by climate change is an ethical one. The book  contends that part of the reason why progress in addressing climate  change has been so dismal is that climate change constitutes the  confluence of three separate “storms”: the global nature of the problem,  its intergenerational timescale on which climate change takes place,  and the inadequacy of current theoretical models (note that the models  here are in the realm of cost-benefit analysis, not climate modeling).  The combination of these elements prevents us from making ethical  decisions about climate change. In a draft paper, which appears to have been the basis for the book, the author makes the case for his base argument._At the most general level, the reason  is that we cannot get very far in discussing why climate change is a  problem without invoking ethical considerations. If we do not think that  our own actions are open to moral assessment, or that various interests  (our own, those of our kin and country, those of distant people, future  people, animals and nature) matter, then it is hard to see why climate  change (or much else) poses a problem. But once we see this, then we  appear to need some account of moral responsibility, morally important  interests, and what to do about both. And this puts us squarely in the  domain of ethics._ Ignoring the use of the now hackneyed term “perfect  storm,” Gardiner does make a number of specific points worth  considering. For example: climate change does not respect national  boundaries,  rich countries are loath to pay for high levels of  emissions in the past, and poor countries are much more vulnerable to  the impacts of climate change than the rich. This, of course, is the  basis for the expansion of the “victim culture” to an international  level, where rich countries are targeted by poor counties with demands  for “reparations” for damages that have not yet occurred. It also backs  the contention that rich countries who have cleaned up their greenhouse  gas emissions are not off the hook for their past actions.
  Noting that the temporal scale of climate change  causes the most moral detachment, Gardiner states that passing the buck  from one generation to the next is the most difficult aspect of climate  change ethics. More simply put, because the claimed impact of GHG  emissions will only be realized decades if not centuries from today, the  easy way out is to just deny the problem. The warmist rebuttal to the  do nothing approach is that the cost in the future will be so horrendous  that future generations will curse our names forever. But this is not  necessarily based on sound analysis either.
  In a review of the book by Jeremy Moss, published in the  June 17, 2011 issue of _Science_, Gardiner's critique of such analysis is summarized. Here is Moss' evaluation of Gardiner's guiding principles:_According to Gardiner, not only are  our institutions and moral theories unable to cope with the challenge of  climate change, many of our general theoretical tools are inadequate as  well. Indeed, he proposes that if a theory or institution fails to  address a serious global threat, then it should be judged inadequate and  must be rejected. Too many theories exhibit the vices of being  oblivious to or complicit in problems. Utilitarianism and cost-benefit  analysis come in for particular criticism here._ Supposedly, this all leads to a kind of moral  corruption where we let ourselves be persuaded by weak or deceptive  arguments, with disastrous consequences for our ability to act on  climate change. In order to rectify this situation, we must determine  how to distribute the impacts of climate change fairly and how to weigh  present-day sacrifices against future benefits. This all sounds well and  good, but the entire analysis is moot if global warming is fictitious, a  figment of over heated scientific imaginations.
  If the global warming/climate change/planetary  boundaries scare turns out to be just the latest example of bad science  being used to manufacture a convenient crisis, what are the ethical  ramifications of acting in haste? Is it moral for the current generation  to damage global economic growth over a bogus calamity? Is it moral for the dreams and aspirations of the poor to be denied as a precaution?  It is astounding how sure climate ethicists are that they are right and  all others are wrong. Such moral certitude is only found in  philosophers—scientists, at least real scientists, know better. This is not Gardiner's first publication in the field of climate change ethics. He served as an editor for _Climate Ethics_,  billed as a collection of seminal papers from the emerging area of  ethics and climate change.  The topics covered in that volume include  human rights, international justice, intergenerational ethics,  individual responsibility, climate economics, and the ethics of geoengineering.   The product description for the book claims it to be of interest to  all those concerned with global justice, environmental science and  policy, and the future of humanity. These are codewords for the  transnational progressive agenda, a basket full of socialist and  anarchist ideas being promoted by muzzy headed academics who speculate  about justice from the comfort of their ivory towers. 
  From this one can conclude that Dr. Gardiner is not a  neutral party in the global warming debate, or on matters of  international and global justice. Gardiner is but another left leaning  philosopher who, after assuming that the horrors of climate change are  real and scientifically proven,  has moved on to moralizing about the fundamental immorality of rich  western nations. Upon reflection, the use of the term “ethical tragedy”  in the new book's title should have been a tip off.
  If the fluctuation in global temperatures seen over the past century is not being directly caused by human CO2  emissions, then there are no future benefits to be weighed against  taking action today. If the changes we see are merely the normal  progression of the current interglacial cycle, distributing the blame  for global warming becomes a witch hunt, with poor nations demanding  support from the rich based on a false premise. Returning to the  conference paper on which the book was based, Gardiner arrives at the  following conclusion:_In conclusion, the presence of the  problem of moral corruption reveals another sense in which climate  change may be a perfect moral storm. This is that its complexity may  turn out to be perfectly convenient for us, the current generation, and  indeed for each successor generation as it comes to occupy our position.  For one thing, it provides each generation with the cover under which  it can seem to be taking the issue seriously – by negotiating weak and  largely substanceless global accords, for example, and then heralding  them as great achievements - when really it is simply exploiting its  temporal position._ Because the science behind climate change is too  complex for most people to understand so laziness leads to inaction and  that becomes moral corruption. Deniers are condemning future generations  to climate change hell. This is nothing more than a backdoor assertion  of an old argument—that the future result of today's inaction could be  so horrendous that doing nothing is unthinkable. In reality, this is a  logical fallacy and the product of intellectual dishonesty.
  The unfortunate result of Gardiner's ethical analysis  will be a rash of warmists taking an intellectual shortcut directly to  “global warming is immoral.” And that immorality will become a debate  ending, irrefutable argument in their eyes—not “solving” global warming  is immoral so all climate change skeptics are immoral scoundrels. From  there it is only a quick, disingenuous jump to calling people climate  criminals and issuing demands for trials.   As well reasoned Gardiner's work might appear, it is  based on a false assumption, or at least a premature one—the assumption  that we really know what is going to happen to Earth's climate in the  future. Until the actual science behind climate change is placed on a  firmer footing, such analysis amounts to nothing more that intellectual  onanism. Making ethical judgments about hypothetical outcomes as an  academic exercise is one thing, using those same arguments to force  social and economic policy changes is something else. That something has  an ethical dimension as well—it is called lying.
  Professor Gardiner's ethical system does not pass  skeptical examination. No matter how well reasoned or cleverly argued, a  moral case cannot be built upon a lie. A course of action cannot be  honestly recommended when the foundation on which it rests, the theory  of anthropogenic global warming, is itself fundamentally flawed.   All the moral posturing and ethical pronouncements in the world cannot  alter the fact that global warming is not good science.
  Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I would hardly call Barnabys rambling and half connected ideas a prediction, those statements were littered with inaccuracies as were his numbers as you well know.

  So you believe these predictions are inaccurate:   

> *Barnaby Joyce - 2009* 
> TONY Abbott's new finance spokesman, Barnaby Joyce, believes the American Government may default on its debt, triggering an ''economic Armageddon'' that will make the recent global financial crisis pale into insignificance.  In an interview   with _The Age_, Senator Joyce said he did not want to alarm the public, but there needed to be a debate about Australia's ''contingency plan'' for a sovereign debt default by the US or even by an Australian state government. *
> Reality - 2011* 
> The US government risks a default - with a potential financial catastrophe - in four days that could trigger a global recession if Congress fails to give authorisation on raising the borrowing limit by a Tuesday deadline, Washington time.

  Yet you believe predictions like these are accurate:   

> *Tim Flannery - 2005* 
> In 2005, Flannery predicted SydneyÂs dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city Âfacing extreme difficulties with waterÂ.   *Reality - 2011*  *Dam levels*  *78.2%*  *+ 1.8**%* change at 3pm Thursday, 28 July 2011.
>   At 3pm Thursday, 28 July 2011, the available storage in Sydney's water supply reservoirs was 78.2 percent. This is a + 1.8 percent change in the last week.

  Time to cash in your reality check.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

It's great to have some optimists aboard.  :Biggrin:  
But in order to avoid any starry eyed navel gazing taking hold, you don't mind if I add some mcreality to your story:   

> This is the sort of commentary I like.

  Why? Are you a disgruntled shareholder looking to offload stock at the next bounce.  This dodgy PR piece sounds like a company bleeding cash looking for new (naive) investors to pour good money after bad. 
Here's a one year snapshot:    
And a five year lest I be accused of cherry picking:   
Gee whiz, it peaked well around the frenzied time in 2007 when "An Inconvenient Truth" was released?  :Biggrin:  
Then the reality check came in the mail. 
I can't be bothered doing all the green dream scheme poetry, but here's a few quick translations:   

> Dyesol, thus, took the opportunity to strengthen its balance sheet during the quarter. It announced an *institutional placement* of A$5.5 million, a *share purchase plan* (SPP) and the establishment of a *structured equity line of credit of up to A$22 million.* This funding mix provides certainty, financial flexibility and the prospect of minimal dilution whilst Dyesol navigates the less chartered waters *leading it to global commercialisation and ultimate profitability*. The challenge is great, but the technology is game-changing and the *potential* is to rank alongside the great international solar companies.

   

> institutional placement

  This means: We need more money and are likely taking hard working Aussies super funds to be directed to these untested schemes without proper oversight by fund managers wanting to sell their "green" credentials.    

> share purchase plan

  This means: You're losing money in capital growth terms, now you're guaranteed not to get any dividends either.   

> structured equity line of credit of up to A$22 million.

  This means: Well, come on now, given Obama's and JuLIAR's racking up of their debt, we should all be very familiar with this euphemism.   

> leading it to global commercialisation and ultimate profitability

  This means: We're existing on investor cash and government subsidies while we constantly lose money hand over fist.  But soon hopefully we will actually make some money.   

> potential

  Little Johnny comes home and says to his dad that he has to figure out the difference between "potential" and "reality" as his homework. 
His dad says that's easy Johnny, just go ask your mum, your sister and your brother if any one of them would have sex with the postman for a million dollars? 
Johnny then goes and asks his mum, sister and brother, then returns to his dad and says that all three said they would have sex with the postman for a million dollars. 
His dad then says his homework is finished, so Johhny asks how. 
His dad says to Johhny, the difference is that "potentially" we have three millionaires in the family, but in reality we have three very expensive prostitutes.  :Biggrin:  
I'll stick with reality.   

> Aaaaah, it warms the cockles of my heart.  Don't ya just love a positive attitude.

  Surely do.  I'm positive this AGW hypothesis farce is a crock!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It is good to see positive articles this third generation solar stuff

  Sorry mate, as if all the rain we're having is not bad enough, now it looks like reality is raining on this "solar stuff" parade too.  :Frown:  
But hey, as soon as we have affordable baseload solar energy, count me in.  :2thumbsup:  
Go long on spaced based solar is my hot tip.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It's great to have some optimists aboard.  
> But in order to avoid any starry eyed navel gazing taking hold, you don't mind if I add some mcreality to your story:   
> Why? Are you a disgruntled shareholder looking to offload stock at the next bounce.  This dodgy PR piece sounds like a company bleeding cash looking for new (naive) investors to pour good money after bad. 
> Here's a one year snapshot:    
> And a five year lest I be accused of cherry picking:   
> Gee whiz, it peaked well around the frenzied time in 2007 when "An Inconvenient Truth" was released?  
> Then the reality check came in the mail. 
> I can't be bothered doing all the green dream scheme poetry, but here's a few quick translations:     
> This means: We need more money and are likely taking hard working Aussies super funds to be directed to these untested schemes without proper oversight by fund managers wanting to sell their "green" credentials.    
> ...

  Nice post Doc very nice indeed.

----------


## mcsmart

> The economic future of a country comes down to those who innovate, increase productivity and efficiency and embrace change, which includes far more efficient use of power and the type of energy consumed in its production.

  "But hey, as soon as we have affordable baseload solar energy, count me in.  :2thumbsup: " Quote Dr. Freud 
There are those that dare to dream and make The World a better place. And there are those that will ride on the hard work of others. Enjoy the ride.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Ooooooohhhhhhh..........the hypocrisy.......it hurts thine eyes!!!!!

  What hypocrisy, did you not read this, or did you not believe it?  :Wink 1:    

> I don't believe everything I read, I just cut and paste it.  
> But I have to go clean the house now, the boss is looking angry.  
> Coming dear...Yes dear...(She's a gem really).

     

> There.....fixed that for you.

  So you hold JuLIAR on par with Curtin or Chifley on the stated criteria then?  :Doh:  
It's not a question of the presence, but the propensity and persistence of these traits.

----------


## mcsmart

These are the top 200 companies in the country, no need to explain how big some of them are, or is there? Looks to have a similar profile to the ones shown up the page a bit. 
A large percentage of them went to the shareholders and raised equity (begged) too, during the GFC and at other times as well.
Isolate a few of these out and they look a hell of a lot worse, some have done better. 
Oh...gee wiz they all peaked at 2007....what an inconvenient truth!
Nice try Dr., very nice indeed :Doh:   Got your self a nice little puppy there.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Here is another on...go you good thing. I thought I should colour it green..... How is the foresight of our Indonesian brothers. Bless them.

  Yeh, greenwashing is the new brainwashing.  :Biggrin:  
But let's check out this second lady of the night, then I can provide the third to close this little menage a trois. 
A 6 month look:    
A 5 year look:    

> No dividends have been found for the security PAX. This is likely to be because  	a dividend has not been announced to the ASX by this company during the specified timeframe or  	a dividend has been announced but is not yet available on this website.

  Cool huh, declining value and no returns on investment. If the technology was sound, it may be worth it, but we'll check on this in a minute.   

> Panax Geothermal Limited (ÂPanaxÂ) *welcomes* the Federal GovernmentÂs carbon tax scheme and commitment to provide $13.2 billion in funding to the renewable energy industry.

  I'd welcome it too if it was coming to me.  :Doh:  
Problem is it's coming *from* me and all taxpayers.  :Annoyed:    

> The funding *will be provided* through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency to foster development of renewable energy in Australia.

  *will be provided* *by taxpayers!!!**  * Euphemisms and dummy corporations aren't fooling us taxpayers, or are they???  :Confused:    

> With the introduction of a price on carbon there is great *potential* for large-scale commercial renewable energy development.

  Potential or prostitute, depends on if you prefer reality I guess.  :Biggrin:  
But let's check out the oldest trade in the world done by a real pro next.

----------


## Dr Freud

Tina Turner couldn't have said it better:  Private Dancer Lyrics - Tina Turner   

> Tim Flannery on his new green dream of geothermal power:   _There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run AustraliaÂs economy for the best part of a century. They are not being fully exploited yet but the technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward._How straightforward? Judge by whatÂs happened to the Flannery investment in that very area of South Australia:  _GEODYNAMICS has provided an update on the safety situation after an well explosion on 24 April 2009 at its Habanero 3 well site at its Innamincka Joint Venture project in South Australia._ And then:  _An investigation into the explosion has found that chemicals in the well reacted with steel amid fluctuating temperatures to cause damage to the wellÂs casingÂ Brisbane-based Geodynamics has had to plug the well and two others with concrete. It said the implications for future well design and material selection are ÂcomplexÂ._Odd that Flannery didnÂt mention any of these woes - or his investment - when spruiking the technology on Radio National this month. (UPDATE: wrong link now replaced.) 
>   And now even more news of this ÂstraightforwardÂ technology:  _The company in charge of a California project to extract vast amounts of renewable energy from deep, hot bedrock has removed its drill rig and informed federal officials that the government project will be abandonedÂ The project by the company, AltaRock Energy, was the Obama administrationÂs first major test of geothermal energyÂ_  _The projectÂs apparent collapse comes a day after Swiss government officials permanently shut down a similar project in Basel, because of the damaging earthquakes it produced in 2006 and 2007. Taken together, the two setbacks could change the direction of the Obama administrationÂs geothermal program, which had raised hopes that the earthÂs bedrock could be quickly tapped as a clean and almost limitless energy sourceÂ_  _Geothermal enthusiasts asserted that drilling miles into hard rock, as required by the technique, could be done quickly and economically with small improvements in existing methods, Professor Schrag said. ÂWhat weÂve discovered is that itÂs harder to make those improvements than some people believed,Â he added._  _In fact, AltaRock immediately ran into snags with its drilling, repeatedly snapping off bits in shallow formations called caprock.._Yet green spruikers such as Flannery managed to lure certain dupes into investing millions in this dream:  _Geodynamics won a A$90 million grant from AustraliaÂs Renewable Energy Demonstration Program_Your cash, down a green hole in the ground | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  And a recent update:   

> Thursday,  June 30, 2011 at 01:26pm                    
>   In November 2009,   the Rudd Government gave Geodynamics $90 million towards building a green power plant using hot-rocks technology. 
>   ItÂs been downhill all the way ever since. 
>   Perhaps you could understand Rudd handing out such a huge grant, given that now Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery - a Geodynamics shareholder - swore the technology was a doddle:  _In 2007, he warned that Âthe social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globallyÂ by governments worried by the warming allegedly caused by burning the stuff._  _We should switch to ÂgreenÂ power instead, said Flannery, who recommended geothermal - pumping water on to hot rocks deep underground to create steam._  _ÂThere are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run AustraliaÂs economy for the best part of a century,Â he said._  _ÂThe technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward.Â_One more green scheme in strife. One more example of Labor waste. One more example of the dangers of governments picking winners. 
>   Oh, and one more reminder of the insantity of trying to phase out coal-fired power before proper alternatives even exist.  Geodynamics assures shareholders itÂs got cash and a plan.   Flannery’s green investment in deep strife | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  
"Potentially" three millionaires, in reality...you decide.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> "But hey, as soon as we have affordable baseload solar energy, count me in. " Quote Dr. Freud

  Thanks, I'm honoured.   :Trumpet:    

> There are those that dare to dream and make The World a better place.

  And there are those that wipe the sleep out of their eyes and actually do the making.  Daydream Believer Lyrics - Monkees 
I don't know if you've been keeping up with current affairs recently, but there's been a lot of very expensive dreaming and not a lot of making anything even useful, let alone "better".  :Wink 1:    

> To achieve its new 2050 carbon emissions reduction target, *the government will help bankroll $100bn* worth of investment in new renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal power.  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226091934416

  *Us taxpayers will help bankroll $100bn*...    

> And there are those that will ride on the hard work of others.

  Damn greenie socialists riding on the hard work of all taxpayers, I'm glad you're on to their caper as well.  :2thumbsup:    

> Enjoy the ride.

  Loving it so far, we've made remarkable gains in the last few hundred thousand years. 
If we can just get rid of these technophobic greenies, our utopian future is assured.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Once again you AGW hypothesis supporters believe that trend lines running together indicates causation:   

> These are the top 200 companies in the country, no need to explain how big some of them are, or is there? Looks to have a similar profile to the ones shown up the page a bit.

  It's a very good thing you've noted how big these companies are because these companies actually make and sell things of value. 
Now let's compare that to the three prostitutes who "potentially" are millionaires, unlike these real millionaires in the ASX200.  Are the three prostitutes running a viable independent profitable business like the real millionaires above?  Or do they constantly have to find their next "trick" or handout from government. 
The GFC no doubt affected many businesses, both profitable and non-profitable alike, but the non-profitable and non-viable businesses like these three would be long gone without the constant taxpayer handouts coming their way. 
We do not provide subsidies to keep Coca-Cola, the big four banks, Woolworths, or any of these other ASX200 companies running, but we have been for the prostitutes.  Once again, like all "believers" in this cause you conveniently ignore all the subsidies being directed to these lost causes and just "pretend" it's the real thing :Biggrin: .  Pretend all you want champ, once we taxpayers stop paying, they'll stop playing (not speaking from experience).  :Biggrin:  
As for the similar profile, I'll dig up some trend analysis charts I ran some way back to show how easy it is to mistake trends analysis for reality, let alone when these companies data are skewed toward the trend by subsidies.  :Doh:   

> A large percentage of them went to the shareholders and raised equity (begged) too, during the GFC and at other times as well.

  That's right, and investors willingly place their money is these companies because they are established and selling viable commodities.  Are you really trying to compare the ASX200 to speculative R&D ventures subsidised by us taxpayers?   

> Isolate a few of these out and they look a hell of a lot worse, some have done better.

  That's why you don't compare apples and oranges in investments, and you certainly don't compare trend analysis lines when comparing companies.  This is below the level of technical analysis, which itself is little better than crystal ball gazing.  You obviously have not read any of Buffett's work on investment valuation.  :Biggrin:    

> Oh...gee wiz they all peaked at 2007....what an inconvenient truth!

  Like I said, the market recovery after the GFC has not been real for the ASX200, and should have been flatter initially (u-shaped) and building higher by now driven by real market forces.  Unfortunately Rudd/JuLIAR intervened and over stimulated, leading to interest rates rising too high too soon, leading to our current economic stagnation, soon to be stagflation.  These prostitute companies are milking us taxpayers during this green dream scheme phase of government to follow these trends, but it is an illusion based on subsidies and government mismanagement.   

> Nice try Dr., very nice indeed  Got your self a nice little puppy there.

  And there's plenty of kicking left too.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

This is why we don't rely on lining up lines in charts to "prove" anything in science. 
In investing, we also look to the fundamentals in companies to assess their worth, as opposed to their "potential" as promised in their PR statements.   

> Consider this a light-hearted look at trend analysis. Please don't take it seriously as it's just for laughs. Seriously, I made it all up, don't go doing anything crazy while I'm away.  
> You see, I've been analysing a few trends, and I've figured out the real reason for the recent global warming is profits made from selling bicycles. Yes that's right, selling bicycles has been driving the economic engine of the modern economy, and the increased cycling has increased the spin rate of the planet, leading to increased atmospheric friction with the planets surface causing the warming. Sounds crazy I know, but go with me on this. 
> After looking at this chart:   Originally Posted by *SilentButDeadly*         
>  I realised that all the warming was acually being caused by the population growth in the developing world, and not by us industrialised nations, as evidenced by this growth trend graph:    
> Now your obvious question is, but we have the industry, how can they be driving the temperature up? Well, they don't have as many cars as we do, so they ride bicycles. These bicycles are one person per unit on poorly maintained roads, so create more friction on the planet than our industrialised mass transit networks, leading to faster global rotation and more atmospheric heat. Now you know why there's not as much time in the day as there used to be. 
> Here's the commensurate bicycle increases to prove it.   
> See how inustrial populations and cars are flatter growth, but third world populations and bicycles match almost exactly to the temperature increases. But you might ask "What about the CO2 levels?". Well, don't you breathe harder when you ride a bike. Imagine this times a few billion, it's just a byproduct of all that bicycle riding. Now you might ask, "How can we allow this to continue?". Because we industrialised nations have made lots of money producing and selling the bicycles of course. Here's the proof:   
> The good news is, you can see bicycle sales have steadied since the mid-1980's. ( I reckon this is due to people in developing countries double-dinkying on the handlebars, kinda like we car-pool). You can see how in just a few years, the planet spin rate slowed and temperatures have steadied since the mid-1990's (you can't ride as fast either with someone on the handlebars). You can also see that after a decade or two, this reduced sales data flowed back into the financial markets leading to a steadying of the markets. 
> I call this AGW Theory, or Anthropogenic Global Wheeling Theory! The data above proves me right. I am designing a Climate Pedal Reduction Scheme (CPRS) to reverse this pedalling and warming connection. Mock me at your peril.  
> Behold the face of evil.

  Like I said above, to try and compare your green dream schemes or "prostitutes" based on their subsidised mimicry of real markets (notwithstanding the stimulus fiasco) is nonsensical.  :Doh:  
Next thing I know you'll be posting a chart with CO2 and temperature rising together between 1975 and 1995 and trying to make me "believe" they are linked too.   
Actually, they do correlate quite well after 1970.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Can you imagine this ever succeeding? 
Would you believe a British conservative leader could so easily brainwash left wing greenies to sing their praises and actually encourage them to expand nuclear power reactors across the country?   

> While Baroness Thatcher was at the forefront of Britain's moves to set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Lord Lawson said her motivation was to challenge the coalmining union and at the same raise support for nuclear power as a clean energy replacement for coal.  David Cameron climate support &#039;misplaced&#039;, says Nigel Lawson | The Australian

  Surely today's greenies are much too smart (or mcsmart  :Biggrin: ) for this kind of trickery, and would be outraged if David Cameron tried to greenwash the people and greenwash nuclear reactors.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

These farcical stories (and the ministers peddling them) are now openly ridiculed in public:   

> Is ABC_ Q&A_ host Tony Jones really so moronic, or just suffering from a severe attack of cattiness?  _BRENDAN ONEILL:_  _...  the idea that certain word and certain images give rise to violence in the real world and theres a real censorious impulse behind that ideological hijacking of the Norway massacre, where effectively what these people are saying is that if we have too much heated commentary, particularly from the right, people will die. You know, if Andrew Bolt continues publishing articles, people will die. This is the moral_  _TONY JONES: _  _Only if they read them._And what kind of shameless and unprincipled fear-monger is Social Inclusion Minister Tanya Plibersek?    _TANYA PLIBERSEK: ... and the average payment is around $10.10 a week. You said theres no help for small business. In fact, were raising the instant write-off to six and a half thousand dollars and theres a number of programs in there that help small businesses, particularly energy inefficient ones, change the way they do business to help them become more energy efficient. The thing that we need to remember about the reason for doing this is that there is a serious threat to our economy and a serious threat to our environment of not acting. In environmental terms were looking at losing the Great Barrier Reef, losing Kakadu National Park, losing the ability to feed ourselves because our _  _PETER DUTTON: To feed ourselves? _  _TANYA PLIBERSEK: ...our - our fruit and vegetable growing areas_  _BRENDAN ONEILL: This is the politics of fear. This is the politics of fear._  _PETER DUTTON: Taking it - taking it to a new level._  _BRENDAN ONEILL: If you dont support our policies, we will die and starve and the Barrier reef will disappear? Its the politics of fear._  _TANYA PLIBERSEK: Actually, its called_  _BRENDAN ONEILL: Its the politics of fear._  _TANYA PLIBERSEK: Its called scientific consensus_  _BRENDAN ONEILL: Right. Okay, yeah. _  _TANYA PLIBERSEK: ...that there are effects of global warming that affect our environment and affect our fruit and vegetable growing areas. But theres also_  _PETER DUTTON: See, you do your cause - you do your cause a disservice with this extreme view. Thats the problem, Tanya._  _TANYA PLIBERSEK: Thats not extreme view. Thats a scientific view_  _PETER DUTTON: What that were not going to be able to feed ourselves? _  _TANYA PLIBERSEK: ...that if we lose our productive farmland it gets harder to feed ourselves, Peter, and there is also a very good economic reason for doing this. _ _The Left makes itself more ridiculous by the day._  _ Q&A: smear and the politics of fear | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

    
If we don't pay JuLIAR higher taxes to make the Planet Earth colder, then we'll all starve to death. Will the heat kill us before the starvation?  :Doh:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So you hold JuLIAR on par with Curtin or Chifley on the stated criteria then?

  Of course.   Which part of 'all' suggested otherwise to you?

----------


## Marc

* The Green Energy Scam (again)*     
 									 						Posted by jsanzone (Profile)											
 					 						Monday, April 5th at 1:15PM EDT					
 No Comments				 				
 			 				 					I’m sure that you’re not all tree-huggers like I am, but we all  agree on the basics: global warming is a scam, the modern  environmentalist movement is a political movement, “justice” means the  erasure of any and all basic American principles, and…anything the  government subsidizes ought to be examined with extreme scrutiny. *This is basically* a ping, retweet, response, or +1 to Vladimir’s post “Big Bird Learns It’s Not Easy Being Green”  which features a video of a vulture colliding with an  electricity-generating windmill. The lesson is that these things are far  from green.
 Public acceptance of proven energy sources (coal, oil, nuclear) is  being replaced by this calamitous stumble-all-over-yourself “green  energy” movement. And “green energy” has come to trump biodiversity,  conservation, and spatial ecology (not to mention common sense). Brazil,  for example, is praised for its non-dependence on oil, even if that  means that it’s clearing its forests at a rate I won’t even begin to  describe, to *grow* fuel–and that’s just the start of it.
 Rooftop solar panels offer promising technology, but large-scale  reflector plants almost always wind up in the most sensitive wildlife  habitats, contributing piddly amounts of energy to ‘the grid’ at a  whacked-out, way out of proportion cost-benefit ratio. Windmills require  vast amounts of cleared land to twirl (on the good days, in the good  seasons), and are responsible for countless bird and bat deaths, often  affecting the larger and more endangered species. The Cretan vulture in  Vladimir’s post is one perfect example.
 ‘Super clever’ ideas like wave-powered electricity (ocean waves, that  is) would be abhorrently destructive of marine wildlife, obstructing  migration routes and marine mammal communication–and that’s the least of  it. You want sterile, shark free coasts? Wave harvesters might just be  your technology.
 And did I mention biofuels? Ethanol, anyone? It’s shaping up to be a  bigger disaster than the cash crop system, and if we continue on this  10% business, or God forbid, make it twenty, forests will fall and food  prices will rise into the prohibitively expensive zone, particularly for  those living on “less than $1 a day.”
 The point is that “green fuels” are anything but, at best responsible  for negligible emissions reduction from automobile tailpipes. Windmills  are horribly destructive to wildlife and wild places, already  responsible (in their mission to achieve .25% of total electricity  production in the United States) for permanently stripping mountainsides  to create the open space, roads, and infrastructure required to  maintain them and transport their energy. Solar farms have much the same  record.
 It’s inconceivable that many of these environmental groups that are  (rightfully) standing up against a lot of these permanently and  continuously destructive projects are _clamoring so_ for that  day, a hundred years from now, when a few less puffs of steam might  expire from the smokestacks of a coal plant, that they’re still willing  to favor and push for the giant, sharp-edged noisemakers, open-air  incinerators, and submarine meat grinders.
 Sorry, RedState. I’m a greenie. I believe God created the earth and  all its species, big, small, and microscopic, and that moderation and  careful and conscious use of resources and space is virtuous and right.  And I believe that biodiversity is a worthy end goal, not just a(n  unlikely) potential side effect if 7 billion humans manage to “come  together” to “defeat climate change.”
 So we might diverge a bit on the ends, but let’s at least come  together to decry the means. The United States, for at least a century,  has had the best environmental record in the world. Let’s keep it that  way. [Check out 20/10, my, blog.]

----------


## Marc

And in case you are bored, here is the perfect venue to stimulate your political bone.
Please pay particular attention to the sponsors, especially the international one like the Pakistani Labor Party. I love this, I think I'll join the green left resistance. Vive la resistance !    

> *Three days of feature talks, panel discussions and more than 20 workshops to discuss solutions for a world in crisis* _Including_:
>  Capitalism, socialism and ecology  ●  People’s power and democracy   ●  The climate debt and the Global South   ●  Refugees, racism and  internationalism  ●  Food security and survival  ●   Building movements  that can stop climate change  ●  The global nuclear threat  ●   Indigenous resistance, land and sovereignty ● Feminism and climate  change ●  Imperialism, war and oil   ●  The market Vs social ownership   ●   The dirty record of carbon trading  ●  Population and the planet   ●  Agro-business and sustainable alternatives ● The movement against  coal seam gas mining
>  …and _much_ more *Organised by Green Left Weekly, Resistance and the Socialist Alliance*
>  Sponsored by the Office of Environmental Programs, Melbourne University
>  Other co-sponsors: Friends of the Earth (Melbourne), Links Journal  for Socialist Renewal, Labor Party Pakistan (LPP), Sydney University  Political Economy Society, Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM), Partido  Lakas ng Masa (PLM – Philippines).

----------


## Marc

*             Greenie, Leftie, Socialist, Agenda-Driven Hysterics Should Get A Life!*   

> "most types prone to shrieking about the end of the
> world do tend to lead dull lives.
> Imagine how boring your life must be
> to find excitement in turning off lights"

----------


## anawanahuanana

OK guys. sorry to jump in here but I need a little help understanding how this carbox tax will have any actual benefit (for anyone except the government naturally). Assuming that global warming is caused by man (which I don't believe) and not natural CO2 emmissions of course. All I've got so far is this: 
- Big companies taxed for putting out shed loads of CO2.
- Everything (yes, everything) goes up in cost, either to cover the extra tax burden on the "500" businesses or because others just take the opportunity to jack their prices up too. Aussies love a bit of gouging afterall.
- Joe Public pays more for everything, so apparently we will all start to use less electricity, petrol etc in a bid to claw back some of the extra money we're now out of pocket. 
So far so good. 
Now the less well off of society will be given rebates to ensure they are not out of pocket. How does this encourage people to use less to save money if they are no worse off? It could be argued right now that they could use less electricity and petrol and save money, so if they aren't doing it already, why would they in future? 
The other end of society who earn a higher wage (not massive, just higher ie 100k +) are not going to receive any meaningful rebate. I say meanigful because apprently I fall into the "90% of people who will get something back". $3 a year in tax cuts to be precise, so for all intents and purposes I can say I actually won't benefit from the rebates.  These are the people who our esteemed PM says will not get fully compensated as they are earning enough that they do not require it. It has also been claimed by the government that the average price rises per household would be in the region of $600 per year (yeah right!). So are we expecting that this extra cost each year will put the higher income households under enough strain to force a change in behaviour? 
Frankly I'm already down $600 this year in the flood levy, so I guess by Julia's figures I won't be any worse off next year when the carbon tax comes in than I already am. 
So please, someone, help me understand how making everything more expensive only for the people who can afford it most will force any change in bahavior.  :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So please, someone, help me understand how making everything more expensive only for the people who can afford it most will force any change in bahavior.

  Yeah we have been waiting for some here to answer that one for a looong time.

----------


## chrisp

> Assuming that global warming is caused by man (which I don't believe) and not natural CO2 emmissions of course.

  I can't really help you there.  It is a well accepted scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that human released CO2 has increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.  If you choose not to believe the science, well, that's your choice.   

> So please, someone, help me understand how making everything more  expensive only for the people who can afford it most will force any  change in bahavior.

  It doesn't make "everything more expensive" - it only makes the CO2 intensive products more expensive.  For example, coal fuelled electricity generation will be more expensive.  Solar and wind generated electricity will not be effected.  It tilts the balance in favour of non-CO2 technologies.  The people who get compensation - as well as the rest -  can choose to use coal-generated electricity or renewable-generated electricity.  The carbon price/tax will eventually make renewable energy the cheapest.

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> It doesn't make "everything more expensive" - it only makes the CO2 intensive products more expensive.

  Hello, could you supply a list of CO2 intensive products please?

----------


## Ashore

No so Crisp , there isn't a single item or product that you buy that doesn't use electricity
Buy an apple from a shop , the shop needs electricity to operate , shopowners costs go up , he passes the cost on
To get to the shop it has to be transported there, the truck delivering the apple to the markets uses petrol , which will go up .The second largest cost of a service station is electricity, they pass their costs on truck driver's costs go he passes them on 
The Grower needs to water his trees as they grow, he has to pump the water to the trees, what makes the pump run , the same thing that the water board use to run the pumps that supply water to your house, and guess what they pass their extra running costs on  
All these costs may be small but they are at every step of the process, a cent here a couple of cents there , for each and every step of every item . Then you add another 10% GST onto every increase.
And the ones Ive quoted are only a few of the many ways every item will increase, and the extra costs will be passed on to the consumer....YOU

----------


## Geno62

Just scare tactics, why not be truthfull instead, for many products the impact of a carbon tax will not be noticable, for others such as Aluminium it will. Blanket statements that all costs will rise are simply not correct, even the rot about water, the electrical power that drives those pumps is a tiny portion of the growers costs. The water that is delivered is far dearer and gravity fed to the farm gate, herbicides, interest bills, maintenance, labour are all generally far greater costs. Truth is soon lost when people choose to distort the story to support pre-existing and often poorly thought out beliefs.

----------


## anawanahuanana

Anyone who thinks that only the companies who have a genuine cost increase due to the carbon tax will put up their prices is a fool in my opinion. There will be many other businesses who will hike their prices, blaming the tax, just because they think they can get away with it. I can't seee too many people asking to see proof their costs have increased before paying the bill. 
I do accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I don't accept that what this government is doing will help the planet one bit. We could reduce our CO2 output by 90 % but without the big economies of the world backing us up with action, it will result in nothing except a warm fuzzy feeling inside that we're doing our bit and bigger bills for all. Does anyone know how long it may take before there is sufficient renewable power out there that people can use it for base load instead of coal fired? Should this country have invested in nuclear power long ago (and please dont bleat on about how dangerous it is. It's not the same as a nuclear bomb as the uneducated seem to think and accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima were caused by lack of adherence to procedures or poor decisions when designing and building the plant. That's like saying the Russians build an aircraft which wasn't up to scratch and then poor piloting caused it to crash so worldwide aviation is unsafe....)?  
If you want people to change their behaviour, you have to make it hard for them to resist the change, which means hitting them in the pocket where it hurts. To say that in the future people will chose to use renewable energy to save money, well right now people can save money by using less coal generated electricity, and yet they chose not to out of laziness or apathy. That's the same for everyone, not just the top earning "10%" as Gillard suggests will have to pay more. Of course, where would the Labor party be is they upset the less well off of society and stopped the wealth redistribution they seem hell bent on.........

----------


## Geno62

Isn't this the big problem with any new tax, we saw opportunistic price increases with the GST, there has to be a possibility this will happen with the Carbon Tax. It really depends on public pressure, if there is a lot of press about increases we are more likely to see price gouging. If there is plenty of press about how little some industries such as service industries will be effected then there will be huge pressure for them to resist jacking up prices. 
The aim of the tax has to be at the user end of the equation, be it industry or the home, I think we would all like to see a lot more on how this is going to work. At the moment there is a lot of hype and misinformation especially in the blogasphere, we actually would be better served with a bit more honesty and accuracy than the opinionated rants that seem to dominate at the moment. 
As for so called dirty brown coal, it has far more uses than power generation, it can be used as a fertiliser and in a number of manufacturing processes. Industry must continually modernise to remain competitive and profitable, it may well be that it is time to move on from some of these products however it is difficult to have these conversations while the troglodytes have the ascendancy.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Anyone who thinks that only the companies who have a genuine cost increase due to the carbon tax will put up their prices is a fool in my opinion. There will be many other businesses who will hike their prices, blaming the tax, just because they think they can get away with it. I can't seee too many people asking to see proof their costs have increased before paying the bill. 
> I do accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I don't accept that what this government is doing will help the planet one bit. We could reduce our CO2 output by 90 % but without the big economies of the world backing us up with action, it will result in nothing except a warm fuzzy feeling inside that we're doing our bit and bigger bills for all. Does anyone know how long it may take before there is sufficient renewable power out there that people can use it for base load instead of coal fired? Should this country have invested in nuclear power long ago (and please dont bleat on about how dangerous it is. It's not the same as a nuclear bomb as the uneducated seem to think and accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima were caused by lack of adherence to procedures or poor decisions when designing and building the plant. That's like saying the Russians build an aircraft which wasn't up to scratch and then poor piloting caused it to crash so worldwide aviation is unsafe....)?  
> If you want people to change their behaviour, you have to make it hard for them to resist the change, which means hitting them in the pocket where it hurts. To say that in the future people will chose to use renewable energy to save money, well right now people can save money by using less coal generated electricity, and yet they chose not to out of laziness or apathy. That's the same for everyone, not just the top earning "10%" as Gillard suggests will have to pay more. Of course, where would the Labor party be is they upset the less well off of society and stopped the wealth redistribution they seem hell bent on.........

  At last!!  Someone who has actually thought about it!!  Yippee..... 
The carbon price in the Australian context will achieve almost nothing DIRECTLY with respect to greenhouse gas concentrations.  Indirectly.....that's another story....and a bloody fuzzy one at that. 
In terms of providing a cost signal to the Great Consumer in order to change behaviour..........the carbon price as it stands is a fail.  At the moment.  The signal will be too small in the overall scheme of things and there is no logical alternative to the current consumption path.  The consumer is only being encouraged to consume...if they didn't consume then the economy will stop, so they have to consume (otherwise we turn into the Japan or US with long term stagflation).   However, other factors are at play that may help the carbon price policy do what it set out to do... but in the longer term.  
Should we have gone nuclear? Hell no.  Why should we went we have such easy access to much cheaper sources such as coal and gas? What we should have done is invest in power generation that made the most efficient use possible of these resources.  However, since investment in power generation infrastructure in Australia has been rather 'flat' over the last two decades (for which we are now paying the 'price').......whichever way we might've jumped is moot. 
In the end.......your capacity to flick a switch and get a light is _NOT_ a right.  It is a priviledge.  And priviledges have to be bought or earned.  They are not presented to you on a plate with a pretty ribbon. How you earn the priviledge of personal power is entirely up to you.....if you wait for someone to provide it to you then you deserve what you get.

----------


## Marc

> Isn't this the big problem with any new tax, we saw opportunistic price increases with the GST, there has to be a possibility this will happen with the Carbon Tax. It really depends on public pressure, if there is a lot of press about increases we are more likely to see price gouging. If there is plenty of press about how little some industries such as service industries will be effected then there will be huge pressure for them to resist jacking up prices. 
> The aim of the tax has to be at the user end of the equation, be it industry or the home, I think we would all like to see a lot more on how this is going to work. At the moment there is a lot of hype and misinformation especially in the blogasphere, we actually would be better served with a bit more honesty and accuracy than the opinionated rants that seem to dominate at the moment. 
> As for so called dirty brown coal, it has far more uses than power generation, it can be used as a fertiliser and in a number of manufacturing processes. Industry must continually modernise to remain competitive and profitable, it may well be that it is time to move on from some of these products however it is difficult to have these conversations while the troglodytes have the ascendancy.

  What a load of hogwash.
a) Behavior modifying taxes achieve nothing and are the realm of dictators. I lived in a dictatorship, you did not. I am right, you are wrong. 
b)Your logic in how prices work is so far removed from reality that would make Brown proud. 
c) Your grasp on manufacturing "modernising" is admirable. Come on you backwards troglodyte industry captains, get out of your 3 piece suit and stop the cigar smoking, "get modern!" move on from "dirty" coal ( it is dirty ins't it...so black!) and embrace Solar power wind power wave power and wanker power. That is the way to go!

----------


## Marc

With the two biggest economy on this planet on the brink of collapse, the US and Europe, attacking our weak residual industry and the mining industry that is the only thing keeping us relevant is the deliberate action of traitors that want to send us into a domestic subsistence utopia of straw bale huts and bartering, supported by a demented litany or harangues Hugo Chavez style.

----------


## watson

> With the two biggest economy on this planet on the brink of collapse, the US and Europe, attacking our weak residual industry and the mining industry that is the only thing keeping us relevant is the deliberate action of traitors that want to send us into a domestic subsistence utopia of straw bale huts and bartering, supported by a demented litany or harangues Hugo Chavez style.

  
Cheese Twice....I LIVE in a straw bale hut.

----------


## johnc

> With the two biggest economy on this planet on the brink of collapse, the US and Europe, attacking our weak residual industry and the mining industry that is the only thing keeping us relevant is the deliberate action of traitors that want to send us into a domestic subsistence utopia of straw bale huts and bartering, supported by a demented litany or harangues Hugo Chavez style.

  The U.S. has some serious financial issues but is not on the brink of collapse, same goes for Europe most of those economies are very strong with the exception of the piigs. The second biggest economy is China so I think we can put that mistake down to your confused state of mind. The third is Japan, which does have problems but is still cashed up. Really your interpretation of posts is dreadful, as are most of your comments. So you lived in a dictatorship, is that true or just a load of your usual rubbish, and how old were you when you left it. As is the case with most of your garbled attempts you are incapable of either conveying a message nor lucid and decent responses. Perhaps you should take your earlier advice and go back to where you came from.

----------


## johnc

> Cheese Twice....I LIVE in a straw bale hut.

  
According to Marc you had better brush up your demented litany skills to improve your bartering outcomes. :Biggrin:

----------


## Ashore

> Just scare tactics, why not be truthfull instead, for many products the impact of a carbon tax will not be noticable, for others such as Aluminium it will. Blanket statements that all costs will rise are simply not correct, even the rot about water, the electrical power that drives those pumps is a tiny portion of the growers costs. The water that is delivered is far dearer and gravity fed to the farm gate, herbicides, interest bills, maintenance, labour are all generally far greater costs. Truth is soon lost when people choose to distort the story to support pre-existing and often poorly thought out beliefs.

   If you had even bothered to read what I posted  All these costs may be small but they are at every step of the process, a cent here a couple of cents there , for each and every step of every item . Then you add another 10% GST onto every increase. Yes water now costs, everything does, but they will all increase in cost under a carbon tax  
As far as saying I posted '*Rot' why dont you tell me where I was wrong . Are you saying that there won't be an increase in the running costs of water boards , or that they won't pass the costs on.*  *And If you can't then an apology is in order mister*

----------


## Geno62

> If you had even bothered to read what I posted  All these costs may be small but they are at every step of the process, a cent here a couple of cents there , for each and every step of every item . Then you add another 10% GST onto every increase. Yes water now costs, everything does, but they will all increase in cost under a carbon tax  
> As far as saying I posted '*Rot' why dont you tell me where I was wrong . Are you saying that there won't be an increase in the running costs of water boards , or that they won't pass the costs on.*  *And If you can't then an apology is in order mister*

  You are making a generalisation on the impact of cost increases on prices. A green grocer who has a small increase in his power or stationary bill is very unlikely to pass on that cost automatically to his apple prices. He will however pass on changes to apple prices. The apple grower is a price taker not a price setter so increases in water costs if there are any cannot automatically result is price increases. He has to hope that market prices increase enough to cover his costs. A carbon price should bring two pressures, one being on costs (prices) the second is cost shifting if cheaper alternatives exist. At the power production end obviously the intention is to encourage a shift from "dirty" to "green" power. In the case of the farmer those using delvers and flood irrigation to deliver water are unaffected, those pumping from the source are if they use electricity to drive their pumps. However these pumpers remain at an advantage to those using more expensive diesel power to pump. 
A carbon price is an upward pressure not a reducing pressure on prices, however the impact will in some cases be so negligable as to not effect pricing decisions. In others it will impact on purchasing or efficiency. Rising power prices over recent years has seen the larger supermarkets for example look at their lighting and refrigeration more closely and that has seen ongoing upgrading of both with reduced power consumption and lower operating costs as a result.  
You cannot make a blanket statement that one behaviour automatically leads to another, that a particular price pressure can only have one outcome a higher price. For any business looking at its overheads on an annual basis and making pricing decisions the question will always be how much can we pass on, or to improve margins can we do this better another way and improve efficiency. It is product efficiency that makes us more profitable than the opposition more so than forever pricing upwards and pricing ourselves out of the market against better operators.  
That is why your water analogy is very wrong, it is simply not a one dimensional area, you have to look beyond the basic pressure and consider the market these people operate in. Also get your hands on some water board accounts and see how much electricity is of total operating costs and then factor in the impact of a carbon price, for irrigation suppliers in most cases it will be next to nothing as it is a tiny number.

----------


## Ashore

Once again I am waiting  
You said "why not be truthfull instead" and " even the rot about water"
You are insinuating that I am a liar 
I gave you the oppertunity to point out where I was wrong in the facts I stated
'All these costs may be small but they are at every step of the process, a cent here a couple of cents there , for each and every step of every item . Then you add another 10% GST onto every increase.'
and  what makes the pump run , the same thing that the water board use to run the pumps that supply water to your house, and guess what they pass their extra running costs on ' 
They are facts as far as I know, so I will be gracious enough to again give you a chance to prove me wrong or apologize for calling me a liar and posting Rot   
As far as I am aware personal attacks and remarks like yours are still not acceptable on this forum

----------


## watson

Settle down please people......sort it out nicely.

----------


## Ashore

Give him every chance, but to imply i'm  a liar , the balls in his court.

----------


## Geno62

> Give him every chance, but to imply i'm a liar , the balls in his court.

  What you said wasn't correct, it was untrue in fact but that does not mean you have been called a liar, don't be so precious petal I responded to the argument I do not play the man. Your original line is that every cost is passed on aka the apple, this is not correct, a small rise in shop electricity does not translate to the apple. In fact by putting in more efficient refrigeration the greengrocer may be able to reduce his electricity costs and that is the economic lever the carbon tax is meant to employ.  
I am no fan of the carbon tax, it is a blunt instrument that will not always hit the mark, but I am not going to make the mistake of assuming it is an automatic rocket to inflation either. It certainly will not have the inflationary impact of the GST at its current settings.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Give him every chance, but to imply i'm  a liar , the balls in his court.

  All who have posted in here over the decades have been accused of 'lying' (or worse) at some point or other in this thread......it's a rite of passage.   
If you don't like it......then perhaps you don't belong here?  
After we very rarely actually deal with facts in this thread (mainly because no-one can agree what they are).....just opinions.  And opinions on the interweb are cheaper than toilet paper.  In this thread.....they are worth even less.  But watching them tortured, maimed and even slaughtered is downright amusing regardless.  
And then, of course, there's Marc's posts.  Oft in a dimension of their own and yet they are some of the most consistently magic yet unintentional trolling anywhere in the Twitterverse.  They make my soul flutter...

----------


## Ashore

Precious be stuffed , perhaps the diffrence to the group you put yourself in is that I don't tell lies 
And My origional line comrad was No so Crisp , there isn't a single item or product that you buy that doesn't use electricity  Perhaps you could give an example of any item that doesn't need electricity, that you purchase  As for the Apple quote, I pointed out that even the simplest items will have extra costs incured at every step, from production to sale, and all those costs will be passed on. Another simple fact 
As you are incapable of seeing past your own self justification and dealing with actual Truth I will let you continue with you mis-quotes and you disparaging remarkes, for I know better than to argue with someone of your intellengence, i'd only get dragged down to your level and beaten with experiance.

----------


## Geno62

There is a vast difference between using elements of the truth to create a fiction and actually going to the trouble of presenting the facts so they convey the truth. For someone who has so much "intellengence" I look foward to any future pearls of wisdom from your learned penmanship. :Smilie:  Don't over react this is hardly a high brow thread is it and there are plenty of insults flying around from one end to the next.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## chrisp

> No so Crisp , there isn't a single item or product that you buy that doesn't use electricity
> Buy an apple from a shop , the shop needs electricity to operate , shopowners costs go up , he passes the cost on
> To get to the shop it has to be transported there, the truck delivering the apple to the markets uses petrol , which will go up .The second largest cost of a service station is electricity, they pass their costs on truck driver's costs go he passes them on

  Ashore, 
I appreciate your argument that electricity is pretty much involved in everything we do (such as this internet exchange  :Smilie:  ). 
However, I'm a little sceptical of the relative contribution of the cost of electricity to most everyday goods.  Energy is cheap - dirt cheap.  The cost of electricity to a supermarket would be relatively small part of its operating cost - and hence the cost of an apple. 
I do accept the argument that some businesses will up their prices if they can get away with it - profiteering - and blame the new tax. 
I am a little lost by your comment that "the second largest cost of a service station is electricity".  I'm assuming that the cost of the fuel is #1, surely the labour and the rent, franchise fees would far out cost the cost of electricity?

----------


## Geno62

Utility (incl electricity) costs for a service station employing an average of 5 people comes in at around 2% of operating costs, as with most businesses in the retail sector power is a minor cost. In terms of its impact per litre it is probably only a tiny fraction of 1 cent it is untrue (that word again) that it is the second largest overhead it is way down the bottom of the overhead list and dwarfed by rent, labour, franchise costs, marketing, compliance. etc. 
We should all take care when articulating our views to pay some head to the truth and not run off on wild adventures to justify a position. Marc accepted of course he appears to run off on unique adventures all of his own and provides wild and ludicrous colour to a rather grey thread.

----------


## Ashore

> I am a little lost by your comment that "the second largest cost of a service station is electricity".  I'm assuming that the cost of the fuel is #1, surely the labour and the rent, franchise fees would far out cost the cost of electricity?

  That was from an interview from the president of the independant service station owners (Group ) ? (given the day after Julia said there would be no increase to the cost of petrol) on the macquarie news service.
He was, I am sure referring to running costs. But of course what would he know, i'm sure there are far more knowledgeable people here , and if not theres at least one who'll come up with magic ( un substianced ) figures or just make it up

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> It doesn't make "everything more expensive" - it only makes the CO2 intensive products more expensive.

  Hello, we don't seem to have this list of  CO2 intensive products, perhaps Geno62 could provide it at this time.

----------


## chrisp

> That was from an interview from the president of the independant service station owners (Group ) ? (given the day after Julia said there would be no increase to the cost of petrol) on the macquarie news service.
> He was, I am sure referring to running costs. But of course what would he know, i'm sure there are far more knowledgeable people here , and if not theres at least one who'll come up with magic ( un substianced ) figures or just make it up

  Thanks for that.  I found it on the web...   

> Electricity is *one of the biggest input costs* faced by service stations and these costs are rising now and will continue to rise under carbon tax and under a future ETS, said SSA President, Craig Glasby. Delivery costs will also rise, not just on petrol but on all the goods we sell and they too will need to be passed on, Glasby said. At this stage, *we have not had a chance to do our modelling* to estimate the size of the increases, but we expect that to about 2 to 3 cpl. http://www.ssa.org.au/news_events/pd...july11july.pdf

  I'd hardly call the Service Station Association independent, but I suppose that depends upon your definition. 
The same mob is opposing ...   

> The Service Station Association is supporting the Alliance of Australian  Retailers (AAR) fight against the Federal Governments proposal to  introduce plain packaging for tobacco products. :: SERVICE STATION ASSOCIATION :: Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products

----------


## Geno62

> Hello, we don't seem to have this list of CO2 intensive products, perhaps Geno62 could provide it at this time.

  Don't be lazy, go and do it yourself if it means so much to you.

----------


## chrisp

> Hello, we don't seem to have this list of  CO2 intensive products, perhaps Geno62 could provide it at this time.

  Sorry I missed your question earlier. 
It would be hard to make a list of CO2 intensive products as there is little or no direct link between a product and the energy source used to make it.   
For example, you could buy a chocolate bar (a "product") but how CO2 intensive it is will depend upon the source of energy used to make it.   If it came from a brown-coal fired power station it will be more CO2 intensive than a one that was powered from a renewable energy source.

----------


## Geno62

> Thanks for that. I found it on the web... 
> I'd hardly call the Service Station Association independent, but I suppose that depends upon your definition. 
> The same mob is opposing ...

  
The association is a group of small operators who have banded together for a larger voice than they otherwise would have. They do not have the supermarket or large groups in their midst, but speak more for the mum and dad style service stations. They have a right to a voice and to be heard and respected but we should be aware that their views may not always be backed up with solid information.  
I'd agree that you would hardly call their view independant.

----------


## Marc

> Anyone who thinks that only the companies who have a genuine cost increase due to the carbon tax will put up their prices is a fool in my opinion. There will be many other businesses who will hike their prices, blaming the tax, just because they think they can get away with it. I can't see too many people asking to see proof their costs have increased before paying the bill.

  Hum, yes, a lot of this backward last century Poland sort of thinking going on. Since when in a free market you have to ask for permission to increase prices? Offer and demand is the only regulator. I put my prices up as much as I can and don't even bother with any excuse as long as I can sell. If I can not sell, down come the prices. 
Cost increase in a buoyant market produce inflation. In a flat market produce unemployment and bankruptcy. In a regulated market like electricity produce price increases with a certificate of honesty. Anyway you look at it cost increase equal loss.   

> I do accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I don't accept that what this government is doing will help the planet one bit. We could reduce our CO2 output by 90 % but without the big economies of the world backing us up with action, it will result in nothing except a warm fuzzy feeling inside that we're doing our bit and bigger bills for all. Does anyone know how long it may take before there is sufficient renewable power out there that people can use it for base load instead of coal fired? Should this country have invested in nuclear power long ago (and please dont bleat on about how dangerous it is. It's not the same as a nuclear bomb as the uneducated seem to think and accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima were caused by lack of adherence to procedures or poor decisions when designing and building the plant. That's like saying the Russians build an aircraft which wasn't up to scratch and then poor piloting caused it to crash so worldwide aviation is unsafe....)?

  Fuzzy feeling of the unisex latte Marxist, yes, nothing else....How long until renewable start being more than that? How about forever, if you are talking about solar or wind, and eventually if you are talking about a technology that has yet to be invented, or some day when we build 100, 200 or 300 dams or develop geothermal.    

> If you want people to change their behavior, you have to make it hard for them to resist the change, which means hitting them in the pocket where it hurts. To say that in the future people will chose to use renewable energy to save money, well right now people can save money by using less coal generated electricity, and yet they chose not to out of laziness or apathy. That's the same for everyone, not just the top earning "10%" as Gillard suggests will have to pay more. Of course, where would the Labor party be is they upset the less well off of society and stopped the wealth redistribution they seem hell bent on.........

  You lost me here...you really think that the "solution" is to punish people with taxes in order for "them" to use less power? Behavior changing taxes do not achieve their purpose ever. It is markets that achieve goals, by offering alternatives. If there are no alternatives, there is no change. Rather simple really. The communist agenda of legislating behavior always failed. The similar idea of legislate behavior enshrined in religion also failed abysmally before Marx was even born. The Gillard/Brown/Cretins alliance will be a thing of the past well before they can do real damage. However the urge to "save the planet" by ruling it will continue and many will try their hand at it. It is up to the thinking majority to stop them by start thinking again.

----------


## Marc

> The U.S. has some serious financial issues but is not on the brink of collapse, same goes for Europe most of those economies are very strong with the exception of the piigs. The second biggest economy is China so I think we can put that mistake down to your confused state of mind. The third is Japan, which does have problems but is still cashed up. Really your interpretation of posts is dreadful, as are most of your comments. So you lived in a dictatorship, is that true or just a load of your usual rubbish, and how old were you when you left it. As is the case with most of your garbled attempts you are incapable of either conveying a message nor lucid and decent responses. Perhaps you should take your earlier advice and go back to where you came from.

  So in your illuminated opinion, we should be Ok and there is no problem over-taxing the only source of wealth we have remaining, pinned on ONE single solitary economy that can change supplier at any time? 
You opinions just like your poor attempts at personal attacks are pathetic at best, but very predictable. Like any religious fanatic your are blinded by your anti-values.
How is your super doing by the way? Oh sorry forgot, you are in an alternative bubble and much prefer bartering.

----------


## chrisp

*~~~ Notice  ~~~* 
The ETS Thread is currently experience an interruption in coherence.  Normal posting will resume as soon as possible...   :Smilie:

----------


## johnc

> So in your illuminated opinion, we should be Ok and there is no problem over-taxing the only source of wealth we have remaining, pinned on ONE single solitary economy that can change supplier at any time? 
> You opinions just like your poor attempts at personal attacks are pathetic at best, but very predictable. Like any religious fanatic your are blinded by your anti-values.
> How is your super doing by the way? Oh sorry forgot, you are in an alternative bubble and much prefer bartering.

  There is absolutely nothing in the post you are attacking that is linked to your reply. However thankyou for your concern over my super, I dare say with a fall on the ASX like we have today we should all be concerned. However today's fall is emotion over fundamentals, our current P/E ratios and dividend ratios don't justify the fall. We will have to wait and see if the current fear circulating through world markets is justified.

----------


## johnc

> *~~~ Notice ~~~* 
> The ETS Thread is currently experience an interruption in coherence. Normal posting will resume as soon as possible...

  No doubt caused by someones eratic and faulty brain waves being out of sync with mother earth :Eek:  :Biggrin:

----------


## The Administration Team

Righto fellas, can we please keep to the actual topic of discussion and leave the personal vitriol out of it, it achieves nothing. 
And that includes you Bedford! 
Now it's Friday night, the end of a hard week, please keep it all civil as The Admin Team would like a quiet night without having to continually check this thread.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Of course.   Which part of 'all' suggested otherwise to you?

  So you're saying Chifley was just as stupid as JuLIAR?   

> stu·pid   _adj._ *stu·pid·er*, *stu·pid·est *  *1.*  Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. *2.*  Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. *3.*  Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake. *4.*  Dazed, stunned, or stupefied. *5.*  Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

----------


## Dr Freud

> So please, someone, help me understand how making everything more expensive only for the people who can afford it most will force any change in bahavior.

  Like Rod said, they will studiously avoid this answer, because it doesn't exist. 
And even if they come up with some lame semantics, they certainly won;t tell you how much colder the Planet Earth will be after this behavioural change (that won't happen anyway). 
Still, I've given up getting a coherent answer from any cult, especially this one.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

I am trying to figure out whether you guys truly don't understand this stuff, or if you are deliberately just repeating a mantra you know is ridiculous in the hope of converting some disinterested observers to your cult?  :Confused:  
But lucky for you guys, I am always happy to help out where I can.  Just think of me as a good Samaritan.  :Biggrin: *Luke 10:33* 
 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.   

> It is a well accepted scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that human released CO2 has increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. If you *choose not to believe the science*, well, that's your choice.

  CO2 (in isolation) has a logarythmic warming effect. All animals (including humans) have increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (like LOTS of other stuff too).  I have said many times before, empirical scientific evidence does not need to be believed, it just is. 
Religions and cults use the word "believe" all the time, scientists use the word "prove", you may want to look it up.  Just a handy hint, Wikipedia may not be that useful.  :Biggrin:  
You either keep ignoring or keep not understanding that there is no proof that humans have been responsible for ANY of the measured intermittent warming since the Planet Earth started gently rising out of the Little Ice Age.  You also ignore or keep not understanding that the Planet Earth stopped warming nearly 15 years ago (notwithstanding the big El Nino in '98) and all the IPCC fascientists are bemused and stupefied about this, because it means their precious AGW hypthesis greenie cult is being busted by nature itself. Poetic justice has never been this hilarious.  :Rotfl:    

> It doesn't make "everything more expensive" - it only makes the CO2 intensive products more expensive.

  Again, please name all the products that DO NOT require "extra" Carbon Dioxide to be expended in their production, distribution, storage, consumption or disposal? 
Here's a little example, even if you walked out into the forest and found an apple tree and picked the apple then walked home and ate it, you still expend "extra" Carbon Dioxide by walking and generating extra CO2 than you otherwise would have had you not procured the apple.  You're an animal.  Welcome to the Planet Earth.  :Biggrin:  
This is a very small Carbon Dioxide "footprint" as you greenies say, and everything else is upsized from there.  But hey, if you can describe your magical methods of not producing CO2 (that we can roll out across all 9 billion humans that will soon inhabit the Earth and strive for first world living standards), I'm all ears?  :Music:    

> For example, coal fuelled electricity generation will be more expensive.

  You mean just in Australia, huh?  :Biggrin:    

> Solar and wind generated electricity will not be effected. It tilts the balance in favour of non-CO2 technologies.

  This would take too long to explain how wrong you are.  :Doh:    

> The people who get compensation - as well as the rest - can choose to use coal-generated electricity or renewable-generated electricity.

  So will the coal generated products be on a different shelf to the renewable generated products so I can choose between them when I'm shopping with my compensation money?  :Doh:    

> The carbon price/tax will *eventually* make renewable energy the *cheapest*.

  Let's all migrate to your fantasy land where windmills and solar panels run this entire countries baseload - primary, manufacturing, electricity and transport sector - energy needs without supply interruption. 
What Carbon Dioxide price will achieve this? 
What time frame will be involved in achieving this? 
And are you making the renewables "cheapest" or are you making our current energy the "costliest".  Surely you haven't been this badly brainwashed, have you? 
I truly don't know, but I'm going to assume that you guys truly "believe" the stuff you write, just to give you the benefit of the doubt.  At least that way I still feel motivated that more educating will drive this ignorance from your methodology.   
To think that you are actually aware there is no empirical scientific evidence proving this farce, but still argue the contrary would be disappointing. 
And it is comforting that you guys actually "believe" that this TAX in Australia will make the entire Planet Earth colder, thereby eventually saving not only the entire Planet, also our emotional icons being Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef.  :Doh:  
To think you knew this was false but still supported this cult would also be disappointing.

----------


## Dr Freud

Do you people seriously not understand the ridiculous position you currently hold.  You first argue that price rises will be so miniscule and compensated anyway, so there will be a negligible effect that's barely noticed. 
Then you simultaneously argue that this barely noticeable effect will have a massive societal effect in changing behaviours to such a huge degree that our entire economy will be transformed. 
Which one is it? Pick one? 
Lest you be left looking like you have no idea what you are talking about.  :Doh:  
Let's have a quick look at this inane position:   

> Just scare tactics

  Bob Brown has explicitly said the aim of this policy is to shut down the coal industry in Australia, and you think the price rises is the scary part?  :Doh:    

> for many products the impact of a carbon tax will not be noticable

  So then it will have little or no effect on changing behaviours? 
But if you list these products, I may like to buy them.  Peanut butter? Raisin bread? Bed sheets?  Toilet paper?  Does it matter which brand?  Will all business only put up prices on the "dirty" products and make the "green energy" products cheaper so I can "choose"?  You're telling the story champ, you might want to fill in the blanks.  :Doh:  
JuLIAR tried for a few days and gave up due to her confusion over how this debacle will actually work, so give it a good Aussie go.  Then we can get to the bit where the Planet Earth gets colder.  :Doh:    

> for others such as Aluminium it will

  I don't buy aluminium so I'll be fine I guess, lucky you didn't say peanut butter, I buy that.   

> Blanket statements that all costs will rise are simply not correct

  Really?  Can you outline which businesses will not be affected by this farce?   

> even the rot about water, the electrical power that drives those pumps is a tiny portion of the growers costs. The water that is delivered is far dearer and gravity fed to the farm gate, herbicides, interest bills, maintenance, labour are all generally far greater costs.

  You seriously don't get it yet do you? 
Do you think these other inputs are all Carbon Dioxide TAX free - farm gate, herbicides, interest bills, maintenance, labour - yes, even the farm gate?  :Doh:    

> Truth is soon lost when people choose to distort the story to support pre-existing and often poorly thought out beliefs.

  Well, you guys always tell us how much you "believe" the AGW hypothesis cult, and that we realists do not "believe" these pre-existing poorly thought out beliefs.   :Doh:  
So yeh, the truth was definitely lost from the start of this fiasco.  Like I said, you guys just get upset because:  _"You can't handle the truth"_ - Col Nathan Jessup. 
No wonder you guys get so defensive when asked for facts.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> If you want people to change their behaviour, you have to make it hard for them to resist the change, which means hitting them in the pocket where it hurts. To say that in the future people will chose to use renewable energy to save money, well right now people can save money by using less coal generated electricity, and yet they chose not to out of laziness or apathy. That's the same for everyone, not just the top earning "10%" as Gillard suggests will have to pay more.

  Well said mate.  :2thumbsup:  
It's not complicated, is it? 
What amazes me is that 30% of Australian's don't get it.  Ideology and cultism has a lot to answer for I guess.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Isn't this the big problem with any new tax, we saw opportunistic price increases with the GST, there has to be a possibility this will happen with the Carbon Tax. It really depends on public pressure, if there is a lot of press about increases we are more likely to see price gouging. If there is plenty of press about how little some industries such as service industries will be effected then there will be huge pressure for them to resist jacking up prices.

  Pay attention now champ, the whole intent on this policy is "jacking up prices".  This TAX will drive prices increasingly higher, year after year after year.  This will not be gouging, this is the actual intent of the policy.  Gouging will likely happen alongside this, but you obviously don't understand that the actual intent of this policy is to drive prices higher and higher year after year.  Do you not understand this?  Do you think I'm lying to you? Have you read anything at all about this subject not listed on ABC, or Wikipedia?  :Doh:    

> The aim of the tax has to be at the user end of the equation, be it industry or the home, I think we would all like to see a lot more on how this is going to work. At the moment there is a lot of hype and misinformation especially in the blogasphere, we actually would be better served with a bit more honesty and accuracy than the opinionated rants that seem to dominate at the moment.

  Didn't JuLIAR not wear out enough "shoe leather"?  Did she LIE again about explaining this to all Australians, because you obviously missed out by your self-admission above.  :Doh:    

> LAST Saturday I noted Julia Gillard's shoe leather campaign to sell the carbon tax had been reduced to a token effort after the first 12 days.   Gillard walks, chews gum and is stuck with tax | The Australian

   

> As for so called dirty brown coal, it has far more uses than power generation, it can be used as a fertiliser and in a number of manufacturing processes. Industry must continually modernise to *remain competitive and profitable*, it may well be that it is time to *move on from some of these products* however it is difficult to have these conversations while the troglodytes have the ascendancy.

  You really haven't read a lot about this have you? 
You obviously aren't too concerned about the effects of your AGW Hypothesis cult on the world then? 
Yet you still happily accuse others of "opinionated rants"? 
Is hypocrisy the first commandment of this cult?  :Doh:

----------


## Geno62

Edited highlights of Dr Freud's most recent posts.  *Religions and cults use the word "believe" all the time* *I am trying to figure out whether you guys truly don't understand this stuff, or if you are deliberately just repeating a mantra you know is ridiculous in the hope of converting some disinterested observers to your cult?* *You seriously don't get it yet do you?* *Well, you guys always tell us how much you "believe" the AGW hypothesis cult, and that we realists do not "believe" these pre-existing poorly thought out beliefs* *"You can't handle the truth" - Col Nathan Jessup.* *Pay attention now champ* *Didn't JuLIAR not wear out enough "shoe leather"? Did she LIE again about explaining this to all Australians, because you obviously missed out by your self-admission above* *You really haven't read a lot about this have you?* *You obviously aren't too concerned about the effects of your AGW Hypothesis cult on the world then?* *Is hypocrisy the first commandment of this cult?* 
He really has mastered the art of being insulting and demeaning, however why the continual reference to cult, and the inability to move beyond the most basic slander and insults to get across a point. Generally the main reason is lack of substance however some of the replies aren't bad even if they do bend the truth a bit. Given that as you trawl back through the posts there is the same continual slant then it can probably be put down to the fact that he has only one style of discussion and that is to be objectionable and confrontational when ever he feels under threat. A thread like this could be so much more informative if people could actually accept it is OK for others to have differing views, sadly though the material doesn't encourage that.  
By the way asking for a list of what is going to be affected is simply silly, who here is the designer of this new tax, none of us, so why would you think that any of us are preparing a list. Treasury has done some modelling, if you are really interested in the truth and what those in the know think is going to happen have the foresight to go to the most likely source to provide the information. Next you will be asking how much it will impact the price of cake, Mr John Hewson (ex Lib leader) may well be happy to point you in the right direction.

----------


## chrisp

> You also ignore or keep not understanding that the Planet *Earth stopped warming nearly 15 years ago* (notwithstanding the big El Nino in '98) and all the IPCC fascientists are bemused and stupefied about this, because it means their precious AGW hypthesis greenie cult is being busted by nature itself. Poetic justice has never been this hilarious.

  *Did it really?*   
Graph from: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif *
I would suggest that the ignorance is purely yours!*

----------


## Dr Freud

Is that your 15 year time scale?  :Doh:  
No wonder you guys don't get this stuff.  :Biggrin:  
Here, this may help.  The second half of this graph is the last 15 years.  You will notice a very gentle increase in temperatures over time which matches the "natural" cycles that the Planet Earth has been going through since the end of the Little Ice Age.    
And here's a big picture overview of the natural cycles to contextualise the graph above, lest I be accused of cherry picking (again  :Doh: ).     
Wow! Amazing, huh?  The climate changes naturally!  Who would have thought.  :Doh:  
Take note of the actual "cherry picking" done by the IPCC fascientists who take a short period during the 20th Century and "hypothesise" about imaginary feedback loops, then greenwash lazy politicians and people who can't be bothered reading enough material to understand their idiocy.  And how long has the climate been changing on the Planet Earth?  Oh yeh, about 4.5 billion years?  Has it been warmer than now before? Much, much warmer? Ask JuLIAR, she's introducing a TAX that will guarantee the Planet Earth will not get any warmer.  :Youcrazy:  
Seriously people, don't drink the Kool-Aid. Read something, read anything, educate yourselves.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> He really has mastered the art of being insulting and demeaning

  Well, I don't know about "mastered", but us Jedi's keep getting better and better.  :Biggrin:    

> however why the continual reference to cult

  Because that is what this little cult is.  You obviously have not read the thread either?  I started calling it a theory, now use the descriptor "hypothesis" for the failed scientific effort, then used to call the "movement" a religion, but on further investigation the term "cult" is much more appropriate.   

> Yeh, you guys are hilarious. First you sanction the "artful" hanging of little girls by the neck, just to sell your cult. Then you laugh at the blowing up of little kids in a bloodbath, just to sell your little cult. Then you support the terrorising of our Aussie kids in classrooms, just to sell your little cult. Now you joke about the extinction of our species, which your greenie mates have certainly *not* been joking about for years, as I have posted in this thread, just to sell your little cult. 
>  News flash champ, most Aussies ain't buying your little cult.  
>  But please keep up religious fervour of your inane insults, it demonstrates continually how little scientific or economic evidence or understanding your cult has on these issues if that's all you've got to post.   
>  cult   *1.* *a.*  A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. *b.*  The followers of such a religion or sect.  *2.*  A system or community of religious worship and ritual. *3.*  The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual. *4.*  A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease. *5.* *a.*  Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. *b.*  The object of such devotion.  *6.*  An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

  That's why you guys always say that you "believe" in the AGW hypothesis, and you say that we don't "believe" in this farce.   

> and the inability to move beyond the most basic slander and insults to get across a point

  Well, slander actually refers to the spoken word, whereas libel refers to the written word, both subsumed by the concept of defamation, but lets not quibble on semantics, as much as you guys love to.  :Biggrin:  
And I like to think my insults are not basic, but more refined and intellectual?  I guess in contradicting yourself you've demonstrated I'm not a "master" after all?  :Cry:    

> there is the same continual slant then it can probably be put down to the fact that he has only one style of discussion

  See, I keep telling everyone how consistent I am, I'm glad that at least you have noticed. 
As soon as the facts change, so does my opinion about those facts.  :2thumbsup:    

> A thread like this could be so much more informative if people could actually accept it is OK for others to have differing views, sadly though the material doesn't encourage that.

  Having read a lot about this stuff, I posit that this thread (if you read it from the beginning) is one of the best repositories of contested information on many aspects of this farce, including the science, economics, opinions, media from both macro and micro aspects. 
All opinions and views are encouraged (and soundly debated and challenged), but opinions masquerading as science will be duly denigrated with some passion by us realists.  :Biggrin:    

> By the way asking for a list of what is going to be affected is simply silly, who here is the designer of this new tax, none of us, so why would you think that any of us are preparing a list.

  So you actually have no idea how this TAX will affect the economy then?  You're happy just to "believe" what's on the new "clean energy future" propaganda site?   

> Treasury has done some modelling, if you are really interested in the truth and what those in the know think is going to happen have the foresight to go to the most likely source to provide the information.

  We've already posted and resoundingly ridiculed this modelling (read it if you care enough about this cult).  It's not The Treasury's fault, JuLIAR gave them parameters and assumptions that can only be described as sh--.   

> Next you will be asking how much it will impact the price of cake

  Let them eat it, huh? 
Us pesky peasants!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *"RETURN TO SENDER"* 
>                                 by John izzard
>                           July 29, 2011
>                               From the Gillard governments _Hollowmen Department_ comes the latest spin, trickery, manipulation or stuntcall it what you may. Four million items of junk-mail are about to hit our letterboxes, compliments of Greg Combet, our Minister for Changing the Climate.   *What can you do?*  *Send it back.* 
>  In the film _Network_, Australian actor Peter Finch playing the part of a frustrated TV news reader threw open his window and screamed out across the rooftops of New York Im not going to take it any more. If only we could do that? If only theyd listen? 
>  We, the long suffering victims of the progressive governments that emerged out of the 2007 and 2010 federal elections, have had to sit back and watch a cascade of ideological failures in just about every reach of government action, policy and intervention. Rotten ideas that have ended in financial messes. Rotten ideas that have cost lives. 
>  Now the country is set to embark upon the crazy notion that the worlds climate can be controlled from a room in Canberra. It cant. But to try to convince a large chunk of the Australian public that it can, the junk-mail drive is coming to a letter box near you. Like any junk mail offer be very careful. Is it a truthful offer? Are you being told all of the facts? Beware of the promises! How many sets of STEAK-KNIVES do you getfree? 
>  One way to protest to the Hollowmen of our government is to send the junk back to Greg Combet. 
>  If it arrives in an envelope simply write *RETURN TO SENDER* and post it.
> ...

  It's started:   

> Like many, reader Bernd returns the propaganda to sender ... with a message from us all.     Not stupid | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  That's your tax dollars paying for all this crud.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

So if you guys think that us discussing price rises is scary, what do think this is:    
And as for the coal sector being shut down, Flannery agrees with Bob Brown, but The Treasury has not modelled this, they are modelling massive increases in coal burning:     
So, how will this policy simultaneously shut down the coal industry and double it at the same time?  
Are you understanding yet that these people have no f---ing idea what they are doing!  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> You also ignore or keep not understanding that the Planet *Earth stopped warming nearly 15 years ago (notwithstanding the big El Nino in '98)* and all the IPCC fascientists are bemused and stupefied about this, because it means their precious AGW hypthesis greenie cult is being busted by nature itself. Poetic justice has never been this hilarious.

  And just to explore this a little more... 
The graph in the post above shows the warming continuing, so where does this "cooling" or "not warming" claim come from? 
If you look at at the textual data that makes up the graph:   

> Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index (C) (Anomaly with Base: 1951-1980) 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------  
> Year  Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean 
> ----------------------------------    
> 1995      0.37      0.28  
> 1996      0.29      0.37  
> 1997      0.39      0.39   *1998      0.56  0.38* 
> 1999      0.32      0.42  
> 2000      0.33      0.45  
> ...

  You can see there was a high temperature in 1998 (which I have highlighted in red).  By using this a base, some then claim, as 1999, 2000 and 2001 were cooler, that this is evidence that the world is cooling and the AGW theory is false.  In 2002 the temperature reached the same as that of 1998, and in 2005 exceeded it. 
So... How does the "15 years" claim come about?  Well if you twist the figures, and use a single carefully selected annual-mean figure as a base (i.e. the single 1998 figure - highlighted in red) and comparing it to a 5-year-mean figure.  You could falsely claim that it "isn't warming".   It is a case of a false comparison comparing a 5-year-mean against an annual-mean figure - apples and oranges so to speak.  To do the proper comparison, you either compare annual-mean-to-annual-mean or 5-year-mean-to-5-year-mean.  i.e use the 5-year-mean figure for 1998 (highlighted in blue and use it as a base for comparison for the following years. 
There are a few other variations on the "earth has cooled since (insert year)" theme.  One of them only considers the temperature of a particular continent - Hardly a valid measure of global temperature!  *To claim that the "Earth stopped warming nearly 15 years ago" is simply false, misleading and unsubstantiated.*  This is the sort of false, misleading information that the "shock jocks" like to continually repeat.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Don't over react this is hardly a high brow thread is it

  Feel free to put your contributions in this basket.  :Biggrin:  
But as I said above, this thread and associated links (with it's occasional invective along the way  :Blush7: ) is a very comprehensive look at this issue, whatever you views are on this farce. 
I think all sides have presented their arguments well, at various times. 
It is just natural that we realists have triumphed as we use fact based logic.  :Hooray:    :Logic wins again:    :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

The graph that Dr Freud posted by from Roy Spencer's website.  It uses monthly figures.  It is a bit like saying it was cool in winter therefore the world is not warming!   

> Spencer is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".  
> The declaration states: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems  created by Gods intelligent  design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence  are  robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably  suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate  system is no exception."  Roy Spencer (scientist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  *AND he is going on about cults???*  :Rotfl:

----------


## chrisp

> 

  *Why did you post an old graph rather than the latest one?  *

----------


## johnc

It is a bit like a graph he posted some time back in which the allegation is that the Liberals are always fixing up Labor deficits, but managed to start it conveniently enough that it eliminated the data showing the deficit Hawke inherited from Howard. The sad part is since the seventies our governments have attempted to run balanced budgets with surplus in good times and deficits coming from recessionary periods.    
This was the graph used, but Dr Fr*e*ud, as is his want, created a lie from the truth by eliminating the period showing the early Liberal deficits. He also ommitted the important connection of world wide recessionary periods on the deficits. this is consistant with the plethora of rot that gets posted in the hope that by putting in volume we will overlook the quality. the world cycled regularly into deficit up until the recession we had to have around 1990, and you can see that Labor improved the situation up until they lost the 1996 election and the Howard government with the exception of some buffeting from the asian financial crisis had a dream run up until they lost power and labor scored the GFC and what do you know history repeated itself. the bit that is worrying is that there are plenty out there who possibly believe the spin and lies.  *EDITED POST... PLAY THE BALL, NOT THE MAN.*

----------


## Marc

Global Warming & Terra Forming Terra: Global Temperature Decline*Global Temperature Decline*   
  This item gives us a fair measure of the total  temperature decline over the past several years.  This means that the  bulk of the gain that had all excited has now dissipated.  It is still  set about the normal average so it is not getting colder per se.  And  average for the twentieth century is sufficient to maintain pressure on  the sea ice. 
The Holocene has a remarkably  stable two degree spread.  We saw the bottom during the little ice age  and recently we had a look at the top.  CO2 remains unconvincing for all  this.  Quite simply, CO2 is on a persistent uptrend that will be broken  during this century as we convert to alternative power and abandon coal  and hydrocarbons.  Global temperatures are not on a persistent general  trend but are showing decadal fluctuations in a warm century not  impacted by cooling major events. 
This  general reversal has made fools of the Al Gore School of climate science  as it really had too.  This is specifically why I began this blog by  disassociating the current temperature uptrend form the long established  rise in CO2.  I thought at the time that the claimed linkage was  optimistic and also highly suspect science. So far, I have had no reason  whatsoever to change that opinion.  We still have increasing CO2 to  counter and this blog has been in the forefront in establishing viable  options.  Otherwise we get to talk about the weather when things slow  down a bit.  _Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth'_  _
June 2009 saw another drop in global temps_ _
Sunday, July 05, 2009By_ _Marc Morano__   _ _Climate Depot_ _The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveals yet_ _another drop in the Earth's temperature__.  This latest drop in global temperatures means despite his dire  warnings, the Earth has cooled .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore  released "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006._ _
According  to the latest data courtesy of algorelied.com: "For the record, this  month's Al Gore / 'An Inconvenient Truth' Index indicates that global  temperatures have plunged approximately .74°F (.39°C) since Gore's film  was released." (see satellite temperature chart_ _here__ with key dates noted, courtesy of_ _www.Algorelied.com__ - The_ _global satellite temperature data_ _comes from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Also see:_ _8 Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps__)_  _
Gore  -- who is fond of saying the Earth has a "fever" -- has not yet  addressed the simple fact that global temperatures have dropped since  the release of his global warming film. (Gore has also not addressed  this: Another Moonwalker Defies Gore:_ _NASA  Astronaut Dr. Buzz Aldrin rejects global warming fears: 'Climate has  been changing for billions of years' - Moonwalkers Defy Gore's Claim  That Climate Skeptics Are Akin To Those Who Believe Moon Landing was  'Staged'__)_ _
A record cool summer has descended upon many parts of the U.S. after predictions of the "__year without a summer."__ There has been_ _no significant global warming since 1995__,_ _no warming__ since_ _1998_ _and_ _global cooling_ _for the past few years._ _
In addition, New_ _peer-reviewed scientific studies__ now predict a continued lack of global warming for up to three decades as natural climate factors dominate. (See:_ _Climate  Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30  years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades' study  finds  Discovery.com  March 2, 2009__ )_ _
This means that today's high school kids being forced to watch Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth _ _some of them 4 times in 4 different classes__  will be nearly eligible for_ _AARP (age 50) retirement group membership__  by the time warming resumes if these new studies turn out to be  correct. (Editor's Note: Claims that warming will resume due to  explosive heat in the "pipeline" have also been thoroughly debunked.  See: Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr._ _'There is no warming in the pipeline'__ )_

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc

*There has been no global warming since 1998* *The Telegraph ^*   | 7/6/11  | James Delingpole 
 Posted on *Wednesday, 6 July 2011 10:51:13 PM* by *markomalley*
   The headline of this post really shouldnt be controversial. It  chimes perfectly with what Kevin null hypothesis Trenberth wrote in  that notorious 2009 Climategate email to Michael Mann:    The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant.And its what Phil Jones admitted in a BBC interview when he said that there had been no statistically significant warming since 1995.
Why  then am I mentioning it now? W-e-l-l, because just as ze war is to the  Germans, Chappaquiddick is to the Kennedy family and that Portland  masseuse incident to Al Gore, so the recent lack of warming is to the,  er, Warmists. They hate it. Its an affront to everything they believe  in. Damn it, if the world isnt warming with the alacrity theyd prefer,  how are they going to keep the funding gravy train going, and how are  they going to persuade an increasingly sceptical populace that the  science is settled, the debate over and the time for action is now?  Thats why they cant reminded of the truth often enough. Its like  salting the slugs that are ruining your garden: necessary, but also kind  of fun too.  _(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ..._

----------


## Marc

1998   		 			  				*Europe’s Temperatures Show No Evidence Of Warming Since 1998* 
By P Gosselin on 9. Juli 2011  Europe (Graphic source: Wikipedia)  *By Matti Vooro*
 The European Environment Agency recently (March 2011) updated their  European temperature data by adding the data for the years 2010 and the  winter of 2011. The data can be found at EEA 2010, KNMI (http://climexp.knmi.nl), based onClimate Research Unit (CRU) gridded datasets HadCrut3 (land and ocean) and CruTemp3 (land only) from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk *WINTER TEMPERATURES 1948-2011*
 European winters seem to have gone through an alternating warm-cool  –warm- cool cycle since the 1940s and now appear headed for a cooler  cycle like the 1962-1987 period.  *A LOOK AT THE MORE RECENT WINTER TEMPERATURES 1998-2011*
 European winter temperatures have been cooling more recently since 1998, and especially 2009-2011.  European annual temperatures warmed from 1998-2007 but have started to cool over the last 3 years in a row since 2008.  *SUMMER TEMPERATURES 1998-2010*
 On the surface, European summers seem to be getting warmer since  1998. However the higher warming summers of 2003, 2006, and 2010 were  all preceded by or affected by an El Nino, just before or as the El Nino  partly happened during these summers. So the extra warming may be due  to a natural El Nino cycle. If one discounts these  El Nino years, the  summer temperatures are quite flat and show no real base warming  due to  global warming. For more detail information on El Nino years see the  NOAA site http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov.  *HISTORIC MEAN WINTER TEMPERATURES FOR BERLIN, GERMANY – IMPACT OF THE NORTH  ATLANTIC  OSCILLATION*
 For those Europeans who still believe that their climate is primarily  affected by human generated carbon dioxide, the graph below illustrates  that the NAO level seems to be a much more significant cold winter  factor affecting temperatures in Berlin, Germany. The temperature data  is from GISS Station Temperature Data and NAO data is from CGD’s Climate  analysis Section of Jim Hurrell http://www.cgd.ucar.edu. According to the NOAA: The NAO consists of a north-south dipole of anomalies,  with one center located over Greenland and the other center of opposite  sign spanning the central latitudes of the North Atlantic between 35°N  and 40°N. The positive phase of the NAO reflects below-normal heights  and pressure across the high latitudes of the North Atlantic and  above-normal heights and pressure over the central North Atlantic, the  eastern United States and western Europe. The negative phase reflects an  opposite pattern of height and pressure anomalies over these regions.” *FINAL COMMENTS*
 There is nothing in the above graphs and figures that would warrant  the drastic reductions being planned for carbon dioxide emissions and  the extremely expensive green energy options being planned by Europe in  light of the most difficult economic environment that exists in Europe  and the globe. Surely there are much more pressing problems that  confront the world and Europe than solving an apparently non-existing  problem that is only speculated to exist 100 years from now.

----------


## chrisp

> _Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth'_  _
> June 2009 saw another drop in global temps_

  Psst, Marc, the temperature went back up again - and the long-term trend is UP. Get with it, and stop quoting out of date cheery-picked single-month figures.

----------


## Marc

DOUG'S STACKS 		 	      	 		 			 				 					 						 							 							 								 									 										 											 												 													No Global Warming Since 1998
 													 													July 6, 2011    													 													 													Invest in Kleenex, because Al Gore's going to be crying a LOT. The Daily Mail and Reason Online offer no solace either. 
From the Telegraph: No global warming since 1998? Simple. All you've got to do -  as Kaufmann et al have done  - is apply the Even Though We're Wrong  We're Right Panacea Get-Out Formula. In this instance the ETWWWRPGOF (as  it's snappily known) involves Blaming The Chinese. Yep, it turns out  all that pollution that Chinese are pumping into the air thanks to their  unhealthy obsession with economic growth and giving better lives to  their children is actually counteracting the effects of Man Made Global  Warming. 
"Results indicate that net anthropogenic forcing rises  slower than previous decades because the cooling effects of sulfur  emissions grow in tandem with the warming effects greenhouse gas  concentrations. This slow-down, along with declining solar insolation  and a change from El Nino to La Nina conditions, enables the model to  simulate the lack of warming after 1998," the team explains. 
In other words Man Made Global Cooling is cancelling out Man Made Global Warming.

----------


## Marc

============================= From Andrew Bolt | Herald SunMy editorial on the carbon tax fraud. I then interview  Professor Richard Lindzen, who says Gillard’s tax wouldn’t work, even if  man really was warming the globe. Which he doubts.*Carbon Sunday*  *Andrew Bolt – Sunday, July 10, 11 (11:36 am)* 
 Vent here while venting is still legal.
 The Climate Change Committee deal here.
 UPDATE
 Some initial, quick thoughts:
 - $4.3 billion over four years is going to be spent above what the  tax raises to buy off the public with tax cuts and handouts. That’s one  wild way to sell a tax, spending more than it raises.
 - the compensation must soon run out if the Government doesn’t want  to broke. The deal says that after three years, companies can buy  offsets overseas for up to half their emissions. This means that costs  here will rise, but the revenue to compensate for these rises is sent  overseas.
 - The Government claims this package will reduce emissions by 160  millions tonnes by 2020. But the immediate tax and spending levels  cannot do that. This target can be achieved only with a dramatic raising  of the tax. No figure is given for how much of our emissions will be  cut by the tax as it.
 - The Government refuses to nominate employment effects on the specific industries involved.
 - No figure is given for what effect this will have on the world’s temperature.
 - Julia Gillard cites in her support Margaret Thatcher, who indeed  did warn in 1988 that we should worry about global warming. What Gillard  fails to add was that by 2002, Thatcher had developed second thoughts about the alarmists, writing that global warming “provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism”.
 - The Government is spending $2.7 billion extra over the next financial year alone – before the tax even gets imposed – to buy support throught tax cuts and handouts.
 - It’s a magic tax: _Cost increases: <a title=”Households to see average cost  increases of $9.90 a week. However, they will also receive assistance of  $10.10 a week on average.Households to see average cost increases of  $9.90 a week. However, they will also receive assistance of $10.10 a  week on average._
 - Gillard announces also she’ll buy out a 2000 Megawatt power station  over the next decade at a price not revealed. That’s billions to  actually reduce our power supplies, not increase them.
 ==================================================  =======

----------


## Marc

I find Chris rather amusing. 
Psst...60 years is not chicken shi#

----------


## Marc

*Coldest Year Ever : UAH March Temperatures Coldest And Going Down* 
  					 						Posted on March 7, 2011 by stevengoddard   http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutem..._ch05.r002.txt
 Something interesting is happening with UAH satellite temperatures.  Not only is March, 2011 the coldest since at least 2003 – but this is  the only year where temperatures have been declining during March.

----------


## chrisp

> I find Chris rather amusing. 
> Psst...60 years is not chicken shi#

  We think you are quite amusing and entertaining too.  We enjoy the challenge of translating your posts - they are sure giving BabelFish a good workout.  They're mostly written in Polish, right?   :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

Some promising news...   

> *Climate change sceptics endangered: study*   
> Climate change sceptics are an endangered species in Australia, a national survey shows. 
>               The survey of almost 3100 Australians found 74 per cent believe the world's climate is changing. 
>               When asked a different question about the causes of  climate change, which removed the reference to personal beliefs, 90 per  cent of respondents said human activity was a factor. 
> Just 5 per cent said climate change was entirely caused by natural processes. 
>               Overall, less than 6 per cent of respondents could  reasonably be classified as true climate change sceptics, the study by  Griffith University researchers found. 
> "It's clear that people want the government to do  something about climate change and they also feel they have a personal  responsibility to act," environmental and social psychologist Professor  Joseph Reser said. 
> Read more: Climate change sceptics endangered: study

----------


## Dr Freud

What's the difference between an AGW hypothesis "believer" and a computer? 
You can punch information into a computer.  :Roflmao:  
This is nearly harder than watching the Wallabies lack of performance today, nearly.  :Biggrin:    

> And just to explore this a little more...

  Okay, if we must, again...   

> The graph in the post above shows the warming continuing, so where does this "cooling" or "not warming" claim come from?

  The graph shows a temporary halt in the natural warming cycle that has been occuring since the end of the little ice age.  But as I have said before, this is just a visual display because it has become blatantly obviously that AGW hypothesis "believers" either can't or won't read or comprehend. 
But like I keep saying, lines in a graph do not prove anything, this requires rigorous statistical analysis.  This was done by Dr Phil Jones who is a wholehearted supporter and believer of the AGW hypothesis cult.  He is in fact their data "guru", or was until his ineptitude was uncovered during CLIMATEGATE.  His work was verified by many other IPCC fascientists who were dismayed at the "travesty of no warming" as Marc's post indicates again.  Let's see what Phil says:   

> Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now  suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.  
> And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no statistically significant warming.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...organised.html

  Now all you people who claim to have "the science" on your side would obviously be very well versed in NHST.  You would understand that the only two possible outcomes from a successful study is that the Null is either accepted or rejected.  Dr Phil Jones has accepted the Null, and rejected the alternative hypothesis, which is the AGW hypothesis.  This means the study cannot distinguish the results from random chance, measurement error, or just plain noise in the data.  In layman's terms, the study says "Nothing is happening".  Specifically in this study, "the science" is saying there is no warming. 
If you'd like more details as to where this "claim" comes from, you can contact Dr Phil Jones here:  *Professor Phil Jones*  **   *Current Post:* Director, CRU   *Room Number:* CRU 1.06  *Telephone:* 01603 592090 (+44 1603 592090)   *Fax:* 01603 507784 (+44 1603 507784)   *Email:* p.jones@uea.ac.uk  http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/facstaff/jonesp    

> If you look at at the textual data that makes up the graph: 
> You can see there was a high temperature in 1998 (which I have highlighted in red). By using this a base, some then claim, as 1999, 2000 and 2001 were cooler, that this is evidence that the world is cooling and the AGW theory is false. *In 2002 the temperature reached the same as that of 1998, and in 2005 exceeded it.*

  You must be yanking my chain now?  Are you seriously just picking out random years and trying to compare one against the other?  What do you call this scientific assessment, the "making sh-- up" scientific method? 
Because 2005 was .07 (or 7/100th) of a degree warmer than 1998, you think you've "proved" the AGW hypothesis?  :Doh:  
From someone else I could forgive this, but from someone who chants the "cherry picking" mantra in cultish fashion, this is moving beyond hipocrisy toward something more pathological. 
Why don't you go argue with Dr Phil Jones who has accepted the Null hypothesis and rejected the AGW hypothesis, unlike you.  :Doh:    

> So... How does the "15 years" claim come about?  Well if you twist the figures, and use a single carefully selected annual-mean figure as a base (i.e. the single 1998 figure - highlighted in red) and comparing it to a 5-year-mean figure. You could falsely claim that it "isn't warming". It is a case of a false comparison comparing a 5-year-mean against an annual-mean figure - apples and oranges so to speak. To do the proper comparison, you either compare annual-mean-to-annual-mean or 5-year-mean-to-5-year-mean. i.e use the 5-year-mean figure for 1998 (highlighted in blue and use it as a base for comparison for the following years.

  I have no idea where you developed these wacky calculations from, I just prefer to stick to valid and reliable scientific and statistical methods.  I'll just have to live with you guys calling me a sceptic I guess.  :Biggrin:  
And I used the word "notwithstanding" for a reason.  The year 1998 is irrelevant to the last 15 year period in terms of the "natural" temperature trends.   

> *To claim that the "Earth stopped warming nearly 15 years ago" is simply false, misleading and unsubstantiated.*  This is the sort of false, misleading information that the "shock jocks" like to continually repeat.

  Wow.   :Shock:  
Dr Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, who is one of the biggest AGW hypothesis supporting climate scientists of all time, uses valid and reliable methodology to accept the Null hypothesis and reject the AGW hypothesis. 
And even after this he says in a cult like fashion that he still "believes" in the AGW hypothesis. 
Then you call his work "*false, misleading and unsubstantiated*" and you call him a "Shock Jock".  
He's gonna love your email.  :Roflmao2:

----------


## Dr Freud

So now you only "believe" atheist scientists?  :Doh:  
Now you may understand why I changed from calling this farce a religion into calling it a cult.  I wanted to ensure that I was not inadvertently directing criticism toward peoples genuine right to believe in whatever faith system they prefer.  These are called religions, they do not market themselves as science.  Unlike the AGW hypothesis that is actually another belief system, yet tries to scam people into believing it is based on "scientific proof". 
You lot on the other hand are happy to throw mud at whoever speaks out against your cult.  You can see below how you denigrate Dr Spencer's genuine right to freedom of religious belief, even though this has absolutely nothing to do with the satellite data I posted from his site.  Are you saying that the satellites are biased toward Christianity, or Islam or Buddhism for that matter.  You see, the base religion of all these people are irrelevant to "empirical scientific evidence" which is what the satellite data is.  So why do you post information that is disparaging of Dr Spencer's base religion. 
Should we start posting information relating to your private life and behaviours that also are unscientific and use them in a smear campaign to say you are not scientific?  :No:  
Do you similarly mock all Islamic scholars for their beliefs in their base religion:   

> Is there anything in the Quraan or Sunnah about global warming?  Dr. Zaghloul al-Najjaar      says:  This hadeeth is a      scientific miracle that describes a natural fact that was not understood by      scientists until the late twentieth century, when it was proven by      definitive evidence that the Arabian Peninsula was meadows and rivers in      ancient times. Climate studies have also indicated that the arid desert is      now on its way to becoming meadows and rivers again, because the earth      throughout its long history passes through climatic changes that take place      gradually over long periods of time, or they may be sudden and swift.     Climate studies indicate      that we are coming into a new rainy period, the evidence of which is the      shift of the ice-cap in the northern hemisphere towards the south, and a      noticeable fall in winter temperatures.     The fact that the Prophet       (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) referred to this ice age in      his hadeeth until the land of the Arabs once again becomes meadows and      rivers is proof of his Prophethood, and shows that he was always connected      to divine revelation, and was taught by the Creator of the heavens and the      earth. End quote.     Islam Question and Answer - Is there anything in the Qur

     While I do not believe in these religious deities, I respect the rights of others to do so. 
But your continual grubby and personal smear campaign against all who speak against the AGW hypothesis just reinforces for everyone that you have no scientific credibility at all.    

> The graph that Dr Freud posted by from Roy Spencer's website.  It uses monthly figures.  It is a bit like saying it was cool in winter therefore the world is not warming! 
> Spencer is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".  
> The declaration states: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems  created by Gods intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence  are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."  Roy Spencer (scientist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  And as for this:   

> *AND he is going on about cults???*

  Hopefully now you understand why I call this farce a cult, it is an attempt to show some respect to bona fide religions by not grouping them with my derision of this cult.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Why did you post an old graph rather than the latest one?*

  I just Googled (images) UAH and satellite data and a whole lot of charts popped up, with that one looking like the most recent.  It was more than enough data to demonstrate the 15 year time period that you sought further information on, as opposed to the 130 YEAR time period you incorrectly posted. 
But the more important question is who cares about a few months of monthly data.  This is irrelevant to "climate change" data, isn't it? 
Now, where did I read this:   

> The graph that Dr Freud posted by from Roy Spencer's website. It uses monthly figures. It is a bit like saying it was cool in winter therefore the world is not warming!

  Are you now saying it was warm in summer, therefore the world IS warming?  :Doh:  
It is unfortunate for you that cults do not encourage coherence.   
When you continually set out to "nit pick", name call, and smear your opponents, rather than admit there is ZERO empirical evidence proving the AGW hypothesis, you further erode your credibility. 
That is how you end up in situations like this above where you contradict your own position, and only a few posts apart too.  :Saddest:

----------


## Dr Freud

Mate, are you ever gonna post anything original of merit, or are you just content to whine incessantly and incorrectly about what us realists post. 
You do understand that you are allowed to post any information you want.  if you disagree with something, jsut post some facts refuting it, and the debate is over.  Incessant whining can go on forever without resolution, just ask any husband!  :Shock:   Sorry ladies.  :Blush7:    

> It is a bit like a graph he posted some time back in which the allegation is that the Liberals are always fixing up Labor deficits

  This was not an allegation, it is fact.  Hawke/Keating racked up the debt and Howard/Costello paid it back.  If you think that's an allegation and Howard/Costello actually racked up the debt, then Rudd/Swan paid it back, just post the info.  :Doh:    

> but managed to start it conveniently enough that it eliminated the data showing the deficit Hawke inherited from Howard

  Mate, I don't design this stuff, I just cut and paste it, how many times do I have to say this.   So I did NOT "start" any graph, NOR did I "eliminate" any data.  And Howard was not Prime Minister prior to Hawke.  :Doh:  
No wonder you're all confused!  :Biggrin:    

> The sad part is since the seventies our governments have attempted to run balanced budgets with surplus in good times and deficits coming from recessionary periods.

  Yeh, previously Hawke and Keating just had "bad luck", then Howard just had all the "good luck" and now Rudd and JuLIAR just have had all the "bad luck".  I guess it's irrelevant what government policies we have or how much we spend or how much debt we rack up, it's all just down to who's governing during the "good luck" cycle?  :Doh:  
FFS, what hope do we have with this level of voodoo economics being believed in the community?  :No:    

> This was the graph used, but Dr Fr*e*ud, as is his want, created a lie from the truth by eliminating the period showing the early Liberal deficits.

  Again, I eliminated nothing.  But post whatever you want, it's a free country (for now, until Bob Brown gets to say what's fit to print).  :Doh:    

> He also ommitted the important connection of world wide recessionary periods on the deficits.

  Again, I omitted nothing.  Are you seeing the pattern here yet?    

> *EDITED POST... PLAY THE BALL, NOT THE MAN.*

  Unfortunately they've dropped the ball on this one, and it's game over!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> and stop quoting out of date cheery-picked single-month figures.

  But then you are upset about me ignoring single month figures to make a point about a 15 year time frame?  :Doh:  
Do you just complain about the semantics of anything we post because you CANNOT find a single shred of empirical scientific evidence proving this farce, and that really annoys you.   :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Some promising news...

  Taken from when?   

> The survey was carried out in June and July last year

  But let's see how truly ridiculous this crud is:   

> The survey of almost 3100 Australians found 74 per cent believe the world's climate is changing.

  The other 26% are idiots, the world's climate is always changing!  :Biggrin:    

> 90 per cent of respondents said human activity was a factor.

   
The other 10% are idiots.  Of course human activity is a factor, so are whale farts, the question is about quantifying that factor.  :Doh:    

> Just 5 per cent said climate change was entirely caused by natural processes.

  These 5% are idiots, of course humans (apparently unnatural animals now  :Doh: ) have an effect in accordance with response above.   

> "Our findings suggest that Australians feel the threat to their local region and nation more intensely and that's not surprising given the *nature, intensity, and dramatic impacts of natural disaster events in the past few years*," he said.

  So their responses are based on finite weather events anyway, not long term climate change.  :Doh:    

> "With nonstop media images, sound bites, warning messages, and popularised science accounts of planetary threat, psychological impacts are not surprising.

  And the study even admits the media "hyperbowl" and scaremongering as influencing attitudes as opposed to reality.  :Doh:    

> and funded by the federal government's Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency's Climate Change Adaptation Research Grants program.

  And us taxpayers again foot the bill for this sh--. 
When will this futile spending stop?   
We borrowed money from China to pay for this crud.  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

Cool, huh?   :Biggrin:  
You know you want to do it!  :Ohyaaa:

----------


## johnc

Howard was Treasurer before Hawke you dill, as you well know, why can't you get your act out of the gutter and try a bit harder.

----------


## dazzler

You lot still going.........wow........I thought you would have been tired of going around circles  :Smilie:

----------


## johnc

Bugger, and I thought it was the joy of hitting your head against a brick wall. :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> You lot still going.........wow........I thought you would have been tired of going around circles

  Welcome back dazzler! 
Where have you been?

----------


## chrisp

> But like I keep saying, lines in a graph do not prove anything, this requires rigorous statistical analysis.  This was done by Dr Phil Jones who is a wholehearted supporter and believer of the AGW hypothesis cult.  He is in fact their data "guru", or was until his ineptitude was uncovered during CLIMATEGATE.  His work was verified by many other IPCC fascientists who were dismayed at the "travesty of no warming" as Marc's post indicates again.  *Let's see what Phil says:*

  *Let's....*   

> *Global warming since 1995 'now significant'*  
> "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90%  level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people  use," Professor Jones told BBC News.  
>          "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That  period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in  estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend  significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that  statisticians have used for many years.  
>          "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a  short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years -  would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance  on a consistent basis."  
>          Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is *routinely quoted - erroneously* - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.   BBC News - Global warming since 1995 &#039;now significant&#039;

  You can keep cherry-picking and you can keep distorting the figures and comments, *but the world is warming!*

----------


## Dr Freud

> Howard was Treasurer before Hawke you dill, as you well know, why can't you get your act out of the gutter and try a bit harder.

  Actually Keating was Treasurer before Hawke was for his brief stint.  :Doh:  
Do you guys think I just make this stuff up? 
But hopefully Abbott can be elected Prime Minister very soon and we can go through another one of those coincidentally aligned "good luck" economic periods that occur regardless of the idiot policies of people in government.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You lot still going.........wow........I thought you would have been tired of going around circles

  Mate, it's been too cold and rainy outside for so long, so we may as well sit inside and chat about how this TAX in Australia will make the Planet Earth colder.   
Do you reckon it will?  :Biggrin:

----------


## dazzler

> Welcome back dazzler! 
> Where have you been?

  Helping Julia sort out her climate change policy. 
Lots of work...... 
Learning to backflip was a biggie!
How to lie and keep a straight face - that took a while.
Ensuring nothing would be achieved - that was easy - Labor party modus operandi.   
So pretty busy but back now! 
Did those fellas ever admit they had misquoted me?  Wouldn't think so but too many posts to read now  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Let's....* 
> You can keep cherry-picking and you can keep distorting the figures and comments, *but the world is warming!*

  Do you not read anything I post here.   :No:  
It is a scientific fact that the world has been naturally warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.  These warming and cooling cycles have been happening naturally for about 4.5 billion years.  I have regularly posted proxy data and measured data demonstrating various periods of this 4.5 billion years of natural warming and cooling. 
If there's anything confusing about the preceding paragraph, please let me know and I am happy to clear it up.  :Doh:  
If you think me regularly citing the entire climate history of the Planet Earth is cherry-picking, then this is certainly proof of your adherence to this cultish mantra.  :Doh:  
If you keep confusing "effects" with "causes" then this is certainly proof you still haven't grasped the substantive matters that lead to your confusion. 
Periods of measured warming and measured cooling still require significant scientific work before we can begin to become confident with attribution, or causation, or "what's causing it" in a general translation. 
But enough correcting of your continual errors, let's get back to the statistics. 
What's Dr Phil Jones up to:   

> 2010 - And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no statistically significant warming. 
> 2011 - Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair.

  Let's assume this latest analysis was reliable and valid (and more on this below) but Dr Phil was happy to say for 15 years there was no warming, mind you only after being hauled before standards committees for previously withholding these facts.   
Now apparently there is warming again.   
This science doesn't sound very settled.  What if temperatures flatline over the next year or two?  Does this mean next year he'll say it's not warming again for the last 17 years? 
Here's some others trying to figure out how settled this farce actually is NOT:   

> So, at least based on the data at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...hadcrut3gl.txt, the trend since 1995 does not yet appear statistically significant.  
> Ok. but Hadcrut has another series. So, I tried this one: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...adcrut3vgl.txt.
> This one _does_ show statistical significance if I treat the residuals as white noise. I bet Phil meant If I use one of our series rather than the other.  The Blackboard » Statistical Significance since 1995? Not with HadCrut!

  But, and this is a big BUT, you keep forgetting that this discussion is about us humans accuracy in measuring a global temperature "effect".  We are still very innacurate about quantifying this effect on a global scale.   We have many issues such as the statistical debates above about how accurate and applicable the measurements of these effects are.  
Then you suddenly leap in cultish fashion to assuming the cause is guaranteed to be in accordance with your cult, even though I have demonstrated many times there is ZERO evidence proving this.  
Us realists are happy to debate the measurement accuracy of measuring these effects, which have now been "proved" are not in accordance with the AGW hypothesis over the last 15 years through numerous reliable and valid studies.  If Dr Phil has now "adjusted" his data to show a different results, I and many others will be very keen to see if the "effect" we are measuring is showing warming again.  
Then we can go back to our debate on the causes, mine is the Null hypothesis, which stands as scientific fact.  This is the natural warming trend arising after the last little ice age.  Yours is the AGW hypothesis which has failed time after time, yet you still falsely claim it is a fact in cultish fashion.  
Hopefully soon we can see what data "adjustments" the good Dr has made in this presumably "peer-reviewed" paper that I can't find.  I'll keep an eye out, but if you can dig it up that would be awful nice of you.  :Biggrin:  
Meanwhile, let's trash the Australian economy on the verge of the next global financial crisis and possibly global recession, based on IPCC fascientists chasing their next research grant.  :Doh:

----------


## PhilT2

Doc, seems like you are having trouble with that "mathurbation" again; can't help you out there, you are on your own, literally. But when you have a hand free grab a stats text book and see if you can explain the difference between warming that is statistically significant and warming that is not statistically significant. Which one causes the ice to melt?

----------


## johnc

> Helping Julia sort out her climate change policy. 
> Lots of work...... 
> Learning to backflip was a biggie!
> How to lie and keep a straight face - that took a while.
> Ensuring nothing would be achieved - that was easy - Labor party modus operandi.  
> So pretty busy but back now! 
> Did those fellas ever admit they had misquoted me? Wouldn't think so but too many posts to read now

  I think Julia almost got away with it, it was that damn half pike in the middle that did her in, although of late there has been plenty of other front page news so both Julia and Tony are being left to their own devices which is a worry.

----------


## chrisp

> Let's assume this latest analysis was reliable and valid (and more on this below) but Dr Phil was happy to say for 15 years there was no warming, mind you only after being hauled before standards committees for previously withholding these facts.

  You are twisting the words and intent of Phil Jones.  The data indeed shows warming - it wasn't 95% statistically confident data - only 93%.  It DIDN'T show cooling, and it DIDN'T show "no warming". 
The last year of date has pushed the confidence level back over 95%. 
Twist the figures all you like (and I'm sure you will), but the scientific evidence shows that it is warming!

----------


## chrisp

> Do you not read anything I post here.   
> It is a scientific fact that the world has been naturally warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.  These warming and cooling cycles have been happening naturally for about 4.5 billion years.  I have regularly posted proxy data and measured data demonstrating various periods of this *4.5 billion years of natural warming and cooling*.

  ... and solar output varying, and planets changing orbits, life evolving, meteoroid impacts... etc.  There were - and are - many factors that can change the temperature and the atmosphere.  AND the science has considered all these and more and determined that the latest temperature rise is due to man-made CO2.

----------


## Marc

*THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX*   
 The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is *NO GLOBAL WARMING!*  Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K  and the global freezing claims in the 1960's and 70's were. Global  warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this  movement are using it to control people's lives and for financial gain.
  There are not many individuals, groups, or organizations willing to  stand up against this fraud that is being perpetuated for fear of being  persecuted, harassed, and ostracized by those who support global warming  within the scientific and other communities. But fortunately, a few  have decided to do the right thing and take a stand against this evil,  proving just how unscientifically founded global warming is and exposing  those who are behind it. Below, you will find links to information and  articles showing the proof that global warming is nothing more than just a bunch of hot air (pun intended).
  The date that you see by each headline is the date when it was posted  here. If you know of a news story, research, or information that should  be posted here, please let us know and provide us with a link. The  articles posted for previous years have been archived and links are  provided to them; by year; at the bottom of this page. 
 25 July 2011 - Why We Should Give The Cold Shoulder To A BBC Trust Review That Argues The Broadcaster Should Ignore Global-Warming 'Deniers' [The BBC is Not interested in truth, only in reporting upon what they want to]
  25 July 2011 - Climate Change Sceptics Should Get Less BBC Coverage And Be Challenged 'More Vigorously', Says Report On Science Output [More proof as to how bias the media is and how one-sided the news they report upon is]
  20 July 2011 - The Warmers' CO2 Argument
  15 July 2011 - Climate Cops Blame Ozone For Illness  [The climate kooks have launched another bizarre bid for attention --  this time claiming that global warming will cause millions of illnesses  and cost billions of dollars]
  12 July 2011 - Australian Children Are Being Terrified By Climate Change Lessons [More insanity and scare tactics brought to you by the Global Warming Cult]
  12 July 2011 - Global-Warming Hysteria Hits Australia With Carbon Tax [Even more greed and more of your money being stolen by the Cult of Global Warming]
  08 July 2011 - Coal-Burning China's Rapid Growth May Have HALTED Global Warming  [More lies and nonsense from the Cult of Global Warming. Just a short  while back there were saying that this was the cause of global warming,  not they are saying it is halting it. Just another typical cult tactic,  when things go opposite of what you say, just turn your theology and  teachings around so they fit with what is happening!]
  08 July 2011 - Global Warming? A New Ice Age? The Only Certainty Is That YOU'RE Paying For The Hysteria Of Our Politicians  [More nonsense, stupidity, and greed. All they are after is to get all  of your money and tell you how you should live your life!]
  08 July 2011 - Global Warning: Scientists In U-Turn As They Claim Extreme Weather And Climate Change Are Linked  [The Cult of Global Warming has now decided to blame every weather  event on global warming (sorry climate change). I don't know about you,  but I hadn't noticed any reluctance on their part not to blame every  shower on climate change previously]
  05 July 2011 - 'Climate Change Scam' Has Nothing To Do With Science
  23 June 2011 - Al Gore: Stabilize Population To Combat Global Warming [More INSANITY from the FALSE PROPHET of the GLOBAL WARMING CULT!]
  21 June 2011 - Scientists Now Predict A New Little Ice Age Is Near  [More NONSENSE from the Cult that brought you global warming. I  remember back in the late 1970'2 and early 1980's they were talking  about an ice age by 1990. Obviously that never happened either. This  just goes to prove what the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 3:19-20 (KJV): "_For  the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He  taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth  the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain._"]
  20 June 2011 - Head Of Oregon Global Warming Commission Shuts Down Question And Media (AGENDA 21) [Has an embedded video on the web page]
  16 June 2011 - Global Warming Not To Blame For 2011 Droughts
  14 June 2011 - The New Religion Of Global Warming
  13 June 2011 - UK: 'We Must Stop Pandering To Climate Scaremongers': Ex-Civil Service Chief Blasts Ministers For Global Warming 'Evangelism' [Global taxation (sorry warming)]
  31 May 2011 - Stopping Global Warming Can Only Be Achieved By The Limitation Of Democracy! [More craziest from the Cult of Global Warming and its members!]
  31 May 2011 - Global Warming Charlatans Feel The Heat
  29 Apr 2011 - Brainwashed Kid Travels The World Promoting The Global Warming Hoax
  25 Apr 2011 - Elementary "Earth Day" Indoctrination [Brainwashing of the young and innocent!] [Has an embedded video on the web page]
  21 Apr 2011 - Global Warming Or Crucifixion Day?
  18 Apr 2011 - EPA Official Says Jobs Don't Matter [Has an embedded video on the web page]
  18 Apr 2011 - Your Money's Gone With The Wind (And Solar)
  12 Apr 2011 - Simple Exercises To Promote Healthy Neck Muscles And Ligaments
  04 Apr 2011 - Obama's Limo Exempt From New 'Green' Policy
  30 Mar 2011 - Got Problems? Blame Global Warming
  29 Mar 2011 - The Global Warming Fleecing Of American Taxpayers
  29 Mar 2011 - How Hot Is The Core Of The Earth? [Has an embedded video on the web page]
  24 Mar 2011 - EPA Wrong To View Science As Settled
  15 Mar 2011 - INSANITY: 'Green' Price Tag: $700 Trillion To Drop Earth's Temp _1 Degree_: Even EPA Admits Cost Of Regulating Greenhouse Gases 'Absurd'
  14 Mar 2011 - Once Again, Mum Nature Has Her Way!
  09 Mar 2011 - Inhofe: Obama Trying To Kill Oil And Gas, Force Green
  28 Feb 2011 - OU Professor Says Stormy Winter Nothing To Do With Global Warming Has 
  22 Feb 2011 - NOAA Says Al Gore's Claim About Snow And Global Warming Is NONSENSE [More proof that this doomsday prophet and his cult are totally false!]
  17 Feb 2011 - The Nazi Origins Of Apocalyptic Global Warming Theory
  10 Feb 2011 - Al Gore's Incredibly Shrinking Credibility
  08 Feb 2011 - Blow To 'Global Warming' - Study: Many Himalayan Glaciers Are Growing Or Stable  [And this is after the Cult of Global Warming has been going on and on  about how the glaciers there are shrinking. More proof that they are  nothing but a cult of lies!]
  07 Feb 2011  'Pulling The Plug' On Green Subsidies
  04 Feb 2011 - Gore's Unending Blizzard Of Lies
  04 Feb 2011 - How Climate Sanity Has Been Gored
  02 Feb 2011 - Snow, Freezing Rain Cancel Flights, Trains, School Across U.S.  [So how long until the Global Warming Cult and its false prophet Al  Gore come up with some hocus pocus nonsense about global warming causing  this?]
  02 Feb 2011 - Global Warming Skepticism Reaches White House
  31 Jan 2011 - Another IPCC Global Warming Hoax Exposed---Glaciers GROWING In Himalayas, Not Melting!
  18 Jan 2011 - The Great 'Climate Change' 2011 Taxpayer Rip-Off
  18 Jan 2011 - UN Subterfuge...The Global Warming Hoax
  13 Jan 2011 -  49 Of 50 U.S. States Have Snow  [Hey Al Gore, How do you and your Cult of Global Warming explain this?  This goes completely against your false teachings and theology! More  proof that you are just another false prophet spouting lies!]
  06 Jan 2011 - More Harsh Winter Weather On The Way  [So what happened to the global warming? This weather goes completely  against the theological teachings of the Cult of Global Warming and its  false prophet Al Gore]
  06 Jan 2011 - ENGLAND: Why The Met Office Didn't Dare Tell Us It Was Getting Cold  [The Met Office, being slaves to global warming computer models, seems  that the results given to them for long term forecasts are wrong every  time!]  *The Global Warming Hoax Archives:* The Global Warming Hoax - 2010 The Global Warming Hoax - 2009 The Global Warming Hoax - 2008 The Global Warming Hoax - 2007

----------


## Marc

As for the limp wristed, bike riding, welfare subsidized fringe that has temporarily polluted Australian politics I have news for you. Your time is coming to an end so fast that you will not know what hit you.

----------


## watson

What the hell has this got to do with the thread!!
Sick of having to read this sort of crud, and then moderate.
KEEP ON TOPIC OR RACK OFF.

----------


## chrisp

> As for the limp wristed, bike riding, welfare subsidized fringe that has temporarily polluted Australian politics I have news for you. Your time is coming to an end so fast that you will not know what hit you.

  Look out cyclists!  Marc is coming down the road in his 7 litre 4WD (brrm, brrm, brrm).

----------


## johnc

If his driving is anything like his efforts here he must be all over the road like a drunk one legged sailor on his first day of shore leave.

----------


## PhilT2

The Arctic sea ice was was headed for a record low this year up until a few days ago when it suddenly slowed. Now it's back to melting at high rates and the chance of a new record low is still a possibility. The previous low was set in 2007, one of those years when the warming was not statistically significant. Guess the ice doesn't understand stats either.

----------


## Marc

COMMENTARY: Global-warming politics - Washington Times      

> ◀▶  *COMMENTARY: Global-warming politics*  
> Aaaaah....they got me by the short and curly!!!  Bloomberg  News Former Vice President Al Gore “ducked” critics of global warming,  avoiding a debate with a skeptical Czech president at a conference in  California, according to opinionjournal.com.By 
> -
> The Washington Times
> 4:45 a.m.,                          Wednesday, April 22, 2009   *Follow Us On*   *Facebook*   *Question of the Day*  
> The professional practice of pure science, like most other honorable  life pursuits, has its opinion leaders, its majority opinion and its  minority opinion. However, the mix of pure science with politics, which  is necessary from a practical standpoint, has obvious pitfalls.    
>  To some large or small degree, highly opinionated and domineering  personalities, stilted viewpoints and sometimes malevolent politics must  enter into the recipe. The opinions and domineering seem to flow more  freely around the time of the year we call Earth Day (for those who  aren’t hip, that would be April 22 every year). When politicking  dominates the perspective of pure science on any day of the year, we all  lose.  
>  In our combined 50 years of professional atmospheric and environmental  science experience in government, academia, activism and consulting, we  have observed a dichotomy between the real and the academic-bureaucratic  worlds of environmental science. 
>  Scientists and engineers who work hands-on in the trenches with  real-world environmental-science challenges on a daily basis are  skeptical of claims of a substantial influence on global climate from  human activity.  
> ...

  Like I said...politics and global warming have a lot in common and this thread is a (conceded small) sample of such relationship
the "quality" of politics and politicians involved particularly in promoting "action" is appalling and their tactics worthy of a better cause. Lets add that when in the very near future the greens gravy train (and bike) raiders and the climate change bureaucrat get booted not a day too early they will probably struggle to find another activity and will most likely go back to their mud brick hut and green wood carving and night time arm chair lefties empty bla bla. 
Normal life will continue and we will wonder what was all that about. 
Meantime the Solar Panels produced in China at a cost of $23 and sold at $1800 with grand subsidy courtesy of the Labour Government will start to falter and their output drop by 50% going from a  contribution of 0.0002% to 0.0001%.
In ten years time the landfill will be starting to receive their spoils. 
What has politicians to do with this thread?
A lot I'm afraid, and that is precisely the problem. 
After all the science is settled, so not possible to discuss that aspect anymore.

----------


## johnc

Mate, there is no quality in either grammar, prose or coherence in that post, do you think you could work on that a bit (or lay off the red) so we can work out what you are tugging yourself over?

----------


## chrisp

Here is one to watch live or set the PVR for:  SBS-1 Tuesday night 8:30pm   

> 8:30  *  Science Under Attack* 
> Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse examines why science appears  to be under attack, and why public trust in key scientific theories has  been eroded - from the theory that man-made climate change is warming  our planet, to the safety of GM food, or that HIV causes AIDS. He  interviews scientists and campaigners from both sides of the climate  change debate, and travels to New York to meet Tony, who has HIV but  doesn't believe that that the virus is responsible for AIDS. (From the  UK) (Documentary) G CC

----------


## PhilT2

> Mate, there is no quality in either grammar, prose or coherence in that post, do you think you could work on that a bit (or lay off the red) so we can work out what you are tugging yourself over?

  Over two years old too, not much value in their "latest global trend"

----------


## PhilT2

The US has new standards and regulations for controlling GHG emissions from vehicles Regulations & Standards | Transportation and Climate | US EPA
China has introduced a nationwide solar feedin tariff China&#039;s great big solar boost | Climate Spectator

----------


## Marc

When the fringe is sold as the norm, you know the lunatics have taken charge of the asylum.
When the two resident dullard can only come up with personal attacks and remarks on spelling, it is clear that there is no substance behind any of their claims. 
The global warming myth should be dead and buried a long time ago if it wasn't for the millions who jumped on the gravy train and are still milking it for all it is worth with total disregard to truth, moral, principles or... God forbid..scientific process. 
It does not matter in the end; the fringe will go back to where they have always been, the unproductive, irrelevant edges and the alternative mirage, objecting and dissenting in order to do nothing and claim some form of handout in one way or another. 
Life continues despite the AGW propaganda. Climate continues to change regardless of what we do or stop doing. 
Get a real job.

----------


## Geno62

Marc, 
I suspect most here really do have a real job, I don't see what purpose it serves rubbishing people and their views and finishing off with a reference to employment. There seems to be a lot of assumptions and generalisations that you could not have sufficient information to form. Do you have a job? and are you productive? and really why should it matter.

----------


## watson

The Carbon Tax Poll is now closed and the results are as follows:

----------


## Dr Freud

> But when you have a hand free grab a stats text book and see if you can explain the difference between warming that is statistically significant and warming that is not statistically significant. Which one causes the ice to melt?

  If there is statistically significant warming from -20 celsius to -18 celsius and there is ice present, will this statistically significant warming cause the ice to melt? :Doh:  
Stick to reality and you'll be much less confused.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> ... and solar output varying, and planets changing orbits, life evolving, meteoroid impacts... etc.  There were - and are - many factors that can change the temperature and the atmosphere.  AND the science has considered all these and more and determined that the latest temperature rise is due to man-made CO2.

  So you and your fellow cult members believe that for 4.5 billion years, a countless number of variable interactions that are still beyond our current technological and intellectual levels to understand, changed the climate regularly.   
But then humans invented the thermometer and all these forces immediately and magically stopped!  :Doh:  
Welcome to Dr Phil Jonestown.  :Wink 1:

----------


## chrisp

> But then humans invented the thermometer and all these forces immediately and magically stopped!

  They haven't stopped - but they are extremely slow processes and they don't account for the unprecedented rapid rise in temperature currently being experienced.  CO2 does.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The Arctic sea ice was was headed for a record low this year up until a few days ago when it suddenly slowed. Now it's back to melting at high rates and the chance of a new record low is still a possibility. The previous low was set in 2007, one of those years when the warming was not statistically significant. Guess the ice doesn't understand stats either.

  This is so irrelevant that I can't even rebut it. 
Was there a point to it?  :No:

----------


## chrisp

> This is so irrelevant that I can't even rebut it. 
> Was there a point to it?

  Yep, its a hard one for you to even attempt to refute.   
The earth gets warmer == more ice melting.   
It is quite simple really - and hard to refute.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Here is one to watch live or set the PVR for:  SBS-1 Tuesday night 8:30pm

  This propaganda piece will fill the "believers" with glee.   

> examines why science appears  to be under attack

  Us realists wholeheartedly accept the empirical scientific evidence and wholeheartedly dismiss as opinion the subjective ravings of the IPCC fascientists.   

> why public trust in key scientific theories has  been eroded

  Why care about public opinion, will he interview the tens of thousands of scientists who know the AGW hypothesis is a crock of sh--?  :No:  
The rest of the conspiracy theory nutters will be rolled out with the rest of the cr-- you listed to desperately try to give this cult some veneer of credibility.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> The rest of the conspiracy theory nutters will be rolled out with the rest of the cr-- you listed to desperately try to give this cult some veneer of credibility.

  The "conspiracy theory nutters"?  Are you referring to Rod, Marc and yourself?   
It is the AGW deniers that run the "conspiracy theory" line - you know, all the scientific bodies all over the world, from all flavours of political systems - are ALL are in an "conspiracy" to rule the world!   
They are somehow "doctoring" the data to make the gullible population believe the world is warming.  *I wonder how they roped the ice-melt and the sea-level-rise in on this conspiracy too?   * Maybe the snowmen have been promised an influential role in the new world order?   :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> a countless number of variable interactions that are still beyond our current technological and intellectual levels to understand

  Did you think I was kidding?   

> they don't account for the unprecedented rapid rise in temperature currently being experienced

  So you have empirical evidence that this very gradual temperature rise out of the last ice age has NEVER occurred over the last 4.5 billion years? 
Cos that would make it unprecedented.  :Doh:  
And you also have empirical evidence PROVING that no other variables or combination of variables could even have contributed to these natural changes? 
Cos that would mean they don't account.  :Doh:    

> CO2 does.

  We already know you have no empirical evidence for this opinion, but feel free to keep repeating it.  This is a free country after all.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> And you also have empirical evidence PROVING that no other variables or combination of variables could even have contributed to these natural changes?

  The science certainly does.  Why do you think every reputable scientific organisation on the world (ALL of them, every one of them), support the AGW theory that the warming is due to man-made CO2 - do you really think they are just guessing?  Do you think they have ignored the influences of natural variations? 
The natural variations don't explain the extent and speed of the temperature rise.  Has the sun suddenly got hotter?, Has the earth's orbit suddenly changed? Has there been massive meteoroid strike lately? 
Your basis for denial are looking extremely shaky and don't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Yep, its a hard one for you to even attempt to refute.

  No, not hard to refute, but irrelevant nonsense. 
But if you want to see why, here are the Arctic and Antarctic Ice measures:       

> The earth gets warmer == more ice melting.

  Yes, glad you noticed.  The question is why is it getting warmer? 
Notice how the ice melts in the northern hemisphere during its summer, then freezes again during winter. 
Notice also how the ice melts in the southern hemisphere during its summer, then freezes again during winter. 
Now, I wonder whether this is because that bit of the Planet Earth points towards the Sun, or is it because only human CO2 emissions go up and down along these exact seasonal changes, that vary around their respective natural means. 
Google "axial tilt" for more education.  :Doh:  
Cue moral outrage: No, no, it can't possibly be the Sun!!! It must be the cows farting!!!   

> It is quite simple really - and hard to refute.

  Tell me about it.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

I've got lots of Andrew Bolt stuff to cut and paste, so haven't got time for this usual semantic ridiculous commentary.   

> The "conspiracy theory nutters"?  Are you referring to Rod, Marc and yourself?

  No, you and your ilk always trying to drag in "beetroot cures AIDS" or "smoking doesn't contribute to illness" or "some cr-- about Malaria that I can't even remember" or similar ridiculous nonsense.  Then trying to link this to whoever disagrees with your cult.  :Doh:    

> It is the AGW deniers that run the "conspiracy theory" line - you know, all the scientific bodies all over the world, from all flavours of political systems - are ALL are in an "conspiracy" to rule the world!

  Again, I don't know who these whacko deniers are you keep talking about, but they sound nuts.     

> They are somehow "doctoring" the data to make the gullible population believe the world is warming.

  Why would they have to doctor the data, the Planet Earth has been naturally warming since the end of the little ice age.  We can always argue over the collection, collation, and analysis of that data. 
But IPCC fascientists like Michael Mann create fictional representations of the data like the Hockey Stick, that are later dumped by even the IPCC after this hideously deceptive data manipulation is uncovered.   

> *I wonder how they roped the ice-melt and the sea-level-rise in on this conspiracy too?*

  These empirical data measurements are not a conspiracy. 
As you can see from above, idiotic interpretations of these measures easily leads to confusion.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*  
>  And you also have *empirical evidence PROVING* that no other variables or combination of variables could even have contributed to these natural changes?

   

> *The science certainly does.*  Why do you think every reputable scientific organisation on the world (ALL of them, everyone of them), support the AGW theory that the warming is due to man-made CO2 - do you really think they are just guessing?  Do you think they have ignored the influences of natural variations? 
> The natural variations don't explain the extent and speed of the temperature rise.  Has the sun suddenly got hotter?, Has the earth's orbit suddenly changed? Has there been massive meteoroid strike lately? 
> Your basis for denial are looking extremely shaky and don't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

  Well, don't keep it a secret.  :No:  
Where's the empirical evidence? 
Rather than post useless genuflections to authority figures opinions like you have above, why not just post the empirical evidence? 
Here's a hint champ, computer models are not empirical evidence.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

This TAX will do wonders for our future economy:   

> NEW DELHI  NTPC Ltd.'s plans to acquire coal mines abroad have been hit by high valuations and proposed rule changes in Indonesia and Australia that could make the fossil fuel there more expensive, the state-run company's chairman said Wednesday. 
> Also, the cost of coal produced will go up as Australia plans to levy a tax of A$23 ($24.79) for each metric ton of carbon emitted from 2012  NTPC's Overseas Plans Hit By Costs, Regulations - WSJ.com

  I guess Bob Brown may achieve his dream of shutting down our coal industry if this keeps going?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

He preached armagedon, but it isn't happening. 
Some cult leaders just extend the date, other hand out the Kool-Aid. 
Which way will he go this time?

----------


## chrisp

> No, not hard to refute, but irrelevant nonsense. 
> But if you want to see why, here are the Arctic and Antarctic Ice measures:       
> Yes, glad you noticed.  The question is why is it getting warmer? 
> Notice how the ice melts in the northern hemisphere during its summer, then freezes again during winter. 
> Notice also how the ice melts in the southern hemisphere during its summer, then freezes again during winter. 
> Now, I wonder whether this is because that bit of the Planet Earth points towards the Sun, or is it because only human CO2 emissions go up and down along these exact seasonal changes, that vary around their respective natural means. 
> Google "axial tilt" for more education.

  *DO you truly think that all the world scientific organisations have somehow slipped up and neglected "axial tilt"?   
Gee, maybe you should tell them about axial tilt and maybe they'll award you the Nobel. 
Why not check out the total global sea ice?*   
(Graph from: Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today )  *You might notice that the trend is down. 
The science foundation for your anti-AGW views sure are precarious (to put it mildly). * *I'm beginning to think that your anti-AGW stance are politically motivated.*

----------


## chrisp

> But IPCC fascientists like Michael Mann create fictional representations of the data like the Hockey Stick, that are later dumped by even the IPCC after this hideously deceptive data manipulation is uncovered.

  "Dumped"???  Lets check a few facts:     

> More than twelve subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical  methods and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions  broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph, with variations  in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears. Almost all of them  supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was  probably that at the end of the 20th century. Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Feel free to resume your politically biased rants and biased presentation of the facts...  :Rolleyes:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Nifty new book prepared by a US based geologist & coastal scientist and his son is getting some pretty decent reviews as an entry level text into the science of climate change.  Also has a apparently solid shot at refuting various 'sceptic' based arguments proposed in recent times.....   
Could be well worth the relatively trivial <$20 investment Global Climate Change: A Primer : Orrin H. Pilkey, Keith C. Pilkey, Mary Edna Fraser : 9780822351092 
And before you think that this bloke is one-sided.....here's another of his recent works   
which critiques the quantitiative mathematical models upon which much of science & policy makers rely to provide an interpretation of the future.... 
Less than $25 for this one Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can&#039;t Predict the Future : Orrin H. Pilkey, Linda Pilkey-Jarvis : 9780231132138

----------


## chrisp

SBS has another follow-up documentary next Tuesday night (8:30pm SBS-1).  It could be worth a look...   

> *Power Surge* 
> Can emerging technology defeat global warming? The United States has  invested tens of billions of dollars in clean energy projects as their  leaders try to save their crumbling economy and the planet in one bold,  green stroke. Are we finally on the brink of a green-energy power surge,  or is it all a case of too little, too late? This program travels the  globe to reveal the surprising technologies that just might turn back  the clock on climate change. (From the US) (Documentary) G CC

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Bugger that!!! 
Top Gear is on at the same time!!!

----------


## chrisp

> Bugger that!!! 
> Top Gear is on at the same time!!!

  Not to worry!  There is a good chance you'll be able to watch it on the web later. 
The Science Under Attack program shown last night is on the web at: SBS Video Player

----------


## SilentButDeadly

...you mean I might have to make an effort?  And actually learn something? Oh no no no that will never do!!! 
Besides.....my TV works fine, I don't have a PVR and my internet access is typically as functional* as a pelican on a unicycle when it comes to watching videos.... 
*  due to a multi-government conspiracy to minimise access by rural and  regional Australia access to the WWW to ensure that they don't get  edumicated and keep voting for Barnaby Joyce...or force them to move  into the cities where they can be much more easily subject to mind  control, opinion management and industrial scale consumption.

----------


## Marc

> Marc,I suspect most here really do have a real job, etc etc a lot of assumptions and generalisations etc etc

  Hum...taking your post completely out of context, you are probably right.
However within the context of Global Warming collaborators, cheer leaders and assorted clappers, it does matter.
But I rather point you back to the numerous post in this thread that do not reply to scientific facts yet prefer, for lack of facts, to use personal attacks and innuendos, xenophobic remarks and other scumbag arguments.
Is this the norm for AGW supporters? Resounding yes, just as it is the norm for any "environmentalist" organization and any that contains the words green or animal or renewable etc. 
This behavior is not new of course and was the norm for religious fanatics in centuries gone by, picked up by diverse socialist and communist regime and is now rusted on this new wave of agitators with an agenda.
When you can find people who falsify data in order to push a point known to them to be false, when you can find people who claim to fight for the right of animals who pay abattoir workers to mistreat animals for the camera in order to have a case, you think you have seen it all. There is more to come. 
The words in some of the post here are just words and funny. The actions of environmental groups and the government that use them for their agenda are criminal. The public that believes propaganda without checking it out and votes, deserves all the grief their stupidity will bring upon them.

----------


## Geno62

Isn't nearly all of that post a succession of unsupported allegations, even the Indonesian abbatoir worker being bribed referred to by Senator Back is heresay at this point. I am puzzled as to why you would attack others in very strong terms for doing exactly what you do yourself. That is continual reference to all manner of weird connections to various unconnected mantras and political bias you, yourself, seem to be the main offender yet appear to remain oblivious to your own behaviour. You actually can't know if there is more to come from this allegation from the abattoir worker, nor can you point to communist, religious and socialist regimes and a connection when there isn't one. The world really isn't a great big conspiracy, nor is it a combination of old religious practices merged with communists and socialists anything other than an oxymoron if there ever was one, those two groups have always been opponents.  
This really gets back to the point as to why the bulk of your posts are little more than unsupportable allegations that you seem disinterested in supporting with anything but disconnected conspiracy allegations.

----------


## Dr Freud

> ** *DO you truly think that all the world scientific organisations have somehow slipped up and neglected "axial tilt"? *

  Are you saying that the melt cycles in the charts above are not caused by the Sun? 
Ask your "scientific organisations" if you're not sure.   

> ** *Gee, maybe you should tell them about axial tilt and maybe they'll award you the Nobel.*

  I don't need a "peace prize"  :Doh: , but thanks for offering.    

> ** *Why not check out the total global sea ice?*

  Yes, you love posting effects, so why not? 
Those effects are like all the others we all post.  The interesting question is what is causing them.  You do remember our "cause" and "effect" lessons don't you? 
Now this is the part where you post the opinions of people you think are smarter than you.  Feel free, as we now all know as a certainty that you have no empirical evidence at all.  :Biggrin:    

> ** *You might notice that the trend is down.*

  Thanks, I could have wasted hours trying to pick it.  :Wink 1:    

> ** *The science foundation for your anti-AGW views sure are precarious (to put it mildly). * *I'm beginning to think that your anti-AGW stance are politically motivated.*

  Yeh, the next thing you know I'll start sprouting some whacko theory that the hole in the ozone layer is actually keeping the Planet Earth cool.   
Pay attention to the language used in their "prophecies".   

> *Climate scientists have cracked the mystery of why Antarctic sea ice has managed to grow despite global warmingbut the results suggest the trend may rapidly reverse, a new study says.* 
> Satellite data show that, over the past 30 years, Arctic sea ice has declined while Antarctic sea ice has mysteriously expanded, according to study leader Jiping Liu, a research scientist at Georgia Tech in Atlanta. 
> The data show that Antarctic sea ice growth in the 20th century might be mostly dictated by natural processes, Liu noted.  
> But that won't be the case for the 21st century, since human-caused global warming is predicted to dominate the Antarctic climate and trigger faster melting of sea ice, he said.   
> The scientists predict the transition from natural variability to greenhouse-gas warming will begin soon: "I cannot give you a precise yearbut definitely in this century," Liu said.  
> The ozone hole has been a reason "why Antarctica has not warmed the same way as other parts of the world," Trenberth said by email.  
> "How the ozone hole recovery comes about in the future is a major factor in expected developments, as shown in some model simulationsbut these aspects are not dealt with in this paper."  
>  Study author Liu agrees that the ozone hole influences sea ice, but "I am not sure if ozone depletion really play[s] a significant role in the Antarctic sea ice variability."   Why Antarctic Sea Ice Is Growing in a Warmer World

  So the obvious solution is to use CFC's again for everything we can and the Planet Earth stays cool, according to the psychic computers and their "believers" anyway.  :Doh:  
And you show deference to these clowns opinions because you trust they are smarter than you are.  :No:  
And based on this farce, we Aussies are asked to pay an *environmentally useless TAX* (even if you "believe" that this farce is real) on everything, that will result in our TAX dollars being shipped off to other countries, while our economy is hobbled. 
Seriously people, when did any government in Australia's history ever introduce a TAX that actually creates a budgetary deficit of $4 billion dollars by shipping our taxes overseas in order to make the Planet Earth colder.   
Idiocy is not even close.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Let me think, did I ask "Did the Wikipedia information that has been proved to be  resoundingly biased toward the AGW hypothesis cult dump the Hockey Stick myth?" 
Er, maybe not, let's check:    

> Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*  
>  But IPCC fascientists like Michael Mann create fictional representations of the data like the Hockey Stick, that are later dumped by even the IPCC after this hideously deceptive data manipulation is uncovered.

  Oh that's right, I said the IPCC, not Wikipedia.  :Doh:  
So easy to confuse these two.  For those having trouble here's one: 
IPCC. 
Here's the other: 
Wikipedia. 
Spot the difference?  :Doh:    

> "Dumped"???  Lets check a few facts:

  Facts? Like the difference between the IPCC and Wikipedia? 
Maybe I've got it wrong, maybe they are the same entity? Are they? Did I get my facts wrong or did you?  We can't both be right. 
Does the IPCC still publish the Hockey Stick graph in their recent reports? 
Remember now, just in case it's a comprehension issue, that's the IPCC, not Wikipedia.  :Doh:    

> Feel free to resume your politically biased rants and biased presentation of the facts...

  Facts are facts, they cannot be biased. 
One day you will learn this.  It is the opinions of what these facts mean that can be biased, and invariably are. 
And thank you for your endorsement, I will resume my politically biased rants, in the full knowledge they don't alter the facts.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> Those effects are like all the others we all post.  The interesting question is what is causing them.  You do remember our "cause" and "effect" lessons don't you?

  So, after all that ranting, do you agree that the ice is indeed reducing long-term, or are you still in denial of that "effect"? 
Don't worry, we'll deal with "cause" once we get you over your denial of the "effect". 
BTW, I suspect that your objectivity is being severely clouded by your political bias.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Also has a apparently solid shot at refuting various 'sceptic' based arguments proposed in recent times.....

  You guys still haven't figured out why your AGW hypothesis cult is failing miserably, have you? 
Here's a hint: 
There is ZERO scientific evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.  :Biggrin:  
This is why you constantly harp on about the opinions of the critics who rightfully criticise your cult.  Because you have no proof to post.  All you have are "effects" and you then start prattling on about how a psychic computer can explain these effects.  :Doh:  
You think that by refuting your critics opinions will make your opinion factually correct, without actually having any facts.  :Pointlaugh:  
So by your logic, if we convince everyone who "believes" in reincarnation that they are wrong, then heaven automatically becomes a fact.  :Doh:  
You guys should stick to cultish philosophies and leave science to us logical realists.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> There is ZERO scientific evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.

  I like the way you keep repeating that ludicrous statement.  It sure shows that science - and logic - are not your strong suits.  
It sure must be frustrating for you that the scientific view of all those credible scientific organisations contradict your politically motivated/biased anti-AGW view?

----------


## Dr Freud

> SBS has another follow-up documentary next Tuesday night (8:30pm SBS-1).  It could be worth a look... 
> This program travels the  globe to reveal the surprising technologies that *just might turn back  the clock on climate change*.

  The climate has been changing for about 4.5 billion years. 
Here's the last little bit of that just in case you forgot:    
So, how far back do they (and you?) want to turn it? 
Back to when it was 10 degrees celsius warmer in the past?  :Doh:  
Apologies for "cherry-picking" only 600 million years, we haven't really got a very accurate picture on what happened for the first 4 billion years.  :Biggrin:  
But we can focus on the the last few hundred years as we naturally emerge from the little ice age if you prefer?  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> So, after all that ranting, do you agree that *the ice* is indeed reducing *long-term*, or are you still in denial of that "effect"?

  The ice? Would you care to specify which, do you mean Antarctic ice? 
Long term?  Is that the most precise scientific time frame you can muster? 
And as for your continued cultish mantra about denial, no-one denies facts.  That is why people don't walk off skyscrapers or stand in front of speeding trains, unless they want to die.  Which means they actually accept these facts anyway and use them to their advantage (or disadvantage as the case may be  :Cry: ).   
But I will happily refute any opinion masquerading as a fact.  :2thumbsup:    

> Don't worry, we'll deal with "cause" once we get you over your denial of the "effect".

  I don't worry, but yes, I wonder what caused all of this:   
And I wonder what caused all the climate change that has happened naturally for billions of years?  Hotter and colder, wetter and drier, windier and calmer, cloudier and clearer, all caused because us Aussies didn't pay enough TAX apparently!  :Doh:  
You can read more about climate change here:  Natural Climate Cycles - Wry Heat  
And specifically about some of the astrophysical contributors to climate change here:  Ice Ages and Glacial Epochs - Wry Heat    

> BTW, I suspect that your objectivity is being severely clouded by your political bias.

  No, by definition and demonstration my objectivity is still objective. 
But my subjectivity is definitely clouded by many subjective things, including my political bias.  That's why we call them "opinions" and that's why the scientific method deals with facts.  :Biggrin:  
Here's a demonstration:  *Objective:* Aussies paying more tax will NOT make the Planet Earth colder.  :2thumbsup:   *Subjective:* JuLIAR is a lying moron who is conning us Aussies into believing that her environmentally useless TAX is going to make the Planet Earth colder by spending our taxpayer funds on mailing out ridiculous "clean energy future" brochures, then shipping our tax dollars overseas to greenie scammers.  :Annoyed:  
See how my subjective opinion is based on objective facts.  :Biggrin:    

> *ob·jec·tive*  *1.*  Of or having to do with a material object. *2.*  Having actual existence or reality. *3.* *a.*  Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.  *b.*  Based on observable phenomena; presented factually.  *sub·jec·tive* *
> 1.* *a.*  Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world. *b.*  Particular to a given person; personal.

  I suspect that you now know the difference?  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I like the way you keep repeating that ludicrous statement. It sure shows that science - and logic - are not your strong suits.

  Really?  Let's look at it again:   

> Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*  
>    There is ZERO scientific evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.

  See, all you have to do to refute this and PROVE it to be ludicrous is post one, yes just one, piece of empirical evidence proving this farce. 
Just one, not a few, not hundreds, just one piece. 
If you can't, then someone's statements look ludicrous, and it's not mine.    

> It sure must be frustrating for you that the scientific *view* of all those credible scientific organisations contradict your politically motivated/biased anti-AGW *view*?

  Again, changing the word "opinion" to "view" as you have tried in the past does not obscure the fact that there are as many opinions as there are people.  Some people share the same opinions from time to time, and we call this a "consensus" of opinions. 
Why would it frustrate me that different people hold different opinions.  I'm a huge supporter of democracy, innovation, human endeavour and free speech.  Differing opinions have driven the improvement of these areas over history, so I am a big fan of differing opinions.   
There are tens of thousands of scientists who hold a similar opinion to my own, so I obviously rate these opinions highly.  :Biggrin:  
However, when this translates into propaganda based TAXATION policy, then excuse me for telling some w-nker's where they can stick their opinion and their TAX.  :Biggrin:    

> *
> o·pin·ion*  *1.*  A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.  *Synonyms:* * opinion**, view**, sentiment**, feeling**, belief**, conviction**, persuasion*

----------


## Dr Freud

Have you sent your message to these clowns yet?  :Biggrin:    
Or if you've sent back a supportive message indicating how happy you are of the plan that Aussies paying more TAX will make the Planet Earth colder, then please share your joyous Utopian pleasure with us realists? 
There's gotta be at least 19 of you out there, according to the Carbon (Dioxide) Tax Poll?  :Wink 1:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Have you sent your message to these clowns yet?    
> Or if you've sent back a supportive message indicating how happy you are of the plan that Aussies paying more TAX will make the Planet Earth colder, then please share your joyous Utopian pleasure with us realists? 
> There's gotta be at least 19 of you out there, according to the Carbon (Dioxide) Tax Poll?

  
I didn't waste my time with pointless autoerotic gestures that no-one who gives a poo will ever read (and made even more stupid & pointless by not having the guts to use your real name and contact details).....I did something useful with my copy.  I sequestered it (and therefore the carbon within it) into the chook house where, over time, it becomes part of our garden compost. 
At least there it will do some good.....cause as an information item....it was thoroughly useless.  But then it wasn't written with me in mind...

----------


## chrisp

> There is ZERO scientific evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.

   

> See, all you have to do to refute this and PROVE  it to be ludicrous is post one, yes just one, piece of empirical  evidence proving this farce.

  *The average global temperature is rising.* 
The temperature rise is real (and not some "diddling of the data") as the sea-level is also rising.  It is a case of cause-and-effect:  A warmer earth = warmer oceans.  Warmer oceans = water expansion = increased volume of water, and ice at the caps melts with warmer temperatures.    *Your statement is ludicrous!* 
The science has soooo long ago moved on.  The science on AGW is very settled.  The issue of the acceptance of the AGW theory is not a topic of scientific debate (other than a few on the fringe or in the pockets of certain industries).  The science has moved on to improving the understanding of the AGW process and improving the predictions of the consequences. 
It is much the same as the theory of gravity.  Gravitational theory is generally accepted, but further work is being done to improve and refine the models.  No one expects the theory of gravity to be overturned - just improved and more generalised.  
It is also a bit like the 'smoking causes cancer'.  It is a well accepted scientific fact, but we can't predict exactly who will get cancer - and if they'll get cancer at all.  But we know that certain cancers are caused by smoking.  Would you arguing that science can't claim that smoking causes cancer because it can't predict exactly who will get exactly what type of cancer and when?

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

The vast majority of people who claim to have an opinion on Climate Change and Emission Trading - DON'T. 
They don't have an opinion because they are not scientists or highly educated to be able to able to analyse and debate the issues rationally.  They do not understand scientific principles nor are they able to comprehend a scientific discussions or read scientific research papers. 
These people just simply regurgitate someone else's opinions, usually a radio shock-jock or other similar under-educated person.  There can be no proper and rational discussions on Climate Change and Emission Trading when these under-educated people do not accept scientific research and facts by highly qualiified scientists. 
Debate on the issue of Climate Change and Emission Trading is largely being driving by the under-educated populace.

----------


## chrisp

> They don't have an opinion because they are not scientists or highly educated to be able to able to analyse and debate the issues rationally.  They do not understand scientific principles nor are they able to comprehend a scientific discussions or read scientific research papers.

  Welcome to the thread! 
It is similar to 'smoking causes cancer', 'lead causes health problems (particularly in children)', 'asbestos causes cancer', 'sun exposure causes skin cancer'.  Initially, these findings cause concern and upset in the community.  Most people, perhaps after some initial hesitation, accept the new findings and change their behaviour accordingly.  Why wouldn't you?  Most will accept these finding without having to conduct primary research themselves. 
However, for whatever reasons, some refuse to accept progressive findings, and cling to the 'old ways'. 
Not only are "death and taxes" two certainties in life, "Change" is also a certainty.  However, some will always cling to the old ways...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The vast majority of people who claim to have an opinion on Climate Change and Emission Trading - DON'T. 
> They don't have an opinion because they are not scientists or highly educated to be able to able to analyse and debate the issues rationally.  They do not understand scientific principles nor are they able to comprehend a scientific discussions or read scientific research papers. 
> These people just simply regurgitate someone else's opinions, usually a radio shock-jock or other similar under-educated person.  There can be no proper and rational discussions on Climate Change and Emission Trading when these under-educated people do not accept scientific research and facts by highly qualiified scientists. 
> Debate on the issue of Climate Change and Emission Trading is largely being driving by the under-educated populace.

  Wow what an appeal to higher authority!! 
My bullchit meter is still in great working order. How is yours? 
You may not be able to smell a rat but I sure can.

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> I am dead set againt the introduction of an ETS  for several reasons. 
> First even if Global Warming was true we could never reduce emissions to a degree that would have any effect on global temperatures. 
> Second an ETS will cripple the Australian economy for no net benefit. 
> Third I believe that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming and that there need to be irrefutable evidence both scientific and imperical to proove CO2 is warming the planet and that any warming would be as damaging as they claim. 
> Interested to know your thoughts? 
> Cheers Rod

   

> The vast majority of people who claim to have an opinion on Climate Change and Emission Trading - DON'T.

   Hello, with 6995 posts I reckon you're wrong.   

> They don't have an opinion because they are not scientists or highly educated to be able to able to analyse and debate the issues rationally.

   On what basis did you form this assessment?   

> They do not understand scientific principles nor are they able to comprehend a scientific discussions or read scientific research papers.

   What evidence do you have to form this assessment?   

> There can be no proper and rational discussions on Climate Change and Emission Trading when these under-educated people do not accept scientific research and facts by highly qualiified scientists.

   Are you referring to Julia and Bob here?   

> Debate on the issue of Climate Change and Emission Trading is largely being driving by the under-educated populace.

  Yes, I can see you've added *to* that. 
It would be good if you actually answered some questions from the original post.

----------


## chrisp

> My bullchit meter is still in great working order.

   :Rotfl:  
I suppose you can feel it in your waters?  Maybe it something you saw in your tea leaves? 
Me thinks you badly need a new "bullchit meter" - the old one doesn't work.

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> Hello, with 6995 posts I reckon you're wrong. 
>  On what basis did you form this assessment?  What evidence do you have to form this assessment?

  6995 posts on Climate Change and Emission Trading posted on a Renovation Forum for tradesmen and home renovators?  That's my evidence.

----------


## johnc

> 6995 posts on Climate Change and Emission Trading posted on a Renovation Forum for tradesmen and home renovators? That's my evidence.

  90% of it highly suspect by volume, you are are completely right, the very fact it exists at this low level indicates the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I suppose you can feel it in your waters?  Maybe it something you saw in your tea leaves? 
> Me thinks you badly need a new "bullchit meter" - the old one doesn't work.

  Ha Ha. 
Wow 7000 now

----------


## Dr Freud

> Ha Ha. 
> Wow 7000 now

  Mate, this thread looks like it will last longer than JuLIAR!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> ** *The average global temperature is rising.*

  What, right now? Just today?  Only the last hundred years? The last thousand?  The last ten thousand? 
Tell you what, for people who claim to know all this "sciency stuff", you seem rather bereft of any facts.  :Biggrin:    

> ** The temperature rise is real (and not some "diddling of the data") as the sea-level is also rising.

  Again, these are called effects.  The bit we're all trying to work out is what's causing them. 
Apologies for those getting bored, but I'll keep explaining it until they get it.  Cult busting requires patience.  :Biggrin:    

> ** It is a case of cause-and-effect: (??? CAUSES) A warmer earth = warmer oceans. Warmer oceans = water expansion = increased volume of water, and ice at the caps melts with warmer temperatures.

  
See, once again you miss the whole point. 
Now where did you put that empirical evidence to insert where the question marks are? 
Uh oh, don't have any?  That's okay, just insert the opinion of some dude who wrote a computer program that then told him this evidence will "appear" sometime in the future sometime.  :Doh:    

> ** The science on AGW is very settled.

  Wow!  "Very" settled now.  And you guys used to claim it was just settled.  Will it be "extremely" settled next week?  :Doh:  
And if your other claptrap is all you can muster when requested to present empirical evidence, then you obviously don't understand what this is, or there is none.  Or both.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> Now where did you put that empirical evidence to insert where the question marks are?

  Wow!  Talk about taking denial to a whole new level.  Are you seriously questioning that "warming" equals temperature rise????

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> 6995 posts on Climate Change and Emission Trading posted on a Renovation Forum for tradesmen and home renovators?  That's my evidence.

  
Hello, were you born with this line of thinking , or is it the  result of an accident? 
I can see you have an  extremely well structured scientific statement here in favour of global  warming! 
All I can say is I am glad you are on their side and thanks for  the fine example of how over schooled people think. 
As I said before -  WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE??  *EDITED BY BEDFORD*

----------


## Geno62

> Hello, were you born with this line of thinking , or is it the result of an accident? 
> I can see you have an extremely well structured scientific statement here in favour of global warming! 
> All I can say is I am glad you are on their side and thanks for the fine example of how over schooled people think. 
> As I said before - WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE??  *EDITED BY BEDFORD*

  A silly response don't you think, demand evidence of what? that this is a forum for handymen and renovators how much evidence do you need. As for evidence that the posts lack substance there is ample proof if you wish to read back even if you limit yourself to your own contribution. Perhaps IQ is an accident of birth however choosing to use it is a matter of choice. Lighten up demanding and demeaning comments don't serve any purpose.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It would be good if you actually answered some questions from the original post.

  We all did that ages ago.....but the OP wasn't listening and it was much more fun to sprout nonsense and other vegetables. We've been well fed and entertained ever since.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Tell you what, for people who claim to know all this "sciency stuff", you seem rather bereft of any facts.

  As you are (it seems) in your ability to absorb them.... 
Temperature is rising as a result of an inbalance between natural & man made GHG emissions and the natural capacity of the biosphere to absorb them which leads to increasing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere which enhances the GHGs otherwise natural contribution towards the atmosphere (as a whole) retaining heat (derived from natural solar radiation) within the biosphere.   
Whilst the above statement is incredibly simplistic....all the tireless efforts of the past three decades (or more) by scientists, government agencies, international conglomerates and scientific bodies (of all sorts) to prove it to be fundamentally wrong have come to naught.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> As you are (it seems) in your ability to absorb them.... 
> Temperature is rising as a result of an inbalance between natural & man made GHG emissions and the natural capacity of the biosphere to absorb them which leads to increasing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere which enhances the GHGs otherwise natural contribution towards the atmosphere (as a whole) retaining heat (derived from natural solar radiation) within the biosphere.   
> Whilst the above statement is incredibly simplistic....all the tireless efforts of the past three decades (or more) by scientists, government agencies, international conglomerates and scientific bodies (of all sorts) to prove it to be fundamentally wrong have come to naught.

  Sorry S&D  there is NO proof of this statement, none whatsoever.  Just computer models BS in BS out.  It is simply what people have chosen to believe.  If this statement is fact show us the proof. 
We know temps have risen we know co2 has also risen.  We also know that co2 is a very small contributer to the GHG effect. We know water vapour is the main GHG.  We know that man's contribution to the Co2 is tiny compared to that produced in nature.   
What we DONT know how much effect mans Co2 emissions has on temperature vs other natural events.  At best we have guesswork.  Hopefully over time the guesswork will become factual where it can be demonstrated in a way that is understandable to opposing scientists and the general population,  (yes there are scientists who reject AGW therory for what it is). 
For crying out loud, without proper scientific evidence to prove this theory, how can anyone be so emphatic that co2 is the main driver of temperature change over the past 100 years, while there are so many other known drivers of temperature, that have a far greater effect than co2. 
It is beyond belief that so many people are sucked into having no doubt that co2 is the culprit.

----------


## chrisp

> Sorry S&D  there is NO proof of this statement, none whatsoever.  Just computer models BS in BS out.  It is simply what people have chosen to believe.  If this statement is fact show us the proof.

  Rod. the temperature rise is an OBSERVATION, not a projection.   

> We know temps have risen we know co2 has also risen.  We also know that co2 is a very small contributer to the GHG effect. We know water vapour is the main GHG.  We know that man's contribution to the Co2 is tiny compared to that produced in nature.

  Now it seems that you are accepting that temperatures have risen.  What is your definition of "very small"?  CO2 levels have risen from 280ppm to about 400ppm which is about a 40% increase.  Maybe you are confusing the gross and net CO2 production?     

> What we DONT know how much effect mans Co2 emissions has on temperature vs other natural events.  At best we have guesswork.  Hopefully over time the guesswork will become factual where it can be demonstrated in a way that is understandable to opposing scientists and the general population,  (yes there are scientists who reject AGW therory for what it is). 
> For crying out loud, without proper scientific evidence to prove this theory, how can anyone be so emphatic that co2 is the main driver of temperature change over the past 100 years, while there are so many other known drivers of temperature, that have a far greater effect than co2.

  There is plenty of "proper scientific evidence" to prove that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of the observed temperature rise.  Name ONE reputable scientific organisation or body that disbelieves man-made CO2 is the main contributor to the temperature rise. 
Your view isn't supported by the science.  Maybe it is time for you to look at why you are so resistant to accepted findings of the science.  What is it that really bothers you about AGW? 
A true "sceptic" will look at the evidence and be prepared to change their mind when shown to be wrong.  A "denier" will simply shift their point of argument rather than change their view. 
Anyway, most of this thread and discussion is a waste on the likes of deniers such as yourself.  Your minds, it seems, are firmly closed (perhaps due to political bias?). 
The rest of the world accepts, or will accept, the AGW theory and move towards change.  You can see this change starting to take place all around the world. 
Whilst I admire your resolute on this issue, I certainly don't admire your wisdom.   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod. the temperature rise is an OBSERVATION, not a projection.   
> Now it seems that you are accepting that temperatures have risen.  What is your definition of "very small"?  CO2 levels have risen from 280ppm to about 400ppm which is about a 40% increase.  Maybe you are confusing the gross and net CO2 production?     
> There is plenty of "proper scientific evidence" to prove that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of the observed temperature rise.  Name ONE reputable scientific organisation or body that disbelieves man-made CO2 is the main contributor to the temperature rise. 
> Your view isn't supported by the science.  Maybe it is time for you to look at why you are so resistant to accepted findings of the science.  What is it that really bothers you about AGW? 
> A true "sceptic" will look at the evidence and be prepared to change their mind when shown to be wrong.  A "denier" will simply shift their point of argument rather than change their view. 
> Anyway, most of this thread and discussion is a waste on the likes of deniers such as yourself.  Your minds, it seems, are firmly closed (perhaps due to political bias?). 
> The rest of the world accepts, or will accept, the AGW theory and move towards change.  You can see this change starting to take place all around the world. 
> Whilst I admire your resolute on this issue, I certainly don't admire your wisdom.

  WTF am I denying?

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> Hello, were you born with this line of thinking , or is it the  result of an accident? 
> I can see you have an  extremely well structured scientific statement here in favour of global  warming! 
> All I can say is I am glad you are on their side and thanks for  the fine example of how over schooled people think. 
> As I said before -  WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE??  *EDITED BY BEDFORD*

  I don't debate the issue of Climate Change and Emission Trading with people because most people simply do not have the facts or are not prepared to listen to sound scientific reasonings and research.  To have a debate with such people is a waste of my time. 
Scientists have the knowledge and training to do the research and analyse the results and to come to sound and logical conclusions.  A scientist who publish false or fabricated research is condemed by the scientific community for life.  They are discredited and lose their reputation.  They will not be employed by any respected scientific organisations ever again.  There is no second chance for any scientist who publishes false scientific research. 
Other the other hand, radio shock jocks and politicans are prepared to lie about climate change to boost their ratings or political agenda.  Radio shock jocks and politicans have a big voice in the community through the medium of radio or parliament and parlimentary press releases.  Scientists have a much smaller voice in the community.  Their research and conclusions are published in scientific journals to a much smaller scientific community of people. 
Scientific research papers are complex and detailed and thus hard to comprehend by the vast majority of people who are not trained as scientists.  Radio shock jocks and politicans take these research papers and reports them selectively in parts and in simplicity terms to the under-educated populace and often draw their own conclusions and ignore the conclusions of the scientists. 
To deny the research of highly qualified scientists is just folly and foolhardy.  The term "Lemmings Effect" well and truly describe the current low level and uneducated debate on Climate Change and Emission Trading.

----------


## chrisp

> WTF am I denying?

  As I recall, it is Anthropogenic Global Warming.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I don't debate the issue of Climate Change and Emission Trading with people because most people simply do not have the facts or are not prepared to listen to sound scientific reasonings and research.  To have a debate with such people is a waste of my time. 
> Scientists have the knowledge and training to do the research and analyse the results and to come to sound and logical conclusions.  A scientist who publish false or fabricated research is condemed by the scientific community for life.  They are discredited and lose their reputation.  They will not be employed by any respected scientific organisations ever again.  There is no second chance for any scientist who publishes false scientific research. 
> Other the other hand, radio shock jocks and politicans are prepared to lie about climate change to boost their ratings or political agenda.  Radio shock jocks and politicans have a big voice in the community through the medium of radio or parliament and parlimentary press releases.  Scientists have a much smaller voice in the community.  Their research and conclusions are published in scientific journals to a much smaller scientific community of people. 
> Scientific research papers are complex and detailed and thus hard to comprehend by the vast majority of people who are not trained as scientists.  Radio shock jocks and politicans take these research papers and reports them selectively in parts and in simplicity terms to the under-educated populace and often draw their own conclusions and ignore the conclusions of the scientists. 
> To deny the research of highly qualified scientists is just folly and foolhardy.  The term "Lemmings Effect" well and truly describe the current low level and uneducated debate on Climate Change and Emission Trading.

  Please spare me, how pious

----------


## johnc

> Please spare me, how pious

  I can except that your response comes from a profound resistance to anything that doesn't fit into your comfort zone. The denialist blogs rely on those who want to believe warming does not exist, they are not there to educate just obfiscate. The very fact you write how pious and have studiously avoided answering anything of substance would indicate that political prejudice, fear of change and a disrespect for those who hold an educated view is the driver of your opinion not anything approaching a reasoned and intelligent approach to a problem. The ability to discuss. reason and exchange views is a sign of an active intelligence, continual beligerence and an unwillingness to accept a view other than your own is simply arrogance.

----------


## johnc

We have had a number of references to cults, which is those on the fringe of religion, the following is an extract written by an Anglican bishop, hardly at the cult end but the comments should be of interest.   *Seek the truth on carbon*   *John McIntyre*  
August 12, 2011 Opinion      Illustration: Andrew Dyson.  
The biggest dilemma we face with the carbon tax is that the only package the federal government was able to broker will not deliver the change that is needed. With the mining industry crying poor and the federal opposition seeking to spook the electorate to its own ends, the government has included measures that both placate the mining industry and soothe a fearful electorate. This means the intent to reduce our carbon footprint to any significant degree is severely compromised.
The best thing that can be said for the carbon tax is that it is a historic necessary beginning that paves the way for a carbon trading scheme. This gives some hope that we will eventually face our responsibilities as a nation by addressing the adverse impact we continue to have on the environment.
This generation at some point must face its obligation to ensure we leave an inhabitable planet to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Anything less is inexcusable; a selfish dereliction of duty. It is an indictment on us that we have refused to accept our responsibility until it has threatened to hit us in the hip pocket. It is an even greater indictment on us that the only scheme which government has been able to introduce is one that offers so little financial pain that it is limited in its capacity to reduce our impact on the planet. 
Some of the simple facts are these. The reduction target of the current Australian program is 5 per cent by 2020. That is only about half that required to stabilise carbon emissions to the extent necessary to avoid a potentially disastrous temperature rise. Australia generates more carbon pollution per head than any other developed country, thanks to reliance on coal-fired power stations. With a population of 22 million, we are responsible for 1.5 per cent of global greenhouse emissions. By comparison, Britain, with nearly three times the population, produces 1.7 per cent. Australia is one of the world's top 20 carbon polluters.
When it comes to Gippsland, some of the facts are these. Victoria will receive 97 per cent of the national business compensation package for carbon emissions, essentially because of its dependence on brown coal for power. Hazelwood was supposed to close in 2007. The Gippsland Trades and Labour Council, recognising the closure or conversion to gas of Hazelwood will result in significant job losses, is focusing on attracting new industries into Gippsland.
The federal government recognises the impact any change to power generation will have in Gippsland and has committed not to abandon us as we address the changes necessary to reduce carbon emissions. This is the reason the Prime Minister visited the Latrobe Valley so early in her campaign to respond to questions about the carbon tax. At the same time, the Electrical Trades Union has opted not to support the tax, not because it does not think there should be a carbon price, but because there is not enough detail in the government's plans to prepare for inevitable job losses in the valley.
Christians cannot avoid responding to this matter of national and local interest and well-being. In the first place, it is imperative that we deal in the truth. The scare tactics and deceit employed by those raging against the carbon tax need to be resisted. Listen carefully to the facts and respond accordingly. Do not believe what is not true. And do not live in denial of what needs to change to realise a sustainable future.
Be prepared to respond to the needs of those most affected by the inevitable economic changes that will take place with the introduction of the tax. The communities in Gippsland will face significant change and pain. Efforts being made now by the Gippsland Trades and Labour Council to prepare for this need to be supported, and, as the ETU action indicates, government needs to be held accountable for the commitments it makes to assist those most radically affected.
Above all, be prepared to think creatively about how we can reduce our over-dependence on consumption. Perhaps the biggest single factor in the human impact on climate change is consumerism. Growth in economic terms has become an assumed right to the point that we fail to confront the negative impact on so many others of our demand for ''more and bigger and better''.
To focus our minds on these realities, we might contemplate the current drought in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya. It is just one example in the current generation of the impact of climate change on those who can least afford it. In what one 70-year-old man in Kenya described as unseen in his lifetime, there has been a three-year period without any rain at all. All the livestock is long gone and crops cannot be produced. Tens of thousands of people are starving and many, mostly small children, are dying even after reaching relief centres, such is the extent of their malnutrition. While we unthinkingly consume more, they die.
This is just the edge of the potential impact of the ''take without paying, let alone giving back'' mentality of wealthier societies like ours. It is this that prevents us from seeing the price we must pay to take responsibility for our lifestyle and the impact it has on the world in which we live.
A Christian response is surely to stand in the face of this and say ''enough is enough''. What better place to begin than to recognise the need to pay for and to redress the impact of our lifestyle on the environment and the cost that others pay for our profligacy. And in the meantime, what better response than to support with generosity the appeal for assistance from those countries in the Horn of Africa devastated by famine. *The Right Reverend John McIntyre is the Anglican Bishop of Gippsland.*    
Read more: Carbon Tax

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I can except that your response comes from a profound resistance to anything that doesn't fit into your comfort zone. The denialist blogs rely on those who want to believe warming does not exist, they are not there to educate just obfiscate. The very fact you write how pious and have studiously avoided answering anything of substance would indicate that political prejudice, fear of change and a disrespect for those who hold an educated view is the driver of your opinion not anything approaching a reasoned and intelligent approach to a problem. The ability to discuss. reason and exchange views is a sign of an active intelligence, continual beligerence and an unwillingness to accept a view other than your own is simply arrogance.

  You guys just dont get it do you.  We have presented reasoned arguments against this scam througout the past 7000 posts you guys just want to appeal to a higher authority rather than use your own initiative.  Just because "they" say its true does not make it so.  The whole deal is falling apart, scientist who dissagree with the AGW theory are rejected out of hand by warmist.  
I will accept others views if they have substance and can be proven, but to call me arrogant just because I will not join your club is in itself arrogant.  You are blind to this.   
I find it amusing that you can be so blind to the fact that you and others are more guilty of what you acuse.  If you can prove to me tha AGW is real then i will change my mind, but will you?

----------


## Dr Freud

> 90% of it highly suspect by volume, you are are completely right, the very fact it exists at this low level indicates the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

  Just subjectively making up a "90%" figure without doing the required research, in order to justify a position entirely lacking credibility. 
I recall a previously inept attempt to do similar. 
Where was that?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> that this is a forum for handymen and renovators how much evidence do you need

  Way to go champ, demean the entire forum.  :Doh:  
Cos a lawyer, detective, doctor, biologist, chemist, physicist never did any work around the house and sought to learn from tradies how to do it better?  :Doh:    

> demeaning comments don't serve any purpose.

  And so you are also a hypocrite with no self awareness, as you first demean the entire forum, then criticise the process of demeaning, all in the same post.  :Doh:  
You don't even know what empirical evidence is, do you?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Wow!  Talk about taking denial to a whole new level.

  Wow! Talk about taking semantics to a whole new level.   

> Are you seriously questioning that "warming" equals temperature rise????

  No.  I said it is a scientific fact that there is ZERO empirical evidence proving the AGW hypothesis. 
If you have any, please post it. 
If not, you and your cult members can just keep chanting the mantra of your opinions. 
Oh yeh, sorry, not your opinions, the opinions of the people you all "believe" are much smarter than you are.  :Biggrin:  
The new cult members are now telling us we're not even allowed to have an opinion any more?  Even after I posted the definition of what an opinion is.  :Screwy:  
Are you guys gonna call in the opinion police now?  :Censored2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> As you are (it seems) in your ability to absorb them....

  Please post a single piece of empirical evidence relating to this farce that you "believe" I have failed to "absorb". 
Is it part of the cult philosophy to continually criticise the "disbelievers" in order to promote a feeling of unity within? 
I guess when your "beliefs" are based solely on psychic computers and the opinions of your cult leaders, denigrating the realists of the world must provide some comfort.  :Biggrin:    

> Temperature is rising as a result of an inbalance between natural & man made GHG emissions and the natural capacity of the biosphere to absorb them which leads to increasing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere which enhances the GHGs otherwise natural contribution towards the atmosphere (as a whole) retaining heat (derived from natural solar radiation) within the biosphere.

  That's a lovely opinion. Shame you've ZERO empirical evidence to prove it.  :Biggrin:  
But your new breed of cultists said that you're not even allowed to have an opinion.  :Slap2:    

> The vast majority of people who claim to have an opinion on Climate Change and Emission Trading - DON'T. 
> They don't have an opinion because they are not scientists or highly educated to be able to able to analyse and debate the issues rationally. They do not understand scientific principles nor are they able to comprehend a scientific discussions or read scientific research papers. 
> Debate on the issue of Climate Change and Emission Trading is largely being driving by the under-educated populace.

  I think he's talking to you mate?  :Shock:  
I wouldn't take that if I were you.  :No:     

> Whilst the above statement is incredibly simplistic

  Don't be too hard on yourself mate, we've gotten used to it.  :Wink 1:    

> ....all the tireless efforts of the past three decades (or more) by scientists, government agencies, international conglomerates and scientific bodies (of all sorts) to prove it to be fundamentally wrong have come to naught.

  So by your "scientifity", whatever we can't prove does not exist, must actually exist? 
What else do you "scientifise" this about? 
Tooth fairies? Multiple spacetime dimensions? God? 
Should we Aussies alone then also pay TAX to get rid of these as well.  :Doh:  
That's why scientists use empirical evidence champ, cos your "scientifity" just doesn't make sense.  :Doh:

----------


## Ashore

JuLIAR addmitted she wasn't an expert on Global Warming .....funny though she knows which experts to believe
And apparently I posted ROT when I said that water rates would rise due to this Big New Tax on Everything 
Just using google ( which I am sure some here will say is wrong because it shows them to be not telling the truth ) the state governments are forcasting a water rate rise of as much as 10 % due to the Carbon Tax, still what would they know . 
Geno62 has already made the statements
Blanket statements that all costs will rise are simply not correct, even the rot about water, the electrical power that drives those pumps.
That is why your water analogy is very wrong
Also get your hands on some water board accounts and see how much electricity is of total operating costs and then factor in the impact of a carbon price
 in most cases it will be next to nothing as it is a tiny number 
Do you think 10% increase is next to nothing, I don't   
Still if he didn't tell the truth about that .....you have to wonder what else didn't he tell the truth about. Still maybe he's just taking a leaf out of our Temporary Prime Ministers Book   :Dunno:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Rod. the temperature rise is an OBSERVATION, not a projection.

  Yes, as has been said over and over again, the OBSERVATION as you put it, is the measurement of an effect.  Now we need to work toward finding empirical evidence of the causes. 
The IPCC fairytales are psychic computers "projections" or predictions of the future.  These psychic computers have told JuLIAR that our kids and grandkids are going to burn to hell, or drown when the oceans rise, damn psychic computers should just pick one.  Or did you actually OBSERVE what our kids and grandkids are doing?  :Doh:    

> Now it seems that you are accepting that temperatures have risen.

  You're not keeping up mate.  The climate changes.  It has for 4.5 billion years.  This means all components of climate including temperature, rainfall, wind speed, cloud cover, etc. always change.  This means it goes up and down over various time frames for various reasons.  These are scientific facts.  They do not need to be accepted by anyone.  Us realists call this reality. 
Your cult "believes" it knows why in the absence of any empirical evidence and you mistake this "belief system" for what you call "the science".  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  
This is the part where we laugh.    

> What is your definition of "very small"?

  Oh I could be so cruel.  :Rotfl:    

> CO2 levels have risen from 280ppm to about 400ppm which is about a 40% increase. Maybe you are confusing the gross and net CO2 production?

  See how cults are always fixated about the minutiae and lose their grasp on reality. 
Do you have any idea what water vapour is or how clouds operate?   

> There is plenty of "proper scientific evidence" to prove that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of the observed temperature rise. Name ONE reputable scientific organisation or body that *disbelieves* man-made CO2 is the main contributor to the temperature rise.

  First, organisations or bodies don't have beliefs, the people within them do. 
But you regard the "beliefs" of people who you think are smarter than you to be "scientific evidence"? 
I think we all now see where your cultish confusion stems from.   

> Your view isn't supported by the science.

  See, here's a demonstration of your confusion.  When you say "the science", do you mean: 
(1) Empirical scientific evidence; 
or 
(2) The beliefs or opinions of people who you think are smarter than you. 
If you mean (1) then us realists views are supported by "the science". 
If you mean (2) then we will choose to disagree with the people who you think are smarter than you. 
There are also tens of thousands of scientists in many fields who similarly laugh at the opinions of those people who you think are smarter than you.   

> What is it that really bothers you about AGW?

  The same thing that bothers me about Aum Shinrikyo, The People's Temple, Ananda Marga, Orange People, etc. etc.   

> A true "sceptic" will look at the *evidence* and be prepared to change their mind when shown to be wrong.

  Correct.  Where's the empirical evidence?  We're all waiting.  :Biggrin:    

> Your minds, it seems, are firmly closed (perhaps due to political bias?).

  See the question above?  Our minds are firmly open.  Why don't you put some empirical evidence in there?  
What our minds are not open to is mind control by ingrates chasing research grants.   

> The rest of the world accepts, or will accept, the AGW theory and move towards change. You can see this change starting to take place all around the world.

  And you have the nerve to call other people deniers.  :Doh:  
Have you heard what's happening in Durban?  Amazing huh, no one else has either.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

I ignored your first effort on the assumption that you'd snuck in a quick session without adult supervision present, but if you're gonna hang around, welcome aboard.  :Biggrin:    

> I don't debate the issue of Climate Change and Emission Trading with people because most people simply do not have the facts or are not prepared to listen to sound scientific reasonings and research. To have a debate with such people is a waste of my time.

  I know that you don't debate these issues because you have no idea what you're talking about.  :Biggrin:    

> Scientists have the knowledge and training to do the research and analyse the results and to come to sound and logical conclusions.

  See, you've already proved my point.  You obviously have not read the IPCC reports.  :Doh:  
And you certainly haven't read this thread.   

> A scientist who publish false or fabricated research is condemed by the scientific community for life. They are discredited and lose their reputation. They will not be employed by any respected scientific organisations ever again. There is no second chance for any scientist who publishes false scientific research.

  What if a scientist was so blatantly and monumentally stupid as to ask for the NHST process to be reversed? 
Surely you wouldn't even let them wash the test tubes, let alone give them more funding grants?  :Doh:    

> Other the other hand, radio shock jocks and politicans are prepared to *lie* about climate change to boost their ratings or political agenda.

  Yeh, tell me about it.  We're together on this one mate. 
Can you believe these idiots call Carbon Dioxide by the label "pollution" to confuse the weak minded that what you are currently breathing out is pollution.  JuLIAR does this and condones this.  What a LIAR, hey?   

> Scientific research papers are complex and detailed and thus hard to comprehend by the vast majority of people who are not trained as scientists.

  Feel free to label yourself as ignorant and unintelligent, happy to agree with that wholeheartedly.  :2thumbsup:  
But how about we let others speak for themselves and think for themselves, eh? 
I know this is discordant with your "authority figures" ideology, but give it a go, you may just like democracy.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> I ignored your first effort on the assumption that you'd snuck in a quick session without adult supervision present, but if you're gonna hang around, welcome aboard.

  Thank you for your warm (climate change) welcome. 
I ignored your previous posts because I mis-read your name as "Dr Fraud".    

> I know that you don't debate these issues because you have no idea what you're talking about.

  I repeat: "I don't debate the issue of Climate Change and Emission Trading with  people because most people simply do not have the facts or are not  prepared to listen to sound scientific reasonings and research. To have a  debate with such people is a waste of my time."    

> See, you've already proved my point.  You obviously have not read the IPCC reports.

  I have read some but not all.  That was rather presumptuous of you to think otherwise and to jump to that conclusion.  That is not thinking with scientific logic.    

> And you certainly haven't read this thread.

  This is thread is not a rational, scientific debate on Climate Change hence my point above, "I repeat: ...".    

> What if a scientist was so blatantly and monumentally stupid as to ask for the NHST process to be reversed?

  At the risk of sounding like Pauline Hanson; "Please explain".    

> Surely you wouldn't even let them wash the test tubes, let alone give them more funding grants?

  No, I wouldn't.    

> Yeh, tell me about it.  We're together on this one mate.

  Yay! We are in AGREEMENT.    

> Can you believe these idiots call Carbon Dioxide by the label "pollution" to confuse the weak minded that what you are currently breathing out is pollution.  JuLIAR does this and condones this.  What a LIAR, hey?

  Yes, there are idiots out there as well as the weak minded and under-educated that are part of the "Lemming Effect" in this debate about Climate Change.    

> Feel free to label yourself as ignorant and unintelligent, happy to agree with that wholeheartedly.

  Scientists are experts in their fields and are ignorant and unintelligent in those fields that they are not.  Do you understand quantum physics or string theory?    

> But how about we let others speak for themselves and think for themselves, eh? 
> I know this is discordant with your "authority figures" ideology, but give it a go, you may just like democracy.

  Australia is a democracy and people are free to speak their minds, however they should do so with some intelligent thoughts and reasonings and not with inane rants.

----------


## johnc

> You guys just dont get it do you. We have presented reasoned arguments against this scam througout the past 7000 posts you guys just want to appeal to a higher authority rather than use your own initiative. Just because "they" say its true does not make it so. The whole deal is falling apart, scientist who dissagree with the AGW theory are rejected out of hand by warmist.  
> I will accept others views if they have substance and can be proven, but to call me arrogant just because I will not join your club is in itself arrogant. You are blind to this.  
> I find it amusing that you can be so blind to the fact that you and others are more guilty of what you acuse. If you can prove to me tha AGW is real then i will change my mind, but will you?

  You can't lay claim to reasoned arguments when most of your references are from cranks and fools as well as opinion writers who know Jack about the science. Make an effort to show some quality in the references you post and you might gain some respect.

----------


## Dr Freud

I haven't got time to refute all of the nonsense in this article, but here's just a few points.   

> This gives some hope that we will eventually face our responsibilities *as a nation* by addressing the adverse impact we continue to have on the environment.

  Can you explain to your friend what "Global" means.  :Doh:    

> This generation at some point must face its obligation to ensure we leave an inhabitable planet to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

  We will.  Who's psychic computer prediction said we wouldn't. Does this whacko now "believe" that a computer program is more powerful than his own God, who is now powerless to save Man created in His own image?  :Doh:    

> Some of the simple facts are these. The reduction target of the current Australian program is 5 per cent by 2020. That is only about half that required to stabilise carbon emissions to the extent necessary to avoid a potentially disastrous temperature rise.

  This nut job actually thinks a 10% reduction in Australia's emissions will avoid a disastrous temperature rise?  :Doh:  
And he calls this a simple *fact*?  And you "believe" him?  :Doh:    

> Do not believe what is not true.

   :Roflmao2:   
So this man has never asked anyone to "believe" or have faith in something?   

> In what one 70-year-old man in Kenya described as unseen in his lifetime, there has been a three-year period without any rain at all.

  I recall being taught as a child that it once rained for forty days and forty nights.  One dude called Noah actually knew it was coming.  And it was John McIntyre's boss that sent the rain on a whim.  Can't he just send a few days this time?  Not losing the faith are we John?  :Doh:    

> The scare tactics and deceit employed by those raging against the carbon tax need to be resisted.

  You don't like scare tactics being employed, huh John? I recall being taught regularly as a child about the Hellish and torturous [S]warming[/S] oops, burning end for those blasphemers and disbelievers alike.  No wonder you like this cult.  Birds of a feather, eh?   

> To focus our minds on these *realities*, we might contemplate the current drought in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya. It is just one example in the current generation of the impact of climate change on those who can least afford it.

  I think you and reality parted company a long time ago John.  How's this for climate change:   

> The summer of 1845 was mild but very wet in Britain. It was almost the perfect weather conditions for the blight to spread.  There was a 50% loss of potatoes in this year. Famine had been common in Nineteenth Century Ireland and almost an occupational hazard of rural life in Ireland. But the Great Famine of 1845 eclipsed all others.   Between 1846 and 1850, the population of Ireland dropped by *2 million* which represented 25% of the total population.   This figure of 2 million can by effectively split in two. *One million died of starvation or the diseases associated with the famine* and one million emigrated to North America or parts of England, such as Liverpool, and Scotland, such as Glasgow.  The Great Famine of 1845

  Your ancestors were affected by climate change too John.    

> *The Right Reverend John McIntyre is the Anglican Bishop of Gippsland.*

  According to your newest cult member, this man is not fit to have an opinion on this subject anyway.  :Rotfl:  
And neither are you.  :2thumbsup:  
Do you support your fellow members opinion that you can't have an opinion?  :Wink 1:  
P.S. Let me reiterate, I fully support any person's right to believe in whatever religion or faith based system they want.  But if they try to sell these faith based systems (or ideological opinions) as "scientific" then I will squash them like a bug.  I was very gentle above out of respect for other adherents of this traditional faith, but the AGW hypothesis cult will receive no such niceties.  :Biggrin:     GONNA PUT ME IN THE MOVIES: BUG BUSTER   :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

*Local Bookshop * I was in the local suburban bookshop this afternoon.  It is a small independent outfit that stocks a reasonably good range reasonable quality of books.  i.e. I get the impression that they only stock the books they think they can sell. 
I was looking through the "science" section and interestingly I saw there were quite a few books on the topic of global warming.  I thought I'd do a quick-and-dirty statistical sample.   
On one shelf (covering H-S by author) there were 35 different titles (~50 books in total).  Of these, 7 were on the topic of global warming.  Of these 7, 2 were on denial (i.e why there is denial - not denial of AGW); about 3 were on the general topic of AGW; and about 2 were 'adaptation guides' (my terminology).  None were anti-AGW (i.e. Pilmer's book wasn't on the shelf - maybe it was in 'fiction' or 'religion' sections?). 
Maybe Rod and the Doc should visit a bookshop sometime?  :Smilie:

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> 6995 posts on Climate Change and Emission Trading posted on a Renovation Forum for tradesmen and home renovators?  That's my evidence.

   

> That was rather presumptuous of me[sic you]

  Hello, certainly was, and very denigrating too, as  it's my understanding that there are quite a few highly schooled people here as members. 
There are also some members that can think for themselves thankfully. 
Yes scientific papers are hard to read and oh so accurate.  :No:  
Here's a couple of scientific achievements for you to study. 
Tell that to all the farmers who have unusable land because they sprayed 
with what the government and their scientists told them to - DDT  DDT and   Mosquitoes, DDT, and Human Health 
Tell that to all the people who suffered terribly from stomach ulcers because science said that germs/viruses cannot grow in an acid environment.  http://www.vianet.net.au/~bjmrshll/features2.htm   and  Helicobacter pylori  
Tell that to all the vietnam vets who got blasted with "mosquito repellent" who now have cancer amongst other things. No links here  ....go search the Vietnam Vets associations. there are too many to quote.  
The doctor/scientist who discovered that thalidomide was affecting unborn babies, who years later was discredited for manipulating and falsifying his results with debendox, and got struck off the register!  After the event ... and after people got ripped off  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McBride_(doctor)  
So all these issues are caused by scientists, who are the only ones who can interpret and read data ?? These examples are off the top of my head, and I am a person who reads and interprets scientific data. For every scientific paper I have read in favour of,  there is another paper against.  
The debate has always been about the reasons for paying a tax (Emission Trading) on disputed science. 
We are now accused of political bias because the scientists have a lack of evidence.  
It is not political bias as has been suggested, as it doesen't matter who's in Government and imposting this tax.

----------


## watson

And I'm just the Dumb Administrator.........who has read every post....and still can't understand why people (highly or lowly educated) can't understand the word.  *DEBATE*

----------


## Dr Freud

I thought this meant you didn't want to debate this issue with us uneducated masses:   

> I repeat: "I don't debate the issue of Climate Change and Emission Trading with people because most people simply do not have the facts or are not prepared to listen to sound scientific reasonings and research. To have a debate with such people is a waste of my time."

  Yet here you are "wasting your time", and even asking questions. 
So were you lying before, or are you being a hypocrite now?  
But your questions and statements again show you have not read the thread, yet you freely comment on it's content.  Are you psychic? Like the computers? 
But back to your questions:   

> At the risk of sounding like Pauline Hanson; "Please explain".

  If you read the thread, you would already know this answer, but to save you "wasting" your precious time, you can start here:  Warmists: 'We can't win the game, so let's change the rules' – Telegraph Blogs 
Then when you're as ignorant and uneducated as the rest of us, then we can start the debate in earnest, assuming you are debating contrary to your own statements.  :Doh:    

> Do you understand quantum physics or string theory?

  Sure do.  :Biggrin:  
If you had read the thread, you would know that we have already touched upon these topics several times.  Not bad for a bunch of tradies, eh? 
But if you want to debate the areas of contention in these fields, feel free to start another thread and we can go for it.  :2thumbsup:  
But how about you first read the ETS thread, then when you are up to speed, we can debate the subject as suggested above, rather than continue with your bizarre "I don't debate" debate?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> _The Age_ seeks an expert to write on global warming and the drought in Africa. Naturally, it turns to John McIntyre, the Anglican Bishop of Gippsland, whose grip on the science is so sound that he thinks Australia can stop the whole planet from warming with just a little extra cut to its emissions:   _The reduction target of the current Australian program is 5 per cent by 2020. That is only about half that required to stabilise carbon emissions to the extent necessary to avoid a potentially disastrous temperature rise._ Wow. Who knew that our sacrifices down here could save everyone else? In fact, that they could stop a drought in Africa:    _To focus our minds on these realities, we might contemplate the current drought in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya. It is just one example in the current generation of the impact of climate change on those who can least afford it._ I doubt theres a single scientist whod blame that drought on our emissions, but the bishop has found a peer-reviewed expert to back him up:  _In what one 70-year-old man in Kenya described as unseen in his lifetime, there has been a three-year period without any rain at all._Thats enough proof for the bishop. But I suspect that his 70-year-old Kenyan is suffering Alzheimers:   
>    But how can a bishop resist that old hairshirt message, so beloved of Marxists and a certain kind of Christian, that the wealth of one must have been stolen from the other:  _While we unthinkingly consume more, they die._The Age’s climate expert and his peer reviewed Kenyan | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Don't you just love the facts.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Warmists, having heard those predictions of vanishing ice at the Arctic,  start rowing:  _Scots adventurer Jock Wishart is mounting an expedition to the Magnetic North Pole (as certified in 1996) to highlight the already dramatic effect of climate change on the ice around the Polar Regions._ As they say:  _Only recently has it been possible to consider rowing to the 1996 Magnetic North Pole. This is due to the recognised trend of retreating sea ice over the past 30 years._Hmm. But the curious route theyve taken suggests a certain icy flaw in their plans:     
>   So theres ice - lots more of it than they thought. The rowers will not be daunted:   _Some people may have discouraging things to say about this expedition. _  _We ask our followers NOT to comment or reply on skeptics posts. Ignore them. This does not mean these concerns are being ignored._ Still, its odd that they hadnt leaned from previous expeditions by warmists convinced the Arctic was turning into another Mediterranean (links at the link):  _Yet another alarmist is nearly killed by global warming hysteria: _  _Tom Smitheringale ... was on his way to the North Pole, alone, when he fell through an ice sheet. He was close to death when he was miraculously rescued by Canadian soldiers He wrote on his website: Had a bad fall into the ice today and came very close to the grave. ...__Smitheringale had intended, in fact, to demonstrate were in the grip of global warming: _  _Part of the reason Toms One Man Epic is taking place now is because of the effect that global warming is having on the polar ice caps Some scientists have even estimated that the polar ice cap will have entirely melted away by 2014!___  _Last year it was Pen Hadow and his team who had to be rescued from their global warming stunt:  _  _Project director and ice team leader Pen Hadow and his colleagues Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels are now down to half rations and fighting to survive in brutal sub-zero weather conditions.__The year before, eco-adventurer Lewis Gordon Pugh was similarly thwarted: _  _August 30, 2008, from the BBC: Lewis Pugh plans to kayak 1200km (745 miles) to the North Pole to raise awareness of how global warming has melted the ice sheet . . . This year, for the first time, scientists predict that the North Pole could briefly be ice-free and that has inspired Mr Pugh . . ._ _September 6, 2008, from Reuters:_  _ Pughs kayak trip ended at 81 degrees north, about 1000km from the Pole. (A) barrier of sea ice . . . eventually blocked his route north . . ._ _And the year before that, alarmists Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen paid the price for thinking the Arctic was warmer than it actually is: _  _February 26, 2007, from PRNewswire: On March 4, world-renowned polar explorers and educators Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen will embark on a historic 75-day expedition to the North Pole and beyond to raise awareness of global warmings impact on the fragile Arctic._ _March 12, 2007, from AP: _  _Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen . . . called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment . . .  They were experiencing temperatures that werent expected with global warming, (spokesman Ann) Atwood said._ _(Via Watts Up With That, which has lots of juicy more.)_  _ Who’d have thought there’d still be ice at the Arctic? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

   
Make the pilgrimage? 
Cult!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> Tell that to all the farmers who have unusable land because they sprayed 
> with what the government and their scientists told them to - DDT  DDT and   Mosquitoes, DDT, and Human Health 
> Tell that to all the people who suffered terribly from stomach ulcers because science said that germs/viruses cannot grow in an acid environment.  http://www.vianet.net.au/~bjmrshll/features2.htm   and  Helicobacter pylori  
> Tell that to all the vietnam vets who got blasted with "mosquito repellent" who now have cancer amongst other things. No links here  ....go search the Vietnam Vets associations. there are too many to quote.  
> The doctor/scientist who discovered that thalidomide was affecting unborn babies, who years later was discredited for manipulating and falsifying his results with debendox, and got struck off the register!  After the event ... and after people got ripped off  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McBride_(doctor)

  
I am well aware of the above cases that you pointed out plus many more.  However, science and scientists have done so much for the advancement and benefit of mankind.  Human lives longer and better life because of scientific research into medical procedures, pharmaceuticals, disease diagnosis, control and erradication.   
As in all aspects of life and professions there will always be some rogue elements that do the wrong thing.  So what is your point in raising the above cases? 
As for the claim that Climate Change science is a disputed science.  It is only disputed because some people chooses to ignore the scientific research and facts because - 
    1.  They don't comprehend the science, the research and conclusions.
    2.  It is contrary to their own opinons or beliefs.
    3.  They are pushing their own agenda.
    4.  They have been influenced by others less educated, non-scientists.
    5.  They choose to ignore sound scientific research and conclusions.
    6.  They are just obstinate or lemmings.

----------


## Dr Freud

Not happy with the insulation debacle, the live cattle debacle, the school halls debacle and the soon to be Carbon Dioxide Tax debacle, now JuLIAR want's to destabilise our property market:   

> *A NEW green scheme threatens to wipe tens of thousands of dollars from the market price of energy-guzzling old homes and McMansions.  * Experts said there would be significant financial implications for owners of these homes - either spend up on going green or face the prospect of a lower sale price.  
> A federal government study into a similar ACT scheme operating since 1999, which rates properties out of 10 stars, found a one-star difference affected selling prices by 3 per cent.
> If mirrored in Melbourne, a one-star variation would equal $17,700 - based on the REIV's median house price of $590,000, as reported in June. A three-star variation would equal $53,100.  
> Choice head of campaigns Matt Levey said homes that were energy inefficient would cost more to run, but star-rating models have been criticised for failing to factor in actual consumption, leading to questions about whether the changes will even cut power use.  Threat to rip tens of thousands of dollars off old homes and McMansions | Perth Now

  So overnight, properties can lose around 10% of their value because some morons in Canberra come up with some arbitrary bureaucratic green dream scheme rating system.  :Doh:  
What about some poor first home buyer with a 5% deposit that now wants or needs to sell? 
What will this do for consumer confidence? 
This government is so inept that it is now impossible to quantify.  :No:

----------


## johnc

Why shouldn't properties have a condition report? even if that extends to the cost of heating etc after all is there much difference between the cost of rates, water, body corporate fees etc and costs incurred to heat and cool? Seems reasonable as would an electrical and plumbing inspection.

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> *I am well aware* of the above cases that you pointed out *plus many more*.

   Hello, for the benefit of the uneducated, could you list some of the other scientific failures.    

> So what is your point in raising the above cases?

  That the science is not always right.
You can help by identifying the additional cases that you are aware of.   

> As for the claim that Climate Change science is a disputed science.  It is only disputed because some people chooses to ignore the scientific research and facts because -

  There are a lot of scientific failures, as you are well aware.

----------


## Dr Freud

They can't predict a budget position one year into the future with no major policy changes:   

> Julia Gillard, August 2010, says there are no ifs about it:  _PM: Mr Abbott couldnt tell you when the Budget would come back to surplus. Well I can: the Budget will be back in surplus in 20113 if Im re-elected, if my Government is re-elected on Saturday. ..._  _JOURNALIST: If you dont make a, get the Budget back in to surplus in 2012-2013, this is a question to both of you, the cameras are on  will you resign?_  _PM: (laughs) The Budget is coming back to surplus, no ifs no buts it will happen._ Gillard in November 2010 is adamant:  _The budget will be back in the black, back in surplus in 2012-13 ... as promised._ Gillard in May 2011 says it really is a promise:  _Well bring the budget to surplus in 2012-13, exactly as promised The budget will come back to surplus in 2012-13; weve worked hard to make the responsible decisions to get that done._  But suddenly an iron-clad promise isnt any more:   _  JULIA Gillard has toned down the governments hardline rhetoric on returning the budget to surplus in 2012-13 but said she still had an expectation of achieving the surplus, despite this weeks financial market meltdown_  _Standing here, I can certainly say to you its our expectation that the budget will return to surplus in 2012-13, she said._  
>  You must forgive them. Who would have thought that, having blown a massive surplus on junk, the Government would be left with bare cupboards in a downturn?    
>   Its just not fair, the way reality wont cooperate  with Labors idle dreams.   No ifs or buts, a Gillard promise is worthless | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Yet they want you to TRUST that they know what the entire economic impact of a massive economy wide Carbon Dioxide Tax will have, down to the cent!  :Doh:  
From the same people who wasted billions of dollars and ended up killing 4 people and burning down hundreds of houses just trying to run a ceiling insulation scheme. 
From the same people who are currently wasting billions of dollars in ludicrous border protection schemes including buying 4000 innocent people from Malaysia in some quasi-sanctioned people buying program. 
Economic idiocy, yet asking for your trust for more economic lunacy. 
For absolutely ZERO environmental difference.  :No:  
They are idiots.  But who put them there?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> I thought this meant you didn't want to debate this issue with us uneducated masses:

  I'm not debating the issue of for or against Climate Change or Emission Trading.  And, I didn't know you were one of the under-educated populace, I thought you were an highly educated medical or PhD Dr.    

> Yet here you are "wasting your time", and even asking questions. 
> So were you lying before, or are you being a hypocrite now?

  I am not wasting my time because I am not debating the issue of Climate Change or Emission Trading and therefore I am not lying or being a hypocrite.    

> But your questions and statements again show you have not read the thread, yet you freely comment on it's content.  Are you psychic? Like the computers?

  As I posted earlier, I have not read the thread because it is not a rational, scientific debate on the issue of Climate Change or Emission Trading and because of this I do not intend to read it through.    

> But back to your questions: 
> If you read the thread, you would already know this answer, but to save you "wasting" your precious time, you can start here:  Warmists: 'We can't win the game, so let's change the rules'  Telegraph Blogs 
> Then when you're as ignorant and uneducated as the rest of us, then we can start the debate in earnest, assuming you are debating contrary to your own statements.

  As I said earlier, I have not read the thread and therefore I asked you to "Please explain".    

> Sure do.  
> If you had read the thread, you would know that we have already touched upon these topics several times.  Not bad for a bunch of tradies, eh?

  YOU UNDERSTAND "STRING THEORY"? Oh, please explain because I don't understand it at all.  I have tried to understand it by reading "String Theory for Dummies" but I still cannot get it.  I do know it is not about string lines between posts when putting up a new fence.  The Basic Elements of String Theory - For Dummies    

> But if you want to debate the areas of contention in these fields, feel free to start another thread and we can go for it.

  Please feel free to comment on my post in the Tool section re: Pole Chainsaw Pruner.    

> But how about you first read the ETS thread, then when you are up to speed, we can debate the subject as suggested above, rather than continue with your bizarre "I don't debate" debate?

  I repeat; I don't debate Climate Change or Emission Trading. See my earlier post for the reason.

----------


## watson

Just a little interjection here on science/scientists/and governments....both persuasions. 
Find George Lugg....scientist.........(try any Search engine).....sent to evaluate any damage to personnel at Maralinga. George's answer..."Nope....she'll be right"
Later Sent to Innisfail on Project Desert.....the use of Agent Orange in Innisfail.George's answer..."Nope....she'll be right"
Later sent to Vietnam to evaluate the effects of Agent Orange. George's answer..."Nope....she'll be right" 
I worked for George in the 50's...and he was IMHO a raging d ickhead. 
Yet.......all Governments since (of both persuasions) have used George's reports to deny compensation to Maralinga and Vietnam Agent Orange victims. And Still do. 
My point is: 
Scientists may be right.....may be wrong. In George's case....WRONG
Governments use of Science....and what scientist say...........is always used to the benefit of the policy that the Government is trying to force down our throats. (or take from our pockets). 
I think the Scientists in this case ..(Global Warming).....are right......but the Government taking money out of our pockets or industries' pockets in this country to combat a global problem is about as effective as mammary glands on a chicken's back. 
Science has answers to the problem we are facing.....its just buggered up by the misuse of that information by Governments. 
Now I'll just bugger off back into my under-educated Admin role. 
That'll cost you all ..two cents.

----------


## Dr Freud

No link at all, huh?   

> The carbon tax fits Gillard to a T because it matches the policy calls she promoted in the early 1990s as she was about to emerge on the national political stage as a very left-wing MP. 
> For example, one of the Gillard (editorial committee) titles, *The Greening of the Red*, a recipe for left-wing totalitarian control via environmental activism, calls for re-regulating the exchange rate, reintroducing tariffs and reducing imports and foreign investment. 
> In view of Gillard and the Greens' recent stirring about the media that coincided with disagreeable (to them) coverage, it is wise to heed what Gillard and others in the Socialist Forum wanted the media to look like in this country.  
> They advocated public funding for media outlets to be run by co-ops and community groups rather than businesspeople, on a non-profit basis. 
> The following quote reveals the extent of social engineering these lefties believe in: "Mechanisms which have been proposed for value change range from enhancement of 'green' education to revival of those religions which respect Nature. 
> "Fundamental reconstruction is required in our cultural consciousness and information systems for the longer term, though beginning as soon as governments can be talked into commencing the necessary reforms." (Page 120, The Greening of the Red) 
> There are absurd offerings, such as the recommendation to put duties on luxury goods, energy imports and "products deemed unnecessarily consumerist". 
> Their wish list includes an overseas shipping line, restrictions on new loan raising by private (and public) enterprise, directional control over the investments of financial institutions and no tax concessions for corporate debt. 
> These are the economic prescriptions advocated by Gillard and her socialist chums. They were ridiculous then, as they are ridiculous now. 
> Australians are scratching their heads to work out how we have arrived at our current destination: *a nanny-state land where competitiveness is eroded by taxes, public funds are disastrously wasted and the Greens rule, not OK*.  The real Julia is true to her socialist forum past | The Australian

  Gee, I wonder where the Carbon Dioxide Tax came from?  :Doh:

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

Gee, Watson you beat me to it.  I was going to cite the cases of Australian troops being use as human guinea pigs at the Maralinga atomic testing and for the Agent Orange testing for Daniel. Cheez! I feel I have been deprived of a good reply. 
Anyway, there many other cases of human guinea pigs being use in experiments.  This is a link to one relating to the US government and military. A History Of US Secret Human Experimentation  Please take note, Daniel.

----------


## chrisp

> That'll cost you all ..two cents.

   :Confused:   I thought we were trading in Tim Tams on this thread???

----------


## Dr Freud

These clowns are just making this up as they go along:   

> *AT FIRST it was thought the carbon tax would apply to 1000 of Australia's biggest polluters, then it was 500, and now the climate change department says it's "more like 400".  * Julia Gillard originally said the price would be paid by the top 1000 polluters in the country. 
> (Now) the number of emitters that we think will be covered is more in the order of more like 400.  
> Mr Comley was giving evidence in Canberra to a parliamentary inquiry into the proposed carbon tax.  
> But the 400 figure is somewhat rubbery.   Counting down: the shrinking carbon tax | The Australian

  Given all these changes combined with the massive economic uncertainty in currently in Australia and globally, it would probably make sense to ensure The Treasury was regularly consulted about implementation, to ensure maximum chance of success?   

> Earlier, it was revealed the federal government had not sought advice from Treasury as to whether it should reconsider introducing a carbon tax next year given the current global market turmoil.  
> Liberal senator Mathias Cormann asked Treasury officials if the department had been asked to provide advice on whether the start date should be reconsidered given current global and financial circumstances.  
> Senior official David Gruen told the parliamentary inquiry the answer to that question was No.

  Rubbery figures. 
Flying in the dark. 
During massive economic uncertainty. 
From a proven incompetent government. 
It should go off without a hitch, eh?  :Doh:

----------


## johnc

> Hello, for the benefit of the uneducated, could you list some of the other scientific failures. That the science is not always right.
> You can help by identifying the additional cases that you are aware of.  
> There are a lot of scientific failures, as you are well aware.

  I think you are on the wrong track, science as you put it is continually evolving, some things are certain others are uncertain while we lack complete information. Watsons example is a good one, there are some who are simply wrong, through ineptitude or an incorrect conclusion. 
The science of climate change is one where some things are quite certain, quite a lot is becoming clearer and eventually if we act soon enough those working to resolve the imbalances will give us the information we need to make the right decissions. However now at this time we know we have to reduce the amount of CO2 we produce to give earths balancing mechanisms a chance. 
We all have to decide if we are going to act like scared little leemings and follow those like Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Lord Monckton and other non scientists or put our faith in the scientific community and use that information to make the decisions  necessary. The main point I would ask you to ponder is that enviromental improvements usually lead to more efficient manufacturing processes and as a result cheaper production. We are currently at the pointy end with resistance to change quite high but as long as the political climate remains stable there is every reason to expect that the fear of change some feel will pass and eventually we will see acceptance. This is probably the next technological shift and those countries that ride that wave will make a lot of money from the processes  developed.

----------


## Dr Freud

There seems to be a pattern of late that all the people who "believe" in this farce continually refuse to debate any aspect of it, especially their so called "science". 
Why is this?  Is it because they know they're on the verge of full public ridicule?   

> *IF you read the Gillard government's $4 million mail-out last week about what a carbon price means for you, one lingering question remains unanswered. How will a carbon tax on the Australian economy combat global warming?  * But not once does the government inform us by how much the carbon tax will reduce global temperatures. The reason for the silence is simple. The carbon tax will make no difference to global temperatures. 
> And that explains why the debate about a carbon tax is far from over. 
> Far better than the government's 18-page spin document, real information was forthcoming when the Spectator Australia magazine and the Institute of Public Affairs conducted an Oxford-style debate where the motion was "a carbon tax is needed to combat global warming". 
> Perhaps Lawson's rational analysis of global warming and the carbon tax explains why the usual taxpayer-funded talking heads, who support a carbon tax, declined to front the debate. Climate Change Minister Greg Combet and gung-ho Greens leader Bob Brown and his deputy, Christine Milne, were busy. So was Climate Change Commissioner Tim Flannery, paid handsomely by taxpayers to convince us that we need to combat global warming. So was Ross Garnaut and climate scientist Will Steffen , who sits on the Prime Minister's Independent Climate Change Committee. So was climate change propagandist Clive Hamilton. Even head GetUp! guy Simon Sheikh was unavailable. 
> Arguing in favour of a carbon tax was former Liberal leader John Hewson, climate scientist Ben McNeill and former Labor leader Mark Latham. 
> When the climate scientist rose to speak in favour of a carbon tax, McNeill told the audience he would not talk about the science. *The audience murmured a quiet "huh?"*. And herein lies the problem. The climate change scientists prefer not to engage dissenters about the science. * Carbon debate has just begun | The Australian*

  Imagine that?  Scientists who won't even discuss their "science" with the public because it has so little credibility that it cannot even stand up to the scrutiny of a public forum.  :Doh:  
But they keep coming back for more funding.  :Biggrin:

----------


## PhilT2

A_s I posted earlier, I have not read the thread because it is not a  rational, scientific debate on the issue of Climate Change or Emission  Trading and because of this I do not intend to read it through._ 
You're right there, it's mostly nothing but a collection of cut and pastes from the Murdoch press and a few denier blogs, there is no meaningful posts that contain any scientific discussion at all.

----------


## Dr Freud

This is apparently already "commercially viable" according to the definitionally challenged:   

> *THE firm behind geothermal energy in Geelong has reaffirmed the credentials of the project despite multi-million dollar government grants going begging due to a lack of private investment.  * On Monday Greenearth was one of four geothermal companies to announce it had passed up the Federal Government's funding offer because it was unable to secure matching amounts from the private sector.  
> Due to the expiration of Canberra's Geothermal Drilling Program, the Gillard Government rolled over the untapped money into the $126 million Emerging Renewables fund for hot-rock, wind and solar projects.   Geothermal company vows to carry on | Geelong, VIC, Australia

   

> *A RADICAL plan to power campus airconditioning and heating from hot aquifers under the University of Western Australia has collapsed after the company at the centre of the project pulled out yesterday.  * The Green Rock Energy company said it could not meet federal government demands to raise $7 million to match commonwealth funding for the project in the current economic times. 
> The university told _The Australian_ it was disappointed *the project was dead*, but would continue its acclaimed geothermal research despite the setback.  $16m geothermal cooling plan collapses | The Australian

  More wasted taxpayer money! 
Let's just keep throwing money at failed green dream schemes and surely some magical baseload power source will just appear before we shut down our fossil fuel energy sources?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Aussies should look forward to going this alone:   

> *Not Joining-in*  *China* questions the role of man-made CO2 in determining climate effects and is now the largest CO2 emitter, having surpassed the USA in 2006, and is now greater than the USA by more than 40%. China completes a new coal-fired power plant each week. China has made the gesture of being willing to link the intensity of its emissions to be dependent on its GDP growth. In effect this is no concession at all [3].   *India* has set up its own climate institute to re-examine the claims and policy recommendations made by the IPCC and grew its emissions by ~9% in 2009. It too has said that it will comply with the intensity criterion. Also in effect this is no concession at all.  
>  The well-developed nations* Russia, Canada and Japan* have already withdrawn support for the Kyoto accord.   *Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil and Indonesia* are the larger developing nations do not support action on Man-made Global Warming, and they will continue their rapid growth of CO2 emissions.  
>  The *Rest of the World* (200+ Nations), ~19% of world CO2 emissions and ~40% of the world population, mainly consist of some 200+ underdeveloped or developing nations. They are not interested in limiting their emissions nor in restricting their slowly improving standards of living. But they are expecting to be the financial beneficiaries at the expense of the developed nations of the western Climate Change process.  
>  In the *USA* the Republican congress, is re-examining:  the scientific inconsistencies of the Man-made Global Warming assertionthe reliance of the Environmental Protection Agency on the reports of the UN IPCCand thus to terminate any USA response to mitigate Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.The USA congress has just mandated that all support for Green international activities should be terminated[4].
>  A failure to commit by USA adds about 18% to the current world emissions not falling under the influence of any CO2 controls. The withdrawal of the USA would then mean that about 85% of world emissions and 92% of the world population were no longer involved in any action on controlling CO2. *Joining-in* 
>  An opt-out by the USA leaves the European Union, Australia and New Zealand isolated in their continuing adherence to the Man-made Global Warming assertion.
>  It is only in the EU, (including the UK, ~1.7% of World CO2 emissions or ~11% of EU emissions), as well as Australia and New Zealand where their governments have committed action on CO2 into legislation.
>  These isolated nations are about 8% of the world population and only~14% of the worlds CO2 emissions at present.   *The failure of universal action entirely negates the unilateral action of any individual nation. *  
>  So the realistic apparent position based on current published CO2 emissions is shown below.     Worldwide CO2 emissions and the futility of any action in the West | Watts Up With That?

  But we'll feel really good about ourselves sitting in the dark, having short cold showers and sleeping with our pets to keep warm.  :Biggrin:  
While China and India burn all our coal at will to become even bigger economic powerhouses.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

> *THE firm behind geothermal energy in Geelong has reaffirmed the  credentials of the project despite multi-million dollar government  grants going begging due to a lack of private investment.  * On  Monday Greenearth was one of four geothermal companies to announce it  had passed up the Federal Government's funding offer because it was  unable to secure matching amounts from the private sector.  
> Due to the expiration of Canberra's Geothermal Drilling Program, the  Gillard Government *rolled over the untapped money into the $126 million  Emerging Renewables fund* for hot-rock, wind and solar projects.   Geothermal company vows to carry on | Geelong, VIC, Australia

   

> More wasted taxpayer money!

  Huh?  The money was "untapped" - how is that a "waste"?  They didn't manage to match, so they didn't get any government money. 
Are you letting your political bias cloud your reading comprehension as well as your understanding of science?

----------


## Dr Freud

That was then:   

> You've heard it before, but it's worth repeating as a reminder of just how puffed-up Barack Obama got back in 2008: I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; *this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal*; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment--this was the time--when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.

  What's he talking about now:   

> Yesterday the president gave a speech in Holland, Mich. Get a load of the headlines it generated:
>   New York Times: "Obama Urges Voters to Scold Republicans" 		 			 
> 			 	 Associated Press: "Obama: Something Is Wrong With Country's Politics" 		 			 
> 			 	 Los Angeles Times: "Obama to GOP: Put Country Before Party" 		 			 
> 			 	 CNN: "President Obama: 'I'm Frustrated' " 		 			 
> 			 	 Washington Post: "Obama to America: You Must Pressure Congress to Pivot to Jobs" 		 			 
> 			 	 The Hill: "Obama Grasps for Anti-Washington Anger" 
> Like a leaky balloon, Barack Obama keeps getting smaller. "The president is declaring to the world that he is simply too weak to govern,"  The Great Deflation - WSJ.com

  He promised to change the way the entire Planet Earth functions. 
Now he can't even change the minds of a few politicians in the USA.  :Doh:  
And JuLIAR says the USA will follow if we act first. Sure thing JuLIAR, they'll raise their debt ceiling again from $17 trillion to $20 trillion, just to invest in useless windmills.  Not like they've got other economic issues to contend with, huh?  :Screwy:

----------


## chrisp

> Aussies should look forward to going this alone:

  ALONE????   Are you uninformed or are you being deliberately deceptive?    Kyoto Protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Dr Freud

> Brisbane businessman Tony tells me hes commissioned a billboard:  _ 
>  Im putting up the attached billboard on Monday on Settlement Road, Keperra, a suburb of Brisbane.  Its going up on a 6 x 3 metro billboard. I will get more billboards up in other localities around Australia over the coming weeks._ Sending Gillard a billboard | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  And this is just a fraction of a fraction of reality. 
What percentage is total CO2 of all atmospheric contributors to climate change? 
What percentage are atmospheric contributors of all contributors influencing the Planet's climate? 
But just pay the TAX and trust JuLIAR and the cult that the Planet Earth will be colder.  :Wink 1:

----------


## chrisp

> And this is just a fraction of a fraction of reality. 
> What percentage is total CO2 of all atmospheric contributors to climate change?

  Psst, *your ignorance is showing* (again).  Or don't you understand the science at all?  (or maybe you are being deliberately deceptive?) 
The nature CO2 production is balanced by natural CO2 sinks.  i.e. the net addition to the atmosphere is ZERO.  *Man-made CO2 doesn't have a corresponding sink - it mostly ADDS to the atmospheric CO2.*  (some is absorbed by natural sinks) 
Maybe you should consider enrolling in an adult science course to improve your knowledge?

----------


## Dr Freud

If you believe that Aussies paying more TAX will make the Planet Earth colder, then I guess you'll agree to pay more TAX for more hair-brained green dream schemes:   

> *THE Gillard government has placed congestion taxes back on the agenda, putting them up for discussion at October's tax summit, along with the possibility of other environmentally linked taxes.  * It has emphasised the need to spread the tax burden fairly, placing appropriate burden on those with "the capacity to pay". 
> As the government battles to put a price on carbon, it has flagged a push to use other areas of the tax system to improve the environment.  Swan puts congestion tax on agenda for summit | The Australian

  Greenwashing gone mad.  :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You can't lay claim to reasoned arguments when most of your references are from cranks and fools as well as opinion writers who know Jack about the science. Make an effort to show some quality in the references you post and you might gain some respect.

  Well this is only your opinion and fortunately you are able to give it.  Doesnt make it right  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> And I'm just the Dumb Administrator.........who has read every post....and still can't understand why people (highly or lowly educated) can't understand the word.  *DEBATE*

  You poor bugger!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I am well aware of the above cases that you pointed out plus many more.  However, science and scientists have done so much for the advancement and benefit of mankind.  Human lives longer and better life because of scientific research into medical procedures, pharmaceuticals, disease diagnosis, control and erradication.   
> As in all aspects of life and professions there will always be some rogue elements that do the wrong thing.  So what is your point in raising the above cases? 
> As for the claim that Climate Change science is a disputed science.  It is only disputed because some people chooses to ignore the scientific research and facts because - 
>     1.  They don't comprehend the science, the research and conclusions.
>     2.  It is contrary to their own opinons or beliefs.
>     3.  They are pushing their own agenda.
>     4.  They have been influenced by others less educated, non-scientists.
>     5.  They choose to ignore sound scientific research and conclusions.
>     6.  They are just obstinate or lemmings.

  Ah what facts are you talking about could you tell us.  Because we haven't seen any, despite asking for them over and over again.  As you a new here perhaps YOU can enlighten us so perhaps we can change our minds.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Huh?  The money was "untapped" - how is that a "waste"?  They didn't manage to match, so they didn't get any government money. 
> Are you letting your political bias cloud your reading comprehension as well as your understanding of science?

  So what's coming from all the billions they churn through in these green dream schemes? 
Our taxpayer dollars go from fund to fund until some shonk cleans it out. 
And what do Aussies get in return? 
That is why it is waste.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Ah what facts are you talking about could you tell us.  Because we haven't seen any, despite asking for them over and over again.  As you a new here perhaps YOU can enlighten us so perhaps we can change our minds.

  I don't think you'll have much joy communicating with this one mate. 
He recommends that the IPCC implement Australian legislation without Aussies having a say in it. 
What a great future this country has with ideologues like this.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Psst, *your ignorance is showing* (again).  Or don't you understand the science at all?  (or maybe you are being deliberately deceptive?) 
> The nature CO2 production is balanced by natural CO2 sinks.  i.e. the net addition to the atmosphere is ZERO.  *Man-made CO2 doesn't have a corresponding sink - it mostly ADDS to the atmospheric CO2.*  (some is absorbed by natural sinks) 
> Maybe you should consider enrolling in an adult science course to improve your knowledge?

  So you're claiming that atmospheric CO2 levels have never changed before coal power plants or cars were invented?   

> The nature CO2 production is balanced by natural CO2 sinks.  i.e. the net addition to the atmosphere is ZERO.

  Now that's funny.  :Lolabove:

----------


## ringtail

> Psst, *your ignorance is showing* (again).  Or don't you understand the science at all?  (or maybe you are being deliberately deceptive?) 
> The nature CO2 production is balanced by natural CO2 sinks.  i.e. the net addition to the atmosphere is ZERO.  *Man-made CO2 doesn't have a corresponding sink - it mostly ADDS to the atmospheric CO2.*  (some is absorbed by natural sinks) 
> Maybe you should consider enrolling in an adult science course to improve your knowledge?

  
So by your logic, Tony Abbots plan of planting trees ( a natural sink) will work perfectly - although it really doesn't need to as there is no problem to fix in the first place. Mmmm, I wonder how much embodied energy is used in the production, transport, installation and maintenance of solar, wind and other forms of alternative energy

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> Ah what facts are you talking about could you tell us.  Because we haven't seen any, despite asking for them over and over again.  As you a new here perhaps YOU can enlighten us so perhaps we can change our minds.

  
You re-quoted my post #7035 in making the above statement.  In that post I wasn't discussing any facts, scientific or otherwise.  You have not read that post properly.  Please re-read and ask an appropriate question relating to it.

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> He recommends that the IPCC implement Australian legislation without Aussies having a say in it.

  REALLY?  Where? When?  Check my posts #6995, 7000, 7013, 7026, 7035, 7040 and 7043.  I only mentioned IPCC as having read some of the reports and nothing more.  This is a typical response by a proponent opposed to another person's point of view.  To discredit their opponent by mis-quoting them and to attribute false comments to their opponent.    

> What a great future this country has with ideologues like this.

  Idealogues drives a country forward into the future not hold it back.  Where would America be today if not for the founding fathers of the American war of independence.

----------


## PhilT2

In the US the EPA has finalised rules that limit pollution from power plants. Comments indicate that some plants will convert to gas to meet the new standards resulting in a significant reduction in CO2.  EPA finalizes rules for cross-state air pollution - The Hill's E2-Wire 
This comes on top of the new rules for emission standards for motor vehicles which will also result in reductions in CO2 
Australia should not act alone.....oh wait

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> I am well aware of the above cases that you pointed out plus many more.  However, science and scientists have done so much for the advancement and benefit of mankind.  Human lives longer and better life because of scientific research into medical procedures, pharmaceuticals, disease diagnosis, *control and erradication*.

  Hello, like this? A History Of US Secret Human Experimentation

----------


## chrisp

> So by your logic, Tony Abbots plan of planting trees ( a natural sink) will work perfectly

  If, and only IF, the carbon captured in the trees is locked away indefinitely.  If they are burnt or in any other way digested (composted etc.) the carbon would be re-released. 
In principle, all you'd need to do is grow and bury trees at the same rate that we dig up and burn carbon from fossil sources.  It'd be easier - and more sensible - not to use the carbon, but to simply use the trees instead.  This is the basis of bio-fuels.    

> - although it really doesn't  need to as there is no problem to fix in the first place.

  Hmmm, more ignorance.  Don't worry, we are here to help.   

> I  wonder how much embodied energy is used in the production, transport,  installation and maintenance of solar, wind and other forms of  alternative energy

  Probably a fair bit.  but, and it is a big BUT, the "fuel costs" for solar and wind are ZERO - both in economic cost and environmental cost. 
A fossil fuel powered generator has embodied AND fuel costs.  To simply run then uses non-zero cost fuel and it also has an environmental impact.

----------


## chrisp

> Originally Posted by *chrisp*  
>  Huh?  The money was "untapped" - how is that a "waste"?  They didn't manage to match, so they didn't get any government money.
> 			
> 		       So what's coming from all the billions they churn through in these green dream schemes? 
> Our taxpayer dollars go from fund to fund until some shonk cleans it out. 
> And what do Aussies get in return? 
> That is why it is waste.

  
You DO have comprehension problems, don't you?  The example quoted stated that the firms concerned DIDN'T get any funds from the government. 
You then go off on a conjecture stating the the "some shonk" will clean it out instead???  Talk about irrational! 
BTW, out of interest, is "some shonk" a government or a private organisation?

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> I am well aware of the above cases that you pointed out plus many more.

   

> Hello, for the benefit of the uneducated, could you list some of the other scientific failures.

   Hello, 
 Thank you for the link you supplied but that is a list of abhorrent experiments against mankind. 
 It is an emotive response, not a  statement that states whether the science was a success or failure. 
 You said you were aware of other failed scientific cases, can you please supply a list?

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> Hello, 
>  Thank you for the link you supplied but that is a list of abhorrent experiments against mankind. 
>  It is an emotive response, not a  statement that states whether the science was a success or failure. 
>  You said you were aware of other failed scientific cases, can you please supply a list?

  This is a typical response of a denialist, to demand evidence only then to deny them and demand more evidence to again deny them.  We are going around in circles here.

----------


## Dr Freud

> ALONE????   Are you uninformed or are you being deliberately deceptive?    Kyoto Protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  With all due respect to the economic powerhouse that is Latvia, I can't find China, USA or India in here anywhere?  Could you point them out? 
And by the way, Australia also met our Kyoto goals without a Carbon Dioxide Tax, so we were already "with the rest of the world". 
Can you please point out which of these countries are now introducing an economy wide Carbon Dioxide Tax on an equivalent scale to Australia? 
I've told you before that if your knowledge base is Wikipedia then you will never understand any of these issues, and this is what leads to your continued errors.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You re-quoted my post #7035 in making the above statement.  In that post I wasn't discussing any facts, scientific or otherwise.  You have not read that post properly.  Please re-read and ask an appropriate question relating to it.

  Don't take this the wrong way, but is English not your first language? 
It's just that this is a thread designed to debate the various issues around the AGW hypothesis and the political responses to it, being the ETS/CPRS or Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
Then you join in the thread saying you WILL NOT debate any of these issues, yet you then start asking questions about the information here and making refuting comments to others about their comments made about the content. 
I asked if you were lying at the start, or being a hypocrite now, but I'm beginning to think it's not intentional and you actually don't know what you're doing?  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

> REALLY?  Where? When?  Check my posts #6995, 7000, 7013, 7026, 7035, 7040 and 7043.  I only mentioned IPCC as having read some of the reports and nothing more.  This is a typical response by a proponent opposed to another person's point of view.  To discredit their opponent by mis-quoting them and to attribute false comments to their opponent. 
> Idealogues drives a country forward into the future not hold it back.  Where would America be today if not for the founding fathers of the American war of independence.

  Because you aren't debating, I'm just going to make running commentary on your uninformed comments.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

> With all due respect to the economic powerhouse that is Latvia, I can't find China, USA or India in here anywhere?  Could you point them out? 
> And by the way, Australia also met our Kyoto goals without a Carbon Dioxide Tax, so we were already "with the rest of the world". 
> Can you please point out which of these countries are now introducing an economy wide Carbon Dioxide Tax on an equivalent scale to Australia? 
> I've told you before that if your knowledge base is Wikipedia then you will never understand any of these issues, and this is what leads to your continued errors.

  Notice how the Doc deftly sidesteps the point of the post... 
The above post translates to "*I was wrong - Australia isn't doing this alone*."  Well done Doc!  It isn't too hard to admit that you're wrong. 
BTW, Wikipedia is way, way, way above Andrew Bolt as a reliable and dependable source of information.  But we all know you are not interested in information, facts or reason - you're just here to sprout your political mantra.

----------


## Dr Freud

> You DO have comprehension problems, don't you?  The example quoted stated that the firms concerned DIDN'T get any funds from the government. 
> You then go off on a conjecture stating the the "some shonk" will clean it out instead???  Talk about irrational! 
> BTW, out of interest, is "some shonk" a government or a private organisation?

  Waste means that out taxpayer dollars get spent and then we have nothing to show for it. 
This is what these green dream schemes do, they burn our money for nothing in return. 
It is not conjecture saying that these funds are all going to green dream schemes, that is what they are intended to be spent on. 
By way of comparison, if we took these tens of billions of dollars and paid down some of the hundreds of billions of debt that JuLIAR and Rudd have racked up,we would derive a tangible financial benefit for Australians. 
All this money being wasted is supposed to make the Planet Earth colder.  Is it working or is it wasted?  That's right champ, it's wasted.  :Doh:  
And there are shonks milking us taxpayers in both private and government areas.

----------


## Dr Freud

> In the US the EPA has finalised rules that limit pollution from power plants. Comments indicate that some plants will convert to gas to meet the new standards resulting in a significant reduction in CO2.  EPA finalizes rules for cross-state air pollution - The Hill's E2-Wire 
> This comes on top of the new rules for emission standards for motor vehicles which will also result in reductions in CO2 
> Australia should not act alone.....oh wait

  Do you lot actually not understand the difference between irrelevant piecemeal efforts and the economy wide Carbon Dioxide Tax that is about to be introduced here? 
Are you comparing this nonsense to JuLIAR's plan's for Australia? 
The scientific comparison *is* perfect because neither will make the Planet Earth colder, but trying to compare them economically is beyond economic ineptitude.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> Waste means that out taxpayer dollars get spent and then we have nothing to show for it. 
> This is what these green dream schemes do, they burn our money for nothing in return. 
> It is not conjecture saying that these funds are all going to green dream schemes, that is what they are intended to be spent on. 
> By way of comparison, if we took these tens of billions of dollars and paid down some of the hundreds of billions of debt that JuLIAR and Rudd have racked up,we would derive a tangible financial benefit for Australians. 
> All this money being wasted is supposed to make the Planet Earth colder.  Is it working or is it wasted?  That's right champ, it's wasted.  
> And there are shonks milking us taxpayers in both private and government areas.

   *= Conjecture*  *Conjecture:*   A hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence) A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence Reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence 
Well done! Three out of three!  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Probably a fair bit.  but, and it is a big BUT, the "fuel costs" for solar and wind are ZERO - both in economic cost and environmental cost. 
> A fossil fuel powered generator has embodied AND fuel costs.  To simply run then uses non-zero cost fuel and it also has an environmental impact.

  The basic fact that you still haven't grasped yet, is that windmills are not replacing coal power plants. 
They are being manufactured "as well as" coal power plants, because windmills do not produce baseload power. 
So all the manufacturing CO2 equivalent inputs from these green dream schemes actually *increase* CO2 emissions, compared to if they were not done at all. 
Why do you think the Productivity Commission recommended against them. 
Why do you think JuLIAR plans on shipping all of our taxes to shonks in the third world while "pretending" they are creating offsets?  Those Nigerian businesses surely wouldn't be shonky.  :Doh:  
It's because these green dream schemes actually don't stand up to any cost-benefit analysis.  :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> So all the manufacturing CO2 equivalent inputs from these green dream schemes actually *increase* CO2 emissions, compared to if they were not done at all.

  What total CRAP!  And conjecture!  You're very good at conjecture - maybe we should call you "Dr Conjecture"?   

> A modern Danish 600 kW wind turbine will recover all the energy spent in its manufacture, maintenance, and scrapping *within some three months of its commissioning*. http://alphawind.dk/download/Energy_...20turbines.pdf

  You might like to look up the first law of thermodynamics.  Every MWh generated by renewable sources is another MWh not generated by fossil powered sources.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The above post translates to "*I was wrong - Australia isn't doing this alone*."  Well done Doc!  It isn't too hard to admit that you're wrong.

  Well, your translation is about the same standard as the rest of your argument.  Did you not read this, or do you not like the answer, that refutes your entire position:   

> Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*  
>  Can you please point out which of these countries are now introducing an economy wide Carbon Dioxide Tax on an equivalent scale to Australia?

  Pay attention now champ, if you cannot list a single country with an equivalent economic structure to Australia, with an equivalent economic impact from an economy wide Carbon Dioxide TAX, then we are going it alone.  :Doh:  
Now, name this country?  :Biggrin:  
Don't try the PhilT approach of listing some backwater local action plan to put in a solar panel, a windmill or a tiny isolated excise.  The word is "equivalent".  :Doh:     

> BTW, Wikipedia is way, way, way above Andrew Bolt as a reliable and dependable source of information. But we all know you are not interested in information, facts or reason - you're just here to sprout your political mantra.

  Both Wikipedia and Andrew Bolt's blog are filled with both opinions and references to source material.  Some of this source material contains facts pertinent to both the scientific and economic aspects to this debate. 
Both sites have the source references to the same facts, they differ on the opinions about what these facts mean.  Myself and Rod have previously posted much information showing how Wikipedia is biased toward the AGW hypothesis, and I think we can all agree the good Mr Andrew Bolt is biased away from the AGW hypothesis.  Welcome to democracy.  :2thumbsup:  
But the facts stand irrespective of these opinions and I and Mr Bolt accept all of the facts.  
And it is good to see his standing is such that you see fit to even compare one man, Andrew Bolt, (albeit unfavourably)  to an entire globally fed encyclopaedic website. 
Andrew Bolt is getting bigger every day, they even have what is called "The Bolt Question" in political and media circles now, after JuLIAR herself started referring to it as such.  I'll post some stuff for you.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *= Conjecture*  *Conjecture:*    A hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence) A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence Reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence  
> Well done! Three out of three!

  Well done, no idea what you're talking about again.  :Biggrin:  
You see, JuLIAR said she'll keep spending this money in more and more dream green schemes, no matter the waste and failure:   

> Due to the expiration of Canberra's Geothermal Drilling Program, the Gillard Government rolled over the untapped money into the $126 million Emerging Renewables fund for hot-rock, wind and solar projects.

  And the Productivity Commission said this is a waste:   

> *LABOR is wasting money and holding back deeper cuts to carbon emissions by subsidising renewable energy schemes such as wind turbines and roof-top solar panels. *  			 		 		The Productivity Commission has urged that subsidies for renewable energy be scrapped with the introduction of a carbon price, saying they are extremely expensive and make any form of carbon market less efficient.   Renewable subsidies &#039;too costly&#039;: Productivity Commission | The Australian

  Based on this, I said: 
JuLIAR is wasting money on green dream schemes that won't make the Planet Earth colder. 
Gee whiz, if you think this is "conjecture" when it is all based on facts, what would you say if I told you I could make the whole Planet Earth colder by increasing taxes in Australia?  :Doh:  
Assess that claim under your "conjecture" definition:  *I could make the whole Planet Earth colder by increasing taxes in Australia?*

----------


## Dr Freud

> What total CRAP!  And conjecture!  You're very good at conjecture - maybe we should call you "Dr Conjecture"? 
> You might like to look up the first law of thermodynamics.  Every MWh generated by renewable sources is another MWh *not* generated by fossil powered sources.

  I thought you above all people here should understand what base load power means? 
All of these calculations are based on "instead of" scenarios, not "as well as" scenarios. 
In your dream world, is China and India not building coal power plants any more?  :Doh:

----------


## chrisp

> I thought you above all people here should understand what base load power means? 
> All of these calculations are based on "instead of" scenarios, not "as well as" scenarios.

  I take that you didn't look up the first law of thermodynamics, or perhaps you didn't understand it.  Your lack of understanding of energy fundamentals is apparent. 
Just to repeat (because you didn't seem to understand it the first time)...  *Every MWh generated by renewable sources is another MWh not generated by fossil powered sources*

----------


## ringtail

"solar and wind are ZERO - both in economic cost and environmental cost." 
I wouldn't say the environmental cost of wind power is zero. Those revolting, putrid towers require enormous earth works and 100's of tonnes of concrete for each tower and for what, little output, humungous maintenance and the proven ability to send those living within earshot to the loony bin. Oh and how can the rebates for solar be at no economic cost ? At the moment solar is only viable if the rebates and feed in tarrifs are there. The feed in tarrifs get passed on as higher electricity prices and the rebates come from tax payer money. Sounds like economic cost to me.

----------


## chrisp

What I wrote:   

> Probably a fair bit.  but, and it is a big BUT, *the "fuel costs" for solar and wind are ZERO - both in economic cost and environmental cost.*

  What ringtail quoted I said...   

> *"solar and wind are ZERO - both in economic cost and environmental cost."* 
> I wouldn't say the environmental cost of wind power is zero. Those revolting, putrid towers require enormous earth works and 100's of tonnes of concrete for each tower and for what, little output, humungous maintenance and the proven ability to send those living within earshot to the loony bin. Oh and how can the rebates for solar be at no economic cost ? At the moment solar is only viable if the rebates and feed in tarrifs are there. The feed in tarrifs get passed on as higher electricity prices and the rebates come from tax payer money. Sounds like economic cost to me.

  Nice (NOT!) try at misquoting.  Did I say the building costs are zero?  Are the building costs of fossil-fuel power stations superior?

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> Don't take this the wrong way, but is English not your first language?

  Excusez-moi, monsieur/madame/mademoiselle. Je ne comprends pas votre question ?    

> It's just that this is a thread designed to debate the various issues around the AGW hypothesis and the political responses to it, being the ETS/CPRS or Carbon Dioxide Tax.

  It is not a rational, scientific debate.    

> Then you join in the thread saying you WILL NOT debate any of these issues, yet you then start asking questions about the information here and making refuting comments to others about their comments made about the content.

  This is a very, very long sentence.  Poor grammar.  Please revise and re-post.  Je ne comprends pas.    

> I asked if you were lying at the start, or being a hypocrite now, but I'm beginning to think it's not intentional and you actually don't know what you're doing?

  See my response in an earlier post.  You're being presumptuous again.

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> Because you aren't debating, I'm just going to make running commentary on your uninformed comments.

  That's fine, just don't mis-quote or attribute false comments to me.  Stick to the factual comments, okay.

----------


## ringtail

> What I wrote:   
> What ringtail quoted I said...   
> Nice (NOT!) try at misquoting.  Did I say the building costs are zero?  Are the building costs of fossil-fuel power stations superior?

  Oops, my bad, sorry about that. Still, the costs associated with wind and to a lesser extent solar, are astronomical

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You re-quoted my post #7035 in making the above statement.  In that post I wasn't discussing any facts, scientific or otherwise.  You have not read that post properly.  Please re-read and ask an appropriate question relating to it.

  Sorry re-read your own post, I want to know what facts "we" are choosing to ignore.

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> Sorry re-read your own post, I want to know what facts "we" are choosing to ignore.

  The point of the post is that no matter how pre-eminent a scientist is or how well a research is carried out or how conclusive the results is, there are people who will never accept the research or its findings.  These people are denialists. 
I repeat my response from post #7071: "This is a typical response of a denialist, to demand evidence only then to deny them and demand more evidence to again deny them. We are going around in circles here."

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The point of the post is that no matter how pre-eminent a scientist is or how well a research is carried out or how conclusive the results is, there are people who will never accept the research or its findings.  These people are denialists. 
> I repeat my response from post #7071: "This is a typical response of a denialist, to demand evidence only then to deny them and demand more evidence to again deny them. We are going around in circles here."

  No we are not going around in circles.  We are simply asking for facts rather than opinions that prove the AGW theory.  we are yet to see them, PERIOD.  Your claim of going around in circles is a distraction from the fact that their is no conclusive scientific facts that man made Co2 is the main driver of observed temperature changes over the past 100 years.  None whatsoever. Produce it and shut us up.  We are not demanding MORE evidence we are demanding ANY evidence.  
We all know about the observations and the predictions we want to see the science that proves causation.  The predictions have failed dismally and the observations are suspect.   Why do you think you are losing the average Joe.  if you want some credibility in this debate you better start comming up with something better.

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> I repeat my response from post #7071: "This is a typical response of a denialist, to demand evidence only then to deny them and demand more evidence to again deny them. We are going around in circles here."

  Oh educated one, you're short on evidence and big on BS aren't you. 
Post # 7071 belongs to the Doc, how about you produce the proof or shut up.   

> No we are not going around in circles.  We are simply asking for facts rather than opinions that prove the AGW theory.  we are yet to see them, PERIOD.  Your claim of going around in circles is a distraction from the fact that their is no conclusive scientific facts that man made Co2 is the main driver of observed temperature changes over the past 100 years.  None whatsoever. Produce it and shut us up.  We are not demanding MORE evidence we are demanding ANY evidence.  
> We all know about the observations and the predictions we want to see the science that proves causation.  The predictions have failed dismally and the observations are suspect.   Why do you think you are losing the average Joe.  if you want some credibility in this debate you better start comming up with something better.

  Agree, but  :Feedtroll:  http://www.renovateforum.com/f196/st...ntinues-98609/

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> Sorry re-read your own post, I want to know what facts "we" are choosing to ignore.

   

> Oh educated one, you're short on evidence and big on BS aren't you. 
> Post # 7071 belongs to the Doc, how about you produce the proof or shut up.

  My apologies. I think I got fat fingers syndrome from all the typing I have been doing. Yes, you are RIGHT. Post #7071 does belongs to Dr Freud.  I meant to say post #7068 which was in response to your post. 
So are we alll happy, happy now?    

> Agree, but  http://www.renovateforum.com/f196/st...ntinues-98609/

  Where?  *EDITED POST,  PLAY THE BALL NOT THE MAN.*

----------


## johnc

> No we are not going around in circles. We are simply asking for facts rather than opinions that prove the AGW theory. we are yet to see them, PERIOD. Your claim of going around in circles is a distraction from the fact that their is no conclusive scientific facts that man made Co2 is the main driver of observed temperature changes over the past 100 years. None whatsoever. Produce it and shut us up. We are not demanding MORE evidence we are demanding ANY evidence.  
> We all know about the observations and the predictions we want to see the science that proves causation. The predictions have failed dismally and the observations are suspect. Why do you think you are losing the average Joe. if you want some credibility in this debate you better start comming up with something better.

  Your arguments have been circular from the very start when you kicked this BS off in the woodworking forums. Back then you were rather fond of quoting a propagandist working for a Republican senator who had received funding from Exxon to run an anti warming line and your view has remained unaltered since then. Pretty sound reasoning don't worry about the science just get the the facts from a paid bull artist and off you go. 
Since then you have followed the same circular path demand proof and if anyone bothers to put anything forward just deny it or dismiss it out of hand. That is someone in denial. 
Contrast that to your approach on plastering tips in which you are genuinely nice and a decent bloke, listening and offering considered responses the opposite to what you do on this thread. 
It doesn't matter what is put foward, how reputable the person, how good the science, you have a mind set that prohibits any acceptance, in other words a closed mind. People who close their minds off are a waste of time to themselves and others because they can't be progressive, they can't change and they remain living in the past while the world passes them by. However they should not pollute the minds of others with obfiscation and lies. In Australia people have become confused they simply remain uncertain about what we should do, although in the main genuine denialists remain a minority.

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> No we are not going around in circles.  We are simply asking for facts rather than opinions that prove the AGW theory.  we are yet to see them, PERIOD.  Your claim of going around in circles is a distraction from the fact that their is no conclusive scientific facts that man made Co2 is the main driver of observed temperature changes over the past 100 years.  None whatsoever. Produce it and shut us up.  We are not demanding MORE evidence we are demanding ANY evidence.  
> We all know about the observations and the predictions we want to see the science that proves causation.  The predictions have failed dismally and the observations are suspect.   Why do you think you are losing the average Joe.  if you want some credibility in this debate you better start comming up with something better.

  In science, we know that there are some things that are absolute and irrefutable such as the atomic structure of atoms.  Others, it is based on the high probability of being correct.  For example, we know dinosaurs existed milliions of years ago because we have their fossilized bones but we don't know how they look, what was the colour of their skin or how they sounded like and we will NEVER know.  However by studying the bone structures we can surmise the size of their muscles and hence their body shape and structure but we can only guess as to the colour of their skin and how they sound. 
Climate change data is not absolute or irrefutable. It is based on a probability as shown in trends in the data gathered over many years.  Scientists base their conclusions on this probability after careful, detailed and logical analysis of the data and the trends.  To many scientists this probability indicate there is climate change. For others, there is no climate change.  Hence the current controversial debate on climate change. 
People who are without scientific training and analysis skills, will demand to see only absolute and irrefutable evidence of climate change before they are satisified.   Furthermore, these people will only be satisfied if they see the evidence that they as individual want to see. Because of this attitudie, no amount of evidence will ever satisfy these type of people because they are unable to analysis the data themselves to determine if the probability for climate change exists or not. 
Presentation of any evidence of the probability climate change will be continually refuted by those who demand abolute and irrefutable evidence.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Your arguments have been circular from the very start when you kicked this BS off in the woodworking forums. Back then you were rather fond of quoting a propagandist working for a Republican senator who had received funding from Exxon to run an anti warming line and your view as remained unaltered since then. Pretty sound reasoning don't worry about the science just get the the facts from a paid bull artist and off you go. 
> Since then you have followed the same circular path demand proof and if anyone bothers to put anything forward just deny it or dismiss it out of hand. That is someone in denial. 
> Contrast that to your approach on plastering tips in which you are genuinely nice and a decent bloke, listening and offering considered responses the opposite to what you do on this thread. 
> It doesn't matter what is put foward, how reputable the person, how good the science, you have a mind set that prohibits any acceptance, in other words a closed mind. People who close their minds off are a waste of time to themselves and others because they can't be progressive, they can't change and they remain living in the past while the world passes them by. However they should not pollute the minds of others with obfiscation and lies. That is why in Australia people have become confused they simply remain uncertain about what we should do, although in the main genuine denialists remain a minority.

  Jeez JohnC go back and look through this thread.  What in the hell has been put up apart from correlations and computer models predicting armageddon.  Or predictions of what may or may not happen if the computer models are correct.  Blind Freddy can see that.   
It is you that has a closed mind.  I am open to seeing some scientific evidece that is proven to show that MM Co2 is the driver of the warming this Centuary post it here if you have buddy.  Nothing posted in this thread comes even close.    
This thread has nothing at all to do with the plastering thread.  I am still a genuine and decent bloke, I can assure you if you show me the smoking gun that matches the bullet I will change my point of view.  You simply can't be serious if you think that open minded people will swallow what has been dished up as settled science and join your merry band. 
We agree with a lot things, as we have posted here before.  But the one thing we cant agree on as it has not been proven in any way and that is C02 is the main driver of higher temperatures. If you would just open YOUR mind for a second you would understand why we disagree with the "we are to blame" mantra.  You would also see why we cant see a carbon tax introduced in Australia doing anything to change future temperatures.  Mate even if the whole C02 thing is completely legit, this tax will have zero effect.  We can see this, why cant you? 
There is one way to silence every critic of AGW theory, that is prove it.  Why do you think there is growing opposition to AGW?  It is because open minded people are starting to see beyond the so called scientific evidence put forward to justify your position.   Until you can come up with the proof and some of the predictition made over the past 15 years start to look like comming off you are fighting a losing battle to win over converts.  I say it again it is you that has a closed mind and will not accept reality.   
So start producing some real scientific evidence not nonsense that tries to hoodwink people, rather than slanging off at others about not having an open mind.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> In science, we know that there are some things that are absolute and irrefutable such as the atomic structure of atoms.  Others, it is based on the high probability of being correct.  For example, we know dinosaurs existed milliions of years ago because we have their fossilized bones but we don't know how they look, what was the colour of their skin or how they sounded like and we will NEVER know.  However by studying the bone structures we can surmise the size of their muscles and hence their body shape and structure but we can only guess as to the colour of their skin and how they sound. 
> Climate change data is not absolute or irrefutable. It is based on a probability as shown in trends in the data gathered over many years.  Scientists base their conclusions on this probability after careful, detailed and logical analysis of the data and the trends.  To many scientists this probability indicate there is climate change. For others, there is no climate change.  Hence the current controversial debate on climate change. 
> People who are without scientific training and analysis skills, will demand to see only absolute and irrefutable evidence of climate change before they are satisified.   Furthermore, these people will only be satisfied if they see the evidence that they as individual want to see. Because of this attitudie, no amount of evidence will ever satisfy these type of people because they are unable to analysis the data themselves to determine if the probability for climate change exists or not. 
> Presentation of any evidence of the probability climate change will be continually refuted by those who demand abolute and irrefutable evidence.

  All the while, denegrating anyone that disputes their findings, rather than engaging in any meaningful way.   By not engaging and having this "destroy, denegrate, embarass, and shout down" attitude to scientist that disagree with them, only sheds more doubt on their findings, findings base on opinion rather than facts BTW. 
It was this sort of attitude and over the top scaremongering that first made me take a closer look and not take this on face value.  It is this sort of attitude that will destroy the theory.  The so called experts have got to start engaging debate with oposing scientists, then prove their points.  Get it out in the open, rather than slanging off.  They have to stop hiding data (see climategate), they have to stop trying to SCARE people into believing them.   
YOU have to stop badgering people that does not share your point of view.   
BTW NO ONE here is disputing climate change.  I have not seen one poster on this thread that disputes climate change.  I DO NOT dispute climate change.  I am NOT asking to see irrefutable evidence of climate change because this is not what I dispute.  I want to see evidence that C02 is the main driver of warming of our climate, and that changes to our CO2 use will make significant changes to temperatures that will have a positive impact on the world.  Not some guesswork from a computer model.  I want to see scientists that make the claims that CO2 is the main driver of climate engage those scientist that do not and prove their point.   
Until then all they have is guess work and people that have been bullied and scared into believing.  This is not science.

----------


## chrisp

> Your arguments have been circular from the very  start when you kicked this BS off in the woodworking forums. Back then  you were rather fond of quoting a propagandist working for a Republican  senator who had received funding from Exxon to run an anti warming line  and your view has remained unaltered since then. Pretty sound reasoning  don't worry about the science just get the the facts from a paid bull  artist and off you go. 
> Since then you have followed the same  circular path demand proof and if anyone bothers to put anything forward  just deny it or dismiss it out of hand. That is someone in denial. 
> Contrast  that to your approach on plastering tips in which you are genuinely  nice and a decent bloke, listening and offering considered responses the  opposite to what you do on this thread. 
> It doesn't matter what  is put foward, how reputable the person, how good the science, you have a  mind set that prohibits any acceptance, in other words a closed mind.  People who close their minds off are a waste of time to themselves and  others because they can't be progressive, they can't change and they  remain living in the past while the world passes them by. However they  should not pollute the minds of others with obfiscation and lies. In  Australia people have become confused they simply remain uncertain about  what we should do, although in the main genuine denialists remain a  minority.

  John, Well said!  I could not have put it better myself. 
(Jack the Hammer, I also liked your post too, but I meant to quote johnc)

----------


## Geno62

> All the while, denegrating anyone that disputes their findings, rather than engaging in any meaningful way. By not engaging and having this "destroy, denegrate, embarass, and shout down" attitude to scientist that disagree with them, only sheds more doubt on their findings, findings base on opinion rather than facts BTW. 
> It was this sort of attitude and over the top scaremongering that first made me take a closer look and not take this on face value. It is this sort of attitude that will destroy the theory. The so called experts have got to start engaging debate with oposing scientists, then prove their points. Get it out in the open, rather than slanging off. They have to stop hiding data (see climategate), they have to stop trying to SCARE people into believing them.  
> YOU have to stop badgering people that does not share your point of view.  
> BTW NO ONE here is disputing climate change. I have not seen one poster on this thread that disputes climate change. I DO NOT dispute climate change. I am NOT asking to see irrefutable evidence of climate change because this is not what I dispute. I want to see evidence that C02 is the main driver of warming of our climate, and that changes to our CO2 use will make significant changes to temperatures that will have a positive impact on the world. Not some guesswork from a computer model. I want to see scientists that make the claims that CO2 is the main driver of climate engage those scientist that do not and prove their point.  
> Until then all they have is guess work and people that have been bullied and scared into believing. This is not science.

  Have a look at the offensive noise of those multiple posts of Dr Freud, the denial of Ringtail, the continual refusal to accept anything from ice melt (apparently its "seasonal" or balanced by the Antartic) the rather bizarre rants of Marc, one constant is the inability to accept any part of anything right down to temperature shifts and the claim that it has stabalised. It is beyond skeptical it is a brazen refusal to accept anything outside a certain comfort zone. The refusal at times unsupported or at other times supported by links that use data distorted by convenient times frames or attempting to return to the dawn of the earth. Economic statements that are singular and ignore all sorts of push pull factors or interlocking forces. We are defined by the company we keep and do you ever challenge those that you see as being on "your team" If this truly is about the truth and if that was the reason behind the original post then wouldn't you be at least interested in questioning some of those posts, especially those that have very questionable references.    
I think if you are looking at bullying or blocking tactics then you need go no further than Dr Freud's patronising refusal to go beyond petty responses and endless links and statements designed to mislead or Marc and his attacks on religious minorities, ethnic groups and political parties along with links to all sorts of extremist views. For those of you that wish to reference cults, then really how do you expect to be taken seriously.  
There is a very big difference between wishing to understand better and simply repeating information made by the Andrew Bolts of this world who use the topic as a whipping boy utilising every trick they can to misinform. 
We are judged by the company we keep and the only way a thread like this achieves anything is when the majority keep in line the nutters and you get to the point where you can find some common ground. At this stage even the statement no one is disputing climate change is a step to far, if you believe this is only part of a natural cycle then is it change at all? 
However if you believe in man influenced change that is a different matter, so what do you believe in, is man effecting his climate, is all that stuff we pump into the atmosphere, land clearing, deforestation, urbanisation, excessive water demand, effecting climate. 
Do you believe that the oceans Ph ratio is become more acidic (or less alkaline if you like), are temperatures outside a normal band, are rainfall pattens changing, glaciers and ice sheets melting, and is mans influence at the heart of those changes.  
If you do then say so and in this ongoing discussion it would go a long way to reduce the tension and lower the level of frustration some seem to be experiencing.

----------


## chrisp

> Oops, my bad, sorry about that.

  No worries.  Thank you for the apology.   

> Still, the costs associated with wind and to a lesser extent solar, are astronomical

  There was an earlier post that quoted a paper showing the pay-back period for a wind turbine (itself) was about 3-4 months (it will depend upon where it is installed, as the income is set by the cost of electricity).  Even factoring in the installation, the payback would probably be only several years.  Hardly what I'd call "astronomical" cost.  The ongoing "fuel" costs are zero.  The operating costs are very low - these things mostly run unattended.

----------


## Geno62

An interesting media release showing a reduction to power demand in NSW as people switch to different (more efficient) HWS and low energy globes to reduce the cost of power.   *Power consumption makes historic drop* 
Updated August 15, 2011 09:50:12  *Photo:* Energy efficient bulbs are getting much of the credit for the drop in power consumption (Getty Images: Dan Kitwood, file photo)  *Map:* Australia  
One of Australia's largest electricity distributors says it is experiencing a "historic" cut in households' demand for power.
Ausgrid, which provides power to much of New South Wales, has announced demand for its electricity by regular households has fallen 2 per cent each year for the past four years.
It is the first time the company has seen a fall in demand since the 1950s.
"If you go right back to the 1950s, residential consumption has continued to rise year on year, and in around 2006, we saw that plateau," Ausgrid energy efficiency specialist Paul Myors said.
Ausgrid says the drop is caused by consumers switching to energy efficient hot water systems and light bulbs after seeing their power bills go through the roof.
"One example where we have seen most strongly is with residential hot water because we often separately meter this in households," Mr Myors said.
"We've seen reductions even greater than 2 per cent, even up to 8 per cent per year," he said.
It is expected the Australian Energy Market Operator will also announce a fall in power demand of 5 to 6 per cent in the next decade.
Ausgrid is owned by the NSW Government, and came into existence earlier this year after the state sold off the retail arm of Energy Australia.

----------


## ringtail

> No worries.  Thank you for the apology. 
> No sweat.   
> There was an earlier post that quoted a paper showing the pay-back period for a wind turbine (itself) was about 3-4 months (it will depend upon where it is installed, as the income is set by the cost of electricity).  Even factoring in the installation, the payback would probably be only several years.  Hardly what I'd call "astronomical" cost.  The ongoing "fuel" costs are zero.  The operating costs are very low - these things mostly run unattended.

  I'd love to know how much they cost initially, the installation costs and the maintenance costs. From what Ive heard over the years they are not exactly reliable - but more investigating is required. I think the main negatives with wind are 1. the blight on the landscape and 2. they send people nuts. Surely someone can harvest the oceans' power

----------


## Geno62

> I'd love to know how much they cost initially, the installation costs and the maintenance costs. From what Ive heard over the years they are not exactly reliable - but more investigating is required. I think the main negatives with wind are 1. the blight on the landscape and 2. they send people nuts. Surely someone can harvest the oceans' power

  Some have gearbox issues but in general they are quite reliable with not a lot of downtime. They do require some incremental generation capacity but the fuel they use is free which gives many generators a hedge against rising fuel costs. They are also managable in terms of shifting wind speeds with various parts of the grid being brought in and out as they change.  
Your points one and two do seem to be the main problems rather than tower operation (generation). In terms of power station construction they are fairly straightforward from planning to operation and are certainly built more quickly per unit (not to be confused with megawat capacity)  
They are forming larger parts of the Energy chain, Denmark I think produces about 20% of its power needs from wind, and quite a few towers are being located in the sea with the benefit of being away from people and in the best place for wind. 
As part of the energy chain they are proving to be quite popular.

----------


## chrisp

> I'd love to know how much they cost initially, the installation costs and the maintenance costs. From what Ive heard over the years they are not exactly reliable - but more investigating is required. I think the main negatives with wind are 1. the blight on the landscape and 2. they send people nuts. Surely someone can harvest the oceans' power

  You can find the "levelised" costs at: Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia    

> Levelised energy costs for different generation technologies in Australian dollars per megawatt hour (2006)  
> (Please excuse the formatting - tabbing doesn't seem to work) 
> Technology                Cost (AUD/MWh)
> Nuclear (to COTS plan)               4070
> Nuclear (to suit site; typical)     75105
> Coal                       2838
> Coal: IGCC + CCS               5398
> Coal: supercritical pulverized + CCS     64106
> Open-cycle Gas Turbine               101
> ...

----------


## ringtail

I guess if you chucked them in the ocean fairly close to the beach you wouldnt be able to hear them over the wave action. Put a secondary turbine in ther water and your golden. Only drama will be finding isolated, non -  popular, shark infested waters in which to place them. They could not be put off any beach where people go, which rules out 60 % of the coastline -  what a tourism killer that would be

----------


## watson

Spoil sport Ringtail!!
I can see it now.......Kinetic Bungee Jumping...there's a fortune to be made!!

----------


## ringtail

Roughly diced tourists. Might provide good fishin' though.

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> All the while, denegrating anyone that disputes their findings, rather than engaging in any meaningful way.   By not engaging and having this "destroy, denegrate, embarass, and shout down" attitude to scientist that disagree with them, only sheds more doubt on their findings, findings base on opinion rather than facts BTW. 
> It was this sort of attitude and over the top scaremongering that first made me take a closer look and not take this on face value.  It is this sort of attitude that will destroy the theory.  The so called experts have got to start engaging debate with oposing scientists, then prove their points.  Get it out in the open, rather than slanging off.  They have to stop hiding data (see climategate), they have to stop trying to SCARE people into believing them.   
> YOU have to stop badgering people that does not share your point of view.   
> BTW NO ONE here is disputing climate change.  I have not seen one poster on this thread that disputes climate change.  I DO NOT dispute climate change.  I am NOT asking to see irrefutable evidence of climate change because this is not what I dispute.  I want to see evidence that C02 is the main driver of warming of our climate, and that changes to our CO2 use will make significant changes to temperatures that will have a positive impact on the world.  Not some guesswork from a computer model.  I want to see scientists that make the claims that CO2 is the main driver of climate engage those scientist that do not and prove their point.   
> Until then all they have is guess work and people that have been bullied and scared into believing.  This is not science.

   FACT:  I have not denigrated any scientists with opposing views on climate change.  I think it is good thing that there is high level, rational debate among all scientists over climate change so that a consensus on climate change can be reach.   
  FACT:  I have also not engaged in a "destroy, denigrate, embarrass, and shout down" attitude towards those scientists.   
FACT:  I have also not made any scaremongering claims about climate change. 
FACT (and this VERY important): I HAVE NOT STATED MY POSITION ON CLIMATE CHANGE, EITHER FOR OR AGAINST IN ANY OF MY POSTS.  
If you or anyone can point out in any of my posts the particular sentence or paragraph where I supposedly have engaged in any of the above points, please do so. 
My posts on this thread have all been about the current low level debate by people with no scientific training or understanding of scientific principles, who take a position on climate change without a full understanding of the issues involved.  They don't have access to all the data, do not fully comprehend any data they do have or they simply refuses to accept the scientific findings of experts.  These people are engaging in a debate full of irrational rhetoric and contributing nothing of value to the real debate on climate change by highly qualified experts.  
On this thread I have not supported or agree with anyone's particular viewpoint and because of this some people automatically assume that I must have a viewpoint opposite to theirs.  I did this deliberately to see how people would react to my posts. I also deliberately not state my position on climate change for the very same reason. 
The reaction that I got is what I had expected.  In any debate of an emotive or irrational nature, irrational behaviour take holds and common sense goes out the window.  I was misquoted, had false comments attributed to me, wrongly assumed that I was a proponent of climate change and that I oppose those who do not believe in climate change.   
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.  All wrong.  All the result of people behaving irrationally and not thinking clearly because of the emotive and irrational debate they were participating in.   
Climate change debate should be left to the expert scientists and not to the under-educated populace.

----------


## chrisp

> Hello, 
>  Thank you for the link you supplied but that is a list of abhorrent experiments against mankind. 
>  It is an emotive response, not a  statement that states whether the science was a success or failure. 
>  You said you were aware of other failed scientific cases, can you please supply a list?

  
Here is an interesting article: Mistakes in Scientific Studies Surge - WSJ.com

----------


## Dr Freud

> I take that you didn't look up the first law of thermodynamics, or perhaps you didn't understand it.  Your lack of understanding of energy fundamentals is apparent. 
> Just to repeat (because you didn't seem to understand it the first time)...  *Every MWh generated by renewable sources is another MWh not generated by fossil powered sources*

  You obviously don't understand your own failed hypothesis, so let me help.  Bear in mind, I'm doing this for your benefit and I do not subscribe to it. 
It is (falsely) based on the total amount of anthropogenic CO2 emissions "retained" in the atmosphere (let's ignore the failed feedback fiasco for now).   
If this amount of anthropogenic CO2 goes to 1000 ppm anyway via China, USA and India burning huge amounts of fossil fuels, will having extra windmills on the Planet Earth suddenly negate your hypothesis?  :No:  
So then we need to "replace" this fossil fuel burning, or use windmills "instead of" fossil fuels, *not* "as well as" still burning all the fossil fuel. 
Now let's assume in your dream land that windmills actually can replace all these fossil fuels (i.e. power all transport, industry, military, electricity globally), can you please advise how many windmills we will need?  :Doh:  
Here's a hint while you're counting, this isn't even close, but get used to the view.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It is not a rational, scientific debate.

   

> Stick to the factual comments, okay.

  Who would knowingly admit to joining what he terms an *irrational* and *unscientific* internet blog, then ask for it to be factual?   :Roflmao2:

----------


## chrisp

> So then we need to "replace" this fossil fuel burning, or use windmills "instead of" fossil fuels, *not* "as well as" still burning all the fossil fuel.

  You might be slowwwwly getting it. 
Yep, *every MWh that is generated by renewable energy is another MWh not generated by fossil fuels.* 
And, yes, we need lots of renewable energy generators - and if you care to look, just about every country in the world is presently increasing its renewable generation.  It won't happen overnight (but no one said it would), so there will be fossil fuels used for sometime yet, but the need will slowly diminish over time.  You may have seen this story Consumers cut back as power price climbs

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> Who would knowingly admit to joining what he terms an *irrational* and *unscientific* internet blog, then ask for it to be factual?

  Your post, Dr Freud   Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*  
 Because you aren't debating, I'm just going to make running commentary on your uninformed comments.  :2thumbsup:   
My response. 
"That's fine, just don't mis-quote or attribute false comments to me.  Stick to the factual comments, okay." I'm asking you to stick to factual comments and not to misquoted or to attribute fabricated comments to me.  Maybe you don't understand English.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Others, it is based on the high probability of being correct.   
> It is based on a probability as shown in trends in the data gathered over many years.  Scientists base their conclusions on this probability after careful, detailed and logical analysis of the data and the trends.   
> Presentation of any evidence of the probability climate change will be continually refuted by those who demand abolute and irrefutable evidence.

  Apparently there's a mathematical probability that's been calculated to tell us the likelihood of this farce?    :Roflmao2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You can find the "levelised" costs at: Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
> Coal                       2838  *Wind power: high capacity factor    63*

  So your Wikimpedingya theorises that "potentially" wind power is only about twice as expensive as conventional coal power? 
How does it work out in reality?   

> THE Governments renewable energy strategy is in tatters after a report exposing the true costs of generating electricity by wind power.  
> An internal document from the National Grid, seen by the Sunday Express, says wind turbine energy will at times cost over 3,000 per cent more than conventional power.   Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: £250bn: The real cost of wind power

  This is from the reign of the last UK government:   

> The revelations will make uncomfortable reading for Gordon Brown and his team, who have pinned much of their hopes of meeting carbon emission targets on wind power. 
> The National Grid document, Accessing Renewable Energy, deals with the issue of balancing the grid to get the right amount of power from different sources across the UK so that it can maintain a supply to customers.  
>                      It says wind power could cost £300  £800 per mega watt hour (MWH) compared to conventional generation at £23 per MWH.  
> When they have too much power the Grid bids to shut down operators, but you cant just switch a big power station off and then hope the wind blows. By the same measure, if the wind doesnt blow you cant simply start up a power station at the flick of a switch. It will cost.  
>                      What they are saying is that wind farms will be producing power which will not be used, and its the taxpayer wholl be footing the bill. Its a double whammy because consumers are already paying extra on their fuel bills to fund renewable energy.

  What? You mean we have to keep the coal burning anyway to ensure base load energy supply?  Who would have thought?  :Doh:   
I wonder if David Cameron was paying attention to this bit all those months ago:    

> Last year subsidies paid out on wind and landfill gas was £1billion. By 2020 that figure will be £30billion. That could subsidise six nuclear power stations. And they operate all the time and dont rely on what the weather is doing.

  Surely the current British PM wouldn't be getting away with greenwashing nuclear reactors under the noses of greenies under the guise of "saving the Planet Earth"?  Surely he wouldn't dupe JuLIAR into singing his "green credential" praises to help him push his nuclear agenda?  Surely JuLIAR wouldn't be so stupid to fall for this basic ploy?  
I mean, if she did, the third world carbon offset scams must be rubbing their hands with glee waiting for our tax dollars.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You might be slowwwwly getting it.

  But the question is, how slowly are we all getting this next green dream scheme?   

> Yep, *every MWh that is generated by renewable energy is another MWh not generated by fossil fuels.*

  So when we see those CO2 charts you keep posting heading down instead of up across the globe, that means this green dream scheme is working? 
Be sure and post a chart as soon as it turns downward champ. I don't suppose you want to estimate a time frame for this?  :Biggrin:    

> It won't happen overnight

  So how long till Anthropogenic Global emissions hit zero?  :Biggrin:    

> so there will be fossil fuels used for sometime yet

  How long is "sometime" for these emissions to keep skyrocketing at current rates?  :Biggrin:    

> but the need will slowly diminish over time

  Over how much time until they reach zero?  :Biggrin:    

> You may have seen this story Consumers cut back as power price climbs

  Yeh, it said this:   

> *The 5 per cent cut in forecast demand* is expected to push the need for new power stations back to 2020.

  Kinda matches this:   

> But in the past six months, the Ombudsman has seen a *5 per cent increase in the number of people who have called and said they were facing disconnection*, compared with the same period last year.

  Surely just a coincidence?  You may have seen this story:   

> PEOPLE who work, and not pensioners, the unemployed and students, are the new group who face having their electricity disconnected in NSW.    
>  Both the NSW Energy and Water Ombudsman and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre report that working people are increasingly facing disconnection, and it is a trend that would get worse. 
> She said working people were vulnerable to disconnection because they were less likely to qualify for low-income rebates.  Workers can't pay power bills - National News - National - General - The Examiner Newspaper

  So the "subsidised", or soon to be "compensated" are defaulting less, but the subsidisers are increasingly feeling the pinch.  May have to go on the dole soon to keep the lights and heaters going?  :Wink 1:  
And while Aussies scrimp and save just to keep the lights on, Chinese citizens burn our coal Carbon Dioxide TAX FREE! 
They'll build their country massively on our coal, while we Aussies shiver in the dark. 
And then because we've set such a stirling example of a spartan existence, the rest of the world will join in.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Keep up now folks, this self-debate is getting interesting.  :Biggrin:    

> Originally Posted by *Jack-the-Hammer*  
>  It is not a rational, scientific debate.
> 			
> 		        Originally Posted by *Jack-the-Hammer*  
>  Stick to the factual comments, okay.
> 			
> 		   
> Who would knowingly admit to joining what he terms an *irrational* and *unscientific* internet blog, then ask for it to be factual?

  So first, it's irrational and unscientific, as expected. 
But then it should "factual" from the irrational and unscientific uneducated populace. 
Then we're back to being irrational as expected:   

> These people are engaging in a debate full of *irrational rhetoric* and contributing nothing of value to the real debate on climate change by highly qualified experts.   *The reaction that I got is what I had expected.* In any debate of an emotive or irrational nature, irrational behaviour take holds and *common sense goes out the window*. I was misquoted, had false comments attributed to me, wrongly assumed that I was a proponent of climate change and that I oppose those who do not believe in climate change.  
> WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. All wrong. All the result of people behaving irrationally and *not thinking clearly because of the emotive and irrational* debate they were participating in.  
> Climate change debate should be left to the expert scientists and not to the under-educated populace.

  So, the undereducated populace were again *expected* to be emotive, irrational, lacking common sense, and couldn't think clearly. 
But were then expected to stick to "factual comments"?   

> I'm asking you to stick to factual comments and not to misquoted or to attribute fabricated comments to me.

  How can such things be asked of an undereducated populace who are emotive, irrational, lacking common sense and not thinking clearly? 
Would a request such as this be irrational itself?   

> Maybe you don't understand English.

  Je ne comprends pas.  Je suis irrationnelle.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> A Canberra source yesterday told me:  _ The Parliament House mailroom is being flooded with carbon tax propaganda being returned to the Prime Minister and the Climate Change Minister. 
>  On one day last week reliable sources say 17 tubs the size of large eskys came in many with personal messages written on them to the recipients. Today, another flood of returned to sender climate change propaganda- six tubs of which went to Mr Combet._Rod sends it back | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Tony Abbott must be pi$$ing himself laughing at this latest debacle.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Even if you can afford the higher prices, they may cut your power off anyway. 
Don't you just love the "new" freedoms we will have under the Watermelons.   

> Big Green Brother wants the power to turn off your heating and airconditioning at exactly the time you need it most:   _  TVs, airconditioners and fridges could be switched off remotely by power companies during peak times under plans to rein in households demand for electricity.  
> The option is among measures being considered as part of a national review of the management of domestic power use._  _The Ministerial Council on Energy has initiated the Australian Energy Market Commission review in response to the nations increasing demand for power._  _The council is seeking ways to ease the demand for electricity during extremely cold nights and exceptionally hot days, to avoid the need for energy companies to build more power stations._Building more power stations didnt bother politicians a bit in past decades. Now its just too terrifying. You either upset the green fanatics by building a cheap coal-fired station, or you outrage consumers by blowing billions on solar and wind.   The greens have ways that would make your blood boil | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Throw the spoiled food in the bin, no Carbon Dioxide footprint wasted there?  :Doh:  
Diesel generators everywhere will help with the emissions too?  :Doh:  
These people are mad.  :Screwy:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Tony Windsor is excited, and the_ Sydney Morning Herald_ is supportive - but spot the critical fact missing from this report on the new solar energy future:  _AUSTRALIA should concentrate its clean energy funding on research, the federal independent MP Tony Windsor says_  _Mr Windsor, a member of the governments multi-party climate change committee, spent last week researching clean energy facilities and policy-making in Europe, including an inspection of Torresol Energys 20 megawatt Gemasolar power station near Seville, Spain._  _Gemasolar uses 2650 mirrors to concentrate the suns rays on to the top of a central power tower and heat salt to more than 500 degrees. The molten salts store heat that is slowly released to power a steam turbine, generating enough electricity for 25,000 households._  _Last month, Gemasolar became the first solar thermal power station to supply electricity into the grid for 24 hours - including throughout the night - a key test for solar energys ability to provide baseload power._  _Mr Windsor visited the facility with Ross Garnaut, a climate change adviser, and Matthew Wright, head of Beyond Zero Emissions, a think-tank which proposed last year the extensive use of baseload solar power in its stationary energy plan to re-power Australia with 100 per cent renewable energy._  _Mr Windsor said the Gemasolar plant was an incredible sight_  _I made the point, were driving into our future here, and we really are!_  _I have no doubt that this sort of stuff is where we should be going._ This missing fact? This solar project to supply just 110GWH of electricity a year  cost   230 million euro  - or $316 million. 
>   Lets be generous and round that figure down to $300 million, and do some sums to see how such a plant would compare with some old coal-fired power station such as Hazelwood, which produces 100 times more power:   _Therefore, it would take more than 100 plants similar to Gemasolar, costing more than $30 billion to replace the Greens pet hate dirty coal fired plant, Hazelwood._  _To replace all of Australias electricity capacity with CSP plants like Gemasolar would cost something in the order of $680 billion!_Thats our future? 
>   No wonder no one talks of the price. 
> Next question: if you really were mad enough to replace a Hazelwood with solar plants, where exactly would you build 100 plants of the size of Gemasolar?:        http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...r_lots_of_red/

  Lucky we've got a lot of land.  :Biggrin:  
And we still need the fossil fuels running for the cloudy days.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Geno62

> Your post, Dr Freud   Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*  
> Because you aren't debating, I'm just going to make running commentary on your uninformed comments.   
> My response. 
> "That's fine, just don't mis-quote or attribute false comments to me. Stick to the factual comments, okay." I'm asking you to stick to factual comments and not to misquoted or to attribute fabricated comments to me. Maybe you don't understand English.

  Looks like fabricated quotes are all Dr Freud can manage, along with the behavior of like minded dills who think returning or on forwarding mail somehow achieves anything beyond revealing their own ignorance.

----------


## ringtail

That image of the windfarm in post # 7108 makes me want to   :Puke:  .

----------


## ringtail

Turbine_Blade_Convoy_Passing_through_Edenfield.jpg‎ 
Whoa. Just to give an idea how enormous these thing are. Hope the link works.

----------


## Daniel Morgan

Hello, 
Thank you Chrisp for putting that article on the forum. It explains why so many people have a vested interest with biased views..  Mistakes in Scientific Studies Surge - WSJ.com 
This line seem to explain it. 
"The stakes are so high," said the Lancet's editor, Richard Horton. "A single paper in Lancet and you get your chair and you get your money. It's your passport to success."

----------


## chrisp

> That image of the windfarm in post # 7108 makes me want to   .

  
I suppose this'll be more to your liking??   
Maybe you'd like to read up a little more on the old turbines shown in the photo posted by the Doc.  They'll be from California, so, have a read here Wind power in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## chrisp

> Hello, 
> Thank you Chrisp for putting that article on the forum. It explains why so many people have a vested interest with biased views..  Mistakes in Scientific Studies Surge - WSJ.com  
> This line seem to explain it. 
> "The stakes are so high," said the Lancet's editor, Richard Horton. "A single paper in Lancet and you get your chair and you get your money. It's your passport to success."

  
If you have a look at the graphic in that article, you'll see that it is  the medical fields that seems to have the most retractions.

----------


## Geno62

In that case to extend denier logic we should all stop going to Doctors and Hospitals until we have the emperical evidence to prove they can cure us.

----------


## Bedford

Re the windfarms, we saw some recently near Ballarat and noticed that only about 20% were spinning. 
I'm guessing that they don't generate without spinning, so what would be the reason for not utilising the potential of all of them?

----------


## Geno62

Whoever is managing the grid decides where the power is coming from, if there are a large number of turbines stationary and about 20% spinning you can assume they simply don't want the power supplied to the grid. If it is one or two it is probably maintenance or repair. Because coal fired generators are slow to respond in terms of building up or reducing pressure they provide power continually while other sources may be stood down between peaks in power. Not all coal generators run all the time either they are regularly shut down for a number of reasons. 
Supply to much power to the grid and you cause problems with the over supply and they have to load shed to ensure nothing fails.

----------


## chrisp

With all the discussion of late on renewable energy, it might be worthwhile having a look at a documentary on SBS-one tonight.   

> 8:30 pm *POWER SURGE* 
> Can emerging technology defeat global warming? The United States has  invested tens of billions of dollars in clean energy projects as their  leaders try to save their crumbling economy and the planet in one bold,  green stroke. Are we finally on the brink of a green-energy power surge,  or is it all a case of too little, too late? This program travels the  globe to reveal the surprising technologies that just might turn back  the clock on climate change. (From the US) (Documentary) G CC                  SBSONE TV Guide for today

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> In that case to extend denier logic we should all stop going to Doctors and Hospitals until we have the emperical evidence to prove they can cure us.

  There is already a denier logic in regards to vaccination that is putting kids at risks of contracting potentially fatal diseases because they have not been immunized against the diseases. 
Do we need another controversial thread here so that the lunatics can take over the asylum.

----------


## intertd6

[QUOTE=Jack-the-Hammer;852377]There is already a denier logic in regards to vaccination that is putting kids at risks of contracting potentially fatal diseases because they have not been immunized against the diseases. 
QUOTE] 
Good one, you will find the above group of deniers are the exact ones following the 
" green dream "
regards inter

----------


## ringtail

[QUOTE=intertd6;852388]  

> There is already a denier logic in regards to vaccination that is putting kids at risks of contracting potentially fatal diseases because they have not been immunized against the diseases. 
> QUOTE] 
> Good one, you will find the above group of deniers are the exact ones following the 
> " green dream "
> regards inter

  Tru dat

----------


## ringtail

Looks like a top road for a hill climb to me. Win win. Motorsport and fossil fuel, what could be better ?

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

Goodness me... 
I have been absent from this forum for a little while and we are about 50 pages further into discussion. Wow.  
I see there are still the Boltists carrying on... amazing. 
I remember having a discussion with someone (can't remember who - as I have actually been having a life as opposed to flooding this forum with Bolt and The Australian propaganda) and telling the person to do the numbers and that the Bill will be passed. Guess what? The Bill will be proclaimed and will be law.  
Get some sense Tory's - stop arguing what is now redundant and shift your focus to the counter-attack. Read the Workchoices / Fair Work High Court challenges and start thinking about how you will return policy. It's already through Parliament - move on.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Goodness me... 
> I have been absent from this forum for a little while and we are about 50 pages further into discussion. Wow.  
> I see there are still the Boltists carrying on... amazing. 
> I remember having a discussion with someone (can't remember who - as I have actually been having a life as opposed to flooding this forum with Bolt and The Australian propaganda) and telling the person to do the numbers and that the Bill will be passed. Guess what? The Bill will be proclaimed and will be law.  
> Get some sense Tory's - stop arguing what is now redundant and shift your focus to the counter-attack. Read the Workchoices / Fair Work High Court challenges and start thinking about how you will return policy. It's already through Parliament - move on.

  And to add - the Tax is so unbelievably Constitutionally valid, it is impossible to challenge. For all those who are unhappy with it; you will just have to wait until the next federal election. Sorry but, do something more constructive with your time.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Aussies should look forward to going this alone:   
> But we'll feel really good about ourselves sitting in the dark, having short cold showers and sleeping with our pets to keep warm.  
> While China and India burn all our coal at will to become even bigger economic powerhouses.

  Adding a graph that has been plucked from god knows where does not make your argument more persuasive or your ridiculous assertions easier to digest. "Not Joining-in" one; should not be hyphenated and two; displays the bias in the research. Please... Where did you get the 'research'?

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Even if you can afford the higher prices, they may cut your power off anyway. 
> Don't you just love the "new" freedoms we will have under the Watermelons.   
> Throw the spoiled food in the bin, no Carbon Dioxide footprint wasted there?  
> Diesel generators everywhere will help with the emissions too?  
> These people are mad.

  Sorry, is the above Andrew Bolt? God forbid! My point exactly.  
Please people, move with the times, be independent, and most of all, be yourself.  
(Also - be intelligent about how you may wish to approach the issue in the years to come. You can't change the Act. Want to focus some discussion on how the other side of the Chamber will rally the policy?)

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

Anyway, that is my little rant. Back to work (burning IT at both ends) and speak to the Tory's once the policy is in! In the intervening period, would any one of them like to get creative about policy, or just pluck Bolt?

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

This is the kind of *journalist* Bolt is :Redface:   http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/si...lena%20Popovic 
and not to mention the recent action against him for racism... He is a pathetic, sensationalist-type journalist.    *EDITED POST*

----------


## Jamesmelbourne



----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Tony Abbott must be pi$$ing himself laughing at this latest debacle.

  
Really... again???? Andrew... just stop it! Naughty boy...!

----------


## watson

*thread closed temporarily for admin reasons  
Open again........well that was an hour's work that we really bloody needed*

----------


## Geno62

Shame when we have to edit factual statements. :Wink 1:  
While on Mr Bolt it isn't hard to find blogs pointing out his lies, as with this early 2010 link. Hardly current but there are plenty more, we could fill several pages from them along with the nongs that like to reference his fairy stories. http://andrewboltliesdeceptionsonagw...r-than-melted/

----------


## watson

> Shame when we have to edit factual statements.

  Nope....not factual as it was written. 
We cannot say what sort of *Person* Mr. Bolt is.......only what kind of *Journalist* we think he is.
Otherwise, we'd be going through the courts as per the reference quoted. 
Just a reminder, that you must be a little more careful in what you post here.

----------


## PhilT2

Some people think that Bolt is a journalist!!!!!  :Rotfl:

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> Some people think that Bolt is a journalist!!!!!

  Who is Bolt?

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> If you have a look at the graphic in that article, you'll see that it is  the medical fields that seems to have the most retractions.

  Hello, why would that be? 
I would think that would be the most important one to get right.

----------


## johnc

> Hello, why would that be? 
> I would think that would be the most important one to get right.

  Complexity is the reason, the more complex and less certain the greater the chance of running down the wrong burrow.

----------


## chrisp

> Hello, why would that be? 
> I would think that would be the most important one to get right.

  Who knows?  Your guess would be as good as mine. 
I can only speculate that there are great pressures to be seen to be successful and high-profile in the medical fields.  There aren't too many fields where "A single paper in Lancet and you get your chair and you get your money"! 
Maybe the medical fraternity needs to improve its act?  i.e. review its peer-review system; perhaps its major research institutions need to improve their internal review procedures (many reputable research organisations internally review papers before they are formally submitted for publication); and perhaps, improve their 'sign-off'/approval procedures (many organisations require a senior researcher to vouch for the findings). 
I suppose the 'system' works in regard that these papers were 'caught out'.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I suppose this'll be more to your liking??

  Sure is!  :Biggrin:  
A big hole in the ground that you have to specifically drive to to look in suits me fine. 
But you don't seem to want to calculate how many windmills we need to replace these fossil fuels:   

> Now let's assume in your dream land that windmills actually can replace all these fossil fuels (i.e. power all transport, industry, military, electricity globally), *can you please advise how many windmills we will need?*  
> Here's a hint while you're counting, this isn't even close, but get used to the view.

  See, here's another photo of just part of a farm with only about 4000:   
So how many? 4 billion? 4 trillion?  :Biggrin:  
Better get used to that view, plus the whoosh, whoosh, whoosh noises.  :Biggrin:    

> Maybe you'd like to read up a little more on the old turbines shown in the photo posted by the Doc. They'll be from California, so, have a read here Wind power in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Yeh, enough of the useless benefit, what's the cost? 
Don't suppose you could dig up the economic situation in California?  :Doh:  
We'll be there soon with the greenies running the country now.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> In that case to extend denier logic we should all stop going to Doctors and Hospitals until we have the emperical evidence to prove they can cure us.

  So you believe there is no empirical evidence in medicine?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> And to add - the Tax is so unbelievably Constitutionally valid, it is impossible to challenge. For all those who are unhappy with it; you will just have to wait until the next federal election. Sorry but, do something more constructive with your time.

  It will probably be a great thing if this fiasco is introduced. 
JuLIAR is history already, and after this farce goes ahead based on a lie, the Federal Labor Party will be a distant memory.  They'll be holding a few dozen seats of they're lucky. 
What could be more constructive than pointing out the failure and ineptitude of this government, particularly with the introduction of a Carbon Dioxide Tax "under the government that JuLIAR leads".   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Adding a graph that has been plucked from god knows where does not make your argument more persuasive or your ridiculous assertions easier to digest. "Not Joining-in" one; should not be hyphenated and two; displays the bias in the research. Please... Where did you get the 'research'?

  If you read the information correctly, you will see exactly where it came from. 
If you have alternative data, please post it. 
If you think cost of living pressures increasing for a lot of Australians, including power disconnections are ridiculous assertions, maybe you are too busy to stay in touch with reality.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> This is the kind of *journalist* Bolt is  http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/si...lena%20Popovic 
> and not to mention the recent action against him for racism... He is a pathetic, sensationalist-type journalist.    *EDITED POST*

  So what heinous action did he engage in?  Did he use taxpayers money on a government trip to get smashed and have lap dances from strippers?  Did he design a people-swap policy that treats human beings as cattle to be traded between countries?  
Why don't you share the reason for your ad hominem attacks? 
I love it when you guys start slinging mud, as it clearly demonstrates your weak ability to show any scientific credibility whatsoever.  :Biggrin:  
You should stick to your usual sliming tactics and accuse Andrew Bolt of teaching a Polar Bear to smoke cigarettes and drink crude oil.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Shame when we have to edit factual statements. 
> While on Mr Bolt it isn't hard to find blogs pointing out his lies, as with this early 2010 link. Hardly current but there are plenty more, we could fill several pages from them along with the nongs that like to reference his fairy stories. Arctic ice was pushed out, rather than melted « Andrew Bolt&#039;s Lies, Deceptions & Misrepresentations on AGW

  So you have empirical evidence that proves anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions are causing all of the measured temperature increases? 
And then you also have empirical evidence that these temperature increases are causing all of the measured increases and decreases of ice over various parts of the Planet Earth? 
Or do you just have an opinion? 
Just like Andrew Bolt has an opinion, albeit more informed than yours. 
But not as many people read yours.  :No:

----------


## Geno62

> So you have empirical evidence that proves anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions are causing all of the measured temperature increases? 
> And then you also have empirical evidence that these temperature increases are causing all of the measured increases and decreases of ice over various parts of the Planet Earth? 
> Or do you just have an opinion? 
> Just like Andrew Bolt has an opinion, albeit more informed than yours. 
> But not as many people read yours.

  
I guess at least the Bogans and Morons need someone to write just for them, a task Bolt is very suited for.

----------


## chrisp

> So you believe there is no empirical evidence in medicine?

   

> So you have empirical evidence that proves anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions are causing *all* of the measured temperature increases?

  I see that you are being slippery with your words again... 
I suppose you believe that medicine has empirical evidence that smoking causes *all* cancers?

----------


## Geno62

> So you have empirical evidence that proves anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions are causing all of the measured temperature increases? 
> And then you also have empirical evidence that these temperature increases are causing all of the measured increases and decreases of ice over various parts of the Planet Earth?  
> Or do you just have an opinion? 
> Just like Andrew Bolt has an opinion, albeit more informed than yours. 
> But not as many people read yours.

   
All? when has this had anything to do with all, never, this is why your arguments are so baseless, you clearly do not understand much about this subject. No wonder you have to rely on Dills like Bolt, partly because it suits you and partly because you just don't get it do you champ. 
Try "contributing to" instead it might help you clear that fog that clouds your judgement. 
And just remember Bolt circulates to a wider audience as a result of the publications he writes for, this little frog pond doesn't count however he does not appear to be better informed just opinionated and bigoted, he writes opinion pieces that are enjoyed by his fans, you know, those bogans and dills we refer to.

----------


## watson

> , this little frog pond doesn't count

  As the biggest Frog in this pond....I object to that.  :Mad:   :Mad:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> As the biggest Frog in this pond....I object to that.

  You're just a frog? I always thought you were the heron!!

----------


## watson

Nah..frogs have a lower carbon footprint  :Hahaha:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Originally Posted by *SilentButDeadly*  
>  Temperature is rising as a result of an inbalance between natural &  man made GHG emissions and the natural capacity of the biosphere to  absorb them which leads to increasing concentrations of GHGs in the  atmosphere which enhances the GHGs otherwise natural contribution  towards the atmosphere (as a whole) retaining heat (derived from natural  solar radiation) within the biosphere.   
> Whilst the above statement is incredibly simplistic....all the tireless  efforts of the past three decades (or more) by scientists, government  agencies, international conglomerates and scientific bodies (of all  sorts) to prove it to be fundamentally wrong have come to naught.

   

> Sorry S&D  there is NO proof of this statement, none whatsoever.  Just computer models BS in BS out.  It is simply what people have chosen to believe.  If this statement is fact show us the proof. 
> We know temps have risen we know co2 has also risen.  We also know that co2 is a very small contributer to the GHG effect. We know water vapour is the main GHG.  We know that man's contribution to the Co2 is tiny compared to that produced in nature.   
> What we DONT know how much effect mans Co2 emissions has on temperature vs other natural events.  At best we have guesswork.  Hopefully over time the guesswork will become factual where it can be demonstrated in a way that is understandable to opposing scientists and the general population,  (yes there are scientists who reject AGW therory for what it is). 
> For crying out loud, without proper scientific evidence to prove this theory, how can anyone be so emphatic that co2 is the main driver of temperature change over the past 100 years, while there are so many other known drivers of temperature, that have a far greater effect than co2. 
> It is beyond belief that so many people are sucked into having no doubt that co2 is the culprit.

  Rod....read the statement again.  Essentially it is the hypothesis of AGW stated way back when - an assumption.  We observe that atmospheric temperatures are rising.  We also observe that concentrations of various GHGs are increasing.  The hypothesis/assumption outlines the potential reasons or drivers behind these observation.  It is a list of many of the things that can be tested to try and find fault with the hypothesis.  To date, this hypothesis does, by and large, hold true.  Unfortunately. 
Don't make yourself look wilfully ignorant by (yet again) asking for the evidence - there is a suite of critical papers that investigate each link in the chain of that hypothesis and find that it holds true - some of these papers are so fundamental that they date back decades.  And they are all out there in the ether for your edificiation. 
We do know the proportion of GHGs in the atmosphere from humans vs that already there naturally (including water vapour) is relatively tiny.  But what is already there represents a baseline....a year zero if you will.  It is like coming across a barrel  of water that is full to the brim with a tap at the bottom and an inflow at the top - water goes out at the same rate it comes in.  And it remains full to the brim. Perfect balance. Our human analogue comes along and throws in just a cup of extra water....and the barrel overflows.  Balance is broken - for a time.  This is essentially what is happening in our atmosphere. 
As for what happens when that balance is broken....when it comes to our atmosphere and its physical response....what we have is I agree not much better than educated guesses.  That doesn't make them wrong.   
Let's face it - you can probably tell many things about a plasterboard ceiling just by looking at it.  Certainly many more things than the average punter.  Many of them believe you because 'you're the expert'.  In actual fact....you are making educated guesses....based on your experience and the data you've collected over time.  And for the large part....your 'guesses' are probably right.  But the average punter can't see (and may not necessarily trust) your experience and your dataset. 
I would humbly suggest that in this case......you may be the 'average punter'. 
Oh and just a hint......don't focus simply on CO2.  There's much much more to GHG's than that.  A far richer and more interesting brew.  Such an epic focus on one ingredient lends your words far more simplicity than they deserve.

----------


## ringtail

> All? when has this had anything to do with all, never, this is why your arguments are so baseless, you clearly do not understand much about this subject. No wonder you have to rely on Dills like Bolt, partly because it suits you and partly because you just don't get it do you champ. 
> Try "contributing to" instead it might help you clear that fog that clouds your judgement. 
> And just remember Bolt circulates to a wider audience as a result of the publications he writes for, this little frog pond doesn't count however he does not appear to be better informed just opinionated and bigoted, he writes opinion pieces that are enjoyed by his fans, you know, those bogans and dills we refer to.

  
It seems that you are the one that cant grasp the argument, which is, man made co2 emissions and related emitting activities are causing blah blah blah - not contibuting to - but causing it, all of it. Everything else is natural and unchangable and therefore not a problem.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Nah..frogs have a lower carbon footprint

  Got any empirical evidence of that?

----------


## watson

> Got any empirical evidence of that?

  
Yep....ever tried to light a frog???

----------


## Dr Freud

> I guess at least the Bogans and Morons need someone to write just for them, a task Bolt is very suited for.

   

> I love it when you guys start slinging mud, as it clearly demonstrates your weak ability to show any scientific credibility whatsoever.

  Your scientific knowledge knows no bounds.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I see that you are being slippery with your words again...

  I have asked you before to quantify the "contribution" that you believe anthropogenic emissions are responsible for and you ran away like a schoolgirl. 
Care to quantify what you believe to be a percentage of contribution?  
Or is "most of it" your best scientific effort you can muster?  :Doh:  
If so, I'll prefer to use "all", as "most of it" could be statistically indistinguishable from "all". 
If you're not careful, you'll be the one winning a Nobel Peace Prize with that kind of science.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> All? when has this had anything to do with all, never, this is why your arguments are so baseless, you clearly do not understand much about this subject. No wonder you have to rely on Dills like Bolt, partly because it suits you and partly because you just don't get it do you champ.

  Someone doesn't "get it". Maybe if "someone" read the thread, they wouldn't make themselves look so foolish. 
And I didn't get this from Bolt, I got it from lots of other places.  Here's one:   

> "My understanding about Mr Abbott is he has been dismissive of the science that human activity *causes* climate change,"

   

> No opinion poll can change the fact that climate change is real. It is *caused* by human activity. And we must cut carbon pollution.

  *cause * *a.*  The producer of an effect, result, or consequence. *b.*  The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result.   
Guess who?  Hint, she's a LIAR!  :Biggrin:  
And she also said this before the last election:   

> "We will have that price on carbon *when we have a deep community consensus*."

   :Roflmao2:    

> Try "contributing to" instead it might help you clear that fog that clouds your judgement.

  Try convincing JuLIAR first.  Then she will likely dump this TAX fiasco until she figures out what "percentage" contribution it is.  Until you convince JuLIAR, she'll keep living in that fog that clouds her judgement.  :Biggrin:    

> And just remember Bolt circulates to a wider audience as a result of the publications he writes for, this little frog pond doesn't count however he does not appear to be better informed just opinionated and bigoted, he writes opinion pieces that are enjoyed by his fans, you know, those *bogans and dills we refer to*.

  You mean bogans and dills like these two:   

> *BOGAN-VILLE remains contested territory, Kevin Rudd has admitted, and a "sensitive" subject for the former prime minister. *  			 		 		In the backrooms of Canberra, Bogan-ville is said to be Mr Rudd's name for The Lodge since Julia Gillard and boyfriend Tim Mathieson moved in.  
> On the eve of his "sack-iversary", as the opposition has dubbed it, Mr Rudd was asked, as Foreign Affairs Minister, when he planned to return to Bogan-ville.  
> She may have meant the Papua New Guinean province of Bougainville, but the glint in Julie Bishop's eye suggested otherwise.  
> "The Australian government remains deeply seized of the Bogan-ville peace process," Mr Rudd replied to his foreign affairs shadow and parliamentary chum.  
> Who knows what the public gallery thought, but the parliament erupted.  
> Mr Rudd continued, deadpan, that Australia must do all it could to further the peace process there.   Kevin Rudd turns tables on Bogan-ville talks | The Australian

----------


## Dr Freud

> We do know the proportion of GHGs in the atmosphere from humans vs that already there naturally (including water vapour) is relatively tiny.  But what is already there represents a baseline....a year zero if you will.  It is like coming across a barrel  of water that is full to the brim with a tap at the bottom and an inflow at the top - water goes out at the same rate it comes in.  And it remains full to the brim. Perfect balance. Our human analogue comes along and throws in just a cup of extra water....and the barrel overflows.  Balance is broken - for a time.  This is essentially what is happening in our atmosphere.

  So your saying nature was balanced until humans came along and changed it, or "broke the balance"?  So you are saying humans caused this "balance to be broken"?  Cos if we weren't doing this, it would still be in natural balance.  So you're saying we caused it. 
Otherwise your analogy would be that water was already tipping out, and we just contributed to that already imbalanced situation to some yet to be quantified degree. 
But sorry SBD, your pal Geno62 openly derides your lack of logic:   

> Originally Posted by *Geno62*  
>  All? when has this had anything to do with all, never, this is why your arguments are so baseless, you clearly do not understand much about this subject. No wonder you have to rely on Dills like Bolt, partly because it suits you and partly because you just don't get it do you champ.

  Do you two wanna sort yourselves out, then come back when you've actually figured out how this cult you "believe" in is supposed to work.  :Doh:  
No wonder the credibility of this farce is dropping like Labor's primary vote.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It seems that you are the one that cant grasp the argument, which is, man made co2 emissions and related emitting activities are causing blah blah blah - not contibuting to - but causing it, all of it. Everything else is natural and unchangable and therefore not a problem.

  Yeh, it will be fun to watch SBD and Geno62 duke it out.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> This is the kind of *journalist* Bolt is  http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/si...lena%20Popovic 
> and not to mention the recent action against him for *racism*... He is a pathetic, sensationalist-type journalist.    *EDITED POST*

  So, you engage in ad hominem smearing tactics, then run away without pointing out these heinous crimes anyway.  You can't even engage in muck raking properly.  :Doh:  
But just for context, let's get another opinion to balance yours:   

> Reader Dr Mark Sinclair, senior lecturer in teacher education at the University of Technology, Sydney, writes:   _By the way, Ive been following with some interest your public discussions of matters Indigenous. _  _It happens that I ran a one-teacher school in a remote Aboriginal community in the NT in 1992-93. My Honours thesis was about this experience and was titled From B Effect to C Effect: The rhetoric and practice of Aboriginal self-determination. The thesis argues that, in the field of education, in matters of self-determination, Aborigines are not entirely victims. In simple terms the basic proposition here is that some (not all) of the misery that characterises Aboriginal lived experience is of their own making._  _Being a whitefella and writing about matters black in this way nearly got me kicked out of Griffith University in 1995Nonetheless, I was eventually awarded a Hons 1 and went on to do my doctorate on Social JusticeI expanded the victim concept to encompass the social justice market in its entirety. The doctorate was titled Social justice in education: A market in the production and reproduction of victim circumstances. The thesis was not well-received at the time (1999/2000), I suspect because its major finding was that the primary beneficiaries of social justice initiatives are advocates of social justice and that the ostensible target populations for whom social justice initiatives purportedly exist derive little or no benefit from them._  _While the report about the terrible state of affairs of indigenous affairs this century which led to John Howards intervention in a sense vindicated what Id argued more than a decade earlier, it still troubles me deeply that things are not improving and if anything are getting worse. In part, the issues you are airing publicly highlight a contributing factori.e. they are illustrative of what I call the victim market and its beneficiaries. I urge you to not let this matter drop from public discussion. _    _On the danger of tackling victimhood | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

   
When our country gets to the point when we cannot even openly discuss contentious issues, then the politically correct censoring zealots easily create this type of waste and ineptitude:    

> The Productivity Commission found gross inefficiency in spending on Indigenous policy. No surprises there. Will Labor ignore this latest evidence of its shortcomings on Indigenous affairs?  
>  			"Dismally poor returns." Thats the verdict of the Strategic Review on government expenditure on Indigenous policy prepared by the Productivity Commission for the Cabinet.  
> "the explosive document calls for 25 programs to be shut down straight away. Excessive red tape, inefficient spending, flawed government logic and false assumptions all contribute to the failings."  
> "In the Indigenous area, more than any other, there has been a huge gap between policy intent and policy execution, with numerous examples of well-intentioned policies and programs which have failed to produce their intended results because of serious flaws in implementation and delivery."   Getting The Facts You Deserve | newmatilda.com

  So, to question billions of dollars being wasted is "racist"? 
And to question billions of dollars being wasted on fresh air is "denialist"? 
It's easy to label those you wish to silence. 
45 years ago, a few stood up to many and emerged victorious, and earned respect.  And history has proven them right.  Democracy is always worth the fight against those who seek to stifle dissent and free speech.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> James Murphy has a question he wants the _Sunday Age_ to answer, as it seeks reader direction on its global warming coverage:  _Tim Flannery and Cate Blanchett have both recently acquired waterfront property in Sydney and Vanuatu respectively. What does this say about their dire sea-level rise predictions and support of the Carbon Tax? _ Good question asked | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  I guess he does live there after all, huh?  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

So you want to hold a lowly journalist to account for his "ethics"? 
I guess you're going to go nuts smearing these two trying to bring in the Carbon Dioxide TAX?  :Biggrin:    

> Liberal Senator George Brandis said this in Parliament yesterday about Labor backbencher Craig Thomson:  _Yesterday during Question Time in the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister was asked by the Member for Mackellar whether she retained complete confidence in the Member for Dobell, Mr Craig Thomson. She was further asked whether she had conducted an investigation of her own into the allegations surrounding the Member for Dobell. The Prime Minister did not answer the second part of the question. However, she did tell the House of Representatives that she had complete confidence in the Member for Dobell, that in her opinion he was doing a fine job and that she was looking forward to him doing that job for a very long, long, long time to come. Because the Prime Minister avoided answering the second part of the question, we do not know what, if any, investigations she has made into allegations concerning Mr Thomson. We do know that on Monday night Ms Gillard said:_   _These matters have been and are in the process of being looked at through various investigations.__ 
> She did not elaborate on what those various investigations were, but she did say that she had not held any detailed discussions with Mr Thomson._  _In view of the severity of the allegations that have been made about Mr Thomson, there are certain inquiries which the Prime Minister herself must make and certain questions which she herself needs to address. I know that Mr Thomson has denied allegations of wrongdoing made against him. Those who are observing the Thomson case carefully will be able to form their own conclusions about the credibility of those denials and about the credibility of the Prime Ministers evident reliance upon those denials. But there are many facts now in the public arena which are not in dispute._  _Those undisputed facts include the following. Between 2002 and December 14, 2007, when he resigned after his election to the House of Representatives, Mr Thomson was the national secretary of the Health Services Union. In that capacity, Mr Thomson was issued with a corporate credit card held by the union, transactions upon which were paid for from union funds. On two occasions - on April 8, 2005 and August 16, 2007 - calls were made from Mr Thomsons mobile telephone to the telephone number of Sydney Outcalls, an escort agency. On April 9, 2005 and August 16 2007, the HSU credit card issued to Mr Thomson was used to pay for services provided by Keywed Pty Ltd, which is the corporate entity which trades as Sydney Outcalls. The payments were in the amounts of $2,475 and $385 respectively. The credit card vouchers were signed in Thomsons name, and a drivers licence number which corresponds to the number of Thomsons drivers licence was endorsed upon the receipts. On April 7, 2009, Thomson denied allegations of improper use of the union credit card and told the Sydney Morning Herald that the allegations against him were the result of feuding in the unions Victorian branches, with more and more outrageous claims and counterclaims being made by his factional opponents. In the time since, Mr Thomson has continued to deny that he was responsible for the use of the union credit card to obtain escort services. As recently as the week before last, in the course of an interview with Michael Smith on radio 2UE in Sydney, Thomson asserted that the credit card had been used by a third party and not by him. Let me read into the record some extracts from that interview: _  _ 
> Smith:  Hang on, mate. Im repeating it. Im saying your signature is on that voucher. Your drivers licence has been transcribed on the back of it. How did all that get there?_  _Thomson: Well, Im not saying thats my signature for a start. Thats the first thing thats there_  _Smith:  OK, so did someone forge your signature for the procurement of those services on your credit card?_  _Thomson: Well, it certainly wasnt me and in fact on over half of the occasions that Im alleged to have been using that card in those sorts of establishments, I actually_  _Smith:  Lets talk about one_  _Thomson: Im not going to go through the details of stuff_  _The transcript proceeds after a few minutes:_  _Smith:  OK, well, you were the boss of the Health Services Union at the time the Health Services Union credit card was used to procure those services, werent you?_  _Thomson: Yes, I was._  _Smith:  OK. Did you take the matter to the police if you believe the credit card was used improperly, did you go and report it to the police?_  _Thomson: The union reached a settlement with another gentleman who paid back $15,000 in relation to use of credit cards at an escort agency._  _Smith:  Did he forge your signature?_  _Thomson: I dont know whether he forged my signature or who forged my signature...__As is the practice in New South Wales, Thomsons signature appears on his drivers licence. Paul Westwood OAM, a former director of the document examination section of the Australian Federal Police, who is a handwriting expert with 45 years experience as a forensic handwriting examiner, has compared the signature on Thomsons drivers licence and the signature on the credit card voucher and has concluded that they were made by the same person._  _Photographs of Thomsons drivers licence and the credit card voucher were reproduced in the Sydney Morning Herald on December 1, 2010, and they appear to the untrained eye to be identical. If Thomson did not sign the credit card voucher, then it was signed in his name by an expert forger who eluded Mr Westwood and who also had Thomsons drivers licence._  _In the same interview with Michael Smith, Thomson admitted that in his capacity as the secretary of the HSU he had authorised the payment by the union to the credit card provider of the credit card accounts, which included debts for the services provided by Sydney Outcalls on both April 9, 2005 and August 16, 2007. Let me read a little more of Michael Smiths interview with Mr Thomson into the record:_  _Smith: Ok. Craig, when you got the credit card statement for that month with $2,475 appearing _  _Thomson: Michael, Ive said the difficulty we have in terms of going through these issues -_  _Smith: Hang on a sec, mate, its a simple question. A simple question, Craig. Did you authorise it getting paid?_  _Thomson: Um in terms of the actual bills that have been paid? Yes, I authorised all the credit card bills -__In the same interview with Michael Smith, Thomson also asserted that an unnamed third party had repaid some $15,000 to the HSU in respect of escort services. Reading again from Michael Smiths interview:_  _Smith: OK, well, you were the boss of the Health Services Union at the time the Health Services Union credit card was used to procure those services, werent you?_  _Thomson: Yes, I was._  _Smith: OK. Did you take the matter to the police if you believe the credit card was used improperly? Did you go and report it to the police?_  _Thomson: The union reached a settlement with another gentleman who paid back $15,000 in relation to the use of credit cards at an escort agency._  _Smith: Did you go to the police though, Craig?_  _Thomson: We have gone through the appropriate bodies in terms of that and you know there has been a person who has paid back some money._  _Smith: Who was that?_  _Thomson: Well, I am not at liberty to say, again, because I am very careful in relation to defamation action. There has been a private agreement signed.__In light of these facts and Mr Thomsons assertions and admissions, the Prime Minister must satisfy herself in relation to the following matters. First, given the amounts of money involved and the entity to whom the credit card payments were made, why did Thomson not query the accounts before authorising them for payment? Secondly, given that Thomsons mobile telephone number was used to contact the service provider and that his drivers licence was produced to verify payment, how did his credit card, drivers licence and mobile phone find their way into the possession of another person? Thirdly, why was their loss or misappropriation not reported? Fourthly, in what circumstances were they returned? Fifthly, as Mr Thomson now claims that his signature was forged, why was that matter not reported to the police? Sixthly, what is the name of the person who allegedly repaid $15,000 to the HSU and what was the reason for the repayment? Was that person an officer or employee of the union and is that person still employed by the union? Seventhly, if it is the case that another person has accepted responsibility for the fraudulent use of the credit card, why has that version of events not emerged from other sources and why was no evidence disclosed or adduced to that effect in the Fairfax defamation proceedings? Finally, if a third party accepted responsibility, why would a settlement of a matter in which Thomsons reputation was potentially so gravely affected preclude him from taking any steps to protect his reputation? Moreover, the version of events given by Thomson on August 1 contains inconsistencies with Thomsons previous versions of events. The Prime Minister must therefore satisfy herself of this: given that Thomson now admits that he personally authorised the payment of the credit card account, why did he allege that his enemies had falsified HSU records and does he still allege that?_ _I regret to say that there is more that the Prime Minister should be asking the Member for Dobell in order to satisfy herself that he should have her confidence. In April 2009, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Thomson, when national secretary of the HSU, obtained cash advances on the HSU credit card totalling over $100,000. An external audit has not been able to locate any receipts or other records to justify those cash advances. Those matters, I understand, are currently being investigated by Fair Work Australia._  _Finally, yesterday the Sydney Daily Telegraph reported that New South Wales Labor Party headquarters had paid $40,000 towards legal fees which Mr Thomson had incurred in bringing his private defamation proceedings against Fairfax, the publishers of the Sydney Morning Herald. This morning the Melbourne Herald Sun reported that this amount was in fact $90,000. That payment was apparently made in May of this year. Thomson discontinued the proceedings on about April 28, having failed in December 2010 to prevent the disclosure of his credit card and telephone records. Is the Prime Minister satisfied that it is proper for the Australian Labor Party to contribute some $90,000 towards the members private defamation action against Fairfax, which claim he abandoned shortly after the court compelled the disclosure of his credit card and telephone records which appear to give the lie to his claim that his signature was forged?_  _Finally, it was only yesterday, when this matter was brought to light, that the member for Dobell sought to amend his register of a members interests by lodging with the Register of Members Interests for the House of Representatives a letter that identified the payment of a sum of money in May 2011 by the Australian Labor Partys New South Wales branch, in settlement of a legal matter to which I was a party. Why was that amendment made only after its disclosure was revealed?_  _I have in the course of this speech suggested many questions that the Prime Minister must ask, but there is one simple question that she must answer for the Australian people: why does she continue to believe that the conduct of the Member for Dobell is acceptable, and how can she possibly continue to assert that he is doing, in her words, a fine job?__Brandis on the Thomson case | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

   
There could be an election sooner rather than later:   

> Embattled federal Labor MP Craig Thomson is being investigated over whether he misled industrial umpire Fair  Work Australia.
> Fair Work Australia has previously found insufficient evidence  to prosecute Mr Thomson, the member for the NSW seat of Dobell.
> Seven News reported on Thursday the industrial body was now investigating whether Mr Thomson misled the initial probe into allegations his former union credit card was used to pay for prostitutes.
> Prime Minister Julia Gillard is understood to have been informed  of the fresh inquiry, but continues to stand by the MP.   Telstra BigPond News and Weather

  No wonder JuLIAR has been looking so worried this week.  :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Climate catechism? Alex Sloan on ABC 666 Canberra: Do you believe in climate change?* 
> Joyce: I believe the climate changes all the time. I believe in the work of Professor John Christie and Professor Roy Spencer. Do you believe all scientist believe in global warming? 
> Sloan: I look to scientists who have been peer reviewed, Barnaby Joyce. 
> Joyce: Do you believe Roy Spencer and John Christie were members of the IPCC, Alex? 
> Sloan: Barnaby Joyce, let me go to . . . 
> Joyce: Because they were. They were the lead atmospheric scientists of the IPCC. Why don't you read their stuff? 
> Sloan: It's not because I choose not to. Barnaby Joyce, we lean on the peer review system in this country and in the world in terms of scientists. And that is about scientists asking questions of other scientists. 
> Joyce: I've just given you two IPCC scientists and you've said that you don't recognise their work. 
> Joyce: Do you believe that this tax will have any effect on the climate? 
> ...

  You've got to see it again:  
Joyce: Do you believe that this tax will have any effect on the climate? 
Sloan: Well, probably yes. 
Joyce: You're the only person in Australia who believes that.   :Roflmao2:  
I'll have to point Barnaby to this site, he'll find a few more people "who believes that".  :Biggrin:

----------


## Geno62

> It seems that you are the one that cant grasp the argument, which is, man made co2 emissions and related emitting activities are causing blah blah blah - not contibuting to - but causing it, all of it. Everything else is natural and unchangable and therefore not a problem.

  Man made emmissions are contributing to global warming, but it is not that simple. The scientists tackling this are creating predictive models that can replicate the past which then give us a guide but not certainty of the future. Take something like global ice melt, we have strong melting in the Artic but not in the Antartic, the effect of the ozone hole in the southern skies serves to cool so one lever effects different areas in different ways because of a counter balancing effect. Also glacier melt for example existed before warming, the warming is speeding it up but not the sole cause. Asia is not experiencing as much warming because of sulpher emmissions which serve to cool. The mass of the ocean moderates temperature rises as CO2 increases and also locks up some CO2 as well. The concern is the effect on fish and shellfish stocks and if eventually it tips the other way and goes from being a moderator to a contributor of warming.  
No one who has an open mind is saying greenhouse gas emmissions are causing all the changes alone, there are other natural and counter balancing cycles in play as well and it is the scientists not bloggists that give us the best chance of understanding those. However it is clear we do need to act, we are causing problems and those problems have the potential to make the world a less pleasant place to be in and we have nowhere else to go. Your take is typical of someone who is getting sucked in by the propaganda and has closed their mind off to new information. 
,,

----------


## Geno62

> So your saying nature was balanced until humans came along and changed it, or "broke the balance"? So you are saying humans caused this "balance to be broken"? Cos if we weren't doing this, it would still be in natural balance. So you're saying we caused it. 
> Otherwise your analogy would be that water was already tipping out, and we just contributed to that already imbalanced situation to some yet to be quantified degree. 
> But sorry SBD, your pal Geno62 openly derides your lack of logic:   
> Do you two wanna sort yourselves out, then come back when you've actually figured out how this cult you "believe" in is supposed to work.  
> No wonder the credibility of this farce is dropping like Labor's primary vote.

  
Nature is continually changing but over the last few thousand years in ways man can adapt to, what is happening now is that we are damaging the natural cycles and have the potential to make life on earth pretty miserable or possibly unlivable if we don't mend our ways. Neither SBD's or my comments contradict they are simply two approaches to explaining the same thing, something educators do all the time to get a message across.  EDITED POST, removed personal belittling comments.

----------


## Geno62

> So you want to hold a lowly journalist to account for his "ethics"? 
> I guess you're going to go nuts smearing these two trying to bring in the Carbon Dioxide TAX?  
> [/I][/I] 
> There could be an election sooner rather than later:   
> No wonder JuLIAR has been looking so worried this week.

  This isn't about climate change it is about the financial and moral dealings of a member of parliament which has been brought into the public limelight by The Age initially. If this bloke falls on his sword it is a problem of his own making, don't attribute it to something it is not, that is just letting him off the hook, you wouldn't want that would you, after all it is a Labor bloke, you know, the ones you don't like. 
Also don't make the fools mistake of believing that anyone who is not an Andrew Bolt worshipper is a member of the Labor Party.  EDITED POST, removed personal comments.  We remind you again, PLAY THE BALL NOT THE MAN. :Mad:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yep....ever tried to light a frog???

  Not without cannabis and hydrocarbons.  So you might have a point....

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So your saying nature was balanced until humans came along and changed it, or "broke the balance"?  So you are saying humans caused this "balance to be broken"?  Cos if we weren't doing this, it would still be in natural balance.  So you're saying we caused it.

  In simplistic terms.....yes.   
Balance is a relative concept after all rather than an absolute and there have certainly been natural events (volcanic eruptions, peat & forest fires etc) in the past that will have tipped the balance for a short period.  But nothing sustained like the fossil fuel burning that the human species has been doing since the Industrial Revolution....that's a wobble in the balance that will take some time to rectify.

----------


## ringtail

> . The scientists tackling this are creating predictive models that can replicate the past which then give us a guide but not certainty of the future.    
> . Your take is typical of someone who is getting sucked in by the propaganda and has closed their mind off to new information. 
> ,,

  
And there in lies the problem. We all know what happens when the alarmists start using predictive models. 
I am very well informed, just not as vocal as some about it on this particular issue. Do you know what snowball earth was ? If you do, you certainly would not be worrying about a bit of ice melt.

----------


## chrisp

> Do you know what snowball earth was ?

  It was a little before my time.  Can you tell me about it?  What was it like?

----------


## watson

*ANNOUNCEMENT*  *This thread will be temporarily closed over night*  *The closure will occur later tonight.  We have to clear out stuff
& 
Maintain the Filters.*  *Pardon our work ethic*

----------


## Atilla

For the over educated who are the only ones that can interpret the science. :Roflmao2:   Dr Art Raiche, CSIRO Chief Research Scientist, retired, on scientists independence. « No Carbon Tax Website

----------


## chrisp

> For the over educated who are the only ones that can interpret the science.  Dr Art Raiche, CSIRO Chief Research Scientist, retired, on scientists independence. « No Carbon Tax Website

  WOT (Web of trust) rates that site as 'very poor' in most categories.  I'm not going to risk loading it. :No:

----------


## Atilla

Dr Art Raiche, Retired CSIRO Chief Research Scientist - No Carbon Tax Rally, 16 August 2011 - YouTube

----------


## watson

*Announcement  The Thread is open again*

----------


## johnc

> And there in lies the problem. We all know what happens when the alarmists start using predictive models. 
> I am very well informed, just not as vocal as some about it on this particular issue. Do you know what snowball earth was ? If you do, you certainly would not be worrying about a bit of ice melt.

  Why reference snowball earth, wasn't that the period *before* life existed on earth some billions of years ago, even if it existed, I thought it was little more than a theory.

----------


## The Administration Team

*UPDATE* *
During last night's enforced rest we discovered that the biggest problem with this thread is the amount of personal insults that you "contributors" get up to.*  *We, ( The Admin Team) are constantly posting "Play the Ball Not the Man"*  *SO* *The following rules will now apply to this thread*  *1st Offence - Admin Warning  2nd Offence - Banned for a Week  3rd Offence - Banned for a Month  4th Offence - Banned Permanently*  *Please learn some Forum Decorum*  Note: The way we ban people permanently notifies all forums on the web of your IP, your Email, and your Username and blocks you from using any blog or forum with that ID. So be careful.

----------


## ringtail

> Why reference snowball earth, wasn't that the period *before* life existed on earth some billions of years ago, even if it existed, I thought it was little more than a theory.

  
650 million years ago apparently. No theory, proven to have happened and very simple life forms survived it and evolved into what we are today. But basically, I referenced it because it shows what can happen when there is not enough co2 in the atmosphere and too much sea ice.

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

Is there any valid reason for anyone on this thread would want to engage in a discussion about "snowball earth"? 
The idea of an "snowball earth" is just an hypothesis.  It has much less certainty than a theory.  Scientists cannot agree if the earth was once a "snowball" or a "slushball" let alone if it was either. 
Tradies and home renovators on this thread certainly would not have any first hand evidence of a "snowball" or "slushball" earth.  Any opinions posted here on this particular topic would certainly be information that the person found on the Internet and simply repeating here.  No one on this thread is qualified to discuss the "snowball" earth hypothesis.  Any claims made by an unqualified person on the topic would almost certainly be counter-claimed by someone else equally unqualified to comment on this.  The discussion would be pointless, a case of the blind leading the blind.

----------


## johnc

> 650 million years ago apparently. No theory, proven to have happened and very simple life forms survived it and evolved into what we are today. But basically, I referenced it because it shows what can happen when there is not enough co2 in the atmosphere and too much sea ice.

  I agree with Jack the Hammer, this is way out of the ball park, even the CO2 and sea ice part, also it is not proven by any stretch of the imagination. It is an idea formed to offer an explanation of why certain things exist along the lines of the big bang theory I guess except that the BB theory is more plausable in the possibility stakes.

----------


## The Roofer

> Yep....ever tried to light a frog???

   

> Not without cannabis and hydrocarbons. So you might have a point....

   :Shock:  You guys don't know how to light a Frog?
PLUG IT IN!

----------


## ringtail

Ok then, let me explain it a bit better for you. Once upon a time, there was planet Earth. Before continental drift happened, the majority of planet Earth's land mass was situated around the equator. The equatorial region has the warmest climate and* by far the most rainfall.* At the time, there were no animals on Earth's land mass, therefore a delicate low level of co2. There were however, very simple, single celled microbes in the ocean which formed a slime on the seabed and absorbed co2 in the oceans. A series of massive rainfall events occured where the available co2, combined with the water vapour, created acid rain. This acid rain then fell at the equatorial region, which, at the time contained the majority of Earth's land mass. As a result of the rainfall, huge amounts of weathering occured to the Earths surface, releasing huge amounts of co2 and washing it into the oceans, where it is trapped to this day as limestone reefs ( exposed now as flinders ranges, the kimberly etc... or still submerged) The huge depletion of atmospheric co2 caused the temperature to plummet and over time the polar ice caps began to grow. With no means of replacing the lost co2, the Earth's temperature continued to drop. The polar ice was extending down towards the equator. Sea ice is the best natural reflector of light in the world and the open ocean is the worst. The ocean absorbs the sun's energy and keeps the planet warm. With the open ocean rapidly dissappearing and been replaced with the best reflector of sunlight, a unstoppable chain reaction was in progress. The Earth froze. It was covered by ice anywhere from a few hundred metres thick to a few kilometres thick. The evidence of this is overwhelming. Parent rock in the Flinders Ranges (AUS) and in Death Valley (USA)  has been tested for magnetism. Each rock has its own magnetism that can pinpoint a latitude where that rock was formed. The testing proved that Australia was on or very near the equator, as was death valley. This is significant because large quantities of glacial drop stones have been found in both locations. A glacial drop stone is a rock ( upto the size of a bus) that is picked up by a glacier and moved sometimes thousands of miles before been deposited when the glacier melts. The fact that Australia was once at the equator, along with the fact that we have glacial drop stones, proves that there was ice at the equator. If there is ice at the equator - the worlds warmest region - then obviously the rest of the world is covered in ice aswell, hence snowball earth. The earth was released from the ice when a series of super volcanoes erupted through the ice and replenished the co2, warming the planet. And we all lived happily ever after.   
So there you have it JTH and johnc. Given the fact that the largest ice age the planet has ever experienced was caused by the atmosphere, I think its pretty relevant. If you disagree, well thats fine too.

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> Ok then, let me explain it a bit better for you. Once upon a time, there was planet Earth. Before continental drift happened, the majority of planet Earth's land mass was situated around the equator. The equatorial region has the warmest climate and* by far the most rainfall.* At the time, there were no animals on Earth's land mass, therefore a delicate low level of co2. There were however, very simple, single celled microbes in the ocean which formed a slime on the seabed and absorbed co2 in the oceans. A series of massive rainfall events occured where the available co2, combined with the water vapour, created acid rain. This acid rain then fell at the equatorial region, which, at the time contained the majority of Earth's land mass. As a result of the rainfall, huge amounts of weathering occured to the Earths surface, releasing huge amounts of co2 and washing it into the oceans, where it is trapped to this day as limestone reefs ( exposed now as flinders ranges, the kimberly etc... or still submerged) The huge depletion of atmospheric co2 caused the temperature to plummet and over time the polar ice caps began to grow. With no means of replacing the lost co2, the Earth's temperature continued to drop. The polar ice was extending down towards the equator. Sea ice is the best natural reflector of light in the world and the open ocean is the worst. The ocean absorbs the sun's energy and keeps the planet warm. With the open ocean rapidly dissappearing and been replaced with the best reflector of sunlight, a unstoppable chain reaction was in progress. The Earth froze. It was covered by ice anywhere from a few hundred metres thick to a few kilometres thick. The evidence of this is overwhelming. Parent rock in the Flinders Ranges (AUS) and in Death Valley (USA)  has been tested for magnetism. Each rock has its own magnetism that can pinpoint a latitude where that rock was formed. The testing proved that Australia was on or very near the equator, as was death valley. This is significant because large quantities of glacial drop stones have been found in both locations. A glacial drop stone is a rock ( upto the size of a bus) that is picked up by a glacier and moved sometimes thousands of miles before been deposited when the glacier melts. The fact that Australia was once at the equator, along with the fact that we have glacial drop stones, proves that there was ice at the equator. If there is ice at the equator - the worlds warmest region - then obviously the rest of the world is covered in ice aswell, hence snowball earth. The earth was released from the ice when a series of super volcanoes erupted through the ice and replenished the co2, warming the planet. And we all lived happily ever after.   
> So there you have it JTH and johnc. Given the fact that the largest ice age the planet has ever experienced was caused by the atmosphere, I think its pretty relevant. If you disagree, well thats fine too.

  It is a HYPOTHESIS not FACT. 
You are only repeating something that you found on the Internet and not something that you research yourself.  This is a useless discussion, nobody on this thread is qualified to comment on this topic.  Even scientists cannot say for certain that "snowball" earth happen. 
Stick to what you know best, your particular trade skills and leave science to those who are qualified.

----------


## PhilT2

> For the over educated who are the only ones that can interpret the science.  Dr Art Raiche, CSIRO Chief Research Scientist, retired, on scientists’ independence. « No Carbon Tax Website

  _The man who pays the piper calls the tune_. The US govt, ie taxpayer, continues to pay Roy Spencer and John Christy. Why? Also I believe Murray Salby still draws a salary at Melbourne Uni. I'm sure there a more examples, these were just the ones i can recall. 
Also I can't find much science in the Dr Art Raiche video, does he have anything published on climate science?

----------


## ringtail

> It is a HYPOTHESIS not FACT. 
> You are only repeating something that you found on the Internet and not something that you research yourself.  This is a useless discussion, nobody on this thread is qualified to comment on this topic.  Even scientists cannot say for certain that "snowball" earth happen. 
> Stick to what you know best, your particular trade skills and leave science to those who are qualified.

  
Well, given that it all happened 650 million years ago, I doubt someone took notes pal. AGW is hypothesis aswell, unless you hadn't noticed.

----------


## chrisp

> AGW is hypothesis as well, unless you hadn't noticed.

  Actually, AGW is a *theory* - well beyond a hypothesis.

----------


## johnc

> Well, given that it all happened 650 million years ago, I doubt someone took notes pal. AGW is hypothesis aswell, unless you hadn't noticed.

  Actually it is not a given that it happened 650 milllion years ago that's the point. 
If we are going to take any notice of Watson at all then popping the word "pal" in like that is not quite in the spirit of turning over a new and more respectful leaf. :Wink 1:  Let's see if we can elevate the tone a bit there is no reason we can't all respect each others views.

----------


## Atilla

> _The man who pays the piper calls the tune_. The US govt, ie taxpayer, continues to pay Roy Spencer and John Christy. Why? Also I believe Murray Salby still draws a salary at Melbourne Uni. I'm sure there a more examples, these were just the ones i can recall.

  It's the message PhilT2, the message.   

> Also I can't find much science in the Dr Art Raiche video, does he have anything published on climate science?

  It wasn't about climate science, it was about Government manipulation and control. 
Why else would Chrisp desperately try to steer people away from it?   

> WOT (Web of trust) rates that site as 'very poor' in most categories.  I'm not going to risk loading it.

----------


## ringtail

> Actually, AGW is a *theory* - well beyond a hypothesis.

  Originally the word *theory* as it is used in English is a technical term from Ancient Greek philosophy. It is derived from _theoria_, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and refers to contemplation or speculation 
A *scientific theory* comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts.* A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data* about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1] *  
The confusion over the use of the terms hypothesis and theory can be difficult to sort out.  
Popularly, hypothesis and theory are used almost interchangeable to  refer to some idea which is vague or fuzzy and which seems to have a low  probability of being true 
Thus, an idea is just a "hypothesis" when it is new and relatively  untested or it is being actively tested and investigated. In other  words, whenther probability of error and correction is still relatively  high. However, one it has successfully survived repeated testing, has  become more complex, is found to explain a great deal, and has made many  interesting predictions, it achieves the status of "theory." 
Source http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/...pular+referrers 
In reality, however, such differentiation is notoriously difficult to  make. Exactly how much testing is really required to move from  hypothesis to theory? How much complexity is needed to stop being a  hypothesis and start being a theory?   * Ok, this was pulled off the net - guilty.  Clear as mud. :Tongue:

----------


## ringtail

> It is a HYPOTHESIS not FACT. 
> You are only repeating something that you found on the Internet and not something that you research yourself.  This is a useless discussion, nobody on this thread is qualified to comment on this topic.  Even scientists cannot say for certain that "snowball" earth happen. 
> Stick to what you know best, your particular trade skills and leave science to those who are qualified.

  
I can assure you JTH that I havent even googled snowball earth. My research is my own. I suggest turning over a new leaf that is not a stinging nettle  :Biggrin:

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> I can assure you JTH that I havent even googled snowball earth. My research is my own. I suggest turning over a new leaf that is not a stinging nettle

  Anyone can do a "library" research to search through published literature for information gathering and research and that is a valid research.  However, in the context I use in my statement was in reference to original field research such as finding and  analyzing geological structures to determine its age and doing chemical analysis of such structures to determine its chemical composition.  By doing this, a scientists can gather clues as to what might have happened in the past. 
Have you done any original field research?

----------


## ringtail

> Anyone can do a "library" research to search through published literature for information gathering and research and that is a valid research.  However, in the context I use in my statement was in reference to original field research such as finding and  analyzing geological structures to determine its age and doing chemical analysis of such structures to determine its chemical composition.  By doing this, a scientists can gather clues as to what might have happened in the past. 
> Have you done any original field research?

  Does 6 years as a geological field hand count. I may not be boned up on the hard science of it all but I have been around geology for all of my 40 years

----------


## chrisp

> It wasn't about climate science, it was about Government manipulation and control. 
> Why else would Chrisp desperately try to steer people away from it?

  Actually, I'm not 'desperately' trying to steer anyone away.  I'm just pointing out the site has a has a bad reputation according to the WoT.   
Regarding your comment on 'Government manipulation and control'.  It is a well known phenomena.  There are many (probably unsubstantiated) examples: 
The federal Liberal Party has changed its position - and leader - on AGW.  Could this be the influence of 'big money'?
In Victoria, the 'green wedges' are looking like being sold - to people connected with the government.
The former Victorian Government contracted out the desalination and the labour force employed by the contractor got impressive wages. 
The upshot is that there will always be some bias one way or the other in government dealing (and private dealings too). 
With AGW, it is a very very long bow to draw to imply it is the result of 'Government manipulation and control'.  Just about every government of the world accepts AGW.  These governments are of all political persuasions (left, right, centre, etc.).  There are many different scientific bodies all around the world - ALL of then support the AGW theory.  It would be near impossible to pull off a deception or manipulation on such a grand scale. 
Furthermore, it only takes one substantiated contradictory piece of evidence to overturn a theory.  There has been none so far. 
All the evidence (and there is much) supports the AGW theory. 
If AGW was just a 'manipulation', to first 'whistle blower' would be hailed a hero.   
To me, the general 'conspiracy theory' argument just reeks of desperation.

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> Does 6 years as a geological field hand count. I may not be boned up on the hard science of it all but I have been around geology for all of my 40 years

  If it involves holding up a surveyor's pole or operating a drill then, NOooo! 
Honestly, if we stick to our field of expertise we can speak with some authority otherwise we just look like klutzs and dullards.  My degree is in microbiology and biochemistry but that doesn't qualifies me to be an expert in quantum physics.  
BTW I too have been around geology for all my life. In fact I live on a piece of geological structure.

----------


## Marc

> Stick to what you know best, your particular trade skills and leave science to those who are qualified.

  Like Tim  Flannery right?
Or those mercenary "scientist" of the e-mails 
Furthermore, who says that the Global Warming fraud is about science? It never was and never will be. 
The "science card" is plaid like the race card or the victim card, only to win time and argumentation. 
The real game is political and that is why everyone should stand up and be counted against global warming fraud, against taxes for fictitious purposes, against any and every green policy conceived from a standpoint of "we know better what is good for you", that said from people who's contribution to productivity and prosperity amounts to their own bodily functions.

----------


## Marc

Dr Art Raiche, CSIRO Chief Research Scientist, retired, on scientists independence. « No Carbon Tax Website  *EDITED POST*   *This has been posted twice before: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...tml#post852735*

----------


## ringtail

> If it involves holding up a surveyor's pole or operating a drill then, NOooo! 
> Honestly, if we stick to our field of expertise we can speak with some authority otherwise we just look like klutzs and dullards.  My degree is in microbiology and biochemistry but that doesn't qualifies me to be an expert in quantum physics.  
> BTW I too have been around geology for all my life. In fact I live on a piece of geological structure.

  Ive never touched a survey pole or been within cooee of a drill rig  :Wink: . 
But surely you have every right to a opinion on all things quantum physics ?  
And thats what its all about. If we all stuck to our respective fields of expertise then neither of us ( and just about everyone else here) should pass comment on this thread. I dont think there is a micro biology / bio chemistry section on this forum but I'm quite sure you would have offered opinions/advice on other threads here. Variety is the spice of life JTH. Could you imagine boring this thread in particular would be if the only contributors were egg heads and lab coats. Right or wrong, a forum is place where anyone, expert or not, can voice a opinion. 
BTW, I dont live on the ground, I hover 6 inches above it. :Tongue:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Nature is continually changing but over the last few thousand years in ways man can adapt to

  So are you saying humans could not adapt *prior* to the last few thousand years?  
How long have we been here?  :Confused:    

> what is happening now is that we are damaging the natural cycles and have the potential to make life on earth pretty miserable or possibly unlivable if we don't mend our ways

  Your comrade Jack-The-Hammer says that you're not qualified to have this opinion?  :Doh:  
You need to get permission from him, or are you going to start contradicting him as well. 
Geez, you guys argue amongst yourself a lot.  :Biggrin:  
He thinks that you need a qualification before you can have an opinion.  :Roflmao2:  
Luckily for you I understand what these words mean and gladly accept your opinion, even if it is based on no facts whatsoever.   

> Neither SBD's or my comments contradict they are simply two approaches to explaining the same thing, something educators do all the time to get a message across.

  So SBD says humans are the only cause, yet you say there are many causes (or contributors).  *One cause* Vs *Many causes*? 
If there is only one, there can be no others.  One of you is wrong! 
Unless you believe Jack-The-Hammer, then neither of you are even entitled to have an opinion, so you are both wrong. 
But as this is a philosophical question, he doesn't study philosophy everyday, so by his rules he is not entitled to have an opinion on you two having an opinion, so I guess his opinion doesn't count and both of yours does. 
The question then is whose is right and whose is wrong? 
If you two can't even figure this simple thing out, how can you support a cause that believes increasing TAXES in Australia is going to make the Planet Earth colder? 
But once you guys sort your own position out, I'll happily rebut it.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Jack-the-Hammer

> Ive never touched a survey pole or been within cooee of a drill rig . 
> But surely you have every right to a opinion on all things quantum physics ?  
> And thats what its all about. If we all stuck to our respective fields of expertise then neither of us ( and just about everyone else here) should pass comment on this thread. I dont think there is a micro biology / bio chemistry section on this forum but I'm quite sure you would have offered opinions/advice on other threads here. Variety is the spice of life JTH. Could you imagine boring this thread in particular would be if the only contributors were egg heads and lab coats. Right or wrong, a forum is place where anyone, expert or not, can voice a opinion. 
> BTW, I dont live on the ground, I hover 6 inches above it.

  OPINION 1:
On the topic of quantum physics.  Quantum physics sucks.   
I am using the average joe blow logic to come to this opinion which states that if you don't understand something don't support it, just oppose it.  I find quantum physics hard to understand, hence my opinion.   *EDITED POST, JUST TROLLING*  *MEMBERS, PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLL. *  :Toot:  *DO NOT FEED THE TROLL*  :Toot:

----------


## Dr Freud

> This isn't about climate change

  You got that right!   The climate has been changing on this Planet for about 4.5 billion years.  :Biggrin:    

> it is about the financial and moral dealings of a member of parliament which has been brought into the public limelight by The Age initially.

  Correct, the member who Chairs the Economics Committee that oversees issues including financial probity, expenditure and various financial bills and legislation for out nation, likely to soon include the Carbon Dioxide Tax legislation that we all will likely soon be paying.   

> In summary, the role of the Standing Committee on Economics is to carry out inquiries into matters referred to it by the House of Representatives or a Minister of the Commonwealth Government. Material that can be referred includes any pre-legislation proposal, bill, motion, petition, vote or expenditure, other financial matter, report or paper.   Mr Craig Thomson MP (Chair) (Australian Labor Party, Dobell, NSW)                    House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics: Index

  This member's track record appears to be spending lots of working peoples money, then asking those same workers to pay for all the debts he racked up, as indicated by various reports below:   

> Abbott is right, of course, in what he told me:    _PRIME Minister Julia Gillard is resisting opposition calls for embattled Labor MP Craig Thomson to be stripped of the chairmanship of a parliamentary committee. _  _Ahead of a four-day sitting of parliament, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott on Sunday stepped up his attack on Mr Thomson calling for him to be stood aside from the lower house economics committee...._  _Mr Abbott said the prime minister should stand Mr Thomson aside from the parliamentary committee._  _I think its very hard for someone who cant answer questions about his own credit card to credibly ask questions of the governor of the Reserve Bank about the nations credit cards, Mr Abbott told the Ten Network._  _So I think this is a big issue and I think the short answer is no, he cant really remain chairman of that committee._Thomson should be stood down irrespective of whether he did or did not use his union supplied credit card to pay a brothel (which he denies, claiming an unknown man used his card instead). What is undisputed is that Thomson approved that expense - which is hardly the diligent eye youd want in a man chairing Parliaments economics committee. And then theres the rest of the allegations     From The Bolt Report today - Abbott and the Thomson scandal | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

   

> MORE revelations are to come about the Labor MP accused of hiring callgirls with a union credit card, former Labor powerbroker Graham Richardson has warned.  
> The allegations about Craig Thomson's union credit card being used to pay for prostitutes and to withdraw $100,000 in cash when he led the health services union had lain dormant for almost 18 months until he gave an interview to the radio station's Mike Smith this month.   Influential Labor figure hints at more Thomson revelations

   

> *BESIEGED MP Craig Thomson is likely to face an Australian Taxation Office investigation of his financial affairs as questions mount about cash withdrawals and visits to brothels claimed on his former Health Services Union credit card. 				*  			 		 		Former senior ATO auditor Chris Seage said the body would almost certainly launch investigations seeking any unpaid income tax, particularly after audit firm BDO and the HSU found not all of the claims on the card were supported by receipts.
> At the core of the ATO interest in Mr Thomson will be revelations that $100,000-plus in cash advances were made on his HSU credit card, according to Mr Seage.
> "The ATO's audit division scours newspapers for potential cases," he said.   Tax man poised to chat with MP Craig Thomson | thetelegraph.com.au

   

> Thomson two years ago sued the Sydney Morning Herald, which first reported these details. But last year he dropped the case before it went to trial, which left him with not only his costs but the papers. 
>  Those costs are said to be more than $200,000, and early this year the NSW Labor Party gave Thomson $90,000 or more to help him meet them. 
>  This is an incredible use of cash raised from Labor members. Thomson was given Labor money for a private legal action he launched over something he allegedly did as a union leader, not a Labor politician. 
>       We can only suspect Labor bailed him out to stop him going bankrupt, given bankrupts cannot sit in Parliament under the Constitution.     Column - Labor chains itself to a carcass | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  This member is the Chair of our nations Economics Committee, and he will have a large say in the Carbon Dioxide Tax.  Can we trust his judgement?  :No:  
But the worst part:      
JuLIAR back his judgement 100%, what does this say about hers?    

> after all it is a Labor bloke, you know, the ones you don't like

  If you had read the thread, you'd know that I've voted for Labor.  :Doh:    

> Also don't make the fools mistake of believing that anyone who is not an Andrew Bolt worshipper is a member of the Labor Party.

  If you had read the thread, you'd know that Bolta used to work for the Labor Party and he has many friends who are Labor politicians.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It was a little before my time.  Can you tell me about it?  What was it like?

  It was really cold. 
I was studying one of my many degrees at the time (20 below zero degrees from memory).  :Biggrin:  
The good news is we could all afford the heating bills because there was no Carbon Dioxide TAX.   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> All the evidence (and there is much) supports the AGW theory.

  Is this one of the positive affirmations that you believe will be taken on faith if you chant it often enough? 
I have continually asked for any empirical evidence at all proving this farce, yet not a single piece has been shown. 
If you say there is much, please let us in on the secret? 
P.S. Psychic computers and peoples opinions are not empirical evidence.  :No:

----------


## chrisp

> II have continually asked for any empirical evidence at all proving this farce, yet not a single piece has been shown.

  I'm glad you asked... yet again.. Let's take it reeeeaaallllyy slooooooowly for yooooou.... 
Let's look at the average global temperature first....   
From: Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots 
This is actual empirical measurements of the temperature.  It doesn't make any projections at all. 
Are you keeping up???? 
The temperature is rising. 
I'll let you digest that for now.  I think you've had trouble with this evidence before...  Was it you that claimed it was cooling???

----------


## Dr Freud

With our nations economic future and the Carbon Dioxide TAX at stake, JuLIAR has been missing in action and her silence is deafening on this issue, so good o'l Barnaby tries to unravel the mess:     
If Thomson quits or is sacked, no Carbon Dioxide TAX at all! 
I'd say that makes his circumstances central to this debate.  :Biggrin:  
The government seems to think so:   

> It is understood senior Labor officials are in almost constant contact with Mr Thomson amid fears the MP might quit under pressure.  
>  "He is being talked to 24/7 because there is a big fear he will crack and just pull the pin," a Labor figure said.  
> Mr Abbott has said it is *up to the Prime Minister to act* when Parliament resumes tomorrow. 
> "This really has now gone from being just an issue for Craig Thomson to being a big issue for the Prime Minister," he said. *"You can't have a Prime Minister who refused to answer reasonable questions about what she knew and what she did."*   The Thomson prostitute affair - How Labor zipped up a scandal | thetelegraph.com.au

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm glad you asked... yet again.. Let's take it reeeeaaallllyy slooooooowly for yooooou.... 
> Let's look at the average global temperature first....   
> From: Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots 
> This is actual empirical measurements of the temperature.  It doesn't make any projections at all. 
> Are you keeping up???? 
> The temperature is rising. 
> I'll let you digest that for now.  I think you've had trouble with this evidence before...  Was it you that claimed it was cooling???

  Thanks, that's empirical evidence of the temperature going up over a defined period of time. 
That makes it evidence of an EFFECT, not a CAUSE.  :Doh:  
As I've said on many occasions, I won't argue data accuracy semantics just to get you to the next step.  Most instrumental analysis indicates about 0.7 degrees celsius rise over the twentieth century, which matches the natural temperature rises expected while coming out of the last Little Ice Age. 
None of this is in dispute (notwithstanding data accuracy and analysis concerns above). 
So the effect is agreed to. 
But what are the causes of this effect? 
So the next step Padawan is to find empirical evidence proving the AGW hypothesis? 
Just one piece will do!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

The retailers appear to know what's causing consumer confidence to plummet:    
It's just so "last season"!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> UP TO 100,000 jobs will be lost in Australia by the end of the year, with another 100,000 to go next year, economists have warned. This will take the unemployment rate from 5.1 per cent to 5.5 per cent by year end, and up to 6 per cent in 2012. 
> There has been news of more than 1000 jobs to go at both Qantas and Westpac and 400 at OneSteel, with a similar number expected from rival steelmaker BlueScope when it delivers its profits tomorrow. Substantial job losses are expected at a range of other companies, including Telstra, SingTel, Ten Network, Coca-Cola, GWA and Boral.  
>               There have also been sizeable job losses recently at Colorado, Heinz and Shell, and some speculation that job losses may be looming at Suncorp.  
>               The future of the retail sector, the country's largest industry employer with 1.2 million workers or about 11 per cent of the workforce, is also in danger.     Jobs under pressure

  And is JuLIAR looking to steer our economy through this? 
Uh uh! This week she'll be: petitioning the High Court to smuggle people out of the country; hiding Thomson so he can't answer questions or quit; pretending she's not back-flipped over Manus Island; spinning why we're getting more and more deficits, not the promised surplus; avoiding discussing how our national debt is going toward a quarter of a trillion dollars; obfuscating why productivity is in the toilet under her IR changes; etc, etc. 
Oh yeh, and spending more of our tax dollars convincing us that if we pay more Carbon Dioxide TAX to her, the Planet Earth will get colder.  :Doh:  
No wonder consumer confidence is shattered.  People have realised that no-one is driving this country in any particular direction.  We are spinning in accordance with Labor's spin machine!   :Shock:  
The Convoy of No-Confidence can pass this onto JuLIAR tomorrow.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

If Wilkie pulls the pin in May, then this government will be gone before this disastrous Carbon Dioxide TAX gets a chance to get rolling:   

> Yet another wild and desperate promise by Julia Gillard turns sour:   _EMBATTLED NSW Labor MPs are quietly distancing themselves from the governments promise to introduce mandatory pre-commitment for poker machines, describing the impact of a Clubs NSW grassroots campaign against the measure as worse than the carbon tax._  _Almost every NSW MP attended a private meeting this week with the Families Minister, Jenny Macklin, and Ben Hubbard, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, about the measure, promised to the Tasmanian independent, Andrew Wilkie, as part of the deal to win his support for Labor to form government. A second meeting was held with concerned Queensland MPs._  _The mood was toxic, one backbencher said. The general view was that this is bigger than the carbon tax. It is hurting us much more than the carbon tax._  _Clubs NSW has held rallies in clubs across the state to protest against the mandatory pre-commitment by gamblers of how much they intend to bet, which it claims will force job cuts and reduce the cash that clubs can invest in sporting organisations and local causes_  *Mr Wilkie says ... he will bring down the Gillard government if it is not legislated by next May.*Lenore Taylor:   _During the winter break Clubs NSW held scores of Save our Clubs rallies as part of a campaign targeting the electorates of 25 Labor MPs, 15 of them in NSW._  _  Long-term local members found themselves being booed and jeered by hundreds of club patrons who believe the governments plan to stop problem gambling by introducing mandatory pre-commitment for bets of more than $1 a time on poker machines will destroy the clubs where they go for a cheap meal and a flutter._  _The crowds, sometimes numbering in the thousands, were egged on by a video message from the broadcaster Alan Jones, in which he says their message to Julia Gillard should be go away, get out of our lives, weve heard you, we dont like you._  _At least two of the MPs - backbencher Craig Thomson, who is under pressure over allegations of using a union credit card to pay for prostitutes, and Daryl Melham, who is president of the Revesby Workers Club - were so flustered by the angry attacks they responded in kind and were later forced to apologise._http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...nother_gamble/

  The pokie machine legislation will not pass. 
So either Wilkie loses all credibility, or JuLIAR loses government!  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

We don't want this environmentally useless and economically destructive TAX!   

> The convoys are on the move:   _CANBERRA will be squeezed to capacity next week when thousands of trucks and other vehicles converge on the nations capital in the Convoy of No Confidence._  _About 300 semi-trailers, caravans and cars from across Australia are expected to arrive in Goulburn on Sunday, before heading into Canberra the next day._  From Darwin:   _A Convoy of more than 100 vehicles - including road trains, campervans and utes - rolled into Katherine last night to show their support for the Convoy of no Confidence, a convoy heading to Canberra to raise a voice against recent government decisions._  _Rashida Khan, who led a trail of vehicles from Darwin to Katherine yesterday, said she was on her way to Canberra to speak up for some of the toughest people she knows, who have been pushed to the edge by the decision to ban live export._  _ And I dont know how much further you can push these people, Ms Khan said._ Not all will make the expensive trip all the way to Canberra, but enough feel so strongly about the protest that theyre paying thousands:   From Perth:  _A CONVOY of protesters angry at the federal governments proposed carbon and mining taxes and the live cattle export ban has left Perth headed for Canberra._  _About 50 people in 25 trucks, vans and cars joined in the Convoy of No Confidence that left Belmont racecourse early this morning._  _Around a third of the protesters plan to go all the way to Canberra where 11 protest convoys from around Australia will converge for an anti-government rally on August 22._  _Janet Thompson, organiser of the Perth convoy, said people were fed up with over regulation and the carbon tax was set to be a ``huge bureaucratic nightmare._  _Perth truckie Gordon Crawford said the trip to Canberra and back would cost them up to $4500 in fuel and lost work time but he felt his protest was important._  _``If enough people do it they have got to take notice, he said._ 
>   UPDATE 
> Reader Kate reports on the progress of the Convoy of No Confidence, on its way to Canberra from 11 parts of Australia:  _We have just had a message from our son who is co-driving a truck from Charters Towers to Canberra._  _On their way through Clermont this morning the convoy were presented with a donation of $13,000.00 to help with the cost of fuel!! Now that is passing the hat around, particularly for a town of less than 2000 people._   _Trucks roaring to Canberra | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

   
It's time!  Now where have I heard that before?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

These people in the Convoy will rather pay for the fuel they use now, than pay for nothing at all later:   

> *BY 2050, Australia will be sending $57 billion a year overseas just for the right to keep our lights on, as a direct consequence of Julia Gillard's carbon dioxide tax and consequent emissions trading scheme. *  			 		 		Let me make it perfectly clear. We won't be getting anything tangible back for that $57bn.
> It doesn't buy us windmills or solar panels made in China. It doesn't buy us technology or licensing rights. It's not even a (carbon dioxide) tax, that would at least generate revenue for the government. It just sends money to foreigners for "permission" to keep a few of our coal-fired power stations operating.  
> That is to say, it will be an entirely artificial cost, imposed on all Australians, by this Gillard-Brown government, with not the slightest offsetting benefit. It has the same economic consequences as taking $57bn and just shredding it. Every year.  
> This extraordinary "fact" is in detailed Treasury modelling of the proposed carbon dioxide tax.  Australia will send $57bn a year overseas by 2050, Treasury modelling shows | The Australian

  That's why they drive!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.  
> Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control  and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.  
> This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by a Nasa-affiliated scientist and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University that, while considered unlikely, they say could play out were humans and alien life to make contact at some point in the future. 
> "Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. "These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets," the authors write.  Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists | Science | The Guardian

  
I always thought they were called little green men because of their skin colour.  :Doh:  
Geez I'm naive sometimes, I should have figured this meant they were aligned with the "greenies" on this Planet too.  :Biggrin:  
I guess these guys never saw Aliens Vs Predator!  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *MORE than half of WA households will be worse off under Julia Gillard's carbon tax, according to a new WA Treasury report to be released today. 				*  			 		 		The report directly contradicts the Prime Minister's claims that two out of three households will receive enough compensation through tax cuts and family assistance to cover the expected $9.90 a week jump in the cost of living.
>   The Treasury report, called Impact of the Proposed Carbon Tax on Western Australia, predicts 419,000 WA households or 52 per cent will be worse off under the carbon tax, despite Ms Gillard's sweeteners.
>  And in further bad news for WA families, the report forecasts further increases in transport and water charges come July 1 as a result of the tax.
>  These rises will will come on top of an expected $115-a-year lift in electricity charges revealed by _The Sunday Times_ last month   Gillard leading WA up the carbon path, according to WA Treasury report | Perth Now

  Every day different government agencies, councils, health care providers, state governments, businesses and utilities tell us about the more and more costs and price rises we will have as a result of this BIG NEW TAX.  
All for zero environmental benefit.  
This is nutty in a growing economy.  It is economic suicide in our current economic climate.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Why would you not tell the truth if you did nothing wrong? 
Why would you say nothing at all? 
This is the Prime Minister of our country refusing to talk to us!   

> *THE ALP bailout of Craig Thomson could be more than $150,000 - and federal minister Mark Arbib is understood to have brokered the deal between Prime Minister Julia Gillard's office and NSW Labor. *  			 		 		Ms Gillard refused yesterday to reveal how much Labor had paid to stop Craig Thomson becoming bankrupt in the face of large legal bills.  
> If the Central Coast MP was declared bankrupt he would have been forced to quit parliament, which could have brought down the minority government.  
> Ms Gillard refused to answer a question in parliament as to when she first spoke to Mr Thomson about his debts, saying: "It is not my intention to comment on private discussions I have with the member for Dobell."   New questions as fund for MP Craig Thomson tops $150,000 | thetelegraph.com.au

  The cover up is always the killer.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

This government is burning down is front of us, and Labor MP's are looking for the exits:   

> Business is wisely refusing to believe the Gillard Governments claims that the rest of the world is leaving us behind in pricing carbon:  _ 
> BIG business is demanding the Gillard government include economic safety valves so carbon tax legislation can be scaled down if its core assumptions of indefinite economic growth and steady progress in international climate negotiations turn out to be wrong._  _Business Council of Australia chief executive Jennifer Westacott told the Herald the carbon tax bills had been drafted so all the environmental elements cant be stopped but the business protections can be eroded._  _We think it is just commonsense, in this environment of economic volatility and no binding action by other countries, that the government should be able to review and adjust what it is doing in response to what happens, she said._Julian Leeser says Labor MPs should save themselves:   _ 
> For the tax to fail in Parliament, Labor backbenchers (I have given up on the independents) have to cross the floor and vote against it. This is a very unlikely scenario given Labor Party discipline and the way so-called rats are ostracised by the Labor machine. But there must be a number of Labor members in marginal mining and manufacturing seats who know that they will lose their seats unless they stop the carbon tax._  _When Labor pursued its disastrous Tasmanian forestry policy under Mark Latham at the 2004 election, Dick Adams was due to lose the Tasmanian seat of Lyons. He repudiated the Latham/Brown policy (which was the last time Labor let the Greens make policy for them). Adams survived because he chose his constituency over his party and remains a federal MP to this day...._  _ People do have power - to badger their local member or their local media and to organise their friends and communities to let marginal backbenchers know there is a cost to voting for this tax in terms they understand._ Escape hatch wanted | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  All because of a useless TAX based on a lie.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Imagine if I took your money and bought a sh-- sandwich, then took more of your money to pay for advertising to convince you to eat it? 
Maybe you'd right me a letter too!   

> _Dear Prime Minister,  
> I have chosen to return to you the unopened Government propaganda publication titled What a carbon price means for you on the 1st anniversary of your promise; There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.  
> Considering the misleading and erroneous reference to carbon as opposed to carbon dioxide, as seen through the unopened transparent plastic wrap on the covering of the above mentioned publication. I wonder if you and your Government have applied enough intellectual rigour in your appreciation process to understand that Carbon and Carbon Dioxide is not the same thing? If you and your Government do understand the difference, why would you choose to disseminate propaganda that uses deception, in order to promote a policy that you made a solemn promise to all Australians that you would not impose?  
> Since you and your Government as evidenced through you and your colleagues words and actions, do not have the integrity to communicate to the Australian people without deceit and obfuscation. When your own words as a measure of integrity are clearly not even valued by you. You should not be surprised that I like most Australians have simply stopped listening to you and your Government.  
> So please take your propaganda publication back, I do not need another egregious example of you and your Governments disdain towards all Australians.  
> Yours Faithfully,_  _Daniel_ Daniel sends it back | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

_From the heart of The Labor Party:  _   

> _
> Ive got on the line John Black who is a former Labor Party senator during the 1980s. Hes now the chief executive of the demographic profiling company Australian Development Strategies. _ _Well, lets go to Graham Richardson. _  _ALAN JONES:_  _Cant hack it. Just two questions then, a) will she lead the Labor Party into the next election and b) what will happen to the Labor Party at the next election? _   _JOHN BLACK:_  _Well, I dont believe that she will and theres a slim chance for the Labor Party if they changed to the right leader and acted quickly. _   _ALAN JONES:_  _Graham Richardson? _   _GRAHAM RICHARDSON:_  _Shell lead Labor, its far more likely, and I believe Labor will be slaughtered._  The real debate, not the media one | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  It's over!  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

Apparently conducting a peaceful protest in your own country is labelled "extremism" by the Labor Party now.  We saw this last week with the Carbon Dioxide TAX protest, and the prior TAX protest, and they are labelling us Aussies "extremists" again for the Convoy of No Confidence rally at Parliament House today:   

> The Convoy of No Confidence is already being demonised by Labor and some in the media as *a bunch of extremists*, but most of the rest of Australia will recognise themselves in these people: _CANBERRA is set to be brought to its knees tomorrow when 11 separate truck and van convoys from every mainland state and territory protest the legitimacy of the Gillard government. _  _The Convoy of No Confidence comes as parliament sits for four days and Prime Minister Julia Gillard, whose stocks are sagging in opinion polls, faces community anger over her broken promise on the carbon tax and changes to the diesel fuel rebate._  _One of the convoy organisers, truck driver and former Queensland Liberal National Party state candidate Mick Pattel, said the convoy was a wake-up call for the government._  _Every decision that they make seems to be an absolute blunder, Mr Pattel told ABC radio._  _I think the government has been compromised by the fact that its not governing in its own right, he added, referring to the Greens and independents who helped deliver minority government 12 months ago._  _A petition will be presented calling for a double-dissolution election. _  _Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, who is expected to join the protest which will get to Canberra about 6am (AEST) tomorrow, said the Gillard government had the Midas touch in reverse._The cost of driving huge rigs to Canberra will no doubt limit the numbers, but enough people seem to think the sacrifice worth the chance of registering a protest to a Government so wilfully deaf.   
>   Bendigos trucks gather. (Thanks to reader Bob.)   
>   Convoy No. 5 comes down the Hume yesterday.   Ruth and friends are coming down from Brisbane.   Convoy rolls to Canberra | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Behold the face of EXTREMISM in Australia today (according to Greens/Labor):   
If you don't throw in a few stubby holders and some beer and things may get "extreme".  :Biggrin:  
But that's some Aussies telling their government (peacefully) they don't want $57 billion of their taxes sent overseas every year for NO REASON! 
And yet the same Greens/Labor government asks us to forgive these peoples actions below because they are "victims", NOT extremists:    

> I heard that a massive JuLIAR Labor Government failure had led to this carnage!!!        
> I was shocked, but I couldn't figure out what had happened:   
> 1) Had Global Warming come true and Australia was now burning to hell?
> 2) Was this a candle knocked over during Earth Hour causing more emissions?
> 2) Or was this another "pink batts insulation debacle" ceiling fire gone haywire?
> 3) Or was this poor traumatised refugees showing their gratitude for our taxpayer dollars paying for their free housing, food, healthcare etc etc? 
> Then I found out the truth.    Guards retreat as detainees set Villawood alight | The Australian  
> Phew, RELAX, it's *not* Global Warming writ large. Us sceptics are still right!  
> Australia won't burn to hell, but under this government, it'll just go to hell.

  Now, just so you understand this Labor's governments position for those opposing their Carbon Dioxide TAX. 
Here's the extremists:     *EDITED POST* = *PIC REMOVED*    
Got it!  :Wink 1:

----------


## Geno62

There is nothing decent about linking the Truckies protest with what is happening in detention centres.

----------


## watson

> There is nothing decent about linking the Truckies protest with what is happening in detention centres.

  
I agree..however the original post was back in April (missed).....and its removal will require severe editing of subsequent posts.....bit too hard.

----------


## Geno62

The ridge tile thrower isn't a link, it is a paste. (bottom photo)

----------


## watson

Done

----------


## chrisp

In defence of Dr Freud, I thought the picture was okay.  It certainly helped to show other readers that his interest in AGW is mostly (purely?) political and little (or nothing?) to do with the actual science.   :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> Most instrumental analysis indicates about 0.7 degrees celsius rise over the twentieth century, which *matches* the natural temperature rises expected while coming out of the last Little Ice Age.

  SO, you agree that the recent temperature rise is quite high and something of the order of that last seen about 10,000 years ago?

----------


## chrisp

> Behold the face of EXTREMISM in Australia today (according to Greens/Labor):   
> If you don't throw in a few stubby holders and some beer and things may get "extreme".

  Let's look behind the scenes a little... 
The so-called Convoy of No Confidence is organised by an outfit called the  *National Road Freight Association* (website: National Road Freighters Association ).  The National President of the National Road Freight Association is *Mick Pattel* (see: Executive Members). 
It is the same *Mick Pattel* that is endorsed to stand as the *LNP candidate* for the seat of Mt Isa at the next State election.  (see Endorsed by the LNP for Mt Isa - Just Grounds Community ). 
And you think they are just ordinary Australians?  Wannabe politicians more like it! 
And speaking of "EXTREMISM", maybe you might like to look at some of his views:  Haunted: Can-Dos New World Order | Courier Mail Pineapple Politics Blog   *UPDATE* 
I thought I'd check for a more authoritative account of Mick Pattel's LNP candidacy.  It seems that he has now withdrawn...   

> The Liberal National Party (LNP) candidate for the state seat of  Mount Isa in north-west Queensland, Mick Pattel, has pulled out of the  race.  
> The truck operator says he has withdrawn because he is  organising a convoy of trucks to join a protest in Canberra later this  month.  
> The 'convoy of no-confidence' against the Federal  Government is expected to target issues including the carbon tax, the  live cattle trade and coal seam gas.   *Mr Pattel says he is not  able to stand as a candidate for the LNP and organise a protest as well  but he is he's hoping to be reconsidered for the seat down the track.*  
> "When  you become a candidate for the LNP - you sign what's called a  candidate's agreement which precludes you from doing anything like  this," he said. 
> "But I've been under a fair bit of pressure to do something like this to do something like this for quite some time.  
> "Now  I didn't tell the party I was doing it and it probably wasn't the right  thing to do, so because I did that, I said, 'OK, I will stand down from  the position'."  Mount Isa LNP candidate quits - ABC Western Queensland - Australian Broadcasting Corporation

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And there in lies the problem. We all know what happens when the alarmists start using predictive models.

  I don't know of many alarmists using predictive models but I sure know of a few physicists, biologists, geologists, geophysicists, chemists, hydrologists, sociologists, mathemeticians, engineers, material scientists, psycologist, sociologists, astrobiologists and even the odd climatologist that use computer based predictive modelling based on observational data of both cause and effect.   
It is basis of scientific analysis in every venture of study - even the political sciences (you don't think it's all based on just focus groups surely?).   
Just because the tool is powerful but (occasionally) poorly used doesn't mean the central problem is always with the tool.   
Sometimes.....sadly.....the orchestra is working perfectly, the score is fantastic, the performance space is glorious......and the audience is dominated by a mixture of inattentive dickheads and an extremely large and diverse collection of rare breed sheep.   My long held suspicion is that this is often the case with respect to AGW......<sigh>

----------


## ringtail

Ummmm, thats a lot of ologists. 
How do you think the IPCC, JuLIAR,Flannery,Combet,Wong,Garnaut etc.... come up with their argument ? It certainy isnt through providing factual evidence. Its very easy to point to red line on a graph and say this what we predict will happen if we dont reduce co2.

----------


## johnc

> Ummmm, thats a lot of ologists. 
> How do you think the IPCC, JuLIAR,Flannery,Combet,Wong,Garnaut etc.... come up with their argument ? It certainy isnt through providing factual evidence. Its very easy to point to red line on a graph and say this what we predict will happen if we dont reduce co2.

  When it comes to the politicians I think you find they rely on the advice of professionals in the field and mix it with a bit of focus group and polling. The IPCC is more consensus from a wide range of experts from a number of fields. I really think that when you see the word juliar it is just someone showing their political colours rather than making an effort to cast a wider view of what is presented to them. Who would I take the least notice of, someone who is blinkered by politics, the most would be the experts opinions.

----------


## PhilT2

The icebreaker R.V. "Polarstern" made it through to the North Pole yesterday, she's been there before of course, but never this early. The ice at the pole is similar to 2007, less than a metre thick, but the chance of a new record for ice loss being set appears less certain. Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) Where is Polarstern?

----------


## ringtail

> When it comes to the politicians I think you find they rely on the advice of professionals in the field and mix it with a bit of focus group and polling. The IPCC is more consensus from a wide range of experts from a number of fields. I really think that when you see the word juliar it is just someone showing their political colours rather than making an effort to cast a wider view of what is presented to them. Who would I take the least notice of, someone who is blinkered by politics, the most would be the experts opinions.

  I make no secret of the fact that I'm Liberal through and through. I detest everything that Labor stands for. They are anti small business, anti employer, anti wealthy and anti common sense. They are pro union, pro welfare and as a result are pro wasting tax payers money. On a more personal note, my dislike for Gillard stems from her revolting interpretation of the english language which IMO tars us all with the same brush and her blatant disregard for democracy. I'll take Howards appaling sporting skills and Abbots laugh any day in return for good economics and business confidence.

----------


## johnc

> I make no secret of the fact that I'm Liberal through and through. I detest everything that Labor stands for. They are anti small business, anti employer, anti wealthy and anti common sense. They are pro union, pro welfare and as a result are pro wasting tax payers money. On a more personal note, my dislike for Gillard stems from her revolting interpretation of the english language which IMO tars us all with the same brush and her blatant disregard for democracy. I'll take Howards appaling sporting skills and Abbots laugh any day in return for good economics and business confidence.

  A fairly blinkered view there, how do you account for the massive explosion in social welfare spending by the Howard government, lets face it that is half the reason we are in deficit at the moment. Both parties are similar in many of their policies, regardless of who comes to power in this country we do not see a throwing out of the old and in with the new approach. We just get gradual change over time, and that is part of the problem neither side wants to rock the boat to much and both try to hold the middle ground to maximise public appeal. Although Mr Abbot without doubt holds greater public appeal at the moment, which is interesting because it is very much a "we will do nothing" approach harking back to the past without a vision for the future which both manufacturing and small business badly need.

----------


## ringtail

> A fairly blinkered view there, how do you account for the massive explosion in social welfare spending by the Howard government, lets face it that is half the reason we are in deficit at the moment. Both parties are similar in many of their policies, regardless of who comes to power in this country we do not see a throwing out of the old and in with the new approach. We just get gradual change over time, and that is part of the problem neither side wants to rock the boat to much and both try to hold the middle ground to maximise public appeal. Although Mr Abbot without doubt holds greater public appeal at the moment, which is interesting because it is very much a "we will do nothing" approach harking back to the past without a vision for the future which both manufacturing and small business badly need.

  Awww, c'mon. Half the reason for the current deficit ? We both know the reason for the whole deficit is the ALP's ridiculous spending spree and squandering of taxpaxers money. As for Howards middle class welfare - what can I say, when you have the money you can give a bit back. Its when you dont have any money that it become a issue.

----------


## watson

> awww, c'mon. Half the reason for the current deficit ? We both know the reason for the whole deficit is the alp's ridiculous spending spree and squandering of taxpaxers money. As for howards middle class welfare - what can i say, when you have the money you can give a bit back. Its when you dont have any money that it become a issue.

   topic????

----------


## johnc

> Awww, c'mon. Half the reason for the current deficit ? We both know the reason for the whole deficit is the ALP's ridiculous spending spree and squandering of taxpaxers money. As for Howards middle class welfare - what can I say, when you have the money you can give a bit back. Its when you dont have any money that it become a issue.

  If you follow that logic then Labor should have unwound the generous social benefits from the Howard years, the stuck pigs would be squealing
from one end of the country to the other. Rusted on voters give the country some electoral stability but all our views including those on climate change are best made on the facts as we read them rather than any political or other latent bias we may harbour. The current deficit by the way is pretty much recurrent spending the stimulus spending is all but finished, our problem remains to little tax receipts and no effort to apply the razor. The Liberals got back in the black and out of debt by selling everything the could get there hands on, there is nothing much left to sell, so I would like to see what they think they can do and from the current noises that would be government programs so what do we cut and how much do we let infrastructure slide? They also gained by booming tax revenues and their final act was to offer very generous tax cuts which Labor very foolishly decided to match. Why are we in deficit at the moment?, look to both present and past they both bear some responsibilty. 
Anyway much of your argument I suspect is based on your image of the Liberals rather than reality as I suspect is your view on both climate change and Labor, how are those snowballs going by the way. 
In deference to Watson, I kept my toe in the water of climate change on this post even if the rest of me was elsewhere.

----------


## watson

> In deference to Watson, I kept my toe in the water of climate change on this post even if the rest of me was elsewhere.

   :Hahaha:  Everybody into the ETS pond now.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> topic????

  ....is still visible with a decent set of binoculars and a healthy imagination.

----------


## ringtail

Sorry. Its raining and cold in Brisbane. Done. :Tongue:

----------


## johnc

> Sorry. Its raining and cold in Brisbane. Done.

  
Probably the perfect response :2thumbsup:

----------


## ringtail

About bloody time too. It hasnt rained since the floods and things were looking mighty dry.

----------


## Marc

After 7248 post on the global warming debate, it is blatantly obvious that the debate is political and not on so called science. 
In fact I find it extremely funny that so many pretend to display whatever vestige of knowledge they may have on this topic to pontificate in serious terms that there is scientific evidence that:  
Man made CO2 is a pollutant and causes global warming.
Temperatures are on a rampant upwards trend.
Sea levels are rising at an alarming rate.
Tornadoes, earthquake, tsunami and floods are a consequence of man made Global warming.
Etc etc etc 
Invariably those who make all this alarmist claims, happen to be on the political left or far left.
Is this just a coincidence?
Of course not.
The actions claimed to be necessary to counteract all this terrible happenings, would favor centralization of power, totalitarian power in order to enforce all those green wet dreams, increase in taxation to fund such delusional proposal.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, and the rest of history biggest tyrant would have given the right arm to control a quarter of what we are facing.
Any surprise that the right wing supporters who happen to favor freedom of speech, free market, private property, free enterprise line up behind the opposition? 
Global warming, climate change, rapid climate change, or catastrophic climate change, are all just one thing.
A tool to take your freedom away in the name of the common good.

----------


## watson

> After 7248 post on the global warming debate, it is blatantly obvious that the debate is political and not on so called science. 
> In fact I find it extremely funny that so many pretend to display whatever vestige of knowledge they may have on this topic to pontificate in serious terms that there is scientific evidence that:  
> Man made CO2 is a pollutant and causes global warming.
> Temperatures are on a rampant upwards trend.
> Sea levels are rising at an alarming rate.
> Tornadoes, earthquake, tsunami and floods are a consequence of man made Global warming.
> Etc etc etc 
> Invariably those who make all this alarmist claims, happen to be on the political left or far left.
> Is this just a coincidence?
> ...

  And I bet you don't believe in the tooth fairy either Marc.

----------


## johnc

> After 7248 post on the global warming debate, it is blatantly obvious that the debate is political and not on so called science. 
> In fact I find it extremely funny that so many pretend to display whatever vestige of knowledge they may have on this topic to pontificate in serious terms that there is scientific evidence that:  
> Man made CO2 is a pollutant and causes global warming.
> Temperatures are on a rampant upwards trend.
> Sea levels are rising at an alarming rate.
> Tornadoes, earthquake, tsunami and floods are a consequence of man made Global warming.
> Etc etc etc 
> Invariably those who make all this alarmist claims, happen to be on the political left or far left.
> Is this just a coincidence?
> ...

  
So I gather you have decided anyone who doesn't agree with you is a leftie Labor supporter, yet despite that you name to lefties (Mao, Stalin) and two righties (Hitler, Mussolini) I think the pontification is the rabid and baseless political views of Marc. stop trying to put people into convenient boxes it serves no purpose. Oh and just in case, the tooth fairy hasn't been seen for some time, let us know if you see her.

----------


## chrisp

> Oh and just in case, the tooth fairy hasn't been seen for some time

  I'm sure the Doc will be back soon.  I wonder if he is riding in a truck back to WA?

----------


## johnc

> I'm sure the Doc will be back soon. I wonder if he is riding in a truck back to WA?

  He at least is easy to spot, his postings are as repetitive, obvious and predictable as the droppings in the bottom of a guinea pigs cage :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> He at least is easy to spot, his postings are as repetitive, obvious and predictable as the droppings in the bottom of a guinea pigs cage

  Hey Johnc, you might think these posts are repetetive. But we seem to either have a lot of Jonhc or Geno62 at any one time all pushing a similar line??

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Hey Johnc, you might think these posts are repetetive. But we seem to either have a lot of Jonhc or Geno62 at any one time all pushing a similar line??

  Disappointingly, there are only 2 lines of discussion here. 'For' or 'against'. I admit, my pendulum sways left, but still, it sways, unlike some narrow-read, stubborn right-winged posters on this forum.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Disappointingly, there are only 2 lines of discussion here. 'For' or 'against'. I admit, my pendulum sways left, but still, it sways, unlike some narrow-read, stubborn right-winged posters on this forum.

  Not to mention again, the right-wingers just don't realise that the numbers are done! They continue to wade through their arrogance. [psssttt - budgie-smuggling loyalists, shift the focus]

----------


## watson

Funny ..isn't it?? 
The Thread Closes everytime you start to talk Politics without an ETS link. :Shrug:

----------


## ringtail

Maybe a separate politics thread ?

----------


## The Administration Team

> Maybe a separate politics thread ?

  NO! We are a Renovation forum. 
The Admin and Mods have enough to do without having to sort through unwinnable crap each day.

----------


## johnc

> Not to mention again, the right-wingers just don't realise that the numbers are done! They continue to wade through their arrogance. [psssttt - budgie-smuggling loyalists, shift the focus]

  There does seem to be a real problem with the vocal head in the sand mob, typified by the likes of Alan Jones that aren't the least bit interested in anything that doesn't support their view that climate change does not exist, or alternatively any change has to be normal variation. I'm not a rusted on supporter of any political party or view, as long as we keep our minds open, accept the experts views and any informed alternative view (and not by unqualified bloggists) then we should be in the right frame of mind to react to the challenges be they enviromental or economic.   
The saddest part of this whole debate is the number of people that are so willing to believe figures and opinions from individuals who do nothing but distort and lie or who have vested interests that clearly prejudice their view.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The saddest part of this whole debate is the number of people that are so willing to believe figures and opinions from individuals who do nothing but distort and lie or who have vested interests that clearly prejudice their view.

  That reality is not restricted simply to this debate.  Nor to this period in time. You'll find any number of similar circumstances (regardless of topic) at any point in the recorded history of every human civilisation to date.  And long will it continue..... 
That's not sad.........that's a remarkable triumph for a simple human behavioural instinct.   
In the end, even when your glass is half full of truckwits......it is still (at the very least) half full!!

----------


## Marc

> ...you name to lefties (Mao, Stalin) and two righties (Hitler, Mussolini)

  The deep ignorance that transpires this sentence is only a sample of the overarching intellectual vacuum of your post.

----------


## Marc

*Global warming is dead, lets move on*  The Australian, January 19, 2011
 WE did it. For once, we acted collectively, as humans, huddled  together on a fragile planet, rather than as selfish individuals. And we  did it: we beat global warming.
 So now lets move on.
 According to the Bureau of Meteorology, 2010 was Australias coldest  year since 2001. Since logic tells us the planet cant be getting hotter  and colder at the same time, we can confidently pronounce global  warming dead, buried and comprehensively beaten.
 This victory happened because individuals pulled together, within  nations, and then the nations of the world themselves pulled together.  Meetings were held in places such Kyoto. Rousing speeches were made by  world leaders. People clapped and felt good about themselves. Documents  were signed.
 Clearly, with each meeting, each speech, each inked treaty, global warming was pushed back.
 Here in Australia, we also did our bit, big time. We declared global  warming the great moral challenge of our generation. We talked  confidently about doing something or other. (OK, I cant remember what  it was, and we never actually did it, but then we talked about doing  something different . . . though maybe not straight away.)
 Anyway, it worked, because last year was the coldest year since 2001.
 Tim Flannery, Al Gore and others published books and made films.  Clearly they deserve a slice of this massive victory over global  warming. To them we say: Thank you, gentlemen, you may now return to  private life.
 But now that we know what we can do by dint of collective effort, we should turn to new challenges.
 For example, free trade between nations is demonstrably the greatest  force there has ever been for the alleviation of poverty, and the  equalisation of living standards between nations.
 The development of genetically modified crops promises to turn back the tide of hunger and disease in poor countries.
 Now that global warming is finished, due attention can be given to these issues.
 But before all of that, I think weve earned a moments pause, just to give ourselves a pat on the back.
 We did it. We acted together. We killed global warming.
 And now we will never have to hear anything about it, ever again. The Australian, January 19, 2011

----------


## Marc

Huntsman  dead wrong on global warming     
 By Bob  Webster
 web posted August 22, 2011          
 GOP  candidate Jon Huntsman, whose poll numbers linger in the low single  digits,  took a giant leap backward when he hopped on the  disintegrating Al Gore  bandwagon by taking potshots at rival candidate  Texas Gov. Perry's position on the  discredited  human-caused-global-warming theory. Evidently, Huntsman is not  aware  that the wheels have come off the Gore bandwagon and it is coming apart   at the seams!
 Candidate  Huntsman claims GOP candidates who oppose the discredited  human-caused-global-warming-theory  are taking a position "that   basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said,  what the  National Academy of Sciences has said about what is causing  climate change and  man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves  on the wrong side of  science and, therefore, in a losing position." 
 Ignoring  Huntsman's tortured grammar, consider the following contradictory evidence: 
 Candidate  Huntsman's belief that "98 of 100 climate scientists" support  the  discredited human-caused-global-warming theory is, in itself,  complete fiction.  Evidently, Huntsman has been listening to Al Gore,  who's penchant for making up  statistics is legendary. 
 Huntsman  should do himself a favor and take a moment to view the names  of more than 31,000  American scientists (including over 9,000 PhDs)  who disavow the discredited  human-caused-global-warming theory. There  are other lists of top scientists in  appropriate disciplines who  strongly oppose the discredited conclusions of the  IPCC (see one of  those lists below). 
 It would  benefit Huntsman to actually _know something_ about the  subject of climate  change rather than simply relying on talking points  that sound like they're right  out of the Obama campaign playbook!  These recent papers by distinguished  scientists who do _not_  agree with the glib pronouncements of candidate  Huntsman on climate  change/global warming would make a good beginning to  Huntsman's climate  change education:          _The Truth About Greenhouse Gases_ By       William Happer, PhD_The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect_ By Joseph E. Postma, Msc
     I  strongly encourage Huntsman continue his education with the excellent work of  Professor Robert M. Carter, _Climate: The Counter Consensus_.  Carter's work  convincingly refutes every aspect of the  human-caused-global-warming theory. No  rational objective reader of  Carter's book can come away with any remaining  belief in the  discredited human-caused-global-warming theory. 
       Finally,  I recommend candidate Huntsman read the comprehensive report by Marc Morano of Climate  Depot:  _More Than 1000 International Scientists  Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims_. 
       Should  Huntsman heed this advice, he will avoid making a fool of  himself with his  future pronouncements on this topic. If not, he will  deserve the certain  obscurity he will so richly have earned.  _Bob Webster is a descendent of Daniel  Webster's father and  early American patriot, Ebenezer. Bob has always had a  strong interest  in history, our Constitution, U.S. politics and law. A  political  conservative with objectivist and libertarian roots, he has faith in   the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He  is a  strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the  abandonment of  constitutional restraint as a great danger to our  Republic. His favorite novel  is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand  and  believes it should be required reading for every high school student. A   lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong  interest in  science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia  Tech, graduating in  1964._

----------


## Marc

> Not to mention again, the right-wingers just don't realise that the numbers are done! They continue to wade through their arrogance. [psssttt - budgie-smuggling loyalists, shift the focus]

  Thank you James; not that I needed confirmation for the fact that Global warming alarmist are lefties and that climate realist are right wing. (What is your problem with a traditional male Speedo-style swimwear used by lifesavers? ) 
So anyone cares to venture why this is so?
I don't think that there has ever been a true scientific proposition that neatly separates the contending parties into such defined political views.
Even the debate about existence of God that is traditionally attributed to left wing atheist and right wing bigots has massive shades of grey and large percentage of exceptions.
Not so Global warming. 
So the question remains for those who are able to type without making gutter remarks.
Why are alarmist lefties and why are skeptics right wing?

----------


## chrisp

> *Global warming is dead, lets move on*  The Australian, January 19, 2011 
>  According to the Bureau of Meteorology, 2010 was *Australias* coldest  year since 2001. *Since logic tells us* the *planet* cant be getting hotter  and colder at the same time, we can confidently pronounce *global  warming* dead, buried and comprehensively beaten.

  We can confidently pronounce that the *logic of this article is faulty*.  It is *Global Warming* (i.e. the whole planet).  You can't just say 'because it is cooler in one region' therefore the whole planet is cooler!  :Doh:  
Oh, and BTW, how is Australia's average temperature going?    
Graph from: Australian climate variability & change - Time series graphs

----------


## ringtail

> NO! We are a Renovation forum. 
> The Admin and Mods have enough to do without having to sort through unwinnable crap each day.

  
Whoa, ok ok. Try a glass of warm milk.

----------


## ringtail

The saddest part of this whole debate is the number of people that are so willing to believe figures and opinions from individuals who do nothing but distort and lie or who have vested interests that clearly prejudice their view.[/QUOTE] 
Yep, exactly. You got it in one. Spoken like a true skeptic. Do you know which side your on ?  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:

----------


## watson

> Whoa, ok ok. Try a glass of warm milk.

   :Hahaha:  
Dislike all pollies of any persuasion......WOFTAM's

----------


## johnc

> Thank you James; not that I needed confirmation for the fact that Global warming alarmist are lefties and that climate realist are right wing. (What is your problem with a traditional male Speedo-style swimwear used by lifesavers? ) 
> So anyone cares to venture why this is so?
> I don't think that there has ever been a true scientific proposition that neatly separates the contending parties into such defined political views.
> Even the debate about existence of God that is traditionally attributed to left wing atheist and right wing bigots has massive shades of grey and large percentage of exceptions.
> Not so Global warming. 
> So the question remains for those who are able to type without making gutter remarks.
> Why are alarmist lefties and why are skeptics right wing?

  I can't see how you can come to that conclusion, isn't it the cart before the horse. We have one party in the Liberals that says it believes in climate change but for various reasons wishes to progress slowly. you have Labor that also believes but wishes to progress at a faster rate. Doesn't it follow that those that favour a slower pace or no change will gravitate to the liberals and those that favour faster action gravitate to Labor.  
For some time on the religion we had vocal Catholics such as Bob Santamaria leaning to the DLP, other than that how could we tell which of the other faiths leant in any direction, we don't mark religion in the ballot box and I have not seen any statistics that would indicate those with political views on the extreme end are religious, agnostic or athiest.

----------


## johnc

From the ABC website, although the carbon tax does not have wonderful support it would seem that the populations view on climate change is quite different with only a very small percentage that do not believe it exists.  *Climate beliefs steady amid raging debate* 
Anna Salleh for ABC Science Online
Posted August 24, 2011 22:23:16  *Photo:* Most people surveyed believe climate change is happening but are divided on the degree to which humans are responsible (Giulio Saggin, file photo: ABC News) *Related Story:* Combet accuses Abbott of climate change racism *Related Story:* Turnbull decries war on climate science *Related Story:* Carbon tax to be introduced to parliament  *Map:* Australia  
New surveys suggest Australians have largely maintained the same attitudes about climate change in the past year, despite increasing controversy over the science and politics.
Professor Iain Walker of CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences in Perth says the findings fly in the face of concerns that debate in the media is unduly swaying people's attitudes.
"The data seem to indicate that heated highly visible public 'argy-bargy' has done little to shift the broad constellation of beliefs in the public," he said.
Professor Walker has just revealed preliminary findings from a national survey conducted over the past six weeks of just over 5,000 respondents.
In a similar survey last year, he found that the vast majority of respondents believe climate change is happening but are divided on the degree to which humans are responsible.
"Still almost 90 per cent of respondents this year accept that climate change is happening and they are very close to evenly split between those who say they think that humans are largely causing it and those that think it's [largely] a natural fluctuation," he said.
His survey also found the number of people who do not think climate change is happening is about 7.4 per cent.
The balance say they have "no idea" if it is happening.
Professor Walker says his preliminary findings suggest there is a slight shift towards people thinking natural causes play a greater role in climate change.
"But overall, people still think that climate change is important. It worries them. They believe that climate change will harm them personally," he said.
Professor Walker's findings on the robustness of attitudes on climate change in the face of high profile debate on science and policy are supported by other detailed surveys.
"If it has changed them it's changed them very modestly," said Dr Joseph Reser of Griffith University, who has just collected data from a survey of 11,000 people also first surveyed 12 months ago.
Dr Reser - who is participating with Professor Walker in a University of Melbourne climate change roundtable this week - says comparable European and North American research also supports these findings.
Last year Dr Reser found 90 per cent of people agreed there was "some level" of human causal contribution to climate change.
He says attitudes to the cause of climate change can be particularly tricky to survey because of the complexity of the idea of anthropogenic forcing.
He says it involves understanding that adding even a small proportion of human-induced greenhouse gas to the atmosphere causes a tipping point for climate change.
Professor Walker says given the uncertainty surrounding people's views on causation, his and Dr Reser's findings on this question are consistent, and show that very few people believe humans play no role at all. *Carbon tax issue* 
Professor Walker also asked 530 people this year about their views on the Federal Government's response to climate change.
The survey found 11 per cent thought the Government was doing too much; 21 per cent thought it was doing enough; 27 per cent thought it was not doing enough and 41 per cent thought it was doing the "wrong thing".
In 2010, Dr Reser found that only 16 per cent trusted the Government to take appropriate action.
He found people wanted big business and governments to be responsible for responding to climate change, and were happy to have taxpayers money spent on tackling it.
Professor Walker says a survey he carried out earlier this year suggested that people supported a price on carbon if it was associated with compensation for households.
"You can vary the degree of support for a proposed price on carbon from about a third up to a half of the population, depending on how you phrase the question," he said. *Dodgy polls* 
Dr Susie Burke of the Australian Psychological Society has written an article about surveying Australians' climate change concern in the Society's magazine InPsych.
She says surveys such as those by Dr Reser and Professor Walker are more reliable than many we might hear about.
"There are different quality surveys," she said.
She says the surveys conducted by Dr Reser and Professor Walker involve a representative population given time to reflect and consider questions.
People's answers are also validated by asking a number of questions on the same topic.
"That gives us greater confidence that this is truly reflecting their attitudes rather than being the way in which the question is worded that has influenced their answer," she said.
By comparison, she says well-publicised overnight media polls tend to be done on the telephone and elicit "off the cuff" responses.
She says the way questions are framed in these polls can be problematic because they can be a complex mix of science and policy and can arouse emotions at the same time.
One example, she says, is asking whether people agree with the statement: "Until we are sure that global warming is really a problem, we should not take steps that would have economic costs."
"It's totally loaded," she said. 
"Doubt is being raised and arouses their fear and anxiety, risk and controversy.
"It can be an unfortunate mistake, but it can also be used deliberately to be measure a more fear based response in people rather than their underlying attitudes and beliefs." *Topics:* climate-change, environment, science-and-technology, research, australia

----------


## Rod Dyson

> From the ABC website, although the carbon tax does not have wonderful support it would seem that the populations view on climate change is quite different with only a very small percentage that do not believe it exists.

  Sheez anyone who doubts climate change is an absolute nutter. 
We all know climate constantly changes.  At least I thought we ALL knew. 
JohnC I would like to get Geno62's thoughts on this.

----------


## chromis

You guys still going with this thread! Well at least you have stamina.  
Has anyone thought to call Guinness book of records. This could be a contender for the longest running forum discussion in the history of the internet.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You guys still going with this thread! Well at least you have stamina.  
> Has anyone thought to call Guinness book of records. This could be a contender for the longest running forum discussion in the history of the internet.

  A quick googlebing will demonstrate that this thread is a mere pup compared to some of the true contenders.... 
But at least we made this one in true DIY fashion.  Looking a bit dated now and could do with some renovation....and some serious junk removal.  But it is still....ours.

----------


## Marc

« Some climate change news you may have missed this week. | 	Main 	| Employment number you will not see on your TV tonight »  *January 07, 2011*  *The Internet killed  anthropogenic global warming hysteria* 
 	 	 		 			Russ Steele 
Writing at Master Resource Blog, Robert Michaels suggest that anthropogenic global-warming alarmism has died and attributes this early death to the Internet: _The end of climate science and the  fall of climate politics could never have happened in a world of  typewriters, faxes and three TV networks. Cheap telecom and the Internet  brought it about, as any document that mattered became available with a  Google inquiry and a mouse click. The East Anglia guys were still  living in a world of paper journals. Nowadays all the peer reviews that  matter come quickly by dozens to anyone who posts something worth (or  not worth) reading. Lots of junk turns up, but thats the freight for  information that flows so cheaply and freely._ _This is really good news. It means  that we will probably never see another mass hysteria that achieves the  dimensions of global warming and carbon abatement policy  unless of  course its real._
 Remember how the Internet caused the demise of Dan Rather's career as  an investigative CBS Reporter when he got nailed over the well  investigated letters about George Bushs military career.  He was  busted in less than 24 hours by guys and gals in their pajamas using the  Internet,  because the fonts used in those "well investigated letters'  didnt exist at the time of the dates on the letters?
 In the anthropogenic global warming case it was the Internet blogs  that became the alternative news sources, as the lame stream press  ignored Climategate. They refused to publish the results independent  investigations which had determined that the UN IPCCs iconic Hockey  Stick temperature was busted. Now, the Courts have insisted that the  Hockey Stick author turn over his e-mails to the Virginia Attorney  General.   Those Internet e-mails maybe the smoking gun to prove that  anthropogenic global warming is just scientific fraud, or worce an out  right hoax. Long live the Internet.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The end of climate science and the fall of climate politics could never have happened in a world of typewriters, faxes and three TV networks.

  One could strongly argue that it'd never have got started either.   
Mind you....saying that the end of climate science and climate politics has happened is a very very large load of wishful thinking.  Both are very very much alive and thriving......for better or worse.

----------


## Marc

> Both are very very much alive and thriving......for better or worse.

  Because of the nature of my work I get to talk to dozen of people from all walks of live every day. I can tell you that the interest in the topic and the "support" for green ideas including green revenge has faded. Basically no one gives a c%#p about Global warming.
Only the marginal and the extreme agitators remain to hold the flagpole up.
Not for long.
The business has dried up. 
I am very interested in what will be next.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Only the marginal and the extreme agitators remain to hold the flagpole up.
> Not for long.
> The business has dried up. 
> I am very interested in what will be next.

  Too true mate. 
Apologies to all our flagpole holders here who have no doubt been missing my factual and informative posts on the farcical failure once known as the AGW hypothesis hysteria.  :Biggrin:  
I have been very busy helping to take down the inept few who would foist an environmentally useless and economically destructive TAX on us Aussies. 
JuLLIAR's days are numbered, and they'll dump her stupid TAX when they dump her (it'll be called a "review to rebuild community consensus", or a similar spin). My money's on Crean, but there's late money for Smith and his nice guy image as a temporary stooge to cop the flak as "the man who knifed our first female PM".  :Biggrin:  
I'll try to get the two dump scenario's up soon, then we can all see how this TAX scam will go the way of the dodo.  The reason's for the Carbon Dioxide TAX dying are hilarious, because they are not the reality which is that the TAX is a farce.  
But hey, why quibble over semantics, dead is dead.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> "Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. "These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets," the authors write.  Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists | Science | The Guardian    I always thought they were called little green men because of their skin colour.  
> Geez I'm naive sometimes, I should have figured this meant they were aligned with the "greenies" on this Planet too.  
> I guess these guys never saw Aliens Vs Predator!

  
What's Arnie thinking in this photo:   
That's right, he's thinking "Damn, I wish I had some Carbon Credit Certificates so I could show this dude who's boss!".   :Roflmao2:

----------


## Dr Freud

> There is nothing decent about linking the Truckies protest with what is happening in detention centres.

  You think this is not decent?  
But you happily sit silently by while greenie propaganda pieces show children being swept away by raging storms, children being hung from the neck, children being blown up into bloody bits, all designed to terrify kids through emotional blackmail to "believe" in this doomsday cult.  And psychologists across the country have indicated that Aussie children are being traumatised by the actual school curriculum that preaches more of this fear to our kids, all sanctioned by JuLIAR. 
And yet when I try to clarify what our governments definition of "extremist" is when it starts accusing innocent Australian citizens of this for exercising their right to free speech, while *not* using this label for the other violent criminal behaviours I highlighted, you think I'm being indecent?  :Doh:  
Luckily we live in a free country and you are free to express your opinion.  I'll respectfully disagree.   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I agree..however the original post was back in April (missed).....and its removal will require severe editing of subsequent posts.....bit too hard.

  I learned long ago that arguing with the umpire is not a good idea.  :Wink 1:  
I'll have to find some more creative ways of presenting my factually correct information in an entertaining way.  :Biggrin:  
Aramaic perhaps?  :Eek:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The ridge tile thrower isn't a link, it is a paste. (bottom photo)

  See now, if you describe in words what was in the picture, then people will still know what was happening after the picture is removed.  :Doh:  
A picture paints a thousand words, but your thirteen words paints a picture. 
You should have just said "Delete the bottom photo as it is a cut and paste".  :2thumbsup:  
Just trying to help as part of my penance.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> In defence of Dr Freud, I thought the picture was okay.  It certainly helped to show other readers that his interest in *AGW is mostly (purely?) political and little (or nothing?) to do with the actual science.*

  You hit the nail on the head champ. 
It should be apparent to all by now that this little *AGW hypothesis scam is mostly (purely?) political and little (or nothing?) to do with the actual science.* 
I'm glad you are finally picking up on this.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> SO, you agree that the recent temperature rise is quite high and something of the order of that last seen about 10,000 years ago?

  Agree with whose opinion? 
Why don't you take a look for yourself, then [S]answer[/S] correct your own question:   

> And I wonder what caused all the climate change that has happened naturally for billions of years?  Hotter and colder, wetter and drier, windier and calmer, cloudier and clearer, all caused because us Aussies didn't pay enough TAX apparently!  
> You can read more about climate change here:  Natural Climate Cycles - Wry Heat  
> And specifically about some of the astrophysical contributors to climate change here:  Ice Ages and Glacial Epochs - Wry Heat

  And you know how I hate being regularly and falsely accused of "cherry-picking" by the grossly misinformed, so here is some context to keep those accusations at bay:   

> The climate has been changing for about 4.5 billion years. 
> Here's the last little bit of that just in case you forgot:    
> So, how far back do they (and you?) want to turn it? 
> Back to when it was 10 degrees celsius warmer in the past?  
> Apologies for "cherry-picking" only 600 million years, we haven't really got a very accurate picture on what happened for the first 4 billion years.  
> But we can focus on the the last few hundred years as we naturally emerge from the little ice age if you prefer?

  Geez, I'm such a helpful devil, aren't I?  :Devilred:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Just because the tool is powerful but (occasionally) poorly used doesn't mean the central problem is always with the tool.

  In the trades, we should never blame the tools. 
But in politics, we should always blame the tools.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm sure the Doc will be back soon.  I wonder if he is riding in a truck back to WA?

  Nah mate, couldn't afford it. 
Now that my big oil sponsors have stopped paying me, I can't afford the time off work. 
They said that seeing as JuLIAR has done a better job of killing support for this fiasco than they ever could, there's no point paying me the big bucks.  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I can tell you that the interest in the topic and the "support" for green ideas including green revenge has faded. Basically no one gives a c%#p about Global warming.

  Ohh I don't doubt that.  The general public is fickle and their attention transitory.  However, regardless of their opinions (or lack thereof), both climate science and climate politics continue at a galloping pace. 
For example, did you know that the Victorian Climate Change Act 2010 came into being on July 1?  And that it compels the Victorian Minister for the Environment and Climate Change to:
a) prepare a report on the current knowledge with respect to climate science and Victorian GHG emissions by the end of 2011 (and repeat every two years after that); and
b) prepare a Victorian Climate Change Adaptation Plan by the end of 2012 with renewal every four years after that. 
That'll keep a few scientists and politicians a little busy.... 
My point is that once something enters the realm of the Bureaucracy then it is very time consuming from a political point of view to get it ignored....no matter what the current ebb or flow of fickle public opinion.  In the end, this stuff is ingrained in the way all levels of government in Australia are currently doing business.  And their own approaches to risk management (typically in accordance with Australian and International Standards of Risk Management) don't allow them to say..........'Nah! It's all crap!'...simply because they'd fail the most simple tests of public management and put themselves and their organisations at extreme risk of financial, social and judical harm. 
When even organisations like the Business Council of Australia have a climate change response policies........then you know things are welded in. 
They might not make much money at the moment.....but they are still there.....ready to pounce.....when the mood is right or the stage is set.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> In the trades, we should never blame the tools. 
> But in politics, we should always blame the tools.

  Science is a trade.  Models are a tool of that trade. 
Politics is a trade.  Words are a tool of that trade. 
People are the common component to both.  And where the weakness usually lies...

----------


## intertd6

> Science is a trade. Models are a tool of that trade. 
> Politics is a trade. Words are a tool of that trade. 
> People are the common component to both. And where the weakness usually lies...

  zoooooooommmm straight over his head.
But on a more serious note, I'm pretty sure pollys don't have a trade union & all us hard working tradies would fall over astounded at a polly doing anything physical to earn a honest crust. Boffins on the other hand have formed groups resembling this in antarctica, like the casey union of non trades, a well liked group just because of their name.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> [S]Luckily we live in a free country and you are free to express your opinion.[/S]

  Let's see what happens to those who speak out against JuLIAR and her Carbon Dioxide TAX. 
Her communist propaganda and censorial nature is now in full swing for who threaten her dictatorial regime, regardless of it's shameless ineptitude. 
You wonder why no-one who needs their pay check dares to speak out against her inept Carbon Dioxide TAX farce. 
Let's take a look at some of the treatment meted out by her our fellow "sceptics".   

> Brendan ONeill on the sliming of the sceptics:  _HAS any intellectual current ever been so disparaged and demonised, so ferociously harangued by the chattering classes, as climate-change scepticism?_  _Every slur in the book has been hurled at those who dare to question climate-change orthodoxies._  _Theyve been compared to Holocaust deniers. Theyve been branded psychologically disordered. They only use their reptilian brain, says one eco-author, which means their outlook on climate change is not modulated by logic, reason or reflective thought, Al Gore says._  _And now, putting the icing on this cake of abuse, Gore has compared climate-change sceptics to racists_  _In their pathologisation, demoralisation and even criminalisation of dissent, greens unwittingly expose their deeply censorious, inquisitorial instincts.   Demonising dissent | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  And here's the thanks Bolta gets for his efforts speaking out against this fiasco:   

> The Prime Minister overstepped the line when she called the chairman and CEO of News Limited, John Hartigan. 
>   Calls that look like an attempt at censorship have many sinister overtones, with threats of inquiries and forced sales left hanging in the air. 
>   And I ask her: What are you so afraid of? What else would you stoop to in order to cling to power? 
>   Yesterday morning I was considering resigning as a News Limited columnist. 
>  I thought this company that I love, that I have long admired for its defence of free speech, had caved in to pressure from a Prime Minister to close down reporting of a matter of public interest.   *This, then, is how news can be kept from the public.* 
>   Not being able to report on what I consider improper pressure by a desperate Prime Minister to kill a story meant I could not report fairly on the political scene as I saw it. 
>  I could not do my job, and I consulted friends about resigning. I am now told that News Limited was just being cautious while it checked its legal position. Hartigan told me: At no stage is my job to stop stories getting into papers. 
>   No, it was the Australian Prime Minister who, in my opinion, tried to do that.  
>  I thank News Limited for defying the Prime Minister and letting me write as I have above. 
> ...

  The Australian and Andrew Bolt have been the most outspoken critics of the Carbon Dioxide TAX, and they are now being attacked personally and angrily over the telephone by the Prime Minister. 
Read the full article, then wonder how much is kept from you about the Carbon Dioxide TAX? 
How much pressure is being placed on journalists weaker than Andrew Bolt, who just capitulate without retort? 
So much for free speech.  :Doh:  
Just pay your extra taxes and shut up!

----------


## Dr Freud

The irony is overwhelming! 
JuLIAR said "There will be no Carbon TAX under the government I lead". 
She lied! 
This was very damaging but didn't lead to her political death. 
The next big lies did.   

> Labor is in a dreadful state. Caucus is confused, frightened, demoralised. It's starting to fight over asylum-seeker policy and what should be done about manufacturing. Then there's the Craig Thomson affair. Bomb throwers are everywhere; some inside Labor, a lot in sections of the media. 
> Former Labor minister Graham Richardson, a media player who still fancies himself as a power broker, declared there was ''no way'' Gillard could turn the situation around. He predicted her government would fall next year, brought down by independent Andrew Wilkie over poker machines. Gillard and Labor losing their head and their nerve

  JuLIAR is gone, and with her will go the TAX, but not because of her lies about the TAX. 
All of this is because of all her other LIES!

----------


## Dr Freud

The Carbon Dioxide TAX is a huge disaster for this country, but it is now dwarfed by the scale of total political incompetence. 
See where it fit's in:   

> Labor insiders said the discontent with the Prime Minister's leadership was deeper with the back bench than it was with the factional leaders.
>  "The people who put her in are struggling to admit that they made a mistake," one MP said.
>  Another MP likened the prevailing mindset among the federal party's leadership to a *cult of denial.*
>  "There is more Kool Aid being drunk up in Canberra that at Jonestown," one MP remarked.
>  The MP said that the calibre of the staff in the PM's private office was a matter of deep concern to MPs.
>  "The people around her have no political judgment," one MP said.
>  "The wattles they wore at the signing with the Greens, *the carbon tax*, the Malaysian solution ... it just goes on."
> The majority of Labor MPs contacted by the Sunday Herald Sun conceded that Ms Gillard could not be assured of remaining as leader of the Labor Party in the long term without a radical reprioritisation of the Government's policies.
>  "We're like a flock of sheep or a herd of cattle, milling around, not quite sure where to go," one MP said.
> ...

  Labor themselves are now admitting this TAX is TOXIC and CULTIST, and will dump it as soon as they dump JuLIAR!  :Biggrin:  
They will all do this happily, just to negate Abbott's next campaign message of "A bad TAX based on a LIE!".

----------


## Dr Freud

> The primary vote is stuck in the 20s. The missteps and blunders are piling up. The party's leader is so despised by sections of the community that it can't even get credit for the things it gets right.
>               Speaking to Labor elders outside the Parliament this week, many were utterly bereft of hope. ''I feel absolutely despairing about the whole situation,'' said one. *''There's a fair risk that Julia will turn out to be the double bill of the first female prime minister and the last Labor prime minister.''*
>               Think that's overly dramatic? Perhaps, but such is the level of despondency from people who have been around politics for a very long time indeed. 
> At her press conference on Thursday, there were puffy dark circles under her eyes. You could see she knew the scale of the damage.              
> As usual, Tony Abbott had a killer line to sum it up. ''This is a government which this morning is almost dying of shame at its own incompetence.''
>               The blow to Gillard had another dimension, though.
>               Labor MPs in marginal seats have long pinned hopes for a recovery on stopping the boats. They believe the issue has done more damage to them than any other - including the carbon tax.
> This is not to say that there will be a leadership change. Many in Labor's ranks are still convinced it would simply compound the party's agonies. *The party has to pass its carbon tax.* But desperation and panic can set in rapidly as an election looms.  Labor losing its head

  I personally think the Carbon Dioxide TAX lies will ultimately prove much more damaging than all the other lies. 
But it amazes me that there are journalists out there that actually think ramming this rancid TAX down Aussies throats against their will after lying to them constantly will make JuLIAR popular?  :Doh:  
If Labor does do this, they may be relegated to the dustbin of history. 
This would be a tragedy, as this country needs a viable opposition.  The current Labor iteration are a debacle, but at their best, they are a valuable part of our democracy.   
God forbid if the Greens ever take over the left wing space.  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

The Australian, Andrew Bolt, and Glenn Milne. 
Some of the strongest critics highlighting JuLIAR's lies over the Carbon Dioxide TAX, and the environmentally useless and economically destructive nature of it.   

> Labor and Gillard personally are at something of a turning point. The question dominating federal politics is will Gillard persist with her disastrous strategy of ramming a carbon tax down the throats of a resistant electorate? Or has she recognised her best chance of retaining her job is to show she is capable of addressing the issues that really matter to voters; economic uncertainty, cost of living and border security?  
> Gillard will not entirely vacate the field on carbon tax; to do so would be to admit humiliating defeat to Tony Abbott. But she now appears belatedly to be preparing to change the focus of the national conversation. If this is so, the reaction within the Labor caucus will be one of blessed relief. There is an emerging view on the backbench that anti-carbon tax sentiment is so entrenched among voters that to persist with the hard sell of the past two weeks will only further embed that sentiment, if that's possible. The caucus has come to the view the carbon tax is irrelevant to the everyday concerns dominating the electorate's psyche. Indeed its irrelevance to those concerns only serves to aggravate the anger towards it.   Get out of perpetual election mode and just govern | The Australian

  Now Milne too gets his payback, direct from the lunatic raging from a desperate woman clinging to power for powers sake:   

> Sacked for something he said somewhere else? This is star-chamber stuff:    _VETERAN political journalist Glenn Milne has been dumped from ABC TVs The Insiders because of a column he wrote in News Ltds The Australian.  
> The column, retracted in full after furious demands from Julia Gillard, made claims about the Prime Ministers one-time relationship with former unionist Bruce Wilson, the embezzlement of union funds and his eventual fraud conviction.  
> Milne was told he would no longer be part of future episodes of the program on Thursday evening after a meeting by the ABCs news management team._  _The ABCs head of policy, Alan Sunderland told The Sun-Herald, last night that Milne had not been sacked ... because we dont employ him and never have but confirmed the column had been the catalyst for the decision to cancel his scheduled appearance on the show this morning.__Disgraceful. _  _The ABC should at least answer this: were any calls made to the ABC about Milne by Gillard, Communications Minister Steve Conroy or anyone speaking on their behalf?_  _UPDATE_  _Professor Sinclair Davidson sums up: _   _Government owned media organisation bans government critic__UPDATE_  _Double standards, says Gavin Atkins, giving examples._  _Indeed, why is Bob Ellis still allowed to write for and appear on this newly censorious ABC, given his own dishing of dirt?: _  _ 
> That notoriety was dramatically boosted by the case brought by Treasurer Peter Costello and wife Tanya, and Tony and Margaret Abbott, who alleged they were all defamed by a passage in Goodbye Jerusalem. Its a story supposedly recounted to Ellis by former State Labor MP Rodney Cavalier, alleging that in the distant past of university days, a long-haired Peter Costello, and the young political firebrand Tony Abbott, were both in the right wing of the Labor Party till Tanya Coleman slept with both, married one of them, and induced them into the Young Liberals. The story was completely untrue.__Is the difference that Ellis merely slimed a Liberal politician, while Milne alarmed a Labor one? _   _ABC confirms: it was what Milne said about Gillard | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

  __ 
The message is well and truly sent to journalists, if you criticise JuLIAR or her useless and inept Carbon Dioxide TAX, your livelihood will be personally threatened by the Prime Minister of Australia. 
On the Insiders program on ABC this morning, 3 of the 4 journalists agreed that a PM personally shutting down legitimate stories they don't like is fine.  
This is scary stuff.  
One of these 3 journalists present used to think so:    

> John Howard has the loudest voice in Australia. He has cowed his critics, muffled the press, intimidated the ABC, gagged scientists, silenced NGOs, censored the arts, prosecuted leakers, criminalised protest and curtailed parliamentary scrutiny.  Though touted as a contest of values, this has been a party-political assault on Australia's liberal culture. In the name of "balance", the Liberal Party has muscled its way into the intellectual life of the country. And this has happened because we let it happen. Once again, Howard has shown his superb grasp of Australia as it really is. In _His Master's Voice_, David Marr investigates both a decade of suppression and the strange willingness of Australians to watch, with such little angst, their liberties drift away.
>  "More than any law, any failure of the Opposition or individual act of bastardry over the last decade, what's done most to gag democracy in this country is the sense that debating John Howard gets us nowhere." David Marr, _His Master's Voice_   _His Master_

     
But maybe now that he realises his paycheck is threatened, like it *wasn't* under Howard, he's a bit more compliant?

----------


## Dr Freud

The benefit: 1/4000 th of a degree. 
The cost: Tens of billions and billions of dollars. 
The best part: The benefit disappears in less than a day as the rest of the world increases CO2 emissions and laughs at us!  :Laughing1:   

> Congratulations. With your encouragement, the warmist _Sunday Age_ is forced to answer The Question about tackling global warming.  It asked readers to help guide its coverage, and Jason Fongs question topped its poll:  _The very point of Australias carbon tax is to reduce global warming. How much will reducing 5% of Australias around 1.5% contribution of global CO2 emissions reduce global temperature by? If the amount is negligible (which it is), then given the present economic turbulence, what is the probability of Australias carbon tax inspiring major emitters like USA, China and India to make ACTUAL cuts to their C02 emissions (as opposed to mere carbon intensity) and economic growth? - -Jason Fong, _ _The Sunday Age today gives the answer:  _   _Victoria University climate scientist Professor Roger Jones has calculated that if the rest of the world did not act and Australia reduced emissions until 2020, then did nothing else, Australias policy would knock 0.0038 degrees off the global temperature rise by 2100. _  _One-three hundredth Not quite one-four thousandth of a degree. Provided the climate really is as responsive to carbon dioxide emissions as claimed._  _It really doesnt seem worth the pain, does it, when China and other giant emitters wont cut their own emissions?_  _(UPDATE: Thanks to the many readers who corrected my maths.)_  _ Question answered by Sunday Age | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

   
If you want to buy that, just post your credit card details and I'll get you similar value for money bargains elsewhere as well.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

The Craig Thomson scandal is likely to topple this government before it's term is up, which means if it happens soon enough there will be NO Carbon Dioxide Tax.,  
But strangely, after attempts to stifle media coverage and public oversight of this TAX killing scandal, including leaving shovels and white powder with the people asking for an open investigation, the witnesses are now being silenced as well:   

> KATHY Jackson, the union leader at the centre of the controversy over Labor MP Craig Thomson, has had a breakdown and been admitted to the psychiatric unit of a Melbourne hospital. 
> Late last month, a dirt-encrusted shovel was left on the doorstep of Ms Jackson's home at 3.30am - an underworld-style suggestion that she dig her own grave.  
>               Just hours earlier, another senior union office holder, Michael Williamson (Craig Thomson's mentor) had withdrawn her authority to speak to the media.   Union boss in Thomson probe has breakdown

  And:   

> THE senior public servant ultimately responsible for the investigation into Craig Thomson and the Health Services Union is likely to avoid parliamentary scrutiny after being appointed as a commissioner of the workplace tribunal.  
>               Tim Lee, appointed by Julia Gillard in 2009 to his current role of general manager of Fair Work Australia, has been embroiled in the Thomson affair due to his long links with Labor.  
> ''One would also have to question just why Labor has, by appointing Mr Lee to the position of FWA commissioner, effectively shut down any possibility of him being questioned further at Senate estimates about the Craig Thomson inquiry.  
> The Coalition has jumped on a report that when Ms Gillard was workplace relations minister in 2009, her chief of staff, Ben Hubbard, had rung the Industrial Registrar to ask whether he was looking into claims against Mr Thomson.  
> Ms Gillard has said neither she nor Mr Hubbard has any memory of the conversation .  Former head of Thomson inquiry to avoid scrutiny

  The cover up is always worse than the crime. 
Once Thomson is gone, the Carbon Dioxide TAX will never be! 
The strange thing is, at the time this debacle started, I thought it would be the most likely issue to kill the TAX. 
But now if JuLIAR goes first because of her sheer incompetence, then the TAX will be long gone before Thomson even gets a chance to kill it.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

See what treatment is meted out against those who speak out against this TAX and the oppressive government that want's you to pay it!   

> *ABC Insiders disgrace* 
>  			By Andrew McIntyre  			 				* Not just Milne silenced, but they gag the talent too* ** 
>  Without having read the news about the silencing of Gillard government critic Glenn Milne by taking him off the Insiders that he was scheduled to appear on this morning, I was appalled at the behaviour of host Barry Cassidy, and David Marr and Annabel Crabb when Cassidy actually asked Michael Sutchburry to explain why _The Australian_ had run the old story about Julia Gillards relationship with former unionist Bruce Wilson and his eventual conviction for the embezzlement of union funds .  
>  Stutchbury tried many times to answer and was literally talked over and shouted down by the other guests as to why he thought the story, in context, was fair comment. Barry Cassidy, having asked the question, chose not to intervene, and having had Stutchburys answer satisfactorily obfuscated, then announced that they had to move on.  
>  Not content at having got rid of one commentator for expressing views disapproved of not just by the Prime Minster, but by the ABC  many are wondering exactly why and by whom  Cassidy allows the stifling of the one view, the one explanation the viewers might just have been interested in listening to.  
>  What a disgrace.  ABC Insiders disgrace « andrewmcintyre.org

  Disgrace is an understatement. 
Prime Ministerial driven censorship of free speech is closer, all to protect LIES like this massive tax we will all likely be paying soon. 
What other information about this tax are we not being told? 
Who else has been silenced from telling the truth by JuLIAR and her union thug cronies? 
Just to make all of us innocent Aussies pay a useless TAX!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

So will the rest of the world follow the USA, or us Aussies?   

> Is anyone still claiming the United States, inspired by Australias noble sacrifice, will hit its own economy with a carbon dioxide tax or emissions trading, too? 
>   Alan RM Jones lays out a few new home truths:   _The (US) job market hit a wall in August, signaling economic stagnation as government retrenches and businesses hunker down. _  _The nations unemployment rate was unchanged in August. In addition, virtually zero jobs were added to the economy. _  _The U.S. economy neither added nor lost jobs during the month, the worst performance since last September, the Labor Department said.... The unemployment rate remained steady at 9.1%, but with such a poor pace of job creation its likely to move higher in the coming months.__So what did the Obama administration do in response?_  _President Barack Obama, citing the struggling economy, asked the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday to withdraw an air-quality rule that Republicans and business groups said would cost millions of jobs._  _The surprise movecoming on the same day as a dismal unemployment reportreflected the energy industrys importance as a rare bright spot in adding U.S. jobs. The tighter standards for smog-forming ozone could have forced states and cities to limit some oil-and-gas projects._ _America put a price on carbon, too? Tell em theyre dreaming._  _ US in no mood to follow our useless lead | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

   
The USA is winding back actual pollution laws for economic reasons. 
What are the chances of them introducing economically crippling laws to reduce natural and healthy plant food that humans actually breathe out? 
This cult has run it's course. 
Reality triumphs yet again.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

JuLIAR has been caught out frantically trying to silence debate from those who have been most critical of her Carbon Dioxide TAX lies and ineptitude. 
She is failing miserably and has been shown to be a shrew of the highest order in her attempts. 
But the fascientists started long before JuLIAR's frantic efforts.  

> Wolfgang Wagner resigns as editor-in-chief of _Remote Sensing_   because a sceptical paper was published without warmists getting yet another chance to close it down. As he explains:   _The managing editor of Remote Sensing selected three senior scientists from renowned US universities, each of them having an impressive publication record. Their reviews had an apparently good technical standard and suggested one major revision, one minor revision and one accept as is. The authors revised their paper according to the comments made by the reviewers and, consequently, the editorial board member who handled this paper accepted the paper (and could in fact not have done otherwise). Therefore, from a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors._This is not how peer review is meant to work in global warming circles. Its generally been warmists reviewing warmists, and rejecting sceptics, to preserve the consensus. 
>  To demonstrate, heres an email revealed in the Climategate scandal, from the University of East Anglias Phil Jones to Michael Hockey Stick Mann  _ I cant see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !_ Another example:  _When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the consensus reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley ("one of the worlds foremost experts on climate change") suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to get him ousted._ As Professor Edward Wegman concluded after his committee inquired into the Mann hockey stick and the nature peer review in global warming circles:  _One of the interesting questions associated with the "hockey stick controversy are the relationships among the authors and consequently how confident one can be in the peer review process. In particular, if there is a tight relationship among the authors and there are not a large number of individuals engaged in a particular topic area, then one may suspect that the peer review process does not fully vet papers before they are published_  _However, it is immediately clear that the Mann, Rutherford, Jones, Osborn, Briffa, Bradley and Hughes form a clique, each interacting with all of the others. A clique is a fully connected subgraph, meaning everyone in the clique interacts with every one else in the clique._His report added:   _ 
>  Of course, if a given discipline area is small and the authors in the area are tightly coupled, then this process is likely to turn up very sympathetic referees. These referees may have coauthored other papers with a given author. They may believe they know that authors other writings well enough that errors can continue to propagate and indeed be reinforced._In the Mann hockey stick shambles, for instance, Wegman found there were just 43 climate scientists in the world acting as gatekeepers. 
>  But now the cliques power is breaking down. Who could have dreamed that the editor of scientific journal could accidentally send a paper to three reviewers who each share to some except the scepticism of the two authors? 
>   Must be many more sceptics around than you are told. 
>  Heres what Id like to know. Did it ever trouble Wagner when, in the past, the papers of warmists were reviewed only by fellow warmists, as in the Mann case? And why resign now when the paper itself has not been proven wrong? 
>   Wagner says only:  _In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal._But Dr Roy Spencer says this is nonsense:  _But the paper WAS precisely addressing the scientific arguments made by our opponents, and showing why they are wrong! That was the papers starting point! We dealt with specifics, numbers, calculationswhile our critics only use generalities and talking points. There is no contest, as far as I can see, in this debate. If you have some physics or radiative transfer background, read the evidence we present, the paper we were responding to, and decide for yourself.  
> If some scientists would like do demonstrate in their own peer-reviewed paper where *anything* we wrote was incorrect, they should submit a paper for publication. Instead, it appears the IPCC gatekeepers have once again put pressure on a journal for daring to publish anything that might hurt the IPCCs politically immovable position that climate change is almost entirely human-caused. I can see no other explanation for an editor resigning in such a situation._Professor Roger Pielke Snr is right: _Wagner also writes three reviewers .. probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors.  First, he fails to define what is a climate sceptic. If this litmus test was required of all referees (that they have to be correct in their views of climate science), then the review process itself has failed._(Via Watts Up With That.)     http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...the_consensus/

  Time is always on the side of truth.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

I thought there were two moronic issues that would destroy this ridiculous TAX: 
Craig Thomson; and 
Andrew Wilkie. 
But JuLIAR has made herself the third, and the hot favourite at that.   

> JULIA Gillards leadership could be over in just a few weeks. Shes suddenly out of tricks and out of time.   
> She is simply incompetent.  
> Another reputation Gillard will never shake is that shes untrustworthy. No other Prime Minister has stolen an election with such a brazen fraud as her there will be no carbon tax promise.  
>  In May, at the Victorian Labor conference, she told her already jittery party she just needed the two years before the next election to turn around the polls.    
>  It was an appeal for time - time to destroy the Coalitions scare campaign against her carbon dioxide tax, to be introduced next July.    
>  Her theory overlooked two big problems. One is that it assumed Gillard would not make more mistakes in the meantime.    
>   Oops.    
>   The other is that it assumed she actually did have two years.    
>   False.    
> ...

  I would have preferred that this ridiculous TAX died on it's own lack of merit, but this government is so incompetent, the TAX will just be collateral damage in the far greater destruction through ineptitude.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

The USA has had enough of this sh--.   

> House Republicans are demanding White House paperwork related to a $535 million loan guarantee to a solar company that shut down this week.  
> The Republicans are probing the White House role in the 2009 federal loan guarantee to Solyndra Inc., a California solar panel manufacturing company that *ceased operations and is filing for bankruptcy*, resulting in 1,100 layoffs. 
> The shutdown is a bit of an embarrassment for the administration, as the company was the first selected to receive the loan guarantee under a stimulus-backed renewable energy program. President Obama visited the company just more than a year ago to tout White House green energy efforts.   GOP wants White House papers on loan to failed solar company - The Hill's E2-Wire

  Hopefully so have we.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Try to figure this out. 
Pro-Carbon Dioxide Tax media outlet starts an adverse story about the PM, and receives ZERO payback, not a word said against them. 
Then a few anti-Carbon Dioxide Tax media outlets carry this same story and get this reaction:   

> I think screaming at News Ltd executives, demanding permanent bans on them reporting embarrassing information and and then publicly suggesting they are liars is not a good media strategy:   _APPROACHING 8am last Monday, John Hartigan was walking into his office after a session of boxing, stairs and weights at a park in Sydneys inner-city Glebe when his mobile phone rang. It was Julia Gillard._  *I presume you know why Im calling, the Prime Minister said.*  _Hartigan, chairman and chief executive of News Limited, had no idea. He soon did, as the Prime Minister voiced her displeasure at the publication that morning in The Australian of a column by Glenn Milne, which revived 16-year-old allegations about Gillards one-time relationship with former unionist Bruce Wilson._  *According to Hartigan, Gillard put a series of demands that she wanted addressed in 15 minutes. The deadline was later pushed back to 9am.*  *As well as a public apology and the Milne article being taken offline, she wanted a commitment that the allegations never be repeated again in The Australian. This demand was later extended to all News Limited newspapers and their websites*  _Hartigan told Gillard he would speak to Chris Mitchell, The Australians editor-in chief._  _Mitchell was at his Manly property on Sydneys northern beaches reading the morning newspapers and drinking tea when Hartigan called and asked him to ring Gillard._  _When Mitchell rang and spoke to the Prime Minister, he said, she was apoplectic. He had been on the end of verbal sprays from Paul Keating, he said, but they were nothing compared to this._  _Asked yesterday for comment regarding the accounts given by Hartigan and Mitchell, a spokesman for the Prime Minister released a one-paragraph statement last night that read: Those accounts of the conversations are false and inaccurate. Considering what The Australian has already published this week, thats hardly surprising._The paranoia is astonishing:  _According to Mitchell, a furious Gillard told him she believed Bolt and Milne had worked together to circumvent her understanding with Hartigan and get the allegations back in the public arena._  _She believed Milne was in league with Bolt and we had published this because Bolt and Milne had cooked it up between themselves to get it in the paper, Mitchell said. The irony is that it was Fairfax (through 2UEs Smith) that started it all._  _Bolt said yesterday he had zero contact with Glenn Milne. There is no vast right-wing conspiracy against the Prime Minister, he said._Vast right-wing conspiracy detected by PM conspiring to bury bad news | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  
She's lost the plot! Next thing you know she'll be abusing high court judges.  :Doh:  
One day these journalists and judges will learn how communism is supposed to work and they'll stop f---ing with JuLIAR's system of government.  Then we can all just pay heaps of TAX painted green to cover up her financial ineptitude.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Could Thomson's income tax bill actually kill the Carbon Dioxide Tax Bill in the parliament?   

> *A TAX bill of about $250,000 could await whoever was responsible for the use of embattled Labor MP Craig Thomson's Health Services Union credit card. *  			 		 		An investigation for _The Daily Telegraph_ by former Australian Taxation Office senior auditor Chris Seage has estimated that whoever used his card from 2002 to 2007 owes $239,818 to the ATO.  
> The total bill is made up of $132,520 in tax payable on omitted income, $34,270 in penalties and $73,028 in interest charges dating back to 2002. The figures have been verified by accounting firm Charge Thoo & Co.  
> The new assessment presents a potential fresh element to the affair. The ALP made a payment of $150,000 to Mr Thomson in March to prevent him from going bankrupt.
> Mr Thomson's financial solvency is critical to the future of the Gillard government and its wafer-thin majority, because serving MPs cannot be bankrupt.  
> Ironically, the ALP's bailout of Mr Thomson to pay his legal fees has created a new potential drain on his finances, with several sources acknowledging the payment will now be tax assessable.  
> Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten, the minister responsible for the ATO, admitted in parliament last week the bailout payment was "assessable income of the person who received the payment". Mr Seage said the comments confirmed the MP would face ATO issues if the payment hadn't been declared.  
> "Adding the $150,000 bailout payment to Mr Thomson's income for 2011 would see his tax bill rise by $64,000," he said.  
> Mr Seage said bankruptcy remained a "real threat, because he wasn't able to pay a $150,000 legal bill".  Craig Thomson credit card use incurs a huge bill | thetelegraph.com.au

  Oh the irony! 
If Thompson can't pay his thousands in tax, us innocent Aussies won't have to pay billions in tax.  :Biggrin:

----------


## johnc

I fail to see how any potential tax bill for Mr Thomson, nor recycling 16 year old claims about Ms Gillard have anything to do with emissions trading or a carbon tax. Other than the Labor parties tenious position to provide the remotest link, these last few posts are nothing more than tiresome and rather petty political comments.

----------


## Marc

Shame on you Freud for digging up such political pettiness, this has nothing to do with Global Warming, not one bit!!! 
I love it when people jump on their high horse telling others to stay on topic.
Always a sign of desperation. 
Besides, as stated at nauseam, A. Global Warming, climate change and its other bastard children, are all political products from inception to grave. So since they are political, the standing of the political party/government that is peddling such abominations is particularly pertinent.
Everything that the Labor party has done since in office has been detrimental to Australia as a nation.  
I struggle to find one single solitary action that would be of any value, from the pink bats to the Malaysian solution any and each one of the "reforms" or "initiatives" should be enough to call for an election if the members of parliament had any dignity left. 
Yet they don't as we all know and those members are telling us to pay them tax in 
order to save the planet. 
Not only is the "Global Warming" scandalous fraud dead and buried, so is also the Labour Party and their representatives together with the 3 stooges and hopefully the greens also for good measure.

----------


## Marc

*Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled*    Comments Email Twitter inShare70 Lawrence Solomon                  Aug 26, 2011 – 11:37 PM ET                                  | *Last Updated: Aug 27, 2011 10:08 PM ET*  _New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans_
 The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new  evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming  doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays  and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of  climate on Earth. 
 The research, published with little fanfare this week in the  prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the  European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest  centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000  scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN  is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the  multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a  pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the  Earth’s atmosphere. 
 In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American  institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be  done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules  that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and  thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how  many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s  magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from  space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth. 
 The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the  sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to  the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two  scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996  scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the  theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely  naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory,  any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes  presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified,  marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific  credentials. 
 The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked  brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor  of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be  cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of  the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN  conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance.  Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s  importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it  CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.” 
 But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not  realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly  shared his views with the scientific community.
 “The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a  half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we  have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in  1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in  the Earth’s temperature.
 The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the  Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded  in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation  with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken  commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to  proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly  validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory. 
 Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the  general public for years — this column will be the first that most  readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending  its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly  decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the  highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to  present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the  results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many  parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in  bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the  print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those  who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking  potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds. 
 CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the  Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate science won’t  yet permit a celebration of the find.
 Financial Post LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com _- Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe  and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up  against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud._
 First of two parts. Next week: The end of the global warming debate.
 To see the striking graph that _the journal Nature_ withheld from its print edition, click here. 
                                           Posted in: FP Comment                  Tags: CERN, Climate change, climate change scandal, CLOUD, cosmic radiation, cosmic rays, global warming, global warming scandal, Kirkby, Lawrence Solomon

----------


## chrisp

> Global Warming, climate change and its other bastard children, are all political products from inception to grave.

   

> _New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun  not humans_

   :Confused:

----------


## Marc

* The Intercept* 
A collection and transmission of data that  offers substantive contradictions, challenges and  enlightenment over the conventional drivel brought to us by mainstream/corporate media.   Successful transmissions help defuse the propaganda presented to consumers as their only choice for information. *You're Part of the Path*  *Saturday, August 6, 2011*  * Environmental Advocates Use Racism to Dismiss Global Warming Skeptics*    Reduced to desperate measures, proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) have resorted to formally identifying those who are skeptical of the global warming science as conservative white males.    
One inherent shortfall of the study is that it inadvertently celebrates  the intelligence of conservative white males and denigrates every other  race, gender and political background (including my own).   
Recently, mainstream media began the slow, tacit admission that global  warming hasn't manifested in the way it was so definitively predicted 10  years ago.   This admission was presented last month through a recent study  suggesting that Çhina's sulfur emissions were to blame for the lack of  global warming.   Blaming China wasn't enough, so scientists scrambled  to present the following two additional excuses for the foiled  predictions of the past 10 years:   Volcanoes Now Blamed for Lack of Global Warming   Aerosols Blamed for Lack of Global Warming 
Ironically, the aerosols article also blames the burning of fossil fuels  for offsetting the effect of global warming.  Fossil fuels were  initially blamed for global warming. 
To understand how a group pushing human induced climate change could be  reduced to conducting such a bizarre survey involving the socio-economic  class of those who question the science of AGW, one has to look at the  way they handle adverse information.  
On a local level, anyone can make this discovery for themselves.  For  example, If you have a group of environmentalists in your area that  refer to global warming as one of the reasons for great ideas like  localization, cleaning up the eco-sphere or reducing automobile exhaust,  introduce some of the contradictory information involving climate  change and see how they react to you. Pay close attention to the way  they try to dismiss you or shape the argument away from what you present  in support of recent conventional climate research. See if they  actually answer your questions or address the specific points you  present. Turning over this rock may involve an ugly discovery  underneath.  An article describing this study  indicates a comparison between conservative white males and the rest of  the population.  Race, gender and political affiliation aside, the  survey comes up with 39% "denying there's a scientific consensus".   White male conservatives boast a portion that is as high as 59%.  Not  only does the scientific consensus of global warming have nothing to do  with the science of global warming, the AGW movement is notorious for  suppressing skeptical scientists.   The question should be, "Who is  aware of the skeptical scientists being suppressed?"  
The AGW climate scientists' tendency to suppress alternate views was  revealed earlier through the hacked emails of the University of East  Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU).  Suppression was one red flag in  addition to suggestions for "hiding the decline" of global temperatures  and refusing requests to see the original data.   
Since this incident occurred in November of 2009, East Anglia's CRU  hired a PR firm to help with their public image after the email  scandal.  This is an unusual move by a research department because the  science is expected to hold up to public scrutiny on its own.  
In what is commonly called the "third party technique" among PR  professionals, panels were put together on three occasions to examine  the hacked emails.  The idea was to reassure the public that the inquiry  was indeed independent and trustworthy.  All three "blue ribbon panels"  exonerated East Anglia's CRU by downplaying the erroneous activity and  declaring that none of the relevant data was affected.   Unfortunately  for East Anglia, it appears that their PR department had a hand in this process. 
Common sense would have the AGW movement take its blows, distance itself  from the scientists involved with East Anglia, and allow newer cleaner  research to emerge.  Instead, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate  Change seemed hell bent on protecting the research called into question  with the hacked emails.   
For some reason, the AGW movement thought that the best tactics were to  further corrupt the peer review process, 'conspiracy bait' those who  question the severity of CO2's warming effects and chime together with  the mantra of "scientific consensus".   In the short run, this strategy  seemed to work, especially when the establishment joins in with the  motivation of another market bubble - carbon derivative scams.  Banks  love human-driven climate change.  Anthropogenic global warming enjoys  the privilege of mainstream acceptance.   When contradictory information  slips by, the story is typically interspersed with statements  reaffirming "the reality of anthropogenic global warming".  Sometimes,  the information is revealed in such a vague manner, one begins to wonder  what the initial purpose of the story was supposed to be.   
But the recent avalanche of contradictory information and discrediting  scandals seem to be overwhelming the self aggrandizing orthodoxy that is  AGW.  
As stated earlier, the scramble to find a culprit to blame for the lack  of a significant warming trend appears desperate.   Blame China, blame  volcanoes, blame aerosols, blame fossil fuels.  Worse, it appears that  the AGW movement overstepped the bounds of good PR by becoming directly involved with censorship at the BBC. 
In addition, Outside Organization, the PR firm hired by East Anglia's CRU is directly involved with Ruppert Murdoch's email hacking scandal, which involved the arrest of Outside Organization's managing director, Neil Wallis. 
Some of the effects of the PR have real consequences.  Recently, the  Interior Department was hoodwinked into listing polar bears under the  U.S. Endangered Species Act.  This was the direct result of studies and observations by a wildlife biologist named Charles Monnett,  who has been placed on administrative leave and is currently being  investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of  claims of drowning polar bears. 
Contradictory information seems to be appearing more frequently and are  less likely to fit the description of "propaganda from shills for the  oil industry".  Here are a few recent examples:  Scientists Gagged From Interpreting Study That Links Climate Change To Cosmic Rays  Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not humans  New paper: Urban Heat Island effect accounts for 56% of warming in urban areas over past 55 years   Climate change study had 'significant error': experts (Update)  NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming  UN Embarrassed by Forecast on Climate Refugees   Rural Temperatures Around Washington DC In Steep Decline   Arctic 'tipping point' may not be reached 
The tendency of the AGW crowd is to dismiss these articles (sources  included) as propaganda on behalf of the "status quo" or the "oil  industry".  Apparently, they are also making the assumption that only  white male conservatives take these articles seriously.   
Why the refusal to address public scrutiny or encourage peer review of  contradictory studies?  How could the level of willful ignorance within  the AGW crowd be reduced to using racism in an attempt to discredit  those who question the science? 
It seems to be about a race of another kind.  The disdain for scientific  discourse seems to be about a race to implement policies to reduce CO2  emissions.   Remember how we keep hearing the absurd statement that the  "debate is over" on anthropogenic global warming?  Scientists confident  in their work should always welcome scrutiny but, in this case, chastise  those for refusing to hang their hat on AGW conclusions regardless of  the contradictory data.  
While the AGW crowd has acknowledged to some extent the difference  between actual temperatures in the last 10 years and those temperatures  predicted 10 years ago, there is still this McCarthy-esque ridicule for  those who question the validity of anthropogenic global warming.  Why? 
Perhaps they know that the earth is cooling and they realize that they  had better implement their proposed CO2 curbing policies if they are to  make any claim of saving the earth.  
How does CO2 influence climate change? What level is influenced by human activity? 
Wouldn't we like to know. Unfortunately, not much will come from a bunch  of folks beating their chests and definitively assuring us that AGW is  not something that needs to be questioned. 
J.T. Waldron

----------


## Marc

Goodonyou...anyone else has found a spelling, grammar or punctuation mistake that wants to point out?
 Please, send me a letter by registered mail and I will gladly edit it out.

----------


## watson

> Goodonyou...anyone else has found a spelling, grammar or punctuation mistake that wants to point out?
>  Please, send me a letter by registered mail and I will gladly edit it out.

   :Confused:

----------


## johnc

> Goodonyou...anyone else has found a spelling, grammar or punctuation mistake that wants to point out?
> Please, send me a letter by registered mail and I will gladly edit it out.

  How do they achieve that without an address or a name?

----------


## Dr Freud

> I fail to see how any potential tax bill for Mr Thomson, nor recycling 16 year old claims about Ms Gillard have anything to do with emissions trading or a carbon tax.

  I've been trying to explain many other things that you've failed to see, but I thought this one was fairly straightforward. 
But please forgive, as I assumed this was self-evident to all involved.  Let me explain. 
The majority of seats in the House of Representatives means you are the government. 
Labor = 76
Coalition = 74 
Now, if Thomson (loses seat in by-election) or Wilkie (loses confidence from no pokie laws) switches sides, it becomes: 
Coalition = 76
Labor = 74 
Change of government means general election, which means: 
Coalition = 120
Labor = 30 
What odds on the Carbon Dioxide TAX with these numbers? 
Newspoll tomorrow will show you the rest. 
Hope that helps champ, but any grey areas left, just yell.  You know how helpful I always am.  :Biggrin:     

> these last few posts are nothing more than tiresome and rather petty political comments.

  Hopefully you're a bit more informed now, but let's check some petty political posts anyway seeing as you've raised it.  :2thumbsup:    

> He at least is easy to spot, his postings are as repetitive, obvious and predictable as the droppings in the bottom of a guinea pigs cage

   

> A fairly blinkered view there, how do you account for the massive explosion in social welfare spending by the Howard government, lets face it that is half the reason we are in deficit at the moment.

   

> Although Mr Abbot without doubt holds greater public appeal at the moment, which is interesting because it is very much a "we will do nothing" approach harking back to the past without a vision for the future which both manufacturing and small business badly need.

  *
Anything to do with emissions trading or a carbon tax?* 
You tell me.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The Gillard Government cant possibly be serious:  _AUSTRALIAN businesses and households will have to send about $650 billion overseas between 2020 and 2050 to buy permission to keep some of our coal-fired power stations and other industries operating. _  _This staggering cost is indicated in the fine print of the Treasury modelling of the Governments carbon dioxide tax and subsequent emissions trading scheme._  _The $650 billion will be to buy permits to emit CO2. _  _The permits will be bought from sellers that dont yet exist, or in markets that have yet to be formed, although the Government expects - hopes - they will develop over the next few years.  
> But this week it was reported that European police agency Europol had revealed a fraudulent trade in these so-called carbon credits in the only serious market that does operate - for the European Union - was far more widespread than previously thought and could have cost EU taxpayers up to 5 billion ($7 billion) in lost revenue in just 18 months_  _Even without any rorting, the impact on the economy of this part of the scheme will be exactly like taking $650 billion and shredding it.  
> That will be throwing away nearly $30,000 for every Australian, about $120,000 for a family of four.  
> These wasted funds could build 15 National Broadband Networks. They could build a fast train network linking every capital city five or six times over. _ UPDATE 
>   The tempation for business just to buy cheap overseas without looking too closely at the offset theyre buying will be enormous:  _PREDICTIONS that the Australian carbon price will rise once emissions trading starts in 2015 have been challenged by an analysis that found the price would slump dramatically because of an influx of cheap international permits._How many of those cheap permits will be issued by Nigeria? 
>   We wont even get a foreign aid offset:  _Mr Combet ruled out using revenue from a carbon price to meet Australias international commitments to help poorer countries tackle climate change._   Gillard’s $650 billion giveaway | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  If you factor in other economic losses, particularly GDP reductions, we are talking about a trillion dollars lost!!! 
And for what benefit? 
An alleged fraction of a degree reduction so small that thermometers can't even measure it.  :Doh:  
They are raving lunatics.  :Runaway:  
My apologies to all the other cults out there for tarnishing your reputations.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

These cultists are taking Aussies for idiots now.  :Annoyed:  
If you believe this cr@p, then you'll believe anything:   

> Do people still believe this stuff?   _  If we dont start tackling climate change, Australians will be increasingly depressed, anxious or stressed.... and more prone to substance abuse, a new report says._  _The report, A Climate of Suffering: The Real Cost of Living with Inaction on Climate Change, draws on the work of mental health experts, community practitioners and survivors of natural disasters._  _It argues that in the wake of extreme weather, such as cyclones and droughts, there is an increase in depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress and substance abuse._  _Up to one in five people were likely to suffer emotional injury, stress and despair...._  _The report, commissioned by The Climate Institute and launched at the Brain and Mind Institute by Professor Ian Hickie on Monday, argues that if we dont start reversing pollution levels, extreme weather events are likely to increase in frequency and or intensity._One fact isnt included in this study: by how much will depression levels by cut by Julia Gillards carbon dioxide tax?     Gillard’s tax will make us happier | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  So JuLIAR allows these lies to continue.  
JuLIAR wants you to believe that paying heaps of TAX and making the Planet Earth colder will leave you happy and calm.  
I think we all know that paying heaps of extra useless TAX will not leave us happier and calmer from personal experience.  
But what about making the Planet Earth colder?  Let's take a look:    

> The *Little Ice Age* (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).  
> Iceland also suffered failures of cereal crops, and people moved away from a grain-based diet.[20] The Norse colonies in Greenland starved and vanished (by the 15th century) as crops failed and livestock could not be maintained through increasingly harsh winters, though Jared Diamond noted that they had exceeded the agricultural carrying capacity before then. In North America, American Indians formed leagues in response to food shortages.[21] In Portugal, snow storms were much more frequent than today. There are reports of heavy snowfalls in the winters of 1665, 1744 and 1886.[22]  
> Many springs and summers were cold and wet, although there was great variability between years and groups of years. Crop practices throughout Europe had to be altered to adapt to the shortened, less reliable growing season, and there were many years of dearth and famine (such as the Great Famine of 13151317, although this may have been before the LIA proper).[24] According to Elizabeth Ewan and Janay Nugent, "Famines in France 1693-94, Norway 1695-96 and Sweden 1696-97 claimed roughly 10% of the population of each country. In Estonia and Finland in 1696-97, losses have been estimated at a fifth and a third of the national populations, respectively."[25] Viticulture disappeared from some northern regions. Violent storms caused massive flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent loss of large areas of land from the Danish, German and Dutch coasts.[23]   _The Little Ice Age_ by anthropology professor Brian Fagan of the University of California at Santa Barbara, tells of the plight of European peasants during the 1300 to 1850 chill: famines, hypothermia, bread riots, and the rise of despotic leaders brutalizing an increasingly dispirited peasantry. In the late 17th century, writes Fagan, agriculture had dropped off so dramatically that "Alpine villagers lived on bread made from ground nutshells mixed with barley and oat flour."   Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Gee whiz, they must have been as happy as pigs in sh-- during that blissful cold period! 
They should have increased taxes more, that would have made them happier.  :Doh:  
What a bunch of wacko's. 
And all this from the ever reputable Wikimpedingya!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

> How do they achieve that without an address or a name?

  Oh...I did not know Johnc had a sense of humor.  
"Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else." Allison Boulter

----------


## Marc

*Global Warming Alarmists in Retreat. Glaciers, Not So Much.*  Share325   *posted at 4:32 pm on January 29, 2011 by Jimmie Bise, Jr						 printer-friendly*   
 						The Church of Global Warming  has faced an uphill battle lately. The average person is not likely to  accept the message that the planet is warming and that only an  unprecedented shift of power and money to progressive policy makers will  brings things back to normal once they’ve lived through a couple  horrible winters and witnessed the massive fraud perpetrated by the  climate science community. So it has come to pass that the number of Britons who believe that global warming is both real and dangerous has shrunk rapidly in the past four years.  The number of climate change sceptics has almost doubled in four years, official research showed yesterday.
 A quarter of Britons are unconvinced that the world is warming  following successive freezing winters and a series of scandals over the  credibility of climate science.
 The figures suggest that a growing proportion of the public do not  share the belief of all three major political parties and Whitehall –  that climate change is a major and urgent challenge requiring radical  and expensive policies. According to the article, 86 percent of those surveyed were at least  “fairly convinced” that global warming was a big deal in 2006. That  number is now 75 percent and the number of those unconvinced has risen  from 12 percent to 23 percent. What’s worse for the climate science  alarmists is the part of the survey that asked if people were willing to  sacrifice to end the “crisis”. Less than half of those surveyed are  willing to switch from driving to using public transportation to help  the cause. That number drops even lower when it comes to giving up air  travel.
 The reasons people see global warming alarmists are less credible is not limited to the “Climategate” fraud or cold winters. Better scientific studies are turning the tide from faith-based politics and toward — dare I say it — a more reality-based position (via memeorandum).  Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the  ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing  rather than shrinking.
 The discovery adds a new twist to the row over whether global warming  is causing the world’s highest mountain range to lose its ice cover.
 It further challenges claims made in a 2007 report by the UN’s  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the glaciers would be  gone by 2035.
 Although the head of the panel Dr Rajendra Pachauri later admitted  the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research, he maintained  that global warming was melting the glaciers at “a rapid rate”,  threatening floods throughout north India. What’s more, the new study, which included almost 290 glaciers, showed that global warming _isn’t_  the chief reason a glacier melts, but terrain and how much debris  covers the glacier’s surface. That makes sense, if you take a few  moments and noodle it through.
 This study is just the latest scientific nail in the global warming  alarmism coffin. The general population is running away from the  alarmists and toward the far more reasonable position that the global  climate is an enormous beast whose course we can not easily nor  carelessly change but whose workings we should study more earnestly. To  quote Michael Rubin Ledeen in a different context, “Faster, please”.

----------


## Marc

June 27, 2011			 				 					*The Failure of Al Gore: Part Deux* 
 					 					 						Walter Russell Mead					 That Al Gores definitive statement on the crisis of the climate change movement appeared in the back pages of _Rolling Stone_ magazine  rather than in a more prominent and prestigious location is one sign of  the decline in his reputation.  At the peak of the climate movement,  such an essay might have appeared in _Foreign Affairs_ or any of the worlds leading newspapers.  If he had chosen _Rolling Stone_ to reach a hipper crowd, the article would likely have run as the cover story and ignited a global debate. As it was, the reaction to the most  definitive statement yet on the biggest crisis in the history of the  climate movement by its most prominent public spokesman (now that his  Nobel yoke mate Rajendra Pachauri has been hooted off the world stage as  a hot tempered poseur) was, from the former vice presidents viewpoint,  deeply disappointing.  The pieces arguments, its logic, its  impassioned _cri de coeur_sank like so many stones, like so many trees falling in a forest when no one was there to hear.  It is a measure of how far Gore has fallen  that almost all the scanty attention the piece received focused on  Gores criticism of what he sees as President Obamas failure to lead on  climate change.  Gore, like the global green movement he champions, has  fallen by the wayside.  Despite terrible weather, despite tornadoes,  droughts, food crises and high oil prices, the world conversation has  moved on.  The question is why. In my last post, I wrote about Gores  failure to grasp the nature of the leadership that would be demanded  from a person and a movement calling for fundamental and radical change  in the ways the world lives.  The point was not to criticize the former  vice president for living well; I have no moral objection to rich people  spending their money.  Indeed, as Mandevilles _Fable of the Bees_  tells us, if the dour moralists had their way and the rich stopped  spending lavishly, the resulting economic contraction would ruin the  poor.  But Mr. Gore failed to grasp that the movement he hoped to lead  demands a different and deeper approach. Gores failures are not just about  leadership.  The strategic vision he crafted for the global green  movement has comprehensively failed.  That is no accident; the entire  green policy vision was so poorly conceived, so carelessly constructed,  so unbalanced and so rife with contradictions that it could only thrive  among activists and enthusiasts.  Once the political power of the  climate movement, aided by an indulgent and largely unquestioning press,  had pushed the climate agenda into the realm of serious politics,  failure was inevitable.  The only question was whether the comprehensive  green meltdown would occur before or after the movement achieved its  core political goal of a comprehensive and binding global agreement on  greenhouse gasses. That question has now been answered; the  movement failed before it got its treaty, and while the media and the  establishment have still generally failed to analyze these developments  and draw the consequences, the global climate movement has become the  kind of embarrassment intellectuals like to ignore.  Like the Club of  Rome, Y2K, the Iraq Study Group and President Obamas management of the  Middle East peace process it is something polite people try not to think  about. This is why Al Gore is less visible than he used to be, and his  views are less eagerly sought: the polite world and its ready handmaid  the press know Gore has failed but does not want to think or write about  why.   *Al Gore receives the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo in 2007 (Wikimedia)*   The global green strategy was a  comprehensive, unified and coordinated one.  Green activists around the  world, in some countries empowered because proportional representation  gives fringe groups disproportionate political influence, would unite  around the push for a single global solution to climate change.  The  global solution involved a treaty to be negotiated under UN auspices  that would be legally binding and subject the emission of greenhouse  gasses to strict global controls.  Developing countries would receive  massive transfers of official aid ($100 billion or more a year) to  compensate them for the costs they would incur in meeting carbon  targets; developed countries like the United States would face stricter  targets still.  The target for the treaty was to cap global emissions at  levels believed to keep the global temperature rise this century to two  degrees centigrade. To reach this Valhalla, a political strategy  was put in place; it is the strategy that the former vice president is  still gamely trying to push in his _Rolling Stone_ article.  It has failed. The idea was to develop and present a  scientific case that global warming was happening, that it was caused by  human activity, and that its consequences in the near future were so  devastating that a binding and effective GGCT (Global Green Carbon  Treaty) was the only way out. Politically, the framers of this approach  could count on the support of green movements worldwide, on diplomats  and UN officials constantly looking for new missions and new budgets, on  anti-capitalist or anti-growth forces who want to slow down or reverse  the process of capitalist economic development reshaping the world, on  Europeans and others concerned about the rapid rise of Asia and the  shift of political power from west to east, and on a group of economic  interests and financial market wizards who stood to make hundreds of  billions if not trillions of dollars from the massive reorientation of  the world economy the green program would require. To make the case for a proposition like  this, one needs to make the following argument: that the cost of  inaction is unacceptably high, that the proposed measures are both  feasible and effective, and that there are no easier or cheaper methods  of accomplishing the goal.  This is no special set of high hurdles  invented for the purpose of frustrating the greens; it is the basic test  that any proposal in any arena must pass. In the global warming debate, this involves  arguing first that the evidence for rapid and destructive climate change  is rock solid, second that the global green agenda can be put into  place and will work if it is, and third that there are no less costly,  less intrusive or more workable alternative policies to the green agenda  as it is now understood. From the beginning, the movement was dogged  by what proved to be a fatal flaw.  That problem was and is the sheer  expense, complexity and unwieldiness of the GGCT.  The political goal of  the global green movement is so enormously complicated, so economically  expensive, so administratively difficult, so dependent on the  coordination and cooperation of so many different powerful political  interests with radically different agendas that its adoption was  extremely unlikely. Any serious discussion of the merits of the  GGCT would be fatal because the more the world reflects on the topic the  more the worlds diplomats, policy makers and opinion leaders realize  just how utopian and unworkable this strategy really is. The global green treaty movement to outlaw  climate change is the most egregious folly to seize the worlds  imagination since the Kellog-Briand  Pact  outlawed war in the late 1920s.  The idea that the nations of the earth  could  agree on an enforceable treaty mandating deep cuts in their  output of  all greenhouse gasses is absurd.  A global  treaty to meet  Mr. Gores policy goals isnt a treaty: the changes such a treaty  requires are so broad and so sweeping that a GGCT is less a treaty than a   constitution for global government.  Worse, it is a constitution for a   global welfare state with trillions of dollars ultimately sent by the   taxpayers of rich countries to governments (however feckless, inept,   corrupt or tyrannical) in poor ones. For this treaty to work,  China, India,  Nigeria and Brazil and scores of other developing countries must in  effect accept limits on their economic growth.  The United States must  commit through treaty to policies  that cannot get simple majorities in  Congress  like sending billions  of dollars in climate aid to countries  like Iran, North Korea, Syria and Pakistan, even as we adopt intrusive  and expensive energy controls here at home. The green plan is a plan for a global  constitution because the treaty  will regulate economic production in  every country on earth.  This is a  deeply intrusive concept; China,  Nigeria, Myanmar, Iran and Vietnam will  have to monitor and report on  every factory, every farm, every truck  and car, every generator and  power plant in their territory.  Many states do not now have and  possibly never will have the ability to do this in a transparent and  effective way.  Many others will cheat, either for economic advantage or  for reasons of national security.  Many states do not want their own  citizens to have this knowledge, much less the officials of hostile  foreign powers. Moreover,  there will have to be sanctions.   After all, what happens if a country  violates its treaty commitments?   If nothing happens, the entire treaty  system collapses of its own  weight.  But to work, enforcement will have  to mean penalties greater  than the advantages from cheating.  Who will  monitor output around the  world, assess performance against commitments,  levy penalties and fines   _and then enforce those decisions when they are made_? There are no real answers to these   questions and can be none.  No institutions exist with the power and  resources to play these roles; the worlds jealous nation states will  not consent to create them. The dream that the menace of global warming  will cause humanity to overcome its ancient divisions and unite in a  grand global coalition is sophomoric.  Rising CO2 levels will not cause  the worlds governments to accept and enforce international policing of  the most intimate details of their economic lives.  If the menace of  nuclear war cant create world government, the menace of global warming  wont do it either. The case for the  Kellog-Briand Treaty is  actually much stronger than the case for the  Global Green Climate  Treaty.  The scientific evidence that war is dangerous and  becoming  more murderous, more risky and less acceptable every day needs  no  complex calculations and no computer models to convince a skeptical   public.  There can be few people on earth who do not understand and fear  the horrors of modern war; nothing could be more evident and  obvious  than the danger that future wars pose to the human race.  *World leaders sign the Kellogg-Briand Pact in Paris on August 27, 1928 (Encyclopedia Britannica)*   Compared to the GGCT, the Kellog-Briand  treaty against war was a piece of cake.  A Kellog-Briand Deux would be  easier to write, easier to negotiate, easier to ratify and easier  to  monitor than the green treaty of Al Gores dreams.  A treaty banning   war involves monitoring a few easily measurable and generally visible   activities.  The line between what is permitted and what is prohibited   is much easier to draw in the Kellog-Briand case than in the GGCT, and  many fewer  activities would have to be covered  meaning the  negotiation process  would be less cumbersome and contentious.   Violations are easier to  check as well.  It is much easier to see that a  state is mobilizing an  army than it is to monitor the millions and  billions of economic  activities to be regulated by global warming  treaty. The global greens dont want to talk about  any of this.  They dont want anybody to reflect on the obvious truth  that a GGCT will be either ludicrously weak, unratifiable in the US  Senate or unenforceable.  (Like the Kyoto Protocol it could well be all  three.) They are building a bridge to nowhere, and attacking anybody who  disagrees as a flat earther. They want to talk  about science, not  history, policy and the realities of international life.  The science,  they say, is settled.  (Never mind that  far better researched  subjects, like human nutrition, are far from  settled and that we are  still watching governments build and deconstruct  food pyramids  as the settled scientific consensus continues to  change.)  Dont  tell me my solution is stupid, say the greens  the problem is real! Mssrs. Kellog and Briand could have said the  same thing:  how can you be against our treaty campaign?  Dont you  understand that War Is Bad?  Are you some kind of war-denialist? Mr. Gores work up to and including his latest _Rolling Stone_  essay has taken a demagogic rather than intellectual approach.  His  method of arguing is to trumpet the science of climate change and to  make _ad hominem_ arguments against its opponents.  The science  is clear, it is settled, and the opposition against it is funded by  people with an economic stake in denial.  I am right about the science  and my opponents are a bunch of evil opportunists in it only for the  money. That is Mr. Gores position, and it is his  entire position.  He says nothing about the feasibility of the proposed  GGCT or its cost effectiveness.  That, presumably, we must take on  faith.  There is nothing to discuss about policy.  It is essentially the  cry of Chicken Little: The sky is falling and we must run and tell the  king. Thus speaketh Al Gore: the world is burning  down and so you must immediately follow my plan for fixing whats  wrong.  He does not discuss whether his plan is feasible; to anyone who  objects to the ponderous, unwieldy Rube Goldberg  style green treaty agenda, Gore simply bellows:  Whats the matter you  soul-dead, hired flack of the evil oil companies, dont you believe in _Science_?  *A Rube Goldberg inspired cartoon illustrating how to complete a task by the most complicated and intricate way (Flickr | Stephen VanDyke)*  Al Gores logic is exactly like the  genealogy of the man who boasted that his line of descent went all the  way back to Julius Caesar  with only two gaps.  Gores ironclad  argument has only two gaps: he presents no evidence that the GGCT is  either feasible (that it would be efficacious if put into practice and  that it can in fact be put into practice in a reasonable time frame) or  economical (that it is the cheapest and most effective means of reaching  the goal, and that the cost of the fix is less than the cost of the  problem). This is the method of the global green  movement as shaped by Al Gore: an ever-crescendoing invocation of  blizzards, droughts, locusts and floods aims to stampede the populace  into embracing one of the most dubious and unworkable policy  prescriptions ever presented to the public eye. As a strategy it was as as stupid as the  treaty itself.  Many countries are not influenced much by public  opinion; Chinas approach to the issue has consistently focused on  Chinas national interest rather than on any utopian dreams of green  global governance.  Key actors in Copenhagen and elsewhere have looked  to cash in on what they see as a neurotic western overreaction; the  number and power of such actors ensures that no global treaty will ever  reflect the concerns and priorities of green activists but will be  warped and distorted to serve the special interests of powerful  countries. Meanwhile, excitable climate activists  inevitably stretched the available scientific evidence to build public  support in the west.  Like Dean Acheson at the dawn of the Cold War,  they were clearer than truth in the interests of persuading the public  to back what they considered to be an ambitious but vital agenda.  As  evidence of the exaggerations and inaccuracies trickled into view,  public confidence in the scientific case for global warming fell and the  greens are still scrambling to recapture the intellectual authority  they lost in 2009-2010. The real issue here is not climate science.   It is true that, as many critics attest, Gore fundamentally misstates  the nature of the scientific discussion of climate change and,  especially, the extremely complex questions associated with  interventions in it.  He overstates what is known, disregards the  inherent uncertainties involved in the study of a complex system like  the climate, understates the significance of the remaining gray areas,  and demagogues the science to get more out of it than his case really  merits.  The contrast between the intellectually unscrupulous propaganda  he makes (the green-friendly UK has ruled that Gores Oscar winning  film can only be shown in schools if teachers alert students to its errors of scientific fact) and Gores self-presentation  as a condescending, _de haut en bas_  Great Explainer patiently enlightening the rubes so infuriates many of  his opponents that they cannot help themselves.  They start arguing with  him about hockey sticks and CO2. This is exactly what Mr. Gore wants; it  moves the argument onto his strongest terrain.  Whatever one thinks of  the scientific evidence for climate change, Gore is on much stronger  ground when he argues that the earth is warming than when he argues that  a great green global treaty on the lines he proposes can ever be either  adopted or enforced.  There are a great many scientists and scientific  journals who agree with Mr. Gore about climate change.  Perhaps they are  all frauds and mountebanks  but that is a tough case to make in the  court of public opinion.  Once the argument moves to science it goes  into complex and tricky terrain from which the broad lay public will  draw only uncertain conclusions.  Gore does not win the scientific  argument as decisively as he would like  but his opponents cannot  deliver a political death blow there, either.  The lay public perceives  angry experts and dueling theories with a large but not totally  convincing preponderance of evidence on Gores side. There is, however, no serious evidence in  either history or political studies to suggest that his approach to the  problem can ever be adopted or will ever work.  Like war, global warming  may well be real  but that doesnt mean a treaty can help. The green movements core tactic is not to  hide the decline or otherwise to cook the books of science.  Its core  tactic to cloak a comically absurd, impossibly complex and obviously  impractical political program in the authority of science.  Let anyone  attack the cretinous and rickety construct of policies, trade-offs,  offsets and bribes by which the greens plan to govern the world economy  in the twenty first century, and they attack you as an anti-science  bigot. To argue with these people about science is  to miss the core point.  Even if the science is exactly as Mr. Gore  claims, his policies are still useless.  His advocacy is still a  distraction.  The movement he heads is still a ship of fools. It is a waste of time to talk science with  Al Gore.  It is a waste of time to listen to him at all.  That,  apparently, is what the world at long last is beginning to understand.   The policy makers and the heads of state who only two years ago were  ready to follow Gore up the mountain have softly and quietly tuned him  out. These days, he cant even get his picture on the cover of _Rolling Stone_. Next: what Al Gore doesnt understand about the development of American democracy.

----------


## Dr Freud

And let the games begin.  We now have a useless "has-been" clinging to power for powers sake, whose going to wreak havoc on our economy just to shore up her job against those who want to sack her because she is inept. 
She is on the record as saying she wants to implement this TAX in a manner that makes it almost impossible for any future government to unravel.  She's barking mad.  
This makes the Titanic look like a happy ending. 
No wonder she is detested across the nation.   

> Ms Gillard's net satisfaction rating - the difference between voter satisfaction and dissatisfaction - is now minus 45 per cent. 
> Labor's primary vote has stuck at a record low of 27 per cent. 
> The Coalition's has risen to 50 per cent - the highest since John Howard was prime minister at the time of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.  
> Based on preference flows at the last election, the Coalition has an all-time high two-party-preferred vote of 59 per cent compared with Labor's 41 per cent. Such a result at an election would reduce Labor to a rump of a party, wiping out dozens of Labor MPs including many ministers.  Tony Abbott&#039;s record lead over Julia Gillard: Newspoll | The Australian

    
If Labor had lost it's way when she took over, where the bl--dy hell are they now? 
And she's convinced her new TAX will lead them out of the wilderness.  :Doh:  
Where's SuperKev when you need him?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Well done JuLIAR!   

> *FORMER BHP Billiton chairman Don Argus has lashed the Gillard government over its "lazy" reform agenda on tax and industrial relations, warning that a failure to address Australia's "woeful" productivity growth could ruin the economy.*  
> There were similar problems with our first attempt at a resource rent tax, and the carbon tax also had a frighteningly scant amount of consultation with those outside political circles. 
> Mr Argus also said he was deeply concerned about Australia moving before the rest of the world in introducing a carbon tax.  
> He said more attention should be given to the use of natural gas, which was more cost-effective than renewables and more likely to deliver a reduction in carbon emissions.
> This example highlights just how politically expedient this government's tax reform agenda has been, he said.  
> The government has rushed ahead with proposals that are simply designed to navigate the political landscape of the day, and not in the best interests of our country.  
> We need a more rigorous evaluation before large amounts of taxpayer money are spent on speculative investments in renewable energy that could actually be less effective than other options in reducing emissions.   Don Argus accuses ALP of reform that was politically expedient, but not in nation&#039;s best interests | The Australian

  Can't wait for the encore.  
If Thomson or Wilkie don't go in the next year, how much damage will the village idiot do to our country over the next two years with her idiot TAX.

----------


## Dr Freud

JuLIAR did this, and more and more and more...   

> *EVEN though they know it's over, senior Labor figures have formed a Praetorian guard around their faded empress. Even though they cannot say it publicly yet, and she cannot bear to face up to it, the sad truth is the Gillard Experiment has failed. All that remains is how to end it, when and with whom.  * The sooner they do it, the sooner Labor can set about righting wrongs. 
> No matter how much she wants to stay as prime minister, and her determination is formidable, it is now out of her hands. She has failed on policy, on administration, on credibility, on judgment and on presentation.  
> One of the questions Labor MPs will ask themselves is how much they want the carbon tax. 
> A senior cabinet minister had confessed political life had become intolerable, acknowledging the carbon tax was destroying the government, yet they could not walk away from it; he admitted his grave doubts about climate change science, revealing himself as one more sceptic in the government, and effectively admitting the campaign on media bias was a diversion.  Curtain closing on Gillard experiment | The Australian

  And now, then end is near... 
No one will cross the floor for the Carbon Dioxide TAX vote, out of sheer terror of retribution and knifing. 
But will they abstain?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *A GREENS-led council has failed to meet a key climate-change target because it installed a new airconditioning and heating system to improve the comfort of town hall staff. *  			 		 		Embarrassment over the missed greenhouse-gas emissions target comes just months after the City of Yarra tried to impose a $105 fee on restaurant and cafe owners for outdoor heaters, suggesting they instead provide their customers with blankets.  
> "It's a choice between life in a developed world and having high emissions or opting for decreases in standard of living and having a lower emissions profile," he said.  Green council fails its emissions challenge | Herald Sun

  Here's your choice: 
"It's a choice between life in a developed world and having high emissions or opting for decreases in standard of living and having a lower emissions profile," 
The rest of the developing world is aiming for a higher standard of living, JuLIAR is driving us Aussies to a lower standard of living. 
We didn't even get a choice thanks to JuLIAR's grubby power deal with the Greens. 
But we can choose at the next election.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

JuLIAR says she has full confidence in a man NSW Police indicate lied to her about using prostitutes, because she knows when he is gone, she is gone, then so is this ridiculous Carbon Dioxide TAX. 
So even after the NSW Police confirm that his credit card was legally used to pay for prostitutes, and therefore he lied to her face about it, she STILL says she has full confidence in him. 
Just to hang onto power.  How grubby. 
This sordid mess will result in her demise, which will see her TAX die with her political career. 
How strange that no media outlet has asked her why she's ignoring the NSW Police finding that all evidence indicates Thomson did in fact pay the prostitutes, contrary to his claims.   
Are they worried about a prime minister ranting to their boss, then having their jobs threatened? 
And the hilarious irony is that this man chairs the House Economics Committee and will decide in part how the Carbon Dioxide Tax is spent.  After lying to the Australian people with the full sanctioning of the prime minister.   

> So, as Professor Sinclair Davidson observes, the police seem to be suggesting that Thomson indeed used his credit card to pay for prostitutes, which is what hes actually denied. Now Victorian police are being asked to check if this was against union rules. 
>  Julia Gillard has said she has full confidence in Thomson. She has also insisted that reports on her past personal and professional relationship to an Australian Workers Union state president who ripped off his members and bosses is old news thats been dealt with already. And now this, about AWU national president Bill Ludwig, whose union was so influential in making Gillard Prime Minister:   Time for an inquiry into unions? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  All power to Kathy Jackson for her courage in standing up to this cover-up despite intimidation, and her truths shall set us free from this tyrannical TAX:   

> *NSW Police today established a strike force to investigate ``inappropriate practices'' in the Health Services Union. * But police announced that Strike Force Carnarvon was created after senior police received additional information from union members this morning.  
> The investigating officers include senior members of the State Crime Command's Fraud and Cyber Crime Squad.  
> "The NSW Police Force has established a Strike Force to investigate allegations of inappropriate practices within the Health Services Union," said a statement.  But it seems this morning's information from the HSU sparked immediate action.
> "The decision to take the matter a stage further is a welcome development," Senator Brandis said.  
> "I also look forward with interest to the promised detailed statement of Mr Thomson."  Police will investigate &#034;inappropriate practices&#034; in the Health Services Union | News.com.au

    While we wait for the police investigations in NSW and Victoria, and the ATO investigation into undeclared PAYG or FBT Tax (has to be one or the other), it will be great to hear Mr Thomson's detailed statement as promised, and then more importantly to see how JuLIAR handles his "confession" of past behaviours. 
Here's the three deaths of the Carbon Dioxide TAX: 
1) Crean takes over before it's introduced in the next month, suspends the TAX for review; 
2) Wilkie pulls the pin in May and we go to an election in June 2012 and kill the TAX; 
3) Thomson gets charged and convicted for fraud or TAX evasion in 2012 and we go to an election in late 2012, after the bi-election, and the TAX is repealed.  If the Labor doesn't agree in the Senate, we go back for a double dissolution and their seats go from 30 to 20, plus they are decimated in the Senate, and the Greens disappear into irrelevance.  :Biggrin:  
Current information indicates option 3 is most likely, unfortunately for JuLIAR, it's a long way away.  She has to stand up during all the sordid prostitute party stories declaring her full support for this man (whose partner is about to have a baby).  Will he do the honorable thing and quit? 
He's tried and he's been told he's not allowed. 
The media aren't grubby for reporting this stuff, the people involved are grubby for doing it. 
They should not be allowed to ask us for more TAX to waste and rort in the manner that's becoming all too apparently "situation normal" for them.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Peter van Onselen is right, which may explain why Julia Gillard is rushing to have her carbon dioxide tax passed in early October:    _...passing the carbon tax closes the door on a range of leadership contenders taking over from Gillard to give Labor a better chance at the next election.__The only viable option to a catastrophic defeat under Gillard is for a new leader to replace her and dump her tax. But that becomes very, very messy once the tax is actually legislated._  _Van Onselen adds:_  _...the introduction of the carbon tax locks Labor into either Gillard or a shift back to Rudd further down the track. No cleanskin could assume the leadership tarnished by a legislated carbon tax: the shift would look sneaky and the cleanskin image wouldnt last._  _Which means the window for a shift to anyone other than Rudd will close in a matter of weeks if the carbon tax becomes law.  _ _The counter-argument of Gillards wilfully blind supporters is that voters will forgive her, even admire her, once the tax comes in and they can see it doesnt hurt._  _Problem. Even if you truly believe that Labor can implement this tax without pain, and that voters will forgive, the truth is that the next election is actually likely to be held before the tax is imposed in July 2012._  _Thats because independent MP Andrew Wilkie has warned that he will indeed vote down the Government in May if it does not give him what it cant - technology to limit poker machine losses._  _And so Labor may well go to an election just weeks before the introduction of a big new tax, with the Coalition offering voters one last chance to stop it._  _Good luck with surviving that one, with Gillard in charge._  _So Labor really cant run from the logic of the calendar: its best chance lies in dumping Gillard and her tax, and by early October at the very latest. _   _Labor’s choice: dump Gillard now, or suffer her tax later | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog_

   
A rare moment of clarity for Peter Van Onselen.  
I guess the reality is that overwhelming.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The likelihood grows of an election by June, on the eve of the implementation of the carbon dioxide tax:  _CLUBS and pubs will target individual federal Labor MPs in marginal NSW and Queensland electorates with a poster campaign against changes to poker machine laws...._  _As part of the second phase of their Its un-Australian campaign, Clubs NSW and the Australian Hotels Association say they will plaster clubs and pubs with posters and banners - some as long as 1.5 metres - showing the face of their local federal MP._  _The posters will feature the first name of the MP, followed by: Why dont you stand up for our community? ..._  _Clubs and pubs say they will have to outlay about $40 million to install pre-commitment spending computer chips in their pokies.... The measure was promised to the Tasmanian independent, Andrew Wilkie, as part of the deal to win his support for Labor to form government...._  _Federal Labor MPs in NSW are reportedly trying to distance themselves from the governments promise to introduce mandatory pre-commitment for poker machines, describing the impact of Clubs NSWs grassroots campaign as worse than the carbon tax.  
> Mr Wilkie ... has threatened to bring down the Gillard government if it is not legislated by next May._Wilkie won’t get what he was promised by Labor | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Let's play the "How will the Carbon Dioxide die" game?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

*Global Warming Theory will fail because science—real science—does not support it.*  *The Slow, Certain Death of the Global Warming Theory*   _- Alan Caruba_ Sunday, September 11, 2011 
 (0) *Comments*   | *Print friendly* | *Email Us* 
       I have been predicting the death of the globalwarming  theory since late in the last decade when it became obvious that the  Earth had entered into a cooling cycle. By 2009 the leak of thousands of  emails between the “scientists” whose computer models the claims were  based upon revealed they were in a state of panic regarding this obvious  phenomenon.   
Employed  by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming (IPCC),  those “scientists” have since been protected by the universities who  benefited greatly from the huge grants of public funding they received.  The issue of whether such men should be prosecuted for deceiving the  entire world remains to be decided.
  The lead player, Dr. James Hansen, still on the payroll of NASA’s  Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is the man who told Congress in  1988 that global warming threatened mankind and the Earth. He has since  switched to lying about coal and oil, two of the fossil fuels on which  the economies of all nations depend, claiming they are deadly pollutants  that must be abandoned in favor of “clean energy”, wind and solar.
  Former Vice President Al Gore, the most public face of “global  warming”, has become a public joke. Recall, however, that he received a  Nobel Prize and an Oscar in additions to the millions earned from the  sale of “carbon credits” to offset “greenhouse gases.” Some exchanges  devoted to these credits have closed their doors. The proposed  Cap-and-Trade legislation based on them lingers in Congress. 
One  need not be a climate scientist or meteorologist to conclude that  humans have nothing to do with the climate or the weather. Watching huge  hurricanes wreak havoc, along with other weather-related events should  be enough for anyone to conclude that humans do not “cause” such things.  
  Occam’s Razor is the ancient principle that the simplest explanation  is the most likely the correct one, but billions in public funding,  taxpayer’s dollars, have been diverted to the “research” that corrupt  scientists have used to justify the global warming fraud. 
  MIT Professor, Dr. Richard Lindzen, an internationally recognized  authority on atmospheric science, said, “Future generations will wonder  in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went  into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a  few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of  highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains  of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial  age.” 
  We owe a huge debt of gratitude to those courageous scientists that  stood their ground against the global warming fraud. Recently the  Heartland Institute, in concert with the Center for the Study of Carbon  Dioxide and Global Change, and the Science and Environmental Policy  Project, published “Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report.”  It is 430 pages co-authored by Dr. Craig D. Idso, Dr. Robert M. Carter,  and Dr. S. Fred Singer, all of whom have been among the scientists  repeatedly slandered as “global warming deniers” and “skeptics” for  their efforts to educate the public.
  The report, in careful documented, scientific language identifies the  way the warmist’s computer models over-estimated the amount of warming,  ignored the fact that increased carbon dioxide benefits plant growth,  that there is less melting in the Arctic, Antarctic and on mountain tops  than claimed, and that there is no sign of acceleration of sea-level  rise in recent decades.
  A recent Rasmussen survey  indicates that upwards of 60% of Americans have concluded that humans  have nothing to do with “global warming” or any other aspect of the  climate. This is extraordinary when one considers how the mainstream  media, the curriculums in the nation’s schools, and the unceasing  efforts of major environmental organizations have tried to impose the  global warming claims on the public.
  In a similar fashion, “The Other Climate Theory”  by Anne Jolis, an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal  Europe, describes how a project of the European Organization for Nuclear  Research (CERN) has put what may well be the final nail in the global  warming coffin. The work of physicists using particle beam technology,  CERN confirmed that the Sun’s cosmic rays enhanced cloud formation. The  IPCC’s 2007 report had peremptorily dismissed this possibility, but then  the IPCC’s reports have been the basis for the global warming fraud,  asserting a “consensus” among scientists that never existed.
  Thus the scientific method of describing a phenomenon, formulating a  hypothesis to explain it, and performing tests to confirm or reject a  hypothesis, has once again demonstrated that “global warming” is just so  much hot air.
  This is not stopped the Environmental Protection Agency from doing  everything in its power to destroy the energy sector of the nation based  in part on the global warming fraud.
  Universities across America have entire departments and units devoted  to keeping the global warming fraud alive. The mainstream press is  heavily invested in it. Schools continue to frighten children with its  claims. All this and other efforts will fail because science—real  science—does not support it. 
  © Alan Caruba, 2011   *Alan Caruba* 
Most recent columns  _Alan has a daily blog called Warning Signs. His latest book is Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy._  _Alan can be reached at acaruba@aol.com Older articles by Alan Caruba_

----------


## Marc

*The End is Near for Faith in AGW* 
                                               Posted on June 25, 2011 by Anthony Watts  _When the public learns about huge faults in the skeptic  scientist accusation, combined with the faults in the IPCC, the result  may send AGW into total collapse._   *Guest post submitted by Russell Cook* 
I’m preaching to the choir here when I say appearances of people hiding AGW’s problems beg for clichés – _the emperor has no clothes, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, nothing to see here, move along_.  But I’m not a scientist, nor do I have a scintilla of expertise to say  with any authority that the IPCC is wrong and skeptic scientists are  right. 
The one thing I can do is offer an ordinary citizen’s informed view  of what the barrier is preventing skeptics’ viewpoints from being heard,  and how that barrier can turn from the paper-thin success story it is  into a cancer that has the potential to wipe out the entire ideology of  AGW. 
 Notice that I said ‘informed view’. I watch the mainstream media, but  I also read sites like this one, while a large chunk of the public does  not. Therein lies the problem, as evidenced by this example: On October  12, 2007, the PBS NewsHour aired a glowing broadcast  about Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize, in which IPCC scientist Michael  Oppenheimer offered scary scenarios rivaling those in Gore’s movie. Two days prior,  a UK judge ruled there were nine errors in the movie and it could only  be shown in UK schools “with guidance notes to prevent political  indoctrination”. Yet, I defy anybody to locate a solitary mention of  this in any 
NewsHour broadcast. 
See the problem? From my extensive digging through the NewsHour’s  broadcast archives, Michael Oppenheimer has appeared on the program  eight times and three other IPCC scientists have appeared there on six  occasions collectively, all speaking at length about AGW with no  rebuttal. How many times have skeptic scientists been allowed a similar  opportunity there? Zero. Our friend Pat Michaels appeared once briefly  in a taped segment to give his thoughts about ClimateGate…. four months after that event was breaking news. 
The _nothing to see here, move along_ tactic works fine as long as the bulk of the audience doesn’t know legitimate skeptic scientists exist. 
The keyword is ‘legitimate’, and that’s where the barrier comes in.  When a large portion of people around the world learn about global  warming through Al Gore’s movie and through internet repetitions of its  details, or from viral regurgitated details from anti-skeptic book  author Ross Gelbspan’s 1997 _The Heat is On_ and 2004 _Boiling Point_, then *the perception is* there are no legitimate skeptic scientists. 
The Gore / Gelbspan / internet repetitions are one-and-the-same.  Skeptic scientists are accused of being in a fossil fuel-funded  conspiracy to “_reposition global warming as theory rather than fact_“, and this mimics the old tobacco industry conspiracy. Everybody remembers how well that one turned out. 
The key to the whole accusation is the “reposition global warming”  sentence – it’s in Gore’s movie, it’s in two of the three global warming  nuisance lawsuits, and was spread out as far as the eye could see on  the internet beginning largely in 1996. When I first stumbled onto the  phrase in late 2009, my google searches yielded seemingly endless  amounts of accusers using the phrase, though lately all of my online  articles about it have ‘tainted’ the search results rather noticeably. 
Here’s the big problem I found:  That accusation is based on a 1991  memo no one was allowed to see, using an out-of-context sentence,  promoted by a person who was not a Pulitzer winner despite accolades to  the contrary, who was credited with finding the memo by Al Gore, but  Gore had the memo collection in his own possession four years earlier. 
And just days ago, Gore mysteriously contradicts himself again in _Rolling Stone_  about who found the memo. He also slams the mainstream media, who’ve  been largely responsible for creating and maintaining the barrier  keeping the public unaware about skeptic scientists. But, that’s a  rather old ruse to to prompt left-leaning journalists to say to  themselves, “I’m not going to be duped into diluting the importance of  this issue by giving equal time to skeptic scientists”. None of the  current media people are insulted because they say, “I’m not that guy.”  It’s been a very clever tactic, of course dependent on reporters  intuitively knowing all skeptic scientists must be accepting fossil fuel  money. Seventeen+ months of research on this allows me to point out  these problems in my latest article, “Pt II: Is Gore’s Accusation of Skeptic Climate Scientists Still a Hoax?“ 
The thing to consider here is that AGW promoters absolutely,  positively do not want to see the kind of debate that occurred at last  November’s US House testimony between Richard Lindzen and Ralph Cicerone.  Otherwise, it becomes abundantly obvious that Lindzen’s level of  expertise is not something that would be paid for and pre-scripted in an  Exxon conference room. And most critical of all, no reporter must ask  in response to such an accusation, “There _is_ proof that he’s literally paid to make that stuff up, right?” 
Their mantra is ‘settled science’ / ‘corrupt skeptics’ / ‘the media  dilutes the issue by talking to skeptics’. This only works when there is  faith in that whole system, as in the US investment banks circa 2007  and Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme. 
Wipe out the faith in this mantra and what happens?

----------


## Dr Freud

What a joke this farce has become. 
The only thing going up faster than the uncertainty is our TAXES! 
This whole farcical cult is based on failed computer models, and here's more indications of the failure of these ridiculous models based on political ideologies:    

> Scientists have been speculating on the relationship among cosmic rays, solar activity and clouds since at least the 1970s. But the notion didn't get a workout until 1995, when Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark came across a 1991 paper by Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, who had charted a close relationship between solar variations and changes in the earth's surface temperature since 1860. 
> He wasn't the first scientist to have the idea, but he was the first to try to demonstrate it. He got in touch with Mr. Friis-Christensen, and they used satellite data to show a close correlation among solar activity, cloud cover and cosmic-ray levels since 1979. 
> They announced their findings, and the possible climatic implications, at a 1996 space conference in Birmingham, England. Then, as Mr. Svensmark recalls, "everything went completely crazy. . . . It turned out it was very, very sensitive to say these things already at that time." He returned to Copenhagen to find his local daily leading with a quote from the then-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naïve and irresponsible."  
>  Mr. Svensmark had been, at the very least, politically naïve. "Before 1995 I was doing things related to quantum fluctuations. Nobody was interested, it was just me sitting in my office. It was really an eye-opener, that baptism into climate science." He says his work was "very much ignored" by the climate-science establishmentbut not by CERN physicist Jasper Kirkby, who is leading today's ongoing cloud-chamber experiment.    
> On the phone from Geneva, Mr. Kirkby says that Mr. Svensmark's hypothesis "started me thinking: There's good evidence that pre-industrial climate has frequently varied on 100-year timescales, and what's been found is that often these variations correlate with changes in solar activity, solar wind. You see correlations in the atmosphere between cosmic rays and cloudsthat's what Svensmark reported. But these correlations don't prove cause and effect, and it's very difficult to isolate what's due to cosmic rays and what's due to other things."  
> He decided to go ahead in Denmark and construct his own cloud chamber. "In 2006 we had our first results: We had demonstrated the mechanism" of cosmic rays enhancing cloud formation. The IPCC's 2007 report all but dismissed the theory.    
> Mr. Kirkby's CERN experiment was finally approved in 2006 and has been under way since 2009. So far, it has not proved Mr. Svensmark wrong. "The result simply leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could influence the climate," stresses Mr. Kirkby, quick to tamp down any interpretation that would make for a good headline.   
> "I had this field more or less to myself for yearsthat would never have happened in other areas of science, such as particle physics. But this has been something that most climate scientists would not be associated with. I remember another researcher saying to me years ago that the only thing he could say about cosmic rays and climate was it that it was a really bad career move."    
> On that point, Mr. Kirkbywhose organization is controlled by not one but 20 governmentsreally does not want to discuss politics at all: "I'm an experimental particle physicist, okay? That somehow nature may have decided to connect the high-energy physics of the cosmos with the earth's atmospherethat's what nature may have done, not what I've done."   *Last month's findings don't herald the end of a debate, but the resumption of one. That is, if the politicians purporting to legislate based on science will allow it.*   Anne Jolis: The Other Climate Theory - WSJ.com

  Read the full article, it's just the beginning of the return of empirical science to this politicised farce purporting to be "the science" as so mirthfully put by its proponents here.  
Imagine what we will learn when science relating to atmospheric physics returns to it's empirical origins, rather than the bastardised and ideological garbage Al Gore has served up as fact for so many years, and weak governments have swallowed like trained seals.  Still, Gore's jetting around the world and buying mansion's on the beach regularly, so I guess we're the real idiots.  :Biggrin:   
And remember that last line as you watch JuLIAR screeching like a banshee in Parliament about our "clean energy future" spin slogan designed to impress the weak minded.  
What happened to global warming? What happened to saving our children? Grandchildren? What happened to saving the Planet Earth?  What happened to limiting temperature rises? What happened to saving the Great Barrier Reef?  
The Carbon Dioxide TAX will not affect any of these things.  It will raise heaps of revenue in future years as the TAX ramps up, and up, and up, and up...  
What happened?  
You got conned!
You got lied to!   
That's what happened.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

This government's financial ineptitude knows no bounds.  That's why they are desperately seeking to raid your pockets for more money to fund their financial ineptitude. 
Their farcical fairytale that this TAX will make the Planet Earth colder and save our grandchildren was laughed away by even the intellectually bereft ideologues supporting this scam. 
They are just desperate for money:   

> *LABOR is planning to withdraw hundreds of millions of dollars from the Future Fund in an unprecedented move that will help the government meet its promise of returning the budget to surplus in 2012-13. *  			 		 		A spokeswoman for Finance Minister Penny Wong confirmed to The Australian that more than $250 million worth of assets were due to be withdrawn from the Future Fund in the 2012-13 financial year, despite the fund having been created, by Peter Costello, under the condition it was not to be touched before 2020.  
> The government, which has forecast a surplus of $3.5 billion in 2012-13 after several years of heavy deficits, claims that the assets will be returned to the fund at a future date.  
> But the opposition has slammed the move as "reckless and fiscally irresponsible".   Labor plans Future Fund withdrawal as it takes aim at budget surplus | The Australian

  After Senate questioning, the financially inept morons are now backing away from this plan. 
That will make them even more desperate to get their grubby mitts on more of your money via this "bad TAX based on a LIE". 
Plus we, yes WE, still have to pay back all the debts they've racked up in just a few short years. 
From net debt ZERO to super debt hero's, we Aussies should be proud of this mob:   

> Total Commonwealth Government Securities
>          	  on Issue - $202,992m  AOFM – Home

  Whoo hoo, $200 billion and skyrocketing by the day.  How high can we fly?  :Biggrin:  
And this is apparently during a resources boom much more massive than the last one. 
How will they perform when the bad times come?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Toddlers trained to tote the toxic TAX?   

> Parents who support the change met the Prime Minister for a picnic with their children who presented hand-drawn pictures saying "go carbon tax".  It&#039;s time for action on carbox tax plan | Herald Sun

   
The things you live to see.  :Confused:  
Our next generation of gleeful taxpayers thinking alliteration means they can spell T-A-X. 
A whole generation of idiots thinking humans and other animals breathe out Carbon. 
But still, if you're so ineffectual that you can't convince sentient adults, why not brainwash the kids that paying heaps more TAX for a useless reason is great stuff.  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled*  
>  The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new  evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming  doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays  and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of  climate on Earth. 
>  The research, published with little fanfare this week in the  prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the  European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest  centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000  scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN  is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the  multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a  pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the  Earth’s atmosphere. 
>  In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American  institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be  done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules  that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and  thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how  many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s  magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from  space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth. 
>  The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the  sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to  the global warming establishment.....BLAHBLAHBLAH

  
Actually, I struggled to find any such conspiracy theorist claptrap in the abstract to the article...which is about the roles of sulphuric acid, ammonia and cosmic rays in cloud nucleation...(not a particularily contentious or controversial topic as far as I can tell since it is looking at addressing the age old question/s - why/how do clouds form?) 
In truth, how the opinion piece could be derived from either the abstract or the article is (as per usual) a mystery to me.  Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation : Nature : Nature Publishing Group 
The abstract does have some very cool links to papers that examine relationships between aerosols, clouds and climate

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> How do they achieve that without an address or a name?

  Works with Santa Claus.

----------


## chrisp

> In truth, how the opinion piece could be derived from either the abstract or the article is (as per usual) a mystery to me.

  It is the old adage - don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.  :Rolleyes:  
And, maybe the referencing of a published paper is somehow supposed to give the opinion an _air of authority_ - even if it doesn't support the contention at all.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *Global Warming Alarmists in Retreat. Glaciers, Not So Much.*

  Erm and the Telegraph from whence that article came has since added an addendum saying that the first version may have been misleading.  Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing rather than melting, study finds - Telegraph 
To whit:
"This report has been amended since it was first posted. The original    headline and first paragraph may have left the mistaken impression that    Himalayan glaciers in general are advancing rather than shrinking.We wish    to confirm, as was made clear further on in the original article, that this    finding related to only one of the areas studied, the Karakoram range, where    it was found that rocks and mud on the surface of glaciers are helping to    protect them from melting."

----------


## Dr Freud

Do you *trust* this lying idiot who says she's going to use the massive TAX increases from us Aussies to make the entire Planet Earth colder?    
You are being lied to. 
You are being conned. 
If you still support this farce, you have no further excuses of ignorance. 
You are now assisting the most corrupt and inept government this country has ever seen to brainwash innocent Aussies that by paying more TAX, that the Planet Earth will get colder. 
Either that or you actually believe this yourself.  :Doh:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You are being lied to.

  No doubt. And not just by the Government.   

> You are being conned.

  Yes.  And not just by the Government.   

> If you still support this farce, you have no further excuses of ignorance. 
> You  are now assisting the most corrupt and inept government this country  has ever seen to brainwash innocent Aussies that by paying more TAX,  that the Planet Earth will get colder. 
> Either that or you actually believe this yourself.

  How can anyone support 'this farce'? Dunno. I don't. Except for its pure entertainment value...which I fully support.  I support the idea.  But the execution itself is farcical...but entertaining. 
As for "assisting the most corrupt and inept government this country  has ever  seen to brainwash innocent Aussies that by paying more TAX,  that the  Planet Earth will get colder"... 
Are Australians really this stupid?  [EDIT: yeah...they probably are] 
As for "the most corrupt and inept government this country  has ever  seen" crack....I'm still to be convinced.  Merely because I haven't noticed any significant difference between this version and the previous four or five...perhaps that's because the country is actually run by bureaucrats rather than politcians....

----------


## johnc

> As for "the most corrupt and inept government this country has ever seen" crack....I'm still to be convinced. Merely because I haven't noticed any significant difference between this version and the previous four or five...perhaps that's because the country is actually run by bureaucrats rather than politcians....

  This is the point missed by most casual commentators and those with more outlandish views. Department heads keep the ship of state pointed more or less in the same direction and Treasury influence has pretty much ensured that regardless of which lot hold the keys there is not any significant difference in economic policy.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> This......has pretty much ensured that regardless of which lot hold the keys there is not any significant difference in economic policy.

  Actually there's often a stark difference in economic policies.  But bureacracy in the Westminster system has a wonderful capacity to buff out those wrinkles by the time of implementation to the point where the distinction between Left and Right is not unlike that between a Coles store and a Woolworths store... 
"Dunno, mate. I just shop here."

----------


## johnc

> Actually there's often a stark difference in economic policies. But bureacracy in the Westminster system has a wonderful capacity to buff out those wrinkles by the time of implementation to the point where the distinction between Left and Right is not unlike that between a Coles store and a Woolworths store... 
> "Dunno, mate. I just shop here."

  Major revenue changes often follow from earlier reviews and most of the broadening of the tax base from the mid eighties through to the GST followed on from a '70's review. Little of our changes are generated from the pollies themselves on that front. Spending is a different matter,   however we seldom see much reversed each lot seem to layer on costs without dropping much from the previous lots largesse. The last effort to reign in spending was the mid nineties, since then there have been plenty of tax breaks and social security giveaways from all who occupied the winners benches. Policy they use to get elected after that it is just same old, same old, nothing alters least they rock the boat.

----------


## Daniel Morgan

Australia will send $57bn a year overseas by 2050, Treasury modelling shows | The Australian

----------


## johnc

:Roflmao2: My goodness, what a waste of newsprint. It is a bit hard to take seriously anyone who would try to run a line that a carbon tax flagged as a lead in to an emissions trading scheme will be in place and unchanged in 40 years time. Does this mean there are people out there that think not only will Labor have an unbroken run until then it will also stop introducing any new legislation or avoid tinkering with the proposed carbon scheme. :Roflmao2:

----------


## Marc

As usual Johnce will pull anything from anywhere just to contradict what he does not like. 
A taxation model can not be applied with the assumption that the next government will undo it. That is criminal. It would be like setting a ship on a collision course and go to sleep since the skipper in charge of the next shift will rectify the course anyway. :Doh:  
Such is the ignorant, criminal, childish, stupid, misguided, petulant, imbecile arrogant attitude of this illegitimate government relying on the left and "green" cults out there. 
The most troubling thought however is not what they are doing or not doing. The most troubling thought is that labor voters who had abandoned Kevin Rudd in rows are now considering him a good alternative to Julia. 
The average Australian voter goes as deep as deciding who to vote according to the candidate choice of sporting competition and the gear required for it. 
Each country has the government it deserves. That goes for Australia and for Afghanistan or Zimbabwe or any other.

----------


## johnc

Pulled what? 40 years out we have a number, wave your political colours by all means, but that forcast is just a number amongst others and should be taken in context. The only thing you can be sure of is that it is not right. Not because Treasury modelling is wrong but simply because there are a huge number of variables that will impact over the years. the continual reference to cults though is a figment of imagination there is nothing there to support it.

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> My goodness, what a waste of newsprint. It is a bit hard to take seriously anyone who would try to run a line that a carbon tax flagged as a lead in to an emissions trading scheme will be in place and unchanged in 40 years time.

  Hello, 
It's probably just some computer model worked out by an accountant.   

> however we seldom see much reversed each lot seem to layer on costs without dropping much from the previous lots largesse.

  You'd reckon the populace would wake up to that.  

> Policy they use to get elected after that it is just same old, same old, nothing alters least they rock the boat.

  You'd reckon the populace would wake up to that too.   

> Pulled what? 40 years out we have a number

   Kinda like the amount of emissions?   

> but that forcast is just a number amongst others and should be taken in context.

   

> The only thing you can be sure of is that it is not right.

  Could you please tell us what the correct answer is?  

> Not because Treasury modelling is wrong but simply because there are a huge number of variables that will impact over the years.

    Are there variables in climate too?

----------


## chrisp

> MUST READ  
> What a post on WUWT by Joe Bastardi, how smart is this guy? By that I mean his whole approach to AGW is right on IMO.   
> Link Joe Bastardis 2011 Arctic Sea Ice Prediction | Watts Up With That?

  What was Joe's prediction?   

> Joe Bastardi says:  November 23, 2010 at 3:45 am
>  Keep in mind that while I  forecasted a warm summer in the arctic, the forecast I make is for NORTH of the arctic Circle.  I was not forecasting for  exclusively the area north of  80 north.  
>  I think we will find that it  was a warm summer overall north of the circle, but we had a nice [ice] cube  in the middle!   
>  In addition the sea ice forecast I made was for a min   between  2008   and 2009, after a rapid  spring melt, a leveling off,   which is close  to where it wound up. Remember I have been debating  publicly and  visibly the death spiral people on this matter.  
> My  forecast for next year is for sea ice to melt only to levels we  saw back  in  2005, or 06.  If I had to put a number on it, *I think it  would be  around 5.5 at its lowest*.  Joe Bastardis 2011 Arctic Sea Ice Prediction | Watts Up With That?

  It must be getting close to that time of the year to see how Joe Bastardi's prediction is stacking up. 
Let's check the facts...   

> *Overview of conditions* 
>                   On September 9, 2011 sea ice extent dropped to *4.33  million square kilometers* (1.67 million square miles). This appears to  have been the lowest extent of the year, and may mark the point when sea  ice begins its  cold-season cycle of growth. However, a shift in wind  patterns or late season melt could still push the ice extent lower.  Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

----------


## johnc

> Hello, 
> It's probably just some computer model worked out by an accountant. 
> You'd reckon the populace would wake up to that.You'd reckon the populace would wake up to that too. 
> Kinda like the amount of emissions? 
> Could you please tell us what the correct answer is? Are there variables in climate too?

  The point is putting a price on something 40 years out is based on a number of assumptions including the life of the scheme, GDP growth, technological change etc etc. It doesn't mean much on its own, it is just a number, the scheme will also be reviewed it will never happen. Can't we stick to points that might mean something instead of this rather trivial point.  
What it does mean to McCrann is something he can fill a bit of newsprint with, a point to play with, nothing more.

----------


## Dr Freud

> As for "the most corrupt and inept government this country  has ever  seen" crack....I'm still to be convinced.  Merely because *I haven't noticed* any significant difference between this version and the previous four or five...

  I have posted much information that is significantly different between the last government and this one.  And this is but a sample.  Are you a "denier" of this information, or does your reticular activating system need some tweaking?   

> perhaps that's because the country is actually *run* by bureaucrats rather than politcians....

  We are discussing introducing new legislation.  Surely even you understand this difference?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> This is the point missed by most casual commentators and those with more outlandish views.

  It is not a point missed, it is a point that is factually incorrect and therefore dismissed as nonsensical.   

> Department heads keep the ship of state pointed more or less in the same direction

  Yes, the direction set by politicians via legislation.  When politicians change the legislation, the direction changes.  Remember how we went from no people in detention to thousands of people in detention after the legislation changes.  The Department heads at DIAC (and their now rapidly expanding staff base) headed in the new direction.  This is not complicated stuff.  Are you blinded by ideology to the point you cannot even comprehend this separation of administration from the legislature and executive.  :Doh:    

> Treasury influence has pretty much ensured that regardless of which lot hold the keys there is not any significant difference in economic policy.

  You people scare me more with these comments than all your end of the world prophesies.  :Eek:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Actually there's often a stark difference in economic policies.  But bureacracy in the Westminster system has a wonderful capacity to buff out those wrinkles by the time of implementation to the point where the distinction between Left and Right is not unlike that between a Coles store and a Woolworths store... 
> "Dunno, mate. I just shop here."

  Can you show me the debt levels under the last four governments? 
Can you show me the deficit or surplus budgets under the last four governments? 
I'm just curious to see these "flat lines" after the bureaucracy has buffed out the wrinkles. 
And by your bizarre and failed logic, policies on your fictional "Global Warming" delusion are irrelevant anyway, as the government policies of the day are all buffed out to be indistinguishable.  So whether a government introduces a "Cool down the Planet Earth TAX" or not, there will be no difference after implementation?  Are you seriously buying what you're selling?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Australia will send $57bn a year overseas by 2050, Treasury modelling shows | The Australian

  That's dozens of first class hospitals per year.  Who cares if it gets a bit warmer, we can all have a fully air-conditioned hospital room each for that price. 
Cool, huh? 
The best part is we get ZERO temperature change for this. 
Hands up any clown who thinks this is value for money?  :Doh:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I have posted much information that is significantly different between the last government and this one.  And this is but a sample.  Are you a "denier" of this information, or does your reticular activating system need some tweaking?

  Your 'information' (like mine) is tainted by your perceptions. I don't percieve a significant difference. You do.  End of story.    

> We are discussing introducing new legislation.  Surely even you understand this difference?

  Of course. And your point?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Can you show me the debt levels under the last four governments? 
> Can you show me the deficit or surplus budgets under the last four governments? 
> I'm just curious to see these "flat lines" after the bureaucracy has buffed out the wrinkles.

  I could if I could be bothered to do the Google to confirm the numbers but since you & I (broadly) already know the answer then why would/should I? 
I would ask in return though....can you show me the difference that each of those deficits and surpluses have made to your day-to-day way of life? I'll wager you can't. Well I can't.   

> And by your bizarre and failed logic, policies on your fictional "Global Warming" delusion are irrelevant anyway, as the government policies of the day are all buffed out to be indistinguishable.  So whether a government introduces a "Cool down the Planet Earth TAX" or not, there will be no difference after implementation?  Are you seriously buying what you're selling?

  That's right. Yes. Yes (haven't you been selling the same thing?).

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Hands up any clown who thinks this is value for money?

  Depends how much money we get back.  Had a look at our terms of trade recently?

----------


## intertd6

> Depends how much money we get back. Had a look at our terms of trade recently?

  How much money back? Have you looked at the dills running the country lately. I would have my money on the second coming happening before this Govt ever got any money back in the future from any of their dopey schemes. I would have to be living in a cave with a rock rolled across the entrance not to realize this
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> Your 'information' (like mine) is tainted by your perceptions. I don't percieve a significant difference. You do.

  Perceive this!    

> You may ask why they are pushing all these taxes so much.  Mining taxes, flood taxes, Carbon Dioxide Taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes, taxes on taxes on taxes??? 
> Someone has to pay back all this DEBT from useless spending and waste.  JuLIAR has nominated you!    
> This is an old graph that only went to $130 billion. 
> It is currently about $190 billion and rising every day. 
> Cool huh!

  Yeh, it's so difficult to "perceive" any difference.  :Doh:  
This is not my information or your information, it is a fact! 
Except this update: *Total Commonwealth Government Securities on Issue - $206,892m* 
$207 billion debt and skyrocketing!!! 
Your continued semantic distraction and apologist stance for both this cult and this useless government makes you no different to them.   

> I would ask in return though....can you show me the difference that each of those deficits and surpluses have made to your day-to-day way of life? I'll wager you can't. Well I can't.

  Let me know if you have any friends or family in the public health system.  I'll be curious if the $10 billion in interest per year we are paying on this debt could have made a difference to their day-to-day life? 
Let me know if you have any friends or family with chronic disabilities.  Ask them if the $10 billion in interest per year we are paying on this debt could have  made a difference to their day-to-day life? 
As for my day-to-day life, I'm alright thanks Jack! A bit less disposable income thanks to these stupid taxes, soon to include the Carbon Dioxide TAX.  But I prefer to think of my country before myself.  It's the burden us grunts have to bear I guess.  :Wink 1:    

> End of story.

  I don't think so champ.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I have posted much information that is significantly different between the last government and this one.  And this is but a sample.  Are you a "denier" of this information, or does your reticular activating system need some tweaking?

   

> Your 'information' (like mine) is tainted by your perceptions. I don't percieve a significant difference.

  Perceive this!   

> *Andrew Bolt* 
>                                  Saturday,  July 24, 2010 at 12:13pm                             
>   On Channel 9s _ Today_ show this morning I again was asked if Tony Abbott could really stop the boats, as if this trade was somehow beyond the power of politicians to affect. I think the best proof that Abbott can indeed stop the boats, and that Julia Gillard has increased them lies in the above Department of Immigration graph, two which Ive added the two dots and the explanatory words. 
>   The yellow dot marks when John Howard turned back the Tampa and introduced the Pacific Solution, in August and September 2001. The red dot marks on 31 July 2008, when  Kevin Rudd, having already abolished the Pacific Solution four months earlier, announced a dramatic weakening of Howards other boat people laws. Rudd was following a blueprint largely of Julia Gillards own design.  
>   What the graph doesnt show is that since that red dot, up to 170 boat people have died at sea trying to get here. We might with justice say that Labor lured them to their deaths. 
>   (Just an aside, but why have the Liberals never used this case-closed graphic themselves?)     Proof that Gillard brought in the boats that Howard stopped | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Again, this is not my information or your information, it is a fact.  
The AGW hypothesis cult ignores facts of this nature regularly and enables this corrupt and inept government to foist an environmentally useless yet economically destructive TAX on all Australians.  
The data is plain for all to see.  You just have to be willing to open your eyes.  
But for you, you perceive no change to the data lines on charts above, but you "perceive" a massive and unprecedented spike in the last 100 years data below?     
I hope your powers of perception are improving.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Australia will send $57bn a year overseas by 2050, Treasury modelling shows | The Australian

   

> The best part is we get ZERO temperature change for this. 
> Hands up any clown who thinks this is value for money?

    

> Depends how much money we get back.

  You really don't get this do you? 
We don't get any money back.  These hundreds of billions of Australian taxpayers dollars will be shipped out to shonky (mostly African) nations who "promise" not to cut down trees.  A lot of them are still cutting down their own people, but JuLIAR says "trust them".  She certainly has earned our trust, not! 
Do you really think these shonks are going to send any money back?  :Doh:    

> Had a look at our terms of trade recently?

  This isn't driven by the Carbon Dioxide TAX, but will soon be reduced by it.  I'll post some stuff soon on this.  But you are right, we are facing massively high national income levels due to high terms of trade.  The question then is - What the hell is the government doing with all this money?  Or - Why are we racking up unprecedented national debts AND spending all our savings AND raising more TAXES while receiving this massive national income?   

> This time, the big jump in demand for iron ore, coal and now gas from China and other emerging market economies is fuelling big gains in export prices and national income. 
> But the surge in export prices also has boosted spending power across the nation by stoking job growth, company profits and government tax revenue. 
> We need to prepare for this by saving more of today's income surge, investing more of it in growth and promoting policies that will make the economy more flexible.  Terms of trade not seen in 140 years | The Australian

  I say again, the most corrupt and inept government this country has ever seen!  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

How much time, effort and energy has been wasted on this cult? 
Now they waste even more time and space, and push out people with real problems to fuel their cultish beliefs that their "status" is higher than others who can't afford the hybrids.   

> Reader Waxing Gibberish wonders why greens are considered more crippled than the disabled:  _I parked underneath the Darling Harbour exhibition center the other night and noticed that you can park closer to the exit if youre green than if youre disabled._To recognise a mental disability? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  So the rich latte drinkers get a good parking spot anyway.   :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *PRIME Minister Julia Gillard faces a damaging AFL revolt over pokies reforms with club presidents calling crisis talks tomorrow over the changes. * One AFL president, who asked not be named, said: ''This is not about politics, this is about survival.  
> ''The clubs are on the hook for millions of dollars on pokies. We've spent millions buying the machines and now the Government goes bang and changes the rules, undermining our revenues.''  
> Under his agreement with Ms Gillard, Mr Wilkie demanded mandatory pre-commitment by the 2012 Budget, forcing punters to register for smartcard or PIN before betting.  
> But if the reforms don't pass Parliament, Mr Wilkie, who helped deliver government to Labor, is threatening to switch his support to Tony Abbott.  
> Collingwood president Eddie McGuire told Channel 9 on Friday that clubs were endangered by the changes.  
> "To suddenly out of nowhere, without any consultation, to have what looks like being a *footy tax* imposed is going to hit football clubs right between the eyes," he said.  
> Hawthorn president Jeff Kennett yesterday predicted the Wilkie amendments would fail.   AFL pokies revolt hits Prime Minister Julia Gillard | Herald Sun

  If Wilkie doesn't get his "Footy TAX", then he'll dump JuLIAR and we won't get the Carbon Dioxide TAX either.  Then NONE of these ridiculous taxes will be introduced.   :Biggrin:  
We can but dream that this comes to pass. 
Or that Craig Thomson has an attack of the guilts and quits.   :2thumbsup:

----------


## johnc

The link is a Treasury document with some historical revenue/spending information along with some other bits and pieces. A pretty dry piece of information but a longer time frame than some of the short term graphs we see pushed by one side or the other. http://cache.treasury.gov.au/budget/.../bp1_bst10.pdf 
What it doesn't give is just where the claimed increased spending is going, but both sides and the press could do a better job of explaining what new spending there is, and if the problem is really just increases flowing from existing programs rather than any major blowout. Have a look at spending growth, 2001 and 2009 (stimulus) are two big years, however spending as a percentage of GDP has remained fairly steady since 1976 moving between a band of 24% to 26% (currently 26%). I wouldn't pay any attention to the forcast years, world events will have knocked our forcast GDP growth and these numbers should be assumed to be unreliable in the face of uncertainty.  
Although tax revenue has grown up until 2008 the GFC impacts have seen it steady, not increase, and then drop a little in 2010, using the % of GDP as a more meaningful measure it has dropped from around 25% in 2008 to around 22% in 2010 with a similar estimate for 2011 and that is the real problem, stagnant revenue in collections, or a decline in GDP terms with spending slightly higher than the average over the last decade. In real terms it (tax) was fairly steady at around 25% during the last decade up until the GFC and as a result has now dropped to around that 22% of GDP. 
Ignoring political standpoints to fix the problems we either have to wait for the economy to move back to growth, raise taxes or cut programs to bring things back to the black. All the talk of better or worse money managers is nothing but talk, in simple terms there is probably no spending blowouts to identify, or if there are they are insufficient to "fix" any deficit. The uncomfortable truth may simply be that the increased spending (other than the stimulus) is a function of the size of the economy rather than increases from any recent spending decisions. This means to balance the books something has to be cut, and I can't see either side to keen to do that, so deficits may be with us for some time.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> How much money back? Have you looked at the dills running the country lately. I would have my money on the second coming happening before this Govt ever got any money back in the future from any of their dopey schemes.

  Haha!!  As for the dills that think they run the country........which particular dills are you refering to? There's quite a number of them and not just the ones that get voted for....    

> I would have to be living in a cave with a  rock rolled across the entrance not to realize this

  Ahhh........so that's my problem!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yeh, it's so difficult to "perceive" any difference.  
> This is not my information or your information, it is a fact! 
> Except this update: *Total Commonwealth Government Securities on Issue - $206,892m* 
> $207 billion debt and skyrocketing!!!

  It's not about facts.  It's about whether you a) accept the facts and b) percieve them as a problem.  $207 billion debt is only a problem if you can't pay it back.  Since our national debt stands at roughly 20 to 25% of our national annual income then the capacity to pay it back is well within our grasp.   
Since most city based punters in this country seem to have mortgages that stand as high as 500% of the annual household income........you can understand the depth of my antipathy to your economic perceptions.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Perceive this! 
> Again, this is not my information or your information, it is a fact. 
> The AGW hypothesis cult ignores facts of this nature regularly and enables this corrupt and inept government to foist an environmentally useless yet economically destructive TAX on all Australians. 
> The data is plain for all to see.  You just have to be willing to open your eyes.

  Yes it is a bunch of facts.  Question is whetheryou percieve the fact to be a) real and b) a problem worth acting on.   
With respect to the first beat up on the totally not relevant topic of boat based immigration....yes it is real but no I don't percieve it to be a problem 
With respect to the second graphic that is topic related (congratulations)...I'm happy to accept the data on the face of it but......I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say except something along the lines of "it's happened before".....to which I respond.....no poo, Sherlock.....but the wrinkle is that, unlike previous epidsodes,  human civilisation was not quite at the scale that it is today.....

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> How much time, effort and energy has been wasted on this cult? 
> Now they waste even more time and space, and push out people with real problems to fuel their cultish beliefs that their "status" is higher than others who can't afford the hybrids. 
> So the rich latte drinkers get a good parking spot anyway.

  Actually.....I think they might be pandering to the Government fleets (and therefore the lure of Government contracts) rather than the rich latte drinkers.  Most hybrids around today are purchased by fleet buyers rather than private individuals. 
Smart thinking by the building owner.

----------


## intertd6

> Haha!! As for the dills that think they run the country........which particular dills are you refering to? There's quite a number of them and not just the ones that get voted for....   They aren't the local footy side your supporting you know, its has a bit more depth than that, the dills are the ones who lied to get voted in, the others are the the little hitler bureaucrats with a badge that follow the dills legislation & will happily spend $100 to have a low chance at getting back $1 
> Ahhh........so that's my problem!  Sometimes called "a light bulb moment"

  regards inter

----------


## johnc

If you got rid of all those who told or used party fibs in their electioneering there wouldn't be many if any left in parliament. As for the bureaucrats, the Australian lot aren't that bad, there are exceptions but the bulk are good. Political appointees and some of the over paid contractors on the other hand are an entirely different matter.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> They aren't the local footy side your supporting you know, its has a bit more depth than that,

  Really?  I've seen more depth in a crepe pan than in the standard of political jiggerypokery over the last two decades.  
As for the self centred sheep who vote for them.....the less said the better. 
I support whichever candidate irritates the current local member the most at the time of the election...in whichever electorate I happen to occupy at the time.  Makes it hard when the member is a National...there's just too many irritants to pick from sometimes.  At least a Labor canditate can hate with some decisiveness  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Sometimes called "a light bulb moment"

  Doubt it. I've only got candles in my place.

----------


## intertd6

> Doubt it. I've only got candles in my place.

  Be carefull at night for a stray puff of wind when you roll the door open, you could be further in the dark.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> I've seen more depth in a crepe pan than in the standard of political jiggerypokery over the last two decades.

  How true, seems like its a merry go round of voting out the dills of the day, but with these ones I'd be pretty certain they will have their rein of kaos cut shorter than they intended through their own stupidity
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> If you got rid of all those who told or used party fibs in their electioneering there wouldn't be many if any left in parliament.

  I must be one of the silly millions that based my voting preference on a key election promise that she made, you may be able to justify to yourself for her actions but the masses will never elect her again. And while the other ones still have a rumor of workchoices around Bob Katter could be in with a chance.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...but with these ones I'd be pretty certain they will have their rein of kaos cut shorter than they intended through their own stupidity

  Oh absolutely.  Though I'm not quite sure that chaos is supposed to be this entertaining...

----------


## johnc

> I must be one of the silly millions that based my voting preference on a key election promise that she made, you may be able to justify to yourself for her actions but the masses will never elect her again. And while the other ones still have a rumor of workchoices around Bob Katter could be in with a chance.
> regards inter

  Distort at will if you must, but my reference was to the lot of them from all sides. I have never voted for a PM as like most Australians we realise we actually vote for a sitting member to represent us. Those who decide to elect Julia Gillard are only those from her own electorate, it is for her party to decide if she continues as leader and the whole country decides if it will give her party sufficient votes to govern. The lack of decent leadership and lack of direction on both sides is galling, but despite all cries to the contrary we have had worse leadership, try reading up on the Billy Hughes period it makes the current crop look quite tame. 
I doubt Bob Katter has a chance but with the current situation someone with leadership, talent and direction could give a new party a start. If they did the Libs, Nats and Labor could join ranks, the Nats and Labor have climbed into the same bed before in the distant past.  
Australian politics is littered with election promise U turns, I'm surprised you thought our current leader would be any different. We have had core and non core promises along with LAW tax cuts both U turns that everyone seemed to get over quickly, bit of a mystery why this one has hung around so long. 
In todays press it gives two estimates one that a carbon tax could cost each household $500 per year, and that each household throws out $600 per year of uneaten food. If we can afford to waste that much fruit and veg we have no reason to be bitching about a teeny weeny tax have we?

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

And the beat goes on... 
But, after Andrew's day (and the boltist-type and sheepish-following performers), may the ignorant people see that Mr. Bolt's commentary, be it a commentary on indigenous affairs or, well, whatever he thinks he is qualified to "report" on, to be an absolute joke. 
Is this guy qualified to discuss the "science" of climate change? He can't even address 'socio-political'-type discussion accurately yet, some here subscribe to inking their blood to Mr Bolt assertions. Shame really. 
It is concerning when some people so steadfastly and strongly hold fast to the discussions of someone who purports to have an absolutist idea about everything.  
Despite their discussions otherwise,... some people just don't read widely enough.  
The Judgment of the Federal Court against Bolt is embarrassing to Bolt and those who place him on a pedestal.      
Shame.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> How much time, effort and energy has been wasted on this cult? 
> Now they waste even more time and space, and push out people with real problems to fuel their cultish beliefs that their "status" is higher than others who can't afford the hybrids.   
> So the rich latte drinkers get a good parking spot anyway.

  
What do you drive?

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> You really don't get this do you? 
> We don't get any money back.  These hundreds of billions of Australian taxpayers dollars will be shipped out to shonky (mostly African) nations who "promise" not to cut down trees.  A lot of them are still cutting down their own people, but JuLIAR says "trust them".  She certainly has earned our trust, not! 
> Do you really think these shonks are going to send any money back?    
> This isn't driven by the Carbon Dioxide TAX, but will soon be reduced by it.  I'll post some stuff soon on this.  But you are right, we are facing massively high national income levels due to high terms of trade.  The question then is - What the hell is the government doing with all this money?  Or - Why are we racking up unprecedented national debts AND spending all our savings AND raising more TAXES while receiving this massive national income?   
> I say again, the most corrupt and inept government this country has ever seen!

  
People really need to get their own thoughts. I'm so sick of sheep. Why do people shade themselves with the colour of other peoples perspectives and not write publish their own research/writings?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And the beat goes on... 
> But, after Andrew's day (and the boltist-type and sheepish-following performers), may the ignorant people see that Mr. Bolt's commentary, be it a commentary on indigenous affairs or, well, whatever he thinks he is qualified to "report" on, to be an absolute joke. 
> Is this guy qualified to discuss the "science" of climate change? He can't even address 'socio-political'-type discussion accurately yet, some here subscribe to inking their blood to Mr Bolt assertions. Shame really. 
> It is concerning when some people so steadfastly and strongly hold fast to the discussions of someone who purports to have an absolutist idea about everything.  
> Despite their discussions otherwise,... some people just don't read widely enough.  
> The Judgment of the Federal Court against Bolt is embarrassing to Bolt and those who place him on a pedestal.      
> Shame.

  Far be it for me to actually defend the Bolter....but crowing about his recent legal failings doesn't really add to this topic.  His views with respect to climate change reflect those of his audience (and his own genuine need to be entertaining) but they are most certainly not contrary to law.  The saving grace is that they are easily either recanted or ignored. 
Misrepresentation of science is a sport.....a fairly stupid sport it may be but at least any idiot can play.

----------


## johnc

> Far be it for me to actually defend the Bolter....but crowing about his recent legal failings doesn't really add to this topic. His views with respect to climate change reflect those of his audience (and his own genuine need to be entertaining) but they are most certainly not contrary to law. The saving grace is that they are easily either recanted or ignored. 
> Misrepresentation of science is a sport.....a fairly stupid sport it may be but at least any idiot can play.

  The judgement did point to an onus on the journalist to be factually correct when quoting or making assertions and to make a reasonable effort to do so. It is possible this judgement may have implications beyond this case. However in the end he was found guilty on the basis of what was patently incorrect along with demeaning statements rather than the subject matter,

----------


## intertd6

> Distort at will if you must, but my reference was to the lot of them from all sides. I have never voted for a PM as like most Australians we realise we actually vote for a sitting member to represent us. Those who decide to elect Julia Gillard are only those from her own electorate, it is for her party to decide if she continues as leader and the whole country decides if it will give her party sufficient votes to govern. _I would have to be smoking the curtains to think that as distorting. Even myself with an average sort of intelligence knows that voting for their local member is like throwing my vote away when it comes to the party policys, they have no say, unless its a marginal seat & they want to throw away gizzillions of dollars buttering up people like you_ 
> try reading up on the Billy Hughes period it makes the current crop look quite tame.  _Maybe you should as well, back then Australia had one of the highest standards of living in the world, jobs for everybody, cheap power & connected for free, people could survive & prosper on one household income, the list goes on....._ 
> I doubt Bob Katter has a chance but with the current situation someone with leadership, talent and direction could give a new party a start. If they did the Libs, Nats and Labor could join ranks, the Nats and Labor have climbed into the same bed before in the distant past.   _The masses are pretty well fed up with all of this lot, Bob has timing on his side at this moment._ 
> Australian politics is littered with election promise U turns, I'm surprised you thought our current leader would be any different. We have had core and non core promises along with LAW tax cuts both U turns that everyone seemed to get over quickly, bit of a mystery why this one has hung around so long.  _You seem to have swallowed the whole sharade hook, line & sinker, have a look at the polls for the people that haven't_ 
> In todays press it gives two estimates one that a carbon tax could cost each household $500 per year, and that each household throws out $600 per year of uneaten food. If we can afford to waste that much fruit and veg we have no reason to be bitching about a teeny weeny tax have we?  _See above for answer_

  regards inter

----------


## johnc

Most of the previous post isn't worth responding to but the reference to the standard of living in Billy Hughes time lacks perspective. Some of what you say is right but the average wage was about $10 per week. A young person generally could forget about Uni secondary school was a dream for many and even by 1930 year 9 was about it. There was little health care and you had a 95% chance of dying if you went to hospital at the start of the 1900's. Power was not cheap compared to average wages and a new car out of the question for most. Women seldom had a job once married, and regardless of that earned less than men anyway. Your wardrobe may have had a suit but really didn't extend beyond a couple of changes of clothes and a second pair of shoes. There was no unemployment benefits and the age pension arrived in his time, not that it mattered not many lived until 65 or much beyond it anyway. 
Yes people survived but they didn't prosper, except for a couple of brief periods, they got WW1, the depression and few opportunities, but we did have a good standard of living compared to the rest of the world and it is still very good today. 
The sheeples follow the last populist line, currently run by the opposition, without even thinking about it, Labor will probably be out on its ear at the next election but do you really believe that things will change much, I don't. The problem remains that revenue as a percentage of GDP is dropping, spending doesn't fully explain our current problems and neither side seems capable of on one hand explaining the situation and on the other how they will do better. I do not swallow the line that our problems are just the actions of the current government, it is more than that and the actions that paid off the debt last time are not options that exist this time around. We do not have assets we can sell off nor do we have rising mining and company tax revenues in real terms.

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> The problem remains that revenue as a percentage of GDP is dropping, spending doesn't fully explain our current problems and neither side seems capable of on one hand explaining the situation and on the other how they will do better. I do not swallow the line that our problems are just the actions of the current government, it is more than that and the actions that paid off the debt last time are not options that exist this time around. We do not have assets we can sell off nor do we have rising mining and company tax revenues in real terms.

  Hello, thank you for finally admitting and confirming the Tax has nothing to do with Global Warming or Climate Change, it is purely an alternative revenue stream. 
The Greenies are going to love you. :Rolleyes:

----------


## johnc

> Hello, thank you for finally admitting and confirming the Tax has nothing to do with Global Warming or Climate Change, it is purely an alternative revenue stream. 
> The Greenies are going to love you.

  Don't make connections that aren't there, although from a budget perspective there will be ingoings and outgoings associated with a carbon tax those stand alone within the budget framework. The impact on carbon emmisions and global warming of an economic lever such as the carbon tax is a different matter, the tax is created to have an impact on emmissions and that in turn has an impact of some form on the budget. 
Your line is similar to saying unemployment benefits don't impact on poverty, it's just an alternative expenditure stream. :Wink:

----------


## intertd6

> The impact on carbon emmisions and global warming of an economic lever such as the carbon tax is a different matter, the tax is created to have an impact on emissions and that in turn has an impact of some form on the budget. 
> :

  Thank goodness the followers of this stuff are in the minority & getting smaller by the day. Again for the non believers of this garbage just look at the polls
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

Sorry for my absence guys.  I have been doing a very complicated plastering job in a school the past few months and organising my daughters wedding  :Smilie: . 
One down one to go!! 
Will be back posting soon once I get caught up with all the things I have been neglecting. 
Cheers rod

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Again for the non believers of this garbage just look at the polls

  Why limit oneself to living life dominated by a popularity contest? 
Now if our pollies did a bit of poll dancing then I might take things more seriously...that takes skill!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Will be back posting soon once I get caught up with all the things I have been neglecting.

  Don't feel the need to hurry.  We've been travelling in a sufficiently mediocre fashion even without you...

----------


## PhilT2

> Sorry for my absence guys.  I have been doing a very complicated plastering job in a school the past few months and organising my daughters wedding . 
> One down one to go!! 
> Will be back posting soon once I get caught up with all the things I have been neglecting. 
> Cheers rod

  Pass on our best wishes to the soon to be newlyweds, hope there's a long and prosperous future ahead of them.

----------


## johnc

> Sorry for my absence guys. I have been doing a very complicated plastering job in a school the past few months and organising my daughters wedding . 
> One down one to go!! 
> Will be back posting soon once I get caught up with all the things I have been neglecting. 
> Cheers rod

  Best wishes to the Bride and Groom, hopefully they do their bit to continue the family line and bring the joyful patter of little feet at some point.

----------


## chrisp

> Best wishes to the Bride and Groom, hopefully they do their bit to continue the family line and bring the joyful patter of little feet at some point.

  And may all their walls and ceilings be straight, true and finished to Level 5.   :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

> Why limit oneself to living life dominated by a popularity contest? 
> Now if our pollies did a bit of poll dancing then I might take things more seriously...that takes skill!

  popularity & polls in the world we live in are just about everything, especially in political la la land, when the pollies dont believe the polls then they are believing their own lies, the very thing that finished the howard gov't & this lot are about to do the same thing, bright aren't they !
regards inter

----------


## johnc

What finished the Howard era was not that they stopped believing the polls but people stopped listening and believing in them. It was a case of the spin catching up and credibility lost, is the same happening to Labor? who knows for sure. It is possible the polls mainly reflect Liberal spin winning which could be correct but it might also be that Labor can't work out what message they want to spin. Abbots risk is he over does it and it blows up in his face, other than that Labor's has to hope they manage to pull something out of the bag (aka Tampa) which seems unlikely.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> don't feel the need to hurry.  We've been travelling in a sufficiently mediocre fashion even without you...

  nice

----------


## Rod Dyson

> and may all their walls and ceilings be straight, true and finished to level 5.

  lol

----------


## Marc

> And the beat goes on...bla 
> But, after Andrew's day ...bla..... whatever he thinks he is qualified to "report" on, to be an absolute joke.
>  bla...
> Is this guy qualified to discuss the "science" of climate change? ....bla 
> more bla...

  If we must find an equivalent to today's (conceded fast declining) hunt for the "climate change denier" we will have to go as far back as the Catholic Inquisition and more recently the Americans'  hunt for the communist or "anti-American activities". 
It is not surprising that if one states "belief" in "climate change" no one will bother asking for the basis of such radical statement of faith. "I believe" is enough. Does God exist? No one asks for proof. Not openly anyway. 
Utter the contrary and you will be required to spill out not only why but also the credentials of those who you have borrowed the logic behind your assertion. 
And here is the problem.  
Those who are busy out there purporting lies and half truth in order to defend one flimsy position, do so as professionals. Fully and generously funded by large state grants, they are there to defend their very existence.
Like the monks of old, their life depends from the fallacy that humans are changing the climate, and that therefore humans can change it back. Two fallacy in one.  
When the yes-minister vast funding is not in discussion, the focus is always on the conspiracy theory of mysterious "Oil-company" funding to the opposing view. I have searched for this so called funds to see if I can get some, with no success. If someone knows how I can get paid for writing about my opinion on this matter please let me know.    
The credentials of the officialist yeasayers is as unspecific and  varied as the credentials the opposition has, yet such is also hardly ever the  focus of attention. 
The reality is that there aren't many people who have made climatology their main focus of study simply because there was never money in such line of specialization until now. So you find that in this "Climate change" debate, from physicist to economist to sociologist to psychologist all feel to have a contributory opinion, and an interpretation of the little data that is not yet corrupted, distorted, falsified or otherwise skewed towards one or another position.  
Reporters, opinion writers news readers and commentators, have no qualifications by definition. They do not collect data and make studies to arrive to a conclusion. They take the information in the public domain and either simply read it to you or go one little step further and interpret it for you based on their own personal values.  
The "A.climate change" supporters do exactly the same, since they also do not hold climatology credentials yet their opinions carry more weight simply because they belong to the church. 
Furthermore, in the case of the A.Climate change, it is not credentials in climatology that are required but credentials in political science, mass psychology, lobbyist science, stage magic and other instruments of deception.
Anthropogenic climate change was never about science and always about mass deception shifting power and funds towards an alternative political and social hidden agenda.
The "science" is just a distraction. 
What makes one person decide to support one opinion over another has nothing to do with their qualifications or lack of research and all to do with their own personal values. 
Just like hardly anyone has ever embraced a religion based on research and logic, sociopolitical positions like "A.Climate change" are made based on personal values and research into it made at a later stage to justify the side taken. 
A bit like the impulsive buyer who after the purchase frantically researches prices. 
Funny hey?

----------


## Marc

*Climate Change: an emetic fallacy*  		 			 			 				 					By James Delingpole Politics 					Last updated:  May 11th, 2011 1503 Comments Comment on this article   personally I prefer mine with fruit.... 
 Yesterday I was at Downing College, Cambridge, for a Climate Change  conference organised by Professor Alan Howard, the  scientist/philanthropist/entrepreneur known, inter alia, for having  devised the Cambridge diet and for funding the magnificent lecture hall  in which the event took place. (For more reporting – and some brilliant  cartoons from Josh who sat right next to me sketching in a most  impressive way – see Bishop Hill; and many, many thanks to the Howard Trust for organising it.)
 The big difference between this and almost any other Climate Change  conference is that it was the first – in Britain, anyway, so far as I  know – to field a solid team of scientists from both sides of the  debate. The Warmists included Professor Phil Jones of the Climatic  Research Unit, Professor Andrew Watson  – also of the UEA and Professor John Mitchell, former chief scientist  at the Met Office. The Sceptics – Realists if you prefer – included  Professor Henrik Svensmark, Professor Nils-Axel Morner, and Professor  Ian Plimer. Any mention of "Climategate" announced Prof Howard at the  beginning would result in immediate ejection: he wanted to keep this  event civil and scientific.
 So no, I didn't go up and introduce myself to Phil Jones as the man  who made him world famous. I think he may have given me a long, hard,  hollow stare at breakfast yesterday morning; and there was a dodgy  moment during a coffee break where he perched his cup near me, suddenly  noticed the danger, and fled elsewhere. But I certainly wasn't going to  bother him, not least because I think he cut a rather pitiable figure.  His talk – essentially on why the CRU's adjusted temperature figures are  kosher – was slightly nervy and resolutely dull. I got the impression  he now wishes climate science were just an apolitical backwater in which  yer average PhD could happily eke out his career untroubled by the kind  of controversy which has all but ruined Jones's life.
 Some of the presentations were excellent. It was particularly good to  hear Professor Svensmark make his compelling case (which no one on the  other side could successfully refute) on cosmic rays and cloud  formation. But overall, I shared the disappointment expressed by one of  the final speakers, Czech President Vaclav Klaus that there had been  almost no honest, open debate between the two sides. One side made its  case; then the other put its contradictory case. But apart from a bit of  snide questioning and the odd sniping shot from the wings, there wasn't  much by way of robust exchanging of ideas. It was more – as Klaus noted  – a series of monologues.
 You'd have to be very naive, though, to conclude that the fault lay  on both sides and that if only they could communicate with one another  we'd all attain the sensible middle ground position where wisdom, truth  and sweet reasonableness resides. That would be to fall for what I call  the "Dog S*** Yoghurt Fallacy."
 It goes like this: one side of this debate thinks that the best thing  to put in yoghurt is fruit; the other side is of the view that what  really needs to be added to yoghurt is a nice bit of dog poo. Now  suppose we were to compromise. Suppose the latter faction were to  concede sufficient ground to agree that only a tiny quantity of dog poo  should go into the mainly fruit-rich yoghurt, would this constitute a  victory for commonsense?
 Of course it wouldn't. Even if just the smallest, smidgen of a  fraction of dog poo were to go into that yoghurt it would still be  irredeemably tainted. Similar rules apply to the current debate on  global warming. On one side – what you might call the fruit side – you  have those scientists, economists and, yes, bloggers who maintain that  CO2 is a generally beneficial trace gas which encourages plant growth  and poses no risk of catastrophic global warming. On the other side –  the dog poo side, obviously – you have "scientists", politicians, spivs,  rent-seekers, cranks, whackos, eco-loons, EU fonctionnaires and such  like who believe that CO2 poses a major problem to global climate and  must be taxed and regulated to oblivion.
 Which side is right? One of the very few things which emerged from yesterday's debate with pellucid clarity was this:
 WE DON'T KNOW.
 The Warmist scientists are quite capable of talking a good game about  their belief system, even to the point – almost – of being persuasive  on the subject of their computer "projections" of future global  temperatures.
 But then, so too are the Sceptics. You'd need to be very set in your  belief system indeed to come away from one of Professor Ian Plimer's  feisty, funny engaging lectures and not be convinced that the whole idea  of AGW is a complete crock. Same goes for Professor Nils Axel Morner's  hilarious, crazy-Swede lecture on his experiences measuring sea-level  rises in the Maldives (there hasn't been any: whatever the Maldives  president and his underwater cabinet tell you). Same also goes for Prof  Svensmark: really his cosmic ray theory is gloriously compelling.
 In other words there is still an enormous amount of uncertainty out  there about the chaotic system which causes climate. But here's the rub:  global policy makers are acting as if there isn't.
 And the reason they're acting as if there isn't because, essentially,  they have been hijacked by the scientists on the Warmist side who –  behaving far more like political activists than dispassionate seekers  after truth – have exaggerated the strength of their case, even to the  point of tweaking their data and suppressing contradictory research, in  order to ensure that their "correct" interpretation of reality is the  one that prevails.
 This was the whole point of the Climategate scandal and why it  mattered. And since Climategate – as we saw from the entirely  unapologetic, nay struttingly arrogant in some cases – behaviour of the Warmist scientists present absolutely zip-all has changed.
 Hence Dr Klaus's frustration. Apart from being the only European  leader (apart from Hungary's) worth his salt, Dr Klaus is also an  economist and a former serf of a Communist state.
 He said: "The arrogance of global warming activists and their fellow  travellers in politics is something I know well from the past. They wish  to suppress truth, control the market and dictate policy and I, who  have spent most of my time living under communism feel obliged to warn  against it."

----------


## intertd6

> What finished the Howard era was not that they stopped believing the polls but people stopped listening and believing in them. It was a case of the spin catching up and credibility lost, is the same happening to Labor? who knows for sure. It is possible the polls mainly reflect Liberal spin winning which could be correct but it might also be that Labor can't work out what message they want to spin. Abbots risk is he over does it and it blows up in his face, other than that Labor's has to hope they manage to pull something out of the bag (aka Tampa) which seems unlikely.

  What finished howard & will finish this lot is the lack of backbone from the party members to cross the floor & vote against idiotic legislation which will sink them in the end & finish their political careers, Ah thats right they have a pension for life as soon as they get the boot, a real incentive for doing the right thing at the right time & looking after the people of the country. 
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> What finished howard & will finish this lot is the lack of backbone from the party members to cross the floor & vote against idiotic legislation....

  That's seriously unrealistic...they are members of a Party, a team, an organisation.  That's like expecting an Australian rugby union player to start playing for the All Blacks on Saturday simply because he thinks that they are a better team.   
All we have in this country is the Red Team, the Blue Team and the Green Team.  Plus a few random shouters.  If you want random politics driven by individual opinions then perhaps we should all vote for independents...or we could have multiparty coalitions as in Europe (where it's working out swimmingly!?).  
Politics is all about compromise. It's not about what people actually think. Which is probably fortunate.

----------


## johnc

> What finished howard & will finish this lot is the lack of backbone from the party members to cross the floor & vote against idiotic legislation which will sink them in the end & finish their political careers, Ah thats right they have a pension for life as soon as they get the boot, a real incentive for doing the right thing at the right time & looking after the people of the country. 
> regards inter

  Idiotic legislation is in the eye of the beholder, what one hates another may love :Rolleyes: . SBD is right we are watching a team sport and unless you want 100% independents it will stay that way. Oddly enough the constitution wasn't really designed with a party system as strong as what we have at the moment and our parliaments systems including question time could do with an overhaul perhaps looking at the way the poms manage debate and their question time. 
I think the problem has a lot more to do with the shortening media cycle as observed by many commentators, our polititians are currently stuck in a gold fish bowl where every word is scrutinised and rehashed. It is little wonder we get served up the quick sound bites and lack of substance that passes for political debate these days. We don't have decent discussion anymore just grab any old point and bash it to death. Truth is lost in a vacuum created by the word no floating in a bucket of vitriol.

----------


## intertd6

> That's seriously unrealistic.* Only for you guys * That's like expecting an Australian rugby union player to start playing for the All Blacks on Saturday simply because he thinks that they are a better team.  *You seem to mixing up sport with something more serious with far reaching implications, no wonder your having trouble seeing past the smoke screen & mirrors. * All we have in this country is the Red Team, the Blue Team and the Green Team. Plus a few random shouters. If you want random politics driven by individual opinions then perhaps we should all vote for independents...or we could have multiparty coalitions as in Europe (where it's working out swimmingly!?).   *Who cares what the sides are called they were voted in to follow the wishes of the majority of the masses, hence the importance of polls* Politics is all about compromise. It's not about what people actually think. Which is probably fortunate. *See above*

  regards inter

----------


## intertd6

[QUOTE=johnc;857381]Idiotic legislation is in the eye of the beholder    *Yes thats right, all you have to do know is work out what it is, 70% of the population has already*   SBD is right we are watching a team sport  *Amusing for some, but not for those who know the difference between a sides on football field & the Australian population who are against idiotic legislation*  
QUOTE]
regards inter

----------


## johnc

[QUOTE=intertd6;857506]  

> Idiotic legislation is in the eye of the beholder  *Yes thats right, all you have to do know is work out what it is, 70% of the population has already* SBD is right we are watching a team sport  *Amusing for some, but not for those who know the difference between a sides on football field & the Australian population who are against idiotic legislation*  
> QUOTE]
> regards inter

  Aren't you in that case arguing that all votes should be poll driven, pandering to  electoral whims rather than weighing up the facts and voting according to what is right. Supposedly it is the slavish following of focus groups and the whim of the electorate that delivers bad policy and outcomes. 
In the end we need politicans that can explain policy and debate cleanly without spin (which will never happen but can be better than it is in 2011) to lead, not behave like sheep running after the populist masses. Great leaders aren't sheep they set direction and carry a country forward.

----------


## Ken-67

In the end, in a democracy, the people get the politicians they deserve, whichever side you vote for. Until enough voters start really thinking about their vote, we will end up with mediocre politicians, who care more about their position, and political point-scoring, than about doing what is in the long-term interest of the country. 
Whether you are for or against the carbon tax is a moot point; it is now a done deal, and will stay with us regardless of who wins the next election. We will all have to live with the ramifications, whatever they may be.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> That's seriously unrealistic.* Only for you guys * That's like expecting an Australian rugby union player to start playing for the All Blacks on Saturday simply because he thinks that they are a better team.  *You seem to mixing up sport with something more serious with far reaching implications, no wonder your having trouble seeing past the smoke screen & mirrors. * All we have in this country is the Red Team, the Blue Team and the Green Team. Plus a few random shouters. If you want random politics driven by individual opinions then perhaps we should all vote for independents...or we could have multiparty coalitions as in Europe (where it's working out swimmingly!?).   *Who cares what the sides are called they were voted in to follow the wishes of the majority of the masses, hence the importance of polls* Politics is all about compromise. It's not about what people actually think. Which is probably fortunate. *See above*

  Sorry , Old Son. Australian politics is a sport.  And whose 'side' you are on is _everything._  For better or worse.  However, there is hope.  The political schizophrenia of late is a reflection of the fact that the 'masses' are finally getting a guernsey.  Which is seriously flamin' ace, eh?  Makes me feel alive and successfully irritating....

----------


## intertd6

[QUOTE=johnc;857518]  

> Aren't you in that case arguing that all votes should be poll driven, pandering to electoral whims *NO!* rather than weighing up the facts and voting according to what is right. *Yes! like the election promise of no carbon tax* Supposedly it is the slavish following of focus groups and the whim of the electorate that delivers bad policy and outcomes. _What is their excuse for delivering bad policy & outcomes then, a dart board with hair brained ideas plastered all over it_ In the end we need politicans that can explain policy and debate cleanly without spin _70% of the population has proved to them that they are not stupid & can add up all the BS by not swallowing this stuff, you see the govt is still putting the spin on it, even just about everybody in business & politics from here & abroad has shot the policy to pieces as utterly ridiculous untill there is a global approach_ (which will never happen but can be better than it is in 2011) to lead, not behave like sheep running after the populist masses. Great leaders aren't sheep they set direction and carry a country forward._ They are leading alright & they think there is a light at the end of the tunnel, trouble is its a dirty great train coming the other way which will wipe them away. When the polls constantly show how much the leader & their party is going down in popularity something is not right, at least with Kev he was letting the stupid policies die a quiet death & moving along with more meaningfull objectives_

  regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Sorry , Old Son. Australian politics is a sport. And whose 'side' you are on is _everything._ For better or worse. _Just like the days of WW1 in 1915 when they could lose thousands of men on a day, now that was sport for the political & defence leaders of the day, you probably haven't worked out that we are the modern equivilant of their sport & they are on one side & we are on the other doing their dirty work. The number one character trait of a leader is getting someone to do something that they could never do themselves & having your believe its sport where you always follow your team religiously._ However, there is hope. The political schizophrenia of late is a reflection of the fact that the 'masses' are finally getting a guernsey. Which is seriously flamin' ace, eh? Makes me feel alive and successfully irritating....

  regards inter

----------


## johnc

You cannot draw a comparison between the bloody and brutal deaths of hundreds of thousands in the murderous cruelty of WW1 with what is a bloodless political spat between our major parties. That simply demeans and trivialises the deaths of all those young men nearly a century ago. You are also confusing politics with military tactics, the actions of the Generals against the objectives of the politicians there is a difference.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Sorry , Old Son. Australian politics is a sport. And whose 'side' you are on is _everything._ For better or worse. _Just  like the days of WW1 in 1915 when they could lose thousands of men on a  day, now that was sport for the political & defence leaders of the  day, you probably haven't worked out that we are the modern equivilant  of their sport & they are on one side & we are on the other  doing their dirty work. The number one character trait of a leader is  getting someone to do something that they could never do themselves  & having your believe its sport where you always follow your team  religiously._ However, there is hope. The political  schizophrenia of late is a reflection of the fact that the 'masses' are  finally getting a guernsey. Which is seriously flamin' ace, eh? Makes me  feel alive and successfully irritating....

  Just like WW1.  Yes.  But the social attitudes of the day have changed...fortunately.  And you have nailed the sociopathy of a leader in one.   
Trouble is the assumption that my belief that it is a sport (which is true) means that I (and my others) actually barrack for a team.   Couldn't be more wrong.  I'm one of those people who may watch the sport and politics simply for the blood, violence and psychopatheic tendencies of the commentary position.  Couldn't give a flying fruitcake about whom is winning...I just watch for the entertainment.  
Given the fact that the Red, Blue and Green Teams have relatively tiny membership compared to the population at large.........I'll wager good money that I'm far from alone.

----------


## intertd6

> You cannot draw a comparison between the bloody and brutal deaths of hundreds of thousands in the murderous cruelty of WW1 with what is a bloodless political spat between our major parties. That simply demeans and trivialises the deaths of all those young men nearly a century ago. You are also confusing politics with military tactics, the actions of the Generals against the objectives of the politicians there is a difference.

  You just cant see the sheer bloody minded stupidity, then, now & always of some leaders (thats the comparison). I do believe we are presently engaged in war on several fronts, of which has nothing to do with us. Its just a game to them because they are so far out of touch with reality, just power hungry little people not qualified to do anything really especially run a country. They say you have to kiss a lot of frogs to find a prince, this country is covered in warts from looking for a decent leader. 
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Just like WW1. Yes. But the social attitudes of the day have changed...fortunately. And you have nailed the sociopathy of a leader in one.  
> Trouble is the assumption that my belief that it is a sport (which is true) means that I (and my others) actually barrack for a team. Couldn't be more wrong. I'm one of those people who may watch the sport and politics simply for the blood, violence and psychopatheic tendencies of the commentary position. Couldn't give a flying fruitcake about whom is winning...I just watch for the entertainment.  _If there wasn't serious & lasting outcomes to your entertainment (unlike footy) then it would be classed as so, get someone to belt your finger with a hammer, you probably wont think its entertaining, but I'm sure there are some people out there that would find it very amusing.Very few though. _ Given the fact that the Red, Blue and Green Teams have relatively tiny membership compared to the population at large.........I'll wager good money that I'm far from alone.

  regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

A while ago I worked on a project with a lady who also had a daughter with a significant disability. She put a lot of her own time and money into helping other families who had kids with disabilities. At the same time she was also director of the family plumbing business, and talked about the early days when she went out with her father and grandfather installing septic tanks. She's a federal senator now, one with real world experience of running a business, raising kids and getting your hands dirty. Politicians are people with the same traits as the rest of us, some strengths and some weaknesses. we don't get the politicians we deserve, we get people who are just like us.

----------


## intertd6

> A while ago I worked on a project with a lady who also had a daughter with a significant disability. She put a lot of her own time and money into helping other families who had kids with disabilities. At the same time she was also director of the family plumbing business, and talked about the early days when she went out with her father and grandfather installing septic tanks. She's a federal senator now, one with real world experience of running a business, raising kids and getting your hands dirty. Politicians are people with the same traits as the rest of us, some strengths and some weaknesses. we don't get the politicians we deserve, we get people who are just like us.

  _No disrespect to the lady with her great volunteer work but there is big gap between helping her close family once apon a time to being a company director, like doing 4 years apprenticeship to be a qualified trades person, up to your knees in s**t most days for 30 years to get real world experience of what a lot of people do for a living, maybe she has done all that & is truly the exception to the norm, we need more of them.
regards inter_

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here we go read the reviews then read the book. Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert 
This entire great ship is sinking and Gillard just attached here tinny to it LMAO. 
We just live in hope the Tax does not do too much harm before it gets repealled .

----------


## woodbe

Just thought I'd make a rare appearance here to let our fake sceptics know that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project has submitted 4 papers for publication. You may remember that this team was hailed by sceptics and fake sceptics as they would surely blow open the AGW conspiracy with their large data set, highly qualified personnel and open & transparent methods. 
News for Fake Sceptics: 
1) UHI hype is just that. Hype only, not supported by the data.
2) The global temperature record is intact and found to be correct (NASA GISS, NOAA/NCDC, and HadCRU) So much for the character assassination of scientists like Phil Jones with claims that the records were falsified and adjusted. 
If you like to watch Dunning-Kruger for fun, pop over to WUWT to see it en masse.  
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

The BEST papers are here Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011)

----------


## Marc

*Analysis of NASA Satellite Data Suggests UN Climate Models are Full of Hot Air*      
  					 						By Doug Powers  •  July 28, 2011 12:28 PM					 _**Written by Doug Powers_
 Stand down, Green Helmets!
 From Forbes by way of Yahoo News: NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show  the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into  space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study  in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates  far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer  models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases  in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have  claimed.
 Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at  the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for  the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua  satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite  contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
 “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to  space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer  said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge  discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big  over the oceans.”
 In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than  alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show  the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United  Nations computer models predicted.So maybe we _won’t_ have to spend $76 trillion to “green” the world? 
 From the report (PDF): Yet, as seen in Figure 2, we are still faced with a  rather large discrepancy in the time-lagged regression coefficients  between the radiative signatures displayed by the real climate system in  satellite data versus the climate models.In all fairness, I wouldn’t expect computer models to be spot-on  simulations of the real climate system, but in honest research I _would_  expect computer models to, at least once in a while, not always  coincidentally err on the side of the equation that just happens to make  Al Gore richer and serve as “evidence” that the UN should be further  funded to police the impending catastrophe. 
 Computer models of possible hurricane trajectories usually contain an  array of possibilities based on a number of variables, but if the UN’s  climates models were used, Hurricane Global Warming would always be  poised for a direct hit on wherever the most wealth can be transferred.
 And in related “Al Gore hardest hit” news… JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose  observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic  helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on  administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific  misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.
 Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of  Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was  told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an  investigation into “integrity issues.” But he has not yet been informed  by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions  related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch,  executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
 On Thursday, Ruch’s watchdog group plans to file a complaint with the  agency on Monnett’s behalf, asserting that Obama administration  officials have “actively persecuted” him in violation of policy intended  to protect scientists from political interference.
[...]
The article and presentations drew national attention and helped make  the polar bear something of a poster child for the global warming  movement. Al Gore’s mention of the polar bear in his documentary on  climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth,” came up during investigators’  questioning of Gleason in January.On September 14th, Al Gore wants us to connect the dots, but we don’t really need to wait until then. _**Written by Doug Powers_

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Now...in more up to date news and information...  Climate change: What we do  in issue 2385 of New Scientist published 25th October 2011.  Reading it online may require subscription but freely available pdf copies have turned up on online... 
Basically it's a potted discussion of what is known and unknown about climate change at this point in time. 
In summary...apparently we know:** Greenhouse gases are warming the planet Other pollutants are cooling the planet
The planet is going to get a lot hotter 			 			 			 			 		 Sea level is going to rise many metres
There will be more floods and droughts 			 			 			 			 		 
and we don't know:
How high greenhouse gas levels will rise How great our cooling effects are
Just how much hotter things will get
How things will change in each region
How quickly sea level will rise
How serious the threat to life is
Will there be more hurricanes and the like?
If and when tipping points will come 			 			 			 			 		  
Fair to say that some of the writing is simplistic and there's not much referencing going on but as a primer and a guide...not too shabby.

----------


## PhilT2

For anyone looking for more detail the WRI brief has more info with references. http://pdf.wri.org/climate_science_2009-2010.pdf

----------


## Dr Freud

Apologies for not tearing shreds off this green fairy tale of late, but I've had quite few projects on the go.  It has been hard to dedicate time to reinforcing reality to these dreamers.   :Biggrin:  
But here's a taste of reality to cause the "true believers" some angst until I can return to highlight the waffle they try to pass as facts:        
Now here's an unnaturally warming IPCC model that doesn't work:      
And here's a naturally hot Aussie model that does work. (Works for me anyway  :Wink 1: ).   
Good golly miss molly, that ocean is rising fast!  When they started shooting, she was walking in the sand.  :Biggrin: 
And as for these lunatics thinking paying extra TAX in Australia makes the entire Planet Earth colder... :Doh:  :Doh:  :Doh: ... :Roflmao2:  
Chat soon... :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> An *unseasonable snowstorm* has hit the US East Coast, with some areas of Massachusetts seeing more than 27in (68cm) of snow. 
>          The authorities say at least nine people have died in snow-related accidents.  
>          More than three million homes have lost their electricity supply from Maryland to Massachusetts - some residents may be without power for several days. 
> In New York City, *a new record for October snowfall* was set when 1.3in fell in Central Park. Only three other snowy October days have been recorded in the park in 135 years of record-keeping.  
> John LaCorte, a National Weather Service meteorologist in Pennsylvania, told the agency that the l*ast time the state saw a major storm so early was in 1972.*  
>          "This is *very, very unusual*. It has all the look and feel of a classic mid-winter nor'easter," he said.  BBC News - Snowstorm hits US East Coast killing at least nine

   
Who would have thunk it...here's the evidence that swapping the car for a bicycle really does make the Planet Earth colder:   Your Photos: First Snow of the Season on October 26, 2011 | Denver Post Media Center   
Brrrrrrrrrrr... :Biggrin:

----------


## johnc

A link explaining why Syun Akasofu and his graph are quite simply wrong. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu

----------


## Dr Freud

> A link explaining why Syun Akasofu and his graph are quite simply wrong. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu

   :Lolabove:  :Lolabove:  :Lolabove:   
What a joke.  I could have debunked my post better than that.  Still, if you are relying on the delusions of the hockey stick idiots for "facts", no wonder you're struggling.  Even the fact that they called their ridiculous site "skepticalscience" is an admission that more people have been Googling this term for years, rather than this cults usual propaganda.  I have no doubt they have snared some mentally unaware traveller's with their "tricks" (like Mike's nature "trick", huh?). 
Luckily most sensible Australians now understand the ridiculous con these lunatics have been peddling and will vote overwhelmingly against this ridiculous TAX at the next election early next year, after Rudd knifes JuLIAR.  You can almost smell the blood in the water after the recent QANTAS debacle.  Once this election is called, no more Carbon Dioxide TAX!  Then we can all breathe out a (TAX FREE) sigh of relief.  :Biggrin:  
It must really annoy those Hockey stick clowns that even after they fudged the data, the new data still matches a natural warming scenario much better than their lies. Truly hilarious how reality bites.  :Clap:

----------


## Dr Freud

*Total Commonwealth Government Securities
         	  on Issue - $215,602m * AOFM – Home 
Cool huh, $215 billion and skyrocketing by the day.  Gotta love paying the Chinese Govt. tens of billions in interest every year due to wasteful government spending and ineptitude. 
But there's good news, we're also currently running a nearly $50 billion deficit. 
If only they could come up with some greeny fairy tale to trick weak minded people into actually campaigning to pay more TAX, in the false belief that it will make the entire Planet Earth colder! 
Oh yeh, they already came up with it.
And some people believed it.  :Shock:  
Do you believe that Aussies paying more TAX will make the entire Planet Earth colder?  :No:  
If so, please let me know.   
If not, get rid of the lunatics peddling this con job.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> What do you drive?

  An agenda, obviously!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Whether you are for or against the carbon tax is a moot point; it is now a done deal, and will stay with us regardless of who wins the next election. We will all have to live with the ramifications, whatever they may be.

  "Done deal" huh? 
I have been busy and hence paying heaps of TAX to keep the Occupy _[insert banal cause]_ clowns fed and clothed with Centrelink benefits, while they protest how hard I work because I'm a capitalist pig.  But this aside, I must have missed the assent. 
Here's the package:  *Clean Energy Legislative Package* *Legislation introduced*     On Tuesday, 13 September 2011, the Government introduced legislation to implement the policy set out in Securing a clean energy future: The Australian Government's Climate Change Plan. 
     For more information about each of the bills introduced, including the text of the bills, explanatory memorandums, second reading speeches and parliamentary debates, please visit the relevant bill homepage:   Clean Energy Bill 2011 Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 Climate Change Authority Bill 2011 Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011 Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall chargeGeneral) Bill 2011 Clean Energy (Unit Issue ChargeFixed Charge) Bill 2011 Clean Energy (Unit Issue ChargeAuctions) Bill 2011 Clean Energy (ChargesCustoms) Bill 2011 Clean Energy (ChargesExcise) Bill 2011 Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011 Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011 Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011 Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011 Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011 Clean Energy (Income Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011 Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011
     For more information about the legislative process, please visit the Parliament of Australia website. 
     A public inquiry on the bills is being conducted by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation.
     The Government released exposure drafts of key bills in the Package in July 2011. For more information about this process, including the submissions received, please visit the Public Exposure page.   http://www.climatechange.gov.au/gove...gislation.aspx   
Yeh, yeh, I know, it's a boring and complicated mess to read, but give it a go. 
I'm still looking for the bit where the Planet Earth gets colder.  :Doh:   
And as for this:   

> will stay with us regardless of who wins the next election

  
You obviously missed this little gem:   

> But Mr Abbott said he was more determined than ever to axe the carbon price if he became prime minister. 
> We will repeal this tax, we will dismantle the bureaucracy associated with it, Mr Abbott said.
> I am giving you the most definite commitment any politician can give that this tax will go. This is a pledge in blood this tax will go.
> If the bills pass today this will be an act of betrayal on the Australian public. We will repeal the tax, we can repeal the tax, we must repeal the tax.  | The Australian

  One of you is wrong.  If you vote in Abbott, we get to find out.  :Biggrin:

----------


## johnc

> *Total Commonwealth Government Securities
>      on Issue - $215,602m * AOFM  Home 
> Cool huh, $215 billion and skyrocketing by the day. Gotta love paying the Chinese Govt. tens of billions in interest every year due to wasteful government spending and ineptitude. 
> But there's good news, we're also currently running a nearly $50 billion deficit. 
> If only they could come up with some greeny fairy tale to trick weak minded people into actually campaigning to pay more TAX, in the false belief that it will make the entire Planet Earth colder! 
> Oh yeh, they already came up with it.
> And some people believed it.  
> Do you believe that Aussies paying more TAX will make the entire Planet Earth colder?  
> If so, please let me know.  
> If not, get rid of the lunatics peddling this con job.

  
As usual it is not what's said that hides reality, it's what's unsaid. The debt figure is debt guaranteed by the Commonwealth, however of that $215B a massive $57B is actually debt of the NSW and QLD governments. Net Commonwealth debt is around $80B which simply means not all that borrowed money has been spent there is quite a bit still in the bank. Let's try lowering the hyperbole for once.

----------


## Dr Freud

> As usual it is not what's said that hides reality, it's what's unsaid.

  You mean like the creative accounting hiding the $40 billion NBN cost?  How's that revenue stream looking?  :Doh:    

> The debt figure is debt guaranteed by the Commonwealth

  Google "liability", it'll save me time.   

> a massive $57B is actually debt of the NSW and QLD governments

  Gee whizz, racked up under Labor again, surely just a coincidence???  :Biggrin:    

> Net Commonwealth debt is around $80B

  Is that all, why don't you chip in and pay it?  :Doh:  
Now throw in the tens of billions of savings and surplus that were also left by Howard that's also been spent.  Well over $120 billion dollars wasted.  
By the way, what have we got to show for this??? 
That's the reason we need this greeny fairy tale TAX, to pay for all this waste of OUR money.   

> Let's try lowering the hyperbole for once.

  Spoken like a true socialist apologist.  
A financially literate response could be:   

> Let's try lowering the [S]hyperbole[/S] *Labor DEBT* for once.

  Or we could just pay the massive greeny fairy tale TAX while they keep flushing our money down the toilet?  :2thumbsup:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I'd actually like my hyperbole at 4.5% per annum averaged over the next 20 years.   It'll do wonders for my retirement fund - where else will I find such cheap and mindless entertainment in my dotage unless Abbot can do a Menzies?  
<blink> 
<whirrrr> 
<Duuung!> [EDIT: I am so going to have to do something about that Fisher & Paykel microwave - bloody Kiwi's] 
I wonder what odds Sportbet will give me on that possibility...have to be worth a coupe of bob!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Or we could just pay the massive greeny fairy tale TAX while they keep flushing our money down the toilet?

  You know...I used to work in a sewage treatment plant...in nearly two years we only ever found one $50 note in the trash screens on the inlet.  So I'm not sure you've got much to back up your claim that there's government money going down the loo.   
As for the $50...after a quick wash...a box of Crownies and a few serves of fish and chips as I recall.  Excellent use of taxation...

----------


## manofaus

so I think the carbon tax is designed for 2 things:
1. fill the coffers
2. push our economy to spend more on research into more efficient energy production/consumption, before the rest of teh world.
WTF? I just think that if the world in 10-20 years also decides to rethink enery production we will have had the 10 year jump, and since we sell stored energy to the rest of the world we are investing in a new source of income. Like the arabs and their massive land creations in the hope of the tourist dollar.
I believe in global warming, but only because we transfer stored energy that was created with light into heat. No need to debate this stuff, its what I think. I have no evidence, no degree, you could say no idea. Like I say at work......you know when people think you are bludging I say... 'to the untrained eye'. WIO is a TLA

----------


## Rod Dyson

Well if you were not convinced before that Global Warming is contrived by a group of scientist then you better read some of the extracts from new emails released by CLIMATEGATE 2. 
Here is the link Breaking news: FOIA 2011 has arrived ! « tallbloke&#039;s talkshop 
Now the real beauty of this release is that there are a further 220,000 emails to be released at a date in the future.  The zip file has been downloaded by thousands with an encrypted pass word.  All that is required for the 3rd release is the password. 
We can only guess why the 3rd release is being held back.  I think it is all about forcing one of the ring leaders to crack and reveal all before it is revealed for them.  
Wonderful days ahead.  Gillards Carbon Tax is going to have such a huge stink about it before it comes into place.  What a lot of gullible fools swallowed this garbage.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here are a few extracts to feast on. 
I have not read through the emails to establish the context. But this selection will strengthen strong suspicions that a tight group of insiders have treated a questionable scientific theory as a cause that needs to by hyped: _(1939) Thorne/MetO:_  _Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical 
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a 
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the 
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these 
further if necessary…  
(3066) Thorne: 
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it 
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.  
(1611) Carter: 
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much 
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by 
a select core group.  
(2884) Wigley: 
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive… there have been a number of 
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC ...  
(4755) Overpeck: 
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s 
included and what is left out.  
(3456) Overpeck: 
I agree (with) Susan (Solomon) that we should try to put more in the bullet about 
“Subsequent evidence” ... Need to convince readers that there really has been 
an increase in knowledge – more evidence.  What is it?  
(1104) Wanner/NCCR: 
In my [IPCC-TAR] review [...] I criticized...the Mann hockey(s)tick ...My review was 
classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the 
internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these 
early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in 
Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to 
SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science._   The CSIRO looks for a scary icon: _
(0445) Torok/CSIRO:_  _... idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed 
“global icons” ...One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef ... 
It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the 
destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers… A perception of an 
“unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral 
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of 
systematic damage from long-term climatic-environmental change ... Such a 
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate 
change_ UPDATE 
Same old suspects - Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Jason Overpeck, Tom Wigley, Keith Briffa - and familiar talk of pushing the “cause”, attacking sceptics and deleting files: _
<3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year 
“reconstruction”._   _<3115> Mann:  By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year 
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that 
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.  
<3940> Mann:  They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic 
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted 
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a 
bit.  
<0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s 
doing, but its not helping the cause  
<2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the 
process  
<2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC 
task.  
<1577> Jones: 
[FOI, temperature data] 
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we 
get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US 
Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original 
station data. _ UPDATE  
A message from the leaker, left in the ReadMe file:_ 
/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///  
“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”  
“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”  
“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.  
“Poverty is a death sentence.”  
“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize 
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”  
Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on 
hiding the decline.  
This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few 
remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.  
The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning 
to publicly release the passphrase. 
We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such 
as…_ UPDATE   The lack of warming seems to bother the Climategate scientists..._
(1939) Thorne/MetO: 
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical 
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a 
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the 
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these 
further if necessary…  
(3066) Thorne: 
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it 
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.  
<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre: 
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public 
relations problem with the media 
Kjellen: 
I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global 
warming_ The fact that the Medieval times were warmer is another problem: _ 
<5111> Pollack:_  _But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.  
<5039> Rahmstorf: 
You chose to depict the one based on C14 solar data, which kind of stands out 
in Medieval times. It would be much nicer to show the version driven by Be10 
solar forcing  
<5096> Cook: 
A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability 
during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the 
“Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly 
in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have 
seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the 
MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times._ Better not let the public know of the doubts: _
<0310> Warren:_  _The results for 400 ppm stabilization look odd in many cases [...] As it stands 
we’ll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published.   <1682> Wils:  [2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural 
fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]  
<2267> Wilson: 
Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially 
since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models, 
surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs. 
[...] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the 
models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from 
the sun alone.  
<5289> Hoskins: 
If the tropical near surface specific humidity over tropical land has not gone 
up (Fig 5) presumably that could explain why the expected amplification of the 
warming in the tropics with height has not really been detected.  
<5315> Jenkins/MetO: 
would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier 
melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?  
<2292> Jones: 
[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They 
have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest 
that temperatures haven’t increased at these levels.  
<1788> Jones: 
There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from “recent 
extreme weather is due to global warming"] – at least not a climatologist.  
<4693> Crowley: 
I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the 
cost of damaged personal relationships  
<2967> Briffa: 
Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of 
increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may 
be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both.  Contrast this 
with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest 
decline?  To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even 
real?  
<2733> Crowley: 
Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in 
the open.  
<2095> Steig: 
He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he 
thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the 
supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.  
<0953> Jones: 
This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with 
sulphates won’t be quite as necessary.  
<4944> Haimberger: 
It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics 
in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is 
remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.  
<4262> Klein/LLNL: 
Does anybody have an explanation why there is a relative minimum (and some 
negative trends) between 500 and 700 hPa? No models with significant surface 
warming do this  
<2461> Osborn: 
This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least.  In practise, however, 
it raises some interesting results [...] the analysis will not likely lie near to 
the middle of the cloud of published series and explaining the reasons behind 
this etc. will obscure the message of a short EOS piece.  
<4470> Norwegian Meteorological Institute: 
In Norway and Spitsbergen, it is possible to explain most of the warming after 
the 1960s by changes in the atmospheric circulation. The warming prior to 1940 
cannot be explained in this way._ It’s getting harder to reconstruct past temperature to make recent warming seem unusual or alarming: _
<1583> Wilson: 
any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will 
undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently 
have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model 
comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.  
<4165> Jones: 
what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! 
I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.  
<3994> Mitchell/MetO 
Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems 
to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no  
<4241> Wilson: 
I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I 
could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures. 
[...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is 
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.  
<3373> Bradley: 
I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should 
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year 
“reconstruction”.  
<4758> Osborn: 
Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the 
middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the 
MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data 
‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!  
<0886> Esper: 
Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it 
is an important one. [...] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to 
missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by 
dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why 
don’t you want to let the result into science?  
<4369> Cook: 
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be 
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the 
science move ahead._ Is this faith or is this science? _
<4394> Houghton [MetO, IPCC co-chair]_  _[...] we dont take seriously enough our God-given responsibility to care for the 
Earth [...] 500 million people are expected to watch The Day After Tomorrow. We 
must pray that they pick up that message.  
<0999> Hulme: 
My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a 
job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of 
God’s planet into research and action.  
<3653> Hulme: 
He [another Met scientist] is a Christian and would talk authoritatively about 
the state of climate science from the sort of standpoint you are wanting._ Those climate models just aren’t working out: _
<5131> Shukla/IGES:_  _["Future of the IPCC”, 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be 
willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the 
projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and 
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.  
<2423> Lanzante/NOAA: 
While perhaps one could designate some subset of models as being poorer in a 
lot of areas, there probably never will be a single universally superior model 
or set of models. We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so 
that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the 
breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area of focus.  
<1982> Santer: 
there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor 
tests we’ve applied.  
<0850> Barnett: 
[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved.  I doubt the 
modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer  
<5066> Hegerl: 
[IPCC AR5 models] 
So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long 
suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing 
correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.  
<4443> Jones: 
Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low 
level clouds.  
<4085> Jones: 
GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be  _

----------


## johnc

[QUOTE=Rod Dyson;862200]Here are a few extracts to feast on. 
I have not read through the emails to establish the context. But this selection will strengthen strong suspicions that a tight group of insiders have treated a questionable scientific theory as a cause that needs to by hyped: 
No this will question those that question, as you said you have jumped onto a news item without considering anything. What will this show over last time? probably nothing.  
« The green ghost of a distant dead star New satellite gets INSANELY hi-res view of Earth »  *Climategate 2: More ado about nothing. Again.*Geez, this again? _Seriously?_ Two years ago, someone hacked into a University of East Anglia server and anonymously posted thousands of emails from climate scientists. Quickly dubbed "Climategate", global warming deniers jumped on this, trying to show that these scientists were engaging in fraudulent activities. However, it was clear to anyone familiar with how research is done that this was complete and utter bilge; the scientists were not trying to hide anything, were not trying to trick anyone, and were not trying to falsely exaggerate the dangers of climate change. I wrote about this when it happened and then again quickly thereafter, showing this was just noise. Accusations of fraud were leveled at climate scientist Michael Mann, but time and again he was exonerated: like this time, and then this time, and then this time, and of course this time, and then my favorite, this time.
Climategate was widely denounced as a manufactured controversy, except, of course, by denialists. Because they denied it. Thats axiomatic.
However, like a bacterium festering away someplace dank and fetid, Climategate is poised to infect reality once again: The Guardian is reporting that a second cache of stolen emails has been released anonymously, and once again the cries of conspiracy are being heard. However, it looks like these emails arent really new, and were simply from the original stolen batch, but were held back until today. Mind you, the emails from the first Climategate were released right before a big climate conference, in an obvious attempt to derail it in the media. This new batch was released days before a similar conference, in what appears to be a similar propaganda move. _[UPDATE: Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) has called on the US intelligence community to investigate who stole these emails. I think this is the right move. We still don't know who did this two years ago, and I'd be fascinated to see who was behind it. H/T Michael Mann on Twitter.]_ 
Climate change denial blogs picked up on this immediately of course. There are examples in the Guardian article linked above. But this is the usual hue and cry, with nothing really new. About all this supposedly new material Michael Mann said:  _Mann called the new batch of emails "truly pathetic" and said they reflect desperation among climate deniers, who have failed to pick holes in the science. "They have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat."_Its hard for me to argue against this, given what Dr. Mann has gone through the past few years. Attacked constantly, exonerated repeatedly, he knows the climate change denialist methods probably better than anyone.
The University of East Anglia, from which the stolen emails originated, issued a press release: _This appears to be a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy over the science behind climate change when that science has been vindicated by three separate independent inquiries and number of studies  including, most recently, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group._ That last bit about Berkeley is from just a few weeks ago, showing once again that global warming is real, and that Dr. Manns results show that there has been a sudden, recent, and large increase in global temperatures.
None of this comes as a surprise to any of us who have been covering this for the past few years. I wonder, though, if the mainstream media have learned their lesson? Think Progress wonders the same thing.
So, with the Noise Machine ready to blast into full gear, let me be very, very clear: *Global warming is real. Independent studies confirm it. Vast amounts of evidence support it. 97% of climate scientists who study it agree with this. Its almost certainly caused by human activity.*  _Got it?_
The evidence is overwhelming, and no amount of noise will stop that. But thats why the noise is made, to distract you. We are long past the time when this was simple skepticism  the open and honest questioning of evidence  and are now well into full-blown denial. This second release of emails is more evidence for that, especially given the timing. 
And in some sectors that wont make a difference  cough cough Fox News cough cough  because they are impervious to evidence. So if this doesnt blow over immediately  as well it probably should  then expect to see a lot more of this:   _Related posts:
- Case closed: Climategate was manufactured _

----------


## Rod Dyson

Yes this says it all. 
I trust you will read these emails and from your own opinion?

----------


## johnc

The beaver was just in the link, but is some ways he may well typify both sides. :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Hi folks, 
Apologies for the absence posting, so much work, so many taxes to pay, then watch it get flushed down some overseas toilet by JuLIAR and her cronies!  :Biggrin:  
And now so much fiction to debunk. 
In the ridiculous bad [S]astronomy[/S] prose, there are plenty of words spinning fiction, but no numbers to support any of it..except this already rebutted fiction:   

> *97% of climate scientists who study it agree with this.* _Got it?_

  The only numbers he can quote are from an *opinion poll*. 
No scientific evidence at all.  Zero.  Nil.  Nada. 
Got it. 
Email that to your buddy Phil, and remind him he's an astronomer, not a poet.  He needs to use numbers, not words, and certainly not other peoples opinions as his sole "mathematical" support.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Well if you were not convinced before that Global Warming is contrived by a group of scientist then you better read some of the extracts from new emails released by CLIMATEGATE 2. 
> Here is the link Breaking news: FOIA 2011 has arrived ! « tallbloke's talkshop

  These are hilarious.  Those still believing this con job are now beyond redemption.  The world has given up on this farce.  Canada has denounced the whole scam, the US left long ago, the UK is running away at light speed, and the EU is about to collapse, along with their ridiculous carbon dioxide scamming market, and China is burning more fuel than the Sun.  :Biggrin:     

> Wonderful days ahead. Gillards Carbon Tax is going to have such a huge stink about it before it comes into place. What a lot of gullible fools swallowed this garbage.

  Yeh, by the time these price rises start flowing through the economy, Aussies will realise the rest of the world is laughing at us idiots sending billions of our tax dollars to some Nigerian Prince who is promising not to cut down some trees. 
I don't think many Aussies will be laughing much.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

This is just a trickle of your tax dollars running down the sewer of scam artists across the world:   

> This is the fortune that the Gillard Government has already told the United Nations it will shovel out on token global warming gestures:   _Australias fast-start package comprises: 
> $248 million to the International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative to support adaptation efforts;  
> $146 million to the International Forest Carbon Initiative to assist developing countries reduce emissions from reducing deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, known at REDD+; 
> $131 million to multilateral agencies to assist developing countries mitigation and adaptation efforts;  
> $38 million delivered through the climate change component of Australias contribution to the fifth replenishment of the Global Environment Facility; and 
> $36 million to other climate change activities in developing countries, including $15 million to Climate Change Partnerships for Development_ Half a billion dollars gone, just like that, after a decade of no global warming. 
>   And now the United Nations is shaking the begging bowl for more global warming loot for its bureaucrats to parcel out as the biggest gravy train in history now stops in Durban:  _Minister of International Relations and Co-operation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, who will preside over the two-week conference, this week laid down making the Green Climate Fund operational as the minimum achievement she hoped for from COP17_  _The fund will help finance the efforts of poorer countries to mitigate and adapt to the effects of global warming At Cancun and at COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009, developed countries agreed to mobilise $100 billion a year to help developing countries. But disagreements have arisen about where the money should come from._ Uh oh. Is that Julia Gillard reaching for a wallet? How much more is the Gillard Government going to fitter on this ridiculous cause? 
>   But you can see why so many people just what the global warming scare to go on and on. I mean, $100 billion _a year_ is one hell of a slush fund.    How much more will Gillard fritter on her global warming crusade? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Wait till the full flush starts with the Carbon Dioxide Taxes!  :Doh:  
Treasury projects up to $60 billion (yes Billion) dollars per year will be shipped overseas for various scams. 
Can anyone, yes I mean anyone, please explain how the Planet Earth will get colder as hardworking Aussies get their tax dollars flushed down overseas toilets? 
Anyone?  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> The world has given up on this farce.

  The world would be delighted to give up on AGW. Unfortunately they are waiting for the sceptics to start doing science instead of opinion. You see (I know you know this, but the way you post here, you seem to be ignoring it) Science isn't formed by opinion, it's formed by years of hard work. Here is what a current publishing scientist has to say on the subject:   

> It is rare that a single paper overturns decades of work, although this  is a popular conception of how science works. Many controversial results  end up being overturned, because controversial research, almost by  definition, contradicts large existing bodies of research. Quite often,  it turns out that its the controversial paper that is wrong, rather  than the research it hopes to overturn. Science is an iterative process.   Others have to check our work.  We have to continue checking our work,  too.  Our study comes with a number of important caveats, which  highlight simplifying assumptions and possible inconsistencies.  These  have to be tested further.

  From Interview with Nathan Urban 
I'll go back to sleep now while you guys have wet dreams reading the old, stolen, out of date and out of context private emails of frustrated scientists.  
See you in a few months  :Biggrin:  
woodbe

----------


## Dr Freud

Score check, here was 8 weeks ago:   

> Except this update: *Total Commonwealth Government Securities on Issue - $206,892m* 
> $207 billion debt and skyrocketing!!!

  Where are we now:  *Total Commonwealth Government Securities
         	  on Issue - $219,102m* 
Cool huh, we're borrowing nearly $2 billion per week.  That's with a mining boom bigger than when Howard was running the country, and much bigger terms of trade.  And what have we got to show for all this spending? 
But the most relevant question is who is going to pay all this money back, and how? 
The answers are you via these farcical "green taxes" like the Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
Trust me, $23 a tonne won't even cover the interest.  Your power prices will be ramping up very high very soon. 
The "urgency" to save the Planet Earth will be used as the "urgency" for the price rises.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Hey mate, welcome back.  Your comrades have been in desperate need of your wisdom.  Their emotional convictions were admirable, but they didn't have your grasp of the dark side.  :Biggrin:  
I'll try to catch up on some posts over the next few weeks, but here's some food for "scientific" thought in the interim:   

> I'll go back to sleep now while you guys have wet dreams reading the old, stolen, out of date and out of context private emails of *frustrated* scientists.  
> woodbe

  The reason they're so frustrated is because their computer models have comprehensively failed and their hypothesis is now junk.  Soon, their gravy train will derail.  They won't go quietly, because what a gravy train it was my friend...  :Biggrin:  
Even Flim Flammery is now trying to scare old ladies that they'll fry to death if they don't pay their taxes.  This would be comical if it wasn't damaging this country.  
What a joke!

----------


## denaria

This reminds me of another riveting discussion, fergit what.. oh wait, tradies/DIY... but it hasn't yet reached over 7000 posts, can't wait.

----------


## woodbe

> Hey mate, welcome back.

  Thanks, but I'm not back. I just drop in every now and then to feed the trolls.  :Biggrin:    

> The reason they're so frustrated is because their computer models have comprehensively failed and their hypothesis is now junk.

  Please don't start that again until there is supporting science. The body of existing science is based on research (ie: work) and lots of it. Not emails, not blogs or shock jocks, or even Doc Freud's ramblings on Renovate Forums.  :Smilie:  Calling it junk does not make it so, but you're welcome to your opinion. 
Did you not read this?:   

> It is rare that a single paper overturns decades of work, although this   is a popular conception of how science works. Many controversial  results  end up being overturned, because controversial research, almost  by  definition, contradicts large existing bodies of research. Quite  often,  it turns out that its the controversial paper that is wrong,  rather  than the research it hopes to overturn. Science is an iterative  process.   Others have to check our work.  We have to continue checking  our work,  too.  Our study comes with a number of important caveats,  which  highlight simplifying assumptions and possible inconsistencies.   These  have to be tested further.

  So, you're with the popular (mis)conception crowd, I take it. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

Just in case you think I am just making this stuff up:    

> But the most relevant question is who is going to pay all this money back, and how? 
> The answers are you via these farcical "green taxes" like the Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
> Trust me, $23 a tonne won't even cover the interest.  Your power prices will be ramping up very high very soon. 
> The "urgency" to save the Planet Earth will be used as the "urgency" for the price rises.

  
Here's a previous bunch of idiots who fell for the same scam:    

> How do you trick gullible people into feeling good about paying more taxes? 
> Call it a green tax!  
> "The Government today unveiled a raft of Budget measures to restore the State's finances by 2014... 
> - Carbon tax charges will double to 30 a tonne, raising 330m... 
> "It's to bring certainty for our people," Mr Cowen said."  Recovery plan unveiled - News, The Budget - Independent.ie  
> It's brought certainty to all of us champ. 
> We can now be certain carbon taxes are just another form of revenue with zero environmental credibility.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Thanks, but I'm not back. I just drop in every now and then to feed the trolls.

  They do get hungry.  :Wink 1:    

> Please don't start that again until there is supporting science.

  At least you now recognise there is no supporting science for this farce.   

> The body of existing science is based on research (ie: work) and lots of it.

  "Lots of it" is the biggest understatement you've ever made here.  This is the highest funded research area in human history! 
And after all this (ie: work), what proof has resulted?  None. Nil. Zero. 
There is zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.   
After throwing so much money and so many resources aimed at finding something they even used dodgy data for, they can't. The body of science around this farce was a dead body long ago, and is now starting to fester and stink.  Perhaps some time in the near future we can get back to looking for answers in this area of science, rather than determining the answer first, then trying to justify it regardless of reality.   

> Doc Freud's ramblings on Renovate Forums.

  I've been busy lately, but trying to put some more time in now.  Not Rambo,   :Rambo:  just rambling :Ranting2:    

> Calling it junk does not make it so, but you're welcome to your opinion.

  Having no evidence proving it makes it junk.  Me calling it junk is just playing the reality card.   

> Did you not read this?:

  Yes, he has a very good point.  Every study ever conducted in this area of science has yet to find a single piece of evidence proving this farce.  Therefore every single paper supports the fact that we are currently well within the ranges of normal and natural climate variation for the Planet Earth. 
If you ever present a "controversial" paper showing a single piece of evidence proving this farce, I will indeed scrutinise it very closely.    

> So, you're with the popular (mis)conception crowd, I take it.

  I'm "with" reality.  You should try it over here sometime.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

It will fizzle out as the funding fizzles out.   

> How do religions die? Generally they don't, which probably explains why there's so little literature on the subject. 
> This week, the conclave of global warming's cardinals are meeting in Durban, South Africa, for their 17th conference in as many years. The idea is to come up with a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire next year, and to require rich countries to pony up $100 billion a year to help poor countries cope with the alleged effects of climate change. This is said to be essential because in 2017 global warming becomes "catastrophic and irreversible," according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency.  
>  Yet a funny thing happened on the way to the climate apocalypse. Namely, the financial apocalypse.  
>  The U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada and the EU have all but confirmed they won't be signing on to a new Kyoto. The Chinese and Indians won't make a move unless the West does. The notion that rich (or formerly rich) countries are going to ship $100 billion every year to the Micronesias of the world is risible, especially after they've spent it all on Greece. 
>  Cap and trade is a dead letter in the U.S. Even Europe is having second thoughts about carbon-reduction targets that are decimating the continent's heavy industries and cost an estimated $67 billion a year. "Green" technologies have all proved expensive, environmentally hazardous and wildly unpopular duds.

  Read the full article here:  Stephens: The Great Global Warming Fizzle - WSJ.com 
It was spot on, but I didn't really appreciate this bit:   

> Still, Zeus and Apollo are no longer with us, and neither are Odin and Thor. Among the secular gods, Marx is mostly dead and *Freud is totally so*. Something did away with them, and it's worth asking what.

  I'm still here Bret.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

JuLIAR is all out of money, so the Planet is sh-- out of luck!  :Doh:    

> Treasurer Wayne Swan yesterday confirmed that carbon capture technology isnt really worth that investment first proposed: 
>  The reason the Government needs to come clean is that without carbon capture and storage, the carbon dioxide tax and emissions trading scheme will turn out to be much more expensive than its claimed. As Treasury itself noted:  _Faster technological progress will reduce global and Australian mitigation costs, while slower technological progress will increase costs. For example, Australias costs as a share of GNP in 2050 are 25 per cent lower under more optimistic assumptions of technological progress and 25 per cent higher if carbon capture and storage is not viable.  _  Government cold on the technology it thought would save us | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Another Treasury assumption forced upon them by JuLIAR was that the all the rest of the world was acting exactly as Australia was.  No-one else is, not a single other country has a comparable scheme. 
So what will this actually cost us Aussies?  No-one knows.  That's right, no-one.  Treasury has not calculated a scenario where Australia goes it alone.  That will be astronomically more expensive.    
We paid for this now entirely redundant farce:   Clean Energy Future &ndash; Home  
What a joke!  :Doh:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It will fizzle out as the funding fizzles out.

  Actually the so-called financial apocalypse (is it still an apocalypse if it only happened to Europe and the US?) could well be the best thing to stave off a climate apocalypse for a time.  Less growth, less production, less consumption, less GHGs, much more interesting to watch on TV, etc etc. 
Replacing Kyoto is a bit of a irrelevant WOFTAM.  We've already dialled in a fair substantial average temperature increase over the next 50 years anyway.  So we've amortised the opportunity cost for three generations which is well past our current generational capacity to accept any culpability or benefit financially from any response...so why bother trying to prevent the inevitable?   
The real fun now will be watching the haphazard and half baked attempts towards adaptation.... 
Oh and what makes whatshisface so sure that Odin and his mates are no more?  What's his evidence? Just cause no-one apparently claims to be a Viking these days doesn't mean their gods are gone.  They're probably just unemployed and have moved into public housing (very hard to find at the moment by the way) because they couldn't afford the council rates and maitenance on Valhalla - so now no-one knows where to look for them.  And if you're wondering....the dead left long ago because the Gods couldn't keep them in the manner to which they'd become accustomed. 
As for Freud...he's not dead either (although he is as a corporeal entity).  But he is discredited.  One could ask how that might reflect on his namesake yet that may simply be a rhetorical question.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Actually the so-called financial apocalypse (is it still an apocalypse if it only happened to Europe and the US?)

  So JuLIAR raised our debt ceiling from $200 billion to $250 billion and is now reaching it rapidly for no reason?  After starting with zero net debt.  All those billions wasted for no reason.  Thanks for finally agreeing those $900 cheques, pink batts debacle and school halls debacle were massive wastes of our money.   

> Less growth, less production, less consumption, *less GHGs*

  Not seeing it myself...   
But funny how CO2 levels keep going up and temperature hasn't for over a decade now.  What happened? Blame "natural variation"? Blame Sulphur? Blame sceptics? Blame the Murdoch press?  Blame everyone and everything except the farcical AGW hypothesis that has comprehensively failed!  :Biggrin:    

> The real fun now will be watching the haphazard and half baked attempts towards adaptation

  You mean just like us humans have been doing quite well for the last 2 million years?  We now have cheap coal, other energy sources and industrial capacity, so will adapt much faster and better than we ever have. 
Do you think the climate has never changed over that 2 million years, or are you still praying to the church of the Hockey Stick and believing the climate has never changed before industrialisation?   
Can you find any demographers predicting a reduction in global population levels in the next century?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

After realising his Hockey Stick delusions were uncovered, how does this "scientist" react?   

> We now know that this Yamal work was a botch job - cherrypicking a few tree ring samples in Siberia to produce evidence of unprecedented warming, as used by Michael Mann in his notorious hockey stick. 
>   Heres how the team of warmist scientists most behind the global warming scare responded on their influential blog:  _ 
> date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:33:06 -0400 
> from: Michael Mann <???@ > 
> subject: attacks against Keith 
> to: Phil Jones <???@ >, Tim Osborn <???@ > _  _Phil, Tim,_  _....................._  _Meanwhile, I suspect youve both seen the latest attack against his (Briffas) Yamal work by McIntyre.Gavin and I (having consulted also w/ Malcolm) are wondering what to make of this, and what sort of response---if any---is necessary and appropriate. So far, weve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate._  _............................._  _mike_  Climategate 2:0: Hide the dissent | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  _So far, weve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate._  
WOW! Great reaction to professional scrutiny of your statistics, huh? 
Thanks again to the Mods on this site.  You can see how other "scientific" sites have reacted to valid criticism of this farce over the years.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Climate change is harming our health in Australia, and poses a significant threat for the future. 
> Climate change will lead to more injuries, disease and deaths in decades to come.  The Critical Decade: Climate Change and Health | Climate Commission

  How dumb do these people think Australians are? 
If the climate changes to colder conditions, do these predictions still come true? 
Here's Flim Flammery getting a reality check:   

> In 2020, according to the ABS, Australia will be home to some 30 million people, of which Flannery insists roughly 6000 will be carried off by dengue fever and other curses that thrive in the heat. By 2070, the same ABS projection posits a likely population of between 46 million and 54 million, depending on which curve you choose to track.   
> So lets see how that works out: 6000 deaths per 30 million means a 1-in-5000 chance of being done in by nasty weather as of 2020.  
> And 10,000 deaths in a 2070 population of 54 million? Well that comes in at 1-in-5400 climate casualties.  
> So the warmer it is, at least by Flannerys reckoning, the safer and healthier we will be.  Bunyipitude

  And here's a more global perspective:   

> In 1939, for instance, 438 people died in the Black Friday heat, not including the 71 Victorians killed by the fires.   
>   The temperatures back then were higher than those in Victoria and South Australia last week, but the heat this time hung around for longer. 
>   Yet despite our much greater population today, no more than 50 people died from heat, a fraction of the 1939 toll.  
>   What changed? Mostly our ability now to stay coolmost obviously through airconditioning.  
>   Airconditioning saves not just sweat, but lives. But what do we now see?  
>   South Australias government actually asked people to avoid using airconditioners last week, citing environmental reasons.  
>   In Victoria, Deputy Premier Rob Hulls had earlier asked people to likewise avoid using airconditioners unless necessary.  
>   The Age even campaigned against them, asking readers to toughen up.    
>  So vulnerable are the elderly to cold that a World Health Organisation report last year estimated that 40,000 Britons died every winter, and these excess winter deaths are related to poor housing conditionsinsufficient insulation, ineffective heating systems and fuel poverty.  
> ...

  
This information showing warming is good for health has been around for years.  For that tiny fraction who are vulnerable through illness or age, cheap coal powered electricity will ensure air conditioning mitigates all risks, very cheaply. 
In all the millions of our tax dollars Flim Flammery took for this research, did he miss these facts? 
Or did he do the AGW cults usual "trick" and just _simply deleted_ them.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

A previous and much more realistic health assessment from the ever lovely Jo Nova.  :Wub:     

> While most scientists agree CO2 causes some warming, there is great debate about just how much. If CO2 has only a minor effect on temperature then spending, say, $1 billion on inefficient roof-top solar panels is not just wasted money, its a choice that will kill people. We wont be able to say exactly who it will kill but we can virtually guarantee that some people will die in the future who could have been saved.  
> Why? Solar energy costs us more than five times what coal-powered  energy does. So instead of spending $1bn on solar panels, we could have  spent $200 million on cheap electricity and used the other $800m to  double our medical research budget.  
> Right now, the government is planning to          cut $133 million from our $800m annual medical research budget. The  Australian government has spent or will spend $3.8 billion          dollars to  combat climate change across four years. (The US government was spending  about $7bn a year at last count.) 
> We know we  need a cure for cancer. We dont know if the rest of the world will want  to pump CO2 underground 10 years from now.  On climate change, the wrong choice kills people either way « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

  This article is well worth reading in full. 
Maybe Flim Flammery could contextualise his future climate research when he gets his next handout of our millions in taxpayer dollars to include these health outcomes:   

> Cancer is a leading cause of death in Australia  more than 43,000 people are estimated to have died from cancer in 2010. 
> Cancer costs more than $3.8 billion in direct health system costs. 
> Around 434,000 people are treated for one or more non-melanoma skin cancers, with 448 people dying in 2007. 
> $378 million was spent on cancer research in 2000-01, 22% of all health research expenditure in Australia. (Includes private money).  Facts and figures

  So JuLIAR is happy spending billions of our dollars on what "could possibly or might" make a tiny fraction of the population sick or dead decades in the future, but spends only a few million on what is making hundreds of thousands sick and killing tens of thousands today. 
What price are we paying for the green propaganda to defend these lunatic greenies ideological dream?  :Annoyed:

----------


## Dr Freud

Back off very quietly into the crowd and maybe no-one will notice we also bought the snake oil:   

> Things are not going too well at Durban, or anywhere in the Land Where People Want to Change the Weather. Richard Black (BBC) admits theres a seismic shift going on. (Could it be a tipping point I say?) *The politics of the UN climate process are undergoing something of a fundamental transformation. *  It appears nearly anyone with power or influence wants to get out, or delay action on climate change. Canada announced it will formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol next month,  joining Japan and Russia whove ruled out commitments.
>  The EU announced it wont act if everyone else doesnt:
>  The 27-nation bloc said it accounts for about 11 percent of global emissions and that it cant act alone on emissions blamed for damaging the environment.
>  As far as Durban goes, most the rest of the major emitters want to delay things.  
> The US, Russia and Japan were already arguing for a longer timeframe.
>  To the anger of small islands states, India and Brazil have joined rich nations in wanting to start talks on a legal deal no earlier than 2015.  Did I say the ship was sinking? Canada, Europe, Brazil, USA, Russia planning exits or delays « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

  
Hang on, there's one idiot rat paying a premium to get onto the sinking ship.  Oh yeh, it's JuLIAR:    

> *Australia picks last possible moment to leap ONTO burning ship* *Gillard  the Australian Prime Minister  got the timing perfectly wrong.*  *Within two weeks of the Carbon Tax finally becoming Law, its becoming hard not to notice that the whole Global Scam is fragmenting. This Carbon ship is on fire,  the lifeboats are leaving, the rats are jumping, and the Australian team just turned up with the family jewels. Their policies are take no prisoners and bring no life jackets. Their exit plan is to have No Exit.* Sergey Abramov (ship, 1960) ...By Leksey  
>  Its hard to imagine how the timing could have been more quintessentially insane, or their  Leadership of Clean Energy more poignantly inane.  Australia picks last possible moment to leap ONTO burning ship « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

  I'd laugh my @rse off, if it wasn't our tax dollars that she was paying the premium fare with.  :Doh:  
And remember now, ALL of Treasury's Carbon Dioxide Tax figures assume Global action similar in size and scope to ours.  :Cry:  
Do you feel sick yet?  :Puke:

----------


## Marc

CO2 is essential, increases historically proved to be good for humans.
Religion is bad and historically proved to be the source of wars, dictatorship and loss of personal freedom.
The anti CO2 religion has the worst of both world, an inane idea used to shift power towards the imbecile minority and curtail freedom.
What is even more repugnant is the ecumenical tendency to embrace every demented idea into one big toxic soup.
CO2 is baaaad, refugees are gooood, gay marriage is perfect, dredging, dams, irrigation, protecting agriculture, all very baaaad.
Import anything from anywhere, including sharia law, very gooood. Mining baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad, selling uranium to India, perfect, censorship of dissenting scientific views, obligatory, data from sea level in Fort Denison showing one millimeter a year for the last 100 years. SUPPRESSED!!!!

----------


## Marc

NSW government "censored" inconvenient sea level data | Australian Climate Madness  *NSW government "censored" inconvenient sea level data*   Thursday, 1 December 2011 20:08 pm  ·   29 comments
 					by Simon 
 				  A report on Channel 7′s news at 6pm this evening alleges that sea  level data, showing rates of rise far lower than those projected, were  censored to avoid conflicting with government policy on climate change.
 Sea levels at Fort Denison are rising at only 1mm per year or less,  flatly contradicting the apocalyptic projections of the state and  federal governments. Doug Lord, a global warming believer and coastal  manager at the climate change department until February 2010, said Both  papers were accepted and at the last minute both were withdrawn on  instructions from the department.
 Angus Gordon, a coastal engineer, accused the department of a  cover-up, and of suppressing the data in order to support the federal  governments position on climate change.
 If the allegations are true, none of this should come as any  surprise, especially after the release last week of Climategate 2.0. It  is the _modus operandi_ of governments and alarmist scientists  the world over, namely to censor or suppress dissent, or in this case  data, which contradicts their pre-conceived agenda of dangerous global  warming, and thereby giving them the freedom they need to mislead the  electorate into accepting draconian and extreme climate change policies.
 There is little reason to doubt that these kinds of practices are  commonplace, given the federal governments desperation to convince the  public of the reality of climate change and the need to take urgent  action  hence the carbon tax.
 Once again, the integrity of climate science and its associated  disciplines has been tarnished by political motivations and politically  correct environmental agendas. _[Note: as you will see from the YouTube clip, the report on 7  News was rather superficial - but typical for a network news bulletin -  and contained significant ambiguities, in particular regarding the roles  of the state/federal governments and the timeline of events, especially  given the change of government in NSW earlier in the year. Hopefully  further details will emerge.]_            *Possibly related posts:*Brace yourselves for even more alarmism  Flannery fears "Norway-style attack"  A lesson for climate scientists on "consensus"  
					Tagged as: 						integrity of science,  						Sea level

----------


## Dr Freud

The IPCC idealogues now openly admit to their LIES and deceipt. 
JuLIAR still pretends to Australians it is all real so that she can collect more TAXES!    

> It has now become traditional for climate change summits to open with a new, dazzling prediction of impending catastrophe. The UN Climate Conference under way in the South African coastal town of Durban is no exception. This years focus is on a familiar and certainly arresting argument: that sea levels are rising at a catastrophic and unprecedented rate mainly due to man-made global warming. 
> This is nonsense. The worlds true experts on sea level are to be found at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Reseach) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which I am a former president), not at the IPCC. Our research is what the climate lobby might call an inconvenient truth: it shows that sea levels have been oscillating close to the present level for the last three centuries. This is not due to melting glaciers: sea levels are affected by a great many factors, such as the speed at which the earth rotates. They rose in the order of 10 to 11cm between 1850 and 1940, stopped rising or maybe even fell a little until 1970, and have remained roughly flat ever since. 
> In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: *We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.* 
> This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate. As with the Hockey Stick, there is little real-world data to support the upward tilt. It seems that the 2.3mm rise rate has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong (whose record is contradicted by four other nearby tide gauges). Why does it show such a rise? Because like many of the 159 tide gauge stations used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it is sited on an unstable harbour construction or landing pier prone to uplift or subsidence. *When you exclude these unreliable stations, the 68 remaining ones give a present rate of sea level rise in the order of 1mm a year.* 
> In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. That was last year: where are those refugees? And where are those sea level rises? The true facts are found by observing and measuring nature itself, not in the IPCCs computer-generated projections.  _Nils-Axel Mörner was head of paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University (1991-2005), president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003), leader of the Maldives sea level project (2000-11), chairman of the INTAS project on geomagnetism and climate (1997-2003). _ Rising credulity | The Spectator

  My fellow Australians, you have been lied to, and you have been conned.  Do not feel bad if you fell for this hoax, as it has been spectacularly well funded and very deceptive. 
All because JuLIAR wants you to feel all green and fuzzy about paying more TAX for her to waste.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Easily the worst is number 2:   

> What is the most stupid thing Labor has done these fours years?   - apologise to a stolen generation no one can find?  *- impose a carbon dioxide tax that couldnt stop a global warming that hasnt actually happened for a decade anyway?*  
>   - bet more than $36 billion on building a national broadband network without even checking that the highly speculative benefits outweigh the enormous costs? 
>  - dismantle border protection laws that worked, leading to 12,000 more people coming, some 500 drowning and billions more dollars paid out in detention costs and welfare?  Surely we live in the Age of Stupid when such colossally bad, irrational and damaging things can be done - and to the applause of so many journalists.   Age of Stupid | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  This ridiculous TAX will cripple our economy until it is revoked.  The longer that takes, the more billions it will cost us to unravel. 
If you want scaremongering about your childrens children, then send them the bill.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Dennis Shanahan notices a real change in the climate: _It’s extraordinary that in less than two years the global political climate has changed so dramatically ... _  _There has been a change in the atmosphere of reverence and optimism for climate change science and, more important, political will towards imposing national and international market solutions on economies of such a degree that the prospect of a global outcome is entirely reversed…    _  _Barack Obama ... two weeks ago demonstrated there was no way he was committing to the previous Democratic policy of a national cap-and-trade system while he faced inglorious defeat in the already-stressed US steel belt…_  _Having won an exceptional victory on the back of an anti-carbon tax campaign, Stephen Harper’s conservatives in neighbouring Canada are about to confirm their position against carbon trading and formally refuse their commitment to any post-2012 Kyoto-style agreement on greenhouse gas emissions…    _  _Similarly, Japan, the home of the Kyoto agreement, and the US also are not committing to a post-2012 regime of greenhouse gas emissions…    _  _As NZ Prime Minister, (John) Key has been able to quietly ratchet back NZ Labour’s climate change scheme, limiting the coverage and intensity ...    _  _Spain has been Europe’s golden-haired boy on renewable energy and for years has turned hundreds of millions of euros into subsidies and tariff protections to encourage green industries and jobs… The new Spanish government has undertaken to axe subsidies for wind and solar power as part of its campaign against the debt crisis.    _  _Spain’s actions come as warnings emerge from financial houses in Europe that more than $270 billion have been wasted on European carbon trading without any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions._  _Yet, with all this global retreat based on political doubts about climate change and the adverse economic effects on economies and consumers, the Australian government goes to Durban arguing we are not leading the world and not threatening Australia’s economic growth at a time of global downturn._ Gillard goes where the rest of the world wisely fears to tread | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  _It’s extraordinary that in less than two years the global political climate has changed so dramatically ... _   
How did this happen so quickly?  Because of a few good [S]men[/S] people (JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax)!      * 
From two years ago: 7th Oct 2009, 05:21 PM*    

> I am dead set againt the introduction of an ETS  for several reasons.   First even if Global Warming was true we could never reduce emissions to a degree that would have any effect on global temperatures.   Second an ETS will cripple the Australian economy for no net benefit.   Third I believe that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming and that there need to be irrefutable evidence both scientific and imperical to proove CO2 is warming the planet and that any warming would be as damaging as they claim.   Interested to know your thoughts?   Cheers Rod

       In Rod we Trust!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

JuLIAR trusts this man's deluded and failed predictions to waste billions of our tax dollars:   

> *THIS column usually takes a look at the top 10 issues of the week as I see them. Thanks to Professor Tim Flannery, this week it will be different. 				*  			 		 		On July 28th I received an email from a listener about Tim Flannery's waterfront property on the Hawkesbury. That week there had been much debate about the central and south coast being inundated by rising waters via climate change.
>  About 30 minutes after the email, a neighbour of Flannery's, named David, confirmed that Flannery did in fact own the property.
>  Earlier this week Flannery published a story that the caller "David" was an employee of mine and I had lined him up to come on my program to discredit him.
>  The professor accused me of being a liar and concocting stories to get ratings.
>  None of it was true but my critics went straight on the attack - most notably, that bastion of truth and justice, crikey.com.au.  
>  	 After the story was published, my motives and credibility were being questioned. I was angry and I was worried. How could I prove Flannery was, at the very least, misinformed? But at 11.40am on Wednesday, David phoned 2GB again and confirmed a number of things.
>  1. He didn't know me and had never worked for me;
>  2. Tim Flannery and his wife had turned up at his front door and confronted him about his appearance on my program;
>  3. Tim Flannery had suggested the type of people who listened to my program were the same type of person who could commit mass murder, as happened in Norway a week earlier;
> ...

  At least we know where he stands on sea level rises.  He stands right on the waters edge where he lives.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

What a joke! 
What else could you call this farce that gets worse every day. 
Let's here from our good friend Dr Phil Jones who "lost" all his warming data:   

> Phil Jones is not happy to hear the world may not warm as hes said for so long. He suggests a form of words that might fool journalists into overlooking this inconvenient truth:   
>       >From: Phil Jones [mailto.jones@uea.ac.uk] 
>     >Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18 
>     >To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris 
>     >Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim 
>     >Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009 
>     > 
>     > 
>     > Tim, Chris, 
> ...

  
Let's have a closer look at just some of this cr@p:   

> *I hope youre not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.*

  He actually "hopes" for catastrophic warming resulting in death and destruction, just to prove he was right.  These people are maniacs. 
And why haven't we heard on the nightly news they predict NO WARMING until 2020.   

> the language used in the forecasts seems a bit over the top re the cold. Where Ive been for the last 20 days (in Norfolk) it doesnt seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.

  First, after massively ramping up the scaremongering rhetoric about "warming disasters", he tries to get the met office to tone down it's *accurate and realistic* description of record cold weather, just because it doesn't support "The Cause". 
Then our "we need decades of data to show a trend" scientist tries to use his personal experience of the weather over 20 days to justify his biased propaganda.  What a joke.  :Doh:  
And JuLIAR cites this information when she says you need to pay more taxes.  Is she so dumb that she hasn't even read or understood any of this?  :No:  
No.  She is LYING again, and again, and again.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> It has now become traditional for climate change summits to open with a  new, dazzling prediction of impending catastrophe. The UN Climate  Conference under way in the South African coastal town of Durban is no  exception. This years focus is on a familiar and certainly arresting  argument: that sea levels are rising at a catastrophic and unprecedented  rate mainly due to man-made global warming. 
> This is nonsense. The worlds true experts on sea level are to be found  at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Reseach) commission on  Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which I am a former  president), not at the IPCC. Our research is what the climate lobby  might call an inconvenient truth: it shows that sea levels have been  oscillating close to the present level for the last three centuries.  This is not due to melting glaciers: sea levels are affected by a great  many factors, such as the speed at which the earth rotates. They rose in  the order of 10 to 11cm between 1850 and 1940, stopped rising or maybe  even fell a little until 1970, and have remained roughly flat ever  since. 
> In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards  to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I  criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in  Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the  reason for this new calibration: *We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.* 
> This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate. As with the Hockey  Stick, there is little real-world data to support the upward tilt. It  seems that the 2.3mm rise rate has been based on just one tide gauge in  Hong Kong (whose record is contradicted by four other nearby tide  gauges). Why does it show such a rise? Because like many of the 159 tide  gauge stations used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration, it is sited on an unstable harbour construction or  landing pier prone to uplift or subsidence. *When you exclude these  unreliable stations, the 68 remaining ones give a present rate of sea  level rise in the order of 1mm a year.* 
> In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate  change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. That was last  year: where are those refugees? And where are those sea level rises? The  true facts are found by observing and measuring nature itself, not in  the IPCCs computer-generated projections.  _Nils-Axel Mörner  was head of paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University  (1991-2005), president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and  Coastal Evolution (1999-2003), leader of the Maldives sea level project  (2000-11), chairman of the INTAS project on geomagnetism and climate  (1997-2003). _ Rising credulity | The Spectator

   Rising incredulity more like it... Why would you need to tilt a graph when the observations confirm predictions and at the upper bounds from both the tide gauge data and satellite data? Maybe because you were a false sceptic?  How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?   

> What the science says... 
> Observed sea levels are actually tracking at the upper range of the  IPCC projections. When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and  Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea  level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.             
> The two main contributors to sea level rise are  thermal expansion of water and melting ice. Predicting the future  contribution from melting ice is problematic. Most sea level rise from  ice melt actually comes from chunks of ice breaking off into the ocean,  then melting. This calving process is accelerated by warming but the  dynamic processes are not strongly understood. For this reason, the IPCC  didn't include the effects of dynamic processes, arguing they couldn't  be modelled. In 2001, the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) projected a  sea level rise of 20 to 70 cm by 2100. In 2007, the IPCC Fourth  Assessment Report (4AR) gave similar results, projecting sea level rise  of 18 to 59 cm by 2100. How do the IPCC predictions compare to  observations made since the two reports?    _Figure 1: Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in  red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of  the IPCC Third Assessment report (__Allison et al 2009__)._Observed  sea level rise is tracking at the upper range of model predictions. Why  do climate models underestimate sea level rise? The main reason for the  discrepancy is, no surprise, the effects of rapid flow ice changes. Ice  loss from Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers are accelerating. Even East Antarctica, previously considered stable and too cold, is now losing mass.

  Also:  *The Spectator runs false sea-level claims on its cover*  
Stick to Politics Doc, you're better at that.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## TermiMonster

I can't believe this thread is still going :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## intertd6

I can't either, but the ostrich like mentality of the cult members is beyond belief. Proving the old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> Why would you need to tilt a graph when the *observations* confirm predictions and at the upper bounds from both the tide gauge data and satellite data?

  At least it's good to see that you have stopped arguing about temperature going up astronomically due to human emissions.  That's why you guys dropped the Anthropogenic Global *WARMING* (AGW) name and switched to Climate Change, wasn't it?  To avoid the embarrasing focus on these farcical failures. 
But it is sad to see you still clinging to the scaremongering over catastrophic sea level increases, in spite of the numerous scientists now admitting the ocean level changes are perfectly normal and natural.  I am happy to go through this in more statistical detail with you, but to assist our friendly tradies less enamoured with stats, here's a better comparison.  As you said above "*observations"* are important, so observe this. 
Here's the ocean level over 100 years ago:   
Here's the ocean level today:   
Arrrrrgggghhh!!! Run for the hills...Fleeeeee while you still can. 
For anyone wanting their own reality check, take a really old local person to the beach and ask them how much shorter the drive was?  How much closer has that ocean gotten in their time on the Planet Earth during industrialisation?  There's two words that generally dispel most myths and cults - get real!  :Biggrin:     

> Stick to Politics Doc, you're better at that.  
> woodbe.

  I think I'll stick to reality, I'm better at that.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I can't believe this thread is still going

  Once we get rid of this ridiculous TAX for fresh air, I'm going back to beach volleyball. Assuming the beach is still there?  :Eek:  :Biggrin:  
Bugger this for a game of soldiers, but someone has to keep raising awareness as widely as possible of how corrupt and farcical this whole scam has been, resulting in Aussies paying more TAX, then shipping this out to the UN for doling out to corrupt regimes elsewhere. 
Hang in there champ, the rest of the world has already abandoned this cult, we should be following soon... :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

We already know Flim Flammery has taken all our taxpayer dollars and bought himself a nice waterfront property.  Ironically, JuLIAR gave him heaps of our money for his scaremongering about rising ocean levels.  :Doh:  
Has anyone else stopped buying waterfront properties?  Rudd just bought his, as did Combet.  Looks like the markets still good:  *BONDI BEACH* *Property Summary*                                   Bedrooms:                  3                 Bathrooms:                  3                 Carspaces: 
                 2                                            Price:                  _Priced from $2,950,000_
                 Property Type:                  Apartment / Unit / Flat                 Suburb:                  BONDI BEACH (profile)                 Region:                  Sydney Region  
Ah, good old reality!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's what Rudd, Flannery and Combet already know, and why they still buy waterfront properties:   

> *Hiding the decline down under  inconvenient papers censored* 
>                                                Posted on December 1, 2011                         by Anthony Watts  *UPDATE:* An Australian science paper I located from 1990 says that century scale sea level trends are 1-1.1 mm per year, and Sydney was 0.54 mm/ year. See below. *UPDATE2:* a graph of the current SLR for Sydney is now available. See below. 
>  From the Australian Telegraph:
>  SENIOR bureaucrats in the state governments environment department have routinely stopped publishing scientific papers which challenge the federal governments claims of sea level rises threatening Australias coastline, a former senior public servant said yesterday. 
>  Doug Lord helped prepare six scientific papers which examined 120 years of tidal data from a gauge at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour.
>  The tide data revealed sea levels were rising at a rate of about 1mm a year or less  and the rise was not accelerating but was constant.
>  The tidal data we found would mean sea levels would rise by about 100mm by the end of the century, Mr Lord said yesterday.
>  However the (federal) government benchmark which drives their climate change policy is that sea levels are expected to rise by 900mm by the end of the century and the rate of rise is accelerating.
>  Mr Lord, who has 35 years experience in coastal engineering, said senior bureaucrats within the then Department of Environment Climate Change and Water had rejected or stopped publication of five papers between late 2009 and September this year.
> ...

  The censorship wall is crumbling.  The facts are being revealed.  The farce is over.  The cult has been busted.  :Biggrin:  
As more and more people feel confident about speaking out about their treatment over previous years, the illusion of "consensus" will go the way of the dodo.  It still amazes me that so many scientists allowed themselves to be so cowed by an alleged "consensus" rather than quantitative proof.

----------


## Dr Freud

The music stopped and everyone else has a chair except for us.  :Cry:    

> *Other nations, including big greenhouse gas emitters, have no intention of following our kamikaze carbon tax lead.*At the climate change confab which began in Durban, South Africa, last week, Australia's delegates reportedly tried to make a statement about our world-leading tax and were rejected. They had to wait till day two.  
> The world has moved on and Australia sits like a shag on a rock, risking $100 billion on a gesture hardly anyone noticed.  
> Newly prudent nations, including the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters, have no intention of following the kamikaze lead of Australia, which produces just 1 per cent of global emissions.   
>  	Everyone but Australia has figured out we can no longer afford the luxury of empty gestures.  
> And the latest batch of leaked climate scientists' emails, dubbed Climategate 2.0, confirm suspicions of something fishy about the global warming gravy train.  
> The emails show eminent climate scientists conspiring to have PhDs stripped from sceptics, to have journal editors fired for publishing papers which contradict predictions of imminent apocalypse, and colluding with the media to slant coverage.  
> This wasn't science. It was politics.   
> Attempts to censor science, and silence an honest expert like Doug Lord, just reinforce our suspicions that the climate change industry is a big scam.  Other nations, including big greenhouse gas emitters, have no intention of following our kamikaze carbon tax lead | thetelegraph.com.au

  
Instead of shuffling the deck chairs, we can just shuffle our windmills instead as our country sinks.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> David Murray, chairman of our Future Fund, thinks were not only strangled by tough workplace laws but threatened by global warming alarmism:   _ALI MOORE:  Would you describe yourself as a climate sceptic?_   _DAVID MURRAY: Ah, yes. A sceptic is not the word you should use when you disagree with somebody. You should say you disagree. And I dont think there is sufficient evidence to take the sort of risks that are being taken around the world. Ive always thought that with the global population growing as fast as it is, that there would be real pressure on energy prices and people would correct automatically by using energy much more sparingly and that would start to self-correct - if theres a problem._   _ALI MOORE: So you dont rule out there being a problem; youre just not convinced theres a problem._   _DAVID MURRAY: No, but with these things one looks at probability and severity. And you look for actions you can take which would reduce the severity if the problem is there. But if were not certain that the problems there, then we dont - we shouldnt take actions which have a high severity the other way._   _ALI MOORE: What evidence do you look at to counter the other evidence that there is climate change? Is there something in particular that you focus on?_   _DAVID MURRAY: Well, the extremeness of the claims is one thing. For example, people talked about the ocean rising by seven metres, which is just an astounding level._  _ALI MOORE: But what about the more ..._  _DAVID MURRAY: The science talks about 20 to 30 centimetres. So these exaggerated claims. When people make a movie and get on a ladder to get to the top of the chart, thats Hollywood, its not science. And when scientists start arguing amongst themselves, as weve seen with some of these reports, that is not good. Science is meant to be above all of that with true scientific method. So that really bothers me. And the claims are unreal and ..._  _ALI MOORE: Are all the claims unreal?_   _DAVID MURRAY: Well, its not clear to me which comes first: temperature or carbon - carbon dioxide. Im not sure which does come first. There is much evidence to say one way or the other. So, when I look at all this, I become extremely concerned and I become concerned at the cost of mistakes._Changing times, when a top business leader dares to be out and proud as a sceptic.   Murray on the high price of heeding warming alarmists | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Well done Mr Murray!  :2thumbsup:  
And here's why they won't interview me on Lateline:  _ALI MOORE:  Would you describe yourself as a climate sceptic?  
DR FREUD: No Ali, there is a climate.  This is a scientific fact.  You can look it up if you don't believe me. _ _ALI MOORE: So you dont rule out there being a problem; youre just not convinced theres a problem. 
DR FREUD: Ali, science works on facts and evidence whereby any "problems" are quantified.  I don't need to be "convinced" of any scientific facts.  Would you care to describe for me exactly what "problem" it is you are referring to? _ _ALI MOORE: What evidence do you look at to counter the other evidence that there is climate change? Is there something in particular that you focus on? 
DR FREUD: As I've already alluded to, the climate changes all the time.  There is no counter to this, unless someone out there subscribes to "Climate Stagnation".  I look at the same evidence everyone else also does and I focus on facts and reality, as opposed to conjecture and opinion. _ _ALI MOORE: Are all the claims unreal?_ _ 
DR FREUD: It is difficult to answer such a broad question Ali, please provide me with a claim and I will tell you if it is a proven fact or conjecture, most likely based on flawed and failed computer models._   :Tv Horror:

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's more good coverage of the sea level scaremongering:  Australian sea level rises exaggerated by 8 fold (or maybe ten) « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax 
This data shows the sea levels changing very naturally since about 1800, shortly after the little ice age ended in the mid 1700's.   
Now compare that to the delusional Hockey Stick farce that was manufactured to support "The Cause".   
In this Hockey Stick delusion, they tried to match a fictional massive temperature rise with industrialisation ramping up, so the temperature starts to spike in the 1920's. 
But riddle me this Batman, if temperature only started going up in the 1920's, what was causing the ocean's to rise for the 120 years prior to this, while the Hockey Stick showed temperature getting colder.  :Confused:  
You can ask your mate Gav at skepticalscience if you want. He's always happy to defend his failed Hockey Stick.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> Here's more good coverage of the sea level scaremongering:  Australian sea level rises exaggerated by 8 fold (or maybe ten) « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax 
> This data shows the sea levels changing very naturally since about 1800, shortly after the little ice age ended in the mid 1700's.

  Don't you just love December? The cherries ripen beautifully this time of year.   
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> Don't you just love December? The cherries ripen beautifully this time of year.   
> woodbe.

  
Not only that but they combine with nuts and become real fruitcakes. :Biggrin:

----------


## intertd6

La la la la la la la la la is pretty well what you fello's must hear & see when something which goes beyond your comprehension, like whats actually happened in the past verses what may happen conjured up by the sky is falling mob.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

Question:   

> But riddle me this Batman, if temperature only started going up in the 1920's, what was causing the ocean's to rise for the 120 years prior to this, while the Hockey Stick showed temperature getting colder.

  Answers?   

> Don't you just love December? The cherries ripen beautifully this time of year. 
> woodbe.

   

> Not only that but they combine with nuts and become real fruitcakes.

  If that's the best "answer" you can come up with, no wonder these cultish beliefs have been well and truly debunked!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

You've made this accusation many times and had it rebutted many times, but let's go again, just for those not bored with the facts.    

> Don't you just love December? The cherries ripen beautifully this time of year. 
> woodbe.

  So again, you accuse me of cherry picking when I consistently post proxy data covering half a billion years, and regularly explain what has been happening on the Planet Earth for it's 4.5 billion years of existence.        

> Comparison of two sea level reconstructions during the last 500 Ma. The scale of change during the last glacial/interglacial transition is indicated with a black bar. *Note that over most of geologic history, long-term average sea level has been significantly higher than today.* 
> Learn more here:  Sea level - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  So the Planet Earth usually (and "naturally") has sea levels HUNDREDS OF METRES higher than todays, and you mob are scaremongering about a millimetre or so change per year.  :Doh:  
Now, the data time periods above were designed to test the validity of the farcical Hockey Stick delusion, and it obviously has failed again.  And seeing as you obviously cannot answer the easy question about the failed Hockey Stick delusion and the sea level changes, let's try another easy one. 
Was it the coal, the cars or the cows that caused all the previous sea level changes over the last 500 million years?  :Wink 1:  
Or if you prefer a much more interesting question, where did all the water come from in the first place and when did it get here?  :Rain2:

----------


## woodbe

The information that you are deliberately avoiding: 
* At any time when the sea level rose significantly in the past, the causes could not possibly have been associated with humans.
* There is a large body of published scientific work based on multiple lines of investigation that shows that we humans are in fact influencing the climate.
* These changes to the climate combined with natural variability are already having an impact on sea level.
* This large body of scientific work has yet to be proven wrong using science. (opinion doesn't count, sorry doc)
* None of this scientific work assumes that natural variability does not exist.
* None of this scientific work declares that humans or CO2 are the sole driver of climate.
* Humans were not around to observe any previous high sea level periods. We are right to be concerned. 
Lastly, just because the sea level was higher due to natural causes in the past, it does not then follow that any sea level change in the future can therefore only be due to natural causes. I know you get great pleasure from ridiculing science, but these changes do agree with predictions, and if the predictions continue to hold then there will be significant impact to low lying areas in the future. 
But you know all this, or would, if you read the science instead of every fake sceptic blog site. 
Here's a couple of recently published papers dealing with climate variability and the warming signal for you to start with: 
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105, 19 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2011JD016263 Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale  
 Environmental Research Letters, Volume 6, Number 4. IOPscience - Global temperature evolution 1979 
woodbe

----------


## intertd6

> The information that you are deliberately avoiding:  _I cant speak for others but these are some interesting points to ponder _ * At any time when the sea level rose significantly in the past, the causes could not possibly have been associated with humans. _Yes there was billions of them millions of years ago each with a big bonfire which produced co2 which caused climate change_ * There is a large body of published scientific work based on multiple lines of investigation that shows that we humans are in fact influencing the climate. _Yes man has influenced the climate by deforestation, pollution, particulates, ect, ect, ect, yet to be proven that co2 is only the culprit though._ * These changes to the climate combined with natural variability are already having an impact on sea level. _Yes by avoiding the projections which are in some cases 1000 % incorrect & by the real measurements being recorded & being suppressed by the vested interested pollys & associated parties. _ * This large body of scientific work has yet to be proven wrong using science. (opinion doesn't count, sorry doc) _Yes must be right, concrete proof it has been proven, yet then it must be really hard gather a paper fax it off to prove that co2 is the climate change culprit & at these one person claim & collect an easy $10,000._ * None of this scientific work assumes that natural variability does not exist. _??? depends what "this" is ?_ * None of this scientific work declares that humans or CO2 are the sole driver of climate. _"This" again ???_ * Humans were not around to observe any previous high sea level periods. We are right to be concerned. _First year geology to learn about previous sea levels, a bit like going down to the beach & seeing where the high tide mark was last night, what is your point here_ Lastly, just because the sea level was higher due to natural causes in the past, it does not then follow that any sea level change in the future can therefore only be due to natural causes. I know you get great pleasure from ridiculing science, but these changes do agree with predictions, and if the predictions continue to hold then there will be significant impact to low lying areas in the future. _How can anybody ridicule the true data & facts of science, a few pollys & cult followers have been sprayed with their own ridiculous claims & opinions though._ But you know all this, or would, if you read the science instead of every fake sceptic blog site. _Funny how thats just about the exact opposite of what I have observed. _ Here's a couple of recently published papers dealing with climate variability and the warming signal for you to start with: 
> JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105, 19 PP., 2011
> doi:10.1029/2011JD016263 Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale  
> Environmental Research Letters, Volume 6, Number 4. IOPscience - Global temperature evolution 1979  _If a report cant be summarised into a couple of meaningfull paragraphs or a graph your just trying to baffle people with BS _ woodbe

  regards inter

----------


## johnc

We get this continual reference to cults, especially directed to those who are inclined to believe the word of the various scientific bodies on climate change. Yet what proof really do we have of a cult.  
If you want evidence of cult leaders perhaps you need to look at those who wish to confer God like status on themselves. You need look no further than the disrespectful sacrilegious idiots who call themselves members of the holy trinity. For anyone who is not aware the holy trinity it is the term used for God the father, the son and holy ghost. The term used in that way is deeply offensive to those with Christian religious convictions and reflects badly on the moderators of this forum that is allowed. 
All it shows is a deep disrespect for the views and sensibilities of others and an inability to see outside their own myopic view of the world and themselves. Something we should all reflect on so close to Christmas. 
I would however agree with Inter on excessive detail, those who post endless lines of references and commentary are probably those who specalise in BS and are not really interested in the truth, and you need look no further than one member of that select little threesome to find the worst offender. 
We could all lighten up and show a bit more respect for others views, post less rubbish and behave in a more grown up manner, there is no need to emulate the Bolts of this world by pushing opinions ahead of facts.

----------


## woodbe

> _??? depends what "this" is ?
> [..]_ _"This" again ???_

  Have another read inter, I am clearly referring to my second bullet point: 
* There is a large body of published scientific work based on multiple  lines of investigation that shows that we humans are in fact influencing  the climate.   

> _If a report cant be summarised into a couple of meaningfull paragraphs or a graph your just trying to baffle people with BS_

  I see. the Too Many Notes defense. Thanks for reminding me about the simplicity of the science you need, I'll try and find something that suits you better next time. Not sure that it will help in your case, given your other responses, but always willing to try. I am encouraged that you accept that man is influencing the climate however, this is something a lot of opinion sceptics have great difficulty admitting. Well done. 
woodbe.

----------


## watson

> If you want evidence of cult leaders perhaps you need to look at those who wish to confer God like status on themselves. You need look no further than the disrespectful sacrilegious idiots who call themselves members of the holy trinity. For anyone who is not aware the holy trinity it is the term used for God the father, the son and holy ghost. The term used in that way is deeply offensive to those with Christian religious convictions and reflects badly on the moderators of this forum that is allowed.

  The Holy Trinity title is part of the default vBulletin software, and when a member reaches that level or number of posts it occurs automatically.
It has stuff all to do with the mods.

----------


## johnc

In that case the software writers need to have a long hard look at themselves and grow up a bit.

----------


## denaria

hahaha I never knew, Noel, I'd assumed some tradie cabal. Silly me, and I'll be ga-ga before I qualify.

----------


## johnc

OK some people may feel anything more than two paragraphs and a graph is beyond their attention span but Mr Robert Manne is always readable and far better than wading through the disjointed meanderings of our most voiceiferous and repetitive members..   *How can climate change denialism be explained?*  Robert Manne
 For several decades I have engaged in ideological disputes.
The first dispute involved a disagreement with the Left over the nature of communism. I found it difficult to understand how people of good heart were unable to see what was in front of everyone's nose: the disaster that communism had brought to the peoples of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China.
The most recent involves a disagreement with the Right over global warming. I now find it difficult to understand how a person of reasonable intelligence is unable to accept the reality and the urgency of the looming climate crisis. With the Left and communism, the problem was indifference to a mountain of readily available evidence. With the Right and climate change, the problem is the unwillingness or incapacity to accept the truth of an argument of almost embarrassing simplicity.
Let me outline the bare bones of that argument.
For more than a century some scientists have believed that an increase in certain gases in the atmosphere - most importantly carbon dioxide (CO2) - would raise the temperature of the Earth. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution vast amounts of greenhouse gases have been released into the atmosphere. The temperature of the Earth has risen by 0.7 degrees Celsius. Even without any further greenhouse gas emissions, a further increase of 0.5C in global temperature is guaranteed.
Despite one international attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - the Kyoto Protocol - these have continued to climb; last year, as we recently learnt, by an alarming amount. Almost all climate scientists and many governments accept that an increase in global temperature of 2C above pre-industrial levels is dangerous. According to the many models of the climate scientists, if human beings do not manage speedily to radically reduce and then eliminate the emission of greenhouse gases the temperature of the Earth will continue to rise by well beyond 2C and even up to 7C by 2100.
There are tens of thousands of climate scientists researching and publishing throughout the world in scores of high-level scientific journals. The overwhelming majority believe that global warming is primarily caused by human activity. They believe that unless human beings change their behaviour, the Earth is headed for disaster: major sea-level rises rendering life intolerable for hundreds of millions in low-lying coastal regions; devastating droughts especially in sub-Saharan Africa; eventual massive water shortages in Asia through the disappearance of the Himalayan glacier system; the death of the great Brazilian forest; an increase in the number and/or intensity of floods, hurricanes, heat-waves and forest fires; the mass extinction of species, and so on.
If only 50 per cent of climate scientists accepted the greenhouse gas theory of global warming, it would still be prudent to curb greenhouse gas emissions radically. There is, quite simply, so much at stake - nothing less than the future wellbeing of the Earth. Yet in fact virtually all the people with true understanding - the climate scientists - accept that, primarily through the continued burning of fossil fuels, human beings are placing the Earth at risk. Among these scientists moreover there exists no plausible alternative theory to explain global warming. Two studies have been conducted to assess the size of the scientific majority who accept and understand the reality of disastrous, humanly-caused global warming via the greenhouse gas hypothesis. Both studies arrived at the same figure: 97 per cent.
This leads me to the subject of this piece: the mysterious rise of climate change denialism.
Every time an article concerning the climate crisis appears somewhere in the United States, the United Kingdom or Australia, an army of climate change denialists emerges. For those who believe there is indeed a crisis - that is to say for those who accept the conclusions of the scientists and the implications of what they are telling us for the future of the Earth - they express nothing but suspicion, anger and contempt.
The overwhelming majority of these people have not published in the field of climate science. Most, but not all, have no scientific education. And yet, somehow, they have come to believe that they understand better than the overwhelming majority of climate scientists - in the immortal words of one of the most consequential climate change denialists - that the greenhouse gas theory of global warming is "crap". Climate change denialists do not merely doubt the conclusions of the people who have studied and published in the field. They know that the climate scientists are wrong.
It would be comforting to believe that the denialist army is composed of fools. This is simply not the case. Many of the denialists are accomplished and educated people. It would also be comforting to think that they represent a small island of unreason in an ocean of rationality, like people opposed to immunisation. This also however is not true. In the United States, for example, a clear majority do not believe in human-induced global warming. Indeed only 1 per cent of Americans now consider it their country's most urgent problem.
How, then, is the existence of climate change denialism and indeed its increase in recent years to be explained? There seem to me five plausible hypotheses.
1. The first concerns the influence of vested economic interest. Throughout the Western world there are many massive corporations whose fortunes are based on the sale of fossil fuels - coal, oil etc. If effective action is taken across the globe to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, on the grounds that they are imperilling the planet, these corporations have a lot to lose. Contrarily if they can find means to create doubt in the public mind about climate change science and therefore of its implications for the economic future of their companies, they have a great deal to gain. Putting a relatively small amount of money into one or another group capable of producing and disseminating climate change denialist propaganda makes complete economic sense.
It does not even need to follow that the executives in the corporations who in the past funded this propaganda or who at present are still funding it - like Exxon-Mobil or the fossil fuel industry-based Koch brothers in the United States - are self-conscious cynics. Outright cynicism is probably less common than self-deceptive and self-serving rationalisation in matters of this kind. Nor is it the case that the loudest voices in the media preaching global warming denialism, like Rush Limbaugh in the United States and Andrew Bolt in Australia - who are influenced by the propaganda of the fossil fuel corporations and who then disseminate it - need to be paid for the services they provide. In general, these kind of ideological "true believers" simply play the role of the "useful idiots" of the fossil fuel corporations. The classic study of this phenomenon is Naomi Oreskes and Erik M Conway's Merchants of Doubt.
2. The second hypothesis helping to explain the contemporary profile of climate change denialism relates to the role played by the mass media. In recent weeks, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford has published a fascinating study - James Painter's Poles Apart: The international reporting of climate scepticism. In it, the climate change coverage of high-quality newspapers in six countries - the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Brazil - is analysed. There are three main conclusions. First, climate change "scepticism" (what I prefer to call "denialism") is far more common in the newspapers of English-speaking countries than in the papers of the others countries studied. Second, climate change scepticism was particularly prominent in editorials and opinion pieces in the press of these two countries. And third, in the countries studied, right-leaning newspapers, like the Wall Street Journal, are far more likely to publish denialist material than left-leaning newspapers, like the New York Times. At the recent launch of Poles Apart at Durban, the dreadful performance of the Australian press in regard to climate change reportage was mentioned, something that recently both Wendy Bacon and I have recently written about.
Three conclusions can be drawn from all this. In the US, UK and Australia, in recent times, the media has played a major role in legitimising climate change denialism. In these three countries the media has amplified or facilitated the work of the many climate denialist "think tanks", fossil fuel industry lobbyists and denialist bloggers. And in all these three countries, the influence of the Murdoch media is profound - in Australia with 70 per cent of the major newspaper circulation; in the UK, with The Times and The Sun; and in the US with the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and, above all else, the immensely influential Fox News. Not only do the Murdoch media preach climate change denialism directly throughout the English-speaking world. News Corp also provides this kind of anti-science irrationalism with a kind of faux-respectability that allows its influence to permeate gradually other non-Murdoch-owned organs of the right-leaning and even the centrist media. One of the reasons climate change denialism is strong and growing in the Anglosphere and rather weak in both Europe and the developing world is the different role played by their respective media.
3. To be effective, the roles played in the rise of climate change denialism by fossil fuel corporation propaganda and the right-wing mass media probably required some overarching ideological rationalisations. One rationalisation was discovered in the idea central to Anglosphere neoconservatism - the corrosive influence supposedly played by the anti-Western, anti-American mindset of the cosmopolitan elites, known since the early 1990s as "political correctness". Another was discovered in neoliberal suspicions about the collectivist, social engineering and anti-capitalist instincts of the left-leaning intelligentsia.
Until the emergence of the climate change crisis, neoconservatives and neoliberals were mainly concerned with resisting collectivist economics or changes of attitude since "the sixties" to racial and gender relations. Indeed, until that time they were generally the defenders of the values of the Enlightenment - traditional education and science.
Following the coming of the climate crisis everything changed. The neoconservatives and the neoliberals in the media, politics, the think tanks and the academy applied their ideas about the corrosive influence of political correctness and collectivism to a group they had hitherto staunchly defended against the attacks of relativistic "deconstructionists" and "postmodernists" - the scientists. Or at least, to put it more precisely, they extended their analysis to one branch of scientists - those who specialised in analysis of the climate. When the climate scientists began pointing out the urgent need to curb emissions of greenhouse gases, the neoconservatives and neoliberals decided that these scientists were little better than the "tenured radicals" in the humanities faculties of the universities who deployed their so-called scholarship to undermine the free market or traditional Western values. Their science was dubious. They perverted the peer review process. They suppressed dissenting voices. They engaged in research they knew to be fraudulent - "climategate" - for the sole purpose of winning lucrative research grants from the "nanny state".
In this campaign, the Right dispensed with even minimal commitment to logic. The government that awarded the most money for climate research - the United States - was also the government most resistant to taking action on climate change. The enemies of the scientists also engaged in ideological labelling. The scientists who expressed alarm at the inescapable conclusions of their research became "alarmists". Those citizens who accepted the key conclusion of the climate scientists - that primarily because of the burning of fossil fuels the Earth is heating up - became "warmists". Required to choose between the interests of the fossil fuel corporations or the conclusions of the climate scientists, with barely a moment's thought, the ideologues of the Right backed the interests of the corporations.
4. Ideologues only feel comfortable when they hunt in packs. Within a remarkably short time, almost all anti-political correctness and anti-collectivist ideologues became climate change denialists. Nonetheless, it would be quite misleading to argue that all leading climate change denialists are neoconservatives and neoliberals. As Clive Hamilton has pointed out, there is a certain kind of individual who is offended by the conclusions of the climate scientists. For such people - frequently ageing white males of science, engineering and technology backgrounds - the conclusions of the climate scientists are experienced as a shock, as a challenge, but most deeply of all as an affront to their deepest and most cherished basic faith: the capacity and indeed the right of "mankind" to subdue the Earth and all its fruits and to establish a "mastery" over nature. I use these words advisedly. The conclusions of the climate scientists suggested a problem with this generally free-thinking, secular, pro-capitalist faith.
The people I have in mind were the kind who had mercilessly mocked the once-fashionable idea that there might ultimately be "limits to growth". They are the kind of people who had vigorously and sometimes successfully disputed claims about the eventual depletion of natural resources or theories like "peak oil". Now they were faced with scientists who had arrived at the conclusion that there was something even more fundamentally amiss in the process of the industrial revolution itself - namely, that the decision to provide the energy for industrialisation by burning fossil fuels was possibly the most consequential, although perfectly innocent, misstep human beings had ever taken. Within the mindset of the engineers and geologists, such a thought is not merely mistaken. It is intolerable and deeply offensive. Those preaching this doctrine have to be resisted and indeed denounced.
For such people - in Australia, one thinks of Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, William Kininmonth - the struggle against climate science is both urgent and existential. They are fighting to preserve life-long beliefs which have provided them with comfort and with meaning. In the fight against the climate scientists, they have proved to be important allies of the anti-political correctness and anti-collectivist ideologues, the right-wing media and the fossil fuel corporations.
5. The leaders of the denialist campaign are however not whistling in the dark. The message they are selling is popular. The reason is reasonably straightforward. The majority of people in Western countries live now in a state of material comfort beyond the imaginings of all previous generations. Who amongst us would not prefer to believe that there are indeed no limits to the material comforts we may enjoy? Who would not prefer to believe that this level of material comfort will go on expanding forever? To take the conclusions of the climate scientists seriously is to embrace the need for massive economic change and even for possible economic sacrifice. If the influence of the climate change denialists is growing the most important reason is that they are telling people what they most wish to hear. In his book Requiem for a Species, Clive Hamilton makes an entirely unnerving suggestion. Perhaps it is the character type that flourishes under the conditions of consumer capitalism that presents the primary obstacle to taking action on climate change. Faced by an apparent choice between the continuation of our lifestyle and the wellbeing of our planet, perhaps it is the continuation of our lifestyle that in the end we will decide to choose.
In helping us to make this choice, the denialists have played an important role. For they have been able to convince many people that to choose this way is not irresponsible or immoral or insane - a choice for which future generations will curse us - but represents, rather, sweet reason and merest common sense. Recently I read an interesting World Bank survey of international public opinion on the question of climate change. What it revealed, broadly speaking, was that the poorer the country, the more likely are its people to believe in the reality of dangerous human-caused climate change. While 31 per cent of Americans and 38 per cent of Japanese thought climate change was a very serious problem, 75 per cent of Kenyans and 85 per cent of Bangladeshis did. Those who do have reason to fear climate change but have little to lose in the curbing of emissions are the people who believe in what the climate scientists are telling them. Those who do not at present fear climate change but recognise they have a lot to lose by tackling it have simply and conveniently ceased to believe what they hear.
The meaning of all this seems clear. Citizens of the consumer society are unwilling to risk the loss of any of their comforts. However they wish to feel good about themselves. The climate change denialists - the lobbyists and propagandists of the fossil fuel corporations; the right-wing commentariat in the blogosphere and the media; the anti-political correctness and anti-collectivist ideologues in the think tanks and the academy; the angry older generation of engineers and geologists - offer them the alibi for doing nothing they so desperately need. *This article was first published on The Left, Right, Left blog for The Monthly.* _Robert Manne__ is Professor of Politics at La Trobe University._

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> and far better than wading through the disjointed meanderings of our most voiceiferous and repetitive members..

   Like Johnc and Geno62.

----------


## denaria

A few more hundred pages I might be convinced, though having been married to a university professor of physics for 40 years it'd take a heap of convincing us, and he's dead now. good luck with that. grins

----------


## johnc

> Like Johnc and Geno62.

    :Rolleyes:

----------


## intertd6

Johnc in regards to your long winded post #7481 this exactly the stuff which i'm referring to, pure waffle, just opinions about opinions & its only good use would be to be donated to a poorer country for making some useful dunny paper out of it.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> I see. the Too Many Notes defense. Thanks for reminding me about the simplicity of the science you need, I'll try and find something that suits you better next time. Not sure that it will help in your case, given your other responses, but always willing to try. I am encouraged that you accept that man is influencing the climate however, this is something a lot of opinion sceptics have great difficulty admitting. Well done.  _Just because some poor Phd student or researcher has had to document 20,000 words + for their thesis or scientific paper there is no real need to go down that path, the crux of their finding/s can be summarised quite easily with simple graphs & words, the complicated background is purely for proving their findings for the highly specialised & skilled academics in that field._ .

  regards inter

----------


## ringtail

> In that case the software writers need to have a long hard look at themselves and grow up a bit.

  jealous much - :Biggrin:  :Tongue:  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> jealous much -

  Perhaps.  But you do have the choice of demonstrating obediance and fealty with the unimaginative Default Nomenclature (A Member of the Holy Trinity) or forging your own identity.... 
...as for the thread...I have nothing to add at this time.

----------


## woodbe

> _Just because some poor Phd student or  researcher has had to document 20,000 words + for their thesis or  scientific paper there is no real need to go down that path, the crux of  their finding/s can be summarised quite easily with simple graphs &  words, the complicated background is purely for proving their findings  for the highly specialised & skilled academics in that field._

  I don't think I've ever posted huge quotes here, have I? 
I did post some links to recently published papers. I suspect you've never read one due to your fear of reading too many words. Fear not though, any paper I have read contains an Abstract which is the short summary you probably wish for but didn't know already existed. 
Have a look:JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105, 19 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2011JD016263 Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale  <-- Click this one, it's the link to the paper.  
See where it says "Abstract" under the list of Authors? That's the bit you want, it's like a summary of the paper for those readers interested but perhaps short of time or attention span. 
 Pretty clever, huh? I guess they've been doing science publishing for a while, so they've fine tuned the format to suit as large an audience as possible. 
You're welcome. 
woodbe.

----------


## ringtail

> Perhaps.  But you do have the choice of demonstrating obediance and fealty with the unimaginative Default Nomenclature (A Member of the Holy Trinity) or forging your own identity.... 
> ...as for the thread...I have nothing to add at this time.

  I do both, as and when it suits me  :Biggrin:

----------


## intertd6

> I don't think I've ever posted huge quotes here, have I? 
> I did post some links to recently published papers. I suspect you've never read one due to your fear of reading too many words. Fear not though, any   _Too right about not reading your links, I'm just clever enough to not get sucked into some obscure trifling waffle, if anything in your post was in the least bit interesting or important it would have been broadcast far, wide & loud by the alarmists long ago to spread their propaganda._  
> See where it says "Abstract" under the list of Authors? That's the bit you want, it's like a summary of the paper for those readers interested but perhaps short of time or attention span.  _You have me on both points there._ 
> Pretty clever, huh? I guess they've been doing science publishing for a while, so they've fine tuned the format to suit as large an audience as possible.  _Yes the really really clever important people read the summary first to find out what is actually being claimed or said, then see what backs it up, because they are really short of time & have really short attention spans for the insignificant. _  
> woodbe.

  regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

I thought you had learned some time ago that some greenies programming their assumptions into psychic computer models were not reality.  Were the pictures of the beach in "reality" too confronting?  You nearly had me fooled that you now relied on observations of "reality" as opposed to "adjusted data" and "psychic computers".  Oh well, back to the computerised fairy stories for you...    

> The information that you are deliberately avoiding:

  Let's rebut this nonsense again, because the Durban talks killed this farcical cult deader than a dodo anyway, so we may as well rehash the old myths.   

> * At any time when the sea level rose significantly in the past, the causes could not possibly have been associated with humans.

  So what caused all the rises and falls then, and are there any patterns that repeat, or are these changes always changing, naturally? 
Then after you can guarantee ALL of this causality an interactivity (much of this I have covered previously), then we can begin trying to rule them.  No, not with psychic computers and assumptions as the cult claims is "the science", but with something us old fashioned people call "evidence".   

> * There is a large body of published scientific work based on multiple lines of investigation that shows that we humans are in fact influencing the climate.

  Farts influence the climate.  Not just human ones.  Dinosaurs had massive farts.  If you need a "large body of published scientific work based on multiple lines of investigation" before you believe this, then too bad.  It's always been a question of how much?   
Here's a scientific fact: *
There is zero scientific evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.* 
I have posted this dozens of times and no-one has ever presented a single piece of evidence? 
Why so quiet?  Why so secret?  Are you trusting the cult leaders who say they have it?   

> * These changes to the climate combined with natural variability are already having an impact on sea level.

  Nice assumption.  Pity you have no proof.  Maybe if you answered my question about how the sea level started rising 120 years before the temperature rises, according to your own high priests of the IPCC?  This IPCC data suggests that sea levels are already having an impact on temperature?  I know time dilates, but your contiguity is all screwed up, eh?   

> * This large body of scientific work has yet to be proven wrong using science. (opinion doesn't count, sorry doc)

  You can't prove a psychic computer predicting the temperature 100 years into the future wrong, until 100 years into the future.  All psychic computer failures to date are well documented, as are the failed psychic predictions of the high priests of this cult.  As for all cults, the just keep resetting the doomsday dates, and the natural temperature rises out of the last Little Ice Age continue uninterrupted by us insignificant fearful bipedal Carbon units.   

> * None of this scientific work assumes that natural variability does not exist.

  No, it assumes everything else, these makes psychic computer models based on these assumptions.   

> * None of this scientific work declares that humans or CO2 are the sole driver of climate.

  How many of them give a factual percentage of contribution of either?   

> * Humans were not around to observe any previous high sea level periods.

  Lucky we burned all that stuff to create the technology to give us proxy data, huh? 
Otherwise we wouldn't know we were about to kill an entire Planet by farting too much.   

> We are right to be concerned.

  About what?   

> I know you get great pleasure from ridiculing science

  Wrong.  Science gave us the great understanding and technology that drives humanity to continued greatness.  I ridicule cults masquerading as science.  Especially when run by belligerent fascientists getting fat on a gravy train that Aussie taxpayers are being ripped off to fund.   

> but these changes do agree with predictions, and if the predictions continue to hold then there will be significant impact to low lying areas in the future.

  You may have missed the pictures of Bondi.  I thought it was self evident, but this beach (like a lot of them) is what you may refer to as "low lying".  Others call it sea level.    

> But you know all this, or would, if you read the science instead of every fake sceptic blog site.

  I have read a lot of the science in this area, and most of it is assumptions, "adjusted" data and computer models.  Every single fact in this area of science indicates a natural change from the end of the last Little Ice Age.   

> Here's a couple of recently published papers dealing with climate variability and the warming signal for you to start with: 
> JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105, 19 PP., 2011
> doi:10.1029/2011JD016263 Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale  
>  Environmental Research Letters, Volume 6, Number 4. IOPscience - Global temperature evolution 1979

  WOW! Computer models and "adjusted" data, all based on many unproven assumptions.  Who would have thought.  :Doh:  
At least Yom Kippur, Good Friday and Ramadan are overt expressions of deprivation from the three main monotheistic religions. 
The UNFCCC COP hedonistic and decadent ceremonies while asking us peasants to tithe under the banner of "the science" is an insult to both religion and science.

----------


## Dr Freud

So many scientific facts to rebut, where do I begin.  :Doh:    

> We get this continual reference to cults, especially directed to *those who are inclined to believe the word* of the various scientific bodies on climate change. Yet what proof really *do we have of a cult*.

  I have already posted the definition and explanation justifying the terms use.  Use the search function and you can read all about it. 
Here's proof from yourself, just in case you don't believe me: *
"those who are inclined to believe the word...do we have of a cult"*    

> If you want evidence of cult leaders perhaps you need to look at those who wish to confer God like status on themselves. You need look no further than the disrespectful sacrilegious idiots who call themselves members of the holy trinity. For anyone who is not aware the holy trinity it is the term used for God the father, the son and holy ghost. The term used in that way is deeply offensive to those with Christian religious convictions and reflects badly on the moderators of this forum that is allowed.

  I take it you didn't like The Matrix?   

> The name "Trinity" is heavily associated with Christian theology, which involves the Holy Trinity: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When she cracked the IRS database before her release from the Matrix, she chose the alias of Trinity as a hacker, to imply that she is as enigmatic as trying to grasp the concept of a "Three-In-One Being."[2] Trinity is the force who guides Neo to his "salvation," as well as commanding Neo to rise up from his apparent death in the first film, implying a further parallel between her character and God.[3]  Trinity (The Matrix) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   

> All it shows is a deep disrespect for the views and sensibilities of others and an inability to see outside their own myopic view of the world and themselves. Something we should *all* reflect on so close to Christmas.

  So, you go from calling people "disrespectful sacrilegious idiots"  via total ignorance, then assume *everyone* on the Planet Earth places as much religious context to "Christmas" as you do? 
And they have the "myopic view of the world", huh?   

> I would however agree with Inter on excessive detail, those who post endless lines of references and commentary are probably those who specalise in BS and are not really interested in the truth, and you need look no further than one member of that select little threesome to find the worst offender.

  I think you have shown extreme disrespect to polygamists by using the term "threesome" in such a derogatory manner.  How disrespectful.  :Biggrin:    

> We could all lighten up and show a bit more respect for others views, post less rubbish and behave in a more grown up manner, there is no need to emulate the Bolts of this world by pushing opinions ahead of facts.

  We still live in a relatively free world.  The current Commie government is shutting down free speech more and more every day, but until they do, there's nothing wrong with anyone giving their opinion.  I'm always happy to let you know the difference between facts and opinions, just let me know if you're not sure.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> _If a report cant be summarised into a couple of meaningfull paragraphs or a graph your just trying to baffle people with BS_ 
> regards inter

  Very true.  Parsimony.  Hence the Null.   

> I see. the Too Many Notes defense. Thanks for reminding me about the simplicity of the science you need, I'll try and find something that suits you better next time. Not sure that it will help in your case, given your other responses, but always willing to try. I am encouraged that you accept that man is influencing the climate however, this is something a lot of opinion sceptics have great difficulty admitting. Well done. 
> woodbe.

  I think this bloke agrees with Intertd6, not you Woodbe:   Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius  and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. ~ Albert Einstein  If you cant explain it simply, you dont understand it well enough. ~ Albert Einstein

----------


## Dr Freud

> The Holy Trinity title is part of the default vBulletin software, and when a member reaches that level or number of posts it occurs automatically.
> It has stuff all to do with the mods.

  Thanks for deflecting that undeserved criticism.  I much prefer the more deserved criticism I usually get.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> In that case the software writers need to have a long hard look at themselves and grow up a bit.

   
There's a pic below from when I tried to talk some sense into the software writers.  They said you were being very insensitive asking them to grow up a bit, that's as big as they get.  
They said you shouldn't be so disrespectful to little people.  And they tried to take a long hard look at themselves, but those damn chippies keep putting the full height vanity in, so they can't see the mirror.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

The weight of scientific evidence in this was overwhelming:   

> *How can climate change denialism be explained?*

  His grasp on the evidence and scientific facts in this area is remarkable!  :Wink 1:  
Why then is he so reluctant to debate the facts?   

> Its billed as Robert Manne vs. Tim Flannery.   
>   I thought vs indicated a contest, not a group hug. No wonder only a couple of dozen people at the campus were interested enough to come watch Australias leading public intellectual and our leading climate alarmist.   
>  Manne starts by saying he only began to read very seriously about climate change on a very hot summers day a few years ago - and it was Flannerys _Weather Makers_ he turned to. This is a grim foretaste of the quality of the debate that follows and the evidence on which the mutual apocalyptus is based.   
>  Flannery complains about the hate allegedly being whipped up in the media against warmists but speaks approvingly of sceptics being shouted down at his public meetings. Both agree completely that the fact there is a debate is a sigh of toxicity and its my fault.   
>  Manne says hes drifitng towards a theory that Big Oil and Big Coal have created this debate with their seed money - which is perilously close to suggesting that people like me have had their opinions bought. Yes, this is the same man complaining about a toxic debate, character assassination and a refusal to examine the science. Flannery, who has made a terrific living from climate alarmism, agrees that many sceptics profit from their scepticism.    *Im mentioned so often by the two alarmists that I wonder why they didnt simply invite me along to have the debate theyd promised.*   What they call a “debate” in warmist circles | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Real bravado, firing on a one way range.  :Doh:

----------


## PhilT2

I'll just leave this here as I know Doc is such a big fan. TEDxPSU - Michael Mann - A Look Into Our Climate: Past To Present To Future - YouTube!

----------


## woodbe

> Here's a scientific fact: *
> There is zero scientific evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.*

  That's denier logic right there. There are no absolutes possible in this statement. Here is the real fact:  *The body of science supporting AGW hypothesis has yet to be disproven.*   

> * None of this scientific work assumes that natural variability does not exist.       Originally Posted by Dr Freud  No, it assumes everything else, these makes psychic computer models based on these assumptions.

  Nice try. Any reputable study factors in all inputs, including where appropriate, natural variability. Fake Sceptics love to say it's natural variability and play on the ignorance of the public whether natural variability has been accounted for.    

> How many of them give a factual percentage of contribution of either?

  How many of them don't?   

> WOW! Computer models and "adjusted" data, all based on many unproven assumptions.  Who would have thought.

  Proof that you haven't read (or perhaps understood) them. These claims that scientists collude, falsify data and change it to suit their needs are unsupported by any scientific investigation. Sorry Doc, Bolt is not a scientist and does not do scientific investigation. 
But hey, Sceptics don't need science, do they?  :Biggrin:  
Cheers,  
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> _If a report cant be summarised into a couple of meaningfull paragraphs or a graph your just trying to baffle people with BS_

  Alternatively, if it can be summarised into a couple of meaningfull paragraphs and a graph and you were presented with that....then wouldn't you wonder what information was witheld or simply cut as an expediency? Especially if there was the presumption that the audience wasn't sufficiently well informed to actually handle the full story?

----------


## intertd6

> Alternatively, if it can be summarised into a couple of meaningfull paragraphs and a graph and you were presented with that....then wouldn't you wonder what information was witheld or simply cut as an expediency? Especially if there was the presumption that the audience wasn't sufficiently well informed to actually handle the full story?

  See alberts quotes above in the drs post #7494 regarding those who are trying to pump themselves up bigger than what they actually are.
In regards to humans changing the climate just look at some of what has been proven so far;
Particulates accelerate melting of snow & ice
Deforested & urban areas influence weather patterns over these areas 
Some known man made chemicals destroy certain parts of the atmosphere
human produced Co2 hasn't been proven to change the climate as yet, but it sure makes life thrive in our biosphere where cold & the stray mega meteorite are the real dangers for life on earth
When human produced Co2 is undeniably proven to change the climate for the worse I will believe it thoroughly, who wouldn't? I might be silly but I'm not stupid.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'll just leave this here as I know Doc is such a big fan. TEDxPSU - Michael Mann - A Look Into Our Climate: Past To Present To Future - YouTube!

  16 minutes and 6 seconds of my life I'll never get back.  What a waste.  Spent his whole time criticising politicians who correctly criticised his farcical Hockey Stick delusions.  I watched it just in case he had an answer as to why the oceans started rising 120 years before he says the temperature started rising.  And then after his alleged temperature spike, the oceans kept changing at the same rate as they had been since the end of the little ice age.  Alas, no answers from him, but maybe you can help? 
Did the Hockey Stick temperature rise travel backwards in time to cause the sea levels to rise?   :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

> That's denier logic right there.

  Please explain how?   

> There are no absolutes possible in this statement.

  The statement is absolute.   

> Here is the real fact:  *The body of science supporting AGW hypothesis has yet to be disproven.*

  Insert relevant cause celebre:   *The body of science supporting ALIENS has yet to be disproven. *  *The body of science supporting GOD has yet to be disproven.* *The body of science supporting LOCH NESS MONSTER has yet to be disproven. 
Etc, etc, etc...* 
Yes, these are all factual statements and you're certainly in good company.    

> Nice try.

  Do, or do not, there is no try. _Master Yoda._   

> Any reputable study factors in *all* inputs, including where appropriate, natural variability.

  Really?  *All* inputs.  Please list these and I'll check if the last two "reputable" studies you have posted factors in all inputs.  There are many, so take your time.   

> Fake Sceptics love to say it's natural variability and play on the ignorance of the public whether natural variability has been accounted for.

  What the hell is a "fake sceptic"?  :Doh:  
And natural variability doesn't need accounting for, it's the Null.  The public are not ignorant on this, it's very simple.  The Null Hypothesis is that human's are not going to cause the Planet to burst into flames.  Therefore, climate changes naturally as it always has, caused by *all* inputs.  Nature balances itself, how quaint.  :Biggrin:  
Your supported theory that needs to reject the Null (and hasn't yet  :No: ) is that humans are causing catastrophic heating of the entire Planet Earth that is already unprecedented and soon and will be unstoppable, resulting in armageddon. 
The public were previously ignorant due to the volume of propaganda and censorship, but they are learning fast.  That is the joy of ignorance, it is merely the absence of information, which is easily corrected. 
Ideological zealotry on the other hand is much more difficult to correct.  :Shrug:     

> How many of them don't?

  Couldn't find one, huh?   

> Proof that you haven't read (or perhaps understood) them.

  No wonder you have issues determining what "proof" is.  :Biggrin:    

> These claims that scientists collude, falsify data and change it to suit their needs are unsupported by any scientific investigation.

  I won't bore everyone by posting the huge volume of both CLIMATEGATE and CLIMATEGATE 2 emails, but please read them and then get back to me with the results from your "scientific investigation".   

> Sorry Doc, Bolt is not a scientist and does not do scientific investigation.

  Who exactly made this claim that you are refuting?  Or are you again engaging in semantic distraction because you still can't figure out how ocean levels started rising 120 years before temperatures started increasing on the Hockey Stick?  :Biggrin:    

> But hey, Sceptics don't need science, do they?

  No.  My original quote says it all.  I am sceptical of many things, including Tarot, psychics, and aromatherapy.  But I do not need to scientifically disprove them to be sceptical of their unproven claims.  If they wish to remove my scepticism, they need to merely prove their case.  Along with all the other wacko's out there looking for bogus cash handouts.  I give money to Pharmaceutical companies occasionally, as they have proven their case.  It's not that difficult when you are dealing with reality.   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

Where's the fanfare from the AGW hypothesis brigade about the Durban COP17 outcomes? 
JuLIAR is hailing this as a historic agreement that allegedly validates her crippling the entire Australian economy with a massive new and useless TAX.   

> Ms Gillard said the development was a "remarkable step forward".
>               "That means the world is showing it's acting on climate change," she told reporters in Canberra today.  Gillard hails Durban climate deal

  
Do none of you support her LIES this time? 
So what actually happened?   

> UN climate talks in Durban have ended the same way they began, in failure. Governments at the UN climate talks have chosen to listen to the polluters over the people and failed to reinforce previous climate saving measures and have steered clear of new global rules for tackling climate change. 
> The grim news is that the blockers lead by the US have succeeded in inserting a vital get-out clause that could easily prevent the next big climate deal being legally binding. If that loophole is exploited it could be a disaster. And the deal is due to be implemented 'from 2020' leaving almost no room for increasing the depth of carbon cuts in this decade when scientists say we need emissions to peak," said Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director.  Politicians Listen to the Polluters at UN climate talks | Greenpeace Africa

  Why is JuLIAR lying again?  What is she trying to cover up this time?  Oh yeh, here's a few things:   

> *CANADA'S environment minister says the country is pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. 				 				* 			 		 		''We are invoking Canada's legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto,'' the only global treaty that sets down targeted curbs in global emissions, Environment Minister Peter Kent said.  Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

    

> Gerard Henderson is right, of course:  _ 
> In July, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, wrote to his Australian counterpart, Julia Gillard, supporting Labors legislation to introduce a carbon tax leading to an emissions trading scheme on July 1 next year._  _Ostensibly, Camerons letter was one of praise for Gillard. However, the subliminal message was one of criticism of the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott_  _(The) Canberra press gallery, which overwhelmingly supports Gillard and opposes Abbott on the carbon tax issue, made much of the letter._  _Little mention was made of the fact that the climate change policy of the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government in Britain entailed a review in 2014. The message was that Britain would scale back its climate change abatement policies if it found itself to be out in front of other European Union nations...._   _The review scheduled for 2014 has been brought forward in the light of the economic situation....  In an emphatic declaration, (Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne last month) added: We are not going to save the planet by shutting down our steel mills, aluminium smelters and paper manufacturers. All we will be doing is exporting valuable jobs out of Britain._   _Now, it is understandable that the likes of the Prime Minister, Wayne Swan and Greg Combet do not want to draw attention to the change in direction in Britain. But journalists and commentators using the Cameron letter against Abbott have no such excuse. They are supposed to be reporting news, not barracking for causes._A similar calculation, I believe, explains why the press gallery at first went soft on Julia Gillard when she broke her promise not to bring in a carbon dioxide tax, and underestimated the damage shed just done to herself. I suspect the very same mistake is being made again about her breach of faith with Christians over same-sex marriage. 
>   But lets check who may now need to file a PS to their original reports.   Misha Schubert, _ The Age_:    _JULIA Gillards bid to impose a carbon tax in Australia has won a glowing endorsement from British Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader David Cameron, undercutting a fierce campaign against the scheme by his conservative ally, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott._Jessica Wright, _Sydney Morning Herald_:    _ BRITAINS Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, has personally congratulated Julia Gillard on her carbon tax policy in a letter penned from the desk of 10 Downing Street._  _In a clear embarrassment to the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, and his Coalition - who have vehemently opposed any price on carbon - Mr Cameron described the federal Labor governments move on climate change as bold and ambitious._ Cameron should write Gillard another letter | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  JuLIAR's lies can no longer hide the fact that she sold out our country to Bob Brown and his greenies just to salvage her "career" aspirations.  Some leader, huh?

----------


## Dr Freud

> What Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery said:    _In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas and made the soil too hot, so even the rain that falls isnt actually going to fill our dams and river systems  ._What reader Greg tried to drive though on the Central Coast this morning:      Greg believed, and now his car is at the garage | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Reset the doomsday predictions again I guess?  :Doh:

----------


## Black Cat

I think current thinking is 'more extreme weather events' so more drought, more floods, more storms/cyclones, and many of them extreme versions of what we are used to. Certainly the last three seasons down my way have been pretty irregular. Snow to 1300m yesterday ...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Where's the fanfare from the AGW hypothesis brigade about the Durban COP17 outcomes? 
> JuLIAR is hailing this as a historic agreement that allegedly validates her crippling the entire Australian economy with a massive new and useless TAX. 
>     Do none of you support her LIES this time? 
> So what actually happened?

  
No need for fanfare.  Political progress is slow and (as always) influenced by Monty Python.  No trumpets necessary for business as usual. 
As for Gillard's 'Lies" they are mere embellishments of a simpler truth that wouldn't make headlines without a bit of hyperbole....much like your own with regard to the carbon price.  In both cases, they do nothing to improve the standing in my eyes of the people that created them.  Gillard and Freud are tarred with the same brush.... 
What actually happened in Durban?  Essentially, the governments represented (even China, US and India) committed themselves to pursue a replacement agreement to the Kyoto Protocol over the next two years.  This is important as it wasn't expected to gain this agreement this year.  However, it still upset the various entities (who were always going to be upset regardless because that's what their PR people told them to be) pushing for faster action on curbing emissions to a point where it is thought that the rise in average temperatures could be kept to 2 degrees or less....a level some bright spark somewhere decided was the point at which the climate might start to become dangerous for human civilisation in its current form.   
In truth I've never seen the science or the risk assessment that suggested the 2 degree rise was beyond our capacity to adapt to without significant human losses.  But then since human beings in the developed world seem to be generally incapable of maintaining a level of gullibility significantly greater than the average sheep then perhaps the mob that came up with the number had a point.  Personally, I'd like to think the number was much higher (because we are obviously going to exceed 2 degrees change) since surely human civilisations can't be that thick...but some days lately I do have my doubts. 
As for the rain on the Central Coast.......might be worth going to the ARI pages on the BoM site to see how big a deal it really wasn't.  For either side of this idiot debate....

----------


## intertd6

[QUOTE=SilentButDeadly;864296]No need for fanfare. Political progress is slow and (as always) influenced by Monty Python. No trumpets necessary for business as usual. 
As for Gillard's 'Lies" they are mere embellishments of a simpler truth that wouldn't make headlines without a bit of hyperbole....much like your own with regard to the carbon price. In both cases, they do nothing to improve the standing in my eyes of the people that created them. Gillard and Freud are tarred with the same brush.... 
What actually happened in Durban? Essentially, the governments represented (even China, US and India) committed themselves to pursue a replacement agreement to the Kyoto Protocol over the next two years. This is important as it wasn't expected to gain this agreement this year. However, it still upset the various entities (who were always going to be upset regardless because that's what their PR people told them to be) pushing for faster action on curbing emissions to a point where it is thought that the rise in average temperatures could be kept to 2 degrees or less....a level some bright spark somewhere decided was the point at which the climate might start to become dangerous for human civilisation in its current form.  
In truth I've never seen the science or the risk assessment that suggested the 2 degree rise was beyond our capacity to adapt to without significant human losses. But then since human beings in the developed world seem to be generally incapable of maintaining a level of gullibility significantly greater than the average sheep then perhaps the mob that came up with the number had a point. Personally, I'd like to think the number was much higher (because we are obviously going to exceed 2 degrees change) since surely human civilisations can't be that thick...but some days lately I do have my doubts. 
QUOTE] 
Durban sounds all to familar, groundhog day all over again, this would have to go down as one of the greatest lies ever told, like , the cheque is in the mail, I'm from the government & I'm here to help you, I wont leave it there for long. Then the cult members going around making up excuses for them while our Kamikaze govt' thinks they are going to save the planet all on their own by sacrificing us first.
regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

*The body of science supporting ALIENS has yet to be disproven. *  *The body of science supporting GOD has yet to be disproven.* *The body of science supporting LOCH NESS MONSTER has yet to be disproven. * Could you help me out with the location of this "body of science" for the above, things like hundreds of articles by people with real qualifications published in reputable journals?*I won't bore everyone by posting the huge volume of both CLIMATEGATE and  CLIMATEGATE 2 emails, but please read them and then get back to me with  the results from your "scientific investigation"*. 
The results we have seen so far is that there has been no charges levelled against any scientist as a result of these emails. Is that because of the secret conspiracy by whoever or is it a lack of any real evidence? Manns paper was published in 1998, how long does it take to find evidence of all this alleged fraud?  *I give money to Pharmaceutical companies occasionally, as they have  proven their case.  It's not that difficult when you are dealing with  reality* 
You probably never had a chance to try Thalidomide. HRT or Vioxx but you would be aware that big organisations dealing with complex issues sometimes make stuffups, but you still support them. But when climate scientists get something wrong, as they occasionally do. you claim it is proof of a conspiracy or fraud. Then when Watt posts something wrong, you pretend it never happened. When can we expect to see some consistency here? 
I will try and get an answer to your question about the sea level rise as soon as I get a chance to read the paper that it stems from. But can I ask, have you read it? Are you sure that they are comparing two similar items eg temp rise in the northern hemisphere compared to sea level rise in the same area?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Durban sounds all to familar, groundhog day all over again, this would have to go down as one of the greatest lies ever told, like , the cheque is in the mail, I'm from the government & I'm here to help you, I wont leave it there for long. Then the cult members going around making up excuses for them while our Kamikaze govt' thinks they are going to save the planet all on their own by sacrificing us first.
> regards inter

  Durban is very familiar.  It happens every other day...only the names change.  That's governments for you, eh?  Where would we be without them?  
In truth our 'kamikaze' government would like to make you think that they think that they can make you think they are going to save the planet all on their own...but I don't think they really think that. I wonder what our government in opposition thinks?   
Another thought....just what or who do think we are going to be sacrificed to?

----------


## intertd6

> Durban is very familiar. It happens every other day...only the names change. That's governments for you, eh? Where would we be without them?  _So you think it was a productive excercise, like the time before that & the time before that. The major economic powers are only waiting for undeniable evidence to surface before they make a move, mainly because they are not stupid & not swayed by cult opinion. If & when it is proven they will act, they might be silly but their not stupid.  _ In truth our 'kamikaze' government would like to make you think that they think that they can make you think they are going to save the planet all on their own...but I don't think they really think that. I wonder what our government in opposition thinks?  _Lucky you got the remainder of your years worth of k's out there before the year ended, must be some sort of a prize for that. _ Another thought....just what or who do think we are going to be sacrificed to? _The climate gods of course, who else could it be? People have been throwing themselves off cliffs or what ever since time began for some stupid reason or another_

  regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> I think current thinking is 'more extreme weather events' so more drought, more floods, more storms/cyclones, and many of them extreme versions of what we are used to. Certainly the last three seasons down my way have been pretty irregular. Snow to 1300m yesterday ...

  Alas, this is all spin driven by JuLIAR who will happily LIE to her own citizenry just to collect a new TAX to pay for her waste of our existing tax dollars on green dream schemes with no outcomes.  This cult capitalises on a human perceptual error known as "saliency bias". 
Don't believe me, then hear it from JuLIAR herself:   

> *JULIA Gillard has told Labor MPs to warn voters that a failure to back a carbon tax will lead to more bushfires and droughts as well as coastal inundation and shorter skiing seasons. * The Prime Minister has given her troops scripted lines they should use with journalists or constituents, which justify the use of public money on government advertising in an apparent bid to soften up the electorate for a coming campaign in favour of the tax. 
> Proposed warnings to be offered include: "If we don't act then we will see more extreme weather events like bushfires and droughts. We will have more days of extreme heat and we will see our coastline flooded as sea levels rise.
> "People in northern NSW will feel like they live in Cairns. That will affect the crops we grow, it will affect our native animals, and it will affect our lifestyles."  
> MPs are also urged to warn that extreme weather leads to associated additional deaths.  
> "Sea levels could rise by up to a metre and possibly even more by the end of the century," the document says. "Up to 250,000 existing homes are at risk of inundation.  
> "Climate change will see the average snow season contract by between 85 per cent and 96 per cent by 2050, and disappear by the end of the century."  Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

  And what does JuLIAR's boss say:   

> Senator Brown has used disasters to push his political views. In the wake of this year's Queensland floods, which took 35 lives and inflicted enormous economic damage, he suggested the "coal barons" should foot the bill. "Burning coal is a major cause of global warming," he said. "This industry, which is 75 per cent owned outside Australia, should help pay the cost of the predicted more severe and more frequent floods, droughts and bushfires in coming decades." Two years earlier, as the nation weathered the aftermath of the Victorian bushfires that took 173 lives, Senator Brown said it underlined the need for climate action: "Global warming is predicted to make this sort of event happen 25 per cent, 50 per cent more," he said.  Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

  
Now, outside of the spin, what does the IPCC themselves say?  Remember now, these are the high priests of this little scaremongering cult:    

> There is "low confidence" that tropical cyclones have become more frequent, "limited-to-medium evidence available" to assess whether climatic factors have changed the frequency of floods, and "low confidence" on a global scale even on whether the frequency has risen or fallen.  
>          In terms of attribution of trends to rising greenhouse gas concentrations, the uncertainties continue.  
>          While it is "likely" that anthropogenic influences are behind the changes in cold days and warm days, there is only "medium confidence" that they are behind changes in extreme rainfall events, and "low confidence" in attributing any changes in tropical cyclone activity to greenhouse gas emissions or anything else humanity has done.  BBC News - Mixed messages on climate &#039;vulnerability&#039;

  But the IPCC fascientists and their cult minions will happily keep drinking the koolaid, and try to force it down our throats as well, with their constant resetting of predictions of impending global doomsdays coming, soon.  Er, maybe soon. 
And our economy is being hobbled on the verge of another global financial meltdown because of this cr@p.   
While the smart countries laugh, and laugh and laugh while they burn our coal cheaply in manufacturing industries we used to run. 
Someone please let me know when this TAX starts cooling down the Planet Earth.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> As for Gillard's 'Lies" they are mere embellishments

  First you defend it as dissembling, now as embellishing, what's your next excuse - artistic licence with the truth?  :Doh:  
Nice euphemisms all leading to the fact: JuLIAR!   

> without a bit of hyperbole....much like your own with regard to the carbon price.

  I'll leave the "hyperbowl" to JuLIAR. 
But please advise exactly where and how I have lied about the "Carbon Dioxide TAX"?   
You still spin the cults beliefs about there being a "carbon price".  You do understand the difference between Carbon and Carbon Dioxide by now I hope?  I have posted enough links.  Because the only two choices are that you are so misinformed on this subject that you do not know the difference between Carbon and Carbon Dioxide, or that you are also dissembling and embellishing to further the cult? 
If you let me know which one, I can correct one very quickly, but the other will require some time.    

> Gillard and Freud are tarred with the same brush....

  Yeh, I can see your logic.  I also racked up hundred of billions of dollars of national debt wasted on green dream schemes and other farces, then LIED to my countrymen and crippled my country's economy in an effort to pay back my ineptitude.  :Doh:  
I guess your reality check got lost in the mail again.    

> As for the rain on the Central Coast.......might be worth going to the ARI pages on the BoM site *to see how big a deal it really wasn't.* For either side of this idiot debate....

  That was the whole point, "Land of droughts and flooding plains" ringing any bells?  
All of this weather is well within natural parameters and high priest Flim Flam and all the other false prophets taking real profits from our taxes would do well to explain these "facts", as you have.  As opposed to their usual farcical scaremongering.

----------


## Dr Freud

> And our economy is being hobbled on the verge of another global financial meltdown because of this cr@p.

  Here's a snapshot from today:   

> *BILLABONG International shares have plunged by 34 per cent after it forecast a massive decline in earnings for the first half of the financial year.*

  
Why?    

> Billabong's profit downgrade comes a week after rival Quiksilver warned it also faced tough trading conditions, Fairfax reported. 
> And retail giant Myer also revealed it will be forced to close its worst performing stores - and shrink several others - as the company deals with poor sales.  
> Australian Retailers Association executive director Russell Zimmerman *admited the unusually cold start to summer across the country* was hurting sales of clothes, including swimwear and shoewear.  
> Mr Zimmerman said the *cooler start to summer* had hit retailers for six who relied on the run of hot weather to boost sagging profits.   Rough waters ahead for Billabong as shares dive and sales slump | News.com.au

  
And what about last year's sales:   

> This is primarily due to the generally weak condition of the Australian retail environment that *has persisted for much of 2010*. The tough trading conditions have been exacerbated for Billabong *by the unseasonably cool weather in Australia*. Billabongs products are centred on beach culture and *the cooler weather has seen fewer people refresh their summer wardrobe*, particularly in the key state of Queensland. This has impacted sales in Billabongs company owned retail stores, in addition to reducing orders for the core wholesale business in Australia.  Fat Prophets - Article Page - Australasian Equities - Billabong

  
So our economy is being crippled partly due to the natural "cold weather", now we are going to cripple our economy further to "unnaturally" make it even colder? 
And still no word from Treasury on the fact all of their "household compensation" calculations are now entirely useless.  Who will actually be much worse off now with no global agreement?  :Cry:

----------


## woodbe

> But please advise exactly where and how I have lied about the "Carbon Dioxide TAX"?

  Well Doc, here's one:   

> So our economy is being crippled partly due to the natural "cold weather", now we are going to cripple our economy further to "unnaturally" make it even colder?

  You don't believe the Carbon Tax will make any difference to the climate, yet somehow it will now "make it even colder" to suit your argument? 
Make up your mind  :Rolleyes:  
Reality is that the planet is warming. Even if every nation acted to reduce emissions, the best we could hope for is a reduction in the rate of warming. So a Carbon Tax is never going to "make it colder" 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

Soft drinks, hard sales.   

> Consecutive interest rate cuts have improved consumer sentiment but a cool and wet start to summer has hampered Christmas trading in NSW, drinks maker Coca-Cola Amatil (CCA) says. Coke feeling the cool summer

  Maybe everyone just realised that Carbonated water has heaps of that "CARBON POLLUTION" in it that JuLIAR and her minions keep squeeling about.  Oh no, hope you evil polluters aren't giving this pollution to your children and granchildren.  No good saving the Planet Earth from this pollution if you keep pumping sodapop directly into the kiddies, huh?  :Biggrin:  
What a crock.  It's losing so much credibility, it may soon even be too embarrasing to other cults to call it a cult.

----------


## Dr Freud

*The body of science supporting ALIENS has yet to be disproven.* *The body of science supporting GOD has yet to be disproven.* *The body of science supporting LOCH NESS MONSTER has yet to be disproven.*   

> Could you help me out with the location of this "body of science" for the above, things like hundreds of articles by people with real qualifications published in reputable journals?

  I'm a busy man, but my altruistic nature is happy to point you in the right direction.  Try here for starters:  JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie 
This journal coincidentally started about the same time as our invention of the thermometer in the late 19th century, so has a similar chronological record of articles.  There are many research based articles in this mix, and I'd love to research them all for you, but I think that comparing the sizes of our "body of science" is just machismo.  My point was none of these things have been proven or disproven.  There is much evidence supporting the existence of God as interpreted by the experts, so who knows, maybe God will be scientifically proven one day.  And maybe one day the AGW hypothesis will.  Until then, I'm not paying a TAX to either one.   *I won't bore everyone by posting the huge volume of both CLIMATEGATE and CLIMATEGATE 2 emails, but please read them and then get back to me with the results from your "scientific investigation"*.   

> The results we have seen so far is that there has been no charges levelled against any scientist as a result of these emails. Is that because of the secret conspiracy by whoever or is it a lack of any real evidence? Manns paper was published *in 1998*, how long does it take to find evidence of all this alleged fraud?

  Not long at all, just read the CLIMATEGATE emails.  
But do you want the FBI to arrest and prosecute these clowns for statistical ineptitude?  I don't think Homeland Security has this high on their priorities list.  But the burden of proof for criminal fraud is very different to that of scientific integrity.  Seeing as you still don't want to read the truth, let me bore you and other readers a little.  Here's CLIMATEGATE 2:   

> I was a reviewer of the
> IPCC-TAR report 2001. In my review which I can not find again in its
> precise wording I critcized the fact that the whole Mann hockeytick is
> being printed in its full length in the IPCC-TAR report. *In 1999* I made the
> following comments: 
> 1. The spatial, temporal (tree-ring data in the midlatitudes mainly contain
> "summer information") and spectral coverage and behaviour of the data is
> questionable, mainly before 1500-1600 AD.
> 2. It is in my opinion not appropriate already to make statements for the
> ...

  What happened prior to 1500?  Oh yeh, maybe he was upset that Mann's Hockey Stick erased the Medieval Warm Period and not one of these allegedly "reputable" scientists with "real" qualifications made a peep!  :Doh:  
And what of this?   

> -How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think,
> that "our" reaction *on the errors found in Mike Mann's work were not
> especially honest.*  Climategate 2 FOIA 2011 Searchable Database | 1656

  Really? Not especially honest? 
Does the cult regard this as "dissembling" or "embellishing"?  :Biggrin:    *I give money to Pharmaceutical companies occasionally, as they have proven their case. It's not that difficult when you are dealing with reality.*   

> You probably never had a chance to try Thalidomide. HRT or Vioxx but you would be aware that big organisations dealing with complex issues sometimes make stuffups, but you still support them. But when climate scientists get something wrong, as they occasionally do. you claim it is proof of a conspiracy or fraud.

  You guys really don't get this stuff do you?  Let me please clarify: 
Step 1: Disease is proven. (Type 1 diabetes?)
Step 2: Treatment is proven. (Insulin injection?)
Step 3: Treatment is paid for. (PBS?) 
What you are referring to is side effects of the treatment after it is paid for.  This does not mean it does not treat the disease, it does.  The issue is are we prepared to make a risk based assessment that the potential side effects outweigh the treatment effect.  For some medicines, more data indicates that we are not prepared the accept the potential side effects, so we discontinue use.  For most medicines, we happily accept the side effects as the treatment effects outweigh them. 
But now, back to your misunderstanding of this cult: 
Step 1: The AGW hypothesis has not been proven.
Step 2: The treatment for the AGW hypothesis (assuming Step 1 even happens) has not been proven.
Step 3: We Aussies will be paying for this treatment from *1 July 2012.*  :Annoyed:  
Hopefully you now understand that this is not "climate scientists get something wrong", it is climate scientists get nothing.  Nil.  Zero. Zip.  Nada.  Zilch.  *There is zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.* 
Simple, huh?
And you want to present an analogy after Step 3, because you "believe" Step 1 and Step 2 has already happened?  :Doh:  
And I'm well and truly tired of responding to your cultish mantra as you say:   

> you claim it is proof of a conspiracy

  So please present evidence of where I claim these inept clowns are "proof of a conspiracy"?  :Tapedshut:  
Or are you also just "dissembling" and "embellishing" as well?    

> Then when Watt posts something wrong, you pretend it never happened. When can we expect to see some consistency here?

  I don't pretend anything.  If Watt's (or any other dill) tries to get me to pay TAX to make the Planet Earth colder, I'll bury them too.  In the interim, any dill can post whatever they want.  I'm "proof" of that.  :Biggrin:    

> I will try and get an answer to your question about the sea level rise as soon as I get a chance to read the paper that it stems from. But can I ask, have you read it?

  Hey, like I said, I'm a busy man, but here's a great link to get you started:  It wasn’t CO2: Global sea levels started rising before 1800  JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax     

> Are you sure that they are comparing two similar items eg temp rise in the northern hemisphere compared to sea level rise in the same area?

  Mate, these are your   

> hundreds of articles by people with real qualifications published in reputable journals

   and it sounds like you don't "trust" them anymore? 
Are you saying that if the temperature only rises in the northern hemisphere, then we'll get no sea level rises in the southern hemisphere?  If somewhere gets really hot, does only their sea level rise really high?  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

I'll try to explain where your message went wrong as I rebut it.   

> You don't believe the Carbon Tax will make any difference to the climate

  First, let's try again:   

> You still spin the cults beliefs about there being a "carbon [S]price[/S] tax". You do understand the difference between Carbon and Carbon Dioxide by now I hope? I have posted enough links. Because the only two choices are that you are so misinformed on this subject that you do not know the difference between Carbon and Carbon Dioxide, or that you are also dissembling and embellishing to further the cult?

  I'll assume you're in choice 2 shall I? 
But it is encouraging to see you using the term TAX instead of price.  You see, price indicates an exchange of things of value, like paying money and getting shoes, i.e. you paid a price for them.  A TAX on the other hand goes to the government and joins CRF, with the taxpayer getting nothing in return.  Yes, of course there is the greater good argument whereby governments provide infrastructure etc indirectly back to the taxpayer, but this is macro economics rather than micro economics where price operates.  This would be like giving your money to the shoe store and getting no shoes, but feeling good because the shoe store owner will spend your money and stimulate the economy, giving you your general benefit. 
Second, it's nothing to do with what I "believe".  It is a fact that all inputs to the climate make a "difference" to the climate by definition.  It is, and always has been, a question of quantum.  My farts make a "difference" to the climate. These things are facts and do not require any "belief".  I think it is telling that in this area of science the word "believe" is used so frequently. 
Now, I think what you were trying to accuse me of is: 
Australians paying more tax will result in no measurable change to any aspect of the climate on the Planet Earth. 
If you want to stick to making a "difference", I can run a computer model to calculate (down to many zeroed decimal places) what difference my farts would make to the Global temperature of Planet Earth, and then other models can extrapolate this to the climate.   

> yet somehow it will now "make it even colder" to suit your argument?

  It's not my argument, it's JuLIAR's.  I just ridicule it.  JuLIAR has said that if Aussies pay this TAX, the temperature will be colder, and the resulting climate effects predicted by the psychic computers will be reduced.  If you seriously "believe" that I have been arguing that this TAX will make the Planet Earth colder, then there is not much I can do to help you.  :No:    

> Make up your mind

  Already have.  But luckily it's still able to change as soon as the facts do.  :Biggrin:    

> Reality is that the planet is warming.

  Look harder, you can almost see reality from where you are.  Care to throw in a time frame? 
100 million years?  Nope.   
10,000 years? Nope.   
1000 years? Nope.    
Luckily all of that natural variation has now ceased and we mighty humans now control the temperature of the Planet Earth at will.  :Doh:     

> Even if every nation acted to reduce emissions, the best we could hope for is a reduction in the rate of warming.

  As every nation is not acting, does that mean there is no hope? 
And even if they did, we only have hope?  No "proof" that the treatment we're paying for will work.  Trillions and trillions of dollars to pay for "hope"?  Do you think that case will get past the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme?   

> So a Carbon Tax is never going to "make it colder"

  Er, that's my point. 
Let's go through this slowly.  Just to confirm it first, in case you get confused again, this is not what I "believe", this is the argument from JuLIAR and her minions, that you also apparently support. 
Humans doing what we do is allegedly making the Planet Earth *warmer* (from some arbitrary starting point), hence the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis.  So if we assume the temp today is 14 degrees celsius, let's assume a model (not Miranda Kerr) says the temperature will go to 18 degrees celsius.  18 degrees celsius is *warmer* than 14 degrees celsius.  JuLIAR says if we pay the TAX, then the temperature will be *colder* than this 18 degrees celsius, let's say 16 degrees celsius.  16 degrees celsius is *colder* than 18 degrees celsius.  Now if we all pay HEAPS more TAX, we may even get back down to 12 degrees celsius, which is even *colder* than all the previous temperatures referred to.  Then if we keep farting, the temperature may be *warmer* at 13 degrees celsius. 
Do you see now how the terms warmer or colder are relative to the initial temperature referred to?  JuLIAR is saying that if we pay her TAX, then the temperature will be *colder* than what the psychic computers predicted.  The fascientists say that if we reduce anthropogenic CO2 enough, then the Planet Earth will be *colder* than just about any relative temperature above you want to choose.   

> *colder**1.* *a.*  Relative lack of warmth.

  What a crock. 
This is why I ridicule this TAX and anyone who countenances any serious thought about it.  :Biggrin:    

> Well Doc, here's one:

  If that's the worst of what you "believe" is me lying about the Carbon Dioxide TAX, then I'll be interested to hear your opinion on these claims.  :Doh:    

> *JULIA Gillard has told Labor MPs to warn voters that a failure to back a carbon tax will lead to more bushfires and droughts as well as coastal inundation and shorter skiing seasons.*

   :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Marc

I would like to see Woodbe face when he gets a "smart" meter and his electricity bill goes feral.
Aaah but he will be saving the planet right?
The ignorance presumption and general rottenness emanating from warmist posts is like driving past a tip in summer. 
Human induced global warming is a myth invented and exploited by a new  mafia that takes advantage of unemployed pretend intellectuals and  assorted vegetarian poppycock writers who have found in the warmist  fraud a flag to follow for lack of anything better to do. 
I say, can't they become train spotters? Now that is a meaningful occupation in comparison.

----------


## Marc

*Monday, September 12, 2011*  *The Long Overdue Death Of The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming*   _If there is any real justice in the world Al Gore and all the other  intentional propagators of the great man-caused global warming myth will  spend eternity roasting in hades, or some such place.  The damage they  have done to the world's economy ranks with any of history's all time  blunders.  The monetary cost and poisoness seeds planted into academia  and the minds of at least a generation of young people will take decades  to heal.  The more quickly this truth is revealed and disseminated the  faster will be the road to recovery.  Someone said "don't mess with  Mother Nature".  Well Al Gore and his followers tried to and they failed  miserably._ _Peter_  *The Slow, Certain Death of the Global Warming Theory* 
By Alan Caruba. 
September 12, 2011  source 
Subscribe to Alan Caruba's posts. 
 I have been predicting the death of the global warming theory since  late in the last decade when it became obvious that the Earth had  entered into a cooling cycle. By 2009 the leak of thousands of emails  between the “scientists” whose computer models the claims were based  upon revealed they were in a state of panic regarding this obvious  phenomenon.   
Employed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming  (IPCC), those “scientists” have since been protected by the  universities who benefited greatly from the huge grants of public  funding they received. The issue of whether such men should be  prosecuted for deceiving the entire world remains to be decided.   
The lead player, Dr. James Hansen, still on the payroll of NASA’s  Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is the man who told Congress in  1988 that global warming threatened mankind and the Earth. He has since  switched to lying about coal and oil, two of the fossil fuels on which  the economies of all nations depend, claiming they are deadly pollutants  that must be abandoned in favor of “clean energy”, wind and solar.   
Former Vice President Al Gore, the most public face of “global warming”,  has become a public joke. Recall, however, that he received a Nobel  Prize and an Oscar in additions to the millions earned from the sale of  “carbon credits” to offset “greenhouse gases.” Some exchanges devoted to  these credits have closed their doors. The proposed Cap-and-Trade  legislation based on them lingers in Congress.   
One need not be a climate scientist or meteorologist to conclude that  humans have nothing to do with the climate or the weather. Watching huge  hurricanes wreak havoc, along with other weather-related events should  be enough for anyone to conclude that humans do not “cause” such things.   
Occam’s Razor is the ancient principle that the simplest explanation is  the most likely the correct one, but billions in public funding,  taxpayer’s dollars, have been diverted to the “research” that corrupt  scientists have used to justify the global warming fraud.   
MIT Professor, Dr. Richard Lindzen, an internationally recognized  authority on atmospheric science, said, "Future generations will wonder  in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went  into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a  few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of  highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains  of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial  age."   
We owe a huge debt of gratitude to those courageous scientists that  stood their ground against the global warming fraud. Recently the  Heartland Institute, in concert with the Center for the Study of Carbon  Dioxide and Global Change, and the Science and Environmental Policy  Project, published “Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report.”  It is 430 pages co-authored by Dr. Craig D. Idso, Dr. Robert M. Carter,  and Dr. S. Fred Singer, all of whom have been among the scientists  repeatedly slandered as “global warming deniers” and “skeptics” for  their efforts to educate the public.   
The report, in carefully documented scientific language, identifies the  way the warmists' computer models over-estimated the amount of warming,  ignored the fact that increased carbon dioxide benefits plant growth,  that there is less melting in the Arctic, Antarctic and on mountain tops  than claimed, and that there is no sign of acceleration of sea-level  rise in recent decades.   
A recent Rasmussen survey indicates that upwards of 60% of Americans  have concluded that humans have nothing to do with “global warming” or  any other aspect of the climate. This is extraordinary when one  considers how the mainstream media, the curriculums in the nation’s  schools, and the unceasing efforts of major environmental organizations  have tried to impose the global warming claims on the public.   
In a similar fashion, “The Other Climate Theory” by Anne Jolis, an  editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe, describes how a  project of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) has  put what may well be the final nail in the global warming coffin. The  work of physicists using particle beam technology, CERN confirmed that  the Sun’s cosmic rays enhanced cloud formation. The IPCC’s 2007 report  had peremptorily dismissed this possibility, but then the IPCC’s reports  have been the basis for the global warming fraud, asserting a  “consensus” among scientists that never existed.   
Thus the scientific method of describing a phenomenon, formulating a  hypothesis to explain it, and performing tests to confirm or reject a  hypothesis, has once again demonstrated that “global warming” is just so  much hot air.   
This is not stopped the Environmental Protection Agency from doing  everything in its power to destroy the energy sector of the nation based  in part on the global warming fraud.   
Universities across America have entire departments and units devoted to  keeping the global warming fraud alive. The mainstream press is heavily  invested in it. Schools continue to frighten children with its claims.  All this and other efforts will fail because science—real science—does  not support it. http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com...-in-world.html

----------


## Daniel Morgan

Smart meter technology to drive up the costs of power | thetelegraph.com.au

----------


## Marc

_Of all tyrannies,  a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most  oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under  omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes  sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satisfied; but those who torment  us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with  the approval of their consciences._ - C.S. Lewis

----------


## woodbe

So much material, so little time...   

> Look harder, you can almost see reality from where you are.  Care to throw in a time frame? 
> 100 million years?  Nope.   
> 10,000 years? Nope.   
> 1000 years? Nope.

   
Well, what can I say, you've shown the graphics, but left out the contextual information we need to see. How inconvenient.  :Smilie:  
None of those graphs show when man started to throw his weight around, yes, adding CO2, but also making wholesale land use changes etc. 
Allow me to add some context to the pretty pictures, particularly the rise of man (Holocene) and Industrialisation that began around the mid 1800's 
 This one's a bit hard, the holocene is smaller than a pixel width at this massive scale, but that's as small as we can go:       
And allow me to raise you one. Note that the graph below corresponds to the grey area added where possible to the above plots and corresponds to the time period where man started and continued to add CO2 into the atmosphere and other modifications to the planet that would filter through to the climate:     

> It is a fact that all inputs to the climate make a "difference" to the climate by definition. It is, and always has been, a question of quantum. My farts make a "difference" to the climate.

  Quite a telling revelation, right there. Well said Doc, we now appear to disagree on the quantum and your farts.  :Biggrin:  We're probably never going to agree on the quantum, so how about you supply the scientific evidence that proves that your farts make a difference to the climate.  :2thumbsup:  
Merry Christmas! 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> None of those graphs show when man started to throw his weight around, yes, adding CO2

  Oh really?  None of those graphs show CO2, huh?   
This graph shows current CO2 levels about 390ppm, just a little up from our recent low of about 290ppm.  It's a shame the scale designed to give context highlights this pitiful change, isn't it? 
We can argue about how much of this 390 is natural, man-made, feedbacks, non-absorption, release, blah blah, but are we closing in on 5000ppm like when the temp was 12 degrees?  Did you miss the big yellow label called atmospheric CO2?  Or did you ignore it for making a mockery of this farcical cult.  Or do you subscribe to some religious doctrine that radiation can tell man-made CO2 molecules from natural ones and only reacts with man-made ones? 
Did you spot the correlation between CO2 and temp?  Good joke, huh? 
And this chart you now use below indicates a constant warming trend since 1850, whereas Mann's Hockey stick clearly show cooling until the 1920's, then a  sudden and sharp spike in warming.  Are you now junking the Hockey Stick from this cult, just like the IPCC did after 2000?    

> 

  I love you guys burning any credibility this cult has ever had.  The more you grasp at pitiful straws trying to make it sound "believable", the better opportunity us realists have to expose the farce that you all "believe" in.  :Biggrin:  
And by the way, have you figured out why the warming has stopped?  Did the psychic computers that predicted a constant exponential increase in warming fail again? 
And by the way, did you figure out how the oceans started rising before Mann-made warming began?  Is sticking by Mann costing you any shred of credibility left? 
And by the way, did you figure out how Aussies paying more TAX will make the Planet Earth colder?  Or is JuLIAR just lying again, and you're happy to sit quietly by in support of this cult? 
And how's Flim Flam's predictions of no more rain going? He's still getting paid a big gravy train fare for his doomsday scare, and us taxpayers are paying for it and getting taken for a ride. 
The curtain has been pulled away to reveal the little people pulling the levers my friend.  If you still want to "believe", then good on you.  Just don't kid anyone that it's real.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> Oh really?  None of those graphs show CO2, huh?

  You seem to be lacking in reading skills today, Doc. 
Try reading again, slowly. I've emphasised the important bits to make it easier for you:   

> *None of those graphs show* *when* *man started* to throw his weight around, yes, *adding CO2*, but *also making wholesale land use changes etc.*

   For a guy who thinks "It is a fact that all inputs to the climate make a "difference" to the climate by definition. It is, and always has been, a question of quantum." you sure make a lot of irrelevant noise about times when man was not part of those inputs.  
Your model and assumptions are wrong, Doc. We are now in a climate controlled by natural variability + the effects of man's inputs. Your graphs only show pre-industrial age variability and you assume there is no effect of man. Even your own [S]admission[/S] slip of the tounge about all inputs making a difference points to the error in your model and assumptions. Lets see that again:   

> It is a fact that all inputs to the climate make a "difference" to the  climate by definition.  It is, and always has been, a question of  quantum.

   Beautiful. Just Beautiful. Oh, I feel a new signature coming on.  :Biggrin:  
You've come a long way Doc, even if you appear to be internally conflicted. Well done mate.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## havabeer

as an apprentice who works at a coal fired powerstation on the central coast (government owned) we kinda got screwed in the emissions trading scheme and the gen trader agreement 
in the emission trading our stations where not deemed ok to receive any of the 5 billion compensation that went out to a few of the dirtier brown coal stations like victoria and the $25 per ton a c02 makes it nearly impossible for us to run as a business ($25 a ton and when you produce something in the range of 10,000,000 tons of c02 a year) but yes we are trying a few different things to reduce our carbon emissions (burning wood, capturing carbon and storing it else where). its just weird as we up our price the government is going to tax us.... give the money to struggling familes to pay bills.... so they can turn around it give it back to us and cycle continues. 
the gen trader made our station worth virtually nothing as an asset. so if and when ever they actually get a buyer for it the gumbyment will get a screwed over price. the power industry is pretty much a guaranteed investment and no one can really understand why the government wanted to get rid of it. sure big lump sum of cash up front was probably nice (7 billion or what ever it was) but in the long run could have made a shitload more then that.

----------


## intertd6

woodbe, in your post 7523 you have added the holocene appearance to the graphs, just one problem if you could understand the simple graphs you would realise that it disproves your cult theory even more.
regards inter

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

Placing pictures like this epitomises the absolute ignorance of the "true science believers". Mr Bolt... do you have something to add that might persuade us otherwise???  
(I am sickened by peoples ignorance. It is shameful) 
People go on about "the science"... well... read it!! Read the literature - damn ignorants!!!! The common position is the exact opposite as to what Sigmund Freud (and the like) are arguing. Grow up... the arguments that are held to be contra Anthro-GM are unsupported, ludicrous and weak.  
I am not politically aligned nor, politically supportive of one position over another. Merely, just after a solution that promotes the most fruitful future. As to all other positions otherwise... get a perspective!!!

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

You have little idea.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Oh really?  None of those graphs show CO2, huh?   
> This graph shows current CO2 levels about 390ppm, just a little up from our recent low of about 290ppm.  It's a shame the scale designed to give context highlights this pitiful change, isn't it? 
> We can argue about how much of this 390 is natural, man-made, feedbacks, non-absorption, release, blah blah, but are we closing in on 5000ppm like when the temp was 12 degrees?  Did you miss the big yellow label called atmospheric CO2?  Or did you ignore it for making a mockery of this farcical cult.  Or do you subscribe to some religious doctrine that radiation can tell man-made CO2 molecules from natural ones and only reacts with man-made ones? 
> Did you spot the correlation between CO2 and temp?  Good joke, huh? 
> And this chart you now use below indicates a constant warming trend since 1850, whereas Mann's Hockey stick clearly show cooling until the 1920's, then a  sudden and sharp spike in warming.  Are you now junking the Hockey Stick from this cult, just like the IPCC did after 2000?    
> I love you guys burning any credibility this cult has ever had.  The more you grasp at pitiful straws trying to make it sound "believable", the better opportunity us realists have to expose the farce that you all "believe" in.  
> And by the way, have you figured out why the warming has stopped?  Did the psychic computers that predicted a constant exponential increase in warming fail again? 
> And by the way, did you figure out how the oceans started rising before Mann-made warming began?  Is sticking by Mann costing you any shred of credibility left? 
> And by the way, did you figure out how Aussies paying more TAX will make the Planet Earth colder?  Or is JuLIAR just lying again, and you're happy to sit quietly by in support of this cult? 
> ...

  Is it possible for an unintelligent person cherry-picks data. 
Quite frankly... the data it is weak, sickening and not insightful at all.  
READ THE HANSARD!!!! AND THE SECOND READING SPEECH... After that, you may understand!!! 
(I am severely distorted by people who purport that Anthro-GW does not exist. How, in all possibility, can your perspective exist??)

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Apologies for not tearing shreds off this green fairy tale of late, but I've had quite few projects on the go.  It has been hard to dedicate time to reinforcing reality to these dreamers.   
> But here's a taste of reality to cause the "true believers" some angst until I can return to highlight the waffle they try to pass as facts:        
> Now here's an unnaturally warming IPCC model that doesn't work:      
> And here's a naturally hot Aussie model that does work. (Works for me anyway ).   
> Good golly miss molly, that ocean is rising fast!  When they started shooting, she was walking in the sand. 
> And as for these lunatics thinking paying extra TAX in Australia makes the entire Planet Earth colder...... 
> Chat soon...

  I have previously asked the moderators of this forum to remove this posting as it is discriminatory on the basis of sex.  
My request has not been actioned as yet.  
I would STRONGLY suggest that this posting be removed and/or censored. If it is not, I will be raising with the HREOC. 
Might I add, that I shouldn't have to do so because of one particular sexist comment, however my Wife is extremely offended and I wholeheartedly agree with her sentiment.

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Where's the fanfare from the AGW hypothesis brigade about the Durban COP17 outcomes? 
> JuLIAR is hailing this as a historic agreement that allegedly validates her crippling the entire Australian economy with a massive new and useless TAX.    
> Do none of you support her LIES this time? 
> So what actually happened?   
> Why is JuLIAR lying again?  What is she trying to cover up this time?  Oh yeh, here's a few things:      
> JuLIAR's lies can no longer hide the fact that she sold out our country to Bob Brown and his greenies just to salvage her "career" aspirations.  Some leader, huh?

  Nothing wrong with this... progress!!! Old farts and traditional wrong-dooers see this as wrong??? Amazing!

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> Nothing wrong with this... progress!!! Old farts and traditional wrong-dooers see this as wrong??? Amazing!

  We are so fortunate to have a leader in Julia Gillard. A true leader not afraid of the @@@@ or making hard deisions! Perhaps unpopular decisions, but decisions that will mark her as a true leader and ahead of her time. A TRUE LEADER - WHAT?? DOES GLOBAL WARMING EXIST?? SHIZERS - People are still going against the majority of the educated-science-world?  
Mock pictures etc, be low and stoop to levels that can only be encapsulated by pictures but, rest assured that the pictures chosen exemplify what Australia is TODAY. Moronic to think otherwise.  
See you all at the next election where the fiscal policy of The Labor Party will have rolled out and... Lib/Nat are nowhere to be seen but for their backward thinking rhetoric. Sharpen the focus Lib/Nats!!!!

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

So proud of what the greens have achieved!! 
So very proud!:u :Smilie:  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So proud of what the greens have achieved!! 
> So very proud!:u

  Oh boy Oh boy. PLEASE James take a chill pill  you are getting so shrill buddy. 
You have obviously swallowed this green religon hook line an sinker.  Good for you I don't personally give a ###T what you believe in.  But when it starts infringing in our way of life I object.  Unless you can come up with some concrete evidence supporting your views ie. AGW you will become more and more a laughing stock of normal thinking humans.   
As for your precious threats of humiliation on Doc's post........ well I'm speechless apart from trying to contol my belly laugh. 
BTW Doc you have been doing very well sir.  Sorry about my absense, working way to much and focus else where but still reading. 
Cheers  
PS hope you get well soon James.  Usually your problem gets cured with age!

----------


## Rod Dyson

Pity our Government cant get a better perspective of the AGW arguments like the Canadians have.  Canadian Senate Climate Science and Economics Hearing - 15/12/11 - YouTubeCanadian Senate Climate Science and Economics Hearing - 15/12/11 - YouTube 
Well done Canada.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> See you all at the next election where the fiscal policy of The Labor Party will have rolled out and...

  I cant make up my mind if this is wishfull thinking or a deathwish??

----------


## intertd6

> I have previously asked the moderators of this forum to remove this posting as it is discriminatory on the basis of sex.  My request has not been actioned as yet.  I would STRONGLY suggest that this posting be removed and/or censored. If it is not, I will be raising with the HREOC.Might I add, that I shouldn't have to do so because of one particular sexist comment, however my Wife is extremely offended and I wholeheartedly agree with her sentiment.

  I'm sure photos like that are banned in some places where freedom of expression is not possible & cults are the norm, might not be a greenies utopia though.regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I cant make up my mind if this is wishfull thinking or a deathwish??

  Both.  Which means both poles get cancelled out to become 'irrelevant' which is translated within a few months into 'same old, same old'.  Same thing happens at every election in every democracy.  Long may the trend continue.

----------


## autogenous

Ive been told that using graphs spanning 200 years to predict climate means 2 poofteenths of nothing.   
Write or wrong fossil resources are finite.  There is predictions of 25 years of fossils left.  Ok, lets make it 200 years.   
A couple of decades ago we had a recession triggered by rapid increase in the price of a barrel of oil.  Economically we are going to be more and more held to ransom from fossil fuels as price reflects supply over demand.   
It is extremely important that we ready ourselves, begin a technology transition albeit not complete transition but a "ready" for any radical upturn in future fossil fuel pricing is a good thing.  Its important for our economic security. 
If you love building like I do this show the other day had some fabulous concepts and bamboo buildings.  Gunter Pauli: The Blue Economy - Science and Technology - Browse - Big Ideas - ABC TV 
A very positive change to the general divisive media release in the past.

----------


## intertd6

> Ive been told that using graphs spanning 200 years to predict climate means 2 poofteenths of nothing.  
> Write or wrong fossil resources are finite. There is predictions of 25 years of fossils left. Ok, lets make it 200 years.  
> A couple of decades ago we had a recession triggered by rapid increase in the price of a barrel of oil. Economically we are going to be more and more held to ransom from fossil fuels as price reflects supply over demand.  
> It is extremely important that we ready ourselves, begin a technology transition albeit not complete transition but a "ready" for any radical upturn in future fossil fuel pricing is a good thing. Its important for our economic security.  If you love building like I do this show the other day had some fabulous concepts and bamboo buildings.  Gunter Pauli: The Blue Economy - Science and Technology - Browse - Big Ideas - ABC TV 
> A very positive change to the general divisive media release in the past.

  You were going really well untill the blue underlined bits.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ....bamboo buildings.

  Oh I don't know.  It worked for the Swiss Family Robinson...

----------


## intertd6

> Oh I don't know. It worked for the Swiss Family Robinson...

  unfortunately most people haven't a hollywood budget to build with, pity though, it has such a nice view of the garden.
regards inter

----------


## mark53

Well I'm buggered. The last time I visited this site I saw a reference to a book "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For the Worlds Top Climate Expert".This book is an expose' by Donna Laframboise on the manipulation of everything from graphs to language by the IPCC in order to push the fraud which is climate change. I bought this book as I would have expected every body else who was interested in the IPCC's Climate Bible. I then expected this thread would have withered for want of climate alarmists. I thought they would have been too ashamed to be identified with global warming activistes. *BUT THERE STILL HERE.* What everybody needs to understand, that realists and alarmists alike, is that the IPCC's Climate Bible is a political document and NOT a scientific document. So trying to debate a political document which uses flawed and fraudulent information as it's foundation is tantamount to arguing the benefitst of a capitalist society with Joseph Stalin. Stalin would just cook the books to prove he was right the same way the IPCC has cooked the the Climate Bible. I urge all to buy, either on line or in hard copy, this book in order that we may all be better informed. Regards Mark.

----------


## intertd6

> Well I'm buggered. The last time I visited this site I saw a reference to a book "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For the Worlds Top Climate Expert".This book is an expose' by Donna Laframboise on the manipulation of everything from graphs to language by the IPCC in order to push the fraud which is climate change. I bought this book as I would have expected every body else who was interested in the IPCC's Climate Bible. I then expected this thread would have withered for want of climate alarmists. I thought they would have been too ashamed to be identified with global warming activistes. *BUT THERE STILL HERE.* What everybody needs to understand, that realists and alarmists alike, is that the IPCC's Climate Bible is a political document and NOT a scientific document. So trying to debate a political document which uses flawed and fraudulent information as it's foundation is tantamount to arguing the benefitst of a capitalist society with Joseph Stalin. Stalin would just cook the books to prove he was right the same way the IPCC has cooked the the Climate Bible. I urge all to buy, either on line or in hard copy, this book in order that we may all be better informed. Regards Mark.

  Most sensible people have worked that out already without even having to buy the book (like the majority of the Australian public) but then again you can try to tell the other people.............. but you cant tell them much.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> What everybody needs to understand, that realists and alarmists alike, is that the IPCC's Climate Bible is a political document and NOT a scientific document.

  Nothing in this sentence to disagree with...what's your point?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Nothing in this sentence to disagree with...what's your point?

  
Take a guess S&D

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Take a guess S&D

  There is no point?

----------


## mark53

As my dear old dad used to say "none are so blind as those who don't want to see". The obvious point for the game players amongst us is the IPCC Climate Bible is "sold" as a scientific, peer revued document, period. If anybody has any evidence by the authors of the Climate Bible that that the C.B. is a political document and not a scientific document then now is your chance to "put up". But if the object of your thread S&D is to perpetuate some puerile game then please spare us your lack of wit. Tah.

----------


## Dr Freud

> You seem to be lacking in reading skills today, Doc. 
> Try reading again, slowly. I've emphasised the important bits to make it easier for you:   
>  For a guy who thinks "It is a fact that all inputs to the climate make a "difference" to the climate by definition. It is, and always has been, a question of quantum." you sure make a lot of irrelevant noise about times when man was not part of those inputs.  
> Your model and assumptions are wrong, Doc. We are now in a climate controlled by natural variability + the effects of man's inputs. Your graphs only show pre-industrial age variability and you assume there is no effect of man. Even your own [S]admission[/S] slip of the tounge about all inputs making a difference points to the error in your model and assumptions. Lets see that again:   
>  Beautiful. Just Beautiful. Oh, I feel a new signature coming on.  
> You've come a long way Doc, even if you appear to be internally conflicted. Well done mate.  
> woodbe.

  What is all this waffle? 
Is this the cults new tactic for semantic distraction? 
If you have a point, please make it, or a question, please ask it.  I've got to have some fun with our other friend now, but let me know when you find anything even resembling reality associated with this cult.  I've well and truly given up the possibility of you supplying any scientific evidence proving this farce.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> as an apprentice who works at a coal fired powerstation on the central coast (government owned) we kinda got screwed in the emissions trading scheme and the gen trader agreement 
> in the emission trading our stations where not deemed ok to receive any of the 5 billion compensation that went out to a few of the dirtier brown coal stations like victoria and the $25 per ton a c02 makes it nearly impossible for us to run as a business ($25 a ton and when you produce something in the range of 10,000,000 tons of c02 a year) but yes we are trying a few different things to reduce our carbon emissions (burning wood, capturing carbon and storing it else where). its just weird as we up our price the government is going to tax us.... give the money to struggling familes to pay bills.... so they can turn around it give it back to us and cycle continues. 
> the gen trader made our station worth virtually nothing as an asset. so if and when ever they actually get a buyer for it the gumbyment will get a screwed over price. the power industry is pretty much a guaranteed investment and no one can really understand why the government wanted to get rid of it. sure big lump sum of cash up front was probably nice (7 billion or what ever it was) but in the long run could have made a shitload more then that.

  Well said mate.  You should get an honorary economics minor as part of your quals. 
You're certainly not alone in expressing concern over the ineptitude shown by JuLIAR and her circus full of clowns:   

> *THE federal scheme to promote the installation of rooftop solar panels and hot-water systems will have a cumulative cost to consumers of $4.7 billion by mid-2020, adding to pressure on household power bills. 				*  			 		 		The prediction is contained in advice to the nation's energy ministers, which also forecasts rises in residential electricity prices of about 37 per cent in the three years to 2013-14, with an average annual hike of 11 per cent.  Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

   

> OUTGOING Commonwealth Bank chief executive Ralph Norris has warned that overseas investors are questioning their investments in Australia as a result of federal Labor's minority government and the concessions made to proceed with major public policies.  Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

     

> POWER stations are demanding Labor impose new limits on its $10 billion clean energy fund, including a ban on the government becoming the main investor in any project, declaring this is crucial to minimising the distortion to financial markets and risks to taxpayers.  Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

   

> STATE treasuries, including in Labor-held Queensland, have issued warnings that the carbon tax will punch a hole in state finances, potentially adding hundreds of millions of dollars of costs to their agencies and slashing the profits of government-owned electricity utilities that pay dividends to the state.  Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

  So, is JuLIAR really that stupid that she will cripple our economy if she knows that this is a financially fragile time?   

> *THE World Bank has warned that the globe risks a deeper recession than the 2008-09 crisis, with any recovery likely to be longer as Europe's debt problems and slowdowns in key countries such as India threaten growth. 				*  			 		 		As the Gillard government last night warned that Australia would be "hit by the huge challenges in the global economy" while expressing confidence that the nation would weather the storm, economists predicted further interest rate cuts as the Reserve Bank sought to insulate the local economy.  Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

  Yes people, JuLIAR really is that stupid.  :Doh:  
Who'd actually still support this intellectual gnat?  But hey, plenty here believed her story that Aussies paying more tax will make the Planet Earth colder, so I guess they're out there.  Way out there.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Placing pictures like this epitomises the absolute ignorance of the "true science believers".

  Pictures like what? 
And just in case you do have memory problems, "true science" isn't determined by beliefs, but rather by evidence.   

> Mr Bolt... do you have something to add that might persuade us otherwise???

  He does.  Heaps.  Check it out here everyday:  Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog    

> The common position is the exact opposite as to what Sigmund Freud (and the like) are arguing.

  That's Dr Freud thanks Clive James.  :Biggrin:  
And I am arguing that we should rely on scientific evidence as opposed to cultish beliefs to drive both science and the political realities stemming from it.  If the common position is exactly opposite, then you and they believe cultish beliefs and NOT scientific evidence should drive both science and the political realities stemming from it. 
If your statement was true, which fortunately it is not, then I'd happily not be in the common position.    

> Grow up...

  Don't make me bring the dwarfs back.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You have little idea.

    

> *Dom Cobb:* An idea. Resilient, highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it's almost impossible to iradicate. An idea that is fully formed, fully understood. That sticks, right in there somewhere.  _[he points to his head] _ Inception (2010) - Memorable quotes

  _Maybe you could try incepticide?_  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Is it possible for an unintelligent person cherry-picks data.

  Grammatical issues aside, yes this is possible.  Read the IPCC work for plenty of examples of this.  :Biggrin:    

> Quite frankly... the data it is weak, sickening and not insightful at all.

  Quite frankly, it is proxy data.  Google it.   

> READ THE HANSARD!!!! AND THE SECOND READING SPEECH... After that, you may understand!!!

  Er, what exactly?

----------


## Dr Freud

> I have previously asked the moderators of this forum to remove this posting as it is discriminatory on the basis of sex.

  You should have just told me about your preferences, I'm an equal opportunity poster.  Here's something for you to enjoy as well:     

> My request has not been actioned as yet.

  No need now, it's all balanced and equitable.  :Biggrin:    

> I would STRONGLY suggest that this posting be removed and/or censored. If it is not, I will be raising with the HREOC.

  Good luck.  Which particular provision will you be lodging under?  Check it out here and let me know:  About the Australian Human Rights Commission 
It warms my heart knowing that our taxpayer dollars are spent by public servants dealing with people of your ilk.  Clog up the system with cr@p while real abuse gets lost in the mess.  You're a real winner.  Not like this money couldn't be better spent than by paying public servants receiving spurious complaints that Miranda Kerr looks hot in a bikini, and makes millions of dollars thanks to people like me clicking on her image as above.  Oh, how does she take this kind of discrimination.  :Doh:    

> *Miranda Kerr Net Worth*    
> Labels: Models  _How much money is Miranda Kerr worth?_   *Net Worth: $13 Million* 
> Miranda Kerr is an Australian model, known for her work with Victoria's Secret, and for her appearances in magazines such as Elle, Cosmopolitan and FHM.

  Well done mate.  :Doh:    

> Might I add, that I shouldn't have to do so because of one particular sexist comment, however my Wife is extremely offended and I wholeheartedly agree with her sentiment.

  Oops, my bad.  I thought I was posting the latest photo for you.  Not sure what comment upset the wife (let me know if it's one of mine), but show her the picture of the bloke above, it may help to show her what a great balanced place Australia is to live.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Nothing wrong with this... progress!!!

  Please explain how?   

> Old farts and traditional wrong-dooers see this as wrong??? Amazing!

  Old farts huh?  Spot the 67 year old in the photo? 
And what is a "traditional wrong-dooer (sic)"?  Just assume I'm not indoctrinated into the cult and explain it in English.  :Doh:

----------


## chromis

> I can't believe this thread is still going

  They should change the title to the Dr Freud Show.

----------


## mark53

Edmund Bourke once said " Evil flourishes when good men do nothing". The IPCC's Climate Bible, on which this whole debate hinges, has been so manipulated, distorted, perverted and corrupted by environmental activists that it can only be described by any person who values the truth as junk. Therefore, it follows, that any person who attempts to unearth such distortions, is by definition, a good man. The Doc's doing a good job of of highlighting the gross inconsistencies entrained within the contra argument. May he have the time to continue, (with a little help from his friends).

----------


## intertd6

> They should change the title to the Dr Freud Show.

  Its a good show too, he has more time for the less than blessed than I will ever have.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> The Doc's doing a good job of of highlighting the gross inconsistencies entrained within the contra argument.

  Point of order.  
The Doc is representing the Contra argument. Are you suggesting he is inconsistent?  :Biggrin:  
His best work is promoting the views of the conservative side of politics. Science, not so much.  :Smilie:  
Mark53, Never mind the IPCC, It's not scientific research, it's is a report on the current state of the science. Where are you on the science. What is your position, and why. Please use your own words. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> They should change the title to the Dr Freud Show.

  This is the Rod Dyson show my friend.  :Biggrin:  
I'm just a stunt man.  :Crutch:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Edmund Bourke once said " Evil flourishes when good men do nothing". The IPCC's Climate Bible, on which this whole debate hinges, has been so manipulated, distorted, perverted and corrupted by environmental activists that it can only be described by any person who values the truth as junk. Therefore, it follows, that any person who attempts to unearth such distortions, is by definition, a good man. The Doc's doing a good job of of highlighting the gross inconsistencies entrained within the contra argument. May he have the time to continue, (with a little help from his friends).

  Been busy lately, but time should free up in a few weeks to months. 
Then I can really go to town on these clowns.  :Biggrin:    *"I became aware of my destiny: to belong to the critical minority as opposed to the unquestioning majority." 
-Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)* 
That was at the start of this fiasco, but fortunately now it seems the unquestioning majority are asking more questions, and they're not liking the answers.  :No:     

> Solar power is one of the most expensive forms of power we have - just perfect for cooking an economy:   _Solar stocks plunged around the world after Germany, the largest market for panels, said it will make quicker cuts to subsidized rates and phase out support for the industry by 2017_  _German Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen said last night that he planned to reduce feed-in tariffs providing above- market prices for solar power every month instead of twice a year as he does now. He said hes working to curb an unacceptable surge in installations last year_   _Yesterdays decision indicated ministers are speeding up efforts to restrain the boom in installations after developers added 7.5 gigawatts of panels last year, surpassing the 3 gigawatts that Roettgen said would be acceptable._  _Economy Minister Philipp Roesler has said spiraling costs linked to solar subsidies are a threat to the economy. Roettgen on Jan. 18 indicated concern that the funds are benefiting Chinese companies._  Germany burns fingers on solar, so turns down the power | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Rod Dyson

> This is the Rod Dyson show my friend.  
> I'm just a stunt man.

  And doing a superb job!! 
I must say I am very pleased to have started this thread.  Apart from the entertainment it has provided I am sure it has caused a few lurkers to re think their view on AGW. 
I am sure happy that when the day comes that this madness is over (for good) we will be known not to have been gullible enough to fall for this farce.   :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Its a good show too, he has more time for the less than blessed than I will ever have.
> regards inter

  It's a struggle finding the time sometimes, but the journey has been enlightening.  :Biggrin:   *"The highest reward for man's toil is not what he gets for it, but what he becomes by it." 
-John Ruskin 1819-1900*

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> As my dear old dad used to say "none are so blind as those who don't want to see". The obvious point for the game players amongst us is the IPCC Climate Bible is "sold" as a scientific, peer revued document, period. If anybody has any evidence by the authors of the Climate Bible that that the C.B. is a political document and not a scientific document then now is your chance to "put up". But if the object of your thread S&D is to perpetuate some puerile game then please spare us your lack of wit. Tah.

  I can play that game.  The IPCC 'Climate Bible' as you like to call it (like all good religions there's actually more than one 'bible') is actually a compendium fronted by a discussion paper.  It's a literature review. Stuff gets put in, taken out, edited, discounted and reworded by a committee of scientists who individually make editorial decisions based on their experience, beliefs, politics, whims and fancies.  And then the committe moderates virtually every whiff of individuality back out of the CB. And then a committee of government and UN bureacrats has oversight of the editorial committee... 
Essentially the IPCC is a political organisation since it was created by the ultimate polictical organisation (the UN) and answers to UN members (all political entities)....so it can not fail to be a political document. 
Besides...what's the point in the IPCC (or anyone else for that matter) producing scientific documents?  It's not like anybody actually trusts or accepts scientific findings these days anyway....people seem to be happier to swallow sociopolitical voodoo and Today Tonight.  All power to them....

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Been busy lately, but time should free up in a few weeks to months. 
> Then I can really go to town on these clowns.    *"I became aware of my destiny: to belong to the critical minority as opposed to the unquestioning majority." 
> -Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)* 
> That was at the start of this fiasco, but fortunately now it seems the unquestioning majority are asking more questions, and they're not liking the answers.

   

> Solar power is one of the most expensive forms of power we have - just perfect for cooking an economy:  _Solar  stocks plunged around the world after Germany, the largest market for  panels, said it will make quicker cuts to subsidized rates and phase out  support for the industry by 2017…_  _German Environment  Minister Norbert Roettgen said last night that he planned to reduce  feed-in tariffs providing above- market prices for solar power every  month instead of twice a year as he does now. He said he’s working to  curb an “unacceptable” surge in installations last year…_   _Yesterday’s  decision indicated ministers are speeding up efforts to restrain the  boom in installations after developers added 7.5 gigawatts of panels  last year, surpassing the 3 gigawatts that Roettgen said would be  acceptable._  _Economy Minister Philipp Roesler has said spiraling costs linked to solar subsidies are a threat to the economy. Roettgen on Jan. 18 indicated concern that the funds are benefiting Chinese companies._

  I look forward to your contribution... 
As for the solar industry (actually the micro scale renewables industry as a whole)...the biggest mistake that any bureacrat/politician can make is to introduce market distortions like generous rebates and over inflated feed-in tariffs in an effort to kickstart a new tax revenue base.   
If instead they'd dictated the use of net (or better still) wholesale market pricing for decentralised power generation then instead a wildly ignorant stampede to make a few bucks from solar power on your roof (which is like buying a new Rolls Royce to be run as a taxi) you might have got a more considered and sustainable growth pattern in the industry.   
But no we proved yet again we are human after all...and the current standard of recriminations suggests we remain human. 
By the by...my roof is getting dressed up with a grid connect solar system next month.  It has been sized to produce a net zero electricity consumption across a 12 month period.  The only ongoing cost should be the network connection fee though any excess power production may subsidise this slightly.  Unfortunately there was no getting away from the RECs as the installer uses those to boost his margin on the discounted system components so if you don't want to claim them then you pay the installer the full market value of the REC (currently $30 - and our system provides about 100 of them) plus a margin.  So it may have added as much as $4K to the system.  By Huey, I hate RECs - if they didn't exist then that additional $4K wouldn't either - how's that for a distorting economy???

----------


## Dr Freud

> Besides...what's the point in the IPCC *(or anyone else for that matter)* producing scientific documents?  It's not like anybody actually trusts or accepts scientific findings these days anyway....people seem to be happier to swallow sociopolitical voodoo and Today Tonight.  All power to them....

  A commendable attempt to smear other scientific areas with the rotting stench emanating from CLIMATEGATE and CLIMATEGATE2 that has painted these climate clowns in their true colours. 
Rest assured the breakdown of trust with these idiots has not crossed over into other scientific endeavours as these other areas still operate under the correct scientific principles of data driving theories, not the AGW Hypothesis motto of "adjust the data to fit our theory":  *From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To:    Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009* *"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment    and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"*  
Some of you may also be following the remarkable work at the LHC:   

> Puzzling results from Cern, home of the LHC, have confounded physicists - because it appears subatomic particles have exceeded the speed of light.   _Einstein's relativity theory holds that nothing can exceed the speed of light_
>   Neutrinos sent through the ground from Cern toward the Gran Sasso laboratory 732km away seemed to show up a tiny fraction of a second early. 
>   The result - which threatens to upend a century of physics - will be put online for scrutiny by other scientists.
>   In the meantime, the group says it is being very cautious about its claims.
>   "We tried to find all possible explanations for this," said report author Antonio Ereditato of the Opera collaboration.
>   "We wanted to find a mistake - trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects - and we didn't," he told BBC News.
>   "When you don't find anything, then you say 'Well, now I'm forced to go out and ask the community to scrutinise this.'" *Caught speeding?*
> The speed of light is the Universe's ultimate speed limit, and much of modern physics - as laid out in part by Albert Einstein in his theory of relativity - depends on the idea that nothing can exceed it. 
>   Thousands of experiments have been undertaken to measure it ever more precisely, and no result has ever spotted a particle breaking the limit.
>   But Dr Ereditato and his colleagues have been carrying out an experiment for the last three years that seems to suggest neutrinos have done just that.   UPDATED: Speed-of-light experiments yield baffling result at LHC - Jason Palmer - BBC News - Science & Environment - RichardDawkins.net

  
Remarkable huh?   
No massive push to increase taxes in the "rich" countries and transfer it to the "poor" countries. 
No hysteria about saving our children's children's children's futures. 
No doomsday scenarios about the end of the world. 
These cultish beliefs are remarkably absent in the scientific world, where the AGW hypothesis does not reside.  :Biggrin:  
Here's "proof" of SBD's deliberate attempt to hide the climate clowns lies and to taint science with their cult:  
LHC scientists: *The result - which threatens to upend a century of physics - will be put online for scrutiny by other scientists.*  
IPCC fascientists: *
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.  If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the United Kingdom, I think Ill delete the file rather than send it to anyone.*   
And you true believers still wonder why these climate clowns have trust issues?  The rest of us certainly don't wonder.  
Believe this cults nonsense if you will, but don't taint science with these cultish practices.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

The climate clowns know their warmist psychic computer models have failed and so they claim that reality is wrong:  *"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"* 
And these climate clowns actually wish Armageddon would happen just to prove their cultish beliefs:*  If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isnt being political, it is being selfish.*  
They still haven't figured out that "the science" has been proved right, it's their cultish belief system that is wrong.  Here's the data driven version from one of Australia's smartest scientists.  I have met David and spoken with him about this subject.  He is a very unassuming man and you'd never even pick him as a scientist at a BBQ, because he speaks like a normal person.    *The Skeptics Case* *Who Are You Going To Believe  The Government Climate Scientists Or The Data?* *Guest Post Dr David M.W. Evans* We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message  here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention. *What the Government Climate Scientists Say* 
 Figure 1: The climate models. If the CO2 level doubles (as it is on course to do by about 2070 to 2100), the climate models estimate the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 3 = 3.3°C.*[1] * 
 The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, based on laboratory results, and known for over a century.[2]
 Feedbacks are due to the ways the Earth reacts to the direct warming effect of the CO2. The threefold amplification by feedbacks is based on the assumption, or guess, made around 1980, that more warming due to CO2 will cause more evaporation from the oceans and that this extra water vapor will in turn lead to even more heat trapping because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. And extra heat will cause even more evaporation, and so on. This amplification is built into all the climate models.[3] The amount of amplification is estimated by assuming that nearly all the industrial-age warming is due to our CO2.
 The government climate scientists and the media often tell us about the direct effect of the CO2, but rarely admit that two thirds of their projected temperature increases are due to amplification by feedbacks. They admit there are discrepancies, and go to great lengths to resolve them (see for example, Thorne, Dessler, Sherwood). *What the Skeptics Say* 
 Figure 2: The skeptics view. If the CO2 level doubles, skeptics estimates that the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 0.5 ≈ 0.6°C.*[4] * 
 The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.
 The feedbacks dampen or reduce the direct effect of the extra CO2, cutting it roughly in half.[5] The main feedbacks involve evaporation, water vapor, and clouds. In particular, water vapor condenses into clouds, so extra water vapor due to the direct warming effect of extra CO2 will cause extra clouds, which reflect sunlight back out to space and cool the earth, thereby reducing the overall warming.
 There are literally thousands of feedbacks, each of which either reinforces or opposes the direct warming effect of the extra CO2. Almost every long-lived system is governed by net feedback that _dampens_ its response to a perturbation. If a system instead reacts to a perturbation by amplifying it, the system is likely to reach a tipping point and become unstable (like the electronic squeal that erupts when a microphone gets too close to its speakers).  The earths climate is long-lived and stable it has never gone into runaway greenhouse, unlike Venus  which strongly suggests that the feedbacks dampen temperature perturbations such as that from extra CO2. *What the Data Says* The climate models have been essentially the same for 30 years now, maintaining roughly the same sensitivity to extra CO2 even while they got more detailed with more computer power.  How well have the climate models predicted the temperature?Does the data better support the climate models or the skeptics view? *Air Temperatures* One of the earliest and most important predictions was presented to the US Congress in 1988 by Dr James Hansen, the father of global warming: 
 Figure 3: Hansens predictions*[6]*  to the US Congress in 1988, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites*[7]*. 
 Hansens climate model clearly exaggerated future temperature rises.
 In particular, his climate model predicted that if human CO2 emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the CO2 level was not rising at all, we would get his scenario C. But in reality the temperature did not even rise this much, even though our CO2 emissions strongly increased  which suggests that the climate models greatly overestimate the effect of CO2 emissions.
 A more considered prediction by the climate models was made in 1990 in the IPCCs First Assessment Report:[8]  
 Figure 4: Predictions of the IPCCs First Assessment Report in 1990, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites. 
 Its 20 years now, and the average rate of increase in reality is below the lowest trend in the range predicted by the IPCC. *Ocean Temperatures* The oceans hold the vast bulk of the heat in the climate system. Weve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since mid-2003, when the Argo system became operational.[9],[10] In Argo, a buoy duck dives down to a depth of 2,000 meters, measures temperatures as it very slowly ascends, then radios the results back to headquarters via satellite. Over three thousand Argo buoys constantly patrol all the oceans of the world. 
 Figure 5: Climate model predictions*[11]* of ocean temperature, versus the measurements by Argo*[12]*. The unit of the vertical axis is 1022 Joules (about 0.01°C). 
 The ocean temperature has been basically flat since we started measuring it properly, and not warming as quickly as the climate models predict. *Atmospheric Hotspot* The climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming; the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the hotspot.
 The hotspot is the sign of the amplification in their theory (see Figure 1). The theory says the hotspot is caused by extra evaporation, and by extra water vapor pushing the warmer wetter lower troposphere up into volume previously occupied by cool dry air. The presence of a hotspot would indicate amplification is occurring, and vice versa.
 We have been measuring atmospheric temperatures with weather balloons since the 1960s. Millions of weather balloons have built up a good picture of atmospheric temperatures over the last few decades, including the warming period from the late 70s to the late 90s. This important and pivotal data was not released publicly by the climate establishment until 2006, and then in an obscure place.[13] Here it is:  
 Figure 6: On the left is the data collected by millions of weather balloons.*[14]* On the right is what the climate models say was happening.*[15]* The theory (as per the climate models) is incompatible with the observations. In both diagrams the horizontal axis shows latitude, and the right vertical axis shows height in kilometers. 
 In reality there was no hotspot, not even a small one. So in reality there is no amplification  the amplification shown in Figure 1 does not exist.[16] Even *Outgoing Radiation* The climate models predict that when the surface of the earth warms, _less_ heat is radiated from the earth into space (on a weekly or monthly time scale). This is because, according to the theory, the warmer surface causes more evaporation and thus there is more heat-trapping water vapor. This is the heat-trapping mechanism that is responsible for the assumed amplification in Figure 1.
 Satellites have been measuring the radiation emitted from the earth for the last two decades.  A major study has linked the changes in temperature on the earths surface with the changes in the outgoing radiation. Here are the results:   
 Figure 7: Outgoing radiation from earth (vertical axis) against sea surface temperature (horizontal), as measured by the ERBE satellites (upper left graph) and as predicted by 11 climate models (the other graphs).*[17]* Notice that the slope of the graphs for the climate models are opposite to the slope of the graph for the observed data. 
    This shows that in reality the earth gives off _more_ heat when its surface is warmer. This is the opposite of what the climate models predict. This shows that the climate models trap heat too aggressively, and that their assumed amplification shown in Figure 1 does not exist.   *Conclusions* All the data here is impeccably sourced  from satellites, the Argo buoys, and weather balloons.[18]
 The air and ocean temperature data shows that the climate models overestimate temperature rises. The climate establishment suggest that cooling due to undetected aerosols  might be responsible for the failure of the models to date, but this excuse is wearing thinit continues not to warm as much as they said it would, or in the way they said it would. On the other hand, the rise in air temperature has been greater  than the skeptics say could be due to CO2. The skeptics excuse is that the rise is mainly due to other forces  and they point out that the world has been in a fairly steady warming trend of 0.5°C per century since 1680 (with alternating ~30 year periods of warming and mild cooling) where as the vast bulk of all human CO2 emissions have been after 1945.
 Weve checked all the main predictions of the climate models against the best data: *Test*  *Climate Models*   Air temperatures from 1988 Over-estimated rise, even if CO2 is drastically cut  Air temperatures from 1990 Over-estimated trend rise  Ocean temperatures from 2003 Over-estimated trend rise greatly  Atmospheric hotspot Completely missing  no amplification  Outgoing radiation Opposite to reality  no amplification   
 The climate models get them all wrong. The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both, independently, prove that the amplification in the climate models is not present. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases. Therefore:  The climate models are fundamentally flawed. Their assumed threefold amplification by feedbacks does not in fact exist.The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to CO2 by at least a factor of three.
 The skeptical view is compatible with the data. *Some Political Points* The data presented here is impeccably sourced, very relevant, publically available, and from our best instruments. Yet it never appears in the mainstream media  have you ever seen  anything like any of the figures here in the mainstream media? That alone tells you that the debate is about politics and power, and not about science or truth.
 This is an unusual political issue, because there is a right and a wrong answer and everyone will know what it is eventually. People are  going ahead and emitting CO2 anyway, so we are doing the experiment: either the world heats up by several degrees by 2050 or so, or it doesnt.
 Notice that the skeptics agree with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2; they just disagree just about the feedbacks. The climate debate is all about the feedbacks; everything else is merely a sideshow. Yet hardly anyone knows that. The government climate scientists and the mainstream media have framed the debate in terms of the direct effect of CO2 and sideshows such as arctic ice, bad weather, and psychology. They almost never mention the feedbacks. Why is that? Who has the power to make that happen?  
More here:  Dr David Evans: The Skeptic’s Case « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

----------


## Dr Freud

Amazing how reality refutes these climate clowns idiotic and failed predictions, over and over again:   

> Well, this news in Queensland is a surprise to some warmists:  _ 
> DOZENS of people have been evacuated from their homes, hundreds of streets closed and Australia Day celebrations cancelled as drenching rain continues to fall across the state. _  _Conditions are expected to worsen with creeks already breaking their banks, sending floodwaters into homes and businesses._More surprises in NSW:  _Widespread rainfall of 50-150mm has caused major flooding in parts of NSW These very high rain totals have led to major flooding on the Bellinger River at Thora, with river levels continuing to rise this morning._Still more surprises:  _Meanwhile, the Bureau of Meteorology has confirmed 2011 was Australias third-wettest year on record and the wettest year since 1970._ And, look, no real shortage of rain anywhere:   
>   How strange. I mean, remember the claims that we faced a permanent drought, thanks to man-made global warming? Heres just some of those warnings: 
>   Greens leader Bob Brown in 2006:  _From melting polar ice to the spectre of permanent drought in previously productive farmlands, the (World Meteorological Bureaus) report makes clear that climate change is not just a future threat, it is damaging Australia now._ Brown in 2008:  _Already, (Rudd government adviser Ross Garnauts) daunting data of a 10 per cent chance of no flow at all in the Murray-Darling river system in future years is being overtaken by data indicating that drought is the new norm across Australias greatest food bowl._The _Sydney Morning Herald_ in 2008:  _This drought may never break_  _IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nations most senior weather experts warned yesterday._  _Perhaps we should call it our new climate, said the Bureau of Meteorologys head of climate analysis, David Jones...._  _There is a debate in the climate community, after  close to 12 years of drought, whether this is something permanent. Certainly, in terms of temperature, that seems to be our reality, and that there is no turning back...._Jones to the University of East Anglia in 2007:   _ 
> Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we dont need meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse...__The Age_ in 2009:  _A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change_  _Its reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming, said the bureaus Bertrand Timbal.  
> In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up...._Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in 2007:  _ Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas and made the soil too hot, so even the rain that falls isnt actually going to fill our dams and river systems  ._ But heres the rainfall data from the Bureau of Metereology:   
>   And for the Murray Darling:       Warmists washed out | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  
Remember this idiocy when it's time to vote.   
The Carbon Dioxide Tax will cripple this country at probably the worst time since the Great Depression.  :Doh:   
And for what benefit?  :Question:

----------


## woodbe

> *Air Temperatures* 
>  One of the earliest and most important predictions was presented to the US Congress in 1988 by Dr James Hansen, the father of global warming: 
>  Figure 3: Hansens predictions*[6]*  to the US Congress in 1988, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites*[7]*. 
>  Hansens climate model clearly exaggerated future temperature rises.
>  In particular, his climate model predicted that if human CO2 emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the CO2 level was not rising at all, we would get his scenario C. But in reality the temperature did not even rise this much, even though our CO2 emissions strongly increased  which suggests that the climate models greatly overestimate the effect of CO2 emissions.
>  A more considered prediction by the climate models was made in 1990 in the IPCCs First Assessment Report:[8]  
>  Figure 4: Predictions of the IPCCs First Assessment Report in 1990, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites. 
>  Its 20 years now, and the average rate of increase in reality is below the lowest trend in the range predicted by the IPCC.

  So let's see. Instead of fixing on the latest predictions based on the latest report, let's pick an older one (AR1) and ignore that the state of the measurements and prediction methodologies might have moved in the meantime. David apparently thinks we are unaware that there have been three further updated reports since AR1 in 1990. 
An alternative view:   

> But lets get to the heart of the matter.  Are the observed trends  really a much slower rate than that projected by the ensemble of  climate models  for certain?  Instead of just plotting trend estimates  of observed data, lets put some 95% confidence intervals on them.   Ill omit the compensation for autocorrelation, but use annual rather  than monthly data so the estimates will be pretty good.  Heres the  result for data from NASA GISS (plotted in red), compared to the actual  mean trend from the given start years of the AR4 model runs (plotted in  black) (click the graph for a larger, clearer view):   
>  Gosh.  Suddenly that much slower rate no longer seems for certain.
>   But wait!  Theres more!  Theres uncertainty not just in the observed  trend, but in the model estimates as well!  Lets add the 90% coverage  region (from 5% to 95%) for the spread of individual model runs:   
> Gosh.  Suddenly that much slower rate is definitely NOT for certain.  In fact, its not even plausible.

  From Open Mind 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> So let's see. Instead of fixing on the latest predictions based on the latest report, let's pick an older one (AR1) and ignore that the state of the measurements and prediction methodologies might have moved in the meantime. David apparently thinks we are unaware that there have been three further updated reports since AR1 in 1990. 
> An alternative view:   
> From Open Mind 
> woodbe.

  Your faith in this sinking cult is touching.  But I do admire your faith in clinging to this sinking behemoth.  There are many taking to the lifeboats.  Even NASA's godfather of global warming, the great James Hansen is strapping on a lifejacket.  But it will take some time before it is lying ruined at the bottom of the seas. 
Do you realise how truly pathetic this cult has become.  From the early days of terror doomsday scenario's and children dying, screams of humans killing the Planet Earth, you are now reduced to this piffle?  Even other cults still predict doomsday scenario's, while this cult is reduced to trying to plot data with psychic computer error bars to remain relevant.
From terror scenario's to trying to find some statistical link between psychic computer predictions and disaggregated data.  :Doh:  
A least Lord Vader would never say this about you:

----------


## Dr Freud

I have finally figured out why the Planet Earth isn't burning to all hell. 
It's because JuLIAR promised that it would! 
The data shows that she LIES so consistently, that reality can be accurately predicted as the opposite of her promises. 
Here's the doozy:      

> Anti-pokies Senator Nick Xenophon:_BY betraying Andrew Wilkie, Prime Minister Julia Gillard has shown a written, signed agreement with her is as worthless as her word Ms Gillard, it seems, reserves the right to back out of anything if it suits her immediate political interest._Indeed. Here are just some of Gillards broken promises and flops:_- There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead._  _- A 150-strong Citizens Assembly will be appointed to examine the evidence on climate change, the case for action and a market based approach to reducing pollution._  _- Prime Minister Julia Gillard has copied Barack Obamas cash-for-clunkers scheme The government promises to give motorists a $2000 rebate if they trade in a car built before 1995 for a low-emission, fuel-efficient model._  _- We have consistently said that we think Australia should deal with its own case load [of asylum seekers]._  _- Today I announce that we will begin a new initiative. In recent days, I have discussed with President Ramos-Horta of East Timor the possibility of establishing a [East Timor] regional processing centre ..._  _- JULIA Gillard has struck a deal to ... accept five refugees for every one we swap, resettling up to 4000 genuine refugees from Malaysia._And still to come:_The Budget will be back in surplus in 2013 if Im re-elected, if my Government is re-elected on Saturday. .. The Budget is coming back to surplus, no ifs no buts it will happen._Gillards record of broken promises is astonishing. She rashly promises what she cannot - or should not - deliver, only to back down through political expediency or a bruising confrontation with political reality. 
>  Needless to say, if John Howard had had such a record, hed have been flayed alive by the Canberra press gallery. How Gillard can still be taken seriously beggars belief. 
>   UPDATE 
>   Do excuses come any more pathetic?_PRIME Minister Julia Gillards broken promise on pokies reform is Opposition Leader Tony Abbotts fault, two of her senior ministers say._ UPDATE 
>   Got a problem? Is the government stuffed or your drain blocked? Is Qantas grounded or another boat at Christmas Island? Then blame Abbott.  Has any Prime Minister broken so many promises? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  And after you destabilise our once great economy with this useless rubbish, what happens to your other promises:   

> Treasurer Wayne Swan in May:   _We will see the creation of an additional 500,000 jobs in the next couple of years_Prime Minister Julia Gillard last year:  _ we are creating another 500000 jobs in the next two years_Prime Minister Julia Gillard in December revises:  _In 2012 we will create tens of thousands of jobs We are on track to create over 300,000 more during the next two years._Job data today:  _AUSTRALIA has reported its worst year of jobs growth since the recession of the early 1990s, as the government conceded the emerging global downturn was having an impact on hiring decisions._  _A 29,300-job fall in the national labour market last month left Australia with zero jobs growth last year, although the number of hours worked in the final month of the year rose._ So where are those promised jobs? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  But what the hell, let's keep pumping billions of our taxes overseas in the name of this cult:   

> Australia, in conjunction with other developed countries, has committed to a goal of jointly mobilising US$100 billion annually by 2020 for climate change mitigation and adaptation action in developing countries.   
> Australia's projected fast-start disbursement of investment flows are:  Approximately A$380 million (two-thirds) by 30 June 2012 at the end of Australia's second fast-start year.Complete disbursement of A$599 million by the end of the fast-start period.  Australia's Fast-Start Finance Progress Report November 2011 - Think Change

  Keep paying those taxes people, JuLIAR knows best.  :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

> Your faith in this sinking cult is touching.  But I do admire your faith in clinging to this sinking behemoth.  There are many taking to the lifeboats.  Even NASA's godfather of global warming, the great James Hansen is strapping on a lifejacket.  But it will take some time before it is lying ruined at the bottom of the seas.

  This is your best response to a real statistician whomping the baloney peddled on your second favorite site?  
You do realise that engaging in strawman fallacies does nothing for your position?  
Perhaps not, it hasn't stopped you in the past I guess, and you do seem to have an endless pile of straw to work with.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

The climate clowns are finally figuring out that the Sun is where the heat is coming from.  :Biggrin:  
They realised this because they are finally admitting their warmist psychic computer predictions are junk.  :Biggrin:     

> *Houston, we have a problem*  				 			Posted on January 21, 2012  by  tamascalderwood  
>  In a recent update on global surface temperatures from NASA, the alarmists at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have finally admitted the bleeding obvious  and I quote  the current global warming graphs are suggestive of a slowdown in global warming.    
> Of course, given the prestige that the global warming industry has invested in their hypothesis being true, we cant expect them to just note that the data doesnt fit their hypothesis and be done with the whole thing.  No siree.  Much of the paper is spent trying to explain this slowdown in global warming and, of course, they predict that warming will soon return (climate science is big on predictions, small on actual observations).  But their explanations simply dont make sense.  
>  For example, the paper addresses the solar cycle.  The Sun has been rather quiet of late and the recent solar minima has gone on for a couple of years longer than usual (the Sun normally has an approximate 11 year cycle).  According to the paper this makes the Sun a significant source for cooling during the past several years, however the Suns influence will change rapidly to a warming effect over the next 3-5 years.  Well, maybe.  But if the Sun does pick up and Earth warms a bit, isnt this an admission by NASA that the Sun is a major cause of global warming?  Indeed, they say in the paper that it is apparent that the solar forcing is not negligible in comparison with the net climate forcing.  Thats science-speak for saying the Sun is important in the climate system (who knew?). 
> ...So NASA have attempted to explain away the slowdown in global warming via natural variability and aerosols, but of course any further warming will be man made.  *Its such a blatant asymmetry  warming is man-made but any slowdown is natural variability*...   Houston, we have a problem | Tamas Calderwood

  Read the full story at the link.  See how these climate clowns are doing backflips trying to distract the crowds from all the costume changes going on behind the scenes.  :Biggrin:  
This is getting hilarious.  Just like a real circus.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Well, it was back then:   

> *Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?* 							 								Seth Borenstein in Washington
> Associated Press 
>  								December 12, 2007
>  								 									 									 An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summera sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point.     
>   One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.  Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?

  
Let's check this terrifying prediction:   

> Arctic Sea Ice Concentration  Same Date Compared With 2007  Cryosphere Today  Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois - Click the pic to view at source (thanks to Ric Werme)

  I guess that melting is going to have do some serious catching up before it is all "gone", huh?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> This is your best response to a real statistician whomping the baloney peddled on your second favorite site?  
> woodbe.

  So you think his useless distraction consisting of an assessment of confidence intervals with disaggregated data overrides measured and verifiable trends in the real world?  And this distraction then somehow validates the fact that this real world data refutes the pathetic psychic computer predictions? 
And you people talk about denial? 
Even NASA admits their models are "discordant" with reality.
Even the climate clowns admitted the "travesty" that the real world data was not matching their predictions.
Even NASA is scrambling for "aerosol" excuses as to why their models are failed. 
Yet you still defend these failed psychic computer predictions, when cult leaders themselves have admitted their failure? 
You can write off a few more AGW hypothesis supporters thanks to your posts.  Many reading the faith based fervour in which you support these psychic computer predictions in the face of real world data to the contrary will surely abandon ship.  :Biggrin:     

> You do realise that engaging in strawman fallacies does nothing for your position?  
> Perhaps not, it hasn't stopped you in the past I guess, and you do seem to have an endless pile of straw to work with.  
> woodbe.

  How about you just post real world data showing the Armageddon (that is actually wished upon us) by the climate clowns? 
Got nothing, huh? 
Shame. 
Does anyone want to know why? *
Because there is ZERO scientific evidence proving the AGW Hypothesis.*  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> Let's check this terrifying prediction:   
> I guess that melting is going to have do some serious catching up before it is all "gone", huh?

  Note to Doc: 
Stick to politics mate. January 22 in the Northern hemisphere is not summer, never has been, never will be.   

> The melt season begins each April when the sunless winter gives way to  sunrise and spring, and water and air temperatures rise. By September,  the sea ice shrinks to a minimum and begins refreezing, bringing the  annual melt season to an end.

  link   :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> And you people talk about denial?

  Correct. We talk about it, you practice it.  :2thumbsup:  
You're doing a better job of it today than you usually do though. Try checking the BOM to see how wet the winter is this January. HAHAHAHA 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Note to Doc: 
> Stick to politics mate. January 22 in the Northern hemisphere is not summer, never has been, never will be.   link   
> woodbe.

  Sorry, I should have spelled it out for those readers you are targeting (AGW hypothesis believers?) who don't know the seasons fluctuate between the Hemispheres depending on which is tilted more towards the Sun, thereby affecting temperatures. 
When I typed this:   

> I guess that melting is going to have do some serious catching up before it is all "gone", huh?

  
I assumed reader's familiar with the round Planet concept would realise the melting has to be "caught up" within the next few months, in order for it to be "gone" in accordance with the ominous and terrfying predictions. 
The prediction could still be proved true if it does the serious catching up. 
I apologise for going all "high brow" and assuming readers here knew the Planet Earth was round and that we in the Southern Hemisphere were currently going through our Summer Season.  I'm always happy to fully explain these concepts to you and your AGW hypothesis cohorts who struggle with these concepts.   :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> Let's check this terrifying prediction:

  At least you recognise that it is a scary proposition. Hats off to you, even if you then go on to quote a load of bunk.     

> _Between 1979 and 2007, Arctic sea ice has begun melting (left map) an  average of 2.8 days per decade earlier in the spring, and has begun  re-freezing (center map) an average of 3.7 days per decade later in the  autumn. Altogether, the length of the Arctic melt season (right map) has  increased by about 20 days over the past 30 years. These maps are based  on satellite observations of microwave energy radiated from the surface  of sea ice. Credit: NASA images by Robert Simmon, based on data from  Jeffrey Miller and Thorsten Markus._

  NASA - Arctic 'Melt Season' Is Growing Longer, New Research Demonstrates 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Sorry, I should have spelled it out for those readers you are targeting (AGW hypothesis believers?) who don't know the seasons fluctuate between the Hemispheres depending on which is tilted more towards the Sun, thereby affecting temperatures.

  HA! You'll find one of those readers in the MIRROR, backpedaling furiously  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Correct. We talk about it, you practice it.  
> You're doing a better job of it today than you usually do though. Try checking the BOM to see how wet the winter is this January. HAHAHAHA 
> woodbe.

  See now, if I wanted to be as silly as you, I'd say that you think the BOM has a time machine.  How silly of you to believe that the BOM uses a time machine to travel into the future and get accurate recordings of data to bring back to the present.  Because how else could I check how wet this January is with the BOM when January isn't over yet? 
Silly stuff, huh? 
Still no scientific evidence either, huh? 
But keep the silly semantic distractions coming, it destroys the cults credibility much better than I ever can.  :Biggrin:  
But if you've given up your time machine delusions, here's LAST months information:    

> *Australia in December 2011*December was *cooler than normal* across much of Australia for both daytime and overnight temperatures... 
> Rainfall was average to above average across most of the country...  *Rainfall averaged over Australia was 34% above normal*, ranking as the 25th wettest of 112 years.  Australia in December 2012

  Do you want me to post more of Flim Flam's predictions?  :Biggrin:  
We'll all be paying heaps more TAX based on these failed predictions, maybe worth posting again, huh?  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> At least you recognise that it is a scary proposition. Hats off to you, even if you then go on to quote a load of bunk. 
> woodbe.

  The climate changes.  This is not a scary proposition.  It's reality.  If you don't like it, there's always drugs I guess.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):    

> NASA - Arctic 'Melt Season' Is Growing Longer, New Research Demonstrates 
> woodbe.

  To distract from the truly embarrassing failed predictions from the climate clowns, you post this further piffle. 
After spending hundreds of billions of dollars, NASA demonstrates that the climate changes just a little bit. 
But still no proof as to why. 
This isn't even clutching at straws anymore, it's plain embarrassing.  :Cry:  
But the melt season hasn't been the only thing growing longer.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

Embarrassing?, This is embarrassing:   

> Well, it was back then:      *Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?* 
>                                                               Seth Borenstein in Washington
> Associated Press 
>                                  December 12, 2007
>                                                                                                             An already relentless melting of the  Arctic greatly accelerated this summera sign that some scientists worry  could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point.     
>   One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.  Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?    
> Let's check this terrifying prediction:     
> 			
> 				Arctic Sea Ice Concentration  Same Date Compared With 2007   Cryosphere Today  Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois - Click the pic to view at source (thanks to Ric Werme)
> ...

  Awesome post Doc. Sceptics don't need no science, and they don't need no seasons either! 
You can't make this stuff up! Hilarious! 
Semantic Distractions? Hilarious!   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Embarrassing?, This is embarrassing:   
> Awesome post Doc. Sceptics don't need no science, and they don't need no seasons either! 
> You can't make this stuff up! Hilarious! 
> Semantic Distractions? Hilarious!     
> woodbe.

  Yes, your semantic distractions are hilarious. 
Do you really think that anyone reading this will focus on your semantics and suddenly ignore all the real world evidence that you studiously avoid? 
For a group of people always banging on about "the science", you studiously avoid discussing all of the real world evidence refuting these cultish beliefs. 
And the best part is, every post you people make that shows no evidence for these beliefs drives more people in doubt away from this cult.  If you fervent supporters can't even mount a credible argument, how weak must this cult be?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Obama is so generous, he will "allow" the building of windmills on government land. 
Who wants to invest in a business that loses massive amounts of money without government subsidies?  :No:    

> Julia Gillard claimed her carbon tax was not putting us ahead of other countries and the United States was taking similar steps:   _The fact sheets show the Gillard Labor Governments move to put a price on carbon follows similar steps in many countries, with others planning or in the process of introducing similar arrangements.   
> For example, Australias top five trading partnersChina, Japan, the United States, the Republic of Korea and India and another six of our top twenty trading partners have implemented or are piloting carbon trading or taxation schemes...._  _Australia is not going it alone on climate change ..._No? Heres the only mention of climate change in Barack Obamas State of the Union speech this week:  _The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But theres no reason why Congress shouldnt at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you havent acted. Well tonight, I will. Im directing my Administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes. And Im proud to announce that the Department of Defense, the worlds largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history - with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year._Not the slightest sign of the US matching Gillards carbon tax, even under Barack Obama.      Obama cool on carbon taxes | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  The US has realised this cult is over.  We Aussies will still cripple our economy for no good reason.  :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

> Do you really think that anyone reading this will focus on your semantics

  Better that they just read your post to see what a pack of cards you're peddling, I don't have to add a thing  :2thumbsup: :   

> Well, it was back then:      *Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?* 
>                                                               Seth Borenstein in Washington
> Associated Press 
>                                  December 12, 2007
>                                                                                                              An already relentless melting of the   Arctic greatly accelerated this summer—a sign that some scientists  worry  could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point.     
>   One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.  Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?    
> Let's check this terrifying prediction:     
> 			
> 				Arctic Sea Ice Concentration – Same Date Compared With 2007    Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of  Illinois - Click the pic to view at source (thanks to Ric Werme)
> ...

  All your own work.  :2thumbsup:  
Arctic in January is in the middle of Winter mate! There is no Summer melt in Winter.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

They dislike Abbott, so they smash JuLIAR instead? 
Even a PM as dumb as her doesn't deserve this. 
What a bunch of moron's.   
The PM thanked security for protecting her from the protesters.    
The protesters thanked security for protecting them from Tony Abbott.  :Biggrin:      

> Eventually, ''Abo'', as he is known to his mates, went off with a couple of others and sought instruction in boxing. A few years later, while drinking in a pub with a group of friends at Oxford, it was put on Abbott that he should fill the vacancy for a heavyweight in the university boxing team. 
> In his first bout, against Cambridge, he knocked his opponent out cold in 45 seconds. His second, against a cadet officer from Sandhurst Royal Military College, was also over in the first round. His third bout, against a marine who had fought in the Falklands War and "a much bigger man", was won by Abbott on a TKO when his opponent took his fifth standing count in the second round.
>              In the fourth and final fight of his career, he triumphed for the second time over a Cambridge man - the bout again being stopped in the first round.  
>              I interviewed Abbott in 2001 and, naturally, pursued the matter of his boxing career. Was he scared when he entered the ring?  
> "Terrified," he said. ''It's one of those things you make yourself do.''   Most people I've spoken to since Tuesday think Abbott's election as Opposition Leader is a disaster for the Liberals. I don't. No one, friend or foe, should take Tony Abbott lightly. Abbott - not the greatest, but a fighter

  Make no mistake people, he will knock out the Carbon Dioxide Tax.  :Boxing:  
More video vision of the ignoramus protesters here:  Scenes from the reconciliation movement | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## Dr Freud

> Better that they just read your post to see what a pack of cards you're peddling, I don't have to add a thing :   
> All your own work.  
> Arctic in January is in the middle of Winter mate! There is no Summer melt in Winter.  
> woodbe.

  
I certainly hope they read all my posts.  And you're absolutely right, you haven't added anything.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

JuLIAR wants us to pay $23 a tonne, increasing rapidly. 
The rest of the world who started the journey is jumping ship.   

> *Gillard once lauded the genius of the carbon market. That part of the free market which is free to move, is moving  and right out. The smart money is saying that carbon trading is a dead dog. Its a has-been-tulip, a sick puppy, a sinking ship.* The future of global carbon trading is so certain that Barclays Bank is not even bothering to leave one part time guy in the US office with a post box, so they can pretend they still have an interest in it. The mood has so changed, they see an advantage in letting the world know theyre not wasting a single cent more on carbon trading in the United States of America. Well that made my day.  . That is not good news for carbon-dioxide trading, especially not in the US,Barclays was the first UK bank to set up a carbon trading desk, and fast to move into carbon trading:_ Barclays Capital is the most active player in the emissions trading market, having traded some 300 million tonnes as at February 2007″. _   Barclays Closes US Carbon Desk In Latest Cap And Trade Setback 
>  By Simon Lomax
>  Published: January 20, 2012  
>  A major European bank closed its US carbon trading business this week in a sign that 2012 is a make-or-break year for cap-and-trade programs designed to fight climate change.  
>  London-based Barclays determined the US carbon market, currently comprised of a handful of states, is too small to justify the expense of a dedicated trading desk in New York, according to sources familiar with the decision. Barclays was a major player in US greenhouse-gas trading programs on the East and West coasts and remains active in Europes carbon market, the largest in the world. Seth Martin, a Barclays spokesman, declined to comment. That is not good news for carbon-dioxide trading, especially not in the US, says Gary Hart, a market analyst for ICAP Energy and a veteran pollution-rights trader. Theres such uncertainty around the use of carbon cap-and-trade programs.  
>  The carbon cap-and-trade concept, which regulates the greenhouse gases linked to climate change by letting companies buy and sell pollution allowances, has suffered a major reversal of fortune since President Barack Obamas election in 2008. 
>  How times have changed. Back in 2007, Barclays said:_ The market fluctuated greatly during 2006, but we believe in its long-term importance. _  
>  So much for that eh?  Carbon Ship Sinking: Barclays Bank closes its carbon desk « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

  Crippling our economy, and for what?  :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

> I assumed reader's familiar with the round Planet concept would realise the melting has to be "caught up" within the next few months, in order for it to be "gone" in accordance with the ominous and terrfying predictions. 
> The prediction could still be proved true if it does the serious catching up.

  What a load of nonsense. 
Why don't you just admit you cocked it up?  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> What a load of nonsense. 
> Why don't you just admit you cocked it up?  
> woodbe.

  When you started going down this tangent, I actually thought you were just engaging in semantic distraction, so that people wouldn't notice the excellent array of real world data I've posted that highlights the farcical and cultish nature of the AGW hypothesis. 
But I may have been wrong.  It appears that this has seriously emotionally affected you.  I understand that there are serious emotions associated with seeing real world data contradicting the belief system you hold dear.  This emotion may have led you to misinterpret my earlier post.  In your defence, I assumed people would realise the intent of this post, so didn't fully explain it.  I'll try to repost some information for you, and I'll explain it this time to make it clearer as to what the original post was intended to do. 
In the original post, the article attached (I assume you actually read it?) had this "prediction" I referred to:  *This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."* 
Pay attention now.  The end of summer 2012 in the Arctic Ocean hasn't happened yet.  It's in the future.  I can't post this data yet because it doesn't yet exist in the "real world".  This will exist around the end of September 2012.  I didn't explain this in the previous post.  That was my assumption and I apologise profusely for omitting to explain the current linear concept of time to you earlier.  _(Sidebar= Travelling forward in time has already been demonstrated as possible, but the LHC work I posted earlier actually suggests travel backwards in time may also be possible, in direct conflict with Einstein's relativity work!  But this doesn't mean I can do it yet.)_  
Anyway, back to the Arctic.  I then posted these satellite images:    
You have already noted there is a (scrolling) date indicated at the bottom right of each image, which is good.  Unfortunately due to your earlier error in not realising the prediction date has not yet "arrived" in the linear time concept, we cannot yet say that this prediction has failed until this date reaches the end of September 2012. 
However, even the untrained observer will note there is very little difference between the two images from 2007 and 2012.  In the intervening 5 years (ok, not exactly 5 years, 4 years and 1.5 months to avoid another semantic distraction  :Doh: ) the ice has changed very little based on the latest satellite imagery available.  This indicates the prediction is heading for abject FAILURE.  Consider this interim data if you must. 
The good news is, we can track these images as time scrolls on over the next few months until the end of Summer is reached in the Arctic, and see if there is any purple left on the map? 
If it is "nearly ice free" or has very little purple, then the prediction will have proved correct. 
If there is still plenty of ice left, and/or comparatively the same picture from 21/09/2007 and 21/09/2012, then the prediction will have FAILED, just like all the other failed predictions emanating from this cults beliefs. 
Given the large volume of Arctic sea ice represented by the current satellite images, the ice will have to go through a melting unseen ever before to ensure this prediction comes true.  Hence this statement: *
I guess that melting is going to have do some serious catching up before it is all "gone", huh?*  :Biggrin:  
The melting has a little less than 8 months to melt nearly the entire volume of the Arctic ice to "catch up" to this ridiculous prediction. 
I'd call this volume of melting as "serious catching up". 
I apologise to all those who had already worked this all out for themselves.  :2thumbsup:  
I do endeavour to keep my posts as brief as possible, but sometimes maybe I should explain them a bit more for those who have trouble keeping up. 
If anyone still doesn't get this stuff, just let me know and I am more than happy to explain further. 
And if this is just semantic distraction, please also read David Evans' information again (posted above) to reinforce how much this cults belief system has departed from the real world.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

More poppycock trying to spin your mistake.   

> *This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist  Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly  ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous  predictions."*

  The NASA climate scientist was clearly referring to summer melt from 2007. He didn't say January 2007, he said Summer. You made a simple mistake, all you had to say is 'oops', yet now you are faced with yet more and more convoluted spinning to try and reinvent your story to make your error look like you meant it. 
I understand your glee in wanting to show a single season's melt result as a nail in the coffin of AGW. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. People on your side of the ledger do not like being reminded of the frankly alarming and accelerating loss of Arctic Ice.           

> *December 2011 compared to past years*
> Arctic sea ice extent for December 2011 was the third lowest in the  satellite record.  The five lowest December extents in the satellite  record have occurred in the past six years. Including the year 2011, the  linear rate of decline ice December ice extent over the satellite  record is -3.5% per decade.

   

> For the Arctic as a whole, ice extent for the month remained far below average.

  Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis 
Read Jason E. Box, Ph.D. for some Greenland based perspective. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> A commendable attempt to smear other scientific areas with the rotting stench emanating from CLIMATEGATE and CLIMATEGATE2 that has painted these climate clowns in their true colours.   Rest assured the breakdown of trust with these idiots has not crossed over into other scientific endeavours as these other areas still operate under the correct scientific principles of data driving theories, not the AGW Hypothesis motto of "adjust the data to fit our theory":    *From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To:    Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009* *"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment    and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"*     Some of you may also be following the remarkable work at the LHC:         Remarkable huh?     No massive push to increase taxes in the "rich" countries and transfer it to the "poor" countries.   No hysteria about saving our children's children's children's futures.   No doomsday scenarios about the end of the world.   These cultish beliefs are remarkably absent in the scientific world, where the AGW hypothesis does not reside.    Here's "proof" of SBD's deliberate attempt to hide the climate clowns lies and to taint science with their cult:     LHC scientists:  *The result - which threatens to upend a century of physics - will be put online for scrutiny by other scientists.*     IPCC fascientists:  * Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.  If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the United Kingdom, I think Ill delete the file rather than send it to anyone.*       And you true believers still wonder why these climate clowns have trust issues?  The rest of us certainly don't wonder.    Believe this cults nonsense if you will, but don't taint science with these cultish practices.

     Bloke, there are times when your simple ignorance amazes me....   I have actually been following the neutrinos faster than light issue since the 'possibility' was announced by the teams at OPERA (which is incidentally nowhere near the LHC).  They made a preliminary announcement of a finding accompanied with a statement not unlike that of a senate committee (not everyone on the team supported the statement) and the open access to the data in an effort to a) confirm the finding or b) determine a explanation for how it might be happening...on the understanding that any findings must be published in a peer review situation....and this understanding is set down in writing in the form of Data Share Agreements.   The same thing happens and has been happening for over twenty years in climate science. In fact forever....it ensures appropriate levels of attribution.   My point is that I'm not tarring any scientists because regardless of their scientific endeavour and field they are all contributing in much the same way for the same ideals.  The problem is that most of the Great Unwashed*  REMOVED PERSONAL ATTACK*  don't see/feel/believe that.    I actually pity *THEIR* position...I truly do. Such a sad waste...   *EDITED POST,  PLAY THE BALL NOT THE MAN* *.*

----------


## Rod Dyson

Time out guys. 
ENJOY this article in the Washington Post.    
This is quite something. Sixteen scientists, including such names as Richard Lindzen, William Kininmonth, Wil Happer, and Nir Shaviv, plus engineer Burt Rutan, and Apollo 17 astronaut Dr. Harrison Schmidt, among others, write what amounts to a heretical treatise to the _Wall Street Journal_, expressing their view that the global warming is oversold, has stalled in the last decade, and that the search for meaningful warming has led to co-opting weather patterns in the blame game. Oh, and a history lesson on Lysenkoism as it relates to today’s warming-science-funding-complex. I can hear Joe Romm’s head exploding all the way out here in California.
Excerpts:  For the purists and not to create confusion the article starts below.  Above is from WUWT,  you know, that evil blog that knows nothing about science /sarc *No Need to Panic About Global Warming*_There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy._ Editor’s Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
…
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
… _Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job._ _This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death._ _Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”_ _Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them._
…
Signed by: _Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva._ Full letter is online here at the Wall Street Journal

----------


## Rod Dyson

Nice work Doc. 
Nice to see you back in the fray Woodbe,  I see all this lack of warming hasn't dented your confidnce in this scam yet.  Maybe it will take another 10 years eh?  By then we might just start comming out of the cooling cycle and you will be able to say told ya so!!! 
So hang around.

----------


## woodbe

> Nice to see you back in the fray Woodbe

  Don't worry Rod, it's only temporary. I just knew we'd see you if I posted some Arctic Ice graphs.  
I see you're still into posting opinion from the media and ignoring the science. That should keep you going until the next Holocene!  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Don't worry Rod, it's only temporary. I just knew we'd see you if I posted some Arctic Ice graphs.  
> I see you're still into posting opinion from the media and ignoring the science. That should keep you going until the next Holocene!  
> woodbe.

  Woodbe I have asked you over and over to produce the "science" that proves AGW, yet you never did nor will you because it does not exist so how can I ignore what does not exist?  
You are claiming that casual correlation, of co2 and temps coupled with FAILED computer models, is the compelling science behind AGW.  Seriously? 
You claim that causual observation that is made to fit your theory is the compelling science behind AGW ?? 
I say "you claim" because this is all you have brought to this forum to back your wild ideas.  NOTHING ELSE has been provided to back up your claims. 
Also I say "your claims" meaning the claims of AGW alarmists in general.  SHEEZZ this explaining what should be a given, is a bit of a drag.   
Ice you say!! Ha Alaska has a lot of it right now!! So how is the theory of an ice free summer working out for you?  OH yes, here we go, I KNOW ITS NOT SUMMER but ice extent now, will have an influence on the predictions for the SUMMER ice. So this makes US, (us meaning skeptics in general), feel preety good about predicting your, (your meaning alarmists in general), prediction of an ice free summer is destined to be documented as another failed scaremongering prediction. A prediction designed to scare people, (people, meaning the average public), into accepting the AGW so called science as fact. Thereby putting pressure on polictician's to act as the public, (who are supposed to be scared out of their minds, like you), expect them to.   
So now I am asking how do you feel about the ice free summer predictions, based on the current observations?  
Have a nice day! 
Hmm I wonder if that is precise enough??

----------


## woodbe

Haha! Rod the Arctic Ice Man! Welcome back  :Biggrin:    

> You are claiming that casual correlation, of co2 and temps coupled with  FAILED computer models, is the compelling science behind AGW.   Seriously?

  You clearly don't read what I write. Where have I claimed that computer models have failed? Where have I claimed that the body of climate science supporting AGW amounts to nothing more than correlation?  
Be honest. I haven't, have I? You believe that, not me. 
Embodied in those beliefs is a total misunderstanding of how science works. We've been over that before. 
What I have continued to do, on and off in this ridiculous thread, is to point out some of the misinformation posted by others. I have generally supported my posts with references to science. I accept that science is not something you understand or even appear to want to understand, so I comprehend where you are coming from.   

> Ice you say!! Ha Alaska has a lot of it right now!! So how is the theory of an ice free summer working out for you?

  Unfortunately, it's surprisingly on track. It's predictable that you are gleeful that there is a lot of ice about this winter in the Arctic, about the same, maybe slightly less than this time in 2007:   
Do I need to remind you that 2007 was a disastrous melt season, and that 2008 and subsequent years have not recovered to anywhere near pre 2007 areas?      

> So now I am asking how do you feel about the ice free summer predictions, based on the current observations?

  Based on current observations, I see no reason not to expect that the Arctic will be virtually ice free in summer in the too near future. How do I feel about that? Sad, I guess, if you must know. 
In any case, I get no pleasure from seeing that predictions like this are even close to correct. You might remember that even though you talk of it as my prediction, it is not. Even if the prediction is out by 10 years (which I strongly doubt), it will come true way, way too soon.   

> Hmm I wonder if that is precise enough??

  Precise enough to get your intent of conflating year by year variability with elimination of long term trends. Yes. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You clearly don't read what I write. Where have I claimed that computer models have failed? Where have I claimed that the body of climate science supporting AGW amounts to nothing more than correlation?     
> Woodbe.

  And you are saying I cant read what you write!!!   :Confused:  :Confused:  :Confused:

----------


## woodbe

> And you are saying I cant read what you write!!!

  Ok, Rod. As gentle as I can. Please think about this. 
You and I have opposite worldviews on this issue.  
When you read what I write, you view it through a filter: Your worldview. 
The difference between our forum behavior is that I don't rephrase what you wrote through my worldview, even though i disagree with your worldview. 
Here is what you wrote:   

> You are claiming that casual correlation, of co2 and temps coupled with  FAILED computer models, is the compelling science behind AGW.

  The value judgements in that sentence are your own, not mine.  
If I disagree with what you write, I might give counter argument backed with information and third party science. As I have done, repeatedly. 
I see that you have not answered any of the information I posted regarding the arctic summer ice minimum, you take issue with a minor point instead of answering my response to your conflation of year by year variability with elimination of long term trends. I'm not surprised, this is a normal tactic from your side... 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *EDITED POST,  PLAY THE BALL NOT THE MAN* *.*

  Ha-Ha!! 
How about we call it an "in off".....like in the tennis?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Ok, Rod. As gentle as I can. Please think about this. 
> You and I have opposite worldviews on this issue.  
> When you read what I write, you view it through a filter: Your worldview. 
> The difference between our forum behavior is that I don't rephrase what you wrote through my worldview, even though i disagree with your worldview. 
> Here is what you wrote:   
> The value judgements in that sentence are your own, not mine.  
> If I disagree with what you write, I might give counter argument backed with information and third party science. As I have done, repeatedly. 
> I see that you have not answered any of the information I posted regarding the arctic summer ice minimum, you take issue with a minor point instead of answering my response to your conflation of year by year variability with elimination of long term trends. I'm not surprised, this is a normal tactic from your side... 
> woodbe.

  LOL - I give up like explaining something to a brick wall  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> LOL - I give up like explaining something to a brick wall

  I agree. Discussion requires responses even vaguely connected to the prior content.  
You asked me about the summer ice predictions, I responded. You then chose to ignore that response but focus on my observation that based on what you had written you hadn't read what I wrote. In response I responded to that red herring but explained that you also hadn't responded regarding the summer ice. You once again disconnect with the above brick wall comment. 
Communication 101 
Clearly, you don't have a response regarding Summer Ice. Despite year by year variations, it remains in unrelenting decline. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I agree. Discussion requires responses even vaguely connected to the prior content.  
> You asked me about the summer ice predictions, I responded. You then chose to ignore that response but focus on my observation that based on what you had written you hadn't read what I wrote. In response I responded to that red herring but explained that you also hadn't responded regarding the summer ice. You once again disconnect with the above brick wall comment. 
> Communication 101 
> Clearly, you don't have a response regarding Summer Ice. Despite year by year variations, it remains in unrelenting decline. 
> woodbe.

  You have given me nothing to respond to.  Ice free summer?? you (this time I actually mean YOU and not warmists in general as my previous you/your references were directed), predict it will happen within 10 years!! Yet it was pedicted to be this comming summer, which is the prediction we are taking the piss out of.  
But I guess by pushing the prediction date out and trying to support that with graphs that in NO way shows scientific evidence this will happen, will at least keep the scare going for a while longer.   
By now though most sensible people have come to realise that the scaremongering by warmists is just that.  Just too many failed predictions have passed now for any further predictions to have any credibility whatsoever.   
The warmists have missed their window when the public believed this rot.  They failed to drive home the advantage and now are faced with a revolting public not willing to believe the junk models an bogus predictions.  
AGW is last on the list of concerns in a poll in the US.  Fat chance they have of introducing a Carbon Tax that our government was so foolish in introducing while other governments are trying to water down their own foolish mistakes. 
Cheers

----------


## woodbe

> You have given me nothing to respond to.  Ice free summer?? you (this time I actually mean YOU and not warmists in general as my previous you/your references were directed), predict it will happen within 10 years!! Yet it was pedicted to be this comming summer, which is the prediction we are taking the piss out of.

  And what I said:   

> In any case, I get no pleasure from seeing that predictions like this  are even close to correct. You might remember that even though you talk  of it as my prediction, it is not. Even if the prediction is out by 10  years (which I strongly doubt), it will come true way, way too soon.

  What I pointed out to you in my summer ice response is that ice free summers in the Arctic are coming regardless of whether short term variations in conditions delay it or not, or whether someone's prediction was accurate to the year or not. That is what you can respond to. 
You can't answer that and presumably haven't responded to that because it is obviously true, so instead you trot out the same old same old and distort what I wrote to your own means. Presumably to avoid discussing the decline of Arctic ice.  
And you talk of brick walls? 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Quibbling over the exact timing of a climate prediction is a waste of effort and intelligence.  New data will always influence the timing of a prediciton because it is typically the most variable/unstable part of the prediction.   
That is why it is usually expressed as a range in the literature eg. "...between 2030 and 2050..." but because most media thinks their audience are stupid they usually use the most evocative number (which is also the least likely) to attract their attention (so you read the ads) 
Sadly, it rarely appears to alter the underlying prediction. No-one seems to be quibbling over that... 
It won't happen overnight...but it will happen!!

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here they come!!!  The rats are jumping ship!!   

> The Church of Global Warming is shattering in Germany, one of the last bastions of the movement. Even the environmental bishops are leaving the Church.
> The print edition of *FOCUS* magazine has an article today on a new upcoming skeptic climate book, _Die kalte Sonne_, authored by former warmist Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt and geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning.

  German Fear Of Warming Plummets…Yet-To-Be-Published Skeptic Book Climbs To Amazon.de No. 4! 
Gotta love that! 
Seriously it is good to see that, (although belatedly), people of influence are comming to their senses.   :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> Here they come!!!  The rats are jumping ship!!  German Fear Of Warming PlummetsYet-To-Be-Published Skeptic Book Climbs To Amazon.de No. 4! 
> Gotta love that! 
> Seriously it is good to see that, (although belatedly), people of influence are comming to their senses.

  So Chemistry PhD who is on the board of Deutsche Shell AG, and a Geologist. Who'd have guessed? What took them so long?  :Biggrin:  
Can you post a list the peer reviewed climate science papers they have published that prove AGW is false? No? What's that you say, they sold a lot of books? Oh, I see, how interesting... 
How about the Arctic Summer Ice, Rod. Gee you're good at changing the subject, aren't you?  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

i have already replied re artic ice!
 You say it will be ice free sometime in the future based on ????  Just keep shifting the time frame to keep the scare alive.  Good work.  LOL I guess someone will buy it!!

----------


## woodbe

> i have already replied re artic ice!
>  You say it will be ice free sometime in the future based on ????  Just keep shifting the time frame to keep the scare alive.  Good work.  LOL I guess someone will buy it!!

  Come on Rod:   

> What I pointed out to you in my summer ice response is that ice free  summers in the Arctic are coming regardless of whether short term  variations in conditions delay it or not, or whether someone's  prediction was accurate to the year or not. That is what you can respond  to.

  I say it will be ice free sometime in the future based on: reality - the acceleration of ice loss due to global warming.   
Face it, you don't want to admit that the Arctic will be ice free, so you change the subject.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> i have already replied re artic ice!
> You say it will be ice free sometime in the future based on ???? Just keep shifting the time frame to keep the scare alive. Good work. LOL I guess someone will buy it!!

  It seems inconceivable that someone would have trouble understanding the fact that for some time summer sea ice is shrinking to lower levels (area) and that winter sea ice is apparently thinner. Sometimes it doesn't hurt to acknowledge fact if for no other reason than to show a capacity for basic reasoning. However we have grown used to the anti crowd who conveniently ignore anything that does not fit a fixed view of the world in general and profer either a distraction or simply ignore the obvious. 
On current trends summer artic sea ice will eventually dissappear, not hard to accept, the cause is warming from somewhere so if it is not global warming what is it?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> On current trends summer artic sea ice will eventually dissappear, not hard to accept, the cause is warming from somewhere so if it is not global warming what is it?

  Too many elves.

----------


## johnc

> Too many elves.

  We'd be right if the little devils would stop lighting lumps of coal to toast their marshmellows.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It seems inconceivable that someone would have trouble understanding the fact that for some time summer sea ice is shrinking to lower levels (area) and that winter sea ice is apparently thinner. Sometimes it doesn't hurt to acknowledge fact if for no other reason than to show a capacity for basic reasoning. However we have grown used to the anti crowd who conveniently ignore anything that does not fit a fixed view of the world in general and profer either a distraction or simply ignore the obvious. 
> On current trends summer artic sea ice will eventually dissappear, not hard to accept, the cause is warming from somewhere so if it is not global warming what is it?

  No there is no evidence that the Artic will have an ice free summer. 
You are ASSUMING the trend over the past 30 years will continue, while ignoring the fact that this record started at a cool period.  It is obvious that the ice levels will fluctuate as nothing in our climate system is static.  We are moving toward another cool period so it is wishful thinkng that the trend will continue down.   
I find it very hard to believe that you can not see this.   But only time will prove who is right one way or the other.  Although even then i doubt if you will accept is, as the warmist keep pushing out the time frame they believe the Artic will have an ice free summer. 
it is just like the temp trends the Alarmists just figgured the trend will keep going up.  What a closed minded view, defies any logic. 
There is really nothing more to add to this debate about the ice.

----------


## woodbe

> No there is no evidence that the Artic will have an ice free summer.

  The only evidence is that the Arctic is headed for an ice free summer. There is no evidence that the arctic will not continue to melt and have ice free summers in the near future.   

> You are ASSUMING the trend over the past 30 years will continue, while ignoring the fact that this record started at a cool period.  It is obvious that the ice levels will fluctuate as nothing in our climate system is static.  We are moving toward another cool period so it is wishful thinkng that the trend will continue down.

  Wishful thinking is that the trend will stop. I guess we could bake a cake on the basis that you at least admit there is a trend.  :2thumbsup:    

> I find it very hard to believe that you can not see this.   But only time will prove who is right one way or the other.  Although even then i doubt if you will accept is, as the warmist keep pushing out the time frame they believe the Artic will have an ice free summer. 
> it is just like the temp trends the Alarmists just figgured the trend will keep going up.  What a closed minded view, defies any logic.

  For some definition of logic.  :Smilie:  
 Yea, those pesky scientists keep on doing research and finding more AGW supporting things happening. How dare they!   

> There is really nothing more to add to this debate about the ice.

  So, no science, no physics, no nothing. You have posted nothing of substance on the issue and you have no evidence that the ice trend will stop, yet you claim it will, and still you want to crucify anyone who dares to make a prediction on it. 
The fake sceptics hate the Piomas data. It shows Arctic Ice volume in virtual freefall.  
But we don't even need to look at Piomas, how about Kinnaird et al. 2011, Nature, 479, 509-512, doi:10.1038/nature10581)   
I think they call that a death spiral. 
woodbe

----------


## Dr Freud

> it is just like the temp trends the Alarmists just figgured the trend will keep going up.  *What a closed minded view*, defies any logic.

  Well said.  This cult actually teaches their followers that closed mindedness is a virtue.  :Screwy:  
This is part of the indoctrination process.  Here's some of this teaching from one of their "authority figures" they "believe".   

> Naomi Oreskes (Professor in warmist cultism) has an op-ed in the LA TIMES today entitled "The verdict is in on Climate Change", with subheading *When it comes to climate change, openmindedness is the wrong approach.*  Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach | Climate Etc.

  Any wonder these adherents are so messed up?   :No:  
At least other more self-respecting cults hide the fact they teach closed mindedness with more virtuous sounding platitudes:   

> My own journey from the closed mind of a fundamentalist to an open mind took many years and still continues to this day. Fear is what keeps the cultist inside a cult. Those outside do not realise what goes on inside the mind and heart of a cult member...Education is the only way to escape the closed mind...I have realised that most religious belief systems have much the same kind of fundamentalist ideas and are closed minded...The problem is that when you take the journey out of a closed mind, you find that you can talk to less and less people. My former friends and some who are still friends, cannot understand my open mind, and I have to talk to them on restricted subjects.  Joe Bageant: The joy of being liberated from cults

    

> Why, then, do they not see a problem? Evidently, something else has prevented them from objectively analyzing factual information.  Their minds are trained to stop short of doubting the organization--a wall has been erected which says, in effect, "This far you may go, and no further."...The motivation is fear; the underlying problem is misplaced securities.  Cult Help and Information - Opening the Closed Mind by Randall Watters

  Let's see that again:   

> *
> The motivation is fear; the underlying problem is misplaced securities.*

  Now, which cult do we know that uses massive scaremongering (fear) to drive trust in authority figures (misplaced securities)? 
Yeh, that's right?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *
> Now, which cult do we know that uses massive scaremongering (fear)* to drive trust in authority figures (misplaced securities)?

   

> I think they call that a death spiral. 
> woodbe

  AAAAARGHHHHH!!!! Not a*DEATH SPIRAL*!!!!!  AAAAAAARRRRRGGGHHH!!!!     :Roflmao2:    

> Yeh, that's right?

----------


## woodbe

Hey Doc, 
About time you showed up, your mate Rod has been struggling with this summer ice thing, needs all the help he can get.  :Biggrin:  
I see you don't seem to have any answers yet either, judging by your attempts to change the subject... 
Are you with Rod, 'the trend is going to turn any day now' on this, or are you hiding under the bench?  
I thought about the death _spiral_ description, and I think it's more of a death _dive_. Whatcha reckon?   
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Cold is much worse than heat. 
Gee I hope you are right about global warming and the predictions of a new "Dalton Minimum" are wrong. 
"European cold snap death toll rises to 71  
Read more: European cold snap death toll rises to 71 | News.com.au"

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Hey Doc, 
> About time you showed up, your mate Rod has been struggling with this summer ice thing, needs all the help he can get.  
> I see you don't seem to have any answers yet either, judging by your attempts to change the subject... 
> Are you with Rod, 'the trend is going to turn any day now' on this, or are you hiding under the bench?  
> I thought about the death _spiral_ description, and I think it's more of a death _dive_. Whatcha reckon?   
> woodbe.

  No not struggling at all.  You (and alarmists, warmists) just make stupid predictions based on anything but scientific evidence, yet claim it to be scientific.   
Anyone can draw a line trend line on a graph and assume it will continue trending that way until it is all gone.  What a load of rubbish.  It has always waxed and wanned and it will continue to do so.  I cant vouch for the validity of the graph you post, but this does not explain why the Antartic ice is above normal!!  If as you say AGW is the cause of Artic ice melt why has the GLOBAL warming not melted the Antartic ice?? 
This is a beat up, nothing more to it. You keep harping on about the loss of Artic ice, Yet it is nothing unusual, there is evidence that the ice was as low as it is now 100 years ago that does not corespond with the graph you present!! 
How accurate is this reconstruction?? it does not fit with observations from old shipping logs etc. 
What causes people to believe this hype I have no idea, it sure as hell has me beat. 
BTW where have I ever suggest there was never a trend down both in temps and ice? We agree on this, just don't agree on the causes.  Sheeez go back a few thousand posts, this is old ground.

----------


## Dr Freud

> More poppycock trying to spin your mistake. 
> The NASA climate scientist was clearly referring to summer melt from 2007. He didn't say January 2007, he said Summer. You made a simple mistake, all you had to say is 'oops', yet now you are faced with yet more and more convoluted spinning to try and reinvent your story to make your error look like you meant it. 
> woodbe.

  Yes, my post clearly showed that he was referring to the end of summer 2012 for his ridiculous scaremongering prediction.  Thanks for reiterating this as it helps me prove how you have again made a failed assumption. 
I'm happy to keep refuting your failed assumptions with evidence.  While monotonous for me, I still get a flicker of merriment as I picture someone chuckling while reading of your assumptions being proven wrong, again and again.  :Biggrin:  
Now, for whatever reason, you've falsely assumed I stated that this climate clowns prediction has already been proved wrong by posting the images I did.  I have posted many facts proving your assumption wrong, yet you still cling to it like a security blanket. 
Here's some more facts proving you wrong:   

> I guess that melting *is going to* have do some serious catching up before it is all "gone", huh?

  This bold bit means the prediction hasn't failed yet, but is likely to in the future, hence the graphs are not designed to prove the prediction as already failed as you wrongly assumed, but to give readers a mechanism to track this prediction to it's future failure.  At posting the date was 22 Jan 2012 as you have already noted.  It is currently 28 Jan 2012, slowly heading to about 21 September 2012 (end of summer 2012), when the prediction can be laughed resoundingly out of existence, like all the other failures.  Tick tock, tick tock.   

> *Simple Future*Simple Future has two different forms in English: "will" and "be going to."   
> Both "will" and "be going to" can express the idea of a general prediction about the future. Predictions are guesses about what might happen in the future. In "prediction" sentences, the subject usually has little control over the future and therefore USES 1-3 do not apply. In the following examples, there is no difference in meaning.   The year 2222 *is going to be* a very interesting year.  ENGLISH PAGE - Simple Future

  They even put a little picture in there to help you understand this concept better.  There are exercises at the link if you need more practice.  :Biggrin:  
You call it "poppycock", us realists call it "future simple verb tense". 
I apologise again for my assumption that all readers understand the difference between future tense and past tense. If anyone has any similar problems in the future, please let me know and I am more than happy to explain my sentence structure in detail.  When it gets late, my syntax sometimes degrades, so I am always happy to provide more clarity as required. 
In this case, my syntax was fantastic, and I've been happy to help you understand the difference between future tense and past tense syntax. I won't even invoice you for the lesson. There was also a linguistic concept known as "sarcasm" contained in the syntax.  If you would like more information on this, please let me know.   :Biggrin:  
I'll cover your pathological clinging to Santa's and Superman's home in another post.  It will be more exciting than this educative one.   :Read:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I understand your glee in wanting to show a single season's melt result as a nail in the coffin of AGW. 
> woodbe.

  Yet you post a quote about a single month's data.  :Doh:  
But this has nothing to do with a single season's melt result.  It has everything to do with scaremongering and ridiculous predictions made by climate clowns and their psychic computer models. 
And don't worry about the nails anymore, there are more than enough to hold this lid down.     

> People on your side of the ledger do not like being reminded of the *frankly alarming* and accelerating loss of Arctic Ice. 
> woodbe.

  AAAAARGHHHHH!!!! Not *FRANKLY ALARMING STUFF*!!!!!  AAAAAAARRRRRGGGHHH!!!!     :Roflmao2:   
I don't want to break the bad news champ, but the ice up there has melted many times before just in recorded history.  When was this statement made:   

> "_It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated. _  _(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations." _ President of the Royal Society, London

  The President of the Royal Society doesn't sound very *FRANKLY ALARMED*, does he?  Almost positive about the warming and melting, huh?   :Doh:  
What about this little trip:   

> For instance, a name media would love for global warming alarmists not to know is Roald Amundsen, a Norwegian explorer who successfully navigated the Northwest Passage on August 26, 1905 (h/t Walt Bennett, Jr.):
> Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz1l8zieqM8

  
More previous melting ice:   

> The international news media are hailing the archaeological find of a British naval ship the _HMS Investigator_ on July 25 in an area far north (600 km) of the Arctic Circle that was previously unreachable due to sea ice. The _HMS Investigator_ was abandoned in 1853, but not before sailing the last leg of the elusive Northwest Passage. 
> Interesting that the ship was lost in 1853, right at the end of the Little Ice Age, and coincidentally just 3 years after the start of the HADCRU global temperature record, from which we are led to believe the earth has warmed about 0.7C. If we are seeing unprecedented global temperatures and changes in Arctic sea ice, how did the _HMS Investigator_ get this far north at the end of the Little Ice Age?  NW Passage open

  You should have stuck to the polar bear scaremongering, but even they are now too embarrassed to be associated with this farce.     
And what's happening south of the border?   

> *Sea Ice 2012*  		Posted by Jeff Condon on January 28, 2012
>   		 			I have reworked my sea ice code to account for leap years and to make it easier to read.  It wasnt a terribly easy process but it was useful.   Here I will present some plots of sea ice trend as derived from the gridded satellite data.  The purpose of this was to verify their accuracy and lay groundwork for future posts on sea ice.    
> Unfortunate statistically significant growth of ice during unprecedented *death-spiral* () sea ice doom.    
> Unfortunate statistically significant loss of ice during unprecedented death-spiral sea ice doom.    
> All of the graphs here have been taken from the NSIDC gridded data.  Of all the government funded global warming groups I have corresponded with, these people are the best.  The graphs shown are daily data with some linear interpolation for the earliest decade where data was missing.     AR corrected c0nfidence intervals are reasonable but are getting close to 1 so dont interpret them too closely.  They also assume a normal distribution  which probably isnt that bad of an assumption.  Bottom line  look at them as an approximation.  - more people should write that. 
>  Now for my signature sea ice plot.  The global sea ice with an offset based on the average area of sea ice.  The purpose of this plot is to explain that there is a heck of a lot of sea ice left on this little blue marble and that *those who panic are in their own special class.*    
> Ok, to be honest, the other purpose is to drive advocates nuts with the very data they promote. 
>  I will present the code for these plots soon.  It is fairly complex, definitely has a C accent that would drive Mosher crazy, but does the job more accurately than anything I have previously produced.

  That's *FRANKLY ALARMING*, is it? He's definitely right about the "special class".  :Biggrin:    

> woodbe.

  As we have learned (or not) previously, these are called effects.  Any proof of the causes? (Please note plurality of the word "causes").

----------


## Dr Freud

> Bloke, there are times when your simple ignorance amazes me....

  What can I say, I'm an amazing bloke.  :Biggrin:    

> The same thing happens and has been happening for over twenty years in climate science.

  You've obviously missed most of this thread then?  That's why I help out with the quotes.  You can go back and read the CLIMATEGATE emails yourself if you don't "believe" me.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I see you're still into posting opinion from the media and ignoring the science.  
> woodbe.

  Wow, journalists come really highly qualified these days:   

> Signed by: _Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva._ Full letter is online here at the Wall Street Journal

  So you happily dismiss these qualified and informed opinions as just the "media", but this cult grew on the legally sanctioned muck served up by Al Gore. 
You really are destroying any remnants of credibility in this cult much better than I ever could.   :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

More later, but a parting thought. 
Why is Woodbe still constantly banging on about Arctic Sea Ice when many months ago we thoroughly flayed this farcical semantic distraction? 
The answer is that this semantic distraction stops people looking at the truth such as that posted by Dr David Evans, and this factual data below:      Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online   
This is why GLOBAL WARMING got changed to CLIMATE CHANGE. 
Because the Planet Earth refused to warm in accordance with the psychic computer models. 
Even though NASA and the Climate Clowns readily admit this (now visible thanks to CLIMATEGATE), many faith based adherents refuse to accept this real world data. 
This is how CLIMATE CHANGE is now transforming into ARCTIC ICE MELT HYPOTHESIS. 
This cult is well and truly busted.  :Pop:

----------


## woodbe

> 

   

> Anyone can draw a line trend line on a graph and assume it will continue trending that way until it is all gone.  What a load of rubbish.

  Hate to break it to you Rod, but those are not 'trend lines' Those blue ones from about mid 1800's are observations, and the pink ones are from the reconstruction I linked but you don't seem to have bothered to read. Maybe he should have published it at news.com.au instead? Here's the link again: Kinnard et al.   

> Arctic sea ice extent is now more than two million square kilometres  less than it was in the late twentieth century, with important  consequences for the climate, the ocean and traditional lifestyles in  the Arctic1, 2. Although observations show a more or less continuous decline for the past four or five decades3, 4,  there are few long-term records with which to assess natural sea ice  variability. Until now, the question of whether or not current trends  are potentially anomalous5  has therefore remained unanswerable. Here we use a network of  high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to  reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show thatalthough  extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth  centuryboth the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea  ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. Enhanced  advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic6  seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on  multidecadal timescales, and may result from nonlinear feedbacks between  sea ice and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. These  results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of  Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic  sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming.

   

> It has always waxed and wanned and it will continue to do so.  I cant vouch for the validity of the graph you post, but this does not explain why the Antartic ice is above normal!!  If as you say AGW is the cause of Artic ice melt why has the GLOBAL warming not melted the Antartic ice?? 
> This is a beat up, nothing more to it. You keep harping on about the loss of Artic ice, Yet it is nothing unusual, there is evidence that the ice was as low as it is now 100 years ago that does not corespond with the graph you present!! 
> How accurate is this reconstruction?? it does not fit with observations from old shipping logs etc.

  Rod, mate. It uses old shipping logs as part of it's sources. Haha. On what basis do you make this claim? 
The loss of the Arctic Ice is unusual, and it is cause for concern regardless of your flippancy. Once again, you disrespect the work of scientists to suit your opinion.   

> What causes people to believe this hype I have no idea, it sure as hell has me beat. 
> BTW where have I ever suggest there was never a trend down both in temps and ice? We agree on this, just don't agree on the causes.  Sheeez go back a few thousand posts, this is old ground.

  Actually, no, you suggested that the ice free summer was never going to happen because the trend would magically change:   

> No there is no evidence that the Artic will have an ice free summer. 
> You are ASSUMING the trend over the past 30 years will continue, while  ignoring the fact that this record started at a cool period.  It is  obvious that the ice levels will fluctuate as nothing in our climate  system is static.  We are moving toward another cool period so it is  wishful thinkng that the trend will continue down.

  Talking about the Antarctic while you continue to deny the reality of the Arctic is just changing the Subject, as I see our good Dr Freud is attempting once again. The simple reality is that even with the small trend up there, the global polar Ice is still in decline. You can see that even looking at the graphs he posted even though they don't seem to come from peer reviewed sources:   

> 

   I will point out that the axis markings 2e+06 may be an attempt to obsfucate the extent of the changes shown on this graphic. Understandable, considering it's source. 2e+06 translates to 2 Million. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Why is Woodbe still constantly banging on about Arctic Sea Ice when many months ago we thoroughly flayed this farcical semantic distraction?

  Well, not for the reasons you quote at any rate. 
The Arctic Ice melt is real, it's obvious, it's undeniable (well, unless you are like Rod and predict an imminent recovery), and it's something that people can relate to. It is also a clear indicator that rapid change is happening to our climate.  
Despite what fake sceptics suggest, Climate Scientists do not discount natural variability, instead they point out that even taking natural variability into account, our climate is changing faster than it should be. (note to Rod, we're talking climate here, not weather!) There is clear physics of the Carbon Cycle that even few denialists continue to deny even though they tried for a long time - the truth overwhelmed their denial and they were ridiculed for it so they had to accept the physics. Those physics clearly show the results of increasing atmospheric CO2 and we can see the effects of those physics in our planet, nowhere more clearly than in the Arctic.  
This is why we get such a strong reaction from our resident fake sceptics, and they try and bury any mention of the changes in the Arctic, mostly by changing the subject or by claiming 'we have dealt with this before' whereas what they have done is to just make a lot of noise and shoot the messenger whilst bringing up any spurious issue they can to take the debate away from the subject. 
For instance, Doc now brings in a known serial misinformer and quotes a 1997-2012 graphic as evidence. I mean, seriously, what a load of bunk. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

Just in case I get accused of not responding to your questions, Rod.   

> If as you say AGW is the cause of Artic ice melt why has the GLOBAL warming not melted the Antartic ice??

  That's one of your better questions Rod. I think you probably already know one of the reasons, you just haven't connected it yet:
 . What's under the Antarctic ice: BedRock 
What's under the Arctic ice: Seawater 
What's been happening to the Seawater (oceans): They've been warming:    
Source: Lyman 2010, Longer term (1955+) data at Levitus 2009 
That's a double bummer for the arctic, isn't it? 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Just in case I get accused of not responding to your questions, Rod.   
> That's one of your better questions Rod. I think you probably already know one of the reasons, you just haven't connected it yet:
> .What's under the Antarctic ice: BedRock _Which is irrelevant, If you could only read & understand the graph it was referring to antarctic sea ice which has sea water under it too _ What's under the Arctic ice: Seawater 
> What's been happening to the Seawater (oceans): They've been warming:   
> Source: Lyman 2010, Longer term (1955+) data at Levitus 2009 
> That's a double bummer for the arctic, isn't it._ I'd like see you try & put some temperatures into that graph you have posted there so it becomes meaningful to represent your arguement_ 
> woodbe.

  Funny how the so called indicators are mostly occurring in the nthn hemisphere where the most industrialisation occurs. But I will give you a hint. sprinkle some fine carbon particles onto snow or ice & you can see how quickly it accelerates melting, as they / we clean up particulate pollution the more ice & snow retention will occur, this govt is picking your pocket over this ruse & some people will never be bright enough to ever realise it  
regards inter

----------


## johnc

The Ozone hole over the Antartic has a cooling effect which is one of the explanations given for summer Antartic sea ice remaining at higher levels than Artic summer sea ice,

----------


## woodbe

> What's under the Antarctic ice: BedRock _Which  is irrelevant, If you could only read & understand the graph it was  referring to antarctic sea ice which has sea water under it too_

  Really? Really? I think we had better look at the question again to see if I answered the question I was asked, or the question you think I was asked:   

> If as you say AGW is the cause of Artic ice melt why has the GLOBAL warming not melted the Antartic ice??

  Nope, the question was why the Antactic Ice isn't melting like the Arctic. Having the Antarctic Ice sitting on land means the warming oceans are not effecting it like they do the Arctic. Note that I didn't suggest this was the only reason, and yes, I do understand what Sea Ice is, thanks.   

> That's a double bummer for the arctic, isn't it._  I'd like see you try & put some temperatures into that graph you  have posted there so it becomes meaningful to represent your arguement_

  I see. Please add youself the the large group of false sceptics who don't understand anomolies.   

> Funny how the so called indicators are mostly occurring in the nthn hemisphere where the most industrialisation occurs. But I will give you a hint. sprinkle some fine carbon particles onto snow or ice & you can see how quickly it accelerates melting, as they / we clean up particulate pollution the more ice & snow retention will occur, this govt is picking your pocket over this ruse & some people will never be bright enough to ever realise it

  Thanks for supplying another possible reason why the Arctic Ice melts. Unfortunately this does not negate the indicators of global warming, nor the physics. The indicators show warming in both hemispheres. Red=Southern Hemisphere, Green=Northern Hemisphere:   
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Really? Really? I think we had better look at the question again to see if I answered the question I was asked, or the question you think I was asked:   
> Nope, the question was why the Antactic Ice isn't melting like the Arctic. Having the Antarctic Ice sitting on land means the warming oceans are not effecting it like they do the Arctic. Note that I didn't suggest this was the only reason, and yes, I do understand what Sea Ice is, thanks.   
> I see. Please add youself the the large group of false sceptics who don't understand anomolies.   
> Thanks for supplying another possible reason why the Arctic Ice melts. Unfortunately this does not negate the indicators of global warming, nor the physics. The indicators show warming in both hemispheres. Red=Southern Hemisphere, Green=Northern Hemisphere:   
> woodbe.

  You poor bugger woodbe you are genuinely terrified of Globull warming aren't you?  Don't worry mate you will be ok we aint gonna fry just yet.

----------


## woodbe

> You poor bugger woodbe you are genuinely terrified of Globull warming aren't you?  Don't worry mate you will be ok we aint gonna fry just yet.

  Mate, I'm not terrified of anything except bad spelling.  :Biggrin:  
Once again, you avoid discussing ice loss.  
What would a sceptic do? Check facts, perhaps. Find that the Land ice in Antartica is losing mass anyway?   _Ice mass changes for the Antarctic ice sheet from April  2002 to February 2009. Unfiltered data are blue crosses. Data filtered  for the seasonal dependence are red crosses. The best-fitting quadratic  trend is shown as the green line (__Velicogna 2009__)._  
This starts from 2002 because that's when the GRACE satellite went up. 
Don't tell me Rod, this one is about to turn around as well?  :Shock:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

woodbe.[/QUOTE]Mate, I'm not terrified of anything except bad spelling.  :Biggrin: [/quote] 
You are way too serious woodbe!! 
BTW I am sure those in Europe could do with a bit of global warming right now!!   
What you are seeing here is a fine example of what to expect in the next 30 years as the earth goes into a cooling phase. 
How long will it take before even the die hard warmists have to admit defeat?  I know it won't take the public very long,  most of them are already there. 
Your ice argument means nothing Woodbe.  Ice extent will come and go as it has always done.  It is a very long straw to connect ice reduction to CO2.  The old causation thing vs corellation.  The burden of proof argument again!  You say we need to prove that Co2 is not the cause while we say you have to prove it is.  Really think about this for a second?  
One thing is for certain, that is, that there will always be ice at the poles while you and I are alive.

----------


## woodbe

> woodbe.    
> 			
> 				Mate, I'm not terrified of anything except bad spelling.     You are way too serious woodbe!! 
> BTW I am sure those in Europe could do with a bit of global warming right now!!

  Weather is not climate. Did you miss the  :Biggrin:  ?   

> What you are seeing here is a fine example of what to expect in the next 30 years as the earth goes into a cooling phase.

  Please back this claim up with references to science.   

> How long will it take before even the die hard warmists have to admit defeat?  I know it won't take the public very long,  most of them are already there.

  I for one am very willing to admit defeat. Just show me the science. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

Just to recap our Ice Story, for those who didn't catch all the information buried here.  *1. The Arctic is well on the way to an Ice-Free Summer.*      *2. Even with the minor increase in sea ice in the Antarctic, most sceptics still agree with the published science that the Global Ice Area is in in decline and has been for some time:*    *3. Notwithstanding the small increase in Antarctic Sea Ice, Antarctic Land Ice (that's most of it) is in decline:*    *4. We haven't raised this one yet, but we should I guess to cover off all the large Ice Sheets: Greenland.* 
The Greenland Ice Sheet is, like Antartica, losing mass at an accelerating rate:     _Greenland ice mass anomaly - deviation from the average ice mass  over the 2002 to 2010 period. Note: this doesn't mean the ice sheet was  gaining ice before 2006 but that ice mass was above the 2002 to 2010  average. _ *5. Lastly, what's happening to the Glaciers?*  
Mean cumulative mass balance of all reported glaciers (blue line) and the reference glaciers (red line) 
From the World Glacier Monitoring Service 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

*3. Notwithstanding the small increase in Antarctic Sea Ice, Antarctic Land Ice (that's most of it) is in decline:*      
Woodbee, where do you get this stuff from??? according to the Australian Antarctic Division website the rate of snow / ice accumulation on the interior of antarctica is at an all time high which has accelerated iceberg calving at the edges of the cap, I dare say it but they have a simple map with areas of accumulation shown in different colours, the accumulation colour easily seen to being the greater of the two.
On the previous post I have got to love the graphs of all the worlds glaciers, which dont include antarcticas glaciers which is where the majority of the worlds glacial ice is.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> *3. Notwithstanding the small increase in Antarctic Sea Ice, Antarctic Land Ice (that's most of it) is in decline:*      
> Woodbee, where do you get this stuff from??? according to the Australian Antarctic Division website the rate of snow / ice accumulation on the interior of antarctica is at an all time high which has accelerated iceberg calving at the edges of the cap, I dare say it but they have a simple map with areas of accumulation shown in different colours, the accumulation colour easily seen to being the greater of the two.
> regards inter

  Anywhere I can find non denial based information backed with peer reviewed papers. The Land Ice information above is based on the GRACE Satellite data and _(__Velicogna 2009__)_ 
I believe your information about increased snow accumulation in the interior of Antarctica (especially East Antarctica) is correct, (hooray) however the increase is balanced by increased loss at the edges by the method you describe. Note that since 2006, East Antarctica has been losing mass (Chen 2009). Net result over all of the Antarctica Land Ice is net loss as confirmed by GRACE. Increased precipitation is consistent with a warming world (warming leads to more evaporation and precipitation).    _ Ice mass changes (solid lines with circles) and their best-fitting  linear trends (dashed line) for the West Antarctica Ice Sheet (red) and  East Antarctica Ice Sheet (green) for April 2002 to August 2005 (__Velicogna 2007__)._ 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> according to the Australian Antarctic Division website the rate of snow / ice accumulation on the interior of antarctica is at an all time high which has accelerated iceberg calving at the edges of the cap, I dare say it but they have a simple map with areas of accumulation shown in different colours, the accumulation colour easily seen to being the greater of the two.

  interd6, I had a look for your chart, but no luck. Have you got a link? I did find this though:   

> Ice loss from the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland is contributing  to sea level rise at an accelerating rate. Much of this loss is due to  increased discharge of ice by the large glaciers draining the ice  sheets, rather than by surface melt. However, the nature, rapidity and  extent of the ice sheet response to climate change are poorly  understood, leading to a large uncertainty in projections of sea level  rise over the next century and beyond.

  The Antarctic ice sheet :: Australian Antarctic Division 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> On the previous post I have got to love the graphs of all the worlds glaciers, which dont include antarcticas glaciers which is where the majority of the worlds glacial ice is.
> regards inter

  Thanks for your comment. I will point out that the WGMS does monitor a few Glaciers in Antarctica, you can see them in their latest report (PDF) however they clearly don't monitor the whole of Antarctica. I did cover Antartica in (3) above as a separate item though? 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> LOL - I give up like explaining something to a brick wall

  A brick wall will move more easily than a mind that has been deliberately closed by authority figures preaching cultish beliefs.   

> Well said.  This cult actually teaches their followers that closed mindedness is a virtue.  
> This is part of the indoctrination process.  Here's some of this teaching from one of their "authority figures" they "believe". 
>  Naomi Oreskes (Professor in warmist cultism) has an op-ed in the LA TIMES today entitled "The verdict is in on Climate Change", with subheading *When it comes to climate change, openmindedness is the wrong approach.* 
> Any wonder these adherents are so messed up?

----------


## intertd6

Ice sheets and sea-level rise :: Australian Antarctic Division
 most of the graphs & information you have posted appears to be misleading in the favour of your cult, how can you be taken seriously?
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> Communication 101 
> woodbe.

  I guess they don't cover verb tense in this course any more?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Clearly, you don't have a response regarding Summer Ice. Despite year by year variations, it remains in unrelenting decline. 
> woodbe.

  Let's assume all your pretty pictures are credible.  :Doh:  
Clearly, you don't have any proof as to why? 
The only thing in unrelenting decline is the credibility of the zealots attached to a faith based belief system pretending they have empirical evidence behind their belief system.

----------


## Dr Freud

> you predict it will happen within 10 years!! Yet it was pedicted to be this comming summer, which is the prediction we are taking the piss out of.  
> But I guess by pushing the prediction date out and trying to support that with graphs that in NO way shows scientific evidence this will happen, will at least keep the scare going for a while longer.   
> By now though most sensible people have come to realise that the scaremongering by warmists is just that.  Just too many failed predictions have passed now for any further predictions to have any credibility whatsoever.   
> Cheers

  Let's see some other cults predicting their Armageddon:    

> Throughout history, there have been those who have predicted the Coming of the End, the Consummation of All Things, the Return of Christ, Armageddon, Ragnarok, what-have-you. The majority of these seers and prognosticators were wise enough to leave the date unspecified, presumably to avoid embarrassment when the expected event failed to materialize. Others, such as Nostradamus and Bishop Ussher, put the date far into the future, long after their corporeal bodies had returned to dust.  
>   There are those few brave souls, however, who are willing to stick their necks out, and give us a date in the near future, when they themselves will presumably still be around to either bask in the glow of glory, or suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, should the cosmic plan go awry. It is to these, the few, the brave and most importantly, the Web-enabled that this list is dedicated.  The Doomsday List - Older Predictions

    

> And here's the current scientific prediction to the end of the Planet Earth:        *ca. 4,500,000,000 AD*  *The sun will swell into a red giant star, swallowing Mercury, Venus, Earth, and perhaps Mars. This will be the true end of the world!*     Doomsday: The Future

  That pesky Sun again, huh? Who woulda thunk it.  Did you have your money on the cows farting?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Quibbling over the exact timing of a climate prediction is a waste of effort and intelligence.  New data will always influence the timing of a prediciton because it is typically the most variable/unstable part of the prediction.

  So, as the data is always changing in ways the climate clowns cannot predict, this could take millions or billions of years according to your logic. 
The current alleged "travesty" in the lack of warming data is evidence of this, eh? 
Yet JuLIAR's BIG NEW TAX will arrive as predicted on 1 July this year.  Cool huh, some predictions are remarkably accurate.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Here they come!!!  The rats are jumping ship!!  German Fear Of Warming PlummetsYet-To-Be-Published Skeptic Book Climbs To Amazon.de No. 4! 
> Gotta love that! 
> Seriously it is good to see that, (although belatedly), people of influence are comming to their senses.

  I loved this bit:   

> Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate were similarly sloppy. In his book he explains how he dug into the IPCC climate report and was horrified by what he had found. Then add the 10 years of stagnant temperatures, failed predictions, Climategate e-mails, and discussions he had with dozens of other skeptical elite scientists. That was more than enough. FOCUS quotes: I couldnt take it any more. I had to write this book.

  The well worn path to reality that most former believers in this cult (myself included) have travelled.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I loved this bit:   
> The well worn path to reality that most former believers in this cult (myself included) have travelled.

  Funny eh!  At one stage I though global warming was true as well.  Then came all the bull @@@@ predictions of armageddon that could only be backed up with a bunch of maybey's might's and could's. 
My bull @@@@ metrer went offf the scale, and here we are.  I guess some folks need their bull @@@@ meter adjusdted!!

----------


## Dr Freud

> Can you post a list the peer reviewed climate science papers they have published

  They don't need to publish their own, they can just read the farcical ones that the climate clowns have published and used, because in all of these climate clowns "peer reviewed" papers, *there is zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.*   

> The book cites more than 800 sources, many are peer-reviewed papers that appeared after the IPCC 2007 report. Its the latest summary of the state of climate science out there. It does not dispute CO2 as a driver. The book simply cuts it down to size, and backs it up with hard literature and data.

   

> that prove AGW is false?

  After all this time you still don't get this?  Even after Trenberth became the laughingstock of the scientific community by suggesting that the NULL be reversed?  Do you even understand that you are asking for the same thing?   
If anyone wants to read one page that explains the basic scientific principles that show this cult to be farcical, read this:  Unequivocal Equivocation – an open letter to Dr. Trenberth | Watts Up With That? 
Also watch closely the  personal mudslinging about oil companies, tobacco companies, or whatever mudslinging they think will distract innocent people from noticing they cannot argue against the scientific facts.   

> How about the Arctic Summer Ice, Rod. Gee you're good at changing the subject, aren't you?

  The thread is actually about the *Anthropogenic Global Warming* Hypothesis. 
Here's the *Global* (*lack of Warming*) bit (remember, these are called "effects").   
As for the alleged *Anthropogenic* causes, most realise now that the fact is there is zero scientific evidence proving this.  :Biggrin:  
And what would it have proved anyway, that the temperature *has not changed trends for nearly two decades*, and we humans caused this?   :Doh:  
So, who's good at changing the subject then?  Semantic distraction, eh?

----------


## Dr Freud

> I say it will be ice free sometime in the future based on: *reality* - the acceleration of ice loss due to global warming. 
>  woodbe.

  So, you look at some observed data, then you make an assumption that everything that has been happening in the past will continue to happen in the future, and then you also assume that nothing new will happen in the future to alter the outcomes that have occurred in the past.  Then you wrap all of these assumptions up into a future prediction.  Then you ignore all the failed predictions that have used this exact flawed methodology the achieve abject failure.  Then, you call this future "vision" of yours *reality?* 
I seriously think you need to read up a bit more on time travel.  I have my on views on the determinist/multiverse/infinity paradigms, but my friend, I never delude myself into convincing other people these are *reality.*   

> *re·al·i·ty/rēˈalətē/*Noun: The world or *the state of things as they actually exist*, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: "he refuses to face reality".

  By definition, future predictions cannot actually exist in reality.  
But let's play along with this delusion for a while and assume this trend does continue ad infinitum.   

> *de·lu·sion/diˈlo͞oZHən/*Noun: An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality,...

  Assuming the melting continues, why did the President of the Royal Society think this is a good thing?   

> "_It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated. _  _(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations." _ President of the Royal Society, London

     

> Face it, you don't want to admit that the Arctic will be ice free, so you change the subject.  
> woodbe.

  
It certainly has been in the past, and it will likely also be in the future.  The climate changes, get used to it or change planets. 
But here's the question related to the AGW farce: 
Are human CO2 emissions causing the Planet Earth to heat catastrophically in accordance with all the assumptions in the AGW Hypothesis, and if so, should the Arctic become ice free, is this solely attributable to this confirmed anthropogenic effect? 
Here's the current short answer: 
No!  :No:   
Simple, huh? 
You can learn more about the scientific principle of cause and effect from my earlier posts, or Google it for deeper explanations.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I thought about the death _spiral_ description, and I think it's more of a death _dive_. Whatcha reckon?   
> woodbe.

  I reckon you should read more CLIMATEGATE emails and understand the statistical flaws in Mike's Nature Trick, then you would realise the inanity of this graph.    Mike’s Nature trick « Climate Audit  
What moronic journal would publish the same spurious "trick" after the previous ridicule?  Oh yeh, this is also published in nature.  :Biggrin:  
But in Kinnard's defence, he has at least provided many caveats to use caution when reading his ridiculous data presentations:   

> although *extensive uncertainties remain*, especially before the sixteenth centuryboth the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice *seem to be* unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic6 *seems to be* the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales, and *may* result from nonlinear feedbacks between sea ice and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. These results reinforce the *assertion* that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is *consistent with* anthropogenically forced warming.

  But maybe, just maybe, he suspected the true "believers" in the cause would throw in some scaremongering then post his spuriously adjusted data as facts, when they clearly are not.  :Doh:  
Welcome to the newest Hockey Stick farce.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> On current trends summer artic sea ice will eventually dissappear, not hard to accept, the cause is warming from somewhere so if it is not global warming what is it?

  So first, you believe that if a line on a graph heads in a certain direction, it will always do this? 
Second, because some authority figure makes up an unproven story as to why, you believe it, because you can't think of any other cause? 
I think the increased natural warmth is leading to humans wearing less clothes, leading to increased sexual attraction and then sex, leasing to more kids and more people.  As the world gets warmer, the population will keep growing faster, forever.   
Here's the future Planet Earth by your logic:

----------


## Dr Freud

It's gonna be tough for nearly all that Arctic ice to melt in the next few months:   

> *European cold snap death toll leaps to 175* *Officials set up 3,000 heating and food shelters in Ukraine*

  They're certainly making sure they *burn more Carbon based fuels to stop from freezing to death:*   

> Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Saturday that Gazprom should take great effort to ensure natural gas exports to Europe, which is experiencing an extremely cold snap.

      
I might email this guy and tell him that us Aussies will soon be paying heaps more TAX to make the Planet Earth colder.  :Biggrin:  
It might start the next "Cold War"?  :Roflmao:

----------


## woodbe

> Ice sheets and sea-level rise :: Australian Antarctic Division  most of the graphs & information you have posted appears to be misleading in the favour of your cult, how can you be taken seriously? regards inter

       You mean this one: 
.    

> Much of this part of Antarctica is nearly in balance, although gains in  the Lambert Glacier Basin (LGB, top) and Wilkes Land (bottom) lead to an  overall gain for this part of the ice sheet that is equivalent to a  drop in sea level of 0.1 mm per year. Different balance conditions in  other parts of Antarctica, and between the 2000 m elevation contour and  the coastline, also impact sea level, and overall Antarctica is  contributing to a net sea level rise. From the report: Australia’s contribution to Antarctic Climate Science (2008).

    I think if you re-read the Antartica section, you will find mention of East Antartica. Nothing here that refutes what I have posted, published science or gathered data on ice-loss, despite your opinion. Lets stick to the science shall we?   
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Here's the *Global* (*lack of Warming*) bit (remember, these are called "effects").   
> As for the alleged *Anthropogenic* causes, most realise now that the fact is there is zero scientific evidence proving this.  
> And what would it have proved anyway, that the temperature *has not changed trends for nearly two decades*, and we humans caused this?

  I'm surprised interd6 does not pick you up on supplying misleading information in the favor of your cult. You know enough about science to know why that graphic is rubbish. 14 years? Give us a break! 
If however you are convinced the planet is cooling, perhaps you'd like to explain why the ice is disappearing at an accelerating rate planet wide?       
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> I reckon you should read more CLIMATEGATE emails and understand the statistical flaws in Mike's Nature Trick, then you would realise the inanity of this graph.

  So you dispute that the blue line represents modern Arctic Sea Ice Observations? That was the reason I posted it. It shows an Arctic Sea Ice Extent fall from ~10 Million Square Kilometers to something less than 8 Million Square Kilometers in the last 100 years. 
Here's the Extent data from September 2011:   
Is ~4.5 less than 8?  :Smilie:  Seems to be in agreement with the current low point on the Kinnard graphic? 
If you look at this graph, it shows a fall in Sea Ice Area from ~5 Million Square Kilometers to 2.9 Million Square Kilometers in the last 30 years. This also appears to show similar rates of loss on the overlapping time period:   
I am noting how the fake sceptics attack the information about the changes measured in the world about them. If you have dispute about the data, please show sources as interd6 has done. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> You mean this one: 
> .      I think if you re-read the Antartica section, you will find mention of East Antartica. Nothing here that refutes what I have posted, published science or gathered data on ice-loss, despite your opinion. Lets stick to the science shall we?   
> woodbe.

  So your saying that mysteriously the remaining antarctic plateau not shown on the above map differs from this finding, it doesnt. The way report reads doesn't reflect what is shown on the above data, which shows that there must be some political influence in the written summary. 
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> The loss of the Arctic Ice is unusual
> woodbe.

  Seriously champ, get a grip.  You're actually starting to scare me now.   :Doh:    

> and it is cause for concern regardless of your flippancy.
>  woodbe.

  The President of the Royal Society actually thought Arctic Ice melt was a good thing in the quote I posted.  Was he also being flippant? 
We realists don't even go this far, we just say that it is business as usual for our little blue ball flying around the Sun.  :Biggrin:    

> Talking about the Antarctic while you continue to deny the reality of the Arctic is just changing the Subject, as I see our good Dr Freud is attempting once again. 
>  woodbe.

  The Arctic is real, I have never denied this.  :Doh:  
But back to this post:   

> More later, but a parting thought. 
> Why is Woodbe still constantly banging on about Arctic Sea Ice when many months ago we thoroughly flayed this farcical semantic distraction? 
> The answer is that this semantic distraction stops people looking at the truth such as that posted by Dr David Evans, and this factual data below:      Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online   
> This is why GLOBAL WARMING got changed to CLIMATE CHANGE. 
> Because the Planet Earth refused to warm in accordance with the psychic computer models. 
> Even though NASA and the Climate Clowns readily admit this (now visible thanks to CLIMATEGATE), many faith based adherents refuse to accept this real world data. 
> This is how CLIMATE CHANGE is now transforming into ARCTIC ICE MELT HYPOTHESIS. 
> This cult is well and truly busted.

  Have you actually given up on trying to defend the AGW hypothesis, so have now switched to clinging to the Arctic Ice Melt hypothesis? 
It would be handy to know, just so I don't waste time rebutting a new hypothesis of your own making that is not yet "peer reviewed".   
I guess as the old one fell apart, you have to search for a new "cause" to believe in, huh?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> For instance, Doc now brings in a known serial misinformer and quotes a 1997-2012 graphic as evidence. I mean, seriously, what a load of bunk. 
> woodbe.

  What or who is a "known serial misinformer"? 
So you think the data in this "1997-2012 graphic as evidence" is not evidence? 
Please explain why this factual data highlighting the ridiculous scaremongering from the psychic computer models is "a load of bunk"?

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm surprised interd6 does not pick you up on supplying misleading information in the favor of your cult.
> woodbe.

  Please quote any misleading information I have supplied?  
Please also describe my "cult"?  I have explained in detail the attributes of the AGW hypothesis cult, if you think there is a cult out there that is "mine", I'd be very interested in learning about it?  :Doh:    

> You know enough about science to know why that graphic is rubbish.
> woodbe.

  All evidence is to the contrary.  Perhaps you could provide us with your learned opinion as to why you think so?  More failed assumptions again no doubt?   

> 14 years?
> woodbe.

  The dates were printed on the graph.  Did you also not comprehend these?   

> Give us a break!
> woodbe.

  The global warming (notice no "anthropogenic") has taken one, you should also feel free.  :Biggrin:    

> If however you are convinced the planet is cooling
> woodbe.

  You and your "belief" based analysis and false assumptions in action again.  I don't need to be convinced of anything.  I just read the data.  Maybe you should too.  It was printed on the graph.  Everyone reading the post can see the numbers.  I follow the data, not the cults belief systems.  Does it look like it is cooling, warming, or staying about the same?  Why don't you "convince" yourself.  :Doh:    

> perhaps you'd like to explain why the ice is disappearing at an accelerating rate planet wide? 
> woodbe.

  You seriously don't get this stuff do you?  After banging on about peer-review blah blah, and how only the experts know what's happening, you then ask for my explanation about a single effect in a massively complex climate system that science currently has ZERO proof as to causality?  You're supposed to be one of the most informed and learned supporters of this failed and flawed AGW hypothesis and it's cultish beliefs. 
When you figure out how science works, you'll learn that this farcical hypothesis has failed through lack of evidence.  You can't provide any.  You just keep posting pretty pictures of effects and then falsely assume the causes are aligned to your belief system.  This is not science.  It's been years now that this thread has been running and you, or other ideologues, have supplied ZERO evidence proving this farce.  In fact, all evidence is now refuting scare after scare.  I'll post heaps more evidence refuting the many scares coming from this cult soon.   :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

I wonder if they're cutting down on burning fossil fuels for heating in the northern hemisphere right now?    

> *Death toll from Europe cold snap nears 300*The Arctic cold snap that has hit Europe for over a week had claimed nearly 300 lives by Sunday, brought air travel chaos to London and dumped snow as far south as Rome and even North Africa. 
> The grim winter toll rose in Ukraine, Poland, Italy and France, where two homeless people found frozen to death were the latest victims, with authorities across the continent reporting at least 297 fatalities. 
> London's Heathrow Airport, the world's busiest air hub by passenger traffic, cancelled a third of the day's flights, while much of Britain was blanketed in snow, leaving drivers stranded on roads overnight. 
> In Italy, which reported a seventh victim, snow-covered Rome was virtually paralyzed, thousands of people were trapped on trains, and the weather emergency sparked runs on supermarkets.  Death toll from Europe cold snap nears 300 | GMA News Online | The Go-To Site for Filipinos Everywhere

  
Maybe it's just the European Carbon Dioxide derivatives trading market actually having it's desired effect?  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

As usual, whatever the effect, the cult confidently "believes" that the cause was their belief system:    

> *2006:*  _The heat wave sweeping Europe is a direct consequence of the warming of the earths atmosphere, experts say. _  _We are observing and suffering the first effects of global warming, Hervé Le Treut, meteorologist at the French Centre for Scientific Research told IPS._  *2012:*  _The bitterly cold weather sweeping Britain and the rest of Europe has been linked by scientists with the ice-free seas of the Arctic, where global warming is exerting its greatest influence._  _A dramatic loss of sea ice covering the Barents and Kara Seas above northern Russia could explain why a chill Arctic wind has engulfed much of Europe and killed 221 people over the past week._ Reality check:     Hotter, colder - it’s always global warming | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Not much time left for nearly all the purple to disappear, is there? 
So much scaremongering to ridicule before this doomsday prophecy also fails.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> So you dispute that the blue line represents modern Arctic Sea Ice Observations? 
> woodbe.

  Where did you read that?  :Doh:    

> I am noting how the fake sceptics attack the information about the changes measured in the world about them. 
>  woodbe.

  Who are these "fake" sceptics?  If they are "fake", does this mean they actually "believe" that the AGW hypothesis is true?   

> If you have dispute about the data, please show sources as interd6 has done. 
> woodbe.

  I never dispute factual data, they are facts.  :Doh:  
As for manipulated and adjusted data, these are not facts, these are artifactual representations of the creators design.  If you read the link I posted (or any of the CLIMATEGATE info), you would have learned this long ago.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> So your saying that mysteriously the remaining antarctic plateau not shown on the above map differs from this finding, it doesnt. The way report reads doesn't reflect what is shown on the above data, which shows that there must be some political influence in the written summary. 
> regards inter

  Thanks for the reply Interd6. 
I'd rather pin my expectations of Antarctic Land Ice mass loss or gain on scientific study than on an undated graphic and a belief of political interference. 
Here is the abstract from Velicogna 2007   

> Using measurements of time-variable  gravity from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites, we  determined mass                         variations of the Antarctic ice sheet during  20022005. We found that the mass of the ice sheet decreased  significantly, at                         a rate of 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per  year, which is equivalent to 0.4 ± 0.2 millimeters of global sea-level  rise                         per year. Most of this mass loss came from the  West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

  Followed by the abstract from Velicogna 2009   

> We use monthly measurements of time-variable gravity from the GRACE  (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite gravity                         mission to determine the ice mass-loss for the  Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets during the period between April 2002  and                         February 2009. We find that during this time  period the mass loss of the ice sheets is not a constant, but  accelerating with                         time, i.e., that the GRACE observations are  better represented by a quadratic trend than by a linear one, implying  that the                         ice sheets contribution to sea level becomes  larger with time. In Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr  in 20022003                         to 286 Gt/yr in 20072009, i.e., an acceleration  of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 20022009. In Antarctica the  mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 20022006 to 246 Gt/yr in  20062009, i.e., an acceleration                         of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 20022009. The observed acceleration in ice sheet mass loss helps reconcile GRACE ice mass estimates obtained for different                         time periods.

  None of this research goes against the possibility that East Antarctica is experiencing more snow than West Antarctica.  
Again, if you have verifiable data showing otherwise, please post it.   

> I never dispute factual data, they are facts.

  Bear with me Doc. Are you disputing or not disputing my summary of worldwide ice loss as posted? 
Rod, can we have some input from you too please. Is this Ice Loss happening or not. Never mind about the ice age you think is coming in 30 years.  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> As usual, whatever the effect, the cult confidently "believes" that the cause was their belief system: 
> Not much time left for nearly all the purple to disappear, is there? 
> So much scaremongering to ridicule before this doomsday prophecy also fails.

  Actually, there's some evidence that global warming and the current extreme hot/cold cycles that have been experienced in the Northern Hemisphere in the last few years are indeed linked. Something about the northern jet stream and blocking events.  There was a summary article in New Scientist back in December that provided some useful links...  Recent warm and cold daily winter temperature extremes in the Northern Hemisphere Large-scale atmospheric circulation changes are associated with the recent loss of Arctic sea ice | Overland | Tellus A Atmospheric Blocking and Atlantic Multidecadal Ocean Variability   
There's no question that there is likely other contributing factors behind these events but there's enough information available to suggest that warming of the Arctic doesn't help.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Woddbe there has been without doubt a reduction in the ice cover over a period of time, I have never disputed this. 
You think you are onto a huge gotcha on this ice issue.  Sorry to dissapoint.  What I don't agreee with is that this trend is a constant that will result in NO ICE.  I think you are in fairy land to think this.  there is no evidence to expect this to be the out come.  It is purely guess work and hype to scare people into believing AGW. 
S & D I cant see where there is a link to AGW in respect the changes to the Jet Stream.  You quite rightly post that there a likely to be other contributing factors.  In other words nobody really knows,  it is so easy to say it is "A"GW that is the cause but without any specific evidence to bak it up.  And yes we all agree that the globe has warmed it is the "A"part of GW that we don't agree on. 
Sheez we have been over this ground so many times before.  Show us the evidence that it is CO2 that is the primary driver of global warming.  No use just using the argument that, it has warmed, Co2 has increased, Co2 is a greenhouse gas, so it must be Co2 that caused the warming.  Evidence of late disputes this, evidence from the past disputes this.  The warmist/greenies/lefties/pollies all want to pidgeon hole Co2 as the cause because it suits other motives.  
Well let me tell you this, the public are wise to this now and you will need to come up with something much better to support your argument.  You can point to declining ice until the cows come home it does not support the "A" in the "GW".   
So come seriously give it a better shot.   You aint got a gottcha woodbe!  What you have is Ziltch.

----------


## woodbe

> Woddbe there has been without doubt a reduction in the ice cover over a period of time, I have never disputed this.

  It's woodbe, Rod.  :Smilie:  
Thanks for that. Leaving AGW aside for the moment, and looking over my summary, and ignoring that I think the trends will continue (and you think they will stop or reverse), do you think that the data and studies shown or referenced are a fair representation of the state of the planetary ice change to this moment (or whatever the latest moment of the summary is)? 
Could I have represented any area of the summary better? 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It's woodbe, Rod.  
> Thanks for that. Leaving AGW aside for the moment, and looking over my summary, and ignoring that I think the trends will continue (and you think they will stop or reverse), do you think that the data and studies shown or referenced are a fair representation of the state of the planetary ice change to this moment (or whatever the latest moment of the summary is)? 
> Could I have represented any area of the summary better? 
> woodbe.

  Mate I would not have a clue if it is correct or not.  I think your reverse hockey stick graph might not stand up to scrutiny though, it looks way too fabricated for my liking.  Bit like the Mann hockey stick, now you have got to admit that is a load of garbage!   I usually follow the ice coverage as reported by this page Sea Ice Reference Page | Watts Up With That?  regardless what you think of WUWT it is a very compehensive record of the ice coverage much of what is here is also what you are refering to.   
I am sorry but is is beyond my comprehension to consider that something that has waxed and waned for umpteen thousand years will suddenly fail to "wax" again and keep dropping until there is no longer any ice in the Artic.  It is beyond me to consider the same of temperatures, the models have shown a steady increase yet this has not happened even though Co2 has kept rising. 
It is beyond me to accept that Co2 emissions can be reduced on a world wide scale when population is growing and while under developing countries are striving to develope.   
It is beyond me to consider that Co2, while it is a greenhouse gas is powerful enough in its minute distribution, to alter our climate significantly, particularly when water vapour is known to be the main contributer to the GHE and represents the major part of the total GHG. And this is before we even consider the impact of the most significant factor controlling our climate, the SUN.   
Mate you are asking too many ducks to line up for this to be believed. 
Then add in all the ALARMIST predictions that have either already failed or been contidicted by science.  This is not even to mention the benefits to the ALARMIST to keep this scare going, like political motivation (control), money, via grants, and the environmental movements rose coloured view of the world.   
Way too many things against you,  seriously unless you fall into one of the catagories mentioned as beneficiaries of this scare, it is hard to believe anyone could support AGW theory, particulaly anyone that has kept up with the debate. 
I presume you would identify with, and fit one of these catagories even though you may not think so?  Don't get me wrong here I am not having a go at you.  We need all types to have a balanced world you know.  The problem is when we have too many of one or another.   
Crikey where would I get my entertainment if there were no WARMISTS?

----------


## chrisp

> It is beyond me to consider that Co2, while it is a greenhouse gas is powerful enough in its minute distribution, to alter our climate significantly, particularly when water vapour is known to be the main contributer to the GHE and represents the major part of the total GHG. And this is before we even consider the impact of the most significant factor controlling our climate, the SUN.

  It may well be beyond you to consider CO2 to be powerful enough to alter the climate, but it is not beyond *every* scientific body of national or international standing in the world. 
There isn't a single reputable scientific organisation or reputable research body anywhere in the world that disputes that man made CO2 is the causing global warming. 
The existence and acceptance of AGW is a non-issue scientifically.     

> Mate you are asking too many ducks to line up for this to be believed.

  Gee mate, you are really drawing a long bow using that argument.  All you have to do is 'line up' every reputable scientific organisation in the world - all of them - and show how they* all* have got it wrong. 
Can you name one scientific organisation of national or international standing that claims *A*GW is non-existent? 
P.S. WUWT, Christopher Monckton, Joe Bastardi and Andrew Bolt ("a journalist *with* a conviction") are not reputable scientific organisations.  :Roflmao:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It may well be beyond you to consider CO2 to be powerful enough to alter the climate, but it is not beyond *every* scientific body of national or international standing in the world. 
> There isn't a single reputable scientific organisation or reputable research body anywhere in the world that disputes that man made CO2 is the causing global warming. 
> The existence and acceptance of AGW is a non-issue scientifically.

  
Funny that see the rest of my post for your answer. 
Don't worry they will change their tune when it suits them. 
There are plenty of members of Scientific organizations that don't agree with their stated positions of AGW.  Some in fact are under intense pressure to modify their official statements.  You do realize that their are peer reviewed papers disputing AGW and that it is NOT A CONSENSUS as these people would have you believe.  You can chose to follow like a lemming if you want but I will chose to think logically, and consider everything on the table before reaching my own conclusion.  Don't worry if they, (or you), can't come up with facts that prove the theory and they stand up to scrutiny I will change my mind and become a believer as well.  Until then I will be very skeptical about the claims.  Maybe even if one of their predictions came off I would think twice. But first they have to stop the wild ass scaremongering because all this does is sets ones bullchit meter off.  I can't think of one prediction that has come off.  Look at Flannery and the "no more rains" prediction what a fool he has made of himself.  Are we to believe any other prediction he makes?  This is hurting "your cause" more than anything.  Well except for the lack of warming while Co2 continues to soar. 
Now which catagory of "believer with a cause" do you put yourself in, that you can't take off the rose coloured glases?  Remember this is not a bad thing as I have said, we need all catagories to make the world balanced. What is important though is that you recognise that their are catagories in the first place. 
Cheers Rod

----------


## woodbe

> Mate I would not have a clue if it is correct or not.  I think your reverse hockey stick graph might not stand up to scrutiny though, it looks way too fabricated for my liking.

  Ok, you would not have a clue but you don't like the 'look' of the reverse hockey stick. I'll see if I can find something less 'alarming'  :Biggrin:  
Anything else? 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Ok, you would not have a clue but you don't like the 'look' of the reverse hockey stick. I'll see if I can find something less 'alarming'  
> Anything else? 
> woodbe.

  Yeah, how about some real evidence AGW is real? 
Where did I say I did not like the "look"?   
Oh and did you think about which camp you were in?

----------


## woodbe

> Yeah, how about some real evidence AGW is real? 
> Where did I say I did not like the "look"?

  How about here:   

> Mate I would not have a clue if it is correct or not.  I think your  reverse hockey stick graph might not stand up to scrutiny though, *it  looks way too fabricated for my liking*.

  Seeing that graph comes from a published scientific paper, I'll be happy to read about a scientific critisism you quote, but in the meantime I'll accept your dislike of it's 'looks' and see if I can find something that 'looks' more acceptable for you.   

> Oh and did you think about which camp you were in?

  Where did you ask about camps :Confused:  I've been in lots of camps though. The last camp I was in. let me think. Yea, it was on a hilltop in the middle of a massive Tasmanian Rainforest. Magnificent.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> Yeah, how about some real evidence AGW is real? 
> Where did I say I did not like the "look"?  
> Oh and did you think about which camp you were in?

  
Firstly it is a shame we have to be in any "camp" in fact those that frequently claim the opposite side are perhaps a cult, deluded dishonest etc are usually the ones least capable of challenging their own views with new information as it becomes available and retreat to whatever default position they have had all along. Also in the type of argument that has been running on this forum you have something that was identified in a 1999 paper by Dunning Kruger in people unskilled and largely unaware in a subject have difficulty in recognising their own incompetence that then lead them to inflated self assessments of their own knowledge.  
Frequently identified by using arguments taken that may appear to support their world view but without the extended knowledge that actually allows those facts to be presented in context and with acknowledgement of inherent weaknesses, margin for error or wider application or ability to be influenced by other forces. 
The problem is most noise is coming from commentators like Monckton or Bolt for example who do not even appear to care for the truth but focus solely on rebutal rather than furthering understanding and providing credible commentary. 
What about evidence that AGW is real? well for some individuals no matter how much the balance of probabilities stack up they will as a result of the Dunning Kruger effect remain unable to see it. This is aimed at the general commentary not at any individual but probably applies to the majority of posters.

----------


## andy the pm

> It may well be beyond you to consider CO2 to be powerful enough to alter the climate, but it is not beyond *every* scientific body of national or international standing in the world. 
> There isn't a single reputable scientific organisation or reputable research body anywhere in the world that disputes that man made CO2 is the causing global warming. 
> The existence and acceptance of AGW is a non-issue scientifically.     
> Gee mate, you are really drawing a long bow using that argument.  All you have to do is 'line up' every reputable scientific organisation in the world - all of them - and show how they* all* have got it wrong. 
> Can you name one scientific organisation of national or international standing that claims *A*GW is non-existent? 
> P.S. WUWT, Christopher Monckton, Joe Bastardi and Andrew Bolt ("an opinionist *with* a conviction") are not reputable scientific organisations.

  Fixed

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It is beyond me to consider that Co2, while it is a greenhouse gas is powerful enough in its minute distribution, to alter our climate significantly, particularly when water vapour is known to be the main contributer to the GHE and represents the major part of the total GHG. And this is before we even consider the impact of the most significant factor controlling our climate, the SUN.

  This is one of my son's favorite books at the moment   
...you could use it as an analogy to this little debate. 
The story involves a cow, a horse, a pig, a sheep and a mouse who all decide to go for a row together in a little boat on the bay.  In the end, all the big animals get into the boat nearly tiping it each time and gettting it closer and closer to the water line...but in the end, the mouse sank the boat when he got in after everyone else. Just that little bit more was enough to tip them all out... 
CO2 and the other GHGs that humans insert into the atmosphere are relatively minor players in the atmosphere by volume.....just like the mouse. But in a finely balanced system like our atmosphere even that tiny volume can have relatively profound consequences.   

> I am sorry but is is beyond my comprehension to consider that something  that has waxed and waned for umpteen thousand years will suddenly fail  to "wax" again and keep dropping until there is no longer any ice in the  Artic.  It is beyond me to consider the same of temperatures, the  models have shown a steady increase yet this has not happened even  though Co2 has kept rising.

  There will always be seasonal ice in the Artic....certainly on the land within the Arctic Circle.   But given the current rate of decline in sea ice density during the Arctic summer (that's density...not necessarily area) there will be little or no permanent sea ice in the Artic Circle within a few decades. That will have a profound effect on oceanic currents, thermoclines, haloclines and therefore weather patterns in both hemispheres.  
The concerning part is that (just like other aspects of climate change) we don't really know the implications of those effects on human civilisation.  They might be good, they might be bad  - we've no idea.  We are going blindly into the future in blissful ignorance...surely a little risk assessment is worth some consideration?    

> It is beyond me to accept that Co2 emissions can be reduced on a world  wide scale when population is growing and while under developing  countries are striving to develope.

  I agree with this one....we've learnt nothing from our past.

----------


## Rod Dyson

And you want us to TRUST climate science. HA HA.   

> Today, not one, but two of Germany’s most widely read news media published comprehensive skeptical climate science articles in their print and online editions, coinciding with the release of a major climate skeptical book, *Die kalte Sonne* (The Cold Sun). *Germany has now plunged into raucous discord on the heated topic of climate change*
> What has set it all off? One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”
> Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s *The Hockey Stick Illusion*. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Well-connected to _Hoffmann & Campe_, he and Lüning decided to write the book. _Die kalte Sonne_ cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.

----------


## woodbe

> And you want us to TRUST climate science. HA HA.

   That's a straightforward question, deserves an answer. 
Let me see. On one hand we have a book written by a bloke (Bloke1) (with close links to a book publisher), who doesn't accept some facet of renewable energy and who subsequently read a book by someone else (Bloke2) who didn't accept climate science. Bloke1 decided to believe the book about climate science, so he teams up with a non-climate scientist (geologist, who guessed that?) to write a book denying climate science. 
Makes Andrew Bolt look like an Alarmist, doesn't it? You couldn't make this stuff up, where's you get it. WUWT? HAHAHA  :Smilie:  
Good stuff Rod, got any more  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> This is one of my son's favorite books at the moment   
> ...you could use it as an analogy to this little debate.
>  .

  you could if we were all simpleton cult members.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

You really want us to believe these expert predictions HA HA   

> _IT’S official -_ _Australia has had its wettest two-year period on record.__It will come as no surprise to most that the seemingly endless rain from spring 2010 to autumn 2011, and again in late 2011, resulted in record falls, the Bureau of Meteorology said._
> But hang on. “No surprise to most”?  They are kidding, right?:  _ Greens leader Bob Brown in 2006:_  _From melting polar ice to the spectre of permanent drought in previously productive farmlands, the (World Meteorological Bureau’s) report makes clear that climate change is not just a future threat, it is damaging Australia now. Brown in 2008:  Already, (Rudd government adviser Ross Garnaut’s) daunting data of a 10 per cent chance of no flow at all in the Murray-Darling river system in future years is being overtaken by data indicating that drought is the new norm across Australia’s greatest food bowl.The Sydney Morning Herald in 2008:  This drought may never break  IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior weather experts warned yesterday. 
> “Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones.... 
> “There is a debate in the climate community, after … close to 12 years of drought, whether this is something permanent. Certainly, in terms of temperature, that seems to be our reality, and that there is no turning back....” Jones to the University of East Anglia in 2007:  
> Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse...The Age in 2009:  A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change…  ‘’It’s reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming,’’ said the bureau’s Bertrand Timbal.  
> ‘’In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.’’... Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in 2007:  Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused “a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas” and made the soil too hot, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems … “._ More dud predictions:   _
> Warmist scientist David Karoly, 2003:_  _The Murray-Darling Basin… covers towns north to Toowoomba, west to Broken Hill and south to Victoria and South Australia… Drought severity in the Murray Darling is increasing with global warming… This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed.
> Queensland Conservation Council:  Reduced rainfall due to Global warming will lead to decreased overall water availability… In part, the SEQ water crisis has been caused by climate change_Politicians bought the scare and wasted billions on desalination plants, water buy-backs and more:  _ 
> Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, 2007:_  _
> ...

----------


## johnc

So what is your point? after thirteen dry years do two wet years mean they dry ones  didn't exist. Are wet years linked to a La Nina event and warmer than average ocean temperatures off Queensland unrelated to climate change. Are 13 year droughts normal, I mean really clutching at a few carefully selected quotes and linking it to two isolated events goes totally against the defence that the present is only a representation of a very very long past going back thousands of years which seems to be the back stop of the denier brigade. You really must stop jumping onto every little thing you can and develop some consistency and logic here.

----------


## woodbe

> You really want us to believe these expert predictions HA HA

     
Just sayin' 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

You know that anyone with even a barest amount of intellegence can see that rainfall is increasing in the above graph, where does that leave you guys?
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You know that anyone with even a barest amount of intellegence can see that rainfall is increasing in the above graph, where does that leave you guys?
> regards inter

  You won't get any comment on the failed predictions!  They just want to bury their heads and pretend they never happened cause it is too embarrassing to their cause.  It will continue to be totally ignored!!   
Somehow it will get turned around into what they think is a gotcha, artic ice LOL.  We may have to wait a year or 2 to see this one get ignored as well.   :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> Somehow it will get turned around into what they think is a gotcha, artic ice LOL.  We may have to wait a year or 2 to see this one get ignored as well.

  Arctic Ice loss (and Global ice loss) is not a 'gotcha', it's a fact. Every significant ice store on the planet is in decline. Even you 'sceptics' don't deny it. (for once) 
And wishing a system in accelerating decline to suddenly turn around is like expecting a brick you dropped to jump back into your hand. Hey, it could happen, just be careful of your feet, ok? 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> you could if we were all simpleton cult members.
> regards inter

  As opposed to an ordinary average everyday simpleton instead?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You know that anyone with even a barest amount of intellegence can see that rainfall is increasing in the above graph, where does that leave you guys?
> regards inter

  ...in the same slightly wetter place as you.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And you want us to TRUST climate science. HA HA.

  No. But I'd like to see the same lack of trust in those how don't trust climate science...just for the sake of balance.

----------


## woodbe

> No. But I'd like to see the same lack of trust in those how don't trust climate science...just for the sake of balance.

  Haha! 
I've thought about this, and I've come to the realisation that there has been no increase in rainfall since 2000.  
Initially, this didn't seem to be the case, just eyeballing the graph, so I thought my warmist bias must be distorting my vision. I corrected for this by visiting several sceptic sites and read up on data analysis that presents temperature data since 2000 in a more newspaper headline friendly manner, and applied my new knowledge to the rainfall graphic:   
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

I guess if you are applying the new ice age methodology using a methologist (as in methylated spirit) filter and correcting any undesirable inconvenient spikes then the assumption in the red line is perfectly reasonable.

----------


## woodbe

> I guess if you are applying the new ice age methodology using a methologist (as in methylated spirit) filter and correcting any undesirable inconvenient spikes then the assumption in the red line is perfectly reasonable.

  And lets not forget, this is a very optimistic view of the situation. I haven't even corrected the data for UWI (Urban Water Island) effect yet.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

Funny how my how myself as a fairly average simple person of barely average intelligence can see the 75mm approx' or more inrease in rainfall over the 110 years in the above graph, Cant really see why anyone would post it claiming to backup their case for rainfall diminishing, maybe I'm not on the right drugs to see it clearly, but then again they say " reality is just an illusion caused by the lack of drugs ", or most of us are not high on your religion.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

It is worth bearing in mind if you actually want to take this seriously that rainfall variation across the continent is not evenly distributed and we have just had over a decade of drought that has seriously impacted a lot of people. Also massive dumpings of rain over short periods may elevate year on year totals but do a lot of damage to both infrastructure and agricultural production. Just looking at rainfall across the country is a starting point but it actually only tells a small part of the story, you also need to look at month on month totals, single events and general distribution. When it comes to the effect on rivers you have to add in the effect of water taken from the system and even that then has to consider the water lost in distribution before what is left gets to the intended destination. When we start to consider our need for healthy river systems, strong agricultural sector and land health then a single graph while interesting doesn't really tell us that much.

----------


## woodbe

> Funny how my how myself as a fairly average simple person of barely average intelligence can see the 75mm approx' or more inrease in rainfall over the 110 years in the above graph, Cant really see why anyone would post it claiming to backup their case for rainfall diminishing, maybe I'm not on the right drugs to see it clearly, but then again they say " reality is just an illusion caused by the lack of drugs ", or most of us are not high on your religion.
> regards inter

  Oh come on inter, surely you can see that there has been no increase since the 1970's?  :Biggrin:  
Isn't it amazing how difficult it is for sceptics to recognise their own tricks in the mirror?  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Oh come on inter, surely you can see that there has been no increase since the 1970's?  
> Isn't it amazing how difficult it is for sceptics to recognise their own tricks in the mirror?  
> woodbe.

  I dont think we are claiming that the trend of rainfall is up up up we are say the graph reveals that the failed alarmist predictions are demonstrated by the graph.  Who cares that it is not more than the 70's No tricks here. 
All the predictions by alamist have been abject failures. The rainfail is normal the droughts were nothing new and nor are the floods.  The same will be found with temperatures and the same with the ice.  It is a absolute joke how the warmist think that a trend will continue where it has never done so in the past, be it rain, ice, temps, snow etc.  Reality bites.

----------


## woodbe

> All the predictions by alamist have been abject failures. The rainfail is normal the droughts were nothing new and nor are the floods.  The same will be found with temperatures and the same with the ice.  It is a absolute joke how the warmist think that a trend will continue where it has never done so in the past, be it rain, ice, temps, snow etc.  Reality bites.

  Worth Framing, that one.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Worth Framing, that one.  
> woodbe.

  Why dont you try to explain why these pathetic predictions failed so badly in stead of trying to be so pious. 
Why should we believe any others where the models failed so badly. 
It really defies any reality to consider that you think this is alright, to be so far out of wack costing us billions on a desal plant that will be out of date before its required. And yet you will have us believe that its ok to think the rest of the models are ok to form the basis to have a carbon tax that will fail anyway. 
You know as well as I that in 2020 we will be emitting more Co2 than we are today, irrespective of what measures you take to try and stop them. 
You have nothing to appear smug about.   *Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in 2005:* _
But since 1998 particularly, we’ve seen just drought, drought, drought, and particularly regions like Sydney and the Warragamba catchment - if you look at the Warragamba catchment figures, since ‘98, the water has been in virtual freefall, and they’ve got about two years of supply left, but something will need to change in order to see the catchment start accumulating water again.... So when the models start confirming what you’re observing on the ground, then there’s some fairly strong basis for believing that we’re understanding what’s causing these weather shifts and these rainfall declines, and they do seem to be of a permanent nature…_  _Well, the worst-case scenario for Sydney is that the climate that’s existed for the last seven years continues for another two years. In that case, Sydney will be facing extreme difficulties with water._ *The Sydney Morning Herald in 2008:*  _This drought may never break_  _IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior weather experts warned yesterday. 
“Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones.... 
“There is a debate in the climate community, after … close to 12 years of drought, whether this is something permanent. Certainly, in terms of temperature, that seems to be our reality, and that there is no turning back....”_ *Jones to the University of East Anglia in 2007:*  _
Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse..._*The Age in 2009:*  _A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change…_  _‘’It’s reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming,’’ said the bureau’s Bertrand Timbal.  
‘’In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.’’..._ *Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in 2007:*  _Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused “a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas” and made the soil too hot, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems … “._ *Last night:*  _THE NSW State Emergency Service (SES) has had a busy night after huge rainfalls had parts of western Sydney and the Illawarra flooding.  SES spokesman Dave Owens said the suburb of Londonderry, near Penrith, received about 104mm of rain in a short few hours overnight._*Sydney dam storages this week:*  _82.6%_

----------


## woodbe

> Why dont you try to explain why these pathetic predictions failed so badly in stead of trying to be so pious.

  Let me see now. I'll just look up these predictions in the peer reviewed journals they were published in... 
Nope, can't find any of those predictions in any journals. That's a mystery. Got any links?   

> Why should we believe any others where the models failed so badly. 
> It really defies any reality to consider that you think this is alright, to be so far out of wack costing us billions on a desal plant that will be out of date before its required. And yet you will have us believe that its ok to think the rest of the models are ok to form the basis to have a carbon tax that will fail anyway. 
> You know as well as I that in 2020 we will be emitting more Co2 than we are today, irrespective of what measures you take to try and stop them. 
> You have nothing to appear smug about.

  Oh, I get it now. You're outing the whole of climate science on the basis of a bunch of news media quotes mined by Andrew Bolt. 
Give me my click back.  :Tongue:  
woodbe

----------


## johnc

You may well call it a pathetic collection of predictions yet there is no acknowledge that this is anything but a rather ragged collection of comments, it is not a conclusion at the end of any report they are public statements nothing more. What those collection of comments are is a pathetic attempt to make some defining statement out of nothing, quite frankly it deserves contempt when it is put forward as having substance which it doesn't. 
Do not make the mistake of thinking that one errant conclusion cruels the entire notion of climate change. In fact you don't have to look far to find that while it may well mean drier areas it can also mean wetter in others. The current view is that we will experience more intense events and a shift it weather pattens. While ice may well be melting in some areas it may not be in others. Also who can say we are not entering a period of longer and more profound droughts punctuated by heavy periods of rain, in other words more extreme events. 
It is the expection that proves the rule, there is no point sticking your head in the sand by taking comfort in one comment that may be proved otherwise. All the exceptions should be doing is giving a reason to further understand and refine models. Who knows perhaps in the end counter balancing effects may mitigate impact. We should be making every effort to understand what is happening and taking steps to build economies that do not waste finite resources. It takes a mindset that gives a stuff about our children and future generations. Those that only care about their own little world and comforts will continue to find solace in the worlds of unqualified skeptics such as Bolt et al. 
What is the worst that can happen, other than a greater understanding of weather, surely that has a great economic benefit if we can begin to predict rain and dry events into the coming year.

----------


## intertd6

> Oh come on inter, surely you can see that there has been no increase since the 1970's?  
> Isn't it amazing how difficult it is for sceptics to recognise their own tricks in the mirror?  
> woodbe.

  Please tell the medication or cult influences that causes that form of skewed vision & interprepation, when its plain to see high spikes in annual rainfall above the norm & the majority on the steady increase..... I wouldn't want to be taking a substances or be brainwashed by beliefs that could cloud reality that much, thinking that your going down the gurgerler when your really not, sort of negative, depressing & isn't it? I feel this arguement is like talking to the religious types or similar on the existance of god etc on creation & ultimately is based on fear for control.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Hmm. You're not much into irony, are you inter? 
These numbers are impressive:   

> February 08, 2012
>                        PASADENA, Calif. - In the first comprehensive satellite  study of its  kind, a University of Colorado at Boulder-led team used NASA data  to  calculate how much Earth's melting land ice is adding to global sea  level  rise. 
> Using satellite measurements from the  NASA/German Aerospace Center  Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE),  the researchers  measured ice loss in all of Earth's land ice between 2003 and  2010,  with particular emphasis on glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland   and Antarctica.  
> The total global ice mass lost from  Greenland, Antarctica and  Earth's glaciers and ice caps during the study period  was about 4.3  trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12   millimeters) to global sea level. That's enough ice to cover the United  States  1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep. 
> "Earth is losing a huge amount of ice  to the ocean annually, and  these new results will help us answer important  questions in terms of  both sea rise and how the planet's cold regions are  responding to  global change," said University of Colorado Boulder physics  professor  John Wahr, who helped lead the study. "The strength of GRACE is  it sees  all the mass in the system, even though its resolution is not high   enough to allow us to determine separate contributions from each  individual  glacier."  
> About a quarter of the average annual ice  loss came from glaciers  and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica  (roughly 148 billion  tons, or 39 cubic miles). Ice loss from Greenland and  Antarctica and  their peripheral ice caps and glaciers averaged 385 billion tons  (100  cubic miles) a year. Results of the study will be published online Feb. 8   in the journal Nature.

  http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cf...ase=2012-036#4

----------


## mark53

Yes Woodbe, only impresive to the cult followers. I've no doubt that old mate Wahr undertook his "research" using a global warming, government funded handout where a manipulated outcome was always going to favour the cultists point of view. And 12 millimeters, really. I suggest to you my friend that you and some of your cultist mates go down to your nearest estuary rock shelf and try and find all the new marine bio-diversity thats attached itself to the new 12 millimeters of inundated rock. A picture may even be taken of this burgioning new bio-diversity and posted on this site for all to see. Bonus. In the meantime I'll wait and watch the real scientist take his conclusions apart.

----------


## johnc

> Yes Woodbe, only impresive to the cult followers. I've no doubt that old mate Wahr undertook his "research" using a global warming, government funded handout where a manipulated outcome was always going to favour the cultists point of view. And 12 millimeters, really. I suggest to you my friend that you and some of your cultist mates go down to your nearest estuary rock shelf and try and find all the new marine bio-diversity thats attached itself to the new 12 millimeters of inundated rock. A picture may even be taken of this burgioning new bio-diversity and posted on this site for all to see. Bonus. In the meantime I'll wait and watch the real scientist take his conclusions apart.

  Am I correct in assuming that you believe there is only one real scientist that doesn't believe in global warming? Really if all you can manage is sarcasm and meaningless and unsupported references to cult behaviour why bother pretending you have anything to offer other than personal attacks on any individual who has the temerity not to agree with you.

----------


## mark53

I leave assumptions to the global warming cultists, they're much better at it than me.

----------


## woodbe

> Yes Woodbe, only impresive to the cult followers. I've no doubt that old mate Wahr undertook his "research" using a global warming, government funded handout where a manipulated outcome was always going to favour the cultists point of view. And 12 millimeters, really. I suggest to you my friend that you and some of your cultist mates go down to your nearest estuary rock shelf and try and find all the new marine bio-diversity thats attached itself to the new 12 millimeters of inundated rock. A picture may even be taken of this burgioning new bio-diversity and posted on this site for all to see. Bonus. In the meantime I'll wait and watch the real scientist take his conclusions apart.

  Ah you're back. 
So, you are willing to defame the work and good name of a scientist by making unsupported accusations of manipulation and bias? 
Perhaps you would like to peruse the bio of this person before you continue along this path: Dr. John Wahr, Ph.D. University of Colorado, 1979; Professor, Physics  A short list of Dr Wahr's published research (113 works linked up until 2009) 
This was a waste of your own credibility. There is hardly a global warming sceptic who denies that our planet is losing land ice. The most our locals seem to be able to offer is that they 'don't like the look' of one of the graphics.  
Add your own name to the list of 'sceptics' who claim published science is incorrect without offering any credible science in return, only supplying their own bias and lack of science as 'proof'. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> I leave assumptions to the global warming cultists, they're much better at it than me.

  Maybe not but they don't continually accuse you of being a member of a cult without a shred of evidence to back it up, but then that may not be inconsistent as evidence is not your strong point is it. :Wink:

----------


## woodbe

Question for Sceptics: 
What is the relevance of this temperature plot:   
To your eye, untrained or otherwise, is it correct to say that there has been no warming since 2001? 
My reason for choosing 2001 start is because it is popular with sceptics, so I thought we should work with something you're familiar and happy with. Warmists wouldn't choose this date, but let's not go there, let's work on the sceptic supplied start date. 
Cheers, 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Hmm. You're not much into irony, are you inter? 
> These numbers are impressive:    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cf...ase=2012-036#4

  Funny how when the cult followers get shown up on a subject they think is substantiating the cult, its dropped like a hot potato, then its off to the next one to try & back up the cult. With this last one its funny how this huge 12mm has not shown up on any of Australias tide gauges & if it did it would be front page news backing up the cult.  NO scientist or physicist anywhere submits data in that form so it smells fishy straight away. At least the cult claims of sea level rise appear to be declining now & are being measured in mm & not meters now, all you have to do is back this all up with tide gauge data to back up this claim to prove that the earth is warming like we all know it has been doing since the last ice age.
bye the way the antarctic ice cap is 14 million odd kilometers square by an average 2 km thick, so divide the annual 180km3 loss by that to get a percentage, you will see that it is almost immeasurable, here is something else to chew on Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away | News.com.au 
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Question for Sceptics: 
> What is the relevance of this temperature plot:   
> To your eye, untrained or otherwise, is it correct to say that there has been no warming since 2001? 
> My reason for choosing 2001 start is because it is popular with sceptics, so I thought we should work with something you're familiar and happy with. Warmists wouldn't choose this date, but let's not go there, let's work on the sceptic supplied start date. 
> Cheers, 
> woodbe.

  to my untrained eye it means nothing because there is no reference of how this data was arrived at & seeing it was sourced from a green site it could be best described as fishy with a brown rice & mung bean smell at least.
Bye the way you should really brush up on your interpretation of graphs, because since 2001 the average temperature has slightly dropped according to that graph.
PS "since 2001" starts where the 2002 year mark is. Looks like you have shot yourself in the foot again.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> to my untrained eye it means nothing because there is no reference of how this data was arrived at & seeing it was sourced from a green site it could be best described as fishy with a brown rice & mung bean smell at least.
> Bye the way you should really brush up on your interpretation of graphs, because since 2001 the average temperature has slightly dropped according to that graph.
> PS "since 2001" starts where the 2002 year mark is. Looks like you have shot yourself in the foot again.
> regards inter

  Yep this graph means nothing nothing at all. 
By now according to the models we should be way past 1998. 
Yet Co2 has kept rising.  How about you explain that woodbe.  Rather than wasting our time posting graphs like this.

----------


## woodbe

> to my untrained eye it means nothing because there is no reference of how this data was arrived at & seeing it was sourced from a green site it could be best described as fishy with a brown rice & mung bean smell at least.
> Bye the way you should really brush up on your interpretation of graphs, because since 2001 the average temperature has slightly dropped according to that graph.
> PS "since 2001" starts where the 2002 year mark is. Looks like you have shot yourself in the foot again.
> regards inter

   

> Yep this graph means nothing nothing at all. 
> By now according to the models we should be way past 1998. 
> Yet Co2 has kept rising.  How about you explain that woodbe.  Rather than wasting our time posting graphs like this.

  Thank you, 'sceptics'  :Biggrin:  
The graph is an accurate representation of the UAH satellite record for the period shown. The site it comes from is a 'fact' site, not a 'green' site. I guess you read 'wood for trees' on the graph and decided that meant green bias?  :Smilie:  If you'd like to check, inter, The UAH data is downloadable here at the University of Hunstville, Alabama, Please get back to us with your findings. 
Oh, and inter? Thank you for your comment about 'since'. I used since because that is what the 'sceptic' that this post is about used. Perhaps you'd like to school her too? 
Now, as to your eyeball interpretations. 
You are both correct, and I congratulate you on outing one of your fellow sceptics who used since 2001 temperature data in her sceptic reference manual. On page 6 of 'The Skeptics Handbook' Joanova prints a graphic highlighting a period of 2001 till 2009 with a subtitle "The world has not warmed since 2001.       " 
Technically, she was correct, of course, as evidenced by the following graph, but the point of my question was to demonstrate that the choice of 2001 and the short interval is a cherry pick, as is your comment Rod, regarding 1998. 
Represented graphically (you know where the data is):   
Why would a 'sceptic' do that, seeing as they are trying to show us where the scientists are wrong? 
The graphic in the handbook ended at 2009, you can see it's trend in blue, and the same data trend extended until the present in green. It's just a linear trend, but you can see that it is slightly positive. Do you think that joanova will offer an update and rescind her claim? Me either.  :Smilie:  
And Rod, I extended the data back to 1980 so you can clearly see that 1998 would also be a cherry pick. Nice try. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> here is something else to chew on Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away | News.com.au 
> regards inter

  Cool, a 2009 media report with the headline: "Antarctic Ice is growing, not melting away". Usual media confusion of information. Note that I have been specifically talking about Land Ice, yet this media report does not quote any published science and mixes sea ice and land ice with gay abandon. They do say this though:   

> Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison  said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been  more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of  east Antarctica. 
> "Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.
> The  melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels  to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses  from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these  losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by  glacial movements on the mainland.

  Nowhere in that confused report does it say that Antarctic Land Ice as a whole is growing. We know about the differences between East and West. The Aussie Antarctic survey site and the GRACE research specifically state that land ice is diminishing in Antarctica, and both rely on more recent information than was available in 2009 when this media report was published. 
Neither did I suggest that Antarctica is likely to run out of Ice any time soon, that's the Arctic inter, not the Antarctic. Remember? 
This is the second time you have sent me on wild goose chases on Antarctic Land Ice, inter. Please don't send me to media reports, they are biased to sell more media. I'm more than happy to hear about published science though. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Thank you, 'sceptics'  
> The graph is an accurate representation of the UAH satellite record for the period shown. The site it comes from is a 'fact' site, not a 'green' site. I guess you read 'wood for trees' on the graph and decided that meant green bias?  If you'd like to check, inter, The UAH data is downloadable here at the University of Hunstville, Alabama, Please get back to us with your findings. 
> Oh, and inter? Thank you for your comment about 'since'. I used since because that is what the 'sceptic' that this post is about used. Perhaps you'd like to school her too? 
> Now, as to your eyeball interpretations. 
> You are both correct, and I congratulate you on outing one of your fellow sceptics who used since 2001 temperature data in her sceptic reference manual. On page 6 of 'The Skeptics Handbook' Joanova prints a graphic highlighting a period of 2001 till 2009 with a subtitle "The world has not warmed since 2001.       " 
> Technically, she was correct, of course, as evidenced by the following graph, but the point of my question was to demonstrate that the choice of 2001 and the short interval is a cherry pick, as is your comment Rod, regarding 1998. 
> Represented graphically (you know where the data is):   
> Why would a 'sceptic' do that, seeing as they are trying to show us where the scientists are wrong? 
> The graphic in the handbook ended at 2009, you can see it's trend in blue, and the same data trend extended until the present in green. It's just a linear trend, but you can see that it is slightly positive. Do you think that joanova will offer an update and rescind her claim? Me either.  
> ...

  Seriously what was the point of all this?   
Nobody that I read (maybe I missed it), comented of the validity of the graph only that it was pointless to cherry pick.  That goes for either side of the debate.  What has not changed is the fact that the globe has not warmed as predicted while Co2 has increased.  You still haven''t attempted to explain this.   
We havn't a hope in hell of reducing Co2 emissions to levels pre 1998 while population is growing and countries are developing.  So what gives? 
Please try and answer a direct questions rather than throwing in furphies like this.

----------


## woodbe

> Nobody that I read (maybe I missed it), comented of the validity of the graph

  Hmm, what's this then:   

> there is no reference of how this data was arrived at & seeing it  was sourced from a green site it could be best described as fishy with a  brown rice & mung bean smell at least.

   Moving on...   

> only that it was pointless to cherry pick.  That goes for either side of the debate.

  So are you agreeing that Joanova has cherry picked and she was wrong and pointless to do so? 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Why dont you try to explain why these pathetic predictions failed so badly in stead of trying to be so pious. 
> Why should we believe any others where the models failed so badly. 
> It really defies any reality to consider that you think this is alright, to be so far out of wack costing us billions on a desal plant that will be out of date before its required. And yet you will have us believe that its ok to think the rest of the models are ok to form the basis to have a carbon tax that will fail anyway. 
> You know as well as I that in 2020 we will be emitting more Co2 than we are today, irrespective of what measures you take to try and stop them. 
> You have nothing to appear smug about.   *Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in 2005:* _
> But since 1998 particularly, weve seen just drought, drought, drought, and particularly regions like Sydney and the Warragamba catchment - if you look at the Warragamba catchment figures, since 98, the water has been in virtual freefall, and theyve got about two years of supply left, but something will need to change in order to see the catchment start accumulating water again.... So when the models start confirming what youre observing on the ground, then theres some fairly strong basis for believing that were understanding whats causing these weather shifts and these rainfall declines, and they do seem to be of a permanent nature_  _Well, the worst-case scenario for Sydney is that the climate thats existed for the last seven years continues for another two years. In that case, Sydney will be facing extreme difficulties with water._ *The Sydney Morning Herald in 2008:* _This drought may never break_  _IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nations most senior weather experts warned yesterday. 
> Perhaps we should call it our new climate, said the Bureau of Meteorologys head of climate analysis, David Jones.... 
> There is a debate in the climate community, after  close to 12 years of drought, whether this is something permanent. Certainly, in terms of temperature, that seems to be our reality, and that there is no turning back...._ *Jones to the University of East Anglia in 2007:* _
> Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we dont need meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse..._*The Age in 2009:* _A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change_  _Its reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming, said the bureaus Bertrand Timbal.  
> In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up...._ *Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in 2007:* _Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas and made the soil too hot, so even the rain that falls isnt actually going to fill our dams and river systems  ._ *Last night:* _THE NSW State Emergency Service (SES) has had a busy night after huge rainfalls had parts of western Sydney and the Illawarra flooding.  SES spokesman Dave Owens said the suburb of Londonderry, near Penrith, received about 104mm of rain in a short few hours overnight._*Sydney dam storages this week:* _82.6%_

  The first thing to consider about about most predictions of a future anything is that they are rarely much better than a simple opinion based on relatively spindly evidence.  It is widely known and accepted within the climate science community that the weakest aspect of the science are the climate models, their complexity, their assumptions and the relative paucity of data with which to calibrate them.  The thing to remember is that whilst they can rarely tell you exactly where the destination is or when we'll get there...they all point to it being in roughly the same direction from here. 
The second thing is that none of the snippets supplied above refer to the entire Australian continent (which is what the graph talks to).  They all talk of specific parts of the country - Sydney, South-east Australia, Murray Darling Basin etc.  Do the same analysis on these locations and see what you get...(and no I haven't - not recently anyway).  Then for a real giggle....do the same for South Western Australia...and see what you get (which I have done way back in the mists...).

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Funny how when the cult followers get shown up on a subject they think is substantiating the cult, its dropped like a hot potato, then its off to the next one to try & back up the cult. With this last one its funny how this huge 12mm has not shown up on any of Australias tide gauges & if it did it would be front page news backing up the cult.  NO scientist or physicist anywhere submits data in that form so it smells fishy straight away. At least the cult claims of sea level rise appear to be declining now & are being measured in mm & not meters now, all you have to do is back this all up with tide gauge data to back up this claim to prove that the earth is warming like we all know it has been doing since the last ice age.
> bye the way the antarctic ice cap is 14 million odd kilometers square by an average 2 km thick, so divide the annual 180km3 loss by that to get a percentage, you will see that it is almost immeasurable, here is something else to chew on Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away | News.com.au 
> regards inter

  True...but no scientist wrote that NASA press release.  That was their PR team trying to attract news coverage and maintain or improve NASA's public profile.  So they've used a common visualisation technique to try and transfer a big number into something that the average member of the Great Unwashed might actually be able to visualise.  It's like quoting seemingly meaningless water volumes into the "number of Sydney Harbours" - a unit of volume now known in the Oz water industry as 'SydHarbs'.  No scientist let alone peer review committee would ever try (or approve) such a trick in a peer reviewed paper.  It's a technique used by journalists and the media industry as a whole because they think their readers are stupid...thus far I've seen little to counter that opinion...   
And your link wasn't written by a scientist either.  It was written by a journalist.  And the source material wasn't refering to Antarctica as a whole but specific parts of East Antarctica....

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> What has not changed is the fact that the globe has not warmed as predicted while Co2 has increased.  You still haven''t attempted to explain this.   
> We havn't a hope in hell of reducing Co2 emissions to levels pre 1998 while population is growing and countries are developing.  So what gives? 
> Please try and answer a direct questions rather than throwing in furphies like this.

  Point 1:  The globe may not have but then the globe is not homogenous - so a single global figure may obscure local, regional or continental trends (if they exist).  Saying "it hasn't happened" doesn't mean it hasn't happened somewhere.  So the global number is a simplification. 
Point 2: Global average temperature (it's just a single number remember) hasn't continued to rise in the short term.....what about long term - say over last 50 years? 
Point 3: We don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of limiting GHG emissions given the current state of human intelligence....but to then say that that's OK because nothing _might_ be happening now and completely ignore the implications of what can happen when you have to much of a good thing (like red wine for instance!) doesn't say much that's positive about the current state of human intelligence...<blink>...never mind....

----------


## intertd6

> Thank you, 'sceptics'  
> The graph is an accurate representation of the UAH satellite record for the period shown. The site it comes from is a 'fact' site, not a 'green' site. I guess you read 'wood for trees' on the graph and decided that meant green bias?  If you'd like to check, inter, The UAH data is downloadable here at the University of Hunstville, Alabama, Please get back to us with your findings. 
> Oh, and inter? Thank you for your comment about 'since'. I used since because that is what the 'sceptic' that this post is about used. Perhaps you'd like to school her too? 
> Now, as to your eyeball interpretations. 
> You are both correct, and I congratulate you on outing one of your fellow sceptics who used since 2001 temperature data in her sceptic reference manual. On page 6 of 'The Skeptics Handbook' Joanova prints a graphic highlighting a period of 2001 till 2009 with a subtitle "The world has not warmed since 2001.       " 
> Technically, she was correct, of course, as evidenced by the following graph, but the point of my question was to demonstrate that the choice of 2001 and the short interval is a cherry pick, as is your comment Rod, regarding 1998. 
> Represented graphically (you know where the data is):   
> Why would a 'sceptic' do that, seeing as they are trying to show us where the scientists are wrong? 
> The graphic in the handbook ended at 2009, you can see it's trend in blue, and the same data trend extended until the present in green. It's just a linear trend, but you can see that it is slightly positive. Do you think that joanova will offer an update and rescind her claim? Me either.  
> ...

  If you understood "since 2001" how come your trend lines still start at the beginning of 2001, "since 2001" starts from the 1st jan 2002. You convieniently picked these graphs to cherry pick from, which have beeen shown to not actualy support your arguement & show the opposite, keep them coming. I am a firm believer that if you give someone enough rope they will do all the work for you proving the exact opposite of what they actually started out to prove, but then if its correct then I wont comment at all. 
Time for another graph I thinks. 
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> True...but no scientist wrote that NASA press release.  That was their PR team trying to attract news coverage and maintain or improve NASA's public profile( & try to drum up money because NASA has less of a budget than the USA military marching bands).  So they've used a common visualisation technique to try and transfer a big number into something that the average member of the Great Unwashed might actually be able to visualise.  It's like quoting seemingly meaningless water volumes into the "number of Sydney Harbours" - a unit of volume now known in the Oz water industry as 'SydHarbs'.  No scientist let alone peer review committee would ever try (or approve) such a trick in a peer reviewed paper.  It's a technique used by journalists and the media industry as a whole because they think their readers are stupid...thus far I've seen little to counter that opinion...   
> And your link wasn't written by a scientist either.  It was written by a journalist.  And the source material wasn't refering to Antarctica as a whole but specific parts of East Antarctica.... ( I do believe the scientist was quoted & it has not been retracted yet & if you understood what he was saying the losses that woobee have been banging on about  in west antarctica have been more than made up by the gains in ice from only just one small sector of east antarctica)

  regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> If you understood "since 2001" how come your trend lines still start at the beginning of 2001, "since 2001" starts from the 1st jan 2002. You convieniently picked these graphs to cherry pick from, ... [irrelevant blather removed]

  inter, really, please keep up... This *is* about cherry picking, but not mine... 
Exhibit A:  

> Oh, and inter? Thank you for your comment about 'since'. I used since  because that is what the 'sceptic' that this post is about used. Perhaps  you'd like to school her too?

  Exhibit B:  

> On page 6 of 'The Skeptics Handbook' Joanova prints a graphic  highlighting a period of 2001 till 2009 with a subtitle "The world has  not warmed *since* 2001.       "

   (highlight mine) 
The trend line I have placed on the graphic matches the highlighted period in the 'skeptic handbook'. How kind of you to confirm that it is a cherry pick. 
Any more questions?  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe

----------


## woodbe

> _the losses that woobee have been banging on about in west antarctica_

  Except that I have been 'banging on' about the Antarctic Land Ice as a whole, not focused on any particular part of it at all. That's your diversion. 
Still open to see science (not media non-science) that says Antarctic Land Ice is growing. I'd be happy to concede that to credible recent research. The GRACE system is pretty new and has only been in place since 2002 or so... Could it be overstating or understating the mass balance? Guess so... 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The GRACE system is pretty new and has only been in place since 2002 or so... Could it be overstating or understating the mass balance? Guess so...

  Absolutely.  No measuring equipment is 100% accurate or, for that matter, precise.  And when you throw in the human factor of analysis.... 
In the end though....it'd probably only be out by a few SydHarbs...  GRACE - Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment

----------


## woodbe

And as if there is not enough bad reporting in the media we have already, Monckton is now canvassing to create another media channel to push his views on the public:    
Good grief. Just remember who gave this oxygen thief air  :Eek:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

While us realists laugh ourselves silly at the latest *apocalyptic prophecies and exaggerated claims* over a tiny fraction of a decimal of ice melting as it regularly and naturally does on the Planet Earth, let's see what some greenie numpties now finally admit:   

> I wish green activists would condemn green lies as a sin and a crime against reason, not criticise it simply for being ineffective:   _Mark Lynas, a campaigner who has been a member of action groups on GM foods and climate change, said the environmental lobby was losing the battle for public opinion on climate change because it had made too many apocalyptic prophecies and exaggerated claims._   _He said: We have got to find a more pragmatic and realistic way of engaging with people._Lynas might do well to start with a personal apology for his own ludicrous scare-mongering.   Greens admit green lies haven’t worked | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  Pragmatic? Realistic?  Better watch out Mr Lynas, you'll be labelled a "denier" if you're not careful.  :Biggrin:  
Take note, they now openly admit to "*too many* *apocalyptic prophecies and exaggerated claims*". 
How do you believe someone who openly admits to lying about their cult to try and trick you into believing it?  :Doh:  
Here's another moment of clarity from a former cult member: *
"Environmentalists did harm by being ignorant and ideological and    unwilling to change their mind based on actual evidence. As a result we have    done harm and I regret it."*  
Science is not built on "opinions" or "consensus", it is about evidence.  At least some hard core believers in this farce are finally realising this.  Pity most who still adhere to the "closed-mind" doctrine of the AGW hypothesis authority figures refuse to open their mind to this possibility.  :Wink 1:

----------


## woodbe

HeartlandGate:      

> An anonymous donor calling him (or her)self "Heartland Insider" has  released the Heartland Institute's budget, fundraising plan, its Climate  Strategy for 2012 and sundry other documents (all attached) that prove  all of the worst allegations that have been levelled against  the organization.  
>      It is clear from the documents that Heartland advocates against  responsible climate mitigation and then uses that advocacy to raise  money from oil companies and "other corporations whose interests are  threatened by climate policies." Heartland particularly celebrates the  funding that it receives from the fossil fuel fortune being the Charles G. Koch Foundation.       
> Heartland also continues to collect money from Philip Morris parent company Altria  as well as from the tobacco giant Reynolds American, while maintaining  ongoing advocacy against policies related to smoking and health.       
> Heartland's policy positions, strategies and budget distinguish it  clear as a lobby firm that is misrepresenting itself as a "think tank" -  it budgets $4.1 million of its $6.4 million in projected expenditures  for Editorial, Government Relations, Communications, Fundraising, and  Publications, and the only activity it plans that could vaguely be  considered policy development is the writing of a curriculum package for use in confusing high schoolers about climate change.

  More info, discussion and original attachments at DeSmogBlog   woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> _Funding for selected individuals outside of Heartland._ _Our current budget includes funding for high-profile individuals who  regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment,  this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred  Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per  month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider  expanding it, if funding can be found._

  Good to see they didn't leave the good ol' Aussies out  :Biggrin:    

> _We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for  Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature  station data._

  No comment required... 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Here's another moment of clarity from a former cult member: *
> "Environmentalists did harm by being ignorant and ideological and    unwilling to change their mind based on actual evidence. As a result we have    done harm and I regret it."*  
> Science is not built on "opinions" or "consensus", it is about evidence.  At least some hard core believers in this farce are finally realising this.  Pity most who still adhere to the "closed-mind" doctrine of the AGW hypothesis authority figures refuse to open their mind to this possibility.

  And I sadly chuckle at yet another wonderful piece of irony from the Freud.   
I actually agree whole heartedly with your sentiments as expressed here, Freud but the funny part is that exactly the same statements could be applied to many of those on your side of the fence...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Good to see they didn't leave the good ol' Aussies out    
> No comment required... 
> woodbe.

  Oh climate scientists and activists don't get any funding?? 
Funny that. 
What a joke.

----------


## woodbe

> Oh climate scientists and activists don't get any funding?? 
> Funny that. 
> What a joke.

  There's a joke, but I don't think it's what you're thinking of... 
From the Budget: 
72,000 Legislator travel and rooms, 120 @ $600   <<<--- 
            14,400 Meals and room charges, 120 @ $120  
Not bad for an organisation that claims it isn't a lobby group. Also a small issue of a not for profit sending their tax free monies overseas. Might be some issues coming down the line from the IRS for the Heartless institute, not to mention the calling into question of all their 'free market' research. 
None of this is surprising, just confirming what was always known or suspected: Vested interests of big oil and baccy companies funding denialist organisations working to spread Climate Change and Tobacco Denial. Naomi Oreskes would be delighted to see this evidence appear. Interesting to see the list of donors quickly releasing statements distancing themselves from the Heartless Institute's climate change position.  
This is Watt's third attempt to discredit the temperature record. The other two haven't worked out as he loudly claimed they would, no reason to expect this one to get legs either. He decided the record was wrong before he started his analysis, and hasn't been able to prove it since. Sure, let him go for it, must be more interesting than reading the weather on TV for an old weather hack. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

The joke is that such a fuss is made of the funding of this organisation whereby most alarmist organisations are also funded by "big oil" and many many others.  Who really cares about the funding and so what?   
There HAS to be funding to question the Alarmists, how else can there be balance?  The Alarmists cant have all the funding going their own way.  The money going into the skeptics camp is miniscule compared to the gorging of funds by the Warmists.  
Yet the skeptics are winning the debate!!!  Maybe you should focus on the message rather than the funding.  Alarmists have cried wolf too many times.  No one is listening to the scare campaign any more.  The only way the alarmists can win their way back is to produce the evidence NOT the SCARY predictitions that fail nor computer models that have been a proven failure.   
Mate you have got a lot of catching up to do.  By making a big deal out of this only focuses people onto "funding" in general, who do you think has the most to hide? 
LOL own goal IMO.

----------


## woodbe

> The joke is that such a fuss is made of the funding of this organisation whereby most alarmist organisations are also funded by "big oil" and many many others.  Who really cares about the funding and so what?

  The issue is not so much about the funding, it's about what it is used for. This leak exposes that. Beautifully. 
Climate research is not funded in secret. Climate Change denial is. This leak exposes that. 
It fits that you don't see the relevance. 
Its like Cash for Comment x 15 Million.  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> HeartlandGate:       More info, discussion and original attachments at DeSmogBlog   woodbe.

  You've been a bit quiet mate?  I thought you'd be busy helping to retract the ridiculous claims you were duped into spreading about faked documents.  Sorry, should I call them "adjusted" documents, just like this cult likes "adjusted" data to support their crazy ideas?   :Rotfl:  
Wouldn't your time (and the time of these crazy AGW cultists) be better spent actually looking for evidence to prove this ridiculous AGW hypothesis, rather than making up fake documents in a mudslinging personal smear campaign trying to spuriously discredit anyone who points out you have ZERO evidence proving this farce. 
Give it a go.  Try looking for some evidence.  You may just stumble upon something called science while you're looking.  :Biggrin:  
Or you can keep banging on about what you know are faked documents like the people holding desperately onto these faked documents at DeSmogBlog.  Even after being advised the document was faked, they still leave it on their website claiming it's "in the public interest" to do so.  :Roflmao:  
The stench of desperation is overwhelming.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

When Kevin is PM again, will he kill the Carbon Dioxide Tax?  :Biggrin:  
And when he knifes JuLIAR (justifiably), he may turn her biggest LIE into the truth, because if she's not PM at 1 July 2012, and the Tax does come in, then it WON'T be under a government she leads.       _There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.  
What about under a government that Kevvy leads?  She may actually have been telling the truth after all! _  :Roflmao2:

----------


## woodbe

> Or you can keep banging on about what you know are faked documents like the people holding desperately onto these faked documents at DeSmogBlog.  Even after being advised the document was faked, they still leave it on their website claiming it's "in the public interest" to do so.

  Heartland only 'claims' one document was faked. The contents of the remaining documents confirm the 'faked' document anyway. 
As usual, sceptics are unable to discern the difference between fact and fiction.   

> An Open Letter to the Heartland Institute  
>                      As scientists who have had their emails stolen, posted online and grossly misrepresented, we can appreciate the difficulties the Heartland Institute is currently experiencing following the online posting of the organizations internal documents earlier this week. However, we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science and to undermine the teaching of well-established climate science in the classroom.  
>                      We know what it feels like to have private information stolen and posted online via illegal hacking. It happened to climate researchers in 2009 and again in 2011. Personal emails were culled through and taken out of context before they were posted online. In 2009, the Heartland Institute was among the groups that spread false allegations about what these stolen emails said. Despite multiple independent investigations, which demonstrated that allegations against scientists were false, the Heartland Institute continued to attack scientists based on the stolen emails. When more stolen emails were posted online in 2011, the Heartland Institute again pointed to their release and spread false claims about scientists. 
>                      So although we can agree that stealing documents and posting them online is not an acceptable practice, we would be remiss if we did not point out that the Heartland Institute has had no qualms about utilizing and distorting emails stolen from scientists.  
>                      We hope the Heartland Institute will heed its own advice to think about what has happened and recognize how its attacks on science and scientists have helped poison the debate over climate change policy. The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options.  
>                      These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become. Major scientific assessments from the Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, United States Global Change Research Program and other authoritative sources agree on these points.  
>                      What businesses, policymakers, advocacy groups and citizens choose to do in response to those facts should be informed by the science. But those decisions are also necessarily informed by economic, ethical, ideological, and other considerations.While the Heartland Institute is entitled to its views on policy, we object to its practice of spreading misinformation about climate research and personally attacking climate scientists to further its goals.  
>                      We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate. Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers would be a welcome first step toward having an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change.  
>              Ray Bradley, PhD, Director of the Climate System Research Center, University of Massachusetts 
> ...

   
From: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/02/17/heartland.pdf 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Heartland only 'claims' one document was faked. The contents of the remaining documents confirm the 'faked' document anyway. 
> As usual, sceptics are unable to discern the difference between fact and fiction.   
> From: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/02/17/heartland.pdf 
> woodbe.

  Lot of stench about this woodbe.  Now the forger has come out and confessed.  
LOL I will leave it up to you to google who it is.  Shame shame shame.

----------


## intertd6

"Funny how when the cult followers get shown up on a subject they think is substantiating the cult, its dropped like a hot potato, then its off to the next one to try & back up the cult."
And around it goes again & again & again & again..........................
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Lot of stench about this woodbe.  Now the forger has come out and confessed.  
> LOL I will leave it up to you to google who it is.  Shame shame shame.

  Interesting comment from you Rod. Double Standards much? 
I don't remember you saying anything like that when a criminal hacker hacked into a government email server and published the contents on the internet. Twice. 
Also doesn't change the stink around Heartland. They are one of the 32 organisations that were involved in the denial campaigns against Tobacco smoke and Global warming that you got so upset about.  
Confirmed and now double confirmed. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And around it goes again & again & again & again..........................

  If it stopped then the carnival would be over....and no-one would be making any money and that, in our modern and high developed society, just wouldn't do.

----------


## chrisp

Here is one for all and sundry to comment on:  Low clouds may combat climate change

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Here is one for all and sundry to comment on: Low clouds may combat climate change

  Really? Global cloud height fluctuations measured by MISR on Terra from 2000 to 2010 
The average cloud height may be falling in response to increasing temperature (which apparently isn't actually happening according to this thread) but the only correllation the authors point out is that of one with ENSO... 
Still....it's interesting. 
I liked this one  Reconciling two approaches to attribution of the 2010 Russian heat wave  about attribution for the Russian heatwave in 2010.  Was it or wasn't it due to ACC?  What a surprise - it was both!!

----------


## Dr Freud

One of these muppets will "Axe the TAX":   *??? has flagged a review of the carbon tax by the end of the year*      
While you're laughing your @rses off at this rabble, remember when we had an adult in charge:    
Oh yeh, that's the bloke who thought all these lunatic greenies were lying scam artists and lying scaremongerers about their end of the world AGW cult beliefs. 
Maybe he was onto something, eh?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

This muppet will not axe the TAX! 
She's a green muppet:      
But he's a survivor muppet, he reckons he'll axe the TAX:  *KEVIN Rudd has flagged a review of the carbon tax by the end of the year * Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian  
He's got the moves baby...     
I'm running out of popcorn, this is better than the Star Wars saga... :Biggrin:

----------


## PhilT2

This is the alternative http://itsnotnova.files.wordpress.co...bottjonova.jpg

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Here let me help you....though it makes me blind

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I'm running out of popcorn, this is better than the Star Wars saga...

  That wouldn't be too hard.

----------


## woodbe

Ok you sceptic trolls, your cover is blown.  :Biggrin:    

> "Social distance can cause a 55-year-old climate change sceptic with a  job and a mortgage to behave like a spastic donkey with strange  malicious behaviour," said researcher James Heathers, of the University  of Sydney.

  That 'splains a lot. haha.  I read it in the media, must be true. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Ok you sceptic trolls, your cover is blown.    
> That 'splains a lot. haha.  I read it in the media, must be true. 
> woodbe.

  What about unsceptical trolls?  Can't we be spastic donkeys too?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery warns of global warmings effects in 2007:   _So even the rain that falls isnt actually going to fill our dams and river systems _

  See these same dams and river systems flooding at the link:  Shouldnt Flannery resign? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog   
How many failed doomsday predictions does it take before reality hits the "believers" of this cult?  :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

Never mind Flannery, what about Bolt? Shouldn't he resign? He's been convicted under the racial discrimination act, hasn't he?   

> This morning, Justice Bromberg came down in favour of racial tolerance.
>               "People should be free to fully identify with their race  without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying," he  said.
>               "On the basis of my findings, I am satisfied that each of  Mr Bolt and the Herald & Weekly Times engaged in conduct which  contravened section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act."

  If this derogatory piece of work cannot get tolerance for his fellow human beings right, why on earth would we pay him any attention at all on anything else? 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

What a limp response woodbe, after a barrage of legal eagles would have reviewed the story before going to print ensuring it didn't cross the line, it had to be tested in court, for which an apology was restitution for the wrongdoing , maybe you should look a bit higher up the food chain like the highest office in the country for a real goose in charge of the greatest political sham ever to see the light of day, now it has called in someone  that crippled a state to take it beyond our borders now, really the stupidness before this will be nothing to what is coming next. But no apologys from them though....... we must be well and truely all idiots
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> What a limp response woodbe, after a barrage of legal eagles would have reviewed the story before going to print ensuring it didn't cross the line, it had to be tested in court, for which an apology was restitution for the wrongdoing , maybe you should look a bit higher up the food chain like the highest office in the country for a real goose in charge of the greatest political sham ever to see the light of day, now it has called in someone that crippled a state to take it beyond our borders now, really the stupidness before this will be nothing to what is coming next. But no apologys from them though....... we must be well and truely all idiots
> regards inter

  
What rubbish, Bolt and the paper got caught out vilifying a particular group on one of Bolts rants against his usual list of hobby horses. The point is to continually quote Bolt as if he is some thought of authority when he is little more than an illinformed commentator specialising in bigoted opinions and then in turn pilloring someone else as being unqualified to comment is simply double standards and reflects on the lack of integrity in the argument. The point to remember is that Bolt was wrong in fact and had failed to make even basic attempts to confirm those facts.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> How many failed doomsday predictions does it take before reality hits the "believers" of this cult?

  
Billions.  Since what's good for an economist must also be good for anyone else making any sort of 'doomsday predictions'.  And it's not like any economist is doing any better at predicting things about the economies of the worlds...what's good for the goose is just fine for the seagull.

----------


## Dr Freud

Who's still dumb enough to believe the scaremongering authority figures in this cult? *
even the rain that falls isnt actually going to fill our dams and river systems* 
Any of you good folk on the East coast happen to see a full river system recently? 
Maybe we should listen more to realists like me and build more dams, rather than listen to doomsday cults, eh?  :Biggrin:    
Here's more of their recent lies:   

> You can believe another alarmist documentary from SBS...  _ The worlds biggest cities are already victims of climate change. Violent changes in weather are one of the most dramatic features of climate change. In the Caribbean, surviving massive storms during the hurricane season is part of everyday life. _    Or you can believe the reality:    _ 
>  During the past 6-years since Hurricane Katrina, global tropical cyclone frequency and energy have decreased dramatically, and are currently at near-historical record lows. According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records.  _

  More reality here:  Special Booga-booga Service | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

----------


## woodbe

I'm impressed that you are now prefacing your Andrew Bolt quotes with a warning that they are lies.  
Maybe Andrew can add a pop-up to his site with a similar warning including his admission that he is a convicted racial discriminator?   :Biggrin:

----------


## intertd6

woodbe & johnc are you quoting someone elses words to decribe mr bolts antics, has he been convicted? did he vilify anybody? That seems quite a contrast to contravening the act where an apology was the restitution. 
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm impressed that you are now prefacing your Andrew Bolt quotes with a warning that they are lies.

  My apologies, I really need to remember your limited comprehension ability. 
I'll simplify that sentence to help clear up your misunderstanding.  :Biggrin:     

> Who's still dumb enough to believe the scaremongering authority figures in this cult? *
> even the rain that falls isnt actually going to fill our dams and river systems* 
> Any of you good folk on the East coast happen to see a full river system recently? 
> Maybe we should listen more to realists like me and build more dams, rather than listen to doomsday cults, eh?    
> Here's more of [S]their[/S] *the doomsday cults* recent lies, *highlighted by the well renowned and reputable journalist Andrew Bolt*:     
> 			
> 				 You can believe another alarmist documentary from SBS...  _ The worlds biggest cities are already victims of climate change. Violent changes in weather are one of the most dramatic features of climate change. In the Caribbean, surviving massive storms during the hurricane season is part of everyday life. _   Or you can believe the reality:    _ 
> During the past 6-years since Hurricane Katrina, global tropical cyclone frequency and energy have decreased dramatically, and are currently at near-historical record lows. According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records._     More reality here:  Special Booga-booga Service | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  See how helpful I am.  :Biggrin:  
By your lack of response to the three questions, I assume you are avoiding admitting to still believing in these lies.  The answer to questions 2 and 3 are axiomatically affirmative.  Shall I assume your answer to question 1 is still "Woodbe"?  Or have you lost the faith? 
If you have lost the faith after realising the lack of evidence, please keep engaging in the semantic smear campaign of anyone pointing out the obvious farce that this cult has now festered into.  Every smear campaign you guys mount just demonstrates to anyone still in doubt that you have well and truly given up trying to defend this farce.  :Wink 1:  
Cover up all lack of evidence with mud slinging.  True desperation now.  :Biggrin:  
Why don't you post Andrew Bolt's annual salary next?  That'll surely prove the AGW hypothesis??? Won't it???  :Roflmao2:

----------


## woodbe

> By your lack of response to the three questions, I assume you

  I'll be happy have a go at responding to anything backed up by a scientific paper published in a reputable, peer reviewed, scientific journal. Last time I checked, those journals did not include any newspaper or climate change denial blog, and I'm certain that our Mr Bolt would have zero chance of authoring anything (apart from an apology) that might be published in such a place. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'll be happy have a go at responding to anything backed up by a scientific paper published in a reputable, peer reviewed, scientific journal. Last time I checked, those journals did not include any newspaper or climate change denial blog, and I'm certain that our Mr Bolt would have zero chance of authoring anything (apart from an apology) that might be published in such a place. 
> woodbe.

  So you ignore reality and prefer to wait for some authority figure to tell you what to think in a fear-reviewed scientific journal.  :Doh:  
This information below is certainly NOT *"backed up by a scientific paper published in a reputable, peer reviewed, scientific journal*" but for those who still countenance reality, here's what Woodbe doesn't "believe" until it gets fear-reviewed:    

> *Some 3,500 people have been told to stay away from their homes in Australia as flooding threatens large swathes of the state of New South Wales (NSW).*   *Up to three-quarters of the state is covered by water, according to emergency services officials.*  Australia Flooding: NSW Towns Evacuated As Rivers Rise And Heavy Rain Continues Across State | World News | Sky News

   

> The Bureau of Meteorology's warning yesterday came as more than 3000 people were evacuated from low-lying homes on the NSW north coast and flood warning were issued for every major river system between Taree and the Queensland border -- a 500km stretch taking in dozens of towns.  
> Queensland Premier Anna Bligh cancelled Brisbane's official Australia Day celebrations for safety reasons as flood warnings were imposed for five southeastern river systems and Wivenhoe Dam began draining its reservoir.  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

       
Still, it's better to have your road closed than your mind closed, eh?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'll be happy have a go at responding to anything *backed up by a scientific paper published in a reputable, peer reviewed, scientific journal*. Last time I checked, those journals did not include any newspaper or climate change denial blog, and I'm certain that our Mr Bolt would have zero chance of authoring anything (apart from an apology) that might be published in such a place. 
> woodbe.

  *Understanding Cult Psychology*  

> *Doctrine is reality*   Cults doctrine is considered *the 'Truth' with a capital T*, it covers every eventuality and members are expected to _ac_cept it completely, even if they don't understand it. Eric Hoffer says that the best cult doctrines are *unverifiable and un-evaluable*. This means *they cannot be proven or disproved*, they have to be *accepted on faith*.   
>  A fundamental aspect of cult psychology is to *get the person to distrust themselves*, and to develop a new identity where *the doctrine is the master program for all thoughts, feelings and actions*. This pseudo-identity (see later) does not need to be in the presence of the group leader to know what to do. In any given situation, *the program tells them how they should act, think or feel*, (in order to satisfy the cult leader!)  Cult psychology explained

  Read the full link and you'll actually laugh out loud when you realise how well this AGW hypothesis cult has used all the same old tricks to dupe innocent people into "believing" their doomsday predictions.  CLIMATEGATE demonstrated this very well. 
Then when you remember the economy crippling TAX about to be imposed on us all, you'll stop laughing pretty quickly.  :Cry:  
The cult is farcical, the TAX is reality!  
That's why they say that reality bites.  :Wink 1:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The cult is farcical, the TAX is reality!  
> That's why they say that reality bites.

  Therefore, the anti-cult (since every good cult must have an opposition for balance) is equally farcical.  And the tax....equally unreal. 
Oh and in my experience.....reality doesn't bite.  It just sucks.

----------


## mark53

*A new word.*  *INEPTOCRACY*   [in-ep-toc'-ra-cy] 
A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. [ Discribes the Pink Bats fiasco, Juliar Gillard Memorial Halls fiasco, The Carbon Dioxide Tax, etc., and Global Warming Cultists]. Cheers.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *A new word.*  *INEPTOCRACY*   [in-ep-toc'-ra-cy] 
> A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. [ Discribes the Pink Bats fiasco, Juliar Gillard Memorial Halls fiasco, The Carbon Dioxide Tax, etc., and Global Warming Cultists]. Cheers.

  I like the intent of the word...simply because it is so appropriate...but the definition requires some work... 
How about "A system of government where the least capable to lead are appointed by those least qualified to make such an appointment"?  Far more bipartisan...and therefore closer to the truth.

----------


## looseless

Hi gang, I've been away (undercover) for a while.  I can't believe you drongos are still discussing and elongating this lonnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggg thread.  Ah well, at least while your doing this. we know where you are and you're not doing something else. :brava:  
Keep up the good work.  Don't worry too much about the pollies, they are all looseless - just like me. 
Just a quick question - What can travel around the world but never leaves the corner?   :Confused:

----------


## chrisp

> Just a quick question - What can travel around the world but never leaves the corner?

  I hope you are not making fun of this serious thread?  Some of us have worked very hard searching for sound information on which to base our posts.  However, some just base their posts on the opinions of Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and the like  :Doh:  
A postage stamp!  :Smilie:

----------


## Dr Freud

> ...some just base their posts on the opinions of Andrew Bolt...

  Funny how lot's of Aussies (not just "some") also share similar opinions to Andrew Bolt: 
Here is the bottom line from the rout of Labor in todays Queensland election - the line that spells doom for Julia Gillard, too.   *Premier Anna Bligh, 2008:* _I will not kick (Queensland households) when they are down and I will not abolish the petrol subsidy._ *Three months after the 2009 election:* _THE Bligh government will scrap its 8.35 cent per litre fuel subsidy and hold a multi-billion dollar fire sale of State-owned assets to offset a plunge in revenues during the global financial crisis._  *And that was already that, as the next Galaxy poll showed, two months later:* _There has been a dramatic swing to the Opposition, with a 59-41 lead on a two-party-preferred basis - a 10 point swing from the March 21 state election And Ms Blighs popularity rating has hit an all-time low for a Queensland premier at 33 per cent._  *Remind you of anyone?:  * <strong>     
  Anna Bligh broke a pre-election promise, and hiked up peoples bills. She immediately lost the publics trust and never regained it, although got a brief sugar hit during the 2011 floods.  
 Julia Gillard broke a pre-election promise, and is already hiking up peoples bills. She immediately lost the publics trust and never regained it.   *The analogy still not close enough?* _Sky News exit polls show voters were most concerned about the Cost of Living (69 per cent), followed by Delivery of State Services (63 per cent), Carbon Tax (44 per cent)_  How do you think Gillard will do in Queensland next year?  
  UPDATE 
 Exit poll by Newspoll of five most marginal seats - Labor 26 per cent, LNP 55, Katters Australia Party 9, Greens a miserable 7. Newspoll reckons this means Labor falls from 51 seats to around 21 seats - or maybe as few as seven. Its LNP 63.7 per cent to Labors 33.3, 2pp.  
  UPDATE 
  Channel 9s exit poll is even worse for Labor: _Labor could be left with 10 or fewer seats in an election bloodbath, according to an exit poll for the Nine network. The poll gives the Liberal National Party 63 per cent of the two-party preferred vote, to Labors 37 per cent._ UPDATE 
  Another warning to Gillard and her Abbott, Abbott, Abbott campaign. Labors sliming of Campbell Newman not only failed, according to the exit poll, appealing only to the minority that voted Labor, but have actually backfired in its sheer nastiness: _LNP leader Campbell Newmans business dealings, the main target of Labors campaign, registered with just 17 percent of people._ Good on Michael Kroger for demanding an apology from Labor marginal seats strategist Bruce Hawker for the utterly baseless attacks on Newmans in-laws.  
  UPDATE 
 Lets recap. Queensland showed voters hate being lied to, hate the carbon tax and dont like an Opposition leader being slimed. And were told there are no implications in the results for Julia Gillard?  
  UPDATE 
 A 13 per cent swing so far against Bligh in her own seat. Shell need preferences to cling on. Her deputy premier and attack dog in the slime-Campbell campaign, Andrew Fraser, seems gone.  
  UPDATE 
  The ABCs election predictor at 8:26 has LNP on 67 seats, Labor on four, others five, doubtful 15. Absolutely catastrophic for Labor. 
  Sky News at 8:31 LNP 60, Labor two (!!!), Others three, doubtful 24.  
   UPDATE 
  Kate Jones concedes Ashgrove to Campbell Newman.  
  UPDATE 
 Five years ago, Labor held every state and territory government, and Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister. Now its lost the four biggest states, and the Gillard Government looks terminal.  
  UPDATE 
  Labor will struggle to make even 10 seats. Never seen anything like it.  
  UPDATE 
   At 9.15pm, Bligh concedes. She looks almost relaxed. Certainly tearless, at least to start with.  
 Days like today are very, very tough days. But part of democracy. We are the party that has transformed this state. Steered Queensland through the global financial crisis. (Hey, wasnt that Rudd?) 
 Goes through a checklist of achievement (another Rudd touch). Green zones, solar power programs, arts and culture.  Rebuilt from natural disasters. 
  There is a cycle in politics - a momentum for change. By 2012 it had become overwhelming. 
 Asset sales decision also very painful, but were necessary to protect jobs. But equally true couldnt bring community and unions with her. Accepts responsibility. 
  No apology for the immoral - and  disastrous - tactic of sliming Newman.  
    UPDATE 
  Campbell Newman: 
 I want to thank all Queenslanders for voting for change. Thanks the people who want to work for their families and communities, and to grow our economy. 
  We will keep our promises. 
 The responsibility hes been given weighs heavily, but gratefully accepted. Will work with humility and for all Queenslanders. It is an honor that so many people who never voted Liberal, National or LNP did so for the first time, and he thanks those voters. 
   First priority is getting economy on track and the job starts tomorrow. 
  Thanks Bligh for her service to Queensland and leads applause for her work during the natural disasters. (Extremely gracious, especially given how he was smeared by Bligh, who is yet to apologise. A telling moment.) 
  Newman nearly chokes in thanking his family. Pledges to make this great state a can-do state once more.  
  UPDATE 
  Sky News predicts: LNP 75, Labor six, others four, doubtful 4. What a total massacre. 
  The ABC has the same prediction - that Labor will struggle to make even 10 seats. 
 And what a courageous - and brilliant - strategy to make someone outside Parliament the Leader of the Opposition, and run him in a seat needing such a margin. Just brilliant. That is some party organisation.  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian  
Labor can now dump JULIAR and her useless TAX, or commit political suicide. 
The only person happier than Campbell Newman tonight is Kevin Rudd.  Phase 2 of his leadership comeback began tonight.  :Biggrin:  
And remember, that's *44% hating the Carbon Dioxide TAX* in a state election in which it wasn't even fought against.  After the Carbon Dioxide TAX is in, we can all celebrate EVERY cost of living increase it creates and highlight that to these people: _Cost of Living (69 per cent). _ Then us Aussies can keep asking JULIAR how much our financial and economic sacrifices are cooling the entire Planet Earth?  :Rotfl:  
JULIAR is finished!  :Clap:  
The only question is will it be Rudd or Abbott? 
And after this ridiculous TAX is repealed, there dies the cult!!!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## barney118

Well said

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Well said

  Which bit? 
If I was a Qlder...after twenty odd years of Labor...I'd have voted for anyone (even Bob Katter) except Labor!!  It certainly was a significant win but time will tell if the result is actually significant. 
As for the Tax....too late.  Business has built it in...otherwise you'd hear the Andrew Forrest's of the business community going off tap a'la the Mining Tax about High Court and Constitutional challenges etc.   
If Julia is a Liar then Tony is a non-core Promise....

----------


## Dr Freud

> Which bit?

  All of it, unless you wish to discuss any points individually?  :Wink 1:    

> If I was a Qlder...after twenty odd years of Labor...I'd have voted for anyone (even Bob Katter) except Labor!!

  Wrong. 
 Bligh lied, JuLIAR lied, they are both gone.  One of them (just like you) just hasn't realised it yet. 
If Bligh kept her word and ran Queensland well, she'd have won by a country mile.  For realities sake, she was up against an out of Parliament local govt official running in a safe Labor seat.  Don't drink the Koolaid and believe the "it's time" song and dance from the spin machine.   

> It certainly was a *significant* win but time will tell if the result is actually *significant*.

  [S]Wrong?[/S] Huh?  No wonder you people struggle with NHST.  :Biggrin:    

> As for the Tax....too late.

  Wrong!   

> Mr Abbott said the carbon tax had been one of the issues which had contributed to former Brisbane lord mayor Campbell Newman's election success. He said a federal Coalition government would do whatever was necessary to repeal the carbon tax, including calling a double dissolution election.  
>               But Mr Abbott doubted a Labor opposition would ''commit suicide twice'' by supporting the tax in the Senate.
>               ''If I'm wrong, if an incoming Coalition government can't get its carbon tax repeal legislation through the Senate, well, we will not hesitate to go to a double dissolution,'' he told Sky News. 
> Read more: Abbott warns of a double dissolution over carbon tax

   

> Business has built it in...

  Wrong!   

> A national survey of business managers has found there remains much confusion and uncertainty about the Federal Government's carbon tax.   
> Just over half of the 900 managers surveyed by the Australian Institute of Management realised the tax, which passed the Senate in November last year, would commence this year.  Carbon tax costs worry small business - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  Nearly half don't even know it's coming in this year!  :Doh:  
Build that into your reality, and weave some of this in too:    

> Industry groups were slamming the tax long before it was passed into law: the Australian Retailers Association, for example, has said the tax ultimately has no environmental benefit and will mean disastrous economic impacts for Australian retailers. 
> Members have been worried about how the carbon tax is going to come through in terms of freight, [supply] costs, electricity costs, and so on.  
>  These are all direct impacts that could raise the cost of running the business quite substantially  and for a small business like ours, *none of this is within our control.*  
> But many businesses are concerned that, rather than being driven to cut the tax they pay by reducing their emissions, *large polluters will simply pass on their carbon-tax costs across their customer base*, creating a cascade effect that will leave small-business operators with higher prices on electricity, petrol (which is initially exempt in low quantities), logistics, manufacturing and other services.  
> With nobody to whom they can pass on their input costs, small businesses will either have to raise their prices  and risk losing customers  or learn to bury the cost hikes in reduced margins, maintaining their pricing to stay competitive. In this way, the tax could have a significant effect even on small businesses that are far too small to be counted within the governments 500 largest-polluters list, simply from the supply chain effects.  Carbon tax and small business | Nett

  Sounds like it's planned to run like clockwork to me.  :Doh:     

> *If* Julia is a Liar then Tony is a non-core Promise...

  Wrong! (Grammatical errors aside.  :Confused: ) 
JuLIAR is a liar, there is no "If..." 
If Tony Abbott does or does not break any promises when he is potentially Prime Minister (in the future - again you don't understand that the future hasn't happened yet), this has no bearing in relation to JuLIAR being a liar in reality today:   

> The meaning of the material conditional can sometimes be used in the natural language English "if _condition_ then _consequence_" construction (a kind of conditional sentence), where _condition_ and _consequence_ are to be filled with English sentences. However, this construction also implies a "reasonable" connection between the condition (protasis) and consequence (apodosis)  Material conditional - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  You and your ilk keep trying to conjure up information and support for this fiction based policy, here's some sage words for you lot:   *Yes, it would be nice to have evidence-based policy-making. But even if we can't get that, perhaps we can do away with policy-based evidence-making.*  *Mark Kleiman*    :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

You figure out which is which: 
Here's Dr David Evans with a link to his argument (well worth the read):   

> _Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, and part-time to the Department of Climate Change from 2008 to 2010, modeling Australias carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University._ 
> Global warming has become a scam. Let me explain how it works.  
>  It has superficial plausibility. Yes, global warming is occurring. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and levels are rising. And yes, every molecule of carbon dioxide we emit causes some global warming.  
>  Many non-scientists think that proves the case, but it doesnt. In particular, it doesnt rule out the possibility that carbon dioxide is merely a minor or insignificant player, and that something else is the main cause of global warming.  
>  Heres a clue: the world has been in a warming trend since 1680, the depth of the Little Ice Age. It has warmed steadily since then, at half a degree per century. Within the trend there is a pattern of 25  30 years of warming followed by 25  30 years of mild cooling. We just finished a warming period that started in 1975, so chances are well have mild cooling for the next couple of decades. But there were no SUVs in 1680. Human emissions of CO2 were miniscule before 1850, nearly all come after WWII, and a quarter  since 1998. Yet the warming  trend was as strong in the 1700s and 1800s as it was in the 1900s.  
>  The theory of man-made global warming doesnt stand up to even casual scrutiny. It requires believers to ignore or deny overwhelming evidence that it is bunk. The believers have to be schooled by massive propaganda not to notice certain things, and to ignore and revile anyone who points out those things.  *There is in fact no empirical evidence that global warming is mainly man-made.* If there was, we would have heard all about it. Tens of billions of dollars has been spent looking for it.   http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/dr-...s-of-evidence/

  And here's Bob Brown, who was cheered and applauded by his green cult for these comments:   

> Fellow Earthians,... 
> So far, it seems like we are the lone thinkers in this vast, expanding Universe.  
>  However, recent astronomy tells us that there are trillions of other planets circling Sunlike stars in the immensity of the Universe, millions of them friendly to life. So why has no one from elsewhere in the Cosmos contacted us?  
>  Surely some people-like animals have evolved elsewhere. Surely we are not, in this crowded reality of countless other similar planets, the only thinking beings to have turned up. Most unlikely! So why isn't life out there contacting us? Why aren't the intergalactic phones ringing?  
>  Here is one sobering possibility for our isolation: maybe life has often evolved to intelligence on other planets with biospheres and every time that intelligence, when it became able to alter its environment, did so with catastrophic consequences. Maybe we have had many predecessors in the Cosmos but all have brought about their own downfall.  
>  That's why they are not communicating with Earth. They have extincted themselves. They have come and gone. And now it's our turn.  
>  Whatever has happened in other worlds, here we are on Earth altering this bountiful biosphere, which has nurtured us from newt to Newton.  
>  Unlike the hapless dinosaurs, which went to utter destruction when a rocky asteroid plunged into Earth sixty-five million years ago, this accelerating catastrophe is of our own making...  
> So let us resolve that there should be established for the prevalence and happiness of humankind a representative assembly a global parliament for the people of the Earth based on the principle of one person one vote one value; and to enable this outcome that it  should be a bicameral parliament with its house of review having equal representation elected from every nation.  
> ...

  
So the "proof" for the AGW hypothesis is that the aliens haven't called us yet because they all killed themselves with global warming on their own planets? 
And our salvation is one world government? (er, it's not a conspiracy, the Greens want India and China to decide what's best for us Aussies, with Zimbabwe and Iran having the reviewing rights). 
And they actually publish this on their website? 
And there are Aussies out there actually voting for this? 
Beware the boldness of this cult.  It will be coming into all of our lives on 1 July 2012. 
One vote will see it off at the next election.  You know who's got that power, don't you.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's the ABC's misguided [S]defence[/S] propogandising of this farce:   

> It is now official ABC policy not to question the global warming theory, even though the world hasnt warmed in a decade and scientists are in dispute. The ABCs Audience and Consumer Affairs branch writes in response to a complaint:   _Given the overwhelming majority of the worlds scientists agree that AGW is real and needs to be addressed and the overwhelming majority of the worlds governments and the UN acknowledge the reality of AGW and the need to address it, the ABC pursues a balance that follows the weight of evidence on this issue.  The ABCs coverage of this issue has well and truly moved on from the debate as to whether or not AGW is real._ What was it that former ABC _Media Watch_ host David Marr once said? Oh, yes:  _The natural culture of journalism is a kind of vaguely soft left inquiry, sceptical of authority. I mean, thats just the world out of which journalists come.  If they dont come out of this world, they really cant be reporters.  I mean, if you are not sceptical of authority  find another job.  You know, just find another job._Everying Marr wrote there is true. Except for just two words: soft left. By Marrs own defnition, the ABCs email proves the stoft-left ABC has betrayed journalism. 
>   It is now evangelising for a neo-religious movement. 
>   (Thanks to reader Tony.)   Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  
I can't wait for the ABC to release it's policy defending the Roman Catholic Church as well:    

> The ABCs Audience and Consumer Affairs branch writes in response to a complaint:  _Given the overwhelming majority of the worlds scientists agree that God is real and needs to be addressed and the overwhelming majority of the worlds governments and the UN acknowledge the reality of God and the need to address Him, the ABC pursues a balance that follows the weight of "evidence" on this issue.  The ABCs coverage of this issue has well and truly moved on from the debate as to whether or not God is real._

  So, the ABC "believes" that if enough people agree to something, then this is "evidence" that it is "real".  :Doh:  
Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.  :No:   
If the ABC actually followed the "weight of evidence" on this issue, they'd realise it is exactly 0.00 grams. 
I won't even go into their factually incorrect and patently false statement about "t_he overwhelming majority of the worlds scientists agree_", which 3 seconds on Google renders idiotic!  :Doh:  
And JuLIAR's making us pay more and more TAX every day to fund these idiotic green dream schemes.  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

They should be ashamed!    

> _THEY are responsible for some of the government's most important policies - but staff at the Department of Energy and Climate Change are too ashamed to admit where they work. _   _Staff morale is so low the government has spent almost $175,000 on consultants to lift staff's flagging spirits. _   _A negative public image of the department, changing environmental policies and lack of internal support had left them feeling miserable and disengaged, an internal report has found. _ *Maybe they secretly realise that their department is an utter waste of money, whose actions will make not the slightest bit of difference to the climate? And just piss people off.*  Government climate change staff &#039;miserable and disengaged&#039; | Australian Climate Madness

  They should have realised it by now.  Everyone else has.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Be warned, and beware.  This cult is growing braver with it's demented musings and is being legitimised by the silence of those yet to suffer the real consequences from it's fictional and farcical beliefs:     

> *LIKE many working couples, Anne and Russell Secombe decided to find a place by the sea where they would eventually retire to live out the rest of their lives pursuing simple pleasures. 				  *  			 		 		In the 1970s, the couple, now in their 80s, found it, a modest single-level brick house at 23 Illaroo Rd, Lake Cathie, a town on the NSW mid-north coast.  
>   It's simple bliss: Anne, a retired clerk, spends time keeping up her neat garden; Russell, a retired mechanic, angles on the beach for blackfish, flathead and bream. But yesterday the Secombes' sense of hard-earned stability collapsed when they discovered they could be among the first victims in Australia to be dispossessed of their home. Not because of any existing environmental threat, but because the local council believes climate change could pose one by the end of the century.  
>  In a move that struck incredulity, alarm and fear among locals, Port Macquarie Hastings Council put a study on the council website recommending that council enforce a "planned retreat" for the owners of the 17 houses on Illaroo Road. The area is one of 15 "hot spots" identified by the NSW government as being vulnerable to the effects of sea level rises due to climate change, as outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  
> For Illaroo Road residents Kylie Outtrim, a nurse, and Stephen Hunt, a financial planner, yesterday marked "D Day" for making a property already devalued by council actions now unsellable. Illaroo Road is about 7m above mean sea level, so there's no danger of flooding.  
>  But the council's concern is that if IPCC projections of climate change and sea level rises come true, increased erosion will progressively undermine the road and then the houses.  
>  The council's plan would mean the Secombes and their neighbours would, over an unspecified period of time, be expected or required to sell their house to the council and move out.  
>  "We don't want to shift, no way," Mr Secombe told The Weekend Australian yesterday.  
>  Ms Outtrim tells of their frustration at not being able to renovate the 1970s, two-storey brick house they bought five years ago because of the council's stance.  
>  After the couple bought the house with a plan to renovate it and retire in it, the council imposed a ban on Illaroo Road owners doing any redevelopments on their properties.  
> ...

    
When will this cult coming knocking on your door?   :Kneel suckers:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Big Ted has the right idea,  breaking the ice by getting rid of the emission targets and winding back green schemes! 
So is Queensland. 
YAY some sense at last.

----------


## johnc

Wasn't "Big Ted's" reasoning based on the fact that Federal initiatives had made the state target redundant? Alan Kohler has written a good piece on targets today, it provides a wider view and a different perspective especially as his is a business rather than a "green" focus.  *Losing our lead: emissions targets increase ahead*The Drum
By ABC's Alan Kohler 
Updated March 28, 2012 08:46:00   *Photo:* The idea that Australia is leading the world on climate change is quickly becoming untrue. (JodieV, file photo: User submitted via ABC Contribute)  
Australia will have to increase its greenhouse gas reduction target from the current 5 per cent by 2020, to at least 15 per cent within two years under the policies of both the ALP and the Coalition.
That's because the conditions for doing that look like being met. Remember the Government's reduction target is 5 per cent below 2000 levels unilateral and 15 per cent if "major developing economies commit to substantially restrain emissions and advanced economies take on commitments comparable to Australia's".
The Opposition has signed up to both the 5 per cent and 15 per cent targets, although it hasn't mentioned the second one for a while.
It's clear that science is beginning to reassert itself on this subject after a few years on the sidelines following the debacle in Copenhagen in 2009.
Current advanced country pledges already suggest a 10-20 per cent reduction from 1990 levels by 2020. China has imposed quotas on carbon emissions and is likely to have an emissions trading scheme in place by 2015; it already has them in nine provinces. The action being taken by other developing countries is already sufficient for a 15 per cent reduction in Australia.
The idea that Australia is leading the world on climate change is quickly becoming untrue. Moreover the delays caused by the 2009/10 political convulsions, which saw both the opposition leader and the prime minister sacked over climate change, will mean Australia ends up paying a much higher price than it would have.
The recommendation on Australia's target will come from the Climate Change Authority, to be chaired by for former Reserve Bank governor and industry super champion, Bernie Fraser.
Even the 5 per cent reduction from 2000 levels is starting to look nearly impossible given the increase in emissions since the target was set; 15 per cent would represent a crushing burden for Australia's businesses.
Australia's carbon emissions are already 5 per cent above 2000 levels. At the current rate of increase, they will be 23 per cent above the 2000 level by 2020, or 690 million tones of CO2 equivalent.
That means the 5 per cent reduction target to which both parties have committed is already a 23 per cent, or 160 million tonne reduction from business as usual. Reducing by 15 per cent from 2000 - which looks like being the target - means we would have to cut emission by one-third from BAU.
If that were achieved by cuts in Australian emissions, it needs a carbon price in the hundreds of dollars, or direct action that bankrupt the Government.
As things stand the tax of $23 per tonne will stand for three years to be replaced by emissions trading in 2015. Despite the obvious concerns about it from business and the community generally, the carbon tax won't actually do much to reduce carbon emissions because of the compensation and offsets that have been promised.
The impact of the target will only start in 2015, when it will determine the number of permits emitting businesses will have to buy.
It's possible that a new Coalition government will dismantle the whole thing next year, but that would be a Humphreyan courageous decision: first the rest of the world clearly is taking action to reduce emissions, so that if Australia just dropped out of the project and dropped its targets the cost would be very high; and second, if the Coalition tried to use its "direct action" plan to meet the targets, the cost to the budget would be horrendous.
That is especially true on both counts if the target is 15 per cent by then. If the world is doing enough to justify a 15 per cent target according to Bernie Fraser's CCA, which it almost certainly will be, then the Coalition could hardly dump Australia's targets altogether. "Direct action" to meet even a 5 per cent target is unaffordable; 15 per cent is laughable.
Emissions trading is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions because businesses can buy permits from overseas. At the moment European permits cost less than $15 per tonne and certificates from the Clean Development Mechanism, which will qualify as Australian permits, cost around $5 each.
On that basis the cost to Australian businesses will immediately fall to the floor price of $15 a tones when emissions trading starts in 2015.
At that price, the cost of meeting the 5 per cent reduction target would be $2.4 billion in total. A 15 per cent target would cost $3.2 billion.
But the question is whether Australia can or should meet its emissions target simply by buying permits from overseas. It's true that climate change is global not national, so it doesn't really matter where a tonne of carbon is removed, but would it be acceptable politically, here and overseas, for Australia not to actually reduce its emissions and simply pay other countries to do it?
This is a question that is exercising the minds of the policymakers in Canberra now - how to pitch Australia's scheme so that the targets are met without crushing our industries but without, in effect, simply buying and preserving forests in Borneo while continuing to produce most electricity from coal.
By the way, most of the increase in carbon emissions between now and 2020 will come from export energy projects, principally coal, coal seam gas and LNG, as well as some from transport and industry direct combustion - almost none of it from electricity generation.
In effect it's a double whammy from the resources boom: a high dollar plus a larger climate change burden.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Wasn't "Big Ted's" reasoning based on the fact that Federal initiatives had made the state target redundant?

  Yep.  That's the case for both Vic and Qld.  Fairly sensible decision in both States I'd have thought.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *Yes, it would be nice to have evidence-based policy-making. But even if we can't get that, perhaps we can do away with policy-based evidence-making.*  *Mark Kleiman*

  I like that quote.  But since no-one in Government is typically willing to invest significantly in evidence gathering of any kind then we are obviously stuck with opinion-based policy making and policy-based evidence making. 
Therefore, we all go blithely forward shouting....."Ignoro Partum".

----------


## Dr Freud

> *Earth to Gillard: Watch Bob Brown* 								by: 								 											Chris Kenny 								From: 								 	        The Australian 									April 02, 2012 									12:00AM   
>   	 	 						 							BOB Brown's kooky speech to his "fellow Earthians" deserves greater scrutiny. Apart from providing an insight into the Greens plan for a universal world government, it makes clear the dilemma confronting the Gillard government.   
>  							With fewer than three in every 10 people now identifying Labor as their political party of first choice, Julia Gillard has two options: she can continue chasing the votes of her fellow Earthians to the left, or she can rejoin the contest for the mainstream Australia.     Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  JuLIAR has bowed down and pledged her allegiance to Bob Brown and his nutter greenies. 
Then she wonders why normal Aussies desert her in droves:   

> The latest monthly Nielsen result backs up Newspolls 57-43 result from last week, out from 53-47 when Nielsen last polled in the days preceding the leadership challenge. *At 27% for Labor* (down a dizzying seven points on the previous poll) and 47% for the Coalition (up three), the primary vote results are likewise all but identical to Newspolls (28% and 47%).  Nielsen: 57-43 to Coalition | The Poll Bludger

  And her boss Bob Brown now sells us Aussies out for his whacko agenda:   

> Greens leader Bob Brown took his bizarre crusade for a One World Government to the Global Greens conference in Senegal last weekend. And the Global Greens voted for it unanimously:   _The Global Greens Congress reaffirms its support of the creation of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) as a parliamentary body within the UN system that is complementary to the UN General Assembly. As a first step it should be composed of representatives of national parliaments but ultimately it should become a body that is directly elected by the worlds citizens. As representation of the worlds citizens, we believe that a UNPA, among other things, should be involved in all important intergovernmental treaty negotiations._Bob Browns dream see the creation of a world government in which Australia would always be outvoted by China, India or the Muslim bloc, and would be subject in part to a government it could never dismiss. 
>   Maybe Bobs aliens are already among us ....   Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  What amazes me every day is that 27% of people still admit they would vote for this debacle!  :No:  
(Direct greenie voters (Earthians) don't count, they have to be certifiably insane !)

----------


## Dr Freud

These are the constant corrections of their own constantly wrong predictions from this inept government:    
Borrowing more and more money, racking up more and more debt.    

> *Total Commonwealth Government Securities
>          	  on Issue - $237,441m * AOFM – Home

   
And they want you to trust that they have designed an economy wide BIG NEW TAX that is designed to cool down the entire Planet Earth!  :Doh:  
And 27% of people actually still believe this?  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

If you think Wayne Swan is a genius (after his constant failures) and choose to believe him, go right ahead.  These people don't:   

> AUSTRALIA faces a $30 billion hit to growth by 2018 if domestic carbon prices remain higher than the European price, according to new economic modelling that will add to business pressure to bring the $23 starting price closer to Europe's $10.   
>  							The modelling, by the Centre for International Economics consultancy, warns that keeping the $23 fixed price regime and the floor price of $15 a tonne -- key elements of the current package -- will have almost twice the impact on economic growth by 2018 as allowing the Australian price to track international prices.  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  And that's before the disastrous mining TAX that the rest of the world is now celebrating:    

> AUSTRALIAs decision last week to introduce a new 30% tax on iron ore and coal profits presents a rare opportunity for *South Africa* to attract mining investment. 
> A small window of opportunity opened for us to start taking back this market share when the Australian parliament passed laws for the new tax. This levy is to be implemented from July, leading the head of the Western Australian Chamber of Minerals and Energy to complain that the tax threatens Australias prosperity and competitiveness by making it a less desirable place to invest.  BusinessDay - TIM HARRIS: Chance for SA in new Australian mining tax

  Because they've given so much compensation away to buy popularity for their disastrous Carbon Dioxide TAX, it's now a TAX that actually costs the budget money.  So they've had to introduce this disastrous mining TAX to make up for it, that will soon be expanded to other minerals in accordance with Bob Brown's instructions to JuLIAR. 
Crippling our strongest economic sector with the mining TAX is ineptitude of the highest order.  Crippling our entire country with the Carbon Dioxide TAX is just idiocy exemplified.  With more TAXES to come in the May budget.  
What an absolute mess!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> As you read the following economic news, ask yourself: is this really the time to hit industry with a carbon tax and a new mining tax?    _ A CRISIS in Australian manufacturing deepened in March with an index of activity across the besieged sector showing that it contracted. _  _The seasonally-adjusted Australian Industry Group (AIG)-PricewaterhouseCoopers Australian performance of manufacturing index fell 1.8 points to 49.5 in March. A reading below 50 indicates a contraction in activity._  _AIG chief executive Innes Willox said that manufacturing continued to wallow under the weight of a high Australian dollar The decrease in the index was largely due to significant falls across clothing and footwear and wood products and furniture, with seven of the 12 sub-sectors contracting in March - up from six in the previous month._  And:  _  APPROVALS for new homes slumped by 8 per cent in February, dragged down by a collapse in planned construction in New South Wales The Australian dollar fell below $US1.0400 as the housing report pointed to another quarter of weak growth for the economy.  _ Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

   
Can't wait for the price of everything to start going up, that should do wonders for our economy.  :Doh:  
At least dodgy dictators will be happy when JuLIAR starts shovelling billions of our taxes offshore to them in exchange for them emailing us a "Carbon Credit Certificate":    
There's great value for money, huh?  :Cry:  
Hopefully one of those unhappy campers at the Department of Climate Change will print these off and file them somewhere.  :Crybaby:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Gillard thinks she understands the problem. Its those silly, backward voters:   _Im good mates with Barack Obama, Ms Gillard was quoted as saying.  
> I tell him, you think its tough being African-American? Try being me. Try being an atheist, childless, single woman as prime minister._Actually, Julia, Id vote for a 150kg, shaved-headed Morrocan lesbian with a wooden leg if she kept her promises, dismantled the disastrous carbon tax, cut government waste, put people into work, fought green extremists, defended reason, defied our new tribalism and wound back limits to our freedom to speak.    *Its what you do that counts, not what you are.*   Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  Well said Mr Andrew Bolt! 
How fair and egalitarian of you.  :2thumbsup:   
JuLIAR LIES again by saying people dislike her for being: female; atheist; childless; single; etc. 
But she knows she lied about the Carbon Dioxide TAX, and that's the reality of why she's finished!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *A QUARTER of Australians say Tim Flannery is an unreliable source of information about climate change, a new survey reveals. 				 * Tim Flannery&#039;s like the weather - unreliable | thetelegraph.com.au

  
Only 25%? 
So what, the other 75% of you out there actually think most of our major cities have now run out of water?  :Confused:  
So what, the other 75% of you out there actually think Flim Flam is suicidal, as he bought and lives in waterfront property?  :Confused:  
So what, the other 75% of you out there actually think the East Coast is going through a permanent drought?  :Confused:     :Wtf3:   
Just when you think the Koolaid is running out...

----------


## Dr Freud

> THE high levels of public distrust and cynicism with politicians leave no margin for lying to the electorate, former Labor leader Mark Latham has warned, saying the ALP's only hope for survival is to "bring in a non-liar as prime minister".  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  The odds are "Shorten"ing for a leadership change.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> JEANNE Pratt, in charge of  the Visy cardboard box empire, has been close to Labor and arts figures, but has had enough:   _This carbon tax is absolutely crazy, she said  _   _Im very concerned about the state of unemployment in Australia and I dont think people know how hard it is. Im scared that wrong decisions are being made._ Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  
Don't concern yourself too much Jeanne, people will know just how hard it is in just a few short years... :Cry:  
They'll try to fudge a fictional "surplus" by raising more TAXES. 
But when we are pumping billions to overseas shonks for fictional fresh air certificates instead of paying back our quarter trillion dollars in debt that JuLIAR and Labor have racked up, people will know exactly how hard it is.

----------


## Dr Freud

> EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: The man in charge of Australia's $70 billion Future Fund today fired a broadside at the carbon tax which will be introduced in July.  
> David Murray has managed the Future Fund for the past six years and ends his term as chairman on Monday. 
> The former Commonwealth Bank chief said the carbon tax will make Australia's energy exports less competitive in the future.  
> DAVID MURRAY, FUTURE FUND CHAIRMAN: In the case of the carbon tax, if you want me to tell you my view, it is the worst piece of economic reform I have ever seen in my life in this country. The consequence of introducing that tax at that level in Australia today is very, very bad for this economy, particularly in terms of its international competitiveness  Lateline - 30/03/2012: Future Fund chair criticises carbon tax

  
And JuLIAR and Swan hired this man to manage our $70 billion future fund specifically because of his economic and financial credentials. 
A very telling indictment on the debacle these lunatics have created.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Dude!! 
If you cry wolf often enough about this Carbon Tax thingy and the Australian economy doesn't end itself shortly after July 1 (or at least begin to challenge Greece in a race to the economic bottom) as you seem to be suggesting then how are we supposed to take you seriously? 
More concerning...just where are you going to get your next scare campaign from?  Bob Katter?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Dude!! 
> If you cry wolf often enough about this Carbon Tax thingy and the Australian economy doesn't end itself shortly after July 1 (or at least begin to challenge Greece in a race to the economic bottom) as you seem to be suggesting then how are we supposed to take you seriously? 
> More concerning...just where are you going to get your next scare campaign from?  Bob Katter?

  Are you saying this carbon tax will not hurt the economy? 
Would you say it will have an effect on the world emmissions? 
Would you say that any damage to our economy would be worth the potential reductions? 
it is not crying wolf it is pointing out the obvious.  No one is saying we will be like Greece but we will be worse off and for what gain?  Uttterly useless symbolic tax with no measureable benefit.

----------


## intertd6

Dude!! 
If you cry wolf often enough about this Carbon Tax thingy and the  Australian economy doesn't end itself shortly after July 1 (or at least begin to  challenge Greece in a race to the economic bottom) as you seem to be suggesting  then how are we supposed to take you seriously? 
More concerning...just  where are you going to get your next scare campaign from?  Bob Katter?  
How can any sane person argue with logic like that ^ !!!!
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> Are you saying this carbon tax will not hurt the economy? 
> Would you say it will have an effect on the world emmissions? 
> Would you say that any damage to our economy would be worth the potential reductions? 
> it is not crying wolf it is pointing out the obvious.  *No one is saying we will be like Greece but we will be worse off and for what gain?  Uttterly useless symbolic tax with no measureable benefit. *

  Well said mate. 
Those cluey banana benders figured it out. 
Let's hope the rest of Australia increases their understanding of this fact and then we'll see that 27% head further down.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Apparently these employers (and others) will be crying wolf when they sack their employees:   

> AUSTRALIA'S plastics recyclers will have to slash hundreds of jobs or go bust because of the carbon tax, bosses say.  
>  							Electricity costs will soar by 10 per cent in the new financial year as a result of the tax, according to official Treasury estimates, and recyclers warn the increases will send them broke.  Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

  I think their employees and their families will be the ones crying, but what would a realist like me know? 
But these AGW cult figures are apparently NOT crying wolf:   

> *Climate's last chance* *Tim Flannery* 
> James Hanson, director of NASA's Goddard Institute, is arguably the world authority on climate change. He predicts that we have just a decade to avert a 25-metre rise of the sea. Picture an eight-storey building by a beach, then imagine waves lapping its roof. That's what a 25-metre rise in sea level looks like.  Climate's last chance - Opinion - theage.com.au

  And how high is your brand new waterfront house, eh Tim?  Must be at least 9 storey's I guess?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

The ABC reckons I'm dismissive of the AGW cult:   

> *Dismissive* *The  Dismissive* are sure that global warming is not happening. You say the issue is not at all important to you personally and are not worried about it at all. You, however, say that you have thought about global warming and believe you are well-informed about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions  i.e., that there are none, because it doesnt exist. You are very certain about your views, and are very unlikely to change your mind about the issue. Many of the Dismissive flatly reject the proposition that global warming is happening, while a majority believe that if global warming is happening, natural changes in the environment are the primary cause. Likewise, a majority believe there is a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is occurring, while over a fifth of the Dismissive believe there is a scientific consensus that global warming is not happening. You say that global warming will not harm you personally or future generations at all. Finally, you believe global warming will never harm people.
>                                                            Read about other types: Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful, Dismissive.  
>                               							You fall in the 68% of Australians, who've taken this 'climate challenge' who are Dismissive  of global warming.

  If only they knew.  :Biggrin:  
Have a go yourself here:  I Can Change Your Mind about Climate - ABC TV  
I can't wait for the "balanced" ABC coverage of this debacle.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

This cult blatantly admits that they will LIE to propagandise their scaremongering efforts, and you accuse me of crying wolf for pointing out the facts surrounding this idiocy:    

> What happened to listen to the science?   _  A GLOBAL lobby group has distributed a spin sheet encouraging its 300 member organisations to emphasise the link between climate change and extreme weather events, despite uncertainties acknowledged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.   _   _An action pack distributed by Global Campaign for Climate Action said members shouldnt be afraid to make the connection, despite the sometimes low level of confidence in the official documents of the IPCC. The action pack, which was produced to coincide with the release of the latest full IPCC report into the link between climate change and extreme weather events, rekindled claims that overstating the case damaged the credibility of the science_   _The full report ... presented a cautious appraisal and said it was unable to answer confidently whether climate was becoming more extreme.  
> But GCCA told its member organisations to use the precautionary principle to argue that we must take potential risks seriously even if the science doesnt offer high confidence.  
> Generally, all weather events are now connected to climate change, because we have altered the fundamental condition of the climate, that is, the background environment that gives rise to all weather, the action plan said.  
> GCCA has about 300 members worldwide including Greenpeace, Oxfam, WWF, Environment America, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Amnesty International and Pew Environment Group._ Whats important to these extremists is not the evidence but the scare.    Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  
Here's some of these scientists who now support scaremongering over science:  Experts List | Union of Concerned Scientists  
Sometimes you just have to ask, WTF?    

> *Experts*  *Francesca Grifo*_Senior Scientist and Director, Scientific Integrity Program_ *Expertise**Scientific Integrity* *Profile* As the senior scientist and director of the Scientific Integrity Program at UCS, Francesca Grifo acts to mobilize scientists and citizens to defend the integrity of government science from political interference.  
> Dr. Grifo has testified before Congress on the subject of scientific integrity in federal policy making and is widely quoted on the topic in media outlets such as _The New York Times, Washington Post,_ and National Public Radio's_ Science Friday._   Francesca Grifo | Union of Concerned Scientists

----------


## Dr Freud

This is significant given Richo's historic position on this issue.  He knows JuLIAR is digging the grave for the Labor Party:   

> On Sundays show I said Julia Gillard was making a terrible mistake by telling Queenslanders she hadnt heard them the first time about her hated carbon tax.   
>  Now former Queensland Premier Peter Beattie - positioning himself nicely as a potential draftee for the national leadership - agrees:   _ 
> PETER BEATTIE:  
> Look, I think shes introducing a number of very difficult measures such as the mining tax and the carbon tax. But I dont think its being communicated very well. I mean I dont think at the moment the federal government could sell oil to the Arabs and thats a clear problem....  I think one of the other difficulties is frankly if you do get some things wrong and we can talk about the actual price of carbon which I think is too high, then frankly youve got to admit that $23 is too much and find a more equitable price. Now thats hard to do in politics, but frankly, Australians respect you if you actually say, look, I do need to make an adjustment, Ive listened to you. Youre right, Im wrong, this is what were going to do.  
> DAVID SPEERS:  
> So you think it would be an act of contrition or a symbol of listening to actually cut that price?  
> PETER BEATTIE:  
> Yes I do._ You wont buy an argument on that from former Labor Minister Graham Richardson:  _That having been said, the carbon tax is immeasurably unpopular and it does have to have some degree of reality in the world. Two years ago you might have been able to get away with $23, today $10 is about as high as you can go. She needs to change._ (Quotes from Sky News yesterday.)  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  Some degree of reality? 
How about we just stick fully with reality.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Germaine Greer said JuLIAR has a big bum and lefties and feminists on the ABC laugh their own @rses off, which cartoonists have also often exploited:   
Then Abbott actually agrees with a radical feminist for which he is hounded until admitting some sort of mea culpa.  :Doh:  
Lesson learnt Tony, don't even agree with crazy people in jest.  
But nothing at all on TV about the man directing JuLIAR's policy agenda ranting about Aliens becoming extinct from global warming, who wants to shut down our entire national coal industry, and pushing for Australia to give up our sovereignty to China:   

> Gerard Henderson on one of the most bizarre rants in Australian politics - Greens leader Bob Browns musings on aliens and a One World Government:   _Imagine the media reaction if the atheist Julia Gillard or the Christian Tony Abbott raised the possibility, in a major address, of extraterrestrial life on one or more planets beyond Earth. At the very least, they would have been ridiculed. There may even have been calls for a retirement on medical grounds_  _But Brown tends to avoid criticism. The evidence suggests that the Greens get a remarkably soft run in many sections of the media_  _There has been scant focus on the Greens recent election performances. In the Queensland election, the partys primary vote dropped from 8.4 per cent to 7.3 per cent - well below Bob Katters Australian Party_  _Then there are the double standards. The Greens call for political transparency. Yet it was some time before word leaked out that Sarah Hanson-Young had unsuccessfully challenged Christine Milne for the deputy leader position. Lee Rhiannon has consistently refused to account for her political role in the Socialist Party of Australia, which supported the Soviet Union up to the collapse of European communism when she was about 40 years of age. And the Greens oppose large-scale political funding, yet the party was the recipient of the largest contribution ever made in Australia - by Wotif.coms Graeme Wood.  
> Finally, there is the Australian coal industry, which contributes huge amounts of money to revenue by way of company tax and royalties. As such, coal exports make possible much of the funding which sustains the lifestyles of Greens supporters who are on the public payroll. Yet Brown told Insiders in June last year that the coal industry has to be replaced.  
> When you look at the gentle treatment of the Greens in the media, its no surprise that Brown thought he could get away with his extraterrestrial ravings at the Hobart Town Hall._One other thing Gerard missed: Bob Browns demands for an inquiry and new laws to tame the Greens media critics. Read this while you can.   Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  
I'm sure the ABC just missed this lunatic ranting and this expose' will be splashed all over Insiders next week, eh?  :No:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Are you saying this carbon tax will not hurt the economy? 
> Would you say it will have an effect on the world emmissions? 
> Would you say that any damage to our economy would be worth the potential reductions? 
> it is not crying wolf it is pointing out the obvious.  No one is saying we will be like Greece but we will be worse off and for what gain?  Uttterly useless symbolic tax with no measureable benefit.

  Q1: My suspicion is that it won't 'damage' the economy in any measurable way
Q2: None at all
Q3: See response to Question 1
Q4: What was the question? 
No denying that the 'tax' is merely symbolic in terms of reducing carbon emissions (or emissions of any other kind).  However, since the greater proportion of the income arising from the 'tax' is due to be redistributed (directly and indirectly) amongst the sheep then I struggle with the idea that the Australian economy will be worse off...significantly or otherwise.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The ABC reckons I'm dismissive of the AGW cult:   
> If only they knew.  
> Have a go yourself here:  I Can Change Your Mind about Climate - ABC TV  
> I can't wait for the "balanced" ABC coverage of this debacle.

  
I ended up in the Concerned bracket...and given this is all going to end up on Q&A then 'balance' is the least of your problems!!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> How can any sane person argue with logic like that ^ !!!!
> regards inter

  Live a little and give it a go...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Q1: My suspicion is that it won't 'damage' the economy in any measurable way
> Q2: None at all
> Q3: See response to Question 1
> Q4: What was the question? 
> No denying that the 'tax' is merely symbolic in terms of reducing carbon emissions (or emissions of any other kind).  However, since the greater proportion of the income arising from the 'tax' is due to be redistributed (directly and indirectly) amongst the sheep then I struggle with the idea that the Australian economy will be worse off...significantly or otherwise.

  Well you might have to struggle a bit harder, you may just find that many that have jobs now will not have them after the CT cuts into manufacturing.  Anything that damages business confidence is BAD for the economy (read sheep).  The take from the rich give to the poor simply does not work just ask the Russians.      *Aneconomics professor at a local college made a statement that he had neverfailed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. Thatclass had insisted that Julia's socialism worked and that no one would be poorand no one would be rich, a great equalizer.  
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class onJulia's plan".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive thesame grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substitutinggrades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood byall). 
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. Thestudents who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little werehappy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little hadstudied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ridetoo so they studied little.  
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. 
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.  
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame andname-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for thebenefit of anyone else.  
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialismwould also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort tosucceed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one willtry or want to succeed.*  *Couldnot be any simpler than that.*  *Remember,there IS a test coming up. The 2013 elections.*     These are possiblythe 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment: 
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy outof prosperity. 
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work forwithout receiving. 
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does notfirst take from somebody else. 
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it! 
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work becausethe other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets theidea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get whatthey work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

----------


## chrisp

> *Aneconomics professor at a local college made a statement that he had neverfailed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. Thatclass had insisted that Julia's socialism worked and that no one would be poorand no one would be rich, a great equalizer.  
> The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class onJulia's plan".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive thesame grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substitutinggrades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood byall). 
> After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. Thestudents who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little werehappy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little hadstudied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ridetoo so they studied little.  
> The second test average was a D! No one was happy. 
> When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.  
> As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame andname-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for thebenefit of anyone else.  
> To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialismwould also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort tosucceed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one willtry or want to succeed.*  *Couldnot be any simpler than that.*  *Remember,there IS a test coming up. The 2013 elections.*

  Are you quoting 'quality' sources again, Rod?  snopes.com: Socialism Grade Averaging

----------


## intertd6

> Live a little and give it a go...

  Honestly the common person only has to have the capability to be able to count on their hands & toes to see through your cults idealisms.
regards inter

----------


## chrisp

> The ABC reckons I'm dismissive of the AGW cult:      *Dismissive*  *The  Dismissive* are sure that global  warming is not happening. You say the issue is not at all important to  you personally and are not worried about it at all. You, however, say  that you have thought about global warming and believe you are  well-informed about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions   i.e., that there are none, because it doesnt exist. You are very  certain about your views, and are very unlikely to change your mind  about the issue. Many of the Dismissive flatly reject the proposition  that global warming is happening, while a majority believe that if  global warming is happening, natural changes in the environment are the  primary cause. Likewise, a majority believe there is a lot of  disagreement among scientists over whether global warming is occurring,  while over a fifth of the Dismissive believe there is a scientific  consensus that global warming is not happening. You say that global  warming will not harm you personally or future generations at all.  Finally, you believe global warming will never harm people.
>                                                            Read about other types: Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful, Dismissive.  
>                                                           You fall in the 68% of Australians,  who've taken this 'climate challenge' who are Dismissive  of global  warming.
> 			
> 		   
> If only they knew.

  I'm impressed!  It seems to me that the quiz result sums you up beautifully. 
I wonder if those "68% of Australians" include the members of the Coalition?   

> Mr Turnbull, who agreed to the interview on condition he would not be   asked about Mr Abbott, says *climate change denialism  is ''contrary to   the views of, I think, just about everybody in the Coalition party   room*''.  Turnbull laments state of US politics

----------


## intertd6

> Honestly the common person only has to have the capability to be able to count on their hands & toes to see through your cults idealisms.
> regards inter

  or to put it another way, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck & in this case a dead duck.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Are you quoting 'quality' sources again, Rod?  snopes.com: Socialism Grade Averaging

  Whats your point? That this is not note worthy because it also appears on that site??   
Unbelievable!! 
Why not come out and tell us what you think of what is written rather than try and denegrate it by making stupid comments like that.

----------


## woodbe

> Whats your point? That this is not note worthy because it also appears on that site??   
> Unbelievable!! 
> Why not come out and tell us what you think of what is written rather than try and denegrate it by making stupid comments like that.

  Um. Rod? 
Mate, stories get onto snopes because they are fake. 
It's not a true story, someone made it up. 
What is unbelievable is that you still want to believe it, when it has been clearly shown to be a complete fake. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Honestly the common person only has to have the capability to be able to count on their hands & toes to see through your cults idealisms.
> regards inter

  If that were true....then we wouldn't have spent the last two decades in a debate about anthropogenic climate change.   
Perhaps the common person is not as capable as you might imagine...or my idealism is a little too opaque. 
Come to think on it...what are my ideals?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> or to put it another way, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck & in this case a dead duck.
> regards inter

  Daffy is not dead.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Um. Rod? 
> Mate, stories get onto snopes because they are fake. 
> It's not a true story, someone made it up. 
> What is unbelievable is that you still want to believe it, when it has been clearly shown to be a complete fake. 
> woodbe.

  I never said the story was true. Nor do I believe its true.  i know it is a made up story simply to demonstate the folly.  Now maybe you could comment on that,

----------


## Marc

Aaaah another Earth day done and dusted.
 I realy love it when it comes around.
 This year as usual, I switched all the light on, inside and outside the house and believe me they are many!
I put the spa at full blast all pumps roaring and lit a fire in my fire pit. 
Had it going for hours with the kids roasting murshmallow.
Loved it. 
Oh the joy of pumping my share of CO2 in the atmosphere for the trees to soak it up.  :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:

----------


## intertd6

> If that were true....then we wouldn't have spent the last two decades in a debate about anthropogenic climate change.   
> Perhaps the common person is not as capable as you might imagine...or my idealism is a little too opaque. 
> Come to think on it...what are my ideals?

  Carefull who your including in your "we," more than likely it just includes the save the everything not in my backyard earthling clowns, but not 88% of the population in this country at the moment nor of the economic leading countrys of the globe, but if & when the scientific proof appears then action will follow. 
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

You were included in the concept of "we".  You are here after all pushing and pulling this diatribe along with yours truly. 
Action? There will never be much action...regardless of acceptance of proof or not.  Sheep aren't good at a collective consciousness...or action.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Aaaah another Earth day done and dusted.
>  I realy love it when it comes around.
>  This year as usual, I switched all the light on, inside and outside the house and believe me they are many!
> I put the spa at full blast all pumps roaring and lit a fire in my fire pit. 
> Had it going for hours with the kids roasting murshmallow.
> Loved it. 
> Oh the joy of pumping my share of CO2 in the atmosphere for the trees to soak it up.

  
What's Earth Day?  Is it that idiot idea of turning your lights off for a couple of hours for one night? That's just an advertising sales event created by and for Fairfax Media...

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> You should have just told me about your preferences, I'm an equal opportunity poster.  Here's something for you to enjoy as well:     
> No need now, it's all balanced and equitable.    
> Good luck.  Which particular provision will you be lodging under?  Check it out here and let me know:  About the Australian Human Rights Commission 
> It warms my heart knowing that our taxpayer dollars are spent by public servants dealing with people of your ilk.  Clog up the system with cr@p while real abuse gets lost in the mess.  You're a real winner.  Not like this money couldn't be better spent than by paying public servants receiving spurious complaints that Miranda Kerr looks hot in a bikini, and makes millions of dollars thanks to people like me clicking on her image as above.  Oh, how does she take this kind of discrimination.    
> Well done mate.    
> Oops, my bad.  I thought I was posting the latest photo for you.  Not sure what comment upset the wife (let me know if it's one of mine), but show her the picture of the bloke above, it may help to show her what a great balanced place Australia is to live.

  Again, my Wife and I are extremely offended.  
My son is gay and your approach should be reconsidered.  
Again, I place this message to the moderators of this forum on a Without Prejudice basis that the above any my previous request should be honoured.  
Freud, (despite being a lawyer) I am not going to give you a legal lesson in pursuance with the requisite section I am able to seek remedy under. You would need to seek independent legal advice. The registered moderators should heed this warning and too, seek independent legal advice.  
Again, I request that the above and the previously requested posts be removed as they are :Redface:  
1. Offensive to my Wife; and
2. Offensive to myself and my son.  
I require you to act accordingly.

----------


## watson

Again Jamesmelbourne I reply to you as I have done before. 
No I will not delete this post.......now bugger off.
If it offends you/your wife/your son........don't look at it. 
Go somewhere else.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Again Jamesmelbourne I reply to you as I have done before. 
> No I will not delete this post.......now bugger off.
> If it offends you/your wife/your son........don't look at it. 
> Go somewhere else.

  Man I agree.  Sheez how pious. if you get offended by this you better get a court order to shut down the entire internet.

----------


## Dr Freud

I'll try to help you out again, cos that's the kinda guy I am.  :Biggrin:    

> Again, my Wife and I are extremely offended.

  Do you keep showing your wife everything on the internet that she might find offensive?  Why don't you show her all the things she enjoys instead?  I'm no relationship counsellor, but maybe this would make her happier? 
I hope neither of you voted for the Greens or Labor who currently support this leader:   

> *PRIME Minister Julia Gillard revealed yesterday that her personal stance against gay marriage was due to her conservative upbringing.                  *  
> Ms Gillard said she was "on the conservative side" of the gay marriage issue "because of the way our society is and how we got here", _the Daily Telegraph_ reports.

   

> My son is gay and your approach should be reconsidered.

  My approach is excellent, and by all accounts a lot more informed than yours.  There are lots of people all along the spectrum of sexual preference.  The current debate around gay vs straight displays an ignorance of the issue by so many who should know much better.  But I welcome your contribution in this area (perhaps start another thread, this ones really about Cults and Carbon Dioxide, isn't it?).  But you join myself, Andrew Bolt and Tony Abbott in believing all people should be treated equitably and fairly, free from discrimination, regardless of their sexual preference:       

> The sniggering, patronising assumption that Tony Abbott just needed to get out more and meet some gays and lesbians turns out to (again) sell him very short:   _TONY Abbott is the go-to man for opponents of gay marriage but there is a personal dimension he hasnt been able to share._  _We got a glimmer of his private experience during the 2010 campaign on the ABC television show Q&A when a Vietnam veteran pleaded equality for his gay son. When will you overcome your fear and ignorance of gay people and give them the dignity and respect that youd happily give to all other Australians? the man begged. It was an emotional moment. Abbott trod carefully. I think there are lots of terrific gay relationships ... but I just dont think that marriage is the right term to put on it, he replied._  _Q&A host Tony Jones teased him out. Do you think if you really got to know some gay men you might change your opinion?_  _I do know some gay people - extremely well, Abbott bit back. As the audience chuckled he reached across the desk to clutch Joness arm. I really do, mate, OK? He acknowledged that, at different times, he might have reacted a bit poorly to the issue. But I hope I would always find it in my heart to treat people the way everyone should be treated - with dignity and respect. And I think people who know me well, who are gay, would be only too happy to testify to that._  _Only a handful of people watching him that night understood how excruciatingly close to home this came. Since learning that his sister Christine Forster was leaving her marriage to live with another woman he has done all he can to protect her privacy._The thing in this story that speaks well of Abbott - and, again, challenges the crude stereotype of him so commonly peddled? _Abbott says he was absolutely flabbergasted by the end of Forsters longstanding marriage because hed always thought it was a fantastic partnership. But his sister felt he understood the turbulent and distressing crisis she was going through. He listened sympathetically. He offered counsel when it was sought and he didnt make judgments._The other? _Confronted by the Vietnam veteran on Q&A he must have wrestled with an irresistible urge to tell the father anxious for his gay son that he understood first-hand what it is like to wish a gay family member every chance at happiness. For Forsters part, she wished she could have spoken up about his compassion, to highlight the light and shade of Abbotts character._But I almost forgot. Forster comes out of this so very well, too. Both siblings seem a credit to their parents: _Growing up in Chatswood on Sydneys north shore the four Abbott children, including sisters Pip and Jane, all attended Catholic schools and at home were taught to speak their minds, to stand by what they believed and to make a contribution to society. Their parents, Dick, an orthodontist, and Fay, who ran the household, wanted them to be as good as they could possibly be, secure in the knowledge that they would be loved whatever happened._UPDATE 
>   Reader  DK:  _Tony Abbott is amazing. Im speechless. This points to so many outstanding character traits. Loyal. Trustworthy. Compassionate. Sympathetic. Principled. Loving. Respectful. Im truly flawed by this and I think he is far deeper, more considered and more understanding than any of those one dimensional wowsers from the left give him credit for._ Reader Ken: _One wonders given the report in the Australian if Q&A host Tony Jones will make a public apology after this public ridicule?_Reader Spin Baby, Spin:  _Good on you Tony and Christine for both being who you are. Family is Family and sticks together. We accept each other for who and what we are and we love each other._ Reader Baden:  _Decency, responsibility and principles are unfamiliar concepts to the self-appointed elite, the chatterati and much of the ABC audience who appear to think that everyone but them needs re-education. Hence their inability to understand and come to terms with Tony Abbott._ Reader Grannyfromthehills:   _Well, there you go. The Tony I have always believed to be a good bloke, is in fact a wonderful bloke._ Reader  SVJ: _By this measure alone my respect for Mr Abbott has trebled.  _ Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

   You'd be truly amazed how many people sit along various positions on the spectrum of sexual preference.  :Biggrin:    

> Freud, (despite being a lawyer)

  Strange how you keep saying that, yet not many people believe you.     

> Wow! 
> First, you admit that there is no policy. 
> But then you use your psychic powers to predict this policy ahead of its release, then also use your psychic powers to predict how all MP's and Senators will vote on this fictional policy. Down to the exact numbers! I don't suppose you have next weeks lotto numbers? 
> Did you learn these esoteric skills in your Law units or your Politics units?  
> Didn't your Law lecturers mention a concept know as "evidence"? 
> Didn't you learn that age old adage that "a week is a long time in politics"? 
> If you did go to university to study these subjects, which I am highly doubtful of given your performance here, then our education system is in much more trouble than even I thought. 
> Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...#ixzz1rKtZP2rU

   

> *Seriously, go get your money back.*  
> The Parliament always has the numbers to pass a proposed bill, it is designed that way. 
> Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...#ixzz1rKsz0eMy

    

> James like I said before you really need to sharpen up on you arguments.
> Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...#ixzz1rKsl0rmA

   

> James I'm with Freud in questioning your stated scholastic achievements. If you studied ethics then I would respectfully suggest you have forgotten everything you learnt.
> Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...#ixzz1rKsLhGe4

  The way I see it, you either are not, or are not a very good one based on your performance here. 
You even contradict your own incorrect statements here.  Who posted this in this very forum:   

> Lets be honest, this is a forum.  
> The principles enunciated in Legal Ethics has absolutely nothing to do with this forum. 
> Like Sigmund, go bury your head in a book and not the sand before you pontificate.    Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...#ixzz1rKpViYdV

  So you pretend legal ethics don't apply when you're questioned about your behaviour, then all of a sudden you try to intimidate poor members of the public by using your "lawyer" status in what is perceived as a threatening manner. 
Unfortunately, as you would be painfully aware if you are a lawyer, Clause 30 of the Professional Conduct and Practice Rules apply to you everywhere, even on this forum (assuming you are a lawyer?).  Alas, us poor ignorant non-lawyers are not statutorily bound by these ethics, but if you want to check if any of your own posts have breached these Conduct provisions, you can start here:  Legal Services Commissioner of Victoria 
Now, if you want to start a thread on sexual preference, butterflies, tobacco companies, or whatever semantic distractions you people engage in to deflect peoples attention away from the truth that the AGW hoax is well and truly busted, then go right ahead.  But I'll happily continue destroying this myth and its accolytes on this thread.  If my style offends you, then lawyer school is not breeding very resilient lawyers these days, is it?   :Biggrin:

----------


## intertd6

> You were included in the concept of "we".  You are here after all pushing and pulling this diatribe along with yours truly. 
> Action? There will never be much action...regardless of acceptance of proof or not.  Sheep aren't good at a collective consciousness...or action.

  The collective "we" will never be me, so your supporting this farce yet believe nothing would ever be actioned on a global level if it is ever proven & quite happy for our govt' to send us down the gurgler anyway, I've said it before, there is no sane arguement to logic like that & even the common farm sheep are a couple of IQ points above it.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

The cult grows more bold every day. 
Watcha gonna do when they come for you...   

> *Surgery bans elderly patient over her carbon footprint* *An elderly woman was ordered to find a new GP because the carbon footprint    of her two-mile round trips to the surgery where she had been treated for 30    years was too large.*Surgery bans elderly patient over her carbon footprint - Telegraph

  Cool huh, banned from medical treatment just 1600 metres from her front door. 
I haven't checked all of JuLIAR's proposed legislation yet, I wonder if we'll be getting similar treatment, or lack of it.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

The baseless scaremongering continues to unravel.   

> One of the great frauds of the global warming scare is becoming more obvious by the season:  _The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing._  _The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. Thats 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears ability to hunt_  _The study shows that the bear population is not in crisis as people believed, said Drikus Gissing, Nunavuts director of wildlife management. There is no doom and gloom."_  _ In 2004, Environment Canada researchers...estimated that by 2011, the population would decrease to about 610. That sparked worldwide concern about the future of the bears and prompted the Canadian and American governments to introduce legislation to protect them_  _Mr. Gissing ... the media in southern Canada has led people to believe polar bears are endangered. They are not. He added that there are about 25,000 polar bears across Canadas Arctic. Thats likely the highest [population level] there has ever been._What will warmists use for their poster child now?     
>   (Thanks to the Climate Policy Network and reader Steve.)    Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  Maybe we shouldn't have been so worried, eh? 
Those bears really know how to have a good time. :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

This is beyond a farce. 
The backlash against this useless TAX was so huge that JuLIAR overcompensated this scheme so badly, that now the TAX actually runs at a loss:   

> A tax that will actually cost to implement: _SENIOR government ministers have privately lashed out at having to make savings in the May Budget to help pay for the $3 billion shortfall in this years carbon tax compensation bill. 
> As Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan warn of tough measures to return the Budget to surplus, several ministers confirmed that they were being made to help pay for the early rollout of the carbon compensation package in May._  _Everyone is being asked to contribute to pay for this compensation package, one minister said. But in the process, we are going to hit people even harder._  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  
Socialism masquerading as environmentalism. 
And we're paying as this folly is unleashed on our country by the monumentally inept.  :Doh:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> I'll try to help you out again, cos that's the kinda guy I am.    
> Do you keep showing your wife everything on the internet that she might find offensive?  Why don't you show her all the things she enjoys instead?  I'm no relationship counsellor, but maybe this would make her happier? 
> I hope neither of you voted for the Greens or Labor who currently support this leader:     
> My approach is excellent, and by all accounts a lot more informed than yours.  There are lots of people all along the spectrum of sexual preference.  The current debate around gay vs straight displays an ignorance of the issue by so many who should know much better.  But I welcome your contribution in this area (perhaps start another thread, this ones really about Cults and Carbon Dioxide, isn't it?).  But you join myself, Andrew Bolt and Tony Abbott in believing all people should be treated equitably and fairly, free from discrimination, regardless of their sexual preference:      You'd be truly amazed how many people sit along various positions on the spectrum of sexual preference.    
> Strange how you keep saying that, yet not many people believe you.            
> The way I see it, you either are not, or are not a very good one based on your performance here. 
> You even contradict your own incorrect statements here.  Who posted this in this very forum:   
> So you pretend legal ethics don't apply when you're questioned about your behaviour, then all of a sudden you try to intimidate poor members of the public by using your "lawyer" status in what is perceived as a threatening manner. 
> Unfortunately, as you would be painfully aware if you are a lawyer, Clause 30 of the Professional Conduct and Practice Rules apply to you everywhere, even on this forum (assuming you are a lawyer?).  Alas, us poor ignorant non-lawyers are not statutorily bound by these ethics, but if you want to check if any of your own posts have breached these Conduct provisions, you can start here:  Legal Services Commissioner of Victoria 
> Now, if you want to start a thread on sexual preference, butterflies, tobacco companies, or whatever semantic distractions you people engage in to deflect peoples attention away from the truth that the AGW hoax is well and truly busted, then go right ahead.  But I'll happily continue destroying this myth and its accolytes on this thread.  If my style offends you, then lawyer school is not breeding very resilient lawyers these days, is it?

  You mean Legal Profession Act 2004 or Professional Standard Regulations 2007?? The 2005 Regulations you refer to have been superseded.  
Again, remove the post. This is a true caution.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Well now that the government is dishing out the bribe money, how many people do you think will change their minds about the carbon tax? 
Or wiil most people see this as a bribe by an inept government?

----------


## Dr Freud

> You mean Legal Profession Act 2004 or Professional Standard Regulations 2007?? The 2005 Regulations you refer to have been superseded.

  You have got to be kidding.  While I admire you attempts at researching these issues, next time try not to mix up Acts, Regs and Rules.   :Doh:  
Keep Googling, you'll figure it out.  :Biggrin:    

> Again, remove the post. This is a true caution.

  Ooooooh, a true caution?  Is that like when you strenuously object?  :Doh:  
So I guess you've well and truly given up any attempt at defending this farcical cultish movement and will resort to attemps at semantic distraction instead?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Well now that the government is dishing out the bribe money, how many people do you think will change their minds about the carbon tax? 
> Or wiil most people see this as a bribe by an inept government?

  Sadly, a few people will now love this new TAX because it means more cash cheques being mailed out, just like Ruddy's $1000 cheques.    

> *Prime Minister Julia Gillard's bid to buy back voters will pour millions of dollars into Aussie hip pockets*   
>                                                       CASH bonuses for families of up to $100 per child and $250 for pensioners will be deposited in voters' bank accounts within weeks as the Gillard Government fights a public backlash over the carbon tax.    
>                              But taxpayers will be forced to pick up the tab for a public education campaign with a multi-million-dollar advertising blitz in the pipeline.  Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

  These (hopefully) few (lets say unemployed with with 5 kids as an example) will get $500 and may then buy one of these:   

> *Vivo 43" HD Plasma TV PTV43HD - Online Exclusive* 
>                           Overall Rating:   
>     5  out of  5        Rating Snapshot (1 review)
> 5 stars1
> 4 stars0
> 3 stars0
> 2 stars0
> 1 star0       
>  1 out of 1(100%)customers would recommend this product to a friend. 1 Review 
> ...

  
But here's the question, how is that making the Planet Earth colder?  :Confused:  
Hopefully most people will see this corrupt and inept regime for what it is, and deliver it a swift demise in the near future.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

It seems us Aussies can spot a fraud quite well 
As more and more factual information is disseminated, Aussies will believe the lies and scaremongering less and less.   

> *SUPPORT for the environment has slumped to new lows and Australians are increasingly sceptical of global warming, new research has found.  * "You can see why carbon tax isn't particularly popular ... They are confused by the science, they don't understand it, they think it's probably natural, maybe - is the carbon tax going to make any difference? No."  
> In the environment category, global warming was well down the list of priorities at No. 15, with only 27.7 per cent of people surveyed rating the issue as "extremely serious".  We&#039;re now a nation of enviro-sceptics | Adelaide Now

  At least 100% of Aussies can at least agree with this: _
is the carbon (sic - Dioxide) tax going to make any difference? No._   :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

How appropriate are these sage words given how precious our society is becoming:   

> *Where have all the heroes and risk-takers gone? Gone to soft-fall playgrounds every one*_THE free and bountiful country we enjoy today was built by people who werent afraid to get dirty, hurt or disappointed. But as a society, we have been legislating against our natural appetite for risk as if the world no longer needed bravery, adventure or ambition._    _I often hear people say, I dont want to live in a country that doesnt make things any more. I dont want to live in a country that doesnt break things any more  _   _Last year the 1.2m plastic slippery dip was closed at my sons school because of safety concerns Looking into the facts on behalf of my son, I realised that slippery dips are not the only symbols of my childhood being consigned to the recycling bin of history. Trampolines, skates and bicycles are increasingly regulated, and solitude, adventure and danger are as foreign to many kids now as adult supervision was to my peers.  
> There are good reasons to worry that we have got the balance wrong for todays kids. The victory of caution over common sense not only takes the fun out of childhood; its taking the bravery and responsibility out of adulthood._ Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  
After people realised they had zero evidence proving this farce, they resorted to the "precautionary principle" argument.  
Beware the greenies who will take your beach front house from you, while buying their own, then ban you from driving to your doctor, while they jet around the world spruiking their cult.  :Doh:

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

No it's called primary research. You should try it instead of being a sheep.  http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/vic/

----------


## Dr Freud

China tried to play the spin game for a while in order to greenwash their image, and gullible believers in this cause actually believed they were being sincere.   
But China has now realised that the useless pretending is costing them so much more than any clients they may lose:   

> Besides these developments, the government report emphasizes accelerating the establishment of mechanisms that promote the use of new-energy sources. It also lays down the need to strengthen overall planning, promote auxiliary projects, strengthen policy guidance, and expand domestic demand. This means China will pay more attention to the utilization of new energy, hence wind power and solar power, which failed to achieve sound utilization, will bid farewell to the era of fast development, said Zhai Ruoyu, former general manager of the China Datang Corp., one of China's five power giants.  http://www.elp.com/index/from-the-wi...621584677.html

  Will we now dump this useless TAX?  :No:

----------


## autogenous

Consider this 
Australians, well sorry, industry uses a considerable amount more at a much lower price apparently because they use more electricity, have the highest emissions per head of capita in the world because everywhere else has nuclear power stations.  Check out the numbers across the world per country.  Aluminium, apparently is nearly solid carbon to make the product kilo for kilo. 
Currently, the electricity grid has failed to some degree or its full as so many people have solar panels that you cant just down an entire coal fire power station as it the grid would be empty with such a vacuum of base load power.   While the poor rental people are busy paying for landlords who aren't into the solar thing, the more wealthier installed solar panels now sucking the life out of the poor paying higher electricity bills.  Very generalised but it is a generalisation.   
Over the next decade whether you like it or not industry sectors like manufacturing in this country is going to decline along with a bucket load of carbon emissions with it. 
One modern nuclear plant would nip this in the bud quick smart. Ok, industry would have to pay a little more.  And all the nimbans would be up in arms about potential deaths when the poisons already emitted this century have killed quite a few people. Careful what you say about nuclear power because there millions in Europe and the US that might prove you to be ill-informed. 
Yes the climate is warming, it has been for 16000 years or so hence the rivers on google earth under the sea running off the continental shelf.   
The question is how much extra impact or warming and poisons emitted due to the fact Gillard and The Greens are anti-nuclear?

----------


## autogenous

Do some research on how many Nuclear power plants China has built, are building and have plans to build.   We are about to be made look like smokers in an anti-smoking country 
A bi-product of nuclear power is hydrogen, freaking hello!!! Hydrogen fuel as a by-product

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Well now that the government is dishing out the bribe money, how many people do you think will change their minds about the carbon tax? 
> Or wiil most people see this as a bribe by an inept government?

  Q1: Very few...though one could quibble about the direction of the change that might take place - also assumes that people have adopted a firm position in the first place.
Q2: I would have said 'attempted bribe'...

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> I'll try to help you out again, cos that's the kinda guy I am.    
> Do you keep showing your wife everything on the internet that she might find offensive?  Why don't you show her all the things she enjoys instead?  I'm no relationship counsellor, but maybe this would make her happier? 
> I hope neither of you voted for the Greens or Labor who currently support this leader:     
> My approach is excellent, and by all accounts a lot more informed than yours.  There are lots of people all along the spectrum of sexual preference.  The current debate around gay vs straight displays an ignorance of the issue by so many who should know much better.  But I welcome your contribution in this area (perhaps start another thread, this ones really about Cults and Carbon Dioxide, isn't it?).  But you join myself, Andrew Bolt and Tony Abbott in believing all people should be treated equitably and fairly, free from discrimination, regardless of their sexual preference:      You'd be truly amazed how many people sit along various positions on the spectrum of sexual preference.    
> Strange how you keep saying that, yet not many people believe you.            
> The way I see it, you either are not, or are not a very good one based on your performance here. 
> You even contradict your own incorrect statements here.  Who posted this in this very forum:   
> So you pretend legal ethics don't apply when you're questioned about your behaviour, then all of a sudden you try to intimidate poor members of the public by using your "lawyer" status in what is perceived as a threatening manner. 
> Unfortunately, as you would be painfully aware if you are a lawyer, Clause 30 of the Professional Conduct and Practice Rules apply to you everywhere, even on this forum (assuming you are a lawyer?).  Alas, us poor ignorant non-lawyers are not statutorily bound by these ethics, but if you want to check if any of your own posts have breached these Conduct provisions, you can start here:  Legal Services Commissioner of Victoria 
> Now, if you want to start a thread on sexual preference, butterflies, tobacco companies, or whatever semantic distractions you people engage in to deflect peoples attention away from the truth that the AGW hoax is well and truly busted, then go right ahead.  But I'll happily continue destroying this myth and its accolytes on this thread.  If my style offends you, then lawyer school is not breeding very resilient lawyers these days, is it?

  No you are the guilty one "googler" who can't source your own independent information and have to ride on he coat tails of others.  
Again, in case you missed it:   http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/v...reg/toc-P.html 
That ain't google.  
Maybe you should try and do some "independent"research instead of "join[ing] myself, Andrew Bolt and Tony Abbot".

----------


## Jamesmelbourne

> No you are the guilty one "googler" who can't source your own independent information and have to ride on he coat tails of others.  
> Again, in case you missed it:   http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/v...reg/toc-P.html 
> That ain't google.  
> Maybe you should try and do some "independent"research instead of "join[ing] myself, Andrew Bolt and Tony Abbot".

  Knob-jockey *EDIT: Just so something he says is clear* Urban Dictionary: knob-jockey

----------


## watson

Jamesmelbourne .....please check your post 7813. 
Your complaint has just been blown out of the water by your post 7833. 
Don't call us...........we'll call you.

----------


## Atilla

:Wink:

----------


## intertd6

good one attilla, what was the real reason for bob getting out now ? has he finally worked out that chokito bar he's been chewing on is really just a smelly t*rd.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> 

  This just about sums it up LOL

----------


## Marc

Looking for members to start a new movement that celebrates Earth Hour with lights on chainsaw roaring and a large bonfire.
 Every day if possible 
What's with the gay thing now. Have the greens run out of all possible arguments? I thought their forte was the aliens.  :Doh:   Anti Earth Hour

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Looking for members to start a new movement that celebrates Earth Hour with lights on chainsaw roaring and a large bonfire.
>  Every day if possible

  I tend to chop my firewood with an electric drop saw run off a generator (which also runs the spotties).....does this still qualify?

----------


## Marc

> I tend to chop my firewood with an electric drop saw run off a generator (which also runs the spotties).....does this still qualify?

  Absolutely...providing no fluoro lights and the generator is diesel and smokey   :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

Down with earth hour
LiveLeak.com - Anti Earth Hour - Put on Every light in your home!  CO2 is good for you
Imagine a world where CO2 was not a deadly poison in need of urgent  regulation by the European Union and the Environmental Protection Agency  but a hugely beneficial trace gas which helped plants to thrive
 If you've read Watermelons   or indeed hung around this column for any length of time  you'll know  that that world already exists. What you might not know, as I certainly  didn't until a few months back, is that CO2 can also make you healthier.  I learned this from reader Christopher Drake wrote in to ask whether  I'd heard of the Buteyko Method. Konstantin Buteyko was  a high-level Soviet physician who came up with the novel theory that  what he called "Diseases of Civilisation"  by which he meant everything  from asthma to depression to emphysema and Crohn's Disease  were the  result of an insufficiency in our bodies of CO2. So he developed some  simple but astonishingly effective breathing exercises to deal with  them.
 It's deeply counterintuitive. Indeed, I'm quite sure that one of the  reasons that the climate alarmists have been so successful in rebranding  CO2 as a deadly threat is because of the popular misconception that  carbon dioxide, being stuff we exhale, must perforce be a bad thing. But  as Buteyko well understood, it's a bit more complicated than that.
 Does it work? Well it has certainly done wonders for me and now's  your chance to find out. Christopher Drake  who has been teaching me  via Skype from his home in Bangkok  is on a flying visit to Britain  this week and hosting a couple of Buteyko workshops where you can try it for yourself. There's one in Hove, this weekend; another next week at St James's Piccadilly, in London.
 Some of you probably think it sounds like voodoo medicine and that's  fine by me, no one's forcing you to try it. But I'll bet that those of  you who do give it a go will be seriously glad I recommended it. And I  must say, in these dark, terrible almost overwhelmingly depressing  times, it does make a nice change to find something about which one can  be unreservedly positive.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Absolutely...providing no fluoro lights and the generator is diesel and smokey

  Bugger....not diesel.  Though it is 2 stroke...  
On another note....Anti Earth Hour is just as much of a crock of week old bulls bollocks as Earth Hour.  The middle ground may not be as exciting but it tends to attract less ridicule...

----------


## Marc

> Bugger....not diesel.  Though it is 2 stroke...
> On another note....Anti Earth Hour is just as much of a crock of week old bulls bollocks as Earth Hour.  The middle ground may not be as exciting but it tends to attract less ridicule...

  2 strokes qualifies for sure!!
Make sure to mix 16:1 and we are in business. 
The middle ground is usually reserved fort those who don't want to commit, don't know, are afraid of what others may say or simply can't be bothered. 
The world  is experiencing one of the most cunning attacks to our way of life and such attack deserves taking a stand, in my case in favor of humanity first, prosperity, science and truth. 
Earth hour is like Movember, a feel good gimmick for bugger all results. As such it only deserves a just as idiotic reply. In stead of switching off you switch on as many as you can. 
A bit off topic.
the expression "Environmentally friendly" has been hijacked to mean almost exclusively, low CO2 emissions. 
For example Concrete is "not environmentally friendly" (  :Annoyed:  Bullsh^*) because it takes heat to cook the rock to make it. 
The hateful teeth gnashing hysterical replies to any expression of doubt to the delusional demonisation of CO2 is perfectly logical. Take away the label of "bad" from CO2 in fact call it what it is: "good !!" and almost all the labels of "environmentally unfriendly" will disappear. We would be free to use energy, build dams and go about our lives and build and prosper as we are meant to without government or "greens" intervention. Furthermore 1/3 of government employees would be redundant and greens would have to look for a real job, hopefully in the wood chip industry. :Rolleyes:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> A bit off topic.
> the expression "Environmentally friendly" has been hijacked to mean almost exclusively, low CO2 emissions. 
> For example Concrete is "not environmentally friendly" (  Bullsh^*) because it takes heat to cook the rock to make it.

  Concrete (or cement to be precise) is not considered environmentally friendly per se because it is considered to have high embodied energy as you say.  Thing is that this is balanced by the fact that the stuff lasts (unlike many modern building products).  The embodied energy side of the eqaution can be managed by substituting much of the cement content of concrete with a waste product of coal fired power stations - fly ash.  The other option is to augment the heat source used to make cement. Some rather amazing things are burnt in cement kilns to provide alternative heat for the cement making process - tyre crumble, waste oil...even marijuana! 
The final options are the ones I look forward to - polymerised concrete.  No need to use cement as the bonding agent and potentially cheaper because it won't be as energy intensive... 
Perceptions over cement (like the perceptions of most things going around these days) are a triumph of marketing and ill informed opinion.    

> We  would be free to....

  We are never free to do whatever we want no matter what sort of society we live in or would like to live in.

----------


## Marc

> The embodied energy side of the equation can be managed by substituting  much of the cement content of concrete with a waste product of coal  fired power stations - fly ash

  That is all very interesting however, consider this: CO2 is NOT the foe it is made to be, therefore we do not need to substitute anything in concrete or anything else for that matter. That is the point. Take away the label of bad for CO2 and the rest comes down like a house of cards. 
Once we do away with the CO2 bull5$%, we may be able to go back to stop REAL pollutants and there are many. Yet CO2 is not one of them. 
As for global warming versus global cooling which one do you think is the biggest threat?
Give me warming any time.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> That is all very interesting however, consider this: CO2 is NOT the foe it is made to be, therefore we do not need to substitute anything in concrete or anything else for that matter. That is the point. Take away the label of bad for CO2 and the rest comes down like a house of cards.

  Hey if it saves having to find a spot to put all that flyash and you can get some dollars for it then why wouldn't you put it to use?  Power station owners and operators aren't stupid.  Any trick to turn a buck. 
CO2 has never been my enemy...

----------


## Marc

I see your point.
It is true that you and me are left out of the "save the earth" industry and I skipped the "victimhood" industry and I suppose you did the same. Missed the Microsoft, Google Yahoo and Facebook shares, did not even buy property before Hong Kong was sold out... :Cry:  
I did consider at one stage to buy a wind-turbine. It was massive and had to rise 3.2 millions for it. Had location and in principle approval. It was easy some time back. Did not quite get there with the investment side of things. 
Would have been cool because the subsidies were massive. I could have gone partners with a taxidermist and stuff all those parrots under the turbine and sell them to Chinese tourist! 
Bummer, all that is left is to complain about how others are making a killing with global warming and I don't  :No:  
Come to think of it, we could accumulate a lot of Global Warming paraphernalia and keep it for the next 3 or 4 years and sell them after all is forgotten as novelties on e-bay...what do you think?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I see your point.
> It is true that you and me are left out of the "save the earth" industry and I skipped the "victimhood" industry and I suppose you did the same.

  Actually not quite true.  I've been in the "save the Earth" (so to speak) industry for nearly all my working life. With a focus on water and remnant landscapes. And I got in with the understanding that that is no money in it. Never has been.  There's nearly zilch private money because there's no direct financial return on investment.  And the amount of public money invested is tiny compared to our GDP... 
For example, Caring For Our Country is the latest Federal funding flagship - has run since 2008/09 and will continue until end of 12/13....total investment of about $2 billion over five years.  So that's $400 million per annum.  That's about 0.0004% of our annual GDP invested in natural resources across the country.  Even if you threw everybody's (State/Federal etc.) contribution to maintaining the Oz environment into the pot I'd be well surprised if the total spend on the Oz environment in any one year crawled over the 0.1% mark.  
Imagine if we only invested 0.1% (or even much less) of our annual household income on maintaining the structure, health and quality of our homes and gardens every year?

----------


## Brad7596

Come on, we cant let this epic thread just languish i want more!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Come on, we cant let this epic thread just languish i want more!

  Don't worry it will fire up again when we get some fodder.  All quiet ATM

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Here comes some now...

----------


## Marc

Christopher Monckton, ICCC7, May 22, 2012 | Climate Conferences

----------


## woodbe

> Christopher Monckton, ICCC7, May 22, 2012 | Climate Conferences

  Oh yea, Heartland. Are they still going? I hear they have annoyed a lot of their donors...    Big donors ditch rightwing Heartland Institute over Unabomber billboard | Environment | guardian.co.uk

----------


## SilentButDeadly

On the upside...they have spawned yet more entertaining things to look at

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Oh yea, Heartland. Are they still going? I hear they have annoyed a lot of their donors...    Big donors ditch rightwing Heartland Institute over Unabomber billboard | Environment | guardian.co.uk

  Better than the adds exploding kids!!! 
Just in case you forgot!! EPIC GREEN FAIL!!!! - YouTube 
Not that I agree with any of these types of adds.

----------


## Marc

> Oh yea, Heartland. Are they still going? I hear they have annoyed a lot of their donors...

  How typical of the Global warming debate. So they put up a billboard that is upsetting. Good for them even at the costs a few politically challenged donors. I can tell you they are not going broke anytime soon. 
I don't know if you Wood be, are, or are not, or will be on which side of the fence. Frankly I don't give a toss.
Yet your reply is so typical: "I am with the red camp, so there!" "You are with the blue camp nie nie ne ne ne"
What on earth or mars does it matter if the heartland institute lost donors? I posted a video that is showing to any person with average intelligence that Global Warming is a fraud. 
Who has watched the video? No one of course, noooooo!! because it is from the heartland institute!!!!! and not the ABC or Discovery channel or the communist teacher who is indoctrinating your kids at primary school right now. 
Years after the rest of the world has DITCHED the global warming religion for what it is, a fraud, Australia is still going on with it, tolerated by an indolent majority who does not want to take sides in case they get embarrassed by their own ignorance and stupidity, a minority of activist who make a living from supporting whatever cause they get paid to support, and an even smaller group of deluded greens and assorted earth lovers who are exploited by the other two for an agenda they don't even know exists.     
A sad indictment of a cross section of voters.
Meantime the rest of the world powers ahead building dams, factories, shipyards and power stations.
We have erected a few more windmills on the way to Canberra, a pathetic monument to our supreme imbecility.

----------


## woodbe

> I posted a video that is showing to any person with average intelligence that Global Warming is a fraud. 
> Who has watched the video? No one of course, noooooo!! because it is from the heartland institute!!!!!

  Actually, true. I didn't bother to watch it because we've seen it all before. Heartland and Monckton. Both of them serial misinformers. 
Monckton still hasn't replied to the debate he was supposed to be engaged in on WUWT. Too busy, for months? 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ....a pathetic monument to our supreme imbecility.

  And here's little old me thinking it was actually "Australia's Got Talent" that was the monument in question.  Poor fool me...

----------


## Dr Freud

Hello fellow Earthians.  :Biggrin:  
Apologies for the lack of activity, was (am?) really busy with work.  Then had a trip over your side to see some of the sights.  You east coasters apparently don't want to move over here to help us with digging all this stuff out of the ground, so we gotta do it ourselves.  Then we try to get some overseas people to help out, but the idiot JULIAR race-baited the unions into turning this simple recruitment into a debacle. 
Imbecility is a place she passed through a long time ago. 
Still, 26% of Australians think she is really smart and still want to vote for her?  :Doh:  
Seriously people, WTF? Who are you people? 
Why you don't you call your local council and ask them how much higher your rates and charges are going to be due to the Carbon Dioxide Tax?  If you get an answer, please post it.  Their projections over the floating price periods will be very exciting to see, particular given the uncertainty over the floor price?  Oh yeh, and don't forget to ask them how much colder the Planet Earth will be as your living standards get flushed down the toilet.  :Biggrin:  
But all will be irrelevant anyway, the back bench are about to knife JULIAR, they only have a few weeks left before this toxic tax drags them overboard with this anchor tied around their necks. 
And as for the Thomson debacle...26% obviously believe his story as well.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

The farther away the next election is, the larger this gap will grow:     

> Newspoll: Labor 46, Coalition 54   Nielsen: Labor 43, Coalition 57  Essential:  Labor 43, Coalition 57  Morgan: Labor 38.5, Coalition 61.5  Galaxy (federal vote in Queensland only): Labor 36, Coalition 64  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  Every price rise and job loss after the Carbon Dioxide Tax is introduced will be blamed on this toxic tax. 
JULIAR's political life will be snuffed (assuming she survives the next few weeks) as she tries to valiantly claim all of these things have nothing to do with the Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
What a great election slogan:  *"You lost you jobs and prices are going up and businesses are shutting down, but it's not because we introduced a great big new TAX that I promised at the last election you would never have". JULIAR GILLARD* 
If you were a Labor backbencher and your job depended on this JULIAR, would you keep her?  :No:  
Bob Brown was a smart political operator.  He took all the green glory then ran before the reality hits households.

----------


## Dr Freud

This is not painting a pretty picture:   

> Signs of trouble   House prices down:  _The housing market has suffered its greatest monthly fall in values this year, pushing back hopes of a long awaited recovery. Home prices nationally took a monthly fall of 1.4 per cent, according to May figures by RP Data-Rismark, driven by an overhang of homes for sale and weak consumer sentiment._Manufacturing down:  _ AUSTRALIAN manufacturing activity has struck its lowest point in nine months as the ongoing turmoil in European markets continues to hamper local growth.  The Australian Industry Group/PriceWaterhouseCoopers Australian Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) fell 1.5 points to 42.4 in May - well below the 50 points needed to indicate growth._Shares down:  _The Australian share market lost more than 7 per cent in May and US stocks also put in one of the worst monthly performances for years by the close overnight._ Europe falters:  _TREASURY has warned that the European crisis is spiralling out of control and indicated it expects the government to dump its commitment to a budget surplus if a new crisis sweeps the world._  _Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson revealed yesterday that his department had been conducting intensive contingency planning for a new crisis since before last Christmas_  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  
Hey, I've got a great idea! Why don't we introduce an economy wide and economy crippling tax that even Treasury modelling says is going to slow our economy down, and that was assuming we were going through an economic boom, and that the rest of the world was alongside us. 
But here's the kicker, we are not going through a boom any more, and the rest of the world is not alongside us.  Did JULIAR ask Treasury to remodel the Carbon Dioxide Tax under these new parameters? No!  We still do not have any idea what effect this tax will have on our economy!  Because she doesn't want you to know. 
And that was before this idiot government ripped 45 billion dollars out of the economy just to prove they could keep one political promise of a fake budget surplus. 
Let that sink in for a minute, we are introducing a massive economy wide tax designed to slow down our single economic engine while the world slowly slides into another recession, with NO realistic economic modelling.  JULIAR is a genius.  :Doh:  
Again, who is the 26% that still say they want to vote for more of this?  :Cry:  
And speaking of the budget, if our economy is doing so well, why did Swan and JULIAR ask to increase our borrowing limit (AGAIN) from 250 billion to 300 billion.  If we were going to be running surplus budgets, why do we need to get another 50 billion dollars in debt to 300 billion dollars? 
Remember, it took Howard and Costello 10 years to pay back just 96 billion of Labor's last debt during positive global and national economic conditions.  And they were resoundingly hated for making some of the budget cuts they did. 
I suspect that JULIAR understands how badly the future economy will be affected by the Carbon Dioxide Tax and is preparing to quietly borrow more money to cover up her LIES about the taxes effects.  How many generations will be paying back JULIAR's future 300 billion debt?  With interest!  :Mad:  
Oh yeh, this doesn't even include the 50 billion dollars for the NBN, and new "GREENBANK" debacle included in the Carbon Dioxide Tax legislation.  :Doh:  
And what income producing assets do we as a nation have to show for this unprecedented debt?

----------


## Dr Freud

Here is the effect after the announcement of the Carbon Dioxide Tax on mining stocks in February 2011 (red dot):       
But Combet sells JULIAR's LIES that will have you believe coal exports are still going to boom under the Carbon Dioxide Tax:   

> But Mr Combet said that despite Mr Abbott's warnings of seriously damaging the economy, there had been a surge in mining industry investment since plans for the carbon price were announced.  
>               ''The fact of the matter is that we have seen multibillion-dollar takeovers, massive investment and new mine approvals,'' he said. ''It is not just big companies that are investing, it is also many small investors, including many members of Parliament who have a lot of confidence in the future of the industry.''   
> Read more: 'Hypocrisy' call over carbon tax

  So Greg, if you are right and we get "...multibillion-dollar takeovers, massive investment and new mine approvals", and we export for burning and smelting massive amounts of coal and iron ore *under the Carbon Dioxide Tax regime*, then exactly how does the Planet Earth get colder?  :Doh:  
You would have to be a complete imbecile to believe what these clowns are peddling.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

It's lovely over here, you should all move.  Then we'll have more people to build a wall at the border.  :Biggrin:     

> No, foreign workers in Western Australia arent likely to take the jobs of our unemployed:   _A FEDERAL scheme that pays unemployed people to move around the country to where the jobs are is struggling, with only 42 people having moved to Western Australia, which is in the grip of a mining boom.   _ Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  I did my bit in "spreading the benefits of the boom", I just spent heaps of my hard-earned cash over there on the East Coast.  But we need about 20,000 now, not 42, and more in the future. 
It doesn't help when the idiot JULIAR starts a class war, then a xenophobic war with our biggest economic engine, just to keep her union thug factions on side because she knows she's about to get knifed. 
Rest assured after the Carbon Dioxide Tax is in, I'll be putting my hard-earned in the bank, to save up for all the nasties that will be showing up in the future.  Councils are now scrambling trying to work out how to ramp up our service costs.  Most businesses and government agencies have no idea what effect this will have on their budgets yet.  Rest assured, all cost increases will be passed on, or businesses will go under and people lose their jobs. 
Great Hobson's choice, huh?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> A study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Changefinds that people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried... 
> "As respondents science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased," the paper, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, notes.  
> Read more: Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believers, study says | Fox News

  Really?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

The more you read about this con, the less you believe it. 
The lies and scaremongering continue to unravel by the day:   

> The _Canberra Times_ last year reported on an orchestrated campaign of emailed death threats, suggesting it had forced ANU scientists to be moved to safety:  _ Australias leading climate change scientists are being targeted by a vicious, unrelenting email campaign that has resulted in police investigations of death threats._  _ The Australian National University has confirmed it moved several high-profile climate scientists, economists and policy researchers into more secure buildings following explicit threats to their personal safety._Weve already nailed this gross exaggeration - to put it at its mildest - and the _Media Watch_ excuse-making. 
>   Now the man who moved the ANU scientists, then ANU vice chancellor Ian Chubb, concedes to a Senate committee:   _  For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story._  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  Don't believe the hype, read the reality.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

One of the hardest pushers of this climate con was the Fairfax media.  It seems smart readers realised they weren't reading much reality there:      
The richest business woman in the world recently offered them financial and business advice and they refused. 
Their ideology superseding reality again.  Says it all really.  :Biggrin:  
So what did they do?  The union organised a walk out and they went on strike. 
That should fix the business right up, eh?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Got some chores to do. 
But I'll try to post some more info about this farce soon. 
It was quite cool and wet while I was over there on the East Coast (FNQ too if you can you believe it), so you mob stay warm and dry if you can.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

> Got some chores to do. 
> But I'll try to post some more info about this farce soon. 
> It was quite cool and wet while I was over there on the East Coast (FNQ too if you can you believe it), so you mob stay warm and dry if you can.

  It seems it is equally cool everywhere else on the planet except in the minds of the usual tree hugging dole collecting suspects.     *Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures*  
Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which  measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the  atmosphere.  The signals that these microwave radiometers measure at  different microwave frequencies are directly proportional to the  temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere.  Every month,  John Christy and I update global temperature  datasets (see here and here)that  represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of  eleven instruments flying on eleven different satellites over the years.  As of early 2012, our most stable instrument for this monitoring is the  Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASAs Aqua  satellite and providing data since late 2002.
 The graph above  represents the latest update; updates are usually made within the first  week of every month.  Contrary to some reports, the satellite  measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based  thermometer records of temperature.  They instead use their own  on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers calibrated  to a laboratory reference standard before launch. Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

----------


## Marc

> The richest business woman in the world recently offered them financial and business advice and they refused.
>  Their ideology superseding reality again.  Says it all really.  
> So what did they do?  The union organized a walk out and they went on strike.
>  That should fix the business right up, eh?

  Well...to be fair, she did not offer advise. She asked for a (2) places on the board proportional to the percentage of the business she owns.
The request was refused (for now) mainly because, she is a woman, she is eccentric. Left wing, incompetent, out there ideologues, pot lovers, generally speaking hate personal success and successful people in general despise imbecile ideologies

----------


## Marc



----------


## johnc

> Well...to be fair, she did not offer advise. She asked for a (2) places on the board proportional to the percentage of the business she owns.
> The request was refused (for now) mainly because, she is a woman, she is eccentric. Left wing, incompetent, out there ideologues, pot lovers, generally speaking hate personal success and successful people in general despise imbecile ideologies

  I don't know why you would add the last sentence it has nothing to do with the first. Nor is female or eccentric for that matter, the most obvious reason is the existing board doesn't trust Gina to make the right changes. It's about control and direction it has nothing to do with the rest of the silly insults that simply detract from the initial claim to seats as a result of an existing shareholder. She is afterall the biggest single shareholder on the register, the claim is not unreasonable providing her motives benefit all shareholders and she is not attempting to exploit a dominant position to manipulate editorial control..

----------


## Dr Freud

> Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate says council wont pay the Federal Carbon Tax and has written to other councils urging them to boycott it.  
>       Today he told Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbot hes banking on a change of government before the moneys due.  GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL TO BOYCOTT CARBON TAX : NBN News

  
Vote for JULIAR and all your council rates and charges go up, and up, and up... 
Do you reckon the Labor backbench MP's are soaking this up?  :Biggrin:  
I guess Bob Brown didn't want to hang around to explain how all our local councils suddenly became the [S]1000[/S] [S]500[/S] 250 EVIL BIG POLLUTERS he kept banging on about.   What other clown LIED to us as well:   

> The best way to cut carbon pollution is to make up to 1000 of our biggest polluters pay for every tonne of carbon pollution they generate. 
> Not households. Not small businesses. Just the top 1000 polluters.   *Julia Gillard*  Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

  So if all this "pollution" is our own rubbish we send to the tip, then we are actually the big polluters.  So every household or small business that puts rubbish in the bin will be paying the Carbon Dioxide Tax on this rubbish. 
So JULIAR lied again, it is households and it is small businesses. 
If we all bury our rubbish in the back yard, it won't be counted in the Carbon Dioxide Tax calculations. 
Emissions will still be the same, just emanated from our back yards Tax free.  But no one seriously still believes this ridiculous tax is going to make the Planet Earth colder, do they?  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

If you don't want to move to WA or QLD for work, Flim Flam has a suggestion:    

> More of those green jobs that climate changers keep promising:   _CLIMATE change campaigner Tim Flannery says mercury tooth fillings should be removed from corpses before they are cremated. _ The practice should be made law, Australia's chief climate commissioner said._ _  And the best part of this scheme is that the capital investment is so cheap:   _You just need a pair of pliers._This is the kind of economic shift we need: from extracting coal to extracting teeth.   
>   But its bizarre for global warmists  to freak about mercury in teeth when theyve gladly inflicted on us light bulbs stuffed with the stuff:        Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  
I always considered that getting a straight answer about this climate farce was like pulling teeth, but this farce is getting more ridiculous every day. 
I wonder what the Carbon Dioxide Tax will be on the actual cremation?  Heaps of Carbon emissions from this.  Is it covered in the legislation I wonder?  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

This lunatic has to be the dumbest person ever elected to Parliament, let alone the PM's office. 
JULIAR to the mining industry:  _And heres the rub. You dont own the minerals._ 
But meanwhile back in reality:  

> The Queensland Minerals Resources Act states: All minerals lawfully mined under the authority of a mining lease cease to be the property of the Crown or person who had property therein and *become the property of the holder of the mining lease* subject however to the rights to royalty payments under this Act of the Crown or any other person. The New South Wales Mining Act states:For the purposes of this or any other Act or law, it is declared that any mineral that is lawfully mined *becomes the property of the person by or on behalf of whom it is mined* at the time the material from which it is recovered is severed from the land from which it is mined. The Western Australian Mining Act states:Subject to this Act and to any conditions to which the mining lease is subject, *the lessee of a mining lease  owns all minerals lawfully mined* from the land under the mining lease.   You dont own the minerals at Catallaxy Files

  No wonder she doesn't understand that households and small businesses "own" the rubbish until they deliver it to the tip. 
Apparently she's a qualified lawyer.  :Doh:  
Now where have I heard that claim before.  :Biggrin:   
JULIAR to the mining industry:  *Theres nowhere in the world youd be better off investing.* 
But meanwhile back in reality:   

> THE boss of Myer, the nation's largest department store, has added his name to a growing list of executives and businessmen warning that foreign investors are starting to shun Australia as a place to invest because of political uncertainty here and higher tax burdens.   
>               ''We are talking to a lot of investors in the UK and US and Asia and they are saying they don't have a lot of interest in Australia at the moment because of political uncertainty in the mining tax, the potential perceived and actual impact of the carbon tax, and therefore they don't have an active interest,'' he said.  
> Read more: Investors 'say no to Australia'

  Either JULIAR is lying again, or the rest of the world is involved in a "Craig Thomson-like conspiracy" and are all lying to rebut her. 
But meanwhile back in reality...you decide.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

If this tax is so great for the economy and the Planet Earth, why is it now never mentioned, not once, in any of the ads we *taxpayers* are paying for to advertise it?  Why does our own government now never mention it. Never.    

> *X-rated carbon talk gets wiped*_IF it is too late for the Gillard government to abolish the carbon tax - and it is - the next-best option is to abolish all mention of it  
> And that is exactly what has happened. If you watch and listen, you will notice that nasty little three-letter word ending in x, which used to seamlessly follow the word carbon, has disappeared from the government's lexicon. 
> Rather than talk about the carbon tax, they talk about the carbon price. It all sounds terribly benign, painless in fact. ... _  _
> This was Ms Gillard last Wednesday, on the day the rivers of compensation began to flow: Today is the day that money will first start to flow through to families resulting from carbon pricing. Everybody knows that the price on carbon will start on 1 July. The price is paid by big businesses that generate carbon pollution."_    _The prize for chutzpah goes to Combet, who on Lateline on Thursday night was again asked why the ads did not mention the tax. Weve not hidden our light under a bushel in relation to the introduction of the carbon price, he said._    Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  
It was bad enough when they were either so idiotic they didn't know the difference between Carbon and Carbon Dioxide, or so corrupt that they blatantly LIED to our citizens about it. 
Now they are deliberately LYING to us by calling it a "price".  Every time I pay a price for something, I get something back in return.  You know, like shoes, a haircut, a car etc.  What item of value do we get back in return after paying this "price"?   
JULIAR version: "Price on Carbon". 
Reality: Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
If you enjoy being lied to, let me help:  *"It's all going to be ok because JULIAR is running the country".*  :Screwy:

----------


## Dr Freud

This just gets more farcical by the day.  This country has suffered serious and lasting damage under this disastrous government:   

> The Gillard Governments carbon tax policeman has written to Darwin City Council warning it of a substantial cost hit from the carbon tax, Federal Member for Solomon Natasha Griggs said today.  
>  The information was revealed during this weeks parliamentary estimates hearings. 104 Councils across Australia have been warned of the carbon tax impact from landfill operations and other council activities.  
>  With only weeks to go until the start of the carbon tax, it is clear the carbon tax is going to hit the Darwin City Council budget, just like it will hit households budgets, said Mrs Griggs.  
>  The Australian Local Government Association estimates that the cost of the carbon tax (excluding landfill operations) will be a minimum of $185 million nationwide.  
>  In addition, councils will pay, directly or indirectly, carbon tax on the landfill operations they run or use. As tip charges go up and up, the risk of illegal dumping will also go up and up.  
>  It staggers belief that Darwin City Council will be whacked for collecting household rubbish.  
>  Collecting household rubbish is a core responsibility of local government  and under the carbon tax, councils will be slugged for collecting the rubbish.  
>  Mrs Griggs said she was concerned that with weeks to go until the start of the carbon tax, it was appalling that the Federal Government could not provide councils with clear guidance about the exact costs of the tax on council budgets  
>  The governments carbon tax policeman is warning councils to brace themselves for increased costs, but cant tell them how much those costs will be. With weeks to go, this is a shambles.  
> ...

  After landfill is added, the increased council charges will likely sit between half a billion and a billion dollars.  It's tough to say what the numbers are as JULIAR is introducing a scheme no council understands or can even calculate accurately. 
And that's just councils, ALL businesses and households will be paying for this toxic tax.  The tragedy is that no-one even knows how much yet.  :Doh:  
The one thing we know with 100% certainty is that this tax will *not* make the Planet Earth colder as JULIAR designed it to do.

----------


## Dr Freud

I can't even call her a hypocrite.  I truly believe she doesn't actually get it:   

> Celebrity Pamela Anderson, famous for, er, Baywatch, has joined the fight against global warming and is in London to warn us of the consequences if we dont tighten our belts and change our ways. 
> Anderson had jetted across the Atlantic from her new eco-mansion in Malibu, not far from Al Gores beach house. She also has a large home in her native Vancouver, and her and her family frequently fly between them, living in either one of the two massive, palatially appointed eco-homes.   Climate Change Campaigner, Pamela Andersons New Eco Home. Its got energy saving light bulbs or something. 
> Anderson ended the interview with the invitation to the reporter to use me to spread the word about global warming. She is now understood to be in an intensive twelve week educational program aimed at helping her understand the word Ironic.  Pam Anderson Jets into London From Malibu Mansion With New Message: “Be Less consuming and More Protective of the Earth”. | hauntingthelibrary

  And all this from someone who used a part of the Planet with a life enhancing "warmer climate" to make her rich and famous:

----------


## Dr Freud

Juliar's totalitarian regime is dragging us toward Communism faster and faster. 
Under their new laws, Aussies will be banned from even discussing the implications of their ridiculous Carbon Dioxide Tax under threat of criminal convictions and million dollar fines. 
If you think I'm kidding, here's Juliar's new secret police who will be monitoring your conversations at work to ensure you don't speak out against her idiotic and useless TAX:   

> *SHOPS and restaurants could face fines up to $1.1 million if waiters or sales staff wrongly blame the carbon tax for price rises or exaggerate the impact.  * Dr Schaper said the warning applied to comments made by staff over the phone, on the shop floor or in meetings.  Don&#039;t serve carbon lies, ACCC warns | thetelegraph.com.au

  And what heinous criminal comments could you make at work to see the Secret Carbon Cops bankrupting your business?  Hear it from Juliar's Carbon Cops themselves:   

> Businesses might make claims about the impact of the Carbon Price such as:  *"Our prices will be hit hard when the Carbon Price comes in".*  Carbon price claims

  Criminal scum, how dare they speak out against JULIAR!  :Mad:  
These lads better watch out:   

> *REFRIGERATION technicians say they will be left out in the cold when the federal carbon tax comes into effect, with the cost of key repairs and installations expected to double. 				  *  			 		 		While refrigerant gases were left out of the carbon tax deal, Refrigerant Australia said the industry will instead be hit with a levy equivalent to the carbon tax.  
>   Under the levy, the cost of some refrigerant gases could increase by 500 per cent or by more than $800 extra a bottle from July 1. It was introduced because a kilo of the gas can be equivalent to a tonne of carbon or more. 
> The president of the Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association, Kevin O'Shea, said service calls would double from $300 to $600 as a result of the levy.   Carbon tax puts fridge repairs on ice | News.com.au

  Be warned people, free speech is always the first target of the totalitarian mind. 
Inform yourselves and speak out while you still can:   

> _Before the case for regulation is made, there is a case for liberty as well. . . . I am unashamedly on the side of those who say we should think very carefully about regulation. By definition, free speech doesnt mean anything unless some people are going to be offended some of the time.  _ Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

----------


## woodbe

With a bit of luck they'll drop by and clean up the mess here too.  :Fingerscrossed:  
Plenty of people around willing to blame a small tax increase for a huge price rise. 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> I don't know why you would add the last sentence etc, (more nonsense)

  If Gina would have been Gino, reside in inner city Sydney mingle in the local coffee and pot joint and vote Labor, "he" would have been invited to the board long ago. If the existing board would care for a change in direction they would have done so also a long time ago. 
Left wing, incompetent, out there ideologues, pot lovers, generally  speaking hate personal success and, successful people in general despise  imbecile ideologies. 
The members of the board know that Gina will bring swift changes, meaning fire half of the brain-dead and castrate the rest left behind.
Somehow they seem to resist the change. (Who can blaim them right?)
The interest of the company is of course once more ill served. Just like the interest of the country is trampled by a few self serving morons.
Your fear of a rich, successful self made woman "manipulating" Fairfax is noted yet a perfect part of the rest of the picture. 
Kick them where it hurts Gina, go!

----------


## Dr Freud

> With a bit of luck they'll drop by and clean up the mess here too.  
> woodbe.

  We can only hope.  :Biggrin:   Us realists do our bit to help out, but it's hard work. 
Just imagine if Juliar's Carbon Cops issued $1 million fines if people lied about global warming effects and couldn't factually prove their claims?   :Rotfl:  
But if they want to charge people who tell LIES about the "Carbon Tax", they can start here:  *"JULIA Gillard has come out swinging against accusations that she lied about her plans to introduce a carbon tax before the election. " * Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I give you exhibit "J" for JULIAR...    
But you keep defending her and her ludicrous policies, it helps us realists demonstrate the cultish fervour of the "believers".   

> Plenty of people around willing to blame a small tax increase for a huge price rise. 
> woodbe.

  So a professional trades association risks million dollar fines to advise of a 100% increase in just one price, and you don't think a 100% increase in price is "huge"?  What percentage increase would you consider huge? 
And you think this tax increase is "small"?  You obviously don't know much about this stuff do you?  It is designed to ramp up and up and up, till we get to this point indicated by Treasury:   

> *Australia will send $57bn a year overseas by 2050, Treasury modelling shows**BY 2050, Australia will be sending $57 billion a year overseas just for the right to keep our lights on, as a direct consequence of Julia Gillard's carbon dioxide tax and consequent emissions trading scheme. 				*  			 		 		Let me make it perfectly clear. We won't be getting anything tangible back for that $57bn.  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  57 Billion dollars, per year, increasing every year! 
And that's just the proportion of the TAX we're giving away to scam artists, not the total collected. 
"Small tax increase", huh?  Lucky there's no laws banning Juliar's cheer squad from underestimating the impacts.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> JULIAR to the mining industry:  *Theres nowhere in the world youd be better off investing.* 
> But meanwhile back in reality:

  
When BHP uses the expression "fighting for our survival", it's generally an indication they don't think these are "small tax increases" either.    

> *BHP Billiton chairman Jacques Nasser says the global miner will not spend the $80 billion on growth projects that it said it would.  * Mr Nasser also said the Australian mining industry was ``fighting for our survival'' during negotiations with the Gillard government over the first version of the mining tax in 2010. 
> In a speech targeting Australia's industrial relations and taxation regimes, Mr Nasser said Australia is ``one of the higher cost countries in the world''.  
> He said the industrial relations environment had become increasingly difficult, with the company facing 3,200 ``incidents of industrial action'' at its Queensland coal operations in the past year.  
> ``While governments have the right to make tax and royalty decisions, those decisions have repercussions,'' he said. 
> However, ``given our range of options'', if a project did not meet all the required criteria the company would invest elsewhere or not at all, he said.  BHP won&#039;t spend $80b on expansion | Latest Business & Australian Stock market News | Perth Now

  
Here's the boss man:   

> MARIUS KLOPPERS, CEO, BHP BILLITON: As a country and as an investment destination, arguably the biggest change has been the terms of trade, which is the impact on the currency and so on. But aside from that, all of the other things like increased operating cost, *carbon taxes and so on have all conspired to turn this from a fairly low-cost environment and therefore competitive to a higher cost environment.*  7.30 - ABC

  
Here's some more:   

> A lot of people will get a lot of reminders over the next few months of the cost of a carbon tax - a job-killing tax that will actually be useless in stopping the planet from heating.   
>   Now Boral writes to its customers:         Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  And that's just the delivery fees. 
But don't trust all these people, trust Juliar and her cheer squad instead.  
They say this tax will not even be noticed by most people because it's so small, but will still raise hundreds of billions over the years and will be so effective that it will eventually make the entire Planet Earth colder.   :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

> And that's just the delivery fees.

  Exaggerate much?  :Eek:  
Reading comprehension seems to have taken a dive in the west.   

> ... it has become necessary to increase prices to enable Boral to recover the estimated costs associated with the impact of a carbon price on Boral's Clay Bricks & Pavers business

  I'm sure there would be some impact of the CT on transport costs, but Boral is obviously talking about the impact of the CT on the whole business. 
Clearly, the need to overstate the effects of the Carbon Tax shows that the expected effect is a lot less than the fear-mongers would have us believe.

----------


## intertd6

> Exaggerate much?  
> Reading comprehension seems to have taken a dive in the west.   
> I'm sure there would be some impact of the CT on transport costs, but Boral is obviously talking about the impact of the CT on the whole business. 
> Clearly, the need to overstate the effects of the Carbon Tax shows that the expected effect is a lot less than the fear-mongers would have us believe.

  Well the statement doc supplied did say on deliveries, more than likely the subcontractors who actually make the deliveries would be forced to absorb their added costs from the carbon tax, thus sending them out of business adding to the welfare burden of the nation, I was going to say starting a downward spiral of businesses going broke from this gov't, but its already well & truely happening now.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> Well the statement doc supplied did say on deliveries, more than likely the subcontractors who actually make the deliveries would be forced to absorb their added costs from the carbon tax, thus sending them out of business adding to the welfare burden of the nation, I was going to say starting a downward spiral of businesses going broke from this gov't, but its already well & truely happening now.
> regards inter

  I don't think on one hand you can say subcontractors will be forced to absord the costs of a carbon tax when the company is applying a 3% charge to cover the increase. It is a failure of logic in the initial assumption that means the rest of the argument falls flat. Of course you could be arguing that Boral is so immoral that it intends to profiteer from a carbon tax while detroying their contract carriers.  
Lets face it if Freud applied any more spin to the rubbish he puts up he runs the risk of turning into a Queensland tropical cyclone. If we are going to discuss this we can at least acknowledge those interested in reality as opposed to those who simply run a jaundiced political line.

----------


## woodbe

> Well the statement doc supplied did say on deliveries,

  You seem to have the same affliction. The note is about the Boral Brick and Paver business, not the delivery subcontractors.  
Believe what you want. When you order bricks or pavers from Boral, you're getting a delivery, and the 3% is clearly discussed in the note to cover the whole 'business' (the delivery fee alone is probably less than 3% of the order anyway.) 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> You seem to have the same affliction. The note is about the Boral Brick and Paver business, not the delivery subcontractors.  
> Believe what you want. When you order bricks or pavers from Boral, you're getting a delivery, and the 3% is clearly discussed in the note to cover the whole 'business' (the delivery fee alone is probably less than 3% of the order anyway.) 
> woodbe.

  When you consider Boral price increases over the last couple of years 3% isn't bad at all, last year I think there was one single increase of 7% which was simply repricing. It is certainly a 3% increase on product, I don't think freight comes into it anyway.

----------


## intertd6

> I don't think on one hand you can say subcontractors will be forced to absord the costs of a carbon tax when the company is applying a 3% charge to cover the increase. It is a failure of logic in the initial assumption that means the rest of the argument falls flat. Of course you could be arguing that Boral is so immoral that it intends to profiteer from a carbon tax while detroying their contract carriers.  
> Lets face it if Freud applied any more spin to the rubbish he puts up he runs the risk of turning into a Queensland tropical cyclone. If we are going to discuss this we can at least acknowledge those interested in reality as opposed to those who simply run a jaundiced political line.

  You must be pretty new to the workings of big businesses & don't understand how it works, subcontractors to similar outfits are price takers not price makers, there is a snow flakes chance in hell that they & farmers can put an extra 3% on their invoices or products from additional carbon tax costs & expect to be paid it.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> Exaggerate much?  
> Reading comprehension seems to have taken a dive in the west.

  Is that it?  Seriously?  :Roflmao2:  
The sum total of witty retort from the mighty AGW hypothesis movement has been reduced to these pitiful and erroneous semantics.  No more horror stories: sea levels drowning the opera house, Greenland melting, no more rain in Australia, death threats everywhere...do you people even remember some of this cr@p we had to put up with.  :Doh:  
This failed and farcical movement now reminds me of the poor little polar bear that we now all know has been the subject of so many lies from the cult. 
Except this movement is now clinging desperately to it's last veneer of credibility.   
But to humour your semantics (again), let's look at the information I cut and pasted in full and also fully linked the article. 
You ask did I "exaggerate much?".  *ex·ag·ger·ate* *1.*  To represent as greater than is actually the case; overstate 
Seeing as I cut and pasted the exact factual case, how can I then exaggerate it?  Even if I said afterwards "Wow, the Boral price rise is 300%", this is still not exaggerating the case, it is just erroneous as the factual case is there to see, and cannot be represented as otherwise.  Any reader would not "misrepresent" the actual case as they could see it, just like you did. Thanks for proving my point and rebutting your own.  :Biggrin:  
Now, the substance of your semantics, as opposed to the interpretation of your semantics (see what they put me through  :Doh: ) was to do with the "deliveries" as in "a 3% increase will apply to deliveries".  *de·liv·er·ies** 1.** a.*  The act of conveying or delivering.* b.*  Something delivered, as a shipment or package. 
Having recently purchased a fairly large order of clay pavers from Boral, they asked me if I would be collecting the products, or would I prefer to have them delivered.  I chose the delivery due to the size of the order, and paid the extra delivery fee applying to all "deliveries".  The girl at the counter was very clear that these fees only applied to "deliveries" and I would not pay them if I chose to collect the products.  Their business clearly distinguishes between collections and deliveries, and charges fees accordingly. 
I have to order some more pavers in the near future (much smaller amount), and will present this letter to them to ensure when I collect them that I do not pay the "deliveries" fee.  I guarantee you that I will not pay it.  If their original intent was to apply the 3% to all products, not just deliveries, I can assure you they will change the letter after my visit, rather than have JULIAR's Carbon Dioxide Cops pay them a visit.   :Doh:  
But here's some earlier information they also issued:   

> Carbon Price Announcement
> Under the carbon pricing mechanism introduced by the Clean Energy legislation, from the 1st July 2012 a charge will be levied on emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent which will impact a broad range of Australian businesses including Boral.
> While Boral continues to work on a range of carbon reducing projects to improve manufacturing and operational efficiency, it has become necessary to increase prices to enable Boral to recover the *estimated costs* associated with the impact of a carbon price on Borals concrete and quarries businesses.
> These costs will be itemised as a separate line on quotes and invoices to separate this cost from those of our normal business.
> Region
> Delivered Concrete M3
> Ex-Bin Quarry Products
> National
> $0.95 per m3 + GST
> ...

  I have bolded some pertinent points for those like you who haven't figured this out yet, regardless of me stating it numerous times.  They actually don't know yet what the true price rises will be.  No-one does.  Do you think I'm lying? 
Half the businesses who will be paying the tax directly don't even know who they are yet.  These business (if nominated) will then pass on their direct taxes (assuming they can actually calculate them, have you read the legislation?), as well as all business passing on their indirect taxes.  Direct taxes will generally be calculable via the legislation (once they figure it out), but indirect taxes are a whole other story, and will be paid by all businesses and all consumers. 
See the current direct tax list here:  List of companies who will pay the carbon tax | thetelegraph.com.au 
And remember, this all takes effect in about 21 days! 
What an absolute clusterf#@(!!! 
But happy for you to cheer for JULIAR and her economic brilliance on this one?   

> Clearly, the need to overstate the effects of the Carbon Tax shows that the expected effect is a lot less than the fear-mongers would have us believe.

  The estimate of our 57 billion dollars in taxes per year being sent to overseas scam artists came from Treasury modelling. 
It will ramp up, and up, and up, according to JULIAR's own calculations given by Treasury.  Their spin machine says it's only a few dollars here, and a few cents there.  Well der Freddy, that's how taxes work.  But you take the total sum, that's the amount that will not be spent in our economy, but will be sent to overseas scam artists. 
If you think that Treasury are fear-mongers, then take it up with JULIAR. 
And for what in return?  Nothing.  Well, not nothing. 
An email.  With 57 of these attached:   
Now thanks for that semantic sideshow.  If it's alright with you, I'm gonna get back on my soapbox now.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It is a failure of logic in the initial assumption that means the rest of the argument falls flat.

   :2thumbsup:  
You finally cracked the AGW hypothesis con job.  :Biggrin:     

> Of course you could be arguing that Boral is so immoral that it intends to profiteer from a carbon tax while detroying their contract carriers.

  Keep up champ, the Carbon Dioxide Cops will be watching so this is not likely.  $1.1 million is a big boost to JULIAR's coffers, so I suspect she'll be pushing this hard, not to mention the real intent, her political manipulation of free speech to speak out against her tax. 
If I could be bothered, I'd lodge a constitutional challenge as she is clearly impeding the right to free political expression, but it is much easier just to wait for the next election.  Cos seriously, even if you were brain dead, you couldn't possibly believe this tax was going to make the Planet Earth colder.   

> Lets face it if Freud applied any more spin to the rubbish he puts up he runs the risk of turning into a Queensland tropical cyclone. If we are going to discuss this we can at least acknowledge those interested in reality as opposed to those who simply run a jaundiced political line.

  My political line is not jaundiced, it is very healthy and colourful. 
But I'm happy to retract any factual errors if you point them out. 
Or you could just correct your post to say "factually correct rubbish".  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Reading comprehension seems to have taken a dive in the west...Clearly, the need to overstate the effects of the *Carbon Tax*...

  Scientific comprehension seems to have taken a dive in the east. 
I have posted numerous items and links explaining the difference between Carbon "C" and Carbon Dioxide "CO2". 
Do you actually believe that us humans are breathing out Carbon and that Carbon is a greenhouse gas. 
Ahhhh, it's just dawned on me why you think the tax will be so insignificant.  You have done all your calculations on Carbon emissions, rather than Carbon Dioxide emissions.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> When you consider Boral price increases over the last couple of years 3% isn't bad at all, last year I think there was one single increase of 7% which was simply repricing. It is certainly a 3% increase on product, I don't think freight comes into it anyway.

  You can see their price announcements here:  Boral Customer Price Announcements 
But seriously, did you people study economics at the school of 1984. 
Are you seriously confusing an actual business cost with this farcical tax based on fiction, that is already confirmed to never achieve it's environmental objective, even if the cults belief system was true?

----------


## Dr Freud

Remember the story about killing the goose that laid the golden eggs:   

> JULIAR to the mining industry:  *Theres nowhere in the world youd be better off investing.* 
> But meanwhile back in reality:

   

> _THE Gillard government has made Australia a riskier and less attractive place for mining investment, according to Ivan Glasenberg, the head of the commodities giant Glencore  _  _One of the biggest questions on the roadshow was you are in difficult, risky countries, you have assets in the Congo in Africa, you have got assets in Zambia (and) Colombia (and) Kazakhstan, these are risky countries, we are not that happy investing in you, we dont know what these countries will do. _   _So I have got to say Mrs (sic) Gillard made our life easy, because we could say `Look, Australia just wanted to nationalise 30 per cent of their mines (with) a mineral resources tax!  _ _So Australia does have its risk, yes. We saw the carbon tax, we saw the mineral resource tax. It is a First World country but is doing things that are making people cautious of investing, so Australia is becoming another country where you have got to make sure that the rules arent going to change on you._

  Cool huh, we're now used as an example of why it's better to invest in third world unstable countries. 
But wait, let's really kill properly:   

> Warning that the states could "erode the commonwealth's entire onshore resource rent tax base", the review's second interim report says the situation is a "product of the way in which the commonwealth has designed its own resource tax reforms".  
>  "This situation is not sustainable," the report says.  
>  "The states make the point that it is the manner of the commonwealth's entry into the field of resource taxation that has created a tension between the two levels of government. 
> Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Mitch Hooke said: "The mining industry must have a stable and internationally competitive tax regime if it is to get on with the job of delivering projects, exports, jobs and higher tax revenues as well."
> The fall-back position if this  failed could be a unilateral redesign of the MRRT.  
> Mr Swan deemed the release of the report to be another step in the government's tax-reform agenda "to help Australia make the most of the opportunities ahead".  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...le+Feedfetcher

    

> The Commonwealth has given the state 10 days to come up with a reason why it should not be axed from major projects such as the giant Alpha coal mine.  
>    If it fails, the Gillard Government would be forced to undertake its own environmental assessments, duplicating the state process and adding unnecessary "green tape" which Premier Campbell Newman has promised to cut.  
> Ahead is a huge backlog of more than 150 projects still sitting in the Federal Government's hands with the likely addition of the multibillion-dollar Arrow Energy LNG project at Gladstone and more mega mines in central Queensland. 
> "The Alpha coal project will create a total of around 4500 jobs, yet the federal environment minister is risking those jobs for political purposes," he said.  
> "While Queensland is open for business, the Federal Government is muddying the waters with their failure to provide certainty around approvals for major resource projects."  
> The State Government has also previously accused the Federal Government of failing to meet its own deadlines for the past 18 projects. One approval took more than 500 days.   Newman Government tastes first political loss and faces being axed from approval process for mines and major projects | The Courier-Mail

   

> *WAYNE Swan has labelled "deplorable" a full-page advertisement taken out in Asian newspapers by environmental groups urging readers not to invest in Australia.  * The ad is co-sponsored by Greenpeace, Banktrack and GetUp! Australia and is authorised by GetUp! director Simon Sheikh.  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  The good news is that as our economy slows, our Carbon Dioxide emissions will also slow.  
But let's hear from JULIAR's tax cheer squad now supporting this behaviour. 
Give me a T - A  - X, yay!!!!

----------


## johnc

> You must be pretty new to the workings of big businesses & don't understand how it works, subcontractors to similar outfits are price takers not price makers, there is a snow flakes chance in hell that they & farmers can put an extra 3% on their invoices or products from additional carbon tax costs & expect to be paid it.
> regards inter

  Nice line on sarcasm, lets attack the person not the subject. Carbon tax doesn't apply until 2014 to fuel, which comes in at about 40% of contract price for many long distance haulers, less for short distance. The carbon tax will have a small impact on other inputs but not all. I gather the consensus is the impact on freight costs will be 1-2% for most carriers. Many contracts have fuel surcharge clauses so the impact of the carbon tax will most likely be dealt with at that point. freight and farming are not similar for one main reason. For farmers there are a large pool of suppliers but very few buyers, most selling is done through a fixed market point, individual supply contracts also have very few buyers and they tend to have market dominance for a particular farm product. Freight is very transient, it is not uncommon for carriers to move regularly between companies seeking better rates. The buyers of freight tend to be more random with the market spread out and not as regulated as the livestock stock market system. At regional livestock auctions it is not uncommon to see all the meat buyers arrive in the one car, or have just one or two buyers compete for finished market livestock. To a lessor extent freight is a price taker as is farming, but the market they operate in is quite different.

----------


## woodbe

> Now, the substance of your semantics,

  Pot Kettle Black. 
Boral has released similar price increase notifications in other areas of their business. (Plaster board for instance is 1.6%) Boral knows what the effect of the carbon tax is in their business and has been alerting customers of each division to resulting price increases that will occur as of July 1st. Why would they announce a CT increase on only the delivery fees of Clay Bricks and Pavers when they already know what the whole impact of the CT will be on those products? Answer: They didn't. 
This reminds me of the crazies who try and claim the car seat cover manufacturer owes them a car because the advert for the seat cover shows it fitted in a car and they thought $29.95 was for the car as well.  :Eek:  
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

Yeh, we're all just dreaming this stuff up. 
At least this farcical movement has given up any pretence that this is tax is going to have any environmental impact whatsoever. 
Now they just peddle JULIAR's propaganda that "Oooooh, it's so little, it won't hurt a bit". 
Like I said above, do you believe JULIAR and her cheer squad, or reality:   

> SMALL businesses face punishing power bill rises of up to 25 per cent due to the carbon tax and are warning of job losses and flow-on price hikes.   *Putting a lie to Julia Gillard's claim that only big polluters will pay*, the owner of six McDonald's outlets in Sydney estimates the carbon tax will add hundreds of thousands of dollars to his annual operating costs.    Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

  Readers here knew this LIE was exposed a long time ago. Do you see how in the general population this is still treated as breaking news. 
All the while, they ignore Treasury modelling saying that if this works as planned, hundreds of billions of Aussie taxpayer dollars will soon be shipped overseas to shonks in exchange for a dodgy email. 
You decide who you want to believe...but decide before 1 July 2012, before the free speech we have long enjoyed in this country is eroded. 
That's right, the business owner above, and all business owners, will no longer be allowed to speak out against this tax as they have been, under fear of million dollar fines and potential bankruptcy. 
Welcome to the beginning of the totalitarian laws than ban us Aussies from speaking out against self-serving idiotic governments.  :Doh:    

> In Stalin's Russia this meant that the Communist Party was supreme. *All criticism and opposition is eliminated.*  Stalin's Russia

  
You think this is a joke, talk to the two journalists who lost their jobs for more merely asking questions about JULIAR's previous connections to her former boyfriend's fraud:   

> It concerned the embezzlement about 20 years ago of union funds and the subsequent fraud conviction of one of Ms Gillard's old boyfriends, a former Australian Workers Union official named Bruce Wilson.
> Milne wrote that Ms Gillard's problems with the Craig Thomson scandal were about to get worse as elements of the AWU tried to demonstrate that Ms Gillard was implicated - albeit unknowingly - ''in a major union fraud of her own before she entered Parliament''.
> He said Ms Gillard, as a young lawyer, had established, under instructions, an association that was later used by her then boyfriend to defraud the union. She has always strenuously denied ever knowing the association was used for illegal purposes.
> The Prime Minister  made a furious early morning call to John Hartigan, the chief executive of News Ltd, which publishes _The Australian_ and another to  the editor, Chris Mitchell. She demanded an immediate retraction and apology amid threats of legal action.
> Ms Gillard contacted Mr Hartigan on Sunday to ask whether Bolt or another journalist was planning to revisit the story. He made inquiries at the _Herald Sun_ and _Daily Telegraph_ and assured her there were no such plans. Bombshell for Gillard explodes under Murdoch press

    See? That was nothing. But that's how it always begins. Very small. _
Egg Shen._  Big Trouble in Little China (1986) - Memorable quotes

----------


## Dr Freud

They again wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to manufacture any warming, and again screwed the stats.  300,000 dollars and three years to produce a paper that lasted three weeks: Gergis « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax 
And if they did get it right as they incorrectly claimed, they thought they had found "proxy data" indicating how much warming? 
0.09 degrees over the last 1000 years, just in Australasia. 
This cult is now reeking of desperation. 
Jo Nova is well worth the full read.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Boral knows what the effect of the *carbon tax* is in their business and has been alerting customers of each division to resulting price increases that will occur as of July 1st. 
> woodbe.

  Just a few quick questions of the hundreds that JULIAR and her cheer squad haven't even figured out yet: 
Did they do their calculations on Carbon, or Carbon Dioxide? Just for giggles, I'd be curious to know.  :Biggrin:  
And how exactly did they psychically or telepathically figure out all the other businesses that JULIAR hasn't announced yet, then figure out what indirect tax inputs these direct tax payers will have on their business?  Then include these in their announced adjustments? 
And how many discretionary offset permits did they include in these calculations?  Because if they haven't included any, they are betting big on a coalition repeal of this farce.  Subject to lots of assumptions in Treasury modelling that is, and the yet to be determined floor price.  Gee, I'm glad business finally has so much certainty. 
Or was that just another of JULIAR's lies?  :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

> Did they do their calculations on Carbon, or Carbon Dioxide? Just for giggles, I'd be curious to know.

  Clean Energy Bill 2011   

> If a person is responsible for covered emissions of greenhouse gas from  the operation of a facility, the facilitys annual emissions are above a  threshold, and the person does not surrender one eligible emissions  unit* for each tonne of carbon dioxide equivalence of the gas*, the person  is liable to pay unit shortfall charge.

  What do you think? 
Semantics much? 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

The supporters of anything "green", "environmental", "global warming alarmism", "climate _change"_ (puaj, shudder) are so globally pathetic, so sheepishly cultist, so dark ages inquisition, so which hunt demented, that any attempt at "debating" is in itself and act of foolishness. 
Ask a green if he had a magic wand what would he do and he will tell you, if he is honest: to make human kind dissapear.
Religious dementia has no cure. The only consolation is that it will come to pass. eventually.

----------


## johnc

> The supporters of anything "green", "environmental", "global warming alarmism", "climate _change"_ (puaj, shudder) are so globally pathetic, so sheepishly cultist, so dark ages inquisition, so which hunt demented, that any attempt at "debating" is in itself and act of foolishness. 
> Ask a green if he had a magic wand what would he do and he will tell you, if he is honest: to make human kind dissapear.
> Religious dementia has no cure. The only consolation is that it will come to pass. eventually.

  Off our meds or on the bottle, who knows, but do you think you could make an effort to make some sense for once.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The supporters of anything "green", "environmental", "global warming alarmism", "climate _change"_  (puaj, shudder) are so globally pathetic, so sheepishly cultist, so  dark ages inquisition, so which hunt demented, that any attempt at  "debating" is in itself and act of foolishness. 
> Ask a green if he had a magic wand what would he do and he will tell you, if he is honest: to make human kind dissapear.
> Religious dementia has no cure. The only consolation is that it will come to pass. eventually.

      

> Off our meds or on the bottle, who knows, but do you think you could make an effort to make some sense for once.

  Oh I don't know, JohnC.  I can read between lines and it makes perfect sense to me...

----------


## johnc

> Oh I don't know, JohnC. I can read between lines and it makes perfect sense to me...

  Perhaps, but is a person suffering religious dimentia someone who has forgotten there is a God?, is a green really a fairy sans wand?, or is this simply a sign of someone that simply comes up with a whole host of bizzare metaphors to explain why they can't explain themselves in the first place. I suspect it is really just frustration, which doesn't excuse that style of abuse.

----------


## intertd6

> Nice line on sarcasm, lets attack the person not the subject. Carbon tax doesn't apply until 2014 to fuel, which comes in at about 40% of contract price for many long distance haulers, less for short distance. The carbon tax will have a small impact on other inputs but not all. I gather the consensus is the impact on freight costs will be 1-2% for most carriers. Many contracts have fuel surcharge clauses so the impact of the carbon tax will most likely be dealt with at that point. freight and farming are not similar for one main reason. For farmers there are a large pool of suppliers but very few buyers, most selling is done through a fixed market point, individual supply contracts also have very few buyers and they tend to have market dominance for a particular farm product. Freight is very transient, it is not uncommon for carriers to move regularly between companies seeking better rates. The buyers of freight tend to be more random with the market spread out and not as regulated as the livestock stock market system. At regional livestock auctions it is not uncommon to see all the meat buyers arrive in the one car, or have just one or two buyers compete for finished market livestock. To a lessor extent freight is a price taker as is farming, but the market they operate in is quite different.

  Well thats a nice load of waffle, I would love to see a copy of a subcontract that had fuel surcharge clause in it, must be a political urban myth bandied around the current gov't so they can sleep at night.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> Well thats a nice load of waffle, I would love to see a copy of a subcontract that had fuel surcharge clause in it, must be a political urban myth bandied around the current gov't so they can sleep at night.
> regards inter

  It's not unusual for cartage contracts to have adjustment clauses for fuel costs, it may be limited to annual adjustments based on a formula, if the negotiator has had a bit of bargaining power there may be an adjustment for abnormal (market) changes in fuel costs. The point is adjustments for fuel costs exist, if someone is operating without one then they should consider their position, contracts involve two parties, the stronger party may well have the upper hand, however the suby ultimately has to decide if they should be in the game if they can't be protected from dramatic shifts in fuel supply price as happen from time to time. Market shifts are far more damaging than any tax in any form, even a carbon tax. If you want to screw yourself take up something like an Aussie post mail delivery contract, it is a varied market with few barriers to entry, there is a large variation to in the contracts on offer. I most certainly have sighted and read contracts with surcharge (adjustment) clauses.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Perhaps, but is a person suffering religious dimentia someone who has forgotten there is a God?, is a green really a fairy sans wand?, or is this simply a sign of someone that simply comes up with a whole host of bizzare metaphors to explain why they can't explain themselves in the first place. I suspect it is really just frustration, which doesn't excuse that style of abuse.

  I believe that's called the 'Alan Jones Defense'.   
I copped a minute and a half of Mr Jones whilst on hold calling a local business this morning...it took everything in my power not to hang up on them.

----------


## Marc

*Eco-terrorism and geoengineering* 
                                                                       Posted By  director on January 18, 2011                     
                  The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant  members is to kill it. Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood. 
 In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. Jacques Cousteau 
 Obama is still a very dangerous person, even as he puts on the front  of compromise in order to get reelected. Obama has two very dangerous  science advisers, science czar John Holdren and global warming alarmist  James Hansen. Hansen has endorsed a recent book, Times Up,  that advocates eco-terrorism. These are the guys who want to blow up  the dams and bomb the cities to rubble because man is a blot on the  environment. 
 Holdren wrote a book in which he called for a global government to  enforce abortions and sterilizations to cull the human population. Holdren interview. How can we stop these dangerous nuts?  No need for charts or graphs. Putting out junk science hasnt really worked that well. People object to being lied to. 
 Lets put the White House in charge of research. Great idea. Gay Marxist Obama never lies to us or picks our pocket.
 The environmentalist position is that civilization must be destroyed  to save the planet. They forgot to add the final three words of the  sentence, for the elite. 
 The Left has always hated civilization and humanity. We cant quite  explain why because we are not a psychopathological pervert. Youll have  to ask them.  Geoengineering is being discussed at the highest levels. 
 Theres no limit on how nutty these guys get. 
 And they have friends in low places. A favorable review of Times Up at World News Trust. More enviro lies here. If you ever wondered where the crazy people get their bad ideas from, check out World News Trust. 
 Of course the Left is organizing for terrorism, thats what they do  best. You did notice all those socialists rioting in Europe, didnt you?  Of course the enviros are going to use geoengineering and eco-terrorism  if the good people block them. 
How great ideas evolve. First, put morons in charge:
  How to get attention without having to engage in any intellectual  effort. But these guys are just useful tools. At the higher levels,  watch out, they are dangerous, you are the target, and they intend to  kill you.  How they fool the gullible: First you have to be a socialist. Then, of course, you want to believe. Falling downhill is easy.
 Lets catch up with their latest ideas, post-Cancun. 
 Snowfalls are a thing of the past. What the Warmal Cooling crowd is saying after the coldest winter in history. 2010 will be one of the warmest years on record. 
 Global warming scaremongering at Cancun.  Why theyre not giving up after Climategate: Theres too much money to  be made from your funding. What they really want: money and control. 
 Youre in favor of another international treaty, arent you? 
  Funny how the journalists never report on what really goes on behind the scenes at international conferences.Bribery, mostly. Just like the Democrats in Congress. 
 Cancun treaty includes food rationing, forced relocation:
   Did we mention how the elites have set themselves up to make billions on the scam?  Their standing proposal:  Socialism, high taxes, global one-child policy, abortion,  sterilization, carbon rationing, carbon taxes, wealth transfer from the  U.S. to global institutions. You know the Democrats would do all this if  they could only get away with it. They havent given up trying.  More Green taxes are  always good, according to the Left. They are hoping that they can drive  the price of oil high enough to make some alternative energy idea look  rational.  Obamas Energy Department and EPA are in direct cahoots with the global socialist takeover agenda. 
 Who is funding the geoengineering plans.  Dismantling the Green Congress.  The Carbon Sense Coalition debunks the CO2 warming theory.  Another look at the academy of sciences. 
 Why you dont want to trust Obamas czars. Its really just a criminal mafia. 
 Where the stimulus money went: to bribe Mexican Marxists to support the green death plan. That was easy.  USCAP decides to take a long winters nap. Trust me, these liars arent going away, they have to be prosecuted and put away.
 The celebrity billionaires behind world population reduction. 
 Sometimes just a little debate is like holding up a mirror, and the geoengineer realizes how ridiculous she sounds.Guess it depends on who you hang out with. 
 By the way, you can forget about those UN 7-9 billion population  projections. They ignore fertility rates, which are dropping extremely  fast. Within the next generation, the world population increase will  decline drastically into world population decrease. 
 Of interest:
 The feminist ideal: Industrial motherhood and reproductive prostitution.  Japans population shrinks in 2010. 
 An easy read on the big picture at No Maam. You might begin to grasp that its a conspiracy. 
 Why were so worried:
 The enviros need to warm up the climate to make their global warming  lie into a reality to continue with their looting and depopulation  agenda. Obama is committed to governing through federal agencies and  presidential directives now that Congress can block him. The Left never  stops the takeover even when defeated. The shrill, desperate tone from  the enviro clones indicates they are back on their heels and looking for  something to save them from irrelevance. They have the technology. In  the next post well explain how they do it.

----------


## woodbe

> Why were so worried:

  Because someone actually reads this extreme right wing conspiracy theory site and posts it on the ET thread at the Renovate Forum? 
No wonder Marc spouts so much bile, look what he reads! 
Try some Shakespeare Marc, it's got a much better plot even if someone always seems to die. If that doesn't take your fancy then a bit of Banjo Patterson should do ya. 
woodbe.

----------


## watson

> Because someone actually reads this extreme right wing conspiracy theory site and posts it on the ET thread at the Renovate Forum? 
> No wonder Marc spouts so much bile, look what he reads! 
> Try some Shakespeare Marc, it's got a much better plot even if someone always seems to die. If that doesn't take your fancy then a bit of Banjo Patterson should do ya. 
> woodbe.

  Some abridged Banjo Paterson (one T) for reference: 
There was movement at the station for the word had got around,
That the colt from Old Regret had passed away.
The end.

----------


## intertd6

had gotten loose from the top paddock more likely.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

And old Rod's gone a plasterin' and we don't know where he are.   :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Theres no limit on how nutty these guys get.

  Your post so eloquently suggests that this above statement works on both sides of the Divide... 
From a glass half full perspective, one must tolerate nutcases as without them we would be without nuts...and I so like cashews.

----------


## johnc

> Your post so eloquently suggests that this above statement works on both sides of the Divide... 
> From a glass half full perspective, one must tolerate nutcases as without them we would be without nuts...and I so like cashews.

  
Sometimes the nuts can be just a bit hard and bitter to enjoy.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Sometimes the nuts can be just a bit hard and bitter to enjoy.

  Hence the invention of sugar, savoury and chocolate coatings and other flavourings...just to make the somewhat bitter contents a tad more palatable.  
...doesn't work on wasabi peas though  :No:

----------


## johnc

> Hence the invention of sugar, savoury and chocolate coatings and other flavourings...just to make the somewhat bitter contents a tad more palatable.  
> ...doesn't work on wasabi peas though

  Doesn't matter how they are disguised you always seem to be able to spot the peanut.

----------


## woodbe

John Laws takes one for the team:  ACMA rules against Alan Jones on climate change - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
Apparently people are still listening to him, or there wouldn't have been a complaint to begin with... 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

Very funny everyone, yet what I posted are quotes complete with author. 
Do you have information that the person did not say so? Can you share this alternative source?

----------


## johnc

> Very funny everyone, yet what I posted are quotes complete with author. 
> Do you have information that the person did not say so? Can you share this alternative source?

  I'm sorry Marc but that stuff really is rubbish, surely you don't expect people to wade through stupid references such as the current American president is a gay Marxist and expect us to disgard those purile unsupportable comments to look for something that might represent intelligent thought. That stuff comes from hate sites, it is full of unreliable references and is read by people who aren't interested in furthering understanding but are devoted to poisoning discussion and really can't discuss things in a mature reasonable manner that allows some sort of dignity to all sides.

----------


## woodbe

Hows the ice recovery lookin?:   
Not so good. It nearly 'recovered' to average by April, but since then it has walked through about 4 standard deviations below average. Melt season runs till September. 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> I'm sorry Marc but that stuff really is rubbish, surely you don't expect people to wade through stupid references such as ...etc etc

  As usual and just as all "enviro bla bla", the appeal to emotions is all their advocates can come up with .
A classic one, the "environment" minister announces marine parks galore in front of an aquarium. "The biggest in the world" ! Clap Clap Woohoo good for you, pity we have to pay for it. 
Back to the debate, can you please tell me if Jacques Cousteau did say this:
In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.  
Or Maurice Strong this:
Isn't the only hope for the  planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our  responsibility to bring that about? Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Program 
You say this comes from "hate sites"... It begs the question, who hates here, people in power that advocate genocide or those who passionately denounce them?
Are you in favor of a cull in human numbers to "help" the environment?

----------


## Marc

*Guest post by David Middleton* From Live Science *Records Melt Away on Greenland Ice Sheet*
 By Brett Israel, OurAmazingPlanet Staff Writer posted: 21 January 2011
 The disappearing Greenland Ice Sheet set several records during an unusually long melt last year, according to a new study.
 Running from April to mid-September, the melt season of 2010 was  about a month longer than usual, said study team member Jason Box, a  geographer and climatologist at Ohio State University.
 [...] Live Science_The disappearing Greenland Ice Sheet_ Where in the heck did the author get the idea that the Greenland Ice Sheet was disappearing? Greenland Ice Sheet Isopach Map (Wikipedia) 
 A recent publication by a team from TU Delft & JPL  found that the Greenland ice sheet was melting at half the rate  previously thought. They estimate that the Greenland ice sheet is losing  ~230 gigatonnes (Gt) of ice per year. One Gt of water has a volume of 1  cubic km (km^3). 1 Gt of ice has a larger volume than 1 Gt of water  But, for the purpose of this exercise, well assume 1 Gt of ice has a  volume of 1 km^3.
  If 1 Gt of ice has a volume of 1 km^3 and the current volume of the Greenland ice sheet is ~5 million km^3  and Greenland continues to melt at a rate of 230 km^3/yr over the next  90 years The Greenland ice sheet will lose a bit more than 0.4% of its  ice volume.~230 gigatonnes (Gt) of ice per year equates to about 0.005%  of ice mass loss per year. At the current rate, it would take 1,000  years for the Greenland Ice Sheet to lose 5% of its volume.
 The Earths climate was at least 2°C warmer during the Holocene  Climatic Optimum and the Greenland Ice Sheet did not melt, disappear or  destabilize Holocene Climate 
 The Earths climate was at least 2°C warmer and the Arctic was about 5°C warmer than it currently is during the Sangamonian (Eemian) interglacial. and the Greenland Ice Sheet did not melt, disappear or destabilize.
 Greenlands glaciation began during the Miocene, when the Earths  climate was at least 5°C warmer than it currently is. It advanced  rapidly after the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period.
 Earths climate would have to warm back up to where it was in the  mid-Miocene (~15 MYA) in order to destabilize the Greenland ice sheet Cenozoic Climate H/T Bill Illis 
 There is no scientific evidence to back up the assertion of a  disappearing Grrenland Ice Sheet. For a detailed explanation as to why  the Greenland ice sheet cannot collapse under any AGW scenario, see Ollier & Pain, 2009.

----------


## woodbe

Yes Marc, it's melting. Your mate Middleton handily ignores the fact that the melt rate is accelerating, so his numbers are rubbish. 
And no, we won't see the last of the Greenland Ice sheet in our lifetimes. We can even ignore it if we choose to, it's just another canary down the coal mine. after all. 
230Gt and accelerating.   

> It's only a flesh wound!

  Some more recent findings, released May 2012:  Greenland's current loss of ice mass   

> For the first time and for each region, the researchers could determine  with unprecedented precision which percentage melting, iceberg calving  and fluctuations in rainfall have on the current mass loss. "Such an  increase in mass loss in the northwest after 2005 is partly due to heavy  snowfall in the years before", says GFZ scientist Ingo Sasgen, head of  the study. "The previous mass gain was reduced in subsequent years.  Similarly in eastern Greenland: In the years 2008 and 2009 there was  even a mass increase". As the researchers were able to show, this was  not due to decreased glacier velocities, but because of two winters with  very heavy snowfall. Meanwhile, the loss of ice mass continues here.  For all studied regions the melting and calving periods between 2002 and  2011 are extraordinarily high compared to those of the last five  decades.

  woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> As usual and just as all "enviro bla bla", the appeal to emotions is all their advocates can come up with .
> A classic one, the "environment" minister announces marine parks galore in front of an aquarium. "The biggest in the world" ! Clap Clap Woohoo good for you, pity we have to pay for it. 
> Back to the debate, can you please tell me if Jacques Cousteau did say this:
> In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.  
> Or Maurice Strong this:
> Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about? Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Program 
> You say this comes from "hate sites"... It begs the question, who hates here, people in power that advocate genocide or those who passionately denounce them?
> Are you in favor of a cull in human numbers to "help" the environment?

  Are the quotes true? does it matter if they have been taken out of context and supplied interpretations that aren't warranted. i'm guessing that at the time Mr Cousteau is attributed with the 350,000 per day that was probably the number of births per day. If this was in a different context than the one provided by the nut job site it was dredged from then it is not unreasonable that you need 350,000 people eliminated to maintain the population at current levels. This does not mean put to death it just means died, show the smoking gun and you need to show more than the opinion of one commentator.  
To maintain the rather sad fiction that we are dealing with cults, left wing conspiracies new world orders or any of the other disreputable hate we get served up by the red necks I guess you have to spend a lot of time in these dark places to fuel the hate. On a lighter note the sort of looney tunes that log on to those places and participate tend to be male, white, average to low intelligence who have failed to get on in life. This allows them to find scape goats to blame for their own failures rather than to face up to the truth for their failures. For this reason they are more an irritant to society rather than a threat unless mobilised by those who can use this to wreak havoc. 
Focus by all means on the quotes but make an effort to find an original source and read to understand the motives. Single quotes are useless without subtext which doesn't exist here. Also don't expect others to do your homework for you. 
In the end neither of these quotes has the slightest relevence to a carbon tax in the Australian context.

----------


## woodbe

Consumer watchdog probes carbon price hikes   

> ACCC chairman Rod Sims says already 200 complaints are being  investigated, as people are being duped into accepting price increases  that have nothing to do with the carbon tax.
> "The first sets of  complaints we had were people trying to put up anything from the price  of a slab of beer, to a taxi ride, to the price of a pizza or a swimming  pool, and attribute that to the carbon price way before the carbon  price had even come into existence," Mr Sims said.

  Consumer watchdog probes carbon price hikes - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
So not only do we have to put up with exaggeration about the Carbon tax, now we have to put up with unscrupulous businesses scapegoating the tax for their price increases.. 
woodbe

----------


## Marc

> Are the quotes true? does it matter if they have been taken out of context and supplied interpretations that aren't warranted. i'm guessing that 
> [guessing...what a surprise hey?] etc etc ...
> In the end neither of these quotes has the slightest relevence to a carbon tax in the Australian context.

  The only 'sad' true here is that a world elite that has not your nor mine interest at heart is pushing a cultist concept that "carbon" (translated = CO2) is the source of all evil.
And even sadder the fact that people like you and others, think they are doing 'the right thing' by supporting this cult. Mostly well intentioned mind you. I don't think you are getting paid to post, and that is a much better treatment then the one reserved for me, apparently paid by the oil companies. 
To attempt to isolate the "carbon tax in the Australian context is insular and narrow minded to say the least.
Global schemes have global roots, with global organisations, and global conventions with global plans and goals.
If Stalin, Mao or Hitler had talked about depopulation for their own purposes, the condemnation would have been massive. However well known figures can play with words and intentions around depopulation in whatever form you want to decorate it, only because they qualify this to be "for the good of the planet". 
Now I say who IS "the planet"? Is it a new god? Gaia perhaps? Who are this oh! so altruistic people who shout from their marble towers what we, the plebs, are supposed to do?
And why are the so called environmentalist so naive to believe they are on the same wavelength? 
The so called green movement is extremely political and to understand it you have to go to the origin. Also observe the morphing of the communist troops left at their own devices after the party faded into irrelevance.  
So what we have here, is not an isolated case of a lunatic party leader imposing a lunatic tax for environmental reasons. We have a very very low rating government, ranking very, veeery low in the global relevance, towing the line for global interest, and using, (and this is the saddest part) the ordinary enviro-green as marching troops for their cause (that is not yours mind you)  
Sad really. 
As for conspiracy theories, so far in my life time there has been a few that rated very low in the credibility of the masses yet turned out to be true. 
You keep on forwarding green lies, if it pleases you, it is a free world. However don't think that you have the exclusive rights to the truth just because it is "environmentally friendly".

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The only 'sad' true here is that a world elite that has not your nor mine interest at heart is pushing a cultist concept that "carbon" (translated = CO2) is the source of all evil.

  Really?  Who are these elite and why am I not one of them? 
Frankly, one only has to look at the financial mess that is Europe and North America to entertain the suspicion that if such an elite existed....it is not that great at coordination and unity of effort. Some world elite, eh? 
Carbon or for that matter CO2 is way way way way wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy  yyyyy down on my list as a Source Of Evil...almost the least evil thing I can think of.  Fairly confident that would be the case for most people, even those with only a basic level of education.  
I'm thinking you might be believeing your own stories.... :No:  Imagination is there to entertain, not to cancel out reason.

----------


## johnc

It's kind of amusing really to think that some people believe there is some controlling world body of "elites" dictating what goes on in the world when the general mayhem that passes as world co-ordination resembles an open air feather market on a windy day. All fluff and no substance, we can't get world banking right, we can't even invade little countries and put things right, we can't feed the world, free markets aint, democracy doesn't deliver great leaders very often if ever, Communism manages plenty of duds and the leading world command economy is actually running a free market economy on a world scale. Go figure how you come up with elites, if that is what elites do imagine how little ground they've left for the morons. Perhaps though it is a great conspiracy to give the morons something to chase while the real work goes on behind the scenes (as if!) 
I think someone mentioned elites are actually commie loving, coffee drinking, Age readers, in which case the elites must be right wing because they have sent Gina to fix that little lurk.  :Shock:

----------


## PhilT2

What gets me is that the same people that claim an elite is controlling all govts and directing them to follow the same path also complain that Aust should not be acting alone in introducing a carbon tax. Is it just me or is there a contradiction there? 
But I think Marc is right about Jacques Costeau, he is definitely up to something. Just because he's been dead for 15 years doesn't mean we can trust him.

----------


## woodbe

> he's been dead for 15 years

  Please don't exaggerate, you know how that annoys Rod. It's only been 14 years, 11 months and 24 days. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It's kind of amusing really to think that some people believe there is some controlling world body of "elites" dictating what goes on in the world when the general mayhem that passes as world co-ordination resembles an open air feather market on a windy day.

  It is almost akin to a belief in a higher Power....    :Kneel suckers:

----------


## Wavenut

Hi all, 
What's peoples thoughts on the potential effect of the carbon tax regarding building, renovating or general goods and services? 
A consultant from a large well known builder mentioned to me today that the quoted price was no longer valid as it will be rising next week - a direct result of the carbon tax? 
I am eagerly awaiting to see the difference. Any ideas how much a house build may change? 
Regards
Wavenut

----------


## SilentButDeadly

My thought (which is very different from a fact) is that the carbon tax price thingy is just one of many pricing signals that will be changing come July 1.  Many first home buyer grants are going away, many suppliers re-adjust their pricing schedules for inflation etc etc etc.   
The majority of components in a build or reno are only indirectly affected by a carbon price.  Main exceptions are probably bricks and cement.  Steel and aluminium sourced from Australia will be affected too.  So the upshot is that most stuff will go up a little bit, some parts will go up a lot, a few parts will stay where they are and the odd one might even go down. Throw in on top of that the many changes to building industry subsidies through the first home buyers schemes and other State and Federal government largesses and the upshot is it could go either way.  Which is a pretty typical transition from one financial year to the next... 
In the scheme of things...across a decent build...it might add a percentage point or two. Might sound like a lot but still probably cheaper than changing your mind about where want a window halfway through the build

----------


## Marc

> My thought (which is very different from a fact) is that the carbon tax price thingy is just one of many pricing signals that will be changing come July 1.  Many first home buyer grants are going away, many suppliers re-adjust their pricing schedules for inflation etc etc etc.   
> The majority of components in a build or reno are only indirectly affected by a carbon price.  Main exceptions are probably bricks and cement.  Steel and aluminium sourced from Australia will be affected too.  So the upshot is that most stuff will go up a little bit, some parts will go up a lot, a few parts will stay where they are and the odd one might even go down. Throw in on top of that the many changes to building industry subsidies through the first home buyers schemes and other State and Federal government largesses and the upshot is it could go either way.  Which is a pretty typical transition from one financial year to the next... 
> In the scheme of things...across a decent build...it might add a percentage point or two. Might sound like a lot but still probably cheaper than changing your mind about where want a window halfway through the build

  On that thought I find really interesting the threats to punish those bad business that pump up prices and blame the carbon tax. Last time I checked we live in a free country and I can charge the prices I feel like. I can say for example that I will from now on charge 20% more because the government does not allow me to put more than 25000 in my super so I'll compensate by charging more. Or I can say that my price is from now on 50% higher because I hate Labour governments out of principle. Or I could say that I charge double from now on because my religion tells me to do so. Or I can charge more because my costs have gone up thanks to the carbon tax. By how much it is my call. It may not be my call if I lived in Cuba, I understand that, but I think I still live in Australia.

----------


## PhilT2

I think you may have misread the legislation. The intent of the Act is to prevent a business from claiming that a price rise is due to the carbon tax when that is not the case ie engaging in deceptive and misleading conduct. Which has been frowned upon for quite a long time.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> IThe intent of the Act is to prevent a business from claiming that a price rise is due to the carbon tax when that is not the case ie engaging in deceptive and misleading conduct

  Exactly.  There's nothing to prevent Marc from putting up his prices by whatever he feels is fair and reasonable and that his target market can afford. However, he (nor any other business) can publicly attribute that price rise to the carbon price thingamy without demonstrating 'just cause' to the ACCC (if they happen to ask  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): )

----------


## Marc

Only companies that have regulated prices and have to apply for increases, need to justify price increases. No one else needs to explain, never had to.
Building prices go up for a number of reasons, in your next quote, you don't have to say, price increase due to fuel prices. You just put the price up. 
However in a free country you can make a point and state your price increase is due to demented Labour policies. In a totalitarian government you can not say that and if you do you get thrown in gaol or made disappear at night time. 
Menaces from government department not to state your disapproval of government policies is a step in the above direction. If I put up my prices and say it is due to the carbon tax it is not misleading at all, it is reality. Threats from the ACCC are but a show of what life would be under this communist government if we happen to vote them in once more. 
Clearly, none of you have any idea of what it is to live under a totalitarian government.

----------


## PhilT2

Don't really understand what your point is here Marc. If price increases are genuinely caused by the carbon tax then the legislation does not apply. The act only stops businesses from lying about the reason for their price increases. Do you have something about regulations that require honesty?

----------


## Marc

Honesty.... LOL 
Like the 9 meters sea level rises?
Like there will be no carbon taxes?
Should I continue? Because I can write a 200 pages book about Labour governments honesty. 
The most deplorable side of this saga is that there is still 30% morons that prefer our lovely communist julia policies and her handouts.
I wonder who they are ... Ok you have the one on the take, the Centrelink "customers". then the housing commission dwellers, those who relish the tax threshold rising to 18k (whoohoo right?) the environazi supporters ... well they belong to the first group anyway....I think we got to 30% already. 
Honestly, I can't wait for this government to disappear, better become illegal, deported to West Papua ...  Cuba?   No no I know, Liberia!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The most deplorable side of this saga is that there is still 30% morons that prefer our lovely communist julia policies and her handouts.

  Which demonstrates that we are a long way from a totalitarian regime....no place for morons of either flavour there  :Wink 1:     
Just curious though...why would you of all people (who seems to be a fan of little government) lament the prospect of paying less income tax via the increased tax free threshold?  
Sure...you may not like taxes on consumption like the GST and the carbon price but at least you have a choice (by consuming less) about whether you pay them!

----------


## Marc

> Just curious though...why would you of all people (who seems to be a fan of little government) lament the prospect of paying less income tax via the increased tax free threshold?  
> Sure...you may not like taxes on consumption like the GST and the carbon price but at least you have a choice (by consuming less) about whether you pay them!

  It's simple. I prefer an education system a culture and tax legislation of support , encouragement and praise for prosperity. In fact prosperity should be celebrated and applauded and poverty deplored and victimhood industry frown upon.   
How do you achieve this?
Give incentive to earn more and disincentive to earn less. 
The current tax legislation allows Bankstown Bludger number 1 to earn $18,000 and pay 0% tax
The one earning 37,000 pays 19% of whatever he earns above Bludger No1
The one earning $80,000 pays 32,5% over the previous guy.
The one earning $180,000 pays 37% of what he makes more than previous one
If one earns one million a year. the tax bill is $450,000 minus $54,000 almost 40% straight 
So Bankstonw bludger pays 0% and a successful professional pays 40%
Do you think that the above is an incentive to earn more, to be successful? Do you think that such a biased and skewed system is just? 
The only true and just tax system is a flat rate tax system that charges ONE rate of tax regardless of the amount earned. A revenue neutral percentage is probably in the vicinity of 20% and everyone from the kid earning $4000 a year at mackers to Gina R, would pay the same 20% personal income tax.  
Tax free threshold is a political tool to harvest votes from those who think the rest of the world owes them a living, based on the popular belief that rich is evil and poor is virtuous. 
I hope you are intelligent enough not to mention that "money does not make happiness" and similar BS 
GST is a tax on consumption and has nothing to do with the CO2 tax that is market based, is in theory designed to discourage consumption yet drives disparaging and unequal levels of "compensation" and subsidies that make the word absurd sound like a good thing. 
One last point on your comment on "paying less personal income tax". The current scale does not make me, (nor I hope you), pay less tax. We pay the same or negligible difference.

----------


## johnc

> It's simple. I prefer an education system a culture and tax legislation of support , encouragement and praise for prosperity. In fact prosperity should be celebrated and applauded and poverty deplored and victimhood industry frown upon.   
> How do you achieve this?
> Give incentive to earn more and disincentive to earn less. 
> The current tax legislation allows Bankstown Bludger number 1 to earn $18,000 and pay 0% tax
> The one earning 37,000 pays 19% of whatever he earns above Bludger No1
> The one earning $80,000 pays 32,5% over the previous guy.
> The one earning $180,000 pays 37% of what he makes more than previous one
> If one earns one million a year. the tax bill is $450,000 minus $54,000 almost 40% straight 
> So Bankstonw bludger pays 0% and a successful professional pays 40%
> ...

  We know how your mind works but it is not the way any side of Australian politics think. If you want that system you will need to find a country that operates that way. From 1900 (Federation) there has never been that type of position here, there has always been an ackowledgment that taxes are drawn from different sources and at different thresholds and rates. The type of system you propose is similar to what you get from those countries emerging from communist regimes rather than free democracies. After all that has been written here and elsewhere it seems beyond belief that we are reading this emotive rubbish that is without any substance at all. All taxes and levies effect the economy if we have to put up with this stupid bleating about a 10% lift in power prices then what about the 40% lift in power prices that have had nothing to do with generation capacity or a carbon tax. The answer of course is by your logic all charges are ok except for those brought in by a Labor government. Let this grow up a bit all increases can effect productivity, all price rises effect us, and the causes of these are many and varied. Spare us the stupidity of those parroting right wing agendas proposed by the lying ratbags in that corner (as opposed to those that lie on the left)

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It's simple. I prefer an education system a culture and tax legislation of support , encouragement and praise for prosperity. In fact prosperity should be celebrated and applauded and poverty deplored and victimhood industry frown upon.   
> How do you achieve this?
> Give incentive to earn more and disincentive to earn less. 
> The current tax legislation allows Bankstown Bludger number 1 to earn $18,000 and pay 0% tax
> The one earning 37,000 pays 19% of whatever he earns above Bludger No1
> The one earning $80,000 pays 32,5% over the previous guy.
> The one earning $180,000 pays 37% of what he makes more than previous one
> If one earns one million a year. the tax bill is $450,000 minus $54,000 almost 40% straight 
> So Bankstonw bludger pays 0% and a successful professional pays 40%
> Do you think that the above is an incentive to earn more, to be successful? Do you think that such a biased and skewed system is just?

  How biased and skewed the system probably depends on your POV.  On the upside, if your 18K is not being set aside for tax then it can be spent on consuming things and consumption (and increasing that rate of consumption) is what drives our economy.  
More worryingly...you are honestly suggesting that below some economic point in Australian society taxation is an incentive to earn less but above some economic point it becomes a disincentive to earn more?  The Australian experience since Federation is a demonstration of how untrue that is. 
I have no particular problem with a flat income tax rate however I would point out that the idea that this would then be an incentive to the part of the community that you decry as 'bludgers' strikes me as stridently simplistic...it might actually make things worse which then makes things worse for those you see as the economic pillars of our community. 
Oh an my financial homily is one I adopted from a Silverchair song "Money isn't everything but I'd like to see you like without it".

----------


## Marc

> How biased and skewed the system probably depends on  your POV. On the upside, if your 18K is not being set aside for tax then it can  be spent on consuming things and consumption (and increasing that rate of  consumption) is what drives our economy.  
> More worryingly...you are  honestly suggesting that below some economic point in Australian society  taxation is an incentive to earn less but above some economic point it becomes a  disincentive to earn more? The Australian experience since Federation is a  demonstration of how untrue that is. 
> I have no particular problem with a  flat income tax rate however I would point out that the idea that this would  then be an incentive to the part of the community that you decry as 'bludgers'  strikes me as stridently simplistic...it might actually make things worse which  then makes things worse for those you see as the economic pillars of our  community.

   

> Oh an my financial homily is one I adopted from a Silverchair  song "Money isn't everything but I'd like to see you like without it".

     Covering the previous answer with a pious cloak...  let me answer your post.  I am well aware of the economic benefits of  Centrelink payments/ handouts/ untaxed income etc, that provide cash flow for  the suppliers of basic needs. However we are not talking about how to make Woolies and Coles bigger.   We have drifted to talk about fairness of the  taxation system.  There is no fairness when in a democratic  society one person pays 0% the other pays 20% and the next 45% of his personal  income. The excuses brandied by the bleeding hearts and the lefties are well  known yet false and once again unjust. Only a flat rate, that determines a directly proportional rate of tax is just and fair. One earns 10,000,he pays 2000 , earn 20,000 pay 4000, earn 400,000 pay 80,000. Simple...and the same goes for Land tax. If there is a need for such tax and that is debatable, Land tax should be on ALL owners be it principal home or investment, be it one or 1000 properties. This way Land tax would be required to be minimal and not the extortion it is today  The law should be equal for all and tax is no  exception. ONE single solitary rate for all. be it 18% or 28%, a number that  does not alter the overall revenue income.   The effect of such flat rate of tax would be one  of outrage for those who pay less and one of support for those who pay more.  
Obviously the reason why politicians have no balls to adopt such change that would  bring justice but no political advantage. 
Of course it would make "things  worst", yet it would be the right thing to do. And that shows the pitfalls of  democracy where the politicians sing the tune they have researched we want to  hear and therefore re-elect them, with total disregard to any ethics or value. 
I  always say that if research would indicate that voters want pot to be given free  to primary school kids, there would be a law brought in quick smart allowing  it....but that is another story. On second thoughts this example is the only part that is relevant to Carbon Tax. The carbon tax was a gamble on support from taxpayers. If we allow marijuana in primary schools we get x% support. If we pass carbon tax we gain x% support. Clearly the gamble did not pay off. Must fire the advisers. The concern for the environment is of course nonexistent.   
Your comments from Federation time have no  relevance to today, yet if you want to talk ancient times, check out how overtime  was taxed in the fifties and sixties.  The idea was that you work overtime and  it is your choice and your time. Tax was zero.  Today if you are employed and  work overtime you pay the highest marginal tax rate and if you have any  connection with employers that offer a lot of overtime, they will tell you that  many workers refuse to work past a certain level of overtime simply because the  tax man takes half of heir hard earned money. The extra effort is not worth  their while.   The name "progressive" taxation system is a  classic oxymoron since it is rather regressive, by teaching that if you earn  less you pay no tax, the more you earn the more you get punished by personal  income tax. The message is a popular one: Poverty is a virtue, prosperity is  evil and must be punished. Do you know how many people choose to only work part  time a minimal amount in order not to "lose" income support payments?  Millions. 
Tax brackets provoke the same attitude

----------


## johnc

You may well think it is politicians with no balls that would not consider a flat rate of tax you are perhaps partly right. It would be a politician with no brains  that you require to bring one in.  
There are a host of logical reasons to have thresholds and progressive rates. If you wanted a flat rate then it follows equal opportunity to any form of income support so you would scrap Centrelink. Perfectly fair? Bring it in, eliminate all forms of tax other then individual rates and we will just have one simple flat rate, say around 50% of total income will do it, business will thrive and the trickle down theory that is bankrupting the US wins plus Darwinism will ensure those that are old, sick, dim or otherwise not particularly productive will starve to death great theory there Einstein. For goodness sake save us from this silliness, or head to Hong Kong they have something similar you might like, user pays no income support but a very low flat rate of tax. :Wink 1:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The name "progressive" taxation system is a  classic oxymoron since it is rather regressive, by teaching that if you earn  less you pay no tax, the more you earn the more you get punished by personal  income tax. The message is a popular one: Poverty is a virtue, prosperity is  evil and must be punished. Do you know how many people choose to only work part  time a minimal amount in order not to "lose" income support payments?  Millions. 
> Tax brackets provoke the same attitude

  If poverty is a virtue, one wonders why it is so unpopular... 
Some of us choose to work part time because it makes us better people...many of us unfortunately don't actually have a choice.  And if one is working part time (because that's all you can get) for the minimum wage (because that's all you can get) then not compromising any available regular dependable income support for the sake of a couple of extra hours punching cards for the Man strikes me as good financial sense.   
There's more than a few people I know who are working a couple of days a week simply to maintain their skills and intelligence because most of the money they take home on those two days pays for the cost of caring for their children whilst they are at work. The alternative is that they remain at home on welfare caring for their children themselves.  Which would you prefer?  Which one makes financial sense? 
Tax bracket fear works the same only if you happen bump up against the top section of the bracket...been there done that...don't expect it to be an issue in the future  :Shock:   
As a fan of the flat tax...perhaps you should like the Carbon Tax?  It's kind of flat even if the politicial response all around has been a bit lumpy...

----------


## Marc

> If poverty is a virtue, one wonders why it is so unpopular...

  Good question but perhaps better left for a different debate. One on values and anti-values.
Your comments on part time work, can not be replied to out of context. Life is complicated and sometimes it is better to think about why we do things rather than going in a debate of what is "right" or "wrong". After all religion has tried to push us into a guilt trip for thousands of years with rather poor results. 
  The carbon dioxide tax, will be history next year, after distorting a few markets particularly energy for a year or two.
I really regret not to live in the dark ages and be able to see the decapitation of the old king.

----------


## woodbe

> On that thought I find really interesting the threats to punish those bad business that pump up prices and blame the carbon tax. Last time I checked we live in a free country and I can charge the prices I feel like. I can say for example that I will from now on charge 20% more because the government does not allow me to put more than 25000 in my super so I'll compensate by charging more. Or I can say that my price is from now on 50% higher because I hate Labour governments out of principle. Or I could say that I charge double from now on because my religion tells me to do so. Or I can charge more because my costs have gone up thanks to the carbon tax. By how much it is my call. It may not be my call if I lived in Cuba, I understand that, but I think I still live in Australia.

  Well, here you go. You can stick the prices up as much as you like or dare, but you cannot blame the carbon tax for any more than it is responsible for. Pretty simple really. This is not Government control of pricing, it's Government control of truth. In fact they are not controlling it, they are just saying that if you spout lies about why you're hiking the price then you are in fact a liar and they will take some of your cash off you.  Brumby's boss quits over carbon tax letter - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   

> *Brumby's boss quits over carbon tax letter* 
> The head of one of Australia's largest bakery chains,  Brumby's, has quit after revelations he urged franchisees to increase  prices and blame it on the carbon tax.
> In an internal memo sent  last night, the company announced that Brumby's managing director Deane  Priest tendered his resignation yesterday afternoon.
> Mr Priest had  authored the original newsletter which suggested franchisees increase  prices during June and July and "let the carbon tax take the blame".
> The bakery chain is part of the publicly listed Retail Food Group, which also owns Donut King and Michel's Patisserie.

  I guess they might have got off without a fine...   

> In a memo obtained by the ABC, Ms Catterall says the company plans to  take out full-page newspaper advertisements this weekend and has also  engaged a "social media expert" to respond to customers concerns.
> She has also asked franchisees to remove any Liberal Party placards that mention price impacts due to the carbon tax.

  Hmmm... Sounds like Tony _was_ mates with Brumby's 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> Well, here you go. You can stick the prices up as much as you like or dare, but you cannot blame the carbon tax for any more than it is responsible for. Pretty simple really. This is not Government control of pricing, it's Government control of truth. In fact they are not controlling it, they are just saying that if you spout lies about why you're hiking the price then you are in fact a liar and they will take some of your cash off ....... 
> woodbe.

  The level of blindness that fanaticism brings is flabbergasting. Not even the obscene use of taxpayers money for propaganda, the abuse of govenrment departments leverage for more propaganda, the degeneration or any vestige of truth and you are talking as if the ACCC is some sort of bastion? 
It wouldbe funny if it wasn't so pathetic. 
Not to worry...only a year to go and all this imbecility will be gone. Judging from the latest rumours, the greens will go down to a point of oblivion.

----------


## johnc

> The level of blindness that fanaticism brings is flabbergasting. Not even the obscene use of taxpayers money for propaganda, the abuse of govenrment departments leverage for more propaganda, the degeneration or any vestige of truth and you are talking as if the ACCC is some sort of bastion? 
> It wouldbe funny if it wasn't so pathetic. 
> Not to worry...only a year to go and all this imbecility will be gone. Judging from the latest rumours, the greens will go down to a point of oblivion.

  
Yes quite right John Howard wasted squillions on propoganda, the right wing wouldn't know the truth if it smacked it in the face, the fantatics that support them are imbeciles, the ACCC stops morons from fleecing the public but the smarter ones get through. Welcome to the light good to see you've come out of the darkness and embrace common sense.

----------


## woodbe

> The level of blindness that fanaticism brings is flabbergasting. Not even the obscene use of taxpayers money for propaganda, the abuse of govenrment departments leverage for more propaganda, the degeneration or any vestige of truth and you are talking as if the ACCC is some sort of bastion? 
> It wouldbe funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

  Can't remember you complaining about exactly the same issue with Howard and the GST. Like you say, the level of blindness is flabbergasting... 
woodbe.

----------


## Paternoster

I know,I don´t live in OZ (yet) but I might be able to bring in a few good points from "the out side".I am originally from Germany and have lived there until 6 years ago,when I moved to Canada.
The whole global warming issue is closely related to how we use energy and how we brace ourselves for the upcoming (and already existing) energy shortages.
In Europe,people tend to be a bit too "tree hugging",allowing governments to turn the tax screw on energy in order to spend the money taken in to cover their screw ups in other areas of gov´t regulation (social systems,pension etc).In Germany,this trend has been very painful for the average citizen,making life very expensive (energy cost to heat a house sixfold from the mid 90 to today),petrol is running @ 1.64 (super+),Diesel@ 1.41/Liter and that with an income that is for an automotive mechanic around 1300/month after tax (I would have qualified to get an extra 300 from the unemployment office,even though I worked full time @ a FIAT dealership cause with a family of four,the poverty line is @1600)....I´ve chosen to leave Germany,not taking their bl* money....Companies have been punished as well,specially high energy consuming companies like the aluminiun industry...and that in a country which is a full scale industrial power,depending on it´s PRODUCTION of goods (no oil,no gas ,just coal in Germany)
There have been good trends coming from it of course:we have more wind power plants than ever,solar power is wide spread and so on.not a bad thing,but was pisses me off about it is,that they made energy so expensive and that in a very short time,without the alternatives in place (not even close). 
So,is that a energy trend one should follow?
Here is the other side: Canada or North America for that matter....global warming?just a myth....energy shortage?well,petrol is expensive but that can´t be because of 1.2 billion Chinese switching to cars (260 million cars now registered in China,so NO IMPACT AT ALL........right...),do we need to change anything?Of course not,we just stick our heads in the sand and drive a 5.3 liter V8 in a Tahoe two city blocks to pick up the kids from school.Scooter?Pah,not MANLY enough,I drive my 6 liter Ford Powerstroke (with 4" straight exhaust of course) chipped up and 5 mpg "efficient" around like a car....I don´t need such a vehicle,but I have to display my "manliness".Cars and trucks idle for the whole time people shop @Wal Mart,in Winter for heat and in summer for air conditioning...who wants to get into a hot car after all?....North American morons and their (trough the whole band!)energy wasting behaviour,are wrecking it for us all.... 
So,I am asking:is that the way to go? 
Australia has such a terrific population,thinking about zero-energy houses,taking the bus (if possible),driving efficient Diesel vehicles (completely killed by George "the lesser" W Bush with TIER2 legislation...can´t have a huge country AND efficient Diesel  :Doh: )
Everywhere in OZ,you see people doing the right thing in regard to the environment and that will help us to be in a way better position for the future.The worst thing would be a"going back and denying"attitude.
I am not rallying here for Emission trading" but I would like to draw your attention towards the fact,that OZ is in a very good position thanks to it´s environmental consciousness. 
Cheers

----------


## woodbe

Good post Paternoster, and welcome to the forum. 
Thanks for the big picture, we don't get much of that here! 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

By the way, looks like the Arctic Ice recovery is in full swing:   
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> Can't remember you complaining about exactly the same issue with Howard and the GST. Like you say, the level of blindness is flabbergasting... 
> woodbe.

  Ignoring the fact that you have no idea of who I am and what i did 12 years ago, there has always been plenty of complaints about money spent for propaganda from any side of politics.
However even if no one had said a word about the GST (a long stretch) what has that to do with the massive waste, mismanagement and criminal  damage to the economy by this nincompoop government?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Not to worry...only a year to go and all this imbecility will be gone.

  Really?  You think? Personally, I think we are going to trade one class of imbeciles for another...same as we did last time.  Just from closer to the bottom of the bucket each time.   

> Judging from the latest rumours, the greens  will go down to a point of oblivion.

  Rumours?  Or just wishful thinking...frankly, I think you are over imagining their influence. 
Bear in mind that the Greens have next to no presence in the Lower House and their numbers are protected in the Upper House for a few years yet unless there's a double dissolution...and the Australian public is a fickle and forgetful thing.  :Blush7:

----------


## johnc

> Ignoring the fact that you have no idea of who I am and what i did 12 years ago
> There has always been plenty of complaints about money spent for propaganda from
> Any side of politics.
> However even if no one had said a word about the GST (a long stretch)
> What has that to do with the massive waste, mismanagement and criminal 
> Damage to the economy by this nincompoop government

  
I know, it is an absolute disgrace that they continued to waste money at the same rate as the previous lot, however I'm not sure you can support criminal damage, there is nothing you can come up with on that score, competence and criminality are different things and shouldn't be confused. Good to see you have memories of 12 years ago but ancient history is of little value in the present don't you think.

----------


## Marc

> The whole global warming issue is closely related to how we use energy and how we brace ourselves for the upcoming (and already existing) energy shortages. [baaaa haaaa] etc etc etc

  Here is a perfect example of a nonsensical post,  appealing to emotions without a trace of logic.  
If anyone could pinpoint the relation between "the global  warming issue" (Oh I like the choice of words) and the use of energy, we  wouldn't be having this conversation.  The real facts are that "man made global  warming" is fictional and as evident as the existence of the god Neptune, and  that the effect of man made CO2 on  temperatures can not be demonstrated, your  opening sentence is nonsense number one.   You pass on to describe in detail the devastating effects of  unbridled green policies yet call wind power and solar a good thing. Oh but how  expensive! So what is so good about them? The massive amount of energy necessary  to make the dam things?   Then you  pass on your "anti macho" bias (explaining that you actually follow the trend to  fit in) and pretend to believe that such emotional crap will be widely  applauded. Fortunately goods prices like cars and fuel, are regulated by the  market, offer and demand. If the number of puffy little pink cars has any chance  of succeeding and change the trend,. it will have to be because there is demand  for it and not because someone decides to force upon others their own skewed  view of the world, of wimps on push bikes living in straw ball  huts.   An it is not "North American"  morons but US Banks and politicians plus European green morons, followed by the PIIGS that are screwing up the economy.  And Australia is in a very good position  clearly NOT because of what you call environmental consciousness but DESPITE the  crap people try to predicate from afar and the crap our own environazis  try to impose.   Delenda est  viridis

----------


## woodbe

> Ignoring the fact that you have no idea of who I am and what i did 12 years ago, there has always been plenty of complaints about money spent for propaganda from any side of politics.
> However even if no one had said a word about the GST (a long stretch) what has that to do with the massive waste, mismanagement and criminal  damage to the economy by this nincompoop government?

  Well, to be honest, I think we were talking about the government taking people to task for blaming their price hikes on a small increase in tax, as they did for both the GST and the CT. 
But do carry on. 
woodbe.

----------


## Paternoster

> Here is a perfect example of a nonsensical post,  appealing to emotions without a trace of logic.  
> If anyone could pinpoint the relation between "the global  warming issue" (Oh I like the choice of words) and the use of energy, we  wouldn't be having this conversation.  The real facts are that "man made global  warming" is fictional and as evident as the existence of the god Neptune, and  that the effect of man made CO2 on  temperatures can not be demonstrated, your  opening sentence is nonsense number one.   You pass on to describe in detail the devastating effects of  unbridled green policies yet call wind power and solar a good thing. Oh but how  expensive! So what is so good about them? The massive amount of energy necessary  to make the dam things?   Then you  pass on your "anti macho" bias (explaining that you actually follow the trend to  fit in) and pretend to believe that such emotional crap will be widely  applauded. Fortunately goods prices like cars and fuel, are regulated by the  market, offer and demand. If the number of puffy little pink cars has any chance  of succeeding and change the trend,. it will have to be because there is demand  for it and not because someone decides to force upon others their own skewed  view of the world, of wimps on push bikes living in straw ball  huts.   An it is not "North American"  morons but US Banks and politicians plus European green morons, followed by the PIIGS that are screwing up the economy.  And Australia is in a very good position  clearly NOT because of what you call environmental consciousness but DESPITE the  crap people try to predicate from afar and the crap our own environazis  try to impose.   Delenda est  viridis

  Here is an example for a complete hypocritical attitude:you blame me for posting "emotional nonsense" while being very emotional yourself without even replaying to the facts that I stated.   

> (explaining that you actually follow the trend to  fit in)

  Wrong,I don not own a vehicle like that and will certainly not own anything like that in OZ.I was explaining from THEIR view their illogical behaviour.   

> You pass on to  describe in detail the devastating effects of  unbridled green policies  yet call wind power and solar a good thing. Oh but how  expensive! So  what is so good about them? The massive amount of energy necessary  to  make the dam things?

  Oh,in what way are they expensive?Do you really belief,that your oil which cost human lifes and billions of tax dollars (Iraq war,or do you really still belief it was for "weapons of mass destruction"?)and oil spills like the one of the Exxon Valdez (did you know,that Esso paid just recently,after more than 20 years,the ridiculous sum of $10 million for the spill as "penalty" for the biggest ship related oil spill in US history?isn´t that great?You must get a kick out of that then....go Esso go!)   

> Fortunately goods prices like cars and fuel, are regulated by the  market

  Dead wrong mate,specially transportation has always been a gov´t regulated and enforced thing....your tax dollars paid for building highways not because of demand,but because of the vision of politicians.Here,the railway has been cut back and abandoned in favour of transportation by semi....a clear political decision.   

> If the number of puffy little pink cars has any chance  of succeeding and change the trend

  What nonsense...are you actually reading what you are writing?I am speaking of INEFFICIENT forms of transportation.I wasn´t talking of pink cars and your reaction just shows how ignorant you are.
A VW Passat TDI will transport a family of four easily on 6 liters on a hundred kilometers with all the comfort expected today.Do you really need a Dodge Durango with a 5.7 liter Magnum that gets no better than 12l/highway?Please answer me that. 
In China,there are 260 million cars registered today,tendency pointing straight up.Don`t you think that that will make a difference? 
Clean Coal projects are being introduced in North America.Boundary dam in Estevan/Saskatchewan ist the first coal power plant in North America whcih is been fitted with carbon catching technology.It cos BILLIONS of dollars and again..tax dollars.Where is your point?
Solar and wind is clean from the start and when installed in private houses,transfer losses and costs for power lines are being deleted.THAT is the future.With people like you,the car would have never made it to what it is today,I mean,at which point do you want to stand still?70tis,80tis?Playing Amish? 
Humanity has always been about change and the development of new technology.

----------


## Marc

To reply point by point to your second tirade of nonsensical mumbo jumbo will take more time than I will dedicate to someone who preaches nonsense and calls himself God. 
Good luck with your life and your xenophobia with the locals, I hope you never make it to OZ with that attitude and that puffy pink car you aspire to have.
If you ever come here, please go to Sydney CBD and join the locals in Oxford street and buy yourself a push bike and build a straw ball hut on your inner city terrace. You will feel complete.
Oh and don't forget to join occupy, and get up, green"peace" and the other trendy organizations you believe to be the future of humanity.
Pater noster my ass.

----------


## johnc

> Here is an example for a complete hypocritical attitude:you blame me for posting "emotional nonsense" while being very emotional yourself without even replaying to the facts that I stated.
> [SIZE=3][FONT=sans-serif] 
> Wrong,I don not own a vehicle like that and will certainly not own anything like that in OZ.I was explaining from THEIR view their illogical behaviour.  
> Oh,in what way are they expensive?Do you really belief,that your oil which cost human lifes and billions of tax dollars (Iraq war,or do you really still belief it was for "weapons of mass destruction"?)and oil spills like the one of the Exxon Valdez (did you know,that Esso paid just recently,after more than 20 years,the ridiculous sum of $10 million for the spill as "penalty" for the biggest ship related oil spill in US history?isn´t that great?You must get a kick out of that then....go Esso go!)  
> Dead wrong mate,specially transportation has always been a gov´t regulated and enforced thing....your tax dollars paid for building highways not because of demand,but because of the vision of politicians.Here,the railway has been cut back and abandoned in favour of transportation by semi....a clear political decision.  
> What nonsense...are you actually reading what you are writing?I am speaking of INEFFICIENT forms of transportation.I wasn´t talking of pink cars and your reaction just shows how ignorant you are.
> A VW Passat TDI will transport a family of four easily on 6 liters on a hundred kilometers with all the comfort expected today.Do you really need a Dodge Durango with a 5.7 liter Magnum that gets no better than 12l/highway?Please answer me that. 
> In China,there are 260 million cars registered today,tendency pointing straight up.Don`t you think that that will make a difference? 
> Clean Coal projects are being introduced in North America.Boundary dam in Estevan/Saskatchewan ist the first coal power plant in North America whcih is been fitted with carbon catching technology.It cos BILLIONS of dollars and again..tax dollars.Where is your point?
> ...

  Don't expect Marc to read, it is a dangerous past time that may cause fact to interfer with his prejudice.  
It is not widely reported here the extent to which North America is developing alternative technologies, nor China for that matter. Nor is it widely understood that cars have caused gridlock in Chinas major cities and that a massive rail and road modernisation program is underway to ease congestion. We are aware that China is spending though, but more in relation to our coal and iron ore exports. All the focus on the denialist corner seems to have done is remove progress and left us focusing on as you said not moving forward. We have been on a continual path of productivity improvement through the 20th century with the result being that technology is now affordable to most western households, it would be a shame if the troglodytes continue to deny progress and drag us back into a period of technological darkness, which is unlikely. 
Legislation out of the US and Europe has brought about remarkable improvements in the efficiency of car engines, California is finally looking at fast rail, even Australia is once again giving it lip service. It will be driven by need and efficiency as air and road congestion along with security delays make rail a more attractive option. Changes to make our fossil fuels last longer and bring about more efficient and cost effective transport will eventually win the day as in the end those who can't cope with change will tend to fade away. We have change all around us, eventually most people will wake up to the fact that change is good, and those fighting most to avoid greater efficiency are simply the ones who can't think beyond the present. Neither free market forces or regulation can work for any extended period in isolation but together they can be a powerful force that propels us forward. Business seeks certainty through a regulatory framework and works at its most efficient when it can channel it's energy into those areas that give it the greatest certainty and stability. It is only stifled when it is up against corruption and uncertainty, which you tend to get when you have great income inequality and lack of effective leadership at government level. 
Just a shame we have to put up with the idiots populating the denialist sites that poison the minds of the dimmer members of our community, but that is just a sign we have a healthy society that allows dissenting voices,

----------


## Paternoster

> To reply point by point to your second tirade of nonsensical mumbo jumbo will take more time than I will dedicate to someone who preaches nonsense and calls himself God. 
> Good luck with your life and your xenophobia with the locals, I hope you never make it to OZ with that attitude and that puffy pink car you aspire to have.
> If you ever come here, please go to Sydney CBD and join the locals in Oxford street and buy yourself a push bike and build a straw ball hut on your inner city terrace. You will feel complete.
> Oh and don't forget to join occupy, and get up, green"peace" and the other trendy organizations you believe to be the future of humanity.
> Pater noster my ass.

  Are you really THAT uneducated?Where have you been when all the other kids went to school?A "Paternoster" is a form of ELEVATOR....that´s why it is written in ONE word (even though it got it´s name from the Latin prayer "pater noster....").
Well,I will give you your impoliteness back the way I received it:why don´t you go and apply for US citizenship?You and the septics would fit like peanut butter and jam...or you go to Canada...same thing. 
Mate,you embarrass yourself with your posts. 
Cheers

----------


## Paternoster

> Don't expect Marc to read, it is a dangerous past time that may cause fact to interfer with his prejudice.

  
yeah,it is definitely a sad thing to have that attitude.I thought after George W Bush,the whole world would have realized what happens,when you vote in right wing conservatives...they just don´t work in the 21 century anymore

----------


## Paternoster

> Good post Paternoster, and welcome to the forum. 
> Thanks for the big picture, we don't get much of that here! 
> woodbe.

  Thanks for the welcome !

----------


## Paternoster

> It is not widely reported here the extent to which North America is  developing alternative technologies, nor China for that matter.

  
Here it gets really sad:
alternative energy in North America has been hit hard by George w Bush´s agenda.He put everything on the "ethanol-card",trying to grow corn for fuel (with huge substitutes for farmers to grow it and refineries to distill it).Three refineries have been build under him and two of them have shut down already.Ethanol causes  problems (flex fuel vehicles 85% ethanol) and is very expensive to produce (in May 2008 hit the gas price in the US 4.30/gallon).At the same time was a food shortage imminent (riots in Haiti for instance) since the US dropped their export rates.
He slashed solar and wind energy,even though the US has the best useable wind regions in the world. 
Now China: China has extended it´s alternative energy program,investing heavily into it.Chinese manufacturer for solar cells are threatening to take over the global market due to a lack of interest from gov´t in the western world in their alternative energy sectors.  http://www.auto123.com/en/news/alter...y?artid=144060 China to Spend $27 Billion on Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency This Year - CleanTechnica 
So,does the West really want to leave it to the Chinese to make advancements in the most important sector of the future? 
Cheers

----------


## johnc

> Here it gets really sad:
> alternative energy in North America has been hit hard by George w Bush´s agenda.He put everything on the "ethanol-card",trying to grow corn for fuel (with huge substitutes for farmers to grow it and refineries to distill it).Three refineries have been build under him and two of them have shut down already.Ethanol causes problems (flex fuel vehicles 85% ethanol) and is very expensive to produce (in May 2008 hit the gas price in the US 4.30/gallon).At the same time was a food shortage imminent (riots in Haiti for instance) since the US dropped their export rates.
> He slashed solar and wind energy,even though the US has the best useable wind regions in the world. 
> Now China: China has extended it´s alternative energy program,investing heavily into it.Chinese manufacturer for solar cells are threatening to take over the global market due to a lack of interest from gov´t in the western world in their alternative energy sectors.  http://www.auto123.com/en/news/alter...y?artid=144060 China to Spend $27 Billion on Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency This Year - CleanTechnica 
> So,does the West really want to leave it to the Chinese to make advancements in the most important sector of the future? 
> Cheers

  One thing you notice moving around China is the smog, however they are attempting to do something about it, in cities like Beijing the humble gasoline motorbike has almost been eliminated and replaced by electric scooters, the most dangerous aspect being they come up behind you silently. There is a huge number of cars and buses though and it is probably only a matter of time before they require hybrids at the very least for those as well.

----------


## Paternoster

> One thing you notice moving around China is the smog, however they are attempting to do something about it, in cities like Beijing the humble gasoline motorbike has almost been eliminated and replaced by electric scooters, the most dangerous aspect being they come up behind you silently. There is a huge number of cars and buses though and it is probably only a matter of time before they require hybrids at the very least for those as well.

  No doubt!China has immense problems and with a huge population like that,problems pile up fast or become critical in a hurry.What p*** me off is the fact,that they are so much more aware and willing to do something about it without the discussions we have (even though we have already felt the direct impact of a failed energy politic and the vulnerability it brings with it.
I´ve read a very interesting article about electric cars and the way,energy could be managed by transferring it from car to house and vice versa.Hopefully,we take the curve and get on the right track.
Even GM had to admit,that the scrapping of the electric car in the nineties,was a bad mistake  Chevrolet Volt Review - Everyday Driver - YouTube 
Thanks for the volt!

----------


## woodbe

> Pater noster my ass.

  'Pater Noster' your ass? 
Really, Marc. The ET thread is not really the place to come out of the closet. Please make your invitations in private, there may be children reading this thread. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Why not?  There's a whole bloody kindergarten posting on it!

----------


## woodbe

> There's a whole bloody kindergarten posting on it!

  Yes, but they don't read it.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## watson

> To reply point by point to your second tirade of nonsensical mumbo jumbo will take more time than I will dedicate to someone who preaches nonsense and calls himself God. 
> Good luck with your life and your xenophobia with the locals, I hope you never make it to OZ with that attitude and that puffy pink car you aspire to have.
> If you ever come here, please go to Sydney CBD and join the locals in Oxford street and buy yourself a push bike and build a straw ball hut on your inner city terrace. You will feel complete.
> Oh and don't forget to join occupy, and get up, green"peace" and the other trendy organizations you believe to be the future of humanity.
> Pater noster my ass.

  Geez Marc,
You're such a delicate,caring soul.
Makes your posts such a pleasure to read.........*NOT*
Not really debating..........but more like ranting. 
Just cool it a tad.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yes, but they don't read it.

  A shame that. Perhaps it needs more pretty pictures?

----------


## johnc

> A shame that. Perhaps it needs more pretty pictures?

  I don't think the photo of a library is enough, it probably needs instructions on how to choose, open and read for the more challenged. Nice shot though

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I don't think the photo of a library is enough, it probably needs instructions on how to choose, open and read for the more challenged.

  Why oh why can we no longer assume that the fundamentals of reading and comprehension are just that?  
Personally I'd be lost without my Home - Trove

----------


## johnc

On topic but a slightly different approach to normal.  *Climate change boosts odds of extreme weather: report*Posted July 11, 2012 09:54:40   *Photo:* Dry times ahead?... a farmer on his drought-stricken land in Parkes, NSW. (Ian Waldie, file photo: Getty Images)  *Related Story:* El Nino tipped to form in spring *Related Story:* Last 50 years were Australia's hottest: study  *Map:* United States  
Severe droughts, floods and heat waves rocked the world last year as greenhouse gas levels climbed, boosting the odds of some extreme weather events, international scientists say.
The details are contained in the annual State of the Climate in 2011 report, compiled by nearly 400 scientists from 48 countries and published in the peer-reviewed Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
The report itself remains "consciously conservative" when it comes to attributing the causes of certain weather events to climate change, and instead refers only to widely understood phenomena such as La Nina.
However, it is accompanied for the first time by a separate analysis that explains how climate change may have influenced certain key events, from droughts in the US and Africa to extreme cold and warm spells in Britain. *Read the 282-page State of the Climate report here (15.61MB PDF)*"2011 was notable for many extreme weather and climate events. La Nina played a key role in many, but certainly not all of them," said Tom Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)'s National Climatic Centre.
Last year was among the 15 warmest since records began in the late 1800s, and the Arctic warmed at about twice the rate of lower latitudes with sea ice at below average levels, according to the report.
Greenhouse gases from human pollution sources like coal and gas reached a new high, with carbon dioxide emissions exceeding 390 parts per million - up 2.10 parts per million from 2010 - for the first time since modern records began.
Despite the natural cooling trend brought by back-to-back La Nina effects, which chill waters in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean, 2011 was among the 12 highest years on record for global sea surface temperatures.
The double La Nina punch influenced many of the world's significant weather events, like historic droughts in East Africa, the southern US and northern Mexico, the report said.
La Nina trends also were associated with the wettest two years on record in Australia.
An accompanying analysis in the same journal, titled "Explaining Extreme Events," examined the links between human-driven climate change and six selected weather crises in 2011, including the Texas drought that lasted half the year.
The authors found that "such a heat wave is now around 20 times more likely during a La Nina year than it was during the 1960s," said Peter Stott, climate monitoring and attribution team leader at the UK Met Office.
"We have shown that climate change has indeed altered the odds of some of the events that have occurred. 
"What we are saying here is we can actually quantify those changing odds."
Looking at Britain's unusually warm November 2011 and the cold snap of December 2010, scientists found that frigid Decembers are half as likely to occur now compared to 50 years ago, and hot Novembers are 62 times more likely.
However, a close look at the floods along the Chao Phraya River that swamped Thailand last year showed that climate change was not to blame, but rather human activities that increased construction along the flood plain.
The damage caused by the floods was unprecedented, but the amount of rain that actually fell "was not very unusual," said the analysis by experts from NOAA and Britain's Met Office along with international colleagues.
While it remains hard to link single events to human-caused climate change, "scientific thinking has moved on and now it is widely accepted that attribution statements about individual weather or climate events are possible," the report added.
The key is analysing to what extent climate change may be boosting the odds of extreme weather, said the report, likening the phenomenon to a baseball player who takes steroids and then starts getting 20 per cent more hits than before.
Scientists can consider steroids as the likely cause for the increase in hits, but must still take care to account for natural variability in the player's swing. *AFP*

----------


## Paternoster

So,here is a page for public relations ("know your power") that tries to sell the idea of carbon catching technology for coal power plants to the public.
By installing basically a filter that captures all the bad bad stuff and putting it back into the ground,we should all hail it as the future and a true green thing to do....or so they would like us to think....  Clean Coal 
Here the truth:first,it cost $354 million for ONE (out of three) unit to be retrofitted with carbon catching technology.The rest of the infrastructure cost another cost 1.2 billion.They say "self financing",but of course they don´t say that power costs are rising and that a big chunk of the money comes from the gov´t (even in their statement,they are just talking about the federal gov´t but I know that the provincial gov´t has paid quite a bit).
A (Canadian)friend of mine works as a first class power engineer at Boundary dam and he told me quite a bit about it including the side effects (the caught carbon make the ground water sour)  http://www.power-technology.com/proj...ower-boundary/  

> *Project  finance*  The Unit 3 retrofit will be self-financed  by SaskPower. It is estimated to cost $354m including the turbine cost.
>   Installation of the CCS equipment is  estimated to cost $1.2bn. The  Canadian federal government committed $240m  towards the CCS project in  2008.

  So,why do I hate it?The costs are high (and burdened on the tax payer),the ecological side effects are there and it is used as an excuse to go on with an ancient technology,so they don´t have to think about alternative energy.Saskatchewan has some of the "best wind" in North America (why is it in Saskatchewan so windy?cause Alberta blows and Manitoba SUCKS!..just a little joke the locals like),but honestly,we have a nearly empty landscape and the most reliable wind one could imagine,so why don´t they have wind power?political decisions!  :Annoyed:

----------


## Marc

Who says that CO2 is "bad"?
Those who want to sell you alternatives and become rich in the process. They use the tree huggers and the econazi for that purpose since their religious zeal makes them too blind and too dumb to realize they are part of a monumental fraud.
Wind farms relay on subsidies, cost many times over a coal plant and most of the time don't do anything at all besides braking down. Useless Wind Turbine - YouTube   

> Posted on *Thursday, 17 December 2009 7:08:35 AM* by *Titus-Maximus*
>    T here is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a  significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is  instructive. Denmark, the worlds most wind-intensive nation, with more  than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a  single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated  electricity to cover wind powers unpredictability, and pollution and  carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone). Flemming  Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM  (one of Denmarks largest energy utilities) tells us that wind turbines  do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The German experience is no  different. Der Spiegel reports that Germanys CO2 emissions havent  been reduced by even a single gram, and additional coal- and gas-fired  plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery. Indeed, recent  academic research shows that wind power may actually increase  greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the  carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its  intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger  are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other  forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds. Industrial wind  power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation  options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity  generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to  Ontarios current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation  of Industries says, windmills are a mistake and economically make no  sense. Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish  Parliament, calls it a terribly expensive disaster.

----------


## Paternoster

> Who says that CO2 is "bad"?

  You are (obviously) not aware that fossil CO2 is indeed VERY bad.This is not about**:"a KG of wood sets free the same amount of so and so many grams of coal",it´s the fact that coal,oil and even natural gas (even though it burns way cleaner) had been trapped AND NOT IN THE CIRCLE for millions of years.
For 600 years,we continue to add fossil CO2 to the atmosphere in an ever progressive manor.This was a slow process and in the beginning,it wasn´t more than a fart in the wind,but forests have disappeared (therefor reducing earth capability to take in CO2) and CO2 production has strongly increased.On top of all,mankind has bred like no other animal (ants maybe) and increased it´s numbers dramatically,needing ever more area for agriculture use.
The "sweat ride" we had,from the end of ww2 till today is over,the ignorance regarding the problem can´t continue to grow and people like you,with their limited view of things,are definitely  not part of the solution.  

> Those who want to sell you alternatives and become rich in the process.

  If business man and inventor become rich (or prosperous for that matter)by developing technological alternatives to fossil energy,that will allow us to progress and have energy safety and dependability and be independent of supplier of fossil energy,who we might don´t like (hint:middle east),than "where is your problem"?
People like Henry Ford have become rich with their work,selling their products to the people.If you want to see what happens,if people ignore the trends of the time,just look what happened to General Motors,"too big to fail"had to go into chapter 11 (and was subsequently bailed out by the US and Canadian tax payer!...yeah,your fears about having to pay for all those new ideas is SOOOOO right.....) because they ignored trends of energy efficiency,producing fossilized technology (and belief me,I worked on them when I worked for Murray GM in Estevan).A push rod V8 that needs a lot of gas to go from here to there is not the answer to our energy problems.Oh,have you heard that GM will bring out the Cruze as a 2.2 Diesel in autumn this year?So,even the biggest fossil here is able to change.Ford brings all the technology and even the models from Europe (Fiesta,DSG transmissions etc)
I can´t hear you bitch about tax payer (and saskpower is btw a crown cooperation,means,"we the people" pay for it) subsidies for fossil energy,or war mongering to benefit big cooperations at the cost of tax payer money and the lifes of average GI Jo.
As I stated:you are a hypocrite and the best example of the "fossils" that try to delay the progression into a new age of technology.  

> econazi

  I find your choice of words simply distasteful and picked from the intellectual bottom (one notch up from grunting and tree branch shaking) and a quite embarrassing expression of someone,shouting to defend a point he doesn´t even understand.  

> Wind farms relay on subsidies, cost many times over a coal plant and  most of the time don't do anything at all besides braking down.

    A very interesting point you got here!Wow,you wouldn´t happen to look back in time and see the development of other,today very important,technology,don´t you?
I could ask my friend from Estevan (the power engineer),just how many problems he has with the power unit he oversees and belief me,they do have a lot of break downs and they employ a whole army of mechanics to keep it running (300 employees per shift).Once a year,they overhaul each unit (he calls it his "greedy time",since he makes a lot of money with overtime cause the unit is off the grit for a whole month)which costs a lot of money and has to be done on three units...your fossil technology is soooooo efficient...no wonder,all you can come up with is ranting to make a point for it...
The wind turbine technology is today about 35 years old (the wind turbine industry that is,There have been wind turbines been build from 1889 on,but just single occurrences).From back than till today,the output until today has increased quite a bit. Model Rating kW Swept diameter, m Description Prime contractor Years in service Remarks  MOD 0 100 38 Two blades, downwind and upwind NASA design with Lockheed blades 19751982 Prototype only at Sandusky  MOD 0A 200 38 Two blades, downwind Westinghouse 19771984 Four units installed for field trials  MOD 1 2000 61 Two blades, downwind General Electric 19791981 One installed at Howard's Knob. World's second multi-megawatt turbine.  MOD 2 2500 91 Two blades, upwind Boeing 19821988 Three installed near Goodnoe Hills as a wind farm. Fourth and fifth units sold to utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric demolished in 1988  WTS 4 4000 79.2 Two blades, downwind United Technologies 19821994 One turbine installed at Medicine Bow, Wyoming and another smaller 3MW WTS 3 version in Sweden  MOD 5A 7300 121.5 Two blades, upwind General Electric  Never built  MOD 5B 3200 97.5 Two blades, upwind Boeing 19871996 One installed at Oahu, Hawaii   NASA wind turbines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So,if YOU had looked back than,in 1895 at an automobile which produced 0.5hp from 2 or 3 liter displacement and that got hardly 10km in one trip without having valves regrind or other repairs conducted and that got to the horrific speed of 12 km/h,you would have probably said:"that´s humbug,horses are so much better blablabla,yadayadayada".The fact that the automobile made the streets safer (there was a constant danger of horses stampeding) and cleaner,since a car doesn´t poop...you would have ignored that...today,you defend your ancient technology like crazy.I think you are just scared of anything you don´t understand (the world is a strange place,isn´t it?) and you just say no by programming.

----------


## Paternoster

Oh,btw:your "useless wind turbine" link is another thing showing just how simple your thinking is:52 wind turbine parks with up to 150 turbines each,are working in OZ today and you pick the nuisance one that was installed as a good idea in a horrible manner....right.We have in Germany the "Schnelle Brüter" in Kalkar,Northrhein Westphalia.A Gov´t project of the 70ties that cost 7 billion DM,finished in 1985 and never produced a KW of power.Abandoned in 1991,it was taken over by a dutch company that made it into a theme park. 
THAT sounds like useless to me.  

> *Wind power in Australia* is a proven and reliable technology that can be and is readily deployed.[1] As of October 2010, there were 52 wind farms  in Australia, most of which had turbines of from 1.5 to 3 megawatts  (MW). The total operating wind generating capacity at this time was  1,880 MW, with annual production of almost 5,000 GWh providing close to  two percent of Australia's national electricity demand.  South Australia had close to half of the nation's wind power capacity,[1]  accounting for almost twenty percent of that state's electricity needs  of as October 2010. Victoria also had a substantial system, with about a  quarter of the nation's capacity, and projects under construction  forecast to more than double that capacity by the end of 2013.

  Wind power in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Marc

Whoopee doo  Wikipedia. Why don't you quote the ABC. 
It is mindless rubbish like the above that pushes along the lies that make western countries spend billions on chimeras and green cretins tilting at windmills.
The balloon of the big global warming scare was deflated long ago, however the inertia of thousands of mercenary self appointed experts that have pocketed millions in grants, complicit with politicians who have worked out quickly that there is a lot of brain dead fanatics who have joined the green anti-humanity religion that will vote for them if they pass legislation to "save the planet".    

> *Environmental fanaticism*by The Sheaf on September 30, 2009  in Opinions  *CHRISTOPHER C. THRESHER
> Opinions Writer*
>      Reverend Thomas Malthus was a famed British scholar, an economist  and most notably an expert in his time on demographic analysis and  population trends. 
>      However, he should also claim the dubious distinction as being the first truly fanatical environmentalist. 
>      Malthus argued throughout his numerous writings that should the  human population grow unchecked, not only would England starve but the  planets population would face certain death: epidemics, pestilence  and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and  ten thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic famine  stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow, levels the population with  the food of the world.
>      Malthus foresaw a world of chaotic ruin and prophesized this with  fervour akin only to the most religiously fanatic doomsayers. Malthus  has since been proven wrong, as have other modern environmental  fanatics. 
>     Paul Ehrlich, author of the top selling Population Bomb will now  forever live in infamy for predicting the starvation of hundreds of  millions of human beings. Similarly, Al Gore and David Suzuki, although  likely to escape criticism, will eventually be recognized for predicting  catastrophes that will never come.Â 
>      Environmentalists will simply continue to argue that the  disasters have been slow to foster, that while mistakes have been made  the science behind their arguments is sound. 
>      Environmentalists of this vein are guilty of heinously and  viciously ignoring the history of their movement. They hold in  themselves the same fanatical delusions of those calling for population  control, who spike trees in order to harm forestry workers, who join  communes and live in the deepest forests. 
> ...

----------


## Marc

Opposition  to globalization etc is too readily identified as a lunatic fringe activity to  satisfy everyone on the Left so other things needing change have had to be  found. And, in fact, even reactionary change has been embraced.  
Reactionary  was once almost a swear-word to the Left but, if a reactionary is someone who  wants to put social and economic change into reverse gear and return the world  to some sort of idealized and simpler past, the major reactionary movement in  the world today is undoubtedly the Green movement. One sometimes gets the  impression that only the entire elimination of the human race would satisfy the  Greens in their desire to return the world to a pristine state. Certainly, no  concession to their aims ever seems enough to satisfy them. 
The wish for nature conservation and reclamation has a long and honorable  past  including among its advocates most English-language poets from at least  the 18th century onwards (Who can forget William Blakes dark Satanic mills?).  And no-one has ever set aside a greater area for nature conservation than US  Republican President Theodore Roosevelt did  and that was roughly a century  ago. And only a little later, Benito Mussolini, the founder of Fascism, also  showed great concern for trees and the environment. Mussolini was a Marxist,  however (Bosworth, 2002).  
And while there are still some environmental causes that represent  undramatic, largely uncontroversial and sensible improvements to our quality of  life and the prospects for our future (e.g. Control of farmland degradation),  many others are quite fanciful, extreme and ill-founded (as the statistician  Lomborg, 2001, has shown at length). Modern-day ECO NAZIS go well beyond mere  nature conservation in what they seek and are very strong and relentless  advocates of change to practically all of our existing arrangements and systems.  And that suits change-hungry and drama-hungry Leftists down to the ground.  
So  therefore many Reds have in recent times become Greens and Red-Green  alliances spring up with some frequency. 
 The fact that nature conservation and reclamation has never previously in its  long past attracted much Leftist attention does suggest that their recent  interest in it lies not in the cause itself but rather in the drama and  disruption that modern day ECO NAZIs create in pursuit of their goals. Many  Green advocacy groups  such as Greenpeace  provide opportunity for drama and  self-advertisement aplenty. 
Even mainstream Leftist politicians see environmentalism as something of a  life-saver for themselves. As Robin Cook, a senior member of the British Labor  party put it in The Observer of October 8th, 1989: The new environmental  concerns could put Labor's ideology back in business. The politics of the  environment are the politics of intervention  firmer regulation, tighter  planning and collective co-operation. No ambiguity there about what a Leftist  wants.   *The  origins of environmentalism*
 Many people see environmentalism as a recent phenomenon. It is not. Read the typical ECO NAZI quote following and find the one word I have deleted from  it:  
 We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life,  leads to humankinds own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a  re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made  stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age.  Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole .  . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature  itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the  true essence of Socialist thought.  
How many people would have picked that I missed out the word National  before Socialist? Yes. It was a leading Nazi who wrote that. Environmentalism  was a part of Nazism just as it is a part of modern-day Leftism. Like the ECO  NAZIs of today, the Nazis wanted to take us all back to some imaginary and romanticized rural past. And of course the Communist Pol Pot in Cambodia  actually tried it! For more on eco-fascism see Peter Staudenmaier. Hitler and Pol  Pot reveal how dangerous the Greens could be if ever they got real power.  History can be most inconvenient! *Though you dont need history to tell  you that ECO NAZIS are people-haters.*     ECO Nazism | The Atheist Libertarian

----------


## johnc

> Opposition to globalization etc is too readily identified as a lunatic fringe activity to satisfy everyone on the Left so other things needing change have had to be found. And, in fact, even reactionary change has been embraced.  
> Reactionary was once almost a swear-word to the Left but, if a reactionary is someone who wants to put social and economic change into reverse gear and return the world to some sort of idealized and simpler past, the major reactionary movement in the world today is undoubtedly the Green movement. One sometimes gets the impression that only the entire elimination of the human race would satisfy the Greens in their desire to return the world to a pristine state. Certainly, no concession to their aims ever seems enough to satisfy them. 
> The wish for nature conservation and reclamation has a long and honorable past  including among its advocates most English-language poets from at least the 18th century onwards (Who can forget William Blakes dark Satanic mills?). And no-one has ever set aside a greater area for nature conservation than US Republican President Theodore Roosevelt did  and that was roughly a century ago. And only a little later, Benito Mussolini, the founder of Fascism, also showed great concern for trees and the environment. Mussolini was a Marxist, however (Bosworth, 2002).  
> And while there are still some environmental causes that represent undramatic, largely uncontroversial and sensible improvements to our quality of life and the prospects for our future (e.g. Control of farmland degradation), many others are quite fanciful, extreme and ill-founded (as the statistician Lomborg, 2001, has shown at length). Modern-day ECO NAZIS go well beyond mere nature conservation in what they seek and are very strong and relentless advocates of change to practically all of our existing arrangements and systems. And that suits change-hungry and drama-hungry Leftists down to the ground.  
> So therefore many Reds have in recent times become Greens and Red-Green alliances spring up with some frequency. 
> The fact that nature conservation and reclamation has never previously in its long past attracted much Leftist attention does suggest that their recent interest in it lies not in the cause itself but rather in the drama and disruption that modern day ECO NAZIs create in pursuit of their goals. Many Green advocacy groups  such as Greenpeace  provide opportunity for drama and self-advertisement aplenty. 
> Even mainstream Leftist politicians see environmentalism as something of a life-saver for themselves. As Robin Cook, a senior member of the British Labor party put it in The Observer of October 8th, 1989: The new environmental concerns could put Labor's ideology back in business. The politics of the environment are the politics of intervention  firmer regulation, tighter planning and collective co-operation. No ambiguity there about what a Leftist wants.   *The origins of environmentalism*
> Many people see environmentalism as a recent phenomenon. It is not. Read the typical ECO NAZI quote following and find the one word I have deleted from it:  
> We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankinds own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of Socialist thought.  
> How many people would have picked that I missed out the word National before Socialist? Yes. It was a leading Nazi who wrote that. Environmentalism was a part of Nazism just as it is a part of modern-day Leftism. Like the ECO NAZIs of today, the Nazis wanted to take us all back to some imaginary and romanticized rural past. And of course the Communist Pol Pot in Cambodia actually tried it! For more on eco-fascism see Peter Staudenmaier. Hitler and Pol Pot reveal how dangerous the Greens could be if ever they got real power. History can be most inconvenient! *Though you dont need history to tell you that ECO NAZIS are people-haters.*     ECO Nazism | The Atheist Libertarian

  
You really have to suspend belief to follow these posts do you really believe this stuff, those who don't want to do anything about climate change (CO2 emmissions if you prefer) are the ones who want to leave things as they are, which fits more neatly with the "reactionary" line you are pushing. It is those who want to do something that are pushing for technological change and moving forward. If you spent less time creating straw men and whiping boys you might actually see how full of holes these rather stupid slur filled posts are. 
The continual useage of the terms Nazi or religious connotations and/or political leanings indicate a view formed exclusively on bigotry and an ignorance or disinterest in truth.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Thanks to Marc we constantly smack up against Godwin's Law in this thread... 
...it's kind of like watching ANCAP crash test videos.  You always know its going to happen, no-one but the vehicle gets hurt and it happens again and again and again.  And it's a guilty entertainment  :Blush7:

----------


## Paternoster

> *The  origins of environmentalism*
>  Many people see environmentalism as a recent phenomenon. It is not.  Read the typical ECO NAZI quote following and find the one word I have  deleted from  it:  
>  We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of  life,  leads to humankinds own destruction and to the death of nations.  Only through a  re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can  our people be made  stronger. That is the fundamental point of the  biological tasks of our age.  Humankind alone is no longer the focus of  thought, but rather life as a whole .  . . This striving toward  connectedness with the totality of life, with nature  itself, a nature  into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the  true  essence of Socialist thought.  
> How many people would have picked that I missed out the word National   before Socialist? Yes. It was a leading Nazi who wrote that.  Environmentalism  was a part of Nazism just as it is a part of  modern-day Leftism. Like the ECO  NAZIs of today, the Nazis wanted to  take us all back to some imaginary and romanticized rural past. And of  course the Communist Pol Pot in Cambodia  actually tried it! For more on  eco-fascism see Peter Staudenmaier. Hitler and Pol  Pot reveal how  dangerous the Greens could be if ever they got real power.  History can  be most inconvenient! *Though you dont need history to tell  you that ECO NAZIS are people-haters.*

  You are one of the dumbest persons I have ever met...
first,it seems that you look to the US for your guidance....no ideas of your own?Probably not.
Second:by following that Nazi-crap which states the (ever so popular in the States)theory the Hitler was a socialist,makes you guilty of unspeakable disrespect for those,who have suffered and died by the hand of the Nazis.The Nazis prohibited the Communist party as well as the SPD (Social democratic Party of Germany....your Socialists) and killed their members. you are showing an absolute disgusting disrespect for those brave people,who fought the tyrant and paid with their lifes for it.
I know,the American right wing(nut) fraction wants to link EVERYTHING that is inconvenient to them to the Nazis (I guess you belief in "Nazis at the center of the earth" as well) and they act now exactly as Hitler did (quote by him:"who is not for me,is against me!").
Use your brain (for once) and stop following brain dead propaganda and honor those,who were thousand fold braver than you have ever been instead of mocking them. Mosaic of Victims: In Depth  

> Among the earliest victims of discrimination and persecution in Nazi  Germany were political opponents -- primarily Communists, Socialists,  Social Democrats, and trade union leaders.

----------


## Paternoster

Your Hitler was far more "down your alley",he loved big business (Krupp,Mercedes,Siemens etc thrived under him,paying him well) and he gave a rats ass about the common German citizen.He ordered all unions prohibited and people were thrown into concentration camps if the tried to better their work circumstances.Must sound like an angles choir in your ears,isn´t that something you admire?
You know nothing,but you got a very solid cast opinion...I advise you to go out and learn something,so you can build a real own opinion instead of repeating everything you find on American web sites...

----------


## watson

This is one of those rare occasions where I have to step in here;
Now Get this:  *No More Friggin' Nazi Crap 
No More friggin' Communist/Socialist/Nationalist Crap 
No More religious bull sh*t*  *In fact............stick to the  topic...........or I'll remove you...permanently.*  *End of story.*

----------


## johnc

no need to shout you've only got to get the message through to one long term serial offender, thick doesn't mean deaf. :Rolleyes:

----------


## Marc

Well, lets try.  
The topic is the introduction of a tax.   
Now that is, at it's most elementary level an economic topic. However there is no economic reform detached from politics and there is no political conviction detached from ideology, and there is no ideology free from belief in something abstract, generally speaking, a set of values that is believed to be good not only for self but for others. 
So a debate about a tax brought in to impose a set of values onto others (for their own good of course), can not be conducted without talking about the reasons and origins of the belief that drives the introduction of said tax. So what happens is that the audience or the readers in this case, will be polarized in favor or against what each person has to say or rather believes to be the cause that has brought the tax into existence.   
There are many views and many beliefs.Opposing views are bound to clash, extreme views are usually disbelieved. 
It is an inordinate occurrence when an extremist view produces and extremist tax for extremist purposes and is applauded by the caffe latte minority that one would expect to be more interested in the arts or the reproduction cycle of the African praying mantis. 
Basically one can not debate the CO2 tax without mentioning the values and political convictions of those who are imposing tyrannical extremist views onto the unsuspected public with false pretenses of "saving the planet" that does not need saving.   
When facts like 16 years of unchanged temperatures or billions squandered paying off scientists and government organizations to perpetuate lies and scaremongering are ridiculed by the planet saviors you know something is wrong.  
We need an election and we need it today. The lunatic green fringe will hopefully be obliterated when losing the automatic preferences, the unionist and other parasitic forces in parliament will also go the way of the dodo and we may, I say might, restore some balance in some 5 to 10 years time when the damage done can be minimized.  
A tax is a political and ideological instrument to...collect money at its basic level, but also to promote or change behavior. 
A tax on the generation of electricity that is today at the core of our own existence is  comparable to a country taken over, occupied by another or comparable to a conqueror or a tyrant imposing with force a new set of beliefs.Should we compare temperature graphs? Show photos of beaches 100 years ago to prove the mercenary flannery wrong? What for?

----------


## Paternoster

> A tax is a political and ideological instrument to...collect money at its basic level but also to promote or change behaviour

  Well said and true (coming from your mouth,that´s already something).So,you are aware that taxes are not just a tool to collect money,but to change the behaviour of people in a favourable manor.In case of the energy tax (carbon),it enforces a behaviour that will let people think about their energy consume.They will reduce their consume and (most likely) stop wasting energy.I told you about the practice of people here,in North America and I didn´t make that up:energy is kept at a level that allows people to waste it (letting your vehicle idle while shopping for example or heating your house while it is not insulated at all:  
Those icicles are the direct result of heat,escaping the roof/walls and melting the snow that then (because of the extrem low temperatures)refreezes.The owner doesn´t care about the cost cause natural gas is cheap...and of course,Saskenergy is a crown cooperation,so we all pay for the waste.
Unfortunately,people don´t listen to reason or good advise.The moment they have to pay for their wasteful behaviour,they stop it.Going on the way it"always has been"leads to an energy catastrophe...your most beloved USA are in such a precarious situation:it´s energy demand is so high,that it has become it´s Achilles heel,they have become a colossus on clay legs and a small fluctuation in energy availability sends already shock waves through their society and economy.Their steel industry has been hit hard by importers of steel (mainly the British) since US companies haven´t updated their facilities in decades (basically,their hardware is from the sixties) and that (inefficiency)made them vulnerable to attack from the outside (they didn´t even develop "spherical cast" which has been around in Europe for the last 20 years....)
Is this your vision for Australia?
Hell,I hope your kind gets voted offshore!
Politic has to have the foresight to predict which answers are necessary in the future to be able to compete on the global scene.It doesn´t mean they can´t be wrong,but I can tell you right now,that standing still and sticking the head into the sand and pretend that times don´t change is the wrong answer!

----------


## johnc

> Well, lets try. The topic is the introduction of a tax. Now that is, at it's most elementary level an economic topic. However there is no economic reform detached from politics and there is no political conviction detached from ideology, and there is no ideology free from belief in something abstract, generally speaking, a set of values that is believed to be good not only for self but for others.So a debate about a tax brought in to impose a set of values onto others (for their own good of course), can not be conducted without talking about the reasons and origins of the belief that drives the introduction of said tax.So what happens is that the audience or the readers in this case, will be polarised in favour or against what each person has to say or rather believes to be the cause that has brought the tax into existence. There are many views and many beliefs.Opposing views are bound to clash, extreme views are usually disbelieved. It is an inordinate occurrence when an extremist view produces and extremist tax for extremist purposes and is applauded by the caffe latte minority that one would expect to be more interested in the arts or the reproduction cycle of the african praying mantis.Basically one can not debate the CO2 tax without mentioning the values and political convictions of those who are imposing tyrannical extremist views onto the unsuspected public with false pretences of "saving the planet" that does not need saving. When facts like 16 years of unchanged temperatures or billions squandered paying off scientists and government organisations to perpetuate lies and scaremonguering are ridiculed by the planet saviours you know something is wrong. We need an and we need it today. The lunatic green fringe will hopefully be obliterated when losing the automatic preferences, the unionist and other parasitic forces in parliament will also go the way of the dodo and we may, I say might restore some balance in some 5 to 10 years time when the damage done can be minimised.A tax is a political and ideological instrument to...collect money at its basic level but also to promote or change behaviour. A tax on the generation of electricity that is today at the core of our own existence is comparable to a country taken over, occupied by another or comparable to a conqueror or a tyrant imposing with force a new set of beliefs.Should we compare temperature graphs? Show photos of beaches 100 years ago to prove the mercenary flannery wrong? What for?

  
This typical tirade relies as usual on your over the top belief system, in trying to shore that up you make a large number of eroneous assumptions and from that hang the usual bag of slur and falsehoods. Admit it, your objection is based on an almost religious fanatasism against what you see as green, and supported by impossible leaps of logic. 
The simple fact is a tax is a tax full stop, it raises revenue that will be spent on something else end of story. The tax will have certain impacts, the design of the carbon tax is to shift behaviour, and encourage different reponses. OK the tax is based on the research of the scientists, something you have trouble with, the concept of climate change. You last sentence is one of extreme idiocy, to bitch about a small price increase in coal driven power costs and compare it to the ransacking and destruction of a country is unfathomable. If it had been justified the same applies to the retail cost of power and the large increases placed in recent years. This is why most of us see you as the resident nut case, never getting out of the gutter continual whining, insulting tirades of venomous flem unleashed simply because you feel slightly threatened. Stop with the insults, this tax regardless of what anyone thinks of it is no game changer, it has its flaws, it over compensates it is to soft on the big polluters, the price mechanism is probably negated by other shifts in power prices causing others to lower consumption to contain costs. More than likely the tax will do little for carbon emmissions but it a low impact start. Households will not notice any large shift as a result of the tax they are going to be hurt far more by other general cost increases on services. In the end taxes go up and down all the time, neither direction causes game stoppers, we spent the '80's through to 2000 broadening the tax base, we spent the rest of the naughties reducing personal rates as a result.   
Just posting insult after insult is a sign of being unable to think coherently and an indicator that the poster actually doesn't know what they are talking about, if the mind can be shifted away from hate and rest instead on simple analysis, cause and effect we can have a civilised discussion. Mind you that may also involve thinking and digesting I'm not sure how many are up to that task.

----------


## Paternoster

> This typical tirade relies as usual on your over the top belief system, in trying to shore that up you make a large number of eroneous assumptions and from that hang the usual bag of slur and falsehoods. Admit it, your objection is based on an almost religious fanatasism against what you see as green, and supported by impossible leaps of logic. 
> The simple fact is a tax is a tax full stop, it raises revenue that will be spent on something else end of story. The tax will have certain impacts, the design of the carbon tax is to shift behaviour, and encourage different reponses. OK the tax is based on the research of the scientists, something you have trouble with, the concept of climate change. You last sentence is one of extreme idiocy, to bitch about a small price increase in coal driven power costs and compare it to the ransacking and destruction of a country is unfathomable. If it had been justified the same applies to the retail cost of power and the large increases placed in recent years. This is why most of us see you as the resident nut case, never getting out of the gutter continual whining, insulting tirades of venomous flem unleashed simply because you feel slightly threatened. Stop with the insults, this tax regardless of what anyone thinks of it is no game changer, it has its flaws, it over compensates it is to soft on the big polluters, the price mechanism is probably negated by other shifts in power prices causing others to lower consumption to contain costs. More than likely the tax will do little for carbon emmissions but it a low impact start. Households will not notice any large shift as a result of the tax they are going to be hurt far more by other general cost increases on services. In the end taxes go up and down all the time, neither direction causes game stoppers, we spent the '80's through to 2000 broadening the tax base, we spent the rest of the naughties reducing personal rates as a result.   
> Just posting insult after insult is a sign of being unable to think coherently and an indicator that the poster actually doesn't know what they are talking about, if the mind can be shifted away from hate and rest instead on simple analysis, cause and effect we can have a civilised discussion. Mind you that may also involve thinking and digesting I'm not sure how many are up to that task.

   Hear!Hear!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> A tax on the generation of electricity that is today at the core of our own existence is  comparable to a country taken over, occupied by another or comparable to a conqueror or a tyrant imposing with force a new set of beliefs.

  If that's the case (and you believed it) then you wouldn't actually support any form of taxation. On anything.  Except that you do... :Confused:  
Access to services and resources provided to you by a community of your peers should be considered as a priviledge...not a right.  All priviledges come with a cost. Even playing here in this place...where (fortunately) the free provision of helpful information is the only fee. 
You don't have a right to electricity (or anything else for that matter)...anymore than I have a right to take it from you.

----------


## Marc

> If that's the case (and you believed it) then you wouldn't actually support any form of taxation. On anything.  Except that you do... 
> Access to services and resources provided to you by a community of your peers should be considered as a priviledge...not a right.  All priviledges come with a cost. Even playing here in this place...where (fortunately) the free provision of helpful information is the only fee. 
> You don't have a right to electricity (or anything else for that matter)...anymore than I have a right to take it from you.

  That is a rather peculiar interpretation of one sentence out of my post. 
I say that a tax reform is necessarily by definition, political and ideological. it is therefore impossible NOT to link it to politics and religion. 
Not too long ago any hesitation in a person asked if he believe in God  would bring him to execution for the salvation of his soul. 
Those attempting to impose it do so for a reason, not necessarily only to collect money. In this particular case, the tax will allegedly change behavior and curb the use of electricity, reduce production of CO2 and save the planet. All thanks to the good believers and in spite of the bad unbelievers 
Lets for a minute ignore the humongous holes in such reasoning and concentrate on the reasons behind such impost. Those in power are telling you and me: Our values and beliefs are better than yours. Change to our way of thinking or else. 
Ordinary taxes that as you mention are for the purpose of running community services don not have the primary purpose to preach a mantra, to convert. They may do so by elevation but it is not their main purpose.
I may not agree in a "progressive " system of taxation but I believe firmly that everyone from the kid earning $1000 to the one earning several millions, all should pay their fair and equal share of tax to support the needs of the community. taxation is not in question.
It is the use of the taxing system to impose alien values with false pretenses, after scraping in an election won with fraud and lies that should be up everyone nose.  
If you add to that the fact that this tax will not change behavior, will not reduce the emissions of CO2, just like "alternatives" will not do it either, and if you contemplate the blatant fact that high levels of CO2 have no relation whatsoever with changes in temperature either up or down that the last 16 years have seen increases in CO2 not followed by any change in temperature, that variations in CO2 are simply the consequence of temperature changes mostly due to solar activity completely removed from any human intervention, this whole saga is as pathetic as train spotting or flea training.

----------


## Marc

As for the post by patervoster, energy is a market and the price goes with offer and demand.
The fraudulent conversion of  CO2 in the buggy-man is an attempt at perverting the market with false pretenses of altruism.
If CO2 is not the culprit it is made to be, and such scientific facts are available to anyone, the whole concept of "save the planet" collapses in a heap
Market forces will still determine what do we use for heating and it will be coal or gas hands down until we find a better cheaper source of energy. 
However you beloved greens will do anything to prevent that to happen. 
"_The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet_."
- *Jeremy Rifkin*, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation  "_Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it_."
- *Amory Lovins*, Rocky Mountain Institute  "_We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land_."
- *David Foreman*, co-founder of Earth First!  "_Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control_."
- *Professor Maurice King * "_Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about_?" 
- *Maurice Strong*, founder of the UN Environment Programme

----------


## johnc

> That is a rather peculiar interpretation of one sentence out of my post. 
> I say that a tax reform is necessarily by definition, political and ideological. it is therefore impossible NOT to link it to politics and religion. 
> Not too long ago any hesitation in a person asked if he believe in God would bring him to execution for the salvation of his soul. 
> Those attempting to impose it do so for a reason, not necessarily only to collect money. In this particular case, the tax will allegedly change behavior and curb the use of electricity, reduce production of CO2 and save the planet. All thanks to the good believers and in spite of the bad unbelievers 
> Lets for a minute ignore the humongous holes in such reasoning and concentrate on the reasons behind such impost. Those in power are telling you and me: Our values and beliefs are better than yours. Change to our way of thinking or else. 
> Ordinary taxes that as you mention are for the purpose of running community services don not have the primary purpose to preach a mantra, to convert. They may do so by elevation but it is not their main purpose.
> I may not agree in a "progressive " system of taxation but I believe firmly that everyone from the kid earning $1000 to the one earning several millions, all should pay their fair and equal share of tax to support the needs of the community. taxation is not in question.
> It is the use of the taxing system to impose alien values with false pretenses, after scraping in an election won with fraud and lies that should be up everyone nose.  
> If you add to that the fact that this tax will not change behavior, will not reduce the emissions of CO2, just like "alternatives" will not do it either, and if you contemplate the blatant fact that high levels of CO2 have no relation whatsoever with changes in temperature either up or down that the last 16 years have seen increases in CO2 not followed by any change in temperature, that variations in CO2 are simply the consequence of temperature changes mostly due to solar activity completely removed from any human intervention, this whole saga is as pathetic as train spotting or flea training.

  Lets get this straight the only religious tax is a tythe, you are not being asked to handover 10% of your income to help the poor. That is patent nonsense, a tax is a revenue raising measure and is only political as far as politicians determine the tax. All this stuff about religion is in your head, perhaps you need an excorcism to rid yourself of these fantasies or stop reading right wing rot, whatever rocks your boat. Using terms like "by definition" is not true when it is just a lead into someones fantasy world and the obvious discontect with the experts in climate science. Also what about tax is "alien" tax is universal, lets stop the hyperbole we are still in the clouds tilting at those fantasy windmills and the limits of sanity.

----------


## Paternoster

> Those attempting to impose it do so for a reason, not necessarily only  to collect money. In this particular case, the tax will allegedly change  behavior and curb the use of electricity, reduce production of CO2 and  save the planet. All thanks to the good believers and in spite of the  bad unbelievers

  
Are you aware that I try to tell you for the last 15(?) posts that it isn´t "just" about reduction of CO2 emissions?EVERY,except the Americans,gov´t in the western world tries to reduce the use of energy.As with means of taxation for the use of it or as with grants for the installation of energy efficient technology.The reason is,as I stated before,that we are no longer in a position to just "let it go as it always has"...we are no longer "alone" in the first world,many other countries have joined the club (China,India,South Korea and many more) and we can´t simply ignore that.Two consequences arose from that:
first:humankind produces even more CO2 than it ever has,since those countries are additional.
second:  our energy cost is going up and there is simply no way to "make any more" the conventional way...Now you could say:"well,he just told us that in North America,energy is cheap" and that is true,but it is not really a stable situation-it is somewhat manipulated and with every little "shake" it immediately reminds us how manipulated it is.That is one of the reasons,the US can´t do anything about Iran...a match thrown in that region,with the US depending SO BADLY on oil,with no alternatives in place,will cause a broad explosion in the US.Not a nice situation,I find.  How to Boil A Frog - Peak Oil 
I can´t find the full documentary,but I can tell you it´s pretty good and no,they deliver facts,not fiction.The title btw refers to the fact that you can actually boil a frog,if you heat him slow enough,so he can adjust to the temperature until it kills him,so kinda like us.   

> As for the post by patervoster, energy is a market and the price goes with offer and demand.

  
Not true!If all the stops would be pulled,we would pay right now ten fold what it is today.Governments have a natural desire,to keep energy under control and the market stable and again:why did the US invade Iraq?
Why did the US intervene in South America?All those countries,like Venezuela which have rich oil reserves have been under US influence for a long time.Wake up,the gov´t got the people what they wanted but at a horrible price and all those wars,all the blood shed and all the hard feelings (Muslims aren´t really pleased with us,aren´t they?)..was it worth it?
South Australia is producing 20% of it´s energy,using wind energy.THAT is something to be exited about and I can´t wait until oil imports are cut in half or better.

----------


## Marc

Mr rotary lift: 
No one "tries" to reduce the use of energy. Everyone attempts more or less successfully to reduce costs. Energy consumption is a direct relation to population, grade of development and income per capita.
So to "reduce" the use of energy, we can decimate the population like Cambodia, freeze any development North Korea Style, or impoverish the nation like Greece or Argentina.
Short of that, finding cheaper sources of energy should be a priority for any rational government.  
We are going the other way, subsidizing wave powered energy, wind and other crap that is 4 to 10 times dearer when it works at all, whilst sitting on resources of coal, gas and uranium to power the entire globe many times over for centuries 
Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with saving the planet. The planet does not need saving. Our effect on climate is negligible at worst, impossible to measure more likely, CO2 is a beneficial TRACE gas that allows life on earth, the more the better crops and vegetation cover. The contribution to the total mass by humans is ridiculously low. Perhaps we should INCREASE that contribution.
Instead the good citizen are waging a war against an imaginary foe. CO2 for purely ideological and political reasons with pretenses of altruism and using the ignorant and the gullible to march and sound the trumpets in front of them. 
 Every person must live within his means. If you can not afford the petrol bill for a GMC truck with a 6.5 L diesel, too bad, buy yourself a Dawoo Leganza 1.2L but don't pretend to know better and criticize the person who drives a jaguar V12 and keeps a 60 foot cruiser powered by 2 Detroit  8V71TI and a Jet Ranger on the deck because of his CO2 production. That is crap and always will be. In fact it is called envy, a very bad attitude to have. it is like those who are renting and hoping for the RE market to crash.
Funny thing is that if it crashes, they will not buy themselves a house, there will be other perfectly good reasons to blame others for their one shortcomings. 
As for boiling the frog. Well, it is a handy story to use by the poor and the oppressed but it happens to be false.
Try for yourself. the frog jumps out as soon as it is too hot. Every time.
I suggest you do the same if things start to become too heated with your redneck neighbors.
Or you can always join them. I suggest a decommissioned 4wd would do your image just fine.

----------


## Paternoster

> No one "tries" to reduce the use of energy. Everyone attempts more or  less successfully to reduce costs. Energy consumption is a direct  relation to population, grade of development and income per capita.
> So to "reduce" the use of energy, we can decimate the population like  Cambodia, freeze any development North Korea Style, or impoverish the  nation like Greece or Argentina.
> Short of that, finding cheaper sources of energy should be a priority for any rational government.

  
Correct,if not forced by the cost of it,no one will reduce their use of energy.I have seen it in Germany:as long as energy was cheap,people didn´t upgrade their houses for example.Today,three pane windows are standard in new houses,with a winter that hardly reached -15°C.
You didn´t respond to my picture or to any other fact that I stated regarding the pure waste of energy.GM,Ford and even Chrysler (even though they are in the worst shape) are introducing NOW,after their train wreck,finally models that are efficient....funny how the fuel price is related to that,isn´t it?   

> Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with saving the planet. The planet does not need saving.

  
Right,earth can exist without us....try it the other way though....   

> Every person must live within his means. If you can not afford the  petrol bill for a GMC truck with a 6.5 L diesel, too bad, buy yourself a  Dawoo Leganza 1.2L but don't pretend to know better and criticize the  person who drives a jaguar V12 and keeps a 60 foot cruiser

   There one can see that you just ignore what I am writing:first,I can afford the Diesel bill for my ute very well,thanks.Second,is my ute one of the most fuel efficient towing vehicles,available in this country!
I would LOVE to drive a Nissan Patrol with a 4 liter Diesel four cylinder in it,but it was never offered here....GOVERNMENT policy!When BMW introduced the X3 and X5 SUV´s,they pushed (as every German manufacturer) for a Diesel option...they ended up with ONE Diesel motor for both,the 3 liter which is basically too big for the X3,but BMW said it is SO EXPENSIVE to homologue a Diesel engine on the US market due to their regulations,that they ended up with just that....demand regulates offer?Don´t think so.Actually,a lot of people I know here would lik to have a Diesel,but there is just no offer for them.
Our car is a Chevy Lumina,a complete normal choice and again one of the more fuel efficient vehicles one can buy:3.1 liter and 30 mpg highway.Just as the Olds Cutlass I had before that.  

> Dawoo Leganza 1.2L

  As get around car?SURE would I buy that,I have no ego to be scratched,no machismo to be defended but....there aren´t any around here...
In OZ,I will buy myself a Vespa,as I had in Germany:ideal for getting around on next to no fuel and with a top case,one can do a little shopping as well and leave the ute to my wife.In Germany,we had a Fiat Doblo with a 1.2 liter engine in it and it was by no means a sport car,but got us where we needed and we both still miss it,it was a very good car (even though I would take the 1.9 or 1.3 liter Diesel next time).   

> Every person must live within his means.

  Well again and again if I have to:here, in North America,you can see how that doesn´t work...the poor drive "big" cars (and mostly even worst waster,cause they are in poorer technical condition and there is mostly no safety inspection or emission test to pull those) cause they are cheap.A VW Passat TDI is a very expensive car here and either miled out when affordable (would you by one with 300000 km or more on it?)or simply extreme expensive,so something for the rich people... a world upside down...   

> In fact it is called envy, a very bad attitude to have. it is like those who are renting and hoping for the RE market to crash.
> Funny thing is that if it crashes, they will not buy themselves a house,  there will be other perfectly good reasons to blame others for their  one shortcomings.

  You can take that and stick it where it stinks.This just shows one more how simple your world is constructed...shame really.I have my own way of live and I have achieved quite a bit here,buying a starter house and my family house in a housing market,with a very small mortgage,that was and is stampeding.Owning a camper I bought new(sold now)that was not the palest other have,cause I didn´t WANT one,buying a reasonable 27ft without slide outs,but a weight of just 4200 lbs,cause I do care and I don´t need my washer and dryer with me(literally),when  I go camping     

> Or you can always join them. I suggest a decommissioned 4wd would do your image just fine.

  That´s not a bad idea.Actually,I am looking at a 79´Land Rover,which would make a good project for a restoration and that is just fine for me.Playing in the dirt isn´t a bad idea as well,one doesn´t do it every day.

----------


## mark53

Dear Patervostoc, the only place I've heard more happy horse digest comming from a single individual is from those who are of your own ilk, that is, the fringe lunatics masquerading as global warmists. I suspect our Prime Minister has been a bad infuance on you. You poor bugger. You'll never know your right from Karl Marx if you use her as an example. Cheers.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> That is a rather peculiar interpretation of one sentence out of my post. 
> I say that a tax reform is necessarily by definition, political and ideological. it is therefore impossible NOT to link it to politics and religion. 
> Not too long ago any hesitation in a person asked if he believe in God  would bring him to execution for the salvation of his soul. 
> Those attempting to impose it do so for a reason, not necessarily only to collect money. In this particular case, the tax will allegedly change behavior and curb the use of electricity, reduce production of CO2 and save the planet. All thanks to the good believers and in spite of the bad unbelievers 
> Lets for a minute ignore the humongous holes in such reasoning and concentrate on the reasons behind such impost. Those in power are telling you and me: Our values and beliefs are better than yours. Change to our way of thinking or else. 
> Ordinary taxes that as you mention are for the purpose of running community services don not have the primary purpose to preach a mantra, to convert. They may do so by elevation but it is not their main purpose.
> I may not agree in a "progressive " system of taxation but I believe firmly that everyone from the kid earning $1000 to the one earning several millions, all should pay their fair and equal share of tax to support the needs of the community. taxation is not in question.
> It is the use of the taxing system to impose alien values with false pretenses, after scraping in an election won with fraud and lies that should be up everyone nose.  
> If you add to that the fact that this tax will not change behavior, will not reduce the emissions of CO2, just like "alternatives" will not do it either, and if you contemplate the blatant fact that high levels of CO2 have no relation whatsoever with changes in temperature either up or down that the last 16 years have seen increases in CO2 not followed by any change in temperature, that variations in CO2 are simply the consequence of temperature changes mostly due to solar activity completely removed from any human intervention, this whole saga is as pathetic as train spotting or flea training.

  If peculiar interpretation is good for the goose... 
I have no problem with your view that the new price on 'carbon' will make little or no impact in and of itself. Mainly because I agree with you on that count.  It'll make sixth fifths of sod all difference.  Mostly because it is an insufficient  mechanism.  My personal preference would have been a wider target market for the carbon price coupled with a) an end to all government subsidies to all parts of the energy industry at both generation and distribution levels and b) broad taxation breaks on new energy efficiency measures across all sectors because it is cheaper to use less than generate more. 
I will be intrgued to see what happens when the current fixed price becomes a floating mechanism in a couple of years time. No I don't think our friends and colleagues in the Conservative parties will pull the pin on the carbon price...merely they will (perhaps) transmogrify it into something that is more ideologically palatable through financial profit. 
I'm not convinced that the carbon price is actually a tax per se.  If you want to be pure and naive about it then it can't be since it isn't (to my knowledge) collected by the ATO.  Like I said pure and naive. But it does (to my knowledge) sit outside the current system of taxation...

----------


## watson

Just deleted three posts...........play nice...........or I'll start deleting members.

----------


## Marc

> If peculiar interpretation is good for the goose... 
> I have no problem with your view that the new price on 'carbon' will make little or no impact in and of itself. Mainly because I agree with you on that count.  It'll make sixth fifths of sod all difference.  Mostly because it is an insufficient  mechanism.  My personal preference would have been a wider target market for the carbon price coupled with a) an end to all government subsidies to all parts of the energy industry at both generation and distribution levels and b) broad taxation breaks on new energy efficiency measures across all sectors because it is cheaper to use less than generate more. 
> I will be intrgued to see what happens when the current fixed price becomes a floating mechanism in a couple of years time. No I don't think our friends and colleagues in the Conservative parties will pull the pin on the carbon price...merely they will (perhaps) transmogrify it into something that is more ideologically palatable through financial profit. 
> I'm not convinced that the carbon price is actually a tax per se.  If you want to be pure and naive about it then it can't be since it isn't (to my knowledge) collected by the ATO.  Like I said pure and naive. But it does (to my knowledge) sit outside the current system of taxation...

  You are correct, it is not a normal tax it is an ideological impost, a penitence to punish the sinners.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  
There is no doubt in anyone that has something between his ears, that this mechanism will achieve nothing in the way of reducing CO2.
Yet the whole Global Warming hysteria never had the reduction of CO2 at heart. The aim is resources and power shift.  
We could start a new movement, lets call it the "lean" movement. We will lobby the new government to tax fat. Whoever weights over their ideal BMI will have to pay a fat tax. First 10 kilo over is $10 a kilo, next 10 kilo $20 etc. The tax will not be collected by the ATO but deducted directly from payslips by employers, by suppliers or by Centrelink.
Dob in a fat person will be encouraged and special lean phone numbers distributed.... :Biggrin:

----------


## johnc

> You are correct, it is not a normal tax it is an ideological impost, a penitence to punish the sinners.  
> There is no doubt in anyone that has something between his ears, that this mechanism will achieve nothing in the way of reducing CO2.
> Yet the whole Global Warming hysteria never had the reduction of CO2 at heart. The aim is resources and power shift.  
> We could start a new movement, lets call it the "lean" movement. We will lobby the new government to tax fat. Whoever weights over their ideal BMI will have to pay a fat tax. First 10 kilo over is $10 a kilo, next 10 kilo $20 etc. The tax will not be collected by the ATO but deducted directly from payslips by employers, by suppliers or by Centrelink.
> Dob in a fat person will be encouraged and special lean phone numbers distributed....

  Far better to cut out the middleman, all over weight people could instead be rostered onto a 24/7 community treadmill, generating electricity and reducing weight at the same time. less paperwork, minimal complexity and a win win for the health budget and enviroment at the same time.

----------


## Paternoster

> You are correct, it is not a normal tax it is an ideological impost, a penitence to punish the sinners.  
> There is no doubt in anyone that has something between his ears, that  this mechanism will achieve nothing in the way of reducing CO2.
> Yet the whole Global Warming hysteria never had the reduction of CO2 at heart. The aim is resources and power shift.

  
This is simply not true!You simply try to depict it just as "the gov´t tries to tell me what to do"...well,that is a gov´t job,but in case of renewable energy and a tax on CO2,the aim is a bit different than "just" to piss you of.I know you hate wikipedia (for whatever reason,if you doubt the content,just go to the sources stated at the end and read "first hand") but there I found the most complete listing of the renewable energy sector in Germany.Do you really think that that is "peanuts" or a nuisance?
This is not about sinners,it´s about energy safety,both in availability as well as in technical safety (have you forgotten Fukushima?).Sure,23% of the uranium reserves of the world....why not build one of those monsters....the Japanese where STRONG supporters of nuclear power...now ask them again.  

> The share of electricity produced from *renewable energy in Germany* has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to over 20 percent in the first half of 2011.[1]  In 2010, investments totaling 26 billion euros were made in Germanys  renewable energies sector. According to official figures, some 370,000  people in Germany were employed in the renewable energy sector in 2010,  especially in small and medium sized companies. This is an increase of  around 8 percent compared to 2009 (around 339,500 jobs), and well over  twice the number of jobs in 2004 (160,500). About two-thirds of these  jobs are attributed to the Renewable Energy Sources Act[2][3] Germany has been called "the world's first major renewable energy economy".[4] In 2010 nearly 17% (more than 100 TWH) of Germany's electricity supply (603 TWH) was produced from renewable energy sources, more than the 2010 contribution of gas-fired power plants.[5] 
>  Renewable electricity in 2010 was 101.7 TWh including wind power 36.5 TWh, biomass and biowaste 33.5 TWh, hydropower 19.7 TWh and photovoltaic power 12.0 TWh.[6]

      Renewable energy in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Germany’s Renewable Energy Sources Rise to 20 Percent

----------


## Paternoster

And before I forget:Germany is the fourth largest economy in the world with a land area of just 360000 hectare and a population of 82 million people,so it doesn´t even has those vast area of "nowhere" where you can install wind turbines,the ever burning sun for solar or the huge numbers of life stock  to produce methane gas...I would call the shear size of Australia alone a great resource and not to be overlooked.
One thing,a German alternative energy lobbyist said once on TV was,"that the price for conventional energy can go up only,while the price for renewable energy can go down only".I think he got a point there.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Far better to cut out the middleman, all over weight people could instead be rostered onto a 24/7 community treadmill, generating electricity and reducing weight at the same time. less paperwork, minimal complexity and a win win for the health budget and enviroment at the same time.

  Now THAT is a solution...except it could apply to all rather than just the fatties since it'll inevitably lead to thin people so it wouldn't be sustainable in the long term.  Oh and I'd prefer a bicycle instead of a treadmill.

----------


## Paternoster

> Now THAT is a solution...except it could apply to all rather than just the fatties since it'll inevitably lead to thin people so it wouldn't be sustainable in the long term.  Oh and I'd prefer a bicycle instead of a treadmill.

  Na,I would prefer one of those medieval treadmills that they used to power cranes.Would be way nicer to have somebody to talk to  :Biggrin:

----------


## johnc

> Na,I would prefer one of those medieval treadmills that they used to power cranes.Would be way nicer to have somebody to talk to

  
Except they tended to use blind people on account of the fact that no one with reasonable vision could handle the vertigo and imminent death from the rickety structures they were. 
As for the issue of the over weight, people don't stop being over weight if you keep adjusting the BMI scale to include a fixed percent of the population.

----------


## Dr Freud

Hi folks, apologies for the delay in replying, I've been very busy out west helping to keep this country running.  
Fending off those crazy greenies trying to shut down our mining sector is becoming a full-time job for business over here.  I'll post some stuff that will make you peoples heads spin.  Just imagine Australia without the mining sector, cos that's what the greenies dream about and work towards every day.  Too bad about your standard of living though, huh? 
But back to where I was wrong.  It's about the Carbon Dioxide Tax.  It's working better than anyone could possibly have imagined.  Since July 1, it's been absolutely freezing over here.     

> *PERTH has recorded its coldest morning in more than two years as the temperature plummeted to 1.2C. 				 				 *  			 		 		The mercury got down to just 1.2C at 6.37am this morning - the coldest Perth morning since July 7 2010 when the temperature dropped to 0.8C.
> Elsewhere in the metropolitan area this morning, Jandakot fell to 0.2C.
> Perth Airport recorded a frosty 0.5C just before 7am.
> The south-west town of Dwellingup, 97km south of Perth, dropped to -1.1C at 6.56am this morning.  Perth rugs up against chilly morning | Perth Now

  
From what I can see, the rest of the country's been cooler too? 
Seeing as it's worked, can we all stop paying now?  :Biggrin:  
What a con job!  NASA has been looking for intelligent life in outer space, I've been looking for it in the current inept government.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Hows the ice recovery lookin?:   
> Not so good. It nearly 'recovered' to average by April, but since then it has walked through about 4 standard deviations below average. Melt season runs till September. 
> woodbe.

  What a laugh, we were back to average levels in April... :Roflmao2:   
And now you're pointing out about 8 weeks of data, or is that 7 weeks, 40 ish days, where it varies from the average...hahahahahaha.   I guess CO2 levels must have skyrocketed over those few days, eh? 
And this is the real hilarious part, you don't event try to explain why any more.  Embarrassment over this cults failed hypothesis must be hard to take I guess.  But you just keep posting effects, don't worry about trying to explain the causes any more.  It's complicated stuff, and JULIAR gave up long ago, why should you keep taking flak for her idiocy.  :No:  
And this is truly hilarious:  *Melt season runs till September.* 
What you refer to is September 2012? Do you remember these hilarious scaremongering fantasies from the cult that you still defend:   

> *the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012″*  					 						Posted on May 12, 2012 						by Anthony Watts    
>   					 						Its always important to remember what has been predicted by the elders of science, and to review those predictions when the time is right.  In four months, just 132 days from now at the end of summer on the Autumnal Equinox September 22nd 2012, the Arctic will be nearly ice free according to a prominent NASA scientist in a National Geographic article on December 12, 2007.

  Read more here:  “…the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012″ | Watts Up With That?  
So do you still defend these doomsday cultists and think we'll see 12 million square kilometers melting in the next 8 weeks or so?   :Rotfl:   
You guys do crack me up.  I haven't had a laugh this good in ages. 
Oh yeh, and welcome to our new Canuck, you should read the rest of the thread first.  It will save me having to teach you what is reality as opposed to the cults fantasy that you've unfortunately been duped by.  An easy mistake for the uninformed given the funding thrown at this cults propaganda.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> 

  
Is this JULIAR driving the Labor Party to the next election in her CO2 fueled green machine?  :Biggrin:    

> _And with the Greens primary vote also falling a percentage point to 11 per cent, the Coalition recorded an election-winning two-party-preferred lead of 56 per cent to 44 per cent.   _  Not what Gillard pedicted in May 2011:  _ When Australia has a carbon price, when households are generously assisted, when jobs continue to grow, when the sun rises in the east, cows keep giving milk, chickens still lay eggs, our opponents know their campaign of fear will be exposed as a sham _

  The full tragedy unfolds from here:  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian 
Apologies for posting statements like "carbon price", I try to remain true to either the ignorance or cultish fervour of the originators where possible.  Due to JULIAR constantly lying, I still can't tell which one she is?  :No:  
For the new starter's, it's actually Carbon Dioxide they're chasing, and it's not a price, it's a TAX.  The cults spin machine decided not to use this correct name after recent polling (understandably!).  :Biggrin:   
Sheesh, next thing you know they'll change the name from Global Warming to Climate Change because the Planet's not warming like they predicted.  :Rotfl:

----------


## Dr Freud

How many dodgy and shonky name changes, lies, failed doomsday cult predictions etc. etc. do these frauds need to go through before any thinking person says enough:   

> Professor Jan-Erik Solheim,  an astrophysicist from the University of Oslo, checks the famous 1988 forecast of leading warmist James  Hansen, of NASA"s Goddard Institute for Space Studies:   _   Figure 1: Temperature forecast by Hansens group in 1988. The various scenarios are 1.5% CO 2 increase (blue), constant increase in CO 2 emissions (green) and stagnant CO 2 emissions (red). In reality, the increase in CO 2 emissions has been as much as 2.5%, which would correspond to a scenario above the blue curve. The black curve is the ultimate real-measured temperature (rolling 5-year average). Hansens model overestimates the temperature by 1.9 ° C, wrong by a huge 150%_   Read on at Watts Up With That for a  translation of   Solheims article.  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  Or I guess just keep chanting the cults mantra "The scientists, the scientists, the scientists..." while just as many scientists not on the teat present facts refuting this fraud.  This cult takes 75 scientists out of 10,257 and calls it 98% consensus.  That's how great these clowns are at statistics.  I kid you not.  :Biggrin:  
That's why the cult always asks "Do you BELIEVE in climate change?" 
What an idiotic question.   
First, the climate always changes, always has and always will.  
Second, if you have to ask if people believe in something, then you have no proof.  This is called a belief system. 
I'll say it again:  *There is zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.* 
But now you're paying for someone else's fantasy.  I'd much rather pay for my own... :Wink:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Welcome back Doc. 
Been keeping tabs but been too busy to comment much. 
Not a lot to say really its all been said IMO.  Just got the feet up with bag of popcorn waiting for the AGW train wreck to happen.  
Will be the best entertainment in town.

----------


## Dr Freud

Andrew Bolt is truly hilarious, he points out a basic calculation error to one of JULIAR's climate cultists, who then decides to wrongfully argue the point.  Now the cultist admits his own incompetence:   

> *THE Federal Government has announced the make-up of the independent authority that will recommend how fast Australia cuts greenhouse gas emissions under its controversial pollution price regime.                   *                                The Climate Change Authority will act much like the central bank and advise on key aspects of Labor's emissions trading scheme (ETS). 
> Former Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) governor Bernie Fraser was appointed chair of the authority in mid-2011 and seven other board members have been named. 
> They include serving RBA board member Heather Ridout, well-known academics Clive Hamilton and *John Quiggin,* public sector economist Lynne Williams, businessman John Marlay, AustralianSuper chair Elana Rubin and climate scientist David Karoly. 
> The country's chief scientist, Ian Chubb, is an ex-officio member of the authority.
> "*This is a very strong board*," Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said today.  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  Well Greg, let's see how you define "very strong":   

> Professor John Quiggin  has  seriously misled his readers about the Gillard Governments global warming policies.  
>   His error is even more serious and egregious given that  Quiggin was recently appointed by the Gillard Government to advise it on how deep to make future cuts. 
>   In past posts Ive noted   Quiggins  estimate of the effect on the temperature of the Governments proposed cuts to our emissions -  0.02 degrees by 2100- is  five times higher than the most generous estimate even of IPCC warmist Professor Roger Jones.  
>   Jones, assuming a strong causation between emissions and temperature, calculated the true effect to be a mere 0.0038 degrees by 2100. As the _Sunday Age_ reported:    _THE policy of both major parties is to reduce Australias carbon dioxide emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 ... Victoria University climate scientist Professor Roger Jones has calculated that if the rest of the world did not act and Australia reduced emissions until 2020, then did nothing else, 0.0038 degrees off the global temperature rise by 2100._  Quiggin was clearly wrong, but even more disturbing than his absurd estimation of the effect of Gillards policies was his refusal to admit error - to put it politely. Here was his explanation for giving an estimate five times that of the expert:  _I was at the Australian Conference of Economists earlier in the week, and had a chat with Roger Jones, who has occasionally commented here. I asked him about his estimates of the impact of emissions mitigation policies in Australia, and was able to confirm that our estimates, although reached in very different ways, are in quite close agreement. Roger is cited here and here, estimating that a 5 per cent reduction in Australias emissions would result in a reduction in equilibrium global temperature of 0.0034 degrees. In a blog comment, I made the estimate that a 25 per cent reduction, relative to business as usual (the official target of the carbon price policy and also of the Oppositions direct action alternative) would result in a reduction in equilibrium global temperature of 0.02 degrees.  Unfortunately, Andrew Bolt did not observe the reason for the difference, and suggested that we disagreed by a factor of five._As I explained:   _Quiggins excuse is that Jones was actually providing an estimate for a five per cent cut in emissions from what wed otherwise expect by 2020, while Quiggins own estimate is for a 25 per cent cut, to bring us back to the Governments target of a five per cent cut in what our emissions were in 2000. (The bigger cut is needed to reach the target because our emissions have meanwhile grown.)_  _Quiggin says that means his cuts are five times what Jones was working on, and therefore would produce five times the temperature cut._  _But check again what Jones was asked by the Sunday Age to calculate and what he was reported as having done - the difference Australias policy would make. That policy is exactly the cut the Quiggin was working on. No one is advocating a cut of just 5 per cent of business-as-usual emissions._But note how Quiggin cited Jones himself as confirming his own calculations. 
>   Turns out Quiggin simply does not understand what Jones actually did, and still didnt understand it even when it was explained to him. 
>  On Friday Jones himself confirmed he indeed based his calculation on a five per cent cut in 2000 levels and not, as Quggin claimed, a mere five per cent cut in business-as-usual emissions by 2020:   _ 
> Last year for the Sunday Age/Our Say 10 questions about climate, I made two calculations to assess the potential benefits of Australian climate policy. One applied the policy of both the government and opposition of a 5% reduction in emissions from 2000 by 2020. The other was to estimate a 80% reduction by 2050  the target within the Clean Energy Act. The first produced a 0.0038 degree reduction by 2100 and the second a 0.02 degree reduction by 2100._Hearing it now from Jones rather than a mere journalist of the Right has finally persuaded Quiggin he was talking through his hat:   _Update I appear to have misinterpeted my conversation with Roger, though I need to check on a number of issues before making a final assessment. So, Im going to withdraw my claim that Bolt and John Humphreys in error on this point, and discuss the estimates with Roger in more detail. Ill report back when this is complete._More than your calculations need to change, John. Your attitude needs some alteration, too. 
>   And should you really be advising government on emissions reductions, given the above?   Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  Before you laugh too loudly at these imbecilic antics, remember your taxes are paying their massive wages, and they're deciding how many billions you will pay in taxes that they will then ship offshore to Carbon Dioxide shonks.  I'm sure with their demonstrated incompetence, over and over, you must be happy to be paying your Carbon Dioxide Taxes to JULIAR's cult. 
Oh yeh, and the 0.0038 degrees celsius by 2100 (immeasurable and irrelevant) is only true if all their fantasy theories are also true!  
As if... :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Welcome back Doc. 
> Been keeping tabs but been too busy to comment much. 
> Not a lot to say really its all been said IMO.  Just got the feet up with bag of popcorn waiting for the AGW train wreck to happen.  
> Will be the best entertainment in town.

  Yeh, been flat out as well. 
Thought I'd take some time to stir up some trouble here for a while.  :Biggrin:  
Like you say, this cult is going the way of all doomsday cults, so as all their "end of the world" dates keep rolling by, people get bored and move from being AGW believers into being Justin "Beliebers":     
Enjoy the show... :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Those icicles are the direct result of heat,escaping the roof/walls and melting the snow that then (because of the extrem low temperatures)refreezes.

   *the direct result of heat,escaping the roof/walls and melting the snow*  
Wasn't it supposed to be global warming that's melting all the ice and snow up there?  :Rofl:   
Dude, you're talking about a house buried in snow that people are burning stuff in to stop freezing to death. 
And you want them to stop burning this stuff so it stays cold and they can freeze more? 
And you want to stop this alleged global warming stuff so they can continue to freeze? 
The irony is dripping more than the icicles.   :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

C'mon, even if you hate his politics, you gotta admit this guy is funny.  :Biggrin:  
JULIAR has even named a question after him.   

> Bolt Report tomorrow - the dangerous defence cuts, *the Bolt question* gets asked, an anti-Howard extremist wins a prize, and surely Gillard cannot stay much longer. With Jim Molan, Michael Costa and John Roskam.  
>   On Channel 10 at 10am and 4.30pm.

  For the uninitiated, here is the essence of the Bolt question:  *What difference will the Carbon Dioxide Tax make to the global temperature?* 
Watch the show for JULIAR's answer to the nearest thousandth of a degree.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

> And this is truly hilarious:  *Melt season runs till September.* 
> What you refer to is September 2012? Do you remember these hilarious scaremongering fantasies from the cult that you still defend:   
> Read more here:  the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012″ | Watts Up With That?  
> So do you still defend these doomsday cultists and think we'll see 12 million square kilometers melting in the next 8 weeks or so?    
> You guys do crack me up.  I haven't had a laugh this good in ages.

  So, in 2007, after an unusual, particularly rapid and major loss of ice in the melt season, ONE scientist speculated that "summer ice COULD be gone in 5 years" 
Here is the Ice Extent graphic he would have been looking at. Who can blame him for wondering if the changes were happening faster than predicted?   
In any case, that's not one scientist saying that summer ice WILL be gone in 5 years, neither is it ALL scientists agreeing that summer ice COULD be gone in 5 years. Yet, the great sham sceptic at WUWT thinks that this is a story, and our returned Doc thinks this is some kind of vindication for those that deny the climate is changing at the hands of humankind. 
And Yes, we are talking about September. Every Year. I think 2012 is a year, so sure, lets include it. 
Here is last year's end of melt chart:   
I guess it has escaped your notice, Doc, that we don't seem to be getting (m)any years above the 1979-2000 average, and at least the last 4 years have finished the melt season well outside of 2 standard deviations BELOW the mean. Perhaps they should change the graphic to show 4 standard deviations so it doesn't look so bad, eh?  :Tongue:  
woodbe

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So, in 2007, after an unusual, particularly rapid and major loss of ice in the melt season, ONE scientist speculated that "summer ice COULD be gone in 5 years" 
> Here is the Ice Extent graphic he would have been looking at. Who can blame him for wondering if the changes were happening faster than predicted?   
> In any case, that's not one scientist saying that summer ice WILL be gone in 5 years, neither is it ALL scientists agreeing that summer ice COULD be gone in 5 years. Yet, the great sham sceptic at WUWT thinks that this is a story, and our returned Doc thinks this is some kind of vindication for those that deny the climate is changing at the hands of humankind. 
> And Yes, we are talking about September. Every Year. I think 2012 is a year, so sure, lets include it. 
> Here is last year's end of melt chart:   
> I guess it has escaped your notice, Doc, that we don't seem to be getting (m)any years above the 1979-2000 average, and at least the last 4 years have finished the melt season well outside of 2 standard deviations BELOW the mean. Perhaps they should change the graphic to show 4 standard deviations so it doesn't look so bad, eh?  
> woodbe

  As we all know this mean is taken from the end of a cool period through a warming period. Now I wonder what it would all look like if it was the mean over, say a 400 year time span? 
Really Woodbe....

----------


## Dr Freud

Yes, as all these wishy washy confected doomsday claims fail, and fail, and fail, their defenders continue to back away from them. 
Instruction to all AGW defenders:  *Back slowly away from this AGW fiasco with as much credibility as you can salvage!* 
The ice could all melt...it hasn't!
The rains may never fall again...they did!
The drought could become permanent...it didn't!
The snow may stop falling...it didn't!
The temperatures are predicted to rise dangerously...they didn't!
And on, and on, and on... 
So then they change it to: 
The climate changes...er der Freddy! 
Here's just one example:   

> When they drained, nearly every _Age_ report on our dams mentioned global warming. Now that they fill, not a peep:  _SOPPING catchments are replenishing Victorias dams at a phenomenal rate, with Melbournes water storages likely to top 80 per cent of capacity by years end - their highest level in 15 years  
> The rebound from the worst drought on record has made for stunning recoveries at Lake Eppalock, which ran dry in 2007 but is now nearing capacity, and at Lake Eildon and Lake Hume._  Just a rebound from a drought. As per usual.  This is exactly not what the warmist CSIRO was predicting:    Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  Now just imagine if we actually built more dams to capture all this excess rainfall to last us through the next drought. 
Oops, greenies have banned the dams because they make people and business prosper, and we can't have that.  :Doh:   
One of the funniest articles I read was the Victorian desal plant being constantly flooded by excess rainfall, stalling its construction and rendering it moot at the same time.  They could have built many dams for a fraction of the price and got all the water for free from the sky.  
And note how Woodbe still just quotes effects, with no explanation as to the causes.  The Planet Earth is slowly moving out of the last little ice age, and has been since about the 1800's.  And this is a good thing.  Imagine our Canadian friends house if we were still in the ice age.  No melting icicles then, eh?  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> As we all know this mean is taken from the end of a cool period through a warming period. Now I wonder what it would all look like if it was the mean over, say a 400 year time span? 
> Really Woodbe....

  Nothing like an Arctic Ice post to get Rod posting.  
Go on Rod. Show us the science.  :Biggrin:  
Last time we discussed this, didn't you say the warming was over and we were going into a cooling period? No warming since 1998 or was it 2000? Has that suddenly stopped, or is it just not a convenient meme anymore? 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> *What difference will the Carbon Dioxide Tax make to the global temperature?* 
> Watch the show for JULIAR's answer to the nearest thousandth of a degree.

  Oh, well, here's JULIAR's mathematical skills at work:    

> *
> Everingham:* _
> By how much measured in  thousands of a degree celsius will the earths temperature be reduced through the carbon tax?_  *Gillard:*  _Now I wish I could say to you that we could easily make a dramatic difference that would see those temperatures fall. Its not going to be like that._   
>  Every numerate person would know that Everinghams question goes to that very claim: how much lower will the temperature be, because of the tax, than it would be without it. To the nearest 1000th of a degree.   
>   And_ still_ Gillard refuses to tell you.   
>  Shed die of shame if she had to. You are being denied the most basic fact about the carbon dioxide tax, because the truth would make you realise it is absolutely useless.    Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  Two great words: absolutely useless!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Nothing like an Arctic Ice post to get Rod posting.  
> Go on Rod. Show us the science.  
> Last time we discussed this, didn't you say the warming was over and we were going into a cooling period? No warming since 1998 or was it 2000? Has that suddenly stopped, or is it just not a convenient meme anymore? 
> woodbe.

  Done to death on this thread woodbe. 
No more to add just quietly watching things unravel.  Failed predictions mean nothing to the warmists they just extend the time frame.  But people are just sick of it, totally sick of it.  Just about everyone I know are just so over the climate change garbage, they have switched off. 
So as each prediction date passes and another is set the AGW fear just unravells a little bit more. 
You should take Doc's advice and back away slowly and retain some credibility.

----------


## Dr Freud

How much more can these clowns stuff up this fiasco. 
People are using their CO2 cash bribes to actually generate *MORE* CO2 emissions than they would have without the cash handouts. 
Then they'll have to pay higher power bills on top of this. 
Who woulda thought?  Just us smart people I guess...   

> That _ker-ching_ sound is the  penny dropping, and not just into the pokies. Its the sound of Labors big problem finally becoming clear.   
>   The Gillard Governments worst disasters may in fact have a common cause. Too much idealism.     
>    Too much bright-eyed hoping, in an gullible age in which sceptic has mysteriously    become a term of abuse.   
>    In May, the Gillard Government changed the education tax refund, given to low-income parents with receipts to show what theyd paid for their childrens school books and uniforms.   
>  Instead, parents would now get an up-front Schoolkids Bonus of at least $409 for each child without having to prove how theyd spend it.   
>   Opposition Leader Tony Abbott warned this meant the cash might not always go on schoolkids: I mean, you can go and blow it on the pokies.   
>   Prime Minister Julia Gillard claimed to be outraged: Thats Mr Abbotts way of saying he doesnt trust working Australian families to look after their kids. What an insult.   
>    Treasurer Wayne Swan hopped in, too: I actually find those sorts of characterisations from Mr Abbott quite offensive   
>   But  the evidence since proves  Abbott right.     
> ...

  If I could be bothered, I'd do a CO2 INCREASE calculation due to the CO2 cash handouts, including driving to and from the pokies.    

> *Energy Facts* A casino saved 75,364.4 KWHs per year by using high efficiency lamps, occupancy sensors and lighting control systems. This is equal to 21.85 acres of trees planted, 11 cars removed from roads, 6850 gallons of gasoline saved.  
>  Based on our study of 1000 S2000 slot machines made by IGT, containing a total of 3000 fluorescent light bulbs. If the casino chooses to use our SLOTLITES  , these will be a saving of 618,894 KWHs per year. This is equal to 205.3 acres of trees planted, 102.65 cars removed from roads and 63,462.49 gallons of gasoline saved.  SlotLite

  But this whole cult is so farcical now, it's not even worth it. 
China will still open a new coal fired power plant every week or so burning our coal sold to them CO2 TAX free, while we are paying it. 
Seriously people, are we now this dumb as a nation?  :Doh:

----------


## barney118

Keep up the good work Dr Freud, as far as saving the country, that's just about impossible right now. 
Your stats are impressive however the mind set of the media 'Deniers' don't get any coverage, so much for a balanced view and this is the war we need to win regardless.
We need to embarrass the govt at all levels to show how they have messed up these policies, such as NSW no feed in tariffs anymore, Green schemes abandoned at Federal level just shows they don't believe in their own work, when ETS comes in the money is simply going to bail out the PIGS countries.
I also like the article a couple of weeks ago, how Indonesia are selling timber in their rainforests at $100/T compared to green permits to Russia etc, so it makes $23/T chicken feed. 
Look how can they put such an impost on Aussies and not apply a Tariff to imports, by the way I'm just sulking in the corner protecting my cash until the election.  
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Marc

*Tuesday, June 28, 2011*  *"Global Warming" aka Fraud.  Did Greenies cause your house to flood?  Could be...*   

> *Radical  environmentalists have been behind the wave of forest fires in the West  and the collapse of the logging industry there.   When you do not log  and do not clear brush you get forest fires.  Homeowners are even  prevented from cutting down brush near their homes in California and  then when the fires come they have no barrier between their homes and  the fire.  Duh.  Don't buy the hype, the wave of wildfires in the West  began AFTER the logging restrictions hit the West Coast states.*  *Green  Goofs have willingly let California farmers famish while preserving  water for an obscure variety of fish.   No big surprise, it was their  ridiculous movement to rid the world of DDT after Rachel Carson's spurious and untruthful book, "Silent Spring" that  is largely responsible for the deaths of millions of poor African  natives from malaria because of mosquitoes which could have been  controlled and largely eradicated by DDT.   Mosquito nets are a poor  substitute.   On top of that, environmentalists have fought to prevent  third world countries from building up a modern culture by blocking the  building of power plants and thereby keeping third world countries from  advancing their civilizations.  The UN is the primary culprit here. *   *The  Obama Administration let that oil spill linger in the Gulf and was  shocked when nature did much of the cleanup in spite of Federal inaction  and outright blocking of methods and means that could have been  effective.  Still, the President's refusal to let the spill be dealt  with swiftly and his blocking of oil drilling and harvesting now has  brought poverty to the Gulf regions.   In addition, the EPA is  responsible for the flooding that is wiping out all or parts of  neighborhoods and towns because of floods that should have and could  have been stopped by dams that had originally been designed to save  riverside communities from disaster.   I intend to present to you  evidence that:*  *The world is cooling, not warming**The scientific community is not in agreement with the alarmists but quite the opposite**Radical environmentalists are harmful to our economy and to the quality of human life all over the planet**The Sun is the primary factor in the climate machinery of Earth and certainly not man*   *Between 2001 and 2010 global average temperature   decreased by 0.05 degrees, over the same time that atmospheric carbon   dioxide levels increased by 5 per cent. Ergo, carbon dioxide emissions   are not driving dangerous warming. -* *Australian scientist Bob Carter*  Sometimes  you have to stop and try to snap people out of it!   Since so many  Darwinists show up here, thought I would remind them that Global Warming  is NOT happening and any attempt to limit carbon in the atmosphere is  stupid.  Why should we try to limit plant food?         As far back as Spring 2009 the groundswell of scientists who were willing to sign their names on a petition scoffing at Global Warming was well over 700 names.     By the end of 2010, the names had grown beyond 1,000.    You can read the 321 page pdf here.  climate depot pic  A few quotes for your reading pleasure:    *We're  not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the  media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this  is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you  cannot statistically know for another 150 years.* -- UN IPCC's  Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the  lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services &  Development for U.S. Magnesium.  *Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!*  -- NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA  Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior  Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at  the National Institute of Aerospace.  *Please  remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power  to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation.  You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather  observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something  that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's  permission or explaining itself*. -- Nobel Prize-Winning  Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel  Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at  Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  *In  essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the  fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that  they used to say didn't happen...Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate  fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data*  -- Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical  Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy,  thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy  systems.  *The  energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy  budget that it simply cannot affect the climate...The planet's climate  is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in  changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of  it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data  to draw the proper conclusions.* -- Russian Scientist Dr.  Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the  Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation  of the Russian Academy of Sciences.  *Hundreds  of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a  Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by  physical world evidences...AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a  barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the  elementary school textbooks.* -- Brazilian Geologist Geraldo  Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book The Global Warming Fraud: How a  Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.  *"I am an environmentalist, but I must disagree with Mr. Gore*  -- Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry  Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her  presentation titled Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming,  the Skeptic's View.  *I  am ashamed of what climate science has become today. The science  community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent  citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain  attention. If this is what 'science' has become today, I, as a  scientist, am ashamed.* -- Research Chemist William C. Gilbert  published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment  titled The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and  water vapor concentration in the troposphere and he published a paper  in August 2009 titled Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a  Gravitational Field. [_Update December 9, 2010_]  *The  dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a  scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the  way it has been done within the Climate Science Community. The global  warming establishment has actively suppressed research results  presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.* -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [_Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote._]  *Those  who call themselves 'Green planet advocates' should be arguing for a  CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere...Diversity  increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2  atmospheric content...Al Gore's personal behavior supports a green  planet - his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does  indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to  save the planet.* -- Renowned engineer and aviation/space  pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named "100 most influential people in the  world, 2004" by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him "the man  responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living  engineer."  *Global  warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same  way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore  has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the  new faith...My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a  physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the  underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been  abandoned in this field.* -- Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John  Reid, who worked with Australia's CSIRO's (Commonwealth Scientific and  Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in  surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.  *We  maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate  change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is  happening*. -- Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and  Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens'  Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.  *There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cyclesare  related to solar activity...In my opinion and that of our institute,  the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being  exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the  atmosphere or of the oceans.* -- Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.  *Because  the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions  of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not  supported by the data.* -- Hebrew University Professor Dr.  Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs  who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled  Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global  Warming.   *The  whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded.  There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN  IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's  fraud*. -- South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a  member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the  Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British  Institute of Physics.    "The scientific reality is that from A-Z, the scientific case for man-made climate fears has collapsed. The Arctic has rebounded in recent years, the Antarcticsea ice extent has been at or near record extent in past few summers, polar bears appear to be thriving, sea level is not showing acceleration and may be dropping, Mount Kilimanjaro melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover, global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade or more, scandals continue to rock the climate fear movement and scientists continue to dissent  at a rapid pace. Poor Al Gore, he has been reduced to criticizing his  own party's president for failing to act to stop climate change. "  Marc Morano of Climate Depot   Fraud like that which is associated with the IPCC:   Enter Energygate: IPCC Caught with Its Pants DownAgain 
> By _E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D._

----------


## barney118

No one has been abled to answer who pays the Carbon Tax after a bushfire in Australia? State or Federal or Council?  
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## johnc

> No one has been abled to answer who pays the Carbon Tax after a bushfire in Australia? State or Federal or Council?  
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  That's simple, we'll just loan that stuff to the Chinese they have that much of it they wont notice a bit more.  
In actual fact the regeneration of the forest will eventually lock up the carbon lost during the fire.

----------


## woodbe

> No more to add just quietly watching things unravel.  Failed predictions mean nothing to the warmists they just extend the time frame.

  Failed predictions? Well, I'm still waiting for the scientific papers showing us where climate science is wrong. Heck, I'd even settle for some papers showing where the Physics of Climate Science is wrong. 
How about the Munich Re report. Seems like they are quietly watching things unravel too. In case you  have not heard of Munich Re (no problem, most people haven't) they are  one of the world's leading re-insurers. Re-insurers are the insurance  companies that effectively insure the insurance companies we mortals deal with.  These are the people with an amazing amount of information about  worldwide trends in climate events. You won't like what they say: Munich Re. TRENDS IN WEATHER RELATED LOSS _EVENTS_ . INCREASING EVIDENCE OF A CONTRIBUTION OF _GLOBAL_ _WARMING_ (PDF, 134kb) 
Wikipedia article for Munich Re 
Surprisingly, haven't read much about that on WUWT... 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm just sulking in the corner protecting my cash until the election.

  That's a good bet.  Plenty of others have made the same call.   

> *Australia Business Confidence**In Australia, business confidence declined to -3 in June of 2012 from -2 in May of 2012.*Australia Business Confidence

  The Carbon Dioxide Tax is the crowning glory of JULIAR's ineptitude called "sovereign risk".

----------


## Dr Freud

> No one has been abled to answer who pays the Carbon Tax after a bushfire in Australia? State or Federal or Council?

  Bottom line, us taxpayers pay the Carbon Dioxide Tax for bushfires.  Great huh.  
The federal government will direct more of our taxes to buying more "Carbon Offset Certificates".  Then we pay more taxes to buy more. 
I won't even begin to explain the rorting that is going on in carbon offset fiasco's, just explaining this next farce is bad enough.
I kid you not, every day I read more of this stuff and keep wondering what the hell happened to rational thought!  :Doh:    

> The Federal Government has embraced savannah burning as an approved methodology under the carbon farming initiative for generating carbon credits in Northern Australia.  
> The frequency and severity of the fires in grass and open bushland areas can be reduced by carrying out controlled burning earlier in the dry season, when there is less fuel on the ground.  
> Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change Mark Dreyfus says this will lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the savannas of Australia's tropical north.  
> The savannah burning methodology was developed by the Government in close consultation with Indigenous groups and the CSIRO.  It has been assessed by the independent *Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee.*   Northern savannah burning to earn carbon credits - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  WTF? 
Seriously, WTF? 
We are now paying the proceeds of the Carbon Dioxide Tax to people conducting controlled burn-offs.  That is, they are actually burning bush intentionally as they have always done (which is good), and CREATING CO2 emissions, but get paid our taxes that are supposed to be reducing emissions. 
And here's their excellent logic. 
If the bush is left unburned and grows and burns later, it will create even more CO2 emissions in the future, so if we estimate this larger future amount, then subtract the actual current produced amount, we can regard the estimated saving IF the future bush quantity HAD potentially burned as the amount of CO2 saved, and this amount can be paid as an offset value. 
I'll need to check myself into a psych ward if this cults greenwashing ever starts sounding sensible to me.  :Laugh bounce spin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> That's simple, we'll just loan that stuff to the Chinese they have that much of it they wont notice a bit more.

  Actually we'll donate billions of our taxpayer dollars to them if they promise not to chop down a few trees to make up the difference as carbon dioxide offsets. 
Strange how they won't send us a single cent if we make the same promise because they don't have a carbon dioxide tax.  :Doh:    

> In actual fact the regeneration of the forest will eventually lock up the carbon lost during the fire.

  Yes, CO2 is plant food and they thrive on the stuff.  Who woulda thought natural healthy green plants thrive on...ummmm...what did JULIAR call this again:   

> Ms Gillard responded: I've always believed climate change is real and that it is caused by carbon *pollution*..."  Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

  Yes, that's right, natural healthy green plants thrive on pollution according to our Prime Idiot.  
No wonder these reactions from us taxpayers:   

> One reader attacked Ms Gillards decision to price carbon, insisting she call an election so the Australia public could let you know what we think of you.

----------


## Dr Freud

This is just the start.  Remember that treasury predicts this to ramp up, and up, and up, with $130 a tonne as a goal to "make a difference". 
Ramping up is what the ambulances will be doing with pensioners in the back:   

> Professor Sinclair Davidson works out that when Health Minister Tanya Plibersek tries to prove the carbon tax doesnt cost nearly $2000 for each hospital bed, she actually confirms it.  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  Here's more of JULIAR's disaster unfolding:   

> Liberal MP Andrew Laming that estimated the cost of the carbon tax on hospitals at between $1044 and $2400 a bed this financial year.  
>  Mr Laming said Western Australias health system would pay about $6 million to $7m in carbon tax, costing it $1477 to $1724 a bed. He said NSW would pay $26.5m in additional direct and indirect costs in the health system, including higher electricity charges, increased costs for inputs and increased freight charges. This equated to $1965 a bed.
>  Victoria would pay $13.5m extra or $1044 a bed, Queensland $30m this financial year or $2425 a bed and Western Australia $6m to $7m. WA Health Minister Kim Hames has attacked the impact of the carbon tax on the states health budget. I could be spending that $6m on a range of other things, including . . . dental health, he said.Then we have this: A spokesman for federal Health Minister Tanya Plibersek described Dr Lamings analysis as deceitful. The Commonwealth Treasury and Department of Health and Ageing estimate that the impact of the carbon price will only be 0.3 per cent on hospital costs, he said. This is equivalent to only 1c for every $3 spent on hospitals.According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: In 2009-10, an estimated $46.3 billionabout 3.6% of Australias gross domestic product or about $2,180 per personwas spent on Australias hospitalsSo a quick back of the envelope (on dated data):
> 1/300 = 0.00333, then multiply that by 46.3 billion = 154.3 million. With about 85,000 beds across Australia that works out to $1815 per hospital bed on average  more or less what Andrew Laming estimates it to be. 
>  So it looks like the carbon tax will be adding $154.3 million dollars to the health budget without any contribution to improved health outcomes. It doesnt actually matter if the Commonwealth is picking up the tab or not  spending on health is up and outcomes are unchanged.  Day 22 of a broken promise at Catallaxy Files

  Us taxpayers just love this idiocy at the top:   

> There goes the Health budget. Grandma wont get her hip replacement & Grandpa wont get his choppers fixed because of this stupid tax. And what does it acheive? Absolutely bloody nothing. 
> Private hospitals will be bearing the full impact, so are disadvantaged as usual. This is the thanks private patients get for easing the pressure on the public system. Pay taxes and pay increased premiums with a reduced rebate. A double screwing. 
>  	Where are all the red health union t-shirts proptesting about the removal of funds which could be spent on healthcare.
>  Australians have exactly the govt they deserve.

  But it's not all bad.  As our billions of tax dollars are donated overseas in exchange for "Carbon Dioxide Offset certificates", then hopefully these foreign governments will spend our tax dollars improving their health systems.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's how they deceive Aussie taxpayers every day:   

> *Make cents from carbon tax hot air* 								by: 								 											Greg Combet 								From: 								 	        Herald Sun 									July 19, 2012 									12:00AM 
> IF you are heading out for dinner on Lygon St tomorrow night, the average price increase that can accurately be credited to the carbon price may be an extra 20c to the cost of your meal.  Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

  Really Greg, just a few cents here and a few dollars there? 
Still going with the old "just a cup of coffee a day" BS? 
Why don't you tell Aussies what this adds up to:   

> Pokie revenues in Queensland rose more than 7 per cent in May and 12 per cent in June which coincided with the Federal Governments handout of more than *$15 billion in carbon tax compensation* to pensioners and low-income earners. Carbon tax compo being gambled away | News.com.au

   
And that's not even half of it. 
That's a lot of dollars and cents adding up Greg. 
Lygon Streets gonna need a lot of trucks to carry all those 20 cent pieces, eh Greg? 
And remind me of the effectiveness of this TAX? 
Oh yeh, absolutely useless.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Failed predictions? Well, I'm still waiting for the scientific papers showing us where climate science is wrong. Heck, I'd even settle for some papers showing where the Physics of Climate Science is wrong. 
> How about the Munich Re report. Seems like they are quietly watching things unravel too. In case you  have not heard of Munich Re (no problem, most people haven't) they are  one of the world's leading re-insurers. Re-insurers are the insurance  companies that effectively insure the insurance companies we mortals deal with.  These are the people with an amazing amount of information about  worldwide trends in climate events. You won't like what they say: Munich Re. TRENDS IN WEATHER RELATED LOSS _EVENTS_ . INCREASING EVIDENCE OF A CONTRIBUTION OF _GLOBAL_ _WARMING_ (PDF, 134kb) 
> Wikipedia article for Munich Re 
> Surprisingly, haven't read much about that on WUWT... 
> woodbe.

  So you now ignore your "consensus scientists" at the IPCC who say they can't confirm these weather events are even linked to their AGW fiasco, and you instead turn to insurance underwriters for their climate expertise?  :Rotfl:  
So much for salvaging any credibility from this fiasco.  :No:  
I've already posted easily available information that in effect shows the following common sense conclusion: 
A flood washes down a valley with 1 house means 1 loss event. 
The population grows and the same size flood washes down with 10 houses means 10 loss events. 
The loss events are not even accurate predictors of the size of the weather event itself, let alone if the weather event was even remotely linked to the failed fiasco of the AGW cult. 
Even if you correct for increasing infrastructure growth, increasing replacement costs (CPI?), increasing reporting rates, increasing insurance take-up, you still don't even get close to the assumption you're trying to assert.  :Doh:   
I can't believe a greenie supporter is now believing a global corporations financial assumptions designed to increase peoples insurance premiums as being supportive of the failed AGW hypothesis?  :Doh:  
If this is the best you've got, you're in more trouble than I thought.  :Biggrin:  
And WUWT has plenty on the difference between weather and climate, as well as insurance scams jumping on the AGW gravy train to dupe unsuspecting customers, you can start here:   Another blow to warmist hysteria over weather is not climate unless we say it is: “2011 damage is qualitatively indistinguishable from 1974″ | Watts Up With That?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Sigh. The alarmists dont  give up, although this time try a slightly different tack:   _Global warming is leading to such severe storms, droughts and heatwaves that nations should prepare for an unprecedented onslaught of deadly and costly weather disasters, an international panel of climate scientists says in a new report_  _ The document by a Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists forecasts stronger tropical cyclones and more frequent heat waves, deluges and droughts._   That new tack is here:  _In the past, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, founded in 1988 by the United Nations, has focused on the slow inexorable rise of temperatures and oceans as part of global warming. This report by the panel is the first to look at the less common but far more noticeable extreme weather changes..._You can see why this change has been forced on alarmists. The secret is now out that the world hasnt been warming, and to instead now blame global warming for every weather extreme, whether drought or a flood, makes the warmist seem always right, whatever happens. 
>   But let us still to those original claims that we were heating the world rapidly and dangerously. In fact, the world today is cooler than the average - and hasnt warmed for a decade:     The Arctic ice is around the recent average:    Southern hemisphere ice is above average:    The total energy of tropic cyclones is below average:   
>   And Professor Roger Pielke Jr is relieved that the IPCC at last tackles the false claims that increased insurance losses are a measure of global warming, rather than of a growing population, getting richer:  _A few quotable quotes from the report (from Chapter 4):_    _There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change  _   _The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados  _   _The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses_ Yet from the reporting and the spinning, youd never guess it, would you?  _This report by the panel is the first to look at the less common but far more noticeable extreme weather changes, which recently have been costing on average about $US80 billion ($A76.75 billion) a year in damage.  
> We mostly experience weather and climate through the extreme, said Stanford University climate scientist Chris Field, who is one of the reports top editors. Thats where we have the losses. Thats where we have the insurance payments. Thats where things have the potential to fall apart.  _ Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  
Gee whiz, would an insurance underwriter use vague "risks" to profit from increased premiums? Duh.  :Doh:  
Is this scientific support for the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis?  :Roflmao2:   
What does the good professor think:   

> With this post I am creating a handy bullsh!t button on this subject (pictured above). Anytime that you read claims that invoke disasters loss trends as an indication of human-caused climate change, including  the currently popular "billion dollar disasters" meme, you can simply call "bullsh!t" and point to the IPCC SREX report.   Roger Pielke Jr. 
> I am a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I also have appointments as a Research Fellow, Risk Frontiers, Macquarie University; Visiting Senior Fellow, Mackinder Programme, London School of Economics; and Senior Visiting Fellow at the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes of Arizona State University. I am also a Senior Fellow of The Breakthrough Institute, a progressive think tank.  Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Bad Economics at NOAA

----------


## Dr Freud

If you still don't get why insurance scams are ridiculous predictors of this fiasco, think about this: 
How many extreme weather events are recorded where there are no people or infrastructure there to record them?  :Confused:  
And how many of these events were recorded historically when there were no people or infrastructure there to record them?  :Confused:

----------


## barney118

You should be in bed Dr Freud! This is the whole point, Governments are in bed with Insurance companies, they get more tax off them.
This is why I have a pet hate of paying my premium, the house always wins.
This is also why QLD govt failed to insure themselves so we all now pay a 1off levy to foot the bill of them under insuring and then double your premium.   
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## woodbe

> If you still don't get why insurance scams are ridiculous predictors of this fiasco, think about this:

  These are not predictions, they are reports of historical events up to the present and they happen to concur with the expectations of published climate science. Munich Re is just reporting events they have had to pay out on.  
Climate Science tells us that if the planet's energy imbalance continues we will see more and more extreme weather events. 
By all means continue to ignore the canaries. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> You should be in bed Dr Freud! This is the whole point, Governments are in bed with Insurance companies, they get more tax off them.
> This is why I have a pet hate of paying my premium, the house always wins.
> This is also why QLD govt failed to insure themselves so we all now pay a 1off levy to foot the bill of them under insuring and then double your premium.   
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

   
What a load of rubbish, the major insurers aren't financial powerhouses with a never ending trail of profits, even some minimal checking will reveal some do go broke when hit with a run of large claims especially during major disasters, the profits of these companies also wax and wane according to the times. Both you and your insurer are betting against risk, or more to the point sharing that risk between a large number of people with the insurer if they get it right taking a cut of the action. Put up some show that governments are in bed with insurers, you can point to government regulation, you can find governments that even run certain types of insurance, what you can't show is anything to back up that lie. The Queensland government is not unusual, it looked at the cost of insuring and decided to self insure, a number of major companies do the same, what we don't see in your little jibe is figures showing how much the Government saved on premiums, the real problem is they spent the money and now don't have the cash they need to cover the damage, the problem isn't so much the self insuring it is not putting money aside to cover the risk, the very reason we use insurnace in the first place.  
If you are unable to work this out look up Lloyds insurance names, they are the syndicates that stand behind some insurance groupings. This can be highly lucrative, it can also send you broke, insurnance is a business with risks like any other enterprise.

----------


## woodbe

Not to mention that if barney thinks it's such a scam why is he even paying a premium? 
Wasn't the issue in Qld that useful Insurance is almost impossible to get for disasters in a tropical area at any price?   

> Queensland premier Anna Bligh defended not taking out the reinsurance before the disasters hit.
>           She said no-one could have ever predicted the scale of the  destruction, and *either way, the state would have only got a $50 million  payout, despite the $6 billion damage bill*. 
>           "It is more of an insurance against the sort of things we  might see on a more annual basis, vandalism, fires ... than against  large-scale natural disasters which we saw last year," she said.
>           As had been previously announced, *no insurer had been  prepared to take on the risk of reinsuring for Queensland's vast road  network*.  *Of the $6 billion worth of damage in the disasters, all but $50 million of that involved roads and bridges.* 
>           Three-quarters of all state roads were damaged in the disasters. *"There is no insurer anywhere in the world that will insure our road assets," Ms Bligh said.*

  Govt seals disaster insurance deal, roads excluded 
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. 
woodbe.

----------


## Paternoster

> *the direct result of heat,escaping the roof/walls and melting the snow*  
> Wasn't it supposed to be global warming that's melting all the ice and snow up there?   
> Dude, you're talking about a house buried in snow that people are burning stuff in to stop freezing to death. 
> And you want them to stop burning this stuff so it stays cold and they can freeze more? 
> And you want to stop this alleged global warming stuff so they can continue to freeze? 
> The irony is dripping more than the icicles.

  So,just to get that straight:you agree to this guy WASTING energy?You think,it´s a good idea to loose massive heat,due to an avoidable lack of insulation and that is in your book all right?   

> And you want them to stop burning this stuff so it stays cold and they can freeze more?

  No,I want him to preserve energy instead of thinking that it´s alright because energy is so cheap.
Could you explain to me now,what is wrong about that?Could you please answer me,how you want to change peoples behaviour without increasing energy costs?You logic is:  :Doh:

----------


## johnc

> So,just to get that straight:you agree to this guy WASTING energy?You think,it´s a good idea to loose massive heat,due to an avoidable lack of insulation and that is in your book all right?  
> No,I want him to preserve energy instead of thinking that it´s alright because energy is so cheap.
> Could you explain to me now,what is wrong about that?Could you please answer me,how you want to change peoples behaviour without increasing energy costs?You logic is:

  
Good luck with that, the poster is seemingly incapable of explaining anything, all you get is half baked inaccurate quotes, logic doesn't exist. 
It is hard to believe that people are so stupid that they can't see the benefits of lowering household expenditure and maintaining a more pleasant home to live in.

----------


## Paternoster

> Good luck with that, the poster is seemingly incapable of explaining anything, all you get is half baked inaccurate quotes, logic doesn't exist. 
> It is hard to believe that people are so stupid that they can't see the benefits of lowering household expenditure and maintaining a more pleasant home to live in.

   True and a shame that is.Energy preservation is so important in our time and a major  challenge  to keep energy available and wasting it shouldn´t be an option.
It would be nice if people would learn without being forced to change,but when did that ever happen?

----------


## manofaus

> It is hard to believe that people are so stupid that they can't see the benefits of lowering household expenditure and maintaining a more pleasant home to live in.

  suppose every car you ever owned is on lpg too....
its the initial capital outlay that kills you... sure the savings are there, eventually...

----------


## Paternoster

> suppose every car you ever owned is on lpg too....
> its the initial capital outlay that kills you... sure the savings are there, eventually...

  In an energy responsible society,there are gradual steps towards energy efficiency.Don´t make it look like:"over night you have to pay out of your pocket X amount of dollars,right now!"We are talking about legislation here,that will allow a society to develop energy preservation measures.
North America has a problem with that right now (as I stated) their inability to develop those strategies has put them on a very shaky foundation,any price increase in energy sends shock waves through this system.A major increase leaves commuters and contractors in a bad situation,without ANY alternative,farmers with a cost increase that eats away their bottom line...befor the crash of 2008,fuel prices were running @4.30/gallon and everybody was hurt....with a conservative government that had done everything right in the great book of conservative dream-governing (de-regulation,relying on fossil fuels etc)...where is your point?
I rather have alternatives and a push for fuel efficient transportation,heating and lighting BEFORE it is tomorrow and you find yourself in a desperate situation with NO alternative (and that will happens not because of "green politics" but because of market laws,cause we live in a world with more and more people demanding energy and less and less (fossil) energy available)

----------


## johnc

> suppose every car you ever owned is on lpg too....
> its the initial capital outlay that kills you... sure the savings are there, eventually...

  And the point is? a lot of the gains you can make to a home are not that expensive, stopping drafts alone can make a huge difference to heat loss. If you do a large distance each year the LPG payback on a car can be quite a short period, but then a small diesel may work out as well. Isn't it nearly always about considering the initial outlay and the payback period.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

You know...there are times when I'd like to think that actually voting for the Liberal/Nationals might be of practical benefit...it might actually contribute to the demise of this thread, for instance. 
But then that'd be like voting for the Fun Police and I wouldn't be getting even a tenth of the giggles that I do now.  I mean...you guys pooped gold over the weekend...that was better read than the script to Lara Bingle's Masterchef Shire!!! 
Oh, the indecision!!

----------


## Marc

> So,just to get that straight:you agree to this guy WASTING energy?You think,it´s a good idea to loose massive heat,due to an avoidable lack of insulation and that is in your book all right?  
> No,I want him to preserve energy instead of thinking that it´s alright because energy is so cheap.
> Could you explain to me now,what is wrong about that?Could you please answer me,how you want to change peoples behaviour without increasing energy costs?You logic is:

  The problem with this way of thinking is twofold. 
One, you make the wrong assumption that CO2 is "bad", it is NOT.
Two, you act like the Spanish Inquisition and know better what is best for others and want to impose, dictate, you moral high ground onto others. 
You assume that using energy is bad because you assume that CO2 is bad. Yet CO2 is good. 
"WASTING" is an appeal to emotions yet since CO2 is good, all your nincompoop moral is irrelevant. 
You sound like those old ladies that say to eat all you have on the plate because there are starving people in Africa, as if fat people would somehow be able to transfer their fat to the Africans.  Same impossible logic.  
The value of energy just like food is in relation to time and availability. The heat from that house comes from a wood fire most likely and just like the left over pasta on my plate, the excess can not be used and is therefore worthless. Insulation would reduce the use of wood but at a cost of a decade of firewood most likely. The reduction in CO2 production is a loss for the  phytosphere with no other perceivable gain whatsoever in any other area but for the bank account of the mercenary that get paid to spread lies and fraudulent accusations  
Forcing people to change behavior by artificially increase the cost of energy that drives everything from heating to the economy is criminal behavior. To do it for assumed moralistic grounds for the good of humanity based on false assumptions for ultimately political and social engineering purposes, is delusion in grand scale the like of Fidel Castro and Kim Jong, that deserves the lock up ward in the nearest psychiatric hospital. Possibly one with very low heating and straw ball mattresses.

----------


## Marc

> ..... the script to Lara Bingle's Masterchef Shire!!!

    :Cry:  Now _that_ is a terrible though...imagine fat pizza and big brother added to that ...

----------


## Dr Freud

> These are not predictions, they are reports of historical events up to the present and they happen to concur with the expectations of published climate science. 
> woodbe.

  I didn't say they were predictions, I called them predictors, as opposed to regressors, both being variables in a statistical sense.  The temporal relationship between them is arbitrary depending on the assumptions you use and the outcomes you seek.  Obviously both are historical measurements or we wouldn't have the data.  Read more here if you are interested:  Independent Variables and Dependent Variables 
It's not how I'd explain it, but there are a few different viewpoints that are food for thought.  I won't bore readers here with my own interpretation.  :Biggrin:  
And I love your ubiquitous term "climate science".  Do you include the failed temperature predictions (yes, predictions this time) from James Hansen above in your ubiquitous "climate science"?  Do you include the stagnating Accumulated Cyclone Energy measurements posted above in your ubiquitous "climate science"?  Or do you mean just the cherry-picked bits, not "the inconvenient truth".  :Biggrin:    

> Munich Re is just reporting events they have had to pay out on.  
> woodbe.

  If you want to play semantics,  :No: , they're NOT just reporting events they have had to pay out on.  They're reporting both overall losses ($380bn) and insured losses ($105bn).  The difference ($275bn) is the uninsured losses they did not have to pay out on, but will happily add to their risk actuarials to increase our premiums. 
For crying out loud, if you remove earthquakes/volcanoes etc., the best they can attribute (assuming AGW is fully real and causing 100% of this  :Doh: ) is about $50bn for 2011 f/y globally.  JULIAR racked up more debt than this per year during her time in government, in Australia alone.  Can we get insurance for her stupidity?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):     

> Climate Science tells us that *if* the planet's energy imbalance continues we will see more and more extreme weather events. 
> woodbe.

  Is this also one of those coulda, shoulda, woulda, if, but, maybe, wriggle words that will be used to disclaim this failed scaremongering in the future?  :Rotfl:    

> By all means continue to ignore the canaries. 
> woodbe.

  I'll happily ignore the canaries and just stick to the facts, thanks.  :2thumbsup:  
AGW cultists much prefer the opposite.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Paternoster

> The problem with this way of thinking is twofold. 
> One, you make the wrong assumption that CO2 is "bad", it is NOT.
> Two, you act like the Spanish Inquisition and know better what is best  for others and want to impose, dictate, you moral high ground onto  others. 
> You assume that using energy is bad because you assume that CO2 is bad. Yet CO2 is good. 
> "WASTING" is an appeal to emotions yet since CO2 is good, all your nincompoop moral is irrelevant.

  "Wasting" energy is bad.Energy is one of the most valuable commodities we have and there is such a thing like wasting it and it has nothing to do with the Spanish Inquisition.
It doesn´t even has so much to do with moral obligation but responsibility towards the society you live in.If everybody pigs at their own discretion,than you would probably call it "freedom"...I call that the "dictatorship of the pigs" that set the society on a collision course with a nice,big rock (energy crisis) and who,when it happens,have no concept to cope with the situation.
Just look (as I already stated) what happened to the US,for heavens sake!Do you really belief,that their crisis wasn´t "home made"?
It was the oil crises of 1973 that gave the States a wake up call and they went to sleep as soon as it was over,instead of planning on alternatives for energy safety.
Ever heard of the: *Three Mile Island accident*? Three Mile Island accident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They had (under Carter) the chance to ring in a new era and they didn´t,taking the "easy way out" that was Reagon and now they pay the price:a society which turns into burger flipper,depleted labour forces,producing cheaply made stuff @ minimum wage and no security...for nothing     

> The value of energy just like food is in relation to time and  availability. The heat from that house comes from a wood fire most  likely and just like the left over pasta on my plate, the excess can not  be used and is therefore worthless.

  
Dead wrong,mate!Furnaces here are central,forced air natural gas producing 160000btu on average (for a smaller house).A wood fire would be just for romantic purpose.You can´t heat against -40°C with one tiny little wooden stove.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Wasn't the issue in Qld that useful Insurance is almost impossible to get for disasters in a tropical area at any price? 
> woodbe.

  What a crock.  The Labor govt in Queensland were inept on so many levels (thankfully removed now) that I don't have time to list all their incompetence.  Bottom line is, if you were an insurer or re-insurer, how would you rate their risk?  How many times during this thread have I advise against building anything on a flood plain?  Beatty and [S]BigLie[/S] Bligh were so risky, the premiums would naturally be huge.  Check out page 49 of this report:  http://www.apcoaust.com.au/2012/pres...eve_Jacoby.pdf 
It notes that 65% of Qld planning schemes do not contain ANY flood mapping.  :Doh:  
But in spite of their ineptitude, they were still offered insurance, they just refused to pay for it because they couldn't afford it through incompetence and financial mismanagement:   

> As north Queensland braced for another battering, this time from Tropical Cyclone Yasi, The Australian confirmed that the state government has previously been approached to take out catastrophe insurance on the private market *but declined* to on the basis it was not "value for money". 
> A spokesman for Queensland Treasurer Andrew Fraser said the government considered taking out reinsurance some years ago and *opted against it* because it was ultimately deemed not to be "a value-for-money proposition".  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

    

> Govt seals disaster insurance deal, roads excluded 
> Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. 
> woodbe.

  Right back at ya champ.  :Biggrin:  
They were offered and refused it due to financial mismanagement.  But you keep believing [S]BigLIe[/S] Bligh's failed election campaign spin. 
Never mind that some of the worst city flooding was due to idiotic policies based on failed predictions of never ending droughts leading them to keep the dams overfilled. This greenie idiocy would be bloody hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.  :Doh:  
Yeh, you keep believing the [S]BigLIe[/S] Bligh canary singing, us realists will just stick to the facts. 
A credible government would have presented risk mitigation strategies, planning contingencies and guidelines, and contingency funds as hedges against high premium assets as appropriate.  This is not complicated stuff, and the recent Qld election results are a testament to the Qld people waking up to the spin run by Labor for so many years.   
Poor "Yes we Campbell" now has to repair all the damage and figure out a way to pay back the $100bn state debt (plus interest) that the [S]BigLIe[/S] Bligh canary racked up.

----------


## Dr Freud

> So,just to get that straight:you agree to this guy WASTING energy? You think,it´s a good idea to loose massive heat,due to an avoidable lack of insulation and that is in your book all right?

  Just so you can get this straight, Australia is a democratic country and I believe in these ideals.  As our good Yankee mates will say, what he does "on his dime and on his time" is up to him.  I don't care if he's lying naked out in the snow in his Canadian back yard surrounded by electric heaters keeping him warm 24 hours a day.  If he's happy to pay the bill, let him. 
What are you, a communist?  Leave the man alone (assuming it's a bloke?).  Swim the (warming?) Bering Sea if you want to start telling other people how to live their lives.  :Doh:  
If you're that upset, you're gonna bust a nut when you see how Al Gore and other cult preachers live their lives.  And you defend these hypocritical cultists.   

> No,I want him to preserve energy instead of thinking that it´s alright because energy is so cheap.
> Could you explain to me now,what is wrong about that?

  I'd love to explain it to you, but not now, because explaining the concept of ignorant totalitarianism takes time.  I'll try to free up some time this weekend and spell it out for you. 
For some homework in the interim, find your nearest outlaw motor cycle gang headquarters and at their next meeting, let all the air out of their tyres and explain to them how it's saving them WASTING energy by riding those big noisy motor bikes.  They'll take care of the other nut for you.  :Biggrin:    

> Could you please answer me,how you want to change peoples behaviour without increasing energy costs?You logic is:

  
I don't want to change peoples behaviour.  What do you think I am, a communist?  :No:  
I prefer to educate and empower people and then they can do whatever the hell they want with their behaviour.  Oi, Oi, Oi.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Good luck with that, the poster is seemingly incapable of explaining anything, all you get is *half baked* inaccurate quotes, logic doesn't exist.

  If I baked them all the way through, that would use too much energy!  You wouldn't want me to waste the stuff now, would ya?  :Biggrin:    

> It is hard to believe that people are so stupid that they can't see the benefits of lowering household expenditure and maintaining a more pleasant home to live in.

  If you use the correct financial structures, increasing your household expenditure can be very beneficial from a taxation perspective, and then it can get to be a very, very pleasant home to live in:     

> His serious aviation habit means he is hardly the best person to lecture others on the environment. But John Travolta went ahead and did it anyway.  
>  The 53-year-old actor, a passionate pilot, encouraged his fans to "do their bit" to tackle global warming. 
> Read more: With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming | Mail Online

  It is hard to believe that people are so stupid, they live in these houses.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You know...there are times when I'd like to think that actually voting for the Liberal/Nationals might be of practical benefit...it might actually contribute to the demise of this thread, for instance.

  Yeh, do it, then I can get my nights and weekends back to finish my clean green energy research instead of posting here.  I just need about 2 weeks free to finalise my cold fusion work, then we'll all have clean cheap energy.  Pretty ironic huh, the AGW fiasco is keeping me from finishing this important work.  :Biggrin:    

> But then that'd be like voting for the Fun Police and I wouldn't be getting even a tenth of the giggles that I do now. I mean...you guys pooped gold over the weekend...that was better read than the script to *Lara Bingle's Masterchef Shire!!!*

  I think I texted votes for that show last week.  Do you know who got voted off?  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

> You can´t heat against -40°C with one tiny little wooden stove.

  
Oh, the irony of Global Warming advocates, it hurts.  :Smilie:  
Maybe you could breathe out more, apparently Carbon Dioxide works a treat!  :Roflmao2:

----------


## Paternoster

> Oh, the irony of Global Warming advocates, it hurts.  
> Maybe you could breathe out more, apparently Carbon Dioxide works a treat!

  Canada is suppose to be that cold in the winter,if it would be warm here,it would be a catastrophe!Ever heard of the dust bowl?Look it up,learn for a change!
Are you that numb?
You didn´t answer my question either....typical short viewed conservative with a horizon equal to the Catholic church....in 1490 (the world is flat!).
People like you are simple  :No:  ,George W. is probably very proud of you....

----------


## shauck

> ....You assume that using energy is bad because you assume that CO2 is bad. Yet CO2 is good. 
> "WASTING" is an appeal to emotions yet since CO2 is good, all your nincompoop moral is irrelevant.

  Every time someone says something relevant you c**p on about CO2. He was not talking about CO2. He was talking about wasting finite resources in an ever growing population with ever growing use of these resources. All he is saying is not to waste it. Maybe it sould be simpler to explain it like this. Would you leave your front door open and all the windows open and the airconditioner turned on while you crank up the gas heater, throw 5 logs on the open fire (renewable, to an extent) and turn on the gas kitchen hotplate and electric oven just to get a nice temperature? Oh and sit around in your undies drinking iced water? If you answer no, you are in agreeance to some extent. If you answer yes...well....   :Doh:  
Keep all the political arguments. Common sense is the only argument.  
Back to the other subforums, where I can learn something useful.

----------


## woodbe

> What a crock.  The Labor govt in Queensland were inept on so many levels (thankfully removed now) that I don't have time to list all their incompetence.  Bottom line is, if you were an insurer or re-insurer, how would you rate their risk?  How many times during this thread have I advise against building anything on a flood plain?  Beatty and [S]BigLie[/S] Bligh were so risky, the premiums would naturally be huge.  Check out page 49 of this report:  http://www.apcoaust.com.au/2012/pres...eve_Jacoby.pdf 
> It notes that 65% of Qld planning schemes do not contain ANY flood mapping.  
> But in spite of their ineptitude, they were still offered insurance, they just refused to pay for it because they couldn't afford it through incompetence and financial mismanagement:

  The insurance they were offered was for a tiny proportion of the eventual damage! 
Apparently, the quote I pasted from your favorite information source (the media) is a little too hard to understand.   

> *Of the $6 billion worth of damage in the disasters, all but $50 million of that involved roads and bridges.*

  Of the $6bn damage bill from last year's disaster only 50 Million was for the type of infrastructure that can be insured in that state. Sure, they could have insured that $50m for a huge premium (like they have now) that may or may not be changed if more of the infrastructure was above flood levels, but that is not the point. The point is, the rest of the $6bn was for road infrastructure all over Queensland that is simply not insurable (and if it was, the premium would probably be $6bn) It may have escaped your attention Doc, but most of the roads in Qld were not installed or planned by Beatty or Bligh - they just get to maintain them. Even so, I challenge you to design an equivalent road infrastructure that would be immune to flooding or in any way staying off floodplains. 
Even better, can you describe how it is possible to build a bridge over a river whilst staying away from flood plains?  :Doh:  
Do get back to us when you can show evidence that Campbell Newman has managed to insure the Qld road infrastructure for $6bn. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> And I love your ubiquitous term "climate science".  Do you include the failed temperature predictions (yes, predictions this time) from James Hansen above in your ubiquitous "climate science"?  Do you include the stagnating Accumulated Cyclone Energy measurements posted above in your ubiquitous "climate science"?  Or do you mean just the cherry-picked bits, not "the inconvenient truth".

  Good point. Allow me to explain. When I say Climate Science, I'm talking about the results of scientific investigation into the Climate. It's a very large and growing body of work, published and peer reviewed. Despite your assertions that if one prediction out of many made twenty years ago turns out not to be correct, the state of understanding is continually updated and becoming more comprehensive as the body of work grows. 
And just to be clear, the IPCC report is a report about the science and other aspects of global warming complied for governments. While it is a very useful reference (especially Ch1), it is not the actual published science I am referring to when I mention 'climate science' 
Anyone actually interested in understanding how we got to our current level of knowledge of humankind's effect on the climate, (that's not you Doc  :Tongue: ) would be interested to read this:  The Discovery of Global Warming - A History 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Anyone actually interested in understanding how we got to our current level of knowledge of humankind's effect on the climate, would be interested to read this:  The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

  That's quite nifty even if I do tend to despise hypertext!   
I wonder if anyone is game to write the essential primer to the history of the political, policy and sociological response to climate change research to date.  Personally, I would find that to be truly fascinating. 
Knowledge is a funny thing, eh?

----------


## Marc

> "Wasting" energy is bad.Energy is one of the most valuable commodities we have and there is such a thing like wasting it and it has nothing to do with the Spanish Inquisition.
> It doesn´t even has so much to do with moral obligation but responsibility towards the society you live in.If everybody pigs at their own discretion,than you would probably call it "freedom"...I call that the "dictatorship of the pigs" ....and other irrelevant C#@P...

  
That's the thing see. You are so engrossed in your totalitarian view of the world, in your high moral grand standing, in your delusion that you can not see in front of your own nose. 
Who decides what is "waste" and what is prudent? You? 
I am afraid that such path was beaten before you by each and ever dictator the world has known. There has always been someone who knew better what is good for me and wants to impose it by force. 
The moral grand standing of the church is well know and has given us millennia of misery and depravity. The arrogance and abuse of the communist regime that know better what is good for me, have murdered millions and turned prosperous countries into poverty pits. 
The communist disguised as enviro-crap, have now turned to a pretend altruism by attempting to impose by force the "solution" to an imaginary problem that does not exist, the "emissions" of CO2. In the process, lets confuse the issue by mixing it with shortage of fossil fuels, and particulate emissions and some emotional garbage like the polar bears and the 9 meters sea level rise that will happen the day after tomorrow, and throw in the plastic bags for good measure. Lobby against nuclear energy, march against the constructions of dams and you have the perfect recipe for the most schizophrenic message ever uttered. Humans are the weed to be extirpated from the planet. Lock humans out of everything, take away their energy sources let them go back to the caves to eat raw meat. 
I have news for you. Humanity will progress on the back of ever increasing energy usage. The real pollutants will be addressed in time and the imaginary pollution by CO2 exposed for the fraud it is. The "green" (communist) movement will be relegated to the lunatic fringe it belongs and far larger and better challenges will be found to be explored and achieved. 
None of the great achievements of man kind, none were ever "sustainable" (I really hate that word) 
Sustainability equates to mediocrity, misery, poverty, shallowness.
You be "sustainable". 
Everything I do is not and will never be, and I am proud of it.

----------


## Paternoster

> That's the thing see. You are so engrossed in your totalitarian view of  the world, in your high moral grand standing, in your delusion that you  can not see in front of your own nose. 
> Who decides what is "waste" and what is prudent? You? 
> I am afraid that such path was beaten before you by each and ever  dictator the world has known. There has always been someone who knew  better what is good for me and wants to impose it by force.

  OK,YOU are engrossed with your totalitarian view,that you should be allowed to do WHAT EVER you please to do.A society doesn´t work on the base of unlimited individual freedom,that is called egoism and it tends to DESTROY societies....it´s called degeneration and has claimed a number of States (most popular one was ancient Rome).
I give you an example,very simple,extra for you:You want to hear music very loud at night time in your backyard...what happens if you do?Well,you could say now that a dictatorship society is trying to limit your personal rights...
America is out of control due to it´s people demanding what they belief is their "God given right".Haven´t you heard of the latest shooting in Colorado?
I am not a Communist and I do belief that you and your like don´t even know what a Communist is btw.You´ve got the idea that a society is there for you alone and that it should allow you to do what ever you want....someone like you is called an Anarchists and I don´t belief that your kind is the answer to our problems.
Humankind is facing immense problems:we have a world population that has never been that big before (and that grows even faster now) and an energy demand that is exploding.
In your blindness,you say:who decides what waste is?
It´s definitely not me,but that you actually not even accept your government as your ruling authority....what I say,you are an anarchist and your kind has never done any good (causing the first world war for example).If governments ignore the fact of this energy crisis,it looks than like the US.
I ask you again:do you want to end up like them?

----------


## Paternoster

> I have news for you. Humanity will progress on the back of ever increasing energy usage.

  
Food for thought here,mate:Australia was discovered by an empire which relied on wind power...Cook didn´t have a Diesel engine at his disposal  :Biggrin: 
Oh,and before I forget:the overall energy use might increase,but due to efficiency improvement and that is directly related to governments,introducing policies regarding energy conservation,we have machines today that run way cleaner and efficient than 50 years ago.
Otherwise:look again to the US:as I stated (and again,you ignored that) their steel sector was hit hard due to their inefficiency which was caused by a government who found it it´s duty to keep the mirage of never ending cheap energy upright...good job  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Food for thought here,mate:Australia was discovered by an empire which relied on wind power...Cook didn´t have a Diesel engine at his disposal 
> Oh,and before I forget:the overall energy use might increase,but due to efficiency improvement and that is directly related to governments,introducing policies regarding energy conservation,we have machines today that run way cleaner and efficient than 50 years ago.
> Otherwise:look again to the US:as I stated (and again,you ignored that) their steel sector was hit hard due to their inefficiency which was caused by a government who found it it´s duty to keep the mirage of never ending cheap energy upright...good job

   Well Paternoster,  I can only feel sorry for you.  How scared you must be.  I beleive you are genuinely terrified of AGW. 
There are many out there like you, that completely believe all the horror stories that can be conjured up by warmists.  You must live in fear.  This is really bad, and sad.  I know you are not a communist, although the controls over peoples lives you would like to see introduced, sure are communits traits. So I can understand others thinking you are a communist.  
The communist is more likely to be one that knows that AGW is a load of crap but still uses it to instill fear into others (a bit like yourself), to achieve their goals.  Those that genuinly believe in this fear are victims, that we should feel sorry for.   
AGW didn't start out as a political football but it sure has ended up that way. 
It is going to take years of failed predictions for some to lose this fear, for some it will be never.  So we just have to get used it.   
Good luck with it in the future, I hope you can find your way out of this.

----------


## johnc

> Well Paternoster, I can only feel sorry for you. How scared you must be. I beleive you are genuinely terrified of AGW. 
> There are many out there like you, that completely believe all the horror stories that can be conjured up by warmists. You must live in fear. This is really bad, and sad. I know you are not a communist, although the controls over peoples lives you would like to see introduced, sure are communits traits. So I can understand others thinking you are a communist.  
> The communist is more likely to be one that knows that AGW is a load of crap but still uses it to instill fear into others (a bit like yourself), to achieve their goals. Those that genuinly believe in this fear are victims, that we should feel sorry for.  
> AGW didn't start out as a political football but it sure has ended up that way. 
> It is going to take years of failed predictions for some to lose this fear, for some it will be never. So we just have to get used it.  
> Good luck with it in the future, I hope you can find your way out of this.

  
The trouble with the above is that Paternoster is actually saying that what we need are productivity gains and you can't see it, that is what it is about, to delve communist out of this means you can't distinguish between change that improves competitiveness and change because you simply don't like change. We will become more efficient in our power use as technology improves because that is what free markets do to retain profitability against competitors, what climate change is about is increasing the pace of that change if possible and being mindfull of the source of power. Sitting on your bum pretending nothing is happening and doing things the same way forever is more the way of the communist, you apply the brand to the wrong group. 
The argument that Marc runs that he just uses as much power as he wants is simply the sign of someone who would rather waste money than spend wisely, you can't help stupid people they are the ones who end up with nothing more than an empty purse and a backpack of hurt and prejudice. Although I do remain amused that he thinks a person can be a fascist and a communist at the same time.  
Really you either embrace change in business or you go the way of the dinosaur, those who don't strive to improve efficiency and productivity are destined to be the business failures of the future.

----------


## woodbe

> Well Paternoster,  I can only feel sorry for you.  How scared you must be.  I beleive you are genuinely terrified of AGW.[...]

  What a load of patronising BS. 
woodbe.

----------


## Paternoster

> what climate change is about is increasing the pace of that change if  possible and being mindfull of the source of power. Sitting on your bum  pretending nothing is happening and doing things the same way forever is  more the way of the communist

  
Well said!
What I really don´t like (and found here,in North America, more than enough) is a one sided view of things....either "evil" or "good" ( a typical American ailment,leading to a series of world wide noticed mistakes,leaving Americas reputation tinted for forever).
One has to understand that with freedom comes responsibility which contains "lack of freedom" (this doesn´t sound half as good as it does in German,I apologize for my limited language ability and hope you can understand the basic message).
EVERYTHING in life is rotating about balance and I have to admit that I admire the Chinese and their philosophy of "Yin and Yang".Anyways,we have been spoiled by a political and economic stable phase of roughly 60 years (and I know,there were a few economic crises,wars and so) and we lived quite comfortably in a "Western society club"lead by the US and joined by every nation in the West.
This time has passed...this is a new era and there is nothing,we can do to prevent it from happening...sorry for those,who can´t wrap their mind around that.
Communism has failed,but "predator Capitalism" (as we call the capitalism US-style) has failed as well.No more "American dream",we have to find something more sustainable...mass producing goods with slave labour under use of massive cheap energy is not the future we should want,as it comes with a serious erosion of the very base of the capitalist idea:the customer and the source for cheap energy.
Energy responsibility is close connected to that and governments can´t ignore that.If they introduce legislation allowing to "dream the dream of the ignorant",than they are guilty of breaking the very society they are sworn to protect...ruthless people like Bush,Cheney and consorts have given proof HOW devastating a 1980 politic in our modern time can be.
The  Bush era was the "Fukushima"of that ideology.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Humanity will progress on the back of ever increasing energy usage. 
> None of the great achievements of man kind, none were ever "sustainable" (I really hate that word)  
> Sustainability equates to mediocrity, misery, poverty, shallowness.

  Two wins and a fail.  Your first two statements were spot on.  And I too am not a fan of the word 'sustainable', especially in the human context because it is a concept, an idea but not a truth. In fact, it is almost impossible. Simply because nothing comes without cost.  
As for your last statement...false.  The idea of sustainability has actually contributed spectacularly to the feats of humanity in the last thirty years.  Cheaper food, cheaper energy, cheaper production, greater connectivity....and technical and technology developments that make the leap from the horse and cart to the automobile seem like a small step.  Hells bells! We can get into space for a third of the price we could do it for a few years back!  The idea of sustainability has contributed intrinsically to the actuality of 'efficiency'.  Producing more with the same (or even less) input.  That's what the original green revolution was about - same area of land, better fertilisers, better varieties and BLAMMO! more food.  If that sounds like mediocrity, misery, poverty, shallowness to you then you really do have a problem.  It fairly shouts "fecking brilliant" to me!!! 
You go ahead and consume however much you like in the knowledge that you actually contributing to keeping the idea of sustainability alive because your consumption (and that of your human brethren) is driving improvement in efficiency through sustainable thinking.    
The World is what we in the business call a constrained system - it has no additional resources apart from what we carry inside the bubble.  The only external input is energy from sunlight and the odd meteorite - everything else is recycled.  Problem is that humans have only limited access to those resources so making efficient use of them is the only way to keep growing the human population...and if you want to hoover up the resources to satisfy your own needs then the only way forward for everyone else is to be efficient...even frugal....dare I say....'sustainable'?

----------


## Marc

> The World is what we in the business call a constrained system - it has no additional resources apart from what we carry inside the bubble.  The only external input is energy from sunlight and the odd meteorite - everything else is recycled.  Problem is that humans have only limited access to those resources so making efficient use of them is the only way to keep growing the human population...and if you want to hoover up the resources to satisfy your own needs then the only way forward for everyone else is to be efficient...even frugal....dare I say....'sustainable'?

  You are correct, however the energy intake from the sun is massive and creates, thanks to CO2 that allows the process of photosynthesis, billions of tons of biomass. Isn't it strange that the nincompoop want to outlaw the only gas that makes it possible for our system not to be a close system?
Also the access to resources changes with technology changes and the idea that whoever consumes "more" does so at the expense of others is a rather tired socio-political scare crow waved around by religions, lefties and assorted do gooders in turn 
It is true that some innovation have come as a result of need, not to be sustainable but to be innovative. Yet the big events in human history be it in the arts, science, exploration or sport have nothing at all to do with sustainability and everything to do with ambitions and core values.
Clearly none of the monuments we admire today, the dams, canals, works of art, music literature of sport, are "sustainable". In fact if they were bloody sustainable they would be crap and you and me could make them over and over or the Chinese copy them for even less.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You are correct, however the energy intake from the sun is massive and creates, thanks to CO2 that allows the process of photosynthesis, billions of tons of biomass. Isn't it strange that the nincompoop want to outlaw the only gas that makes it possible for our system not to be a close system?

  
Sorry, Old Son.  The energy from the Sun creates absolutely nothing.  Nor does it make our Earth anything more than a closed system.  Energy merely transforms matter from one form to another.  It doesn't make more of it.  This why you fail.  
And I am sad for your loss.  :No:

----------


## Paternoster

> an imaginary problem that does not exist, the "emissions" of CO2

  One thing I have to add here:if your CO2 is such a good thing,how come that the great smog of London,England of 1952 claimed the lives of 12000 people,making 100000 more sick?
I mean,you try to tell us here that adding CO2 is such a good thing,while we HAVE already the effects of it in front of our eyes in places like LA,Mexico City etc,where it has horrible consequences (have you ever seen the number of smog related health issues in LA?)  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070501081737.htm 
We see (or in your case deny) those problems and see,that those places are a small scale model of a world,drowned in CO2.THIS is what is going to happen.So,your friend the CO2 is a killer...or would you move to any of those cities?   

> The increased particle pollution in the East is a particularly troubling  trend, because exposure to particle pollution can not only take years  off your life, it can  threaten your life immediately, said Terri E.  Weaver, PhD, RN, American Lung Association Chair. Even in many areas  EPA currently considers safe, the science clearly shows that the air is  too often dangerous to breathe, particularly for those with lung  disease.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Paternoster....CO2 has nothing much at all to do with smog events like the London one or even the modern photochemical smogs.  The source is typically the same (combustion of timber and/or fossil fuels) but they are two vastly different by-products. 
CO2 in the atmosphere is a gas...not a particle.   Particulate pollution is lethal to humans at far lower concentrations in the air than CO2 will ever likely be....

----------


## Paternoster

> Paternoster....CO2 has nothing much at all to do with smog events like the London one or even the modern photochemical smogs.  The source is typically the same (combustion of timber and/or fossil fuels) but they are two vastly different by-products. 
> CO2 in the atmosphere is a gas...not a particle.   Particulate pollution is lethal to humans at far lower concentrations in the air than CO2 will ever likely be....

  OK,here it goes...CO2 is (of course) not the only ingredient that played a vital role in those events...London,as well as LA show a topography which benefits the building of smog ("kettle" topography,enclosed on three sides).CO2 contributes to the heat build up,allowing  UV rays to split NO2 into NO and Oxygen.Oxygen reacts than with the  O2 of the air,creating O3 (ozone) which (if not in the stratosphere) is a very dangerous gas,damaging lung tissue permanently.
Further,we have H2SO3 and H2SO4,which attacks again,lungs and eyes as well as damages buildings and plants.
LA is a small scale model of what happens when this development isn´t tackled.London on the other hand is an example of how modern technology and a responsible use of technology can solve such a problem permanently.And yes,it was achieved with legislation like the clean air act.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> OK,here it goes...CO2 is (of course) not the only ingredient that played a vital role in those events...London,as well as LA show a topography which benefits the building of smog ("kettle" topography,enclosed on three sides).CO2 contributes to the heat build up,allowing  UV rays to split NO2 into NO and Oxygen.Oxygen reacts than with the  O2 of the air,creating O3 (ozone) which (if not in the stratosphere) is a very dangerous gas,damaging lung tissue permanently.
> Further,we have H2SO3 and H2SO4,which attacks again,lungs and eyes as well as damages buildings and plants.
> LA is a small scale model of what happens when this development isn´t tackled.London on the other hand is an example of how modern technology and a responsible use of technology can solve such a problem permanently.And yes,it was achieved with legislation like the clean air act.

  
Herein lies the problem S&D  Nothing more need to be said :Biggrin:

----------


## Paternoster

> Herein lies the problem S&D  Nothing more need to be said

  Could you translate that for me please?
Or I start posting in German  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Could you translate that for me please?
> Or I start posting in German

  The problem is combining particulate pollution with CO2.  They are 2 different issues. 
No one will argue the need to reduce particulate pollution.

----------


## Paternoster

> The problem is combining particulate pollution with CO2.  They are 2 different issues. 
> No one will argue the need to reduce particulate pollution.

   No,that´s not what I ws after.Naturally,the air contains 0.04% CO2 and yes,it is necessary for life (as we know it) on earth.Together with ozone and Methane it creates the "natural" global warming,without life on earth would probably look a bit different (constant temperatures of -15 to -25°C ).So,we KNOW for a fact that effect that CO2 has on our global climate.We know that the more CO" is produced,the greater is it´s impact on the climate and we see that very impact in places like LA.
Particulate pollution (even though I wasn´t really after that one) is a "by product" that is at least visible and therefor way more recognized,no doubt,but for as far emission go and their far reaching devastating impact on climate change,it´s CO2.
Every system,which is closed like the earth´s system,is somewhat fragile and vulnerable to imbalance.
We have CO2 and it is necessary,but the added CO2 has a completely different impact and the depletion of forests,a necessity to feed an ever growing world population,since forests  have very little resources to feed a larger population (gathering and hunting haven´t produced any major civilization yet) have the effect of us destroying the earth ability to take in CO2.
Honestly,it is very simple and makes sense and most scientists (except those employed by fossil energy producers or the republican party in the US) agree that that is the problem.
Here,in Saskatchewan,people are cheering about their oil boom...what they don´t understand is,that the boom here is a very bad sign: oil production has always been highly unprofitable here,the oil is too deep,hard to drill and needs quite an elaborate amount of high priced equipment.Only thing worst is the tar sands in the north,where you put extreme amounts of energy in,to get some out,with a huge impact on the environment,basically poisoning every river in Western Canada.
This boom is a sign of peak oil:world demand is slightly higher than production....and we have a world economic crisis,energy should be extreme cheap.
I know,there is a lot of speculation in the oil market,no doubt,but even if this is taking into consideration (speculation in oil isn´t since "yesterday"),we have a situation comparable with a train wreck ready to happen.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Herein lies the problem S&D  Nothing more need to be said

  Not the first person...not the last either.  We are all guilty of the same crime at some point so don't go getting too smug, Rod! :Sneaktongue:  
Paternoster...with all due respect...you are overreaching the significance of CO2 with respect to smogs and the like.   That's what Rod and I are gasbabbling about... :Wink 1:  
Your atmospheric chemistry understanding isn't bad but the role that you suggest that CO2 plays in smogs and hazes is, like Freud's earlier rhetoric, highly overstated.   
CO2 does little or nothing with respect to enhancing the production of ozone at ground level from nitrous oxide or any other effluent gas.  It is just another effluent gas released from the burning of fossil fuels...nothing more.

----------


## Paternoster

> Not the first person...not the last either.  We are all guilty of the  same crime at some point so don't go getting too smug, Rod!

  
OK,since I can´t make sense of this "S&D" abbreviation,but I can interpret your statement here,I take it that it was at least impolite of Rod.Not very nice,honestly.
@Rod:all that´s need to be said regarding you is Hohlroller  :Biggrin:  
@SbD:It´s not me "overreaching" the significance of CO2...it´s nearly every climate scientist in the world!CO2 has proven to act as isolator,letting sun pass through but deflects it back to the surface,acting as blanket.
We have the example of man made "small scale global warming" right in front of our eyes,as I said.Do you know where ozone is used?In water (and in Germany) and waste water treatment plants to kill bacteria and oxidase pretty much everything in the water (iron for instance and medical residue in waste water).It is extremely harmful if inhaled or even brought into contact with mucous membranes.This gas is created when heat is trapped and enough to split Nitrogen dioxide which is an air pollution as well.
One thing,you doubters have to learn,is to see the whole picture..there is not one single "bad guy".We are dealing with a very complex system and I doubt that is has been fully understood yet.

----------


## woodbe

> That's quite nifty even if I do tend to despise hypertext!   
> I wonder if anyone is game to write the essential primer to the history of the political, policy and sociological response to climate change research to date.  Personally, I would find that to be truly fascinating. 
> Knowledge is a funny thing, eh?

  Sorry SBD, missed your response... 
Yes it is pretty neat. 
Well, there is a primer on a good bit of that history in Merchants of Doubt. Judging by the response from the usual suspects, it appears to be bang on.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Not the first person...not the last either.  We are all guilty of the same crime at some point so don't go getting too smug, Rod!

  Sheez one of few times we actually agree on something and you say I'm being smug!! :Doh:  
But you are right many people confuse the separate issue. 
I for one am all for spending money and research on getting rid of the real culprit.  Just image what the world could be like if all the funding spent on chasing the boogey man (CO2) were spent on reducing the real pollutants.

----------


## watson

Rod did a typo..........S&D instead of SBD........
Move on please.......Nothing to see here.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod did a typo..........S&D instead of SBD........
> Move on please.......Nothing to see here.

  opps i did to sorry :Blush7:

----------


## Marc

> ....  The energy from the Sun creates absolutely nothing.  Nor does it make our Earth anything more than a closed system.  Energy merely transforms matter from one form to another.  It doesn't make more of it.  This why you fail....

   Academic. 
Biomass is created or if you prefer transformed from inorganic to organic thanks to the presence of two things. Sunlight and CO2. Without either there would be no biomass or rather there would be no life period.
CO2 is the building block of life, since is the only element that can be used in the presence of sun light to combine water and CO2 into glucose and to produce O2 in the process to replace what we burn.
 We are carbon based organism and so are all the rest of the organism short of the arsenic based bullsh#t "found" by NASA. No organism could exist without CO2.  
And today we must listen to a tribe of grass smoking vegetarian who pontificate on the "dangers" of CO2.  
As for my comment on the contribution from the Sun energy, Since Einstein and later Quantum Physics, it is accepted that energy contributes to mass. Since we don't even know what light is, wave or particle or both nor what matter is, wave or particle or both, my comment is perhaps debatable yet certainly not in this forum.

----------


## Marc

> One thing I have to add here:if your CO2 is such a good thing,how come that the great smog of London,England of 1952 claimed the lives of 12000 people,making 100000 more sick?
> I mean,you try to tell us here that adding CO2 is such a good thing,while we HAVE already the effects of it in front of our eyes in places like LA,Mexico City etc,where it has horrible consequences (have you ever seen the number of smog related health issues in LA?)  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070501081737.htm 
> We see (or in your case deny) those problems and see,that those places are a small scale model of a world,drowned in CO2.THIS is what is going to happen.So,your friend the CO2 is a killer...or would you move to any of those cities?

   
The World drowned in CO2. Choke...Coff Coff, splut puaj Aaaaaj :Cry:  
Is it possible to produce a more misleading, emotionally charged and abhorrently irrational couple of sentences in one stroke?
I doubt it. 
I sleep the sleep of the just in the knowledge that the CO2 I produce, is free of at least very low in particulates and goes to produce biomass and oxygen for my fellow humans, including those who think otherwise, who I know will soon be out of fashion and piously forgotten. :Blush7:

----------


## Marc

SBD = Sun Baked Devonshire, a nice color for a very nice furniture

----------


## Marc

> *Climate in northern Europe reconstructed for the  past 2,000 years: Cooling trend calculated precisely for the first time*  *Calculations prepared by Mainz scientists will  also influence the way current climate change is perceived / Publication  of results in Nature Climate Change* 
>                                                09.07.2012                      
> An international team including scientists from  Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) has published a  reconstruction of the climate in northern Europe over the last 2,000  years based on the information provided by tree-rings.  
> Professor Dr. Jan  Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring  density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish  Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so  doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely  demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has  been towards climatic cooling. "We found that previous estimates of  historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were  too low," says Esper. "Such findings are also significant with regard to  climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes  are seen in context of historical warm periods."  
> The new study has been  published in the journal _Nature Climate Change_.                                               Was the climate during Roman and Medieval times  warmer than today? And why are these earlier warm periods important when  assessing the global climate changes we are experiencing today? The  discipline of paleoclimatology attempts to answer such questions.  Scientists analyze indirect evidence of climate variability, such as ice  cores and ocean sediments, and so reconstruct the climate of the past.  The annual growth rings in trees are the most important witnesses over  the past 1,000 to 2,000 years as they indicate how warm and cool past  climate conditions were.                      
>                                                Researchers from Germany, Finland, Scotland, and  Switzerland examined tree-ring density profiles in trees from Finnish  Lapland. In this cold environment, trees often collapse into one of the  numerous lakes, where they remain well preserved for thousands of years.                       
> The international research team used these  density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees in northern Scandinavia  to create a sequence reaching back to 138 BC. The density measurements  correlate closely with the summer temperatures in this area on the edge  of the Nordic taiga. The researchers were thus able to create a  temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality. The reconstruction  provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the  Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that  occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age.                       
> In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new  climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this  form. For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data  derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term  cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. Their  findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per  millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an  increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.                       
> "This figure we calculated may not seem  particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not  negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been  less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate  reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past  few millennia."

  In other words, they changed the data to fool us into believing it is getting warmer when in fact the trend is cooler, REGARDLESS of the blessed CO2 variations.
Oh! ... and this comes from Germany, not the US.
Kartoffeln!

----------


## Paternoster

> I sleep the sleep of the just in the knowledge that the CO2 I produce,  is free of at least very low in particulates and goes to produce biomass  and oxygen for my fellow humans, including those who think otherwise,  who I know will soon be out of fashion and piously forgotten.

  
Why can´t you understand (as most climate change deniers) that there is a difference between "closed loop" and added CO2?Is it really so hard to understand (or read for that matter),that fossil CO2 is added as extra to the atmosphere?
I STATED that CO2 isn´t (in it´s original concentration) a problem but rather a blessing,making life possible...but ever added amounts of CO2,that weren´t in the system before PLUS a depletion in forests (or do you doubt that one too?ever heard of the depletion of the rain forests?).
And all you pick is the particle pollution,which I have to admit,I had to say more clearly from the start,I wasn´t after.LA has a ground ozone problem,the particle pollution is just the icing on the cake

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> SBD = Sun Baked Devonshire, a nice color for a very nice furniture

  Perfect tone for scones too.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Sheez one of few times we actually agree on something and you say I'm being smug!! 
> But you are right many people confuse the separate issue. 
> I for one am all for spending money and research on getting rid of the real culprit.  Just image what the world could be like if all the funding spent on chasing the boogey man (CO2) were spent on reducing the real pollutants.

  Of course!  I can't be smug on my own now can I? 
If the human world spent its riches on things that were actually good for it then it would indeed be a very different place...fortunately it doesn't because then it wouldn't be one tenth as interesting. 
The irony of what you call the CO2 'bogeyman' is that the chase has lead/is leading to all sorts of other benefits in terms of pollution control.  And if the money was turned instead to focus on those other pollutants then the CO2 bogeyman would still get a hammering anyway...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> In other words, they changed the data to fool us into believing it is getting warmer when in fact the trend is cooler, REGARDLESS of the blessed CO2 variations.
> Oh! ... and this comes from Germany, not the US.
> Kartoffeln!

  Who is this they of which you speak?  Ze Germans? 
I've seen this paper and some of the scientific commentary surrounding it.  My observation of it is similar to many other curious souls.   
To whit... 'Great.  They've demonstrated that there has been a cooling trend in the last two thousand years.  Fabulous.  So what happened to it given the warming trend over the last couple of centuries?  Is this yet another natural climate behaviour we've killed because of CO2 emissions?' 
The consensus of what I've read seems to be 'probably'. 
Oh incidentally, the last I heard...Hansen disagrees with the paper.  Does that make it any better?

----------


## johnc

Of recent interest is this change of heart by Richard A Muller, he has been quoted here by those who have used his observations and works to justify the view that climate change doesn't exist. Yet he is clearly stating that from his research it does.  *Climate-change denier changes mind*Neela Banerjee, AAP July 30, 2012, 10:57 am    tweetEmailPrint     
The verdict is in: Global warming is real and greenhouse-gas emissions from human activity are the main cause.
This, according to Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkely, a MacArthur fellow and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other climatologists around the world came to such conclusions years ago, but the difference now is the source: Muller is a long-standing, colourful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.
In an opinion piece in Saturday's New York Times titled The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic, Muller writes: "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
The Berkeley project's research has shown, Muller says, "that the average temperature of the earth's land has risen by 2 degrees Fahrenheit (-17 Celsius) over the past 250 years, including an increase of 1 degrees Fahrenheit over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases."
He calls his current stance "a total turnaround."
Tonya Mullins, a spokeswoman for the Koch Foundation, said the support her foundation provided, along with others, has no bearing on results of the research.
"Our grants are designed to promote independent research; as such, recipients hold full control over their findings," Mullins said in an email. "In this support, we strive to benefit society by promoting discovery and informing public policy."
Some leading climate scientists said Muller's comments show that the science is so strong that even those inclined to reject it cannot once they examine it carefully.

----------


## Marc

From California?
The guy likes the spotlight 
"in cresta all'onda" 
Look at me look at meee!!!

----------


## Rod Dyson

Don't jump the gun on "best" project.  

> *PRESS RELEASE  U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.*

  *  * Better do some reading  Watts Up With That? | The world&#039;s most viewed site on global warming and climate change

----------


## Marc

Richard Muller pretended to be a skeptic and now pretends to have turned around.
Like most "scientist" he is there for himself and the money and for himself. Did I mention himself?.
  Posted on July 29, 2012 by Steven Hayward in Climate  *Mulling Over Muller* The  climateers are making a big deal out of Berkeley physicist Richard  Mullers supposed conversion to a climate alarmism in todays _New York Times,_ The Conversion of a Climate Change Skeptic: CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified  problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on  the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive  research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global  warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming  were correct. Im now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely  the cause.Richard Muller 
 The climateers are especially having fun with what Muller calls my total turnaround because Mullers Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was partially funded by the (twirl evil mustache here) _Koch Brothers!_   (Cue evil organ music, too, just to be safe.)  Hmm, maybe the Kochs are  actually interested in good science after all, and perhaps their  critics might want to give some benefit of the doubt to other  Koch-supported research projects?  Yeah, rightthatll happen.  (Or  maybe this is part of a truly diabolical Koch plot of discredit climate  alarmism from within?  Has _that_ possibility occurred to the Left?  I can hear the heads starting to explode now.)
 But back to Muller.  His BEST was primarily about seeing whether the  defects of the disputed modern temperature record could be resolved, and  as I expected from the outset, his results basically confirmed the  warming of the last 150 years or so.  In other words, Muller has  confirmed what almost no one disputes.  Part of the controversy over the  temperature record was the lack of transparency on the part of the  climate science community, which attracted much of Mullers original  criticism.  (Mullers project posts all of its data online, along with  the computer programs used to analyze the data, so it can all be  reviewed and critiqued.)  Muller also discounts the effect of variation  in solar radiation, but appears silent about the theory currently  gaining traction that cosmic radiation has a close correlation with temperature trends.  Stay tuned on this one.
 But just how much of a skeptic was Muller?  Heres the opening from his 2008 interview with Grist.org: Grist: What should a President McCain or Obama know about global warming?
 Muller: The bottom line is that there is a consensus  the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]   and the president needs to know what the IPCC says. Second, they say  that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans.  You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide, and you need to  understand which technologies can reduce this and which cant. Roughly 1  degree Fahrenheit of global warming has taken place; were responsible  for one quarter of it. If we cut back so we dont cause any more, global  warming will be delayed by three years and keep on going up. And now  the developing world is producing most of the carbon dioxide.Sounds pretty close to the consensus party line to me, and as such todays _Times_ op-ed does not represent a fundamentally new position for Muller at all.  (Im wondering whether a _Times_  editor pressured him to use the total turnaround language.)   Actually, Muller has always been among the group of folks known as  lukewarmers, i.e., that warming has taken place, but that serious  doubts remain about the full extent of human causation, and more  importantly, how much more warming can be expected in the future (not  much, says MITs Richard Lindzen, for example), or what should be done  about it if there is more warming ahead: the climateers only  answersuppression of fossil fuels, is idioticfull stopand their  opposition to considering alternatives to fossil fuel suppression  hinders the development of real options (geoengineering, carbon capture,  resilience/adaptation, etc.) for dealing with climate change _from whatever cause_.   (The weakest part of Mullers new piece, by the way, is his discussion  of the potential of future warming, which shouldnt make anyone on any  side of this controversy happy.  But well have to see what additional  findings are released tomorrow.)
 It turns out that the Climateers hate the lukewarmers almost more than climate skeptics, as can be seen from this piece from Clive Hamilton on the ThinkProgress blog: We are familiar with the tactics, arguments, and  personnel of the denial industry. Yet there is a perhaps more insidious  and influential line of argument that is preventing the world from  responding to the warnings of climate science.
 Luke-warmists may be defined as those who appear to accept the body  of climate science but interpret it in a way that is least threatening:  emphasizing uncertainties, playing down dangers, and advocating a slow  and cautious response.Sure enough, Mullers _Times_ op-ed today includes these important breaks with the alarmist line: I still find that much, if not most, of what is  attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain  wrong. Ive analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism  about them hasnt changed.
 Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number  of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up;  likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears arent dying from receding  ice, and the Himalayan glaciers arent going to melt by 2035. And its  possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years  ago, during the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Optimum, an  interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect  evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States  happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so  its link to global warming is weaker than tenuous.Well this rather takes all the fun about of being a climateer, doesnt it?
 UPDATE: The _Times_ own Andy Revkin has a good overview  of Muller that is essential reading.  One notable aspect: Judith Curry  is not impressed.  Stay tuned.  There will be more innings over the next  few days.

----------


## Marc

> Of recent interest is this change of heart by Richard A Muller, he has been quoted here by those who have used his observations and works to justify the view that climate change doesn't exist. Yet he is clearly stating that from his research it does.

  Oh Nooooo, Climate change does exist !!!! We are doomed! burned to a cinder from thunderstorms and drowned by 9 meters sea rises. annihilated by drought and by floods an hurricanes all at the same time, run to the mountains, the climate changes!!!! 
Err, hum. Did anyone _ever_  say that climate DID NOT change?
Don't look at me... :No:  It wasn't me. 
Oh well, its all fun. CO2 rise is good for all species even lefties climate alarmist. We are having the coldest winter ever in Sydney. I can do with a bit of global warming. I have burned one cord of seasoned hard wood and counting. Hopefully all that CO2 I spew in the air through my chimney will go to a good home in the country where it is needed and appreciated.

----------


## Marc

> Who is this they of which you speak?  Ze Germans? 
> I've seen this paper and some of the scientific commentary surrounding it.  My observation of it is similar to many other curious souls.   
> To whit... 'Great.  They've demonstrated that there has been a cooling trend in the last two thousand years.  Fabulous.  So what happened to it given the warming trend over the last couple of centuries?  Is this yet another natural climate behaviour we've killed because of CO2 emissions?' 
> The consensus of what I've read seems to be 'probably'. 
> Oh incidentally, the last I heard...Hansen disagrees with the paper.  Does that make it any better?

  Ha ha Ze Germans...nee, "they" are the nincompoop from the IPCC   

> This figure we calculated may not seem  particularly significant," says  Esper. "However, it is also not  negligible when compared to global  warming, which up to now has been  less than 1°C. Our results suggest  that the large-scale climate  reconstruction shown by the  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  (IPCC) likely underestimate  this long-term cooling trend over the past  few millennia."

   In order to show an upwards trend you can lower the past "ups" and make the current "up" look bigger. A bit like the boss who surrounds himself with intellectual pygmy to seem "bigger" :Biggrin:  A proven strategy

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Ha ha Ze Germans...nee, "they" are the nincompoop from the IPCC

  Which is a little indistinct since the IPCC is a nebulus aggregation of representatives of 195 countries - all appointed by their respective governments.  So it kind of reflects on those Governments and the people that vote for them.....you and me, eh? 
The actual IPCC is just 12 bureaucrats that make up the IPCC Secretariat that runs the show plus another 31 members of the IPCC Bureau (who are akin to a Company Board) who think they run the show.  After that it is general rabble to the bottom.  IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

----------


## Rod Dyson

Where can we get people like this in our government?  Sessions Opening Remarks At Hearing On Global Warming Regulation - YouTube 
Gotta love the response. 97% of blah blah blah  What a joke. 
BTW gone fishing til tuesday!

----------


## Rod Dyson

Then you get this!  Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: IPCC Lead Author Misleads US Congress 
Seriously how do these people expect to gain respect when they mislead like this. 
You may wonder why there are so many people skeptical about what that (LMAO 97%) are saying.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Where can we get people like this in our government?  Sessions Opening Remarks At Hearing On Global Warming Regulation - YouTube 
> Gotta love the response. 97% of blah blah blah  What a joke. 
> BTW gone fishing til tuesday!

   
We've got heaps of them...so don't feel bad about missing out. 
Good luck with the catch...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Then you get this!  Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: IPCC Lead Author Misleads US Congress 
> Seriously how do these people expect to gain respect when they mislead like this. 
> You may wonder why there are so many people skeptical about what that (LMAO 97%) are saying.

  
To err is so wonderfully human...and I agree that this appears to be a wonderful moment of WTF from someone who should know better.   
Mind you...same could be said of many & various utterances from those on the other side of the divide.  Senator Sessions comes to mind for some reason  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Bart

Hi guys andgirls, I havent gone through the 160 odd pages so sorry if this has beenposted but if it hasnt then put away some time and watch this. 
I believe knowledge is power, knowledge and power to the people, we cannot relyon mainstream media to tell us whats going on, they are so biased for Climatecrap, fortunately we have the internet (Which the government here wants tolegislate and the US has already legislated to censor internet). They say forillegal use but suspicions suggest its so we cant discuss what we are discussingright here and other billion dollar f____ ups.
Enjoy
PS great forum.  *Warning..........The youtube video below is over an hour long*...........ADMIN    The great global warming swindle- YouTube

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *Warning..........The youtube video below is over an hour long*...........ADMIN

  And has been shown on the ABC before...perhaps even with a laugh track.  Or perhaps that was the Q&A audience in the forum that followed it.  Either way, mainstream media..... :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Canada is suppose to be that cold in the winter,

  A little bit of Canadian warming will do it the world of good then, eh?   

> if it would be warm here,it would be a catastrophe!

  I think you're trying to explain an assumption.  I think if it was warm there it would just be warm there, no catastrophe.  I think what you're trying to say in a very crude way is that if the temperature in Canada went up by 60 degrees C to create a tolerable 20 degrees C, then you assume the rest of the Planetary temperature goes up the commensurate 60 degrees C, then we'd all better get used to swimming and eating seafood. If you're a dedicated meat eater like myself, this would be a catastrophe.  :Biggrin:    

> Ever heard of the dust bowl?

  Ever heard of the hyperbole?  :Rotfl:    

> Are you that numb?

  Yes, it's freezing over here, and I'm saving the Planet Earth by sitting here in the freezing cold not turning on my heaters, to make the Planet Earth colder.  :Confused:    

> You didn´t answer my question either....

  Oops, my bad, must have missed one, run it by me again...   

> typical short viewed conservative with a horizon equal to the Catholic church....in 1490 (the world is flat!).

  You don't know man, you weren't there.  :Biggrin:    

> People like you are simple  ,George W. is probably very proud of you....

  Yeh, I'm sure he is, so is Albert: 
"Everything should be as _simple_ as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein.  
Flattery will get you everywhere.  :Inlove:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Every time someone says something relevant you c**p on about CO2.

  The Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis posits that Carbon Dioxide is primarily responsible for the measured warming in recent times via positive feedback loops that should result in increasingly higher temperatures that theoretically will not stop, because that's how positive feedback loops work.  Ever heard of "unstoppable global warming"?  Cos that's what they are banging on about. 
This whole con job is about what you're now heavily breathing at your computer screen in agitation. 
So just so you get it, we don't cr@p on about CO2, this farcical cult does by painting it as their evil bogey man. 
We realists know it is wonderful natural stuff just like fresh rainwater, and wouldn't talk about it at all if we weren't lied to about paying a useless tax to stop perfectly natural stuff.  If JULIAR lied to you and asked you to pay a Hydrogen Tax (just in Australia) to reduce global rainfall levels to reduce global flooding based on hydrological modelling, would you be happy to pay it.  Sounds pretty dumb, huh?  You'd have to be a clown to believe a con job like that.  :Doh:    

> He was talking about wasting finite resources in an ever growing population with ever growing use of these resources. All he is saying is not to waste it.

  Thinking like this would have made our ancestors shoot all their horses because they calculated they'd never grow enough hay to feed horses to move 7 billion people and their goods.  God only knows what this thinking would have done with steam engines given they burnt wood and emitted CO2 and water vapour! 
Smart people use current finite resources to leverage into future as yet untapped resources.  Leveraging is not waste, it's smart.  They don't just give up their current resources to appease great big greenie gods.  *If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. * _Isaac Newton _   

> Keep all the political arguments. Common sense is the only argument.

  Do you think a useless tax in Australia mostly fed back in compensation and third world handouts (oops, offsets), will make the Planet Earth colder?  Is that the type of "common sense" that you subscribe to?   

> Back to the other subforums, where I can learn something useful.

  
Here's something useful from our friend above that suits this cult well:  *To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty, & leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of any thing. * _Isaac Newton_

----------


## Dr Freud

> The insurance they were offered was for a tiny proportion of the eventual damage! 
> Apparently, the quote I pasted from your favorite information source (the media) is a little too hard to understand. 
> Of the $6bn damage bill from last year's disaster only 50 Million was for the type of infrastructure that can be insured in that state. Sure, they could have insured that $50m for a huge premium (like they have now) that may or may not be changed if more of the infrastructure was above flood levels, but that is not the point. The point is, the rest of the $6bn was for road infrastructure all over Queensland that is simply not insurable (and if it was, the premium would probably be $6bn) It may have escaped your attention Doc, but most of the roads in Qld were not installed or planned by Beatty or Bligh - they just get to maintain them. Even so, I challenge you to design an equivalent road infrastructure that would be immune to flooding or in any way staying off floodplains. 
> Do get back to us when you can show evidence that Campbell Newman has managed to insure the Qld road infrastructure for $6bn. 
> woodbe.

  Apparently, the quote I pasted from your favorite information source (the me  :Biggrin: ) is a little too hard to understand.   

> A credible government would have presented risk mitigation strategies, planning contingencies and guidelines, and contingency funds as hedges against high premium assets as appropriate. This is not complicated stuff
> Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...#ixzz22UWM9XmU

   
Apparently it is complicated stuff.  :Confused:  
But let me amuse you with an anecdote about my recent time in FNQ.  I was chatting to a road repair crew (of which there were very, very many compared to in WA), and asked this bloke why there were so many of them and so many road repairs underway.  He said that it was due to all the water washing the roads away.  I can personally attest to this having seen all the little waterfalls running over, under and along the roads.  I'm sure they're not that little in the wet season. 
So I ask the bloke why they don't build a new road on the perfectly good ridge line we could see that was very smooth with no runoff to replace the hairpin bends of the old horse trail up the side of the mountain.  It was longer distance wise, but we've got cars now, so a few extra k's is nothing in today's world.  I said surely building this new road once would be cheaper than constantly rebuilding hairpin turns on the side of this mountain.  And he confirmed this repair process was constant, even without floods. 
He replies that they're not allowed to chop down any trees there, so can't build any new roads in that area. 
I nearly fell off the nearby cliff edge laughing.  We were standing in a tropical rainforest that grows faster than JULIAR's debt, so I ask him why don't they just build the new road, then replant trees along the current road, so no net tree loss.  Win win.  He says they literally are not allowed to chop down the trees for any reason.  So by this stage I think the poor blokes been standing out in the sun too long.  Remember I'm from WA where we just dig holes in the ground and to hell with whatever is on the surface.  But hey, we've got a huge state and these holes are miniscule by comparison. 
But then days later I'm touring the sky rail gizmo (highly recommended if anyone wants to go to FNQ) and I'm thinking that the roads they used to build the towers have already grown back so my theory is correct.  Duh to me!  Cos later in the tour, a guide says they actually had to drop all the gear and people in by helicopter to build the thing, because they literally weren't even allowed to carry the gear through the forest.  Took 5 years just to get greenie approval even for this. 
And you wonder why that fiasco gets charged higher premiums?  All the repairs are also done by helicopter.  Do you think that's affecting the business insurance premiums?  :Doh:  
I've got two words for greenies, and the second one is greenies.  :Biggrin:     

> Even better, can you describe how it is possible to build a bridge over a river whilst staying away from flood plains?  
> woodbe.

  I'll do you one better than describing, here's just a few for the luddites out there:        
It's a kind of magic!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> It's a very large and growing body of work, published and peer reviewed. 
> woodbe.

  Yes, a very large and growing body of work, published and peer reviewed...that is yet to find a single shred of empirical evidence proving this cultish faith based belief system.  Never in human history has so much money been thrown at one failed hypothesis in one single subset of science to comprehensively NOT prove something.    

> The Discovery of Global Warming - A History 
> woodbe.

  See, if you had a single piece of empirical evidence proving this farce, just one, uno, then you wouldn't be desperately linking to these faith based affirmation sites for the converted.  Creating websites with grant recipients, true believers and the ignorantly converted cultists will never mask the abject lack of any evidence whatsoever proving this farce. 
Just in case you missed it before: *
There is zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.* 
How does that factual and scientifically accurate statement stack up against your faith based website?  :Biggrin:  
If there's something DISPROVING my statement and hence PROVING the hypothesis on your website, please post it.  I couldn't find anything.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Herein lies the problem S&D  Nothing more need to be said

  As bad as this is, you should hear what they're teaching the kids in schools. 
Orwell had this totalitarian cult well assessed:   

> *IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH * It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children. And with good reason, for hardly a week passed in which The Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak   'child hero' was the phrase generally used  had overheard some compromising remark and denounced its parents to the Thought Police.  Nineteen Eighty-Four - Wikiquote

----------


## Dr Freud

> Of recent interest is this change of heart by Richard A Muller, he has been quoted here by those who have used his observations and works to justify the view that climate change doesn't exist. Yet he is clearly stating that from his research it does.

  Quoted here to justify climate change doesn't exit? Where? 
I did a search and found only a paltry few prior references in this thread.  If you can find more, please post them or retract this typical and blatant propaganda.  Can you people even keep up with the BS being shoveled out? 
But first, climate change exists, always has, always will.  Sort yourselves out, for crying out loud people, no wonder kids are turning into idiots with this language they're being taught.  We used to be asked if we believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy.  Now kids are asking if we believe that the climate changes. FFS people, sort yourselves out! 
But rant over, where were we.  Oh yeh. Muller. 
What happened earlier in the piece is he announced his rework of the same data and was hailed a sceptic converted (blatant lie by the way).  Rod first posted a precis on 20 Feb 2011 including this text:    

> The Project is in the hands of a group of recognized scientists, who are *not at all climate skeptics*  which should enhance their credibility. The Project is mainly directed by physicists, chaired by Professor Richard Muller (UC Berkeley)
> Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...#ixzz22V8wjHoq

  You do know what "not at all" means, I hope? 
Then on 20 Mar 2011, I posted his disgust at dodgy climate cultists as follows:   

> This is *a physicist who believes that the AGW hypothesis is real*, and is disgusted at the lies and deception run by core climate scientists as highlighted via Climategate: 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller[/ame]  
> Did you spot the difference between science fact and science fiction? 
> Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...#ixzz22V9yCLVF

  Gee, still a believer and NOT a sceptic, strange how he converted from being a believer into, well, um, staying a believer!  
Then on 15 Apr 2011 and 17 April 2011, Andy the PM and Chrisp respectively added their bits including this propaganda:   

> *Scientist Beloved by Climate Deniers Pulls Rug Out from Their Argument*  
> March 31, 2011

  So your rehashed year old propaganda destroys this cult more effectively than its total lack of evidence.  If this farce is so certain, why so many failed prophecies, continued lies, blatant propaganda, but zero evidence? 
Here was my witty repartee from late on 17 April 2011:   

> Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*  
>  So, he used the same data to get the same answer? Wow, I'm underwhelmed.      
>  Obviously I need to expand this a little. He is only using the surface temperature data. The key to not being duped is to look at what people are *not* saying and what they are *not* doing. 
> Did you ask why this review is deliberately ignoring the most accurate, comprehensive and contemporary data we have? Radiosondes and satellites are ignored in this data review. Why? 
> Here's a clue why:   
> Surface data - in.
> Satellite data - out.
> Radiosonde data - out. 
> Can you work it out?     Originally Posted by *Dr Freud*  
> ...

  Wasn't really worth the wait, was it.  :No:  
So lets review:   

> Of recent interest is this change of heart by Richard A Muller,  
> he has been quoted here by those who have used his observations and works to justify the view that climate change doesn't exist.   *Climate-change denier changes mind* 
> The verdict is in: Global warming is real and greenhouse-gas emissions from human activity are the main cause. 
>  Muller is a long-standing, colourful critic of prevailing climate science,  
> "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.   
> I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause." 
> He calls his current stance "a total turnaround." 
> Some leading climate scientists said Muller's comments show that the science is so strong that even those inclined to reject it cannot once they examine it carefully.

  All of this is just spin, propaganda, deceipt, lies, or what we in the trades call BS!

----------


## Dr Freud

> Hi guys andgirls, I havent gone through the 160 odd pages so sorry if this has beenposted but if it hasnt then put away some time and watch this.   The great global warming swindle- YouTube

  This doco is great viewing just to get an alternative perspective from the usual BS shoveled by the ABC.  Our taxpayer dollars funding this ABC green gravy train is a joke.

----------


## Dr Freud

This cult unfortunately has not realised that prior cults thrived in a world without the internet. 
The con has been exposed, and the more they lie, the less credible they become. 
But the ABC still tries to Greenwash the ignorant and uninformed:   

> *Not a sceptic. Not our champion. Not conclusive. But warmists cheer*ABC presenter Jon Faine today introduced Richard Muller as one of the worlds leading climate sceptics whod seen the light. The champion of Australian sceptics who now are shattered by his defection. The guru whod stopped Australia from accepting what the rest of the world had already concluded - that man was heating the world dangerously. 
>   To his credit, Muller went some way in the interview to denying the billing, but not far enough. 
>  But what was most telling was that Faine had clearly made no attempt to check his propaganda points against the facts. He asserted as fact what was false, and seized on what was useful but not true. 
>   Of course, Faine is not the only warmist to seize on this Biblical metapher of the Pauline conversion. _The Age_:   _Climate results convert sceptic: let the evidence change our minds_ And what Muller in fact preaches is hardly the full-scale confession needed to justify such hullabaloo:  _What has caused the gradual but systematic rise in temperature? We tried fitting the shape to simple mathematical functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like the worlds population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide._  _Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent._  _How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we have tried.... These facts dont prove causality and they shouldnt end scepticism, but they raise the bar_  _  I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong._ But lets now check Faines claims against the facts. And as we do, consider: if Faine gets this so wrong, what else has he swallowed merely because its confirmed his warmist prejudices?  *Richard Muller a sceptic?*   In fact, heres Muller last year:  _It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic -- only a scientific skeptic, he said in a recent email exchange with The Huffington Post. Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller Physics for Future Presidents I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie An Inconvenient Truth. But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic."_  _For his part, Muller doesnt dispute that human activity plays a large role, but the scientist in him remains uncertain of just how to quantify that....  The IPCC says that most of the 0.6-degree Celsius warming of the past 50 years is anthropogenic. If most means between 0.3- and 0.6-degrees Celsius, then that is certainly within the realm of possibility._And Muller in 2003:  _ Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate._*Muller was the champion and inspiration of Australian sceptics?*    False. Ive critically fact-checked his  past claims but never quoted him in support of anything, and nor has any prominent Australian sceptic, to the best of my knowledge. (I did, however, once post a video of Muller discussing Climategate.) In fact, Muller was chosen by warming evangelist Anna Rose to put her side of the argument in _I Can Change Your Mind About ... Climate_. Yes, he was the champion of ... the warmists. The opposite of what Faine claims.*Mullers findings have settled the argument?*  False. The opposite. 
>    For a start, there is fresh evidence that Mullers Best project relied on poorly sited weather stations which falsely doubled the extent of the rise in the US land temperature:  _This pre-publication draft paper, titled An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, is co-authored by Anthony Watts of California, Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville, is to be submitted for publication._  _The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project ..._  _The USHCN is one of the main metrics used to gauge the temperature changes in the United States. The first wide scale effort to address siting issues, Watts, (2009), a collated photographic survey, showed that approximately 90% of USHCN stations were compromised by encroachment of urbanity in the form of heat sinks and sources, such as concrete, asphalt, air conditioning system heat exchangers, roadways, airport tarmac, and other issues_  _All three papers examining the station siting issue, using early data gathered by the SurfaceStations project, ...were inconclusive in finding effects on temperature trends used to gauge the temperature change in the United States over the last century...._  _Watts et al 2012 has employed a new methodology for station siting, pioneered by Michel Leroy of METEOFrance in 2010 Leroy 2010 adds one simple but effective physical metric; surface area of the heat sinks/sources within the thermometer viewshed to quantify the total heat dissipation effect_  _Using Leroy 2010 methods, the Watts et al 2012 paper, which studies several aspects of USHCN siting issues and data adjustments, concludes that:_  _These factors, combined with station siting issues, have led to a spurious doubling of U.S. mean temperature trends in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979  2008._ Professor Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and a former co-author with Muller:  _Muller bases his conversion on the results of their recent paper. So, how convincing is the analysis in Rohde et al.s new paper A new estimate of the average surface land temperature spanning 1753-2011?  Their analysis is based upon curve fits to volcanic forcing and the logarithm of the CO2 forcing (addition of solar forcing did not improve the curve fit.)   I have made public statements that I am unconvinced by their analysis Land has warmed substantially more than the oceans; it does not seem that their same model would explain the ocean temperature changes_  _No one that I listen to questions that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm the earths surface, all other things being equal.  The issue is whether anthropogenic activities or natural variability is dominating the climate variability.  If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct (this is where I am placing my money), then this is a very difficult thing to untangle, and we will go through periods of rapid warming that are followed by a stagnant or even cooling period, and there are multiple time scales involved for both the external forcing and natural internal variability that conspire to produce unpredictable shifts.  
> Maybe the climate system is simpler than I think it is, but I suspect not.. If the attribution problem was as simple as Muller makes it out to be (curve fitting to CO2 concentration), then why are others wasting all their time with complex modeling studies, data analyses etc as described above? _ UPDATE 
>   Jason Samenow, a meteorologist and warmist, says it for most of us:  _Regarding this claim that the release of [Mullers] results prior to official publication was an act of showmanship rather than science, Elizabeth Muller - co-founder and executive director of the Berkeley project and Richard Mullers daughter - responded that the results were too important to withold [until they were peer-reviewed] and that the pre-release invites greater opportunity for constructive feedback from colleagues_  _The only difference between Mullers results and the conclusions of the existing scientific assessment literature (such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is that Muller asserts nearly all of the recent warming is due to human activities over a longer timeframe whereas existing literature says most over a shorter timeframe. The claim that this single study was too important to hold back - especially in light of scores of other important studies which received no such pre-publication fanfare - reeks of arrogance on the part of the author team.  _  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

----------


## shauck

> This whole con job is about what you're now heavily breathing at your computer screen in agitation.  *Wow! How did you know I was smoking a cigarette?*  
> So just so you get it, we don't cr@p on about CO2, this farcical cult does by painting it as their evil bogey man.  *Not everything is about CO2, as you well know.  The post I was referring to was talking about wasted (as opposed to used) resources. It was unnecessary and irrelevant to reply to it, with another CO2 spouting. I notice that you didn't leave the question I had asked, in the quotes, or answer it? *        Originally Posted by shauck   Maybe it  sould be simpler to explain it like this. Would you leave your front  door open and all the windows open and the airconditioner turned on  while you crank up the gas heater, throw 5 logs on the open fire  (renewable, to an extent) and turn on the gas kitchen hotplate and  electric oven just to get a nice temperature? Oh and sit around in your  undies drinking iced water? If you answer no, you are in agreeance to  some extent. If you answer yes...well....    *Again, nothing to do with CO2, just wondering if common sense is alive in the camp.*  
> Smart people use current finite resources to leverage into future as yet untapped resources.  Leveraging is not waste, it's smart.  They don't just give up their current resources to appease great big greenie gods. * 
> In other words, hope that something else will come along to take care of us before what we have runs out. Calculated risk?*    
> Do you think a useless tax in Australia mostly fed back in compensation and third world handouts (oops, offsets), will make the Planet Earth colder?  Is that the type of "common sense" that you subscribe to?  *No, I don't. Surprised? I'm not trying to cool the earth. I'm trying to get along in life without making too much of a mess along the way. Simple things like, don't throw your rubbish out the car window, recycle your empty beer stubbies (real good at that one), don't waste energy, live within your means.*   
> Here's something useful from our friend above that suits this cult well:  *To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little (use resources wisely) with certainty, & leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of any thing. * _Isaac Newton_

   
As my mother would say, "if your cold put a jumper on".

----------


## Paternoster

> As bad as this is, you should hear what they're teaching the kids in schools. 
> Orwell had this totalitarian cult well assessed:

  
Has your tin foil hat come loose,or what?

----------


## barney118

I went to a Master Builders meeting the other day and they had some presentations on environmental buildings it it called the solar decathlon in 2013. It is great to see that the task is to make buildings efficient but they are going to far in what the cult refer to Green housing. 
I felt like I was in a court room needing to shout out "objection your honor" when the University person ( I dont know of their qualifications) opened up with a statement referring to Australia has the most co2 emissions per something, I wish I did now..... 
I have just realized this cult is infiltrating everywhere and we need to put a stop to it somehow, I am also going to pay attention to what my kids are being taught  on The matter at school.   
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## barney118

One more point at this MB meeting they mentioned about stopping aur leaks in a house by pressurizing to 50kpa and then calculating the loss per hr. The presenter went on to mention this will be legislated.... I think new buildings etc. this raises some questions to why? What is the benefit to payoff? A building needs to be ventilated and materials need to expand contract people in learning institutions going too far IMO.  
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> this raises some questions to why?

  It's typical, but not what the World Health Organisation suggests to help prevent mould and sickness.

----------


## Crunchy

> One more point at this MB meeting they mentioned about stopping aur leaks in a house by pressurizing to 50kpa and then calculating the loss per hr. The presenter went on to mention this will be legislated.... I think new buildings etc. this raises some questions to why? What is the benefit to payoff? A building needs to be ventilated and materials need to expand contract people in learning institutions going too far IMO.

  It's probably more to do with Australia trying to catch up with what happens around the world.  We lag a lot when it comes to insulation and insulation standards.  Your Home Technical Manual - 4.7 Insulation    

> It's typical, but not what the World Health Organisation suggests to help prevent mould and sickness.

  Actually, it is moisture and moisture condensating on cold surfaces that causes mould.  The reference you quote actually suggests improving insulation and keeping the building warm as a possible solution so as to prevent cold surfaces. 
Anyway, we all want to save energy, don't we?  Preventing drafts and heat loss is a method of saving energy (and money), hence the air leakage test that is common overseas. 
BTW, just because a house is well sealed, doesn't prevent ventilation by such means as opening a window or door when the occupant wants ventilation.  However, in a leaky house, it is hard to stop the heat loss and parasitic ventilation even if one wanted to.   :Smilie:

----------


## dazzler

> Rod did a typo..........S&D instead of SBD........
> Move on please.......Nothing to see here.

  
Your not still having to moderate this are you Noel. 
Seriously.  You deserve a bloody medal.   :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> One more point at this MB meeting they mentioned about stopping aur leaks in a house by pressurizing to 50kpa and then calculating the loss per hr. The presenter went on to mention this will be legislated.... I think new buildings etc. this raises some questions to why? What is the benefit to payoff? A building needs to be ventilated and materials need to expand contract people in learning institutions going too far IMO.  
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  
Using your iThingy...try googling 'Passive Haus'.  You may just learn something new.  Either that or the Master Builders have learnt a new trick to extricate more money from medieval punters via the Building Code.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Your not still having to moderate this are you Noel. 
> Seriously.  You deserve a bloody medal.

  More than one to be honest though he doesn't do it alone. 
I don't do medals but I once offered to buy him a pie the next time I was down his way... 
By the by...it is internet tradition that every forum have at least one pointless and seemingly never ending thread.  Full marks to this one for having one based on an actual topic but marks off for participants that appear to take it all so seriously.  Human nature is not that serious or important but it is (by far) the funniest and most entertaining thing any human will ever participate in.  And this thread has it in spades, shovels, the occasional pick and a rare crowbar.   
Glory unto the Almighty Crowbar!!!

----------


## watson

> Your not still having to moderate this are you Noel. 
> Seriously.  You deserve a bloody medal.

   :Rotfl: 
There's three of us now.............one can read, one can write, and the other one does the killings.

----------


## chrisp

> There's three of us now.............one can read, one can write, and the other one does the killings.

  But, who's who?   :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> But, who's who?

  chrisp reads; Watson writes;  ergo Bedford is the assassin.  
Oh...hello, Be

----------


## barney118

I decided to turn to the text books for some information on this topic they are approx 20 yrs old and realizing they started talking about the greenhouse effect back then anyway.
I also pulled the physics books in search of Einsteins Et Al what we can prove. So Dr Freud I need your input on a couple if things. In general these books have pointed out that the sun rays are assumed to hit the earth horizontally by conversion of hydrogen into helium at the sun this is a topic by itself to what we know or can prove. Moving along they say that between 40 deg and 37 deg latitude there is natural heating going on and above these towards the poles there is a loss to the system. So are we in a closed or open system when it comes to talking thermodynamics? I am questioning the validity of the 2nd law Entropy, if it's real or not.
It is also mentioned how the earth deflects radiation by clouds (mmm made of water vapor) and how snow, sea, land etc play similar roles. it also suggests that CO2 re deflects heat back towards the earth.
Where am I heading? My mind is searching for why is CO2 the only compound that does this?if the Earth is a system do thermodynamics etc apply to the science of this? I am trying to reason how a system maintains its balance, it has been doing it for millions of years before Einstein At El.
Why is it CO2 a trace element in the Atmosphere play such a significant role, is it the oxygen not the Carbon? is it because a small variation produces such a large percentage of scare tactic, how can they measure it so accurately? What chemical reaction are they using to calculate the heat given off which in turn backs up the idea of warming? Then we ask why has the Earth moved in cycles through ice ages etc.  
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Dr Freud

> *I notice that you didn't leave the question I had asked, in the quotes, or answer it? *   Originally Posted by *shauck*    
>  Maybe it sould be simpler to explain it like this. Would you leave your front door open and all the windows open and the airconditioner turned on while you crank up the gas heater, throw 5 logs on the open fire (renewable, to an extent) and turn on the gas kitchen hotplate and electric oven just to get a nice temperature? Oh and sit around in your undies drinking iced water? If you answer no, you are in agreeance to some extent. If you answer yes...well....      *Again, nothing to do with CO2, just wondering if common sense is alive in the camp.*
> Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/newrepl...#ixzz22dX0jZ3L

   
Apologies, I assumed this was asked and answered by my previous post below:    

> Just so you can get this straight, Australia is a democratic country and I believe in these ideals.  As our good Yankee mates will say, what he does "on his dime and on his time" is up to him.  I don't care if he's lying naked out in the snow in his Canadian back yard surrounded by electric heaters keeping him warm 24 hours a day.  If he's happy to pay the bill, let him. 
> What are you, a communist?  Leave the man alone (assuming it's a bloke?).  Swim the (warming?) Bering Sea if you want to start telling other people how to live their lives.  
> If you're that upset, you're gonna bust a nut when you see how Al Gore and other cult preachers live their lives.  And you defend these hypocritical cultists. 
> For some homework in the interim, find your nearest outlaw motor cycle gang headquarters and at their next meeting, let all the air out of their tyres and explain to them how it's saving them WASTING energy by riding those big noisy motor bikes.  They'll take care of the other nut for you.  
> I don't want to change peoples behaviour.  What do you think I am, a communist?  
> I prefer to educate and empower people and then they can do whatever the hell they want with their behaviour.  Oi, Oi, Oi.

  And as for this one:   

> As my mother would say, "if your cold put a jumper on".

  As Dr Freud would say, "If you're cold, maybe the AGW hypothesis is a crock of sh!#".  :Biggrin:  
As for the smokes and beer, no self-respecting "sustainist?" would do these things.  They WASTE about $50 billion dollars a year from the national economy and WASTE more CO2e than all of us sitting in our undies and sipping iced water. 
Are you willing to give up the beer for your "sustainability"?    

> ...a few bottles of imported lager per day might add up to as much as a tonne of CO2e per year... *The carbon footprint of a pint of beer:300g CO2e: locally brewed cask ale at the pub 
> 500g CO2e: local bottled beer from a shop or foreign beer in a pub 
> 900g CO2e: bottled beer from the shop, extensively transported * What's the carbon footprint of ... a pint of beer? | Environment | guardian.co.uk

  
P.S. JULIAR reckons it's packed full of really dangerous pollution called Carbon Dioxide! 
The evil brewers actually add this dangerous pollution to the beer to make it frothy.  How cunning!  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Has your tin foil hat come loose,or what? 
> [/COLOR][/LEFT]

  
It's very comfy, thanks for asking. 
It's preventing those evil big brother transmissions trying to reprogramme me to believe that SMOG is CO2.  :Rotfl:  
But if you read the rest of the thread, you'll see the exploding children, and read all about the psycho-terrorism campaign being waged against these vulnerable minds. 
But I know how closed mindedness is preached by this cult, so here's a taste from the CSIRO if you don't believe me:   

> *AUSTRALIAN kids are clashing with their parents over the importance of climate change, a survey has found. 				 * "It is encouraging to see that children are taking what they've learned in the classroom and using it to educate their parents on how to reduce their carbon footprint," Peta Ashworth, from the CSIRO's Science into Society Group, said today. 
> The survey, which sought the views of 1000 parents and children aged 10-16...And *many kids certainly felt they were the experts on the topic* with nearly a quarter saying they believed they were the family expert on the environment at home. 
> The survey found natural disasters were having a particularly big impact on kids with 50 per cent listing natural disasters as their number one worry when it came to climate change.  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  
See what happens when the academics take over.  If you ask any parent of a teenager, they'll tell these kids feel they are the experts on any topic.  :Doh:  
But the underlying psychological and cognitive damage done to these kids is unforgivable.  I have sat down with my nephew and his little friends to explain to them what the difference is between Carbon and Carbon Dioxide.  They actually are taught that having shorter showers means we can save the Planet, but the converse and worse message they get is that people who take long showers are killing the Planet and their future.  Hence, they think shorter showers means less black Carbon pollution heating up and killing the Planet.  They even draw pictures of smokestacks with black clouds to signify this pollution.  And they actually think the "Carbon Tax" is designed to get rid of this evil pollution. 
If most adults get greenwashed by these LIES and propaganda being spun by JULIAR and her cronies, what hope do kids have. 
This link below is great reference point if you want to know how insidious this cult has become in terrorising children:    

> I want to provide links to reports, comments, and discussions of children being frightened by what they have been told about climate change or how they have been told it.  
> The problem of deliberately targeting the very young using scare stories to win their attention and attract them to political causes or even actions was described in the context of many eco-scares by Herbert London in 1984, in his book 'Why Are They Lying to Our Children'.  Climate scares get a mention there, but since then we have seen many quite outrageous efforts by climate activists to, in Lomberg's words, scare '_our kids silly_'.  He also noted (this is 2009):  _'We see the same pattern in the United Kingdom, where a survey showed that half of young children aged between seven and 11 are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern. This is grotesquely harmful.  And let us be honest. This scare was intended. Children believe that global warming will destroy the planet before they grow up because adults are telling them that .'    _ Climate Lessons: Climate-anxiety: reports of frightened children

  
Here's the advertisement the cult cheered and hailed as fantastic:    
I guess the little girls lucky cos the ice isn't melting as predicted, eh Woodbe? 
I won't repost the even worse rubbish where they actually blow up children in graphic and bloody scenes who actually tried to ask a scientific question.  :Mad:  
I also won't post my true feelings about these idiots, or the feds will come knocking and confiscate my tin foil hat.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Using your iThingy...try googling 'Passive Haus'.  You may just learn something new.  Either that or the Master Builders have learnt a new trick to extricate more money from medieval punters via the Building Code.

  You are much smarter than this piffle. 
How many countries does this building code apply to? 
How much net energy (minus all the retrofits and construction inputs) will be saved?  
Times the number of countries x the net energy savings and how many CO2e are saved? 
Assuming the AGW hypothesis is even correct ( :Doh: ), how much colder will the Planet Earth be after all this useless red tape? 
In degrees celsius will be just fine, thanks.  :Biggrin:  
Make no mistake, I'm very supportive of any efficiencies in the building industry, but when it all gets greenwashed and enforced under the big greenie bogeyman of CO2, it makes me want to vomit. 
Any building efficiency should be implemented because it is just that, efficient.  That's why they gain traction.  Implementing cost-inefficient and ridiculous policies based on future ideological catastrophes is idiotic.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> I decided to turn to the text books for some information on this topic they are approx 20 yrs old and realizing they started talking about the greenhouse effect back then anyway.
> I also pulled the physics books in search of Einsteins Et Al what we can prove. So Dr Freud I need your input on a couple if things. In general these books have pointed out that the sun rays are assumed to hit the earth horizontally by conversion of hydrogen into helium at the sun this is a topic by itself to what we know or can prove. Moving along they say that between 40 deg and 37 deg latitude there is natural heating going on and above these towards the poles there is a loss to the system. So are we in a closed or open system when it comes to talking thermodynamics? I am questioning the validity of the 2nd law Entropy, if it's real or not.
> It is also mentioned how the earth deflects radiation by clouds (mmm made of water vapor) and how snow, sea, land etc play similar roles. it also suggests that CO2 re deflects heat back towards the earth.
> Where am I heading? My mind is searching for why is CO2 the only compound that does this?if the Earth is a system do thermodynamics etc apply to the science of this? I am trying to reason how a system maintains its balance, it has been doing it for millions of years before Einstein At El.
> Why is it CO2 a trace element in the Atmosphere play such a significant role, is it the oxygen not the Carbon? is it because a small variation produces such a large percentage of scare tactic, how can they measure it so accurately? What chemical reaction are they using to calculate the heat given off which in turn backs up the idea of warming? Then we ask why has the Earth moved in cycles through ice ages etc.  
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  Mate, you possess a very rare commodity that you need to protect with all your will. 
It's called an open mind.  :2thumbsup:  
I'm no physicist, or even astrophysicist. I'm just a guy that spent a lot of time carrying heavy stuff for stupid reasons, then gluing ceramic squares to concrete for slightly better reasons.  :Biggrin:   But I can read, and I have.  And you'll learn much more from Google than you'll ever learn from me.  But here's a precis of how I can summarise your questions above.  I'll try jargon free as radiative forcing formulae and energy feedback theories are boring, and I'll never do them full justice anyway. 
In a nutshell, *we don't know* how all this works in totality.  We are slowly learning how some of the pieces work though, kind of like a monkey waking up on a space station and trying to figure out how it all works with no instruction manual.  Actually it's not kind of like that, it's exactly that! 
The Sun is the source of all our energy (no semantics please people, yes we do receive weak transmissions from other star systems, and there is our molten heated interior, but can we please for once try to be normal  :No: ). 
And you are correct, this energy is received much more at the equator than the poles, hence the warm tropics and the cold ice caps.  This is where it gets complicated, as the energy obviously transfers, yes in accordance to the second law, so that's still valid.  But that's contextualised by extra energy being received from the Sun in variable amounts.  So you can't regard the Earth's energy system as a closed system as energy is constantly received and transmitted.  This sounds chaotic, and it is, but chaotic within a balance or equilibrium.  Much like Afghanistan really, that could continue indefinitely if uninterrupted as well.  But you wouldn't call it "stable" really, balanced chaos more likely.  That why I love the Chaos Theory by Edward Lorenz.  If you read this well, then all the rest should make much more sense. 
In terms of the CO2 effects in this whole system, they are miniscule, an the crux of this whole fiasco is that the AGW hypothesis blew it out of all proportion for greenie anti-industry reasons.  All the elements you mentioned (and so many more) act at a level of complexity than we monkeys are far from understanding.  Clouds (and other water vapour) are by far the greatest driver of the greenhouse effect and this is why the AGW cult totally ignores it.  But as always, its complex.  Clouds reflect the Sun's heat energy on top, so makes it cooler.  That's why we sit in the shade when it's hot.  But then it also holds energy in underneath, so makes it warmer.  But it also absorbs heat energy itself, and transfers this energy in complex ways subject to other contexts.  That's why cloudy nights are warmer than clear ones.  CO2 operates in a very similar fashion, as do other "greenhouse gases".  Ice also reflects more energy than ocean water, which absorbs more heat energy and then moves it to another place. 
So if we have clouds during the day over ice, it affect the energy balance less than having clouds over the ocean during the day.  Clouds at night also increase the energy balance compared to clouds during the day reducing the energy balance.  These are just very simplified interactions, but hopefully beginto explain how many different things happen every second of every day, 24 hours a day, including Lunar tides, urban developments, deforestation, droughts, floods, wind etc etc., not as effects of "climate change" but these actually are the ingredients and drivers of both weather changes and climate changes. 
What keeps all this chaos in balance is feedback loops.  So as our mate Schauk said, when you get cold, you put a jumper on.  This is a negative feedback loop that stops the cooling.  Then when you get too warm, you roll the sleeves up a bit.  This is a negative feedback loop that stops the warming.  Generally, your temperature will go up and down subject to many, many other variables.  Like the Plane Earth cycling through cool and warm bits, or ice ages cycles. 
This is what our "smart energy" Planet Earth has been doing for billions of years without aid or interruption, and continues to do regardless of our delusions of grandeur. 
The AGW hypothesis is predicated on positive feedbacks loops based on one single tiny variable in that massive system.  This tiny variable of CO2 has previously been to 7000 ppm volume with no positive and unstoppable feedback loops developing.  But the anti-industry greenie scaremongering now says that because it went slightly higher than a few hundred ppm volume, we are creating these positive feedback loops. 
They are idiots! 
This is like a theory that says because I blow warm breath on you, you will keep putting on more and more jumpers until you overheat and die, even though you've never done this before.  It directly contradicts all empirical evidence of negative feedback loops to date, which is the fact that we are still here. 
Hope this helps a bit, but you've asked some questions with big answers above.   :2thumbsup:  
If you want to discuss this in more detail, happy to do it here for my benefit and others benefit too.  This is much better for the kids to read rather than blowing them up, or taking away their toys if they question the global warming cult, as schools have done.

----------


## Dr Freud

> There's three of us now.............one can read, one can write, and the other one does the killings.

  I appreciate the warning shots fired every now and again.  :Biggrin:  
Not many assassins are this kind!   :Fingerscrossed:

----------


## Marc

.  

> It's very comfy, thanks for asking. 
> It's preventing those evil big brother transmissions trying to reprogramme me to believe that SMOG is CO2.  
> But if you read the rest of the thread, you'll see the exploding children, and read all about the psycho-terrorism campaign being waged against these vulnerable minds. 
> But I know how closed mindedness is preached by this cult, so here's a taste from the CSIRO if you don't believe me:    
> See what happens when the academics take over.  If you ask any parent of a teenager, they'll tell these kids feel they are the experts on any topic.  
> But the underlying psychological and cognitive damage done to these kids is unforgivable.  I have sat down with my nephew and his little friends to explain to them what the difference is between Carbon and Carbon Dioxide.  They actually are taught that having shorter showers means we can save the Planet, but the converse and worse message they get is that people who take long showers are killing the Planet and their future.  Hence, they think shorter showers means less black Carbon pollution heating up and killing the Planet.  They even draw pictures of smokestacks with black clouds to signify this pollution.  And they actually think the "Carbon Tax" is designed to get rid of this evil pollution. 
> If most adults get greenwashed by these LIES and propaganda being spun by JULIAR and her cronies, what hope do kids have. 
> This link below is great reference point if you want to know how insidious this cult has become in terrorising children:     
> Here's the advertisement the cult cheered and hailed as fantastic:    
> ...

  Pitching the younger generation against the older is an old trick done extensively by Mao with his red army and Adolf with his hitler jugend

----------


## barney118

Thanks Dr Freud for your insights, I have always said there is more than one way to skin a cat ( no offense Black Cat).
I always have an open mind otherwise I would learn nothing or make a mistake. 
I am a qualified recreational pilot and we study meteorology which is a science of itself and clouds are an interesting topic, keep the Einstein quotes coming if we can " use the force Luke" (aka Einstein) to help our cause then they won't believe the earth is still flat.
If the clouds play such an important role H2O then maybe we can twist this paragrim towards this element rather than CO2. I am a believer in keeping it simple. Where I was headed was calculating a calorific value for CO2 x the volume of it to get any temperature rise or some chemical equation, note C is lighter than O on the periodic table
Remember it's not global warming now it's climate change.  
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Crunchy

> I decided to turn to the text books for some information on this topic they are approx 20 yrs old and realizing they started talking about the greenhouse effect back then anyway.

  "_Started_"! The science of the greenhouse effect is much older than that!  :Shock: 
"The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896." Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia    

> Why is it CO2 a trace element in the Atmosphere play such a significant role, is it the oxygen not the Carbon? is it because a small variation produces such a large percentage of scare tactic, how can they measure it so accurately? What chemical reaction are they using to calculate the heat given off which in turn backs up the idea of warming?

  It's more to do with the molecular structure of the gases rather than the elements of the gas. To be a greenhouse gas, the gas molecule needs to be able to absorb and re-emit infrared radition. Many of the common homonuclear diatomic molecules such as H2, N2, O2 have very little greenhouse effect. 
The dominant greenhosue gases in the atmoshphere are: 
water vapor 3670%
carbon dioxide 926%
methane 49%
ozone 37% 
CO2 might make up a very small percentage of the atmosphere, but it is a very strong greenhouse gas. As it only makes up a small part of the atmosphere, it is relatively easy for mankind to significantly increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

----------


## barney118

> more to do with the molecular structure of the gases rather than the elements of the gas. To be a greenhouse gas, the gas molecule needs to be able to absorb and re-emit infrared radition. Many of the common homonuclear diatomic molecules such as H2, N2, O2 have very little greenhouse effect. 
> The dominant greenhosue gases in the atmoshphere are: 
> water vapor 3670%
> carbon dioxide 926%
> methane 49%
> ozone 37% 
> CO2 might make up a very small percentage of the atmosphere, but it is a very strong greenhouse gas. As it only makes up a small part of the atmosphere, it is relatively easy for mankind to significantly increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

  Ok then you quote diatomic molecules have little effect ie H2 and O2 but water vapour is more dominant than CO2 how? That seems like a contradiction, why does CO2 emit more infrared than others given it has 2 molecules of O2 how do you measure this?
I don't understand why your percentages are so high, as far as maths are concerned we always talk in terms that something adds up to 100%.
Also if man can significantly increase CO2 then how much is consumed by natural processes in the conversion back to oxygen? Then this would mean if there is less CO2 conversion going on then shouldn't we be worried about the level of oxygen also dropping?
The Earth seems to regulate itself pretty well.....    
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Marc

You talk about "greenhouse effect" as if it is a cyanide pill.
Without greenhouse effect we would be all dead frozen.
Without CO2 ( the more the merrier) we would not even exist.  
We had CO2 in much higher concentrations before and animals and plants thrived.
We had much higher temperatures than in the present time and man multiplied and prospered.  
It is extremely stupid for man to think that a few fractions of a degree up in several decades would be catastrophic.
It is even dumber to believe higher temperatures are bad and hope or lobby (?) for lower temperatures? 
Warm is good for life, cold is bad for life. Is this so hard to grasp? Try Siberia.
It is the pinnacle of stupidity to pretend we can tweak the weather by suppressing a fart or two. 
Question: If, hypothetically speaking we could actually pre-order an average temperature, who decides what is the optimum and who will be in charge of the thermostat?  
Get a grip you green fanatics. You not only make your life a misery, you will have no effect on the weather, on the temperature nor on your fellow man. Your legacy will be a mockery for generations to come.

----------


## Dr Freud

> If the clouds play such an important role H2O then maybe we can twist this paragrim towards this element rather than CO2.

  Yes, the water vapour and clouds do play a much more important role, but we can't blame these directly on capitalists and industrialists, so they are useless for a socialist cults ideological battle. 
So what the [S]commies[/S] greenies do is blame it on miniscule amounts of CO2 increases, that they can tentatively link to industry.  But because CO2 is clear, odourless, healthy plant food and essential for all life, the greenie propaganda calls it "dangerous pollution" and puts photos of big black sooty smokestacks everywhere to dupe the unfortunately misinformed. 
Then they develop a "hypothesis" (more like a dogma) that this evil pollution triggers even more forcing from the more important water vapour.  This way they try to leverage the effect of this more important driver.  They have no evidence for this, zip, zero, nil, and all evidence to date contradicts these positive feedbacks.  But strangely, the computer models designed with assumptions from the greenies "predicts" that it will come true in the future sometime.  But they say lets not wait for actual proof or facts to support our farcical dogma, lets just shut down our power sources now, just in case. 
So we don't need to twist this back to water vapour (and all the other aforementioned drivers) as all empirical evidence available supports this position.  So why isn't this published far and wide on the nightly news you may ask.  So do I my friend, every single day.  But the truth shall set you free...one day soon... 
And I won't even go into all the other assumptions required to make all this happen.  Aerosols produced at the same time as CO2 during industrial processes can actually act to cool the Planet Earth.  The extent of this from local effects to global effects is still being studied, as are the interactions between all these elements. 
Again, in a nutshell, we don't know exactly how this all works yet.  What we do know for sure about this cult is that the scaremongering is baseless, the predictions are failed, the systems are corrupt, and the entire process is farcical.  I got most of my info about the flawed and failed nature of this endeavour from the research underlying the IPCC reports, and here's their contribution to clouds and water vapour (keeping in mind it is by far the largest greenhouse driver):   

> From these studies, there is little quantification of the stratospheric water vapour change attributable to different causes. It is also likely that different mechanisms are affecting water vapour trends at different altitudes...Other human causes of stratospheric water vapour change are unquantified and have a very low level of scientific understanding.  Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing - AR4 WGI

  This is a fancy way of saying - we don't know. 
They don't even include water vapour radiative forcing in their published charts, better than "Hide the decline" is "Hide the H2O".  :Doh:  
But then they add the BS by the truck load to push their dogma.    

> Where I was headed was calculating a calorific value for CO2 x the volume of it to get any temperature rise or some chemical equation, note C is lighter than O on the periodic table

  Dr David Evans explains this well, and has a more detailed piece on Jo's site if you want to read it as well as this link:   

> David Evans in the Fairfax press: Climate change science is a load of hot air and warmists are wrong « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

  Bear in mind that the numbers above also still include many assumptions, like no mitigating negative feedbacks.  If negative feedbacks (like aerosols for man made example, or volcanoes for natural example - Google "global dimming") or even reduced inputs like less solar energy create less energy overall, the temperature may still stagnate, or even go down while CO2 levels go up.  Like I said, it's complicated, and we don't know.  This is why they never mention global warming any more, or produce charts of the super heating they predicted from the last decade while CO2 skyrocketed?  I wonder why? 
Best we talk about an "extreme event" somewhere then, oh, look over here...  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The dominant greenhosue gases in the atmoshphere are: 
> water vapor 3670%
> carbon dioxide 926%
> methane 49%
> ozone 37% 
> CO2 might make up a very small percentage of the atmosphere, but it is a very strong greenhouse gas. As it only makes up a small part of the atmosphere, it is relatively easy for mankind to significantly increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

  You seem very well informed in these matters, so maybe you can help me out with something please: 
How will these percentages change after we give *hundreds of billions* of dollars away to third world shonks via the Carbon Dioxide Tax?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Ok then you quote diatomic molecules have little effect ie H2 and O2 but water vapour is more dominant than CO2 how? That seems like a contradiction, why does CO2 emit more infrared than others given it has 2 molecules of O2 how do you measure this?

  I dunno if this explanation helps, but I'm not a smart person and it makes a bit more sense when I think of it this way.  It's crude, but visual, so I use it.  The H2O works across a larger area of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the CO2 works in a more finite area.  So imagine you are lying down, and you are the Planet Earth.  If you place a big 10m2 but thin blanket over your whole body, it will have a general but relatively weak warming effect all over.  This is the H20.  Then imagine you get a square foot of insulation batt and place it over one section of your body, it will have a relatively stronger effect, but over a very limited range of your heat energy.  This is the CO2.  Now if you add more CO2, you keep stacking another batt on top of the other one, because that's the limited heat energy range it works in, hence the logarithmic effect.  Which means the first dose warms a lot, but then further doses of adding batts quickly becomes redundant, even though they still have the same "potential" to increase heat energy retention.  Unfortunately you can't spread them out across your body, and neither can the Planet Earth spread them across the spectrum. 
But if you put another thin blanket over the other one, you get a better overall warming, because the blanket covers more of your bodies heat energy.  Just like adding relatively thinner H2Ocovers more of the spectrum of the Planet Earths heat energy.  
Imagine many, many thin H2O blankets get added and subtracted constantly on the Planet Earth, but the CO2 insulation batts take longer to stack and longer to remove. 
Now whether man made or non-man made forces are adding either or both of these and in what quantities are what we are trying to unravel.  That's just 2 bits, in the multitude of drivers and interactions in this process. 
If you want more detailed radiative forcing calculations, Chrisp posted plenty earlier in the thread, so you can search for these using any of the related terms.  Dunno if he's allowed to buy in now, but he was all over this like white on rice.   

> I don't understand why your percentages are so high, as far as maths are concerned we always talk in terms that something adds up to 100%.

  Yeh, these people have always had a problem with numbers.  :Biggrin:  
This is their way of saying "we don't know" and "it depends". 
What they're actually trying to say is that at any given point in time, obviously there are 100% of inputs and 100% of outputs.  They just don't know the exact proportion of inputs at any one time.  This is where the real world and chaos theory kick in to rain on their ideological parade.  In terms of the inputs, these rough sizes (really big, really small, tiny and tiny) are their best guesses, again given the assumptions that there are no concurrent mitigators, whether known or unknown.   

> Also if man can significantly increase CO2 then how much is consumed by natural processes in the conversion back to oxygen? Then this would mean if there is less CO2 conversion going on then shouldn't we be worried about the level of oxygen also dropping?
>  The Earth seems to regulate itself pretty well.....

  Your last line says it all.  :2thumbsup:   
Us monkeys can tinker and theorise, but when we think our farts are warming the whole space station, we better get back in the cage.   
This is the climate cultists flogging their AGW dead horse! 
Don't you feel like yelling "Turn around and look up at the clouds you monkey".   :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You are much smarter than this piffle. 
> How many countries does this building code apply to? 
> How much net energy (minus all the retrofits and construction inputs) will be saved?  
> Times the number of countries x the net energy savings and how many CO2e are saved? 
> Assuming the AGW hypothesis is even correct (), how much colder will the Planet Earth be after all this useless red tape? 
> In degrees celsius will be just fine, thanks.  
> Make no mistake, I'm very supportive of any efficiencies in the building industry, but when it all gets greenwashed and enforced under the big greenie bogeyman of CO2, it makes me want to vomit. 
> Any building efficiency should be implemented because it is just that, efficient.  That's why they gain traction.  Implementing cost-inefficient and ridiculous policies based on future ideological catastrophes is idiotic.

  
I'm way smarter than any piffle you might care to imagine...just not quite as pretty.  
'Passive Haus' is not a legislated building code in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world as far as I am aware.  In addition, at its typical level, it is not a concept that is suitable for retrofitting rather it is intended for new builds. 
Essentially, compliance with the PH principle means a well sealed house with minimum natural leakage to the outside air and no forms of artificial heating or cooling.  Air exchange with the outside world is done using fans and the like.  Heating (and some cooling) is done with heat exchangers within the airflow.  All the rest comes from designing the house to suit the environment within which it sits.  Essentially, they are the most efficient form of building there is...because they cost very little to run. 
However...it will never be legislated as a Building Code.  It requires a certain rigor and capacity to operate such a house to get the best performance out of it.  And since the average human is defeated by any machine much more complicated than a toaster...I suspect that (in this case) the piffles will rule the world.

----------


## barney118

> I'm way smarter than any piffle you might care to imagine...just not quite as pretty.  
> 'Passive Haus' is not a legislated building code in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world as far as I am aware.  In addition, at its typical level, it is not a concept that is suitable for retrofitting rather it is intended for new builds. 
> Essentially, compliance with the PH principle means a well sealed house with minimum natural leakage to the outside air and no forms of artificial heating or cooling.  Air exchange with the outside world is done using fans and the like.  Heating (and some cooling) is done with heat exchangers within the airflow.  All the rest comes from designing the house to suit the environment within which it sits.  Essentially, they are the most efficient form of building there is...because they cost very little to run. 
> However...it will never be legislated as a Building Code.  It requires a certain rigor and capacity to operate such a house to get the best performance out of it.  And since the average human is defeated by any machine much more complicated than a toaster...I suspect that (in this case) the piffles will rule the world.

  This cult is trying to infiltrate everywhere, the university are all behind it, it just goes to show these people are trying to influence governments in everything, Its starts out as a rumor then one after the other I see  :Adult:

----------


## johnc

> This cult is trying to infiltrate everywhere, the university are all behind it, it just goes to show these people are trying to influence governments in everything, Its starts out as a rumor then one after the other I see

  Don't be absurd the Passive Haus is no different to someone designing any form of housing for whatever purpose. It is a design principle for people interested in constructing a home that requires the most minimal amount of heating and cooling. It's a bit like bathroom design if you will, you might be interested in the best designer made bespoke products, your neighbour might be interested in the most basic design, if you are both happy who cares. There are a lot of very interesting design cues that will come out of the passive haus concept and some of those may well make it into main stream building, if the innovation stacks up economically and appeals sufficiently to the mass market. There are not a large number of these homes in the world, they appeal to people with certain objectives and relatively deep pockets but they are comfortable homes which can be very pleasing to the eye and to live in if designed well.  
However if you are afraid that Universities are going to destroy your world then stop using modern medicine, it is an output of the same Universities and those it educates, and we wouldn't want you to ruin your life by living longer and healthier would we.  
Really if we can produce homes that are better to live in, healthier for their occupants and cheaper to run then it does seem to be a bit of a no brainer. On the other hand if we didn't want to improve our living conditions wouldn't we all still be living in caves and under overhangs.  People need to set aside blind prejudice to new ideas as it only holds us back, anything new is interesting and worth an honest appraisal, there is nothing lost in having an open mind to anything and everything as it is new things that lead to new efficiencies and a better world to live in if we get it right.

----------


## barney118

I should apologize Johnc, I was educated from the same university that these people are coming from, however I concur that there is nothing wrong with the passive haus but if these people are going to stand up in front of a heap of chippies and stake a claim that "this will be legislated" the hairs on my back stand up. If they are going to make a comment on such topic they should be careful in the words they choose and not speak on behalf of a crowd. 
As you say and the rest of the people in the room were interested in the cost of such designs (including me), and as you say deep pockets needed, and these people couldnt even put a cost to their ideas, to them its a bottomless bucket and the taxpayer/ homeowner will pay the bill for their idea that you dont agree with.  
I am all for efficiency however we don't get to choose where our electricity comes from, I would be the first to pay for nuclear power.

----------


## chrisp

> chrisp reads; Watson writes;  ergo Bedford is the assassin.

   

> If you want more detailed radiative forcing  calculations, Chrisp posted plenty earlier in the thread, so you can  search for these using any of the related terms.

  I'm still about and happily reading along... 
I take it that you are referring to this post?   http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...tml#post788982  
There were some updates or elaborations on it a little later in the thread too.   

> Dunno if he's allowed  to buy in now, but he was all over this like white on rice.

  Oh, I could "buy in" if I wanted to!  :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...but if these people are going to stand up in front of a heap of chippies and stake a claim that "this will be legislated" the hairs on my back stand up.

  Best beware the MBA then since they 'write' the Building Code...or perhaps they may be your Saviour.  Who knows?   

> I'm all for efficiency however we don't get to choose where our  electricity comes from, I would be the first to pay for nuclear  power.

  Um.  You do actually.  Money is a very powerful thing.  More powerful than governments.  Certainly more powerful than the current government.  And (like solar power) it still hasn't happened.  Why in this case is an exceedingly rhetorical question. 
But if you want to pay for nuclear generated electricity feel free...won't be cheaper than coal that's for sure.  Must be good money in whittling timber...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I'm still about and happily reading along... 
> Oh, I could "buy in" if I wanted to!

  And yet Life is such fun when treated as a spectator sport...

----------


## Rod Dyson

Wow I go away fishing and the thread explodes!!  Welcome all the new posters.  Great work there Doc :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  
Meanwhile my fishing trip gets de-railed by some of that global warming!   
Acumulated snow over night on our 4x4

----------


## shauck

> Make no mistake, I'm very supportive of any efficiencies in the building industry, but when it all gets greenwashed and enforced under the big greenie bogeyman of CO2, it makes me want to vomit. 
> Any building efficiency should be implemented because it is just that, efficient.  That's why they gain traction.  Implementing cost-inefficient and ridiculous policies based on future ideological catastrophes is idiotic.

  That's not any different to what I think on this matter.

----------


## shauck

> I'm way smarter than any piffle you might care to imagine...just not quite as pretty.  
> 'Passive Haus' is not a legislated building code in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world as far as I am aware.  In addition, at its typical level, it is not a concept that is suitable for retrofitting rather it is intended for new builds.  _Essentially, compliance with the PH principle means a well sealed house with minimum natural leakage to the outside air_ and no forms of artificial heating or cooling.  Air exchange with the outside world is done using fans and the like.  Heating (and some cooling) is done with heat exchangers within the airflow.  All the rest comes from designing the house to suit the environment within which it sits.  Essentially, they are the most efficient form of building there is...because they cost very little to run. 
> However...it will never be legislated as a Building Code.  It requires a certain rigor and capacity to operate such a house to get the best performance out of it.  And since the average human is defeated by any machine much more complicated than a toaster...I suspect that (in this case) the piffles will rule the world.

  Just a bit off topic. Sorry. "Someone" stated that houses sealed as mentioned above, in a bushfire situation, are at more risk. Something about window implosion?? I'm not a science head so can anyone comment on or explain this?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Are governments really this stupid.  

> Meeting the UK Governments target for renewable generation in 2020 will require total wind capacity of 36 GW backed up by 21 GW of open cycle gas plants plus large complementary investments in transmission capacity. Allowing for the shorter life of wind turbines, the investment outlay for this Wind scenario will be about £124 bilion. The same electricity demand could be met from 21.5 GW of combined cycle gas plants with a capital cost of £13 billion.

----------


## woodbe

> Don't jump the gun on "best" project.  
> [/B]Better do some reading  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

  This is one of the best examples ever of a climate change denier trying desperately to sift through temperature records looking for something, anything to support his opinion. 
Just a few of the errors made in the 'paper': 
* Released before it was submitted, even though Wotts critisised BEST/Muller to hell and back for doing the same. 
* Ignored TOB bias altogether, even claiming that he doesnt believe observers actually changed their observation times when requested to do so by NOAA (Observers write down the time of observation on their daily data sheets, I suppose they are liars too now?) 
* Included co-authors without telling them they were (and who rapidly pulled back their support for the 'paper') 
* (From a comment online; apparently Wotts supports copy paste to save time in writing original work for his 'papers'): The draft copy of Watts paper contains significant chunks of his 2011  paper with Fall copied word for word. Section 2.1 is word for word  identical and the beginning of Section 2.2 is word for word identical  until he mentions Fall itself and then Muller. This is what passes for a  publication to be submitted? 
If anyone actually wants to see further details of the errors and omissions: Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique 
Fake sceptics must be getting desperate to put this halfassed effort out for public scrutiny. I guess that's what you get when a weatherman thinks he knows more than the body of published climate science. 
1/10 Fail. Probably not capable of doing better, but should try harder all the same. 
woodbe

----------


## woodbe

> Apparently, the quote I pasted from your favorite information source (the me ) is a little too hard to understand.   
> Apparently it is complicated stuff.  
> But let me amuse you with an anecdote about my recent time in FNQ.  I was chatting to a road repair crew (of which there were very, very many compared to in WA), and asked this bloke why there were so many of them and so many road repairs underway.  He said that it was due to all the water washing the roads away.  I can personally attest to this having seen all the little waterfalls running over, under and along the roads.  I'm sure they're not that little in the wet season. 
> So I ask the bloke why they don't build a new road on the perfectly good ridge line we could see that was very smooth with no runoff to replace the hairpin bends of the old horse trail up the side of the mountain.  It was longer distance wise, but we've got cars now, so a few extra k's is nothing in today's world.  I said surely building this new road once would be cheaper than constantly rebuilding hairpin turns on the side of this mountain.  And he confirmed this repair process was constant, even without floods. 
> He replies that they're not allowed to chop down any trees there, so can't build any new roads in that area.

  Quite hilarious, isn't it. That people still do not understand the nature and reasons for protected forest areas.  
Even more hilarious is that you attempt to blame the current generation, when these restrictions are only recent and most roads have been in place for decades.   

> I'll do you one better than describing, here's just a few for the luddites out there:

  The _New River Gorge Bridge_ is a steel arch bridge 3030 feet (924 m) long over the New River Gorge near Fayetteville, West  Virginia. Not in a flood plain, it's in the mountains.    

> 

  Doesn't look like a flood plain to me. More like a bridge over a river.    

> 

  And again, here we have an example of the depths people who deny Climate Science will go to. Presented as an example of a bridge across a flood plain we see a bridge conveniently shrouded in mist. Under that mist is water, once again, not a flood plain.  *Jiaozhou Bay Bridge* (or *Qingdao Haiwan Bridge*) is a 26.7 kilometres (16.6 mi) long roadway bridge in eastern China's Shandong province, which is part of the 41.58 kilometres (25.84 mi) _Jiaozhou Bay Connection Project_.[1] As of July 2011, Jiaozhou Bay Bridge is, according to Guinness World Records, *the world's* _longest bridge over water (aggregate length)_ at 41.58 kilometres (25.84 mi) 
The bridge was reported by the official state-run television company CCTV to cost CN¥10 billion (US$1.5 billion, GB£900 million), however, other sources reported costs as high as CN¥55 billion (US$8.8 billion, GB£5.5 billion).[2] 
Wow, imagine what it would cost to build structures like that over all the floodplains in Qld! Be cheaper to move the Queenslanders into the mountains.  :Biggrin:  
Back on to the false sceptic insurance allegations: 
The Qld road system is extensive and pre-existing. It has not been installed by the Labor Government, and it is uninsurable by any government because of the risks associated with any roads in tropical areas, floodplains or not. The proposition is that the Government mismanaged the state insurance and exposed the state to $6bn storm damage costs to the roads by not insuring them. This is not the case, and never has been. The Government has to bear those risks regardless of their political flavour. 
The Qld government chose not to insure an insurable part of the state infrastructure and suffered a loss of $50m on that risk. They considered that insurance to be poor value. The new government has taken out that insurance for $30m per year. That is only good value if there is major storm damage EVERY year. Of course, if there was, guess where the premium would go? UP! 
The difference between the insured/not insured scenarios is not $6bn, it's $50m. ($20m if you include the $30m premium) If the government had taken out the insurable infrastructure insurance, the damage bill would have been $5950m instead of $6000m. The government took a fair risk, and lost, costing taxpayers $20m more than if they had taken the insurance. The new government is costing the taxpayers $30m regardless of whether there is major storm damage or not. That's their (political) call, and also a fair one. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Are governments really this stupid?

  Is this a rhetorical question?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Just a bit off topic. Sorry. "Someone" stated that houses sealed as mentioned above, in a bushfire situation, are at more risk. Something about window implosion?? I'm not a science head so can anyone comment on or explain this?

  They'd probably be talking/thinking about temperature and/or pressure differentials between outside and inside of windows.  Which would be quite a bit of beat up in either circumstance.  The only difference between the windows is the sealing system...and that would have to conform with the fire regs anyway to get the appropriate rating. 
A building built to the 'Passive Haus' standard and local fire resistance requirements would likely perform no differently to a conventional house built according to the same fire regs.  They might burn down or they might not.     
You could even argue that a well sealed house is actually less vulnerable to ember attack but if they are both built to the fire regs then they should be equally protected in this circumstance...all in all...much the same.

----------


## barney118

*STATEMENT       AT THE END SAYS IT ALL !!!!!*  66 years later!  *What happened       to the radiation that*  *lasts thousands of years?*  *We all know that        Hiroshima and  Nagasaki   were destroyed in August 1945
      after the explosion of atomic bombs.
      However, we know little about the progress made by the people of that       land  
      during the past 65 years.*  
      HIROSHIMA - 65 YEARS LATER   *DETROIT**- 65        YEARS AFTER  HIROSHIMA* 
      check out pictures for yourself  *What has caused more long term destruction** - 
      the  A-bomb, or  Government welfare programs created to buy the
      votes of those who want someone to take care of them? 
      Japan does not have a welfare system. 
      Work for it or do without.*        
These are possibly the 5 best   sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment: 
  1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy   out of prosperity. 
  2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for   without receiving. 
  3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does   not first take from somebody else. 
  4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it! 
  5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work  because   the other half is going to take care of them, and when the  other half gets   the idea that it does no good to work because somebody  else is going to get   what they work for, that is the beginning of the  end of any nation. 
  Can you think of a reason for not sharing this? Neither could I.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Can you think of a reason for not sharing this? Neither could I.

  Sharing doesn't make such a statement 'right' or 'true'.  Or relevant.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):    
Oh and Japan may not have a government mandated welfare system.  But they do have a strong culture of inter and intra familial support so they have a cultural welfare system.  Western cultures simply don't.  Either way then Japanese economy hasn't grown much in the last 15 years either...that's an ideal worth chasing, eh?

----------


## barney118

> Sharing doesn't make such a statement 'right' or 'true'.  Or relevant.

  Agreed. :Biggrin:    
Maybe life expectancy is a better measure of the nation? Japan 2nd in the world, not bad after all that evil fallout ! Japan may not have a great GDP but the point I think is worthy of comment is they certainly know how to rebuild, compare that to some other parts of the world since WW2.

----------


## woodbe

> Just a bit off topic. Sorry. "Someone" stated that houses sealed as mentioned above, in a bushfire situation, are at more risk. Something about window implosion?? I'm not a science head so can anyone comment on or explain this?

  Also, regardless of window type, above a certain BAL (Bushfire Attack Level) windows need to be tested and rated to be able to withstand radiant heat loading on the glass and frame. Reputable window suppliers are doing these tests and already offering BAL-40 rated, double glazed windows. BAL-40 is 1 level down from the highest BAL rating, BAL-FZ (Flame Zone) I think that in BAL-FZ screens are required in front of the glass, but have not checked. Even so, there are window suppliers working on BAL-FZ windows, Miglas is one of them. 
So, your "Someone" needs to check their facts. Any unrated window is a potential risk in a bushfire zone, but I would expect a double glazed unit to be no worse than single glazed and quite likely better. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> Agreed.   
> Maybe life expectancy is a better measure of the nation? Japan 2nd in the world, not bad after all that evil fallout ! Japan may not have a great GDP but the point I think is worthy of comment is they certainly know how to rebuild, compare that to some other parts of the world since WW2.

  I think you might be better off learning a little more about history before making these judgements, the welfare one being a very poor one at best. Japan had a very strong manufacturing sector before the second world war that was badly damaged along with the rest of the country by 1945. Western nations took a lesson from the treatment of Germany and war reparations at the end of WW1 and decided not to repeat those mistakes. Japans rebuilding was done with the assistance of Western nations particularly America the country you attempt to vilify for what ever reason. Their culture and motivation did the rest. The property slump, collapse of GDP, stagnation of the share market could also be blamed on that very same culture. they remain a strong economy in decline not unlike America, but both countries have the capacity to put that aside and become strong economic powers again if they can develop the political will to rectify the problems causing their current stagnation. just a tip, it has nothing to do with some idiots comparison to welfare and a lot to do with effective regulation of the corporate governance and banking sectors of both countries. 
As for life expectancy try diet, rice is better than Mcdonalds to start with, you also cannot rule out genetics, however diet appears to be the main cause, put people with Asian genes on a western diet and they will exhibit the same health issues as a person with western genes on a standard western diet.

----------


## Marc

> Also, regardless of window type, above a certain BAL (Bushfire Attack Level) windows need to be tested and rated to be able to withstand radiant heat loading on the glass and frame. Reputable window suppliers are doing these tests and already offering BAL-40 rated, double glazed windows. BAL-40 is 1 level down from the highest BAL rating, BAL-FZ (Flame Zone) I think that in BAL-FZ screens are required in front of the glass, but have not checked. Even so, there are window suppliers working on BAL-FZ windows, Miglas is one of them. 
> So, your "Someone" needs to check their facts. Any unrated window is a potential risk in a bushfire zone, but I would expect a double glazed unit to be no worse than single glazed and quite likely better. 
> woodbe.

  Uhuu Mr Someone, it seems that you got it right, yet you also got it wrong. See if you have ordinary windows you are screwed if you have bunker windows approved by the green council and the local masonic lodge, you are OK :2thumbsup:  
I like CO2, love it. I make as much as I can.

----------


## johnc

> They'd probably be talking/thinking about temperature and/or pressure differentials between outside and inside of windows. Which would be quite a bit of beat up in either circumstance. The only difference between the windows is the sealing system...and that would have to conform with the fire regs anyway to get the appropriate rating. 
> A building built to the 'Passive Haus' standard and local fire resistance requirements would likely perform no differently to a conventional house built according to the same fire regs. They might burn down or they might not.  
> You could even argue that a well sealed house is actually less vulnerable to ember attack but if they are both built to the fire regs then they should be equally protected in this circumstance...all in all...much the same.

  I don't now about the implosion theory, what i found interesting was even rough but well sealed double glazed windows worked well to defend homes, there were pictures in one study of a window sealed with silicone oozing out from a rough timber framed instal with the outer pane cracked but inner intact. Along with minimizing ember ingress to the roof space and under house seemed to provide a level of protection. So did avoiding exterior structures that avoided flammable materials like timber decking etc. safest way to avoid being killed in a bush fire though still remains not being there in the first place if you can avoid it.

----------


## Marc

> I think you might be better off learning a little more about history before making these judgements, the welfare one being a very poor one at best. Japan had a very strong manufacturing sector before the second world war that was badly damaged along with the rest of the country by 1945. Western nations took a lesson from the treatment of Germany and war reparations at the end of WW1 and decided not to repeat those mistakes. Japans rebuilding was done with the assistance of Western nations particularly America the country you attempt to vilify for what ever reason.  Their culture and motivation did the rest. The property slump, collapse of GDP, stagnation of the share market could also be blamed on that very same culture. they remain a strong economy in decline not unlike America, but both countries have the capacity to put that aside and become strong economic powers again if they can develop the political will to rectify the problems causing their current stagnation. just a tip, it has nothing to do with some idiots comparison to welfare and a lot to do with effective regulation of the corporate governance and banking sectors of both countries.

  You make some good points Johncy but you can not ignore many very good points made by Barney on welfare. 
Welfare is a tool for decadence and a political football for the populist governments. 
The cultural strength of Japan is not the result of the absence of welfare, but it is their cultural strength that makes the welfare unnecessary. If a welfare system would be introduced in Japan, the results would probably be very negative. 
Look what is happening in Australia where other cultures that have never experienced welfare, all of a sudden discover they can live off others without any shame, without asking, simply demanding it as a right. To them welfare is poison that will carry on for generations.

----------


## barney118

I am not Vilifying any country, simply a comparison, History not my favorite subject, yes we can learn from it if we choose to but we can't change it so what's the point?
Governments don't seem to play by the rules, on banks who needs them anyway, look at Greece they have gone back to a TEM, I ll give you 5 carrots for 2 eggs. 
So what ever nation you choose, helped  Japan get on its feet after the war, they simply overlooked their own back yards to help the cause.... The USA is a nice place to visit, I have had 2 holidays in as many years there, it is not a good sight seeing beggars on the street. As far as culture and poverty is concern it's a choice, I choose to work for what I have and thank the employer for the opportunity. I am not one of those people who think  " payday" is simply waiting for the next fortnight for money to magically appear in my bank account and have a government buy votes by feeding this addiction. Correct me if I am wrong Robin Hood aka Juliar ( I know there is not much a ring to it) uses 45% of taxes collected to give to those who wait every fortnight. Meanwhile the rules for Govt are different to me and you, " do as I say not as I do" Superannuation is a good one.
Malcolm Naden was at large for 7 odd years, I wonder if he is eligible to put in for lost dole?
As far as your attempt to simplify diet comparisons, you have forgotten the topic is on CO2, the bad stuff, the Nuclear curve ball is just as relevant, obviously rice grows well in contaminated land, maybe McDonald's needs to put it on the menu, or I have read you wrong they used to live to 100 but it's now 80? Because of all this bad stuff. 
Dr Freud, since when is Santa not real? I still get presents..... 
Someone with some sanity get us back on track. ( looking behind me Bedford the Assassin is going to strike)   
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Bedford

> Someone with some sanity get us back on track. ( looking behind me Bedford the Assassin is going to strike)

  Righto you buggers, back on topic!  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> Righto you buggers, back on topic!

  Yes Sir!  :Biggrin:  
As forecast by those that deny the scientific evidence for AGW, the Arctic sea ice is in recovery:   
Yes, dear reader, it's recovering from having ice.  :Tongue:  
The extent has stayed well beyond 2 Standard deviations below the mean for 2 months now. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

And of course, we know that deniers of AGW love to point out that while the Arctic is decreasing, heck the Antarctic is increasing so we don't have to worry about a thing! 
Not quite:   
Sure, it's increasing. Trend is LESS THAN 1% per Decade, (with error bars a maximum of 1.5% per decade) 
And the comparison for the Arctic:     :Eek:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> You make some good points Johncy but you can not ignore many very good points made by Barney on welfare. 
> Welfare is a tool for decadence and a political football for the populist governments. 
> The cultural strength of Japan is not the result of the absence of welfare, but it is their cultural strength that makes the welfare unnecessary. If a welfare system would be introduced in Japan, the results would probably be very negative. 
> Look what is happening in Australia where other cultures that have never experienced welfare, all of a sudden discover they can live off others without any shame, without asking, simply demanding it as a right. To them welfare is poison that will carry on for generations.

  We can both agree on welfare being a tool for governments seeking to enhance their poll results, both Howard and Rudd/Gillard are guilty of pandering to ever growing welfare payments to the middle class. Another growth economy is Denmarks with has very high welfare expenditure, we are not as high as some but still up near the top compared to the rest of the world. I don't think there is a big connect between welfare and industrial strength, it is more a matter of a contries government keeping its expenditure within its revenue collections. America has very heavy military spending and that may well be at the point that the country has to consider its long term objectives in view of its budget issues. It also subsidises its primary industries and military manufacturers really are on massive government welfare.  
Welfare is just part of dealing with a section of the community to ensure basic needs are met, a human right we can afford, pay no welfare you may have more working poor plus a higher crime rate and greater disadvantage, pay to much and you have a section that just take. There is no easy answer, some genuinely should receive benefits to help them through brief periods of illness or unemployment, I doubt many have a problem with that, it is those that make no effort to find work most of us would object to our taxes going to. 
The lack of welfare in Japan caused big problems for the unemployed when there economy turned down in the eighties, they had a history of very long term employment with loyalty on both sides of the employment divide, it can also be nasty for those who are elderly with no family. As a result some simply become down and outs eeking out a pitiful existence until they die. No system is perfect, I wouldn't want Japans here it would not work in a society like ours. At least here we have a system that tries to get people back to work and to reduce family break downs during periods of family financial stress during illness and unemployment.

----------


## barney118

> We can both agree on welfare being a tool for governments seeking to enhance their poll results, both Howard and Rudd/Gillard are guilty of pandering to ever growing welfare payments to the middle class.

  I think you will find Howard supported the middle class yes, the middle class also payed substantial income tax, my saying is you have to speculate to accumulate. Peter Costello did a brilliant job of running the country paying of enormous Debt and repeated surplus after surplus and stash a @@@@ load in the bank for a rainy day. It also solved a huge problem of not having enough booty in the govt super funds to pay out its (Communists  , I mean workers).  
Juliar/Dudd on the other hand, simply splashed the cash and   

> We were standing in a tropical rainforest that grows faster than JULIAR's debt

   handout out cash to the needed to blow in the pokies, or buy a new plasma (Jerry Harvey made a motza). And they did it again and again, handed out free pink batts and killed a few innocent workers in the process and wiped their hands clean, build some school halls (not a bad idea but would you regulate your own money with the same care?) And the latest con to take Billions of companies and play robin hood called it a Carbon Tax. 
I think we prospered well under Howard /Costello, I raised 3 kids in this period and there was no welfare for me compared to now, maternity leave? its a choice if you want kids did your mum and dad need a hand bringing you up?   

> it is more a matter of a contries government keeping its expenditure within its revenue collections.

  Interesting statement, Juliar/Dudd have certainly kept us on track hey  :No:    

> Welfare is just part of dealing with a section of the community to ensure basic needs are met, a human right we can afford, pay no welfare you may have more working poor plus a higher crime rate and greater disadvantage, pay to much and you have a section that just take. There is no easy answer, some genuinely should receive benefits to help them through brief periods of illness or unemployment, I doubt many have a problem with that, it is those that make no effort to find work most of us would object to our taxes going to.

  Poverty is a choice, no problem with short term issues etc, USA has a good one, 12 mths or so and thats it, how many bludgers are out there in this country waiting for "payday" The TEM barter system in Greece seems to be working well, its been used for centuries on and off. Get off your backside and get a job, who said national service was a bad thing. 
[/quote] 
The lack of welfare in Japan caused big problems for the unemployed when there economy turned down in the eighties, they had a history of very long term employment with loyalty on both sides of the employment divide, it can also be nasty for those who are elderly with no family. As a result some simply become down and outs eeking out a pitiful existence until they die. No system is perfect, I wouldn't want Japans here it would not work in a society like ours. At least here we have a system that tries to get people back to work and to reduce family break downs during periods of family financial stress during illness and unemployment.[/QUOTE] 
[QUOTE=johnc;890869] 
The governments job is to support industry with sensible legislation, Carbon Tax doesnt support anything? the greed of banks and people believing they can make money of your money and get away with it led to the downfall in the GFC, since Dudd and Juliar arrived I am sure more people are out of a job but the "statistics" we are fed on the unemployment levels are all bullsh@t. The RBA is in bed with the govt as the higher the interest rate the easier it is to pay govt debt off at the expense of a high dollar and killing our industries. The inflation rate is below the desired numbers and they still sit on the sidelines while the  rest of the world is seeing who can drive thier dollar lower to generate business.
Like the sale of Gunns in Tasmania to the green cult, they have been harvesting trees for 200years, Is there more trees now than there was back then? It sounds like a sucessful renewable industry.
Superannuation is a sore point to me, why can the banks make money on your mula and the govt be so restrictive on how you can use it and the rules keep on changing, like I said one set of rules for the govt, one for you.  
Governments have too many perks on our money maybe they could direct some of this where its needed rather than themselves.

----------


## barney118

> Yes Sir!  
> As forecast by those that deny the scientific evidence for AGW, the Arctic sea ice is in recovery:   
> Yes, dear reader, it's recovering from having ice.  
> The extent has stayed well beyond 2 Standard deviations below the mean for 2 months now. 
> woodbe.

  Ummm looks like a "hockey stick"  :Roflmao:

----------


## woodbe

> Ummm looks like a "hockey stick"

  Haha. 
Well, yea. the historical 1979-2000 average looks like a hockey stick. The current year looks more like one of the slopes at Thredbo.

----------


## johnc

> I think you will find Howard supported the middle class yes, the middle class also payed substantial income tax, my saying is you have to speculate to accumulate. Peter Costello did a brilliant job of running the country paying of enormous Debt and repeated surplus after surplus and stash a @@@@ load in the bank for a rainy day. It also solved a huge problem of not having enough booty in the govt super funds to pay out its (Communists , I mean workers).  
> Juliar/Dudd on the other hand, simply splashed the cash and handout out cash to the needed to blow in the pokies, or buy a new plasma (Jerry Harvey made a motza). And they did it again and again, handed out free pink batts and killed a few innocent workers in the process and wiped their hands clean, build some school halls (not a bad idea but would you regulate your own money with the same care?) And the latest con to take Billions of companies and play robin hood called it a Carbon Tax. 
> I think we prospered well under Howard /Costello, I raised 3 kids in this period and there was no welfare for me compared to now, maternity leave? its a choice if you want kids did your mum and dad need a hand bringing you up?   
> Interesting statement, Juliar/Dudd have certainly kept us on track hey    
> Poverty is a choice, no problem with short term issues etc, USA has a good one, 12 mths or so and thats it, how many bludgers are out there in this country waiting for "payday" The TEM barter system in Greece seems to be working well, its been used for centuries on and off. Get off your backside and get a job, who said national service was a bad thing.

  The lack of welfare in Japan caused big problems for the unemployed when there economy turned down in the eighties, they had a history of very long term employment with loyalty on both sides of the employment divide, it can also be nasty for those who are elderly with no family. As a result some simply become down and outs eeking out a pitiful existence until they die. No system is perfect, I wouldn't want Japans here it would not work in a society like ours. At least here we have a system that tries to get people back to work and to reduce family break downs during periods of family financial stress during illness and unemployment.[/QUOTE]   

> The governments job is to support industry with sensible legislation, Carbon Tax doesnt support anything? the greed of banks and people believing they can make money of your money and get away with it led to the downfall in the GFC, since Dudd and Juliar arrived I am sure more people are out of a job but the "statistics" we are fed on the unemployment levels are all bullsh@t. The RBA is in bed with the govt as the higher the interest rate the easier it is to pay govt debt off at the expense of a high dollar and killing our industries. The inflation rate is below the desired numbers and they still sit on the sidelines while the rest of the world is seeing who can drive thier dollar lower to generate business.
> Like the sale of Gunns in Tasmania to the green cult, they have been harvesting trees for 200years, Is there more trees now than there was back then? It sounds like a sucessful renewable industry.
> Superannuation is a sore point to me, why can the banks make money on your mula and the govt be so restrictive on how you can use it and the rules keep on changing, like I said one set of rules for the govt, one for you.  
> Governments have too many perks on our money maybe they could direct some of this where its needed rather than themselves.

  You are doing rather well at repeating the usual propaganda, the facts are that as a percentage of GDP Gillard is a lower taxing, lower spending government than the Howard period. In fact Howard is one of the highest taxing and spending of all time, doesn't feel like it though. Are you aware that an average family with two children in secondary school with an income of say $55,000 with say the hubby in work in a trade and the wife picking up about $5k a year will pay around $8000 in tax but pick up around $12,206 in welfare between Part A, PartB and student payments. If you bump it up to say $80,000 per year half and half you get about breakeven for tax and compensating benefits about the same. 
What would happen if we simply eliminated the welfare payments and lifted the tax free threshold to $40,000, it would be a far simpler system and we wouldn't need all those people in Centrelink. 
If you want to pick political sides go for it but there isn't as much in it as you think, the impact on the countries bottom line is effected more by external factors than it is by the minor tinkering of different parties. 
By the way there were less people killed under the pink batts debacle than normally lost their lives installing insulation in an average year, it was happening all along but no one noticed. Not acceptable but let's keep things in perspective.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...but let's keep things in perspective.

  What!!! 
This thread would be dead in seconds if we all did that.

----------


## johnc

My mistake, how stupid of me, now what is this thread about.

----------


## Marc

I love it every time !  George Carlin on Global Warming - YouTube

----------


## Paternoster

> I love it every time !  George Carlin on Global Warming - YouTube

  As he say´s clearly:"the planet is fine...we are f**ed" and he is right,we are killing the environment from which we live.And since you brought up this video,which doesn´t just touch climate change but pollution as well: HowStuffWorks "Keep Your Junk out of the Pacific Ocean Trash Vortex"
This vortex of junk is just ONE example of ow we pollute our environment and it has a huge impact,the plastic garbage is being broken up in ever smaller pieces (and the oldest particles are several decades old in) until it is small enough to be identified by fish as plankton and crab.They eat it and die.Sea gulls feed that stuff to their chicks and guess what happens?
That garbage is a direct result of Americans,using every day billions of plastic bags etc and throwing them away (which by the way costs oil....but whatever,we get that stuff cheap from Iraq,right?).
It is a very simple example,how WE jeopardize our environment and it will not help us to say:well,the planet will be fine blabla..or could you live on Mars?

----------


## Paternoster

> I think you're trying to explain an assumption.  I think if it was warm  there it would just be warm there, no catastrophe.  I think what you're  trying to say in a very crude way is that if the temperature in Canada  went up by 60 degrees C to create a tolerable 20 degrees C, then you assume  the rest of the Planetary temperature goes up the commensurate 60  degrees C, then we'd all better get used to swimming and eating seafood.  If you're a dedicated meat eater like myself, this would be a  catastrophe.  
> Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...#ixzz23RcX2reY

  
A lot of species are relying on the cold and the ice of the Canadian arctic shouldn´t melt either.If Canada and the interiour would be warm all year around,the land would cplt dry out.The only thing,that brings moisture in are the temperature differences:the land in the south warms up and cold air draws in from the north.Canada is a major grain producer (and I mean GRAIN,NOT corn like the US) which means soaring food prices  
But what do you care?looking over the edge of your plate isn´t your thing.

----------


## Paternoster

> No one has been abled to answer who pays the Carbon Tax after a bushfire in Australia? State or Federal or Council?
> Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...#ixzz23SEjDYVM

  You haven´t even understood yet,what emission regulations are about and yet,you want to pass on you opinion.....very intelligent!There is a BIG difference between fossil carbon and in-system carbon:every gram of carbon,released by a tree that burns,has been previously caught by that tree from the atmosphere.Fossil CO2 is from tree that caught their CO2 millions of years ago and that CO2 is ADDED to the system,which means it INCREASES the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere,but don´t worry,you are in good companionship since most climate change denier don´t even know,what it is about.... 
To give you one thing,that DOES add fossil CO2 to the atmosphere:Volcanic eruptions!But even the massive outbreaks of volcanoes around the world haven´t added as much CO2 to the atmosphere as humans have done in the last 200 years.

----------


## Paternoster

> You don't know man, you weren't there.

  That´s what they invented books for and we have EVERY court case ever conducted by the Catholic church,so Copernicus´s case for instance.Try reading for a change and don´t just watch Fox "news",it helps!

----------


## Marc

Avemaria is back with his usual out of context "I told you so" bad boy - go to your corner - postings.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):   Global Warming Hysteria Debunked by Scientists - YouTube

----------


## Marc

You must love you tube 
Ooooh those terrible red neck Americans driving their GMC trucks, bad boys bad boys, you are killing it!!!!!!! :Doh:   "Global Warming Hysteria Used to Re-Design American Economy and Foreign Policy" - YouTube

----------


## Paternoster

> You must love you tube 
> Ooooh those terrible red neck Americans driving their GMC trucks, bad boys bad boys, you are killing it!!!!!!!  "Global Warming Hysteria Used to Re-Design American Economy and Foreign Policy" - YouTube

  Your constant remarks about me,being "moral supreme" just implies how much you think of yourself as in the wrong.As for your post....FOX NEWS???REALLY???That is like asking the Chinese if they think their State is repressive...go figure what they would answer....of course is Fox "news" not going EVER to say that global warming exists,same as Sinn Féin isn´t going to admit that the IRA conducted illegal killings...you are such a credible guy...
And btw:my posts aren´t out of context,it´s you that constantly ignores any logic and it´s not just Rednecks that drive Trucks here,it´s EVERYBODY,but what do you know?Nothing!

----------


## barney118

> You haven´t even understood yet,what emission regulations are about and yet,you want to pass on you opinion.....very intelligent!There is a BIG difference between fossil carbon and in-system carbon:every gram of carbon,released by a tree that burns,has been previously caught by that tree from the atmosphere.Fossil CO2 is from tree that caught their CO2 millions of years ago and that CO2 is ADDED to the system,which means it INCREASES the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere,but don´t worry,you are in good companionship since most climate change denier don´t even know,what it is about.... 
> To give you one thing,that DOES add fossil CO2 to the atmosphere:Volcanic eruptions!But even the massive outbreaks of volcanoes around the world haven´t added as much CO2 to the atmosphere as humans have done in the last 200 years.

  Where do you come up with such logic...? You expect ever increasing C02? Trees releasing and capturing carbon? Did you learn anything about photosynthesis? It's a chemical process plants love C02 and convert it to Oxygen for you.
The earth regulates itself pretty well, maybe that explains why we have 4 seasons a year. Your quote on the volcanoes, what reference are you getting your information from? You weren't there man!
Have a look at the number of cold and warm periods over the thousands of years scientists have guesstimated.  
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## johnc

> Where do you come up with such logic...? You expect ever increasing C02? Trees releasing and capturing carbon? Did you learn anything about photosynthesis? It's a chemical process plants love C02 and convert it to Oxygen for you.
> The earth regulates itself pretty well, maybe that explains why we have 4 seasons a year. Your quote on the volcanoes, what reference are you getting your information from? You weren't there man!
> Have a look at the number of cold and warm periods over the thousands of years scientists have guesstimated.  
> Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

  Actually the logic is fairly obvious, trees capture carbon as they grow, if you had woodlots for firewood for example those you burnt would soon be balanced out by the trees regrown for the next crop. The net change to CO2 in the atmosphere would be negligable over the cycle. Carbon released from fuels such as coal are simply released and not recaptured by any ongoing process, thereby adding to the carbon load in the loop, I think we all have given up on Marc ever producing anything lucid but the rest of us should at least make some effort to respect others views and limit ill thought out responses. Photosynthesis might be the process of conversion for the woodlot example but it does not have a corresponding connection to coal burning unless you plan on planting massive forests somewhere to convert it to something else.

----------


## barney118

> Actually the logic is fairly obvious, trees capture carbon as they grow, if you had woodlots for firewood for example those you burnt would soon be balanced out by the trees regrown for the next crop. The net change to CO2 in the atmosphere would be negligable over the cycle.

  Trees, are a bio mass that comprise of Carbon (solid), CO2 is a (gas) 2 oxygen molecules for every 1 carbon, so when coal wasnt around there must have been a huge Carbon inequality problem of cutting tress down for heating/housing/buildings etc meaning less trees around to convert C02 to oxygen. There could be more or less trees available its not a constant therefore not negligible over the cycle, its just a matter of where we are in the cycle ! It will go up and it will go down, is it a catastrophe? it might be a little warmer this year, but it also may be a bit cooler, that's why in less than 20 years it has changed from GLOBAL WARMING be alarmed !!!! to now CLIMATE CHANGE because we are actually cooling. You can predict what ever you want, you wont be around to see the results, so spend some valuable time on chopping down trees and making stuff out of wood, got a love that spotted gum.   

> Carbon released from fuels such as coal are simply released and not recaptured by any ongoing process, thereby adding to the carbon load in the loop

   "mass cannot be created or destroyed" it will change from one form to another in the process water vapor will be a by product and is more responsible for heating/deflecting.     

> Photosynthesis might be the process of conversion for the woodlot example but it does not have a corresponding connection to coal burning unless you plan on planting massive forests somewhere to convert it to something else.

  Coal was once plant matter, I would be more worried of the by products like cyanide than C02.  
Hydrocarbons - burning these will produce at a minimum C02,water, heat and light. 
Methane
CH4 + 2O2 [ CO2 + 2H2 O
Ethane
2C2 H6 + 7O2 [ 4CO2 + 6H2 O
Propane
C3H8 + 5O2 [ 3CO2 + 4H2 O
Ethanol
C2 H5OH + 3O2 [ 2CO2 + 3H2 O 
Gee in each equation there is more water produced than carbon dioxide, what have I said about water vapor again  :Confused:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...so when coal wasnt around there must have been a huge Carbon inequality problem

  Yeah...there was.  Most of it was in the atmosphere, the remainder locked into igneous rocks. And the planet has basically lifeless. And then cyanobacteria came along...a few hundreds of mllions years later...that Cambrian explosion...and the beginnings of a massive locking away of carbon (eventually in the form of hydrocarbons) into a fossilised resource which removes it from the system.  Scroll forward another few hundred million years and the system has adjusted a new equalibrium with less available carbon.  And then suddenly, a species begins accessing and releasing that fossilised carbon that has been locked away from the system for hundreds of millenia... 
As an intellectual exercise, consider all the gold that has been mined by humans in the last 200 years.  Most of it lies outside the modern commodity trading system...locked into vaults, jewellery, electronics and currency reserves...and the commodity market knows this, has adapted to the paradigm and is comfortable with it.  Now imagine if it was all that locked away gold was allowed to suddenly flow onto the commodity market at a steadily increasing rate over the next little while...it wouldn't do much for the gold price, the commodity market and the wider economy in general would it?   
Same principle applies to our use of fossilised hydrocarbons...and the other Shocks of the New that we apply to our ongoing experiment in biosphere tinkering. 
This sort of tinkering is a little like gardening.....sometimes you just fork it up.

----------


## Marc

*Greenies are  the  Greatest Threat to Biodiversity*  

> By JR   on Thursday, June 21, 2012       
> The UN Conference on Sustainable Development is underway in Rio  de Janeiro. This time, 20 years after the original 1992 Rio Earth  Summit, thousands of politicians, bureaucrats and environmental  activists are toning down references to dangerous man-made climate  change, to avoid repeating the acrimony and failures that characterized  its recent climate conferences in Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban. 
> Instead,  the Rio+20 cabal is trying to shift attention to biodiversity and  alleged threats to plant and animal species, as the new greatest  threat facing Planet Earth. This rebranding is by design, according  to conference organizers, who say sustainable development and  biodiversity is an easier sell these days than climate change: a  simpler path to advance the same radical goals. 
> Those goals  include expanded powers and budgets for the United Nations, UN  Environment Programme, US Environmental Protection Agency and other  government agencies, and their allied Green pressure groups; new taxes  on international financial transactions (to ensure perpetual independent  funding for the UN and UNEP); and more mandates and money for clean,  green, renewable energy. 
> Their wish list also includes myriad  opportunities to delay, prevent and control energy and economic  development, hydrocarbon use, logging, farming, family size, and the  right of individual countries, states, communities and families to make  and regulate their own development and economic decisions. 
> Aside  from not giving increased power to unelected and unaccountable  bureaucrats and activists, there are two major reasons for stopping this  attempted biodiversity-based power grab. 
> 1) There is no scientific basis for claims that hundreds or thousands of species are at risk 
> Up  to half of all species could go extinct by 2100, asserts astronomer and  global warming alarmist James Hansen, because of climate change,  unsustainable hydrocarbon use, human population growth and economic  development. At Rio+20 and elsewhere activists are trumpeting these  hysterical claims in reports, speeches and press releases.  
> Fortunately,  there is no factual basis for them.  Of 191 bird and mammal species  recorded as having gone extinct since 1500, 95% were on islands, where  humans and human-introduced predators and diseases wrought the  destruction, notes ecology researcher Dr. Craig Loehle. On continents,  only six birds and three mammals were driven to extinction, and no bird  or mammal species in recorded history is known to have gone extinct due  to climate change. 
> ...

----------


## watson

Cheeses Twice.
Great Post Marc............for a cut & paste.
Do you have a personal opinion?? 
Mumble mumble bugger poop

----------


## Marc

> Your constant remarks about me,being "moral supreme"....and bla bla bla

  Perhaps because your points are a constant bet up of a baseless theory that attempts to blame mankind of changes in the weather pattern. The absurdity of such claims compare only to the tales of ancient mythology and for someone to believe them requires a large doses of ignorance a massive ego or a complex of moral superiority like the monks of the inquisition. 
Then again, what do I know, right? :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

> Cheeses Twice.
> Great Post Marc............for a cut & paste.
> Do you have a personal opinion?? 
> Mumble mumble bugger poop

  The messenger is irrelevant, it is the message that matters. I don't post to score "personal" points. My opinion has been posted here hundred times over. The above is a very good article I totally relate to and agree with, written much better than I could.
Enjoy.

----------


## Paternoster

> Where do you come up with such logic...? You expect ever increasing C02? Trees releasing and capturing carbon? Did you learn anything about photosynthesis? It's a chemical process plants love C02 and convert it to Oxygen for you.
> The earth regulates itself pretty well, maybe that explains why we have 4 seasons a year. Your quote on the volcanoes, what reference are you getting your information from? You weren't there man!
> Have a look at the number of cold and warm periods over the thousands of years scientists have guesstimated.  
> Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

  For the FIFTH (and last!) time:there is two sorts of CO2...CO2 that is "in the modern system",which means it comes from the trees (for instance) that have been burned or rotted away and animals that breath it out.
That CO2 is captured by trees and they use it (rightfully depicted by you)to produce oxygen AND they store it. 
The second sort of CO2 is fossil CO2:it HAS NOT been in the system for millions of years,but was STORED under the surface (or where does coal and oil comes from?).When it is introduced into the atmosphere,it is ADDED to the existing CO2.The only natural phenomena equal to that is a volcanic eruption. 
Added CO2 has the effect of INCREASING the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere.There is NO debate about this,we know for a fact that that CO2 is added.The whole point of debate is,what IMPACT that added CO2 has. 
So,your "knowledge base" isn´t even in the ball park....go back and learn the basics of the topic BEFORE making statements and accusing other of ignorance!

----------


## Paternoster

> Trees, are a bio mass that comprise of Carbon (solid), CO2 is a (gas) 2  oxygen molecules for every 1 carbon, so when coal wasnt around there  must have been a huge Carbon inequality problem of cutting tress down  for heating/housing/buildings etc meaning less trees around to convert  C02 to oxygen. There could be more or less trees available its not a  constant therefore not negligible over the cycle, its just a matter of  where we are in the cycle ! It will go up and it will go down, is it a  catastrophe? it might be a little warmer this year, but it also may be a  bit cooler, that's why in less than 20 years it has changed from GLOBAL  WARMING be alarmed !!!! to now CLIMATE CHANGE because we are actually  cooling. You can predict what ever you want, you wont be around to see  the results, so spend some valuable time on chopping down trees and  making stuff out of wood, got a love that spotted gum.
> Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...#ixzz23eVRchfO

  OK Einstein:ever heard of the destruction of the rain forests?Ever heard of the overpopulation of the world?  Controlling Over Population is The Most Obvious Way to Help the Worlds Problems Under Control | Powering the Future with Sustainable Energy | SustainableEnergySystemz 
That population "explosion" has a direct impact on forests around the world:forests have a wide diversity of species and are unique ecosystems,BUT they don´t deliver a lot of food.Natural folks like the rainforest Indians have struggled as hunter-gatherer for centuries but as a direct result have their numbers stayed small.Same btw with Aboriginals.It is a very unproductive lifestyle,but one that is very good for forests.
Overpopulation (or bigger populations)needs a far more sophisticated system for the generation of food,so forests have to go and the large scale agricultural industry is born.  
The *world population* is the sum total of all living humans on Earth. As of today, it is estimated to number *7.033 billion* by the United States Census Bureau (USCB).[1] The USCB estimates that the world population exceeded 7 billion on March 12, 2012.[2] According to a separate estimate by the United Nations Population Fund, it reached this milestone on October 31, 2011.[3][4][5]  The world population is growing at a rapid pace,despite wars and diseases and it is not a linear development (it grows somewhat "square") so,demand for food is growing over proportional to the rate it can be generated.Field don´t catch a lot of CO2 and it isn´t stored there for very long either...where is the "storing space" coming from,I ask you?
That "bit warmer" can be very quick a lot warmer and it´s not so much the heat that is the direct problem,it´s the change of weather systems that will cause BIG problems.
Another problem is the souring of the seas:  When the Seas Turn Sour « Legal Planet: Environmental Law and Policy 
So,CO2 is being stored in the sea (so,we don´t even have the full impact of CO2 on the atmosphere) but we have already a negative impact on the oceans...yeah,CO2 is good for us,in ANY quantity...right...

----------


## Paternoster

> *Greenies are  the  Greatest Threat to Biodiversity*

   What is the source of your mumbo jumbo post?JR?Isn´t that the bad guy in "Dallas"?Well,he´s into oil,isn´t he  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  ?

----------


## Paternoster

> Perhaps because your points are a constant bet up of a baseless theory that attempts to blame mankind of changes in the weather pattern. The absurdity of such claims compare only to the tales of ancient mythology and for someone to believe them requires a large doses of ignorance a massive ego or a complex of moral superiority like the monks of the inquisition. 
> Then again, what do I know, right?

  Right,what do you know?
If you would bother and look into the history of mankind,you would find that mankind is the most powerful and therefor devastating animal in the history of the earth.A Dino could push over a tree...we can plow whole stretches of forest in a day worth of work.We have made species instinct and have introduced species into ecosystems that proved (and still proves) devastating...ever heard of the cane toad?Or about a rabbit fence in a country called Australia?
If there is ANY human,who knows how devastating human actions can be to an ecosystem,it should be an Australian.....so,where do you live?
The industrialization has set fossil CO2 free for the last 200 odd years and has increased with every year,powering more and more machine 24/7 around the world...do the math:don´t you think it will have an impact?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The messenger is irrelevant, it is the message that matters. I don't post to score "personal" points. My opinion has been posted here hundred times over. The above is a very good article I totally relate to and agree with, written much better than I could.
> Enjoy.

  The only thing I agree with in the above statement is that the quality of writing in the article you quoted was actually better than anything you've written.  But the honest truth is that it is also spectacularily wrong and in so many ways that I can't bring myself to respond to it.   
Besides...if it is what you chose to believe then why should I try and change your beliefs.  Fortunately, it isn't like they actually count... :Biggrin:

----------


## Paternoster

> Yeah...there was.  Most of it was in the atmosphere, the remainder locked into igneous rocks. And the planet has basically lifeless. And then cyanobacteria came along...a few hundreds of mllions years later...that Cambrian explosion...and the beginnings of a massive locking away of carbon (eventually in the form of hydrocarbons) into a fossilised resource which removes it from the system.  Scroll forward another few hundred million years and the system has adjusted a new equalibrium with less available carbon.  And then suddenly, a species begins accessing and releasing that fossilised carbon that has been locked away from the system for hundreds of millenia... 
> As an intellectual exercise, consider all the gold that has been mined by humans in the last 200 years.  Most of it lies outside the modern commodity trading system...locked into vaults, jewellery, electronics and currency reserves...and the commodity market knows this, has adapted to the paradigm and is comfortable with it.  Now imagine if it was all that locked away gold was allowed to suddenly flow onto the commodity market at a steadily increasing rate over the next little while...it wouldn't do much for the gold price, the commodity market and the wider economy in general would it?   
> Same principle applies to our use of fossilised hydrocarbons...and the other Shocks of the New that we apply to our ongoing experiment in biosphere tinkering. 
> This sort of tinkering is a little like gardening.....sometimes you just fork it up.

  Great explanation here SBD  :2thumbsup:  ,your example with the gold is very good!

----------


## Marc

> Right,what do you know?
> If you would bother and look into the history of mankind,you would find that mankind is the most powerful and therefor devastating animal in the history of the earth.A Dino could push over a tree...we can plow whole stretches of forest in a day worth of work.We have made species instinct and have introduced species into ecosystems that proved (and still proves) devastating...ever heard of the cane toad?Or about a rabbit fence in a country called Australia?
> If there is ANY human,who knows how devastating human actions can be to an ecosystem,it should be an Australian.....so,where do you live?
> The industrialization has set fossil CO2 free for the last 200 odd years and has increased with every year,powering more and more machine 24/7 around the world...do the math:don´t you think it will have an impact?

  As usual you spew out emotional stuff and mix up totally irrelevant matter.
It is noted that you as your other eco-terrorist friends, would like to erase the human race from the planet so that you can live alone in a straw hut and eat ecologically sustainable carrots. 
The extinction of animals and plants is an ongoing process and we play our part in it, yet has nothing to do with the chimera of the anthropogenic CO2 being the bogyman of your dreams. 
All that mambo jumbo of CO2 released from the oil being "different" from the "usual" CO2, is just not being able to look past your nose. If we release MORE CO2, all we are doing is making MORE CO2 AVAILABLE for photosynthesis so that even you can breathe.
Green plants are not limited to trees, there are billions of species that are green including trillions of tons of algae that respond very fast to increase concentrations of CO2. Any increase in CO2 is matched by increase in biomass
and that is a good thing. 
As for the other bogyman of increased temperatures, two things: 
ONE. There is no cause and effect between increase CO2 and temperatures. 
TWO: Who says that increased temperatures in the order we are talking about is a bad thing?
Life thrives on CO2 AND temperature. Your dedication to saving the earth is worthy of better cause.
How about taking up drag racing with a souped up Detroit Diesel 12v-71 ??  Detroit diesel dragsters! 12v71 and 8v92 twin turbos! LOUD! - YouTube

----------


## Dr Freud

The Carbon Dioxide Tax death warrant has been issued! 
But you won't find out why on the ABC.      

> If you ask the abc journos anything about it on twitter, they simply block you!!! Hilarious!!! 
> Sat 18 Aug 12 (04:42pm)

  
They hate everything that holds their cult up to the harsh light of day:    

> Tipping the ABC off about Climategate as it unfolded had no effect. They  all had pegs on their noses and their fingers in their ears shouting,  La, la, la were not listening!

  More to follow... :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

Scientist Tells Congress: Earth in CO2 Famine - Increases 'Will Be Good For Mankind' February 25, 2009  Posted By Marc Morano  5:05 PM ET - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov  *Prominent Scientist Tells Congress: Earth in CO2 Famine**The increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind**Children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science*Washington, DC  Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer declared man-made global warming fears mistaken and noted that the Earth was currently in a CO2 famine now.  Happer, who has published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, made his remarks during todays Environment and Public Works Full Committee Hearing entitled Update on the Latest Global Warming Science. Many people dont realize that over geological time, were really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch)  280 (parts per million - ppm)  thats unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and its been quite higher than that, Happer told the Senate Committee. *To read Happers complete opening statement click here: [Also: See Inhofe Warns of Costs of Massive $6.7 Trillion 'Climate Bailout' & 'Consensus' in Collapse: Japanese scientists make 'dramatic break' with UN hypothesis of man-made warming!  (UK Register) & $ave the Planet? 'Four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress'  Number of Lobbyists Up 300% & The Year of the Man-made Global Warming Skeptic* ]   Earth was just fine in those times, Happer added. The oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So its baffling to me that were so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started, Happer explained. Happer also noted that the number of [skeptical scientists] with the courage to speak out is growing and he warned children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science. [*In December, Happer requested to be added to the groundbreaking U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims* ] Happer was pressed by the Committee on whether rising CO2 fears are valid. I dont think the laws of nature or physics and chemistry has changed in 80 million years. 80 million years ago the Earth was a very prosperous palace and there is no reason to suddenly think it will become bad now, Happer added.Happer is a professor in the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.  Happer was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gores scientific views. I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind, Happer told the Committee. What about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2 that we keep hearing about?  In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported benefits of prohibition were wildly exaggerated, he explained. At least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player, he added.But the climate is warming and CO2 is increasing.  Doesnt this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect? No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2.  There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide.  Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models, Happer testified. [*Note: See: An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears ]*The existence of climate variability in the past has long been an embarrassment to those who claim that all climate change is due to man and that man can control it. When I was a schoolboy, my textbooks on earth science showed a prominent medieval warm period at the time the Vikings settled Greenland, followed by a vicious little ice age that drove them out.  So I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated hockey stick curve, in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. I could hardly believe my eyes. Both the little ice age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey stick. This was far from an obscure detail, and the hockey stick was trumpeted around the world as evidence that the end was near. We now know that the hockey stick has nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis.  There really was a little ice age and there really was a medieval warm period that was as warm or warmer than today, Happer continued.  The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me of the motto of Orwells Ministry of Information in the novel _1984_: He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future. The IPCC has made no serious attempt to model the natural variations of the earths temperature in the past. Whatever caused these large past variations, it was not due to people burning coal and oil.  If you cant model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? he stated.  I keep hearing about the pollutant CO2, or about poisoning the atmosphere with CO2, or about minimizing our carbon footprint.  This brings to mind another Orwellian pronouncement that is worth pondering: But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving pollutant and poison of their original meaning. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2.  That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration.  CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants. Plants, and our own primate ancestors evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were about 1000 ppm, a level that we will probably not reach by burning fossil fuels, and far above our current level of about 380 ppm. We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.  *More selected Happer excerpts:*  I do not think there is a consensus about an impending climate crisis. I personally certainly dont believe we are facing a crisis unless we create one for ourselves, as Benjamin Rush did by bleeding his patients. Many others, wiser than I am, share my view.  The number of those with the courage to speak out is growing.  There may be an illusion of consensus. Like the temperance movement one hundred years ago the climate-catastrophe movement has enlisted the mass media, the leadership of scientific societies, the trustees of charitable foundations, and many other influential people to their cause.  Just as editorials used to fulminate about the slippery path to hell behind the tavern door, hysterical op-eds lecture us today about the impending end of the planet and the need to stop climate change with bold political action. Many distinguished scientific journals now have editors who further the agenda of climate-change alarmism. Research papers with scientific findings contrary to the dogma of climate calamity are rejected by reviewers, many of whom fear that their research funding will be cut if any doubt is cast on the coming climate catastrophe. Speaking of the Romans, then invading Scotland in the year 83, the great Scottish chieftain Calgacus is quoted as saying They make a desert and call it peace.   If you have the power to stifle dissent, you can indeed create the illusion of peace or consensus. The Romans have made impressive inroads into climate science. Certainly, it is a bit unnerving to read statements of Dr. James Hansen in the Congressional Record that climate skeptics are guilty of high crimes against humanity and nature.  Even elementary school teachers and writers of childrens books are enlisted to terrify our children and to promote the idea of impending climate doom.  Having observed the education of many children, including my own, I am not sure how effective the effort will be. Many children seem to do just the opposite of what they are taught. Nevertheless, children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science. Many of you may know that in 2007 a British Court ruled that if Al Gores book, An Inconvenient Truth,  was used in public schools, the children had to be told of eleven particularly troubling inaccuracies. You can easily find a list of the inaccuracies on the internet, but I will mention one.  The court ruled that it was not possible to attribute hurricane Katrina to CO2. Indeed, had we taken a few of the many billions of dollars we have been spending on climate change research and propaganda and fixed the dykes and pumps around the New Orleans, most of the damage from Hurricane Katrina could have been avoided.  *To read complete opening statement click here:*

----------


## woodbe

Still 12 days to go in the melt season. Area has already hit record low:   
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

I'll post this to save Doc the trouble:   
Discuss  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Still 12 days to go in the melt season. Area has already hit record low:   
> woodbe.

  So?  It is only a 34 year period thats started in a cold period.  Means nothing.

----------


## woodbe

> So?  It is only a 34 year period thats started in a cold period.  Means nothing.

  Haha  :Smilie:    
Yep. Means nothing at all.  :Sneaktongue:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> So? It is only a 34 year period thats started in a cold period. Means nothing.

  
Isn't your line it hasn't been warming for 34 years, so does this mean 34 years ago it got really cold, why? did someone leave the fridge open? so if it was colder then but not warmer now then what has been going on,  I think you should think this through I'm not sure if you understand the numbers.

----------


## Marc

.
 			Published by paulmacrae on 20 Jul 2012  *Back to the Future: Paradise Lost, or Paradise Regained?* *By Paul MacRae*
 In June, a NASA  climate study announced that the warm middle Miocene era, about 16  million years ago, had carbon dioxide levels of 400 to 600 parts per  million. The coasts of Antarctica were ice-free in summer, with summer  temperatures 11° Celsius warmer than today. The study concluded that  todays CO2 level of 393 ppm was the highest, therefore, in  millions of years, and could go to Miocene levels by the end of the  century[1]. It was implied, although not directly stated, that readers  should react with horror.
 A UCLA team, writing in _Science,_  had already pushed the Miocene button in 2009, claiming: The last time  carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today [15  million years ago, again the mid-Miocene]and were sustained at those  levelsglobal temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit [2.7-5.5°C]  higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120  feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic  and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland.[2] Back to the  Miocene! Scary!
 James Hansen, the alarmist head of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space  Studies (GISS), regularly refers to past eras as a warning of the  climate catastrophes that could occur today. For example, in 2011 Hansen  warned: [An increase of] two degrees Celsius is guaranteed disaster.  It is equivalent to the early Pliocene epoch [between 5.5 and 2.5  million years ago] when the sea level was 25m (75 feet) higher. [4]  Back to the early Pliocene! Horror!
 And, in testimony to the U.S. government: The Earth was much warmer  than today in the early Cenozoic [which began 65 million years ago]. In  fact it was so warm that there were no ice sheets on the planet and sea  level was about 75 meters (250 feet) higher. [5] Heavens! The planet  could revert to the age of dinosaurs! (Hansen didnt mention that sea  levels today are 120 metresalmost 400 feethigher than they were a mere  15,000 years ago, without creating a catastrophe.)
 If we dont curb our carbon-emitting ways, the alarmists warn, we  face increasingly radical temperature changes, a worldwide upsurge in  violent weather events, widespread drought, flooding, wildfires, famine,  species extinction, rising sea levels, mass migration, and epidemic  disease that will leave no country untouched. [7] The only catastrophe  not mentioned here is acidification (i.e., a slight decrease in  alkalinity) of the oceans.
 If a warmer, more CO2-rich world would be hell in the  future, it logically must have been hell in the past, too, when global  temperatures were much warmer and carbon dioxide levels much higher. How  could anything live, for example, in those acidified oceans of the  Miocene? At least, this is what alarmist climate scientists like Hansen  want the public to believe. *An Eocene paradise* Curiously, while alarmists warn about the horrors of returning to the  climate of millions of years ago, paleoclimatologists tell a different  story. They more often see our earlier planet as a paradise, even  paradise lost. Continue Reading »  No Comments Yet Climate change,Global warming  
 				 			Published by paulmacrae on 01 May 2012  *Alarmist climate science as a textbook example of groupthink* 			 				By Paul MacRae
 A while ago, I received an email from a friend who asked: How can many, many respected, competitive,  independent science folks be so wrong about [global warming] (if your  [skeptical] premise is correct). I dont think it could be a conspiracy,  or incompetence.   Has there ever been another case when so many  leading scientific minds got it so wrong?The answer to the second part of my friends questionHas there ever  been another case where so many leading scientific minds got it so  wrong?is easy. Yes, there are many such cases, both within and outside  climate science. In fact, the graveyard of science is littered with the  bones of theories that were once thought certain (e.g., that the  continents cant drift, that Newtons laws were immutable, and  hundreds if not thousands of others). Science progresses by the  overturning of theories once thought certain.
 And so, Carl Sagan has written: Even a succession of professional  scientistsincluding famous astronomers who had made other discoveries  that are confirmed and now justly celebratedcan make  serious, even profound errors in pattern recognition.[1] There is no  reason to believe that climate scientists (alarmist or skeptic) are  exempt from this possibility.
 That leaves the first question, which is how so many respected,  competitive, independent science folks [could] be so wrong about the  causes and dangers of global warming, assuming they are wrong. And  here, I confess that after five years of research into climate fears,  this question still baffles me. *Climate certainty is baffling* It is not baffling that so many scientists believe humanity _might_ be  to blame for global warming. If carbon dioxide causes warming,  additional CO2 should produce additional warming. But its baffling  that alarmist climate scientists are so _certain_ that additional  carbon dioxide will produce a climate disaster, even though there is  little empirical evidence to support this view, and much evidence  against it, including a decade of non-warming. This dogmatism makes it  clear, at least to those outside the alarmist climate paradigm, that  something is very wrong with the state of consensus climate science.
 There are many possible reasons for this scientific blindness,  including sheer financial and career self-interest: scientists who  dont accept the alarmist paradigm will lose research grants and career  doors will be closed to them. But one psychological diagnosis fits  alarmist climate science like a glove: groupthink. With groupthink, we  get the best explanation of how can many, many respected,  competitive, independent science folks be so wrong. Continue Reading »  2 Comments Climate change,Global warming,Politics  
 				 			Published by paulmacrae on 16 Aug 2011  *Climate sciences decade of deception* _In order for a democracy to function well, the public needs to be honestly informed._
 James E. Hansen(1) *By Paul MacRae*
 A recent Rasmussen U.S. poll  found that 69 per cent of 1,000 respondents believed it at least  somewhat likely that climate scientists had falsified their research  data to support the case for catastrophic human-caused global warming  (CAGW). A full 40 per cent of respondents said falsification of research  data was very likely. Only 22 per cent were confident that climate  scientists _wouldnt_ falsify data.(2)
 This is an astonishing poll result. Is it possible that, in their  passion for the CAGW hypothesis, prominent climate scientists would _knowingly_  fudge their data to mislead the public? Surely the 69 per cent in the  Rasmussen poll were innocent dupes of what global-warming activists call  the denial industry.
 Unhappily, as I discovered during more than two years of research for my book _False Alarm: Global WarmingFacts Versus Fears,_ the  69 per cent have got it right. Over the past decade alarmist climate  scientistsincluding the top figures in the fieldhave been deliberately  misleading the public on many climate issues. One might even say  alarmist climate scientists have developed a culture of deception, a  culture that is very clear in the Climategate emails. *Blatant dishonesty*  Among many deceptionstoo many to deal with hereone is particularly  blatant. For more than a decade, the public has been bombarded by claims  that the planet was not just warming but experiencing accelerated,  unequivocal, unprecedented and dangerous warming. Yet the actual  temperature record shows that during the past decade, on average, there  has been little or no warming.
 Only recently, faced with a gap between the climate reality  and  alarmist theory that was too great to ignore, has official climate  science begun to admit the facts to the public.
 And so, in June, the prestigious journal _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)_ published  a peer-reviewed article that began: Data for global surface  temperature indicate little warming between 1998 and 2008. Furthermore,  global surface temperature declines 0.2 °C between 2005 and 2008.(3)  (As we will see below, the cooling trend has continued past 2008 despite  a warm, El Nino-influenced 2010.)
 Early in August, a press release from the British Meteorological  Office admitted there had been no warmingthe Met delicately called it  a pause in the warmingin the upper 700 metres of the worlds oceans  since, get this, 2003.(4) Yet, for the past eight years, the Met has  warned the public about a dangerous heating up of the oceans. Continue Reading »  5 Comments Climate change  
 				 			Published by paulmacrae on 08 Jun 2011  *Alarmist climate science and the principle of exclusion* 			 				In 1837, Charles Darwin presented a paper to the British  Geological Society arguing that coral atolls were formed not on  submerged volcanic craters, as argued by pioneering geologist Charles  Lyell, but on the subsidence of mountain chains.
 The problem, as Darwin saw it, was that corals can not live more than  about 30 feet below the surface and therefore they could not have  formed of themselves from the ocean floor. They needed a raised platform  to build upon.  	Charles Darwin as a young man 
 However, the volcanic crater hypothesis didnt satisfy Darwin; he  thought the atoll shape was too regular to have been the craters of old  volcanos. There were no atoll formations on land, Darwin reasoned; why  would there be such in the ocean? Therefore, Darwin proposed that corals  were building upon eroded mountains, an hypothesis that, he wrote  happily, solves every difficulty.
 Darwin also argued, in 1839, that curious geological formationswhat  appeared to be parallel tracksin the Glen Roy valley of Scotland were  the result of an uplifted sea bed.
 Darwin didnt have any actual physical evidence to support these two  hypotheses: he arrived at them deductively, through the principle of  exclusion. A deductive conclusion is reached through theoryif X, then  logically Y must be soas opposed to induction, which builds a theory  out of empirical data. The principle of exclusion works from the premise  that there is no other way of accounting for the phenomenon.[1] Continue Reading »  2 Comments Climate change  
 				 			Published by  on 27 Nov 2010  *The accelerated warming that wasnt.* 			 				In 2008, IPCC president Rajendra Pachauri told an audience in Australia:    Were at a stage where warming is taking place _at a much faster rate_ [than before]. _Globe and Mail_  columnist Geoffrey Simpson wrote in 2009:   Climate-warming  predictions of three or four years ago are already out of date. New  science suggests an _even faster warming than had been thought possible._ [italics added in both cases]
 This week (Nov. 25, 2010), Vicky Pope of the British Meteorological Office announced: Theres a very clear warming trend _but its not as rapid as it was before_.  [italics added] She said that while the average temperature had been  rising at about 0.16 degrees per decade since the 1970s, the rate  through the 2000s had been from 0.05 to 0.13 degrees.
 The figure of 0.05 to 0.13° Celsius is also suspect. The figures from  the Met Offices Hadley Institute show nothing of the kind (see Figure  1).  	Figure 1: HadCrut temperatures 2000-2010 
 The increase shown here is about .01°C. Extrapolated over the rest of  the century, the temperature increase (aka global warming or climate  disruption) would be .1°C, or one-sixth the .6°C increase claimed for  the 20th century.
 As part of her announcement, Pope also said the Met Office is  planning to review the way it reports temperatures. It seems the  temperature record isnt showing the warming the Met expects and wants,  so its planning to move the goal-posts, as it were, by arbitrarily  raising the temperatures for the past decade.
 Theres an easier way to go: Accept that the HadCrut temperatures are  correct, or as correct as humanly possible, and that the last decade  hasnt warmed as predicted by the anthropogenci global warming  hypothesis. Real scientists accept the facts when the facts dont match  the hypothesis; they dont change their measurement of the data to  conform to the hypothesis.
  As the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansens personal  fiefdom, does with its figures. Figure 2 is GISSs estimate of  temperatures over the past decade. The figures are clearly inflated (the  technical term is adjusted) to match the hypothesis of increased,  accelerated warming. In other words, the Met Office admits warming  hasnt accelerated, while exaggerating (adjusting) the tiny bit of  warming that its thermometers said did occur, while GISS wildly  exaggerates to get accelerated warming. Neither can be trusted.  	Figure 2: GISS temperatures 2000-2010   One Comment Climate change  
 				 			Published by  on 26 Sep 2010  *The past decade: warmer or cooler? Response to a reader II* 			 				This is the second of several posts responding to a reader,  sTeve, who commented on my NOAA blog article (to read the first post,  click here).  sTeve wrote, in part: You offer the cherry-picked denier meme of the earth  cooling since  1998″, yet you already know that that argument has no  merit, as it has  been debunked countless times. You dont mention the  very strong El Nino  of 1998, which had a major impact on global temps;  perhaps you should  read the papers written on that subject. Heres a  link to get you  started: www .  skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
 You already are aware that 1998 is no longer the warmest year on   record, having been surpassed by both 2005 and, so far, 2010, yes?When I first read this from sTeve, I was astonished, just as I was  astonished by NOAAs recent announcement that the planet had warmed .2°  Celsius in the decade 2000-2009. Where had sTeve gotten this data? 2005  and 2010 warmer than 1998? Fortunately, a post by Steve Goddard on Anthony Watts _Watts Up With That?_ site provided the answer. *Temperature estimates* Figure 1 is the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) estimate of  temperatures from 1880 to 2010 and, sure enough, in the upper right  corner, the temperatures for 2005 and 2010 are shown as higher than  1998considerably higher, actually.  	Figure 1: GISS temperature estimate 1880-2010 
 However, the temperature estimates from the other three major climate  monitoring agenciesthe Hadley Meteorological Centre (HadCrut),  University of Huntsville at Alabama (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems  (RSS)all show temperatures for the last decade considerably lower than  the GISS estimate. In fact, they even show some cooling. The latter two  agencies, UAH and RSS, rely on satellite data, which many regard as more  reliable than ground temperature estimates. The  UAH reading is shown  in Figure 2.  	Figure 2: UAH temperatures 
 Figure 3 shows the two satellite-based agencies combined:  	Figure 3: UAH and RSS temperature estimates 
 Neither UAH nor RSS shows 2000-2010 temperatures as higher than 1998.  In fact, the last decades temperatures are considerably lower. Continue Reading »  One Comment Climate change  
 				 			Published by  on 02 Oct 2010  *Polar bears: Maybe the prospects arent so gloomy* 			 				The Oasis nature channel is presenting a series of programs entitled _Extinctions_,  about creatures threatened with extinction due to geological changes,  including global warming. The first of the series was about polar bears,  which have been called the canaries in the global-warming coal mine,  even though polar bear numbers are actually the highest on record.
 Surprisingly, since most programs like this offer misanthropic global  warming propaganda (humans are evil carbon-spewers who are going to  destroy the planet), the polar bear program was remarkably even-handed.  	Polar bears survived the previous interglacial. They will survive this one, too. 
 For a start, not once did the program suggest that humans were _causing_ global warming, although we definitely _are_  responsible for some of the other evils afflicting Arctic populations,  including toxic pollution and habitat loss, and we may be contributing,  slightly, to warming that would otherwise be occurring anyway. That is,  this documentary stayed away from sermonizing and tried to stick to the  facts.
 To that end, the program went out of its way (at least compared to  most recent nature documentaries) to get some sort of balance. And so,  along with scientists who believe the bears are severely threatened, the  producers also interviewed Mitch Taylor, a Canadian expert on polar  bears who doesnt believe the bears are endangered (he says only two of  the 19 polar bear populations are in decline; the program itself said  half are in decline) and doesnt believe global warming is primarily  human-caused or potentially catastrophic.
 The program also mentioned another fact that is almost always ignored  by global warming catastrophists: during the last interglacial 125,000  years ago, called the Eemian, the Arctic also melted pretty much  completely, as may be happening now. No humans were involved in that  previous global warming; modern humans hadnt even evolved yet. This  interglacial fact is usually ignored because it pretty much destroys the  hypothesis that warming and sea-level rise are primarily human caused,  rather than natural in an interglacial period. Continue Reading »  2 Comments Climate change  
 				 			Published by  on 26 Sep 2010  *Is climate science certain? Response to a reader I* 			 				In the next few posts, I respond in detail to a comment from a reader, sTeve, of the NOAA article in my _False Alarm_  blog. I am grateful when people take the time to comment and, yes,  criticize, but I also think this writer oversells the certainty we  should feel about alarmist climate science and its conclusions. Perhaps  this response will allow readers to judge for themselves, and I will  publish sTeves response, should he choose to do so.
 sTeve writes: I enjoy reading your writing; you post with eloquence and  offer cogent and thoughtful argument. You are, however, dead wrong on  all counts, and this greatly disappoints me. Your candidness and  intellect would greatly serve our species, yet you have chosen a  closed-minded perspective.
 You offer the cherry-picked denier meme of the earth cooling since  1998″, yet you already know that that argument has no merit, as it has  been debunked countless times. You dont mention the very strong El Nino  of 1998, which had a major impact on global temps; perhaps you should  read the papers written on that subject. Heres a link to get you  started: www . skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
 You already are aware that 1998 is no longer the warmest year on  record, having been surpassed by both 2005 and, so far, 2010, yes?
 You mention the alleged controversy of Climategate, yet four  investigations have revealed no wrong doing, and in fact those  investigations point to the strength of the science of the study of AGW.
 You mention The planet also cooled from 1945-75″. Did you not also  find that the Clean Air Act of 1975 had a major impact on global temps  by removing particulates from the atmosphere, thus removing a masking  effect on global heating? Our industrial processes during the period  1945  1975 were overwhelming the warming of the planet due to the air  pollution we were producing. The particulate matter in the pollution  acted to reflect the suns warming of the planet. Once the Nixon  Administration passed the Clean Air Act, the next 5  10 years saw a  demonstrable decrease of air pollution, and we now know that global  temps began to rise significantly. This is what has our scientists so  very worried!
 You write: And, speaking of short periods of time on which to be  drawing conclusions: the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis,  correlating carbon dioxide increases with temperature increases, is  based on only about 23 years-1975-1998. This is hardly a long enough  period of time to be drawing long-term conclusions that might well wreck  industrial civilization with poorly thought-out carbon curbs.  Correlation, as you well know, doesnt equal causation.
 Sounds plausibleuntil we look at the facts. The SCIENCE says that  temperatures did not rise from the mid-30s to the mid-70s because of  sulfate aerosols in fossil fuels. And what happened in the mid-70s?  Clean-air legislation, and more importantly the phasing out of  sulfur-rich fuels.
 I find it difficult at best to comprehend your position on  human-induced climate change, given the fact that every science academy  across the globe, including the NAS, AAAS, AMA, AMS, AGU, and countless  other scientific bodies, ALL agree that AGW is happening, it is already  bad, it is going to get worse, and we should be doing everything in our  power to cut down our emissions of greenhouse gases and pollution in  general.
 What would it take to convince you, Paul?*How certain is alarmist climate science?* Starting at the beginning: I enjoy reading your writing; you post with eloquence and  offer cogent and thoughtful argument. You are, however, dead wrong on  all counts, and this greatly disappoints me. Your candidness and  intellect would greatly serve our species, yet you have chosen a  closed-minded perspective.To call dead wrong on all counts a reasonably held, scientifically  based albeit skeptical position (as I hope to demonstrate below) betrays  a black and white mentality that is not conducive to good science and  implies a certainty that most scientific disciplines avoid. For example,  physicist Richard Feynman has written: A scientist is never certain.  And yet, many alarmist climatologists and lay followers are certain,  completely certain, or say they are. Continue Reading »  2 Comments Climate change  
 				 			Published by  on 05 Aug 2010  *NOAAs magic wand waves away 2000-2009 cooling* 			 				By Paul MacRae, August 5, 2010
 The recent report  by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration claims that  surface temperatures have increased in the past decade. In fact, the  NOAA report, State of the Climate in 2009, says 2000-2009 was 0.2°  Celsius [1]  warmer than the decade previous. However, the reports  summary, as shown in Figure 1 below, shows a decadal increase of only  .2° Fahrenheit (.11°C) based on 20th century temperatures.
 The press release was so splashy it made the front page of Torontos _Globe and Mail_ with the headline: Signs of warming earth unmistakable.
 Of course, given that the planet is in an interglacial period, we  would expect unmistakable signs of warming, including melting glaciers  and Arctic ice, rising temperatures, and rising sea levels. Thats what  the planet does during an interglacial.
 Furthermore, were nowhere near the peak reached by the interglacial  of 125,000 years ago, when temperatures were 1-3°C higher than today and  sea levels up to 20 feet higher, according to the Intergovernmental  Panel on Climate Change itself. In other words, the _Globe_ might as well have had a headline reading Signs of changing weather unmistakable.
 Similarly, the NOAA report laments: People have spent thousands of  years building society for one climate and now a new one is being  created  one thats warmer and more extreme. The implication is that  we can somehow freeze-dry the climate weve got to last forever, which  is absurd.
 Sea levels have risen 400 feet in the past 15,000 years, causing all  kinds of inconvenience for humanity in the process-and all quite  naturally. As the interglacial continues, sea levels will rise and  temperatures will increase-until the interglacial reaches its peak, at  which point the planet will again move toward glacial conditions. To  think that we can somehow stop this process is insane. *Even die-hard alarmists admitted 2000-2009 cooling* But what about the NOAA claim that the surface temperature increased  .2°C during 2000-2009? Although they did everything possible to hide  this information from the public, media, politicians, and even fellow  scientists, by the late 2000s even die-hard alarmists were eventually  forced to accept that the surface temperature record showed no warming  as of the late 1990s, and some cooling as of about 2002. In other words,  overall, for the first decade of the 21st century, there was no warming and even some cooling. Continue Reading »  17 Comments Climate change  
 				 			Published by  on 21 Jul 2010  *Comment on Dr. Stephen Schneider* 			 				Climatologist Dr. Stephen Schneider died this week. Although he  was one of the leading promoters of climate change fears (in the 1970s  he warned against global cooling[1], more recently against global  warming), Schneider could also be remarkably candid about what was going  on behind the scenes of what is supposed to be a settled science.
 He is famous for noting that climate scientists will exaggerate if the truth isnt scary enough:             On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to  the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole  truth, and nothing but  which means that we must include all the  doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are  not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people wed  like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates  into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic  change.To do that we need to get some broad based support, to  capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads  of media coverage. _So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make  simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts  we might have._ This double ethical bind we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what _the right balance is between being effective and being honest_. I hope that means being both.[2] [italics adIs climate science based on "overwhelming" empirical evidence, as the  public is told? Not if you believe Schneider, who wrote: "Computer  modeling is our _only available tool_ to perform what-if  experiments such as the human impact on the future."[3] [italics added]   In other words, climate science is only as good as its models, models  that werent accurate enough to predict the non-warming of the past 10  years.
 It was Schneider who noted during a debate with Bjorn Lomborg that, in climate science, We end up with a _maddening degree of uncertainty_.  We end up with scenarios which, if were lucky, give us mild outcomes  and we end up with scenarios that, if were unlucky, give us  catastrophic outcomes.[4] [italics added]
 In a similar vein, Schneider wrote in _Scientific American_ as part of an attack on Lomborgs _The Skeptical Environmentalist_: _Uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate chang_e that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes.[5] [italics added]
 A maddening degree of uncertainty? Impossible to rule out either  mild or catastrophic outcomes? Infused with uncertainties? But isnt  the public told the science on climate change is settled, certain,  beyond question, and that were heading for catastrophe?
 Or are we being bombarded by scary scenarios that exist only in computer models?
 Based on Schneiders own words, the answer is obvious. *Notes* [1] In his 1976 book _The Genesis Strategy_ (p. 66), Schneider wrote:              Today there are few people much concerned by the approach of the next  ice age. And since ice ages take thousands of years to develop, why  should we worry? There are several reasons to worry.
 [2]_ Laboratory Earth_, 1997, p. 67.
 [3]             Quoted in Jonathan Schell, Our Fragile Earth. _Discover_, October, 1989, pp. 45-48.
 [4]          Earthbeat, Skeptical Environmentalist Debates Critics, _Australian Broadcasting Corp_., Oct. 10, 2001.
 [5]            Stephen Schneider, Global Warming: Neglecting the Complexities. _Scientific American_, January, 2002.

----------


## intertd6

> Still 12 days to go in the melt season. Area has already hit record low:   
> woodbe.

  Now I'm wondering how bright I would have to be to put up a graph like this to support my arguement for reducing sea ice areas, when in 1979 there was about 9.5 million km sq over the season and in 2012 there was 10.75 million sq km over the season, I wouldn't be that bright is my thoughts. and to the casual observer you can see the sea ice areas are increasing each year at a steady rate...... should have gone to specsavers
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Now I'm wondering how bright I would have to be to put up a graph like this to support my arguement for reducing sea ice areas, when in 1979 there was about 9.5 million km sq over the season and in 2012 there was 10.75 million sq km over the season, I wouldn't be that bright is my thoughts. and to the casual observer you can see the sea ice areas are increasing each year at a steady rate...... should have gone to specsavers
> regards inter

  I'm sure you have a point, but the description is not clear.  
Are you talking about the increasing range between the winter and summer extremes? 
The winter maximum is decreasing at a slower rate than the summer minimum but the winter maximum is still decreasing.  
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Now I'm wondering how bright I would have to be to put up a graph like this to support my arguement for reducing sea ice areas, when in 1979 there was about 9.5 million km sq over the season and in 2012 there was 10.75 million sq km over the season, I wouldn't be that bright is my thoughts. and to the casual observer you can see the sea ice areas are increasing each year at a steady rate...... should have gone to specsavers
> regards inter

  What?  Dunno about Woodbe going to Specsavers but one does wonder whether you were listening/learning in math class....cause you clearly aren't interpreting that graph in any classical sense.   
It's a plot of the seasonal fluctuations between ice area maximum and ice area minimum.  But the seasonal squiggles aren't important.  It is the general downward trend from left to right that is the 'message' of this graph. 
Graphs are never about the squiggle. Or even parts of it  Only what the squiggle is implying...that's Math 101 [although since some of us appear to have given up on fundamental physics in this debate long ago then why not let them treat fundamental mathematics in much the same way...that'd be consistent].   
Graphs are like jokes.  Some people just don't get them.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Isn't your line it hasn't been warming for 34 years, so does this mean 34 years ago it got really cold, why? did someone leave the fridge open? so if it was colder then but not warmer now then what has been going on,  I think you should think this through I'm not sure if you understand the numbers.

  Where have I said that it hasn't warmed in 34 years? 
You are the hollier than thou on this subject. Now you throw in this.  :Doh:  
The ice melt in the northern hemisphere is not abnormal as people would like to think.  It IS a small time frame to be comparing.  And the starting period was a cooler period than now.  And irrespective of all this it does not establish any contection to MMGHG as the cause of the melt.  Maybe the hurricane they had broke the ice up, as some say is possible.

----------


## intertd6

> What?  Dunno about Woodbe going to Specsavers but one does wonder whether you were listening/learning in math class....cause you clearly aren't interpreting that graph in any classical sense.   
> It's a plot of the seasonal fluctuations between ice area maximum and ice area minimum.  But the seasonal squiggles aren't important.  It is the general downward trend from left to right that is the 'message' of this graph. 
> Graphs are never about the squiggle. Or even parts of it  Only what the squiggle is implying...that's Math 101 [although since some of us appear to have given up on fundamental physics in this debate long ago then why not let them treat fundamental mathematics in much the same way...that'd be consistent].   
> Graphs are like jokes.  Some people just don't get them.

  There are a million reasons for the total area of sea ice reducing ( which has happened before & will happen again & again), but data contained within the graph shows clearly the refreeze area is increasing, which is hard to do if its warming significantly in that area of the globe. Anytime that refreeze area starts to decrease in such a short period of time then that would be a clear sign of dramatic change
regards inter

----------


## barney118

Is there consensus on the Earth long term trend (thousands of years) we are actually going through an ice age?  
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...but data contained within the graph shows clearly the refreeze area is increasing...
> regards inter

  True... 
The area frozen in winter is mostly the same year after year (though one could argue there is a slight downward trend).   
Which is yet another reason why graphs like this need to be viewed and interpreted with caution.  On its own a joke's punchline has no meaning.  It needs a back story.   
In this case the primary backstory is that the thickness of the ice area refrozen over winter is insufficient to survive the following summer thaw.   The winter is too mild to allow the ice sheet to thicken sufficiently...the following summer is too warm to allow it to maintain... 
The Arctic Ice sheet is behaving like a child's bike with the speed wobbles...at some point the bike could well take a tumble.  Natural systems don't like speed wobbles...they thrive on stability.

----------


## woodbe

Good post on the subject by Tamino:   

> With two weeks or so still to go before the annual minimum is  reached, the record for lowest extent of Arctic sea ice has already been  obliterated by a huge margin. The only question at this point is _how much_  the ice cover will shrink. Frantic denial of reality by Anthony Watts,  Marc Morano, and others has only made it obvious how ridiculous they are   they refuse to face the truth of this astounding consequence of  global warming. You can _smell_ their desperation.  
> Heres the latest data from the NSIDC:     
> We can also plot the annual minimum extent, bearing in mind that the 2012 value will get _even lower_ as we get closer to this seasons peak melt:   
>  Weve already dipped below 4 million square kilometers. The ice is  disappearing so fast that it wont be long until the Arctic ocean is  essentially ice-free during summer, for the first time in history (and  yes, I do mean in history). 
>   But wait  how can that be? I can hear Watts and Morano wringing hands  and gnashing teeth, whining We only have 30 years of data! Theyre  wrong. The available data (theres quite a lot, actually) stretch back  to the 19th century. The collation by Kinnard et al. (2008) shows this:    
> Then theres the Walsh & Chapman data set:   
> For a longer view, a reconstruction of Arctic sea ice extent based on proxy data by Kinnard et al. (2011) shows just how unique this event is:   
>  The shockingly fast disappearance of Arctic sea ice isnt like anything  weve witnessed before. Ever. It isnt some natural cycle. it isnt a  natural _anything_. It should really be called a death spiral. 
>   This is global warming. Its real. Its so real it walked right up to us and slapped us in the face. 
>   If you believe we can do this to the planet without *consequences*, youre a fool.

  woodbe.

----------


## barney118

So if this is correct then there should be a correlating set of numbers showing temperatures rising over the same period? At the same time co2 levels also rising and water vapour levels unchanged. That would be the equivalent of picking the winning power ball numbers ! 
Then we add in the season the temperatures were taken and you have data that might be corresponding with the earth changing  4 times a year!  
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## johnc

> So if this is correct then there should be a correlating set of numbers showing temperatures rising over the same period? At the same time co2 levels also rising and water vapour levels unchanged. That would be the equivalent of picking the winning power ball numbers ! 
> Then we add in the season the temperatures were taken and you have data that might be corresponding with the earth changing 4 times a year!  
> Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

  
I don't think you have been paying attention, there are a number of factors, water temperature and less reflective area as the ice reduces are part of that. Water temp is not a direct function of air temp there are additional issues at play as well, including absorption of CO2 in water. However only a raving nutcase could look at the rate of decline and think it is normal.

----------


## barney118

Sorry johnc but when have I ever mentioned water temp? I have always only interested in water vapour. Who's not paying attention?  
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ....However only a raving nutcase could look at the rate of decline and think it is normal.

  So....if I find the rate of decline 'hilarious' as opposed to 'normal'....what does that make me?  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> So if this is correct then there should be a correlating set of numbers showing temperatures rising over the same period?

  Which period have you got in mind? 
Google will show you any number of Arctic temperature trends, eg: UNEP     

> *Description:*  
>                     A history of Arctic land temperature anomalies from  1880 through 2006 is shown in this figure. The zero line represents the  average temperature for 19611990.  In the late 1800s the Arctic was  relatively cold, although there is some uncertainty around these early  temperature estimates. The Arctic warmed by about 0.7ºC over the 20th  century. There was a warm period in the 1920s to 1940s and cold periods  in the early 1900s and in the 1960s. Over the last decade the  temperatures were about 1.0ºC above the 20th century average.

  woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> Sorry johnc but when have I ever mentioned water temp? I have always only interested in water vapour. Who's not paying attention?  
> Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

  You aren't, water temperature is one of the links to reducing ice cover, water vapour has little if any relevence.

----------


## barney118

> You aren't, water temperature is one of the links to reducing ice cover, water vapour has little if any relevence.

  No relevance? what planet are you on? on cloudy days and nights its much warmer, when there are no clouds its cooler. Look up some info that the suns rays are deflected by water vapour aka clouds more than C02, it may have something to do with the percentage of C02 compared to volume of Vapour. So when clouds are around they deflect heat leaving the earth back down keeping the place ummm warmer. 
Ice cover? who cares, I bet you couldnt measure ice volume what do they say its 2/3rds bigger under the water, if it were shrinking rapidly as you propose, we better start building and ark ! Like I say you could take temperatures all day long but the earth goes through 4 cycles per year so depending on when you take these you can selectively make a case which ever way you want to. 
If you were so wrapped up on being able to limit/maintain a specific C02 level then will this stop all this erratic weather we have? can you controll the earth so well to create sunny days and rain when you wanted it? I don't think so, accept the earth is evolving it has been since day dot and will continue to, there is no evil bogey man C02 we need it to survive.

----------


## woodbe

> Ice cover? who cares, I bet you couldnt measure ice volume what do they say its 2/3rds bigger under the water, if it were shrinking rapidly as you propose, we better start building and ark ! Like I say you could take temperatures all day long but the earth goes through 4 cycles per year so depending on when you take these you can selectively make a case which ever way you want to.

  Actually, they do measure Ice Volume, and it's falling as fast or faster than area. Look up the GRACE Satellite mission. 
The earth does have 4 seasons every year, but you might notice that the ice numbers (extent, area, volume) are all showing falling trends across all seasons over time. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

Melting sea ice will not raise water level Barney, it is ice sitting on land that does that. Temperature fluctuations as a result of cloud are interesting but not quite the point, if you weren't so hung up on CO2 yourself you might be able to better understand what some of Woodbe's links are about in regard to Artic ice. Melting sea ice may effect weather though and that impact could be quite severe.

----------


## Dr Freud

I'll deal with you crazy ice people soon enough  :Doh: , but first let's all have a great big laugh at this cults fiasco falling apart before our eyes:   

> Ms Gillard is in the Cook Islands to attend the Pacific Islands Forum.
> She  said her government's decision to dump its planned floor price on  carbon and link it with the European scheme in 2015 was a sign that  Australia was *following global trends*.  Gillard defends decision to dump carbon tax and link with European emissions trading scheme | News.com.au

  Nice conjob JULIAR, you are linking us to the EU Carbon Trading Scheme, not a Global Trading Scheme.  Do you know how I know this? Because a Global Trading Scheme doesn't F#(%!&* exist you moron. Unless it's being run secretly by Mighty Mouse. 
But here's some information about the *EU trends* that you're now linking us to:  _    
			
				 Europe is the worlds basket case. Spain and Greece have unemployment  rates of 25 per cent. Their youth unemployment rates are 50 per cent  The overall jobless rate for the European Union - our new partner - is  more than 10 per cent    _   

> _ The whole European project, built around the euro and collective and  hugely punishing fantasies like the Emissions Trading Scheme, is  crumbling. _ Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

  JULIAR has just handed over control of our economy to these idiots!!!  :Roflmao2:  
Hang on...why am I laughing???  This @@@@@ ain't funny any more. 
So let's review some of JULIAR's many, many previous LIES.   

> _ SECURING a clean-energy future, July 10 last year: _  _ THE floor is designed to reduce the risk of sharp downward  movements in the price, which could undermine long-term investment in  clean technologies._

  So we're now undermining long-term investment in clean technologies?   

> * 
> PM: Well, we just thought for stability ... *

  So now we have an unstable tax system?    

> _ PM, Hansard, September 13 last year:    THE bill also provides for a price cap and a price floor  ... This will limit market volatility and reduce risk for businesses ...  _

  So we now have unlimited market volatility and increased risk for business?   

> _ 
> FOR those investing in abatement technologies whose value is  sensitive to the level of the carbon price, a price floor helps reduce  downside risk.  _

  So we now have increased downside risk?   

> _ PM, November 9 last year:   WELL, we have set a floor and cap so that there can be  stability in pricing ... because people are making very long-term  investments ... _

  So now we have instability in pricing?   

> _OUR policy does include a price floor which acts as a safety valve  for investors in low-emissions technology by establishing a minimum  price for the first few years.  _

  So there is now no safety valve for investors? 
And here's her new green muppet singing the party script:   

> _ Christine Milne, May 4:    ESTABLISHING a floor price is critical to certainty, as is sticking by an agreement once it has been delivered.   Milne, May 8:   GETTING rid of it would not only be a blow to business certainty but would also potentially blow a hole in the budget.  Milne, Radio National Breakfast, July 4:    IF you allow the volatility that has occurred in Europe, you get kind of chaos in the system._

  
So we have critical uncertainty and a chaotic system? (Lorenz is laughing too.  :Biggrin: )   
More here:  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian   
So just 60 days after introducing this cultish fiasco, JULIAR has just announced this:   *JULIAR: We are now undermining long-term investment in clean energy technologies with an unstable tax system creating unlimited market volatility and increased risk for business.  Business now has increased downside risk with an unstable pricing system and no safety valve.  I have delivered critical uncertainty to business by creating a chaotic system by not sticking to an agreement after I have delivered it.  Yes, Australians call that LYING!*  
Or option 2: 
She was lying before? 
Getting hard to pick where the lies are and where they are not, huh? 
Who said "There will be no Carbon Tax under a government I lead"? 
Luckily, the European Union is now in charge of Australia's economic future.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

And two quick questions before I forget: 
Will the Planet Earth be warmer or cooler now that the European Union idiots are running our economy?  
I missed all that scientificky stuff from JULIAR's statement.  I've made a mental note to concentrate harder next time she goes into these scientificky details.  :Biggrin:  
For you crazy ice people, will removing the floor price make the ice melt more or less?  :Confused:  
(Seeing as you want to keep distracting from the failed temperature models this cult is predicated upon).  :Rotfl:  
Anthropogenic Global Warming cult (AGW) transforms into Anthropogenic Local Melting cult (ALM).  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And two quick questions before I forget: 
> Will the Planet Earth be warmer or cooler now that the European Union idiots are running our economy?  
> I missed all that scientificky stuff from JULIAR's statement.  I've made a mental note to concentrate harder next time she goes into these scientificky details.  
> For you crazy ice people, will removing the floor price make the ice melt more or less?

  1. Warmer.  Nature is much much much much slower than politics when it comes to changing tack.
2. Neither.  It'll be about the same...   :Faqnice:

----------


## johnc

> So....if I find the rate of decline 'hilarious' as opposed to 'normal'....what does that make me?

  A cynical skeptic of skeptics I guess. :Wink:

----------


## woodbe

Synopsis: WTFUWT is struggling with lack of Ice Recovery.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Climate breakdown is right here, right now. 
>   By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 28th August 2012  
> There are no comparisons to be made. This is not like war or plague or a  stockmarket crash. We are ill-equipped, historically and  psychologically, to understand it, which is one of the reasons why so  many refuse to accept that it is happening.

  George Monbiot &ndash; The Heat of the Moment 
Happy Father's Day! 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

So particulates from airborne pollution settling on the surface of the sea ice & causing accelerated melting has nothing to do with a greater ice breakout,
or the fact that once the sea ice has suffered from this then dark algae growth under the ice increases & the ice rots from the underside as well. That maximum area of sea ice extent looks stable above the norm.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So particulates from airborne pollution settling on the surface of the sea ice & causing accelerated melting has nothing to do with a greater ice breakout,
> or the fact that once the sea ice has suffered from this then dark algae growth under the ice increases & the ice rots from the underside as well.

  No. What?   

> That maximum area of sea ice extent looks stable above the norm.

  That's because you are misinterpreting the message of the graph...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> A cynical skeptic of skeptics I guess.

   :Innocent:    
My cynicism is not confined merely to the rarefied air of the sceptical.....     :Evillaugh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> George Monbiot &ndash; The Heat of the Moment 
> Happy Father's Day! 
> woodbe.

  I wouldnt be too smug about this.  It IS only a 34 year period of satelite measurements. and it proves nothing about either warming of the planet as a whole or the cause of the warming.   
Remember we dont dispute climate change, warming or reduced Artic ice coverage in the past 30 years or so, just your reasoning for it. For which you have provided not one scrap of conclusive evidence.  Sure don't expect any real soon either. co2 on the up, (as it will be regardless of carbon tax etc.) temperatures flat, ho hum.   
Easy to add 2 and 2 together and get 5 you just don't see it yet.  But you will in time even if you wont want to admit it for a while.  Bit like being in denial i think.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I wouldnt be too smug about this.  It IS only a 34 year period of satelite measurements. and it proves nothing about either warming of the planet as a whole or the cause of the warming.   
> Remember we dont dispute climate change, warming or reduced Artic ice coverage in the past 30 years or so, just your reasoning for it. For which you have provided not one scrap of conclusive evidence.  Sure don't expect any real soon either. co2 on the up, (as it will be regardless of carbon tax etc.) temperatures flat, ho hum.   
> Easy to add 2 and 2 together and get 5 you just don't see it yet.  But you will in time even if you wont want to admit it for a while.  Bit like being in denial i think.

  Just something else you may find relevant.   

> An *Unusually Strong Storm* that;formed off the coast of Alaska on August 5 and tracked into the center of the Arctic Ocean, where it slowly dissipated over the next several days.
> Arctic storms such as this one can have a large impact on the sea ice, causing it to melt rapidly through many mechanisms, such as tearing off large swaths of ice and pushing them to warmer sites, churning the ice and making it slushier, or lifting warmer waters from the depths of the Arctic Ocean.
> It seems that this storm has detached a large chunk of ice from the main sea ice pack. This could lead to a more serious decay of the summertime ice cover than would have been the case otherwise, even perhaps leading to a new Arctic sea ice minimum, said Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist with NASA Goddard. Decades ago, a storm of the same magnitude would have been less likely to have as large an impact on the sea ice, because at that time the ice cover was thicker and more expansive. NASA

   
How relevant? I have no idea, but has to be considered as a contributing factor or it may be the main reason.

----------


## intertd6

> No. What?   
> That's because you are misinterpreting the message of the graph...

  Thats right, it is definately suppose to be viewed with only one eye open, trouble is I use both, my ears as well & some grey matter so I have picked up just a slight understanding & observed the other effects after being involved in a nearly a dozen marine sea ice voyages with world leading scientists in this field. 
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> I wouldnt be too smug about this.  It IS only a 34 year period of satelite measurements. and it proves nothing about either warming of the planet as a whole or the cause of the warming.   
> Remember we dont dispute climate change, warming or reduced Artic ice coverage in the past 30 years or so, just your reasoning for it. For which you have provided not one scrap of conclusive evidence.  Sure don't expect any real soon either. co2 on the up, (as it will be regardless of carbon tax etc.) temperatures flat, ho hum.   
> Easy to add 2 and 2 together and get 5 you just don't see it yet.  But you will in time even if you wont want to admit it for a while.  Bit like being in denial i think.

  Sure Rod, I'm not smug about it at all. I don't regard this as a win, it's a definite loss. 
'Only' 34 years of data backed up with reconstructions going back over a thousand years:   
The Physics and a mountain of research growing every day remains on the side of Climate Science, not the deny side. After all our discussions, there still is a notable lack of published science disproving AGW research. I accept that you don't like hearing 'alarmist' predictions, the facts are that we are seeing results in the Arctic and all over the planet in line with the science.  
Have a look at this graphic Rod:   
Now, see the grey area around the thick black line? That area marks 2 standard deviations either side of the 1979-2000 mean. We are currently seeing well over 4 standard deviations below that mean. You cannot explain all this melting away with an 'unusual storm' on August 5, that's just more WUWT poppycock, it's been running at more than 2 standard deviations below the mean since early June. 
How long do you think we should wait? 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Sure Rod, I'm not smug about it at all. I don't regard this as a win, it's a definite loss. 
> 'Only' 34 years of data backed up with reconstructions going back over a thousand years:    
> Now, see the grey area around the thick black line? That area marks 2 standard deviations either side of the 1979-2000 mean. We are currently seeing well over 4 standard deviations below that mean. You cannot explain all this melting away with an 'unusual storm' on August 5, that's just more WUWT poppycock, it's been running at more than 2 standard deviations below the mean since early June. 
> How long do you think we should wait? 
> woodbe.

  
Sheez someone turned the hockey stick upside down :Confused:   
Wait for what exactly?

----------


## woodbe

> Sheez someone turned the hockey stick upside down  
> Wait for what exactly?

  Frankly, I'd be happier if you engaged in discussion about the significance of the massive, negative, non-normal statistical variability occurring in the arctic ice than trot out another irrelevant hockey stick comment. We are witnessing massive climate change in the arctic that cannot be ignored. 
How long should the human race wait for the minority of people who deny that this is anything to do with us before we decide to act? 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

I tend to wonder if the human race is simply to stupid and to selfish to ever be able to universally accept the need to change until it is way to late then just revert to blaming others for what should have been done. It is odd just like the current public view on boat people views are set and no weight of evidence is likely to change them regardless of circumstance. Even the idea of change that would carry a greater good to the community gets swallowed up and lost as people scurry back to there intractable positions.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Thats right, it is definately suppose to be viewed with only one eye open, trouble is I use both, my ears as well & some grey matter...

  Congratulations, you've managed to misinterpret it through over-thinking it...    

> ...I have picked up just a slight understanding  & observed the other effects after being involved in a nearly a  dozen marine sea ice voyages with world leading scientists in this  field.

  ...so you've managed to misinterpret it with some style then.  Good for you.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I tend to wonder if the human race is simply to stupid and to selfish to ever be able to universally accept the need to change until it is way to late then just revert to blaming others for what should have been done. It is odd just like the current public view on boat people views are set and no weight of evidence is likely to change them regardless of circumstance. Even the idea of change that would carry a greater good to the community gets swallowed up and lost as people scurry back to there intractable positions.

  The weight will lift from your shoulders if you drop the tendency to wonder and simply accept your observations at face value.  Without that weight...the laughing gets much easier.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Wait for what exactly?

  Dunno. 
Something. Nothing. Anything. 
One thing is for certain....it'll be different.  And there is nothing that anything hates more than the current state changing to a another state that has a potential status of "Dunno. But Different". 
Hopefully, it has popcorn, a safe vantage point and a comfy seat.

----------


## intertd6

> Congratulations, you've managed to misinterpret it through over-thinking it...  I haven't got enough brain cells for that to happen. Just enough though to keep me slightly above the intellegence of an average farmyard sheep though.    
> ...so you've managed to misinterpret it with some style then.  Good for you.    Fortunately for myself I haven't been confined to a armchair to form an opinion on ther matter.

  regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

What words can I use to describe this lunacy and the morons that still support it? 
Seriously, help me out, post a few.  :Biggrin:     

> In an event closed to the media, Ms Gillard met 120 workers at the  Hazelwood power station.  She took questions on *her plan to shut down  2000 megawatts of energy from coal-fired power stations* and replace it  with cleaner energy generation. 
>           ''I've met with *workers who were anxious*...'' she said.  
>                     But Hazelwood worker Gary Sevenson said after the ''quite  heated'' meeting: ''I don't think too many people were convinced by what  she was trying to sell...*There's so much uncertainty, I'm  losing sleep just thinking about it*. People just wanted some sort of  inkling into the future, which she wasn't giving us...''  
> Read more: Hard sell: Gillard clashes with Hazelwood workers

  
JULIAR is no longer shutting down brown coal power plants, but she is definitely shutting down our economic prosperity with her idiocy:   

> CHRIS UHLMANN: 7.30 understands that the Government went shopping with  less than $1 billion. That was never going to be enough because it was  based on an assumption that the carbon price would be high, $29 in 2015  and rising higher every year after that. And a high carbon price meant  brown coal power stations would go cheaply. But the power companies made  a different bet, that after 2020 the carbon price would be about $10 a  tonne and that meant they could make more from business-as-usual than  they could from selling up. 
> CHRIS UHLMANN: The Government did two things last week that showed it  finally accepted what business already knew. It announced that from 2015  Australia's carbon price would be linked to Europe's, where a tonne of  carbon is now selling for about $10, less than half what it costs here.  And it cut the $15 carbon floor price. 
> CHRIS UHLMANN: So what today means is business-as-usual for brown coal into the very distant future.  7.30 - ABC

  What an utter disaster!  Sovereign risk is skyrocketing.  Confusion reigns supreme.  No one knew what price rises were going to be before this debacle, now even guessing is more accurate than trying to figure out what these morons are doing. 
So now that the Carbon Dioxide Tax regime is so unpredictable that estimates very between $10 and $50 a tonne, but could be much lower or much higher, and brown coal plants are now guaranteed to burn indefinitely, who could say with any certainty that this disaster would still make the Planet Earth colder? 
Who else?   

> *JULIA GILLARD, PRIME MINISTER: The reduction strategy's right on target  and we will reduce carbon pollution by minus five per cent by 2020. That  means that we will reduce the carbon pollution that's in our atmosphere  by 160 million tonnes.*

  
She lies, and lies, and lies.
And still 30%+ of Aussies surveyed want to vote for her.  :Doh:  
If you truly care about the environment, vote for the Greens.  They're psychotic, but at least they're consistent.   

> CHRISTINE MILNE: But one component that is seriously wrong and that the  electorate can fix is the fact that Labor can't be trusted on the  environment. It's as simple as that.

----------


## Dr Freud

It's beyond irony.  People are freezing to stop global warming?   

> *Save the planet! Freeze a Labor voter*Hows that carbon tax going down with the poor?  _Samaritans welfare group CEO Cec Shevels said 60 per  cent of families approaching his organisation sought assistance with  power bills.   More than 10 per cent could no longer afford to heat their homes during winter._ Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  
Drongo.  There's a good word.  :Biggrin:

----------


## johnc

> It's beyond irony. People are freezing to stop global warming?    
> Drongo. There's a good word.

  Oh dear, how shocking we are paying all these high prices for power, no one has had a full quarter of power bills with the carbon tax included, the exception being a few monthly billers. Power has doubled in a period of slightly over three years for reasons that are not linked to a carbon tax, the carbon tax will add about 8-10% to bills and with the linking to Europes scheme perhaps the impact will be even less. Whatever our view point these is nothing to gain from posting half truths and lies so try applying the blow torch of honesty to your own rants before applying the label more widely.

----------


## barney118

Last week the news claimed we had a couple of days that were the coldest in 17 years, I can't get over how effective a CO2 tax has had such a sudden impact? Or is it the result of all that ice melting?
Meanwhile while govt were trying to justify and soften the blow of a carbon tax, energy suppliers could see the writing on the wall of what this meant to their future and have been jacking up prices under the radar without scrutiny.  
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## dazzler

> I tend to wonder if the human race is simply to stupid and to selfish to ever be able to universally accept the need to change until it is way to late then just revert to blaming others for what should have been done.

  The fact that people smoke cigarettes sums it all up.  They play the odds to maintain what they want to do despite the probability that they will die from the behaviour.

----------


## woodbe

Here comes the recovery!   
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Global warming?? Oh hum it's sooo yesterday!! 
16 years flat lining. the heat is off.  So is public opinion. 
Dams are full, rains are back, still got a sking season, drought over, we haven't gone to hell in a ball of flame. 
All the heavy lifting is done just got to sit back now and watch the slow motion train wreck happen.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Oh dear, how shocking we are paying all these high prices for power, no one has had a full quarter of power bills with the carbon tax included, the exception being a few monthly billers. Power has doubled in a period of slightly over three years for reasons that are not linked to a carbon tax, the carbon tax will add about 8-10% to bills and with the linking to Europes scheme perhaps the impact will be even less. Whatever our view point these is nothing to gain from posting half truths and lies so try applying the blow torch of honesty to your own rants before applying the label more widely.

   Nah the increace to date is to subsidise the renewable ripoff schemes.  The carbon tax is just the icing on the cake.

----------


## woodbe

> Dams are full, rains are back, still got a sking season, drought over, we haven't gone to hell in a ball of flame.

  So you read somewhere that global warming happens in a short period of years and that normal variability is put on hold for it? 
Must have been in the media, you won't find that kind of crack talk in a scientific paper. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> Nah the increace to date is to subsidise the renewable ripoff schemes. The carbon tax is just the icing on the cake.

  Is it really? It is not to hard to find information on the reason for the increase, the amount of renewables is now producing enough power to cover one old coal burning power station, the actual subsidies aren't as great as you might think. The bulk of the increase comes down to profit and spending on poles and wires (between 60% and 80% for both depending on year). At least though you now admit that the carbon tax is only a tiny part of the rise in the "icing on the cake".

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> All the heavy lifting is done just got to sit back now and watch the slow motion train wreck happen.

  Ah yes....but which 'train' is a wrecking?  While I would love to think it was just the one you are thinking of...I am doubtful it will be the only one. 
Oh and will the person standing next to Dazzler please give him a backhander?

----------


## woodbe

> 16 years flat lining. the heat is off.

  Aha. Found the source for this: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online 
Excerpt from a competent analysis:   

> There are some minor technical problems here. For one thing, the graph  doesnt show the last 16 years, it shows the last 15 years. For another  thing, it isnt tenths of a degree above and below 14C world average,  its degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 world average. Also, even  though the first point is labelled 1997″ and the last 2012, the axis  is a bit off because the first point is September 1997 and the last is  August 2012. 
>   But those are minor technical problems. 
>   The major problem is that David Rose has made one of the most common  mistakes studying data. He looked at a graph and concluded that the  long-term temperature trend had changed around mid-1997, then showed _only_ the data since mid-1997 and claimed it was the chart that proves it. 
>   His choice to start with mid-1997 was made _because that gave him the result he wanted_. Thats a practice called cherry-picking.
>   The U.K. Met office replied that his choice to start with mid-1997 was cherry-picking. 
>   David Rose has answered_ Q Did The Mail on Sunday cherry-pick data to disguise an underlying warming trend?_  _ A Some critics claim this newspaper misled readers by choosing start and end dates that hide the continued warming._ _ In fact, we looked at the period since 1997 because thats when the  previous warming trend stopped, and our graph ended in August  2012  because that is the last month for which Hadcrut 4 figures were  available.
> ._ Apparently David Rose isnt aware of this, but he has actually _admitted_ that yes, the choice was cherry-picking  it was made specifically because of the result it gave. 
>   If he could prove, statistically, that the previous warming trend  stopped (or even slowed) around that time, then choosing mid-1997 to  start an analysis would be legitimate. But he cant. Because it didnt.  And then of course theres the pesky fact that he didnt even try. 
> Lets put the last 15 years (of HadCRUT4 data) into context. Heres the data since 1975:    
> ...

  Rest of the rather complete take-down here: Temperature analysis by David Rose doesnt smell so sweet | Open Mind 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Aha. Found the source for this: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online 
> Excerpt from a competent analysis:   
> Rest of the rather complete take-down here: Temperature analysis by David Rose doesnt smell so sweet | Open Mind 
> woodbe.

  WOW! 
Finally an admission from both Woodbe and Tamino that Global Warming stopped 16 years ago.  :Biggrin:  
Never thought I'd be here to see that kind of back-pedalling.   :Bicycle bask:   
And then they're really, really jealous cos all their cherries ran out, and the other paddock is ripe for the plucking.   :Happydance2:  
Good news though, it's freezing and raining over here in the west.  Hope this global warming starts again soon because our heating bills are going up and up!!! 
I'll try to catch up more regularly now as slowly getting rid of many jobs (just like JuLIAR I guess).

----------


## Dr Freud

> Frankly, I'd be happier if you engaged in discussion about the significance of the massive, negative, non-normal statistical variability occurring in the arctic ice than trot out another irrelevant hockey stick comment. We are witnessing massive climate change in the arctic that cannot be ignored. 
> woodbe.

  Geez, now I'm all scared again.  I was just getting over all those sordid pictures and videos those crazy cultists made to terrorise children, and now you start using scary language like *"massive, negative, non-normal statistical variability"*. 
Aaaarrrrggggh! Run away...not the *massive, negative, non-normal statistical variability* again? 
I've decided to call this new sub-cult the Localised Ice Melting Prophecies, or LIMP for short.  :Biggrin:  
It certainly bears some resemblance to the Anthropogenic Global Warming, or AGW hypothesis cult that is now gurgling slowly down the drain.  But it appears to be something new and miniature that requires it's own special derision, kinda like mini-me to Dr Evil.   

> How long should the human race wait for the minority of people who deny  that this is *anything to do with us* before we decide to act? 
> woodbe.

  Is this ice increase *anything to do with us*, or do Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions only circulate in the northern atmosphere?   
IMHO, I think we the "human race" should wait for scientific proof, as opposed to cultish conjecture .   
I guess that makes me a misogynist nut job on the internet, eh JuLIAR???   :Shrug:

----------


## Dr Freud

Remember this failed prediction among the many.    

> *the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012″*  					 						Posted on May 12, 2012 						by Anthony Watts 
>   					 						Its always important to remember what has been predicted by the  elders of science, and to review those predictions when the time is  right.  In four months, just 132 days from now at the end of summer on  the Autumnal Equinox  September 22nd 2012, the Arctic will be nearly ice free according to a  prominent NASA scientist in a National Geographic article on December  12, 2007. That is also the same article in which the future NSIDC  director made himself famous with this quote:   The Arctic is screaming, said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the governments snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colorado.  “…the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012″ | Watts Up With That?

  
Lets have a look shall we:     
Oh no....aaaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhhh.....The Arctic is screaming, (no, that was me screaming actually).  It never happened! 
I guess we'll just have to be terrified by the new *"massive, negative, non-normal statistical variability"* monster until a new scare campaign comes along.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Power has doubled in a period of slightly over three years for reasons that are not linked to a carbon tax,

  First, it's a Carbon Dioxide tax.  Carbon is an atom, not the perfectly healthy gas you are currently exhaling.  Second, aside from the other idiotic greenie subsidies, the cost of doing business is what we pay for, not some cultish ideology that extra taxation in Australia will make the Planet Earth colder (hopefully you do not believe this?).   

> the carbon tax will add about 8-10% to  bills

  And cool the Planet Earth by how much?   

> and with the linking to Europes scheme perhaps the impact will be  even less.

  Or perhaps even more, depending upon what the EU now decides thanks to JuLIAR's ineptitude.  Hooray for business certainty, eh?  :Doh:    

> Whatever our view point these is nothing to gain from posting  half truths and lies so try applying the blow torch of honesty to your  own rants before applying the label more widely.

  I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm happy to retract any factually incorrect information in my posts. 
If you just don't like the fact that I ridicule ill-informed opinion with my own well-informed opinion, then just call me a misogynistic nut job and the ignorant twitter sphere masses will cheer you.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Excerpt from a competent analysis: 
> woodbe.

  As if.  :Biggrin:  
This cult wishes it just engaged in cherry picking.  It actually engages in cherry manufacturing by creating ridiculous hockey stick charts spliced and diced by moronic fascientists. 
Here's a long term look at some proxy data on a planet 4.5 billion years old:    
Present day is on the right hand side.  Do you see the clear correlation between Carbon Dioxide and temperature? 
If you don't, you're a denying misogynist.  :Biggrin:  
Here's some more context for our Localised Ice Melting Prophecy (LIMP) proponents.  Present day is on the left in this chart:     *Comparison of two sea level reconstructions during the last 500 Ma. The  scale of change during the last* *glacial/interglacial transition is  indicated with a black bar. Note that over most of geologic history  long-term average sea level has been significantly higher than today.*  
How much Arctic sea ice was there when sea levels were 300 metres to 400 metres higher than today?  :Doh:  
According to the cultists, all of this natural variability has now magically ceased to exist, and every fraction of an increment increased  change in global temperature is because of us humans.  But then every temperature stagnation is the magical reappearance of the natural variability counteracting the human warming. 
As if.  :Biggrin:  
I don't believe in magic.  :Nonono:

----------


## woodbe

> WOW! 
> Finally an admission from both Woodbe and Tamino that Global Warming stopped 16 years ago.  
> Never thought I'd be here to see that kind of back-pedalling.    
> And then they're really, really jealous cos all their cherries ran out, and the other paddock is ripe for the plucking.   
> Good news though, it's freezing and raining over here in the west.  Hope this global warming starts again soon because our heating bills are going up and up!!! 
> I'll try to catch up more regularly now as slowly getting rid of many jobs (just like JuLIAR I guess).

  Nice trolling Doc but deliberately misreading a post does not count as debate. Neither does rehashing stale old misinformation. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Is this ice increase *anything to do with us*, or do Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions only circulate in the northern atmosphere?

  Any reason Doc, that you conveniently showed a graphic that has no indication of the significance of the variation between 2012 and the 1979-2000 average? 
Here is the the graphic you should have displayed that would give the viewer a better understanding:   
And just for direct comparison, the same graphic but for the Arctic:   
Now we have an insight into significance. The grey shaded bar represents +/- 2 Standard deviations from the mean. As you can see, the Antarctic data is bumping along at around +2 standard deviations above the mean (or less), while the Arctic is around -6 standard deviations below the mean and rarely gets close to -2. Would you like to take a guess which of these trends is larger than the other? 
Also note that in the Antarctic, the variability lies largely within the bounds of the +/- 2 standard deviation range in the years shown while the Arctic is showing all years since 2007 exceeding more than 2 standard deviations from the mean. There is no doubt that the Arctic is in trouble regardless of the small increase in the Antarctic sea ice. 
I also note that you have not commented on your much revised prediction that the Arctic would have a lot of melting to do. Clearly, the state of warming is such that 'a lot of melting' is absolutely no problem up there. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

Woodbe you just dont get it do you? what the dear doc has shown is a sea ice loss from the northern hemisphere which is not reflected in the southern hemisphere which points to another factor in the sea ice loss, a simple experiment which any dill can do is to get 2 blocks of ice & dust one of them with fine black particles, guess which one will melt faster than the other, then imagine that the northern polar sea ice cap is and is continually being dusted year after year with pollution particulates  that sea ice is doomed no matter what happens now, but as the industries up there slowly reduce particulate emissions we should see a rise in total sea ice areas in that region.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe you just dont get it do you? what the dear doc has shown is a sea ice loss from the northern hemisphere which is not reflected in the southern hemisphere which points to another factor in the sea ice loss, a simple experiment which any dill can do is to get 2 blocks of ice & dust one of them with fine black particles, guess which one will melt faster than the other, then imagine that the northern polar sea ice cap is and is continually being dusted year after year with pollution particulates  that sea ice is doomed no matter what happens now, but as the industries up there slowly reduce particulate emissions we should see a rise in total sea ice areas in that region.
> regards inter

  Nice story, interd6. 
Those that deny global warming always pull out every other possibility for why things are happening than the real one and claim that they have found the magic bullet that hasn't been considered..  
Not saying soot isn't a factor in arctic ice melt, it just isn't the primary one. Try getting your iceblocks and putting them on the heater.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Woodbe you just dont get it do you? what the dear doc has shown is a sea ice loss from the northern hemisphere which is not reflected in the southern hemisphere which points to another factor in the sea ice loss, a simple experiment which any dill can do is to get 2 blocks of ice & dust one of them with fine black particles, guess which one will melt faster than the other, then imagine that the northern polar sea ice cap is and is continually being dusted year after year with pollution particulates  that sea ice is doomed no matter what happens now, but as the industries up there slowly reduce particulate emissions we should see a rise in total sea ice areas in that region.
> regards inter

  If the Artic behaved the same as the Antarctic then I'd be really really really worried...especially given that one is an isolated continental land mass while the other is a sea surrounded by continents...and if soot & particulates were the reason for the season in the Arctic then the season would be colder (so less melting ice) not warmer. 
By the by....European, Russian and Candian industries reducing particulate pollution? Really?  :Laughing1:  :Laughing1:  :Laughing1:  By crikey, I am cracked up by your optimisim....and quietly disgusted by thine own cynicism  :Cry: .  This second anyway...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Nice story, interd6. 
> Those that deny global warming always pull out every other possibility for why things are happening than the real one and claim that they have found the magic bullet that hasn't been considered..  
> Not saying soot isn't a factor in arctic ice melt, it just isn't the primary one. Try getting your iceblocks and putting them on the heater.  
> woodbe.

  So what is the "real" one and what evidence do you have to support it?

----------


## woodbe

> So what is the "real" one and what evidence do you have to support it?

  The Discovery of Global Warming - A History 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> So what is the "real" one and what evidence do you have to support it?

  According to Impacts & threats | ACF 
Climate change is the consequence of unchecked pollution. When carbon  emissions caused by human activity enter the air they have  dangerous  effects on the environment, the economy, and our wellbeing. But just as  humans cause it, we can halt its progress. :Doh:         
All we need is for global warming alarmist to stop exhaling all that bad CO2, not to mention all that bad CH4  :Cry:

----------


## Marc

ments »			 		   		 			 				 						 							 								Oct 								14 								2012 							   *Report: Globe Stopped Warming 16 Years Ago* 				 Posted by admin in Real Science, tags: Global warming  From the Daily Mail
 The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. 
 The figures, which have triggered debate among climate  scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012,  there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
 This means that the plateau or pause in global warming has  now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when  temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been  stable or declining for about 40 years. 
 The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on  land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media  fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported. 
 This stands in sharp contrast  to the release of the previous   figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010  a very warm  year. 
 Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight  warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012  were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

----------


## Marc

Currently viewing the category:                       *"Sea levels falling"*         *The Oceans Are Neither Rising, Nor Turning to Acid*  _By Robert On October 12, 2012  · 18 Comments_   
                                                                                                              Add ocean acidification and  falsely asserted rapid rise of sea levels to the list of things the  IPCC, the USGS, and NOAA, among others, are lying about.  Continue Reading →   *Sea Level Rise In Decline*  _By Robert On September 23, 2012  · 8 Comments_   
                                                                                                              Although the IPCC has predicted  that sea levels will rise 100 cm by the year 2100, actual measurements  do not bear out that conclusion.  Continue Reading →         *CSIRO warns of dramatic climate change effects across Australia*  _By Robert On September 19, 2012  · 12 Comments_   
                                                                                                              Meanwhile, the oceans continue their inexorable decline. Yes, sea levels are FALLING!  Continue Reading →   *1 mm of water on top of two miles of ice*  _By Robert On July 29, 2012  · 20 Comments_   
                                                                                                              And it immediately  froze. Interesting how NASA gets all fired up about 1 mm of water on the  Greenland Ice Sheet, yet barely mentions that sea levels FELL in both  2010 and 2011.  Continue Reading →       *Aussie scientist warns weve entered sharp cooling period due to lower solar activity* _By Robert On March 15, 2012  · 40 Comments_    Global cooling may well jeopardize grain production and threaten potential famines,  Continue Reading →

----------


## intertd6

> Nice story, interd6.  
> Not saying soot isn't a factor in arctic ice melt, it just isn't the primary one. Try getting your iceblocks and putting them on the heater.  
> woodbe.

  So how does ice melt when its below 0'C ? easy! just add pollution particulates on the surface of the ice, its own inbuilt heater picking up the suns radiation while ever it is in the ice, fairly simple & proven to cause ice degredation, fairly major cause of ice melt compared to a theory that co2 is causing it, which brings us back to the docs comment that this would be happening around both poles if it was to be confirmed, It must be that I'm not stupid enough to get sucked into the co2 theory.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> The Discovery of Global Warming - A History 
> woodbe.

  Here's a long term look at some proxy data on a planet 4.5 billion years  old:    
Present day is on the right hand side.  Do you see the clear correlation  between Carbon Dioxide and temperature?  
Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...#ixzz2ADEnvRo4
I do think this graph shoots down anything you or anybody else can & ever provide which links CO2 to global warming.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

Oh dear, who left the door open it would seem the lunatics have re entered the asylum. :Shock:

----------


## woodbe

> So how does ice melt when its below 0'C ? easy! just add pollution particulates on the surface of the ice, its own inbuilt heater picking up the suns radiation while ever it is in the ice, fairly simple & proven to cause ice degredation, fairly major cause of ice melt compared to a theory that co2 is causing it, which brings us back to the docs comment that this would be happening around both poles if it was to be confirmed, It must be that I'm not stupid enough to get sucked into the co2 theory.
> regards inter

  Who said the Antarctic wasn't losing ice mass? As SBD pointed out they both may be poles but their geography is completely different.  Melting runway puts Antarctic flights on ice - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Oh dear, who left the door open it would seem the lunatics have re entered the asylum.

  no need to lower the debate to your level, all you have to do is produce something that resembles a fact to keep us interested in your comments.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

"Who said the Antarctic wasn't losing ice mass? As SBD pointed out they both may  be poles but their geography is completely different.  Melting runway puts Antarctic flights on ice -  ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  woodbe." 
So a story about a runway that isn't melting now, which may reach -5'C in january & still not be melting means the antartic ice sheet is losing ice mass, thats a remarkable chain of events which haven't happened yet to base an argument on !!!!!!! Surely you can do better that that.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

> Nice trolling Doc but deliberately misreading a  post does not count as debate. Neither does rehashing stale old  misinformation. 
> woodbe.

  Trolling huh?  You called it a competent analysis:   

> Excerpt from a competent analysis:  *If you want to claim no warming* whether its true  or not, then youd  only show part of the data and *youd start when one  of those wiggles  was well above the overall trend line.* Heres where  David Rose chose to  start:   
> woodbe.

  Tamino shows and admits that you can show no warming from where he drew the line in 16 years ago.  He calls it "cherry-picking" but even he doesn't deny the reality of it like you do. 
If you think the HadCRUT4 data (that you posted) is wrong, then feel free to retract. 
Or if you think the data shows a rising trend over the last 16 years, feel free to get some "adjusted" data and argue your point. 
Or you can continue to show how fragile your argument is by refusing to even admit that the data chart you posted shows no warming over the last 16 years.  :Doh:  
Even a cock-eyed cyclops could see the data flat lining, and would laugh at your desperation to not admit even this obvious point. 
Now, if you want to argue whether events are of practical significance versus statistical significance, I provided plenty of info on this some time ago.  I'd bore you with it again, but it appears you have abandoned the scientific reality of stagnating temperatures to chase melting icebergs.  All the while pretending you're not ignoring the FACT that temperatures are not rising in accordance with the psychic computers prophecies. 
Some of Marc's info above also shows how hypocritical these cults theatrics are.  And there's so much more that I don't have the time to post.  I'll try to catch up soon in a more thorough debunking of this farce.  And that's the original AGW hypothesis farce, not the new LIMP farce.  That mini-me is melting faster than the ice it purports to represent. 
It's all getting rather sad really, isn't it?  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> Or if you think the data shows a rising trend over the last 16 years, feel free to get some "adjusted" data and argue your point.

  Or if you can prove that 16 years is an acceptable period to determine long term man-mediated climate change has ceased then you might have an argument, but you can't. It's way too short a period, and there is an ongoing trend. There are many points in the temperature record which has a long term rising trend, where we could pick out a short term hiatus and claim that the trend has stopped. We'd be wrong. 
This is the same phony denial meme as the 'No warming since 1998' claptrap.     
Images from the link above, which also has the scientific references they came from. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Originally Posted by woodbe  Who said the Antarctic wasn't losing ice mass? As SBD pointed out they both may  be poles but their geography is completely different.  Melting runway puts Antarctic flights on ice -  ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  woodbe.    So a story about a runway that isn't melting now, which may reach -5'C in january & still not be melting means the antartic ice sheet is losing ice mass, thats a remarkable chain of events which haven't happened yet to base an argument on !!!!!!! Surely you can do better that that.
> regards inter

  The story about the runway is an example of the fact that conditions are changing and they are having an effect on the runway and the people who rely on it.   Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the *difference between land ice and sea ice*. 
2012 research paper: Warming ocean could start big shift of Antarctic ice | UNSW Science 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...all you have to do is produce something that resembles a fact to keep us interested in your comments.

  That is supposed to work both ways.  However, I can't pretend I'm not interested either way regardless whether it is fact, fiction or the Doc's imagination.  It's all too entertaining to ignore entirely!!  
Back to soot and ice and stuff...you can't pretend that it's all down to soot anymore than I can pretend (which I can't and don't) that it's all down to CO2.  It's not.  It's way more complicated than that... 
Poo doesn't happen simply because poo happened to appear.  There's a whole process involved in getting to a place where poo can make an appearance and a whole range of factors and circumstances that have to occur and line up in order for that poo to happen at the right place, the right time and the right way. 
So it is with AGW.  It's so much more than soot. Or GHG's.  That's what makes it so educational and enlightening.  If you let it...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> If you think the HadCRUT4 data (that you posted) is wrong, then feel free to retract. 
> Or if you think the data shows a rising trend over the last 16 years, feel free to get some "adjusted" data and argue your point.
>  Or you can continue to show how fragile your argument is by refusing to even admit that the data chart you posted shows no warming over the last 16 years.  
> Even a cock-eyed cyclops could see the data flat lining, and would laugh at your desperation to not admit even this obvious point.

  There's nothing wrong with the HadCRUT4 data per se.  Only peoples interpretation.  All that graph shows to me is 'potential'.  Nothing else... 
It is technically correct to say that the trend has been flat over the last 16 years.  It is also technically correct to say that the trend is UP over the life of the dataset.  It is tecnically INCORRECT to say that the trend is downwards either in the last 16 years or over the life of the dataset.  It is technically MORONIC (and therefore INCORRECT) to tell oneself that the FLAT trend over the past 16 years is a GOOD thing... 
At therein lies the point... 
The overall temperature anomaly remains positive.  Air temperature anomoly is the most reactive measure of the climate we have.  Environmental lag times in response to temperature anomolies are in the order of decades... 
...so it matters sixth fifth of sod all whether the damned trend is positive or flat.....IT'S NOT TRENDING DOWN.  Until it does then the argument over 'Up or Flat' is immaterial and intellectually delinquent. 
Think of response times instead...of all the environmental responses that have been built-in (to manifest themselves in the coming decades) as a result of that observed temperature anomoly (up or flat) since that HadCRUT4 dataset came into being.

----------


## intertd6

> That is supposed to work both ways.  However, I can't pretend I'm not interested either way regardless whether it is fact, fiction or the Doc's imagination.  It's all too entertaining to ignore entirely!!  
> Back to soot and ice and stuff...you can't pretend that it's all down to soot anymore than I can pretend (which I can't and don't) that it's all down to CO2.  It's not.  It's way more complicated than that... 
> Poo doesn't happen simply because poo happened to appear.  There's a whole process involved in getting to a place where poo can make an appearance and a whole range of factors and circumstances that have to occur and line up in order for that poo to happen at the right place, the right time and the right way. 
> So it is with AGW.  It's so much more than soot. Or GHG's.  That's what makes it so educational and enlightening.  If you let it...

  just when we thought it couldn't get any lower were down to poo level now, can anyone from the GW side take the debate any lower.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Or if you can prove that 16 years is an acceptable period to determine long term man-mediated climate change has ceased then you might have an argument, but you can't. It's way too short a period, and there is an ongoing trend. There are many points in the temperature record which has a long term rising trend, where we could pick out a short term hiatus and claim that the trend has stopped. We'd be wrong. 
> This is the same phony denial meme as the 'No warming since 1998' claptrap.     
> Images from the link above, which also has the scientific references they came from. 
> woodbe.

  As said before, put a temperature to that graph if you can
regards inter

----------


## barney118

Just to throw a spanner in, if the argument is around temperature, up down, flat, upside down etc.
Has there been a discussion on:
1. Scale of temperature used in data sets as measured against ISO std 15 deg MSL pressure 1013.25 (1 ATM)? When I jump in a plane to fly I have to set the QNH which determines the height above sea level based on temperature outside at the aerodrome so I don't crash under instrument conditions.  
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## Dr Freud

> Any reason Doc, that you conveniently showed a   graphic that has no indication of the significance of the variation   between 2012 and the 1979-2000 average? 
> woodbe.

  I didn't even consider it because it's irrelevant in the lunacy that this cult is now peddling, as I'll explain below.  :Doh:     

> Also note that in the Antarctic, the variability lies largely within the  bounds of the +/- 2 standard deviation range in the years shown while  the Arctic is showing all years since 2007 exceeding more than 2  standard deviations from the mean. There is no doubt that the Arctic is  in trouble regardless of the small increase in the Antarctic sea ice. 
> woodbe.

  So, let me try to follow this farce.  This cult started by telling us  that Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions were heating the world to  all hell to create "unstoppable Global Warming".  But then the Carbon  Dioxide kept going up and the Global Warming stopped.  And the psychic  computer models now look just as ridiculous as us realists have been  commenting on for years. (See posts below). 
So, after this debacle of a failure, the cult now moves the goal posts  and makes themselves look even more ridiculous than the psychic computer  models with this new claim:  Carbon Dioxide emissions are not now  warming the Planet Earth in accordance with our psychic computers, so we  are claiming that these emissions are now responsible for flat lining  temperatures, increased northern summer ice melts, and simultaneous  increasing southern winter ice growth.  But because the northern summer  ice melt is at a higher order standard deviation compared to the  southern winter ice growth, this is evidence that Anthropogenic Carbon  Dioxide emissions are causing all of this, and we should still pay our  tax to make the Planet Earth colder.  Even though we never claimed this  effect would happen before. 
Joke is an understatement. 
There are Nigerian scam artists laughing their arses off right now.  They at least can run a scam with some credibility.  :Biggrin:     

> I also note that you have not commented on your much revised prediction   that the Arctic would have a lot of melting to do. Clearly, the state  of  warming is such that 'a lot of melting' is absolutely no problem up   there. 
> woodbe.

  Nice try, but fail. Again! 
That was not my prediction. 
But seeing as you guys just make it up as you go along, what I actually  said is in bold below, and is quantified in accordance with my ridicule  of this cults failed predictions:   

> Well, it was back then:  *Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?* 
> Seth Borenstein in Washington
> Associated Press 
> December 12, 2007
> An already relentless melting of  the  Arctic greatly accelerated this summera sign that some scientists  worry  could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point.     
>   One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.  Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?    
> Let's check this terrifying prediction: 
>                                    Arctic Sea Ice Concentration  Same Date Compared With 2007  Cryosphere Today  Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois - Click the pic to view at source (thanks to Ric Werme)       *I guess that melting is going to have do some serious catching up before it is all "gone", huh?*

  It was a prediction from a scientist that believed in fairy tales. 
It is not all "gone", is it, unless you've found some more spliced and "adjusted" data? 
My realistic ridicule trumps his fairy tale.  
STOP THE PRESS!!! 
I just had an epiphany.  What if our Renewable Energy Targets and Carbon  Dioxide Tax are actually working and growing the southern ice, while  the USA and China in the northern hemisphere are not paying the tax, so  their ice is melting?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> So what is the "real" one and what evidence do you have to support it?

  Hey mate, long time no chat. 
Great question.  What is the real one? I wonder? 
Just one thing that results in all these things happening.  This answer will be a doozy.  :Biggrin:   
I'll try and get the Carbon Dioxide tax inflation figures sorted and posted soon.  Leftie lovey media are carrying on about "gold plated poles and wires" again, and ignoring 15% electricity inflation in one quarter after the tax.  I think we warned people about standard of living declines in this country, and they tried to ridicule us.  Lucky JuLIAR has also racked up a quarter of a trillion in debt already,with much more on the way. 
This would be hilarious to watch if it was someone else's country.   :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Or if you can prove that 16 years is an acceptable period to determine long term man-mediated climate change has ceased 
> woodbe.

  Er, I must have missed the bit where you proved that it started!  How can I prove something has ceased when it wasn't proved it has even started?  :Doh:  
And as for your "man-mediated" nonsense, wtf?  What happened to "man-made"? How far can you back pedal?   

> and there is an ongoing trend. 
> woodbe.

  I gave you 500 million years of trends.  What short term period are you "cherry picking" now?  :Biggrin:  
Surely you're not still cherry picking the natural rise out of the last little ice age:    
Tsk, Tsk, Cherry-picking pot.  Here's a more detailed look at some of the sub trends:     

> There are many points in the  temperature record which has a long term rising trend, where we could  pick out a short term hiatus and claim that the trend has stopped. We'd  be wrong. 
> woodbe.

  You are wrong.  You just don't know why yet!

----------


## Dr Freud

> The overall temperature anomaly remains positive.

  At least Woodbe cherry picks the period of natural warming since the end of the last little ice age. 
You could shower yourself with credibility if you added a time frame to your comment above?  100 yrs?  1000 yrs? 100000 yrs? 
Or just let it slide into the incredibly "trendy" claims typical of people with cherry picked effects and no proof of causes (note the plurality again).  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Just to throw a spanner in, if the argument is around temperature, up down, flat, upside down etc.
> Has there been a discussion on:
> 1. Scale of temperature used in data sets as measured against ISO std 15 deg MSL pressure 1013.25 (1 ATM)? When I jump in a plane to fly I have to set the QNH which determines the height above sea level based on temperature outside at the aerodrome so I don't crash under instrument conditions.  
> Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

  Measurement error is inherent in all scientific endeavours, but the flagrant rorting via data "transformation" by some of the fascientists involved in this cult has been unforgivable. 
Much of the ground based data was less than exemplary in any event, even with "standardisation" practices encouraged, but the "tricks" these clowns got up to were beyond a joke! 
More accurate data has been gleaned recently via satellite which is more consistent and less "adjustable".  That's why some of the cultists railed against it strongly.  Here's a sample:   

> *Latest Global Temps*  *Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures* Since 1979, NOAA  satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural  microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere.  The signals  that these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave  frequencies are directly proportional to the temperature of different,  deep layers of the atmosphere.  Every month, John Christy and I update  global temperature  datasets (see here and here)that  represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of  eleven instruments flying on eleven different satellites over the years.  As of September 2012, the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A)  flying on NASAs Aqua satellite has been removed from the processing due  to spurious warming and replaced by the average of the NOAA-15 and  NOAA-18 AMSUs.  The graph above represents the latest update; updates  are usually made within the first week of every month.  Contrary to some  reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with  the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature.  They  instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance  thermometers calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before  launch.  Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

  And here's a quick look at various observations set against the cults psychic computer predictions:     

> Predictions Of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections | Watts Up With That?

   
No wonder they now focus on icebergs instead!

----------


## Dr Freud

> But,  seriously, who thought the Gillard Governments modelling of the carbon  tax would be any more accurate than its predictions on the economy?  _  
> HOW much will electricity go up? Ten per cent over five years. Modelling a Carbon Price, Treasury, 2011:    
> THE carbon price leads to an average increase in household electricity  prices of 10 per cent over the first five years of the scheme.  
> Fifteen per cent in a month. TD Securities-Melbourne Institute Monthly Inflation Gauge, July:    DUE to the introduction of the carbon tax from (July 1), the price of electricity rose by 14.9 per cent.  
> Ten per cent. Julia Gillard, speech, August 7:    WHEN the government priced carbon, we forecast an electricity price  impact on consumers of around 10 per cent, a forecast which has now  become reality.   
> Fifteen per cent in a quarter. Australian Bureau of Statistics, yesterday:    OVERVIEW of CPI (consumer price index) movements. The most significant  price rises this quarter were for electricity (+15.3 per cent).  
> Dont ask us. ABS, also yesterday:  _ _ THE ABS will not be able to quantify the impact of carbon pricing,  compensation or other government incentives and will not be producing  estimates of price change exclusive of the carbon price or measuring the  impact of the carbon price._UPDATE  Professor Sinclair Davidson on the carbon tax clobbering:      Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

   
Let's see that again:   

> *Ten per cent. Julia Gillard, speech, August 7:*    WHEN the government priced carbon, we forecast an electricity price  impact on consumers of around 10 per cent, a forecast which has now  become *reality*.

  Reality huh?  No wonder our finances are screwed when she counts like that. 
JuLIAR, JuLIAR, JuLIAR, 10% over five years is very different from 15% in one quarter! 
Lying again, or just plain stupid! You can decide for yourselves.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> I didn't even consider it because it's irrelevant in the lunacy that this cult is now peddling, as I'll explain below.

  So you say. When you deny a long term trend, it is convenient to quietly ignore significance.    

> So, let me try to follow this farce.  This cult started by telling us  that Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions were heating the world to  all hell to create "unstoppable Global Warming".  But then the Carbon  Dioxide kept going up and the Global Warming stopped.  And the psychic  computer models now look just as ridiculous as us realists have been  commenting on for years. (See posts below).

  You need to zoom out a bit doc. Climate Change is not about short time periods, and there are multiple measures showing warming. It's not just about one of them, and we are not talking about models that you love to misunderstand and misrepresent. It is also not about representing short term variability as the end of global warming.   

> So, after this debacle of a failure, the cult now moves the goal posts  and makes themselves look even more ridiculous than the psychic computer  models with this new claim:  Carbon Dioxide emissions are not now  warming the Planet Earth in accordance with our psychic computers, so we  are claiming that these emissions are now responsible for flat lining  temperatures, increased northern summer ice melts, and simultaneous  increasing southern winter ice growth.  But because the northern summer  ice melt is at a higher order standard deviation compared to the  southern winter ice growth, this is evidence that Anthropogenic Carbon  Dioxide emissions are causing all of this, and we should still pay our  tax to make the Planet Earth colder.  Even though we never claimed this  effect would happen before.

  I think the science has not changed it's position at all. None of the science suggests that CO2 is the only driver of climate, despite what you seem to think the science says. We are seeing natural variability as well as AGW (these are not mutually exclusive). Can you point to any published science to back up your claims? 
 woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Can you point to any published science to back up your claims? 
>  woodbe.

  the doc has posted published science here so many times it is truly amazing that the level of blindness which is needed to not see it, yet all that can be trotted out in response is published guesses & projections or an ocean water energy graph which at a stretch may show a 1/1000 degree of temperature variation.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> the doc has posted published science here so many times it is truly amazing that the level of blindness which is needed to not see it, yet all that can be trotted out in response is published guesses & projections or an ocean water energy graph which at a stretch may show a 1/1000 degree of temperature variation.
> regards inter

  Apologies. I did mention that the papers were available on the link, but here they are for you.  An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950  Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea-level rise : Abstract : Nature  Comment on Ocean heat content and Earthʼs radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts 
Regarding your minute temperature variation comment, the issue is stored energy, and the oceans have vastly more mass than the atmosphere, therefore the actual temperature movements for a given energy input will be smaller. What did you expect? That doesn't mean the energy isn't being stored, or that it isn't a massive amount of energy that is required to increase ocean temps by small amounts. 
As for the doc quoting science, my enquiry was for specific papers to back up the claims quoted above my comment not whether he had ever quoted random papers in the past. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> no need to lower the debate to your level, all you have to do is produce something that resembles a fact to keep us interested in your comments.
> regards inter

  You have made the mistake of assuming the line was selective

----------


## intertd6

> Apologies. I did mention that the papers were available on the link, but here they are for you.  An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950  Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea-level rise : Abstract : Nature  Comment on Ocean heat content and Earthʼs radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts 
> Regarding your minute temperature variation comment, the issue is stored energy, and the oceans have vastly more mass than the atmosphere, therefore the actual temperature movements for a given energy input will be smaller. What did you expect? That doesn't mean the energy isn't being stored, or that it isn't a massive amount of energy that is required to increase ocean temps by small amounts. 
> As for the doc quoting science, my enquiry was for specific papers to back up the claims quoted above my comment not whether he had ever quoted random papers in the past. 
> woodbe.

  there is no need for anyone to pad out a claim with endless pages of a report which can't be comprehended by a layperson, just the summary will do, or important graphs or data which explain it all quiet simply, if you notice the doc has supplied references with each piece of info, why? because he is not trying to fool anybody with endless, useless to the layperson techno babble.  You fellows have posted the important parts of theses papers already but they are quite easily disected & found to be fallible, so then your response turns to techno babble as a subterfuge. 
ps,  who do you think would not know the oceans are storing energy when the earth has been in a warming phase?
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> there is no need for anyone to pad out a claim with endless pages of a report which can't be comprehended by a layperson, just the summary will do, or important graphs or data which explain it all quiet simply

  Again, I was asking for scientific references for Doc's claims. If you view scientific papers in such low light that all you want to see is the pretty pictures then that's fine for you, but not me.   

> if you notice the doc has supplied references with each piece of info,

  Well we seem to be reading a different post then. I asked for references to support the claims doc made in the paragraph above my request. There are no references.   

> ps,  who do you think would not know the oceans are storing energy when the earth has been in a warming phase?
> regards inter

  I think, if you reread what you wrote, you were portraying the increase as insignificant. I pointed out that even a minuscule increase in ocean temps requires a massive amount of energy. Why are the goalposts now being moved? 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> So you say.  
>  woodbe.

  Yes I do.  :Biggrin:    

> When you deny a long term trend 
>  woodbe.

  Nice try, but fail, again.  I have consistently noted the natural  warming as the Planet Earth has risen from the last Little Ice Age. 
I don't need to deny the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis pushed  by the cult, because it hasn't been proven yet.  Kinda like accusing me  of denying the tooth fairy.   

> it is convenient to quietly ignore significance. 
>  woodbe.

  If I could quietly ignore something, it certainly would not be  significance.  I have tried to explain both statistical significance and  practical significance to you in their scientific contexts, but you  obviously still don't understand this well enough yet because you  continue to just use the word significance.  This is as moronic as  referring to "climate change" instead of man-made climate change (oops,  sorry I forgot the latest back-pedal - man-mediated??? wtf does this  mean???).  So the climate never changed before human industrialisation  according to the cult, because this is when "climate change" started.   Most cults are much smarter than this.  But admittedly this one has  rorted more money than the rest of them combined.   

> You need to zoom out a bit doc. Climate Change is not about short time   periods, and there are multiple measures showing warming.  
>  woodbe.

  I have consistently showed that climate change is about 4.5 billion  years old.  That's how long the climate's been changing on this Planet.   (Including pre-hydrological climate).  You're the one highlighting a  few select decades of natural warming since the last Little Ice Age and  pretending us humans caused it, in accordance with the now defunct  Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis.   

> It's not just  about one of them 
>  woodbe.

  I don't want to break the bad news mate, but warming refers to  temperature.  This cult has pulled a lot of shifty's, but how do you  propose they measure warming.  In litres or centimetres? I know you are  still in subconscious denial about this since the Planet Earth actually  stopped warming 16 years ago, but it is just about one of them.  If the  temperature stays the same, or goes down, then it's not warming.  But I  do hope the natural warming we've had since the last Little Ice Age will  resume soon, otherwise we may be heading into another disastrous  cooling period.  :Cry:    

> and we are not talking about models that you love to  misunderstand and misrepresent.  
>  woodbe.

  Hahahahahahahaha...I bet you wish we weren't talking about them.  Talk about epic fail!!!  The psychic computer models:       

> It is also not about representing short  term variability as the end of global warming. 
>  woodbe.

  Er, you're obviously still confused.  Do you mean the natural global  warming since the last Little Ice Age, or the alleged yet unproven  Anthropogenic Global Warming since the greenie nutters cult starting  pushing this to collect our tax dollars to send to the UN and the EU?   

> I think the science has not changed it's position at all. 
>  woodbe.

  Oh you crack me up.  You refer to "the science" as if it has a position.   Where do you get this stuff.  People have positions, science just is.   If you keep believing the cults mantra of quoting "the science" as some  kind deity, you will keep making these silly mistakes. 
And in terms of "the people", you obviously missed that whole CLIMATEGATE thingy then? 
And then missed Trenberth's many backflips, including trying to reverse  the null?  I mean seriously!  This highlighted for me the depth of the  delusion of these people. 
And what about your own changed position from "man-made" to  "man-mediated"? Huh? You still haven't even explained what this means,  so I assume it's changed as you changed the name???   

> None of the  science suggests that CO2 is the only driver of climate, despite what  you seem to think the science says. 
>  woodbe.

  Oooooh, the most holy "the science" again.  Do you ever read what you write and think about it? 
How many times have I asked you to quantify this cults alleged proportion of Carbon Dioxide compared to natural inputs? 
How many times have you failed to show the quantification of this by your holy "the science"? 
I know it's not Carbon Dioxide alone, I have said many times Carbon  Dioxide is an input, but have also shown over geological time scales how  complex all of these inputs are.  Your cult is now forcing Australians  to pay TAX to reduce what? Huh? 
Riddle me that from your holy "the science".  :Biggrin:  
Then I can calculate how even more useless this Carbon Dioxide TAX is.   Or will you now change your position to call it the "multiple yet to be  quantified inputs to ocean heat content and Arctic ice melting but not  necessarily warming TAX"?   

> We are seeing natural variability as  well as AGW (these are not mutually exclusive).  
>  woodbe.

  We are always seeing natural variability.  What do you want for this revelation, a Nobel peace prize? 
The issue is - has this cult proven their Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis?  Here's a hint: *
There is ZERO scientific evidence proving the AGW hypothesis?* 
You can't even quantify a Carbon Dioxide "man-mediation" component yet.  :Doh:    

> Can you point to any  published science to back up your claims? 
>  woodbe.

  Geez, I don't make any "claims", but in all this ranting, I've obviously not linked something? 
Was it about JuLIAR being either a LIAR or an idiot? 
I'm voting for a lot of both.  :Biggrin:  
What was my "claim" again please???

----------


## Dr Freud

> the doc has posted published science here so many times it is truly amazing that the level of blindness which is needed to not see it, yet all that can be trotted out in response is published guesses & projections or an ocean water energy graph which at a stretch may show a 1/1000 degree of temperature variation.
> regards inter

  Thanks for the support.  It's good to know that some people out there aren't greenwashed yet, and still have an open mind. 
I sometimes think I'm the crazy one when they keep chanting "the science" while ignoring all the facts.  
They still haven't explained "the science" of how us Aussies paying massive power bills into this ridiculous TAX rort is going to make the Planet Earth colder?  Is there an inverse correlation or causation between Australia's inflation rate and Global Temperature???  I wonder if "the science" has a position on that one?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Apologies. I did mention that the papers were available on the link, but here they are for you.  An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950  Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea-level rise : Abstract : Nature  Comment on Ocean heat content and Earthʼs radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts 
> Regarding your minute temperature variation comment, the issue is stored  energy, and the oceans have vastly more mass than the atmosphere,  therefore the actual temperature movements for a given energy input will  be smaller. What did you expect? That doesn't mean the energy isn't  being stored, or that it isn't a massive amount of energy that is  required to increase ocean temps by small amounts. 
> woodbe.

  How many times do I have to explain the difference between cause and effect? 
You keep posting effects.  (Of ever dubious proximal relevance). 
These effects are all caused by the natural changes the Planet Earth has been going through for 4.5 billion years. 
Unless you have scientific proof rejecting this null. 
Let's again check the scientific reality:  *There is ZERO evidence proving the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis.*   

> As for the doc quoting science, my enquiry was for specific papers to   back up the claims quoted above my comment not whether he had ever   quoted random papers in the past. 
> woodbe.

  Geez, let me have a look.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  
Aaaaahhhh, I think I have it:    

> So, after this debacle of a failure, the cult now moves the goal  posts   and makes themselves look even more ridiculous than the psychic  computer   models with this new claim:  Carbon Dioxide emissions are not  now   warming the Planet Earth in accordance with our psychic  computers, so we   are claiming that these emissions are now responsible  for flat lining   temperatures, increased northern summer ice melts,  and simultaneous   increasing southern winter ice growth.  But because  the northern summer   ice melt is at a higher order standard deviation  compared to the   southern winter ice growth, this is evidence that  Anthropogenic Carbon   Dioxide emissions are causing all of this, and we  should still pay our   tax to make the Planet Earth colder.  Even  though we never claimed this   effect would happen before.                       
> Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/newrepl...#ixzz2AbkRpjgG

  So taking out the introductory prose (well written as it is  :Wink: ), you're asking if this "claim" below is from a poor-reviewed and published scientific paper:   

> Carbon Dioxide emissions are not now   warming the Planet Earth in  accordance with our psychic computers, so we   are claiming that these  emissions are now responsible for flat lining   temperatures, increased  northern summer ice melts, and simultaneous   increasing southern winter  ice growth.  But because the northern summer   ice melt is at a higher  order standard deviation compared to the   southern winter ice growth,  this is evidence that Anthropogenic Carbon   Dioxide emissions are  causing all of this, and we should still pay our   tax to make the  Planet Earth colder.  Even though we never claimed this   effect would  happen before.

  What are you, nuts??? 
When was the last time you read a published report like that.  It is a  summary of the ridiculous back flips and moving of the goal posts from  this farcical cult.  It is highlighting the now desperate need to show  that any effect fits suitably to "the cause".  Not the scientific type  "cause" but the ideological cause. 
I have linked (as has Rod and many others) the hundreds of scientific  papers "claiming" all of these effects and more are caused by  Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions, as was correctly pointed out by  Inter.  He also correctly pointed out your industrial blindness in this  area, but I'll repost again, and again, and again, and hopefully other  can at least laugh at the cult as I do.  If you want more humiliation  for this cult, I'll find the sites and repost them again.  :Biggrin:  
But you want to know the truly scary part? 
I use Greenwashing to mean that people lose the ability to think and  cede all responsibility to higher "authority figures", like being  brainwashed, but for the greenie cause.  This means they do not observe  and think openly, but restrict themselves to the "authorised  literature". 
I prefer "Greenbrushing" to describe environmentally irresponsible  companies painting themselves green to confuse greenie cult members who  can't think for themselves anymore.  Most literature (oops, not  authorised poor-reviewed stuff, so you may not "believe" this), actually  refer to this process as greenwashing.  Given your remarkable attention  to the sematic and very little attention to proving your cause, I  thought this explanation may help.  :Biggrin:   ALERT: Greenbrushed smiley face.

----------


## Dr Freud

Once upon a time, there was a mystical kingdom where people had cows and cars.  Then a cult of some high priests decided they wanted more money from these people, so they told them the Carbon Dioxide produced from their cows and cars was going to destroy their entire mystical kingdom by causing the temperature to rise astronomically and unstoppably. 
They called this the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory to make it sound more official and scary. 
The people were really scared and decided to pay their money to the cult of the high priests. 
But then the people started looking at the temperature and realised it wasn't rising astronomically even though Carbon Dioxide emissions were skyrocketing, and asked the high priests if this meant their kingdom was saved.  The high priests said "NO!  You're a blasphemer. (oops, we meant denier).  It's not just about temperature.  Let's now call this Climate Change, and all changes will be proof of you burning to all hell.  Now pay your taxes." 
So the people clarified, "What will now be proof of this unstoppable global warming if we don't use temperature?" 
The high priests replied, "EVERYTHING!" 
Luckily, fewer and fewer people believed them:   

> * 
> A complete list of things caused by global warming*  _Apologies for a temporary delay in updating the dead link list_  AIDS, Afghan poppies destroyed, African holocaust, aged deaths, poppies more potent, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened,  aggressive weeds, Air France crash, air pockets, air pressure changes,  airport farewells virtual, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaskan towns slowly destroyed, Al Qaeda and Taliban Being Helped, allergy increase, allergy season longer, alligators in the Thames, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end,  amphibians breeding earlier (or not),  anaphylactic reactions to bee stings,  ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, animals shrink,  Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk,   anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear,  Arctic tundra lost, Arctic warming (not), a rose by any other name smells of nothing, asteroid strike risk, asthma, Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty,   atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased,  Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water,  bananas grow, barbarisation, bats decline,  beer and bread prices to soar, beer better,  beer worse, beetle infestation,  beef shortage,  bet for $10,000, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billion homeless, billions face risk, billions of deaths,  bird loss accelerating, bird populations dying, bird strikes, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds decline (Wales), birds driven north, birds face longer migrations, birds on long migrations threatened,  birds return early, birds shrink(Aus), birds shrink (USA), bittern boom ends, blackbirds stop singing, blackbirds threatened, Black Hawk down,  blizzards, blood contaminated, blue mussels return, borders redrawn,  bluetongue, brains shrink,  brewers droop, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain one big city, Britain Siberian, Britain's bananas, British monsoon,  brothels struggle, brown Ireland, bubonic plague,  Buddhist temple threatened,  building collapse, building season extension, bushfires,   butterflies move north, butterflies reeling, butterfly saved, carbon crimes, caribou decline,  Cambodian sex trade fuelled, camel deaths,  cancer, cancer deaths in England, cannibalism,  cataracts, cats more amorous, caterpillar biomass shift, cave paintings threatened,  chagas disease, childhood insomnia, children's mental health, chocolate shortage, Cholera, circumcision in decline, cirrus disappearance, civil unrest,  cloud increase,  clownfish get lost, coast beauty spots lost, cockroach migration, cod go south, coffee threatened, coffee berry borer, coffee berry disease, cold climate creatures survive,  cold spells, cold spells (Australia), colder waters  (Long Island), cold wave (India), cold weather (world), cold winters, computer models, conferences, conflict, conflict with Russia,  consumers foot the bill, coral bleaching, coral fish suffer, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink, coral reefs twilight,  cost of trillions, cougar attacks, crabgrass menace,  cradle of civilisation threatened, creatures move uphill, crime increase, crocodile sex, crocodiles driven from water, crops devastated, crop failures increase, cross-breeding, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, cryptococcal disease, curriculum change,  cyclones (Australia),   damselflies forced back to UK, danger to kid's health, Darfur, Dartford Warbler plague,  daylight increase, deadly virus outbreaks, death rate increase (US), death rate drop, deaths to reach 6 million, decades of progress at risk, Dengue hemorrhagic fever, depression, desert advance,  desert retreat,  destruction of the environment,  dig sites threatened,  disasters, diseases move north, diving reefs closed, dog disease,  dozen deadly diseases - or not, drought,    ducks and geese decline, dust bowl in the corn belt, dust doubles,  earlier pollen season,  Earth axis tilt, Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth crumbling, Earth dying, Earth even hotter, Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever, Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return, Earth slowing down,  Earth spins faster, Earth to explode, earth upside down,  earthquakes, earthquakes redux, El Niño intensification, end of the world as we know it, erosion, emerging infections, encephalitis, English villages lost, equality threatened, Europe simultaneously baking and freezing,  eutrophication,  everyplace hit hardest, expansion of university climate groups, * extinctions* (apes, human, civilisation, koalas, lizards,  logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod,  penguins, pikas, polar bears,   possums,  walrus,  tigers,  toads, turtles, pandas,  penguins, plants, ladybirds, rhinoceros, salmon, trout,  wild flowers, woodlice,  a million species, half of all animal and plant species, mountain species,  not polar bears, barrier reef, leaches, salamanders, tropical insects, flowers) experts muzzled, extreme changes to California, fading fall foliage,  famine, farmers benefit, farmers go under, farm output boost, farming soil decline,  fashion disaster, fever, figurehead sacked, fir cone bonanza, fires fanned in Nepal, fish bigger, fish catches drop, fish downsize,   fish deaf, fish feminised, fish get lost, fish head north, fish lopsided, fish shrinking,  fish stocks at risk, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, flesh eating disease, flies on Everest,  flood patterns change, floods,  floods of beaches and cities, flood of migrants, flood preparation for crisis, flora dispersed, Florida economic decline, flowers in peril, flowers wilt, flying squirrels move up, fog increase in San Francisco, fog decrease in San Francisco, food poisoning, food prices rise, food prices soar, food production increased,  food safety affected, food security threat (SA), football team migration,   forest decline,  forest expansion, foundations threatened, foundations increase grants, frog with extra heads, frosts, frostbite, frost damage increased,   fungi fruitful, fungi invasion, fungi rot the world, games change, Garden of Eden wilts, geese decline in Hampshire, genetic changes, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, geysers imperiled, giant icebergs (Australia), giant icebergs (Arctic), giant oysters invade, giant pythons invade, giant squid migrate, gingerbread houses collapse, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat,  glacier grows (California), glaciers on Snowden, glacier wrapped,  glass melts, global cooling,  glowing clouds,  golf course to drown, golf Masters wrecked, grain output drop (China), grain output stagnating (India), grandstanding, grasslands wetter, gravity shift,  Great Barrier Reef 95% dead,  great tits cope, greening of the North,  Grey whales lose weight, Gulf Stream failure, habitat loss, haggis threatened, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome,    harvest increase,  harvest shrinkage,  hay fever epidemic, health affected, health of children harmed, health risks, health risks (even more), heart deaths, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes (Australia), heat waves, hedgehogs bald, hibernation affected,   hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late,  homeless 50 million,  home runs, hornets, human development faces unprecedented reversal, human fertility reduced,  human health risk, human race oblivion, human rights violations, hurricanes,  hurricane reduction, hurricanes fewer, hurricanes more intense, hurricanes not,  hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, hyphthermia deaths, ice age, ice hockey extinct, ice sheet growth,  ice sheet shrinkage, icebergs, ice sheet tipping point,  illegal immigration, illness and death, inclement weather, India drowning, infrastructure failure (Canada),  indigestion, industry threatened, infectious diseases,  inflation in China, insect explosion, insect invasion, insurance premium rises, Inuit displacement, Inuit poisoned, Inuit suing, invasion of alien worms, invasion of Antarctic aliens,  invasion of Asian carp, invasion of cane toads, invasion of caterpillars,  invasion of cats,  invasion of crabgrass, invasion of herons, invasion of jellyfish, invasion of king crabs, invasion of lampreys, invasion of midges, invasion of pine beetles, invasion of rats (China), invasion of slugs,  island disappears, islands sinking, Italy robbed of pasta, itchier poison ivy, Japan's cherry blossom threatened,  jellyfish explosion, jets fall from sky,  Kew Gardens taxed, kidney stones, killer cornflakes, killing us, kitten boom, koalas leaves inedible, koalas under threat, krill decline,  lake empties, lake shrinking and growing, landslides, landslides of ice at 140 mph, large trees decline, lawsuits increase, lawsuit successful, lawyers' income increased (surprise surprise!),  lawyers want more, legionnaires' surge,  lives lost,  lizards super intelligent, lives saved,  lobsters grow,  Loch Ness monster dead, locust plagues suppressed, low oxygen zones threaten sea life, lush growth in rain forests,  Lyme disease, Major vegetation shifts,  Malaria,  Malaria decline,  malnutrition, mammoth dung melt, mammoth ivory bonanza, manatees battle, mango harvest fails, Maple production advanced, Maple syrup shortage, marmots fatter, marine diseases, marine food chain decimated, Meaching (end of the world), Meat eating to stop, Mediterranean rises, megacryometeors, Melanoma, Melanoma decline, mental health decline, mental illness, methane emissions from plants, methane burps, methane runaway, melting permafrost, Mexican climate migrant flood, Middle Kingdom convulses, migration,  migratory birds huge losses, microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly, milk production lost, minorities hit, monkeys at risk,  monkeys on the move, Mont Blanc grows, monuments imperiled, moose dying, more bad air days,   more research needed, mortality increased, mosquitoes adapting, mountain (Everest) shrinking,  mountaineers fears, mountains break up, mountains green and flowering,   mountains taller, mortality lower, Mubarak fall, murder rate increase,  musk ox decline, Myanmar cyclone, narwhals at risk, narwhals suffocate, National Parks damaged, National security implications, native wildlife overwhelmed, natural disasters  quadruple, neurological diseases,  new islands, next ice age, NFL threatened, Nile delta damaged, noctilucent clouds, no effect in India, Northwest Passage opened, nuclear plants bloom, oaks dying,  oaks move north,  obesity, oblivion, ocean acidification, ocean acidification faster, ocean dead spots, ocean dead zones unleashed, ocean deserts expand, ocean salt extremes, ocean oxygen crisis,  ocean waves speed up,  Olympic Games to end, opera house to be destroyed, outdoor hockey threatened,   owls turn brown, oxygen depletion zones, oyster herpes, ozone repair slowed, ozone rise, peat bogs problem,  peat bogs no problem, penguin chicks frozen, penguin chicks smaller, penguins in the dark, penguin populations devastated, penguins replaced by jellyfish,  penguins sex lives affected, personal carbon rationing, pest outbreaks, pests increase, pets in danger, phenology shifts,  pines decline, pirate population decrease, pirates run rampant, plankton blooms,   plankton plummeting, plankton wiped out, plants lose protein, plants march north, plants move uphill,  polar bears aggressive, polar bears cannibalistic, polar bears deaf,  polar bears drowning,  polar bears fewer cubs,  polar tours scrapped,  pollination halved, porpoise astray, profits collapse, psychiatric illness,  psychological effects,  puffin decline, pushes poor women into prostitution, rabid bats,  radars taken out, rail network threatened,  railroad tracks deformed, rainfall increase, rainforest destruction,  rape wave, refugees,  reindeer endangered, reindeer larger, release of ancient frozen viruses, resorts disappear, respiratory diseases worsen,  rice less fragrant, rice production fall, rice threatened, rice yields crash, rift on Capitol Hill, rioting and nuclear war, river flow impacted, river rerouted, rivers raised, road accidents, roads wear out, robins rampant,   rocky peaks crack apart, roof of the world a desert, rooftop bars, Ross river disease,    Russia under pressure, salinity reduction, salinity increase,  Salmonella, salmon stronger, sardine run unpredictable, satellites accelerate, Schmallenberg virus,  school closures, sea level rise, sea level rise faster, sea snot, seals mating more, seismic activity, sewer bills rise, severe thunderstorms, sex change, sexual dysfunction,  sexual promiscuity, shark attacks, sharks booming,  sharks hybridise, sharks moving north, sheep change colour, sheep shrink, shop closures, short-nosed dogs endangered,  shrimp sex problems, shrinking ponds, shrinking sheep,  shrinking shrine, Sidney Opera House wiped out, ski resorts threatened, slavery, skinks impacted, slow death,  smaller brains,  smog, snowfall decrease, snowfall increase, snowfall heavy,  snow thicker,  soaring food prices, societal collapse, soil change, soil subsidence, songbirds change eating habits, sour grapes, soybean crop to drop, space junk increase, space problem, spectacular orchids, spider danger in UK, spider bites to increase, spiders getting bigger, spiders invade Scotland,  squid aggressive giants, squid larger, squid population explosion, squid tamed, squirrels reproduce earlier, starfish sperm eaten by parasites, stingray invasion, storm damage costs rise, storms wetter,  stratospheric cooling, street crime to increase, subsidence, suicide, sunset displaced,  swordfish in the Baltic, Tabasco tragedy, taxes, tea flavour change, tectonic plate movement, teenage prostitution,   terrorists (India), thatched cottages at risk, threat to peace, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tigers eat people, tigers drown, tomatoes rot, tornado outbreak, tourism increase, toxic bacteria, toxic seaweed,  trade barriers, trade winds weakened, traffic jams,  transport snarl, transportation threatened, tree foliage increase (UK),   tree growth slowed, tree growth faster, trees grow too fast, trees in trouble, trees less colourful,  trees more colourful, trees lush, trees on Antarctica, treelines change, tropics expansion, tropopause raised, truffle shortage, truffles down,  truffles increase, turtles crash, turtle feminised, turtles lay earlier, UFO sightings, UK coastal impact, UK Katrina,  vampire bats,  Venice flooded,  volcanic eruptions, volcanoes awakened in Iceland,  walnuts threatened, walrus pups orphaned,  walrus stampede,  walruses come ashore, wars over water, wars sparked, wars threaten billions, wasps, water bills double,   water shortage to increase vegetarianism, wave of natural disasters, waves bigger, weather out of its mind, weather patterns awry,  weather patterns last longer, Western aid cancelled out,  West Nile fever, whale beachings, whales lose weight, whales move north,  whales wiped out, wheat rust in Syria, wheat yields crushed in Australia,  wild boars thrive, wildfires, wind shift, wind reduced, winds stronger, winds weaker,  wine - Australian baked, , wine industry damage (California),  wine industry disaster (US),  wine - more English, wine - no more French  ,  wine -  England too hot, wine -German boon,  wine passÃ© (Napa), wine - Scotland best,  wine stronger, winters in Britain colder, winter in Britain dead, witchcraft executions, wolverine decline, wolverines vanish, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, women cheat on vacation, workers laid off, World at war, World War 4,  Yellow fever, zebra mussel threat, zoonotic diseases.  *and all on 0.006 deg C per year!*   
> Advice of any omissions (with sources) or broken links is welcome at warmlist@numberwatch.co.uk *Note*: All links were live at time of posting. Inevitably some will disappear, particularly from Yahoo News. 
> Thanks to correspondents for additional entries; especially, as always, Our Man in Puerto Rico. Also, thanks to "Scraperguy" for the script to form the following:  *The dead link collection*  Acne, Africa hit hardest, African summer frost, agricultural land increase, Alaska reshaped, anxiety,  Arctic tundra to burn,  atmospheric defiance, bananas destroyed, beer shortage, bird distributions change, blizzards, boredom, brain eating amoebae, business opportunities, business risks,  British gardens change, budget increases, cardiac arrest,  cataracts,  challenges and opportunities,  cloud stripping,  cremation to end, damages equivalent to $200 billion,  dermatitis,  desert life threatened, diarrhoea, disappearance of coastal cities, Dolomites collapse, drought in distant regions, drowning people, early marriages, early spring, Earth spinning out of control, Earth wobbling, evolution accelerating, *extinctions* (bats,    pigmy possums, koalas, turtles, orang-utan,  elephants, tigers, gorillas, whales, frogs,) fainting,  fish catches rise,  flames stoked, footpath erosion, glacial growth, global dimming, god melts, Gore omnipresence, Great Lakes drop,  harmful algae, hazardous waste sites breached, high court debates, HIV epidemic, human health improvement, ice shelf collapse, jet stream drifts north, lake and stream productivity decline, lightning related insurance claims, little response in the atmosphere,  lost $350 billion, Lyme disease,  marine dead zone, Maple production advanced,  mental illness (Alberta), migration difficult (birds), mountains melting, mudslides, oceans noisier,  oyster diseases, ozone loss, Pacific dead zone, plankton destabilised, plankton loss, plant viruses,   polar bears starve,  psychosocial disturbances,  popcorn rise, rainfall reduction,   riches, rivers dry up, rockfalls,  ruins ruined, skin cancer, smelt down, snowfall reduction, stick insects, stormwater drains stressed, teenage drinking, terrorism, tree beetle attacks,  trees could return to Antarctic, tree growth increased, tsunamis, tundra plant life boost, uprooted - 6 million, Vampire moths, violin decline, walrus displaced, war, war between US and Canada, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress,  water supply unreliability, weeds,   white Christmas dream ends, wine - harm to Australian industry,   World bankruptcy, World-famous places threatened, World in crisis, World in flames, 
> Suggestions for replacement links are welcome. *Total* (dead and alive) *8**83* *Last updated*  05/03/12   Index, searchbox and begging bowl  warmlist

----------


## Dr Freud

> there is no need for anyone to pad out a claim with endless pages of a report which can't be comprehended by a layperson, just the summary will do, or important graphs or data which explain it all quiet simply, if you notice the doc has supplied references with each piece of info, why? because he is not trying to fool anybody with endless, useless to the layperson techno babble.  You fellows have posted the important parts of theses papers already but they are quite easily disected & found to be fallible, so then your response turns to techno babble as a subterfuge. 
> ps,  who do you think would not know the oceans are storing energy when the earth has been in a warming phase?
> regards inter

  Too right. 
Unfortunately all they have left to do is desperately quote effects of all sorts and pray that open minded people do not ask them for proof of the causes. 
Dr David Evans is a very smart man, and I can tell you that because I have met him and discussed this topic with him.  His knowledge and brain power are awesome indeed, but that's not why he's very smart.  The reason is his very simple language and easy manner.  He discussed these issues with PhD qualified scientists and lay people at the same time, and everyone knew what he was talking about. 
Here's a graph from one of his posts, and you can read a very simple explanation of it at the link:    Dr David Evans: The Skeptic’s Case Â« JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax    

> *Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler - Albert Einstein 
> Nature is pleased with simplicity - Isaac Newton 
> Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo Da Vinci*

  
Paying TAX in Australia to make the Planet Earth colder is not a simple concept. 
It is beyond ridicule.  Kinda like confusing 10% over 5 years with 15% percent per quarter! 
Both of these are simple-minded, not simple.

----------


## Dr Freud

> Again, I was asking for scientific references for Doc's claims. If you view scientific papers in such low light that all you want to see is the pretty pictures then that's fine for you, but not me. 
> woodbe.

  I hope you're either pretending not to know these things, or just taking the pi55. 
Otherwise, things are much worse than I expected. 
Most of the "pretty pictures" as you disparagingly call them are either from scientific reports submitted to and included in the IPCC reports, or are based on data from similar.  I have told you many times that most of my information comes from the scientific reports underpinning the IPCC reports, but for some reason your industrial blindness kicks in every time. 
It was these reports and the IPCC's disorting of them that first made me realise this scam was being driven from the IPCC itself, as part of the global cry for funding.  I have posted many times how this process and the resulting AGW hypothesis was based entirely on opinion and has no scientific proof whatsoever.  Now this is a claim I have made many times:  *There is ZERO evidence proving the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis.* 
Strange how you steer clear of this one, huh?   

> I think, if you reread what you wrote, you were portraying the increase  as insignificant. I pointed out that even a minuscule increase in ocean  temps requires a massive amount of energy.  
> woodbe.

  Well whoop tee doooo! 
A massive amount of energy huh?  Ever heard of this giant nuclear explosion in space?  It's called the Sun. 
Just maybe it sends just a tiny amount of energy our way? Maybe? 
Maybe clouds retain some of this energy? Maybe? 
Maybe the centre of the Planet Earth is made of molten iron and rock, and maybe the energy conduction from this also changes? Maybe? 
Oh no, what was I thinking, I forgot about the magical stopping of all these "natural" forces while "man-mediated" cows, cars and coal are now responsible.   :Doh:    

> Why are the goalposts now being moved? 
> woodbe.

  Here's the definition you linked to:   

> *Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection):*   if your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he must also address some further point. If you can make these points more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that your opponent isn't up on.

  Talk about hitting the nail on the head.  :Biggrin:  
Except you haven't yet found a subject that us skeptics are not "up on".  As collectively we just post the facts, and these dispel the cults myths and fictions. 
The joy of being right is we don't have to be smart, we just keep posting scientific facts to rebut the cults assertions and assumptions. 
Geez, after all these semantics, I've got no time left for all my future "claims" that are not poor-reviewed that also ridicule this farcical cult.  :Biggrin:  
Rest assured, more to follow...

----------


## Dr Freud

When will these clowns learn:   

> Mikes Nobel Trick 
>                    				 				By Mark Steyn  October 27, 2012 7:07 P.M.  Comments                         38   
>   			 				 					              Previously on _Law & Order_:
>  Last Monday, hockey-stick progenitor Michael Mann filed suit in DC  Superior Court against me, NR, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and  Rand Simberg. I noticed on the press release (published on his Facebook page) that Dr Mann claimed to have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and that on the complaint itself we are accused of the hitherto unknown crime of defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.
>  So my colleague Charles C W Cooke decided to call up the Nobel chaps in Oslo and ask them if Dr Mann was, in fact, a Nobel laureate:  *Cooke*: I was wondering, has Dr. Michael Mann ever won the Nobel Peace Prize? *Nobel Committee*: No, no. He has never won the Nobel prize.Thomas Richard also contacted the Norwegians and asked, Was Prof  Michael Mann awarded a Nobel Prize of any sort at any time? Is he a  Nobel Laureate as implied elsewhere in his legal brief? He received the  following email from Geir Lundestad, Director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute:  	Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.In public, Dr Mann is a-huffin an a-puffin that this is just more smears from Koch-funded climate deniers.  But, behind the scenes, a lot of quiet airbrushing of the record seems  to be going on. Two days ago, his Penn State bio said he had been co-awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, now merely that he contributed to the award (whatever that means). Over at Wikipedia, theyre arguing over ever more unwieldy rewrites. Editing a false legal complaint  is trickier but by now someone may have snuck into the DC court clerks  office with a gallon of White-Out and amended defamation of a Nobel  prize recipient to defamation of a man who received one of two  thousand photocopies of a commemorative thank-you certificate run off at  the IPCC branch of Kinkos.
>  So lets see: A week ago, Michael Mann accused us of damaging his  reputation  and seems to have made it a self-fulfilling prophecy. A  week ago, he was a Nobel prize recipient. Now hes not. Great work,  Mike!
>  (NB Headline courtesy Dr Phil Jones)  Mike’s Nobel Trick - By Mark Steyn - The Corner - National Review Online

  
For those who aren't familiar with the prior version of man-mediated global warming, here's a reminder:    
Michael Mann took the data from the bottom graph and made it look like the top graph. 
This became known as Mann-made global warming.   

> *One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been  bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.  We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has  captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to  ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend  to persist as the new bamboozles rise.)    [Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]*Susan Joy Rennison - The Broken Hockey Stick

----------


## Dr Freud

Professor Bjorn Lomborg wholeheartedly believes in the AGW hypothesis. 
But he hates the ridiculous lies and propoganda the cult resorts to:  

> *Never mind the facts, feel the panic*  38 Comments |  Permalink  Andrew Bolt Blog    *Andrew Bolt* *October 								     								     								        17 								     								     								        2012 								     								     	         							(7:17am)*  Global warming - propaganda 
>                                                                                        Reuters and Fairfax newspapers reported  the scare without the slightest scepticism - and without searching for  any dissenting opinion:   _More  than 100 million people will die and the global economy will miss out  on as much as 3.2 per cent of its potential output annually by 2030 if  the world fails to tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said on Wednesday._  _ As global average temperatures rise due to greenhouse gas emissions, the  effects on the planet, such as melting ice caps, extreme weather,  drought and rising sea levels, will threaten populations and  livelihoods, said the report conducted by humanitarian organisation  DARA.__The Guardian_ also reported the scare without managing to find a single sceptical voice:   _ The 331-page study was carried out by the DARA group, a  non-governmental organisation based in Europe, and the Climate  Vulnerable Forum Sheikh Hasina, prime minister of Bangladesh, said  Connie Hedegaard, the European Unions climate chief, warned Michael  Zammit Cutajar, former executive secretary of the UN Framework  Convention on Climate Change, said_ Professor Bjorn Lomborg now fact-checks:    _The vast majority of deaths discussed in the report did not actually result from global warming. Outdoor  air pollution caused by fossil-fuel combustion, not by global warming,  contributed to 30 per cent of all deaths cited in the study. And 60 per  cent of the total deaths reflect the burning of biomass (such as animal  dung and crop residues) for cooking and heating, which has no relation  to fossil fuels or global warming._  _  In total, the study exaggerated more than twelvefold the number of  deaths that could possibly be attributed to climate change, and it more  than quadrupled the potential economic costs, simply to grab attention.   
>   ... indoor air pollution will be overcome only when people can use kerosene, propane and grid-based electricity. _ _ If the Climate Vulnerability Monitors recommendation to cut back on  fossil fuels were taken seriously, the result would be slower economic  growth and continued reliance on dung, cardboard and other low-grade  fuels, thereby prolonging the suffering that results from indoor air  pollution._ Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

----------


## woodbe

> I hope you're either pretending not to know these things, or just taking the pi55. 
> Otherwise, things are much worse than I expected. 
> Most of the "pretty pictures" as you disparagingly call them are either from scientific reports submitted to and included in the IPCC reports, or are based on data from similar.  I have told you many times that most of my information comes from the scientific reports underpinning the IPCC reports, but for some reason your industrial blindness kicks in every time.

  The pretty pictures are there to help the reader of the report understand _the content of the report_. Whipping them out of context and dumping them into a forum to 'prove' something entirely different is not proof at all.   

> It was these reports and the IPCC's disorting of them that first made me realise this scam was being driven from the IPCC itself, as part of the global cry for funding.  I have posted many times how this process and the resulting AGW hypothesis was based entirely on opinion and has no scientific proof whatsoever.  Now this is a claim I have made many times:  *There is ZERO evidence proving the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis.* 
> Strange how you steer clear of this one, huh?

  Firstly, the IPCC did not invent AGW, the IPCC was created to collate existing research into a usable format for governments. IPCC does no climate research, never has. 
Secondly, 'these reports' are the scientific research of thousands of qualified scientists working in the field. For this huge conspiracy theory of yours to work these scientists would have to be either stupid, or in on the game. I don't like the chances of either of those propositions to be true.  *There is ZERO evidence DISproving the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis.* 
 Your proposition is that all of the existing lines of enquiry into AGW are incorrect, and are fraudulent. That should make AGW easy to disprove (Forum posts are not 'proof')  :Smilie: , yet it has not happened. All we get are people with opinions fuelled by WUWT etc, echoing easily rebuttable memes around the internet echo chamber. They're not even original, they repeat as if they think that the public has the attention span of an ant. eg: We've had "No warming since 1995/1997/1998", etc. Every time a new high temperature year hits the record book it will be cherry picked in the future to show that "warming has stopped"   

> A massive amount of energy huh?  Ever heard of this giant nuclear explosion in space?  It's called the Sun. 
> Just maybe it sends just a tiny amount of energy our way? Maybe? 
> Maybe clouds retain some of this energy? Maybe? 
> Maybe the centre of the Planet Earth is made of molten iron and rock, and maybe the energy conduction from this also changes? Maybe?

  Yes, a massive amount of energy. There are multiple lines of enquiry that support AGW. Ocean warming and the planet's energy balance are a couple of those lines of enquiry that do not necessarily follow the global air temperature trend when variability does it's thing and drowns out that ongoing trend. This is the expected behaviour of the climate system, but apparently those that deny AGW think it means the end of AGW.    

> Oh no, what was I thinking, I forgot about the magical stopping of all these "natural" forces while "man-mediated" cows, cars and coal are now responsible.

  The opposite. Natural variability exists as does the AGW trend. Neither signal "stops" for the other, magical or otherwise.    

> As collectively we just post the facts, and these dispel the cults myths and fictions. 
> The joy of being right is we don't have to be smart, we just keep posting scientific facts to rebut the cults assertions and assumptions.

  Well there's another magic Freud quote. Sceptics don't need any science, and now they don't even need to be smart! I agree with you, sceptics quoting masses of scientific facts out of context and misrepresenting their meaning is definitely not science, nor is it smart.  
At last we agree on something! 
woodbe

----------


## Rod Dyson

Nice work Doc. 
Now I want to share a BELLY LAUGH I had today,  compliments of RED SYMONS on the ABc. 
On the way to work I heard, RED cross to the ABC's sister station in New York to interview the host on the "Frankenstorm" . 
The interview was classic RED SYMONS, the guy on the other end was quite informative and did not try to over hype the storm. 
Then RED says "Do you think it's because of all the petrol and  gas you are using over there?" 
The other guy comes back with this, said with TOTAL disdain in his voice. "Your not talking about global warming are you?" 
Red drops it like a hot potato saying "no no no no.....no" then quickly changes the subject.  I cracked up laughing. Oh music to the ears.   
Sign of things to come guys!!  Mention Global Warming, expect to be ridiculed.   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Marc

News          >                 *Global warming slows down world economy: report*   Published: 26/09/2012 at 11:49 AMOnline news:       
 Climate change caused by global warming is  slowing down world economic output by 1.6 percent a year and will lead  to a doubling of costs in the next two decades, a major new report said. Multiple  air-conditioners hang on the outside of a building in Hong Kong in  February 2012. Key findings in a Climate Vulnerable Forum report include  estimates that carbon-intensive economies and associated climate change  are responsible for five million deaths a year, nearly all of them due  to air pollution.     
The DARA and Climate Vulnerable Forum  report, which was commissioned by 20 governments and is due to be  presented on Wednesday in New York, paints a grim picture of the  economic fallout of climate change.
The "Climate Vulnerability  Monitor" report finds "unprecedented harm to human society and current  economic development that will increasingly hold back growth, on the  basis of an important updating and revision of previous estimates of  losses linked to climate change."
However, according to the  report, tackling climate change's causes would instead bring  "significant economic benefits for world, major economies and poor  nations alike."
Key findings include estimates that  carbon-intensive economies and associated climate change are responsible  for five million deaths a year, nearly all of them due to air  pollution.
"Failure to act on climate change already costs the  world economy 1.6 percent of global GDP amounting to $1.2 trillion in  forgone prosperity a year," the report says.
In addition, "rapidly  escalating temperatures and carbon-related pollution will double costs  to 3.2 percent of world GDP by 2030."
Although poorer countries face the steepest economic damage in terms of GDP losses, big countries will not be spared.
"In  less than 20 years China will incur the greatest share of all losses at  over $1.2 trillion. The US economy will be held back by more two  percent of GDP; India, over five percent of its GDP," the report said.
It said these projected losses "dwarf the modest costs" of addressing climate change.
The  climate forum's chairman, Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina,  said weather pattern changes would be devastating for her country.
"One  degree Celsius rise in temperature is associated with 10 percent  productivity loss in farming," she said. "For us, it means losing about  four million metric tonnes of food grain, amounting to about $2.5  billion. That is about two percent of our GDP. Adding up the damages to  property and other losses, we are faced with a total loss of about three  to four percent of GDP."
Jeremy Hobbs, executive director of the  aid agency Oxfam International, called the report "another reminder that  climate change's most savage impact is hunger and poverty."
"The  economic and social costs of political inaction of unchecked climate  change are staggering," he said. "Behind the statistics are the stories  of real families and communities, for whom climate change means putting  children to bed with empty stomachs."   Ah how reassuring the voice of reason.
Repeat after me: Rich is bad, poor is virtuous.
Marx we love you, Castro is our hero

----------


## Marc

*100 Million Examples of Global Warming Absurdity*      (Photo credit: Wikipedia)  
  Its desperation time for global warming alarmists. Dont believe me?  Just look at what theyre parading as their best media story right now.
  Theyre in a frenzy this week, crying The Sky Is Falling! in light  of predictions by a group called DARA that global warming will kill more  than 100 million people during the next 18 years and destroy the global  economy. Yes, you read that right  global warming will kill more than  100 million people during the next 18 years!                         Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record                *James Taylor*                         Contributor                                               Global Warming Alarmists Seek More Power, Not Emissions Reductions                *James Taylor*                         Contributor                                               Don't Believe The Global Warmists, Major Hurricanes Are Less Frequent                *James Taylor*                         Contributor                                               Is Global Warming Causing A Record Breaking Lack Of Tornado Activity?                *James Taylor*                         Contributor                      
      The predictions are laughable on their face. Perhaps if  the head of some respected scientific organization made such claims, we  would chalk up the ridiculous predictions as an early sign of dementia  and mercifully decline to report the predictions so as not to embarrass  the person as he or she checks out of the real world.
  But this is not an accomplished scientist or a respected scientific  organization making the ridiculous predictions. DARA is an obscure,  heretofore irrelevant non-government organization dedicated to guilting  people in wealthy nations into forking over money to the rest of the  world due to a host of Western Democracy sins, and especially our  climate change sins. The problem for DARA is that up until now, nobody  has known or cared about the groups existence. DARA has long been in  the lower minor leagues of non-government organizations, assuming there  is a lower minor league desperate enough to have them.
  But DARA, as irrelevant as it was, figured something out. Make  ridiculously unsupported global warming claims and big league  environmental activist groups will beat a path to your door. In fact,  the more ridiculously stupid the claims, the more street cred you will  get with environmental activist groups and their liberal media sock  puppets. So DARA decided to shoot for the big leagues and out-ridiculous  every alarmist global warming prediction the group had ever seen.
  Not that DARA made any effort to mask its alarmist, redistributionist  predispositions. At the very beginning of the DARA paper making the  alarmist global warming predictions, the group added a full page  containing nothing but the words, Dedicated To The Innocent Victims of  Climate Change.
  Now THATS an objective scientific study for you!
  So a heretofore irrelevant activist group with an economic  self-interest in selling a global warming crisis absurdly and  unverifiably predicts that global warming will cause catastrophic misery  and death (over 100 million people killed during the next 18 years!),  and the alarmists trumpet it like news of the Apollo astronauts first  setting foot on the moon.
  Global Warming Wiped 1.2% from Global GDP, May Claim 100 Million Lives, screams a headline in the _International Business Times_.
  Shocking Study: By 2030, Climate Change Could Kill 100 Million People, claims _Yahoo News_. 
 Climate Change Deaths Could Total 100 Million by 2030 If World Fails to Act, reads a headline in the _Huffington Post_.
  Climate Change Reducing Global GDP by $1.2 Trillion, claims a _Businessweek_ headline.
  It all comes down to credibility. Alarmists claim global warming will  kill more than 100 million people during the next 18 years. Based on  such an absurd prediction, they want us to trust them to reshape our  society and govern the world economy.
  No thank you  the rest of us live in the real world.

----------


## Marc

*Oregon State University purges another skeptical faculty member* 
                               Source: Gordon Fulks Another "skeptic" thrown off the cliff at OSU 
 Hello Everyone,
 In theory at least Oregon State University (OSU) seems to be a  bastion of academic freedom, diversity, and tolerance.  A wide range of  ideas are openly discussed.  The most viable rise to the top and the  least viable fade away.  But it is all a fairy tale,  because OSU operates under a politically correct regimen that dictates  what is acceptable to say and what is not. Transgressors who dare to be  different are eventually weeded out so that the campus maintains its  ideological purity 
OSU is not yet as swift or efficient as the Soviet system when Joseph  Stalin was trying to quash dissent among biologists who refused to go  along with Trofim Lysenko.  If warnings to compromise their integrity  were not followed, Stalin simply had biologists shot.  That quickly  thinned the ranks of all biologists and persuaded the remaining ones to  comply with Stalins wishes.  Of course, it also destroyed Soviet  biology, because Lysenko was pedaling nonsense.  And Russian biology has  never recovered. 
We learned over the weekend that chemist Nickolas Drapela, PhD has  been summarily fired from his position as a Senior Instructor in the  Department of Chemistry.  The department chairman Richard Carter told  him that he was fired but would not provide any reason.  Subsequent  attempts to extract a reason from the OSU administration have been  stonewalled.  Drapela appears to have been highly competent and  well-liked by his students.  Some have even taken up the fight to have  him reinstated. 
What could possibly have provoked the OSU administration to take  precipitous action against one of their academics who has been on their  staff for ten years, just bought a house in Corvallis, and has four  young children (one with severe medical problems)?  Dr. Drapela is an  outspoken critic of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, the  official religion of the State of Oregon, the Oregon Democratic Party,  and Governor John Kitzhaber. 
Five years ago, Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor went around  quietly saying that he was not a believer.  Then Governor Ted Kulongoski  and many faculty at OSU including Dr. Jane Lubchenco made life  impossible for Taylor, and he retired.  (Lubchenco is now head of NOAA  in the Obama administration.)  Under those currently in charge, OSU  climate research has grown to be a huge business, reportedly $90 million  per year with no real deliverables beyond solid academic support for  climate hysteria.  A small army of researchers ponder the effects of  Global Warming on all sorts of things from tube worms living along the  Oregon Coast to butterflies inland.  When the climate refuses to warm  (as it has for the last twenty years), they just study warming in  reverse!  Most of us call that cooling, but they are very careful not to upset their Obama administration contract monitors with politically incorrect terminology. 
Skeptics of Global Warming who oppose the OSU approach and oppose the  politicians who make it all possible but do not work for OSU also find  themselves attacked.  Dr. Art Robinson who is running against Peter  DeFazio for an Oregon Congressional seat found three of his children  under attack at OSU.  All were attempting to obtain advanced degrees in  the Nuclear Engineering Department and were threatened with dismissal.   Because Robinson fought back, we understand that the OSU administration  backed down. 
As to the latest victim of political correctness at OSU, Dr. Nickolas  Drapela gives us an excellent synopsis of what is going on: *The fact of the matter is that it is now two weeks since I  was fired and no one has had the cajones or the common courtesy to even  tell me why.  I have spoken with the Dept. Chair (Rich Carter) who fired  me, and he refused to tell me why.  I spoke to the Dean of Science  (Vince Remcho) and he couldnt tell me why.  I spoke to HR who set up a  meeting with me, then cancelled it an hour before.  Then I went to the  Vice President of Academic Affairs (Becky Warner) and she sent me back  to Rich Carter, the chemistry chair.* *
Its just a sad, sad state of affairs that an institution like OSU would  fire a good employee for (ostensibly) no reason and then run around and  hide from the person they fired.  I had stellar teaching evaluations, I  won College of Science awards for teaching, and published textbooks.   My class sections were always full and I was well-liked by students (see  ratemyprofessors.com).  I was doing my job very well.  But I guess I didnt march in step with their philosophies.*
 There were quite a few student protests over this at OSU (Barometer, Facebook, etc.) but to no avail. 
I was given no severance and had no warning this was about to  happen.  In fact, I was lured into the chairs office under the guise of  a fallacious story before being fired. 
As you know, I was probably the most visibly-outspoken critic of the  Global Warming doctrine at OSU.  I gave several public talks on the  topic and did research in the area which I regularly posted on the web.   I was also on a few talk radio shows in the area.  I think they finally  just said, we cant have this. 
Can it be that a university whose motto is Open minds. Open doors  cannot abide even one faculty member who disagrees with their dogma?  I  suppose I am too naive, but Im still reeling from it.  Unbelievable. 
I should say that they regularly read all my email communications,  which is why I am writing from this private email address.  That has  been going on for quite some time now. 
As far as my options at this point, like I said I havent even really  grasped what has just happened.  I dont know what Im going to do, or  what options I have yet.  Im sure OSU wants their story to be tight and  perfectly identical among all administration before coming out with an  official reason why I was fired, hence the long wait and refusal to  speak to me. 
I truly thank you for your concern, and I hope there is some  recourse, even just for the sake of exposing what is happening at OSU.
 In a separate e-mail Drapela went on to say: *
Thanks so much for your support and your concern.  Thats  really nice.  My students were all really upset about it.  They started  an email writing campaign to have me re-hired but I guess no one cares  what they think.* *
I find that the people who want to keep things secret all the time are  usually the people that have something to hide.  It is certainly ok by  me for you to disseminate this story.  But Im sure OSU would be  horrified.* 
Im not sure how I will support my family at this point.  We just  bought a house in Corvallis.  I have four kids, one of whom has a rare,  blood disorder and requires regular trips to Doernbechers Childrens  Hospital for treatment.  Now we will be without health insurance.
 We can only speculate as to how the decision to fire Drapela was  made.  Unlike the decision to force Taylor out (which came from the  governors office), this decision was likely internal to OSU with the  implicit backing of Governor Kitzhaber and NOAA administrator  Lubchenco.  I would suspect that Dr. Phil Mote (Director of their  Climate Change Research Institute) had a hand in the decision, because  he has previously been highly intolerant of those who oppose his ideas  and could potentially threaten his business empire. 
Please join with me in supporting Nick Drapela.  Please join with me  in supporting objective science, as well as academic freedom, diversity,  and tolerance.  The issues here go far beyond just Global Warming and  strike at the very heart of who we are as scientists and Americans.
 Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA _P.S. Please circulate this e-mail far and wide.  The world needs to know what is going on here._

----------


## woodbe

> When will these clowns learn:      Mikes Nobel Trick 
>                                                     By Mark Steyn  October 27, 2012 7:07 P.M.  Comments                         38   
>                                                                   Previously on _Law & Order_:
>  Last Monday, hockey-stick progenitor Michael Mann filed suit in DC   Superior Court against me, NR, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and   Rand Simberg. I noticed on the press release (published on his Facebook page) that Dr Mann claimed to have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and that on the complaint itself we are accused of the hitherto unknown crime of defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.
>  So my colleague Charles C W Cooke decided to call up the Nobel chaps in Oslo and ask them if Dr Mann was, in fact, a Nobel laureate: *Cooke*: I was wondering, has Dr. Michael Mann ever won the Nobel Peace Prize? *Nobel Committee*: No, no. He has never won the Nobel prize.Thomas  Richard also contacted the Norwegians and asked, Was Prof  Michael  Mann awarded a Nobel Prize of any sort at any time? Is he a  Nobel  Laureate as implied elsewhere in his legal brief? He received the   following email from Geir Lundestad, Director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute:     Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.In public, Dr Mann is a-huffin an a-puffin that this is just more smears from Koch-funded climate deniers.   But, behind the scenes, a lot of quiet airbrushing of the record seems   to be going on. Two days ago, his Penn State bio said he had been co-awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, now merely that he contributed to the award (whatever that means). Over at Wikipedia, theyre arguing over ever more unwieldy rewrites. Editing a false legal complaint   is trickier but by now someone may have snuck into the DC court  clerks  office with a gallon of White-Out and amended defamation of a  Nobel  prize recipient to defamation of a man who received one of two   thousand photocopies of a commemorative thank-you certificate run off  at  the IPCC branch of Kinkos.
>  So lets see: A week ago, Michael Mann accused us of damaging his   reputation  and seems to have made it a self-fulfilling prophecy. A   week ago, he was a Nobel prize recipient. Now hes not. Great work,   Mike!
>  (NB Headline courtesy Dr Phil Jones)  Mikes Nobel Trick - By Mark Steyn - The Corner - National Review Online

  And you'd be wrong.  :Wink:  
It pays to check your facts before spreading a lie from the climate denial echo chamber.   

> Morano  has issued the following lie about me through his "Climate Depot" site:  "He [Mann] did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the  diploma awarded in 2007 to IPCC (& to Al Gore) & made his own  text underneath this authentic-looking diploma". 
> Both statements are lies (i.e. not only are they untrue, but Morano must  certainly--or should--know that they are untrue).  Morano must know  that    (1) the certificate on display at my facebook page (and is available  here for anyone to see) is the precise certificate that was sent to me  and *ALL IPCC LEAD AUTHORS* signed by IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri,  formally acknowledging my "contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace  Prize for 2007 to the IPCC". It is an actionable lie to claim either  that (1) I did not receive such a certificate or (2) that I in any way  modified the text in any conceivable way.  These are ugly lies from someone who is*known* for ugly lies. 
> The only thing I did at all was to put the certificate in a frame, and  display it in my office where anyone can see it. This certificate is  identical to every other certificate sent to every other IPCC lead  author by the IPCC (w/ the exception of the name specified, which is  different of course for each individual). 
> We now know that Marc Morano and his ilk will lie about literally  anything to smear climate scientists and climate science, just as he  lied about Senator John Kerry when he helped manufacture the "Swift  Boat" smear back in 2004.  
> I thought I had seen the lowest of the low from professional climate change deniers, but this is indeed a new low for them.

  Linky 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> At least Woodbe cherry picks the period of natural warming since the end of the last little ice age. 
> You could shower yourself with credibility if you added a time frame to your comment above?  100 yrs?  1000 yrs? 100000 yrs? 
> Or just let it slide into the incredibly "trendy" claims typical of people with cherry picked effects and no proof of causes (note the plurality again).

  The period of the graph in question...which is why relying simply on graphical interpretation alone without the support of the written word and technical argument is so foolish. 
Now where's my credibility shower?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> just when we thought it couldn't get any lower were down to poo level now, can anyone from the GW side take the debate any lower.

  Poo is a simple thing.  And it happens.  That's the point.  
To paraphrase the bloke in one of my all time favorite Oz movies 'The Last of the Knucklemen'..."_if you don't eat, you don't poo.  If you don't poo, you die._" 
You can't be more fundamental that that.   
Besides...we've been taking poo for 167 pages and who knows how many years and the quality and content of the poo being talked has changed very little.  No shifts in the information diet, no shifts in the quality or content of the poo.  But nothing beats a scatological joke...and I reckon this thread is no exception.  It's why I keep coming back... 
Oh and if you think poo is uninteresting and disgusting and 'low'...check out an Australian classic "Tracks, Scats and Other Traces". 
So I suspect that the answer to your original question is...probably not.

----------


## intertd6

> Poo is a simple thing.  And it happens.  That's the point.  
> To paraphrase the bloke in one of my all time favorite Oz movies 'The Last of the Knucklemen'..."_if you don't eat, you don't poo.  If you don't poo, you die._" 
> You can't be more fundamental that that.   
> Besides...we've been taking poo for 167 pages and who knows how many years and the quality and content of the poo being talked has changed very little.  No shifts in the information diet, no shifts in the quality or content of the poo.  But nothing beats a scatological joke...and I reckon this thread is no exception.  It's why I keep coming back... 
> Oh and if you think poo is uninteresting and disgusting and 'low'...check out an Australian classic "Tracks, Scats and Other Traces". 
> So I suspect that the answer to your original question is...probably not.

  I believe its just more of a tried & true tactic of master debators to lower the debate as a means of distracting it away from the debate they are losing. Even a dill like me knows that, but like most others I'm no fool & can distinguish a master debator from the masses very quickly.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I believe its just more of a tried & true tactic of master debators to lower the debate as a means of distracting it away from the debate they are losing. Even a dill like me knows that, but like most others I'm no fool & can distinguish a master debator from the masses very quickly.
> regards inter

  Me? A master debater?  Oh...Inter... :Kissyou:   You flatter me. 
As for this being a debate... :Laughing1:  :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  :Roflmao:  that particular horse & carriage bolted long ago...

----------


## Marc

*SOON AND BRIGGS: Global-warming fanatics take note  Sunspots do impact climate*  					 						Posted on September 6, 2012 						by justthefactswuwt  
 From the The Washington Times  By Willie Soon and William M. Briggs
 Scientists have been studying solar influences on the climate for more than 5,000 years.
  Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records. They  noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather. In 1801, the celebrated  astronomer William Herschel (discoverer of the planet Uranus) observed  that when there were fewer spots, the price of wheat soared. He surmised  that less light and heat from the sun resulted in reduced harvests.
 Earlier last month, professor Richard Muller of the University of  California-Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project announced  that in the projects newly constructed global land temperature record,  no component that matches solar activity was related to temperature.  Instead, Mr. Muller said carbon dioxide controlled temperature.
 Could it really be true that solar radiation  which supplies Earth  with the energy that drives our climate and which, when it has varied,  has caused the climate to shift over the ages  is no longer the  principal influence on climate change?
 Consider the accompanying chart. It shows some rather surprising  relationships between solar radiation and daytime high temperatures  taken directly from Berkeleys BEST project. The remarkable nature of  these series is that these tight relationships can be shown to hold from  areas as large as the United States.
 This new sun-climate relationship picture may be telling us that the  way our sun cools and warms the Earth is largely through the penetration  of incoming solar radiation in regions with cloudless skies. Recent  work by National Center for Atmospheric Research senior scientists Harry  van Loon and Gerald Meehl place strong emphasis on this physical point  and argue that the use of daytime high temperatures is the most  appropriate test of the solar-radiation-surface-temperature connection  hypothesis. All previous sun-climate studies have included the  complicated nighttime temperature records while the sun is not shining.
 Read more: SOON AND BRIGGS: Global-warming fanatics take note  Washington Times

----------


## Marc

*November 2, 2012*  *Vol. 12, No. 306*          *Fanatics, heretics and the truth about Global Warming*By *Tom DeWeese*        _Oceans  lash our coasts. Deserts Burn. The sky provides no shelter. Turmoil of  Biblical proportions threatens not just our weather but life itself.  Global Warming is upon us._Those words arent from the preview trailer of the silly, overblown, over dramatic film, _Day After Tomorrow_  that invaded movie theaters a few years ago. And they arent just  carefully selected scare words developed from a sweep through a  thesaurus. These are the opening words to yet another hysterical  diatribe passing as news these days on the subject of Global Warming.  This particularly silly one greeted readers of a recent issue of _Playboy_  magazine. The article was, of course, accompanied by the obligatory  pictures of smokes stacks belching over a city and the melting of ice  burgs.
You hear it everywhere. Global Warming is a fact. It is  here. It is now unstoppable. The Polar Ice Cap is melting. Polar Bears  are endangered. Greenland is actually turning green! Hurricanes are  blowing with more force. Tornadoes are growing in numbers. Water levels  are increasing, threatening to flood New York City. Human existence is  threatened. And, of course, the deserts are starting to burn. We are  assured that scientists are in near total agreement with the assessment.
The  media is in a frenzy, rushing to report the latest news release from  special interest groups with the latest report or prediction. Al Gore is  rushing his hi tech docudrama to the theaters to whip up more frenzy.  Corporations are being forced to turn green to show their corporate  social responsibility in the wake of the coming disaster.
Global  Warming has become a euphemism for a political agenda. There is  Socialism, Capitalism and Global Warmingism. It has become a religion  run by fanatics reminiscent of the leaders of the darkest days of the  Inquisition that nearly destroyed civil society only a few hundred years  ago. We are not to question the great god of Global Warming.  Those who  do are separated from civil society and labeled as heretics.
Read more here: Federal Observer Articles - Federal Observer

----------


## Marc

As I was making coffee at work in our tea room, the TV was giving the latest news on Cyclone "Sandy". 
One of the ladies waltzed in and having heard the word cyclone, like the trigger from a performing hypnotist, she mumbled matter of fact ... "and they say there is no global warming...all you need to do is live in Florida..."    
The absurdity of the comments made by the fringe fanatics and their brain dead cheer leaders reminds me of a time I use to live in South America. The behavior of the local religious fanatics, their process of thought that crippled any chance of fitting in a society that needs to work, build, love, hate, consume and have a good time was negated by a peculiar fatalist interpretation of the diatribes dished out by preachers who made a living from herding "believers".  
It is high time that the case of CO2 being the culprit for everything and anything that can possibly be blamed on the doer by the idle talker, be dismissed.  
It must be paraded as the criminal attempt it is, pushing to shift power and resources towards a minority with dictatorial aspirations who having failed personally and collectively in making any difference at all in any field whatsoever, have taken up a fake banner, with the false pretense of altruism and mustered government support for absolutely nothing at all but their own histrionic aspirations, with a doses of revenge toward the successful thrown in for good measure. 
It is our money that is squandered, the professional prophets of doom are parasitic in nature and produce nothing but hot air at our expenses.
Stop global warming by stopping money going towards their propaganda machine.
No more money, no more global warming.

----------


## johnc

The first of the three posts was OK, the second with-in the ambit we have come to expect but the last seems little more than hyperventilation through a prism of political and religious nonsense. Keep trying though I think Sandy is being seen as something a bit more than you allude to and has a lot to do with a conjunction of events being turbo charged by higher than average Atlantic water temperature and slowed down by a couple of inconvenient cold systems perhaps influenced by higher air moisture levels and the low ice levels in the Antartic. However before we get all excited why don't we just wait a bit for some informed comment by those who understand weather, you know, the stuff you lot continually bang on about but seem to have forgotten while falling over yourself to crticise comments that haven't really happened yet.

----------


## Marc

> ..... I think Sandy is being seen as something a bit more than you allude to and has a lot to do with a conjunction of events being turbo charged by higher than average Atlantic water temperature and slowed down by a couple of inconvenient cold systems perhaps influenced by higher air moisture levels and the low ice levels in the Antartic. However before we get all excited why don't we just wait a bit for some informed comment by those who understand weather, you know, the stuff you lot continually bang on about but seem to have forgotten while falling over yourself to crticise comments that haven't really happened yet.

  a) I did not allude to anything in relation to sandy...not a bit more not a bit less. However if you want I can tell you it is no different to many other cyclones to be generated in that region, and can not be blamed to anything man made not with any stretch of the imagination...unless one belongs to the fringe global warming beat up artist or is an ABC commentator.
b) In relation to informed comments, I know this is a renovation forum, but it is increasingly funny to think that there is hardly any or more likely no one that has studied climatology formally at university in this forum besides myself. :Rolleyes:

----------


## Dr Freud

Sadly for the cult, global warming is not going up as their psychic computers predicted.  :Biggrin:  
But what is skyrocketing is the desperation... 
Let's analyse some of it below:    

> The pretty pictures are there to help the reader of the report understand _the content of the report_. Whipping them out of context and dumping them into a forum to 'prove' something entirely different is not proof at all. 
> woodbe

  I don't need to prove anything.  You really should read up about the  scientific method, it would save me heaps of time continually explaining  it.  And as for out of context... 
ATTENTION MODS: Special Request. 
Can you please give me permission to cut and paste *all* of the scientific evidence including full text reports, data files and modelling code I refer to into this forum? 
This would then satisfy the ridiculous argument above that treats  readers like idiots who can't click on links and work out the  information for themselves.  Links like this:  Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 
Or maybe we could just credit readers with a little more intelligence than the argument above does?  :2thumbsup:     

> Firstly, the IPCC did not invent AGW, 
> woodbe

  I never said they did, shall we move onto all your other straw men now?    

> IPCC does no  climate research, never has. 
> woodbe

  And I'll miss you most of all Scarecrow!   

> Secondly, 'these reports' are the scientific research of thousands of  qualified scientists working in the field.  
> woodbe

  The ones I rate are.  Some of them however have been show to just be greenie propaganda pamphlets.    

> For this huge conspiracy  theory of yours to work  these scientists would have to be either stupid,  or in on the game. I  don't like the chances of either of those  propositions to be true. 
> woodbe

  Attention Arkham Asylum, the Scarecrow must have escaped again, because we have another strawman on the loose. 
Please show where I have claimed all these scientists are part of a  "huge conspiracy theory"? Or retract? Or just "move the goalposts" as  you consistently do and move onto another semantic distraction. 
Anything to distract from the "TRAVESTY that we can't explain the lack of warming", eh?    

> Your proposition is that all of the existing lines of enquiry into AGW  are incorrect, and are fraudulent.  
> woodbe

  Hello strawman, where have I seen you before? 
Please cut and paste the information where I proposed that?  If I did propose that "*all* *(including supportive, sceptical, neutral)* of the existing lines of enquiry into AGW are incorrect", then that would not be fraudulent, it would be idiotic.   

> That should make AGW easy to disprove  (Forum posts are not 'proof')  
> woodbe

  If you knew anything about science, you would understand the crudity of  our current knowledge levels makes many, many scientific theories and  hypotheses anything BUT easy to disprove.   

> yet it has not happened.  
> woodbe

  Shall we just revert to stating the bleeding obvious then, shall we. 
If it was DIS-proven, would we still be having this discussion?  :Doh:     

> All we get are people with opinions fuelled by  WUWT etc, echoing  easily rebuttable memes around the internet echo  chamber. They're not  even original, they repeat as if they think that  the public has the  attention span of an ant. eg: We've had "No warming  since  1995/1997/1998", etc. Every time a new high temperature year hits  the  record book it will be cherry picked in the future to show that   "warming has stopped" 
> woodbe

  Scientists call these scientific facts.  If you disagree, please post  your "adjusted" data showing global warming over the last 16 years in  accordance with the psychic computers predictions? 
Talk about desperation. 
This is the current and best scientific case that the AGW hypothesis defenders can put forward:    
You can no longer credibly support your own argument so you try to distort others who provide scientific facts you "deny".    

> I agree with you, sceptics quoting masses of scientific facts  
> woodbe

  Thanks!  You should try it sometime.  It's very liberating.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Sign of things to come guys!!  Mention Global Warming, expect to be ridiculed.

  Too right mate.  :Biggrin:  
And if "*1984*" is the answer. 
What is the question? 
Question 1: It contains this quote: Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness? 
Question 2: The last US presidential debates not mentioning the AGW hypothesis cults scam until this years? 
Question 3: Joe Biden and Barack Obama's IQ side by side? 
For the mathematicians out there, the correct response is an even number.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> And you'd be wrong.  
> woodbe.

  No I wouldn't.  What you posted is nothing to do with the claim I posted. 
The claim I posted had a link you obviously didn't read.  I may have to start cutting and pasting everything into this forum.  :Doh:   
Again and again you go down the straw man argument to try and steal some miniscule amount of credibility by trying to discredit others arguments, rather than supporting your own failed position.  :No:    

> It pays to check your facts before spreading a lie from the climate denial echo chamber. 
> woodbe.

  I did check my facts and then posted them.   :Biggrin:  
I don't spread lies (but again, please cut and paste examples and I will retract any oversight), or you can retract yours. 
And please send me the address for the "climate denial echo chamber" and I'll try to get some good stuff from them.  For now I'm stuck doing my own reading and using my own brain, as limited as it is.   

> Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try! 
> Dr Seuss.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The period of the graph in question...

  So you agree that the temperature went up slightly for about 20 years, then stopped for about 16 years over the life of the graph? 
Then if you add the two halves (not mathematically perfect) together, you get even less overall warming? 
And you've got absolutely no scientific proof as to why? 
Yet I assume you do agree the Planet Earth is naturally coming out of the last Little Ice Age in the 1800's? 
Shall I hold the morning papers for your response to that one?   

> which is why relying simply on graphical interpretation alone  without the support of the written word and technical argument is so  foolish.

  HINT: Click on the links, or when really struggling use Google.  Then tree reference. 
(Are people reading this forum really so stupid they take everything posted here as gospel without fact checking?  And get absolutely no other information from any other source? Please tell me this ain't so!!!)  :Cry:  
Or is it just Woodbe and SBD that believe this?    

> Now where's my credibility shower?

  Woodbe won't allow it because he calls your time period "cherry-picking".  :Doh:  
He's pretty serious about this stuff you know.

----------


## Dr Freud

> the quality and content of the poo being talked *has changed very little*.

  Really?      

> "And you will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free..."

  Hallelujah brother!  :Biggrin:

----------


## barney118

I believe there is a consensus on this: 
that a cross section view, now imagine this in 3D. I think the earth regulates itself quite well depending on the season. 
I just happen to stumble across :The Ozone Hole and I thought the worst, however it seems since around 1980 (gee a long time to know if its a problem or not.) a few quotes: 
"A planet's climate is decided by its mass, its distance from the sun and the composition of its atmosphere. Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% other gases. Carbon dioxide accounts for just 0.03 - 0.04%. Water vapour, varying in amount from 0 to 2%, carbon dioxide and some other minor gases present in the atmosphere absorb some of the thermal radiation leaving the surface and emit radiation from much higher and colder levels out to space. These radiatively active gases are known as greenhouse gases because they act as a partial blanket for the thermal radiation from the surface and enable it to be substantially warmer than it would otherwise be, analogous to the effect of a greenhouse. This blanketing is known as the natural greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be roughly -20°C. T"  (what will we eat?, what grows at this temperature?my beer will be frozen  :Mad:  ) 
So if our famous Carbon tax somehow lowers the temperature towards -20 deg, then we need to turn the heaters on ! 
Looking at the history  since 1980: " NOAA measurements indicate a much smaller ozone hole than normal during August and early September, but it then grew rapidly to around 19 million square kilometres in the second half of September. This is smaller than the mean for the last decade, but comparable to that of 2010. The hole shrank quickly in the first half of October, but has covered 8 million square kilometres for the last ten days. In general the zonal minimum ozone layer temperature (between 70 and 30 hPa) was a little cooler than the normal during the early winter, however a warming event took place in late August. The temperature throughout the ozone layer is now rising, and is above the Polar Stratospheric Cloud (PSC) formation temperature, and is warmer than the normal for the time of year. The August warming event meant that the amount of PSC available for ozone depletion was smaller than usual, leading to the smaller, shallower ozone hole." 
"its smaller than the last decade" is quoted multiple times. "it goes up and down" not just up and up.  The Ozone Hole October 2012  *October     24,2012-From Discovery, To Solution, To Evolution:     Observing Earth's Ozone Layer* *October     24,2012-2012 Antarctic Ozone Hole Second Smallest     in 20 Years* *October     24,2012-NOAA, NASA: Antarctic ozone hole second     smallest in 20 years* *September     18,2012-Watching the Ozone Hole Before and After the     Montreal Protocol* *September     17,2012-Discovering the Ozone Hole: Q&A With Pawan     Bhartia* *July     11,2012-2012s ozone hole season starts* *June     12,2012-**Air pollution may be driving     expansion of tropics* *June     12,2012-**Volcanic     gases could deplete ozone layer* *April     12,2012-**NOAA     ice data support new discoveries in the Arctic Changes in sea ice drive     ozone loss, mercury fallout* *March     27,2012-* *NRL Scientists Identify New Coupling Mode     Between Stratosphere and Ionosphere* *January     18,2012*-*Low     Temperatures Enhance Ozone Degradation above the Arctic* 
interesting view, I can see, low temperatures (not higher) , volcanic gases (bad), smallest in 20 yrs, would you class this as an unbiased view? I refer back to pic 1, and note the sum of the parts does not equal the whole. Amazing how rapid, so many changes in 10 mths of study!  *So the solution:*   If you think that the sea levels are going to rise and the temperature is going to get too hot, you better move to somewhere away from the ocean, further away from the equator, Maybe somewhere in the desert where real estate is cheap and the lack of services far and inbetween. :Cool:  
For me, I like 4 seasons a year, 1 hot one, one cold one, and a couple of transition ones. :Biggrin:

----------


## Oldsaltoz

I have it on good authority the Earth has been warming ever since the last Ice Age ended. 
Perhaps we are due for another soon?

----------


## activeman

Surely Emissions Trading can only be a good thing. 
Whether global warming turns out to be a dire civilisational threat or just a misreading of temperature trends, the main effect of the ETS is to make the economy use it's carbon fuels in the most efficient way, i.e. through innovation of better processes within gas/coal based industries or through the development of alternative technologies.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So you agree that the temperature went up slightly for about 20 years, then stopped for about 16 years over the life of the graph? 
> Then if you add the two halves (not mathematically perfect) together, you get even less overall warming? 
> And you've got absolutely no scientific proof as to why? 
> Yet I assume you do agree the Planet Earth is naturally coming out of the last Little Ice Age in the 1800's? 
> Shall I hold the morning papers for your response to that one?

  I agree that, for the graph shown, the trend in the temperature anomaly climbed visibly for over the first half of the graph and then more or less flattened out in the last half.   
As for adding the two together as suggest...erm, no.  That's the wrong way to go about it.  Suffice to say that on my reading of the plot, the temperature anomaly has climbed into positive territory and then stayed there.  By the by, the anomaly does not represent temperature directly.  It represents divergence from the mean or median. Basically, it still says it was warmer at the end than when it started. 
Scientific proof? Me?  I'm not a flaming library!!  There's a bunch of reasons behind the increasing trend in temperature anomaly.  There's a range of both natural and human influenced processes...way too many to list.  Plus I credit you with a certain amount of smarts to know what most of them are.  But ask yourself...which ones have changed significantly in their scope or scale over the last two centuries and there you might just find your prime suspects. 
Our atmosphere is coming out of and going into something all the time so why not this so called Little Ice Age (which I think was a local/regional event in Europe arising from massive volcanism in Iceland at the time).  The question arises as to whether you can get your head around the idea that such events can be accounted for and their effects isolated in a long running analysis of data so as to remove their influence from such analysis.  Which comes back to those 'psychic computers' of which you speak...so little. 
Who still reads the morning papers?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...the quality and content of the poo being talked *has changed very little*.
> Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...#ixzz2BVR4nFlu

   

> Really?

  Ho yes...really indeed.  You just reinforced my point...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Surely Emissions Trading can only be a good thing. 
> Whether global warming turns out to be a dire civilisational threat or just a misreading of temperature trends, the main effect of the ETS is to make the economy use it's carbon fuels in the most efficient way, i.e. through innovation of better processes within gas/coal based industries or through the development of alternative technologies.

  It can only be a 'good thing' if it was the only option available to respond to the problem AND it was well designed AND implemented effectively as part of a suite of coherent public policy aimed at responding effectively to a social or political need.  Given that, on this measure, the answer is NO and NO and YOU MUST BE KIDDING then it is probably just a 'thing' as opposed to a 'good thing'. 
Still...one can only learn by doing.  And even a better than half hearted try should be quietly applauded...

----------


## Marc

> Surely Emissions Trading can only be a good thing. 
> Whether global warming turns out to be a dire civilisational threat or just a misreading of temperature trends, the main effect of the ETS is to make the economy use it's carbon fuels in the most efficient way, i.e. through innovation of better processes within gas/coal based industries or through the development of alternative technologies.

  I agree. It is a good thing...for the mercenary scientist, for the bent politicians, for the incompetent self appointed experts who write books about it, to extract the greens out of irrelevance into annoyance, and for a lot of other peripheral things it is a "good" thing. 
So it is to avoid black cats, not walk under ladders, light a candle to Saint Lawrence to win the lotto, and throw a pinch of salt over your left shoulder to avoid bad luck

----------


## Oldsaltoz

This looks intersting  Cooling world is hot potato for UN | The Sunday Times

----------


## woodbe

> This looks intersting  Cooling world is hot potato for UN | The Sunday Times

  It's only a hot potato for those that believe everything they read in the media. I haven't heard a respectable scientist agree with any of these 'no warming since..' memes. 
Perhaps it might be instructive to listen to actual scientists talking about their arctic research instead? 
woodbe

----------


## Dr Freud

> I have it on good authority the Earth has been warming ever since the last Ice Age ended. 
> Perhaps we are due for another soon?

  You could be onto something here mate. 
Some scientists are indeed "hypothesising" that we may be verging on another cooling phase (or stagnating phase), or even an ice-age. 
Strange thing is, they haven't predicted the end of the world, and haven't claimed that higher taxes in Australia will fix the problem. 
Obviously not real scientists if they don't believe higher taxes in Australia controls the temperature of the Planet Earth!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Surely Emissions Trading can only be a good thing. 
> Whether global warming turns out to be a dire civilisational threat or just a misreading of temperature trends, the main effect of the ETS is to make the economy use it's carbon fuels in the most efficient way, i.e. through innovation of better processes within gas/coal based industries or through the development of alternative technologies.

  You sound like your hearts in the right place. 
Unfortunately this farce is nothing like you have been led to believe. 
I am happy to explain in detail why if you actually have a real interest in this fraud, or you can read the whole thread to get the full story (might take a while now, it's turning into a monster).  :Shock:

----------


## Dr Freud

The first thing that totalitarian regimes remove is free speech. 
Because then no-one can speak out as they remove whatever else they want:   

> And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all  records told the same tale  then the lie passed into history and became  truth. '*Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'*  And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been  altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting.  It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of  victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they called it: in  Newspeak, 'doublethink'.  Nineteen Eighty-Four - Wikiquote

  This fraud has meddled with records and data, silenced critics, threatened opponents, and destroyed documents and evidence, yet still we realists prevail. 
This week, another man stood up for our free speech.  He should be recognised for helping us retain that which we take for granted:     
He will be attacked viciously for speaking out, and many of us warriors of free speech and truth in this country will both sympathise and support him. 
Duty First Ralph!

----------


## Dr Freud

> Who still reads the morning papers?

  I guess I better get myself a twitter account (whatever the hell that means), starting to show my age now.  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

This is cute...somewhat meaningless if you can't accept a link between CO2 and the climate and (like most visualisations) not entirely informative...but cute in a clever kind of way.  Carbon Visuals: New York's carbon emissions - in real time 
But for the more science-y amongst us - this has caused a little stir  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11575.html

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I guess I better get myself a twitter account (whatever the hell that means), starting to show my age now.

  
The prospect of Freud on Twitter tears my emotions and imagination in just too many directions to be safe... 
It'd be by far the funniest thing you've done this year...so I say give it all you have!!!

----------


## Dr Freud

> It's only a hot potato for those that believe  everything they read in the media. 
> woodbe

  So now you have finally also agreed that the media distorts coverage of this fraud.  :Biggrin:  
The hamstrings must be aching after this backpedaling.     

> I haven't heard a respectable scientist agree with any of these 'no warming since..' memes. 
> woodbe

  So all the people you regard as "respectable scientists" disagree with the official temperature record! 
What are they, DENYING it or something?  :Roflmao2:    

> Perhaps it might be instructive to listen to actual scientists talking about their arctic research instead? 
> woodbe

  I'm still waiting for the LIMP TAX (Called the Localised Ice Melting Prophecies TAX for those infrequent readers who missed the point when Woodbe abandoned the Global Warming agenda because he couldn't reconcile the reality that the global warming predicted by the psychic computers was a farcical fiction.  Hence we have a new localised ice phenomena to focus on through the smoke and mirrors.  Kinda like ALL doomsday cults that reset the end of the world day when it fails to arrive.  But lucky we still get to pay the Carbon Dioxide TAX, eh?) 
This LIMP TAX will be a new tax in Australia that will increase ice mass in the Arctic (as it's slowly reducing) and simultaneously decrease ice mass in the Antarctic (as it's slowly increasing).  Don't believe me, huh?  Think I'm a crank? 
Then you obviously missed the bit about the TAX in Australia that's going to make the whole Planet Earth colder.  :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

> It's only a hot potato for those that believe  everything they read in the media.       Originally Posted by Dr Freud   So now you have finally also agreed that the media distorts coverage of this fraud.  
> The hamstrings must be aching after this backpedaling.

  It's not news that the media is unreliable. The media prints whatever they like to create controversy and sell more media. You may have noticed that it is not woodbe who repeatedly quotes the media in this thread, it's <cough> you and Rod  :Tongue:    

> I haven't heard a respectable scientist agree with any of these 'no warming since..' memes.       Originally Posted by doc  So all the people you regard as "respectable scientists" disagree with the official temperature record!
>  What are they, DENYING it or something?

  The people I consider to be respectable scientists look somewhat beyond a few years before considering a trend changing outside of natural variability.    

> Perhaps it might be instructive to listen to actual scientists talking about their arctic research instead?       Originally Posted by doc  I'm still waiting for the LIMP TAX (Called the Localised Ice Melting Prophecies TAX for those infrequent readers who missed the point when Woodbe abandoned the Global Warming agenda (1) because he couldn't reconcile the reality that the global warming predicted by the psychic computers was a farcical fiction(2).  Hence we have a new localised ice phenomena to focus on through the smoke and mirrors (3).  Kinda like ALL doomsday cults that reset the end of the world day when it fails to arrive (4).  But lucky we still get to pay the Carbon Dioxide TAX, eh? (5)) 
> This LIMP TAX will be a new tax in Australia that will increase ice mass in the Arctic (as it's slowly reducing) and simultaneously decrease ice mass in the Antarctic (as it's slowly increasing).  Don't believe me, huh?  Think I'm a crank?

  1. Woodbe did nothing of the sort. :P
2. Global warming is not predicted by 'psychic computers' It is predicted by physics. Observations support the physics.
 3. Localised ice phenomena. Nice euphemism for the state of the arctic, doc.
4. Unlike doomsday cults, no climate scientist has yet set a date for the end of the world.
5. Yes, we get to pay a Carbon Tax. You should feel happy to be leading the world towards a low carbon future.   

> Then you obviously missed the bit about the TAX in Australia that's going to make the whole Planet Earth colder.

  The Carbon Tax (flawed as it is) will help Austalia move towards a low carbon future. If you watched that video you would know that it's a big ask to make the whole planet colder. The best we can hope for is to limit the long term increase. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> The first thing that totalitarian regimes remove is free speech. 
> Because then no-one can speak out as they remove whatever else they want:   
> This fraud has meddled with records and data, silenced critics, threatened opponents, and destroyed documents and evidence, yet still we realists prevail. 
> This week, another man stood up for our free speech. He should be recognised for helping us retain that which we take for granted:     
> He will be attacked viciously for speaking out, and many of us warriors of free speech and truth in this country will both sympathise and support him. 
> Duty First Ralph!

  Interesting to see you standing up for Blewitt, do the two of you operate at the same level of integrity and honesty?

----------


## intertd6

And now the idiots are talking about atmospheric geo engineering.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And now the idiots are talking about atmospheric geo engineering.

  We've been doing that ever since we started burning coal.... :Wink 1:   Not to mention cloud seeding. :Biggrin:  
However, in the manner that you've actually been thinking...there's been more than talk, Inter.  There's been quite a bit of action these last few years but nothing significant has hit the atmosphere since there's a little problem of 'perverse outcomes'  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): .  Which basically means that the risk assessment can't get past the ethics committee because way too many things are unknown and the i's and t's remain uncrossed... 
One of the more radical peanuts in the jar actually had a shot at it on a localised scale just a few week ago.  Used iron filings to trigger an algae bloom (which it did) apparently to feed a few fish and support an island fishing community but more than a few of his fellows accuse him of playing it fast and loose with the ethics committee.  Every shed has a Barnaby tool, I suppose...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

OK I'll be the guilty one for kicking this one down the road...if only for interests sake  *Climate change denial and the illusion of consensus*http://www.ecosmagazine.com/paper/EC12490.htm

----------


## Rod Dyson

> OK I'll be the guilty one for kicking this one down the road...if only for interests sake  *Climate change denial and the illusion of consensus*  ECOS Magazine - Towards A Sustainable Future

  Who would deny climate change exists?? It is impossible to deny. 
We all know it changes all the time.

----------


## woodbe

> Who would deny climate change exists?? It is impossible to deny. 
> We all know it changes all the time.

  Apparently, a lot of people THINK that there are a lot of other people who deny its happening:   

> *In a recent blog post, respected US scientist and author of The Inquisition of Climate Science,  James Lawrence Powell, analysed peer-reviewed scientific articles on  climate change published between January 1991 and November 2012. The  search produced 13,950 articles, of which just 24 clearly rejected the  theory of global warming, or endorsed a cause other than CO2 emissions.* 
> So what? Powell wanted to challenge the growing public belief that  scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. As  he asserts, Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global  warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way  that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. 
> In a recent paper published in the journal _Nature Climate Change_, CSIRO researchers reported that Australians, too, hold views that are at odds with reality. 
>   The aim of the CSIRO study  in which over 5000  people were surveyed over two years  was to investigate biases in  peoples opinions about the existence and causes of climate change.
>   The researchers classified survey respondents into  four different groups: those who believe climate change is not  happening; those who dont know if climate change is happening or not;  those who believe climate change is happening but is due to natural  causes; and those who believe climate change is happening and is largely  human-induced.
>   Results showed that respondents in all four  categories overestimated the proportion of people who deny climate  change is happening  despite the fact that most of the respondents  agreed that climate change is happening.

  (from SBD's link) 
So both Rod and I are probably wrong about something: There are less people out there who actually deny climate change than either of us think.  :Biggrin:  
And Rod's position that the climate is changing but not significantly because of us is supported by just 24 out of 13,950 peer reviewed papers. 0.17204% or 1 in 581.25 papers. Over the time span analysed, we're talking about an average of just over 2 peer reviewed paper per year versus over 1000.  
Do you go to the races Rod? Looks like you picked this nag:   
woodbe

----------


## johnc

Then in this mornings Age (for Marc's benefit this should be read while listening to the ABC at the same time as sipping on a latte') we have a rather interesting article on the failure of the climate change movement to engage with the denialist corner.  Nick Feik | Green movement has been an abject failure  
An interesting opinion piece that probably illustrates that some groups are immune to genuine engagement of others ideas and that probably applies to all sides of this very important issue.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I tripped over that opinion piece from The Age too.   
Couldn't help but agree with the sentiment because the 'green' agenda has truely failed to change much of anything since it began to take shape...let alone the politics and economics of climate change.  That may not actually be the fault of the denialists, more about the green movement's thorough inability to shape and maintain a coherent argument for any length of time. 
The geo-engineering wobble that got thrown in at the end just made me laugh. And sigh...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Who would deny climate change exists?? It is impossible to deny. 
> We all know it changes all the time.

  Rod, the problem with thinking oneself to be clever sometimes is that you can often end up seeming a bit simple. :No:   
Trust me.  I know this to be true.

----------


## johnc

> I tripped over that opinion piece from The Age too.  
> Couldn't help but agree with the sentiment because the 'green' agenda has truely failed to change much of anything since it began to take shape...let alone the politics and economics of climate change. That may not actually be the fault of the denialists, more about the green movement's thorough inability to shape and maintain a coherent argument for any length of time. 
> The geo-engineering wobble that got thrown in at the end just made me laugh. And sigh...

  
The saddest part for the green movement is in the main they are probably trying to convince the bottom quartile of the population with the rest of the denialist brigade being a varied mix of business and private interest groups simply pushing to delay change. The more intelligent aren't interested the less intelligent unable to focus beyond a few pre conceived ideas revolving around where they see themselves on the political treadmill.

----------


## Marc

Intelligent, foolish, denier, alarmist, moron or mercenary it is all irrelevant. 
There is only ONE SINGLE SOLITARY FACT  to take into account.  CO2 rise does not CAUSE temperature increases.
This fallacy, this calculated intentional lie, this fraud is at the base of every other supposedly green claim.
Take it away as you should and everything else falls down like a house of cards. NOTHING STACKS UP WITHOUT IT. 
Without the false concept that using energy is bad because producing it makes CO2.... all of a sudden there is nothing left! 
If CO2 is NOT pollution if on top of it it is actually beneficial for agrculture, the green movement must throw themselves off a cliff because theirs is at best a baseless charade at worst a monumental fraud

----------


## Daniel Morgan

> The more intelligent aren't interested

  Why would that be John?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, the problem with thinking oneself to be clever sometimes is that you can often end up seeming a bit simple.  
> Trust me.  I know this to be true.

  What are you saying??  :Confused:

----------


## johnc

> Why would that be John?

  The less intelligent jump to the conclusion and hunt about for the answer, the more intelligent look at what is before them and form an opinion, however in the case of climate change now appear to be generally disengaged as running discussions with the former achieves nothing. The opinion isn't selective it applies to both sides of the fence. 
However there is a third kind I guess the one who writes in really large fonts, rants are rants i doubt whether they convey anymore than a writers frustration that no one appears to be listening.

----------


## woodbe

> Intelligent, foolish, denier, alarmist, moron or mercenary it is all irrelevant. 
> There is only ONE SINGLE SOLITARY FACT  to take into account.  CO2 rise does not CAUSE temperature increases.
> This fallacy, this calculated intentional lie, this fraud is at the base of every other supposedly green claim.
> Take it away as you should and everything else falls down like a house of cards. NOTHING STACKS UP WITHOUT IT. 
> Without the false concept that using energy is bad because producing it makes CO2.... all of a sudden there is nothing left! 
> If CO2 is NOT pollution if on top of it it is actually beneficial for agrculture, the green movement must throw themselves off a cliff because theirs is at best a baseless charade at worst a monumental fraud

  Congratulations Marc  :Biggrin:    

> James Lawrence Powell, analysed peer-reviewed scientific articles on   climate change published between January 1991 and November 2012. The   search produced 13,950 articles, of which just 24 clearly rejected the   theory of global warming, or endorsed a cause other than CO2 emissions.

  Welcome to denial! 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The saddest part for the green movement is in the main they are probably trying to convince the bottom quartile of the population with the rest of the denialist brigade being a varied mix of business and private interest groups simply pushing to delay change. The more intelligent aren't interested the less intelligent unable to focus beyond a few pre conceived ideas revolving around where they see themselves on the political treadmill.

  I'm not actually convinced that the green 'movement' is trying to convince anyone but themselves in general.  
Which is largely why they fail...but if it makes them feel good and they don't hurt anyone in the process then it's all good.  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Intelligent, foolish, denier, alarmist, moron or mercenary it is all irrelevant. 
> There is only ONE SINGLE SOLITARY FACT  to take into account.  CO2 rise does not CAUSE temperature increases.
> This fallacy, this calculated intentional lie, this fraud is at the base of every other supposedly green claim.
> Take it away as you should and everything else falls down like a house of cards. NOTHING STACKS UP WITHOUT IT. 
> Without the false concept that using energy is bad because producing it makes CO2.... all of a sudden there is nothing left! 
> If CO2 is NOT pollution if on top of it it is actually beneficial for agrculture, the green movement must throw themselves off a cliff because theirs is at best a baseless charade at worst a monumental fraud

  CO2 rise does not cause...but it certainly does contribute to....temperature increases in the atmosphere.  We've known this to be true since 1861 JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie 
To pretend otherwise.....is rather entertaining. 
I know you hate Skeptical Science but I'll throw it in anyway How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

----------


## barney118

> Intelligent, foolish, denier, alarmist, moron or mercenary it is all irrelevant. 
> There is only ONE SINGLE SOLITARY FACT  to take into account.  CO2 rise does not CAUSE temperature increases.
> This fallacy, this calculated intentional lie, this fraud is at the base of every other supposedly green claim.
> Take it away as you should and everything else falls down like a house of cards. NOTHING STACKS UP WITHOUT IT. 
> Without the false concept that using energy is bad because producing it makes CO2.... all of a sudden there is nothing left! 
> If CO2 is NOT pollution if on top of it it is actually beneficial for agrculture, the green movement must throw themselves off a cliff because theirs is at best a baseless charade at worst a monumental fraud

   :What he said:  :2thumbsup:  As stated before, water vapour aka clouds contribute to temperature increases, also it depends on what season it is and which track the earth orbit is on at any given time, be grateful that we have hot days and cold days, rainy days windy days, imagine what it would be like if it stayed the same temperature all the time? would food grow? would we run out of water? sounds like a chapter out of "1984" or "brave new world." 
Why is "society" hell bent on believing they can control temperature by modifying what ever they do? There is more evidence that santa claus is real , the media is only interested in pushing their agenda, because they know people will react to *fear* and will spend their money on buying the paper to find out more, then start to believe in it.

----------


## johnc

> As stated before, water vapour aka clouds contribute to temperature increases, also it depends on what season it is and which track the earth orbit is on at any given time, be grateful that we have hot days and cold days, rainy days windy days, imagine what it would be like if it stayed the same temperature all the time? would food grow? would we run out of water? sounds like a chapter out of "1984" or "brave new world." 
> Why is "society" hell bent on believing they can control temperature by modifying what ever they do? There is more evidence that santa claus is real , the media is only interested in pushing their agenda, because they know people will react to *fear* and will spend their money on buying the paper to find out more, then start to believe in it.

  So you have found evidence that Santa is real eh? fascinating, most people stop believing in him by the age of 10 you know. Do you also really believe everything in the media is lies and fear created to sell more papers, even the Murdoch press sometimes puts in decent factual pieces from time to time, sometimes it doesn't hurt to have a positive view of people rather than an negative approach to everything we come across.   
I don't think the general discussion is about controlling temperature or that swings in seasons are in any way relevant, isn't it that rising average temperatures can cause problems to weather extremes flowing through to food security and property damage including damage to bio diversity through species loss and damaged eco systems. The earth will always rebalance while the sun provides energy it is simply a matter of whether the rebalancing helps or hinders man.  Evolution allows us to adapt to gradual change but sudden change in the past has caused the wipe out of many species, just ask the dinosaurs for a more obvious incident.  
Anyway its a bit of a moot point, it is probably to late to do much, our explosive population growth across the planet is the real problem, climate change is a symptom of that, unless we tackle the real cause we are running headlong towards a day when we simply can't feed the planet and then the world really will have a problem with refugees. Climate change or not man has to get his act together in a number of areas and so far China is the only one who has had the balls to actually rein in unsustainable population increase and even with their efforts it will be some years before the population numbers actually start to reduce.  
Perhaps the save the planet slogan should be make war not love, an interesting concept but unlikely to gain acceptance, some prices are to high to pay for the right result. So it is with climate change we seem to be unable to pay the price needed to make change or in many cases not even prepared to accept that many of the changes we need to make are sensible regardless of any belief that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere make any difference. Increased energy efficiency would make us more not less competitive, yet in the poisonous atmosphere this subject is contained in we seem to have lost common sense to the mantra and unsustainable proposition that we can hold things as they are, that never has and never will be the case we are forever destined to be locked in a state of change and it is only those that are prepared to adapt that get ahead.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Why is "society" hell bent on believing they can control temperature by modifying what ever they do?

  Probably because every other attempt to date to modify or control our environment for our personal/societal gain (cities, water systems, agriculture etc etc etc) has been wildly successful.  And there's nothing that _Homo sapien_ does better than hubris... 
Mind you in this case we aren't talking about control so much as reducing the speed of the increase...but that ain't going to happen either given the current and foreseeable state of affairs at the international policy level.    

> .....the media is only interested in pushing their agenda, because they know people will react to *fear* and will spend their money on buying the paper to find out more, then start to believe in it.

    Gee....that must be why the newspaper business is such an national and international growth industry these days, eh?   :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> This is cute...somewhat meaningless if you can't accept a link between CO2 and the climate and (like most visualisations) not entirely informative...but cute in a clever kind of way.

  Once again, the main thing above that is meaningless is your statement.  Can you please quantify exactly what you mean by "link"?  There is a "link" between me pi55ing in the ocean over this side of the country and the ocean level rising on your side of the country.  But I have neither the time nor the inclination to quantify this, but suffice to say it's meaningless, just like your "link".  :Biggrin:     

> Carbon Visuals: New York's carbon emissions - in real time

  What a crock of 5h1t.  Why don't they show how human H2O emissions compare, particularly given that water vapour is by far the greatest influence on the "greenhouse effect", making anthropogenic CO2 emissions "meaningless".  It would be more accurate for a lot of the propaganda that actually shows humans making steam (water vapour) from liquid water while pretending it's real pollution like SMOG (neither of which are actually clean and natural CO2 which is invisible anyway).  :Doh:      

> But for the more science-y amongst us - this has caused a little stir  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11575.html

  Wow, newsflash.  The psychic computer predictions are shown to be failures again, and again, and again.  The conjurers of this cult must be despairing.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> 1. Woodbe did nothing of the sort. :P 
> woodbe.

  Huh? So now you are going to backpedal again to argue that the Planet Earth has been warming in accordance with the psychic computers predictions then? 
And show data verifying this continued support for this failed cult? 
Maybe just stick to your new LIMP hypothesis to distract from the cults abject failure, eh?  :Biggrin:    

> 2. Global warming is not predicted by 'psychic computers' It is predicted by physics. Observations support the physics. 
> woodbe.

  physics or psychics? 
I think you have spelling or comprehension issues (or dyslexia).  Let me help:  *Physics:* The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two,  grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics,  thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions  including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics,  particle physics, and plasma physics.  *Psychics:* Capable of extraordinary mental processes, such as the supposed ability of certain individuals to obtain information about  the environment without the use of normal sensory channels 
The cult is using one of these to convince us that paying a TAX in Australia will change the temperature of the Planet Earth in 100 years.  Observe that.  :Biggrin:    

> 3. Localised ice phenomena. Nice euphemism for the state of the arctic, doc. 
> woodbe.

  LIMP hypothesis.  No euphemism, very accurate acronym.  :Biggrin:    

> 4. Unlike doomsday cults, no climate scientist has yet set a date for the end of the world. 
> woodbe.

  I've posted so many doomsday predictions from this cult that I've lost count.  But here we go again due to your continuing denial of both the science and the facts.  I think even you'll agree with my choice of scientist this time.  He didn't give the exact date and time, but we're very close to his prediction now:   

> Now our planet itself is in peril. Not simply the Earth, but the fate of all of its species, including humanity...The danger is that special interests will dilute and torque government policies, causing the climate to pass tipping points, with grave consequences for all life on the planet...We must move onto a different course within the next few years to avoid committing the planet to accelerating climate changes out of our control.

  Written 29.12.2008.  Next few years huh?  Who is this scientist?   

> He heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. He has held this position since 1981. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences  in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models  and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and  three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing  mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data;  and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[71] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[72] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected him to receive its Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility  "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists'  responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings  openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[73] In 2007, he shared the US $1-million Dan David Prize  for "achievements having an outstanding scientific, technological,  cultural or social impact on our world". In 2008, he received the PNC Bank Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service for his "outstanding achievements" in science. At the end of 2008, he was named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the _Scientist Communicator of the Year_,  citing him as an "outspoken authority on climate change" who had "best  communicated with the public about vital science issues or concepts  during 2008."[74] 
>  In 2009, he was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[74] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society,  for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding  climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of  climate science in the public arena."[75] 
>  He won the 2010 Sophie Prize, set up in 1997 by Norwegian Jostein Gaarder, the author of the 1991 best-selling novel and teenagers' guide to philosophy _Sophie's World_,[76] for his " key role for the development of our understanding of human-induced climate change."  _Foreign Policy_ named him one of its 2012 Top 100 Global Thinkers "for sounding the alarm on climate change, early and often".[77]

  Good enough?  James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia    

> 5. Yes, we get to pay a Carbon Tax. You should feel happy to be leading the world towards a low carbon future. 
> woodbe.

  And people say I go over the top calling this a cult.  You're a Carbon based life-form for crying out loud.  At least learn to use Carbon Dioxide correctly, lest you join the other cultists calling for all of us Carbon units to be reduced and eliminated.  :Doh:    

> The Carbon Tax (flawed as it is) will help Austalia move towards a low  carbon future. If you watched that video you would know that it's a big  ask to make the whole planet colder. The best we can hope for is to  limit the long term increase. 
> woodbe.

  Seriously?  Do you actually believe this?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Interesting to see you standing up for Blewitt, do the two of you operate at the same level of integrity and honesty?

  A brother once lost returns to the flock.  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.   

> *The Parable of the Lost Son*  11 Jesus continued: There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, Father, give me my share of the estate. So he divided his property between them.  13 Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything. 17 When  he came to his senses, he said, How many of my fathers hired servants  have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants. 20 So he got up and went to his father.
> But  while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled  with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him  and kissed him. 21 The son said to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. 22 But the father said to his servants, Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Lets have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found. So they began to celebrate. 25 Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 Your brother has come, he replied, and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.  28 The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But  he answered his father, Look! All these years Ive been slaving for  you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young  goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him! 31 My son, the father said, you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.

  But JuLIAR will happily throw many LIES that hurt more than stones:   

> Ms Gillard yesterday lashed out at Mr Blewitt during a lengthy  press conference in which she defended her behaviour in providing legal  advice to incorporate the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform  Association. 
>  "Mr Blewitt is a man who has publicly said he was involved in fraud,"  she said. "Mr Blewitt is a man who has sought immunity from  prosecution.
>  "Mr Blewitt admits to using the services of prostitutes in Asia. Mr  Blewitt has published lewd and degrading comments and accompanying  photographs of young women on his Facebook page.
>  "Mr Blewitt, according to people who know him, has been described as a  complete imbecile, an idiot, a stooge, a sexist pig, a liar, and his  sister has said he's a crook and rotten to the core.  *"His word against mine, make your mind up."* 
>  Mrs Blewitt said Ms Gillard should wash her mouth out "before she says something bad about my husband."
>  "He is very loving, caring, romantic person," Mrs Blewitt said.
>  "As the prime minister, she is not supposed to immerse herself to talk like this in front of people.
>  "She has to answer the questions."  Michael Smith News

  *"His word against mine, make your mind up." * Er, let's recall: There will be no Carbon Tax under the government I lead. 
My mind is made up JuLIAR!  :Biggrin:  
But I'm just a misogynist nut job on the internet.

----------


## Dr Freud

Let's check JuLIAR's track record. 
She has after all officially put her "trustworthiness" on the table as an issue.  *"His word against mine, make your mind up."*
Let's check your word JuLIAR:     
You are just embarrassing our country now... 
You can all make your own minds up too.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> OK I'll be the guilty one for kicking this one down the road...if only for interests sake  *Climate change denial and the illusion of consensus*  ECOS Magazine - Towards A Sustainable Future

  Yes, I love these opinion surveys. 
Out of all these thousands of articles "endorsing" this prevailing opinion within the cult, please post just one (yes, just 1) scientific article that proves anthropogenic CO2 emissions have a causal relationship with global temperatures? 
Seriously, just one. Only one, and I will happily advocate for this cult for the rest of my life. 
I'll be very interested in the causality over the last 16 years in particular.  :Doh:  
Let me help you understand all of these scientific articles better while you search: *
There is ZERO evidence proving the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.* 
See how I don't need consensus of opinion, I just use scientific facts and reality.  Cool, huh?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> And Rod's position that the climate is changing but not significantly because of us is supported by just 24 out of 13,950 peer reviewed papers. 0.17204% or 1 in 581.25 papers. Over the time span analysed, we're talking about an average of just over 2 peer reviewed paper per year versus over 1000.  
> woodbe

  Let me explain it to you very simply, as this may help. 
ZERO out of 13,950 peer-reviewed papers found any causality between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and global temperature. 
Yes, that right for the mathematicians out there - 100% of these papers FAILED to prove this cults farcical beliefs. 
See how easy science and statistics can be when you do it right.  Even everyday people like me can understand that. 
Then we can also very quickly understand how we are being conned by JuLIAR. 
To avoid answering questions about all her LIES, she just calls us names like misogynist nut jobs.   
Make sure the sound is on and watch for her poignant Carbon Dioxide Tax dodgy deal at 2.22 in the video:      

> Do you go to the races Rod? Looks like you picked this nag:   
> woodbe

  Looks better than the nag you're backing:   
Was counting on a dry track due to predictions of drought, but then it rained and she doesn't travel well on a heavy track.  :Biggrin:  
And humblest apologies to Billy Joel.  His beautiful song may have been tainted forever, but it's irony is beautiful:  Billy Joel - Honesty Lyrics

----------


## Dr Freud

> I'm not actually convinced that the green 'movement' is trying to convince anyone but themselves in general.  
> Which is largely why they fail...but if it makes them feel good and they don't hurt anyone in the process then it's all good.

  I have never considered myself a smart person, but you lot are making me reset my population baseline lower. 
When you say "they don't hurt anyone", are you kidding yourself, or do you actually not get this stuff.  Have you ever heard of opportunity cost?  *Opportunity Cost:* The benefit that could have been gained from an alternative use of the same resource   

> While cancer patients will have to pay more or wait longer for  treatment, the Department To Fix The Weather handed out nearly 1 billion  dollars in 2010-2011, some* of which was used to educate people about  energy efficiency and the benefits of government policies.  Climate Money « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

  Read more about this money grubbing cult at JoNova's site linked above. 
The painful cost to our country (and the world) of this cult will have it's day of reckoning, and the ledger will be ugly indeed.  But you keep kidding yourself that "they don't hurt anyone" if that helps you sleep at night.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> CO2 rise does not cause...but it certainly does contribute to....temperature increases in the atmosphere.

  My farts also "contribute" to temperature increases in the atmosphere. 
Would you care to quantify the contribution you refer to.  I'd be particularly interested in the last 16 years "contribution". 
I am happy to quantify mine as a 3/5ths of 5/8ths of f*(< all.  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> physics or psychics?

  I've only ever mentioned physics.    

> 4. Unlike doomsday cults, no climate scientist has yet set a date for the end of the world.

   

> I've posted so many doomsday predictions from this cult that I've lost count.  But here we go again due to your continuing denial of both the science and the facts.  I think even you'll agree with my choice of scientist this time.  He didn't give the exact date and time, but we're very close to his prediction now:     
> 			
> 				Now our planet itself is in peril. Not simply the Earth, but the fate of  all of its species, including humanity...The danger is that special  interests will dilute and torque government policies, causing the  climate to pass tipping points, with grave consequences for all life on  the planet...We must move onto a different course within the next few  years to avoid committing the planet to accelerating climate changes out  of our control.
> 			
> 		   Written 29.12.2008.  Next few years huh?  Who is this scientist? 
> Good enough?  James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  No, not good enough. "The next few years" is not a prediction of the end of the world, it's an entreatment to act by reducing our emissions. 
If a scientist warns us that if we continue down the current high CO2 emmission path we risk making large changes to the climate, how is that setting a date for the end of the world?   

> Seriously?  Do you actually believe this?

  What I believe is that our best scientific minds who have devoted their life work to understanding the climate are warning us that we should act to reduce our CO2 emissions. In the scientific measure of the day, being peer reviewed publishing, the ratio of for and against is more than 500 to 1.  
You represent the 1.  :Biggrin:    
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Yes, I love these opinion surveys. 
> Out of all these thousands of articles "endorsing" this prevailing opinion within the cult, please post just one (yes, just 1) scientific article that proves anthropogenic CO2 emissions have a causal relationship with global temperatures?

  Haha.  
Not an 'opinion survey' 
Not 'Articles' 
And you talk of reading comprehension?   
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> A brother once lost returns to the flock.  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.   
> But JuLIAR will happily throw many LIES that hurt more than stones:    *"His word against mine, make your mind up." * Er, let's recall: There will be no Carbon Tax under the government I lead. 
> My mind is made up JuLIAR!  
> But I'm just a misogynist nut job on the internet.

  Not at all, you sell yourself short, you are simply someone in love with their own opinion, if you could dump the misinformation and crap you might even be capable of writing something worthwhile.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Not at all, you sell yourself short, you are simply someone in love with their own opinion, if you could dump the misinformation and crap you might even be capable of writing something worthwhile.

  Funny, I think the Doc makes his points quite well.  Just that some folks just don't want to see the facts for what they are. 
Keep up the good work Doc. 
Although it may take another 16 years of no warming with another doubling of MM Co2 before reality sets in.   
I don't know about the warming but sure as hell the Co2 output is going to rise regardless of what our cabon tax will do.

----------


## barney118

> Funny, I think the Doc makes his points quite well.  Just that some folks just don't want to see the facts for what they are. 
> Keep up the good work Doc. 
> Although it may take another 16 years of no warming with another doubling of MM Co2 before reality sets in.   
> I don't know about the warming but sure as hell the Co2 output is going to rise regardless of what our cabon tax will do.

   :Goodpost: 
I am going to swear to a diet of baked beans for the rest of my life to ensure of a supply of C02 for the trees to convert to oxygen, as for those who choose to being on a lean C02 diet good luck in breathing in through your oxygen bottles supplied by the carbon tax, but its that cold they don't work.   
mmmm, colder winter and the ozone hole gets bigger????

----------


## Marc

So CO2 is baaaad by decree. 
We must have a "carbon" tax to change behavior, Mao Stalin or Castro would be proud. 
Yet co2 tax provides the excuse for energy increases (from 2006 to today commercial energy increased 300%)
Electricity demand has actually reduced, yet number of employees in energy companies has doubled.
Our "good benevolent" governemt comes to our aid with extended hand with subsidies and a helping hand in the way of a once off $200 of borrowed money. 
Yet there is one more knife to drive in the taxpayers back. With smiling face and jokes and giggles Julia is now spruiking the smart[ass]meter.   Stop Smart Meters Australia | Fighting for your financial & physical health, privacy, and safety in Australia 
Are we living in Russia?
smart meter, dumb decision. Whoever supports this governemt for whatever reason whatsoever has rocks for a brain. 
CO2 is good for you CO2 is good for you
CO2 is good for you I think I can make it into a song. 
I'll try blues...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ....sure as hell the Co2 output is going to rise regardless of what our cabon tax will do.

  Correct. I look forward to the results with great entropy.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> My farts also "contribute" to temperature increases in the atmosphere.

  No doubt...though I suspect the effect is somewhat localised   

> Would you care to quantify the contribution you refer to.  I'd be particularly interested in the last 16 years "contribution".

  In terms of CO2 alone, its roughly 30 gigatonnes per annum compared to the natural systems flux (release/reabsorbed) of about 750 gigatonnes.  Of that 30 gigatonnes that we add every year, about 40% gets absorbed into the natural carbon cycle by vegetation and other natural forms of CCS...the rest just stays in the atmosphere. Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years 
The contribution that you seek is the last 16 years.  Basically, the current trend in anomaly over the last 16 years is basically flat...still positive...but flat.  Taken over a much longer period, though...  
...then there's a problem because one does not typically such a trend to just turn...and that's what the long term trend suggests.  Either way...this is isn't answering your question.  The answer is that the average temp has increased between 0.4 to 0.6 degrees per annum over the long term average each year for the last 16 years.  How much of that is a contribution of the last 16 years of additional CO2 emissions is much harder to say since recent work has suggested that there's a lag between CO2 and temperature increases (historically) by anything from 200 to 1,000 years ( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture10915.html )...now few if any of the past CO2 injections into the atmosphere have been as large or occurred in a short a time frame as the current result of the Industrial Revolution....but I'd still guess....bugger all. It's all about the potential, Freud-y.   

> I am happy to quantify mine as a 3/5ths of 5/8ths of f*(< all.

  I'd be surprised if it was that much...

----------


## Dr Freud

You guys truly crack me up. I can imagine even if you were all sitting in frozen igloo's you'd still be propagandising about the world heating all to hell with your doomsday prophecies.  Such is the strength of your denial of "the science" and the facts.   :Biggrin:    

> I've only ever mentioned physics.  
> woodbe.

  I won't even dignify this with a response.  I can't be bothered re-posting everything you've posted that has NOT mentioned physics, but when trying to defend the indefensible I guess you're going to emotionalise your language a lot more.   

> No, not good enough. "The next few years" is not a prediction of the end  of the world, it's an entreatment to act by reducing our emissions. 
> If a scientist warns us that if we continue down the current high CO2  emmission path we risk making large changes to the climate, how is that  setting a date for the end of the world? 
> woodbe.

  
Your denial of reality and the scientific facts is truly remarkable.  Let me assist you yet again:   

> *Doomsday cult* is an expression used to describe groups who believe in Apocalypticism and Millenarianism, and can refer...to groups that prophesy catastrophe and destruction  Doomsday cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Let's take another look shall we:   

> Now our planet itself is in peril. Not simply the Earth, but the fate of   all of its species, including humanity...The danger is that special   interests will dilute and torque government policies, causing the   climate to pass tipping points, with grave consequences for all life on   the planet...We must move onto a different course within the next few   years

  
Believe...yep, prophesy...yep, apocalyptic...yep,  catastrophe...yep, destruction...yep!!!  Denial of reality is not a good sign.  :No:   
Here's another example:   

> Doomsday cults have also been associated with UFOs and      aliens who are to take  followers to another planet while Earth is      destroyed. In the 1950s, Marian Keech led such a cult. When the world didn't      end and their space ship didn't arrive to take them away, Keech told her      followers that their faith had saved both them and the world.  http://www.skepdic.com/doomsday.html

   
Now Woodbe would describe the failure of the UFO to arrive as:     

> not a prediction of the end  of the world, it's an entreatment to act by reducing our *[S]emissions[/S] lack of faith.  
> EDITED BY DR FREUD*  
> woodbe.

    

> In the scientific measure of the day,  being peer reviewed publishing, the ratio of for and against is more  than 500 to 1.  
> You represent the 1.   
> woodbe.

  Bad news all around, the scientific measure of the day is now and always will be...errrr...science. 
While you and the cult out there wish to make us believe authority figures can now just decree by belief what "the science" is, reality wins every time. 
If you want to run a contest by opinion voting, you're looking for politics champ, not science.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Out of all these thousands of articles "endorsing" this prevailing  opinion within the cult, please post just one (yes, just 1) scientific  article that proves anthropogenic CO2 emissions have a causal  relationship with global temperatures?
Couldn't find one, eh?  What a surprise, you can't find something that doesn't exist.  :Biggrin:  
Surely you can find some "adjusted data" lying around somewhere???  :Rotfl:     

> Not an 'opinion survey' 
> woodbe.

  Do you even read this stuff.  No wonder people are leaving this cult in droves.  You can't even put a decent effort into your propaganda any more.  :Doh:    

> The aim of the CSIRO study  in which over *5000 people were surveyed  over two years  was to investigate biases in peoples opinions* about  the existence and causes of climate change.

    

> Not 'Articles' 
> woodbe.

     

> *The search produced 13,950 articles...the ruling paradigm of climate science*

  Surely you can look these definitions up for yourself from here on in and save me some time:   

> The most quoted definition of *paradigm* is Thomas    Kuhn's (1962, 1970) concept in The Nature of Science Revolution, i.e. paradigm    as the *underlying assumptions* and intellectual structure upon which research    and development in a field of inquiry is based.  *Paradigm* is an interpretative framework, which is guided by "*a set      of beliefs and feelings* about the world and how it should be understood and      studied." (Guba, 1990).  Research Paradigm

  *as·sump·tion*  (-smpshn)_n._*4.*  Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.   *
belief* [bɪˈliːf]_n_*2.* opinion; conviction       

> And you talk of reading comprehension?  
> woodbe.

  Yes, I do.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> you are simply someone in love with their own opinion

  
Yeh, some of us think for ourselves, form our own opinions and then love them.  Others can't think for themselves, join a cult and then fall in love with authority figures opinions.   :Roflmao2:    

> if you could dump the  misinformation and crap

  As I have said consistently to all you people who hate me posting the scientific facts and scientific reality opposing this farcical cults beliefs, I will happily retract any facts I have posted that are incorrect. 
If you just don't love my opinion like I do, then I guess you'll have to find an authority figure to give you one to love.  :Inlove:      

> you might even be capable of writing something  worthwhile.

  
I'm already capable - *something worthwhile* - see, I wrote that all by myself. Even bolded it.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Now here's my question: *
Would you care to quantify the contribution you refer to.  I'd be particularly interested in the last 16 years "contribution".*
And here's your answer:  *We don't know!* 
You just answered it with a lot of waffle.  Not to mention your cherry-picked graph that doesn't even show a credible correlation, let alone any contribution! You know how upset Woodbe gets when people cherry pick data that discords with "the science".    

> No doubt...though I suspect the effect is somewhat localised   
> In terms of CO2 alone, its roughly 30 gigatonnes per annum compared to the natural systems flux (release/reabsorbed) of about 750 gigatonnes.  Of that 30 gigatonnes that we add every year, about 40% gets absorbed into the natural carbon cycle by vegetation and other natural forms of CCS...the rest just stays in the atmosphere. Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years 
> The contribution that you seek is the last 16 years.  Basically, the current trend in anomaly over the last 16 years is basically flat...still positive...but flat.  Taken over a much longer period, though...  
> ...then there's a problem because one does not typically such a trend to just turn...and that's what the long term trend suggests.  Either way...this is isn't answering your question.  The answer is that the average temp has increased between 0.4 to 0.6 degrees per annum over the long term average each year for the last 16 years.  How much of that is a contribution of the last 16 years of additional CO2 emissions is much harder to say since recent work has suggested that there's a lag between CO2 and temperature increases (historically) by anything from 200 to 1,000 years ( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture10915.html )...now few if any of the past CO2 injections into the atmosphere have been as large or occurred in a short a time frame as the current result of the Industrial Revolution....but I'd still guess....bugger all. It's all about the potential, Freud-y.   
> I'd be surprised if it was that much...

  I've highlighted these statistical sideshows before, but to again show the snake oil parlor trick these fraudsters have duped you with, here's a much better (and still dodgy) correlation:   
Lucky for you, I'm always willing to bring some scientific reality to quash this farcical cults propaganda efforts. 
First, let's look for any possible "quantification of contribution" over those sixteen years:   
CO2 in the blue, temp anomaly in the red, looking...looking...looking...I can't see it.  Oh yeh, and about your cherry picking:   
We can see temps actually started rising in the 1600's after the last little ice age, must have been massive amounts of cars back then.  It was warming for about 300 years before any CO2 emissions started rising.  Well that's just weird, our anthropogenic CO2 emissions must have time-traveled backwards in time to "contribute" to the start of this warming, eh? 
Here's the CO2 emissions over-laid to assist this cults new time-travel hypothesis to support their farcical beliefs:   
Now I'm really confused.  If CO2 was so stable before in this graph, what was causing all the warming and cooling before CO2 levels started rising?  And by what miracle of nature did all these other natural forces suddenly stop causing the warming and cooling once Greenpeace got involved?  And why is the temperature now more stable than ever as CO2 levels continue to rise?  Der, reality must be wrong, we need to use the psychic computer predictions to "adjust" the data that represents the "physics", eh? 
This is why the cult chops a little piece of the CO2 line that matches a little piece of the temp line, then splices them by "adjusting" the data and the axes, and voila, psychic computers can begin predicting the end of the world. 
And just to contextualise yet again, let's look at CO2 "contribution" to global temps over our longest proxy data measures:   
Wow! Hard to tell the black line and the blue line apart.   
Now, if you had given the scientifically correct answer of "We don't know", I could have just posted "I know".

----------


## Dr Freud

Very weird doomsday cult, apparently transferring Aussies money to overseas dictators in accordance with socialism will save the Planet Earth!      

> The global warming gravy train just got richer for free riders and professional alarmists:      AUSTRALIA has backed a global climate change deal that offers poor countries financial aid for the loss and damage they suffer from extreme weather events, in a new step that could one day leave taxpayers with a $3 billion annual bill...       
> Climate Change Minister Greg Combet declared the loss and damage provisions would not leave Australia exposed to financial claims, insisting yesterday that the aim was merely to help countries adapt to change.       
> But experts say the obligation - written [in Doha] into the global climate accord for the first time - would lead to long-term demands on rich countries to pay for rebuilding if hurricanes and other disasters could be linked to climate change      The new provisions are tied to a proposed $100bn annual fund that rich nations are yet to endorse  
> The agreement on loss and damage was seen as the major development of the summit. South Centre director Martin Khor, who leads an association of 52 poorer nations, said it was a huge step in principle. Next comes the fight for cash, Mr Khor told the BBC in Doha       
> Greens leader Christine Milne backed the agreement to pay for loss and damage and said Australia should be willing to outlay $2bn to $3bn a year to help developing nations and that the cash should be in addition to existing foreign aid.   
> Graham Lloyd on the naivity of Australia and the rapaciousness of third world nations to benefit twice over from the advances of the West:           Australia appears innocent and alone in doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do        With climate change now held responsible for every major natural catastrophe, the liabilities are potentially incalculable.      It is the nasty streak that runs through the UN process - a chance for revenge against the US and the West.         
> Tim Wilson:      FROM Doha its clear the rest of the world cannot sustain the UN-led model for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and Australia should recognise it by junking the Kyoto Protocol and the carbon tax it helped create      By sticking with Kyoto, Australia, with Europe, has adopted a high-cost pathway to cut emissions while others wont do the same.  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  And that's on top of all the other hundreds of billions we will be shipping overseas via the Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
This cult has been one of the greatest scams in human history. 
If only we weren't the ones being scammed, eh?  :Doh:  
JuLIAR will have her day of reckoning soon enough, but the damage she has done to our country is unprecedented.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Very weird doomsday cult, apparently transferring Aussies money to overseas dictators in accordance with socialism will save the Planet Earth!      
> And that's on top of all the other hundreds of billions we will be shipping overseas via the Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
> This cult has been one of the greatest scams in human history. 
> If only we weren't the ones being scammed, eh?  
> JuLIAR will have her day of reckoning soon enough, but the damage she has done to our country is unprecedented.

  Just love your work Doc

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Now here's my question: *
> Would you care to quantify the contribution you refer to.  I'd be particularly interested in the last 16 years "contribution".*
> And here's your answer:  *We don't know!* 
> You just answered it with a lot of waffle.

  You are right. We don't know exactly.  Certainly not with the certainty that you seem to demand.  But we know enough...   

> Now I'm  really confused.  If CO2 was so stable before in this graph, what was  causing all the warming and cooling before CO2 levels started rising?

  It wasn't stable.  It was wobbling about quite a lot depending on a multitude of factors.  However, it (as you so gleefully point out) has certainly been rising since before the demise of the ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere.  The paper in Nature that I linked to in my last post basically made that clear.   If I recall correctly...changes in the mixing of the Southern Oceans caused the release of stored carbon in those oceans that entered the atmosphere and broke the influence of the ice sheets in the north which in turn resulted in the release of more carbon and methane which drove the effect onwards to finish the last ice age period.  
As for the Mediavel Warm Period and the Little Ice Age...they have both been demonstrated to be relatively localised effects confined largely to Europe and therefore of little global significance.  The latter I recall being attributed pretty much to volcanic activity out of Iceland.   

> And by what miracle of nature did all these other natural forces  suddenly stop causing the warming and cooling once Greenpeace got  involved?

  They haven't.  Greenpeace has all the influence of a baleen whale when it comes to the weather, climate, economy, policy, shopping habits, mothers-in-laws or any other force of nature   

> And why is the temperature now more stable than ever as CO2  levels continue to rise?

  The simple answer is that no-one really knows.  There are plenty of ideas and speculation but in truth the cause of the buffering is yet to be nutted out.     

> Der, reality must be wrong...

  Hardly...you just are interpreting it differently   

> ...we need to use the  psychic computer predictions to "adjust" the data that represents the  "physics", eh?

  Actually we don't.  We use the data and the physics to adjust the psychic computer predictions.  The problem is that we don't have enough data, most computers still have insufficient computational capacity to deal with complex interactions in a timely manner and the 'world' (irrespective of spatial scale) we are try to model is far far far more complicated than the physics.  So (quite often in the past ) the results from those psychic computers end up being a little like the daily Zodiac.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Very weird doomsday cult, apparently transferring Aussies money to overseas dictators in accordance with socialism will save the Planet Earth!      
> And that's on top of all the other hundreds of billions we will be shipping overseas via the Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
> This cult has been one of the greatest scams in human history. 
> If only we weren't the ones being scammed, eh?  
> JuLIAR will have her day of reckoning soon enough, but the damage she has done to our country is unprecedented.

   :Hahaha:  :Rofl:  :Hahaha:  :Rofl:  :Hahaha:  :Rofl:  :Hahaha:  :Rofl:  :Hahaha:  :Rofl:  :Hahaha:  
That fund will never amount to anything...it'll be like the moneybox in your kids bedroom.  It might look impressive but is dusty from lack of care and rattles hollowly from the odd flattened bottletop or dead fly that fell inside... 
Besides, it'll be tied to replacing the Kyoto agreement and that just got extended for another three meaningless years.....for want of an (unlikely) replacement.

----------


## woodbe

> I won't even dignify this with a response.  I can't be bothered re-posting everything you've posted that has NOT mentioned physics, but when trying to defend the indefensible I guess you're going to emotionalise your language a lot more.

   Excellent example of misinformation at work. Let's look at the actual exchange and see what I was responding to:   

> 2. Global warming is not predicted by 'psychic computers' It is predicted by physics. Observations support the physics.

   

> physics or psychics?

   

> I've only ever mentioned physics.

  So, I'm responding to a suggestion I somehow meant psychics when I said physics (in your dreams) and I clearly state I've only mentioned physics, yet I get this response:   

> I won't even dignify this with a response.  I can't be bothered  re-posting everything you've posted that has NOT mentioned physics, but  when trying to defend the indefensible I guess you're going to  emotionalise your language a lot more.

  I think anyone reading this thread knows who mentions psychics, and it ain't woodbe. 
 Yet more:   

> 4. Unlike doomsday cults, no climate scientist has yet set a date for the end of the world.

   

> Kinda like ALL doomsday cults that reset the end of the world day when it fails to arrive

  Lets be clear. We are talking about doomsday cults setting *dates* for the end of the world and re-inventing that day when they line the deckchairs on the beach and the world fails to end. 
Now, the semantic distraction has moved from the lack of proposed days for the end of the world from the scientific community, to just plain calling anyone who dares to tell us about the results of their research into the climate and our effect on it a doomsday cult if their research doesn't agree with the doc's opinion.  :Rolleyes:    

> Your denial of reality and the scientific facts is truly remarkable.  Let me assist you yet again:

  Sorry doc, you may think that doomsday cults are 'reality' and scientific facts' but they don't pass the basic tests. I guess they could be your 'reality'  :Tongue:  
And again:   

> In the scientific measure of the day,  being peer reviewed publishing, the ratio of for and against is more  than 500 to 1.

   

> Bad news all around, the scientific measure of the day is now and always will be...errrr...science.

  And where do we see the science?  :Cool:  The measure of science is doing scientific research, publishing that research in a peer reviewed publication, and having it independently replicated. In this case, multiple lines of enquiry, independently replicated many times over. 
500 to 1 doc.   
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

And a link to James Powell's site so you can read his posts directly   
 Doc's right about him calling them articles. He does indeed.  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> And a link to James Powell's site so you can read his posts directly   
>  Doc's right about him calling them articles. He does indeed.  
> woodbe.

  Well doc it looks like we WILL have to wait for another 16 years of no warming.  These guys aint gonna budge! 
Fortunately for us they are mostly spinning their wheels.

----------


## woodbe

> Well doc it looks like we WILL have to wait for another 16 years of no warming.  These guys aint gonna budge!

  The message is pretty clear. They will budge when the science is published to show how and where they are wrong. So far, that hasn't been happening.   

> Anyone  can repeat this search and post their findings. Another reviewer would  likely have slightly different standards than mine and get a different  number of rejecting articles. But no one will be able to reach a  different conclusion, for only one conclusion is possible: Within  science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence  is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny  science for their own gain, and a gullible public.  
> Scientists do  not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling  paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the  ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that  the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are  the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all  publishing scientists agree.

  All you need Rod, is for the skeptics to be scientists and publish. Surely, they have SOMETHING worth publishing that will refute the large body of work supporting AGW? 
Meanwhile, watch for Chasing Ice to show up in Australia. Even if you don't agree with AGW, this is an epic documentary.    
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The message is pretty clear. They will budge when the science is published to show how and where they are wrong. So far, that hasn't been happening.   
> All you need Rod, is for the skeptics to be scientists and publish. Surely, they have SOMETHING worth publishing that will refute the large body of work supporting AGW? 
> Meanwhile, watch for Chasing Ice to show up in Australia. Even if you don't agree with AGW, this is an epic documentary.    
> woodbe.

  You don't want to hear anything that goes against your theory.

----------


## barney118

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&amp;so..._Zo0fJ-ZF7xFOA
What a selective load of rubbish, but it does state that water vapour is a factor in green house gases but it plays down its importance even though by composition it is 6 times more in volume 0.3% vs 0.06% (CO2).
It also states " human activity does not affect water vapour content in the atmosphere"
Really??? So when we heat water that produces steam is no different than burning coal to heat the water????
How stupid do you think I am?  
Maybe a couple of hundred years of ("large body of work") of the world is flat vs  a couple of decades that CFC/CO2/Ozone layer are GOING to cause increased temperature, remembering this same article points out the world is "33 deg warmer" (how did the pluck this figure?) than it would be if we DIDN'T have greenhouse gases ( plural).
So point me to ONE article in the last 30 yrs that actually supported their theory that the place has increased in temperature by the amount they claimed at the time of the article.  
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## johnc

> Redirect Notice
> What a selective load of rubbish, but it does state that water vapour is a factor in green house gases but it plays down its importance even though by composition it is 6 times more in volume 0.3% vs 0.06% (CO2).
> It also states " human activity does not affect water vapour content in the atmosphere"
> Really??? So when we heat water that produces steam is no different than burning coal to heat the water????
> How stupid do you think I am?  
> Maybe a couple of hundred years of ("large body of work") of the world is flat vs a couple of decades that CFC/CO2/Ozone layer are GOING to cause increased temperature, remembering this same article points out the world is "33 deg warmer" (how did the pluck this figure?) than it would be if we DIDN'T have greenhouse gases ( plural).
> So point me to ONE article in the last 30 yrs that actually supported their theory that the place has increased in temperature by the amount they claimed at the time of the article.  
> Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

  The URL doesn't work Barney

----------


## woodbe

> You don't want to hear anything that goes against your theory.

  Au Contraire mon ami.  
I will be delighted to hear anything that 'goes against my theory' as long as it has scientific backing: Publish it in a respected peer-reviewed journal. Replicate it with multiple independent lines of enquiry. If this is done, and the science stands up to inspection, the new information will modify or remove the existing theory. Should be easy based what you reckon.  :2thumbsup:   At this point, I doubt this will happen but like I say, I would be delighted if it did. Until then I'll stick with the version of the unfolding events supported by the physics and the science. 
Of course, you know it isn't 'my' theory. It's just the theory of 99% of the scientists who work in this field. I just happen to accept that the science is legitimate. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> The URL doesn't work Barney

  I think he means this page: The role of water vapour in the atmosphere - Think Change 
Links from google search are not what they used to be, eh barney? 
Woodbe

----------


## johnc

> Redirect Notice
> What a selective load of rubbish, but it does state that water vapour is a factor in green house gases but it plays down its importance even though by composition it is 6 times more in volume 0.3% vs 0.06% (CO2).
> It also states " human activity does not affect water vapour content in the atmosphere"
> Really??? So when we heat water that produces steam is no different than burning coal to heat the water????
> How stupid do you think I am?  
> Maybe a couple of hundred years of ("large body of work") of the world is flat vs a couple of decades that CFC/CO2/Ozone layer are GOING to cause increased temperature, remembering this same article points out the world is "33 deg warmer" (how did the pluck this figure?) than it would be if we DIDN'T have greenhouse gases ( plural).
> So point me to ONE article in the last 30 yrs that actually supported their theory that the place has increased in temperature by the amount they claimed at the time of the article.  
> Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

  I think you have missunderstood the article, we actually need greenhouse gases to keep the planet liveable, climate change perhaps is about to much of a good thing. Industrialisation has increased the amount of greenhouse gases and contributed to a warmer planet. However if we totally removed naturally occuring greenhouse gases the planet would most likely become unliveable. Man hasn't increased the temperature by 33 degrees that would be an absurd proposition, it pays to read with an open mind if something seems absurd it may be because we have misread the context. However if you are really interested in how cold the planet would be without the insulating presence of the atmosphere I dare say it wouldn't be hard to find some scientific sources that will provide some back ground. However you can't find what doesn't exist, it is a theory, the earth would be a lot cooler without greenhouse gases and 33 degrees is the estimate used based on current scientific knowledge, it really is a moot point though it has no real bearing on what we are discussing here.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You don't want to hear anything that goes against your theory.

  Actually...you couldn't be more wrong.  We'd love to hear, see, read anything credible that goes against (or better still, discounts) the theory. 
More importantly though...I wouldn't mind seeing a credible response to the theory either.  The last two decades have been Amateur Hour 101...though I'm not going to suggest that it hasn't been entertaining :Blush7:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It also states " human activity does not affect water vapour content in the atmosphere"
> Really??? So when we heat water that produces steam is no different than burning coal to heat the water????
> How stupid do you think I am?

  Oh.....the self restraint is killing me... :Blowup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Meanwhile, watch for Chasing Ice to show up in Australia. Even if you don't agree with AGW, this is an epic documentary. 
> woodbe.

  What it is, is epic cult propaganda. 
This psychologically vulnerable woman below (who just watched the cult conversion propaganda) swaps one authority figure for another, all the while failing to think for herself. 
If your brain hurts when you think and you prefer to fall in love with someone else's opinion rather than your own, then this cult is for you.  If not, then read more and think more than these cult converts.  :Biggrin:     
Here's a hint to help you less psychologically robust people who want to unplug from the matrix:   

> When a propagandist warns members of her audience that disaster will  result if they do not follow a particular course of action, she is using  the fear appeal. By playing on the audience's deep-seated fears,  practitioners of this technique hope to redirect attention away from the  merits of a particular proposal and toward steps that can be taken to  reduce the fear.   "All other things being equal, the more  frightened a person is by a communication, the more likely her or she is  to take positive preventive action."(Pratkanis and Aronson, 1991)Fear appeals will not succeed in altering behavior if the audience feels powerless to change the situation.Fear appeals are more likely to succeed in changing behavior if  they contain specific recommendations for reducing the threat that the  audience believes are both effective and doable.  
>  In summary, there are four elements to a successful fear appeal:  
> 1) a  threat, 
> 2) a specific recommendation about how the audience should  behave, 
> 3) audience perception that the recommendation will be effective  in addressing the threat, and 
> 4) audience perception that they are  capable of performing the recommended behavior.  
> When fear appeals do not include all four elements, they are likely to fail.   Propaganda Critic: Special apeals > Fear appeal

  I guess it's just a coincidence that this cult regularly follows all 4 elements: 
1) Threat - Doomsday scenario
2) Specific recommendation - Pay more TAX
3) JuLIAR says this TAX will make the Planet Earth colder and all cultists tow the line
4) Converted cultists even get "compensation" so can easily afford to save the Planet Earth with the new TAX

----------


## johnc

In that same article it suggests ways to assess if you are having your leg pulled,   Is the speaker exaggerating the fear or threat in order to obtain my support?How legitimate is the fear that the speaker is provoking?Will performing the recommended action actually reduce the supposed threat?When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the speaker's proposal?  
It is up to everyone to make up there own mind, it is only speculation that anyone (other than the usual adoring suspects) would come to the above conclusion. The Freud spin simply reflects existing bias, I'm sure he could do better than trying to force a size seven hat on a size 12 head.

----------


## woodbe

> What it is, is epic cult propaganda.

  Yes, the film is pro AGW. If you consider photographic evidence of massive ice melt that is going on in the Arctic as propaganda, that's up to you.  
James Balog is an accomplished photographer of 25+ years who has been published widely. His work is often seen in National Geographic who have this short bio of him on their website:   

> For more than 25 years, James Balog has broken new ground in the art of photographing nature. _Time_  magazine photographer James Nachtwey wrote of his images, "Each new  series represents a quantum leap in creativity...He is a visionary and  his works are like sacred objects." 
> If Balog's work is  artistically and intellectually inspiring, it is also physically  exhilarating. It springs from his passionate, lifelong involvement with  nature as an artist, scientist, explorer, and adventurer. He is equally  at home on a Himalayan peak or a white-water river, the African savanna  or polar ice caps. 
> Balog's work has received international  acclaim, including the Leica Medal of Excellence and the premier awards  for nature and science photography at World Press Photo in Amsterdam.  His exhibitions have been shown at more than a hundred museums and  galleries around the world. He was the first photographer ever  commissioned to create a full plate of stamps for the U.S. Postal  Service; the 1996 release featured America's endangered wildlife. 
> Many major magazines, including _National Geographic_, the _New Yorker_, _Life_, _Vanity Fair_, the _New York Times Magazine_, _Audubon_, and _Outside_, have published his work. He is a contributing editor to _National Geographic Adventure_ and is the subject of the short film _A Redwood Grows in Brooklyn_. 
> Balog is the author of six books, including _Tree: A New Vision of the American Forest_ and _Survivors: A New Vision of Endangered Wildlife_,  which was widely hailed as a major conceptual breakthrough in nature  photography. Recent work includes the Extreme Ice Survey, a project that  brings image-makers and scientists together to create a photographic  record of global climate change. 
> Balog lives on a Rocky Mountain ridge high above Boulder, Colorado, with his wife, Suzanne, and two daughters.

  The backstory for Chasing Ice is the Extreme Ice Survey which is a time-lapse ice photography project started by James in 2007. Having an interest in photography and time-lapse, I've been following it since inception. James travelled around the Arctic placing DSLR cameras with protection and power adaptions in positions where they could sequentially record movements in ice, and returned to each to download the captured images. Last I heard they have lost just one camera during the survey which is pretty amazing. 
I guess if you can't stand the commentary, take your earplugs. The sequences I have so far seen have been awesome. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

I'll be back when I have more time to debunk the hilariously ridiculous claims above. 
But for now, let's at least congratulate those scientists are now courageous enough to begin admitting the heat actually comes from the SUN!   

> *Man-made global warming: even the IPCC admits the jig is up*  
> ...a leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us  have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global  warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more  significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has  previously been prepared to concede.  Man-made global warming: even the IPCC admits the jig is up – Telegraph Blogs

  The full report here:  IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing – as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on ‘extreme weather’ | Watts Up With That?  
Between this draft and the final release, most of the "inconvenient truth" will be "adjusted" to reflect the doomsday prophecies that have already been written.   :Doh:  
I can sympathise with people who don't know better and who just believe. 
For those who know better and still preach the cults LIES like JuLIAR, your actions are beyond redemption.   :Smack:

----------


## woodbe

> I'll be back when I have more time to debunk the hilariously ridiculous claims above. 
> But for now, let's at least congratulate those scientists are now courageous enough to begin admitting the heat actually comes from the SUN!   
> The full report here:  IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing  as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on extreme weather | Watts Up With That?  
> Between this draft and the final release, most of the "inconvenient truth" will be "adjusted" to reflect the doomsday prophecies that have already been written.   
> I can sympathise with people who don't know better and who just believe. 
> For those who know better and still preach the cults LIES like JuLIAR, your actions are beyond redemption.

  The misinformation just keeps on...  IPCC draft climate report leaked by sceptics - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   

> Professor Steve Sherwood, the director of the Climate Change Research  Centre at the University of NSW, was the *lead author of the chapter in  question*.  
> He says the idea that the chapter he authored confirms a  greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming is  "ridiculous".
> "I'm sure you could go and read those paragraphs  yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the  opposite - that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing  appears to be negligible," he told PM.  
> "What it shows is that we looked at this. We look at everything.   
> "The IPCC has a very comprehensive process where we try to look at all the influences on climate and so we looked at this one."  
> Professor  Sherwood says research has effectively disproved the idea that sunspots  are more responsible for global warming than human activity.  
> "There have been a couple of papers suggesting that solar forcing  affects climate through cosmic rays, cloud interactions, but most of the  literature on this shows that doesn't actually work," he said.  
> "*Even the sentence doesn't say what they say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite.*"  
> Climate  communication fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University  of Queensland John Cooke says, if anything, warming is worse than  predicted in the last IPCC report.
> ...

  
Bad case of being sucked in by the denial blogs Doc. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The misinformation just keeps on...  IPCC draft climate report leaked by sceptics - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  
> woodbe.

  
Sure does, all from this cult.  I'll show you how (along with your prior errors) when time permits, but here's one for the readers to decide for themselves who's full of $#it. 
Let's look at just one example of what you "believe" to be the truth from the authority figures you quoted from the scientifically inept ABC:    

> Climate  communication fellow for the Global Change Institute at the  University  of Queensland John Cooke says, if anything, *warming is worse  than  predicted...*

   
This "consensus OPINION" is what Woodbe refers to when he parrots his favourite expression of "the science".  In reality, it's just the opinion of his authority figures pushing the cults propaganda, and hopefully he'll soon figure this out. 
For those with an open mind, here's the scientific facts and the scientific reality compared to the doomsday prophecies.  I don't need to quote a "consensus opinion" as I trust most people can work this out for themselves:   
All the colourful lines shooting up in the air are the doomsday prophecies. 
The black line is reality. 
Does this look like "*warming is worse than predicted*"? 
But hey, if you have already fallen in love with someone else's opinion and can't see the truth, then I guess love really is blind.  :Biggrin:     

> Bad case of being sucked in by the denial blogs Doc. 
> woodbe.

  With all due respect to that lovely lady duped by the cults ice propaganda video, I'll stick to reality thanks. 
I'm reading through all the information in the draft now, and I've already read enough to verify everything I've posted.  The cultists in the ABC report above are protecting the cult and speaking out *unsanctioned* by the IPCC in a desperate attempt at damage control.     

> The IPCC regrets this unauthorized posting which interferes with the  process of assessment and review. *We will continue not to comment* on the  contents of draft reports, as they are works in progress.  IPCC statement on AR5 draft leak&ndash;full text | Watts Up With That?

  
It's too late.  This cult is dying the death of a thousand lies uncovered:    

> *Guest post by Forrest M. Mims III* 
>  I was an expert reviewer for the first and second order drafts of  the 2013 Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment  Report 5 (AR5). The names and reviews of all the reviewers will be  posted online when the final report is released. Meanwhile, reviewers  are required to not publish the draft report. However, the entire second  draft report was leaked on December 13, 2012, without IPCC permission  and has subsequently received wide publicity.
>  My review mainly concerns the role of water vapor, a key component of  global climate models. *A special concern is that a new paper on a major  global water vapor study (NVAP-M) needs to be cited in the final draft  of AR5.*  
>  This study shows no up or down trend in global water vapor, a finding  of major significance that differs with studies cited in AR5. Climate  modelers assume that water vapor, the principle greenhouse gas, will  increase with carbon dioxide, but the NVAP-M study shows this has not  occurred. Carbon dioxide has continued to increase, but global water  vapor has not. Today (December 14, 2012) *I asked a prominent climate  scientist if I should release my review early in view of the release of  the entire second draft report.*  *He suggested that I do so*, and links to the official IPCC spreadsheet  version and a Word version of my review are now posted near the top of  my homepage at www.forrestmims.org.  Another IPCC AR5 reviewer speaks out: no trend in global water vapor | Watts Up With That?

  Their main concerns appear to be that their research is not going to be cited, or will be "adjusted" out of the final version. 
This is so much better then CLIMATEGATE.  During CLIMATEGATE, we only learned after the fact about the lies and hiding of the facts.  With this release, we can now watch their lies and cover ups happen in real time.  Happy days ahead... :Biggrin:   
And rather than just propagating the LIES from the cults authority figures, you might want to actually read "the science" you keep banging on about so much.  The full draft is available via the link I provided for everyone to read and make their own mind up. 
For those who think it's too much to read, I guess you don't believe the doomsday cult prophesies after all, eh?  :Biggrin:  
Lot's of our soldiers have fought in wars and given their lives just to save our country, or our democratic way of life.  If people can't be bothered just reading some documents to allegedly save our entire Planet Earth, they are just a joke. 
If they then still keep preaching the cults doomsday prophecies, they are definitely beyond redemption.    :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

> And rather than just propagating the LIES from the cults authority figures, you might want to actually read "the science" you keep banging on about so much.  The full draft is available via the link I provided for everyone to read and make their own mind up.

  Sorry to burst your bubble mate, but "the science" is not something I'll read at wattsupwiththat, and it's not something I'll read in a premature ejaculation from the IPCC or one of it's ethically challenged reviewers. 
IPCC does not do science. IPCC does not do research, or have research published in peer reviewed journals. It is a review process of the current state of the published science by others and it starts years before each report. The next is due for delivery next year it's current state is a draft and has yet to pass muster by the review process. 
You are echoing the release of a report that has not completed that review process. The lead author of the report has been clear that the misrepresentation of the report is not supported by the report if you actually read it instead of taking the word of the serial denier blogosphere about it. 
The person who released the report signed up as an 'expert reviewer' and signed a confidentiality agreement not to release the report until the review process was complete. So much for ethics. And you call those that agree about AGW a 'cult' ? 
Misinformation at it's best. Take another misinformer star for yourself. You deserve it.  :2thumbsup:  
You've got no time to answer previous posts but lots of time to post new misinformation?  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> Sorry to burst your bubble mate, but "the science" is not something I'll read at wattsupwiththat, and it's not something I'll read in a premature ejaculation from the IPCC or one of it's ethically challenged reviewers. 
> IPCC does not do science. IPCC does not do research, or have research published in peer reviewed journals. It is a review process of the current state of the published science by others and it starts years before each report. The next is due for delivery next year it's current state is a draft and has yet to pass muster by the review process. 
> You are echoing the release of a report that has not completed that review process. The lead author of the report has been clear that the misrepresentation of the report is not supported by the report if you actually read it instead of taking the word of the serial denier blogosphere about it. 
> The person who released the report signed up as an 'expert reviewer' and signed a confidentiality agreement not to release the report until the review process was complete. So much for ethics. And you call those that agree about AGW a 'cult' ? 
> Misinformation at it's best. Take another misinformer star for yourself. You deserve it.  
> You've got no time to answer previous posts but lots of time to post new misinformation?  
> woodbe.

  
i'll give Freud this positive although he can't answer much he does do a good line of personal attack and bile in a half entertaining way.

----------


## woodbe

> Their main concerns appear to be that *their research* is not going to be cited, or will be "adjusted" out of the final version.

  Get a grip.  :Tongue:  
Doc, these people with 'concerns' are self-proclaimed experts who signed up to review the state of the science for the IPCC. It's not 'their' research to begin with. Forrest M. Mims III is an electronics dude, not a climate dude, and he doesn't even have a science degree. The original confidentiality agreement breaker (Alec Rawls) is trained in economics, and again, no science degree. Neither of these people have published any climate science, and are not reviewing 'their' research for the IPCC. 
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

Figure TS.26 - AR4 WGI Technical Summary
The graph I found on the IPCC site seems different to that posted by Doc a few posts up. Can anyone explain the discrepancy?

----------


## woodbe

> Figure TS.26 - AR4 WGI Technical Summary
> The graph I found on the IPCC site seems different to that posted by Doc a few posts up. Can anyone explain the discrepancy?

  Yes  :Smilie:  
Here is the Doc's image:   
And here is the IPCC image:   
Figure TS.26. Model projections of global mean warming compared to  observed warming. Observed temperature anomalies, as in Figure TS.6, are  shown as annual (black dots) and *decadal average values (black line)*. 
The numptys at doc's source (WUWT) have added annual data to the decadal time series line. They don't know what they are doing.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

Whether it is right or wrong is another issue; for me the fact that the original graph was modified but the IPCC copyright logo was retained indicates an intention to mislead people that this is part of the authentic IPCC document.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The misinformation just keeps on...  IPCC draft climate report leaked by sceptics - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)    
> Bad case of being sucked in by the denial blogs Doc. 
> woodbe.

  A rebuttal to Steven Sherwood and the solar forcing pundits of the IPCC AR5 draft leak | Watts Up With That? 
There is more to come on this issue I wouldn't be gloating woodbe.   

> One of the fifteen lead authors of chapter 7 responded that the evidence for one of the proposed mechanisms of solar amplification, GCR-cloud, indicates a weak effect, and proceeded as if this obviated the IPCCs admission that _some_ such mechanism must be having a substantial effect:[Professor Steven Sherwood] says the idea that the chapter he authored confirms a greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming is ridiculous.
> Im sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite  that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible, he told PM.Sherwood uses theoryhis dissatisfaction with one theory of how solar amplification might workto ignore the (admitted) evidence for _some_ mechanism of solar amplification. Putting theory over evidence is not science. It is the exact definitional opposite of science (see Feynman snippet above).

   

> So good for them. In the sea of IPCC dishonesty there is a glimmer of honesty, but it doesnt go very far. TSI is still the only solar effect that is included in the consensus computer models and the IPCC still uses this garbage-in claim to arrive at their garbage-out conclusion that observed warming must be almost entirely due to the human release of CO2.
> I particularly like this comment

  Finally we are starting to get somewhere.   
Not long now Woodbe, the door is closing on this sorry saga.  Soon you will have to find another excuse to feel good about to saving the world.

----------


## woodbe

> Finally we are starting to get somewhere.   
> Not long now Woodbe, the door is closing on this sorry saga.  Soon you will have to find another excuse to feel good about to saving the world.

  So your skeptic mates have finally gone out and gotten themselves science degrees and are starting to publish science instead of wishful thinking? 
Excellent. I wait with bated breath for the revelations to be published.  :2thumbsup:  
Gloating? Mate I'm not gloating, I'm _correcting_. I don't have time or inclination to gloat. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Finally we are starting to get somewhere.

  Oh you King of Wishful Thinking... 
...this is much the same hilarious process we saw last time the IPCC lobbed out a progress report.  Much jockeying, arguement, debate, politics and mud slinging.  And that was only from the lead authors...and it was directed internally.  And then the politics got in there as well... 
Before this game is over...many qualified scientists, climate specialists, citizen scientists and science commentators are all going to get their noses out of joint because of what makes it into the next IPCC report (or doesn't). 
And it will change almost nothing.

----------


## barney118

So Can someone supply some figures on how many green jobs have been created leading upto and implementation of this new carbon tax that Juliar and Swannie promised and on the other side how many jobs have been lost (unfortunately no one is brave enough to admit this publicly), so just the first part will do, and how many green companies have gone offshore to manufacture?
Meanwhile the do gooders ( Govt and Co) have/are reducing incentives to the promised land of clean energy, why don't they put their ( sorry the taxpayers money) where their mouths are?
Why are FIT vary to NIL in most states different? Why are we using less energy and the place isn't getting any cooler but costing us heaps more? Why cant I get solar panels locally?
Why havent power stations reduced their output now the increase in solar in the grid? 
I bet the next move is to have a policy that WONT allow any more solar installations as the system can't take the load.   
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## johnc

> So Can someone supply some figures on how many green jobs have been created leading upto and implementation of this new carbon tax that Juliar and Swannie promised and on the other side how many jobs have been lost (unfortunately no one is brave enough to admit this publicly), so just the first part will do, and how many green companies have gone offshore to manufacture? It is to early for reliable statistical information and there is not much else out there at the moment.
> Meanwhile the do gooders ( Govt and Co) have/are reducing incentives to the promised land of clean energy, why don't they put their ( sorry the taxpayers money) where their mouths are? Cost of systems are coming down we are not far from the point were subsidies will be removed all together. 
> Why are FIT vary to NIL in most states different? Why are we using less energy and the place isn't getting any cooler but costing us heaps more? Why cant I get solar panels locally? Interesting question, do you really think the states are capable of getting their collective act together? You are paying heaps more because you are being gouged for "gold platting" (dubious claim I might add) the network, wholesale cost of power has actually fallen. You can't buy panels locally simply because politicians managed to destroy the local manufacturer with indecision along with the cost of Chinese panels falling they way they have.
> Why havent power stations reduced their output now the increase in solar in the grid? They have, pay attention, we are currently down on load generation from coal fired plant, rising retail prices have dropped demand, we are being more carefull and using less. You can find the figures for the different power stations, I think Hazelwood was only operating at around 80% up until the middle of the year and has dropped further since to around 60% Carbon tax may have caused a 10% lift in prices but before that the gold plate lift possibly added 80% to prices of three years ago. 
> I bet the next move is to have a policy that WONT allow any more solar installations as the system can't take the load. How do you work that out? in those areas well away from the generators solar power is helping the retailers get reliable power to the customer, they will be keen to see growth in solar on more remote areas of the grid. Closer to the generators solar and wind power has saved the addition of at least one more power station to meet demand. Energy distribution benefits form varied means of supply providing it can be properly managed, there is nothing that indicates roof top systems are an issue in generation.   
> Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

  In the end the system works best without any form of subsidy, subsidy only exists to get something on its feet. Ideally we will see feed in tariffs at market rates and being competitive with coal. Certainly the cost of systems was expected to not be needing subsidies by 2014 and that looks like being the case. Feed in Tarif will take more time to work through. Problem with the flat earther brigade they only live in the past and are destined to become extinct, progress is continual, if you can't hack it you will simply fail to be competitive and fall by the wayside.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So Can someone supply some figures on how many green jobs have been created leading up to and implementation of this new carbon tax...

  Not as many as have been lost from the State based public services of QLD, NSW, VIC and SA since July 1.  Quite a few more will go at the end of the current financial year. 
More precisely...the ABS doesn't have a category devoted to 'green' jobs...so the specific job statistics aren't actually collected.    
Nothing but the passing of a great deal of time (many hundreds of human generations) is going to make things any cooler.....even if we totally stopped burning geologically sourced hydrocarbons tommorrow.  Which we of course won't. 
Renewables rebates plus the genourous tax concessions and government incentives for all forms of centralised power generation (and other so called basic human rights like clean reticulated water, sewerage etc etc) should have been ceased long ago...if the community wants something then they should pay full price from their own wallets - no exceptions - instead of being sheilded from reality by the coat tails of benign Government. See what that does to your beloved energy and water bills. Oh how the ignorant will bleat.....the 'system' will fail...the sheep will look up...and Ragnarok shall come to pass...bwaahahahahahharheee...<hack><hack>...[cough]....[splat] 
Merry Xmas and have a happy apocalypso....(I will because I found this so cool dub reggae version of 'Highway to Hell'...)

----------


## johnc

> Merry Xmas and have a happy apocalypso....(I will because I found this so cool dub reggae version of 'Highway to Hell'...)

  As the world is ending tomorrow when the Mayan calender ends then none of this is necessary, so go out tonight blow the credit card and enjoy the night.  
Mind you it could be yet another prediction that goes west :Wink 1:

----------


## woodbe

We frequently see comments from fake skeptics here that there has been no warming for 'X' years. 
Here is some professional analysis of that proposition in response to a claim by renowned false skeptic David Whitehouse on WUWT 
First, David Whitehouse's claim:   

> _So since 1979 we have has [sic] about 16 years of warming and 16 years of temperature standstill._

   Really?
  First, Whitehouse is pulling an old favorite trick of fake skeptics: equating the lack of _statistically significant_  warming with the lack of warming. If we look at global surface  temperature according to the three main data sets (GISS, HadCRUT4, and  NCDC), all three show warming over the last 16 years (2012 still has one  month to go, but the difference wont amount to a hill of beans):    
 Although all three trend lines slope upward, their slopes arent statistically significant. But _that doesnt mean theyre not upward_.  It just means that theres not enough data in 16 years to tell for  sure, statistically speaking, which way theyre going. That always  happens  *always*  when the time span is short.  
  Thats why fake skeptics like David Whitehouse like to focus on short time spans.  
  Whitehouse declares that weve had about 16 years of warming and 16  years of temperature standstill. According to Whitehouse, all the  global warming earth has experienced recently was complete by 16 years  ago (the end of 1996). Is that really so? Lets take a closer look at  the last 16 years, compared to what happened before that, starting in  1979 (Whitehouses choice). 
  Ill do a similar exercise to one Ive done before. Ill take the data  from 1979 (Whitehouses starting point) up to 16 years ago (less one  month, the end of 1996). Then Ill fit a trend line with least-squares  regression. Then Ill extend that trend line to the present, to see what  would have happened _if that trend continued_.  
  If David Whitehouse is giving an honest portrayal of global temperature,  then most of the data points from 1997 onward should be _below_ the extended trend line, since the trend will keep rising but according to him, global warming stopped back then.  
  If we do this exercise using data from NASA GISS, we get this:   
Lets try using the HadCRUT4 data set instead:   
Once more into the fray: lets try using the NCDC data set instead:    
 Well well  Plainly, it is *not* the case that most of the data points from 1997 onward are below the extended trend line. As a matter of fact, _for all three data sets, every year from 1997 onward has been hotter than expected according to that trend from 1979_. Theres only one valid conclusion: David Whitehouse gave a _fake_ portrayal of global temperature. 
Thats what fake skeptics do.  
Professional analysis, text and graphics courtesy of Tamino 
woodbe

----------


## barney118

Anyone can measure from "anomaly" you just set the base line where you want it......at the lower end of the scale

----------


## woodbe

> Anyone can measure from "anomaly" you just set the base line where you want it......at the lower end of the scale

  Sure Barney. That's a valid point, but the real problem here is the choice of a short time scale. Which brings the author to point out:   

> Thats why fake skeptics like David Whitehouse like to focus on short time spans.

  If he chose a longer time span, the results would be significant, and still would not support David's denial. 
I'll let you into a secret. David Whitehouse chose the start and finish points, he just messed up the analysis.  
That has now been done professionally for all to see, and it does not support the fake skeptic notion that warming has stopped. 
woodbe

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...but the difference wont amount to a hill of beans

  
...which'd be about the same impact such an analysis will have on the NahNahNah's view of the world.  Which is cool because that's more beans for us. 
I'm still trying to figure out how we can have a relative procession of 'nth warmest year on record' over the last decade or so whilst at the same time there's been no warming for the last sixteen years....at the same time, there's others saying of course it's getting warmer (it's the Sun/clouds/end of the Ice Age, stupid) but we've got nothing to do with it.  And only the scientific community get shafted by a portion of the blogosphere (and a desperate print media clinging to the Baby Boomer generation for that last gasp of advertising revenue before they both shuffle off into history) for an apparent lack of consensus...where oh where is the Justice in that? IT'S A CONSPIRACY I TELL YOU!!! WORSE.  A CONFABULATION. Perhaps....Horror of Horrors....A MUSICAL.  Of which I may even buy the soundtrack one day... :No:  
Or perhaps I'm being too simplistic?  :Cool:

----------


## Dr Freud

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year (although belated) to all you good people out there.   :Biggrin:  
I'll take care of the bad ones in person as we meet.  :Wink 1:  
I must admit I have been laughing my @r5e off as the weather heats up.  Us misogynist nut-jobs (i.e. any male person who disagrees with JuLIAR) pressured the cult leaders so much by taking the pi55 out of all the recent cold weather, that they began chanting endlessly that "weather is not climate"..."weather is not climate" to ignore all the cold weather.  They were so dumb, that now they're just realising they've lost their biggest propaganda tool.   
Now when the weather gets hot, they can't call it climate change any more.   :Rotfl:  
They now revert to their giant BS claim that any weather not average weather is possibly somehow "linked" to climate??? WTF??? 
Morons. 
But you'd have to be some kind of idiot to claim any single bushfire, whether arson or accidental, is somehow "linked" to climate. 
Luckily we have just this type of idiot:   

> *Tasmanian fires prompt PM's grim climate warning* 
> Prime Minister Julia Gillard underscored the dangers facing Australia  this summer from climate change as she saw Tasmanian bushfire ruins, and  warned people to expect more.
> Read more: Tasmanian fires prompt PM's grim climate warning

  It's precisely this type of HYPERBOWL that proves JuLIAR's idiocy.  :Rotfl:  
If only JuLIAR listened to us misogynist nut jobs on the internet:    

> *FREQUENT BUSHFIRES WERE* ripping across the Australian landscape nearly 50 million years earlier than previously thought, a new study suggests. 
> By  examining fossilised gum tree pollen, researchers at the Australian  National University in Canberra have dated the unique regenerative  capacity of eucalypts to around the same time that Australia's  rainforests began to recede 62 million years ago  shortly after the extinction of the dinosaurs.  
> Up until now, most studies have argued that bushfires have only been common for the past 15 million years.  Raging bushfires started 60 million years ago - Australian Geographic

  Oh yeh, those weren't misogynist nut jobs on the internet, they were ANU scientists on the internet.  Here's one I think:    

> I will always remember the Victorian father searching for photos of his  dead wife and kids among the ashes, wondering how he was going to pay  the $30,000 fine administered to him by a Green council for daring to  attempt to clear his property of combustible material. 
> Every 10 -15 years combustible undergrowth builds to a point where it  becomes a tinderbox begging to be ignited... and eventually it will  ignite despite our efforts to prevent it.  
>  Flammable seeds from gaseous eucalypts, desperate to regenerate, lie  dormant waiting, waiting. It is the inevitable fire's intense heat that  breaks open these rich, pregnant pods and allows our bush to regenerate,  to live. 
> And the Green gophers still don't get it... their memories are too  short, their vision of reality too limited. Their influence too  dangerous.  http://pickeringpost.com/article/tre...w-learners/862

  She (oops sorry - insert any less gender specific pronoun, or just JuLIAR) is so idiotically dumb that it is beginning to defy belief.  I hope "idiotically dumb" while tautologous is gender neutral enough.  :Biggrin:  
But here's the crackerjack laugh.  30% of Australians still say they want her running the country.  :Doh:  
I guess our projected $400 BILLION in debt she's racked up is not high enough for them yet? 
Lucky we have so much to show for it, eh?  :No:   
Maybe we could repaint the people smuggler boats and sell them to recoup some funds?

----------


## Dr Freud

This is Tony Abbott's Christmas card showing his wonderful wife and daughters:   
For those of us blessed enough to be proud of our family, we no doubt admire any hard-working parents who rear decent children to be good citizens in this great country of ours. 
But no! 
This vile creature (I hope that's received with it's gender neutral intent) inspires ignorant goons with this reaction:   

> _ 
> Radio talkback callers have even condemned the family photo in his  Christmas card as a deliberate swipe at the unmarried, childless Prime  Minister. _ Michael Smith News

  Do we seriously now live in a country where a happily married couple raise beautiful children and are abused for doing so? 
And this family's crime is merely explaining the LIES that this vile creature continually tells, especially about the Carbon Dioxide Tax.    

> To avoid answering questions about all her LIES, she just calls us names like misogynist nut jobs.   
> Make sure the sound is on and watch for her poignant Carbon Dioxide Tax dodgy deal at 2.22 in the video:

  I think Tony Abbott was very restrained just calling her a piece of work. 
If she accused me of hating my mother, sister, wife and daughters, I'd happily call her what she truly is, a piece of sierra hotel india tango!  :Biggrin:   
Definitely a non-gender specific piece, just to avoid confusion. 
More to follow...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> This is Tony Abbott's Christmas card showing his wonderful wife and daughters:   
> For those of us blessed enough to be proud of our family, we no doubt admire any hard-working parents who rear decent children to be good citizens in this great country of ours. 
> But no! 
> This vile creature (I hope that's received with it's gender neutral intent) inspires ignorant goons with this reaction:   
> Do we seriously now live in a country where a happily married couple raise beautiful children and are abused for doing so? 
> And this family's crime is merely explaining the LIES that this vile creature continually tells, especially about the Carbon Dioxide Tax.    
> I think Tony Abbott was very restrained just calling her a piece of work. 
> If she accused me of hating my mother, sister, wife and daughters, I'd happily call her what she truly is, a piece of sierra hotel india tango!   
> Definitely a non-gender specific piece, just to avoid confusion. 
> More to follow...

  Yep sums it up nice DOC

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Do we seriously now live in a country where a happily married couple raise beautiful children and are abused for doing so?

  Given that we seem to live in a country where a happily de facto married couple who choose not to raise beautiful children are abused for doing so.....yes, (sadly) we do.   :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

> Given that we seem to live in a country where a happily de facto married couple who choose not to raise beautiful children are abused for doing so.....yes, (sadly) we do.

  All my fantastic opinions have links to them so they can be verified. 
I'd be very grateful for your links showing where a sitting Prime Minister has told these deliberate lies you indicate under the defamatory protection of Parliamentary Privilege, then refused to repeat them in public, then used our taxpayer dollars via the PM's office and minions to run an orchestrated and deliberately false campaign to destroy an innocent family, all to protect an original LIE so blatant, no-one even argues the point any more. 
My links show exactly this, supporting my position, I'm sure you'll dig yours up quick smart, eh?  :Biggrin:  
If you're just talking about idiots having opinions, there's plenty of those walking the streets and elected in all Parliaments.  I'll post some of Milne's idiocy when I have more time.  But don't delude yourself that all idiot pollies mouthing opinions carry the weight of an orchestrated denigration campaign from the Prime Minister's office.  Under that ridiculous claim, Wyatt Roy has as much power as the PM.   
So much sierra hotel india tango flowing out of that office now, I can't keep up.  I just pity the poor taxpayers who will pay back all the debt (plus interest) that WE ARE borrowing to fund JuLIAR's disasters, lies and cover ups.  :Doh:   
While you're digging up some links, here's some more context to JuLIAR's filth that should help you:   

> *A few Monday morning words about Tony Abbott* 	 	 		 			I like Tony Abbott.   He's a man's man.   I think he'd die happy  if the local Surf Lifesaving Club, the Volunteer Fire Service and his  local community all spoke about his dependability.   He'd be smiling too  if the aboriginal community where he volunteers every year spoke at  this eulogy.  
>  When I departed from 2UE he rang me on my mobile.   I was at St  George hospital with my sister Kath, Kath was crying her eyes out at the  time because my nephew Zach was in a bad way after a prang.   I  explained the situation to Tony that it was a bad time to talk, he said  put her on, he and Kath then had a 20 minute chat.   He'd never met  her.   It meant so much to my sister who was beside herself, there's a  lot more to that story but it was Tony's practicality and  fair-dinkumness along with his very real pastoral care that I  remember.   I know my sister does too.  
>  So I thought this comment from Terri that I've put below here was worth highlighting.  
>  I haven't spoken to Tony Abbott for many months now.   I am not a  promoter of the Liberal Party and I can see why the Liberal Party would  not want to be associated with me, my observations today about the  Arab-clad people who are consistently filthying up the park at Sans  Souci is one reason.   I know that a lot of people find those comments  of mine confronting - politicians in particular do.   But I find the  anti-Tony Abbott commentary confronting and intriguing.   Why is it that  the real man remains unknown to the bulk of us, yet the caricature is  so widely reported, joked about and commented on?  
>  Terri said:                            
>                                 Good morning Michael. How do we  reach the greater majority of Australians and make them aware of the  one sided, spin and lies they are being fed by a large majority of our  spineless media ? The likes of the A.B.C should be held responsible for  being party to cover ups, lies and supporting criminal behavior  IMHO.  Here we had yesterday just another example of how hatefully spiteful Ms  Gilard and her band of thugs really are. Peta Credlin speaks out  regarding a personally stressful and emotional time for her where the  exceptional and caring support shown her by Tony Abbott is yet another  example of the absurdity of the so called misogynist claim spread by the  likes of Ms Gillard and co.     
>  					 			 				 I was reminded of the time during the Q&A program ( which I do not  watch any more ) where Tony Abbott was asked, did he think he would  understand more if he actual knew any same sex relationship people. He  could have really put them back in their boxes and let out the fact his  own sister was gay. At that time this was not public knowledge so  instead he simply answered, yes I do know some gay people. For this he  was laughed at because he didn't back this up with specific references.  He took it on the chin, rather than expose his sister. Of course no  media follow up pointing this out. Now we read yesterday of another  example, where rather than expose Peta Credlin's personal situation to  help his own defense to misogynist, sexist comments tackily spat out by  Ms Gillard and co he took this on the chin also. where are the media ???  following through with so called balanced reporting, commenting that  this is hardly the act of a misogynist !  WAKE UP FELLOW AUSTRALIANS  ....THIS CURRENT FEDERAL LABOR PARTY IS A PACK OF LOW LIFE, GUTTER  DWELLING SNAKES.  			  Michael Smith News

  And still more LIES orchestrated from this vile creature calling volunteer fire fighting a "stunt" turning family tragedies into a political circus.   

> To be honest I have never been so disgusted for quite sometime -  not so much by O'Connor, Gillard or Milne because we know what they are  like and what they represent but by those many thousands of Australians  who will not vote to remove the "imposters" and "traitors" who have  somehow got into a position to govern this country.     
> For those who think the fires are being used for a political stunt please go to this link to understand the true horror of what is happening.       Michael Smith News

  A brave family man puts himself in harms way as he has does for over a decade to protect other families, and this vile creature mocks this tragedy for political points. 
Disgusted is not the word I'd use...but continue to defend this vile creature if you must.

----------


## barney118

Should we run a "book" on the probability of a bushfire levy for all you taxpayers this year of 1% (just like the under insured QLD govt for the floods). :Eek:

----------


## johnc

> Should we run a "book" on the probability of a bushfire levy for all you taxpayers this year of 1% (just like the under insured QLD govt for the floods).

  In some ways that would be preferable to the fire levy we paid for years on our house insurance to pay for a fire service that is also used by those who don't insure but covered anyway. Regardless, ignoring Freuds usual rubbish this type of topic, fire, is always an issue in Australia particularly in dry conditions, many of us would know people who have lost lives or possessions over the years in bush fires. It is both tacky and tasteless to resort to the usual political diatribe on these matters, fire will be an increasing issue for Australia and that is largely due to where we build our houses with many near or in forested areas.  
Anyway any discussion on paying for fire services or helping people who have lost possessions or suffered injury or worse in a wild fire is best served with political invective removed. To suggest we run a book on a fire levy is tantamount to spitting in the face of those who have suffered loss, lets show some decorum and maturity at a time when large parts of the country are burning.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> If you're just talking about idiots having opinions....

  Ummm.  Yes.  Of course.  What were you talking about?  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Wink 1:

----------


## barney118

> In some ways that would be preferable to the fire levy we paid for years on our house insurance to pay for a fire service that is also used by those who don't insure but covered anyway. Regardless, ignoring Freuds usual rubbish this type of topic, fire, is always an issue in Australia particularly in dry conditions, many of us would know people who have lost lives or possessions over the years in bush fires. It is both tacky and tasteless to resort to the usual political diatribe on these matters, fire will be an increasing issue for Australia and that is largely due to where we build our houses with many near or in forested areas.  
> Anyway any discussion on paying for fire services or helping people who have lost possessions or suffered injury or worse in a wild fire is best served with political invective removed. To suggest we run a book on a fire levy is tantamount to spitting in the face of those who have suffered loss, lets show some decorum and maturity at a time when large parts of the country are burning.

  There is no political innuendo in my post, but it is more to the fact there are people in society who pay their dues (insurances) and those that don't (including governments) and expect those that do to pick up the pieces, (NSW govt just slapped a $300 fire levy on house insurance) now thats a kick in the guts for those that have insurance (and another excuse to why funds have been diverted into consolidated revenue over the years). 
If it was made mandatory then maybe the pain would be $150 bucks??? spread the pain....

----------


## woodbe

I don't disagree that if a fire levy is required that it should be collected from all landholders, not just those with insurance. You would have to find out why people don't take out insurance though, Doc is already mortified that some lower income people face an increase in their power bills. You should check with him before you suggest skeptic policy. 
We've been through the Qld Govt insurance issue previously, and we know that they simply cannot buy insurance for their road infrastructure, despite the political spin. Now that the Liberals are in power, I look forward to hearing that they have insured all Qld's roads against fire and flood.  :2thumbsup:  Definitely not holding my breath on that one. 
woodbe.

----------


## barney118

My issue is why has the insurance plague got out of control? Fire, flood, cyclone, earthquake, tsunami, whatever natural disaster, is simply that.
Insurance companies do their best to avoid paying out for such events, so why slug the taxpayer to fill the gaps.  
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## woodbe

> My issue is why has the insurance plague got out of control? Fire, flood, cyclone, earthquake, tsunami, whatever natural disaster, is simply that.
> Insurance companies do their best to avoid paying out for such events, so why slug the taxpayer to fill the gaps.

  True. Insurance companies work hard to minimise claims. They are unfortunate but necessary parasites. Reality is that Climate Change is boosting their claims and they are pushing back as hard as they can get away with. 
There is a lot more energy in the climate now, extreme events are not going to go away. The Arctic had a record summer as did the US with added bonus record wildfire season. Now it's our turn. 
Already reported and denied here  :Biggrin:  
This is the new 'normal'   
woodbe.

----------


## Hoff

> True. Insurance companies work hard to minimise claims. They are unfortunate but necessary parasites. Reality is that Climate Change is boosting their claims and they are pushing back as hard as they can get away with. 
> There is a lot more energy in the climate now, extreme events are not going to go away. The Arctic had a record summer as did the US with added bonus record wildfire season. Now it's our turn. 
> Already reported and denied here  
> This is the new 'normal'   
> woodbe.

   Lol, the deep purple headline was a nice attention grabber. Problem was they couldn't accurately forecast 2 days ahead then removed deep purple. Australian Record Weather Won't Break 50 Degrees: Bureau 
But they know what's going to happen over the next 100 years.  You got to have a lot of faith.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> My issue is why has the insurance plague got out of control?

  Because our insurers are just the middlemen...try asking Munich Re (amongst others) who insures the insurers.

----------


## PhilT2

_I will always remember the Victorian father searching for photos of his   dead wife and kids among the ashes, wondering how he was going to pay   the $30,000 fine administered to him by a Green council for daring to   attempt to clear his property of combustible material. 
Every 10 -15 years combustible undergrowth builds to a point where it   becomes a tinderbox begging to be ignited... and eventually it will   ignite despite our efforts to prevent it.  
 Flammable seeds from gaseous eucalypts, desperate to regenerate, lie   dormant waiting, waiting. It is the inevitable fire's intense heat that   breaks open these rich, pregnant pods and allows our bush to  regenerate,  to live. 
And the Green gophers still don't get it... their memories are too   short, their vision of reality too limited. Their influence too   dangerous.  http://pickeringpost.com/article/tre...w-learners/862_
Now I know that everything that Doc links to is pure gospel but I thought that I would track down the original story behind this particular link. Now it's hard to be sure but it appears to be based on this story. Bushfire battler story is more complex than it looks | Crikey
Only problem is the facts seem to have changed significantly. The house didn't burn down, nobody died and the court, not the council, imposed the fine, the council only wanted $2500. Can anyone shed some light on this?

----------


## woodbe

> Can anyone shed some light on this?

  Yes. 
Like the real politicians, Doc is using the story for political spin. I suggest we deprive it of oxygen.  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> My issue is why has the insurance plague got out of control? Fire, flood, cyclone, earthquake, tsunami, whatever natural disaster, is simply that.
> Insurance companies do their best to avoid paying out for such events, so why slug the taxpayer to fill the gaps.  
> Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

  I think it is important to draw a distinction between insurance and government assistance to those who suffer loss. Insurance is straight forward, a premium is set for each risk class based on an actuarial calculation of risk. Providing there are enough players in the market premiums simply rise and fall based on claims history and estimates of future events. Government is different, is it reasonable to provide money to those effected by disaster, probably, how then do you fund it? for small scale disasters probably from general revenue, for large scale events a one off levy is probably not unreasonable however if disasters become more frequent what then a national insurance fund, a continual medicare type levy perhaps. Doesn't matter what you do no one will be happy although I don't believe putting a levy on insurance is fair, I'd rather see it added to the rates bill for property compensation and taken from general revenue for income type hand outs people get when their homes and livlihoods are interrupted. 
Putting aside climate change we are building in more flood prone areas and in forested areas, even if the risks remain unchanged we are most likely going to see an increase in those effected anyway and at the moment we are also seeing an increase in the number and scale of disasters. How you deal with it is more complex than just a levy, although I suspect we are still someway off accepting this may well become a larger drain on the public purse than it is at present.

----------


## barney118

Back on track, how much CO2 has been released in these bush fires? Who is going to pay Carbon tax on this? Why doesn't Juliar hit the state govt on brushfire emissions, then the state govt can tax us, so it becomes a double whammy for the tax payer!    
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## johnc

> Back on track, how much CO2 has been released in these bush fires? Who is going to pay Carbon tax on this? Why doesn't Juliar hit the state govt on brushfire emissions, then the state govt can tax us, so it becomes a double whammy for the tax payer!    
> Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

  
Please try to keep up, this has been done to death before. When you release CO2 from a stored source like coal you are adding it what is already out there with no counter balancing mechanism to lock it up again. Bushfires do dump massive amounts of crap into the air but those forests will eventually regrow and in doing so reclaim and trap the CO2 lost. They aren't a part of the problem as they have a storage/release loop if you are going to charge for the release you would need to refund for regrowth, be interesting to see how you would calculate that.

----------


## barney118

> Please try to keep up, this has been done to death before. When you release CO2 from a stored source like coal you are adding it what is already out there with no counter balancing mechanism to lock it up again. Bushfires do dump massive amounts of crap into the air but those forests will eventually regrow and in doing so reclaim and trap the CO2 lost. They aren't a part of the problem as they have a storage/release loop if you are going to charge for the release you would need to refund for regrowth, be interesting to see how you would calculate that.

  Coal just happens to be plant matter " cooking for a few million years" 
As far as stored source, wood was used as a fuel before coal and still used today. 
I don't know how you can suggest that a brushfire burning releasing C02 in the process can be somehow be looked at in isolation as the cult claim CO2 is increasing because of mankind using fossil fuels but natural events, bush fires, volcanic eruptions, melting of plant material in lakes due to seasons have NO effect on the system as a whole makes a mockery of common sense. 
The only thing the cult has right is that trees are needed to convert CO2 to oxygen this is scientifically proven. 
At least those that provide jobs for making cars and houses have pollution control not like the crap put out by natural events.  
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## curound

> True. Insurance companies work hard to minimise claims. They are unfortunate but necessary parasites. Reality is that Climate Change is boosting their claims and they are pushing back as hard as they can get away with. 
> There is a lot more energy in the climate now, extreme events are not going to go away. The Arctic had a record summer as did the US with added bonus record wildfire season. Now it's our turn. 
> Already reported and denied here  
> This is the new 'normal'   
> woodbe.

   :Confused:  the problem I see is not so much the heat. We've always had the hot and cold cycles. Always will.
The problem we have is that we have many more humans around today than we did 120 years ago. The towns and cities are alot bigger. Therefore the more people, the more problems, the more mistakes. Some fires are started deliberately(many arsonist arund), some are started by mistakes(fire at Dunalley started by a campfire not put out??), some are started unintentionally( fire at Bogan Gate NSW - started by a trains brakes), some are started by nature(lightning strikes). I live in Alice Springs and notice many fires here are around communities out bush but because we get thunderstorms in summer, there are fires started by lightning strikes.
at
I don't mean to sound 'anti-human', just not convinced about climate warning spouted about by Al Gore's mob. 
Need to keep all things in perspective. 
Does anyone know if we could donate finances to that family in the photo's. 
I have three kids, so I really feel for them.... would never want to be found in that situation. Thank God for them coming through that. 
Cheers. Curound..

----------


## PhilT2

> the problem I see is not so much the heat. We've always had the hot and cold cycles. Always will.
> The problem we have is that we have many more humans around today than we did 120 years ago. The towns and cities are alot bigger. Therefore the more people, the more problems, the more mistakes. Some fires are started deliberately(many arsonist arund), some are started by mistakes(fire at Dunalley started by a campfire not put out??), some are started unintentionally( fire at Bogan Gate NSW - started by a trains brakes), some are started by nature(lightning strikes). I live in Alice Springs and notice many fires here are around communities out bush but because we get thunderstorms in summer, there are fires started by lightning strikes.
> at
> I don't mean to sound 'anti-human', just not convinced about climate warning spouted about by Al Gore's mob. 
> Need to keep all things in perspective. 
> Does anyone know if we could donate finances to that family in the photo's. 
> I have three kids, so I really feel for them.... would never want to be found in that situation. Thank God for them coming through that. 
> Cheers. Curound..

  If you want to give money I'm sure the regular organisations will be running appeals to help the victims of these fires soon. Just my opinion of course but i think the story about the bloke looking through the ashes of his house for photos is a fake. Where the photos came from we don't know; Doc didn't provide any useful links, They could be real but I think they are from a few years ago.

----------


## Marc

Every summer we get the usual bush fires. Nothing new. What is new is the way they are portrayed by media.
 The new buzz word is catastrophe, attached to the hyperbole of so called "global warming". 
 However, bush fires are mostly man made.  To begin with 50 % are  intentionally lit or at best highly suspicious. 35% accidental (read  started by idiots) 5% natural, 5% back burning. 5% "other". 
Bush fires  are a police problem and should be treated as a police matter. A  reflection of a community that does not know the meaning of  responsibility. 
What brings us to prevention. How do we prevent bush  fires? Do we blame the weather? "Climate change" Do we blame the bad rich people in 4wd  who "cause" global warming? Or can we do something about prevention? 
  We can prevent bush fires by back burning. Back burning is essential in  the fight against bush fires. A well funded and equipped fire fighting  force is a good start.
Muzzling the greens ( I would make them an illegal criminal organization) and their criminal preaching of "lock up"  nature reserves would be a good start. 
Stop the local councils fining  land owners for clearing around their properties to protect themselves  from fires, and encourage the practice in stead would good.
  Fund fire detection heat cameras to give an early alarm and alert police  and fire brigades. Not that complicated. It could be funded with 1/4 of  our foreign aid funds. Easy. 
 Bush fires are in an alarming  proportion man made, burning fuel that is there only because we listen  to criminal religious fanatics who preach that fuel should be left to accumulate  so that arsonist can light it. Later we can blame "global warming" for  the fire, so more funds can go to green religion.
 Burn witch burn !! 
 Humanity can be extremely stupid at times. This is one of such examples were we are behaving like idiots.

----------


## woodbe

> Finally we are starting to get somewhere.   
> Not long now Woodbe, the door is closing on this sorry saga.  Soon you will have to find another excuse to feel good about to saving the world.

  
You reckon?  Climate-change denial feels the heat   

> Just 4.2 per cent of the survey's 4347 respondents selected the option  ''there is no such thing as climate change'' and 8.5 per cent could be  considered strong sceptics, Professor Reser said.

  Looks like even the delirious, panic-stricken opposition to the carbon tax hasn't altered people's perceptions as to what is going on. If anything, more people accept climate change than before. 
For 8.5% of the population, you and your mates are a noisy lot.  :Biggrin:    

> Two-thirds saw climate change as a serious problem ''right now''.

  If you keep succeeding like this, we won't have any fake skeptics left soon.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You reckon?  Climate-change denial feels the heat   
> Looks like even the delirious, panic-stricken opposition to the carbon tax hasn't altered people's perceptions as to what is going on. If anything, more people accept climate change than before. 
> For 8.5% of the population, you and your mates are a noisy lot.    
> If you keep succeeding like this, we won't have any fake skeptics left soon.  
> woodbe.

  Oh My, a survey during a "heat wave". A heat wave where there is no evidence that it is caused by co2 levels, this proves a lot!  Maybe they should conduct the same survey in Israel or Jordon where they recently had snow.  Or maybe in China who are have the coldest winter in 30 years. 
What are you smoking?   To think this WEATHER event can prove your failed theory.  All it proves is there are still a lot of sheep out there. 
I can just see the warmists salivating over a few hot days, pointing out, you see, you see, we told you your gonna fry!!!   This is laughable.  Just so sad people can be so easily fooled.

----------


## woodbe

> Oh My, a survey during a "heat wave".

  Fail, Rod.  :Rolleyes:    

> *Public risk perceptions, understandings, and responses to climate change and natural disasters in Australia, 2010 and 2011*This report presents and discusses the findings of a second Australian  national survey examining and monitoring public risk perceptions,  understandings and responses to climate change and natural disasters  undertaken between 15 July and 8 August of 2011.  The study complements  and extends an initial study conducted in mid-2010 in conjunction with a  similar survey undertaken by the Understanding Risk Research Centre at  Cardiff University. The 2010 surveys are the subject of a previous  NCCARF report at www.nccarf.edu.au/publications/public-risk-perceptions-final.

  Released 2012. Reported by the smh during a heatwave, yes, but the data was collected well prior to the heatwave. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Fail, Rod.    
> Released 2012. Reported by the smh during a heatwave, yes, but the data was collected well prior to the heatwave. 
> woodbe.

  Oh so it is OLD NEWS wheeled out when there is a heat wave.  I know the ABC is salivating over this WEATHER event claiming it to be proof of global warming.  Do you? 
Still a big fail for you do be promoting this junk at this point in time.

----------


## Marc

Funny how the Silly Morning Herald and the Australian Born Comunist did not do any survey last two summers wen we had mild and wet weather.
So now that we are back to normal summer weather, at least in a patchy fashion, we are back to blame the weather for bush fires.
Summer is hot. always been hot and always will be hot. Who decides what is normal and what is not? Who is so monumentally stupid as to believe we have a dial and can turn the heat down?
Cheap solutions to bush fires:  
Eliminate fuel on the ground by back burning and by eliminating the green movement. Ban them, make them illegal, declare them a terrorist organization.
Declare bush fire season as the hunting season for arsonist by the police and the public.
Give land owners the responsibility to clear around their property for fire prevention.
Install heat cameras on towers for early fire detection by police and firefighters. 
Use foreign aid to fund all of the above.

----------


## woodbe

> Oh so it is OLD NEWS wheeled out when there is a heat wave.  I know the ABC is salivating over this WEATHER event claiming it to be proof of global warming.  Do you? 
> Still a big fail for you do be promoting this junk at this point in time.

  Good grief. 'this junk' was a piece about Australian's and 'public risk perceptions,  understandings and responses to climate change and natural disasters' I did not mention the 'heat wave'. 
I pointed out that the most cursory glance at the referenced analysis would have saved you from making such a basic error, yet you want to send me on a guilt trip because YOU mentioned the heat wave. Fail x2  :Rolleyes:  
Increasing scope and frequency of extreme events is part of Climate Change. There is a lot more energy in the climate system now.  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> Funny how the Silly Morning Herald and the Australian Born Comunist did not do any survey last two summers wen we had mild and wet weather.
> So now that we are back to normal summer weather, at least in a patchy fashion, we are back to blame the weather for bush fires.
> Summer is hot. always been hot and always will be hot. Who decides what is normal and what is not? Who is so monumentally stupid as to believe we have a dial and can turn the heat down?
> Cheap solutions to bush fires:  
> Eliminate fuel on the ground by back burning and by eliminating the green movement. Ban them, make them illegal, declare them a terrorist organization.
> Declare bush fire season as the hunting season for arsonist by the police and the public.
> Give land owners the responsibility to clear around their property for fire prevention.
> Install heat cameras on towers for early fire detection by police and firefighters. 
> Use foreign aid to fund all of the above.

  Hmm, by the time you take out the hatred of all things that go against the "Marc" grain there is not much left is there. 
The solutions to bush fires may be a bit mixed up, back burning is something you do during a bush fire as a management tool to starve the main fire of fuel. The management tool you may be looking for is cool burns, this reduces fuel loads but the fire is low intensity meaning trees survive, bush regenerates, animals and birds (mainly) get away. Usually done before summer gets underway as everything is just starting to dry out. The real problem is having the resources to burn enough bush to reduce risk, in Victoria we are trying to increase prescribed burns but it is a limited window between to wet and to dry. 
Our biggest problem isn't bushfire so much as the wildfires they can turn into on dry windy days, strong northerly winds on a 40+ degree day are going to make almost anything burn. A fire lit at the end of winter is unlikely to ever take hold, weeks like last week are a guarantee of trouble if a fire takes hold and although arsonists are a huge problem dry storms can create lightening strokes in remote areas that are very difficult to get to and control.  
Most arsonists are never caught, put out all the police you like you are unlikely to trap many at all, fire towers already do a good job, heat cameras indeed you could never deploy enough or be able to monitor them well enough to make much difference beyond the system we already have. 
There are a few ill informed people on the lunatic fringe that may think we shouldn't burn at all but they don't have a voice and can't do much damage, most lunatics are easily spotted with their illogical phrasing and desperate over reaching so I wouldn't worry to much on that score.  
Clearing around houses is a good thing, but on its own not enough, some houses are simply in very dangerous areas, it is reduced fuel loads, you can't eliminate fire no matter what you do you can only hope to reduce it's impact. In the end though we are currently breaking temperature records this year and we have been lucky the fires haven't been worse.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Install heat cameras on towers for early fire detection by police and firefighters.

  Way ahead of you...they have these things called 'satellites'...been around since the 1950's. 
One of the most useful to fire services around the country (and the world) is a pair known as Terra and Aqua which are each fitted with a Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)   MODIS Website  
One of things they produce is the Image of the Day...like this one of the Yass fires...the red squares indicate hot spots picked up by the MODIS sensor  NASA Visible Earth: Wildfires in New South Wales 
And fire services in this country make very frequent use of it via this service Sentinel Hotspots and associated subscription services   
Try to keep up with the modern day, eh?

----------


## johnc

But do they come with a mounting bracket for Marc's tower?

----------


## Bedford

> But do they come with a mounting bracket for Marc's tower?

  No, but they come with a lot of limitations and disclaimers, Sentinel Hotspots 
A lot of scrub could burn in the up to 23 hour wait, that's of course if they're functioning.

----------


## johnc

We are now operating aircraft with infrared cameras from what I have read, I think Victoria had two aircraft fitted out. Spotting the initial fire will always be a mix of observation and anticipation especially on hot days and during summer dry storms, it will probably always be a mix of the fire towers, spotters and the general public. I suspect it will be a very long time before we have the technology to be able to use electronic means that is both affordable and sufficiently reliable. Anyway we can only ever minimise risk we can never eliminate it. If you've ever been caught in a burn off gone wrong you'll be aware how quickly these things take off with the right conditions and a bit of wind. I have no wish to be a firey but I certainly admire what they do.

----------


## Marc

> Way ahead of you...they have these things called 'satellites'...been around since the 1950's. 
> One of the most useful to fire services around the country (and the world) is a pair known as Terra and Aqua which are each fitted with a Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)  
> Try to keep up with the modern day, eh?

  Yes, yes I know you are oh so "modern" :Shock: , probably even own a smart phone!! Oh dear me, when will I ever catch up with you. 
Satellites have it's place in the fire fight but certainly not in early prevention and arson activity detection.
Your opinion is noted but as usual not very useful at all. 
The fact remains that far too little funds are dedicated to summer fire detection, and winter fuel reduction burnings. And the reason is that the greens don't like burning, and politicians don't like prosecute arsonist.  
I also think that it is disgraceful that we must rely on the charitable work of volunteers firefighters. We have money to send to those progressive places like Afganistan or Papua NG for example where leaders are role models of honesty and our money goes to build schools and churches, rather than pay salaries of fireman.  
The massive imbecility behind the "green" rotten movement can not be condoned any longer and should be prosecuted at every opportunity. 
In the eastern states in the US the law schools actually assign students to sue logging  companies and the government to prevent logging. Then the loggers can't  afford to manage the land, fuel builds up, and the fires are  in-manageable. They even prevent logging the burned timber after a fire.  All part of the same insanity. 
Of course politicians don't mind the vote or preference from any origin and would accept preferential votes from the "free heroin in primary schools" party if there was one, so not much help there. :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dr Freud

I'm man enough to cowboy the f#@( up and admit when I'm wrong. Like this below:   

> I must admit I have been laughing my @r5e off as the weather heats up.  Us misogynist nut-jobs (i.e. any male person who disagrees with JuLIAR) pressured the cult leaders so much by taking the pi55 out of all the recent cold weather, that they began chanting endlessly that "weather is not climate"..."weather is not climate" to ignore all the cold weather.  They were so dumb, that now they're just realising they've lost their biggest propaganda tool.   
> Now when the weather gets hot, they can't call it climate change any more.   
> Morons.

  Just when I started crediting the true believers with a tiny bit of coherence and intellect, we get this:   

> This is the new 'normal' 
> woodbe.

  Really?  You call millions of years "new"?   

> *FREQUENT BUSHFIRES WERE* ripping across the Australian landscape nearly 50 million years earlier than previously thought, a new study suggests. 
> Up until now, most studies have argued that bushfires have only been common for the past 15 million years.  Raging bushfires started 60 million years ago - Australian Geographic

  
You people are just embarrassing yourselves now.  :Biggrin:  
I've got a little bit of time to point out a bit more ineptitude now, then I'll try to get back for a thorough session of ridiculing as soon as possible.  :Wink 1:

----------


## Dr Freud

Holy snapping duck54it Batman, they've warped the Spacetime continuum:   

> Looks like even the delirious, panic-stricken opposition to the carbon tax *hasn't* altered people's perceptions as to what is going on. If anything, more people accept climate change than before. 
> woodbe.

  Do you have any idea what you're talking about?  Or do you just change your story regularly to suit the delusions of this cult? 
The word I've highlighted is the present tense (technically the present simple tense).  How is this possible for a survey that was conducted circa June/July 2010? Huh?  
2010 is not the present, that is the past, unless you're the time traveller's wife? But if you *had* intended mid 2010, then it makes even less sense.  Note the highlighted *had*?  Because then your sentence would read as follows:   

> "panic-stricken opposition to the carbon tax *hadn't* altered people's perceptions"

  You see, there was no "Carbon Tax" in mid 2010.  Rudd *had* only just dumped his ETS debacle and Abbott *had* ridiculed him over this, but definitely not a "panic-stricken opposition":   

> *Tony Abbott accuses Kevin Rudd of lacking 'guts' to fight for ETS*                                by:                                                                      Joe Kelly                             From:                                          The Australian                                 April 28, 2010                                 11:09AM    *                                  TONY Abbott portrayed Kevin Rudd as a leader who lacks the "guts" to  fight for his political convictions today after the Prime Minister  shelved the emissions trading scheme.*

  And as is well documented, that vile creature JuLIAR told this famous LIE right up to the election in November 2010 later that year:    
If you can't even work out the difference between past and present of a few years in the information you post (or have no idea what you're posting), no wonder you struggle with contextualising millions of years worth of data against your cherry picked few decades, eh?  :Biggrin:  
I'll ridicule the actual TAXPAYER funded survey soon, which is an even bigger blunder than the one you made.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

I've already ridiculed this cults fictional graph overlay for the fraud that it is, with better evidence of USA debt causing global warming than atmospheric CO2 levels.  But just for laughs before I forget again... 
Riddle me this Caped Cult Crusaders...you claim this fictional graph as "evidence" for this cults beliefs:   

> 

  
Note how this manufactured or "adjusted" data shows almost perfectly synchronised CO2 levels and temp levels.  Practically week by week, if not year by year...yet you also post this cults claim:   

> recent work has suggested that there's a lag  between CO2 and temperature increases (historically) by anything from  200 to 1,000 years ( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture10915.html  )...

  Really?  200 to 1000 years lag?  So, does this research say whether temp changes lag AFTER CO2 changes, or if CO2 changes lag AFTER temp changes first? 
Please let everyone else know.  :Biggrin:  
BUT, this is not the main game...IF we assume that this cult is even close to the truth that current temp changes lag AFTER CO2 changes, i.e. CO2 change causes temp changes (is that what "the science" you quoted shows???), then what happened to the lag? 
Either your lag of 200 to 1000 years, or your farcical graph, is mumbo jumbo cr@p? 
Now if you answer that "the science" shows that CO2 lags 200 to 1000 AFTER temp changes, i.e. temp changes cause CO2 levels, then this whole cultish belief is denying "the science" so is also mumbo jumbo cr@p? Eh?  :Biggrin:   Cos if we check back over 200 years or so prior to CO2 levels changing,we see temp changing first at the end of the little ice age.  So if temps changed circa 1600, then CO2 levels changed circa 1900, does this fit with the article "lag" you quoted above?  And dispute this cult? 
Maybe Boy Blunder could help out with the warped Spacetime continuum you also seem to be suffering from.  :Doh:  
I've got so much more ridiculous cultish information to cover, and so little time...but for those nincompoops who believe that weather is climate, here's just a tiny taste of mountains of "proof" of global cooling to terrify you:    

> On average over the last decade, the average number of *excess winter deaths* in England has been just over 25,100 a year.  HPA - Cold weather

  F@#( me!!! Over 25,100 per year!!!  That's a quarter million people *killed* *by lack of warming* over the past decade!!!  Just in England!!! 
I didn't see that statistic on the ABC. 
We better warm this bad blue ball up some, eh?  But surely this terrifying "global cooling proof" is not global:   

> *Cold weather-related deaths up to 4 in Maryland*  
> January 09, 2013|By Scott Dance, The Baltimore Sun
> State  health officials confirmed two more cold weather-related deaths in  Maryland over the past week, bringing the death toll to four in Maryland  so far this winter.  Cold weather-related deaths up to 4 in Maryland - Baltimore Sun

    

> North India is currently experiencing its coldest weather in decades...As of 9 Jan, the death toll from the cold wave stands at 200.  http://reliefweb.int/disaster/cw-2012-000207-ind

     

> Close to 200 people have now died from a bitter cold snap across Russia and eastern Europe.
>       In Ukraine, more than 80 lives were claimed and more than 500 people  hospitalised after temperatures dropped and stayed at minus 17 celsius.
>       Record snowfalls have trapped hundreds of vehicles, and the capital  Kiev has experienced its worst snow since records began in 1881.  Death toll rises from eastern Europe deep freeze | euronews, world news

   What a bunch of clowns! And they want to make the Planet colder! 
I say warm it up and save lives (assuming falsely we actually could control it like a thermostat).  :Doh:  
It's late, I'm tired, and latest polling suggests 38% of Aussies want to see our debt levels go above half a trillion dollars by voting for a vile creature who continually LIES.  All so their welfare handouts can continue.  When did we cross the threshold where the majority of Aussies would sacrifice for their country, to sacrificing their country for themselves?  :Confused:

----------


## woodbe

> You see, there was no "Carbon Tax" in mid 2010.  Rudd *had* only just dumped his ETS debacle and Abbott *had* ridiculed him over this, but definitely not a "panic-stricken opposition":

  Correct, there was no CT in 2010, but there certainly was panic stricken opposition to it. The Liberal party even went as far as canning a popular leader because he agreed with the population and the government. No way we can have that kind of behaviour in the Liberal party, we're supposed to be the negative party. Malcolm Turnbull had been dumped over the ETS in Dec 2009, and indeed this very thread started not long before and was in full flight during 2010, being a container for every denialist argument under the sun. Abbott had famously claimed climate change was 'absolute crap'. So 2010 was primed to be a year of panic stricken opposition, as it was. The ETS hit the wall in April. 
So in June/July 2010 the researchers sampled peoples views and they disagreed with Tony Abbott. Still do today, despite unbelievable moderation of his public views regarding climate change.  
Welcome to your 8.5% 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> What a bunch of clowns! And they want to make the Planet colder!

  It's not a bad idea, but unachievable.   
Record dates and temperatures for Australia, States and Territories. (tamino) 
and:   

> *NASA Finds 2012 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend*
>  NASA scientists say 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a *long-term trend of rising global temperatures*. With the exception of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with *2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record*

  NASA - NASA Finds 2012 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend 
The goal has always been to limit the increase. Never has it been to make it colder. 
woodbe

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> We are now operating aircraft with infrared cameras from what I have read, I think Victoria had two aircraft fitted out. Spotting the initial fire will always be a mix of observation and anticipation especially on hot days and during summer dry storms, it will probably always be a mix of the fire towers, spotters and the general public. I suspect it will be a very long time before we have the technology to be able to use electronic means that is both affordable and sufficiently reliable. Anyway we can only ever minimise risk we can never eliminate it. If you've ever been caught in a burn off gone wrong you'll be aware how quickly these things take off with the right conditions and a bit of wind. I have no wish to be a firey but I certainly admire what they do.

  Correct. There are many tools available to the firies (at all jurisdicitions) that the public are not aware of or have access to simply because they are regarded as emergency management resources.  None of them come cheap nor are they cheap to operate.  If anyone is interested then check out Fireweb which is Victorian agency portal... 
The very best fire detection tool is actually the general public...they are everywhere and can be extremely reliable and helpful.  When coupled with the network of towers, aircraft and satellites...most fires are actually spotted quite quickly.  The time critical exercise is actually getting the neccessary resources to the fire ground... 
As for the burning off...as usual, it's not as simple as Marc thinks...and the Greens have somewhere between zip and sweet F.A. to do with it. But if he and others would like to think that way...feel free. They'll have the same role in the decision making process as the Greens   :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yes, yes I know you are oh so "modern", probably even own a smart phone!!

  Certainly more modern in thinking....but I don't even own a mobile phone...   

> Oh dear me, when will I ever catch up with you.

  Catch me if you can...you'll be better for it.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Note how this manufactured or "adjusted" data shows almost perfectly synchronised CO2 levels and temp levels.  Practically week by week, if not year by year...yet you also post this cults claim:   
> Really?  200 to 1000 years lag?  So, does this research say whether temp changes lag AFTER CO2 changes, or if CO2 changes lag AFTER temp changes first? 
> Please let everyone else know.  
> BUT, this is not the main game...IF we assume that this cult is even close to the truth that current temp changes lag AFTER CO2 changes, i.e. CO2 change causes temp changes (is that what "the science" you quoted shows???), then what happened to the lag? 
> Either your lag of 200 to 1000 years, or your farcical graph, is mumbo jumbo cr@p? 
> Now if you answer that "the science" shows that CO2 lags 200 to 1000 AFTER temp changes, i.e. temp changes cause CO2 levels, then this whole cultish belief is denying "the science" so is also mumbo jumbo cr@p? Eh?   Cos if we check back over 200 years or so prior to CO2 levels changing,we see temp changing first at the end of the little ice age.  So if temps changed circa 1600, then CO2 levels changed circa 1900, does this fit with the article "lag" you quoted above?  And dispute this cult?

  The article in question suggested that there was typically a lag of between 200 and 1000 years between increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and increases in atmospheric temperature.  CO2 increased and then temperature.  Bear in mind though that the authors are refering to events in prehistory rather than in the modern day.  As these prehistoric events were a) not influenced by human impact and b) occurred over much longer geological time scales (not a measly 250 years) and c) may not match the breadth and scale (and certainly not the speed) of emissions compared to the modern event...then the issue of time frames with respect to lag in our modern case is probably a little different...more than likely even shorter since we have an unnatural event (so to speak) augmenting a natural event occurring over a geological time scale (emergence from the 'ice ages' over the last 20,000 years or so). 
I know you'd like things to be simple...but they sadly just aren't.  But that's OK too...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> What a bunch of clowns! And they want to make the Planet colder!

  You don't have to go far back into this edifice to see that there was just as many deaths and injuries during European heatwaves in recent summers...so at least your consistent even if what you wish for isn't  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):   :Biggrin:  
You'll have to wait a few millennia (and then some) before it gets cooler...even assuming we can moderate current emissions (which we won't).   
I (for one) look forward to the prospect of teaching my grandchildren how to go rock fishing from the Adelaide Hills in my dotage...or perhaps chasing a few King George Whiting on the plains of Adelaide.  That'd be nice.

----------


## Bedford

> As for the burning off...as usual, it's not as simple as Marc thinks...and the Greens have somewhere between zip and sweet F.A. to do with it.

  Maybe, but the EPA does.

----------


## Marc

> Certainly more modern in thinking....but I don't even own a mobile phone..

  This last tirade of crap from the usual suspects is so typical of those who want to impose their unproven"alternative" opinions by any mean necessary. Words like "modern", dinosaur, behind the times and other crap mean absolutely nothing. 
More "modern"in thinking but I don't own a mobile phone? 
Who does not have a phone? I understand a fiction writer living in a cave but not someone claiming to know better and pretending to have a handle on latest developments. See life is not the internet. Life is real stuff, how to make money to pay the mortgage or your kids school or both. How to make a profit, how to prosper, how to be in touch, how to be available to others who also live a real life, not fictional. real stuff you now? No phone? You must be kidding!  Your avatar makes so much more sense now... :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Maybe, but the EPA does.

  Only on the periphery (they have no real say in the how, when and where of back burning)...from memory, they only advise of potential for resultant smoke to persist over urban areas.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Who does not have a phone? I understand a fiction writer living in a cave but not someone claiming to know better and pretending to have a handle on latest developments. See life is not the internet. Life is real stuff, how to make money to pay the mortgage or your kids school or both. How to make a profit, how to prosper, how to be in touch, how to be available to others who also live a real life, not fictional. real stuff you now? No phone? You must be kidding!  Your avatar makes so much more sense now...

  I have a phone.  In fact I have two.  I just don't have a mobile phone.  I can do all the things you suggest just fine without one. Just like real life is not the internet...real life, happiness and immense social, intellectual and financial wealth is not predicated on having a mobile phone.  This I know to be true. 
My avatar has made sense for far longer than I care to recall...the saving grace is that I'm sufficiently self aware to know it. 
Now can we get back on topic?  Such as it is... 
How about this funny little widget?  Climate Change | New Scientist

----------


## Dr Freud

If you're defending a bad tax based on a LIE, then you have to become a denier of reality:   

> One man presents science on the ABC. The other is a senior minister in the government thats imposed the carbon tax.  
>   You would expect both not to be so ignorant about the very basic data on global warming:   In the foolish hope that these two men may reconsider their opinions  after consulting the evidence, here is data from the British Met showing  no statistically significant warming for 16 years:   
>   The UAH satellite data confirms a pause in the warming:    An admission from the godfather of global warming, NASAs James Hansen:  _The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing._ Another confirmation:  _ The data confirms the existence of a pause in the warming, confirmed  Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric  Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology._  More confirmation from MIT Professor Richard Lindzen:   _ There has been no warming since 1997 and no  statistically significant warming since 1995._Yet more (almost) confirmation, this time from global warming evangelist Phil Jones,  of the   Climatic Research Unit of Climategate notoriety, who jiggles  the dates to produce a still-statistically insignificant trend:  _ I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend  (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95%  significance level._Do Dr Karl and Emerson truly dispute this evidence? Are they so in denial? 
>   PS: an apology would be nice.   Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  Once the NSW, Victoria and WA Police fraud squads finish with these clowns, only true believers will believe anything they ever say.  Their current argument is that these law enforcement agencies are engaged in a "smear" campaign. 
But JuLIAR now has focus groups telling her wearing glasses makes her look trustworthy:    

> *Report: People Wearing Glasses Seem Like People You Can Trust*  
> Some defense lawyers now swear by an increasingly popular method of  getting their clients off free: Making them wear glasses in order to  come off "less menacing" to a jury. Veteran lawyer Harvey Slovis  explained, "Glasses soften their appearance so that they don't look  capable of committing a crime. I've tried cases where there's been a  tremendous amount of evidence, but my client wore glasses and got  acquitted. The glasses create a kind of unspoken nerd defense." For  example, there's Slovis' client Thomas Cordero, a nude housekeeper who stabbed  a client to death during rough sex and claimed self-defense. Last  month, "overwhelming evidence" was no match for his glasses, and a Bronx  jury acquitted him  after he sported bifocals throughout the trial, taking them off  as  soon as he was free.  
> And there you have it: Be careful around violent  hookers, even if they're wearing the cutest little frames.    Defense lawyers swear by gimmick of having defendants wearing glasses at trial

  
Now, do I correctly recall Craig Thompson being previously defended by a hooker wearing glasses as well?   
The irony has me laughing my @r$3 off.   :Biggrin:  
I think JuLIAR's words were "His word against mine, you decide". 
We're deciding just fine thanks, Ms "There will be no Carbon Tax under the government I lead".

----------


## barney118

> If you're defending a bad tax based on a LIE, then you have to become a denier of reality:   
> Once the NSW, Victoria and WA Police fraud squads finish with these clowns, only true believers will believe anything they ever say.  Their current argument is that these law enforcement agencies are engaged in a "smear" campaign.

  Being the leader of the country must come with some privileges. (An inquiry into if Juliar knew charges/ an arrest imminent of a government member?, hence an election date set the day before certainly is worth its weight in gold of damage control in an election year/minority Govt?)  
(Certainly raises further questions on the efficiency of our investigation processes) Fair Work refused to investigate HSU books, Aug 2011 Kathy Jackson broke the news, FWA inquiry report complete Dec2011, not released until Mar 2012 Proceedings Oct 2012, Ian Temby Final Report into corruption at the HSUeast Branch | Kangaroo Court of Australia    

> But JuLIAR now has focus groups telling her wearing glasses makes her look trustworthy:

   Funny you mention this as it was the first thing I noticed and said to myself "since when does Juliar wear glasses?"

----------


## barney118

Data extracted from our Bureau of Meteorology - Home Page site it appears that there is such thing as "climate change"   (mmm could use some help in how to put Excel charts as pictures)
Depending where you measure from and where you set the "datum" you will get "CHANGE" ! :brava: or should we be more politically correct in saying there is such thing as "climate variation" 
In a few points I have chosen in NSW these are "mean maximum temperatures from Bureau of Meteorology - Home Page " 
The first 3 sites Syd, Bellambi ( 2 klms from me) Albion Park, all have a coastal aspect Bellambi is right on the headland of the beach. Bankstown and Canberra obviously inland. Here we have variation of 3 deg in summer and 6 deg in winter. 
Interesting though Bellambi is significantly cooler in summer and slightly warmer in winter. These areas are within a 2.5-3hr road trip in NSW. 
Note   Statistics Years  Mean maximum temperature (°C) for years 1859 to 2012 Syd   Observatory Hill 154  Mean maximum temperature (°C) for years 1997 to 2012 Bellambi 15     Mean maximum temperature (°C) for years 1999 to 2012 Albion Park   airport 13     Mean maximum temperature (°C) for years 1968 to 2012 Bankstown   airport 44     Mean maximum temperature (°C) for years 1939 to 2010 Canberra   airport 72

----------


## woodbe

> Data extracted from our Bureau of Meteorology - Home Page site it appears that there is such thing as "climate change"   (mmm could use some help in how to put Excel charts as pictures)
> Depending where you measure from and where you set the "datum" you will get "CHANGE" !or should we be more politically correct in saying there is such thing as "climate variation" 
> In a few points I have chosen in NSW these are "mean maximum temperatures from Bureau of Meteorology - Home Page "

  So, you're comparing the mean monthly temperatures for a bunch of hand picked locations all having different numbers of years in their average, and deciding that the resulting mishmash tells you there is no such thing as climate change. 
Well done. 
Stick to your day job.  :Rolleyes:  
I was surprised at Julia's glasses too. 
woodbe.

----------


## barney118

> So, you're comparing the mean monthly temperatures for a bunch of hand picked locations all having different numbers of years in their average, and deciding that the resulting mishmash tells you there is no such thing as climate change. 
> Well done. 
> Stick to your day job.  
> I was surprised at Julia's glasses too. 
> woodbe.

  I thought it was interesting, yes hand picked locations, one thing in common though, they all seem to follow a season. 
So has the world decided on where the international datum is for measurement of temperature? 
1. Temperature is measured to an international standard  Temperature measurement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. Temperature is a function of the barometric pressure  Standard conditions for temperature and pressure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ( look at the variation in how to measure temperature and pressure) 
ISO standard temp and press at mean sea level is 15 deg c and 101.3 kpa (back to pilot skills) for every 1kpa variation in pressure an altimeter (measures your height above mean sea level in an aircraft) the height changes equate to 30ft. Ambient pressure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
For every 1000 feet of height temperature changes 2 deg upto the troposphere. (it helps to understand this for aircraft performance on how long it takes to stop and how much distance is required for takeoff) 
Where does it state in measurement of temperatures that CO2 is a function?
Why do pilots pay special attention to the barometric pressure? because if they didn't you could be 30ft higher or lower when it comes to the runway to land.

----------


## woodbe

> I thought it was interesting, yes hand picked locations, one thing in common though, they all seem to follow a season. 
> So has the world decided on where the international datum is for measurement of temperature?

  Oh dear. 
Yes, I think the scientists are quite aware of the Lapse Rate 
Have you ever wondered why temperature studies carried out by qualified personnel almost always deal with Anomalies?  Wood for Trees: Notes 
When looking for evidence of changing temperatures over time, an arithmetic mean over the time period in question is a pretty meaningless measure. The temperature trend could be going up or down, but the mean will be just one figure with no trend. By all means, if you find that proof for a lack of warming, go right ahead.  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## barney118

> Oh dear. 
> When looking for evidence of changing temperatures over time, an arithmetic mean over the time period in question is a pretty meaningless measure. The temperature trend could be going up or down, but the mean will be just one figure with no trend. By all means, if you find that proof for a lack of warming, go right ahead.  
> woodbe.

  So when will scientists agree on an international measure? When will they update the international standard on measuring temperature to include CO2 factor? Surely these "qualified personnel" must be able to calculate with accuracy with supercomputers 'the law governing" or "mathematical formula" concentration of CO2 effect on temperature? As Pilots around the world have agreed on ISO datum.  
Or do we just accept that meteorology is a science and temperature/ climate varies all over the place, is just that variation not change as claimed. 
The use of fear words such as "catastrophic" if the worlds temperature increased 2 deg and "devastation" have lost their meaning. (if as you propose the earth has been warming of late, then where is the devastation?) then there must be concentrations of CO2 in these areas to correlate this hypothesis and it should be able to scientifically proven that CO2 is the cause? 
We will wait until this can be proven...Where is Albert Einstein when you need him...... :Rolleyes:

----------


## johnc

Barney, 
Can't you see that the graph you have produced has absolutely no relevence to the conclusions you are trying to make, also your conclusions seem to be based on political bias rather than anything else. By all means use the Bogan's Juliar tag but don't expect it to demean much more than your own reputation, let's face it if all you have is cheap insults to hide lack of substance then you have nothing at all. Yes I was also amused by Ms Gillards glasses, wonder if they are the result of a focus group somewhere.

----------


## woodbe

> So when will scientists agree on an international measure? When will they update the international standard on measuring temperature to include CO2 factor? Surely these "qualified personnel" must be able to calculate with accuracy with supercomputers 'the law governing" or "mathematical formula" concentration of CO2 effect on temperature? As Pilots around the world have agreed on ISO datum.

  Have you heard of degrees Celcius? That is the international measure for recording surface temperature. It's pretty common, I'm a little surprised you haven't heard of it.  :Doh:  
This may come as a shock to you, but when we measure the temperature and record it, there is no calculation required for anything. Record the temperature, the date, and the time of day. Crazy, eh? 
Over time, the records accumulate and can be studied looking for changes to do with seasons and other events. That's how it works, Barney.  :2thumbsup:     

> Or do we just accept that meteorology is a science and temperature/ climate varies all over the place, is just that variation not change as claimed.

  Well, you certainly won't be the first person to claim that climate science ignores natural variability. You must think those scientists are total numbskulls to have not thought of that! Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 is a recent example among many.    

> The use of fear words such as "catastrophic" if the worlds temperature increased 2 deg and "devastation" have lost their meaning. (if as you propose the earth has been warming of late, then where is the devastation?) then there must be concentrations of CO2 in these areas to correlate this hypothesis and it should be able to scientifically proven that CO2 is the cause? 
> We will wait until this can be proven...Where is Albert Einstein when you need him......

  That's right Barney, we should just ignore the warming and put our heads in the sand, pretending it isn't happening. That would work ok for most of us, we'll be dead and buried before things start getting 'hectic' around here. Future generations? Let em work it out for themselves.  :Eek:  
woodbe.

----------


## Johning

> Yes I was also amused by Ms Gillards glasses, wonder if they are the result of a focus group somewhere.

  A TV presenter suggested it may be an homage to Elvis Costello. :Wink:

----------


## Hoff

> Oh dear. 
> Yes, I think the scientists are quite aware of the Lapse Rate
>  e.

  Woodbe, do you have any comment on the views of the scientists listed in the post of Dr Freud who acknowledge a lack of recent warming.  This fact seems to be contrary to the predictions of the models.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe, do you have any comment on the views of the scientists listed in the post of Dr Freud who acknowledge a lack of recent warming.  This fact seems to be contrary to the predictions of the models.

  Sure.  
As already explained to Barney, Climate Scientists do not discount natural variability. It can either mask and amplify the global warming signal. 
Skeptics will tell you that warming has 'stopped' when natural variability has equalised the trend. If the natural variability is measured and accounted for, the underlying warming signal remains. (See Foster and Rahmstorf 2011) 
You can pick a dozen (or more) times this has happened in the last century of so, yet the long term trend is still up: http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl 
The quotes from Prof Phil Jones were relevant to a clever question in 2010. A year later, the same warming trend passed the statistically significant test, yet the skeptic sites did not report that, I wonder why? 
The reality is that skeptic sites will all crow every time there is natural variability against the warming signal, yet we know that this is a fact of the climate system. 
woodbe.

----------


## Dr Freud

Focus groups and research indicates glasses can "fake" trust to mask the "real" JuLIAR that no-one trusts anymore, not even her own supporters who are either leaking, quitting or defending themselves from fraud charges in various jurisdictions.   

> A study that was recently published in the Swiss Journal of  Psychology looked at the common stereotypes of those who wear glasses...The study authors discovered that many still perceive people who sport eyewear to be more intelligent but also *trustworthy*  Stereotypes of those who wear glasses

  JuLIAR thinks that by making a spectacle of herself, that we're all so dumb we'll forget all this:     
But wait, who's this new trustworthy stranger?     
Does she really think Aussies are that stupid?  Let's see, here's a stupidity test: 
Put your hand up if you believe the extra tax Aussies are paying is making the Planet Earth cooler than the psychic computer prophecies?
Anyone?  Go on, be brave...put your mouth where JuLIAR is flushing our taxpayer money, down the greenie gurgler.  :Doh:  
And I''ll be back to ridicule the cults propaganda above when I stop laughing over this idiocy, then crying over the state of our country... :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

> A TV presenter suggested it may be an homage to Elvis Costello.

  Amazing that the Anyone But Conservatives (ABC) would play the person with glasses "Watching the detectives":       

> The Prime Minister could be caught up in a criminal investigation.  Victoria Police appear to be taking seriously an allegation made by  serial campaigner Michael Smith. The allegation is extremely grave and  if proved, it attracts a penalty of imprisonment (10 years maximum) as  outlined in Section 83A of the Victorian Crimes Act.  
>  Last October, Smith sent police a written complaint *alleging Julia  Gillard created a false document*, a power of attorney, that enabled a  house in Fitzroy to be purchased in 1993 with money from a union slush  fund . 
> But in a significant development, this month a Victorian detective  travelled to Queensland and spent days interviewing another witness  relating to the document, Olivia Palmer, who worked with Gillard at law  firm Slater & Gordon.  *Victoria Police confirmed its fraud and extortion squad is investigating  a complaint* regarding the alleged misappropriation of funds from a  union and, quite properly, would not confirm who may or may not be under  investigation.  
> But next time the ALP use the word smear, someone could say police dont investigate smears.  
>  Next time the ALP say no allegations have been made, someone could  say an allegation was made last October and the authorities seem to be  attending to it.  
>  Next time the Prime Minister says there is not one substantiated  allegation, someone could say that only the finding of a court can  substantiate an allegation so that statement is irrelevant. Wrongdoing  doesnt have to be proven before people can ask questions.  
>  At some stage, Victoria Police will conclude their investigation.  Claims about PM refuse to die down

  Both the ABC and Fairfax media now actually reporting factual news, one even with a sense of humour...maybe there is a Gaia after all?  :Biggrin:  
Goodbye and good riddance to the Carbon Dioxide Tax...soon...very soon.  :Biggrin:

----------


## barney118

> Have you heard of degrees Celcius? That is the international measure for recording surface temperature. It's pretty common, I'm a little surprised you haven't heard of it.

   :Doh:  silly me but I thought real scientists work in degrees Kelvin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.   

> This may come as a shock to you, but when we measure the temperature and record it, there is no calculation required for anything. Record the temperature, the date, and the time of day. Crazy, eh? 
> Over time, the records accumulate and can be studied looking for changes to do with seasons and other events. That's how it works, Barney.

  Seems like we have different types of scientists in the world, real ones end up with being able to justify with the laws including calculations and it is up to other scientists to prove it wrong Laws of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. "
There have been suggestions of additional laws, but none of them  achieve the generality of the four accepted laws, and they are not  mentioned in standard textbooks.[1][2][3][4][5][8][9]
 The laws of thermodynamics are important fundamental laws in physics and they are applicable in other natural sciences."  
I have a suggestion: 
Temperature (c)  = (no of CO2 in the atmosphere) squared + No of scientists that agree - Carbon Dioxide tax +man made pollution + natural processes (Boreal forest of Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, also under the more specific topic of permafrost)/(divided by) the number of scientists and voters who are sceptics. 
  (units of measure in the answer is in Juliars Jr for short) 
So it can be seen that as tax increases there should be a decrease in temperature.
and its divided by the number of sceptics and voters because no matter how many there are you will never have enough lobby groups, influence to change the perception otherwise.   

> Well, you certainly won't be the first person to claim that climate science ignores natural variability. You must think those scientists are total numbskulls to have not thought of that! Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 is a recent example among many. 
>  That's right Barney, we should just ignore the warming and put our heads in the sand, pretending it isn't happening. That would work ok for most of us, we'll be dead and buried before things start getting 'hectic' around here. Future generations? Let em work it out for themselves.  
> woodbe.

  I have never said that warming isn't happening, I agree that the worlds has gone through cycles and we could be seeing increases in air temperature but no matter which way you measure it you are simply going to get variation its not change or permanent change. I still struggle with temperature/pressure relationship on how you can measure them seperately but they directly related. 
(since when is a marijuana smoking, with a poor record in maths and science (  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Harvard) and economist (Ross Garnaut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)  experts on the weather?   

> That's right Barney, we should just ignore the warming and put our  heads in the sand, pretending it isn't happening. That would work ok for  most of us, we'll be dead and buried before things start getting  'hectic' around here. Future generations? Let em work it out for  themselves.

  Looking at the chart I produced (measured at government locations), I see variation of 2 degrees and more in a period of 154-14 years and still waiting for the "hectic" to start ( I have been quietly building an Ark I believe it worked last time  :Biggrin:  , hence my interest in woodwork, Still dont know why buildings in Jesus era were made out of stone......) 
My head isnt in the sand, I am trying to get a Nobel prize in solving this equation, but tell me how a "Tax" is going to solve the problem? When we give most of it back to underprivillaged in a cash splash, and tell me how the environment is benefiting? :Wink:  
As far as future generations, since when do I have a conscious or moral obligation for this? Albert sums it up: 
"Politics is more difficult than physics." - Albert Einstein
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax." - Albert Einstein
"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." - Albert Einstein
"Do you believe in immortality? No, and one life is enough for me." - Albert Einstein
"I never think of the future. It comes soon enough." - Albert Einstein  http://www.alberteinsteinsite.com/qu...s.html#science

----------


## woodbe

> silly me but I thought real scientists work in degrees Kelvin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  Sure Barney, but the thermometers are calibrated in the international standard, Celsius. If you have a penchant to work in Kelvin, it is easily converted. We're talking about the temperature record here.   
[..]    

> I have never said that warming isn't happening, I agree that the worlds has gone through cycles and we could be seeing increases in air temperature but no matter which way you measure it you are simply going to get variation its not change or permanent change. I still struggle with temperature/pressure relationship on how you can measure them seperately but they directly related. 
>  [..] 
> Looking at the chart I produced (measured at government locations), I see variation of 2 degrees and more in a period of 154-14 years and still waiting for the "hectic" to start ( I have been quietly building an Ark I believe it worked last time  , hence my interest in woodwork, Still dont know why buildings in Jesus era were made out of stone......)

   
Nope, not seeing it. I see variations between locations, and variations between seasons, but no variations per location over multiple years. All of the records for each month at each site are averaged. This chart effectively hides any change over time.    

> My head isnt in the sand, I am trying to get a Nobel prize in solving this equation, but tell me how a "Tax" is going to solve the problem? When we give most of it back to underprivillaged in a cash splash, and tell me how the environment is benefiting? 
> As far as future generations, since when do I have a conscious or moral obligation for this? Albert sums it up: 
> "Politics is more difficult than physics." - Albert Einstein
> "The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax." - Albert Einstein
> "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." - Albert Einstein
> "Do you believe in immortality? No, and one life is enough for me." - Albert Einstein
> "I never think of the future. It comes soon enough." - Albert Einstein  http://www.alberteinsteinsite.com/qu...s.html#science

  My personal position is that we should be leaving things in a better state than we found them. Many would agree. Actually, I think most would agree.  
Good luck with your Nobel Prize. :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Here we go one of the "hockey stick" scientist now thinks the "sensitivity" is to high in the IPPC reports. 
What next!!   

> Below is the comment left by Andy, quoting Annans email, bolding added: The climate scientist James Annan sent these thoughts by email:
> Well, the press release is a bit strange, because it sounds like it is talking about the Aldrin et al paper which was published some time ago, to no great fanfare. I dont know if they have a further update to that.
> Anyway, there have now been several recent papers showing much the same  numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all *makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.*

  * * This maybe?   

> *UPDATE:* over at Annans blog, now there is this new essay expounding on the issue titled: A sensitive matter, and this paragraph in it caught my eye because it speaks to a recent leak done here at WUWT: But the point stands, that the IPCCs sensitivity estimate cannot readily be reconciled with forcing estimates and observational data. All the recent literature that approaches the question from this angle comes up with similar answers, including the papers I mentioned above. By failing to meet this problem head-on, the IPCC authors now find themselves in a bit of a pickle. I expect them to brazen it out, on the grounds that they are the experts and are quite capable of squaring the circle before breakfast if need be. But in doing so, they risk being seen as not so much summarising scientific progress, but obstructing it.

   
The whole train wreck can be seen here.  BREAKING: an encouraging admission of lower climate sensitivity by a ‘hockey team’ scientist, along with new problems for the IPCC | Watts Up With That?  
With the the carbon price collapse and the "world that refuses to warm", we are getting closer and closer to a complete collapse of this rotton con job.   
Sit back with the popcorn guys, it is still a way to go.

----------


## woodbe

> Sit back with the popcorn guys, it is still a way to go.

  Reckon. 
James Annan is a good bloke, pity you don't quote him direct:   

> Yeah, I should probably have had a tl;dr version, which is that sensitivity is still about 3C. 
> The  discerning reader will already have noted that my previous posts on the  matter actually point to a value more likely on the low side of this  rather than higher, and were I pressed for a more precise value, 2.5  might have been a better choice even then. But I'd rather be a little  conservative than risk being too Pollyanna-ish about it.

  It's heartening that WUWT is rating this story. For AGW to disappear like they (and you) claim, they need a null climate sensitivity to CO2. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Reckon. 
> James Annan is a good bloke, pity you don't quote him direct:   
> It's heartening that WUWT is rating this story. For AGW to disappear like they (and you) claim, they need a null climate sensitivity to CO2. 
> woodbe.

  Is comming down buddy. 
It is the only thing you have got to hang on to and none of the empirical evidence is supporting this theory.  You are going to have to let it go sometime.  Where is your tipping point. some said it was 15 years of no warming, how many for you?

----------


## barney118

> Sure Barney, but the thermometers are calibrated in the international standard, Celsius. If you have a penchant to work in Kelvin, it is easily converted. We're talking about the temperature record here.   
> [..]      
> Nope, not seeing it. I see variations between locations, and variations between seasons, but no variations per location over multiple years. All of the records for each month at each site are averaged. This chart effectively hides any change over time.

  Notice the figures here are the Mean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia not Average - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and Statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia not get confused with Statistics (disambiguation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.    

> My personal position is that we should be leaving things in a better state than we found them. Many would agree. Actually, I think most would agree.  
> Good luck with your Nobel Prize. 
> woodbe.

  I think things are better as we leave them as those before us, colour tv, internet, running water, hot water, electricity, transport, nuclear power, higgs boson. 
"Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is to not stop questioning." - Albert Einstein
"I have deep faith that the principle of the universe will be beautiful and simple." - Albert Einstein
"The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them." - Albert Einstein  
"And most importantly Beer with bubbles" - Barney 
Nobel Prize  :No:  I dont see that around the corner.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## barney118

Climate change signals raining down but proof will take centuries  I cant believe they actually publish such rubbish with no substantial evidence. Note not one mention of CO2 in the article as it is implied that it is accepted propaganda. 
"For Australia, 2013 looks like being a "year of living extremely" if January is anything to go by.The Bureau of Meteorology says January was the hottest ever month in just over a century of records.
                               Nationwide, the January average maximum temperature anomaly  was 2.28 degrees, "a substantial increase" on the previous record of  2.17 degrees set in 1932.
          And, thanks to the unusual scale of the massive heatwave that  dominated the first half of January, all states and territories posted  above-average temperatures, the bureau said."  No mention of CO2 being responsible. So one month of "average maximum" (since when is this statistically important")   
This week's floods, of course, added to the extremes. The Queensland  Premier, Campbell Newman, warned damage to the state's economy was $2.4  billion and rising, eclipsing the $2.388 billion bill from the huge  flooding of 2011. Insurers don't think it will be that bad for them.
          Add in record low rainfall for much of southern Australia, a  flurry of bushfires and it looks a lot like climate change is kicking in  - or does it?
          Professor John McAneney, the director of Risk Frontiers, an  independent research group funded mostly by the insurance industry, says  that based on a database of natural hazard events in Australia,  including some dating back to 1803, "there has been no increase in the  frequency of natural hazard events since 1950".
          But what of the spiralling insurance claims in the wake of  hailstorms, floods, cyclones (think Yasi at $1.4 billion) and bushfires  ($4 billion for Victoria's Black Saturday firestorms)?  Another 1% levy "one off" to pay for the crying insurance companies and governments.  
          "What we can see very clearly is that when this dataset   is  corrected for the increases in numbers of buildings at risk and their  value, no long term trend remains,"  Professor McAneney said.  "where is the dataset so we can anaylse it ourselves, since when are data sets modified to only include buildings?  
          ''It is indisputable that the rising toll of natural disasters is due to more people and assets at risk."  So how does CO2 and its indisputable link to now natural disasters?  
          He said US hurricane modelling to identify a signal climate  change is contributing to storm strength suggests it could be a while  before the data is definitive. Averaging 18 different climate models,  "it's going to take 260 years", he said.  Like any claim to global warming etc effects of CO2 tax no one will be around to prove or disprove a hypotheses.  
          "This whole thing about climate change being responsible for  an increase in extreme weather, or natural disasters, is just a fiction  really."
          Cue howls of protests from climatologists and cries of "gotcha" from climate change doubters? Not quite.
          Some climate change signals are clearer than others, and  there is no reason to ignore the direction most indicators are clearly  pointed, said Andrew Ash, director of the climate adaptation flagship at  the CSIRO.
          "It doesn't mean all extremes are changing," Mr Ash said.
          Take temperature, for instance. The weather bureau notes that  during 2001-11, the frequency of record high temperatures in Australia  was 2.8 times (for maximum temperatures) and 5.2 times for minimums than  the rate of record low temperatures.
          Sea temperatures are also increasing, with waters in the  Australian region about 0.6-0.7 degrees warmer than they were in 1900,  said Neil Plummer, assistant director of the weather bureau's climate  information services.
          Add a warmer atmosphere - with temperatures about 1 degree  higher than pre-industrial levels and rising - there is little doubt  more moisture can be held and then dumped in the form of more severe  rain deluges.    
          A peer-reviewed report for the American Meteorological Society's _Journal of Climate_ by  researchers including Seth Westra, a hydrologist at the University of  Adelaide, bears that out. The report found statistically significant  increasing trends globally of annual maximum daily precipitation, using a  dataset of 8326 high quality observing sites with more than 30 years of  records.  So CO2 now responsible for more moisture, My 4 data points no comparison to "8326 random ones"?  
          The median intensity of extreme precipitation increases "in  proportion with changes in global mean temperature at a rate of between  5.9 per cent and 7.7 per cent per degree, depending on the method of  analysis," the report found.
          The big wet, when it comes, is getting wetter. But what of Australia? The weather bureau says it depends where you look.
          The annual number of days with more than 30 millimetres of  rain  from 1950-2012 has  decreased in the southern and eastern parts of  the country but increased in the north.  "Ahhh finally an on the fence look, More rain towards the equator and less to the South (climate 101) So if you live up North you should pay CO2 tax, and we weill give it to the people of the South to buy water. (blind Joe could have told you water is an important resource and maybe building a pipeline from Nth to south you can pump in either direction, or you could be a redundant desalination plant)  
          And as for the frequency of disasters, such as cyclones,  the  answer is complex because there aren't many instances in the record to  count.
          "Because you're dealing with a very small number of very  extreme events    the size of the signal you would need to have before  it was statistically significant is detectable is quite big," said Blair  Trewin, a senior climatologist at the bureau.
          "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."  "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein

----------


## woodbe

> Is comming down buddy. 
> It is the only thing you have got to hang on to and none of the empirical evidence is supporting this theory.  You are going to have to let it go sometime.  Where is your tipping point. some said it was 15 years of no warming, how many for you?

  The theory is based on known physics, and the scientific study of the climate system. My 'tipping point' would be a massive groundswell of change in the scientific study of the climate system. This 'breaking news' from WUWT is not it, it's not news at all, even from the Author. 
From wikipedia:  

> Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (Meehl _et al._, 2007)[17]  stated that confidence in estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity  had increased substantially since the TAR. AR4's assessment was based on  a combination of several independent lines of evidence, including  observed climate change and the strength of known "feedbacks" simulated in general circulation models.[18] IPCC authors concluded that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2 (a concentration of approximately 540 parts-per-million  (ppm)), or equilibrium climate sensitivity, very likely is greater than  2.7 °F (1.5 °C) and likely to lie in the range 4 to 8.1 °F (2 to  4.5 °C), with a most likely value of about 5 °F (3 °C). For fundamental  physical reasons, as well as data limitations, the IPCC states a climate  sensitivity higher than 8.1 °F (4.5 °C) cannot be ruled out, but that  agreement for these values with observations and "proxy" climate data is generally worse compared to values in the 4 to 8.1  °F (2 to 4.5 °C) range.[18]

  Given that the vast majority of published, peer reviewed climate science supports AGW, and now that WUWT apparently thinks the argument is now about Sensitivity, not whether AGW exists at all or not, what is your tipping point? 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Notice the figures here are the Mean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia not Average - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and Statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia not get confused with Statistics (disambiguation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  Good call.   :Smilie:  
Let me rephrase, I'm still interested to hear how you get a long term trend out of this graph:   

> Looking at the chart I produced (measured at government locations), I  see variation of 2 degrees and more in a period of 154-14 years

  Nope, not seeing it. I see variations between locations, and variations  between seasons, but no variations per location over multiple years. All  of the records for each month at each site are represented by arithmetic means. This chart  effectively hides any change over time. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The theory is based on known physics, and the scientific study of the climate system. My 'tipping point' would be a massive groundswell of change in the scientific study of the climate system. This 'breaking news' from WUWT is not it, it's not news at all, even from the Author. 
> From wikipedia:  
> Given that the vast majority of published, peer reviewed climate science supports AGW, and now that WUWT apparently thinks the argument is now about Sensitivity, not whether AGW exists at all or not, what is your tipping point? 
> woodbe.

  We all know and agree on the physics of Co2, But the essential ingredient for increased Co2 to be a problem, is the "sensitivity" creating a a so called "loop" of every increasing temperature rise, through the increase of water vapour.  This is how the models work.  Take away the sensitivity and the loop and you have no dramatic warming.   
For the modles and this theory to be working, then we should have seen ever increasing temperatures over the past 16 years.  Even with all the adjusted data it is flatlining.  This cannot be explained by the warmist, hence the downgrading of sensitivity.   
Interestingly more water vapour will create cooler days but warmer nights.  Problem?  
The physics of Co2 are indisputeable the "assumed" sensitivity etc is all hairy fairy guesswork.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> and now that WUWT apparently thinks the argument is now about Sensitivity, not whether AGW exists at all or not, what is your tipping point? 
> woodbe.

  Hey I asked you first.  You going to give me an answer?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Maybe this will fill in some gaps Woodbe.   

> *Common ground amongst DAGW protagonists*
> Though you wouldnt know it from the antagonistic nature of public discussions about global warming, a large measure of scientific agreement and shared interpretation exists amongst nearly all scientists who consider the issue.  
> The common ground, much of which was traversed by Dr. Hayhoe in her article, includes: 
> · that climate has always changed and always will, 
> · that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and warms the lower atmosphere, 
> · that human emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere, 
> · that a global warming of around 0.5OC occurred in the 20th century, but
> · that global warming has ceased over the last 15 years. 
> The scientific argument over DAGW is therefore about none of these things. Rather, it is almost entirely about three other, albeit related, issues. They are: 
> ...

  And this   

> *What evidence can we use to test the DAGW hypothesis?* 
> Many different lines of evidence can be used to test the DAGW hypothesis. Here I have space to present just five, all of which are based upon real world empirical data. For more information, please read both Dr. Hayhoes and my book. 
> Consider the following tests: 
> (i)     Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%. 
> Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. *Hypothesis fails.* 
> (ii)   During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4O C and 0.7O C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about 1.7O C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1O C warmer than today, at rates of warming up to  2.5O C/century.
> In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. *Hypothesis fails, twice.* 
> (iii)  If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature.
> In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling. *Hypothesis fails.* 
> ...

  Too logical for you? 
Full link here. Global Warming: Anthropogenic or Not? | Watts Up With That?

----------


## woodbe

> Hey I asked you first.  You going to give me an answer?

  And I answered you first. Apparently, you didn't read it. Here it is again:   

> My 'tipping point' would be a massive groundswell of change in the scientific study of the climate system.

  So, what is yours?

----------


## woodbe

> Maybe this will fill in some gaps Woodbe.   
> And this 
> Too logical for you? 
> Full link here. Global Warming: Anthropogenic or Not? | Watts Up With That?

  So, someone purporting to analyse climate science based on a flawed analysis of the last 16 years.   
So, (a) there has been warming, and there is a warming trend, and (b) in any case, 16 years is too short a time period to discern climatic trends. 
If we look at the normal period for climatic analysis, ~30 years, we see climate variability in context:   
No, not logical enough for me. Show me the peer reviewed scientific paper that supports your proposition. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> So, someone purporting to analyse climate science based on a flawed analysis of the last 16 years.   
> So, (a) there has been warming, and there is a warming trend, and (b) in any case, 16 years is too short a time period to discern climatic trends.  
> Your point is really that you can't understand the reference to 15 years & have punched in 16 years to support your argument, try again with 15 years & we will all see the mean line then   
> If we look at the normal period for climatic analysis, ~30 years, we see climate variability in context: 
> That is not what is being debated at the present, but if it were then the doc would just hit you again with the past historical proof that the temperature has gone up & down in the last century or few million years with no relationship to co2 atmospheric concentrations 
> woodbe.

  Regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Your point is really that you can't understand the reference to 15 years  & have punched in 16 years to support your argument, try again with  15 years & we will all see the mean line then

  If you say so. I was only going from the 16 years in Rod's post:   

> (i)     Over the last 16 years,

  But as you wish:    
Doc can and will go on about every sort of distraction from the actual science. That's why he quotes so much politics here and tripe from Bolt. 
Talking of Bolt, did you know he's doing his own analysis now? He's quite good at it. (not)  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

LOL .1 statistically significant?? 
You are grasping at straws. 
No comment on the failures of the theory posted above??  I thought not.  Hard to argue against eh!!

----------


## woodbe

> LOL .1 statistically significant??

  LOL yourself  :Rolleyes:  You chose the term, not me. You wanted a cherry pick to show what your eyeballs told you, but they were wrong.  
I wonder how many times we have to play the Phil Jones game until it sinks in. If you ask a loaded question about short term temperature, it will hardly ever be statistically significant. Joe Public doesn't understand (yet) but it is the questioner who is displaying ignorance, not the other way around. 
Think of it the other way: You claim the warming has stopped. Statistically significant? LOL 
Re the 'failures of the theory', happy to have a look at them when they are published in peer review. Otherwise it's just a bunch of blogsite claptrap. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

So I guess you are not willing to provide a tipping point Rod? 
Welded on much?  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> LOL .1 statistically significant?? 
> You are grasping at straws. 
> No comment on the failures of the theory posted above?? I thought not. Hard to argue against eh!!

  It is rather odd that for someone who has so many posts deriding short term figures that you would attempt to hang your hat on one very limited short term event. 
If you desperately want to believe on a level bordering on fanaticism then I guess you can try to make something out of a single specific period while conveniently ignoring all other available data. 
Really what we have is a single specific set of data in a sea of data, it is not significant on it's own however in the overall discussion it is certainly a number of interest, only time will tell if it is anything more than that. There are many natural variables to temperature movement is this simply a variation brought about by the convergence of a number of factors or is there some balancing factor at work. If you are genuine in your interest in the data then you need to consider this air temperature data along with sea temperature and frequency of minimum and maximum extremes and so forth. If it is the killer punch that supports a long held and probably unsustainable belief (aka religious fervour) then this on its own is pretty insignificant. Let's try to make an effort to provide some weighting to the numbers we use rather than simply rely on the politicing that dominates this subject.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So I guess you are not willing to provide a tipping point Rod? 
> Welded on much?  
> woodbe.

  what tipping point?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It is rather odd that for someone who has so many posts deriding short term figures that you would attempt to hang your hat on one very limited short term event. 
> If you desperately want to believe on a level bordering on fanaticism then I guess you can try to make something out of a single specific period while conveniently ignoring all other available data. 
> Really what we have is a single specific set of data in a sea of data, it is not significant on it's own however in the overall discussion it is certainly a number of interest, only time will tell if it is anything more than that. There are many natural variables to temperature movement is this simply a variation brought about by the convergence of a number of factors or is there some balancing factor at work. If you are genuine in your interest in the data then you need to consider this air temperature data along with sea temperature and frequency of minimum and maximum extremes and so forth. If it is the killer punch that supports a long held and probably unsustainable belief (aka religious fervour) then this on its own is pretty insignificant. Let's try to make an effort to provide some weighting to the numbers we use rather than simply rely on the politicing that dominates this subject.

  
Hang in there guys, you will get it one day!  The AGW theory is all but dead.

----------


## johnc

> Hang in there guys, you will get it one day! The AGW theory is all but dead.

  Only to a dwindling minority, it does remain your right to be as one eyed as you wish to be of course.

----------


## woodbe

> Where is your tipping point. some said it was 15 years of no warming, how many for you?

   

> The theory is based on known physics, and the  scientific study of the climate system. My 'tipping point' would be a  massive groundswell of change in the scientific study of the climate  system.

   

> Given that the vast majority of published, peer reviewed climate science supports AGW,  and now that WUWT apparently thinks the argument is now about  Sensitivity, not whether AGW exists at all or not, what is your tipping  point?

   

> Hey I asked you first.  You going to give me an answer?

   

> And I answered you first. Apparently, you didn't read it. Here it is again:     
> 			
> 				My 'tipping point' would be a  massive groundswell of change in the scientific study of the climate  system.
> 			
> 		   So, what is yours?

   

> what tipping point?

  Rod, you asked me YESTERDAY. Are you OK? 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

Another graph for the bored and restless, it does our minds a world of good to be frequently opened to new ideas and to have the old ones challenged, it is only the fool who is unable to test old views and old prejudice. The 15/16 year period of more stable temperature simply tests the models it does not see temperature fall nor does it see significant rise. The following graph shows water temperature change, the earliest recordings are from a limited testing pool and can be regarded with a healthy skepticism, the unshaded areas are more reliable. However it would not indicate either a stable or cooling trend in temperature. It is up to each person to make their own decision and some no matter the weight of the evidence will remain unable to move from their original position it really comes down to the persons capacity to absorb ideas and analyse them. If indeed the worlds temperature becomes stable at current levels it would be fantastic, however the melting ice sheets and permafrost would indicate we still have some issues ahead even at current levels. On the other hand we now think the Greenland ice sheet may be more resistant to temperature rises than previously thought. To say there is no AGW or there is, is not really relevant, there are changes happening around us and it is very important to understand which ones are natural variations and which are effected by mans activities. You can't work that out if you rule out AGW and only seek to find explanations in natural variability, the skeptic brigade need to continually obstruct because in reality they have no plausable explanation for the rusted on position they have taken, there simply was never the evidence to support a closed position. Think about it if you don't support the position that man is effecting his enviroment then produce the evidence that he is not, the very line that is run to deny climate change also denies the opposite view by the very same rather inadequate logic. The rest of us, the majority as it happens are more interested in what the current body of research throws up than constantly wearing ourselves out bent over with bums in air and head in sand running a denialist agenda..

----------


## barney118

> Burn witch burn !!

  The last witch was also a victim of climate change when a house fell on her from the tornado, but Dortothy and Toto saved the day to expose the fake wizard.

----------


## barney118

> Barney, 
> Can't you see that the graph you have produced has absolutely no relevence to the conclusions you are trying to make, also your conclusions seem to be based on political bias rather than anything else.

  No political bias in my message, data from BOM site. 
Conclusion is Albion Park, Bellambi, Sydney all have similar longlitude and at close to mean sea level, share similar weather.
1.You can see variation of 2deg over the time periods and no catastrophic problems. ( cant tell you the CO2 levels at these sites)
2. When temperature is taken it is simply that ambient recording and statistically the mean. Air pressure/density not taken into account, when it is known relationship with temperature and pressure.   

> Yes I was also amused by Ms Gillards glasses, wonder if they are the result of a focus group somewhere.

  I think we could be on a winner here, how much would these sell at the markets and eBay? We can also throw in a set of Krudd knives !  
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## johnc

> No political bias in my message, data from BOM site. 
> Conclusion is Albion Park, Bellambi, Sydney all have similar longlitude and at close to mean sea level, share similar weather.
> 1.You can see variation of 2deg over the time periods and no catastrophic problems. ( cant tell you the CO2 levels at these sites)
> 2. When temperature is taken it is simply that ambient recording and statistically the mean. Air pressure/density not taken into account, when it is known relationship with temperature and pressure.   
> Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

  No it doesn't mean that at all, it is mean seasonal or monthly shift in temperature for a number of different locations. It shows neither warming or cooling over a long term trend. Put another way it evens out yearly fluctuations completely. This shows that temperature will change given the place it is measured in, CO2 or global warming variations are eliminated. The temperature in March on average will differ according to location for whatever influencing factors such as sea breeze, hills, prevailing winds etc. This is bog basic obvious Barney, you have a handful of bulls testicles and have confused it for diamonds.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, you asked me YESTERDAY. Are you OK? 
> woodbe.

   Yeah I good  :Biggrin:   
I got it! doyou want me to appologise for not seeing it!!

----------


## woodbe

> Yeah I good   
> I got it! doyou want me to appologise for not seeing it!!

  Nah, just answer it. If we got stuck on apologies around here we'd grind to a halt.  :Smilie:  
Glad you ok, had me worried  :Wink:  
woodbe

----------


## Marc

Guys, all that is very entertaining. 
Debating if it was the hottest, and it such event is significant, fails to address some simple question.  
Is it produced by human activity?
If so is the change detrimental to humans, environment or both?
If so can anything we do now, change anything in any significant way in the future? 
My reply to the above is as you know, NO and so the second two are irrelevant. 
However, and before you jump to copy and paste more graphs that demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt how wrong I am, consider that by doing so you become willingly or not, part of what I call the doom industry, an ancient craft that has delivered power to it's practitioners for thousands of years with the help of "followers" like you. 
 Doom industry is big business and exists in all areas that require large numbers of acolytes, typically religion, politics and macro-economy, and lately their bastard child the religion of environmentalism. 
It is well known to the media that bad news sell more than good news. Good news produce a minimal amount of good vibes and at best some envy and jealousy, bad news produce rage, hate, bias, judgement, panic, and most important of all, a scramble for guidance, a mad rush for a savior. 
You are going to hell ... unless you follow me. You are going to lose your freedom unless you follow me. You are going to go bankrupt unless you follow me. We are all going to burn in a "global warming" catastrophe unless you follow me. Get the trend? 
Why don't we have a "good vibes" industry? For once because it is much less effective as described above but first and foremost because it requires substance. No one is going to follow someone who is optimistic without anything to show for. 
Surprisingly it is dead easy to create panic predicting doom and gloom and no one asks for credentials. Take the cretins that read the news on TV wearing a jacket and sitting in their shorts and thongs, they are made by elevation "experts" yet all they do is read and not even properly.
You want to join the doom industry and all you need is to make a few videos with computer simulations to show your predictions as negative as possible and you get an instant audience that sees in your prediction the materialization of their most intimate hates fears and deeply entrenched bias. If you level a (baseless) accusation at someone of being dishonest, unfaithful or even gay, you will instantly have a chorus of assenters who will cry "I knew it" ... yet you made it up a minute ago. 
Sad but true, the doom industry is alive and well after surviving thousands of years of unfulfilled prophecies. People just love to hear catastrophe stories and love even more to gather around the leader that will save them from all that doom and gloom. 
The planet is going to burn and it is all our fault. 
Stop your doing you sinners and turn around, pay me your taxes that I will save you all from yourself. 
I know what is best for you. Follow me .....  :Doh:

----------


## barney118

> No it doesn't mean that at all, it is mean seasonal or monthly shift in temperature for a number of different locations. It shows neither warming or cooling over a long term trend. Put another way it evens out yearly fluctuations completely. This shows that temperature will change given the place it is measured in, CO2 or global warming variations are eliminated. The temperature in March on average will differ according to location for whatever influencing factors such as sea breeze, hills, prevailing winds etc. This is bog basic obvious Barney, you have a handful of bulls testicles and have confused it for diamonds.

  Interesting hey..... no real argument about CO2 in the above but more on temperature (isolated from pressure, reported and measured separately unless you are a pilot who takes both into account). 
Its good to see you have come back to weather 101 (climate 101) it is affected by topography, winds etc, even though its measured in a white box.  
Just waiting for the formula to show the calorific value of a trace element in our atmosphere to stack up to a 2 deg catastrophic change in......... (its getting hotter?), also not much argument on permafrosts.... 
Measuring the mean is exactly that, minimize the noise in the sampling.

----------


## woodbe

> Measuring the mean is exactly that, minimize the noise in the sampling.

  Yep, you have successfully minimised (eliminated) both the noise AND the signal with your graph. It's a classic!   

> 

  woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> Measuring the mean is exactly that, minimize the noise in the sampling.

  For goodness sake do us all a favour and enroll yourself in a statistics unit you are completely off the track up a tree with a blindfold on this one.

----------


## intertd6

> If you say so. I was only going from the 16 years in Rod's post:   
> But as you wish:   
> Doc can and will go on about every sort of distraction from the actual science. That's why he quotes so much politics here and tripe from Bolt. 
> Talking of Bolt, did you know he's doing his own analysis now? He's quite good at it. (not)  
> woodbe.

  yes I was mistaken with the 16 years, it should have been the last 10 years where no warming has occurred, your in the wrong place if you don't want to hear logical discussions for opposing views, most of which is taken from the very place you seem to think is holier than thou, their sky is falling predictions have fallen flat on their face, I had a good chuckle the other day about some clown going on about coral bleaching and dieing I thought to myself does he think its going to keep growing once it reaches the waters surface and keep going to make a new coastal mountain range , then later on they discussed that the corals in the deep water were unaffected by bleaching or dieing. ( der!)
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> yes I was mistaken with the 16 years, it should have been the last 10 years where no warming has occurred

  I'll just leave you to your worldview inter, it's clearly safe from me. Sorry for interrupting. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> I'll just leave you to your worldview inter, it's clearly safe from me. Sorry for interrupting. 
> woodbe.

  I'm just so glad I haven't swallowed the sky is falling garbage, there is an old saying that goes " the road to oblivion is paved with good intentions". Marc's post just recently pretty well sums the psychology of those who dont have the good fortune to see beyond the herds social instincts.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'm just so glad I haven't swallowed the sky is falling garbage, there is an old saying that goes " the road to oblivion is paved with good intentions". Marc's post just recently pretty well sums the psychology of those who dont have the good fortune to see beyond the herds social instincts.
> regards inter

  I agree!!

----------


## woodbe

> I agree!!

  So what's your tipping point Rod? 
Or have you forgotten again?  :Eek:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So what's your tipping point Rod? 
> Or have you forgotten again?  
> woodbe.

  I have no "tipping" point.

----------


## johnc

> I'm just so glad I haven't swallowed the sky is falling garbage, there is an old saying that goes " the road to oblivion is paved with good intentions". Marc's post just recently pretty well sums the psychology of those who dont have the good fortune to see beyond the herds social instincts.
> regards inter

  Marc actually talks about macro economics as if it is a myth, raises ancient crafts, a burning planet, people being infaithful, gay or even worse news readers. Hell gets a mention along with bankruptcy, you would have to park your sanity at the door to think the usual prejudice and distorted angst contained in that post sums up anything. It is the work of a bigot not the summation of someone with a clear view of the world and it machinations. Really almost no one talks like that, you have to go to some very weird places to find a source for those views and they come from the survivalist nutters justifying themselves not those with a balanced view of the world and their place in it.

----------


## woodbe

> I have no "tipping" point.

  So welded on.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> I have no "tipping" point.

  That has been obvious from the outset, no weight of evidence will change your mind because you have the benefit of common sense. Bit of a pity common sense is so fallable isn't it. :Doh:

----------


## The Administration Team

*UPDATE* *The biggest problem with this thread is the amount of personal insults that you "contributors" get up to.*  *We, ( The Admin Team) are constantly posting "Play the Ball Not the Man"*  *SO* *The following rules will now apply to this thread*  *1st Offence - Admin Warning  2nd Offence - Banned for a Week  3rd Offence - Banned for a Month  4th Offence - Banned Permanently*  *Please learn some Forum Decorum* 
Note: The way we ban people permanently notifies all forums on the web of your IP, your Email, and your Username and blocks you from using any blog or forum with that ID. So be careful.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> That has been obvious from the outset, no weight of evidence will change your mind because you have the benefit of common sense. Bit of a pity common sense is so fallable isn't it.

  The question was "what is your tipping point" 
Well as I have said I have no "tipping point"  there is no single factor that will alter my views on this theory. 
However I have previously posted the following that pretty much sums up my position.  I note there were no comments on this.  Solve these issues and I would have a bit more respect for the position you hold.   

> *What evidence can we use to test the DAGW hypothesis? * Many  different lines of evidence can be used to test the DAGW hypothesis. Here I have  space to present just five, all of which are based upon real world empirical  data. For more information, please read both Dr. Hayhoes and my book. 
> Consider the following tests: 
> (i)     Over the last 16 years, global  average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has  displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period,  atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%. 
> Large increases in  carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but  failed to produce any warming at all. *Hypothesis fails.* 
> (ii)    During the 20th century, a global warming of  between 0.4O C and 0.7O C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of  the century, of about 1.7O C/century. In  comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000  years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least  1O C warmer than today, at rates of warming up  to  2.5O C/century.
> In other words, both the  rate and magnitude of 20th century warming  falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. *Hypothesis fails,  twice.* 
> (iii)  If global temperature is controlled primarily by  atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede  parallel changes in temperature.
> In fact, the opposite relationship applies  at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5  months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice  age climatic cycling. *Hypothesis fails.* 
> (iv)  The IPCCs computer  general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon  dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of  +2.0O C/century.
> ...

  So there you go NO tipping point just a whole host of issues the warmist community need to resolve before any logical agreement to this theory can be adopted.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Heaviest Snowfall in a Century Hits Moscow     
> Read more: Heaviest Snowfall in a Century Hits Moscow | News | The Moscow Times
> The Moscow Times

  Interesting to read the opinions of the comments on this article.

----------


## woodbe

> The question was "what is your tipping point" 
> Well as I have said I have no "tipping point"  there is no single factor that will alter my views on this theory. 
> However I have previously posted the following that pretty much sums up my position.  I note there were no comments on this.  Solve these issues and I would have a bit more respect for the position you hold. 
>  So there you go NO tipping point just a whole host of issues the warmist community need to resolve before any logical agreement to this theory can be adopted.

  Not very clear Rod. So you do have a tipping point, it just isn't any one issue?   

> *What evidence can we use to test the DAGW hypothesis? * Many   different lines of evidence can be used to test the DAGW hypothesis.  Here I have  space to present just five, all of which are based upon  real world empirical  data. For more information, please read both Dr.  Hayhoes and my book. 
> Consider the following tests: 
> (i)     Over the last 16 years, global  average temperature, as measured  by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has  displayed no  statistically significant warming; over the same period,  atmospheric  carbon dioxide has increased by 10%. 
> Large increases in  carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to  produce dangerous warming, but  failed to produce any warming at all. *Hypothesis fails.*

  Climate is not measured in 10, 15 or 16 year periods. 25-30 is the norm. *Hypothesis rejection fails.*   

> (ii)    During the 20th century, a global warming of  between 0.4O C and 0.7O C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of  the century, of about 1.7O  C/century. In  comparison, our best regional climate records show that  over the last 10,000  years natural climate cycling has resulted in  temperature highs up to at least  1O C warmer than today, at rates of warming up  to  2.5O C/century.
> In other words, both the  rate and magnitude of 20th century warming  falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. *Hypothesis fails,  twice.*

  Although there was a significant increase in global temperature in the  early 20th Century, the rate of warming from 1910 to 1940 was lower than  the rate of warming from 1975 to 2005, at about 1.3 vs. 1.8°C per century, respectively. (Link) 
No scientist researching climate ignores natural variations. No climate scientist claims that the planet has not warmed before. The recent changes in the climate are a mix of both natural variations and Anthropogenic forcings. See Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 *Hypothesis Rejection fails. Twice.*   

> (iii)  If global temperature is controlled primarily by  atmospheric  carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede   parallel changes in temperature.
> In fact, the opposite relationship applies  at all time scales.  Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5  months  during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice   age climatic cycling. *Hypothesis fails.*

  Global temperature is the result of the global energy balance. It is too simplistic to claim that climate science says that atmospheric CO2 alone controls temperature. *Hypothesis Rejection fails.*   

> (iv)  The IPCCs computer  general circulation models, which factor in  the effect of increasing carbon  dioxide, project that global warming  should be occurring at a rate of  +2.0O C/century.
> In fact, no warming at all  has occurred in either the atmosphere or the  ocean for more than the last  decade. The models are clearly faulty,  and allocate too great a warming effect  for the extra carbon dioxide  (technically, they are said to overestimate the  climate sensitivity). *Hypothesis fails.*

  Firstly, the IPCC does not own or create models. The IPCC does not give a singular number for predictions of temperature rise, they give a range. AR4 gives a range of 1.1 - 6.4 °C by 2100. Climate change is not measured in 10 years because of natural variation, 25-30 years is generally considered relevant. The science, and the IPCC has been misrepresented here. *Hypothesis Rejection fails.*   

> (v)    The same computer  models predict that a fingerprint of  greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the  creation of an atmospheric  hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions,  and enhanced  warming also near both poles.
> Given that we already know that  the models are faulty, it shouldnt  surprise us to discover that direct  measurements by both weather  balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the  absence of surface  warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the  predicted low  latitude atmospheric hot spot. *Hypothesis fails, twice.*

  Absence of surface warming in Antarctica? Perhaps, there is a rather large amount of evidence at the Arctic! *Hypothesis Rejection fails.*   

> One of the 20th centurys greatest  physicists, Richard Feynman, observed about science that:  _In  general  we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess  it. Then we  compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be  implied if this law  that we guessed is right. Then we compare the  result of the computation to  nature, with experiment or experience;  compare it directly with observation, to  see if it works._  _Its  that simple statement that is the key to  science. It does not make any  difference how beautiful your guess is. It does  not make any  difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name  is.  If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong._

  Exactly. So far, almost no experimenters find disagreement. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Marc actually talks about macro economics as if it is a myth, raises ancient crafts, a burning planet, people being infaithful, gay or even worse news readers. Hell gets a mention along with bankruptcy, you would have to park your sanity at the door to think the usual prejudice and distorted angst contained in that post sums up anything. It is the work of a bigot not the summation of someone with a clear view of the world and it machinations. Really almost no one talks like that, you have to go to some very weird places to find a source for those views and they come from the survivalist nutters justifying themselves not those with a balanced view of the world and their place in it.

  Get a grip there bloke, I referred to the psychology of the herd, in marcs post, like follow the leader of whatever you believe in, ( a common social instinct ) As far as the rest of the stuff you have gone on about in his post are clearly your own personal issues you have with Marc, & clearly show an intolerance to another persons views by going the step further with name calling in a knee jerk reaction to something which rattled you, please explain what was bigoted in his post, I could only get that he was explaining how society (not himself) has treated people with different views etc throughout history & sucked them in with their lies, (in a sarcastic manner)
Regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Not very clear Rod. So you do have a tipping point, it just isn't any one issue?   
> Climate is not measured in 10, 15 or 16 year periods. 25-30 is the norm. *Hypothesis rejection fails.*   
> Although there was a significant increase in global temperature in the  early 20th Century, the rate of warming from 1910 to 1940 was lower than  the rate of warming from 1975 to 2005, at about 1.3 vs. 1.8°C per century, respectively. (Link) 
> No scientist researching climate ignores natural variations. No climate scientist claims that the planet has not warmed before. The recent changes in the climate are a mix of both natural variations and Anthropogenic forcings. See Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 *Hypothesis Rejection fails. Twice.*   
> Global temperature is the result of the global energy balance. It is too simplistic to claim that climate science says that atmospheric CO2 alone controls temperature. *Hypothesis Rejection fails.*  
> Firstly, the IPCC does not own or create models. The IPCC does not give a singular number for predictions of temperature rise, they give a range. AR4 gives a range of 1.1 - 6.4 °C by 2100. Climate change is not measured in 10 years because of natural variation, 25-30 years is generally considered relevant. The science, and the IPCC has been misrepresented here. *Hypothesis Rejection fails.*  
> Absence of surface warming in Antarctica? Perhaps, there is a rather large amount of evidence at the Arctic! *Hypothesis Rejection fails.*   
> Exactly. So far, almost no experimenters find disagreement. 
> woodbe.

  You seem to have risen through the ranks of climate science to be able to fail a hypothesis own your own now, perhaps you can qualify your expertise in this field.
At least rod quoted the person who is more than qualified to make those assumptions.
perhaps you can 
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> You seem to have risen through the ranks of climate science to be able to fail a hypothesis own your own now, perhaps you can qualify your expertise in this field.
> At least rod quoted the person who is more than qualified to make those assumptions.
> perhaps you can 
> regards inter

  Note: I'm failing a rejection, not a hypothesis.  
Really, most of these rejections have got holes big enough to drive a truck through them, and the information is common knowledge because like whack a mole, it has been done a thousand times before.. Rod's list comes from Bob Carter who is a notorious climate change denier in the pay of the Heartland Institute, and is not a publishing climate scientist, he is a retired marine Geologist. If you are going to suggest that only Climate Scientists can post in  this thread, and point out errors in Bob Carters misinformation, it would  be empty. 
Like I have said before, if the skeptic position is so strong, write it up and get it peer reviewed. It will be a knock-out.  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> Get a grip there bloke, I referred to the psychology of the herd, in marcs post, like follow the leader of whatever you believe in, ( a common social instinct ) As far as the rest of the stuff you have gone on about in his post are clearly your own personal issues you have with Marc, & clearly show an intolerance to another persons views by going the step further with name calling in a knee jerk reaction to something which rattled you, please explain what was bigoted in his post, I could only get that he was explaining how society (not himself) has treated people with different views etc throughout history & sucked them in with their lies, (in a sarcastic manner)
> Regards inter

  Constant references on this subject harking back to a religion and the continual demonising of types and classes of individuals are a consistant problem that can dominate internet forums if they escalate. Besides the fact that it distracts totally from rational discussion it is no more than attempting to dehumanise your opponent, making them less of an individual and not worthy of having an opinion. It is a dangerous game to play as allowed to grow it causes fractures in society and prevents views being aired in a way that furthers knowledge. The same goes for less than flattering references to our political, business and community leaders. It is a fine line between calling people to account and simply attacking the individual. Calling Tony Abbot Rabbit or Julia Gillard Juliar are just a function of that behaviour and demonstrate a lack of respect for the positions they occupy. It has been very clear from most of my posts that I have little time for either name calling or the clear missrepresentation of figures through the careful use of time lines or cut off periods in figures. It is far better to accept we have differences of opinion and respecting that than continual interjection of political and religious attacks of dubious merit. All of us myself included from time to time could acknowledge when we have used a source that has subsequently been shown to be of poor quality or erroneous. There is a big difference between sarcasm and bigotry based on the newspapers we read, the coffee we drink, our politics or education and occupations. We should also consider very carefully all our sources and be skeptical of those whose back grounds would indicate a bias or lack of knowledge in the area they comment on.    
If I have offended you in any way I apologise, with a clear intention of trying to avoid any escalation of this little flare up or offending the admin team I have avoided any direct comparison to the original post I found offensive.

----------


## Marc

> Get a grip there bloke, I referred to the psychology of the herd, in marcs post, like follow the leader of whatever you believe in, ( a common social instinct ) As far as the rest of the stuff you have gone on about in his post are clearly your own personal issues you have with Marc, & clearly show an intolerance to another persons views by going the step further with name calling in a knee jerk reaction to something which rattled you, please explain what was bigoted in his post, I could only get that he was explaining how society (not himself) has treated people with different views etc throughout history & sucked them in with their lies, (in a sarcastic manner)
> Regards inter

  Thank you Inter
I think it is fascinating to learn why people do what they do. What moves us to use one pattern of thinking over another, what makes us choose a solution to a problem different from the one used by another person. 
We all act based on our values yet most of the time we don't know what they are. They are firmly set in our subconscious but we would be unable to make a comprehensive list of them all. 
So you get millions of people who go around saying they are no good with their hands not because they are actually unskilled (no such thing) but because they think and not consciously mind you, that such is a sure sign of intellectualism.
As you probably know rich are all evil. And also poor are all virtuous. So being poor is cool, and it stops you from being evil. This universal law applies also to Global warming. Global warming as you know is the result of the collective evil rich screwing up the planet. So the vast majority of people who adhere unknowingly to this universal law, also find the concept of fighting the bad rich "pholuuthers" (as mr Brown likes to say it), appealing.  
The above is far from a judgment. In fact it is more an explanation and could be also an excuse. The devil made me do it...well that is partly true. Some of our values make us do things that are illogical, that damage our life, that are absurd. Think in wars for example. What about "religious" wars? We take many times a path without thinking it true and if we think it true, we use the wrong tools when thinking because we are using values imposed to us by others that have not passed the conscious logical scrutiny first. 
Be cool, make a lot of money and produce even more CO2.  :Biggrin:

----------


## intertd6

> Constant references on this subject harking back to a religion and the continual demonising of types and classes of individuals are a consistant problem that can dominate internet forums if they escalate. Besides the fact that it distracts totally from rational discussion it is no more than attempting to dehumanise your opponent, making them less of an individual and not worthy of having an opinion. It is a dangerous game to play as allowed to grow it causes fractures in society and prevents views being aired in a way that furthers knowledge. The same goes for less than flattering references to our political, business and community leaders. It is a fine line between calling people to account and simply attacking the individual. Calling Tony Abbot Rabbit or Julia Gillard Juliar are just a function of that behaviour and demonstrate a lack of respect for the positions they occupy. It has been very clear from most of my posts that I have little time for either name calling or the clear missrepresentation of figures through the careful use of time lines or cut off periods in figures. It is far better to accept we have differences of opinion and respecting that than continual interjection of political and religious attacks of dubious merit. All of us myself included from time to time could acknowledge when we have used a source that has subsequently been shown to be of poor quality or erroneous. There is a big difference between sarcasm and bigotry based on the newspapers we read, the coffee we drink, our politics or education and occupations. We should also consider very carefully all our sources and be skeptical of those whose back grounds would indicate a bias or lack of knowledge in the area they comment on.    
> If I have offended you in any way I apologise, with a clear intention of trying to avoid any escalation of this little flare up or offending the admin team I have avoided any direct comparison to the original post I found offensive.

  Its not me that needs an apology.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Note: I'm failing a rejection, not a hypothesis.  
> Really, most of these rejections have got holes big enough to drive a truck through them, and the information is common knowledge because like whack a mole, it has been done a thousand times before.. Rod's list comes from Bob Carter who is a notorious climate change denier in the pay of the Heartland Institute, and is not a publishing climate scientist, he is a retired marine Geologist. If you are going to suggest that only Climate Scientists can post in  this thread, and point out errors in Bob Carters misinformation, it would  be empty. 
> Like I have said before, if the skeptic position is so strong, write it up and get it peer reviewed. It will be a knock-out.  
> woodbe.

  none of those names you quoted have been mentioned in rods post #8526, your words were " hypotheses failed" nobody else's, you are actually a skeptic of what is actually happening & try to back up your argument with imaginary predictions. At the end of the day the globe is warming & has been since the last ice age, man has adapted along with the globe as a whole, what will take us out is when a big piece of the sky does fall & extinguish life as we know it in a flash. If you feel the need to join a help group to allay your fears that's good, just remember not everybody needs a group hug to get them through the day.
Regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> none of those names you quoted have been mentioned in rods post #8526, your words were " hypotheses failed" nobody else's, you are actually a skeptic [...]
> Regards inter

  Dear inter, 
Please try to keep up. You are correct that none of 'those names' appear in Rod's post #8526. That is because it is a repost of post #8493 also posted by Rod which is a copy and paste from WUWT with a link to the full WUWT story at the bottom of his post. Unfortunately for your story, the words "hypothesis fails" are in Rod's post and he copied them intact from the WUWT website. 
Thank you for your personal advise. The Administration team have asked that we play the ball not the man so I have decided not to respond with suitable personal advice for yourself. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Dear inter, 
> Please try to keep up. You are correct that none of 'those names' appear in Rod's post #8526. That is because it is a repost of post #8493 also posted by Rod which is a copy and paste from WUWT with a link to the full WUWT story at the bottom of his post. Unfortunately for your story, the words "hypothesis fails" are in Rod's post and he copied them intact from the WUWT website. 
> Thank you for your personal advise. The Administration team have asked that we play the ball not the man so I have decided not to respond with suitable personal advice for yourself. 
> woodbe.

   when asked to qualify your statements, rods post qualified the statements within it, you didn't & still haven't.
regards inter  *EDITED POST..................SEE ADMIN POST BELOW.*

----------


## woodbe

> asked to qualify your statements, rods post qualified the statements within it, you didn't & still haven't.

  What statements would you like me to qualify, Inter? 
woodbe.

----------


## The Administration Team

*Final  Warning  To All  *  The next person who posts a personal attack will lose forum privileges and risk being banned from the forum.       NO IFS, NO               BUTS

----------


## woodbe

A little light humor for our 'Skeptics' courtesy of the very humorous DenialDepot:    _Just a few years ago your eyes would have literally burned out from  looking directly at this image. Today it is safe only because the Ice  Age is coming. _  There has been a recent upsurge of interest in denying humans are  causing CO2 levels to rise. To help I thought I would type a quick cheat  sheet for aspiring climate deniers.  *Things That Must Not Be Blamed For Rising CO2*  *Human fossil fuel emissions*  *
Things That Can Be Blamed Instead*  *Mauna Loa*. A Big Volcano where scientists deliberately measure CO2.*Underwater Volcanoes*. Scientists admit they haven't even  found Atlantis yet so how can they possibly know how many CO2 spewing  volcanoes are underwater?*Global Warming*. Ice cores show the CO2 rise is caused by  warming (remember to temporarily accept the validity of ice cores and  the global temperature records).*ENSO*. Same way the Moon causes sea level rise.*The Oceans*. The oceans emit vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Just make sure not to mention how much they absorb.*The Chinese*. If the Chinese did it no-one can tax blame us.*Mars.* CO2 from Mars's frozen ice caps have melted and are slowly seeping through the aether into Earth's atmosphere.*The Sun.* That burning Sun must give off a lot of exhaust fumes.  
Why not use a few of these on your favorite blog? Why not use them all? They are all just as good. 
woodbe  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> A little light humor for our 'Skeptics' courtesy of the very humorous DenialDepot:    _Just a few years ago your eyes would have literally burned out from  looking directly at this image. Today it is safe only because the Ice  Age is coming. _  There has been a recent upsurge of interest in denying humans are  causing CO2 levels to rise. To help I thought I would type a quick cheat  sheet for aspiring climate deniers.  *Things That Must Not Be Blamed For Rising CO2*  *Human fossil fuel emissions*  *
> Things That Can Be Blamed Instead*  *Mauna Loa*. A Big Volcano where scientists deliberately measure CO2.*Underwater Volcanoes*. Scientists admit they haven't even  found Atlantis yet so how can they possibly know how many CO2 spewing  volcanoes are underwater?*Global Warming*. Ice cores show the CO2 rise is caused by  warming (remember to temporarily accept the validity of ice cores and  the global temperature records).*ENSO*. Same way the Moon causes sea level rise.*The Oceans*. The oceans emit vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Just make sure not to mention how much they absorb.*The Chinese*. If the Chinese did it no-one can tax blame us.*Mars.* CO2 from Mars's frozen ice caps have melted and are slowly seeping through the aether into Earth's atmosphere.*The Sun.* That burning Sun must give off a lot of exhaust fumes.  
> Why not use a few of these on your favorite blog? Why not use them all? They are all just as good. 
> woodbe

  Makes no sense

----------


## woodbe

> Makes no sense

  That's one of the funniest things you've posted here Rod.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Played golf with a guy today that was under the impression that the earth quakes in the Solomon's were directly due to "climate change".  When I asked him how do you think Co2 causes earth quakes? 
His answer the scientist say so!! 
We were playing matchplay. Thank god this didn't come up before walking back to the club house after beating him 6 holes with 5 to play.  I would have lost for sure.

----------


## intertd6

> What statements would you like me to qualify, Inter? 
> woodbe.

  this reminds me of Groundhog Day all over again. Yet you can gather a heap of names out of rods post that weren't even written in it.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Played golf with a guy today that was under the impression that the earth quakes in the Solomon's were directly due to "climate change".  When I asked him how do you think Co2 causes earth quakes? 
> His answer the scientist say so!! 
> We were playing matchplay. Thank god this didn't come up before walking back to the club house after beating him 6 holes with 5 to play.  I would have lost for sure.

  Must have been what it was like in the Middle Ages, without the golf of course
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> this reminds me of Groundhog Day all over again. Yet you can gather a heap of names out of rods post that weren't even written in it.
> regards inter

  inter, 
I've already explained this. Rod's post is a cut paste from another blog. The names are in the original blog. Follow the links and you will find it for yourself.  
I've given you the names, and I've pointed to the links. You can do it.  :Smilie:  
This is not rocket science, just click the links mate.  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> inter, 
> I've already explained this. Rod's post is a cut paste from another blog. The names are in the original blog. Follow the links and you will find it for yourself.  
> I've given you the names, and I've pointed to the links. You can do it.  
> This is not rocket science, just click the links mate.  
> woodbe.

  
Yaawwnnn............. You have successfully sent me to sleep now.
regards inter

----------


## Marc

> Played golf with a guy today that was under the impression that the earth quakes in the Solomon's were directly due to "climate change".  When I asked him how do you think Co2 causes earth quakes? 
> His answer the scientist say so!!

  The "scientist" of the 1400ds  proclaimed that witches were causing the black death. Close to 500,000 mainly women were tortured and killed to stop the disease.    
People join causes and beliefs if they are in tune with their values not for any rational reason nor because of any review in the validity of the claims.
Your friend would have beaten you to death with his golf club because a challenge to his belief system would be unsustainable for him. Fanaticism is the defense of the ignoramus against a challenge to his values. 
The concept of open mind, is the concept of reason and logic. If we learn that our actions and consequently our reality is based on a set of values adopted very early in life, it would be only natural to review such values and see if they are serving us in the present time. Yet it is rare for a person to want to learn this principles and it is far more common to see a wild reaction against any scrutiny.
So you get pockets of people "joining" different "thought clubs" because they like the colour of their flag.
The global warming club is no different. Its banners are "hot pink" ... :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Marc

The madness of "conservationist" knows no limits. 
it started with the re introduction of the wolf in Yucon. 
Oh yes how cute! we all have seen the footage of the cuddly cubs
We now have the introduction of brown bears in northern Italy Oh how cute! ...where they went extinct since 1980 wiht great releif of the local farmers and in southern France where wild demonstrations stopped more release of the (cuddly) brown bear from eastern Europe, one of the most dangerous species of bears. Also Pumas in south Florida. 
What's the problem? 
Ask the locals. Humans can not share their backyard with brown bears or pumas or wolfs. 
And yes it is OUR backyard now. And certainly not the greens backyard.   
I am waiting for the re-introduction of the African lion in northern Spain and Greece.
After all they use to live there.  
I wonder if there is an endangered venomous snake that merits re-introduction in this project of wildification?
Perhaps rattle snakes in NY central park may go down well with the locals? How about salt water crocodiles in the Hawkesbury? 
"Conservationism" has nothing to "conserve" and focuses only in destroying what humans have worked for century to build. It is the most vile subspecies of terrorism ever invented.

----------


## woodbe

I should point out that there is a proposed link between climate change and earthquakes. This is not mainstream climate science, and is not mentioned in the IPCC reports AFAIK. The basic idea is that as ice lying on land melts the underlying earth is uncompressed, the oceans gain mass increasing the pressure on the sea floor, resulting in geological changes that could give rise to earthquakes and/or volcanoes.  Yale.edu: Could a changing climate set off Volcanoes and Quakes?   

> The most solid evidence for climatic influence on geology comes from the  end of the last ice age, around 12,000 years ago, says McGuire, who is a  volcanologist and professor of geophysical and climate hazards at  University College London. Analysis of volcanic deposits, published in  the past decade by several authors, has found that this period of rapid  climate change, when ice sheets retreated from much of the planet,  coincided with a sudden outburst of geological activity. The incidence  of volcanic eruptions in Iceland increased around 50-fold for about  1,500 years, before settling back to previous levels.

  So there you go, sounds far fetched, but there might be an element of truth in it. 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> I should point out that there is a proposed link between climate change and earthquakes. This is not mainstream climate science, and is not mentioned in the IPCC reports AFAIK. The basic idea is that as ice lying on land melts the underlying earth is uncompressed, the oceans gain mass increasing the pressure on the sea floor, resulting in geological changes that could give rise to earthquakes and/or volcanoes.  Yale.edu: Could a changing climate set off Volcanoes and Quakes?   
> So there you go, sounds far fetched, but there might be an element of truth in it. 
> woodbe.

  So that's Ok then since we are seeing gain in ice mass on land and since the loss of ice is mainly on the water, this should lead to a reduction of earthquakes. 
Another possibility is that sus scrofa will evolve its scapula into a feathered appendix and rise to the skies

----------


## woodbe

> we are seeing gain in ice mass on land

  O Really? You Trollin' Marc?  :Biggrin:   CU-Boulder study shows global glaciers, ice caps shedding billions of tons of mass annually | University of Colorado Boulder   

> The CU-led team also used GRACE data to calculate that the ice loss from  both Greenland and Antarctica, including their peripheral ice caps and  glaciers, was roughly 385 billion tons of ice annually. The total mass  ice loss from Greenland, Antarctica and all Earths glaciers and ice  caps from 2003 to 2010 was about 1,000 cubic miles, about eight times  the water volume of Lake Erie, said Wahr.

  woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> O Really? You Trollin' Marc?   CU-Boulder study shows global glaciers, ice caps shedding billions of tons of mass annually | University of Colorado Boulder
> woodbe.

  Mass Balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet 1992-2008 from ERS and ICESat: Gains exceed losses  Presented by Jay Zwally, NASA Goddard, USA ISMASS 2012 is an activity of the renewed SCAR/IASC ISMASS expert group, which focuses on the mass balance of ice-sheets and their contribution to sea level changes. The workshop is sponsored by ICSU, SCAR, IASC, WCRP, IGS, and IACS with support from CliC and APECS. Video recording and editing provided by Kristin Poinar, Mai Winstrup, and Jenny Baeseman *Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses* Zwally, H. Jay; Li, Jun; Robbins, John; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita; Bromwich, David *Abstract:* During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry. Imbalances in individual drainage systems (DS) are large (-68% to +103% of input), as are temporal changes (-39% to +44%). The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning. Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves. In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses. Alternate interpretations of the mass changes driven by accumulation variations are given using results from atmospheric-model re-analysis and a parameterization based on 5% change in accumulation per degree of observed surface temperature change. A slow increase in snowfall with climate warming, consistent with model predictions, may be offsetting increased dynamic losses. Click to View PDF File [PDF Size: 256 KB] Looks like Skeptical Science will have to update their reliance on the Cophagen Diagnosis as well as their claim of Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.: Aaaaaah THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING !!!!!  :Wink 1:   PS
The logic behind the link of water weight and earthquakes is as valid as the following:
If we all run at the same time from west to east, we can make the day last longer by slowing down rotation.
If we all fart at the same time, we can make for a nice warm summer increasing green(yuck) house effect.

----------


## woodbe

> Mass Balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet 1992-2008 from ERS and ICESat: Gains exceed losses  Presented by Jay Zwally, NASA Goddard, USA ISMASS 2012 is an activity of the renewed SCAR/IASC ISMASS expert group, which focuses on the mass balance of ice-sheets and their contribution to sea level changes.

  Dated: SCAR ISMASS Workshop, July 14, 2012 
Updated:  A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance  Science                         30 November 2012:                         
                                              Vol. 338                                                   no. 6111                                                   pp.                                                  1183-1189                                               
                     DOI:                      10.1126/science.1228102                                                                                                                         Research Article  *A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance* 
Multiple authors including: H. Jay Zwally   

> We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and  gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions,                         time intervals, and models of surface mass  balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of  Earths                         polar ice sheets. We find that there is good  agreement between different satellite methodsespecially in Greenland  and West                         Antarcticaand that combining satellite data  sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets  of Greenland,                         East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the  Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by 142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, 65 ± 26,  and 20 ±                         14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.

  Which is all very interesting, but the bottom line is that the best estimates for Antartica are mass loss, and the best estimate for Greenland is mass loss. 
This does not include other worldwide glaciers which are almost completely in retreat:  ClimateWatch Magazine » State of the Climate: Mass Balance of Mountain Glaciers in 2011   
I agree that Skepticalscience should update their Antarctica mass loss page, but it does not alter the fact that Antartica is probably losing mass, and taken as a whole, worldwide land based ice is losing mass significantly. 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> but it does not alter the fact that Antarctica is probably losing mass

  Oh dear ...  :Doh: 
Ok lets say that you are right and that "probably" there are changes in the ice mass. What does that prove? It's the same moot debate about if it is warming or it is cooling. Climate has changed since the earth was formed. ice was gained and lost without human presence. What the "global warming" cheer squad wants us to believe is that it is all my fault. 
It is pointless to argue that weather patterns, climate, water levels, ice, snow, rain, are changing. That is what they have always done. To attempt to pin this natural changes on human activity for political gain is simply put, criminal, and indistinguishable from the actions of the rulers in the middle ages against witches and deniers.  _Disclaimer:
This is my personal opinion and is not intended to offend, belittle, insult or aggravate in any way shape or form the reader who has taken the risk of reading this far on his own volition._

----------


## woodbe

Marc, can we look back as to why we are discussing land ice in the first place? 
Loss of land ice is part of a proposed mechanism by which climate change might cause increases in earthquakes and volcanoes:   

> I should point out that there is a proposed link between climate change  and earthquakes. This is not mainstream climate science, and is not  mentioned in the IPCC reports AFAIK. The basic idea is that as ice lying  on land melts the underlying earth is uncompressed, the oceans gain  mass increasing the pressure on the sea floor, resulting in geological  changes that could give rise to earthquakes and/or volcanoes.

  You replied that "we are seeing gain in ice mass on land", but a closer look at the data suggests that all land ice including Antarctica is losing mass. Even if Antarctica were gaining ice, the reality is that the rest of the planet is losing significant land ice. 
So the simple post I made that explained why Rod's golf mate had heard that climate change might cause earthquakes was derailed into a discussion on land ice and your own opinions on climate change. That was your call. In any case, I learned something about land ice from it, I hope you did too.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

I fail to see how anyone can argue that proponents of the climate change view are acting for political gain, all the evidence points to political pain :Doh:  , look at the angst over the carbon tax here and the "anti" attacks elsewhere. Although the witches line is an amusing twist, although not for those wrongly accused at the time. Surely most rational individuals would have difficulty comparing a scape goating deflection based on heresay to something that is actually based on solid measurement and scientific evidence. The burning of witches has a more brutal comparison with the black lynchings of the KKK or the trumped up charges in Salem MAS that led to the state endorsed execution of those falsely accused of witchcraft. I haven't noticed any burnings of the denier brigade perhaps someone can provide a few to support that nonsense.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Marc, can we look back as to why we are discussing land ice in the first place? 
> Loss of land ice is part of a proposed mechanism by which climate change might cause increases in earthquakes and volcanoes:   
> You replied that "we are seeing gain in ice mass on land", but a closer look at the data suggests that all land ice including Antarctica is losing mass. Even if Antarctica were gaining ice, the reality is that the rest of the planet is losing significant land ice. 
> So the simple post I made that explained why Rod's golf mate had heard that climate change might cause earthquakes was derailed into a discussion on land ice and your own opinions on climate change. That was your call. In any case, I learned something about land ice from it, I hope you did too.  
> woodbe.

  No he said it WAS not MIGHT be causing earthquakes.

----------


## johnc

> No he said it WAS not MIGHT be causing earthquakes.

  I don't think there is anything unusual about someone slightly altering something they have read or heard and unintentionally changing the extent of it's meaning. If anything it is the norm, far less likely to get someone to accurately repeat something.

----------


## woodbe

> No he said it WAS not MIGHT be causing earthquakes.

  Is he a climate scientist?  :Biggrin:   
He's either misheard something or the whole thing has been misrepresented by someone somewhere that he has read/heard. Happens all the time. Someone told me the other day that CO2 is lower now than in 1940's. He read it on a website.  :Eek:  
Doesn't change anything about a possible link between climate change and earthquakes, or the state of land ice for that matter. 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> I fail to see how anyone can argue that proponents of the climate change view are acting for political gain, all the evidence points to political pain , look at the angst over the carbon tax here and the "anti" attacks elsewhere. Although the witches line is an amusing twist, ...etc etc

  If a political strategy fails to achieve all of it's planned goals, that does not mean there was no strategy to begin with.
The global warming con, has delivered billions to the greens and assorted cohorts, paid scores of scientist who have sold their integrity for a price, delivered billions to the "alternative energy" industry owners who just happen to be part of the machinations and propaganda.
Oh yes, this big con, failed to produce instant success in politics, that means politicians were also conned into believing the support for the cause will mean millions of happy votes. Too bad eh? 
The real damage however is hard to grasp because in economic terms it is hard to quantify the cost of a lost opportunity.  
What is the cost of not building a dam, to not build a mine, to block live trade based on fabricated evidence ... and I can go on for hours.  
The political left together with the greens has always pushed the principle that the end justifies the means and acted accordingly. This political wrecking ball swings in and out of our lives from time to time and it takes years to recover.  
When I don't doubt the well meaning of SOME of the parties to this fraud, I find it hard to swallow that most if not all will go free and serve no jail term for their crimes. 
My simile with the persecution of witches, is not as far fetched as you may think. Throughout history, rulers have found convenient to blame different problems on a group of people, a nation, a race, a gender, for political gain. 
Deniers of God, are causing the wrath of God in the form of famine, kill them rather than blame the rulers and their greed lack of vision, or incompetence etc etc.

----------


## Marc

Now for the CO2 produces earthquakes:   

> Global warming is causing earthquakes and giant landslides, and could bring about an age of geological havoc including volcano storms and tsunamis, a top academic told the Telegraph Hay Festival today.

  Hay Festival 2012: Government adviser Bill McGuire says global warming is causing earthquakes and landslides - Telegraph   

> Here is a review of the claims by a site that investigates climate change claims in order to limit the largesse preferred by the Meeja. They made the effort to challenge McGuire on a number of his claims and some responses are included below."The argument First, though, the theory. The argument goes like this: when the climate changed naturally in the past, and the planet emerged from an ice age, large ice sheets covering much of the planet retreated. They were so heavy that the resulting release of pressure on the earth's crust caused it to 'bounce back', triggering earthquakes, tremors, and even volcanic activity along pre-existing fault lines. Right now, the Earth is still responding to the end of the last ice age some 20,000 years ago when temperatures began to rise, causing large ice sheets to retreat, as shown here: Glacial rebound map http://www.carbonbrief.org/med... Rate of crustal bounce-back following the end of the last ice age, as modelled by Paulson et al. (2007). Source: NASA. McGuire suggests that if man-made climate change leads to more large ice sheets disappearing - like the one covering Greenland - this could lead to more shakes, rattles and rolls. What's the scientific evidence? It's worth noting here that although the historical relationship between ice sheet retreat and geological change is pretty well documented, research looking at more recent man-made climate change is rather sparse. A 2009 meeting at University College London concluded that, since climate change in the past has probably increased some 'geological hazards'; "Anthropogenic climate change therefore has the potential to alter the risk of geological and geomorphological hazards through the twenty-first century and beyond. Such changes in risk have not yet been systematically assessed." To us that does sound like an endorsement of the general theory. But the last part says that the risks of dangerous changes in the earth's surface due to man-made climate change haven't yet been intensively investigated. Roland Burgmann, a geologist at the University of California, Berkeley, told Live Science (in 2007) that changes in ice cover can affect the earth's crust, but more research is needed to work out the scale of the risk and where effects like earthquakes might happen. What's the timeline? It's also not very clear from the publicity around the book when exactly we're supposed to be worried about any 'geological mayhem' occurring. Are we talking in the next century, or the next millennium? When asked on the Guardian Science podcast whether his worries about Greenland could materialise this century, McGuire says: "Not by the end of this century, no [...]." But contrast this with a video promoting the book, where McGuire says: "[T]he worry is, that if we don't act very soon, then the Earth is going to bite back with a real vengeance over the next 70-100 years." We put it to McGuire that this wasn't particularly clear. He replied that, although the Greenland ice sheet is not going to fully disappear by the end of the century (it would need to be kept at a sufficiently warm temperature for a few thousand years for that to happen), there is a study suggesting that we could see more earthquakes in Greenland in coming decades. He also said that in Alaska "the response - in the way of earthquake activity and giant landslide frequency - is already apparent". Here he's probably referring to research like this paper showing an increase in small earthquakes between 2002 and 2006, thought to be down to ice loss. Of the potential for volcanic activity triggered by climate change he told us: "[W]e don't have a handle on how quickly we will see a response [...]. It may, however, be a while before we can distinguish any elevated level of activity from the normal background. In many ways, pinning down how quickly the solid Earth will respond this time round is no easy task and has to be speculative to some degree." Essentially, this is the 'it's complicated' caveat so common in scientific conclusions. But as you will have spotted, these explanations are couched in considerably more careful language than some of the publicity for the book. Following the Hansen model? There does seem to us to be a disparity between McGuire's publicity for the book, with its emphasis on the most dramatic possible outcomes from his hypothesis, and the more careful statements he's made in scientific papers and outside the publicity circuit. In discussing temperature change this century in his book, McGuire's predictions err towards the upper end of the scale, and he also talks of facing sea level rise comparable to that at the end of the last ice age, when sea level rose at an average of one metre per century - within the range of projected sea level rise for high-end scenarios of temperature rise. In both this, and his tendency to talk in stark language, McGuire seems to be borrowing a leaf from James Hansen's book." http://www.carbonbrief.org/blo...

  And then in more plain language:   

> Oh what a wonderful life - to be a cut and paste journalist just like Louise Gray. It must take at least 20 minutes per week & you would not even have to leave home. Never is there any suggestion of applying critical analysis. Of course we non scientists are not able to dispute the science but we can read & use our common sense. So here are a few comments. 1. If the Greenland ice cap is melting and will reach a point of no return then one has to explain the following. My ancestors the Vikings went to Greenland a thousand years ago and settled there. The land was green enough to herd cattle and the remains of their dwellings can be found under the permafrost. This must mean that sometime between the last major glaciation and 1000 AD the ice had melted sufficiently to be developed. So if that melting was subsequently reversed why should anyone think that a future melting will not also be reversed? In any case the Greenland ice cap is 2 km thick & it takes 15000 years for ice to travel from the centre to the open sea. Havent we got more important things to worry about? 2. There is no current global warming taking place so can we therefore assume that the so called resulting geological activity would have ceased or must we remain in a  permanent state of fear? 3. Again and again we are told about the terrors of climate change without being told how the British could effectively change anything other than commit economic suicide. Surely we know enough now to establish that the climate constantly changes and is as the academics say a non linear chaotic system. Why worry about the melting ice sheets if that is the case since it will not be too long before the next major glaciations and in any case the Earths orbital tilt is now in decline and will take another 41000 years to get back to its current position. Meanwhile we can expect colder Summers  so not long to wait then! 4. Is Geoffrey Lean solely in the business of keeping us all in a constant state of panic & why does he never offer any information which might give a contrary view? In the absence of balance one has to assume a political agenda. I am being too polite. It is his business and income to spread fear.  5. I feel certain that tectonic activity and any geological activity which might be caused by climate variations would be on a scale of forces quite beyond the capacity of mankind to control so what do we do? We spend the money available on adaption, environmental repair and all the good causes which we know need resourcing and forget about Geoffrey Lean and enjoy life. We know that Canada, India, Russia and China do not share his views on climate & carbon. Add in the fact that Europe is on the edge of financial meltdown and this does not leave many who could be induced into a state of panic and terror so that they did what? We are never told.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Is he a climate scientist?   
> He's either misheard something or the whole thing has been misrepresented by someone somewhere that he has read/heard. Happens all the time. Someone told me the other day that CO2 is lower now than in 1940's. He read it on a website.  
> Doesn't change anything about a possible link between climate change and earthquakes, or the state of land ice for that matter. 
> woodbe.

  No, but is shows how easily sucked in people can get.

----------


## johnc

> No, but is shows how easily sucked in people can get.

  
Is it sucked in or is it just confused? there is that much misinformation out there on this subject that it is inevitable that you will get these comments. Better the accidental incorrect comments then the outright deliberate distortion and general rubbish that abounds.

----------


## barney118

> I should point out that there is a proposed link between climate change and earthquakes. This is not mainstream climate science, and is not mentioned in the IPCC reports AFAIK. The basic idea is that as ice lying on land melts the underlying earth is uncompressed, the oceans gain mass increasing the pressure on the sea floor, resulting in geological changes that could give rise to earthquakes and/or volcanoes.  Yale.edu: Could a changing climate set off Volcanoes and Quakes?   
> So there you go, sounds far fetched, but there might be an element of truth in it. 
> woodbe.

  So our belief in tectonic plates theory needs re writing?  
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## johnc

> So our belief in tectonic plates theory needs re writing?  
> Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

  Not really, but this version can be added to the usual after dinner stories best served after a few glasses of rough red.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Is it sucked in or is it just confused? there is that much misinformation out there on this subject that it is inevitable that you will get these comments. Better the accidental incorrect comments then the outright deliberate distortion and general rubbish that abounds.

  Yes well, within this debate confusion abounds, the result is sucking people in to believe the AGW theory.   :Wink:

----------


## johnc

> Yes well, within this debate confusion abounds, the result is sucking people in to *dis*believe the AGW theory.

  Edited for accuracy  :Biggrin:  
Once the issue was hijacked by politics it lost all chance of rational discussion.

----------


## woodbe

> So our belief in tectonic plates theory needs re writing?

  I wouldn't lose any sleep over it barney. It's a proposal not a theory, your beliefs are safe until the whole idea is researched and accepted or rejected. I imagine that process might take quite a lot of time. 
Personally, science doesn't rate for me as a belief. I treat it as an understanding. There is always more to learn, and the body of scientific knowledge is always growing. When you say 'nothing can change my mind' like Rod has, we're dealing with beliefs. That's ok, it's just a different way of looking at the world. 
woodbe.

----------


## barney118

> Not really, but this version can be added to the usual after dinner stories best served after a few glasses of rough red.

  Some good ol dirty musket!  
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## barney118

> I wouldn't lose any sleep over it barney. It's a proposal not a theory, your beliefs are safe until the whole idea is researched and accepted or rejected. I imagine that process might take quite a lot of time. 
> Personally, science doesn't rate for me as a belief. I treat it as an understanding. There is always more to learn, and the body of scientific knowledge is always growing. When you say 'nothing can change my mind' like Rod has, we're dealing with beliefs. That's ok, it's just a different way of looking at the world. 
> woodbe.

  Why hasn't the CO2 argument popped its head on myth busters?
The whole issue is a matter for scientists to hypothesize over these things, but it was jumped on by the media and politicians and lobby groups who all have different needs.
The media need to come clean and put it to a balanced argument or leave it to research until proven. Acceptance and money hungry politicians etc should be charged with false claims akin to fraud.
I have modified my view to building sustainability to reduce energy etc as it costs heaps.
Putting prices up is not going to change behavior.  
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## johnc

> Why hasn't the CO2 argument popped its head on myth busters?
> The whole issue is a matter for scientists to hypothesize over these things, but it was jumped on by the media and politicians and lobby groups who all have different needs.
> The media need to come clean and put it to a balanced argument or leave it to research until proven. Acceptance and money hungry politicians etc should be charged with false claims akin to fraud.
> I have modified my view to building sustainability to reduce energy etc as it costs heaps.
> Putting prices up is not going to change behavior.  
> Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

  Supply and demand I'm afraid, price up then demand down, it's a long proven connection. spin it any way you like it is a basic human response. Balance though is in the eye of the beholder, also long proven, on any issue that has been reported with a reasonable level of balance you will have one outcome from both sides and that is that their side didn't not get a fair suck of the sauce bottle. We colour our response from our own perspective, we need to bear in mind we are our own worse critics the old one eyed monster just keeps getting in the road.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Why hasn't the CO2 argument popped its head on myth busters?

  It has.  Way back in the early seasons.  It was such a simple demonstration/experiment that they had a child perform it.... :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Originally Posted by *intertd6*   
>  I'm  just so glad I haven't swallowed the sky is falling garbage, there is  an old saying that goes " the road to oblivion is paved with good  intentions". Marc's post just recently pretty well sums the psychology  of those who dont have the good fortune to see beyond the herds social  instincts.
> regards inter

   

> I agree!!

  So do I...but for different reasons! :Wink 1:

----------


## woodbe

> It has.  Way back in the early seasons.  It was such a simple demonstration/experiment that they had a child perform it....

  Yep, and it was confirmed.    
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> I have modified my view to building sustainability to reduce energy etc as it costs heaps.
> Putting prices up is not going to change behavior.

  Really?  9pc drop in emissions from power generators - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   

> There has been a 9 per cent drop in emissions from  electricity generators during the first six months of carbon pricing, a  Senate committee has been told.
> Last July the Federal Government introduced a carbon price of $23 per tonne for businesses that are big polluters.
> Jenny  Wilkinson from the Department of Climate Change and Renewable Energy  says that since then, there has been a reduction in demand for energy.

  Whether increasing price alters behaviour depends on the price elasticity of demand. Generally, cigarettes and staple foods are inelastic (demand alters very little as the price increases) whereas items that are considered optional might have large changes in demand in response to a small increase in price. For electricity, I suspect the routine demand is inelastic to price, but the peak demand would be highly elastic, especially for the biggest (commercial/industrial) users. The blah blah furore over the carbon tax could well have made the electricity market more elastic at all times which may be making the measure even more effective than it would normally be. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Yep, and it was confirmed.    
> woodbe.

  Yes a point we all agree on Co2 is a green house gas.

----------


## woodbe

> Yes a point we all agree on Co2 is a green house gas.

  Excellent. Could you let barney know, he doesn't seem to be toeing the skeptic line.  :Biggrin:  
There's a few guys on your team who don't even agree on the greenhouse effect btw.  :Doh:  
woodbe.

----------


## barney118

I have to say a pretty lame experiment,
try this, a bit of light reading  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I have to say a pretty lame experiment...

  True.  However, since it dates from the 1860's then one can't be too critical.   
The thing to bear in mind about the scientific process is that it is often hours, days, months, decades of drudge that contain the occasional 'Eureka' highlights of glorious insight before falling back into pitiless drudge.  Then at the end...if you can get published...you have a moment of reflective bliss before the scrabble of funding applications, data collection & collation and endless repeated analysis roll around again.  Or you don't get funding and get discarded on the intellectual scrap heap...or become a bureaucrat.  Or something else entirely... 
Doing science is stupid but then we'd be even stupider without it. 
It's not unlike deck building (or plumbing) in that respect.

----------


## intertd6

> Yep, and it was confirmed.    
> woodbe.

  So did they get a 1 degree change in temp by increasing the co2 & methane concentrations by say 50 ppm / ppb or did they have the whole experimental gas filled cubes solely with co2 / methane.
would be good to see what a mist filled cube would have reacted like
so that was supposed to represent a real world situation ?
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So did they get a 1 degree change in temp by increasing the co2 & methane concentrations by say 50 ppm / ppb or did they have the whole experimental gas filled cubes solely with co2 / methane.
> would be good to see what a mist filled cube would have reacted like
> so that was supposed to represent a real world situation ?
> regards inter

  From memory it was simply a small increase in CO2 concentration in the air mix within the box.  
The experimental design wasn't intended and couldn't be expected to represent the real world - only to demonstrate the effect of increasing CO2 concentration upon ambient temperture within a controlled space subject to an external heat source.  All it does is demonstrate the 'capacity' of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.  Nothing more. 
As for testing 'mist' in conjunction with CO2 then I would suggest an easy variation.  Just creat more boxes so you can test differences in humidity (water vapour).  But my hypothesis is if you don't change humidity but change CO2 then a similar result will happen as in the original experiment....and if you increase humidity and CO2...ditto.  And if you simply increase humidity...yep...ditto.  Of course the results will vary in specifics but overall they will all result in a greater amount of heat retained for longer after the removal of the external heat source than in the control (no change in humidity or CO2).

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Hmmm...this one is a giggle  Renewable energy now cheaper than new fossil fuels in Australia | Bloomberg New Energy Finance 
Whilst I'm thoroughly tempted to support the findings...I can't help thinking about who the report was prepared by and more importantly why...wait and see I suppose

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Here's another new paper from the European Geoscience Union about some of the latest in sea level modelling and most importantly some of the uncertainties behind the modelling.  It's open source so you can download the lot if you want. It's worth the slog...  ESD - Abstract - A scaling approach to project regional sea level rise and its uncertainties 
The New Scientist mob have used the techniques discussed to generate another one of their visualisations Explore the future's rising seas | New Scientist so feel free to interpret at your peril  
Either way, this particular modelling effort suggests that the oceans either side of Oz could see rises somewhat more than the current global projected averages...

----------


## Marc

What a joke!  Wind cheaper than coal !! Give me a break.
The only way that you can make those number is by factoring in the building of a new coal power station that will go for 100 years and compare it to building a new wind mill that if you are lucky will go on and off for 20. 
A pathetic attempt at fooling the naive.   The essential element in the black art of obscurantism is not that it wants to darken individual understanding, but that it wants to blacken our picture of the world, and darken our idea of existence.. :Mad:  Friedrich Nietzsche

----------


## woodbe

> Give me a brake.

  Here ya go:   
We've got a lot of wind power here in SA. Makes up for our ancient coal-dirt burning power stations.  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> What a joke! Wind cheaper than coal !! Give me a brake.
> The only way that you can make those number is by factoring in the building of a new coal power station that will go for 100 years and compare it to building a new wind mill that if you are lucky will go on and off for 20. 
> A pathetic attempt at fooling the naive.  The essential element in the black art of obscurantism is not that it wants to darken individual understanding, but that it wants to blacken our picture of the world, and darken our idea of existence.. Friedrich Nietzsche

  Actually you have it the wrong way round you need to shorten the design life of the coal fired power plant not lengthen it to skew the figures, coal fired power plants have a design life of about 50 years wind turbines about 20 years. A 100 year design life would put coal at a considerable advantage in this case. Both require maintenance and both to remain in use beyond their design lives will need extensive heavy maintenance at some point. I see Woodbe has given Marc a brake, how generous. :Wink:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Nice brake...might be a bit modern for the proposed application though.   :Biggrin:  
Just as an aside about the coal fired PS in terms of maintenance...you should see the cost involved in just refurbishing the refractory bricks in just one of each of the furnaces in you average PS.  Which I think has to happen every two to five years depending on the quality of the product being incinerated - though don't take my word for it as my memory isn't what it used to be.  The total shutdown costs are spectacular...mind you, a great number of skilled trades derive a pretty good income from the procedure so it may be a 'Rob Peter To Pay Paul' proposition to do away with it....

----------


## johnc

It's also quite mind blowing when you look at the number of deaths, illness amd injury arising from coal fired power, they aren't the silent killer especially when you add the mining component into the mix.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It's also quite mind blowing when you look at the number of deaths, illness amd injury arising from coal fired power, they aren't the silent killer especially when you add the mining component into the mix.

  Even renewables are not without cost in that respect...nothing comes for nothing

----------


## johnc

> Even renewables are not without cost in that respect...nothing comes for nothing

  Nuclear does well for workers although events like Chernobyl leave a dark cloud. Windmills are mainly falls and the like although some poor woman who parachuted into one was simply dead unlucky, roof top solar much the same, everything contains risk some leave a larger illness register than others. Coal though is a real standout although that has a lot to do with third world and developing nations with less stringent standards. It is interesting that the Chinese in the next five year plan are capping the burning of coal at current levels, hardly surprising for two reasons, abysmal air quality and they are producing more steel than is required and will lower the burning of coking coal as a result. Going to their major cities is amazing for the dreadful air, even out in the country there is a permanent haze that only abates after rain.

----------


## Marc

> It's also quite mind blowing when you look at the number of deaths, illness amd injury arising from coal fired power, they aren't the silent killer especially when you add the mining component into the mix.

  Funny how global warming alarmist want to pass for the altruistic and concerned kind, yet contrive quixotic baloney like the one above.
Everything that does not grow is mined, including every single part of a wind mill. So if mining is the boogieman no more windmills either. And no more almost anything you can think off.
Yes mining is a risky business, and so is truck driving and commercial diving, and flying helicopters with hanging loads and so many other activities that make our adrenaline pump work overtime. So ? Want to ban them all? Label them baaaaad?  :No:  
To argue that wind mill is cheaper than coal is so far fetched that does not merit much writing. Lets just say that when a wind mill carkes it at age 20, that does not mean it has produced energy consistently for 2o years. it may have pumped out at half speed a bit of power for some 5 or 6 years all up, at best. 
The experience of wind mills to produce power around the world is catastrophic and completely unsustainable without the massive government "incentives". Coal power stations pump out at full blast energy for as long as the owner is willing to replace worn parts. Some coal power stations have been operating without stopping since  the 1920's. Wind mills are notoriously unreliable, major components have failures that makes them obsolete in just over a decade and the principal driver, wind is just as unreliable. Either too much or too little. 
This are facts. Of course the usual obscurantist love smoke screens. The end justify the means and as usual the casualty is truth. 
And if we add to this the FACT that CO2 produced by coal fired stations is yet to be proven to be sufficient to make ANY difference at all in overall variations of temperature, to a point that if all coal fired station stopped today there wouldn't be an instrument on earth capable to measure the DIFFERENCE such devastating action would make. Considering that, we are clearly wasting time and money with all of the present day "alternatives".

----------


## Marc

*President Obamas Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures* Ashe Schow *October 18, 2012 at 8:25 am*    

> It is no secret that President Obamas and green energy supporters (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.The truth is that the problem is widespread. The governments picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that wouldve found the financial support in the private market. So far, 34 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering  either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administrations Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher. The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:  Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*SpectraWatt ($500,000)*Solyndra ($535 million)*Beacon Power ($43 million)*Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)SunPower ($1.2 billion)First Solar ($1.46 billion)Babcock and Brown ($178 million)EnerDels subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*Amonix ($5.9 million)Fisker Automotive ($529 million)Abound Solar ($400 million)*A123 Systems ($279 million)*Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*Johnson Controls ($299 million)Brightsource ($1.6 billion)ECOtality ($126.2 million)Raser Technologies ($33 million)*Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*Olsens Crop Service and Olsens Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*Range Fuels ($80 million)*Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*GreenVolts ($500,000)Vestas ($50 million)LG Chems subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*Navistar ($39 million)Satcon ($3 million)*Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)  *Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy. The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to invest in green energy. The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain. *CORRECTION:* Figures for four companies have been updated: Beacon Power received $43 million from the U.S. government, not $69 million as originally reported. Azure Dynamics received $5.4 millionfrom the federal government, not $120 million as originally reported. Compact Power Inc. received $151 million as part of the stimulus, not $150 million as originally reported. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group received $700,981 in government funding, not $6 million as originally reported. The following companies have been removed from the original list: AESs subsidiary Eastern Energy, LSP Energy, Schneider Electric, and Uni-Solar did not receive government-backed loans, based on additional research. The National Renewable Energy Lab did received $200 million in stimulus funding, but it is a government laboratory. _Additional research provided by Michael Sandoval_  _Posted in_Energy and Environment

----------


## johnc

> Funny how global warming alarmist want to pass for the altruistic and concerned kind, yet contrive quixotic baloney like the one above.
> Everything that does not grow is mined, including every single part of a wind mill. So if mining is the boogieman no more windmills either. And no more almost anything you can think off.
> Yes mining is a risky business, and so is truck driving and commercial diving, and flying helicopters with hanging loads and so many other activities that make our adrenaline pump work overtime. So ? Want to ban them all? Label them baaaaad?  
> To argue that wind mill is cheaper than coal is so far fetched that does not merit much writing. Lets just say that when a wind mill carkes it at age 20, that does not mean it has produced energy consistently for 2o years. it may have pumped out at half speed a bit of power for some 5 or 6 years all up, at best. 
> The experience of wind mills to produce power around the world is catastrophic and completely unsustainable without the massive government "incentives". Coal power stations pump out at full blast energy for as long as the owner is willing to replace worn parts. Some coal power stations have been operating without stopping since  the 1920's. Wind mills are notoriously unreliable, major components have failures that makes them obsolete in just over a decade and the principal driver, wind is just as unreliable. Either too much or too little. 
> This are facts. Of course the usual obscurantist love smoke screens. The end justify the means and as usual the casualty is truth. 
> And if we add to this the FACT that CO2 produced by coal fired stations is yet to be proven to be sufficient to make ANY difference at all in overall variations of temperature, to a point that if all coal fired station stopped today there wouldn't be an instrument on earth capable to measure the DIFFERENCE such devastating action would make. Considering that, we are clearly wasting time and money with all of the present day "alternatives".

  
Nobody said mining per se is bad in fact it has given Australia a high standard of living. You would be hard pressed though to find a coal fired power station from the 1920's still operating, the technology of that era would be uneconomic to operate on both reliability and fuel costs.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *President Obamas Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures*

  For crying out loud, Marc...you've posted a story based on the apparent fact that 10% of the 80 billion given in grants has been lost to bankrupt or potentially bankrupt companies.  That, my friend, is a beat-up.   
Have you any idea of the failure rate in venture capitalism? Or even something as simple as personal finance or home finance?  How about the stock market?   
I'm not going to argue that 10% of 80 billion US dollars isn't an insubstantial amount of money but nothing ventured...nothing gained.  There is risk and there is reward...  
As for your so-called facts about wind power.  As with many of your often hilarious facts...I call them hot air.   
Here's two things to think about**:  ask yourself how much money is out there in the market set aside for new proposed renewable power developments in this country and how many of those proposed projects are there?  And how much money is out there set aside for new proposed coal and/or gas fired power stations...and how many potential projects?  My read of the situation is that the renewables are in front by a few orders of magnitude in both departments.   
How many renewable power construction projects are underway?  How many coal and/or gas power construction projects are underway?  Money talks...to be a manic pro development fundamentalist (like Marc pretends to be) and to pretend otherwise and still think that it's a bad, mad and dangerous idea to develop and invest in renewable power sources is disingenuous in the extreme. 
Truth is though that Oz is generally sorted (on average) for base load power until at least 2020 based on current development rates...which is why only small infilling renewable projects in regional areas are typically getting the full backing required to get a spade in the ground. 
Another thing...ever considered how much government 'incentives' have gone into the development and/or augmentation of coal and/or gas fired power stations over the years? Everyone is a rent seeker in the power industry regardless of the power source...

----------


## Marc

British author Matt Ridley writes in the Spectator (UK) how the government there is waking up to the fact that wind power is staggeringly expensive and downright, well, unsustainable. (emph. added)  ~~~~~~~~~~~  To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the worlds energy that comes from wind turbines today is: zero. Despite the regressive subsidy (pushing pensioners into fuel poverty while improving the wine cellars of grand estates), despite tearing rural communities apart, killing jobs, despoiling views, erecting pylons, felling forests, killing bats and eagles, causing industrial accidents, clogging motorways, polluting lakes in Inner Mongolia with the toxic and radioactive tailings from refining neodymium, a ton of which is in the average turbine  despite all this, the total energy generated each day by wind has yet to reach half a per cent worldwide.
If wind power was going to work, it would have done so by now. The people of Britain see this quite clearly, though politicians are often wilfully deaf. The good news though is that if you look closely, you can see David Camerons government coming to its senses about the whole fiasco. The biggest investors in offshore wind  Mitsubishi, Gamesa and Siemens  are starting to worry that the governments heart is not in wind energy any more. Vestas, which has plans for a factory in Kent, wants reassurance from the Prime Minister that there is the political will to put up turbines before it builds its factory. 
This forces a decision from Cameron  will he reassure the turbine magnates that he plans to keep subsidising wind energy, or will he retreat? The political wind has certainly changed direction. George Osborne is dead set against wind farms, because it has become all too clear to him how much they cost. The Chancellors team quietly encouraged MPs to sign a letter to No. 10 a few weeks ago saying that in these financially straitened times, *we think it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies onshore wind turbines.* 
Putting the things offshore may avoid objections from the neighbours, but (Chancellor, beware!) it makes even less sense, because it costs you and me  the taxpayers  double. I have it on good authority from a marine engineer that keeping wind turbines upright in the gravel, tides and storms of the North Sea for 25 years is a near hopeless quest, so the *repair bill is going to be horrific and the output disappointing. Already the grouting in the foundations of hundreds of turbines off Kent, Denmark and the Dogger Bank has failed, necessitating costly repairs.* 
Read the whole article: http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7684233/the-winds-of-ch...

----------


## Marc

*Wind power - why bother?*    Thursday, December 27, 2012 South Wales Evening Post Follow  THE recent mass circulation of a brochure in the larger Swansea area by npower Renewables contained a lot of propaganda about their proposed wind turbine power station in Mynydd y Gwair, north Swansea, owned by the family trust of the Duke of Beaufort, one of the UK's senior and wealthiest of aristocrats. Let's get to some facts that npower did not say in its brochure.
A survey conducted in November and December, when it is generally windy and cold, when power is seriously needed, revealed the following factual statistics:
Wind turbines produced below 20 per cent of their capacity for more than half the time; wind turbines produced below 10 per cent of their capacity for more than a third of the time; wind turbines produced below 2.5 per cent of their capacity for the equivalent of one day in 12; wind turbines produced only 1.25 per cent of their capacity for the equivalent of one day a month; a third of the time they produced significantly less than 10 per cent of their capacity. This is not security of power and will need significant, prompt back up to cope with the vagaries of the wind.
So why bother? Well it is worth bothering for foreign-owned npower, which will use foreign manufactured wind turbines brought to Swansea by foreign ships with foreign crews delivered by non-Welsh hauliers to site and erected by foreign construction crews. 
Why? Because of the massive subsidies wind power gets. Where do these subsidies come from? The UK public, including the poor of Swansea, pay via levies on all our existing energy bills  at the last check it was revealed that about 12 per cent of all our energy bills go to "Government environment projects", of which wind power subsidy gets the lion's share. If that does not convince you, then think of the environmental desecration of that beautiful upland common in north Swansea which will be filled with steel and concrete and crisscrossed with service roads providing just two jobs on site for two men in a van to visit the site once a fortnight for a two-hour inspection.
K I Richard (Mrs)
Craigcefnparc, Swansea    
Read more: Wind power - why bother? | This is South Wales 
Follow us: @thisisswales on Twitter | thisissouthwales on Facebook

----------


## woodbe

> A survey conducted in November and December, when it is generally windy and cold, when power is seriously needed, revealed the following factual statistics:
> Wind turbines produced below 20 per cent of their capacity for more than half the time; wind turbines produced below 10 per cent of their capacity for more than a third of the time; wind turbines produced below 2.5 per cent of their capacity for the equivalent of one day in 12; wind turbines produced only 1.25 per cent of their capacity for the equivalent of one day a month; a third of the time they produced significantly less than 10 per cent of their capacity. This is not security of power and will need significant, prompt back up to cope with the vagaries of the wind.

  No doubt this is true. No-one claims that the wind will drive turbines at rated capacity 24/7. This is a strawman argument. Just because they do not run flat out does not mean they do not make useful power. 
Has it ever occurred to you that a wind power strategy requires planning to effect an effective result?   
Look at the yearly, the UK clearly is gaining a result even if wind power is variable and the turbines do not run flat chat 24/7. How can that be?  :Eek:  
Similarly, has it ever occurred to you that to reduce reliance on coal, investment is required in alternatives. If governments want that transition to start, they have to offer incentives. In time, the incentives can be dropped as the industry finds economies of scale and proves the usefulness and compatibility of those alternatives. 
I can understand locals not wanting wind turbines in their backyards though. They're an eyesore.  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

> I can understand locals not wanting wind turbines in their backyards though. They're an eyesore.  
> woodbe.

  Many years ago I travelled through Wales and stayed in a few small towns, including that one with the long name. Lots of these villages were old coal mining towns and the huge mountains of mine tailings encroached into the edge of town. If these residents were given an option now of having a wind turbine or the vast areas of tailings I wonder what they would choose. But of course in the old days coal mine owners never had to seek permission to obscure the view. 
The locals in Collingwood Park in Ipswich will never have to worry about a wind turbine in their backyard either. Subsidence from old coal mines has taken the backyard, and the house as well. The lucky ones got compensation courtesy of the taxpayers who have had to foot the bill for cleaning up after the coal mines. The unlucky ones have to sit there and wait, hoping there is solid ground under their house. 
Wind turbine manufacturers will have to pick up their act a lot if they ever hope to equal the long term harm done by coal. I'm not denying the benefits cheap power has bought but lets not totally ignore the cost, especially to health, that has been paid for many years.

----------


## Marc

Interesting tales. 
It is true that new enterprises need subsidies. It is also true that if an industry is not viable, all it is needed is to lift the price until it becomes economically viable. Simple. 
The question is this: Why do we, the consumer and taxpayer need to fork out billions for an alternative that is not needed?
Who says that coal must be replaced when we have enough coal for 1000 years? Julia? O bummer? or the other frigging looser in the video? 
The specter of CO2 being the all encompassing boogieman is a fiction created in order to push "alternatives" among other things. The surging "alternative" industry that couldn't stand on its own feet, not before not now and not never, is getting rich at our expense delivering nothing.  
The hysteria against coal reminds me of the time when we had the swine flue that was supposed to wipe humanity away. Egypt ordered the killing of 30,000 pigs (owned by Christians of course) slaughtered in the most atrocious way, crushed an burned alive with chemical. Watch it on you tube if you have the stomach  
The anti CO2 religion is no better.

----------


## Marc

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...eOoBSFIwPdMYfQ 
This page has some articles about industrial wind power. What makes them different, is that they arent written by lobbyists.  My name is John Droz, jr, and Im a physicist who has also been an environmental activist for some 25 years. Ive been a member of the Sierra Club, the Adirondack Council, the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, and the Residents Committee to Protect the Adirondacks, among others. [The views expressed here are mine as a scientist promoting science, and may not be consistent with the political agendas of those organizations. None of this is about me anyways. It all comes down to this: do you want our energy and environmental policies determined by Science or lobbyists? So far the lobbyists are pitching a shutout.]  The main point of all of my documents is to educate citizens about the basics of industrial wind power, a highly complex technical matter. [A major belief of mine is the KISS (Keep It Simple) philosophy, and my writings attempt to incorporate that principle.] 
What then? The objective would be for educated citizens to demand that their government only support (and allow on the grid) energy solutions that have been verified as legitimate using *scientific methodology.* Science is not a body of data, but is really a methodology. Science without the Scientific Method is just a set of opinions. 
That is my key message here: we do have serious energy (and environmental) problems, and we should insist on *Sound Scientific Solutions* for such matters.  [Note 1: Wind *energy* is the more technically correct term, but since most citizens are more familiar with the phrase wind *power*, I will use the latter here.] [Note 2: This is *not* a NIMBY issue for me, as no wind power projects are proposed for my community.] [Note 3: Industrial wind power refers to large scale ventures designed to provide electrical power on a commercial basis. This is an entirely different product (for several technical reasons) from home or boat based wind power generators, which can sometimes make economic sense.]   [SIZE=4;]
[SIZE=6;]T[/SIZE]he *ONLY* legitimate reason industrial wind power should exist today is for it to live up to its promoters assurances that it will meaningfully (and affordably) help reduce greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. CO2). However (since neither one of these conditions are being met), in almost all cases, wind power development is instead sold to a community based on the *financial incentives* offered by the developers. 
This, of course, is a completely different and unrelated consideration. As the picture on the right shows, the only thing green in this whole matter is the substantial profit being made by the developers and their paid supporters. So begins a series of serious incongruities. 
It is an unfortunate indictment of our society today that so many important decisions are primarily based on whats in it financially for me. One obvious consequence of this shortsighted and selfish perspective is that we get what we deserve. 
To those people who say wind power is good because it brings money to their community, then we would expect them to be leading the charge promoting other local economic developments that would also bring money to their community, like: a regional landfill, a chemical plant, a prison for terrorists, etc.   [/SIZE]   
Courtesy of WindToons.
See their site for many other insightful representations.   
[SIZE=6;]I[/SIZE] am STRONGLY in favor of reducing the pollutants of fossil fuel power facilities (like coal), and of *aggressively* investigating other*good* options for producing electricity. My main concern is that we should not be wasting time and money on illusionary solutions  like some of the alternatives being promoted by those with vested financial interests in them.  *A critical fact to understand is that just because a power source is an alternative, or a renewable, does NOT automatically mean that it is better than any conventional or fossil fuel source!* In other words, electrical energy alternatives/renewables should not be given a free pass on common sense scrutiny, and the use of *scientific methodology*, in objectively evaluating their merits. (See near the bottom of this page for status of Common Sense.)  Whether an alternative/renewable is acceptable is a *highly technical matter* that should be decided on the basis of a comprehensive, independent, objective and transparent evaluation of three key conditions: *a)* its technical performance, *b)* the economics of the power produced, and *c)* its FULL environmental impact. 
All independent evidence to date indicates that industrial wind power fails on all three of these critical counts.   Now, does stating that fact make me anti-green? How absurd a conclusion that would be! No, it makes me anti-illusion or pro-science. And I fully support legitimate renewables like industrial geothermal.  My articles discussing various aspects of this issue have been grouped into two categories: *1 -* those of interest to anyone who wants to know more about industrial wind power, and *2 -* those that relate to local groups who are organizing to resist the wind power conglomerate.  As a bonus, a few selected documents written by other experts in the energy field are also referenced. Here is an example: Key Industry Terms in the wind energy business, is an important paper by energy expert Glenn Schleede that does a fine job of explaining many of the technical concepts that we are dealing with. *Please read this closely!*      *Articles of General Interest*   The Decline Of Science: Discusses the over-riding issue that has led to government support for wind energy. To adequately resist these political directives citizens must have a clear understanding of what they are up against. [Rev 6/24/10] 
 Wind Power - How We Got Here. This article explains some history of electrical power generation, and how wind power compares to our conventional electrical energy sources. This argument has nothing to do with visual impact, or any of the other common (and legitimately) cited faults of wind power. [Rev 11/8/08]  [SIZE=4;]This (surprisingly) unique perspective is the basis for a PRESENTATION available to any open-minded organization (or community) that wants to see how wind power stacks up against our traditional power sources. There is a wealth of information on the 200± slides, and it is now available online (Electrical Energy - Sound Scientific Solutions). Closely studying this puts a lot about wind energy into the proper perspective. [Hint: this is at an easy-to-remember link EnergyPresentation.Info, so pass it on to other open-minded people.] 
The live version is still the best option as it includes full commentary, more interesting slides, built-in video, and an extensive Q&A afterwords. The live Presentation lasts a little over an hour, and goes quite a bit beyond what appears in the first essay, including (for instance) some of the key points from The Power of Energy (see next article). If you are interested in having this free Presentation put on in your community, please email me. [/SIZE]   
 The Power of Energy. This is an essay about how we got into this mess, and how to get out. It focuses on the deterioration of the ability of our society to do Critical Thinking. [Rev 10/2/08] 
 The two driving causes behind wind power are Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) enacted in one way or another in some 30 states, and Federal subsidies. Although the declared intent of these is to help with electrical energy issues, they both cause more problems than they solve. The War of the Worlds discusses the RPS and why it is so counterproductive. Unfortunately, a national RPS is now being considered. If it is structured anything like the states currently are, it will also be a very bad idea. [Rev 12/18/08] 
 In 2011 North Carolina is going through the process of approving the first industrial wind project in the state. This summary shows how inadequate the approval process was (and is). This is worth reading as what is transpiring in NC is indicative of what has happened in many other places. 
 As a part of what is going on in NC, there are no human health and safety assessment as part of the wind development approval process. In my communications with the NC State Health Director, he asked me to give him an idea of what health and safety concerns there were. Here is my answer, which applies worldwide. 
 DOE + AWEA = DOA: a partial critique of the embarrassingly bad 2008 DOE (read AWEA) report about wind power in 2030. [Rev 11/8/08] 
 Safety In Numbers Can Be An Illusion answers the question How can so many people can be wrong about wind power? Alternatively phrased: how many environmentalists does it take to screw up our energy policies? [Rev 11/8/08] 
 Some people believe that the situation is hopeless. Their opinion is that our federal and state representatives have gone so far away from the science that it will take years for them to get back to it. Although I can certainly see some basis for this skepticism, Im an optimistic person by nature. As such I am proposing a solution that (if done properly) *will fix the entire wind power matter:* EEA. Please speak to your federal representatives abut this. [Rev 1/15/09] 
 Getting Up To Speed on Wind Power (NY), and Getting Up To Speed on Wind Power (US).
There are two versions of this collection of articles: New York and US. [Note: the US version is for non-NYers and Canadians.] Both are a more detailed summary of the wind power issue, and are made up of five (or six for NY) sections: *a)* an overview of the wind power situation, *b)* the Executive Summary [covers two main points; this has been published in many newspapers], *c)* An Environmental Choice [this is addressed to conscientious, environmentally concerned citizens, and again focuses on just two points], *d)* Alicia [a powerful analogy of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) situation], *e)* a several page collection of references to some of the best wind power documents written, and *f)* in the NY version there is a discussion of the proposed Article X and its implications. [Rev 6/14/08] 
 My NYSERDA remarks were the comments I made at a very important meeting held on December 12, 2007. The NYS Energy Research and Development Authority is the key state agency that is supposed to be providing *objective* energy information to citizens of New York. Instead it has become a shill for the wind power industry. [See #14 below for a later report.]  [SIZE=4;] Since wind power is the offspring of Global Warming, I have been asked to give my take as a scientist about Global Warming. This is it. [Rev 6/16/12] 
 Models of Illusion shows just how much our conclusions about Global Warming (and thus wind power) are influenced by a few computer programmers, and how inherently speculative computer models really are. [Rev 7/22/09]  [/SIZE]

----------


## Marc

This (surprisingly) unique perspective is the basis for a PRESENTATION available to any open-minded organization (or community) that wants to see how wind power stacks up against our traditional power sources. There is a wealth of information on the 200± slides, and it is now available online (Electrical Energy - Sound Scientific Solutions). Closely studying this puts a lot about wind energy into the proper perspective. [Hint: this is at an easy-to-remember link EnergyPresentation.Info, so pass it on to other open-minded people.] 
The live version is still the best option as it includes full commentary, more interesting slides, built-in video, and an extensive Q&A afterwords. The live Presentation lasts a little over an hour, and goes quite a bit beyond what appears in the first essay, including (for instance) some of the key points from The Power of Energy (see next article). If you are interested in having this free Presentation put on in your community, please email me. *John Droz, jr.**Morehead City, NC* *Brantingham Lake, NY* Send an email to John

----------


## johnc

I find the slant Mr Droz has applied to be at odds with almost anything else. He doesn't seem to have an opinion regarding climate change impacting his thoughts which means he comes back to efficiency and cost. The whole contention seems to be based on scientific analysis of wind turbines. Most of what he has written seems a slightly convoluted way of applying supposition to an existing belief. One of the leading complaints about changing to renewables is economic cost yet supoosition here seems to trump economic reality. The simple truth is that wind turbines recover their carbon footprint in a short period of time and the cost of output is under 10c a Kw they actually do stack up on economic grounds. There is a lot of modelling on predicting wind speeds and it is well known their best location is usually on the coast. 
If you are going to use scientific purity as a basis for decision making without cost benefit analysis as part of the decision making tool than perhaps you are better off staying in a University enviroment and sticking with research. This is an ordinary piece of work at best and not worth the effort of trawling through its rambling and disjointed analysis.

----------


## Marc

> .... The whole contention seems to be based on scientific analysis of wind turbines. Most of what he has written seems a slightly convoluted way of applying supposition to an existing belief....
>  [and then]
> .....If you are going to use scientific purity as a basis for decision making without cost benefit analysis as part of the decision making tool than perhaps you are better off staying in a University enviroment and sticking with research. This is an ordinary piece of work at best and not worth the effort of trawling through its rambling and disjointed analysis.

  Interesting stuff ... 
So a "scientific analysis of wind turbines" is bad because it is a convoluted way of applying supposition to a belief.
I say interesting because the Global Warming myth is precisely based on scrambling for assumptions to prop up a belief.
And "scientific purity" without cost benefit analysis is also bad.
Well I found a cost benefit analysis that can be understood by primary shool kids further down.  
 So see, it is not up to this author to disprove the efficacy of wind turbine even when he does so many times over with great simplicity, since turbines have never proven to meet any criteria that would pronounce them useful for any type of energy production.         
The link to all the slides is right here: online

----------


## Marc

So what's the problem?
Environmental impact, CO2.

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc

Total Cost: Capital + Operation + Fuel   
Taxpayers cost:

----------


## woodbe

Marc, rather than cut/pasting a whole heap of biased anti-wind propoganda, have you thought about actually writing something? The pictures are pretty and all, but they are unsupported and they are someone elses opinion. 
Despite your propoganda dump, It is still clear that regardless of the variability of wind, it is a significant and growing input into the mix of power on almost every developed country's grid. SA is a major player in Australia with around half of the wind power installed in Australia:  Wind power in South Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   

> The increasing proportion of renewable energy in the state has caused  a significant decrease in the emissions intensity of electricity  generation in South Australia. This means that, *even though electricity  demand is increasing, the total emissions from generation has been in  decline*.[18]
>  The rapid development of wind power in South Australia has led to  direct economic effects from the construction and operation of wind  farms. There has been a total of $2.8 billion in wind power investment  up to October 2011 which is estimated to have created 3000 direct and  indirect jobs.[19]  Recent studies into the economic effects of wind farms have reported  that a 50 MW installation pays host landholders some $250,000 per year,  is constructed by workers who spend up to $1.2 million locally and  contributes up to $80,000 annually to community projects.[20]
>  Policies to streamline the approval process for wind farm  developments have met with some community opposition. Specific concerns  have been raised by rural residents who claim that wind farms have an  unacceptable impact on property values, health and the environment.[21]  However, a study by the CSIRO based on data collected on developments  in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia concluded that there is  a high degree of community support for wind farm developments from  those who do not seek media attention or political engagement to express  their views.[22]
>  With respect to the impact on electricity prices in South Australia,  the effects of the rising share of wind power has been less clear. *South  Australia's wholesale electricity prices, which were once the highest  in the country, are now the lowest. This decline in wholesale price has  been attributed to the impact of wind power on the merit order effect, where relatively low cost wind power is purchased by retailers before higher cost sources of power.*[23]  In spite of this, a study undertaken by the Energy Users Association of  Australia found that retail electricity prices in South Australia are  the third highest in the developed world behind Germany and Denmark,  with prices likely rise to become the most expensive in the near future.[24]  The South Australian Opposition Leader, Isobel Redmond, has linked the  State's high retail prices for electricity to the Government's policy of  promoting development of renewable energy, noting that Germany and  Denmark had followed similar policies.[25] 
>  In July 2012, the Essential Services Commission for South Australia  announced that it had approved further electricity retail price rises of  18%. It noted that the increases in prices were being driven by the  introduction of a carbon tax  by the Australian Government, the impact of feed-in tariffs for  domestic solar panels and 'other network changes'. The Government stated  that the price increase due to the carbon tax was approximately half of  that experienced by other States due to the high installed capacity of  wind and gas-fired generation.[26]  The Essential Service Commission of South Australia has determined that  wind power adds just 0.366c per kWh to the average South Australian  electricity bill.[23]

  So, we get a significant part of our power here without having to burn coal or gas, and it costs us just 0.366c extra per kWh. Sounds good to me.  :Biggrin:  
What were you saying again, Marc? 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> 

   

> http://www.energyplanning.aau.dk/Pub...hWindPower.pdf 
>                                                    Abstract 
>                      In a normal wind year, Danish wind turbines generate the equivalent of approx. 20 percent of the Danish electricity demand. This paper argues that only approx. 1 percent of the wind power production is exported. The rest is used to meet domestic Danish electricity demands.  
>                      The cost of wind power is paid solely by the electricity consumers and the net influence on consumer prices was as low as 1-3 percent on average in the period 2004-2008. In 2008, the net influence even decreased the average consumer price, although only slightly.  
>                      In Denmark, 20 percent wind power is integrated by using both local resources and international market mechanisms. This is done in a way which makes it possible for our neighbouring countries to follow a similar path. Moreover, Denmark has a strategy to raise this share to 50 percent and the necessary measures are in the process of being implemented.  
>                      Recently, a study made by the Danish think tank CEPOS claimed the opposite, i.e. that most of the Danish wind power has been exported in recent years. However, this claim is based on an incorrect interpretation of statistics and a lack of understanding of how the international electricity markets operate. Consequently, the results of the CEPOS study are in general not correct. Moreover, the CEPOS study claims that using wind turbines in Denmark is a very expensive way of reducing CO2 emissions and that this is the reason for the high energy taxes for private consumers in Denmark. These claims are also misleading. The cost of CO2 reduction by use of wind power in the period 2004-2008 was only 20 EUR/ton. Furthermore, the Danish wind turbines are not paid for by energy taxes.  
>                      Danish wind turbines are given a subsidy via the electricity price which is paid by the electricity consumers. In the recent years of 2004-2008, such subsidy has increased consumer prices by 0.54 ¢/kWh on average. On the other hand, however, the same electricity consumers also benefitted from the wind turbines since the wind power decreased the electricity market price on Nord Pool. On average during 2004-2008, such effect decreased the consumer prices by 0.27 ¢/kWh and consequently the net influence during this period increased consumer prices by only 0.27 ¢/kWh equal to only 1-3 percent of the final consumer prices. In 2008, the net influence of wind power actually decreased the consumer price slightly by approx. 0.05 ¢/kWh. Consequently, the influence of Danish wind turbines on the consumer electricity price is negligible.

   
Doesn't look to bad actually. 
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

A number of sources give different values to those in the slides Mr Droz presents. CO2 (g) per KWh in 2009 (electricity only) &mdash; European Environment Agency (EEA)
This shows a completely different picture of levels of CO2 per KWh; France is not the lowest nor is Denmark anywhere near the highest.  U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source
The official EIA site gives different levelised costs and wind is much more competitive in the original document. 
Quality of life is a fairly vague concept and relating it to GDP and electricity consumption only is an overly simplistic and non-scientific way to do it. Quality of Life Index by Country 2012 
Mr Droz is entitled to his own opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts.

----------


## woodbe

> A number of sources give different values to those in the slides Mr Droz presents. CO2 (g) per KWh in 2009 (electricity only) &mdash; European Environment Agency (EEA)
> This shows a completely different picture of levels of CO2 per KWh; France is not the lowest nor is Denmark anywhere near the highest.

  I'll say:     

> Mr Droz is entitled to his own opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts.

  Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

Mr Droz doesn't seem to have gone to much trouble in the "facts" he has used to support his reasoning, many are just plain wrong others seem inappropriate measures to gauge anything against. Clearly he has negative views towards wind energy yet pushes his version of scientific analysis over commercial and engineering realities, he is also not prepared to consider the possibility of emerging technologies on energy storage in base load assumptions. Lots of little graphs, lots of odd conclusions that all point to a rather eccentric individual however I wonder why anyone would bring it forward as anything but an amusing but largely worthless opinion piece.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Who says that coal must be replaced when we have enough coal for 1000 years?

  
No-one.  Everyone.  There's no denying we have a gargantuan amount of the stuff and it's relatively cheap.  But the problem is that (like motor vehicles) new power stations have to be more efficient and less environmentally  compromised than the previous generation and this has made them even more expensive to build and to maintain than they have been previously.   
That's why most of the new power stations in this country have been gas fired.  The fuel is more expensive than coal but it's easier to clean up the leavings after it is combusted - you don't need massive scrubbers to remove soot nor the infrastructure and spare ground to move and store the millions of tonnes of fly ash (let alone the raw fuel) left over after the incineration.  So they are cheaper to build and operate.  And because they are more efficient they are attractive to the financiers who are critical to getting such projects off the ground in the first place. 
...and all of our coal burning plants are at the back end of their operational life...

----------


## Marc

Silent, that is not the point. If our coal fired are ageing we can replace them with new more efficient ones. If gas has some fringe benefits, then gas may be the way to go as a cheaper investment. Those are valid economic alternatives irrelevant to the matter of "windpower" 
The fact remains that wind mills are a fraud since they will never replace anything resembling a power station, require massive amounts of rare earth for their magnets, massive amounts of land, massive extra lines, have a quarter of the lifespan and produce the most expensive electricity ever. 
Yet they exist because they are the extension of another fraud. The CO2 fraud.
Wind mills are not green by any stretch of the imagination.
After all what greens dread the most is that we (those who actually work) find a cheap source of energy available to all.

----------


## Marc

As for the other replies, I find them rather amusing. 
Clearly the cognitive dissonance in some contributors is at work big time.
$1 anyone?

----------


## woodbe

> wind mills are a fraud since

   

> they will never replace anything resembling a power station,

   
 So 28% of Denmark's power supply doesn't 'resemble a power station', huh?  :Smilie:  You missing the smokestacks or something?   

> require massive amounts of rare earth for their magnets

  Most use rare earth magnets, yes. But some do not: Rare earth magnets: not all new turbines are using them « YES! to renewables In any case, rare earth is valuable and recyclable.    

> massive amounts of land, massive extra lines, have a quarter of the lifespan

  Hmm. You sure about all that? The land under turbines is usable for pasture and grazing. Maintenance and long term replacement of all power generation infrastructure is a primary and significant expense. Have you noticed how much land is taken up for coal power stations, the transport infrastructure to move coal to the station, and the land consumed by the coal mine itself? Lines are infrastructure, they need to be built for wind just like they were built for coal.   

> and produce the most expensive electricity ever.

  Wind power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   

> The monetary cost per unit of energy produced is similar to the cost for new coal and natural gas installations.

  It's all very well comparing new wind power against ancient coal plants, but when you compare the costs per kWh of new plant, things don't stack up the way you think... 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Silent, that is not the point. If our coal fired are ageing we can replace them with new more efficient ones. If gas has some fringe benefits, then gas may be the way to go as a cheaper investment. Those are valid economic alternatives irrelevant to the matter of "windpower".

  They are not irrelevant because it is an economic decision by the financiers of these development projects as to whether they invest in them.  They seem to be voting with their wallets at the moment for gas and renewables (mostly wind and solar) which might tell you something about their current view on the long term financial returns to be derived from investing in coal fired power. 
The last coal project I heard of was the one down in Gippsland where the propenent had to make the thing so huge in capacity to be financially viable that it got pinged in the planning stage due to land and the environmental contraints of the site (memeory might be rusty?) and so was constrained in size that it didn't make economic sense. 
Your dystopian views on wind power seem to be at odds to what is actually happening out there in the world.  Projects are getting delivered, private and public money is being spent and power is being generated....somebody seems to be making money.  If there were no financial gains to be made over the lifetime of a project then why on Earth would the Oz financial industry get in there and invest in it?  If they aren't investing in other forms of power generation (coal, nuclear, tides, waves etc) then I'd reckon it's because they don't see the returns in it.   
I have no problem with coal power nor gas power nor wind power nor nuclear power nor hydro power as long as it is done well, done right and done with a long term view to 'shall do no further harm' in mind.  And of course that it makes economic sense.  The best hope is that we see a diverse range of power sources made available to our community into the future to ensure energy security and appropriate quality of life for everyone in that community.

----------


## Marc

[QUOTE]They are not irrelevant because it is an economic decision by the financiers of these development projects as to whether they invest in them. They seem to be voting with their wallets at the moment for gas and renewables (mostly wind and solar) which might tell you something about their current view on the long term financial returns to be derived from investing in coal fired power.../QUOTE] 
Silent you are more clever than the above reply. Of course people are investing in wind power, of course there is profits to be made, but if you think they are investing because of some hypothetical advantage over coal you are sadly mistaken. The investments are there because they are made artificially viable by massive subsidies with borrowed money. So what you say? "New enterprises need support' and all that jazz?
"Alternative" sources of energy so far have delivered nothing at a massive cost and exist only because a bold face lie has made them viable. The fraud of CO2. 
Without that fraud, alternative energy makes no sense. 
Sadly they don't even deliver in that area. 
The wind mills scandal is however much worst than the money spent by taxpayers to support corporations who pretend to care for the environment.

----------


## Marc

You are here: Home / Big wind industry / Wind power  just better? *Wind power  just better?*February 17, 2013 By stopthesethings 3 Comments ***The real reason for promoting alternative energy consumption such as wind power has little to do with the environment, from what we can tell, and everything to do with control.* *The idea is to disenfranchise those who seek to be energy independent and to promote complex solutions that demand bureaucratic oversight.* *The Daily Bell  www.thedailybell.com*
February 8, 2013 _Australian Wind Energy Now Cheaper Than Coal, Gas, BNEF Says  Wind is now cheaper than fossil fuels in producing electricity in Australia, the worlds biggest coal exporter, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Electricity can be supplied from a new wind farm in Australia at a cost of A$80 ($84) per megawatt hour, compared with A$143 a megawatt hour from a new coal-fired power plant or A$116 from a new station powered by natural gas when the cost of carbon emissions is included, according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance report.  Bloomberg_ *Dominant Social Theme:* Wind power and alternative energy solutions are just better. *Free-Market Analysis:* One of the problems with elite dominant social themes in the era of the Internet is that despite the best efforts of the mainstream press, promotions may be undercut for a number of reasons.
In the excerpt above, we can see Bloomberg, a mainstream media elite mouthpiece, positioning wind power as a great boon and economically efficient approach to energy generation.
The real reason for promoting alternative energy consumption such as wind power has little to do with the environment, from what we can tell, and everything to do with control.
Huge energy producing wind farms, solar farms and other alternative resources are vastly complex to develop and integrate into the power grid.
Coal, oil and other naturally occurring sources of power, meanwhile, are continually demonized. From our point of view, this is by design. The idea is to disenfranchise those who seek to be energy independent and to promote complex solutions that demand bureaucratic oversight.
In this article, excerpted above, Bloomberg makes a continual argument for energy complexity. The wire service explains that coal-fired power stations built in the 1970s and 1980s can still produce power at a lower cost than that of wind, the research shows, but that fossil fuels are growing more expensive.
Of course, reading further informs us that this is not due to supply and demand but because government itself is raising the costs because of governments price on carbon emissions imposed last year.
Australia is the first major Western country to formally tax carbon emissions. And there remains a great deal of controversy about such taxes, given the infinitesimal contribution of manmade carbon to the atmosphere.
Global warming  AKA climate change  remains highly controversial, too. But that hasnt constrained Australias leftist government when it comes to taking action. Bloomberg writes the following: _The fact that wind power is now cheaper than coal and gas in a country with some of the worlds best fossil fuel resources shows that clean energy is a game changer which promises to turn the economics of power systems on its head, Michael Liebreich, chief executive officer of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said in a statement today _ _Australia last year started charging its biggest polluters a price of A$23 a metric ton for their carbon emissions to discourage the use of fossil fuels and fight climate change. Natural gas prices in Australia may triple by 2030, BNEF said._ _The low and falling costs of renewable energy and high and rising costs of coal- and gas-fired plants suggest that much of Australias new generating capacity is likely to be renewable, Sydney-based Bloomberg New Energy Finance analyst Kobad Bhavnagri wrote in the report._
We can see Bloomberg is flogging its own subscription-finance facility, above. Leaving aside the conflict of interest inherent in reporting so dramatically on trends that one is monetizing, we are left with the ongoing questions about why these sorts of articles never recognize the larger controversies.
The meme itself is obviously in disarray. The Daily Mail, for instance, ran a long article late last year on why wind power is coming into increasing disfavor in Britain. Christopher Booker writes, in part: _Ten years too late, its good riddance to wind farms  one of the most dangerous delusions of our age  Energy Minister John Hayes has announced no more wind farms are allowed to be built in the UK  The significance of yesterdays shock announcement by our Energy Minister John Hayes that the Government plans to put a firm limit on the building of any more onshore windfarms is hard to exaggerate._ _On the face of it, this promises to be the beginning of an end to one of the greatest and most dangerous political delusions of our time. For years now, the plan to cover hundreds of square miles of the British countryside with ever more wind turbines has been the centrepiece of Britains energy policy  and one supported by all three major political parties._ _Nowhere will this announcement be greeted with more delirious surprise than in all those hundreds of communities across the land where outraged local protest groups have formed in ever greater numbers to fight the onward march of what they see as the greatest threat to Britains countryside for centuries._ _So unreliable are wind turbines  thanks to the winds constant vagaries  that they are one of the most inefficient means of producing electricity ever devised._ _Indeed, the amount of power they generate is so derisory that, even now, when we have built 3,500 turbines, the average amount of power we get from all of them combined is no more than what we get from a single medium-size, gas-fired power station, built at only fraction of the cost._ _No one would dream of building wind farms unless the Government had arranged to pay their developers a subsidy of 100 per cent on all the power they produce, paid for by all of us through a hidden charge on our electricity bills._ _The only way the industry managed to fool politicians into accepting this crazy deal was by subterfuge  referring to turbines only in terms of their capacity (i.e. what they could produce if the wind was blowing at optimum speeds 24 hours of every day). The truth is that their average actual output is barely a quarter of that figure._ _Yet it was on this deception that the industry managed to fool pretty well everyone that windfarms could make a contribution to Britains energy needs four times larger than reality  and thus was the great wind scam launched on its way._
Wind power has many difficulties, which is why it has never been relied upon as a chief source of power. The Bloomberg article provides us with a mainstream narrative but such a narrative does not offer us the larger reality. *Conclusion:* In an era of information plenty, we wonder how long such articles can be convincing, let alone the investment opportunities they purport to provide. *Like all machinery wind turbines need regular maintenance and eventually replacement. In this field are the old tops from turbines at Cold Northcott wind farm in the UK.* *Share this:*Twitter7Facebook45More      *Like this:* 
Filed Under: Big wind industry, Big wind politics, The Media, UK Tagged With: alternative energy, Bloomberg, Daily Bell, The Daily Mail  «  and heres their take on our clean energy future  ka ching! Critical omissions and twisted commentary »  *Comments*sandcanyongal says: February 22, 2013 at 7:29 pm
HI all, I live in the Tehachapi Pass in California near ground zero of 8500 wind turbines. They are intermittent so the propellers turn and generate electricity only when the wind blows. The propellers and mechanical equipment are loud, like being close to a major airport with hundreds of running jet engines filling the air. The propellers are not covered with protective shields to prevent millions of birds and bats from colliding into the rotating propellers and slaughtering them. Transmission lines are just as bad. The construction and operation of windmills turns 100% of the land where they are located into wasteland for the next 100 years. Where there are 148.13 meter tall towers there will be blinking beacons as warnings to pilots. You will lose your night sky and ability to ever see the stars and constellations again. I think these are good enough reasons to shut them all down permanently.
Fossil fuels will cause our extinction if not drastically reduced today. However, destroying our ecosystems with garbage technologies are not the answer.
- Silence is Consent  Reply

----------


## Marc

The biggest government sponsored fraud in the history of our country  *STOP THESE THINGS* *THE TRUTH ABOUT WIND FARMS IN AUSTRALIA*        ABOUTEXPERTSTAKE ACTIONTHESE PEOPLE GET ITAND THESE PEOPLE DONTWIKIRUMOUR FILEWHEN POSTINGFEBRUARY 23, 2013   You are here: Home / Big wind industry / The biggest government sponsored fraud in the history of our country *The biggest government sponsored fraud in the history of our country*February 13, 2013 By stopthesethings 2 Comments _The snouts in the easy money making renewable energy trough are many and varied._ _There is an urgent need to eliminate conflicts of interest within our government.  The only reason people are not rioting in the streets about the unjustified increase in their power bills is that they simply have no idea what is going on.  There is enough evidence of fraudulent behaviour and corruption to justify a Royal Commission._ *The following draft was to be given last night on the floor of the Australian Parliament, House of Representatives, by the Member for Hume, Alby Schultz.*
Access Hansard here. *ALBY SCHULTZ MP  Adjournment debate  Tuesday, February 12, 2013*
The Renewable Energy Target was designed to assist with climate change by reducing Australias green house gas emissions.  The unfortunate reality of this is that it has become what I have described as *the biggest government sponsored fraud in the history of our country. * 
Yesterday, Senator John Madigan asked questions of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency regarding the operation of the Waubra Wind Farm in Ballarat, Victoria. *The Waubra wind farm is not compliant with its planning approval.*
Under the Renewable Energy Act of 2000, state planning compliance is a pre-requisite for a power stations eligibility for commonwealth accreditation.  *Without lawful accreditation, a power station is not eligible to receive government subsidy.* In this case, Im referring to being issued with Large-scale Renewable Energy Certificates by the Clean Energy Regulator. *The issuing of RECs via fraudulent applications could well be considered to be the proceeds of crime.*  A white collar crime that is ultimately financed by fleecing the Australian electrical consumer. Waubra. Fraud. I have recently sighted written communication from Mr Paul Jarman*, of the Department of Planning and Community Development in Victoria, which confirms that the *Waubra Wind Farm is non-compliant with planning legislation. * 
The Clean Energy Regulator has issued the Waubra Wind Farm with Large-scale RECs illegally since it began operation in July 2009.As per the Renewable Energy Target, the monetary value of the *Large-scale RECs issued to Waubra exceeds $80.6 million dollars*. This wind farm has not ever satisfied the terms of state planning compliance for accreditation.
Current court cases suggest that non-compliance with state planning legislation is common in the wind industry in Australia. Since the implementation of the Renewable Energy Target in April 2001, over 195 million RECs have been created by the Clean Energy Regulator.
RECs issued are expected to exceed 50 Billion dollars.  In my electorate of Hume, the REC subsidy for new turbines, excluding existing ones, is set to reach $500 million to $1 billion per year.
Wind turbine developments are issued with Large-scale RECs to the value of approximately $500,000 per turbine per year.  *I am starting to be provided with proof of developments that have issued falsified information in relation to planning and noise compliance.* *There are many cases of wind farms that have been approved with grossly inaccurate environmental assessments in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.* 
RECs are being issued fraudulently to $2 shelf companies that follow the model of declaring bankruptcy only to be reborn under a new name. *Australias biggest corporate collapse of Babcock and Brown in 2011, recorded losses upwards of 10 Billion dollars. Babcock and Brown Wind was then renamed Infigen* Energy.
The large majority of Australian wind farms are owned by foreign companies.  Thats *billions of dollars, going overseas to fraudulent corporations under the guise of renewable energy.*
Queenslands Ergon Energy confirmed to the Senate Inquiry in October 2012, That energy costs would be the predominant driver of increased electricity prices due to the Renewable Energy Target placing upward pressure on wholesale electricity prices.  We are all paying more for our electricity. And for no evidential benefit to the environment.
Wind turbines should not be classed as renewable energy as the industry is unsure of whether they are actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions or not. *Studies of performance based data suggest that wind turbines do not reduce emissions.*  Wind turbines are industrial power generators that require base-load power to operate and are inefficient, intermittent, damaging to the environment and very expensive to the electrical consumer in Australia. *We have people in the Gillard Government who have vested interests in the electricity prices continuing to sky rocket.*
A major developer of wind farms in South Australia is Pacific Hydro, a company under the control of trade union industry superannuation funds that have close links in the Gillard government.
Pacific Hydro operates the Clements Gap wind farm and now wants to develop wind farms at Keyneton and Gulnare. The Clement Hill wind farm is worth approximately $13.5 million a year and $21 million in RECs issued.   *The chairman of Pacific Hydro is Garry Weaven, of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Pacific Hydro is owned by Industry Super Holdings through the Australian Infrastructure Fund.*
The snouts in the easy money making renewable energy trough are many and varied. *There is an urgent need to eliminate conflicts of interest within our government.*  The only reason people are not rioting in the streets about the unjustified increase in their power bills is that they simply have no idea what is going on.  There is enough evidence of fraudulent behaviour and corruption to justify a Royal Commission. **Email re Waubra wind farm* *From:* Paul.Jarman@dpcd.vic.gov.au *Sent:* Tuesday, 5 February 2013 8:56 AM *To:* *Cc:* bart.gane@dpcd.vic.gov.au; peter.giudice@dpcd.vic.gov.au *Subject:* Re: Waubra Wind Farm
Acciona submitted a revised report and then advised that it was not happy with parts of its own methodology.
We are now consulting with the EPA on the scope of further testing.  As such the Minister has not yet signed off on any noise compliance associated with the Waubra wind farm.
Paul Jarman
Assistant Director Regional Projects
Planning Statutory Services
Department of Planning and Community Development
Level 11, 1 Spring Street
Melbourne 3000 http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au
______________________________________
T :Frown: 03) 9208 3419 F: (03) 9098 8999 M: 0411 154 606 *Share this:*Twitter11Facebook102More      *Like this:* 
Filed Under: Big wind industry, Big wind politics, Dirty little secretsTagged With: Acciona, Alby Schultz, Australian Parliament, Babcock and Brown, Ballarat, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, government fraud, Infigen, John Madigan, Paul Jarman, REC, Renewable Energy Act 2000,Waubra wind farm  « A voice from the wilderness of Macarthur wind farm Its like cigarettes in the 1950s  »  *Comments*Harry Makris says: February 15, 2013 at 6:11 pm
.and this is what you are left with. 14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA | Tory Aardvark  Replykelpie chilcott says: February 13, 2013 at 11:16 am
10 points to ALBY SCHULTZ even now they shut him down before he finished yet they let some of the less intelligent polies rabbit on with Bull@#%$% for as long as they like  Reply

----------


## johnc

For goodness sake do we have to keep getting served up this rehashed rubbish, a lot of the comments attached to the above few posts are simply absurd. millions of birds and bats aren't killed by wind turbines, nor is the land beneath unusable it remains suitable for the same agricultural pursuits it was used for previously. Lets get some basic persepective here, no single source of power is perfect nor really are any sources so poor as to be withdrwn from the option list. All power options regardless of what they are get subsidies of one form or another it may be regional incentives to attract it to an area, very generious R&D incentives, accelerated investment allowances or subsidies on the cost of raw material or generated power and it varies by region. all have impacts on the area they are in, it might be airbourne particulate matter, noise, holes in the ground or orange bellied parrots or even low flying aircraft. Not one of these backward looking posts at anytime seems capable of seeing that rather basic reality.  
You cannot pretend to have any credibility or understanding if you cannot objectively sit back and look at the cost benefits of each and every option and weigh it up against cost, enviromental, reliability and longetivity. Coal will be with us for a long time as will solar and wind plus there are other options out there as well. what we will end up with is a grid very different to what we have now with a number of different sources of generated capacity. If you want to look at it from an intelligent perspective you have to look forward not back and see what we have now and the options before us. We as human being have been in a constant state of change for the last two centuries and the pace is picking up. Stick with the old and the world will just pass us by. what we should be turning our minds to is lowering the cost of power per unit, and power consumed per process so we remain competitive in a changing world. Those that bleat on about change and railing against it are simply destined for the dust bin of history, keep up with change and embrace it if you want a country with a high standard of living or we just might find ourselves in an economic backwater going nowhere while the world passes us by.  
Although this forms a general reply to Marc's last few posts the thrust is general and not aimed at anyone specific.

----------


## woodbe

The point I'd like to make is that copying and pasting masses of biased political guff here is not what this forum is about. 
We have had some discussion about wind power in response to Marc's cut/pastes, yet Marc's response to that discussion is not to debate the points but just to cut paste yet another load of blather. Not really the spirit of the forum IMO. If that behaviour is ok, there is an internet full of blather, I'm sure we could fill the Renovate Forum server space with it if we all adopted the same behaviour. 
Re the land under the windmills, JohnC is correct. You'll note that the Tehachapi Pass is a mountain pass at 1200M elevation adjacent to the Mojave desert. This means it will be sublect to very low temperatures, ice and snow during winter, and year-round windy weather from the north west, so it will support slow growing sub-alpine plants and grasses that will make the area look pretty barren much of the year. 
The windfarm there is actually a collective of windfarms and is in the process of renewal as it is one of the oldest large windfarms dating back to the early 1980's. When complete it will be one of the largest output windfarms in the world and even now the region is still very much a net exporter of power.  The Top Ten Largest Wind Farms in the World - Energy Digital   

> *1. Alta Wind Energy Center* *California, USA  1,550 MW Capacity*
>       The Alta Wind Energy Center rises from the shadows of the antiquated  Tehachapi Pass Wind Farm, one of the oldest and largest wind projects in  the United States.  Newer, larger and more efficient turbines are  replacing the aging ones that fill the passremnants of Californias  wind energy push over thirty years ago.  The Alta-Oak Creek Mojave  Project is currently under construction and will consist of 320 large  high-capacity wind turbines generating 800 MW.  
>       The project is headed by Terra-Gen Power, a renewable energy company  with wind, solar, and geothermal projects throughout the United States.   Terra-Gen owns and operates seven wind projects in  the Tehachapi-Mojavi wind resource area with a total of 617 turbines.   They broke ground on the new Alta-Oak Creek Wind Farm in mid-2010.  Once  complete, the combined farms will together comprise the largest wind  farm in the world, providing power to more than 275,000 California  residences, and offsetting 5.8 billion pounds of carbon dioxide, 28  million pounds of sulfur dioxide, and 13.2 million pounds of nitrogen  oxide emissions annually.

  A local personal weather station's yearly data gives you a picture of the conditions: Weather Station History | Weather Underground 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

How does one test a prophecy? 
I thought it would be rather obvious however a quick Google search reveals great confusion. 
Particularly from the religious quarters pages upon pages of opinions yet no clear nor obvious reply. 
If I stood up today and said the earth will end the last day of March 2013, I will have one month to rant and rave. If I rake up millions of followers (not too hard believe me) and they all repeat the same prophecy, eventually even you would have a spark of doubt somewhere in the back of your mind. "What if Marc is right?" Millions of people follow him there must be something in his claim ... I better get ready.....  
Yet 31 March and then first of April ... you got it, no end of the earth. 
How can anyone possibly survive this? 
Why do false prophets today survive the falsehood of their trumped up claims?  
The answer is in the values that govern our actions and a curious mechanism called cognitive dissonance.
"My millions of followers" would have joined me in my claims because of a particular set of values that makes the end of the world appealing to them at a subconscious level. 
When that prophecy does not come true and the April fool sun comes up in the East something cracks.  
How did this happen? There must be a hidden reason! Everything made so much sense and now this!!!!  :No: 
So the brain kicks in and provides the solution to avoid the pain of reality conflicting with belief. 
Cognitive dissonance will make my apocalyptic friends, alien invasion preachers and also global warming alarmist perpetuate false claims simply because they *must* be true.
So come 1/4/13 ... or when rain that was supposed to never fall again starts poring, and dams supposed to be dry overflow, when the sea does not raise by 9 meters and the temperatures don't burn us to a cinder, one simply changes the name and keeps on going preaching. 
If the earth freezes over it will still be global warming turned climate change turned something new ...
It must be true ... millions can not be wrong.   
Give it a break guys, check the pain and misery imposed to millions that must live among those monstrosities for the sake of a lie.

----------


## johnc

Prophecy? what prophecy, you are in the wrong place for that. The reality is that those that cast about for obscure and often irrelevent and inaccurate references are really just wasting their own time and the time of others. If you continue to serve up cut and pastes of a very low standard and full of quite obvious inaccuracies it serves no purpose to retreat to claims of prophecy or some other rubbish to avoid the realities of what appears to be a disorganised and confused belief system.

----------


## Dr Freud

Marc, you have been doing a stirling job in rebutting the fiction that constantly permeates from the climate cult. 
There is so much to ridicule, but so little time.  Very busy over here in the west digging up heaps of stuff that produces more CO2 emissions.  :Biggrin:  
Lucky for all the welfare sucking greenies living in trees in Tassie that we generate revenue to pay for their dole, eh?  How do they put their fortnightly forms in anyway?  :Confused:  
But time is short (or relative anyway) so on with the show...   

> Prophecy? what prophecy, you are in the wrong place for that.

  Yeh, he's in reality, one must be in the climate cult to generate prophecies.  Remember these:   

> *Dr Pachauri said if mankind continues to    pump out greenhouse gases at the current rate the world could experience    catastrophic warming within the next fifty years. *  
>  He said the threat is so great that the fifth assessment report (AR5), due to    be presented to the UN in 2014, will look at "geo-engineering options".   
>  Options include putting mirrors in space to reflect sunlight or covering    Greenland in a massive blanket so it does not melt.  
>   Sprinkling iron filings in the ocean "fertilises" algae so that it    sucks up CO2 and "seeding clouds" means that less sunlight can get    in.   
>   Other options include artificial "trees" that suck carbon dioxide    out of the air, painting roofs white to reflect sunlight and man-made    volcanoes that spray sulphate particles high in the atmosphere to scatter    the sun's rays back into space.   Cancun climate change summit: UN considers putting mirrors in space - Telegraph

  The prophecy is in bolded and underlined for your perusal, made nearly 3 years ago, so 47 left until "catastrophe" I guess.   :Screwy:  
But as I have already pointed out, and you either did not read, forgot, or rejected through the "cognitive dissonance" process Marc outlined above, Hansen's, Flannery's (and many others) prophecies have failed, and failed, and failed...all ignored by the true believers.   :Fineprint:  
I also left the giant blanket over Greenland and the sucking trees in there purely for your mirth.  :Biggrin:    

> The reality is that those that cast about for obscure  and often irrelevent and inaccurate references are really just wasting  their own time and the time of others. If you continue to serve up cut  and pastes of a very low standard and full of quite obvious inaccuracies  it serves no purpose to retreat to claims of prophecy or some other  rubbish to avoid the realities of what appears to be a disorganised and  confused belief system.

  
How does this cut and paste rate? Obscure? Irrelevant? Inaccurate? Low standard?       :Roflmao2:  
My friend, there is a spectrum in this debate between reality on one side...and a disorganised and confused belief system on the other. 
Have you figured out yet which tail you are on?

----------


## Dr Freud

Hey, I've been trying to track what's happening here in the thread while we're busy digging up rocks over here in the west. 
And so far as I can tell, there is still absolutely no evidence proving this farcical fairy tale is true. 
So I say again:  *There is zero scientific evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.*   :Biggrin:  
So I guess the science is still settled in my favour then...for now at least anyway, eh?  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

First, score check:   

> *Total Commonwealth Government Securities
>                on Issue - $262,836m * AOFM  Home

  And that's before the tens of billions we need to borrow for the latest rounds of economic ineptitude. 
If this vile creature was at least economically literate, we could almost tolerate her base nature.  :No:         
Unfortunately, a lot of damage will be done to this great country by September.  She knows she will lose and will now just try to tie an incoming government into the worst financial situation possible, just to make their job harder. 
This vile creature cares nothing for our country, and can't use her new glasses as a disguise for her previous ineptitude. 
The EU Carbon Dioxide price is dropping faster than this cults credibility, and looks like leaving another massive black hole in our economy. 
I would love Vicpol to finish their fraud investigations prior to the September election, but on the other hand I am happy to wait as long as it takes for them the get the right outcome. 
Make no mistake, justice will be done, and will be seen to be done.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Dr Freud

> The article in question suggested that there was typically a lag of between 200 and 1000 years between increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and increases in atmospheric temperature.  *CO2 increased and then temperature.*  Bear in mind though that the authors are refering to events in prehistory rather than in the modern day.  As these prehistoric events were a) not influenced by human impact and b) occurred over much longer geological time scales (not a measly 250 years) and c) may not match the breadth and scale (and certainly not the speed) of emissions compared to the modern event...then the issue of time frames with respect to lag in our modern case is probably a little different...more than likely even shorter since we have an unnatural event (so to speak) augmenting a natural event occurring over a geological time scale (emergence from the 'ice ages' over the last 20,000 years or so). 
> I know you'd like things to be simple...but they sadly just aren't.  But that's OK too...

  Really? 
I'd be intrigued to hear how this fits with the *Vostok ice core data*? 
(HINT: Don't bother with the fantasy explanations at Unrealclimate and non-skepticalscience as they will lead you further down the ridicule path that this psychic computer prophecy has led you).  
Other readers may recall the ever gorgeous Jo Nova's work:  Spinning more bad news to pretend it answers skeptics. When 400 “equals” zero « JoNova 
This highlights how the 800 year Vostok lag was possibly closer to 400 years*.* 
Now, are you still running with the psychic computer prophecies, or reality?  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> My friend, there is a spectrum in this debate between reality on one side...and a disorganised and confused belief system on the other. 
> Have you figured out yet which tail you are on?

  These stories seem to keep changing:   

> Temperatures following 1998 stayed relatively flat for 10 years, with  the heat in 2008 about equaling temperatures at the decade's start. The  warming, as scientists say, went on "hiatus."   	 
> The hiatus was not unexpected. Variability in the climate can  suppress rising temperatures temporarily, though before this decade  scientists were uncertain how long such pauses could last. In any case,  one decade is not long enough to say anything about human effects on  climate; as one forthcoming paper lays out, *17 years is required.*  Climate: Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming -- 10/25/2011 -- www.eenews.net

  Shall we just move the goalposts again, eh Woodbe? 
Or shall we just refer to this as "adjusted goalposts", just like all the "adjusted data"?  :Biggrin:  
I can't wait for the good Dr Karl at the ABC and JuLIAR's sycophants to start bagging "the science" and apologising to Andrew Bolt:       
 Watching cults implode is fascinating stuff, don't you think.  :Biggrin:  
Just a shame it's costing our country billions and billions of dollars...for nothing!  :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

> Shall we just move the goalposts again, eh Woodbe?

  No mate, we just keep playing the same goals, over and over and over. You set em up, and we knock em down. 
We did this last week. 17 years is not a change in the trend, that climate variability you claim the scientists never thought of is showing it's face again. 
For example:  Once is not enough | Open Mind
It's hard to understand for you guys, I know, but please do try and keep up.  :Doh:  
Come back in 10 years and you might have a story. I'd be delighted.  :2thumbsup:  
 woodbe.

----------


## Marc

As for the complaint of political bias in my post I find it humorous in the extreme.
It is the left side of politics who argues that everything is political, justifying the means of achieving an end. 
Yet, I must say in that I do agree with the left side that everything in life is related to politics.
However I see it from a different perspective. Not as a license to annoy others but as an explanation of people's actions in life. 
Take the leitmotiv of this thread, and think why is it that the left all over the world, associates itself with the global warming claims closing ranks on anything to do with it, including alternatives, taxes, stopping development on spurious environmental claims etc etc etc ? 
Simple, the producers of fossil fuels, big corporations  industries, building firms traditionally support conservatives so it is natural for the left to support a view that damages those interest. It has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with politics.   
It's no different from many other facts in life, from the apology to aborigines to gay marriage, from choice of music to style of painting or sculpture everything we do or not do in life is aligned with a political view. 
Do lefties care more for aborigines than conservatives? Not for a minute, such is a personal matter however collectively each political position aligns itself with one side or the other, based on past history and past allegiances and perceived strategic advantages. 
But what about Mr Average who considers himself to be open minded and searches both sides of an argument and thinks to have made an informed decision as to which side to support or believe? Is he wrong? 
Not for a minute, there are no wrong decisions. The brain does not make a mistake ever. It makes always the best possible decision with the information it has.
And that is the key. 
Mr Average thinks he is open minded and that he has given to both sides of an argument the same unbiased attention.
Yet he is wrong. 
No such thing as unbiased. Not for an adult, not for anyone over 4 or 5 years old. May be even younger. 
So we are all stupid? No, we all have values we believe in, we all have baggage and a phenomenon like a "green" argument or "Global warming" can only be aligned with a particular set of values. In other words the supporters of Global Warming were predestined to support it from a very early age, even before the concept was considered.  
And with that argument every other political argument that is defined loosely as "the left". 
Now mark my words, the fact that global warming turned out to be a fabrication by a bunch of power hungry fraudsters is no reflection on their supporters. The likes of big Al know how to manipulate one side of the population against another and take advantage of the conflict. 
Furthermore not all left wing causes are bad and not all right wing causes are good. And perhaps we shouldn't even use such terms as good or bad since they themselves carry a baggage of bias and prejudice. 
So to complain that some post are political is stating the obvious. Every single post in this thread is political and I go as far as saying that even post in the decking forum or the metal work forum are political. May be not as obvious but they are.

----------


## Dr Freud

> No mate, we just keep playing the same goals, over and over and over. You set em up, and we knock em down. 
>  woodbe.

  You mean like these:   

> Ill keep highlighting this 2007 prediction while warming alarmist Tim Flannery remains the Chief Climate Commissioner:   _ So even the rain that falls isnt actually going to fill our dams and  our river systems, and thats a real worry for the people in the bush._ And Ill keep reminding readers of this 2005 Flannery prediction, too:  _     But since 1998 particularly, weve seen just drought, drought, drought, and particularly regions like Sydney and the Warragamba catchment  _  But once again:   _WESTERN Sydney could be in for minor flooding after Warragamba Dam spilled over following a weekend of heavy rain._  Why is Flannery still the Chief Climate Commissioner?   Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  Like I said before: 
My friend, there is a spectrum in this debate between reality on one  side...and a disorganised and confused belief system on the other. 
Have you figured out yet which tail you are on?            

> We did this last week. 17 years is not a change in the trend,  
>  woodbe.

  At least you're now admitting to the 17 years. Would you like me to cut and paste all your posts "denying" this?  :Biggrin:  
Maybe you can write to your mate who's obviously lost count at the not-openmind website, who keeps referring to a decade.  His maths is obviously very weak if he keeps referring to 17 years as a decade, eh? Damn nut jobs on the internet again, no doubt. 
But his joke of an attempt at cherry picking computer models and data to fit his farcical fantasies are beyond laughable, even beyond his lack of ability to count past 10. 
But you want to know the really funny part??? 
You are now claiming a cherry picked and flawed computerised model you saw on the internet now explains the abject failure of the original psychic computer model prophecies you first supported, all still while ignoring this scientific reality:  *There is zero scientific evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.* 
You should have stuck to your guns about ignoring everything not "peer-reviewed" and agreed to by 97% of cult lunatics, or whatever they are calling themselves these days. 
I can't wait for all the new peer-reviewed articles titled: *"How the AGW hypothesis works sometimes when all the other stuff we don't know about and can't explain stop doing what we haven't factored".*  :Rotfl:  
But if it eases all your minds knowing that the latest computer models show why the original computer models have failed, good luck to you all. 
I'll stick with the scientific reality thanks.   :2thumbsup:    

> It's hard to understand for you guys, I know, but please do try and keep up.  
>  woodbe.

  On the other hand, I'm very proud of your efforts.  You just caught up with 17 years worth of scientific data in just 24 hours. 
Congratulations.  :Biggrin:    

> Come back in 10 years and you might have a story. I'd be delighted.  
>  woodbe.

  According to Jim Hansen's original AGW hypothesis prophecies, we may not have ten years left till the "catastrophe".  :Shock:  
I too will be delighted if we're all still here.  Glad to also see you're not fully into this imminent doomsay cult thingy. 
How long do you reckon till we all fry/drown/starve/dehydrate/INSERT WHATEVER DISASTER...?  
Here's a glimpse of the fascientists future career prospects as the gravy train slowly derails:

----------


## Dr Freud

When we as a nation allow this un-elected imbecile who: 
 pronounces hyperbole as "hyperbowl";
lies blatantly about her Carbon Dioxide Tax;
convinces relatively smart people (yes, even here) that both Carbon Dioxide and Carbon are the same thing; 
uses the office of the PM to hide behind when allegations of private fraud and corruption are levelled against her;
then denies FOI requests to access documents issued by the Office of the Prime Minister of Australia showing this cowardice;  
what standard does this set for our nations future?   
If only that were a joke.  My numerous posts have shown the insidious nature of this cults preaching to our children.  Here's another example:   

> Graham Young checks Australias rainfall data and finds a trend:  _ I was prompted to write this post by the daughter of a friend who  confidently assured me that global warming was causing more droughts,  and this was a double problem because the world also faced huge  population pressures._   _ When presented with the empirical evidence that, at least in Australia,  this was wrong, I was told that Ms P (her teacher) had done a lot of  study in this area, so must be right and that she didnt want to be  confused for her exam and lose marks._  Yes, having the right opinion now counts for more than having the right facts.   Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  Any wonder this trend continues to worsen:   

> EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: Australia is spending more on education but is  slipping behind in world standards - that's the finding of a study  released today.  
> It says Australian high school students are now two to three years behind in maths compared to their peers in parts of Asia. 
> CHRISTOPHER PYNE, OPPOSITION EDUCATION SPOKESMAN: The Government is  throwing money at education through things like school halls and laptop  computers, that's where the extra spending has come. What they haven't  done is focused on what really matters, which is traditional methods of  teaching.  Lateline - 17/02/2012: Australia slipping in world education standards 
> MMA ALBERICI: Labor's been in government now for more than five years.  So, back in 2007 when you were elected, children in Grade One are now  heading into high school. So, how much of the blame do you take as a  government for *the fact that 30 per cent of them will be entering high  school largely illiterate?*  Lateline - 25/02/2013: Interview with Education Minister, Peter Garrett

  Isn't it great that so many kids can't read, write or count, let alone know the difference between Carbon Dioxide and Carbon, but they all shower with a bucket, are experts in welcome to country ceremonies (not the traditional ones, the politically correct artificial ones), and call the fresh air they all breathe out "pollution".  :No:  
And as for this debacle:   

> _Albert Park optical stylist Sue Feldy has been inundated with  phone calls after she was exposed as the woman behind Prime Minister  Julia Gillards new glasses  _  _Mrs Feldy was sworn to secrecy over her role in shaping Ms Gillards  new look, but gained official permission to speak after being contacted  by a radio station. _   _I think I knew it would cause a bit of a stir, Mrs Feldy said. _   _We have to keep getting them in, the stockist cant keep up!_   _Mrs Feldy flew to Canberra with 100 pairs for Ms Gillard to browse. _ _Feldy has been given the nod from Canberra to say  shes partly responsible for the prime ministerial spectacles having  their own Twitter account after her connections in styling high-profile  people led her to being flown to The Lodge for an appointment with the busy electioneering Gillard._   Calls are in. Should have an answer soon. Either way, those glasses have an impressive carbon footprint.  SIGHT FLIGHT - UPDATED | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog

  All that evil carbon dioxide pollution, just so she can look stylish?  And the kids are taught to shower with a bucket?   
Maybe if we had a leader who spent as much time worrying about how the kids report cards looked, this country would be better off. 
No wonder the kids are confused, this cult is just plain confusing.  :Biggrin:  
Let's compare JuLIAR to a parent whose raised 3 very literate, numerate, and articulate children, and yes, all daughters:   
And most importantly, one said "There'll be no Carbon Tax under the government I lead". 
The other one correctly predicted the first one was lying.

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's some reality to feed into your wonderful fantasies:   

> _ Tony Blair signed us up to an energy policy centred on building  thousands of windmills, already fully aware that we would be losing many  of our coal-fired power stations due to an EU anti-pollution directive   
>   Around lunchtime last Monday, for instance, National Grid was showing  that all our 4,300 wind turbines put together were providing barely a  thousandth of the power we were using, 0.1 per cent, or a paltry 31MW  (as compared with the 2,200MW we can get from a single gas-fired plant).   
>   The harsh fact is that successive governments in the past 10 years have  staked our national future on two utterly suicidal gambles. First, they  have fallen for the delusion that we can depend for nearly a third of  our future power on those useless and unreliable windmills  which will  require a dozen or more new gas-fired power stations just to provide  back-up for when the wind is not blowing.   _ _ Yet, at the same time, by devices such as the increasingly punitive  carbon tax due to come into force on April 1, they plan to double the  cost of the electricity we get from grown-up power stations, which can  only have the effect in the coming years of doubling our electricity  bills, driving millions more households into fuel poverty.  _ Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  So, if 4300 wind turbines produce .1%, by my calculations the UK only needs to build and install 4,295,700 more turbines to cover their current use with windmills (not allowing for increases).  I wonder how much of our coal China will burn mining and smelting all this material without paying any Carbon Dioxide Tax? So I guess the atmosphere will ignore those emissions then, seeing as we will ignore them. 
Then we can add all the costs (financial and environmental) of gas stations that are essential to build anyway to keep the power on? 
Maybe borrowing heaps of money to buy all these alleged "really efficient and effective" alternative energy sources is also a huge mistake based on more big fat lies?   

> The pound came under pressure on Monday as currency traders reacted to the UK's loss of its top AAA credit rating.  BBC News - Sterling under pressure after Moody's cuts UK's AAA rating

  
And now thanks to JuLIAR's imbecilic ideas, supported by sycophants with various agendas, our wagon is now firmly hitched to the EU models of "economic disaster via climate fantasy".  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

It is now acknowledged that JuLIAR's slide in the polls has been linked to the uncovering of the many documents (and now many sworn witness statements taken by Vicpol) linking her to the AWU fraud and corruption allegations, that are yet to result in charges for anyone, let alone be tested in court. 
But as a result of this, we will hopefully finally be rid of this idiotic TAX on fresh air shortly after the next election. 
But none of that would have occurred if not for the courage of this man:   

> He will be attacked viciously for speaking out, and many of us warriors of free speech and truth in this country will both sympathise and support him.  Duty First Ralph!

  First, the cost.  Here's what he paid recently:   

> But JuLIAR will happily throw many LIES that hurt more than stones:           
> 			
> 				"Mr Blewitt is a man who has publicly said he was involved in fraud,"   she said. "Mr Blewitt is a man who has sought immunity from   prosecution. 
>  "Mr Blewitt admits to using the services of prostitutes in Asia. Mr   Blewitt has published lewd and degrading comments and accompanying   photographs of young women on his Facebook page. 
>  "Mr Blewitt, according to people who know him, has been described as a   complete imbecile, an idiot, a stooge, a sexist pig, a liar, and his   sister has said he's a crook and rotten to the core.  Michael Smith News

  
But apparently so smart he duped you as a senior law partner, and your entire law firm, eh JuLIAR? 
JuLIAR knew Ralph for many years, and knew what price he had already paid as indicated below, but cared nothing for their years of friendship when she attacked him to protect her precarious position caused by her Carbon Tax lie:   

> "Baria street and local children at the Saigon Laundry. Baria  orphanage before and after Tet offensive - mortars missed the laundry  hitting the orphanage".   Ralph paused.   "Yes mate, I was there."  
> The NVA and VietCong were a vicious enemy.   The TET Offensive was  fierce.   A mortar attack on an orphanage did unspeakable things to  little children.  "We got the job  of going in there to clean up the  orphanage mate".   There's no way to say this nicely - that meant  placing parts of little children in body bags.   
>  I know that the next bit of this story will be terribly painful for  the men of A Coy, 2RAR and plenty of other Aussies who were there.    Ralph Blewitt and a few other blokes had befriended a little 6 year old  boy, a local kid, nicknamed Smokey.   Ralph's family, like mine,  operated on hand-me-down clothes.   Ralph wrote home and a package of  little boy's clothes were sent over, courtesy of the Blewitts from  Australia.   Little Smokey was very proud of his new clothes, just like  in the movies.  
>  The Aussies slept inside the wire, in a compound.   It was  surrounded by barbed wire fences and a mine field.   There is no way of  understanding war service in 2RAR on the 67-68 tour for Ralph Blewitt  without saying what happened to Smokey.   One morning, he was found  hanging upside down on the wire.   I'll spare you the gorier details of  what the VC had done to him, but it was made clear that the 6 year old  lad's crime was wearing western clothes.   Ralph will carry the image of  that lad in the Blewitt family clothes forever.  This post won't be everyone's cup of tea. Please exercise some caution, particularly for returned servicemen and women. - Michael Smith News

  I've said before, that if you've seen children blown up for real, you don't make stupid climate change adverts showing them being blown to bloody bits just for fun. 
JuLIAR believes that Australia's future can be built on lies like these adverts, and lies like her Carbon Tax, because she doesn't understand that in the past, Australia was built on lives, not lies.    
Any wonder I call her a vile creature? 
That is how she treats a former friend of her's who she knows is a returned veteran, all just to protect her lies. 
As for the opportunity cost, if you don't already know how much our defence forces are being decimated by massive budget cuts to fund tens of billions of dollars of green dream schemes, then this country is worse off than I thought.  I never thought I'd hear diggers telling me that range shoots have been cancelled due to not being able to afford ammo, but that's where we're at ladies and gents. 
Lucky we've got windmills, they'll slow down a few enemy aircraft should we ever need it.

----------


## woodbe

> At least you're now admitting to the 17 years. Would you like me to cut and paste all your posts "denying" this?

  Like you, I'm welcome to my own opinion, but not my own facts. I think you will find that I have consistently pointed out that less than 25-30 years does not represent a reversal of the long term trend. When I see a cherry pick such as the numerous examples in this thread starting around any of the high years:   
and claiming that in the last X years there has been no warming, then excuse me for pointing that out. It's not like there aren't plenty of opportunities to play the no warming game:    
The other side of the story that is conveniently ignored by our pet  skeptics is that the change in temperature is the result of a global  energy imbalance due to the greenhouse effect. If I remember correctly, our pet skeptics are currently  not denying that, so whilst the energy imbalance took a long time to put  in place by pumping all those greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,  altering landuse, etc. it's a fair question to ask that if the atmosphere is not showing warming at the moment, where is the extra energy going? You'll probably find the answer if you look.  :Cool:  
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

By implication, Freud seems to think that the world will rock back on to its correct axial tilt come September...and that it will seemingly instantly be a better place.  In many ways it is no different a type of prediction than the end of the world nonsense we have had to put up with in recent times... 
Truth is the demise of the Gillard Government will make as much difference to the average Australian as did the demise of the Howard Government before it....or the GFC or even the introduction of emission trading (the original premise of this thread) had on the average Australian family.  In other words, stuff all. 
The current view appears to be that yes, we dislike the Labor Government; yes, we believe Tony Abbot is a tool and quite likely a ordinary PM; and yes, the Greens are a bit ham fisted and strange.  Certainly fits with my preconceptions.  Personally, (since I only vote for the candidates that annoy the sitting members the most) I suspect that at this stage it'll be Katter's mob locally and the Greens in the Senate - but I wait to be briefed by the local paper...sorry, candidate...to be sure.  
So the upshot is that a great majority of people who normally vote otherwise are going to give the baggy green cap to Abbot simply because he's the least worst best alternative.  And in that position...the Lib Nats are going to be in a dreadful state in Government trying to figure out the fine balance between making themselves less unpopular and simply maintaining the status quo in order to get re-elected four years hence. 
Which is pretty much where Rudd was back in 2007 and gee that worked well for him going forward.   More things change the more they stay the same. 
Especially since all the bureaucrats and wonks in State and Federal Government already know how things are going to turn out come September and are already making some of the adjustments required for a smooth(-ish) transition to a new majority.   There a significant risk for a new Government that many departments will have already locked in their projects and budget allocations for the next three years before they can even have a hand in them...but then any new Government has been there before and they'll know the lie of the land...all they have to do is adjust the paintings. 
All the while...the Earth still turns.  And the sea bides its time.

----------


## johnc

Apparently current polling is showing the headline that we want to see the last of the Gillard government, what is more interesting is that the majority of those don't think we will be better off under Abbott in fact about the same is the expectation. In some ways the LNP is not seen as being more capable financially only a minority thing the current LNP team will do much better the rest are marginal. This could be one of the few governments that change hands  without the perception things will get better.  
On the other hand Frued seems to think our current PM wasn't elected I bet that is a shock for those in her electorate that voted for her, as is most of the hyperbolic tripe about his mate Blewitt from what I can see. Who would have thought he was a union lover, what on earth will we get next one wonders.

----------


## woodbe

Interesting comments from Greg Hunt on Q&A last week when the discussion turned to Climate Science:   

> GREG HUNT: Look, for me, for us, theres an acceptance of the science.  Theres also a recognition that science is always evolving, theres a  new assessment report being done. Models are being re done. I won't  predict what outcomes that will have but the general view is likely to  be a reaffirmation, plus or minus some elements of the basic view.

   

> TONY JONES: Quick question for you based on the philosophy of that idea  that you just put forward. Do you agree that Co2 is a pollutant in the  atmosphere?  
> GREG HUNT: Well, I believe it has an impact on our  atmosphere. If you call it a pollutant, if you call it a source of  impact, its a source of climate change and climate change is a problem.

  We all know that Tony Abbot reckons Climate Science is crap, but here is Greg saying that they (presumably the Libs) accept the science, and that CO2 is a problem, Climate Change is a problem. This raises the spectre that the Libs are lying so that they can get into office and then disenfranchise their electorate by doing nothing effective about the science they say they accept.  
Given that there is such an outcry that our PM 'lied' I'm surprised this isn't a headline here. 
If they're not lying, then our pet skeptics here have a bit of a problem because the anti-AGW party is turning on you.  Maybe you should vote for the Marijuana Party?  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Interesting comments from Greg Hunt on Q&A last week when the discussion turned to Climate Science:     
> We all know that Tony Abbot reckons Climate Science is crap, but here is Greg saying that they (presumably the Libs) accept the science, and that CO2 is a problem, Climate Change is a problem. This raises the spectre that the Libs are lying so that they can get into office and then disenfranchise their electorate by doing nothing effective about the science they say they accept.  
> Given that there is such an outcry that our PM 'lied' I'm surprised this isn't a headline here. 
> If they're not lying, then our pet skeptics here have a bit of a problem because the anti-AGW party is turning on you.  Maybe you should vote for the Marijuana Party?  
> woodbe.

  You just keep backing that winner, make sure you have a life jacket for the trip on the titanic voyage your on.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> You just keep backing that winner, make sure you have a life jacket for the trip on the titanic voyage your on.
> regards inter

  Play the ball, inter. We've all been been warned.  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> We all know that Tony Abbot reckons Climate Science is crap, but here is Greg saying that they (presumably the Libs) accept the science, and that CO2 is a problem, Climate Change is a problem. This raises the spectre that the Libs are lying so that they can get into office and then disenfranchise their electorate by doing nothing effective about the science they say they accept.  
> Given that there is such an outcry that our PM 'lied' I'm surprised this isn't a headline here. 
> If they're not lying, then our pet skeptics here have a bit of a problem because the anti-AGW party is turning on you.  Maybe you should vote for the Marijuana Party?

  If they've got a candidate...why not? 
As for TA's opinon...don't be so sure.  He's not stupid but he's sufficiently inconsistent in his public message to suggest that there's Tony the Persona and Tony the Person.  I suspect that the Person has a different view on Climate Science to that of the Persona. 
Pollies don't lie..much.  They dissemble and misdirect...often.  Some do it better or more convincingly than others.  Most of the current Liberal faces are masters (Hockey is a big exception) but the Labor faces are typically hopeless (though Wong, Emerson, Shorten and Combet are promising).   
The LibNuts aren't lying to get into office anymore than Labor did, does or would to get there or stay there. The real game is whether the electorate is sufficiently clued up to either notice or care.  I would suggest not. So good luck to both and all I say.

----------


## intertd6

> Play the ball, inter. We've all been been warned.  
> woodbe.

  You seem to be missing the point of this debate, your supporting the gov't & its tax policies which it promised not to enact, I'm afraid to tell you that labour won't be back until the libs have another John Howard (don't worry there is one not to far away in the future) Even some of their own MPs are smart enough to have already deserted the sinking ship before it is dashed on the rocks, thank goodness for the swinging voter is all I can say, thank goodness they are not victims of the social instinct which helps balance out the equation for those ruled by instinct.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Actually, if you read what I wrote, what I am saying is that running around like a headless chook claiming that 'a politician lied' leaves you no-one to vote for without compromising your lofty morals, and if you think the Libs are the anti-AGW party it would appear that they have either changed their tune, or they are lying for votes. 
I'll support any elected government that adopts meaningful and effective policies on CO2 emissions reduction whether I voted for them or not. I would point out that while few people like the Carbon Tax, it did result in an 8.6% reduction in Australia's emissions in the first 6 months of operation. One of the ironies of this is that the rather overplayed anti CT campaign may well have improved this result beyond what it would have otherwise delivered. Good work guys, well done.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

One for our pet deniers, it shows not only a hotter than average but a hottest on record summer without an El Nino event accompanying it. What's more it is from the ABC which makes it easier for them to pretend it isn't real.  Print Email Facebook Twitter More *Australia breaks hottest summer record*By Tim Jeanes and Lexi Metherell
Updated 25 minutes ago  *Photo:* Australia has experienced its hottest summer with unusually high temperatures in January contributing to the record (Dave Hunt: AAP)  *Related Story:* Hobart matches hot weather record *Related Story:* Top End sweats on rain as Wet goes walkabout *Related Story:* UN group links heatwave to climate change  *Map:* Australia  
The Bureau of Meteorology has confirmed that Australia has just experienced its hottest summer on record.
The bureau says the previous hottest summer - measured by average day and night figures from across the nation - was in 1997-98.
Climate monitoring manager Dr Karl Braganza says a particularly hot spell in January has helped towards the new record.
"That's certainly contributed to it being the hottest summer on record, but it has been hot in December and February as well," he said.
"Both of those months right around Australia have been warmer than average and it's extending a real six-month period, so the last six months have been the hottest on record from September to February."
Overall, Australia's average summer temperature came in at 28.6 degrees Celsius.  *Audio:* Listen to Lexi Metherell's report (The World Today) 
Fourteen of the weather bureau's 112 long-term climate stations recorded their hottest days on record, including one in Sydney, where the temperature hit 46 degrees in the middle of January.
"Certainly there's a background trend of warming temperatures and there's also a trend in our rate of setting records particularly in the last decade," Dr Braganza said.
"Now we're setting daytime and night-time records around Australia at a very (much) more frequent rate than we were in the past and they outnumber cold records by five to one in some instances."
And he says this summer is likely to be a taste of what is to come in future decades.
"By about mid-century, so in about 40 years, you're actually talking about conditions like this becoming normal," he said.
"It depends on what emissions trajectory we go down, but on those mid to high scenarios, then this certainly would be a taste of things to come." *Extreme heatwave*The last six months have been the hottest on record from September to February. 
Climate monitoring manager Karl BraganzaBlair Trewin, a climatologist at the bureau, says the hot weather was experienced across almost all parts of the country.
"Most hot summers it's very hot in the east and cool in the west, or it's hot in the south but cooler than normal in the north, but this year it's been hotter than normal almost everywhere," he said. 
"We had an extreme heatwave through the first half of January which affected much of the country and that was the peak of the summer heat.
"But even if you take out that first half of January, it was still a summer which was very much warmer than normal."
The flood disasters may give the impression that it has been not only a hot, but a wet summer, but the bureau says average national summer rainfall was at a nine-year low.
"If you look at the areas that have had above average rainfall, you are really only looking at two areas," Dr Trewin said.
"One is the east coast and adjacent ranges, from probably about Mackay southwards in Queensland and most of coastal New South Wales, and also the western half of WA. So those two regions had a wet summer but almost everywhere else it was a dry summer." *No El Nino*If we look at previous very hot summers in Australia before this year, six of the eight hottest summers on record had occurred during El Nino years. 
Climatologist Blair TrewinNormally, a hot summer like the one just gone would be accompanied by hotter than normal temperatures in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean - an El Nino summer, in other words.
But Dr Trewin says this year ocean temperatures were average. 
"That's quite unusual for a summer like this," he said.
"If we look at previous very hot summers in Australia before this year, six of the eight hottest summers on record had occurred during El Nino years.
"So the fact that we've got such a hot summer without having an El Nino makes it in some ways even more exceptional."
Penny Whetton, a senior climate research scientist with the CSIRO, says the fact that it was not an El Nino year is significant.
"It just underlines that it's much easier, so to speak, for the climate to give us a hot year than what it used to be in the past," she said.
"It really just shows that the potential for us to get really warm conditions has increased.
"The effect of that is that we can get very warm years now without one of the factors that can contribute to warmth being in place, and that is El Nino conditions. I think that is actually quite significant. "

----------


## autogenous

Climate change consists of 97% earth emmissions and 3% Anthropogenic human emissions.  Of the 3% Australia produces 1.34% of Anthropogenic emissions. 
That is less than 0.04% of total co2 global emmissions.  List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Any of you that have been to an iron ore town near the coast will notice that the near pure iron blows into the ocean.  This is the equivalent iron seeding on a massive scale which sequesters huge quantities of iron ore. 
Australias net carbon emissions are negligible yet your carbon tax goes to nations with nuclear power and the United Nations. 
The ocean has been rising average 2mm and the earth heating for 20000 years. Records will be broken all the time especially if they are since reords kept of @100 years. lol 
Any climate scientist that uses less than 100000 years in climate calculations is a fraud. 
The media consistently uses 'since records kept' which is about 100 years.  You are being sold a guilt ridden lie for a tax you should not bear. 
The carbon tax is a giant pig trough.

----------


## Marc

Agreed, yet the damage done by the global warming fraud goes way beyond the pitiful tax imposed by a government that is in office only due to a few independent that conned their own constituents to get a pension.
The global warming con, has provided politicians world wide with a tool to entice the electorate into believing that by voting the "greener" candidate they are doing "the right thing".  
The global warming hypotesis has proven to be a magnet for those with an ax to grind against the status quo. The success haters, the marginals those who firmly believe that rich is evil and poor is virtuous. Those who would like to rip the concrete up and let the wilderness flourish, those who advocate a population reduction of 80 %. Those that hate dams, cars, dredges, ships, factories, industries, mines, builders, and everything in general that is or has the potential to make money.  
Those who created this monumental fraud knew that all those disenfranchised dreamers without a cause were ready to unite behind a banner that fit their particular set of values. Like any other tirant in history, they set up those ready to "fight for the cause" against the other side... the one they hate the most, those corporate fat cats, those successful professionals with the big car, those rich entrepreneur anything and anyone who produces and is successful. We must hate them because they ... make CO2.
Genius really. 
The global warming histeria will end very soon, but not soon enough. 
The rest of us who produce and succeed in what we do, will be paying for this escapade for decades. 
The "planet" will be warming and cooling at it's own pace as it has done for millennia without our help 
It rest to be seen who of the thousands of fraudsters who falsified, lied, conned, suppressed and plotted for the grants, the contracts and the favours will go to gaol.

----------


## Marc

*http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html 
In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale*By SIMON PARRY in China and ED DOUGLAS in Scotland  Created 7:32 PM on 26th January 2011  Comments (0)Share   *This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines... and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem*    
Read more: In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale | Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

----------


## Marc

*Rare Earths Leave Toxic Trail to Toyota Prius, Vestas Turbines*By Stuart Biggs - Jan 6, 2011 8:55 PM ET   Facebook ShareLinkedInGoogle +10 COMMENTSPrintQUEUE
Q   Rare earth metals are key to global efforts to switch to cleaner energy -- from batteries in hybrid cars to magnets in wind turbines. Mining and processing the metals causes environmental damage that China, the biggest producer, is no longer willing to bear. Chinas rare earth industry each year produces more than five times the amount of waste gas, including deadly fluorine and sulfur dioxide, than the total flared annually by all miners and oil refiners in the U.S. Alongside that 13 billion cubic meters of gas is 25 million tons of wastewater laced with cancer-causing heavy metals such as cadmium, Xu Xu, chairman of the China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals & Chemicals Importers & Exporters, said at a Beijing conference on Dec. 28.  Enlarge image Neodymium is displayed at the Inner Mongolia Baotou Steel Rare-Earth Hi-Tech Co. factory in Baotou. Photographer: Nelson Ching/Bloomberg     Jan. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Mark Smith, chief executive officer of Molycorp Inc., talks about the demand for rare-earth materials and the company's strategy to increase mining productivity. Molycorp, owner of the worlds largest rare-earth deposit outside of China, may double its planned production to help meet global demand after China cut export quotas. Smith speaks with Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television's "InsideTrack." (Source: Bloomberg)    China supplied the world with very cheap and good-quality rare earths for more than a decade at the cost of depleting its resources and damaging its environment, Wang Caifeng, who heads the government-affiliated China Association for Rare Earths, said at the conference. The world should thank China. With China now shutting down unregulated rare earth mines and slashing exports, users from Toyota Motor Corp. to Vestas Wind Systems A/S, the worlds biggest maker of wind turbines, are concerned that supplies may be constrained. China provides more than 95 percent of global shipments of the 17 rare earth metals, also used in mobile phones, catalysts to reduce automobile exhaust emissions and energy-saving electronics. The government cut export quotas for the first half of 2011 by 35 percent last month. That follows a 72 percent reduction in the second half of 2010, causing the price of some of the metals to more than double. Lynas, Molycorp Leap Mining companies including Lynas Corp. from Australia andMolycorp Inc. in the U.S. plan to make up the supply shortfall. Molycorp said Nov. 1 it restarted processing at a mine in Mountain Pass, California, that closed in 2002. The companys shares have more than doubled since the end of November. That mine had its own environmental problems, resulting in Molycorp, then a unit of Unocal Corp., paying $1.6 million to settle with state agencies after toxic wastewater leaks in the 1990s. With rare earths in short supply, Molycorp shares more than tripled last year on the New York Stock Exchange. Lynas also more than tripled on the Australia Securities Exchange in 2010. Vestas uses the rare earth neodymium in magnets for its V112 wind turbine, which enters production next year, Michael Holm, a spokesman, said in a telephone interview. Toxic Leakage Rare earth metals arent rare. Cerium used in batteries and to cut auto emissions, is more common than copper in the earths crust, according to the U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook. The metals got the name because they are difficult to extract, unlike concentrated deposits of copper or gold ore. The Baotou region in Inner Mongolia produces about half of Chinas annual output of 120,000 tons of rare earths, with Inner Mongolia Baotou Steel Rare-Earth Hi-Tech Co. being the countrys biggest producer. A four-story tailing dam containing radioactive waste 12 kilometers (7 miles) from Baotou has been a serious problem and polluted rivers, Chen Zhanheng, director of the academic department of the Chinese Society of Rare Earths, said in an interview. Baotou Steel Group, which operates the Baiyun Ebo mine, has spent 500 million yuan ($75 million) with the local government to relocate five villages after seepage from the dam polluted agricultural land and drinking water, Chinas official Xinhua News Agency reported on Nov. 7. Uranium Disposal All rare earth ores contain uranium and thorium, which could pose a danger if not disposed of responsibly, said Dudley J Kingsnorth, who managed Australias Mount Weld rare earths project for Ashton Mining of Canada Inc. for 10 years. Hes now an independent consultant on the metals. Rare earths require more chemicals to separate than base metals such as copper, zinc and lead, said Bernd Lottermoser, a professor of environmental earth sciences at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia. China toughened regulations in 2009 and set production quotas to bolster prices. Subsequent export restrictions combined with rising demand have caused the price of neodymium, used in Toyotas Prius hybrid car, to surge four-fold to $80 a kilogram from $19.12 in 2009, according to Lynas. The world excluding China will require 55,000 to 60,000 tons of rare-earth metals this year, of which as much as 24,000 tons will come from China, Molycorps Chief Executive Officer Mark Smith said in a Jan. 3 interview on Bloomberg Radio. The company may double its planned production to 40,000 tons in 2012 to help meet global demand, he said. Sydney-based Lynas is building a A$550 million ($550 million) rare earths project at Mount Weld, Western Australia. Devil You Know Molycorps mine won a San Bernardino County permit in 2004 to operate for 30 years and passed another inspection in 2007. Processing improvements at that California mine will almost cut in half the amount of raw ore needed to produce the same amount of rare earth oxides, Molycorps Smith said during testimony to the U.S. House Science and Technology Committee in March. Water recycling and treatment processes will reduce the mines fresh water usage by 96 percent, he said. This is one that could be reopened with strong regulatory and environmental oversight, Glenn Miller, professor of natural resources and environmental science at the University of Nevada-Reno, said in a phone interview. A lot of these metals are used for environmental purposes that are really important, Miller said. Its far better to reopen this mine, where you have a known geological deposit, than go into a new country."    *More News:*Environment  ·Asia  ·Australia & New Zealand  ·Canada  ·China  ·Europe  ·Germany  ·Japan  ·U.K. & Ireland  ·Commodities  ·Emerging Markets  ·Energy Markets  ·Insurance  ·Transportation   Facebook ShareLinkedInGoogle +10 COMMENTSPrintQUEUE
Q    by Taboola

----------


## woodbe

Moncton's Match  TOPICS: Monckton   

> CHRISTOPHER Monckton was warm. Charming, even. Then his audience asked questions, and the climate changed. 
> Lord  Monckton began his Souths Leagues Club presentation by asking who in  the audience thought climate change could be a problem.  
> He welcomed the raised hands, for these were people whod come to challenge themselves. 
> As his slideshow began, Lord Monckton urged the audience to butt in and ask questions at any time. An hour in, someone did. 
> Hannah  Bowrey and Morgan James, a pair of Newcastle University PhD candidates  in neuroscience, had concerns with how Lord Monckton had interpreted a  graph. 
> It depends how you interpret it, Ms Bowrey said. 
> Lord Monckton: No it doesnt. 
> Ms Bowrey: No, it absolutely does. 
> The viscount wasnt budging. 
> ...

  Ha ha.  
Monckton: "I imagine you are not yourself a statistician."
Ms Bowrey: "Yeah, we both teach statistics at the uni." 
Monckton: [You're a] a child and a liar 
Fail. I guess Monckton didn't expect to meet PHD Candidates who teach uni level stats at a Souths Leagues Club presentation. 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> Moncton's Match  TOPICS: Monckton   
> Ha ha.  
> Monckton: "I imagine you are not yourself a statistician."
> Ms Bowrey: "Yeah, we both teach statistics at the uni." 
> Monckton: [You're a] a child and a liar 
> Fail. I guess Monckton didn't expect to meet PHD Candidates who teach uni level stats at a Souths Leagues Club presentation. 
> woodbe.

  I am sure Lord Monckton is trembling in his boot....honestly ... is that all you've got? :Doh:  Two mercenary statisticians at the defensive? What is new? Lord Monkton does not pretend to be a scientist. This clowns do, get paid for it and spew out what their owners tell them to say.
Yes minister, the earth is heating up, boiling actually, yes mr president, thank you for the grant mr president, must rise the tax for the rich to reduce CO2 and cool the planet some 10C for sure tomorrow or next week for sure. The rain will stop forever unless we shut down the coal mines in Australia ...Yes yes yes, thank you thank you thank you. :Annoyed:

----------


## woodbe

> Lord Monkton does not pretend to be a scientist.

  Quoted for posterity.  :2thumbsup:   
I think there is a difference between _pretending_ to be a scientist and _claiming_ to be a scientist. 
The Monckton does not claim to be a scientist, but he (mis) uses science and does lengthy 'scientific' slideshow presentations purportedly based on science. In his presentations, he does a passable job of appearing to be an expert, possibly a scientist. He is regularly shown to be wrong, before, during and after, yet he does not alter his presentation. As shown above he uses bully tactics against anyone who stands up to him. 
All in all, he is a unique combination of outrageous hilarity and intemperance. He would make an excellent comedian IMO. 
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

> I am sure Lord Monckton is trembling in his boot....honestly ... is that all you've got? Two mercenary statisticians at the defensive? What is new? Lord Monkton does not pretend to be a scientist. *This clowns do, get paid for it and spew out what their owners tell them to say.*
> Yes minister, the earth is heating up, boiling actually, yes mr president, thank you for the grant mr president, must rise the tax for the rich to reduce CO2 and cool the planet some 10C for sure tomorrow or next week for sure. The rain will stop forever unless we shut down the coal mines in Australia ...Yes yes yes, thank you thank you thank you.

  Marc, if you are directly referring to the two people at the meeting I hope you have some evidence to back up the remarks you make about them.

----------


## Marc

Why are ManMade Global Warming supporters so ANGRY all the time? - Yahoo! Answers* 
Why are ManMade Global Warming supporters so ANGRY all the time?*  Always so defensive and so hostile.... what are they hiding?  *Best Answer - Chosen by Asker* 
Because it is a religion of hate of all that will not fall flat on their faces and worship them. But like heretics since the first liberal screamed at him for getting down from the tree and hunting in the field liberals have never tolerated those who can think for themselves and make their own decisions without a booklet to guide them. Liberal believers invented political correctness and following consensus, while conservative skeptics invented harassing them by being as politically incorrect as they possibly can. 
Environmentalism as a philosophy and its offshoot AGW movement are both derived from the mind of one of the most evil persons who has ever lived, Saint Augustine of Hippo! This individual developed a concept that contaminates most if not all major western religions with his concept of original sin that says all are born sinners and it is only through specific religious acts that you can be save from being evil. But then Augustine like those who developed todays concept of original sin the producing of co2 see the rest of the world as evil because they are. But than as I am a Scot by ancestry it is only natural that I follow the teaching of the great Celtic saint Pelagius who stood up to the evil Augustine by clearly stating what any sensible person should know, that all are born innocent and only become evil through choice as those who support the fallacy of AGW do. God gave man free choice to be evil or not to be evil and the battle continues between those who choose evil as a way of life and those who do not.  
I just love it when they call me a heretic and tell people not to listen to me. It shows me that they are having a difficult time with gaining new dummies to join their terror cult because we skeptics are teaching the young how to research and learn the truth about how the warmers have altered science for political and economic gain.  3 years agoReport Abuse   9 people rated this as *good*   
Asker's Rating:Asker's Comment:Oh, I ignore those who tell me "Obey, listen to this one, don't listen to that one". I am not part of the "Global Warming" ant-colony and the IPCC isn't the queen ant!.
Interesting website (green-agenda.com)
thx

----------


## Dr Freud

> My friend, there is a spectrum in this debate between reality on one  side...and a disorganised and confused belief system on the other.

     
Just remember, you, yes you, pay both of these idiots hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

> while conservative skeptics invented harassing them by being as politically incorrect as they possibly can.

  Hey, that sounds like fun.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

You will be asked this week to forgive JuLIAR for her Carbon Dioxide Tax LIES. 
Do not let her glossy magazine spin doctors and designer spin doctoring eye wear fool you: 
Beware *THE DOUBLE-CROSS FACTOR!* 
How appropriate.     
Penny Wong swings like a pendulum on her support of the ETS, then not, then Carbon Dioxide Tax, then scurry away to another job. 
JuLIAR will pretend she never LIED to you so many times about her Carbon Dioxide consensus, and other LIES (I'll document shortly), then pretend she's fighting organised crime while visiting Western Sydney, while Vicpol fraud squad currently spend massive resources investigating her links to massive organised fraud. 
As for Plibersek, this link shows how close she is to convicted organised crime figures:     

> *TANYA PLIBERSEKS HUSBAND  MICHAEL COUTTS-TROTTER SPENT 2 YEARS 9 MONTHS  OF A  9-YEAR JAIL SENTENCE FOR SELLING HEROIN.*Now I wouldnt have mentioned the above, lassie, if you hadnt done the  dirty on Tony Abbott and family.    You erected large posters of Tony in  your tax-payer-funded office: _ Im threatened by boats and gays. Gays on boats are my worst nightmare.  Note to ladies: make me a sandwich._   » TANYA PLIBERSEK

  Plibersek also is a vile creature. 
She knows Tony Abbott has always been loving and supporting of his gay sister, yet she promotes the LYING trash above.  She knows he has always empowered and inspired his 3 daughters to achieve and believe whatever they wanted, yet she promotes the LYING trash above.   
Plibersek is NSW Labor, and right there on the cover is the headline: "The ROT of NSW Labor". 
The easiest way for residents of Western Sydney to rid themselves of corrupt or inept figures is to vote them out.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Even the Labor supporters in WA understand how toxic JuLIAR and her sycophantic federal cronies are:   

> *LABOR strategists have issued a "keep out" of WA edict for Julia Gillard in the lead-up to the March 9 state election.                                 *   _The Sunday Times_ can reveal the edict was issued to  federal MPs in December urging the Prime Minister and others to "stay as  far away as possible" from Perth. 
> And, Ms Gillard has agreed to the request, declining to set foot in WA on the orders of campaign chiefs since late 2012.
> The  WA Labor leader Mark McGowan, who opposes the carbon tax, famously went  on holidays when Ms Gillard visited Perth avoiding the threat of being  photographed with her. 
> Warning federal politics was "poison", the  ALP said the only chance it had of winning was if Ms Gillard, who is  battling renewed leadership speculation, stayed away. 
> "We rang  everyone in December and said, 'Please, don't come'," a Labor strategist  said. "We've made it very clear and to be fair everyone has been  fabulous about not coming because there are still some grown-ups." 
>  -  See more at:  Gillard told 'keep out of WA' | Perth Now

  And the Labor Party over here are also smart enough to disown both JuLIAR and her LIES: *
The  WA Labor leader Mark McGowan, who opposes the carbon tax*

----------


## Dr Freud

Please ask questions 1 and 15 first, as it's likely to get loud very quickly.  :Biggrin:        

> *Ten days before the last Federal Election, Julia Gillard  visited Rooty Hill and spoke to the people of Western Sydney about the  promises she said were at the heart of this election campaign. *   *Two and a half years later, Julia Gillard is back in Western Sydney and she needs to explain how she got it so wrong!* *As the people of Western Sydney already know, Julia Gillard  says one thing before an election and then does another thing after  it. Julia Gillard needs to apologise to the people of Western Sydney  for the 18 promises she made in Rooty Hill and then broke.*   1 Julia Gillard promised to consult on climate change and instead delivered a carbon tax.  2 Julia Gillard guaranteed a budget surplus and instead delivered more huge deficits.  3 Julia Gillard promised less debt and now we have a record $160 billion in net debt.  4 Julia Gillard promised jobs and national unemployment is now 60,000 higher than when she made the speech.  5 Julia Gillard promised to cut company tax. After the election, she scrapped the tax cut.  6 Julia Gillard promised to give an early company tax cut to small business and she scrapped that tax cut too.  7 Julia Gillard promised to give $2.1 billion for a transport link in  Western Sydney (the Epping to Parramatta rail link) and now wont  provide the money for transport in Sydney.  8 Julia Gillard promised to build an NBN  over two years later,  hardly anyone in Western Sydney has it and no one knows when it will be  finished or what it will cost.  9 Julia Gillard promised to build 2650 Trades Training Centres in Schools  and 2409 of them have not been built.  10 Julia Gillard promised cash rewards for schools that improve and has not yet paid a cent.  11 Julia Gillard promised to keep giving children in schools computers  and has since walked away from the computers in schools program.  12 Julia Gillard promised to introduce a mining tax to help pay for a  company tax cut. The mining tax and the company tax cut are now in  tatters.  13 Julia Gillard promised to pay bonuses to good school teachers. Not a cent has yet been paid to teachers.  14 Julia Gillard promised an automatic tax deduction of $1000. Another broken promise.  15 Julia Gillard promised to ease cost of living pressures on Western  Sydney households and instead introduced a carbon tax and cut the  private health insurance rebate.  16 Julia Gillard promised more money in your superannuation and instead has taken out $8 billion in Labor super taxes.  17 Julia Gillard promised to build more GP super clinics. Shes delivered only one of the 28 promised.  18 Julia Gillard said she was cutting waiting list times, but instead they have increased.    https://twitter.com/waxinggibberish

----------


## Dr Freud

This is probably as good a time and reason as any to quickly cover some of the farcical fictions this cult pushes.   

> *Australia breaks hottest summer record*

  Let's forgot about all the other errors in this drivel for a moment and just focus on some of the bigger ones. 
It's called the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis. 
The Anthropogenic bit posits that it is caused by human Carbon Dioxide emissions. 
The Global bit posits that the entire planet is heating in accordance with the psychic computer prophecies. 
The Warming bit posits that the warming is above natural variability and is accelerating towards "catastrophic" levels. 
The Hypothesis bit means there is *ZERO evidence proving it*, so some fascientists are currently seeking/manufacturing evidence and relying on spin, conjecture and LIES in the interim. 
This cult has never PROVED any of the three, therefore the best they can claim is that this is still a hypothesis. 
As more and more evidence builds refuting their hair-brained ideas, the less credible they become. 
Lucky you aren't living in Canada, you'd be predicting the next ice age based on one seasons weather:   

> The teeth-chattering cold snap that has caught many Canadians off-guard,  seizing vehicle engines and setting cold-weather records in many parts  of the country, is expected to last at least until the weekend. 
> Earlier Wednesday morning, the coldest measured temperature in the world  was 43.1 C in Little Chicago, N.W.T., with Rouyn Airport in Quebec  second at 40.3 C and Jakutsk, Russia, recording 38.8 C. 
> Hydro-Québec set a record for power consumption, with system demand  reaching a historical peak of 38,910 megawatts (MW) this morning,  exceeding the 37,717 MW peak recorded on Jan. 24, 2011.  Canadians gripped by bone-chilling temperatures - Canada - CBC News

  Oh the irony, burning more fossil fuels so millions don't freeze to death, while cult leaders tell us any warming is evil.  :Doh:  
But speaking of Global, let's take a look:   

> BEIJING  The coldest winter in decades is causing blizzards in  northern China and threatens electric power supplies in the south where  the government is not used to dealing with such freezing temperatures,  China media said Wednesday. 
> About 180,000 cattle have died in the  north while hundreds of emergency shelters have opened in southern China  to help people who do not have adequate housing or heat to survive the  below-average cold.  
> Record cold has struck India as well, and even the Middle East.  
> The  fiercest winter storm to hit the Middle East in years brought a rare  foot of snow to Jordan on Wednesday, caused fatal accidents in Lebanon  and the West Bank, and disrupted traffic on the Suez Canal in Egypt. At  least eight people have died across the region.
> In Israel, snow  fell outside Jerusalem, an unusual occurrence. Three feet of snow fell  on Mount Hermon, and flakes were falling in Nazareth as well as in  Galilee. Several roads were closed in northern Israel because of heavy  snowfall.   *The CMA said ice had covered 10,500 square miles of the sea surface, the  most expansive since 2008, when authorities began to collect ice data,  and it said the ice coverage will likely continue to grow.*  Cold in China kills about 180,000 cattle, threatens power

  Brrrrrrrrrrr.  :Biggrin:  
But seriously, aside from these clownish distractions, let's take another look:   

> _General: On average, global air temperatures were near the 1998-2006 average, although with big regional differences  _ _Near Equator temperatures conditions were near or below the 1998-2006 average.  _ _The Southern Hemisphere was mainly at or below average 1998-2006 conditions. _ Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  How boring is that.  This kind of reality will NEVER panic people into paying more tax.  :No:  
The ever gorgeous Jo Nova has a much more detailed look into this farce:  Mystery black-box method used to make *all new* Australian hottest ever records « JoNova

----------


## johnc

The mind numbing tedium of why Freud hates Labor, quite frankly I'm not sure if anyone cares but perhaps it would be better posting in a new thread what is more often several posts on the one theme specialising in requoting himself and the same rehashed topics again and again until it all becomes a big yawn. Maybe someone could inject a bit of wit to make it palatable, on the other hand roll on September when hopefully this all comes to an end, assuming anyone out there really believes the other lot are more than marginally different.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The mind numbing tedium of why Freud hates Labor...

  I think the why is a Freudian hypothesis ...I can't see any real evidence that he himself actually does hate Labor since it all tedium that he posts seems to be sourced from elsewhere. 
I think he secretly likes them and is desperately concerned that come September he'll have nothing left to hate...though I've not much evidence for that! 
Regardless, I wish him all the joy in the world whacking away at his audience of unconcerned...always nice to see someone who is motivated...even if it's not especially positive.  It indicates future potential.

----------


## Dr Freud

I'll be more than happy to clarify your pontifications soon, but for now you can all see what your tax dollars are spent promoting:   

> Weve got more efficient hybrid cars, longlasting LEDs; millions of  products are smaller, greener, recyclable; but how far has this taken us  in combating climate change?  
>   Liao suggests that we should consider some human modifications  such  as reproducing smaller children (scale them back to 5 foot tall rather  than 5 foot 5); develop a distaste for meat by wearing a meat patch   not unlike a nicotine patch, and hence wed eat more veggies and farm  less cows, sheep and chickens.  
>   And, our favourite; increase the human capacity for empathy and  altruism  by pharmacological means  say, small doses of oxytocin so  that we might live more harmoniously together.  Matthew Liao: Engineer Humans to Stop Climate Change - Environment - Browse - Big Ideas - ABC TV

  This cult is quite mad. 
But so are many others, except they aren't fully funded by the Australian taxpayers. 
The ABC (Absolutely Barmy Crackpots) are digging their own graves with their current idiocy.  Allowing known Greens political candidates to pretend to be impartial questioners about "Climate Change" during legislatively mandated election guideline periods is building a fantastic case for privatisation. 
Think not?  Wait until Australians wake up to their future of a $400 billion debt position and need to choose between astronomical price rises or selling these clowns out. 
Goodbye circus.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

I find the swing between ideological statements and personal comments amusing in the extreme.
Why does Dr Freud "Hate Labor" implies he hates the people.
When I can not comment on Dr Freud's behalf, I can say that I hate everything Labor stands for in its present form.
I must add that my deep dislike of anything Labor extend to the greens and independent candidates stands and actions. 
Yet I would probably have a good laugh with Julia in a private conversation over a beer or two. And the same goes for some of the other Labor members 
And I go further in saying that I am unable to understand anyone who does not have the same feeling towards a government who has single-handedly ruined our biggest chance to build the best infrastructure we could ever dream of and in stead squandered the money in hand-outs Evita Peron style. 
No one can sit back and say "oh well ... the others are just as bad". First of all it is not true, second we have been asked to choose 3 years ago and we, the australian voters got them back in again for a second round of dilapidation and destruction. 
It is time to acknowledged our mistake and take away ALL support for anything smelling of left, labor or green in any way shape or form even if we have some green bone left here and there. It is clear as day that this line of action only produces pain and suffering for no gain. It does not take much to see that.
To do the same over and over expecting a different result is one definition of madness.
Let's stop the madness.

----------


## johnc

Have a read of Hockeys statements from yesterday, there is nothing about infrastructure and everything about spending increases on welfare and tax reductions as well. The general malaise in the community has more to do with the fact we are focused on the noise and not on the issue, there is no vision, no recognition of the impact of private debt nor the fact that welfare is the single biggest outlay out stripping almost everything else. There is no evidence that either the Howard Government or the Rudd/Gillard Government have been focused on building our transport and communications infrastructure nor our export competitiveness beyond that delivered by an overseas generated mining boom. These problems are not unique to one party they are there with both parties, both try to create a small target and avoid political risk by bringing in new ideas. Changing parties may well shift the deck chairs but they are doing nothing to plug the holes. Despite that our economic indicators remain reasonably sound and the doomsayers are targeting the wrong danger signals being forward planning and getting the spending revenue cycle right. It is prudent to have periods of both surplus and deficit with reasonably level spending managed with in a fluctuating revenue stream.  
Howard was the one that blew out welfare spending, while Gillard while not adding much fuel to the fire has failed to reign it back in. The only real disaster was blowing the variable mining tax on fixed spending programs, a very dumb move you can attribute to Swan's mishandling of that particular tax from announcement through to implementation.

----------


## woodbe

> To do the same over and over expecting a different result is one definition of madness.

  Yet we repeatedly vote in the Libs until we can no longer stomach their lack of social justice? 
I think we know very well what to expect and we know that the two party system will never deliver an even policy reality that will satisfy the majority for very long. 
Governments lose elections, goes for both sides. We are bound to participate in the swings as well as the roundabouts. 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

The slow migration of topics from the "man made global warming" to the concept that conservatives don't have "social justice" is a clear demonstration that the AGW fraud was created knowing it would attract the left/green/no ideas and pitch them against the traditional established economy. 
"If we vote Liberal we vote for no social justice and no environmental policies" is a cliché that means nothing. What "social justice" do we have after 6 years of labor? What "environmental policies?" And when everything has collapsed in a heap of debt corruption and shame, to say "oh well they are both just as bad" is cheap nonsense.  
No government is perfect and in the democratic system you can only vote for the less bad choice. The right attitude is to make the government know in no uncertain terms that we don't want them to do something for us. We want them to stay out of our business and stand un our two feet. 
Social Justice means something for nothing. Means the person that is making money must pay for the one that does not make any money in a twisted ideal that somehow making money, particularly if it is a lot, is intrinsically wrong and so must pay for being so fresh as to making $200,000. How dare he? Pay 50% for the poor and the "underprivileged" Don't you love that word?  They don't have as many privileges as me ... I had the privilege of working 2 jobs and rise 4 daughters in a normal family environment. That was not something given from above or legislated, it was MY choice. Everyone has the same choice, just some choose not to take it up, blame the bad conservatives and want me to pay for their choice. That is social justice. 
I tell you my view of social justice :   flat rate tax without a lower limit. Earn one dollar? pay $0.20 in taxes. Earn $1,000,000? pay 200,000  simple. No child bonus, no family tax benefit no perpetual unemployment, no carer payment for mothers because the son has asthma or flat feet, not tax on savings, no tax on super either in or out, scrap the Un treaty on refugees, only skilled immigration, change the electoral rol so that only those who lodge a tax return or are of age pension age can vote ... and I can go one for a while.

----------


## johnc

Democracy is about representation not about earning potential, the type of voting system you desire is more akin to Orwells animal farm or worse Lord of the Flies.  
As for tax and social equity or immigration for that matter these are all far more complex than a simple flat tax or selective immigration our treaty obligations along with our role in the international community is linked to both trade and peace whether we like it or not. A simple solution is no solution at all, and taxing the kid next door because he picks up a few dollars over the year makes no sense at all either, it aint worth the administration costs Fred. Anywhere you go in any country there are tax thresholds and all but a handful of third world or emerging economies have graduated tax scales. All civilised countries have some form of social security net, some less generous than others.  
Ours has become far more generous most likely to cost pressures from rising house prices and the impact that has on the swinging voter, along with the strain of rising household debt over the last couple of decades. Rather than worry about the policies of which ever political clowns have the government benches it would be more to the point if we honestly looked at our situation and discussed the real issues rather than the moronic insults about a certain PM's glasses or an earlier ones eyebrows or the pathetic distortion of political names that we are seeing infiltrating the community. Those that provide the fuel for this discourse are a waste of space as they serve as nothing more than apologists for poor policy for any chosen side.

----------


## woodbe

> The slow migration of topics from the "man made global warming" to the concept that conservatives don't have "social justice" is a clear demonstration that the AGW fraud was created knowing it would attract the left/green/no ideas and pitch them against the traditional established economy.

  We could stay on topic if yourself and Doc stopped dragging this thread into politics. It's a bit rich to claim that this topic is being migrated to social justice issues at my behest when it is in response to YOUR post.   

> Social Justice means something for nothing. Means the person that is making money must pay for the one that does not make any money in a twisted ideal that somehow making money, particularly if it is a lot, is intrinsically wrong and so must pay for being so fresh as to making $200,000. How dare he? Pay 50% for the poor and the "underprivileged" Don't you love that word?  They don't have as many privileges as me ... I had the privilege of working 2 jobs and rise 4 daughters in a normal family environment. That was not something given from above or legislated, it was MY choice. Everyone has the same choice, just some choose not to take it up, blame the bad conservatives and want me to pay for their choice. That is social justice. 
> I tell you my view of social justice :   flat rate tax without a lower limit. Earn one dollar? pay $0.20 in taxes. Earn $1,000,000? pay 200,000  simple. No child bonus, no family tax benefit no perpetual unemployment, no carer payment for mothers because the son has asthma or flat feet, not tax on savings, no tax on super either in or out, scrap the Un treaty on refugees, only skilled immigration, change the electoral rol so that only those who lodge a tax return or are of age pension age can vote ... and I can go one for a while.

  You are welcome to your opinion of what Social Justice is for you, but that does not explain or justify a political party's history on Social Justice issues. Being derogatory towards those in society who are less fortunate than yourself does not explain what Social Justice is, but it does go some way to explaining what Social INjustice is. Lastly, Social Justice has nothing to do with the personal income or tax methodology used to ascertain tax to be paid by those members of society able to earn higher incomes. To understand Social Justice, we need to move past Lord of the Flies. 
The measure of a society is how it treats it's weakest members.  
Back on topic: There is an element of Social Justice involved in preserving our planet and environment for future generations. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It is time to acknowledged our mistake and take away ALL support for anything smelling of left, labor or green in any way shape or form even if we have some green bone left here and there. It is clear as day that this line of action only produces pain and suffering for no gain. It does not take much to see that.

  I would actually love to see you try that...then watch every farmer and farming organisation in the country come and drop various forms of animal manure on your doorstep.  Many and most of the things supported by government funding in this country that 'smell of green' are designed to hit the ground on private land or at least privately managed land.  The remaining few ha'pennies go to managing crown land on behalf of the community...of course the Government of the day could walk away from that responsibility but they'd be breaching some of the basic tenets of common law.  No biggie I suppose. 
Funnily enough...there's probably a far greater level of private sector investment in 'smell of green' than that derived from the public purse.   The bulk of it off their own back... 
Truth is...I'm not entirely convinced that you know how stuff works around here and the complexity and interconnectedness of the system of which you yourself are a vital part.  It'd do you no harm at all to get out amongst it and soak in a bit of the wider world.  Happy to show you around if need be...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Back on topic: There is an element of Social Justice involved in preserving our planet and environment for future generations.

  There isn't actually.  Since we don't (and have never and never will) actually preserve environmental services and resources for future generations...there's bugger all social justice involved.  One could actually argue that such a process runs counter to the very nature of what it is to be a species in an Earth bound environment.  The idea of social justice is just a human developed add-on to try and feel a little less guilty about the side effects of doing what comes naturally.

----------


## Marc

> There is an element of Social Justice involved in preserving our planet and environment for future generations.

  Two problems with that.
1) Global Warming alarmism is not preserving anything, only shifting resources and power towards the "alternative" industry that is as destructive or worst than the traditional industry. 
2) Global warming alarmism is not designed to do anything for "future generations" only shifting debt generated by inefficient and farcical experiments subsidized by money borrowed from the traditional industry profits, the only profitable industry. 
As for the reply by Silent ... I am sorry but it is so far off the mark that does not deserve a point by point reply.
Best luck next time.

----------


## Marc

*If Justice is that we are all equal in the eyes of the law, and Social Justice that we are all different, "Social Justice is a perfect example of an Oxymoron.  Social Justice in action:
Since you earn more money than me, you will pay the school for my kids and my medical bill and roads and hospitals and everything until you run out of money. When you do, I will demand another filthy rich person to pay for my RIGHTS. After all it is not my fault that I am poor. It is your fault because you hog all the money. * *The Injustice of Social Justice* 
​Every once in a while, something comes along that perfectly encapsulates the idea of so-called "social justice" in action. For all the wonderful critiques that have been written about this wretched concept by its many detractors,[1] none quite match the elegant simplicity of a recent work by some of its advocates. I am referring here to a recent video made for the World Day of Social Justice[2] in which students and teachers complete this sentence:  Everyone has the right to _____. The video is a colorful montage of possible completions to this sentence, set to some pleasant easy-listening music. It shows students and teachers completing the above sentence, showing their answers written on their hands, arms, and feet. The people in the video give answers consisting of all manner of desirable things, from knowledge, justice, love, compassion, and truth to healthcare, education, food, clean water, nutrition, shoes, dancing, rock-and-roll, and even lollipops and ice cream.  A few of these things could be construed as genuine rights, if interpreted charitably, but most are more fanciful, such as the alleged rights to ice cream and rock-and-roll. Moreover, the weight of desirable goods of this latter kind makes the core message of the video clear: _anything that is desirable is a right. 
You want more food? Then it's a right. Want better healthcare? Also a right. You want knowledge and compassion? Then they're rights too. Want love, dancing, prenatal care, and lollipops? Rights, rights, rights, rights._  _Though succinct and simple, the video perfectly demonstrates the attitude towards rights that pervades modern political discussions, particularly among the advocates of "social justice." For such people, the notion of "rights" is a mere term of entitlement, indicative of a claim for any possible desirable good, no matter how important or trivial, abstract or tangible, recent or ancient. It is merely an assertion of desire, and a declaration of intention to use the language of rights to acquire said desire._  *In fact, since the program of social justice inevitably involves claims for government provision of goods, paid for through the efforts of others, the term actually refers to an intention to use forceto acquire one's desires. Not to earn desirable goods by rational thought and action, production and voluntary exchange, but to go in there and forcibly take goods from those who can supply them!* _"For advocates of 'social justice,' the notion of 'rights' is a mere term of entitlement."_  _This is a hopelessly flawed view of rights. An actual right is a moral prerogative derived from the application of moral philosophy to the nature of man. The term is a term of philosophy designating an actual moral principle, a principle that should be derived objectively by an examination of the nature of morality and the nature of man. Rights are not mere subjective constructs, as they are so often treated. Rather, they are objective principles validated by moral philosophy (in particular, by political philosophy, which is the sub-branch of moral philosophy that deals with the morality of the use of force)._  _A person has a right to some particular thing  as opposed merely to a desire for that thing  if he has an actual moral prerogative allowing him to do or have that thing. This must necessarily be accompanied by others having some corresponding moral injunction against preventing the right holder from doing or having that thing. The right cannot exist in a vacuum, hermetically sealed off from others. Thus, to say that a person has property rights (a conspicuous omission from the video) is not a mere assertion of a desire for some useful thing. It is an assertion that it is morally right for a person to control his own property, and morally wrong for others to interfere with this control. Rights refer to what is actually right  i.e., what is morally right. 
Genuine rights exist as eternal truths of moral philosophy. They are principles that hold true regardless of time or place and regardless of the state of present inventions. Hence, there can be no such thing as a right to shoes, ice cream, or rock-and-roll, things that were once absent entirely from human invention. To hold the contrary view is to reduce rights to a shopping list of the latest gadgets and knickknacks. 
As the critics of social justice are compelled to point out ad nauseam, to assert a right to some tangible good or service like clean water, healthcare, education, prenatal care, or ice cream, requires that someone else must supply that good. It asserts the moral prerogative to have others supply you with your desires, at the expense of their effort. When coupled with an appeal to government provision (as is always the intention), it asserts the moral prerogative to use force to attain one's desires  to force others to give you their ice cream, their clean water, their medical skills, and so on. It is the principle of the thief, the rapist, the criminal, who sees his whims and desires as reason to impose himself forcibly on others.  The propaganda of "social justice" operates by cloaking desires in the language of rights, while making sure to avoid any uncomfortable mention of how these desires are to be supplied. Thus, we see on the video an asserted right to "free education." We do not see the far more honest assertion of the right to "forcibly take money from others to pay for one's own costly education." No, it is "free" education that is the asserted right. But what free education is this? Free for whom?  "Unfortunately, this is an entirely understandable error, given the nature of education and public debate today." In a rational society, with a proper understanding of the nature of rights, an assertion of a moral prerogative for free education, healthcare, or the supply of ice cream would be regarded as an embarrassing reductio ad absurdum. Presentations where young people assert rights willy-nilly, without any apparent regard for where their desired goods would come from, might be regarded as an amusing example of the naiveté and misconceived ideals of youth. But in today's mushy-headed culture, this is actually displayed by the advocates of "social justice" as an expression of their own ideals.  Some may object to my characterization of this view of rights, by pointing out that many of the asserted rights in the video are presumably meant to be tongue-in-cheek. No one means toseriously assert the right to rock-and-roll or ice cream  they're just being silly, having some fun! Lighten up!  But here is the problem with that view: it is actually no sillier to assert the right to rock-and-roll or ice cream than to assert the right to healthcare or education. Both are instances of demands for goods or services supplied by the efforts of others  and the raising of that desire to an assertion of rights. The former are a reductio ad absurdum of the latter precisely because both claims follow from the same philosophical approach to rights  they are differences in degree, not in kind.  Now, just to be clear, let me stress that I do not intend this as a condemnation of the young people in the video. Most of the things they identify as "rights" are indeed desirable goods, and it is heartening to know that they want to live in a world with more truth, more love, more justice, more health and education, more food and clean water, more dancing, and even more ice cream. Indeed, despite their errors, this attitude bodes well for the future, and is a heartening sign of a focus on human prosperity. 
The error here is in their misconception that the things they rightly desire are rights. Unfortunately, this is an entirely understandable error, given the nature of education and public debate today. Most young people, at the age of undergraduate university students, have not been exposed to serious philosophical argument about the nature of rights, and so their main acquaintance with the concept comes from the demands of rent-seeking pressure groups in the political system and the demagoguery of politicians. Their assertion of the right to ice cream is ridiculous, but it is no less philosophically defensible than thousands of other assertions of rights made in nightly news broadcasts and the pulpits of the world's legislatures.  What is remarkable here is not the errors of the young people on the video, many of whom probably have no reason to know any better about the nature of rights. What is remarkable is that the obviousreductio ad absurdum that the video demonstrates is adopted by esteemed social-justice advocacy groups and proudly advertised as an endorsement of their philosophy. It is clear, under these circumstances, that these are intellectually bankrupt movements.  Ben O'Neill is a lecturer in statistics at the University of New South Wales (ADFA) in Canberra, Australia. He has formerly practiced as a lawyer and as a political adviser in Canberra. He is a Templeton Fellow at the Independent Institute, where he won first prize in the 2009 Sir John Templeton Fellowship essay contest. Send him mail. See Ben O'Neill's article archives. Comment on the blog. You can subscribe to future articles by Ben O'Neill via this RSS feed.  Appendix  The Asserted Rights in the Video  The full list of the answers given in the video is as follows. Everyone has a right to: SPEAK! the TRUTH; PURSUE HAPPINESS; HAPPINESS, Justice, Health, Compassion, Love, Choice, Knowledge, PARTY, [illegible], info, [illegible, ends with "-ome"]; electricity; SMILE; autonomy; DANCE; LEARN; DANCE; LOVE; GO TO BED with a FULL Stomach; eat ice cream; clean water; Primary Health Care; LEARN; MARRIAGE; Sleep; be; free education; A LOLLIPOP AFTER; FULL STOMACH; BE HEALTHY AND EDUCATED; A GOOD QUALITY OF LIFE; PRAY; HEALTH CARE! Prenatal Care; MUSIC; CLEAN Water! Rock & ROLL; PURR; Self-Expression; BE CLEAN; High-quality education; FRESH WATER; DO WHATEVER AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T HURT ANOTHER; CHALLENGE AUTHORITY; Shoes; An Opinion; PROPER NUTRITION.  Notes  [1] See, e.g., Murray N. Rothbard, "Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor" (1970); F.A. Hayek, Law, Legislation, and Liberty, vol. 2, The Mirage of Social Justice (New York: Routledge, 1976); Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002) and A Conflict of Visions (New York: Basic Books, 2002), esp. pp. 20716; Walter Block, "Social Justice," in Building Blocks for Liberty (Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2010). [2] GlobeMed, "GlobeMed at Rhodes College's Photo Project for the World Day of Social Justice" (February 20, 2011). A similar video is here.   You can receive the Mises Dailies in your inbox. Subscribe or unsubscribe.   PrintSave as e-bookSubscribe by EmailRSS FeedFull-Text Feed   Share on linkedin  _

----------


## woodbe

> Two problems with that.

  Your examples are too simple and political. 
How about something radical like reducing pollution or minimising depletion of resources? 
Working on planetary problems today will always be better than leaving them till tomorrow. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

Any solution to a supposed global problem will come in the form of a global combined political solution, not some tiny p*ss ant nations govt which was held to ransom by a radical minority party happy to live on mungbeans & soy products with an open border policy, we'll show them ( how stupid we are! )
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> Any solution to a supposed global problem will come in the form of a global combined political solution, not some tiny p*ss ant nations govt which was held to ransom by a radical minority party happy to live on mungbeans & soy products with an open border policy, we'll show them ( how stupid we are! )
> regards inter

  That worked when we eliminated CFC's, mainly because the economic impact was easily absorbed without large ripples to the overall economy. Attempting to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gases is far more complex and reaches into almost every aspect of human activity. The world made a big effort with Kyoto and although we could point the finger at Howard and Bush for effectively derailing that train it had a low chance of bringing enough on board including China and India at the time. What we are doing now, attempting to introduce targets on a country by country basis is probably the next best thing. Don't overlook the fact that a large number of countries do have targets for reduction and renewables are making a larger impact, we are moving we just don't know if it is to late and if enough monentum can be built up to get emmissions down to a level that sees climate change arrested.  
The above political statement does not help, the carbon tax introduced here does not carry a huge sting, infact its compensation measures have largely blunted it's impact. The most bizare aspect of it all is it has coincided with a hefty drop in energy use and lower emissions as a result. Not because of the carbon tax but because the LNP, the Murdoch press and the deniers on forums like this have created an enviroment that has allowed the energy producers to hike up prices without any public scrutiny, these people are the real wrecking ball to energy costs not the rather diminuitive carbon tax with all its compensation measures.  
I would also point you to the open borders policy, that is not a green platform, it is something we have seen both major parties moving towards since the 1970's when we lowered our tarif barriers and now effectively have only a 5% tarif imposed on most imported products. The mung bean is also a fallacy, the extra methane that would produce couldn't possibly accord with any "green" stance :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  and I fail to see what soy has to do with it at all. For any of you rusted onto any political party all you end up doing is applying a set of blinkers that accords with your own sides views, open up your eyes and actually critically look at the issues, no one party in this country is all bad and none have all or even perhaps many of the answers. We have dumbed down policy in this country to the point that the general population and MSM have stopped examining the real issues of improvement and progress, we as a country are at risk of going backwards if we don't snap out of this malaise and start to think critically and stop following the sound bites of our political masters.

----------


## barney118

> I find the swing between ideological statements and personal comments amusing in the extreme.
> Why does Dr Freud "Hate Labor" implies he hates the people.
> When I can not comment on Dr Freud's behalf, I can say that I hate everything Labor stands for in its present form.
> I must add that my deep dislike of anything Labor extend to the greens and independent candidates stands and actions. 
> Yet I would probably have a good laugh with Julia in a private conversation over a beer or two. And the same goes for some of the other Labor members 
> And I go further in saying that I am unable to understand anyone who does not have the same feeling towards a government who has single-handedly ruined our biggest chance to build the best infrastructure we could ever dream of and in stead squandered the money in hand-outs Evita Peron style. 
> No one can sit back and say "oh well ... the others are just as bad". First of all it is not true, second we have been asked to choose 3 years ago and we, the australian voters got them back in again for a second round of dilapidation and destruction. 
> It is time to acknowledged our mistake and take away ALL support for anything smelling of left, labor or green in any way shape or form even if we have some green bone left here and there. It is clear as day that this line of action only produces pain and suffering for no gain. It does not take much to see that.
> To do the same over and over expecting a different result is one definition of madness.
> Let's stop the madness.

   share a beer? I wouldnt p@%% on it if it were on fire.  

> Yet we repeatedly vote in the Libs until we can no longer stomach their lack of social justice? 
> I think we know very well what to expect and we know that the two party system will never deliver an even policy reality that will satisfy the majority for very long. 
> Governments lose elections, goes for both sides. We are bound to participate in the swings as well as the roundabouts. 
> woodbe.

   yet 2 independents and 1 green MP hold the country to ransom by single handedly ruin an economy for ?? 
AFR today shows a reflection of budget numbers 1990 35% of taxes raised is spent on welfare and pensions, fast forward to last year same percentage 35%, governments doing an effective job of weaning people of welfare !  
Governments create problems depending on your leaders they all have one thing in common, how to fatten their own pockets and give jobs to mates, the level of fattening increases when you are closer to communism.   

> Your examples are too simple and political. 
> How about something radical like reducing pollution or minimising depletion of resources? 
> Working on planetary problems today will always be better than leaving them till tomorrow. 
> woodbe.

  planet problems? 20 yrs ago the ozone was responsible, last 10 yrs it has shown a reduction in size, so lets blame something else, so the planet is worse off because of building roads, creating efficient means of transport,  better energy supplies, yet no one seems to think water as a problem and we search the universe to see if this exists else where. 
BTW, this makes me laugh NASA Puts Curiosity Rover On Standby: Solar Blasts Head For Mars talk about selective journalism, a heat "flame" buzzes by Earth heading for Mars and "no effect" is claimed on Earth, this obviously happens often and I am sure that it can be discounted to being "irrelevant"  :Confused:  :Cool:

----------


## barney118

http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/...-1226594270343 
Not so catastrophic after all.  
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## woodbe

> planet problems? 20 yrs ago the ozone was responsible, last 10 yrs it has shown a reduction in size, so lets blame something else, so the planet is worse off because of building roads, creating efficient means of transport,  better energy supplies, yet no one seems to think water as a problem and we search the universe to see if this exists else where.

  The Ozone hole is a different issue, and it is an issue that was internationally recognised and worked on. It was not represented as a primary cause of climate change, but it was recognised that our use of CFC's was having a damaging effect on the Ozone layer.   

> BTW, this makes me laugh NASA Puts Curiosity Rover On Standby: Solar Blasts Head For Mars talk about selective journalism, a heat "flame" buzzes by Earth heading for Mars and "no effect" is claimed on Earth, this obviously happens often and I am sure that it can be discounted to being "irrelevant"

  It's not NASA that is making me laugh:   
It's not exactly rushing past Earth to get to Mars, is it? If you read the article the reasons for their concern are explained.  Mars's Orbit 
Earth and Mars' orbits align every 26 months. 
woodbe.

----------


## autogenous

Interesting that mars is the infrared spectrum that would impact at times with many things on earth.   
Please dont let this become a political thread.

----------


## woodbe

> Interesting that mars is the infrared spectrum that would impact at times with many things on earth.   
> Please dont let this become a political thread.

  Sorry autogenous, what are you saying about Mars, Earth and the infrared spectrum? Your sentence is not clear... 
Too late re politics, there are regular posters here who post little else  :Frown:  
woodbe.

----------


## autogenous

Oh, its interesting that Mars is that close at times,. The wide band of infrared spectrum must reach earth at times as per Raleigh scattering    

> Sorry autogenous, what are you saying about Mars, Earth and the infrared spectrum? Your sentence is not clear... 
> Too late re politics, there are regular posters here who post little else  
> woodbe. 		
> Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/newrepl...#ixzz2NC9oUK2e

----------


## Rod Dyson

How are these predictions working out for you? 
LOL not long to go and all will be clear.  
 We have to be very patient, as only total failure of the predictions will convince the fence sitters the AGW theory is dead.   
Me? I will be very glad my failure to be lured in by the spin will be well recorded here.  Can only shake my head in disbelief at those so taken in by this scare. 
Have a nice day!

----------


## johnc

What we may have is a failure to understand, there is no reduction in temperature nor does it really say anything other than predictions have been accurate to with-in 5% of estimate which seems close to me. So what is it really saying, well nothing really, temperature has been going up and not down, so what is the point here?

----------


## woodbe

> How are these predictions working out for you? 
> LOL not long to go and all will be clear.  
>  We have to be very patient, as only total failure of the predictions will convince the fence sitters the AGW theory is dead.   
> Me? I will be very glad my failure to be lured in by the spin will be well recorded here.  Can only shake my head in disbelief at those so taken in by this scare. 
> Have a nice day!

  Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it. 
You have not learned that the media is not the publishing arm of the scientific community, yet you continue to get your information from the media who you claim misled you in the first place.  
Yes, you will have to be patient. Climate is not weather, and natural variability can mask the AGW signal. 
I'm amuse that 'Crashing out' = maintaining an already high average temperature. What happened to the cooling?  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

And because things aren't getting cooler... TC - Abstract - A recent tipping point in the Arctic sea-ice cover: abrupt and persistent increase in the seasonal cycle since 2007 
Funnily (perversely?) enough this sort of thing will contribute to parts of Europe and North America getting a little colder in short to medium term...

----------


## woodbe

SBD, don't mention the Arctic Ice, Rod doesn't like to be reminded of that.  :2thumbsup:   
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

*Global Warming: Anthropogenic or Not?*Posted on January 30, 2013	by Anthony Watts *
AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW FROM DOWN UNDER*  *Professor Robert (Bob) Carter* *Geologist & environmental scientist* *Katharine Hayhoe, PhD, who wrote the December AITSE piece Climate Change: Anthropogenic or Not?, is an atmospheric scientist and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. She is senior author of the book A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions.* *I am a senior research geologist who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed papers on palaeo-environmental and palaeo-climatic topics and also author of the book, Climate: the Counter Consensus.* *Quite clearly, Dr. Hayhoe and I are both credible professional scientists. Given our training and research specializations, we are therefore competent to assess the evidence regarding the dangerous global warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) alleges is being caused by industrial carbon dioxide emissions.*  *Yet at the end of her article Dr. Hayhoe recommends for further reading the websitesRealClimate.org and SkepticalScience.com, whereas here at the outset of writing my own article I recommend the websites wattsupwiththat.com and www.thegwpf.org (Global Warming Policy Foundation). To knowledgeable readers, this immediately signals that Dr. Hayhoe and I have diametrically opposing views on the global warming issue.* *The general public finds it very hard to understand how such strong disagreement can exist between two equally qualified persons on a scientific topic, a disagreement that is manifest also on the wider scene by the existence of equivalent groups of scientists who either support or oppose the views of the IPCC about dangerous anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (DAGW).* *In this article I shall try to summarize what the essential disagreement is between these two groups of scientists, and show how it has come to be misrepresented in the public domain.* *Common ground amongst DAGW protagonists* _Though you wouldnt know it from the antagonistic nature of public discussions about global warming, a large measure of scientific agreement and shared interpretation exists amongst nearly all scientists who consider the issue. The common ground, much of which was traversed by Dr. Hayhoe in her article, includes:_ _· that climate has always changed and always will,_ _· that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and warms the lower atmosphere,_ _· that human emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere,_ _· that a global warming of around 0.5OC occurred in the 20th century, but_ _· that global warming has ceased over the last 15 years._ _The scientific argument over DAGW is therefore about none of these things. Rather, it is almost entirely about three other, albeit related, issues. They are:_ _· the amount of net warming that is, or will be, produced by human-related emissions,_ _· whether any actual evidence exists for dangerous warming of human causation over the last 50 years, and_ _· whether the IPCCs computer models can provide accurate climate predictions 100 years into the future._ _Dr. Hayhoes answers to those questions would probably be along the line of: substantial, lots and yes. My answers would be: insignificant, none and no._ *What can possibly explain such disparate responses to a largely agreed set of factual climate data?* *How does science work?* *Arguments about global warming, or more generally about climate change, are concerned with a scientific matter. Science deals with facts, experiments and numerical representations of the natural world around us. Science does not deal with emotions, beliefs or politics, but rather strives to analyse matters dispassionately and in an objective way, such that in consideration of a given set of facts two different practitioners might come to the same interpretation; and, yes, I am aware of the irony of that statement in the present context.* *Which brings us to the matter of Occams Razor and the null hypothesis. William of Occam (1285-1347) was an English Franciscan monk and philosopher to whom is attributed the saying Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, which translates as Plurality should not be posited without necessity. This is a succinct statement of the principle of simplicity, or parsimony, that was first developed by Aristotle and which has today come to underlie all scientific endeavour.* *The phrase Occams Razor is now generally used as shorthand to represent the fundamental scientific assumption of simplicity. To explain any given set of observations of the natural world, scientific method proceeds by erecting, first, the simplest possible explanation (hypothesis) that can explain the known facts. This simple explanation, termed the null hypothesis, then becomes the assumed interpretation until additional facts emerge that require modification of the initial hypothesis, or perhaps even invalidate it altogether.* *Given the great natural variability exhibited by climate records, and the failure to date to compartmentalize or identify a human signal within them, the proper null hypothesis  because it is the simplest consistent with the known facts  is that global climate changes are presumed to be natural, unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation.* *It is one of the more extraordinary facts about the IPCC that the research studies it favours mostly proceed using an (unjustified) inversion of the null hypothesis   namely that global climate changes are presumed to be due to human-related carbon dioxide emissions, unless and until specific evidence indicates otherwise.* *What hypothesis do we wish to test?* *Though climate science overall is complex, the greenhouse hypothesis itself is straightforward and it is relatively simple to test it, or its implications, against the available data. First, though, we need to be crystal clear about precisely what we mean by the term.* *In general communication, and in the media, the terms greenhouse and greenhouse hypothesis have come to carry a particular vernacular meaning  almost independently of their scientific derivation. When an opinion poll or a reporter solicits information on what members of the public think about the issue they ask questions such as do you believe in global warming, do you believe in climate change or do you believe in the greenhouse effect.* *Leaving aside the issue that science is never about belief, all such questions are actually coded ones, being understood by the public to mean is dangerous global warming being caused by human-related emissions of carbon dioxide. Needless to say, this is a different, albeit related, question. These and other sloppy ambiguities (carbon for carbon dioxide, for example) are in daily use in the media, and they lead to great confusion in the public discussion about climate change; they also undermine the value of nearly all opinion poll results.* *The DAGW hypothesis that I want to test here is precisely and only that dangerous global warming is being caused, or will be, by human-related carbon dioxide emissions. To be dangerous, at a minimum the change must exceed the magnitude or rate of warmings that are known to be associated with normal weather and climatic variability.* *What evidence can we use to test the DAGW hypothesis?* *Many different lines of evidence can be used to test the DAGW hypothesis. Here I have space to present just five, all of which are based upon real world empirical data. For more information, please read both Dr. Hayhoes and my book.* *Consider the following tests:* *(i)     Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.* *Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.* *(ii)   During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4O C and 0.7O C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about 1.7O C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1O C warmer than today, at rates of warming up to  2.5O C/century.* *In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice.* _(iii)  If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature._ _In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling. Hypothesis fails._ _(iv)  The IPCCs computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of +2.0O C/century._ _In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to overestimate the climate sensitivity).Hypothesis fails._ _(v)    The same computer models predict that a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the creation of an atmospheric hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions, and enhanced warming also near both poles._ _Given that we already know that the models are faulty, it shouldnt surprise us to discover that direct measurements by both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the absence of surface warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the predicted low latitude atmospheric hot spot. Hypothesis fails, twice._ _One of the 20th centurys greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, observed about science that:_ _In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works._ _Its that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong._ _None of the five tests above supports or agrees with the predictions implicit in the greenhouse hypothesis as stated above. Richard Feynman is correct to advise us that therefore the hypothesis is invalid, and that many times over._ _Summary_ *The current scientific reality is that the IPCCs hypothesis of dangerous global warming has been repeatedly tested, and fails. Despite the expenditure of large sums of money over the last 25 years (more than $100 billion),  and great research effort by IPCC-related and other (independent) scientists, to date no scientific study has established a certain link between changes in any significant environmental parameter and human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.* *In contrast, the null hypothesis that the global climatic changes that we have observed over the last 150 years (and continue to observe today) are natural in origin has yet to be disproven. As summarised in the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), literally thousands of papers published in refereed journals contain facts or writings consistent with the null hypothesis, and plausible natural explanations exist for all the post-1850 global climatic changes that have been described so far.* *Why is this conclusion not generally understood?* *I commented earlier that science is not about emotion or politics, despite which it is uncomfortably true also that public discussion of the global warming issue is conducted far more in accordance with those criteria than it is about science. As discussed at more length in my book, there are three prime reasons for this.* *First, as a branch of the United Nations, the IPCC is itself an intensely political and not a scientific body. To boot, the IPCC charter requires that it investigate not climate change in the round, but solely global warming caused by human greenhouse emissions.* *Second, from local green activist groups up to behemoth NGOs like Greenpeace and WWF, over the last 20 years the environmental movement has espoused saving the planet from global warming as its leit motif. This has had two devastating results. One is that radical environmentalists have worked relentlessly to sow misinformation about global warming in both the public domain and the education system. And the other is that, faced with this widespread propagandization of public opinion and young persons, and by also by strong lobbying from powerful self-interested groups like government research scientists, alternative energy providers and financial marketeers, politicians have had no choice but to fall into line. Whatever their primary political philosophy, all active politicians are daily mindful of the need to assuage the green intimidation and bullying to which they and their constituents are incessantly subjected.* *Third, and probably most influential of all, with very few exceptions major media outlets have provided unceasing support for measures to stop global warming. This behaviour appears to be driven by a combination of the liberal and green personal beliefs of most reporters, and the commercial nouse of experienced editors who understand that alarmist environmental reporting sells both product and advertising space.* *But given that the science remains uncertain, shouldnt we give earth the benefit of the doubt?* *This famous slogan (and note its deliberately emotive phrasing) is attributed to News Corporations Rupert Murdoch; it bears all the hallmarks of having been produced by a green focus group or advertising agency. The catchy phrase also reveals a profound misunderstanding of the real climatic risks faced by our societies, because it assumes that global warming is more dangerous, or more to be feared, than is global cooling; in reality, the converse is likely to be true.* *It must be recognized that the theoretical hazard of dangerous human-caused global warming is but one small part of a much wider climate hazard that all scientists agree upon, which is the dangerous natural weather and climatic events that Nature intermittently presents us with  and always will. It is absolutely clear from, for example, the 2005 Hurricane Katrina and 2012 Hurricane Sandy disasters in the US, the 2007 floods in the United Kingdom and the tragic bushfires in Australia in 2003 (Canberra), 2009 (Victoria) and in January this year (widespread), that the governments of even advanced, wealthy countries are often inadequately prepared for climate-related disasters of natural origin.* *We need to do better, and squandering money to give earth the benefit of the doubt based upon an unjustifiable assumption that dangerous warming will shortly resume is exactly the wrong type of picking winners approach.* *Because many scientists, including leading solar physicists, currently argue that the position that the Earth currently occupies in the solar cycle implies that the most likely climatic trend over the next several decades is one of significant cooling rather than warming.  Meanwhile, the IPCCs computer modellers assure us with all the authority at their command that global warming will shortly resume  just you wait and see.* *The reality is, then, that no scientist on the planet can tell you with credible probability whether the climate in 2030 will be cooler or warmer than today. In such circumstances the only rational conclusion to draw is that we need to be prepared to react to either warming or cooling over the next several decades, depending upon what Nature chooses to serve up to us.* *What is the best way forward?* *Given that we cannot predict what future climate will be, do we still need national climate policies at all?* *Indeed we do, for a primary government duty of care is to protect the citizenry and the environment from the ravages of natural climatic events. What is needed is not unnecessary and penal measures against carbon dioxide emissions, but instead a prudent and cost-effective policy of preparation for, and response to, all climatic events and hazards as and when they develop.* *As Ronald Brunner and Amanda Lynch have argued in their recent book, Adaptive Governance and Climate Change, and many other scientists have supported too:* *We need to use adaptive governance to produce response programs that cope with hazardous climate events as they happen, and that encourage diversity and innovation in the search for solutions. In such a fashion, the highly contentious global warming problem can be recast into an issue in which every culture and community around the world has an inherent interest.* *Climate hazard is both a geological and meteorological issue. Geological hazards are mostly dealt with by providing civil defense authorities and the public with accurate, evidence-based information regarding events such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, storms and floods (which represent climatic as well as weather events), and by mitigating and adapting to the effects when an event occurs.* *New Zealands GeoNet natural hazard network is a world-best-practice example of how to proceed. GeoNet is New Zealands national natural hazard monitoring agency. GeoNet operates networks of geophysical instruments to detect, analyse and respond to earthquakes, volcanic activity, landslides and tsunami. The additional risk of longer-term climate change, which GeoNet currently doesnt cover, differs from most other natural hazards only in that it occurs over periods of decades to hundreds or thousands of years. This difference is not one of kind, and neither should be our response planning.* *The appropriate response to climate hazard, then, is national policies based on preparing for and adapting to all climate events as and when they happen, and irrespective of their presumed cause. Every country needs to develop its own understanding of, and plans to cope with, the unique combination of climate hazards that apply within its boundaries. The planned responses should be based upon adaptation, with mitigation where appropriate to cushion citizens who are affected in an undesirable way.* *The idea that there can be a one-size-fits-all global solution to deal with just one possible aspect of future climate change, as recommended by the IPCC and favoured by green activists and most media commentators, fails entirely to deal with the real climate and climate-related hazards to which we are all exposed every day.* ** *Robert (Bob) Carter is a marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than 40 years professional experience who has held academic positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999. His career has included periods as a Commonwealth Scholar (Cambridge University), a Nuffield Fellow (Oxford University) and an Australian Research Council Special Investigator. Bob has acted as an expert witness on climate change before the U.S. Senate Committee of Environment & Public Works, the Australian and N.Z. parliamentary Select Committees into emissions trading, and was a primary science witness in the U.K. High Court case of Dimmock v. H.M.s Secretary of State for Education, the 2007 judgement from which identified nine major scientific errors in Mr Al Gores film An Inconvenient Truth. Carter is author of the book, Climate: the Counter Consensus (2010, Stacey International Ltd., London).*

----------


## Rod Dyson

> SBD, don't mention the Arctic Ice, Rod doesn't like to be reminded of that.   
> woodbe.

  Why? Artic ice is not a problem, mention it as much as you like.

----------


## woodbe

> Why? Artic ice is not a problem, mention it as much as you like.

  No, Arctic Ice isn't a problem at all, it's the mention of the accelerating lack of it that seems to pull your chain. 
Arctic Sea Ice Extent trend:    
 Arctic Sea Ice Area Trend:  
Arctic Sea Ice Volume Trend:  Source 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> No, Arctic Ice isn't a problem at all, it's the mention of the accelerating lack of it that seems to pull your chain. 
> Arctic Sea Ice Extent trend:    
>  Arctic Sea Ice Area Trend:  
> Arctic Sea Ice Volume Trend:  Source 
> woodbe.

   Wow it's only been a few pages since this one has been shot completely to pieces.
Regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Wow it's only been a few pages since this one has been shot completely to pieces.
> Regards inter

  Which "ONE" would that be inter? 
We still haven't seen the ice free summer yet.  When do you guys expect we will see that now?  By Al Gore's reckoning it is quite a few years late now. Just scaremongering IMO. 
Man made ice melt??   

> Through the month of February, the Arctic gained 766,000 square kilometers of ice (296,000 square miles), which is 38% higher than the 1979 to 2000 average for the month. Air temperatures at the 925 hPa level were 2 to 5 degrees Celsius (4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average across the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, especially near Iceland and in Baffin Bay. Temperatures were lower than average by 2 to 6 degrees Celsius (4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit) north of Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago, and in the Beaufort, Chukchi and East Siberian seas, linked to anomalously low sea level pressure over Alaska and Canada. The dominant feature of Arctic sea level pressure for February 2013 was unusually high pressure over the East Greenland and Barents seas, consistent with a predominantly negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation

  Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag 
Sounds more natural to me.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it. 
> You have not learned that the media is not the publishing arm of the scientific community, yet you continue to get your information from the media who you claim misled you in the first place.  
> Yes, you will have to be patient. Climate is not weather, and natural variability can mask the AGW signal. 
> I'm amuse that 'Crashing out' = maintaining an already high average temperature. What happened to the cooling?  
> woodbe.

  I am patient, it is an enjoyable past time watching the warmists squirm, trying to spin there way out of their mess.  I don't mind seeing this go on for a while yet, where else am I going to get this sort of entertainment.  :Wink:  
We are seeing another attempted hockey stick bite the dust ATM.  What fun!

----------


## woodbe

> Which "ONE" would that be inter? 
> We still haven't seen the ice free summer yet.  When do you guys expect we will see that now?  By Al Gore's reckoning it is quite a few years late now. Just scaremongering IMO. 
> Man made ice melt??  Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag 
> Sounds more natural to me.

  Yes, it's a natural result of massive multi-year ice loss in the Arctic. We get a big re-freeze in winter of thin single year ice which completely melts the next summer. 
But of course, the denialists shout 'recovery' every winter.  :Biggrin:  
Ice free summer is only a matter of time. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

Rather than a percentage increase from a much reduced area it would be of more interest to see a reference to ice thickness and area of coverage year on year over a period of years. Simply waving a statistic in the air without anything to reference it to is a waste of everyones time as it conveys next to nothing. Actually I take that back it probably conveys desperation in that there was most likely little else that was usable.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Rather than a percentage increase from a much reduced area it would be of more interest to see a reference to ice thickness and area of coverage year on year over a period of years. Simply waving a statistic in the air without anything to reference it to is a waste of everyones time as it conveys next to nothing. Actually I take that back it probably conveys desperation in that there was most likely little else that was usable.

  
True.  Extent is one thing but it's the volume that really matters...at both Poles.  And that's been way harder to measure reliably. Though there may be something gained from the GRACE experiment in this regard.   
As for Marc's Bob Carter reference...I have a bit of time for Bob because he's no bunny and he continues to make some really valid critical points about the state of climate science and the reporting of it to the masses but I do wish he'd stop banging on endlessly about what are well known anomalies in the science and get on with actually helping with what he's talking about in the last para rather than being merely yet another speed bump on the road to nowhere in particular along with all those he needlessly rails against.  Why the heck say the climate science is compromised (of course it is!!) but we still need to do something about this climate hazard situation...which apparently according to Bob we can't predict anyway (certainly not in the short term).  So then I ask if you can't predict it then how we can we reliably and economically prepare for it? <sigh> 
No wonder it has been so much more cost effective to cycle endlessly over the the 'problem' on the Internet!!  :Biggrin:

----------


## intertd6

And the smart ones amongst us think that as we have been coming out of a small ice age for some centuries that ice is going to be on the increase somehow, pure genius!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And the smart ones amongst us think that as we have been coming out of a small ice age for some centuries that ice is going to be on the increase somehow, pure genius!
> regards inter

  And yet the ruthless ones amongst us would prefer it didn't because it'll make access to all those yummy mineral resources locked away under the ice as hard as always.  Not to mention the shortcut available for shipping from China to Europe and the US East Coast...genius squared!!

----------


## intertd6

> And yet the ruthless ones amongst us would prefer it didn't because it'll make access to all those yummy mineral resources locked away under the ice as hard as always.  Not to mention the shortcut available for shipping from China to Europe and the US East Coast...genius squared!!

  The Russians have been plying those waterways for many decades, it pays to keep up! With the record of warming over the past many hundreds of years & the ice receding it could become commercial reality, but thinking that we as a tiny nation paying a tax which is crippling the country in so many ways, is going to reverse a trend in the climate which has been proven to be changing over centuries, one would have to question ones own rational thinking process.
regards inter

----------


## MikeT

You could make a career commenting in this thread but I'll satisfy myself with a short reply to this misapprehension.   

> share a beer? I wouldnt p@%% on it if it were on fire. 
> BTW, this makes me laugh NASA Puts Curiosity Rover On Standby: Solar Blasts Head For Mars talk about selective journalism, a heat "flame" buzzes by Earth heading for Mars and "no effect" is claimed on Earth, this obviously happens often and I am sure that it can be discounted to being "irrelevant"

  Barney, The Earth isn't affected by solar winds and the more extreme solar flares because we have a very strong magnetosphere.  Mars has almost none.  It's suspected that's because it doesn't have a molten core like the earth does. 
Cheers,
Mike

----------


## Dr Freud

> You could make a career commenting in this thread but I'll satisfy myself with a short reply to this misapprehension.   
> Barney, The Earth isn't affected by solar winds and the more extreme solar flares because we have a very strong magnetosphere.  Mars has almost none.  It's suspected that's because it doesn't have a molten core like the earth does. 
> Cheers,
> Mike

  Just a quick question based on your expertise in magnetosphereology. 
JuLIAR (and her sycophants) LIE by saying that Aussies paying a Carbon Dioxide Tax reduces this stuff sufficiently to make the Planet Earth *cooler* than it otherwise would be. 
So if us Aussies paid a Magnetosphere Tax, would that reduce this stuff sufficiently to make the Planet Earth *warmer* than it otherwise would be?  Thereby negating the Carbon Dioxide Tax? 
I'm just curious to know your thoughts on the limits of the Australian taxation system to control global physical systems and solar astrophysical systems?  :Confused:  
Or we can ask Prime Minister Crean over the weekend, maybe?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> why Freud hates Labor

  Don't read good, huh?    

> This farce is just one issue.  I will vote as I  always have, by weighing up all of the policies on election day and  picking a party who I believe will make this country better.  I have  voted for both Keating and Howard previously and the record supports  most of their reforms compared to their opponents of the day.

  I'll post heaps more in support of my stated positions on JuLIAR in future days seeing as you haven't understood the evidence I've already posted.   

> ...though I've not much evidence for that!

  You could run the IPCC with that opinion, they've got ZERO evidence and it's never stopped them.  :Biggrin:  
Here's a warm up of some evidence that this cult's patron saint JuLIAR is a vile creature:   

> _After describing herself as a feisty lady and slamming the  Opposition Leader as a policy weak man during question time, Ms  Gillard spat Misogynist Tony is back across the dispatch box after  taking her seat  _ _As Coalition members erupted in fury, Ms Burke ordered the Prime  Minister to apologise unreservedly and sat down manager of government  business Anthony Albanese as he attempted to take a point of order. _ Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  This vile creature continues to spit vile lies while the whimpering neutered media sit meekly crying to be allowed to publish opinions criticising government policy.  Literally begging not to be put on a leash, like some puppy that just pi55ed on the carpet.  :Doh:   
But imagine a man (God forbid with a pair) asking this TRUTHFUL question in Parliament: 
"After repeatedly having sexual affairs with many married men while their wives and little children waited at home for daddy to return, does the Prime Minister really believe she is fit to lecture anyone on the ill treatment of other women, let alone on family values?" 
I'm sure the ABC would not report this HONEST question, in the similar silence that they have displayed over this vile creatures slurs.  :No:

----------


## Dr Freud

> share a beer? I wouldnt p@%% on it if it were on fire.

  Back in the day, we called non-citizens destroying the country "the enemy", and we called citizens destroying the country "traitors". 
In this politically correct age, I guess I'll just have to settle for JuLIAR being a vile creature. (Subject to her other Orwellian "offence" legislation putting me in the dock). 
But beer contains massive amounts of Carbon Pollution, so she probably wouldn't touch it.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

> ...it shows not only a hotter than average but a *hottest on record summer* without an El Nino event accompanying it. What's more it is from the ABC which makes it easier for them to pretend it isn't real...

  On what record? 
I don't pretend anything, I just open my mind rather than close it:   

> Our hottest ever summer, the Bureau of Meteorology claimed. An Angry Summer, insisted the Climate Commission.  Rubbish, say the satellite measurements of the UAH:       Jo Nova has questions:   _ How many Australians know that records could vary with other methods  of estimating average temperatures? Or that other data sets managed by  other climate experts might not agree? Can anyone spot an investigative  journalist? Did anyone ask the BOM if there are other ways to calculate  the average temperature of the country? Did anyone enquire as to  whether they had looked at satellite data as well?_Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  It still amazes me how much LYING is PROVED to occur and people who claim to be "open-minded" still swallow this drivel. 
Apparently the Carbon Dioxide Tax in Australia will not only alter this data, but the entire Planet Earth's data? 
And we laugh at people who give money to Nigerian prince's who just need a few hundred dollars to unlock their trust accounts.  :Doh:

----------


## MikeT

> Barney, The Earth isn't affected by solar winds and the more extreme solar flares because we have a very strong magnetosphere. Mars has almost none. It's suspected that's because it doesn't have a molten core like the earth does. 
> Cheers,
> Mike

  Oh, and responding to myself because I missed an implication in the original commentors statement, calling a solar flare a 'heat flare' with an apparant implication that more heat would be hitting the earth from these and that they should be taken into account in prediciting global temperatures.  Certainly solar radiation and its' variations are taken into account and have been studied and eliminated as an explanation of warming trends but a solar flare is not a 'heat flare'.  There may be a spike in infrared radiation when they're produced but it's minuscule compared to the infrared radiation emitted over time.  The danger in solar flares are from the very high energy charged particles that are produced.  (These travel a lot slower than the speed of light that infrared radiation travels at)  They can directly cause damage or the large quantity of them can induce currents in conductors.  The magnetosphere mostly protects us from that - and doesn't protect Mars.

----------


## woodbe

Welcome to Emission Trading, MikeT! 
Regarding Doc's straw grasping with the UAH Satelite temperature data analysis. 
UAH is published by a well known contrarian: "The dataset is published by John Christy et al. and formerly jointly with Roy Spencer." (from wikipedia) It's been wrong before, but that is hardly the point. The point is:   

> Satellites do not measure temperature directly. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, from which temperature may be inferred.[1][2]  The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods  that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result,  different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have obtained  different temperature data. Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville  (UAH). The satellite series is not fully homogeneous - it is  constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical  instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are  necessary for satellite drift and orbital decay. Particularly large  differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few  times when there is little temporal overlap between successive  satellites, making intercalibration difficult.

  So, which would you prefer, an actual, scientifically calibrated thermometer network on the ground that shows Australia has experienced the hottest summer on record, or something else that by it's very nature needs a lot of interpretation before it becomes a specific temperature record for a specific month in a specific country?   

> _JoNova: How many Australians know that records could vary with other  methods  of estimating average temperatures? Or that other data sets  managed by  other climate experts might not agree? Can anyone spot an  investigative  journalist? Did anyone ask the BOM if there are other  ways to calculate  the average temperature of the country? Did anyone  enquire as to  whether they had looked at satellite data as well?_

  I've got a better question than all of those straw man questions, Jo. How many Australians know enough about statistics and graphing to understand what is wrong with the trendline in this plot?:   
What an ugly grab bag of misinformation. And Doc calls the PM a Vile Creature! 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> On what record? 
> I don't pretend anything, I just open my mind rather than close it:   
> It still amazes me how much LYING is PROVED to occur and people who claim to be "open-minded" still swallow this drivel. 
> Apparently the Carbon Dioxide Tax in Australia will not only alter this data, but the entire Planet Earth's data? 
> And we laugh at people who give money to Nigerian prince's who just need a few hundred dollars to unlock their trust accounts.

  the top ten across even half the country.  
A closed mind could be one that refuses to accept the obvious but it is bordering on the reprehensible when all it comes up with is yet another piece of rubbish. Of course if you want to call the BOM liars then go for it. The graph goes to the end of 2012.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The Russians have been plying those waterways for many decades, it pays to keep up! With the record of warming over the past many hundreds of years & the ice receding it could become commercial reality, but thinking that we as a tiny nation paying a tax which is crippling the country in so many ways, is going to reverse a trend in the climate which has been proven to be changing over centuries, one would have to question ones own rational thinking process.

  Er...Inter...the Russians have been plying them locally and in summer when the opportunity arises for centuries - even before they were Russians.  I'm talking about international shipping...not going round the corner for chips and the paper.    http://bioval.jrc.ec.europa.eu/produ...ing_laness.png  
No one with any sense at all of economics, physics or anything else relevant has ever suggested that Australia putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions will be anything other than symbolic by international standards or ever play any significant role in slowing a warming trend.  Especially since that warming trend is now locked in for many many decades to come regardless of what is done to the scale of human GHG emissions.  Even if they stopped entirely the expectation is that the rise will continue until we get to somewhere in the realm of 1.1 degrees warmer than pre-industrial times (we are at somewhere between 0.6 and 0.8 degrees now depending on who's interpretation you read at the time)...and then it'd be potentially centuries before things started going the other way (assuming no other inputs and externalities). 
As for the price on carbon crippling the economy....hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah  ahahahahahahahahahahahahteehee.  Yeah...the economy is so tanking right now.

----------


## intertd6

> Er...Inter...the Russians have been plying them locally and in summer when the opportunity arises for centuries - even before they were Russians.  I'm talking about international shipping...not going round the corner for chips and the paper.    http://bioval.jrc.ec.europa.eu/produ...ing_laness.png  
> No one with any sense at all of economics, physics or anything else relevant has ever suggested that Australia putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions will be anything other than symbolic by international standards or ever play any significant role in slowing a warming trend.  Especially since that warming trend is now locked in for many many decades to come regardless of what is done to the scale of human GHG emissions.  Even if they stopped entirely the expectation is that the rise will continue until we get to somewhere in the realm of 1.1 degrees warmer than pre-industrial times (we are at somewhere between 0.6 and 0.8 degrees now depending on who's interpretation you read at the time)...and then it'd be potentially centuries before things started going the other way (assuming no other inputs and externalities). 
> As for the price on carbon crippling the economy....hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah  ahahahahahahahahahahahahteehee.  Yeah...the economy is so tanking right now.

  I was not talking about some traders in small skin or wood vessels but modern steel vessels capable of mass transportation of resources, they had fleets of mothballed ice breakers which kept the shipping lanes open for a large part of the year beyond the summer season.
nice modern shipping lane data you have there, the suez & panama canals are well into use
symbolism is for idealists who have too much time on their hands to do something which is constructive & good for the national interest
regards

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I was not talking about some traders in small skin or wood vessels but modern steel vessels capable of mass transportation of resources, they had fleets of mothballed ice breakers which kept the shipping lanes open for a large part of the year beyond the summer season.
> nice modern shipping lane data you have there, the suez & panama canals are well into use
> symbolism is for idealists who have too much time on their hands to do something which is constructive & good for the national interest
> regards

  Somehow I can't see that Canada and the US would be too thrilled with a bunch of Russian ice breakers in their water though...just a thought. 
As for symbolism...all humans are guilty of it from time to time even if they are too self-righteous to admit it.  You'd have to admit it'd be a rather dull & beige old world if were not.  No fun at all.

----------


## johnc

For a number of reasons I doubt an ice free North West passage is likely to replace the Panama Canal anytime soon. Who knows if sea ice disappears from the area sea lanes and supporting infrastructure may see shipping lanes in an area once inpassable. Even then goods moving through south east Asia would probably continue to use the canal rather than the top end of Canada as a route to Europe, South America's east coast and Africa's west coast.

----------


## intertd6

> Somehow I can't see that Canada and the US would be too thrilled with a bunch of Russian ice breakers in their water though...just a thought. 
> As for symbolism...all humans are guilty of it from time to time even if they are too self-righteous to admit it.  You'd have to admit it'd be a rather dull & beige old world if were not.  No fun at all.

  there is quite a few of those Russian ice breakers that have been brought back into service both in the northern & Southern Hemispheres for use in the private & govt public sector ( even the Aust' & US Govt's have chartered them, as a matter of fact they used to moor a big one down near huonville over the southern winter season) The reds under beds era has past if you need to know
What dope thinks that the carbon tax is symbolism, instead of knowing it was designed to try & plug a few hundred billion dollar national debt from a mob who couldn't balance their school lunch money.
 Regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Courtesy Arctic Sea Ice 
No comment necessary... 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

I never though I would read so much nonsense.
Did anyone think of the warming effect of spiritual thoughts rubbing against each other? :Doh:  
[QUOTE]*Common ground amongst DAGW protagonists Though you wouldnt know it from the antagonistic nature of public discussions about global warming, a large measure of scientific agreement and shared interpretation exists amongst nearly all scientists who consider the issue. The common ground, much of which was traversed by Dr. Hayhoe in her article, includes: · that climate has always changed and always will, · that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and warms the lower atmosphere, · that human emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere, · that a global warming of around 0.5OC occurred in the 20th century, but · that global warming has ceased over the last 15 years. The scientific argument over DAGW is therefore about none of these things. Rather, it is almost entirely about three other, albeit related, issues. They are: · the amount of net warming that is, or will be, produced by human-related emissions, · whether any actual evidence exists for dangerous warming of human causation over the last 50 years, and · whether the IPCCs computer models can provide accurate climate predictions 100 years into the future. Dr. Hayhoes answers to those questions would probably be along the line of: substantial, lots and yes. My answers would be: insignificant, none and no. What can possibly explain such disparate responses to a largely agreed set of factual climate data? How does science work? Arguments about global warming, or more generally about climate change, are concerned with a scientific matter. Science deals with facts, experiments and numerical representations of the natural world around us. Science does not deal with emotions, beliefs or politics, but rather strives to analyse matters dispassionately and in an objective way, such that in consideration of a given set of facts two different practitioners might come to the same interpretation; and, yes, I am aware of the irony of that statement in the present context.*/QUOTE]

----------


## Marc

*Ignorance* is a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge).[1] The word _ignorant_ is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware and is often used as an insult to describe individuals who deliberately ignore or disregard important information or facts. _Ignoramus_ is commonly used in the US, the UK, and Ireland as a term for someone who is willfully ignorant. Ignorance is distinguished from stupidity, although both can lead to "unwise" acts. (Wikipedia)  
[QUOTE]*Which brings us to the matter of Occams Razor and the null hypothesis. William of Occam (1285-1347) was an English Franciscan monk and philosopher to whom is attributed the saying Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, which translates as Plurality should not be posited without necessity. This is a succinct statement of the principle of simplicity, or parsimony, that was first developed by Aristotle and which has today come to underlie all scientific endeavour. The phrase Occams Razor is now generally used as shorthand to represent the fundamental scientific assumption of simplicity. To explain any given set of observations of the natural world, scientific method proceeds by erecting, first, the simplest possible explanation (hypothesis) that can explain the known facts. This simple explanation, termed the null hypothesis, then becomes the assumed interpretation until additional facts emerge that require modification of the initial hypothesis, or perhaps even invalidate it altogether. Given the great natural variability exhibited by climate records, and the failure to date to compartmentalize or identify a human signal within them, the proper null hypothesis  because it is the simplest consistent with the known facts  is that global climate changes are presumed to be natural, unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation. It is one of the more extraordinary facts about the IPCC that the research studies it favours mostly proceed using an (unjustified) inversion of the null hypothesis  namely that global climate changes are presumed to be due to human-related carbon dioxide emissions, unless and until specific evidence indicates otherwise. What hypothesis do we wish to test? Though climate science overall is complex, the greenhouse hypothesis itself is straightforward and it is relatively simple to test it, or its implications, against the available data. First, though, we need to be crystal clear about precisely what we mean by the term. In general communication, and in the media, the terms greenhouse and greenhouse hypothesis have come to carry a particular vernacular meaning  almost independently of their scientific derivation. When an opinion poll or a reporter solicits information on what members of the public think about the issue they ask questions such as do you believe in global warming, do you believe in climate change or do you believe in the greenhouse effect. Leaving aside the issue that science is never about belief, all such questions are actually coded ones, being understood by the public to mean is dangerous global warming being caused by human-related emissions of carbon dioxide. Needless to say, this is a different, albeit related, question. These and other sloppy ambiguities (carbon for carbon dioxide, for example) are in daily use in the media, and they lead to great confusion in the public discussion about climate change; they also undermine the value of nearly all opinion poll results. 
Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...#ixzz2OPjWe9dy*/QUOTE]

----------


## Marc

I would find it hard to judge someone who thinks of another to be an ignorant of some facts that appear to be evident to him. However in the AGW hypothesis discussion the difference between ignorance, that is lack of knowledge or ignoramus, willingly ignoring, is academic. The only interesting analysis is why are some facts ignored ... and ... Who has used this approach consistently over millennia.  
[QUOTE]*The DAGW hypothesis that I want to test here is precisely and only that dangerous global warming is being caused, or will be, by human-related carbon dioxide emissions. To be dangerous, at a minimum the change must exceed the magnitude or rate of warmings that are known to be associated with normal weather and climatic variability. What evidence can we use to test the DAGW hypothesis? Many different lines of evidence can be used to test the DAGW hypothesis. Here I have space to present just five, all of which are based upon real world empirical data. For more information, please read both Dr. Hayhoes and my book. Consider the following tests: (i) Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%. Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails. (ii) During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4O C and 0.7O C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about 1.7O C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1O C warmer than today, at rates of warming up to 2.5O C/century. In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice. (iii) If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature. In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling. Hypothesis fails. (iv) The IPCCs computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of +2.0O C/century. In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to overestimate the climate sensitivity).Hypothesis fails. (v) The same computer models predict that a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the creation of an atmospheric hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions, and enhanced warming also near both poles. Given that we already know that the models are faulty, it shouldnt surprise us to discover that direct measurements by both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the absence of surface warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the predicted low latitude atmospheric hot spot. Hypothesis fails, twice. One of the 20th centurys greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, observed about science that: In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. Its that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. None of the five tests above supports or agrees with the predictions implicit in the greenhouse hypothesis as stated above. Richard Feynman is correct to advise us that therefore the hypothesis is invalid, and that many times over.*/QUOTE]

----------


## Marc

Ignoring facts and pontificating opinion is a well known strategy.
Who has consistently used this approach and for what purpose?
Answer: Organised religion, and for the purpose of avoiding scrutiny. 
[QUOTE]_Summary_ *The current scientific reality is that the IPCCs hypothesis of dangerous global warming has been repeatedly tested, and fails. Despite the expenditure of large sums of money over the last 25 years (more than $100 billion), and great research effort by IPCC-related and other (independent) scientists, to date no scientific study has established a certain link between changes in any significant environmental parameter and human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.* *In contrast, the null hypothesis that the global climatic changes that we have observed over the last 150 years (and continue to observe today) are natural in origin has yet to be disproven. As summarised in the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), literally thousands of papers published in refereed journals contain facts or writings consistent with the null hypothesis, and plausible natural explanations exist for all the post-1850 global climatic changes that have been described so far.* *Why is this conclusion not generally understood?* *I commented earlier that science is not about emotion or politics, despite which it is uncomfortably true also that public discussion of the global warming issue is conducted far more in accordance with those criteria than it is about science. As discussed at more length in my book, there are three prime reasons for this.* *First, as a branch of the United Nations, the IPCC is itself an intensely political and not a scientific body. To boot, the IPCC charter requires that it investigate not climate change in the round, but solely global warming caused by human greenhouse emissions.* *Second, from local green activist groups up to behemoth NGOs like Greenpeace and WWF, over the last 20 years the environmental movement has espoused saving the planet from global warming as its leit motif. This has had two devastating results. One is that radical environmentalists have worked relentlessly to sow misinformation about global warming in both the public domain and the education system. And the other is that, faced with this widespread propagandization of public opinion and young persons, and by also by strong lobbying from powerful self-interested groups like government research scientists, alternative energy providers and financial marketeers, politicians have had no choice but to fall into line. Whatever their primary political philosophy, all active politicians are daily mindful of the need to assuage the green intimidation and bullying to which they and their constituents are incessantly subjected.* *Third, and probably most influential of all, with very few exceptions major media outlets have provided unceasing support for measures to stop global warming. This behaviour appears to be driven by a combination of the liberal and green personal beliefs of most reporters, and the commercial nouse of experienced editors who understand that alarmist environmental reporting sells both product and advertising space.* *But given that the science remains uncertain, shouldnt we give earth the benefit of the doubt?* *This famous slogan (and note its deliberately emotive phrasing) is attributed to News Corporations Rupert Murdoch; it bears all the hallmarks of having been produced by a green focus group or advertising agency. The catchy phrase also reveals a profound misunderstanding of the real climatic risks faced by our societies, because it assumes that global warming is more dangerous, or more to be feared, than is global cooling; in reality, the converse is likely to be true.* *It must be recognized that the theoretical hazard of dangerous human-caused global warming is but one small part of a much wider climate hazard that all scientists agree upon, which is the dangerous natural weather and climatic events that Nature intermittently presents us with  and always will. It is absolutely clear from, for example, the 2005 Hurricane Katrina and 2012 Hurricane Sandy disasters in the US, the 2007 floods in the United Kingdom and the tragic bushfires in Australia in 2003 (Canberra), 2009 (Victoria) and in January this year (widespread), that the governments of even advanced, wealthy countries are often inadequately prepared for climate-related disasters of natural origin.* *We need to do better, and squandering money to give earth the benefit of the doubt based upon an unjustifiable assumption that dangerous warming will shortly resume is exactly the wrong type of picking winners approach.* *Because many scientists, including leading solar physicists, currently argue that the position that the Earth currently occupies in the solar cycle implies that the most likely climatic trend over the next several decades is one of significant cooling rather than warming. Meanwhile, the IPCCs computer modellers assure us with all the authority at their command that global warming will shortly resume  just you wait and see.* *The reality is, then, that no scientist on the planet can tell you with credible probability whether the climate in 2030 will be cooler or warmer than today. In such circumstances the only rational conclusion to draw is that we need to be prepared to react to either warming or cooling over the next several decades, depending upon what Nature chooses to serve up to us.* *What is the best way forward?* *Given that we cannot predict what future climate will be, do we still need national climate policies at all?* *Indeed we do, for a primary government duty of care is to protect the citizenry and the environment from the ravages of natural climatic events. What is needed is not unnecessary and penal measures against carbon dioxide emissions, but instead a prudent and cost-effective policy of preparation for, and response to, all climatic events and hazards as and when they develop.* *As Ronald Brunner and Amanda Lynch have argued in their recent book, Adaptive Governance and Climate Change, and many other scientists have supported too:* *We need to use adaptive governance to produce response programs that cope with hazardous climate events as they happen, and that encourage diversity and innovation in the search for solutions. In such a fashion, the highly contentious global warming problem can be recast into an issue in which every culture and community around the world has an inherent interest.* *Climate hazard is both a geological and meteorological issue. Geological hazards are mostly dealt with by providing civil defense authorities and the public with accurate, evidence-based information regarding events such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, storms and floods (which represent climatic as well as weather events), and by mitigating and adapting to the effects when an event occurs.* *New Zealands GeoNet natural hazard network is a world-best-practice example of how to proceed. GeoNet is New Zealands national natural hazard monitoring agency. GeoNet operates networks of geophysical instruments to detect, analyse and respond to earthquakes, volcanic activity, landslides and tsunami. The additional risk of longer-term climate change, which GeoNet currently doesnt cover, differs from most other natural hazards only in that it occurs over periods of decades to hundreds or thousands of years. This difference is not one of kind, and neither should be our response planning.* *The appropriate response to climate hazard, then, is national policies based on preparing for and adapting to all climate events as and when they happen, and irrespective of their presumed cause. Every country needs to develop its own understanding of, and plans to cope with, the unique combination of climate hazards that apply within its boundaries. The planned responses should be based upon adaptation, with mitigation where appropriate to cushion citizens who are affected in an undesirable way.* *The idea that there can be a one-size-fits-all global solution to deal with just one possible aspect of future climate change, as recommended by the IPCC and favoured by green activists and most media commentators, fails entirely to deal with the real climate and climate-related hazards to which we are all exposed every day.* ** *Robert (Bob) Carter is a marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than 40 years professional experience who has held academic positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999. His career has included periods as a Commonwealth Scholar (Cambridge University), a Nuffield Fellow (Oxford University) and an Australian Research Council Special Investigator. Bob has acted as an expert witness on climate change before the U.S. Senate Committee of Environment & Public Works, the Australian and N.Z. parliamentary Select Committees into emissions trading, and was a primary science witness in the U.K. High Court case of Dimmock v. H.M.s Secretary of State for Education, the 2007 judgement from which identified nine major scientific errors in Mr Al Gores film An Inconvenient Truth. Carter is author of the book, Climate: the Counter Consensus (2010, Stacey International Ltd., London).*  *__________________________________*/QUOTE]

----------


## Marc

A good friend of mine told me once: "Marc...the earth was created 6000 years ago" 
Wow, I said ... so what with the carbon dating and the millions of years?
-A conspiracy by the enemies of our faith. 
I see ... what about the number of fossiles found in some places that are stratified showing layers that are thousands of years apart. 
- They are not. All those animals died in the big flood and the receding waters swept them all into gorges giving the apparence of stratification.  
Wow, really? ... think again because if all those animals lived at the same time, there wouldn't be much room for them, in fact at last count they would have had less than a square foot each. A tad tight wouldn't you think?
-Those ideas are purported by the enemies of our faith, you shouldn't listen to them. They will all burn in hell.   
Anyone that sees an opposing argument not as a way to bounce off ideas to find the truth, but as the enemy who wants to destroy his view of things, is using a similar model to organised religion. Setting up non negotiable parameters in order to avoid questioning of the ideas they feel comfortable with.
Global warming is caused by man made CO2 is non negotiable. There is "consensus" "The science is settled" are all concepts that exists as a defence against scrutiny just like my friends 6000 year old world. 
If anyone fails to see this in the current and past debate about so called AGW that is too bad, but that does not mean it is less real than the millions or rather billions of fossils around the world that shed light on the age of the earth. 
PS 
My friend is now saying that the earth was created old already.

----------


## johnc

Let's see now, we are basing all this on a temperature record on a selective 16 years and a rather fanciful notion that those who accept the consensus view on climate change are some form of religious order :Doh:  hardly the type of analysis that is likely to sway informed opinion but if that is what you believe then you go for it just save us the pain of reading the nonsence that you seem to think supports it thanks.

----------


## Marc

John, perhaps you can help me to see the light by telling me which of Robert Carter's points are wrong in your learned opinion and more importantly why and based on what.
If you think his points are based on lack of warming in the last few years, you have not read the article. 
Usually there is a need to read something before one can form an opinion about it's content. Of course if you don't like someone you would tend to avoid reading his writings, perfectly understandable. It's called bias and is highly un-scientific yet perfectly logical from a psychological point of view.

----------


## johnc

> John, perhaps you can help me to see the light by telling me which of Robert Carter's points are wrong in your learned opinion and more importantly why and based on what.
> If you think his points are based on lack of warming in the last few years, you have not read the article. 
> Usually there is a need to read something before one can form an opinion about it's content. Of course if you don't like someone you would tend to avoid reading his writings, perfectly understandable. It's called bias and is highly un-scientific yet perfectly logical from a psychological point of view.

  
So we should do your work for you, there is next to no introduction, we have a serving of cut and pastes and nothing to indicate what the poster found interesting or are points of relevence. You are actually running a counter argument without arguing beyond some notion of religion which quite frankly is intelectually frustrating as it serves no purpose other then to reflect the writers prejudice and bias it doesn't lead to anything substantive. 
We have a long term upward trend of warming, we have a plateau of sorts with some factors that may or may not be influencing that, there is no reversal of warming, the body of knowledge is growing. Let's stop pretending something isn't happening and accept that there are changes and we will have to deal with them. I really can't be bothered with the above cut and pastes, they are not particularly readable as snippets and draw in no facts beyond the odd snatched figure. When we had a short period of temperature growth the denialists screamed for longer terms to look at the record, now there in a short period of levelling off we don't want to go back beyond one very convenient year, this isn't the voice of reason it is the grown of desperation. Get some semblence of discussion, cut and pastes along with religious prejudice is just lazy and serves little purpose.

----------


## johnc

Let's be quite clear about Bob Carter, he is without doubt an individual with a bias, you could go as far as saying he lives in an alternate universe. He has a long history of using only those facts that suit him and disregarding all others that don't. You don't have to look to far to find plenty of well written replies to his comments that cast serious doubt on both his thinking and motives. He has been linked to some of the more extreme think tanks and in making comments about religious fervour he should look in the mirror before casting stones. Anyone who quotes him needs to at least make an effort to justify the quote and why. 
The link is to one reasonably authoritive commentary on Bob.Bob Carter&#39;s climate counter-consensus is an alternate reality

----------


## Marc

John. 
You have either not read the article at all, or you did and you did not understand it or you realise you have no counter argument so choose to beat your old argument with total disregard to any notion of logic.  
So not only you have not addressed any of the points made, you criticise my method of sharing the article, ( perhaps I should have used Powerpoint)  and you top it up with a nice dosis of personal bias against the author.  
Perfect. 
Fortunately this is not how the scientific method works. This is how organised religion works. 
And so once more it is proven without a shadow of doubt that A. Global Warming is based on the belief of the members and not on any rational findings, just like 6000 years old world.

----------


## woodbe

Point of order, Marc. 
Cutting and pasting a whole range of guff out of an un-named document perportedly from a biased individual known to be in the pay of one of the leading denialist 'think tanks' (Heartland) is not how science is done. Ever.     

> *Funding for selected individuals outside of Heartland.*
> Our current budget includes funding for high-profile  individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message.  At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per  month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.

  Perhaps we should add him to Freud's list of 'Vile Creatures'  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> John. 
> You have either not read the article at all, or you did and you did not understand it or you realise you have no counter argument so choose to beat your old argument with total disregard to any notion of logic.  
> So not only you have not addressed any of the points made, you criticise my method of sharing the article, ( perhaps I should have used Powerpoint)  and you top it up with a nice dosis of personal bias against the author.  
> Perfect. 
> Fortunately this is not how the scientific method works. This is how organised religion works. 
> And so once more it is proven without a shadow of doubt that A. Global Warming is based on the belief of the members and not on any rational findings, just like 6000 years old world.

  I read the article and to be blunt it is unadulterated crap, it has nothing whatever to do with scientific method or opinion and I'm surprised that you think it contains anything of value, it fails every level of academic independance and is nothing more than a second rate rehash of spurious half truths and drivel.

----------


## Marc

Both your replies simply confirm my point. You act like a priest that has being told God does not exist. 
Posting a photo and putting words into the persons mouth is what a cult would do to accuse someone of say "being an infidel" for example. Clearly such photo does not provide an alternative or disproves the 5 points suggested to against so called AGW.
Every warmist assumes variations in temperatures to be man made unless the contrary is proven. However the opposite is true. Variations must be assumed to be natural by default unless they fall OUTSIDE the normal variations parameters.
That is one of the reasoning's suggested and therefore the mention of Occam's razor. 
Your mention of what Mr Carter is paid and by whom is irrelevant. If this analysis came from a convicted murderer, it wouldn't make any difference to the logic or lack of it. It is only by showing a fault in the science that anyone can say Mr Carter is wrong and for _this_ reason. 
I find it difficult to understand how anyone with average intelligence and normal reasoning faculties can think that it is OK to take billions from the government to pedal what I and millions more know to be a lie yet it is a sin to take subsidies from a private group who opposes this lies and wants to vehemently expose them paying from their own profits to do so and not stealing from the taxpayers money for it. The money paid for the Pro warmist is 100 times larger than what is paid to the anti warmist. Perhaps in your world only the amateurs, not for profit,  volunteers have a valid say? In that case I think you have no one to copy and paste from. Not even the owners of that doctored picture.
PS $20,000 ? What a joke. The "alternative energy industry" pays lobbyists 100 times that, robs farmers of their land, destroys water, agricultural land, entire towns health, all because they have allegedly a  "Higher purpose" To save the planet. 
So did the crusaders, the Spanish inquisition, and all the long list of tyrants, murderers and general villains that ruled one or another country. They all have a vision of what is best for us. And yes, they have nuclear devices on the ready also for a higher purpose.

----------


## johnc

Still flogging the religion line are we, can't we get out of the low ground and face facts for once. The line people like Carter run is quite simple look for the killer punch first like the 16 year flattish run on temperature. The same line goes something like this using a different topic. If I said look at the black cat to be corrected it is grey you would accept its a grey cat, the Carter knock out punch distorts that by saying there is no black cat therefore there is no cat. These are just semantic games, they aren't aimed at those who know, they are aimed at the dim witted who just like the answer that suits. The religion line is the same it is a stupid argument run by stupid people who can't get their head around the main concepts.  
So we have no cat because it's not black and if it was it was the priests cat :Rolleyes: . Carter is simply reasonably good at twisting and misrepresenting, other than that he has nothing to offer, he will keep a few people in the denialist camp simply because they are desperate to believe nothing is happening around them and will swallow the nonsence he serves up. Those who continually utilise this fallacy by pushing the religion button are the gullable, who simply have to believe in that rubbish because to do otherwise they would have to look inward and see themselves for what they are.

----------


## woodbe

> Every warmist assumes variations in temperatures to be man made unless the contrary is proven.

  Not any 'warmist' scientist I've come across. Where are you getting your information, from the science or from the denial media?   

> However the opposite is true. Variations must be assumed to be natural by default unless they fall OUTSIDE the normal variations parameters.

  Actually, no. Assuming either option would be a failure of investigation. But I can see how it helps your own opinion to bend the changes in the climate to natural variations. 
And you think that the 'warmist' scientists are glibly ignoring natural variation? 
Marc, you're a riot. Please reference scientific papers to prove these claims. 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

As expected two hollow post.
None providing a counter argument to the one posted by Mr Carter.
Fortunately no new doctored photos but a vague allusion to a cat of different colors. Not much substance I'm afraid.
The ONLY point to make is one that explains why you think Carter is wrong.  *Consider the following tests: (i) Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%. Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails. (ii) During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4O C and 0.7O C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about 1.7O C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1O C warmer than today, at rates of warming up to 2.5O C/century. In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice. (iii) If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature. In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling. Hypothesis fails. (iv) The IPCCs computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of +2.0O C/century. In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to overestimate the climate sensitivity).Hypothesis fails. (v) The same computer models predict that a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the creation of an atmospheric hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions, and enhanced warming also near both poles. Given that we already know that the models are faulty, it shouldnt surprise us to discover that direct measurements by both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the absence of surface warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the predicted low latitude atmospheric hot spot. Hypothesis fails, twice. One of the 20th centurys greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, observed about science that: In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. Its that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. None of the five tests above supports or agrees with the predictions implicit in the greenhouse hypothesis as stated above. Richard Feynman is correct to advise us that therefore the hypothesis is invalid, and that many times over.* 
Anything else is irrelevant, including how much he gets paid and by who. 
Out of curiosity, since it seems that $20,000 is some obscene figure to get paid, would the person be more credible if he got paid only $2000 or perhaps nothing at all?
What if he got paid $2 millions?
Just a thought.
After all we know money is dirty, rich are evil and poor are oh so virtuous ... but that is another story.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> What dope thinks that the carbon tax is symbolism, instead of knowing it was designed to try & plug a few hundred billion dollar national debt from a mob who couldn't balance their school lunch money.

  . 
What dope thinks that the carbon tax is symbolism...*ME! Presumably...or is that symbolically? Regardless...yes, the carbon tax as it stands is symbolism writ large*  :Blush7:  
...instead of knowing it was designed to try & plug a few hundred billion dollar national debt...*oh well we can't all see conspiracy theories everywhere.  Either way it was still a symbolic gesture*  :Wink 1:  
...from a mob who couldn't balance their school lunch money*...the ultimate symbolic gesture! Since, for complicated economic reasons, they don't have to...except for electoral purposes*.  *Of course, they still couldn't even do that*   :Shock:   *
Hot Squirrels, Inter!! You're getting this symbolism thing far more than I give you credit for...*

----------


## johnc

When you take funding from a propaganda think tank you have bias I'm afraid it's pretty simply it creates a conflict of interest no different to a cancer researcher being paid money to prove a link that smoking doesn't cause any health issues. 
Don't run a stupid 16 year time line that is to silly for words. Go back to around 1850 at the start of industrialisation or even further if you wish. Also look at extremes, ice melt and so on. Stop running around a single concept and try to broaden the mind a bit the possibilites are endless and can cause all sorts of amazing suprises although for some that may not include rational thought I would expect.

----------


## woodbe

Glib = Disagreeing with Marc and his denial masters?  :Biggrin:  
i. We've been here before. 16 years is not a long enough time to establish a new trend. Are you suggesting that we should ignore all other measures and only concentrate on air temps? What about ocean heat content? What about the melting Arctic ice cap? What are you going to respond with when the air temp returns to trend? (don't answer, we already know)  :Rolleyes:  
ii. I think this is basically 'it's been warmer before'. Well sure. That's like looking at a huge grocery bill and saying we had a bigger bill in 2004 than this. It means nothing without understanding the reasons it was warmer before and why it is warmer today. 
iii. "if global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric CO2" - Wrong. Climate Science 101 misrepresented. This is another example of skeptics claiming that climate scientists lack observation of inputs into the climate system. Global temperature is controlled by the energy balance. Increasing CO2 tips the energy balance and results in the planet warming towards a new higher equilibrium. Natural variations continue to effect the resulting temperatures at any point in time.  
iv. The IPCC does not have any climate models. It has no budget for research. In any case, finding no warming for just 10 years is a bit of a long stretch when the accepted term for changes in climate trends is 25-30 years. It's certainly not an adequate measure upon which to claim the models have 'failed' 
v. Models for climate can never be perfect. That does not mean that the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. How reliable are climate models? 
This is perhaps the fourth time Carter's nonsense has been posted. It is not based on a scientific paper published by Carter, it's a grab bag of denial memes repeatedly posted around the echo chamber. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> When you take funding from a propaganda think tank you have bias I'm afraid it's pretty simply it creates a conflict of interest...

  Not necessarily.  It implies bias but it doesn't prove it.  The big no-no is to take the money from said think tank and then not declare that one has done so in order for others to form a judgement upon the material the money was used to create. 
Most medical research is funded by organisations with financial interest in the medical industry...presumably one doesn't go round wilfully suggesting that all medical research is compromised as a result? 
Hilariously enough, most climate science is funded by governments around the world of all political persuasions...knackered if I know what that implies!!!!

----------


## woodbe

> The big no-no is to take the money from said think tank and then not declare that one has done so in order for others to form a judgement upon the material the money was used to create.

  Which is exactly the case with Carter. It was revealed in the Heartland debacle. Carter never revealed his Heartland funding, and I think he still doesn't. He was interviewed about it and refused to comment on 'Family' grounds. Probably becoming irrelevant soon because Heartland seems to be running out of funds now that their 'business' plan has been made public and their sponsors have largely pulled their support. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> Not necessarily. It implies bias but it doesn't prove it. The big no-no is to take the money from said think tank and then not declare that one has done so in order for others to form a judgement upon the material the money was used to create. 
> Most medical research is funded by organisations with financial interest in the medical industry...presumably one doesn't go round wilfully suggesting that all medical research is compromised as a result? 
> Hilariously enough, most climate science is funded by governments around the world of all political persuasions...knackered if I know what that implies!!!!

  True, it's all about disclosure and making sure that in the disclosure you detail if the funding is specific or general. Any academic that takes money in the back pocket and fails to disclose is setting himself up for the sack as they become to big a liability for the university that supports them. 
I see now that Marc thinks rich people are evil, not true at all look at the amount people like Bill Gates give to worthwhile research and health programs, where would we be with out those large donors. :Wink:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I see now that Marc thinks rich people are evil...

  Hardly.  He thinks we think they are evil.  Which is a bit tricky since I'm both rich and decidedly not evil.  But that's my opinion... 
Anyone notice that that a bunch of oceanographic researchers claim to have 'found' the so-called missing heat from the last 16 years....it's in the oceans where quite a number of oceanographers have been saying it would be for quite some time.  It's not the final word on the article since it is still a work in progress but it could well demonstrate that nothing stagnates in a fast changing world despite all our wishful thinking to the contrary.     Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library and I believe the Skeptical Science mob have a take on it.  No doubt Anthony Watts does too.  So everyone will be happy regardless.  Good times.

----------


## intertd6

> Still flogging the religion line are we, can't we get out of the low ground and face facts for once. The line people like Carter run is quite simple look for the killer punch first like the 16 year flattish run on temperature. The same line goes something like this using a different topic. If I said look at the black cat to be corrected it is grey you would accept its a grey cat, the Carter knock out punch distorts that by saying there is no black cat therefore there is no cat. These are just semantic games, they aren't aimed at those who know, they are aimed at the dim witted who just like the answer that suits. The religion line is the same it is a stupid argument run by stupid people who can't get their head around the main concepts.  
> So we have no cat because it's not black and if it was it was the priests cat. Carter is simply reasonably good at twisting and misrepresenting, other than that he has nothing to offer, he will keep a few people in the denialist camp simply because they are desperate to believe nothing is happening around them and will swallow the nonsence he serves up. Those who continually utilise this fallacy by pushing the religion button are the gullable, who simply have to believe in that rubbish because to do otherwise they would have to look inward and see themselves for what they are.

  Meowwwwww! 
Its got nothing to do with cats or religion. But if your a warmist & religious you will never see the light at the end of the tunnel, it will always be a train coming the other way.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> . 
> What dope thinks that the carbon tax is symbolism...*ME! Presumably...or is that symbolically? Regardless...yes, the carbon tax as it stands is symbolism writ large*  
> ...instead of knowing it was designed to try & plug a few hundred billion dollar national debt...*oh well we can't all see conspiracy theories everywhere.  Either way it was still a symbolic gesture*  
> ...from a mob who couldn't balance their school lunch money*...the ultimate symbolic gesture! Since, for complicated economic reasons, they don't have to...except for electoral purposes*.  *Of course, they still couldn't even do that*    *
> Hot Squirrels, Inter!! You're getting this symbolism thing far more than I give you credit for...*

  Your obviously a genius to come to those assumptions & others, not mine though, I'll just be a normal dummy & stick with the facts.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> Meowwwwww! 
> Its got nothing to do with cats or religion. But if your a warmist & religious you will never see the light at the end of the tunnel, it will always be a train coming the other way.
> regards inter

  Either a train or you are about to meet your maker, just make sure you don't get drawn to the light before you are ready :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

> Either a train or you are about to meet your maker, just make sure you don't get drawn to the light before you are ready

  Like a moth !!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> * (i) Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%. Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.*

  I mentioned ocean heat was a factor not taken into account in this oft-repeated meme that uses too short a time period to dismiss global warming. 
A new study has been published in peer reviewed journal by climate scientists who actually derive their claims from data rather than spin and opinion:  Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library 
From the Precis at Skeptical Science:   

> There are several important conclusions which can be drawn from this paper.  Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth,  global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the  past 15 years than the prior 15 years.  This is because about 90% of  overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have  been warming dramatically.   As suspected, much of the 'missing heat' Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans.  Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012),  this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has  occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is  unprecedented over at least the past half century.   Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect  is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate.  Those studies are  fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the  deep oceans.   The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security. 
>  The main results of the study are illustrated in its Figure 1.    _Figure 1: Ocean Heat Content from 0 to 300 meters (grey), 700 m (blue), and total depth (violet) from ORAS4, as represented by its 5 ensemble  members. The time series show monthly anomalies smoothed with a  12-month running mean, with respect to the 19581965 base period.  Hatching extends over the range of the ensemble members and hence the spread gives a measure of the uncertainty as represented by ORAS4 (which does not cover all sources of uncertainty). The vertical colored bars indicate a two year interval following the volcanic eruptions with a 6 month lead  (owing to the 12-month running mean), and the 199798 El Niño event  again with 6 months on either side. On lower right, the linear slope for  a set of global heating rates (W/m2) is given. 
> [..] _ Perhaps the most important result  of this paper is the confirmation that while many people wrongly believe  global warming has stalled over the past 1015 years, in reality that  period is "_the__ most sustained warming trend_" in the past half century.  Global warming has not paused, *it has accelerated*. The paper is also a significant  step in resolving the 'missing heat' issue, and is a good illustration  why arguments for somewhat lower climate sensitivity are fundamentally flawed if they fail to account for the warming of the oceans below 700 meters. Most importantly, everybody (climate  scientists and contrarians included) must learn to stop equating  surface and shallow ocean warming with global warming.  In fact, as Roger Pielke Sr. has pointed out, "_ocean heat content change [is] the most appropriate metric to diagnose global warming_."  While he has focused on the shallow oceans, actually we need to measure global warming by accounting for *all changes*  in global heat content, including the deeper oceans.  Otherwise we can  easily fool ourselves into underestimating the danger of the climate problem we face.

  More information in the actual paper and also in the SKS precis 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

An interesting set of data, one I haven't seen before. While we know that oceans do act as a heat sink and are doing their part in keeping surface temperature under some sort of control the fear remains as to what point the water mass begins to feedback and what impact that will have. If the jet stream shifts the impact could be keenly felt in Europe which ironically could enter a deep freeze while other parts of the world get hotter. It would seem we have a lot to learn and the more research that is done the better. As the shrill voices of the denialists and their eratic and convoluted nonsense subsides hopefully the world really will get deadly serious about what is happening around us. Don't tell those who believe it is a religious beat up though they are to busy burning bibles to have time to read it :Rolleyes: .

----------


## johnc

I guess as the Northern winter heads towards spring it is time to mention sea ice extent again, along with some comments on storm ferocity.  *Northern blizzards linked to Arctic sea ice decline*AM 
By Ashley Hall 
Updated Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:45pm AEDT  *Photo:* Massive snow storms have been hitting the northern hemisphere this year. (Reuters: Brian Snyder)  *Related Story:* Snow cripples transport across Europe *Related Story:* US north-east digs out from deadly blizzard  *Map:* England  
Climate scientists say the massive snow storms to hit North America and Europe this year were linked to shrinking sea ice levels in the Arctic.
Satellite pictures reveal the sea ice levels were the sixth lowest since satellite records began over 30 years ago.
National Snow and Ice Data Centre's Walt Meier says the thickness of the sea ice is also a concern.
"More importantly, at this time of year, is the thickness of the ice, and that's still looking quite low," he said.  *Audio:* Blizzards linked to Arctic sea ice decline (AM) 
"It's probably at or near record low levels for this time of year." 
The shrinking Arctic sea ice levels reached their seasonal maximum on March 15.
MeteoGroup forecaster Claire Austin says March has been especially chilly so far. 
"It's much, much colder and it has been cold for the last few weeks - so it is unusual," Ms Austin said.
"We do get snowfalls, even up as far as April, where we see some quite significant snowfalls at times. 
"This is just incredibly cold air [that] doesn't want to go away unfortunately."  *Photo:* A professor says the reduction in Arctic sea ice levels is not only seasonal. (AFP: NASA) 
Professor Jennifer Francis, from Rutgers University in New Jersey, says the reduction in ice levels is not only seasonal. 
"We're seeing the decline happening in all seasons now, including the winter," she said.
"It's at its maximum extent now, but it is much thinner than it was again, only a couple of decades ago."
Ms Francis says the warming of the Arctic weakens the high altitude river of air known as the jet stream, which governs weather patterns in the northern hemisphere. 
"Last March at this time we were experiencing extremely warm conditions," she said.
"I was out in my garden planting peas and you know, spring was very early, but this year it's just the other way around."
Ms Francis said the changes could not be explained by natural fluctuations in the earth's environment.
"The changes that happened before the middle of the 1900s are all explained by natural causes," she said.
"But what has happened in just the last five or six decades is we've seen the largest increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in particular, and other greenhouse gases, and we know that it's caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
"So the increase in temperatures that we've seen cannot be explained any other way."

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You're obviously a genius...

  I have the certificate to prove it! :2thumbsup:

----------


## Johning

> An interesting set of data, one I haven't seen before. While we know that oceans do act as a heat sink and are doing their part in keeping surface temperature under some sort of control the fear remains as to what point the water mass begins to feedback and what impact that will have. If the jet stream shifts the impact could be keenly felt in Europe which ironically could enter a deep freeze while other parts of the world get hotter. It would seem we have a lot to learn and the more research that is done the better. As the shrill voices of the denialists and their eratic and convoluted nonsense subsides hopefully the world really will get deadly serious about what is happening around us. Don't tell those who believe it is a religious beat up though they are to busy burning bibles to have time to read it.

  Do you mean the Gulf stream?

----------


## johnc

> Do you mean the Gulf stream?

  Poor writing on my part, if the Gulf stream shifts there are big long term problems for Europe, the Jet stream moving around is apparently what is responsible for the artic blast they have up in Europe, Russia and Nth America at the moment. I should have written Gulf stream.

----------


## Johning

> Poor writing on my part, if the Gulf stream shifts there are big long term problems for Europe, the Jet stream moving around is apparently what is responsible for the artic blast they have up in Europe, Russia and Nth America at the moment. I should have written Gulf stream.

  I like to keep up but the science is way beyond my understanding.

----------


## woodbe

> if the Gulf stream shifts there are big long term problems for Europe

  People reckon we have too many boat people now, if the Gulf stream stops or reverses we ain't seen nothing! 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> I have the certificate to prove it!

   It might not be too late to get a refund.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> I mentioned ocean heat was a factor not taken into account in this oft-repeated meme that uses too short a time period to dismiss global warming. 
> A new study has been published in peer reviewed journal by climate scientists who actually derive their claims from data rather than spin and opinion:  Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library 
> From the Precis at Skeptical Science:   
> More information in the actual paper and also in the SKS precis 
> woodbe.

   Wow it is truly amazing how a body of water with a density 999 times greater than air respond quicker to a supposed heat increase / decrease that quickly after the supposed event, one of even average intelligence would expect a substantial lag time.
regards inter

----------


## Ashore

So after 8750 posts does anyone disagree with the second point in post no.1 
which was   "Second an ETS will cripple the Australian economy for no net benefit." 
Is anyone here happy with the government taxing local councils on their green waste because it breaks down and releases carbon into the atmosphere, then next week the residents grass grows again , absorbing carbon, and it goes into the green waste bin and council is taxed on the amount of green waste it collects because when it breaks down carbon is released into the atmosphere the grass grows again and we are taxed again
A similar cost to water boards for their sewage farms that break down waste and are taxed because they release carbon into the atmosphere and then we eat and more sewage is produced. 
All this carbon tax has done is to reduce our standard of living without reducing the amount of carbon released daily by even .0001 % yet every item we now have to purchase has increased by often more than 10% 
Argue global warming...sorry climate change all you want but tell me how a carbon tax in Australia has made any change to it.

----------


## PhilT2

The thing I like about the scientific process is the use of references or citations in any article that makes specific claims about emperical facts. It is by no means a guarantee of accuracy but it does give the reader a source to verify the author's claims. So if I make a statement like "my telephone number is xxx xxxx" then I follow it with the source of my information in brackets like so _(white pages 2013_) I would like to make a suggestion for those who make claims that they have not yet had the chance to verify, or are unable to find a source. Simply make your statement for example "everything has increased by more than 10%" then follow it with the appropriate citation (_I pulled these numbers out of my a**e_) If you forget to do this don't worry, we will know that you meant to put it there.

----------


## johnc

Most if not all councils now have a green waste composting facility in that they compost and resell that waste and/or apply some of it to parks and gardens. It is only the green waste that ends up in landfill that attracts the carbon tax not the recycled stuff. For most councils the increase in rates is probably around $30 to $40 per year to cover the carbon tax on tips and a number have now put in generators to capture the gases and turn that into electricity which also provides an income source, When you think about it the carbon tax may have reduced the amount of land fill from green waste and extended the life of existing tip sites. Anything such as metals, paper etc that does not hit the land fill hole is exempted. I have used the composted waste from our own tip and it is a very good product better than the local garden supplies product. 
I would like to see the evidence that supports the crippling of the Australian economy, what bunkum that is, there has been an effect but it is not a crippling one. Overall power usage has also dropped reducing emissions although I wouldn't be to quick to place the credit on the carbon tax it has had more to do with massive power price increases well ahead of inflation to cover the gold plating of the network and profit gouging by the retailers and distributors. The wholesalers haven't benefited and actually seen cost pressures reduce in their quarter compared to the rest of the sector. 
Post one was wrong on it's basic premise of crippling the economy, that was never a possibility, it's economic impact was never going to have that potential as the overall inpact on the cost of finished goods was marginal. In fact if you were worried about power prices driving up costs the real culprits are not the carbon tax as the bulk of the increases have come from elsewhere. Most have nothing to do with climate change measures some of the increase is to do with renewables such as the solar panel rebates which are fast disappearing from the system although the legacy of high feed in tarrifs will remain for some time but diminish at a steady rate. Although the rebates will in some cases run for 25 years power will gradually pass the current rebate levels and the impact of the rebates may well be gone with-in a decade.  
The impact of the carbon tax is debatable as a tool anyway, it is having an impact on behaviour but its counter balancing measures eliminate much of the pricing hurt. In any case it will either go under Abbot or become an emissions trading scheme which some seem to forget was the favoured tool of the Liberals Greg Hunt the shadow enviroment minister. Despite the posturing of the LNP they are committed to the some energy level targets so don't be surprised if what we get when they make it to power is different to the rhetoric, after all we are dealing with politicians and they are all tared with the same brush. 
Those who follow the line in the first post simply want to believe what their political masters have told them to think or follow what some think tank or blogger has put up sans reality. The simple fact is taxation be it for income or a tarif like a carbon tax has an economic impact but we are a low taxed country compared to other developed nations and we always had the potential to absorb the carbon tax especially as it came with income tax cuts and welfare benefit increases to compensate. We would be a better country if our journalists stuck to caling our leaders to task rather than inflaming misinformation that confuses people who are often quite well intentioned despite being totally wrong. 
The largest factor impacting those on low incomes is utility price increases and those increases need to be looked at more closely, the majority of those increases are not linked to carbon or enviromental issues but have more to do with management and accountability issues.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So after 8750 posts does anyone disagree with the second point in post no.1 
> which was   "Second an ETS will cripple the Australian economy for no net benefit." 
> Is anyone here happy with the government taxing local councils on their green waste because it breaks down and releases carbon into the atmosphere, then next week the residents grass grows again , absorbing carbon, and it goes into the green waste bin and council is taxed on the amount of green waste it collects because when it breaks down carbon is released into the atmosphere the grass grows again and we are taxed again
> A similar cost to water boards for their sewage farms that break down waste and are taxed because they release carbon into the atmosphere and then we eat and more sewage is produced. 
> All this carbon tax has done is to reduce our standard of living without reducing the amount of carbon released daily by even .0001 % yet every item we now have to purchase has increased by often more than 10% 
> Argue global warming...sorry climate change all you want but tell me how a carbon tax in Australia has made any change to it.

  I disagree with the statement simply because there's no evidence that it has crippled the economy.   Happy to accept that there's been no net benefit with respect to climate change but there has been a small drop in CO2 emissions...mostly in the electricity sector. Quarterly Update of Australia's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: September 2012 - Think Change 
The 'charge' with respect to councils and water authorities is targeted at methane...not CO2.  And it refers to the systems used to manage the release of methane to the environment.  If there are no systems then the suggestion is that the facility will be penalised.  Thus offering a financial incentive to upgrade the system.  Methane can (and is) be used to generate power and reduce operating costs of many dumps, sewage treatment plants, dairys and pig farms.  The fact that the additional charge might be cost shifted onto consumers is something to take up with your council...blaming it on the Gov is just being lazy.  Ask yerself whether the other mob will rescind such a charge come September.... :No:

----------


## Marc

> ii. I think this is basically 'it's been warmer before'. Well sure. That's like looking at a huge grocery bill and saying we had a bigger bill in 2004 than this. It means nothing without understanding the reasons it was warmer before and why it is warmer today.
> woodbe.

  I tend to ignore posts with zero value content but in this case I will make an exception for point 2 only because it can be addressed with economy of words. 
Warmist say that humans are the cause of recent variations in climate.
In order to verify this, we must compare the times when humans have been farting around to the times when they did not or their farts had negligible effect. 
If we find that the variations during humans farting time are the same or even less than during non human times, the changes are statistically insignificant and can not be attributed to any other then the same cause that made previous variations. That is natural causes. The presence of humans is statistically insignificant. 
The pain inflicted to humanity by this fraud is however not insignificant but very significant. It's scientific value is equal to the value of the inquisition that burned the witches because they caused the bubonic plague.

----------


## woodbe

> I tend to ignore posts with zero value content but in this case I will make an exception for point 2 only because it can be addressed with economy of words. 
> Warmist say that humans are the cause of recent variations in climate.
> In order to verify this, we must compare the times when humans have been farting around to the times when they did not or their farts had negligible effect. 
> If we find that the variations during humans farting time are the same or even less than during non human times, the changes are statistically insignificant and can not be attributed to any other then the same cause that made previous variations. That is natural causes. The presence of humans is statistically insignificant. 
> The pain inflicted to humanity by this fraud is however not insignificant but very significant. It's scientific value is equal to the value of the inquisition that burned the witches because they caused the bubonic plague.

  Marc, I tend to ignore posts with zero value content too, but seeing as you have graciously decided to respond to the post you specifically asked for, I'm more than happy to do my bit. 
Basically, claiming "In order to verify this, we must compare the times when humans have been  farting around to the times when they did not or their farts had  negligible effect." is casting an ignorant pall over the efforts of those who work to understand the climate. You seem to be of the opinion that those who work in climate science do not take the time and effort to understand what came before and what the triggers for that previous climate was. This is a basic misunderstanding of climate science, however if you wish to continue to believe that because the climate has changed before therefore any changes during the Holocene must not be because of humanity's inputs into the climate system, please feel free. You're not alone, but you certainly are in the minority. 
As I said before:   

> It means nothing without understanding the reasons it was warmer before and why it is warmer today.

  woodbe.

----------


## Marc

The thing is that we only see what we want to see. If someone's idea of the world is that some bad guys have singlehandedly changed the climate for the worst that is what they will see regardless of any reasoning to the contrary. This concept complements their other values so well that nothing will change their view.
If you then have an army of PAID mercenaries fully qualified to parrot what their bossess tell them to say, the picture is complete. 
Yet regardless of the frame of respectability that was built around this fraud, it is still a fraud. 
The reality is that climate has a large array of variables not well understood. Climate changes and has changed since the earth was formed. Inhabitants have always played a part as a variable, be as vegetables or animals. A new variable came into play when humans started to use machines and burn fuel in a significant way. 
However this new variable and it's by-product of extra CO2 have not changed climate in any statistically significant way since the variations are in tune with variations that occurred before the human variable. If a new variable is introduced in a system and this new variable makes no difference to the normal oscillation of the effect we are studying, there is no point in scrutinising the new variable and our attention should be drawn elsewhere. 
The "correlation" parroted at nauseam between CO2 and warming is complete nonsense and comparable to the correlation between the bubonic plague and the activities of witches.  
One could find a correlation between climate change and the use of the english language. A correlation between "climate change" and the use of chilli in food and any other nonsense one would want to make up.

----------


## woodbe

> The thing is that we only see what we want to see. If someone's idea of the world is that some bad guys have singlehandedly changed the climate for the worst that is what they will see regardless of any reasoning to the contrary. This concept complements their other values so well that nothing will change their view.
> If you then have an army of PAID mercenaries fully qualified to parrot what their bossess tell them to say, the picture is complete. 
> Yet regardless of the frame of respectability that was built around this fraud, it is still a fraud. 
> The reality is that climate has a large array of variables not well understood. Climate changes and has changed since the earth was formed. Inhabitants have always played a part as a variable, be as vegetables or animals. A new variable came into play when humans started to use machines and burn fuel in a significant way. 
> However this new variable and it's by-product of extra CO2 have not changed climate in any statistically significant way since the variations are in tune with variations that occurred before the human variable. If a new variable is introduced in a system and this new variable makes no difference to the normal oscillation of the effect we are studying, there is no point in scrutinising the new variable and our attention should be drawn elsewhere. 
> The "correlation" parroted at nauseam between CO2 and warming is complete nonsense and comparable to the correlation between the bubonic plague and the activities of witches.  
> One could find a correlation between climate change and the use of the english language. A correlation between "climate change" and the use of chilli in food and any other nonsense one would want to make up.

  Da Nile ain't just a river in Egypt. _Tom Sawyer._ 
It means nothing without understanding the reasons it was warmer before and why it is warmer today. _woodbe._ 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

Goose, meet Gander:   

> Your mention of what Mr Carter is paid and by whom is irrelevant.

   

> If you then have an army of PAID mercenaries fully qualified to parrot what their bossess tell them to say, the picture is complete.

  Hmmm. What were you saying about people seeing only what they want to see? 
On one hand a competitive bunch of scientists paid pretty ordinary salaries to do research and submit papers for publication. On the other hand, a serial misinformer paid by a known Oil industry funded 'think tank' to publicly subvert the results of that research. 
Riotous, Marc. Well done.  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> Da Nile ain't just a river in Egypt. _Tom Sawyer._ 
> It means nothing without understanding the reasons it was warmer before and why it is warmer today. _woodbe._ 
> woodbe.

  Total nonsense, precisely my point.
No one really "understands" much at all. We make some educated guesses and general assumptions and pretend to know the rest.
That is the problem. Then each side feeds their computer with nonsense and expect it to predict the future. More nonsense of course. 
Since NO ONE understands fully the mechanism of weather and climate, it is stupid to pretent we do and to find silly "correlations". The whole exercise is political and a power struggle.  
The ONLY possible analysis is a cause and effect study and that tells us that humans have made insignificant changes and will continue to be an insignificant influence on climate. Therefore all this "save the earth" crusades are delusions of grandeur.

----------


## woodbe

> Since NO ONE understands fully the mechanism of weather and climate, it is stupid to pretent we do

  Except no-one pretends they know everything! The science tells us we know enough that we should be doing something. 
On the other hand, Skeptics pretend we know nothing, and pretend should do nothing apart from continue burning fossil fuels as fast as we can because we're only 97/100 sure we're doing damage pumping all that CO2 into the atmosphere.  :Rolleyes:  
No comment on your goose and gander Carter cash blunder, Marc?  
Happy Easter you skeptic!  :Wink:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

Another myth busted on the road to 100% renewable electricity : Renew Economy   

> By Mark Diesendorf on 4 April 2013     
> Ten  years ago it was extraordinary for scientists, engineers, policy-makers  and decision-makers to consider the possibility of 100 per cent  renewable electricity for a country or group of countries. However, the  progress of several key renewable energy technologies has been so rapid  that the scene has totally changed since then.

   

> The old myth was based on the assumption that base-load demand can only  be supplied by base-load power stations, for example, coal in Australia  and nuclear in France. However, the mix of renewable energy systems in  our computer models easily supplies base-load demand, although they have  no base-load power stations. The real challenge is to supply peaks in  demand on winter evenings following overcast days when the wind is low.  Thats when existing peak-load power stations, hydro and gas turbines  burning biofuels, make vital contributions by filling gaps in wind and  solar generation. For a predominantly renewable electricity system,  base-load power stations are redundant.

   

> An electricity generation system based on 100 per cent commercially  available renewable energy technologies is technically feasible,  reliable and affordable. It just needs effective policies from our  federal and state governments.

  Full modelling of achievable renewable electricity in Australia. 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

*The size of the manure pile shovelled around in that article requires a front loader to handle. I can make a computer "modelling"  that predicts teleportation for everyone by 2023. Without fail!  
Guest post by Kelvin Kemm*
It is amazing how biased the international media is when it comes to reporting on energy generation, specifically electricity.
In mid-August, Germany opened a new 2200MW coal-fired power station near Cologne, and virtually not a word has been said about it. This dearth of reporting is even more surprising when one considers that Germany has said building new coal plants is necessary because electricity produced by wind and solar has turned out to be unaffordably expensive and unreliable.
In a deteriorating economic situation, Germanys new environment minister, Peter Altmaier, who is as politically close to Chancellor Angela Merkel as it gets, has underlined time and again the importance of not further harming Europes  and Germanys  economy by increasing the cost of electricity. 
He is also worried that his country could become dependent on foreign imports of electricity, the mainstay of its industrial sector. To avoid that risk, Altmaier has given the green light to build twenty-three new coal-fired plants, which are currently under construction. 
Yes, you read that correctly, twenty three-new coal-fired power plants are under construction in Germany, because Germany is worried about the increasing cost of electricity, and because they cant afford to be in the strategic position of importing too much electricity. 
Just recently, German figures were released on the actual productivity of the countrys wind power over the last ten years. The figure is 16.3 percent!
Due to the inherent intermittent nature of wind, their wind power system was designed for an assumed 30% load factor in the first place. That means that they hoped to get a mere 30% of the installed capacity  versus some 85-90% for coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydroelectric facilities. That means that, when they build 3,000MW of wind power, they expect to actually get merely 900MW, because the wind does not always blow at the required speeds. But in reality, after ten years, they have discovered that they are actually getting only half of what they had optimistically, and irrationally, hoped for: a measly 16.3 percent. 
Even worse, after spending billions of Euros on subsidies, Germanys total combined solar facilities have contributed a miserly, imperceptible 0.084% of Germanys electricity over the last 22 years. That is not even one-tenth of one percent. 
Moreover, the actual cost of Germanys wind and solar electricity is far and away higher than its cost of coal and nuclear power. So much for free solar and wind. So much for all the German jobs that depend on reliable access to plentiful and affordable electricity. 
As to natural gas produced via hydraulic fracturing, that too is prohibited, even if it is required to back up undependable wind and solar facilities. No wonder Germanys natural gas and electricity prices are practically unaffordable. 
Meantime the extreme greens continue to preach about the wonders of life based on solar and wind power. They also talk constantly about sustainable living, a sustainable future, and an otherwise hydrocarbon-free and decarbonized tomorrow. Be warned! What these vacuous exhortations mean is that people must not enjoy the lifestyles and living standards of a modern world. 
They mean the First World must cut back significantly on its living standards, and the developing world must give up its aspirations for achieving the lifestyle of the First World.
Believe me, African small-scale farmers all dream of becoming like the large commercial-scale farmers they see next door. They do not wish to plough their fields with oxen, when their neighbours have tractors and automated grain handling machines. The same is true of small-scale commercial and industrial operations in which an affordable and reliable supply of electricity is essential. It is likewise true of virtually every office, shop, hospital, school and family on the entire African continent. 
Meanwhile, in South Africa, an organisation calling itself Green Truth has distributed a notice about a newly released movie titled simply Fuel. Here is part of the promotional notice:
FUEL is a comprehensive and entertaining look at energy: A history of where we have been, our present predicament, and a solution to our dependence on foreign oil. Rousing and reactionary, FUEL is an amazing, in-depth, personal journey by eco-evangelist Josh Tickell, of oil use and abuse, as it examines wide-ranging energy solutions other than oil; the faltering US auto and petroleum industries; and the latest stirrings toward alternative energy. 
The film includes interviews with a wide range of policy makers, educators and activists such as Woody Harrelson, Neil Young and Willie Nelson. Tickell knew he just couldnt idly stand by any longer. He decided to make a film, focusing on the knowledge and insight he discovered, but also giving hope that solutions are at reach. A regular guy who felt he could make a difference, he spent 11 years making this movie, showing himself  and others  that an individual can indeed make a difference. Stirring, radical and multi-award winning energy documentary! FUEL features experts and eco-celebrities such as: Sheryl Crow, Larry David, Richard Branson and Robert Kennedy, Jr. 
The notice frequently emphasizes sustainable living and a hopeful future. And the singers, actors, activists and other energy experts featured in the film are all extremely wealthy, and not at all likely to adopt the sustainable lifestyle that they and Tickell advocate so passionately. 
Does this film have anything to do with truth about energy? Or is it simply a propaganda film for the producers and activists version of sustainable lives, for others, though not for themselves? It takes but a fleeting moment to realize that it is just like Al Gores An Inconvenient Truth  leagues removed from truth, and laden with scientific errors, personal biases, and the hypocrisies of affluent partisans who own big houses and fly private jets to events where they tell _other people how to live more sustainably._  _Im sure eco-evangelist Josh Tickell is just a regular guy, just as his movie promo says he is. But I would much rather have my countrys electricity future planned by electrical engineers and scientists, and by citizens and politicians who actually live here  rather than by a regular guy environmental activist and his self-proclaimed experts on energy and sustainable lifestyles._ _As formerly eco-evangelist Germany has demonstrated, countries cannot afford to have national energy policy moulded by movies like Fuel and An Inconvenient Truth. Their policies  and their future  need to be based on genuine truth and honest reality._ ______________ _Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and business strategy consultant based in Pretoria, South Africa. A member of the International Board of Advisors of the Washington, DC-based Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), Dr Kemm has been awarded the prestigious Lifetime Achievers Award of the National Science and Technology Forum of South Africa._  *Rate this:*        _ 
64 Votes_   *Share this:*   _Google +1__Twitter57__Facebook358__StumbleUpon__Reddit__Digg__Email_      *Like this:*     _This entry was posted in energy, Government idiocy and tagged Germany, Solar energy, Sustainable energy, wind power. Bookmark the permalink._  _← Cool clean coal  just add refrigeration_ _Offline →_ *136 Responses to Germanys new renewable energy policy*   _Jim Cripwell says:_ _August 28, 2012 at 9:03 am_ _The silly thing is that this was obvious 10 years ago. Until we learn how to store gigawatt/weeks of energy for our electric supplies, wind and solar will never be economically viable. The only viable renewable energy source at the moment is cellulose ethanol; there the energy as produced is stored..__John says:_ _August 28, 2012 at 9:07 am_ _And that is not only for Germany. A lot more countries in Europe are on the wind power bandwagon sadly enough.
Maybe cold hard figures will finally wake them up.__jayhd says:_ _August 28, 2012 at 9:08 am_ _Now why havent the American main stream media reported on this? sarc off__timg56 says:_ _August 28, 2012 at 9:19 am_ _When I see the names of the experts from that film review I am reminded of the credit card commercial where Alex Baldwin tells the pilot of the plane its ok, Ive played a pilot on tv._ _Ask people if they would board a plane whose pilot was an actor and though not a certified pilot, had played the role in film or tv and youd have a lot of empty seats. But let someone famous tell them about energy, climate, finance, or any other technical field and a surprising number will believe.__Peter Miller says:_ _August 28, 2012 at 9:21 am_ _So the Germans have turned off nice, clean, reliable nuclear energy and switching to coal, which has to be mostly imported, or even worse burn low grade, domestically produced, brown lignite.._ _At least they have the common sense to see that the use of renewable energy on a large scale makes no sense in a modern economy. As the effective ruler of the Eurozone, they can ignore all the targets set by the bureaucrats in Brussels  see below:_ _The EU aims to get 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. Renewables include wind, solar, hydro-electric and tidal power as well as geothermal energy and biomass. More renewable energy will enable the EU to cut greenhouse emissions and make it less dependent on imported energy. And boosting the renewables industry will encourage technological innovation and employment in Europe.__TomB says:_ _August 28, 2012 at 9:31 am_ _Doesnt South Africa get a substantial portion of its local petroleum fuel needs from coal liquefaction?__coeruleus says:_ _August 28, 2012 at 9:33 am_ _Nope. No alarmism here. Carry on, mates!__GlynnMhor says:_ _August 28, 2012 at 9:34 am_ _If only these truths could be conveniently disseminated to the general public in the developed world__KnR says:_ _August 28, 2012 at 9:35 am_ _Germanys wind and solar many not have actual produce much power , but you can bet someone done very nicely out of farming the fat subsides .__Lance Wallace says:_ _August 28, 2012 at 9:41 am_ _Links please.__Hanzwurst says:_ _August 28, 2012 at 9:42 am_ _As formerly eco-evangelist Germany
Unfortunantely it still is. The need for coal-plants just arose because of the is only one thing Germans fear more than climate change and gene technology: nuclear power.
After fukushima politicians across the board (and after recommendations of an ethics commission, consisting of 17 member of which most were of non-technical background, like priests. politicians, sociologists and philosophers (sic!)) decided to accelerate the shut-down of all nuclear-plants._ _Long story short: The situation over here is even more [snip . . you know the rules . . . kbmod] up than that text conveys. And it gets worse by the day.__DirkH says:_ _August 28, 2012 at 9:47 am_ _coeruleus says:
August 28, 2012 at 9:33 am
Nope. No alarmism here. Carry on, mates!_ _Im German and Im paying 23.5 Eurocent a kWh. Prices are expected to rise to 25 cent next year. Guess well be finally overtaking the Danes and have the most expensive electricity in the world._ _Come to Germany, youre invited, pay German taxes and German energy prices and see how you like it._

----------


## woodbe

Marc, you accidentally left in the real reason why Germany is building Coal plants: They can't build enough renewable plants quick enough to replace the Nuclear plants they have decided to shut down post Fukishima:   

> _Hanzwurst says:_ _August 28, 2012 at 9:42 am_ _As formerly eco-evangelist Germany
> Unfortunantely it still is. The need for coal-plants just arose because of the is only one thing Germans fear more than climate change and gene technology: nuclear power.
> After fukushima politicians across the board (and after recommendations of an ethics commission, consisting of 17 member of which most were of non-technical background, like priests. politicians, sociologists and philosophers (sic!)) decided to accelerate the shut-down of all nuclear-plants._ _Long story short: The situation over here is even more [snip . . you know the rules . . . kbmod] up than that text conveys. And it gets worse by the day._ _DirkH says:_

  Your WUWT guest poster does a great job of obfuscating the renewable figures. Solar is just .084% of the last 22 years electricity supply, but how much solar was there installed 22 years ago compared to now? Not much, I reckon, and certainly nothing like now.     
How about 2011?     

> The share of electricity  produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3  percent of the national total in 2000 to just over 20 percent in the  first six months of 2011, according to German state newspaper Der Spiegel.[6][7] In 2011 20.5% (123.5 TWh) of Germany's electricity supply (603 TWH) was produced from renewable energy sources, more than the 2010 contribution of gas-fired power plants.[8][9] Siemens  chief executive, Peter Löscher believes that Germanys target of  generating 35 per cent of its energy from renewables by 2020 is  achievable  and, most probably, would be profitable for his company, Siemens, one of Europes largest engineering companies.[10] 
>  Germany was generating about 25 percent of its electricity from coal, about 61 percent from fossil fuels in total, 23 percent from nuclear power and about 15-20 percent from renewable sources in 2009. In 2012 the German electricity sector increased its coal usage by 4.9 percent over its coal consumption value of 2011.[11] This increase in coal usage was largely due to a power gap in Germany created after the nation shutdown 8 of its 17 nuclear power plants.[12] The shortfall in electricity supply from these 8 power plants, is primarily being filled by building more lignite coal burning power plants.[13][14] The return to coal in Germany, beginning in 2011, could undermine the nations legal commitment to the kyoto protocol's carbon dioxide reductions.[15][16][17]

  I don't know about your maths, but if PV accounts for 16% of renewable electricity then I think we'd find that it's a lot MORE than 0.84% of the total.  Renewable energy in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Solar power in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
 woodbe.

----------


## Marc

Your ability to write manure is staggering.
We are living a phase of collective mental illness where we mortgage our future for the sake of a religious doctrine.
We are doing to ourselves what the inhabitants of the easter island did until they run out of palm trees. 
I hope the madness stops soon.

----------


## woodbe

> Your ability to write manure is staggering.
> We are living a phase of collective mental illness where we mortgage our future for the sake of a religious doctrine.
> We are doing to ourselves what the inhabitants of the easter island did until they run out of palm trees. 
> I hope the madness stops soon.

  If you think replying to deliberately manufactured misinformation with known facts is manure, I think you might need to realign your vocab. 
Your guest poster at WUWT is full of it.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> Your ability to write manure is staggering.
> We are living a phase of collective mental illness where we mortgage our future for the sake of a religious doctrine.
> We are doing to ourselves what the inhabitants of the easter island did until they run out of palm trees. 
> I hope the madness stops soon.

  Although you regularly throw the line that those with a differing point of view may be mentally ill you never seem to consider that it may not be others with the illness but it may come from with-in. Self doubt is a much under rated strength, blind adherence to a particular negative point of view is not.

----------


## Marc

The pathetic logic of the view of the world and the "solutions" offered by the left and the "green" has one simple problem. 
"Eventually you run out of other's people money" _
Margaret Tatcher _ The even more pathetic logic comes from our western governments. Buy votes by giving to voters what they in their pathetic and skewed view have adopted as "true" by the criminal propaganda machine of the "alternative energy". After all if voters want it they would give free marijuana in primary schools.  
The clapping mob that in general already lives off the taxpayers money and wants to have the right to tell the productive how to live their life, will eventually loose momentum and get booted in a dark corner. Until then the money will continue to flow towards the polluting inefficient and useless renewable industry. Eventually the productive people not thanks to the current useless cheering mob will find a true useful alternative source of energy. At that time the greens will block it because they do not want anything that is cheap and efficient, only expensive and useless.  
The world is an amazing place. The actors in this real time movie have some funny scripts in their hands. Carry on guys, it is all part of the fun.

----------


## johnc

It is technological change, greater efficiency and use of resources along with more cost efficient delivery routes that will deliver economic gains not a few nongs trying to hang on to old and outdated generation capacity. It was also Margaret Thatcher around 1990 who identified climate change as something that needed to be addressed as it would be cheaper to deal with it then than down the track. She understood economics, more so than the skeptics forever doomed to looking into the rear view mirror although it was of course economics without a heart.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It is technological change, greater efficiency and use of resources along with more cost efficient delivery routes that will deliver economic gains not a few nongs trying to hang on to old and outdated generation capacity. It was also Margaret Thatcher around 1990 who identified climate change as something that needed to be addressed as it would be cheaper to deal with it then than down the track. She understood economics, more so than the skeptics forever doomed to looking into the rear view mirror although it was of course economics without *all the entertaining bits*.

  Fixed that for you.  Maggie put her heart into her economic vision so it had plenty of heart...to use the oft quoted phrase "she had the heart of a lion...and a lifetime ban from the zoo".

----------


## johnc

She could have got a job anywhere marking sheep, he expertise at marking union leaders meant she could have turned a paddock full of merino rams into whethers before morning smoko then come back for more.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> We are living a phase of collective mental illness where we mortgage our future for the sake of a religious doctrine.

  Yep. It's called "The Endless Pursuit of Economic Growth"   

> We are doing to ourselves what the inhabitants of Easter Island did until they run out of palm trees.

  Yep...though we do have the technology to make more palm trees which might buy us more time at the expense of the odd orangutan or two.     

> I hope the madness stops soon.

  There's no stopping now...though a course adjustment is sorely needed. Tally Ho!

----------


## woodbe

Alternative energy skeptics, read and weep: Is Renewable Energy&#039;s Biggest Problem Solved? | Alternet 
And yes, this is from Germany Marc.  :Wink:  Seems they're not so welded on to those coal plants as you think. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> In mid-August, Germany opened a new 2200MW coal-fired power station near Cologne, and virtually not a word has been said about it. This dearth of reporting is even more surprising when one considers that Germany has said building new coal plants is necessary because electricity produced by wind and solar has turned out to be unaffordably expensive and unreliable.
> In a deteriorating economic situation, Germanys new environment minister, Peter Altmaier, who is as politically close to Chancellor Angela Merkel as it gets, has underlined time and again the importance of not further harming Europes  and Germanys  economy by increasing the cost of electricity. 
> He is also worried that his country could become dependent on foreign imports of electricity, the mainstay of its industrial sector. To avoid that risk, Altmaier has given the green light to build twenty-three new coal-fired plants, which are currently under construction.

  Well, seems this is an interesting piece of misinformation after all.  :Smilie:   *Fukishima event:* March 11, 2011  *Germany decides to shut nuclear plants:* March 30, 2011 (8 immediately, remaining 9 by 2022)  *Time taken to build a Coal Plant from scratch:* 2 years absolute minimum. The Cologne plant was already 4 years in development and construction when Fukishima happened. This is not a result of Fukishima or the closure of the nukes at all.  :Tongue:  
So what's the story?:  Is Germany switching to coal? - 100% renewable - Renewables International   

> *The recent news that the German Environmental Minister opened a  new coal plant made headlines around the world and lead people to  believe once again that Germany's nuclear phaseout would only lead to  greater coal consumption, thereby raising carbon emissions. But a single  new coal plant does not a trend make. * Opponents of renewables in North America are pouncing on the news of a  new coal plant in Germany, especially because German Environmental  Minister Peter Altmaier cut the ribbon, so to speak. Altmaier said  Germany will need the conventional fossil power plants for "decades to  come," though he did not say it was, as Fox Business put it, to "complement unreliable and intermittent renewable energies such as wind and solar power." In fact, he stated  that "fossil energy and renewables should not be played as cards  against each other" and that we have to move beyond "making enemies of  the two."   *It took six years to build the plant*, meaning that the  process started in 2006. It is by no means a reaction to the nuclear  phaseout of 2011. And as Altmaier himself points out, the new plant can  ramp up and down by 150 megawatts within five minutes and by 500  megawatts within 15, making it a flexible complement to intermittant  renewables. In the area, 12 coal plants more than 40 years old have been  decommissioned, and the new 2,200 megawatt plant is to directly replace  16 older 150 megawatts blocks by the end of this year, so 2,200  megawatts of new, more flexible, somewhat cleaner capacity (the new  plant has an efficiency of 43 percent, whereas 35 percent would be  considered ambitious for most old coal plants) is directly replacing  2,400 old megawatts.

  So Marc's little cut and paste from the skeptics favourite denier blogsite has now led us to the truth. Germany is on a mission to maintain their emissions reduction goals, and shutting down the nukes has not changed their focus one iota. 
Also: Coal Plants Out Of Style In Germany | CleanTechnica 
Not to mention, Friends Of the Earth Germany has a coal plant kill list and they are having great success:   
I love the smell of burning misinformation in the morning  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Well, seems this is an interesting piece of misinformation after all.   *Fukishima event:* March 11, 2011  *Germany decides to shut nuclear plants:* March 30, 2011 (8 immediately, remaining 9 by 2022)  *Time taken to build a Coal Plant from scratch:* 2 years absolute minimum. The Cologne plant was already 4 years in development and construction when Fukishima happened. This is not a result of Fukishima or the closure of the nukes at all.  
> So what's the story?:  Is Germany switching to coal? - 100% renewable - Renewables International   
> So Marc's little cut and paste from the skeptics favourite denier blogsite has now led us to the truth. Germany is on a mission to maintain their emissions reduction goals, and shutting down the nukes has not changed their focus one iota. 
> Also: Coal Plants Out Of Style In Germany | CleanTechnica 
> Not to mention, Friends Of the Earth Germany has a coal plant kill list and they are having great success:   
> I love the smell of burning misinformation in the morning  
> woodbe.

  WOW, they shut down all those nuclear power plants, replaced with coal fired power generation and are not going to increase their carbon emissions, what fool would believe that?
regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

My understanding is that the eight nuclear plants that were shut down were already offline due to various factors. Many of them were built in the sixties and were low output and were at the end of their lifespan. I don't think that any of them were in the former eastern sector as those were closed shortly after reunification due to safety concerns. So there was no need to replace something that was not working with anything.

----------


## woodbe

> WOW, they shut down all those nuclear power plants, replaced with coal fired power generation and are not going to increase their carbon emissions, what fool would believe that?
> regards inter

  Nope.  :Rolleyes:  
They shut down a bunch of old, inefficient coal plants and replaced them with a single, fast responding and ~25% more efficient coal plant while they get their renewable plants installed and up to speed. They decided to do this 6 years ago, it was part of their long term plan and nothing to do with the decision to shutdown their nuclear power system. 
To date, the nuclear shutdown has been more a case of deciding not to bring them back online. The remaining online nuclear plants will be taken offline as the renewable capacity grows to replace them. 
What fool would think that the 2200MW coal plant was designed, installed and commissioned in less than 2 years, when the facts are in their face that it was a 6 year project? 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> What fool would think that the 2200MW coal plant was designed, installed and commissioned in less than 2 years, when the facts are in their face that it was a 6 year project? 
> woodbe.

   More than likely the originator of technobabble 
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> More than likely the originator of technobabble

   What a spectacular and hopeless cop out.... :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  
Just because someone doesn't have the patience to read something or the wit and capacity to fully comprehend it doesn't make that written material wrong.   
This rule applies as much to the Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun as it does to any scientific literature...

----------


## intertd6

> What a spectacular and hopeless cop out.... 
> Just because someone doesn't have the patience to read something or the wit and capacity to fully comprehend it doesn't make that written material wrong.   
> This rule applies as much to the Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun as it does to any scientific literature...

  It just goes to show that the technobabble will fool 99.9% of the masses, read it to your hearts content. 
Regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

Apologies for the absence ladies and gents, but I have been a busy little bee over here in the west. 
Us workers are trying hard to keep to keep the Australian economy running, in spite of continual sovereign risk increases from JuLIAR and her dole bludging Greenie sycophants regularly trying to shut down our productive economy.  I don't think they've figured out yet that their Greenie playhouse called Tasmania now exists only by sucking on the welfare teat from the mainland.  Whose welfare teat will we all be sucking on if they succeed in doing the same to the mainland? 
But I'll happily cash a few reality checks while I have a few moments to spare.   

> Another myth busted on the road to 100% renewable electricity : Renew Economy 
>  Full modelling of achievable renewable electricity in Australia. 
> woodbe.

   
Full modelling of achievable renewable [S]electricity[/S] sexuality in Australia.     
Those of us who work with models understand why they're called models.  They very, very rarely manifest in reality.  So if you want to close your eyes and pretend the dream you're holding onto is your model, go right ahead and enjoy yourself.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Science in action: 
The models you see are generally much hotter than what you get in reality!   
Keep dreaming lads, maybe one day your dream model will come to life with your weird science.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Gee, who coulda figured these derivative instruments predicated on selling fresh air via internationally constructed artificial markets would be a disaster?  :Doh:    

> In many ways a bad look for both people and the organisations they represent:   _Climate Change Minister Greg Combet took his ABC newsreader partner Juanita Phillips on a first-class visit to Europe _  _ The taxpayer-funded trip earlier this month included visits to Paris,  Brussels and Berlin where Mr Combet  touted as a future Labor leader   delivered a keynote address to the Towards a Global Carbon Market  conference._  Terrific example, cutting their own emissions. Not.    Graham Richardson on that global carbon market were going towards:     _ Having endured an enormous bucketing over the price, the government made  a belated attempt to ameliorate the damage caused by the fiction by  announcing that from 2015 the Australian scheme would be linked to the  European price.  _   _  Treasury predictions were that the price would be $29 in 2015-16. What  has happened to Treasury? It did not come as a great surprise to most  people to see that the European price is about $3 as of today.  _   Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

----------


## Dr Freud

How high could JuLIAR increase our debt if left to unleash more economic and environmental failures like her Carbon Dioxide Tax LIES?   

> Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey claimed the hit to the  budget *could be as high as $7 billion a year*. Australian Chamber of  Commerce and Industry Chief economist Greg Evans said the collapse in  the European price showed the scale of the "economic recklessness of  imposing a carbon tax of $23 per tonne on Australian industry and  consumers".  He also said that the extra tax burden put Australia's economy at a "significant competitive disadvantage".  Labor in a $7 billion black hole as world carbon price collapses | News.com.au

  Here's how much economic destruction she's created so far:   
Green dream schemes are cool, huh?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

JuLIAR wasted so much money appeasing Greenie dream schemes that our money is now running out to pay for essentials like defence, disability, health, education, etc etc:   

> _CHRISTOPHER PYNE: ...the Government has announced $11 billion worth  of cuts and redirections to fund a $14.5 billion education package.  Thats $600 million of new money each year. Now the Gonski report said  that $6.5 billion would be needed each year, so in fact theyve  delivered one-tenth  _ Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  Now there's a genius idea, let's cut funding to universities that train and educate teachers and the education system will improve?  :Doh:  
Gee, I wonder why not a single state or territory leader recognised this genius today? 
Maybe they didn't want a future where all kids learned about was "climut chaynj, sewla panils and winmilz"?  :Cry:

----------


## Dr Freud

Laughing stock is an understatement:    

> Global warming now causes colder weather:   _Met Office chief scientist Julia Slingo said climate change was loading the dice towards freezing, drier weather  and called publicly for the first time for an urgent investigation._ An urgent investigation into dud predictions? _  In 2006, Met Office meteorologist Wayne Elliott told the BBC    
> It is consistent with the climate change message. It is exactly what we expect winters to be like  warmer and wetter_Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  
When we said warmer and wetter, we meant colder and drier? Seriously?  
I think *"pure and unadulterated humiliation"* only starts to begin describing this farcical cults gyrations.   :Roflmao2:

----------


## woodbe

> Those of us who work with models understand why they're called models.  They very, very rarely manifest in reality.  So if you want to close your eyes and pretend the dream you're holding onto is your model, go right ahead and enjoy yourself.

  Yet you still work with them?  :Biggrin:  
Models are models, no-one has ever said that they are 100% correct or that they can never be improved.  
Well, except the skeptics.  :Doh:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Yet you still work with them?  
> Models are models, no-one has ever said that they are 100% correct or that they can never be improved.  
> Well, except the skeptics.  
> woodbe.

  Some models could be improved quite easily, less Bolivian marching powder & keeping dinner down so their BMI came up to underweight. It is possible
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> How high could JuLIAR increase our debt if left to unleash more economic and environmental failures like her Carbon Dioxide Tax LIES?   
> Here's how much economic destruction she's created so far:   
> Green dream schemes are cool, huh?

  
Very little of the spike in Government debt has anything at all to do with anything "green". The thinning of the tax base, high australian dollar, GFC, negative consumer sentiment, ballooning health expenditure, middle class welfare, the overly generous 2006 changes to the taxing of superannuation income streams, it all combines. This will not be fixed like last time with sell offs and booming mining receipts, this will be fixed by spending cuts and tax increases in the short term if anyone has the courage to do it. Can the LNP do it? who knows we will have to wait and see but there is every sign they may be giving up on the idea of getting out of debt because the task is beyond the current team. Stick to your fantasies though they at least amusing in their naivity.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Yet you still work with them?  
> Models are models, no-one has ever said that they are 100% correct or that they can never be improved.  
> Well, except the skeptics.  
> woodbe.

  We dont mind them never being 100% correct.... but 100% WRONG  :Doh:

----------


## intertd6

> Very little of the spike in Government debt has anything at all to do with anything "green". The thinning of the tax base, high australian dollar, GFC, negative consumer sentiment, ballooning health expenditure, middle class welfare, the overly generous 2006 changes to the taxing of superannuation income streams, it all combines. This will not be fixed like last time with sell offs and booming mining receipts, this will be fixed by spending cuts and tax increases in the short term if anyone has the courage to do it. Can the LNP do it? who knows we will have to wait and see but there is every sign they may be giving up on the idea of getting out of debt because the task is beyond the current team. Stick to your fantasies though they at least amusing in their naivity.

  Of course the LNP can make the graph go back into the blue, cut spending, cut welfare from pensioners, stifle & strangle the country while squirrelling away every last cent while trying to play on the world stage fighting wars we have nothing to do with, all we need is a run of leaders that understand that saving & spending on these scales are sure election losers. The pack of idiots can't even build a highway between 3 major cities, so they skip that and try & build an information super HWY ( NBN ) .
regards inter

----------


## johnc

What we are not getting from any side is honesty, as a percentage of GDP tax receipts have collapsed, but in dollars are higher than under Howard. Government outlays are up. Neither side is genuine in it's commentary, there is to much spin and nowhere are we getting real discussion on what we need to do to balance the budget. I actually think treasury haven't got the answer and as a result our current crop of lazy and lack lustre pollies don't wish to canvas options least it becomes obvious they really are rather limited. Our papers and many of the bloggists seem hell bent on pathetic following of personality and no time trying to articulate why we are building a real problem for ourselves with debt. We should be doing better than we are given current revenue levels.

----------


## Dr Freud

> What we are not getting from any side is honesty, as a percentage of GDP tax receipts have collapsed, but in dollars are higher than under Howard. Government outlays are up. Neither side is genuine in it's commentary, there is to much spin and nowhere are we getting real discussion on what we need to do to balance the budget. I actually think treasury haven't got the answer and as a result our current crop of lazy and lack lustre pollies don't wish to canvas options least it becomes obvious they really are rather limited. Our papers and many of the bloggists seem hell bent on pathetic following of personality and no time trying to articulate why we are building a real problem for ourselves with debt. We should be doing better than we are given current revenue levels.

  I think JuLIAR has enough apologists in the paid media without your spinning of the same old stories. 
Here's a simple lesson in economics that JuLIAR (and other socialists) never learn:  *If you spend less than you earn, you have a surplus!* 
Let's see that in action according to budget data:   
Or should I have said let's see it NOT in action.  :Doh:  
And I wonder what happened in 2007?  Did we change governments or something? 
Did revenue go down as JuLIAR lies about?  Or is spending now out of control?  You can figure it out for yourselves. 
If you worked in the Treasury, would you have predicted the blue line massively jumping up above the red line to create a fictional "failure is not an option" surplus in 2013?  Apparently they did.  Make no mistake, the blue line still went up a large amount, just not a magically improbable amount required by JuLIAR to LIE yet again. 
I'll cover the ridiculous amount on greenie spending within that disaster soon. 
For now, start putting cash away.  Things are gonna get uglier soon enough.  :Annoyed:

----------


## johnc

The graph means little on its own, to actually mean something you need also to show the mix of revenue and the broad breakdown in spending. We are being told one of the big increases is in health, it is simply not enough to dish out partisan gibes unless we wish to live in la la land in which case it's fine, if you actually want to see what is involved in getting a balanced budget then we may well find the remedy could be painful. Although not half as painful as the mess part of Europe, the USA and Britain have found themselves in by continually running in the red. I would be more worried about Tony Abbot's recent comments that indicate they actually haven't considered what is necessary to bring everything back into balance and that in fact they may not have a plan. Labor may well have dropped the ball but most of the spending promises are just that not a lot is committed yet and a change in Government will see an end to much that Labor has brought in over it's time. The problem is even taking out all of that you still will not get back into the black. To fix this we need to cut spending, that is obvious, what is not obvious is which areas can they cut without destroying their electoral fortunes. The tax base though is declining as a percentage of GDP and that is worrying as it means in real terms it has reduced and will cause some difficult decisions moving forward. 
A simple lesson in economics is that one graph on it's own tells you nothing, I notice there is not even a source, so is it fiction or is it reputable?

----------


## gavincrane

you know the bit that cracks me up is your all arguing about the ets and its impact but
the nobs that run this country are about to sell the grid  
wich sole purpose is to supply power to the pepole not make a profit
and it don't rate a mention come on folks hold your local members acounterable for there actions 
this will affect every australian more than any ets
end rant 
Gavin cook

----------


## intertd6

> you know the bit that cracks me up is your all arguing about the ets and its impact but
> the nobs that run this country are about to sell the grid  
> wich sole purpose is to supply power to the pepole not make a profit
> and it don't rate a mention come on folks hold your local members acounterable for there actions 
> this will affect every australian more than any ets
> end rant 
> Gavin cook

  After a while it becomes common knowledge that some in charge are that inept that they couldn't organise a p*ss up in a brewery.
regards inter

----------


## gavincrane

so true :Frown:

----------


## Rod Dyson

From professor David Demming.   

> With each passing year, it is becoming increasingly clear that global warming is not a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification, but a political ideology that has to be fiercely defended against any challenge. It is ironic that skeptics are called deniers when every fact that would tend to falsify global warming is immediately explained away by an industry of denial.

----------


## woodbe

> From professor David Demming.     
> 			
> 				With each passing year, it is becoming increasingly clear that global  warming is not a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification,  but a political ideology that has to be fiercely defended against any  challenge. It is ironic that skeptics are called deniers when every  fact that would tend to falsify global warming is immediately explained  away by an industry of denial.

  Was that in a published climate science paper, Rod, or are you still getting your 'science' from the opinion pages of the newspaper?  :Doh:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Was that in a published climate science paper, Rod, or are you still getting your 'science' from the opinion pages of the newspaper?  
> woodbe.

  What does it matter?  This is like poking an ants nest  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> What does it matter?  This is like poking an ants nest

  So the newspaper then.  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## phild01

I am not going to read all of this but I hope Flim Tannery got a roasting somewhere in it all.  The so called govt expert should be held to account for the huge sums of money gone to waste because of him.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I am not going to read all of this but I hope Flim Tannery got a roasting somewhere in it all.  The so called govt expert should be held to account for the huge sums of money gone to waste because of him.

  Yes we have given him a serve or to

----------


## woodbe

Well, to be correct, a few of the posters here have echoed the misinterpretation spread by one Andrew Bolt about things Tim Flannery had said. 
And yes, they have given him a good beating over those chinese whispers.  
He got a serve over having a waterfront property too. You know, it's hypocritical to live near the waterfront if you accept that sea level is rising. Even if you understand that the sea will not be at your front door even in hundreds of years because your property is waterfront on the Hawkesbury and the banks are steep. Bolt lives in Melbourne, perhaps he has never seen the Hawkesbury.  :Doh:  
Like this, (not Flannery's):  
woodbe.

----------


## phild01

I wouldn't be defending Flannery, he and the government should hang their heads head in shame.  Terrible waste of money based on his 'opinions'.  And he carries home a bucket load of tax money each year for the privilege!   

> Well, to be correct, a few of the posters here have echoed the misinterpretation spread by one Andrew Bolt about things Tim Flannery had said.

----------


## woodbe

> I wouldn't be defending Flannery, he and the government should hang their heads head in shame.  Terrible waste of money based on his 'opinions'.  And he carries home a bucket load of tax money each year for the privilege!

  Knock yourself out blaming one person for the accumulation of climate science.  :2thumbsup:  
In any case, I'm not defending Flannery, he can stand up for himself. I'm pointing out that he has been misquoted to heck because he was appointed the Climate Change Commissioner by the government and he happens to be a target for denialists like Andrew Bolt because of that.  
Tall Poppy much? Flannery is a highly educated and qualified bloke. Regardless of whether you agree with him, he'd take a bucket of cash home wherever he was employed. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Knock yourself out blaming one person for the accumulation of climate science.  
> In any case, I'm not defending Flannery, he can stand up for himself. I'm pointing out that he has been misquoted to heck because he was appointed the Climate Change Commissioner by the government and he happens to be a target for denialists like Andrew Bolt because of that.  
> Tall Poppy much? Flannery is a highly educated and qualified bloke. Regardless of whether you agree with him, he'd take a bucket of cash home wherever he was employed. 
> woodbe.

  No worries Flannery's house is safe for a LOOOOONG time yet.   

> *Conclusions:*
> In view of the data presented, we believe that we are justified to draw the following conclusions:
> (1) The official Australian claim [2,3] of a present sea level rise in the order of 5.4mm/year is significantly exaggerated (Figure 3).
> (2) The mean sea level rise from Australian tide gauges as well as global tide gauge networks is to be found within the sector of rates ranging from 0.1 to 1.5 mm/year (yellow wedge in Figure 3).
> (3) The claim of a recent acceleration in the rate of sea level rise [2,3,12] cannot be validated by tide gauge records, either in Australia or globally (Figure 3). Rather, it seems strongly contradicted [19,21,24,39-41]
> The practical implication of our conclusions is that there, in fact, is no reason either to fear or to prepare for any disastrous sea level flooding in the near future.

  Read the details hear http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fil..._ESAIJ2013.pdf 
Dont worry soon even the most ardent warmists will be able to live without fear of armageddon. 
All we have to do now is sit back and wait for all the smearing of the Authors without a word to dispell the findings...... OH how boringly predictable.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Maybe we can solve the countires debt when we sell more coal to Japan.   

> *The Japanese government is moving to speed up the environmental assessment process for new coal-fired power plants.* According to Japanese media reports, the government intends to make 12 months the maximum period for assessing and approving new coal-fired power plants as its utilities seek to develop more power stations to stem surging energy supply bills. With the government considering the closure of much of the installed nuclear capacity over the medium term, the spotlight is back on coal as the cheapest energy source, notwithstanding plans to cut carbon emissions. A commitment to slice 2020 carbon emissions by 25 per cent from their 1990 level will be revised by October, according to Japanese newspaper reports. Brian Robins, The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 April 2013

----------


## woodbe

> No worries Flannery's house is safe for a LOOOOONG time yet.   
> Read the details hear http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fil..._ESAIJ2013.pdf 
> Dont worry soon even the most ardent warmists will be able to live without fear of armageddon. 
> All we have to do now is sit back and wait for all the smearing of the Authors without a word to dispell the findings...... OH how boringly predictable.

  If it's scientifically valid and published in a peer reviewed journal, it will be added to the existing body of work. 
Even so, a single paper is highly unlikely to upset the existing evidence of ocean warming and sea level rise. 
Lets see if it holds up to scrutiny first... It seems to concentrate on Australia at first glance, that's a bit of a worry if we're talking about global sea levels. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Knock yourself out blaming one person for the accumulation of climate science. 
> woodbe.

  A lot of trouble these days simply comes down to reading & comprehension, phil was blaming flimflam & the GOVERNMENT, no wonder there is total confusion with the other factual material verses hypotheticals.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> I am not going to read all of this but I hope Flim Tannery got a roasting somewhere in it all.  *The so called govt expert should be held to account for the huge sums of money gone to waste because of him.*

   

> A lot of trouble these days simply comes down to reading & comprehension, phil was blaming flimflam & the GOVERNMENT, no wonder there is total confusion with the other factual material verses hypotheticals.
> regards inter

  All your own work inter. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> All your own work inter. 
> woodbe.

  Really is it ? Your reply to post #8806 which you copied phil's quote about flimflam & the GOVT, then claimed he was blaming just one, which is clearly not the case in that post because he named 2. My advice is when you clearly find yourself in a hole.......stop digging, 
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Really is it ? Your reply to post #8806 which you copied phil's quote about flimflam & the GOVT, then claimed he was blaming just one, which is clearly not the case in that post because he named 2. My advice is when you clearly find yourself in a hole.......stop digging, 
> regards inter

   

> The so called govt expert should be held to account for the huge sums of *money gone to waste because of him*.

  Clearly, he has blamed Flannery for the government's actions.Post 8806 says that they should both hang their heads in shame but apportions blame to Flannery*: *   

> he and the government should hang their heads head in shame.  *Terrible waste of money based on his 'opinions'*.

  Definitely all your own work inter. :2thumbsup:  Suggest you take your own advice. 
woodbe.

----------


## phild01

flimflam, love it...gotta use that one.  Essentially I blame the government.  They appointed flimflam to do their thing.  Let's face it, these scientists are generally employed by government and government picks what it wants for whatever their agenda is.  flimflam knows little more about a science that is not properly understood by any of us, but somehow his opinion counts and gets his big tax salary to boot.  Shame on him and the government.  And people themselves should hold themselves to account by not looking more closely at the underlying elements of why flimflam and govt say what they say.

----------


## johnc

Once we move from using a persons name to cheap distortions we are simply diverting attention from often weak arguments to a rather pathetic attempt to demonise the individual in the hope we can divert attention from that weakness. Those that haven't the decency to correctly refer to someone with an opposing opinion by their name shouldn't expect anyone to show any respect for their own inept rantings.

----------


## woodbe

> No worries Flannery's house is safe for a LOOOOONG time yet.      *Conclusions:*
> In view of the data presented, we believe that we are justified to draw the following conclusions:
> (1) The official Australian claim [2,3] of a present sea level rise in  the order of 5.4mm/year is significantly exaggerated (Figure 3).
> (2) The mean sea level rise from Australian tide gauges as well as  global tide gauge networks is to be found within the sector of rates  ranging from 0.1 to 1.5 mm/year (yellow wedge in Figure 3).
> (3) The claim of a recent acceleration in the rate of sea level rise  [2,3,12] cannot be validated by tide gauge records, either in Australia  or globally (Figure 3). Rather, it seems strongly contradicted  [19,21,24,39-41]
> The practical implication of our conclusions is that there, in fact, is  no reason either to fear or to prepare for any disastrous sea level  flooding in the near future.
> 			
> 		   Read the details hear http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fil..._ESAIJ2013.pdf 
> Dont worry soon even the most ardent warmists will be able to live without fear of armageddon. 
> All we have to do now is sit back and wait for all the smearing of the Authors without a word to dispell the findings...... OH how boringly predictable.

  Morner and Parker have done a bit of a number on the sea level rise here. It's early days yet but I would point out: 
1. Their work is intended to disprove the sea level rise shown by the Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project (ABSLMP) since it started in 1991. This is not just a new set of figures since 1991 it is an entirely new sea level measuring hardware and communications  system. To show that the ABSLMP is incorrect, Morner and Parker should have compared the old tide gauges against the new SEAFRAME hardware over the time period in which they both existed in parallel: 1991 to present. Morner and Parker do not do do this, they compare the apples of an average of a subset of tide gauges from 1900 with the oranges of SEAFRAME based ABSLMP data since 1991 and declare the ABSLMP to be incorrect.  :Confused:  
2. Morner and Parker claim:   

> The short SEAFRAME data are strongly affected by the recovery from the ENSO sea level low in 1998, which was significant at many stations.

  However, that effect is a result of the well known reduced barometric pressure in  Australia during La Nina conditions, and so is directly accounted for with  the inverse barometric pressure adjustment of ABSLMP (and explicitly discussed in  ABSLMP reports) (this from the 2011 report):   

> 4.2.2. Barometric pressure anomalies  The barometric pressure anomalies around Australia (Figure 10) are also strongly influenced by the ENSO cycle, with higher than normal pressure over Australia being a feature of the 1997/98 El Niño. There is a relationship between barometric pressure and sea level, known as the inverse barometer effect, in which sea levels typically rise (fall) by 1 cm for every 1 hPa fall (rise) in barometric pressure.  Lower than normal barometric pressures were observed across Australia during the summer months of 2010/11, when the La Niña event was at its peak. Lower than normal barometric pressure lingered into autumn across the northern half of Australia but elsewhere barometric pressure rebounded quite quickly and proceeded to fluctuate around normal levels.  
> and:   4.3.4. Combined net rate of relative sea level trends  The effects of the vertical movement of the platform (relative to a local land-based benchmark) and the inverse barometer effect are removed from the observed rates of sea level change

  The ABSLMP and the SEAFRAME hardware are a modern and highly accurate sea level monitoring system that was unimaginable in 1900. This is not your auntie's stick with white paint that some geezer wanders out to several times a day and scribbles the level in a book:   
It is fair to treat the data from ABSLMP with caution as the data set is relatively small, but there are inconsistencies in the Morner and Parker analysis that would not be there if the paper was peer reviewed by competent professionals. There is no indication that it was peer reviewed at all. I would hazard a guess it won't get a lot of attention from the scientific community, but it will be the darling of the fake skeptic blogosphere. 
And yes, Flannery's house has never been at risk from Sea Level Rise. He chose wisely, as would most of us if we were set on a waterfront property. 
woodbe

----------


## intertd6

> Clearly, he has blamed Flannery for the government's actions.Post 8806 says that they should both hang their heads in shame but apportions blame to Flannery*: * Definitely all your own work inter. Suggest you take your own advice. 
> woodbe.

  When it gets to this stage any normal person will show the JW's the door.
regards inter

----------


## Dr Freud

How do you lose $20 billion in just six months? 
JuLIAR promised us just six months ago that we would have a surplus with $20 billion more in our coffers today than we actually have. 
She has 100% control over these outcomes by balancing how much we spend to how much we earn. 
And she still had no idea 6 months out.  Or LIED! 
Now, let's compare that to how she introduced her farcical Carbon Dioxide Tax. 
JuLIAR wants us to believe that her Tax will make the Planet Earth colder than it would have been in about 100 years by about a poofteenth of a degree. 
She has 0% (yes, that's a zero), control over these outcomes. 
And people believed her? 
But really scary part, some people still do!  :Eek:

----------


## Dr Freud

JuLIAR is economically illiterate. 
Yet greenies still believe she designed a Tax system to make the Planet Earth cooler than it would have been without the Tax.  :Doh:  
Yesterday's [S]budget[/S] fudget data confirms her economic illiteracy. 
Revenue grew by about $25 billion dollars last year.  Here's the data:   
The blue data is the Liberal surplus years revenue, and the red data are the current Labor deficit years revenue. 
Now, if this trend applied to current global temperatures, JuLIAR would be shrieking about "unusually HIGH temperatures". 
But how does she describe this revenue upwards growth:   

> "This unusually *low* revenue, which wasnt forecast even a few months  ago, creates a significant fiscal gap over the budget period," she said.  Gillard confirms $12bn budget hit | Business Spectator

  I wonder what she thinks about this unusually lower temperature trend which wasn't forecast by the fascientists "even a few months ago"?   
So we're still paying a Tax designed by an economic illiterate who calls an upward trend "low" and panics over a flat line as rising dangerously? 
I can accept that JuLIAR is an imbecile. 
I still don't know what to call people who believe what she says?  :Confused:

----------


## Dr Freud

> *If you spend less than you earn, you have a surplus!* 
> Let's see that in action according to budget data:

   

> A simple lesson in economics is that one graph on it's own tells you nothing

  Nothing?  Really? So every economics text only publishes graphs in pairs?  :Doh:    

> I notice there is not even a source, so is it fiction or is it  reputable?

  The graph source is embedded in the image, but the underlying data is found here:  2013-14 Commonwealth Budget  
Now apparently the rising trend line in spending is fine, but the flat temperature line in the post above is reason for panic. 
And here's just a jot of the massive greenie waste leading to our economic woes you asked about, or are in denial of:  AEMO to report on 100% renewable supply scenarios AEMO has been commissioned to undertake a study and report on potential 100 per cent renewable electricity generation in the National Electricity Market (NEM) for 2030 and 2050.    Australian Climate Change Science Program The Australian Climate Change Science Program aims to improve our understanding of the causes, nature, timing and consequences of climate change so that industry, community and government decisions can be better informed. Administered by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.    Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information SystemAGEIS The AGEIS provides detailed greenhouse gas emissions data from the National Greenhouse Accounts. Administered by The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.    Australian National Registry of Emissions Units (ANREU) The Australian National Registry of Emissions Units (ANREU) is a system designed to meet one of Australia's commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.    Biodiversity Fund The Biodiversity Fund supports projects that establish, restore, protect or manage biodiverse carbon stores. Funding is provided for establishing mixed species plantings in targeted areas such as areas of high conservation value, wildlife corridors, riparian zones and wetlands. Administered by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities. $946M   Carbon Farming Futures Carbon Farming Futures will provide $429 million over six years to ensure that advances in emissions reduction technologies and techniques will continue the evolution of management practices in the land sector towards emissions reduction and improved productivity. These advances will allow farmers and other landholders to benefit from the economic opportunities of the Carbon Farming Initiative while assisting Australia in achieving its long term emission reduction targets. Administered by the Departments of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. $429M   Carbon Farming Initiative The Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) is a carbon offsets scheme being established by the Australian Government to provide new economic opportunities for farmers, forest growers and landholders and help the environment by reducing carbon pollution.    Carbon Farming Initiative non-Kyoto carbon fund The Government will purchase non-Kyoto Carbon Farming Initiative credits, which cannot be purchased by companies with responsibilities under the carbon pricing mechanism. $250M   Carbon Farming Skills The ongoing Carbon Farming Skills initiative will ensure that landholders have access to credible, high quality advice and carbon services.    Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum focuses on cooperation to develop and apply technologies for the separation and capture of carbon dioxide for its transport and long-term safe storage. Secretariat administered by the United States Department of Energy.    Caring for our coasts The Australian Government is committed to working with local communities to address the challenges of coastal growth and climate change. $325M   Charities Maritime and Aviation Support Program The Charities Maritime and Aviation Support Program offers a rebate for the carbon price impact on essential maritime and aviation fuels used by charities. Managed by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.    Clean Energy Finance Corporation Through Clean Energy Future, the Government is investing $10 billion in a new commercially-oriented Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CFEC). $10BN   Clean Energy Skills Clean Energy Skills will provide the foundation for a new type of workplace skill set that will become increasingly more valuable as we transition to a low carbon economy. The Clean Energy Skills package will be delivered by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, in consultation with the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism and the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. $32M Query unions?  Climate Change Adaptation Program The Governments $126 million Climate Change Adaptation Program is helping Australians to better understand and manage risks linked to the carbon pollution which continues to increase in our atmosphere and to take advantage of potential opportunities. Administered by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. $126M 8 sub programs  Climate Change Authority The Climate Change Authority has been created as an independent body of nine members with skills in science, economics, climate change mitigation, emissions trading, investment and business. Administered by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.    Climate Change Grant Program The Australian Government has allocated $3 million toward the Climate Change Grant Program, which aims to help the Australian public understand the need to act on climate change and reveal the opportunities and benefits of a clean energy future. Administered by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. $3M http://www.climatechange.gov.au/about/grants.aspx  Coal mining assistance Measures will help the coal sector transition to a carbon price. Administered by the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism. $1.3BN +$70M plus more money from http://www.ret.gov.au/resources/reso...nitiative.aspx  Coastal Adaptation Decision Pathways projects The Australian Government has invested $4.5 million to demonstrate effective approaches to adaptation in the coastal zone. Administered by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. $4.5M   Commercial Building Disclosure The Commercial Building Disclosure (CBD) program is a national program designed to improve the energy efficiency of Australia's large office buildings.  http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2010A00067  Commercial Buildings Baseline Study This project was commissioned by the Australian Government Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) as part of a joint Commonwealth, State and Territory Government work program under the National Strategy on Energy Efficiency (NSEE).    Community Energy Efficiency Program The Community Energy Efficiency Program will support local councils and community organisations to undertake energy efficiency upgrades to council and community-use buildings, facilities and lighting.    Energy Efficiency in Government Operations (EEGO) EEGO aims to improve energy efficiency, and consequently reduce the whole of life cost and environmental impact of Government operations, and by so doing, lead the community by example.  huge bureaucracy - 12 fact sheets  Energy Efficiency Information Grants Program Energy Efficiency Information Grants will help industry associations and non-profit organisations deliver information to their members about the impacts of a carbon price on small businesses and community organisations and suggest practical steps to manage these impacts. Administered by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. $40M List of the successful EEIG Round One projects  Energy Savings Initiative An Energy Savings Initiative would place obligations on energy retailers to find and implement energy savings in households and businesses.  The ESI Working Group's terms of reference and key dates of its work plan are available. The terms of reference reflect the Working Group's focus on a thorough cost-benefit analysis of a national ESI. The ESI Working Group's investigations are being assisted by an Advisory Group comprising state and territory government officials and representatives from peak industry groups, energy market organisations, and environmental, union, community and welfare organisations.  Energy Security Fund The Energy Security Fund includes $5.5 billion in transitional assistance, in the form of allocations of free carbon units and cash payments, to highly emissions-intensive coal-fired generators. $5.5BN   Energy Security Package Measures to maintain secure energy supplies and ensure a smooth energy market transition as we move to a clean energy future.    Global Carbon Monitoring System A partnership between the Australian Government and the Clinton Climate Initiative will extend the NCAS into the international arena for global monitoring of carbon emissions, improving the capacity of all countries to make robust forest assessments and to monitor and manage their forests. $273M   Global Warming Potentials Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) are used to convert masses of different greenhouse gases into a single carbon dioxide-equivalent metric. In broad terms, multiplying a mass of a particular gas by its GWP gives the mass of carbon dioxide emissions that would produce the same warming effect over a 100 year period.    Green Lease Schedule for government buildings The Green Lease Schedule (GLS) is a formal commitment to energy efficiency and sets a minimum ongoing operational building energy performance standard for government leased buildings.    Green Leases for the private sector The National Green Leasing Policy (NGLP) is the first nationally consistent approach by the Australian, state and territory governments, as tenants of buildings, to drive a reduction in the environmental impact of buildings through improved operational performance.    Green Loans and Green Start programs The Green Loans program was an Australian Government initiative rolled out nationally on 1 July 2009 to promote and assist energy efficiency initiatives in Australian homes by providing free home sustainability assessments. The assessments were voluntary and provided householders with valuable information and advice on the actions they could take around their home to save energy and water. This program has closed. Administered by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Disaster - $30M in compo http://www.climatechange.gov.au/minister/greg-combet/2010/media-releases/December/mr20101221.aspx  Greenhouse Friendly The Greenhouse Friendly initiative has been operating since 2001 to certify carbon neutral products and services and approve abatement credits for sale on the voluntary market, including to Greenhouse Friendly certified product and service providers. Administered by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.    Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning High Efficiency Systems Strategy (HVAC HESS) The Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning High Efficiency Systems Strategy (HVAC HESS) is intended to drive long term improvements in the energy efficiency of HVAC systems nationally. The HVAC HESS is measure 3.2.3 under the National Strategy on Energy Efficiency.    Home Insulation Safety Plan The Australian Government's Home Insulation Safety Plan will help provide reassurance to households that had insulation installed under the now discontinued Home Insulation Program (HIP). Administered by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.    Indigenous Carbon Farming Fund The ongoing Indigenous Carbon Farming Fund will provide support for Indigenous Australians to implement projects under the Carbon Farming Initiative. Administered jointly by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. $22.3M   Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading body for the assessment of climate change and provides the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences. [IMG]file:///C:\Users\Laptop\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01  \clip_image002.gif[/IMG]     International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative The Australian Government is investing $150 million through the Australian aid program over three years from 2008-09 to 2010-11 to meet high priority climate adaptation needs in vulnerable countries in our region. Jointly administered by the Australian Department of Climate Change and AusAID. $360M   International Forest Carbon Initiative International Forest Carbon Initiative (IFCI) is a key part of Australias international leadership on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. IFCI is jointly administered by the Australian Department of Climate Change and AusAID. [IMG]file:///C:\Users\Laptop\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01  \clip_image004.gif[/IMG]$273M   possible double up global carbon monitoring system  Jobs and Competitiveness Program Assistance will be provided via free permits to businesses carrying out activities that have been formally assessed as being emissions-intensive and trade-exposed. $8.6BN   Kyoto Protocol Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. Australias efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at home are contributing to the international effort to reduce the risks of climate change.    Land Sector Measures The Government will purchase non-Kyoto Carbon Farming Initiative credits, which cannot be purchased by companies with responsibilities under the carbon pricing mechanism. $1.7BN   LivingGreener  The website at Home - LivingGreener.gov.au provides the Australian community with clear, accurate information on energy, waste and transport efficiency. It includes information on government rebates and assistance.    Local Adaptation Pathways Program Local government is at the forefront of managing the impacts of climate change. The Australian Government is assisting local governments to prepare their communities for climate change. Administered by the Department of Climate Change. $2.4M http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/lapp/lapp-round-one.aspx  Local Government Energy Efficiency Program The Local Government Energy Efficiency Program (LGEEP) will support local governing authorities install solar or heat pump hot water systems in local community facilities to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy costs. $24M   Low Carbon Australia Established by the Government to further support individual action by businesses. Low Carbon Australia will help to drive energy efficiency in commercial buildings and businesses. It is being established by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency $100M http://www.climatechange.gov.au/minister/previous/wong/2010/media-releases/March/mr20100324-a.aspx  Low Carbon Communities The Australian Government is supporting community and household action on climate change. Support is being provided to local councils, community organisations and low income households. $354M   Low Income Energy Efficiency Program The Low Income Energy Efficiency Program will support consortia of community and welfare organisations, local councils, state and territory governments, energy service companies and energy retailers to trial approaches to assist low income households to improve their energy efficiency. $100M   Multi-Party Climate Change Committee The establishment of a Multi-Party Climate Change Committee was announced on 27 September by the Hon. Julia Gillard, MP, Prime Minister of Australia. The Committee will explore options for the implementation of a carbon price and will help to build consensus on how Australia will tackle the challenge of climate change.    National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS) The National Australian Built Environmental Ratings Scheme (NABERS) is a performance-based rating system for existing buildings that rates a commercial office, hotel, or residential building on the basis of its measured operational impacts on the environment.  bureaucracy  National Authority for the CDM and JI The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) are two project-based flexibility mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol. These mechanisms are based on the principle that the benefit to the climate of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the same regardless of where they are reduced.  bureaucracy - unblievable bureaucracy National Authority for the CDM and JI - Think Change  National Building Framework The National Buiding Energy Standard-Setting, Assessment and Rating Framework is intended to drive significant improvement in Australia's building stock through establishing a pathway for future increases in minimum building standards to 2020, and improving the approach to assessing and rating buildings.  bureaucracy  National Carbon Accounting System Australias National Carbon Accounting System (NCAS) is a world-leading system that accounts for greenhouse gas emissions from land based activities. Administered by the Department of Climate Change  $16.1M to produce a new carbon accounting toolbox National Carbon Accounting Toolbox - Think Change  National Carbon Accounting Toolbox The Carbon accounting toolbox prototype enables land managers to track greenhouse gas emissions and removals to and from the atmosphere. Administered by the Department of Climate Change $16.1M   National Carbon Offset Standard Carbon offsets can be used to reduce an individual or companys contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. They involve investment in projects such as tree planting, which lead to a reduction of emissions that would not have happened otherwise. Administered by the Department of Climate Change  bureaucracy  National Climate Change Adaptation Framework Covers a range of cooperative actions between all Australian governments to begin to address key demands from business and the community for information on climate change impacts and how to prepare for them. Administered by the Department of Climate Change.    National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility The Australian Governments National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility is leading the research community in a national interdisciplinary effort to generate the information needed by decision-makers to manage the risks of climate change in areas such as water resources, health, emergency management and primary industries. $37M   National Construction Code The National Construction Code contains requirements for energy efficiency for all building classes. Updates to the National Construction Code are managed by the Australian Building Codes Board.    National Energy Savings Initiative Progress Report The Working Group has been established to prepare a report for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the Minister for Resources and Energy on possible design options for a national Energy Savings Initiative.  So worth checking this out - bureaucracy gone mad - 11 chapter 6 appendix report  National Energy Savings Inititative Issues Paper The National Savings Initiative Working Group (the Working Group) has been established to prepare a report for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the Minister for Resources and Energy on possible design options for a national Energy Savings Initiative.  6 chapter, 4 appendix plus on extra Attachment report  National Greenhouse Accounts Australia publishes comprehensive reports on our greenhouse gas emissions in the National Greenhouse Accounts. Administered by The Department of Climate Change    National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Under the NGER Act, any constitutional corporation that is a controlling corporation and meets a corporate reporting threshold, must apply to register and report energy consumption, energy production and greenhouse gas emissions. Administered by the Department of Climate Change.    National Solar Schools Program Grants offered to Australian schools each year up to $50 000 to install solar and other renewable power systems, solar hot water systems, rainwater tanks and a range of energy efficiency measures. Administered by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. $24M   National Strategy on Energy Efficiency (NSEE) The NSEE aims to streamline roles and responsibilities across government by providing a nationally consistent and coordinated approach to energy efficiency.    Nationwide Home Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) The Nationwide Home Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) provides a framework that allows various computer software tools and registered assessors to rate the potential energy efficiency of Australian homes.    OSCAR The Online System for Comprehensive Activity Reporting (OSCAR) is a webbased data tool for business to record energy and emissions data for Government program reporting. Administered by the Department of Climate Change.    Regional NRM Planning for Climate Change Fund The Regional Natural Resources Management Planning for Climate Change Fund will help regional communities plan for the impacts of climate change, and maximise the benefits from carbon farming projects. $43.9M   Renewable Energy Bonus SchemeSolar Hot Water Rebate The Renewable Energy Bonus SchemeSolar Hot Water Rebate closed on 30 June 2012. It assisted households to save money on power bills and reduce their carbon emissions. Administered by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. $323M closed  Renewable Energy Target Through its Renewable Energy Target (RET) Scheme, the Government has pledged that by 2020, 20 per cent of Australias electricity supply will come from renewable sources. Administered by the Department of Climate Change.  $200M in clean technology innovation program not accounted elsewhere - who knows??? Billions  Renewable Remote Power Generation Program The Regional Natural Resources Management Planning for Climate Change Fund will help regional communities plan for the impacts of climate change, and maximise the benefits from carbon farming projects. $350M   Residential Building Disclosure Under the National Strategy on Energy Efficiency, Australian, state and territory governments have proposed requiring owners of existing houses, flats and apartments to provide energy, water and greenhouse performance information when selling or leasing their properties.    Roundtables on Climate Change The Government has established two roundtables to engage the business community and non-government organisations on its climate change policies. These roundtables will ensure that the views of the community and business are taken into account as the Government makes progress towards the introduction of a carbon price.  Monthly bureaucracy meetings - 1 business, 1 NGO  Select Council on Climate Change The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) announced the Select Council on Climate Change (SCCC) in February 2011 to support an effective response to climate change policy issues with national implications and to provide a forum for the Commonwealth to engage with the states, territories, local government and New Zealand on program implementation issues.  More bureaucracy - state and fed governments  Solar Cities The Australian Government's Solar Cities program is designed to trial new sustainable models for electricity supply and use, and is being implemented in seven separate electricity grid-connected areas around Australia. Administered by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, in partnership with local and state governments, industry, business and local communities.  Solar Cities: A Catalyst for Change  Tax deductions for carbon sink forests Carbon sink forests are grown for the dedicated purpose of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and are important in reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.  Too, too depressing, land not available for farming, and paid by the taxpayer to make it fallow  United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) provides the basis for global action "to protect the climate system for present and future generations".    Your Home Your Home provides information for consumers, designers and builders on how to design, build and live in environmentally sustainable homes.  http://www.yourhome.gov.au/

----------


## Dr Freud

Here's also where some of your well earned and well paid taxes have gone:    

> *Climate change and energy**Anita Talberg and Mike Roarty*  *Climate change*New government spending in relation to climate change focuses on renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. There are no new funds for specific emission reduction policy instruments, or for adaptation. Conservation and environmental groups, while welcoming the energy initiatives, are generally disappointed by this Budget.[1] *Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme*The Government has announced that it will not put forward legislation for its emissions trading scheme, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), until after the Kyoto Protocols first commitment period ends on 31 December 2012.[2] The delay of the CPRS creates a net improvement in the Budget position of $652 million.[3] This has been allocated over four years to a new Renewable Energy Future Fund (REFF).[4]
> The REFF will come under the expanded Clean Energy Initiative (CEI), which is administered by the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism. This will bring the total budget of the CEI to $5.1 billion. *International funding*In associating itself with the _Copenhagen Accord_ in January 2010, the Australian Government agreed to a collective commitment by the developed world to provide developing countries with US$30 billion between 2010 and 2012, increasing to US$100 billion dollars annually by 2020.[5] The Budget includes a total of almost $300 million towards this commitment, shared between the programs listed in Table 1. *Table 1: International climate change funding* *Expense ($m)* *200910* *201011* *201112* *201213*  International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative - - 78.6 99.6  Multilateral climate change funding 5.0 - 40.6 60.6  Bilateral partnerships on climate change - - 5.0 10.0  Total 5.0 - 124.2 170.2  
> Source: _Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 201011_, pp. 1212, 199.
> The Budget also provides an additional $56 million in 2012 and 2013 towards the existing International Forest Carbon Initiative with Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.[6]
> While this contribution seems significant, it must be viewed in the context of Australias overall Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) funding. Total Australian ODA has increased by $500 million, or 9 per cent since the 2009-10 Budget. However, $300 million of this increase is destined for the climate change programs listed in Table 1. There has been criticism that the large sum given to climate change in the ODA may mean reductions in real terms for humanitarian aid and other more immediate assistance priorities.[7] This point was also made during international negotiations, when developing countries expressed concern that financial commitments to international climate change action from developed countries might come at the expense of other existing ODA, such as investment in health and education.[8]
> For a more detailed review of international development assistance see the relevant section in the Parliamentary Librarys Budget Review 201011. Back to top *Energy sources and energy efficiency*One program that was established to complement the axed CPRS will remain. The Australian Carbon Trust Limited (ACT Ltd) was created to encourage involvement in the CPRS and assist in the implementation of energy efficiency measures. The Energy Efficiency Trust was an initiative under the ACT Ltd to support energy efficiency improvements in the private sector. The Government has stated that this arrangement will continue, but funds have not yet been finalised with ACT Ltd and therefore are not included in the Portfolio Budget Statements.[9]
> As outlined above, all other CPRS-allocated funds will now form the new REFF, which sits under the CEI and expands the overall funding of this program to $5.1 billion. The CEI was announced last Budget and includes the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Flagships program, the Solar Flagships program, and Renewables Australia.[10] On Budget day, the Government announced a series of new grants and renewable energy projects under these programs, but it should be noted that these were allocated from existing, not new, funds. Details of these projects can be found  here.[11] *The expanded Renewable Energy Target (RET)*Legislation for the expanded RET was passed in August 2009. It amends the existing scheme to target an annual production of 45 000 GWh of electricity from renewable sources.[12] To support this, additional funds of $6 million have been allocated to the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator under the responsibility of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.[13] To continually assess the impact of this new legislation on industry sectors, the Productivity Commission has also been allocated $4 million over four years.[14] *The Energy Efficient Homes Package (EEHP)*The EEHP was initially funded under the $42 billion economic stimulus in February 2009 and included the Home Insulation Program (HIP) and Solar Hot Water Rebate program (SHWRP).[15] Following serious safety concerns, the Government announced on 19 February 2010 that both the HIP and the SHWR would be discontinued and replaced by a new Renewable Energy Bonus Scheme (REBS).[16] The 201011 Budget allocates remaining funds from the HIP and SHWR to REBS, which will be used to finance three programs:  The Home Insulation Safety Program, established to perform safety inspections of at least 150,000 homes that had non-foil insulation installed under the HIP. [17]The Foil Insulation Safety Program, established to inspect approximately 50,000 homes that had foil insulation installed under the HIP. [18]The Insulation Industry Assistance Package, established to support firms that participated in the HIP to meet the cost of insulation stock-holdings, through the deferral of GST payment obligations and a $15.0 million grants program[19]
> Additionally, the Government announced $41.2 million over two years for the Insulation Workers Adjustment package, including a reallocation of $11.5 million from the Jobs Fund stream to fund an Insulation Workers Adjustment Fund.[20] *Other energy related measures**Green Loans*A total of $102.7 million has been allocated to a redesign of the Green Loans program.[21] This program once consisted of three stages: a free home sustainability assessment, a free $50 rewards voucher and then a possible $10 000 loan towards improvements (based on the sustainability assessment report).
> The Government has discontinued the rewards voucher and loan components due to low take-up.[22] Commentary in the media claimed a flood of applications for assessments led to a bottleneck and then an influx of poorly trained assessors. There are claims that people who paid to train as assessors are now without a job, and the administration of the program was widely criticised. [23] The government acknowledged some of the problems in a statement in March, and reviewed the matter.[24]. The loans component and the $50 rewards vouchers have been cancelled, and activity has been capped at 5000 assessors in total, and 15 000 assessment bookings per week. Even though there are no new loans, and the current program consists only of the home sustainability assessments, the program is still officially (albeit inaccurately) called Green Loans.[25] *Resource exploration refundable tax offsetGeothermal included*As part of its response to _Australias Future Tax System: Report to the Treasurer_, the Government will provide $1.8 billion over four years from 201011 for a refundable tax offset at the company rate for expenditure carried out in Australia.[26] The refundable tax offset will be available to all companies (at the company level) for eligible expenditure incurred on or after 1 July 2011, instead of the immediate deductions currently available for such expenditure. As part of this measure, the definition of exploration expenditure will be expanded to include expenditure incurred in exploring for potential geothermal energy.[27]
> ...

  And now this vile creature wants to put on the fake tears because we have no money to pay for extra care for people with disabilities? 
Hundreds of billions of our dollars have been and will be wasted on this green dream scheme, while real people with real problems suffer.  And then she uses these same people with disabilities as a political wedge issue against the opposition at every chance. 
Justice will be served when she sits in her jail cell. It's unlikely she will be charged before the election (and she knows it), but we can live in hope.

----------


## Dr Freud

Many, many real problems ignored, while our growing tax revenue is squandered on green dream schemes:     
At least there's plenty of shonks out there getting rich from Aussies paying more tax.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

This demonstrates how effortlessly JuLIAR lies:   

> *Collapse in Labors credibility more like*Lets get this straight. Julia Gillards rationale for her woe-is-us  budget update is a sudden collapse in revenue, particularly a big  reduction in company tax. This is a rhetorical scam. The revenue for  this financial year is up  not down  on last year. More than 7 per  cent up, in fact.  Collapse in Labor&rsquo;s credibility more like

----------


## Dr Freud

How much of OUR money has been wasted:   

> 25 Mar 2013                            
>                              The  Gillard Government is merging the majority of functions of the  Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) with the  Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary  Education (DIISRTE).  
>  The detailed policy design work and legislation for the carbon price  has now been completed and the carbon price is being implemented  successfully.  
>  The Government has also established the Climate Commission as an  independent and reliable source of information about the science of  climate change, the Climate Change Authority to advise on emissions  targets and the Clean Energy Regulator to administer the carbon price.  
>  A significant number of DCCEE staff moved to the Clean Energy Regulator when it was established last year.   *Accordingly the Government has decided that a separate Department is  no longer required for this policy work.* DCCEE's climate change  functions will be merged into the DIISRTE.   Merger to improve links between climate and economic policy

  Seriously? All of this utter, utter waste.  Do we really need all these new bureaucracies (and more)?   
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
Climate Commission
Climate Change Authority
Clean Energy Regulator  
Just to measure fresh air? 
How many hundreds and hundreds of millions were wasted just on this useless bureaucracy:  http://climatechange.gov.au/about/bu...011-12-pbs.pdf

----------


## Rod Dyson

> How much of OUR money has been wasted:   
> Seriously? All of this utter, utter waste.  Do we really need all these new bureaucracies (and more)?   
> Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
> Climate Commission
> Climate Change Authority
> Clean Energy Regulator  
> Just to measure fresh air? 
> How many hundreds and hundreds of millions were wasted just on this useless bureaucracy:  http://climatechange.gov.au/about/bu...011-12-pbs.pdf

   Not long to go Doc.  Cant wait to see how big the loss is for labor.

----------


## Dr Freud

This is a farcical joke played on Australians by socialist shonks:     

> The government saves big bucks by gaming international rules on carbon schemes (Australia has a proud record in this department  remember the Australia clause, by which we got to count reductions in logging rates in our national emissions total?). New research which tweaks estimations of environmental damage from certain greenhouse gases has been enthusiastically embraced by Swan  saving the budget $240 million. And Australia has changed what emissions it counts in the land sector, saving the budget a further $389 million. International accounting rules on emissions are complex and controversial, and the government is riding them to make our emissions reductions look as large as possible. This is allowed under international rules  but the more that countries do this, the less global emissions are reduced by.  As already announced, the budget defers an income tax cut that was supposed to come in 2015 to compensate for a rising carbon price (which will now actually fall in that year).  Budget 2013 cuts climate change programs and renewable energy | Crikey

  And then the Planet Earth gets cooler... :Doh:  
Any of you greenies wanna buy a bridge?

----------


## Dr Freud

> Not long to go Doc.  Cant wait to see how big the loss is for labor.

  Yeh, lots of Labor back bench MP's (and some Ministers) are very nervous now.  :Biggrin:  
They realise it's now even too late to go back to Rudd (unless charges are laid prior to the election). 
Only downside is that they still have 3 months more to do further damage to our country with their crazy greenie ideas.

----------


## Dr Freud

> The Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) has begun to build its  investment pipeline after the government's issue and release of its $10  billion investment mandate this week.  
> The funds will become  available after 1 July 2013, and the CEFC is progressing discussions  with financial institutions and project investments with a view to  contracting investments in the coming months.  
> The full $10 billion  is now legislated, and will become available for investment in $2 bill  tranches, annually over 5years commencing 1 July 2013.  *"There has  been very strong interest from all segments of the market in working  with CionEFC,"* CEFC chief executive Oliver Yates said.   *The CEFC is now fully staffed and operational, from headquarters in  Sydney and offices in Brisbane and has absorbed the executive and staff  of Low Carbon Australia.* 
> It was part of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's July 2011 announcement on the government's plan for a clean energy future.  Financial Standard - $10bn CEFC fund gets govt mandate

  Wow, who would have thought there would be very strong interest when JuLIAR announces she will give out $10 billion of taxpayer money to shonky schemes that must be proven to be not financially viable.  Yes, you read that right, they first have to be proven to *not* be a commercially viable venture and therefore rejected by normal lending criteria before JuLIAR then gives them our tax dollars. 
And the punch line?  This money is not even included in the budget.  It is like the magical NBN, we pay for it all, but it doesn't appear in our expenses column.  Why don't you try that the next time you apply for a loan.  Just tell the lender that your expenses and liabilities are being "treated as off budget".  :Biggrin:  
And in breaking news (NOT), this useless bureaucracy absorbs another useless bureaucracy.   

> The Australian Government has provided over $100 million to establish  Low Carbon Australia to support energy efficiency action by businesses.  Low Carbon Australia is a Commonwealth company limited by guarantee.  There is an independent Board of Directors. Mr Martijn Wilder is the  Chairman and Ms Meg McDonald is the Chief Executive Officer.
>      Low Carbon Australia manages two innovative programs:  An Energy Efficiency Program to provide finance and advice to  eligible businesses and the public sector for the retrofit of commercial  properties.The Carbon Neutral Program which provides certification for  organisations that have operations, products or events that are carbon  neutral under the National Carbon Offset Standard (NCOS). Low Carbon Australia - Think Change

  These useless bureaucracies don't even last as long as the failed psychic computer prophecies that they are based on.  :Doh:

----------


## Dr Freud

One day a commission of audit will hopefully calculate the total dollar cost of this delusional greenie madness on our country. 
The result will astound most people. 
Reconciling the opportunity cost will be the heartbreaking part.  :Annoyed:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Cant wait to see how big the loss is for labor.

  It is going to be massive...and quite a giggle.  Though the long term impact will be as significant as a fart in an arena...

----------


## johnc

> It is going to be massive...and quite a giggle. Though the long term impact will be as significant as a fart in an arena...

  Pretty much, economic policy though is little changed over either period, Costello spent up to revenue forcasts as did Swan, Costello was lucky Treasury under estimated tax collections over that time Swan unlucky the GFC turned the predictions in the other direction. Lets face it we have added more than two million Australians since Labor got back in and around 900,000 new jobs have been created. All those lovely lumps of middle class welfare, tax free pensions for the wealthy and excessive tax cuts brought in by Costello and largely unchanged by Swan have done their damage despite tax receipts up it has been more than eaten up by welfare and health spending as well as other promises. Swan has started to clamp down, Hockey will tighten the screws further, so what really changes between governments despite the Murdoch press claiming otherwise, not a lot. Swan could have done a lot better than he did but I'm not sure the other lot are any better than the current lot.

----------


## Dr Freud

The force is strong with this one...   

> We will abolish the carbon tax because thats the quickest way to reduce power prices and take the pressure off cost of living and job security.  Let me repeat: We will abolish the carbon tax because its a kind of reverse tariff that hurts local businesses but not our overseas competitors.  There is no mystery to how this will happen.  What one parliament legislates, another parliament can repeal and *the carbon tax repeal bill, should we be elected, will be the first legislation that a new parliament considers.*    http://resources.news.com.au/files/2...dget-reply.pdf

  I highly recommend reading the full speech at the link above. 
Getting rid of the Carbon Dioxide Tax will be joyous indeed, but the other issues mentioned are definitely worth consideration as well.  :Biggrin:

----------


## johnc

> The force is strong with this one...   
> I highly recommend reading the full speech at the link above. 
> Getting rid of the Carbon Dioxide Tax will be joyous indeed, but the other issues mentioned are definitely worth consideration as well.

  You would have to have rocks in your head to think that the removal of the carbon tax along with the compensation that goes with it is going to make much difference to power prices.

----------


## Dr Freud

> You would have to have rocks in your head to think that the removal of the carbon tax along with the compensation that goes with it is going to make much difference to power prices.

  Sorry.  I recommended "reading", but I forgot to recommend "comprehending", so perhaps your factually inaccurate comments above reflect your lack of comprehension, rather than the fact you did not read the speech. 
Here are some other reviews:   

> Reader Tony: _ The most Prime Ministerial Speech delivered in Parliament in 6 years._  Reader Carpe Jugulum: _ The Gallery was packed, he got applause 3 times and a standing ovation. I have never seen that before. Amazing speech._  Reader suse:_ Great speech - many good lines he used. He made one feel there was light  at the end of the tunnel and that he could turn Australia around and  get it moving._  Reader Mon: _ How refreshing to hear some commonsense at last. Did anyone get the  feeling that Miss Juila was not a happy person, the face on it was  shocking.    Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian  _

  It appears these readers both read and comprehended the speech. 
But as it seems the written word may not be your strong point, you can watch the video below and then figure out where you went wrong:  Abbott's budget reply: Full speech | Video & TV News Clips | SBS World News  
JuLIAR's face during the standing ovation at the end was truly priceless.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Freud

Fool me once....ok, never mind Dubya's quote.   :Biggrin:      
Our great friend Mr Andrew Bolt reads the tea leaves here:   

> *AND so the great global warming scare dies. Around Australia,  bruised taxpayers will ask each other: "What the hell was that about?" 				 * The 10 signs of the death of the scare are unmistakable. Now it's time to hold the guilty to account.  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  Well worth a read if you want to know why this cult is rapidly unravelling. (Apologies, no video this time, but I am happy to post a picture for each of the 10 signs if there is any confusion?)  :Wink 1:

----------


## johnc

> Sorry. I recommended "reading", but I forgot to recommend "comprehending", so perhaps your factually inaccurate comments above reflect your lack of comprehension, rather than the fact you did not read the speech. 
> Here are some other reviews:   
> It appears these readers both read and comprehended the speech. 
> But as it seems the written word may not be your strong point, you can watch the video below and then figure out where you went wrong:  Abbott's budget reply: Full speech | Video & TV News Clips | SBS World News   
> JuLIAR's face during the standing ovation at the end was truly priceless.

  
You have got to be joking, go and read the speech yourself and try to understand some of the basic concepts behind it. A new LNP government will remove the carbon tax but keep the tax cuts and welfare funding that was part of the package. You don't have to be that bright to work out that this is refering to individuals not the compensation measures made available to the generators that produce the power. In fact while power went up 8% approx as a result of the carbon tax the wholesale price of power has fallen. It is only the retail end that is up, there is a lot of factors effecting power costs the carbon tax is only a small part of the increases we have seen in recent years. So you remove the carbon tax (now falling anyway) and the compensation to the generators how much of a change will this make to their costs, not much.  
There is nothing to support the view that power will fall by very much at all, in fact going on the past it may do little more than reduce the next increase. We have a forcast deficit of $19b, last nights budget reply finds savings that would reduce a quarter of that although the opposition also has spending promises. Abbot has provided a taste of the direction he intends to take, it will not frighten the horses nor was it meant to, it has given the press something to think about and comment on but it will not be until they are in power and possibly have delivered their first budget before we will see how they will return us to the black.  
Mind you if all you could look at was Julia's face you may have a fettish you haven't revealed to us.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Is this the Budget Reply that Freud is abbotting on about?  When was that on?  Was that what the PM was crying about? 
More importantly than Julia's look.....did anyone look at Joe Hockey's face at the same time? He's even better than Allan Marr - it'll be great to have him around!! 
I've got a bottle of Hill of Grace waiting for the day the Carbon Tax is repealed.  I suspect that it has plenty of time still to mature before this ridiculous game of shenanigans plays out.  That's OK because I've got three sparkling shiraz bottles for the demise of the RETS so I won't go thirsty.  Even so, if the damn Reds hadn't scrapped a few tax breaks and payment increases then I could've been able to get another couple of bottles.... :No:

----------


## johnc

Ah Well, make the most of it, there is a good chance Abbotts direct action plan will be even dearer and need for revenue even greater for all those new mothers amongst other things, water let alone red wine is at risk of becoming an unaffordable luxury.

----------


## autogenous

The ocean has been rising on 'average; 2mm per year for about 20000 years. A glaciologist has said the ocean will rise a metre in the next 100years.  I must get his name.  
Flannery had all those rusting desalination plants built on the Eastcoast?  
Australia has immigrated 4 million people in 40years to the driest continent on earth, 4x the population of some countries. Maybe thats it?   

> Well, to be correct, a few of the posters here have echoed the misinterpretation spread by one Andrew Bolt about things Tim Flannery had said. 
> And yes, they have given him a good beating over those chinese whispers.  
> He got a serve over having a waterfront property too. You know, it's hypocritical to live near the waterfront if you accept that sea level is rising. Even if you understand that the sea will not be at your front door even in hundreds of years because your property is waterfront on the Hawkesbury and the banks are steep. Bolt lives in Melbourne, perhaps he has never seen the Hawkesbury.  
> Like this, (not Flannery's):  
> woodbe.

----------


## johnc

So Flannery commissioned the east coast desal plants did he? I'd love to see how on earth you come up with this rubbish.

----------


## Sambo42

> JuLIAR is economically illiterate. 
> Yet greenies still believe she designed a Tax system to make the Planet Earth cooler than it would have been without the Tax.  
> Yesterday's [S]budget[/S] fudget data confirms her economic illiteracy. 
> Revenue grew by about $25 billion dollars last year.  Here's the data:   
> The blue data is the Liberal surplus years revenue, and the red data are the current Labor deficit years revenue. 
> Now, if this trend applied to current global temperatures, JuLIAR would be shrieking about "unusually HIGH temperatures". 
> But how does she describe this revenue upwards growth:   
> I wonder what she thinks about this unusually lower temperature trend which wasn't forecast by the fascientists "even a few months ago"?   
> So we're still paying a Tax designed by an economic illiterate who calls an upward trend "low" and panics over a flat line as rising dangerously? 
> ...

   
These threads depress me and I've found them on a number of forums.  Do this many people really disbelieve the science behind the science of human-made, CO2-driven global warming and climate change? 
1) The most recent literature suggests that 97.1% of all (peer reviewed, active in their field) climate researchers accept that man-made global warming is real.  There is no disagreement in the scientific community, only consensus (the following review article examined 12,000 articles published in peer reviewed journals on the subject of climate.  A total of 24 argued that no climate change is occurring as a result of human activities and increasing CO2 levels)  Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience 
2) One of the more common climate-sceptic's arguments, that global warming has stopped since the '90s, is plainly wrong.  As is using a graph that compares the current year's variation from average temperate with more historic data.  Since the average temperature has been increasing, displaying the variation from average is duplicitous.  What has global warming done since 1998? 
3) How did we get on to Julia from all this? One of the most right-wing labor governments the country has ever seen, that has out-Howarded Howard when it comes to asylum seekers and generally (I would argue) done a reasonably good job of running the economy when the rest of the world has been falling apart.  After all what is the evidence that the economy has been run badly - international credit rating? (AAA)  Interest rates? (lowest we've seen just about ever)  Unemployment? (less than 6% by some way - compared with 28% in Spain, or 50% if you're under 20).  The australian financial review have a great tool for analysing the spending and receipts (income) over the past (link below) which show that the government spent big in '08/'09 as the GFC was hitting us and did what most economists agree you need to do in times of contraction - spend governments' money.  Since then they have been spending less (as a % of GDP) than Howard and Costello were doing in 2000/2001.  The difference is that Howard and Costello had the advantage of a massive income thanks to the mining sector. Check it out:  AFR.com - Budget 2013 
But this is all falling on deaf ears - those that want to believe the current government are rubbish and that global warming is a con take it as an item of faith - then find the evidence that suits them to support their own arguments.  It's called 'cherry picking'. 
Myself, I used to vote labor but I don't know what they stand for any more (welfare? we have the lowest support for people on the dole ever - cripplingly low.  Social values? we put asylum seekers into the community, make them pay rent, don't allow them to get a job, and give them less than the dole. I reckon it's bloody criminal.  Environment? Hardly - they've just taken several hundred million out of foreign aid that was going towards reforestation projects in Indonesia and redirected some of it towards supporting more live cattle export) 
The only thing worse are the liberals.  They've made it pretty clear that they are climate deniers and supporters of the wealthy - their superannuation changes are targeted at the low-income end of the spectrum, not the upper end.  And they are entirely in bed with the mining sector - not you and I (unless you happen to have a billion or two stashed away). 
So I've reluctantly gone green. 
Maybe we should stick to talking about house renovations....!

----------


## Marc

> T 
> 3) How did we get on to Julia from all this? One of the most right-wing labor governments the country has ever seen, that has out-Howarded Howard when it comes to asylum seekers and generally (I would argue) done a reasonably good job of running the economy when the rest of the world has been falling apart.  After all what is the evidence that the economy has been run badly - international credit rating? (AAA)  Interest rates? (lowest we've seen just about ever)  Unemployment? (less than 6% by some way - compared with 28% in Spain, or 50% if you're under 20).  The australian financial review have a great tool for analysing the spending and receipts (income) over the past (link below) which show that the government spent big in '08/'09 as the GFC was hitting us and did what most economists agree you need to do in times of contraction - spend governments' money.  Since then they have been spending less (as a % of GDP) than Howard and Costello were doing in 2000/2001.  The difference is that Howard and Costello had the advantage of a massive income thanks to the mining sector. Check it out:

  Is this is your first post my friend, I recommend you stick to comments about train spotting or door knob polishing rather than posting shameless green propaganda.
Is it any wonder that there still is some 30% of people who will vote Labor? 
 Not really. Out of that 30% 29.9% are on the take from Centrelink in one way or another. As for greens, the average is probably 99% that are on the take. You must have rocks in your head to vote labor. You must be brain dead to vote green.
I suggest to vote for the marijuana party. 
The ocean is rising, the sky is burning, run for cover, it's the obscenely rich waging a war on the poor and the inferm

----------


## Marc

> Ah Well, make the most of it, there is a good chance Abbotts direct action plan will be even dearer and need for revenue even greater for all those new mothers amongst other things, water let alone red wine is at risk of becoming an unaffordable luxury.

  There is a glut of red wine and it is still very cheap. 
Global not warming and rising CO2 makes sure of the best vintage ever.  
I make sure to contribute with my abundant doses of CO2 by burning wooden poles galore this winter.
As the electricity companies cut down their wooden pole and replace them with concrete poles it is double whammy  Concrete = lots of CO2 (yessss) Wood burning more lots of CO2 ... yessss. 
Best grapes assured this year too.
Salute e figli maschi  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> These threads depress me and I've found them on a number of forums.  Do this many people really disbelieve the science behind the science of human-made, CO2-driven global warming and climate change? 
> 1) The most recent literature suggests that 97.1% of all (peer reviewed, active in their field) climate researchers accept that man-made global warming is real.  There is no disagreement in the scientific community, only consensus (the following review article examined 12,000 articles published in peer reviewed journals on the subject of climate.  A total of 24 argued that no climate change is occurring as a result of human activities and increasing CO2 levels)  Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience 
> 2) One of the more common climate-sceptic's arguments, that global warming has stopped since the '90s, is plainly wrong.  As is using a graph that compares the current year's variation from average temperate with more historic data.  Since the average temperature has been increasing, displaying the variation from average is duplicitous.  What has global warming done since 1998? 
> 3) How did we get on to Julia from all this? One of the most right-wing labor governments the country has ever seen, that has out-Howarded Howard when it comes to asylum seekers and generally (I would argue) done a reasonably good job of running the economy when the rest of the world has been falling apart.  After all what is the evidence that the economy has been run badly - international credit rating? (AAA)  Interest rates? (lowest we've seen just about ever)  Unemployment? (less than 6% by some way - compared with 28% in Spain, or 50% if you're under 20).  The australian financial review have a great tool for analysing the spending and receipts (income) over the past (link below) which show that the government spent big in '08/'09 as the GFC was hitting us and did what most economists agree you need to do in times of contraction - spend governments' money.  Since then they have been spending less (as a % of GDP) than Howard and Costello were doing in 2000/2001.  The difference is that Howard and Costello had the advantage of a massive income thanks to the mining sector. Check it out:  AFR.com - Budget 2013 
> But this is all falling on deaf ears - those that want to believe the current government are rubbish and that global warming is a con take it as an item of faith - then find the evidence that suits them to support their own arguments.  It's called 'cherry picking'. 
> Myself, I used to vote labor but I don't know what they stand for any more (welfare? we have the lowest support for people on the dole ever - cripplingly low.  Social values? we put asylum seekers into the community, make them pay rent, don't allow them to get a job, and give them less than the dole. I reckon it's bloody criminal.  Environment? Hardly - they've just taken several hundred million out of foreign aid that was going towards reforestation projects in Indonesia and redirected some of it towards supporting more live cattle export) 
> The only thing worse are the liberals.  They've made it pretty clear that they are climate deniers and supporters of the wealthy - their superannuation changes are targeted at the low-income end of the spectrum, not the upper end.  And they are entirely in bed with the mining sector - not you and I (unless you happen to have a billion or two stashed away). 
> So I've reluctantly gone green. 
> Maybe we should stick to talking about house renovations....!

  Don't know where to start so I'm not going to.  Perhaps it would do you good to run you bullchit meter over what you read.

----------


## johnc

Sadly Sambo42 the world seems full of people with little understanding of what they write about. The shallowness of the economic commentary you replied to is an indication of political bias it is not rational or intelligent and demonstrates the original poster is not the slightest bit interested in developing an understanding either. 
Even worse is the conjured up statistics of wine glut man, just tripe from a tortured mind. Welcome anyway to a demonstration of the inability to achieve rational and civilized discourse. 
Actually what is really interesting is the mental gymnastics some people have to go to so they can turn away from good evidence to grasp at the threads of their denial with imaginary straws from the most jaundiced of sources. The human condition places no limits on stupidity.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Sadly Sambo42 the world seems full of people with little understanding of what they write about. The shallowness of the economic commentary you replied to is an indication of political bias it is not rational or intelligent and demonstrates the original poster is not the slightest bit interested in developing an understanding either. 
> Even worse is the conjured up statistics of wine glut man, just tripe from a tortured mind. Welcome anyway to a demonstration of the inability to achieve rational and civilized discourse. 
> Actually what is really interesting is the mental gymnastics some people have to go to so they can turn away from good evidence to grasp at the threads of their denial with imaginary straws from the most jaundiced of sources. The human condition places no limits on stupidity.

  Well this is impossible to rebut or reply to without personal attack which is forbidden on this forum thankfully.

----------


## Marc

> Well this is impossible to rebut or reply to without personal attack which is forbidden on this forum thankfully.

   I think that some here have taken my suggestion to support the marijuana party too seriously and are getting ready ahead of time.
Wine is becoming unaffordable.... I wonder where did that come from John? You can buy clearskin for $5 and if you know a bit about it you can do rather well.
there is still an oversupply of wine and the duopoly of Woollies/Coles does not help.
Wine produces co2 during fermentation. Shoul be on your banned list together with all fizzy drnks. Each time it does fzzzz you are polluting.....
Lighten up John, life is as good as you make it.

----------


## Hoff

> 1) The most recent literature suggests that 97.1% of all (peer reviewed, active in their field) climate researchers accept that man-made global warming is real.  There is no disagreement in the scientific community, only consensus (the following review article examined 12,000 articles published in peer reviewed journals on the subject of climate.  A total of 24 argued that no climate change is occurring as a result of human activities and increasing CO2 levels)

  What a hopeless "study". You would expect year10 students to co e up with a better methodology. There is no shortage of criticism of it, but this one is pretty interesting:  Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

----------


## johnc

> What a hopeless "study". You would expect year10 students to co e up with a better methodology. There is no shortage of criticism of it, but this one is pretty interesting:  Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

  
What is really wrong with the study that makes you think it is hopeless. The study is fine, the banner headline by whoever the journalist is focuses on the 97.1% which is misleading as it implies 97.1% of all articles whilst many of the articles do not attribute changes to anything either background or man made. To often people jump onto information and race to a predetermined bias without thinking, there is also a follow up by the authors which seeks to test the attribution. By all means have whatever view you want but to liken it to a year 10 effort on the basis of the headline and use the actual document content to criticise the content of the document is, well, a little dumb, don't you think. In the scheme of things these little research pieces are just a bit on interest I don't think we should get to excited or frustrated by them. The article gives no comfort to the denialist corner but it doesn't say anything much either. We don't want research going beyond it's reach, we want it to stick to it's area and build on an existing body of work so it can all be considered impartially, that batton is probably carried by the IPCC. The blogosphere has to many unqualified ill informed self opinionated noise generating drongos to ever be capable of substance on any contentious issue.

----------


## Hoff

> What is really wrong with the study that makes you think it is hopeless. The study is fine, the banner headline by whoever the journalist is focuses on the 97.1% which is misleading as it implies 97.1% of all articles whilst many of the articles do not attribute changes to anything either background or man made. To often people jump onto information and race to a predetermined bias without thinking, there is also a follow up by the authors which seeks to test the attribution. By all means have whatever view you want but to liken it to a year 10 effort on the basis of the headline and use the actual document content to criticise the content of the document is, well, a little dumb, don't you think. In the scheme of things these little research pieces are just a bit on interest I don't think we should get to excited or frustrated by them. The article gives no comfort to the denialist corner but it doesn't say anything much either. We don't want research going beyond it's reach, we want it to stick to it's area and build on an existing body of work so it can all be considered impartially, that batton is probably carried by the IPCC. The blogosphere has to many unqualified ill informed self opinionated noise generating drongos to ever be capable of substance on any contentious issue.

   I'm not basing anything on a headline. But unfortunately that's precisely what the people who commissioned this key word search "study" are doing and they've gone further to produce thier new headline "The Debate is over" (www.theconcensusproject.com). 
I think the scientists in the linked article above who have been incorrectly attributed in the "study" paint a pretty clear picture of what is wrong with it.  Upon reflection I think you are right that though, likening it to a year 10 standard was a bit harsh.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'm not basing anything on a headline. But unfortunately that's precisely what the people who commissioned this key word search "study" are doing and they've gone further to produce thier new headline "The Debate is over" (www.theconcensusproject.com). 
> I think the scientists in the linked article above who have been incorrectly attributed in the "study" paint a pretty clear picture of what is wrong with it.  Upon reflection I think you are right that though, likening it to a year 10 standard was a bit harsh.

  You bet it was harsh.  What a put down for year 1o students :Biggrin:

----------


## Hoff

> You bet it was harsh.  What a put down for year 1o students

   I know, it wouldn't have got through the year 10 peer review.

----------


## Rod Dyson

I wonder if this will get a run in the MSM. 
Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable. 
Read it here. - Bishop Hill blog - Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise@untenable

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I wonder if this will get a run in the MSM. 
> Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable. 
> Read it here. - Bishop Hill blog - Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise@untenable

----------


## johnc

Lies, damn lies and statistics, then when it can't get any lower along comes Andrew Montford aka hockey stick man, and we get someone who can roll it all into one package and viola a poo with a pink ribbon around it. I doubt many would be able to follow it and i also doubt Montfords understanding goes much beyond statistics 101 but go ahead and pretend anyway it is not as if anyone cares. :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Lies, damn lies and statistics, then when it can't get any lower along comes Andrew Montford aka hockey stick man, and we get someone who can roll it all into one package and viola a poo with a pink ribbon around it. I doubt many would be able to follow it and i also doubt Montfords understanding goes much beyond statistics 101 but go ahead and pretend anyway it is not as if anyone cares.

  Cares about what? 
Also where does Montford come into it?   
Did you even read what this was about? 
If you did you might also realise the significance of it.  The problem is too many people are just prepared to bury their head in the sand and rubbish anything that doesn't fit their theory. 
Read it and you will see what lengths they went too, so not to answer a basic question.   
Don't worry regardless of what you think this will have an effect and so it should.

----------


## johnc

Montford is Bishop Hill, the statistical variables are playing with numbers, it is not an easy read and really doesn't add anything it is more a smoke screen relying on variables to obscure the reality of temperature increase including water temperature. The play on the met office reply is a poor one, little more than petty point scoring, these little exchanges are no more than worthless comentary, I doubt the MSM will pick it up because it is childish and not particularly digestible to the public at large.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Montford is Bishop Hill, the statistical variables are playing with numbers, it is not an easy read and really doesn't add anything it is more a smoke screen relying on variables to obscure the reality of temperature increase including water temperature. The play on the met office reply is a poor one, little more than petty point scoring, these little exchanges are no more than worthless comentary, I doubt the MSM will pick it up because it is childish and not particularly digestible to the public at large.

  I guess this is your opinion. 
However Montford is only the messenger.  I guess its OK to attempt to discredit the issue by shooting the messenger.  If this is not a big deal why did they refuse to answer?  The reason is that the correct answer would discredit the AGW Theory, which it has.  You ignore the fact that the temperature increase is not statistically significant outside normal variation.  That is what this means,  regardless of the warmists slant. 
It is just another nail in the AGW coffin.  Unless warming ramps up very soon it will be the final one.

----------


## Marc

*Lysenkoism and Global Warming Theory*Posted on April 28, 2013	by Anthony Watts From Forbes: *The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory*
Trofim Lysenko became the Director of the Soviet Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences in the 1930s under Josef Stalin.  He was an advocate of the theory that characteristics acquired by plants during their lives could be inherited by later generations stemming from the changed plants, which sharply contradicted Mendelian genetics.  As a result, Lysenko became a fierce critic of theories of the then rising modern genetics.

This same practice of Lysenkoism has long been under way in western science in regard to the politically correct theory of man caused, catastrophic, global warming.  That theory serves the political fashions of the day in promoting vastly increased government powers and control over the private economy.  Advocates of the theory are lionized in the dominant Democrat party controlled media in the U.S., and in leftist controlled media in other countries.  Critics of the theory are denounced as deniers, and even still bourgeois fascists, with their motives impugned.
Those who promote the theory are favored with billions from government grants and neo-Marxist environmentalist largesse, and official recognition and award.  Faked and tampered data and evidence has arisen in favor of the politically correct theory.  Is not man-caused, catastrophic global warming now the only theory allowed to be taught in schools in the West?
Those in positions of scientific authority in the West who have collaborated with this new Lysenkoism because they felt they must be politically correct, and/or because of the money, publicity, and recognition to be gained, have disgraced themselves and the integrity of their institutions, organizations and publications.
Read the entire essay here: The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory - Forbes

----------


## johnc

> I guess this is your opinion. 
> However Montford is only the messenger. I guess its OK to attempt to discredit the issue by shooting the messenger. If this is not a big deal why did they refuse to answer? The reason is that the correct answer would discredit the AGW Theory, which it has. You ignore the fact that the temperature increase is not statistically significant outside normal variation. That is what this means, regardless of the warmists slant. 
> It is just another nail in the AGW coffin. Unless warming ramps up very soon it will be the final one.

  This isn't all that different to an earlier post supporting the view that 96% or whatever of climate scientists support the view of a warming planet. the article wasn't wrong in its figures it simply used those that stated an opinion and ignored those that didn't. It was misleading in that the conculsion while indicitative went a bit far in the final conclusion. 
This statistical analysis is much the same it has set up a frame work that gets a certain result, however the coclusion is a step to far and one we should be skeptical about. It is important we don't allow our bias to over ride what we read and see a conclusion that is greater than the quality of the evidence.

----------


## johnc

> *Lysenkoism and Global Warming Theory*  Posted on April 28, 2013    by Anthony Watts From Forbes: *The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory*
> Trofim Lysenko became the Director of the Soviet Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences in the 1930s under Josef Stalin. He was an advocate of the theory that characteristics acquired by plants during their lives could be inherited by later generations stemming from the changed plants, which sharply contradicted Mendelian genetics. As a result, Lysenko became a fierce critic of theories of the then rising modern genetics.
> 
> This same practice of Lysenkoism has long been under way in western science in regard to the politically correct theory of man caused, catastrophic, global warming. That theory serves the political fashions of the day in promoting vastly increased government powers and control over the private economy. Advocates of the theory are lionized in the dominant Democrat party controlled media in the U.S., and in leftist controlled media in other countries. Critics of the theory are denounced as deniers, and even still bourgeois fascists, with their motives impugned.
> Those who promote the theory are favored with billions from government grants and neo-Marxist environmentalist largesse, and official recognition and award. Faked and tampered data and evidence has arisen in favor of the politically correct theory. Is not man-caused, catastrophic global warming now the only theory allowed to be taught in schools in the West?
> Those in positions of scientific authority in the West who have collaborated with this new Lysenkoism because they felt they must be politically correct, and/or because of the money, publicity, and recognition to be gained, have disgraced themselves and the integrity of their institutions, organizations and publications.
> Read the entire essay here: The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory - Forbes

  This is tragic, the fact we even humour the drongos that write this drivel reflects badly on all of us and humankind in general.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> This isn't all that different to an earlier post supporting the view that 96% or whatever of climate scientists support the view of a warming planet. the article wasn't wrong in its figures it simply used those that stated an opinion and ignored those that didn't. It was misleading in that the conculsion while indicitative went a bit far in the final conclusion. 
> This statistical analysis is much the same it has set up a frame work that gets a certain result, however the coclusion is a step to far and one we should be skeptical about. It is important we don't allow our bias to over ride what we read and see a conclusion that is greater than the quality of the evidence.

  John you can ignore the real meaning of this by glossing it over as much as you want.  The fact remains that this is turning sentiment against AGW where it counts, all those in the middle ground that only believe what they hear and don not research the fact for themselves. 
People are not seeing or feeling the warming that was predicted.  They are realising that the models are not even close in their predictions, so guess what? They too start to question AGW.   
Without the support of empirical evidence to support the theory, it is going to go belly up no matter what.  We are in the middle of that process now.  Every where you look you can see evidence of people backing away from the extremism.  Only those really rusted on folks are gonna hold on to this baby for as long as they can. 
Cheers Rod

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> John you can ignore the real meaning of this by glossing it over as much as you want.  The fact remains that this is turning sentiment against AGW where it counts, all those in the middle ground that only believe what they hear and don not research the fact for themselves. 
> People are not seeing or feeling the warming that was predicted.  They are realising that the models are not even close in their predictions, so guess what? They too start to question AGW.   
> Without the support of empirical evidence to support the theory, it is going to go belly up no matter what.  We are in the middle of that process now.  Every where you look you can see evidence of people backing away from the extremism.  Only those really rusted on folks are gonna hold on to this baby for as long as they can. 
> Cheers Rod

  You can turn all the sentiment you want but that won't change the fact that the change is still happening.  Regardless of whether you accept the reason for it or not...it is still happening.   
And there is very little going on in the socio-political arena in the way of a response, either in terms of mitigation or adaptation.      

> People are not seeing or feeling the warming that was predicted.  They  are realising that the models are not even close in their predictions,  so guess what? They too start to question AGW.

  Talked to a boffin from BoM yesterday who made the observation that all the climate models used in Oz over the last twenty years have been pointing the same way as the observed trend in temperature - warmer.  Sure there's a relatively low level of precision if you are foolish enough to focus on the numbers but they have all nailed the direction and relative strength of the trend.  
The only significant wrinkle in the current models analysis (due for release next year) is the level of forcing going forward - the four scenarios I saw were lower GHG concentrations, small increase, predicted increase and worst case increases.  In really simplistic terms (as I understood them) no scenario suggests that cooler average temps will happen anytime soon and all but the first suggest a continuing seasonal shift in rainfall in SE and SW Oz. 
 Question AGW all you like (I urge you to continue to do so) but don't do yourself the intellectual disservice of telling yourself that nothing is happening.  For example, only half of the farmers I know accept the basic tenets of AGW but they all accept that the climate is changing and it is a greater challenge for them to respond and adapt to on a seasonal basis... 
Don't kid yourself down there...wrapped in your comfortable and insular suburban blanket.

----------


## PhilT2

> Read it and you will see what lengths they went too, so not to answer a basic question.   
> Don't worry regardless of what you think this will have an effect and so it should.

  If you read the hansard the actual record of what was said you will see that they did answer it. They offered to meet with Lord Donoughue to explain the process to him. Lords Hansard text for 13 Feb 201313 Feb 2013 (pt 0001) 
 Like here in Oz their question time has time restrictions on both question and answer. To expect one politician to explain a complex statistical process to another politician in a few minutes is a bit unreal in my view. 
They also offered to meet with the author of the article Doug Keenan to explain what they did and why. He also declined to take up the offer. Why? The title of Doug's article at Bishop Hill is 'Met office admits claim of significant temperature rise untenable" Can you actually find a quote from the person at the Met office that actually states that? Doug seems to have left that out for some reason. 
The real issue behind the article is that Keenan has a problem with the particular statistical model that the Met office uses. he has a model of his own he would rather use. We should get Doc to share his views on models with him. The issue is not new, Doug first wrote about it over two years ago; remember the big fuss it caused back then? No, me neither. It was regarded as insignificant then too.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You can turn all the sentiment you want but that won't change the fact that the change is still happening.  Regardless of whether you accept the reason for it or not...it is still happening.   
> And there is very little going on in the socio-political arena in the way of a response, either in terms of mitigation or adaptation.      
> Talked to a boffin from BoM yesterday who made the observation that all the climate models used in Oz over the last twenty years have been pointing the same way as the observed trend in temperature - warmer.  Sure there's a relatively low level of precision if you are foolish enough to focus on the numbers but they have all nailed the direction and relative strength of the trend.  
> The only significant wrinkle in the current models analysis (due for release next year) is the level of forcing going forward - the four scenarios I saw were lower GHG concentrations, small increase, predicted increase and worst case increases.  In really simplistic terms (as I understood them) no scenario suggests that cooler average temps will happen anytime soon and all but the first suggest a continuing seasonal shift in rainfall in SE and SW Oz. 
>  Question AGW all you like (I urge you to continue to do so) but don't do yourself the intellectual disservice of telling yourself that nothing is happening.  For example, only half of the farmers I know accept the basic tenets of AGW but they all accept that the climate is changing and it is a greater challenge for them to respond and adapt to on a seasonal basis... 
> Don't kid yourself down there...wrapped in your comfortable and insular suburban blanket.

  Never have I said nothing is changing.  I accept that the climate is ALWAYS changing and ALWAYS will.

----------


## intertd6

All this jibber jabber is all academic any how, because labor is a doubly shot duck & its world leading carbon tax is going to flushed down the gurgler along with the party that have the economic credentials of a blind mullet. If tony gets in he will spend billions of $ trawling through the accounts trying to nail the shysters from all the mad schemes that threw away our dollars while returning a few million to the coffers, what a lovely waste of time & money to look forward to.Regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Never have I said nothing is changing.  I accept that the climate is ALWAYS changing and ALWAYS will.

  
Ah yes.  But how many of the puny humans are prepared to change & adapt along with it? The evidence to date suggests that not many really are.  Good luck with that.

----------


## johnc

> All this jibber jabber is all academic any how, because labor is a doubly shot duck & its world leading carbon tax is going to flushed down the gurgler along with the party that have the economic credentials of a blind mullet. If tony gets in he will spend billions of $ trawling through the accounts trying to nail the shysters from all the mad schemes that threw away our dollars while returning a few million to the coffers, what a lovely waste of time & money to look forward to.Regards inter

  Don't you think it would be ironic if Tony was stupid enough to spend billions of $ trawling through accounts, he'd have to be worse than hopeless to have to do that surely. Anyway if you want waste wait until the direct action schemes kick off, pollies don't have a good record of picking winners.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Ah yes.  But how many of the puny humans are prepared to change & adapt along with it? The evidence to date suggests that not many really are.  Good luck with that.

  I would say change and adapt is a far greater method of dealing with climate changes, rather than thinking we can somehow dial in the climate we want.

----------


## intertd6

> Don't you think it would be ironic if Tony was stupid enough to spend billions of $ trawling through accounts, he'd have to be worse than hopeless to have to do that surely. Anyway if you want waste wait until the direct action schemes kick off, pollies don't have a good record of picking winners.

  Thats what the liberals did when they took over office in NSW, they called me up one day checking on a solar system I had installed & claimed a rebate for it, they had my mistaken property on a satellite image without a solar system & were asking questions, soon after September I expect another call because the other rebate was a Federal govt one, just remember the libs love to spend a hundred to save ten, the trouble is they have so much scope to work with after this fiasco.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> Thats what the liberals did when they took over office in NSW, they called me up one day checking on a solar system I had installed & claimed a rebate for it, they had my mistaken property on a satellite image without a solar system & were asking questions, soon after September I expect another call because the other rebate was a Federal govt one, just remember the libs love to spend a hundred to save ten, the trouble is they have so much scope to work with after this fiasco.
> regards inter

  
Labor did the same with it's own pink bat scheme and clawed back a lot of money from shonky operators. All government programs have some form of auditing procedure some more stringent than others where ever there is a bucket of money you will find a crook trying to dip a bit for themselves. Despite the media hype or lack of it i don't think there will be much more to find under Labor than under an LNP government. Finally we are getting some fiscal comment in the press showing the economy was in structural deficit when Labor took over (no surprise the information was there five years ago), it doesn't excuse Swan as he failed to do anything about it. Neither of those men had a strong financial background and you would hope Hockey may with his background rise to the occassion and we might finally have a treasurer that understands numbers beyond the level of a kindergarten treasurer. Current political comment is dreadful at the moment, neither side are seen in the correct light by the public and both a lazy press and a dumb public have a lot to answer for. It is so poisonous that the big fear for Abbot is that if he fails to deliver to expectations the press and public may well turn on him as they turned on Gillard and unfortunately that damages both public confidence and the economy. What most people fail to accept is all our political parties are conservative, all are a mix of talent and stupidity, there will no sudden change with a new government other than a surge in confidence and that will quickly evaporate if the LNP doesn't meet the expectations it has created.

----------


## intertd6

Yes they all audit in some way, the ultra conservative types go through with a fine toothed comb, whereas the others use a yard broom & conveniently sweep all the problems seemingly away, so we actually have to pay for 2 audits. Any sane business person would write it off.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> Yes they all audit in some way, the ultra conservative types go through with a fine toothed comb, whereas the others use a yard broom & conveniently sweep all the problems seemingly away, so we actually have to pay for 2 audits. Any sane business person would write it off.
> regards inter

  I've dealt with these things (grant audits) over many years, to be honest their isn't much difference regardless of which brand of clowns have the reins. Sometimes the public announcements are different but the paperwork and scrutiny never seems to alter.

----------


## intertd6

> I've dealt with these things (grant audits) over many years, to be honest their isn't much difference regardless of which brand of clowns have the reins. Sometimes the public announcements are different but the paperwork and scrutiny never seems to alter.

  you have to be joking of course, nobody is talking about grants here. if you have you any experience being involved in the federal Govt treasury, Departments or Divisions  you would know what I was on about because I was employed by many of them over 10 years & saw the stupidness that came through with a change of Gov't. The first stupid thing to happen is a Department Name change, that alone can run into tens of millions of $
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> you have to be joking of course, nobody is talking about grants here. if you have you any experience being involved in the federal Govt treasury, Departments or Divisions  you would know what I was on about because I was employed by many of them over 10 years & saw the stupidness that came through with a change of Gov't. The first stupid thing to happen is a Department Name change, that alone can run into tens of millions of $
> regards inter

  Which side has the monopoly on that, we excel at that little game in Victoria, you are talking about waste there is no need to get nasty. The pink batts is one of the topical subjects that gets aired when the word waste comes up, what is that if it is not a grant allocation. Waste is at all levels some of it also comes when they make a dogs breakfast of legislation, there has been some shockers over the years that have been designed by politicians and ended up being expensive and not that workable in operation. Sometimes the public gets all caught up in their favourite political brand and becomes totally blind to the dumb on "their" side and the "good" of the other side. I believe the rusted on political fan is a blight on society and a barrier to economic growth irrespective of the side they sit on.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I would say change and adapt is a far greater method of dealing with climate changes, rather than thinking we can somehow dial in the climate we want.

  Absolutely.  But I don't think anyone (regardless of which end of the debate one is on) is suggesting that we can somehow dial in the climate we want.   
If they are...more fool them. If anyone thinks they are...fools twice over.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> just remember the libs love to spend a hundred to save ten, the trouble is they have so much scope to work with after this fiasco.

    :Biggrin:  true in every way.  Though I suspect your money is pretty safe this time since there aren't enough (and won't be) public servants left to engage the necessary contractors to do the various audits to even start the clawback let alone to do the job themselves...

----------


## intertd6

> true in every way.  Though I suspect your money is pretty safe this time since there aren't enough (and won't be) public servants left to engage the necessary contractors to do the various audits to even start the clawback let alone to do the job themselves...

   Well the first reshuffle will be moving all the bureaucrats who were spending all the money without a care in the world, to another department where they will be examining in ever so fine detail where that all that money went. Some will go at the bottom of the food chain, but the real dead wood will remain further up.
regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

> Fool me once....ok, never mind Dubya's quote.       
> Our great friend Mr Andrew Bolt reads the tea leaves here:   
> Well worth a read if you want to know why this cult is rapidly unravelling. (Apologies, no video this time, but I am happy to post a picture for each of the 10 signs if there is any confusion?)

  It's a safe bet to assume that a fair bit of what Doc posts is complete bulls**t and this post is another good example. Not that it's his fault, he just cuts and pastes without checking because he is a true believer. The Time magazine cover on the left is a fake photoshopped from another edition with the wording and date altered. here is the real one.   The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers  by David Kirtley  Greg Laden's Blog

----------


## Marc

> This is tragic, the fact we even humour the drongos that write this drivel reflects badly on all of us and humankind in general.

   Tragic indeed that such pathetic pseudo religion has even seen the light of day.
As for Lysenkoism, it is a fair and accurate description of the kind of manure supported by mercenary scientist defending their pay.
"...lysenkoism used to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias,often related to social or political objective. " from Wiki...
One could not find a more accurate description of the AGW hypothesis.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> One could not find a more accurate description of the AGW hypothesis.

  ...or your virulent reaction against it.   :Biggrin:   :Rofl:   :Harhar:

----------


## Rod Dyson

I was listening to what seemed like a very intelligent woman on the ABC tonight talking about the dna of old killer diseases like black plague, leprosy etc.  I was very interested and though what a smart woman until this. 
She claims that the little ice age was caused by the death of 40% of humans in Europe, due to the lack of firewood being burnt.  You couldn't make this stuff up.   
How can a very intelligent woman come up with this stuff. 
Surely not.

----------


## PhilT2

> I was listening to what seemed like a very intelligent woman on the ABC tonight talking about the dna of old killer diseases like black plague, leprosy etc.  I was very interested and though what a smart woman until this. 
> She claims that the little ice age was caused by the death of 40% of humans in Europe, due to the lack of firewood being burnt.  You couldn't make this stuff up.   
> How can a very intelligent woman come up with this stuff. 
> Surely not.

  Diseases have dna? Seems wrong to me. And leprosy is still with us though not necessarily a killer any more. Sounds like no real understanding of science at all.  
Maybe it was Cori Bernardi in drag. 
Got a link? I'd like to have a listen before jumping to conclusions.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Diseases have dna? Seems wrong to me. And leprosy is still with us though not necessarily a killer any more. Sounds like no real understanding of science at all. 
> Maybe it was Cori Bernardi in drag. 
> Got a link? I'd like to have a listen before jumping to conclusions.

  Old DNA containing the virus  :Wink:   My bad wording.

----------


## johnc

> I was listening to what seemed like a very intelligent woman on the ABC tonight talking about the dna of old killer diseases like black plague, leprosy etc.  I was very interested and though what a smart woman until this. 
> She claims that the little ice age was caused by the death of 40% of humans in Europe, due to the lack of firewood being burnt.  You couldn't make this stuff up.   
> How can a very intelligent woman come up with this stuff. 
> Surely not.

   Just because a woman doesn't agree with your own pet notions doesn't mean she is not intelligent and instantly worthy of condemnation. Besides this was only an aside, right or wrong it shouldn't detract from whatever her main subject was. BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Europe's chill linked to disease this seems to be on that track, hardly enough there for anyone to get all indignant over is it?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ....She claims that the little ice age was caused by the death of 40% of humans in Europe, due to the lack of firewood being burnt.  You couldn't make this stuff up.   
> How can a very intelligent woman come up with this stuff. 
> Surely not.

  It's really easy.  Happens to every expert in their chosen field when they step outside that chosen field using only their knowledge and experience within that field and their self righteous belief that they have all the answers.  Don't have to be a scientist either...could be a builder, bus driver, politician, wildlife carer etc etc etc 
A range of things contributed to the 'Little Ice Age'.  Her conjecture merely adds to that list...

----------


## PhilT2

_She claims that the little ice age was caused by the death of 40% of  humans in Europe, due to the lack of firewood being burnt.  You couldn't  make this stuff up. _ 
It depends on whether she was discussing her own ideas or quoting a paper she had read. It does sound a bit like the work of Tom van Hoof but I can't find anything that he has published recently. One of his papers from 2006 discusses the impact of the black plague in Europe and how abandoned farmland was reclaimed by forest and this resulted in a reduction in CO2 of around 30ppm and this caused the ice age. Nothing about firewood though. If van Hoof is right about this then the climate is incredibly sensitive to small changes in CO2 levels. 
Her remarks about leprosy come from a recent edition of Science magazine.

----------


## intertd6

you couldn't make up the stuff which is going on in the ruling party at the moment, it will give the comedians subject matter for years.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> _She claims that the little ice age was caused by the death of 40% of humans in Europe, due to the lack of firewood being burnt. You couldn't make this stuff up._ 
> It depends on whether she was discussing her own ideas or quoting a paper she had read. It does sound a bit like the work of Tom van Hoof but I can't find anything that he has published recently. One of his papers from 2006 discusses the impact of the black plague in Europe and how abandoned farmland was reclaimed by forest and this resulted in a reduction in CO2 of around 30ppm and this caused the ice age. Nothing about firewood though. If van Hoof is right about this then the climate is incredibly sensitive to small changes in CO2 levels. 
> Her remarks about leprosy come from a recent edition of Science magazine.

   :Laugh bounce spin:  :Laugh bounce spin:  :Laugh bounce spin:

----------


## woodbe

Meanwhile, in other news:   
And one Anthony Watts conveniently 'forgets' that to compare different temperature data sets they need to be corrected for their baselines, yet Again. He's been doing this since 2008, each time 'discovering' his mistake yet not learning from it. If you correct for baselines his post is reduced to rubbish. If, like Anthony you wonder (again) what the baseline fuss is about, there is a good explanation and example at the open data repository and graphing site WoodForTrees 
And Obama is getting tired of battling the flat earth society in Congress: Barack Obama lays out new US plan to fight climate change - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Happy days. Go GILLARD I hope she wins!!! 
With a bit of luck we will lose both Gillard and Rudd 
Rudd will have to resign and BETTER YET we get to kick Gillard out at the election. 
What could be better than that!!!

----------


## woodbe

> Happy days. Go GILLARD I hope she wins!!! 
> With a bit of luck we will lose both Gillard and Rudd 
> Rudd will have to resign and BETTER YET we get to kick Gillard out at the election. 
> What could be better than that!!!

  Bad luck, she lost!  
Stick to your day job  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## barney118

Extreme temperatures including highest levels of hot air and CO2 in the ACT last night, weather warning - expect more of the same in the next 80 days. 
P.s didn't someone write a book about round the world in 80 days, big Kev could do it twice in the 747 Kev !  :Roflmao:

----------


## PhilT2

Bit of hot air and hot heads at Suncorp last night as NSW went down in a big way at the state of origin game. Was there something else happening as well?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Was there something else happening as well?

  Yeah!  A repeat of 'American Pickers' on the 7Mate digital channel.   And some sketch comedy show on the ABC that didn't make much sense to me... :Confused:

----------


## woodbe

Doesn't have the aspiring new candidates in it, but here you go:   
Our sitting member is Liberal and accepts the science. That is one of his few endearing features  :Smilie:  It would appear that's Rod's rep is ALP and there is insufficient data regarding his stance in the science. 
From Election 2013 Reps | uknowispeaksense  
There is also a Senate version. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

As politicians...what they actually believe and what they are prepared to do to act on those beliefs are two entirely different things.  With all due respect, that makes this list almost entirely useless. 
I think I'm going to vote for Glenn Lazarus and his mate, Clive Palmer.  The Brick With Eyes has such awesome presence in that mob's television advertising  :Wink 1:

----------


## PhilT2

The coalition used to have a policy of soil carbon storage which involved paying farmers to change the way they grew crops so as to increase the amount of carbon stored in the soil. The Nationals supported this policy, although they deny climate change exists, as it meant farmers got paid to do this. However they disputed the amount the Liberals were willing to pay. They believed farmers should be paid a great deal more of the taxpayers money for solving a problem that they don't believe exists. Nothing like standing up for your principles.

----------


## Hoff

> The coalition used to have a policy of soil carbon storage which involved paying farmers to change the way they grew crops so as to increase the amount of carbon stored in the soil. The Nationals supported this policy, although they deny climate change exists, as it meant farmers got paid to do this. However they disputed the amount the Liberals were willing to pay. They believed farmers should be paid a great deal more of the taxpayers money for solving a problem that they don't believe exists. Nothing like standing up for your principles.

  Do you have anything to back up your claim that they don't believe climate change exists? 
its just that their website lists it as one of their policy priorities.

----------


## PhilT2

If you go to the original site that has the list of where each politician stands you will find the author explains his methodology and gives some extracts from speeches they made that justifies his conclusions. If you don't accept his evidence then a quick google may help. I believe he also contacted the office of many of the politicians to attempt to clarify their exact position on the issue. But getting a straight answer was challenging. That's a surprise! 
I tend to go more by their actions than their words. When a politician is seen uncritically promoting Monckton's ideas, Ian Plimer's books or Bolt's blog then I take that as a strong indication that they don't accept the science behind climate change. In the upcoming election campaign look to see some of these people backing away from their prior support for Monckton and others if they haven't already.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Do you have anything to back up your claim that they don't believe climate change exists? 
> its just that their website lists it as one of their policy priorities.

  Hell yeah we all know climate change exists.  Who can doubt that???

----------


## woodbe

> Hell yeah we all know climate change exists.  Who can doubt that???

  I think the measure was not the cop out 'of course climate change exists' but whether the individual accepts the science of climate change.  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> [A] so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one

  Discuss.  :Biggrin:  
I think this is what you would call an 'own goal'.  
Poor Mr Rabbit, he had a guaranteed job in the lodge a month ago, now it's not so sure. He's been really effected by this change, having trouble remembering his own candidates names. 
Meanwhile...   
The Arctic is in recovery! Again!  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

Heard a good one his morning on the radio, sea levels of the last year have dropped, the reason being Australia has been so dry it has sucked up the excess water from the polar ice caps melting.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Heard a good one his morning on the radio, sea levels of the last year have dropped, the reason being Australia has been so dry it has sucked up the excess water from the polar ice caps melting.
> regards inter

  Well, not so much as being 'dry' as having extreme wet seasons and significant inland water trapped. Peer reviewed, too:   Australia's unique influence on global sea level in 2010&ndash;2011 - Fasullo - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library   

> *Abstract* 
> [1] In  2011, a significant drop in global sea level occurred that was  unprecedented in the altimeter era and concurrent with an exceptionally  strong La Niña. This analysis examines multiple datasets in exploring  the physical basis for the drop's exceptional intensity and persistence.  Australia's hydrologic surface mass anomaly is shown to have been a  dominant contributor to the 2011 global total and associated  precipitation anomalies were among the highest on record. The  persistence of Australia's mass anomaly is attributed to the continent's  unique surface hydrology, which includes expansive arheic and endorheic  basins that impede runoff to ocean. Based on Australia's key role,  attribution of sea level variability is addressed. The modulating  influences of the Indian Ocean Dipole and Southern Annular Mode on La  Niña teleconnections are found to be key drivers of anomalous  precipitation in the continent's interior and the associated surface  mass, and sea level responses.

   Sea level rise isn't just because of melt. Thermal expansion is a significant factor.  
Sources of sea level rise and their contributions in mm per year for the  periods 1961-2003 and 1993-2003 from the IPCC 2007 assessment. 
Image  credit: modified from Bindoff et al., 2007. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Well, not so much as being 'dry' as having extreme wet seasons and significant inland water trapped. Peer reviewed, too:   Australia's unique influence on global sea level in 2010&ndash;2011 - Fasullo - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library   
>  Sea level rise isn't just because of melt. Thermal expansion is a significant factor.  
> Sources of sea level rise and their contributions in mm per year for the  periods 1961-2003 and 1993-2003 from the IPCC 2007 assessment. 
> Image  credit: modified from Bindoff et al., 2007. 
> woodbe.

  really you should just pick up a calculator & do a quick sum to see that Australia is around 1/48 th the area of the oceans, then use some grey matter to work out that we would have to had 48 times the above average rainfall / absorption over the continent to reverse or have a major part in a sea level drop, I'd have to be smoking the curtains to believe something like that.
regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

The math in that doesn't seem right to me. Wouldn't it be that we need to get an additional 48mm, not 48 times the average, to take 1mm off the sea level? The unique thing about Aust is that some of our rainfall doesn't go to the oceans but into Lake Eyre, not many places in the world where that happens.

----------


## woodbe

Phil, don't bring logic into this, that's not how our skeptics work.  :Biggrin:  Australia captured a lot of water in those years, taking it out of the system for a while. 
The paper was written by 4 scientists and probably reviewed by as many more. Yet our skeptic thinks that a bit of mental maths and a hand calculator shoots down the whole paper. I guess when you have a hammer all you can see are nails!  
Perhaps our skeptic would like to write up his 48x theory and submit it for review.  :2thumbsup:  
You're right about Lake Eyre, I was camped by the Cooper in 2011 watching the flow when they announced on the radio that it had reached Lake Eyre. The Cooper was over 250m wide at that time. Pretty amazing flows there, especially when you think that it had all started as rain in Qld! That was the second year that they had to run the Cooper punt on the Birdsville track. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Phil, don't bring logic into this, that's not how our skeptics work.  Australia captured a lot of water in those years, taking it out of the system for a while. 
> The paper was written by 4 scientists and probably reviewed by as many more. Yet our skeptic thinks that a bit of mental maths and a hand calculator shoots down the whole paper. I guess when you have a hammer all you can see are nails!  
> Perhaps our skeptic would like to write up his 48x theory and submit it for review.  
> You're right about Lake Eyre, I was camped by the Cooper in 2011 watching the flow when they announced on the radio that it had reached Lake Eyre. The Cooper was over 250m wide at that time. Pretty amazing flows there, especially when you think that it had all started as rain in Qld! That was the second year that they had to run the Cooper punt on the Birdsville track. 
> woodbe.

  Nothing really hard about understanding that whatever makes a -1mm difference to the global sea level has to be multiplied 48 times across our continent out side the normal averages of variables which many are unknown or immeasurable, then this information has to be linked to every other variable on the globe of which many are immeasurable or unknown. Pure conjecture at its best.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The Arctic is in recovery! Again!  
> woodbe.

  Just an update!!!

----------


## woodbe

> Just an update!!!

  Thanks Rod. I guess you think that is a recovery.  :Biggrin:  
Yep, no joy there. It's useful to look at the in context graph too:   
You have to go back 10 years or more to see an above the mean plot. The NSIDC recently extended the statistics out to 1981-2010 (30 years) which makes the significance of the trend even more solid. 
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

_really you should just pick up a calculator & do a quick sum to see  that Australia is around 1/48 th the area of the oceans, then use some  grey matter to work out that we would have to had 48 times the above  average rainfall / absorption over the continent to reverse or have a  major part in a sea level drop, I'd have to be smoking the curtains to  believe something like that.
regards inter        _ _
Nothing really hard about understanding that whatever makes a -1mm  difference to the global sea level has to be multiplied 48 times across  our continent out side the normal averages of variables which many are  unknown or immeasurable, then this information has to be linked to every  other variable on the globe of which many are immeasurable or unknown.  Pure conjecture at its best.
regards inter_
 I can't really see a consistent point of view here. Do you want to multiply the average rainfall, the evaporation rate or some other factor by 48?

----------


## woodbe

> I can't really see a consistent point of view here. Do you want to multiply the average rainfall, the evaporation rate or some other factor by 48?

  Why would you involve averages when you are looking at a particular year or two? Because you think you can debunk a paper written by four scientists qualified in the field with any bit of broken logic you can think up. The facts are referred to in the abstract: variability overwhelmed the SLR signal and the cause of that variability largely lies with the massive amount of precipitation that fell in those years in Aus and did not return immediately to the oceans.   
Fig S4 from the abstract. 
Like any science performed with merit, this paper will have to stand the test of ongoing scientific inspection. It has already been through the initial phase, being peer review. The paper will only get shot to bits if the premise of the paper can be shown to be false either by proposing and scientifically supporting a more viable alternative proposal for the blip in the SLR, or by finding gross errors in the paper. We can only guess that inter thinks there are gross errors that support his opinion, yet as far as we know, inter has not read the whole paper because it is behind a paywall. Of course, inter knows better than those qualified scientists who have spent the last year or so studying this variability in depth, and he should submit his alternative scientific proposal for peer review. He could be famous! 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Why would you involve averages when you are looking at a particular year or two? Because you think you can debunk a paper written by four scientists qualified in the field with any bit of broken logic you can think up. The facts are referred to in the abstract: variability overwhelmed the SLR signal and the cause of that variability largely lies with the massive amount of precipitation that fell in those years in Aus and did not return immediately to the oceans.   
> Fig S4 from the abstract. 
> Like any science performed with merit, this paper will have to stand the test of ongoing scientific inspection. It has already been through the initial phase, being peer review. The paper will only get shot to bits if the premise of the paper can be shown to be false either by proposing and scientifically supporting a more viable alternative proposal for the blip in the SLR, or by finding gross errors in the paper. We can only guess that inter thinks there are gross errors that support his opinion, yet as far as we know, inter has not read the whole paper because it is behind a paywall. Of course, inter knows better than those qualified scientists who have spent the last year or so studying this variability in depth, and he should submit his alternative scientific proposal for peer review. He could be famous! 
> woodbe.

  What inter knows could take up a small space pn the back of a postage stamp but he can spot a load of BS at a great distance, this one is on an even par with CO2 measured in parts per million causing global warming & now that there's a flat spot in the warming they can't explain & sea levels have not risen as predicted they are now trying to explain this drop in sea levels with this theory, just like CO2 causing global warming can't be proven because there are too many unknown immeasurables variables, this story more than likely has more unknown variables.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> What inter knows could take up a small space pn the back of a postage stamp but he can spot a load of BS at a great distance, this one is on an even par with CO2 measured in parts per million causing global warming & now that there's a flat spot in the warming they can't explain & sea levels have not risen as predicted they are now trying to explain this drop in sea levels with this theory, just like CO2 causing global warming can't be proven because there are too many unknown immeasurables variables, this story more than likely has more unknown variables.
> regards inter

  Yep. Opinion does not debunk scientific research, but feel free to share if it makes you happy.  :2thumbsup:   
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> What inter knows could take up a small space pn the back of a postage stamp but he can spot a load of BS at a great distance, this one is on an even par with CO2 measured in parts per million causing global warming & now that there's a flat spot in the warming they can't explain & sea levels have not risen as predicted they are now trying to explain this drop in sea levels with this theory, just like CO2 causing global warming can't be proven because there are too many unknown immeasurables variables, this story more than likely has more unknown variables.
> regards inter

  Never mind, AGW is almost a dead issue.  Not long now!!  See how much attention it's got this election :Biggrin: . 
What 15 years now? no warming?  LOL, man that's gotta hurt the faithful soon.  It sure has got those in the middle ground asking questions. 
What do you think Woodbe any doubts yet? Or do we need another 15 years for you? :Biggrin:

----------


## johnc

Amazing how quickly the denialists lapse back into their tired old mantra, fingers in ears, chanting "not true, not true" The change in sea levels is interesting, it shows the complexity of the changes we are experiencing. However around 80% of the Australian population believes climate change is real the information base is growing and insurers are in no doubt that risk is increasing. We will shortly have an election and with an LNP victory all but in the bag we will have a direct action plan, as this thread started off with a statement on the carbon tax destroying the economy we can all look forward to a massive economic revival and a budget in the black if our right wing friends are believable, along with massive drops in power prices. Let's see if they are right or will it be a case of rhetoric failing to match reality.

----------


## woodbe

> Never mind, AGW is almost a dead issue.  Not long now!!  See how much attention it's got this election.

  Vote Compass: Australians want more action on climate change - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
I'll be more than happy to have those doubts you speak of when the science is overturned. This is something I have pointed out since the early days of this thread but its nearly 4 years now and the fake skeptics still feed on opinion and echo chamber mantras, not science, so don't hold your breath. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...with an LNP victory all but in the bag we will have a direct action plan...

  And I am very much looking forward to my little cut of the action in that 'plan'.  It promises to be help me afford many more wonderful things at the (minimal) expense of my fellow taxpayers in the coming years.  Far easier to siphon than the ETS and its ilk and with even less guilt  :2thumbsup:  
By the by...I thought this thread had snuffed it.  Shame on you, Inter.  Especially given your choice of topic...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> By the by...I thought this thread had snuffed it. Shame on you, Inter. Especially given your choice of topic...

  Nah it won't be snuffed until the whole sorry saga is history. 
It has been sitting idle because there really has been no change. No new scares to announce, we have just about had them all by now.  We are just sitting back patiently waiting for the end. 
A few more years of no warming are needed yet though by the look of it. 
BTW Johnc we do believe in climate change. It can never remain static.  Sheez  :Rolleyes:

----------


## intertd6

> By the by...I thought this thread had snuffed it.  Shame on you, Inter.  Especially given your choice of topic...

  the topic is really important here, because of the subterfuge to confuse & try & support the failings of the theory that CO2 is causing AGW now that its in the dieing phase, like, o dear our models are shot to pieces now, lets throw in something which attempts to explain the failings that has so many variables that it will take years of wasted research to disprove, meanwhile we will shift our fields of research and get cushy senior tenures while we can because we momentarily had worldwide recognition.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

Have a read, shoot the messenger, then get over it! 
The models have just got it wrong plain and simple. The 200 months of ‘the pause’ | Watts Up With That?

----------


## johnc

Ever thought you might just be cocooned in a little bubble of isolation totally impenetrable to any opposing thought. No models have been shot to pieces, nothing indicates that any changes are reversing and a lot of work continues on the variability we are experiencing in the environment around us. It never fails to amaze me that individuals can be so rusted on to an idea that they cannot countenance any other possibility at all. Rather than just look for fault perhaps a more positive view might allow the denialists to actually absorb information that falls outside their closed minds on the subject. A bit of curiosity about how the world and its environment works wouldn't go astray. Odd though that you can run an argument (post articles if you prefer) that sea levels aren't rising then without any embarrassment at all mention that sea levels have fallen, a bit hypocritical don't you think, it does rather show the shallowness of the negative side.

----------


## woodbe

The significant issue with Moncktons dog whistle to the deniers is that almost every one of his graphs show some warming and when he compares it against the models he then proclaims that the models are wrong without scientific inspection. I guess we can excuse that, considering he isn't a scientist, and has been repeatedly shot down when anyone with a scientific background inspects his presentations. 
Anyway, nowhere in his little graph-fest does he mention this:   _Total Earth Heat Content anomaly from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from_ _Domingues et al 2008__. Land + Atmosphere includes the heat absorbed to melt ice._ 
Monckton mentions variability, but nowhere does it occur to him that climate variability might be the cause of these temperature results. Others certainly have:
.  _Average of all five data sets (GISS, NCDC, HadCRU, UAH, and RSS) with the effects of ENSO, solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions removed (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011) _ Also of significance is the almost total absence of any contrary comments over at WUWT. Evidence that the moderation has reduced the discussion to a monoculture of climate change deniers. Good place to look for balanced scientific information, Rod. :2thumbsup:   
woodbe

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Ever thought you might just be cocooned in a little bubble of isolation totally impenetrable to any opposing thought. No models have been shot to pieces, nothing indicates that any changes are reversing and a lot of work continues on the variability we are experiencing in the environment around us. It never fails to amaze me that individuals can be so rusted on to an idea that they cannot countenance any other possibility at all. Rather than just look for fault perhaps a more positive view might allow the denialists to actually absorb information that falls outside their closed minds on the subject. A bit of curiosity about how the world and its environment works wouldn't go astray. Odd though that you can run an argument (post articles if you prefer) that sea levels aren't rising then without any embarrassment at all mention that sea levels have fallen, a bit hypocritical don't you think, it does rather show the shallowness of the negative side.

   :Confused:  :Confused:  just explaining what we think of warmist

----------


## Rod Dyson

> . Evidence that the moderation has reduced the discussion to a monoculture of climate change deniers. Good place to look for balanced scientific information, Rod.   
> woodbe

  Why don't you make a post on WUWT ?? 
Test it out.

----------


## johnc

I would hardly go as far as suggesting that WUWT is the place to go to if you wanted an honest and open discussion on the merits of that graph. Post it if you wish but the graph is much more than a picture and not much on its own without supporting information.

----------


## woodbe

> Why don't you make a post on WUWT ?? 
> Test it out.

  Why should I? Plenty others have already tried. I've watched people make completely reasonable posts there get attacked by the WUWT acolytes, and then have their posts edited or removed and their user banned by the moderators. There's plenty of examples of this on the web if you go looking. It's a preserved zombieland for deniers, a monoculture. I'm happy to leave them to it, it's not like anyone there is willing to listen to the view held by the majority of climate scientists and even the general population. 
Where are your WUWT posts Rod? 
Once again, Rod doesn't discuss a reasonable response to the issue he raised. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> the topic is really important here, because of the subterfuge to confuse & try & support the failings of the theory that CO2 is causing AGW now that its in the dieing phase, like, o dear our models are shot to pieces now, lets throw in something which attempts to explain the failings that has so many variables that it will take years of wasted research to disprove, meanwhile we will shift our fields of research and get cushy senior tenures while we can because we momentarily had worldwide recognition.
> regards inter

  I appreciate and applaud your cynicism...but even as a middling public servant I get paid more than most academics in a 'cushy' tenure so I can't imagine why they'd want to engage in some sort of subterfuge to get one.  As for changing fields of research...for those who try it can be a bit like changing political parties whilst your the sitting MP. 
I'm with you in the idea that most models are substantially imprecise (a more technical term for 'wrong') but models are like asking someone to build a roof in the expectation you'll get a roof when what you actually get is a tarpaulin stretched over some bush poles.  It's not a roof...but it still performs like one and keeps the rain off.  Models provide an imprecise answer to an imprecise question using insufficient data.  But they are infinitely better than nothing and they provide a sort of an answer now instead of having to wait months, years or decades waiting for what you actually want.   
There's your choice when the SES show up: tarpaulin now; or wait days/weeks/months for a proper roof.  So it is with models.  And the scientific process.  Fortunately, (mostly) not with builders.

----------


## intertd6

> _Total Earth Heat Content anomaly from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from_ _Domingues et al 2008__. Land + Atmosphere includes the heat absorbed to melt ice._  
> woodbe

  I wouldn't call myself super intelligent but I'm just bright enough to see that the ocean heat content precedes the land & atmosphere heat rise, now using what I have upstairs that would mean that the oceans more than likely are transferring heat to the atmosphere & land like has been happening for just about ever.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

I think just bright enough would actually mean addressing the rise in ocean temperature, I can't see why you would make the above comment. It's a bit like saying the air above a heated swimming pool might increase in temperature as a result of the hot water beneath it. Why is the water hot? let's try to avoid the mind numbing obvious.

----------


## woodbe

> using what I have upstairs that would mean that the oceans more than likely are transferring heat to the atmosphere & land like has been happening for just about ever.
> regards inter

  Now you're being an alarmist. If what you say is true, things are even worse than predicted given the ocean heat build up. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> I think just bright enough would actually mean addressing the rise in ocean temperature, I can't see why you would make the above comment. It's a bit like saying the air above a heated swimming pool might increase in temperature as a result of the hot water beneath it. Why is the water hot? let's try to avoid the mind numbing obvious.

   The thing is water about 1000 times as dense as air, therefor if the air heats the water then basically its going to take thousands of years to transfer the heat to the oceans, but in reverse the oceans can quickly heat the atmosphere, what ever is raising the heat of the oceans has been at it for a long time & has a lot of energy, so those facts point to only a few culprits capable of this energy release, more than likely the sun or geothermal action or something else we don't know about.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> The thing is water about 1000 times as dense as air, therefor if the air heats the water

  Ok, where did anyone say that the air heats the water? 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Ok, where did anyone say that the air heats the water? 
> woodbe.

   The last graph you guys posted, the reason for everyone to pay a carbon tax to stop the so called heating of the atmosphere.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Why should I? Plenty others have already tried. I've watched people make completely reasonable posts there get attacked by the WUWT acolytes, and then have their posts edited or removed and their user banned by the moderators. There's plenty of examples of this on the web if you go looking. It's a preserved zombieland for deniers, a monoculture. I'm happy to leave them to it, it's not like anyone there is willing to listen to the view held by the majority of climate scientists and even the general population. 
> Where are your WUWT posts Rod? 
> Once again, Rod doesn't discuss a reasonable response to the issue he raised. 
> woodbe.

  No, really go ahead and post something.  But was I right shoot the messenger LOL you really crack me up. 
I am just happy sitting back watching the whole thing fall apart.  I don't need to add anything.  The warmists are scrambling to justify their position as their predictions fall apart.  What's not to like about that?  Governments are backing away looking for scapegoats, the public are wising up as AGW rates just about last on people's concerns.  Hey just the other day someone rang the ABC complaining that AGW hasn't got a mention in the election campaign. :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  
The end is nigh!!

----------


## woodbe

> No, really go ahead and post something.  But was I right shoot the messenger LOL you really crack me up.

  No thanks mate. Waste of time.   

> I am just happy sitting back watching the whole thing fall apart.  I don't need to add anything.  The warmists are scrambling to justify their position as their predictions fall apart.  What's not to like about that?  Governments are backing away looking for scapegoats, the public are wising up as AGW rates just about last on people's concerns.  Hey just the other day someone rang the ABC complaining that AGW hasn't got a mention in the election campaign. 
> The end is nigh!!

  You're dreaming!  :Rolleyes:

----------


## woodbe

> Ok, where did anyone say that the air heats the water?

   

> The last graph you guys posted, the reason for everyone to pay a carbon tax to stop the so called heating of the atmosphere.
> regards inter

  Nope, I haven't posted anything that claims the air heats the water. None of the graphs claim that.  :Confused:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> The thing is water about 1000 times as dense as air, therefor if the air heats the water then basically its going to take thousands of years to transfer the heat to the oceans, but in reverse the oceans can quickly heat the atmosphere, what ever is raising the heat of the oceans has been at it for a long time & has a lot of energy, so those facts point to only a few culprits capable of this energy release, more than likely the sun or geothermal action or something else we don't know about.
> regards inter

   Utter rubbish, this totally fails to acknowledge the discharge or accumulation of heat elsewhere, for this view to hold true the atmosphere and the ocean would need to be a closed system, clearly they are not.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The thing is water about 1000 times as dense as air, therefor if the air heats the water then basically its going to take thousands of years to transfer the heat to the oceans, but in reverse the oceans can quickly heat the atmosphere, what ever is raising the heat of the oceans has been at it for a long time & has a lot of energy, so those facts point to only a few culprits capable of this energy release, more than likely the sun or geothermal action or something else we don't know about.
> regards inter

  Wow.  Just...wow.  I mean...wow. 
The ocean will give up its warmth at much the same rate that it receives it (assuming that the heat source itself was removed). That is...slowly. Think geological scales of time rather than political scales or even human memory scales. 
The atmosphere does not warm the ocean - it is merely a special kind of doona.  Inadvertent human engineering has unfortunately tweaked the performance characteristics of the doona by reducing the loss of reflected solar energy back into space by a small but highly significant extent. That's the problem.  The natural ability of the ocean to absorb, retain and release solar energy over a geological time scale (in much the same way that a concrete slab acts as thermal mass in a building) merely adds to the problem by extending the timescale before a new equilibrium is attained.

----------


## intertd6

> Utter rubbish, this totally fails to acknowledge the discharge or accumulation of heat elsewhere, for this view to hold true the atmosphere and the ocean would need to be a closed system, clearly they are not.

  Well the last time I read something that made no sense at all which made me think I was dyslexic was an army psych test. I'm just a dumb tradie with science qualifications so you might have to SPEAK A BIT MORE CLEARLY!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Nope, I haven't posted anything that claims the air heats the water. None of the graphs claim that.  
> woodbe.

  Not unless your name is " you guys". So why are the graphs containing the heat content of the oceans linked to the atmospheric warming being produced by the AGW crowd (scare tactics it would seem) Either the oceans are heating the atmosphere or atmosphere is heating the oceans, choose one if you like then try to explain how CO2 is causing it.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

Maybe the question is why is the ocean warming faster than the atmosphere, that could also be extended to why is ocean warming in a patchy manner with some areas warming faster then others.

----------


## intertd6

> Maybe the question is why is the ocean warming faster than the atmosphere, that could also be extended to why is ocean warming in a patchy manner with some areas warming faster then others.

   See post #8933
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> See post #8933
> regards inter

  See post 8940 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Not unless your name is " you guys". So why are the graphs containing the heat content of the oceans linked to the atmospheric warming being produced by the AGW crowd (scare tactics it would seem)

  The graphs showing both ocean heat content and surface temperatures are a response to the denial meme "no warming since xxxx" Clearly there is warming but the manifestation of that warming is subject to variability. These are not scare tactics, they are facts.   

> Either the oceans are heating the atmosphere or atmosphere is heating  the oceans, choose one if you like then try to explain how CO2 is  causing it.

  See post 8940, or read up on basic climate science and CO2 physics. 
woodbe

----------


## intertd6

I've read post #8940 cover to cover, but I'm not bright enough or imaginative enough to join those dots that don't exist.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> I've read post #8940 cover to cover, but I'm not bright enough or imaginative enough to join those dots that don't exist.

  Well, I for one think you're bright enough. If you are actually interested, you better get reading:  The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Either the oceans are heating the atmosphere or atmosphere is heating the oceans, choose one if you like then try to explain how CO2 is causing it.
> regards inter

  Neither.  The sun is heating both air and ocean.  The ocean has a greater capacity to retain that heat than the air.  However, the extra CO2 and the other GHGs that humans have added to the atmosphere have added to the capacity of the atmosphere to retain a tiny but significant portion of the heat energy that would normally be 'lost' back into space. Of course it is somewhat more complicated than that...

----------


## Rod Dyson

A bit of sense into the climate change debate.  
Come on guys cut this to ribbons.  50 to 1 Video Project | Topher.com.au

----------


## woodbe

> A bit of sense into the climate change debate.  
> Come on guys cut this to ribbons.  50 to 1 Video Project | Topher.com.au

  In your dreams, Rod. 
Post something here you wish to discuss, not links to other sites and nothing else. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Neither.  The sun is heating both air and ocean.  The ocean has a greater capacity to retain that heat than the air.  However, the extra CO2 and the other GHGs that humans have added to the atmosphere have added to the capacity of the atmosphere to retain a tiny but significant portion of the heat energy that would normally be 'lost' back into space. Of course it is somewhat more complicated than that...

   I don't believe that last bit, the first bit is correct until the. CO2 mention.
regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

At least one error in the first minute; "worlds biggest carbon tax".
The bunch of clowns starring in this have been proven wrong many times before, if anyone is too lazy to look that up for themselves nothing I can add will help. https://newmatilda.com/2012/05/09/ou...really-biggest

----------


## PhilT2

Sorry, missed another error in that first minute. "despite a lack of action in the rest of the world". Don't consider that true esp for the EU.

----------


## johnc

The 50.1 banner is a dreadful one, there are no corresponding impacts of efficiency savings that mitigation brings or costs from a planet that increasingly warms. It is a big economic costing fail, especially when you see one of the experts is nothing but the propagandist Marc Murano, there is no balance or attempt of balance just the usual band of anti global warming evangelists. The only reason you would post it as a link without discussion would be if you failed to understand it yourself, an act of faith that is undeserved.

----------


## woodbe

> I don't believe that last bit, the first bit is correct until the. CO2 mention.
> regards inter

  So you didn't read the The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect I offered for you to learn about how CO2 influences the climate? Or perhaps you did, and you have an alternative proposal also supported by scientific research? If so, would you like to share it with us? 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I don't believe that last bit...

  ...which is, pretty much, the nub of the 'problem'.  Question is...is that a belief based in science or politics? Naturally, this question applies to both sides of the Divide.  
By the by...here's a quite nicely written recent article about the state of climate modelling ECOS Magazine - Towards A Sustainable Future

----------


## PhilT2

I just tracked down one of the references (Wong. 2010) provided in the 50-1 video and it seems to me not to say what they claim it says.  http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...51495398,d.dGI

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I just tracked down one of the references (Wong. 2010) provided in the 50-1 video and it seems to me not to say what they claim it says.  http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...51495398,d.dGI

  
Good to see you are working on it!!

----------


## PhilT2

Over at Sou's blog there is a few posts on how bad the 50-1 video is, with a closer look at the math and the source of some of the quotes. With all those big numbers I couldn't imagine that he just pulled them out of his a***. Well really he didn't, they came out of Monckton's. HotWhopper

----------


## intertd6

> So you didn't read the The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect I offered for you to learn about how CO2 influences the climate? Or perhaps you did, and you have an alternative proposal also supported by scientific research? If so, would you like to share it with us? 
> woodbe.

  this has been done over & over & over & over ....................& over & regurgicated here, but nothing is matching the CO2 predictions from the past to present, my theory is that particulates, photo chemical smog, heat trapped in inversion layers within a few hundred meters above GL  & a few others are the causes of the warming, as the airborne pollution is being cleaned up so too has the warming flattened off, this is just my observation from travelling to the nthn hemisphere , standing on top of a Swiss mountaintop & being able to see 60km to another mountain in Austria but then looking down to the valley below & not being able to see the valley floor because of the smog layer, this layer carpeted Europe, nth America & Asia, what the warmists try do is to compare volcanic eruptions to this smog layer, the main difference being is that volcanic ash is carried high in the jets streams & stops & catches the heat at this level, whereas smog catches the heat close to the earths surface from above & below, basically you can see it , feel it , smell it & taste it, in other words its very glaringly obvious. Also in the grand scheme of things I wouldn't even rate as an apprentice layperson.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> smog catches the heat close to the earths surface from above & below, basically you can see it , feel it , smell it & taste it, in other words its very glaringly obvious.

  Classic denial. 
If you went to the doctor thinking you had a cold, and after the examination he tells you that after considering your symptoms he is 97% sure you have the flu, you would continue to believe you had a cold, right? 
Because, like Climate Scientists, Doctors are trained in a specialist area to objectively consider all the available information using a scientific background.  
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ....basically you can see it , feel it , smell it & taste it, in other words its very glaringly obvious.

  ..which goes a long way to explaining why you (and so many others) have intellectually run aground on it.

----------


## intertd6

> Classic denial. 
> If you went to the doctor thinking you had a cold, and after the examination he tells you that after considering your symptoms he is 97% sure you have the flu, you would continue to believe you had a cold, right? 
> Because, like Climate Scientists, Doctors are trained in a specialist area to objectively consider all the available information using a scientific background.  
> woodbe.

  Or it could be the case of the boffins actually getting out of the lab & looking at real causes & effects instead of flogging dead theory's. What this has to do with medicine lord only knows.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> ..which goes a long way to explaining why you (and so many others) have intellectually run aground on it.

  Well those highly regarded intellectual climate scientists are laying really low since their temperature models are virtually no longer valid, just remember some of the most complex problems in history have been solved by some nobody passing by & saying " have you tried this "
I know I'm just another head in the flock, but when the mob moves at pace in a direction on a guess then I will always step to the side & let the mob run by. Baaaaaa!!!!!!
Regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Or it could be the case of the boffins actually getting out of the lab & looking at real causes & effects instead of flogging dead theory's. What this has to do with medicine lord only knows.
> regards inter

  Yep. Classic, with a bit of Dunning Kruger thrown in. 
So you think that Climate Science involves ignoring 'real' causes and effects.  
I think I mentioned what this has to do with medicine. Both are based on scientific enquiry. Both develop theories based on the best available evidence over time. They're both chips off the same block. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Had a great belly laugh today! 
Driving down Hoddle St in peak hour traffic there were a bunch of young people on the overpass with signs saying' *"honk if you support action on climate change"* 
LOL I wound down the window, and despite these people jumping around and waving the placards *NOT A SINGLE HORN HONKED. * You would thing the greatest challenge of our time would have a deafening blasting of horns eh?   :Smilie:  some people must be getting smart!!

----------


## PhilT2

> some people must be getting smart!!

  Well people will at least have a chance of getting smarter now that Maquarie university has terminated Murray Salby. Bob Carter has gone from James Cook too, so things are looking up.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Well people will at least have a chance of getting smarter now that Maquarie university has terminated Murray Salby. Bob Carter has gone from James Cook too, so things are looking up.

  Well I think you will find the smartest of all, (Australian Public), will find another prominent person tossed out of their job on Saturday and with the CARBON TAX.

----------


## Rod Dyson

See even the papers are starting to get smarter!!

----------


## woodbe

> See even the papers are starting to get smarter!!

  I'm guessing I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony in this statement. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> I'm guessing I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony in this statement. 
> woodbe.

   I think someone famously said you can never underestimate the intelligence of the Australian public. Some mistakenly think it is a compliment but it is not. Our politicians from all sides are relying on that factor when we vote Saturday. I would urge anyone voting to think carefully about their vote and make sure they vote for the party that represents their views. Remember your first vote in the lower house does count even if you are in a safe electorate as your number one will receive a little over $2 in electoral funding from the Commonwealth, don't waste it.

----------


## PhilT2

> See even the papers are starting to get smarter!!

  Not quite sure what you're trying to say here.Do you mean that when something interesting happens with climate change newspapers write about it? That's a funny thing for a newspaper to do. The graph doesn't say whether the articles were for or against, or even if they were accurate. Makes the whole thing a bit stupid and totally pointless. That must mean it came from WUWT.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Not quite sure what you're trying to say here.Do you mean that when something interesting happens with climate change newspapers write about it? That's a funny thing for a newspaper to do. The graph doesn't say whether the articles were for or against, or even if they were accurate. Makes the whole thing a bit stupid and totally pointless. That must mean it came from WUWT.

  LOL you know exactly what it means. 
If you really believe what you write here, this comment shows how you view things IMO.  No wonder so many are completely sucked in by AGW, also no wonder so many are seeing it for what it is.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> See even the papers are starting to get smarter!!

   :Doh:  :Biggrin:  :No: .... :Biggrin:  if it were only as simple as you'd like to think it is.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Well those highly regarded intellectual climate scientists are laying really low since their temperature models are virtually no longer valid...

  You wish.  They are all still out there...researching, publishing and sharing information.  It's all still happening...plenty going on if you care to look outside your own little world.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> .... if it were only as simple as you'd like to think it is.

  Sometimes it is that simple.  More and more people can smell a rat in AGW.  Why is that? You could say its because of the failure of all the huge scares put out by activists and scientist who used the climate models as "settled" science, only to find that the models are so far out of wack that any attempt to defend them just makes the defender look even worse. 
Time to call a spade a spade rather than looking for ways of sugar coating cr-- . 
Anyway we have come this far we are a patient.

----------


## MrIronic

Neither. The sun is heating both air and ocean. The ocean has a greater capacity to retain that heat than the air. However, the extra CO2 and the other GHGs that humans have added to the atmosphere have added to the capacity of the atmosphere to retain a tiny but significant portion of the heat energy that would normally be 'lost' back into space. Of course it is somewhat more complicated than that... 
--------------------------------------------- 
Yes, but no, but yes...  
The word retain is the problem here. 
No heat is 'Trapped' it is the dwell time of the radiation (out) that is extended. 
Hope that helps.

----------


## intertd6

> You wish.  They are all still out there...researching, publishing and sharing information.  It's all still happening...plenty going on if you care to look outside your own little world.

    And don't we know it,  by seeing utter wop come out about Australia sucking up the globes rainfall & lowering the sea levels to try & keep the failed dream alive about CO2 causing irreversible global warming, I wonder what mad theory their dreaming up now when that one crashes & burns.
regards

----------


## intertd6

> Neither. The sun is heating both air and ocean. The ocean has a greater capacity to retain that heat than the air. However, the extra CO2 and the other GHGs that humans have added to the atmosphere have added to the capacity of the atmosphere to retain a tiny but significant portion of the heat energy that would normally be 'lost' back into space. Of course it is somewhat more complicated than that... 
> --------------------------------------------- 
> Yes, but no, but yes...  
> The word retain is the problem here. 
> No heat is 'Trapped' it is the dwell time of the radiation (out) that is extended. 
> Hope that helps.

  
So all that photochemical smog, particulates etc,etc,etc, that has mass & the real capability absorbing solar radiation &  heat convection close to the earths surface is being totally disregarded, mmmmmmm, silly me.
regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

> So all that photochemical smog, particulates etc,etc,etc, that has mass & the real capability absorbing solar radiation &  heat convection close to the earths surface is being totally disregarded, mmmmmmm, silly me.
> regards inter

  There's more particles in the air than just smog. Their effects have been studied for a quite a while as they help with cloud formation and hopefully rain. One of the most common particles in the atmosphere is salt, stirred up by winds over the ocean. The other is dust from the deserts of the world. Both these are reflective and result in cooling. Soot is not ignored; its contribution is significant but overwhelmed by the other two because of the size of the oceans and deserts. Volcanoes like Pinatubo emitted sulphates into the upper atmosphere. These are reflective and resulted in cooling as well. There's plenty of evidence for this if you want to look for it and more important there is no credible alternative view put by the other side.  
Same goes for the rainfall causing a drop in sea level; if you want to check over the calculations of those scientists and show us where they went wrong we are willing to have a look at it. We'll be looking foward to it.

----------


## intertd6

> There's more particles in the air than just smog. Their effects have been studied for a quite a while as they help with cloud formation and hopefully rain. One of the most common particles in the atmosphere is salt, stirred up by winds over the ocean. The other is dust from the deserts of the world. Both these are reflective and result in cooling. Soot is not ignored; its contribution is significant but overwhelmed by the other two because of the size of the oceans and deserts. Volcanoes like Pinatubo emitted sulphates into the upper atmosphere. These are reflective and resulted in cooling as well. There's plenty of evidence for this if you want to look for it and more important there is no credible alternative view put by the other side.  
> Same goes for the rainfall causing a drop in sea level; if you want to check over the calculations of those scientists and show us where they went wrong we are willing to have a look at it. We'll be looking foward to it.

  I believe you would be confusing natural airborne particles vs man made pollution, of which the latter blankets the first couple of hundred meters of the atmosphere, which can't be in anyway confused with volcanic ash which is carried in the jet streams & any heat reflected is well documented in history. Now as quoted by some warmist the atmosphere is like a doona, now when that doona has real mass which can retain heat, anybody would take this seriously as a contributor to warming.
Any clown can just look at any statistic & match it to anything that suits their cause, a bit like the CO2 rise matching the temp rise until it stopped matching anything to do with it. When the rainfall in Australia is linked to all the variable conditions of all the other continents & the globe ( which is impossible to at the present ) then that's the time to take it seriously.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> I believe you would be confusing natural airborne particles vs man made pollution, of which the latter blankets the first couple of hundred meters of the atmosphere, which can't be in anyway confused with volcanic ash which is carried in the jet streams & any heat reflected is well documented in history. Now as quoted by some warmist the atmosphere is like a doona, now when that doona has real mass which can retain heat, anybody would take this seriously as a contributor to warming.
> Any clown can just look at any statistic & match it to anything that suits their cause, a bit like the CO2 rise matching the temp rise until it stopped matching anything to do with it. When the rainfall in Australia is linked to all the variable conditions of all the other continents & the globe ( which is impossible to at the present ) then that's the time to take it seriously.
> regards inter

  Actually the weather including of course rainfall is linked in some way to weather all over the world. Are you suggesting that it is not, that a contained system like the earth is just a series of independent weather zones? Sure it is a very complex mechanism powered by the sun but it is linked. While any clown can match any statistic it takes a real clown to keep reaching for ever more desperate links to explain away a lack of capacity to engage in clear thought. Both sides can be accused of that at times but to hold fast to one position without change no matter what the item of information is that may test it is not the sign of an engaged mind. WUWT and Jo Nova are two that come to mind that started well but increasingly seem shrill and out of tune with the information now coming forward.

----------


## woodbe

> Any clown can just look at any statistic & match it to anything that suits their cause,

  Inter, I think you just called yourself a clown.  :Eek:  
Once again, please cite research showing that climate science is based upon ignoring known signals like man made pollution, there is plenty to show that it is included. eg a, b. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Inter, I think you just called yourself a clown.  
> Once again, please cite research showing that climate science is based upon ignoring known signals like man made pollution, there is plenty to show that it is included. eg a, b. 
> woodbe.

  I wouldn't be surprised you would think that at all, after all when you join all those imaginary dots to come to imaginary conclusions, heres an obvious little thing to consider, man is burning around 3 km/3 of crude oil a year and about 7,500 million tonnes of coal a year now say we estimate that the exhaust temperature of that burning is around 400'C , now 
say we multiply the exhaust volume by the exhaust temperature & off the top of my head it would tell me that hundreds if thousands if not millions of km/3 per annum of the atmosphere are being heated to 400'C which is trapped under a inversion layer of photochemical smog, particulates, haze, etc, etc which it is producing, now  even myself with a limited amount of intelligence above that of a sheep I would expect that to have an obvious measurable warming effect. Baaaaa!
regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

> I wouldn't be surprised you would think that at all, after all when you join all those imaginary dots to come to imaginary conclusions, heres an obvious little thing to consider, man is burning around 3 km/3 of crude oil a year and about 7,500 million tonnes of coal a year now say we estimate that the exhaust temperature of that burning is around 400'C , now 
> say we multiply the exhaust volume by the exhaust temperature & off the top of my head it would tell me that hundreds if thousands if not millions of km/3 per annum of the atmosphere are being heated to 400'C which is trapped under a inversion layer of photochemical smog, particulates, haze, etc, etc which it is producing, now  even myself with a limited amount of intelligence above that of a sheep I would expect that to have an obvious measurable warming effect. Baaaaa!
> regards inter

  What you're talking about here is called anthropogenic heat flux, its been studied for quite a while and is even included in the calculations done with climate models. Most scientists seem to agree that it contributes about 1% to global warming. There are plenty of papers about it, not all readily accessible online but with a bit of effort you should be able to find one that shows the math that they used to justify their findings. Happy to look at any faults you find in their calculations.

----------


## woodbe

> I wouldn't be surprised you would think that at all, after all when you join all those imaginary dots to come to imaginary conclusions, heres an obvious little thing to consider, man is burning around 3 km/3 of crude oil a year and about 7,500 million tonnes of coal a year now say we estimate that the exhaust temperature of that burning is around 400'C , now 
> say we multiply the exhaust volume by the exhaust temperature & off the top of my head it would tell me that hundreds if thousands if not millions of km/3 per annum of the atmosphere are being heated to 400'C which is trapped under a inversion layer of photochemical smog, particulates, haze, etc, etc which it is producing, now  even myself with a limited amount of intelligence above that of a sheep I would expect that to have an obvious measurable warming effect. Baaaaa!
> regards inter

  Once again, again,  please cite research showing that climate science is based  upon ignoring known signals like man made pollution, there is plenty to  show that it is included. eg a, b, and now c:  *Is the direct release of heat due to combustion of fossil fuels  negligible relative to the indirect effect of heat trapped by greenhouse  gases?*    

> In summary, the direct release of heat due to combustion of fossil fuels  is very minor in relation to the indirect effect of heat trapped by  greenhouse gases emitted during the combustion. The indirect effect  continues to increase in significance over time, as additional energy is  accumulated in the earth system as long as the GHGs remain in the  atmosphere.

  So direct heat from combustion isn't one of those 'magic bullets' you're looking for... 
Grasping at straws might help support your opinion, but it does not reflect the state of our scientific knowledge, and those straws certainly don't stand up to inspection.  
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

So the agitators, regurgitators and assorted CO2 haters are still at it, running around in circles arms stretched upwards shouting, -"The sky is falling  the sky is falling stop breathing now ..."    
Fortunately TODAY IS 07/09/13 .... yessssss the day of reckoning has arrived and I GET TO HAVE MY SAY on all this waste, mismanagement and religious green bigotry. The end of the green idiocy and all their associate do gooders I-know-better-what-is-good-for-you types. 
Aaah the satisfaction of slipping that paper in the box and nail one more nail in the coffin of the green/labor crap we had to endure for 6 years has no comparison. Better than sex.  :2thumbsup:  :Biggrin:  :Wink:  :Smilie:  :Wink 1:  :Arrow Up:

----------


## Marc

*Global Warming theory has failed all tests, so alarmists return to the 97% consensus hoax*  Posted on June 5, 2013    by Anthony Watts  * Guest essay by Joseph DAleo, CCM, Weatherbell Analytics* 
National Academies of Science defines a scientific theory asa well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.Dr Richard Feynman, Cornell Physicist in a lecture explained how theorys that failed the test of data or experiment are falsified (wrong) and must be discarded. *Global Warming Theory Has Failed* 
(1) Warming not global. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only 
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s 
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated. 
(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards. 
(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940. 
(6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios 
(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.
(8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s. 
(9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors. 
(10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10 
(11) Alarmists predicted an increase in hurricane frequency and strength globally but the global activity had diminished after 2005 to a 30+ year low. The U.S. has gone seven consecutive years without a landfalling major hurricane, the longest stretch since the 1860s 
(12) Alarmists have predicted a significant increase in heat records but despite heat last two summers, the 1930s to 1950s still greatly dominated the heat records. Even in Texas at the center of the 2011 heat wave, the long term (since 1895) trends in both temperature and precipitation are flat. And when stations with over 80 years of temperature data were considered, the number of heat records last July were not extraordinary relative to past hot summers. 
(13) Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen 
(14) Alarmists indicated winter would become warmer and short. The last 15 years has seen a decline in winter temperatures in all regions. In places winter have been the coldest and longest in decades and even centuries. 
(15) Alarmists had indicated snow would become increasingly rare in middle latitudes especially in the big cities where warming would be greatest. All time snow records were set in virtually all the major cities and northern hemisphere snow coverage in winter has increased with 4 of the top 5 years since 2007/08. Also among the east coast high impact snowstorms tracked by NOAA (NESIS), 11 of the 46 have occurred since 2009. 
(16) Alarmists had indicated a decline of Antarctic ice due to warming.  The upward trends since 1979 continues. 
(17) Alarmists had indicated Greenland and arctic ice melt would accelerate. The arctic ice tracks with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the IARC shows the ice cover was similarly reduced in the 1950s when the Atlantic was last in a similar warm mode. In Greenland, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s still dominates the records and longer term temperatures have declined. 
(18) Sea level rise was to accelerate upward due to melting ice and warming. Sea levels actually slowed in the late 20th century and have declined or flattened the last few years. Manipulation of data (adjustment for land rises following the last glaciation) has been applied to hide this from the public. 
(19) Alarmists claimed that drought western snowpack would diminish and forest fires would increase in summer. Snowpack and water equivalent were at or near record levels in recent winters from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. Glaciers are advancing.  Fires have declined. 
(20) Alaska was said to be warming with retreating glaciers. But that warming is tied intimately to the PDO and thr North Pacific pattern NP and happens instantly with the flips from cold to warm and warm to cold. Two of the coldest and snowiest winters on records occurred since the PDO/NP flipped cold again (2007/08 and 2011/12). January 2012 was the coldest on record in many towns and cities and snowfall was running 160 inches above normal in parts of the south. Anchorage Alaska set an all time record for seasonal snow in 2011/12. In 2007/08, glaciers all advanced for the first time since the Little Ice Age. In 2011/12, the Bering Sea ice set a new high in the satellite era. Latest ever ice out date records were set in May 2013. 
(21) Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier was to disappear due to global warming. Temperatures show no warming in recent decades. The reduction in glacial ice was due to deforestation near the base and the state of the AMO. The glaciers have advanced again in recent years 
(22) Polar bears were claimed to be threatened. Polar bear populations instead have increased to record levels and threaten the populace. 
(23) Australian drought was forecast to become permanent. Steps to protect against floods were defunded. Major flooding did major damage and rainfall has been abundant in recent years tied to the PDO and La Nina as predicted by honest scientists in Australia. All years with La Nina and cold PDO composited show this rainfall. Drought was associated with El Ninos and warm PDO fro 1977 to 1998 
(24) The office of the Inspector General report found that the EPA cut corners and short-circuited the required peer review process for its December 2009 endangerment finding, which is the foundation for EPAs plan to regulate greenhouse gases. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirmed that EPAs Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program-which EPA acknowledges is the scientific foundation for decisions  is flawed, echoing previous concerns from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that the agency is basing its decisions on shoddy scientific work. 
(25) Of 18,531 citations in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, 5,587 or 30% were non-peer-reviewed material, including activist tracts, press releases, and in one amazing case, Version One of a Draft. In important instances, IPCC lead authors chose non-peer-reviewed material, or papers of low credibility, favoring their argument, in the face of prolific peer-reviewed material to the contrary. Instances include alleged climate relevance to malaria, hurricanes, species extinction, and sea levels.
Given the failures of global warming science, just a few mentioned here, the most disreputable alarmists like Oreskes, Cook and Trenberth and the demagogue party have tried to convince the uniformed by using the consensus argument. See the latest failed attempt here.  It was also described on Forbes here.Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because youre being had. Lets be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology*Related articles*   Benchmarking IPCCs warming predictions (wattsupwiththat.com)Schellnhuber Slips, Confirms Ocean Cycles Do Play A Major Role, Yet Hasnt Added Them To Climate Models (notrickszone.com)To the Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here (forbes.com)

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So the agitators, regurgitators and assorted CO2 haters are still at it, running around in circles arms stretched upwards shouting, -"The sky is falling the sky is falling stop breathing now ..."  
> Fortunately TODAY IS 07/09/13 .... yessssss the day of reckoning has arrived and I GET TO HAVE MY SAY on all this waste, mismanagement and religious green bigotry. The end of the green idiocy and all their associate do gooders I-know-better-what-is-good-for-you types. 
> Aaah the satisfaction of slipping that paper in the box and nail one more nail in the coffin of the green/labor crap we had to endure for 6 years has no comparison. Better than sex.

  What a GREAT DAY!!  Good bye Carbon tax.. 
ELECTION DAY oh how we have waited for this opportunity. 
What a waste of 6 years. 
Its time to go........... RUDD.

----------


## woodbe

> *Global Warming theory has failed all tests, so alarmists return to the 97% consensus hoax*  Posted on June 5, 2013    by Anthony Watts  * Guest essay by Joseph DAleo, CCM, Weatherbell Analytics*

  Aren't these the authors of the failed surfacestations paper? Predictable that this is just a list of denier opinions published as a crowd pleaser on a denier blog.    
Voting against climate change might make you happy, or in Marc's case, wet your pants  :Eek:  , but it won't change the science.  :Tongue:  
woodbe

----------


## johnc

> So the agitators, regurgitators and assorted CO2 haters are still at it, running around in circles arms stretched upwards shouting, -"The sky is falling the sky is falling stop breathing now ..."  
> Fortunately TODAY IS 07/09/13 .... yessssss the day of reckoning has arrived and I GET TO HAVE MY SAY on all this waste, mismanagement and religious green bigotry. The end of the green idiocy and all their associate do gooders I-know-better-what-is-good-for-you types. 
> Aaah the satisfaction of slipping that paper in the box and nail one more nail in the coffin of the green/labor crap we had to endure for 6 years has no comparison. Better than sex.

  
Sorry to hear you have such a mundane and boring sex life, i found filling out the senate paper about as exciting as watching paint dry.

----------


## MrIronic

So all that photochemical smog, particulates etc,etc,etc, that has mass & the real capability absorbing solar radiation & heat convection close to the earths surface is being totally disregarded, mmmmmmm, silly me. ----------------------------------------  I'm not entirely sure what you are asking...  but yes, these things are taken into account in the modeling.  Weather they have attributed a correct amount... is well, arguable.

----------


## MrIronic

22) Polar bears were claimed to be threatened. Polar bear populations instead have increased to record levels and threaten the populace. ------------------------------------------------------- 
Yeah that was one of the dumber, 'feel good about a bear' arguments, while shooting them on mainland...

----------


## intertd6

> Once again, again,  please cite research showing that climate science is based  upon ignoring known signals like man made pollution, there is plenty to  show that it is included. eg a, b, and now c:  *Is the direct release of heat due to combustion of fossil fuels  negligible relative to the indirect effect of heat trapped by greenhouse  gases?*    
> So direct heat from combustion isn't one of those 'magic bullets' you're looking for... 
> Grasping at straws might help support your opinion, but it does not reflect the state of our scientific knowledge, and those straws certainly don't stand up to inspection.  
> woodbe.

  if your reading anything I have said all along that this is my theory & bounced some simple numbers around in my a previous post, it's only stick your head out the window & observe what's going on around you, but with many variables that havent been investigated thoroughly as CO2 has been the magic golden bullet theory, there has been very little investigation combining all the variables . Seeing the CO2 theory isnt meeting its predictions, maybe its time to cast the net a bit wider & not dismiss theory's that actually produce heat in he first instance then have a capability of carrying heat from captured solar energy. 
If your that confident that CO2 is the culprit of AGW just pop up the proven calculation or test that shows how it can achieve a global temperature increase by 1'C  by changing the atmospheres concentration of CO2 by 100 parts per million 
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Aren't these the authors of the failed surfacestations paper? Predictable that this is just a list of denier opinions published as a crowd pleaser on a denier blog.    
> Voting against climate change might make you happy, or in Marc's case, wet your pants  , but it won't change the science.  
> woodbe

  To get straight to it, how about just telling us which of those 25 points in Marc's post are not true with a simple explanation, after all its a for or against debate & we don't really care who writes what.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

This may come as a surprise but some posts are that obviously flawed that even your rather jaundiced view should recognise them for the unsubstantiated rubbish that they are.

----------


## Rod Dyson

:Aussie5:  :Balloons:  :Party:  :Cheerleader:  :Cheerleader:  :Tequila:  :Drinks Wine:  
Kevin Rudd  :Death:  
Carbon Tax  :Minigun:  :Rip:  :Fireworks:  :Fireworks:  
Man I am HAPPY

----------


## woodbe

> To get straight to it, how about just telling us which of those 25 points in Marc's post are not true with a simple explanation, after all its a for or against debate & we don't really care who writes what.
> regards inter

  So you're giving up on your fictional story about the cause of warming being the 400C burning of fossil fuels? 
Re Jo D'aleo's 25 denier memes, here's a start: HotWhopper: Joseph DAleo Fails Meteorology 101 on WUWT Seeing as Jo didn't waste any words supporting his memes, why should anyone waste time pointing out the obvious errors? 
They've been done to death, no need to repeat them yet again. Wake me up when D'aleo publishes them in a peer reviewed journal.  :Cool:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> So you're giving up on your fictional story about the cause of warming being the 400C burning of fossil fuels? 
> Re Jo D'aleo's 25 denier memes, here's a start: HotWhopper: Joseph DAleo Fails Meteorology 101 on WUWT Seeing as Jo didn't waste any words supporting his memes, why should anyone waste time pointing out the obvious errors? 
> They've been done to death, no need to repeat them yet again. Wake me up when D'aleo publishes them in a peer reviewed journal.  
> woodbe.

  tennis anyone?
regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

Good to see we have elected a party with a real plan to deal with climate change.  *We have a Plan for Real Action*  *10. Reduce carbon emissions* 
           10 of 12                   We will take direct action to reduce carbon emissions inside  Australia, not overseas  and also establish a 15,000-strong Green Army  to clean up the environment.  https://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan/environment 
Also good to see that Melbourne has re-elected a Green to the House of Reps, must have been all that horn honking that got him in.  _Rod Dyson  _ _                          Had a great belly laugh today! 
Driving down Hoddle St in peak hour traffic there were a bunch of young people on the overpass with signs saying' "honk if you support action on climate change" 
LOL I wound down the window, and despite these people jumping around and waving the placards NOT A SINGLE HORN HONKED.  You would thing the greatest challenge of our time would have a deafening blasting of horns eh?   some people must be getting smart!!        _ 
Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/newrepl...#ixzz2eE54xlBX 
Queenslanders on the other hand couldn't bring themselves to vote for either Rudd or Abbott so voted for Clive Palmer,who may also have the balance of power in the senate. We are never going to be allowed to forget this.

----------


## Marc

> Good to see we have elected a party with a real plan to deal with climate change.

  "Deal with climate change" ?  Do you mean STOP climate change?  
Why on earth would anyone want to stop the change that has been happening for ever? Change is a fundamental characteristic of climate.
Questions like: who decides to change? do you have a set temperature in mind? Is the thermostat being built already? come to mind. 
Oh, silly me, you use a metaphor to say "Man made global warming" because it is so discredited that you can not name it directly.
I have news for you. No one really believes that man made global warming exists, besides the fringe lunatics, the preppers, those that do not vaccinate their children, and left handed vegan with one blue and one brown eye that live in the Blue mountains or Tasmania. 
However, politicians love to attract voters and a vote from the fringe is a vote. So politicians from Labor, Liberal and green alike have a corner reserved for non smokers ... oops I mean for Global Warming Alarmist. Labor used that link to make our life a misery for an extra 3 years. Without it they wouldn't be able to form government. Liberals invented the green army policy, greens like to use this argument to gel forces for their own social policies like reduce the world population to one billion. 
Eventually, AGW will go the way of the flat earth hypothesis or geocentric universe, and politicians will find other ways to attract the fringe vote. 
(May be "Vote for the rights of the noxious weed!" ... or "Free Marijuana for the children!" 
Meantime lets enjoy 2 or perhaps 3 terms of right wing policies that will allow the normal person to make money and enjoy life without the ranting and raving of the green religious bigots.

----------


## intertd6

Well look which direction things are going now, surprise surprise! Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph
regards inter

----------


## johnc

Australia has just had it's hottest year on record, this quote just like the previous post is meaningless on its own as it is without context.

----------


## Marc

> Australia has just had it's hottest year on record, this quote just like the previous post is meaningless on its own as it is without context.

   Not true, simply a manipulation changing how average and "hottest" is defined and calculated.  
However. 
If it is hotter, warming, hottest, all of that is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the cause. Because if it is natural, worrying about weather changes is stupid since there is nothing we can do about it. It is a bit like worrying about your age. 
And if it is man made, again, all the proposed "solutions" are as stupid as those who believe them to be a solution. They are simple commercial gimmicks that exploit people latest fad and preoccupations. 
If, and this is a big if not yet proven and in fact proven to be wrong over and over, but lets entertain your belief for a second...IF...there is a threat to global stability in the form of man made warming, then the only solution at this point in time is the reduction of number of humans inhabiting the planet,since no technical solution is at hand. Solar wind waves and the rest of the cr@p require more energy and pollute more and produce more co2 to be made than they save.
So the only one that are on the money are the radical greens who propose a reduction from 6 billions to one billion, so knocking off 5 people out of 6. If that is what you want, I am curious as to how you would like to achieve this.
Just curious.

----------


## johnc

> Not true, simply a manipulation changing how average and "hottest" is defined and calculated.  
> However. 
> If it is hotter, warming, hottest, all of that is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the cause. Because if it is natural, worrying about weather changes is stupid since there is nothing we can do about it. It is a bit like worrying about your age. 
> And if it is man made, again, all the proposed "solutions" are as stupid as those who believe them to be a solution. They are simple commercial gimmicks that exploit people latest fad and preoccupations. 
> If, and this is a big if not yet proven and in fact proven to be wrong over and over, but lets entertain your belief for a second...IF...there is a threat to global stability in the form of man made warming, then the only solution at this point in time is the reduction of number of humans inhabiting the planet,since no technical solution is at hand. Solar wind waves and the rest of the cr@p require more energy and pollute more and produce more co2 to be made than they save.
> So the only one that are on the money are the radical greens who propose a reduction from 6 billions to one billion, so knocking off 5 people out of 6. If that is what you want, I am curious as to how you would like to achieve this.
> Just curious.

       Stop with the lies, it is one thing to run a contrarian argument it is another to stuff it with porkies. At no point will you find green policy about forcing reductions on global population. At best you may find discussion on population size, which you will find anywhere as countries try to manage urban growth. This sort of extremist stuff does no credit to the writer and finds them wanting in the ability to analyse anything approaching the application of lucid thought.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Well look which direction things are going now, surprise surprise! Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph
> regards inter

  I see no change in direction...just a continuing sideways drift - either to the Right or the Left, depending on natural cycles.  :Sneaktongue:   
Now where's this Direct Action I keep being promised?  I want my cut.  It's going to be so much better than Pink Batts!!

----------


## Hoff

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian 
Looks like the best of both worlds is a possibility. Carbon Tax gone, and an excuse not to proceed with the Direct Action plan.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian 
> Looks like the best of both worlds is a possibility. Carbon Tax gone, and an excuse not to proceed with the Direct Action plan.

  Surely we cant be that lucky?  Can we??

----------


## johnc

While I understand Rod's sentiment given his stand on carbon emissions I'm not sure about using the term lucky. Tony Abbott come July 1st is going to get a senate with a slew of minor parties holding the balance of power. To get legislation through he may find a gaggle of new, inexperienced and possibly nutty first termers harder to manage than the task of herding cats, should be interesting come July 1st next year but I suspect we may get very tired of this band of individuals who have managed to get in on the smallest of prime votes simply because they have been able exploit the pitfalls of above the line voting.

----------


## Hoff

> To get legislation through he may find a gaggle of new, inexperienced and *possibly nutty* first termers .

  Jury is still out on their nuttiness for the new guys, but is definitely in on their Green counterparts.  And with a 25% decline in their vote(reps), seems the people are starting to figure it out.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> While I understand Rod's sentiment given his stand on carbon emissions I'm not sure about using the term lucky...

  I wouldn't be too concerned, John.  In the general scheme of things...the difference in impact between doing not very much (till now) and doing nothing at all (going forward) is near enough to sod all.  So, despite the apparent political 'upheaval', I suspect a few years of Tony Time will be as insignificant in the long term as the last lot were.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Surely we cant be that lucky?  Can we??

  Hope so...though be very careful what you wish for.  The carbon tax was an 'interim measure' and Direct Action has the potential to be an ineffective Pork Barrel but the removal of both still leaves the door open for Emission Trading and this is something that many of the Lib's natural constituents (banking/financial industry, agriculture, international commodity traders etc) can make quite a few bucks on.  Never forget the power of the filthy lucre to generate policy adjustments 'going forward'.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Hope so...though be very careful what you wish for. The carbon tax was an 'interim measure' and Direct Action has the potential to be an ineffective Pork Barrel but the removal of both still leaves the door open for Emission Trading and this is something that many of the Lib's natural constituents (banking/financial industry, agriculture, international commodity traders etc) can make quite a few bucks on. Never forget the power of the filthy lucre to generate policy adjustments 'going forward'.

  Whatever they do it will achieve nothing. Except to line some pockets. 
With a bit of luck they will do nothing.  At least planting some trees is a positive with or without AGW. No long term harm done there.

----------


## barney118

If CO2 was responsible for warming why is it I havent seen a lab experiment where you have 2 atmospheres (inert) exposed to the sun and Cold (refrigerator) ie a see through box and pump in CO2 and control the variation in CO2 to backup such theory, you would also need to test at different levels in the atmosphere like at -57 deg at the tropopause etc.

----------


## PhilT2

> If CO2 was responsible for warming why is it I havent seen a lab experiment where you have 2 atmospheres (inert) exposed to the sun and Cold (refrigerator) ie a see through box and pump in CO2 and control the variation in CO2 to backup such theory, you would also need to test at different levels in the atmosphere like at -57 deg at the tropopause etc.

  I don't know why you haven't seen any articles on the properties of co2, how many different scientific journals have you searched? It might be a bit hard to find basic articles on the greenhouse effect as the research on that was done in the 1820's. If you want information on how the capacity of co2 to absorb heat changes with temperature then you may need to go back to the 1930's. There is some more research into co2 that was done by the military as they sought to develop and improve heat seeking (infra-red) missiles in different levels of the atmosphere. That should be available somewhere.

----------


## intertd6

> I don't know why you haven't seen any articles on the properties of co2, how many different scientific journals have you searched? It might be a bit hard to find basic articles on the greenhouse effect as the research on that was done in the 1820's. If you want information on how the capacity of co2 to absorb heat changes with temperature then you may need to go back to the 1930's. There is some more research into co2 that was done by the military as they sought to develop and improve heat seeking (infra-red) missiles in different levels of the atmosphere. That should be available somewhere.

  well if you have so much proof just pop up some that shows how an increase in CO2 by 1/10,000 of a percent can increase the average global temperature by around 5 percent.
regards inter

----------


## barney118

> well if you have so much proof just pop up some that shows how an increase in CO2 by 1/10,000 of a percent can increase the average global temperature by around 5 percent.
> regards inter

   :2thumbsup:  
That's why in highschool yr 12 students can take photos of a golf ball and measure the distance to prove gravity exists and prove Einsteins theory, its quite simple, proven.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> well if you have so much proof just pop up some that shows how an increase in CO2 by 1/10,000 of a percent can increase the average global temperature by around 5 percent.
> regards inter

  [Now] Why?  You wouldn't accept it anyway. 
[A minute later] Never mind.  The Skeptical Science website has an outstanding FAQ and primer on this sort of thing. 
[Shortly after that] See?

----------


## MrIronic

The thing I find most bizarre is the catch cry of CO2 emission reductions... 
If CO2 is a forcing factor in increasing _average_ temps, then... 
Reducing emissions does no more than _slow down_ the process. 
Think of it this way, if you are filling a 100 ltr drum at 1 Ltr per year... it will overflow in 100 years time. (Yes bar evaporation...) 
If you reduce the flow by 10%, to say (zero point 9) Ltrs/y it will over flow in 111ish years time. 
Same result but, 100 odd years wasted faffing about the edges.

----------


## intertd6

> That's why in highschool yr 12 students can take photos of a golf ball and measure the distance to prove gravity exists and prove Einsteins theory, its quite simple, proven.

   Yes but what's that got to do specifically with what I asked for ?
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> [Now] Why?  You wouldn't accept it anyway. 
> [A minute later] Never mind.  The Skeptical Science website has an outstanding FAQ and primer on this sort of thing. 
> [Shortly after that] See?

  With an open mind you can accept anything, and especially comprehending a simple percentage comparison.
just got to bright enough to see past the impossibility of it being capable to change temperature with a microscopic change, when in the past levels have been many many times higher without a corresponding rise in temperatures.
regards inter

----------


## Marc

A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year  an increase of 60 per cent. The rebound from 2012s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013. Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russias northern shores.   ​The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century  a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading. The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has paused since the beginning of 1997  an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict. In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with 90 per cent certainty. The pause  which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre  is important, because the models predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the worlds economies divert billions of pounds into green measures to counter  climate change. Those predictions now appear gravely flawed. *THERE WON'T BE ANY ICE AT ALL! HOW THE BBC PREDICTED CHAOS IN 2007*Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, citing a scientist in the US who claimed this was a conservative forecast. Perhaps it was their confidence that led more than 20 yachts to try to sail the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to  the Pacific this summer. As of last week, all these vessels were stuck in the ice, some at the eastern end of the passage in Prince Regent Inlet, others further west at Cape Bathurst. 
Shipping experts said the only way these vessels were likely to be freed was by the icebreakers of the Canadian coastguard. According to the official Canadian government website, the Northwest Passage has remained ice-bound and impassable  all summer. 
The BBCs 2007 report quoted scientist  Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice.  
He was confident his results were much more realistic than other projections, which underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice. Also quoted was Cambridge University expert
Professor Peter Wadhams. He backed Professor Maslowski, saying his model was more efficient than others because it takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice. 
He added: This is not a cycle; not just a fluctuation. In the end, it will all just melt away quite suddenly.    
Read more: Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

----------


## barney118

> Yes but what's that got to do specifically with what I asked for ?
> regards inter

  Science, physics/chemistry etc you can do an experiment over and over again modify variables and still prove a theory with repeatable results, so lets see how CO2 experiments stack up to science, all I have seen is pictures or graphs or thought bubbles, invisible gases (CO2) are subject to pressure/temperature/volume - Boyles law. 
 the pressure of a gas tends to decrease as the volume of a gas increases.  Ideal gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
so where is it on the hockey stick graph has pressure been taken into account?

----------


## PhilT2

Not sure what you are getting at here. Do you believe that the extra CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels in leading to an increase in atmospheric pressure? I don't know that any evidence supports that.

----------


## woodbe

> If CO2 was responsible for warming why is it I havent seen a lab experiment where you have 2 atmospheres (inert) exposed to the sun and Cold (refrigerator) ie a see through box and pump in CO2 and control the variation in CO2 to backup such theory, you would also need to test at different levels in the atmosphere like at -57 deg at the tropopause etc.

  If you go and look, there are plenty of high school level experiments on offer. eg:  Experiment - The Greenhouse Effect  Pico Technology Experiment: Global Warming 
Or you could go and check out Tyndall's experiments that showed the effect of CO2 and other gases back in 1859. 
Perhaps the news hasn't reached your neck of the woods yet?  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

Climate Change Reconsidered: The Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 
Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary. A score of independent scientists from around the world began to share their research and ideas with Dr. Singer, as they continue to do. Some of these scientists have asked not to be named in NIPCC reports for fear of losing research grants and being blacklisted by professional journals.

----------


## Marc

*The Glaciers of Greenland* ** *Reference
Kelly, M.A. and Lowell, T.V. 2009. Fluctuations of local glaciers in Greenland during latest Pleistocene and Holocene time. Quaternary Science Reviews28: 2088-2106.* *In summarizing the existing body of research pertaining to "fluctuations of local glaciers in Greenland (e.g. ice caps and mountain glaciers independent of the Greenland Ice Sheet) during latest Pleistocene and Holocene time," Kelly and Lowell (2009) say that "subsequent to late-glacial or early Holocene time, most local glaciers were smaller than at present or may have disappeared completely during the Holocene Thermal Maximum," which warm period occurred between 5 and 9 ka, when they write that "temperatures derived from the GRIP borehole [were] 2.5°C warmer than at present (Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998)." Thereafter, however, local glaciers began to grow once again; and for all regions except a few locations in western and southeastern Greenland, the two researchers report that glaciers "grew to their maximum Holocene extents during Historical time," which period they identify as extending all the way up to 1940 in certain cases. In addition, they note that "in some locations in Greenland, there is evidence for millennial-scale fluctuations of local glaciers," which they say "experienced recession and advance approximately during the Medieval Warm Period (~800-1170 AD) and Little Ice Age (~1300-1850 AD), respectively," consistent with borehole temperature data from the GRIP ice core.Even in ice-cold Greenland, Holocene temperatures followed much the same temporal pattern observed in other parts of the world, as did the advance and retreat modes of its local glaciers, with maximum glacier extensions occurring during the coldest period of the current interglacial (the Little Ice Age). As a result, it was only to be expected that once the millennial-scale oscillation of temperature bottomed out and began to rise again, the result would be a significant warming and recession of local glaciers, irrespective of anything the air's CO2 content might do concurrently, as the climate rebounded towards its more normal Holocene mid-range. In other words, Greenland would likely have experienced the same degree of warming and glacial recession that it experienced over the course of the 20th century even if the atmosphere's CO2 concentration had remained at the same low value it had maintained throughout most of the Holocene to that point in time. Additional References
Dahl-Jensen, D., Mosegaard, K., Gundestrup, N., Clow, G.D., Johnsen, S.J., Hansen, A.W. and Balling, N. 1998. Past temperatures directly from the Greenland Ice Sheet. Science 282: 268-271. *

----------


## Marc

*African Savanna Trees owe their increasing abundance to  
increases in the air's CO2 content*  * * *Reference
Kgope, B.S., Bond, W.J. and Midgley, G.F. 2010. Growth responses of African savanna trees implicate atmospheric [CO2] as a driver of past and current changes in savanna tree cover. Austral Ecology 35: 451-463.* *In a 2010 paper published in Austral Ecology, Kgope et al. write that "over the last century, there has been a trend of increasing woody biomass in many savanna regions (Polley et al., 2002; Ward, 2005) [that] is generally attributed to changes in land use practice, particularly grazing and fire use, and to episodes of high or low rainfall," but they say that "the phenomenon may also have been influenced by increasing atmospheric CO2," citing the papers of Idso (1992), Polley (1997) and Polley et al. (1999). Thus, in an investigation into the strength of the latter hypothesis, the three South African researchers monitored "photosynthetic, growth and carbon allocation responses of African savanna trees (Acacia karroo and Acacia nilotica) and a C4grass, Themeda triandra, exposed to a gradient of CO2 concentrations from 180 (typical of the Last Glacial Maximum) to 1000 ppm in open-top chambers in a glasshouse," as well as intermediate concentrations of 280, 370 (representing the present), 550 and 700 ppm.The well watered and fertilized nitrogen-fixing Acacia trees they studied were started from seed and grown under the above conditions from the age of one week for a period of two years, at the midpoint of which time interval they were cut back and allowed to re-grow for a second season, while the T. triandra plants they evaluated -- which constitute "the dominant grass species in many frequently burnt grasslands and savannas in South Africa," as they describe them -- were established from tillers obtained from a C4 grassland in southern Kwa-Zulu-Natal, South Africa.
As a result of their efforts, Kgope et al. determined that "photosynthesis, total stem length, total stem diameter, shoot dry weight and root dry weight of the acacias increased significantly across the CO2 gradient, saturating at higher CO2 concentrations." And they say that "after clipping to simulate fire, plants showed an even greater response in total stem length, total stem diameter and shoot dry weight, signaling the importance of re-sprouting following disturbances such as fire or herbivory in savanna systems." However, and "in contrast to the strong response of tree seedlings to the CO2gradient," in the words of the three researchers, "grass productivity showed little variation, even at low CO2 concentrations."
In terms of actual numbers, Kgope et al. report that "at the end of the first growing season, SDW [shoot dry weight] had increased by 529% in A. karrooand 110% on average in A. nilotica under ambient relative to sub-ambient CO2 treatments," and that "a further increase in CO2 from ambient to elevated CO2 significantly increased SDW of A. nilotica by 86%." As for the second season results, they found that the SDW of re-sprouted A. karooshoot material increased by 366% from sub-ambient to ambient CO2, while and that of A. nilotica increased by 133% on average. In fact, the South African scientists say that "changes in CO2 from pre-industrial times to the present have effectively produced acacia 'super seedlings' in relation to their growth potential over the past several million years [italics added]."
In light of these findings, Kgope et al. conclude that "where fires once killed seedlings, they are unlikely to do so today, resulting in much higher seedling recruitment rates," and they write that "the rate of sapling release to adult height classes will also be greatly enhanced because they are able to grow out of the fire trap more rapidly." What is more, they state that the trees "should also be better defended against mammal browsers and insect herbivores." And citing yet-to-be-published results, they say that "both structural (spines) and chemical (tannins) defenses showed significant increases with increasing CO2."
As for the implications of these several observations, the three researchers write that they "provide experimental support for suggestions and simulation studies predicting that reductions in CO2 alone could have led to loss of tree cover in grassy environments in the last glacial (Bond et al., 2003; Harrison and Prentice, 2003)," and they say that "the large increases in CO2 from industrial emissions over the last century would now favor trees at the expense of grasses," which conclusion is supported by palaeo-records that indicate that "trees disappeared from current savanna sites in South Africa during the Last Glacial Maximum (Scott, 1999), re-appeared in the Holocene, and have rapidly increased over the last half century," the latter of which phenomena is an integral part of the great -- and much-to-be-desired -- CO2-induced Greening of the Earth that has occurred over the same time period. Additional References
Bond, W.J., Midgley, G.F. and Woodward, F.I. 2003. The importance of low atmospheric CO2 and fire in promoting the spread of grasslands and savannas. Global Change Biology 9: 973-982. Harrison, S.P. and Prentice, I.C. 2003. Climate and CO2 controls on global vegetation distribution at the last glacial maximum: analysis based on paleovegetation data, biome modeling and paleoclimate simulations. Global Change Biology 9: 983-1004. Idso, S.B. 1992. Shrubland expansion in the American southwest. Climatic Change 22: 85-86. Polley, H.W. 1997. Implications of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration for rangelands. Journal of Range Management 50: 562-577. Polley, H.W., Tischler, C.R., Johnson, H.B. and Derner, J.D. 2002. Growth rate and survivorship of drought: CO2 effects on the presumed tradeoff in seedlings of five woody legumes. Tree Physiology 22: 383-391. Polley, H.W., Tischler, C.R., Johnson, H.B. and Pennington, R.E. 1999. Growth, water relations, and survival of drought-exposed seedlings from six maternal families of honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa): responses to CO2 enrichment. Tree Physiology 19: 359-366. Scott, L. 1999. Vegetation history and climate in the Savanna biome of South Africa since 190,000 ka: a comparison of pollen data from the Tswaing Crater (the Pretoria Saltpan) and Wonderkrater. Quaternary International 57/58: 517-544. Ward, D. 2005. Do we understand the causes of bush encroachment in African savannas? African Journal of Range and Forage Science 22: 101-105*

----------


## Marc

*Etc etc etc ... you get the drift. * In other words stop reading only from leftist propaganda pamphlets and green gospel tracts ... try opening your mind to "other" scientific data that is not sponsored by government who have a vested interest in totalitarian rule (and don't give a kr@p about the environment)

----------


## intertd6

> If you go and look, there are plenty of high school level experiments on offer. eg:  Experiment - The Greenhouse Effect  Pico Technology Experiment: Global Warming 
> Or you could go and check out Tyndall's experiments that showed the effect of CO2 and other gases back in 1859. 
> Perhaps the news hasn't reached your neck of the woods yet?  
> woodbe.

  perhaps in your neck of the woods they can't see the difference between pure CO2 in an experiment and the real life reality of 1/10,000 of a percent change in the atmospheric CO2 concentration then expect the same heat retention / gain from the latter. I wouldn't call myself the sharpest tool in the box but even I can see the impossibility of that being able to make the slightest poopteenth  difference.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> perhaps in your neck of the woods they can't see the difference between pure CO2 in an experiment and the real life reality of 1/10,000 of a percent change in the atmospheric CO2 concentration then expect the same heat retention / gain from the latter. I wouldn't call myself the sharpest tool in the box but even I can see the impossibility of that being able to make the slightest poopteenth  difference.
> regards inter

  Very good inter.  
The question was:   

> If CO2 was responsible for warming why is it I havent seen a lab experiment where you have 2 atmospheres (inert) exposed to the sun and Cold (refrigerator)

  I wasn't suggesting that this experiment duplicated the earth's atmosphere. The questioner asked why he hadn't seen a lab experiment involving CO2, I simply responded by demonstrating that the reason he hadn't seen such a lab experiment was that he hadn't looked! 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Very good inter.  
> The question was:   
> I wasn't suggesting that this experiment duplicated the earth's atmosphere. The questioner asked why he hadn't seen a lab experiment involving CO2, I simply responded by demonstrating that the reason he hadn't seen such a lab experiment was that he hadn't looked! 
> woodbe.

   Well your the only AGW supporter that thinks it doesn't support your argument, I have no idea what the go is with 2 ATM of CO2 is about ???? We will all be wheels up if CO2 gets to that concentration.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Well your the only AGW supporter that thinks it doesn't support your argument

  The physics of CO2 is well researched, and generally accepted on both sides of 'the argument' except for the lunatic fringe. The lab experiment does not duplicate the atmosphere in many ways, however that does not also mean that the experiment fails to demonstrate that CO2 is a greenhouse gas... 
Any confusion is your own.  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

How is the forecast ice free artic summer by 2013 looking?? :Wink:

----------


## barney118

IPCC report due out this mth, Bob Cater columnist in Telegraph today points out 7 B tonnes man made CO2 vs 200  B tonnes natural land/Sea. Scientists are warming to the idea it's not warming ( I like the pun) no warming since 1997 but increasing co2 during the time and this report plus NIPCC contain conflicting evidence.... Wait for the report.....to see if a backflip in order.  
Cheers Barney
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## woodbe

> How is the forecast ice free artic summer by 2013 looking??

  About the same as expected by anyone observing the loss of ice and making sensible projections.   Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com   

> *When Will the Arctic be Ice-Free?* 
> Both Rose and Dixon referenced a 2007 BBC article quoting Professor Wieslaw Maslowski saying that the Arctic could be ice free in the summer of 2013.  In a 2011 BBC article,  he predicted ice-free Arctic seas by 2016 "plus or minus three years."   Other climate scientists believe this prediction is too pessimistic,  and expect the first ice-free Arctic summers by 2040.   
> It's  certainly difficult to predict exactly when an ice-free Arctic summer  will occur.  While climate research has shown that the Arctic sea ice  decline is mostly human-caused, there may also be a natural component  involved.  The remaining sea ice may abruptly vanish, or it may hold on  for a few decades longer.  What we do know is that given its rapid  decline, an ice-free Arctic appears to be not a question of if, but  when.

  woodbe.

----------


## johnc

For those arguing solar spikes and it's all natural variability we have the opposite shown here.*Scientists conclude humans key factor in global warming*      Updated     3 minutes ago      *        Photo:*       Scientists say human impact the key factor (Frederic J Brown: AFP)         *Map:*         Adelaide University 5005 
A report by a team of international scientists concludes there now is no doubt climatic changes are due to humans rather than any other natural factors.
Their report, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, builds on work previously done by scientists in the United States and presents a clear pattern of warming in parts of the atmosphere that is indicative of a human effect.
The only Australian researcher who was part of the team, Professor Tom Wigley of Adelaide University, says it analysed satellite temperature data over 34 years.
He says the team showed there was no other way to explain climatic changes at various atmospheric levels.
Professor Wigley said by looking at temperature changes across atmospheric layers from the Earth's surface to about 20 kilometres skyward the results show clear characteristics of human interference.
"If the sun were the cause of the changes then one would see warming at the surface and in the lower atmosphere and in the upper atmosphere and in fact what we see is the opposite," he said.
"We see warming at the surface and cooling in the upper atmosphere, so that immediately discounts the sun as a causal factor.
"One of the standard sceptic arguments is that all the observed changes are caused by natural variability and often supposed to be due to solar activity. What we have shown beyond a shadow of doubt is that the climate changes we are observing cannot be due to the sun or any other natural factors."
Professor Wigley said the scientific team had concluded there was simply no other way to explain the changes that had occurred since 1979 when weather satellites were introduced.
The team found human influences, primarily greenhouse gases and related pollutants such as sulfur dioxide emissions and gases, had affected the atmospheric concentrations of ozone.
Professor Wigley said it was probably the most comprehensive study yet done to try to identify the human influence on climate.
"The main thing is that we can identify what is called a human fingerprint, or a distinctive pattern of change in the observational record, and that pattern is derived from climate modelling experiments," he said.
"We look at patterns of change that can be attributed to other things, such as changing output of the sun for example, and we show that those cannot be identified in the observational record.
"We can see the human fingerprint, we can't see the fingerprint of any other cause, and so it's pretty obvious that the only explanation is there's been a very distinctive human influence on the patterns of climate change."

----------


## Marc

** A frequent claim of the climate alarmists and the IPCC is that CO2-induced global warming will negatively affect livelihoods and reduce well-being in the developing world. However, as shown in the material below, decades-long empirical trends of various climate-sensitive parameters related to human well-being suggest otherwise. Scroll down to read or click on the links below.  Agricultural Productivity and Hunger Disease Poverty Extreme Weather Events Water Shortages

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> A frequent claim of the climate alarmists and the IPCC is that CO2-induced global warming will negatively affect livelihoods and reduce well-being in the developing world. However, as shown in the material below, decades-long empirical trends of various climate-sensitive parameters related to human well-being suggest otherwise. Scroll down to read or click on the links below.  Agricultural Productivity and Hunger Disease Poverty Extreme Weather Events Water Shortages

  Attempting to dismiss future possibilities of impact using data from the past is (as you should well know by now) fraught with danger.  Some of the conclusions in those links border on myopic.  The ones for productivity and disease are laughably simplistic...or just plain misguided.

----------


## PhilT2

> **   A frequent claim of the climate alarmists and the IPCC is that CO2-induced global warming will negatively affect livelihoods and reduce well-being in the developing world. However, as shown in the material below, decades-long empirical trends of various climate-sensitive parameters related to human well-being suggest otherwise. Scroll down to read or click on the links below.  Agricultural Productivity and Hunger Disease Poverty Extreme Weather Events Water Shortages

  The first three lines from this NIPCC document *Agricultural Productivity and Hunger.*   Proponents of greenhouse gas controls frequently proclaim that global  warming will reduce crop productivity in the developing world, thereby  exacerbating hunger and famine (e.g., Freeman and Guzman, 2009).  But  contrary to such claims, as shown in Figure 1, crop productivity and  production has actually increased in the least developed countries  (LDCs) as well as globally. 
They back up this comment with a graph ending in 2010. 
If we go to the Freeman & Guzman paper we find this 
In addition, cereal crop yields are expected to drop between
2.5 and 10% in South, Southeast, and East Asia, contributing
to a risk of hunger for as many as fifty million people
as soon as 2020. 
You have got to be on something to believe this crap from Heartland.

----------


## intertd6

> The first three lines from this NIPCC document *Agricultural Productivity and Hunger.*   Proponents of greenhouse gas controls frequently proclaim that global  warming will reduce crop productivity in the developing world, thereby  exacerbating hunger and famine (e.g., Freeman and Guzman, 2009).  But  contrary to such claims, as shown in Figure 1, crop productivity and  production has actually increased in the least developed countries  (LDCs) as well as globally. 
> They back up this comment with a graph ending in 2010. 
> If we go to the Freeman & Guzman paper we find this 
> In addition, cereal crop yields are expected to drop between
> 2.5 and 10% in South, Southeast, and East Asia, contributing
> to a risk of hunger for as many as fifty million people
> as soon as 2020. 
> You have got to be on something to believe this crap from Heartland.

  you seem to forget that all these assumtions are based on climate predictions that are proving to be wrong & are now outdated.
regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

> you seem to forget that all these assumtions are based on climate predictions that are proving to be wrong & are now outdated.
> regards inter

  Have you actually read the Freeman & Guzman paper? Can you explain how predictions not due to happen til 2020 can be proven wrong by a graph ending in 2010?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> you seem to forget that all these assumptions are based on climate predictions that are proving to be wrong & are now outdated.
> regards inter

  Only in terms of the specific numbers...the general trend predictions are still with us (hotter/wetter/more ignorant) so the potential for 'hurt' also remains with us.  What's a couple of million here or there, eh?

----------


## intertd6

> Only in terms of the specific numbers...the general trend predictions are still with us (hotter/wetter/more ignorant) so the potential for 'hurt' also remains with us.  What's a couple of million here or there, eh?

  Yes like Australia being in continuous drought & not enough rain to fill our dams, the trend predictions are fanciful dooms day dreams to scare the masses into swallowing the story. Nothing in the climate is outside the normal variation of change the globe has been experiencing in the last few hundred years of the warming phase that it has been experiencing.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Have you actually read the Freeman & Guzman paper? Can you explain how predictions not due to happen til 2020 can be proven wrong by a graph ending in 2010?

  Who would read it anyway when the facts are now that there has been no significant warming for the last umpteen years & their predictions are based on warming which isn't happening, like all the other predictions they are best printed out & used as date roll so it at least they become slightly useful.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

The report when it comes out will show warming at about half what had been predicted, warming I understand will include both air and sea temperature. At least have the decency for the report to appear before you get to carried away bagging it. There are enough mouth pieces for the anti brigade there is no need to add to the quota of misinformed rubbish that predates the reports release as it is.

----------


## Marc

I find it really disturbing that people who have a genuine interest in the debate about human induced climate change are hanging out to read a report by a group who call themselves INTERGOVERNMENTAL etc. 
It's like a religious person who waits for the police report on church preachings.  
When are you going to get it that the whole charade is POLITICAL?
No one in power cares about the environment, everyone knows that our human contribution to climate is negligible at worst and impossible to measure at best.
Oh but hei... we have "concerned  people" who will vote politicians in to "FIX" the climate.  :Rolleyes:   
What would you do if you are a politician? 
Bargain! here is a bunch of people who believe we can turn a knob and adjust the temperature to their liking. Let them believe it, let pay scientist to pump this ideas up with phoney computer models, lets feed lots of information most false and some true so to build conspiracy theories galore, let's confuse the issue, muddle the waters and then come out on our white horse as saviours of the world. We can make heaps of money on the side with "alternative" energy industry too! its a win win situation. 
How about we write a song called "I MISS CLIMATE CHANGE" with the music of "la cucaracha" ? 
The climate chan-ge
the climate chan-ge
Donde te fuiste a parar ... chu chu
No more calo-re
No more calo-re
No marihuana pa fumar...
etc :Biggrin:

----------


## intertd6

> The report when it comes out will show warming at about half what had been predicted, warming I understand will include both air and sea temperature. At least have the decency for the report to appear before you get to carried away bagging it. There are enough mouth pieces for the anti brigade there is no need to add to the quota of misinformed rubbish that predates the reports release as it is.

  Honestly who would waste their precious time, no warming means no dramatic changes, there must be thousands of papers out there which would have predictions for all manner of changes, hotter, colder, drier, wetter, over populated, under populated,  but while the climate is stable they mean jack, even if there is change they are hardly a precise tool, which has been shown in the CO2 increases not matching the temperature anymore.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Honestly who would waste their precious time, no warming means no dramatic changes

  Sure, like the Arctic Ice "Recovery":   
LOL  :Smilie:  
There is also a new peer reviewed paper showing amongst other things that whilst the global annual mean isn't moving much currently, the northern hemisphere seasonal means are - winter is staying cool, summer is gaining the expected heat.     
I think you have a way to go before you can claim "no dramatic changes" inter. 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> Honestly who would waste their precious time, no warming means no dramatic changes, there must be thousands of papers out there which would have predictions for all manner of changes, hotter, colder, drier, wetter, over populated, under populated,  but while the climate is stable they mean jack, even if there is change they are hardly a precise tool, which has been shown in the CO2 increases not matching the temperature anymore.
> regards inter

  Hum ... ??  When did you turn skeptic? I missed your conversion ... Never mind, the more the merrier, it is getting crowded on this side.
What I want to see is those responsible for faking data and stories and scaremongering for and agenda dragged through the courts. 
Starting with the climate change "commissioner" ... ha ha if you think about it that could be God's own title.

----------


## intertd6

> Sure, like the Arctic Ice "Recovery":   
> LOL  
> There is also a new peer reviewed paper showing amongst other things that whilst the global annual mean isn't moving much currently, the northern hemisphere seasonal means are - winter is staying cool, summer is gaining the expected heat.     
> I think you have a way to go before you can claim "no dramatic changes" inter. 
> woodbe.

  Well if you want to put up graphs to suit your cause then have a look at the one starting in the 15th century which shows warming all the way to the last decade, funny how it has risen through all those centuries to the 20th century when the CO2 was stable. Funny how running blindly with the sheep can fog simple comprehension. The brighter amongst us realise that seeing how the northern hemisphere has had past sea ice extent problems his would discount CO2 as the cause because the same isn't happening in the southern hemisphere.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Hum ... ??  When did you turn skeptic? I missed your conversion ... Never mind, the more the merrier, it is getting crowded on this side.
> What I want to see is those responsible for faking data and stories and scaremongering for and agenda dragged through the courts. 
> Starting with the climate change "commissioner" ... ha ha if you think about it that could be God's own title.

  I just don't believe CO2 is the cause of the warming, it is just an indicator.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Well if you want to put up graphs to suit your cause then have a look at the one starting in the 15th century which shows warming all the way to the last decade, funny how it has risen through all those centuries to the 20th century when the CO2 was stable.

  Oh yea. It's not happening, we can deny that the climate is changing by claiming it has changed before.  
1) Steady warming since 15th century is not supported by the available info. eg: SOTC: Introduction   
2) Law Dome Ice core reconstruction confirms CO2 did not start it's upward trend until mankind started consuming fossil fuels en masse in the 1800's   
Funny how the temperature has not risen in all those centuries when the CO2 was stable, yet has risen since the CO2 has been booted out of the park...  :Tongue:  
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> I just don't believe CO2 is the cause of the warming, it is just an indicator.
> regards inter

   YOU DON'T BELIEVE !!!!!!
DENIER!!!! 
I wonder if the use of the name denier only just happen to be by mere coincidence the same as the one use to describe (and despise) those who say the holocaust did not happen.  
Aaaah but nothing equates the satisfaction of seeing the "climate change" nincompoops and their head clown TF gone the way of the dodo. 
Yessssssssssss :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Smilie:  :Wink:  :Wink 1:

----------


## intertd6

> Oh yea. It's not happening, we can deny that the climate is changing by claiming it has changed before.  
> 1) Steady warming since 15th century is not supported by the available info. eg: SOTC: Introduction   
> 2) Law Dome Ice core reconstruction confirms CO2 did not start it's upward trend until mankind started consuming fossil fuels en masse in the 1800's   
> Funny how the temperature has not risen in all those centuries when the CO2 was stable, yet has risen since the CO2 has been booted out of the park...  
> woodbe.

  I dont know where you get your data of convenience from but it doesn't match the recognised data that indicates the global temperature has risen from the little ice age. No need to repeat what i said about the CO2 increases, somewhere I have a photo that I took of the first ice core being recovered at Law dome.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> Honestly who would waste their precious time, no warming means no dramatic changes, there must be thousands of papers out there which would have predictions for all manner of changes, hotter, colder, drier, wetter, over populated, under populated,  but while the climate is stable they mean jack, even if there is change they are hardly a precise tool, which has been shown in the CO2 increases not matching the temperature anymore.
> regards inter

    I think you are missing the point, the report in question isn't new research, it aims to bring together existing peer reviewed research and present it in one document. By all accounts we still have warming just at a lower rate, we are still loosing Artic sea ice, but gaining Antarctic sea ice while ice on land in that area is shrinking. The hottest decades over the last century are the recent ones, there is no sign of cooling and the certainty that this is man made is increasing. There is nothing to support "natural variation" but the Ostriches with heads in sand a just slowing action. China and Europe both get it, America and Australia don't, nothing new there, as a public we are all like salivating dogs lapping up what we want to hear and ignoring the rest. Isn't the goal of these reports to try to attribute both change and the areas where more work is needed rather than head in sand pretending it has all gone away and nothing is happening.

----------


## intertd6

> I think you are missing the point, the report in question isn't new research, it aims to bring together existing peer reviewed research and present it in one document. By all accounts we still have warming just at a lower rate, we are still loosing Artic sea ice, but gaining Antarctic sea ice while ice on land in that area is shrinking. The hottest decades over the last century are the recent ones, there is no sign of cooling and the certainty that this is man made is increasing. There is nothing to support "natural variation" but the Ostriches with heads in sand a just slowing action. China and Europe both get it, America and Australia don't, nothing new there, as a public we are all like salivating dogs lapping up what we want to hear and ignoring the rest. Isn't the goal of these reports to try to attribute both change and the areas where more work is needed rather than head in sand pretending it has all gone away and nothing is happening.

  I miss lots of things, but fortunately I wasn't sucked into this or the similar Y2K bug sky is falling frenzy. Can't really see what the problem is, a warmer world means more life, a colder world means death by starvation for civilisations in higher latitudes which has has shown to be a real possibility & has happened in the last thousand years. If the sea were to rise, then over time people would have to migrate just like they have for eons when sea levels have risen or fallen, this would take generations & private land ownership is a generational matter.
regards inter

----------


## phild01

The earth will never rest and will always change...so happy Tim is experiencing the same thing as well; with his dismissal!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The earth will never rest and will always change...so happy Tim is experiencing the same thing as well; with his dismissal!

   :Biggrin:  fell on his feet though didn't he, eh?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> fell on his feet though didn't he, eh?

  Maybe!

----------


## Marc

Like it happened to all religions, this is no different. Once the subsidy by the state stops because of conflicting interest or territorial disputes, the self preservation of the priests kicks in and they start passing the hat with some lame blame/guilt trip and take refuge among other frocks. 
Perhaps it is time we decide to abolish our Australian Vatican, the ACT, sell the SBS and ABC and make the greens an illegal organisation akin to terrorism. 
What else?
Oh...yes...how about make politicians and their lobbyist personally responsible for borrowed money and spent money just like company directors?
If found guilty, ban them from profiting from their crimes by writing the edited version of their crap.

----------


## johnc

> Like it happened to all religions, this is no different. Once the subsidy by the state stops because of conflicting interest or territorial disputes, the self preservation of the priests kicks in and they start passing the hat with some lame blame/guilt trip and take refuge among other frocks. 
> Perhaps it is time we decide to abolish our Australian Vatican, the ACT, sell the SBS and ABC and make the greens an illegal organisation akin to terrorism. 
> What else?
> Oh...yes...how about make politicians and their lobbyist personally responsible for borrowed money and spent money just like company directors?
> If found guilty, ban them from profiting from their crimes by writing the edited version of their crap.

   Another tirade that is nothing more than a series of bigoted opinion based on conjecture, could we try to elevate the tone thanks.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Once the subsidy by the state stops because of conflicting interest or territorial disputes, the self preservation of the priests kicks in and they start passing the hat with some lame blame/guilt trip and take refuge among other frocks.

  A proven model that has worked flawlessly for thousands of years for all manner of saints, sinners, scammers, builders, bureaucrats, makers and breakers...as disparate a set of role models as the Red Cross, Holden, Rio Tinto, the Scouts, Heartland Institute, Greenpeace and more than the odd political party.  Long may it continue...

----------


## Marc

> A proven model that has worked flawlessly for thousands of years for all manner of saints, sinners, scammers, builders, bureaucrats, makers and breakers...as disparate a set of role models as the Red Cross, Holden, Rio Tinto, the Scouts, Heartland Institute, Greenpeace and more than the odd political party.  Long may it continue...

  Yes, however none of the above say that "it is science" they say "it is business".
The model is "Give me the money and I say it is science" 
Sad about the 'believers' really .. reminds me of those who flocked to watch a stain on the wall and saw the virgin ... hot dogs anyone!

----------


## woodbe

Reposted from Open Mind:  *Double Standard* 
Since 1975, global average surface air temperature has increased at a  rate of 0.17 deg.C/decade (estimated by linear regression using either  the NASA GISS or HadCRUT4 data sets). But the rate of increase hasnt  been perfectly constant over that entire time span.  As a matter of fact, theres a 15-year time span during which the rate  is notably different. Fifteen whole years!!! By at least one  calculation, the difference is statistically significant. 
Does this mean that global warming is wrong? That the computer models  are utter junk? That this whole climate science thing is just a hoax, a  nefarious scheme to cheat us all out of tax dollars in order to support  the lifestyle of gaudy luxury that we all know scientists wallow in? (_Science: money for nothin and your chicks for free_)
  That 15-year time span covers the years 1992 through 2006, during which the rate of warming was 0.28 deg.C/decade. Thats a *lot faster* than the warming rate from 1975 to now.    
 Just a few years ago, when Rahmstorf et al. (2007)  compared climate observations to computer model projections, they  noticed the faster-than-expected warming leading up to 2006. It was  faster than expected and faster than projected by those dreaded  computer models used by the IPCC. According to the *data*, global average surface temperature was on a mad dash to extreme heat.
  How did these evil denizens of global warming react? Did they use that  result to push world government based on socialism, so that they could  destroy our economy by taxing the super-rich out of some of their  hardly-earned riches? Did they run screaming through the streets yelling  about how were all going to suffer spontaneous combustion by the year  2100?
  No. Instead, they attempted to _understand_ the result.
  And what explanation, some bunnies may wonder, crossed their minds  first? What was their first instinct regarding how this mad dash of  global warming might have come about? This:_
The first candidate reason is intrinsic variability within the climate system._ Wow. When the data indicated surface warming faster than expected, the first explanation offered by those greedy bastards was _natural variation_.
  You missed your chance, guys. How ya gonna rob the super-rich of all their billions with _that_?
  Since that time, when they failed miserably to capitalize on the opportunity for alarmism, theres been _another_ 15-year time span when the trend differed noticeably from the trend-since-1975. It covers the years from 1998 through 2012:    
 The evil cabal of climate scientists are somehow trying to explain this away as simply being natural variation.
  But the poor, downtrodden deniers are on to them. They know the truth. You see, that extra-fast warming period really _was_  just natural variation, but the extra-slow period is all because the  computer models are junk, the whole climate science thing is just a hoax  (gaudy luxury for scientists to wallow in), and were headed for  decades of imminent global cooling.  
  After all, isnt that what Aunt Judy would say? Didnt she already say  that natural variability was responsible for more than half of the  global warming since the 1970s  but isnt she now pushing as hard as  she can that the pause is proof that we dont really understand what  man-made tampering is doing to our climate? Hey  its all just a  regime shift anyway.  
  Isnt that what Willard Tony would say? Maybe not  maybe he wouldnt  blame the extra-fast warming on natural variability at all, hed just  claim that the temperature record isnt reliable. If it shows extra-fast  warming, that is  when the temperature record shows extra-slow warming  its _scientific proof_.
  Its kinda like the changes in Arctic sea ice. When it takes a nose-dive  like in 2007 and again in 2012, that gets blamed on weather. But when  it makes an up-tick like 2013  *recovery*!!!  
  I think I finally understand the Aunt Judy/Willard Tony approach to  science. When data says we have a problem, either its just natural  variability, or the data are either faulty or fraudulent. But whenever  data says we dont have a problem  even if its just a single years  data  voila! Scientific proof. 
woodbe: A pretty accurate summary of how our fake skeptics behave! 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

And here's something to think about for those that think 97% of Scientists are wrong:   
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> And here's something to think about for those that think 97% of Scientists are wrong:   
> woodbe.

   And most mechanics would tell you that a 1/10,000th change in atmospheric CO2 isn't going to increase global temperatures in any measurable way. A bit like fitting new brakes to your car then driving around the block & saying they are worn out now.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> And most mechanics would tell you that a 1/10,000th change in atmospheric CO2 isn't going to increase global temperatures in any measurable way. A bit like fitting new brakes to your car then driving around the block & saying they are worn out now.
> regards inter

  Exactly why you would trust 97% of mechanics about your car brakes but ignore their opinion about CO2 because they have no expertise in the field. 
A perfect example, thank you inter. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Exactly why you would trust 97% of mechanics about your car brakes but ignore their opinion about CO2 because they have no expertise in the field. 
> A perfect example, thank you inter. 
> woodbe.

  Thank you, all you have to be is bright enough to work out what my post means, what it comes down to is some of us could be living in Antarctica & still be conned into buying ice from a slick door to door salesman who is smoother that hand rolled poop.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> Thank you, all you have to be is bright enough to work out what my post means, what it comes down to is some of us could be living in Antarctica & still be conned into buying ice from a slick door to door salesman who is smoother that hand rolled poop.
> regards inter

   Nothing clever about that and it applies equally to both sides of the discussion depending on your viewpoint. However anyone who relies on the 15 year flat period that seems to be the flavour of the month at the moment is doing just that, it is so clearly a distortion of the record by using an abnormal high year as a starting point that no sensible individual would use it expecting to be taken as a serious observer. So it would pay for everyone to check out their own backyard before getting to excited about the state of others.

----------


## woodbe

> Thank you, all you have to be is bright enough to work out what my post means

  Your post is very clear. You would prefer to trust an unqualified opinion rather than accept the uncomfortable results of qualified and published research from multiple lines of enquiry by multiple researchers. 
Here is one of your blogger mates explaining how he accepts opinion over science:    
woodbe.

----------


## Ashore

> .

   take your car to 97% of mechanics and they will find something wrong with your car and charge you to fix it, or take it to the 3% of honest car mechanics and they will tell you the truth that there's nothing wrong with you car  :Cool:

----------


## woodbe

> take your car to 97% of mechanics and they will find something wrong with your car and charge you to fix it, or take it to the 3% of honest car mechanics and they will tell you the truth that there's nothing wrong with you car

  That may be true, but that is also not the point - in this case, 97% of mechanics are all saying that your brakes are shot. 
I'm sure the shonks be finding a problem with the wipers and the gearchange etc, that mightn't need to be fixed straight away.  
If you took your car to 100 mechanics and 97 said the brakes were shot, I think it might be a good time to have them fixed. 
woodbe.

----------


## Bedford

> If you took your car to 100 mechanics and 97 said the brakes were shot, I think it might be a good time to have them fixed. 
> woodbe.

  If you didn't crash on those 97 trips, there's a good chance the other three mechanics were right. :Biggrin:

----------


## johnc

> take your car to 97% of mechanics and they will find something wrong with your car and charge you to fix it, or take it to the 3% of honest car mechanics and they will tell you the truth that there's nothing wrong with you car

   Probably means you have a low opinion of the honesty of mechanics, along with a poor grasp of what may constitute an honest assessment. If 97% say they are shot they probably are.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yes, however none of the above say that "it is science" they say "it is business".

  Same difference really.  Most science relies on business to pay the way.  Most business relies on science to inform the way.  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And here's something to think about for those that think 97% of Scientists are wrong:   
> woodbe.

  Woodbe...that has to be one of the most retarded ads on this topic I've seen yet.  Too stupid for words.  :Annoyed:

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe...that has to be one of the most retarded ads on this topic I've seen yet.  Too stupid for words.

  I agree. Unfortunately the message has to be tuned to the audience.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> I agree. Unfortunately the message has to be tuned to the audience.  
> woodbe.

  unfortunately it's the fools out there that want to use this stuff, it's directed at the gullible, they are the only ones running around thinking the sky is going to fall, meanwhile the pollies & their funders are devising ways to get rich from the green socialist movement who believe in the sky is falling, open borders, no vaccinations & whatever weird fad that's giving them a psychological warm fuzzy feeling inside. If they are deadset in believing this stuff they should donate freely their surplus incomes to support their beliefs which would see a serious economic downturn of tarot card readers & such.
The odds that CO2 is causing global warming is about the same as a 90 year old crippled bed ridden pensioner getting up, running in & winning the 100 meters at the next world championships in a time of 9.4 seconds
regards inter

----------


## r3nov8or

> If you didn't crash on those 97 trips, there's a good chance the other three mechanics were right.

   ^+1 
and at least 96 of them let you drive away despite their sincere professional advice. So how bad were your brakes, really? 
i'm outta here...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Woodbe...that has to be one of the most retarded ads on this topic I've seen yet. Too stupid for words.

  Hey we really agree on something LOL 
BTW woodbe no point now the horse has bolted. We have heard it all before and we just don't believe it! 
Besides the 97% figure is pure and utter bull @#$T

----------


## Rod Dyson

This is a bit from a great essay about science.  Read it here, Why Climate Science is Fallible | Watts Up With That?   

> The history of science is a chronicle of revision. For two thousand years, physicists maintained that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Astronomers thought the Sun moved around the Earth. Physicians supposed that plagues were caused by bad air and treated their patients by bleeding them to death. The icons of the Scientific Revolution, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, all made serious errors. In the late eighteenth century, Neptunists formulated a theory to explain the origin of rocks. They described their conclusions as incontrovertible because everywhere they looked they found evidence that supported their theoretical conceptions. The Neptunist theory turned out to be completely erroneous. At the end of the nineteenth century, geologists thought the Earth was less than 100 million years old. Radioactive dating in the twentieth century showed they were in error by a factor of 46. In the 1920s, American geologists rejected Alfred Wegeners theory of continental drift with near unanimity. They were all wrong. The history of science is a history of error. Has the process of history ceased? Has human nature changed?  
> We are now asked to change the worlds economy on the basis of yet another scientific theory. The fifth assessment report of the IPCC has concluded that there is a 95 percent probability that humans are responsible for climate change. We are induced to accept this conclusion on the basis of naive faith in scientific authority. But this faith can only come from an ignorance of how science really works. Count me out.This is a bit from a great essay about science.  Read it here,

----------


## woodbe

> This is a bit from a great essay about science.  Read it here, Why Climate Science is Fallible | Watts Up With That?

   

> The history of science is a chronicle of revision. For two thousand  years, physicists maintained that heavy objects fall faster than light  ones. Astronomers thought the Sun moved around the Earth. Physicians  supposed that plagues were caused by bad air and treated their patients  by bleeding them to death. The icons of the Scientific Revolution,  Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, all made serious errors. In the late  eighteenth century, Neptunists  formulated a theory to explain the origin of rocks. They described  their conclusions as incontrovertible because everywhere they looked  they found evidence that supported their theoretical conceptions. The  Neptunist theory turned out to be completely erroneous. At the end of  the nineteenth century, geologists thought the Earth was less than 100 million years old.  Radioactive dating in the twentieth century showed they were in error  by a factor of 46. In the 1920s, American geologists rejected Alfred  Wegeners theory of continental drift  with near unanimity. They were all wrong. The history of science is a  history of error. Has the process of history ceased? Has human nature  changed?  
> We are now asked to change the worlds economy on the basis of yet another scientific theory. The fifth assessment report  of the IPCC has concluded that there is a 95 percent probability that  humans are responsible for climate change. We are induced to accept this  conclusion on the basis of naive faith in scientific authority. But  this faith can only come from an ignorance of how science really works.  Count me out.This is a bit from a great essay about science.  Read it  here,

  That's right Rod. Science starts with an Hypothesis and tests it using the scientific method until it is either rejected or accepted. Anthropogenic Climate Change is currently accepted by the vast majority of scientists working in the field and has been the leading hypothesis for about a hundred years. There is always a chance it will get rejected, but after this much time and published scientific research the chances are now vanishingly small.  
Claiming science is wrong is a fun sport in retrospect, but we ain't there yet  :Tongue:  
Of course, as untrained lay people we don't have to accept what the science says and can claim what we like, otherwise this entertaining thread where people claim it is all disproven with zero supporting scientific evidence would not exist! The '*Double Standard*' post above describes that 'skeptic' mindset well. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Claiming science is wrong is a fun sport in retrospect, but we ain't there yet

  All science (no matter what flavour it is) is always wrong in some way or other.  It wouldn't be half as fun or interesting if it wasn't.  Of course...we could just stop doing it.  Then it'd *really* be interesting.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Hey we really agree on something LOL 
> BTW woodbe no point now the horse has bolted. We have heard it all before and we just don't believe it! 
> Besides the 97% figure is pure and utter bull @#$T

  True - no need to sound so surprised. 
What *you* (or I) believe is actually quite unimportant in the general scheme of things. 
No need to overemphasise the bleeding obvious....it is an advertisement.

----------


## johnc

> unfortunately it's the fools out there that want to use this stuff, it's directed at the gullible, they are the only ones running around thinking the sky is going to fall, meanwhile the pollies & their funders are devising ways to get rich from the green socialist movement who believe in the sky is falling, open borders, no vaccinations & whatever weird fad that's giving them a psychological warm fuzzy feeling inside. If they are deadset in believing this stuff they should donate freely their surplus incomes to support their beliefs which would see a serious economic downturn of tarot card readers & such.
> The odds that CO2 is causing global warming is about the same as a 90 year old crippled bed ridden pensioner getting up, running in & winning the 100 meters at the next world championships in a time of 9.4 seconds
> regards inter

   Interesting that you add vaccinations to your list, has it not occurred to you that a process fully supported by the majority of medical experts and challenged by a group of people who are often not qualified or are on the fringes is actually more applicable to those that support climate change than the opposite. The rest is pretty much bias, shoot the messenger, vilify the opponent, demonise all that have a different view to yourself but do you feel better or is the negativity just a bit much. A positive attitude to others does no one any harm you know.

----------


## intertd6

> Interesting that you add vaccinations to your list, has it not occurred to you that a process fully supported by the majority of medical experts and challenged by a group of people who are often not qualified or are on the fringes is actually more applicable to those that support climate change than the opposite. The rest is pretty much bias, shoot the messenger, vilify the opponent, demonise all that have a different view to yourself but do you feel better or is the negativity just a bit much. A positive attitude to others does no one any harm you know.

  If only I was silly enough to swallow up all that propaganda, but alas no, & it will be until some half believable evidence surfaces, until then sarcasm is the best ammunition for it.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

Oh my oh wtf?   Oyster is a canary in a coal mine as oceans warm - CBS News

----------


## johnc

Good of you to post a link containing a graph that shows just how dodgy the claim is that temperature hasn't shifted much over the last 15 years because it points out the fallacy of that piece of cherry picking, the rest of it has been covered before. I guess if you can't get your bias to one side we get these little brain burps, how accurate is the acidity issue?, we will have to wait and see but there is plenty of research to show it is causing thinning of shell in shell fish but if you can close your eyes to that you can blank anything inconvenient I guess. There is none so blind as those that will not see, and yes Marc that does have a religious background.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Oh my oh wtf?   Oyster is a canary in a coal mine as oceans warm - CBS News

  Old news regurgitated in response to new 'info' (IPCC report) with predictable responses from the gallery...the basic mechanisms described in the article are well known but for the oyster farmer to apparently attribute his problem solely to rising ocean acidity is somewhat short sighted.  In most cases, there's more than that to declining shellfish productivity...

----------


## Ashore

> Probably means you have a low opinion of the honesty of mechanics, along with a poor grasp of what may constitute an honest assessment. If 97% say they are shot they probably are.

  Just because I don't believe adds that are as silly as that one does not give me 'a poor grasp of what may constitute an honest assessment', 
Lets look at what is says not the message it is trying to make, which true believers imediately hail at true because thy want to believe that message and agree with any thing that agrees with their , however misguided , beliefs 
I guess I have trouble with assessments at the best of times as I deal in facts not guesstermations or rounding figures off, and to assume that the figures given were honest is a little naive. How can you say that is an honest assessment in the figures given , was it exactly 97% , any real scientist would have alarm bells ringing if that were so or were only 100, 200, 300 etc, climate scientists asked , was the sample of climate scientists vetted, and on that subject just who qualifies as a climate scientist, are they registered by one single body in the world or are many self proclaimed or are they confirmed by an accredited facility then who decides what is an accredited facility . because I am willing to bet I can buy a qualification proclaiming me to be a climate scientist from liberia or nigeria.
So to see a sign that says 97% of ( a world wide profession of 1000,s )  agree with this and only 3 % disagree is not actually true  
I was merely trying to show that you could use statistics like those to push any point, but I do have a low opinion of the honesty of many car mechanics, as has been shown on many current affair shows using hidden cameras

----------


## johnc

The fact you have a low level of confidence in mechanics is relevent, how?  The point of posting it is lost on me, quite frankly I couldn't give a fig it takes away or adds nothing, best to leave it at that or we will still be going in circles at christmas.  :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

Ashore, if I remember correctly, the 97% refers to climate scientists who publish climate science in peer reviewed literature. 
There's a link in this thread a month or so back. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Ashore, if I remember correctly, the 97% refers to climate scientists who publish climate science in peer reviewed literature. 
> There's a link in this thread a month or so back. 
> woodbe.

  Yes, a total waste of space.  97% believe what exactly? baloney ha ha ha ha.  
We have done and dusted this rubbish.  We all believe in climate change, even me!!

----------


## woodbe

> Yes, a total waste of space.  97% believe what exactly? baloney ha ha ha ha.

  I think it's quite clear what the 97% agree on: They agree on exactly the part of climate change that you deny:     

> We have done and dusted this rubbish.  We all believe in climate change, even me!!

  You say you believe in climate change, but it's not entirely the same climate change the scientists agree on!  :Tongue:  
 Ref: James Lawrence Powell 
woodbe.

----------


## Ashore

> You say you believe in climate change, but it's not entirely the same climate change the scientists agree on!

  And what exact amount of man made climate change do all 32,689 agree on. Or are they just broadly saying there's man made climate change not how much or what exactly it effects. Wouldn't it be wonderful if they all agreed on the same figures, but they don't they can't even agree on the same models or interpret the same date and reach the same, conclusions. but to put the figures given as 32,689 climate scientists agree in man made climate change another way , .0000045% of the world population agree in man made climate change which is less than 1 in every 2000,000 people  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Bedford

> 

  What were the reasons the 34 authors rejected it?

----------


## woodbe

> What were the reasons the 34 authors rejected it?

  Dunno  :Biggrin:  
James Powell goes into further detail on the supplied link above, but a precis is here:   

> As discussed in detail here,  I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles  published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that had the  keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search  produced 13,950 articles. See methodology. 
> By my definition 24 of the 13,950 _articles_,  0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject human-caused global warming or  endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The  articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors (rounded to 33,700 in  the figure). The 24 rejecting papers have a total of 34 _authors_, about 1 in 1,000.

  He's not the first to do a review of the state of agreement among publishing climate scientists, and I guess he won't be the last. He doesn't measure the levels of agreement that Ashore requests, I guess he only has one lifetime  :Smilie:  
If you are really interested, there is a list of the rejects and links where available where you can explore the reasons: Rejections and some abstracts from the rejected papers showing their POV: Abstracts 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Wouldn't it be wonderful if they all agreed on the same figures, but they don't they can't even agree on the same models or interpret the same date and reach the same, conclusions.

  Not really.  Imagine if all architects, building designers and structural engineers agreed that there was only one way to build a house using a specified set of materials according to one aesthetic principle.  We'd all be living in the same house....repeated forever.  How beige would that be?  :Biggrin:  
Technically though...all architects, building designers and structural engineers agree that houses can be built. But rarely agree exactly about how to do it. In the same way...virtually all scientists with published papers that human induced climate change is real but there's little specific agreement about the specifics.   
Policy (and human expectations or demands) on the other hand tends to be black or white, on or off, one or the other...not fifty shades of what the heck!

----------


## Marc

> And here's something to think about for those that think 97% of Scientists are wrong:   
> woodbe.

   Lets see ...
The ratio between those who agree with AGW and those who do not is certainly not 97/3 ... more like 30 agree, 70 disagree.
However.
Out of those 30% self appointed expert, 90% have qualifications that have no relation to Climatology
100% are paid to say what they say. Words like mercenary, bias, self serving and many more come to mind.
From those 70% that disagree, many are silent because they are afraid to lose their job for stepping out of the religious line.
Many more can not find funds to campaign effectively and safely (protected from lawsuits) against this fraud.
Those that are funded to do so are dismissed by the demented fringe and the cheer leader squad on the take because ...well..because they are funded to do so.
Ironic isn't it? 
The reality is that the party is over, the alleged relationship between so called "global warming" and man made CO2 is nonexistent, and if CO2 is not the villain it was made to be for political reasons, the whole shamozzle comes down as a house of cards. Think about it how many times the expression "good for the environment" is associated to alleged lower emissions of CO2, true or imaginary? 97%?
 If CO2 is in fact good for the environment and for human life on the planet, we must revert a generation of thinking.
If you add to that the enormity of the waste associated to the industry of "good for the planet" crap, trillions upon trillions of waste and lost opportunity, industry displacement, job losses and many more I don't care to list, the responsible for this fraud should be imprisoned for life in a Mexican prison.

----------


## Marc

> Interesting that you add vaccinations to your list, has it not occurred to you that a process fully supported by the majority of medical experts and challenged by a group of people who are often not qualified or are on the fringes is actually more applicable to those that support climate change than the opposite. The rest is pretty much bias, shoot the messenger, vilify the opponent, demonise all that have a different view to yourself but do you feel better or is the negativity just a bit much. A positive attitude to others does no one any harm you know.

  The problem for the no vaccine lunatics is only that they are amateurs. If they had paid real experts and spent billions in propaganda, there would be many countries who would ban vaccination outright. Cuba and Julia-Australia would have been at the forefront for sure.
The percentages of agree v disagree are in direct relation not to truth but to money spent to make believe. Yes eventually the truth comes to light, in the case of vaccine, the corpses would pile up 3 story high and there would be little left to say. In the case against CO2, it is all airy fairy. 
But the money spent to sell the AGW is 100 times more than the money spent to promote the opposite. 
Climatologist say it's crap, yet if a mammologist PAID to says 'its all true run to the hills'  then it must be true for sure.
Hang on didn't he say that the rain was a thing of the past etc?
Oh but it is an "impasse", meantime because dams are politically incorrect thanks to the likes of those who are paid to talk crap, we have people drowning.  
The parting shot of "be positive" is very funny coming from you.

----------


## woodbe

> The ratio between those who agree with AGW and those who do not is certainly not 97/3 ... more like 30 agree, 70 disagree.

  The stats are for publishing climate scientists and is well documented. Please quote your sources showing that 70% of climate scientists publishing climate research disagree. 
Perhaps you mean non-scientists? As for those non-scientists that you claim disagree based on opinion, not science, I doubt those numbers too, please quote your sources.  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> The problem for the no vaccine lunatics is only that they are amateurs. If they had paid real experts and spent billions in propaganda, there would be many countries who would ban vaccination outright. Cuba and Julia-Australia would have been at the forefront for sure.
> The percentages of agree v disagree are in direct relation not to truth but to money spent to make believe. Yes eventually the truth comes to light, in the case of vaccine, the corpses would pile up 3 story high and there would be little left to say. In the case against CO2, it is all airy fairy. 
> But the money spent to sell the AGW is 100 times more than the money spent to promote the opposite. 
> Climatologist say it's crap, yet if a mammologist PAID to says 'its all true run to the hills' then it must be true for sure.
> Hang on didn't he say that the rain was a thing of the past etc?
> Oh but it is an "impasse", meantime because dams are politically incorrect thanks to the likes of those who are paid to talk crap, we have people drowning.  
> The parting shot of "be positive" is very funny coming from you.

  Pot, kettle, black. a little three word slogan you can use. 
i would love to see you support "Climatologist say it's crap" but you can't can you because quite frankly that describes the quality in the post.  :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

IPCC is back peddling.  But offers a bit of hope for warmists in carefully worded statements.   
From a post in response to this essay Lindzen: Understanding The IPCC AR5 Climate Assessment | Watts Up With That?   

> One of the biggest problems with the IPCC and the alarmist AGW movement is the attaching of catastrophe to climate change. Dr Lindzen captures the nonsense perfectly thus:
> Even the text of the IPCC Scientific Assessment agrees that catastrophic consequences are highly unlikely, and that connections of warming to extreme weather have not been found. *The IPCC iconic statement that there is a high degree of certainty that most of the warming of the past 50 years is due to mans emissions* is, whether true or not, completely consistent with there being no problem. To say that most of a small change is due to man is hardly an argument for the likelihood of large changes.
> Here, here! The IPCC is manufacturing science which is highly political and is designed to make lies sound truthful.

----------


## johnc

> IPCC is back peddling.  But offers a bit of hope for warmists in carefully worded statements.   
> From a post in response to this essay Lindzen: Understanding The IPCC AR5 Climate Assessment | Watts Up With That?

  I don't agree that we are seeing the IPCC back peddling, what we are seeing though is individuals with divergent views looking for anything in the grammar of the report that they can use to try to discredit. So while you may find words that over reach it is wrong to focus on that when you should be concentrating on the report itself and what is contained with-in. There is a world of difference between healthy scepticism where you can accept the body of any report while acknowledging that information on the fringes needs further work and simply grabbing minor errors and deciding that discredits an entire report. In the ongoing discussion on climate change there is no doubt that man is dragging his feet desperate to avoid any economic disadvantage while doing the minimum possible to placate those who want change. That can apply to many things, however in this case we should not be blind to the fact that some change will actually improve competitive advantage and others will come at a cost. It would seem that if we looked harder at competitive advantage we may find addressing green house gas production is not as fraught with risk as some would believe. However those that harp about green plots, left wing or religious conspiracies and the like are doing us all a disservice with what amounts to lies to justify an absurd position. In the end this will be dealt with by rational pragmatic individuals not the lunatic fringe of any side who will not succeed in getting extreme measures or lack thereof into the mainstream. Watts up with that has lost its way, it has become a stomping ground of those who have lost reason, it is now very difficult to find much in it that is little more than a beat up by the hysterical fringe of those who believe we should do nothing.

----------


## woodbe

> IPCC is back peddling.  But offers a bit of hope for warmists in carefully worded statements.   
> From a post in response to this essay Lindzen: Understanding The IPCC AR5 Climate Assessment | Watts Up With That?

   

> To say that most of a small change is due to man is hardly an argument for the likelihood of large changes.

  As a statement on it's own, I agree with that. 
In context of the scientific understanding of what is driving those changes, the statement is just another WUWT dog whistle to the deniers.   

> The IPCC is manufacturing science which is highly political and is designed to make lies sound truthful.

  Basic misunderstanding of IPCC's role. We've been there before, no need to repeat other than to say, the IPCC does not do any scientific research, it's got no budget or charter for that. I'd suggest that anyone who want's to understand the IPCC AR5 Climate Assessment just go and read it rather than have some biassed WUWT commentator shout in your ear what you should think. 
woodbe.

----------


## Ashore

> Not really.  Imagine if all architects, building designers and structural engineers agreed that there was only one way to build a house using a specified set of materials according to one aesthetic principle.  We'd all be living in the same house....repeated forever.  How beige would that be?  
> Technically though...all architects, building designers and structural engineers agree that houses can be built. But rarely agree exactly about how to do it. In the same way...virtually all scientists with published papers that human induced climate change is real but there's little specific agreement about the specifics.   
> Policy (and human expectations or demands) on the other hand tends to be black or white, on or off, one or the other...not fifty shades of what the heck!

   Well said exactly my point , there is climate change every day ,and 32,000 or so, of one group, think there is man made climate change but nowhere is there a consensus on how much or what the effects may be, Some climate Alarmists had global warming of several degrees, and sea level rise of 1 meter by 2015, will that happen , I think not . The models get revised each day as the prophecies fail to get fulfilled. To rush in with alarmists quick fix methods is not the way, and as this thread was originally started, to put the point forward that an ETS or carbon tax would *not* be good for Australia, Has been shown to be correct. This was a greens push that did nothing to impact on World emissions and caused a lot of hardship to Australians. Thank goodness the Australian People were able to see this and voted in People who would remove it, though the damage it did can never be undone.

----------


## johnc

Power price increases over the last four years have brought about more efficient use of power as people struggle to pay bills, what is over looked is that in that period less than 20% of that increase is due to the carbon tax, which raises the point of attribution of cost damage and the extent of the reach of the carbon tax. It is probably a lot less than a lot of people assume and any drop in power prices is unlikely to make much difference to power prices (about 7% at most) unless it is accompanied by a drop in the gold plating of the distribution network that has been going on and a reduction in power prices as a result. In fact the wholesale price of power from coal fired generators has dropped meaning the real impact of the carbon price has been diluted even further so it should be interesting to observe the political gymnastics that will go on as the carbon tax is dismantled. It would seem the prices of installing solar power against the retail price per kilowatt may well mean that industry no longer requires any form of subsidy other than some form of price regulation on purchase of household surplus power. The bigger issue will be incentives to encourage wind and solar farms. If we can provide 90 million in incentives to export dirty brown coal from the Latrobe Valley then there should not be any impediment to providing infrastructure hand outs for clean power should there.

----------


## Ashore

It wasn't just the power costs though , every item we used was affected . Even water rates , one of the big carbon polluters was Sydney water , why they were taxed on the sewage farms , Councils , our local council had an increase of several million in running costs from the Carbon Tax, why the amount of green waste they collected, the grass clippings collected from households , yet when the grass grew back and absorbed carbon to do it there were no credits , just more charge to the council as they collected it.  We have been here before John , the Carbon Tax increased the cost of living by a lot more than a 7% increase in power bills , it did nothing to impact on world co2 pollution levels it reduced many Australians standard of living and was dramatically rejected by the majority of Australians . As to the more effective  use of power as people struggle to pay bills, tell that to people who sat in the cold because they couldn't afford to turn on a heater , talk to people on a pension in rental accommodation how they became more effective, and you may find the way they did it was to go without, talk to the Salvo's about the effect of the carbon tax and ask if there numbers needing assistance increased because of it . When you deliver meals on wheels talk to those people and ask them if it's affected anything more than their power bills. Its all very well to only argue that all the carbon tax affected was a 7% increase in power bills, but it didn't just affect power costs, ask your local green grocer who has been in business at the same location since 1979 what is the main factor he is closing and be amazed that figures produced by government departments to show the carbon tax wasn't at all bad don't mean diddly when your at the coal face facing the real costs of living.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Well said exactly my point , there is climate change every day ,and 32,000 or so, of one group, think there is man made climate change but nowhere is there a consensus on how much or what the effects may be, Some climate Alarmists had global warming of several degrees, and sea level rise of 1 meter by 2015, will that happen , I think not . The models get revised each day as the prophecies fail to get fulfilled. To rush in with alarmists quick fix methods is not the way, and as this thread was originally started, to put the point forward that an ETS or carbon tax would *not* be good for Australia, Has been shown to be correct. This was a greens push that did nothing to impact on World emissions and caused a lot of hardship to Australians. Thank goodness the Australian People were able to see this and voted in People who would remove it, though the damage it did can never be undone.

  Agree.  But for different reasons.  The carbon tax/ETS as it was proposed and implemented was a stupid idea because it was ineffectual window dressing rather than a policy designed to actually achieve an outcome.  Political appeasement rather than useful policy.  The Coalition's 'Direct Action' exercise is of the same ilk. 
Frankly, if a person or a party has the conviction to think that doing nothing is better than doing something then they should suck it up and say so...and accept the social, political and economic consequences.  Alternatively, they could have the courage to offer potential solutions that do stand some hope of making a difference despite 'some hardship' and (again)...accept the consequences.  Rather than the nonsense we put up with now from all sides.  
That said...in my view...doing nothing is probably not an option.  Though it could offer a long term solution I'd probably be happy with regardless.

----------


## johnc

I don't disagree, especially the impact of utility bills on the poor, however despite some of the anomalies like the grass cuttings I don't think withdrawing the tax is going to make as big a difference as some people expect. Some prices will drop but in the case of power if the past repeats itself we may simply have price stability for a year followed by more above inflation increases. The power companies need to be called to account because something doesn't add up there, I hope I'm wrong because those on pensions and government benefits can't afford soaring utility bills which ends up being a public health issue when you  can't afford to heat your home. On the other hand if we are near the end of large spending on poles and wires we may get lucky and see that component of the power bill drop. As for world impact we aren't the only ones making an effort but until both China and the USA begin to cut total emissions we can't expect to get a global improvement, but it is also important that we are in a position to keep up when they do otherwise it will be far more economically damaging than starting to take action now. As it is both sides are committed to reduction subject to a bigger effort providing the major emitters by tonnage (not per capita) start to increase their effort.

----------


## Marc

> The power companies need to be called to account because something doesn't add up there, I hope I'm wrong because those on pensions and government benefits can't afford soaring utility bills which ends up being a public health issue when you  can't afford to heat your home. On the other hand if we are near the end of large spending on poles and wires we may get lucky and see that component of the power bill drop. As for world impact we aren't the only ones making an effort but until both China and the USA begin to cut total emissions we can't expect to get a global improvement, but it is also important that we are in a position to keep up when they do otherwise it will be far more economically damaging than starting to take action now. As it is both sides are committed to reduction subject to a bigger effort providing the major emitters by tonnage (not per capita) start to increase their effort.

  What a load of hogwash.
Electricity bills soar because they must conform to the lunatics who demand a percentage of "alternative energy" that is overpriced, inefficient and completely dependent on subsidies.    _"..but until both China and the USA begin to cut total emissions we can't expect to get a global improvement..."_ Improvement on what exactly?
it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that man made CO2 has zero impact on climate, so what is it that you want to improve on? This megalomaniac delusion that the green religion can reach beyond international borders to impose their fringe socialist greligion on others in order to tow the political correct line.  I am so sick of this delusions of grandeur from the green fringe that it is way beyond the joke. :Annoyed:

----------


## johnc

As usual a load of miss-informed rubbish, you can't possibly be serious, all this illustrates is someone totally disengaged with reality. Do you think we could be a little more grown up in our responses.
,

----------


## Ashore

> however despite some of the anomalies like the grass cuttings I don't think withdrawing the tax is going to make as big a difference as some people expect.

  As I said earlier the damage by this ( and by lying to the public before an election and not giving them an actual say , one could call it a dishonest tax ) that has been done cannot be undone, and Miss Gillard in her willingness to compromise her integrity to have power will have to suffer the consequences of her actions, and the damnation of a large portion of the Australian people who she held such contempt for.     

> but it is also important that we are in a position to keep up when they do otherwise it will be far more economically damaging than starting to take action now. As it is both sides are committed to reduction subject

   Suggesting that china , India or the United states will ever start or even commit to carbon reduction is a little naïve. The US has been and will continue to be run by the rich indulgent that don't give a dam about anyone or anything as long as there ok , you only have to look at the present lock down and why its happening, the Chinese and Indians have a long cultural history of graft and cheating the system and will never abide by anything that cuts profit, so the largest polluters will continue with vague promises and meanwhile our home grown alarmists will try to save the world with wild, often simplistic, un-realistic and damaging measures, if allowed , that will have no effect on world pollution in any form

----------


## johnc

> What a load of hogwash.
> Electricity bills soar because they must conform to the lunatics who demand a percentage of "alternative energy" that is overpriced, inefficient and completely dependent on subsidies.    _"..but until both China and the USA begin to cut total emissions we can't expect to get a global improvement..."_ Improvement on what exactly?
> it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that man made CO2 has zero impact on climate, so what is it that you want to improve on? This megalomaniac delusion that the green religion can reach beyond international borders to impose their fringe socialist greligion on others in order to tow the political correct line.  I am so sick of this delusions of grandeur from the green fringe that it is way beyond the joke.

   How about you try to find some facts to support this fantasy land you live in, constant referral to "religion" is offensive drivel and no substitute for reasoned conversation. The carbon tax accounts for no more than 9% of your power bill, renewables another 3% and all those changeover light bulb and other energy efficiency schemes another 3% the solar feed in tariff which is coming down from its highs and will be comparable to the wholesale price of coal produced power at some point in the near future accounts for around 7% although this will reduce dramatically over the next five years as those who have enjoyed the earlier very high feed in prices see those schemes terminating as those contracts end. If you want a source go have a look at the AEMC which is one of many that provide information. Remember households on average receive about $10.10 per week compensation for the impact of the carbon tax. The real villain for power price increase remains network charges for poles and wires. Rather than hyperbole and unsupported allegations we would all be better off trying to make sure there is some substance to our comments. It doesn't matter if people have different views it only matters when we make no effort to try and work out if those views are founded on nothing more than gut feeling, hot air and a derogatory view of those we don't agree with.  It doesn't matter which "side" we sit on many of the pricing calculations are available from decent sources courtesy of Google it is not hard to find out if our views are nothing more than peeing in the wind. People who tick the box asking that their power come from green sources pay a premium for that plus show us the figures that reveal the Kw cost of wind, hydro and solar along with coal and how it effects the total price, you will not and that is because it does not support your silly ideas. It has also not been proven beyond any form of doubt that CO2 emissions are not effecting climate, read the IPCC report there is nothing in there to support your view, but then one imagines you would not be prepared to read anything that poses the slightest challenge to your cherished opinion of religious extremists sipping latte voting left wing and making you accountable for your unsupported comments.

----------


## johnc

> As I said earlier the damage by this ( and by lying to the public before an election and not giving them an actual say , one could call it a dishonest tax ) that has been done cannot be undone, and Miss Gillard in her willingness to compromise her integrity to have power will have to suffer the consequences of her actions, and the damnation of a large portion of the Australian people who she held such contempt for.   
>  Suggesting that china , India or the United states will ever start or even commit to carbon reduction is a little naïve. The US has been and will continue to be run by the rich indulgent that don't give a dam about anyone or anything as long as there ok , you only have to look at the present lock down and why its happening, the Chinese and Indians have a long cultural history of graft and cheating the system and will never abide by anything that cuts profit, so the largest polluters will continue with vague promises and meanwhile our home grown alarmists will try to save the world with wild, often simplistic, un-realistic and damaging measures, if allowed , that will have no effect on world pollution in any form

  Will they lower total emissions? India has a carbon tax on coal and China is set to trial a carbon tax or ETS (I've forgotten which) in one of its provinces as well as rapidly getting rid of inefficient power stations. China is actually reducing carbon emissions per kilowatt of power produced and produces a large amount of power from renewables such as hydro and wind. However it is true that they will not strangle economic growth to achieve lower emissions. Per capita emissions are quite low it is just that there are so many of them. World emissions will only get lower if there is a world effort and it would be correct to say if the Tea Party Republicans have their way there is little hope of a combined world effort although there are tentative signs that China is prepared to get on board partly to reduce health issues from particulate matter in their cities and partly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (same source different outcomes). The world does seem to be slowly moving towards a greater effort but I doubt it will be enough to achieve anything for at least the next decade and most likely much further down the track in the absence of leadership from the major powers.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> As I said earlier the damage by this ( and by lying to the public before an election and not giving them an actual say , one could call it a dishonest tax ) that has been done cannot be undone, and Miss Gillard in her willingness to compromise her integrity to have power will have to suffer the consequences of her actions, and the damnation of a large portion of the Australian people who she held such contempt for.

  I'm sure she's trembling in her boots... :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  
As for the damage...harden up.  It's just a scratch. :Sneaktongue:

----------


## Ashore

> I'm sure she's trembling in her boots... 
> As for the damage...harden up.  It's just a scratch.

   Obviously being disowned by your peers and to be thought of as a liar with no integrity by the majority os Australians, does not, ( for what ever reasons ), worry you  :No:  
And "It's just a scratch" yeah it mostly effect the poor the old and those younger battlers trying to get a home and raise a young family and it's their fault they are where they are,  It's only a scratch to the good guys who know what is for the greater good, so regardless of the cost or hardship it caused and even though it had no impact on world pollution and some not so well off people suffered by a huge ( to them ) increase in their cost of living and they had to do without, well so be it, they should just harden up  :No:

----------


## johnc

Don't forget they did receive compensation through increased social security payments. The problem is possibly not so much the carbon tax in isolation but the overall increase in utility bills much of the increase being for other reasons than the carbon tax itself. The real villain here may be the increasing problem of pensions and benefits not keeping up with the general cost of living. Linking with CPI is a sensible approach except pensioners in particular are being punished as they are not gaining from reducing home loan interest or other factors holding the index down but are getting hit with food, rents, utility, government charges and other costs that are rising at a faster rate.

----------


## Ashore

> Don't forget they did receive compensation through increased social security payments..

   Not 10% though, or anything even close to that, and the self funded got nothing, but that's ok cause all they have to do is harden up  :Mad:

----------


## intertd6

Ashore, don't  worry the died in the wool supporters of these galahs will take it to the grave with them & no basic individual thought processes enter into the vast empty spaces where sensibility should exist. Social instincts of the herd mentality at work
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> How about you try to find some facts to support this fantasy land you live in, constant referral to "religion" is offensive drivel and no substitute for reasoned conversation. The carbon tax accounts for no more than 9% of your power bill, renewables another 3% and all those changeover light bulb and other energy efficiency schemes another 3% the solar feed in tariff which is coming down from its highs and will be comparable to the wholesale price of coal produced power at some point in the near future accounts for around 7% although this will reduce dramatically over the next five years as those who have enjoyed the earlier very high feed in prices see those schemes terminating as those contracts end. If you want a source go have a look at the AEMC which is one of many that provide information. Remember households on average receive about $10.10 per week compensation for the impact of the carbon tax. The real villain for power price increase remains network charges for poles and wires. Rather than hyperbole and unsupported allegations we would all be better off trying to make sure there is some substance to our comments. It doesn't matter if people have different views it only matters when we make no effort to try and work out if those views are founded on nothing more than gut feeling, hot air and a derogatory view of those we don't agree with. It doesn't matter which "side" we sit on many of the pricing calculations are available from decent sources courtesy of Google it is not hard to find out if our views are nothing more than peeing in the wind. People who tick the box asking that their power come from green sources pay a premium for that plus show us the figures that reveal the Kw cost of wind, hydro and solar along with coal and how it effects the total price, you will not and that is because it does not support your silly ideas. It has also not been proven beyond any form of doubt that CO2 emissions are not effecting climate, read the IPCC report there is nothing in there to support your view, but then one imagines you would not be prepared to read anything that poses the slightest challenge to your cherished opinion of religious extremists sipping latte voting left wing and making you accountable for your unsupported comments.

  If you want people to read your posts, please use paragraphs. 
Like this, 
and this.

----------


## Ashore

> Ashore, don't  worry the died in the wool supporters of these galahs will take it to the grave with them & no basic individual thought processes enter into the vast empty spaces where sensibility should exist. Social instincts of the herd mentality at work
> regards inter

   That's fine but I get upset when some people say harden up and it's only a scratch , Silent but deadly in my view has no real grip on life or no real touch with real life to make a statement like that . Either he/she ( and we have no real way of knowing ) lives in a world where the hardship caused by things like the carbon tax do not effect them, or their mind set makes them believe that hardship to those less fortunate than themselves are of no value. I as you here know do not wish bad luck about anyone but ' Silent but deadly ' if karma comes as it often does I would hope you think back to those remarks you made and when you are in a hard place and making ends meet is almost impossible and realize an ivory tower never lasts forever you think back and realize the error of your ways , because we will all end up in a nursing home or dead, but it is the quality of life that is important and to tell older people to " Harden Up " shows just what sort of person you are. I have posted her a lot and don't criticize or put a lot or put people down but your disregard to the suffering caused by the ' Carbon Tax " and your comments " to harden up " just shows what type op person you are. As I said I don't often get angry but to make comments like that when people less fortunate than yourself are suffering in my opinion you should take a good look at the comments and yourself

----------


## intertd6

> That's fine but I get upset when some people say harden up and it's only a scratch , Silent but deadly in my view has no real grip on life or no real touch with real life to make a statement like that . Either he/she ( and we have no real way of knowing ) lives in a world where the hardship caused by things like the carbon tax do not effect them, or their mind set makes them believe that hardship to those less fortunate than themselves are of no value. I as you here know do not wish bad luck about anyone but ' Silent but deadly ' if karma comes as it often does I would hope you think back to those remarks you made and when you are in a hard place and making ends meet is almost impossible and realize an ivory tower never lasts forever you think back and realize the error of your ways , because we will all end up in a nursing home or dead, but it is the quality of life that is important and to tell older people to " Harden Up " shows just what sort of person you are. I have posted her a lot and don't criticize or put a lot or put people down but your disregard to the suffering caused by the ' Carbon Tax " and your comments " to harden up " just shows what type op person you are. As I said I don't often get angry but to make comments like that when people less fortunate than yourself are suffering in my opinion you should take a good look at the comments and yourself

  unfortunately with these types they can be told, not very much though, (if anything at all)
Same sort of mentality that follow leaders, leading from the rear that can throw away thousands of lives in wars that have nothing to do with our countries security or throw away billions of dollars & not actually have anything more to show after the fact, just to show that they're in charge & the minions will follow blindly & never even come close to grasping the fact they are cannon fodder in every aspect of society
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> If you want people to read your posts, please use paragraphs. 
> Like this, 
> and this.

  I'm sorry Rod but you are going to have to live with it, sometimes I can get paragraph breaks and sometimes not, buggered If I know if its the browser or what it is but it is a real pain.

----------


## woodbe

> That's fine but I get upset when some people say harden up and it's only a scratch , Silent but deadly in my view has no real grip on life or no real touch with real life to make a statement like that . Either he/she ( and we have no real way of knowing ) lives in a world where the hardship caused by things like the carbon tax do not effect them, or their mind set makes them believe that hardship to those less fortunate than themselves are of no value. I as you here know do not wish bad luck about anyone but ' Silent but deadly ' if karma comes as it often does I would hope you think back to those remarks you made and when you are in a hard place and making ends meet is almost impossible and realize an ivory tower never lasts forever you think back and realize the error of your ways , because we will all end up in a nursing home or dead, but it is the quality of life that is important and to tell older people to " Harden Up " shows just what sort of person you are. I have posted her a lot and don't criticize or put a lot or put people down but your disregard to the suffering caused by the ' Carbon Tax " and your comments " to harden up " just shows what type op person you are. As I said I don't often get angry but to make comments like that when people less fortunate than yourself are suffering in my opinion you should take a good look at the comments and yourself

  If you want people to read your posts, please use paragraphs. 
Like this, 
and this.

----------


## johnc

> Not 10% though, or anything even close to that, and the self funded got nothing, but that's ok cause all they have to do is harden up

  I don't think anyone is suggesting they should help a cup of cement slide down with some well lubricated Pal, in fact rather than huge handouts to a few wealthy Mums amongst others I would rather see a lift in pensions and benefits and a bit more done to ensure we have affordable housing either purchase or rent. Doesn't effect me as I'll never qualify for a pension or any other handout but I do have a lot of sympathy for those that do, if you are in the rental market with no cash reserves at all the pension doesn't really cover the basics especially for singles.

----------


## Bedford

> I'm sorry Rod but you are going to have to live with it, sometimes I can get paragraph breaks and sometimes not, buggered If I know if its the browser or what it is but it is a real pain.

  
This might help, http://www.renovateforum.com/f36/i-c...an-you-109380/

----------


## Ashore

I think the problem is IE Neil said there were conflicts, If you down load 'chrome' https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrom...&utm_medium=ha 
it takes away the prob ,  
Personally I don't find it as easy to work with overall, but when logging on to vBulletin forums  it is better with less conflicts  :Cool:  
If however you want to stay with IE try  In the top left hand corner above the box you type in is a small A / Large A , click on this and it puts you in WYSIWYG mode and gives you line breaks, however you need to do it every time you post.

----------


## johnc

Thanks to both of you, I have Chrome loaded and use it to view attachments when they will not come up in IE, looks like Chrome might be getting a bit more use.

----------


## Ashore

> If you want people to read your posts, please use paragraphs.like this,and this.

  When I posted my reply I was in IE my usual browser and after reading a lot of your other posts I realize you have little ability to see the forest. You did not think for a moment, before criticizing me, that there may have been a technical problem, Yes I could have put the reply in WYSIWYG or logged out and re logged in in Chrome, but I didn't, and with IE you have conflicts when posting on vBullien forums. If you are so inclined that you won't read my posts because there are no paragraph breaks, then the loss is yours, as you would probably learn something , then again with the mindset you are displaying you probably wouldn't.
However 
regardless 
of 
your 
critique
the
choice
 to 
have 
paragraph
breaks  
in 
my 
posts 
is 
mine  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> You did not think for a moment, before criticizing me, that there may have been a technical problem,

  Ashore, 
Look at Rod's post 9123 a few posts above yours. You did not think to criticise Rod for his post? :P 
woodbe.

----------


## Ashore

As usual you miss the point, Rod didn't criticize me and knowing johnc as well as I do, I know he neither needs my jumping in to save him or requires it as he is one of the most capable people here in dealing with such things. 
But lets get to the real point , you in my opinion felt the need to defend your ( as shown by some of your previous posts ) attitude to the failed carbon tax and the last Labor government and the fact that I made disparaging remarks about the last governments policy the stupidity of rushing in with 'Green' policies (simply to have power) that wouldn't achieve any real goals in the world arena .you found the need to somehow 'have a go at me', but as you couldn't fault the message or logic displayed , the only avenue available to you was to criticized my posts lack of paragraphs. Bit sad really  :No:

----------


## woodbe

> As usual you miss the point, Rod didn't criticize me and knowing johnc as well as I do, I know he neither needs my jumping in to save him or requires it as he is one of the most capable people here in dealing with such things. 
> But lets get to the real point , you in my opinion felt the need to defend your ( as shown by some of your previous posts ) attitude to the failed carbon tax and the last Labor government and the fact that I made disparaging remarks about the last governments policy the stupidity of rushing in with 'Green' policies (simply to have power) that wouldn't achieve any real goals in the world arena .you found the need to somehow 'have a go at me', but as you couldn't fault the message or logic displayed , the only avenue available to you was to criticized my posts lack of paragraphs. Bit sad really

  Point. Missed. Badly. 
My post was an exact copy and paste of Rods post. It had nothing to do with the content of your post. It was not a criticism of your post. It was putting the highlight on Rod's criticism of johnc's paragraph-less missive.  
Goose, meet gander.  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## Ashore

> Point. Missed. Badly. 
> My post was an exact copy and paste of Rods post. It had nothing to do with the content of your post. It was not a criticism of your post. It was putting the highlight on Rod's criticism of johnc's paragraph-less missive.  
> Goose, meet gander.  
> woodbe.

   So why post a copy of a post that's critical of my ability to post a message and aim it at me, you wanted my response and I feel I have hit a nerve in my assessment of you.  
As to your reference to a 'goose, meet gander' I am a little at a loss, I know you are using all your ability to make a sarcastic remark but to say a female Anserini  meet a male Anserini , does not quite as they say 'cut the mustard' and to save you the trouble of looking it up as I am sure you will anyway Anserini is the family of the Anatidae which is the waterfowl including geese . 
If however you are trying to imply that I am a goose as used in urban slang ' someone who is a little silly' I fear you are judging me by your standards. for if this is the best subtle sarcastic comment you can come up with then I have indeed *not* misjudged you. (Highlighted not so you wouldn't get the wrong message)
But if you are more intelligent than you appear then it could be trying to say female meet male ( as the gander is the male of the species ) and as I am a male then perhaps you message has some sexual undertone, a proposal of sorts. Please do not take this personally but being happily married for over 40 years to a beautiful wife who I still love dearly I have no interest in taking up a liaison with another woman , and if your not a woman and you interests lie in a field where you just act as a woman, I am sorry but my interests do not lie ( excuse the pun ) in that direction either  :No:

----------


## woodbe

> As to your reference to a 'goose, meet gander' I am a little at a loss

  So you have never heard the saying "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" ?   What's Good for the Goose - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. 
I'm rather amused and amazed at the amount of invention in your replies to me. I'm not chasing you Ashore, I'm participating in a forum discussion. 
I'll certainly take notice of your posts when you start showing that there are another 33,000 publishing climate scientists that disagree with the existing 33,000 odd. It's about time the skeptics started publishing don't you think, I mean the skeptics claim that it's so easy to blow away the existing science, how come it hasn't been done? This isn't the first time I've said I'd be delighted if that happened. In the meantime, recycled opinion doesn't add much to the weight of evidence. 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> But lets get to the real point , you in my opinion felt the need to defend your ( as shown by some of your previous posts ) attitude to the failed carbon tax and the last Labor government and the fact that I made disparaging remarks about the last governments policy the stupidity of rushing in with 'Green' policies (simply to have power) that wouldn't achieve any real goals in the world arena .you found the need to somehow 'have a go at me', but as you couldn't fault the message or logic displayed , the only avenue available to you was to criticized my posts lack of paragraphs. Bit sad really

  Ashore, I am surprised that you are...surprised that is. 
Those who _BELIEVE_ that man made CO2 will doom the planet, do so based on a personal belief system that is a perfect match for any other belief system be it of religious nature, health, extraterrestrials, myths, legends, CO2 is bad for you, the Y2K, Nessie, The Hawkesbury monster, the Deceased Correa, salt over the left shoulder, old CD as mirrors to fend off bad luck ...or any other nice story without any proof that requires faith to believe what can not be seen nor proven.   
Anyone who attacks this inane beliefs attacks the person by elevation or that is what the believer perceives anyway, even when that is not the intention.  
Sometimes it is possible to exchange a list of reasons a person believes in something or does not believe, and such list is mostly required to be subscribed by the high priest of the relevant religious order. Most of the time this is not possible and then the author or priest must be discredited, and if that fails then it is the poster that must be discredited and considering the minimal knowledge we have of each other, all that is left is attack the grammar, punctuation capitalisation or the use of the return key since that is the only evidence we leave behind as proof of our own existence. 
Still I think it is important to voice one's opinion in favour or against a particular line of faith. Since we are talking about the "CO2 is bad for you" religion, then I voice my opinion loud and clear:
I say anyone can believe what they want in their own heart, and may even try to proselytize among their peers as other religious orders have done for millennia, conceded mostly with devastating effects. Still, let them be.
However I voice my unapologetic opposition to the state joining in and wasting my tax money on this inane pagan belief. Paying 67c for solar generated electricity is idiocy at its nth potential and the fact that it is now phased out does not excuse it, the damage done to the economy is irreversible and so is wind waves and all the other crap put together. 
And the "Carbon" tax sits right in the middle of this sewage puddle.
The principle of the separation of church and state should apply here and those responsible taken to court.

----------


## Marc

*WIKIPEDIA
Australia[edit]*_Main article: Section 116 of the Australian Constitution_ The Constitution of Australia prevents the Commonwealth from establishing any religion or requiring a religious test for any office:
Ch 5 § 116 _The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth._

----------


## Ashore

> So you have never heard the saying "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" ?   What's Good for the Goose - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. 
> I'm rather amused and amazed at the amount of invention in your replies to me. I'm not chasing you Ashore, I'm participating in a forum discussion. 
> I'll certainly take notice of your posts when you start showing that there are another 33,000 publishing climate scientists that disagree with the existing 33,000 odd. It's about time the skeptics started publishing don't you think, I mean the skeptics claim that it's so easy to blow away the existing science, how come it hasn't been done? This isn't the first time I've said I'd be delighted if that happened. In the meantime, recycled opinion doesn't add much to the weight of evidence. 
> woodbe.

  Indeed I have heard of that saying , which is not what you said, once again I fear I hit a nerve, perhaps it was a Freudian slip on your part.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  
If you bothered to look, I was the first person to respond to this thread , my views then are as they are now, that a carbon tax would cause hardship and reduce the standard of living and quality of life of many Australians and do nothing to impact on the world pollution levels . Since that time I have not been involved with the slugging match that went on here, nor will I rise to your feeble attempt to get me into it by arguing semantics re the amount of change and damage, if any, that man made co2 has done or may do in the future.  
However for this one time I will make an effort so you may pick up a couple of faults with your last argument. 
1 To suggest that I would need to have an exact same number of 'climate scientists ' have an opposing view before it is believable is rather naive and childish. Regardless of the number of people who totally believe a theory, it is not necessarily true, as was shown by Columbus in 1492. Darwin was also a man almost alone in his theories, so having a majority of ' learned people in one profession does not make their common theory true. Thus it is a very poor start to any argument to make such assumptions
2. To imply that I sit in a group where you decide who belongs in that group based on your opinion, is once again a poor argument and leaves you easily shown to be wrong , and when one section of your argument is shown to be false then it puts some doubt in the rest of your argument.
3. To imply I use recycled opinion in my arguments indicates you have not bothered, or have been unable to read and understand what I have posted and once again shows a lack of ability in carrying on a debate. You claim that recycled opinion doesn't add much weight yet you earlier recycled a post in a vague attempt to criticize me. 
If you give you opinion and state it as such, have an open mind move away from total mindset, look at the possibility you are wrong, do not use name calling, get you facts right first ( see point 3 ) you may find you are taken more seriously.

----------


## woodbe

> However for this one time I will make an effort so you may pick up a couple of faults with your last argument. 
> 1 To suggest that I would need to have an exact same number of 'climate scientists ' have an opposing view before it is believable is rather naive and childish. Regardless of the number of people who totally believe a theory, it is not necessarily true, as was shown by Columbus in 1492. Darwin was also a man almost alone in his theories, so having a majority of ' learned people in one profession does not make their common theory true. Thus it is a very poor start to any argument to make such assumptions

  I said 33,000 odd, for a reason. When a scientific theory gets replaced by a better theory, there is a queue of scientists doing research to attempt to falsify, then replicate and extend that theory. If AGW became outdated you'd have your 33,000 odd in a matter of years. Isn't is about time that the skeptics started? The state of the theory is not comparable to the state of the theories you propose for comparison but I am more than happy to accept there is a chance that it will be overturned, even if that chance is vanishingly small. Darwin is a class example that science corrects itself when a new better theory is proposed and yet if you look at The Discovery of Global Warming, Introduction and Summary and the work of John Tyndall you will see that the basics of the current theory have remained intact since around 1850, about the same time as the publishing of On the Origin of the Species.   

> 2. To imply that I sit in a group where you decide who belongs in that group based on your opinion, is once again a poor argument and leaves you easily shown to be wrong , and when one section of your argument is shown to be false then it puts some doubt in the rest of your argument.

  I have not put you in a group where I decide who belongs in that group. You have chosen to put yourself on one side of a discussion.   

> 3. To imply I use recycled opinion in my arguments indicates you have not bothered, or have been unable to read and understand what I have posted and once again shows a lack of ability in carrying on a debate. You claim that recycled opinion doesn't add much weight yet you earlier recycled a post in a vague attempt to criticize me.

  To make it clear. I'm interested in scientific research that shows one way or another if limiting and reducing humankind's CO2 output is beneficial to the planet as a biosphere to support human life. Currently, the state of the research is that it would be beneficial. While this is not about opinion, I'm happy for you to express one, as you have. My opinion is that voicing your opinion does not effect the state of the science. I strongly suspect that I am right, as we both know that the way to change scientific theories is to do research to find better theories, not express negative opinions about the current theory.    

> If you give you opinion and state it as such, have an open mind move away from total mindset, look at the possibility you are wrong, do not use name calling, get you facts right first ( see point 3 ) you may find you are taken more seriously.

  I have expressed an interest in hearing new scientific research that upturns the existing state of our knowledge. Should this occur, and become accepted mainstream climate science, I will be very happy to accept that I was wrong. I think I already said this.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Ashore

> The state of the theory is not comparable to the state of the theories you propose for comparison Why not the population was almost universally opposed the Darwin's theories , once again you didn't learn . Would it not have been better to say that in your opinion they are not comparable rather than state it as an absolute ,   
> I have not put you in a group where I decide who belongs in that group. You have chosen to put yourself on one side of a discussion.  
> Yes you did, but with your mindset you won't be able to see that either   
> To make it clear. I'm interested in scientific research that shows one way or another if limiting and reducing humankind's CO2 output is beneficial to the planet as a biosphere to support human life. Currently, the state of the research is that it would be beneficial. While this is not about opinion, I'm happy for you to express one, as you have. My opinion is that voicing your opinion does not effect the state of the science. I strongly suspect that I am right, as we both know that the way to change scientific theories is to do research to find better theories, not express negative opinions about the current theory.  Waffle   
> I have expressed an interest in hearing new scientific research that upturns the existing state of our knowledge. Should this occur, and become accepted mainstream climate science, I will be very happy to accept that I was wrong. I think I already said this.   Now that is an absolute classic you want  'new scientific research that upturns the existing state of our knowledge' to occur but you still wouldn't believe it unless it was accepted by mainstream climate science. Do you have that little self confidence that you cannot believe something until the majority do , stop , by your own admission , being a sheep and be your own person. 
> woodbe.

  Thank you for your reply , I notice however you only answered some of my points, perhaps you felt these were wrong but agreed with my other points raised, perhaps there is hope for you yet. 
You are a persistent person though as you once again try to swing the Debate back to only points you feel confident to discuss and in those I have little interest in pursuing . There are hundreds of posts here quoting all sorts of data and works of others on the subject so another 500 posts is only wasting bandwidth. 
However  I state again 'The carbon tax introduced by the last labor government was a bad tax , it cause hardship and reduce the standard of living and quality of life of many Australians and do nothing to impact on the world pollution levels . you seem unable to see this as my main point and reason for posting , If you disagree and wish to debate this point please do I would be interested in your argument against my opinion on that subject, but if you only wish to rehash recycled opinion which in you own words "  doesn't add much' then feel free but do not expect me to succumb to debate with someone with a mindset like yours , 'it ain't worth my time' :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Rod Dyson

Well we have had a bit of distraction. Now lets get back to arguing the points about AGW and the failure of the temperature to rise!!   
I Just love to whip up  hysteria in the warmist and watch them struggle to argue their lost cause, while coming to terms with the fact that public opinion is deserting them!  
We don't have to attack people, just the stupidity of what they are trying to have us believe. :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:

----------


## johnc

This is getting rather circular except for Marcs usual brilliant observation that we have separation of church and state in this country and he even posts a link to give us all benefit of this new found wisdom. Sorry Marc I think you will find most if not all posters are already aware of this well known little fact it has been around in our constitution since Federation. 
The standard of living in this country has grown in this country since federation and has continued to grow since the introduction of the carbon tax. There are some groups in society though who haven't gained and those especially are the ones on fixed incomes or social security support. However i don't believe the carbon tax is the villian and that will become apparent once the tax is abolished. As for world efforts at CO2 abatement of course taking Australia's contribution aside we are not going to make a situation reverse without other countries also making an effort which many are. It should be to our never ending shame that we helped damage the Kyoto accords and gave the U.S. a free ticket to avoid them. However we do need to be part of a world effort and should we take a more positive view we may also profit from the technology that goes with change. I did have a handy little graph somewhere on standard of living which I'll try to find, remember though it applies to the population as a whole there will always be winners and losers with-in that. 
As for paragraphs, a little less sensitivity all round would be a good thing, I've hurled plenty at Rod, I don't mind if a bit comes back from time to time.

----------


## johnc

> Well we have had a bit of distraction. Now lets get back to arguing the points about AGW and the failure of the temperature to rise!!  
> I Just love to whip up hysteria in the warmist and watch them struggle to argue their lost cause, while coming to terms with the fact that public opinion is deserting them!  
> We don't have to attack people, just the stupidity of what they are trying to have us believe.

  
Can't quite move on from 1998 then Rod, come on open your mind a bit it will not hurt the "level temperature" argument which is based on the rockiest of foundations.

----------


## woodbe

> Thank you for your reply , I notice however you only answered some of my points, perhaps you felt these were wrong but agreed with my other points raised, perhaps there is hope for you yet. 
> You are a persistent person though as you once again try to swing the Debate back to only points you feel confident to discuss and in those I have little interest in pursuing . There are hundreds of posts here quoting all sorts of data and works of others on the subject so another 500 posts is only wasting bandwidth. 
> However  I state again 'The carbon tax introduced by the last labor government was a bad tax , it cause hardship and reduce the standard of living and quality of life of many Australians and do nothing to impact on the world pollution levels . you seem unable to see this as my main point and reason for posting , If you disagree and wish to debate this point please do I would be interested in your argument against my opinion on that subject, but if you only wish to rehash recycled opinion which in you own words "  doesn't add much' then feel free but do not expect me to succumb to debate with someone with a mindset like yours , 'it ain't worth my time'

  Even as you accept I have replied to many of your points, you ask me to pay special attention to all of your 'points', yet you reply to my main points as 'waffle'. Discussion requires respect.   

> Why not the population was almost universally opposed the Darwin's theories , once again you didn't learn

  And you didn't seem understand what was written. I wasn't talking about the population. I was clearly talking about the scientific community which came on board en masse within 10 years of publication of Darwin's theory. Again, I point out that this is a class example of how science works. Much of the general population takes a lot longer to change position than those involved in the science, even today. Witness the current discussion as case in point. Amongst other glaringly obvious denial of long accepted science and physics, people have posted here that the greenhouse effect simply doesn't exist or that the physics of CO2 is unproven. 
As for the carbon tax, It was an effort to move in a better direction, flawed as it was in both instigation and delivery. For those people who suffered genuine hardship under the tax, it is the responsibility of government to protect the most vulnerable in society from changes to the economy based on policy and if they failed in that measure then the responsibility is theirs, not those who look to reduce the impact of society on the future planet. Certainly, there were plenty of generous handouts associated with the tax to citizens. As for the 'damage' to the economy I agree with SBD, it is but a scratch. 
Suggesting that as Australians we should do nothing because our impact is small is a cop out. We share the same planet after all.   

> you want  'new scientific research that upturns  the existing state of our knowledge' to occur but you still wouldn't  believe it unless it was accepted by mainstream climate science

  Small point. I don't 'believe' science. I accept it once I can see that it has become accepted mainstream science. Believing it means it is a lot harder to move on if the science is successfully falsified. That's not being a 'sheep' it's understanding and respecting the scientific method. 
Note that I have not engaged in Ad Hominem attacks on your mindset, raised questions about your sexuality or mental well being, described your posts as naive and childish, or called you a sheep. Perhaps now would be a good time to reciprocate. I refer you to the rules: http://www.renovateforum.com/f90/for...ad-them-33202/ 
woodbe.

----------


## Ashore

Hi woodbe , I suspect that you have realized you have not won this little debate we have had, and as previously, you chose another track by admonished me for a lack of paragraph breaks, because you could find no fault in my message or logic. So now you refer to the forum rules. I suspect that you are referring to the section that says 
"You agree, through your use of this  service, that you will not use these Forums  to post  any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive,  vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening,  invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violates any law. You agree not to  post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by the  Forums."   You finish your post with an implication that I have broken the rules by "mentioning your mindset, raised questions about your sexuality or mental well being, described your posts as naive and childish, or called you a sheep." your words. 
 Lets deal with these one at a time in reverse order , from your own admission you won't believe scientific fact until it" become accepted mainstream climate science " your words not mine . at this point I  asked a question and offered some advice  "Do you have that little self confidence that you cannot believe something until the majority do , stop , by your own admission , being a sheep and be your own person. 
When your imply that I called your posts naive and childish you should put those remarks in context by using the entire quote  'To suggest that I would need to have an exact same number of 'climate scientists ' have an opposing view before it is believable is rather naive and childish." I went on to argue this point and it is my view, my opinion is correct on this point.
Your sexual orientation was never raised I merely explained how I had interpreted your turn of phrase "Goose meet Gander" something I had not come up against before and in fact explained my sexual well being in that I am a happly married man of over 40 years and was not interested in any other form of liaision . I do note here you attempted to change this quote in a later post. 
Comments or if you will my judgements about your mindset were based on you constantly trying to turn this debate back to a different topic as I said 
" you seem unable to see this as my main point and reason for posting , If you disagree and wish to debate this point please do I would be interested in your argument against my opinion on that subject, but if you only wish to rehash recycled opinion which in you own words " doesn't add much' then feel free but do not expect me to succumb to debate with someone with a mindset like yours , 'it ain't worth my time' :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): "   I have thus called into account that you do have a mindset and you may be hard pressed to get anyone with an open mind to disagree after reading your last posts. 
Finally dealing with your point your mental well being , I wonder where this came from , I did suggest a Freudian slip  something a lot of people do , but I cannot recall bringing your mental state into question , another Freudian slip perhaps.............on my part. 
You take umbridge at my description of your "Main Point"  as waffle well to me it was, in my opinion that is  waffle and it was my opinion which I posted ,
Next you say discussion deserves respect and it dose but a poorly worded tirade doesn't. and I would suggest you go back and read it clearly and slowly or get someone else to read it and ask them if it makes any sense, for to me it didn't. 
As even you, by now, will have realized I choose my wording very carefully and have broken no Forum rules , you on the other hand have the right to Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to  contact us immediately by email or through the *Report Post* icon . and if you feel in any way I have posted an objectionable message then don't threaten , do it. But as your attack on my ability to post to your standard, started this discussion I fear you may not get the result you desire.  :Cry:

----------


## woodbe

> Hi woodbe , I suspect that you have realized you have not won this little debate we have had, and as previously, you chose another track by admonished me for a lack of paragraph breaks, because you could find no fault in my message or logic. So now you refer to the forum rules. I suspect that you are referring to the section that says 
> "You agree, through your use of this  service, that you will not use these Forums  to post  any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive,  vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening,  invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violates any law. You agree not to  post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by the  Forums."   You finish your post with an implication that I have broken the rules by "mentioning your mindset, raised questions about your sexuality or mental well being, described your posts as naive and childish, or called you a sheep." your words. 
>  Lets deal with these one at a time in reverse order , from your own admission you won't believe scientific fact until it" become accepted mainstream climate science " your words not mine . at this point I  asked a question and offered some advice  "Do you have that little self confidence that you cannot believe something until the majority do , stop , by your own admission , being a sheep and be your own person. 
> When your imply that I called your posts naive and childish you should put those remarks in context by using the entire quote  'To suggest that I would need to have an exact same number of 'climate scientists ' have an opposing view before it is believable is rather naive and childish." I went on to argue this point and it is my view, my opinion is correct on this point.
> Your sexual orientation was never raised I merely explained how I had interpreted your turn of phrase "Goose meet Gander" something I had not come up against before and in fact explained my sexual well being in that I am a happly married man of over 40 years and was not interested in any other form of liaision . I do note here you attempted to change this quote in a later post. 
> Comments or if you will my judgements about your mindset were based on you constantly trying to turn this debate back to a different topic as I said 
> " you seem unable to see this as my main point and reason for posting , If you disagree and wish to debate this point please do I would be interested in your argument against my opinion on that subject, but if you only wish to rehash recycled opinion which in you own words " doesn't add much' then feel free but do not expect me to succumb to debate with someone with a mindset like yours , 'it ain't worth my time'"   I have thus called into account that you do have a mindset and you may be hard pressed to get anyone with an open mind to disagree after reading your last posts. 
> Finally dealing with your point your mental well being , I wonder where this came from , I did suggest a Freudian slip  something a lot of people do , but I cannot recall bringing your mental state into question , another Freudian slip perhaps.............on my part. 
> You take umbridge at my description of your "Main Point"  as waffle well to me it was, in my opinion that is  waffle and it was my opinion which I posted ,
> ...

  Completely off topic rant.  :Rolleyes:  
Ashore you didn't reply to any of my on-topic points! (which was most of my post, btw)  :Tongue:  When you are ready to discuss the topic rather than to play the man, not the ball and claim your own victory, I will consider engaging with you again. 
Have a nice day. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

In the Nationals policy documents for the recent election the cost of the carbon tax was estimated to be $550 per family per year. Tony Abbott talks of abolishing the carbon tax saving families around $3000 over five years or about $600 per year. I think most people would assume the LNP is unlikely to understate the cost of a Carbon tax. The clean energy (carbon tax) subsidy or supplement paid to a pensioner couple on full benefits is $535.60 per year and for a single pensioner $356.20 per year. The argument that the carbon tax is making it impossible for pensioners to survive simply doesn't stack up there is no basis for it other than gut feel. The reason this group is struggling is to do with costs rising for reasons other than tax and too many people have fallen victim to the hype around the carbon tax.  Will there be a saving if we abolish the tax?, probably as the LNP does not intend to remove the compensation measures for a tax that no longer exists, this is almost certainly an acknowledgment that should we eliminate the compensation measures then low income families will not survive because they don't anticipate a notable drop in the cost of living.

----------


## Ashore

> Completely off topic rant.  
> Ashore you didn't reply to any of my on-topic points! (which was most of my post, btw)  When you are ready to discuss the topic rather than to play the man, not the ball and claim your own victory, I will consider engaging with you again. 
> Have a nice day. 
> woodbe.

  I will and BTW everyone can go back and read all our recent posts, i'm sure anyone who does will make their own conclusions.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Marc

> I will ...

  Why bother?
Free one way tickets to Cuba anyone?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Can't quite move on from 1998 then Rod, come on open your mind a bit it will not hurt the "level temperature" argument which is based on the rockiest of foundations.

  The only thing that cant move on from 1998 is the temperatrure :Wink:

----------


## woodbe

LA Times reckons it won't publish letters from climate deniers.  On letters from climate-change deniers - latimes.com   

> Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page;  when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign  humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's  asserting a factual inaccuracy.

  Maybe there is hope for the media after all.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Ashore

> In the Nationals policy documents for the recent election the cost of the carbon tax was estimated to be $550 per family per year. Tony Abbott talks of abolishing the carbon tax saving families around $3000 over five years or about $600 per year. I think most people would assume the LNP is unlikely to understate the cost of a Carbon tax..

  Your a hard marker john , but if you look at the figures another way in 5 years at 3% increase per year ,( less than what term deposits are paying now ) it's about $3000 over 5 years

----------


## johnc

> LA Times reckons it won't publish letters from climate deniers.  On letters from climate-change deniers - latimes.com   
> Maybe there is hope for the media after all.  
> woodbe.

   Good grief an IQ test for letters to the editor, nice to see standards enforced to ensure those living in cloud cuckoo land don't overly bring down standards beyond the current low level. Next we know they will limit pollies travel rorts.

----------


## intertd6

You AGW guys must have your heads buried that deep in the sand not to see the light of day & not know what the carbon tax has done for this country, the amount of workers jobs & industry that have been sent overseas because of the impossibility of industry to be competitive with another burden when still recovering from the global financial crisis, all of these price increases trickle down to the lowest on the food chain which are pensioners who should be treated with the highest respect & regard after building (and in some cases fighting) this country into what it is today with pure hard labour. The shiny arsed politicians & their blind supporters who are totally out of touch with reality & lack social empathy to the people who truly deserve this countries benefits without some numnut insidious scheme slowly stripping their quality of life & basic needs
regards inter

----------


## johnc

Right, so cost of Labour, exchange rates, tariffs or lack there of and raw material costs, have nothing to do with costs and our ability to compete, yet the carbon tax is responsible for everything, give me a break. Where do you people park you brains while regurgitating this stuff, doesn't it occur to you that one factor is not the whole problem, if you want to go down the "electricity price path is the ogre" then what you are saying is that  you can conveniently ignore the fact that 80% of power price increases over the last four years that don't relate to the carbon tax are not a problem but 20% is because it is something you have been told by your political idols is a problem. For goodness sake get your head around some basic cost principles, all costs no matter what the source are a problem in pricing at a profit. Having a population that has sufficient income to purchase your goods, infrastructure that can deliver them promptly at low cost, technology that reaches the customer and gets your message across this is what it is about. The carbon tax is a minor and temporary irritant in pricing, you should be focusing on all areas if you are serious. A far bigger problem is creativity and innovation, we don't have the worlds dearest power prices in fact for a long time we enjoyed cheap power by income per household comparisons which has led to the building of inefficient homes and poor power management in some sectors of industry. Yet all a few of you can see is one tax as a show stopper, well its not and it is this type of thinking that is holding this country back we need some progressive thinkers that can see beyond this poor excuse for avoiding industry innovation and concentrate on the major stumbling block at the moment which is our exchange rate, the carbon tax doesn't even rate a mention when it comes to cause and effect on our ability to compete on our exports. 
Don't give me a sob story about pensioners either, pensions are paid because we are a society that believes in ensuring that those beyond working age receive sufficient income to get by. Trying to pull the heart strings belies the reality that this is a cross section of society ranging from those that may never have done a days productive work in their lives through to hard workers who have simply not managed to put away enough money to fund their own retirement. The impact of the carbon tax on this group who have received ongoing compensation for the impact is minor. However the rapid rise in utility prices in recent years is not solely because of the carbon tax the bulk of those rises are unrelated yet many of the public have become blinded by the CT smokescreen, take away the carbon tax and the problem of those price rises will still be there so who do you blame then? Yes pensioners are struggling but don't let politicians off the hook by not looking at the full picture because it has allowed them to do nothing while this group suffer. The pension needs to be increased or a greater level of utility subsidy given to this particular group but get the cause right because at the moment Canberra will just pretend that getting rid of a particular tax fixes everything. 
Also remember that all price increases trickle down to the end consumer they are not borne by pensioners alone. Pensioners generally are not large consumers, it is utility and basic commodity items like food and rent that this group consume the most of and they need to be protected by movements in these prices. I notice no mention is made about rent stress and other non carbon tax related ills which high lights how myopic the anti brigade have become. Move into the light there is a real world out here and you will not find it lurking in the shadows created by narrow partisan political interest. Do pensioners a favor and treat them with respect, they should not be political footballs and bringing them into this discussion in this way is simply using them unfairly, it is as silly as some who pretend there is a religious basis and goes straight to the integrity of the original argument that you have to create these distractions.

----------


## Marc

*Global Warming and the Credentialist Fallacy*by N. M. GUARIGLIASeptember 24, 2013 Here's one of the great stories of the past 25 years, entirely ignored by the dying legacy media: the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-the bureaucratic authority that gave us global warming-is taking it all back.  The new IPCC report concedes that its former prognostications were incorrect.  Not only were their statistical models wrong, but IPCC scientists now "accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures-and not taken enough notice of natural variability."  Six years ago, Al "Internet" Gore-who has made millions on global warming hysteria-said the North Pole could be "ice-free by 2013."  Well, it's 2013... and the Arctic has grown by 60 percent.  That's more than half the size of Europe. This is what happens when you let nefarious political bodies-replete with special-interest lobbyists, "former" communists, and kleptocratic power-hungry globalists-dominate the scientific method.  Oxford climate scientist Myles Allen-a member of the IPCC panel himself-predicts this latest IPCC assessment will be the last of its kind because "the idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works."  Which is, more or less, what the "global warming deniers" have been saying for more than a decade. None of this is to say climate change is not happening.  It is to say, however, that if climate change is in fact happening, it may be due to heretofore unmeasured-and, in retrospect, somewhat obvious-"natural variables," such as the behavior of the Sun.  Nevertheless, President Obama is gearing up for a push of his anti-CO2 climate change agenda, this time by unconstitutionally using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to bureaucratically enforce, through fiat regulation, what his administration cannot get passed democratically through Congress.  And remember, this is the same EPA that spawned the outbreak of the once nearly-eradicated malaria by arbitrarily banning the insecticide DDT (to the silence of environmentalists, humanitarians, and journalists the world over). This phenomenon-the trillions wasted by the IPCC; the millions dead because of the EPA-is the result of what can only be called "the credentialist fallacy."  The credentialist fallacy is a dogmatic interpretation of reality, one where greater importance is placed on an authority's _credentials_ than on its _merits_.  
Read more: Family Security Matters Family Security Matters 
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

----------


## Marc

*http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 
A Common Fallacy In Global Warming Arguments*Posted on 11 May 2013 by Briggs  _Our post today is provided by Terry Oldberg, M.S.E., M.S.E.E., P.E. Engineer-Scientist, Citizen of the U.S. Thats a lot of letters, Terry! Oldberg joined our Spot the Fallacy Contest, which had been laying fallow. He says he found multiple instances of equivocation in global warming arguments. What say you?_  *Summary and Introduction*
No statistical population underlies the models by which climatologists project the amount, if any, of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions well have to endure in the future. This absence of a statistical population has dire consequences. They include:  The inability of the models to provide policy makers with information about the outcomes from their policy decisions,The insusceptibility of the models to being statistically validated and,The inability of the government to control the climate through regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.
Rather than describe global warming climatology warts and all, the government obscures its unsavory features through repeated applications of a deceptive argument. Philosophers call this argument the equivocation fallacy.
Read the whole article here: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923

----------


## Marc

Ray on 11 May 2013 at 2:29 pm said:
I am always amused when they call a computer program a model and claim it can predict the future. Many years ago I worked in the RF design group at Harris corporation and designed waveguide filters. The design process required many pages of arithmetic and you could spend a week doing calculations. It was drugery so I had a computer program with about 2500 lines of Fortran to mechanize the design process. Our minicomputer could do the arithmetic in about two minutes that would take me a week. We usually couldnt calculate the exact design on the first try but we were in the ballpark and could hit it in the next iteration or two. I didnt call the program a filter model and claim it could predict the future. A computer program is deterministic, you put in the specification data and the program calculated the design. It is not predicting the future. Anybody that claimes they know how to write a computer program that can predict the future is a charlatan.john robertson on 11 May 2013 at 4:20 pm said:
Was it not the UN intention, to confuse, conflate and evade the scientific method, whilst cloaking themselves in the authority of science.
The longer I examine the IPCC, UN and my governments actions and statements with regard to the alarm over weather, the more convinced I become that science was only important to sceptics, politics and PR have dominated the official pretense of a problem.
We have been played for billions and the science establishment people who have provided cover for this scam, will be first, to be offered as scapegoats by the politicians and bureaucrats.

----------


## Marc

> You AGW guys must have your heads buried that deep in the sand not to see the light of day & not know what the carbon tax has done for this country, the amount of workers jobs & industry that have been sent overseas because of the impossibility of industry to be competitive with another burden when still recovering from the global financial crisis, all of these price increases trickle down to the lowest on the food chain which are pensioners who should be treated with the highest respect & regard after building (and in some cases fighting) this country into what it is today with pure hard labour. The shiny arsed politicians & their blind supporters who are totally out of touch with reality & lack social empathy to the people who truly deserve this countries benefits without some numnut insidious scheme slowly stripping their quality of life & basic needs
> regards inter

  Politicians have not ethics nor principles. They are in it for themselves and utter what according to their research will produce the maximum votes for re-election. If the populace wants marijuana in primary schools they would fight for it tooth and nail. 
So really when the initiators of this gargantuan fraud should be behind bars, it is in fact their supporters, that are squarely at fault. No support no political action.

----------


## Marc

> Don't give me a sob story about pensioners either, pensions are paid because we are a society that believes in ensuring that those beyond working age receive sufficient income to get by. Trying to pull the heart strings belies the reality that this is a cross section of society ranging from those that may never have done a days productive work in their lives through to hard workers who have simply not managed to put away enough money to fund their own retirement. The impact of the carbon tax on this group who have received ongoing compensation for the impact is minor. However the rapid rise in utility prices in recent years is not solely because of the carbon tax the bulk of those rises are unrelated yet many of the public have become blinded by the CT smokescreen, take away the carbon tax and the problem of those price rises will still be there so who do you blame then? Yes pensioners are struggling but don't let politicians off the hook by not looking at the full picture because it has allowed them to do nothing while this group suffer. The pension needs to be increased or a greater level of utility subsidy given to this particular group but get the cause right because at the moment Canberra will just pretend that getting rid of a particular tax fixes everything.

  
What a crass and ignorant comment.
When I understand how you can only associate 'pensioner' with Centrelink pensioner, when one crawls out of that level, one can see that there are millions of self funded pensioners who never claimed a dollar from the government yet have been hard done by a number of cretin actions by the half-wit buffoons of the communist government of the last 6 years. The "carbon" tax is one of them.

----------


## johnc

> What a crass and ignorant comment.
> When I understand how you can only associate 'pensioner' with Centrelink pensioner, when one crawls out of that level, one can see that there are millions of self funded pensioners who never claimed a dollar from the government yet have been hard done by a number of cretin actions by the half-wit buffoons of the communist government of the last 6 years. The "carbon" tax is one of them.

   Don't be a fool there simply aren't millions of aged and self funded pensioners in this country. The observations followed Ashores comments on aged (Centrelink) pensioners are you refering to those or self funded pensioners because if you are and you eliminate those that receive a part aged pension or healthcare card then you get left with a rather small number. If you want numbers they are available but as usual lets just run a rant we can't sustain with facts. Your mention of cretins, half wits and buffoons and the labelling of the previous government strike directly at the sort of person you are, bias and stupidity are not good bed fellows.

----------


## intertd6

> Right, so cost of Labour, exchange rates, tariffs or lack there of and raw material costs, have nothing to do with costs and our ability to compete, yet the carbon tax is responsible for everything, give me a break. Where do you people park you brains while regurgitating this stuff, doesn't it occur to you that one factor is not the whole problem, if you want to go down the "electricity price path is the ogre" then what you are saying is that  you can conveniently ignore the fact that 80% of power price increases over the last four years that don't relate to the carbon tax are not a problem but 20% is because it is something you have been told by your political idols is a problem. For goodness sake get your head around some basic cost principles, all costs no matter what the source are a problem in pricing at a profit. Having a population that has sufficient income to purchase your goods, infrastructure that can deliver them promptly at low cost, technology that reaches the customer and gets your message across this is what it is about. The carbon tax is a minor and temporary irritant in pricing, you should be focusing on all areas if you are serious. A far bigger problem is creativity and innovation, we don't have the worlds dearest power prices in fact for a long time we enjoyed cheap power by income per household comparisons which has led to the building of inefficient homes and poor power management in some sectors of industry. Yet all a few of you can see is one tax as a show stopper, well its not and it is this type of thinking that is holding this country back we need some progressive thinkers that can see beyond this poor excuse for avoiding industry innovation and concentrate on the major stumbling block at the moment which is our exchange rate, the carbon tax doesn't even rate a mention when it comes to cause and effect on our ability to compete on our exports. 
> Don't give me a sob story about pensioners either, pensions are paid because we are a society that believes in ensuring that those beyond working age receive sufficient income to get by. Trying to pull the heart strings belies the reality that this is a cross section of society ranging from those that may never have done a days productive work in their lives through to hard workers who have simply not managed to put away enough money to fund their own retirement. The impact of the carbon tax on this group who have received ongoing compensation for the impact is minor. However the rapid rise in utility prices in recent years is not solely because of the carbon tax the bulk of those rises are unrelated yet many of the public have become blinded by the CT smokescreen, take away the carbon tax and the problem of those price rises will still be there so who do you blame then? Yes pensioners are struggling but don't let politicians off the hook by not looking at the full picture because it has allowed them to do nothing while this group suffer. The pension needs to be increased or a greater level of utility subsidy given to this particular group but get the cause right because at the moment Canberra will just pretend that getting rid of a particular tax fixes everything. 
> Also remember that all price increases trickle down to the end consumer they are not borne by pensioners alone. Pensioners generally are not large consumers, it is utility and basic commodity items like food and rent that this group consume the most of and they need to be protected by movements in these prices. I notice no mention is made about rent stress and other non carbon tax related ills which high lights how myopic the anti brigade have become. Move into the light there is a real world out here and you will not find it lurking in the shadows created by narrow partisan political interest. Do pensioners a favor and treat them with respect, they should not be political footballs and bringing them into this discussion in this way is simply using them unfairly, it is as silly as some who pretend there is a religious basis and goes straight to the integrity of the original argument that you have to create these distractions.

  That has to be most outstanding waffle from what would appear to be a professional paper shuffler with great similarity & potential to join the ranks of the power greedy politicians, who have no real idea because they can't understand the pain & hardship they cause with the stroke of a pen which comes from a total lack of social conscience.
What idiot doesn't know that most of the old age pensioners had no superannuation to fall back on in their retirement because it was only the shiny arsed politicians, bureaucrats or government workers & upper white collar types that had these schemes available to them in their day. Or the more recent who were self funded who lost their income when the superannuation funds were hit in the last couple of financial crisises & are trying to live off the old age pension now.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Could I suggest we play the ball, not the man? 
There's been a lot of ad hominem of late. Mods will close this thread if we cannot behave. 
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

> . And remember, this is the same EPA that spawned the outbreak of the once nearly-eradicated malaria by arbitrarily banning the insecticide DDT (to the silence of environmentalists, humanitarians, and journalists the world over). This phenomenon-the trillions wasted by the IPCC; the millions dead because of the EPA-is the result of what can only be called "the credentialist fallacy."  The credentialist fallacy is a dogmatic interpretation of reality, one where greater importance is placed on an authority's _credentials_ than on its _merits_.  
> Read more: Family Security Matters Family Security Matters 
> Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

  Various nutters drag out the old DDT story whenever they feel that support for their worldwide conspiracy theories are starting to wane. There is a reason why anyone with basic google skills ignores these sad old cut and pastes, the facts are there if you look for them. But for those who prefer their truth to come from shock jocks instead of people with real qualifications who have done real research, here's a few links to ponder  DDT and Breast Cancer in Young Women: New Data on the Significance of Age at Exposure
Women who were very young when exposed to DDT now have much higher rates of breast cancer  Pesticide Linked to Testicular Cancer Risk - National Cancer Institute
Men exposed to DDT have twice the rate of testicular cancer.  DDT and Related Compounds and Risk of Pancreatic Cancer
Workers manufacturing DDT have over 7 times the cancer rate of other workers.

----------


## intertd6

> Could I suggest we play the ball, not the man? 
> There's been a lot of ad hominem of late. Mods will close this thread if we cannot behave. 
> woodbe.

  if your one of those who don't understand what's happening to old age pensioners no need to disguise the fact.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> That has to be most outstanding waffle from what would appear to be a professional paper shuffler with great similarity & potential to join the ranks of the power greedy politicians, who have no real idea because they can't understand the pain & hardship they cause with the stroke of a pen which comes from a total lack of social conscience.
> What idiot doesn't know that most of the old age pensioners had no superannuation to fall back on in their retirement because it was only the shiny arsed politicians, bureaucrats or government workers & upper white collar types that had these schemes available to them in their day. Or the more recent who were self funded who lost their income when the superannuation funds were hit in the last couple of financial crisises & are trying to live off the old age pension now.
> regards inter

  Go back and re read what i wrote, I'll para phrase it, the carbon tax is not as great an influence as we might think it is on rising costs there are other factors. The Centrelink based Age Pension (can't see how on earth you would link self fundeds with this theme) has not kept abreast with actual living costs including rents for those who don't own a home and general occupancy costs (utilities) which have risen faster than the inflation index. Contrary to the theme fun by those against a carbon tax i do not believe its removal is going to do much to releave those pressures. 
Compulsory superannuation for the employed has been around since 1986, women of 65 today are greatly under funded and men underfunded as a general rule. However those on part pension with some superannuation savings are a little better off. 
The main ones unfunded today are those who have not worked, have been self employed and not saved, or in some cases swindled by a con artist in the advisory industry which happens a bit more often than we realise. Non of these comments are a judgement they should simply be self evident to any casual observer.  
Social conscience, shiny arses and all the rest of it comes down to the fact that none of us really knows anything about the financial back grounds of the other. It is wrong to assume, in fact most of the guesses made particularly those that set out to demonise on the basis of assumed political affiliation, religious bent or social status are probably wrong.  
As an aside most people are un prepared for the financial pressures of retirement and sadly those that suffer financial loss have often done so after placing their funds in the hands of experts. However those retiring today are not the only ones facing pressure another group I feel a lot of pity for are the ones in our large cities who are probably never going to be able to afford to completely own a house of their own because of the rampant housing inflation incurred in recent years. It should be a national disgrace this has been allowed to happen unchallenged.

----------


## intertd6

> Various nutters drag out the old DDT story whenever they feel that support for their worldwide conspiracy theories are starting to wane. There is a reason why anyone with basic google skills ignores these sad old cut and pastes, the facts are there if you look for them. But for those who prefer their truth to come from shock jocks instead of people with real qualifications who have done real research, here's a few links to ponder  DDT and Breast Cancer in Young Women: New Data on the Significance of Age at Exposure
> Women who were very young when exposed to DDT now have much higher rates of breast cancer  Pesticide Linked to Testicular Cancer Risk - National Cancer Institute
> Men exposed to DDT have twice the rate of testicular cancer.  DDT and Related Compounds and Risk of Pancreatic Cancer
> Workers manufacturing DDT have over 7 times the cancer rate of other workers.

  now here is the not so funny thing about DDT, it's being imported back into this country in foodstuffs, clothes, etc from countries where it is still used everyday, because our industries being made redundant by spineless politicians, it pays to look at where your food & clothes come from. The chances of DDT stopping malaria is similar to CO2 alone causing global warming.
How you think they stop insects eating a factory full of textiles.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> if your one of those who don't understand what's happening to old age pensioners no need to disguise the fact.
> regards inter

  No, I have a good handle on what's happening to old age pensioners. I installed some disability gear for some this week and regularly help with odd jobs for locals in my area. I talk to them almost every day. They don't ask for help, but they need it. 
I was referring to the name calling and put downs that some posters engage in. Sadly, you're one of them inter. You're smarter than that. A good discussion doesn't need to stoop to those levels. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> now here is the not so funny thing about DDT, it being imported back into this country in foodstuffs, clothes, etc from countries where it is still used everyday, because our industries being made redundant by spineless politicians, it pays to look at where your food & clothes come from.
> regards inter

    Not to mention the inhumane conditions some of these workers endure in the sweat shops that produce the goods, as evidenced recently by the factory collapse and deaths in Bangladesh. Our quarantine officers pick up all sorts of stuff but quite a lot slips through, one of the classics about 15 years ago was a load of dates contaminated with human excement, customs actually let it through because it had been heat treated and therefore considered safe. I think that officer may have been sent for a bit of retraining. Tarif abolition is a real issue we now only have a 5% barrier but compete against heavily subsidised markets, there is no such thing as a level playing field but we can't go back to heavy barriers either. It would be nice though to have a barrier of 20% or so applied to countries that subsidise but then they would do the same to us I guess, international trade is very complex as are the repercussions if you rock the boat to much. It is our low barriers that have allowed our boom in mining exports, we may not have done so well if they remained in place as they did tend to push up the cost of production by allowing inefficient business to survive. Just remember Australia has more people employed than at any time in its past (you can probably say that for almost any year in the last century), so we haven't lost employment we just haven't created enough new jobs to meet new comers to the employment market.

----------


## intertd6

> No, I have a good handle on what's happening to old age pensioners. I installed some disability gear for some this week and regularly help with odd jobs for locals in my area. I talk to them almost every day. They don't ask for help, but they need it. 
> I was referring to the name calling and put downs that some posters engage in. Sadly, you're one of them inter. You're smarter than that. A good discussion doesn't need to stoop to those levels. 
> woodbe.

  you must be visiting the hard done by pensioners in Toorak where the pollies get their info from, try getting on the end of the phone at a centerlink call centre fielding calls from them with dire problems.I'm sure the robust discussion hasn't ventured beyond what would be normally acceptable & if it does we will hear about it from the ones that must be obeyed.
Regards inter

----------


## Ashore

This thread , and I have been a part of it from the beginning, has deteriorated , into a slugging match between two sides and at times changed its focus.Weather global warming is realHow much the impact of human produces co2 has hadIs human polution a more important subject than mearly co2 productionIf the Carbon tax was necessaryIf the carbon tax produced any real resultswho can post the best linkWho can post the best graphthere have been claims quoting all sorts of information, which were followed by quotes discrediting the informationThe only people, I feel reading these posts are the Moderators of this forum , who I know are not impressed and who have not changed their views in any respect by what they have read here, and the people who post, who not only have changed their views ,or never will It amuses me that both sides , In general state their opinions as fact, manipulate figures or give numbers produced by god only knows but if shown to be wrong will never admit it.Is it an honest debate if every opinion is besmirched unless a graph or link is given and then argument goes on as to the validity of the graph or link When percentages are used, or for that matter any numbers quoted from government or previous government sources are used in an attempt to  overrule or belittle the views posted by people who are actually talking to the people in there community and basing their opinions on real life in the real world rather than government numbers it angers me. Yes you cannot categorically prove that the majority of Australians suffered under the carbon tax but when everyone you speak to thinks it was wrong and caused them personally some hardship, and if you take out the true believers for both parties the marginal voters displayed without doubt how they felt , Its easy to say they were mislead by hype or politicial advertising but who out there believes that , only the true believers on the loosing side and if you disagree then I can only place you in that group, who I am sure will disagree  Is the pensioner or local shopkeeper who keeps a record of their costs wrong because a government department produces figures , but never shows how those figures were arrived at , myself I tend more to listen to the people in my small but local shopping area and I will say now it takes me a hour to buy a loaf of bread because I walk daily to my local shopping center, probably the third largest in newcastle as i have for the last 17 or so years and ingage in conversation with most of the shop owners of staff ( I'm that sort of bloke ) but I listen to them , but apparently by some of the posts here where the carbon tax was just a scratch, well in the real world all those people are wrong because it wasn't just a scratch Yes some people were not as lucky in life as I was , some could not afford to retire at 45 and will never get a pension because they were lucky in life.An don't get me wrong I worked hard for what I got , my parents were battlers and worked hard to ensure all their kids got an education and a start in life, but to read some of the posts her I feel some here have no idea what the real world is like. And if you wish to argue that ask the next 10 people who serve you in a shop a simple question, don't elaborate on it or try to infullence them in any  way , simply ask them if they think the cost of the carbon tax impacted on their standard of livingAnd if you don't please don't start another massive tirade on how it only cots a cup of coffee a week or they were all compensated or they should simply harden up or it was only a scratch , actually* listen* to the people in the real world

----------


## woodbe

> you must be visiting the hard done by pensioners in Toorak

  I'd have to drive a day to get to Toorak.  :Confused:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

A very well reason observation from Ashore, I have no doubt that those on low incomes are acutely feeling rises in cost of living in recent years. As we got closer to the introduction of the carbon tax I did quite a lot of work on real life impacts on the carbon tax in the retail area, I was actually quite surprised that the cost of the tax was not as great on the final cost than you might have expected. In some businesses it was so insignificant as to have no impact on pricing in others a small impact. The $500 to $600 per family per year seems about right, I don't think the real impact was greater than that. However I do think the general over reaction to the tax gave a smoke screen that did allow some unscrupulous individuals to profit from the tax by raising prices with out basis, there was a classic case on air conditioning gases that got a public airing with a price increase of three times the old price when a much smaller impact was the reality.    
We should learn from the introduction of the GST, this actually saw a period of sustained price increases on a number of products, it was as if a 10% increase in tax also made it easier to increase general prices, partly because we had seen a period of price restraint leading up to the GST but also because it seemed to reduce buyer resistance. We may well and almost certainly had the same happen under the carbon tax but to a lesser extent. What we have seen though is factors such as shop rents, insurance, council rates, water rates, weekend labour rates all rise some well ahead of underlying inflation and this has occurred at the same time as the introduction of the tax. The tax itself has had an impact but it has been one factor amongst many driving up prices and that is why I don't think its removal is going to be all that noticable but we will have to wait and see. 
From the outset of posting here I have been amazed at how rusted on people are to their positions on financial impacts, forget the issue on climate change itself this original thread was about the impact of the tax. Yet the tax has never been seriously looked at, its areas of impact never really considered. Much like the press and social media commentary it went straight to a persons beliefs and degenerated almost instantly into personal attacks the worst of all is the decent into the very worst of political brawling and even then we had to go further and try to make out there was some sort of religious connection. We are not terrorists and this extremely low level of discourse should have been challenged by all of you. 
When we allow the worst verbal excesses of our political masters override our common sense we get these types of threads. The carbon tax never had the impact to do the damage outlined in the opening post, it is only a tax with a small impact. As for its compensation measures these probably negated the bulk of its impact. In fact the price rises in the power industry have actually had the impact of lowering our carbon footprint as people started to look at there overall consumption so in some ways the same could have been achieved by providing much the same subsidies as we have done for major projects in the past to wind and solar and simply dumped the existing subsidies provided to new coal projects in the power industry. 
Political commentary over the last six years has become very poisonous, with the change of government and the main protagonist now PM and busy back peddling on some of his worst rhetoric we may be entering a more civil period we can only hope so. However the GFC changed the landscape, we have seen a big shift in where our tax collections come from and how much we collect and this will need to be addressed at some point. I would urge all of you with strong political beliefs to have a more open mind. Removing the carbon tax will not be a panacea, we have to collect more tax if we wish to balance the budget and cutting spending will be a very hard task if we are to get the budget back into balance and if we are going to remain competitive we need to continue to build infrastructure. There are some conflicting priorities here and I would expect the Liberals are working hard to try to resolve them if not then we are condemned to yet another three years of minimal progress.   
There would be very few reading this thread so I am addressing this to just the contributors and mods. I have little time for those that demonise there is one main offender left there and we know who he is. The rest of you seem decent people with sincere views, before jumping in simply on the basis of who has posted what I am also guilty of this also perhaps we should look a little harder at what is written and consider it more fully.  
Australian manufacturing is not dead, in some areas it is growing in others it is under severe stress and the demons here are the exchange rate, wage costs along with the cost of getting it to its destination, the carbon tax probably doesn't have any real effect. We are going through an extended period of low consumer demand, not helped by political rhetoric but severely damaged by high housing costs, high personal debt, weak investment markets damaging savings and a general lack of confidence.  What we read about the Euro zone and the USA doesn't help either. Mining is a twin edged sword it both helps and damages, normal for any sector that goes through a sustained growth period. Retail is severely constrained along with construction because of the confidence factors at both government and household level.  
Don't generalise on pensioners, they are a very diverse group, with differing needs across the group. I deal with pensioners on a daily basis I am quite familiar with the views from this group and they are as divergent as the general community. Do not attack on the basis of someone not understanding this group because that is rubbish, they are not special needs they are simply normal people who are no longer in the work force. They deserve an adequate pension to support themselves because a civilised community should look after those who have provided for earlier generations while they themselves were in the work force. Pensioners should not be used to further a political point as that is simply using an emotional trigger to disguise poor argument. 
For those of us who are interested lets back away from the cheap shots and either close the thread or develop a bit more respect for those we consider our opponents.

----------


## intertd6

> Compulsory superannuation for the employed has been around since 1986, .

  You need to catch up on a few facts, compulsory superannuation was legislated in 1992, for many years after that it only had to be paid yearly into the employees fund, now those shysters in business out there would simply not honour their obligations & fold up a small business before having to pay it, the building industry was rife with this practice & some workers never accumulated any significant funds until the payments had to be made quarterly.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Good post Ashore.   

> Yes you cannot categorically prove that the majority of Australians suffered under the carbon tax but when everyone you speak to thinks it was wrong and caused them personally some hardship, and if you take out the true believers for both parties the marginal voters displayed without doubt how they felt , Its easy to say they were mislead by hype or politicial advertising but who out there believes that , only the true believers on the loosing side and if you disagree then I can only place you in that group, who I am sure will disagree

  There is a lot in your post I agree with. 
As far as the shopkeepers and their staff vis a vis the carbon tax impact. It's not black and white, but people often claim it is. Just like the CO2 argument, there are people who claim none of the warming is due to CO2 and others that claim all of the warming is due to CO2. (I don't agree with either position FWIW) Any change to the economy will have impacts but the introduction of a carbon tax would only ever be all of the cause of changes in people's standard of living if the rest of the economy was completely static.  
Given the amazing level of hype in politics and the media about it, we surely cannot blame people for blaming any of their ills on the carbon tax. For most people on a wage, (ie your shopkeepers and staff) they received more than a cup of coffee in compensation, but they chose to a) ignore the compensation, and b) blame the CT for other impacts from the constantly changing economy.  
Clearly, there are some people who were more effected than wage earners, like those on low fixed incomes and I have already said that it is the responsibility of government to look after vulnerable members of society when they alter the gears on the economy. 
When I agreed with SBD about the scratch, I was talking about the economy as a whole, not those most vulnerable members of our community, I think SBD made that clear also. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> compulsory superannuation was legislated in 1992

  I think you're both right:   

> *1985* The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) seeks a 3%  employer superannuation contribution to be paid into an industry fund,  as part of its National Wage Case claim with the Conciliation and  Arbitration Commission. *1986* The Commission approves the ACTU's proposal. Super funds  approved by the Commission are generally multi-employer industry funds  jointly sponsored by trade unions and employer associations.  Superannuation coverage at this time stands at around 40% of employees. *1989* In the four years following the 1986 National Wage Case, super coverage increases rapidly to 79% of employees. *1991* Private sector super coverage reaches 68%, up from 32% in 1987. *1992* A new system called the Superannuation Guarantee (SG) is  introduced. Employers are required to make tax-deductible superannuation  contributions on behalf of their employees. SG commences in 1992/93  with employer contributions of 3% of salary (4% for employers with an  annual payroll greater than $1 million).

  From A History of Super: AMP 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> You need to catch up on a few facts, compulsory superannuation was legislated in 1992, for many years after that it only had to be paid yearly into the employees fund, now those shysters in business out there would simply not honour their obligations & fold up a small business before having to pay it, the building industry was rife with this practice & some workers never accumulated any significant funds until the payments had to be made quarterly.
> regards inter

   You are correct in the sense that legislation was introduced in 1992 to take superannuation from 3% to I seem to remember 10% over a time scale, the incoming Howard government eventually capped superannuation at 9% when it won the 1996 election. However 1986 was the year we started the compulsory 3% which was a result of award bargaining and was first regulated through the award system. 1992 saw it start to be regulated through the ATO who had slightly larger teeth to deal with defaulters. You make a very valid point about the shysters, I have even been screwed my self by one around 1991 and lost out on two years super as a result, one of the first things to not be paid when a business starts to struggle is their employees superannuation, it is a disgrace and something better probably needs to be done to prevent what is often fairly large defaults on these payments and the detrimental impact it has on peoples savings. Bit harsh saying I need to catch up on my facts, it is more a matter of how much detail you add, if you wanted all of it we would all die of boredom reading it. I have not seen if going from yearly to quarterly made much difference to defaults, you would expect problems to be picked up earlier so perhaps it did.

----------


## Rod Dyson

:2thumbsup:   

> Could I suggest we play the ball, not the man? 
> There's been a lot of ad hominem of late. Mods will close this thread if we cannot behave. 
> woodbe.

   :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:

----------


## intertd6

> You are correct in the sense that legislation was introduced in 1992 to take superannuation from 3% to I seem to remember 10% over a time scale, the incoming Howard government eventually capped superannuation at 9% when it won the 1996 election. However 1986 was the year we started the compulsory 3% which was a result of award bargaining and was first regulated through the award system. 1992 saw it start to be regulated through the ATO who had slightly larger teeth to deal with defaulters. You make a very valid point about the shysters, I have even been screwed my self by one around 1991 and lost out on two years super as a result, one of the first things to not be paid when a business starts to struggle is their employees superannuation, it is a disgrace and something better probably needs to be done to prevent what is often fairly large defaults on these payments and the detrimental impact it has on peoples savings. Bit harsh saying I need to catch up on my facts, it is more a matter of how much detail you add, if you wanted all of it we would all die of boredom reading it. I have not seen if going from yearly to quarterly made much difference to defaults, you would expect problems to be picked up earlier so perhaps it did.

   When you can't get your head around some simple facts about superannuation no wonder you think pensioners are living in a land of milk & honey & the carbon tax is helping this country.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> I think you're both right: 
> woodbe.

  What the !!! I just shake my head in amazement, how some can't interpret a simple fact. Like what part of superannuation becoming compulsory to all Australian workers in 1992, don't you understand ?
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> What the !!! I just shake my head in amazement, how some can't interpret a simple fact. Like what part of superannuation becoming compulsory to all Australian workers in 1992, don't you understand ?
> regards inter

  Yes, I do understand. Super was compulsory via Award Wage decision in 1986 and legislated compulsory by Keating in 1992 
You are both right! 
woodbe.

----------


## Bedford

Righto fellas, let's get it back on topic, and as Watto would say, play the ball not the man. 
Thanks.  :Smilie:

----------


## johnc

> What the !!! I just shake my head in amazement, how some can't interpret a simple fact. Like what part of superannuation becoming compulsory to all Australian workers in 1992, don't you understand ?
> regards inter

  To be blunt I don't think you understand, superannuation has been compulsory since 1986, at that point it became compulsory for all employers to pay employees 3% superannuation. In 1992 new legislation was drafted that brought compulsory superannuation under the income tax act and began to be administered by the ATO. It did not suddenly become compulsory it had already been so for the previous six years. There were a number of other changes brought in at that time and subsequently further changes have been made, generally favourable to those holding superannuation. This is not your area, you have found something about an act and you simply don't understand how these things work, however you are wrong that it wasn't compulsory until 1992. Also the quarterly payments came in later for small employers, these remained annual payments for the next few years so to all intents and purposes the 1992 legislation did not bring much immediate change but its impact was to give employees far better super entitlements over the coming years. 
This is like saying we suddenly had corporations law for the first time when it changed from individual states to the Commonwealth, yet we already had corporations legislation that was almost identical by then under the individual states we simply moved it all under the umbrella of ASIC and into the Federal sphere there was change in Adminstration over a period of years while we went through a convoluted process but ultimately we had continuity of something that existed. 
This is what happened with superannuation, it was already compulsory we just changed boss cockies. Why make such an issue of it? you are partly right but I can see you just don't really understand public administration and the creation of law and accompanying regulations just Google with an open mind there are plenty of references there but when it comes down to it this really isn't very important and there is no need to become agressive and demeaning.  
By the way I have never said or implied that pensioners live in a land of milk and honey that is a miss representation, I have continually said they are under cost of living pressure but it is wrong to blame the carbon tax exclusively as there are a number of other factors pushing up cost of living in this country.

----------


## intertd6

> To be blunt I don't think you understand, superannuation has been compulsory since 1986, at that point it became compulsory for all employers to pay employees 3% superannuation. In 1992 new legislation was drafted that brought compulsory superannuation under the income tax act and began to be administered by the ATO. It did not suddenly become compulsory it had already been so for the previous six years. There were a number of other changes brought in at that time and subsequently further changes have been made, generally favourable to those holding superannuation. This is not your area, you have found something about an act and you simply don't understand how these things work, however you are wrong that it wasn't compulsory until 1992. Also the quarterly payments came in later for small employers, these remained annual payments for the next few years so to all intents and purposes the 1992 legislation did not bring much immediate change but its impact was to give employees far better super entitlements over the coming years. 
> This is like saying we suddenly had corporations law for the first time when it changed from individual states to the Commonwealth, yet we already had corporations legislation that was almost identical by then under the individual states we simply moved it all under the umbrella of ASIC and into the Federal sphere there was change in Adminstration over a period of years while we went through a convoluted process but ultimately we had continuity of something that existed. 
> This is what happened with superannuation, it was already compulsory we just changed boss cockies. Why make such an issue of it? you are partly right but I can see you just don't really understand public administration and the creation of law and accompanying regulations just Google with an open mind there are plenty of references there but when it comes down to it this really isn't very important and there is no need to become agressive and demeaning.  
> By the way I have never said or implied that pensioners live in a land of milk and honey that is a miss representation, I have continually said they are under cost of living pressure but it is wrong to blame the carbon tax exclusively as there are a number of other factors pushing up cost of living in this country.

  superannuation wasn't compulsory for all australian employees until 1992 full stop, you can waffle on about splitting the hair / hairs on your head all you like, but then again there's always one or two in the group like that & that's clear to anybody reading this, the facts have been produced by you guys yet you can't even understand them, I'm still shaking my head saying "what the........"
So understanding something more complex must be like climbing Mt Everest for an asthmatic 
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Yes, I do understand. Super was compulsory via Award Wage decision in 1986 and legislated compulsory by Keating in 1992 
> You are both right! 
> woodbe.

  So all workers were covered by an recognised award in the 1986 decision, the answer is no, so superannuation wasn't compulsory for everybody. You were half right 
quite easy to know really because I was working in a unionised local govt public sector job & it wasn't a entitlement even up to 1990 
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> So all workers were covered by an recognised award in the 1986 decision, the answer is no, so superannuation wasn't compulsory for everybody. You were half right 
> quite easy to know really because I was working in a unionised local govt public sector job & it wasn't a entitlement even up to 1990 
> regards inter

  Ok, seeing as we are splitting hairs, it isn't compulsory for casual workers earning less than $450 per month even now.  
So now, you are both wrong. Happy? 
Can we get back to topic please?  :Wink:   
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> So all workers were covered by an recognised award in the 1986 decision, the answer is no, so superannuation wasn't compulsory for everybody. You were half right 
> quite easy to know really because I was working in a unionised local govt public sector job & it wasn't a entitlement even up to 1990 
> regards inter

   Exemptions were provided to State and the Federal governments who already provided a greater level of cover than the 3%, I think that may have continued after 1992, quite frankly why get so worked up over it, in the context of the original comment it really is splitting hairs as Woodbe said it still doesn't apply if you earn under $450 a month and there were (and are) upper age limits as well so it is not compulsory for all employees even now, some sub contractors are in some are out, it doesn't apply  to the self employed so it has never covered everyone anyway I could add a whole list of ifs and buts if you like but I still can't see why you took exception to such a minor point that was not the focus of that particular comment. :Confused:

----------


## Marc

On topic, I agree, yet I think that any observation on the condition of pensioners as an example of the damage done by the doctrine of man made global warming is very much on topic.
So one last time on pensioners.  
If we define a pensioner as a person that is over pension age and that does not work full time for a living, then this are the numbers from the top of my head. We are 23 million inhabitants in Australia and over 65 represent 14.something% that means that there are over 3 million pensioners. From those 3 million 2 million are on income support and that leaves one million of self funded retirees mainly asset rich and income poor. If you add those who retired at 55 from the workforce you will add another million to the population despised by the brain dead Labor government.  
When Howard started giving this substantial group of people some small help in the form of Seniors Health card, exempting super from the asset test and applying the same rules the ATO does for super contributions, he was heavily criticized by the nincompoop left for "giving middle class welfare". The vindictiveness of the "reforms" by labour were swift and painful and hundred of thousands lost either their Health card or saw their age pension reduced or suppressed. Combine this with the constant lowering of the interest rate and the poor choices of the super funds, an industry that does not need to report to anyone for their long string of failures we have a group of people who are vulnerable to any fluctuation in their base expenditures, food, shelter transportation and energy. And lets pull a pious veil over the imbecility of comments by the world best treasure that low interest rates are an achievement of the labour governemt. 
Those who have embraced the fraud of global warming because it somehow fits in their preconceived view of society (where rich are bad and poor are virtuous) also despise by elevation anyone who is not destitute, namely those who having worked their whole life without handouts, have accumulated a respectable sum in super and own their own house, and who by definition are excluded by any government support yet must rely on 15k to 40k a year to pay all their bills. This is the average income of the "evil rich", and this are those who hurt the most from this out of control energy increases that drive everything else upwards. 
The reality of the cheerleaders for AGW is that they fit a pattern, a psychological profile, and that is not a particular care for nature, a knack for science or a love for humanity, not for a minute. Rather a common denominator for a political and social bias for which the AGW is a useful prop. 
Those who having the power, the money and the know how to manipulate this groups, have done a brilliant job in building up a fraud that is all encompassing. They have appealed to this idle group in search of a cause and given them one. A cause that points to the "bad rich" who are destroying the planet. That are destroying the planet for your children! Lets give it to them those rich bastards, a tax is just the start ! 
The most pathetic side of this story is that there are so many who are really convinced that earth hour, that is switching off the lights for one hour a year actually makes a measurable difference. 
Fortunately it seems that the party is over for the AGW fraudsters and their acolytes. 
I believe that we are on this planet to have a go at whatever we do, fart around a bit here and there and leave to pursue other interests elsewhere. All this pretenses of grandeur to "fix" "the planet" are so laughable that they really deserve very little attention.

----------


## intertd6

> Ok, seeing as we are splitting hairs, it isn't compulsory for casual workers earning less than $450 per month even now.  
> So now, you are both wrong. Happy? 
> Can we get back to topic please?   
> woodbe.

  good of you to quote today's eligibility requirements, try and find the same in the year 1992 legislation if you can. 
The whole topic of this was about everybody having compulsory super in 1986 & silly them for not putting enough away to cover their living costs in their old age, when in fact the only people who will benefit from a full working career of contributions & supposedly have enough for retirement, will be those who just started their career in 1992, which would be retiring about the around the year 2037, or been in the small lucky group who were lucky to have a job where super was a bonus not available to the masses, so there is going to be a large number of people without enough super to live on ie, pensioners or soon to be pensioners who's parents & grand parents could quite happily live comfortably on the old age pension, this was the expectation. The social standing & recognition of pensioners to our society in the past is the inverse to the morals of the majority of the politicians we have today & they're selling us all out where ever & when ever they can.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

You are reading into this something that wasn't there. Prior to 1986 those with superannuation coverage tended to be government employees and people who worked for larger corporations and a small number who had private schemes that provided varying degrees of cover. 1986 changed that for the first time we had a large part of the workforce with a modest 3% of wages (for those on awards but that is a minor detail) going into a superannuation scheme to provide some money at retirement. This means that for that group they will at least have some money in the bank when they retire, it is not enough, the average amount of money in superannuation for a male of 65 retiring today is only around $100,000 or so, for women only a small fraction of that. Even the current 9.25% under the superannuation guarantee is not really enough and it is in peoples interest to add more if they can. However people retiring today are better off than they would have been and with the current income and assets test retirees will be able to have a reasonable but frugal retirement providing they own their own home, have some savings and preferably aren't single occupants. Being retired with no superannuation really means you will struggle to provide the basics in most cases. Of those aged over 65 today there are a growing number still employed, a small but reasonable number who are fully funded, a very large group who receive a part pension so they will have savings of some sort and a smaller number who rely solely on the age pension for income. You can't classify this group as a block when it comes to income they are to diverse but what you can say is that changes to the superannuation system in this country from 1986 onwards has made life easier in retirement than it otherwise would have been for many Australians without the changes.

----------


## woodbe

> The social standing & recognition of pensioners to our society in the past is the inverse to the morals of the majority of the politicians we have today & they're selling us all out where ever & when ever they can.
> regards inter

  Without responding to the allegation of intent and morals of the pollies, it isn't easy to blame them for the situation they found themselves in. The demographics of Australia had changed and eventually, it became known that the finances of the country were going to be stretched past break point when the boomer bubble aged. We were going to have a massive number of people on pensions, huge demands on our health and welfare systems and relatively few people paying tax to support them. 
Not many choices. Perhaps they could have made a great big tax instead?  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

I've been delivering meals on wheels off and on for 40 years, the home of pensioners you go into today are far better in terms of furnishings, electrical goods and liveability than the drafty cheerless places I remember back then which really were depressing in many cases. The age pension wasn't much back then either and those on it lived a very basic existence, the problems for todays decision makers is simply we are living much longer and the cost and availability of health care much higher. The countries superannuation scheme has done much for national savings, is part of the buffer we have against the economic ills of the rest of the world and relieves the strain on the national purse of pension payments. If we want to pay greater, bigger pensions then as Woodbe said we would probably need a great big new tax to fund it. Wonder where that would come from? the obvious choice would probably be to start taxing the self funded retirees with their tax exempt status on superannuation earnings and pensions on those funds in pension mode. Pensions and health payments are two big ticket items that are growing, if we want a balanced budget then at some point we have to look at what outlays are not up for negotiation and work out how much tax revenue needs to be raised to cover it, the idea of the superannuation guarantee was and still is to reduce the pressure of pension payments without reducing the standard of living of retirees.

----------


## Marc

> good of you to quote today's eligibility requirements, try and find the same in the year 1992 legislation if you can. 
> The whole topic of this was about everybody having compulsory super in 1986 & silly them for not putting enough away to cover their living costs in their old age, when in fact the only people who will benefit from a full working career of contributions & supposedly have enough for retirement, will be those who just started their career in 1992, which would be retiring about the around the year 2037, or been in the small lucky group who were lucky to have a job where super was a bonus not available to the masses, so there is going to be a large number of people without enough super to live on ie, pensioners or soon to be pensioners who's parents & grand parents could quite happily live comfortably on the old age pension, this was the expectation. The social standing & recognition of pensioners to our society in the past is the inverse to the morals of the majority of the politicians we have today & they're selling us all out where ever & when ever they can.
> regards inter

  A lot can be said about superannuation. To begin with contributions should have never been taxed, and funds should have never been in the banks hands. Fees and charges should have been heavily regulated and absolutely minimalist and so on ... however the point in this debate is a different one, the labor (read communist)  government took a knife to self funded pensioners and also in their delusion of Cuban inspiration called rich (read evil) those on income over 100,000 or was it 150,000 ? The "carbon" tax was one more stab to the back of this group. 
Now you may say that energy prices affect everyone including those on full rate of age pension and you would be correct. However the target of many "reforms" of the above mentioned cretinous government was everyone who is evil enough to make a decent living or to have scrounged just enough for a meager retirement independent from Centrelink, I am in no mood to list every single of those socially divisive devices and I can only hope that he current government reverts all of them and give back some dignity to a group that has contributed a life long of work and production and has employed millions of Australians that in turn have and are still paying for the Centrelink pension of those who have nothing to show for a life long of ...well who knows. 
As for Johnc defense of the marvels of the Labor conquests, I think Penny Wong would be proud of your use of the language to polish and massage what is in fact a national disgrace.

----------


## intertd6

> I've been delivering meals on wheels off and on for 40 years, the home of pensioners you go into today are far better in terms of furnishings, electrical goods and liveability than the drafty cheerless places I remember back then which really were depressing in many cases. The age pension wasn't much back then either and those on it lived a very basic existence, the problems for todays decision makers is simply we are living much longer and the cost and availability of health care much higher. The countries superannuation scheme has done much for national savings, is part of the buffer we have against the economic ills of the rest of the world and relieves the strain on the national purse of pension payments. If we want to pay greater, bigger pensions then as Woodbe said we would probably need a great big new tax to fund it. Wonder where that would come from? the obvious choice would probably be to start taxing the self funded retirees with their tax exempt status on superannuation earnings and pensions on those funds in pension mode. Pensions and health payments are two big ticket items that are growing, if we want a balanced budget then at some point we have to look at what outlays are not up for negotiation and work out how much tax revenue needs to be raised to cover it, the idea of the superannuation guarantee was and still is to reduce the pressure of pension payments without reducing the standard of living of retirees.

  that sounds like a typical spiel from a full card carrying member of a political party, it giveth with one hand & taketh with the other. Economic mismanagement thinking they can split a economic pie of 100 parts into more parts than it contains trying to pander minority groups, foreign investors & govts really only to our detriment in the long term, they have the galahs running the place so well trained that they want to be economic lemmings bringing in a carbon tax to show the world something, CEO's of some of the largest global companies said it was the stupidest thing a small economy could do first as anything like it should be a global response.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

Government really is about taking with one hand and handing back with the other. For a time they collected a bit from state owned enterprise dividends but we have sold nearly all that off. So when it comes down to it is money in money out hopefully more and less in balance over time.

----------


## johnc

> A lot can be said about superannuation. To begin with contributions should have never been taxed, and funds should have never been in the banks hands. Fees and charges should have been heavily regulated and absolutely minimalist and so on ... however the point in this debate is a different one, the labor (read communist)  government took a knife to self funded pensioners and also in their delusion of Cuban inspiration called rich (read evil) those on income over 100,000 or was it 150,000 ? The "carbon" tax was one more stab to the back of this group. 
> Now you may say that energy prices affect everyone including those on full rate of age pension and you would be correct. However the target of many "reforms" of the above mentioned cretinous government was everyone who is evil enough to make a decent living or to have scrounged just enough for a meager retirement independent from Centrelink, I am in no mood to list every single of those socially divisive devices and I can only hope that he current government reverts all of them and give back some dignity to a group that has contributed a life long of work and production and has employed millions of Australians that in turn have and are still paying for the Centrelink pension of those who have nothing to show for a life long of ...well who knows. 
> As for Johnc defense of the marvels of the Labor conquests, I think Penny Wong would be proud of your use of the language to polish and massage what is in fact a national disgrace.

  Lets see now how do we get Cuban inspiration? cretinous well we do sometimes read your posts, evil perhaps you would like to explain, no mood, oh dear! socially divisive devices, would you stop flinging a bunch or words together and spend a little more time being coherent. As for Labor conquests what on earth are you talking about, lets try to stick to ideas and spend a little less time on personal attack.

----------


## Marc

> ...bla bla ... lets try to stick to ideas and spend a little less time on personal attack.

  Sure, in fact the only line that refers to you personally is the last two lines of my post. Very modest and restrained if I may say so myself.  

> As for Johnc defense of the marvels of the Labor conquests, I think Penny Wong would be proud of your use of the language to polish and massage what is in fact a national disgrace.

   (_In reference to our non existent retirement system , our pitiful welfare system and the appalling treatment we dish out as a nation to self funded retirees.)_  The rest is my view, shared by a few million voters, of the criminals we had in power for 6 years.
Sorry you identify so much with them and I am sorry for you that the conga line* of labor commies and greenies had to come to an end. 
Yes I know Tony Abbott is now the cause of the bush fires ... come to think of it don't we have a CARBON TAX that was going to rip the CO2 out of the atmosphere ipso facto and cool things down? and didn't we have this marvel of a labor-green-commie creation for the last 18 month? ... are you telling me that it does not work?  :Eek: I am so disappointed! :Cry:  I want my money back ...  :Annoyed:  
*The Cuban connection

----------


## johnc

> Sure, in fact the only line that refers to you personally is the last two lines of my post. Very modest and restrained if I may say so myself.  (_In reference to our non existent retirement system , our pitiful welfare system and the appalling treatment we dish out as a nation to self funded retirees.)_  The rest is my view, shared by a few million voters, of the criminals we had in power for 6 years.
> Sorry you identify so much with them and I am sorry for you that the conga line* of labor commies and greenies had to come to an end. 
> Yes I know Tony Abbott is now the cause of the bush fires ... come to think of it don't we have a CARBON TAX that was going to rip the CO2 out of the atmosphere ipso facto and cool things down? and didn't we have this marvel of a labor-green-commie creation for the last 18 month? ... are you telling me that it does not work? I am so disappointed! I want my money back ...  
>  *The Cuban connection

     So how on earth is an elected government criminal? but you can't stop there, communist?, you are right it is your opinion but it would not be shared by millions, Abbott caused the bushfires, really, how do you get that do you know something we don't if you do report it to the authorities but don't be surprised if they fall about the floor laughing. Carbon tax ripping CO2 out of the environment, where do you get that from, wasn't it meant to lower the amount being added, and then only Australia's contribution. There is nothing restrained about your posts they are often little more than slurs on all and sundry peppered with irrelevant references to political regimes not associated with your view of the world. I seem to recall that you claim to have been raised in a communist country, if that is the case you may well be the only real communist here, based on your own rules of association being a form of guilt. Your posts run off at tangents, they seldom if ever address posts you take exception to and are riddled with straw men to support your prejudices as you seem unable to comprehend the nexus between genuine reply and the contents of an original post itself, you quite simply continually refer back to the same basics of your belief system they don't convey understanding. That is a criticism it would be nice to see genuine engagement, this isn't about everyone conforming to one world view it is about respect for each others view, not playing the man and trying to use sources that stack up on basic standards of accuracy.

----------


## intertd6

Funny how all the clowns & galahs are coming out now blaming these bush fires on global warming, claiming all sorts of claptrap. There was an interesting story about a wildfire in the mid 1800s where a ship went offshore to escape the danger of embers, 20km out to sea & still embers were falling on the vessel, puts a bit of a different perspective on the what we are experiencing now.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Funny how all the clowns & galahs are coming out now blaming these bush fires on global warming, claiming all sorts of claptrap. There was an interesting story about a wildfire in the mid 1800s where a ship went offshore to escape the danger of embers, 20km out to sea & still embers were falling on the vessel, puts a bit of a different perspective on the what we are experiencing now.
> regards inter

  A story about a bushfire in the mid 1800's has no more relevance than saying it's cold today therefore there is no climate change. 
What the science says is that Australia is hotter and drier due to climate change and those conditions will bring a longer and tougher fire season. No-one can blame any one fire on climate change, but the facts are right in front of us. Major fires in October. These are not small fires, and they are early. Similar changes are occurring to the USA wildfire season.   

> "Fire is a part of the Australian experience," Mr Abbott told Melbourne radio listeners.  "It has been since humans were on this continent.... Climate change is  real as I have often said and we should take strong action against it  but these fires are certainly not a function of climate change. They are  a function of life in Australia."
> To  make his point, Mr Abbott rattled off a series of years when Australia  had experienced bad bushfires. He also said that Christiana Figueres,  executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change,  was "talking through her hat" when she pointed out earlier this week that there was a link between bushfires and human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases.  
> In  making his statement, Mr Abbott has dismissed out of hand the work of  scientists going back more than 25 years showing that as temperatures  and carbon dioxide emissions go up, so do the risks of bushfires.  Christiana Figueres' hat is stuffed with evidence.

  Australian Prime Minister denies 25 years of research linking climate change to bushfires | Graham Readfearn | Environment | theguardian.com 
It's little wonder we don't have a Science Minister. We have a 'climate change is crap' PM. Doing something effective about it is a 'non core' promise. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> A story about a bushfire in the mid 1800's has no more relevance than saying it's cold today therefore there is no climate change. 
> What the science says is that Australia is hotter and drier due to climate change and those conditions will bring a longer and tougher fire season. No-one can blame any one fire on climate change, but the facts are right in front of us. Major fires in October. These are not small fires, and they are early. Similar changes are occurring to the USA wildfire season.    Australian Prime Minister denies 25 years of research linking climate change to bushfires | Graham Readfearn | Environment | theguardian.com 
> It's little wonder we don't have a Science Minister. We have a 'climate change is crap' PM. Doing something effective about it is a 'non core' promise. 
> woodbe.

  and the claptrap continues.
this country has been burnt yearly for thousands of years by people with fire sticks walking through it at every chance they had, wildfires still happened but they were separated by hundreds of years. the experts that know about bush fires have understood this & tried to burn yearly but theres always a group of clowns that stop it then when a catastrophic fire happens they blame everything but their stupidity
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> and the claptrap continues.
> this country has been burnt yearly for thousands of years by people with fire sticks walking through it at every chance they had, wildfires still happened but they were separated by hundreds of years
> regards inter

  There is no information to support the view that this continent went hundreds of years without wild fires, there is no doubt that fire was used as a management tool and there is speculation that the megafauna probably helped keep down fuel loads through their grazing habits. I think sometimes we get a bit to excited about contradicting others, and we are all guilty of it.  
There is a lot of fuel as a result of a couple of wet years and we are now in a dry spell with hot dry winds and that is very unusual for this time of year. I think you would have to admit that is unusual, it doesn't bode well for the next few months. It these extremes of heat and wind that are the problem the fires in Victoria that did so much damage came on a day of record heat in February of that year. These conditions in NSW are not normal for mid October, you can't blame climate change for a single event the information available doesn't have that level of accuracy however we do seem to be experiencing something unusual with the hottest year on record and I think September may also have been the hottest on record. something to think about and not dismiss out of hand i would suggest. It would also indicate we should not be building in the bush, regardless of climate change.

----------


## woodbe

> and the claptrap continues.
> this country has been burnt yearly for thousands of years by people with fire sticks walking through it at every chance they had, wildfires still happened but they were separated by hundreds of years
> regards inter

  Sure. You're being quite selective about which facts you accept though. 
The Aborigines used fire to hunt and manage the land. Check. 
The planet is warming, leading to greater incidence, strength and longer bushfire seasons in land that has not been traditionally burnt for over 100 years. Check. 
You cannot blame the lack of Aboriginal land burning for the modern increasing trend, nor can you apply that fallacy to the wildfire increases seen in the USA. 
woodbe.

----------


## Ashore

> There is a lot of fuel as a result of a couple of wet years and we are now in a dry spell with hot dry winds and that is very unusual for this time of year. I think you would have to admit that is unusual,.

  all true John
but the reduction in burns by the RFS due to restrictions by the national parks , who in my opinion are now run with 'Green' agendas have caused the fires to be more intense, when I say this I have listened the mayor of port stevens, who had catastrophic fires in his electorate only this month and claimed the local bush fire brigade were refused burn offs by the National parks and wildlife for the last 5 years, now I may be old and a bit behind the times but who better than the local area bush fire brigade is there to decide if an area needs a burn off. 
The point of this post is mealy to point out that some of the 'Green' policies are dangerous, because they are concocted by people who have agendas and who have little or no grasp on reality.

----------


## Ashore

> Australian Prime Minister denies 25 years of research linking climate change to bushfires | Graham Readfearn | Environment | theguardian.

   A wonderful link expressing the opinion of PLANETOZ BY GREAHEMREADANDLEARN 
If you want to be taken seriously then at least post objective opinions , regardless of what your politics that is utter bias crap, and the sad thing is you know it

----------


## woodbe

> A wonderful link expressing the opinion of PLANETOZ BY GREAHEMREADANDLEARN 
> If you want to be taken seriously then at least post objective opinions , regardless of what your politics that is utter bias crap, and the sad thing is you know it

  Play the ball Ashore.  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

Since black Saturday Victoria has tried to increase the areas it burns with some success. The problem is actually getting it done there is a small window of opportunity between to wet in winter and to dry in summer. The early drying this year has contracted that season although Vic has remained damper than NSW we are still looking at high fuel loads and I remember when you could light a fire and not worry to much about houses, these days there are a large number of properties on the fringe which must make the worry of out of control burn offs a lot higher than the past. I don't think the green movement if you ignore the fringe element are against cool burns it is seen as a management tool. I remember in the late '60's going out with my father in areas he would be working in and lighting a match and clearing an acre or so at a time and controlling it with a couple of shovels, this is just grass and very light scrubby muck. You can't do that anymore without having a ton of bricks dropped on you, back then though there was really only a couple of months or so between not getting a burn going and the burn being to hot, you wanted green shoots after the next rain not a scorched earth outcome.

----------


## intertd6

> There is no information to support the view that this continent went hundreds of years without wild fires,  
> .

  it just is a proven fact, your really showing your ignorance on the matter. It's one of the first things taught in forestry ecology.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> it just is a proven fact, your really showing your ignorance on the matter. It's one of the first things taught in forestry ecology.
> regards inter

  Can you provide a link to support this inter? 
I had a look around, the most comprehensive I could find was this:  http://www.australianalps.environmen...y-chapter1.pdf 
There is no mention of any period of hundreds of years without bushfires. Tens of years, maybe half a century, yes. Are you talking pre-Aboriginal time here? 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> it just is a proven fact, your really showing your ignorance on the matter. It's one of the first things taught in forestry ecology.
> regards inter

    I don't believe it is a proven fact, isn't it the case that post European settlement saw an increase in high intensity fires involving tree scarring and a reduction of low intensity fires. So what we had is greater frequency of damaging fires so I think your statement of hundreds of years without wild fires cannot be correct. You also need to consider that it would have been impossible to maintain a burning program across the entire country with the population pre white settlement there has to have been wild fire that ran from time to time. It is not possible to go hundreds of years no matter how well managed the environment is without high intensity fires. So while I am quite prepared to accept that post European settlement management by fire changed and we have part created our own problem I think it is a step to far to claim hundreds of years without wildfire, the statement can't stack up. Of course if your definition of a wild fire somehow goes beyond a high intensity fire and becomes a category with in a class you may have a point. It isn't my area but in the area I live in there have been articles written covering wild fires in the Alpine area pre settlement based on various research. There is no big secret that firestick burning created a mosaic over the bush through large numbers of small burns over time. White settlement from what I understand possibly saw a threefold increase in high intensity or wildfires and a reduction in low intensity cool burns and forest consumed more on average. There is not a lot of evidence to support this beyond carbon deposits in lakes and soil layers and scarred trees. The CSIRO, CFA, various experts all seem fairly consistent on this I should imagine fire behaviour experts wouldn't differ either.

----------


## Marc

> Funny how all the clowns & galahs are coming out now blaming these bush fires on global warming, claiming all sorts of claptrap. There was an interesting story about a wildfire in the mid 1800s where a ship went offshore to escape the danger of embers, 20km out to sea & still embers were falling on the vessel, puts a bit of a different perspective on the what we are experiencing now.
> regards inter

  Well for one, the writing is on the wall, the conga line of labor-green-commies has no more music to dance and so they are grabbing anything they can.
What I still don't understand is this: We had and still have a "carbon" tax. Like it or not it is still there, so how come there is still bush fires?

----------


## r3nov8or

Global warming argument starts. On the back of 'overwhelming outrage' Corporations like Target start charging for plastic bags. Target loses customers. Target Stops charging for plastic bags. Customers return. Why? 'Everybody' feels 'something' about the Planet, but 'Nobody' i.e. Only 0.0000001% of people, give enough of a @@@@@ about global warming to  Actually change their life and do something about it and the rest won't change their life if it affects the hip pocket. Pay 10 cents for a plastic bag? No freakin' way!, let alone give up my car!!! Once there was Very serious 'media' about supermarkets ending free plastic bags. What a load of absolute crap! Not if it affects profits for heavens sake! Bottom line, we are selfish, the human race will wipe itself out one day, and like our wonder of the Dinosaur age and it's demise the next intelligent race will wonder about our demise and learn Nothing, or at least learn nothing after 1,000 studies. Just go and create something and give it to your wife/hushand, appreciate their response and what you have, and stop all this 'we can save the world' crap. Because it won't happen. It just won't happen. The human race is too selfish. Simples!

----------


## Ashore

Didn't cook report huge fires inland as he sailed up the coast, is there not a lot of species of flora that need a bushfire to cause them to regenerate. How much aboriginal burns were effective or controlled is debatable. Weather fires were deliberately lit or simply taken advantage of by the aboriginal population is also debatable . Do we have bush fires every year in Australia are the policies of the Greens and the Last Labor government (via the parks and wildlife) who stopped burn offs  asked for by local RFS ,( you know those people who have been fighting fires for decades in your local area) caused more intense fires and greater damage than if the control and management had been left to the RSA

----------


## johnc

I can't speak for NSW but in Victoria there doesn't seem to be any disagreement between the various interest groups over burning off. There are issues over clearing with local councils but anyone who claims this is a greens led conspiracy is probably incapbable of seeing anything as other than a single issue which land clearing is not. Victoria has a target of burning 5% of native forest a year, last I heard we are only reaching about half that target. The main problem seems to be weather and enough suitable days to burn the second is the resources to burn. Even if we get burning to 10% per year we are still only expected to halve risk you will not in a country like ours ever eliminate it. Our last horror day came with strong winds and temperatures in the mid 40's across the state, burn all you like on days like that no fire is stopable, burns may mean more property saved and less lives lost though. I think the lessons learned from that was tighter building regulations in fire prone areas, an understanding some homes because of location are not defensable and a shift in attitide from assuming if a home is well prepared stay and fight, to if the conditions are bad enough get to somewhere safe and wait until the risk has passed. 
In the age this morning Victoria's CFA is predicting larger and more frequent fires as a result of warming and in the same article it points out that in 102 years of temperature records there have only been 21 days in which the nations average temperature soared beyond 39 degress, eight of these occured last summer. The CFA is predicting more days of extreme fire risk, it would also seem we may have less days in which to conduct burnoffs safely. Burning has to remain a vital control tool and we probably do need to approach the 10% figure but there is no point doing as we have done in the past for a number of reasons fire management is changing and it is important we change with it, like it or not we do have continual warming and it is the extremes that come with that warming we have to worry about not the average increase over a given year.

----------


## woodbe

Ashore, if you read the link I posted: http://www.australianalps.environmen...y-chapter1.pdf you will realise that there is not a lot of debate about whether the Aboriginal people used the firestick intentionally. Their use of fire shaped the dominance of the flora species we see around the Australian bush today. This is not an unusual conclusion for anyone who has studied the current flora makeup of this country and the remnant evidence of past species along with the available history of Aboriginal practices occurring when western civilisation arrived in Australia. 
A bushfire is a bushfire regardless of how it started. If the Aborigines lit a bushfire with their firesticks it is still a bushfire. 
As far as prescribed burns, I think you will find that part of the problem is that there is so much settlement within native bushland that it is increasingly harder to manage the fuel load by burning off without threatening those settlements. Another issue is that the available burn season is contracting due to the warmer and dryer conditions. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Can you provide a link to support this inter? 
> I had a look around, the most comprehensive I could find was this:  http://www.australianalps.environmen...y-chapter1.pdf 
> There is no mention of any period of hundreds of years without bushfires. Tens of years, maybe half a century, yes. Are you talking pre-Aboriginal time here? 
> woodbe.

  Well there's bush fires and then there's wildfires, now in the southern parts of Australia in the eucalyptus regnans forests the wildfire cycles are approximately 400 years, luckily the national parks & wildlife do nice information boards these days for the public to be educated in these things, now up our way the cycles are similar, with fire stick burning it was done ALL the time every year just like it's still done in Northern Australia today where the local inhabitants have done it that way since the dreamtime. Now, if & when the treehuggers start interfering up there then that part of the countries cycle will be disrupted & wildfires will be more severe & occur more often.
the difference between a bushfire & wildfire is the latter will kill mature eucalyptus trees & just about every other living thing in its path.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

Inter,  I don't believe you, wildfire and bushfire are the same thing, the 400 years is something you have made up. Wildfires is a general term used elsewhere bushfire is probably uniquely Australian. The high intensity burns that kill trees is just that a high intensity fire. Clearly you can't back up your comments so why dig a deeper hole.

----------


## woodbe

> Inter,  I don't believe you, wildfire and bushfire are the same thing, the 400 years is something you have made up. Wildfires is a general term used elsewhere bushfire is probably uniquely Australian. The high intensity burns that kill trees is just that a high intensity fire. Clearly you can't back up your comments so why dig a deeper hole.

  Sorry johnc, on top of the bushfire/wildfire hair splitting there's more. Here is the original statement:   

> wildfires still happened but they were separated by hundreds of years.

  I took that to mean what was written: there were periods in Australia of hundreds of years without wildfire. 
When questioned, further information seeps out the cracks:   

> in the southern parts of Australia in the eucalyptus regnans forests the wildfire cycles are approximately 400 years

  So now we are talking about fire frequency in individual forests. that is perhaps believable, but it isn't what was originally proposed. 
I don't think you would be able to identify a period of hundreds of years where there were no wildfire/bushfires in Australia. 
Can you clear this up for us inter? Do you have a link to a study that shows there were no wildfires in Australia for a period of hundreds of years? 
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

Here's a link to help with the bushfire/wildfire description. Bushfires - Types, Measurement and Fuel | CSIRO
Wildfires are bushfires that are lit accidentally and burn unchecked. Fires can also be measured by their intensity, fireline intensity is measured by the amount of energy released in kilowatts per linear metre of perimeter. 
The accusation that "greens" have prevented burnoffs somehow, somewhere at sometime or other needs a link or it risks being ignored as bulls##t. Try and find the b#lls to name names, times and places. especially needed is evidence of why they opposed the burnoff; was it to protect the habitat of the hairy a##ed numbat or was it because there wasn't enough staff to ensure the burnoff didn't get out of control?

----------


## Marc

As usual a lot of noise and not much sense from the agitators and the-sky-is-falling alarmist. 
I am particularly amused at the request for "a link". Not proof, not testimony not even how do you know... but a link.
Sad.
If anyone had a genuine interest in the environment and not in making a political point, all that person needs to do is to talk to farmers and listen to their dismay at the ignorance and the bully and dictatorial attitude of the councils towards them. It is pathetic and a disgrace. 
As for the "link" between bushfires and the green movement, if you need proof for that you must be from another planet, a green planet probably, clearly not from this earth. 
Anyone that owns land can write a long list of stories about skinny neat single inner city types who tried to tell him what to do.

----------


## johnc

> As usual a lot of noise and not much sense from the agitators and the-sky-is-falling alarmist. 
> I am particularly amused at the request for "a link". Not proof, not testimony not even how do you know... but a link.
> Sad.
> If anyone had a genuine interest in the environment and not in making a political point, all that person needs to do is to talk to farmers and listen to their dismay at the ignorance and the bully and dictatorial attitude of the councils towards them. It is pathetic and a disgrace. 
> As for the "link" between bushfires and the green movement, if you need proof for that you must be from another planet, a green planet probably, clearly not from this earth. 
> Anyone that owns land can write a long list of stories about skinny neat single inner city types who tried to tell him what to do.

   Political points coming from yourself are very common so if you want to criticise your own responses go for it, get started on councils as well if you wish, as for greens I would have to say in our region the response to cool burns is pretty much in agreement across green commentators, councils and DSE, the main points of difference come down to when to burn and which areas to burn, which is splitting straws. Also no one is having a go at Inter he simply hasn't been very clear on his wildfire once every four hundred years statement and although he may feel a bit under attack he is not, the rest of us are curious in regard to the points he raised which in my mind don't sit well with my own experience or what we have read from various reports that have been written following major fires.

----------


## johnc

> Sorry johnc, on top of the bushfire/wildfire hair splitting there's more. Here is the original statement:   
> I took that to mean what was written: there were periods in Australia of hundreds of years without wildfire. 
> When questioned, further information seeps out the cracks:   
> So now we are talking about fire frequency in individual forests. that is perhaps believable, but it isn't what was originally proposed. 
> I don't think you would be able to identify a period of hundreds of years where there were no wildfire/bushfires in Australia. 
> Can you clear this up for us inter? Do you have a link to a study that shows there were no wildfires in Australia for a period of hundreds of years? 
> woodbe.

   It is interesting when you read of early explorers accounts some regions that now have heavy bush were almost park like with plenty of grassland between the trees and a lot less low canopy stuff. I should imagine that unless you had strong wind combined with heat many of those earlier fires simply burnt themselves out through lack of fuel. However with the right conditions, strong growth followed by heat and dry conditions even with aggressive fire stick management there must have been a few summer dry storms that sparked off some high intensity fires that created a fair bit of damage. I don't think you could get a good enough recorded information to sustain the 400 year argument either, the few tools available and the few remains of major fires would make any sort of estimate very hard to calculate.

----------


## barney118

There is no logic in associating bush fires to climate change its complete rubbish, these are random events and causes most likely a guess at what started them. Spring/ summer where the season dictates a hotter climate and less rainfall (more commonly) depending on your degree of latitude will allow fuel to be more readily available to burn given an ignition source many of things come to mind.
The efforts of back burning go back to the 90s when fire trails were left alone because partly of green movement but I'm sure there were other reasons, also closing off trials to recreation also contributed as trails were kept clear by these users.
No tax on a govt because of this pollution would occur as its highly unfashionable and would only considered as a natural event which exactly what one is.  
Cheers Barney
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## woodbe

> I am particularly amused at the request for "a link". Not proof, not testimony not even how do you know... but a link.

  You're right Marc, we should have spelt it out to avoid further confusion. 
Interd6, could you please respond with a link to the proof that there were gaps in wildfires in Australia of hundreds of years. 
Such a link should include proof, testimony, or even how you know. Go for it, we're ready to read this new information you have for us.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## barney118

The longer the debate goes on real science comes around unfortunately does nothing for the stigma of climate change.
Corals produce antioxidants when the sea temp increases, gee wouldn't that be a change instead of opening ones mouth contradictory to the point. http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3875723.htm  
Cheers Barney
Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

----------


## woodbe

> The longer the debate goes on real science comes around unfortunately does nothing for the stigma of climate change.
> Corals produce antioxidants when the sea temp increases, gee wouldn't that be a change instead of opening ones mouth contradictory to the point. AM - Corals can protect themselves from rising sea temperatures: study finds 24/10/2013

  Beats me how scientists releasing new discoveries about coral is somehow proof that climate science is wrong. You can't have it both ways. 
The expectations and current facts are that mobile species are rapidly changing their range in accordance with the changes in their environment. eg Terrestrial: Lundy, 2010, Marine:  Pinsky, 2013 editorial and Paper. (yes, Marc, those are links with proof). Species that cannot move rapidly are unable to change their range so will inevitably suffer on in areas that were once prime suitable environments until they can no longer survive there. Does Cherie Motti's research (Marc, that's a link to the paper) prove that Coral will survive way out of their temperature and PH range? Maybe not, but it sounds like good news that they may not be as fragile as previously thought. 
woodbe

----------


## Marc

When it comes to describe the attitude and strategies of the green movement, I can not help but to see the arrogance and perversion of the missionaries of old acting like an elephant in a china shop and the I-know-better-what-is-good-for-you attitude. 
Far from relying on a democratic process, greens are convinced that the end justifies the means. And if you take the time to look at what is on their wish list, you would probably think you are reading a page out of "Mein Kampf" the red book of Mao or similar clap trap. 
Totalitarian, abusive, disregarding the law or the most basic principles of private property, the greens who have become the last refuge for the members of the communist party now dissolved, parrot the most disparaging and outrageous ideas ever uttered by a person in his right mind, yet their claims go mostly unnoticed because they are made under the cloak of a pretend altruism. See they don't do it for themselves, no no no, it is for the good of the planet and for our children. (And I say our children because they are mostly childless and dream of culling the human population down to 2 billions with methods yet unknown).  
But hey, lets go back to the bush fires who for some reason beyond my comprehension, have somehow escaped the fail proof mechanism of 
CO2 tax = cooler planet = no bush fires.   The Greens' burning problem - On Line Opinion - 11/2/2013  Soon after replacing Bob Brown as leader of the Australian Greens last April, Christine Milne promised a new era of connection with rural Australians whove traditionally had little time for the extreme brand of environmentalism for which the Greens and their associates are best known.  
For a while Milne and her party made some in-roads towards this objective via the common ground of opposition to coal seam gas developments. However, this summers busy fire season has arguably reinstated the Greens as enemies of the bush based on their attitudes and actions in relation to the key bushfire mitigation tool, fuel reduction burning.  
Rural disquiet about the influence of the Greens and their acolytes in the environmental movement is nothing new when damaging bushfires are being analysed and discussed. The aftermath of Victorias 2009 Black Saturday bushfires featured numerous recriminations, accusations, and denials about the role of ENGOs and green politics in making the landscape more vulnerable to such a catastrophe.  This year is beginning to look somewhat similar. The severe bushfires which careered through parts of Tasmania in mid-January have been followed by major conflagrations in NSW and Victoria that have prompted feature articles in _The Australian_ and in local print media, as well as on current affairs and academic weblogs such as, _ABC Unleashed_ and_The Conversation_,in part examining fuel reduction burning from both supportive and more cautious or opposing viewpoints.  
In Tasmania, even while the fire-ground was still smouldering at Dunalley, south east of Hobart, angry locals were claiming that heavy-handed bureacratic hurdles created by the states Labor-Greens Government had prevented fuel reduction burning for several years. Their message was unambiguous  that misplaced concern for the environment promoted by the Greens and their ENGO associates was overiding sensible forest management with dangerous and damaging consequences.  
Unsurprisingly, the Tasmanian Greens disagreed. Their Leader, Nick McKimm, retorted that the Greens actually support fuel reduction burning. He went on to say that The Greens, in all the history of our political party, have never opposed a fuel reduction burn, ever. Furthermore, they had in fact been responsible for securing an extra $16 million more a year for National Parks funding and much of that was for fuel reduction management 
Several days later, a carefully-worded media release from Tasmanias Greens Senator, Peter Whish-Wilson, reiterated that the Australian Greens _have always supported the principle of selective fuel reduction burns_. He went on to acknowledge that the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service was _presently under-resourced_ and called for it to be given additional Federal funding for bushfire management. 
However, as is somewhat typical of the Greens, there is often more to be learnt from what they dont say. In this case, their failure to even mention fire management in the 1.5 million hectares of Tasmanian State forests was no oversight given that they are intent on substantially relieving the managing agency, Forestry Tasmania, of most of its current responsibilities. This is integral to the Greens solution to the broader conflict over native forest timber production that would involve a huge transfer of State forest into the national parks estate.
In a recent statement to his partys supporters, Tasmanian Greens leader, McKimm, asserted that the Greens do not believe Forestry Tasmania should have a significant role to play in fighting bushfires or managing fuel loads in the future. In their place, he advocated that the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service be expanded to manage fire within an area that would be more than three times greater than what they are currently responsible for.  Forestry Tasmania is the states primary public land fire management agency with its forestry personnel being responsible for two-thirds of Tasmanias public forests and acknowledged as the experts in controlled burning and forest fire-fighting. Taking away its fire management role would have disastrous consequences for the states overall level of bushfire protection.
Nationally, the loss of forest fire management capability is already evident where mainland state forest policies reformed at the behest of Greens-associated ENGO campaigns, have severely weakened native timber industries with considerable rural job losses. These have included large numbers of timber harvesting contractors whose employees and equipment was formerly integral to effective bushfire management.
In Tasmania, the damage already inflicted on bushfire management capability is stark even before the Greens plans for Forestry Tasmania have come to pass. Incessant Greens-inspired ENGO campaigns against forest products markets, recently exacerbated by a high Australian dollar, have combined to reduce the number of timber industry contractors by an estimated 60% since 2010. This has substantially affected Forestry Tasmania which has lost a third of its field-based personnel over the past five years, including around 60% of officers qualified to participate in incident management teams.  
Keep on reading here: The Greens' burning problem - On Line Opinion - 11/2/2013

----------


## intertd6

> Inter,  I don't believe you, wildfire and bushfire are the same thing, the 400 years is something you have made up. Wildfires is a general term used elsewhere bushfire is probably uniquely Australian. The high intensity burns that kill trees is just that a high intensity fire. Clearly you can't back up your comments so why dig a deeper hole.

   Don't tell me, for one go & tell the Tasmanian forestry that they aren't giving out info in agreement with the greens, now that display was in Tasmania at the Huon valley on the road heading out towards the skywalk, this the one I distinctly remember but I have seen a few others in different states. If my terminology isn't up to speed that's because historically the difference between a bushfire & a wildfire is the latter burns through the heads of the trees & can be some kilometres in front of the ground fire, it takes immense heat at the ground level ( high fuel load ) to get the heat high enough to ignite tree heads. Some forests possibly haven't been burnt in thousands of years but the edges of them have been damaged by fires in the last few decades. Not everything is on a link on a computer but when you go out into the bush you only have to look at the oldest trees in the area that have survived " bush fires" we have tallowoods in our area that are estimated @ 800 years old. 
regards inter

----------


## johnc

It might be of interest to you Inter, and this is just a story, of something that happened close to here quite a few years back. A bus group consisting of politicians (can't remember which brand), enviromentalists, DSE and forestry representitives were given a local tour of an area of Virgin bush that was in an area at that point which wasn't going to be logged. Much was made of its value as pristine forest, the bus driver had the temerity to mention the area had in fact been logged before. He was promptly rounded on by the experts who took great umbrage and pointed out a bus driver lacked the education to see the forest for what it was. The bus driver agreed but said his understanding wasn't based on observation but as a young bloke thirty years before he had been a logger and this was one of the coups they had logged. Mind you the area hadn't been clear felled so there was probably the odd large tree left standing but most of what was there would have been younger stuff and that should have been obvious. 
A little bit of experience can count for a lot and a little bit of education can round it off, we just need to harness the two. 
In recent years we have had major fires in our area above Licola and around Benambra as well the edge of the Black Saturday fires. We seem to have had more in recent years that have been devestating. One area after the Benambra fire had been heavy bush, a few days after there was nothing there, you could see forever everything was gone except for the trunks of larger trees with even the smaller branches of those gone. The ground was all covered in ash with rock and undulations clearly visible, and in amongst it was the bodies of Cockatoos and the odd other species undamaged but dead. They must have sucumbed to the heat and smoke and fallen after the fire had cooled, quite sobering. An earlier Licola fire saw on rocky areas soil destroyed and no regrowth so when we ended up with a deluge some months later causing massive silting and areas that will take a very long time to recover. We all know about the black Saturday fires we ended up with bits of burnt leaves and twigs still smouldering in the gutters and scattered around but not enough to spread the fire. We seem to be getting a lot more high intensity fires in recent years mainly due to the dry conditions that ended a couple of years ago, we will have to wait and see what this year brings we have high fuel loads and despite a very active burnoff period in Autumn the risk still remains high.    
No single event can be attributed to climate change, but it is happening, these events are going to occur more frequently, seeing more days that are dangerous and we do need to be thinking about how this is managed. Greg Hunt has said today that the Government accepts the science of climate change and the increased frequency of events such as these, his only qualifier is that no single event be identifed as being caused by climate change, just that this is going to become a larger issue than it has been and we are probably in for a tough year.

----------


## woodbe

> Don't tell me, for one go & tell the Tasmanian forestry that they aren't giving out info in agreement with the greens, now that display was in Tasmania at the Huon valley on the road heading out towards the skywalk, this the one I distinctly remember but I have seen a few others in different states.

  I thought this was "one of the first things taught in forestry ecology", now it's something written on a info sign? 
Did the sign say that there were periods of hundreds of years without wildfires in Australia? I'd like to see it... 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

Getting back to the point, he most significant cause of high intensity bush fires is the lack of yearly burning in forests, of course it will be a battle to fight with the ones that think their ill informed intentions are the best.  since European occupation the incidence of high intensity fires have increased, which coincides with the decrease in the indigenous population who burnt the all the country that would burn, whenever it could be burnt, which was such a fine balance achieved over thousands of years, they changed the ecology, once their population was decimated by disease etc the bush slowly went wild.  The nature of the bush has changed in a way that in the opposite direction which causes larger uncontrolled fires more often. If fires of  these magnitudes & as often had occurred pre European times the the inhabitants would have starved or been driven into other tribes territories where warfare would have been their undoing, 
CO2 being blamed for these fires is ludicrous & a knee jerk reaction.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> I thought this was "one of the first things taught in forestry ecology", now it's something written on a info sign? 
> Did the sign say that there were periods of hundreds of years without wildfires in Australia? I'd like to see it... 
> woodbe.

  Yes that's true if you would like to attend some forestry education and then there's some information provided for the general public for all to see like yourself who don't own their own private native forestry. I actually said the information on that particular sign quoted 400 years between wildfires. 
 Which is fairly conservative as I read somewhere that they used tree rings for time spans, the trouble with that is eucalyptus trees can't be aged from growth rings, diameter or height.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> I actually said the information on that particular sign quoted 400 years between wildfires.

  Yes you did. What you didn't say was whether the sign was for a forest or a continent. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Yes you did. What you didn't say was whether the sign was for a forest or a continent. 
> woodbe.

  if your actually reading & understanding I qualified everything, obviously not specific enough for the hair splitters, not once have I said it referred to all of Australia or the continent.
Also in today's telegraph paper they quoted a senior CSIRO fire researcher that debunked the myth that CO2 or global warming was the cause of increased fire incidence or intensity, but fuel load was the causes.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> not once have I said it referred to all of Australia or the continent.

  Hmm.   

> *this country* has been burnt yearly for thousands of years by people with  fire sticks walking through it at every chance they had, *wildfires still  happened but they were separated by hundreds of years*.

  When questioned, you claimed:   

> it just is a proven fact, your really showing your ignorance on the  matter. It's *one of the first things taught in forestry ecology*.

  Your proof is not a reference to a forest ecology course, but a sign you saw at a single forest in Tasmania, that probably refers to a single forest, not a whole country. 
This whole diversion is based on your claim that wildfires in 'this country' were separated by hundreds of years. 
Tell you what, let's let you off the hook. You made a mistake, you mis-spoke, whatever.  :2thumbsup:  Doesn't matter, I don't think anyone is still claiming that wildfires in Australia were, are or will be separated by hundreds of years. Individual forests, sure. Plenty of evidence to support that. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

Yes let him off the hook by all means, I would mention though myths are fiction, there is no truth in them so how do you debunk a myth? I don't think you can, isn't that the same as saying something that doesn't exist actually doesn't exist. Or is it the case that you have proved a myth to be not a myth in which case you are claiming climate change is impacting on fire events so you are agreeing with us, think about it!  Also I fail to see how a single fire researcher can have sufficient knowledge to disprove climate change as a factor. High fuel loads, temperature and wind all play a part and that is the fire researchers area of expertise, frequency of hot days, maximum temperatures and all the rest of it are not. Those in charge of the CFA in Victoria have made clear statements that they expect climate change to have an impact and is having an impact. Lets get real here one persons comment is not sufficient to prove or disprove, there is nothing to be gained by making over the top pronouncements based on little more than a comment in a morning paper.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> That's fine but I get upset when some people say harden up and it's only a scratch , Silent but deadly in my view has no real grip on life or no real touch with real life to make a statement like that . Either he/she ( and we have no real way of knowing ) lives in a world where the hardship caused by things like the carbon tax do not effect them, or their mind set makes them believe that hardship to those less fortunate than themselves are of no value. I as you here know do not wish bad luck about anyone but ' Silent but deadly ' if karma comes as it often does I would hope you think back to those remarks you made and when you are in a hard place and making ends meet is almost impossible and realize an ivory tower never lasts forever you think back and realize the error of your ways , because we will all end up in a nursing home or dead, but it is the quality of life that is important and to tell older people to " Harden Up " shows just what sort of person you are. I have posted her a lot and don't criticize or put a lot or put people down but your disregard to the suffering caused by the ' Carbon Tax " and your comments " to harden up " just shows what type op person you are. As I said I don't often get angry but to make comments like that when people less fortunate than yourself are suffering in my opinion you should take a good look at the comments and yourself

  Ashore
I have a very good grip on 'reality' or 'life' as you put it...probably just as good as yours.  However we have different perception filters, different perspectives and different values.  Plus we are nigh on a generation apart. So how I interpret the issues of the day is very different to how you do it.  Nothing personal.  Just different.  I respect that difference. Do you? 
My perception of the actual carbon tax impact on the members of my community in rural Australia (in the most conservative political seat in the country) who are to a large part in the employ of either Centrelink or the black economy is that in the general scheme of things it amounts to sixth fifths of sod all especially when compared with the other demands of the typical day to day.  People did not suddenly feel poorer when it came in...and when it goes away they will not feel richer.  I know I won't. 
However, self funded retiree's who obsessively monitor their dwindling bank accounts in the hope that they have enough in them to maintain the lifestyle to which they've become accustom to (rather than the one they can afford) are sensitive to any sort of thing that they perceive threatens their security and 'peace of mind'.  As some one who hears his immediate elders (parents) harp on about being self funded retirees and how hard it is "especially when trying to make sure we leave something for the grandkids"...I have very little time and less sympathy for it.  Better for everyone if they leave with memories, stories, laughter and happiness.  I've re-trained mine to go out that way...and it looks like the training has stuck.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Getting back to the point, he most significant cause of high intensity bush fires is the lack of yearly burning in forests...

  I think the word you are looking for is 'routine' rather than 'yearly'.  Fact is though, who is going to pay for the resources required to do it?  It has never been done to date.  Current investment in fire management (as opposed to emergency fire response) amounts to enough to burn less than something like 1% of public land in Victoria (it may be less as I've pulled number from dim memories of a report).  In NSW, it is even less... 
And public services in most States are being defunded at a rather impressive rate of knots.  Do you really think we can privatise fire mitigation? 
The annual spend to do this sort of burning is unsustainable both economically, politically and financially.  And the community is unlikely to be significantly safer compared to situations using other fire mitigation measures (or better still a suite of fire mitigation measures). 
Then you get to the problem that frequent burning contributes to almost as many problems as it solves. Such as faster build up of highly combustible material (grass etc) which if you have one logistical/financial breakdown gets left or forgotten and [whoosh]...frequency of grass fires goes nuts (which are often just as deadly/dangerous as bush fires).  
Like human induced climate change, fire management in Australia is what is called a 'wicked problem'.  That they at very least have in common.  Regardless, simplistic pontification on the interweb won't contribute to either problem.  But it is often damn funny to read.

----------


## intertd6

> I think the word you are looking for is 'routine' rather than 'yearly'.  Fact is though, who is going to pay for the resources required to do it?  It has never been done to date.  Current investment in fire management (as opposed to emergency fire response) amounts to enough to burn less than something like 1% of public land in Victoria (it may be less as I've pulled number from dim memories of a report).  In NSW, it is even less... 
> And public services in most States are being defunded at a rather impressive rate of knots.  Do you really think we can privatise fire mitigation? 
> The annual spend to do this sort of burning is unsustainable both economically, politically and financially.  And the community is unlikely to be significantly safer compared to situations using other fire mitigation measures (or better still a suite of fire mitigation measures). 
> Then you get to the problem that frequent burning contributes to almost as many problems as it solves. Such as faster build up of highly combustible material (grass etc) which if you have one logistical/financial breakdown gets left or forgotten and [whoosh]...frequency of grass fires goes nuts (which are often just as deadly/dangerous as bush fires).  
> Like human induced climate change, fire management in Australia is what is called a 'wicked problem'.  That they at very least have in common.  Regardless, simplistic pontification on the interweb won't contribute to either problem.  But it is often damn funny to read.

  Generally even if most of the forested country was burned once a year it still would take ages for the country to be thinned back to the treed amount that was in existence pre European settlement, 45 years ago we & all the district used to burn the private property bush yearly on the NSW nth coast & the forestry commission would do the same, as kids we used to light the grass on our farms at the bottom of the steep hills, the fire would just slowly burn to the ridges overnight, I have been back a few years ago & I couldn't recognise some of the places, where there was virgin open forest with large trees every 15 to 20 meters you could see easily through the forest, now the space between the larger trees is now taken up with small trees & woody shrubs, very little grass and a matted layer of sticks & bark 300 mm deep, if a fire was to be lit as we used to do it would be uncontrollable & now everybody is *hit scared when the fire danger rises.
A few years back a researcher from UNE published a paper that claimed there were more trees in Australia now than when captain cook first arrived & myself after doing an forestry course assignment on the basal area of my wet sclerophyll forest & other observations I tend to believe it, the lecturers couldn't believe that the plot basal area was 99m2/Ha so I re did the survey & came out with 101m2/Ha the second time, 50 to 60m2 is a heavily stocked forest. There are old stumps on the plot that are up to 3.5m DBH whereas the largest DBH of the survey area was 600mm.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Can you provide a link to support this inter? 
> I had a look around, the most comprehensive I could find was this:  http://www.australianalps.environmen...y-chapter1.pdf 
> There is no mention of any period of hundreds of years without bushfires. Tens of years, maybe half a century, yes. Are you talking pre-Aboriginal time here? 
> woodbe.

  
home.vicnet.net.au/~frstfire/docs/Jurskis.pdf
by V Jurskis - ‎2005 - ‎Cited by 25 - ‎Related articles
Summary. Fire was an integral part of the Australian environment before ..... Fire history of the tall wet eucalypt forests of the Warra ecological research site ...
here you go, but I doubt you will even understand it.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> home.vicnet.net.au/~frstfire/docs/Jurskis.pdf
> by V Jurskis - ‎2005 - ‎Cited by 25 - ‎Related articles
> Summary. Fire was an integral part of the Australian environment before ..... Fire history of the tall wet eucalypt forests of the Warra ecological research site ...
> here you go, but I doubt you will even understand it.
> regards inter

  Condescension is not an endearing quality and does not enhance credibility. The author mentions fire intervals of up to 300 years in wet eucalypt but three fires per decade in dry eucalypt, while an interesting article (your link doesn't work by the way) it does not support your claims of all of Australia being burnt and only one high intensity fire every 400 years. No one is questioning that fire practices before European settlement suppressed high intensity burns, nor that more frequent low intensity burns would help fire management. What was said that climate change bringing hotter maximums increases fire risk. Are you stating that it will not and that temperature plays no part because that seems to be your argument. The Jarrah forest in WA need more fire to maintain health, it is thought that Victorian alpine forests were not burnt (other than the odd isolated area) as part of any fire management tool it was more the low lands. I think when it comes to understanding we need to recognise that one size fits all does not apply to pre European settlement fires. Fire was used in different ways in populated areas and while extensive and generally a mosaic approach on the landscape you actually can't make blanket statements. Most people with a year 12 education standard would find that article easy to read, there are a couple of technical words you might have to look up but it is written to be understood by a wide audience it is not a highly technical paper, if you think that is complex you are probably not very widely read. I would also point out that calling people ignorant for merely questioning a statement is a poor way to respond to something you can't support beyond a road sign on a bush track in Tasmania.

----------


## woodbe

> home.vicnet.net.au/~frstfire/docs/Jurskis.pdf
> by V Jurskis - ‎2005 - ‎Cited by 25 - ‎Related articles
> Summary. Fire was an integral part of the Australian environment before ..... Fire history of the tall wet eucalypt forests of the Warra ecological research site ...
> here you go, but I doubt you will even understand it.
> regards inter

  And your point is?  
Frequent fire formed Australia's forest ecology, without frequent fire, the ecology changes. Who disagrees with that?  
Re succession, it is an interesting subject, a good primer exists on Wikipedia: Ecological succession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Fixed your link so that it is clickable. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Generally even if most of the forested country was burned once a year it still would take ages for the country to be thinned back to the treed amount that was in existence pre European settlement, 45 years ago we & all the district used to burn the private property bush yearly on the NSW nth coast & the forestry commission would do the same, as kids we used to light the grass on our farms at the bottom of the steep hills, the fire would just slowly burn to the ridges overnight, I have been back a few years ago & I couldn't recognise some of the places, where there was virgin open forest with large trees every 15 to 20 meters you could see easily through the forest, now the space between the larger trees is now taken up with small trees & woody shrubs, very little grass and a matted layer of sticks & bark 300 mm deep, if a fire was to be lit as we used to do it would be uncontrollable & now everybody is *hit scared when the fire danger rises.
> A few years back a researcher from UNE published a paper that claimed there were more trees in Australia now than when captain cook first arrived & myself after doing an forestry course assignment on the basal area of my wet sclerophyll forest & other observations I tend to believe it, the lecturers couldn't believe that the plot basal area was 99m2/Ha so I re did the survey & came out with 101m2/Ha the second time, 50 to 60m2 is a heavily stocked forest. There are old stumps on the plot that are up to 3.5m DBH whereas the largest DBH of the survey area was 600mm.
> regards inter

  
No disagreement there...burn whatever you like as far as I'm concerned (though not much really needs burning most times regardless).  From an ecological perspective it is largely immaterial given the current ecological state (somewhere between ridiculously modified and basically stuffed). 
My contention is that despite the wishes of the Great Unwashed...it won't happen.  They (the G.U.) simply aren't prepared to pay the bill required - period.  If they can't afford the Carbon Tax then they sure as heck can't afford the Gold Plated Fire Hazard Reduction via the Routine Incineration of Every Scrap of Remnant Bushland Near Houses Levy. 
It'd probably be cheaper to subsidise the construction of fire proof houses and if that came about then I'll bet you'd say "sod that...if they want to live there then let the mongrels pay for it themselves".  :Biggrin:

----------


## intertd6

> And your point is?  
> Frequent fire formed Australia's forest ecology, without frequent fire, the ecology changes. Who disagrees with that?  
> Re succession, it is an interesting subject, a good primer exists on Wikipedia: Ecological succession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
> Fixed your link so that it is clickable. 
> woodbe.

  as I suspected, you didn't understand it.
regards

----------


## intertd6

> Condescension is not an endearing quality and does not enhance credibility. The author mentions fire intervals of up to 300 years in wet eucalypt but three fires per decade in dry eucalypt, while an interesting article (your link doesn't work by the way) it does not support your claims of all of Australia being burnt and only one high intensity fire every 400 years. No one is questioning that fire practices before European settlement suppressed high intensity burns, nor that more frequent low intensity burns would help fire management. What was said that climate change bringing hotter maximums increases fire risk. Are you stating that it will not and that temperature plays no part because that seems to be your argument. The Jarrah forest in WA need more fire to maintain health, it is thought that Victorian alpine forests were not burnt (other than the odd isolated area) as part of any fire management tool it was more the low lands. I think when it comes to understanding we need to recognise that one size fits all does not apply to pre European settlement fires. Fire was used in different ways in populated areas and while extensive and generally a mosaic approach on the landscape you actually can't make blanket statements. Most people with a year 12 education standard would find that article easy to read, there are a couple of technical words you might have to look up but it is written to be understood by a wide audience it is not a highly technical paper, if you think that is complex you are probably not very widely read. I would also point out that calling people ignorant for merely questioning a statement is a poor way to respond to something you can't support beyond a road sign on a bush track in Tasmania.

   Unfortunately you didn't understand it either.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> No disagreement there...burn whatever you like as far as I'm concerned (though not much really needs burning most times regardless).  From an ecological perspective it is largely immaterial given the current ecological state (somewhere between ridiculously modified and basically stuffed). 
> My contention is that despite the wishes of the Great Unwashed...it won't happen.  They (the G.U.) simply aren't prepared to pay the bill required - period.  If they can't afford the Carbon Tax then they sure as heck can't afford the Gold Plated Fire Hazard Reduction via the Routine Incineration of Every Scrap of Remnant Bushland Near Houses Levy. 
> It'd probably be cheaper to subsidise the construction of fire proof houses and if that came about then I'll bet you'd say "sod that...if they want to live there then let the mongrels pay for it themselves".

  I'd say they were ignorant of the fire risks, then wanted to sue all & sundry when it all went wrong.
Regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> as I suspected, you didn't understand it.
> regards

  Really? 
I know what that article is, and I don't think it is what you want it to be. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Really? 
> I know what that article is, and I don't think it is what you want it to be. 
> woodbe.

  it is & more actually, as the the saying goes " you can't see the wood for the trees "
 And then this fire history of southwestern Australian woodland around 400 years. http://www.bushfirecrc.com/managed/r...e48_lowres.pdf
any normal person is seeing the message here on fire history. Then there's yours & not many others which are clinging to the CO2 theory of it being a major influence of bushfire intensity .
regards inter

----------


## johnc

Your original premise was 400 years across Australia, you cannot use a tiny pocket of australian forest as any support for your claim, even then it is not a general claim but for a specific type in a specific area, there are much shorter periods in the same area. I think you are grasping at trees to the point it is getting just a bit silly. Go along with your self belief though that only you can see it, it worked for that famous emperor with no clothes he felt pretty self assured even if everyone else was left scratching there heads.

----------


## woodbe

> it is & more actually, as the the saying goes " you can't see the wood for the trees "
>  And then this fire history of southwestern Australian woodland around 400 years. http://www.bushfirecrc.com/managed/r...e48_lowres.pdf
> any normal person is seeing the message here on fire history. Then there's yours & not many others which are clinging to the CO2 theory of it being a major influence of bushfire intensity .
> regards inter

  Interesting viewpoint. Let's leave aside the all of Australia claim as I have let you off the hook on that. 
Are you suggesting that all southwestern Australian woodland exploded into fire every 400 years? I think you are reading a lot into a probability plot that is not there. We've already agreed that individual forests can have hundreds of years between fires, but now you seem to be suggesting that these fires were somehow synchronised?   

> the CO2 theory of it being a major influence of bushfire intensity

  If you read what has been suggested, it says that increasing temperatures and drying climate are increasing the frequency of fires and extending the potential fire season. None of which is extinguished by the claims in your references. 
Seeing that we are now actively quoting references to support our positions on either side of the climate change/fire debate, allow me to offer one from Roger Jones, Professorial Research Fellow at Victoria University.   

> *Has bushfire risk increased due to climate change?   * In research  I did with colleagues earlier this year we looked at the Fire Danger  Index calculated by the Bureau of Meteorology, and compared how it  changed compared to temperature over time in Victoria.  
>   South-east Australia saw a temperature change of about 0.8C when we  compared temperatures before 1996 and after 1997. We know that it got  drier after 1997 too.
>   We then compared this data to the Forest Fire Danger Index, to see if  it showed the same pattern. We analysed fire data from nine stations in  Victoria and did a non-linear analysis.  
>   We found that fire danger in Victoria increased by over a third after  1996, compared to 1972-1996. The current level of fire danger is  equivalent to the worst case projected for 2050, from an earlier analysis for the Climate Institute.  
>   While its impossible to say categorically that the situation is the  same in NSW, we know that these changes are generally applicable across  south-east Australia. So its likely to be a similar case: fire and  climate change are linked.

  Be careful to debate what is said, not what you think is said. No-one here is suggesting that any one particular fire is a direct result of climate change. Fires have a higher probability of occurring due to climate change however.. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Your original premise was 400 years across Australia, you cannot use a tiny pocket of australian forest as any support for your claim, even then it is not a general claim but for a specific type in a specific area, there are much shorter periods in the same area. I think you are grasping at trees to the point it is getting just a bit silly. Go along with your self belief though that only you can see it, it worked for that famous emperor with no clothes he felt pretty self assured even if everyone else was left scratching there heads.

  again I never said 400 years between fires across Australia ( maybe you should have gone to specsavers ) especially when I have repeatedly said the pre European population burnt continually which kept the incedence of wildfires in forests to a couple of hundred years, it was a broad statement which I have formally learnt from foresters & others with long generational histories in the timber industry & state forestry & national parks information, then when I search as requested on the web the proof emerges quite easily as well? The key words I used are "wildfires" which I explained will kill mature eucalyptus forests, now if you have mature old growth trees skattered through a forest that are hundreds of years old or even approaching a thousand years old  that tell the the minimum time between a wildfire incidence, now when historical photographs from the 1800's are looked at from forested areas all around Australia  before clearing or selection commenced these old growth trees are clearly visible. Its difficult to see photographs from that era without large old mature trees in them.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Interesting viewpoint. Let's leave aside the all of Australia claim as I have let you off the hook on that. 
> Are you suggesting that all southwestern Australian woodland exploded into fire every 400 years? I think you are reading a lot into a probability plot that is not there. We've already agreed that individual forests can have hundreds of years between fires, but now you seem to be suggesting that these fires were somehow synchronised?   
> If you read what has been suggested, it says that increasing temperatures and drying climate are increasing the frequency of fires and extending the potential fire season. None of which is extinguished by the claims in your references. 
> Seeing that we are now actively quoting references to support our positions on either side of the climate change/fire debate, allow me to offer one from Roger Jones, Professorial Research Fellow at Victoria University.   
> Be careful to debate what is said, not what you think is said. No-one here is suggesting that any one particular fire is a direct result of climate change. Fires have a higher probability of occurring due to climate change however.. 
> woodbe.

   Abstract
Fire management  what has changed? Vic Jurskis1 Roger Underwood2
1 State Forests of NSW P.O. Box 273 Eden NSW 2551 Australia 1 Email:vicj@sf.nsw.gov.au
2 The Bushfire Front, PO Box 1014, Subiaco, WA 6904 Australia
Disastrous fires across temperate Australia in the early to mid 20th Century precipitated a revolution in forest fire management. Broad area fuel reduction burning, often by aerial ignition, made it possible to minimise the occurrence of very large high intensity wildfires. From the 1980s demographic and political changes brought a counter revolution. Managers concerned about theoretical, ecological impacts of burning allowed fuels to accumulate, suppression again became the major fire management activity, and disastrous fires returned. In many forest areas roads and fire trails were blocked or no longer maintained, making access for fire suppression more difficult.
the key word here is "political" 
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> the key word here is "political" 
> regards inter

  And the other keyword is "demographic".  
I'm not hearing any argument about the impact of changes to fire prevention and management here. You're singing to the choir. 
Does this reference discuss the impact of rising temperatures over the period in question? I'm not sure it is relevant to the debate? 
woodbe. 
nb. Your reference contains an email address, best to remove it to prevent it getting harvested for spam.

----------


## woodbe

> Abstract Fire management  what has changed?

  Added link to the paper found on the Mountain Cattlemens Association of Victoria website. 
It mentions Global Warming but that's about it. Not really relevant. 
Edit: Found another paper on the Mountain Cattlemen's association that does deal with Climate Change:  http://www.mcav.com.au/Jurskis%20de%...0Aitchison.pdf   

> *FIRE MANAGEMENT IN THE ALPINE REGION.*  
> Vic Jurskis, Paul de Mar, Barry Aitchison 
>  Forests NSW, PO Box 273, Eden NSW 2551, Australia  
>   NSW Rural Fire Service, PO Box 74, Berridale NSW 2628, Australia.  *Abstract*  
> The Alpine Region of Australia contains a very extensive tract of native ecosystems that remains largely intact.  
> Paradoxically it also boasts a rich cultural history extending back before European settlement. Diverse values supplied  
> by the regions ecosystems include food, minerals, timber, recreation, energy, water, nature conservation, and cultural  
> history. Some of these alpine values are particularly vulnerable to climate change. There are different opinions about  
> the relative impacts of human management, compared to climate, on fire regimes. The fire history of the region and  
> ...

  
Woodbe.

----------


## Marc

As usual trash content just to pretend to be on top of the debate. 
There are two points in relation to bushfires.
One, the FACT that green political agenda infiltrated councils and other organisations and led to political decisions NOT to reduce fuel on the ground based on, well nothing more than dogma. We can't burn gaia you see she may get angry and make fire and brimstone rain on the sinners. 
Two, the attempt to justify this criminal failure to act by shifting the blame on "climate change".
Now for once I will agree on one point. Considering that bush fires variables are, fuel, smokers, pyromaniacs, assorted idiots, wind, power lines, transformers, corrupt councils who allow to build in the bush, greenies, and temperatures (probably left out half a dozen), IF everything is exactly the same and the only variable changed is temperature, obviously the incidence of fire will be higher with higher temperatures.  
Big whoop, so what? Are we back to the idiotic concept that we humans have the hand of the magic thermostat and can turn the knob down at will? 
How arrogant! 
However since we clearly can not change the inevitable variations of temperatures that have varied for millennia, we can act on all the other variables that put together dwarf the variable temperature.
I would start to make it illegal to interfere with bush fire prevention based on religious ground 
The debate about humans being responsible for making the average temperature rise by their existence and the inevitable human activity, is a complete waste of time for several reasons. One, it is proven that there is no cause and effect between additional CO2 made by humans and temperatures, it is like saying that by rubbing my hands together i will make the room temperature rise.
Two and this is the one I like the most, there is no proof not even a debate about the idea that this mechanism if it was true that is, is reversible. If we really made temperature rise by ... what is the claim? 0.2? ... who can say that such will actually drop if I stop farting and leave my car at home and walk to work? 
So, the debate about bush fires and climate change is absolute nonsense, akin to say that red cars, especially Ferraris produce epileptic fits.  
The ONLY debate is about the demented claim that we must not burn the heck out of the fuel on the ground due to some concern about ... what precisely? No one really knows.
It is a power trip by greens and a knee jerk reaction by authorities both are criminal acts and someone must go to gaol.

----------


## Farmer Geoff

Another factor re forest fires is that we are getting better at controlling the small and medium intensity fires that in pre Captain Cook days used to burn forests in such a way that they recovered naturally. Nowadays more forests therefore remain unburned except by less frequent but more intense fires that take forests much longer to recover from. Climate change may bring us more days on which a fire would be uncontrollable but if we don't have a fire on those days then there isn't a problem.  Sadly, many of the fires that we do have on 'bad days' come from humans - power lines, accidents, escaped hazard reduction burns, arson, etc and they wouldn't have happened in the olden days.

----------


## woodbe

> The ONLY debate is about the demented claim that we must not burn the heck out of the fuel on the ground due to some concern about ... what precisely? No one really knows.

  If there is a debate, it is about cost and risk management. 
Strangely, your argument about man's involvement in climate change is not relevant, the climate has changed, and the changes are increasing the risk of bushfire and extending the bushfire season. eg:   
Oh, and Farmer Geoff, welcome to the debate. You raise some good points. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> and the claptrap continues.
> this country has been burnt yearly for thousands of years by people with fire sticks walking through it at every chance they had, wildfires still happened but they were separated by hundreds of years. the experts that know about bush fires have understood this & tried to burn yearly but theres always a group of clowns that stop it then when a catastrophic fire happens they blame everything but their stupidity
> regards inter

    This is your original claim about spacing of wildfire, granted you hadn't made a claim about a specific span, you have used hundreds of years instead. The point still stands though there is no distinction about forest types nor locality it is a straight blanket claim of wildfires every few hundred years. Yet from your own postings and the links you provided some bush experienced wildfire every few decades, some areas nothing because they are to wet and some by quite long intervals. This extended run of posts is because you will not accept your original theme was misleading and because of a simple statement that nothing supports the view that the Australian bush only experienced severe fire every few hundred years. All you have done is confirm that is the case, the incidence of fire is every few decades in dry forest, your claim had an element of truth but is essentially misleading. Levelling claims that people can't understand, or that you know best really hasn't helped your case but attempting to bully your way out of this by taking cheap shots is not helping, stick to the facts.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> If there is a debate, it is about cost and risk management.

  When it's all boiled down, that's essentially what the last umpteen hundred pages have been about...aside from the odd diversion or three  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  
That's what I love about 'wicked problems'.

----------


## Marc

> ...Strangely, your argument about man's involvement in climate change is not relevant, the climate has changed, and the changes are increasing the risk of bushfire and extending the bushfire season....

  The only reason we are talking about bush fires is because there is a constant claim that man made global warming is the cause of bush fires.
This low and vile accusation comes from the gutter of the warmist camp adding insult to injury  to those who have lost all including some their own life. 
You don't need to tell us that bush fires will be more frequent IF temperature rise. That is like saying that if the dollar drops petrol will be dearer...oh and if it rains you will get wet. 
Seriously, drop the charade, the accusations that man made global warming is causing bush fires is as despicable as the church blaming the witches for solar eclipse (and burning them for good measure). I am sure the greens would love to burn whoever opposes their lunacy. Fortunately we have a fire ban.

----------


## Marc

> Another factor re forest fires is that we are getting better at controlling the small and medium intensity fires that in pre Captain Cook days used to burn forests in such a way that they recovered naturally. Nowadays more forests therefore remain unburned except by less frequent but more intense fires that take forests much longer to recover from. Climate change may bring us more days on which a fire would be uncontrollable but if we don't have a fire on those days then there isn't a problem.  Sadly, many of the fires that we do have on 'bad days' come from humans - power lines, accidents, escaped hazard reduction burns, arson, etc and they wouldn't have happened in the olden days.

  Bush fires occur for a number of reasons. To include an ill defined concept as "climate change" is a political stunt. What does it mean? Climate has always changed, we had times with higher temperature and times with lower temperatures. 
If you mean man made global warming is causing more bush fires, you would be not only wrong but rude too.
If you don't mean that, then do not include "climate change" (whatever that means) in the many reasons for bush fires.
Bush fires are many times caused by humans. The most despicable cause for bush fires is the greens doctrine to stop regular back burning.

----------


## woodbe

> The only reason we are talking about bush fires is because there is a constant claim that man made global warming is the cause of bush fires.

  The constant claim is actually that climate change is increasing the risk of bushfire and extending the bushfire season in Australia. 
If someone claims that any particular fire is the direct result of climate change then they are not talking on behalf of people who follow the science. I would not support such comments. If they said that climate change is likely to have contributed to the risk of the fire, then I would support that comment as it is in line with the science. 
Likewise, if someone declares that there is no current link between the risk of bushfires and climate change then in the words of our illustrious PM, I would say they are "talking through their hat". 
Hope that clears it up for you.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> The constant claim is actually that climate change is increasing the risk of bushfire and extending the bushfire season in Australia. 
> If someone claims that any particular fire is the direct result of climate change then they are not talking on behalf of people who follow the science. I would not support such comments. If they said that climate change is likely to have contributed to the risk of the fire, then I would support that comment as it is in line with the science. 
> Likewise, if someone declares that there is no current link between the risk of bushfires and climate change then in the words of our illustrious PM, I would say they are "talking through their hat". 
> Hope that clears it up for you.  
> woodbe.

  its actually about some galah greenies saying that the bush fires are the result of the increase in CO2 levels & global warming, when the truth is that fuel buildup from lack of regular fuel reduction burning is the major contributing factor, we have reached a tipping point where some interfering clowns are dictating what should & shouldn't happen without having the intelligence to be cabable of influencing those decisions.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> the truth is that fuel buildup from lack of regular fuel reduction burning is the major contributing factor

  That may well be so. It also doesn't negate the claim that climate change is having an effect on the risk of bushfire and extending the bushfire season. These risks are added to any risk caused by fuel buildup. Even your mate Vic Jurskis realises this. 
There is no single cause, and no one silver bullet. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> That may well be so. It also doesn't negate the claim that climate change is having an effect on the risk of bushfire and extending the bushfire season. These risks are added to any risk caused by fuel buildup. Even your mate Vic Jurskis realises this. 
> There is no single cause, and no one silver bullet. 
> woodbe.

  clouding the issue with minuscule theoretical factors is counter productive in the long run & hinders direct action, by adding more bureaucracy when the money needs to be directed to positive proven action.
the recent Sydney & district fires have occurred after a few summers of above average rainfall followed by one dry winter with a warm spring, so the extended fire season theory doesn't float in this case.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Failing to accept all the facts is failing to float the boat. 
Just ask Tony:   
Hoist with his own petard. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Failing to accept all the facts is failing to float the boat. 
> Just ask Tony:   
> Hoist with his own petard. 
> woodbe.

   falling for political propaganda whether it's for or against separates the independent thinkers from garden variety card carrying dreebs
regards inter

----------


## Marc

> falling for political propaganda whether it's for or against separates the independent thinkers from garden variety card carrying dreebs
> regards inter

   Which brings us back to the core of this issue. 
 "Global warming" is a POLITICAL TOOL. The warming alarmist, global warming agitators, climate change opportunist and green/commie preachers all parrot climate change doom and gloom for one and one reason only. Political mileage and ultimately power over you and me. "I-know-better-what's-best-for-you". Politicians have worked out a long time ago that there is power to be gained and totalitarian decision and attacks to private property to be made unchallenged by trotting this lot of lies as "concern for our children" clap trap.  
If you take politics out of the Global Warming lie there is nothing left. The reality is that whatever minuscule contributions we make to CO2 and whatever irrelevant amount of temperature increase this make, the effects are statistically negligible, the variations in climate irrelevant and rather beneficial to humans. The negatives sold by the snake oil merchants are either not true a complete beat up or a gargantuan exaggeration.   
As an owner of waterfront property for the last 5 generations in both northern and southern hemisphere I am still waiting for any measurable amount of sea level increase and going by the oldest continuous sea level record right here in Sydney Harbour, it seems I will be waiting for another 200 years.    
The rain did not stop, CO2 and temperatures are not cause and effect, and so are not hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, asteroids or martians. The unproven hypothesis that man made CO2 makes global temperatures grow is as false as the story of superman or the stargate as much as they are likable and some may hope in their heart for them to be true they are not. 
Global warming is a false yet very useful story. As false as the alien invasion by Orson Wells, creates fear and the search for a "leader" to "save the world" very handy to fish in turbulent waters by all political parties who like to bend the truth and spell outright lies.  
The supporters of "action against" global warming are either deluded or have a massive hidden agenda. I find the whole charade rather sad and pathetic and a reflection of the human nature at it's worst. Just like the times of the crusades, the "missions", the Inquisition, the Nazi era and lets not forget the communist's witch hunt in the US in the 50ties and 60ties.  
There is a lot to be done to stop pollution of the environment by real polluters like coal seam gas for example. There is a lot to be done against foreign ownership of agricultural land and much more if someone has the inclination to wave a placard. Give it a rest with the global warming crap. By being vocal you become a patzi and doing the work of politicians that have no interest in you or in the environment.

----------


## woodbe

> If you take politics out of the Global Warming lie there is nothing left.

  If you accept the lie that GW is a lie, than I guess you're right. On the other hand, if you don't accept it is a lie because you have actually spent time reading and understanding the SCIENCE then there is much more to global warming than politics. In fact climate change politics is a result of global warming/CC, not the cause of it. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> falling for political propaganda whether it's for or against separates the independent thinkers from garden variety card carrying dreebs
> regards inter

    I would agree providing you apply that to all sides of the argument, there was one very prolific poster to this thread who seems to have disappeared that posted reams of highly slanted political propaganda, I don't recall you singling him out for comment.    :Wink 1:  
A sign of an independant thinker is one who can discount their own prejudice and identify the key points, despite their natural bias. Is there many who can claim to be able to do that regardless of the source.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...the recent Sydney & district fires have occurred after a few summers of above average rainfall followed by one dry winter with a warm spring...

  ...which begs the question...how was anyone supposed to find the appropriate window in all that for effective back burning? And then find the required resources to act on that window? Blaming the 'Evil Greenies' is a retarded cop out based on ignorance and self-interest.  If you want to point the finger then start within before taking the easy way out with a scapegoat. 
Oh and just a hint...if anyone gives grief about the Sydney fires (or any others) this week whilst my nearest and dearest is away fighting them (along with the hundreds of others) then I reserve the right to go right off tap. :Annoyed:

----------


## Bedford

> the recent Sydney & district fires have occurred after a few summers of above average rainfall followed by one dry winter with a warm spring, so the extended fire season theory doesn't float in this case.

   

> ...which begs the question...how was anyone supposed to find the appropriate window in all that for effective back burning?

  Inter didn't mention Back Burning. 
Burning is not the only fuel reduction method available, there are other effective processes that can and have been achieved during wet weather prior to the fire "season"   

> And then find the required resources to act on that window?

  Plenty of contractors available that could do this work.    

> Blaming the 'Evil Greenies' is a retarded cop out based on ignorance and self-interest.  If you want to point the finger then start within before taking the easy way out with a scapegoat.

  There would be contractors in possession of contracts and maps showing the amount of reduction in fuel reduction works since the early eighties, in my area at least. I could probably go back to the early seventies. 
You know the deal, just do one cut less in width on the firebreak each year and no-one will notice, leave "that" bit, it's got orchids in it or an annigowobbler  and "The friends of" really luv 'em.   

> Oh and just a hint...if anyone gives grief about the Sydney fires (or any others) this week whilst my nearest and dearest is away fighting them (along with the hundreds of others) then I reserve the right to go right off tap.

  As someone who was in St Georges Rd Upper Beaconsfield in Feburary 1983, Narre Warren Fire Brigade - Ash Wednesday Memorial for the Forrest Commission, 
and managed to survive and get the two blokes I had with me out alive, I hope your dear ones (and all others) arrive home safely.

----------


## intertd6

Back burning is used to fight fires, not to prevent them starting in the first place.
one doesn't have to be the sharpest or brightest tool in the shed to know the poster referred to hasn't been involved in the CO2 bushfire debate. Even if he had who cares, it's the logical content of a debate that makes sense that matters, not claptrap.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Guys, SBD said backburning, but the context makes it pretty clear he means fuel reduction burning. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Glo-bull warming, LMAO  

> *A better year for the cryosphere*October 3, 2013 
> This summer, Arctic sea ice loss was held in check by relatively cool and stormy conditions. As a result, 2013 saw substantially more ice at summers end, compared to last years record low extent. The Greenland Ice Sheet also showed less extensive surface melt than in 2012. Meanwhile, in the Antarctic, sea ice reached the highest extent recorded in the satellite record.

  Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

----------


## woodbe

> Glo-bull warming, LMAO Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

  Wishful thinking you are.  :Smilie:  
Just because the last melt season wasn't as extensive as the previous year, doesn't mean 'recovery'.  
Did you happen to read a little past the heart warming headline paragraph? Here, let me save you having to go back again:   

> Overall, 10.03 million square kilometers (3.87 million square miles) of  ice were lost between the 2013 maximum and minimum extents. This was the  seventh summer that more than 10 million square kilometers of ice  extent were lost; all but one of the seven (the summer of 1990) have  occurred since 2007.

   

> September average sea ice extent for 2013 was the sixth lowest in the  satellite record. The 2012 September extent was 32% lower than this  years extent, while the 1981 to 2010 average was 22% higher than this  years extent. Through 2013, the September linear rate of decline is  13.7% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.

  Here is what has been happening:   
Here's what Rod thinks is happening:   
And here's what the science predicts:   
woodbe.

----------


## Farmer Geoff

I haven't read many of the preceding posts on this thread so I'm probably repeating stuff in observing: 
Firstly, posters are warned to get electrical and plumbing work and advice from qualified people and most people also rely on doctors rather than lay folk for medical advice. So most intelligent non-experts are happy to accept advice from scientists and where scientists don't agree, go with the well argued majority view rather than hunt around on the internet til we find something that we like then accept it as true. 
Secondly, despite my first point, there will always be people who need to believe a particular view no matter how improbable or factually suspect it may seem to be. People need to manage their own peace of mind. If they are guilt prone and don't want to feel bad about doing nothing and sacrificing nothing in order to correct something that is wrong (eg their own health, world poverty, global health) then they may need to deny that the problem exists. That's their way of managing and we don't need to badger them or criticise them. People have a lot of reasons for their beliefs and reality is but one. I had a friend with cancer and she denied she had it up til the day she died at 35. She'd even had chemo 'to keep her family and doctor happy'. Maybe deep down she knew the truth but once you take a public stand you add pride to the list of reasons to maintain a view. It's not nice to try to take away someone's pride. 
I'm off to plant some trees.  Sick of waiting for Mr Abbott to come and do it for me. 
Cheers

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Burning is not the only fuel reduction method available, there are other effective processes that can and have been achieved during wet weather prior to the fire "season"

  True. But in Sydney's sandstone country (and in many other parts of the country)...it's virtually the only viable option available.  Mechanical methods such as bulldozers only work on the ridge tops (which is why most ridges in the area have fire trails) because otherwise the machines would tumble off the sides which'll help no-one.  Even the back of many houses on the suburban/bushland interface are inaccessible to such equipment.   

> Plenty of contractors available that could do this work.

  I've heard of contract machinery operators being used all the time (they are active in this event) but I've never heard of contract fuel reduction burners.  Regardless, there's often not enough money in the annual budgets to pay for them.  However, (in NSW) fire fighting money comes from a different emergency management fund that is very flush.  As usual, we spend more on fighting the problem than preventing it in the first place. 
I'll say it again...the reduction in fuel control effort over time has very little to do with the greenies and more to do with the bureaucrats and pragmatists trying to do as much with less...and failing.  The mighty dollar is far more influential than any 'evil greenie'.

----------


## woodbe

> Secondly, despite my first point, there will always be people who need to believe a particular view no matter how improbable or factually suspect it may seem to be. People need to manage their own peace of mind. If they are guilt prone and don't want to feel bad about doing nothing and sacrificing nothing in order to correct something that is wrong (eg their own health, world poverty, global health) then they may need to deny that the problem exists. That's their way of managing and we don't need to badger them or criticise them.

  A very insightful post, thanks Geoff. 
If you did read this whole thread, you would find that there is a lot of criticism of anyone who offers an opinion to the debate regardless of which side of the debate they stand on. I've received a good share of it, but then I've also regularly participated in the thread from the early days and have given my share of criticism. This is the Debate section of the forum after all, so this is to be expected to some extent.  
We are lucky to have very good moderation here at RenovateForum so things are rarely allowed to get horribly out of hand. If you think any post is over the top, report it and the mods will apply moderation and warnings if and where required.  
My only other suggestion is, if you wish to participate in an online discussion of anything as inflammatory as Climate Change, then don your flame proof underwear, because you will need it. For instance, your suggestion that one should accept the expert view has been repeatedly attacked here from a number of angles; a) that the scientists and the scientific process is corrupt; b) that the science is just plain wrong (usually based on a single piece of evidence like the 2013 Arctic melt season) c) that the temperature records that the science is based on have been fraudulently adjusted to hide the truth; d) that there is no scientific consensus; e) that one should trust one's own non-scientific judgement over the body of science; f) etc, etc.  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

I was under the impression that most of the fire breaks in the bush were there for asset protection of power lines and other built assets and the secondary purpose is to provide a break along highways as a defence line for fire fighters but there was no substitute for fuel reduction. Isn't fuel reduction burning for DSE only, there are plenty of slashing and clearing contracts but cool burns are a DSE conducted exercise. Our CFA crews do back burns but not fuel reduction as far as I'm aware. The reporting we get is that they have trouble meeting the current targets and when they are burning there is a lot of complaints about air quality and the impact on respiratory conditions, there doesn't seem to be room for comments from the green movement. In any case when we get big fires those firebreaks are quickly breached when the wind gets up and wind blown embers start spotting. Landowners used to be able to burn but the permit system makes that harder, not the least because to many of those burns got away and created headaches for neighbours.

----------


## woodbe

Can't speak for other states, but here in SA the CFS does fuel reduction burns in our area (Adelaide Hills) from late winter. Other areas have prescribed burns managed by DEWNR (Dept Environment Water, Nat Resources) and Forestry SA. Perhaps the smaller burns are managed by CFS and the larger by the departments, but this is just a guess. 
I suspect this is a common scenario. Fuel reduction burns would help with CFS training and experience. 
There has been an active property owner group in our area that has managed to push the authorities into much better management of fuel load, especially grasses, low lying branches, foreign species, dead wood and olive trees. The bush looks better than it has for years and there is far less fuel lying around now.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

We certainly have joint burns between the CFA and the DSE I'm just not sure if the CFA still do solo burns, suppose it depends on the available manpower resources.

----------


## Farmer Geoff

Thanks Woodbe - I've got a thick skin plus a reasonable grasp of the science so I'm happy in my place. I guess my point is that there will always be some rejection of what others accept as facts and stressing over apparent wilful rejection of facts won't help anyone. I still run into people who think the world is round! 
On the topic of burning: 
Fire breaks are useful to stop a small fire getting bigger (eg a firebreak inside the roadside fence of a paddock may stop a fire caused by a discarded cigarette) but other than that, firebreaks are mainly useful as access paths for fire trucks and may be sufficient barrier from which to start a back burn in the face of an oncoming fire. 
Hazard reduction through burning, slashing, grazing contributes to making it easier to manage a small or medium intensity fire but once an intense fire starts crowning in dry forest, previous hazard reduction is far less useful. Less likely to have a crowning fire with reduced forest floor fuel loads though. 
In NSW, landholders can readily get permits for their own hazard reduction burning on safe days in the off season but it is increasingly difficult to get official RFS conducted burns. The paperwork, pre burn logistics, organising volunteers and other resources takes weeks and can all come to nought if weather is against it on the day.  
If there is climate change, human induced or not, then it may be that instead of an average of one 'catastrophic' day per season, there may be two. That's a big increase which isn't a problem if there isn't a fire but it's tempting fate.  Murphy's law is lurking. 
Cheers

----------


## johnc

I guess few people will openly go it alone in supporting or rejecting anything to a certain extent we all rely on experts. However there seems to be enough out there when it comes to climate change that are happy to rely on information from unqualified and dubious sources if it reflects the position they wish to take. Others are prepared to accept that it is safer to deal with those who are qualified in their field and  at the same time accept that in the field of science new information will constantly come forward that will lead us to adjust our view. I would prefer to sit on the side of science and believe those who are more professional and well researched in their approach. Regardless of the slant I take little notice of information flowing from hacks and fringe dwellers, it can be curious, humorous even but also in most cases worthless.  A thick hide helps here but it is not as nasty as it has been, did you mean the earth is flat or round?

----------


## Bedford

> Mechanical methods such as bulldozers only work on the ridge tops (which is why most ridges in the area have fire trails) because otherwise the machines would tumble off the sides which'll help no-one.  Even the back of many houses on the suburban/bushland interface are inaccessible to such equipment.

  If you can build a house on it, it could be cut/fuel reduced with a brushcutter, STIHL Products | STIHL | Stihl, chain saws, brushcutters, hedge trimmers, clearing saws, high-pressure cleaners 
They have crews here for those areas we couldn't do with crawler tractors.   

> I've heard of contract machinery operators being used all the time (they are active in this event) but I've never heard of contract fuel reduction burners.

  I've never heard of contract burners either, they do employ Project Firefighters for the summer but I don't think they are available at the times of the year when fuel reduction burns are possible.

----------


## Bedford

> I was under the impression that most of the fire breaks in the bush were there for asset protection of power lines and other built assets and the secondary purpose is to provide a break along highways as a defence line for fire fighters but there was no substitute for fuel reduction.

  Most of the firebreaks here were for private asset protection as most of the crown land abuts these. 
There were plenty of internal green firebreaks and buffer zones created after the 1968 fires, but a lot of these have been reduced in size to the point they wouldn't help much. 
Keeping a slashed area beside roads and tracks does help to keep the heat back when trying to work on a fire from a vehicle.    

> Isn't fuel reduction burning for DSE only, there are plenty of slashing and clearing contracts but cool burns are a DSE conducted exercise.

  That's how it used to be but the CFA did assist at times.    

> Hazard reduction through burning, slashing, grazing contributes to making it easier to manage a small or medium intensity fire but once an intense fire starts crowning in dry forest, previous hazard reduction is far less useful.* Less likely to have a crowning fire with reduced forest floor fuel loads though*.

  Yep, funny that.   

> A thick hide helps here *but it is not as nasty as it has been*,

  And that's the way I'd like to keep it. :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

> I haven't read many of the preceding posts on this thread so I'm probably repeating stuff in observing: 
> Firstly, posters are warned to get electrical and plumbing work and advice from qualified people and most people also rely on doctors rather than lay folk for medical advice. So most intelligent non-experts are happy to accept advice from scientists and where scientists don't agree, go with the well argued majority view rather than hunt around on the internet til we find something that we like then accept it as true.

  Correct. That is why we had flat earth and geocentrical universe among many other "consensus" and peer reviewed absolute certainties. 
The predictions in "The limit to growth" by the club of Rome, based on computer modelling just like those predicting global warming catastrophe failed every single prediction.    

> Secondly, despite my first point, there will always be people who need to believe a particular view no matter how improbable or factually suspect it may seem to be. People need to manage their own peace of mind. If they are guilt prone and don't want to feel bad about doing nothing and sacrificing nothing in order to correct something that is wrong (eg their own health, world poverty, global health) then they may need to deny that the problem exists. That's their way of managing and we don't need to badger them or criticise them. People have a lot of reasons for their beliefs and reality is but one. I had a friend with cancer and she denied she had it up til the day she died at 35. She'd even had chemo 'to keep her family and doctor happy'. Maybe deep down she knew the truth but once you take a public stand you add pride to the list of reasons to maintain a view. It's not nice to try to take away someone's pride. 
> I'm off to plant some trees.  Sick of waiting for Mr Abbott to come and do it for me. 
> Cheers

  The above is applicable to every side of this debate. If you add to it that "global warming" is a political tool for political mileage and the supporters have all a hidden political agenda whilst pretending altruism, no one will ever concede to be wrong, until the inevitable scientific evidence will become too big to hide. 16 years of no warming ... may be we must wait another 15? 
As for you "waiting for Abbott to plant trees for you", well that is a rather dumb comment, not to mention political.
So the conga line of labor/green/commie continues to use the global warming fraud for political milage.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Fire breaks are useful to stop a small fire getting bigger (eg a firebreak inside the roadside fence of a paddock may stop a fire caused by a discarded cigarette) but other than that, firebreaks are mainly useful as access paths for fire trucks and may be sufficient barrier from which to start a back burn in the face of an oncoming fire. 
> Hazard reduction through burning, slashing, grazing contributes to making it easier to manage a small or medium intensity fire but once an intense fire starts crowning in dry forest, previous hazard reduction is far less useful. Less likely to have a crowning fire with reduced forest floor fuel loads though. 
> In NSW, landholders can readily get permits for their own hazard reduction burning on safe days in the off season but it is increasingly difficult to get official RFS conducted burns. The paperwork, pre burn logistics, organising volunteers and other resources takes weeks and can all come to nought if weather is against it on the day.  
> If there is climate change, human induced or not, then it may be that instead of an average of one 'catastrophic' day per season, there may be two. That's a big increase which isn't a problem if there isn't a fire but it's tempting fate.  Murphy's law is lurking.

  All observations are spot on.   
Word from the fire front is that the big fire up in the Macdonald River area north west of Sydney went thundering through a couple of big areas that had been subject to what were considered to be successful fuel reduction burns just last Autumn...and reduced what was left to nothing much at all.  When all the other factors are in play (such as but not limited to temperature, wind speed direction, humidity and human stupidity) then risk reduction measures like fuel load reduction don't count for a lot...but if it makes people feel better without requiring any effort from them then why not? 
Bit like 'Direct Action' I reckon  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So the conga line of labor/green/commie continues to use the global warming fraud for political milage.

  Alternatively: 
"So the conga line of Liberal/Tea Party/free marketeers continues to use the denial of global warming for political mileage". 
See, Marc, despite your eternal faked outrage bluster.....we are not all that different. :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Sneaktongue:

----------


## PhilT2

> Alternatively: 
> "So the conga line of Liberal/Tea Party/free marketeers continues to use the denial of global warming for political mileage". 
> See, Marc, despite your eternal faked outrage bluster.....we are not all that different.

  SBD, you forgot to add in the part about how it's all a secret plot for world domination, the UN and Agenda 21 etc
See Lord Monckton for all the details.
Makes it just so much more believable.

----------


## intertd6

> All observations are spot on.   
> Word from the fire front is that the big fire up in the Macdonald River area north west of Sydney went thundering through a couple of big areas that had been subject to what were considered to be successful fuel reduction burns just last Autumn...and reduced what was left to nothing much at all.  When all the other factors are in play (such as but not limited to temperature, wind speed direction, humidity and human stupidity) then risk reduction measures like fuel load reduction don't count for a lot...but if it makes people feel better without requiring any effort from them then why not? 
> Bit like 'Direct Action' I reckon

  That's exactly the rubbish that's bandied around by the tree hungers, I provided the links that bury this crap, all you have to do is read & understand it, I'm certain your successful in he first part just failing on the next.
So a fire started in an already burnt under storey into the canopy of the forest, highly highly unlikely, unless you live in suburbia & you bush skills come from ??? nowhere.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> So a fire started in an already burnt under storey into the canopy of the forest

  There is some serious reading comprehension problems going on here.  :Eek:  
What part of "the big fire up in the Macdonald River area north west of Sydney went  thundering through a couple of big areas that had been subject to what  were considered to be successful fuel reduction burns just last Autumn" tells you that "_a fire started in an already burnt under storey_"?  
First, "_the big fire up in the Macdonald River area north west of Sydney_" indicates that the fire was already burning, not starting to burn. No mention is made of the start, where it started or how it started. 
Second, "_went  thundering through a couple of big areas that had been subject to what  were considered to be successful fuel reduction burns just last Autumn_" tells us that the fire travelled rapidly through those fuel reduced areas in it's path. 
Please explain. 
woodbe.

----------


## Farmer Geoff

Whatever the definition of a 'successful' hazard reduction burn may be, there is never a guarantee that it will prevent a huge fire from causing great damage soon afterwards. Most experienced fire fighters have seen cases where forest which has burned in a small to medium intensity fire will then burn ferociously just a few days later, let alone months later. A lot of fires don't burn all the fuel. Some forest litter may be dry on top but damp underneath, some green vegetation may survive the initial fire but then die or shed a lot of singed leaf, and in hilly country there will be many pockets unburned or which burned too cool to be effective. A different wind on a bad day will roar through, get into the canopy and then spot long distances ahead. Stand back.  
Fires are a bit like people - the more of them you meet, the less confident you are that you can predict the character and behaviour of one that you have yet to meet.

----------


## johnc

In the Benambra fires a few years back there was a chap who had run a grader around sheds and property in the path of the fire. He had scrapped the ground back to gravel and had cut a wide area when the fire hit. He lost both houses and all farm sheds and survived in the end by hiding under a blanket behind the grader tire which gave him just enough protection. That gives you an idea of intensity. He described the bare ground which was surrounded by grassed paddock as appearing as if the gravel was on fire, there was nothing there to burn yet the gases I guess were producing a conflagration that just consumed everything in its path. It doesn't matter what is in front of it if you have extreme conditions all the breaks and burns will not give you protection from that type of fire. However what they will do is help contain fire in recently lit fires or on more benign days.  We need to put in all those controls because they reduce risk and increase control, nothing though eliminates risk which is what Woodbe is saying, no point jumping to silly responses, there was nothing wrong in what he said and pretending that somehow the cool burns hadn't been done properly or whatever really doesn't make any sense nor is it showing much interest in discussion it is just being anti for the sake of it.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Whatever the definition of a 'successful' hazard reduction burn may be, there is never a guarantee that it will prevent a huge fire from causing great damage soon afterwards. Most experienced fire fighters have seen cases where forest which has burned in a small to medium intensity fire will then burn ferociously just a few days later, let alone months later. A lot of fires don't burn all the fuel. Some forest litter may be dry on top but damp underneath, some green vegetation may survive the initial fire but then die or shed a lot of singed leaf, and in hilly country there will be many pockets unburned or which burned too cool to be effective. A different wind on a bad day will roar through, get into the canopy and then spot long distances ahead. Stand back.  
> Fires are a bit like people - the more of them you meet, the less confident you are that you can predict the character and behaviour of one that you have yet to meet.

  True.   
They had put another burn through an area yesterday that was already burnt back in April because they wanted a bigger containment buffer between the main Wollemi fire and the unburned ground to the south.  The April burn was too patchy for everyone's comfort (because the fire wouldn't carry in the cooler conditions back then) and the post fire leaf fall just added to the problem.  Apparently, this time around it wasn't any easier... :Annoyed:   
Now, in a forlorn attempt to drag this retarded monster back on topic whilst still talking about bushfires....ECOS Magazine - Towards A Sustainable Future

----------


## The Administration Team

We remind you once again,   To Play the Ball, Not the Man. 
Some posts have just been deleted as we couldn't edit them and leave them making sense. 
Not that they made much sense to start with. :Annoyed:  
So keep it on topic, and play nice or it may be the finish of your participation in this thread.

----------


## intertd6

> There is some serious reading comprehension problems going on here.  
> What part of "the big fire up in the Macdonald River area north west of Sydney went  thundering through a couple of big areas that had been subject to what  were considered to be successful fuel reduction burns just last Autumn" tells you that "_a fire started in an already burnt under storey_"?  
> First, "_the big fire up in the Macdonald River area north west of Sydney_" indicates that the fire was already burning, not starting to burn. No mention is made of the start, where it started or how it started. 
> Second, "_went  thundering through a couple of big areas that had been subject to what  were considered to be successful fuel reduction burns just last Autumn_" tells us that the fire travelled rapidly through those fuel reduced areas in it's path. 
> Please explain. 
> woodbe.

  well the fire wouldn't have started in an area that had been burnt in Autumn, let's see now in 5 months with a dry cold winter it would be lucky to have any growth over that period, the ground would still be virtually black, the fire would have started in an area that hadn't had a good burn to reduce the forest floor fuel level, once it it was going & into the canopy then that's it, it could burn through any forest canopy if the conditions were right.
The hazard reduction burns should be consistently done over All the country EVERY year, the ridges & open forest done first then the wetter areas further into the season, actually after most fire bans come in.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> well the fire wouldn't have started in an area that had been burnt in Autumn

  Can you please point out the part of SilentButDeadly's post that claims where the fire STARTED? 
The rest of your post is agreeing entirely with SBD apart from when burns should occur which he didn't mention. ie. the fires thundered through areas that had previously been fuel reduced. 
Just admit you misread the post and let's move on. PLEASE. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Can you please point out the part of SilentButDeadly's post that claims where the fire STARTED? 
> The rest of your post is agreeing entirely with SBD apart from when burns should occur which he didn't mention. ie. the fires thundered through areas that had previously been fuel reduced. 
> Just admit you misread the post and let's move on. PLEASE. 
> woodbe.

  the point is that it's irrelevant what country the fire burnt through & anyone who knows their stuff can see that it's written to infer that hazard reduction pointless, not everybody is thick enough to believe the inference of that type rubbish.
I'm the only person that has said that the fire couldn't have started in a previously burnt area & not inferring anything else.
if any of you had read some of the provided links about the history of good fuel reduction burns preventing the incidence of large wild fires then you would understand a little more, in fact with the current regime of reduction burns,its killing the bush with ill informed kindness.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> the point is that it's irrelevant what country the fire burnt through

  So why didn't you say that instead of:   

> So a fire started in an already burnt under storey into the canopy of the forest

  No-one else claimed that, especially not SBD. 
So anyway, it seems we have agreement that bushfires can still burn through fuel reduced areas. Illuminating. Duh! 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ....its killing the bush with ill informed kindness.

  Might as well.  It's getting killed one way or the other. Kindness, ignorance, bulldozers...take your pick. 
Can we just drop the bushfire meme?  On top to the climate change/emission trading meme it makes us all seem twice as stupid.  And no funnier...which is the only reason I play here anyway!!!

----------


## intertd6

> Might as well.  It's getting killed one way or the other. Kindness, ignorance, bulldozers...take your pick. 
> Can we just drop the bushfire meme?  On top to the climate change/emission trading meme it makes us all seem twice as stupid.  And no funnier...which is the only reason I play here anyway!!!

   There is not need for our forests to be killed by this method especially when we have learnt last century to control fires, your comment is a lame cop out, CO2 & bush fires means it connected to the debate, during my working hours I wouldn't give a second of my time to those who are blinkered to the information available, but here I can afford myself the luxury.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> There is not need for our forests to be killed by this method especially when we have learnt last century to control fires, your comment is a lame cop out, CO2 & bush fires means it connected to the debate, during my working hours I wouldn't give a second of my time to those who are blinkered to the information available, but here I can afford myself the luxury.
> regards inter

  Of course there's no need...but they are getting nailed regardless. What are you/me/us/them going to do about it?  It's not much of a choice between rampant incineration and a long drawn out decline due to fragmentation and all the other Legacies of History.

----------


## intertd6

> Of course there's no need...but they are getting nailed regardless. What are you/me/us/them going to do about it?  It's not much of a choice between rampant incineration and a long drawn out decline due to fragmentation .

   Those are the spineless choices of the green movement, the legacy of history is a proven winner.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

Here it is again for those they may have a learning difficulty.  
Abstract
Fire management  what has changed? Vic Jurskis1 Roger Underwood2
1 State Forests of NSW P.O. Box 273 Eden NSW 2551 Australia 1 
2 The Bushfire Front, PO Box 1014, Subiaco, WA 6904 Australia
Disastrous fires across temperate Australia in the early to mid 20th Century precipitated a revolution in forest fire management. Broad area fuel reduction burning, often by aerial ignition, made it possible to minimise the occurrence of very large high intensity wildfires. From the 1980s demographic and political changes brought a counter revolution. Managers concerned about theoretical, ecological impacts of burning allowed fuels to accumulate, suppression again became the major fire management activity, and disastrous fires returned. In many forest areas roads and fire trails were blocked or no longer maintained, making access for fire suppression more difficult. 
I wouldn't call myself smart in any sense of the word but I absorbed & understood that the first time around.
regards inter

----------


## Farmer Geoff

History sometimes gives us good ideas, sometimes bad ideas but mostly history is just one factor informing decision making. Add subsequent experience, research, knowledge, different technology, different equipment, different population, different human and community values. So we may get a personally pleasing outcome if we base a decision on selective history alone but it won't necessarily pass the test of thoroughness and common sense. 
Hazard reduction is one tool for reducing fire intensity but it's not practical, economical or environmentally responsible to burn thousands of hectares of remote inaccessible forest just in case there may be a one in twenty year fire there in the next year of two when that hazard reduction would retain its effectiveness. 
Fires need fuel, oxygen and heat. We can't ever remove enough fuel and oxygen to totally take away the risk of any uncontrollable destructive fire. Our best chance is to keep the heat away. That means minimising ignitions through education, regulation and community awareness and monitoring.  And, if there is ignition, through bad luck, bad management or malice, we need quick response before the heat gets too big to handle. Technology might be the answer here. Imagine real time satellite monitoring with quick response by unmanned aircraft with retardant or water. The technology that currently allows drones to be controlled from an office thousands of kilometres away could one day be adapted for quick response bushfire fighting. 
At the risk of stirring up trouble by bringing this thread back to emission trading: 
Bush fire fighters get very angry when they trip over the tonnes of rubbish dumped in bush and amongst the grass on roadsides. Why should we not also get angry or frustrated at the amount of rubbish dumped into the atmosphere? Is rubbish okay if we can't see it?  If the rubbish really starts piling up, should we put blinkers on in order to remain unconnected to the source and effects of the problem?  
Regards

----------


## johnc

> Here it is again for those they may have a learning difficulty.   
> I wouldn't call myself smart in any sense of the word but I absorbed & understood that the first time around.
> regards inter

     Be careful you don't develop a superiority complex on us Inter. While Jurskis may well be an expert in his field he is one of many and I wouldn't place to much reliance on one expert. You only have to look at the number of Royal commissions and reviews to realise we have a lot to learn about fire management, also the report is limited in scope, it may have value as part of a larger body of evidence but on its own it is rather narrow in its focus. If there is one thing we can all consider it is that in anything complex there is no single answer and no single cause, cool burns will only ever be part of a suite of tools that can be used, it does not solve the problem of bushfire and it never will.

----------


## woodbe

> While Jurskis may well be an expert in his field he is one of many and I wouldn't place to much reliance on one expert.

  +1 
This has relevance to the whole Climate Change debate. You can find experts out there who don't agree with Climate Change, but they are like 3 in 100.  
woodbe.

----------


## Bedford

> Hazard reduction is one tool for reducing fire intensity *but it's not practical, economical or environmentally responsible to burn thousands of hectares of remote inaccessible forest* just in case there may be a one in twenty year fire there in the next year of two when that hazard reduction would retain its effectiveness.

  
Can you give us a link to this? 
I'm not sure it's ever been proposed...... :Confused:

----------


## johnc

> Can you give us a link to this? 
> I'm not sure it's ever been proposed......

  The Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission proposed a maximum target of 10% of bush burnt per year, the government after consultation with stakeholders settled on a 5% target identifying 10% as impossible for a number of reasons including resources, time and air quality and the health impacts of airborne particulate matter in areas downwind of the fires including major cities. You just can't burn all the bush every year, it has never been done even in Aboriginal times and cool burns don't get all the forest anyway there will always be unburnt pockets remaining because of conditions at the time of the burn. It is thought that it was mainly low land forest that was burnt which was the main area occupied, the Alpine regions probably had little fire stick burning. I don't think you need a link there is plenty of information that points away from the country ever being fully burnt and that most traditional burning was in the dry forest not the wetter forests nor the alpine areas that make a reasonably sizable proportion of the total forested area.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Those are the spineless choices of the green movement

  What? To do nothing? Hardly. The choices being made now are those of the pragmatist bureaucrat with almost no input from the so called Green movement (which incidentally has all the policy influence of a pillow fight).   

> legacy of history is a proven winner.

  Sad but true.  Though I don't think you understand what I meant by the term 'Legacy of History'.  No matter...

----------


## r3nov8or

I hope you guys are enjoying your favoutire drink while writing in this thread.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Can you give us a link to this? 
> I'm not sure it's ever been proposed......

  It wasn't exactly proposed this way in Victoria but it kind of turned out this way in terms of Government policy at the time.  As pointed out the final annual target based on policy is still probably too high to be practical but it hasn't really been hit anyway (at least not solely through hazard reduction burns). 
If you want access to all the Victorian fire management plans then Home is the place to go while in NSW Bush Fire Risk Management Plans - NSW Rural Fire Service and here Living with Fire in NSW National Parks: a strategy for managing bushfires in national parks and reserves 2012-2021 - Publication | NSW Environment & Heritage for all parks and reserves while the individual plans for each reserve are here http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/fi...ementPlans.htm 
The interesting thing is that NSW OEH burnt something like 200,000 hectares of parks and reserves in 2012-13 which they claim was 83% of the total area control burned in NSW...but there's roughly 6.7 million hectares of parks and reserves in NSW. So that's 3%...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I hope you guys are enjoying your favourite drink while writing in this thread.

  Yep!! Lots of it  :Biggrin:

----------


## johnc

> I hope you guys are enjoying your favoutire drink while writing in this thread.

   Possibly and that is not the only benefit, it is also cheaper than laxatives.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...it is also cheaper than laxatives.

  
Really?  This thread hasn't given me the s :Shock: ts in years.   
Sometimes it's the funniest thing I've ever been part of...except the occasion when an acquaintance of mine shot his horse out from underneath him...at speed.

----------


## intertd6

Meanwhile while the gaggle pontificators try to re invent the wheel, another decade of inaction goes by & things get will get worse.
thankfully I live in the sticks with not much tv reception, people would pay good money for entertainment like this.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> History sometimes gives us good ideas, sometimes bad ideas but mostly history is just one factor informing decision making. Add subsequent experience, research, knowledge, different technology, different equipment, different population, different human and community values. So we may get a personally pleasing outcome if we base a decision on selective history alone but it won't necessarily pass the test of thoroughness and common sense. 
> Hazard reduction is one tool for reducing fire intensity but it's not practical, economical or environmentally responsible to burn thousands of hectares of remote inaccessible forest just in case there may be a one in twenty year fire there in the next year of two when that hazard reduction would retain its effectiveness.
> Regards

  so we stop doing what worked for the larger part of last century & worked for 30,000 years before that, for a regime that doesn't work, utterly brilliant!!!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...another decade of inaction goes by & things get will get worse.

  Apparently they won't...so I'm told.  Quite recently too  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> so we stop doing what worked for the larger part of last century & worked for 30,000 years before that, for a regime that doesn't work, utterly brilliant!!!

  Yep...they call that 'progress'.  You can't have anything else in a capitalist, democratic & endless growth centric system.

----------


## intertd6

> Be careful you don't develop a superiority complex on us.

   I knew I was a bit stupid, but it's good to know after seeing the responses here I'm not as worse off as I thought.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Yep...they call that 'progress'.  You can't have anything else in a capitalist, democratic & endless growth centric system.

   And you support that!
have you taken leave of your senses.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And you support that!

  Not on your life.  I think it is the most retarded thing possible.  But I am 'forced' to bow to the better judgement of my fellow human type thingy.  Just so I can say someday...'told you so'.   

> have you taken leave of your senses.

  
Momentarily. And at frequent intervals. But I'm only trying to fit in  :Wink 1:

----------


## intertd6

> Not on your life.  I think it is the most retarded thing possible.  But I am 'forced' to bow to the better judgement of my fellow human type thingy.  Just so I can say someday...'told you so'.

  you say that now, but it's not reflected in your posts.
the American Indians have a saying, " white man speak with a forked tongue "
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> you say that now, but it's not reflected in your posts.
> the American Indians have a saying, " white man speak with a forked tongue "
> regards inter

  
Who said I was white?

----------


## intertd6

> Who said I was white?

  nobody I know of,
 here's another little saying, 
If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...here's another little saying, If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.
> regards inter

  Unlikely.  I'm a tripod.

----------


## intertd6

> Unlikely.  I'm a tripod.

  I suspected that from depth of the responses to the debate.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I suspected that from depth of the responses to the debate.
> regards inter

  Then we are equally matched...

----------


## intertd6

> Then we are equally matched...

  But then self praise is no recommendation.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> But then self praise is no recommendation.
> regards inter

  Says you...speaking to the converted. :No:

----------


## intertd6

> Says you...speaking to the converted.

  That's getting too juvenile for me, devoid of wit.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Back on topic:  Calendar-year record looms after hot October | Business Spectator   

> October was 1.43 degrees higher than the long-term average, The  Australian Climate Council has found, putting the nation on track for  the hottest calendar year on record.
> In the crowd-funded group's  latest report, Off the Charts, Australia has set a new record for a  12-month period, from November 1 last year through to the end of last  month. 
> Professor Will Steffen from the council said Australia was  on track for a record calendar year, describing the year's results as  "exceptionally warm". 
> Prof Steff said the frequency of very hot days and heatwaves would increase as global temperatures rose.
> Over  the month of October New South Wales experienced devastating bush fires  very early in the fire season. This October was the second warmest on  record in Sydney, at 3.6°C above the long-term average. 
> "Weve  always experienced bushfires but climate change is exacerbating the  conditions for bushfires, increasing the risk of large and severe fires.
> The  latest IPCC report found that Australia will continue to experience  increases in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. The  bushfire season is very likely to start earlier and become longer. 
> The report comes as nations meet in Warsaw to discuss the global climate pact.
> Our  major trading partners, particularly China and the USA, are now moving  in the right direction. It is crucial that Australia steps up to the  plate and plays its part.

  "No warming for X years", yet we manage to have the near hottest or hottest year on record?  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Back on topic:  Calendar-year record looms after hot October | Business Spectator   
> "No warming for X years", yet we manage to have the near hottest or hottest year on record?  
> woodbe.

  thats the thing with averages, darn it when they don't suit your idealism.
regards inter

----------


## Farmer Geoff

I'm reminded of the three statisticians who go hunting. The first misses the deer a foot to the right. The second misses a foot to the left.  The third cries "We got him!" 
Accompanying record warm months, we have had unseasonal frost damage to a lot of crops. The average temps may stay the same but there are worries at both extremes.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Back on topic:  Calendar-year record looms after hot October | Business Spectator   
> "No warming for X years", yet we manage to have the near hottest or hottest year on record?  
> woodbe.

  LOL you don't live in Melbourne I take it!!

----------


## woodbe

> LOL you don't live in Melbourne I take it!!

  I don't need to:

----------


## intertd6

> I don't need to:

  Oh deer, averages to suit the idealism. I wonder what the one looks like from the southern ocean and the Antarctic where record sea ice levels are being experienced.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Oh deer, averages to suit the idealism. I wonder what the one looks like from the southern ocean and the Antarctic where record sea ice levels are being experienced.
> regards inter

  During October, Southern Ocean was bit warmer than average but closer to Antarctica is a bit cooler. Overall...warmer rather than cooler for a typical October. 
All the info can be found on our wonderful BoM site Sea Temperature Analysis

----------


## johnc

It's also worth noting that some areas of the Antarctic are in fact seeing the loss of ice while other areas are gaining although the gain is thinner. Talking about a gain is sea ice is fairly shallow on it's own as you also need to consider what is happening with sea currents and other factors.

----------


## woodbe

I think it's fair to say that the Antarctic is a bit of a mix in terms of trends to support either side of the debate. There are some gains in ice in some parts of the continent and losses in others. The sea ice is a different situation than the Arctic because there is no land under the ice at the north pole. A warmer southern ocean might even cause more sea ice. What the measurements tell us is that despite the +/- happening in the Antarctic, it does not make up for the losses up north. It's a net loss situation. 
The science has always told us that the changes will be uneven around the planet, and the fact we have had the warmest years recently during a time the deniers love to proclaim 'no warming since xyz" is testament to that. The facts are that even if the warming stopped right now, we are on a warmer planet with more energy in the atmosphere than previously. That means higher likelihood of extreme weather events, something we have been witnessing regardless of whether any one single event can be tied down to climate change or not. 
Intelligent responses welcome. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

I can be fooled by complicated graphs & charts on the odd occasion, but you can't fool that  Antarctic ice anytime.
regards inter

----------


## Farmer Geoff

It is easy to find scientific evidence to suggest that humans are contributing to atmospheric changes that will likely lead to accelerated climate change.  Deniers don't find it as easy to find evidence to the contrary but they will find some.  
But regardless of these facts/opinions, people everywhere will continue to fine tune their efforts to deal with the extremes that nature will deliver. Believers and deniers of human induced climate change will all still need to strive for stronger houses, discover better medicines, become better at preventing or suppressing wildfires, breed more resilient plants, etc. 
Our differences of opinion are interesting for academic debate but we all need to face realities together.  
Should we spend less energy on figuring how fast climate might change and who is to blame and spend more energy on learning to manage extremes whatever their cause?  Do building standards need to change? Do planning bodies need to prevent building in the worst fire prone areas and building too close to rising seas? Do we need to invent a cheap indestructible form of housing and subsidise its availability for developing countries? Rather than waiting for the private sector to move, should governments drive research to breed plant varieties that better resist frost, drought, flooding?

----------


## intertd6

> It is easy to find scientific evidence to suggest that humans are contributing to atmospheric changes that will likely lead to accelerated climate change.  Deniers don't find it as easy to find evidence to the contrary but they will find some.  
> But regardless of these facts/opinions, people everywhere will continue to fine tune their efforts to deal with the extremes that nature will deliver. Believers and deniers of human induced climate change will all still need to strive for stronger houses, discover better medicines, become better at preventing or suppressing wildfires, breed more resilient plants, etc. 
> Our differences of opinion are interesting for academic debate but we all need to face realities together.  
> Should we spend less energy on figuring how fast climate might change and who is to blame and spend more energy on learning to manage extremes whatever their cause?  Do building standards need to change? Do planning bodies need to prevent building in the worst fire prone areas and building too close to rising seas? Do we need to invent a cheap indestructible form of housing and subsidise its availability for developing countries? Rather than waiting for the private sector to move, should governments drive research to breed plant varieties that better resist frost, drought, flooding?

   This debate is about whether CO2 is causing the warming & whether a tax on it is one of the stupidest things this country has ever done.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> This debate is about whether CO2 is causing the warming & whether a tax on it is one of the stupidest things this country has ever done.
> regards inter

   There is no one here who has stuck to that line, everyone has diverged. You will find plenty of tax measures far more damaging than the carbon tax, you only have to look at payroll tax to find a far more damaging impact on employment. The simple fact is the very first post in this thread is wrong, the carbon tax was never a significant impact on the country because it came with compensation measures something many conveniently overlook. The new Abbott government is being very careful to leave those measures in place putting further strain on the budget so as to appear to be doing something. If it was fair dinkum it would remove the carbon tax from the hip pocket and the compensation measures from budget outlays setting everything back to where it was before. It wont because it knows that if it does the shallowness of its objections will stand naked and be found wanting. In any case it is suffering from a shrinking tax base for a number of reasons including profit shifting from large corporations into tax havens, a world wide problem. Somewhere along the line either taxes have to go up or services cut there will be no magic bullet and at the moment its paid parent leave scheme simply will become an even bigger burden on a budget they seem to be intent on blowing out further by the day. They have blown it by a further $10Bn in the few weeks they have been in office.

----------


## Farmer Geoff

The debate about CO2 emissions and their likely effects would be a lot quieter if there hadn't been a tax. The initial level of tax was too high and too hasty but   throwing invisible rubbish into the atmosphere has no proven positive effects, appears to have negative effects and therefore should be discouraged. We all contribute to the problem so we should all pay a price that discourages emissions plus collects some revenue to help us cope with likely negative effects.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It is easy to find scientific evidence to suggest that humans are contributing to atmospheric changes that will likely lead to accelerated climate change. Deniers don't find it as easy to find evidence to the contrary but they will find some.  
> But regardless of these facts/opinions, people everywhere will continue to fine tune their efforts to deal with the extremes that nature will deliver. Believers and deniers of human induced climate change will all still need to strive for stronger houses, discover better medicines, become better at preventing or suppressing wildfires, breed more resilient plants, etc. 
> Our differences of opinion are interesting for academic debate but we all need to face realities together.  
> Should we spend less energy on figuring how fast climate might change and who is to blame and spend more energy on learning to manage extremes whatever their cause? Do building standards need to change? Do planning bodies need to prevent building in the worst fire prone areas and building too close to rising seas? Do we need to invent a cheap indestructible form of housing and subsidise its availability for developing countries? Rather than waiting for the private sector to move, should governments drive research to breed plant varieties that better resist frost, drought, flooding?

  Deniers NO?? 
Sceptical YES 
Using the term deniers really shows ignorance of the debate IMO  No one has proved that human activity is the major cause of climate change it is still only a theory that is backed by very questionable assumptions relating to feedbacks etc, that are backed up by highly questionable climate models that have all failed to predict the current levelling of global temperatures. You can only be a denier of truth not of speculation. Yes we can and will be sceptical of this speculation.   
I know true believers opinions cant be changed, it will take an ice age to do that, even then it would be blamed on global warming  :Wink: .  Neither side has much to add to further back there position at the moment so it is really a sit back and see how it really plays out in the real world.  The more shrill the warmists become the more people they push to the sceptics side, that the part I love.   
The term deniers is a term being used less frequently now as it is a term more associated with shrillness rather than fact and logic.  It is the shrillness and fear mongering that is destroying your argument more than anything else, more so than the lack of evidence to support your theory.   
So we wait it out.  A long and slow death by a million cuts is what I predict. 
Now what was it we are denying exactly??

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Should we spend less energy on figuring how fast climate might change and who is to blame and spend more energy on learning to manage extremes whatever their cause? Do building standards need to change? Do planning bodies need to prevent building in the worst fire prone areas and building too close to rising seas? Do we need to invent a cheap indestructible form of housing and subsidise its availability for developing countries? Rather than waiting for the private sector to move, should governments drive research to breed plant varieties that better resist frost, drought, flooding?

  Now here we can agree.  Climate is going to change year to year decade to decade century to century REGARDLESS of human intervention.  So practical mitigation policies and research to deal with what nature throws at us is a very sensible approach.  The money wasted on trying to prevent the un-preventable is criminal, that money should and could have been spent on adaption and TRUE pollution reduction.  Then we could truly leave our environment in a better condition for our children.

----------


## woodbe

> Deniers NO?? 
> Sceptical YES 
> Using the term deniers really shows ignorance of the debate IMO

  Both exist and are easily identified. We should use the correct terms for these people but some tact is required because if you refer to a Denier as a Denier, you will often get a strong response. They like to deny their own denial!  :Smilie:  
Sceptics support the scientific method and show possible errors in the science and work at creating and proving alternative theories. Very few true sceptics, they number just 3% of the publishing climate scientists. 
Deniers trot out any old rubbish that is opinion based, rarely scientifically based, usually indiscriminately dragged off the internet or newspapers and repeated ad infinitum. Often, deniers will present information out of context. Instead of peer reviewed science supporting the denier position, there is a seething mass of conspiracy theories and opinion. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Both exist and are easily identified. We should use the correct terms for these people but some tact is required because if you refer to a Denier as a Denier, you will often get a strong response. They like to deny their own denial!  
> Sceptics support the scientific method and show possible errors in the science and work at creating and proving alternative theories. Very few true sceptics, they number just 3% of the publishing climate scientists. 
> Deniers trot out any old rubbish that is opinion based, rarely scientifically based, usually indiscriminately dragged off the internet or newspapers and repeated ad infinitum. Often, deniers will present information out of context. Instead of peer reviewed science supporting the denier position, there is a seething mass of conspiracy theories and opinion. 
> woodbe.

  So says you

----------


## woodbe

> So says you

  Yes, and a lot of people would agree with me. Probably 97% of the people who have looked into the issues at any depth.  :Smilie:  
This is a discussion forum after all. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...Then we could truly leave our environment in a better condition for our children.

  It has never happened before so why start now? Easier, cheaper and far more likely to leave simply a different environment...

----------


## johnc

> So says you

   Wouldn't you say it simply hasn't been proved to your satisfaction, yet who are you? certainly not an expert so while you remain unconvinced you can gather like souls to keep you company. Yet except for a few like John Howard most accept the science as we accept the work of experts in most fields of life. There will always be a few sheep who can't accept change it is a fact of life but they do tend to get left behind in the end. Natural selection sorted them out once but these days society ensures plenty to survive and breed with the resultant drain on the gene pool. :Wink 1:

----------


## woodbe

> Yet except for a few like John Howard most accept the science as we accept the work of experts in most fields of life.

  Quoting a newspaper here, don't do that often but this is too relevant to let slide:   

> Mr Howard's speech in London on Tuesday night was to the Global  Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank established by Nigel Lawson, one  of Britain's most prominent climate change sceptics, former chancellor  in the Thatcher government and father of TV chef Nigella. 
>           Mr Howard revealed before the speech that the only book he had read on climate change was Lawson's _An Appeal to Reason: a Cool Look at Global Warming_, published in 2008. 
>           Mr Howard said he read it twice, once when he was writing his  autobiography, when he used it to counter advice for stronger action on  climate change given to him by government departments when he had been  prime minister.

  At least he confirms now what everyone had suspected all along.  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It has never happened before so why start now? Easier, cheaper and far more likely to leave simply a different environment...

  Hmm So you really believe there have been no advance in pollution reduction or environmental protection over the past 40 years or so? 
I guess you wouldn't agree then, that wealth and prosperity of people create better environmental outcomes comparing countries with high living standards to low? EG do we have better pollution controls than China?

----------


## woodbe

> Hmm So you really believe there have been no advance in pollution reduction or environmental protection over the past 40 years or so? 
> I guess you wouldn't agree then, that wealth and prosperity of people create better environmental outcomes comparing countries with high living standards to low? EG do we have better pollution controls than China?

  Sure, we have better pollution control than China, but we support China's pollution by buying their cheap manufactured goods. We've exported our pollution and many jobs by this method. 
If it's not a zero sum game, it can't be far from it. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> There is no one here who has stuck to that line, everyone has diverged. You will find plenty of tax measures far more damaging than the carbon tax, you only have to look at payroll tax to find a far more damaging impact on employment. The simple fact is the very first post in this thread is wrong, the carbon tax was never a significant impact on the country because it came with compensation measures something many conveniently overlook. The new Abbott government is being very careful to leave those measures in place putting further strain on the budget so as to appear to be doing something. If it was fair dinkum it would remove the carbon tax from the hip pocket and the compensation measures from budget outlays setting everything back to where it was before. It wont because it knows that if it does the shallowness of its objections will stand naked and be found wanting. In any case it is suffering from a shrinking tax base for a number of reasons including profit shifting from large corporations into tax havens, a world wide problem. Somewhere along the line either taxes have to go up or services cut there will be no magic bullet and at the moment its paid parent leave scheme simply will become an even bigger burden on a budget they seem to be intent on blowing out further by the day. They have blown it by a further $10Bn in the few weeks they have been in office.

  What you & I know about this tax is jack,but I do pay attention to what has happened to manufacturing & the leading business icons agreement on this tax, they say & have done the easiest option, which is to shut up shop move the business offshore where the idiots are are lot thinner on the ground. The only thing keeping this country in positive position is the mining & gas sector, a 2 speed economy, one sinking, the other swimming with one nostril above the waterline. In times like this there is absolutely no place for idealism. What goose would expect a incoming govt to fix the deficit instantly, unbelievable ignorance to expect such a thing. I suppose they could sack half the govt to keep ones with no social conscience happy.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> The debate about CO2 emissions and their likely effects would be a lot quieter if there hadn't been a tax. The initial level of tax was too high and too hasty but   throwing invisible rubbish into the atmosphere has no proven positive effects, appears to have negative effects and therefore should be discouraged. We all contribute to the problem so we should all pay a price that discourages emissions plus collects some revenue to help us cope with likely negative effects.

   At this point in time the only things proven about CO2 is that plants grow better in higher concentrations of it & it causes a rise in the oceans acidification, the latter is what the genuine scientists are concerned about.
when " we " as a global effort decide to make changes as one, then that is a genuine response where all participants share the burden equally, whether it's right or wrong reaction to a perceived problem the risk & cost is shared globally.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Sure, we have better pollution control than China, but we support China's pollution by buying their cheap manufactured goods. We've exported our pollution and many jobs by this method. 
> If it's not a zero sum game, it can't be far from it. 
> woodbe.

  any logical thinker would tax the main culprits of producing the massive volumes of pollution, not us. 
regards inter

----------


## johnc

You are over reaching, wages, infrastructure, exchange rates, regulation (red tape) tariff barriers are all major reasons. As I have pointed out before the carbon tax is only a small part of power increases. I accept that you know jack about the impact of the carbon tax but its removal will only have a minor cost impact. To many people have fallen for the hype. It has long been accepted you don't suddenly return to surplus its a gradual process or you risk damaging the economy. However Hockey's carry on in parliament today was not very becoming Swan was a half dud and it looks as though Hockey if he doesn't grow up a bit will be a full dud.

----------


## intertd6

> You are over reaching, wages, infrastructure, exchange rates, regulation (red tape) tariff barriers are all major reasons. As I have pointed out before the carbon tax is only a small part of power increases. I accept that you know jack about the impact of the carbon tax but its removal will only have a minor cost impact. To many people have fallen for the hype. It has long been accepted you don't suddenly return to surplus its a gradual process or you risk damaging the economy. However Hockey's carry on in parliament today was not very becoming Swan was a half dud and it looks as though Hockey if he doesn't grow up a bit will be a full dud.

   So apparently know more than all those business leaders of global companies! I don't think so! It's impossible to get those companies to come back to manufacturing in this country, the multiplying effect of these business losses is mind boggling which is backed by the balance of trade figures & the breakdown of them. It seems though one may have been swallowing the party propaganda hook line & sinker for that long nothing anybody could say or prove could make any difference. 
Regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> any logical thinker would tax the main culprits of producing the massive volumes of pollution, not us. 
> regards inter

  And any logical thinker would also understand that the producers would pass the costs on. Do you honestly think that manufacturers would just absorb new taxes without passing rising costs on? Tax the 'main culprits' and the price goes up, so we pay the tax anyway. 
The reason we buy cheap goods from China is that we are not playing on a level playing field. As soon as pollution and working conditions etc are equal then the cheap goods won't be looking so cheap. Meanwhile you can hardly breathe the air it's so thick with pollution. 
woodbe.

----------


## Farmer Geoff

It's naïve to believe that we can live a favoured life in a hilltop castle with our moat to protect us. The effects of global population, economic, social and environmental pressures will seep through our borders . An osmotic process. For example. if climate change and pollution make other countries less habitable then we will have to contend with increasing numbers of refugees. Imagine if the gulf stream breaks down and it is no longer possible to survive in northern Europe. Imagine if rising sea levels and pollution of vast inland groundwater supplies makes agriculture impossible in vast areas of Asia. Refugees will come by the thousands on cruise ships. 
So we should care about the pollution and climate change that we cause elsewhere by way of our consumption habits.

----------


## johnc

> So apparently know more than all those business leaders of global companies! I don't think so! It's impossible to get those companies to come back to manufacturing in this country, the multiplying effect of these business losses is mind boggling which is backed by the balance of trade figures & the breakdown of them. It seems though one may have been swallowing the party propaganda hook line & sinker for that long nothing anybody could say or prove could make any difference. 
> Regards inter

   You do a good line in condescension, I'll give you that. In the neo classic model we operate under the weak go under the strong survive, businesses will always go broke others will rise it is a fact of life. It becomes a problem if the ones going broke and laying people off aren't replaced by better run businesses. Yes there is a personal cost, it is cruel to those caught up in it but it is a part of business life. The communist system tried protecting manufacturing from technology and redundancy and that doesn't work either. The fact is we are a high wage country with strong trade holding our dollar up and that makes it difficult for those with large wage bills to survive. We don't want and it would not be a good idea to become a low wage country simply to compete, we have to continually invest, upgrade and innovate to remain competitive. Sure business wants to lower costs and would like to see power prices lower and they also recognise that the carbon tax is just part of that. Actually listen to what those leaders are saying though and carbon tax is not high on the list at all, higher up is red tape, the time taken to get capital investment projects completed, flexibility in the workforce and for those exporting or competing with exports it is our high dollar. If you want to look closely you would target payroll tax, investment incentives and complexity long before any carbon tax changes if you are genuine about improving the business environment. Emasculating a couple of the construction unions wouldn't hurt either I might add.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Hmm So you really believe there have been no advance in pollution reduction or environmental protection over the past 40 years or so?

  Oh there have been advances all right - no question.  I've been part of them.  The problem is that the potential positive environmental benefits of these advances have been 'lost' or absorbed in face of impacts arising from 40 years of human development and economic growth.  At best they've allowed environmental degradation to substantially slow....we call it in the industry 'no net loss'.  Cynical in the extreme...but you get your wins wherever you can scrape then off someone's shoes.   

> I guess you wouldn't agree then, that wealth and prosperity of people  create better environmental outcomes comparing countries with high  living standards to low? EG do we have better pollution controls than  China?

  Wealth and prosperity of people has the potential to create better environmental outcomes...but it rarely lives up to it in a meaningful way.  Australia is still losing its biodiversity and natural resources at a staggering rate and will continue to do so for some time no matter how wealthy we are as a nation simply due to our extinction debt and the Legacy of History. 
We have substantially better pollution controls than China...though they are catching up fast.  Regardless, they will pay socially, economically and financially as a nation for the place they've made for themselves to date - just as we have. 
Once we then throw the potential/possible/likely impacts arising from human induced climate change in over the top of all that...then things could get really quirky. But then...that's not my problem...doing/done my best and all that.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> when " we " as a global effort decide to make changes as one, then that is a genuine response where all participants share the burden equally, whether it's right or wrong reaction to a perceived problem the risk & cost is shared globally.

  How beautifully and utopian socialist of you...most unexpected.  And unlikely. 
I prefer the slightly more dystopian socialist version called "Let's All Go Wildly Into The Unknown In Wild But Agreed Disagreement"...assured to be far more entertaining if nothing else.

----------


## intertd6

> How beautifully and utopian socialist of you...most unexpected.  And unlikely. 
> I prefer the slightly more dystopian socialist version called "Let's All Go Wildly Into The Unknown In Wild But Agreed Disagreement"...assured to be far more entertaining if nothing else.

  Just remember I'm dyslexic & failed English at school so I have no idea what you have just said, but can easily understand when someone's lips are moving but nothing of substance is emanating from them.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> You do a good line in condescension, I'll give you that. In the neo classic model we operate under the weak go under the strong survive, businesses will always go broke others will rise it is a fact of life. It becomes a problem if the ones going broke and laying people off aren't replaced by better run businesses. Yes there is a personal cost, it is cruel to those caught up in it but it is a part of business life. The communist system tried protecting manufacturing from technology and redundancy and that doesn't work either. The fact is we are a high wage country with strong trade holding our dollar up and that makes it difficult for those with large wage bills to survive. We don't want and it would not be a good idea to become a low wage country simply to compete, we have to continually invest, upgrade and innovate to remain competitive. Sure business wants to lower costs and would like to see power prices lower and they also recognise that the carbon tax is just part of that. Actually listen to what those leaders are saying though and carbon tax is not high on the list at all, higher up is red tape, the time taken to get capital investment projects completed, flexibility in the workforce and for those exporting or competing with exports it is our high dollar. If you want to look closely you would target payroll tax, investment incentives and complexity long before any carbon tax changes if you are genuine about improving the business environment. Emasculating a couple of the construction unions wouldn't hurt either I might add.

  quite a common double speak story run out from a party follower that can't do anything but make up lame excuses for every woe their party started in the first place whether they are in power or not, just forgotten the fundamental core needs that the country has to have first, once they are for filled adequately then attention can be cast to non core wants. 
Regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> And any logical thinker would also understand that the producers would pass the costs on. Do you honestly think that manufacturers would just absorb new taxes without passing rising costs on? Tax the 'main culprits' and the price goes up, so we pay the tax anyway. 
> The reason we buy cheap goods from China is that we are not playing on a level playing field. As soon as pollution and working conditions etc are equal then the cheap goods won't be looking so cheap. Meanwhile you can hardly breathe the air it's so thick with pollution. 
> woodbe.

  they can try to pass on the costs, that's when local manufacturing takes over again on an level playing field, we are the only nation of idiots not looking after our industries in an way we can, for every thing another country doesn't do to an acceptable standard for their workers, environment, animals, mining or whatever, we should be legitimately adding taxes to their products, goods & services.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> we should be legitimately adding taxes to their products, goods & services.

  Short memory. We tried that, didn't work, remember? Unless you think feeding fat, inefficient and lazy local industries is the way to go. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> quite a common double speak story run out from a party follower that can't do anything but make up lame excuses for every woe their party started in the first place whether they are in power or not, just forgotten the fundamental core needs that the country has to have first, once they are for filled adequately then attention can be cast to non core wants. 
> Regards inter

  Perhaps you are dyslexic, you would be hard pressed to line that against any party, they all skirt around the edges but even you must have noticed that Swan spent most of his time trying and failing to emulate Costello, even the stimulus was supported by the LNP although they said it went to far they agreed with it. Show me what Hockey is doing that is different to Swan, there is no real difference yet we are going to have to wait until their audit group reports before we know if we are just going to get served more of the same. If they are different why are we trying to lift the debt ceiling to $500B when current forcasts expect it to peak at $375B in 2017 and then see us back in surplus. It looks as though Hockey may well have no idea how to return us to surplus without damaging GDP growth. Although unlike you I have an open mind as we have absolutely nothing to form an opinion on yet one way or the other beyond a few slogans.

----------


## johnc

> they can try to pass on the costs, that's when local manufacturing takes over again on an level playing field, we are the only nation of idiots not looking after our industries in an way we can, for every thing another country doesn't do to an acceptable standard for their workers, environment, animals, mining or whatever, we should be legitimately adding taxes to their products, goods & services.
> regards inter

  There are trading blocks, free trade agreements designed to lower or remove barriers between members, there are quite a few countries with almost no tarif barriers like us, particularly those who import raw materials and export manufactured goods. You are quite wrong high tarif barriers don't work that has been proven time and time again. Some countries though do provide interesting ways of protecting key industries, the US has it down to a fine art on products like wheat in which they can legitamise dumping by dumping against countries they accuse of dumping. Interesting isn't it but one size does not fit all on any mention of our low barriers. We are also accused of putting unfair advantage in our rural and mining industries with the diesel fuel rebate, silly really as all it does is remove what is essentially the road taxes. Still if you think promoting inefficient industries and stiffling productive indistries is the way to go then you are entitled to wallow in that particular sea of delusion.

----------


## intertd6

> Perhaps you are dyslexic, you would be hard pressed to line that against any party, they all skirt around the edges but even you must have noticed that Swan spent most of his time trying and failing to emulate Costello, even the stimulus was supported by the LNP although they said it went to far they agreed with it. Show me what Hockey is doing that is different to Swan, there is no real difference yet we are going to have to wait until their audit group reports before we know if we are just going to get served more of the same. If they are different why are we trying to lift the debt ceiling to $500B when current forcasts expect it to peak at $375B in 2017 and then see us back in surplus. It looks as though Hockey may well have no idea how to return us to surplus without damaging GDP growth. Although unlike you I have an open mind as we have absolutely nothing to form an opinion on yet one way or the other beyond a few slogans.

  yes I'm dyslexic and barely on average at maths, but just bright enough to know that an overnight fix of the mess the last govt left is going to be a long slow expensive process to bring back under control, for a start it will take a while to stop writing the handout cheques the last govt promised all around the world to every nation holding their hand out for a freebee.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Short memory. We tried that, didn't work, remember? Unless you think feeding fat, inefficient and lazy local industries is the way to go. 
> woodbe.

   I have no memory of that, nor have heard of it either, but it definitely describes every government we have ever had with the more recent ones smothering the life out everything they touch & being the greatest impediment to productivity there is. And when they do own & control something really good that employs people, puts money into general revenue & gives a cheap service to the people nation they sell it for a pittance to pay for their fiscal stupidity of not having the capability to run a school tuck shop & balance the cash register.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> yes I'm dyslexic and barely on average at maths, but just bright enough to know that an overnight fix of the mess the last govt left is going to be a long slow expensive process to bring back under control, for a start it will take a while to stop writing the handout cheques the last govt promised all around the world to every nation holding their hand out for a freebee.
> regards inter

   It is a long established norm that wealthier countries provide aid to the less wealthy. It is not all a one way street we often get something back as well. We are major donors to countries like Vanuatu, the Chinese are also donors along with the Japanese USA and Kiwi's part of these programs is so we can retain influence in these regions. If we withdrew all aid funding the long term cost which includes intelligence gathering would be high. There is also the matter of our international standing we try to win seats on various committees at the UN so we can have a say on what happens and lever that to our advantage. Sure some aid money is badly spent but if it helps develop a nation and save it from failing it is far cheaper than cleaning messes like Afghanistan and Timor. 
The amount spent on aid isn't that high in relation to debt, although sceptical the budget is forecast to be back in the black around 2017 with debt peaking at $375B. The areas that have blown out are more in social welfare and health payments than anything else, even if we totally remove the aid budget it will not make a massive difference to the current situation although it would damage our international standing and possibly our international trade as we would create a vacuum that others would fill and lever to drag markets out of our grasp. Our current woes probably started in the final term of the Howards government, Labor simply didn't do much to correct it although they did reduce spending growth believe it or not, there is a good article in yesterdays (Saturday) Age on Ross Garnaut and his take on things and another in the Australian on the car industry. We are at a similar cross roads to the one we hit in the early 1970's business as usual will no longer work and we actually need more honest and open discussion about our economic woes without the hype and it needs to be done without people flogging political barrows, anyone who tries to label either party as being either good or bad on this hasn't grasped the fact that both sides are similar neither is all good or all bad both have faults.

----------


## woodbe

> I have no memory of that, nor have heard of it either, but it definitely describes every government we have ever had with the more recent ones smothering the life out everything they touch & being the greatest impediment to productivity there is. And when they do own & control something really good that employs people, puts money into general revenue & gives a cheap service to the people nation they sell it for a pittance to pay for their fiscal stupidity of not having the capability to run a school tuck shop & balance the cash register.
> regards inter

  So you don't remember back when our car industry was protected by massive tariffs? Back then, we had outdated everything in our local cars while the expensive imports ran rings around them in every department. They had crumple zones while the locals didn't even know what it was, seatbelt pretensioners, efi, abs, etc. etc. We were lucky if we got disc brakes. The production lines were years behind what was going on overseas. Fat, lazy and inefficient industry. And the local manufacturers made good profits out of their protected, low spec products and sent it back home to detroit. Great work if you can get it. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> quite a common double speak story run out from a party follower that can't do anything but make up lame excuses for every woe their party started in the first place whether they are in power or not, just forgotten the fundamental core needs that the country has to have first, once they are for filled adequately then attention can be cast to non core wants. 
> Regards inter

  I was going to let this go but changed my mind. What a load of bull, I don't indentify with any party and from time to time will support individuals I agree with, at the moment that is probably no one but for once I will give you an idea of my political stance which is probably best described as small "L" liberal, you know the bleeding heart type that believes in a social conscience but favours business, this used to be the middle ground of the old Liberals but the right wing has dominated and the small L's are a bit of an endangered species not quite fitting the Liberals current stance and that is reflected in the parties overall polling and not a fit with old Labor either but possibly with a few of the right wing of that party.  
Have you any idea what fundamental core needs are? I doubt it, if you name a surplus then you will have missed the point, that is not a core need nor is debt. I think you will find core needs are being met what we are missing is management and direction. I can't see that yet but it may appear in time. The new governments secretive nature though could be hiding the fact that they don't have any values, ideas or strategies they may just have slogans. 
I reckon our real problems is the economy is shifting gear and we are not responding to it. household and government debt is to high and we are not responding to that either. Housing is becoming unaffordable for those in the cities, there are not enough jobs for the young with low skills, industry is being overlooked. We are ignoring science which is a worry because that should be a good source of inovation and jobs growth. We are not honestly discussing our financial issues as a country and that is the fault of all sides. I actually believe we are being failed by the political class and those with talent are sidelined while some of our less talented members are calling the shots for their own advantage and ignoring the needs of the country.

----------


## intertd6

> It is a long established norm that wealthier countries provide aid to the less wealthy. It is not all a one way street we often get something back as well. We are major donors to countries like Vanuatu, the Chinese are also donors along with the Japanese USA and Kiwi's part of these programs is so we can retain influence in these regions. If we withdrew all aid funding the long term cost which includes intelligence gathering would be high. There is also the matter of our international standing we try to win seats on various committees at the UN so we can have a say on what happens and lever that to our advantage. Sure some aid money is badly spent but if it helps develop a nation and save it from failing it is far cheaper than cleaning messes like Afghanistan and Timor. 
> The amount spent on aid isn't that high in relation to debt, although sceptical the budget is forecast to be back in the black around 2017 with debt peaking at $375B. The areas that have blown out are more in social welfare and health payments than anything else, even if we totally remove the aid budget it will not make a massive difference to the current situation although it would damage our international standing and possibly our international trade as we would create a vacuum that others would fill and lever to drag markets out of our grasp. Our current woes probably started in the final term of the Howards government, Labor simply didn't do much to correct it although they did reduce spending growth believe it or not, there is a good article in yesterdays (Saturday) Age on Ross Garnaut and his take on things and another in the Australian on the car industry. We are at a similar cross roads to the one we hit in the early 1970's business as usual will no longer work and we actually need more honest and open discussion about our economic woes without the hype and it needs to be done without people flogging political barrows, anyone who tries to label either party as being either good or bad on this hasn't grasped the fact that both sides are similar neither is all good or all bad both have faults.

  the handout policy is a tool of large wealthy nations to get what they want from small nations that become dependant on these handouts & can't refuse a request or persuasion of what the benefactor wants for any particular reason, usually for a superior trade relationship, or military and intelligence access. The trouble is we are giving handouts where there were or never will be any gains or wins. The larger nations do not give anything away without some sort of considerable gain or advantage.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

So much for humanity.  :Confused:  
Now that we have been exposed to the extreme right wing views of everything but the topic, perhaps we could get back to it soon?  *Report finds rate of ocean acidification 'unprecedented'*   

> A new report shows the world's oceans are acidifying at an unprecedented  rate in the Earth's history because of human activities including  burning fossil fuels. 
> The report warns the oceans could become  170 per cent more acidic by the end of the century. As a result, corals  may not be able to grow, while shellfish and crabs, starfish and some  fish species will be directly affected.

  woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So much for humanity.  
> Now that we have been exposed to the extreme right wing views of everything but the topic, perhaps we could get back to it soon?  *Report finds rate of ocean acidification 'unprecedented'*     
> woodbe.

  Yep the new big scare to replace global warming.  Roll er out. Got get it up and running before the old one is completely dead.

----------


## johnc

> the handout policy is a tool of large wealthy nations to get what they want from small nations that become dependant on these handouts & can't refuse a request or persuasion of what the benefactor wants for any particular reason, usually for a superior trade relationship, or military and intelligence access. The trouble is we are giving handouts where there were or never will be any gains or wins. The larger nations do not give anything away without some sort of considerable gain or advantage.
> regards inter

   So the 10 million we have just given to the Philippines by that logic is a waste of time is it, after all there is no gain or logic and the medical team, well what a waste after all there is no benefit there other than a few lives. Are they that worthless then to not to be bothered with? Aid comes in many forms, it is not in our interests not to give targeted aid, we don't want aid money wasted, but there are many projects the government puts small amounts into as co contributions to charitable groups that get a big result for the outlay, these rely on a lot of volunteer labour. Many of these are now under threat as a result of the cut backs and if this forces the closure of the better programs they may well be lost forever. Aid should be constantly reviewed but being involved in our own region and the island communities is very important for them and us and the fact that we have some individuals pontificating about something they probably know next to nothing about beyond the cost of the total outlay reflects on Australia itself. To be honest basic programs that help with education health and programs as simple as clean water are worth the effort. There are many reasons for giving aid don't trivialise it with this myopic nonsense.

----------


## johnc

> Yep the new big scare to replace global warming.  Roll er out. Got get it up and running before the old one is completely dead.

   Rod it isn't anything new it is part of the same problem and the same cause just a different effect. Do try to keep up please we have already done this to death.

----------


## Farmer Geoff

Nobody argued about findings that a lot of farm soils were acidifying a few decades ago. It was simple to measure, simple to understand, effects were bad, solutions were possible. Why is ocean acidification seen in a different light? If problems are big, if solutions are expensive and unpalatable and responsibility is widespread, do we pretend that it's either a natural phenomenon or it's harmless rather than accept the findings and do something about it?

----------


## woodbe

> Yep the new big scare to replace global warming.  Roll er out. Got get it up and running before the old one is completely dead.

  Own goal! I guess ignorance is bliss. 
Rod, any idea at all why the oceans PH might be changing? 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> Own goal! I guess ignorance is bliss. 
> Rod, any idea at all why the oceans PH might be changing? 
> woodbe.

   No one disputes variations in the sea PH like no one debates increases in Athmospheric CO2, the thing any normal person that does NOT have a political hidden agenda reacts against is scaremonghering by the usual suspects. "The end of world is near, repent from your crooked ways..." 
The "acid" ocean scam is just another lefty scam.
Variations in the water PH of the minuscule order we are talking about is completely irrelevant to marine life, that can live in water with Ph under 7 and as low as 3.
The ocean is alcaline and will remain alcaline for the nex 2000 years even if our CO2 imput increases 10 times. 
To claim that shell fish will lose their shell in acid water is a blatant lie aimed at the ignorant and the gullible. Ph8.3 or ph 8.2 is not acid. Shell fish have a mechanism for shell building that works better with higher concentration of HCO3- so a drop in ph would only affect dead shell fish

----------


## Marc

Inflammation of the cretina ( cretinitis) caused by too much rubbing of the same subject had no known cure until recently when it was discovered that it is possible to revert the subject to a normal state if the subject takes up a paid activity in the realm of reality.

----------


## johnc

[QUOTE=Marc;926236
To claim that shell fish will lose their shell in acid water is a blatant lie aimed at the ignorant and the gullible. Ph8.3 or ph 8.2 is not acid. Shell fish have a mechanism for shell building that works better with higher concentration of HCO3- so a drop in ph would only affect dead shell fish[/QUOTE]
 More acidic oceans make it harder for shell fish to absorb Calcium Carbonate especially in colder waters, this means thinner, smaller shells and skeletons. It isn't hard to find this out there are recent studies south of Hobart and more in San Diego.  Dead shell fish aren't absorbing anything or are you suggesting that this will lead to shell fish reincarnation, the mind boggles!

----------


## woodbe

> No one disputes variations in the sea PH like no one debates increases in Athmospheric CO2, the thing any normal person that does NOT have a political hidden agenda reacts against is scaremonghering by the usual suspects. "The end of world is near, repent from your crooked ways..." 
> The "acid" ocean scam is just another lefty scam.
> Variations in the water PH of the minuscule order we are talking about is completely irrelevant to marine life, that can live in water with Ph under 7 and as low as 3.
> The ocean is alcaline and will remain alcaline for the nex 2000 years even if our CO2 imput increases 10 times. 
> To claim that shell fish will lose their shell in acid water is a blatant lie aimed at the ignorant and the gullible. Ph8.3 or ph 8.2 is not acid. Shell fish have a mechanism for shell building that works better with higher concentration of HCO3- so a drop in ph would only affect dead shell fish

  'Tis but a scratch, huh? 
I'm reminded of the black night sketch:    
Is the black night a skeptic or a denier?  :Tongue:  
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

*Ocean Acidification Scam* 
Published March 19, 2009    Uncategorized 16 Comments 
Tags: anthropogenic global warming, atheism, BBC, catastrophism, climate change, CO2,equilibrium, global warming, Le Chatelier, modern science, Ocean acidification, Science and religion, toxic seas  
The evidence is inexorably mounting that the climate alarmists have been taking us all for a ride. It is only be a matter of time before their agenda is exposed as one of the biggest con tricks of all time. Thus they are already scrambling to breathe new life into the CO2 emissions scare. It will become obvious (by the passage of years if nothing else) that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not, after all, cause any significant climate change, thus it will be necessary to blame CO2 (and hence man) for some other catastrophic event. So, prepare yourself for the coming ocean acidification scam.
The media have already entered the fray with lying narratives that sound like science fiction scripts, warning about the catastrophe of acid oceans and toxic seas. The BBC have churned out headlines such as Marine life faces acid threat, Acid oceans need urgent action and Acidic seas fuel extinction fears. Newspapers such as the _Daily Telegraph_ and the _Times_ have got in on the act with scary headlines such as Mussels face extinction as oceans turn acidic, Pollution to devastate shellfish by turning seas acidic and Acid seas threaten to make British shellfish extinct. Just recently, it has got all the more strident: the _Sunday Times_ (March 8, 2009) chimes in under the headline _The toxic sea_:Each one of us dumps a tonne of carbon dioxide into the oceans every year, turning them into acidified soups  and threatening to destroy most of what lives in them.And from the _Guardian_ (March 10, 2009) under the headline _Carbon emissions creating acidic oceans not seen since dinosaurs_:Human pollution is turning the seas into acid so quickly that the coming decades will recreate conditions not seen on Earth since the time of the dinosaursThe rapid acidification is caused by the massive amounts of carbon belched out from chimneys and exhausts that dissolve in the oceanthe pH of surface waters, where the CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere, has fallen about 0.1 units since the industrial revolution, though it will take longer for the acid to reach deeper water.Note the continual use of the word _acid_. Yet there is not the slightest possibility that seawater will turn to acid, or even become mildly acidic, so this is drivel. Note also the claim that pH has changed by 0.1 units over the last 200 years: it was not possible a hundred years ago, never mind 200 years ago, to measure pH to the accuracy necessary to support that assertion, so its just posturing. Finally, notice that CO2 is branded human pollution, though CO2 is an entirely natural and absolutely essential nutrient for plant photosynthesis, without which all life on earth would certainly become extinct very quickly.
As an aside, we should note that if lower alkalinity _per se_ were so unfavourable to shellfish as is claimed then we would have no freshwater shellfish and snails  but we do. The freshwater mussel has lived for thousands of years in waters that are genuinely acidic and with highly variable pH, not only seasonally, but geographically. With spring snowmelt and high rainfall, the pH of rivers and lakes can fall to below pH 5, and experiments have shown that mussels can survive this acidity indefinitely without any deleterious effects to their shells. Note: a pH of 5 has 1,000 times as many acidic H+ ions per litre as seawater, and 100 times more than pure water. This is not to say that _sea_ creatures can survive in fresh water  they are adapted to a radically different saline environment  the point at issue is that the idea of a small change in ocean pH _due to increased dissolved carbon dioxide_having a deleterious effect on marine shells of living organisms is not as obvious as the alarmists make out.
The science underlying the anthropogenic global warming and ocean acidification scares relies on positive feedback  that is, that the overall effect of a small change is disproportionate to the effect of the change itself  there is an amplification process. Positive feedbacks cause unstable runaway or oscillating systems. The so-called physics of the global warming hypothesis are a _perpetuum mobile_ of the second kind and should be consigned to the dustbin. Likewise, the so-called chemistry underpinning the toxic ocean hypothesis suggests an unstable reaction process that pulls itself up by its own bootstraps (the mechanism in the literature is described and rebutted in the following post Toxic Seawater Fraud), whereas the equilibrium processes have massive negative feedbacks. In 1888, the chemist Le Chatelier wrote about a huge waste of resources that was caused by failing to apply sound equilibrium principles in relation to the reduction of iron ore:Because this incomplete reaction was thought to be due to an insufficiently prolonged contact between carbon monoxide and the iron ore (confusing a problem with equilibrium with that of kinetics), the dimensions of the furnaces have been increased. In England they have been made as high as thirty meters. But the proportion of carbon monoxide escaping has not diminished, thus demonstrating, by an experiment costing several hundred thousand francs, that the reduction of iron oxide by carbon monoxide is a limited reaction. Acquaintance with the laws of equilibrium would have permitted the same conclusion to be reached more rapidly and far more economically.Considerable cost was expended in redesigning furnaces to no benefit, because in the mid-nineteenth century they did not fully understand what became known as Le Chateliers principle. Why cannot 21st century scientists properly understand the basics of physics and chemistry that were known over a hundred years ago? It is due to the corrosive influence of an atheist worldview: if all life in the universe, and all the complex processes on earth, came about by chance, then everything is a fluke  its just a one in a quadrillion chance that it all came right on the night. This gives rise to the mentality that the slightest disturbance will upset this highly improbable chance arrangement, so highly unstable systems and positive feedbacks are to be expected and feared. Anthropogenic catastrophism thus flows naturally from atheism, and belief in anthropogenic catastrophism feeds atheism. However, in a worldview that holds that the universe and all life was purposefully designed then one would expect there to be very strong negative feedbacks and ultra-stable systems, because this is what a good designer would do  design extremely robust systems with extremely robust processes for extremely complex organisms that are to flourish for thousands of years. Of course, this is what we actually find in the cosmos whatever our worldview. But as the religion of atheism gains ground amongst scientists, it not only colours their outlook and what results they expect to find, and what evidence they suppress, it also (as illustrated on the posts of this blog) seems to corrode their understanding of basic scientific principles.  ​*16 Responses to Ocean Acidification Scam*  Feed for this Entry Trackback Address  *Jorg*April 15, 2009 at 8:15 amThumbs up! I like your article. Youre especially right about the constant its much worse than we thought  effect, they use to draw attention. Its like these individuals feed on peoples fear. Most people are not as worried about global warming as they were a couple of years ago, so they felt they had to launch another massive science fiction scenario attack on the masses, the horror of the acid seas  coming to a theatre near you  soon, very soon.*Ed Darrell*August 15, 2009 at 1:49 pmThumbs down! Youre doing a disservice to rational discussion.
Errors in Gores film? You and the cartoonist should have followed that accusation through to its end. The judge ruled the film was accurate.
One less hole in the balloon.
Might it be that those are wishful holes, and not real holes at all? *ScientistForTruth responds*
What part of the word errors dont you understand? The judge statedI turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear the science is usedto make a political statement and to support a political programme There are *errors* and omissions in the film, to which I shall referHe lists out various errorsThis is distinctly alarmistThere is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happenedMr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fitthe two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore assertsit cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate changeIt is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show thatit plainly does not support Mr Gores descriptionthe evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attributionAs a result of considerable discussion in Court, which I, and both Counsel, strained to avoid becoming a drafting session, a new Guidance Note has now been produced which the Defendant proposesdrawing specific attention to where Mr Gore may be in error[schools] should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gores view may be inaccurate.GUIDELINES for showing An Inconvenient Truth
1. The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
3. Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.*Ed Darrell*August 16, 2009 at 12:15 am*ScientistForTruth says*
Anyone else want to make some comments? Soon my whole recent comments will be filled up with Ed Darrell! Again Im cutting some of the length so as not to weary the readers. *Ed Darrell says*
The cartoon says proven falsehoods in Inconvenient Truth.
Thats not what the judge saidits inaccurate to say there are proven falsehoods in the film. Thats simply wrong, and contrary to what the judge ruled. Not proven falsehoods, but disputed evidence.
Sure its a political film. *ScientistForTruth responds*
What part of the word errors doesnt this commentator understand? The judge statedI turn to AIT, the film. The following is clearThere are *ERRORS*in the film, to which I shall referFor example, when Al Gore stated in the filmThat is why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand.and the judge said thatThere is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happenedhe wasnt suggesting this was _disputed_ evidence, i.e. that because there was*no evidence* that it had happened, then it might *actually* have happened but immigration officials in New Zealand somehow didnt notice it, that there are whole populations floating around in New Zealand that no-one has noticed yet, and the natives still running the industries in those islands and answering the telephones and appearing on camera are phantoms. I will be generous enough to all my readers (except perhaps Ed Darrell, who still doesnt seem to get it) to believe that you know that the citizens of these Pacific nations have not all evacuated to New Zealand. It is not only demonstrably false but _actually_ a proven falsehood.*JER0ME*September 5, 2009 at 4:48 amWhat is it with this Darrell guy? You have your own personal stalker, or is he a pet troll, or what?!
OT, the 0.1pH change was not measurable 100 years ago  that is a very important point I had not considered.
It is much the same as the warming that is 0.7C over 100 years and the errors in measurements are probably in the order of 2 or 3C, making any demonstrated increase meaningless. Same with water temps and definitely with sea levels.
Now we have satellite data on temperature and ice extent, and they complain it is only over the last 30 years and that is not enough to show a trend. Is that because the trend shown is flat, I wonder?*Harbinger*September 18, 2009 at 1:34 pmWhen did a pH 8.1 become acidic? Basic school chemistry. Is it warmer now than 150 years ago? You betcha, why would we want to go back to Little Ice Age conditions when for almost 500 years prior to 1850 there was famine and pestilence due to crop failure and severe cold. Was that supposed to be NORMAL?
In the Alps they were burning some women as witches because they believed they were responsible for the devastating advance of glaciers and local Bishops stood at the glacier face invoking the Almighty to save the villages from destruction.
Why dont people do a little research for themselves and they would find when it comes to the weather, (sorry, climate, which is weather over time), there is very little new under the sun.*Clarity of thought*January 14, 2010 at 12:21 pm*Scientist for Truth says*
This is fairly typical of the poor quality comments that this blog receives along the lines of if you dont think the way I do, you must be a kook, which is hardly an intelligent argument. These commenters hardly seem to read and understand what is before them, and certainly dont do much thinking. As soon as they spot something that betrays a different way of thinking then its simply you dont think the way I do, so you must be a kook.
My comments are interlaced in bold. _Clarity of thought says_
I loved the bit about this flowing from atheism, its pure hyperbole and tells us a great deal about the state of the bloggers mind and the amount of creedance and attention we should pay to her arguments. *Her? Since when did I have a sex change?
Oh, I see. Just because I point out the source of the worldview (atheism), somehow that discredits the argument does it? Now, any view about God other than atheism is theistic, and most theistic viewpoints will lead to the position of design, and it is rather difficult to conceive of a God worthy of the name who is less able to design than his creation. And certainly no able designer would design a world with positive feedbacks and inherent instabilities. Note that Im not using the argument from design here: Im simply not saying that we can see design, therefore there is a designer. Im not running any proof for the existence of God. Thats not my point or purpose at all. What I am saying is that a lack of design, a chance arrangement of things and inherent instability tends to point very strongly in the direction of atheism, and I have yet to meet an atheist who would disagree with that, and I was a fervent atheist once myself.*
What the blogger really means of course is a materialistic viewpoint (which is most certainly not exclusive to atheism). It gives the view that life, the universe and everything came about through the emergent properties of natural physical processes, as opposed to appearing from nothing and from nowhere in a showy magical ejaculation. *No I dont. I mean atheism. Many scientists are methodological materialists  I am, for one. When I research a certain phenomenon, or design some apparatus, I do expect it to work according to the laws of physics rather than by magic.*
Of course a materialistic interpretation of the physical and biological processes of this planet leads to conclusions quite the contrary to the pretentions of the blogger  specifically that life came about through a series of gradual processes and small steps that were selected for an against by the environment over great periods of time. *Hang on  thats completely illogical. Just because you believe in one materialist hypothesis doesnt mean we all have to. Your choice of creation myth (evolutionary) is exactly that  your choice. What you should have said is My materialistic interpretation of the physical and biological processes of this planet leads to conclusions quite the contrary to the pretentions of the blogger. Your universalizing and arrogant Of course at the beginning of the sentence betrays your presuppositions.*
Follwoing this viewpoint to its logical conclusion then it is only possible to conclude that life is most certainly not vulnerable to the slightest changes in its environment, but that it is robust, adaptible, pervasive, and in a constant state of flux. *Your argument is about life. What about the environment? Can that have positive feedbacks? Runaway global warming? Inherent instabilities? If not, fine  you dont believe in the climate change scam either. But if you DO believe in the climate change arguments you had better be aware that they are founded upon positive feedbacks, so are quite different from what you see in life systems.*
This perhaps gives us a clue as to why the experimental evidence (by way of a short example you could look at Gazeau et al (2007) Impact of elevated CO2 on shellfish calcification, GEOPHYS RES, VOL. 34, L07603  but this is by no means the only study that confirms this effect) demonstrates that calcification of marine shellfish is affected by a change in ocean chemistry when freshwater shellfish live in environments of considerably lower pH.
The answer of course is adaptation. Freshwater shellfish have adapted to that environment, have markedly different (recent) evolutionary histories to their marine relatives, and markedly different physiologies as a result.
The bloggers failure to draw attention to something so obvious demonstrates either scientific illiteracy, or a complete disinterest in an honest discussion of the subject. *This commenter cant read. So what does the following sentence say?* *This is not to say that sea creatures can survive in fresh water  they are adapted to a radically different saline environment**Of course freshwater and marine shellfish are adapted to different environments, but there is no of course that this is due to the process that the commenter espouses, which is just his own opinion.*
Fundamentally the blogger seems to fail to appreciate the difference between science, journalism, and hyperbole.
Shes quite right that we should take many of the alarmist claims of some journalists and commentators with a very large shovelfull of salt  however the screeching hyperbole of her own article, her utterly laughable attempt to conflate this with atheism, the failure to appreciate or honestly account for the most basic predictions of evolutionary theory, or even the subtlties of the seawater-CO2 equilibrium reaction that are responsible for the observed changes to oceanic pH, simply place her in the same bracket at the alarmists she decries- albeit on the opposite side of the fence. *Oh, no screeching hyperbole in the above paragraph then? Its just a rather wordy way of saying if you dont think the way I do, you are a kook. But lets just take a closer look.* *the failure to appreciate or honestly account for the most basic predictions of evolutionary theory  this is a post about ocean acidification. Just because youve got a thing about evolution doesnt mean we have to be banging on about it all the time.
or even the subtlties of the seawater-CO2 equilibrium reaction that are responsible for the observed changes to oceanic pH. Commenter cant read: the post explicitly states:Likewise, the so-called chemistry underpinning the toxic ocean hypothesis suggests an unstable reaction process that pulls itself up by its own bootstraps (the mechanism in the literature is described and rebutted in the following post Toxic Seawater Fraud)**Follow the link and theres plenty there on the equilibrium reaction.*
Meanwhile science continues. *Yes, and if Clarity of thought has anything to do with it, thats not very promising.**wes george*June 20, 2010 at 11:06 amThanks Liz, or whomever. This is one of the most interesting blogs i have stumbled across recently. I especially find the ID evolutionary, complex system far from equilibrium feedback argument fascinating and unique. Unique in the sense that it isnt pointed out often enough. Even though James Lovelock uses it magnificently to show that Gaia is a robust ancient bitch. The CAGW crowd, much like their economic counterparts have zero understanding of how complexity unfolds in reality. Its almost as if they model the biosphere as a clockwork gear machine, ala some sort of 18th century Rube Goldberg.
The Atheist meme, i found particularly intriguing because I have long reckoned that the true driving force behind CAGW, besides the obvious neoMarxist socioeconomic justice BS, was a kind of secular extension of old time Abrahamic tradition. You know, banishment from a Rousseauian garden of Eden, sin, guilt and the promise of an apocalypse to punish us for our capitalist sins.
Keep up the good work!*The Foxholeatheist*November 26, 2010 at 6:17 amDid someone say there were not positive feedback systems in living things? Has anyone heard of the lac operon?
And just because something happens rapidly or a reaction goes to completion does not make it unstable.
Everyone is an agnostic. But everyone must choose to be an atheistic or theistic agnostic. Simple logic here. By definition the supernatural is unknowable. Therefore everyone uses whatever logic abilities their DNA grants them, and comes to an agnostic opinion on the supernatural, hense theism and atheism.
Furthermore, Science makes no claims on the supernatural. Science observes the material universe, devises a hypothesis and tries to prove it false. If no one can prove it false, it becomes a theory. *ScientistForTruth replies:*
I think you are playing with semantics. An archetypal reaction that rapidly goes to completion is an explosion. That sort of reaction is hardly a stable state. Much slower reactions (e.g. polymerization of an epoxy over hours) are also passing through an unstable phase. Such processes are not easily reversible and are not equilibria. The fact that they reach a stable state in the end is entirely irrelevant.
Not everyone is an agnostic. You seem to be playing semantics again, concocting your own definition. An agnostic claims that he does not know whether there is a God, or he claims that one cannot know whether there is a God. Theists certainly do not fall into that category. Your supposed logic is entirely false. Theology deals with knowledge claims no less than does science. Both are valid forms of knowledge. You say by definition the supernatural is unknowable, but you havent shown us where that definition comes from. Whose definition is that? Your own? I do not agree with that definition, and you will find most people will not agree either, so what is the point of confecting a different definition of the word supernatural? Perhaps you mean that it is not knowable in the materialistic, reductionist sense, i.e. you cannot know that which is beyond the material by using mere material means. But that is self-limiting. If you affirm that there is nothing that can be known beyond the material realm then thats a presupposition that you havent proved: as an axiom you can start where you like, but dont expect rational people who think more logically than you to agree to such an axiom  such a restrictive axiom leads to a very restricted system.
I generally agree with your final paragraph, provided you are talking about_natural_ science. And many theists are methodological materialists, but not philosophical materialists  a huge difference. A methodological materialist uses material means to find out about the material world, but this says nothing about whether he believes in other sources of knowledge beyond the material that may or may not be accessible to natural science or other ways of discovering knowledge. A philosophical materialist denies that there is anything beyond the material world, so no knowledge beyond the material world is possible. The former is a rational scientific approach; the latter is a religious claim  atheism  which should not be intruded into science.*Jack*June 29, 2011 at 3:52 amThe oceans function as our planets life support system. They moderate our climate and, as noted, filter pollution. They supply us with a rich diversity of food, minerals, and medicines. We also turn to them as a source of comfort, relaxation, recreation, and inspiration.
[snip] For decades now, our oceans have absorbed nearly one-third of this excess carbon dioxide, conceivably staving off a far greater land crisis than we are currently facing. With a daily intake of twenty-two million metric tons of carbon dioxide, and a yearly projection of two billion tons, our waters can no longer keep up with the demands we are making.
Our oceans are teeming with organisms that depend on protective shells or external skeletons to survive. Plankton, mollusks, and crustaceans are a few well-known examples. When oceans absorb co2 carbonic acid is formed. This is the same acid that gives soft drinks their fizz, a fizz that, in this case, dissolves the shells, leaving these organisms vulnerable. Because so many of these organisms serve as the basis of the marine food web, which in turn supports life on land, this breakdown has sweeping effects. In other words, when phytoplankton are in jeopardy, all lifeon land or at seashares their fate. [snip] *ScientistForTruth responds*
Rude remarks or _ad hominems_ are snipped.
This is typical of a narrative served up by those who cant be bothered (or are unable) to read and engage with the points made in the post, or to check the facts, and so they will merely parrot what they are told. Simply repeating the narrative doesnt make it true, though it might have its political uses.
The comparison with soft drinks is absurd. Most are designed to be acidic, having citric acid, malic acid, lactic acid or phosphoric acid added to them, yielding a pH of as low as 3.0, and the concentration of carbon dioxide is orders of magnitude higher than in the ocean. For example, to make carbonated water in a soda fountain one needs a CO2 pressure of several atmospheres. Obviously the current atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 at 400 ppm concentration (0.04% of the atmosphere) is a lot less than that. Just a bit. Moreover, sea water and the underwater carbonate deposits form a hugely buffered system which allows for the dissolution of vast amounts of CO2 with very little change in pH. The oceans would never, ever become more acidic than pure water (pH = 7.0) even if we burned all the fossil fuel reserves on the planet.This is the same acid that gives soft drinks their fizz, a fizz that, in this case, dissolves the shells, leaving these organisms vulnerable.Is the ocean fizzing, then, like a soft drink, since it is supposedly this fizz that, in this case, dissolves the shells? Sure, if the ocean was fizzing like a soft drink then that would be a catastrophe, but its not, and it never will do so the comparison is absurd.
As this post and related ones have shown, the process for forming shells depends on the conversion of bicarbonate (rather than carbonate). One has to consider biochemistry and biological pumps in living organisms, not lifeless inorganic chemistry on lifeless materials. As CO2 dissolves, bicarbonate concentration increases making it easier for _living_ organisms to form shells, even though a tiny drop in pH will cause slightly faster dissolution of shell, which is only of importance in relation to the decay of dead organisms, because it is only dead organisms that dont have a shell building mechanism.*Brian Hall*June 30, 2011 at 9:08 amJack;
As CO2 dissolves, bicarbonate concentration increases making it easier for living organisms to form shells, even though a tiny drop in pH will cause slightly faster dissolution of shell, which is only of importance in relation to the decay of dead organisms, because it is only dead organisms that dont have a shell building mechanism.
Thank you for that precise summary and conclusion. While all of your preceding information is crucial to establishing it, it nevertheless almost stands on its own. With (or without) your permission I shall be quoting it as necessary every time I see the phrase ocean acidification.
> :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

The IPCC and anti-CO2 alarmists have long claimed that rising CO2 levels will cause higher levels of ocean "acidification" that will harm fish species.As multiple studies have proven before, this type of ocean acidification alarmism is lacking in empirical, scientific merit. A new peer reviewed study confirms that acidification-alarmism is just that, alarmism. This study proved that the walleye 'Alaska' poll0ck species is actually enhanced by higher levels of pCO2.

----------


## Marc

*Saturation is the Demise
of Global Warming Fakery**Virtual Proof of
Climate Science Fraud*          *Background Science Explained Here*          *Gary Novak* *Global Warming*     *About* *Introduction* *Key Summary:* *Fakery of the Primary CO2 Effect* *Background Principles:*  *Errors in Claims* *Crunching the Numbers* *Absorption Spectra* *Explanations* *Simple Words* *Oceans not Rising* *Future Ice Age* *Acid in the Oceans* *Contrivance* *Saturation Demise* *Alphabetical Page List
And Summaries**Detailed Specifics:* *Stefan-Boltzmann* *Fudge Factor* *Firing Scientists* *Thermometer Fraud* *Fake Ice Core Data* *Equilibrium in Atmosphere* *"Delicate Balance" Fraud* *Heat-Trapping Gases* *The Cause of Ice Ages and Present Climate* *Climategate* *Second Climategate* *The Disputed Area* *IPCC Propaganda* *The Water Vapor Fraud* *Back Radiation is Absurd* *The 41% Fraud* *The 30% Fraud* *A Fake Mechanism* *Global Dynamic* *River, not Window* *What about Argo* *Heinz Hug Measurement* *Hockey Stick Graph* *Ice Melt*     *Acid in the Oceans Fraud* *Oceans are alkaline at pH 8.1. This means there are less than one tenth as many hydrogen ions in the oceans as in neutral water. Oceans would need to be ten times as acidic to be neutral. No one has ever found any other pH in the oceans apart from sheltered estuaries, related effluent, micro environments and melting ice. (pH details here.)
This is because calcium carbonate is a strong buffer at pH 8.1. At that pH, water strongly absorbs CO2, which is an acid being absorbed by an alkali.
When oceans can hold no more CO2, they leave some in the atmosphere. As their temperatures increase, oceans release more CO2. Oceans constantly increase in temperature between ice ages causing a constant increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Oceans absorb solar energy to a depth of 10 meters, which causes heat to accumulate. Also, geothermal heat enters the oceans and accumulates in a significant manner over time. It is only an ice age which allows oceans to cool back down. Ice ages occur every 100 thousand years.* *All Eukaryotic cells pump hydrogen ions (which create acid) across membranes to produce respiration and to control internal pH. This pump creates gradients of several pH units. To claim they cannot tolerate 0.1 pH change in their environment is a mockery of science.*   Two billion years ago, there was a huge amount of carbon dioxide in the air and carbonate in the oceans. Since then, most of it disappeared. It was converted to calcium carbonate in the oceans and ultimately limestone. Now there is a shortage. The human addition is slightly rescuing life and the planet by increasing the CO2. For propagandists to claim humans are destroying life and the planet through CO2 couldn't be a bigger fraud. The oceans have had almost four billion years to absorb carbon dioxide. Why are the oceans not acidic? Hasn't there been enough time yet? There was five times as much CO2 in the air during dinosaur years as now. The oceans rapidly stabilize; and they stabilized at pH 8.1 due to the alkalinity of calcium and its buffering capacity. Fraudulent scientists use hydrochloric acid in laboratory tanks to test the effects of carbon dioxide on ocean biology due to increased acidity. CO2 is in equilibrium with carbonate, which improves marine growth and shell production, while HCl destroys the ability to metabolize carbonate.*Example of HCl used in Fraudulent Study* Biology responds vary easily to large scale pH variationslarge scale meaning several pH units, not the 0.l unit being discussed for the oceans. There are several reasons for this. Every biochemical reaction influences pH in some way. This not only requires nature to cope with pH but provides a huge amount of options or tools for doing so.
Eukaryotic organisms use membranes to filter solutes including hydrogen ions going into cells and moving them around within cells. The cytochrome system for respiration pumps hydrogen ions across membranes as a method of generating ATP. Every shelled organism in the oceans does this. In other words, they have no problem handling acid. (pH is hydrogen ion concentration.)
Then, shells of sea creatures are not just calcium carbonate; they are living tissues with complexity, just like teeth. That complexity is used to cope with pH changes among other adversities.
Real science shows that shelled sea creatures benefit from increased CO2. *Acid TestScience Review by SPPI* Frauds have been using the word "precipitation" in regard to the formation of calcium carbonate in the shells of sea creaturesthe purpose being to use physical chemical properties for analysis. Physical chemistry is vastly different from biochemistry. There is nothing resembling precipitation anywhere in biology.
Every atom and molecule in biological systems is controlled through enzymes, structures and environments to produced a defined and complex result. Shells include oxides, zinc, magnesium and other exotic elements in addition to calcium carbonate, to control hardness and resistance to acids, combined with proteins and other organics for structure and protection (similar to paint). The result is nothing resembling precipitated calcium carbonate.    Carbon dioxide propagandists have a campaign going for an "acid in the ocean" alternative to the greenhouse gas scare. This tactic is a result of the danger of the "greenhouse gas" lie blowing up in their faces at any time due to the obvious scientific frauds.
Carbon dioxide has been an extremely effective and insidious propaganda scheme, being used as the latest pretext for population reduction and shoving the lower classes out of the economy. The public considers the greenhouse gas problem to be unquestionable science and an imminent peril. This does not immunize it from scientific truth, which is bound to expose it eventually. But the acid ploy is unrelated to global warming, and it salvages the propaganda value of carbon dioxide.
The acid fraud says that humans are putting more carbon dioxide into the oceans (through the atmosphere), and the CO2 converts to acid in the oceans, while corals are supposedly sensitive to acid and cannot produce their calcium shells in such an environment.
The most significant fact about the acid fraud is that there has never been real damage to corals found as a result of increased acidity of the oceans. The damage to coral reefs which has been occurring is caused by heat, disease, etc., but not by acidity of the ocean water. There are major reasons why. Oceans have such a huge potential to neutralize acid that no significant pH change is occurring. And all biological cells have evolved the ability to cope with pH changes. The propaganda is a mindless argument over the chemistry of calcium without a trace of biology or evolution.
Concerning point one, the human production of CO2 per year is 0.014% of the amount of carbon already in the oceans. Part of the carbon which enters the oceans is converted into neutral cell mass; and this is one of the reasons why there is no acid problem. Biology converts CO2 into neutral cell mass.
Another reason why the acid scare is a fraud is because the CO2 levels in the atmosphere always fluctuate during ice age cycles, and the cycle is exactly the same now as it was during the previous ice age. There is nothing unusual about it. Biology easily adapts to such variations.
Physiology totally controls pH within cells. This means that the pH of ocean water has no relationship to the pH within the cells, where calcium carbonate shells are created. Survival of ancient coral reefs is a different matter, but creating them through living cells is a not a pH problem in the oceans. pH will affect the algae which are exploited by corals, but as one species leaves, another species which is more adapted to lower pH enters.
One of the most difficult questions to study in biology is how cells control their internal pH. It's difficult to study, because every chemical reaction in a cell influences pH. Evolution takes into account the total effects and produces a result which is favorable to survival. As a result, acid comes and goes in biological cells with no indication of where from or where to. All biologists can do is observe the end result. And biologists observe total control over extremes in pH in biological systems. For the frauds to claim that a small fraction of a pH change in the ocean cannot be handled by corals is a contrivance in conflict with biological principles.
Propagandists claim carbon dioxide is an acid, and acid destroys carbonate in the ocean, while corals require carbonate. But CO2 isn't just an acid; it is in equilibrium with carbonate. This means more CO2 entering the oceans results in more carbonate, not less.
There are two scientific frauds involved. One is to view CO2 only as an acid, as if it were equivalent to hydrochloric acid, while ignoring its equilibrium with carbonate. The other fraud is to ignore the huge buffering capacity of the oceans, which results in no detectable acidity from CO2 entering the oceans.
When adding up the absence of increased acidity with the equilibrium between CO2 and carbonate, the net result is that CO2 is increasing the carbonate which corals need, not decreasing it.
A new study and web site explains the oceanography of carbon dioxide and shows the errors of the propagandists who claim that increased CO2 in the oceans will make the oceans more acidic and destroy coral reefs. Near the surface of the oceans, increased photosynthesis creates alkalinity rather than acidity. There is in fact a shortage of acid near the surface for the promotion of photosynthesis. The decay which creates acidity occurs 1-2 kilometers down, which is way below the level of coral reefs.
This subject is explained by Dr. J. Floor Anthoni here: *New Oceanograhy Study* *Another Study: Science Magazine, April 18, 2008* *Iglesias-Rodriguez, et al, Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World. April 18, 2008. Science 320: 336-340.* *Plancton Océanique Roscoff - Document Details | Iglesias-Rodriguez et al. Coccolithophores response to CO2 - Science 2008*
Dr J Floor Anthoni describes the study as follows:
An important and complicated study looked at the plankton record in a deep sea core of the North Atlantic while also conducting experiments with living cultures of one of the most common small phytoplankton organisms, the coccolith Emiliania huxleyi. This coccolith is a major contributor to calcium deposits in the oceans (50%). Contrary to other studies that found a decrease in calcification, this study found an increase in calcification, accompanied by larger individuals, although at somewhat slower growth rates. The difference in experimental setup may have been decisive: whereas others changed the pH by adding external acids or bases, this team mimicked the real world more accurately by bubbling air with known concentrations of CO2 (280-750ppm, pH=8.1-7.7) through their cultures. This gives high credibility to their findings:  a doubling of particulate organic carbon, a doubling of size and calcite shellslightly slower growth rates but photosynthetic health unaffectednear-constant C:N ratio (6.8-8.3), an indication of food value for grazersthe deep cores showed an increase in coccolith mass of about 40% in the past 220 years, which roughly agrees with experiments. 
The curve has a hockey-stick appearance, climbing more steeply in the past 25 years (~25%).
This study shows that paradoxically, even though calcite dissolves more rapidly at higher carbon dioxide concentrations, it is apparently also more easily made, resulting in heavier shells. A lower pH also encourages productivity, which provides the energy to grow bigger and to make larger shells. Note that this is exactly what we predicted earlier. The deep sea cores furthermore show that coccoliths provide a substantial sink for CO2, while adjusting to high-CO2 conditions by increasing this sink. Please note that studies like this and others need to be replicated and confirmed, and also note that the carbon chemistry of the oceans interacts with stabilising sediments (buffer). Also note that sea temperature plays an important role.
Dr J Floor Anthoni
Director Seafriends Marine Conservation and Education Centre
7 Goat Island Rd; Leigh R.D.5; New Zealand
Seafriends web site: *Seafriends home page*  *CO2 and Coral Reefs* - A review of the science by SPPI *Acid Test* - A more recent review by SPPI

----------


## Marc

*Over the Top: Seattle Times describes change in ocean pH from 8.10 to 8.05 as corrosive*  Posted on October 9, 2013 by Steve Milloy | 20 Comments The Seattle Times reports: Continue reading → About these ads       → 20 Comments Posted in Ocean Acid.   *Global Warming Causes Warm/Cold, Wet/Dry, Bigger/Smaller Lobsters*  Posted on July 25, 2013 by rcook | 5 Comments Promoters of man-caused global warming unleash yet another irreconcilable problem for themselves. Continue reading →   → 5 Comments Posted in Climate Change, Ocean Acid. Tagged climate hysteria, Lobsters   *Claim: Rising CO2 Levels Already Killing Ocean Life*  Posted on July 16, 2013 by Steve Milloy | 4 Comments The pH in coastal areas is so variable its hard to believe that whatever minor changes in ph have occurred have had any effect on anything. Continue reading→   → 4 Comments Posted in Climate Change, Ocean Acid.   *Washington state confronts ocean acidification*  Posted on November 28, 2012 by Steve Milloy | 12 Comments Increasingly corrosive waters affecting oyster farming? But the daily pH variation in tidal areas is naturally large. Continue reading →   → 12 Comments Posted in Ocean Acid.   *Marine species at risk unless drastic protection policies put in place*  Posted on August 22, 2012 by Editor | Leave a comment Many marine species will be harmed or wont survive if the levels of carbon dioxide continue to increase.
Current protection policies and management practices are unlikely to be enough to save them. Unconventional, non-passive methods to conserve marine ecosystems need to be considered if various marine species are to survive.Continue reading →   → Leave a comment Posted in Climate Change, Ocean Acid. Tagged climate hysteria, co2 emissions,dioxycarbophobia, PlayStation® climatology, weather superstition   *Stop the models  theyre killing everything!*  Posted on August 21, 2012 by Editor | Leave a comment Ocean life facing major shock  Life in the worlds oceans faces far greater change and risk of large-scale extinctions than at any previous time in human history, a team of the worlds leading marine scientists has warned. Continue reading →   → Leave a comment Posted in Climate Change, Ocean Acid. Tagged climate hysteria, dioxycarbophobia,PlayStation® climatology, silly scares   *Desperately trying to replace the failing global warming scam*  Posted on August 6, 2012 by Editor | 6 Comments New study helps predict impact of ocean acidification on shellfish Continue reading →   → 6 Comments Posted in Ocean Acid. Tagged co2 emissions, dioxycarbophobia   *Climate change causing a whale of a problem*  Posted on August 5, 2012 by Editor | 2 Comments Climate change may be causing a whale of a problem in the global arena.Continue reading →   → 2 Comments Posted in Climate Change, Ocean Acid. Tagged climate hysteria, dioxycarbophobia   *Donna Laframboise: US Official: Activate Your Science*  Posted on July 25, 2012 by Editor | 4 Comments A senior public servant thinks scientists should be passionate, engaged activists.Continue reading →   → 4 Comments Posted in Climate Change, Ocean Acid. Tagged activist propaganda, climate fraud, shameless activists   *Adaptive evolution of a key phytoplankton species to ocean acidification*  Posted on July 19, 2012 by Editor | 1 Comment In an important paper published in the May 2012 issue of _Nature Geoscience_, Lohbeck _et al_. (2012) write that our present understanding of the sensitivity of marine life to ocean acidification is based primarily on short-term experiments, which often depict negative effects. Continue reading →   → 1 Comment Posted in Climate Change, Coral reefs, Ocean Acid. Tagged co2 emissions, dioxycarbophobia   *Left-wingnut Ben Cubby: Coral wonderland at tipping point*  Posted on July 15, 2012 by Editor | Leave a comment Scientists agree the Barrier Reef is fast deteriorating, writes Ben Cubby.Continue reading →   → Leave a comment Posted in Climate Change, Coral reefs, Media, Ocean Acid. Tagged climate fraud, climate hysteria, co2 emissions, dioxycarbophobia, insane greens, irrational fears, PlayStation® climatology, weather superstition   *Andrew Bolt: Solid foundations of alarm*  Posted on July 10, 2012 by Editor | 1 Comment The ABC reports on global warming conference in Cairns:_A foundation of facts established that ocean temperatures have climbed by half a degree in the past decade, ocean acidity has increased by 25 per cent and sea levels have risen by around 30 centimetres._Really? A rise of 30cms in a decade?  (Thanks to readers John and Steve.) Continue reading →   → 1 Comment Posted in Climate Change, Media, Ocean Acid. Tagged activist propaganda, climate fraud, climate hysteria,co2 emissions, dioxycarbophobia, sea level rise   *Great Barrier Reef experts blast federal Coalition plans to axe carbon tax*  Posted on July 10, 2012 by Editor | 1 Comment More dioxycarbophobic BS from some give-us-more-money-were-scientists greenie dipsticks Continue reading →   → 1 Comment Posted in Climate Change, Coal, Coral reefs, Ocean Acid. Tagged anti coal, anti development, climate hysteria, co2 emissions, dioxycarbophobia, greenie obstructionists   *Flashback: Acid Oceans, Osteoporosis of the Sea, and the CO2 Monster by Willie Soon*  Posted on July 9, 2012 by Editor | Leave a comment Lecture presented by Willie Soon, Ph.D. at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness held in Orlando, Florida; June 12, 2010.Continue reading →   → Leave a comment Posted in Coral reefs, Ocean Acid. Tagged co2 emissions, dioxycarbophobia   *Failing the Acid Test  Jane Lubchenco*  Posted on July 9, 2012 by dennisambler | 14 Comments In the whole panoply of distortion and disinformation surrounding the claims of global warming, few can be more dishonest than the claims of Ocean Acidification.  Head of NOAA, Jane Lubchenco, is currently on the Australian circuit to try and convince people that the new Carbon tax is valid and necessary to save the planet and of course, as its Australia, to save the Great Barrier Reef from extinction. Ocean acidification first saw the light of day in 2003 and found its way into AR4. It is now embedded in AR5, based on the shakiest of science. Read on, to find out how the claim of a _30% increase in ocean acidity since the industrial revolution_ came into being and check out the NOAA video, where Jane Lubchenco tries to fool the public with The Vinegar Trick and a piece of chalk. Continue reading →   → 14 Comments Posted in Agenda 21, Climate Change, Coral reefs,Environmentalism, IPCC, Ocean Acid. Tagged acid seas, climate hysteria, co2 emissions, coral reefs, global governance, IPCC, Lubchenco, NOAA, shellfish, Stanford   *US official: Higher ocean acidity is climate changes evil twin, major threat to coral reefs*  Posted on July 9, 2012 by Editor | 4 Comments Ocean acidification has emerged as one of the biggest threats to coral reefs across the world, acting as the osteoporosis of the sea and threatening everything from food security to tourism to livelihoods, the head of a U.S. scientific agency said Monday. Continue reading →   → 4 Comments Posted in Climate Change, Ocean Acid. Tagged activist propaganda, co2 emissions,dioxycarbophobia   *As oceans warm and become more acidic, Britains seafood menu changes*  Posted on July 4, 2012 by Editor | 1 Comment Wow! Think of the savings on vinegar if the seas actually were becoming acidic! They arent though and while the fillets may change with varying ocean currents the UKs ubiquitous fish & chips will still be fish and chips. Continue reading →   → 1 Comment Posted in Climate Change, Ocean Acid. Tagged fisheries   *Climate adaptation may be a family affair*  Posted on July 3, 2012 by Editor | Leave a comment Newborn reef fish can cope with changed water conditions if their parents have already adjusted Continue reading →   → Leave a comment Posted in Climate Change, Ocean Acid. Tagged climate hysteria, climate research, co2 emissions, dioxycarbophobia, PlayStation® climatology   *Acidified Seawater: Does It Always Depress Calcification?*  Posted on June 28, 2012 by Editor | Leave a comment In introducing their study, Findlay _et al_. (2011) write that calcifying marine organisms such as molluscs and foraminifera, crustaceans, echinoderms, corals and coccolithophores are predicted to be most vulnerable to decreasing oceanic pH (ocean acidification). Continue reading →

----------


## Marc

.........................Contrary to other studies that found a decrease in calcification, this study found an increase in calcification, accompanied by larger individuals, although at somewhat slower growth rates. The difference in experimental setup may have been decisive: whereas others changed the pH by adding external acids or bases, this team mimicked the real world more accurately by bubbling air with known concentrations of CO2 (280-750ppm, pH=8.1-7.7) through their cultures. This gives high credibility to their findings:   a doubling of particulate organic carbon, a doubling of size and calcite shellslightly slower growth rates but photosynthetic health unaffectednear-constant C:N ratio (6.8-8.3), an indication of food value for grazersthe deep cores showed an increase in coccolith mass of about 40% in the past 220 years, which roughly agrees with experiments.  The curve has a hockey-stick appearance, climbing more steeply in the past 25 years (~25%). This study shows that paradoxically, even though calcite dissolves more rapidly at higher carbon dioxide concentrations, it is apparently also more easily made, resulting in heavier shells. A lower pH also encourages productivity, which provides the energy to grow bigger and to make larger shells. 
......................................  
IN OTHER WORDS THOSE CLAIMING SEA SHELLS DE-CALCIFICATION OBTAINED THE DATA BY FALSIFICATION ADDING ACID IN STEAD OF INCREASED CO2 ... WHAT ELSE IS NEW????

----------


## woodbe

> Note the continual use of the word _acid_. Yet there is not the slightest possibility that seawater will turn to acid, or even become mildly acidic, so this is drivel.

  The seawater will move on the scale from alkaline towards acid. That is called acidification. It means the oceans will be more acidic and less alkaline than they were before. It does not mean the ocean will be acid. This is normal language to explain a shift on the scale from alkaline to acid. Pure water is around PH of 7 and Sea Water is around PH 8. Sea water is more alkaline than pure water and pure water is more acid than sea water. 
Sad that Marc and his voluminous quotes don't get the basics right before launching into their collective diatribes.   Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   

> *Ocean acidification* is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[1] An estimated 3040% of carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[2][3] To maintain chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean "acidity" (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[4] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[5][6]
>  Increasing acidity is thought to have a range of consequences, such as depressing metabolic rates in jumbo squid,[7] depressing the immune responses of blue mussels,[8] and coral bleaching.
>  Other chemical reactions are also triggered which result in a net decrease in the amount of carbonate ions available. This makes it more difficult for marine calcifying organisms, such as coral and some plankton, to form biogenic calcium carbonate, and such structures become vulnerable to dissolution.[9] Ongoing acidification of the oceans also poses a threat to the food chains connected with the oceans.[10][11] As members of the InterAcademy Panel, 105 science academies have issued a statement on ocean acidification recommending that by 2050, global CO2 emissions be reduced by at least 50%, compared to the 1990 level.[12]

  woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> The seawater will move on the scale from alkaline towards acid. ... etc nonsense 
> woodbe.

   Ha ha,clutching at wikistraw. What are you saying? The water is on the way to being acid? Ha ha that is classic. 
We can use that concept for transportation. In order to go from Sydney to Melbourne all you need to do is get to Goulburn. No need to go any further, the intention is all it counts.  
Jokes aside, that is not the important part at all. The claim is that ACID water EATING AWAY at the poor shellfish shells dissolving them and denuding them into extinction is the real joke. 
See whoever thought of this abysmally obnoxious scam had people in mind who would fall for it and jump to the opportunity to support it because it fits their pathological bias.
The reality is so far from this idiotic claims that even a primary school kid can work it out. You only need to have the tiniest interest in anything aquatic to know how foolish this claims are. 
For example shellfish living in tidal areas of freshwater rivers live and thrive in ph that varies 2 times a day between 8 and 6 and do not dissolve. others live in fresh water that has a seasonal ph of 5. How do they grow their shell? 
Nonsense and more nonsense, CO2 "pollution" I am getting sick of this and I am not alone. The thin and delicate pot smoking long hair fringe who lives off the tax payers money and gets paid in cash for protesting the lack of "action" against climate change whilst passing wind is so misplaced and useless as an ashtray on a motorbike.

----------


## woodbe

> Ha ha,clutching at wikistraw. What are you saying? The water is on the way to being acid? Ha ha that is classic.

  Reading comprehension disorder, by the looks of it.  :Rolleyes:  
What the science says is the PH is changing due to increasing CO2, regardless of the diversions by those that would prefer to believe something other than the records and the physics. 
Changing the PH of the oceans will alter the ecosystem, predictions are for challenges to multiple species. I suggest reading the scientific references on the wikipedia article to inform yourself of the science rather than searching for blogsites to support your opinion. 
woodbe

----------


## intertd6

> So the 10 million we have just given to the Philippines by that logic is a waste of time is it, after all there is no gain or logic and the medical team, well what a waste after all there is no benefit there other than a few lives. Are they that worthless then to not to be bothered with? Aid comes in many forms, it is not in our interests not to give targeted aid, we don't want aid money wasted, but there are many projects the government puts small amounts into as co contributions to charitable groups that get a big result for the outlay, these rely on a lot of volunteer labour. Many of these are now under threat as a result of the cut backs and if this forces the closure of the better programs they may well be lost forever. Aid should be constantly reviewed but being involved in our own region and the island communities is very important for them and us and the fact that we have some individuals pontificating about something they probably know next to nothing about beyond the cost of the total outlay reflects on Australia itself. To be honest basic programs that help with education health and programs as simple as clean water are worth the effort. There are many reasons for giving aid don't trivialise it with this myopic nonsense.

  you seem to be confusing emergency humanitarian aid with completely different foreign aid programs that we are talking about here.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> you seem to be confusing emergency humanitarian aid with completely different foreign aid programs that we are talking about here.
> regards inter

    It comes out of the same budget area, there is no confusion. You also restricted yourself to the words "handout cheques" you did not distinguish between emergency aid and development assistance. Also you seem unaware that while we contribute a little over .3% of GDP in aid when we have actually signed a UN pledge which is bi partisan to increase spending to .7%. I am not arguing for or against I just think your original comment was nonsense  and shows an appallingly myopic view of aid in general when as part of the UN we are keen to reduce world poverty on a global scale. Both sides are guilty of watering down that commitment so you are only talking in degrees of difference anyway there actually isn't that much that sets them apart.

----------


## woodbe

Apparently short term humanitarian aid is ok, but long term humanitarian aid is not? 
Blinkers much? 
Can we get back on topic? 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

Yep back on topic, but it is so much fun being annoying when you are given so many dopey openings.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Just remember I'm dyslexic & failed English at school so I have no idea what you have just said, but can easily understand when someone's lips are moving but nothing of substance is emanating from them.

  You can see my lips while I type?  :Eek:   
Then check this out... :Wank:

----------


## intertd6

> You can see my lips while I type?

  didnt say I could, reading & comprehensions not a strong point with some I've noticed.
in public I can tell easily when some are telling a BS story, their lips are moving.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Apparently short term humanitarian aid is ok, but long term humanitarian aid is ok 
> woodbe.

  your the only one alluding to that assumption. (As usual)
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> It comes out of the same budget area, there is no confusion. You also restricted yourself to the words "handout cheques" you did not distinguish between emergency aid and development assistance. Also you seem unaware that while we contribute a little over .3% of GDP in aid when we have actually signed a UN pledge which is bi partisan to increase spending to .7%. I am not arguing for or against I just think your original comment was nonsense  and shows an appallingly myopic view of aid in general when as part of the UN we are keen to reduce world poverty on a global scale. Both sides are guilty of watering down that commitment so you are only talking in degrees of difference anyway there actually isn't that much that sets them apart.

   A prime example of a hair splitter hard at work, don't let's the facts of what our govt does get in the way of what the powerful nations do to get what they want, when they want it.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> A prime example of a hair splitter hard at work, don't let's the facts of what our govt does get in the way of what the powerful nations do to get what they want, when they want it.
> regards inter

   Absolutely nothing to do with hair splitting which is just your way of stepping around the short comings in your own argument. Let's not overlook the fact that in our own region we are seen as a powerful and wealthy nation when compared with many of our near neighbours. Let's get back to the thread scoring cheap points on international relations particularly in light of the current ructions in Indonesia leaves a sour taste in my mouth as it highlights how venal and low minded we are as a nation.

----------


## woodbe

The original post:   

> Apparently short term humanitarian aid is ok, but long term humanitarian aid is *not?*

  The tampered post and response:   

> Originally Posted by woodbe   Apparently short term humanitarian aid is ok, but long term humanitarian aid is *ok*    your the only one alluding to that assumption. (As usual)

  Quoting and altering someone's post and then making a comment suggesting that the poster is wrong when the alteration changes the entire meaning of the post is an ethically bankrupt excuse for a response. Seeing as the evidence is on the very same page, it's also a pathetic attempt at insult that reflects on the person altering the post, not the original poster. Throughout history evidence tamperers are regarded as amongst the lowest of the low. 
Lets get back on topic. 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Now this is quite cool   https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-even...certainty.html 
Basically, it's a simple article describing why short to mid term (20 to 50 year) models of climate prediction don't work with sufficient precision for policy makers (and never will) over spatially constrained areas (like a region of Australia) along with a discussion of the research behind the analysis.   
But the research demonstrates that broad projections can still consistently determined with some statistical certainty/reliability for large areas (like continents) though they are potentially only of use to organisations with a global reach (or perhaps governments without sand in their ears). 
Original article is here http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2051.html

----------


## woodbe

> Yep the new big scare to replace global warming.  Roll er out. Got get it up and running before the old one is completely dead.

  Um, Rod. Where are you getting your information from? 'the old one' as you laughably refer to it, is far from dead in both scientific circles and population opinion. We've aired the state of the scientific agreement already here, but what about the state of the general population opinions?  *Broad consensus on climate change across American states*    

> A recent US survey of surveys  by Stanford University Professor Jon Krosnick has analysed public  opinion on climate change in 46 of USAs 50 states. Krosnick found to  his surprise that, regardless of geography, most Americans accept that  global warming is happening and that humans are causing it.
>   In all 46 states, they found that at least 75% of participants  thought global warming was happening. Even in traditionally conservative  red states such as Texas, 84% thought global warming was happening and  72% agreed humans were the cause. Acceptance of global warming increased  to at least 84% for states hit by drought or vulnerable to sea level  rise.  
>   In all states, at least 65% of Americans thought humans were causing  global warming. Utah showed the lowest level at 65% while acceptance was  highest in New Hampshire with 90%. Most Americans also supported  government curbs of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.  
>   This is comparable to a CSIRO analysis  that found 75% of Australians believe climate change is happening.  While these results indicate high public acceptance of climate science,  there is still a significant gap between public opinion and the views of  climate scientists. A 2009 survey of the scientific community found that among actively publishing climate scientists, 97.4% agreed that human activity was changing global temperature.  
>   This result has since been replicated by an analysis of public statements by climate scientists,  finding 97% consensus among 908 scientists who had published  peer-reviewed climate research.  Earlier this year, I was part of a team  that analysed 21 years of climate research.  Among 4,014 papers that stated a position on human-caused global  warming, we found 97.1% agreement that humans were causing global  warming.  
>   Of course, let me head off the flood of inevitable comments by  pointing out that our understanding of climate change is based on  empirical evidence. There are many lines of independent observations  indicating that humans are causing global warming. The consilience of  evidence has resulted in an overwhelming and strengthening consensus in  the climate science community.  
>   Three quarters of Americans may not be as high as the 97% scientific  consensus. However, politically speaking, it is still a strong majority.  So why is there so little support for climate action among politicians?  
>   While the general public on average accepts climate science,  Republicans are more likely to reject the scientific consensus. This is  particularly the case with conservative Republicans, who are more likely  to vote in primaries. During the 2012 Republican Presidential  primaries, even candidates who accepted the science were forced to reject the scientific consensus in order to gain the support of their party.  
>   Many studies have found a significant link between political ideology and climate beliefs. In 2006, Heath and Gifford  found that support for unfettered free markets was a significant  predictor of climate change concern. In other words, those who oppose  government regulation of the fossil fuel industry are more likely to  reject climate change science. The more politically conservative one is,  the more likely they are to reject climate science.  
>   However, there is a schism even within the Republican Party. A recent Pew survey  found that among Tea Party members, only 25% accept global warming. In  contrast, 61% of other Republicans accept that global warming is  happening. A minority group out of kilter with the rest of the populace  and the scientific community are exerting a disproportionate influence  on the public discourse about climate change.

   And here's a cruncher for those that think their opinion (that climate change is not happening) is on a roll:  

> This is also occurring in Australia. A survey of Australian views on climate change  found that only 7% of Australians think climate change isnt happening.  When the 7% of Australians who deny climate change are asked to  estimate how many Australians share their views, they estimate 49%. This  is known as the _false consensus effect_, a tendency to overestimate how popular ones opinion is.  
>   However, a more insidious and destructive effect is _pluralistic ignorance_.  This is where people privately reject an opinion but incorrectly think  others accept it. For example, when Australians are asked to estimate  the percentage of Australians that deny climate change, the average  answer is at least 20% - around three times the actual amount.

  Explains a lot of the comments by deniers. 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> *Dead planet thinking*: most oceanographers, physicists, chemists treat the planet as a dead planet, where every force, every process can be described and captured in an equation, and then simulated by a computer. But life frustrates every attempt, as it corrupts equations, while also adapting to changing circumstances. Of all these, the sea is the worst with its unimaginable scale, complexity and influence. We may never be able to unravel the secrets of the sea.                                                                                                                        Dr J Floor Anthoni

  **   *As usual the barrage of "me too" publications on the new "threat" to the planet showing it is in dear need of salvation .... (shrill voice) "save the plaanet" is overwhelming. I found the following articles worth reading to understand what is true and what is false behind the claims of "acidification" and claims of shellfish's shell dissolving in an acid soup into extinction.* 
Pass me the vinegar ... :Annoyed:    *
Ocean acidification*  *Are oceans becoming more acidic and is this a threat to marine life?* 
By Dr J Floor Anthoni (2007)  Ocean acidification 
(best viewed in a window as wide as a page. Open links in a new tab.)*As the oceans absorb more and more CO2, they may become more acidic. Recent measurements suggest that this is somewhat the case and that grave consequences can be expected. But what is the story? Should we be alarmed? How much is known and how much is not? Is ocean acidification another hoax, a swindle, or do we need to pay serious attention? What are the threats to the oceans? How does ocean acidification work? What is the carbon cycle? In this chapter we will try to foster an in-depth understanding of the CO2 processes in the ocean and where present science fails.*   *Scientists' overwhelming consensus about ocean acidification is deeply disturbing, as if there exists no doubt; as if there are no uncertainties; as if we know it all. It is equally worrisome that this chapter is the ONLY place in the world where doubts and uncertainties are raised. Our ignorance exceeds knowledge by a wide margin. It's never time not to be skeptical.*    *introduction*  An introduction to ocean acidification and what this chapter is all about (located on this page) (8 pages)  *conclusion*  The conclusion is on this page, but go to the two other parts first.  *part 2*  the main part for understanding ocean acidification and the reasoning behind it, deals with the carbon cycle, how acid the oceans are and by how much it varies, evidence of acidification, the carbonate system and why it is feared that acidification could cause disaster. (31 pages)  *part 3*  part 3 mentions all the missing science, uncertainties and misconceptions. It gives a good idea of where the science of ocean acidification is at and how much credence we can attach to the many fears that have been published. (3 pages)  *global climate*  Learn how the global climate works and why the IPCC is wrong. Very extensive and important for environmentalists. (140 pages)  *hall_of_shame*  Corrupt scientific institutions and their rogue scientists. It is time to hold individuals to account and to mention their names. Corruption is always about individuals. A collection of absurd articles. (10 pages)  *glossary*  Glossary of terms used; cutting through the gobbledegook. (on this page)  *further reading*  Books, publications, references and links (on this page)  *what's new?*  A log of recent changes to this section (on this page)  *Important tables*  *& related chapters*  DDA: the Dark Decay Assay and ecological discoveries made with a pH meter.  pH meter: how does a pH meter work?.  sea water: what sea water contains, including atmospheric gases. Important for this chapter.  periodic table of elements and a chemistry primer to allow you to understand the chemistry in this web site.  Table of the important elements for life, in the universe, planet, plants, animals.  Threats to land, sea and air: a summary of the many threats created by human activity.  Geologic time table: ages and periods of life on earth and earlier (7 p)  Science needs skeptics: understand how scientists, searching for new discoveries, are also afraid when they are found by others  Science, technology and human nature: the three forces that destroy the planet are expected to save it too. Optimism? Madness?

----------


## intertd6

> The original post:   
> The tampered post and response:   
> Quoting and altering someone's post and then making a comment suggesting that the poster is wrong when the alteration changes the entire meaning of the post is an ethically bankrupt excuse for a response. Seeing as the evidence is on the very same page, it's also a pathetic attempt at insult that reflects on the person altering the post, not the original poster. Throughout history evidence tamperers are regarded as amongst the lowest of the low. 
> Lets get back on topic. 
> woodbe.

  remember i'm dyslexic, it look & reads the same to me, the iPad is to blame anyhow as it has a mind of its own sometimes.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Now this is quite cool   https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-even...certainty.html 
> Basically, it's a simple article describing why short to mid term (20 to 50 year) models of climate prediction don't work with sufficient precision for policy makers (and never will) over spatially constrained areas (like a region of Australia) along with a discussion of the research behind the analysis.   
> But the research demonstrates that broad projections can still consistently determined with some statistical certainty/reliability for large areas (like continents) though they are potentially only of use to organisations with a global reach (or perhaps governments without sand in their ears). 
> Original article is here http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2051.html

  they don't even know what caused all the ice ages to happen so how in the name of crikey can they try to predict even more complex happenings with added variables.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> remember i'm dyslexic, it look & reads the same to me, the iPad is to blame anyhow as it has a mind of its own sometimes.
> regards inter

  When an error is made that reflects on your own integrity, the best response is a straight up apology, not to blame your tools or hide behind an affliction. 
Lets get back on topic. 
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

> they don't even know what caused all the ice ages to happen so how in the name of crikey can they try to predict even more complex happenings with added variables.
> regards inter

  Thought that we had pretty much decided to blame that Milankovitch bloke for them; something about not being able to get his SUV started to produce the needed CO2

----------


## johnc

> remember i'm dyslexic, it look & reads the same to me, the iPad is to blame anyhow as it has a mind of its own sometimes.
> regards inter

   Ipads don't retype copy and pastes, that post had to be manually altered, you do yourself no favours pretending otherwise.

----------


## woodbe

I think this is one of Bob Carter's disasters, but I could be wrong about that, he's had a few. Maybe he'll offer to pay the fine out of his Heartland money?  :Biggrin:   Climate Deniers Must Pay $90,000 For 'Not Acting Reasonably,' Court Rules   

> A New Zealand group dedicated to downplaying the existence of climate change has been ordered  to pay close to $90,000 in court fees for bringing a faulty lawsuit  that had sought to invalidate data that proved the countrys  temperatures were on the rise.
>  The New Zealand Court of Appeals ordered  The New Zealand Climate Education Trust  a group that seeks to  reflect the truth about climate change and the exaggerated claims that  have been made about anthropogenic global warming  to pay fees to the  National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, an environmental  science research firm. The lawsuit claimed that NIWA was unethically and  intentionally misinterpreting temperature data to promote the idea that  climate change was happening.
>  But Justice Forrest Miller ruled that the Trust was mounting a  crusade against NIWA and was not acting reasonably, according to a report on Radio New Zealand.

  The judge gets it:   

> New Zealand High Court Justice Geoffrey Vanning ruled in a 49-page opinion  in September 2012 that NIWA had acted in accordance with  internationally recognized and credible scientific methodology. Vanning  said it was unnecessary for this Court to resolve this scientific  debate, as NIWA could have calculated temperature changes with a  different method and still have arrived at a similar result which would  strengthen the robustness and validity of the previous results.

  woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> **   *As usual the barrage of "me too" publications on the new "threat" to the planet showing it is in dear need of salvation .... (shrill voice) "save the plaanet" is overwhelming. I found the following articles worth reading to understand what is true and what is false behind the claims of "acidification" and claims of shellfish's shell dissolving in an acid soup into extinction.* 
> Pass me the vinegar ...

   If you think information emanating from elderly computer programmers passes as scientific evidence that is entirely up to you but you are trying to pass opinion as fact which hardly cuts it does it.

----------


## intertd6

> Ipads don't retype copy and pastes, that post had to be manually altered, you do yourself no favours pretending otherwise.

  well this mini iPad does all sorts of weird things with my sausage fingers late at night as was not intentional.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> When an error is made that reflects on your own integrity, the best response is a straight up apology, not to blame your tools or hide behind an affliction. 
> Lets get back on topic. 
> woodbe.

  it wasn't intentional & not meant to get so many mangina's in a twist.
 regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Um, Rod. Where are you getting your information from? 'the old one' as you laughably refer to it, is far from dead in both scientific circles and population opinion. We've aired the state of the scientific agreement already here, but what about the state of the general population opinions?  *Broad consensus on climate change across American states*    
> And here's a cruncher for those that think their opinion (that climate change is not happening) is on a roll:  
> Explains a lot of the comments by deniers. 
> woodbe.

  Yes and if the right question was asked of me it could be said I believe in climate change too. 
Is climate change real?  
YES
Do emissions of greenhouse gas cause warming?
YES 
See its real easy!  Even I agree

----------


## woodbe

> it wasn't intentional & not meant to get so many mangina's in a twist.
>  regards inter

  It was posted, pointed out, and as yet there is not the slightest hint of apology, which is the normal way of resolving this kind of issue. Your other responses have shown no sign of the affliction or hardware problems you claim was the cause, and your first response which you deleted was a different and just as lame excuse altogether. (I have a copy) 
In short: your responses are not believable. I can only surmise that the post was deliberate.  
In any case, I am happy to let it be, just stop responding to the issue and let it die. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Yes and if the right question was asked of me it could be said I believe in climate change too. 
> Is climate change real?  
> YES
> Do emissions of greenhouse gas cause warming?
> YES 
> See its real easy!  Even I agree

  Here's another for you Rod: 
Is CO2 a greenhouse Gas?

----------


## Bedford

> In any case, I am happy to let it be, just stop responding to the issue and let it die.

  Ok Fella's, lets leave it there and get the thread back on topic (hopefully).  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Here's another for you Rod: 
> Is CO2 a greenhouse Gas?

  Yes of course it is.

----------


## woodbe

> Yes of course it is.

  Is CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans increasing due to burning of fossil fuels?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Is CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans increasing due to burning of fossil fuels?

  Yes   
See we do agree on some things :Wink:

----------


## woodbe

> Yes   
> See we do agree on some things

  I'm sure you're going to duck out at some point, let's see how far we get  :Smilie:  
Is climate variability the result of multiple inputs into the climate system?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'm sure you're going to duck out at some point, let's see how far we get

  You have got that right! See how easy it is to ask the right questions to get the result you want!   

> Is climate variability the result of multiple inputs into the climate system?

  Yes 
Lets see how far you can get before asking the pertinent question that make all the rest redundant in respect of need to take "urgent" action on climate change. 
So far If you asked me all these questions and got a straight answer you would think you have a supporter rather than a 100% sceptic. 
See how it works!

----------


## woodbe

> Lets see how far you can get before asking the pertinent question that make all the rest redundant in respect of need to take "urgent" action on climate change.

  Hmm. Well, we can come back to that later. Seeing as we're on a roll, lets see if I can ask the right question.  :Smilie:  
We've got the basic physics agreed. I suspect you will use the low sensitivity loophole: 
Do you think that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2?

----------


## PhilT2

For me the question is not what you believe but what process you used to come to that conclusion. If you have a set of beliefs formulated by reading random blogs on the internet then you may well be right but you could never be trusted to supply rational opinions because the process used to develop them is flawed. Evidence of this lack of rigour appears regularly in the cut and pastes that show up in posts. If your theory ignores basic principles of science and well accepted data then you first need to disprove those before advancing the evidence for your own theory.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Hmm. Well, we can come back to that later. Seeing as we're on a roll, lets see if I can ask the right question.  
> We've got the basic physics agreed. I suspect you will use the low sensitivity loophole: 
> Do you think that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2?

  No, I believe the science says that without a feed back loop the amount is 1.5C  Now that gives it away doesn't it.

----------


## woodbe

> No, I believe the science says that without a feed back loop the amount is 1.5C  Now that gives it away doesn't it.

  Equilibrium climate sensitivity includes feedbacks. 
Do you think that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2?

----------


## intertd6

> Equilibrium climate sensitivity includes feedbacks. 
> Do you think that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2?

  http://www.americanthinker.com/%231%...rthHistory.gif
computer says no, from past history it will never happen.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Equilibrium climate sensitivity includes feedbacks. 
> Do you think that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2?

  no

----------


## woodbe

> no

  Haha. I guess I knew that.  :Smilie:  
You claim to accept all the scientific bases which are scientific conclusions based on observation and research, yet instead of continuing you drop a u-turn and embrace a conclusion not supported by scientific observation or research. To be fair, I guess you're not as far down the track as others who have posted here.   
From Nature: Making sense of paleoclimate sensitivity 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Haha. I guess I knew that.  
> You claim to accept all the scientific bases which are scientific conclusions based on observation and research, yet instead of continuing you drop a u-turn and embrace a conclusion not supported by scientific observation or research. To be fair, I guess you're not as far down the track as others who have posted here.   
> From Nature: Making sense of paleoclimate sensitivity 
> woodbe.

  nice colours, perhaps you can enlighten us with what you think it means, starting with the scale.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

Well that threw a blanket over the parrot cage.
regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

> nice colours, perhaps you can enlighten us with what you think it means, starting with the scale.
> regards inter

  Just not sure what you want to know here, the link to the paper works for me. I don't have access to the full article so I can't help with any detail but this study is like a number of others that look at past events where a doubling of CO2 occurred (either as a forcing or feedback) and the resultant temp increase was in the 2-4.5C range, as shown on the scale.

----------


## johnc

Must admit the link worked for me as well, nothing complicated about the scale especially if you read the link, perhaps Inter is just confused by the presentation of the graph and is thrown by the colours. I'm being quite serious sometimes something simple can appear otherwise if the mind has been thrown by something it wasn't expecting.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...sometimes something simple can appear otherwise if the mind has been thrown by something it wasn't expecting.

  ...perhaps Inter took the blanket off his parrot?    :Doh:

----------


## intertd6

aha the parrots have woken up. Only took 2 days
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> I dont know where you get your data of convenience from but it doesn't match the recognised data that indicates the global temperature has risen from the little ice age. No need to repeat what i said about the CO2 increases, somewhere I have a photo that I took of the first ice core being recovered at Law dome.
> regards inter

  just found this storage.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

That's definitely Antarctica.  It's upside down... :Blush7:  
Thing is though...even being in the right place at the right time doesn't necessarily make you right.  Regardless...very envious of your experience, Inter.

----------


## PhilT2

> That's definitely Antarctica.  It's upside down... 
> Thing is though...even being in the right place at the right time doesn't necessarily make you right.  Regardless...very envious of your experience, Inter.

  Likewise, and on the subject of right or wrong, care to comment on Jaworowski's theory that antarctic core samples are too contaminated by drilling fluids to give valid CO2 levels?

----------


## intertd6

Nobody knows what's right or wrong yet, this was just something to gaze over in the interval, do you know what the fluid they used was ? I'll give you a hint, it's very toxic.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...do you know what the fluid they used was ? I'll give you a hint, it's very toxic.

  
Water.  Awful stuff.  Lethal to a decent whisky.  Even worse, adding it to soda water drives out all the bubbles... 
Mind you...it does have a place.  Ever tried making a coffee without water?  Nearest I got to success was dropping a heaped teaspoon or two of Moccona (and another of sugar) into a shot of vodka...

----------


## johnc

> Water.  Awful stuff.  Lethal to a decent whisky.  Even worse, adding it to soda water drives out all the bubbles... 
> Mind you...it does have a place.  Ever tried making a coffee without water?  Nearest I got to success was dropping a heaped teaspoon or two of Moccona (and another of sugar) into a shot of vodka...

  Yet a drop of spring water into a single malt brings out the flavour.

----------


## intertd6

> Water.  Awful stuff.  Lethal to a decent whisky.  Even worse, adding it to soda water drives out all the bubbles... 
> Mind you...it does have a place.  Ever tried making a coffee without water?  Nearest I got to success was dropping a heaped teaspoon or two of Moccona (and another of sugar) into a shot of vodka...

   No, they didn't use water but a toxic chemical with a high specific gravity & a freezing point below the constant ice sheet temperature of -21'C. The fluids only task was to resist the crushing force of the ice closing the bore hole.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

The heading is self explanatory Empirical / Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> The heading is self explanatory Empirical / Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change.
> regards inter

   

> Leighton Steward is a geologist, environmentalist, author, and retired energy industry executive.

  LOL 
No recent science to quote inter? Just retired energy industry executive's blogs? 
Here's a recap for your mate to ponder in his energy industry executive retirement:    
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The heading is self explanatory Empirical / Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change.
> regards inter

  True...yet the content is still retarded.  Still...if it floats your boat then all the power to you.  
Personally I think this heading is self explanatory too and the content is merely for the bamboozled rather than retarded Climate change: A guide for the perplexed - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist 
...and this one is stuck behind a paywall but remains well worth a read through Climate slowdown: The world won't stop warming - environment - 05 December 2013 - New Scientist

----------


## intertd6

> LOL 
> No recent science to quote inter? Just retired energy industry executive's blogs? 
> Here's a recap for your mate to ponder in his energy industry executive retirement:    
> woodbe.

  so someone who has support from the other side is putting up proven past observation facts to counter the less than honest politicians propaganda machine who's aim in life is a power trip which is being paid for by us. To those not blinded by the social instincts to follow leaders or a collective so called funded experts guesses blindly when on the surface their best guesses are failing sadly & it's the Y2K bug & thousands of other sky is falling paranoia crazes all over again.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> it's the Y2K bug & thousands of other sky is falling paranoia crazes all over again.

  I guess ignorance is bliss.  
Having spent several months y2k bug squashing I don't share the view expressed. The media made a lot of noise about y2k which alarmed the susceptible members of the public, sure. The bugs were real, and like any preventative maintenance the sensible approach was taken by most. Media being media, they are now claiming it was nothing, but it was nothing because action was taken.  
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

> I guess ignorance is bliss.  
> Having spent several months y2k bug squashing I don't share the view expressed. The media made a lot of noise about y2k which alarmed the susceptible members of the public, sure. The bugs were real, and like any preventative maintenance the sensible approach was taken by most. Media being media, they are now claiming it was nothing, but it was nothing because action was taken.  
> woodbe.

  Don't try that reality nonsense round here, we won't wear it. Y2K was a secret plot by the illuminati lizard men and the UN to seize power and install a one world socialist government. We know it was and none of your fact based propaganda will ever convince us otherwise. 
And just because intertd6's link says that last time the world warmed the sea level rose 19ft, that doesn't mean when it warms this time the same will happen, because heat doesn't cause ice to melt and the extra water will not cause the oceans to rise. You can't make us believe basic maths or the laws of physics if we don't want to.

----------


## intertd6

> Don't try that reality nonsense round here, we won't wear it. Y2K was a secret plot by the illuminati lizard men and the UN to seize power and install a one world socialist government. We know it was and none of your fact based propaganda will ever convince us otherwise. 
> And just because intertd6's link says that last time the world warmed the sea level rose 19ft, that doesn't mean when it warms this time the same will happen, because heat doesn't cause ice to melt and the extra water will not cause the oceans to rise. You can't make us believe basic maths or the laws of physics if we don't want to.

   The last time the earth warmed greater than today's temp around 6000 years ago the sea levels were lower than present day, oh dear there's another myth sunk. Then the temp fell & the ocean levels still raised. Oh dear then that's another myth sunk. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/ 
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> I guess ignorance is bliss.  
> Having spent several months y2k bug squashing I don't share the view expressed. The media made a lot of noise about y2k which alarmed the susceptible members of the public, sure. The bugs were real, and like any preventative maintenance the sensible approach was taken by most. Media being media, they are now claiming it was nothing, but it was nothing because action was taken.  
> woodbe.

  while you were busy with the Y2K bug paranoia the rest of us were having a stress free relaxing time.
strangely enough it seems to be being repeated again with another paranoia.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> while you were busy with the Y2K bug paranoia the rest of us were having a stress free relaxing time.
> strangely enough it seems to be being repeated again with another paranoia.
> regards inter

    Calling it paranoia is a bit of an over reaction we had software at the time that needed a patch otherwise it would have reset itself to 1901. I'm not claiming the world would have stopped but it would have been a tad frustrating.

----------


## woodbe

> while you were busy with the Y2K bug paranoia the rest of us were having a stress free relaxing time.

  lol. Ignorance is indeed bliss. 
I spent the time analysing hundreds of thousands of lines of software source code, repairing it so that it worked correctly, then supervising unit testing the software to ensure the work was done to the required standard. No paranoia was involved, but an entire workforce employed in a national enterprise got to work through the y2k rollover without a hitch. And yes, there were multiple y2k bugs that would have rendered the system inoperable.  
It's the job of someone to be employed doing just this kind of work so that people like you can have a stress free relaxing time in total ignorance of the activity behind the scenes. Happy that it worked so well for all concerned and the ignorati maintained their status and failed to become aware of the nature and extent of the problem, that's the mark of a job well done. Bliss on  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

"The system" is a broad statement which basically means jack, in reality all that happened as predicted was the dates just ticked over to the start again. But this is just a subterfuge to cover the fact that nasa's own page referenced previously shows no correlation between the warming & sea levels in the last 10 or more thousand years & in fact shows the exact opposite.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> "The system" is a broad statement which basically means jack

  LOL To someone who doesn't know what they are talking about, sure.  :Tongue:  
Since you raised it, the 'system' in this case is a nationally networked enterprise computer system. It was tested for y2k, and as I previously described, testing revealed it would have multiple errors post 2000. Specifically, transactional data was corrupted under test (we are talking about thousands of order line items per day), along with multiple other failures that if left un-repaired would have brought the organisation to it's knees at start of trading on January 3, 2000.  
Like I said, ignorance is bliss. Thanks for being the example. Perhaps we should get back on topic? 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> LOL To someone who doesn't know what they are talking about, sure.  
> Since you raised it, the 'system' in this case is a nationally networked enterprise computer system. It was tested for y2k, and as I previously described, testing revealed it would have multiple errors post 2000. Specifically, transactional data was corrupted under test (we are talking about thousands of order line items per day), along with multiple other failures that if left un-repaired would have brought the organisation to it's knees at start of trading on January 3, 2000.  
> Like I said, ignorance is bliss. Thanks for being the example. Perhaps we should get back on topic? 
> woodbe.

  Thank goodness for that! is the subterfuge over now?

----------


## PhilT2

> The last time the earth warmed greater than today's temp around 6000 years ago the sea levels were lower than present day, oh dear there's another myth sunk. Then the temp fell & the ocean levels still raised. Oh dear then that's another myth sunk. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/ 
> regards inter

  Maybe you could go back and have another read of that. Last I heard the basic laws of physics were still in force. When temperature rises, water heats up and expands and ice melts. Your reality may be different.

----------


## woodbe

Speaking of the deniers, has anyone noticed what Reddit has been up to cleaning up it's science forum?  *Reddits science forum banned climate deniers. Why dont all newspapers do the same?                                *     

> After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it  became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor.  These problematic users were not the common internet trolls looking to  have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm  on reddit. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that  their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data  and conspiratorial thinking. They had no idea that the smart-sounding  talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual  climate science observer, plainly wrong. They were completely enamored  by the emotionally charged and rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on  talk radio and Fox News. 
>  As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians  were not capable of providing the science to support their skepticism  on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify  continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be  bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of  research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science  that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades  was routinely called into question. 
>  Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt,  while blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective  fact. Worst of all, they didnt even get the irony of quoting oil-funded  blogs that called university scientists biased.
>  The end result was a disservice to science and to rational  exploration, not to mention the scholarly audience we are proud to have  cultivated. When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate,  we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect  such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more  than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation. 
>  The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation. About a  year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers. When  a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be  issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your  comment isnt a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations  of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum.
>  As expected, several users reacted strongly to this. As a site,  reddit is passionately dedicated to free speech, so we expected  considerable blowback. But the widespread outrage we feared never  materialized, and the atmosphere greatly improved. 
>  We discovered that the disruptive faction that bombarded climate  change posts was actually substantially smaller than it had seemed. Just  a small handful of people ran all of the most offensive accounts. What  looked like a substantial group of objective skeptics to the outside  observer was actually just a few bitter and biased posters with more  opinions then evidence. 
>  Negating the ability of this misguided group to post to the forum  quickly resulted in a change in the culture within the comments. Where  once there were personal insults and bitter accusations, there is now  discussion of the relevant aspects of the research. Instead of (almost  comically) paranoid and delusional conspiracy theories, we have  knowledgeable users explaining complicated concepts to non-scientists  who are simply interested in understanding the research. While we wont  claim /r/science is perfect, users seem happy with the changes made.

  No doubt Reddit's actions will be trumpeted as censorship etc, but go take a look. It's a lot more civilised now than it was. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Maybe you could go back and have another read of that. Last I heard the basic laws of physics were still in force. When temperature rises, water heats up and expands and ice melts. Your reality may be different.

   My reality is the past data about how the temp fell & the oceans still increased in level, according to your absurd theory in this instance the sea levels should have dropped because of the basic laws of physics, which goes to show that basic the laws of physics your thinking of has nothing to do with it & have no relevance to solving the problem at hand, so much so the latest excuse for the global sea levels halting was due to retained rainfall on only one continent, what a joke.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

Using phrases such as 'absurd theory" is a dreadful defence when unable to explain yourself. heated water expands, there is nothing absurd about that it is not even a theory it is fact. if water levels dropped as temperature increased than explain why, it seems you are unable to do so but that does not justify poor behaviour.

----------


## woodbe

> My reality is the past data about how the temp fell & the oceans still increased in level

  Perhaps this will help:  Deglacial Meltwater Pulse 1B and Younger Dryas Sea Levels Revisited with Boreholes at Tahiti  *"Deglacial Meltwater Pulse 1B and Younger Dryas Sea Levels Revisited with Boreholes at Tahiti*   Edouard Bard*,Bruno Hamelin,Doriane Delanghe-Sabatier  
Abstract: 
Reconstructing sea-level changes during the last deglaciation provides a  way of understanding the ice dynamics that can perturb                         large continental ice sheets. The resolution of  the few sea-level records covering the critical time interval between  14,000                         and 9,000 calendar years before the present is  still insufficient to draw conclusions about sea-level changes  associated with                         the Younger Dryas cold event and the meltwater  pulse 1B (MWP-1B). We used the uranium-thorium method to date  shallow-living                         corals from three new cores drilled onshore in  the Tahiti barrier reef. No significant discontinuity can be detected in  the                         sea-level rise during the MWP-1B period. *The new  Tahiti sea-level record shows that the sea-level rise slowed down  during                         the Younger Dryas before accelerating again  during the Holocene.*" 
The article you reference states: "The rate of sea level rise slowed between 14,000 and 12,000 years ago  during the Younger Dryas cold period and was succeeded by another surge" 
The Younger Dryas is generally considered a Northern Hemisphere event which would help explain why sea level continued to rise at a slower pace. Read this: New clue to how last ice age ended 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Using phrases such as 'absurd theory" is a dreadful defence when unable to explain yourself. heated water expands, there is nothing absurd about that it is not even a theory it is fact. if water levels dropped as temperature increased than explain why, it seems you are unable to do so but that does not justify poor behaviour.

   You guys just need to separate a science lab experiment showing what happens when the variables are minor instead of something so absurdly complex, which may have variables yet to be recognised.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Perhaps this will help:  Deglacial Meltwater Pulse 1B and Younger Dryas Sea Levels Revisited with Boreholes at Tahiti  *"Deglacial Meltwater Pulse 1B and Younger Dryas Sea Levels Revisited with Boreholes at Tahiti*   Edouard Bard*,Bruno Hamelin,Doriane Delanghe-Sabatier  
> Abstract: 
> Reconstructing sea-level changes during the last deglaciation provides a  way of understanding the ice dynamics that can perturb                         large continental ice sheets. The resolution of  the few sea-level records covering the critical time interval between  14,000                         and 9,000 calendar years before the present is  still insufficient to draw conclusions about sea-level changes  associated with                         the Younger Dryas cold event and the meltwater  pulse 1B (MWP-1B). We used the uranium-thorium method to date  shallow-living                         corals from three new cores drilled onshore in  the Tahiti barrier reef. No significant discontinuity can be detected in  the                         sea-level rise during the MWP-1B period. *The new  Tahiti sea-level record shows that the sea-level rise slowed down  during                         the Younger Dryas before accelerating again  during the Holocene.*" 
> The article you reference states: "The rate of sea level rise slowed between 14,000 and 12,000 years ago  during the Younger Dryas cold period and was succeeded by another surge" 
> The Younger Dryas is generally considered a Northern Hemisphere event which would help explain why sea level continued to rise at a slower pace. Read this: New clue to how last ice age ended 
> woodbe.

   It helped alright, it backed exactly what is referred to on the nasa site, What is your response to the peak in global temp around 6000 years ago, no matching increase in sea levels , then gradual cooling for thousands of years with a slow steady increase in sea levels?
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> It helped alright, it backed exactly what is referred to on the nasa site, What is your response to the peak in global temp around 6000 years ago, no matching increase in sea levels , then gradual cooling for thousands of years with a slow steady increase in sea levels?
> regards inter

  What exactly about this passage from your link do you not understand?   

> By the mid-Holocene period, 6000-5000 years ago, glacial melting had  essentially ceased, while ongoing adjustments of Earth's lithosphere due  to removal of the ice sheets gradually decreased over time.  Thus, sea  level continued to drop in formerly glaciated regions and rise in areas  peripheral to the former ice sheets.  At many low-latitude ocean islands  and coastal sites distant from the effects of glaciation, sea level  stood several meters higher than present during the mid-Holocene and has  been falling ever since. This phenomenon is due to lithospheric responses to changes in ice and  water loading.  Water is "siphoned" away from the central equatorial  ocean basins into depressed areas peripheral to long-gone ice sheets.   Loading by meltwater that has been added to the oceans also depresses  far-field continental shelves, tilting the shoreline upward and thus  lowering local sea level.  Over the past few thousand years, the rate of  sea level rise remained fairly low, probably not exceeding a few tenths  of a millimeter per year.

  There are several concepts there to absorb, read and research. Take your time rather than jump to conclusions. You are correct in saying the system is complex, if it does not respond as expected to known physics there are more than likely other factors involved. Even more so, when we are looking at reconstructed temperatures and sea levels. If you are in denial of base physics, just say so and we can end this here.  :Wink:  
woodbe

----------


## johnc

> You guys just need to separate a science lab experiment showing what happens when the variables are minor instead of something so absurdly complex, which may have variables yet to be recognised.
> regards inter

  I haven't taken much interest in this but it would seem to me that in taking one single outcome (sea level) and linking it to only one of a multitude of factors (temperature) that would be part of this period you have simply jumped to a conclusion and that is an absurdly silly thing to do (using your way of words on this) :Wink:

----------


## intertd6

> What exactly about this passage from your link do you not understand?   
> There are several concepts there to absorb, read and research. Take your time rather than jump to conclusions. You are correct in saying the system is complex, if it does not respond as expected to known physics there are more than likely other factors involved. Even more so, when we are looking at reconstructed temperatures and sea levels. If you are in denial of base physics, just say so and we can end this here.  
> woodbe

  your only parroting unproven theories about this tiny last bit of mantle heaving, but hey someone put a lot of work into producing a paper for their phd which will need quite a bit more substantiation before it becomes common lore. But no mention of this theory still occurring in the present day to explain ocean levels rising, only a highly politicised co2 as the only cause.
well if the basic physics was correct the globe would be warmer by 4'C in the last century as predicted in the mid 1800s & they haven't gotten it right ever since, otherwise we'd be burning up as we speak.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> I haven't taken much interest in this but it would seem to me that in taking one single outcome (sea level) and linking it to only one of a multitude of factors (temperature) that would be part of this period you have simply jumped to a conclusion and that is an absurdly silly thing to do (using your way of words on this)

   Well silly me for seeing the absurdly simple trends which contradict myths. Don't forget to leave out something for Santa.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> Well silly me for seeing the absurdly simple trends which contradict myths. Don't forget to leave out something for Santa.
> regards inter

  Which begs the question in these politically correct times is it still OK to leave out sherry with the Christmas cake? we wouldn't want Santa booked for DUI.

----------


## woodbe

> your only parroting unproven theories about this tiny last bit of mantle heaving, but hey someone put a lot of work into producing a paper for their phd which will need quite a bit more substantiation before it becomes common lore. But no mention of this theory still occurring in the present day to explain ocean levels rising, only a highly politicised co2 as the only cause.
> well if the basic physics was correct the globe would be warmer by 4'C in the last century as predicted in the mid 1800s & they haven't gotten it right ever since, otherwise we'd be burning up as we speak.
> regards inter

  Well, that's a start. You appear to have picked up ONE of the concepts covered, but you also seem to have misread the details. Can you have another try? 
On this start, I think you should print it out and read it slowly at least ten times. Try a sentence at a time. Stuff you are spruiking doesn't match with what you claim to be reading.  :Confused:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Well, that's a start. You appear to have picked up ONE of the concepts covered, but you also seem to have misread the details. Can you have another try? 
> On this start, I think you should print it out and read it slowly at least ten times. Try a sentence at a time. Stuff you are spruiking doesn't match with what you claim to be reading.  
> woodbe.

   I'll see your 10 & raise you another 10 & it still won't make any difference because you seem to have lost the focus of what your on about, it seems beyond your comprehension of understanding because your just regurgitating waffle, it says a lot but means nothing much at all. And having being subjected to endless days, week & months of listening to wafflers go on & on & on, when a short sharp direct answer would have sufficed any normal person quickly comes to the conclusion that simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. 
Regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> I'll see your 10 & raise you another 10 & it still won't make any difference because you seem to have lost the focus of what your on about, it seems beyond your comprehension of understanding because your just regurgitating waffle, it says a lot but means nothing much at all. And having being subjected to endless days, week & months of listening to wafflers go on & on & on, when a short sharp direct answer would have sufficed any normal person quickly comes to the conclusion that simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. 
> Regards inter

  lol. Quoted for the irony. Have a look in the mirror. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> I'll see your 10 & raise you another 10 & it still won't make any difference because you seem to have lost the focus of what your on about, it seems beyond your comprehension of understanding because your just regurgitating waffle, it says a lot but means nothing much at all. And having being subjected to endless days, week & months of listening to wafflers go on & on & on, when a short sharp direct answer would have sufficed any normal person quickly comes to the conclusion that simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. 
> Regards inter

  You do seem to have a habit of jumping to conclusions and then having a great deal of difficulty supporting them or changing when on occasion you have clearly misunderstood. I guess ignoring the detail and going for a simplistic understanding is a good explanation of the workings of your mind. :Rolleyes:

----------


## intertd6

> lol. Quoted for the irony. Have a look in the mirror. 
> woodbe.

  I'm sure you perceive my couple of paragraphs that way. And that's all it takes to knock the wheels out from under you thin arguments which fit your perceived views which defy simple logic.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> I'm sure you perceive my couple of paragraphs that way. And that's all it takes to knock the wheels out from under you thin arguments which fit your perceived views which defy simple logic.
> regards inter

  lol. The paper quoted does not support the claim of myth. Instead of addressing that issue we see the usual response. Try posting your views on a denial site, you'll get away with it there with cheers all round.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> You do seem to have a habit of jumping to conclusions and then having a great deal of difficulty supporting them or changing when on occasion you have clearly misunderstood. I guess ignoring the detail and going for a simplistic understanding is a good explanation of the workings of your mind.

  so understanding the past data is jumping to conclusions, that's a good one!
as shown throughout the history of science the most complex things can be summarized in a couple of lines, Wannabes love to baffle with tedious detail & as an eminent physicist once said " if you can't explain it simply you don't understand it well enough" so unless your smarter than the bloke that said that, I think your reply isn't worth it the imaginary paper it's written on.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> lol. The paper quoted does not support the claim of myth. Instead of addressing that issue we see the usual response. Try posting your views on a denial site, you'll get away with it there with cheers all round.  
> woodbe.

  your starting to get the drift that it is just a paper, now all you have to do is sit back, wait some years & see if it can proven beyond doubt, that's the thing with papers, out of all the research maybe a tiny bit of it is worthwhile & adds to the understanding of the subject or a solid outcome, more than not nothing comes out of it other than someone having done the required research & being called a doctor at the end of it. You must be new to this not to understand how it goes trying to hang all your hopes on this sort of stuff.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> The last time the earth warmed greater than today's temp around 6000 years ago the sea levels were lower than present day, oh dear there's another myth sunk. Then the temp fell & the ocean levels still raised. Oh dear then that's another myth sunk. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/ 
> regards inter

   

> your starting to get the drift that it is just a paper, now all you have to do is sit back, wait some years & see if it can proven beyond doubt, that's the thing with papers, out of all the research maybe a tiny bit of it is worthwhile & adds to the understanding of the subject or a solid outcome, more than not nothing comes out of it other than someone having done the required research & being called a doctor at the end of it. You must be new to this not to understand how it goes trying to hang all your hopes on this sort of stuff.
> regards inter

  inter, it was YOUR post, YOUR link and YOUR conclusion of myth. Now, you're trying to school us on not jumping to conclusions. Your 'myth' hasn't ever been published because it's not even simple. It's beyond stupid to ignore known influences on sea level rise and conclude that the physics is wrong. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

I think 2014 will be a very good year.   

> News Media No Longer Interested In Climate Hysteria 
> 2013 marks the 17th year of no warming on the planet. Almost everything that could go wrong did go wrong for the cause of global warming. 2013 was the best of years for climate skeptics; the worst of years for climate change enthusiasts for whom any change  or absence of change  in the weather served as irrefutable proof of climate change. That governments and the public would abandon the duty to stop climate change was in their minds no more thinkable than Hell freezing over. Which the way things are going for them, may happen in 2014. Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, 20 December 2013

  Newsbytes: For Global Warming Campaigners, 2013 Was The Year From Hell | Watts Up With That?

----------


## PhilT2

On Friday the Abbott govt released a green paper on its Emissions Reduction Fund. Under this scheme the carbon farming initiative will be expanded with carbon credits being purchased by the govt at regular intervals so that those selling the credits will have a secure and regular income. Emissions Reduction Fund - Green Paper | Department of the Environment

----------


## Rod Dyson

> On Friday the Abbott govt released a green paper on its Emissions Reduction Fund. Under this scheme the carbon farming initiative will be expanded with carbon credits being purchased by the govt at regular intervals so that those selling the credits will have a secure and regular income. Emissions Reduction Fund - Green Paper | Department of the Environment

  With a bit of luck this will get canned or delayed a few years.  Then maybe we will be further down the track and find some common sense. 
As the globe hasn't warmed for 17 years, you would think that would be a bit of a hint!!

----------


## woodbe

> With a bit of luck this will get canned or delayed a few years.  Then maybe we will be further down the track and find some common sense. 
> As the globe hasn't warmed for 17 years, you would think that would be a bit of a hint!!

  Dunno where you get your information from Rod. It's been warming, just not as fast as before, or as fast as it will be.   
And, as mentioned here countless times, ocean heat has taken up the slack:   _Change in the heat content in the upper 2000 m of the worlds oceans. Source: NOAA Global ocean heat and salt content 
Worth reading: RealClimate: What ocean heating reveals about global warming _ I'm also looking forward to the advent of common sense in a few years._  
woodbe._

----------


## PhilT2

Maybe not some common sense but we can look foward to some policy changes from Abbott as he comes under pressure from his party over his dismal slide in the opinion polls. The chances of a double dissolution have dropped to zero with Labor ahead by a small margin. The bookies have the Liberals headed for certain defeat in the griffith by-election, their candidate is handicapped by having the full weight of Abbott on his back. And when the new senate takes over in July, we get to see what compromises Abbott will have to make to get the minority senators on side. 
Lectures from the fall meeting of the AGU are up online but require registration to access. There you can listen to real scientists talk about real science backed up with real research. I recommend the one by Richard Alley who has been working in the field for over thirty years. Or you can stick with blogs by TV weathermen; your choice.

----------


## intertd6

> inter, it was YOUR post, YOUR link and YOUR conclusion of myth. Now, you're trying to school us on not jumping to conclusions. Your 'myth' hasn't ever been published because it's not even simple. It's beyond stupid to ignore known influences on sea level rise and conclude that the physics is wrong. 
> woodbe.

  obviously your beyond schooling if you can make the connection in the past data provided, so much so you have to try say & that the slow steady ocean rise is caused by the upheaval of the mantle under previously glaciated areas, the trouble with that is where the mantle is depressed it lifts the mantle in another area, as the globe isn't compressible, everything is in equilibrium. The accepted facts about ocean level rise contributors other that fresh water is sedimentation deposition in the oceans, plus all that carbon too.
as said before about that ocean water energy graph, put a temperature increase in C' if you can instead of parroting something you don't understand, if it was relevant it would show a temperature increase in C'
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> obviously your beyond schooling if you can make the connection in the past data provided, so much so you have to try say & that the slow steady ocean rise is caused by the upheaval of the mantle under previously glaciated areas, the trouble with that is where the mantle is depressed it lifts the mantle in another area, as the globe isn't compressible, everything is in equilibrium. The accepted facts about ocean level rise contributors other that fresh water is sedimentation deposition in the oceans, plus all that carbon too.

  Once again you are making false statements about my posts. You don't give up do you? Please review and retract. 
I have pointed out that there are multiple concepts involved in sea level rise, and that your suggestions of myth do not reflect the papers you quote and are not supported by them. Your suggestion that I am making specific claims about mantle depression is nothing but fiction. It is *one* of the concepts in the linked papers, yes. 
You seem to have left out ocean heat changes as a source of sea level rise. How convenient.   

> as said before about that ocean water energy graph, put a temperature increase in C' if you can instead of parroting something you don't understand, if it was relevant it would show a temperature increase in C'
> regards inter

  lol. me parroting something I don't understand?  
I think the NOAA would have a fair handle on how to measure ocean heat content. You clearly are having problems accepting the facts around temperatures in the oceans between sea level and 2000m depth. Which temperature would you like them to show you in C when there are gradients, step changes and whatever over the depth of the measurements? This is not sea surface temperatures we are talking about. OHC is showing us the change in total stored energy as heat in the first 2000m of the oceans, measured in (Joules x 1022) and it's rising at a rate you clearly don't like. 
It is calculated using the following formula according to wikipedia:    - water density,  - sea water specific heat capacity, h2 - bottom depth, h1 - top depth,  - temperature profile. 
 It is entirely relevant and logical to measure a fluid body with mixed and variable temperature over it's depth like this. I can see why fake skeptics don't like it  :Sneaktongue:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> As the globe hasn't warmed for 17 years, you would think that would be a bit of a hint!!

  How's that working out for you Rod? Sure, you can pick a high year in the recent past and draw a line downhill to the current, but that doesn't describe the trend, which is what you are alluding to, isn't it? 
The next hot year, you know, the one coming up which will be warmer than 98 or whatever your current cherry pick is, will you retract your 'no warming' mantra just as easily as you raised it? No, I guess not.  :Rolleyes:  
December is not over yet so we don't have global numbers for it yet, but looking at November I can't see much cooling going on...   
That's called 'Hottest November on Record'. Doesn't look like your sinking no warming ship is going to float much longer, does it?  :Biggrin:  
If you want to see the trend line fitted to that chart, head over to Tamino's joint for a bit of schoolin' Smooth | Open Mind 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Once again you are making false statements about my posts. You don't give up do you? Please review and retract. 
> I have pointed out that there are multiple concepts involved in sea level rise, and that your suggestions of myth do not reflect the papers you quote and are not supported by them. Your suggestion that I am making specific claims about mantle depression is nothing but fiction. It is *one* of the concepts in the linked papers, yes. 
> You seem to have left out ocean heat changes as a source of sea level rise. How convenient.   
> lol. me parroting something I don't understand?  
> I think the NOAA would have a fair handle on how to measure ocean heat content. You clearly are having problems accepting the facts around temperatures in the oceans between sea level and 2000m depth. Which temperature would you like them to show you in C when there are gradients, step changes and whatever over the depth of the measurements? This is not sea surface temperatures we are talking about. OHC is showing us the change in total stored energy as heat in the first 2000m of the oceans, measured in (Joules x 1022) and it's rising at a rate you clearly don't like. 
> It is calculated using the following formula according to wikipedia:    - water density,  - sea water specific heat capacity, h2 - bottom depth, h1 - top depth,  - temperature profile. 
>  It is entirely relevant and logical to measure a fluid body with mixed and variable temperature over it's depth like this. I can see why fake skeptics don't like it  
> woodbe.

  still parroting stuff you don't understand because you can't fathom the fact that the atmosphere with its minuscule mass in comparison to the oceans has NO capacity of heat exchange to the oceans in 100 years let alone millennia. Seeing you claim to understand the stuff your expounding, pop up your calculation which shows & proves how long it would take the atmosphere at a temperature 4'C above today's temp' to raise the all the oceans temp' by say 0.5C' including all the variables.
If you link stuff you want to back up your argument then at least stand by it.
you must have had your head in the sand instead of seeing how the global temperature peaked 6000 years ago with no spike in ocean levels, then the temperature fell over thousands of years, again with no corresponding drop in ocean levels, blind Freddie can work out that your nice formula falls flat on its face when it comes to global reality.
regards inter

----------


## Farmer Geoff

Inter - this is hardly a forum on which to suggest that there is "NO" capacity for temperature exchange between air and water! This forum concentrates on building, design and physics and most readers would be aware of the relevance of thermal mass in any considerations of making a home comfortable in a particular climate. For instance, my house has 600 mm thick pise walls and that amounts to a lot of thermal mass and I can tell you that it gathers some warmth - from the air!  And we have numerous dams that are a lot warmer in summer than in winter - why? - from the air!  
So if air temperatures rise then so will water temps - maybe not as much but at least a bit!  Let's then discuss what impact that will have on ocean levels from expansion, on evaporation and increased humidity, changes in air turbulence, changes in oxygen levels in water, changes in stratification, etc.

----------


## intertd6

> Inter - this is hardly a forum on which to suggest that there is "NO" capacity for temperature exchange between air and water! This forum concentrates on building, design and physics and most readers would be aware of the relevance of thermal mass in any considerations of making a home comfortable in a particular climate. For instance, my house has 600 mm thick pise walls and that amounts to a lot of thermal mass and I can tell you that it gathers some warmth - from the air!  And we have numerous dams that are a lot warmer in summer than in winter - why? - from the air!  
> So if air temperatures rise then so will water temps - maybe not as much but at least a bit!  Let's then discuss what impact that will have on ocean levels from expansion, on evaporation and increased humidity, changes in air turbulence, changes in oxygen levels in water, changes in stratification, etc.

  you would be jumping to conclusions about what I said in my response, because I said " No capacity of heat exchange to the oceans in 100 hundred years let alone millennia " & not what you said. But please feel free to jump in & do the calculation I challenged woody to do if your actually a climate scientist in disguise. Of course the sun heats the oceans & land mass, the question is what is raising these masses above their normal temperatures & that influence is not the change of the air temperature of around 0.8C' over the last century.
you must be in the wrong section of the forum because anything can be debated in this section.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

Now where have I heard all this before??  

> Nothing is done about the many lies, of course, because the many lies are the Party Line, and no one ever went to jail who safely parroted the Party Line. 
> The Science Is Settled! Theres A Consensus! A 97.1% Consensus! Doubters Are As Bad As Holocaust Deniers! Global Temperature Is Rising Dangerously! It Is Warmer Now Than For 1400 Years! Well, 400 Years, Anyway! Tree-Rings Reliably Tell Us So! The Rate Of Global Warming Is Getting Ever Faster! Global Warming Caused Superstorm Sandy! And Typhoon Haiyan! And 1000 Other Disasters! Arctic Sea Ice Will All Be Gone By 2013! OK, By 2015! Or Maybe 2030! Santa Claus Will Have Nowhere To Live! Cuddly Polar Bears Are Facing Extinction! Starving Polar Bears Will Start Eating Penguins! Himalayan Glaciers Will All Melt By 2035! Er, Make That 2350! Millions Of Species Will Become Extinct! Well, Dozens, Anyway! Sea Level Is Rising Dangerously! It Will Rise 3 Feet! No, 20 Feet! No, 246 Feet! There Will Be 50 Million Climate Refugees From Rising Seas By 2010! OK, Make That 2020! The Oceans Will Acidify! Corals Will Die! Global Warming Kills! There Is A One In Ten Chance Global Warming Will End The World By 2100! We Know What Were Talking About! We Know Best! We Are The Experts! You Can Trust Us! Our Computer Models Are Correct! The Science Is Settled! Theres A Consensus!

  Monckton: Of meteorology and morality | Watts Up With That? 
Merry Christmas Guys.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> How's that working out for you Rod? Sure, you can pick a high year in the recent past and draw a line downhill to the current, but that doesn't describe the trend, which is what you are alluding to, isn't it? 
> The next hot year, you know, the one coming up which will be warmer than 98 or whatever your current cherry pick is, will you retract your 'no warming' mantra just as easily as you raised it? No, I guess not.  
> December is not over yet so we don't have global numbers for it yet, but looking at November I can't see much cooling going on...   
> That's called 'Hottest November on Record'. Doesn't look like your sinking no warming ship is going to float much longer, does it?  
> If you want to see the trend line fitted to that chart, head over to Tamino's joint for a bit of schoolin' Smooth | Open Mind 
> woodbe.

  Right!  Trust me its true!!  November 2013 Russian

----------


## intertd6

> Now where have I heard all this before?? Monckton: Of meteorology and morality | Watts Up With That? 
> Merry Christmas Guys.

  after a while the AGW propaganda becomes just blah, blah blah, blah blah.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> after a while the AGW propaganda becomes just blah, blah blah, blah blah.
> regards inter

    
Truth sure hurts.

----------


## PhilT2

Believe what you want, just don't forget to keep sending money to Mr Abbott. He's anxious to get his direct action plan underway in July. And if you're keen on Lord Monckton's views perhaps you can be one of the lucky few who get to hear him speak on his Australian tours. No need to rush to book, I hear that there's usually plenty of room. If you're lucky perhaps he'll not just share his views on climate change but also his ideas on how the UN is plotting to set up a one world socialist government. And only $25 a ticket; what a bargain! 
One born every minute.

----------


## woodbe

> still parroting stuff you don't understand because you can't fathom the fact that the atmosphere with its minuscule mass in comparison to the oceans has NO capacity of heat exchange to the oceans in 100 years let alone millennia.

  Just pointing out that the oceans heat is accumulating, but not through conduction with the atmosphere. Transfer of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere is not relevant to my previous post, and I don't think I have read anyone claiming the ocean heat content comes from the atmospheric heat content in any significant way. 
But I'm not surprised. Each time inter's vague posts are held up to the light, he digs a non-sequitur argument out of the denialpile. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Right!  Trust me its true!!  November 2013 Russian

  Got a published paper link for that Rod?  
GISS is a GLOBAL temperature series. Russia is, well, Russia. Your WUWT mate claims a 1C step change around 1988/89, yet the Global series shows a continued increase since the late 1800's and no step change around that time. Even if your mate is correct, Russia ain't Global, so a conspiracy theory about Russia's temperature network doesn't kill off the global trend. 
The 'no warming' boat is sinking. Sure you want to stick with it? 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Believe what you want, just don't forget to keep sending money to Mr Abbott. He's anxious to get his direct action plan underway in July. And if you're keen on Lord Monckton's views perhaps you can be one of the lucky few who get to hear him speak on his Australian tours. No need to rush to book, I hear that there's usually plenty of room. If you're lucky perhaps he'll not just share his views on climate change but also his ideas on how the UN is plotting to set up a one world socialist government. And only $25 a ticket; what a bargain! 
> One born every minute.

  Absolutely! 
Not to mention his cure for AIDS.  :Rolleyes:  
Legitimate Sceptics wouldn't have a bar of him, he's firmly in the denial camp. He also won't debate Abraham or Hadfield because he knows that with a flat playing field he hasn't a chance in hell of selling his snake oil. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Just pointing out that the oceans heat is accumulating, but not through conduction with the atmosphere. Transfer of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere is not relevant to my previous post, and I don't think I have read anyone claiming the ocean heat content comes from the atmospheric heat content in any significant way. 
> But I'm not surprised. Each time inter's vague posts are held up to the light, he digs a non-sequitur argument out of the denialpile. 
> woodbe.

  If only you could just understand what you have just written, you have unwittingly denounced your AGW argument.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> If only you could just understand what you have just written, you have unwittingly denounced your AGW argument.
> regards inter

  Yet another non-sequitur, lol. 
Anyone who does not understand what I have written should consider the following diagram.  
Figure 5.6 The mean annual radiation and heatbalance of the Earth. From Houghton et             al., (1996: 58),             which used data from Kiehl and Trenberth (1996). 
Further information here: Introduction to Physical Oceanography : Chapter 5 - The Oceanic Heat Budget - The Oceanic Heat Budget   

> The major terms in the budget at the sea surface are:   Insolation QSW, the flux of       sunlight into the sea;Net Infrared Radiation QLW,         net flux of infrared radiation from the sea;Sensible Heat Flux QS, the       flux of heat out of the sea due to conduction;Latent Heat Flux QL, the flux         of heat carried by evaporated water; andAdvection QV, heat carried       away by currents.

  As you can see, the conductive transfer from the atmosphere to the oceans is not considered significant enough to have an entry. 
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

Woodbe, I think the part that inter struggles with is the backradiation section, a few in the anti AGW group don't accept all or part of the greenhouse effect. As an example see the website of the guy that Tamino explained how to do smoothing properly. The bit where he explains his beliefs on greenhouse gases is in the same section where he explains how the moon landings were fake and 9/11 was a CIA conspiracy.

----------


## woodbe

Phil, you could well be right.  :Smilie:  
With inter, we'll never know as he moves the goalposts with every post. This current sidetrack started with him claiming a myth where there was none, and he moved on from there. Don't know or expect that he will ever produce scientific support for the myth or any of the other rabbit holes he's run down:  'Myth' claim that sea level rise does not follow temperature  Y2K Denial  The 'unknown variables' defence.  The 'we will not engage in cognitive discussion' defence.  The 'your reference is not as good as my non-existent reference to support my myth' defence.  The 'science and climate are not complex' defence.  The 'arguments can be won by claiming the opposition has lost focus' defence.  The 'play the man' defence.  The 'science and climate are not complex' defence MkII.  The 'wait awhile, something might show up to support my myth claim' defence.  The 'claim woodbe said something he didn't' straw man defence. (at least this didn't include alteration of my post this time)  The strange 'woodbe thinks the ocean warms via transfer from the atmosphere' defence. (this includes another example of the above straw man defence)  The ironic 'don't jump to conclusions' defence.  The 'play the man' defence MkII, otherwise known as 'my opponent does not know what he is talking about, but I offer no evidence' defence. 
Waiting with bated breath for the next instalment.  :Biggrin:  
Happy New Year!  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe

----------


## PhilT2

Anyone wanting to learn more about the greenhouse effect/back radiation should check out the "Science of Doom" website. Back Radiation | The Science of Doom 
This issue seems to divide the anti AGW people down the middle. The scientists who work in climate science, eg Spencer, Lindzen, all accept the greenhouse effect but others, for example Claes Johnson, who is a professor of math, do not. Not being able to agree on some basic principles of physics seriously damages the credibility of the whole group in my opinion.

----------


## woodbe

> Anyone wanting to learn more about the greenhouse effect/back radiation should check out the "Science of Doom" website. Back Radiation | The Science of Doom

  Thanks for the link PhilT2. Haven't come across that site before. 
The moderator has a refreshing outlook on comments, pity we can't have that here:   

> Can the people who think that the last 100 years of physics is wrong  please spend their time on other blogs and only come back when the  science world has accepted the big mistake.
>  I shall update the blog guidelines around this principle. Something like:This blog accepts the standard field of physics as  proven. Arguments which depend on overturning standard physics, e.g.  disproving quantum mechanics, are not interesting until such time as a  significant part of the physics world has accepted that there is some  merit to them. 
>  The moderator reserves the right to just capriciously delete comments  which use as their premise that standard textbook physics is plain  wrong.
>  This is aimed to reduce the continual stream of unscientific rubbish that gets placed here as comments. 
>  Those interested in such entertainingly bad ideas, just Google physics is wrong, quantum mechanics flaws and so on.

  lol. But then again, this thread would be reduced to just couple of pages long...  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Yet another non-sequitur, lol. 
> Anyone who does not understand what I have written should consider the following diagram.  
> Figure 5.6 The mean annual radiation and heatbalance of the Earth. From Houghton et             al., (1996: 58),             which used data from Kiehl and Trenberth (1996). 
> Further information here: Introduction to Physical Oceanography : Chapter 5 - The Oceanic Heat Budget - The Oceanic Heat Budget   
> As you can see, the conductive transfer from the atmosphere to the oceans is not considered significant enough to have an entry. 
> woodbe.

   That's good your going from parroting to rabbiting on now, with out grasping the most basic principals, let's look at your argument, your claiming now the atmosphere isn't heating the oceans, yet you produce graphs that the oceans are heating only to support your limp argument. The cause of oceans heating is solar radiation because it can't be the atmosphere. The greatest influence on the atmospheric temperature is the oceans. Now let's put this together for the not so blessed, the oceans are gaining heat, the oceans are heating the atmosphere.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Phil, you could well be right.  
> With inter, we'll never know as he moves the goalposts with every post. This current sidetrack started with him claiming a myth where there was none, and he moved on from there. Don't know or expect that he will ever produce scientific support for the myth or any of the other rabbit holes he's run down:  'Myth' claim that sea level rise does not follow temperature  Y2K Denial  The 'unknown variables' defence.  The 'we will not engage in cognitive discussion' defence.  The 'your reference is not as good as my non-existent reference to support my myth' defence.  The 'science and climate are not complex' defence.  The 'arguments can be won by claiming the opposition has lost focus' defence.  The 'play the man' defence.  The 'science and climate are not complex' defence MkII.  The 'wait awhile, something might show up to support my myth claim' defence.  The 'claim woodbe said something he didn't' straw man defence. (at least this didn't include alteration of my post this time)  The strange 'woodbe thinks the ocean warms via transfer from the atmosphere' defence. (this includes another example of the above straw man defence)  The ironic 'don't jump to conclusions' defence.  The 'play the man' defence MkII, otherwise known as 'my opponent does not know what he is talking about, but I offer no evidence' defence. 
> Waiting with bated breath for the next instalment.  
> Happy New Year!  
> woodbe

  Add:  The 'I haven't been reading what woodbe has been posting and I'm accidentally agreeing with him' defence. 
Some of the graphs I've posted show that ocean heat is increasing faster than the atmospheric heat. I'm expecting inter to notice that soon.  :Biggrin:  
I take it that you now accept that we don't have to describe ocean heat as degrees C ? lol. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Add:  The 'I haven't been reading what woodbe has been posting and I'm accidentally agreeing with him' defence. 
> Some of the graphs I've posted show that ocean heat is increasing faster than the atmospheric heat. I'm expecting inter to notice that soon.  
> I take it that you now accept that we don't have to describe ocean heat as degrees C ? lol. 
> woodbe.

  I see your firmly in the less than blessed bracket, really its almost unbelievable especially after this one "Some of the graphs I've posted show that ocean heat is increasing faster than the atmospheric heat." mmmmmm now what is causing this. ??? CO2 ??
you will find that i have never disputed the heating of the oceans, only the ridiculous ones that try to use this technobabble propaganda to support some link to CO2 causing global warming.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> I see your firmly in the less than blessed bracket, really its almost unbelievable especially after this one "Some of the graphs I've posted show that ocean heat is increasing faster than the atmospheric heat." mmmmmm now what is causing this. ??? CO2 ??
> regards inter

  Add: 
The 'Never answer a direct question posed by your opponent, respond with another question and don't forget to play the man' defence. 
Oceanography texts suggest that the heat budget of the oceans should be in balance, otherwise they will gain heat. eg: Introduction to Physical Oceanography : Chapter 5 - The Oceanic Heat Budget - The Oceanic Heat Budget 
If the oceans are gaining heat, (sure looks like they are), it's certainly plausible they are exposed to a radiative forcing that is pushing their heat budget out of whack. Rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is an example of a radiative forcing.   
Perhaps inter has a better idea?  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> you will find that i have never disputed the heating of the oceans

  What's this about then?:   

> 

    

> as said before about that ocean water energy graph, put a temperature  increase in C' if you can instead of parroting something you don't  understand, if it was relevant it would show a temperature increase in  C'
> regards inter

  Sure looks like a dispute, requesting a degrees C number for a layered and mixed body of water gaining heat that is routinely measured and MJ calculated in the manner described in one of my 'parroting something I don't understand' posts.  :Tongue:   
Try to answer directly. People want to know.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

LOL what a joke!   

> The ABCs 7.30 last night filed an astonishing report on the ship load of warmist scientists and journalists trapped by ice as they tried to prove global warming was melting Antarctica.

  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

----------


## andy the pm

Your quite right Rod, the article you have linked to is a joke, but we have come to expect that from Mr Bolt...

----------


## woodbe

> Your quite right Rod, the article you have linked to is a joke, but we have come to expect that from Mr Bolt...

  Apparently, even Bolt has problems reading the english language...   

> _MARGOT ONEILL: Professor Turney and his co-leader Dr Chris Fogwell  are selecting PhD students for the expedition to help record thousands  of measurements, assessing signs of climate change on the frozen continent_

  Somehow, Bolt thinks taking scientific data meaurements in Antarctica equals:   

> warmist scientists and journalists trapped by ice as they tried to *prove global warming was melting Antarctica*

  I guess Scientist's should take note. If they take measurements, they are warmists! lol I guess that fits with Bolt's worldview pretty well based on his performance to date. 
There is plenty of information about what measurements are being done if you care to look in places other than Bolt's blog or WUWT. For instance, there is research being done on the relationship between bird populations and ocean temperatures:    
In any case, it's certainly amusing to watch the sceptics jump through hoops of their own denial to poke fun at the stuck ship. Even though they have been reminded since forever, they love to forget that weather is not climate at any time it suits them. Even Rod cannot help himself.  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> What's this about then?:      
> Sure looks like a dispute, requesting a degrees C number for a layered and mixed body of water gaining heat that is routinely measured and MJ calculated in the manner described in one of my 'parroting something I don't understand' posts.   
> Try to answer directly. People want to know.  
> woodbe.

  " you will find that i have never disputed the heating of the oceans, only the ridiculous ones that try to use this technobabble propaganda to support some link to CO2 causing global warming." 
There you go, find something I have said that disputes this statement anywhere in this debate, I would consider myself to be delusional to be finding something that was so simply said to have a meaning your coming at.
now with your parroted figures above why have the average global temperatures not increased in the last 16 years when according to you & your belief you have the parroted proof that it should be ever increasing.
ps the last column of the above table gives the sham away as politics & not science.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Apparently, even Bolt has problems reading the english language...   
> Somehow, Bolt thinks taking scientific data meaurements in Antarctica equals:   
> I guess Scientist's should take note. If they take measurements, they are warmists! lol I guess that fits with Bolt's worldview pretty well based on his performance to date. 
> There is plenty of information about what measurements are being done if you care to look in places other than Bolt's blog or WUWT. For instance, there is research being done on the relationship between bird populations and ocean temperatures:    
> In any case, it's certainly amusing to watch the sceptics jump through hoops of their own denial to poke fun at the stuck ship. Even though they have been reminded since forever, they love to forget that weather is not climate at any time it suits them. Even Rod cannot help himself.  
> woodbe.

  Mr bolt isn't the only journalist taking the p*ss out of the irony of this expedition being stuck in some pack ice! what will be really ironic if the vessel gets the guts crushed out of it & sinks. 
Regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> " you will find that i have never disputed the heating of the oceans, only the ridiculous ones that try to use this technobabble propaganda to support some link to CO2 causing global warming." 
> There you go, find something I have said that disputes this statement anywhere in this debate, I would consider myself to be delusional to be finding something that was so simply said to have a meaning your coming at.
> now with your parroted figures above why have the average global temperatures not increased in the last 16 years when according to you & your belief you have the parroted proof that it should be ever increasing.
> ps the last column of the above table gives the sham away as politics & not science.
> regards inter

  lol. 
So please explain your need for degrees C. It's not a difficult question. You claim to accept ocean warming, but it is not represented by a single measure of degrees C for the reasons I have already stated. If you accept warming, why did you pick a fight over the units? 
Who says the average global temperatures in the last 16 years are relevant in the climate context? The deniers? Do a bit of research and you will find that 25 years is about the minimum useful span of years, and if you plot that on a yearly average graph, it doesn't look as pretty as you think:     
Sure, your 16 year cherry pick doesn't have as steep a slope, but it isn't flat either:   
But here's the one you're looking for:   
Oh yea, we're in for an ice age! LOL 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Mr bolt isn't the only journalist taking the p*ss out of the irony of this expedition being stuck in some pack ice! what will be really ironic if the vessel gets the guts crushed out of it & sinks. 
> Regards inter

  About now, the Russian vessel has only got it's maritime crew aboard as the scientists, volunteers and tourists have already been transferred to the Aurora Australis. So your spiteful wishes are all to nought other than displaying a vindictive streak best kept to yourself.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> lol. 
> So please explain your need for degrees C. It's not a difficult question. You claim to accept ocean warming, but it is not represented by a single measure of degrees C for the reasons I have already stated. If you accept warming, why did you pick a fight over the units? 
> Who says the average global temperatures in the last 16 years are relevant in the climate context? The deniers? Do a bit of research and you will find that 25 years is about the minimum useful span of years, and if you plot that on a yearly average graph, it doesn't look as pretty as you think:     
> Sure, your 16 year cherry pick doesn't have as steep a slope, but it isn't flat either:   
> But here's the one you're looking for:   
> Oh yea, we're in for an ice age! LOL 
> woodbe.

   Do you think I'm dim enough not to see the middle graph doesn't show an average line from now back 16 years, you just don't have an answer in the long run.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Do you think I'm dim enough not to see the middle graph doesn't show an average line from now back 16 years, you just don't have an answer in the long run.
> regards inter

  Hi Inter, 
I'll answer your question if you answer mine.  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> About now, the Russian vessel has only got it's maritime crew aboard as the scientists, volunteers and tourists have already been transferred to the Aurora Australis. So your spiteful wishes are all to nought other than displaying a vindictive streak best kept to yourself.  
> woodbe.

  are you for real!!! I would consider myself a total idiot coming to an assertion like that from statement similar to what I said, I have a vivid imagination but it doesn't get that ridiculous.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Hi Inter, 
> I'll answer your question if you answer mine.  
> woodbe.

  what's really funny is somebody only has to below under average to be brighter than me.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> are you for real!!! I would consider myself a total idiot coming to an assertion like that from statement similar to what I said, I have a vivid imagination but it doesn't get that ridiculous.
> regards inter

  Sure. You found it 'really ironic if the vessel gets the guts crushed out of it & sinks'  
The vessel had 70 odd souls on it that would likely perish in those circumstances. That is not imagination, it's fact. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> what's really funny is somebody only has to below under average to be brighter than me.
> regards inter

  So you cannot answer the question even with your 'below under average'? 
Your call. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

Moving on...  2013 was hottest year on record in Australia, Bureau of Meteorology says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   

> Australia has just sweltered through its hottest year on record, according to the Bureau of Meteorology. 
> Average  temperatures were 1.20 degrees Celsius above the long-term average of  21.8C, breaking the previous record set in 2005 by 0.17C, the bureau  said in its Annual Climate Statement. 
> All states and territories  recorded above average temperatures in 2013, with Western Australia,  Northern Territory and South Australia all breaking annual average  temperature records. 
> The country recorded its hottest day on January 7 - a month which also saw the hottest week and hottest month on record.  
> A  new record was set for the number of consecutive days the national  average temperature exceeded 39C  seven days between January 2 and 8,  2013, almost doubling the previous record of four consecutive days in  1973. 
> The highest temperature recorded during 2013 was 49.6C at  Moomba in South Australia on January 12, which was the highest  temperature in Australia since 1998. 
> Australian temperatures have warmed approximately 1C since 1950, consistent with global climate trends.  
> Globally, each of the past 13 years since 2001 have ranked among the 14 warmest on record.

  woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Sure. You found it 'really ironic if the vessel gets the guts crushed out of it & sinks'  
> The vessel had 70 odd souls on it that would likely perish in those circumstances. That is not imagination, it's fact. 
> woodbe.

  it is hilarious how you can interpret a simple statement & twist it in a demented way to suit your cause, quite logical though when one thinks about how you can interpret political propaganda as proven science, I suppose mass hysteria knows no limits to its victims nor boundaries than can be crossed when confronted with a perceived threat.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> So you cannot answer the question even with your 'below under average'? 
> Your call. 
> woodbe.

  what question would that be ?  
Besides you will find I asked quite a few questions, only to be provided in most cases with material that evades the initial question details which leaves the question unanswered, the glaring one is the graph trying to disprove my statement of no warming over the last 16 years, you can start there by simply inputting the correct years to provide the correct median line to support your illusion that there has been warming. Somebody tried that slight of hand trick before & failed remember.
yes someone only has to be under average to be brighter than me, yet it is so easy to trounce the parroted stuff you produce & still it comes with gusto.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Moving on...  2013 was hottest year on record in Australia, Bureau of Meteorology says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   
> woodbe.

   the australian  weather was warm last year as the records show, even though the global average has basically been level for the last 16 years.
The question is are you looking for people who don't acknowledge the fact that the has globe has warmed 0.8'C over the last 100 years, because if are you appear to be in the wrong place, you will find quite a few who dispute that CO2 is the cause of this warming & are not happy about the prospect of paying a tax on this political ruse though. 
While you were digging a hole for yourself, you forgot why you were digging so feverishly in the first place.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> what question would that be ?

  The question at the top of the post you quoted and asked your question about the graphics. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> the glaring one is the graph trying to disprove my statement of no warming over the last 16 years, you can start there by simply inputting the correct years to provide the correct median line to support your illusion that there has been warming.

  That is the question I said I'd answer. 
You first.  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> That is the question I said I'd answer. 
> You first.  
> woodbe.

  If you want to go down this silly path, how about putting a temperature to your ocean energy graph which was asked maybe a thousand posts ago (plus a few others), why? Because it will quickly show the scale of the energy increase relevant to a temperature increase, like how many joules of ocean energy increase equates to 1 degree of ocean temperature increase.
 Now remember I have a very short attention span when dealing protagonists & I'm easily confused so I still don't know what your on about in regards to the question you ask.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> why? Because it will quickly show the scale of the energy increase relevant to a temperature increase, like how many joules of ocean energy increase equates to 1 degree of ocean temperature increase.

  Oh I see, you would like to show that the temperature increase in the oceans is minimal, (like a degree or so) to suit your own worldview. 
specific heat capacity for _water_ = 4.1813 _J_/(g*degC)
specific heat capacity for _dry air_ = 1.006 _J_/(g*degC)  
Density of pure water is 1000g/L
Density of dry air at 1 atmosphere an 0C is 1.294g/L 
If you do the sums, it takes *4,181 Joules* to heat a litre of water by 1C
A litre of dry air takes about *1.3 Joules* to heat by 1C 
Quite clearly, it is far more relevant to describe the heat content of the oceans in Joules than in degrees C because the differences in their specific gravities and specific heat capacities. Unless you wish to understate the importance of all that energy going into the oceans, which apparently some people do, but not any publishing scientists. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Do you think I'm dim enough not to see the middle graph doesn't show an average line from now back 16 years, you just don't have an answer in the long run.
> regards inter

  Ok, so now can you explain what the problem you have with this graph is, so I can answer your question:   
Perhaps you think I have not been accurate enough with the 16 years, so I have found that woodfortrees has a 'last' function in months, so I can specify months exactly. 
16x12=192 
Perhaps this is what you are looking for?   
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Ok, so now can you explain what the problem you have with this graph is, so I can answer your question:   
> Perhaps you think I have not been accurate enough with the 16 years, so I have found that woodfortrees has a 'last' function in months, so I can specify months exactly. 
> 16x12=192 
> Perhaps this is what you are looking for?   
> woodbe.

  Your definitely a slippery character
you need to just input decent parameters to get the real graph, not the ones that suit your selected outcomes. http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/ha...m:1998/to:2014
as the data set you have selected is biased because of the stacked nature of where the data is taken from, which is also supplied by a proven biased provider, now from the averages shown on the graph I provided anybody can eye in a level to falling average line.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Your definitely a slippery character
> you need to just input decent parameters to get the real graph, not the ones that suit your selected outcomes. 
> as the data set you have selected is biased because of the stacked nature of where the data is taken from, which is also supplied by a proven biased provider, now from the averages shown on the graph I provided anybody can eye in a level to falling average line.
> regards inter

  Fixed your graph display for you inter. 
LOL. I think you should head down the optometrist and see if he can get the snake oil out of your eyes. 
Here is your graph with a linear (Ordinary Least Squares) trendline added:   
I will grant you that it is pretty flat for that particular date range, but falling? I think not.  
What happens if we pick a year earlier or later?   
(Sorry that this exposes your selection of the highest recent year as starting point)  :Cool:  
LOL x2. Your 1998 start date is a classic cherry pick in a period of years not considered relevant in climate science. 
And to put your cherry pick in context:   
At least we now know what you mean by 'average line'  :Smilie:  
Your dislike for hadcrutv4 is understood. It includes a greater coverage of the planet including areas of the Arctic that are warming. We should definitely ignore those places that are warming faster than average and only include those places warming slower than average. lol 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

So now after umpteen attempts we get to see no global warming for the last 16 years, the said organisations have a vested interest which is needed to support warming, so they just moved the goalposts when the data didn't match their predicted outcomes. 
Oh dear I wasn't quite as accurate as a computer with my eying in of the graphs median line, looks very level to my untrained eye, which backs up my claim of no warming for the last 16 years, not 15 or 17 years.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> my claim of no warming for the last 16 years, not 15 or 17 years.
> regards inter

  Thereby confirming that your start date is a cherry pick. I don't know if you intended to reveal that, but thanks for the confirmation.  :2thumbsup:  
If you think that 16 years is a realistic period to be using to assess changes in the climate, you might like this skeptic summary:   
Simple version: There is a lot of natural variability in the climate. If you choose too short a period, you risk looking at the results of variability, not climate change. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

Not need to produce a graph with nothing to do with my claim to embellish your lost cause, with my claim it shows the AGW model predictions being shown as pure speculation as theses predictions are falling outside even the lowest prediction forecast. 
Now back to the ocean energy graphs, why do you bring this data for any particular reason other than trying to support AGW? yet you provide evidence that atmospheric warming has no influence on ocean energy or temperature increases, this seems to be a good example of waffling on trying to baffle with irrelevant information, fortunately ( or unfortunately ) I have been waffled on to by wafflers which make you seem like an amateur in the field of waffling, but in your case for some unexplainable reason I seem to stay awake.
  regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Not need to produce a graph with nothing to do with my claim

  Which graph? The one that shows the only year your claim has any legs is an absolute cherry pick, or the one that shows your choice of year and data set is an absolute cherry pick? lol. 
You don't seem to be familiar with the term.   

> *Cherry picking*, *suppressing evidence*, or the *fallacy of incomplete evidence*  is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm  a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related  cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy  of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. [1] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.
>  The term is based on the perceived process of harvesting fruit, such as cherries.  The picker would be expected to only select the ripest and healthiest  fruits. An observer who only sees the selected fruit may thus wrongly  conclude that most, or even all, of the fruit is in such good condition.  A less common type of cherry picking is to gather only fruit that is  easy to harvest ignoring quality fruit higher up the tree. This can also  give observers a false impression about the quality of fruit on the  tree.[_citation needed_]
>  Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence"  tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known  personally, "selective use of evidence" rejects material unfavorable to  an argument, while a false dichotomy  picks only two options when more are available. Cherry picking can  refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study or survey will  give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even  completely contrary to actuality.[2]

  Regarding the ocean heat graphs, I have generally posted them in response to the repeated claims made here of 'no warming since xxxx' as they clearly show warming during the period in question. You will note that I am not cherry picking a date range to suit my worldview. I don't have to. It's only the deniers that have to carefully select particular years to demonstrate their scientifically unsupportable views.    

> you provide evidence that atmospheric warming has no influence on ocean energy or temperature increases

  Well, to be precise, atmospheric warming has little influence on ocean energy or temperature increases via direct conduction. I have pointed out that the ocean warming is a result of an imbalance in the ocean energy budget, most likely caused by changes in radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. I even provided a nice graphic showing the energy flows to enhance your understanding. Do I need to remind you what radiative forcings or greenhouse gases are?  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

*The search for global warming is put on ice*Comment(s)    Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on pinterest_shareShare on google_plusone_shareShare on linkedinShare on redditShare on stumbleuponShare on emailMore Sharing Services3       Photo: AP Photo/Australasian Antarctic Expedition/Footloose Fotography, Andrew Peacock Sunday, January 5, 2014 - Pithanthropy  The Human Conditioner by Jim Bozeman  *Jim Bozeman*Ask me a question.            
MILLINOCKET, Maine, January 5, 2014  There is poetic justice. A pseudo-scientific expedition into Antarctic waters was supposed to document the effects of global warming on the ice pack there. A funny thing happened on the way  the ship became frozen in Antarctic waters.
The crew and passengers aboard the Akademik Shokalskiy were forced to spend Christmas locked in sea ice some 100 nautical miles from French Antarctic station Dumont DUrville. The Xue Long, a Chinese icebreaker, attempted to reach them, but also became trapped.
Eventually a helicopter from the Xue Long ferried passengers to the Australian rescue ship Aurora Australis, which carried them to Hobart, Tasmania.
Since the carbon footprint of the expedition became a carbon bigfoot print, due to rescue attempts, environmentalists involved in the hapless endeavor will have to plant many more than the 800 trees they had originally pledged to offset the impact of their efforts.__________________________________________  __ JMB 
____________________________________________    
Read more: The search for global warming is put on ice | Washington Times Communities 
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

----------


## Marc

Monday, 06 January 2014 10:30*Global Warming Alarmism Melting as Record Cold Sweeps Nation*Written by  Alex Newman              font size   Print E-mail    
Record-breaking cold temperatures and snowfall across much of the United States and Canada have experts warning people to be careful, saying the frigid conditions could even kill those who are not prepared or properly dressed for the conditions. In some areas, factoring in wind chills, it could feel as cold as 70 degrees Fahrenheit below zero. At the earths poles, the situation is even more serious, with the highest amount of sea-ice cover since records began almost four decades ago. As their controversial theories melt down on the world stage, however, global-warming alarmists are not giving up yet.
Many climate experts around the world say the ongoing freeze is just the start of a new period of global cooling sparked largely by decreasing solar activity. More than a few scientists are even warning that the planet is headed for another Little Ice Age, with potentially devastating consequences for humanity. Even the discredited climate-alarmism apparatus at the United Nations has quietly lowered its wild temperature predictions. Political analysts, meanwhile, are now forecasting the imminent demise of what critics refer to as the cult of global-warming hysteria.
For government-backed global-warming alarmists, however, the record cold is, somehow, just more evidence of alleged man-made global warming, requiring, of course, carbon taxes and a planetary climate regime. Despite regularly seizing on every bit of bad weather as more evidence for their anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming theories, other alarmists are warning that the record-breaking cold should be ignored because it is weather, not climate. In desperation, a few alarmists have even hyped some warm weather in Australia to claim that their theories should still be taken seriously.

----------


## Marc

How much more of the global warming fraud do we must endure? 
How long until the wind turbines are demolished, the solar panels frown upon as a hobby and CO2 recognized for what it is, a life giving gas?  
How long until the scammers that promote reduction of CO2 as a "salvation" are dragged in court and thrown in gaol for fraud?
How long until the green movement is recognized as a terrorist organisation?

----------


## intertd6

"Well, to be precise, atmospheric warming has little influence on ocean energy or temperature increases via direct conduction. I have pointed out that the ocean warming is a result of an imbalance in the ocean energy budget, most likely caused by changes in radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. I even provided a nice graphic showing the energy flows to enhance your understanding. Do I need to remind you what radiative forcings or greenhouse gases are? "  
You can pull those graphs out where ever you get them from & believe them all you like, but the facts are they fail on every account because the global climate isn't following or resembling what the figures or calculations predict. Therefor they are inaccurate, but blind Freddie could see that that because of the historical records of the relevance of CO2 in the past history being linked to heating the atmosphere or oceans in the first instance.
so let's hear the excuse of why these so called proven precise graphs, formulas & predictions failing ??
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> so let's hear the excuse of why these so called proven precise graphs, formulas & predictions failing ??
> regards inter

  With your 'not warming for 16 years'? That's your proof that it is 'failing'? LOL. 
Please read the cherry pick quotation again. 
The temperature measurements have been criticised to hell and back, but when put under the microscope, they are found to be relevant.  
What is not relevant is pulling a 16 year period and claiming the science is faulty. 
If the science is faulty, publish your better theory and if it is actually found to be better and more correct than the existing theory then the old theory goes out the window. You'll need more than a cherry pick to do that though. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> With your 'not warming for 16 years'? That's your proof that it is 'failing'? LOL. 
> Please read the cherry pick quotation again. 
> The temperature measurements have been criticised to hell and back, but when put under the microscope, they are found to be relevant.  
> What is not relevant is pulling a 16 year period and claiming the science is faulty. 
> If the science is faulty, publish your better theory and if it is actually found to be better and more correct than the existing theory then the old theory goes out the window. You'll need more than a cherry pick to do that though. 
> woodbe.

  as I expected, pure waffle dancing around a simple question, there is no theory of mine but factual history, whereas the failure is of yours, what is the reason?
 Regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> as I expected, pure waffle dancing around a simple question, there is no theory of mine but factual history, whereas the failure is of yours, what is the reason?
>  Regards inter

  The reason is: 
No Failure. Your failure perception system is lacking calibration.  :Rolleyes:  
It's a good strategy to attack when your defences are down, but 16 years is not long enough to declare failure in a complex climate system. Claims of 'waffle' do not adequately address the points raised, which you have studiously ignored. 
If there is a failure here, it is that you have not explained your cherry picking:   

> my claim of no warming for the last 16 years, not 15 or 17 years.

    

> *Cherry picking*, *suppressing evidence*, or the *fallacy of incomplete evidence*   is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to  confirm  a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of  related  cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind  of fallacy  of selective attention, the most common example of which is  the confirmation bias. [1] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.
>  The term is based on the perceived process of harvesting fruit, such as cherries.   The picker would be expected to only select the ripest and healthiest   fruits. An observer who only sees the selected fruit may thus wrongly   conclude that most, or even all, of the fruit is in such good condition.   A less common type of cherry picking is to gather only fruit that is   easy to harvest ignoring quality fruit higher up the tree. This can also   give observers a false impression about the quality of fruit on the   tree.[_citation needed_]
>  Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence"   tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known   personally, "selective use of evidence" rejects material unfavorable to   an argument, while a false dichotomy   picks only two options when more are available. Cherry picking can   refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study or survey will   give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even   completely contrary to actuality.[2]

  Unless you have something new to add, we're just repeating ourselves ad nauseum here, give it a rest. 
Next!  :Smilie:  
woodbe

----------


## woodbe

Haha! 
I wonder what the response will be of all those skeptics who claimed that the Akademik Shokalskiy was stuck in ice because of a lack of global warming, now that the ice has melted and it is able to move again? Instant global warming?  :Biggrin:   Russian research vessel Akademik Shokalskiy freed as ice thaws in Antarctica - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
I do think they should have stayed on board though, it was just a matter of time until they were either freed by an icebreaker or conditions changed. They might have been following the tracks of Mawson, but definitely not the spirit.  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Haha! 
> I wonder what the response will be of all those skeptics who claimed that the Akademik Shokalskiy was stuck in ice because of a lack of global warming, now that the ice has melted and it is able to move again? Instant global warming?   Russian research vessel Akademik Shokalskiy freed as ice thaws in Antarctica - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
> I do think they should have stayed on board though, it was just a matter of time until they were either freed by an icebreaker or conditions changed. They might have been following the tracks of Mawson, but definitely not the spirit.  
> woodbe.

  LMAO  Well it is SUMMER after all.  That is what we would expect.  The irony is that they got stuck in the first place.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> How much more of the global warming fraud do we must endure? 
> How long until the wind turbines are demolished, the solar panels frown upon as a hobby and CO2 recognized for what it is, a life giving gas?  
> How long until the scammers that promote reduction of CO2 as a "salvation" are dragged in court and thrown in gaol for fraud?
> How long until the green movement is recognized as a terrorist organisation?

  
Did you put salt on your Corn Flakes again this morning?

----------


## Oldsaltoz

This e-mail arrived today?   CARBON DIOXIDE SOURCE 
Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist,  professor emeritus of  earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor  of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple  mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific  papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology. 
Born - 12  February 1946 (age 67) 
Residence  - Australia 
Nationality -  Australian 
Fields - Earth Science, Geology, Mining  Engineering 
Institutions - University of New England,University of  Newcastle,University of  Melbourne,University of Adelaide 
Alma mater -  University of New South Wales,Macquarie University 
Thesis - The pipe  deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia  (1976) 
Notable awards - Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal (2003),  Clarke Medal (2004) 
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come  From?
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read  his book you will agree, this is a good summary.  
PLIMER: "Okay, here's  the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland .  Since its first spewing of  volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made  in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of  you. 
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are  trying to suppress - its that vital chemical compound that every plant requires  to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal  life.  I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon  emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and  expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till  midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing  out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet  paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and  speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day  on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light  bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes  in just four days. 
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere  in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally  erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And  there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any  one time - EVERY DAY. 
I don't really want to rain on your parade too  much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the  Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere  than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. 
Yes,  folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over One year - think about it. 
Of  course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention  the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the 
well-recognized 800-year  global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely  insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver  lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush  fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate  your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And  it happens every year. 
Just remember that your government just tried to  impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused'  climate-change scenario.    
Hey, isnt it  interesting how they dont mention 'Global Warming' Anymore, but just 'Climate  Change' - you know why?
Its because the planet has  COOLED by 0.7 degrees in  the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their  pants down. 
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions  Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve  absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
It wont stop any volcanoes from  erupting, thats for sure.     But, hey,  relax......give the world a hug and have a nice day!"                             This email is free from viruses  and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

----------


## woodbe

Things must be really tough in denierland if they are resorting to spam. 
Plimer still getting his spending money from Heartland? Maybe he's using it to fund spam...  :Biggrin:  
If you are truly wondering about the effect of volcanic eruptions, there is lots to read here: Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview   

> *The most significant climate impacts from volcanic injections into the  stratosphere come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric    acid*, which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate    aerosols. The aerosols increase the reflection of radiation from the Sun back    into space, cooling the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere. Several  eruptions during the past century have caused a decline in the average  temperature at the Earth's surface of up to half a degree (Fahrenheit  scale) for periods of one to three years. The climactic eruption of    Mount Pinatubo on June 15, 1991, was one of the largest eruptions of the  twentieth century and injected a 20-million ton (metric scale) sulfur  dioxide cloud into the stratosphere at an altitude of more than 20    miles. The Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever    observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by    satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol    disturbance of the stratosphere in the twentieth century, though probably smaller    than the disturbances from eruptions of Krakatau in 1883 and Tambora in 1815.  Consequently, it was a standout in its climate impact and cooled the  Earth's surface for three years following the eruption, by as much    as 1.3 degrees at the height of the impact. Sulfur dioxide from the large  1783-1784 Laki fissure eruption in Iceland caused regional cooling of  Europe and North America by similar amounts for similar periods of    time.

  Regarding CO2 from volcanoes:  

> *Do the Earths volcanoes emit more CO2 than human  activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this  frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, No.* Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the worlds degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

  Interesting that Plimer has walked away from his previous claims regarding volcanic CO2 and now saying that volcanoes emit more than we save by reducing CO2 emissions. That may or may not be a fair comment, but the reality is we haven't really gotten started yet. 
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

We discussed Plimer's book on this forum a year or two ago. The only thing that has changed since then is that people have had more time to document the errors in the book. One of the best lists of the flaws is here. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...,d.dGI&cad=rja

----------


## intertd6

> The reason is: 
> No Failure. Your failure perception system is lacking calibration.  
> It's a good strategy to attack when your defences are down, but 16 years is not long enough to declare failure in a complex climate system. Claims of 'waffle' do not adequately address the points raised, which you have studiously ignored. 
> If there is a failure here, it is that you have not explained your cherry picking:    
> Unless you have something new to add, we're just repeating ourselves ad nauseum here, give it a rest. 
> Next!  
> woodbe

  all that waffle dodging a simple question, if you knew your stuff you would at least try & give a dodgy answer relative to the question, no need for the slippery tactics evading it.
Your ideas, formulas, graphs & predictions do not represent what is actually happening, so this actually makes it anecdotal evidence. 
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

No dodging. 
The question was:   

> so let's hear the excuse of why these so called proven precise graphs, formulas & predictions failing ??

  The answer is: 
No Failure. Your question is based on a false premise. The climate system is not based or analysed in 16 year periods, way too short. 
Even a total fool could see that the 16 year period for surface temps only is a cherry pick. You accept that the oceans have been warming during this cherry picked time, so what is your excuse for asking such a dumb question? Did your iPad eat your homework again?  :Smilie:  
"Unless you have something new to add, we're just repeating ourselves ad nauseum here, give it a rest." 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> No dodging. 
> The question was:   
> The answer is: 
> No Failure. Your question is based on a false premise. The climate system is not based or analysed in 16 year periods, way too short.  don't worry the IPCC will have another revised report out in the near future with another lower expectation for all the alarmist dills out there 
> Even a total fool could see that the 16 year period for surface temps only is a cherry pick. You accept that the oceans have been warming during this cherry picked time, so what is your excuse for asking such a dumb question? Did your iPad eat your homework again?   That must be a coincidence because I just read about a ship load of fools with a strikingly similar idealism to yours.   
> woodbe.

  regards inter

----------


## Marc

Yes, the gravy train of unlimited funds if you mention climate change has stopped, the gravy dried out, the conga line of labor-green-commies still dances even when the music has stopped. The first country besides Cuba to BAN filament light bulbs is under new management. 
Yes they are pussyfooting around a lot when they should be cutting off all the so called environmental projects at once and cut off all foreign aid for good measure. 
Ask for a refund on all the subsidies towards "renewable" energy, and give an automatic one day in jail to any CEO who's company promotes earth hour.  
Aah how I miss the 50c 100 w light bulb! ... Come to think about it, I may slip a crate or two in my next container and give it away at Australia day. 
My very own contribution towards sanity... well that is besides my 8.2 litre Mercruiser engine in my boat.

----------


## Marc

*Global-warming proof is evaporating*  By Michael Fumento December 5, 2013 | 12:14am  Modal Trigger  Photo: HO/AFP/Getty Images  *MORE ON:*  *WEATHER*   *Polar temps pump up Weather Channel*   *We've become weather wimps*   *NYC finally thawing out with warmer temps on the way*   *Pizzeria delivers medicine to home-bound amid Polar Vortex*     The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But dont expect anyone who pointed to last years hurricanes as proof of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists dont work that way.  Warmist claims of a severe increase in hurricane activity go back to 2005 and Hurricane Katrina. The cover of Al Gores 2009 book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, even features a satellite image of the globe with four major hurricanes superimposed.  Yet the evidence to the contrary was there all along. Back in 2005 I and others reviewed the entire hurricane record, which goes back over a century, and found no increase of any kind. Yes, we sometimes get bad storms  but no more frequently now than in the past. The advocates simply ignored that evidence  then repeated their false claims after Hurricane Sandy last year. And the media play along. For example, it somehow wasnt front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted theres been no surface global warming for well over a decade and maybe none for decades more. Nor did we see warmists conceding that their explanation is essentially a confession that the previous warming may not have been man-made at all.  That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this pause could extend into the 2030s.  Mind you, the term pause is misleading in the extreme: Unless and until it resumes again, its just a stop. You dont say a bullet-ridden body paused breathing.  Remarkably, that stoppage has practically been a state secret. Just five years ago, the head of the International Panel on Climate Change, the group most associated with proving that global warming is man-made and has horrific potential consequences, told Congress that Earth is running a fever thats apt to get much worse. Yet he and IPCC knew the warming had stopped a decade earlier.  Those who pointed this out, including yours truly, were labeled denialists. Yet the IPCC itself finally admitted the pause in its latest report.  The single most damning aspect of the pause is that, because it has occurred when greenhouse gases have been pouring into the atmosphere at record levels, it shows at the very least that something natural is at play here. The warmists suggest that natural factors have suppressed the warming temporarily, but thats just a guess: The fact is, they have nothing like the understanding of the climate that they claimed (and their many models that all showed future warming mean nothing, since they all used essentially the same false information).  If Ma Nature caused the pause, cant this same lady be responsible for the warming observed earlier? You bet! Fact is, the earth was cooling and warming long before so-called GHGs could have been a factor. A warm spell ushered in the Viking Age, and many scientists believe recent warming was merely a recovery from whats called the Little Ice Age that began around 1300.  Yet none of this unsettles the rush to kill debate. The Los Angeles Times has even announced that it will no longer print letters to the editor questioning man-made global warming. Had the Times been printing before Columbus, perhaps it would have banned letters saying the Earth was round.  Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to push to reduce supposed global-warming emissions. Last month, the president even signed an executive order establishing a Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience that could dramatically expand government bureaucrats ability to restrict Americans use of their property, water and energy to reduce so-called greenhouse gas emissions.  Such attempted reductions in other countries have proved incredibly expensive, while barely reducing emissions. But damn the stubbornly weak economy, says President Obama, full speed ahead!  This, even as new data show that last year the US median wage hit its lowest level since 1998 and long-term unemployment is almost the highest ever.  People have a right to religious and cult beliefs within reason. But the warmists have been proved wrong time and again, each time reacting with little more than pictures of forlorn polar bears on ice floes and trying to shut down the opposition. (More bad timing: Arctic ice increased by almost a third this past year, while that at the South Pole was thicker and wider than its been in 35 years.)  In war and in science, the bloodiest conflicts always seem to be the religious ones. Time for the American public to say its no longer going to play the victim in this one. _Michael Fumento is a journalist and attorney based in Colombia._

----------


## Marc

HOMEWHO WE ARELATEST POSTINGSGWPF REPORTSPRESS RELEASESGWPF NEWSLETTERCONTACTRSS A +A - print     You are here: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)  *Tom Switzer: Game Finally Up For Carboncrats*Historians will probably look back at the years 2006-2009 as the time when the climate hysteria reached its peak, when rational debate was at its most restricted and politicians... Read More  Date: 13/01/14Tom Switzer, The Sydney Morning Herald   WATCH GWPF TV HERE   *UK News*Shale Tax Millions Will Go To Communities, Says David Cameron 
James Kirkup, The Daily Telegraph Read more *The Observatory*Polar Vortex That Caused Record Cold Is Related To Solar Activity, Not Man-Made CO2 
The Hockey Schtick Read more *Science News*Row Over BBC Climate Change Seminar Cover Up 
Graeme Paton, The Daily Telegraph Read more *International News*EU In Full Retreat On Climate Policy 
EU-Info News Read more   *The Climate Record*BBCs Six-Year Cover-Up Of Secret Green Propaganda Training For Top Executives 
David Rose, Mail on Sunday Read more *Opinion: Pros & Cons*Ship Of Fools In The Antarctic 
Jack, Kelly, RealClearPolitics Read more *Energy News*Green Fury As EU Considers Scrapping Binding Renewables Targets 
Christian Oliver, Financial Times Read more *Best of Blogs*Mark Walport, Stephen Belcher And Matt Ridley 
Bishop Hill Read more   42265.8K    ©2013 The GWPF. All Rights Reserved. Information published on this website is for educational use only. HomePrivacy PolicyBecome a Member

----------


## SilentButDeadly

...and somewhere, deep behind an almost impenetrable fog, a little dog barked...

----------


## woodbe

Just in case you were wondering...   
Comes at the bottom of Tamino's 3rd tutorial on data smoothing: Smooth 3 | Open Mind 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

I know people who believe that placing a mirror or a CD in front of their house will reflect away envy or bad luck. There is no point in arguing against such absurd belief. The logic behind believing is rooted in the past, unknown to the person doing the believing. Current events are cherry-picked only to prop up the original belief, not consciously mind you, yet that is the mechanism.  
I had some Catholic friends who believed that Saint Anthony would bring them a girl friend, St Cono will bring a Lotto win and Saint Gaetano will help to find work. Perfectly harmless beliefs just like the mirror, the black cat or the salt over the left shoulder. 
What happens when influential people get together and exploit harmless beliefs for their own purposes? Simple, you get an industry that flourishes behind beliefs... or is it beyond belief? THis is not new. For millennia artisans have been commissioned to make paintings, statues, amulets, and all sort of paraphernalia used by believers to support their particular faith. 
The global warming fraud industry is no different. The grass root mass of people ready to believe whatever fits their preconceived mind set, shaped way in the past before age 10 is there ready to be prompted. Organisations brandishing the banner of "altruism" come out with a litany of absurd and unproved claims and accusations against those that are hated the most, those that stand on their own feet, those who are successful, those who are entrepreneurial and millions take to it like a house on fire. A cause is born to be believed or denied. No proof required. BELIEVE !!!    How Many People Died for Your Green Consumer Fix January 23, 2013  10:57AM   In January 2011, the Obama Administration unveiled its new ecolabel, "USDA Certified Biobased Product," with a logo of a rising sun over sloping fields, to go on various qualified consumer products, along with a figure giving the percent of the inputs which came from agriculture, instead of that farm output going into food for people. This advance will now aid you to figure exactly how many lives have been terminated, to provide you with green products. Such bioproducts range from disposable plastic plates (corn), to paint (soy), ink (soy), glue (milk), and construction materials (various crops) all made from food or other farm biomass.   For example, if you use a home floor cleaner, with the ecologo listing an agri-green percent of 50%, that means that by using this product, you can feel glad you helped get rid of, maybe, one or two people somewhere, who died for lack of food. Thus you do your bit to help relieve the Earth of too many eaters. 
A really high agri-green input percentage, e.g., on large items, such as soybean oil candles  at 80%  for a cathedral at Christmas, might, for example, knock off 12 Ethiopians. You can then feel really good and green, the way Sir David Attenborough does. 
In the 1970s, the environmentalist movement was fostered internationally, cooked up in the social-manipulation labs of the neo-British Empire, to promote the lie that people pollute, and the world must be de-populated. Go green. 
In the 2000s, this began to be insinuated into U.S. agriculture law. In the 2002 five-year farm law, a program called "BioPreferred" was started, to push bioproducts in the US Department of Agriculture's in-house Federal purchasing program. This was expanded in the 2008 law (Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008). 
But when Obama came into office in 2009, this green operation was ramped up to real killer levels. In fact, the USDA ecolabel is not even required for ethanol, because it is so extensive; corn-ethanol now takes over 42% of the entire yearly corn harvest, whose loss for food accounts for millions of deaths. Nor is the ecolabel required for biodiesel, which takes 26% of annual U.S. soybean oil. The Obama Administration is also pushing sorghum-for-biofuels. 
Some final details, FYI. Cotton tee shirts and similar traditional bio-products, in use as of 1972, are grandfathered in, and don't qualify for the "USDA Certified Biobased Product." But 900 biobased product certifications are now valid, as of December 31, 2012. They include cosmetics, packaging, vehicle maintenance  so many ways you can take food away from people. The USDA offers a catalog of bioproducts. Go on line for green death: www.biopreferred.gov

----------


## Marc

What's the point of posting temperature graphs?
Who cares that temperature varies? Do you? Hot in summer, cold in winter, it has been so since we where born. 
Oh ... sorry ... forgot ... you IMPLY ... how could I forget ... that we, specifically ME is at fault for the temperature to be hotter then 100 years ago. Stop breathing Marc, it's all your fault. 
Yes, you can blow until you are red in the face yet that does not change the fact that your assertion, direct or by elevation, falls in the same category of the CD nailed above the front door to reflect bad luck. It may make you feel good, it may support your belief that includes vilifying a part of the population you despise, it may make you new friends, it may even pay you a living as a priest of this new religion, yet all of the above does not make it true. 
Fortunately for me who will continue to fart at my heart content, use the biggest and meanest engines I can afford, buy 100W and 150W incandescent lamps use the aircon as much as I want (subsidised by your green friends who paid for my roof panels) and last but not least, buy caged eggs since the free range industry is yet another con.  
You can post temperature graphs as much as you like, they are probably incorrect, but even if they are right and it is hotter or rather it was hotter, what is your point? Fending off bad luck?
Be my guest. I am very amused. 
Try rubbing a pregnant woman's belly. It's supposed to bring good luck!

----------


## woodbe

I'm surprised this wacker hasn't mentioned Soylent Green, it cuts out the middle man, and we wouldn't even need agriculture for it.  :Biggrin:  
Marc, is this all your own work or are you plagiarising someone else's work by cutting and pasting and not attributing your source? 
Belay that. I guess if I posted this amount of boundless twaddle I wouldn't post the source either.  :Cool:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> What's the point of posting temperature graphs?
> Who cares that temperature varies? Do you? Hot in summer, cold in winter, it has been so since we where born. 
> Oh ... sorry ... forgot ... you IMPLY ... how could I forget ... that we, specifically ME is at fault for the temperature to be hotter then 100 years ago. Stop breathing Marc, it's all your fault.

  The point of temperature graphs, dear Marc, is that they are graphical representations of historical temperature data. I don't know how old you are, Marc, but the data collection goes well back before I or you were a kid, and tells a story about what is happening across the country, the planet. 
Anecdotally, I thought it was pretty hot in summer when I was a kid. Was it hotter or cooler than recent years, no way of accurately telling unless as a kid I had the forethought to get hold of a calibrated thermometer and a stephenson's screen and record the temperature many times a day for my whole life (which wouldn't have been long due to boredom, lol) I didn't do that, so I rely on the fact that this has been done by a bunch of dedicated people for ages, long enough to get a handle on the changes in the temperature.  
As for blame and guilt, I couldn't care less. I've blamed you for not sourcing your quotes, not breathing...  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> What's the point of posting temperature graphs?
> Who cares that temperature varies? Do you? Hot in summer, cold in winter, it has been so since we where born. 
> Oh ... sorry ... forgot ... you IMPLY ... how could I forget ... that we, specifically ME is at fault for the temperature to be hotter then 100 years ago. Stop breathing Marc, it's all your fault.

  Actually...it has never been about you.  Despite what you might think...you are just not that important or significant.   
Unfortunately and regrettably, you are no more significant than myself or Woodbe or any other single individual with respect to human-induced climate change.  And I can't imagine why you would think otherwise...or why you would want to  :No:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> How Many People Died for Your Green Consumer Fix January 23, 2013  10:57AM   In January 2011, the Obama Administration unveiled its new ecolabel....blah, blah, blah

  
You compare the Green movement to the Catholic Church and then you spout from the Gospel of LaRouche? Is there any irony left in this World?

----------


## johnc

> What's the point of posting temperature graphs?
> Who cares that temperature varies? Do you? Hot in summer, cold in winter, it has been so since we where born. 
> Oh ... sorry ... forgot ... you IMPLY ... how could I forget ... that we, specifically ME is at fault for the temperature to be hotter then 100 years ago. Stop breathing Marc, it's all your fault. 
> Yes, you can blow until you are red in the face yet that does not change the fact that your assertion, direct or by elevation, falls in the same category of the CD nailed above the front door to reflect bad luck. It may make you feel good, it may support your belief that includes vilifying a part of the population you despise, it may make you new friends, it may even pay you a living as a priest of this new religion, yet all of the above does not make it true. 
> Fortunately for me who will continue to fart at my heart content, use the biggest and meanest engines I can afford, buy 100W and 150W incandescent lamps use the aircon as much as I want (subsidised by your green friends who paid for my roof panels) and last but not least, buy caged eggs since the free range industry is yet another con.  
> You can post temperature graphs as much as you like, they are probably incorrect, but even if they are right and it is hotter or rather it was hotter, what is your point? Fending off bad luck?
> Be my guest. I am very amused. 
> Try rubbing a pregnant woman's belly. It's supposed to bring good luck!

    It would pay to remember that farting to your hearts content does nothing more than offend those close to you :Eek: . You write offended but say you are amused, you can't have it both ways :No: . You hate anything green but have solar panels, what a mass of contradiction you really are, lastly this was never about you, do you think in the scheme of things you actually matter, you don't, like everyone else you are just a tiny possibly redundant cog in a sea of life.

----------


## PhilT2

> You compare the Green movement to the Catholic Church and then you spout from the Gospel of LaRouche? Is there any irony left in this World?

  I should have known where this came from when I saw the term 'neo British Empire" It's all part of the Lyndon Larouche revelation that global warming was a conspiracy by the British royal family and jewish banking interests to weaken the US and protect the role of the queen of England as a major drug dealer while Prince Philip gets rid of annoying relatives like Diana and organises the US military to destroy the world trade centre. No wonder Marc doesn't want to say where he gets his cut and pastes. Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
More nuts than a Snickers bar

----------


## Marc

Yes, yes, very funny everyone, how predictable. 
Anyone writing against the green idiocy is a "nut case". Typically when your arguments are indefensible, you attempt to discredit the writer. Conceded, some writers don't need much help in that area, yet you should explain why they are wrong (if you can) rather than making reference to their character. After all a drunkard can have very valuable opinions in relation to alcoholism. 
Fortunately for me and the millions of people who think like me, the conga line of green-labor-commie has run out of music and are now bumping into each other in a discordant cacophony of words.  
The global warming rebaptised climate change, rebaptised rapid climate change has long be unmasked as a fraud, created for political purposes, exploiting the gullible and the vast numbers of those who are on the prowl for a cause to support with too much time on their hand. 
Yes there are exaggerations on both camps. Yet since you lot have quoted high wide and handsome every demented claim you can possibly find, indulge me when I quote some nut cases of my liking. After all the enemy of my enemies is my friend ... even if he belongs in the funny farm. 
In the end all it matters is the truth that inevitably comes out. We already know the alarmist claims of the past were a fraud invented to cement grants to push forward a very profitable industry. The pretend cause and effect between man made CO2 and temperature, busted to kingdom kong. CO2 clearly not the villain, everything else falls down like a house of cards.  
Of course any amount of logic does not resonate with quasi religious convictions and even less with the left who having seen the spectacular fall of their bastion countries like russia and satellites, and the embrace of capitalism in china and Vietnam, as the only viable option to survive, still press on with their constant ideological sabotage. 
Wasn't the recent Labor/Green experiment enough?  
The reality is very simple as usual. Climate changes, yes. It has been changing for the last how many billions of years way before humans walked the earth. 
Human activity is like an ameba on the back of an african elephant, completely irrelevant to the climate mechanism.  
CO2 is an essential gas for life, the more the merrier within reason. 
Currently it is at an historic LOW having been way higher with no ill effect and producing optimisation of the flora and consequently fauna. 
If CO2 is a beneficial gas, then what are we doing subsidising idiotic white elephants like wind mills and why do you pay me 3 times the retail value of electricity to produce a piffy amount of solar energy? Answer political/religious convictions that bears no relation with anything logic that would make any difference to the environment. My solar panels are the equivalent to candles or incense on the altar of the deity of choice, placed on my roof with the help of an insane bribe. 
Then again we have gone down this path before. If people can believe that a stain on the wall will heal them if they touch it, it is much easier to believe that the bad rich are choking the "planet" with their "emissions". 
And so I will continue emitting everything I can to make my life more comfortable and in the process create a market for my suppliers who in this way pay their mortgage and their kids private school happily playing in the shelter of structures paid 3 or 4 times its real value with subsidies supported for ideological reasons. 
As you can see everything has a place in life, yes even my "emissions".

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yes, yes, very funny everyone, how predictable. 
> Anyone writing against the green idiocy is a "nut case". Typically when your arguments are indefensible, you attempt to discredit the writer. Conceded, some writers don't need much help in that area, yet you should explain why they are wrong (if you can) rather than making reference to their character. After all a drunkard can have very valuable opinions in relation to alcoholism.

  Oh so pityingly self-righteous...you don't appreciate the 'nutcase' suggestion any more than others here appreciate being considered 'greenie leftist terrorists who should be jailed or shot' by you.   
Has it occurred to you that if you don't post such nonsense then we might not make such suggestions in the first place?  Try a little well considered self censorship on occasion instead of simply running off your hippocampus...see where that gets you.

----------


## Marc

> Oh so pityingly self-righteous...you don't appreciate the 'nutcase' suggestion any more than others here appreciate being considered 'greenie leftist terrorists who should be jailed or shot' by you.   
> Has it occurred to you that if you don't post such nonsense then we might not make such suggestions in the first place?  Try a little well considered self censorship on occasion instead of simply running off your hippocampus...see where that gets you.

  Rubbish, still waiting for a detailed rebuttal of any of the third party claims I posted. Also about any of my own claims.  
Hippocampus or hipercampus, CO2 is and will remain a beneficial gas and so all the rest of the puffed up claims of catastrophe are bogus. Is it a conspiracy? May be yes may be no, who cares? It is still bogus and no amount of dancing around the subject of "peer reviewed" or not will change that unconfortable truth. 
Why don't we jail fraudster who have scammed billions from taxpayers? 
 Because most authorities are involved going along with it for political convenience. Conspiracy or not, Man made Global Warming is and remains a fraud and the sooner people come to terms with the fact that their crusade was ill conceived the better. Take up a crusade against additives and preservatives in food. That may be of some benefit to humans if people can come to terms with actually caring for humans rather than rocks.

----------


## johnc

For someone who spends most of his time shooting the messenger in his own posts and posting what really in many cases is little more than a series of insults with some very dodgy figures and unsupported conclusions it is a bit rich to expect others to overlook that level of anti social behaviour and try to isolate anything worth commenting on. Many of those ill tempered posts don't even contain anything approaching  rebuttal they are what the are snarly ravings that deride those of another opinion to your own, has it occurred to you we actually treat you better than you treat anyone else whose opinion does not meet your approval.  :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

> Why don't we jail fraudster who have scammed billions from taxpayers?

  We do Marc. And for a lot less than billions, so such a large case should be easy to prove? In our society, we need to use our legal system to do this. To bring a case, you have to have evidence of a fraud. Feel free to go ahead if you have evidence that Climate Change is a fraud. 
I think you might wear some costs though, there is a lot of evidence that it is not a fraud, and precious little evidence that it is. We've aired this evidence here, but apparently you don't have any science in your reading preferences. 
Glad to be hearing some actual words from Marc in any case.  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

Yes, I posted this because I like to know if the author's aunty had an affair with a member of the Kenyan royal family or if his father was paid by the russian mafia to sell adulterated vodka to the Eskimos and if he was part owner of the Exon Valdez or if his daughter has a Mink coat.      HOMEBOOKSTOREVIDEOSContact UsRSS     HOMEBOOKSTOREVIDEOSContact UsRSS    You are here: Home  News  Eleven Global Warming Stories From 2013 You Probably Never Heard Of  *← So Cold (NotSo) Accuweather Runs Out Of Colors ABC Covers Up Global Warming Expeditions Failure →*  *Eleven Global Warming Stories From 2013 You Probably Never Heard Of* 
December 30, 2013 | Filed under: News, Opinion, Uncategorized By Elmer Beauregard If you get your news from the likes of The Huffington Post and the New York Times here are some stories about Global Warming that occurred in 2013 that you probably never heard of.  *1. Antarctic Global Warming Expedition Ship Trapped in Sea Ice.* You may have heard about the Russian vessel trapped 100 miles away from land in 10 feet thick ice in Antarctica and how three ice breakers have failed to rescue it. What you may not have heard is this ship is filled with Climate Scientists studying Global Warming. They are comparing data from 100 years ago when there was no sea ice in the same location. *
2. Yachts Trapped in Sea Ice in the Arctic Last Summer.* You probably didnt hear about all the yachts, sailboats, rowboats, and kayaks that got trapped by sea ice while trying to sail the fabled Northwest Passage. They were promised an ice free passage. *
3. Global Sea Ice at Record Levels.* Al Gore and John Kerry 5 years ago predicted that 2013 would be ice free in the arctic. You probably havent heard that the exact opposite came true. 2013 is currently at the second highest volume of sea ice ever recorded and will probably break the all time record before the season is over. *
4. Half of Meteorologists Dont Believe in Global Warming.* Nearly half of meteorologists and atmospheric science experts dont believe that human activities are the driving force behind global warming, according to a survey by the American Meteorological Society. *
5. Only 75 Climate Scientists Believe in Global Warming.* You probably have heard ad nauseum that 97% percent of Climate Scientists believe in global warming. That stat was based on a study which counted only 75 of 77 Climate Scientists. Compared to the over 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying they dont believe in Global Warming. Thats only 2.3 in 1,000 or .23% of scientists that actually believe in Global Warming. *
6. NASA caught fudging historical temps to make it look like the globe is warming.* By massively cooling the past in their recent graphs, NASA has exaggerated the amount of warming they report by nearly twice as much as they did 13 years ago. *
7. Polar Bar Population at Record Levels.* Since weve been keeping count the Polar Bear population is estimated at a record high of 20k to 25k. 5,000 are expected to be born around the New Year in Russia alone. *
8. Obama Allows Wind Farms to Kill Eagles Without Penalties.* Over 50 years ago the green movement started with the book Silent Spring which alleged that DDT was killing the Bald Eagle. Now we have come full circle by allowing wind power companies to kill eagles without penalty because its good for the planet. *
9. The Oceans Arent Rising.* Remember in 2009 when the officials of the Maldives held a press conference under water to show that their islands were sinking because of global warming. Well a new study done in 2013 shows that there is nothing to worry about. *
10. 2013 Was The Least Extreme U.S. Weather Year Ever.* 2013 shatters the record for fewest U.S. tornadoes, 15% lower than previous record. 2013 also had the fewest U.S. forest fires since 1984. *
11. No Global Warming For Over 17 Years.* The RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies for November 1996 to October 2013 had shown no global warming for exactly 204 months  the first dataset to show the full 17 years without warming specified by Ben Santer as showing the models got it wrong.   *Did you like this article? Share it with your friends!          * *[COLOR=#777777 !important]4* *← So Cold (NotSo) Accuweather Runs Out Of Colors* *ABC Covers Up Global Warming Expeditions Failure →*  [/COLOR]

----------


## Marc

The future of wind turbines... can not come soon enough.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The future of wind turbines... can not come soon enough.

    :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

lol. 
Seems that Marc's dog whistle to the [S]deniers[/S] skeptics reeled one in.  :Biggrin:  
Here in SA, we're very happy with our alternate energy thanks. 41% of SA's power demand in the third quarter of 2013 was generated by wind, and our use of Coal is declining. We are also exporting more to other states (Vic).  
This is the way it should be for the whole country. As technology improves we should be embracing it, not holding on to it at all costs.     Wind farms in South Australia: a page of Wind in the Bush 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

*STOP THESE THINGS* *THE TRUTH ABOUT WIND FARMS IN AUSTRALIA*        ABOUTEXPERTSTHESE PEOPLE GET ITTHESE PEOPLE DONTEXPERIENCELOCAL STORIESJANUARY 16, 2014   You are here: Home / Alan Jones / Dr Alan Watts  pure & simple: its Fraud *Dr Alan Watts  pure & simple: its Fraud*December 10, 2013 by stopthesethings 5 Comments 
Heres STT Champion, Alan Jones talking with Dr Alan Watts about the great Australian wind power fraud.
Alan has a little radio show that more than just a few Australians tune into each morning. Syndicated through over 77 Stations and with close to 2 million listeners Countrywide  AJ as hes known  is one of those people that leads the political charge on many issues that really affect ordinary Australians and which the rest of the press ignore.
The first piece has AJ ripping the fraud to pieces all by himself (7.08):
In this segment AJ is joined by STT Champion, Dr Alan Watts OAM  no punches are pulled (10.27):
Dr Watts made the following obvious points (points repeatedly ignored by those we pay to serve and protect us):  the government exists to  ensure safe food, clean water and the health of a nation  fundamentals that are being ignoredwind energy is a fraud on a proportion that is beyond beliefsleep deprivation caused by turbine generated infrasound and low frequency noise is a serious public health issuelegal decision at Falmouth found wind turbines caused irreparable damage to peoples healthits nothing but ideology that drives wind energyNSW planning and health departments are deliberately withholding key documents about turbine noise and its impacts on sleep and health  documents that should be disclosed to the public. Dr Alan Watts OAM *Share this:*Twitter49Facebook241PrintMore     *Like this:**Related* Dr Sarah Laurie on Alan Jones - it's Royal Commission time
In "Alan Jones" Christopher Booker on Alan Jones
In "Alan Jones" Alan Jones & Sarah Laurie go on the attack
In "Alan Jones"   
Filed Under: Alan Jones, Audio, Australia, Big wind industry, Big wind politics,Health Tagged With: Alan Jones, Alan Watts, infrasound, low frequency noise,wind farms, wind power, wind power fraud 
« Johnny Rotten Rau cops a Keyneton Rocket British Turbine-Toffs reap cash-Bonanza at punters expense »  *About stopthesethings*
We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.  *Comments*E Griffiths says: January 13, 2014 at 2:16 am 
Geoff Leventhall (who was mentioned in the interview by Dr Alan Watts) also conducted a literature review for DEFRA (Dept of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs in the UK) in 2003.
Leventhall made a couple of passing comments on the low frequency research conducted by NASA in his paper, yet he never reviewed any of the research conducted from 1979 into the 1990′s.
Had he done so, the British govt (equally as blatantly greenwashed as the Australian govt), would have known about the meticulous pioneering research conducted by Dr N D Kelley, Willshire, Hubbard and others in the 1980s.
This research, as has been pointed out by contributors to your radio program, proved that low frequency noise (LFN) and infrasound (ILFN) DOES damage peoples health, and that health problems worsen with cumulative exposure. The research by Willshire (1985) also proved that ILFN can easily travel 10km with little loss in power.
The British govt still stands by the 2003 literature review by Leventhall as evidence for its stance that wind farm LFN is not injurious to human health (I have a letter from a govt minister, dated Feb 2013, stating the govts stance).
Its obvious to me that the British govt and windustry brown nosers (as in Australia & elsewhere) have so much credibility to lose they are lying through their teeth to protect their shattered reputations  its a case of the when youre in a hole, keep digging mentality. They know theyve lost the arguments, yet theyre defending their positions because they will have no livelihood if they come out & admit their mistakes.
The wind industry brown nosers have so much to lose that they continue to screw the rural population and subject them to intolerable TORTURE (against the UN convention of human rights) to protect their own positions.
The only way I can see to stop the gargantuan fraud and to stop the govts commiting what is tantamount to treason (I do not use this term lightly) against its own people is to demand written guarantees from developers, acousticians, brown nosing medical experts, planners and inspectors that wind farms will not harm peoples health.
Seeking damages from the fraud facilitators and perpetrators in court is the only course of action I can envisage that would stand a chance of success  but it will be a dirty battle.
Although Im not a qualified acoustician, I have learned a lot on the subject over the last 7 years. It was 7 years ago when my wife first started hearing unexplained LFN in our home. This coincided with a 16 turbine wind farm being built 40km from our home.
Since then more turbines have been built closer to our home, more are under construction, and yet more have recently been granted planning permission.
I watched my wife be ill for over a month last summer, with sumptoms identical to those suffering from cumulative low frequency. The symptoms started several days into a spell of stable non turbulent atmosphere associated with a high pressure system, and progressively worsened over time. She was hearing LFN constantly and noticeably during this period. She was even forced to camp outdoors to reduce exposure to LFN.
She only started regaining her health a few days after the weather broke and the LFN diminished in intensity significantly. It took her about 10-14 day to regain her health.
This she experienced with the nearest wind farm 13 km from our home. We dont know how much longer well be able to live in our quiet rural home once the other wind turbines are up and running, with a good number being even closer to our home. Where can we go to get away from the LFN? Nowhere in Wales, except perhaps if we moved into one of the big cities.
I cant stand by and do nothing after seeing what can happen to my wife when exposed to excessive LFN. She can easily hear LFN indoors at distances of at least 50 km.

----------


## Marc

*Wind farm scam a huge cover-up* 
by: James Delingpole From:The Australian May 03, 2012 12:00AM  
ONE of the great popular misconceptions about climate-change sceptics such as Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, Cardinal George Pell and me is that we're all Big-Oil-funded, Gaia-ravaging, nature-hating emissaries of Satan. We can't look at a lovely pristine beach, apparently, without praying for a nice, juicy oil slick to turn up and wipe out all the pelicans and turtles and sea otters.  
But this isn't actually true. I love our beautiful planet at least as much as your $180,000-a-year (for a three-day week) climate commissioner Tim Flannery does. One of my great heroes is Patrick Moore, the Canadian co-founder of Greenpeace with whose sensible, rational approach to environmental issues I agree 100 per cent. Another of my heroes, after an article headlined "Where eagles dare not fly" in The Weekend Australian on April 21, is this newspaper's environment editor Graham Lloyd.  *It took great courage for Lloyd to write up his expose of the tremendous damage being caused by a wind farm to a small community in Waterloo, north of Adelaide.* Most newspaper environment editors -- from Australia to Britain and the US -- tend, unfortunately, to be so ideologically wedded to the supposed virtues of renewable energy they find it all but impossible to criticise it.  *Lloyd interviewed a number of victims whose lives had been ruined by the vast, swooshing wind towers looking over their homes. They found sleep almost impossible; they couldn't concentrate; they had night sweats, headaches, palpitations, heart trouble. Their chickens were laying eggs without yolks; their ewes were giving birth to deformed lambs; their once-active dogs spent their days staring blankly at the wall. The damage, it seems, is caused not so much by the noise you can hear but by what you can't hear: the infrasonic waves that attack the balance mechanism in the ear and against which not even home insulation can defend you. Its effects can be felt more than 10km away.*  *Inspired by Lloyd's article, I went to investigate and was heartbroken by what I found. Until you've seen what it can do to people, it's easy to dismiss wind turbine syndrome as a hypochondriac's charter or an urban myth. But it's real all right. Waterloo felt like a ghost town: shuttered houses and a dust-blown aura of sinister unease, as in a horror movie when something dreadful has happened to a previously ordinary, happy settlement and at first you're not sure what. Then you look up on to the horizon and see them, turning slowly in the breeze . . .* 
Even more shocking than this, though, were my discoveries about the finance arrangements and behaviour of the wind farm companies. What we have here, I believe, is the biggest and most outrageous public affairs scandal of the 21st century -- one in which the Gillard government is implicated and that far exceeds in seriousness and scope of the Slipper or Thomson sideshows.  *At the heart of this scandal are the union superannuation funds that are using the wind farm scam as a kind of government-endorsed Ponzi scheme to fill their coffers at public expense. One of the biggest wind farm developers -- Pacific Hydro -- is owned by the union superfund Members Equity Bank. To meet its carbon reduction quotas, we're told, Australia needs to build about 10,000 new wind turbines like the ones that have destroyed Waterloo (and dozens of communities like it from NSW to South Australia).* 
The figures are mind-boggling. Each of those turbines will cost about $3 million, which means $30 billion even before you've started building the power lines. And where's this money coming from? The consumer, of course -- mostly via tariffs whacked on to the price of conventional, fossil-fuel energy prices, in the form of payouts called Renewable Energy Certificates.  *Note that wind turbines produce very little power.* Because wind is intermittent, they operate at between one-fifth and one-third of their capacity, meaning they are erratic, unreliable and have to be fully backed up by conventional "black" (mostly coal-fuelled) power. *Where the money is to be made is through the REC subsidy. A 3MW wind turbine that generates (at most) $150,000 worth of electricity a year is eligible for guaranteed subsidies of $500,000 a year. A ridgeline hosting 20 or 30 turbines generates very little power -- but an awful lot of free cash for those lucky enough to get their snouts in the trough.* 
If the unions were merely exploiting government environmental legislation to milk the taxpayer it would be bad enough: but what makes the wind farm scam so scandalous are the public health issues. Why aren't we more aware of these? Because there have been cover-ups on an epic scale. *The owners on whose land the turbines are built are subject to rigorous gagging orders (from law firms such as Julia Gillard's ex-company, Slater & Gordon); tame experts are paid huge sums to testify that there are no health implications; inquiries are rigged; victims are rehoused and silenced with million-dollar payoffs.* The global wind farm industry -- a cash cow for everyone from Labor's unions to the mafia -- is so massive it can afford it. 
Meanwhile the rest of us lose. Communities are divided, landscapes blighted, birds and bats sliced and diced, property values destroyed, lives ruined to deal with a "problem" -- anthropogenic CO2 causing "global warming" -- which most current evidence tells us doesn't even exist. 
As a NSW sheep farmer fighting tooth and nail to stop a wind farm development near his beloved home told me the other day in trenchant style: "The wind-farm business is bloody well near a pedophile ring. They're f . . king our families and knowingly doing so." 
James Delingpole's Killing the Earth to Save It (How Environmentalists are Ruining the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Jobs) is out now (Connor Court Publishing).  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/wind-farm-scam-a-huge-c...

----------


## Marc

The Truth From Europe - Citizens&#039; Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

----------


## woodbe

Oh yes, wind farms are unreliable. So how on earth did they supply 41% of the SA electricity in one quarter? 
Because they are not the only component of electricity supply, they are still an infant power source but they are showing their value. SA is on track to have 50% alternate energy supply by 2020 or before. Wind, Geothermal and Solar.  
We have a way to go, Denmark wind power is already at 30% annual demand and growing. SA is about 25% and also growing.   
Wait until offshore wind gets going in SA and we get serious about geothermal and concentrated solar.  
While the shock jocks are whining with fringe issues, the world passes them by, except for the occasional libel case that sends them or their rat nests broke.   

> *Inspired  by Lloyd's article, I went to investigate and was heartbroken by what I  found. Until you've seen what it can do to people, it's easy to dismiss  wind turbine syndrome as a hypochondriac's charter or an urban myth.  But it's real all right. Waterloo felt like a ghost town: shuttered  houses and a dust-blown aura of sinister unease, as in a horror movie  when something dreadful has happened to a previously ordinary, happy  settlement and at first you're not sure what. Then you look up on to the  horizon and see them, turning slowly in the breeze . . .*

  LOL. Clearly, Delingpole never went to waterloo BEFORE the windfarms. James doesn't have time to read science, like Marc he's an interpreter of interpretations  :Biggrin:     
Zip through to the 5:00 minute mark, and do try not to laugh out loud.  :Cool:   
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

In Vic one of our big heat caused failures was Loy Yang A, or more to the point one of its coal powered generators. Good to see Marc using Alan Jones, the font of all knowledge to all those with an IQ smaller than their shoe size. get with it Marc we now have a multitude of power generation sources for power which means when we lost a major producer we can still crank out enough from other providers although it will hurt the retailers the cost of wholesale power went up 1500%, that is not a miss print but an amusing number. it will not impact on the retailers that much but the price shift is demand driven nothing else. the inter state energy grid helped as well as we dragged all the wind driven power we could out of SA to help. Doesn't quite line up with Jones's lies does it.  :No:

----------


## intertd6

Just a thing to point out, from a casual observation the media, moreover the ones that influence the mainstream western global media are seeming to jump off the AGW ship & are seeming to remove a lot of support for the alarmism crowd, whether it's true or not they can bury whatever they like for a long time & reverse the politics of the argument. 
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Just a thing to point out, from a casual observation the media, moreover the ones that influence the mainstream western global media are seeming to jump off the AGW ship & are seeming to remove a lot of support for the alarmism crowd, whether it's true or not they can bury whatever they like for a long time & reverse the politics of the argument. 
> regards inter

  We'll all be rooned said Hanrahan.  :Tongue:  
Rod's been saying the same thing for YEARS. Unfortunately, the science hasn't reflected the bias in the media. For some strange reason, they are more interested in selling subscriptions and advertising. I've been suggesting following the science instead of the media for about as long. 
Maybe the science follows the opinion in the media, it'll all change soon, right? lol. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

I mustn't be the average run of the mill nincompoop not to realise that the reason wholesale electricity prices went up tenfold was because of the inept govts ability get into so much debt, then they think "where can we get our hands on some easy cash" " lets make us the statutory electricity producer a corporation that make a profit which pays it to the govt & then let's sell it to try & balance the books for our ineptness" mmmm the trouble is the idiots are crippling industry & the worst off in society ( pensioners ) .
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> We'll all be rooned said Hanrahan.  
> Rod's been saying the same thing for YEARS. Unfortunately, the science hasn't reflected the bias in the media. For some strange reason, they are more interested in selling subscriptions and advertising. I've been suggesting following the science instead of the media for about as long. 
> Maybe the science follows the opinion in the media, it'll all change soon, right? lol. 
> woodbe.

  a living example of the saying that " reality is just an illusion caused by the lack of drugs"
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> a living example of the saying that " reality is just an illusion caused by the lack of drugs"
> regards inter

  Well, tell me what you're smoking.  :2thumbsup:   
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> I mustn't be the average run of the mill nincompoop not to realise that the reason wholesale electricity prices went up tenfold was because of the inept govts ability get into so much debt, then they think "where can we get our hands on some easy cash" " lets make us the statutory electricity producer a corporation that make a profit which pays it to the govt & then let's sell it to try & balance the books for our ineptness" mmmm the trouble is the idiots are crippling industry & the worst off in society ( pensioners ) .
> regards inter

  Actually although I am no supporter of the privatisation of utilities the wholesale value of power hasn't gone up massively it is actually the retail end and this is because a lot of the price increases are for poles and wires and also of course other contributors which include the carbon tax and green schemes. 
There is no point building generation capacity for a random event, the capital cost is prohibitive, the retailers will absorb the difference spread over the year it will balance out with periods of cheap prices to the point it becomes insignificant. Heatwaves kill the frail, they increase power usage but not prices to pensioners. There is no evidence that selling off the networks led to higher prices, it was a need to upgrade the network that did that, I see nothing convincing that power prices would have been less. However what it has done is remove the dividends once enjoyed by state governments and that has hurt us as taxpayers. 
Our power now though is to expensive and a review is overdue.

----------


## woodbe

Came across someone who seems to understand the Arctic, and able to write well about it.  The Recovery of Arctic Sea Ice Extent  Greg Laden's Blog   

> During the northern Winter, much of the Arctic is covered with sea  ice.  Some of this ice melts during the summer, then it regrows.  Over  recent years, the amount of ice loss in the summer has tended to  increase, almost every year, year after year.  In 2012 the loss of sea  ice was extreme, falling for much of the melting and re-freezing cycle  below any year seen before. 
>  The year 2013 was also extreme, with more ice melting away in the  summer than almost every previous year, but not to the extent seen in  2012.
>  Climate science denialist used this fact to make up a story.  In this  case, the word story is a nice way of saying lie.  The denialists  claimed that Arctic Sea Ice was recovering.  Well, it was, sort of.   Sea ice in 2013 was more extensive than the previous year, but still at a  very low level. Part of the recovery story was the assertion that the  sea ice would not return to normal levels year after year.  A cycle  was simply repeating itself.   
>  The problem with the cycle idea is that there is no really a cycle.   In a non-global-warming world there probably would be something that  looks like a cycle, or at least a decadal (or something) fluctuation  from year to year.  But with global warming we have seen a phenomenon  called Arctic Amplification. This is the warming of the arctic region  to a greater extent than most of the rest of the plant.  With Arctic  Amplification we have seen sea ice extent drop nearly every year for  about 20 years.  Ive written about the importance of this here.   This does not seem to be a cycle, but rather, a downward trend.  The  fact that 2012 was extreme makes 2013 look like a reversal, but there is  no reason to think that it is.  
>  Now it is Winter in the Arctic.  When we look at sea ice extent, we  see something interesting.  The current level of sea ice is hugging the  98th percentile of observed sea ice extent, at the lower margin. More  interestingly, when we compare 2012, the recovery year, with the  current ice extent, it turns out that the current ice extent is less  than the recovery.

  More on the link.  
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Rubbish, still waiting for a detailed rebuttal of any of the third party claims I posted. Also about any of my own claims.

  
You'll be waiting quite some time...there no way I am going to risk my mental health by doing anything more than skimming that bogus piffle and giggling sadly.  It's waffle like that that contributes to the ongoing retardation of my faith in humanity in the first place... 
Besides...I have a climate adaption plan to prepare...

----------


## Marc

> Oh yes, wind farms are unreliable. So how on earth did they supply 41% of the SA electricity in one quarter? 
> Because they are not the only component of electricity supply, they are still an infant power source but they are showing their value. SA is on track to have 50% alternate energy supply by 2020 or before. Wind, Geothermal and Solar.  
> We have a way to go, Denmark wind power is already at 30% annual demand and growing. SA is about 25% and also growing.   
> Wait until offshore wind gets going in SA and we get serious about geothermal and concentrated solar.  
> While the shock jocks are whining with fringe issues, the world passes them by, except for the occasional libel case that sends them or their rat nests broke.  
> woodbe.

  I wonder if there is a relation between number of people on welfare and windmills. Actually I see a clear relation ... may be cause and effect? Just like CO2 and temperature.

----------


## Marc

It is sad to see how eco-terrorism, left ideology and sheer ignorance keep on pushing "renewables" that are supposed to solve CO2 emissions that cause an imaginary harm to a non existing problem. 
But there is no way to reason with religious belief and political convictions that are part of people's own personality. 
Yet when this evil industry steels from people's assets, and harms their health you would think that it would make some reconsider. Not so, their huge pride and significant ego is in the way of even this basic human character, being sympathetic to other's suffering.
Imagine for a minute that an oil company behaves in a similar fashion. Boy oh boy would the demented green mass go off their handle. Very sad indeed.  STOP THESE THINGS*THE TRUTH ABOUT WIND FARMS IN AUSTRALIA*        ABOUTEXPERTSTHESE PEOPLE GET ITTHESE PEOPLE DONTEXPERIENCELOCAL STORIESJANUARY 17, 2014    You are here: Home / Australia / Tony Edney  Bush Lawyer & Poet *Tony Edney  Bush Lawyer & Poet* 
December 5, 2013 by stopthesethings 4 Comments Henry Lawson  Australian Bard. Australia has a fine tradition of producing bush poets.
In days gone by, men like Banjo Paterson and Henry Lawson wrote about us in voices that were cracked and dry, with swirling dust and sticky flies.
In modern times, weve produced lyrical yarn tellers like Murray Hartin. Murray Hartin  wit and wordsmith. At the wind power fraud rally, Murray made  with fine words in tune  the 400 or so   that trekked from far and wide to Canberra  both laugh and cry  on a great day in June.
Tony Edney  Victorian Country Solicitor  joins Murray as not only a man who can handle timbre and verse, but one who knows what happened to make our great Country worse. *TO A LOST COUNTRY*Oh, ye savages of men [and women],
Grasping remnants of the white marauders,
Who seized this land from the poor blacks,
With hearts hardened to the tribesmens cry,
And your hearts  to the cries of the land itself, to be and remain as it  ever has been,Driven by greed to procure unearned wealth,
You will encumber your birth right with a forest of steel,
Ruining for ever its ancient profile,
The skies blanked out with evil metal crosses, that dance and glitter,
In mechanical insult to nature so cruelly displaced.What greater purpose can mask your avarice?
To save the country?
Such hypocrites, who but scoundrels would invoke such a plea?
Patriotism, always being the last refuge of exploiters,
Who abuse and despoil for personal gain.A power station, no less, on a huge scale, square miles engulfed,
Wires stringing across the grassland, spinning towers away to the horizon,
Birds, bats once passed freely through these skies,
Now in fog and cloud, at night, they enter a chopping zone,
Whoomph, whoomph, dashed to the ground, life extinct.This land is not yours to do with as you wish,
You will be called to account for your destructive ways,
Look to the future and the legacy of ruin you will leave behind,
Wreckers of landscapes! The blighted outlooks, a sad mess of wasteland,
Now almost bereft of wildlife.Leave and live your new lives of luxury,
Brought with the cost of a countryside,
Now lost to those who took joy from its silence and beauty,
Let the neighbours look forever upon your legacy,
But live fast for surely regret will fall upon you as profoundly as the land has been altered,
For you have made a mistake that will haunt you and generations to follow.******* *Tony Edney*Tony is the handsome bloke on the right. *Share this:*   Twitter4Facebook19PrintMore      *Like this:*   *Related* Rally - Murray Hartin
In "Alan Jones" The Rally: Details of the Big Day  Tuesday, 18 June 2013
In "Australia" Angus Taylor aka The Enforcer
In "Australia"   
Filed Under: Australia, I've got wind Tagged With: hosts, poetry, Tony Edney, wind power fraud, Wind power fraud rally 
« Mary Morris  On the Warpath Illusions not Visions »  *About stopthesethings*
We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.  *Comments*   1957chev says: December 6, 2013 at 12:07 am 
History will not be kind, to the wind weasels, and their enablers!  Replypmm232 says: December 5, 2013 at 10:04 pm 
It is amazing how we see our landscape.
Beautiful, untouched by man.
Yes MAN  greed, dig big holes in our land, take over farmland, build houses.
Of course Industry spreads and creates more Monsters that make noise that drives people nuts  loud noise, easily heard, then low frequency noise that makes us sick.
Low Frequency Noise and Electromagnetic Radiation.
Yes Industry does this and Wind Farms all making us sick and the Greed pays the Powers to be, that lets them do this to us.
When will there be PEACE instead of GREED?  ReplyColleen Watts says: December 5, 2013 at 8:58 pm 
Wonderful! What a pity your obvious and not inconsiderable talents must be spent expressing this outrage.  ReplyMartin Hayles says: December 5, 2013 at 7:57 pm 
Tony, You have so succinctly put, that which I struggle to express without a burning rage and an anger unsurpassed.
Unfortunately, from my experience living on our farm at Curramulka and surrounded by once friendly neighbours who have morphed into opportunistic, parasitic, signed-up turbine hosts, I despair that integrity and morality does not feature in their lexicon. The realisation that this is the case leaves a sadness that will remain in some form whether turbines are built or not.  Reply   *Leave a Reply*

----------


## johnc

If ones aim was to show that those opposed to windfarms are moronic nobodies totally disinterested in logic, reason or intelligent discussion then the last couple of posts couldn't have done better. congratulations Marc for seeing the light and changing sides, who would have thunk it ay! keep up the good work i'm sure your ability to show the depths of human delusion and stupidity will contine to the amusement of the rest of us. :2thumbsup:

----------


## intertd6

> Well, tell me what you're smoking.   
> woodbe.

  Don't worry even the IPCC is even weaning themselves off their euphoric substance of choice, you only now have to come down now.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

Isn't it amazing that the globes hottest ever recorded temperature was experienced over 100 years ago
and hasn't been reached since.
regards inter

----------


## andy the pm

> Isn't it amazing that the globes hottest ever recorded temperature was experienced over 100 years ago
> and hasn't been reached since.
> regards inter

  No, I wouldn't call that amazing...

----------


## intertd6

> No, I wouldn't call that amazing...

  yes your right, what would be amazing is the explanation of why it isn't.
regards inter

----------


## andy the pm

> yes your right, what would be amazing is the explanation of why it isn't.
> regards inter

   How about an explanation of why you think it is, after all you posted it...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> How about an explanation of why you think it is, after all you posted it...

  No need, its self explanatory IMO.

----------


## Marc

* What about Greenland??* Global Warming proponents claim that this imminent crisis will cause a massive rise in sea level which will drown many of the worlds largest cities and displace hundreds of millions of people. In his Academy Award winning documentary Al Gore claimed that if *either* the West Antarctic Ice Shelf or the ice sheets around Greenland melt the mean global sea level will rise by *20 feet*! Greenpeace claims that GW will _result in a catastrophic global sea level rise of 7 meters. That's bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis_.  
Likewise the WWF claims _If the Greenland ice sheet melts, sea level could rise by as much 25 feet. Today there are 17 million people living less than one meter above sea level in Bangladesh, while places like Florida and Louisiana in the United States, Bangkok, Calcutta, Dhaka and Manila are also at risk from sea level rise_. This threat of catastrophic sea level rise is a mantra constantly repeated by GW alarmists and forms the heart of their demand for urgent drastic action. But is this threat well-founded or just fear-mongering by those pursing the Global Green Agenda? Below are a temperature graph and extracts from scientific papers and articles that provide a very interesting insight into the recent history of Greenlands climate. *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* *In AD 1000, the Earth was experiencing an episode of climate warming similar to that of the present day*. Temperatures in many parts of the world seem to have risen by at least two or three degrees Fahrenheit. Although the scale of this "global warming" may seem small, its effects on human societies were profound. In Europe, several centuries of long hot summers led to an almost unbroken string of good harvests, and both urban and rural populations began to grow. These centuries are known as the Medieval Warm Period. One of the more dramatic consequences of the Medieval Warm Period was the expansion of Viking settlements in the North Atlantic. From their Icelandic base (established in AD 870), the Norse people began to move west and north to Greenland, Canada, and eventually *above the Arctic Circle*. LINK 
The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm weather around 800-1300 AD, during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. The *Vikings took advantage of ice-free seas to colonize Greenland* and other outlying lands of the far north.  LINK 
"*The climate at this time was very warm, much warmer than it is today*, and crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name "*Greenland*" was given to the country, *not just as wishful thinking*, but because it was a climatic fact at that time. The mild climatic period was fairly short-lived in geologic terms - by about 1200 AD, the ever-increasing cold was making life extremely difficult, and some years no supply ships were able to reach Greenland through the ice-choked seas. During this period, Norway had assumed responsibility for supplying the Norse settlers in Greenland, but as the climate worsened it became a very difficult task. LINK 
"At that time, the inner regions of the long fjords where the settlements where located were very different from today. Excavations show that there were *considerable birch woods with trees up to 4 to 6 meters high* in the area around the inner parts of the Tunuliarfik- and Aniaaq-fjords, the central area of the Eastern settlement, and the hills were grown with grass and willow brushes. *This was due to the medieval climate optimum*. The Norse soon changed the vegetation by cutting down the trees to use as building material and for heating and by extensive sheep and goat grazing during summer and winter. *The climate in Greenland was much warmer* during the first centuries of settlement but became increasingly colder in the 14th and 15th centuries with the approaching period of colder weather known as the Little Ice Age." LINK 
The Medieval Warm Period coincides with the Vikings' settlement of Greenland, Iceland and possibly North America. Farmsteads with dairy cattle, pigs, sheep and goats were prevalent in Iceland and along the southern coast of Greenland. Even *England* *was able to compete economically with France in wine production*. On the other hand, agriculture steadily declined at higher latitudes during the Little Ice Age, while mortality rates and famines increased. By 1500, settlements in Greenland had vanished and the inhabitants of Iceland were struggling to survive.  LINK 
During the 9th & 10th centuries the Vikings reached Iceland and Greenland during the milder condition that prevailed during Medieval Warm Period. Norse settlers arrived in Iceland in the 9th and Greenland in the 10th century with an agricultural practice based on milk, meat and fibre from cattle, sheep, and goats. *The settlers were attracted by green fields and a* *relatively good climate* and driven there by population pressures in Scandinavia. *They were able to sail to Iceland and Greenland as well as Labrador because of a decrease in sea ice in the North Atlantic*.  LINK 
The Medieval Warm Period was a time of unusually warm climate in Europe from about 850 until 1250 AD. The warm climate overlaps with a time of high solar activity called the Medieval Maximum. The warmer climate caused historic events such as the spread of Viking settlements in Northern Europe. The Vikings were likely better able to explore and colonize many areas in Northern Europe during this time because the warm climate. *They traveled by boats to Greenland among other places through seas that, with cooler climates are typically full of dangerous sea ice. During this time, grape vineyards, which require moderate temperatures and a long growing season, were as far north as England. In comparison, today grapes vineyards are only typically as far north as France in Europe*.  LINK 
Between the 9th and 14th century there was a "Medieval Warm Period", when the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere reached its highest point in the past 4,000 years, which was only *about 1°C higher than at present*. It has been documented that during this period, American oysters (_Crassostrea virginica_) and bay scallops (_Aequipecten irradiens_) formed populations as far north as Sable Island. *Neither of these species exists there today*. Radiocarbon dating of relict oyster and bay scallop shells compare reasonably well with the dates of the post-glacial warm period. From the 16th to the 19th century there was a "Little Ice Age", when the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was a degree or two cooler than now. It is during this time that salmon are hypothesized to have relocated to the New England area. Salmon may have migrated from Europe after the end of the Pleistocene, across the Atlantic. Immediately prior to the Little Ice Age, *the Medieval Warm Period diminished sea pack ice around Iceland and Greenland*.  LINK *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* As quoted above Greenpeace claims that if the ice shelf around Greenland melts London will become the new Atlantis .This dire prediction about the future of London can be found in many Global Warming Impact Assessments even one from the London City Council.  
But as we have seen above the ice sheets around Greenland were largely absent as little as 950 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period. Interestingly there is *no evidence* of a rise in sea level during this period. In fact there is plenty of evidence that *the sea levels were the same as they are today*! Science and culture flourished during this period. We have many great works of literature by authors like Chaucer and Thomas Aquinas were penned and preserved. I think someone, somewhere would have recorded a massive 20 foot sea level rise!!  
Also many sea-ports, complete with docks and mooring rings, were constructed during this period. Now, if the sea level was 20 feet higher when they were constructed then surely they should now be stranded high and dry. But the remnants of medieval seaports at Acre, Bristol, Genoa, Tripoli, Istanbul etc can be found sitting quietly at todays sea level. The Polar Bears obviously survived being drowned as well.  
So lets take a closer look at one of these structures built at sea level during the height of the Medieval Warm Period. Remember, the lack of ice around Greenland at this time has been well documented by many sources. William the Conqueror began building, what is now known as the Tower of London, in 1078. The Tower is situated on the north bank of the river Thames, within the tidal section at the eastern extremity of London. There were no flood-control locks at this time, the first being built in 1633. The Tower was constructed a few feet above the high tide mark and still sits a few feet above the high tide mark. Many tapestries and paintings of the Tower shortly after its completion show that the sea level has not changed!   
Tower of London - 1150 A.D.    
Tower of London - 2005 A.D.
This raises another issue with the 'man-made' theory of global warming. Almost all ice core records show that carbon dioxide levels begin to rise approximately 800 years *after* temperature begins to rise. This is why Al Gore didn't superimpose his CO2/temp graphs in his 'documentary'. Even the mega-alarmists at the RealClimate site admit this: 
_At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations... The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming_. -link 
So, according to them 'something else' (maybe the sun!) caused temperatures to rise and 800 years later CO2 levels rose and '_could have caused the rest of the warming_'. Hmm ... so why could the 'thing' that caused the initial warming not have also caused the rest? Seems more likely. This 800 year lag can be explained by a phenomenon known as Deep Ocean Thermal Inertia. Only the top 70m of the ocean is mixed by wave and wind action, the rest of the up to 10,000 meters of ocean experiences relatively little water exchange. When the surface of the ocean is warmed the heat is absorbed and very slowly travels down through the water column. You can actually measure temperature stratasomewhat analagous to tree rings. Scientists refer to this as 'oceanic memory'. 
The ocean contains more than 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. Most of this is stored in the very cold benthic layers of the ocean. The solubility of CO2 in water depends on temperature. The warmer the water temperature the less CO2 it can dissolve. Hence as the ocean depths are warmed C02 is released. This is known as oceanic out-gassing. You can test this yourself by heating a bottle of coke. Given that humans contribute only a tiny fraction (<1%) of the annual carbon flux, any change in the huge amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean would far outwiegh our effect. As shown by ice core data, temperature and CO2 levels are correlated but with a 800 year lag due to the time it takes for the increased atmospheric heat to reach the ocean depths. In effect you can take a temperature graph, move it forward 800 years, and you have a pretty accurate CO2 graph. 
So, as outlined in this article during the period 1000-1300 AD the earth was experiencing the Medieval Warm Period which was even warmer than current temperatures. Hence we would *expect* CO2 levels to rise during the 1800-2100 AD period. Why would the 800 year lag suddenly stop operating? Shortly after the MWP global temperatures plummeted and the Little Ice Age began. We can expect this cooling influence to affect the ocean depths shortly after the end of this century which will trigger additional carbon absorption and remove CO2 from the atmosphere.      *THE AGENDA*Global RevolutionThe Turning PointGaia's GurusThe Green WebGlobal ConsciousnessThe Great Shift   *GREEN GOVERNANCE*Sustainable DevelopmentAgenda 21The Earth CharterA United World   *GREEN RELIGION*The Gaia HypothesisDeep EcologyThe Spiritual UNA United Faith   *GLOBAL WARMING*Settled Science?What about Greenland?The Carbon CurrencyA New Economy    *CONTACT* *LINKS**THE WATCHMAN'S POST*

----------


## Marc

Public radio's live 
midday news program  Twitter  facebook With sponsorship from Accelerating the pace 
of engineering and science    Ways to ListenPast ShowsAbout the ShowContact Us     Monday, July 29, 2013   E-mail Twitter (71) facebook (833)    *A Claim That Electric Cars Arent Green Fuels Firestorm*   An electric charging station is seen on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 in Montpelier, Vt. (Toby Talbot/AP) 
Plug-in electric cars have lower greenhouse gas emissions than the average gas-guzzling vehicle.
But conservationist *Ozzie Zehner* argues in a piece called Unclean at Any Speedthat electric cars may be worse for the environment than traditional gas-powered cars.
Zehner, who is also author of the 2012 book Green Illusions: The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of Environmentalism, writes in IEEE Spectrum magazine:When the National Academies researchers projected technology advancements and improvement to the U.S. electrical grid out to 2030, they still found no benefit to driving an electric vehicle. If those estimates are correct, the sorcery surrounding electric cars stands to worsen public health and the environment rather than the intended opposite. But even if the researchers are wrong, there is a more fundamental illusion at work on the electric-car stage.Zehners claims have sparked a firestorm of disagreement. Don Anair, co-author of the Union of Concerned Scientists 2012 report State of Charge offered this response to Zehners article:Powered by todays electricity grid, operating an electric vehicle produces less global warming emissions than the average new compact gasoline vehicle (averaging 27 mpg) everywhere in the country. In regions with the cleanest electricity grids, electric vehicles out perform even the best hybrids. And factoring in estimates of global warming emissions from manufacturing reduces, but doesnt negate the benefits of EVs, as I illustrate in the following blog post.For Zehner, electric cars are illustrative of a larger discussion that he says environmentalists are not having.
We associate certain technologies with being clean, Zehner told _Here & Now_. These technologies have become a part of the environmental movement, a part of what it means to be an environmentalist, and were finding now that there are some questions that we havent been asking.
For example, Zehner argues that much of the research into electric cars is funded by members of the automotive industry.
Im not suggesting that the corporate sponsorship leads people to massage their research data, but it can shape findings in more subtle ways, Zehner said. It influences the questions that get asked, and companies are interested in directing their money to researchers who are asking the types of questions that stand to benefit their industry.    

> ZEHNER: The National Academy of Sciences took a step back, and they looked at the entire life cycle of an electric car. Electric cars may be very exciting, they're a charismatic technology, and they're fun to drive, there's no doubt about that, but there's no reason to believe that they are clean.And in fact, according to the National Academy, they're likely one of the most harmful modes of transportation available. Part of the impact of an electric car arises from the manufacturing, and it isn't the battery per se, but it's because the battery packs are so heavy, engineers have to make everything else in the car lighter. And the lightweight materials that they use for everything else in the car are energy intensive to produce and process, things like aluminum, carbon composites, and of course the electric motors and battery add to the intensity of the electric car manufacture. And the reason the electric cars are so expensive is because all of these fossil fuels that go into making them. And of course all of that comes before you plug it in for the first time.

----------


## Marc

*June 20, 2011**Is the Organic Food Industry a Scam?**By* *Mischa Popoff*  Imagine buying a car that was manufactured and assembled by a blacksmith. Just another way to build a car, right? Give me a break!
Im a big supporter of genuine organic food, but the goal of the green movement is no longer to provide purer, more nutritious food; its to promote social and environmental justice at the cost of providing food less efficiently.    * RECEIVE NEWS ALERTS*
 SIGN UP  Mischa Popoff RealClearScience  organic food       
Even if this scheme does not fully succeed, its going to cost you dearly. Your taxes already subsidize all sorts of green, organic schemes. Millions of dollars are funneled into organic science which is just so much marketing hype. Economic and scientific considerations are considered passé by organic activists, and no cost is too high as long as it is borne by the taxpayer.
Van Jones -- President Obamas former Green Jobs Czar -- said in 2009, There is a green wave coming, with renewable energy, organic agriculture, cleaner production. And then, in a shamelesssleight of hand he asks, Will the green wave lift all boats?...Will we have eco-equity, or will we have eco-apartheid? Right now we have eco-apartheid!
Is this guy serious? You bet he is. Even after Obama was forced to fire him, the Van Jonesian manifesto survived on the urban side of the highly bureaucratic, fully-politicized certified-organic food industry.
To make matters worse, consider that it takes energy to produce food. Lots of energy. But rather than encourage the development of more affordable energy sources, Obamas Secretary of Energy Steven Chu warns that, due to the alleged perils of global warming, Were looking at a scenario where theres no more agriculture in California.
Now, is _this_ guy serious? Yup. Even if Chu is exaggerating, imagine how just a 20 percent reduction in productivity in California would impact the cost of fresh vegetables. Depending on where you live it could mean having no vegetables in your refrigerator except when theyre available locally for a couple months of the year.
Such progressive thinking, in lock-step with plans to drive up energy costs through the subsidization of abysmally inefficient energy sources like wind, solar and ethanol, has already caused food prices to nudge upward. Implementing more of these policies would most definitely cause food prices to soar. Fossil fuel-powered internal combustion engines have replaced most of the human and all of the animal toil on farms, and thankfully so! But organic activists like Jones and Chu are already pulling the levers of power to take us back to the good old days. Feeling green yet?
Between 1974 and 2005, food prices on world markets fell steadily by 75 percent (adjusted for inflation). This was the direct result of reduced energy costs and increased mechanization on farms in conjunction with better crop varieties that produce more food per-gallon-of-fuel on a smaller piece of land. In North America, we spend less than 7 percent of our incomes on food. Europeans meanwhile still spend almost twice that because they are less technologically advanced and cling to progressive issues of social and environmental justice that make no difference whatsoever to the quality, purity or nutritional content of the food their farmers produce.
All thats required to become certified organic under the United States Department of Agricultures National Organic Program is the filling out of reams of forms and the payment of fees. No field testing and no surprise inspections are required, so theres no way to know which organic farmers are genuinely organic. Instead of driving excellence, organic farmers are simply encouraged to use less efficient methods such as old seed varieties that under-produce and which arent disease-resistant, as well as to replace their tractors with horses. Still feeling green?
To add insult to injury, some of the millions of dollars your government gives to farmers to help them convert their land to organic production winds up in the coffers of urban activists, thanks to exorbitant certification and royalty fees which go toward administrative costs. This allows urban organic activists to underwrite political campaigns and to launch lawsuits against crop-science companies, thereby blunting the overall efficiency of modern food production.
One of the major beneficiaries of this tax-funded, green largesse is none other than progressive billionaire George Soros, a key supporter of the slow, old-fashioned, organic food movement. Soros is also (not coincidentally) a supporter and driver of skyrocketing energy costs driven by the government subsidization of inefficient energy production, as well as organic farm subsidies.
But the handful of real, fulltime organic farmers who are still in business on this continent vehemently oppose all such subsidies. I know hundreds of these honest organic farmers and social justice isnt what being organic is all about. But this is what is being bought and paid for with your taxes, and it hurts the last remaining honest organic farmers in North America who still produce genuine, scientifically-verifiable organic food.
The message is clear: when it comes to pretending to save the planet, freedom, science and common sense be damned! Certified-organic food promotes eco-equity, not the production of purer, more nutritious or sustainable food.
The politics of organic food is now more important than any of the measurable qualities consumers are assured they are getting when they pay hefty premiums for foods that bear the USDA NOP Certified Organic seal. Is organic food really better for you and the planet? _Who cares? Were trying to run a revolution here!_
So please, the next time you shop at Whole Foods or reach for something certified-organic at your local grocery store, please ask yourself, How much am I willing to pay to perpetuate the elimination of science and the free market from food production? How much is it really worth to turn back the hands of time on modern food production?   _Mischa Popoff is an IOIA Advanced Organic Inspector and author of Is it Organic? The inside story of who destroyed the organic industry, turned it into a socialist movement and made million$ in the process, which you can preview at www.isitorganic.ca._       Share on reddit    Email |  Print | 5 Comments |  Share

----------


## Marc

So what does pretend sea level rise, electric cars and organic food have to do with Global Warming? 
A lot. 
They are all either the consequence or the byproduct of one claim and one claim only:   _Man made CO2 is rapidly heating up the atmosphere and we must do something to stop it. (sic)_ 
Just think about it, all those millions of products that have a label of "eco" something, base their claim of friendliness to the environment on an illusion of using less energy. So far the only efficient way to produce electricity short of dams and nuclear plants (since we do not have nucular yet), is burning something and produce the oh so dreaded CO2.   
Lets address the illusion later, the claim that less energy is = to "save the planet" is based on the unproven fallacy that additional man made CO2 actually produces heating. Yet if this is false, and it has been proven many times over to be a false claim, everything we do to be "ecocrappyfriendly" is an absolute farce, waste of time and resources and only good for the barons of the ecocrap industry.   
The illusion of lesser use of energy:  Most of the so called ecologically friendly products, once you look into their life span from conception to wrecking, the energy involved in producing all the components, the pollution caused by the mining or the cultivation of the components, once all the factors are taken into consideration, most if not all eco products fall in the category of worst polluter, most inefficient, most unreliable, most expensive, worst exporter of ecological catastrophe or even all of the above. Just look into the mining for rare earth to produce magnets for the wind farms, or the replacement of farming food for biofuels.  
You must however forgive the average Joe Blow for falling into paying more for products that are worst for the environment, yet feeling so good about it. He, poor sod, is immerse in politico/religious propaganda day in day out, and worst of all I am paying for that propaganda with my tax money. Well, Joe Blow if he works is paying for it too. 
What can we do to stop this state of affairs? 
Number one talk about it openly, overcome your fear of ridicule or ostracism from the crabs that surround you. (Yes you know the story of the basket with crabs that pull down the one that wants to get out). 
Number two, never ever in a million years vote for anything that resembles green in any way shape or form. From local to federal and anything in between even in your local school, even if it seems harmless like the local bushies pulling weeds in the national park. 
Number three do not buy a product, any product at all because of claims of eco-friendliness. Research it, look into it, buy products who are produced efficiently and not those who claim to be green yet provoke disasters elsewhere. 
Last but not least, be proud of your achievements and live large. Consume what you need and what makes you feel better in the knowledge that your more than average appetite for things and services actually feeds scores of other fellow humans in ways you probably don't even realize. Become yourself the vector of the re-distribution of your wealth rather than leaving this to the state.  
Remember that the best revenge is to live well. 
Marc

----------


## intertd6

> No need, its self explanatory IMO.

  i thought so too! Must be a brilliant mind at work wanting me to answer my own queries.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

Organic food? the fact that some dipstick is trying to introduce something based on taste and toxins etc into climate change is living proof the lunatics are really out of the asylum, how low does you ability to pick up bullsh!t have to be to even repeat that level of crass stupidity.

----------


## Marc

Yes, "organic" con.
Want more eco con that saves the planet?
Lower the temperature of your dishwasher or washing machine to save the planet !! *
The myth of the 30c 'money-saving' cycle: How your eco-friendly cool wash can infest your clothes with GERMS* *Bacteria and germs including E. coli and hospital superbugs live in machines**Many 60c settings never come near that temperature**Cold cycle saves just £13 per year on average* By JILL FOSTER *PUBLISHED:* 00:01 GMT, 23 August 2013 | *UPDATED:* 00:03 GMT, 23 August 2013   *956 shares* *243 View 
comments*  * +4  Cold comfort: Turning your washing down to 30c could allow germs to thrive  You may think you are doing your bit for the environment. But if youre following the current trend of turning down the temperature on your washing machine to 30c, you could be doing yourself harm.   New research has shown that potentially dangerous bacteria in our laundry are not killed off in low-temperature washes. They breed in the machine, and are passed on to future loads.   Hygiene expert Dr Lisa Ackerley says: Studies show that a build-up of bacteria in the interior of a washing machine transfers to the wash water of subsequent cycles  with as many as one million bacteria in just two tablespoons of water.   Low-temperature washing provides optimal conditions for germs to multiply. But manufacturers of washing machines and detergents are pestering us to lower temperatures to 30c, claiming it will save us money  and the planet. So, is the cool wash just another eco-con? Is it putting your health at risk? And what temperature should you be washing your clothes at? We investigate . . . 
WHY DOES HOT MEAN CLEAN?  
Higher temperatures clean clothes more hygienically because when the water is hot, the cotton yarns swell up and forcibly release the soiling, says laundry expert Dr Richard Neale. As for the current craze for a cool wash, he is emphatic: 30c cycles simply wont clean your clothes properly. In fact, 30c is actually the temperature in which we incubate bugs to grow them for our experiments, he explains. Oily skin sebum  the yellow mark you see on shirt collars and underarms  is a protein and breeds bugs that most detergents wont kill at such cool temperatures. 
In order to clean polyester cottons thoroughly, they need to be washed at a minimum of 65c for ten minutes. For pure cottons it is 71c for three minutes, which kills pretty well all viable micro-organisms. 
If youre doing a normal family wash and no one has any infectious diseases, this doesnt really matter. Your family all share germs anyway, and its unlikely youll get ill. But if one of the household works in, say, healthcare or the catering industry, its vital their work clothes are thoroughly cleaned.   Germs that are passed on through minuscule spores  from the hospital superbug Clostridium difficile (C.diff) and the food-poisoning bug Bacillus cereus, which is found in products that have been left to sit around for too long, like rice, right up to the lethal anthrax bacterium  have a good survival rate in anything other than the hottest temperatures, says Dr Neale. +4  
In a spin: Will the eco-friendly cool cycle come out clean in the wash?     Only autoclaving (high-pressurised cleaning with steam) at 150c for about ten minutes will kill these, which is why anthrax is such a feared bioterrorist weapon, he adds. Meanwhile, Dr Ackerley points out the problem of cross-contamination if the wash-setting is not hot enough. I am very concerned about bacteria from underwear transferring on to items such as tea towels which are then used to wipe dishes, she says.     So, does this mean that no washing powder will kill these germs? Some products do incorporate a chemical disinfectant which can reduce the amount of bugs in the wash, says Dr Neale, but they are rarely available domestically. Ariel is among the very few brands that does one (Ariel Antibacterial+, £22.50, broschdirect.com). Otherwise you have to go to commercial laundry suppliers to get anything similar. If you have someone ill, elderly or with a low immune system at home, it might be wise to invest in an anti-bacterial detergent. If youre not using an anti-bacterial detergent or a hot temperature, you are relying on simple dilution with water to disperse bugs, says Dr Neale. And this is ineffective. With proper dilution, you can reduce the number of bugs from one million per square inch to around 10-20 per square inch, but in a normal washing process you dont use nearly enough water. The only way to really kill germs is to wash at a higher temperature. JUST HOW MANY GERMS ARE IN YOUR MACHINE? While a 30c cycle wont technically damage your washing machine, it can lead to a build-up of grease or black mould on your machine door or inside the detergent drawer. And some estimates say the average washing machine contains 100 million E.coli bugs at any one time. Dr Neale says: Germs may be lurking in your machine if you only ever do cool washes. If you smell a rotting smell coming from your machine, you may want to think about doing a very hot wash  say, 90c  to sterilise it.   +4  Nature fresh? Biological washing powders are much better at killing germs in cooler washes  Consumer experts at Which? suggest doing at least one hot wash a month (60c minimum) and leaving the machine door ajar after every load to allow it, and the rubber seal around it, to dry out. Removing and cleaning the detergent drawer, and wiping around the rubber seal with light bleach cleaners will also reduce the ability of germs to breed.   CAN YOU TRUST THE 60c SETTING? By now, youre probably reaching for the 60c button on your washing machine. Indeed, studies show that washing at 30c or even 40c kills just six per cent of house-dust mites, compared with 100 per cent at 60c. But be warned: even the 60c setting may not kill germs properly. Why? Because some 60c settings simply dont get that hot.   Yesterday, Which? found that eight out of 12 popular washing machines failed to reach the correct temperature on a 60c wash. And none of the machines  which included Hoover, Miele, Hotpoint and Zanussi models  kept the water hot enough for long enough to kill bugs such as MRSA or the housemites that cause allergic reactions. In fact, one Hoover machine (the DYN8163D8P-80) only heated the water to 43c on its so-called 60c cycle. And most of the machines kept the water cooler than 50c for most of the wash programme. So you may have to go even higher than the 60° programme to make sure your wash is properly hot. WHICH DETERGENTS ARE BEST AT KILLING GERMS? While hot washes are undoubtedly better than cool ones, theres one thing theyre not good at: cleaning delicate fabrics. Indeed, hot washes will destroy some fabrics such as silk, in which case an antibacterial additive needs to be put in the cooler wash. Dr Ackerley says: Dettol Disinfectant Liquid claims to kill 99.9 per cent of bacteria at low-temperature washes. And theres Napisan, a treatment powder for cloth nappies, which I use with other items of clothing, not just nappies. Other products that claim to sanitise clothes include Eradicil, Milton Antibacterial Fabric Solution and Halo. According to fabric technologist Mairwen Jones, biological powders work best at killing germs in  cooler washes.   +4  Out to dry: The Energy Saving Trust says 'economical' cool washes will save you a total of just £13 per year   They contain enzymes not present in non-biological detergents that break down stain particles, making them easier to wash off. At temperatures above 60°, the enzymes are killed off and the detergent is  less effective. Mairwen says its a myth that  sensitive skins should avoid biological detergents. If your machine rinses clothes properly, all traces of detergent should be removed, and they should be safe to wear against all skin-types. IS A QUICK RINSE ANY USE? Many modern machines have quick wash cycles that clean clothes in as little as 15 minutes, and the temperature never rises above 30c. Dr Neale says: A quick rinse is fine if the clothes are only very lightly soiled with fresh perspiration. But this length of time and temperature setting wont swell the yarns of the cotton, so any significant soiling will not be released. If you have a hot quick-wash cycle  60c or above  it should kill most germs. So you can save time and be really clean. DOES WASHING AT 30c SAVE YOU MONEY? According to the Energy Saving Trust, the average washing machine is used for 274 cycles a year, using up to £63-worth of electricity, depending on the model. Machine and detergent manufacturers are keen to claim that consumers can use around 40 per cent less energy if they choose cool washes. But are the savings worth it? Andy Trigg, an engineer who runs consumer website whitegoodshelp.co.uk, doesnt think so. Using 41 per cent less electricity by washing at 30c sounds impressive but, as always with percentage figures, you need some perspective to judge how useful they are. For example, 2p is 100 per cent more than 1p, but 1p is hardly astounding. He cites an example on a detergent advert that states: At 30c, the average energy consumed per wash was 0.284 KWh, while at peoples normal wash temperatures, this was 0.482 KWh. Andy says: This means the saving in electricity by washing at 30c was on average 0.198 KWh. The average cost of electricity is 10p for using 1,000 watts in an hour (KWh). This means you will have saved just under half  5p. The 41   per cent saving is only on this 5p, which works out at about 2p per wash. According to the Energy Saving Trust, the annual saving of cool washes is just £13 a year per household. Andy admits: Any saving is good, and small savings add up. But it is not going to save a fortune. And its certainly not going to kill off germs, either.  
Read more: How your eco-friendly cool wash can infest your clothes with GERMS | Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook*

----------


## johnc

Don't forget hanging them on the line and getting a good dose of sunshine gets rid of germs to, if you really want white sheets and undies then get an old copper and fire it up, of course you may also want to add the old wringer. Stone age technology really does work. Lets face it who cares, hot or cold and to avoid germs stop eating drinking and breathing, it will work but it will not be pleasant.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Tower of London - 1150 A.D.    
> Tower of London - 2005 A.D.

  Two points... 
First point:  Is it truly that difficult to edit your posts to remove the most meaningless crap and just leave the mostly meaningless stuff? 
Second point: Do you realise that, in the 12th Century, the Thames had no form of water flow and tidal control management such as it does today?  Have you heard of the Thames Barrages?  So trying to compare the two images is basically ludicrous.  But if it wasn't then I'd be disappointed in you... 
[sigh]

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Number three do not buy a product, any product at all because of claims of eco-friendliness. Research it, look into it, buy products who are produced efficiently and not those who claim to be green yet provoke disasters elsewhere.

  ...says the bloke with grid connected solar panels on his roof.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):   
Though you are correct in sentiment.  'Greenwash' is a potent marketing trap for the average crab.

----------


## Marc

> ...says the bloke with grid connected solar panels on his roof.

  Surely from all I have posted that is the best you can do? 
Finding a cheaper supplier of energy is hardly comparable to buying a product because of it's claims of "greeneness" and paying more for it. 
I have looked into solar panels and solar hot water for 20 years, and every time it was a simple mathematical calculation that showed it was impossible to recover the expense and so shelved the idea year after year. Every time the brain dead sales peach was the same. "Solar panels are a "green" alternative even if they cost a bit more". My reply: I hate green but like good business, come back next year.
When the government of the day in bed with the greens decided to throw away my hard earned tax money for false pretenses, all I could do was claim my share and make a profit. You should have done the same, in fact whoever did not do it had rocks in his head. In a few years time the contract will be over and I will put the panels on e-bay.  
Hot water: My hot water system was due for replacement at a cost of $1500 for a 320L. Y was offered this and the alternative of solar hot water for $4500 yet after a wad of taxpayers money thrown at me by the generous greens, always so bankrupt morally and financially yet so generous with other people's money ... the new 400 L solar system cost me $1500 give or take. The difference? A bit more storage and a saving of $20 a quarter in the already cheap off peak 1. I would be an idiot to pay $4500 but for the same price, I accepted the ugly panel on the roof and the complication of the system
Both were simple business decisions that had nothing to do with green choice.  
I know about the Thames barriers, and I know there has been a barrage of crap posted on this thread. Not sure of the relation.
Surely you know that the barriers only come into operation to avoid floods. There where floods in the middle ages and they prevent them now with the barrier. Your point being?
If they could build them in the 1300 they would have they surely needed then just like they do now.  The *Thames Barrier is the world's second-largest movable flood barrier (after the Oosterscheldekering in the Netherlands) and is located downstream of central London, United Kingdom. Operational since 1982, its purpose is to prevent the floodplain of all but the easternmost boroughs of Greater London from being flooded by exceptionally high tides and storm surges moving up from the North Sea. When needed, it is closed (raised) during high tide; at low tide it can be opened to enhance the river's flow towards the sea. Built approximately 3 km (1.9 mi) due east of the Isle of Dogs, its northern bank is in Silvertown in the London Borough of Newham and its southern bank is in the New Charlton area of the Royal Borough of Greenwich. The report of Sir Hermann Bondi on the North Sea flood of 1953 affecting parts of the Thames Estuary and parts of London[1] was instrumental in the building of the barrier.[2]*

----------


## intertd6

as far as rising sea levels in the UK this is well & truly buried, if your an avid watcher of the UK time team you would have noticed they have done quite a few episodes on inlets & rivers where ship building used to take place, there is now no water or has been for many centuries in some of these locations. The sea levels would seem to be falling to the casual observer.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> as far as rising sea levels in the UK this is well & truly buried, if your an avid watcher of the UK time team you would have noticed they have done quite a few episodes on inlets & rivers where ship building used to take place, there is now no water or has been for many centuries in some of these locations. The sea levels would seem to be falling to the casual observer.

  An equally casual observer could just as easily say that said estuaries and historical ports have silted up...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You should have done the same...

  We did.  However, no subsidy (apart from the RECS) was available and the feed in tariff we get is not especially generous.  Nevertheless, the system is sized for our usage so we overall we only pay the annual network charge. And we are off contract too.  Spending the money on solar panels only makes sense when you can generate the equivalent of what you use.  As for the future...we'll consider batteries with a grid as a backup but at the moment that doesn't make financial sense.   

> Hot water: My hot water system was due for replacement at a cost of $1500 for a 320L. Y was offered this and the alternative of solar hot water for $4500 yet after a wad of taxpayers money thrown at me by the generous greens, always so bankrupt morally and financially yet so generous with other people's money ... the new 400 L solar system cost me $1500 give or take. The difference? A bit more storage and a saving of $20 a quarter in the already cheap off peak 1. I would be an idiot to pay $4500 but for the same price, I accepted the ugly panel on the roof and the complication of the system
> Both were simple business decisions that had nothing to do with green choice.

  We got no subsidy for the solar HWS either because we got the unit as a showroom demo for a grand, bought two new panels for another $750 and paid another grand installing it.  All spread over a period of about three years. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Certainly saved us a few LPG bottles per annum. These days I'd do it a little differently... 
As for so-called 'green choices'...only a misguided idiot (or someone very welded to an ideology) makes those decisions in isolation from sound financial sense.  And subsidies are always market distortions so I'd much rather see them all knocked on the head (even the diesel fuel subsidy).

----------


## intertd6

> An equally casual observer could just as easily say that said estuaries and historical ports have silted up...

   And not a drop of water to be seen for miles where the shoreline used to be on the edge of a watercourse depression, with rising sea levels there should be water above the old shoreline level one would think. Now if the entrances to these areas was silted & closed off then they would be a shallow lake or similar.
regards inter

----------


## Marc

> And not a drop of water to be seen for miles where the shoreline used to be on the edge of a watercourse depression, with rising sea levels there should be water above the old shoreline level one would think. Now if the entrances to these areas was silted & closed off then they would be a shallow lake or similar.
> regards inter

   7 meters sea rise just about next year ... or was it 21 meters? The rain will be a thing of the past. Ice caps melting forever, no more arctic ice, Rice and wheat to be cultivated in Antarctica, Storms and hurricanes and earthquakes and pestilence, fire and brimstone from above. Swarms of locusts, the angel of death will pass and every first born ... oops sorry wrong religious quote ... it all gets sort of mixed up in the end. I wonder if professor F is building an ark with big Al's directions? Best vessel for an ark would be a second hand live cattle ship, bought cheap after killing the trade and imprisoning the owners for good measure. 
Yes, the old "THE SEA IS RISING !! (scream and run in circles holding both arms up in the air and waive side to side) 
A bit like "THE WEATHER IS HEATING UP" or "THE SKY IS FALLING" ... this last attributed to Asterix who did know about Greenland when it was Green due to climate change. Yes, they knew back then that climate actually is not fixed ... no no it actually changes ... wow, who would have thought!!! 
Sea rise my foot.

----------


## woodbe

We've got a few little denial tales happening here. Ignorance about the naming of Greenland and misconceptions about sea level rise. 
Greenland isn't called Greenland because it was green. It was false advertising.  :Biggrin:   Greenland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Sea level rise is a fact of warming planet and oceans. Even some of our pet skeptics agree the oceans are warming, but they don't seem to be able to stomach the fact that the warming oceans are expanding due to thermal expansion and melting land ice. This is called cognitive dissonance. They also seem to think that we can measure global sea level rise by scouring the tide gauges until we find one that shows no rise and ignore the rest - local conditions prevail in the short term.  
I doubt they will be interested in correcting their misconceptions, but just in case they would like to peek at some scientific explanations I've added a link that covers some of the bases:  Waves in the bathtub:Why sea level rise isnt level at all 
I agree that running the washing machine on cold doesn't save much energy, but we find it sure helps prolong the life of the clothes being washed. 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

Prolonging the life of the clothes? How long do you keep your clothes?
My clothes life is determined by usage, tearing, soiling, fashion in that order. Wear by washing them hot does not even rate a mention.
Then again, I suppose that if the charity bins would be actually used for charity and clothes given to the poor rather than cut up and sold for rags for the car mechanics, keeping them in better shape would have some value. 
Sea level. Been there than that. The sea level does change and has changed in the past, very distant past. Yes, heating expands the water, yes, the sea is not all nice and leveled at one point in time like a bath tab.
No, it is not wrong to cherry pick sea level gauges if you want to demonstrate that sea is rising. All you need to do is pick one that is located on land that is sinking and voila...the sea is rising. If you want to prove beyond doubt that the sea is sinking, pick one that is on land that is rising.   
If you want to prove that the sea is actually steady in this point in time, in the last 100 years or so, pick a gage that has a continuous history of data for the last 100 years and shows no sign of any change whatsoever. Yes we have one right here in Sydney, the SA people must be green of envy for that one. 
Of course you could argue that those gages that show no variation at all, are sitting on land that is rising at the same rate than the sea ... yes, I give you that argument to use for free. Remember though that no one cares that the sea is sinking rising or going sideways since no one can control the sea nor is dumb enough to pretend we can. It is only when you try to blame human activity that you can draw some political mileage blame someone and ask for taxes for it and keep making a living without working.  
So remember that if you use my argument of land rising at the same pace as ocean, that you have to find a reason for the land rising due to human activity. Perhaps you can blame the natural gas that we have pumped into pipes underground lifting the land? Just a thought. Farting underground could be another one, you know all those suckers going to work and taking the U bahn?

----------


## Marc

Yes the sea is not leveled like the bath tub, how nice. Seen your little link now. Particularly enlightening how the population of Australia living all on the coast is to blame for sea level rising much faster in Australia. That is priceless. Well who can blame us right? when you have to go you have to go! 
So the bumps and dips in the ocean's surface are created by currents, rivers, seasonal melting of snow and ice, winds etc. All very nice. 
Now even the most recalcitrant warmist will concede that despite this present catastrophic state of affairs where humans (damn them) have irreparably broken that equilibrium beyond repair... even the most fervent believer, will conceded however reluctantly that we have SEASONS. Uhuuu yes, the weather changes, dare I say the climate? 
So the wind that blows in one direction and heaps up some water here and there, will eventually change direction, the heat will turn into cold, the expansion into contraction, the current change direction or slow down, the river freeze up and stop flowing, the ice forming and stop melting (is that really possible?????)  
So what does the water do?  
Can a water mountain stay high all year around, decades after decades? century after century? will the current that creates a low or a high keep that forever? 
Of course not, the wind stops and so does the artificially high point in the water, the current slows down and the dip is gone, the ice freezes in winter and there is no more river etc, etc ... so all in all, a land based sea level gage, providing it is not on shaky ground will record an average sea level regardless of the location, winds, melting or freezing ice and currents providing it has an uninterrupted and reliable history of data. 
No amount of rubber ducks will ever change that.

----------


## woodbe

How long do I keep my clothes? lol. 
How about until they wear out? Some of my regularly worn clothes would be 5 years old or more. I often wear some trousers I bought in 2005 and they are still smart. 
Hot wash cycles wear clothes and progressively take the colour out of them.  
Sea level rise is a fact. I'm sure we can cherry pick a low area, or a high area, but if we instead collate all of the available global data, the answer is: it's rising, and we know why: It's getting warmer, and land ice is melting.  
Happy to read any scientific reference you might have that suggests that the global sea level is not rising. Hint: Just because there is a beach down the end of your street does not disprove SLR.  :Cool:  
Also interested in any scientific references you might have that prove the oceans are not warming or that global land ice is not melting. Knock yourself out  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

So Marc, am I correct in reading your comments that sea levels aren't rising, gauges are falling? and if land is rising its because someone farted.  
We use the cold wash cycle for the same reason as Woodbe, although I would say I doubt many would do so for the environment after all a solar HWS fixes any issues there.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And not a drop of water to be seen for miles where the shoreline used to be on the edge of a watercourse depression, with rising sea levels there should be water above the old shoreline level one would think. Now if the entrances to these areas was silted & closed off then they would be a shallow lake or similar.

  That strikes me as a pair of casual assumptions rather than casual observations  :Biggrin:  
Bit hard to expect visible sea level rises above today's shoreline given that the recorded rises to date have only been in the order of a few centimetres...you have to be a bit more patient than that!!!  Didn't your mum tell you that all good things come to those who wait?  Anybody would think you are Gen Y!  :Sneaktongue:

----------


## intertd6

> That strikes me as a pair of casual assumptions rather than casual observations  
> Bit hard to expect visible sea level rises above today's shoreline given that the recorded rises to date have only been in the order of a few centimetres...you have to be a bit more patient than that!!!  Didn't your mum tell you that all good things come to those who wait?  Anybody would think you are Gen Y!

  I just find it interesting that's all & logically with sea level rise being recorded at 1 to 2 mm per year one would expect after several centuries that the time team would need a barge & scuba gear to look at old ship building archaeology sites & not an excavator that's on a previous shoreline on a dry site. Gen Y have been pumped full of prejudiced stuff like this & swallow it without question, logically it needs questioning because the so called claims do not match what appears to be happening on the ground
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> I just find it interesting that's all & logically with sea level rise being recorded at 1 to 2 mm per year one would expect after several centuries that the time team would need a barge & scuba gear to look at old ship building archaeology sites

  Understand your problem inter. It comes with the package of picking sites that do not reflect the trend in global sea level rise. I know from a [S]troll[/S] skeptic point of view, that's a lot of fun but it isn't productive, nor is it relevant to the global trend. 
I'm guessing you have a fair knowledge that sites that do not reflect the global trend exist, and reasons they occur.    

> Since 1993, measurements from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite  radar altimeters have allowed estimates of global mean sea level.  These  measurements are continuously calibrated against a network of tide  gauges.  When seasonal and other variations are subtracted, they allow  estimation of the global mean sea level rate. As new data, models and  corrections become available, we continuously revise these estimates  (about every two months) to improve their quality.

   2013_rel8: Global Mean Sea Level Time Series (seasonal signals removed) | CU Sea Level Research Group 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Understand your problem inter. It comes with the package of picking sites that do not reflect the trend in global sea level rise. I know from a [S]troll[/S] skeptic point of view, that's a lot of fun but it isn't productive, nor is it relevant to the global trend. 
> I'm guessing you have a fair knowledge that sites that do not reflect the global trend exist, and reasons they occur.      2013_rel8: Global Mean Sea Level Time Series (seasonal signals removed) | CU Sea Level Research Group 
> woodbe.

  All you have to do is trust the corrections are correct I suppose.

----------


## woodbe

> All you have to do is trust the corrections are correct I suppose.

  LOL 
Cool. Not only do we have denial that sea levels are rising, we now have another skeptic suggesting conspiracy theories that the data is being tampered with. 
Who is doing it, Rod?  :Rolleyes:  
You do realise that these data are based on tide gauges as well as satellite observations, which independent of each other come to the same conclusions? 
Lets not mention that the sort of people who are promoting conspiracy theories of this kind recently set up their own journal only to have it kicked off the face of the earth because of 'nepotism' not to mention breach of trust with the publisher.  *PatternGate:*   

> *Termination of the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics*
>  Copernicus Publications started publishing the journal Pattern  Recognition in Physics (PRP) in March 2013. The journal idea was brought  to Copernicus attention and was taken rather critically in the  beginning, since the designated Editors-in-Chief were mentioned in the  context of the debates of climate skeptics. However, the initiators  asserted that the aim of the journal was to publish articles about  patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines rather  than to focus on climate-research-related topics.
>  Recently, a special issue was compiled entitled Pattern in solar  variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts. Besides  papers dealing with the observed patterns in the heliosphere, the  special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which  they doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the  IPCC project (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205206, 2013).
>  Copernicus Publications published the work and other special issue  papers to provide the spectrum of the related papers to the scientists  for their individual judgment. Following best practice in scholarly  publishing, published articles cannot be removed afterwards.
>  In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis,  which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in  accordance with our publication ethics we expect to be followed by the  editors.
>  Therefore, we at Copernicus Publications wish to distance ourselves  from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of  the journal as well as the malpractice regarding the review process, and  decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP. Of course,  scientific dispute is controversial and should allow contradictory  opinions which can then be discussed within the scientific community.  However, the recent developments including the expressed implications  (see above) have led us to this drastic decision.
>  Interested scientists can reach the online library at: www.pattern-recogn-phys.net

  Science Denialists Make Fake Journal, Get Shut Down.  Greg Laden's Blog 
And the skeptics are claiming conspiracy theories about the temperature and SLR records? LOL. 
This is such a catastrophe for Climate Change denial that even Anthony Watts is running away from his long term denial mates, hoping that the mud doesn't stick to him as well.  
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

Telegraph.co.uk    Friday 24 January 2014          HomeNewsWorldSportFinanceCommentCultureTravelLifeWomenFashionLuxuryTech    DatingOffersJobs       BlogsColumnistsPersonal ViewTelegraph ViewLettersCartoon ArchiveMy TelegraphPolitics    * HOME»COMMENT»COLUMNISTS»CHRISTOPHER BOOKER  *   *Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'*  *The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker.*    *Christopher Booker*  6:25PM GMT 28 Mar 2009 *150 Comments*   If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.  Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film _An Inconvenient Truth_ went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.  But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.  Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by 
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.  The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".  *Related Articles*    The Pinzgauer Vector scandal shows there's no shortage of things for our 'bored' MPs to be doing  28 Mar 2009   When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown. Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile,  
Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.  One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend". 
When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria. _
For_ more information, see Dr Mörner on YouTube (Google Mörner, Maldives and YouTube); or read on the net his 2007 EIR interview "Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud"; or email him morner@pog.nu  to buy a copy of his booklet 'The Greatest Lie Ever Told' *
Fined, frozen and now jailed* The Marine Fisheries Agency was certainly onto a winner when it enlisted the aid of the Assets Recovery Agency in its ruthless war against our fishermen. In December 2007 Charles McBride and his son Charles, from Kilkeel in Northern Ireland, were fined £385,000 for under-declaring catches of whitefish and prawns in the Irish Sea, threatening the loss of their homes and boat. But the Assets Recovery Agency, using powers designed to recover money from drug dealers, also froze all their assets. To pay the fines, the McBrides tried to borrow against their assets. Now, for this effort to pay the fines, Liverpool Crown Court has sentenced the two men to two and three months in gaol for contempt of court. *
Blown away* The Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, timed his jibe impeccably last week when he said that opposing wind farms is as socially unacceptable as not wearing a seatbelt. Britains largest windfarm companies are pulling out of wind as fast as they can. Despite 100 per cent subsidies, the credit crunch and technical problems spell an end to Gordon Browns £100 billion dream of meeting our EU target to derive 35 per cent of our electricity from renewables by 2020. Meanwhile the Government gives the go-ahead for three new 1,000 megawatt gas-fired power stations in Wales. Each of them will generate more than the combined average output (700 megawatts) of all the 2,400 wind turbines so far built. The days of the great wind fantasy will soon be over.

----------


## Marc

_IPCC = Intro national politburo's cacophony of crap.     
			
				In any case, lets review what IPCC has projected in their Summary for Policymakers reports crafted for prime time media audiences:
			
		  _   

> _The first assessment report (1990) showed a rising sea level range of 10-367 cm by the year 2100. Thats some range!__The second report (1996) narrowed the range to 3-124 cm by 2100._ _The third report (2001) showed the range to be 11-77 cm by 2100._ _The fourth report (2007) originally showed 14-43 cm in draftthen changed it to 18-59 cm in final printed version._

  Alarmists Are In Way Over Their Heads On Rising Ocean Claims - Forbes

----------


## Marc

[QUOTE]   Fake Sea Level Rise Approved by NASA in Climate Fraud ___johnosullivan_ _
May 13th, 2011__ NASA researchers admit adding fake inches to sea level rises. Skeptics denounce desperate attempt to salvage government global warming policies. 
In a disturbing development in the ongoing global warming fiasco the U.S. government funded Sea Level Research Grouphas been given a green light from NASA to exaggerate sea level rises way above actual recorded measurements. The reason? So that policy makers can falsely blame humans for adding to natural rises in sea levels.  Land Mass Rise Used as Excuse to Fiddle Data  
The NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group is based at the University of Colorado. It made the announcementlast week that it will begin adding a nonexistent 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. 
Reporting in Forbes Magazine on this farce isJames M. Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute.Taylor pinpoints that NASAs reason for this latest trick is to compensate for rising land mass.  Most folk have now cottoned onto the shenanigans of government paid climatologists since Climategate. In 2009 a clique of secretive scientists were caught fudging world temperatures to make it appear the earth was warming unnaturally when it wasnt.  But with interest in global warming now bottoming to a 20-year low desperate new measures are being dreamt up to scare voters into accepting more tax rises to stem non-existent 'human caused climate change.  Now government experts claim they need to add the bogus extra 0.3 millimeters each year onto satellite measurements of our ocean levels, which will conjure up an 1.2 inches over the course of the 21st century, to compensate for the rise in land which has been occurring without any human interference since the end of the last ice age 11,000 years ago.  Last Ice Age Melting Still Changing Our Planet   Back then Manhattan and most of England was buried under one mile of ice that compressed the ground like squeezing water from a sponge. Over time the land has slowly been springing back up as the weight of billions of tons of ice has melted.  Taylor points out that this steady pace of an 8-inch rise in sea levels for the last century is very much in line with previous rates of sea level rise during our current Holocene interglacial period.  But Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate Newsadds, with an artificially enhanced 9.2 inches of sea level rise, alarmists can claim sea level is rising 31 percent faster than it did last century.  He notes, While this is not monumental in and of itself, it will allow alarmists to paint a dramatically different picture of sea level rise than is occurring in the real world.  Skeptics are accusing NASA of needless fiddling to bail out the discredited United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which had hyped computer model guesstimates that wed see 15 inches of sea level rise during the 21st century, which is double the rate recorded over the past century.   Even Al Gore No Longer Believes Sea Level Spin   However, rises in global temperatures have also stopped since the start of the 21st century and global cooling appears to have set in; according to independent researchers we may be on the cusp of a new ice age. Another clue that the global warming cult is on its last legs comes from former U.S. President, Al Gore, who first whipped up the frenzy about catastrophic sea level rises in his film, An Inconvenient Truth;  Gore is now the proud owner of a $9 million oceanfront villa in Montecito, California.  As the old saying goes, 'follow the money' and with so little real world data to back up increasingly discredited climate alarmism public interest in the global warming doomsaying continues to fall off a cliff.    _

----------


## Marc

C3: ? Are Oceans Rising  

> *Is Human CO2 Causing Ocean Islands To Be Swamped By Rising Seas? Short Answer: Nope*  Read here. Actually, the islands we refer to in the headline are more accurately coral atolls, as explained in the article. We've done postings on atolls, coral reefs and oceans rising before but this article is the best compilation of pertinent information we've read - it is definitely a 'keeper'._"What can be done to turn the situation around for the atolls? From the outside, not a whole lot. Stopping the Czechs from burning coal wont do a damned thing. From the outside, we can offer only assistance. The work needs to occur on the atolls themselves. There are, however, a number of low-cost, practical steps that atoll residents can take to preserve and build up their atolls, and protect the fresh water lens. In no particular order these are:"_Read the linked article for the solutions the islanders need to take themselves, instead of their blaming others and seeking monetary handouts. BTW, this is another example of the bogus climate alarmist science that the IPCC and certain  climate scientists have promulgated. For fame, glory and riches, these scientists are causing needless lawsuits instead of focusing the attention of politicians on the real solutions to maintaining Earth's health, be it atolls or the Amazon or other. Eventually, historians may well view the "global warming" fraudulent science as a crime against humanity.

----------


## Marc

*Southern Hemisphere: Long-Term Evidence of Tiny Sea Rise of 4 Inches per Century*  Read here. Tasmania, an island which would be severely impacted by Antarctica melting, is experiencing a whopping, constant four inches of sea rise per century. Obviously, Antarctica is not melting as the mainstream press and global warming alarmists claim. (click on image to enlarge) _"Noting that "historic and modern records from Port Arthur, Tasmania, cover the longest time span of any sea level observations in the Southern Hemisphere and are related to a single benchmark," they say "they provide a significant contribution to our knowledge of past sea level rise in this data-sparse region." And part of that significance must reside in their noting that their sea level rate-of-change results "are at the lower end of the recent estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on global average rise for the 20th century.""_            *Sea Level at Port Arthur, Tasmania**Reference*
Hunter, J., Coleman, R. and Pugh, D. 2003. The sea level at Port Arthur, Tasmania, from 1841 to the present._Geophysical Research Letters_ *30*: 10.1029/2002GL016813.*Background*
The authors write that "on 1 July 1841, a sea level benchmark was struck on a small cliff on the Isle of the Dead, near the penal settlement of Port Arthur, Tasmania ... by T.J. Lempriere, an amateur scientist and storekeeper at Port Arthur, and Captain James Clark Ross, who was visiting Tasmania during his explorations of 1839-43." *What was done*
Hunter _et al_. compared Lempriere's measurements of 1841-1842 with observations made at Port Arthur in 1875-1905, 1972 and 1999-2002. *What was learned*
The full set of data indicated an average rate of sea level rise, relative to the land, of 0.8 ± 0.2 mm/year over the period 1841 to 2002, which yields, in their words, "an estimate of average sea level rise due to an increase in the volume of the oceans of 1.0 ± 0.3 mm/year, over the same period." *What it means*
The three researchers say their results may be compared with recent estimates for the two longest (continuous) Australian records of Fremantle and Fort Denison of 1.6 and 1.2 mm/year, respectively, after glacial isostatic adjustment, citing Lambeck (2002). Noting that "historic and modern records from Port Arthur, Tasmania, cover the longest time span of any sea level observations in the Southern Hemisphere and are related to a single benchmark," they say "they provide a significant contribution to our knowledge of past sea level rise in this data-sparse region." And part of that significance must reside in their noting that their sea level rate-of-change results "are at the lower end of the recent estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on global average rise for the 20th century." *Reference*
Lambeck, K. 2002. Sea level change from Mid Holocene to recent time: An Australian example with global implications. In: _Ice Sheets, Sea Level and the Dynamic Earth._ American Geophysical Union, Washington DC,_Geodynamics Series_ *29*: 33-50.
 Reviewed 4 March 2009  Printer Friendly Version   Copyright © 2014. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. All Rights Reserved.

----------


## woodbe

It doesn't get any better than this. LOL   

> But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story. 
>  Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

  Science Denialists Make Fake Journal, Get Shut Down.  Greg Laden's Blog 
Guess who one of the editors of the PatternGate denial journal was? None other than the esteemed mega denial ex professor, ex INQUA chair Nils-Axel Mörner. Nice that they placed several fish in a barrel and drew such a large target on it.  :Biggrin:    

> The  reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain  that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that  they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings  are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening  in the real world".

  Oh yea. Those tide gauges that are recording SLR, and the Satellites? Those are not in the real world, those are figments of some computer model. If you went down the local pier and saw a tide gauge, that wasn't real, it was put into your brain by a computer model. lol. 
Mörner makes a big deal of being past chairman of INQUA and claims his denial of SLR is in alignment with the views of INQUA. Nothing could be further than from the truth:   

> INQUA has been trying to dissociate itself from Mörner's views. Current  president of the INQUA  commission on Coastal and Marine Processes,  Professor Roland Gehrels of  the University of Plymouth, says his view do  not represent 99% of its  members, and the organisation has previously  stated that it is  "distressed" that Mörner continues to falsely "represent himself in his  former capacity."

  I think Dr Mörner just got a lesson on what's happening in the real world rather than his SLR denial world. If he knows more about sea levels than any other scientist in the world then he is making an amazing effort to hide it. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Southern Hemisphere: Long-Term Evidence of Tiny Sea Rise of 4 Inches per Century 
>  Read here. Tasmania, an island which would be severely impacted by Antarctica melting, is experiencing a whopping, constant four inches of sea rise per century. Obviously, Antarctica is not melting as the mainstream press and global warming alarmists claim.

  Yet another lol. 
Note for Marc. 
When scientists study and report on past, present and future global sea level rise, they are looking at the total picture. That is why it's called GLOBAL. There are many reasons why a particular location might have a higher or lower rise than expected, and finding one of those locations (it's not hard, even the denialists can find them) does nothing to prove GLOBAL sea level rise incorrect. 
lol #2 
As for a lack of rapid SLR on the coasts of Tasmania being evidence of a lack of melting ice in Antarctica, good luck with that theory! 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

Well quite a few here have show exactly where the sea level isn't rising, how about showing exactly where the sea level is rising? Not some phoney data trawled from who knows where.
regards inter

----------


## Marc

[QUOTE] _IPCC_  _The first assessment report (1990) showed a rising sea level range of 10-367 cm by the year 2100. Thats some range!_ _The second report (1996) narrowed the range to 3-124 cm by 2100._ _The third report (2001) showed the range to be 11-77 cm by 2100._ _The fourth report (2007) originally showed 14-43 cm in draftthen changed it to 18-59 cm in final printed version._ [/QUOTE] 
Only religious belief or political affiliation can compel someone to support the above cacophony. 
Anything and everything goes for the alarmist, it is rather pathetic. 
Fortunately it is almost over. 
The conaga line of labor/green/commie are now shaking their maracas and asking for donations.
No one is listening anymore.
The end.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> LOL 
> Cool. Not only do we have denial that sea levels are rising, we now have another skeptic suggesting conspiracy theories that the data is being tampered with.

  Did I suggest that?? 
I don't think so.

----------


## woodbe

> Well quite a few here have show exactly where the sea level isn't rising, how about showing exactly where the sea level is rising? Not some phoney data trawled from who knows where.
> regards inter

  'quite a few here' have trawled google finding examples that show that the global data is composed of a range of values, some of which show that local sea level is not rising at the same rate as the global trend. 
If you really want to see other examples that show rising, I suggest you trawl google, make a polite enquiry to the CU or download the raw data and have a look yourself:   Google  Contact/Feedback | CU Sea Level Research Group  Obtaining Tide Gauge Data 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

Well ... I followed woodbe's suggestions and look what I found!  Sea level data set to music. Yeah, that’s right. | Climate Sanity

----------


## woodbe

> Well ... I followed woodbe's suggestions and look what I found!  Sea level data set to music. Yeah, thats right. | Climate Sanity

  And follow the links to the analysis (by a seasoned SLR denier, no less):   

> *Data overview*
> 159 stations are listed by NOAA.  They've been in operation for an average of ~85 years.  *Local Mean Sea Level (LMSL) rose at 117 locations, and fell at 41 locations.* 
>    The location with both the greatest total increase and fastest rate of increase was  Galveston,  TX, USA, where mean sea level rose about 63 cm (2.1 feet) over a period of 99 years.
>    The location with the greatest total decrease was Vaasa,  Finland, where mean sea level fell by about 91 cm (3.0 feet) over 124 years, but  the location with the fastest rate of decrease was Furuogrund,  Sweden, where mean sea level fell at a rate of 8.17 mm/year (2.68 feet/century) over 92 years.
>    The location with the *median* rate of LMSL change was Prince Rupert, Canada,  where MSL rose at a rate of *1.09 mm/year* (0.358 ft/century). Only 52 of 159 locations had LMSL rates of increase which were greater than the IPCC's claimed  global average of 1.8 mm/year.  At 65 of the remaining 107 locations, the LMSL trend was up, but by less than 1.8 mm/year.  At one location the LMSL trend was flat (neither up nor down).  At the other 41 locations, the LMSL trend was down.

  Analysis of linear mean sea level (MSL) trends, including distance-weighted averaging 
As suggested, the global average SLR includes all these locations, because, well, it's GLOBAL. Anyone promoting the lack of SLR at a particular location as disproving GLOBAL SLR is playing denial games. For the same reasons, I have resisted the entreaties here to show sites displaying sea level rise to compete with those sites not showing sea level rise, and as Marc has shown, they are easy to find if you think they will help your understanding. 
And, if you're up for comprehensive statistical analysis of SLR and the denial of it, there is a solid post over at Tamino's: Unnatural Hazards | Open Mind 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> And follow the links to the analysis (by a seasoned SLR denier, no less):    Analysis of linear mean sea level (MSL) trends, including distance-weighted averaging 
> As suggested, the global average SLR includes all these locations, because, well, it's GLOBAL. Anyone promoting the lack of SLR at a particular location as disproving GLOBAL SLR is playing denial games. For the same reasons, I have resisted the entreaties here to show sites displaying sea level rise to compete with those sites not showing sea level rise, and as Marc has shown, they are easy to find if you think they will help your understanding. 
> And, if you're up for comprehensive statistical analysis of SLR and the denial of it, there is a solid post over at Tamino's: Unnatural Hazards | Open Mind 
> woodbe.

   galvaston has recorded land subsidence over the last century so low & behold the sea level has risen, the same goes with prince Rupert, don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out what's going on. Seems like your source material is biased & false.
The vaasa land is both rising & subsiding across the city, who would think that any sort of data from there would be credible & worth including in any scientific study.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> galvaston has recorded land subsidence over the last century so low & behold the sea level has risen, the same goes with prince Rupert, don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out what's going on. Seems like your source material is biased & false.
> The vaasa land is both rising & subsiding across the city, who would think that any sort of data from there would be credible.
> regards inter

  According to the locals, the subsidence at Galveston is about half the total, so what is your excuse for the rest?   

> Since 1908, the tide gauge at Pier 21 on Galveston Island has recorded a  rise in relative sea level of about two feet. Roughly one foot of this  rise is due to a global increase in ocean water volume caused by climate  change with the remainder caused by local land subsidence. The amount  of relative sea-level rise across the greater Houston area varies  because of differences in how much the land is sinking.

  It's pointless cherry picking stations hoping to find confirmation bias. 
If you spend the time to check out what the researchers do to eliminate the sort of fraud you are accusing them of, all you have to do is to read their peer reviewed papers. Here is an excerpt from Church & White 2011 (bottom of Pg 588):   

> Sea-level measurements are affected by vertical land motion. Corrections for local land motion  can  come  from  long-term  geological  observations  of  the  rate  of  relative  local sea-level  change  
> (assuming the relative  sea-level  change  on these  longer times scales  is from land motions rather than changing ocean volume), or from models of glacial isostatic adjustment, or more recently from direct measurements of land motion with respect to the centre of the Earth using Global Positioning System (GPS) observations. Here, the ongoing response of the Earth  to changes in  surface loading following  the last glacial maximum were  removed  from  the  tide-gauge  records  using  the  same  estimate  of  glacial  isostatic adjustment  (GIA;  Davis  and  Mitrovica 1996;  Milne  et  al. 2001)  as  in  our  earlier  study (Church et al. 2004).

    http://link.springer.com/content/pdf...011-9119-1.pdf 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> According to the locals, the subsidence at Galveston is about half the total, so what is your excuse for the rest?   
> It's pointless cherry picking stations hoping to find confirmation bias. 
> woodbe.

  i love the scientific word you used " roughly" which shows how accurate it isn't.
as usual every example you have provided is rubbish, keep trying to find something to back up your claims, it was a simple question asked about finding somewhere that the sea level is rising that is reasonably beyond simple scrutiny, but maybe your usual audience are more intellectually disadvantaged than I am, who swallow your parroted dribble with glee & don't pull you up on it. 
Just one place would be a start!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> i love the scientific word you used " roughly" which shows how accurate it isn't.
> as usual every example you have provided is rubbish, keep trying to find something to back up your claims, it was a simple question asked about finding somewhere that the sea level is rising that is reasonably beyond simple scrutiny, but maybe your usual audience are more intellectually disadvantaged than I am, who swallow your parroted dribble with glee & don't pull you up on it. 
> Just one place would be a start!
> regards inter

  See my reply above. You are displaying immense ignorance. 
Do you honestly believe that the process of researching a subject like this would involve ignoring land movement around the tide gauges? Where did you learn this drivel, it certainly wouldn't have been in any Australian educational institution.  
You might not like the output of scientific research, and there is no question that science can have errors in it, but denying MSLR is plain dumb. It is supported by: 
1. Tide gauges, corrected for land movements.
2. Satellite altimetry.
3. Physics. (you know this, you have accepted that the oceans are warming. Warming water expands) 
These are not my 'claims'. This is the current state of our knowledge of the system. As usual, your 'claims' that the information is incorrect is not based on research, it is based on ignorance of the scientific process and an unwillingness to accept the results of the scientific research. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> See my reply above. You are displaying immense ignorance. 
> Do you honestly believe that the process of researching a subject like this would involve ignoring land movement around the tide gauges? Where did you learn this drivel, it certainly wouldn't have been in any Australian educational institution.  
> You might not like the output of scientific research, and there is no question that science can have errors in it, but denying MSLR is plain dumb. It is supported by: 
> 1. Tide gauges, corrected for land movements.
> 2. Satellite altimetry.
> 3. Physics. (you know this, you have accepted that the oceans are warming. Warming water expands) 
> These are not my 'claims'. This is the current state of our knowledge of the system. As usual, your 'claims' that the information is incorrect is not based on research, it is based on ignorance of the scientific process and an unwillingness to accept the results of the scientific research. 
> woodbe.

  More dribble, just one place for start will be ok, no more dribble it's not that much of a secret that you have to fob it off to some link.
your pulling stuff out of your behind on the correction of tide gauges in association to ground movement.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> More dribble, just one place for start will be ok, no more dribble it's not that much of a secret that you have to fob it off to some link.
> regards inter

  'One place' says nothing. The subject is Global Sea Level Rise, not Local Sea Level Rise.  
Unless you can prove your claims that the data and/or analysis is fraudulent you have run out of argument. I have explained why SLR is real, perhaps you could apply your intellect to those three points and explain why they are wrong: 
1. Tide gauges, corrected for land movements.
2. Satellite altimetry.
3. Physics. (you know this, you have accepted that the oceans are warming. Warming water expands) 
I also suggest you read the Church and White paper linked above. If you want to debate someone about SLR you need to read something other than WUWT or your responses will display ignorance as they have here. If you can find a peer reviewed paper that refutes SLR, please link it as I would like to see it. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> your pulling stuff out of your behind on the correction of tide gauges in association to ground movement.

  Quoted for you again, so you might actually read and realise what you just accused yourself of.   

> Sea-level measurements are affected by vertical land motion. Corrections for local land
>  motion  can  come  from  long-term  geological  observations  of  the  rate  of  relative  local sea-level  change  
> (assuming the relative  sea-level  change  on these  longer times scales  is
>  from land motions rather than changing ocean volume), or from models of glacial isostatic
>  adjustment, or more recently from direct measurements of land motion with respect to the
>  centre of the Earth using Global Positioning System (GPS) observations. Here, the ongoing
>  response of the Earth  to changes in  surface loading following  the last glacial maximum
>  were  removed  from  the  tide-gauge  records  using  the  same  estimate  of  glacial  isostatic
>  adjustment  (GIA;  Davis  and  Mitrovica 1996;  Milne  et  al. 2001)  as  in  our  earlier  study (Church et al. 2004).

  From Church & White 2011 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

And just to bang the final nail in this coffin of SLR denial.  :Tongue:  
I took the step of emailing Neil White who you might recognise as one of the authors of the paper quoted above, and I asked for specific information regarding Galveston:   

> My opponent has grasped Galveston TX Pier 21 which is quoted in pmsl as  having +60cm of SLR and there is a general acceptance that there is land  subsidence of the pier of about half that. How is this information  incorporated into your research?

  Just to recap, you are claiming that the data is polluted by land movements, and these movements are not taken into account despite my quote above directly from the Church 2011 paper. Specifically you claimed:   

> your pulling stuff out of your behind on the correction of tide gauges in association to ground movement.

  You can keep Galveston and hang it on your wall as a badge of ignorance. Neil White responded:   

> We don't use records that are clearly contaminated by local land movement such as Galveston and Manila.

  The tide gauge data are adjusted in the research for land movements, except where the local land movements are too great, in those cases the stations are omitted from the data set altogether. Again, we are talking about Global Sea Level Rise here, not Local Sea Level Rise, and the research clearly shows that we have Global Sea Level Rise despite the ups and downs of individual stations. 
Additionally, the results of the Satellite altimetry also show Global Sea Level Rise. The time series is not yet long enough but at the very least it confirms that we are seeing sea level rise using a different method than the tide gauges.  
High quality measurements of (near)-global sea level have been made  since late 1992 by  satellite altimeters, in particular, TOPEX/Poseidon (launched August,  1992), Jason-1  (launched December, 2001) and Jason-2 (launched June, 2008). This data  has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea  Level (GMSL) of around 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/year over that period.  This is more  than 50% larger  than the average value over the 20th century.  Whether or not this  represents a further increase  in the rate of sea level rise is not yet certain. 
from: :: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO & ACECRC ::  
woodbe. 
edit: corrected Neil White surname error.

----------


## intertd6

> And just to bang the final nail in this coffin of SLR denial.  
> I took the step of emailing Neil White who you might recognise as one of the authors of the paper quoted above, and I asked for specific information regarding Galveston:   
> Just to recap, you are claiming that the data is polluted by land movements, and these movements are not taken into account despite my quote above directly from the Church 2011 paper. Specifically you claimed:   
> You can keep Galveston and hang it on your wall as a badge of ignorance. Neil White responded:   
> The tide gauge data are adjusted in the research for land movements, except where the local land movements are too great, in those cases the stations are omitted from the data set altogether. Again, we are talking about Global Sea Level Rise here, not Local Sea Level Rise, and the research clearly shows that we have Global Sea Level Rise despite the ups and downs of individual stations. 
> Additionally, the results of the Satellite altimetry also show Global Sea Level Rise. The time series is not yet long enough but at the very least it confirms that we are seeing sea level rise using a different method than the tide gauges.  
> High quality measurements of (near)-global sea level have been made  since late 1992 by  satellite altimeters, in particular, TOPEX/Poseidon (launched August,  1992), Jason-1  (launched December, 2001) and Jason-2 (launched June, 2008). This data  has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea  Level (GMSL) of around 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/year over that period.  This is more  than 50% larger  than the average value over the 20th century.  Whether or not this  represents a further increase  in the rate of sea level rise is not yet certain. 
> from: :: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO & ACECRC ::  
> woodbe. 
> edit: corrected Neil White surname error.

  so you include links to sea level rise from a NOOA that includes Galveston & prince Rupert then you say that some fellow doesn't use this type of data, crikey you've got your dribble that mixed up even you can't understand how stupid it is.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> so you include links to sea level rise from a NOOA that includes Galveston & prince Rupert then you say that some fellow doesn't use this type of data, crikey you've got your dribble that mixed up even you can't understand how stupid it is.
> regards inter

  Please try to keep up. The link was provided by Marc, I just quoted it. Ironically, it was from a SLR denial site although the original data it was based on came from NOAA.  :Tongue:  
The tide gauge data is provided by the psmsl (google it), and includes all operating tide gauges on the network including Galveston. It is up to researchers to decide which data to use, and in this case they excluded the data contaminated by high land movements, thereby extinguishing your claim that they were ignoring land movement on tide gauges. 
I think I've demonstrated you have nothing to offer in defence of your claim there is no sea level rise and the researchers are using data fraudulently. Of course, I don't expect you to accept that so feel free to continue making nonsense posts without responding to the detail provided. 
If you would like to respond with substance, I would remind you that you have not yet responded to these three points previously raised, we are still waiting for your response as to why they are wrong in respect of SLR:   

> 1. Tide gauges, corrected for land movements.
> 2. Satellite altimetry.
> 3. Physics. (you know this, you have accepted that the oceans are warming. Warming water expands)

  woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

The cracks are getting wider. https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/201...limate-change/   

> ...there has been no significant warming over the most recent fifteen or so years  
> In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem ... in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of societys respect for scientific endeavour   
> Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster It can no longer escape prime responsibility if it should turn out in the end that doing something in the name of mitigation of global warming is the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on humanity.

----------


## woodbe

> The cracks are getting wider. https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/fundamental-uncertainties-climate-change/     
> 			
> 				...there has been no significant warming over the most recent fifteen or so years

  There we go again. Let's pick a short time span that suits our worldview, then let's ignore that the oceans have been accumulating heat throughout this time and then let's tell everyone it's over because the scientist's dare to calculate uncertainties. 
The author of the Quadrant piece, Garth Partridge, wrote a book titled 'The Climate Caper'. None other than Monckton wrote the forward for that book, one can only guess he couldn't find anyone credible prepared to support him and write it. 
Next!  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## PhilT2

You guys have got to stop raiding the retirement village every time you need an expert. poor old Garth has been retired for years and hasn't published a decent scientific article with real data (not opinion) since...well never actually. His book, Climate Capers, does support Monckton's theory that global warming is a conspiracy by the UN to take over the world; we could discuss his evidence for that if you like, that is if he has any.

----------


## Marc

> You guys have got to stop raiding the retirement village every time you need an expert. poor old Garth has been retired for years and hasn't published a decent scientific article with real data (not opinion) since...well never actually. His book, Climate Capers, does support Monckton's theory that global warming is a conspiracy by the UN to take over the world; we could discuss his evidence for that if you like, that is if he has any.

  The reason why a lot of the dissenting voices are from retired scientist is rather obvious. They are out of the loop. off the gravy train and have nothing to lose. No pay from both sides may be a good incentive to come clean. 
The reality is daunting. Global warming re-baptised climate change re-baptised rapid climate change is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated against humanity, comparable to the inquisition it is equally handy for the political powers to use for extra power and extra taxes, and extra contracts and extra kickbacks.   
The fail safe piggy back of sea level rise to global warming is even more shameful considering that the reasons for sea level variations is well known and its causes rooted in changes that occurred 18000 years ago and whose influence will continue another 7000 years unless we get another ice age regardless of the minuscule variations in temperatures in the recent 100 years and clearly regardless of the even more infinitesimal and impossible to measure variations if any caused by human activity. 
The concept that "we must do something about it" is so dull witted that it makes you think whoever supports it is putting it on for ulterior motives.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> There we go again. Let's pick a short time span that suits our worldview, then let's ignore that the oceans have been accumulating heat throughout this time and then let's tell everyone it's over because the scientist's dare to calculate uncertainties. 
> The author of the Quadrant piece, Garth Partridge, wrote a book titled 'The Climate Caper'. None other than Monckton wrote the forward for that book, one can only guess he couldn't find anyone credible prepared to support him and write it. 
> Next!  
> woodbe.

  We are very patient about this very slow moving train wreck.  Most sceptics realise it is going to take years for this to wind down completely.   
So each little nail that goes in the coffin like this is sweet.  Made even sweeter when the most rusted on warmists try to stay the coarse with statements like this. 
It will make the ultimate collapse sweeter still.  Although I really think the trashing of the scientists (by there own hand) is not good long term, as their trustworthiness slumps to that of a crooked used car salesman. This will damage real scientific endeavour.   
Keep rolling the eyes buddy!  This is getting to be fun.

----------


## woodbe

> We are very patient about this very slow moving train wreck.  Most sceptics realise it is going to take years for this to wind down completely.

  The other 97% are even more patient. Most people who read real science realise that there is no 'wind down', and 'wind down completely' is a fiction of fake skeptic imagination. A couple of pages ago you accepted the base tenets of climate change except for sensitivity above 1 degree. By your own admission, 'wind down' will not happen unless there is negative sensitivity. Looks like you're holding the stick by the wrong end?  :Wink:    

> So each little nail that goes in the coffin like this is sweet.  Made even sweeter when the most rusted on warmists try to stay the coarse with statements like this.

  If you like to stake your worldview on a retired skeptic who has always swum against the the rational debate and never published peer review papers that debunk the state of the science at the time he was working or since, then fine. There are plenty of pal mates of his like Monckton, Plimer, etc. None of them are publishing science to refute the currently researched position.   

> It will make the ultimate collapse sweeter still.  Although I really think the trashing of the scientists (by there own hand) is not good long term, as their trustworthiness slumps to that of a crooked used car salesman. This will damage real scientific endeavour.

  Stick around Rod, there is no sign of any wind down, and your ultimate collapse is wishful thinking.    

> Keep rolling the eyes buddy!  This is getting to be fun.

  Sure Rod, but getting back onto topic rather than playing at personal debate, how about we talk about the facts I raised: 15 years is not relevant to climate, and even if we allowed that to go through to the keeper, the ocean is part of the climate and it is accumulating heat while you studiously ignore it. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> The fail safe piggy back of sea level rise to global warming is even more shameful considering that the reasons for sea level variations is well known and its causes rooted in changes that occurred 18000 years ago and whose influence will continue another 7000 years unless we get another ice age

  Note to intertd6: Can you please tell Marc that SLR is not happening, he seems to be saying it is. LOL 
You guys should get together and get your stories straight. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Sure Rod, but getting back onto topic rather than playing at personal debate, how about we talk about the facts I raised: 15 years is not relevant to climate, and even if we allowed that to go through to the keeper, the ocean is part of the climate and it is accumulating heat while you studiously ignore it. 
> woodbe.

  It can only be personal if you take it that way. I'm referring to all warmists that share a rusted on view. We will see the relevance in time.  
In the meanwhile we will continue to enjoy the squirming and excuses.

----------


## woodbe

> It can only be personal if you take it that way. I'm referring to all warmists that share a rusted on view. We will see the relevance in time.  
> In the meanwhile we will continue to enjoy the squirming and excuses.

  Meanwhile, once again, the skeptic ignores the entreaty to discuss the science and thinks those who bring up the science are delivering 'squirming and excuses'   

> how about we talk about the facts I raised: 15 years is not relevant to  climate, and even if we allowed that to go through to the keeper, the  ocean is part of the climate and it is accumulating heat while you  studiously ignore it.

  Could it be that you have nothing to discuss except delivering foregone conclusions based on non-science opinion? 
Where is your basis for 15 years being a relevant period for the climate? 
Where is your basis for claiming no warming when the climate system is clearly warming? 
Where is your basis for claiming 'wind down' when you freely admit to the physics of the climate system but with a 1 degree safety valve on your climate sensitivity? 
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> To quote from Chief Sitting Bull   "If you dont know what your actions will have on your children's children then do not do it."  I may be wrong...

  There is no need to worry you may be wrong. We do know the effects on our children, indeed even on ourselves. The only reason the Earth is habitable for life as we know it is the greenhouse effect. Direct satellite measurements of outward and inward radiation confirm that increasing CO2 is causing the earth to retain more heat. No climate history or computer models needed to prove this. It's just physics - the same physics that has given mankind all of the nice toys we play with, like the internet and computers, so we know that the physics works pretty well.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Meanwhile, once again, the skeptic ignores the entreaty to discuss the science and thinks those who bring up the science are delivering 'squirming and excuses'   
> Could it be that you have nothing to discuss except delivering foregone conclusions based on non-science opinion? 
> Where is your basis for 15 years being a relevant period for the climate? 
> Where is your basis for claiming no warming when the climate system is clearly warming? 
> Where is your basis for claiming 'wind down' when you freely admit to the physics of the climate system but with a 1 degree safety valve on your climate sensitivity? 
> woodbe.

  If sensitivity predicted by the models was right, at least one climate model would be correct.  They are so far out, even while co2 continues to rise,  You can not categorically say that the "missing heat" is in the oceans, this is just another theory.   
Yes we know all about water expanding as it warms and all that stuff but we still only have theories that tells us nothing conclusively.  So absent the continued warming in face of continued co2 we are now asked to believe another theory that simply says the ocean ate my warming. 
My bullchit meter is very good and I smell bullchit.   
Like I say time is the only thing that is going to convince the warmists they have got it all wrong.  That we have plenty of.   
15 years is a long time for the predicted warming to stall when all the models predicted it would rise.  So how about we sit back with the popcorn and see how we go for the next five years or so! 
I don't profess to know all about science I really don't care, I don't have to. You just need a bit of common sense and an open mind to other possibilities to come to the opinion that the science they say is "settled" is not quite settled.   
Maybe you should read up on what the other side is saying with an open mind and you might get a bit doubtful.  Surely you must have a little nagging doubt that they are just beating things up a bit? Just a tiny tiny bit of doubt?

----------


## intertd6

> Please try to keep up. The link was provided by Marc, I just quoted it. Ironically, it was from a SLR denial site although the original data it was based on came from NOAA.  
> The tide gauge data is provided by the psmsl (google it), and includes all operating tide gauges on the network including Galveston. It is up to researchers to decide which data to use, and in this case they excluded the data contaminated by high land movements, thereby extinguishing your claim that they were ignoring land movement on tide gauges. 
> I think I've demonstrated you have nothing to offer in defence of your claim there is no sea level rise and the researchers are using data fraudulently. Of course, I don't expect you to accept that so feel free to continue making nonsense posts without responding to the detail provided. 
> If you would like to respond with substance, I would remind you that you have not yet responded to these three points previously raised, we are still waiting for your response as to why they are wrong in respect of SLR:  
> woodbe.

  i used the wrong word, instead of "link" I should have used "posted", you posted the useless garbage sea rise report including places that were sinking, claiming that the sea levels were rising at extraordinary paces, then quickly dropped them like a hot potato when you were exposed, your tactics defy stupidity, the light is shining on the falseness of the elements in regards to sea level rise reports & the exaggerated levels of the rises, funny how it is very similar to the exaggerations of global warming, no wonder every normal person is turning off this farcical charade trying to use scare mongering instigated by panic merchants to get a result. Obviously you've been sucked into the trap.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> I don't profess to know all about science I really don't care, I don't have to. You just need a bit of common sense and an open mind to other possibilities to come to the opinion that the science they say is "settled" is not quite settled.   
> Maybe you should read up on what the other side is saying with an open mind and you might get a bit doubtful.  Surely you must have a little nagging doubt that they are just beating things up a bit? Just a tiny tiny bit of doubt?

  That's what Dr Freud said, "we don't need any science". If you are going to challenge climate science, then the only way of taking it down is with science. The skeptics are failing to do that on every level. This thread has been going for years yet there has not been a significant skeptic takedown of the basis of climate science during that time, just repeated myths sold by a bunch of non-climate scientists, weathermen, and fakes. 
So you won't engage on the topic at hand but you want me to approach the snake oil merchants with an 'open mind' so that I can get a bit doubtful LOL.  
Keep drinking the kool aid. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> i used the wrong word, instead of "link" I should have used "posted", you posted the useless garbage sea rise report including places that were sinking, claiming that the sea levels were rising at extraordinary paces, then quickly dropped them like a hot potato when you were exposed, your tactics defy stupidity, the light is shining on the falseness of the elements in regards to sea level rise reports & the exaggerated levels of the rises, funny how it is very similar to the exaggerations of global warming, no wonder every normal person is turning off this farcical charade trying to use scare mongering instigated by panic merchants to get a result. Obviously you've been sucked into the trap.
> regards inter

  I claimed that the Global Sea Level Rise is not the same as Local Sea Level Rise, and yes, there are plenty of places rising fast and some not rising or even falling that make up the whole dataset. You repeatedly asked for a single tide gauge when the issue has always been Global. You claimed that land movements were not taken into account in SLR calculations yet I proved that they in fact are and I also procured a response from one of the researchers to prove it beyond doubt.  
You also fail to engage on the science, instead you play word games and make untrue, unfounded and unsupported claims about the science and myself. This is a repeating record from you. 
Your failure to respond to the three simple Sea Level Rise facts I presented tells all. Skeptics at Renovate Forums do not read, understand or apparently 'need' science. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> That's what Dr Freud said, "we don't need any science". If you are going to challenge climate science, then the only way of taking it down is with science. The skeptics are failing to do that on every level. This thread has been going for years yet there has not been a significant skeptic takedown of the basis of climate science during that time, just repeated myths sold by a bunch of non-climate scientists, weathermen, and fakes. 
> So you won't engage on the topic at hand but you want me to approach the snake oil merchants with an 'open mind' so that I can get a bit doubtful LOL.  
> Keep drinking the kool aid. 
> woodbe.

  You forget there is NO science that proves AGW.  None at all.  If there was you would have no sceptics now would you.

----------


## woodbe

> Yes we know all about water expanding as it warms and all that stuff but we still only have theories that tells us nothing conclusively.  So absent the continued warming in face of continued co2 we are now asked to believe another theory that simply says the ocean ate my warming.

  Except... It's not a theory. It's a measurement.   
We know the oceans are warming.
We know the Global Sea Level rising. 
Here's another conspiracy killer question for you Rod: 
The skeptics have repeatedly claimed that the climate scientists are gaming the temperature records to show warming. They claim it all the time, even though when a skeptic set out to prove it, he accidentally shows that the records show warming. Anyway, the skeptic story is that the thermometers are under the control of the evil, fraudulent climate scientists. 
Here's the thing: If the temperature records are being diddled how come they haven't fixed the no warming mantra by making some adjustments?  
Suddenly, the temperature records are correct when it suits the story.  :Rolleyes:  
How's your BS meter going? If it's not screaming at that, it's broken. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> You forget there is NO science that proves AGW.  None at all.  If there was you would have no sceptics now would you.

  I'll answer that with one of your own posts:   

> I don't profess to know all about science I really don't care, I don't have to.

  You claim not to be an expert in science, and you don't have to be, yet you misrepresent what science is and how it operates. Every scientist is a true skeptic, they don't get past first base unless they are. That's a different sort of skeptic to the ones we have here though. 
I recommend reading this page: Tips and strategies for teaching the nature and process of science  
And in particular this paragraph:   

> *MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.* *CORRECTION:* Journalists  often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it,  but in fact, the concept of proof  real, absolute proof  is not  particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that _any_  idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow  if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on  the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.

  woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Except... It's not a theory. It's a measurement.   
> We know the oceans are warming.
> We know the Global Sea Level rising. 
> Here's another conspiracy killer question for you Rod: 
> The skeptics have repeatedly claimed that the climate scientists are gaming the temperature records to show warming. They claim it all the time, even though when a skeptic set out to prove it, he accidentally shows that the records show warming. Anyway, the skeptic story is that the thermometers are under the control of the evil, fraudulent climate scientists. 
> Here's the thing: If the temperature records are being diddled how come they haven't fixed the no warming mantra by making some adjustments?  
> Suddenly, the temperature records are correct when it suits the story.  
> How's your BS meter going? If it's not screaming at that, it's broken. 
> woodbe.

  Sorry Buddy,  none of this proves AGW.  Even if totally true it still does not even come close to proof.  I don't hold a "sceptic storey" I don't agree with all sceptic theories anymore than I do the warmists theories.   
That's what makes this so interesting.

----------


## John2b

> You can not categorically say that the "missing heat" is in the oceans, this is just another theory.

  The Earth's surface area is about 75% oceans and the oceans absorb almost all of the Sun's energy, unlike land which reflects a lot. The consequence is that 90% of the heat from the Sun goes into the oceans first, before is is moved to the atmosphere and warms the environment that humans live in. The process of heat moving from the ocean to the air drives weather, and it is quite variable and subject to many overlapping oscillations, some short and some long. That is why the surface temperature has been rising in steps, not linearly - "it's the weather"! 
As to whether heat is still accumulating, that is really very obvious. 
Have a think about this analogy - imagine the Earth is like a leaky bucket and and heat like water. The level of water in the bucket is a function of the balance between water in and water out. If the water comes in faster the water level rises, until the higher water level forces the leaks to catch up and a new higher equilibrium is reached. Likewise, if the leaks start to seal over, the water level will rise increasing the pressure on the leaks until a new equilibrium is reached. 
Heat is pouring in from the Sun and leaking out to space. CO2 is a blanket that blocks the outward radiation of heat from Earth to space. The effect can be and is measured directly by satellites. This in not an unproven theory and does not depend on models or paleontological climate histories. It's physics - the same physics that make all of our modern technology work so we know the physics "works". 
Whatever is causing the current "hiatus" in air temperature rise which has climate scientists puzzled, will come to an end. (BTW there isn't a hiatus anyway, that's a myth - nine of the hottest years in recorded history have occurred since the year 2000 after warming supposedly "stopped!") That you can be certain of, and air temperatures resume their upward climb it isn't going to be nice. I suspect we are at/near the end of the current flat spot now and will see a large step up in surface temperatures in the next few years.   

> My bullchit meter is very good and I smell bullchit. 
> I don't profess to know all about science I really don't care, I don't have to. 
> You just need a bit of common sense and an open mind to other possibilities to come to the opinion that the science they say is "settled" is not quite settled. 
> Maybe you should read up on what the other side is saying with an open mind and you might get a bit doubtful.  Surely you must have a little nagging doubt that they are just beating things up a bit? Just a tiny tiny bit of doubt?

  If you are going to attack science, the least you can do is arm yourself with a little skepticism. Challenge everything you read, not just what you don't agree with, and you will see the holes in everyone's arguments when and where they exist.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Putting Co2 in perspective. How much atmospheric co2 is from human activity

----------


## woodbe

> Sorry Buddy,  none of this proves AGW.  Even if totally true it still does not even come close to proof.  I don't hold a "sceptic storey" I don't agree with all sceptic theories anymore than I do the warmists theories.   
> That's what makes this so interesting.

  See my post above regarding scientific proof. You are knocking on the wrong door. 
Previously, you claimed to be 100% sceptic, now you don't agree with all sceptic theories? 
Perhaps it would be more interesting if you let us know which skeptic theories you actually agree with.  
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> Putting Co2 in perspective. How much atmospheric co2 is from human activity

  
Putting your post in perspective, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 1000 times as much as the amount of doping molecules needed to turn silicon (sand, if you like) into semiconductors used to make electronics like your computer. 
As your link demonstrates, extremely small amounts of a substance can have an enormous effect in the right circumstances.

----------


## woodbe

> Putting Co2 in perspective. How much atmospheric co2 is from human activity

  Which bits of this mishmash of denial do you agree with Rod? 
You have already agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that burning fossil fuels is increasing it, you have even claimed that you agree to a non-feedback 1.5C per doubling of CO2 yet you post up stuff that doesn't agree with your stated personal position? 
Would I be right if I thought your real position is that you don't care what skeptic position you support as long as it is against AGW/CC?  
If that's not right, please explain  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> There is no need to worry you may be wrong. We do know the effects on our children, indeed even on ourselves. The only reason the Earth is habitable for life as we know it is the greenhouse effect. Direct satellite measurements of outward and inward radiation confirm that increasing CO2 is causing the earth to retain more heat. No climate history or computer models needed to prove this. It's just physics - the same physics that has given mankind all of the nice toys we play with, like the internet and computers, so we know that the physics works pretty well.

  John2b, welcome to the forum. 
Nice to hear from someone who has an understanding of the science! 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Which bits of this mishmash of denial do you agree with Rod? 
> You have already agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that burning fossil fuels is increasing it, you have even claimed that you agree to a non-feedback 1.5C per doubling of CO2 yet you post up stuff that doesn't agree with your stated personal position? 
> Would I be right if I thought your real position is that you don't care what skeptic position you support as long as it is against AGW/CC?  
> If that's not right, please explain  
> woodbe.

  Which part would that be?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You forget there is NO science THAT I ACCEPT that proves AGW.  None at all.

  There.  Fixed that for you.  My pleasure...

----------


## woodbe

> Which part would that be?

  Well, for starters, the bit where your posted slideshow ignores all human generated CO2 other than the current year.   
The numbers are small on a yearly basis compared to the natural carbon cycle, but as you accepted we are adding to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Even if the slideshow's numbers are correct we are talking about a seat every ~2 years at the current rate and we know that little CO2 leaves the cycle. Those blue seats are all ours... The slight of hand occurs at slide 7 btw. There are 40 seats, 25 existed before fossil fuels were burned then suddenly the extra 14.65 seats are 'natural' 
So which version to you accept? The fake sceptic version which only counts this years human CO2 emissions as our total emissions, or the real version that considers all of our emissions since we started burning the stuff? 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> There is no need to worry you may be wrong. We do know the effects on our children, indeed even on ourselves. The only reason the Earth is habitable for life as we know it is the greenhouse effect. Direct satellite measurements of outward and inward radiation confirm that increasing CO2 is causing the earth to retain more heat. No climate history or computer models needed to prove this. It's just physics - the same physics that has given mankind all of the nice toys we play with, like the internet and computers, so we know that the physics works pretty well.

  What a load of hogwash. And the emotional call has not gone unnoticed, 2 b from adelaide first post...
The reality is a tad removed from your and the post you reply to.
but then again I am sure you are not interested in reality, only emotional calls involving the words our childrens etc Sad really. 
Some of the claims on the warmist side reminds me of the wording used by pentecostal preachers in a healing session

----------


## woodbe

> What a load of hogwash.

  Care to back that up with anything to support it, Marc?  :Rolleyes:  
Just so you know john2b, few of the skeptics here quote science. They rely on opinions that support their worldview and emotive attacks on anyone who seems to get what the science tells us. If they throw up anything that looks like science, it's usually pseudoscience or plain fiction. If you read the last couple of pages you will get the idea.  
I wouldn't blame you for running away after such a welcome, however do remember that there are far more people reading this thread than posting in it.  
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> What a load of hogwash.
> The reality is a tad removed from your and the post you reply to.
> but then again I am sure you are not interested in reality

  What I wrote is pretty incontrovertible:   It is possible to measure the inward and outward radiation at the upper atmosphere.It is possible to measure the blocking effect on outward radiation of CO2 in the atmosphere.The Greenhouse Effect explains why the Earth is warm enough to be habitable - without it the Earth's surface temperature would be around -18 degrees average, not +15 degrees average.It is possible to calculate the resulting energy imbalance as a result of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels.The effects of global warming are happening now and are measurable. 
This is based on physics, not predictions and models. What points do you disagree with and why?

----------


## johnc

Welcome John2B, no, there was nothing contraversial, nothing emotional, nothing of a religious nature. sometimes responses can be unfathomable.
I have long been of the opinion that people who attack without reason do so to hide the absence of any constructive or alternative ideas of their own.

----------


## PhilT2

Welcome to the forum John2b, just to help you out I'll spell out a few of the informal rules that might help you when posting here. 
1 If you want to convince people that what you say is true use large font. The larger the font the greater the truthiness.
2 Include at least one logical fallacy in each post. Ad homs are good but straw men are a favourite too.
3 If you post a link don't check it first. It may be total garbage written by by an uneducated moron but it's ok to rely on others to do your work for you.
4 Act like a two year old.
5 Don't bother with evidence, facts or other crap like that; nobody's interested.
6 Even though you don't understand the science feel free to call the people who do frauds and liars without evidence. If you don't have the stones to actually name names that's ok.
7 Beware the zombie apocalypse. Long dead and discredited ideas will be resurrected regularly.

----------


## intertd6

> What I wrote is pretty incontrovertible:   It is possible to measure the inward and outward radiation at the upper atmosphere.Then it would be easy to calculate why there has been no warming for the last 16 or so yearsIt is possible to measure the blocking effect on outward radiation of CO2 in the atmosphere.If this is so & accurate why are the estimations of warming not happening?The Greenhouse Effect explains why the Earth is warm enough to be habitable - without it the Earth's surface temperature would be around -18 degrees average, not +15 degrees average.And? But then a tilt or wobble of the earths axis has had the greatest influence on global climate other than a catastrophic event.It is possible to calculate the resulting energy imbalance as a result of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels.its possible but the calculations are not correct, if they were then they could plot the temperature increase daily  The effects of global warming are happening now and are measurable.every one here knows global warming is happening, but the failings of the calculations regarding CO2 as the cause are anecdotal at the best.  
> This is based on physics, not predictions and models. What points do you disagree with and why? thats right, physics that are being overturned by what is actually happening, seems like the physicists are not including all the variables or elements involved with the problem.

  regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Except... It's not a theory. It's a measurement.   
> We know the oceans are warming.
> We know the Global Sea Level rising. 
> Here's another conspiracy killer question for you Rod: 
> The skeptics have repeatedly claimed that the climate scientists are gaming the temperature records to show warming. They claim it all the time, even though when a skeptic set out to prove it, he accidentally shows that the records show warming. Anyway, the skeptic story is that the thermometers are under the control of the evil, fraudulent climate scientists. 
> Here's the thing: If the temperature records are being diddled how come they haven't fixed the no warming mantra by making some adjustments?  
> Suddenly, the temperature records are correct when it suits the story.  
> How's your BS meter going? If it's not screaming at that, it's broken. 
> woodbe.

  and out comes this heat content graph AGAIN, just for us can you plot this graph against 1'C of sea temperature rise just so we can get a perspective of how minuscule it really is & how long it would take to gain 1'C . Also can you show a graph with the heat content of all the oceans depth as the average is almost double that of the cherry picked one you show, then we can get you to do the 1'C comparison again to show how ridiculous it really is.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> and out comes this heat content graph AGAIN, just for us can you plot this graph against 1'C of sea temperature rise just so we can get a perspective of how minuscule it really is & how long it would take to gain 1'C 
> regards inter

  We've been there before inter. It takes far less heat to warm air than water, and on top of that, the water is not mixed so it makes more sense to calculate the heat energy than to hand out piles of figures for each depth. I couldn't be bothered finding the post for you but you clearly didn't read it. A more relevant calculation would be to calculate what would happen to the temperature records if that extra heat went into the atmosphere instead of the oceans. 
The graphic was posted to demonstrate to Rod that ocean heat is a measurement not a theory. I'm happy for you to jump in but please try to respond in context. 
lol @ inter ticking off the list posted by PhilT2  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Also can you show a graph with the heat content of all the oceans depth as the average is almost double that of the cherry picked one you show, then we can get you to do the 1'C comparison again to show how ridiculous it really is.

  Interd6 the post editor after someone responds to it lol. 
Responding to your extra edit. 
The data is not cherry picked. It's the only data we have.  Argo - part of the integrated global observation strategy   

> *What is Argo?* 
> Argo is a global array of 3,000 free-drifting  profiling floats that measures the temperature and salinity of the upper  2000 m of the ocean.  This allows, for the first time, continuous  monitoring of the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean,  with all data being relayed and made publicly available within hours  after collection.

  If you want the calculations done, I suggest you have a crack at it yourself. Any mistakes you make won't be relevant as the only reason you need those calculations is to prove to yourself that the ocean heat rise is insignificant, which it clearly is not. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> There.  Fixed that for you.  My pleasure...

  seriously??

----------


## Rod Dyson

> What I wrote is pretty incontrovertible:   It is possible to measure the inward and outward radiation at the upper atmosphere.It is possible to measure the blocking effect on outward radiation of CO2 in the atmosphere.The Greenhouse Effect explains why the Earth is warm enough to be habitable - without it the Earth's surface temperature would be around -18 degrees average, not +15 degrees average.It is possible to calculate the resulting energy imbalance as a result of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels.The effects of global warming are happening now and are measurable.  
> This is based on physics, not predictions and models. What points do you disagree with and why?

  LOL hired help??

----------


## John2b

> LOL hired help??

  Which statements do you think are wrong with and what basis do you have for thinking so?

----------


## woodbe

> Which statements do you think are wrong with and what basis do you have for thinking so?

  Rod's just a bit annoyed that the slideshow he posted has a major error in it, but he doesn't like admitting to things like that. 
It's a pretty obvious error to ignore all of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions except for the current year, but that's the sort of things you have to do if you're a fake skeptic: Find something significant and game the description so that the gullible will be conned into thinking it is insignificant.  
Just as well we are here to help Rod out.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> regards inter

   

> It is possible to measure the inward and outward radiation at the upper atmosphere. Then it would be easy to calculate why there has been no warming for the last 16 or so years

  Warming has not stopped. The weather controls where the heat goes. See previous post: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/emission-trading-77931/index194.html#post930303  You are welcome to provide evidence of why you think this is not how things happen.   

> It is possible to measure the blocking effect on outward radiation of CO2 in the atmosphere.If this is so & accurate why are the estimations of warming not happening?

  Warming has not stopped. See above.   

> The Greenhouse Effect explains why the Earth is warm enough to be habitable - without it the Earth's surface temperature would be around -18 degrees average, not +15 degrees average.And? But then a tilt or wobble of the earths axis has had the greatest influence on global climate other than a catastrophic event.

  What is the relevance of your statement to the Greenhouse Gas effect? Because the Earth has a tilt / wobble, the Laws of Physics don't apply? Then why would the tilt / wobble matter? It's the same physics.   

> It is possible to calculate the resulting energy imbalance as a result of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels.its possible but the calculations are not correct, if they were then they could plot the temperature increase daily

  Er, no. The Sun does not heat the atmosphere directly. Weather which affects surface temperatures. See above.   

> The effects of global warming are happening now and are measurable.every one here knows global warming is happening,

  Didn't you say it had stopped?    

> but the failings of the calculations regarding CO2 as the cause are anecdotal at the best.

  
If you think that the effects of CO2 are anecdotal, you haven't followed the science, didn't study physics, or have forgotten your physics. Never-mind, plenty of good people have worked it out. It was pretty much settled and quantified by physicists by 1896. (Not many people understand how a few loose electrons in billions in a piece of elemental silicon can make computers work. Fortunately that fact doesn't stop computers working. Just like people not understanding physics doesn't stop AGW.)   

> This is based on physics, not predictions and models. What points do you disagree with and why? thats right, physics that are being overturned by what is actually happening, seems like the physicists are not including all the variables or elements involved with the problem.

    Which of The Laws of Physics do you think are being overturned? I agree that it is probably impossible for scientists to completely model the Earth's weather systems. But we don't need to do that to know the consequences of putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Climatologists are arguing about how much effect on climate, how soon, not whether it's happening. If you put more water into a bucket, you can be sure the water level will rise.  As I said the above is pretty incontrovertible. You haven't controverted anything. Was the point of your post purely to be contrary or do you have a basis for believing there is another physical mechanism that all other's have overlooked that isn't needed to explain how everything else works? You may be the next Noble Laureate...

----------


## johnc

> Which statements do you think are wrong with and what basis do you have for thinking so?

  Rod doesn't work on either basis or facts, the response is everything specially if you can make that fact free as well. Trouble with the Ostrich is it can't see and it's ears are full of sand, a very convenient state for those that form conclusions based on gut feel and nothing else.

----------


## John2b

Thanks for the support woodbe and johnc. I think Rod can speak for himself. Rod, what is the basis for your belief that the Laws of Physics, which have worked pretty well to create the technological development we currently enjoy, are suspended when it comes to the Earth's climate systems? And what physical mechanisms do you believe define climate systems, but do not work when applied to other everyday aspects of nature?

----------


## Marc

More regurgitated hogwash.
Who cares about all of the so called science used for smoke screen by hired obscurantist who need the fraud to last as much as possible?
The earth centric bigots of the past had similar fervor for very similar reasons. 
The party will soon be over and the legacy a generation of decieving mercenary "scientist" who will not be believed if they stated gravity is real.

----------


## woodbe

> More regurgitated hogwash.
> Who cares about all of the so called science use for smoke scree by hired obscurantist who need the fraud to last as much as possible?
> The earth centric bigots of the past had similar fervor for very similar reasons. 
> The party will soon be over and the legacy a generation of decieving mercenary "scientist" who will not be believed if they stated gravity is real.

  Hits on Phil's list: 2 Include at least one logical fallacy in each post. Ad homs are good but straw men are a favourite too.
4 Act like a two year old.
5 Don't bother with evidence, facts or other crap like that; nobody's interested.
6 Even though you don't understand the science feel free to call the  people who do frauds and liars without evidence. If you don't have the  stones to actually name names that's ok.
7 Beware the zombie apocalypse. Long dead and discredited ideas will be resurrected regularly. 
5 out of 7 is probably close to a record. Well done Marc!   :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Which statements do you think are wrong with and what basis do you have for thinking so?

  My thoughts on all of these matters are very well documented throughout this thread, I do not have to repeat them over and over to counter some perceived gotcha, particularly to someone who has just joined the discussion. 
I suggest you read prior posts and you will know exactly my position. 
In the mean time I will just sit back and enjoy watching the desperation displayed here trying to explain away the bleeding obvious.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Thanks for the support woodbe and johnc. I think Rod can speak for himself. Rod, what is the basis for your belief that the Laws of Physics, which have worked pretty well to create the technological development we currently enjoy, are suspended when it comes to the Earth's climate systems? And what physical mechanisms do you believe define climate systems, but do not work when applied to other everyday aspects of nature?

  Read all my other posts.

----------


## John2b

> More regurgitated hogwash.

  Which bit and why?   

> Who cares about all of the so called science used for smoke screen by hired obscurantist who need the fraud to last as much as possible?

  It's the same science that has given you all of the toys you like to play with. I think you would care a lot if they were taken away from you.   

> The earth centric bigots of the past had similar fervor for very similar reasons.

  Is there something rational relevant to AGW in this statement? If there is, it evades me.   

> The party will soon be over and the legacy a generation of decieving mercenary "scientist" who will not be believed if they stated gravity is real.

  The party will be over, but it isn't going to end up like the fairytale you want to believe. 
Thanks for the rant. Are you going to provide a rational basis for WHY you think AGW isn't happening, and what EVIDENCE there is to support your argument?

----------


## John2b

> My thoughts on all of these matters are very well documented throughout this thread, I do not have to repeat them over and over to counter some perceived gotcha, particularly to someone who has just joined the discussion.

  Whatever.   

> I suggest you read prior posts and you will know exactly my position. 
> In the mean time I will just sit back and enjoy watching the desperation displayed here trying to explain away the bleeding obvious.

  Whatever floats your boat. Personally I would rather be grounded in reality.

----------


## John2b

> Read all my other posts.

  Point me to a post where you have explained what physical mechanisms you believe define climate systems, but do not work when applied to other everyday aspects of nature, and I will read it.

----------


## The Administration Team

The rules here are,  Play the Ball not the Man. 
John2b,  
As the new kid on the block, and referred by an existing member we don't believe you've made a very good start. Consistently asking for answers that are already in the thread could be construed as Trolling and has been the downfall of many along the way, as you would know if you'd read the thread.

----------


## woodbe

Looks like the 'No warming since 1998' meme is dying.  RealClimate: Global temperature 2013     

> _Figure 4: The interpolated HadCRUT4 data (annual average) from 1970._ _Source: Kevin Cowtan, University of York._ Following this analysis, 2013 was thus even warmer than the record El-Niño-year 1998. *Conclusion*  In _all four_ data series of the global near-surface air temperature, the linear trend _even from the extreme El Niño year 1998_ is positive, i.e. shows continued warming, despite the choice of a warm outlier as the initial year.In _all four_ data series of the global near-surface air temperature, 2010 was the warmest year on record, followed by 2005.The year 1998 is, at best, rank 3  in the currently best data set  of Cowtan & Way, 1998 is actually only ranked 7th. Even 2013 is   without El Niño  warmer there than 1998.

  The Cowtan and Way analysis analyses geographical data gaps in the temperature record mainly Africa and the Arctic and interpolates data to fill the gaps. As the Arctic is clearly warming quickly this does have an overall effect on the global average. More discussion here and the paper is here: Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends - Cowtan - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library 
Stefan points out that 1998 was a strong El Nino year, and 2013 was neutral. Wait till the next strong El Nino year to see a repeat outlier year like 1998. 
woodbe

----------


## johnc

I think it was fairly obvious from the outset that 1998 was an abnormal year in the first place and it always looked like an act of desperation or worse stupidity to pretend that warming had stalled as a result of a time line drawn from that date. Anyone who has had experience at producing honest interpretations of data would have ensured an extreme figure at odds to the past was either weighted to reduce false conclusions or the time line take back further to a point reflecting a more realistic average range.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Looks like the 'No warming since 1998' meme is dying.  RealClimate: Global temperature 2013     
> The Cowtan and Way analysis analyses geographical data gaps in the temperature record mainly Africa and the Arctic and interpolates data to fill the gaps. As the Arctic is clearly warming quickly this does have an overall effect on the global average. More discussion here and the paper is here: Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends - Cowtan - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library 
> Stefan points out that 1998 was a strong El Nino year, and 2013 was neutral. Wait till the next strong El Nino year to see a repeat outlier year like 1998. 
> woodbe

   Interpolates  to fill in the gaps.  LOL says it all. 
Ill see your graph and raise you this one! Should We Be Worried? | Watts Up With That?

----------


## johnc

We can all post graphs and links but do we know enough to explain them?? *GISS Surface Temperature Analysis**Analysis Graphs and Plots*This page is updated each month by an automatic procedure.  Additional figures based on the GISTEMP analysis which require manual effort to create are available from Columbia University webpages maintained by Dr. Makiko Sato; see page 1 and page 2.
Click on any graph to view an enlargement of the image. PDF documents require a special viewer such as the free Adobe Reader. *Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change* 
Line plot of global mean land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with the base period 1951-1980. The dotted black line is the annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year mean.  The green bars show uncertainty estimates. [This is an update of Fig. 1A in  Hansen et al. (2006).]
Figure also available as  PDF, or Postscript. Also available are tabular data.  
Our traditional analysis using only meteorological station data is a line plot of global annual-mean surface air temperature change, with the base period 1951-1980, derived from the meteorological station network [This is an update of Figure 6(b) in  Hansen et al. (2001).] Uncertainty bars (95% confidence limits) are shown for both the annual and five-year means, account only for incomplete spatial sampling of data. 
Figure also available as  PDF, or Postscript. Also available are tabular data. *Annual Land and Ocean Mean Temperature Change*See page 2.*Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands* 
Annual and five-year running mean temperature changes, with the base period 1951-1980, for three latitude bands that cover 30%, 40% and 30% of the global area. Uncertainty bars (95% confidence limits) are based on spatial sampling analysis. [This is an update of Figure 5 in  Hansen et al. (1999).] 
Figure also available as  PDF, or Postscript, Also available is a table. *Annual Mean Temperature Change for Hemispheres* 
Annual and five-year running mean temperature changes with the base period 1951-1980 for the northern (red) and southern (blue) hemispheres. 
Figure also available as  PDF, or Postscript, Also available is a table. *Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change* 
Line plot of monthly mean global surface temperature anomaly, with the base period 1951-1980. The black line shows meterological stations only; red circles are the land-ocean temperature index, as described in  Hansen et al. (1999). The land-ocean temperature index uses sea surface temperatures obtained from satellite measurements of  Reynolds and Smith (1994). [This is an update of Figure 8 in     Hansen et al. (1999).] 
Figure also available as  PDF, or Postscript. Also available are tabular data. *Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States* 
Annual and five-year running mean surface air temperature in the contiguous 48 United States (1.6% of the Earth's surface) relative to the 1951-1980 mean. [This is an update of Figure 6 in     Hansen et al. (1999).] 
Also available as   PDF, or Postscript. Also available are tabular data. *Seasonal Mean Temperature Change* 
Temperature index change (with the base period 1951-1980) since 1950 at seasonal resolution, for the globe (upper line) and for low latitudes (lower line). [This is an update of Figure 7 in  Hansen et al. (1999).] Green triangles mark large volcanic eruptions.  SST at Nino 3.4 is the 12-month running mean.
Also available as  PDF, or Postscript. Also available are

----------


## John2b

> Ill see your graph and raise you this one!

  It's odd that the graphs than Willis Eschenbach is discussing as published in his blog article do not support his own hypothesis of no warming due to thermoregulatory effect of emergent climate phenomena, (whatever that is). There are clear warming trends in three of the four graphs that he claims have no warming trends. That equates to 60% of the lower troposphere warming and 40% static.  :Shock:  Should we chip in and buy Eschenbach some glasses?

----------


## woodbe

> Interpolates  to fill in the gaps.  LOL says it all. 
> Ill see your graph and raise you this one! Should We Be Worried? | Watts Up With That?

  How would you rather we filled the gaps Rod? 
I know I'm making an assumption here that you didn't read the Cowtan and Way paper but for interests sake here is an excerpt from the paper:   

> 2. Preliminary analysis  
>  The potential impact of coverage bias may be estimated by use of three (near) global temperature reconstructions: The extrapolated GISTEMP data, the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) satellite data (Spencer 1990; Christy et al. 2007), and the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data (Kalnay et al. 1996). Figure (1) shows temperature trend maps for the period 1997/01-2012/12 for HadCRUT4 and each of these three series (the significance of the start date will become clear shortly).  
>                          Note that GISTEMP, UAH and NCEP/NCAR all show faster warming in the Arctic than over the planet as a whole, and GISTEMP and NCEP/NCAR also show faster warming in the Antarctic. Both of these regions are largely missing in the HadCRUT4 data. If the other datasets are right, this should lead to a cool bias due to coverage in the HadCRUT4 temperature series.

  Note that the Spencer/Christie UAH records were used in the analysis. 
Leaving aside your preference for maintaining the 'no warming since' mantra, I'm interested to hear why it is not a good idea to improve the record.  
Personally, if the temperature records left out an area of the planet that was cooling enough to significantly change our understanding of the global trend, I might be skeptical but I wouldn't be fighting it. 
The Cowtan and Way paper is worth a read, especially if you are skeptical. The whole paper is available, it is not behind a paywall. Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends - Cowtan - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Interpolates  to fill in the gaps.  LOL says it all. 
> Ill see your graph and raise you this one! Should We Be Worried? | Watts Up With That?

  There's barely enough info there to determine how the heck he's analysed that data...when I tried to get an insight into what he'd actually done with the data available via the Climate Explorer website Climate Explorer: Time series I ended up with something quite a bit different. 
Frankly the entire blog post is near meaningless waffle backed up by an insensible but pretty picture and it's all supported by a bunch of mindless unquestioning yes-persons.  It's impossible to meaningfully criticise (even though he requests it) because what he's actually done is never logically and credibly explained. Oh well.

----------


## woodbe

> Frankly the entire blog post is near meaningless waffle backed up by an insensible but pretty picture and it's all supported by a bunch of mindless unquestioning yes-persons.  It's impossible to meaningfully criticise (even though he requests it) because what he's actually done is never logically and credibly explained. Oh well.

  Oh Come ON, SBD. Give the guy a break.  
He's doing an amazing job of Dazzling the Deniers, and he has the qualifications to do it! (B.A. Psychology)  
I'm hoping he will publish soon to close down this AGW Fraud. LOL.  :Cool:  
I pointed out that Cowtan and Way used the UAH in their paper because the difference in the result speaks volumes about the quality of the analysis.  
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Oh Come ON, SBD. Give the guy a break.

  
Why?  It's little more than simplistic click bait that benefits no-one but Wordpress because Watts is too cheap to spend $30 per annum to back up the courage of his convictions. About These Ads — WordPress.com

----------


## Marc

« Prior To Modern CO2 Emissions: Unprecedented Warming Documented By Scientists - Exceeds Current Temps | Main | Why Americans Don't Support Obama Regarding His 'Climate Change' Concerns »*Accelerating Global Warming: Climate Research Determines It's Not Happening - The Indisputable Evidence*_(click on chart to enlarge)_ 
There is an enduring myth that global temperatures are accelerating, produced by ever greater amounts of human CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere. The myth is popularized by anti-science propagandists, who are either driven by political agendas or irrational fears. 
The myth facilitators actually claim that the world is currently experiencing rapid and dangerous global warming. This ludicrous claim is completely counter to all known empirical, scientific evidence.
At least 97% of climate scientists would not make this claim, since it iswell established that global temps have stalled for 16+ years, and even the most pro-AGW scientists are now admitting that the lack of warming is likely due to natural forces.
The enduring myth of "accelerating" is a leftover from earlier IPCC climate reports and the original AGW hypothesis that speculated greater levels of atmospheric CO2 would generate "runaway" global warming leading to a catastrophic "tipping point" climate change. That's how 'AGW' turned into 'CAGW'. 
Well, neither has happened, which the indisputable and unequivocal evidence is clear about.
The above chart plots the changing 3-year linear trend slopes using monthly observations going back to 1850 (this is the HadCRUT4 dataset from the UK climate research agency - it is the only global dataset going back that far).
The plot clearly shows that temperatures will achieve short-term accelerations, both cooling and warming. The evidence also shows that any acceleration is a temporary phenomenon that then is reversed. The greatest period of accelerating warming took place during the late 1870s when a short-lived +23.4°C per century pace was reached.
The greatest acceleration for the modern era was reached in 1998 (+17.5°C per century rate), some 6 degrees below the earlier record a 100+ years before. The 1998 peak was a direct result of natural climate forces, the super El Nino of 1997-1998.
The chart also includes a 3-year average plot of atmospheric CO2 levels, which reflects a never-ceasing growth (exception being WWII years).
Obviously, to the eye, the level of CO2 has no relationship with "accelerating" cooling or warming. The statistical correlation between CO2 and acceleration level is barely above zero - an indicator that the agenda-driven myth has absolutely no empirical legs, so-to-speak.
Finally, the chart has a 120-period (10-year) average of the 3-year per century trends of acceleration/deceleration. This dark curve has a black circle around the 2013 endpoint. Simply put, accelerating, rapid warming is not happening presently (but rest assured, it will happen in the future, just like it has in the past - and that's what natural climate change does, no human CO2 required).
Additional temperature and climate charts. Datasets used to create Excel charts, averages, trends and etc. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.    January 28, 2014 at 08:58 AM | Permalink ShareThis   *TrackBack*TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trac...a5115d02af970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Accelerating Global Warming: Climate Research Determines It's Not Happening - The Indisputable Evidence:    *Comments*
Discover the cause of the warming, the end of it, and why temperatures are headed down.
Two primary drivers of average global temperatures explain the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 with 90% accuracy and provide credible estimates back to 1610.
CO2 change is NOT one of the drivers.
The drivers are given at Global Warming Unveiled which includes eye opening graphs and a plethora of links and sub-links to credible data sources.   Posted by: Dan Pangburn | January 28, 2014 at 10:39 AM    *Post a comment*Your Information
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)          *Archives* January 26, 2014 - February 1, 2014January 19, 2014 - January 25, 2014January 12, 2014 - January 18, 2014January 5, 2014 - January 11, 2014December 22, 2013 - December 28, 2013December 15, 2013 - December 21, 2013December 8, 2013 - December 14, 2013December 1, 2013 - December 7, 2013November 24, 2013 - November 30, 2013November 17, 2013 - November 23, 2013

----------


## Marc

So what's the point of debating if it is warming cooling or stable and by how much?
No point whatsoever. 
The only point to debate is 
a) Is human activity to blame because of added CO2
b) IF human activity is to blame would stopping human activity (killing every human for example) have any measurable effect? 
The short answer to both is obviously NO.
So what are we debating? 
Answer:
FEAR 
Fear is a currency. A very valuable currency used since we lived in caves to have an upper hand over others, to have power, to dominate, to subjugate, to conquer, to live at other peoples expenses. 
Fear is used by all religions without exception, fear is used by politicians, by military, by scientist, by doctors, by educators, by transport companies and used or new car salesman. Fear of the wrath of the gods (a solar eclipse) gave Columbus the upper hand, fear is the ultimate currency. 
What we have here is yet another beat up started with a motive and turned in a feeding frenzy for ulterior motives by economic interests using the naive and the gullible playing in the hand of the high priest of this massive fraud. 
Eventually politicians will wine themselves off this massive source of power for fear of being left holding the dirty nappies, and it will be fear of the electorate that will turn them away from the AGW fraud ... to some other fear inducing fable that generates fear induced followers who will pay tribute to the self appointed saviors. 
The worst part of this fraud is not the fraud itself, but the fervor of those who vehemently support it because it fits their preconceived notion of what society and humanity should be in their own private view, as opposed to what it is.
Some people call it "playing god" 
I call it something else.

----------


## woodbe

> The myth facilitators actually claim that the world is currently experiencing rapid and dangerous global warming. This ludicrous claim is completely counter to all known empirical, scientific evidence.
> At least 97% of climate scientists would not make this claim, since it iswell established that global temps have stalled for 16+ years,

  100% of publishing Climate Scientists would not accept this suggestion, because even if the warming has stopped, Climate Science does not consider 16 years to be a relevant time period to wipe out a long term trend.   

> and even the most pro-AGW scientists are now admitting that the lack of warming is likely due to natural forces.

  That is true, but a little misdirected. Even the most pro-AGW scientists understand that natural forces can drown out the global warming signal for some time. This is the reason short periods such as your 16 years are not considered a relevant time to infer a long term trend has suddenly ceased. I'll save you from the chart that intertd6 loves to complain about, but the climate contains more than just the air temperature record. 
Well worth familiarising yourself with the work of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011):    

> We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land  and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface  temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two  lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave  sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global  warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the  data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on  short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation,  volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal  becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere  temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and  to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data  show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller  probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time  interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and  2010.

  Regarding the posted chart, it claims to display a simple 10 year moving average. If so, the line on the chart would stop 5 years before the last date on the chart, but it seems to go up until the present. Perhaps your source has a time machine.  :Biggrin:  
Marc, you have been doing so well using your own words rather than article copy and pastes. Don't go back!  :Eek:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> So what's the point of debating if it is warming cooling or stable and by how much?
> No point whatsoever. 
> The only point to debate is 
> a) Is human activity to blame because of added CO2
> b) IF human activity is to blame would stopping human activity (killing every human for example) have any measurable effect? 
> The short answer to both is obviously NO.

  Where is the source for this Marc? You wouldn't get agreement from the scientific community on either suggestion.  
woodbe.

----------


## Bedford

> So what's the point of debating if it is warming cooling or stable and by how much?
> No point whatsoever. 
> The only point to debate is 
> a) Is human activity to blame because of added CO2

   

> You wouldn't get agreement from the scientific community on either suggestion.

   Woodbe, are you saying that you wouldn't get agreement from the scientific community that human activity is to blame because of added CO2?

----------


## Marc

> Where is the source for this Marc? You wouldn't get agreement from the scientific community on either suggestion.  
> woodbe.

  Well ... mm ... what to say to that? 
The "source" is my brain and written by my fingers.
Agreement from the scientific community? You mean the same community that is the patsy for a fee of the scaremongering that is going on?
Well... don't give a toss about them. 
Yet I get what you are saying by elevation. "No one would agree with you Marc, you are all alone in the wilderness and everyone else is running towards the light of salvation from eternal damnation of fire and brimstone and scorching CO2" 
With a bit of poetic license of course to make things less dull.  :Wink:

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe, are you saying that you wouldn't get agreement from the scientific community that human activity is to blame because of added CO2?

  Bedford, please read the whole quote, it goes together:   

> The only point to debate is 
> a) Is human activity to blame because of added CO2
> b) IF human activity is to blame would stopping human activity (killing every human for example) have any measurable effect? 
> The short answer to both is obviously NO.

  The short answer to both is YES, and it is supported by the science to date. 
a) Human activity is the blame for added CO2
b) Stopping human CO2 output would make a measurable difference to future climate. 
Don't ask me to repeat why because the answers are already in this thread  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

Here's something for the no warming crew:  Global Temperature: the Post-1998 Surprise | Open Mind 
If all we know is data before 1998 then here is what these simple  approaches predict (still-warming prediction in red, no-warming  prediction in blue):   
 Its clear that _if we expected a pause_, we would expect most of  the following years temperatures to be below the red forecast line, but  about half above and half below the blue forecast line. On the other  hand, _if we expected continued warming_, we would expect most of  the following years temperatures to be above the blue forecast line,  but about half above and half below the red forecast line.
  So  how did it turn out? Were subsequent years about half above and  half below the red (warming) forecast, or the blue (no warming)  forecast? The answer is: neither.
  What actually happened is that, according to the HadCRUT4 data, most of the data are above *both*  forecasts. Twelve of sixteen were hotter than expected even according  to the still-warming prediction, and all sixteen were above the  no-warming prediction:   
Read the rest at Open Mind. Tamino repeats the analysis for NCDC, GISS, Cowtan & Way, RSS, UAH. 
No warming since '98 my foot  :Tongue:  
woodbe

----------


## intertd6

> No warming since '98 my foot  
> woodbe

  so everybody but you & your idealists are wrong!!!! Good one.
i thought JW's were hard core spreading the non existent word, but they pale into insignificance in comparison.
all of a sudden you have trawled up some parroted graphs showing some remarkable warming when over the last 3 or so pages the best you could trawl up was 0.2'C or so increase in the last 16 odd years.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> so everybody but you & your idealists are wrong!!!! Good one.

  Sure looks like it.  :Biggrin:   :2thumbsup:    

> i thought JW's were hard core spreading the non existent word, but they pale into insignificance in comparison.

  intertd6, I'd appreciate it if you left comparisons of me and any religion out of this thread. Your comment is disrespectful of me and the religion you have chosen to denigrate. All it will do is inflame the debate and make work for the mods.    

> all of a sudden you have trawled up some parroted graphs showing some remarkable warming when over the last 3 or so pages the best you could trawl up was 0.2'C or so increase in the last 16 odd years.
> regards inter

  Did you look at the date on the Tamino post? January 30th 2014. In case you haven't checked the date recently, that is today. The graphs are new and original work of Tamino's. They clearly demonstrate that the temperatures since 1998 are following the existing upward trend, not the much parroted 'no warming' trend. 
If you have anything real to add to the discussion, I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.  
woodbe.

----------


## Bedford

> Bedford, please read the whole quote, it goes together:   
> The short answer to both is YES, and it is supported by the science to date. 
> a) Human activity is the blame for added CO2
> b) Stopping human CO2 output would make a measurable difference to future climate. 
> Don't ask me to repeat why because the answers are already in this thread  
> woodbe.

  
Pheeww! for a moment there I thought you'd jumped ship!  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> Pheeww! for a moment there I thought you'd jumped ship!

  ha!  :Smilie:  
Bedford, I am totally ready to jump ship.  :2thumbsup:  
All I need is for the skeptics to stop making up stories and start publishing science that reveals a currently unknown and better explanation for the evidence in front to us. I truly wish for this to happen, but in 4+ years of this thread there has been very little new science published by AGW skeptics and none of it dispels the current understanding.  
If they had it, they would publish it. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> ha!  
> Bedford, I am totally ready to jump ship.  
> All I need is for the skeptics to stop making up stories and start publishing science that reveals a currently unknown and better explanation for the evidence in front to us. I truly wish for this to happen, but in 4+ years of this thread there has been very little new science published by AGW skeptics and none of it dispels the current understanding.  
> If they had it, they would publish it. 
> woodbe.

  There is no new science from either side of the debate in the past 4 years.  All there is now is patience to see where the cards fall.  It is impossible to prove that AGW theory is correct and it is also impossible to prove it is not.   
All we have is the models that rely on and simulate the theory to produce their projections for the climate. Then we have the results of those models to compare the accuracy of those projections to reality.   
Then we have all the excuses for why the models have not been accurate despite C02 rising.   
Now all we can do is wait for the excuses to fail and then we might see some truth.   
So we wait patiently and throw the odd shot at the evidence either way.   
Sure the scientist are still frantically looking at climate trying to make sense of it all and so they should.  Sure fires a huge hole in the science is settled argument. 
The HUGE hole in the theory is the feed back mechanisms and climate sensitivity.  This is where it is all wrong and where it is all guess work.  Climate as opposed to weather is just way too complicated with too many moving parts to accurately predict.  If this was not true the models would be right and we would not be having this debate. 
Have a nice day!!

----------


## Marc

Thursday, 23 January 2014 19:00*NASA Data: Global Warming Still on Pause, Sea Ice Hit Record* 
Written by  Alex Newman    Despite the alarmist climate claims made in an official press conference, the latest temperature data from two U.S. government bureaucracies actually show that the pause or hiatus in global warming that began some 17 years ago is still ongoing. The findings for last year, unveiled to reporters by NASA and NOAA on January 21, also showedthat Antarctic sea ice extent in September of 2013 was the highest ever documented since records began.  The establishment media and the taxpayer-funded climate alarmists, as usual, tried to avoid the troublesome issues  or they at least tried to confuse the public by citing dubious theories purporting to explain the conflict between reality and the climate predictions. However, experts said the latest temperature data offered further evidence that United Nations theories and forecasts surrounding alleged catastrophic man-made global warming are simply wrong.  Perhaps the most broadly overlooked element in the latest data presented by NOAA and NASA is the fact that, as _The New American_ has been reporting for months, Antarctic sea ice extent was at never-before-seen highs throughout much of 2013. In March of last year, meanwhile, ice coverage was the second largest on record. The previous record highs were set in 2012, only to be overtaken in 2013.  Of course, virtually all of the UN and government-funded climate experts predicted drastically decreasing levels of sea ice, so the latest data proved to be deeply embarrassing. It also went virtually ignored by the establishment press, which has consistently tried to avoid reporting on the growing chasm between reality and the doomsday forecasts presented by man-made global-warming theorists. After all, the medias credibility is on the line now, too.   Arctic sea ice coverage, while still below the four-decade average, also grew significantly in 2013 over the previous three years, the latest data from NASA and NOAA showed. Despite predictions of an ice-free Arctic in the summer of 2013 made by NASA-linked climate scientists and Al Gore, polar sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere grew by more than 50 percent over 2012 levels. More than a few experts now predicting global cooling expect those trends to continue.   Citing the latest data from NOAA and NASA, Dr. David Whitehouse, an astrophysicist and academic advisor to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said that the 2013 global surface-temperature records from both entities show the pause in warming continues. The hiatus, as other scientists also refer to it, began as far back as 1997, according to estimates cited in Whitehouses analysis of the government data released this week. Other experts agree.  Statistically speaking there has been no significant trend in global temperatures over this period, Whitehouse explained in astatement posted on the Global Warming Policy Foundations website. All these years fall within the error bars of 0.1 degree Celsius. The trend is less than this and is statistically insignificant. There is no statistical case for representing the post-1997 data as anything other than a constant line. The graphs presented at the press conference omitted those error bars." As usual, when confronted with the fact that global temperatures have not been increasing as all 73 of the UN climate models forecasted, global-warming theorists at NASA and NOAA sought to pin the blame on a wide range of supposed causes. When asked about the pause confirmed by its latest data, the officials cited everything from volcanoes and solar activity to pollution, natural variability, and more. In other words, they dont know, Dr. Whitehouse explained bluntly.   Indeed, the brazen denial has become a pattern in recent years among alarmists confronted with the implosion of UN climate models, predictions, and theories. In essence: Blame anything and everything for the lack of warming that was predicted by every single one of the UN models rather than finally admitting that the alarmist predictions, and therefore the theories underpinning them, were simply wrong.  The UN and governments around the world, which are now spending more than $1 billion of taxpayer money per day on climate schemes, have been at the forefront of the frantic search for explanations. The Obama administration, for example, was exposed in leaked documents last year trying to prod the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) into attributing the near-universally acknowledged pause in temperature increases to what critics ridicule as The Theory of the Ocean Ate My Global Warming.   Dr. Whitehouse did the math. Given that the IPCC estimates that the average decadal increase in global surface temperature is 0.2 degrees Celsius, the world is now 0.3 degrees C cooler than it should have been, he explained. Indeed, faced with worldwide criticism and ridicule after its wild predictions failed to materialize, the UN quietly but drastically slashed its temperature forecasts early this year  implicitly acknowledging that all of its previous predictions and models were way off the mark, to put it mildly.   Breaking the latest government numbers and data down further, Whitehouse said NASA recorded a temperature anomaly in 2013 of 0.61 degrees Celsius above the 1950 to 1981 average, supposedly making it the seventh warmest year, at least if government data is to be believed. However, he said, it is identical to 2003 and just 0.01 above 2009 and 2006. Taking into account the errors there has been no change since last year, the astrophysicist observed in widely quoted remarks.  NOAAs numbers were similar to NASAs, with a few minor variations. Note that only 0.09 degrees C separates their top ten warmest years, Whitehouse wrote about the government findings. Each year has an associated error of 0.1 degree. However, despite the tiny differences that many climate experts argue are entirely insignificant, the U.S. government functionaries  whose salaries and budgets largely depend on the perpetuation of global-warming alarmism  touted them loudly.  Deputy Director Gavin Schmidt at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, for example, said 2013 was tied with two other years to come in as the seventh warmest on record. There are times such as today when we can have snow even in a globally warming world. But the long-term trends are very clear, he claimed. They're not going to disappear. There isn't an error in our calculations.  Emphasizing that single short-term hot or cold spells do not debunk man-made global-warming theories  it was not immediately clear who supposedly believes that  Schmidt claimed that the long-term trends are extremely robust. However, he also conceded that the trends over the last 10 to 15 years compared to the trends before do appear to be lower than they were.  Weve been looking at this in separate work and partially it seems to be a function of internal variability in the system, Schmidt wasquoted as telling reporters. So the fact is that weve had more La Nina-like conditions over the last few years compared to earlier on in the 2000s or in the late 1990s. Still, Schmidt and his colleagues at NOAA insisted that the catastrophic man-made global-warming theories  supposedly requiring carbon taxes and a UN-run carbon-budget regime  have not yet been discredited.   Numerous independent climatologists and scientists, however, have ripped into the scaremongering coming from alarmists in recent years  especially warmest-on-record claims. Global warming enthusiasts are arguing that the past decade has been the warmest on record, explained MIT meteorology Professor Richard Lindzen, who has served on the UN IPCC but is now one of its harshest critics. We are still speaking of tenths of a degree, and the records themselves have come into question.... For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause.  As NASA, NOAA, and the UN were busy defending their theories in the face of an increasingly skeptical public and vast amounts of evidence suggesting that their claims are wrong, a growing number of independent experts were starting to publicly predict global cooling. Citing declining solar activity, more and more scientists now say that the Earth is entering what may prove to be a long period of declining temperatures  with potentially devastating consequences for humanity.  Indeed, some leading climate researchers say the cooling is already here, and that global temperatures could eventually sink back down to Little Ice Age levels last seen in the 1870s. For now, then, humanity might be wise to at least hold off on destroying the global economy and creating a planetary carbon budget in the name of fighting global warming  especially since the latest data confirms that it has been stopped for almost two decades.  _Alex Newman is a correspondent for_ The New American_, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached atanewman@thenewamerican.com._ _Related articles:_ Global Warming Alarmists, Looking Ridiculous, Double Down Global Warming Alarmism Melting as Record Cold Sweeps Nation Global Warming Alarmists Stuck in Antarctic Sea Ice Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling Al Gore Forecasted Ice-Free Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50% Top Scientists Slam and Ridicule UN IPCC Climate Report UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity Climate Science in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda Global-warming Alarmism Dying a Slow Death Obama & Allies Tell UN to Cover for Lack of Global Warming Global Climate Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago, UK Met Office Admits

----------


## SilentButDeadly

For the love of Insert Your Preferred Deity Here...protect me from this never ending drizzle of near meaningless clickbait.  It makes 'Womans Day' look like competent & intellectual journalism...

----------


## woodbe

> There is no new science from either side of the debate in the past 4 years.

   :Confused:  
I know the skeptics haven't been publishing much, but you can't say that about the Climate Scientists. New science doesn't have to contradict 'old' science, and if 'new' science comes to similar conclusions to the old, then it strengthens the scientific basis for supporting (in this case) AGW. Arriving at similar conclusions by different methods is another support for the existing position. 
Perhaps this is just another facet of the general misunderstanding of science among climate skeptics. 
It is true that the basics of climate change have not altered much since they were first described. Perhaps we can be kind and give you that.  :Cool:   
Of course, that is the bit the skeptics have to kick out of the boat _with_ science. If they had it, they would publish it. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> For the love of Insert Your Preferred Deity Here...protect me from this never ending drizzle of near meaningless clickbait.  It makes 'Womans Day' look like competent & intellectual journalism...

  Well, you could hide all that twaddle by editing your ignore list: http://www.renovateforum.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist 
But then you would miss the occasional personally typed message from Marc. How could you cope?  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> Thursday, 23 January 2014 19:00*NASA Data: Global Warming Still on Pause, Sea Ice Hit Record* 
> Written by  Alex Newman

  Alex Newman either didn't read the Nasa report he claims to be representing, or is just wilfully and maliciously misrepresenting it's content.  http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/fi...t_Briefing.pdf 
A slight increase in Antarctic sea ice extent (which is not sea ice volume BTW) does not contraindicate all of the other data presented in the report.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I know the skeptics haven't been publishing much, but you can't say that about the Climate Scientists. New science doesn't have to contradict 'old' science, and if 'new' science comes to similar conclusions to the old, then it strengthens the scientific basis for supporting (in this case) AGW. Arriving at similar conclusions by different methods is another support for the existing position. 
> Perhaps this is just another facet of the general misunderstanding of science among climate skeptics. 
> It is true that the basics of climate change have not altered much since they were first described. Perhaps we can be kind and give you that.   
> Of course, that is the bit the skeptics have to kick out of the boat _with_ science. If they had it, they would publish it. 
> woodbe.

  
Well we can run around in circles on this but at the end of the day it will be are the models able to predict climate or not.  At the moment it is a resounding NOT. 
In another few years we may just see the gulf between predictions and reality increase even further.  If and when this happens AGW is completely dead in the water. 
It will prove the sensitivity and feedback loops used in the models is a complete farce.  Oh and the hidden heat in the oceans fail to warm the planet. 
This is the climate debate in a nutshell everything else is just poking around the edges.

----------


## Marc

> Alex Newman either didn't read the Nasa report he claims to be representing, or is just wilfully and maliciously misrepresenting it's content.  http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/fi...t_Briefing.pdf 
> A slight increase in Antarctic sea ice extent (which is not sea ice volume BTW) does not contraindicate all of the other data presented in the report.

  Well, I suggest to write to Mr Newman an email. His contact details are not a secret. Just tell him your alternative interpretation of the data and how wrong he is and CC it to us.

----------


## Marc

And in case you forgot global warming propaganda is just political power grab,  ← UAH October temperatures, part 2 NASA Satellites Track Typhoon Haiyans Second Landfall and Flood Potential → *50,000 attend rally with speech against climate agenda in Poland*Posted on November 12, 2013	by Anthony Watts From CFACT: *Not Welcome: UN climate summit in Poland greeted by 50,000 angry Poles rallying against UN*  As more than 50,000 enthusiastic Poles gathered in downtown Warsaw on Monday to celebrate National Independence Day, with millions more watching on live television, CFACT president David Rothbard was invited to the stage to deliver an impassioned address celebrating freedom and warning against the dangerous and oppressive climate agenda of the UN. See video, CFACT warns 50,000+ against UN climate agenda: Before what was one of the largest audiences to ever hear a speech denouncing UN global warming policies, Rothbard said he was honored to stand with the Poles in a new battle for freedom against those who would use environmental and climate alarmism to steal away our liberties and give international bureaucrats control over our energy sources, our daily lives, our prosperity, and our national sovereignty. The address was carried live on national television and covered by a large number of international media outlets. It took place just as the UN was kicking off its COP19 climate conference a few kilometers away.  Rothbard noted that at last years COP meeting, UN climate chief Christiana Figueres said that what the UN was undertaking is a complete economic transformation of the world. This is not good news for those who love freedom, and it is not good news for Poland, Rothbard asserted. Standing next to a CFACT banner that read No to UN Climate Hype in Polish and surrounded by throngs who wore CFACT stickers bearing the same message in Polands distinctive red and white, the crowd gave hearty consent to Rothbards message. He also quoted from the Book of Proverbs that the wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion, noting that the environmentalists and the bureaucrats dont want to debate these issues because they know they are deceiving the world. There hasnt been any global warming in more than 15 years, he noted, and this is simply an excuse for more government oppression. We stand for freedom. We stand for opportunity. We stand for our families. And we stand for a strong and prosperous future. Together let us be bold as a lion, he concluded. The rally took place one day after CFACT keynoted a climate policy conference in Warsaw co-sponsored by Solidarity, the Institute for Globalization, and other Polish and European NGOs. There, members of the European Parliament, along with representatives from the U.S., Italy, Sweden, Hungary, and Poland formally signed the Warsaw Declaration calling on the UN to discontinue work on a new treaty until a genuine scientific consensus is reached on the phenomenon of so-called global warming. The UN made a big mistake choosing Poland to host its global warming treaty summit.  The Poles see right through warming propaganda. Enduring generations of socialism has left them with a deep distaste for propaganda and bureaucratic control. Polish prosperity was blocked first by war and then by ideology. Poland deserves freedom and prosperity and knows it cant move forward without energy. The brave Poles are not about to cede their sovereignty to UN control. Polish feelings about the UN climate treaty echo what Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher told the Soviet Union. Let Poland be Poland! CFACT, which has been an officially recognized NGO at UN conferences for nearly two decades, will be in Warsaw throughout the two weeks of COP 19. Its delegation will be headlined by Apollo VII astronaut Col. Walter Cunningham who is highly critical of UN climate science. About these ads

----------


## Marc

*Global Warming Media Propaganda*By Andrew McKillop Global Research, January 10, 2014 21st Century Wire  Region: Europe Theme: Environment In-depth Report: Climate Change  97   35 18     474   _Its like were living in ancient pagan Greece or something._ _Only yesterday, British Prime Minister David Cameron insisted that the storms and floods causing havoc across his country were because climate change. Yes, that old chestnut._ _Its one things for politicians to try and leverage public approval by flying the flimsy climate banner. You expect that. But no such leeway should be given to the media, as it is supposedly their job to inform the masses of facts, not mythologies._ *Politically Correct Science* Lets trace this tragic tale to the beginning. Seemingly decades ago, not 13 years, the UK Independent newspaper started the new century with the goal of becoming a world leader in government-approved, corporate-friendly global warming propaganda. Its chief warmist and green scribe, Charles Onians, fired the first climate salvo in a March 20, 2000, in this leading article: Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britains culture.The Independent was soon followed by other UK papers, US papers, and European papers, and their broadcast media, in a permanent propaganda blitz to take the warming thing to the ultimate limits of childlike hysteria and stark distortion using the uncertain science of the CO2 hypothesis. The propaganda onslaught was stamped with the warmist hallmark of elite condescension and smug conviction that ordinary mortals are much too stupid to understand this scientifically proven crisis. In what would become a typical example of warmist genre material, Charles Onians in 2000 cited David Viner, a researcher at the later-infamous climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia  the Home of the Hockey Stick  who told the unscientific masses that very soon winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. And as for homeless sleeping in the gutter, not so many would die in the night  posing an existential crisis for English Middle Class Morality! By 2006, the UK Independent was regularly carrying junk science hysteria from Gaia author James Lovelock, a key example being his claim that Billions of persons will die before the end of the century from global warming. Since 2012, Jim Lovelock has completely retracted and denied his warmist convictions, and tiptoed away from the train wreck of elite propaganda. *Always Go Further* Al Gore, chief promoter of the global warming scam with Rajendra Pachauri, always went further. Their propaganda onslaught mixed and mingled pure egoism with a frenetic drive to make millions for themselves and enrich their fellow conspirators, through an ultra-tenacious promotion of  any carbon-linked cash-grubbing scheme. Showing what the business press calls initiative and drive, they promoted anything ranging from investment and trading scams, through government tax and corporate subsidy scams, to lurid books, films and TV documentaries.  _THE CHURCH OF CLIMATE CHANGE: Gore and Pachauri guide the mass cult off their intellectual cliff._ Al Gore repeatedly said, in print, the Arctic will be ice free by 2013. Gore made this claim in print in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. And it didnt happen. In fact the Arctic ice caps surface area increased by more than 25% in 2012-2013. The much-larger Antarctic ice cap also increased, by about 5% using NASA data. NASA, which is a fully warmist institution peddling the CO2 hypothesis, has been forced to admit the Antarctic ice sheet is now at its largest since it started regular satellite monitoring in 1979. Media spending on the permanent propaganda campaign has been massive, and a fantastic misappropriation of public money where this concerns state-owned media. Obsessionally and expensively filmed summertime-only shots of polar ice melting  which the climate correct media has stuffed down our throats for a decade  are however now likely to be retreating to where they belong. To the trashcan of history and to empty film theaters, and late night TV doc boredom for the almost-asleep. The warmists set up and tirelessly milked the global warming cash cow for all it could yield, but now it is Game Over time. Their great scientific scam may now be what it always scientifically was, a Cuckoo Theory which evicted all other possible theories of why the climate changes. *The Latecomers and Still Hopefuls* As plenty of writers including myself have explained plenty of times, the CO2 theory is scientific folk history and was junkscience from the moment it started  in about 1795 with Joseph Priestley and his lurid vision of Phlogiston Terror. To him worse than Al-Qaeda or mustard gas in the trenches of World War I, Priestley thought phlogiston could cause a mass dieoff of English industrial workers exposed to woodburning and coalburning fumes!  But nobody had to believe it. Today, only the most primitive minded and witless warmists soldier along, spouting idiocies in the hope the under-informed and the lazyminded will continue to buy their junkscience. If all goes according to plan, Hollywood icon Leonardo DiCaprio will blast into space on the maiden voyage of Richard Bransons Virgin Galactic spaceship this year. Incredibly enough, Messrs. Branson and DiCaprio style themselves as environmentalist celebrities with the elite mission of warning us there is a coming ecological catastrophe if we fail to address the carbon crisis. Simply because they have garnered a large amount of money over the years, one way and another, their commitment to fighting climate change is called praiseworthy by brain-dead media, committed to celeb worship even as it backs off and away from the Global Warming scam. Richard Branson, despite all his attempts, is still far behind Al Gore in warmist cash-grubbing so he is active wherever that might turn a penny. Branson claims he was turned on to Global Warming by Jim Lovelock in person  the same Lovelock who has abandoned the scam. Branson is the founder and CEO of the Carbon War Room, an outfit advocating punitive-high energy taxes, which therefore has fawning support from Big Energy and Big Government, but his big hope is that low carbon space travel can become his new profit center. His one-liner to critics that space travel and carbon hysteria do not seem to mix, is that his brand of space travel is (very) Low Carbon. Cited by Wall Street Journal, 7 January, he has claimed: We have reduced the [carbon emission] cost of somebody going into space from something like two weeks of New Yorks electricity supply to less than the cost of an economy round-trip from Singapore to London. As we know, this concerns low-orbital short-period flight in the upper atmosphere, and nothing to do with real space travel, but coming from a Global Warming ikon we must accept there is always massive exaggeration and distortion. It is New Normal. On the other hand, we do not need to accept the plain, straight lying. According to the US FAA-Federal Aviation Administration, also cited by Wall Street Journal, its own environmental assessment of the launch and re-entry of Virgin Galactics spacecraft says that one launch-land cycle will emit about 30 tons of carbon dioxide, or about five tons per passenger. That is around five times more than the carbon footprint of a round-trip flight from Singapore to London. When the support and infrastructure energy costs of the entire Virgin Galactic operation are added, including high-atmosphere flights by tracker and support aircraft, the total carbon emissions rise to about seven times more than an average round-trip flight from Singapore to London. The FAA says that for each passenger on a single trip using Virgin Galactic their total energy burn will be at least twice the energy an average American consumes in a year. When or if Bransons tacky low-orbital space flights backed by the United Arab Emirates and their low carbon petrodollars ever get their celebrity cargoes out of the Earths gravity field, a trip to Mars will be obligatory.  Here, they will find an atmosphere that is about 96% carbon dioxide (or 960 000 parts per million), and they will be able to smugly gurgle, for the short time they can still breathe: We told you so!. Back on Earth however, a little modesty, or at least the prospect of lawsuits for open lying  which is cited by observers as one reason Jim Lovelock and his namesake James Hansen have backed away from the Warming scam  call on them to give us a rest and to please pipe down. *Keeping The Baboons Warm* Keeping the warmist gravy train rolling  whatever happens in the real world  is rapidly reverting to whence it came.  Big Government, the UN system, the nuclear power and alternate energy industry, and financial opportunists always looking for a new scam. To this motley crew, we have two major bit-part players  government-friendly media and Mr and Mrs Average Informed Citizen  so well-informed they are both easy prey for the lying propaganda from the Carbon Purists. But neither, in fact, can be counted on by the warmists, as they will soon find out. _Baboons in an English wildlfe park searching hot potatoes (Source/ Guardian)_Any kind of historical perspective on atmospheric science and the origins of the CO2 hypothesis was until recently deliberately kept out of the media. Any reference to alternate theories was trashed by the media as negative, anti-science, badly-intentioned and probably corrupt. Global Warming of the Al Gore variety was to  the west what Lysenko was to the USSR of Stalin. Any mention of the relatively large, sometimes outright large changes of world average temperatures over the last 1500 years was derided by warmists   because there was warming in 1980-2000, by a few fractions of 1 degree celsius, we have a crisis. Only carbon effluent in the atmosphere could have caused this! What else? The media, like public opinion is doing what it always does  it moves slowly but surely like a Titanic-crushing iceberg, breaking up as it goes. The media at this moment is packed with scientifically flaky, superficially plausible stories about how global warming causes record cold and massive snowstorms in New York, but also that until the magic date of 2065 global warming will be net positive for human beings, while Mr Obama has told us (although we dont have to believe him) 97 percent of scientists still think crisis-style warming is a reality. In a late 2013 report, the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism said that most media coverage of climate change now emphasises uncertainty, and an increasing number (25%) focus on the positive opportunities global warming could or might bring.  Global cooling, however, remains completely banned from mainstream media, except as  freaky tidbit, despite it being at least as possible that we have cooling, as warming, in a time frame stretching to 2065. *Keeping The Baboons Stupid* Admitting that we dont know what happens in the Earths atmosphere, therefore we cant know how climate changes is affecting global temperature  is the ultimate blog-material. It is the _no-no option_ and just in case, or simply by precaution, so we have to reject that possibility. Time is limited and Al Gore needs cash. Propaganda overkill arrived. Now Gores pews are empty, and were left with hit-and-run street preachers. One key benefit of the comeuppance for global warming, losing its status of unquestionable except by misfits, psychotics and the badly-motivated, is that climate change will be able to emerge as the real subject of interest. We are likely near the point, now, when the blindest and most faithful cult followers of global warming and the CO2 hypothesis will have to admit theyve been sold a pup. The computer-modeled, science-correct, politically-correct theory of man-made CO2 causing global warming, or its second-best rebranded title of climate change, or its third-best of extreme weather, was a 10-year trip to oblivion along the well-trod path of Dumbing Down. Global Warming was Dumb with a capital D. Gore-theory proved nothing at all. The sole benefit of the waltz down Propaganda Lane is that we know climate is changing but we dont know why. Being able to admit that is difficult for high intellect baboons. Baboons are in fact a lot more results-oriented, and have much less time to waste on trivial pursuits than human beings. For that reason they do not invent new enemies and they make do with ones they always have had and know well. Who are real. The Global Warming crisis movement  an example of mass hysteria  invented an all-new enemy for Mankind, called _Mankind._ Also called misanthropy and being more than a little dated, the warmists pushed the misanthropy button so hard we were asked to think we are destroying our planet  unlike Al Gore with his personal Gulfstream 5 jet, his expanding waistline and penchant for fillet mignon and massage parlors with happy endings  and unlike Richard Branson and his Virgin jetliners, because average humans use far too much fossil energy, but Branson and his Hollywood playboy pal are apparently saving the planet for those of us who dont own our own island in the Caribbean. This mental constipation only has one logical readout  that human beings should operate a mass cull or Die Off, to prevent us from killing the planet  which belongs to very nice persons like Gore and Branson. Even low-IQ baboons would reject the embarked logic inside this mental masturbation. They would much prefer serious endeavors like looking for rapidly-cooling potatoes in the snow. Its officially an evolutionary crisis when the feral monkeys start looking smarter than our jet-setting monkeys in suits. Maybe its time to put the feral baboons in suits and ties, and let them realize their true Darwinian potential in Westminster, Brussels and Washington.    97   35 18     474_Articles by:_Andrew McKillop   *Related content:*  *Global Warming Hysteria*Global Warming Hysteria Is Claimed By COLIN GUSTAFSON Special to the Sun March 4, 2008 A number of scientists and members of think tanks are rejecting the popular consensus that humans are causing global warming and that carbon gas emissions  *Carbon Trading Giants and Big Energy Are Steering the Global Warming Debate Away from REAL Solutions*Goldman Sachs and the other financial giants who brought us the economic meltdown and manipulation of the economy argue that carbon trading will solve all of our problems. If we just let them make out like bandits off of carbon  *Study: Global warming bill could cost 2.4 million jobs, $1,250 per household*A carbon emissions plan under consideration in Washington aimed at global warming and climate change could cost the U.S. economy between 1.8 million and 2.4 million jobs over the next two decades. The study, released Wednesday by the National Association   *Global Warming On Trial: US Senator Inhofe Calls For Investigation Of UN IPCC*In response to the astounding revelations arising out of the hacked CRU emails, Senator Jim Inhofe has stated that unless something is done within the next seven days, he will lead the call for a rigorous investigation into mounting evidence

----------


## woodbe

> Well we can run around in circles on this but at the end of the day it will be are the models able to predict climate or not.  At the moment it is a resounding NOT.

  On the basis of what? No warming since X? That's already shown to be a load of bollocks. You can't pick an outlier and use that as the basis for your claims. All models are wrong, but they are more right than no model.  
Here is what the 'no warming' claim means in plain talk: We had an exceptionally hot year in 1998 and we haven't had an exceptionally hot year like it yet.  
That's nothing to do with the overall trend, it's a fight to the death among outliers.    

> In another few years we may just see the gulf between predictions and reality increase even further.  If and when this happens AGW is completely dead in the water. 
> It will prove the sensitivity and feedback loops used in the models is a complete farce.  Oh and the hidden heat in the oceans fail to warm the planet.

  Ok. How many years till your prediction is fact. Let's put it in the diary, so we can see if the skeptics are correct with their non science.  
Give us a date Rod. When will the oceans and atmosphere stop warming and the Arctic and land ice stop melting all together to 'prove' that there is no warming? You have been claiming this for over 4 years and in that time we have had 2 of the hottest years on record, minimum ice extents in the Arctic, continuing sea level rise, land ice mass loss and increasing ocean heating.  
Facts are the physical evidence does not support your theory of no warming, nor does the physics, and the skeptics have failed to publish science to back up their claims. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> On the basis of what? No warming since X? That's already shown to be a load of bollocks. You can't pick an outlier and use that as the basis for your claims. All models are wrong, but they are more right than no model.  
> Here is what the 'no warming' claim means in plain talk: We had an exceptionally hot year in 1998 and we haven't had an exceptionally hot year like it yet.  
> That's nothing to do with the overall trend, it's a fight to the death among outliers.    
> Ok. How many years till your prediction is fact. Let's put it in the diary, so we can see if the skeptics are correct with their non science.  
> Give us a date Rod. When will the oceans and atmosphere stop warming and the Arctic and land ice stop melting all together to 'prove' that there is no warming? You have been claiming this for over 4 years and in that time we have had 2 of the hottest years on record, minimum ice extents in the Arctic, continuing sea level rise, land ice mass loss and increasing ocean heating.  
> Facts are the physical evidence does not support your theory of no warming, nor does the physics, and the skeptics have failed to publish science to back up their claims. 
> woodbe.

  I have no idea when it will be all I know is that the decider in this debate  will be what happens in the future rather than the "science" of the past.  Now if the climate reacts to c02 as predicted by the models then so be it I will eat crow.  But there is so many factors that influence climate more than c02 I doubt I will get a taste for crow any time soon. 
In any event there is no way we can prevent an increase in c02 levels.  So we wont have a problem in analysing the results of models vs temperature vs c02 increase.   
Lets just wait and see how the cards fall.  In the meanwhile we will have a lot of fun throwing up anecdotal "facts" that support our own take on climate science. 
All your claims about temperature, ice extent and ocean warming are all conjecture and open to opposing views.  The methods of data collection or interpretation, time lines, ect are all open to claims of cherry picking and more.  There is no definitive knock out punch for either side. 
You just have to face facts that time is the only way this issue will be resolved.  The only way the warmists will achieve credibility is if the models they claimed was "settled science" actually predict with some degree of accuracy the change in climate.   
NOTHNG ELSE MATTERS.  They hung their hats on this, and this will be what makes or breaks them. 
So lets sit back with the popcorn and wait.  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

By the way you may want to have a read of this. Open Letter to Kevin Trenberth 
Hopefully we might get a debate going with Trenberth. 
Should clear up a few facts on Ocean heat.

----------


## intertd6

> Sure looks like it.     
> intertd6, I'd appreciate it if you left comparisons of me and any religion out of this thread. Your comment is disrespectful of me and the religion you have chosen to denigrate. All it will do is inflame the debate and make work for the mods.    
> Did you look at the date on the Tamino post? January 30th 2014. In case you haven't checked the date recently, that is today. The graphs are new and original work of Tamino's. They clearly demonstrate that the temperatures since 1998 are following the existing upward trend, not the much parroted 'no warming' trend. 
> If you have anything real to add to the discussion, I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.  
> woodbe.

  The reality of fundamentalism is a foreign concept to the afflicted. 
 30/1/14, that would be a record in regurgitation of fresh material that the imaginary ink hasn't even dried on yet.
Regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Well, I suggest to write to Mr Newman an email. His contact details are not a secret. Just tell him your alternative interpretation of the data and how wrong he is and CC it to us.

  Or you could just read the cited report yourself, LOL. (Apologies for assuming you actually care!)

----------


## John2b

> So lets sit back with the popcorn and wait.

  Here's the movie for you:  *NASA : Six Decades of a Warming Earth*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaJJtS_WDmI

----------


## John2b

> By the way you may want to have a read of this. Open Letter to Kevin Trenberth 
> Hopefully we might get a debate going with Trenberth. 
> Should clear up a few facts on Ocean heat.

  How is a claim to popularity going to clear up facts? The "letter" you cite by Tisdale contains so many logical fallacies it could only be posted on an uncritical blog - it would never pass review for a real publisher.  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

----------


## woodbe

> All your claims about temperature, ice extent and ocean warming are all conjecture and open to opposing views.  The methods of data collection or interpretation, time lines, ect are all open to claims of cherry picking and more.  There is no definitive knock out punch for either side.

  True, there have been repeated attempts to challenge the basic data that shows the planet is continuing to warm. None have succeeded to reverse the trends in the data. Probably because the data is not a 'view' or an opinion. As an example, I would suggest you review the results of the WUWT 'Heat Islands' fiasco. Came to nothing of substance and did not reverse the trends as initially claimed. The data is not 'conjecture', it is measurements.  
The skeptics have had to make cherry picking their tool of choice because of the underlying warming trend in the data. 
The knock-out punch can only come from the skeptics. If they had it they would publish it. The prevailing science cannot knock out a dogs breakfast of opinion with no science to back it up. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> True, there have been repeated attempts to challenge the basic data that shows the planet is continuing to warm. None have succeeded to reverse the trends in the data. Probably because the data is not a 'view' or an opinion. As an example, I would suggest you review the results of the WUWT 'Heat Islands' fiasco. Came to nothing of substance and did not reverse the trends as initially claimed. The data is not 'conjecture', it is measurements.  
> The skeptics have had to make cherry picking their tool of choice because of the underlying warming trend in the data. 
> The knock-out punch can only come from the skeptics. If they had it they would publish it. The prevailing science cannot knock out a dogs breakfast of opinion with no science to back it up. 
> woodbe.

  LMAO this is exactly why climate science is a joke.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> How is a claim to popularity going to clear up facts? The "letter" you cite by Tisdale contains so many logical fallacies it could only be posted on an uncritical blog - it would never pass review for a real publisher.  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com

  Spare me, this argument is so yesterday and over done. 
Your science gods would gain a bit of respect if they engaged.

----------


## John2b

> Spare me, this argument is so yesterday and over done.

  You DON'T think that someone writing about climate change should NOT misrepresent the data?

----------


## woodbe

> LMAO this is exactly why climate science is a joke.

   Best response? Really? 
You choose opinion over science, but opinion cannot turn the data around and the data, not opinion, is the evidence that supports the science. 
Skeptics need a silver science bullet but they don't have one. 
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> LMAO this is exactly why climate science is a joke.

  Climate science is a joke because data contrarians (not skeptics BTW*) cannot provide a basis to deny reality? 
(*Skepticism is the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility, as part of a methodological norm pursuing "the extension of certified knowledge". Scepticism is NOT holding onto a contrary view for the purpose of maintaining an imagined view of reality.)

----------


## johnc

> Spare me, this argument is so yesterday and over done. 
> Your science gods would gain a bit of respect if they engaged.

  I think your problem with that comment is that the belligerence of many means no one is listening to an opposing view point. when people simply start dishing dirt because it is a climate scientist they don't like rather than the views you can't engage. To engage both sides have to listen, they have to understand the views being expressed and they have to maintain the clarity of thought and honesty to challenge their own beliefs when the evidence goes against them. In the last few posts it is quite obvious that some think challenge means throwing up what are  pretty ordinary cut and pastes which not only can't they explain but when asked a question don't even understand what they have posted because we get the stupidity of "go contact the author"  which is really just another way of saying "I haven't got a clue" isn't it. It isn't good enough to say I'll ignore the evidence because some drongo with no suitable qualifications and an axe to grind supports your view point and you've found some piece of rubbish you haven't taken the time to give a cursory glance to.  
In using the term "you" I'm refering to people in general not a specific individual.

----------


## intertd6

> Climate science is a joke because data contrarians (not skeptics BTW*) cannot provide a basis to deny reality? 
> (*Skepticism is the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility, as part of a methodological norm pursuing "the extension of certified knowledge". Scepticism is NOT holding onto a contrary view for the purpose of maintaining an imagined view of reality.)

  Climate science is a joke because they are trying to prove that CO2 is the driver, when the historical empirical data shows that CO2 has never driven the climate & past levels many times higher than the present have never resulted in catastrophic warming, so in short it hasn't the capacity to do much at all except create a near useless industry.
if you take the time to read through the many posts here the empirical evidence has been provided care of the IPCC's own reports.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> *NASA : Six Decades of a Warming Earth*

  heres the truth for you, around 5 centuries of warming, then around 6.5 thousand years of cooling before that, all with a slow steady increase on CO2 before industrialisation. Any association of CO2 to global warming is anecdotal as the empirical history proves the opposite. 
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> heres the truth for you, around 5 centuries of warming, then around 6.5 thousand years of cooling before that, all with a slow steady increase on CO2 before industrialisation. Any association of CO2 to global warming is anecdotal as the empirical history proves the opposite. 
> regards inter

  So climate has changed in the past. What a revelation. When heat is added to the climate, temperatures rise. Now that there is a verifiable, measurable positive energy imbalance due to the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature is rising again, surprise, surprise. The empirical history just proves the obvious, that global warming as a result of human contributions the the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is inevitable.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> global warming as a result of human contributions the the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is inevitable.

  I think we all agree on that as a broad statement. Physics tells us so.  
But is it runaway warming?
Is it harmful warming?
Is it so minute that it is a waste of recourses to try and prevent.
Is it a main driver of climate?
Is there a feed back loop that magnifies the warming? 
John2b the issue is almost dead. I am going to miss like hell stirring warmists into a frenzy trying to convince us otherwise.  Should get at least another 3-5 years out of it though.  Stick around this is fun.   :Wink:

----------


## John2b

> I think we all agree on that as a broad statement. Physics tells us so.  
> But is it runaway warming?
> Is it harmful warming?
> Is it so minute that it is a waste of recourses to try and prevent.
> Is it a main driver of climate?
> Is there a feed back loop that magnifies the warming? 
> John2b the issue is almost dead. I am going to miss like hell stirring warmists into a frenzy trying to convince us otherwise.  Should get at least another 3-5 years out of it though.  Stick around this is fun.

  It is fair to say that I, and probably a lot of other "warmists", wish the issue was dead, but the issue is not even faltering, let alone dead or dying. I don't know what kind of vacuum or fact free zone you live in, but as long as you post your myths I trust that someone will see them off, as tedious as the process is. The truth will out, as they say, and opinion doesn't matter to the climate.  _Is it runaway warming?_ Who knows?  _Is it harmful warming?_ You are obviously not a gardener!  _Is it so minute that it is a waste of recourses to try and prevent._ So far the evidence is heavily weighed against this notion.  _Is it a main driver of climate?_ No it is not a main driver of climate. It is, however an unprecedented driver of *rapid* climate change at a rate that will preclude adaption for much of the biosphere.  _Is there a feed back loop that magnifies the warming?_ Who knows. That's why "The Precautionary Principle" should be invoked: The Precautionary Principle | Precautionary Principle  
A big issue with "global warming" is the accumulation of energy in weather systems. Don't think for one minute think that weather with more energy is going to be kind to humans.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It is fair to say that I, and probably a lot of other "warmists", wish the issue was dead, but the issue is not even faltering, let alone dead or dying. I don't know what kind of vacuum or fact free zone you live in, but as long as you post your myths I trust that someone will see them off, as tedious as the process is. The truth will out, as they say, and opinion doesn't matter to the climate.  _Is it runaway warming?_ Who knows?  _Is it harmful warming?_ You are obviously not a gardener!  _Is it so minute that it is a waste of recourses to try and prevent._ So far the evidence is heavily weighed against this notion.  _Is it a main driver of climate?_ No it is not a main driver of climate. It is, however an unprecedented driver of *rapid* climate change at a rate that will preclude adaption for much of the biosphere.  _Is there a feed back loop that magnifies the warming?_ Who knows. That's why "The Precautionary Principle" should be invoked: The Precautionary Principle | Precautionary Principle  
> A big issue with "global warming" is the accumulation of energy in weather systems. Don't think for one minute think that weather with more energy is going to be kind to humans.

  Rapid, Runaway, Kind of the same don't you think.  Unprecedented/rapid climate change, all scary words that mean nothing as it simply cannot be proven that there has been Unprecedented Rapid climate change.  Total figment of imagination and cherry picked data.  See medieval warm period, also done to death here, so don't bother.  See Michael Manns discredited hockey stick.... also done to death here. 
Yep Rapid.... Unprecedented......... all scary words to scare the pants off the unsuspecting dupe.  Yes many have bought it too.   
LOL the precautionary principle has been done to death!  No points on that one.  Who knows... is exactly right!

----------


## intertd6

> So climate has changed in the past. What a revelation. When heat is added to the climate, temperatures rise. Now that there is a verifiable, measurable positive energy imbalance due to the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature is rising again, surprise, surprise. The empirical history just proves the obvious, that global warming as a result of human contributions the the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is inevitable.

  all you have to do is explain the physics of why the high levels of CO2 in the past had no influence on the temperatures, then you can explain why this should be different to this age, as we all know the laws of physics do not change.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> all you have to do is explain the physics of why the high levels of CO2 in the past had no influence on the temperatures, then you can explain why this should be different to this age, as we all know the laws of physics do not change.
> regards inter

  You won't get any argument from "warmists" that the Laws of Physics don't apply, but sorry, no there is nothing to explain. High levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past had the same influence on inward and outward radiation as they do today. You do understand that CO2 is *not* the _only_ driver of climate?! CO2 is the factor that *humans* are currently influencing and the one that has recently altered the Earth's radiation balance and caused heat energy to accumulate on the surface of the Earth at an unprecedented rate. That's an empirically measured and documented fact.

----------


## woodbe

> LOL the precautionary principle has been done to death!  No points on that one.  Who knows... is exactly right!

  Whatever you do john2b, don't ask Rod if he insures his life, car and house or has superannuation.  :Cool:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> You won't get any argument from "warmists" that the Laws of Physics don't apply, but sorry, no there is nothing to explain. High levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past had the same influence on inward and outward radiation as they do today. You do understand that CO2 is *not* the _only_ driver of climate?! CO2 is the factor that *humans* are currently influencing and the one that has recently altered the Earth's radiation balance and caused heat energy to accumulate on the surface of the Earth at an unprecedented rate. That's an empirically measured and documented fact.

   My statement expressly was about the relationship between past CO2 levels & the temperatures, if you took the time to study the data provided previously you couldn't confuse the lack of relationship between the past & what is happening now which confirms that the present so called proof between CO2 & rising temperatures is anecdotal. You are just parroting a theory which just doesn't match the realities of the historic evidence, which fundamentally is ignoring the other side of the debate, one eyed so to speak. 
Of course humans are influencing the climate, the data clearly shows that, CO2 is the cult your hanging your hat on & if it remotely preceded any warming in the historic evidence then we would all be agreement.
It seems by some of the words you are using, could indicate how frightened you are to a perceived threat & your social instincts push you to tell & warn others of the impending danger, the problem with this is that it becomes follow the perceived leader / religion / politics / story / theory  & disregard all other information.
when you can explain the past lack of relationship between temperature & CO2 then we will all sit up & listen.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> My statement expressly was about the relationship between past CO2 levels & the temperatures, if you took the time to study the data provided previously you couldn't confuse the lack of relationship between the past & what is happening now which confirms that the present so called proof between CO2 & rising temperatures is anecdotal. You are just parroting a theory which just doesn't match the realities of the historic evidence, which fundamentally is ignoring the other side of the debate, one eyed so to speak. 
> Of course humans are influencing the climate, the data clearly shows that, CO2 is the cult your hanging your hat on & if it remotely preceded any warming in the historic evidence then we would all be agreement.
> It seems by some of the words you are using, could indicate how frightened you are to a perceived threat & your social instincts push you to tell & warn others of the impending danger, the problem with this is that it becomes follow the perceived leader / religion / politics / story / theory  & disregard all other information.
> when you can explain the past lack of relationship between temperature & CO2 then we will all sit up & listen.
> regards inter

  I think man made co2 is different inter!  I think it is a stronger type of co2 that reacts differently to the co2 that occurs naturally.  This is why just a tiny portion of the total c02 is so dangerous.  /sarc

----------


## intertd6

> I think man made co2 is different inter!  I think it is a stronger type of co2 that reacts differently to the co2 that occurs naturally.  This is why just a tiny portion of the total c02 is so dangerous.  /sarc

  And we're not quite stupid enough to realise it!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

I'd be happy to accept the proposition that the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and actual temperatures in the past is the same now if you could prove that ALL the climate forcings were also identical to the present.  
Picking a CO2 level in the past that was high at the same time the temperature was low means nothing unless you understand the climate at that time. Eyeballing a chart of CO2 vs Temperature does not give us that. Ignoring that variances in any or all forcings can drown out the known effect of CO2 does not change the physics of CO2 or it's effect on climate. 
The funny thing about this is that this is where you guys get to eat all your tired old arguments. "It's the Sun", "It's the Volcanoes", "It's the clouds", "It's water vapor", "It's Cosmic Rays", "It's land Use", etc ad infinitum.  
LOL. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'd be happy to accept the proposition that the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and actual temperatures in the past is the same now if you could prove that ALL the climate forcings were also identical to the present.  
> Picking a CO2 level in the past that was high at the same time the temperature was low means nothing unless you understand the climate at that time. Eyeballing a chart of CO2 vs Temperature does not give us that. Ignoring that variances in any or all forcings can drown out the known effect of CO2 does not change the physics of CO2 or it's effect on climate. 
> The funny thing about this is that this is where you guys get to eat all your tired old arguments. "It's the Sun", "It's the Volcanoes", "It's the clouds", "It's water vapor", "It's Cosmic Rays", "It's land Use", etc ad infinitum.  
> LOL. 
> woodbe.

  You have pretty much answered the reason why we should not be concerned by co2 now.  So many un-knowns affect the climate, so many things that we simply don't understand.   
Yes we know the physics of co2. Now how much does co2 affect climate again? And what is the logarithmic effect from a doubling of co2 again?  Hmm thought so.  Without the un-proven, un-falsifiable feedbacks and sensitivities man made Co2 is but a piss in the proverbial atmospheric ocean. 
Ignore all of those other contributing factors if you will, really stupid IMO but that is the nature of our climate.  NOBODY really knows how it works. They really don't know how we flip from a warm period to an ice age, there are plenty of educated guess out there. But lets face it the climate is a HUGE can of worms.

----------


## woodbe

> You have pretty much answered the reason why we should not be concerned by co2 now.  So many un-knowns affect the climate, so many things that we simply don't understand.   
> Yes we know the physics of co2. Now how much does co2 affect climate again? And what is the logarithmic effect from a doubling of co2 again?  Hmm thought so.  Without the un-proven, un-falsifiable feedbacks and sensitivities man made Co2 is but a piss in the proverbial atmospheric ocean. 
> Ignore all of those other contributing factors if you will, really stupid IMO but that is the nature of our climate.  NOBODY really knows how it works. They really don't know how we flip from a warm period to an ice age, there are plenty of educated guess out there. But lets face it the climate is a HUGE can of worms.

  You can't get away with that one. We know more about today's climate than we know about the climate of the past. You are conveniently forgetting that we have been measuring the current climate for hundreds of years and the current state of climate science is telling us stuff we should be paying attention to, not denying because we couldn't know everything exactly to the last poofteenth. We can measure and account for the physics of all the forcings and watch them play out in the climate. Every year, every change in the climate improves our knowledge. No-one suggests the climate is simple except the fake skeptics who trot out their tired old myths. 
I'm not suggesting we are ignoring contributing factors, I'm suggesting that looking at just a CO2/Temperature chart from the past IS ignoring all contributing factors. 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

To be or not 2b, that is the question... 
I was searching for an interview with Mr Suzuki where he concedes defeat on the "conservationist" front yet couldn't find it, In stead I found this gem.
Enjoy.  *David Suzuki proves hes pig ignorant about global warming* *Andrew Bolt*Global warming - propaganda, Interviews with warmists like Flannery
The very first question put to David Suzuki on_ Q&A_ last night revealed this warming alarmists complete ignorance of the most basic facts of global warming.Fancy Suzuki not even knowing what the worlds main temperature data sets say about global temperatures. Fancy him not even knowing what those data sets are, even when he is given their names.The only rational response to Suzukis astonishing admission of utter ignorance would have been to say to him: Sir, you are a phony and imposter. Get off the stage and dont waste our time for a second longer.Read the exchange for yourself: _
BILL KOUTALIANOS: Oh, hi. Since 1998 global temperatures have been relatively flat, yet many man-made global warming advocates refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. Has man-made global warming become a new religion in itself?_ _TONY JONES: David, go ahead. 
DAVID SUZUKI: Yeah, well, I dont know why youre saying that. The ten hottest years on record, as I understand it, have been in this century. In fact, the warming continues. It may have slowed down but the warming continues and everybody is anticipating some kind of revelation in the next IPCC reports that are saying we got it wrong. As far as I understand, we havent. So where are you getting your information? Im not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what theyre thinking. 
TONY JONES: Do you want to respond to that, Bill? 
BILL KOUTALIANOS: Sure, yeah. UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS data shows a 17-year flat trend which suggests there may be something wrong with the Co2 warming theory? 
DAVID SUZUKI: Sorry, yeah, what is the reference? I dont 
BILL KOUTALIANOS: Well, theyre the main data sets that IPCC use: UAH, University of Alabama, Huntsville; GISS, Goddard Institute of Science; HadCRUT. I dont know what that stands for, HadCRUT; and RSS, Remote Sensing something. So those data sets suggest a 17-year flat trend, which suggests there may be a problem with the Co2._ _
DAVID SUZUKI: No, well, there may be a climate sceptic down in Huntsville, Alabama, who has taken the data and come to that conclusion. I say, lets wait for the IPCC report to come out and see what the vast bulk of scientists who have been involved in gathering this information will tell us._See those data sets here.Like I say, a complete know-nothing, citing false claims:_
STEWART FRANKS: In an opinion piece last week you wrote that the Great Barrier Reef was threatened by the increasing frequency of cyclones. Everyone watching and listening can onto the Bureau of Meteorologys website and see that there is no increase. In fact there has been a decline over the last 40 years and no increase in the severity. Are you not, by exaggerating_ _
DAVID SUZUKI: That I have to admit 
STEWART FRANKS: ...or even just getting wrong, are you not actually vulnerable of actually undermining your very own aim in that, you know, the Great Barrier Reef does have environmental threat, but cyclones aint one of them?_ _
DAVID SUZUKI: All right. That was one, I have to admit, that that was suggested to me by an Australian, and it is true, I mean, it may be a mistake. I dont know._Nor does David Suzuki know what the hell hes on about when hes fear-mongering about genetically modified crops:_
DAVID SUZUKI: Well, I mean, that is always the argument thats made. GMOs are very, very expensive. Now, the people that need this food are not going to be able to afford it. Are we going to just create these new crops and then give them away? I simply dont believe thats whats going to happen. I dont think it is a generosity for the rest of humanity that is driving this activity._ _
RICK ROUSH: Actually, we are. I mean, Bt corn technology has been given away to the Kenyan State Government research people for use for subsistence farmers. Monsanto gave away insect resistant potatoes in Mexico over 20 years ago. James is working on lots of similar cases. In cases where there is no economic return, it is, in fact, being given away and theyre not so difficult to develop. When I was at Cornell, we got a gene that was a gift from Monsanto for experimental purposes. We made broccoli plants that were resistant to attacks of Dimebag Moths. A student - one of our students made about 50 transformants in about six months. The great cost of these things are no longer the actual creation of the plant. Its the regulatory challenges to take sure that you can take them to market, to do all that safety testing. 
TONY JONES: Okay, Rick, well well get a response to that and well move on?_ _
DAVID SUZUKI: Well, I dont have any response. It sounds great. I dont know._ How in Gods name could people take this man seriously?

----------


## johnc

For a start it is taken from a Q and A program which means it is a carefully selected highlight. Secondly we have a bit of fairly puerile Bolt editing by the look of it  as he obviously doesn't think this show stopper says much at all with out his slant being foisted on his largely pig ignorant reading public.  Lastly Dr Suzuki is well respected his answers don't provide enough to get either the Bolt or Marc conclusion. Character assassination such as this is a very low way to get a point across.

----------


## John2b

> To be or not 2b, that is the question...  How in Gods name could people take this man seriously?

  Who, Andrew Bolt? I really don't know!

----------


## Marc

It's Monday morning and I am home with the flu. I assumed productive members of the community may read this message sometime in the evening or tomorrow night perhaps.
I was wrong.
In this years of reading and writing on this subject it seems that the alarmist side has way much more time on their hands than the conservative.
Just an observation. 
So lets see if the evil Andrew Bolt and the evil Marc are the only one on this page.  Bill Koutalianos has asked: Since 1998 global temperatures have been relatively flat, yet many man-made global warming advocates refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. Has man-made global warming become a new religion in itself? 
What do you think?  Author *leaf*  Date/Time *23 Sep 2013 9:44:58pm*  Subject *>>Re: 23.09.13 Q1 - CLIMATE - NO RISE SINCE 98*   such things include radio active waste, plastic, bug killer, subs, drones  
I love how Suzuki makes a disparaging remark about sceptics who are not climatologists, yet he keeps stating he is not a climatologist and is pushing the global warming alarmism.  
So it's okay for him to push an agenda without expertise in a field, yet it's not okay for someone else not in that field to question the agenda?  Author *GeorgeB*  Date/Time *23 Sep 2013 9:52:06pm*  Subject *>>Re: 23.09.13 Q1 - CLIMATE - NO RISE SINCE 98*   *"So it's okay for him to push an agenda without expertise in a field, yet it's not okay for someone else not in that field to question the agenda?"* 
EXACTLY! 
Sounds like another Tim Flannery, Kevin Rudd, or Julia Gillard!  Author *0ctatron*  Date/Time *24 Sep 2013 1:36:02am*  Subject *>>Re: 23.09.13 Q1 - CLIMATE - NO RISE SINCE 98*   Yes because if there's no rise in the last 15 years, and there has been over the last couple of centuries since the industrial revolution. Then we should call it all off and say mission accomplished just like George Bush did.. Yeah right.. Scientists have been collating data on this based on the average temperature of Earth over HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS. From Ice core samples and many other biological and geological sources, all over the world from Geologists, Hydrologists, Biologists, Meteorologists, Climatologists.. out of the odd 30,000 Scientists across these fields who have devoted their lives to studying these fields about 1000 disagree, boohoo! Look into a subject called Data Analysis, also known as Statistics. There are mathmatical formulas to see if you have the right sample range and sample size, to accurately measure the subject you chose to study! Realize that heating the ocean will evaporate more water creating bigger more intense storm systems and snow storms..  Author *dh*  Date/Time *25 Sep 2013 3:28:14pm*  Subject *>>Re: 23.09.13 Q1 - CLIMATE - NO RISE SINCE 98*   Good point. I am a Canadian and it's amazing how some Canadians and especially the government owned CBC media see this guy as a saint. Meanwhile he owns 3 luxury home worth 10 million dollars largely paid by taxpayers and jets all over the world burning jet fuel spreading his global warming alarm ism nonsense.   Author *GeorgeB*  Date/Time *23 Sep 2013 9:50:40pm*  Subject *>Re: 23.09.13 Q1 - CLIMATE - NO RISE SINCE 98*   *"Has man-made global warming become a new religion in itself?"* 
Your question is critical! Anthropogenic Climate change IS now another CRAZY RELIGION! 
CONSENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE! OR RELIGION! WILD AGREEMENT ON HUMAN GUESSTIMATES (OR COMPUTERS USING HUMAN MADE ALGORITHMS TO GUESSTIMATE) IS NOT SCIENCE! OR RELIGION!  
FACT IS! 
And if the planets population is allowed to keep increasing the way it is, there will automatically be an increase in temperature in most places as those people cook, breath and bathe etc etc etc! 
But THAT does NOT prove human exhaled or produced CO2 is the ONLY CAUSE! 
WHAT ABOUT NATURAL CYCLES! THE SUN! ETC ETC!  
Tim Flannery! Arms length???? Come off it!  Author *GeorgeB*  Date/Time *23 Sep 2013 10:53:28pm*  Subject *>>Re: 23.09.13 Q1 - CLIMATE - NO RISE SINCE 98*   AND NOW we hear that ALL of the members of the now disbanded Climate Change Commission have decided they will reform and .... wait for it ...... 
WORK FOR NOTHING!  
SO Labor wasted millions of OUR taxpayer-money on Tim Flannery and co when they, NO WE, could have had ALL of their lazy propaganda FOR ZERO!

----------


## Marc

*James Delingpole*  *James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books, including his most recent work Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future, also available in the US, and in Australia as Killing the Earth to Save It. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com.*        *The climate alarmists have lost the debate: it's time we stopped indulging their poisonous fantasy*   *By James Delingpole Environment Last updated: October 6th, 2013* *4053 Comments Comment on this article*  Not in danger. Never really were. (Photo: ALAMY)  The story so far: with the release of its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it cannot be taken seriously. Here are a few reasons why: IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused it of having "sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence." Nigel Lawson has called it "not science but mumbo jumbo". The Global Warming Policy Foundation's Dr David Whitehouse has described the IPCC's panel as "evasive and inaccurate" in the way it tried dodge the key issue of the 15-year (at least) pause in global warming; Donna Laframboise notes that is either riddled with errors or horribly politically manipulated  or both; Paul Matthews has found a very silly graph; Steve McIntyre has exposed how the IPCC appears deliberately to have tried to obfuscate the unhelpful discrepancy between its models and the real world data; and at Bishop Hill the excellent Katabasis has unearthed another gem: that, in jarring contrast to the alarmist message being put out at IPCC press conferences and in the Summary For Policymakers, the body of the report tells a different story  that almost all the scary scenarios we've been warned about this last two decades (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) are now been graded by scientists somewhere between "low confidence" to "exceptionally unlikely;" and this latest from the Mighty Booker. And there's plenty more where that came from.  Now, of course, I fully appreciate how the climate alarmists are going to respond to these criticisms: same way they always do  with a barrage of lies, ad homs, cover-ups, rank-closings, blustering threats, straw men, and delusion-bubble conferences like the one they've just staged at the Royal Society in which one warmist pseudo-scientist after another mounts the podium to reassure his amen corner that everything's going just fine and that those evil denialists couldn't be more wrong. 
Well, if that's how they want to play it  fighting to the bitter end for their lost cause like Werewolves in Northern Europe in '45 or those fanatical Japanese hold outs on remote Pacific islands  I guess that's their problem. 
But what I really don't think we should be doing at this stage in the game is allowing it to be our problem too. As I argued here the other week, there is more than enough solid evidence now to demonstrate to any neutral party prepared to cast half an eye over it that the doomsday prognostications the warmist establishment has been trying to frighten us with these last two decades are a nonsense. The man-made global warming scare story has not a shred of scientific credibility. It's over. And while I don't expect the alarmists to admit this any time soon, I do think the rest of us should stop indulging them in their poisonous fantasy. 
I'm thinking, for example, of this line from the Spectator's otherwise superb, accurate and fair editorial summarising the state of play on climate:Global warming is still a monumental challenge. 
Is it? More of a "monumental" challenge than global cooling? And the evidence for that statement can be found where exactly? Please  I'd love to see it. Where's the data that proves the modest 0.8 degrees C warming in the last 150 years has done more harm than good? It may seem unduly picky to quibble over just seven errant words from an otherwise immaculate 800 word editorial. But it's precisely intellectually lazy concessions like this that are serving only to prolong a propaganda war that really should have ended long ago. 
I feel the same way when I read one of those on-the-one-hand-and-on-the-other think pieces from someone on the "sceptical" side of the argument or an editorial in a newspaper trying to position itself as the voice of reasonable authority on the climate issue. You know the sort I mean: where, in order to make his case seem more balanced and sympathetic the author concedes at the beginning that there are faults and extremists on both sides of the argument and that it's time we all met in the middle and found a sensible solution. (I call this the Dog Poo Yoghurt Fallacy) 
This is absurd, dishonest, inaccurate and counterproductive. It's as if, after a long, long game of cat and mouse between a few maverick, out-on-a-limb private investigators and an enormous Mafia cartel, an outside arbitrator steps in and says: "Well there's fault on both sides. You Mafia people have been really quite naughty with your multi-billion dollar crime spree. But you private investigators, you deserve a rap on the knuckles too because some of that language you've been using to describe the Mafia cartel is really quite offensive and hurtful. Why, you've actually been calling them "thieving criminals." "But they are thieving criminals," the investigators protest. "And do you have any idea what it has cost us pursuing this case? Do you realise how hard the cartel worked to vilify us, marginalise us, make us seem like crazed extremists? These people have stolen billions, they've lied, they've cheated, they're responsible for numerous deaths, and you're, what, you're going to buy into the specious argument of their bullshitting consigliere Roberto "Mad Dog" Ward that they deserve special favours because their tender feelings have been hurt with unkind language?" 
It's time we took the gloves off in this fight  not to escalate it but to stop it being prolonged with this ludicrous diplomatic game where we have to pretend that there's fault on both sides  not because it's in any way true, but because the climate scam is so vast and all-encompassing that there are just too many people in positions of power or authority who need to be indulged by being allowed to save face. Why? 
To give you but one example, last week two warmists were given space to have a go at DEFRA Secretary of State Owen Paterson.Professor Kevin Anderson, of Manchester University, toldthe Independent: His view that we can muddle through climate change is a colonial, arrogant, rich persons view. And Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University, one of the authors of the report, said: I find it very worrying that this person is charged with adapting [Britain] to climate change. I do think it is a good idea for whoever is planning for adaptation to have a realistic understanding of what the science is saying. 
This rightly taxed the patience of even the scrupulously non-combative Bishop Hill:One can't help but think that politicians' understanding of the science might be helped if scientists, including Professor Allen, had tried to write a clear explanation of it rather than trying to obfuscate any difficulty that might distract from the message of doom. 
Quite. What Paterson said about the current state of climate change is both demonstrably true and wholly unexceptionable:_People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries_, he said. _Remember that for humans, the biggest cause of death is cold in winter, far bigger than heat in summer. It would also lead to longer growing seasons and you could extend growing a little further north into some of the colder areas.___ 
If shyster professors with cushy sinecures in state-funded seats of academe wish to counter such reasonable statements of the glaringly obvious  statements, furthermore, which are actually supported by the body of the new IPCC report (see above)  then the onus is on them to do so using verifiable facts rather than vague, emotive smears. 
To return to my favourite field of analogy  World War II  the situation we're in now is analogous to the dog days of 1945 when the allied advance was held up by small pockets of fanatical resistance. The Allies had a choice: either painstakingly take each village at the cost of numerous infantry or simply stand back and give those villages an ultimatum  you have an hour to surrender and if you don't we're going to obliterate you with our artillery. We have to take a stand on this issue. One side is right; one side is quite simply wrong and deserves to be humiliated and crushingly defeated. And the sooner  for all those of us who believe in truth, decency and liberty  the better.  *Tags:* Bishop Hill, Dog Poo Yoghurt Fallacy, Fifth Assessment Report, Global Warming Policy Foundation, IPCC, Japanese hold outs on remote Pacific islands, Katabasis, Owen Paterson, Professor Kevin Anderson, Professor Myles Allen, Richard Lindzen, Sir Paul Nurse, Spectator, Steve McIntyre,Werewolves

----------


## Marc

larger image *Killing the Earth to Save It* *How Environmentalists are ruining the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your jobs* 
James Delingpole 
Paperback, 320 pages,   *Carbon taxes won't make the slightest difference to climate change, so why are we introducing them?
Polar bear populations are on the increase, so why are we worrying about them?
Global warming is better than global cooling, so why are we trying to stop it?* 
James Delingpole has all the answers - and they're not the ones Tim Flannery would like you to hear. In Killing The Earth To Save It the outspoken blogger and author who helped break the Climategate scandal tells the shocking true story of how a handful of political activists, green campaigners and voodoo scientists engineered the biggest, most expensive and destructive outbreak of mass hysteria. 
In the name of "saving the planet for future generations" they're chopping down rainforests to make biofuels; they're carpeting the landscape with bat-chomping, bird-mincing wind farms; they're raising taxes, increasing regulations, killing the economy, driving up the cost of living, destroying jobs. 
But is any of this stuff really necessary? Or might there be a better way?

----------


## woodbe

> James Delingpole has all the answers - and they're not the ones Tim Flannery would like you to hear.

  I bet Tim's surprised to hear that.  :Biggrin:  
This is all you need to know about James Delingpole:    
He's the UK version of Bolt, but better for a laugh than Bolt.  
He 'reports' to a large UK audience on Climate Science, but he's so busy he doesn't have time to read the science.  :Rolleyes:  I guess it's hard work researching denial. Like when he came over here telling us about how windmills had destroyed ghost towns.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

I don't see any problem with that interview.
It shows a person clearly uneasy with a camera crew and an interviewer shoved in his face at his home and an analogy made between climate change consensus and if he had cancer.
Distasteful in the extreme, and the wrong analogy. The rest of the interview is a great example of where the alarmist stand. Bigots, smug, pontificating, know it all, we know best, no different from a missionary preaching to the savages' medicine doctor. 
You lack of discernment about people is a bad as your choice of causes.

----------


## Marc

*The Pause of Global Warming Risks Destroying The Reputation Of Science*Posted on January 26, 2014	by Anthony Watts *By Garth Paltridge* Global temperatures have not risen for 17 years. The pause now threatens to expose how much scientists sold their souls for cash and fame, warns emeritus professor Garth Paltridge, former chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research. *Climate Changes Inherent Uncertainties*
there has been no significant warming over the most recent fifteen or so years
In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem  in its effort to promote the cause. *It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of societys respect for scientific endeavour*
The trap was set in the late 1970s or thereabouts when the environmental movement first realised that doing something about global warming would play to quite a number of its social agendas. At much the same time, it became accepted wisdom around the corridors of power that government-funded scientists (that is, most scientists) should be required to obtain a goodly fraction of their funds and salaries from external sourcesexternal anyway to their own particular organisation.
The scientists in environmental research laboratories, since they are not normally linked to any particular private industry, were forced to seek funds from other government departments. In turn this forced them to accept the need for advocacy and for the manipulation of public opinion. For that sort of activity, an arms-length association with the environmental movement would be a union made in heaven
The trap was partially sprung in climate research when a number of the relevant scientists began to enjoy the advocacy business. The enjoyment was based on a considerable increase in funding and employment opportunity. The increase was not so much on the hard-science side of things but rather in the emerging fringe institutes and organisations devoted, at least in part, to selling the message of climatic doom. A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferencesthis last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of
The trap was fully sprung when many of the worlds major national academies of science (such as the   Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.
Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster It can no longer escape prime responsibility if it should turn out in the end that doing something in the name of mitigation of global warming is the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on humanity.
Full story here at: *Quadrant Online* About these ads

----------


## Marc

*Scientists baffled as Sun activity falls to century low*  * 16 DAYS AGO JANUARY 19, 2014 2:36AM *   THE Suns activity has plummeted to a century low, baffling scientists and possibly heralding a new mini-Ice Age.  "I've been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I've never seen anything quite like this," Richard Harrison, head of space physics at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, told the BBC. "If you want to go back to see when the Sun was this inactive... you've got to go back about 100 years," he said. The lull is particularly surprising because the Sun has reached its solar maximum, the point in its 11-year cycle where activity is at its peak. The lacklustre climax also follows a solar minimum  the period when the Suns activity troughs  that was longer and lower than had been anticipated. Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at the University of Reading, told the BBC there was a significant chance that the Sun could become increasingly quiet. He compared the current circumstances to the latter half of the 17th Century, when the sun went through an extremely quiet phase referred to as the Maunder Minimum. That era of solar inactivity coincided with bitterly cold winters to Europe, where the Baltic Sea and London's River Thames froze over. Conditions were so harsh that some described it as a mini-Ice Age.  Solar lull... The Sun hasn't been this quiet in 100 years, scientists say. Picture: NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory     Prof Lockwood says we may see a repeat if the Sun continues to dip, positing that the results would be dominantly felt in Europe due to the flow of an air current in the upper atmosphere that can drive the weather. "It's a very active research topic at the present time, but we do think there is a mechanism in Europe where we should expect more cold winters when solar activity is low," he said.

----------


## woodbe

> Solar lull... The Sun hasn't been this quiet in 100 years, scientists say. Picture: NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory

  Yep, the sun is a climate variable too. Welcome to your discovery of forcings, you're a bit late. LOL. 
woodbe

----------


## intertd6

> Yep, the sun is a climate variable too. Welcome to your discovery of forcings, you're a bit late. LOL. 
> woodbe

  and your definitive answer for no global warming for the last 16 years is ???
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> and your definitive answer for no global warming for the last 16 years is ???
> regards inter

  Easy....  The ocean ate all our heat, ready to spew it up on us in 5 years time!

----------


## John2b

> and your definitive answer for no global warming for the last 16 years is ???
> regards inter

  What planet are you on? Teleporting in to this forum, apparently.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> What planet are you on? Teleporting in to this forum, apparently.

  
What do you mean?

----------


## John2b

> What do you mean?

  It is know empirically that the Earth's energy imbalance as a result of manmade CO2 emissions has not ended, and that energy is continuing to accumulate in the oceans. Surface temperature is only a proxy for global warming. 95% of the radiant energy from the Sun that arrives on the Earth is absorbed by the oceans in the first instance, and weather systems are what moves that energy into the atmosphere and land masses. Recent history shows that the rise in atmospheric air temperature is not linear, but affected by many oscillations, some well understood, some not. The Earth's atmospheric temperate record for the past few years does not in any way controvert the science or physics or global warming. Anyone who thinks that there has been "no global warming for xxx years" either isn't paying attention or isn't talking about the planet Earth.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It is know empirically that the Earth's energy imbalance as a result of manmade CO2 emissions has not ended, and that energy is continuing to accumulate in the oceans. Surface temperature is only a proxy for global warming. 95% of the radiant energy from the Sun that arrives on the Earth is absorbed by the oceans in the first instance, and weather systems are what moves that energy into the atmosphere and land masses. Recent history shows that the rise in atmospheric air temperature is not linear, but affected by many oscillations, some well understood, some not. The Earth's atmospheric temperate record for the past few years does not in any way controvert the science or physics or global warming. Anyone who thinks that there has been "no global warming for xxx years" either isn't paying attention or isn't talking about the planet Earth.

  See I told you. The OCEAN ATE MY WARMING!!

----------


## John2b

> See I told you. The OCEAN ATE MY WARMING!!

  Did you think that radiant heat from the Sun heated the Earth's lower atmosphere _directly?_ Oh dear....

----------


## intertd6

> Easy....  The ocean ate all our heat, ready to spew it up on us in 5 years time!

  And if it doesn't happen in that time frame it will be extended 10 , 20 , 50  or 100 years.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> It is know empirically that the Earth's energy imbalance as a result of manmade CO2 emissions has not ended, and that energy is continuing to accumulate in the oceans. Surface temperature is only a proxy for global warming. 95% of the radiant energy from the Sun that arrives on the Earth is absorbed by the oceans in the first instance, and weather systems are what moves that energy into the atmosphere and land masses. Recent history shows that the rise in atmospheric air temperature is not linear, but affected by many oscillations, some well understood, some not. The Earth's atmospheric temperate record for the past few years does not in any way controvert the science or physics or global warming. Anyone who thinks that there has been "no global warming for xxx years" either isn't paying attention or isn't talking about the planet Earth.

  If you knew what you were talking about you would know that the earth has never had an energy balance, but with your types a little box has to filled to satisfy your fears, so you disregard other elements which dwarf CO2  & have a greater capacity to capture heat & have a greater influence, but are conveniently not included in calculations because their effect is so changeable, not measurable or calculable. And there wouldn't be too many on the land anywhere that dont know about the cooling micro climates that are caused by forests & vegetation, of which deforestation is shifting to a warming influence.
you need to check your facts on the suns energy, as the oceans absorb 92% of the energy the hits the oceans surface! not the earths surface! a sure sign of parroting stuff you don't know. They could include data from Star Trek & some types would repeat it.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> If you knew what you were talking about you would know that the earth has never had an energy balance,
> regards inter

  Who doesn't know what they are talking about? LMAO!  WXWISE ERBE

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Did you think that radiant heat from the Sun heated the Earth's lower atmosphere _directly?_ Oh dear....

  not at all

----------


## Marc

Climate FAIL Files | Watts Up With That?        
This page lists climate science and climate impact claims that have either not been proven, or have had the claim modified, moved, or expanded to protect the claimant from having to admit the original claim was wrong. This will always be a work in progress. New items will be added as they are examined and will include:  The claim itself  what was stated as factual or predicted? A clear unambiguous statement, such as 50 million climate refugees by 2010″Proof of the original claim  website, documents, photos, audio, video that clearly and unambiguously show the claim being made sometime in the past.A test of the of the claim, and the results  website, documents, photos, audio, video that clearly and unambiguously show the claim not coming true or not meeting the claim.  and /or  Proof of change in the claim (if applicable)  often, when the claim fails to materialize, goalposts get moved, such as we saw with the 50 million climate refugees story that was originally set with a due date of 2010, is now set for the year 2020.  ==================================================  ================= First entry: *The Claim:* 50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said:  *it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.* *The Test:* Did population go down in these areas during that period, indicating climate refugees were on the move? The answer, no. *The Proof:* Population actually gained in some Caribbean Island for which 2010 census figures were available. Then when challenged on these figures, the UN tried to hide the original claim from view. See: *The UN disappears 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt* *The Change in claim:* Now it is claimed that it will be 10 years into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020. About these ads

----------


## Marc

← Oh my! Climate change threatens to cause trillions in damage to worlds coastal regions  *CryoSat shows Arctic sea ice volume up 50% from last year*Posted on February 5, 2014	by Anthony Watts
Measurements from ESAs CryoSat satellite show that the volume of Arctic sea ice has significantly increased this past autumn.
The volume of ice measured this autumn is about 50% higher compared to last year. In October 2013, CryoSat measured about 9000 cubic km of sea ice  a notable increase compared to 6000 cubic km in October 2012.
See animation:  
Over the last few decades, satellites have shown a downward trend in the area of Arctic Ocean covered by ice. However, the actual volume of sea ice has proven difficult to determine because it moves around and so its thickness can change.
CryoSat was designed to measure sea-ice thickness across the entire Arctic Ocean, and has allowed scientists, for the first time, to monitor the overall change in volume accurately.
About 90% of the increase is due to growth of multiyear ice  which survives through more than one summer without melting  with only 10% growth of first year ice. Thick, multiyear ice indicates healthy Arctic sea-ice cover.
This years multiyear ice is now on average about 20%, or around 30 cm, thicker than last year. ESAs ice mission  
One of the things wed noticed in our data was that the volume of ice year-to-year was not varying anything like as much as the ice extent  at least in 2010, 2011 and 2012, said Rachel Tilling from the UKs Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, who led the study.
We didnt expect the greater ice extent left at the end of this summers melt to be reflected in the volume. But it has been, and the reason is related to the amount of multiyear ice in the Arctic.
While this increase in ice volume is welcome news, it does not indicate a reversal in the long-term trend.
Its estimated that there was around 20 000 cubic kilometres of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so todays minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years, said Professor Andrew Shepherd from University College London, a co-author of the study. 
The findings from a team of UK researchers at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling were presented last week at the American Geophysical Unions autumn meeting in San Francisco, California.
We are very pleased that we were able to present these results in time for the conference despite some technical problems we had with the satellite in October, which are now completely solved, said Tommaso Parrinello, ESAs CryoSat Mission Manager.
In October, CryoSats difficulties with its power system threatened the continuous supply of data, but normal operations resumed just over a week later.
With the seasonal freeze-up now underway, CryoSat will continue its routine measurement of sea ice. Over the coming months, the data will reveal just how much this summers increase has affected winter ice volumes.
==================================================  ============
Source: European Space Agency Arctic sea ice up from record low / CryoSat / Observing the Earth / Our Activities / ESA
For more data, see the WUWT Sea ice Reference page:Sea Ice Page | Watts Up With That?
h/t to WUWT reader Larry Kirk  About these ads

----------


## Marc

Watts Up With That? _The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change_  Skip to content  HomeAboutClimate FAIL FilesClimategateReference PagesResourcesSubmit storyTestTips & NotesWidgetWUWT Stuff     ← Is the Bern Model Non-Physical? Mail wars: Heartland -vs- the AMS → *History falsifies climate alarmist sea level claims*Posted on December 2, 2013	by Anthony Watts _Seas have been rising and falling for thousands of years  without help from the EPA or IPCC_ *Guest essay by Robert W. Endlich*
Sea levels are rising rapidly! Coastal communities are becoming more vulnerable to storms and storm surges! Small island nations are going to disappear beneath the waves!
Climate alarmists have been making these claims for years, trying to tie them to events like Superstorm Sandy, which was below Category 1 hurricane strength when it struck New York City in October 2012, and Typhoon Haiyan, which plowed into the low-lying central Philippines in November 2013.
For alarmists, it does not seem to matter that the strength and frequency of tropical storms have been decreasing in recent years, while the rate of sea level rise has fallen to about seven inches per century. Nor does it seem to matter that the lost lives and property have little to do with the storms sheer power. Their destructive impact was caused by their hitting heavily populated areas, where governments had not adequately informed citizens of the size and ferocity of imminent storm surges, too few people had evacuated  and people, buildings and emergency equipment were insufficiently prepared to withstand the furious storm onslaughts.
The alarmist cries are not meant to be honest or factual. They are intended to generate hysterical headlines, public anxiety about climate change, and demands for changes in energy policies and use.  
China is rapidly becoming one of the richest nations on Earth. It is by far the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide, which alarmists claim is causing unprecedented storms and sea level rise. And yet at the recent UN-sponsored climate talks in Warsaw, China led a walkout of 132 Third World countries that claim First World nations owe them hundreds of billions of dollars in reparations for losses and damages allegedly resulting from CO2 emissions.
The Obama Administration brought (perhaps bought is more apt) them back to the negotiating table, by promising as-yet-unspecified US taxpayer money for those supposed losses. Details for this unprecedented giveaway will be hammered out at the 2015 UN-sponsored climate confab in Paris, safely after the 2014 US mid-term elections. Meanwhile, a little history will be instructive.
In 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama proclaimed, This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow. He was actually right. Sea level rise has slowed, but not because of CO2 emissions, which are still increasing. Mother Nature cannot be bought.
Sea level changes over relatively recent geologic and human history demonstrate that alarmist claims do not withstand scrutiny. Sea levels rose significantly after the last ice age, fell during the Little Ice Age, and have been rising again since the LIA ended around 1850. In fact, Roman Empire and Medieval port cities are now miles from the Mediterranean, because sea levels actually fell during the Little Ice Age.
During the deepest part of the last ice age, known as the Wisconsin, sea levels were about 400 feet lower than at present. As Earth emerged from the Wisconsin some 18,000 years ago and the massive ice sheets started to melt, sea levels began rising. Rapid sea level rise during the meltwater pulse phase, about 15,000 years ago, was roughly five meters (16 feet) per century  but then slowed significantly since the Holocene Climate Optimum, about 8,000 years ago. 
Those rising oceans created new ports for Greek and Roman naval and trade vessels. But today many of those structures and ruins are inland, out in the open, making them popular tourist destinations. How did that happen? The Little Ice Age once again turned substantial ocean water into ice, lowering sea levels, and leaving former ports stranded. Not enough ice has melted since 1850 to make them harbors again.
The ancient city of Ephesus was an important port city and commercial hub from the Bronze Age to the Minoan Warm period, and continuing through the Roman Empire. An historic map shows its location right on the sea. But today, in modern-day Turkey, Ephesus is 5 km from the Mediterranean. Some historians erroneously claim river silting caused the change, but the real culprit was sea level change.
Ruins of the old Roman port Ostia Antica, are extremely well preserved  with intact frescoes, maps and plans. Maps from the time show the port located at the mouth of the Tiber River, where it emptied into the Tyrrhenian Sea. The Battle of Ostia in 849, depicted in a painting attributed to Raphael, shows sea level high enough for warships to assemble at the mouth of the Tiber. However, today this modern-day tourist destination is two miles up-river from the mouth of the Tiber. Sea level was significantly higher in the Roman Warm Period than today.
An important turning point in British history occurred in 1066, when William the Conqueror defeated King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings. Less well-known is that, when William landed, he occupied an old Roman fort now known as Pevensey Castle, which at the time was located on a small island in a harbor on Englands south coast. A draw bridge connected it to the mainland. Pevensey is infamous because unfortunate prisoners were thrown into this Sea Gate, so that their bodies would be washed away by the tide. Pevensey Castle is now a mile from the coast  further proof of a much higher sea level fewer than 1000 years ago.
Before modern Italy, the region was dominated by the famous City States of the Mediterranean, among which is Pisa, with its picturesque Cathedral Square and famous Leaning Tower. Located near the mouth of the Arno River, Pisa was a powerful city, because maritime trade brought goods from sailing ships right into the port. Its reign ended after 1300 AD, the onset of the Little Ice Age, when sea levels fell and ships could no longer sail to her port. Once again, some say river silting was the cause.
However, Pisa is now seven miles from the Tyrrhenian Sea, with large meanders upstream from Pisa and little meandering downstream. When a river is at grade, the downstream gradient is as low as possible, as with the meandering Mississippi River and delta in Louisiana. Rivers with a strong downstream gradient flow to the sea in a direct route, with few meanders, as with the Rio Grande in New Mexico.
The facts of history are clear. Sea level was 400 feet lower at the end of the Wisconsin Ice Age, 18,000 years ago. Sea levels rose rapidly until 8,000 years ago. As recently as 1066, when the Normans conquered England, sea levels were quite a bit higher than today.
During the Little Ice Age, 1300 to 1850  when temperatures were the coldest during any time in the past 10,000 years  snow and ice accumulated in Greenland, Antarctica, Europe and glaciers worldwide. As a consequence, sea levels fell so much that important Roman Era and Medieval port cities (like Ephesus, Ostia Antica and Pisa) were left miles from the Mediterranean.
Since the Little Ice Age ended about 160 years ago, tide gages show that sea level has risen at a steady rate  with no correlation to the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
Sea level is a dynamic property in our planets climate cycles, which are closely linked to changes in solar energy output and other natural factors. It is unlikely to change in response to tax policies that make energy more expensive and economies less robust  no matter what politicians in Washington, Brussels or the United Nations might say.
Much to their chagrin, Mother Nature doesnt listen to them. She has a mind of her own.
____________ _Robert W. Endlich served as a weather officer in the US Air Force for 21 years and a US Army meteorologist for 17 years. He was elected to Chi Epsilon Pi, the national Meteorology Honor Society, while a basic meteorology student at Texas A&M University. He has degrees in geology and meteorology from Rutgers University and the Pennsylvania State University, respectively, and has studied and visited the ancient sites of Rome, Ostia Antica and Pisa._

----------


## Marc

Watts Up With That? _The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change_  Skip to content  HomeAboutClimate FAIL FilesClimategateReference PagesResourcesSubmit storyTestTips & NotesWidgetWUWT Stuff     ← Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup Global Warming: speed round → *Willie Soon on Sea Level Rise  along with some climate ugliness*Posted on August 5, 2013	by Anthony Watts
This is a video of presentation given in July at the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness conference in Houston, which I also had the honor of attending. Note the beginning of his talk where he points out these two blog posts (Part1 and Part2) of a fellow who calls Dr. Soon an enemy of the planet and prostitute among other things.
The irony is that the writer (Dr. Douglas Craig) is a practicing psychologist. One wonders how he treats patients he might disagree with when we see him write hateful vitriol like that.
From my viewpoint, the blogger needs a refresher on the code of ethics for the American Psychological Association: Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
In particular: *Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility*
Psychologists establish relationships of trust with those with whom they work. They are aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities to society and to the specific communities in which they work.*Psychologists uphold professional standards of conduct*, clarify their professional roles and obligations, accept appropriate responsibility for their behavior and seek to manage conflicts of interest that could lead to exploitation or harm.Here is the video from DDP, compare for yourself how Dr. Craig conducts himself -vs- how Dr. Soon does: About these ads

----------


## Marc



----------


## intertd6

> Who doesn't know what they are talking about? LMAO!  WXWISE ERBE

  the parrots.
you must have an incredible imagination to believe that the atmospheric temperature which has warmed 0.8'C over the last century has been influenced by oceans temperature content that hasnt warmed to even the slightest extent over the same period, but then disregard the other albedo examples that have increased & have the real capacity to warm the atmosphere above your CO2 100 parts per million fantasy, especially now with the average global temp stalling for the last 16 or so years with the ever increasing CO2 levels.
The grey matter between your ears isn't just for holding them apart you know. That's why it's good to use your own instead someone else's pushing an agenda.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> *CryoSat shows Arctic sea ice volume up 50% from last year*

   Its estimated that there was around 20 000 cubic kilometres of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so todays minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years, said Professor Andrew Shepherd from University College London, a co-author of the study.  Where has the other 11,000 cubic kilometres of ice gone since the early 1980s?

----------


## woodbe

> Its estimated that there was around 20 000 cubic kilometres of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so todays minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years, said Professor Andrew Shepherd from University College London, a co-author of the study.  Where has the other 11,000 cubic kilometres of ice gone since the early 1980s?

  I'm guessing that the fake skeptic view is that Ocean ate it along with the warming.  :Biggrin:   
Definitely in recovery. lol 
Nothing to worry about John, the climate has changed before. lol2. 
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

Marc, you do realise that Willie Soon is funded by Koch and Exxon and has been outed for junk science in his published works?  "Soon knew that the relevant data series for discussing the AO influence on Western Hudson Bay temperature (and by proxy, sea ice) was from Churchill and despite being reminded of the fact by the first set of reviewers, nonetheless continued to only show the AO connection to a site 1000 miles away, which had a much higher correlation without any discussion of whether this other data was at all relevant to Churchill or the bears nearby.    Willie Soon: Powered by Exxon | Climate Denial Crock of the Week

----------


## Rod Dyson

Some on here will be right. I wonder who?    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre..._image0102.jpg 
Full article Press for a ‘Climate Scientist Who Got It Right’ | Watts Up With That?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Marc, you do realise that Willie Soon is funded by Koch and Exxon and has been outed for junk science in his published works?  "Soon knew that the relevant data series for discussing the AO influence on Western Hudson Bay temperature (and by proxy, sea ice) was from Churchill and despite being reminded of the fact by the first set of reviewers, nonetheless continued to only show the AO connection to a site 1000 miles away, which had a much higher correlation without any discussion of whether this other data was at all relevant to Churchill or the bears nearby.    Willie Soon: Powered by Exxon | Climate Denial Crock of the Week

  LOL here we go again The PAID BY BIG OIL argument.  Sorry this is soooo yesterday, done to death and no one is listening to this argument anymore.  Except the true believers that is . 
This is the sort of argument that drives the average Joe to question the AGW theory.  This as well as all the inflated fake and failed claims.  
Keep it up it helps our cause.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'm guessing that the fake skeptic view is that Ocean ate it along with the warming.   
> Definitely in recovery. lol9

   Add the southern hemisphere to this!    

> Nothing to worry about John, the climate has changed before. lol2. 
> woodbe.

   Hooray something we can agree on!

----------


## John2b

> Keep it up it helps our cause.

  A self proclaimed "I don't like to claim that I am an expert" climate change denialist funded by oil companies caught with his pants down falsifying data somehow *supports* your "cause"? 
Silly me, I thought this was a discussion about the veracity of CO2 induced climate change.

----------


## John2b

> Some on here will be right. I wonder who?    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre..._image0102.jpg

  Well it wasn't Easterbrook with his global cooling projections LOL!

----------


## woodbe

> 

   

> Add the southern hemisphere to this!

  Sure, but you won't like it.   
And the global nett sea ice:     

> In terms of smoothed equivalent latitude, the Arctic ice pack has  receded poleward by 2.6 degrees of latitude while the Antarctic ice pack  has advanced by only 0.4. Thats 48 km advance in the south compared to  290 km retreat in the north, larger by a factor of 6.

  And some sea ice information comparing differences between north and south from NSIDC for your pleasure. See if you can spot a similar rapid increase in Antarctic sea ice trend to match the obvious and rapid decline in the Arctic sea ice trend. I'll spare you from the volume analysis, it's more of the same but more dramatic.    Arctic vs. Antarctic | nsidc.org 
Credible measurements and analysis show that the Arctic is losing ice at an increasing rate. Uncredible analysis attempts to suggest that the small growth in the Antarctic balances out the large losses in the Arctic. This uncredible analysis certainly seems to convince the gullible as displayed in this thread (again) yet even the most cursory investigation exposes the truth. 
Rod suggests that pointing out bias is 'So Yesterday' and 'no-one is listening to this argument anymore' whilst he repeats the Arctic vs Antarctic sea ice fallacy.  :Rolleyes:  
Perhaps your information would have more credibility if it came from credible sources rather than CC Denial websites. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Some on here will be right. I wonder who?

  You serious? Already shown to be crap. 
This is using the fake skeptic's favorite data set:   
And something more mainstream:   
woodbe

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Silly me, I thought this was a discussion about the veracity of CO2 induced climate change.

  Technically, it's not.  It was more about the emission trading and (for better or worse) it quickly went from there to somewhere else...and it has been there (or at least in that area) ever since.

----------


## woodbe

Technically it is about both.  :Smilie:    

> Third I believe that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming  and that there need to be irrefutable evidence both scientific and  imperical to proove CO2 is warming the planet and that any warming would  be as damaging as they claim.

  woodbe.

----------


## Marc

Anyone with something between his ears conducting the tiniest bit of electricity would understand the importance of what is discussed in the publications and video posted before. The parroted "accuracy" of the satellite measurements, their unreliability, the need to "calibrate" with sea gauges, the absurd "corrections" that turn a downward trend to a horrendous increase, the error in the measurements being larger than the amount required to measure, all is so incredible that clearly the data is junk and can not be relied upon not even for curiosity. 
Yet the locals find it more important to quote who pays the speaker. 
Perhaps if the IPCC paid him from their ill gotten funds then it would be OK? 
Who cares who pays? 
Who cares he speaks funny? 
Who cares his sense of humor stinks?  
He is telling us that the satellite data is junk and the "corrections" are a fraud. That is the point, not if he owns Oprah house... and if he did good for him, I cant stand her anyway. Exon pays his bills? Good for him! I wish I could get a gig like that. 
The satellite data? Hello? Crap? 
The sea is rising 15 meters or 0.5 millimeters a year?
The green mafia is feeding us rubbish and correcting it up for good measure or is it all good science and we are just ignorant peasants that should pay their offerings to the goddess gaia and go away waling backwards saying hale hale? 
This whole pathetic case exists only because it is a projection of two distinct and irreconcilable positions. The left who has long ago lost the political race has grafted themselves into what was once a green cause and is now just another excuse to undermine the right conservative position. Just like the same left has completely taken over the unions and long forgotten the worker and has been busy pursuing their political masters, so called global warming is just a political football used to score points and attempt to win votes by sympathy.  
Anyone with any vestige of independence left should realize that if he/she has an interest in the environment, the "man made global warming" is the wrong cause. Nothing bearing such name or any of the substitute names can be believed in the slightest even if you dearly would like it to be true, it is only wishful thinking. The data is junk, the scientist behind it are in it to keep the grants, the politicians are in it for the votes to perpetuate their jobs, the greens frantically agitating their banners, are there to raise funds to pay for their psychiatrists that keep them out of the lock up ward. 
The only people you can believe are the one that have the courage to tell you_ "I DON'T KNOW"_ 
And they are so few and far between!

----------


## johnc

I find it strange that data prepared by people with the appropriate qualifications can be declared junk without proof, without any valid supporting evidence by someone who is unqualified in that field. Isn't it important to weight evidence by the quality and qualifications of those who provide it rather than on the basis of personal prejudice. For me this is the crux of the matter I find it incredible that people will accept a view of any individual without considering if that person is likely to have sufficient knowledge to come to a conclusion in that area.

----------


## intertd6

> Sure, but you won't like it.   
> And the global nett sea ice:     
> And some sea ice information comparing differences between north and south from NSIDC for your pleasure. See if you can spot a similar rapid increase in Antarctic sea ice trend to match the obvious and rapid decline in the Arctic sea ice trend. I'll spare you from the volume analysis, it's more of the same but more dramatic.    Arctic vs. Antarctic | nsidc.org 
> Credible measurements and analysis show that the Arctic is losing ice at an increasing rate. Uncredible analysis attempts to suggest that the small growth in the Antarctic balances out the large losses in the Arctic. This uncredible analysis certainly seems to convince the gullible as displayed in this thread (again) yet even the most cursory investigation exposes the truth. 
> Rod suggests that pointing out bias is 'So Yesterday' and 'no-one is listening to this argument anymore' whilst he repeats the Arctic vs Antarctic sea ice fallacy.  
> Perhaps your information would have more credibility if it came from credible sources rather than CC Denial websites. 
> woodbe.

  as usual your cherry picked data is another furphy, this one shows the Antarctic sea ice extent steadily increasing, that with the greater area means that there is no difference in the overall global sea ice extent area. It's funny how the Southern Hemisphere is making up the difference the northern hemisphere is deficient in, which would funnily coincide with the increased land based albedo effects in that hemisphere having a localised effect, plus all that black carbon / particles peppered on the snow & ice giving it no chance of recovery.http://www.reportingclimatescience.c...906&parameters[0]=YTo0OntzOjU6IndpZHRoIjtzOjQ6IjgwMG0iO3M6NjoiaGVpZ  2h0IjtzOjM6IjYw&parameters[1]=MCI7czo3OiJib2R5VGFnIjtzOjQyOiI8Ym9keSBiZ0NvbG9yP  SIjZmZmZmZmIiBz&parameters[2]=dHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luOjA7Ij4iO3M6NDoid3JhcCI7czozNzoiP  GEgaHJlZj0iamF2&parameters[3]=YXNjcmlwdDpjbG9zZSgpOyI%2BIHwgPC9hPiI7fQ%3D%3D
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Who cares who pays?

  I care.  :2thumbsup:  
Independence is important. I wouldn't expect someone in the pay of the oil industry to be independent. They _could_ be, but they have to pass muster first. 
By whatever measure you can dream up, the oil industry can afford to pay a millionfold over whatever meagre funds is available to climate research. That's not a complaint, that is just how it is. We have to accept that and take it into account when we assess the credibility of the claims in front of us. When the claims do not stack up with the science, then is the time to start looking for why.  Petroleum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   

> According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimate for  2011, the world consumes 87.421 million barrels of oil each day.

  Current price is over US$90 per barrel 
$90 x 87,000,000 x 365 = $2,857,950,000,000 per year. That's just under 3 trillion dollars per year, and nearly 8 billion dollars *per day*. 
We should pay attention to what the industry 'lobby' has to say but we should also take it in context and with the knowledge that it is not an independent voice.    
When they try and hide the funding, which is often the case, then all bets are off as far as I am concerned. We are a long way towards revealing funding in political parties, why should we ignore funding for think tanks and the like who spout non-science based propaganda. As an example, look what has happened to Heartland since their funding was revealed. 
And if you think climate scientists are comparable, you need to explore their remuneration. Very few publishing scientists of any discipline get to be millionaires from their endeavours in the scientific community. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> as usual your cherry picked data is another furphy, this one shows the Antarctic sea ice extent steadily increasing, that with the greater area means that there is no difference in the overall global sea ice extent area. It's funny how the Southern Hemisphere is making up the difference the northern hemisphere is deficient in, which would funnily coincide with the increased land based albedo effects in that hemisphere having a localised effect, plus all that black carbon / particles peppered on the snow & ice giving it no chance of recovery.http://www.reportingclimatescience.c...906&parameters[0]=YTo0OntzOjU6IndpZHRoIjtzOjQ6IjgwMG0iO3M6NjoiaGVpZ  2h0IjtzOjM6IjYw&parameters[1]=MCI7czo3OiJib2R5VGFnIjtzOjQyOiI8Ym9keSBiZ0NvbG9yP  SIjZmZmZmZmIiBz&parameters[2]=dHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luOjA7Ij4iO3M6NDoid3JhcCI7czozNzoiP  GEgaHJlZj0iamF2&parameters[3]=YXNjcmlwdDpjbG9zZSgpOyI%2BIHwgPC9hPiI7fQ%3D%3D
> regards inter

  Something wrong with your link inter. 
Exactly how is the data cherry picked? It's from NSIDC and I'd be happy for you to explain in your own words where the researchers are wrong. I'm sure you know more than them, and I'm still waiting for you to publish your paper explaining where they went wrong. 
woodbe

----------


## intertd6

> Something wrong with your link inter. 
> Exactly how is the data cherry picked? It's from NSIDC and I'd be happy for you to explain in your own words where the researchers are wrong. I'm sure you know more than them, and I'm still waiting for you to publish your paper explaining where they went wrong. 
> woodbe

  basically you data says one thing in your favour, but is overturned by mine, what does one believe? For a start the ones that overstate, overestimate use politics & fear to sway opinion are instantly at the bottom of the dung pile.
also what dill believes the average thickness of the Antarctic sea ice is 1m thick? What a load of rubbish & makes the rest of the information you provided questionable.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

While inter works out how to show us his data, I had a look around the site he is leading us to.  News 
I'm surprised inter is getting his information from there, the site routinely runs legit science stories that inter claims he does not agree with and are 'parroted'. 
Inter must squirm whilst finding his non-parroted data in there but all the same I give him credit for visiting a science based site  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> basically you data says one thing in your favour, but is overturned by mine

  Actually, we cannot make any suggestions until you show us 'your' data. Your link is cactus. 
I have to confess that 'my' data is not mine at all. It is the property of Tamino and the NSIDC, but if you have your own data, show it to us! 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> While inter works out how to show us his data, I had a look around the site he is leading us to.  News 
> I'm surprised inter is getting his information from there, the site routinely runs legit science stories that inter claims he does not agree with and are 'parroted'. 
> Inter must squirm whilst finding his non-parroted data in there but all the same I give him credit for visiting a science based site  
> woodbe.

  so one scientific site contradicts another, amazing stuff! I can't work an iPad! Even more amazing!
An alarmist looking at all sides of the argument in an unbiased manner, now that would be a miracle!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> so one scientific site contradicts another, amazing stuff!

  What scientific site(s) contradicts the notion of anthropogenic global warming? I have spent years looking, and I have never found one. I have followed countless links posted by people who think AGW is ridiculous or isn't happening, but the links have failed to guide me to a source of scientific information to support the notion. All I have learned is that ignorance is bliss!   

> An alarmist looking at all sides of the argument in an unbiased manner, now that would be a miracle!

  If you look at something and you find it alarming, then you would be alarmed. If the science community has failed, it will be that the message about what is known to be happening was not delivered in an alarming enough manner...

----------


## John2b

> as usual your cherry picked data is another furphy, this one shows the Antarctic sea ice extent steadily increasing, that with the greater area means that there is no difference in the overall global sea ice extent area. It's funny how the Southern Hemisphere is making up the difference the northern hemisphere is deficient in, which would funnily coincide with the increased land based albedo effects in that hemisphere having a localised effect, plus all that black carbon / particles peppered on the snow & ice giving it no chance of recovery.
> regards inter

   "Despite the fact that the southern ice pack is larger overall than the northern, its increases are much smaller than the decreases noted for the northern hemisphere, 1.96 million km^2 in extent and 1.92 million km^2 of area. This puts the lie to claims (oft repeated) that southern gain even almost balances northern loss  the northern extent loss is 3.4 times as great as the southern extent gain while northern area loss is 3.8 times as great as southern area gain. When one is nearly 4 times as big as another, they are certainly not balanced and anyone who claims so is either a fool or an outright liar."  Antarctic Sea Ice Gain | Open Mind

----------


## woodbe

> When one is  nearly 4 times as big as another, they are certainly not balanced and  anyone who claims so is either a fool or an outright liar."

  Ouch.  :Biggrin:  
Ok inter, over to you. Your reputation is at stake! 
Where is your 'science' that proves that the southern sea ice gain matches the loss in the Arctic? 
No blabbing about parrotting and vague attacks on the messengers. Post. your. source. 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I care.  
> Independence is important. I wouldn't expect someone in the pay of the oil industry to be independent. They _could_ be, but they have to pass muster first. 
> By whatever measure you can dream up, the oil industry can afford to pay a millionfold over whatever meagre funds is available to climate research. That's not a complaint, that is just how it is. We have to accept that and take it into account when we assess the credibility of the claims in front of us. When the claims do not stack up with the science, then is the time to start looking for why.  Petroleum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   
> Current price is over US$90 per barrel 
> $90 x 87,000,000 x 365 = $2,857,950,000,000 per year. That's just under 3 trillion dollars per year, and nearly 8 billion dollars *per day*. 
> We should pay attention to what the industry 'lobby' has to say but we should also take it in context and with the knowledge that it is not an independent voice.    
> When they try and hide the funding, which is often the case, then all bets are off as far as I am concerned. We are a long way towards revealing funding in political parties, why should we ignore funding for think tanks and the like who spout non-science based propaganda. As an example, look what has happened to Heartland since their funding was revealed. 
> And if you think climate scientists are comparable, you need to explore their remuneration. Very few publishing scientists of any discipline get to be millionaires from their endeavours in the scientific community. 
> woodbe.

  
So we trust those who depend on AGW to be real and scary to get grant money instead. 
Demonising people rather than what they say is why this is happening. So we are quite fine with you to continue to do so  :Smilie:   _ Australians rank climate change well down on their list of concerns, even though most believe temperatures where they live will rise, according to an annual survey of attitudes by the CSIRO. 
Read more_: Survey puts Australians' climate change concerns way down list  
LMAO

----------


## Rod Dyson

> If you look at something and you find it alarming, then you would be alarmed. If the science community has failed, it will be that the message about what is known to be happening was not delivered in an alarming enough manner...

  You have got to be kidding me, seriously I have to pick myself up off the floor.  This is the funniest thing I have read on this thread. 
This is exactly the reason people are questioning the science behind the AGW theory and find it is NOT the threat the alarmist predicted. 
You see when alarmists predictions fail people simply tune out to further alarmist predictions.  The more alarmist the prediction the bigger the fail. 
Cant you see this is what has happened!   
So bring it on make more alarmist predictions.  Try to scare the pants off everyone so we can speed up the end to this rubbish.

----------


## johnc

A lot of the time what we see reported with an alarmist type style is not from the original source but from a reporter that has latched on to something and hyped it up for the headline and first paragraph. Let's face it that would be as much as many read. This isn't unique to a particular area but covers reporting in general. I think there are many out there who don't have the capacity or depth to be able to look beyond hype and actually consider the original source, the reliability, inaccuracy of reporting and the completeness of information.  
It is a bit like reading the one paper, listening to the one news service or simply only accepting the view of one commentator. You will only end up with that source or persons viewpoint not your own. When to many do this it just makes it easier for the unscrupulous to get away with bad behaviour, in this country we are becoming more polarised and seemingly dumber by the day and our political leaders and press need to do better than play the public.   
Sadly in this debate many give those biased hyped up reporters more credence than those that carry out the research.

----------


## John2b

> Cant you see this is what has happened!   
> So bring it on make more alarmist predictions.  Try to scare the pants off everyone so we can speed up the end to this rubbish.

  I am not talking about predictions. Predictions have generally been made by _non-experts_ on both the "it's happening" and the "it's not happening" persuasions. And predictions either way will always be wrong because the weather is chaotic, and because the premises on which projections are made don't normally play out as expected. Show me one prediction from a detractor of anthropogenic climate change that has come true... 
I am talking about what is happening now, what is measurable now, what is being recorded empirically now, knowledge that doesn't depend on models or theories. If that isn't alarming, I don't know what is. *"A MAN WITH A CONVICTION* is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." So wrote the celebrated Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger, in a passage that might have been referring to climate change denialthe persistent rejection, on the part of so many Americans today, of what we know about global warming and its human causes. But it was too early for thatthis was the 1950sand Festinger was actually describing a famous case study in psychology.    

> Try to scare the pants off everyone so we can speed up the end to this rubbish.

  It will not end whilst we drown in evidence for AGW and there is a dearth of other possible causes of the observed warming. The truth will out and nothing can stop it.

----------


## woodbe

> So we trust those who depend on AGW to be real and scary to get grant money instead. 
> Demonising people rather than what they say is why this is happening. So we are quite fine with you to continue to do so

  I think you should take a quiet lie down, an Aspro, then re-read what I said. No, not what you think I said...   _    
			
				Australians rank climate change well down on their list of concerns, even though most believe temperatures where they live will rise, according to an annual survey of attitudes by the CSIRO.  
Read more: Survey puts Australians' climate change concerns way down list   _  
Laugh if you like, but a survey does not change the climate, and in any case:   

> Zoe Leviston, a social psychologist at CSIRO and lead author of the  survey, said the ranking was "surprisingly low", not least because more  than 70 per cent of respondents also judged climate change to be either  somewhat, very or extremely important.
>           Dr Leviston said the low ranking may reflect people turning  off the issue because it had become so politicised,  artificially  pulling the ranking down.

  So, not based on reality of science or of people's real concerns. Sounds more like a survey stuff up than anything else, but whatever.  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It will not end whilst we drown in evidence for AGW and there is a dearth of other possible causes of the observed warming. The truth will out and nothing can stop it.

   Oh my, what evidence are you talking about that cant be attributed to normal climatic variations.  We all know climate has changed but what exactly make is all due to us?

----------


## John2b

> _ Australians rank climate change well down on their list of concerns, even though most believe temperatures where they live will rise, according to an annual survey of attitudes by the CSIRO. 
> Read more_: Survey puts Australians' climate change concerns way down list  
> LMAO

  One of the funniest findings is that the 8% of people who don't believe that climate change is happening think that 50% of the population agrees with them. There's plenty of evidence of that behaviour in this thread LMAO

----------


## John2b

> Oh my, what evidence are you talking about that cant be attributed to normal climatic variations.

  The radiation balance.   

> We all know climate has changed but what exactly make is all due to us?

  Because the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are measured; the altered the spectrums of outward and inward radiation as a result of the rise in CO2 are measured; the resulting energy imbalance in terms of accumulated energy is known; and heat measurements by the Argo floats have shown that the excess accumulated energy is in the oceans. 
It's CO2. There is no credible argument that it is not CO2. There is worldwide fame and fortune, and a Nobel Prize awaiting for someone who can show otherwise.

----------


## intertd6

> Something wrong with your link inter. 
> Exactly how is the data cherry picked? It's from NSIDC and I'd be happy for you to explain in your own words where the researchers are wrong. I'm sure you know more than them, and I'm still waiting for you to publish your paper explaining where they went wrong. 
> woodbe

  i can't get a copy & paste on the page but it's reporting climate science.com, just go to the bar at the top, click on data, then click on polar. 
on the graphs it shows the northern hemisphere sea ice extent anomaly declining at 3.2% per decade, then below it the Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent anomaly increasing at 3.7% per decade. What is there to dispute?
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> i can't get a copy & paste on the page but it's reporting climate science.com, just go to the bar at the top, click on data, then click on polar. 
> on the graphs it shows the northern hemisphere sea ice extent anomaly declining at 3.2% per decade, then below it the Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent anomaly increasing at 3.7% per decade. What is there to dispute?
> regards inter

  Ok, rather than spell out the answer for you, how about you take a close look at the chart and see if you can pull together your scientific cahones to work out why you are so horribly wrong about the Arctic minimum sea ice extent trend.   
I'm embarrassed for you.  :Redface:  
Try not to blush when you answer. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

What was put forward or is in dispute is that the volume of ice at the Artic is different to the southern ice mass, for that reason a 3.5% increase cannot be matched with a 3.5% decrease at the other simply because the volume is different. It is actually simple maths, in reality the two could never be the same it is not a plausible outcome.

----------


## woodbe

> What was put forward or is in dispute is that the volume of ice at the Artic is different to the southern ice mass, for that reason a 3.5% increase cannot be matched with a 3.5% decrease at the other simply because the volume is different. It is actually simple maths, in reality the two could never be the same it is not a plausible outcome.

  Hint to inter: Johnc raises a point, but it is not the answer you need.  :Cool:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> The radiation balance.   
> Because the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are measured; the altered the spectrums of outward and inward radiation as a result of the rise in CO2 are measured; the resulting energy imbalance in terms of accumulated energy is known; and heat measurements by the Argo floats have shown that the excess accumulated energy is in the oceans. 
> It's CO2. There is no credible argument that it is not CO2. There is worldwide fame and fortune, and a Nobel Prize awaiting for someone who can show otherwise.

   What don't you understand about the albedo effect of mans changing of the planets surface, instead of forests & heavily vegetated areas absorbing energy they have been changed in part to urbanised, deforested, cropping, cleared, desertified land which reflects the suns energy back into the atmosphere, along with enabling the earths surface mass in these areas to have a higher temperature, which low & behold heats the air above it long after the sun has set, the heat retention mass of the earth compared to 100 parts per million of CO2 is like CO2 being a grain of sand on a beach in comparison.
there is a cash reward of 500 K US for any one proving CO2 / humans / etc will cause catastrophic global warming, it hasn't been claimed yet,  you apparently have the proof , off you go, it's easy money, then when we see your name in the headline of the international rags you will have us.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Ok, rather than spell out the answer for you, how about you take a close look at the chart and see if you can pull together your scientific cahones to work out why you are so horribly wrong about the Arctic minimum sea ice extent trend.   
> I'm embarrassed for you.  
> Try not to blush when you answer. 
> woodbe.

  your only embarrassing yourself, post the other graph so all can see the greater difference in the Southern Hemisphere.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> What was put forward or is in dispute is that the volume of ice at the Artic is different to the southern ice mass, for that reason a 3.5% increase cannot be matched with a 3.5% decrease at the other simply because the volume is different. It is actually simple maths, in reality the two could never be the same it is not a plausible outcome.

  What dill brought in sea ice thickness? in an vain attempt to move the the imaginary goalposts, I suppose it takes a real dill to believe that the average Antarctic sea ice thickness is 1m thick  from some dodgy data to back up this lame excuse for an imaginary argument.
just a little background info for you, at mcmurdo Antarctica they land C5 galaxy aircraft on sea ice less than a year old, then in summer they send in an 80,000hp ice breaker to breakout that ice so they can get re supply ships to dock at the station where the runway used to be.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> your only embarrassing yourself, post the other graph so all can see the greater difference in the Southern Hemisphere.
> regards inter

  Sure, I can do that  :Biggrin:  but I'll also take the liberty of posting the real comparison graph. 
Here is your southern graph, approaching minimum ice extent:   
Did you know inter, about the seasons being different in the north compared to the south? The arctic is approaching maximum sea ice extent. You wouldn't be comparing the trend for maximum sea ice in the north to minimum sea ice in the south would you? LOL LMBAO! 
And the missing graph:  
Figure 3. Monthly September ice extent for 1979 to 2013 shows a decline of 13.7% per decade.
 Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center 
Please thank me for preventing you from misinforming yourself and others.  :2thumbsup:  
You're welcome.  :Wink:  
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> What don't you understand about the albedo effect of mans changing of the planets surface, instead of forests & heavily vegetated areas absorbing energy they have been changed in part to urbanised, deforested, cropping, cleared, desertified land which reflects the suns energy back into the atmosphere, along with enabling the earths surface mass in these areas to have a higher temperature, which low & behold heats the air above it long after the sun has set, the heat retention mass of the earth compared to 100 parts per million of CO2 is like CO2 being a grain of sand on a beach in comparison.

  Wrong. The CO2 fingerprint is in the outbound radiation.   

> there is a cash reward of 500 K US for any one proving CO2 / humans / etc will cause catastrophic global warming, it hasn't been claimed yet,  you apparently have the proof , off you go, it's easy money, then when we see your name in the headline of the international rags you will have us.
> regards inter

  I have never hear that one before. Can you provide a link to the "reward"? $500,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the >$1 billion is already being paid to people for AGW obfuscation, BTW.

----------


## John2b

> I have never hear that one before. Can you provide a link to the "reward"? $500,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the >$1 billion is already being paid to people for AGW obfuscation, BTW.

  Don't worry - I found it: JunkScience.com's Ultimate Global Warming Challenge 
Of course nobody is evey going to claim that prize. By the definition of the rules it cannot be won. Big deal.

----------


## intertd6

> Sure, I can do that  but I'll also take the liberty of posting the real comparison graph. 
> Here is your southern graph, approaching minimum ice extent:   
> Did you know inter, about the seasons being different in the north compared to the south? The arctic is approaching maximum sea ice extent. You wouldn't be comparing the trend for maximum sea ice in the north to minimum sea ice in the south would you? LOL LMBAO! 
> And the missing graph:  
> Figure 3. Monthly September ice extent for 1979 to 2013 shows a decline of 13.7% per decade.
>  Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center 
> Please thank me for preventing you from misinforming yourself and others.  
> You're welcome.  
> woodbe.

  your still embarrassing yourself, your purposely comparing the wrong graph, the one that says anomaly at the top is the one you need to compare like with like, I must be slightly brighter than your usual audience & can tell the difference.
Regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Don't worry - I found it: JunkScience.com's Ultimate Global Warming Challenge 
> Of course nobody is evey going to claim that prize. By the definition of the rules it cannot be won. Big deal.

   Given up already I notice!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Given up already I notice!
> regards inter

  By all means continue to ignore that it was a disingenuous challenge, a postiche, but it closed on Dec 1 2008 anyway.

----------


## intertd6

> By all means continue to ignore that it was a disingenuous challenge, a postiche, but it closed on Dec 1 2008 anyway.

  It was a real challenge to you, you obviously think you have the proof, pity, just a few years too late.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> your still embarrassing yourself, your purposely comparing the wrong graph, the one that says anomaly at the top is the one you need to compare like with like, I must be slightly brighter than your usual audience & can tell the difference.
> Regards inter

  Spot the difference  :Rolleyes:    
Bingo, the slope is the same. How is your theory about the loss equalling the gains working out now that we are comparing apples with apples? 
You're welcome. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

Put them together for you inter so you don't go crazy with that iPad  :Smilie:  
So, here is your Antarctic graph:  
And the Arctic:   
Got a calculator on that iPad that can subtract 13.7 from 3.7? I think I could do that in my head for you if you have trouble working it out...  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> It was a real challenge to you, you obviously think you have the proof, pity, just a few years too late.
> regards inter

  More than a few years. The proof of the greenhouse effect and CO2's role in it was made in 1896 and the form of the Greenhouse Law hasn't been changed to this day. The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

----------


## woodbe

> basically you data says one thing in your favour, but is overturned by mine, what does one believe?

  Can we now agree that your interpretation of the data you found on a non-skeptic site does not overturn the facts. 
I congratulate you on visiting fact based climate sites to inform yourself, pity most of the other skeptics here do not follow your lead. 
For my own part, I will grant that the minimum in the Antarctic is not usually until March, so the difference may not be as great as shown on the September/January graphs. Will have to revisit in March to see how it pans out, but there is no way these two are balanced. 
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> as usual your cherry picked data is another furphy, this one shows the Antarctic sea ice extent steadily increasing, that with the greater area means that there is no difference in the overall global sea ice extent area. It's funny how the Southern Hemisphere is making up the difference the northern hemisphere is deficient in, 
> regards inter

  Here's a composition graph of sea ice extend from the organisation that has provided the data for your proposition. Note how when the data is correctly scaled, it clearly shows that the growth in Antarctic sea ice extent is not making up for the loss of Arctic sea ice. Someone needs a refresher in primary school mathematics.    SOTC: Sea Ice | nsidc.org

----------


## Rod Dyson

> One of the funniest findings is that the 8% of people who don't believe that climate change is happening think that 50% of the population agrees with them. There's plenty of evidence of that behaviour in this thread LMAO

  The funny thing is climate change IS happening.  100% of people should answer yes to that. 
Yet I struggle to find many who think it is either catastrophic, dangerous, escalating or caused mainly by humans.  Sure there are few, but you can pick em a mile away.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> More than a few years. The proof of the greenhouse effect and CO2's role in it was made in 1896 and the form of the Greenhouse Law hasn't been changed to this day. The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

  And nobody that I know of is challenging this effect.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Here's a composition graph of sea ice extend from the organisation that has provided the data for your proposition. Note how when the data is correctly scaled, it clearly shows that the growth in Antarctic sea ice extent is not making up for the loss of Arctic sea ice. Someone needs a refresher in primary school mathematics.    SOTC: Sea Ice | nsidc.org

  Not that this really makes any difference, so what! Temperature is not the only thing that reduces ice extent in the Artic.  Besides low amounts of Artic ice is NOTHING NEW well before we were measuring Artic ice.

----------


## John2b

> And nobody that I know of is challenging this effect.

  Nobody?

----------


## Marc

> The funny thing is climate change IS happening.  100% of people should answer yes to that. 
> Yet I struggle to find many who think it is either catastrophic, dangerous, escalating or caused mainly by humans.  Sure there are few, but you can pick em a mile away.

  Rod, that is the point in a nutshell. There is no point in "debating" variations in climate. What is next? Wind direction variations? Ooooh humans (rich especially) are causing the southerly to turn northerly. We must go on a crusade to stop this!!!!! 
Climate changes? Who cares! 
Human are causing it to change? FALSE, data is junk, this is a fraud and those promoting it to go to goal. 
Those who are idle and seek a cause to support, I suggest to take up the exploitation and degradation of women for example.
What about the criminal overcharging of energy and fuel in a country that is selling it to China for cheap?
One more? Ban foreign ownership of real estate and foreign aid. 
My favorite: Vote for those under age pension age, to be reserved only to those who have lodged a tax return and can show they paid a reasonable amount of tax. Let's say $5000. No tax paid? NO VOTE! If you live off the rest of us, you don't get to decide zip. Fair is fair beggars can not be choosers.

----------


## woodbe

> Not that this really makes any difference, so what! Temperature is not the only thing that reduces ice extent in the Artic.  Besides low amounts of Artic ice is NOTHING NEW well before we were measuring Artic ice.

  lol @ Rod spouting his normal 'Artic melting makes no difference' pap. Got a scientific reference for that Rod?  :Biggrin:  
Perhaps pop over to inter's science based climate site and see what you can find... 
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> Human are causing it to change? FALSE, data is junk, this is a fraud and those promoting it to go to goal.

  This _has_ to be one of the most *ludicrous* conspiracy theories ever. Climate data supporting anthropogenic climate change comes from rich countries and poor, from first world countries and third, from eastern and western, from capitalist and communist, from private organisations an public ones, form government institutions and industry bodies, from people who are skeptics by profession and who's greatest ambition in life is to prove one of their colleagues wrong about something. _Yet somehow it is an organised fraud!_ Get real!

----------


## johnc

> What dill brought in sea ice thickness? in an vain attempt to move the the imaginary goalposts, I suppose it takes a real dill to believe that the average Antarctic sea ice thickness is 1m thick from some dodgy data to back up this lame excuse for an imaginary argument.
> just a little background info for you, at mcmurdo Antarctica they land C5 galaxy aircraft on sea ice less than a year old, then in summer they send in an 80,000hp ice breaker to breakout that ice so they can get re supply ships to dock at the station where the runway used to be.
> regards inter

  How about read once before you reply with a lot of hot air, at no point did I mention sea ice thickness, don't create a false premise to attack when you are lost for a valid argument. :Annoyed:

----------


## johnc

> The funny thing is climate change IS happening. 100% of people should answer yes to that. 
> Yet I struggle to find many who think it is either catastrophic, dangerous, escalating or caused mainly by humans. Sure there are few, but you can pick em a mile away.

  I actually don't think you are likely to get 100% agreement on anything really. I guess if we went "would you like to be slow roasted over a bull ants nest in the hot desert sun" you may have a chance but for the vast bulk of questions beyond the most basic of human function there is always going to be a divergence of opinion. If we waited for 100% approval before proceeding nothing would ever get done.

----------


## John2b

> And nobody that I know of is challenging this effect.

  You agree that CO2 in the atmosphere interferes with the radiation of long wave radiation back into space. The only way that the Earth loses heat energy is via long wave radiation back into space. Human activities have put an extra 33% of CO2 into the atmosphere (more actually, but that is the net increase currently after ocean sequestration). Humans are causing climate change. There, it's easy to understand, isn't it.

----------


## intertd6

> More than a few years. The proof of the greenhouse effect and CO2's role in it was made in 1896 and the form of the Greenhouse Law hasn't been changed to this day. The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

  well then the global temperature would have risen the 4'C as predicted back then, but it hasn't.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Sure, I can do that  but I'll also take the liberty of posting the real comparison graph. 
> Here is your southern graph, approaching minimum ice extent:   
> Did you know inter, about the seasons being different in the north compared to the south? The arctic is approaching maximum sea ice extent. You wouldn't be comparing the trend for maximum sea ice in the north to minimum sea ice in the south would you? LOL LMBAO! 
> And the missing graph:  
> Figure 3. Monthly September ice extent for 1979 to 2013 shows a decline of 13.7% per decade.
>  Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center 
> Please thank me for preventing you from misinforming yourself and others.  
> You're welcome.  
> woodbe.

  
different computer today, i have no idea where you get your rubbish from but this is the data that was exactly where I directed every body to, any body with half a brain can see that there is no relationship between the rubbish you have supplies from crikey knows where.  Courtesy: NSIDC
 like i said you just embarrass yourself with dodgy stuff, it must be a trait common to the affliction.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> well then the global temperature would have risen the 4'C as predicted back then, but it hasn't.
> regards inter

  Who predicted what, in 1896? If you can't provide a reference I'll assume you just made that up!

----------


## John2b

> different computer today, i have no idea where you get your rubbish from but this is the data that was exactly where I directed every body to, any body with half a brain can see that there is no relationship between the rubbish you have supplies from crikey knows where.
>  like i said you just embarrass yourself with dodgy stuff, it must be a trait common to the affliction.
> regards inter

  So where do your data sources support YOUR contention that the growth in sea ice in the Antarctic balances the loss in the Arctic??? Apart from some dodgy arithmetic on blog sites, the data appears to be missing in action, a common trait to wishful thinkers.

----------


## woodbe

> different computer today, i have no idea where you get your rubbish from but this is the data that was exactly where I directed every body to, any body with half a brain can see that there is no relationship between the rubbish you have supplies from crikey knows where.  
>  like i said you just embarrass yourself with dodgy stuff, it must be a trait common to the affliction.
> regards inter

  lol, did a training course for our iPad did we?  :Smilie:  
So, you think it's legit to compare NH winter with SH summer ice trends, yet you claim I am cherry picking and posting dodgy stuff? LOL 
I'm embarrassed all right. For you.  :Rolleyes:  
If you don't want to compare summer trend with summer trend, then the best you could do is to look at the trends for the whole year.   
The small gains in the antarctic do not make up for the losses in the arctic. Running around searching for something to cherry pick puts you in the spotlight for this:   

> When one is   nearly 4 times as big as another, they are certainly not balanced and   anyone who claims so is either a fool or an outright liar.

  Take your pick  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> How about read once before you reply with a lot of hot air, at no point did I mention sea ice thickness, don't create a false premise to attack when you are lost for a valid argument.

  What did you mean by volume in your post, when the debated item was area? I'm just bright enough to know that volume is dependant on thickness, which you think has a bearing on the debate because you believe some parroted data claiming the antarctic sea ice average is 1m.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Who predicted what, in 1896? If you can't provide a reference I'll assume you just made that up!

  you assume lots of things, of which non have come to fruition.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> you believe some parroted data claiming the antarctic sea ice average is 1m.

  And you believe some parroted data that it isn't?  :Rolleyes:  
Zero sum game without your source. Now that you know how to work the iPad, give it a shot. Data proving 1m is incorrect please. 
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> you assume lots of things, of which non have come to fruition.
> regards inter

  Here's a prediction from Alexander Graham Bell in 1917 that has come true, at least so far: 
"There is, however, one obstacle to fur-
ther advance, in the increasing price of 
the fuel necessary to work machinery. 
Coal and oil are going up and are strictly 
limited in quantity. We can take coal 
out of a mine, but we can never put it 
back. We can draw oil from subterra- 
nean reservoirs, but we can never refill 
them again. We are spendthrifts in the 
matter of fuel and are using our capital 
for our running expenses.  
 [The unchecked burning of fossil fuels]
would have a sort of greenhouse effect.
The net result is the greenhouse
becomes a sort of hot-house..

----------


## johnc

> What did you mean by volume in your post, when the debated item was area? I'm just bright enough to know that volume is dependant on thickness, which you think has a bearing on the debate because you believe some parroted data claiming the antarctic sea ice average is 1m.
> regards inter

  In its crudest form volume is width x depth x height so I guess you managed one of three which lets face it is a fail. The Artic has a lot of ice over water, the Antartic has a lot of ice over land, there is a lot more ice at one end than the other. If you measured ice in buckets there are a lot more buckets up north. Your orginal premise was that a percentage shift at one end if matched by a percentage shift at the other meant no change. You comment or the person it was taken from was being cute with numbers but they were not correct. Strange that you would avoid this simple fact and just go on the attack. I wasn't even buying into this particular line i was just pointing out the obvious. Ice thickness over water in this case is meaningless on its own as it is simply one variable and while it might be of us in a large data set it doesn't tell us much on its own. The simple fact is you latched onto ice thickness for your own reasons, they hadn't been mentioned by me, for someone who professes some understanding of ice this jumping all over the country side is like watching a man possessed throwing everything and anything to obfiscate rather than an attempt at discussing basic figures. Don't be so hard on yourself, we know what your position is, just lighten up and try to ensure your sources have something credible before you lock yourself into an unsupportable position as you have done this time.

----------


## Marc

← Over two-thirds of the contiguous USA covered with snow The Great Lakes may hit record ice cover this year → *Statistical flaws in science: p-values and false positives*Posted on February 7, 2014	by Anthony Watts *To make science better, watch out for statistical flaws*
by Tom Siegfried _First of two parts_     
As Winston Churchill once said about democracy, its the worst form of government, except for all the others. Science is like that. As commonly practiced today, science is a terrible way for gathering knowledge about nature, especially in messy realms like medicine. But it would be very unwise to vote science out of office, because all the other methods are so much worse.
Still, science has room for improvement, as its many critics are constantly pointing out. Some of those critics are, of course, lunatics who simply prefer not to believe solid scientific evidence if they dislike its implications. But many critics of science have the goal of making the scientific enterprise better, stronger and more reliable. They are justified in pointing out that scientific methodology  in particular, statistical techniques for testing hypotheses  have more flaws than Facebooks privacy policies. One especially damning analysis, published in 2005, claimed to have proved that more than half of published scientific conclusions were actually false. 
A few months ago, though, some defenders of the scientific faith produced a new study claiming otherwise. Their survey of five major medical journals indicated a false discovery rate among published papers of only 14 percent. Our analysis suggests that the medical literature remains a reliable record of scientific progress, Leah Jager of the U.S. Naval Academy and Jeffrey Leek of Johns Hopkins University wrote in the journal_Biostatistics_.
Their finding is based on an examination of P values, the probability of getting a positive result if there is no real effect (an assumption called the null hypothesis). By convention, if the results you get (or more extreme results) would occur less than 5 percent of the time by chance (P value less than .05), then your finding is statistically significant. Therefore you can reject the assumption that there was no effect, conclude you have found a true effect and get your paper published.
As Jager and Leek acknowledge, though, this method has well-documented flaws. There are serious problems with interpreting individual P values as evidence for the truth of the null hypothesis, they wrote.
For one thing, a 5 percent significance level isnt a very stringent test. Using that rate you could imagine getting one wrong result for every 20 studies, and with thousands of scientific studies going on, that adds up to a lot. But its even worse. If there actually is no real effect in most experiments, youll reach a wrong conclusion far more than 5 percent of the time. Suppose you test 100 drugs for a given disease, when only one actually works. Using a P value of .05, those 100 tests could give you six positive results  the one correct drug and five flukes. More than 80 percent of your supposed results would be false.
read more here:  https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/con...tistical-flaws About these ads

----------


## Marc

But while a P value in any given paper may be unreliable, analyzing aggregates of P values for thousands of papers can give a fair assessment of how many conclusions of significance are likely to be bogus, Jager and Leek contend. There are well established and statistically sound methods for estimating the rate of false discoveries among an aggregated set of tested hypotheses using P values. Its sophisticated methodology. It takes into account the fact that some studies report a very strong statistical significance, with P value much smaller than .05. So the 1-in-20 fluke argument doesnt necessarily apply. Yes, a P value of .05 means theres a 1-in-20 chance that your results (or even more extreme results) would show up even if there was no effect. But that doesnt mean 1 in 20 (or 5 percent) of all studies are wrong, because many studies report data at well below the .05 significance level. So Jager and Leek recorded actual P values reported in more than 5,000 medical papers published from 2000 to 2010 in journals such as the _Lancet_, the _Journal of the American Medical Association_ and the _New England Journal of Medicine_. An algorithm developed to calculate the false discovery rate found a range of 11 percent to 19 percent for the various journals.      Our results suggest that while there is an inflation of false discovery results above the nominal 5 percent level  the relatively minor inflation in error rates does not merit the claim that most published research is false, Jager and Leek concluded. Well, maybe. But John Ioannidis, author of the 2005 study claiming most results are wrong, was not impressed. In fact, he considers Jager and Leeks paper to fall into the false results category. Their approach is flawed in sampling, calculations and conclusions, Ioannidis wrote in a commentary also appearing in _Biostatistics_. For one thing, Jager and Leek selected only five very highly regarded journals, a small sample, not randomly selected from the thousands of medical journals published these days. And out of more than  77,000 papers published over the study period, the automated procedure for identifying P values in the abstracts found only 5,322 usable for the studys purposes. More than half of those papers reported randomized controlled trials or were systematic reviews  the types of papers least likely to be in error. Those types account for less than 5 percent of all published papers. Furthermore, recording only those P values given in abstracts further compounds the sampling bias, as abstracts are typically selective in reporting only the most dramatic results from a study. Of course, Ioannidis is not exactly an unbiased observer, as it was his paper the new study was attempting to refute. Some other commenters were not quite as harsh. But they nevertheless identified shortcomings. Steven Goodman of Stanford University pointed out some of the same weaknesses that Ioannidis cited. Jager and Leeks attempt to bring a torrent of empirical data and rigorous statistical analyses to bear on this important question is a major step forward, Goodman wrote in _Biostatistics_. Its weaknesses are less important than its positive contributions. Still, Goodman suggested that the true rate of false positives is higher than Jager and Leek found, while less than what Ioannidis claimed. Two other statisticians, also commenting in _Biostatistics_, reached similar conclusions. Problems with the Jager and Leek study could push the false discovery rate from 14 percent to 30 percent or higher, wrote Yoav Benjamini and Yotam Hechtlinger of Tel Aviv University. Even one slight adjustment to Jager and Leeks analysis (including less than or equal to .05 instead of just equal to .05) raised the false discovery rate from 14 percent to 20 percent, Benjamini and Hechtlinger pointed out. Other factors, such as those identified by Ioannidis and Goodman, would drive the false discovery rate even higher, perhaps as high as 50 percent. So maybe Ioannidis was right, after all. Of course, thats not really the point. Whether more or less than half of all medical studies are wrong is not exactly the key issue here. Its not a presidential election. What matters here is the fact that medical science is so unsure of its facts. Knowing that a lot of studies are wrong is not very comforting, especially when you dont know which ones are the wrong ones. We think that the study of Jager and Leek is enough to point at the serious problem we face, Benjamini and Hechtlinger note. Even though most findings may be true, whether the science-wise false discovery rate is at the more realistic 30 percent or higher, or even at the optimistic 20 percent, it is certainly too high. But theres another issue, too. As Goodman notes, claiming that more than half of medical research is false can produce an unwarranted degree of skepticism, hopefully not cynicism, about truth claims in medical science. If people stop trusting medical science, they turn to those even worse sources of knowledge that lead to serious consequences (such as children not getting proper vaccinations). Part of the resolution of this conundrum is the realization that individual studies do not establish medical knowledge. Replication of results, convergence of conclusions from different kinds of studies, real world experience in clinics, judgments by knowledgeable practitioners aware of all the relevant considerations and various other elements of evidence all accrue to create a sound body of knowledge for medical practice. Its just not as sound as it needs to be. Criticizing the flaws in current scientific practice, and developing methods to address and correct those flaws, is an important enterprise that shouldnt be dismissed on the basis of any one study, especially when its based on P values. _Follow me on Twitter:_ _@tom_siegfried_

----------


## John2b

> One especially damning analysis, published in 2005, claimed to have proved that more than half of published scientific conclusions were actually false.

  
Since "scientific research" doesn't actually work the way described, the proposition that "more than half of published scientific conclusions were actually false" is absolute tooth-fairy nonsense LOL.   

> For one thing, Jager and Leek selected only five very highly regarded journals, a small sample, not randomly selected from the thousands of medical journals published these days.

  Ah - now we are getting to the gist - so called "medical research" which is conducted or sponsored by (wait for it) DRUG COMPANIES. 
Surprise, surprise: when "climate research" is sponsored by energy companies (or thinly disguised "think tanks"), the accuracy of research findings is just as bad as when medical research is sponsored by drug companies! To call industry funded programs "scientific research" is about as silly as you can get, really.

----------


## intertd6

> Who predicted what, in 1896? If you can't provide a reference I'll assume you just made that up!

   A very eminent  scientist once told me "There are three things to remember when delivering a some vital information, know your stuff; know whom you are stuffing; and then stuff them elegantly. Myself being a mere tradie have dispensed with elegantly.
"It had occurred to Högbom to calculate the amounts of CO2 emitted by factories and other industrial sources. Surprisingly, he found that human activities were adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate roughly comparable to the natural geochemical processes that emitted or absorbed the gas. As another scientist would put it a decade later, we were "evaporating" our coal mines into the air. The added gas was not much compared with the volume of CO2 already in the atmosphere  the CO2 released from the burning of coal in the year 1896 would raise the level by scarcely a thousandth part. But the additions might matter if they continued long enough.(2) (By recent calculations, the total amount of carbon laid up in coal and other fossil deposits that humanity can readily get at and burn is some ten times greater than the total amount in the atmosphere.) So the next CO2 change might not be a cooling decrease, but an increase. Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth's temperature some 5-6°C (averaged over all zones of latitude).(3)
your obviously ignorant of the history of the debate yet belligerent enough keep blundering on.
regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

> well then the global temperature would have risen the 4'C as predicted back then, but it hasn't.
> regards inter

  Mate, you really have to try and find the time to read the links other people provide for you. The link John2b posted clearly stated that the prediction made by Arrhenius was for a doubling of CO2. When that happens we'll know whether he was right or wrong but till then saying it hasn't happened is pure BS. 
The original paper by Arrhenius is still available. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...,d.dGI&cad=rja

----------


## intertd6

> And you believe some parroted data that it isn't?  
> Zero sum game without your source. Now that you know how to work the iPad, give it a shot. Data proving 1m is incorrect please. 
> woodbe.

  from wickystraw   * There are no Arctic-wide or Antarctic-wide measurements of the volume of sea ice,* but the volume of the Arctic sea ice is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) developed at the University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory/Polar Science Center. PIOMAS blends satellite-observed sea ice concentrations into model calculations to *estimate* sea ice thickness and volume. Comparison with submarine, mooring, and satellite observations help increase the *confidence of the model results.[18]* 
IceSat was a laser altimeter equipped satellite, which could measure the freeboard of ice flows.[19][20] Together with a set of auxiliary data like ice density, snow cover thickness, air pressure, water salinity one can calculate the flow thickness and thus its volume. Those data have to be got from other sources, *and the uncertainty of the whole calculation is determined by the uncertainty of the freeboard measurements, the inhomogeneitiy of the flows and the uncertainty of the auxiliary data.* Its active service period was from February 2003 to October 2009. Its data have been compared with the respective PIOMAS data and a reasonably agreement has been found.[21] 
And you swallow this stuff with glee!
And I was paid to measure it. Somewhere I have a picture of me doing it.
regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

> A very eminent  scientist once told me "There are three things to remember when delivering a some vital information, know your stuff; know whom you are stuffing; and then stuff them elegantly. Myself being a mere tradie have dispensed with elegantly.
> "It had occurred to Högbom to calculate the amounts of CO2 emitted by factories and other industrial sources. Surprisingly, he found that human activities were adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate roughly comparable to the natural geochemical processes that emitted or absorbed the gas. As another scientist would put it a decade later, we were "evaporating" our coal mines into the air. The added gas was not much compared with the volume of CO2 already in the atmosphere  the CO2 released from the burning of coal in the year 1896 would raise the level by scarcely a thousandth part. But the additions might matter if they continued long enough.(2) (By recent calculations, the total amount of carbon laid up in coal and other fossil deposits that humanity can readily get at and burn is some ten times greater than the total amount in the atmosphere.) So the next CO2 change might not be a cooling decrease, but an increase. Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth's temperature some 5-6°C (averaged over all zones of latitude).(3)
> your obviously ignorant of the history of the debate yet belligerent enough keep blundering on.
> regards inter

  if you read a bit more you will find that Arrhenius was not able to foresee the rise in the emission of CO2 that would outstrip the capacity of natural carbon sinks to absorb them. You're just digging yourself in deeper. It's a dry well, stop digging.

----------


## John2b

> A very eminent  scientist once told me "There are three things to remember when delivering a some vital information, know your stuff; know whom you are stuffing; and then stuff them elegantly. Myself being a mere tradie have dispensed with elegantly.
> "It had occurred to Högbom to calculate the amounts of CO2 emitted by factories and other industrial sources. Surprisingly, he found that human activities were adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate roughly comparable to the natural geochemical processes that emitted or absorbed the gas. As another scientist would put it a decade later, we were "evaporating" our coal mines into the air. The added gas was not much compared with the volume of CO2 already in the atmosphere  the CO2 released from the burning of coal in the year 1896 would raise the level by scarcely a thousandth part. But the additions might matter if they continued long enough.(2) (By recent calculations, the total amount of carbon laid up in coal and other fossil deposits that humanity can readily get at and burn is some ten times greater than the total amount in the atmosphere.) So the next CO2 change might not be a cooling decrease, but an increase. Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth's temperature some 5-6°C (averaged over all zones of latitude).(3)
> your obviously ignorant of the history of the debate yet belligerent enough keep blundering on.
> regards inter

  The "history of the debate" is irrelevant to what is actually happening, yet you are "belligerent enough keep blundering on" to quote someone else. The Earth's climate system isn't sensitive to pseudo science, ideology or rhetoric. The truth will out, as they say, and your ignorance (or mine) will not stop it.

----------


## intertd6

> Mate, you really have to try and find the time to read the links other people provide for you. The link John2b posted clearly stated that the prediction made by Arrhenius was for a doubling of CO2. When that happens we'll know whether he was right or wrong but till then saying it hasn't happened is pure BS. 
> The original paper by Arrhenius is still available. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...,d.dGI&cad=rja

  So the temperature is miraculously going stay stagnant & going to double once the CO2 reaches the double amount of 1896. The poor fellows calculations are basically linear & only took a decade or so to be proved null & void.
regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

> So the temperature is miraculously going stay stagnant & going to double once the CO2 reaches the double amount of 1896. The poor fellows calculations are basically linear & only took a decade or so to be proved null & void.
> regards inter

  What happens when the doubling of CO2 actually occurs is up for debate; I was merely pointing out the stupidity of saying that it hadn't happened when the deadline has not been reached. 
And this is the link to what you posted about ice volume. Measurement of sea ice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## woodbe

> from wickystraw   * There are no Arctic-wide or Antarctic-wide measurements of the volume of sea ice,* but the volume of the Arctic sea ice is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) developed at the University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory/Polar Science Center. PIOMAS blends satellite-observed sea ice concentrations into model calculations to *estimate* sea ice thickness and volume. Comparison with submarine, mooring, and satellite observations help increase the *confidence of the model results.[18]* 
> IceSat was a laser altimeter equipped satellite, which could measure the freeboard of ice flows.[19][20] Together with a set of auxiliary data like ice density, snow cover thickness, air pressure, water salinity one can calculate the flow thickness and thus its volume. Those data have to be got from other sources, *and the uncertainty of the whole calculation is determined by the uncertainty of the freeboard measurements, the inhomogeneitiy of the flows and the uncertainty of the auxiliary data.* Its active service period was from February 2003 to October 2009. Its data have been compared with the respective PIOMAS data and a reasonably agreement has been found.[21] 
> And you swallow this stuff with glee!
> And I was paid to measure it. Somewhere I have a picture of me doing it.
> regards inter

  Doesn't look like data proving anything. Where is your data? 
woodbe

----------


## intertd6

> Doesn't look like data proving anything. Where is your data? 
> woodbe

   My data is at the Antarctic division & I helped to gather it, yours is an armchair guess at best.
maybe the data is available online for you non believers.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> My data is at the Antarctic division & I helped to gather it, yours is an armchair guess at best.
> regards inter

  Actually I don't have any data and I'm not guessing.  :Tongue:  
The current analysis of the sea ice thickness is possibly based on your measurements and many others, and the result is around 1m average. Until more accurate measurements are made, that is the result of your data. Remember that the Aussies are just one of 30 odd countries researching down there so it is doubtful that you are the only person to have measured the ice. 
If you think 1m is not accurate then you should show us data that debunks the result. Given the wide range of sea ice heights and the size of Antarctica it's a bit hard to imagine that a single individual could be the oracle to dismiss the current accepted heights, but by all means, prove away... 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> The "history of the debate" is irrelevant to what is actually happening, yet you are "belligerent enough keep blundering on" to quote someone else. The Earth's climate system isn't sensitive to pseudo science, ideology or rhetoric. The truth will out, as they say, and your ignorance (or mine) will not stop it.

  What I stated has been backed up, quit waffling on, your making a spectacle of yourself.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> maybe the data is available online for you non believers.

  Found some:   
From INVESTIGATION OF SEASONAL _SEA_-_ICE THICKNESS_ VARIABILITY IN THE ROSS _SEA_ by Beth A. Schellenberg. 
It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of showing data that disproves the current understanding. Something skeptics struggle with. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Actually I don't have any data and I'm not guessing.  
> The current analysis of the sea ice thickness is possibly based on your measurements and many others, and the result is around 1m average. Until more accurate measurements are made, that is the result of your data. Remember that the Aussies are just one of 30 odd countries researching down there so it is doubtful that you are the only person to have measured the ice. 
> If you think 1m is not accurate then you should show us data that debunks the result. Given the wide range of sea ice heights and the size of Antarctica it's a bit hard to imagine that a single individual could be the oracle to dismiss the current accepted heights, but by all means, prove away... 
> woodbe.

  what you have is something parroted which you have no way of knowing its accuracy & have been shown how inaccurate it is by way of the information bible which you hang off every word.
the Antarctic division would have actual sea ice thickness records going back to the 1920's which would cover about 30% of the continent & have access to the remainder by way of joint studies & sharing of information, if your a scientist they may share it with you.
but a little background information for you, the ice edge thickness which can be upto 1000km from the coast at its full extent is well over 1m thick & just gets ridged, rafted & thicker towards the continent & will pull up an icebreaker hundreds of km from the coast at the start of the summer shipping season & that's after it's had a couple of months to breakup some from its fullest extent.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> what you have is something parroted which you have no way of knowing its accuracy & have been shown how inaccurate it is by way of the information bible which you hang off every word.
> the Antarctic division would have actual sea ice thickness records going back to the 1920's which would cover about 30% of the continent & have access to the remainder by way of joint studies & sharing of information, if your a scientist they may share it with you.
> but a little background information for you, the ice edge thickness which can be upto 1000km from the coast at its full extent is well over 1m thick & just gets ridged, rafted & thicker towards the continent & will pull up an icebreaker hundreds of km from the coast at the start of the summer shipping season & that's after it's had a couple of months to breakup some from its fullest extent.
> regards inter

  Cool. Add yourself the the long list of persons who don't understand how to calculate an average. It consists of all of the data, not just the impressively large pieces that stuck in your memory. 
Do you honestly think that all the scientists that access the data could be so wrong as to ignore data that shows the Antarctic Ice is as thick as Arctic Ice? So far you have not been able to show that the ice trend in the Antarctic balances the ice trend in the Arctic, and now you are trying to prove that the accepted average ice thickness is wrong by telling interesting but irrelevant stories from a visit to the Antarctic.  
How about parroting some data instead of waffling? 
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> What I stated has been backed up

   
I have provided sources for all the statements I have made. Where are your sources?   

> quit waffling on, your making a spectacle of yourself.
> regards inter

  Who's making a spectacle? LOL

----------


## johnc

> What I stated has been backed up, quit waffling on, your making a spectacle of yourself.
> regards inter

  This type of cheap shot is not very endearing your know, plus your only backing up seems to be through rose tinted glasses from a period as an assistant down south. That's a bit like the cleaner of an art gallery pretending he's an expert in art, there really is a big difference between data collection and analysis.

----------


## Marc

> Since "scientific research" doesn't actually work the way described, the proposition that "more than half of published scientific conclusions were actually false" is absolute tooth-fairy nonsense LOL.  Ah - now we are getting to the gist - so called "medical research" which is conducted or sponsored by (wait for it) DRUG COMPANIES. 
> Surprise, surprise: when "climate research" is sponsored by energy companies (or thinly disguised "think tanks"), the accuracy of research findings is just as bad as when medical research is sponsored by drug companies! To call industry funded programs "scientific research" is about as silly as you can get, really.

  This reply clearly demonstrate that a debate among layman is not possible on this subject as it is not possible on the subject of politics or religion.
You are so obfuscated by your belief, that can not even see the fallacy in your [il]logic.  
An adverse finding by a scientist paid from the relatively small budget of a private company attempting to defend their interest is bad. 
An AGW favorable finding paid by the taxpayer without their consent from the unlimited multiple government coffers with the purpose of scaring the taxpayer into paying yet more money and shift more power is OK.  
The analogy with medical research is perfectly valid. 
Medical research is a business just like the climate change industry. 
The smallest possible statistically significant result is used to justify entering the market with yet another drug.
The smallest possible statistically "significant" result is used to argue for more power shift and more otherwise unjustifiable expenses.  
Both sides of the "climate crap" are biased. Yet the skeptics side are defending their interest. The AGW priest want us to believe thy do it for our own good and the good of our children and they do it with money stolen from our coffers that should be better spent on infrastructure.
The AGW arguments are sickening, despicable, nauseating in the extreme.

----------


## woodbe

> This reply clearly demonstrate that a debate among layman is not possible on this subject as it is not possible on the subject of politics or religion.

  Perhaps rephrase this in basic english grammar? 
Points previously raised and not addressed: 
1. Skeptics rarely bring science with them, they bring opinion and politics to muddy the waters.
2. The fossil fuel industry has government squashing budgets. Claiming that the climate change 'industry' has equal funding to the FF industry is total and unmitigated nonsense. 
eg:   

> Current price is over US$90 per barrel 
> $90 x 87,000,000 x 365 = $2,857,950,000,000 per year. That's just under 3  trillion dollars per year, and nearly 8 billion dollars *per day*.

  you were saying?   

> The smallest possible statistically "significant" result is used to  argue for more power shift and more otherwise unjustifiable expenses.

  Own goal. The people who play the smallest possible significance game are not the publishing scientists. Publishing scientists are not the ones claiming 'no warming since xxxx', 'Arctic Recovery', 'Arctic losses cancelled by Antarctic gains', etc, etc, on between no significance or the slimmest significance possible. 
Read and weep:  Cherry p | Open Mind 
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The AGW priest want us to believe thy do it for our own good and the good of our children and they do it with money stolen from our coffers that should be better spent on infrastructure.

  Maybe they have that thing you seemingly have lost - altruism.  Regardless, given the relatively tiny amounts of government money that is actually directly invested in AGW  (comparative to current infrastructure or defense spending)...you'd be lucky to be able to get a new toilet block at Parliament House. Or perhaps a few more fancy lifeboats...    

> The AGW arguments are sickening, despicable, nauseating in the extreme.

  Then don't take them so personally...you'll feel much better if you can manage that.  Your opinions are pretty extreme too but I just think they are funny...

----------


## intertd6

> Found some:   From INVESTIGATION OF SEASONAL _SEA_-_ICE THICKNESS_ VARIABILITY IN THE ROSS _SEA_ by Beth A. Schellenberg. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of showing data that disproves the current understanding. Something skeptics struggle with. woodbe.

  The data above was gathered from a polynya in Antarctica , that's an area of open water & it averages around 1m thickness in August.Regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> The data above was gathered from a polynya in Antarctica , that's an area of open water & it averages around 1m thickness in August.Regards inter

  As it says in the title, it was collected from the Ross sea. You can see it buried among the ice on the lower part of the continent:   
Sure looks like it has sea ice to me, and the data supports our suggestion of 1m sea ice average. I'm sure it's largely clear in summer. 
Where is your data showing that 1m average is not correct for Antarctica? If you are right, there must be data available showing it. Can't you find any, you've had days to find it? 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> As it says in the title, it was collected from the Ross sea. You can see it buried among the ice on the lower part of the continent:   
> Sure looks like it has sea ice to me, and the data supports our suggestion of 1m sea ice average. I'm sure it's largely clear in summer. 
> Where is your data showing that 1m average is not correct for Antarctica? If you are right, there must be data available showing it. Can't you find any, you've had days to find it? 
> woodbe.

  of course there's data showing it, & its in the very data you supplied, all you have to be is bright enough to understand it.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> of course there's data showing it, & its in the very data you supplied, all you have to be is bright enough to understand it.
> regards inter

  Sure there is. Happy for you to explain it.  :Tongue:  Perhaps read up on what average means first. 
Here's more information explaining that the sea ice thickness is less than the Arctic and WHY the average sea ice thickness is less than the Arctic:   

> *Seasonal Development*          		  By far the greatest seasonal changes in the ice thickness  distribution of the East Antarctic pack are in the open water and thin  ice categories. The amount of open water decreases from almost 60% in  December to little more than 10% in August, and the thinnest ice  thickness category (0 - 0.2 m) shows a 30% seasonal change between  December and March. In contrast, the amount of ice greater than 1.0 m  shows very little seasonal variability. This is because *undeformed ice  rarely exceeds 1 m thick*, and the *deformed ice greater than 1 m thick  only comprises a small fraction of the pack, with the nature of the ice  drift largely preventing the accumulation of the thicker ice to form  multi-year ice.* The fractional coverage of the different ice types  discussed below are based upon data collected from 18 voyages into the  East Antarctic pack between 1986 and 1995.  *The Onset of Winter*  In March, at the beginning of the growth season, there is  approximately 25% open water and an additional 60% of ice less than 0.4  m. This is indicative of rapid new ice growth over large areas of the  Southern Ocean as the air temperatures begin to cool, with very little  differential drift between the new floes to form thicker ice by rafting.
>   As winter progresses the amount of open water within the pack  decreases and new ice thickens quite rapidly due to the cold air  temperatures. This leads to a decrease in the thinner ice categories and  an associated increase in thicker ice. In August, the pack is quite  consolidated, and the open water fraction averages 12%. There is only a  small percentage of ice less than 0.4 m, and *the ice between 0.4-0.8 m  thick is of greatest concentration*.

  Seasonal Development &mdash; Antarctic Sea Ice Processes & Climate (ASPeCt) 
Without comprehensive data from inter, case closed. Antarctic sea ice growth does not balance Arctic sea ice losses, and Antarctic average sea ice thickness does not match the Arctic either. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Sure there is. Happy for you to explain it.  Perhaps read up on what average means first. 
> Here's more information explaining that the sea ice thickness is less than the Arctic and WHY the average sea ice thickness is less than the Arctic:    Seasonal Development &mdash; Antarctic Sea Ice Processes & Climate (ASPeCt) 
> Without comprehensive data from inter, case closed. Antarctic sea ice growth does not balance Arctic sea ice losses, and Antarctic average sea ice thickness does not match the Arctic either. 
> woodbe.

  keep parroting stuff you don't have an understanding of while digging that hole,
from wickystraw
The Ross Sea circulation, dominated by polynya processes, is in general very slow-moving. Circumpolar Deep Water (CDW) is a relatively warm, salty and nutrient-rich water mass that flows onto the continental shelf at certain locations in the Ross Sea. Through heat flux, this water mass moderates the ice cover. The near-surface water also provides a warm environment for some animals and nutrients to excite primary production. CDW transport onto the shelf is known to be persistent and periodic, and is thought to occur at specific locations influenced by bottom topography. The circulation of the Ross Sea is dominated by a wind-driven gyre. The flow is strongly influenced by three submarine ridges that run from southwest to northeast. Flow over the shelf below the surface layer consists of two anticyclonic gyres connected by a central cyclonic flow. The flow is considerable in spring and winter, due to influencing tides. The Ross Sea is covered with ice for much of the year and ice concentrations and in the south-central region little melting occurs. Ice concentrations in the Ross Sea are influenced by winds with ice remaining in the western region throughout the austral spring and generally melting in January due to local heating. This leads to extremely strong stratification and shallow mixed layers in the western Ross Sea.[13]  
Regards inter

----------


## John2b

> keep parroting stuff you don't have an understanding of while digging that hole,
> from wickystraw 
> Regards inter

  How come you are quoting from Wikipedia?

----------


## woodbe

> How come you are quoting from Wikipedia?

  Simples. 
Because he can't find any data that shows the Antarctic sea ice is thicker than it is.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> How come you are quoting from Wikipedia?

   It has its uses, as you see I'm not biased. unlike!!!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> It has its uses, as you see I'm not biased. unlike!!!
> regards inter

  So why bag other people?   

> keep parroting stuff from wickystraw

----------


## woodbe

> The Ross Sea circulation,

  I think you missed this bit on my last Sea Ice post:   

> The fractional coverage of the different ice types  discussed below are  based upon *data collected from 18 voyages into the  East Antarctic pack*  between 1986 and 1995.

  Even if your Ross Sea information was relevant to the question at hand (it isn't), you haven't: 
a) explained how a data distribution showing less than 2m maximum thickness and much more less than 1m thickness can result in an average thickness meeting that of the Arctic (as you claimed the data showed)
b) considered that the east Antarctic sea ice pack is not in the Ross Sea.
c) delivered any data showing that the average sea ice thickness in Antarctica is the same as or anywhere near that in the Arctic.
d) accepted the clear reasons why the Antarctic sea ice does not reach the same average thickness as the Arctic. 
Keep digging  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> It has its uses, as you see I'm not biased. unlike!!!

  Rod?  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  
woodbe

----------


## John2b

Here's one "positive" to global warming, I suppose. Apparently police for the Swiss canton of Valais hold a database of some 280 missing climbers, stretching back to 1926: *
Remains of UK climber found on Matterhorn* 
The body of an English climber missing since 1979 has been found on the Matterhorn peak in the Swiss Alps, Swiss police said on Tuesday  _As Alpine glaciers melt due to global warming, the remains of long-lost climbers have increasingly emerged from the shrinking mountain ice._  Remains of UK climber found on Matterhorn - The Local

----------


## Marc

> Maybe they have that thing you seemingly have lost - altruism.  Regardless, given the relatively tiny amounts of government money that is actually directly invested in AGW  (comparative to current infrastructure or defense spending)...you'd be lucky to be able to get a new toilet block at Parliament House. Or perhaps a few more fancy lifeboats...
> Then don't take them so personally...you'll feel much better if you can manage that.  Your opinions are pretty extreme too but I just think they are funny...

  _
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." ~ Voltaire_
Yes, the world is a funny place I agree, created for our own amusement I may add, but we may leave that for another occasion. 
Your point about alarmist acting out of "altruism", and the automatic assumption even when not expressed directly by you that skeptics act out of selfishness or greed, is false from a number of points of view. 
Altruism: _Altruism_: Selfless concern for the welfare of others; the commission of a selfless act in relation to another.Or:_Altruism_: The act of willingly, purposefully, exchanging one item of value (say, your own life) for another item of ostensibly less or at best equal value (say, the life of someone else).  The concept of the above being of great value is ancestral and it is hard to say what came first, if the value given to it or the religion that imposes it as a must have value.
Whatever the case, it was always very clear to me that there is no such thing as altruism. Think about it. Anything we do is ultimately to satisfy our own needs and act within our own set of values. The person giving away for charity, does so to feel better, the religious person acting within a moral code, does so to please God and to cash in the alleged reward, the charity worker prefers the praise for his "altruism" and the easy hours and the complacent boss and the absence of demands for performance,  the examples abound, yet to accept it requires a bit more than a few lines of opinion. 
To be honest I created some fuss myself when I told a church congregation that there was no such thing as selflessness and that we do everything for a result that is in our favor. I thought I was alone in this viewpoint and what was my surprise when I found out that there are many others better qualified than me that think exactly the same way. Altruism: True or False? by Wilton D. Alston 
Yet it is not necessary to stretch oneself into accepting new realities when it comes to the alleged altruism of the alarmist that "do it for our own good and for our kids. " 
The reality is so far removed from the above that only a simple observation is sufficient. 
Generosity and altruism, (lets accept for a minute there is some value in it) refers to giving away what belongs to you, divest yourself from assets, give away you hard earned money.  Yet greens in general give away what is not theirs to give away. They want to be generous with your and my tax money, impose new rules to change me not them and to fit with their own idea of what is good, impose onto others what they should do sometimes without even complying themselves personally with their own demands. Such is not altruism not even within the constrains of the definition accepted by mainstream culture or religion. 
No, clearly alarmist, greens and assorted cheer leaders of said religion, are not altruist. They are like everyone else selfish and acting their own agenda the way they think is best for them and nothing else. And in that I must say I don't have anything to say against because that is the way every single human inescapably must act.

----------


## woodbe

> __ Generosity and altruism, (lets accept for a minute there is some value in it) refers to giving away what belongs to you, divest yourself from assets, give away you hard earned money.  Yet greens in general give away what is not theirs to give away. They want to be generous with your and my tax money, impose new rules to change me not them and to fit with their own idea of what is good, impose onto others what they should do sometimes without even complying themselves personally with their own demands. Such is not altruism not even within the constrains of the definition accepted by mainstream culture or religion.

  You're reading from a very narrow meaning of the word. 
Altruism is simply putting the needs of others before your own. It is not a group idealology or a religion. Some altruism may be financially or otherwise status motivated, and perhaps that is not true altruism, but that is not to say that altruism therefore does not exist. 
Assembling a strawman argument upon individual altruism is pretty low, especially as the anniversary of Gallipoli is upon us. Sacrificing yourself to gain the chance that others may live would have to be one of the most altruistic acts there is. 
We don't know the motivations for the individual scientists involved, but altruism would certainly be on the list of possibilities. 
woodbe

----------


## John2b

> We don't know the motivations for the individual scientists involved, but altruism would certainly be on the list of possibilities. 
> woodbe

  We do know that financial reward is not a motivation because their research findings do not result in financial reward. One of the greatest motivators is to describe something that no one else has described, or to find the flaw in a hypothesis that has been overlooked, because these acts lead to recognition which is a great, if not the greatest, motivation for research scientists. Altruism probably runs a distant second to the pursuit of science for the sake of it, quite frankly.

----------


## intertd6

> So why bag other people?

  havent you worked out the meaning & portrayal of a biased assumption yet?
regards

----------


## intertd6

> I think you missed this bit on my last Sea Ice post:   
> Even if your Ross Sea information was relevant to the question at hand (it isn't), you haven't: 
> a) explained how a data distribution showing less than 2m maximum thickness and much more less than 1m thickness can result in an average thickness meeting that of the Arctic (as you claimed the data showed)
> b) considered that the east Antarctic sea ice pack is not in the Ross Sea.
> c) delivered any data showing that the average sea ice thickness in Antarctica is the same as or anywhere near that in the Arctic.
> d) accepted the clear reasons why the Antarctic sea ice does not reach the same average thickness as the Arctic. 
> Keep digging  
> woodbe.

  i just easily repudiate each of your attempted claims as they come alone, it's quite easy but understand that my barely average intelligence would rather give something more substantial than the misleading biased tripe that is presented & that takes a little more time.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> i just easily repudiate each of your attempted claims as they come alone, it's quite easy but understand that my barely average intelligence would rather give something more substantial than the misleading biased tripe that is presented & that takes a little more time.
> regards inter

  Well, you've had days or is it weeks and you haven't posted anything but sledging yet. 
Still, you're better than some who don't seem to be able to visit science based sites. Let us know when you have some evidence to share. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Well, you've had days or is it weeks and you haven't posted anything but sledging yet. 
> Still, you're better than some who don't seem to be able to visit science based sites. Let us know when you have some evidence to share. 
> woodbe.

  I was wondering what I had for all that time! Alas your selective tunnel vision isn't one of the afflictions I can claim to have, considering the false leads that are contrived to mislead the debate it a wonder I'm not as busy as a one legged frog in a bucket of snakes.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Here's one "positive" to global warming, I suppose. Apparently police for the Swiss canton of Valais hold a database of some 280 missing climbers, stretching back to 1926: *
> Remains of UK climber found on Matterhorn* 
> The body of an English climber missing since 1979 has been found on the Matterhorn peak in the Swiss Alps, Swiss police said on Tuesday  _As Alpine glaciers melt due to global warming, the remains of long-lost climbers have increasingly emerged from the shrinking mountain ice._  Remains of UK climber found on Matterhorn - The Local

  obviously with that the "science is settled"
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> I was wondering what I had for all that time! Alas your selective tunnel vision isn't one of the afflictions I can claim to have, considering the false leads that are contrived to mislead the debate it a wonder I'm not as busy as a one legged frog in a bucket of snakes.
> regards inter

  More sledging, no data.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> _
> "Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." ~ Voltaire_
> Yes, the world is a funny place I agree, created for our own amusement I may add, but we may leave that for another occasion. 
> Your point about alarmist acting out of "altruism", and the automatic assumption even when not expressed directly by you that skeptics act out of selfishness or greed, is false from a number of points of view. 
> Altruism:_Altruism_: Selfless concern for the welfare of others; the commission of a selfless act in relation to another.Or:_Altruism_: The act of willingly, purposefully, exchanging one item of value (say, your own life) for another item of ostensibly less or at best equal value (say, the life of someone else).  The concept of the above being of great value is ancestral and it is hard to say what came first, if the value given to it or the religion that imposes it as a must have value.
> Whatever the case, it was always very clear to me that there is no such thing as altruism. Think about it. Anything we do is ultimately to satisfy our own needs and act within our own set of values. The person giving away for charity, does so to feel better, the religious person acting within a moral code, does so to please God and to cash in the alleged reward, the charity worker prefers the praise for his "altruism" and the easy hours and the complacent boss and the absence of demands for performance,  the examples abound, yet to accept it requires a bit more than a few lines of opinion. 
> To be honest I created some fuss myself when I told a church congregation that there was no such thing as selflessness and that we do everything for a result that is in our favor. I thought I was alone in this viewpoint and what was my surprise when I found out that there are many others better qualified than me that think exactly the same way. Altruism: True or False? by Wilton D. Alston 
> Yet it is not necessary to stretch oneself into accepting new realities when it comes to the alleged altruism of the alarmist that "do it for our own good and for our kids. " 
> The reality is so far removed from the above that only a simple observation is sufficient. 
> ...

  Clearly, outstandingly and far and away one of the best posts you have ever written...and you've actually written it... :2thumbsup:   I dips me lid. 
However, I take issue with your black/white interpretation of altruism...mainly because (like you) I think that pure selfnessness is impossible.  However, that does not preclude an altruistic component in people's day to day...otherwise we'd be totally without compassion for fellow members of our species (which is clearly not the case).  Those of us who would like to see some human response to AGW (and other social & environmental 'issues') also recognise that there is no way that such response can be effective without bringing a substantial proportion of the population into a similar frame of mind and one of the most obvious (yet apparently not that effective) is the attempt to coerce a population using (amongst other things) the altruistic line "do it for our own good and for our kids."   Given it is so easy to use it should be no wonder that it is...can't blame anyone for taking the lazy option if we all do it!! 
Also this statement "the automatic assumption even when not expressed directly by you that skeptics act out of selfishness or greed" is where you have me and many others spectacularly wrong.  I don't believe it is these things that drive such people at all.  Neither (on their own or combined) has the energy and sustenance to motivate a person down a path of conviction - you need something much more than that. 
And finally this ripper...   

> "No, clearly alarmist, greens and assorted cheer leaders of said religion, are not altruist. They are like everyone else selfish and acting their own agenda the way they think is best for them and nothing else. And in that I must say I don't have anything to say against because that is the way every single human inescapably must act."

  Clearly...you do have something to say against them because you have said on numerous occasions that such people should be jailed as terrorists and the like.  In the end, I suspect you actually respect these people because they clearly hold the courage of their convictions just as strongly as you do...even if their convictions are the antithesis of yours.

----------


## The Administration Team

GLOBAL WARNING  The ice is *VERY* thin in here, tread carefully  Or You May Disappear  Into The Icehole.

----------


## John2b

> obviously with that the "science is settled"
> regards inter

  The nature of science is that is never really "settled", just "accepted" until better science comes along. 
Better science, when it _does_ come along, will *not* overturn the _observations and measurements_ of CO2 released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels, it will *not* overturn the _observations and measurements_ of CO2 acting as a green house gas in the Earth's atmosphere, and it will *not* overturn the _observations and measurements_ of the resultant shift in radiative heat forcing of the Earth that is a consequence of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. You might say that to an overwhelming degree "the observations are settled" because there is no credible refutement of the recorded data. What is happening, is happening, in the sense that it is both measurable _and_ measured. 
it should be realised that the the lower atmospheric air temperature is only a proxy for global warming. The air temperature record is not a direct recording of the effect of AGW. Blame it on "the weather" if you like!

----------


## intertd6

> More sledging, no data.  
> woodbe.

  one mans wickystraw data is another mans sledging.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> The nature of science is that is never really "settled", just "accepted" until better science comes along. 
> Better science, when it _does_ come along, will *not* overturn the _observations and measurements_ of CO2 released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels, it will *not* overturn the _observations and measurements_ of CO2 acting as a green house gas in the Earth's atmosphere, and it will *not* overturn the _observations and measurements_ of the resultant shift in radiative heat forcing of the Earth that is a consequence of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. You might say that to an overwhelming degree "the observations are settled" because there is no credible refutement of the recorded data. What is happening, is happening, in the sense that it is both measurable _and_ measured. 
> it should be realised that the the lower atmospheric air temperature is only a proxy for global warming. The air temperature record is not a direct recording of the effect of AGW. Blame it on "the weather" if you like!

  So in short it hasn't been settled or accepted because of the anecdotal association between the two, CO2 & global warming. And the boffins are furiously searching for the answers of why the global temperature has flatlined for the last 16 or so years so they can be accepted again as credible.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Even if your Ross Sea information was relevant to the question at hand (it isn't), you haven't: 
> a) explained how a data distribution showing less than 2m maximum thickness and much more less than 1m thickness can result in an average thickness meeting that of the Arctic (as you claimed the data showed)
> b) considered that the east Antarctic sea ice pack is not in the Ross Sea.
> c) delivered any data showing that the average sea ice thickness in Antarctica is the same as or anywhere near that in the Arctic.
> d) accepted the clear reasons why the Antarctic sea ice does not reach the same average thickness as the Arctic.

   

> one mans wickystraw data is another mans sledging.
> regards inter

  Just a reminder. Your 'wikistraw data' did not address any of these issues. 
Happy to wait while you assemble real data to support your position. You can keep sledging as you seem to prefer, but that is a losing debating tactic unless you have real data to support your chosen position. 
You have not shared any evidence to support your claim that average Antarctic Sea Ice thickness matches the Arctic.
You have not shared any evidence to support your claim that sea ice losses in the Arctic are balanced by gains in the Antarctic. 
Waiting... 
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> So in short it hasn't been settled or accepted because of the anecdotal association between the two, CO2 & global warming. And the boffins are furiously searching for the answers of why the global temperature has flatlined for the last 16 or so years so they can be accepted again as credible.
> regards inter

  The measurements not wrong and there is no credibility issue. Warming hasn't stopped. The ten hottest years since 1880 have all happened since 1998.

----------


## Marc

Must love the administrators choice of worlds   

> ... I take issue with your black/white interpretation of altruism...mainly because (like you) I think that pure selflessness is impossible.  However, that does not preclude an altruistic component in people's day to day...otherwise we'd be totally without compassion for fellow members of our species (which is clearly not the case).  Those of us who would like to see some human response to AGW (and other social & environmental 'issues') also recognize that there is no way that such response can be effective without bringing a substantial proportion of the population into a similar frame of mind and one of the most obvious (yet apparently not that effective) is the attempt to coerce a population using (among other things) the altruistic line "do it for our own good and for our kids."   Given it is so easy to use it should be no wonder that it is...can't blame anyone for taking the lazy option if we all do it!! 
> Also this statement "the automatic assumption even when not expressed directly by you that skeptics act out of selfishness or greed" is where you have me and many others spectacularly wrong.  I don't believe it is these things that drive such people at all.  Neither (on their own or combined) has the energy and sustenance to motivate a person down a path of conviction - you need something much more than that. 
> Clearly...you do have something to say against them because you have said on numerous occasions that such people should be jailed as terrorists and the like.  In the end, I suspect you actually respect these people because they clearly hold the courage of their convictions just as strongly as you do...even if their convictions are the antithesis of yours.

  Yes and no. 
If we are talking about the theory that humans are altering irreversibly climate towards our own demise...the implications of such hypothesis if true, is so vast and overarching that any data supporting or detracting from it must be biased particularly if supplied as a report to the employer.
Therefore the data is skewed, falsified, manipulated, "corrected", "projected", amplified or plainly fabricated.
From both sides. 
Anyone working on supplying "proof" that we need totalitarian action and therefore totalitarian power to re-engineer society and redirect funds towards "causes for the greater good" will be unreliable and biased depending on where he stands or who is paying him and the scientific principles will be dead, murdered on the side of the road. 
We can find examples of this experiment all along human history, from every religious and political dictator from before the pharaoh times to Stalin Hitler, Khomeini etc. 
All imposed a new set of values for the greater good by force, greatly exaggerating or fabricating "facts" or "proof" to arm the good against the evil.  
Deniers beware! 
Considering the above, how does a person choose a side?  
And to your suggestion, can we blame an individual for his choice of sides?  
We like to. We secretly blame the obese unless we ourselves are overweight of course. 
If we think that the brain adopts most of the main values used to problem solving before age 10, largely imposed by relatives and culture, it is not surprising the apple does not fall far from the tree.  
So, can I say that all alarmist are rotten scoundrels? I like to, but just like my own choice of sides, there is always a reason behind this.  
 I chose the skeptic side because I can see through the alarmist strategies and because I abhor the menagerie of side dishes that come with the main one. The "green" world is a water melon and I spent enough years in a war against the left to understand how they operate. It is no surprise that the only nations that officially take a stand against the climate change fraud are nations that have suffered under communist regimes. 
So what about the one who likes the alarmist side because he either has an ax to grind against the established right, or the powerful, or the rich or the entrepreneur or the manufacturers, or .... (insert your own pet hate) ? 
He will join the water melons for sure.
And last but not least, what about the one who is a sucker for altruism? Working towards sainthood? Defender of lost causes? 
He/she will join in for sure and who can blame them? 
Perhaps if they can see that altruism is just a different form of selfish actions towards our own good, then such motivator can be defused and one array of foot soldiers taken away from the main characters who have orchestrated this gargantuan fraud for their own personal gain. 
Yes, I like to see those big fish responsible of this fraud before a jury.
Yet I can see that the little fish brandishing a banner because he likes the cuddly polar bears does so because he has no choice. Not withing his array of values anyway.   *Delenda est Global Warming *  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> If we are talking about the theory that humans are altering irreversibly climate towards our own demise...the implications of such hypothesis if true, is so vast and overarching that any data supporting or detracting from it must be biased particularly if supplied as a report to the employer.
> Therefore the data is skewed, falsified, manipulated, "corrected", "projected", amplified or plainly fabricated.
> From both sides.

  There is a major logic error here. sounds like there is a conspiracy theory directing the logic. Just because the implications of an hypothesis are vast and overarching does not mean that data both +/- is biased.  
The accuracy of the data is not dependant on the implications of the hypothesis it supports or rejects. 
Speaking to church congregations and now quoting latin. You are definitely the mystery man Marc! 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> There is a major logic error here. sounds like there is a conspiracy theory directing the logic. Just because the implications of an hypothesis are vast and overarching does not mean that data both +/- is biased.  
> The accuracy of the data is not dependant on the implications of the hypothesis it supports or rejects.

  There is no error in my logic. It is a fact of life because humans are biased, you me we all are.
If our actions have wider implications we will be even more biased. If we are commissioned to find something in order to have an even wider effect of society we will be extremely biased... without prejudice. 
Just look at the Spanish inquisition.
This is no different, _mutatis mutandis_ ​that is,  ha ha 
Orbis caldarius delendam est, would be the full latin version of "Global warming must be destroy" or death to global warming. No mystery there, just standard European high school subject. Perhaps you should use it as your signature?

----------


## John2b

> It is no surprise that the only nations that officially take a stand against the climate change fraud are nations that have suffered under communist regimes.

  President Vladimir Putin's "Climate Doctrine of the Russian Federation" starts with:  "Climate change is one of the major international problems in the21st century, which goes beyond the scope of a scientific problem and represents a complex interdisciplinary problem that covers environmental, economic, and social aspects of the sustainable development of the Russian Federation. The unprecedented rate of global warming witnessed in the past few decades raises particular concern. Modern science provides more and more solid arguments in support of the fact that human economic activity, related, first of all, to greenhouse gas emissions as a result of fossil fuel combustion has aconsiderable impact on the climate."  It's on the President's official website: President of Russia | Climate Doctrine of the Russian Federation  On the 1st October 2013, Vladimir Putin signed signed an Executive Order On Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Executive Order was signed with the aim of implementing the Russian Federations Climate Doctrine.  http://eng.news.kremlin.ru/acts/6090  
Right now China is doing the heavy lifting both in emitting CO2 on behalf of western countries like the US and Australia by producing goods for their markets, and by doing the lion's share of global reductions in CO2 emissions per unit of GDP:"This year, the NEA (China's National Energy Authority) is aiming to make the installed capacity of non-fossil fuel account for a third of total installed (electrical generation) capacity. The share of natural gas in the country's total energy consumption will be raised to 6.5 percent while that of coal reduced to below 65 percent." 
Official Chinese government website: China Climate Change Info-Net 
China's reduction in CO2 emitted per unit of GDP was 46% in the period 1990 to 2005, about triple the world average. 
Marc, do you know of a nation that has "suffered" under a communist regime, that *is* denying the AGW contribution to climate change?

----------


## woodbe

> There is no error in my logic. It is a fact of life because humans are biased, you me we all are.
> If our actions have wider implications we will be even more biased. If we are commissioned to find something in order to have an even wider effect of society we will be extremely biased... without prejudice. 
> Just look at the Spanish inquisition.
> This is no different, _mutatis mutandis_ ​that is,  ha ha

  Sure, humans are biased. We recognise that so we have put in place methods to neutralise bias. That is why we use statistics to explore data sets rather than our eye, why data and methods are shared. And why the scientific method is successful. This is not about Climate Change scientists being 'commissioned to find something' particular about the climate by their 'masters' so that they can support one version of events. The results are not an opinion, they are the result of ongoing scientific investigation, and if some scientist could tip it all out the window they would be a hero. Unfortunately, as every year goes by the evidence (which is data and measurements, not opinion) makes the chance of major error in our understanding highly unlikely. 
AGW denial delenda est.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

Yes, to be or not to be, I like your quotes around the word "suffered". 
Enough said..."camarade" 
Who said that the global warming fraud is not socio-political? The watermelon analogy is the best, you must admit. 
Like I said before there is no point in debating neither politics nor religion. with political affiliates or religious bigots.
Much less debate an imaginary threat invented for politico-religious reasons with pretenses of altruism or even worst, "science". Now here is where the quotes are pertinent.  
The only thing that makes sense is to expose the fraud, certainly not keep on with data that is tainted and logic that makes only sense in the affiliates' club on a Sunday morning whilst shuffling your feet and mumbling hear hear.

----------


## woodbe

john2b, I think Marc is saying he doesn't know of any nations that has either suffered or "suffered" under a communist regime and is denying the AGW contribution to climate change. 
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> john2b, I think Marc is saying he doesn't know of any nations that has either suffered or "suffered" under a communist regime and is denying the AGW contribution to climate change. 
> woodbe.

  Or if enough people pick his "side", they will "win"? This discussion is not about choosing a football team. It's about understanding what is happening to climate systems in the world and why. There are no sides in studying anthropogenic global climate change, only evidence. Thousands of knowledgable people have squabbled over the evidence and what it means, but none can make the evidence go away. And no one who actually understands can honestly ignore the consequences. Not even sincerity of belief is helpful to that endeavour. The same physics behind the mechanisms involved in the processes of global warming are so robust that we have used it to create the modern technological world we live in.

----------


## Marc

Da tovarish.

----------


## Marc

*
It is heart warming when you read how global warming aka climate change has now become particulate air pollution.
 Science .... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha*    *RS*   *FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR*    *The Church of Global Warming hearts communism*  By: John Hayward  |  _January 16th, 2014 at 11:37 PM_  |  27 *RESIZE:AAA* Quick show of hands: whos surprised to learn the global warming fanatics think communism is super-awesome? Oh, I know what youre thinking, People Who Have Your Hands Down.  Youve _seen_ what communist countries look like.  Theyre absolute environmental disasters, horrifying wastelands of garbage and toxic pollution.  Youre wondering how anyone could possibly review the history of communism and come to the conclusion that its a political philosophy that leads to wise stewardship of the planet. You need to switch off your critical thinking skills, People Who Have Your Hands Down, and master the crucial global warming skill of ignoring evidence that contradicts your ideology.  Thats what this scam has been all about since the beginning.  Ignore 70 percent of the data, declare what remains science, and treat anyone who disagrees as the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier.  If you dont actually _look_ at communist China, whose capital is currently enveloped in a choking cloud of pollution thats literally driving people off the streets, you can come to the ideologically motivated conclusion that theyre the best little global warming fighters on the whole planet. Thats what the United Nations climate poobah just did, as related by Bloomberg News:
China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is also the country thats doing it right when it comes to addressing global warming, the United Nations chief climate official said. It goes on but it is rather hurtful for the average or even the mediocre thinker ...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Or if enough people pick his "side", they will "win"? This discussion is not about choosing a football team. It's about understanding what is happening to climate systems in the world and why. There are no sides in studying anthropogenic global climate change, only evidence. Thousands of knowledgable people have squabbled over the evidence and what it means, but none can make the evidence go away. And no one who actually understands can honestly ignore the consequences. Not even sincerity of belief is helpful to that endeavour. The same physics behind the mechanisms involved in the processes of global warming are so robust that we have used it to create the modern technological world we live in.

  Actually it is about picking a football team...it always is unless you are sufficiently interested or invested into actually making a choice that runs counter to the ethic that you have developed since childhood.  For most people...the data is irrelevant; the opinions of the qualified...irrelevant; but the opinions of those you place trust in...relevant. 
Evidence is irrelevant until it has been interpreted by someone in whom you place trust...whether that is you yourself or someone to whom you abrogate that responsibility.  That is the human way in this modern society. The fail from the perspective of those who have sought to make AGW a matter of social importance is that they don't, haven't and won't recognise or accept this - they assume face value.   
It has never and will never be like that... 
It never ceases to amaze me that the Left/Socialist/whatever side of human politics never is capable of actually seeing that...but then that is why they are so similar with those opposite.  For a fence sitter like me...never fails to be funny in a wry sort of way.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *The Church of Global Warming hearts communism*  By: John Hayward|  _January 16th, 2014 at 11:37 PM_

  
I rest my case, Your Honour...

----------


## Marc

> I rest my case, Your Honour...

  I believe the quote is from the UN, who cares who is the messenger?  I thought we already established that each side is presenting their case. 
If the quote is wrong please correct it.

----------


## Marc

*Patricia Adams*  _Executive Director, Probe International_    *What Killed China's Renewable Energy Industry?*  China's aggressive push to "green" its economy and become the world leader in renewable energy is admired by many commentators in the West. Those admirers need to look again.
The country's solar panel industry, which went from zero to become the world's largest in five years, has crashed, with most producers now suffering from negative profit margins, soaring debt levels, and idle factories.
Solar panel manufacturer Suntech, a national champion which became the world's largest thanks to lavish state subsidies, filed for bankruptcy in March after it defaulted on payment of $541-million of bonds. The government is scrambling to tidy up the mess by offering tax breaks to all solar companies that acquire or merge with their competitors. One state-owned company recently tabled a $150-million lifeline to Suntech as it works its way through bankruptcy proceedings.
Likewise LDK Solar, another leading Chinese producer, was forced this year to turn to both provincial and local governments for protection from its creditors. The brainchild of the local Communist Party Secretary, LDK received millions of dollars in state subsidies and cheap financing, land, and electricity in 2005. The local government is now funnelling funds into the company to keep it from sinking, without complete success; the company hasshed 20,000 of its 30,000 employees and its shares are 98 per cent below their peak in September 2007.
Yet China's solar panel sector remains massively overbuilt. According to Bloomberg, if all of China's solar producers were to run their factories at full speed, they could produce 49 gigawatts of panels annually -- a ten-fold increase from 2008 and 61 per cent more than global installed capacity last year. But demand for those panels has been shrinking as governments in the West cut many of the subsidies that made solar power attractive.
China's experience with wind power is little different. Sinovel, one of the world's largest wind turbine manufacturers , went from earning hundreds of millions of dollars in profits in 2010 when the renewable energy industry was booming to millions in losses that grow by the day. Revenues are now just a fifth of what they were in 2010. The company has closed its overseas offices and recently laid off thousands of employees.
All told, in 2012 17 per cent of all windmills lay idle, their power too expensive to connect to the grid. In some regions, 50 per cent of all windmills remain unconnected to the grid.
China's green crash is a textbook example of what happens when central planners substitute their economic decrees for the complex supply and demand decisions of a market. Compounding the missteps of China's green planners was a belief that the West's love affair with green power was here to stay, despite its higher cost and unreliability. Believing that it could meet the world's surging demand for solar and wind power, the Chinese state -- from the supreme planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission down to city governments and state-owned banks -- gave Chinese manufacturers near-monopoly powers and all-but-free money.
The torrid expansion of manufacturing capacity saw wind turbine capacity doubling every year until 2010. According to the China Renewable Energy Society in Beijing, half of China's 600 cities have at least one factory producing photovoltaic products. The ensuing flood of solar panels and wind systems on the global market caused prices for those panels to plummet and, in turn, negative profit margins for many of the world's largest producers. Those in the West almost all failed; those still standing, if tottering, are now mostly based in China. The worldwide renewables collapse left China's renewables industry looking supreme only because it is the last corpse to fall. It is only by default that China makes seven out of 10 solar panels across the world and is home to eight of the 10 largest panel producers, many of which are on government life support. The combination of too much supply from years of over-expansion and too little demand produced low prices that have left most producers in China on the ropes.
Their prospects are likely to get even worse. The Bank of China, one of the country's largest state-owned commercial banks, says that 21 per cent of its solar loans are in or near default. By Bloomberg's calculation, the country's 10 largest solar manufacturers hold $28.8-billion worth of liabilities, most of which is owed to government-backed institutions. The average debt ratio of those companies -- the amount of debt as a percentage of total assets -- is 75.8 per cent.
The wind industry fares no better, as seen by the consequence of its wind turbines not being plugged into the grid. The 12.3 billion kilowatts of power wasted last year by windmills amounted to $1.73-billion in lost revenue -- nearly double the amount in 2011.
Many solar companies in China are resorting to cutting corners in production to try and make themselves profitable. According to a _New York Times_ report, many producers are turning to cheaper, untested materials. Some solar power generators now say that some of their panels are under-performing or failing prematurely.
To save the renewables industry, and to save face, China's central planners have changed tack. The state is now switching from subsidizing suppliers to subsidizing demand by mandating local power producers to meet green targets in the domestic market. With a market the size of China's, and the power of government fiat to force Chinese consumers to buy solar, this industry-on-life-support may yet be resuscitated. If it is, it will be another grim green victory. Chinese power consumers will pay the price in more expensive and less reliable power.
Patricia Adams is executive director of Probe International. Brady Yauch is executive director of Consumer Policy Institute.  This article appeared in the _Financial Post_ December 9, 2013

----------


## Marc

> Actually it is about picking a football team...it always is unless you are sufficiently interested or invested into actually making a choice that runs counter to the ethic that you have developed since childhood. For most people...the data is irrelevant; the opinions of the qualified...irrelevant; but the opinions of those you place trust in...relevant.  Evidence is irrelevant until it has been interpreted by someone in whom you place trust...whether that is you yourself or someone to whom you abrogate that responsibility. That is the human way in this modern society. The fail from the perspective of those who have sought to make AGW a matter of social importance is that they don't, haven't and won't recognize or accept this - they assume face value.

  Yes, yes and soso.
It is not interpretation by someone you trust, although that should help, it is interpretation that fits the person's preconceived principles of good and evil that are in the subconscious and have never been challenged, probably never been discovered to be there.
So you don't pick your team, you belong in a team according to your peculiar array of values that you have not chosen consciously unless you have done a thorough review of them and discarded the one that do not serve you. Then you are a thinker and you can actually make a choice. Then and only then if you make the wrong choice we can blame you for it. Before that, one is just a patsy... Tovarish or Tovarisha does not matter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I thought we already established that each side is presenting their case.

  We probably did...but is there an audience to hear it?  I suspect there isn't one... 
However, as I've said before, the internet needs clickbait to grease the wheels...so grease away to your hearts content even if it is to an audience of sod all.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Then and only then if you make the wrong choice we can blame you for it. Before that, one is just a patsy... Tovarish or Tovarisha does not matter

  Ah...yes but who makes the wrong choice...then who is to blame and who decides?  And why is it important to keep score? 
Frankly...real life ain't that precise.

----------


## intertd6

> The measurements not wrong and there is no credibility issue. Warming hasn't stopped. The ten hottest years since 1880 have all happened since 1998.

  From your academic period it seems you must have had a lot of experience padding out assignments with useless information like that. 
When the truth is that all the highest average global temperature since 1880 was 1998 & since then they have not even come close to reaching that peak since then, hence the capacity of any garden variety dill being able to tell when someone is blowing hot air drained of all its goodness & trying to manipulate irrelevant information.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I can smell (nay, almost taste) 200 pages... 
Onwards....tally ho....wotwot  :Wink 1:

----------


## woodbe

> From your academic period it seems you must have had a lot of experience padding out assignments with useless information like that. 
> When the truth is that all the highest average global temperature since 1880 was 1998 & since then they have not even come close to reaching that peak since then, hence the capacity of any garden variety dill being able to tell when someone is blowing hot air drained of all its goodness & trying to manipulate irrelevant information.
> regards inter

  Quoting for posterity. Will come back to this post to show up the real dills when 1998 is no longer the highest temperature since 1880. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Just a reminder. Your 'wikistraw data' did not address any of these issues. 
> Happy to wait while you assemble real data to support your position. You can keep sledging as you seem to prefer, but that is a losing debating tactic unless you have real data to support your chosen position. 
> You have not shared any evidence to support your claim that average Antarctic Sea Ice thickness matches the Arctic.
> You have not shared any evidence to support your claim that sea ice losses in the Arctic are balanced by gains in the Antarctic. 
> Waiting... 
> woodbe.

  Then one of us appears to operating in a parallel universe then. Make sure you shut the door on the Tardis when you hop out.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Quoting for posterity. Will come back to this post to show up the real dills when 1998 is no longer the highest temperature since 1880. 
> woodbe.

  I wouldn't hold your breath on that, you could well & truly expire, even if you didn't natural causes will get you.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Then one of us appears to operating in a parallel universe then. Make sure you shut the door on the Tardis when you hop out.
> regards inter

   

> I wouldn't hold your breath on that, you could well & truly expire, even if you didn't natural causes will get you.
> regards inter

  Happy to wait for both. One is on you, the other is on the climate. If you don't want to show any evidence of the first, we understand the reason, just let it drop and it will fade away. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Happy to wait for both. One is on you, the other is on the climate. If you don't want to show any evidence of the first, we understand the reason, just let it drop and it will fade away. 
> woodbe.

  its been provided, you just haven't absorbed or understood it, more than likely both or the parallel universe theory.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> the truth is that all the highest average global temperature since 1880 was 1998 & since then they have not even come close to reaching that peak since then, 
> regards inter

  Good. Where's the data to show this? Dr Roy Spenser's data set doesn't agree with you: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...2014_v5.61.png 
(His website claims to describes evidence from his groups government-funded research to suggest global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanitys greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.)

----------


## intertd6

> Good. Where's the data to show this? Dr Roy Spenser's data set doesn't agree with you: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...2014_v5.61.png 
> (His website claims to describes evidence from his groups government-funded research to suggest global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanitys greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.)

  it has been provided in the last half a dozen pages. I ate some dodgy chicken the other day that didn't agree with me much also, but still it was useful in feeding some fishes.
trying the double entendre tact is new, but going on your other efforts the outlook is bleak.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> it has been provided in the last half a dozen pages.
> regards inter

  Nope. In the last 9 pages there's quite a few unsubstantiated claims, but the only data presented or referenced by anyone either believer or nonbeliever in AGW doesn't support your claim. Here's your opportunity. Where is the data to support your claim that the last few years have not been uncharacteristically hot?

----------


## woodbe

New Post at Tamino's calling out deniers that make up stuff.   

> One of the most effective techniques by which deniers persuade people,  especially policymakers, that its OK to do nothing about man-made  climate change, is also one of the most reprehensible. To whit: just *make up stuff*.

  Read more at the post: Making Up Stuff | Open Mind 
No wonder people get confused... 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> Ah...yes but who makes the wrong choice...then who is to blame and who decides?  And why is it important to keep score? 
> Frankly...real life ain't that precise.

  Of course right and wrong are completely subjective terms, until they are confronted by the cultural parameters of the land. 
A few examples may clarify: 
Is success better than failure? 
Being rich better than being poor? 
Being healthy better than being sick? 
Being lucky better than being unlucky? 
Most people would jump at the occasion to comment on the questions above using their adopted values and antivalues and tell us that their lack of success, money, luck or health is totally out of their control and that the stars have dished them a bad chance.
Or they may tell us how their success was the result of hard work, their health the result of good nutrition and sport, their luck the result of expecting things to turn his way. 
Both point of view are purely the reflection of that set of values we are talking about that acquired before age 10 is dictating the person's fate for all their life. (unless they decide to change that)
 The one set in victimhood, considers the fringe benefit of poverty and un-luck and illness to be worth more than the opposite. 
Don't tell him though or you will get a black eye. How dare you say I chose poverty!!!! 
The successful is the opposite case of course. 
A study of Lotto winners revealed that in most cases the winner reverts back to his original economic status within 2 years. The rich remains rich the poor remains poor. Each "knows" that is their natural state and a lotto windfall does not change that. Nothing does. 
The rich knows he must be rich and bankruptcy is no impediment. The poor knows his status is poverty and not Lotto nor academic awards or the best business chances will change that.
Sabotage is at hand and poverty the comfort. 
Of course there is a litany of social and political "explanations" to the above. You know rich are bad and take away and step on the poor who have no chance, and we have no control over health and luck is blind and anything else you may want to add. In fact this topic is extremely unpopular as you can imagine. 
It is however the truth.

----------


## PhilT2

Marc, I think you need to throw your copy of "Atlas shrugged" away, it's starting to affect your perception of reality.

----------


## PhilT2

A new study has found a link between high levels of DDT and alzheimers disease. JAMA Network | JAMA Neurology | Elevated Serum Pesticide Levels and Risk for Alzheimer Disease 
Lucky someone warned us about the harmful effects of this pesticide years ago.

----------


## intertd6

> Nope. In the last 9 pages there's quite a few unsubstantiated claims, but the only data presented or referenced by anyone either believer or nonbeliever in AGW doesn't support your claim. Here's your opportunity. Where is the data to support your claim that the last few years have not been uncharacteristically hot?

   6 & 9 look the same to me! Quite funny that you would try & manipulate what I stated about 1998 being the hottest year on record into something else!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> New Post at Tamino's calling out deniers that make up stuff.   
> Read more at the post: Making Up Stuff | Open Mind 
> No wonder people get confused... 
> woodbe.

  if you want to read the best resource about making stuff up, just read the IPPC report claims since it's inception, by version 7 or 8 it may resemble the truth but won't win any prizes.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Climate change: time for the sceptics to put up or shut up | Comment is free | The Observer   

> This is where we are with the climate change  deniers. The absolute proof of manmade global warming is unlikely to  arrive until it is too late and so the deniers are scrupulously indulged  with equal time in the argument, where, taking the part of _Little Britain'_s wheelchair user Andy to our Lou, nothing is ever good enough for them. 
> They  are always the sniping antagonists, rarely, if ever, standing up to  say: we believe in the following facts and here is our research. It is a  risk-free strategy  at least for the moment  that comes almost  exclusively from the political right and is, as often as not,  incentivised by simple capitalist gain. Hearing Lord Lawson argue with  the impeccably reasonable climate scientist Sir Brian Hoskins on the BBC  _Today_ programme last week, I finally boiled over. It is surely  now time for the deniers to make their case and hold an international  conference, where they set out their scientific stall, which, while  stating that the climate is fundamentally chaotic, provides positive,  underlying evidence that man's activity has had no impact on sea and  atmosphere temperatures, diminishing icecaps and glaciers, rising sea  levels and so on.

  Skeptics get a free ride and are allowed equal time to present their case, yet their case consists of throwing rocks at existing published scientific work, not displaying a scientific alternative to that work. This is the bankrupt version of scientific endeavour. 
I agree it's time for them to put up. What are the chances? 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> A new study has found a link between high levels of DDT and alzheimers ... Etc

   There are so many "links" to Alzheimer that one more is clearly too little too late. 
As for throwing away a book I don't have, ? I think you presume way too much.
I will however have a look at it now that you mention it. 
May I suggest some reading too?
Free and very small and available on line on multiple websites. Avoid the one that ask for you email to sell you something else. 
As a man thinketh As A Man Thinketh by James Allen 
"They themselves are makers of themselves"   
by virtue of the thoughts which they choose and encourage; that mind is the master weaver, both of the inner garment of character and the outer garment of circumstance, and that, as they may have hitherto woven in ignorance and pain they may now weave in enlightenment and happiness.
James Allen

----------


## Marc

Peer reviewed material supporting criticism to AGW Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

----------


## woodbe

> Peer reviewed material supporting criticism to AGW Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

  LOL, Marc has found Rod's mate's denier argument source list.  :Smilie:  
This is not a list of papers that refute AGW. This is a rock thrower's source list for skeptics who are unable to resource science that refutes AGW.  
I'll raise you:    Home Page 
James' previous studies have similar conclusions, but in this specific review he covers just the most recent year.  
Isn't it about time the skeptics started doing some of their own science? Sooner or later they will have to prove their position has a basis other than a pile of rocks. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> There are so many "links" to Alzheimer that one more is clearly too little too late.

  In science, one more piece of evidence that potentially points to the cause of a disease is never too little or too late. It is all evidence. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Climate change: time for the sceptics to put up or shut up | Comment is free | The Observer   
> Skeptics get a free ride and are allowed equal time to present their case, yet their case consists of throwing rocks at existing published scientific work, not displaying a scientific alternative to that work. This is the bankrupt version of scientific endeavour. 
> I agree it's time for them to put up. What are the chances? 
> woodbe.

  just for us maybe you can produce just one scientific source than proves that the tiny change in  CO2 is the primary cause of global warming.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> just for us maybe you can produce just one scientific source than proves that the tiny change in  CO2 is the primary cause of global warming.
> regards inter

  A tiny change in CO2 is not "the primary cause of global warming", it is the primary cause of excess global warming, over and above "natural" global warming, in the 150 years post industrialisation. 
That the atmosphere might trap heat was first anticipated in 1820 by Fourier and a mechanism involving CO2 first confirmed by John Tyndall in 1859. Tynadall was trying to understand previous ice ages, and through careful laboratory observations identified that CO2 in the atmosphere would trap heat. By 1896 another scientist, Arrhenius, completed a laborious numerical computation that suggested that halving the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere might lower the temperature some 4-5°C - enough to explain an ice age. No one has "undone" or disproven this finding since. 
In 2005 accurate long-term measurements of temperatures in all the world's ocean basins were finally compiled. There is only one possible source of the colossal additional energy found in the oceans: an alteration in the Earth's radiation balance. It only takes simple physics to calculate that the heat required is about 1 watt per square meter, averaged over the planet's surface, year on year, the amount that greenhouse computations have been predicting for decades.

----------


## intertd6

> A tiny change in CO2 is not "the primary cause of global warming", it is the primary cause of excess global warming, over and above "natural" global warming, in the 150 years post industrialisation. 
> That the atmosphere might trap heat was first anticipated in 1820 by Fourier and a mechanism involving CO2 first confirmed by John Tyndall in 1859. Tynadall was trying to understand previous ice ages, and through careful laboratory observations identified that CO2 in the atmosphere would trap heat. By 1896 another scientist, Arrhenius, completed a laborious numerical computation that suggested that halving the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere might lower the temperature some 4-5°C - enough to explain an ice age. No one has "undone" or disproven this finding since. 
> In 2005 accurate long-term measurements of temperatures in all the world's ocean basins were finally compiled. There is only one possible source of the colossal additional energy found in the oceans: an alteration in the Earth's radiation balance. It only takes simple physics to calculate that the heat required is about 1 watt per square meter, averaged over the planet's surface, year on year, the amount that greenhouse computations have been predicting for decades.

   That well worn theory is far from proof & has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. If it were true then the predictions the alarmists make would be realised. It is surprising how low & quiet they are when the global average temperature has been stable for the last 16 or so years, so makes the relationship between CO2 & the primary cause of global warming anecdotal, but mainly a long winded anecdote
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> It is surprising how low & quiet they are when the global average temperature has been stable for the last 16 or so years.
> regards inter

  Surprising you think it's been quiet - perhaps you should your hands off your ears and you might hear what is being said. The idea that there hasn't been any warming of Earth for the past 16 years is a credible as belief in the tooth fairy. In case you didn't realise, global air temperature in the lower atmosphere is only a proxy for global warming. The lower atmospheric air temperature affected by the weather, which moves heat around the planet in and out of the oceans, where most of the heat from the sun is first absorbed. This is variability really obvious if you look at the temperature record for the past few decades, and not just the past few years, as is the relentless rise in temperature. Hint: you have to look with your mind open to see it. Look are the area under the curve and see how it increases towards the right.

----------


## intertd6

> Surprising you think it's been quiet - perhaps you should your hands off your ears and you might hear what is being said. The idea that there hasn't been any warming of Earth for the past 16 years is a credible as belief in the tooth fairy. In case you didn't realise, global air temperature in the lower atmosphere is only a proxy for global warming. The lower atmospheric air temperature affected by the weather, which moves heat around the planet in and out of the oceans, where most of the heat from the sun is first absorbed. This is variability really obvious if you look at the temperature record for the past few decades, and not just the past few years, as is the relentless rise in temperature. Hint: you have to look with your mind open to see it.

  so the oceans average temperature that hasn't  warmed a fraction of a degree which have the greatest influence on our climate, is to blame for say a hundredfold warming of the atmosphere, now I know where so come & see some fairys, the're in your bottom garden. Perhaps you could do a calculation to show us how long a theoretical 1watt /m2 would take to rise the globes oceans average temperature by 1'C , along with all the variables that would counteract the equation.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> just for us maybe you can produce just one scientific source than proves that the tiny change in  CO2 is the primary cause of global warming.
> regards inter

  It's been provided, you just haven't absorbed or understood it, more than likely both. 
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> so the oceans average temperature that hasn't  warmed a fraction of a degree which have the greatest influence on our climate, is to blame for say a hundredfold warming of the atmosphere, now I know where so come & see some fairys, the're in your bottom garden. Perhaps you could do a calculation to show us how long a theoretical 1watt /m2 would take to rise the globes oceans average temperature by 1'C , along with all the variables that would counteract the equation.
> regards inter

  The oceans have warmed:"Over the past 50 years, the oceans have absorbed more than 80% of the total heat added to the air/sea/land/cyrosphere climate system (Levitus et al, 2005). As the dominant reservoir for heat, the oceans are critical for measuring the radiation imbalance of the planet and the surface layer of the oceans plays the role of thermostat and heat source/sink for the lower atmosphere."
No need for me to do a calculation. More than 1000 analysis paper's have been written around the Argo dataset, including one by Levitus with this graph:    Global Change Analysis

----------


## woodbe

Oh noes, not the Ocean Heat Content!  :Biggrin:  
Inter doesn't want to know about that, he only wants to know about degrees C so he can convince himself the oceans are warming a miniscule amount. 
Forget about the huge Mj going into the oceans, that's irrelevant, it's only energy!  :Tongue:  
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> It only takes simple physics to calculate that the heat required is about 1 watt per square meter, averaged over the planet's surface, year on year, the amount that greenhouse computations have been predicting for decades.

  The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature - Callendar - 2007 - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library    
(EDIT: to replace link)

----------


## Bedford

> And here is a paper by G S Callendar from 1937 who got it right way back then: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store...5y4gz&be2846a9

  Your link's a fizzer....   

> *Forbidden* 
>  You don't have permission to access /store/10.1002/qj.49706427503/asset/49706427503_ftp.pdf on this server.

----------


## woodbe

> Your link's a fizzer....

  Try this one then:  The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature - Callendar - 2007 - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library 
It's a 1937 publication, perhaps republished by Wiley in 2007. John2b's graphics appear on P11. 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

Oops. 
About that highly publicised Arctic "recovery"...  :Rolleyes:    
We're about a month away from the yearly maximum extent. Plenty of time for the recovery to kick in.  :2thumbsup:  
Are our skeptics offering odds that 2013-2014 minimum will be equal or greater than 2012-2013 yet? 
lol 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

*The man who 'invented' Global Warming*   *By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 30th, 2010* *506 Comments Comment on this article*  Mr Tickle: altogether funnier, nicer and more useful than Sir Crispin Tickell  I'm in Ireland this week and am not yet sure how close I'll be to the internet. So to tide you over just in case here is a fascinating essay from Ishmael2009 (not his real name) on Sir Crispin Tickell is one of the chief architects of Man Made Global Warming's towering cathedral of half truths, exaggeration, hysteria and Neo-Malthusian lunacy. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, the mighty Ishmael2009.. Our Man at the Climate Summit: Essay on Sir Crispin Tickell   Sir Crispin Charles Cervantes Tickell is one of the most influential people behind the idea of man-made global warming. Yet you could easily be forgiven for having never heard of him. Tickell, you see, is a diplomat and a scion of the British establishment, and as such works largely behind the scenes, like a real-life Sir Humphrey. His CV bulges with numerous honorary doctorates, chairmanships and directorships around the world, including the European arm of Pachauris TERI organization (1). After starting as a bright young thing with the civil service, he spent two years at Harvard, where he addressed himself to the up and coming subject of climate change, the result of which was his 1977 book _Climactic Change and World Affairs_, a work that detailed the threat posed to Western civilization by possible changes in the world climate. It made his name, and on his return Tickell was made Chef de Cabinet to the President of the European Commission and afterwards advisor to the Thatcher government, where he was instrumental in persuading leading politicians to put global warming on the political agenda (11). So is AGW the most serious threat facing the world today, so far as Tickell is concerned? Well, almost. There is one other threat that he sees as even more urgent than AGW  the human race itself. Specifically, those feckless, irresponsible classes and nations that continue to breed at more than the replacement level of 2.1 children (Tickell, it should be noted, has three children. Considerations of overpopulation do not apply to his class, of course (1)). For him, overpopulation is the driving force behind AGW: we are a cancer on the planet. In language which we would normally expect to come from extremists, Tickell lays out his vision of the rest of the world. We are, he believes, "a malignant maladaption in the corpus of living organisms, and behave and reproduce like a virus out of control" (2). We are "infected tissue in the organism of life" (3). "More than ever," he writes, "humans can be regarded like certain species of ant" (5).The only relief from this that Tickell sees on the horizon is that "it is hard to believe that there will be anything like current or future human numbers in their present urban concentrations or elsewhere. Whether weeded out by warfare, disease, deteriorating conditions of life, or other disasters, numbers are likely to fall drastically. We must, I believe, expect some breakdowns in human society before the end of this century with unforeseeable outcomes" (4). Thatll teach us to pollute his nice clean world! Of course, Tickell is well aware that in every single industrialised country, total fertility rates (TFR) have fallen below replacement levels  in other words in modernised nations population is declining. The real threat, then, is from the feckless hordes in the less developed nations. Overpopulation and climate change will, he warns, lead to refugees from these countries becoming a "prime threat" to Western society in coming years (3). For Tickell, these refugees are clearly at the root of his concerns. They represent a threat to Western culture as they "bring with them alien customs, religious practices, eating habits, agricultural methods, and  not least  diseases" (3). Yikes! Those horrible, horrible people! He warns that environmental refugees "like normal refugees . . . mostly rely on charity" and worst of all "tend to spread their poverty around them" (3). Tickell claims that "full assimilation" into national culture "is rare" and cautions that in the event of rapid change these refugees would be "only one of myriad animal species trying to cope with disruption of their [unassimilated] way of life" (3). They are, he tells us, a "dangerous element" in Western society and their presence will have "secondary effects" such as "disorder, terrorism, economic breakdown, disease, or bankruptcy" (3). Remember, these warnings come from the man largely responsible for putting AGW on the world political map. Of course, the real nightmare scenario for Malthusians has always been not overpopulation per se, but differential fertility, so that the fecund foreign hordes pour into an under-populated and degenerate West. This is also a worry for neo-Malthusians such as Tickell as well, it seems. Pointing to the fact (as he sees it) that illegal Mexican immigration into the USA has led to many parts of America taking on "Hispanic characteristics", he foresees a tidal wave of foreigners swarming into the under-populated areas of the world:Desperation could push Africans into Europe, Chinese into the relatively empty parts of Russia, the Indonesians into northern Australia. Sheer numbers could swamp most efforts at control (3). Double yikes! Start breeding chaps, theres billions of em! So, clearly, as industrialisation leads to a decline in population, what Tickell demands is the modernisation of the poorer countries, right? Well, no. There arent enough resources to go around, you see. Tickell demands that the world pursue"sustainable development". What does that phrase mean? He doesnt spell it out exactly, but he does know one thing  what was right for the West is not right for the rest:We should also be clear what it [sustainable development] does not mean: following the methods of industrialisation espoused in the West [ . . . ] Instead it should mean something specific to each country or regions' resources and culture (6). Like fellow neo-Malthusian Jonathon Porritt who believes that allowing poor nations to have an electricity grid would be "the end of the world," Tickell believes that instead of allowing poor nations to industrialise, thus lowering their fertility rates as every developed nation has done, they must lower their populations _without_ first industrialising (7). At a lecture to The Royal Geographical Society in March 1990, while among friends and colleagues, Tickell spelt out exactly whom he was referring to. Industrialisation in the developed Western world was fine, as it "grew out of previous history" and was sustained by a "resilient" environment with the result that although the environment was greatly altered little irremediable damage was done" (12). Non-Western countries, sadly, do not have the same "history" and have not yet learnt to stop breeding, and so must not be allowed to follow the same path of modernisation. Well, of course. Makes perfect sense, if youre a neo-Malthusian. This is reflected in UK government policy towards global warming, according to Left-wing environmental historian David Pepper, who observes:. . . the British Government (advised by neoMalthusian Crispin Tickell) predictably used Neo-Malthusian arguments at the Rio environmental summit in 1992 to try to shift the blame for global environmental degradation from the West to third world countries (9). Tickell, unsurprisingly, puts it differently. Overbreeding by poorer nations is he claims "the biggest single environmental issue" and was ignored at Rio, thanks to a "tacit conspiracy", though he forebears to mention any names behind this conspiracy (13). Like all neo-Malthusians, Sir Crispin Tickell knows full well that fertility rates in industrialised countries always decline to a perfectly manageable level as people decide to more with their lives than simply raise children. If overpopulation really is a problem, then the solution is simple:  modernisation and industrialisation  which is exactly the route these countries are pursuing for themselves. To compare mankind in general with "infected tissue" and demand that poor countries simply stop breeding before they modernise is surely not acceptable. But then, our man behind AGW doesnt see it that way. 

----------


## John2b

> *The man who 'invented' Global Warming*  Sir Crispin Charles Cervantes Tickell is one of the most influential people behind the idea of man-made global warming. Yet you could easily be forgiven for having never heard of him. Tickell, you see, is a diplomat and a scion of the British establishment, and as such works largely behind the scenes, like a real-life Sir Humphrey.

     
Regardless of whatever Sir Crispin Tickell might have said or done, one thing he certainly is *not* responsible for is "inventing" global warming. He is not the first or the last to write about, just one of thousands who have penned their concerns. Tens of thousands of researchers from rich countries and poor, from first world countries and third, from eastern and western, from capitalist and communist, from private organisations an public ones, form government institutions and industry bodies - people who are skeptics by profession - have contributed to the body of knowledge about AGW, and most of them would not have heard of Sir Crispin Tickell either. The cornerstone of AGW is measurements, not the collected whimsey of some Mr Humphrey character. 
More conspiracy theories. Who can honestly read and then still believe the twaddle in the post above? Only someone with their eyes wide shut and their mind closed. :Unsure:

----------


## PhilT2

Delingpole has 'moved on' from his job with News Ltd. That article helps explain why.

----------


## intertd6

> It's been provided, you just haven't absorbed or understood it, more than likely both. 
> woodbe.

   Well it very difficult to absorb or understand something that hasn't been provided when asked numerous times, I like the new tactic, nice try but no prizes to second place.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Oh noes, not the Ocean Heat Content!  
> Inter doesn't want to know about that, he only wants to know about degrees C so he can convince himself the oceans are warming a miniscule amount. 
> Forget about the huge Mj going into the oceans, that's irrelevant, it's only energy!  
> woodbe.

  its only measured in Mj because that's the only units they can measure a change in.
Must have a enormous multiplying effect to heat the global average atmosphere 0.8'C from an almost immeasurable average ocean change.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> The oceans have warmed:"Over the past 50 years, the oceans have absorbed more than 80% of the total heat added to the air/sea/land/cyrosphere climate system (Levitus et al, 2005). As the dominant reservoir for heat, the oceans are critical for measuring the radiation imbalance of the planet and the surface layer of the oceans plays the role of thermostat and heat source/sink for the lower atmosphere."
> No need for me to do a calculation. More than 1000 analysis paper's have been written around the Argo dataset, including one by Levitus with this graph:    Global Change Analysis

  For the umpteenth time, yes a C' calculation or graph would be nice to put into perspective how long it would take for the process. We have all seen graphs like that so many times which mean jack to the question asked, but still they are parroted because that's all that can be trawled up.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Well it very difficult to absorb or understand something that hasn't been provided when asked numerous times, I like the new tactic, nice try but no prizes to second place.
> regards inter

  Look in the mirror   
There have been countless references to evidence and science showing the effect of CO2 on the energy budget of earth in this thread. Clearly there is a comprehension problem when someone keeps asking for the same information. Some would say trolling. 
On the other hand, there have been repeated requests for factual evidence that the average ice thickness in the Antarctic is the same as the Arctic yet such simple evidence as ice thickness that is just a bunch of numbers and needs very little understanding cannot be found despite what the poster claimed.  
We wouldn't even have to take off our socks.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Oops. 
> About that highly publicised Arctic "recovery"...    
> We're about a month away from the yearly maximum extent. Plenty of time for the recovery to kick in.  
> Are our skeptics offering odds that 2013-2014 minimum will be equal or greater than 2012-2013 yet? 
> lol 
> woodbe.

  Again you will  have to try & explain why a supposed CO2 global warming problem is materialising in only one hemisphere?
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Again you will  have to try & explain why a supposed CO2 global warming problem is materialising in only one hemisphere?
> regards inter

  Er no, you have to explain why YOU think global is only one hemisphere. The fact that the southern hemisphere isn't balancing losses in sea ice in the northern hemisphere has already been established. Do try to keep up!

----------


## woodbe

> its only measured in Mj because that's the only units they can measure a change in.
> Must have a enormous multiplying effect to heat the global average atmosphere 0.8'C from an almost immeasurable average ocean change.
> regards inter

  Told you john2b  :Smilie:  
We don't want to know that it takes a lot more energy to heat a litre of water than it does to heat a litre of air, or that the mass of water on the planet is way greater than the mass of the atmosphere. We just want to hide that energy under the bed and pretend it is meaningless. 
That's not even skepticism, it's something else. 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Look in the mirror   
> There have been countless references to evidence and science showing the effect of CO2 on the energy budget of earth in this thread. Clearly there is a comprehension problem when someone keeps asking for the same information. Some would say trolling. 
> On the other hand, there have been repeated requests for factual evidence that the average ice thickness in the Antarctic is the same as the Arctic yet such simple evidence as ice thickness that is just a bunch of numbers and needs very little understanding cannot be found despite what the poster claimed.  
> We wouldn't even have to take off our socks.  
> woodbe.

  your making stuff up again I see on all fronts, especially on the last item, I'd like see you to try & reproduce where I made that a claim about Antarctic sea ice being the same thickness as the arctic. As for the former all you do is parrot theories that are shot to pieces so easily & not just by me on my own with a meagre intelligence. Oh yes, what is the reason for the average global temperature being stable for the last 16 or so years & not increasing as inline with the alarmists projections? ( past & present )
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Er no, you have to explain why YOU think global is only one hemisphere. The fact that the southern hemisphere isn't balancing losses in sea ice in the northern hemisphere has already been established. Do try to keep up!

  just as usual you can't answer a straight question, instead is a question in relation to a question......you must watch parliament question time to get skills like that. 
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Told you john2b  
> We don't want to know that it takes a lot more energy to heat a litre of water than it does to heat a litre of air, or that the mass of water on the planet is way greater than the mass of the atmosphere. We just want to hide that energy under the bed and pretend it is meaningless. 
> That's not even skepticism, it's something else. 
> woodbe.

  did you fail high school physics & common sense  ? A one degree change in water temperature in a container will change the air temperature above it............. One degree! WOW, who would imagine that anything different to that!
Regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> did you fail high school physics & common sense  ? A one degree change in water temperature in a container will change the air temperature above it............. One degree! WOW, who would imagine that anything different to that!
> Regards inter

  The energy being stored in the oceans has far more effects than that of a container in the physics lab heated by a bunsen burner. 
eg:  
There has been a massive amount of energy uptake in the oceans and the whole climate system due to the alteration of the planet's energy budget.  
We know this, it's been measured every possible way and the results all show the same thing.   

> Oh yes, what is the reason for the average global temperature being stable for the last 16 or so years

  That is so 2013  :Smilie:      
Trend remains on track despite your obviously cherry picked date.   

> I'd like see you to try & reproduce where I made that a claim about  Antarctic sea ice being the same thickness as the arctic.

  Got me there, your claim is that the Antarctic sea ice gains balance the Arctic losses and that the Antarctic sea ice average thickness is not 1m compared to the Arctic's ~3m. I apologise for misrepresenting your claim as being about average sea ice thickness balance.  :Redface:  
(see how easy it is to apologise when you make a mistake?, you should try it.) 
In any case, you haven't shown any evidence of either claim, so it's inter vs the body of scientific data he claims he helped to collect. 
There should be a new WGMS Worldwide Glacier mass balance report out by now. Would you like me to see if I can find it, perhaps the glaciers are in "recovery" too? 
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> did you fail high school physics & common sense  ? A one degree change in water temperature in a container will change the air temperature above it............. One degree! WOW, who would imagine that anything different to that!
> Regards inter

  inter, you are right, it is high school physics. The amount of heat to raise 1 cubic meter 1 degree is specific heat x weight. For *water* at a temperature of 25 degrees this is 4.18 J·g−1·K−1x 1,000,000 g = 4,180,000 Joules. For *air* at surface pressure of 1 Bar and temperature of 25 degrees this is 1.012 J·g−1·K−1 x 1,120 g = 1,133 Joules.  _Therefore 1 cubic meter of water heated by 1 degree contains enough heat to raise 3,689 cubic meters of air by 1 degree (4,180,000/1,133)._

----------


## John2b

*RET reviewer Dick Warburton: Im not a climate sceptic*
Mr Warburton told The Australian last night he was not a climate change sceptic.  
I am not a denier of climate change, he said. I am a sceptic that man-made carbon dioxide is creating global warming. 
That's equivalent to saying: "I am not a denier that computers work. I am a sceptic that a few parts per billion of rare earth elements in silicon is what makes them work". Utterly ridiculous!  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

----------


## woodbe

LOL 
Looks like the RET gets a kangaroo court.  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *The man who 'invented' Global Warming*   *By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 30th, 2010* *506 Comments Comment on this article*  Mr Tickle: altogether funnier, nicer and more useful than Sir Crispin Tickell  I'm in Ireland this week and am not yet sure how close I'll be to the internet. So to tide you over just in case here is a fascinating essay from Ishmael2009 (not his real name) on Sir Crispin Tickell is one of the chief architects of Man Made Global Warming's towering cathedral of half truths, exaggeration, hysteria and Neo-Malthusian lunacy. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, the mighty Ishmael2009.. Our Man at the Climate Summit: Essay on Sir Crispin Tickell   Sir Crispin Charles Cervantes Tickell is one of the most influential people behind the idea of man-made global warming. Yet you could easily be forgiven for having never heard of him. Tickell, you see, is a diplomat and a scion of the British establishment, and as such works largely behind the scenes, like a real-life Sir Humphrey. His CV bulges with numerous honorary doctorates, chairmanships and directorships around the world, including the European arm of Pachauris TERI organization (1). After starting as a bright young thing with the civil service, he spent two years at Harvard, where he addressed himself to the up and coming subject of climate change, the result of which was his 1977 book _Climactic Change and World Affairs_, a work that detailed the threat posed to Western civilization by possible changes in the world climate. It made his name, and on his return Tickell was made Chef de Cabinet to the President of the European Commission and afterwards advisor to the Thatcher government, where he was instrumental in persuading leading politicians to put global warming on the political agenda (11). So is AGW the most serious threat facing the world today, so far as Tickell is concerned? Well, almost. There is one other threat that he sees as even more urgent than AGW  the human race itself. Specifically, those feckless, irresponsible classes and nations that continue to breed at more than the replacement level of 2.1 children (Tickell, it should be noted, has three children. Considerations of overpopulation do not apply to his class, of course (1)). For him, overpopulation is the driving force behind AGW: we are a cancer on the planet. In language which we would normally expect to come from extremists, Tickell lays out his vision of the rest of the world. We are, he believes, "a malignant maladaption in the corpus of living organisms, and behave and reproduce like a virus out of control" (2). We are "infected tissue in the organism of life" (3). "More than ever," he writes, "humans can be regarded like certain species of ant" (5).The only relief from this that Tickell sees on the horizon is that "it is hard to believe that there will be anything like current or future human numbers in their present urban concentrations or elsewhere. Whether weeded out by warfare, disease, deteriorating conditions of life, or other disasters, numbers are likely to fall drastically. We must, I believe, expect some breakdowns in human society before the end of this century with unforeseeable outcomes" (4). Thatll teach us to pollute his nice clean world! Of course, Tickell is well aware that in every single industrialised country, total fertility rates (TFR) have fallen below replacement levels  in other words in modernised nations population is declining. The real threat, then, is from the feckless hordes in the less developed nations. Overpopulation and climate change will, he warns, lead to refugees from these countries becoming a "prime threat" to Western society in coming years (3). For Tickell, these refugees are clearly at the root of his concerns. They represent a threat to Western culture as they "bring with them alien customs, religious practices, eating habits, agricultural methods, and  not least  diseases" (3). Yikes! Those horrible, horrible people! He warns that environmental refugees "like normal refugees . . . mostly rely on charity" and worst of all "tend to spread their poverty around them" (3). Tickell claims that "full assimilation" into national culture "is rare" and cautions that in the event of rapid change these refugees would be "only one of myriad animal species trying to cope with disruption of their [unassimilated] way of life" (3). They are, he tells us, a "dangerous element" in Western society and their presence will have "secondary effects" such as "disorder, terrorism, economic breakdown, disease, or bankruptcy" (3). Remember, these warnings come from the man largely responsible for putting AGW on the world political map. Of course, the real nightmare scenario for Malthusians has always been not overpopulation per se, but differential fertility, so that the fecund foreign hordes pour into an under-populated and degenerate West. This is also a worry for neo-Malthusians such as Tickell as well, it seems. Pointing to the fact (as he sees it) that illegal Mexican immigration into the USA has led to many parts of America taking on "Hispanic characteristics", he foresees a tidal wave of foreigners swarming into the under-populated areas of the world:Desperation could push Africans into Europe, Chinese into the relatively empty parts of Russia, the Indonesians into northern Australia. Sheer numbers could swamp most efforts at control (3). Double yikes! Start breeding chaps, theres billions of em! So, clearly, as industrialisation leads to a decline in population, what Tickell demands is the modernisation of the poorer countries, right? Well, no. There arent enough resources to go around, you see. Tickell demands that the world pursue"sustainable development". What does that phrase mean? He doesnt spell it out exactly, but he does know one thing  what was right for the West is not right for the rest:We should also be clear what it [sustainable development] does not mean: following the methods of industrialisation espoused in the West [ . . . ] Instead it should mean something specific to each country or regions' resources and culture (6). Like fellow neo-Malthusian Jonathon Porritt who believes that allowing poor nations to have an electricity grid would be "the end of the world," Tickell believes that instead of allowing poor nations to industrialise, thus lowering their fertility rates as every developed nation has done, they must lower their populations _without_ first industrialising (7). At a lecture to The Royal Geographical Society in March 1990, while among friends and colleagues, Tickell spelt out exactly whom he was referring to. Industrialisation in the developed Western world was fine, as it "grew out of previous history" and was sustained by a "resilient" environment with the result that although the environment was greatly altered little irremediable damage was done" (12). Non-Western countries, sadly, do not have the same "history" and have not yet learnt to stop breeding, and so must not be allowed to follow the same path of modernisation. Well, of course. Makes perfect sense, if youre a neo-Malthusian. This is reflected in UK government policy towards global warming, according to Left-wing environmental historian David Pepper, who observes:. . . the British Government (advised by neoMalthusian Crispin Tickell) predictably used Neo-Malthusian arguments at the Rio environmental summit in 1992 to try to shift the blame for global environmental degradation from the West to third world countries (9). Tickell, unsurprisingly, puts it differently. Overbreeding by poorer nations is he claims "the biggest single environmental issue" and was ignored at Rio, thanks to a "tacit conspiracy", though he forebears to mention any names behind this conspiracy (13). Like all neo-Malthusians, Sir Crispin Tickell knows full well that fertility rates in industrialised countries always decline to a perfectly manageable level as people decide to more with their lives than simply raise children. If overpopulation really is a problem, then the solution is simple:  modernisation and industrialisation  which is exactly the route these countries are pursuing for themselves. To compare mankind in general with "infected tissue" and demand that poor countries simply stop breeding before they modernise is surely not acceptable. But then, our man behind AGW doesnt see it that way. 

  I would like to read this Marc but just cant when it is not broken up into paragraphs!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *RET reviewer Dick Warburton: Im not a climate sceptic*  
> Mr Warburton told The Australian last night he was not a climate change sceptic.  
> I am not a denier of climate change, he said. I am a sceptic that man-made carbon dioxide is creating global warming. 
> That's equivalent to saying: "I am not a denier that computers work. I am a sceptic that a few parts per billion of rare earth elements in silicon is what makes them work". Utterly ridiculous!  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  Not ridiculous at all.  This is exactly how most people who are sceptical of Co2 being the cause of warming are including me.   
So you think that a person who agrees that climate has changed MUST agree that co2 is the reason for the change over all the possible natural causes that have driven past climatic changes? 
Now that is what I call utterly ridiculous.

----------


## woodbe

> I would like to read this Marc but just cant when it is not broken up into paragraphs!

  It's a copy and paste from the Telegraph Rod. Just go to the original: The man who 'invented' Global Warming  Telegraph Blogs 
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> Not ridiculous at all.  This is exactly how most people who are sceptical of Co2 being the cause of warming are including me.   
> So you think that a person who agrees that climate has changed MUST agree that co2 is the reason for the change over all the possible natural causes that have driven past climatic changes? 
> Now that is what I call utterly ridiculous.

  What is ridiculous is transposing the argument to deny the impact of CO2. 
It is one thing to say that there are natural causes of climate change, few deny that. 
It is another thing altogether to systematically deny the effects of human caused increases in CO2 that are additive to those natural causes. 
And then you suggest that you are being required to agree that "co2 is the reason for the change over all the possible natural causes that have driven past climatic changes".  
What you have constructed is called a straw man argument. 
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> So you think that a person who agrees that climate has changed MUST agree that co2 is the reason for the change over all the possible natural causes that have driven past climatic changes?

  When the physics that works that can explain past climatic changes and can explain current global warming is deem to be faulty, that is ridiculous.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> What is ridiculous is transposing the argument to deny the impact of CO2. 
> It is one thing to say that there are natural causes of climate change, few deny that. 
> It is another thing altogether to systematically deny the effects of human caused increases in CO2 that are additive to those natural causes. 
> And then you suggest that you are being required to agree that "co2 is the reason for the change over all the possible natural causes that have driven past climatic changes".  
> What you have constructed is called a straw man argument. 
> woodbe.

  Well I am not about to repeat myself again answering this you know my thoughts.

----------


## woodbe

> Well I am not about to repeat myself again answering this you know my thoughts.

  Yes I do.  :Biggrin:  
You don't need to stoop to bodgy debating tactics though. 
Accepting the physics of climate science all the way to climate sensitivity which you put an artificial 1C lid on does not buy you a get out of jail card.  :Smilie:   
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> inter, you are right, it is high school physics. The amount of heat to raise 1 cubic meter 1 degree is specific heat x weight. For *water* at a temperature of 25 degrees this is 4.18 J·g−1·K−1x 1,000,000 g = 4,180,000 Joules. For *air* at surface pressure of 1 Bar and temperature of 25 degrees this is 1.012 J·g−1·K−1 x 1,120 g = 1,133 Joules.  _Therefore 1 cubic meter of water heated by 1 degree contains enough heat to raise 3,689 cubic meters of air by 1 degree (4,180,000/1,133)._

  fantastic! All that to basically confirm what I stated already, now all you have to do apply this to the ocean volume, along with the time line & your almost answering a question. In all reality I'm on half qualified at being a halfwit, yet I can realise that the average global air temperature which has risen 0.8'C, yet the ocean which is suppose to be driving the rise hasn't risen even a fraction of that. So in conclusion it must be realised that the oceans are not driving up the air temperature, therefor the claims that CO2 is influencing all this is............ a poopteenth above zero, much like the concentration of it in our atmosphere.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> *RET reviewer Dick Warburton: Im not a climate sceptic*  
> Mr Warburton told The Australian last night he was not a climate change sceptic.  
> I am not a denier of climate change, he said. I am a sceptic that man-made carbon dioxide is creating global warming. 
> That's equivalent to saying: "I am not a denier that computers work. I am a sceptic that a few parts per billion of rare earth elements in silicon is what makes them work". Utterly ridiculous!  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

   Get over it, it's called democracy,  for too long the fruitless cause was backed by some lilly livered political party that was too scared to go against a minority party, the man has stated his current beliefs, hold him to them all you like, unlike lying & saying  " there will be no carbon tax under a govt' I lead " 
regards inter

----------


## r3nov8or

500 pages!!! 
You guys should be discussing things where you can actually make a difference. 
Whoops...

----------


## intertd6

> The energy being stored in the oceans has far more effects than that of a container in the physics lab heated by a bunsen burner. 
> eg:  
> There has been a massive amount of energy uptake in the oceans and the whole climate system due to the alteration of the planet's energy budget.  
> We know this, it's been measured every possible way and the results all show the same thing.   
> That is so 2013      
> Trend remains on track despite your obviously cherry picked date.   
> Got me there, your claim is that the Antarctic sea ice gains balance the Arctic losses and that the Antarctic sea ice average thickness is not 1m compared to the Arctic's ~3m. I apologise for misrepresenting your claim as being about average sea ice thickness balance.  
> (see how easy it is to apologise when you make a mistake?, you should try it.) 
> In any case, you haven't shown any evidence of either claim, so it's inter vs the body of scientific data he claims he helped to collect. 
> ...

  besides the graphs showing a nthn 3.2% decline versus a sthrn 3.7% increase 
what I showed was your data was taken from an area that represented a large polynya, yet it averaged 1m. When Antarctic sea ice forms at a rate of around 100mm a week from march onwards you can understand my scepticism.
just for you, taken from the same page you parroted claiming the 1m thickness was the benchmark to base your claims on 
Thickness  
"Because sea ice does not stay in the Antarctic as long as it does in the Arctic, it does not have the opportunity to grow as thick as sea ice in the Arctic. While thickness varies significantly within both regions, Antarctic ice is typically 1 to 2 meters (3 to 6 feet) thick, while most of the Arctic is covered by sea ice 2 to 3 meters (6 to 9 feet) thick. Some Arctic regions are covered with ice that is 4 to 5 meters (12 to 15 feet) thick."
They forgot to add that the multiyear fast Antarctic sea ice that remains during the summer would be equal in thickness to the arctics thickest sea ice.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> fantastic! All that to basically confirm what I stated already, now all you have to do apply this to the ocean volume, along with the time line & your almost answering a question. In all reality I'm on half qualified at being a halfwit, yet I can realise that the average global air temperature which has risen 0.8'C, yet the ocean which is suppose to be driving the rise hasn't risen even a fraction of that. So in conclusion it must be realised that the oceans are not driving up the air temperature, therefor the claims that CO2 is influencing all this is............ a poopteenth above zero, much like the concentration of it in our atmosphere.
> regards inter

  Why assume there is a 1:1 relationship between ocean temperature and air temperature? And if there isn't a 1:1 relationship, how or why does this disprove the relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing? In any case, you are wrong, the ocean surface temperature is rising:

----------


## John2b

> Get over it, it's called democracy,  for too long the fruitless cause was backed by some lilly livered political party that was too scared to go against a minority party, the man has stated his current beliefs, hold him to them all you like, unlike lying & saying  " there will be no carbon tax under a govt' I lead " 
> regards inter

  If you are diagnosed with cancer, would you be happy for your treatment to be determined by a democratic vote of non-experts, or would you rather have an Oncologist prepare a treatment plan?

----------


## woodbe

> besides the graphs showing a nthn 3.2% decline versus a sthrn 3.7% increase

  When comparing the Arctic winter to the Antarctic Summer. The trends are obvious yet if you wanted to choose a season to downplay the differences, now would be it:   
Lets look at September shall we? Or perhaps look at the overall trends which have already been posted. Yes, this is 2012, get over it, it's not easy to find a graph with both on it showing deviations from the mean.  :Smilie:    

> what I showed was your data was taken from an area that represented a large polynya, yet it averaged 1m. When Antarctic sea ice forms at a rate of around 100mm a week from march onwards you can understand my scepticism.
> just for you, taken from the same page you parroted claiming the 1m thickness was the benchmark to base your claims on 
> Thickness  
> "Because sea ice does not stay in the Antarctic as long as it does in the Arctic, it does not have the opportunity to grow as thick as sea ice in the Arctic. While thickness varies significantly within both regions, Antarctic ice is typically 1 to 2 meters (3 to 6 feet) thick, while most of the Arctic is covered by sea ice 2 to 3 meters (6 to 9 feet) thick. Some Arctic regions are covered with ice that is 4 to 5 meters (12 to 15 feet) thick."
> They forgot to add that the multiyear fast Antarctic sea ice that remains during the summer would be equal in thickness to the arctics thickest sea ice.
> regards inter

  Fast Antartic ice is thicker than Arctic sea ice lol. How about comparing apples with apples. The Arctic has fast ice too... 
I also showed data from other areas which you studiously ignored. Whatever.  :Rolleyes:  
So lets get your claim straight. You seem to be claiming that fast ice is not included in the average sea ice thickness calculations. Is that what you are claiming? If not, what exactly is your claim, we might as well sound this rabbit hole and put it to bed. 
Which station did you go and measure the ice at, was it fast ice you were measuring? 
woodbe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> If you are diagnosed with cancer, would you be happy for your treatment to be determined by a democratic vote of non-experts, or would you rather have an Oncologist prepare a treatment plan?

  LMAO you are wheeling out an old pathetic, done to death, previously discredited analogy.   
This just keeps getting better.  Next we will get the smoking thing out.

----------


## woodbe

That's ok Rod. Delingpole couldn't answer it either.  :Cool:  
We don't need to bring up the smoking thing. Everyone knows the same tactics are in play in the Climate Change 'debate'.  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> When comparing the Arctic winter to the Antarctic Summer. The trends are obvious yet if you wanted to choose a season to downplay the differences, now would be it:   
> Lets look at September shall we? Or perhaps look at the overall trends which have already been posted. Yes, this is 2012, get over it, it's not easy to find a graph with both on it showing deviations from the mean.   I posted the graphs with the anomaly differences quoted a couple of posts ago from your very own site, what is the problem? Or don't you understand the figures.   
> Fast Antartic ice is thicker than Arctic sea ice lol. How about comparing apples with apples. The Arctic has fast ice too...  your making stuff up again I see. 
> I also showed data from other areas which you studiously ignored. Whatever.   I can only deal with one false lead at a time, as it appeared to another load of rubbish it was passed on 
> So lets get your claim straight. You seem to be claiming that fast ice is not included in the average sea ice thickness calculations. Is that what you are claiming? If not, what exactly is your claim, we might as well sound this rabbit hole and put it to bed.  now your dreaming stuff up 
> Which station did you go and measure the ice at, was it fast ice you were measuring?  I have lived at the AU bases over 3 years & forgotten half the stuff I measured, yes it was fast ice
> woodbe.

  regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Why assume there is a 1:1 relationship between ocean temperature and air temperature? And if there isn't a 1:1 relationship, how or why does this disprove the relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing? In any case, you are wrong, the ocean surface temperature is rising:

  well 1:1 is the best one could expect but you guys are thinking 100:1 is possible, in you world the container of waters temperature has risen a theoretical 0.008'C to make the air above it rise to 0.8'C! To say it's even remotely probable is a overstatement & a miracle of physics.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Lets look at September shall we? Or perhaps look at the overall trends  which have already been posted. Yes, this is 2012, get over it, it's not  easy to find a graph with both on it showing deviations from the mean.   I  posted the graphs with the anomaly differences quoted a couple of posts  ago from your very own site, what is the problem? Or don't you  understand the figures.

  You posted figures for this time of year when the Arctic sea ice is growing and the Antarctic sea ice is melting. Yes. The figure above shows that the Arctic anomaly trend is negative but relatively minor during winter but a large negative during summer. It has been doing this for decades. The Antarctic trend does not show an equivalent trend in either summer or winter. That means that you are picking the most favorable season to show a 'balance' that does not exist in the annual trends. A september comparison is far more dramatic but not in your favour. It would also be an equivalent cherry pick to yours.  
This shows the annual trends, there is no balance:     

> Fast Antartic ice is thicker than Arctic sea ice lol. How about comparing apples with apples. The Arctic has fast ice too...  your making stuff up again I see.

  Lol. What is your claim? That the Arctic has no fast ice?   

> I also showed data from other areas which you studiously ignored. Whatever.   I can only deal with one false lead at a time, as it appeared to another load of rubbish it was passed on

  Here it is again:   

> *Seasonal Development* 
>                     By far the greatest  seasonal changes in the ice thickness  distribution of the East  Antarctic pack are in the open water and thin  ice categories. The  amount of open water decreases from almost 60% in  December to little  more than 10% in August, and the thinnest ice  thickness category (0 -  0.2 m) shows a 30% seasonal change between  December and March. In  contrast, the amount of ice greater than 1.0 m  shows very little  seasonal variability. This is because *undeformed ice  rarely exceeds 1 m thick*, and the *deformed  ice greater than 1 m thick  only comprises a small fraction of the  pack, with the nature of the ice  drift largely preventing the  accumulation of the thicker ice to form  multi-year ice.* The  fractional coverage of the different ice types  discussed below are  based upon data collected from 18 voyages into the  East Antarctic pack  between 1986 and 1995.  *The Onset of Winter* 
>   In  March, at the beginning of the growth season, there is  approximately  25% open water and an additional 60% of ice less than 0.4  m. This is  indicative of rapid new ice growth over large areas of the  Southern  Ocean as the air temperatures begin to cool, with very little   differential drift between the new floes to form thicker ice by rafting.
>   As winter progresses the amount of open water within the pack   decreases and new ice thickens quite rapidly due to the cold air   temperatures. This leads to a decrease in the thinner ice categories and   an associated increase in thicker ice. In August, the pack is quite   consolidated, and the open water fraction averages 12%. There is only a   small percentage of ice less than 0.4 m, and *the ice between 0.4-0.8 m  thick is of greatest concentration*.

  Deal with it.  :Smilie:    

> So lets get your claim straight. You seem to be claiming that fast ice  is not included in the average sea ice thickness calculations. Is that  what you are claiming? If not, what exactly is your claim, we might as  well sound this rabbit hole and put it to bed.  now your dreaming stuff up

  That was a question, not a dream. What is your claim about the fast ice in regard to the average sea ice thickness in the Antarctic?   

> Which station did you go and measure the ice at, was it fast ice you were measuring?  I have lived at the AU bases over 3 years & forgotten half the stuff I measured, yes it was fast ice

  Ok, so you didn't measure any sea ice other than fast ice, but you think the scientific claim based on the data that suggests average Antarctic sea ice is 1m is incorrect. I can see how you might come to that conclusion, but I think you would be wrong. Fast ice accounts for just 14-20% of the _total volume_ of sea ice in the Antarctic at it's annual maximum. (P. Heil et al., 2011);(Fedotov et al.,1998). The vast bulk of the ice area is less than 1m.   
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

How 'Skeptics' get their arguments:   

> 

  
FOX Alert: O'Reilly Factor Producer Asks DeSmogBlog to Provide Best Arguments Against Global Warming | DeSmogBlog 
Got to hand it to O'reilly and Fox, these guys are right on the case.  :Biggrin:  
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> well 1:1 is the best one could expect but you guys are thinking 100:1 is possible, in you world the container of waters temperature has risen a theoretical 0.008'C to make the air above it rise to 0.8'C! To say it's even remotely probable is a overstatement & a miracle of physics.
> regards inter

  Did you even look at the graph of sea surface temperature? (You included it in your reply BTW.) And then you say "no discernible rise" with your miracle of observation and logic LOL!

----------


## woodbe

What are we looking at here?   
woodbe

----------


## Bedford

Bugger Me!!  10,000  Posts!!    :Fireworks:  :Fireworks:  :Fireworks:  :Fireworks:

----------


## John2b

> Bugger Me!!  10,000  Posts!!

  
Well at least it's all resolved now  :Banghead:

----------


## intertd6

> How 'Skeptics' get their arguments:   
> FOX Alert: O'Reilly Factor Producer Asks DeSmogBlog to Provide Best Arguments Against Global Warming | DeSmogBlog 
> Got to hand it to O'reilly and Fox, these guys are right on the case.  
> woodbe.

  i thought the the heading should have been " how a skeptic ........."
 Regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Bugger Me!!  10,000  Posts!!

  What the hell did I start?

----------


## John2b

In an address to the Lowy Institute, Australia's Chief of Army Lieutenant General David Morrison talked about the changing culture within the Australian Army and the need for future defence policy to be oriented to the Asia-Pacific region. Lieutenant General Morrison said he does not believe any part of the Asian region will pose a military threat to Australia, rather he said the impacts of *climate change* need to be factored into future military plans.  "Of course we have military interests in what I think has been called the great challenge of our time." 
"It's not lost on anybody ... that the climatic conditions within the globe are changing and there are serious implications as a result of that.'' 
"I think the most likely role for the military ... will be providing immediate assistance for humanitarian and disaster relief." 
Recommendations contained in his speech were targeting the Abbott government's upcoming Defence White Paper.  Distinguished Speaker Series: Australia's Army for the next decades - Lieutenant General David Morrison AO, Chief of Army | Lowy Institute for International Policy 
AGW is also on the agenda at the next Australian Defence Congress this month in Canberra: ADM Congress 2014 | 25th-DAY ONE: Tuesday 25th February 2014 
Climate Change and Defence  2:30 Climate Change  a threat to defence? A threat to peace and national security The link between climatic events and human conflict Preparing for increased future humanitarian assistanceand disaster relief by the ADF Best practice in responding to extreme weather events Mitigating risk through preventative action plans Strategic implications of a rapidly destabilising climateDr Alex Zelinsky, Chief Defence Scientist,Defence Science and Technology Organisation http://www.admevents.com.au/defence-...s/p14k01webpdf 
The presenter Dr Alex Zelinsky provides some insights into what makes science tick, many of which will come as a surprise to the climate change "sceptics" here:The popular management quote People with the best people win reflects the importance of talent dimension to success. These days it is also generally recognised that teamwork amongst talented people is also required. Perhaps the management quote should be the People with the best teams win. Todays science is increasingly becoming multi-disciplinary requiring collaboration between large teams that are geographically distributed often over institutional and national boundaries. *It is increasingly difficult for single god scientists to make the big breakthroughs.* These days the breakthroughs are coming from teams of scientists.*People who can successfully work in multi-disciplinary teams, have broad scientific interests and a thirst for knowledge are required.* ICT has become the productivity and innovation enabler for almost areas of science and business. Within CSIRO ICT is being applied to develop innovation technology solutions to water, climate, energy, mining, agriculture challenges.ICT is now a key enabler for multi-disciplinary collaboration between distributed teams through video conferencing and online collaboration and tools. CSIRO seeks scientists who are not just narrow technical specialists, they are people who have superior communication skills and are comfortable working across boundaries -- disciplinary, institutional and geographical.*Science is a global business that is highly competitive.* The public expects CSIRO, our national science agency to have world-class scientific capabilities. Within CSIRO, we always seek to be the best. This requires us to continually seek constructive critiquing and feedback on how we can improve our science and innovation.In sport the saying is that Feedback is the Food of champions, it is no different in scientific endeavours. We seek to benchmark ourselves against the world leaders in our scientific disciplines. We encourage our people to provide constructive and direct feedback to colleagues on improving performance. Five Things CSIRO 
Now who said the topic of AGW was dead?

----------


## woodbe

> i thought the the heading should have been " how a skeptic ........."
>  Regards inter

  If the skeptic was someone with basically no audience, you'd be right.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> If the skeptic was someone with basically no audience, you'd be right.  
> woodbe.

  well if you put it that way, then a referred to skeptic was after some information for your imaginary audience who may or may not have been skeptics or soon to be skeptics.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> In an address to the Lowy Institute, Australia's Chief of Army Lieutenant General David Morrison talked about the changing culture within the Australian Army and the need for future defence policy to be oriented to the Asia-Pacific region. Lieutenant General Morrison said he does not believe any part of the Asian region will pose a military threat to Australia, rather he said the impacts of *climate change* need to be factored into future military plans. "Of course we have military interests in what I think has been called the great challenge of our time." 
> "It's not lost on anybody ... that the climatic conditions within the globe are changing and there are serious implications as a result of that.'' 
> "I think the most likely role for the military ... will be providing immediate assistance for humanitarian and disaster relief." 
> Recommendations contained in his speech were targeting the Abbott government's upcoming Defence White Paper.  Distinguished Speaker Series: Australia's Army for the next decades - Lieutenant General David Morrison AO, Chief of Army | Lowy Institute for International Policy 
> AGW is also on the agenda at the next Australian Defence Congress this month in Canberra:ADM Congress 2014 | 25th-DAY ONE: Tuesday 25th February 2014 
> Climate Change and Defence  2:30 Climate Change  a threat to defence? A threat to peace and national security The link between climatic events and human conflict Preparing for increased future humanitarian assistanceand disaster relief by the ADF Best practice in responding to extreme weather events Mitigating risk through preventative action plans Strategic implications of a rapidly destabilising climateDr Alex Zelinsky, Chief Defence Scientist,Defence Science and Technology Organisation http://www.admevents.com.au/defence-...s/p14k01webpdf 
> The presenter Dr Alex Zelinsky provides some insights into what makes science tick, many of which will come as a surprise to the climate change "sceptics" here:The popular management quote People with the best people win reflects the importance of talent dimension to success. These days it is also generally recognised that teamwork amongst talented people is also required. Perhaps the management quote should be the People with the best teams win. Todays science is increasingly becoming multi-disciplinary requiring collaboration between large teams that are geographically distributed often over institutional and national boundaries. *It is increasingly difficult for single god scientists to make the big breakthroughs.* These days the breakthroughs are coming from teams of scientists.*People who can successfully work in multi-disciplinary teams, have broad scientific interests and a thirst for knowledge are required.* ICT has become the productivity and innovation enabler for almost areas of science and business. Within CSIRO ICT is being applied to develop innovation technology solutions to water, climate, energy, mining, agriculture challenges.ICT is now a key enabler for multi-disciplinary collaboration between distributed teams through video conferencing and online collaboration and tools. CSIRO seeks scientists who are not just narrow technical specialists, they are people who have superior communication skills and are comfortable working across boundaries -- disciplinary, institutional and geographical.*Science is a global business that is highly competitive.* The public expects CSIRO, our national science agency to have world-class scientific capabilities. Within CSIRO, we always seek to be the best. This requires us to continually seek constructive critiquing and feedback on how we can improve our science and innovation.In sport the saying is that Feedback is the Food of champions, it is no different in scientific endeavours. We seek to benchmark ourselves against the world leaders in our scientific disciplines. We encourage our people to provide constructive and direct feedback to colleagues on improving performance. Five Things CSIRO 
> Now who said the topic of AGW was dead?

  maybe they can find the imaginary link between CO2 causing the majority of global warming.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> well if you put it that way, then a referred to skeptic was after some information for your imaginary audience who may or may not have been skeptics or soon to be skeptics.
> regards inter

  The producer was scratching for arguments for Bill O'Reilly of the Fox "O'Reilly Factor". It's not an imaginary audience, but based on the drivel he puts out, probably mostly "skeptics".  :Rolleyes:   
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> The producer was scratching for arguments for Bill O'Reilly of the Fox "O'Reilly Factor". It's not an imaginary audience, but based on the drivel he puts out, probably mostly "skeptics".   
> woodbe.

   Oh really!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Found inter's longed for temperature of the oceans (K) rather than ocean heat content (Mj)   

> *No "hiatus" (pause/stop) in global ocean warming up to year 2013*  
>     Although much of the public focus regarding global warming is on the  temperature increase near Earth's surface, the Arctic sea ice decrease,  global glacier retreat or other phenomena at the surface, which are more  visible to the human eye, from a point of view of physics, the heating  up of the oceans is the most important factor regarding the changes in  the energy balance of the Earth system. About 90% of the energy  accumulation due to the perturbation in the radiative balance at the top  of the atmosphere, caused by the increasing greenhouse gases in the  atmosphere, is taking place in the oceans[1]. The importance of the  oceans arises from their capability to store an enormous amount of heat  due to the high specific heat capacity of water combined with the large  mass of water in the oceans. To put things in perspective, the heat  increase related to warming up only the upper most 3.5 meters of the  global ocean body by x degrees is sufficient to warm up the whole mass  of the atmosphere by about the same amount of x degrees. 
> Monitoring the oceans gives crucial information about the ongoing  climate change in the Earth system. Following figure shows the global  average of the annually averaged temperature anomaly in the oceans  between the surface and three different depths, 0-100 meters, 0-700  meters, and 0-2000 meters over time, based on data provided by Ocean Climate Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  The figure includes the year 2013 as the most recent data point. The  colored shadings show the standard error of the data times two. The  black lines display local regression (Loess) fits with the 95%  confidence intervals of the fits as grey shadings. The graphic was  created using the package ggplot2[2] of the statistical computing and graphics environment R.     (Data source: NOAA/NESDIS/NODC Ocean Climate Laboratory,  Global ocean heat and salt content) 
> A few things can be see in the figure: 
> 1. The temperature increase, which is visible in the oceans for the  average over 100, 700, and 2000 meters depth since the mid 1970s is  largest in the upper most 100 meters and becomes smaller with adding  deeper layers to the averaging. The perturbation of the energy balance  comes from the top and takes decades to penetrate into deeper layers of  the oceans. 
> 2. The temperature increase has been nearly linear for the average over  the upper most 100 meters depth for the last decades, amounting to about  0.07 Kelvin per decade. To put things in perspective again, the same  amount of heat related to this average temperature increase in those 100  meters would increase the average temperature of the whole atmospheric  mass by about 2 Kelvin per decade. Luckily for humankind, most of this  accumulated heat will not warm up the atmosphere, but penetrate into the  deeper layers of the oceans. The exact amount of atmospheric warming in  the next decades and centuries will depend on how efficiently heat  accumulated in the upper layers of the oceans is being sequestered into  the deeper layers of the oceans. 
> 3. Because of this quasi linearity of the temperature increase in the  upper most 100 meters, one can conclude that the increase has been  accelerating between a depth of 100 and 700 meters. It is not possible  to conclude whether an acceleration is present between 700 and 2000  meters depth, since the acceleration seen for the average over 2000  meters depth could come from the acceleration in the layer between 100  and 700 meters. 
> 4. The globally averaged ocean temperature anomaly in the upper most 100  meters shows large interannual variability. The temperature swings can  amount to about 0.2 Kelvin within a few years, for example between the  years 1998 and 2004. 
> 5. No "hiatus" of the ocean warming is visible in the new century for  any of the temperature averages over the various depths. The confidence  interval for the upper most 100 meters allows for some lowering of the  temperature increase after the year 2005 with a low probability (but  equally for some acceleration of the temperature anomaly). 
> ...

  All from: Thought Fragments: No "hiatus" (pause/stop) in global ocean warming up to year 2013 
If you read Dr Jan Perlwitz's discussion, you will be surprised to find that many of the concepts woodbe has raised when trying to discuss ocean heat here are also covered by Dr Perlwitz although far more eloquently and in more depth than my humble writings (Jan is a working Climate Scientist) 
I find this quote from Dr Perlwitz most illuminating: "To put things in perspective, the heat  increase related to warming up  only the upper most 3.5 meters of the  global ocean body by x degrees is  sufficient to warm up the whole mass  of the atmosphere by about the  same amount of x degrees." 
You're welcome  :Smilie:  
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Found inter's longed for temperature of the oceans (K) rather than ocean heat content (Mj)   
> All from: Thought Fragments: No "hiatus" (pause/stop) in global ocean warming up to year 2013 
> If you read Dr Jan Perlwitz's discussion, you will be surprised to find that many of the concepts woodbe has raised when trying to discuss ocean heat here are also covered by Dr Perlwitz although far more eloquently and in more depth than my humble writings (Jan is a working Climate Scientist) 
> I find this quote from Dr Perlwitz most illuminating: "To put things in perspective, the heat  increase related to warming up  only the upper most 3.5 meters of the  global ocean body by x degrees is  sufficient to warm up the whole mass  of the atmosphere by about the  same amount of x degrees." 
> You're welcome  
> woodbe.

  thats all very academic, but really doesn't explain how how CO2's extra theoretical 1watt/m2 has even the minutest potential to heat this 0-100m in the timeframe that it has presumably occurred.
To put it into perspective........ SFA
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> thats all very academic, but really doesn't explain how how CO2's extra theoretical 1watt/m2 has even the minutest potential to heat this 0-100m in the timeframe that it has presumably occurred.
> To put it into perspective........ SFA
> regards inter

  That's very disappointing inter. lol  :Biggrin:  
This is the information you wanted, I've trawled the internet for weeks to find it for you. You didn't ask why, you just said show me the degrees C not the Mj! (this is degrees K anomaly btw) 
Now that the ocean temperature change information is here, you don't like what you see, so you question not that the trend is up but WHY it is up? lol. 
You crack me up  :Tongue:  
I think you were doing better on the Antarctic ice, but you seem to have dropped that in hot water.  :Wink:  
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> thats all very academic, but really doesn't explain how how CO2's extra theoretical 1watt/m2 has even the minutest potential to heat this 0-100m in the timeframe that it has presumably occurred.
> To put it into perspective........ SFA
> regards inter

  To put it into perspective, that (how CO2's extra 1watt/m2 has the potential to heat 0-100m in the timeframe that it has) is an almost trivial exercise for a physicist and one that has been replicated by many and often...   Basic Radiation Calculations - American Institute of Physics

----------


## intertd6

> To put it into perspective, that is an almost trivial exercise for a physicist and one that has been replicated by many and often...  Basic Radiation Calculations - American Institute of Physics

  if this is so why hasn't the average global temperature risen as predicted by the so called basic radiation calculations & been level for the last 16 or so years??? It all started with Arrhenius with his failed calculation & hasn't improved since!
Regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> That's very disappointing inter. lol  
> This is the information you wanted, I've trawled the internet for weeks to find it for you. You didn't ask why, you just said show me the degrees C not the Mj! (this is degrees K anomaly btw) 
> Now that the ocean temperature change information is here, you don't like what you see, so you question not that the trend is up but WHY it is up? lol. 
> You crack me up  
> I think you were doing better on the Antarctic ice, but you seem to have dropped that in hot water.  
> woodbe.

  it hasn't even come close to answering my question, but in your mind it has. This smacks of a political or religious debate with answers like that. 
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> if this is so why hasn't the average global temperature risen as predicted by the so called basic radiation calculations & been level for the last 16 or so years??? It all started with Arrhenius with his failed calculation & hasn't improved since!
> Regards inter

  On planet Earth where I live on global temperatures have continued rising and the 13 hottest years in recorded history have all happened in the past 15 years. Which planet do you live on?

----------


## woodbe

> if this is so why hasn't the average global temperature risen as predicted by the so called basic radiation calculations & been level for the last 16 or so years??? It all started with Arrhenius with his failed calculation & hasn't improved since!
> Regards inter

  But it has. Because we are talking about the GLOBAL temperature, not just the surface air temperature.  
Surface air temp is within trend but has yet to increase beyond the 1998 peak year. It probably will soon to give you another 'no warming since' year.  :Rolleyes:  
Ocean temps are up. 
Net effect: Global temperatures have continued to increase through the last 16 years.   
woodbe.

----------


## woodbe

> it hasn't even come close to answering my question, but in your mind it has. This smacks of a political or religious debate with answers like that. 
> regards inter

  It is true I didn't even try to answer your 'why' question. My bad.  :Biggrin:  
I was shocked that after finding this data you persistently demanded in place of ocean heat content you could be so dismissive of my efforts. I thought you'd be happy to see the data you wanted, but apparently not. So sad for your loss. lol. 
The answer for why has been repeatedly aired in this thread, asking for it again could be perceived as trolling. Please re-read the thread for previous posts on the topic.  :2thumbsup:   
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> On planet Earth where I live on global temperatures have continued rising and the 13 hottest years in recorded history have all happened in the past 15 years. Which planet do you live on?

  Not the same one that your on! Or the one that defies all the data that says there has been no significant or measurable warming over the last 16 or so years, but if it helps keep you up at night worrying about it keep living the apocalyptic dream.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> But it has. Because we are talking about the GLOBAL temperature, not just the surface air temperature.  
> Surface air temp is within trend but has yet to increase beyond the 1998 peak year. It probably will soon to give you another 'no warming since' year.  
> Ocean temps are up. 
> Net effect: Global temperatures have continued to increase through the last 16 years.   
> woodbe.

  obviously you can justify & understand your doublespeak, but historic data doesn't 
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> It is true I didn't even try to answer your 'why' question. My bad.  
> I was shocked that after finding this data you persistently demanded in place of ocean heat content you could be so dismissive of my efforts. I thought you'd be happy to see the data you wanted, but apparently not. So sad for your loss. lol. 
> The answer for why has been repeatedly aired in this thread, asking for it again could be perceived as trolling. Please re-read the thread for previous posts on the topic.   
> woodbe.

  please re read what I asked for, not what you think I asked for, as said before you haven't even come close to answering my specific questions, you just parroted something irrelevant.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> if this is so why hasn't the average global temperature risen as predicted by the so called basic radiation calculations & been level for the last 16 or so years??? It all started with Arrhenius with his failed calculation & hasn't improved since!
> Regards inter

   

> But it has. Because we are talking about the GLOBAL temperature, not just the surface air temperature.  
> Surface air temp is within trend but has yet to increase beyond the 1998 peak year. It probably will soon to give you another 'no warming since' year.  
> Ocean temps are up. 
> Net effect: Global temperatures have continued to increase through the last 16 years.   
> woodbe.

   

> please re read what I asked for, not what you think I asked for, as said before you haven't even come close to answering my specific questions, you just parroted something irrelevant.
> regards inter

  Repeatedly asking a question that has already been answered in the thread can be construed as trolling. 
The question you asked was:"*why hasn't the average global temperature risen as predicted by the so  called basic radiation calculations & been level for the last 16 or  so years???*" 
The answer is above. The question is based on a false assertion. The global temperatures have not been level for the last 16 years especially when you look at the whole globe. Even if they had, climate science does not ignore climate variability, nor cherry pick short periods of time to support a false assertion. 
That is the lot of false skeptics. Welcome to your world.  :2thumbsup:  
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> Not the same one that your on! Or the one that defies all the data that says there has been no significant or measurable warming over the last 16 or so years,
> regards inter

  The hottest complete year on planet Earth where I live was June 2009 to May 2010. How could it be hotter after 1998 if the planet stopped warming in 1998? Because it didn't - doh! (BTW Counting a year as being Jan 1 to Dec 30 is just an arbitrary convenience.)   

> but if it helps keep you up at night worrying about it keep living the apocalyptic dream.

  I sleep fine - sorry to disappoint you, but to quote someone else: "you just parroted something irrelevant."

----------


## woodbe

Let's look at decades while we're at it, they suffer less from climate variability than individual years. 
If the 'skeptics' are right about 'no warming since 1998', then 1991-2000 would be warmer or equal to 2001-2010. 
I'm waiting for the no warming to start kicking in here:    Groundhog Decade: We're stuck in a movie where it's always the hottest decade on record. 
And it looks like we'll definitely get another 'no warming since' base year on the next El Nino year.  
Chart of the temperature anomalies for 1950-2013, also showing the phase of the El Niño-La Niña cycle. (Image Credit: NASA/GSFC/Earth Observatory, NASA/GISS)  http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20140121/ 
woodbe.

----------


## intertd6

> Repeatedly asking a question that has already been answered in the thread can be construed as trolling.  any normal person would work out that the questions haven't been answered. 
> The question you asked was:"*why hasn't the average global temperature risen as predicted by the so  called basic radiation calculations & been level for the last 16 or  so years???*" 
> The answer is above. The question is based on a false assertion. The global temperatures have not been level for the last 16 years especially when you look at the whole globe. Even if they had, climate science does not ignore climate variability, nor cherry pick short periods of time to support a false assertion.  Your only coming out with the false assertion & red herring stuff  because you can't parrot a reasonable answer.
> That is the lot of false skeptics. Welcome to your world.   Those with free thinking minds require more than just an agreement of select circle of like minded people who fail regularly, slapping each other on the back for a result not achieved in the slightest way, that type of stuff is just politics not science.  woodbe.

  Regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> The hottest complete year on planet Earth where I live was June 2009 to May 2010. How could it be hotter after 1998 if the planet stopped warming in 1998? Because it didn't - doh! (BTW Counting a year as being Jan 1 to Dec 30 is just an arbitrary convenience.)   
> I sleep fine - sorry to disappoint you, but to quote someone else: "you just parroted something irrelevant."

  No need to pad out you essay with irrelevant information in regards to my statement, come out with something relevant to the debate at hand.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Those with free thinking minds require more than just an agreement of select circle of like minded people who fail regularly, slapping each other on the back for a result not achieved in the slightest way. 
> Regards inter

  Those with thinking minds require data like this:

----------


## John2b

> No need to pad out you essay with irrelevant information in regards to my statement, come out with something relevant to the debate at hand.
> regards inter

  
Which bit of "The hottest complete year on planet Earth where I live was June 2009 to May 2010" didn't you understand?

----------


## woodbe

> Your only coming out with the false assertion & red herring stuff  because you can't parrot a reasonable answer.

  Oh, I see. I wouldn't flag a false assertion because it was actually a false assertion.  :Rolleyes:  
If we are talking about GLOBAL temperatures, why do you pick a only the surface temperature when it is clearly not representing the current GLOBAL trend. 
Clearly you are not listening, but for anyone else, who may still have doubts that the planet is taking on more heat, we know that it takes a LOT more energy to warm the oceans than the atmosphere. Here is a quote from an actual climate scientist to explain:   

> To put things in perspective, the heat  increase related  to warming up  only the upper most 3.5 meters of the  global ocean body  by x degrees is  sufficient to warm up the whole mass  of the atmosphere  by about the  same amount of x degrees.

  woodbe.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Bugger Me!!  10,000  Posts!!

  
OOOhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....I wanted it to be me!!  Me! ME! MINE! And it's not....[sob]

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> maybe they can find the imaginary link between CO2 causing the majority of global warming.

  Bit difficult to find something that doesn't exist... :Wink 1:  
Any peanut knows that CO2 doesn't cause the majority of 'global warming' - that's the job of water vapour.   
But it does plays a significant role in the anthropogenic component of 'global warming' because that's the little tiny bit extra CO2 (and the other GHG's) that we put there that has got the entire ecosphere sliding from one state to another.   
A bit like putting slightly too much tonic in your gin and watching it fizz up and over top of the glass...

----------


## woodbe

> Bit difficult to find something that doesn't exist... 
> Any peanut knows that CO2 doesn't cause the majority of 'global warming' - that's the job of water vapour.   
> But it does plays a significant role in the anthropogenic component of 'global warming' because that's the little tiny bit extra CO2 (and the other GHG's) that we put there that has got the entire ecosphere sliding from one state to another.   
> A bit like putting slightly too much tonic in your gin and watching it fizz up and over top of the glass...

  Now look, SBD. Posting reasonable, logical, science based, and even slightly amusing information on here is not acceptable to inter. 
inter will pick that up real quick, you'll be labelled as a parrot like the rest of us.  :Wink:  
I asked a parrot what he thought of inter's claims of parroting:    
woodbe. 
(suspected parroteer of verifiable evidence and climate change facts)

----------


## intertd6

> Bit difficult to find something that doesn't exist... 
> Any peanut knows that CO2 doesn't cause the majority of 'global warming' - that's the job of water vapour.    
> A bit like putting slightly too much tonic in your gin and watching it fizz up and over top of the glass...

  thank goodness a reasonably reasonable answer, 
Which reminds me, it's better to have a bottle in front of you, than frontal lobotomy.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Those with thinking minds require data like this:

  wow that graph shows about an 0.8'C increase! Who here hasn't acknowledged that! Brilliant waste of time & imaginary ink. Still nothing relevant to add I notice.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Oh, I see. I wouldn't flag a false assertion because it was actually a false assertion.  
> If we are talking about GLOBAL temperatures, why do you pick a only the surface temperature when it is clearly not representing the current GLOBAL trend. 
> Clearly you are not listening, but for anyone else, who may still have doubts that the planet is taking on more heat, we know that it takes a LOT more energy to warm the oceans than the atmosphere. Here is a quote from an actual climate scientist to explain:   
> woodbe.

  all that wasted imaginary ink on a red herring to skirt around a direct simple question to explain why the average global temperature has remained stable for the last 16 or so years!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> all that wasted imaginary ink on a red herring to skirt around a direct simple question to explain why the average global temperature has remained stable for the last 16 or so years!
> regards inter

  I'll have a go at answering that if you can first show credible evidence that the average global temperature has remained stable for the last 16 or so years.  
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> wow that graph shows about an 0.8'C increase! Who here hasn't acknowledged that!
> regards inter

  So now everyone apparently _acknowledges_ that there has been global warming since 1998! Who wudda thort? 
But 0.8 degrees suddenly isn't "significant". You might want to remember that next time you or one of your family has a fever.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Now look, SBD. Posting reasonable, logical, science based, and even slightly amusing information on here is not acceptable to inter. 
> inter will pick that up real quick, you'll be labelled as a parrot like the rest of us.

  Anything to get us to 20,000 posts within another five years... 
...besides I've been reading far too many dry academic papers and policy documents from around the planet to do with climate change adaptation of late so forgive me if my sense of humour is slightly askew and easily triggered - it needs letting out!!!!

----------


## intertd6

> So now everyone apparently _acknowledges_ that there has been global warming since 1998! Who wudda thort? 
> But 0.8 degrees suddenly isn't "significant". You might want to remember that next time you or one of your family has a fever.

  It seems like you should have gone to specsavers, the 0.8'C rise has been since 1881, now I know why the debate goes off in an unexplainable tangent! NFI!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> It seems like you should have gone to specsavers, the 0.8'C rise has been since 1881, now I know why the debate goes off in an unexplainable tangent! NFI!
> regards inter

  So a fever doesn't matter if it happens slowly LOL!

----------


## intertd6

> I'll have a go at answering that if you can first show credible evidence that the average global temperature has remained stable for the last 16 or so years.  
> woodbe.

  Another red herring, you have even posted graphs showing this, or maybe it's just oldtimers disease kicking in.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> all that wasted imaginary ink on a red herring to skirt around a direct simple question to explain why the average global temperature has remained stable for the last 16 or so years!
> regards inter

   

> I'll have a go at answering that if you can first show credible evidence that the average global temperature has remained stable for the last 16 or so years.  
> woodbe.

    

> wow that graph shows about an 0.8'C increase! Who here hasn't acknowledged that!

    

> regards inter

   

> Another red herring, you have even posted graphs showing this, or maybe it's just oldtimers disease kicking in.
> regards inter

  Who's got a memory/cognition problem?

----------


## intertd6

> So a fever doesn't matter if it happens slowly LOL!

  youve been caught out again! there is a pattern emerging.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> maybe it's just oldtimers disease kicking in.
> regards inter

  I'll take that as an admission.  :Wink:  
If you can't be bothered supporting your claim, I certainly won't bother responding to it. 
When you look at the global temperature trends, not just the surface temps, it certainly hasn't been stable. 
Anyone notice that the skeptics have stopped howling about the surface temperature data recently? I guess we'll hear that again on the next uptick.  :Rolleyes:  
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> youve been caught out again! there is a pattern emerging.
> regards inter

  Caught out with what? Your post omits to say. (Who has been caught out is more to the point!)

----------


## intertd6

> Who's got a memory/cognition problem?

  me! That's why I just stick to a simple question & wait for the relevant answer! page after page after page, 
Regards inter

----------


## John2b

> me! That's why I just stick to a simple question & wait for the relevant answer! page after page after page, 
> Regards inter

  So for the benefit of casual observers, what is the simple question that hasn't been answered?

----------


## intertd6

> Caught out with what? Your post omits to say. (Who has been caught out is more to the point!)

  As hard as I can I just can't join in your hallucination or maybe you have too many websites open & just lost track of who & what conversations your having!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> So for the benefit of casual observers, what is the simple question that hasn't been answered?

  And on it goes....................
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And on it goes....................

  Yes please. We'll attain our goals in the end....20K here we come!!

----------


## Marc

> As hard as I can I just can't join in your hallucination or maybe you have too many websites open & just lost track of who & what conversations your having!
> regards inter

  4 words: 
Don't feed the troll 
or is that 4.5 words?

----------


## Marc

> Best Practices for Talking with Climate Skeptics 
> From: Kelly Rigg: How to Talk to Climate Skeptics? Stick to the Basics, Anna Fahey: Talking to The Tea Party 
> About Climate?, Larry Susskind: Talking to Climate Skeptics, eHow: How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic, 
> Amanda Staudt: Tips for Talking Climate Change at the Holiday Party  
> The following dos and donts are a synthesis of recommendations on how to engage those 
> who deny the existence of climate change. Experts recommend that communicators consider at 
> the outset whether it is in your best interest to engage with climate deniers as part of your public 
> engagement strategy. If they are one of your target audiences, keep these tips in mind: 
> Dos
> ...

  If you know someone or have personally been involved in missionary work, you would probably know that the above is a good example of the "tools" you get to go among the savages to convert them.
The AGW, that started as a basic fraud has now ballooned into a religion and has now professional missionaries that go to the diaspora to convert the infidel.  
If you are or know someone that is involved in a political party that is "out there" you probably know that the above is a good example of the tool you get to go out and recruit lunatics. 
How much longer? is my question, how much longer until they are forced to go and get a real job?

----------


## John2b

Australia's Chief Scientist Ian Chubb said the scientific evidence for human-induced global warming was so overwhelming that those who reject it are usually forced to impugn the messenger with stupid expressions like groupthink or silly arguments that global warming is a delusion. Climate science is one of the most heavily scrutinised areas of science I have ever experienced, said Chubb. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/27/abbotts-advisers-at-odds-climate-change  Environment Minister Greg Hunt - who routinely repeats that he accepts the science showing the planet is warming and humans are mostly responsible - says the government will not revisit the country's targets until next year no matter what.  Climate Change Authority an irritating gadfly to Tony Abbott    Two of the worlds most prestigious science academies say theres clear evidence that humans are causing the climate to change. The time for talk is over, says the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, the national science academy of the UK. The two released a paper, Climate Change: Evidence and Causes, written and reviewed by leading experts in both countries, lays out which aspects of climate change are well understood and where there is still uncertainty and a need for more research.  The World's Top Scientists: Take Action Now On Climate Change | Business Insider

----------


## John2b

> If you know someone or have personally been involved in missionary work, you would probably know that the above is a good example of the "tools" you get to go among the savages to convert them. 
> If you are or know someone that is involved in a political party that is "out there" you probably know that the above is a good example of the tool you get to go out and recruit lunatics.

  You are posting this a bit early. April 1 is still 32 days away. You obviously haven't read an Amway or Tupperware sales training manual LOL. And you obviously missed this: #9997

----------


## Marc

Like I said.

----------


## intertd6

> Australia's Chief Scientist Ian Chubb said the scientific evidence for human-induced global warming was so overwhelming that those who reject it are usually forced to impugn the messenger with stupid expressions like groupthink or silly arguments that global warming is a delusion. Climate science is one of the most heavily scrutinised areas of science I have ever experienced, said Chubb. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/27/abbotts-advisers-at-odds-climate-change  Environment Minister Greg Hunt - who routinely repeats that he accepts the science showing the planet is warming and humans are mostly responsible - says the government will not revisit the country's targets until next year no matter what.  Climate Change Authority an irritating gadfly to Tony Abbott    Two of the worlds most prestigious science academies say theres clear evidence that humans are causing the climate to change. The time for talk is over, says the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, the national science academy of the UK. The two released a paper, Climate Change: Evidence and Causes, written and reviewed by leading experts in both countries, lays out which aspects of climate change are well understood and where there is still uncertainty and a need for more research.  The World's Top Scientists: Take Action Now On Climate Change | Business Insider

  bravo more more useless information which isn't needed for this debate, this debate is about CO2 & if paying a tax on it will solve anything, invented to solely to try & fix the labor deficit.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> invented to solely to try & fix the labor deficit.

  lol. I think they 'invented' pricing carbon before they were even elected, and certainly before they had a deficit to fix. 
woodbe.

----------


## johnc

> bravo more more useless information which isn't needed for this debate, this debate is about CO2 & if paying a tax on it will solve anything, invented to solely to try & fix the labor deficit.
> regards inter

  I don't think so, we seem to forget that in 2006 John Howard set up a task force on Emissions trading  and in 2007 announced a carbon trading scheme to start by 2012 in July of that year there was talk of cap and trade. The election changed everything and despite initial consultation between the major parties we saw a change of heart with the elevation of Tony Abbott to opposition leader and a new no to everything approach. They appear to be using the same tactic to business now as they did on the then Labor government.  The carbon tax wasn't designed to boost government coffers it took from the polluters and distributed to alternatives and new technologies and there is no way you can link it as invention of the last Labor Government it was first mooted by the Liberals in Australia and it was an idea taken from elsewhere (overseas). Greg Hunt himself wrote a paper that pushed for a carbon tax as the most effective way to reduce CO2 emissions, the current opposition to a carbon tax is political, an ideological objection from the hard right it is not economic.  We started to move away from tackling climate change when George Bush refused to ratify Kyoto the logic seems political not scientific.

----------


## Marc

> I don't think so, we seem to forget that in 2006 John Howard set up a task force on Emissions trading  and in 2007 announced a carbon trading scheme to start by 2012 in July of that year there was talk of cap and trade. The election changed everything and despite initial consultation between the major parties we saw a change of heart with the elevation of Tony Abbott to opposition leader and a new no to everything approach. They appear to be using the same tactic to business now as they did on the then Labor government.  The carbon tax wasn't designed to boost government coffers it took from the polluters and distributed to alternatives and new technologies and there is no way you can link it as invention of the last Labor Government it was first mooted by the Liberals in Australia and it was an idea taken from elsewhere (overseas). Greg Hunt himself wrote a paper that pushed for a carbon tax as the most effective way to reduce CO2 emissions, the current opposition to a carbon tax is political, an ideological objection from the hard right it is not economic.  We started to move away from tackling climate change when George Bush refused to ratify Kyoto the logic seems political not scientific.

  Stating the obvious. 
The western world political system works like this: 
"How many votes am I going to gain if I legislate XYZ and how many will I lose?
If the equation is favourable in the short or medium term, the legislation is passed, deal made with opposing parties. Science, moral principles, common sense or any other consideration is irrelevant.  
The AGW fraud is no different. Created as a political tool, it works just like any other principle religion or moral standard, it is a tool to gain or lose votes in the political chess game. 
The more accolite to the warmism religion are made, the more valuable the tool becomes. The rulers of old, used God and Christianity as a tool to rule, despite their complete lack of moral standards, AGW is the same. This new clamor from the populace once set in motion has grown and is now utilised.   
For that purpose each side recruits "experts" that at the sound of the millions, parrot their side of the story to prop up their pay-lord and support political decision that are made only to accumulate power and shift resources towards convenient positions. To think that political decisions are made with the common good, the moral principle or common decency in mind is naive in the extreme. 
If a new religion would prop up today, stating that working when the sun is not up is immoral and offends god, if the numbers are there, governments would legislate against night shifts, impose taxes against maintenance companies, and make all sort of deals, not because they have found religion but because they want to buy the votes of the lunatics who believe such nonsense.  
It is up to us, the sovereign to stand up and reclaim our right to common sense. Denounce AGW for what it is, an ordinary fraud perpetrated against the gullible and the naive to drum up support for a religious belief that is as absurd as the nyctophobia religion I just made up.
The advantage of a traditional religion over the AGW fraud is that a religious belief can not be demonstrated to be false because it is based on faith. A fraud based on false assumptions and false hypothesis and false pretenses, can be uncovered and proven wrong. Many die hard believers will still cling to it by faith yet will come off one by one. 
It is up to us to stop politicians to make political mileage out what they themselves don't believe in, yet do just to gain the lunatic vote.

----------


## johnc

I suppose if you don't believe in the existence of climate change then you have to come up with a reason why so many do believe. It is probably not surprising then if you can ignore the work of so many scientists, the views of UN, NATO, the Euro zone, as well as the recent compact between America and China  the IMF, senior officers in the military and others services then you need to come up with something, a reason to counteract that view. That may explain why some argue it is a cult or conspiracy that is akin to a religion. I fail to see the logic, there is nothing to show an organised religion and I don't think mankind is clever enough to construct a conspiracy on that scale. At least it shows society is stable and open enough to have divergent views let's hope it stays that way in Australia. It would be preferable though to stick to proper research rather than notions that don't appear to have much substance and could be falsely applied to either side.

----------


## John2b

> Stating the obvious. 
> The AGW fraud is no different. Created as a political tool, it works just like any other principle religion or moral standard, it is a tool to gain or lose votes in the political chess game. 
> The more accolite to the warmism religion are made, the more valuable the tool becomes. The rulers of old, used God and Christianity as a tool to rule, despite their complete lack of moral standards, AGW is the same. This new clamor from the populace once set in motion has grown and is now utilised.

  _
"We may not have a word for this type of crime yet, but the international community should find a way of classifying extraordinarily irresponsible scientific claims that could lead to mass suffering as some type of crime against humanity."_
Donald Brown, an associate professor in environmental ethics, science and law at Penn State University. (State Crime and Resistance (Hardback) - Routledge)     

> The AGW fraud is no different. Created as a political tool, it works just like any other principle religion or moral standard, it is a tool to gain or lose votes in the political chess game. 
> The more accolite to the warmism religion are made, the more valuable the tool becomes. The rulers of old, used God and Christianity as a tool to rule, despite their complete lack of moral standards, AGW is the same. This new clamor from the populace once set in motion has grown and is now utilised.

  Conservative groups may have spent up to $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change, according to the first extensive study into the anatomy of the anti-climate effort. _The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires, often working through secretive funding networks. They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change. Such financial support has hardened conservative opposition to climate policy, ultimately dooming any chances of action from Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet._
Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organisations, Robert J. Brulle (Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations - Springer) 
Thanks Marc for highlighting out the obvious. It is time to denounce AGW *denial* for what it is, an ordinary fraud perpetrated against the gullible and the naive.

----------


## Marc

> I suppose if you don't believe in the existence of climate change then you have to come up with a reason why so many do believe. It is probably not surprising then if you can ignore the work of so many scientists, the views of UN, NATO, the Euro zone, as well as the recent compact between America and China  the IMF, senior officers in the military and others services then you need to come up with something, a reason to counteract that view. That may explain why some argue it is a cult or conspiracy that is akin to a religion. I fail to see the logic, there is nothing to show an organised religion and I don't think mankind is clever enough to construct a conspiracy on that scale. At least it shows society is stable and open enough to have divergent views let's hope it stays that way in Australia. It would be preferable though to stick to proper research rather than notions that don't appear to have much substance and could be falsely applied to either side.

   

> I suppose if you don't believe in the existence of climate change ....

  and then  

> there is nothing to show an organised religion

  My friend, you are giving yourself an answer. Religions "believe IN"... science reach conclusions, thinks that, states that in the light of current knowledge, or words to that effect. 
I would be a fool if I did not believe that there is climate change, of course there is, there always was and always will be. I studied Climatology at university for two long years or was it three. The definition of climate is change, just like time does not stand still climate changes. 
If in my class someone would have said "I believe IN climate change" he would have drawn a good belly laugh from all of us. "I believe in gravity" ... what?
AGW is as nonsensical as phrenology. 
The debate about the influence of human produced CO2 over climate is so absurd given the minuscule amount produced by humans, the marginal and not lineal efficiency of CO2 and the poor or non existent link or cause and effect, that its existence (of the debate) can only be linked to "believe" or "disbelieve". Is there a God? I believe there is, or I believe there isn't or I don't know are the only possible answers. The basis of such beliefs are as flimsy as the basis for "believing IN the existence of climate change" yet we respect each belief because it is traditional to believe in something. 
Men have killed each other over the god principle for millennia and still do so. It is no wonder that the creation of a principle that can only be believed by faith, creates similar antagonism. 
When it is possible to produce "proof" for each side of the argument, in this case, the notion of science is corrupted because each side is given large amounts of money to produce "a proof" any form of it, because such proof has fantastic political value. That makes the process so corrupt that it must be completely discarded. 
The sad part is that humans do have some bad effects on nature in the form of industrial and urban pollution (the real pollution not CO2 that clearly is NOT pollution) yet this are completely put aside because those who traditionally would complain about them are intoxicated and fooled into battling a false enemy. 
The AGW fraud had a double effect to consolidate "believers" into plinking at windmill ( and supporting wind mills at the same time ... haha talk about confusion),  and take them away from battling a lot of real culprits that would hurt a lot if someone would take them on.   
This situation is rather pathetic. Where to now? Wait and watch. Politicians will soon realise that the numbers of "believers" is getting lower and the skeptics getting larger so they will turn towards the larger number of votes. 
The ordinary man will live his life unaffected by any prophesied  doom and gloom from global warming, in fact the only real danger for human kind if history is any guide is climate cooling not warming and increased CO2 has already proven to be more good than bad.  
My suggestion is to turn the aim of those who have a passion for nature towards real not imaginary pollution. Real threats like industrial pollution, the food industry, the building materials, the windmills, the gas exploration methods and many other things that degrade our health or abuse our rights in one way or another. 
Believe in whatever you want but try to keep science separate from religious faith. We have done that mistake before and the outcome was not good.

----------


## woodbe

Marc's posts, the gift that keeps on giving!  :Biggrin:  
Here is another take on science denial:    Denying Climate Science in Multiple Dimensions  Greg Laden's Blog 
There is lots of good points in that post, but I choose to share this one, the good old climate science skeptics are like Galileo meme:   

> *But Galileo!*
> The final dimension of argument I want to mention is perhaps the  silliest of all, and we see it in widespread use far beyond the area of  climate science denialism. The idea is simple. All major advances in  science have come about when almost everyone thinks a certain thing but  they are all wrong, but a small number of individuals know the truth,  like Galileos attack on a geocentric universe.   
>  While it is true that such things have happened, in history, they  have not happened that often in science. For example, Einsteins  revision of several areas of science fit with existing science but  modified it, though significantly. Subatomic theory did not replace the  atom, but rather, entered the atom. The discovery and characterization  of DNA was a major moment in biology, but the particulate nature of  inheritance had long been established. Darwin did not change the  existing science of nature, but rather, verified long held ideas about  evolution and, dramatically, proposed a set of mechanisms not widely  understood in his day. Science hardly ever gets Galileoed, and even  Galileo did not Galileo science; he Galileoed religion. Even his  insightful contribution was accretive.   
>  There is a demented logic behind the Galileo claim. If every one  thinks one thing, and one person thinks something different, that high  ratio of differential is itself proof that the small minority is  correct. But the truth is that consensus, or what we sometimes call  established science, is usually coeval with alternative beliefs the  vast majority of which are wrong, most of which do not even come from  the science itself, but rather, from sellers of snake oil, individuals  or entities that would benefit from the science being questioned, or  from individuals with delusional ideas. Even if there is now and then a  view held by a small minority that is actually more correct than the  majority view, we cant establish veracity by measuring rarity. Chances  are, a view of nature held by only a few is wrong. This simple numbers  game is not how we should be seeking truth, but if one does engage in  the numbers game, then dissenting views of established science can be  assumed to be wrong, if you were going to place a bet.

  woodbe.

----------


## Marc

Like playing air saxophone to a non existing audience, the AGW "believers" are so immerse in their ...technically a delusion but lets be kind and call it belief, that even a simple statement pointing to the difference between belief and the outcome from a careful scientific method, is lost. 
Of course it does not matter the number of those who have reached the right conclusion, it only matters how they did so.
Geocentrism was based on BELIEF in the inerrancy of the bible. Copernican theory was blasphemy and could not be allowed.  A political system based on the belief in God and bible would crumble and the heretics would win. 
Scientific discoveries if the process is not corrupted by politics, usually build up and each chapter supports the next, normally scientific discoveries follow the "majority" principle, not because majority means anything at all but because of statistical probability.
 The few that believed that Copernico was correct and supported his findings were suppressed and fearful of the establishment. Only Galileo Galilei because of his fame could afford to challenge them. He was condemned to house arrest for his audacity in stead of being executed as anyone else would have. Hardly an environment for the scientific process, not different from the last two decades of the established AGW doctrine 
Invoking that because the majority "believes" something, then it must be true and the debate is over equates precisely to the vatican's take on a discovery that challenges the bible. Eppur si muove, yes perhaps he did not say it just like that, who cares, it epitomises the rebellion against a corrupt and false majority by the courageous few. 
The scientific principle where skepticism is welcome and findings are challenged from the inside does not exist in the AGW argument. The science is corrupted and completely unreliable. Only history in the next 50 or so years will provide some resemblance of reality to this debate.

----------


## woodbe

> The scientific principle where skepticism is welcome and findings are challenged from the inside does not exist in the AGW argument. The science is corrupted and completely unreliable. Only history in the next 50 or so years will provide some resemblance of reality to this debate.

  Au contraire. Skepticism is a keystone of the scientific process. The scientific process is respected and skepticism is exercised within the science community. It is not respected in the non-science arguments of fake skeptics because they are not based on science. Claiming 'fraud' without proof is not a scientific challenge. Claiming the science is corrupted and completely unreliable is not supported by any scientific evidence. 
There are people who challenge the science from within, using science not politics and opinion yet the science remains accepted by the vast majority of scientists in the field. Those skeptics are the people who should be seen as real skeptics, not the fake skeptics who in the famous words of the Doc, "don't need any science" 
If the skeptics have evidence to support their non-scientific opinions, they should publish. That they have not taken this step is prima facie evidence that they do not have verifiable scientific evidence to back up their attacks on science itself. 
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

> Au contraire. Skepticism is a keystone of the scientific process. The scientific process is respected and skepticism is exercised within the science community. It is not respected in the non-science arguments of fake skeptics because they are not based on science. Claiming 'fraud' without proof is not a scientific challenge. Claiming the science is corrupted and completely unreliable is not supported by any scientific evidence. 
> There are people who challenge the science from within, using science not politics and opinion yet the science remains accepted by the vast majority of scientists in the field. Those skeptics are the people who should be seen as real skeptics, not the fake skeptics who in the famous words of the Doc, "don't need any science" 
> If the skeptics have evidence to support their non-scientific opinions, they should publish. That they have not taken this step is prima facie evidence that they do not have verifiable scientific evidence to back up their attacks on science itself. 
> woodbe.

  One essential requirement for critical thinking is being able to read the previous post. This is like trying to reason with 4 year old. :No:

----------


## woodbe

> One essential requirement for critical thinking is being able to read the previous post. This is like trying to reason with 5 year old.

  If you cannot discuss without bringing insult to the table you must be out of ideas. 
Equating scientific knowledge, the results of scientific enquiry to 'belief' and the current open scientific process to a church controlled doctrine is nothing but a straw man argument. The science stands on evidence, not belief. We moved on from that with Galileo, remember? You choose to align your views with a group who do not have scientific evidence to challenge the accepted science, never mind replace it, so your argument relies on personal opinion, conspiracy theories and dare I say it, belief, rather than scientific evidence.  
woodbe.

----------


## Marc

I love global warming, I love CO2 but most of all I like classical music.
Listen to this organ sing.

----------


## johnc

> One essential requirement for critical thinking is being able to read the previous post. This is like trying to reason with 4 year old.

  
You know it is just possible that is the quality of the argument, if a four year old can see through it then it isn't going to stand up with anyone else. :Wink: 
On a more serious note the above comment is no substitute for a reasonable answer, gratuitous insults are unnecessary.

----------


## John2b

> You know it is just possible that is the quality of the argument, if a four year old can see through it then it isn't going to stand up with anyone else.
> On a more serious note the above comment is no substitute for a reasonable answer, gratuitous insults are unnecessary.

  Apparently, being *right* means you don't need to present facts or reason...

----------


## John2b

A little reality check from a little while ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFn...embedded#at=26

----------


## John2b

Latest State of the Climate - 2014 report from CSIRO:  Data and analysis from the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO show further warming of the atmosphere and oceans in the Australian region, as is happening globally. This change is occurring against the background of high climate variability, but the signal is clear.   Air and ocean temperatures across Australia are now, on average, almost a degree Celsius warmer than they were in 1910, with most of the warming occurring since 1950. This warming has seen Australia experiencing more warm weather and extreme heat, and fewer cool extremes. There has been an increase in extreme fire weather, and a longer fire season, across large parts of Australia.   Rainfall averaged across all of Australia has slightly increased since 1900. Since 1970, there have been large increases in annual rainfall in the northwest and decreases in the southwest. Autumn and early winter rainfall has mostly been below average in the southeast since 1990.   Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise and continued emissions will cause further warming over this century. Limiting the magnitude of future climate change requires large and sustained net global reductions in greenhouse gases.  State of the Climate - 2014

----------


## Marc

← The Top Ten Reasons global temperature hasnt warmed for the last 15 years Friday Funny  Manns Hot Seat → *An Odd Mix of Reality and Misinformation from the Climate Science Community on England et al. (2014)*  Posted on February 28, 2014    by Bob Tisdale
In this post, well discuss a recent article and blog post about the recently published England et al. (2014). This post includes portions of past posts and a number of new discussions and illustrations.
Weve already discussed (post here) the paper England et al. (2014) Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus. Since then, NBC News has an article by John Roach with the curious title Global Warming Pause? The Answer Is Blowin Into the Wind. And the team from RealClimate have agreed and disagreed with England et al. (2014) in their post Going with the wind.
I find it surprising that England et al. is getting so much attention. Its simply another paper that shows quite plainly that the past and current generations of climate models are fatally flawedbecause they cannot simulate coupled ocean atmosphere processes that cause global surface temperatures to warm and that stop that warming. Maybe the attention results from their use of wind as a metric. Everyone understands the word wind. *A FEW PRELIMINARY COMMENTS* *Weve illustrated and discussed in past posts how the current generation of global models cannot simulate how, when and where the surfaces of the oceans have warmed since 1880 and during the satellite era. See the posts:*  *CMIP5 Model-Data Comparison: Satellite-Era Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies**Models Fail: Land versus Sea Surface Warming Rates**IPCC Still Delusional about Carbon Dioxide*   *Weve also illustrated this recently, but as a reminder: The sea surface temperature anomalies of the tropical Pacific are a part of this discussion, because thats where El Niño and La Niña events take place, and because thats where the trade winds in question blow. The satellite-enhanced sea surface temperature data for the tropical Pacific show that the surface of the tropical Pacific has not warmed over the past 32+ yearsthe full term of the Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature data. See Figure 1. On the other hand, climate models indicate that, if the surface temperatures of the tropical Pacific were warmed by manmade greenhouse gases, they should have warmed more than 0.6 deg C (or about 1.1 deg F).* ** *Figure 1* *So the problems with climate models are not limited to the past decade and a half.* *OVERVIEW OF ENGLAND ET AL. (2014)* *England et al. (2014) are basically claiming that stronger trade winds in recent years are driving CO2-based global warming into the depths of the Pacific Ocean, and that the stronger trade winds are associated with a shift in the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño and La Niña events. They use an abstract metric called the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) to define the periods when El Niño or La Niña events dominated.* *As an expanded overview of England et al., during the period from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s, the trade winds were weaker because El Niño events dominated, so, according to their modeling efforts, more global warming was occurring at the surface. But since the late 1990s, the stronger trade winds associated with more-frequent La Niñas are causing the CO2-based global warming to be driven into the depths of the Pacific Ocean.* *Figure 2 presents a commonly used index for the strength, frequency and duration of El Niño and La Niña events. It is a graph of the sea surface temperature anomalies of the NINO3.4 region. Ive also highlighted NOAAs official El Niño and La Niña events, based on their Oceanic NINO Index (but the data in the graph are not from the Oceanic NINO Index). And as we can see, there were a series of strong and long El Niño events from 1982 through 1998: the 1982/83, the 1986/87/88 and the 1997/98 El Niños. Although the series of El Niños in the first half of the 1990s are now considered independent events, Trenberth and Hoar proclaimed them as one long event in their 1996 paper The 1990-1995 El Niño-Southern Oscillation Event: Longest on record. The El Niño events since 1998 have not been as strong, and the frequency of La Niña events has increased.* ** *Figure 2* *Because trade winds are weak during El Niños and strong during La Niñas, the change in the frequencies of El Niño and La Niña events indicate the trade wind should have increased during that timeand they have. We illustrated and discussed this in the recent post El Niño and La Niña Basics: Introduction to the Pacific Trade Winds.* *But thats not where the problems exist with the findings of England et al. (2014).* *THE BASIC PROBLEMS WITH ENGLAND ET AL. (2014)* *England et al. (2014) have the same problems as the recent Trenberth papers. I discussed those in my Open Letter to Kevin Trenberth  NCAR. The following is a revised portion of that post. Ive changed a few of the graphs to reflect the differences in the start date for the hiatus. Trenberth used 1999 in one of his recent papers, while England et al. used 2001.* *Based on England et al (2014), the ocean heat content of the western tropical Pacific should be increasing during the hiatus period. As noted earlier, England et al. used 2001 as the start of the hiatus. Figure 3 presents the NODC ocean heat content for the western tropical Pacific (24S-24N, 120E-180), for the depths of 0-700 meters, for the period of January 2001 to December 2013. We can see that the western tropical Pacific to depths of 700 meters has, in fact, warmed.* ** *Figure 3* *Before we proceed, lets confirm that the variability in the ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific takes place in the top 700 meters. The Tropical Atmosphere-Ocean (TAO) project buoys have sampled subsurface temperatures, etc., in the tropical Pacific since the early 1990s, so the NODC data should be a reasonably reliable there. Over the past decade, ARGO floats have supplemented the TAO buoys. And now for the data: the source Ocean Heat Content data in the tropical Pacific for the depths of 0-700 meters and 0-2000 meters (represented by the unadjusted UKMO EN3 data) during the TAO project and ARGO eras are exactly the same, see Figure 4, and that suggests that all of the variability in the tropical Pacific ocean heat content is taking place in the top 700 meters.* ** *Figure 4* *Back to our discussion of the hiatus period: The NODC ocean heat content data also show the ocean heat content (0-700m) of the eastern tropical Pacific, a much larger region, has been cooling from 2001 to 2013. See Figure 5.* ** *Figure 5* *As a result, there has been an overall decrease (not increase) in the ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific since 2001, Figure 6, and a substantial decrease in the ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific as a whole since the peak around 2004.* ** *Figure 6* *Therefore, based on data, there appears to have been a rearrangement of heat within the tropical Pacific and not an addition of heat as suggested by England et al. (2014).* *Also, in the recent post If Manmade Greenhouse Gases Are Responsible for the Warming of the Global Oceans I presented the NODCs vertical mean temperature anomaly data for the Indian, Pacific, North Atlantic and South Atlantic Oceans, for the depths of 0-2000 meters, during the ARGO era (starting in 2003). Figure 7 is an update of that illustration, including the recently released 2013 data. The flatness of the Pacific trend indicates there has not been a substantial increase in the subsurface temperatures of the entire Pacific Ocean to depths of 2000 meters over the past 11 yearssame with the North Atlantic. It cannot be claimed that manmade greenhouse gases caused the warming in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans, when they obviously have had no impact on the warming of the North Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to 2000 meters over the past 11 years.* ** *Figure 7* *The problems with the England et al. (2014) model-based assumptions are blatantly obvious. The ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific has cooled quite rapidly since 2001. And subsurface temperatures of the entire Pacific Ocean during the ARGO-era show little to no warming.* *Those basic data-based realities contradict the climate-model-based assumptions ofEngland et al. (2014)and Matthew Englands guest post at RealClimate, and the NBC News article by John Roach.* *REALCLIMATE POST* *The body of the RealClimate post by Matthew England is a summary of the England et al. (2014) paper, and we outlined the failings of the paper above. Eric Steig wrote the introduction for the RealClimate blog post. For support, Eric linked a few papers:*  *Foster and Rahmstorf (2009)  We discussed the failings with Foster and Rahmstorf (2009) in the post here, and with the follow-up Rahmstorf et al. (2012) in the posthere. And as youll recall, even SkepticalScience threw Foster and Rahmstorf (2009) under the bus.**Balmaseda et al. (2013)  Balmaseda et al. (2013) was a primary topic of discussion in the Trenberth still searching for the missing heat series of posts: here and here andhere and here and here and here and here and here and here.**Cowtan and Way (2013)  We discussed how the Cowtan and Way (2013) infilling of HADCRUT4 global land+ocean surface temperature data did nothing to explain the hiatus over 90% of the globebut exaggerated the model failings at the polesin the posts here and here.*  *THE NBC NEWS ARTICLE ABOUT ENGLAND ET AL. (2014)* *John Roach begins his article with (my boldface):**For the past 13 years, global surface air temperatures have hardly budged higher despite continual pumping of planet-warming gasses into the atmosphere from the engines of modern life. Does this prove global warming is a giant hoax? No, according to a new study, which says the missing heat is being blown into the western Pacific Ocean by extraordinarily powerful and accelerating trade winds.**The reference to global surface air temperatures is curious. I suspect John Roach relied on England et al. (2014) for it. The abstract of England et al. (2014) begins (my boldface):**Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earths global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001.**And the first sentence of the paper reads (my boldface):**Observations of global average surface air temperature (SAT) show an unequivocal warming over the twentieth century1, however the overall trend has been interrupted by periods of weak warming or even cooling (Fig. 1).**Yet England et al. did not present global surface air temperature data in cell a of their Figure 1. See my Figure 8.* ** *Figure 8 (cell a of Figure 1 from England et al.)* *England et al. (2014) presented GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data in their Figure 1, which is a combination of land surface air temperature data and sea surface temperature data, with the vast majority being sea surface temperature data since the oceans cover 70% of the planet.* *To confirm that, under the heading of Methods, England et al. write [my brackets]:**Observations and reanalysis data. SAT [surface air temperature] is taken from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) climatology.**And no, Im not being pedantic. As weve shown in numerous posts over the past year, climate models do a reasonable job of simulating land surface air temperatures over the past 30+ years, but in order to achieve that warming, the climate models have to double the observed warming rate of the surface of the oceans. See Figure 9.* ** *Figure 9* *And using marine air temperature data do not help the models, eithersee Figure 10though it has to be kept in mind that the ICOADS marine air temperature data are not corrected for the shipboard heat island effect that plagues that dataset.* **

----------


## Marc

*Figure 10* *John Roach began his discussion of climate models with a catchy heading:**Model failure
The shortcomings of the climate models highlighted in this new paper feed into larger criticism that the models play down the importance of natural variability in the global climate system. You want to have enough noise in your system in order to get a realistic result, noted Xie.* *That this shortfall is highlighted in the new research, he added, is quite a nice result, but in a sense it is bad news for the climate research community because it does point to a potential problem for the climate models.**Its not a potential problem. Its a major problem. One contributing factor to the problem is that climate scientists (example Shang-Ping Xies quote) view coupled ocean-atmosphere processes as noise in your system. ENSO is not noise; ENSO is a coupled ocean-atmosphere process that climate models still cannot simulate. Sea surface temperature data and ocean heat content data indicate that ENSO acts as a chaotic, sunlight-fueled, coupled ocean-atmosphere, recharge-discharge oscillatorwith El Niño events acting as the discharge mode, and with La Niña events acting as the recharge and redistribution mode. If this topic is new to you, refer to illustrated essay The Manmade Global Warming Challenge [42MB pdf] for an introduction.* *Climate models failings with respect to ENSOtheir failures to properly simulate of El Niño- and La Niña-related processeshave been known for years. See Guilyardi et al. (2009) and Bellenger et al (2012). It is very difficult to find a portionany portionof El Niño and La Niña processes that the models simulate properly.* *Then John Roach allowed Matthew England and others some more leeway:**A problem with the models, in turn, could erode trust in climate science, noted England. But that would be akin to writing off the medical profession for finding out something new about an illness that they didnt know about earlier, he said.* *The inability of the models to capture the observed wind trends and thus the hiatus is just one small process in the global system that seems to need improvement, he noted. The long-term global warming trend, he added, is independent from decade-to-decade variability in the Pacific Ocean.* *Fyfe echoed the sentiment. Instead of undermining climate science, he said, What you are seeing here in this discussion is the natural evolution of science and improving our understanding. The overall big picture that the planet is warming and that that warming is due to human influence stills stands with or without the hiatus.**For those who understand climate model failings, the trust in climate science has been eroding for years. In fact, for many persons, it has eroded to the point that we have no confidence in climate modelsnone at all.* *This sentence is a classic: The long-term global warming trendis independent from decade-to-decade variability in the Pacific Ocean. And the claim just one small process in the global system that seems to need improvement is the understatement of the year. Combined they form the most bizarre assertions Ive seen attributed to a climate scientist to date*  *especially when the paper that England authored indicated the lack of global surface warming has been caused in part by the decade-to-decade variability in the Pacific Ocean. In other words, without that decade-to-decade variability in the Pacific Ocean there would not have been the hiatus. (His paper also failed to address the contribution to the long-term warming from the mid-1970s to the turn of the century caused by the domination of El Niño events during that period.)**especially when England et al. (2014) presented multidecadal changes in surface temperatures in response to multidecadal variability in the Pacific Ocean, not decade-to-decade variability. (See their Figure 1, which is my Figure 8.)**especially when one considers that the Pacific is the largest ocean on this planet, that it covers more of the surface of the planet than all of the land masses combined, and that its surface area dwarfs the area of the other ocean basins. See Figure 11.*  ** *Figure 11*  *especially when one considers than the monthly, annual and decadal variations global sea surface temperatures mimic the variations in the Pacific sea surface temperaturesbecause the Pacific is so massive and because the dominant coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that express themselves as El Niño and La Niña events take place in the Pacific. See Figure 12.*  ** *Figure 12*  *especially when one considers that the multidecadal variations in the sea surface temperatures of the global oceans mimic the variations in the Pacificagain because the Pacific is so massive and because the dominant coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that express themselves as El Niño and La Niña events take place in the Pacific. See Figure 13, which presents the two datasets detrended and smoothed with 121-month running-average filters.*  ** *Figure 13*  *especially when one considers that the forced component of the climate models (represented by the multi-model mean) cannot simulate the multidecadal variations in the sea surface temperatures of the Pacific Ocean (Figure 14) or the global oceans (Figure 15), again represented by detrended and smoothed data and model outputs.*  ** *Figure 14* *# # # # # #* ** *Figure 15*  *and, last but not least, especially when everyone understands that climate models were tuned to (and model projections extend from) a naturally occurring upswing in global sea surface temperatures, not the long-term trend. See Figure 16. (For the years used for model tuning, refer to Mauritsen, et al. (2012) Tuning the Climate of a Global Model [paywalled]. A preprint edition is here.)*  ** *Figure 16* *Imagine how foolish the models would look if the modelers had tuned their models to the warming period from the early-1910s to the mid-1940s.* *[Note: If youre wondering why the climate models performed so poorly in Figures 14 and 15, refer to the post IPCC Still Delusional about Carbon Dioxide. The climate model simulations of sea surface temperatures do not capture the cooling that took place from 1880 to the early-1910s (see Figure 16 above) and, consequently, they do not capture the warming that took place from the early-1910s to the early-1940s.]* *And once again, we find climate science being compared to medicine. But lets put the climate model failings into perspective. The failures of the climate models to properly simulate coupled ocean-atmosphere processes are akin to doctors not being able to explain respiration and circulation. Climate models are in the dark ages compared to medicine.* *SOURCES* *The data and model outputs presented in this post are available from the KNMI Climate Explorer.*

----------


## Marc

JRM _says:_ February 28, 2014 at 6:46 am
The planet has seen a shift in the climate since the dawn of time, now we are seeing a shift in science from independent research to a time of grant driven predetermined outcome. The rise of Goreism in climate science is a mirror of Lysenkoism from the Soviet Union of the 30′s and 40′s. Stalin political doctrine allowed that rise of conformational science and those same tactics seem to be making a comeback.
The average person has no clue that the report they see or hear from a media outlet is somebodys WAG, how many times a day does the words global warming or carbon pollution get thrown at them. It is seldom reported as somebodys theory, it is reported as proven science. Go to the weather channel website for your daily weather, click a link and before long you will hear or see global warming/climate change thrown at you.
Then they successfully labeled you as a denier or skeptic, your science or data is then dismissed by 75% of the people hearing it. AGW is not about science, it is a war for political control. The Goreism science is just a smokescreen to cover the backdoor regulations and policies.
The global climate can continue to cool for the next 20 years and the science will continue to show that it is cause by carbon pollution. When you are basing your research on failed climate models and readjusted data you can produce any projection you deem necessary to prove your theory.
Look at 90% of the graphs they produce, they pick two points in time and get a bold red line to shoot up, the average Joe only sees that and thinks they are going to fry in 10 years.
I may be the lest intelligent person posting on here, but from my point of view, honest science and factual data are winning the science battle but losing the Climate Change War. The average person on the street does not believe it is getting hotter or that the planet will burn up in the next 20 years, but they do think that CO2 is a pollutant and it is hurting the environment. CO2 may not be heating up the planet but it is a nasty pollutant. To many here see this as a discussion of only the science, I am right and you are wrong, when really this has nothing to do with the science, it is a AGW ad campaign.
The people producing these papers are intelligent and have to know the shortcomings of their work. They turn a blind eye to the critics and move on to the next well funded project. As I type this listening to the news about the weather on the west coast, I laugh thinking that they got billions for drought relief, now they can get billion for flood relief and climate change caused both.
Go out on the street and ask 100 people for their thoughts on El Nino and La Nina, most will say they like La Nina, the food is better.
How in the heck do you fight that?

----------


## John2b

So the "climate conspiracy" is now determining psychology research outcomes too - LOL.  "While scientific consensus and political and media messages appear to be increasingly certain, public attitudes and action towards the issue do not appear to be following suit. Popular and academic debate often assumes this is due to ignorance or misunderstanding on the part of the public, but some studies have suggested* political beliefs and values may play a more important role in determining belief versus scepticism about climate change*."  *http://psych.cf.ac.uk/contactsandpeople/academics/whitmarsh.php (Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time)*

----------


## John2b

> A whole lot of cut and paste nonsense...

  You do realise those charts you posted are not global, but just cherry-picked areas?

----------


## johnc

As anyone who has worked on forecasts will understand if the modelling ends up producing the same numbers in reality then it is an accident of chance. Models are management tools nothing more and the writer of the above articles is simply playing a pedantic game using very selective figures to create a fiction that even if temperature is rising it really isn't because some selectively sourced models didn't get it exactly right. It is interesting in so far as seeing how people are prepared to distort reality to support an existing position, one thing it is not is anything informative it ranks with advertising fluff it is certainly not independent reasoning by any stretch of the imagination.

----------


## Marc

> It is interesting in so far as seeing how people are prepared to distort reality to support an existing position, one thing it is not is anything informative it ranks with advertising fluff it is certainly not independent reasoning by any stretch of the imagination.

  HA HA ... my words exactly.

----------


## John2b

> It is interesting in so far as seeing how people are prepared to distort reality to support an existing position, one thing it is not is anything informative it ranks with advertising fluff it is certainly not independent reasoning by any stretch of the imagination.

   
"Not all misleading or inaccurate information on global warming in the popular media is intended to be so, and there is therefore a difference between misinformation and disinformation, the latter being deliberately false or misleading. However, at least some of the misinformation in the popular media has the very strong appearance of being deliberately misleading. For example, the views of Carl Wunsch, an oceanographer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, were so thoroughly misrepresented in the documentary film The Great Global Warming Swindle that Wunsch has claimed the film comes close to fraud (as reported in The Economist 2007, 61). 
"Writers of syndicated opinion columns in leading news publications occasionally quote the scientific literature in such an egregiously selective manner that only the most charitable interpretation could see the mistake as a genuine oversight rather than a deliberate attempt to misrepresent (examples are provided by Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck 2008). Thus, although not all incorrect material in the popular media on global warming is deliberate, at least some of it has the strong appearance of being so. 
"The existence and effects of this agnogenesis* campaign are problematic, both in the larger sense of societys response (or lack thereof) to an increasingly urgent problem, and for the scientific education community, including geographers. However, it also presents an opportunity. The study of misinformation about global warmingan agnotology of global warmingcan help teach critical thinking skills, the process and nature of science (as distinct from opinions), and the relevant basic scientific concepts." 
*Agnogenesis is organised activity intended to engender doubt and confusion in the public, such as that carried out by the detractors of the scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change and their apostles.  http://www.weber.edu/wsuimages/geogr...ing%20tool.pdf

----------


## intertd6

> "Not all misleading or inaccurate information on global warming in the popular media is intended to be so, and there is therefore a difference between misinformation and disinformation, the latter being deliberately false or misleading. However, at least some of the misinformation in the popular media has the very strong appearance of being deliberately misleading. For example, the views of Carl Wunsch, an oceanographer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, were so thoroughly misrepresented in the documentary film The Great Global Warming Swindle that Wunsch has claimed the film comes close to fraud (as reported in The Economist 2007, 61). 
> "Writers of syndicated opinion columns in leading news publications occasionally quote the scientific literature in such an egregiously selective manner that only the most charitable interpretation could see the mistake as a genuine oversight rather than a deliberate attempt to misrepresent (examples are provided by Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck 2008). Thus, although not all incorrect material in the popular media on global warming is deliberate, at least some of it has the strong appearance of being so. 
> "The existence and effects of this agnogenesis* campaign are problematic, both in the larger sense of societys response (or lack thereof) to an increasingly urgent problem, and for the scientific education community, including geographers. However, it also presents an opportunity. The study of misinformation about global warmingan agnotology of global warmingcan help teach critical thinking skills, the process and nature of science (as distinct from opinions), and the relevant basic scientific concepts." 
> *Agnogenesis is organised activity intended to engender doubt and confusion in the public, such as that carried out by the detractors of the scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change and their apostles.  http://www.weber.edu/wsuimages/geogr...ing%20tool.pdf

  More propaganda for the dweebs who haven't got an original thought processing capability to see past what it is, maybe those 31,000 American scientists of which 9,000 have phd's are somewhat brighter than the average and are not in the least concerned about the possibility of catastrophic global warming, because it will never happen.
regards inter

----------


## Micky013

I cannot believe the amount of regurgitate crap in this thread!

----------


## Marc

> I cannot believe the amount of regurgitate crap in this thread!

  You are only adding to it.

----------


## John2b

> More propaganda for the dweebs who haven't got an original thought processing capability to see past what it is, maybe those 31,000 American scientists of which 9,000 have phd's are somewhat brighter than the average and are not in the least concerned about the possibility of catastrophic global warming, because it will never happen.
> regards inter

  Ah yes, the OISM petition, thanks for bringing that up!  The petition (which represents about only about three in each thousand of the more than ten million graduate scientists who were qualified to sign BTW) has the signatories of veterinarians, forestry managers, food technologists, electrical engineers, computer scientists (climatologists are rather thin on the ground - you get the picture) _​and_ medical professionals including Doctors Frank Burns, Honeycutt and Pierce from M*A*S*H and Spice Girl Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition twice, once as Dr. Geri Halliwell and again as simply Dr. Halliwell.  Anyone who places any credibility on this bogus petition is not a sceptic, just being foolish.

----------


## Rod Dyson

This is what will eventually kill off the AGW scare. 
Ignore at your peril. 
The new GWPF report concluded:   

> We believe that, due largely to the constraints the climate model-orientated IPCC process imposed, the Fifth Assessment Report failed to provide an adequate assessment of climate sensitivity  either ECS [equilibrium climate sensitivity] or TCR [transient climate response]  arguably the most important parameters in the climate discussion. In particular, it did not draw out the divergence that has emerged between ECS and TCR estimates based on the best observational evidence and those embodied in GCMs. Policymakers have thus been inadequately informed about the state of the science. 
> The study was authored by Nicholas Lewis and Marcel Crok. Crok is a freelance science writer from The Netherlands and Lewis, an independent climate scientist, was an author on two recent important papers regarding the determination of the earths equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)that is, how much the earths average surface temperature will rise as a result of a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. 
> The earths climate sensitivity is the most important climate factor in determining how much global warming will result from our greenhouse gas emissions (primarily from burning of fossil fuels to produce, reliable, cheap energy). *But, the problem is, is that we dont know what the value of the climate sensitivity isthis makes projections of future climate changehow should we say this?a bit speculative*.

----------


## John2b

> This is what will eventually kill off the AGW scare. 
> Ignore at your peril. 
> The new GWPF report concluded:

  _"The earths climate sensitivity is the most important climate factor in determining how much global warming will result from our greenhouse gas emissions."_ 
Goodness me, Rod, _everybody_ knows this, including the IPCC which devotes an enormous amount of time and effort over it. My, my, you're quoting the GWPF, a secretly funded organisation founded by UK climate science sceptic Lord Nigel Lawson, BTW, and even *if the GWPF report is correct, it still means 3 degrees of warming by the end of the century,* which I think you will agree is actually very bad news indeed!

----------


## Micky013

Sorry Marc, ill leave it to you!

----------


## intertd6

> Ah yes, the OISM petition, thanks for bringing that up!  The petition (which represents about only about three in each thousand of the more than ten million graduate scientists who were qualified to sign BTW) has the signatories of veterinarians, forestry managers, food technologists, electrical engineers, computer scientists (climatologists are rather thin on the ground - you get the picture) _​and_ medical professionals including Doctors Frank Burns, Honeycutt and Pierce from M*A*S*H and Spice Girl Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition twice, once as Dr. Geri Halliwell and again as simply Dr. Halliwell.  Anyone who places any credibility on this bogus petition is not a sceptic, just being foolish.

  Ahh the science is settled again I see.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Ahh the science is settled again I see.
> regards inter

  The nature of science is that is never really "settled", just "accepted" until better science comes along.   
Last week at the CERAWeek 2014 - Energy, Commodities and the Global Economy conference in Houston, Andrew Mackenzie, Chief Executive of the world's largest miner BHP Billiton, stated  that: 
"Predicting the detail of the future climate is complex but the geological evidence record provides compelling evidence. Substantial variation in CO2 and other greenhouse gases results in temperature changes with potentially significant implications for life on Earth. _Warming of the climate is real, human activity is the dominant cause of this warming and physical impacts are unavoidable."_ 
You might remember that Former BHP chief Marius Kloppers also accepted the mainstream science of climate change and supported carbon pricing back in in late 2010. BHP Billiton alone is responsible for 0.52% of accumulated man-made greenhouse gas emissions BTW.   http://www.bhpbilliton.com/home/inve...CERASpeech.pdf

----------


## Neptune

> The science on AGW is very settled.

   

> The nature of science is that is never really "settled"

   :Rolleyes:  So which is it?

----------


## John2b

> So which is it?

  Both!    :Ok:  
Science is a process for producing knowledge. The process depends both on making careful observations of phenomena and on inventing theories for making sense out of those observations. Change in knowledge is inevitable because new observations may challenge prevailing theories. No matter how well one theory explains a set of observations, it is possible that another theory may fit just as well or better, or may fit a still wider range of observations. 
In science, including climate science, the testing and improving and occasional discarding of theories, whether new or old, goes on all the time. Scientists assume that even if there is no way to secure complete and absolute truth, increasingly accurate approximations can be made to account for the world and how it works. 
Although scientists reject the notion of attaining absolute truth and accept some uncertainty as part of nature, _most scientific knowledge is durable_. The modification of ideas, rather than their outright rejection, is the norm in science, as powerful constructs tend to survive and grow more precise and to become widely accepted.  
Better science, when it does come along, _will not overturn the observations and measurements of CO2_ released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels, it _will not overturn the observations and measurements of CO2 acting as a green house gas in the Earth's atmosphere_, and it _will not overturn the observations and measurements of the resultant shift in radiative heat forcing of the Earth that is a consequence of additional CO2 in the atmosphere_. 
You might say that to an overwhelming degree "the observations are settled" because there is no credible refutement of the recorded data. What is happening, is happening, and is both measurable and measured. In that sense, the reality of anthropogenic climate change _is_ settled_._

----------


## Marc

The dilettant  part time agitators and global warming back patting masseurs do not rest. In their quest to "prove" how the bad rich are making everything dirty and hot in their own little view of their own little world....(Oh my gosh ... isn't that oh so terrible?) :Confused:  they would stoop as low as to quote the same bad rich people they despise. 
Lets see:  THE world's biggest mining company has urged Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott to act on climate change ahead of other countries, warning that Australia's economy will suffer unless it looks to a future beyond coal.In a dramatic intervention into the stalled climate debate, BHP Billiton chief executive Marius Kloppers yesterday called for ''a clear price signal'' on carbon dioxide emissions, possibly including both a carbon tax and a limited carbon trading scheme covering power plants.  
Read more: Move on climate, BHP Billiton urges  
And then  BHP Billiton has revealed it is working with the Abbott government on the development of carbon policy, and it praised the Coalition's ''direct-action'' policy for protecting companies that compete in the international arena._There's no point in giving up [carbon dioxide] in Australia only to find that it's going to be emitted less efficiently elsewhere._ BHP chief executive officer Andrew Mackenzie told shareholders at the company's annual meeting in Perth on Thursday: ''We are looking very keenly with them as to what we can do with their direct-action measure that will, I think, protect the competitiveness of trade-exposed industries across Australia - not just ours - and really understand how we can drive emissions reductions. ''So far I am finding these discussions [with the government] very constructive, and we have a number of ideas.''  
Read more: BHP in talks with government to help formulate carbon policy  
And more  In September 2010, the company embarked on a step-change when the former chief executive, Marius Kloppers, publicly called for a carbon price in Australia. Timed just ahead of the Gillard government acceding to office, this started a debate that was long overdue in a usually defensive domestic mining sector. Now times are different. Australia's political context has changed dramatically with the new government claiming an electoral mandate for its anti-climate agenda. In the past few weeks, BHP has supportedAustralia's Abbot government on its legislation rescinding the country's commitment to a carbon price. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/bhp-billiton-climate-change-leader-laggard 
Anyone wants to add something? 
More Bla Bla perhaps? 
Is there anyone left out there that does not understand that big or small companies act just like politicians for self interest self preservation, vanity, PR, propaganda, and that the truth, let alone scientific independent truth does not exist anymore?
Hello!
Anyone there?  
Knock knock ... neee, empty.

----------


## PhilT2

New coal mining industry policy update. 
Language warning   *LINK REMOVED....CHECK HERE,*   

> *By clicking on the Agree button when you register to become a member of Woodwork Forums you warrant that:*   you will not use these forums to post any material which is  knowingly  false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful,   harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive   of a person's privacy

  While you're at it, READ THIS too!

----------


## PhilT2

> More Bla Bla perhaps? 
> Is there anyone left out there that does not understand that big or small companies act just like politicians for self interest self preservation, vanity, PR, propaganda, and that the truth, let alone scientific independent truth does not exist anymore?
> Hello!
> Anyone there?  
> Knock knock ... neee, empty.

  Nobody can do the bla bla better than you, Marc, so if you can just point us to the time back in history when politicians were honest and companies acted in something other than their own self interest that will suffice. You could also enlighten us on when science stopped seeking truth. Was it when they developed germ theory or evolution theory? What about gravity theory or greenhouse theory....or global warming theory? In reality didn't they become dishonest when they developed a theory that goes against your politics?

----------


## intertd6

> Both!    
> Science is a process for producing knowledge. The process depends both on making careful observations of phenomena and on inventing theories for making sense out of those observations. Change in knowledge is inevitable because new observations may challenge prevailing theories. No matter how well one theory explains a set of observations, it is possible that another theory may fit just as well or better, or may fit a still wider range of observations. 
> In science, including climate science, the testing and improving and occasional discarding of theories, whether new or old, goes on all the time. Scientists assume that even if there is no way to secure complete and absolute truth, increasingly accurate approximations can be made to account for the world and how it works. 
> Although scientists reject the notion of attaining absolute truth and accept some uncertainty as part of nature, _most scientific knowledge is durable_. The modification of ideas, rather than their outright rejection, is the norm in science, as powerful constructs tend to survive and grow more precise and to become widely accepted.  
> Better science, when it does come along, _will not overturn the observations and measurements of CO2_ released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels, it _will not overturn the observations and measurements of CO2 acting as a green house gas in the Earth's atmosphere_, and it _will not overturn the observations and measurements of the resultant shift in radiative heat forcing of the Earth that is a consequence of additional CO2 in the atmosphere_. 
> You might say that to an overwhelming degree "the observations are settled" because there is no credible refutement of the recorded data. What is happening, is happening, and is both measurable and measured. In that sense, the reality of anthropogenic climate change _is_ settled_._

  Pity you can't fathom & understand the last paragraph, the past history shows that CO2 has never preceded any warming period & has been at levels of ,000 parts per million & never caused catastrophic warming, so this dispels your theory well & truly as CO2 being the major driver of AGW.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Nice find PhilT2!  :Smilie:  
Truth in advertising standards upheld!

----------


## PhilT2

> Pity you can't fathom & understand the last paragraph, the past history shows that CO2 has never preceded any warming period & has been at levels of ,000 parts per million & never caused catastrophic warming, so this dispels your theory well & truly as CO2 being the major driver of AGW.
> regards inter

  What does it matter if the co2 increase is a forcing or a feedback? Maybe the previous sea level rises weren't catastrophic because there wasn't 7 billion people on the planet. Do the math, account for the level of warming in past events without a co2 feedback.

----------


## John2b

> Pity you can't fathom & understand the last paragraph, the past history shows that CO2 has never preceded any warming period & has been at levels of ,000 parts per million & never caused catastrophic warming, so this dispels your theory well & truly as CO2 being the major driver of AGW.
> regards inter

  Oh dear, do you really imagine that _every_ other aspect of climate then was the same as now and CO2 is the _only_ player? A tiny change in CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming, it is the primary cause of excess global warming, over and above "natural" global warming, in the 150 years post industrialisation. The same Laws of Physics and Thermodynamics applied always as now. Sorry, but past climate history does *nothing* to "dispelthe theory well & truly as CO2 being the major driver of AGW" when all of the other contributors to the planets energy balance are taken into account.

----------


## PhilT2

> New coal mining industry policy update. 
> Language warning   *LINK REMOVED....CHECK HERE,*   While you're at it, READ THIS too!

  Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

----------


## Marc

> .....just point us to the time back in history when politicians were honest and companies acted in something other than their own self interest that will suffice. You could also enlighten us on when science stopped seeking truth. Was it when they developed germ theory or evolution theory? What about gravity theory or greenhouse theory....or global warming theory? In reality didn't they become dishonest when they developed a theory that goes against your politics?

  Just like in previous observation I made, the replies seems to refer to a different post. 
It is a basic requirement in a written forum, to read ... (stating the obvious) ... and reply to all or most points made possibly in context. 
Of course in a verbal debate, there is more of an histrionic context and support can be drummed up by appealing to the crowd with half truth and addressing points from a totally unrelated angle, crack jokes, pretend and other distractions.
Yet in the written context, this does not work. May be a distraction but means absolutely nothing. 
Your replay is a vacuum of meaning and has no relation to what I said nor in the context I said it. 
Companies, even more big companies, act like politicians, always have and always will. I said so.... your point is? no point! zero. 
Scientist stop seeking truth when they are paid to do so, always have and always will. 
Scientist told us that the earth was the centre of the universe, that bleeding would cure baldness, that asbestos is safe, smoking calms the nerves and that human produced CO2 will make the sea rise 7 meters ... or was it 9 meters? 
Belief in a cause, any cause, follows a pattern of thoughts that is not the accepted norm of searching, finding, researching and accepting and perhaps then believing. It is more like believing first then search for a fitting cause to feed the preconceived belief. 
That is why most of the time "debating" is useless since the rusted on believers are unmovable for one and one reason only. Thier mind can not accept to be wrong because that would make their preconceived value that is part of their character wrong and the subsequent domino effect unbearable. 
Uncorrupted scientific process is different. There is always scope for doubt and skepticism is welcomed as part of the process of finding the explanation to a problem. Note I did not say truth since that term is absolute and relates better to religion than science. What is the truth today will be false tomorrow so may as well not call it "the truth" at all.  
AGW fraudsters, supporters and assorted cheer leaders want the world to applaud and chant in chorus 
"What do we want? Stop global warming! ... when do we want it? NOW !!!"...
in the best unionist street concentration fashion.
The paid mercenary scientist join them if the pay is OK. 
Fortunately not all scientists are happy with the pay, others missed out and are pissed off about it, and other still may be have some ethics left and tell what they know to be fact. 
Let's sit down and watch what will unfold next. 
No amount of histrionism and charades will change fiction into facts, not even with lots of smoke.

----------


## woodbe

> Scientist told us that the earth was the centre of the universe, that bleeding would cure baldness, that asbestos is safe, smoking calms the nerves and that human produced CO2 will make the sea rise 7 meters ... or was it 9 meters?

  And science then continued to research and then showed us that these initial hypotheses were incorrect. (some of these are dubious scientific 'tellings' but let's not go there) 
Science moves forward as new evidence is discovered through research, it has always been so. To ignore current accepted science backed by a long trail of discovery, measurement and evidence is foolish.  
The best thing you can do Marc, is to motivate your skeptic congregation to collect evidence and publish it. No amount of political talk is going to change climate science. It takes evidence to do that, and the current state of the evidence confirms our impact on the climate. 
woodbe.

----------


## John2b

> Scientist told us that the earth was the centre of the universe, that bleeding would cure baldness, that asbestos is safe, smoking calms the nerves...

  No Mark, "scientists" _did not_ tell us these things and there are/were no scientific theories in peer reviewed science journals to support these claims either. These claims were made by pseudo scientists, charlatans and shonksters, some of whom have lived long enough to prothlesize your current cause that the current global warming is not related to a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.

----------


## Marc

> No Mark, "scientists" _did not_ tell us these things and there are/were no scientific theories in peer reviewed science journals to support these claims either. These claims were made by pseudo scientists, charlatans and shonksters, some of whom have lived long enough to prothlesize your current cause that the current global warming is not related to a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.

  Ha ha, I take your assertion that geocentrism did not come from scientist and was not peer reviewed as a little joke. It was the consensus and the base of 1500 years of astronomical charts and reviewed and passed by scientist and religious authorities of the time over and over. Tons of books written about it.
As for the other blunders with asbestos and tobacco and pesticides and food additives and industrial contamination, (the real one not the make believe one) they all have one thing in common, the backing of "science" that in turn is backed by money from one source or another.   
The idea that "your" side of the story is true because "scientist A" says so, (A is paid handsomely with millions in grants by a government ) yet my side is wrong because "scientist B says so" (B is [allegedly] being paid by an oil company), is a very naive view of things and has been addressed repeatedly.

----------


## John2b

> As for the other blunders with asbestos and tobacco and pesticides and food additives and industrial contamination, (the real one not the make believe one) they all have one thing in common, the backing of "science" that in turn is backed by money from one source or another.

  No Marc, they _never_ had the backing of science.   

> The idea that "your" side of the story is true because "scientist A" says so, (A is paid handsomely with millions in grants by a government ) yet my side is wrong because "scientist B says so" (B is [allegedly] being paid by an oil company), is a very naive view of things and has been addressed repeatedly.

  Science doesn't have "sides", it is evidence based. There is only _one_ set of evidence. What you repeated describe as "science" is not science, but bogus science, pseudo science or plain outright deception for whatever reason only the perpetrator will ever know.

----------


## woodbe

> The idea that "your" side of the story is true because "scientist A" says so, (A is paid handsomely with millions in grants by a government ) yet my side is wrong because "scientist B says so" (B is [allegedly] being paid by an oil company), is a very naive view of things and has been addressed repeatedly.

  Not how it works, Marc. You have a conspiracy theory view of how science works. It is true that the church used to control science, but don't you remember that Galileo stepped over the line and the church was never able to put the genie back in it's bottle? Same with funding. You cannot buy fake evidence but you can have your own opinion even if the evidence does not support it. 
If 'side' A wants to show something, they show evidence. If 'side' B wants to prove 'side' A wrong, they have to show evidence. Same story for both 'sides'. Your little problem is that the 'side' you have chosen is lacking evidence and support of scientists because 'side' A's work is almost universally accepted and there is a paucity of intelligible evidence from 'side' B. 
Because 'side' B has industry funding and pushes the industry line, it does not follow that government funded science pushes the government line. Most governments would prefer they did not have this problem, so where is their motivation for pushing climate science to find AGW/ACC? There is none. Your thesis is a logical fallacy. eg. Just because you kick your cat, does not mean everybody kicks their cat.

----------


## Marc

> ....Because 'side' B has industry funding and pushes the industry line, it does not follow that government funded science pushes the government line. Most governments would prefer they did not have this problem, so where is their motivation for pushing climate science to find AGW/ACC? There is none. Your thesis is a logical fallacy....

  You must be kidding ... I understand that you badly wish this little logic of yours to be true but hey...it isn't, sorry. 
Just to address one small point of yours, you really think that "governments" see this as a "problem"? It is not a problem needing solution, it is a windfall just like wars and famine and pestilence are a windfall for governments who get to do things they would not normally get away with, gather support and look good. Every "problem" real or imaginary is a tool for any government regardless of persuasion. "Problems" need special funding, the more money the more power. Crisis are what makes totalitarians, the so called non existent global warming rebaptised whatever you like, is no different. 
As far as your trotted lack of evidence for skepticism, I am rather tired of that, since evidence has been posted on this thread ad nauseam. The fact that you are a late arriver and still waving your arms around when most have left does not make it less so. You got late to the ball and all the good girls have gone. Sorry again!
Best luck next time.

----------


## woodbe

> You must be kidding ... I understand that you badly wish this little logic of yours to be true but hey...it isn't, sorry. 
> Just to address one small point of yours, you really think that "governments" see this as a "problem"? It is not a problem needing solution, it is a windfall just like wars and famine and pestilence are a windfall for governments who get to do things they would not normally get away with, gather support and look good. Every "problem" real or imaginary is a tool for any government regardless of persuasion. "Problems" need special funding, the more money the more power. Crisis are what makes totalitarians, the so called non existent global warming rebaptised whatever you like, is no different.

  Yet we have a right wing government who does not see it as a problem, and a departed left wing government who did see it as a problem. Throughout left and right wing governments in this country (and any country I can think of), the science has said the same thing with increasing conviction over time based on evidence. Thesis destroyed #2.    

> As far as your trotted lack of evidence for skepticism, I am rather tired of that, since evidence has been posted on this thread ad nauseam. The fact that you are a late arriver and still waving your arms around when most have left does not make it less so. You got late to the ball and all the good girls have gone. Sorry again!
> Best luck next time.

  If you cannot tell the difference between the type of fake 'evidence' you find on climate denier sites that you clearly frequent; and published, peer reviewed and accepted science, then you would be correct. Unfortunately what you are proposing is a conspiracy theory, and one that does not stand up. Quoting denier 'evidence' here does not in any way equal the quality of science and evidence required to dispel the vast bulk of scientific research and evidence already in place. A blog is not a scientific publishing medium, neither is a forum. Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble.  
Please pass on to your congregation: If you have evidence and a superior hypothesis, publish! And soon.  :Sneaktongue:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Just like in previous observation I made, the replies seems to refer to a different post. 
> It is a basic requirement in a written forum, to read ... (stating the obvious) ... and reply to all or most points made possibly in context. 
> Of course in a verbal debate, there is more of an histrionic context and support can be drummed up by appealing to the crowd with half truth and addressing points from a totally unrelated angle, crack jokes, pretend and other distractions.
> Yet in the written context, this does not work. May be a distraction but means absolutely nothing. 
> Your replay is a vacuum of meaning and has no relation to what I said nor in the context I said it. 
> Companies, even more big companies, act like politicians, always have and always will. I said so.... your point is? no point! zero. 
> Scientist stop seeking truth when they are paid to do so, always have and always will. 
> Scientist told us that the earth was the centre of the universe, that bleeding would cure baldness, that asbestos is safe, smoking calms the nerves and that human produced CO2 will make the sea rise 7 meters ... or was it 9 meters? 
> Belief in a cause, any cause, follows a pattern of thoughts that is not the accepted norm of searching, finding, researching and accepting and perhaps then believing. It is more like believing first then search for a fitting cause to feed the preconceived belief. 
> ...

   :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:   Well put

----------


## Rod Dyson

> No Marc, they _never_ had the backing of science.   
> Science doesn't have "sides", it is evidence based. There is only _one_ set of evidence. What you repeated describe as "science" is not science, but bogus science, pseudo science or plain outright deception for whatever reason only the perpetrator will ever know.

  
Wow I am just getting a bit sick of this evidence crap. 
It has been done to death in this forum and not one single conclusive bit of science has been put forward that proves beyond doubt co2 is the main driver of the temperature increases this century. 
And I am not going to go over old ground now.  
It is pious beyond belief to think what has been put forward as scientific evidence concludes the matter beyond question.  Particularly when all the empirical evidence is pointing the other way.

----------


## intertd6

> Oh dear, do you really imagine that _every_ other aspect of climate then was the same as now and CO2 is the _only_ player? mmmmmm what data do you have that nobody else has, I wonder what the methane levels were back then when there was millions or billions of farting dinosaurs methane adding to the so called greenhouse effect of theses gases plus the thousands of parts per million CO2 which didn't send the the earth into a fiery end  
> A tiny change in CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming, it is the primary cause of excess global warming, over and above "natural" global warming, in the 150 years post industrialisation. The same Laws of Physics and Thermodynamics applied always as now.  What a joke! If this was true why has there not been a rise in the average global temp over the last 16 or so years as predicted by the models & irrefutable laws of physics & thermodynamics which the models are based on. 
> Sorry, but past climate history does *nothing* to "dispelthe theory well & truly as CO2 being the major driver of AGW" when all of the other contributors to the planets energy balance are taken into account  well actually nearly all science is based on past history unless of course it's about climate science predictions, mmmmmmm that's right they are failing miserably! 
> .

  Regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Wow I am just getting a bit sick of this evidence crap.

  Of course you are  :Rolleyes:  
Science is based on evidence, not opinion.    

> It has been done to death in this forum and not one single conclusive bit of science has been put forward that proves beyond doubt co2 is the main driver of the temperature increases this century.

  Well, perhaps none you support, yet you do agree on GHG effect and the role of CO2, yet you choose to ignore the supporting evidence. lol.   

> And I am not going to go over old ground now.

  Simple. Don't read this thread. It continues to go over the same ground that you do not wish raised. You may be the thread starter, but you are not the thread censor.   

> It is pious beyond belief to think what has been put forward as scientific evidence concludes the matter beyond question.  Particularly when all the empirical evidence is pointing the other way.

  In this thread, multiple examples of published science have been referenced that support the AGW/ACC accepted science. In response, 'skeptics' have done little other than to throw rocks. If the skeptic position was strong, it would be published, replicated and repeated just as the current accepted science has been and continues to be. 
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

----------


## intertd6

> What does it matter if the co2 increase is a forcing or a feedback? Maybe the previous sea level rises weren't catastrophic because there wasn't 7 billion people on the planet. Do the math, account for the level of warming in past events without a co2 feedback.

  so somehow this so called feedback mysteriously disappeared when the CO2 levels were in the thousand's of parts per million & the earth didn't suffer from catastrophic warming which burnt the earth to a crisp, the earth deals with tides in the range of up to 15m on a regular basis & you know what, the human race is fairly cluey, they just move up the beach when is comes & that's on a daily basis, not over millienia.
so if I do the maths on an theory which is failing on its predictions & proven by history to be voided, will this mean anything besides SFA
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Warming has stopped lol.   
The Arctic is in recovery lol   
El Nino is coming:     
What is the best thing about El Nino for our fake skeptics? They get a new 'no warming since..' year. lol

----------


## intertd6

> Warming has stopped lol.   
> The Arctic is in recovery lol   
> El Nino is coming:     
> What is the best thing about El Nino for our fake skeptics? They get a new 'no warming since..' year. lol

  more regurgitated fear campaign propaganda to try & link CO2 to global warming through anecdotal evidence, it's getting very old & very over used, I notice it didn't mention no water in our dams, as that one eventually went the way of the titanic.
regards inter

----------


## Marc

*Australian heatwaves are nothing new*  Posted on January 20, 2014    by Guest Blogger *Guest essay by Viv Forbes* Image: news.com.au No doubt we will hear how the current heatwaves in Australia are unprecedented and evidence of dangerous man-made global warming.
They are neither global nor unprecedented.
In the great heatwave of 1896, with nearly 200 deaths, the temperature at Bourke did not fall below 45.6 degC for six weeks, and the maximum was 53.3 degC. Bushfires raged throughout NSW and 66 people perished in the heat.
In 1897, Perth had an 18 day heatwave with a record of 43.3 degC. Other heatwaves were reported at Winton, 1891, Melbourne 1892, Boulia 1901, Sydney 1903, Perth 1906 and so on.
Why dont we hear of these severe heatwaves from the past? Simple  the government Bureau of Meteorology conveniently ignores all temperature records before 1910.
However, that does not excuse our media for neglecting the written records such as these preserved in newspapers of the past.
Could it be that both the BOM and some of the media are still trying to preserve the ailing global warming scare?

----------


## woodbe

> more regurgitated fear campaign propaganda to try & link CO2 to global warming through anecdotal evidence, it's getting very old & very over used, I notice it didn't mention no water in our dams, as that one eventually went the way of the titanic.
> regards inter

  Not a fear campaign, but it's probably an appropriate reaction. 
These are climate facts inter. Climate facts that the fake skeptics try to ignore or downplay with diversions (like your water message). Nothing in those graphics or my comments in the post says anything about CO2 even though the impact of CO2 is accepted.

----------


## Marc

*Australias average temperature*Posted on July 21, 2013	by Guest Blogger *Are Australians heading for the cooker?**Guest essay by Bill Johnston*
Elections for Australias National (Federal) parliament are looming and carbon tax is a battleground issue.
The incumbent Labour Party have proposed to transition its existing toxic carbon tax to an emissions trading scheme, linked to that in Europe, a year earlier than planned. Supposedly this would save their working families about $300 AUD/year for one year. The Liberal opposition party has promised to scrap the tax and ETS altogether and go for direct action. The fringe Greens party are wailing from the political sidelines because they dont like anything.
IF climate change is natural; and, IF the warming is more hot air than substance, neither plan is likely to achieve anything except increase the cost of living.
To help clarify things, this essay presents a straightforward analysis of Australias overall average temperature record, in sufficient detail that it could readily be repeated. *Methods and results.*
Average ACORN-SAT temperature anomaly data (1961-1990 climatology) were downloaded month-by month from Australias Bureau of Meteorology (Australia's official weather forecasts & weather radar - Bureau of Meteorology) Climate Change Tracker page.
To ensure data were not skewed by choice of the period used for anomaly calculations, they were sorted into a year by month array in Microsoft Excel and a lookup table of the 1961-1990 monthly climatological averages was used to convert anomalies into degrees Celsius.
To prevent December being recognized by Excel as the first month of the following year (which due to time slippage it does) time was calculated as a continuous variable of month-centered deciyears using the formula: Deciyear = [(digimonth-0.5)/12 + year]
In a separate table, Excel functions were used to calculate overall monthly average temperatures from the back-transformed data. Using those as lookup values, temperature data were seasonally adjusted using the standard approach of deducting overall monthly averages from respective monthly values. A new zero-centred anomaly dataset was thus calculated. It was those data that were analysed here.
Data were examined graphically in Excel (using Excel fitted trend lines); and statistically using the standalone package PAST (v. 2.17b) from the University of Oslo (PAST).
Homogeneity is an issue for time series whose data-stream may be a mixture of trend; abrupt changes due to external shocks, and cyclic phenomenon. Shocks or shifts may result in changes in the datas properties causing spurious trend inferences if they are ignored.
Two Excel addins were used to investigate homogeneity. They were:
(i) Change Point Analyser (CPA) from www.variation.com (time-limited freeware) (nonparametric), which used bootstrapping to detect changepoints in the mean and standard deviation of an historical data stream. CPA flagged if data were not serially independent and sub-sampling and grouping options are available to handle the problem. Various user options affect the sensitivity of CPA analysis.
(ii) Sequential t-test Analysis of Regime Shifts) v. 3.2 (STARS) (freeware from:Bering Climate and Ecosystem - Regime shift detection) (parametric). Conducts sequential t-tests along a time series to detect changes in the mean level. It can also be used to test for changes in the variance. STARS presents various options for handling autocorrelation as well as settings which determine sensitivity.
To minimise detection of statistically non-significant shifts (false detections), and maximise detection of significant ones, for both procedures, a rigorous iterative approach involving combinations of test parameters was used.
Target confidence levels were: _P > 95% (CPA) and P <0.05 (STARS), meaning less than a 5% chance of detected changes being spurious. (Both CPA and STARS provide actual Plevels for detected shifts, which allows a stringent interpretation of results.)_ _In addition to basic statistical tests such as for normality and autocorrelation, PAST conducts Lomb periodogram spectral analysis on detrended data and it includes routines for fitting up to 8 optimised sinusoidal regressions (a form of blind spectral analysis)._ _Its linear regression module handles non-normal and potentially autocorreleted data using bootstrapped confidence intervals, with the overall significance of regression indicated byP(unc.), which is the probability that data are not correlated. PAST will also fit an optimised cubic smoothing spine to noisy data._ _PAST conveniently operates on a cut-and-paste basis with Excel, allowing them to be used in tandem._ _(More information, and references are available at the respective web-sites.)_ _This study adopted a decomposition approach to the trend problem. Decomposition involves breaking the total signal (which is: trend + noise) into its components; which are deducted before trend is investigated. The approach is simple, objective, transparent and repeatable._ _To leave the trend intact, it is largely the noise part of the data (i.e. the detrended data) that are investigated. (Detrended data are the residuals from fitting a least-squares regression relationship to the data and deducting the fit; it is a transformation option in PAST.)_ _Already, without affecting the overall naïve trend (0.0089oC/yr), or sacrificing data (which happens with annual averaging), deducting monthly averages from values for respective months removed the annual summer-winter temperature oscillation, which accounts for a considerable portion of the total noise (Figure 1)._ __  _Figure 1. Average temperature (left) and monthly anomaly data (right) plotted at the same scale. For the anomaly data, the annual cyclic signal has been removed compressing the apparent data range. The underlying trend remained unaffected (indicated as 0.0089oC/year; or 0.089 oC /decade)._ _Visualisation of the anomaly data using LOWESS regression in PAST (smoothing parameter 0.3), and an expanded scatter-plot of the anomaly data in Excel (not shown here) indicated a shift may have occurred in the series in the 1950s. This was investigated further by constructing a Cusum (or residual mass) plot in Excel. (The LOWESS tends to smooth its way through data steps, which hides their abrupt nature.)_ _Cusum values are calculated as the cumulative sum of zero-centred monthly anomaly values._ _The plot (Figure 2) suggested the overall dataset contained several discontinuities, with turning points (inflections) in 1957 and 1979. This indicated the data might not be homogeneous._ _(Like a scatter plot, which indicates the linear characteristics of data; a Cusum chart indicates the shape of the data relative to the long-term mean.)_ _(Consecutive numbers, including completely random ones, show runs above and below the data average. Thus a Cusum chart is an indicator not a statistical test. The test, which comes later, is the probability that such runs represent a process that is not due to chance (CPA; P ~> 95%) or that steps in the time-series-mean are statistically significant (P < 0.05; STARS).)_ __ _Figure 2. The Cusum tracks the behaviour of the data relative to its overall average. In this case, average temperatures tracked less than the long-term average until 1957, and tracked higher after about 1979. Thus, the data may consist of three distinct data segments each of which could display different characteristics._ _It was important to check that step-changes in the data were not confounded with long-period oscillations. This was investigated using PAST._ _Spectral analysis on the detrended data found statistically significant (P < 0.05) peaks at 0.02297 and 0.00987yr-1, corresponding to frequencies of 3.6 and 8.44 years (Figure 3). Optimally fitted sinusoids detected similar signals (periodicity of 3.7 and 8.5 years). Although the amplitudes were small (0.142 and 0.137Co respectively) relative to the range of the detrended data, their effects ought still be removed._ __ _Figure 3. PAST graphic of the Lomb periodogram of detrended data, indicating spectral peaks at 0.00987yr-1 (P <0.05) and 0.02297yr-1 (P < 0.01) corresponding to periods (cycles) of 8.44 and 3.6 years respectively. (The red lines represent the 95 and 99% confidence intervals.)_ _(The frequencies correspond roughly to the 8.85 yr cycle of lunar perigee and a related quasi-cycle of 4.4 years, which have long been known to affect sea-levels (see Haig et. al. (2011) doi:10.1029/2010JC006645 for a general discussion.) However, there seems to be little written about the possible impact of short-term cycles on terrestrial temperature.)_ _To remove the underlying cycles, sinusoids fitted to the detrended data were pasted back into Excel and deducted from the monthly anomaly data. Homogeneity of those residuals was investigated using CPA and STARS._ _CPA and STARS both detected highly significant step-changes in the de-cycled data around April 1957; January 1979 and April 2002. STARS detected an additional change in August 2010. (It needs to be noted that CPA is a less powerful test than STARS and it is less sensitive to detecting change-points near the end of a series. A major advantage of STARS (over most other step-detection techniques) is that it is effective for monitoring changes over a full record.)_ _(Iteratively determined CPA test parameters were: target significance level, 95%; confidence level for inclusion, 99%; CI estimation at 99% (bootstraps 10,000, with replacement; Cusum estimates.) For STARS, parameters were: probability, 0.1, cutoff length 120 months (10 years); Huber parameter, 5 (no outlier adjustment); IPN4 to handle autocorrelation.)_ _Figure 4 shows the data segments detected by CPA superimposed on its Cusum chart (CPA graphic)._ __ _Figure 4. Cusum chart indicating changes detected by CPA._ _Results of STARS analysis is shown in Figure 5._ _The step-changes identified here need to be interpreted in the light of changes in the broader climate._ _STARS analysis of C. Follands (Hadley Centre) unfiltered Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) index (1871-2007) found significant shifts in 1907 (from a previous strongly positive phase) to a moderately positive phase that lasted until 1947. The index shifted to a negative phase in 1948; a strongly positive phase in 1975; then back to a negative phase in 1999. These were sudden and abrupt phase-changes that have been linked to the severity and intensity of ENSO cycling by a number of Authors._ _Remembering that averaging smoothes data considerably; and that the temperature data represent continental-scale averages it was not unexpected that the temperature response to IPO phase-changes lagged by several years. The consistency of the temperature response strongly implicated the IPO (or DPO) as the likely trigger for temperature step-changes detected here (1957, 1979, 2002 [the 2010 temperature shift was outside the IPO data range])._ _Clearly, a linear trend model is inappropriate for stepped data as trend analysis could be biased by the choice of start and end dates. Also, confounding steps and trends will certainly lead to spurious results and miss-attribution of cause and effect._ __ _Figure 5. STARS analysis of decycled anomaly data, with the highly significant step-changes superimposed. P levels were: April 1957 4.8E-05; January 1979 2.01E-05; April 2002 4.1E-05 and August 2010 0.0089. (E represents engineering notation.) It was extremely unlikely that the step changes were due to chance._ _For example, the overall trend in the data (January 1910 to June 2013) is 0.089oC/decade. The trend from 1950, which is a popular climate-change starting point, to June 2013, is 0.13 oC/decade. The trend from the start (1910) to the end of the 2010 hot decade is 0.1oC/decade, or conveniently, about 1 degree for the century. All very quotable statistics; but all quite misleading._ _Looking at the individual step-changes, the difference between the period average at the start of the record (-0.275oC) and the end (0.132oC) is 0.41oC; divided by the number of decades (10.64), the rate is 0.039 oC/decade. But that is not a real rate either; it is simply the difference divided by elapsed years._ _So is there a trend?_ _Residuals from deducting the step-change means from the anomaly data were pasted into PAST and detrended. They were modelled using an optimised smoothing spline, which tracked much of the noise. After deducting the splined signal from the step-free residuals (in Excel) data were pasted back into PAST and analysed for trend._ _No significant trend was detected._ _To further underscore the trend problem, the dataset was segmented at each of the changepoints indicated in Figure 5, resulting in five trend clusters, four of which were valid (from January 1910 to March 1957; April 1957 to December 1978; January 1979 to March 2002 and April 2002 to July 2010. (The fifth cluster from August 2010 to January 2013 was not defined by an end-point so it too short to adequately test.)_ _After reducing noise by deducting a cubic smoothing spline fit to each clusters detrended data, only one cluster (April 1957 to December 1978) showed a statistically significant (P(unc) <0.01) trend. For that case, the trend was negative (-0.16oC/decade)._ _So were the step-changes real or an artefact?_ _It has been established in Australias climate literature that that when the IPO (or PDO) is in its positive phase, dry El Niño conditions predominate over much of the continent; and that El Niño events are more frequent and severe. When in its negative phase, La Niña dominates which brings generally moist conditions especially to southern Australia._ _This is not to say that droughts dont occur; or floods, during opposite phases; it is a general statement supported by published studies._ _The timing of IPO/DPO shifts is evidenced by other meteorological events. For instance, a time-plot of Australias annual rainfall shows extreme values in the early 1950s; 1974; 2000, and 2010/11 (1974 being the most pronounced). The rapid temperature decline post the 2000-2010 hot decade evidences how rapidly climate changes in response to a major shift._ _The impact of shifts in the broader climate system on floods, cyclones, droughts and heatwaves is also corroborated by day-to-day reports in historic newspapers and other documents including Bureau of Meteorological Bulletins, special statements and Journal papers._ _Thus multiple lines of evidence can be drawn-on to support that around the time of IPO/PDO shifts, the climate is markedly perturbed. It then takes a year or 2 for things to settle down, often to a new level. Clearly step-changes are real and consequential in human terms._ _Regardless of their origin, events that impact on data are not trends. They create inhomogeneties in time series, which invalidate trend estimation using least-squares methods. The popular choice of 1950 as a climate change starting point is not a valid one because the data from 1950 to 1957 are from a pool of lower than average values that exert leverage on the trend-line. As indicated earlier, data prior to 1957 were non-trending._ _It is important that time-related data are checked for inhomogeneties and other non-trend signals and that the effect of these are removed. Otherwise the total signal is a confounded one._ *Conclusions.*_Australias averaged temperature data were impacted on by climate shifts in the 1950s, 1970s 2002 and 2010. After deducting the impact of those natural events, no residual warming trend was evident that could be related to atmospheric CO2 levels.__Australias, hot decade (2000-2010) was used to relentlessly market global warming by Australias Climate Commission; the Bureau of Meteorology; green groups and politicians in order to stir a sense of catastrophe and climate-fear. However, the fear was unfounded; the drought and associated high temperatures were a temporary aberration caused by El Niño cycles, not global warming.__The 2010 down-step exposed much of that decades climate-grooming as false and deceptive. Deceit continues under the guise of climate change. There is no evidence at this time that climate change and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere are related.__The outcome of Australias looming election will make no difference to the climate, or to the likelihood or impact of future climate changes. Ditching the carbon tax together with direct action would save the Nations taxpayers many billions of AUD$ which would be better spent on Nation-building and improving access to services._ _===================_ _Dr. Bill Johnston is a retired natural resources scientist with an interest in climate change issues._

----------


## Marc

*The Week That Was: 2014-01-25 (January 25, 2014)  Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project**Quote of the Week: The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions.Leonardo da Vinci [H/t Climate Etc.] Number of the Week: 1 in 100,000 over 70 years* *##################################################  #* *State of the Union: Last week TWTW incorrectly expressed that President Obamas State of the Union Address would be at 9 pm on Tuesday, January 21. In fact it will be at 9 pm on Tuesday January 28. The later date was somewhat fortunate for Mr. Obama because January 21 was a cold day with blowing snow in Washington. Between 4 to 12 inches accumulated in various parts around the city. Much of the snow remains because, generally, temperatures have been below freezing.*  *Many speculate that Mr. Obama will announce dramatic executive actions to fight global warming/climate change. If so, such actions will further illustrate that he is an authoritarian executive who has little regard for legislative processes as called for in the Constitution.* *Meteorologist Joe DAleo of WeatherBell Analytics informed TWTW that on January 28 every state of the union will have freezing temperatures and parts or all of 27 states will be below zero (-18 ºC). The current National Weather Service forecast for Washington is a high of 18ºF (-8 ºC) and a low of 7ºF (-14 ºC). The low temperature will be some 21ºF (12 ºC) below the Washington normal low for mid-January of 28ºF (-2 ºC). Perhaps the nation would be better off if the President declares his climate action plan is working and no new measures are needed. For an overview of what the week will bring see link under Changing Weather.* *************** *EU Retreat? As it appears that President Obama is preparing for war against global warming, it appears that the EU may be considering retreat. The European Commission proposed 2030 climate and energy goals, which indicated priorities may be changing. Competitive and secure energy came first, then low-carbon energy. The goals for renewable energy in 2030 were raised, but after 2020 specific goals will not be binding on individual countries. It is doubtful that the political leadership of many individual states will desire to continue with substantial renewable energy subsidies as consumer electricity prices continue to rise and government budgets are under pressure.* _The goals also include reducing CO2 emissions by 40% by 2030, which would require a significant effort from the current goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020, as compared with 1990 levels. How much carbon intensive industry are the EU member states willing to sacrifice or heavily subsidize? Germany, UK, and several other member states recognize that they are in danger of significant de-industrialization as industries are looking elsewhere to expand, given the high costs of electricity and natural gas in Europe._ _It will be interesting to see if and how these goals become actual measures. The Economist, which considers CO2 emissions a threat to the planet, is calling for bold action in the direction of cap-and-trade and carbon taxes. It even makes the assertion that electricity prices would fall if renewable subsidies are dropped. There should be interesting battles within the EU as member states face difficult choices, made far more difficult by past commitments to solar and wind power. See links under Questioning European Green and Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes._ _*************_ _Integrity of Datasets: Steven Goddard reports he discovered a spurious warming in the US data set provided by the US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) and used by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA-GISS). The finding is not new. It has been reported by Anthony Watts, Joseph DAleo and others. In general, version 2 of the data set, reduced historic temperatures making recent temperatures to appear warmer than the past. All this makes announcements of a certain year being the X hottest in the historic record highly questionable. Once a dataset is compromised, can its integrity be restored? See links under Measurement Issues._ _*************_ _Maximum and Minimum or Average: The report by Steven Goddard prompted Roy Spencer to update his alternative dataset using the U.S. average Integrated Surface Hourly temperature data (48 states) which he adjusts for changes in population density of the area where the report station is located. The adjustment is to compensate for the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI)._ _Spencer reports that in 2012 he too discovered a spurious warming in the USHCN dataset around 1998. By averaging four readings of temperatures taken at the same time (00, 06, 12, AND 18 UTC) he calculates a warming trend since 1973  when there was sufficient hourly coverage of the US. After adjusting for population growth, Spencer shows a warming trend significantly less than that of the USHCN. Further, the spurious warming remains even with no population adjustment. Spencer concludes: Clearly, adjustments to surface temperature data are at least as large as the global warming signal being sought. Until a transparent analysis of the USHCN methodology is carried out, and alternative methods and temperature datasets are tested, I cant bring myself to believe any U.S. government pronouncements regarding record warm temperatures. See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy._ _*************_ _PDO: In a post on WUWT, Don Easterbrook describes how he developed the association between changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), glacial fluctuations on Mt. Baker in Washington State, and global temperature data. Easterbrook came across a paper by Mantua, et al., on the influence the PDO on salmon populations in the Northeast Pacific. There was an almost exact correspondence between Easterbrooks findings of glacial fluctuations on Mt Baker._ _Using this association, in 1999, Easterbrook predicted a cooling for the next 25 to 30 years, immediately after the hot El Niño year of 1998. It is likely that few in the audience believed him. Later, Joe DAleo added the importance of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Easterbrook extended the research to GISP2 ice cores from Greenland and found a similar match. Of course, this research is poorly received by the climate establishment and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)._ _As Easterbrook states, it is important to realize that the PDO is an index, not a measured value of heat. It is based on about a dozen or so parameters that are related to cyclical variations in sea surface temperatures in the NE Pacific. It has two modes, warm and cool, and flips back and forth between them every 25 to 30 years. The question remains if the climate will cool for 20 to 25 years as Easterbrook predicts._ _Easterbrook states that it is not clear what drives these oceanic/climatic cycles. The correlations with various solar parameters appear to be quite good, but the causal mechanism remains unclear. See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy._ _*************_ _Communicate with the Public: The climate establishment continues to believe that the growing distrust the public has in global warming/climate change pronouncements is purely a breakdown in communication and not related to the failure of nature to obey human climate models. In discussing the missing heat, Judith Curry neatly sums up the issue. Well, if the scientists dont understand the cause of the pause, and the public is aware of the pause, then exactly what are we to conclude about the public understanding of climate change? Maybe that the public is not sufficiently sophisticated to believe climate model projections that are running much warmer than observations for the past decade? See link under Seeking a Common Ground._ _*************_ _The Fingerprint: Benjamin Santer complains that independent bloggers profoundly affected him. It is very difficult to have sympathy for this man who, in a hearing before Congress, bragged he changed wording in the final Summary for Policymakers, and Chapter 8, (on Attribution) of the IPCC Second Assessment Report (AR2  1995-96) to asserting a discernible human influence on global warming, after it had undergone peer review. He also bragged he discovered the distinct human fingerprint (a hot spot centered over the tropics at about 33,000 feet) which no one can find. Santer accomplished the latter task by truncating atmospheric temperature data, removing data at the beginning and the end of the dataset. These data contradict Santers findings. See link under Defending the Orthodoxy and an article by S. Fred SingerArticles: IPCC 's Bogus Evidence for Global Warming_ _*************_ _Social Cost of Carbon: Comments on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) are due on Monday to the Office of Management and Budget. The concept is a construct of an out-of-control bureaucracy. There are a number of models to calculate SCC, using different discount rate. The higher the rate, the lower the SCC._ _The science behind EPAs finding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger human health and welfare and its three lines of evidence is imploding. The climate models simply do not work and greatly overestimate the recent warming [no surface warming for 16 years]. There is no reason to believe the climate models are capable of predicting the future climate._ _Perhaps with this in mind, Joseph DAleo has an amusing post on one of the social costs of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Research funded by the National Institute Drug Abuse has found that Cannabis sativa grows best in atmospheres with high concentrations of carbon dioxide, up to the highest level tested, 750 parts per million. See link under Below the Bottom Line._ _*************_ _Additions and Corrections: The system used to send out TWTW does not allow certain formatting methods as customarily used. For quotes, italics are used, but long quotes cannot be indented. In last weeks TWTW Judith Curry was quoted extensively regarding Mr. Manns accusation that her testimony before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee was unscientific. Some readers were confused about who was being quoted. We shall make every effort to be clear in the future._ _*************_ _Number of the Week: 1 in 100,000 over 70 years. Those visiting California for the first time may think it is the most dangerous place on earth for contracting cancer. Retail establishments selling food, groceries, hardware, building products, gasoline etc. are plastered with signs stating: WARNING: This Area Contains A Chemical Known To The State of California To Cause Cancer. The standard used to establish this warning is an example of collective chemical phobia: at least a 1 in 100,000 chance for any person exposed to the product over a period of 70 years contracting cancer. See Article # 2._ _##################################################  #_ *ARTICLES:*

----------


## Marc

*ARTICLES:**For the numbered articles below please see this weeks TWTW at:http://www.sepp.org. The articles are at the end of the pdf.**1. The Inventor of the Global Warming Hockey Stick Doubles Down* *By S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, Jan 21, 2014* *Articles: The Inventor of the Global Warming Hockey Stick Doubles Down* *Professor Michael Mann, if you see something, say something  or maybe just keep your mouth shut* *2. Caution: This Warning May Be Useless* *A right to know law in California hasnt helped consumers, but its a big burden on business.* *By Michael Marlow, WSJ, Jan 20, 2014* *Michael Marlow: Caution: This Warning May Be Useless - WSJ.com* *3. Californias Cap-and-Trade Awakening* *A Democrat discovers the economic costs of anticarbon politics.* *Editorial, WSJ, Jan 17, 2014* *California&#39;s Cap-and-Trade Awakening - WSJ.com* *4. Californias Water Fight* *By Allysia Finley, WSJ, Jan 23, 2014* *Political Diary: California&#39;s Water Fight - WSJ.com* *##################################################  #* *NEWS YOU CAN USE:**Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?* *BBC runs 6 excellent minutes on quiet sun and past correlation with Little Ice Age* *By Alec Rawls, WUWT, Jan 19, 2014* *BBC runs 6 excellent minutes on quiet sun and past correlation with Little Ice Age | Watts Up With That?* *[SEPP Comment: Contrary to the report, the cold periods during the Little Ice Age were not confined to Northern Europe.]**Suppressing Scientific Inquiry* *Science is not done by peer or pal review, but by evidence and reason* _By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Jan 20, 2014_ _Science is not done by peer or pal review, but by evidence and reason « JoNova_ _Challenging the Orthodoxy_ _Nothing left to say_ _By John Brignell, Number Watch, Jan 19, 2014_ _2014 January_ _Cause of the pause in global warming_ _By Don Easterbrook, WUWT, Jan 17, 2014_ _Cause of ‘the pause’ in global warming | Watts Up With That?_ _Big Chill Expected to Stay Until 2040_ _Major cooling cycle could match Little Ice Age_ _By Staff Writers, Interview of Tim Ball, WND, Radio, Jan 21, 2014_ _‘Big chill’ expected to stay until 2040_ _U.S. temperatures, 1973-2013: A alternative view_ _By Roy Spencer, His Blog, Jan 24, 2014_ _U.S. temperatures, 1973-2013: A alternative view « Roy Spencer, PhD_ _Defending the Orthodoxy_ _Report: Obama can advance climate agenda without Congress_ _By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, Jan 21, 2014_ _Report: Obama can advance climate agenda without Congress | TheHill_ _A united call for action on climate change_ _By Kofi Annan, Washington Post, Jan 22, 2014 [H/t Dennis Manuta]_ _Kofi Annan: A united call for action on climate change - The Washington Post_ _[SEPP Comment: A reiteration of unsubstantiated claims.]_ _Former Colo. Gov. Ritter pitches emissions plan based on executive agency action_ _Transcript by Staff Writers, EETV, Jan 22, 2014_ _CLIMATE: Former Colo. Gov. Ritter pitches emissions plan based on executive agency action -- Wednesday, January 22, 2014 -- www.eenews.net_ _Neglected Topic Winner: Climate Change_ _By Nicholas Kristof, NYT, Jan 19, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]_ _http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/op...er=rss&emc=rss_ _[SEPP Comment: The gray lady is becoming a supermarket tabloid for the wealthy.]_ _How climate blogging profoundly affected Ben Santer_ _By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jan 18, 2014_ _How climate blogging ‘profoundly affected’ Ben Santer | Watts Up With That?_ _Questioning the Orthodoxy_ _Chill Out_ _By John Stossel, Townhall, Jan 22, 2014_ _Chill Out - John Stossel - Page 1_ _It could be that climate change just isnt worth worrying about_ _By Tim Worstall, Adam Smith Institute, Jan 18, 2014_ _It could be that climate change just isn&#039;t worth worrying about | Adam Smith Institute_ _Miss Global Warming Yet? If Not, Just Wait And You Might_ _By Larry Bell, Forbes, Jan 21, 2014_ _Miss Global Warming Yet? If Not, Just Wait And You Might - Forbes_ _Social Benefits of Carbon_ _Large, older trees keep growing at a faster rate_ _By Deann Gayman for UNL News, Lincoln NB (SPX), Jan 21, 2014_ _Large, older trees keep growing at a faster rate_ _Problems in the Orthodoxy_ _Next 15 years vital for taming warming: UN panel_ _By Staff Writers, Paris (AFP), Jan 17, 2014_ _Next 15 years vital for taming warming: UN panel_ _[SEPP Comment: Some of the draft conclusions on the final volume of AR5 due out in April 2014. Previous reports called the last 10 years vital.]_ *Seeking a Common Ground* *The logic (?) of the IPCCs attribution statement* *By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Jan 23, 2014* *The logic(?) of the IPCC’s attribution statement | Climate Etc.* *The Scientific Method and Climate Science* _By Vincent Gray, WUWT, Jan 21, 2014_ _The Scientific Method and Climate Science | Watts Up With That?_ _Questions from Congress, Part 2: Responses to Rep. Suzanne Bonamici_ _By Roger Pielke Jr. His Blog Jan 24, 2014_ _Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Questions from Congress, Part 2: Responses to Rep. Suzanne Bonamici_ _Questions from Congress, Part 1: Responses to Representative Lamar Smith_ _By Roger Pielke Jr. His Blog, Jan 24, 2014_ _Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Questions from Congress, Part 1: Responses to Representative Lamar Smith_ _The case of the missing heat_ _By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Jan 20, 2014_ _The case of the missing heat | Climate Etc._ _Review of Recent Scientific Articles by NIPCC_ _For a full list of articles see www.NIPCCreport.org_ *Two Decades of Global Dryland Vegetation Change* _Reference: Andela, N., Liu, Y.Y., van Dijk, A.I.J.M., de Jeu, R.A.M. and McVicar, T.R. 2013. Global changes in dryland vegetation dynamics (1988-2008) assessed by satellite remote sensing: comparing a new passive microwave vegetation density record with reflective greenness data. Biogeosciences 10: 6657-6676._ *Two Decades of Global Dryland Vegetation Change* *The Top Ten Problems of the New-and-Improved ECHAM6 Model* _Reference: Stevens, B., Giorgetta, M., Esch, M., Mauritsen, T., Crueger, T., Rast, S., Salzmann, M., Schmidt, H., Bader, J., Block, K., Brokopf, R., Fast, I., Kinne, S., Kornblueh, L., Lohmann, U., Pincus, R., Reichler, T. and Roeckner, E. 2013. Atmospheric component of the MPI-M System Model: ECHAM6. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 5: 146-172._ *The Top Ten Problems of the New-and-Improved ECHAM6 Model* *Modelling Thermal Characteristics of the Cold Point-Tropopause* _Reference: Kim, J., Grise, K.M. and Son, S.-W. 2013. Thermal characteristics of the cold-point tropopause region in CMIP5 models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 118: 8827-8841._ *Modelling Thermal Characteristics of the Cold Point-Tropopause* *The Best Available Tools for Predicting Climate Change* _Reference: Siam, M.S., Demory, M.-E. and Eltahir, E.A.B. 2013. Hydrological cycles over the Congo and Upper Blue Nile basins: Evaluation of general circulation model simulations and reanalysis products. Journal of Climate 26: 8881-8894._ *The "Best Available Tools" for Predicting Climate Change* *Models v. Observations* *New study says robust modeling predicted Antarctic sea ice to decrease, but the ice defies modeling* _By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jan 23, 2014_ _New study says ‘robust modeling’ predicted Antarctic sea ice to decrease, but the ice defies modeling | Watts Up With That?_ _Link to paper: Climate System Response to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion and Recovery_ _By Michael Previdi and Lorenzo M. Polvani, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, Jan 20, 2014_ _Climate System Response to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion and Recovery - Previdi - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library_ _Models Issues_ _The empty set_ _By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Jan 21, 2014_ _- Bishop Hill blog - The empty@set_ _So the answer is that there are NO MODELS at the intersection of best lower-tropospheric mixing and best simulation of extreme rainfall etc._ _Measurement Issues_ _HadCRUT 2013_ _By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Jan 24, 2014_ _- Bishop Hill blog - HadCRUT@2013_ _The HadCRUT global temperature anomaly for 2013 is 0.486. If so it should be outside the 5-95% bands on Ed Hawkins famous graph._ _That will be more standstill then._ _It looks like the 8th warmest year since HADCRUT began and the 8th coldest year in this millenium. Catastrophe looms. Comment By Phillip Bratby_ _NASA and NOAA Confirm Global Temperature Standstill Continues_ _By David Whitehouse, GWPF, Jan 21, 2014_ _NASA and NOAA Confirm Global Temperature Standstill Continues | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)_ _Given that the IPCC estimates that the average decadal increase in global surface temperature is 0.2 deg C, the world is now 0.3 deg C cooler than it should have been._ _Phil Jones 2012 video: Talks about adjusting SST data up ~.3-.5C after WWII_ _By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jan 17, 2014_ _Phil Jones 2012 video: Talks about adjusting SST data up ~.3-.5C after WWII | Watts Up With That?_ _[SEPP Comment: Adjusting sea surface temperatures to make them consistent with land air-surface temperatures?]_ _Just Hit The NOAA Motherlode_ _By Steven Goddard, Real Science, Jan 19, 2014_ _Just Hit The NOAA Motherlode | Real Science_ _[SEPP Comment: Similar to the link immediately below.]_ _New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial_ _By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jul 29, 2012_ _New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial | Watts Up With That?_ _New paper asks: Would the real temperature dataset please stand up?; finds We have no ability to know the true temperature data_ _By Staff Writer, The Hockey Schtick, Jan 19, 2014 [H/t GWPF]_ _THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper asks: 'Would the 'real' temperature dataset please stand up?'; finds 'We have no ability to know' the true temperature data_ _Changing Weather_ _And you thought it was cold earlier this month_ _By Joseph DAleo, ICECAP, Jan 24, 2014_ _ICECAP_ _Australian heatwaves are nothing new_ _By Viv Forbes, WUWT, Jan 20, 2014_ _Australian heatwaves are nothing new | Watts Up With That?_ _Air pollution boosts NW Pacific cyclones: study_ _By Staff Writers, Paris (AFP), Jan 21, 2014_ _Air pollution boosts NW Pacific cyclones: study_ _[SEPP Comment: Relatively short periods and unrelated to CO2. Much of the pollution can be controlled using commercially available equipment. No link to study.]_ _Arctic cyclones more common than previously thought_ _By Pam Frost Gorder for OSC News, Columbus OH (SPX), Jan 20, 2014_ _Arctic cyclones more common than previously thought_ _[SEPP Comment: Previously thought by whom?]_ _California declares drought emergency_ _By Staff Writers, Los Angeles (AFP), Jan 17, 2014_ _California declares drought emergency_ _Changing Seas_ _German Review: Sea Level Rise Way Below Projections  No Hard Basis For Claims Of Accelerating Rise_ _IPCC 1990: No convincing evidence that sea level rise accelerated in the 20th century_ _By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt, Translated by P. Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Jan 23, 2014_ _German Review: Sea Level Rise Way Below Projections – No Hard Basis For Claims Of Accelerating Rise_ _[SEPP Comment: Post glacial sea level rise tapered off about 4000 years ago. Except for the Little Ice Age it has been modest since.]_ _Ocean heat content uncertainties_ _By Judith Curry, Climate etc. Jan 21, 2014_ _Ocean heat content uncertainties | Climate Etc._ _[SEPP Comment: Technical analysis of available data questioning claims that the global warming is hiding in the deep ocean.]_ *Changing Cryosphere  Land / Sea Ice* *Antarctica Has Sea Ice Rabbit Ears, a V for Victory or Maybe Its a Peace Sign?* _By Justthefacts. WUWT, Jan 19, 2014_ _Antarctica Has Sea Ice Rabbit Ears, a V for Victory or Maybe It’s a Peace Sign?… | Watts Up With That?_ _1932 Shock News : Melting Polar Ice Caps To Drown The Planet_ _By Steven Goddard, Real Science, Jan 24, 2014_ _1932 Shock News : Melting Polar Ice Caps To Drown The Planet | Real Science_ _[SEPP Comment: Straight from the New York Times.]_ _Changing Earth_ _Study: Changing Land-use Not Global Warming to Blame for Increased Flood Risk_ _By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jan 23, 2014_ _Study: Changing Land-use Not Global Warming to Blame for Increased Flood Risk | Watts Up With That?_ _Link to paper: Flood risk and climate change: global and regional perspectives_ _By Kundzewicz, et al. Hydrological Sciences Journal, Dec 20, 2013_ _An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie_ _[SEPP Comment: Not a surprise for those who are familiar with changing land use.]_ *Agriculture Issues & Fear of Famine* *Soil Microbes Alter DNA in Response to Warming* _By Brett Israel for GT News, Atlanta GA (SPX), Jan 21, 2014_ _Soil Microbes Alter DNA in Response to Warming_ _Un-Science or Non-Science?_ _Be prepared: Extreme El Niño events to double, study says_ _By John Roach, NBC News, Science, Jan 19, 2014 [Clyde Spencer]_ _http://www.nbcnews.com/science/be-pr...ays-2D11947406_ _Get used to heat waves: Extreme El Nino events to double_ _By Staff Writers, Sydney, Australia (SPX), Jan 22, 2014_ _Get used to heat waves: Extreme El Nino events to double_ _Lowering Standards_ _How the American Meteorological Society Justified Publishing Half Truths_ _By Jim Steele, WUWT, Jan 21, 2014_ _How the American Meteorological Society Justified Publishing Half Truths | Watts Up With That?_ _The Zero-Emissions Imperative_ _By Angel Gurría, Secretary-General of the OECD, Project Syndicate, Jan 24, 2014_ _Angel Gurría says that nothing short of a post-carbon economy by the second half of this century can stop catastrophic climate change. - Project Syndicate_ _[SEPP Comment: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has outlived its mission and its usefulness. Among other things, the author fails to identify the nations that give the major fossil-fuel subsidies are petro-states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and OECD member Russia.]_ _The World Economic Forum gets hijacked by climate alarmism_ _By Christopher Monckton, WUWT, Jan 24, 2014_ _The World Economic Forum gets hijacked by climate alarmism | Watts Up With That?_ _Climate Comedy?_ _Apology As Antarctica Rescue Bill Tops $2.4m_ _By Graham Lloyd, The Australian, Via GWPF, Jan 23, 2014_ _Apology As Antarctica Rescue Bill Tops $2.4m | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)_ _New Details on the Ship of Fools_ _By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, Jan 21, 2014_ _New Details on the Ship of Fools « Climate Audit_ _Guess who won an award for understanding Natural Phenomena?_ _By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Jan 21, 2014_ _Guess who won an award for understanding Natural Phenomena? « JoNova_ _Communicating Better to the Public  Exaggerate, or be Vague?_ _Claim: Analysis indicates that North and tropical Atlantic warming affects Antarctic climate_ _By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jan 24, 2014_ _Claim: Analysis indicates that North and tropical Atlantic warming affects Antarctic climate | Watts Up With That?_ _[SEPP Comment: The AMO may impact on the Antarctic Peninsula. But contrary to the article, the warming is not occurring on the main part of the continent.]_ _The water cycle amplifies abrupt climate change_ _By Staff Writers, Potsdam, Germany (SPX), Jan 21, 2014_ _The water cycle amplifies abrupt climate change_ _Link to paper: Delayed hydrological response to Greenland cooling at the onset of the Younger Dryas in western Europe_ _By Rach, Brauer, Wilkes, Sachse, Nature Geoscience, Jan 19, 2014_ _http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo2053.html_ _[SEPP Comment: What an abuse of the findings of the paper as stated in the abstract!!]_ *Massive Antarctic glacier uncontrollably retreating, study suggests* _By Laura Poppick, NBC News, Jan 16, 2014 [H/t Clyde Spencer]_ _http://www.nbcnews.com/science/massi...sts-2D11942467_ _Modest EU climate targets criticized_ _Planned greenhouse-gas cuts for 2030 might not be enough to avoid disastrous temperature rises._ _By Quirin Schiermeier, Nature, Jan 22, 2014_ _'Modest' EU climate targets criticized : Nature News & Comment_ _Communicating Better to the Public  Make things up._ _NASA Finds 2013 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend_ _By Staff Writers, Washington DC (SPX), Jan 23, 2014_ _NASA Finds 2013 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend_ _Long-term trends in surface temperatures are unusual and 2013 adds to the evidence for ongoing climate change, GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said._ _[SEPP Comment: No trend is now a trend!]_ _Photo shopped_ _By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Jan 21, 2014_ _- Bishop Hill blog - Photo@shopped_ _Amstrup repeats starving polar bear nonsense, features Ursus bogus_ _By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Jan 21, 2014_ _Amstrup repeats starving polar bear nonsense, features_ _Bushfire predictions in 2070 are nonsense on stilts. Models cant predict rainfall_ _By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Jan 24, 2014_ _Bushfire predictions in 2070 are nonsense on stilts. Models can’t predict rainfall « JoNova_ _Climate change could jeopardize future Winter Olympic games_ _By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, Jan 24, 2014_ _Climate change could jeopardize future Winter Olympic games | TheHill_ _[SEPP Comment:If the globe continues to warm at its current rate The current rate is zero, all sorts of disasters will happen.]_ _Neil Youngs Hiroshima  Exhibit #10 in the Drama Queen Files_ _By Donna Laframboise, NFC, Jan 20, 2014_ _Neil Young’s Hiroshima – Exhibit #10 in the Drama Queen Files | NoFrakkingConsensus_ _Communicating Better to the Public  Go Personal._ _The Temperature Standstill And Its Dismissal_ _By David Whitehouse, GWPF, Jan 22, 2014_ _The Temperature Standstill And Its Dismissal | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)_ _[SEPP Comment: According to Professor Lowe, climate scientists quoted in last weeks Nature magazine essay on the pause are deniers!]_ _Expanding the Orthodoxy_ *NASA: Cracked Sea Ice Stirs Up Arctic Mercury Concern* _By Carol Rasmussen for Earth Science News, Pasadena CA (JPL), Jan 22, 2014_ _NASA: Cracked Sea Ice Stirs Up Arctic Mercury Concern_ _[SEPP Comment: Will this hypothesis survive?]_ *Questioning European Green* *Back from the brink?* _By Martin Livermore, Scientific Alliance, Jan 24, 2014_ _Back from the brink? | Scientific Alliance_ _Will the EUs decision to dilute green energy targets significantly help European business?_ _Yes  By James Sproule, NO By Benny Peiser, City A.M., Jan 23, 2014 [H/t GWPF]_ _Will the EU_ _Dont miss the EU transformation on renewable energy_ _By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Jan 24, 2014_ _Don’t miss the EU transformation on renewable energy « JoNova_ _[SEPP Comment: Excerpts from different sources.]_ _EU energy costs widen over trade partners_ _By Pilita Clark and Christian Oliver, Financial Times, Jan 20, 2014_ _EU energy costs widen over trade partners - FT.com_ _EU: Re-Industrialization More Important Than Climate Change_ _By Florian Eder, Die Welt, Translation Philipp Mueller, GWPF, Jan 20, 2014_ _EU: Re-Industrialization More Important Than Climate Change | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)_ _EU scraps targets forcing Britain to build wind farms: UK free to go nuclear and use fracking_ _By Ben Spencer, Mail, UK, Jan 22, 2014 [H/t Jan 22, 2014_ _EU scraps targets forcing Britain to build wind farms: UK free to go nuclear and use fracking | Mail Online_ _EU sets out leaner 2030 climate and energy vision_ _By Charlie Dunmore, Reuters, Jan 22, 2014_ _EU sets out leaner 2030 climate and energy vision | Reuters_ _Energy Bills To Hit £1,500 As Green Taxes Double_ _By Tim Webb, The Times, Via GWPF, Jan 22, 2014_ _Energy Bills To Hit £1,500 As Green Taxes Double | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)_ _EU could cut emissions by 40 percent at moderate cost_ _By Staff Writers, Potsdam, Germany (SPX), Jan 20, 2014_ _EU could cut emissions by 40 percent at moderate cost_ _Link to article: Beyond 2020 - Strategies and costs for transforming the European energy system._ _By Knopf, et al, Climate Change Economics, No Date_ _An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie_ _"Still, most model calculations optimizing the change of the electricity system project energy from biomass to expand threefold, and from wind even sevenfold by 2050." This would have to be reflected in a potential future EU target on renewable energy._ _[SEPP Comment: Massive expansion of electricity from wind, which is unreliable and needs back-up. This will be at moderate cost?]_  _Europes New Emissions Goals_ _By Roger Pielke Jr, His Blog, Jan 22, 2014_ _Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Europe's New Emissions Goals_ _The graph indicates that achieving a non-nuclear, renewables-based energy system in Germany, while also reducing emissions to 40% below 1990 levels, will remain a formidable challenge. For now, Germany is building more coal plants and moving away from that 2030 target._ _The Road To De-Industrialisation: Steel Industry Slams Proposed Energy & Climate Targets_ _By Staff Writers, Steel Times International, Jan 22, 2014 [H/t GWPF]_ _"The road to de-industrialisation"_ _UK must cut green goals back in line with Europes, manufacturers say_ _European Commission proposes 40pc cut in carbon emissions by 2030 and scraps legally-binding renewable energy targets_ _By Emily Gosden, Telegraph, UK, Jan 22, 2014 [H/t GWPF]_ _UK must cut green goals back in line with Europe's, manufacturers say - Telegraph_ _Questioning Green Elsewhere_ _Warmists Pivot to Climate Adaptation_ _By Peter Wilson, American Thinker, Jan 22, 2014_ _Articles: Warmists Pivot to Climate Adaptation_ _[SEPP Comment: Contrary to the article, Bjorn Lomborg is not a skeptic of the concept humans are causing significant global warming.]_ _Funding Issues_ *Government Money for Innovations* _By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Jan 21, 2014_ _Government Money for Innovations | Power For USA_ _[SEPP Comment: Innovation is not the final goal, it may be a means of improving human welfare.]_ *DOE loan program chief Davidson discusses new round of clean tech funding* _Transcript by Staff Writers, EETV, Jan 23, 2014_ _ENERGY POLICY: DOE loan program chief Davidson discusses new round of clean tech funding -- Thursday, January 23, 2014 -- www.eenews.net_ _[SEPP Comment: Another $8 Billion on top of $16 Billion from the Stimulus Bill and $8 Billion in advanced auto. What is the rate of return on the investment (ROI) on the DOE portfolio?]_ *Litigation Issues* *Future of US Arctic operations in question after court ruling* _By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, Jan 22, 2014_ _Future of US Arctic operations in question after court ruling | TheHill_ _[SEPP Comment: The amount of economically recoverable oil may have been greatly underestimated, requiring a new environmental review  more government control!]_ *Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes* *European climate policy: Worse than useless* _Current policies are a mess. Heres how to fix them_ _Editorial, The Economist, Jan 25, 2014_ _European climate policy: Worse than useless | The Economist_ _The 20 largest European energy utilities have lost a jaw-dropping 500 billion in market value since 2008_ _Subsidies and Mandates Forever_ _Colorado Consumers Paying Steep Price for Renewable Power Mandates_ _By James Taylor, Environment & Climate News, Jan 15, 2014_ _Colorado Consumers Paying Steep Price for Renewable Power Mandates | Heartlander Magazine_ _Energy Tax Reform: Scrap the Baucus Proposal (Part IV: Negative Wealth Effects)_ _By Glenn Schleede, Master Resource, Jan 22, 2014_ _Energy Tax Reform: Scrap the Baucus Proposal (Part IV: Negative Wealth Effects) — MasterResource_ _EPA and other Regulators on the March_ _Dirty Science in EPAs War on Coal_ _By Larry Bell, News Max, Jan 21, 2014_ _Dirty Science in Obama&#39;s and EPA&#39;s Coal War_ _EPA Administrator Says Coal Rules Necessary Because of Devastating Impacts on the Planet_ _But Gina McCarthy tells GOP lawmakers she cant answer climate-change questions: I just look at what the climate scientists tell me._ _By Rodrigo Sermeno, PJ Media, Jan 20, 2014_ _PJ Media » EPA Administrator Says Coal Rules Necessary Because of ‘Devastating Impacts on the Planet’_ _Global Warming Fraud Exposed  Under Oath!!_ _By Staff Writers, Turner Radio Network, Jan 22, 2014 [H/t Bob Dillon]_ _GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD EXPOSED - UNDER OATH ! !_ _A New Years Gift from the Department of Energy_ _By James Broughel, Mercatus Center, Jan 2, 2014_ _A New Year_ _Coal leaders: Obamas social cost of carbon flawed_ _By Tim Devaney, The Hill, Jan 22, 2014_ _Coal leaders: Obama&#039;s &#039;social cost of carbon&#039; flawed | TheHill_ _Link to study: The Social Costs of Carbon? No, the Social Benefits of Carbon_ _By Staff Writers, Management Information Services, Inc. Jan 2014_ _http://www.americaspower.org/sites/d..._of_Carbon.pdf_ _The EPAs Agenda: Undermine Capitalism and America_ _By Alan Caruba, Warning Signs, Jan 23, 2014_ _Warning Signs: The EPA's Agenda: Undermine Capitalism and America_ _Energy Issues  Non-US_ _Alberta premier to challenge Gore on oil sands myths_ _By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, Jan 21, 2014_ _Alberta premier to challenge Gore on oil sands &#039;myths&#039; | TheHill_ _Canada: From Energy Supplier to Competitor?_ _By Geoffrey Styles, Energy Tribune, Jan 23, 2014_ _Canada: From Energy Supplier to Competitor? - Energy TribuneEnergy Tribune_ _Germanys energy revolution on verge of collapse_ _By Fred Pearce, New Scientist, Jan 22, 2014_ _Germany's energy revolution on verge of collapse - environment - 22 January 2014 - New Scientist_ _High energy prices hold Europe back_ _US gains huge competitive advantage from EU muddle_ _Editorial, Financial Times, Jan 21, 2014 [H/t GWPF]_ _High energy prices hold Europe back - FT.com_ _Soaring electricity prices zap struggling Spaniards_ _By Staff Writers, Madrid (AFP), Jan 19, 2014_ _Soaring electricity prices zap struggling Spaniards_ _Energy Issues  US_ _Climate-Change Busyness_ _The presidents initiatives yield higher energy costs and no environmental benefit._ _By Nicolas Loris, National Review, Jan 17, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]_ _Climate-Change Busyness | National Review Online_ _[SEPP Comment: Ideology replacing concern for the economy in an authoritarian government.]_ _Energy Efficiency Commonsense_ _By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Jan 24, 2014_ _Energy Efficiency Commonsense | Power For USA_ _[SEPP Comment: Addressing a maxim that is not true.]_ *NTSB warns of major loss of life without tougher regs on trains carrying crude* *By Keith Laing, The Hill, Jan 23, 2014* *NTSB warns of &#039;major loss of life&#039; without tougher oil train regs | TheHill* *Washingtons Control of Energy* *Canadian foreign minister demands Keystone decision* _By Staff Writers, Washington (AFP) Jan 16, 2014_ _Canadian foreign minister demands Keystone decision_ _Keystone Cop-Out_ _Obama should give Canada an answer, already._ _By Charles Krauthammer, National Review, Jan 23, 2014_ _Keystone Cop-Out | National Review Online_ _TransCanada calls Keystone XL safest pipeline to date_ _By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, Jan 22, 2014_ _TransCanada calls Keystone XL_ _Federal Oil Lands Lockdown: Disingenuous Obama at Work_ _By Paul Driessen, Master Resource, Jan 24, 2014_ _Federal Oil Lands Lockdown: Disingenuous Obama at Work — MasterResource_ _Oil and Natural Gas  the Future or the Past?_ _Russia Wakes Up and Smells the Shale_ _By Staff Writers, American Interest, Jan 19, 2014 [H/t GWPF]_ _Russia Wakes Up and Smells the Shale - The American Interest_ _Azle Residents Take Their Earthquake Concerns to Austin_ _By Staff Writer, CBS, DFW, Jan 20, 2014 [H/t Paul Sheridan]_ _Azle Residents Take Their Earthquake Concerns To Austin « CBS Dallas / Fort Worth_ _[SEPP Comment: No discussion of actual measurements.]_ _Alternative, Green (Clean) Solar and Wind_ _Winds Hit 115 mph in the Columbia Gorge_ _By Cliff Mass Weather Blog, Jan 21, 2014_ _Cliff Mass Weather Blog: Winds Hit 115 mph in the Columbia Gorge_ _[SEPP Comment: From Jan 18 to Jan 25, wind produced virtually no electrical power. The installed wind capacity is 4515 MW as of April 10, 2013]_ *BPA Balancing Authority Load and Total Wind Generation* *[Graph last viewed on Jan 25, 2014 17:01 local times]* *Breezes That Will Never Beat The Heat* _By Ray Evans and Tom Quirk, Quadrant, Jan 21, 2014_ _Breezes That Will Never Beat The Heat &mdash; Quadrant Online_ _[SEPP Comment: Wind turbines do not do well on frigid winter nights in eastern US either.]_ *China sets duties on US solar materials* _By Staff Writers, Reuters, Jan 20, 2014 [H/t GWPF]_ _China sets duties on US solar materials - BUSINESS - Globaltimes.cn_ _[SEPP Comment: Solar wars?]_ *Green energy giant runs out of cash* _German wind energy giant Prokon filed for insolvency on Wednesday, leaving tens of thousands of investors worried about their money. The company advertised itself as a safe bet offering eight percent returns._ _By Staff Writers, The Local, Jan 23, 2014_ _http://www.thelocal.de/20140123/germ...okon-insolvent_ _Alternative, Green (Clean) Energy  Other_ _Boeing Finds Significant Potential in Green Diesel as a Sustainable Jet Fuel_ _By Staff Writers, Seattle WA (SPX), Jan 17, 2014_ _Boeing Finds Significant Potential in Green Diesel as a Sustainable Jet Fuel_ _[SEPP Comment: Competitive with government incentives? What is the cost without government incentives?]_ _The Ethanol Mandate: Dont Tweak, Abolish (a costly fuel without a public purpose_ _By James Griffin, Master Resource, Jan 23, 2014_ _The Ethanol Mandate: Don’t Tweak, Abolish (a costly fuel without a public purpose) — MasterResource_ _Alternative, Green (Clean) Vehicles_ _Study: Electric vehicles have little impact on US pollutant emissions_ _By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jan 21, 2014_ _Study: Electric vehicles have little impact on US pollutant emissions | Watts Up With That?_ _Another factor is that passenger vehicles make up a relatively small share of total emissions, limiting the potential impact of EDVs in the first place. For example, passenger vehicles make up only 20 percent of carbon dioxide emissions._ _Carbon Schemes_ _DOE Formally Commits $1B to FutureGen 2.0 CCS Project_ _By Sonal Patel, Power Magazine, Jan 23, 2014_ _DOE Formally Commits $1B to FutureGen 2.0 CCS Project | POWER Magazine_ _[SEPP Comment: Is this an example of a commercially available product? Why does it need more money?]_ _Health, Energy, and Climate_ *Excess Winter Deaths in England and Wales* _By Euan Mearns, Energy Matters, Jan 17, 2014 [H/t GWPF]_ _Excess Winter Deaths in England and Wales | Energy Matters_ _[SEPP Comment: Declining with prosperity.]_ *Latest buzz on bee colony collapse disorder: a virus, NOT a pesticide, is the problem* _By Staff Writers, ACSH, Jan 22, 2014_ _Latest buzz on bee colony collapse disorder: a virus, NOT a pesticide, is the problem | American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)_ _Environmental Industry_ _Global warmists aim to disempower America_ _By Ron Arnold, Washington Examiner, Jan 23, 2014_ _Global warmists aim to disempower America | WashingtonExaminer.com_ _Sold Up the River_ _By Ron Pike, Quadrant, Jan 23, 2014_ _http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2014/01/sold-river/_ _Other Scientific News_ _Realtime global wind, temperature, cloud, rain, pressure map_ _By Lubo Motl, Reference Frame, Jan 23, 2014_ _The Reference Frame: Realtime global wind, temperature, cloud, rain, pressure map_ _Link to global wind map by Cameron Beccario_ _earth :: an animated map of global wind and weather_ _A Decade in the Dust_ _By Aaron L. Gronstal for ASTOR, Moffett Field CA (SPX), Jan 19, 2014_ _A Decade in the Dust_ _Other News that May Be of Interest_ _Literacy and Academic Freedom at UNC_ _By Roger Pielke Jr, The Least Thing, Jan 21, 2013_ _The Least Thing: Literacy and Academic Freedom at UNC_ _Japan researchers use cosmic rays to see nuclear fuel_ _By Staff Writers, Tokyo (AFP), Jan 23, 2014_ _Japan researchers use cosmic rays to see nuclear fuel_ _UM Study Finds Wolf Predation of Cattle Affects Calf Weight in Montana_ _By Staff Writers, Missoula MT (SPX), Jan 24, 2014_ _UM Study Finds Wolf Predation of Cattle Affects Calf Weight in Montana_ _[SEPP Comment: Who would have thought? Certainly those in the Federal government who insisted on the re-induction of wolves in Montana.]_ _################################################_ _BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE:_ _Climate Craziness of the week: Guardians Damian Carrington glass half full moment_ _By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jan 22, 2014_ _Climate Craziness of the week: Guardian’s Damian Carrington ‘glass half full’ moment | Watts Up With That?_ _The atmosphere right now is half-full of carbon dioxide._ _[SEPP Comment: At about 4 molecules per 10,000?]_ _Superbowl, Cannabis and CO2_ _By Joseph DAleo, ICECAP, Jan 22, 2014_ _ICECAP_ _[SEPP Comment: How to logically defeat your cannabis smoking global warming friends.]_ _Has Polar Vortex/Brutal Winter Affected Northern Virginia Real Estate Market?_ _By Ritu Desal, Samson Properties, Jan 22, 2014_ _Fairfax, Loudoun County Virginia -Residential Real Estate Market Blog : Has Polar Vortex/Brutal Winter Affected Northern Virginia Real Estate Market?_ _##################################################  #_

----------


## woodbe

lol @ marc quoting masses of denier logic from the primo #1 denier site in response to some simple climate facts. 
Confirming that fake skeptics don't have anything to publish. 
Thanks for that confirmation. Appreciated.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

Hey, something non-scientific from woodbe, whoda thunk?  Tim Cook tells climate change sceptics to ditch Apple shares | Environment | theguardian.com 
                  	Apple chief executive Tim Cook has bluntly told climate change  sceptic investors to ditch their stocks if they do not support his  pledge to slash greenhouse gas emissions, in the latest signal that the  company will continue to invest in sustainable energy.
According  to witnesses at Apples annual meeting on Friday, Cook became visibly  angry when questioned by a radical right-wing think tank about the  profitability of investing in renewable energy.
Under Cooks  leadership Apple has stepped up its commitment to curbing its  environmental impact, pledging to supply 100% of its power from  renewable sources and crack down on the use of minerals mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) that can fund war and human rights abuses.
At the meeting last week, shareholders voted down a resolution by the National Center for Public Policy Research  (NCPPR) - an avid campaigner against action to tackle climate change -  that would force Apple to disclose more information about the costs of its investment in tackling climate change.
However,  Justin Danhof of the NCPPR pursued the line by asking Cook if Apples  environmental investments increased or decreased the companys bottom  line. He also asked Cook to commit Apple to only investing in measures  that were profitable.
Cook became visibly angry at Danhofs questions and categorically rejected the NCPPRs climate scepticism, according to the Mac Observers Bryan Chaffin,  who attended the event. He told shareholders that securing a return on  investment was not the only reason for investing in environmental  measures.
When we work on making our devices accessible by the  blind, I dont consider the bloody ROI, Cook said, adding that the same  sentiment applied to environmental and health and safety issues.
He  told Danhof that if he did not believe in climate change, he should  sell his Apple shares. If you want me to do things only for ROI  reasons, you should get out of this stock, he said.
Cooks  comments and visible passion over the issue are one of the strongest  signals yet of his commitment to reducing Apples environmental  footprint. He told shareholders that he wanted to leave the world  better than we found it.
The NCPPR has reacted angrily to Cooks  put-down, accusing him of denying shareholders the right to know how  their money is being invested.
In a statement  released after the meeting, Danhof accused Apple of failing to consider  the long-term impacts of its environmental investments, arguing that  Apple did not have the best interests of its shareholders at heart.
Too  often investors look at short-term returns and are unaware of corporate  policy decisions that may affect long-term financial prospects, he  said. After todays meeting, investors can be certain that Apple is  wasting untold amounts of shareholder money to combat so-called climate change. The only remaining question is: how much?
The  companys CEO fervently wants investors who care more about return on  investments than reducing CO2 emissions to no longer invest in Apple.  Maybe they should take him up on that advice.
However, the NCPPR did not say if it was now planning to sell its Apple shares.

----------


## woodbe

And Branson gets in on the act:  Richard Branson tells climate deniers to 'get out of the way' | Environment | theguardian.com  Virgin Group chairman and founder, Sir Richard Branson, has said businesses should "stand up" to climate change deniers and they should "get out of our way".
Branson said he was "enormously impressed" with Apple's chief executive for telling climate change sceptics to ditch shares in the technology company.
At Apple's  annual meeting last month, Tim Cook responded angrily to questions from  a rightwing thinktank, the National Center for Public Policy Research  (NCPPR), about the profitability of investing in renewable energy,  saying: "If you want me to do things only for ROI [return on investment]  reasons, you should get out of this stock." Writing on his blog,  Branson said he "wholeheartedly" supported Cook's comments and that  every business in the world should emulate Cook's goal of wanting "to  leave the world better than we found it", an aim Branson said Virgin  shared too.
"The NCPPR stated there is an 'absence of  compelling data' on climate change. If 97% of climate scientists  agreeing that climate-warming trends over the past century are due to  human activities isn't compelling data, I don't know what is," Branson  said, referring to a  survey last year of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific  journals that found 97.1% agreed climate change is man-made.
Branson  said that businesses should take a stand against climate scepticism.  "More businesses should be following Apple's stance in encouraging more  investment in sustainability. While Tim [Cook] told sustainability  sceptics to 'get out of our stock', I would urge climate change deniers  to get out of our way," he said.
The entrepreneur hosted a summit of Caribbean leaders last month at his home in the British Virgin Islands, brokering  a deal to help finance renewable energy projects in the region to  reduce the islands' dependence on expensive oil imports.

----------


## intertd6

> Not a fear campaign, but it's probably an appropriate reaction. 
> These are climate facts inter. Climate facts that the fake skeptics try to ignore or downplay with diversions (like your water message). Nothing in those graphics or my comments in the post says anything about CO2 even though the impact of CO2 is accepted.

  its propaganda aimed at the common garden variety dweebs, political, religious or climate orientated, its all the same, but those that swallow it will take it to the grave with them,
 get real! everything you do is implied to be linked to CO2, it must really cheese one off to not have everyone running around like chooks with their heads cut off, worrying about a warming climate (which inevitably will be beneficial for mankind, unlike global cooling which would be not beneficial).
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> And Branson gets in on the act:  Richard Branson tells climate deniers to 'get out of the way' | Environment | theguardian.com  Virgin Group chairman and founder, Sir Richard Branson, has said businesses should "stand up" to climate change deniers and they should "get out of our way".
> Branson said he was "enormously impressed" with Apple's chief executive for telling climate change sceptics to ditch shares in the technology company.
> At Apple's  annual meeting last month, Tim Cook responded angrily to questions from  a rightwing thinktank, the National Center for Public Policy Research  (NCPPR), about the profitability of investing in renewable energy,  saying: "If you want me to do things only for ROI [return on investment]  reasons, you should get out of this stock." Writing on his blog,  Branson said he "wholeheartedly" supported Cook's comments and that  every business in the world should emulate Cook's goal of wanting "to  leave the world better than we found it", an aim Branson said Virgin  shared too.
> "The NCPPR stated there is an 'absence of  compelling data' on climate change. If 97% of climate scientists  agreeing that climate-warming trends over the past century are due to  human activities isn't compelling data, I don't know what is," Branson  said, referring to a  survey last year of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific  journals that found 97.1% agreed climate change is man-made.
> Branson  said that businesses should take a stand against climate scepticism.  "More businesses should be following Apple's stance in encouraging more  investment in sustainability. While Tim [Cook] told sustainability  sceptics to 'get out of our stock', I would urge climate change deniers  to get out of our way," he said.
> The entrepreneur hosted a summit of Caribbean leaders last month at his home in the British Virgin Islands, brokering  a deal to help finance renewable energy projects in the region to  reduce the islands' dependence on expensive oil imports.

  whats that got to do with paying a tax on CO2??? more obvious propaganda
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Warming has stopped lol.   
> The Arctic is in recovery lol   
> El Nino is coming:     
> What is the best thing about El Nino for our fake skeptics? They get a new 'no warming since..' year. lol

  Sorry but this says absolutely nothing.  Hence why I haven't posted all the extreme cold events in other parts of the world. 
So El Nino is the result of Co2?  Not a natural event? 
Really!

----------


## John2b

> Sorry but this says absolutely nothing.  Hence why I haven't posted all the extreme cold events in other parts of the world. 
> So El Nino is the result of Co2?  Not a natural event? 
> Really!

  It says the notion that the Earth is on the verge of entering a cooling phase is bunkum. Rather we are likely to see the next step up on the atmospheric temperature record once ENSO does its normal thing.

----------


## woodbe

> its propaganda aimed at the common garden variety dweebs

  Facts on their own are propaganda. lol. 
You should tell_ the planet_ to stop putting out propaganda. 
'Common garden variety dweebs' don't worry about this stuff. They worry about the footy.  :Tongue:

----------


## woodbe

> Sorry but this says absolutely nothing.

  Lack care much?   

> Hence why I haven't posted all the extreme cold events in other parts of the world.

  Like the results of the changes in the jetstream. Sure, you could post that, but I don't think it would help your cause.   

> So El Nino is the result of Co2?  Not a natural event? 
> Really!

  I think I said El Nino is coming, not that it is a result of CO2. You don't seem to have read the very few words I put in that post and are jumping to conclusions (you're not the only one) :Smilie:  My point is that we are likely to get the next highest on record global average temperature with an El Nino. Have a look at John2b's post, it displays the possibility quite eloquently.

----------


## johnc

I think that is going to be interesting to follow, the next El Nino event possibly the next two or three are going to give a better indication of the high 1998 result, was it an abnormal high for an El Nino phase or is it the new normal. If temperatures show a new spike there are a couple of posters here who will need to find a new line.

----------


## woodbe

> If temperatures show a new spike there are a couple of posters here who will need to find a new line.

  Wishful thinking, John. They'll just adjust the date and say weather is not climate.  :Wink:

----------


## intertd6

> I think that is going to be interesting to follow, the next El Nino event possibly the next two or three are going to give a better indication of the high 1998 result, was it an abnormal high for an El Nino phase or is it the new normal. If temperatures show a new spike there are a couple of posters here who will need to find a new line.

  So you disregard the facts as they are at the present, hoping for a change in events which haven't happened yet to try & verify your failed theory of the present, brilliant!!!! Have you got a name for this nonsense theory.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Have you got a name for this nonsense theory.

  Yep. The theory is called REALITY. 
Get over it.  :Tongue:

----------


## intertd6

> Yep. The theory is called REALITY. 
> Get over it.

  ??????? This is beyond funny!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> ??????? This is beyond funny!

  Not really. 
Reality is a place where you do not ignore the energy budget of the planet. Nor do you ignore the results of that budget like the heat directed into the oceans, the mass balance of the planet's ice, the migration of species towards the poles or up mountains following their acceptable temperature range, etc etc.  
Picking a single planetary measure that suits your idealism at the current time is just choosing to ignore reality.

----------


## woodbe

> whats that got to do with paying a tax on CO2??? more obvious propaganda

  What this shows is that major corporations are now accepting and acting on the science and calling out deniers for what they are. Tim Cook told his denier shareholders to get out of his stock. It takes guts and conviction to draw a line like that. Good on him. Richard Branson told them to get out of the way.  
If ever there has been a clear indication that deniers, fake skeptics and industry shills are losing the battle to misinform us, this has to be top of the list. Rod is "getting a bit sick of this evidence crap", but the evidence continues to mount and corporations with long term planning are not ignoring it.

----------


## intertd6

> What this shows is that major corporations are now accepting and acting on the science and calling out deniers for what they are. Tim Cook told his denier shareholders to get out of his stock. It takes guts and conviction to draw a line like that. Good on him. Richard Branson told them to get out of the way.  
> If ever there has been a clear indication that deniers, fake skeptics and industry shills are losing the battle to misinform us, this has to be top of the list. Rod is "getting a bit sick of this evidence crap", but the evidence continues to mount and corporations with long term planning are not ignoring it.

  it hilarious how your building propaganda hype as the IPCC is dropping the climate change projections, another decade or so & those projections of temperature rises will be as flat as your CO2 theory. those very companies were the exact ones that claimed the Australian govt needed their heads read for introducing a CO2 tax before the rest of the major global economies, they can say what they want but they have just moved shop overseas where there is no tax. 
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> it hilarious how your building propaganda hype as the IPCC is dropping the climate change projections, another decade or so & those projections of temperature rises will be as flat as your CO2 theory. those very companies were the exact ones that claimed the Australian govt needed their heads read for introducing a CO2 tax before the rest of the major global economies, they can say what they want but they have just moved shop overseas where there is no tax. 
> regards inter

  A point of interdiction - the IPCC hasn't / didn't drop the climate change projections in AR5.  The future warming by 2100  with comparable emission scenarios  is *about the same as in the previous report*. For the highest scenario, the best-estimate warming by 2100 is still 4 °C (see the following chart).  _Figure 2 The future temperature development in the highest emissions scenario (red) and in a scenario with successful climate mitigation (blue)  the 4-degree world and the 2-degree world._ *What is new is that IPCC has also studied climate mitigation scenarios.* The blue RCP2.6 is such a scenario with strong emissions reduction. With this scenario global warming can be stopped below 2 ° C. 
You might want to think again about your claim that Apple and Virgin Airlines "companies were the exact ones that claimed the Australian govt needed their heads read for introducing a CO2 tax before the rest of the major global economies" because to the casual observer you just seem to make this stuff up LOL.  Virgin CEO Richard Branson said that those who are skeptical of man-made global warming should get out of our way, joining the ranks of CEOs lashing out against those opposed to business investments in sustainability.  Richard Branson: Global warming deniers   "Qantas believes that the mainstream science of climate change is correct - human activities are having an impact on our climate, and this potentially poses a risk to our environment, the community and the economy." Carbon Pricing | Qantas  BTW the reason Qantas isn't worse off due to the Australian carbon "tax" is that when it is removed, rather Qantas will be financially penalised when flying into Europe for operating from a country that does not have a carbon price scheme:  Yahoo! Finance

----------


## woodbe

> it hilarious how your building propaganda hype as the IPCC is dropping the climate change projections, another decade or so & those projections of temperature rises will be as flat as your CO2 theory. those very companies were the exact ones that claimed the Australian govt needed their heads read for introducing a CO2 tax before the rest of the major global economies, they can say what they want but they have just moved shop overseas where there is no tax. 
> regards inter

  Unlike those who seek to deny the science, the IPCC does not ignore all inputs and effects of the global energy budget. Projections by necessity take into account variations in the climate system. I suggest you read the WG1 report as you don't seem to be quoting them accurately. 
Apple has long played games with taxation and profits when trading in overseas markets, that is not anything new. If you don't like that, get out of their stock. lol. I think you'll find that Tim Cook was speaking at a US shareholders meeting, not in or about Australia. 
Virgin Group, for whom Richard Branson speaks only owns 10% of the Virgin Australia airline. What he said was not on behalf of Virgin Australia.  
Both were not talking about the Australian situation, they were responding to climate change deniers about their company policies which take the science into account rather than ignore or deny it. 
These are self-serving, profit motivated companies. If they are paying attention to climate science and making long term and costly  plans to mitigate the effects for their companies then that is another nail in the coffin of climate change denial.

----------


## intertd6

> A point of interdiction - the IPCC hasn't / didn't drop the climate change projections in AR5.  The future warming by 2100  with comparable emission scenarios  is *about the same as in the previous report*. For the highest scenario, the best-estimate warming by 2100 is still 4 °C (see the following chart).  _Figure 2 The future temperature development in the highest emissions scenario (red) and in a scenario with successful climate mitigation (blue)  the 4-degree world and the 2-degree world._ *What is new is that IPCC has also studied climate mitigation scenarios.* The blue RCP2.6 is such a scenario with strong emissions reduction. With this scenario global warming can be stopped below 2 ° C. 
> You might want to think again about your claim that Apple and Virgin Airlines "companies were the exact ones that claimed the Australian govt needed their heads read for introducing a CO2 tax before the rest of the major global economies" because to the casual observer you just seem to make this stuff up LOL.  Virgin CEO Richard Branson said that those who are skeptical of man-made global warming should get out of our way, joining the ranks of CEOs lashing out against those opposed to business investments in sustainability.  Richard Branson: Global warming deniers  "Qantas believes that the mainstream science of climate change is correct - human activities are having an impact on our climate, and this potentially poses a risk to our environment, the community and the economy." Carbon Pricing | Qantas  BTW the reason Qantas isn't worse off due to the Australian carbon "tax" is that when it is removed, rather Qantas will be financially penalised when flying into Europe for operating from a country that does not have a carbon price scheme:  Yahoo! Finance

  every new IPCC assessment projections has been lower than the previous one.
aah qantas, I shining example of moving shop overseas, brilliant example you have shown.
you must think we have  memories similar to gold fish or something.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> every new IPCC assessment projections has been lower than the previous one.
> regards inter

  IPCC AR1 (1990) was 1.5 to 4.5 degrees.
IPCC AR2 (1995) was 1.5 to 4.5 degrees.
IPCC AR3 (2001) was 1.5 to 4.5 degrees.
IPCC AR4 (2007) was 2.0 to 4.5 degrees.
IPCC AR5 (2013) was 1.5 to 4.5 degrees.  http://s.bsd.net/nefoundation/defaul..._hym6bhfp2.pdf   

> you must think we have memories similar to gold fish or something.
> regards inter

  You said it, not me  :Wink:

----------


## woodbe

Seems we have settled the IPCC predictions then.  :Smilie:  
Looking at the Arctic, we can't predict the minimum from this point, but we are clearly about to start the melt season with a few beers short in the fridge.. 
Here is the daily graphic, the extent is trending along the bottom of the +/- 2 STD DEV border.  
And the extent on this date from 2012 which turned out to be the last minimum record year at the end of the melt season:  
And this year:

----------


## intertd6

> Seems we have settled the IPCC predictions then.  
> Looking at the Arctic, we can't predict the minimum from this point, but we are clearly about to start the melt season with a few beers short in the fridge.. 
> Here is the daily graphic, the extent is trending along the bottom of the +/- 2 STD DEV border.  
> And the extent on this date from 2012 which turned out to be the last minimum record year at the end of the melt season:  
> And this year:

  but it means jack, because it's not replicated in the sthrn hemisphere, if it was then that would seal the deal, alas it doesn't so it shows that it's a regional occurrence & not global.
regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

Another regional occurrence-Pine Island glacier, Antarctica melting at record rate. Decades of rising seas predicted as huge Antarctic glacier melts

----------


## johnc

> but it means jack, because it's not replicated in the sthrn hemisphere, if it was then that would seal the deal, alas it doesn't so it shows that it's a regional occurrence & not global.
> regards inter

  I'm not so sure about that the age today has an article on the shifting of winds in the Antarctic pushing ice out to sea and forming more ice behind in an "ice factory" the wind shifts are linked to warming. It will not change the views of entrenched sceptics but it is an interesting read for those with more open minds.

----------


## PhilT2

A bit old but which side of the line do you think is the "regional occurrences" and which is the worldwide trend?

----------


## woodbe

> it shows that it's a regional occurrence & not global.

  Lets see the regional warming occurrences then.  
Sea ice loss in Arctic, smaller gain in Antarctica: nett loss globally.
Glacier mass balance: nett loss globally.
Ocean heat: global gain.
Sea Surface Temps: global gain. 
Did I miss anything? 
Even if we give you Surface Air Temps (which we shouldn't for another 9+ years), it doesn't cancel out the other evidence. We're looking at net planetary warming in line with the physics and the science. You need some major cooling evidence to balance out these items and there just isn't anything significant to show, but if you have something do post it up.

----------


## John2b

> but it means jack, because it's not replicated in the sthrn hemisphere, if it was then that would seal the deal, alas it doesn't so it shows that it's a regional occurrence & not global.
> regards inter

  Glad you brought up global! Here it is:   
The blue line is the trend using only data from prior to 2000. The red line the trend using all data, which shows loss of *global* sea ice extent is _accelerating! _ How fake skeptics fool themselves, part infinity: Sea Ice version | Open Mind

----------


## intertd6

> I'm not so sure about that the age today has an article on the shifting of winds in the Antarctic pushing ice out to sea and forming more ice behind in an "ice factory" the wind shifts are linked to warming. It will not change the views of entrenched sceptics but it is an interesting read for those with more open minds.

  ahh that's right it cools down & warms the climate, brilliant why didn't I think of that.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> A bit old but which side of the line do you think is the "regional occurrences" and which is the worldwide trend?

  aha we've gone from sea ice to glaciers in a blink of an eye for no particular reason other than......?
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Glad you brought up global! Here it is:   
> The blue line is the trend using only data from prior to 2000. The red line the trend using all data, which shows loss of *global* sea ice extent is _accelerating! _ How fake skeptics fool themselves, part infinity: Sea Ice version | Open Mind

  cant tell the difference between nth & sth I notice & want to cloud the issue with what I meant as global.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> but it means jack, because it's not replicated in the sthrn hemisphere, if it was then that would seal the deal, alas it doesn't so it shows that it's a regional occurrence & not global.
> regards inter

   

> aha we've gone from sea ice to glaciers in a blink of an eye for no particular reason other than......?
> regards inter

  I think you answered your own question. Phil's response shows evidence of a global occurrence that you were asking for. 
Global trend is warming. If you disagree, present your evidence for inspection.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> but it means jack, because it's not replicated in the sthrn hemisphere, if it was then that would seal the deal, alas it doesn't so it shows that it's a regional occurrence & not global.
> regards inter

  Don't know that, that would seal the deal intertd. 
Agree it means jack.  
Far far from pointing to ice free future as predicted LOL

----------


## woodbe

> Far far from pointing to ice free future as predicted LOL

  Double LOL

----------


## John2b

> ahh that's right it cools down & warms the climate, brilliant why didn't I think of that.
> regards inter

  But the Antarctic isn't cooling down despite the slight increase in sea ice extent.

----------


## intertd6

> I think you answered your own question. Phil's response shows evidence of a global occurrence that you were asking for. 
> Global trend is warming. If you disagree, present your evidence for inspection.

  Silly me, there I was thinking the topic of what was being discussed was sea ice decrease in the northern hemisphere which i blew out of the water with the statement that similar wasn't happening in the southern hemisphere, then the red herring rubbish started again from the peanut gallery as usual. Honestly a primary school debate team could do better than that.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> But the Antarctic isn't cooling down despite the slight increase in sea ice extent.

  actually it hasnt been warming at all in the last 35 or so years, but cooling slightly as confirmed by nasa & your own supplied data. i notice the last 4 years are conveniently missing as well!!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> actually it hasnt been warming at all in the last 35 or so years, but cooling slightly as confirmed by nasa & your own supplied data.

    

> Honestly a primary school debate team could do better than that.
> regards inter

  It's pretty easy to substantiate a claim with evidence. So why don't _you_ do that?

----------


## intertd6

> It's pretty easy to substantiate a claim with evidence. So why don't _you_ do that?

  I would if I could but am unable to copy the link, just google  nasa antarctic temperature for the last 35 years.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Double LOL

  Yeah right!!!

----------


## John2b

> I would if I could but am unable to copy the link, just google  nasa antarctic temperature for the last 35 years.
> regards inter

  Let's see, what does NASA say?: 
"The Antarctic Peninsula has warmed as much as anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere, while East Antarctica has shown little change or even a small cooling around the coast. The new research improves understanding of present and future climate change. The authors note it is important to distinguish between the Antarctic Ice Sheet - glacial ice - which is losing volume, and Antarctic sea ice - frozen seawater - which is expanding."  http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20121112.html  NASA says it's been warming over the past 35 years.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It's pretty easy to substantiate a claim with evidence. So why don't _you_ do that?

  You guys must really, really wish AGW is all real. You go to so much trouble to find "facts" that are trying to justify your position, that really mean nothing and prove nothing, all the while ignoring anything that might cast doubt on your pet. 
Mind you I really don't mind seeing you jumps through hoops trying to justify. It is quite entertaining.  Cheers

----------


## John2b

> You guys must really, really wish AGW is all real. You go to so much trouble to find "facts" that are trying to justify your position, that really mean nothing and prove nothing, all the while ignoring anything that might cast doubt on your pet. 
> Mind you I really don't mind seeing you jumps through hoops trying to justify. It is quite entertaining.  Cheers

  I'll repeat: _It's pretty easy to substantiate a claim with evidence. So why don't_ _you__ do that?_

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'll repeat: _It's pretty easy to substantiate a claim with evidence. So why don't_ _you__ do that?_

  Hmmm.... If your "evidence" was so robust, we would not be having this discussion right now!

----------


## John2b

> Hmmm.... If your "evidence" was so robust, we would not be having this discussion right now!

  If the "evidence" of anthropogenic climate change is weak, you should have no difficulty providing irrefutable counter evidence, so why don't you?

----------


## woodbe

> Silly me, there I was thinking the topic of what was being discussed was sea ice decrease in the northern hemisphere which i blew out of the water with the statement that similar wasn't happening in the southern hemisphere, then the red herring rubbish started again from the peanut gallery as usual. Honestly a primary school debate team could do better than that.

  you said:   

> it shows that it's a regional occurrence & not global.

  You were shown a number of global occurances which you choose to ignore because? 
But seeing as you asked so politely,     
I can't find an analysis that shows a trend that is balanced or positive unless I look at very short intervals that include seasonal variations. Perhaps you could point us to this evidence that is so tightly held.

----------


## Marc

The results in Tasmania election, Tasmania being the green/welfare stronghold, are a resounding victory for common sense. 
One and a half decade of lunacy, producing policies that de-industrialized and impoverished Tasmania with no benefit whatsoever,  possible only because of Tasmania's "special" status that gives them guaranteed seats in parliament and a number of senators and representatives in proportion 10 times the other states. Tasmania could make the most demented decisions and ask for the rest of us to bail them out every time in the best "green" fashion. Blame others, claim the right to support and subsidies and make of this actions a full time job. 
Finally it came to an end and not too soon. Green/Labor idiocy will be still a burden on the other states but at least the inhabitants of Tasmania seem to have seen the light.   Not so in SA, the welfare state still clings to the welfare party as one would expect. With the highest numbers on disability pension, long time unemployment and other forms of dependency, South Australians still think the state owes them a living and that vegetating is a valid occupation.  
Meantime here we are, defending and attempting to validate the lies created in an attempt to make "green" less irrelevant than it use to be.
We have the lunatics squandering other peoples money sending ships to "save the wales" when 50% of the fish sold in the markets is contaminated with mercury. (Who cares right? its eaten by humans, not some "endangered species")
 Pea brain but hei...well intentioned people chain themselves to trees in a park to save them from the council chainsaw, yet hordes of Chinese companies are raping and pillaging every single state, contaminating the aquifers drilling for coal seam gas with the complicity of state government and the excuse we are running out of gas ... ha ha ... and so on and so forth. You can add to this list no doubt, don't forget the illegals, the foreign purchase of RE at a tune of 8 billions last financial year etc etc etc 
Green rubbish from the earth day to the AGW fabrications, are soon to be a thing of the past and not too soon. If green minded people want to get out of the old communist trenches dug up in the fifties by their comrades, drop the sticks, chains and home made hand grenades  and start behaving like normal human beings and actually work WITH, TOGETHER with other normal human beings and look for solutions to real problems, from the perspective of a working normal decent person, I am sure they will be received with open arms. 
My opinion only of course.

----------


## johnc

That is pure politics, although hard to follow it would seem you are confusing Federal with State, the Senate and House of Reps arrangements are to do with the Commonwealth not State issues. Tasmania's problems are varied and have been around a long time, they have also received a greater share of Commonwealth funding going back way before the current Labor lot got the box seat in the state.   
Labor got the boot for good reason but I don't see any great changes with the new lot, I've never understood why people fall in love with one party and hate the rest, there is no perfect party they all have a mix of talent and flawed characters as evidenced by the current ICAC enquiry.  Tasmania's issues are beyond petty politics and I have yet to see anyone with a coherent view on how they can bring Tassie to the financial level of the mainland states. I don't think political diatribes are useful in this type of discussion as anything Tassie does will mean zip in the wider world.

----------


## woodbe

One thing for sure: Selling Tasmania's forests as chip for $20 a tonne isn't going to solve the state's employment or any other problem.

----------


## johnc

The state could do a lot better than woodchips, with modern kiln drying techniques and processing of saw logs they should be able to do far better on furniture, flooring and framing timber rather than low return chips. It is well documented their logistics and infrastructure holds them back although they do well on Tourism and some primary produce. The greens nonsense is just that, nonsense, the greens don't hold enough power and a lot of the wood harvesting issues are trying to balance the tourism profits against timber harvesting profits. That is where government comes in they have to set a direction for the utilisation of the states resources to date no one has done a very good job of that and all sides have failed to achieve enough to sustain logging and environmental (tourism) values. It is real depressing to read posts that are just party bashing, which what the politicians want as it means it keeps the public distracted from insisting on the forming of ideas that might help.  At the moment parties seem to get elected on a policy void that relies on the hope that they have a magic answer which they don't intend to articulate before and often after an election, which means we may well be voting in people who actually don't have answer or ideas. Talk about the deluded party faithful.

----------


## John2b

> Yeah right!!!

  No discernible decline in sea ice, hey Rod?    https://earthdata.nasa.gov/featured-...rch/un-ice-age

----------


## Marc

*Sea Ice Page*  *Global Sea Ice Reference Page: Arctic and Antarctic current graphs and imagery*
(page last updated 2-26-14)
Given the intense interest in Arctic Sea Ice extent this year, Ive decided to put all the sea ice graphs in one handy place for easy nail biting reference. All images are automatically updated immediately upon update at their source.
Shortlink for this page: Sea Ice Page | Watts Up With That? (suitable for blog or Twitter comments) *Global Sea Ice:*
Global Sea Ice Area and Anomaly Cryosphere Today  University of Illinois  Polar Research Group  Click the pic to view at source Global Sea Ice Area Anomaly Cryosphere Today  University of Illinois  Polar Research Group  Click the pic to view at source Global, Arctic & Antarctic Sea Ice Area climate4you.com  Ole Humlum  Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences  Click the pic to view at source Global Sea Ice Cover National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Marine Modeling and Analysis Branch (MMAB)  Click the pic to view at source *Arctic Graphs:*
Arctic Sea Ice Extent  15% or greater: National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC)  click to view at source Arctic Sea Ice Extent -15% or Greater: Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)  International Arctic Research Center (IARC)  Click the pic to view at source JAXA data download (CSV file of extent) here Details here
Arctic Sea Ice Extent  15% or Greater: Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)  International Arctic Research Center (IARC)  Click the pic to view at source Details and raw data on this graph product here
Arctic Sea ice extent 15% or greater  (DMI) Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI)  Centre for Ocean and Ice  Click the pic to view at source Arctic Sea Ice Extent 15% or Greater (NANSEN) Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center (NERSC)  Arctic Regional Ocean Observing System (ROOS)  Click the pic to view at source Nansen data (CSV file with both extent and area) download here
Arctic Sea Ice Area Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center (NERSC)  Arctic Regional Ocean Observing System (ROOS)- Click the pic to view at source Nansen data (CSV file with both extent and area) download here
Sea Ice Extent  Change in Maximum, Mean and Minimum Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center (NERSC)  Arctic Regional Ocean Observing System (ROOS)  Click the pic to view at source Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Anomaly

----------


## Marc

Cryosphere Today  Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois  Click the pic to view at source Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly Cryosphere Today  Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois  Click the pic to view at source *Northern Regional Sea Ice Charts* Map of the Arctic  Thanks to REP National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC)  The Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection  click to view at source Arctic Basin: Cryosphere Today Central Arctic: NSIDC Baffin Bay/Gulf of St. Lawrence: NSIDC  Cryosphere Today Baffin/Newfoundland Bay: Cryosphere Today Baltic Sea: NSIDC Barents Sea: NSIDC  Cryosphere Today  Arctic ROOS Beaufort Sea: NSIDC  Cryosphere Today Bering Sea: NSIDC  Cryosphere Today Canadian Archipelago: NSIDC  Cryosphere Today Chukchi Sea: NSIDC  Cryosphere Today Cook Inlet: NSIDC Gulf of St. Lawrence: Cryosphere Today East Siberian Sea: NSIDC  Cryosphere Today Greenland Sea: NSIDC  Cryosphere Today  Arctic ROOS Hudson Bay: NSIDC  Cryosphere Today  Kara Sea: NSIDC  Cryosphere Today  Arctic ROOS Laptev Sea: NSIDC  Cryosphere Today Sea of Okhotsk: NSIDC  Cryosphere Today Yellow Sea: NSIDC Sources: National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)Cryosphere TodayNansen Arctic ROOS *Arctic Temperature:* Mean Temperature above 80°N Danish Meteorological Institute  Click the pic to view at source RSS Northern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT)  1979 to Present [IMG]ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_northern%20polar_land_and_sea_v  03_3.png[/IMG]Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)  Microwave Sounding Units (MSU)  Click the pic to view at source Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Marine Modeling and Analysis Branch (MMAB)  Click the pic to view at source Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Marine Modeling and Analysis Branch (MMAB)  Click the pic to view at source Northern Hemisphere Sea Surface Temperature Danish Meteorological Institute  Click for data archive and animation tool Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperatures NOAA ESRL  Click the pic to view at source Arctic Sea Surface Temperature Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)  HYCOM Consortium for Data-Assimilative Ocean Modeling  Click the pic to view at source Arctic Sea Surface Temperature  30 Day Animation:  (NRL): http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycom...st_anim30d.gif Arctic Sea Surface Temperature  365 Day Animation  (NRL): http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycom...t_anim365d.gif Arctic Sea Surface Temperature  50 Day Animation:  (moyhu  Nike Stokes): moyhu: Regional Hi-Res SST movies Arctic Sea Surface Temperature  365 Day Animation  (moyhu  Nick Stokes): moyhu: Regional Hi-Res SST movies *Sea Ice Concentration:* Arctic Sea Ice Concentration Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)  HYCOM Consortium for Data-Assimilative Ocean Modeling  Click the pic to view at source Arctic Sea Ice Concentration  30 Day Animation:  (NRL): http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycom...st_anim30d.gif Arctic Sea Ice Concentration  365 Day Animation  (NRL): http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycom...t_anim365d.gif Arctic Sea Ice Concentration Cryosphere Today  Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois  Click the pic to view at source Download various Cryosphere Today data sets here Arctic Sea Ice Concentration  Same Date Compared With 2007 Cryosphere Today  Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois  Click the pic to view at source (thanks to Ric Werme) Canadian Sea Ice Concentration EC/Canadian Ice Service Map  Click the pic to view at source

----------


## Marc

Arctic Sea Ice Extent With Anomaly National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC)  Click the pic to view at source *Arctic Sea Ice Thickness* Real-Time Nowcast/Forecast in Meters Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)  HYCOM Consortium for Data-Assimilative Ocean Modeling  Click the pic to view at source Arctic Sea Ice Thickness  30 Day Animation:  (NRL): http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycom...st_anim30d.gif Arctic Sea Ice Thickness  365 Day Animation:  (NRL): http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycom...t_anim365d.gif Arctic Sea Ice Speed & Drift Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)  HYCOM Consortium for Data-Assimilative Ocean Modeling  Click the pic to view at source Arctic Sea Ice Speed & Drift  30 Day Animation:  (NRL): http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycom...st_anim30d.gif Arctic Sea Ice Speed & Drift  365 Day Animation  (NRL): http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycom...t_anim365d.gif Drifting North Pole Camera (offline waiting for new drift camera in 2014) NOAA  Click the pic to view at source Webcam 1: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2013/9.jpg Archive: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northp...3/webcam1.html Webcam 2: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2013/18.jpg Archive: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northp...3/webcam2.html Source: North Pole 90N *Arctic Satellite Imagery:* True Color Arctic Satellite Image  With Google Maps Zoom  arctic.io  Infrared and Global imagery is available from the Arctic and Global dropdowns on the map linked above. Terra 4km True Color Arctic Satellite Image  Mosaic Image  With Zoom  NASA Terra 4km Bands 3-6-7 Arctic Satellite Image<  Arctic Satellite Mosaic Image  With Zoom  NASA Aqua 4km True Color Arctic Satellite Image  Mosaic Image  With Zoom  NASA ==================================================  =========== *Antarctic Graphs:* Antarctic Sea Ice Extent  15% or Greater National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC)  Click the pic to view at source RSS Southern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT)  1979 to Present [IMG]ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_southern%20polar_land_and_sea_v  03_3.png[/IMG]Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)  Microwave Sounding Units (MSU)  Click the pic to view at source Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Anomaly Cryosphere Today  Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois  Click the pic to view at source Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly Cryosphere Today  Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois  Click the pic to view at source Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Cryosphere Today  Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois  Click the pic to view at source *Antarctic Temperature:* Antarctic Sea Surface Temperature Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)  HYCOM Consortium for Data-Assimilative Ocean Modeling  Click the pic to view at source Antarctic Sea Surface Temperature  30 Day Animation:  (NRL): http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhy...st_anim30d.gif Antarctic Sea Surface Temperature  365 Day Animation  (NRL): http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhy...t_anim365d.gif Antarctic Sea Surface Temperature  50 Day Animation:  (moyhu  Nike Stokes): hhttp://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/sst-regional-movies-as-described-here-i.html?WxK=5 Antarctic Sea Surface Temperature  365 Day Animation  (moyhu  Nick Stokes): moyhu: Regional Hi-Res SST movies *Antarctic Sea Ice Imagery:* Antarctic Sea Ice Concentration Cryosphere Today  Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois  Click the pic to view at source Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent With Anomaly

----------


## Marc

National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC)  Click the pic to view at source South Pole Station Webcam (offline in SH winter) Amundsen-Scott *Antarctic Satellite Imagery:* Terra 4km True Color Antarctic Satellite Image  Mosaic Image  With Zoom  NASA Terra 4km Bands 3-6-7 Antarctic Satellite Image  Antarctic Satellite Mosaic Image  With Zoom  NASA Aqua 4km True Color Antarctic Satellite Image  Mosaic Image  With Zoom  NASA *Source Guide:* Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI)  Centre for Ocean and Ice Home Page  COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut Arctic Page  COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut arctic.io Home Page  arctic.io - Look it's melting Satellite Observations Page  arctic.io - Daily Satellite Images + Observations, 4-N89-E0 climate4you.com  Ole Humlum  Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences: Home Page  climate4you welcome Ole Humlum Bibliography http://climate4you.com/Text/BIBLIOGR...E%20HUMLUM.pdf Cryosphere Today  Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois: Home Page  Arctic Climate Change Products Page  Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today Images Indexed By Date  Cryosphere Today - Historic Sea Ice Data Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...anom.1979-2008 Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...anom.1979-2008 moyhu  Nike Stokes Home Page  moyhu Regional Hi-Res SST Movies  moyhu: Regional Hi-Res SST movies Collection of High Resolution NOAA SST Images with WebGL moyhu: HiRes NOAA OI SST with WebGL and Movie Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)  HYCOM Consortium for Data-Assimilative Ocean Modeling NRL Home Page  U.S. Naval Research Laboratory Marine Meteorology Division, Monterey NRL Products Page  NRLMRY - Product Demonstrations HYCOM Home Page  1/12° Arctic Cap Nowcast/Forecast System (ACFNS) Satellite Products Page- NRL Monterey Weather Satellite Products, Images & Movies Data Page  Index of /archdat Multi-view  NRL Monterey Global Imagery Navel Coastal Ocean Model  Oops. Wrong URL FTP Page  http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/Links/ FTP Page Global  http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/Links/glb/ National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC): Home Page  National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) FTP Page  http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/ Regional FTP Page  ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/ Data Search Page  Searchlight Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/N...th/daily/data/ Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/N...th/daily/data/ University of Bremen: Home Page  IUP University of Bremen Sea Ice Page  http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/ssmis/ International Arctic Research Center/Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (IARC-JAXA) Home Page  IJIS Web Site FTP Page  Index of /en/home National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)  Lance Modis Home Page  LANCE-MODIS - Imagery Rapid Response Satellite Page  http://earthdata.nasa.gov/data/near-...rapid-response National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)  National Climate Data Center Home Page  National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) | The world's largest active archive of weather and climate data producing and supplying data and publications for the world. Public FTP Page  Index of /pub/data/cmb National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)  National Weather Service  Environmental Modeling Center Home Page  Environmental Modeling Center / Marine Modeling and Analysis Branch Sea Ice Analyses Page  We've Moved to Analyses.shtml Public FTP Page  ftp://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/ Sea Ice FTP Page  ftp://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/ice/ Regional Arctic Sea Ice FTP Page ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)  National Ice Center: Home Page http://www.natice.noaa.gov/mission.html?bandwidth=high National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)  National Weather Service NOAA Arctic Cam Page: Arctic theme page - North Pole Web Cam National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)  Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) Home Page  NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory Physical Sciences Division (PSD) Products Page ESRL : PSD : Climate Research Data Physical Sciences Division (PSD) Data Data Page  ESRL : PSD : Climate Research Data Physical Sciences Division (PSD) Data Maps Page  ESRL : PSD : PSD Map Room: Home Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center (NERSC)  Arctic Regional Ocean Observing System (ROOS): Home Page  Welcome to Arctic ROOS &mdash; Arctic ROOS Sea Ice Charts  Daily Updated Time series of Arctic sea ice area and extent derived from SSMI data provided by NERSC. &mdash; Arctic ROOS Norway Meteorological SAF Sea Ice: Sea Ice Washington University North Pole Environmental Observatory: North Pole 90N ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/

----------


## woodbe

> I can't find an analysis that shows a trend that is balanced or positive unless I look at very short intervals that include seasonal variations. Perhaps you could point us to this evidence that is so tightly held.

  Seems neither can Marc. 
Waiting for the secret data from Inter now. C'mon mate, you can do it!  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Marc

I can see the link ... I can see it !!!!!.... I can feel it ... almost there .... neee just a tragic delusion of wannabe right.
I suggest a 'real' job

----------


## John2b

> 

  Here you go Mark, yours is a bit stale - this one's got the last three years data in it:   

> I can see the link ... I can see it !!!!!.... I can feel it ... almost there .... neee just a tragic delusion of wannabe right.
> I suggest a 'real' job

  CO2 is a minor driver of climate warming and the amount emitted by human activity has caused about a 1% shift in the Earth's _measured_ energy balance. ~1% is to all intensive purposes exactly enough to attribute the climate anomalies you have documented so well in your cut & paste-athon above. The heat energy in the lower atmosphere is only a tiny % of the total surface heat energy. 
The tacit point of you above post seems to be that there is a lack of correlation between atmospheric CO2 and lower atmosphere degrees C, and therefore global warming isn't caused by CO2. Oh dear - surely you don't think the lack of correlation proves anything whatsoever? You do realise that the lower atmospheric air temperature is not a direct measure for global warming, only a proxy, don't you? You do know about weather, don't you? 
No one who has any capacity to think critically expects global surface air temperature to exactly track CO2 in the Earth's chaotic weather systems, where there are vast heat sinks and heat movements involved.

----------


## intertd6

> Here you go Mark, yours is a bit stale - this one's got the last three years data in it:  
> CO2 is a minor driver of climate warming and the amount emitted by human activity has caused about a 1% shift in the Earth's _measured_ energy balance. ~1% is to all intensive purposes exactly enough to attribute the climate anomalies you have documented so well in your cut & paste-athon above. The heat energy in the lower atmosphere is only a tiny % of the total surface heat energy. 
> The tacit point of you above post seems to be that there is a lack of correlation between atmospheric CO2 and lower atmosphere degrees C, and therefore global warming isn't caused by CO2. Oh dear - surely you don't think the lack of correlation proves anything whatsoever? You do realise that the lower atmospheric air temperature is not a direct measure for global warming, only a proxy, don't you? You do know about weather, don't you? 
> No one who has any capacity to think critically expects global surface air temperature to exactly track CO2 in the Earth's chaotic weather systems, where there are vast heat sinks and heat movements involved.

  well you will have to book an audience with ipcc to tell them why all their predictions are wrong & why they are failing because you know something different to the combined brainpower they have at hand.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> well you will have to book an audience with ipcc to tell them why all their predictions are wrong & why they are failing because you know something different to the combined brainpower they have at hand.
> regards inter

  Er no, apparently you should book an audience with IPCC to tell them why all their predictions are on track but that doesn't stop you disbelieving:  Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade. As the IPCC notes, "global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales ... The 19902012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 ... the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."   http://www.climatechange2013.org/ima..._Chapter01.pdf

----------


## Marc

> CO2 is a minor driver of climate warming and the amount emitted by human activity has caused about

   buggerall in the last 100 years.  I love it when people talk grand and gross and say absolutely nothing at all. It was a treat of KR and JG and of course not to forget Al Gore and his cohort and most if not all the mercenaries of the Global Warming fraternity.   Yes, like I said, green is fading fast and considering green is a mixture of blue and yellow I wonder which one will be left.  My guess is yellow.  But I am happy with blue too.  Meantime the cantankerous global warming supporters will probably need to look for another cause worthy of their earth-shattering yet not earth-warming efforts....(Present company excluded of course at least in relation to earth-shattering that is)

----------


## intertd6

> Er no, apparently you should book an audience with IPCC to tell them why all their predictions are on track but that doesn't stop you disbelieving:  Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade. As the IPCC notes,"global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales ... The 19902012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 ... the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."   http://www.climatechange2013.org/ima..._Chapter01.pdf

   obviously near zero warming over the last decade & half means nothing to the blind & oblivious.
Classic! ipcc saying one thing & a warmest saying another, covering all the stupidest ideas with anecdotal evidence, you tell them!
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

Now this could be interesting!!   

> ....It seems a good bet that the APS will break ranks with the worlds collection of peak science bodies, including the Australian Academy of Science, and tell the public, softly or boldly, that IPCC science is not all its cracked up to be  
> The American Physical Societys audit questions are pretty trenchant. Just to recite some of them points in the can of worms soon to be authoritatively exposed.  Heres a selection:     
> ...While the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980-98, it has shown no significant rise for the past 15 years[The APS notes that neither the 4th nor 5th IPCC report modeling suggested any stasis would occur, and then asks]   
> To what would you attribute the stasis?  
> What are the implications of this statis for confidence in the models and their projections?  
> What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI (total solar irradiance)? Is it coincidence that the statis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle (ie sunspot activity) in about a century?  
> Some have suggested that the missing heat is going into the deep ocean  
> Are deep ocean observations sufficient in coverage and precision to bear on this hypothesis quantitatively?  
> Why would the heat sequestration have turned on at the turn of this century?  
> ...

  Shiver in your jocks boys!!

----------


## John2b

> Now this could be interesting!! 
> Shiver in your jocks boys!!

  Did you check the APS website for its position on climate change before posting the regurgitated denialist blog drivel above? A true sceptic would have tested the claims first, but obviously the blogosphere does not. Here is the APS position in context:
"The Subcommittees scope is the physical basis of climate change and _we take the consensus as expressed in the AR5 WG1 Report and its Summary for Policy Makers_ (SPM). Below, we raise a set of topics and questions (in red) to prime and focus discussion at the workshop. These questions have not been chosen to pick nits or pick cherries, but rather to highlight fundamental issues in current understanding of the physical basis of climate change. (Emphasis mine.)
In other simple words, the APS is not challenging the veracity of the IPCC AR5 report, but simply pointing to where there are areas that need better understanding. 
Move along - nothing of interest for denialists here.  http://www.aps.org/policy/statements...ew-framing.pdf  Climate Change Statement Review

----------


## intertd6

> Did you check the APS website for its position on climate change before posting the regurgitated denialist blog drivel above? A true sceptic would have tested the claims first, but obviously the blogosphere does not. Here is the APS position in context:
> "The Subcommittees scope is the physical basis of climate change and _we take the consensus as expressed in the AR5 WG1 Report and its Summary for Policy Makers_ (SPM). Below, we raise a set of topics and questions (in red) to prime and focus discussion at the workshop. These questions have not been chosen to pick nits or pick cherries, but rather to highlight fundamental issues in current understanding of the physical basis of climate change. (Emphasis mine.)
> In other simple words, the APS is not challenging the veracity of the IPCC AR5 report, but simply pointing to where there are areas that need better understanding. 
> Move along - nothing of interest for denialists here.  http://www.aps.org/policy/statements...ew-framing.pdf  Climate Change Statement Review

  I'm fairly thick, but even I can see a clear case of professional courtesy which is a nice way of saying they need to seriously consider their position. Fortunately I don't have a prejudice like the dyed in the wool believers to fog all the possibilities of the causes of global climate change.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Below, we raise a set of topics and questions (in red) to prime and focus discussion at the workshop. These questions have not been chosen to pick nits or pick cherries, but rather to highlight fundamental issues in current understanding of the physical basis of climate change.

  Looks like a case of genuine skepticism and quest for exploring the basis of the science in a workshop setting.  
That's welcome, but not something we see much of around here.

----------


## John2b

> Looks like a case of genuine skepticism and quest for exploring the basis of the science in a workshop setting.  
> That's welcome, but not something we see much of around here.

  Correct, nothing for denialists in the operation of the APS:  "As a membership organization of over 50,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous scientific standards in developing all its statements. If the Subcommittee recommends updating the existing APS Climate Change Statement, then, consistent with APS by-laws, all APS members will be given an opportunity to review the statement and provide input during a comment period." Climate Change Statement Review

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Looks like a case of genuine skepticism and quest for exploring the basis of the science in a workshop setting.  
> That's welcome, but not something we see much of around here.

  Knock me over with a feather!

----------


## woodbe

> Knock me over with a feather!

  Sorry to disappoint Rod, but this is a group of physicists. They indulge in scientific skepticism, all scientists do. That's not anything like fake skeptics, opinion skeptics or outright denialism. They are not about to join forces with WUWT despite your too obvious keening desire that they are going to throw out the science.  
Do you think they are going to invite Monckton and Evans to school them on the finer points of the science? LOL. 
Hopefully inter will find time to stand out the front with a placard "No warming since 98" in case they haven't heard that cherry pick already. It would be terrible if they ran this workshop without knowing that!

----------


## John2b

More evidence that the AGW bandwagon is over?:
"India has pledged to build the worlds most powerful solar plant. With a nominal capacity of 4,000 megawatts, comparable to that of four full-size nuclear reactors, the ultra mega' project will be more than ten times larger than any other solar project built so far, and it will spread over 77 square kilometres of land  greater than the island of Manhattan.  
Six state-owned companies have formed a joint venture to execute the project, which they say can be completed in seven years at a projected cost of US$4.4 billion. The proposed location is near Sambhar Salt Lake in the northern state of Rajasthan. 
The solar photovoltaic power plant is expected to supply 6.4 billion kilowatt-hours per year, according to official figures. It could help to reduce India's carbon dioxide emissions by more than 4 million tonnes per year, estimates Parimita Mohanty, a fellow at the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in New Delhi. http://www.nature.com/news/india-to-build-world-s-largest-solar-plant-1.14647

----------


## Marc

*Climate change: this is not science  its mumbo jumbo*  *The IPCCs call to phase out fossil fuels is economic nonsense and 'morally outrageous for the developing world*  Chilly: The polar bear may find itself stranded if the IPCC is correct about melting ice caps  Photo: ALAMY         *By Nigel Lawson*  7:05PM BST 28 Sep 2013 *1627 Comments*   *On Friday, the UN published its landmark report into climate change, which claimed with 95 per cent certainty that global warming is man-made.*  *The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes report, compiled by 259 leading scientists, warned that without substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, the world will experience more extreme weather.*  *However, critics have questioned the scientists use of computer forecasting, which, they say, has produced fatalistic scenarios that fail to take into account fully that atmospheric temperatures have barely changed in the past 15 years.*  *Here, former chancellor Lord Lawson, now chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate sceptic think tank, gives his verdict on the report.*   *Related Articles*    Climate change 'scientists are just another pressure group  05 Oct 2013IPCC report: Sceptics guide to climate change  27 Sep 2013Delingpole: global warming is 'junk science'  27 Sep 2013Global warming: The experts' debate  27 Sep 2013Climate change will 'make Britain cooler'  26 Sep 2013Ice cap animation  27 Sep 2013Win a family break and an iPad Air Go Ultra Low   The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which published on Friday the first instalment of its latest report, is a deeply discredited organisation. Presenting itself as the voice of science on this important issue, it is a politically motivated pressure group that brings the good name of science into disrepute.  Its previous report, in 2007, was so grotesquely flawed that the leading scientific body in the United States, the InterAcademy Council, decided that an investigation was warranted. The IAC duly reported in 2010, and concluded that there were significant shortcomings in each major step of [the] IPCCs assessment process, and that significant improvements were needed. It also chastised the IPCC for claiming to have high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence.  Since then, little seems to have changed, and the latest report is flawed like its predecessor. Perhaps this is not so surprising. A detailed examination of the 2007 report found that two thirds of its chapters included among its authors people with links to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and there were many others with links to other 'green activist groups, such as Greenpeace.  In passing, it is worth observing that what these so-called green groups, and far too many of the commentators who follow them, wrongly describe as 'pollution is, in fact, the ultimate in green: namely, carbon dioxide  a colourless and odourless gas, which promotes plant life and vegetation of all kinds; indeed, they could not survive without it. It is an established scientific fact that, over the past 20 years, the earth has become greener, largely thanks to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.  Be that as it may, as long ago as 2009, the IPCC chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri  who is a railway engineer and economist by training, not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist  predicted that when the IPCCs fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in action that has to be taken. People are going to say: 'My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned. This was well before the scientific investigation on which the latest report is allegedly based had even begun. So much for the scientific method.  There is, however, one uncomfortable fact that the new report has been  very reluctantly  obliged to come to terms with. That is that global warming appears to have ceased: there has been no increase in officially recorded global mean temperature for the past 15 years. This is brushed aside as a temporary blip, and they suggest that the warming may still have happened, but instead of happening on the Earths surface it may have occurred for the time being in the (very cold) ocean depths  of which, incidentally, there is no serious empirical evidence.  A growing number of climate scientists are coming to the conclusion that at least part of the answer is that the so-called climate sensitivity of carbon  the amount of warming that might be expected from a given increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (caused by the use of fossil fuels: coal, oil, and gas)  is significantly less than was previously assumed to be the case.  It is no doubt a grudging acceptance of this that has led the new report to suggest that the global warming we can expect by the end of this century is probably rather less than the IPCC had previously predicted: perhaps some 2.7F (1.5C). What they have not done, however, is to accept that the computer models on which they base all their prognostications have been found to be misleading. These models all predicted an acceleration in the warming trend throughout the 21st century, as global carbon dioxide emissions rose apace. In fact, there has been a standstill.  The true scientific method is founded on empirical observation. When a theory  whether embedded in a computer program or not  produces predictions that are falsified by subsequent observation, then the theory, and the computer models which enshrine it, have to be rethought.  Not for the IPCC, however, which has sought to obscure this fundamental issue by claiming that, whereas in 2007 it was 90 per cent sure that most of the (very slight) global warming recorded since the Fifties was due to man-made carbon emissions, it is now 95 per cent sure.  This is not science: it is mumbo-jumbo. Neither the 90 per cent nor the 95 per cent have any objective scientific basis: they are simply numbers plucked from the air for the benefit of credulous politicians and journalists.  They have thrown dust in the eyes of the media in other ways, too. Among them is the shift from talking about global warming, as a result of the generally accepted greenhouse effect, to 'climate change or 'climate disruption. Gullible journalists (who are particularly prevalent within the BBC) have been impressed, for example, by being told now that much of Europe, and in particular the UK, is likely to become not warmer but colder, as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions interfering with the Gulf Stream.  There is nothing new about this canard, which has been touted for the past 10 years or so. Indeed, I refer to it explicitly in my book on global warming, An Appeal to Reason, which first came out five years ago. In fact, there has been no disruption whatever of the Gulf Stream, nor is it at all likely that there could be. As the eminent oceanographer Prof Karl Wunsch has observed, the Gulf Stream is largely a wind-driven phenomenon, and thus as long as the sun heats the Earth and the Earth spins, so that we have winds, there will be a Gulf Stream. So what is the truth of the matter, and what do we need to do about it?  The truth is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the worlds atmosphere is indeed steadily increasing, as a result of the burning of fossil fuels, particularly in the faster-growing countries of the developing world, notably China. And it is also a scientific fact that, other things being equal, this will make the world a warmer place. But there are two major unresolved scientific issues: first, are other things equal?, and second, even if they are, how much warmer will our planet become? There is no scientific basis whatever for talking about 'catastrophic climate change  and it is generally agreed that if the global temperature standstill soon comes to an end and the world is, as the IPCC is now suggesting might well be the case, 1.5ºC warmer by the end of the century, that would be a thoroughly good thing: beneficial to global food production and global health alike.  So what we should do about it  if indeed, there is anything at all we need to do  is to adapt to any changes that may, in the far future, occur. That means using all the technological resources open to mankind  which will ineluctably be far greater by the end of this century than those we possess today  to reduce any harms that might arise from warming, while taking advantage of all the great benefits that warming will bring.  What we should emphatically not do is what Dr Pachauri, Lord Stern and that gang are calling for and decarbonise the global economy by phasing out fossil fuels. Before the industrial revolution mankind relied for its energy on beasts of burden and wind power. The industrial revolution, and the enormous increase in prosperity it brought with it, was possible only because the West abandoned wind power and embraced fossil fuels. We are now  unbelievably  being told that we must abandon relatively cheap and highly reliable fossil fuels, and move back to wind power, which is both unreliable and hugely costly.  This is clearly an economic nonsense, which would condemn us to a wholly unnecessary fall in living standards. But what moves me most is what this would mean for the developing world. For them, abandoning the cheapest available form of energy and thus seriously abandoning the path of economic growth and rising prosperity on which, at long last, most of the developing world is now embarked, would mean condemning hundreds of millions of their people to unnecessary poverty, destitution, preventable disease, and premature death.  All in the name of seeking to ensure that distant generations, in future centuries, might be (there is no certainty) slightly better off than would otherwise be the case. Not to beat about the bush, it is morally outrageous. It is just as well that the world is unlikely to take the slightest notice of the new IPCC report.

----------


## intertd6

> Sorry to disappoint Rod, but this is a group of physicists. They indulge in scientific skepticism, all scientists do. That's not anything like fake skeptics, opinion skeptics or outright denialism. They are not about to join forces with WUWT despite your too obvious keening desire that they are going to throw out the science.   Funny how how this eminent group has raised the question about no warming when every other wannabe still had their heads in the sand 
> Do you think they are going to invite Monckton and Evans to school them on the finer points of the science? LOL.  who cares! 
> Hopefully inter will find time to stand out the front with a placard "No warming since 98" in case they haven't heard that cherry pick already. It would be terrible if they ran this workshop without knowing that!  No need, it seems the smart people are finally realising the inevitable & doing it in a fashion.

  regards inter

----------


## John2b

*Oops we got it wrong: Stable Greenland ice sheets are melting faster than scientists thought*The fact that the mass loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet has generally increased over the last decades is well known, Khan said, but the increasing contribution from the northeastern part of the ice sheet is new and very surprising.  They found that the northeast Greenland ice sheet lost about 10 billion tons of ice per year from April 2003 to April 2012.  http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2161.html

----------


## John2b

> *Climate change: this is not science  its mumbo jumbo*  *The IPCCs call to phase out fossil fuels is economic nonsense and 'morally outrageous for the developing world*

  Fortunately for everyone what the scientists actually said is available everyone to read. The first IPCC in 1990 predicted that global surface temperature would rise between .1 and .35 C per decade and the evidence has shown that from 1990 to 2012 the rate was .15C well within the range of the models. The report also said that not every single decade will go up that much. 
The developing world wants a future just like the rest of us. Why is that "morally outrageous"?

----------


## intertd6

> Fortunately for everyone what the scientists actually said is available everyone to read. The first IPCC in 1990 predicted that global surface temperature would rise between .1 and .35 C per decade and the evidence has shown that from 1990 to 2012 the rate was .15C well within the range of the models. The report also said that not every single decade will go up that much. 
> The developing world wants a future just like the rest of us. Why is that "morally outrageous"?

  No need for trotting out the well worn limp propaganda arguments, so you alone are saying the APS have no grounds for raising the issue of no warming over a considerable time frame. Who would not take this hiatus seriously other than the brainwashed.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> No need for trotting out the well worn limp propaganda arguments, so you alone are saying the APS have no grounds for raising the issue of no warming over a considerable time frame. Who would not take this hiatus seriously other than the brainwashed.
> regards inter

  Hiatus, what hiatus? Global warming hasn't/didn't stop (except in the minds of the wilfully ignorant). Radiation balance measurements are all the proof that is needed - no theories, models or records that can be challenged required.  NASA LaRC Science Directorate : Research - The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)

----------


## intertd6

> Hiatus, what hiatus? Global warming hasn't/didn't stop (except in the minds of the wilfully ignorant). Radiation balance measurements are all the proof that is needed - no theories, models or records that can be challenged required.  NASA LaRC Science Directorate : Research - The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)

  why are the APS concerned then?
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Hiatus, what hiatus? Global warming hasn't/didn't stop (except in the minds of the wilfully ignorant). Radiation balance measurements are all the proof that is needed - no theories, models or records that can be challenged required.  NASA LaRC Science Directorate : Research - The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)

  No doubt about it warmist will clutch any straw to find anything that MIGHT add weight to their theory, even in the face of a turning tide.

----------


## John2b

> why are the APS concerned then?
> regards inter

  They aren't. See for yourself: http://www.aps.org/units/gpc/newslet...february14.pdf

----------


## John2b

> No doubt about it warmist will clutch any straw to find anything that MIGHT add weight to their theory, even in the face of a turning tide.

  What "turning tide"? 13 of the 14 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001. 2013 was hottest year on record in Australia, Bureau of Meteorology says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## Marc

> No doubt about it warmist will clutch any straw to find anything that MIGHT add weight to their theory, even in the face of a turning tide.

  Of course. The thought process of the fanatic goes from 
a) The [value] grafted on by surroundings. 
b) The search for confirmation of the validity of such [value] in any way shape or form since the prospect of [value] being bogus is abhorrent. 
The claim that rich people are inherently evil since they squeeze their prosperity from the poor and that poor people are virtuous since they regard material things as less important, would make for an easy subject for public speaking. 
You try it, make up a speech based on the above (bogus) premise and stand on a soap box in your local town square and you will have a cheering audience in not time.
Why?
Because "rich is evil and poor is virtuous" is a fundamental lie that has been perpetuated for millenia by religion and by political masterminds. This lie has infected most if not all people in their infancy and lays dormant until you call it. It is very interesting and I have done this in personal development courses with very large audience for a long time and marveled every time at the response 
All that is required for an equally successful lie to infect the population is to piggyback another fabrication onto the basic "rich is evil" premise, the "value" or rather anti-value or mind virus.** Try this:* Rich is not only evil but also destroying the environment for his own gain.*  You add the details for your own intellectual satisfaction.  
The result is that naturally, a vast majority of people will believe this unless the brains kick in with some form of thinking process or an innate and unusual skeptical nature.
In other words, the natural person will believe the AGW hypothesis without challenge BY DEFAULT, unless something or someone interferes and kick-starts the persons ability to think and challenge what is said to be "consensus".
The opposite, that is, a claim without the help of a previously grafted value, let's say for example :" there is a place in a remote area of the Himalaya where the law of gravity does not work" would be naturally disbelieved by most. There is no basis for such claim nor does it fit with any other relevant value. 
There is a lot to be said about how entire nations have been manipulated into believing a lie, support a cause, or even go to war for bogus reasons, what we are witnessing now is just another of those widespread yet equally false claims to be used for political gain and resource shifting.  
There is no doubt that the environment is under pressure from our activity, yet those who define themselves as the defenders of the environment are blindly following demented claims, made up to drum up support for political reasons, IGNORING real causes that warrant marching on the street with placards and call for civil disobedience. 
Discernment is not easy to achieve without help, 
yet most of the time help comes from places that the anti-value or mind virus in question calls "off limits". 
Too bad!

----------


## John2b

> There is no doubt that the environment is under pressure from our activity, yet those who define themselves as the defenders of the environment are blindly following demented claims, made up to drum up support for political reasons, IGNORING *real causes* that warrant marching on the street with placards and call for civil disobedience.

  So what are the _real causes,_ Marc? Maybe you could put a little effort into explaining that instead of a lot of effort disparaging people you don't agree with. The ball is in your court...

----------


## John2b

_"__When the glib talk about the "scientific debate on global warming", they either don't know or will not accept that there is no scientific debate. The suggestion first made by Eugene F Stoermer that the planet has moved from the Holocene, which began at the end of the last ice age, to the manmade Anthropocene, in which we now live, is everywhere gaining support. Man-made global warming and the man-made mass extinction of species define this hot, bloody and (let us hope) brief epoch in the world's history. _ _"Climate change deniers are as committed. Their denial fits perfectly with their support for free market economics, opposition to state intervention and hatred of all those latte-slurping, quinoa-munching liberals, with their arrogant manners and dainty hybrid cars, who presume to tell honest men and women how to live.__"_  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/22/climate-change-deniers-have-won-global-warming

----------


## johnc

What is the relevance of rich, are we referring to nations or individuals and what on earth does it have to do with the discussion as no one seems to draw a link to wealth just the science behind change and I suspect the increasingly desperate ways you can invent reasons to pretend it isn't happening.

----------


## intertd6

> They aren't. See for yourself: http://www.aps.org/units/gpc/newslet...february14.pdf

  first the APS is defended for their skepticism of science, then it's denied that their saying such things, no wonder the common AGW garden slug varieties are having trouble keeping up.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> _"__When the glib talk about the "scientific debate on global warming", they either don't know or will not accept that there is no scientific debate. The suggestion first made by Eugene F Stoermer that the planet has moved from the Holocene, which began at the end of the last ice age, to the manmade Anthropocene, in which we now live, is everywhere gaining support. Man-made global warming and the man-made mass extinction of species define this hot, bloody and (let us hope) brief epoch in the world's history. _ _"Climate change deniers are as committed. Their denial fits perfectly with their support for free market economics, opposition to state intervention and hatred of all those latte-slurping, quinoa-munching liberals, with their arrogant manners and dainty hybrid cars, who presume to tell honest men and women how to live.__"_  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/22/climate-change-deniers-have-won-global-warming

  yes more propaganda, the problem is this debate is about CO2 CAUSING the global warming, as the concentrations of this essential gas increase the global average temperature hasn't, the brainwashed will argue all their worth untill they're blue in the face & try to distort this & every other fact to suit their ideology, which goes for every other idealism whether it be politics, religion, sun worshipers or cult followers of any description, they can't see it  ( affliction ) & probably never will.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> first the APS is defended for their skepticism of science, then it's denied that their saying such things, no wonder the common AGW garden slug varieties are having trouble keeping up.
> regards inter

  Who denied that the APS is being skeptical? Skepticism is the cornerstone of science. Without scepticism, science would never have delivered the technological age we live in. Science works on reality, not ideology, and reality is revealed when questions are asked. If your ideology means you don't like the answers, well sorry, reality doesn't care. 
"The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization  including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)  that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk.  1.  Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now.  2.  We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts. 
3. The sooner we act, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do. 
As scientists, it is not our role to tell people what they should do or must believe about the rising threat of climate change. But we consider it to be our responsibility as professionals to ensure, to the best of our ability, that people understand what we know: human-caused climate change is happening, we face risks of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes, and responding now will lower the risk and cost of taking action."  http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-conten...at-We-Know.pdf

----------


## John2b

> the problem is this debate is about CO2 CAUSING the global warming,
> regards inter

  
There is *no debate* about CO2 causing global warming. It is a measurable and measured effect: NASA LaRC Science Directorate : Research - The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)

----------


## intertd6

> There is *no debate* about CO2 causing global warming. It is a measurable and measured effect: NASA LaRC Science Directorate : Research - The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)

  Well there would be no debate if the temperature was following the increases in CO2, but alas it doesn't so some parroted rubbish which explains nothing about what's actually happening in the real world doesn't rate as much at all.
Want to see blue, look in the mirror.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Well there would be no debate if the temperature was following the increases in CO2, but alas it doesn't so some parroted rubbish which explains nothing about what's actually happening in the real world doesn't rate as much at all.
> Want to see blue, look in the mirror.
> regards inter

  Oh dear, air temperature (hotter than ever in recorded history BTW) is only one component of the warming of the Earth's surface - what about land, oceans and ice? When you add all of these "real world" components up, it's warming just like the physics would predict."When taking into account continued atmospheric temperature increases, increasing ocean heat uptake, and increasing rates of global ice melt, there is absolutely zero evidence that human-caused global warming has paused. Instead, we have seen a much more rapid impact on both the worlds oceans and on its ice over the past decade and a half. Further, though atmospheric temperature increase may have slowed somewhat over the same period, such a slow-down has come at the cost of an increasing pace of impact to both the Earths oceans and to its ice." Total Measure of Human Warming: Heating Atmosphere, Warming Oceans, and Melting Ice | robertscribbler

----------


## intertd6

> Oh dear, air temperature is only one component of the warming of the Earth's surface - what about land, oceans and ice? When you add all of these "real world" components up, it's warming just like the physics would predict."When taking into account continued atmospheric temperature increases, increasing ocean heat uptake, and increasing rates of global ice melt, there is absolutely zero evidence that human-caused global warming has paused. Instead, we have seen a much more rapid impact on both the worlds oceans and on its ice over the past decade and a half. Further, though atmospheric temperature increase may have slowed somewhat over the same period, such a slow-down has come at the cost of an increasing pace of impact to both the Earths oceans and to its ice." Total Measure of Human Warming: Heating Atmosphere, Warming Oceans, and Melting Ice | robertscribbler

  More rubbish I notice, you only have to a modicum of intelligence to work out that globe over the past many many millions of years has been through cycles of warming & cooling, this warming period is around the maximum temperature that has ever been reached, at this peak more evaporation & clouds are created thus balancing & preventing global temperatures from peaking anymore than the biosphere will allow, history shows what the upper limit is of this peak & with the corresponding CO2 levels at the time shows that CO2 is not a factor in the peak temperature & never has been.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> More rubbish I notice, you only have to a modicum of intelligence to work out that globe over the past many many millions of years has been through cycles of warming & cooling, this warming period is around the maximum temperature that has ever been reached, at this peak more evaporation & clouds are created thus balancing & preventing global temperatures from peaking anymore than the biosphere will allow, history shows what the upper limit is of this peak & with the corresponding CO2 levels at the time shows that CO2 is not a factor in the peak temperature & never has been.
> regards inter

  Oh dear, someone thinks the laws of physics and thermodynamics don't apply if you don't want them to. 
History does _not_ show "that CO2 is not a factor in the peak temperature & never has been". Hint - there are a few other factors at play and to understand past climate, you need to include other forcings that drive climate.

----------


## intertd6

> Oh dear, someone thinks the laws of physics and thermodynamics don't apply if you don't want them to. 
> History does _not_ show "that CO2 is not a factor in the peak temperature & never has been". Hint - there are a few other factors at play and to understand past climate, you need to include other forcings that drive climate.

  The proven history of the globe & it's reactions to these warming & cooling phases by far out weighs the recent failing assumptions based on anecdotal evidence.
you should tell us what was different in the past climates that negates those effects from what we are experiencing today.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> The proven history of the globe & it's reactions to these warming & cooling phases by far out weighs the recent failing assumptions based on anecdotal evidence.
> you should tell us what was different in the past climates that negates those effects from what we are experiencing today.
> regards inter

  Past climate change actually provides the evidence that humans are affecting climate now. The Earths surface temperature is determined by the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation. There is nothing anecdotal about it - CO2 has measurably changed the radiative forcing. More energy is coming in than radiating back out to space. When more heat is added to climate systems, global temperatures rise.  Climate Forcing | Climate Change | US EPA  Radiative forcing - measured at Earths surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect  http://www.slf.ch/info/mitarbeitende...ingGhE_GRL.pdf

----------


## Marc

> So what are the _real causes,_ Marc? Maybe you could put a little effort into explaining that instead of a lot of effort disparaging people you don't agree with. The ball is in your court...

  Continuously posting questions that have been answered at nausea in past post is considered Trolling.

----------


## Marc

> What is the relevance of rich, are we referring to nations or individuals and what on earth does it have to do with the discussion as no one seems to draw a link to wealth just the science behind change and I suspect the increasingly desperate ways you can invent reasons to pretend it isn't happening.

   I am sorry John that you can not see the relevance of the manipulation AGW supporters are subject to and my way to explaining it. Like I said at the end of my post. Help sometimes comes from quarters you dont want to go to.
Best luck next time

----------


## intertd6

> Past climate change actually provides the evidence that humans are affecting climate now. The Earths surface temperature is determined by the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation. There is nothing anecdotal about it - CO2 has measurably changed the radiative forcing. More energy is coming in than radiating back out to space. When more heat is added to climate systems, global temperatures rise.  Climate Forcing | Climate Change | US EPA  Radiative forcing - measured at Earths surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect  http://www.slf.ch/info/mitarbeitende...ingGhE_GRL.pdf

  no need to parrot something that isn't relevant to my question in post #10212 , the crux of my argument is the fact that in the past CO2 lagged the temperature peaks & when it did catch up the temperature didn't keep increasing once the globes self regulating peak was reached, 
but again I ask you to provide some evidence that the atmosphere today is different in a significant way that makes it different from the atmosphere of say ten million years ago, as you claim it was different.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> I am sorry John that you can not see the relevance of the manipulation AGW supporters are subject to and my way to explaining it. Like I said at the end of my post. Help sometimes comes from quarters you dont want to go to.
> Best luck next time

  It was a simple question you are less than clear in what you posted, I simply gave you the opportunity to provide some clarity.

----------


## John2b

> no need to parrot something that isn't relevant to my question in post #10212 , the crux of my argument is the fact that in the past CO2 lagged the temperature peaks & when it did catch up the temperature didn't keep increasing once the globes self regulating peak was reached, 
> but again I ask you to provide some evidence that the atmosphere today is different in a significant way that makes it different from the atmosphere of say ten million years ago, as you claim it was different.
> regards inter

  The crux of your argument about past CO2 isn't relevant to the climate today. It isn't necessary to know what was driving the climate 10 million years ago to know the effect of a change made by humans over the past 150 years. The temperature equilibrium of the earth at the beginning of the industrial age is known, the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel is known, the mount of additional heat retention at the surface of the Earth as a result of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is known. The warming of the planet can be inferred using the laws of physics from the known facts. The planet's inferred response to rising atmospheric CO2 levels matches observations of the planet's climate - doh! In other words, the law of physics haven't been suspended when it comes to recent climate change. It's happening and it is a result of human activity.  http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The crux of your argument about past CO2 isn't relevant to the climate today. It isn't necessary to know what was driving the climate 10 million years ago to know the effect of a change made by humans over the past 150 years. The temperature equilibrium of the earth at the beginning of the industrial age is known, the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel is known, the mount of additional heat retention at the surface of the Earth as a result of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is known. The warming of the planet can be inferred using the laws of physics from the known facts. The planet's inferred response to rising atmospheric CO2 levels matches observations of the planet's climate - doh! In other words, the law of physics haven't been suspended when it comes to recent climate change. It's happening and it is a result of human activity.  http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

  ho hum

----------


## intertd6

> The crux of your argument about past CO2 isn't relevant to the climate today. It isn't necessary to know what was driving the climate 10 million years ago to know the effect of a change made by humans over the past 150 years. The temperature equilibrium of the earth at the beginning of the industrial age is known, the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel is known, the mount of additional heat retention at the surface of the Earth as a result of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is known. The warming of the planet can be inferred using the laws of physics from the known facts. The planet's inferred response to rising atmospheric CO2 levels matches observations of the planet's climate - doh! In other words, the law of physics haven't been suspended when it comes to recent climate change. It's happening and it is a result of human activity.  http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

  "Hint - there are a few other factors at play and to understand past climate"
theres your quote, the challenge is now to supply the factors from that era that change it from the present, not parroted irrelevant information or anecdotal evidence from the present era.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> "Hint - there are a few other factors at play and to understand past climate"
> theres your quote, the challenge is now to supply the factors from that era that change it from the present, not parroted irrelevant information or anecdotal evidence from the present era.
> regards inter

  The climate change caused by CO2 emissions and happening now is not anecdotal.

----------


## intertd6

> The climate change caused by CO2 emissions and happening now is not anecdotal.

  thats nice, but we're really only waiting for those factors that will overturn my argument, no need for the limp red herring diversions. Or haven't you found something to parrot yet!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> The result is that naturally, a vast majority of people will believe this unless the brains kick in with some form of thinking process or an innate and unusual skeptical nature.
> In other words, the natural person will believe the AGW hypothesis without challenge BY DEFAULT, unless something or someone interferes and kick-starts the persons ability to think and challenge what is said to be "consensus".

  There are contrary views: "*Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change*" 
What is this psychological mechanism that allows us to know something is true but act as if it is not? Drawing on years of research, George Marshall confirms that humans are wired to respond strongest to threats that are visible, immediate, have historical precedent, have direct personal impact, and are caused by an enemy. Climate change is none of theseits invisible, unprecedented, drawn out, impacts us indirectly, and is caused by us. 
In this groundbreaking and engaging look at one of the most important issues facing us today, Marshall, shows that even when we accept that climate change is a dire problem, our human brains are wired to ignore it.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> There are contrary views: "*Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change*"
> What is this psychological mechanism that allows us to know something is true but act as if it is not? Drawing on years of research, George Marshall confirms that humans are wired to respond strongest to threats that are visible, immediate, have historical precedent, have direct personal impact, and are caused by an enemy. Climate change is none of theseits invisible, unprecedented, drawn out, impacts us indirectly, and is caused by us. 
> In this groundbreaking and engaging look at one of the most important issues facing us today, Marshall, shows that even when we accept that climate change is a dire problem, our human brains are wired to ignore it.

  So that it!! Yikes

----------


## Marc

> What is this psychological mechanism that allows us to know something is true but act as if it is not? Drawing on years of research, George Marshall confirms that humans are wired to respond strongest to threats that are visible, immediate, have historical precedent, have direct personal impact, and are caused by an enemy. Climate change is none of theseits invisible, unprecedented, drawn out, impacts us indirectly, and is caused by us.  In this groundbreaking and engaging look at one of the most important issues facing us today, Marshall, shows that even when we accept that climate change is a dire problem, our human brains are wired to ignore it.

  How to make money out of a false premise?
Pretend it is true and that everyone else is stupid for ignoring it. 
Where oh where did I hear that one before?
Ah! yessss, the Emperor's new clothes ....  
Please. 
How about ... people ignore it because it is FALSE. Can't live with that one? Too bad! 
Everyone believes in something. Believing does not make it true. May make one feel better, but does not make it true. 
True does not need faith or believing. 2x2=4 is a fact that does not need believing in.
Climate changed by man made CO2 is a fairy tale, with no credible support. Mr Psychologist chose to engage in psychological warfare. Nothing new.
Rather pathetic and old hat.
PS
There is a lot of that crap being written, everyone wants to make a buck. Search for " the psychological distance of climate change "

----------


## Marc

> It was a simple question you are less than clear in what you posted, I simply gave you the opportunity to provide some clarity.

  The opportunity!  :Rolleyes: ... ho hum ... 
OK :Biggrin:  
It is rather simple. 
Rich is evil-poor is virtuous, is a well known anti-value. (Anti because it does not serve the person that has this belief. It works against him/her.) 
The above is exploited knowingly or not by a great majority of people. If you have the stomach to watch ABC question time, see the antics of Labor and their rhetoric. For example and I quote: - "Because Mr Abbot is bound to support his industry friends, like Mrs Gina Reinhart who believes that Australians earn too much".
So it does not matter what is true (if Mr Abbot has friends in the industry or if Mrs Reinhart really belittles Australians) it matters to paint a picture of "rich is evil-poor is virtuous" because such picture gets instant acclaim by 95% of the population without them even realizing it. 
Any other poorly documented story with obscure and dubious background, any conspiracy theory of unknown origin can be made credible instantly if it fits the above parameter. The rich are doing something bad and the poor are suffering or will suffer the most ... or something on that line. 
AGW is a story based on the same fallacy. Rich ( be it industry or the person with a big car and a big house) is hurting everyone for his own gain and poor will pay the most for their actions. 
The above is a well known fact I did not discover it and it does not warrant any debate. I am only bringing it in the debate because with it I explain the vast majority acceptance of man made global warming by the vast majority for decades, acceptance that went unchallenged for an inexplicable long time and that only now has a growing groundswell opposition from skeptical thinking minorities that are quickly turning the tide. 
There are also other well known political factors, industry interest and many other reasons for such initial acceptance however from the profile of the rusted on supporters I draw the above conclusions and that explains why most conservative are skeptics and most left wing are AGW believers.
An I use the term believers intentionally because facts do not need believing in ... but that is another story.

----------


## johnc

That's just stereotyping a bit like saying all Labor voters are unionists or all National party members are red neck farmers or that all Liberal party members are small business owners. None of those statements is supportable and none are true. Same with climate change a persons wealth does not dictate their view on the subject, you can identify a propensity of certain sub groups but no blanket application of any group. What I would consider though is what possible point is there in trying to make hearsay or even create hearsay to sustain a position other than create a straw man argument to detract from an absence of evidence to support a view that is looking weaker by the day.  
However look at this proposition, educated people tend to have higher incomes, that is provable and not in dispute, those educated latte sipping trendies with their uni educations tend to support climate change therefore educated aka rich wealthy people support climate change. See it's simple just make a bit up and an ounce of spin and you can make something whatever you want it to be. Have a good listen to George Brandis, he is actually very good at weaving a few ideas into whatever barrow he is currently pushing, I have my doubts its good for rational discourse but it is a quite useful skill for those without serious conviction or principle. George though is not without conviction don't confuse style with guilt by association.  
Read what I've written in this post and you will understand I've said nothing about anything and taken no position on anything either, no doubt though some may interpret it as something entirely different to suit their own purposes.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It is rather simple. 
> Rich is evil-poor is virtuous, is a well known anti-value. (Anti because it does not serve the person that has this belief. It works against him/her.) 
> The above is exploited knowingly or not by a great majority of people. If you have the stomach to watch ABC question time, see the antics of Labor and their rhetoric. For example and I quote: - "Because Mr Abbot is bound to support his industry friends, like Mrs Gina Reinhart who believes that Australians earn too much".
> So it does not matter what is true (if Mr Abbot has friends in the industry or if Mrs Reinhart really belittles Australians) it matters to paint a picture of "rich is evil-poor is virtuous" because such picture gets instant acclaim by 95% of the population without them even realizing it. 
> Any other poorly documented story with obscure and dubious background, any conspiracy theory of unknown origin can be made credible instantly if it fits the above parameter. The rich are doing something bad and the poor are suffering or will suffer the most ... or something on that line. 
> AGW is a story based on the same fallacy. Rich ( be it industry or the person with a big car and a big house) is hurting everyone for his own gain and poor will pay the most for their actions. 
> The above is a well known fact I did not discover it and it does not warrant any debate. I am only bringing it in the debate because with it I explain the vast majority acceptance of man made global warming by the vast majority for decades, acceptance that went unchallenged for an inexplicable long time and that only now has a growing groundswell opposition from skeptical thinking minorities that are quickly turning the tide. 
> There are also other well known political factors, industry interest and many other reasons for such initial acceptance however from the profile of the rusted on supporters I draw the above conclusions and that explains why most conservative are skeptics and most left wing are AGW believers.
> An I use the term believers intentionally because facts do not need believing in ... but that is another story.

  
Ever though of auditioning for Raw Comedy? Melbourne International Comedy Festival // Raw Comedy 2014 
I only suggest it because you crack me up every time... :Roflmao:  :Rotfl:  :Roflmao2:  :Clapping:

----------


## johnc

It often occurs to me that the really long winded cut and pastes and rambling posts may be more suited as a cheap form of general anaesthetic, instead of an injection creating a catatonic state, well you get the general idea. Still a stand up comedy session may just get an audience, who knows.

----------


## John2b

> Climate changed by man made CO2 is a fairy tale, with no credible support."

  
In the news in the past few days: *
Melting permafrost is destroying buildings in far north Alaska:* Climate change shifts the earth in Alaska - Features - Al Jazeera English   *
Bangladeshis lose land due to sea rise:* http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/wo...ange.html?_r=0  *
WMO Annual Climate Statement Highlights Extreme Events:* WMO Annual Climate Statement Highlights Extreme Events    *"Mad" Summer in Western Australia:* No Cookies | Perth Now   *Actual measurements show the effect on radiation balance caused by CO2:* http://www.slf.ch/info/mitarbeitende...ingGhE_GRL.pdf    CO2 - who wudda thort? Move along, nothing for AWG "skeptics" here....

----------


## Rod Dyson

> In the news in the past few days: *
> Melting permafrost is destroying buildings in far north Alaska:* Climate change shifts the earth in Alaska - Features - Al Jazeera English   *
> Bangladeshis lose land due to sea rise:* http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/wo...ange.html?_r=0  *
> WMO Annual Climate Statement Highlights Extreme Events:* WMO Annual Climate Statement Highlights Extreme Events    *"Mad" Summer in Western Australia:* No Cookies | Perth Now   *Actual measurements show the effect on radiation balance caused by CO2:* http://www.slf.ch/info/mitarbeitende...ingGhE_GRL.pdf    CO2 - who wudda thort? Move along, nothing for AWG "skeptics" here....

  Are you really serious putting this stuff up as evidence of AGW???    :Confused:  :Confused:

----------


## woodbe

> Are you really serious putting this stuff up as evidence of AGW???

  Yep, I think he is Rod. He didn't mention anything about Global Cooling so it's a fair bet these are results of AGW.  :Biggrin:  
He did say "Move along, nothing for AWG "skeptics" here...." but you must have missed that.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Marc

> That's just stereotyping a bit like saying all Labor voters are unionists or all National party members are red neck farmers or that all Liberal party members are small business owners. None of those statements is supportable and none are true. Same with climate change a persons wealth does not dictate their view on the subject, you can identify a propensity of certain sub groups but no blanket application of any group. What I would consider though is what possible point is there in trying to make hearsay or even create hearsay to sustain a position other than create a straw man argument to detract from an absence of evidence to support a view that is looking weaker by the day. ...etc

  Stereotyping or bias, is discredited and could even be considered illegal in some cases, because it makes an assumption of the potential future behavior of a person based on the past behavior of another person.  
However what I am saying is completely different. It is an explanation of the mechanism a person, any person, uses to make a decision. I base my decisions on my personal set of values just like you do and there is nothing wrong with that.
It is clear and indisputable that the same set of values will produce the same set of choices so it is very easy to predict future choices based on present values. 
There are a high number of perfectly harmless values that we all adopted before age 10 without the use of logic or reason, say color choice, taste in food, preference in seasons etc, yet there are other values that also adopted by default before age ten, can potentially and do most of the time pre-determine our future.
The one that stands out and that is the most damaging for the individual's prosperity is the one I mentioned. Unfortunately it is also the most common, and one that most people will deny vigorously to possess and apply.  
To say that "caffee latte" people are rich yet believe AGW to be true, misses the point altogether. The "rich is evil-poor is virtuous" fallacy is not reserved for poor people. And it is not within the grasp of our conscious mind. It is not logical nor is it a choice adopted after much soul searching. Therefore it is completely outside the reach of consciousness unless the person is guided to change a particular value that is not serving him. 
I said this before and I repeat it now,  support for AGW is in most cases a natural consequence of the person's set of values, and it is therefore adopted because it fits with the rest and not because it makes any particular sense. Once adopted, there will be a desperate search for confirmation at all cost, because finding that it is false will make the rest of the values that supported this particular choice also dubious and therefore abhorrent.  
To understand how our mind works and how we do what we do and are who we are should be a popular subject open for discussion yet it is not, because accepting to have made the wrong choice requires more courage than most people believe to possess.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Yep, I think he is Rod. He didn't mention anything about Global Cooling so it's a fair bet these are results of AGW.  
> He did say "Move along, nothing for AWG "skeptics" here...." but you must have missed that.

  
so funny  :Wink:

----------


## intertd6

> Are you really serious putting this stuff up as evidence of AGW???

  thats right, they swallow all this  propaganda & expect all others to follow suit which by the way was missing the classic polar bear on a chunk of ice to get all the kiddies.
meanwhile many parts of the north have had a severe cold winter
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> meanwhile many parts of the north have had a severe cold winter

  Because of?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Because of?

  tell us

----------


## intertd6

> Because of?

  well let's see where this is going, I can see it already, the north is cold because of warming, Australia is warm because of warming, Antarctica had more ice of every description because it's warming AND CO2 is causing all of it! That's AGW logic for you!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> well let's see where this is going, I can see it already, the north is cold because of warming, Australia is warm because of warming, Antarctica had more ice of every description because it's warming AND CO2 is causing all of it! That's AGW logic for you!
> regards inter

  Well, here you have an open invitation to tell it how it is.  
I agree with Rod, Tell Us.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Well, here you have an open invitation to tell it how it is.  
> I agree with Rod, Tell Us.

  Typical it was your invitation to tell us Woodbe. Careful it becomes a habit to twist things around to suit your argument :Wink:   
BTW ITS LIGHTS ON DAY AT 8.30

----------


## woodbe

> Typical it was your invitation to tell us Woodbe. Careful it becomes a habit to twist things around to suit your argument  
> BTW ITS LIGHTS ON DAY AT 8.30

  Au Contraire. Read back and you will find it was woodbe who asked for the reason first. Someone is twisting, but it isn't me.  :Cool:

----------


## woodbe

New study shows major increase in West Antarctic glacial loss   

> Six massive glaciers in West Antarctica are moving faster than they did 40 years ago, causing more ice to discharge into the ocean and global sea level to rise, according to new research. 
> The amount of ice draining collectively from those half-dozen glaciers increased by 77 percent from 1973 to 2013, scientists report this month in _Geophysical Research Letters_, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. Pine Island Glacier, the most active of the studied glaciers, has accelerated by 75 percent in 40 years, according to the paper. Thwaites Glacier, the widest glacier, started to accelerate in 2006, following a decade of stability. 
> The study is the first to look at the ice coming off the six most active West Antarctic glaciers over such an extended time period, said Jeremie Mouginot, a glaciologist at University of California-Irvine (UC-Irvine) who co-authored the paper. Almost 10 percent of the world's sea-level rise per year comes from just these six glaciers, he said. 
> "What we found was a sustained increase in ice dischargewhich has a significant impact on sea level rise," he said. 
> The researchers studied the Pine Island, Thwaites, Haynes, Smith, Pope and Kohler glaciers, all of which discharge ice into a vast bay known as the Amundsen Sea Embayment in West Antarctica. 
> The amount of ice released by these six glaciers each year is comparable to the amount of ice draining from the entire Greenland Ice Sheet annually, Mouginot said. If melted completely, the glaciers' disappearance would raise sea levels another 1.2 meters (four feet), according to co-author and UC-Irvine Professor Eric Rignot.

  Article is here: Sustained increase in ice discharge from the Amundsen Sea Embayment, West Antarctica, from 1973 to 2013 - Mouginot - 2014 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

----------


## woodbe

NASA Data Sheds New Light on Changing Greenland Ice | NASA   

> Research using NASA data is giving new insight into one of the  processes causing Greenland's ice sheet to lose mass. A team of  scientists used satellite observations and ice thickness measurements  gathered by NASA's Operation IceBridge to calculate the rate at which  ice flows through Greenland's glaciers into the ocean. The findings of  this research give a clearer picture of how glacier flow affects the  Greenland Ice Sheet and shows that this dynamic process is dominated by a  small number of glaciers.
>  Over the past few years, Operation IceBridge measured the thickness  of many of Greenland's glaciers, which allowed researchers to make a  more accurate calculation of ice discharge rates. In a new study  published in the journal _Geophysical Research Letters_, researchers calculated ice discharge rates for 178 Greenland glaciers more than one kilometer (0.62 miles) wide. 
>  Ice sheets grow when snow accumulates and is compacted into ice. They  lose mass when ice and snow at the surface melts and runs off and when  glaciers at the coast discharge ice into the ocean. The difference  between yearly snowfall on an ice sheet and the sum of melting and  discharge is called a mass budget. When these factors are equal, the  mass budget is balanced, but for years the Greenland Ice Sheet has had a  negative mass budget, meaning the ice sheet is losing mass overall.
>  ..
> Ice discharge is controlled by three major factors: ice thickness,  glacier valley shape and ice velocity. Researchers used data from  IceBridge's ice-penetrating radar  the Multichannel Coherent Radar  Depth Sounder, or MCoRDS, which is operated by the Center for Remote  Sensing of Ice Sheets at the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kan.  to  determine ice thickness and sub-glacial terrain, and images from  satellite sources such as Landsat and Terra to calculate velocity. The  team used several years of observations to ensure accuracy. "Glacier  discharge may vary considerably between years," said Ellyn Enderlin,  glaciologist at the University of Maine, Orono, Maine and the study's  lead author. "Annual changes in speed and thickness must be taken into  account."  
>  Being able to study Greenland in such a large and detailed scale is  one of IceBridge's strengths. "IceBridge has collected so much data on  elevation and thickness that we can now do analysis down to the  individual glacier level and do it for the entire ice sheet," said  Michael Studinger, IceBridge project scientist at NASA's Goddard Space  Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "We can now quantify contributions from  the different processes that contribute to ice loss."

  Icebridge: Operation IceBridge - Studying Earth's Polar Ice | NASA

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Au Contraire. Read back and you will find it was woodbe who asked for the reason first. Someone is twisting, but it isn't me.

  LOL  
But I was asking you!

----------


## John2b

> meanwhile many parts of the north have had a severe cold winter

  I am sure that the point weather is not climate has been pointed out before, even by the AGW "skeptics". But once again for those who have forgotten:  "Unsurprisingly, the extreme cold has brought out the climate change skeptics, who point to the freeze and the recent snowstorms and say, essentially, nyah-nyah. The fact is that the occasional cold snapeven one as extreme as much of the U.S. is experiencing nowdoesnt change the overall trajectory of a warming planet. Weather is what happens in the atmosphere day to day; climate is how the atmosphere behaves over long periods of time.* Winters in the U.S. have been warming steadily over the past century, and even faster in recent decades, so it would take more than a few sub-zero days to cancel that out."* Polar Vortex: Climate Change Could Be the Cause of Record Cold Weather | TIME.com 
The cold snap wasn't all that cold either:  
"Its worth noting that even as much of the U.S. shivers, temperatures in Greenland are just about normala reminder that while weather may be local, climate is global. And while the U.S. cold snap is historic in its own right, its going to feel that much colder because, quite simply, *weve forgotten how freezing winter can be.* While the U.S. as a whole has warmed by about 1.3º F (0.71º C)over the past 100 years, winter has seen the fastest warming. Winter nights across the country have warmed about 30% faster than nights over the whole year. Since 1912, the coldest states have warmed nearly twice as fast as the rest of the country. In a warming world, winter loses its sting. Record Cold Temperatures Are Projected to Hit Much of the U.S. | TIME.com

----------


## intertd6

> New study shows major increase in West Antarctic glacial loss   
> Article is here: Sustained increase in ice discharge from the Amundsen Sea Embayment, West Antarctica, from 1973 to 2013 - Mouginot - 2014 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

  What a load of! Before you parrot something like this find out the mechanism of Antarctic ice flows & you can start at the AAD with its explanation of increased ice glow. It goes something like this, increased snow accumulation on the ice sheet has increased the plateau thickness which in turn pushes more volume of ice to be emitted from glaciers, which coincides with the colder temperatures & producing more sea ice at the southern polar regions.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> I am sure that the point weather is not climate has been pointed out before, even by the AGW "skeptics". But once again for those who have forgotten: "Unsurprisingly, the extreme cold has brought out the climate change skeptics, who point to the freeze and the recent snowstorms and say, essentially, nyah-nyah. The fact is that the occasional cold snapeven one as extreme as much of the U.S. is experiencing nowdoesnt change the overall trajectory of a warming planet. Weather is what happens in the atmosphere day to day; climate is how the atmosphere behaves over long periods of time.* Winters in the U.S. have been warming steadily over the past century, and even faster in recent decades, so it would take more than a few sub-zero days to cancel that out."* Polar Vortex: Climate Change Could Be the Cause of Record Cold Weather | TIME.com 
> The cold snap wasn't all that cold either: 
> "Its worth noting that even as much of the U.S. shivers, temperatures in Greenland are just about normala reminder that while weather may be local, climate is global. And while the U.S. cold snap is historic in its own right, its going to feel that much colder because, quite simply, *weve forgotten how freezing winter can be.* While the U.S. as a whole has warmed by about 1.3º F (0.71º C)over the past 100 years, winter has seen the fastest warming. Winter nights across the country have warmed about 30% faster than nights over the whole year. Since 1912, the coldest states have warmed nearly twice as fast as the rest of the country. In a warming world, winter loses its sting. Record Cold Temperatures Are Projected to Hit Much of the U.S. | TIME.com

  And your point is? We all know the globe has warmed 0.8'C in the last 100 odd years, more wasted imaginary ink I see telling us useless information, I only threw in the reference of the severe cold northern winter in some regions to counter the dribble about a hot summer in Western Australia, yep that's right it's just weather & not climate, there is no need for that kind of dribble to be posted in the first place.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

"Antarctica is losing ice mass while gaining ice extent. This is a confusing point to some."    Antarctic Ice Melt &mdash; OSS Foundation  
Antarctic surface air temperature is rising, not getting colder:  https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/tag/nasa-giss/

----------


## John2b

> And your point is?

  What was your point in making this statement?   

> meanwhile many parts of the north have had a severe cold winter
> regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> "Antarctica is losing ice mass while gaining ice extent. This is a confusing point to some."   Antarctic Ice Melt &mdash; OSS Foundation  
> Antarctic surface air temperature is rising, not getting colder: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/tag/nasa-giss/

  That's not what a reputable source such as the AAD is saying or reporting, but keep the rubbish coming.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> What a load of! Before you parrot something like this find out the mechanism of Antarctic ice flows & you can start at the AAD with its explanation of increased ice glow. It goes something like this, increased snow accumulation on the ice sheet has increased the plateau thickness which in turn pushes more volume of ice to be emitted from glaciers, which coincides with the colder temperatures & producing more sea ice at the southern polar regions.
> regards inter

  Dunning-Kruger much? 
Happy for you to show studies that prove the major acceleration of the glaciers in question is due to increased snow accumulation, but the study linked suggests otherwise:   

> Grounding-line ice speeds of Pine Island Glacier stabilized between 2009  and 2013, following a decade of rapid acceleration, but that  acceleration reached far inland and occurred at a rate faster than  predicted by advective processes

  Sustained increase in ice discharge from the Amundsen Sea Embayment, West Antarctica, from 1973 to 2013 - Mouginot - 2014 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library 
Are you seriously suggesting that the scientists in this study ignore snow accumulation?  
Perhaps I should write to Jeremie Mouginot and tell him to withdraw his paper because he has clearly forgotten about the snow. I bet he never thought of that. LOL.

----------


## woodbe

> That's not what a reputable source such as the AAD is saying or reporting, but keep the rubbish coming.
> regards inter

  Good point, we should check with the AAD:   

> Antarctica and the subantarctic islands are currently undergoing  measurable climate change and the Antarctic Peninsula has experienced  greater climatic warming than any other region on the planet.

  Trends and sensitivity to change &mdash; Australian Antarctic Division   

> Ice loss from the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland is contributing to sea level rise at an accelerating rate.

  The Antarctic ice sheet &mdash; Australian Antarctic Division 
Sure seems like the AAD is saying and reporting exactly the same things as we see in john2b's post. Perhaps you could point us to AAD information to the contrary. Cherry picking a specific region that is not following the overall trend might not suffice.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## John2b

> That's not what a reputable source such as the AAD is saying or reporting, but keep the rubbish coming.
> regards inter

  Good point. Here is what the AAD is reporting:
"International collaborative studies have been carried out in the Antarctic Peninsula region to further our understanding of the complex interactions between the physical and biological environment in the sea ice zone (Massom et al., 2006b; in press). *This part of Antarctica has experienced a steady decline in Antarctic sea ice extent over the past few decades, coupled with one of the largest warming trends on Earth*. 
"Large-scale effects of sustained patterns of anomalous atmospheric circulation on sea ice distribution, similar to those shown to occur in west Antarctica have also been shown to occur in the Australian sector (Massom et al., 2003). The Australian sea ice research team also recently participated in a German-led international, multi-disciplinary Ice Station Polarstern (ISPOL) study in the Weddell Sea. This study focused on improving the understanding of sea ice dynamics in this region (Heil et al., in press), and the thermodynamic evolution of the sea ice cover during the summer melt period (Tison et al., in press). These *are important processes that must be properly understood and integrated into more accurate climate prediction models*. 
"*Oceans in the polar regions are changing more rapidly than those elsewhere*. Through repeated samples taken along standard ocean transects Australian researchers carried out some of the first studies to document changes in the ocean and have continued to lead in this area, documenting global-scale changes in *ocean properties that are consistent with the pattern of global warming* 
"A comparison of measurements with the outputs of models showed that the models were mixing too deeply in the Southern Ocean, and therefore* underestimating the rate of warming in the surface ocean*. 
"A number of studies from Australia and overseas ave shown that* the Southern Ocean is warming at a rate greater than the global average* (Aoki et al. 2005a), and that *the warmer ocean is in turn driving more rapid melting of floating glacial ice around the margin of Antarctica." * There is much, much more, but _most_ people will get the picture.  http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/...nce-report.pdf

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Good point. Here is what the AAD is reporting:
> "International collaborative studies have been carried out in the Antarctic Peninsula region to further our understanding of the complex interactions between the physical and biological environment in the sea ice zone (Massom et al., 2006b; in press). *This part of Antarctica has experienced a steady decline in Antarctic sea ice extent over the past few decades, coupled with one of the largest warming trends on Earth*. 
> "Large-scale effects of sustained patterns of anomalous atmospheric circulation on sea ice distribution, similar to those shown to occur in west Antarctica have also been shown to occur in the Australian sector (Massom et al., 2003). The Australian sea ice research team also recently participated in a German-led international, multi-disciplinary Ice Station Polarstern (ISPOL) study in the Weddell Sea. This study focused on improving the understanding of sea ice dynamics in this region (Heil et al., in press), and the thermodynamic evolution of the sea ice cover during the summer melt period (Tison et al., in press). These *are important processes that must be properly understood and integrated into more accurate climate prediction models*. 
> "*Oceans in the polar regions are changing more rapidly than those elsewhere*. Through repeated samples taken along standard ocean transects Australian researchers carried out some of the first studies to document changes in the ocean and have continued to lead in this area, documenting global-scale changes in *ocean properties that are consistent with the pattern of global warming* 
> "A comparison of measurements with the outputs of models showed that the models were mixing too deeply in the Southern Ocean, and therefore* underestimating the rate of warming in the surface ocean*. 
> "A number of studies from Australia and overseas ave shown that* the Southern Ocean is warming at a rate greater than the global average* (Aoki et al. 2005a), and that *the warmer ocean is in turn driving more rapid melting of floating glacial ice around the margin of Antarctica." * There is much, much more, but _most_ people will get the picture.  http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/...nce-report.pdf

  You guys amuse me. Throwing up all this anecdotal "evidence" to prove a theory that can't be proven.  Its all in the feedback loops boys, that is your weakest link.  
Time will tell the story.  But hey knock yourselves out trying to convince us other wise.

----------


## woodbe

> You guys amuse me. Throwing up all this anecdotal "evidence" to prove a theory that can't be proven.  Its all in the feedback loops boys, that is your weakest link.  
> Time will tell the story.  But hey knock yourselves out trying to convince us other wise.

  Not intended for you, Rod. These are specific to inter's suggestion that the AAD being a credible organisation and all, does not support the warming of Antarctica or the increasing ice mass losses there.  
Clearly the AAD is not toeing the inter party line. lol.

----------


## John2b

> You guys amuse me. Throwing up all this anecdotal "evidence" to prove a theory that can't be proven.  Its all in the feedback loops boys, that is your weakest link.  
> Time will tell the story.  But hey knock yourselves out trying to convince us other wise.

  In response to the armchair experts' views expressed in this thread, I simply provide research by professionals working in the field and the considered opinions of those professionals, most often citing the source so genuinely skeptical readers can do their own checking. 
Answer this Rod: Why do the AGW "skeptics", who you insist time will prove right, find it necessary to make so many claims that are very easily shown to be false, not backed up by data, unsubstantiated or just plain wrong?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> In response to the armchair experts' views expressed in this thread, I simply provide research by professionals working in the field and the considered opinions of those professionals, most often citing the source so genuinely skeptical readers can do their own checking. 
> Answer this Rod: Why do the AGW "skeptics", who you insist time will prove right, find it necessary to make so many claims that are very easily shown to be false, not backed up by data, unsubstantiated or just plain wrong?

  I can answer in this way: John: Why do the AGW "warmists", who you insist are right, find it necessary to make so many claims that are very easily shown to be false, not backed up by data, unsubstantiated or just plain wrong? 
"Opinions" is the most interesting word in your post!

----------


## John2b

> I can answer in this way: John: Why do the AGW "warmists", who you insist are right, find it necessary to make so many claims that are very easily shown to be false, not backed up by data, unsubstantiated or just plain wrong? 
> "Opinions" is the most interesting word in your post!

  The premise of your question fails at the first hurdle - I have not made any claims that the AGW "warmists" are right. No question to answer, Rod - why could you not answer mine? 
It's interesting that you imply that the opinions of armchair experts should carry as much or more weight that the opinions of experts working in the field. Do you also believe that recreational home renovators know more about plastering than you do?

----------


## johnc

> You guys amuse me. Throwing up all this anecdotal "evidence" to prove a theory that can't be proven.  Its all in the feedback loops boys, that is your weakest link.  
> Time will tell the story.  But hey knock yourselves out trying to convince us other wise.

  I would hardly call it anecdotal, the problem is more likely that people are simply blocking what they don't want to hear or believe, the data used is quantitative the conclusions are consistent with that data  so while we may choose to disagree with the conclusions by arguing about feedback loops pretending the data isn't real and is instead anecdotal seems rather strange.

----------


## woodbe

> I would hardly call it anecdotal, the problem is more likely that people are simply blocking what they don't want to hear or believe, the data used is quantitative the conclusions are consistent with that data  so while we may choose to disagree with the conclusions by arguing about feedback loops pretending the data isn't real and is instead anecdotal seems rather strange.

  Of course it isn't anecdotal. The problem is that when a scientist shares the results of a lifetime's work in climate science their results are 'balanced' against the opinion of a climate change 'skeptic' or denier. It's been said before, if the 'skeptics' had some valid science to blow AGW out of the water with, they would have published it by now. They simply don't have it. 
And the best delay tactic? 'Time will tell the story' ie. lets wait for the results of our knowledge to play out before we do anything about it.

----------


## johnc

> Of course it isn't anecdotal. The problem is that when a scientist shares the results of a lifetime's work in climate science their results are 'balanced' against the opinion of a climate change 'skeptic' or denier. It's been said before, if the 'skeptics' had some valid science to blow AGW out of the water with, they would have published it by now. They simply don't have it. 
> And the best delay tactic? 'Time will tell the story' ie. lets wait for the results of our knowledge to play out before we do anything about it.

  History regardless if it is Darwinism, those who adapt to change, or economic those who refuse to both accept change or behave as if it isn't happening have one outcome, they get left behind. Even the survival of man over millennia  shows pockets that die out, those that struggle and those that thrive. Sadly the impact of climate change will not just target the human Dodo's it will reach far beyond that. If there is a backlash against the deniers it will make the current child abuse enquiry look like a back patting contest and blame will be easy to attribute although deniers will always be good at, well, denying and keen to shift the blame. "Why wasn't I told" I reckon will be the catch cry.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> History regardless if it is Darwinism, those who adapt to change, or economic those who refuse to both accept change or behave as if it isn't happening have one outcome, they get left behind. Even the survival of man over millennia  shows pockets that die out, those that struggle and those that thrive. Sadly the impact of climate change will not just target the human Dodo's it will reach far beyond that. If there is a backlash against the deniers it will make the current child abuse enquiry look like a back patting contest and blame will be easy to attribute although deniers will always be good at, well, denying and keen to shift the blame. "Why wasn't I told" I reckon will be the catch cry.

  wow just wow!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The premise of your question fails at the first hurdle - I have not made any claims that the AGW "warmists" are right. No question to answer, Rod - why could you not answer mine? 
> It's interesting that you imply that the opinions of armchair experts should carry as much or more weight that the opinions of experts working in the field. Do you also believe that recreational home renovators know more about plastering than you do?

  The problem is you only see anyone who is skeptic an "armchair" expert When you know full well that many scientist who cast doubt on AGW are qualified to do so. Some where back in this thread there is a huge list of peer reviewed papers casting doubt on AGW. 
Now we all know there is no science that proves the AGW theory as we know there is none that dis-proves it. So calls to provide the science to dis-prove are simply not valid, as it is to ask for science that proves the theory.  All the anecdotal "evidence" put forward can only be tested by time. 
Your last comment says it all really.  My knowledge of plastering has come from many different areas and people.  I have always had an open mind and realise I can learn new things about my trade from just about anybody.  A good idea or opinion is good regardless of the qualification of the provider.   
If your theory was on such solid ground supported by facts there would be nowhere near the number of skeptics that there are.  
Why won't the warmists scientists debate the skeptic scientists?  If their science was so clear and un-disputable you would think they would relish the opportunity. 
No John2b the science is far from settled as you claim.  Keep us amused a little while longer with your attempts to change our view

----------


## woodbe

> Why won't the warmists scientists debate the skeptic scientists?  If their science was so clear and un-disputable you would think they would relish the opportunity.

  Because the science is not a debate. A good debating team can win a debate without accurate information, they just have to know how to play the game. On the other hand, poor science does not push out established science just because it is shouted from the tree tops or debated in the media. It needs to be published so that it can be part of science, checked, replicated and either accepted or consigned. 
If the skeptics had the silver bullet, they would have published well before now. They just don't have it.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Because the science is not a debate. A good debating team can win a debate without accurate information, they just have to know how to play the game. On the other hand, poor science does not push out established science just because it is shouted from the tree tops or debated in the media. It needs to be published so that it can be part of science, checked, replicated and either accepted or consigned. 
> If the skeptics had the silver bullet, they would have published well before now. They just don't have it.

  
If the Warmists had  silver bullet they would have published it by now.

----------


## John2b

> The problem is you only see anyone who is skeptic an "armchair" expert When you know full well that many scientist who cast doubt on AGW are qualified to do so.

  Science is a very robust institution built on functional skepticism, no less climate science. *No one* is stopping the scientists "who cast doubt on AGW" from participating in the scientific debate. (Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton are on the expert review panel for the IPCC, as are a lot of other "skeptics", for example.) *As soon as the "skeptics" have some credible evidence they will be given the credence that science bestows.* 
Being skeptical is not a matter of taking an opposing view. Being skeptical is about going to the source of information and testing it. That is where your so called scientists "who cast doubt on AGW" generally come unstuck - their claims, even though popular with armchair observers, don't bear scientific scrutiny when tested. That's why they don't get published in scientific journals. 
I remind readers that physics is a very robust science. Most of our technological wonders would not be possible if the physics is all wrong and AGW isn't happening, because all of the technological wonders we use every day, including the computers and internet that make this conversation possible, depend on the same laws of physics to operate as the laws of physics that define AGW.

----------


## John2b

> If the Warmists had  silver bullet they would have published it by now.

  Is that an attempt at humour? It's a serious question - I am really not sure what you mean. Climatologists have published thousands of papers, none overturning physics yet, but generally they don't fall into the characterisation you have previously made of "warmists". Your characterisation of "warmists" is more appropriate to journalist AGW warriors, and others who generally are not climatologists.

----------


## woodbe

> If the Warmists had  silver bullet they would have published it by now.

  This is not difficult, but you seem to be struggling... 
The Science community has published every publishable piece of science on the subject and continues to do so. The science resoundingly supports AGW. That is the state of play. If skeptics want to take it down, they have to publish their take down, but they clearly don't have one.

----------


## John2b

> Your last comment says it all really.  My knowledge of plastering has come from many different areas and people.  I have always had an open mind and realise I can learn new things about my trade from just about anybody.  A good idea or opinion is good regardless of the qualification of the provider.

  Agreed, a good idea or opinion is good regardless of the qualification of the provider. To suggest I implied otherwise is a misrepresentation of my post. What is significant (in the context of my post) is level of expertise, not qualifications. Sorry if you didn't get it.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Agreed, a good idea or opinion is good regardless of the qualification of the provider. To suggest I implied otherwise is a misrepresentation of my post. What is significant (in the context of my post) is level of expertise, not qualifications. Sorry if you didn't get it.

  Oh I get it.  There are no sceptical scientists qualified or have enough expertise to have a valid opinion.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> This is not difficult, but you seem to be struggling... 
> The Science community has published every publishable piece of science on the subject and continues to do so. The science resoundingly supports AGW. That is the state of play. If skeptics want to take it down, they have to publish their take down, but they clearly don't have one.

  That is simply NOT TRUE 
There are plenty of published papers that are just as circumstantial evidence against AGW as there are circumstantial ones that support it.  None from either side contain the "silver bullet".  You simply do not want to acknowledge that there is another side to the AGW theory.  You chose only to accept your view of reality. Only the science that you choose to accept supports AGW, NOTE only supports not proves.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Lovelock now says his book was too certain about climate change. 
Sure sounds like the science is settled.   

> Speaking to the Guardian for an interview ahead of a landmark UN climate science report on Monday on the impacts of climate change, Lovelock said of the warnings of climate catastrophe in his 2006 book, Revenge of Gaia: "I was a little too certain in that book. *You just cant tell whats going to happen." * It [the impact from climate change] could be terrible within a few years, *though thats very unlikely*, or it could be hundreds of years before the climate becomes unbearable," he said.   
> Lovelock's comments appear to be at odds with dire forecasts from a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Monday, which leaked versions show will warn that even small temperature rises will bring "abrupt and irreversible changes" to natural systems, including Arctic sea ice and coral reefs.  
> Asked if his remarks would give ammunition to climate change sceptics, he said: "Its just as silly to be a denier as it is to be a believer. You cant be certain." 
> Talking about the environmental movement, Lovelock says: "*Its become a religion, and religions dont worry too much about facts*." The retired scientist, who worked at the Medical Research Council, describes himself as an "old-fashioned green."

  James Lovelock: environmentalism has become a religion | Environment | theguardian.com

----------


## Rod Dyson

And it is stuff like this that turn people off.     

> The Earth is warming so rapidly that unless humans can arrest the trend, we risk becoming ''extinct'' as a species, a leading Australian health academic has warned 
> Read more: Climate change could make humans extinct, warns health expert

  Climate change could make humans extinct, warns health expert

----------


## John2b

> Oh I get it.  There are no sceptical scientists qualified or have enough expertise to have a valid opinion.

  No you don't get it. *All* scientists are sceptical. It comes with the qualification.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Some light reading for you. 
Links are here  Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm 
BTW read the rebuttals, save me posting  
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69-82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso 
Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? (PDF)
(GSA Today, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp. 4-10, July 2003)
- Nir J. Shaviv, Jan Veizer 
Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges (PDF)
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp. 1.18-1.24, February 2007)
- Henrik Svensmark 
Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future (PDF)
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125, March 2007)
- Willie H. Soon 
Atmospheric Oscillations do not Explain the Temperature-Industrialization Correlation (PDF)
(Statistics, Politics, and Policy, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp. 1-18, July 2010)
- Ross McKitrick 
Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications (PDF)
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issue 13, pp. 951-970, August 2010)
- Nicola Scafetta 
What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? (PDF)
(Remote Sensing, Volume 2, Issue 9, pp. 2148-2169, September 2010)
- John R. Christy, Benjamin Herman, Roger Pielke Sr., Philip Klotzbach, Richard T. McNider, Justin J. Hnilo, Roy W. Spencer, Thomas Chase, David Douglass 
On the recovery from the Little Ice Age (PDF)
(Natural Science, Volume 2, Number 7, pp. 1211-1224, November 2010)
- Syun-Ichi Akasofu 
A statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable? (PDF)
(Annals of Applied Statistics, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 5-44, March 2011)
- Blakeley B. McShane, Abraham J. Wyner 
Improved methods for PCA-based reconstructions: case study using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic temperature reconstruction (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 24, Issue 8, pp. 2099-2115, April 2011)
- Ryan ODonnell, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre, Jeff Condon 
Lack of Consistency Between Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 22, Number 4, pp. 375-406, June 2011)
- S. Fred Singer 
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications (PDF)
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011) 
- Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi 
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF)
(Euresis Journal, Volume 2, pp. 161-192, March 2012)
- Richard S. Lindzen 
The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 19552011 simulated with a 1D climate model
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, November 2013)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell 
Lins

----------


## John2b

> That is simply NOT TRUE 
> There are plenty of published papers that are just as circumstantial evidence against AGW as there are circumstantial ones that support it.

  Your statement would be correct is you replace the word "That" above with the word "This". :Wink:

----------


## John2b

> Some light reading for you. 
> Links are here  Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm 
> BTW read the rebuttals, save me posting

  Well, as a skeptic, I went to the website listed and selected a paper at random. To suggest it was a rebuttal of AGW is more than disingenuous, more like downright dishonest. I ask again, why is it that the "AGW skeptics" find it necessary to make so many claims that are very easily shown to be false, not backed up by data, unsubstantiated or just plain wrong?

----------


## John2b

> And it is stuff like this that turn people off.    Climate change could make humans extinct, warns health expert

  
Correction: turns _you_ off. What if you truly believed something and wanted desperately for everyone else to believe what you do? (Oh - that's right - you do too...) You might try so hard that you put others off...

----------


## John2b

> Lovelock now says his book was too certain about climate change. 
> Sure sounds like the science is settled.  James Lovelock: environmentalism has become a religion | Environment | theguardian.com

  
Thanks Rod, I love following up leads in forums. He could have been writing about this forum LOL.  Lovelock argued that, as a result of global warming, "billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable" by the end of the 21st century.  Now he thinks that was too extreme. What have I said about armchair experts? (Hint: Lovelock is NOT a climate scientist.)  *James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change*  James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change | Environment | The Guardian

----------


## intertd6

> Good point, we should check with the AAD:   Trends and sensitivity to change &mdash; Australian Antarctic Division   The Antarctic ice sheet &mdash; Australian Antarctic Division 
> Sure seems like the AAD is saying and reporting exactly the same things as we see in john2b's post. Perhaps you could point us to AAD information to the contrary. Cherry picking a specific region that is not following the overall trend might not suffice.

  Not at all, I have posted the relevant aad data previously many pages back and what I quoted is exactly what their data says.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Dunning-Kruger much? 
> Happy for you to show studies that prove the major acceleration of the glaciers in question is due to increased snow accumulation, but the study linked suggests otherwise:    Sustained increase in ice discharge from the Amundsen Sea Embayment, West Antarctica, from 1973 to 2013 - Mouginot - 2014 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library 
> Are you seriously suggesting that the scientists in this study ignore snow accumulation?  
> Perhaps I should write to Jeremie Mouginot and tell him to withdraw his paper because he has clearly forgotten about the snow. I bet he never thought of that. LOL.

   Are you seriously thinking gravity somehow works in reverse, if a glacier is loaded with less weight it is somehow going to accelerate flow, very AGW alarmist thought processes working there making that sort of connection. Ice is a fluid so what your suggesting goes against fluid dynamics.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> That is simply NOT TRUE 
> There are plenty of published papers that are just as circumstantial evidence against AGW as there are circumstantial ones that support it.  None from either side contain the "silver bullet".  You simply do not want to acknowledge that there is another side to the AGW theory.  You chose only to accept your view of reality. Only the science that you choose to accept supports AGW, NOTE only supports not proves.

  Sorry Rod, it IS TRUE. 
There is a theory, and it supported by the vast bulk of climate scientists all of whom are born skeptics, and the vast bulk of published scientific studies. AGW is the best explanation we have for the evidence in front of us. 
What is lacking is a better, accepted, alternative theory. It simply has not been published. We can only assume it does not exist. Without that better theory we have to accept the best theory we have, and that is AGW. We all know you don't like or accept it, but that does not change the fact that an overwhelming majority of qualified publishing scientists agree on it through their research and their publishing.

----------


## woodbe

> Not at all, I have posted the relevant aad data previously many pages back and what I quoted is exactly what their data says.
> regards inter

  Sure you have. Can you explain why the AAD report and website do not agree with what you claim?  
Perhaps you should re-post your link and quote to prove that AAD is a bipolar organisation. lol.

----------


## woodbe

> Are you seriously thinking gravity somehow works in reverse, if a glacier is loaded with less weight it is somehow going to accelerate flow, very AGW alarmist thought processes working there making that sort of connection. Ice is a fluid so what your suggesting goes against fluid dynamics.
> regards inter

  Are you seriously suggesting that the only influence on glacier flow is gravity? Let me quote again, a direct reference from the published science:   

> that  acceleration reached far inland and occurred at a rate faster than  predicted by advective processes

  Sustained increase in ice discharge from the Amundsen Sea Embayment, West Antarctica, from 1973 to 2013 - Mouginot - 2014 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library 
Good time to brush up on glaciers, you seem to be missing a bit of information...   
If your only explanation for glacier acceleration is increasing snow accumulation, then how would you explain the reason behind the fact that the mass balance is negative?

----------


## intertd6

> Are you seriously suggesting that the only influence on glacier flow is gravity? Let me quote again, a direct reference from the published science:   Sustained increase in ice discharge from the Amundsen Sea Embayment, West Antarctica, from 1973 to 2013 - Mouginot - 2014 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library 
> Good time to brush up on glaciers, you seem to be missing a bit of information...   
> If your only explanation for glacier acceleration is increasing snow accumulation, then how would you explain the reason behind the fact that the mass balance is negative?

  nice incorrect diagrams for the majority of antarctic glaciers, what a joke! it shows how you parrot stuff you have no idea about.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Sure you have. Can you explain why the AAD report and website do not agree with what you claim?  
> Perhaps you should re-post your link and quote to prove that AAD is a bipolar organisation. lol.

  lives too short for that, you seem to have time to waste so be my guest to find the data posted.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Correction: turns _you_ off. What if you truly believed something and wanted desperately for everyone else to believe what you do? (Oh - that's right - you do too...) You might try so hard that you put others off...

  I'm not a religious person. 
But yes I can see how desperate you are to have us believe what you do.  Personally I don't care a damn what you believe as you are entitled to believe what you like. 
I am very happy to be one who is not been taken in by the AGW/GREEN "religion".

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Sorry Rod, it IS TRUE. 
> There is a theory, and it supported by the vast bulk of climate scientists all of whom are born skeptics, and the vast bulk of published scientific studies. AGW is the best explanation we have for the evidence in front of us. 
> What is lacking is a better, accepted, alternative theory. It simply has not been published. We can only assume it does not exist. Without that better theory we have to accept the best theory we have, and that is AGW. We all know you don't like or accept it, but that does not change the fact that an overwhelming majority of qualified publishing scientists agree on it through their research and their publishing.

  LOL "no no no it is true you have to believe me"  LOL we know what is true and what is not!

----------


## John2b

> I'm not a religious person. 
> But yes I can see how desperate you are to have us believe what you do. .

  You profess to know what I believe in? That claim says more about you than me.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You profess to know what I believe in? That claim says more about you than me.

  Sorry I really confused here. 
This is your comment:  Correction: turns you off. What if you truly believed something and wanted desperately for everyone else to believe what you do? (Oh - that's right - *you do too*...) You might try so hard that you put others off... 
The words "you do too" Now what would that imply? and how should I take that?  You could have also said "you do as well"  same take yes?

----------


## PhilT2

> Sorry I really confused here.

  Me too. No matter what anyone believes we have a govt that promised action on climate change. Whether it's a carbon tax or direct action the price will be much the same and we all will be paying it. The only silly thing to believe is that the work of thousands of scientists supporting AGW will be overturned by another group of scientists that can't even get their s**t together long enough to agree if there is a greenhouse theory or not or sort out between themselves agreement on one credible alternate theory.

----------


## woodbe

> LOL "no no no it is true you have to believe me"  LOL we know what is true and what is not!

  Very convenient distraction. You don't have to believe me, you already have accepted the science in this very thread that you now claim is untrue. 
The science is established and accepted. There is no silver bullet.

----------


## woodbe

> nice incorrect diagrams for the majority of antarctic glaciers, what a joke! it shows how you parrot stuff you have no idea about.
> regards inter

  You claim that snow accumulation and gravity is the only component of glacier flow. No wonder you don't like any diagram that shows otherwise. Put up.   

> lives too short for that, you seem to have time to waste so be my guest to find the data posted.
> regards inter

  We've done this inter data chase before. None was found, it was strangely invisible, yet repeatedly referred to. 
Life is too short to demonstrate to the forum that you have the superior knowledge you allude to, but on the other hand life is not too short to make derogatory posts. lol. Put up.

----------


## woodbe

> Me too. No matter what anyone believes we have a govt that promised action on climate change. Whether it's a carbon tax or direct action the price will be much the same and we all will be paying it. The only silly thing to believe is that the work of thousands of scientists supporting AGW will be overturned by another group of scientists that can't even get their s**t together long enough to agree if there is a greenhouse theory or not or sort out between themselves agreement on one credible alternate theory.

  +1 
Good summary Phil.  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Very convenient distraction. You don't have to believe me, you already have accepted the science in this very thread that you now claim is untrue. 
> The science is established and accepted. There is no silver bullet.

  That is also being a very loose with the truth, You know exactly what I accept is "real" science and what is not.  It 's this "what is not", that destroys the AGW theory.

----------


## woodbe

> That is also being a very loose with the truth, You know exactly what I accept is "real" science and what is not.  It 's this "what is not", that destroys the AGW theory.

  I disagree that I am being 'loose with the truth' We have had this conversation in this very thread and it was you who initiated it, not me.  As I am being accused of being a liar, in my defence, I copy the conversation here.. 
Rod's responses in Red, he asked the first two questions himself, the remaining questions were mine:  Is climate change real?   YES
Do emissions of greenhouse gas cause warming? YES
Is CO2 a greenhouse Gas? Yes of course it is.
Is CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans increasing due to burning of fossil fuels? Yes
Is climate variability the result of multiple inputs into the climate system? Yes
Do you think that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2? No, I believe the science says that without a feed back loop the amount is 1.5C
Equilibrium climate sensitivity includes feedbacks.
Do you think that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2?  no 
With those responses you cannot argue that my proposition is "NOT TRUE", nor can you claim that your disagreement on sensitivity 'destroys the AGW theory'. You have already accepted the basics that is also published and accepted by the scientific community. The only thing you have left yourself to play with is sensitivity, and let's face it, sensitivity is a work in progress albeit you conveniently choose a single value below the accepted range. Note that the science shows a range not a single value, this is a clear indication that it is a complex variable and if the scientists cannot put a single number on it, it's surprising that a non scientist can be so specific. 
I will give you credit in that you are a step ahead of most opinion skeptics who are very careful not to agree with the physics and argue using various memes that have long been debunked. This ties you down somewhat, unfortunately.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I disagree that I am being 'loose with the truth' We have had this conversation in this very thread and it was you who initiated it, not me.  As I am being accused of being a liar, in my defence, I copy the conversation here.. 
> Rod's responses in Red, he asked the first two questions himself, the remaining questions were mine:Is climate change real?   YES
> Do emissions of greenhouse gas cause warming? YES
> Is CO2 a greenhouse Gas? Yes of course it is.
> Is CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans increasing due to burning of fossil fuels? Yes
> Is climate variability the result of multiple inputs into the climate system? Yes
> Do you think that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2? No, I believe the science says that without a feed back loop the amount is 1.5C
> Equilibrium climate sensitivity includes feedbacks.
> Do you think that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range of 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2?  no 
> ...

  You either really don't get it or you are trying to be way to tricky to either force an admission that is not there, or make others believe something else. 
I consider you to be smart enough to "get it" so is it the latter? 
Other than that this deserves no further explanation.  Most skeptics I know share the same views as me.  
In no way does this tie me down to anything.  Facts are facts and fairy tails and guesswork are just that.

----------


## woodbe

> You either really don't get it or you are trying to be way to tricky to either force an admission that is not there, or make others believe something else. 
> I consider you to be smart enough to "get it" so is it the latter? 
> Other than that this deserves no further explanation.  Most skeptics I know share the same views as me.  
> In no way does this tie me down to anything.  Facts are facts and fairy tails and guesswork are just that.

  No tricks. It is what it is. I was accused of lying, this is my defence in your own words. You agree with the basic physics of AGW as shown by your responses. If not, why on earth would you answer those questions like that? You can check to see if I have misquoted you, it's all on P189. 
I have no wish to inflame the debate but to be fair I was not the one making the accusation of lying. If you are going to publicly accuse me of lying in this or any other thread, expect me to defend myself, as I would expect you to do likewise. 
I have made errors in this thread, and I have accepted corrections when accurately explained and have apologised when appropriate. Very few participants have done the same, that is their choice. 
FWIW accusations of lying are probably considered personal attacks and as such are outside the forum rules. 
Liar I am not.  :Mad:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> No tricks. It is what it is. I was accused of lying, this is my defence in your own words. You agree with the basic physics of AGW as shown by your responses. If not, why on earth would you answer those questions like that? You can check to see if I have misquoted you, it's all on P189. 
> I have no wish to inflame the debate but to be fair I was not the one making the accusation of lying. If you are going to publicly accuse me of lying in this or any other thread, expect me to defend myself, as I would expect you to do likewise. 
> I have made errors in this thread, and I have accepted corrections when accurately explained and have apologised when appropriate. Very few participants have done the same, that is their choice. 
> FWIW accusations of lying are probably considered personal attacks and as such are outside the forum rules. 
> Liar I am not.

  Your claim here.   

> Very convenient distraction. You don't have to believe me, you already have accepted the science in this very thread that you now claim is untrue. 
>  The science is established and accepted. There is no silver bullet.

  You say I have accepted the science and then claim it is untrue.  Now that is in itself untrue.  I have always been very clear on what I think.  I don't accept that just because the physics of carbon dioxide means that there will be dangerous runaway warming as predicted by the warmists.  You have tried to misrepresent me to claim that because I accept the physics of CO2 I should also accept the AGW theory and that if I don't accept the AGW theory then I must not accept the physics of C02.    
This is plainly wrong and it is what you have tried to represent.

----------


## woodbe

> Your claim here.  
> You say I have accepted the science and then claim it is untrue.  Now that is in itself untrue.  I have always been very clear on what I think.  I don't accept that just because the physics of carbon dioxide means that there will be dangerous runaway warming as predicted by the warmists.  You have tried to misrepresent me to claim that because I accept the physics of CO2 I should also accept the AGW theory and that if I don't accept the AGW theory then I must not accept the physics of C02.    
> This is plainly wrong and it is what you have tried to represent.

  Your words Rod. You said you accept the physics of AGW in a Q&A format. You then said it was untrue, not me. I did not suggest runaway global warming, and most scientists in the field regard runaway global warming as an outside chance. 'Warmists' regard it as the worst possibility but do not discount it. 
If I have a cut, I might lose a bit of blood, but it takes an outside circumstance for me to bleed to death. Characterising those who have concern about AGW as those who think the only outcome as runaway global warming is pigeonholing anyone who has concerns as an extremist. Not True, and a misrepresentation. 
What I have presented is the truth, not a lie, and not a misrepresentation. You accept the physics of AGW, you can not then claim that your disagreement on sensitivity 'destroys the AGW theory' Simples.

----------


## Bedford

Ok Fellas, in the interests of keeping the peace and keeping the thread going, I have grabbed this from the rules,   

> These forums are for you to use in a spirit of  help, understanding and friendship. From time to time there will be the  odd misunderstanding and some debates may get a bit hot this is a given  and your prerogative.

  http://www.renovateforum.com/f90/whi...ead-too-33200/ 
Please try to keep it pleasant and peaceful so it can continue. 
I am getting a bit of pressure to close this thread, lets not let that happen.

----------


## intertd6

It appears to happen in cycles! The moon perhaps? Or solar flares? Or mass gatherings of the like minded out of control, this is only a wild theory & shouldn't be ever confused with fact.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

ExxonMobil believes that: "Rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the worlds growing energy needs over the coming decades must incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change." Managing climate change risks | ExxonMobil 
Even the biggest energy company in the world believes there should be a market driven mechanism to price carbon to reduce emissions, which they call a proxy cost: "ExxonMobils proxy cost seeks to reflect a reasonable approximation of costs associated with policies that society may impose over time on GHG emissions, policies that we believe would drive society towards increased efficiency and changes to the energy system and its fuel mix." http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Fi...%20Climate.pdf 
They also think that the insatiable demand for energy means their business model is not at risk: "Exxon Mobil shrugs off climate change risk to profit" BBC News - Exxon Mobil shrugs off climate change risk to profit

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Your words Rod. You said you accept the physics of AGW in a Q&A format. You then said it was untrue, not me. I did not suggest runaway global warming, and most scientists in the field regard runaway global warming as an outside chance. 'Warmists' regard it as the worst possibility but do not discount it. 
> If I have a cut, I might lose a bit of blood, but it takes an outside circumstance for me to bleed to death. Characterising those who have concern about AGW as those who think the only outcome as runaway global warming is pigeonholing anyone who has concerns as an extremist. Not True, and a misrepresentation. 
> What I have presented is the truth, not a lie, and not a misrepresentation. You accept the physics of AGW, you can not then claim that your disagreement on sensitivity 'destroys the AGW theory' Simples.

  What exactly did I say was untrue?   

> You accept the physics of AGW, you can not then claim that your disagreement on sensitivity 'destroys the AGW theory' Simples.

  Why not?

----------


## intertd6

> ExxonMobil believes that: "Rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the worlds growing energy needs over the coming decades must incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change." Managing climate change risks | ExxonMobil 
> Even the biggest energy company in the world believes there should be a market driven mechanism to price carbon to reduce emissions, which they call a proxy cost: "ExxonMobils proxy cost seeks to reflect a reasonable approximation of costs associated with policies that society may impose over time on GHG emissions, policies that we believe would drive society towards increased efficiency and changes to the energy system and its fuel mix." http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Fi...%20Climate.pdf  you seem to be making up stuff, it doesnt say they believe there SHOULD be a carbon cost, but just have allowed for these costs in there forecasts which any business with forward planning does, if they say they believe there SHOULD be a carbon price, feel free to post the quote where it says so, otherwise we can consider this post as more propaganda. 
> They also think that the insatiable demand for energy means their business model is not at risk: "Exxon Mobil shrugs off climate change risk to profit" BBC News - Exxon Mobil shrugs off climate change risk to profit

  regards inter

----------


## John2b

> _you seem to be making up stuff_

  In their own words: 
"ExxonMobil believes that it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks to society associated with increasing GHG emissions. 
"Effective strategies must include putting policies in place that start the world on a path to reduce emissions while recognizing that addressing GHG emissions is one among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health.  *"...we believe an economy-wide, revenue neutral, greenhouse gas (carbon) tax is the tool most likely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the minimum cost to society."*  http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Re...estor_2011.pdf

----------


## woodbe

> What exactly did I say was untrue?

  It's on the previous page, Rod. We clearly disagree on that. That is not what I took exception to though, I think you know that. 
I also think we should heed Bedford's recommendation and let it drop.   

> Why not?

  Because AGW relies on more parameters than sensitivity. Dialling down sensitivity to a convenient number that reduces the impact does not destroy the theory. Even if that highly unlikely number was true, the operation of the theory would continue on the planet and be a factor in the climate system, it would still exist. If you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that humans are adding CO2 into the atmosphere, that emissions of GHG cause warming, etc, as you have, then I am afraid you have accepted that the theory is intact, not destroyed. 
For the record, I am not a supporter of runaway global warming as the only or most likely outcome of AGW. I think you would find that most accept the problem will play out over centuries even though the present is when we should be acting to minimise those future impacts.

----------


## intertd6

> In their own words:
> "ExxonMobil believes that it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks to society associated with increasing GHG emissions. 
> "Effective strategies must include putting policies in place that start the world on a path to reduce emissions while recognizing that addressing GHG emissions is one among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health.  *"...we believe an economy-wide, revenue neutral, greenhouse gas (carbon) tax is the tool most likely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the minimum cost to society."*  http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Re...estor_2011.pdf

  i believe your correct, thank goodness you took all that time to post the relevant quote, as I didn't really want to waste my time chasing another red herring.
 What company would pay any tax if they didn't have a legal obligation which made them pay & what company would sacrifice profits if they didn't have to! At the end of the day most people would want their energy provider of choice appear to be a caring sharing one, clever marketing aimed at the gullible masses until the oil runs out, it must be working as it's being quoted here I notice.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> i believe your correct, thank goodness you took all that time to post the relevant quote, as I didn't really want to waste my time chasing another red herring.
>  What company would pay any tax if they didn't have a legal obligation which made them pay & what company would sacrifice profits if they didn't have to! At the end of the day most people would want their energy provider of choice appear to be a caring sharing one, clever marketing aimed at the gullible masses until the oil runs out, it must be working as it's being quoted here I notice.
> regards inter

  It is a statement intended to reassure ExxonMobil corporate investors and thus maintain ExxonsMobil's share value - curious that you think ExxonMobil corporate energy sector investors are "the gullible masses" LOL. 
This statement below might be for the gullible masses, but it is a very expensive expression if they didn't believe in it:  "At our Upstream, Downstream and Chemical research facilities, we have spent nearly $9 billion on research and development over the past decade, including on technologies specifically related to reducing emissions. Our research portfolio includes a wide range of promising technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, biomass conversion and algae-based biofuels. We continuously monitor the competitive environment for game-changing opportunities.
No legal obligation is forcing ExxonMobil to spend money on research into reducing CO2 emissions.  Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions in our operations | ExxonMobil

----------


## intertd6

> It is a statement intended to reassure ExxonMobil corporate investors and thus maintain ExxonsMobil's share value - curious that you think ExxonMobil corporate energy sector investors are "the gullible masses" LOL. 
> This statement below might be for the gullible masses, but it is a very expensive expression if they didn't believe in it: "At our Upstream, Downstream and Chemical research facilities, we have spent nearly $9 billion on research and development over the past decade, including on technologies specifically related to reducing emissions. Our research portfolio includes a wide range of promising technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, biomass conversion and algae-based biofuels. We continuously monitor the competitive environment for game-changing opportunities.
> No legal obligation is forcing ExxonMobil to spend money on research into reducing CO2 emissions.  Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions in our operations | ExxonMobil

  Maybe you have invested, I don't know! 
What multinational energy company wouldn't invest in technology to save energy to produce their product? Especially if they are going to have to pay a tax on something they never had to pay a tax on before! Derr!
It maybe breaking news to those with bureaucratic outlook but anybody who runs a profitable business got it years ago.
I must say it is a dull ploy to deflect the debate away from the AGW alarmists losing the CO2 causing warming battle, especially when the globe isn't burning to a crisp as predicted by the alarmists.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> What multinational energy company wouldn't invest in technology to save energy to produce their product? Especially if they are going to have to pay a tax on something they never had to pay a tax on before! Derr!
> It maybe breaking news to those with bureaucratic outlook but anybody who runs a profitable business got it years ago.
> I must say it is a dull ploy to deflect the debate away from the AGW alarmists losing the CO2 causing warming battle, especially when the globe isn't burning to a crisp as predicted by the alarmists.
> regards inter

  A small correction - the $9billion mentioned was not invested in technology to save energy. It was invested in research to mitigate a problem some seem to think does not exist and thus would be $9billion down the drain. Anybody who runs a profitable business generally tries to avoid unnecessary costs, as you rightly pointed out. 
If you are wondering why this thread is drifting off the topic, you might ask why AGW "skeptics" make claims that can very easily checked but don't cite a reference?  Like this claim: "the globe isn't burning to a crisp as predicted by the alarmists". Disregard for a moment the silly emotive language - what do the records say?
"Thirteen of the fourteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century, and each of the last three decades has been warmer than the previous one, culminating with 2001-2010 as the warmest decade on record. The average global land and ocean surface temperature in 2013 was 14.5°C (58.1°F)   0.50°C (0.90°F) above the 19611990 average and 0.03°C (0.05°F) higher than the 20012010 decadal average."
 The records show that the climate is continuing to warm. 
https://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_985_en.html

----------


## Marc

Home/BlogGlobal Warming: Natural or Manmade?About Dr. Roy SpencerGlobal Warming 101Research Articles & Simple Climate ModelGlobal Warming BackgroundLatest Global Temp. Anomaly (Feb. '14: +0.17°C)   *My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies*  I receive many e-mails, and a recurring complaint is that many of my posts are too technical to understand. This mornings installment arrived with the subject line, Please Talk to Us, and suggested I provide short, concise, easily understood summaries and explanations for dummies.   So, heres a list of basic climate change questions, and brief answers based upon what I know today. I might update them as I receive suggestions and comments. I will also be adding links to other sources, and some visual aids, as appropriate.    Deja vu tells me I might have done this once before, but Im too lazy to go back and see. So, Ill start over from scratch. (Insert smiley)   It is important to understand at the outset that those of us who are skeptical of mankinds influence on climate have a wide variety of views on the subject, and we cant all be right. In fact, in this business, it is really easy to be wrong. It seems like everyone has a theory of what causes climate change. But it only takes one of us to be right for the IPCCs anthropogenic global warming (AGW) house of cards to collapse.    As I like to say, taking measurements of the climate system is much easier than figuring out what those measurements mean in terms of cause and effect. Generally speaking, its not the warming that is in disputeits the cause of the warming.   If you disagree with my views on something, please dont flame me. Chances are, Ive already heard your point of view; very seldom am I provided with new evidence I havent already taken into account.    *1) Are Global Temperatures Rising Now?* There is no way to know, because natural year-to-year variability in global temperature is so large, with warming and cooling occurring all the time. What we can say is that surface and lower atmospheric temperature have risen in the last 30 to 50 years, with most of that warming in the Northern Hemisphere. Also, the magnitude of recent warming is somewhat uncertain, due to problems in making long-term temperature measurements with thermometers without those measurements being corrupted by a variety of non-climate effects. But there is no way to know if temperatures are continuing to rise nowwe only see warming (or cooling) in the rearview mirror, when we look back in time. *
2) Why Do Some Scientists Say Its Cooling, while Others Say the Warming is Even Accelerating?* Since there is so much year-to-year (and even decade-to-decade) variability in global average temperatures, whether it has warmed or cooled depends upon how far back you look in time. For instance, over the last 100 years, there was an overall warming which was stronger toward the end of the 20th Century. This is why some say warming is accelerating. But if we look at a shorter, more recent period of time, say since the record warm year of 1998, one could say that it has cooled in the last 10-12 years. But, as I mentioned above, neither of these can tell us anything about whether warming is happening now, or will happen in the future.   *3) Havent Global Temperatures Risen Before?* Yes. In the longer term, say hundreds to thousands of years, there is considerable indirect, proxy evidence (not from thermometers) of both warming and cooling. Since humankind cant be responsible for these early events is evidence that nature can cause warming and cooling. If that is the case, it then opens up the possibility that some (or most) of the warming in the last 50 years has been natural, too. While many geologists like to point to much larger temperature changes are believed to have occurred over millions of years, I am unconvinced that this tells us anything of use for understanding how humans might influence climate on time scales of 10 to 100 years.    *4) But Didnt the Hockey Stick Show Recent Warming to be Unprecedented?* The hockey Stick reconstructions of temperature variations over the last 1 to 2 thousand years have been a huge source of controversy. The hockey stick was previously used by the IPCC as a veritable poster child for anthropogenic warming, since it seemed to indicate there have been no substantial temperature changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years until humans got involved in the 20th Century. The various versions of the hockey stick were based upon limited amounts of temperature proxy evidence  primarily tree rings  and involved questionable statistical methods. In contrast, I think the bulk of the proxy evidence supports the view that it was at least as warm during the Medieval Warm Period, around 1000 AD. The very fact that recent tree ring data erroneously suggests cooling in the last 50 years, when in fact there has been warming, should be a warning flag about using tree ring data for figuring out how warm it was 1,000 years ago. But without actual thermometer data, we will never know for sure.   *5) Isnt the Melting of Arctic Sea Ice Evidence of Warming?* Warming, yesmanmade warming, no. Arctic sea ice naturally melts back every summer, but that meltback was observed to reach a peak in 2007.. But we have relatively accurate, satellite-based measurements of Arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice only since 1979. It is entirely possible that late summer Arctic Sea ice cover was just as low in the 1920s or 1930s, a period when Arctic thermometer data suggests it was just as warm. Unfortunately, there is no way to know, because we did not have satellites back then. Interestingly, Antarctic sea ice has been growing nearly as fast as Arctic ice has been melting over the last 30+ years.    *6) What about rising sea levels?* I must confess, I dont pay much attention to the sea level issue. I will say that, to the extent that warming occurs, sea levels can be expected to also rise to some extent. The rise is partly due to thermal expansion of the water, and partly due to melting or shedding of land-locked ice (the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and glaciers). But this says nothing about whether or not humans are the cause of that warming. Since there is evidence that glacier retreat and sea level rise started well before humans can be blamed, causation is  once again  a major source of uncertainty.    *7) Is Increasing CO2 Even Capable of Causing Warming?* There are some very intelligent people out there who claim that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere cant cause warming anyway. They claim things like, the atmospheric CO2 absorption bands are already saturated, or something else very technical. [And for those more technically-minded persons, yes, I agree that the effective radiating temperature of the Earth in the infrared is determined by how much sunlight is absorbed by the Earth. But that doesn't mean the lower atmosphere cannot warm from adding more greenhouse gases, because at the same time they also cool the upper atmosphere].. While it is true that most of the CO2-caused warming in the atmosphere was there before humans ever started burning coal and driving SUVs, this is all taken into account by computerized climate models that predict global warming. Adding more should cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question. But Im still open to the possibility that a major error has been made on this fundamental point. Stranger things have happened in science before.   *8 ) Is Atmospheric CO2 Increasing?* Yes, and most strongly in the last 50 yearswhich is why most climate researchers think the CO2 rise is the cause of the warming. Our site measurements of CO2 increase from around the world are possibly the most accurate long-term, climate-related, measurements in existence.     *9) Are Humans Responsible for the CO2 Rise?* While there are short-term (year-to-year) fluctuations in the atmospheric CO2 concentration due to natural causes, especially El Nino and La Nina, I currently believe that most of the long-term increase is probably due to our use of fossil fuels. But from what I can tell, the supposed proof of humans being the source of increasing CO2  a change in the atmospheric concentration of the carbon isotope C13  would also be consistent with a natural, biological source. The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 390 parts per million by volume, up from a pre-industrial level estimated to be around 270 ppmmaybe less. CO2 levels can be much higher in cities, and in buildings with people in them.   *10) But Arent Natural CO2 Emissions About 20 Times the Human Emissions?* Yes, but nature is believed to absorb CO2 at about the same rate it is produced. You can think of the reservoir of atmospheric CO2 as being like a giant container of water, with nature pumping in a steady stream into the bottom of the container (atmosphere) in some places, sucking out about the same amount in other places, and then humans causing a steady drip-drip-drip into the container. Significantly, about 50% of what we produce is sucked out of the atmosphere by nature, mostly through photosynthesis. Nature loves the stuff. CO2 is the elixir of life on Earth. Imagine the howls of protest there would be if we were destroying atmospheric CO2, rather than creating more of it. *11) Is Rising CO2 the Cause of Recent Warming?* While this is theoretically possible, I think it is more likely that the warming is mostly natural. At the very least, we have no way of determining what proportion is natural versus human-caused. *12) Why Do Most Scientists Believe CO2 is Responsible for the Warming?* Because (as they have told me) they cant think of anything else that might have caused it. Significantly, its not that there is evidence nature cant be the cause, but a lack of sufficiently accurate measurements to determine if nature is the cause. This is a hugely important distinction, and one the public and policymakers have been misled on by the IPCC.   *13) If Not Humans, What could Have Caused Recent Warming?* This is one of my areas of research. I believe that natural changes in the amount of sunlight being absorbed by the Earth  due to natural changes in cloud cover  are responsible for most of the warming. Whether that is the specific mechanism or not, I advance the minority view that the climate system can change all by itself. Climate change does not require an external source of forcing, such as a change in the sun.   *14) So, What Could Cause Natural Cloud Changes?* I think small, long-term changes in atmospheric and oceanic flow patterns can cause ~1% changes in how much sunlight is let in by clouds to warm the Earth. This is all that is required to cause global warming or cooling. Unfortunately, we do not have sufficiently accurate cloud measurements to determine whether this is the primary cause of warming in the last 30 to 50 years.   *15) How Significant is the Climategate Release of E-Mails?* While Climategate does not, by itself, invalidate the IPCCs case that global warming has happened, or that humans are the primary cause of that warming, it DOES illustrate something I emphasized in my first book, Climate Confusion: climate researchers are human, and prone to bias.    *16) Why Would Bias in Climate Research be Important? I thought Scientists Just Follow the Data Where It Leads Them* When researchers approach a problem, their pre-conceived notions often guide them. Its not that the IPCCs claim that humans cause global warming is somehow untenable or impossible, its that political and financial pressures have resulted in the IPCC almost totally ignoring alternative explanations for that warming.    *17) How Important Is Scientific Consensus in Climate Research?* In the case of global warming, it is nearly worthless. The climate system is so complex that the vast majority of climate scientists  usually experts in variety of specialized fields  assume there are more knowledgeable scientists, and they are just supporting the opinions of their colleagues. And among that small group of most knowledgeable experts, there is a considerable element of groupthink, herd mentality, peer pressure, political pressure, support of certain energy policies, and desire to Save the Earth  whether it needs to be saved or not.   *18) How Important are Computerized Climate Models?* I consider climate models as being our best way of exploring cause and effect in the climate system. It is really easy to be wrong in this business, and unless you can demonstrate causation with numbers in equations, you are stuck with scientists trying to persuade one another by waving their hands. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that climate models will ever produce a useful prediction of the future. Nevertheless, we must use them, and we learn a lot from them. My biggest concern is that models have been used almost exclusively for supporting the claim that humans cause global warming, rather than for exploring alternative hypotheses  e.g. natural climate variations  as possible causes of that warming.   *19) What Do I Predict for Global Temperature Changes in the Future?* I tend to shy away from long-term predictions, because there are still so many uncertainties. When pressed, though, I tend to say that I think cooling in our future is just as real a possibility as warming. Of course, a third possibility is relatively steady temperatures, without significant long-term warming or cooling. Keep in mind that, while you will find out tomorrow whether your favorite weather forecaster is right or wrong, no one will remember 50 years from now a scientist today wrongly predicting we will all die from heat stroke by 2060.   *Concluding Remarks* Climate researchers do not know nearly as much about the causes of climate change as they profess. We have a pretty good understanding of how the climate system works on averagebut the reasons for small, long-term changes in climate system are still extremely uncertain.  The total amount of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere in the last 100 years has upset the radiative energy budget of the Earth by only 1%. How the climate system responds to that small poke is very uncertain. The IPCC says there will be strong warming, with cloud changes making the warming worse. I claim there will be weak warming, with cloud changes acting to reduce the influence of that 1% change. The difference between these two outcomes is whether cloud feedbacks are positive (the IPCC view), or negative (the view I and a minority of others have). So far, neither side has been able to prove their case. That uncertainty even exists on this core issue is not appreciated by many scientists! Again I will emphasize, some very smart people who consider themselves skeptics will disagree with some of my views stated above, particularly when it involves explanations for what has caused warming, and what has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase. Unlike the global marching army of climate researchers the IPCC has enlisted, we do not walk in lockstep. We are willing to admit, we dont really know, rather than mislead people with phrases like, the warming we see is consistent with an increase in CO2″, and then have the public think that means, we have determined, through our extensive research into all the possibilities, that the warming cannot be due to anything but CO2″. Skeptics advancing alternative explanations (hypotheses) for climate variability represent the way the researcher community used to operate, before politics, policy outcomes, and billions of dollars got involved.   PS
Let's try to stay away from the usual pathetic attempts at discredit the author in order to avoid confronting the subject. like Uuuuuh he gets paid by the oil companies  :Mad3:  or ... Aaaaaah his nose is too big!  :Ranting2:

----------


## John2b

Why not link the webpage instead of cutting an pasting copious amounts of someone else's blog? (The material is out of date and does not express his current work, BTW.) 
Dr Roy Spenser is an eminent scientist and even if he has a more conservative view than his colleagues, he still agrees that there is global warming and that it is at least half caused by anthological inputs. He has recently co-authored a paper that suggests half of global warming is attributable to human activity and the cause of the other half may be natural. I don't think he would take kindly to an armchair critic claiming that his paper "is not science  its mumbo jumbo"  UAH - News - Research News - Warming since 1950s partly caused by El Niño
"Basically, previously it was believed that if we doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere, sea surface temperatures would warm about 2.5 C," Spencer said. That's 4.5° F. "But when we factor in the ENSO warming, we see only a 1.3 C (about 2.3° F) final total warming after the climate system has adjusted to having twice as much CO2."
Dr Spenser is not denying AGW, so I don't see how your cut-and-pastathon supports your position, Marc.

----------


## Bedford

> Read more: http://www.renovateforum.com/search....#ixzz2xocSEc8J

  Where is this link supposed to go?

----------


## John2b

> Where is this link supposed to go?

  Thanks for picking this up, Bedford. The link was one automatically added by the forum when I pasted some text from another post. I didn't place the link there and have edited the post to remove it. Cheers, John.

----------


## Bedford

> The link was one automatically added by the forum when I pasted some text from another post.

  Have you got the link to the other post?

----------


## John2b

> Have you got the link to the other post?

  I copied a snippet of text from here: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...tml#post934373

----------


## intertd6

> A small correction - the $9billion mentioned was not invested in technology to save energy. It was invested in research to mitigate a problem some seem to think does not exist and thus would be $9billion down the drain. Anybody who runs a profitable business generally tries to avoid unnecessary costs, as you rightly pointed out. 
> If you are wondering why this thread is drifting off the topic, you might ask why AGW "skeptics" make claims that can very easily checked but don't cite a reference?  Like this claim: "the globe isn't burning to a crisp as predicted by the alarmists". Disregard for a moment the silly emotive language - what do the records say?
> "Thirteen of the fourteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century, and each of the last three decades has been warmer than the previous one, culminating with 2001-2010 as the warmest decade on record. The average global land and ocean surface temperature in 2013 was 14.5°C (58.1°F)   0.50°C (0.90°F) above the 19611990 average and 0.03°C (0.05°F) higher than the 20012010 decadal average."
>  The records show that the climate is continuing to warm. 
> https://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_985_en.html

  perhaps you can post those 13 peak temperatures so we can all see the microscopic differences in gains.
correction, don't you know what development means?
perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the global temperature average not changing for the last 16 or so years or just have to fortify your belief with anything that seems to fit that belief.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the global temperature average not changing for the last 16 or so years 
> regards inter

  So you say global warming stopped in 1998? What happened when it stopped in 1989? And in 1982, and 1971, and 1961, and 1944... 
The statement "global temperature average not changing for the last 16 or so years"  has no credence because it isn't a meaningful representation of the temperature record.    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

----------


## johnc

> perhaps you can post those 13 peak temperatures so we can all see the microscopic differences in gains.
> correction, don't you know what development means?
> perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the global temperature average not changing for the last 16 or so years or just have to fortify your belief with anything that seems to fit that belief.
> regards inter

  Don't you think that is a bit condescending, we all understand you think temperature is unchanged for 16 years, that's your prerogative but equally there are many eminent individuals who do not share that belief and a lot of data that would indicate you have to indulge in very selective cherry  picking, taking an El Nino year as a starting point to get that outcome, take any other year as a starting point and the assumption is not supported. We all now what development means let's play the ball and not the man.

----------


## intertd6

> Don't you think that is a bit condescending, we all understand you think temperature is unchanged for 16 years, that's your prerogative but equally there are many eminent individuals who do not share that belief and a lot of data that would indicate you have to indulge in very selective cherry  picking, taking an El Nino year as a starting point to get that outcome, take any other year as a starting point and the assumption is not supported. We all now what development means let's play the ball and not the man.

  thats not what I think! what I think is you think your belief is beyond reproach, I think the similarities of your arguments between that of politics, religion, cults, beliefs, etc is striking & laughable, especially the latter, I couldn't pay for better entertainment.
Regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> So global warming stopped in 1998. What happened when it stopped in 1989? And in 1982, and 1971, and 1961, and 1944...  So now you accept it hasn't warmed since 1998! Which you have denied for so long.
> I'm not concerned about getting involved with your red herring side arguments! 
> The statement "global temperature average not changing for the last 16 or so years"  has no credence because it isn't a meaningful representation of the temperature record.  Only for you apparently   http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

  regards inter

----------


## John2b

> So now you accept it hasn't warmed since 1998!

  Who accepts it hasn't warmed since 1998? The direction is clear and perturbations do not obscure the underlying trend. Others can draw their own conclusions from the temperature record:

----------


## johnc

Nothing indicates a stalling in temperature rises, the long term trend is up, the peak year that is relied on to produce a 16 year flat run is a statistical freak, produced be an El Nino event which has not been repeated. When we do get another El Nino you will have something tangible to plot it against. In any reading of figures, whatever the subject you discount oddball numbers and look for figures either side to even out these fluctuations and for reasons to explain the freak event. There is no stalling it is as simple as that, and to use only air temperature and only one freak year as a starting point means there is little to support the argument that there is no rise. The graphs reproduced by John2B show in clearer terms what a nonsense the flat earth or flat temperature notion is, it is cherry picking, it is selective and it is not supportable.

----------


## johnc

> thats not what I think! what I think is you think your belief is beyond reproach, I think the similarities of your arguments between that of politics, religion, cults, beliefs, etc is striking & laughable, especially the latter, I couldn't pay for better entertainment.
> Regards inter

   Cults, beliefs, Religion? really, you must be a mind reader, as for politics I would argue the difference between the parties is less than many claim mainly because they play down similarities and accentuate the differences and that has given us quite stable government in this country. Anyway if it entertains you go for it, it is an accidental outcome you can be grateful for.

----------


## intertd6

> Nothing indicates a stalling in temperature rises, the long term trend is up, the peak year that is relied on to produce a 16 year flat run is a statistical freak, produced be an El Nino event which has not been repeated. When we do get another El Nino you will have something tangible to plot it against. In any reading of figures, whatever the subject you discount oddball numbers and look for figures either side to even out these fluctuations and for reasons to explain the freak event. There is no stalling it is as simple as that, and to use only air temperature and only one freak year as a starting point means there is little to support the argument that there is no rise. The graphs reproduced by John2B show in clearer terms what a nonsense the flat earth or flat temperature notion is, it is cherry picking, it is selective and it is not supportable.

  So the combined learned capacity of you few out weighs the combined brain power of the APS who have raised questions about the lack of global warming increases over the last 16 or so years, I would like to feel humble in your presence, but alas nothing that has emanated from your quarter provides even an inkling of that notion, especially when you can't recognise what the APS is recognising.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Who accepts it hasn't warmed since 1998? The direction is clear and perturbations do not obscure the underlying trend. Others can draw their own conclusions from the temperature record:

  no need for the extravagant graphs showing data we all know, especially when we are only discussing the last 16 years of them, which is hopelessly flat in the shadow if ever increasing CO2 levels, which indicates the link between the two as anecdotal.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> no need for the extravagant graphs showing data we all know, especially when we are only discussing the last 16 years of them, which is hopelessly flat in the shadow if ever increasing CO2 levels, which indicates the link between the two as anecdotal.
> regards inter

  Thanks for bringing up CO2 Inter. No correlation? Here's a similar graph with CO2 levels overlaid:    Global Temperature and Carbon Dioxide | Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States 2009 Report

----------


## John2b

> So the combined learned capacity of you few out weighs the combined brain power of the APS who have raised questions about the lack of global warming increases over the last 16 or so years, I would like to feel humble in your presence, but alas nothing that has emanated from your quarter provides even an inkling of that notion, especially when you can't recognise what the APS is recognising.
> regards inter

  1. Views expressed in the "believers" camp are in line with IPCC AR5 - they are not the construct of the posters in this forum. The IPCC is a review of *the combined learned capacity of the whole of published climate science research in the world including contrary views* - many *tens of thousands* of research paper papers analysing climate and paleoclimate studies conducted by public and private institutions, governments and corporations, universities and commercial research agencies, eastern countries and western countries, in the first world and the third world, communist and capitalist, who, based on observations and applied physics, pretty much all agree - the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate as a result of human activity. 
The notion there is a conspiracy controlling such a huge number of diverse organisations is too incredible to be seriously considered. Herding cats is easier than getting scientists to agree on a theory. And scientists are fiercely competitive and always trying to find fault with each other's work - it's what makes science push the boundaries that has resulted in the technological wonders we take for granted today. 
2. Does the APS take a contrary view as you seem to suggest? Let's see what the APS has actually said:
"_Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale.._."  "_The evidence for global temperature rise over the last century is compelling_."  "... *no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century*."  "..._it is increasingly difficult to rule out that non-negligible increases in global temperature are a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2."_  
"..._prudent steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now..."_
Climate Change Commentary  
The APS is a scientific association of over 50,000 physicists, of which a very small number of members (less than 1 in 100) have taken exception to the definitive language of the IPCC. The APS is in the process of reviewing its statement on Climate Change. Hint to AGW "skeptics": don't hold your breath - to paraphrase babies and bathwater, the APS is not about to throw out the science with the global climate record and suddenly adopt an ideological position on climate change!  Climate Change Statement Review

----------


## John2b

Did global warming stop in 1998? What does the science say? One factor is that the natural variations (cycles) in climate systems can add up to be larger than the year on year global warming signal:  Its long been known that El Niño variability affects the global mean temperature anomalies. 1998 was so warm in part because of the big El Niño event over the winter of 1997-1998 which directly warmed a large part of the Pacific, and indirectly warmed (via the large increase in water vapour) an even larger region. The opposite effect was seen with the La Niña event this last winter. Since the variability associated with these events is large compared to expected global warming trends over a short number of years, the underlying trends might be more clearly seen if the El Niño events (more generally, the El Niño  Southern Oscillation (ENSO)) were taken out of the way. There is no perfect way to do this  but there are a couple of reasonable approaches.   RealClimate: Global trends and ENSO

----------


## intertd6

> Did global warming stop in 1998? What does the science say? One factor is that the natural variations (cycles) in climate systems can add up to be larger than the year on year global warming signal: Its long been known that El Niño variability affects the global mean temperature anomalies. 1998 was so warm in part because of the big El Niño event over the winter of 1997-1998 which directly warmed a large part of the Pacific, and indirectly warmed (via the large increase in water vapour) an even larger region. The opposite effect was seen with the La Niña event this last winter. Since the variability associated with these events is large compared to expected global warming trends over a short number of years, the underlying trends might be more clearly seen if the El Niño events (more generally, the El Niño  Southern Oscillation (ENSO)) were taken out of the way. There is no perfect way to do this  but there are a couple of reasonable approaches.  RealClimate: Global trends and ENSO

  thats right! It's called Clayton's warming. The warming you have when you don't have warming.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> 1. Views expressed in the "believers" camp are in line with IPCC AR5 - they are not the construct of the posters in this forum. The IPCC is a review of *the combined learned capacity of the whole of published climate science research in the world including contrary views* - many *tens of thousands* of research paper papers analysing climate and paleoclimate studies conducted by public and private institutions, governments and corporations, universities and commercial research agencies, eastern countries and western countries, in the first world and the third world, communist and capitalist, who, based on observations and applied physics, pretty much all agree - the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate as a result of human activity. 
> The notion there is a conspiracy controlling such a huge number of diverse organisations is too incredible to be seriously considered. Herding cats is easier than getting scientists to agree on a theory. And scientists are fiercely competitive and always trying to find fault with each other's work - it's what makes science push the boundaries that has resulted in the technological wonders we take for granted today. 
> 2. Does the APS take a contrary view as you seem to suggest? Let's see what the APS has actually said:
> "_Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale.._."  "_The evidence for global temperature rise over the last century is compelling_."  "... *no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century*."  "..._it is increasingly difficult to rule out that non-negligible increases in global temperature are a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2."_  
> "..._prudent steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now..."_
> Climate Change Commentary  
> The APS is a scientific association of over 50,000 physicists, of which a very small number of members (less than 1 in 100) have taken exception to the definitive language of the IPCC. The APS is in the process of reviewing its statement on Climate Change. Hint to AGW "skeptics": don't hold your breath - to paraphrase babies and bathwater, the APS is not about to throw out the science with the global climate record and suddenly adopt an ideological position on climate change!  Climate Change Statement Review

  So what has that got to do with no warming over the last 16 or so years, I don't see any relevance at all, maybe only 1 in 100 boffins are game enough to admit what the others won't because their funding doesn't hinge on anecdotal evidence surrounding CO2.
regards inter

----------


## Marc

> thats not what I think! what I think is you think your belief is beyond reproach, I think the similarities of your arguments between that of politics, religion, cults, beliefs, etc is striking & laughable, especially the latter, I couldn't pay for better entertainment.
> Regards inter

   So true. 
Just for illustration purposes. A Christian quotes the bible as proof of the veracity of the Christian story. If you quote say Theravada, you are a denier and your book is heresy.   Just look at John2 reproaching me for "cutting and pasting copious material from someone elses"  yet all his post contain "copious material from someone elses"  The mindset is that of a religious fanatic who claims all "his" material is sacred truth, all the "others" is heresy.  It is pointless to try to have a normal conversation with fanatics.  The AGW hypothesis has so much collateral advantages for a particular sector of the population that it does not matter anymore if it is actually true. All it matters is defending it for the sake of the enormous array of fringe benefits that it bring with it, not least creating a purpose for the person doing the "defending". Just look at the profile of an average greenie activist.

----------


## John2b

> So what has that got to do with no warming over the last 16 or so years, I don't see any relevance at all, maybe only 1 in 100 boffins are game enough to admit what the others won't because their funding doesn't hinge on anecdotal evidence surrounding CO2.
> regards inter

  At least 47,730 out of 48,000 physicists in the APS understand Law of Conservation of Energy still holds and appreciate that the surface air temperature is only a proxy for global warming because the surface air temperature is affected by weather cycles. The first law of physics is the Law of Conservation of Energy - the heat from global warming is there if you look for it. Only a fake "skeptic" can't see that.

----------


## John2b

Deleted because it was off topic

----------


## Bedford

> Deleted because it was off topic

  It still went out by email notification though...........

----------


## johnc

> So true. 
> Just for illustration purposes. A Christian quotes the bible as proof of the veracity of the Christian story. If you quote say Theravada, you are a denier and your book is heresy.   Just look at John2 reproaching me for "cutting and pasting copious material from someone elses"  yet all his post contain "copious material from someone elses"  The mindset is that of a religious fanatic who claims all "his" material is sacred truth, all the "others" is heresy.  It is pointless to try to have a normal conversation with fanatics.  The AGW hypothesis has so much collateral advantages for a particular sector of the population that it does not matter anymore if it is actually true. All it matters is defending it for the sake of the enormous array of fringe benefits that it bring with it, not least creating a purpose for the person doing the "defending". Just look at the profile of an average greenie activist.

  Pray tell, can you provide us with a profile of an average greenie activist, or even evidence that such a beast exits and more to the point holds any real sway on the topic :Rolleyes: . I might also point the label "fanatic" shows no respect for those with a valid yet opposing view. :No:

----------


## Marc

> Pray tell, can you provide us with a profile of an average greenie activist, or even evidence that such a beast exits and more to the point holds any real sway on the topic. I might also point the label "fanatic" shows no respect for those with a valid yet opposing view.

  Pray tell ?  :Confused: 
Never heard of him, must be a new member ... 
Sway  :Confused:  ... oh my ... The only requirement I can think of in a debate is that it has relevance. "Sway" assumes some power to change other peoples mind, way past relevance and can only be hoped for, clearly not a requirement. I can only hope for "sway" in many areas of my life. 
By the way I like this definition of fanatic: "...a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal..." I am fanatical about steel trawlers with slow revving engines and vintage cars. 
Back to my reply to Inter ...    

> The AGW hypothesis has so much collateral advantages for a particular sector of the population that it does not matter anymore if it is actually true. All it matters is defending it for the sake of the enormous array of fringe benefits that it bring with it, not least creating a purpose for the person doing the "defending"....

  Just like the welfare industry, in the AGW industry, what's important is to keep the momentum going, keep the BS machinery going and everyone hanging from the gravy train. No one can tell us what have we achieved with all the trillions spent, nor what will be the result of spending the amount of trillions the AGW hypothesis propaganda wants to spend.
So the object/purpose of the AGW movement is ...itself. 
Like a club, only that the membership is extremely expensive and is paid by those who do not belong to the club. 
What is the relevance of this? 
Simple, the global warming story is just a story made up for the purpose of shifting funds and power. Join the club and reap the benefits, tell the truth and face loss of funding or even the sack.  
Nothing else besides organised religion has ever in human history achieved allocations of support and fundings in such scale with an unproven hypothesis based on hot air and faith and hope. When has a business proposition got funds for hypothetical problems that when questioned are answered with "If it is not true then disprove it" 
No business can survive such shameful disregard, such obscene display of spending based on smoke and mirrors, yet we are asked to spend just in case, for "what if" and with no number showing what changed with the spending already done or what results with more absurd destruction of the economy. 
So why are we doing it? 
Because the benefits outweigh the cost, and before you jump to conclusions, no, the benefits are not for the environment, not for a minute. They are for the club. A new golf course, a landing strip, a second club house, a fence to keep the endangered wildlife inside, a greenhouse for exclusive varieties of marijuana ... 
The trillions of dollars spent have achieved nothing in relation to climate, no one can claim to be able to pinpoint not even 0,001 C degree difference, yet here we are claiming to "know" and asking to spend to save the earth.  
It is rather funny.

----------


## Marc

Just in case you forgot that RICH IS AAARG SO EVIL AND POOR IS OH SO VIRTUOUS... :Biggrin:     

> *Climate change*     
> Storms, floods, droughts and wildfires are occurring more frequently. Sea levels are rising. And closer to home were faced with water restrictions, greater droughts and more extreme fire days. All because of climate change.
> Climate change is affecting everyone but it is affecting poor people in developing countries the most. *So what is climate change?* 
> Since the Industrial Revolution theres been a huge rise in man-made greenhouse pollution in the earths atmosphere due to the burning of coal, gas and oil for electricity, heat and transport. These gases trap the suns heat in the atmosphere and heat up the earth, causing the greenhouse effect.
> To dig deeper into the causes and impacts of climate change, visit the Climate Change FAQs maintained by the Climate Scientists Australia coalition  an independent group of senior Australian scientists. *Why is Oxfam working on climate change?* 
> Because were working to stamp out poverty, and the impacts of climate change if left unchecked will increase poverty. Poor people in developing countries are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, yet they have done little to contribute to it.
> Rich countries like ours who have contributed most to climate change have a responsibility to take action.

----------


## Marc

> http://www.actionaid.org/what-we-do/climate-change
> the rich countries cause climate change, but its the poorer countries that are suffering the consequences. Were supporting communities who are trying to cope with the disastrous effects of climate change. And were challenging world leaders to do something about it.actionaid is working with communities, and challenging world leaders, to protect poor people from the disastrous effects of climate change caused by human action.  if not urgently addressed, climate change is likely to place millions of more people at risk of increased hunger, disease and disasters.

  please donate abundantly...

----------


## Marc

There are hundreds if not thousands of organisations whose existence depends from spreading misinformation, hate and bias in order to get the funds to keep them going spreading more. 
And you want to be taken seriously with that sort of industry background?
Please!

----------


## John2b

> There are hundreds if not thousands of organisations whose existence depends from spreading misinformation, hate and bias in order to get the funds to keep them going spreading more. 
> And you want to be taken seriously with that sort of industry background?
> Please!

  Everyone knows about the fossil carbon industry, but thanks for reminding us of their business model, Marc.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Pray tell ? 
> Never heard of him, must be a new member ... 
> Sway  ... oh my ... The only requirement I can think of in a debate is that it has relevance. "Sway" assumes some power to change other peoples mind, way past relevance and can only be hoped for, clearly not a requirement. I can only hope for "sway" in many areas of my life. 
> By the way I like this definition of fanatic: "...a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal..." I am fanatical about steel trawlers with slow revving engines and vintage cars. 
> Back to my reply to Inter ...    
> Just like the welfare industry, in the AGW industry, what's important is to keep the momentum going, keep the BS machinery going and everyone hanging from the gravy train. No one can tell us what have we achieved with all the trillions spent, nor what will be the result of spending the amount of trillions the AGW hypothesis propaganda wants to spend.
> So the object/purpose of the AGW movement is ...itself. 
> Like a club, only that the membership is extremely expensive and is paid by those who do not belong to the club. 
> What is the relevance of this? 
> ...

   :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Marc

And by the way, thank you for pointing out that I past the 1000 post.
I am rather happy to have been able to speak my mind unimpeded on this forum.  
Happy end-of-daylight-saving for all the NSWalers. Now there is a quest worth our while. Stop chopping and changing the time, advance all the east coast 1/2 hour and keep it like that for the whole year.  
I am proposing to adopt SA time? Scary thought .... 
Relevance to Global Warming? 
It goes like this: If we change the clock back 1/2 hour we will have 1/2 hour less sunshine. Since the sun is responsible for heating up the planet with its solar flares, half an hour less of heating will clearly make a substantial difference in this disastrous Global Warming that is making entire nations poor and destitute. This idea is my contribution to fight poverty and save the planet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nbJsvfyR4Y

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I am proposing to adopt SA time? Scary thought ....

  Move to Broken Hill.  Only place in NSW on SA time.  Mind you, SA had daylight saving too. So not that scary after all.

----------


## John2b

Peering Into the Minds of the Climate Doubters "Skeptical comment seems to come from two main sources: conservative ideologues in the right-wing media or spokesmen for conservative think tanks that produce climate-skeptical research, like the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institutes Center for the Study of Science. 
"A few hours digging confirms that they and a dozen like them are funded by two sources: petroleum interests, notably ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers, and ideologically right-wing family foundations like Scaife and Coors.  "Interestingly, the role of those two forces  petroleum and the ideological right  in funding climate-skeptical research isnt what youd call significant. Its overwhelming. "The biggest surprise of all, though, is sitting and reading the skeptics research. Environmentalists often claim skeptical science is shoddy, that skeptics dont do serious, peer-reviewed research but rely on sloganeering.  "Skeptics, by contrast, claim extensive peer-reviewed research supports them. One of the most ambitious projects is a series of five reports, titled Climate Change Reconsidered (climatechangereconsidered.org), published by Heartlands cleverly-named Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC. 
The latest appeared March 31, the same day as the new U.N. report. It claims to draw on thousands of peer-reviewed studies. I decided to read the executive summary, not to be convinced, necessarily, but at least to appreciate the strength of the research. 
The arguments were almost comically childish. "The basic case was, first, theres no evidence that global temperature are rising; second, warming (which isnt happening) is caused by nature, not man; third, a little bit of warming is beneficial. Examples: Seniors retiring to Florida live longer, ergo a warmer planet will extend life spans. Plants thrive on carbon dioxide, so more CO2 in the air means healthier plants, hence more food."  Peering Into the Minds of the Climate Doubters 
It is interesting how the climate "debate" has spurned one of the largest growth areas of science - research into the psychology of AGW denial: 
"Denial: Uncertainty, mistrust, and reactance easily slide into active denial (as opposed to denial in the psychodynamic sense of the term). This could be denial of the existence of climate change and human contribution to climate change, and could include more specific denial of the role that ones behavior or ones groups behaviors has in harming others. Polls vary, but a substantial minority of people believes that climate change is not occurring, or that human activity has little or nothing to do with it. In the case of climate change, some people actively deny that climate presents any problem. 
"Outright denial of the problem remains the position of a small but vocal segment of US and other societies. What is the basis of this denial? How is it best dealt with?"
Psychology and Global Climate Change:
Addressing a Multi-faceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges
A Report by the American Psychological Associations Task Force on the Interface Between Psychology and Global Climate Change  http://www.apa.org/science/about/pub...ate-change.pdf

----------


## intertd6

> Peering Into the Minds of the Climate Doubters "Skeptical comment seems to come from two main sources: conservative ideologues in the right-wing media or spokesmen for conservative think tanks that produce climate-skeptical research, like the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institutes Center for the Study of Science. 
> "A few hours digging confirms that they and a dozen like them are funded by two sources: petroleum interests, notably ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers, and ideologically right-wing family foundations like Scaife and Coors.  "Interestingly, the role of those two forces  petroleum and the ideological right  in funding climate-skeptical research isnt what youd call significant. Its overwhelming. "The biggest surprise of all, though, is sitting and reading the skeptics research. Environmentalists often claim skeptical science is shoddy, that skeptics dont do serious, peer-reviewed research but rely on sloganeering.  "Skeptics, by contrast, claim extensive peer-reviewed research supports them. One of the most ambitious projects is a series of five reports, titled Climate Change Reconsidered (climatechangereconsidered.org), published by Heartlands cleverly-named Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC. 
> The latest appeared March 31, the same day as the new U.N. report. It claims to draw on thousands of peer-reviewed studies. I decided to read the executive summary, not to be convinced, necessarily, but at least to appreciate the strength of the research. 
> The arguments were almost comically childish. "The basic case was, first, theres no evidence that global temperature are rising; second, warming (which isnt happening) is caused by nature, not man; third, a little bit of warming is beneficial. Examples: Seniors retiring to Florida live longer, ergo a warmer planet will extend life spans. Plants thrive on carbon dioxide, so more CO2 in the air means healthier plants, hence more food."  Peering Into the Minds of the Climate Doubters 
> It is interesting how the climate "debate" has spurned one of the largest growth areas of science - research into the psychology of AGW denial:
> "Denial: Uncertainty, mistrust, and reactance easily slide into active denial (as opposed to denial in the psychodynamic sense of the term). This could be denial of the existence of climate change and human contribution to climate change, and could include more specific denial of the role that ones behavior or ones groups behaviors has in harming others. Polls vary, but a substantial minority of people believes that climate change is not occurring, or that human activity has little or nothing to do with it. In the case of climate change, some people actively deny that climate presents any problem. 
> "Outright denial of the problem remains the position of a small but vocal segment of US and other societies. What is the basis of this denial? How is it best dealt with?"
> Psychology and Global Climate Change:
> Addressing a Multi-faceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges
> A Report by the American Psychological Associations Task Force on the Interface Between Psychology and Global Climate Change  http://www.apa.org/science/about/pub...ate-change.pdf

  he said, she said, he said....... Really it's just a smoke screen for the inability of scientists to reliably explain why the rise of CO2 concentrations isn't matched by a similar rise in temperature, the basis of a sound theory is the accurate prediction using the theory, when it doesn't then the theory has to be re assessed or dumped. When the theory matches the outcomes then who wouldn't believe it other than the true denialists  
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> he said, she said, he said....... Really it's just a smoke screen for the inability of scientists to reliably explain why the rise of CO2 concentrations isn't matched by a similar rise in temperature, the basis of a sound theory is the accurate prediction using the theory, when it doesn't then the theory has to be re assessed or dumped. When the theory matches the outcomes then who wouldn't believe it other than the true denialists  
> regards inter

  The theory isn't broken at all. Actually, the CO2 theory matches what has happened pretty well, and no other theory has been proposed that predicts the temperature record better, or even at all: 
"Anyone who looked at the ten-year average of air temperatures near the surface  which was what the weather statistics measured  would see that t_he decade 2001-2010 was substantially hotter than the decade before, which was in turn hotter than the preceding decade_, and so forth back to the 1970s. Indeed all of the ten warmest years on record had come since 1997. Moreover, if one figured in the effects of known fluctuations  volcanic eruptions (active in the 2000s), industrial aerosols (increasing from China and elsewhere), El Niños (largely absent in the 2000s), and solar activity (sharply declining in the 2000s)  what remained ... a continued rise in temperature. 
"The natural variability of climate could make for a still longer pause in surface warming, like the three decades in the mid 20th century. If that happened again i_t would give comfort only to those who ignored all the other data on changes in the climate system_. 
"The people who publicly denied that there was any need to worry about global warming were increasingly _relying on a narrow, sometimes disingenuous, selection of evidence while ignoring all the rest_. 
American Institute of Physics: The Modern Temperature Trend

----------


## intertd6

> The theory isn't broken at all. Actually, the CO2 theory matches what has happened pretty well, and no other theory has been proposed that predicts the temperature record better, or even at all:
> "Anyone who looked at the ten-year average of air temperatures near the surface  which was what the weather statistics measured  would see that t_he decade 2001-2010 was substantially hotter than the decade before, which was in turn hotter than the preceding decade_, and so forth back to the 1970s. Indeed all of the ten warmest years on record had come since 1997. Moreover, if one figured in the effects of known fluctuations  volcanic eruptions (active in the 2000s), industrial aerosols (increasing from China and elsewhere), El Niños (largely absent in the 2000s), and solar activity (sharply declining in the 2000s)  what remained ... a continued rise in temperature. 
> "The natural variability of climate could make for a still longer pause in surface warming, like the three decades in the mid 20th century. If that happened again i_t would give comfort only to those who ignored all the other data on changes in the climate system_. 
> "The people who publicly denied that there was any need to worry about global warming were increasingly _relying on a narrow, sometimes disingenuous, selection of evidence while ignoring all the rest_. 
> American Institute of Physics: The Modern Temperature Trend

  ah, the old natural variability excuse from from scientists who would only accept a precise prediction for any other theory they were assessing, but then no explanation of where the so called inferno of heat is disappearing to, other than the oceans with are miraculously holding this heat for 16 or so years & not releasing it, fuzzy logic hard at work.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Apparently, Skeptics are happy with the results of natural variability but not happy with any scientists using natural variability as a reason for well, the results of natural variability... 
Perhaps the scientists should pitch their explanations to grade three level.  :Sneaktongue:

----------


## John2b

> ah, the old natural variability excuse from from scientists who would only accept a precise prediction for any other theory they were assessing, but then no explanation of where the so called inferno of heat is disappearing to, other than the oceans with are miraculously holding this heat for 16 or so years & not releasing it, fuzzy logic hard at work.
> regards inter

  Thermofluid dynamics (hint: basic physics) hold all the keys. Fuzzy logic is reserved for AGW deniers.

----------


## John2b

> Perhaps the scientists should pitch their explanations to grade three level.

  That's a bit harsh. What about pitching to the level of the AGW deniers in this forum?

----------


## intertd6

> Thermofluid dynamics (hint: basic physics) hold all the keys. Fuzzy logic is reserved for AGW deniers.

  ok then, pop up the simplified equation using thermofluid dynamics showing the reason for no warming for 16 or so years & the same equation using thermofluid dynamics showing why there was warming before this period
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> That's a bit harsh. What about pitching to the level of the AGW deniers in this forum?

  True. I was talking about fake skeptics, not true skeptics. Good catch! 
What level would the AGW deniers be at?  :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

> Apparently, Skeptics are happy with the results of natural variability but not happy with any scientists using natural variability as a reason for well, the results of natural variability... 
> Perhaps the scientists should pitch their explanations to grade three level.

  natural variability is the scientific explanation for " I don't know nor can explain "
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> ok then, pop up the simplified equation using thermofluid dynamics showing the reason for no warming for 16 or so years & the same equation using thermofluid dynamics showing why there was warming before this period
> regards inter

  Dead simple. Count ALL of the heat (energy) in the Earth's weather system, not just heat in the lower atmosphere. The laws of conservation of energy are not broken.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Dead simple. Guess ALL of the heat (energy) in the Earth's weather system, not just heat in the lower atmosphere. The laws of conservation of energy are not broken.

  
Fixed

----------


## John2b

> Fixed

  Thanks Rod, it doesn't matter whether it is a guess, an educated estimate or dead accurate. Heat is accumulating because the laws of conservation of energy are not broken. It is the understanding on the part of deniers that is broken. 
Just to be clear, _nearly all_ of the energy received by Earth is taken into the oceans first. Why? Because the albido of the oceans is the lowest of all surfaces on Earth and because oceans cover nearly all of the surface of Earth. Why is it surprising that surface air temperature lags ocean heat?

----------


## intertd6

> Dead simple. Count ALL of the heat (energy) in the Earth's weather system, not just heat in the lower atmosphere. The laws of conservation of energy are not broken.

  Yes, it's that simple you can't even provide it!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Thanks Rod, it doesn't matter whether it is a guess, an educated estimate or dead accurate. Heat is accumulating because the laws of conservation of energy are not broken. It is the understanding on the part of deniers that is broken. 
> Just to be clear, _nearly all_ of the energy received by Earth is taken into the oceans first. Why? Because the albido of the oceans is the lowest of all surfaces on Earth and because oceans cover nearly all of the surface of Earth. Why is it surprising that surface air temperature lags ocean heat?

  " nearly " well that's also your explanation for I don't know nor can explain fully.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Yes, it's that simple you can't even provide it!
> regards inter

  Just because _you_ cannot see it, does not mean it isn't happening. BTW the data has been provided in this forum many, many times. Here it is again from the American Institute of Physics:  "The heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is the most comprehensive measure of changes in the temperature of the planet (the oceans contain far more of any new heat added than the thin atmosphere). As seen in hundreds of thousands of measurements analyzed by three independent groups, it began a steady rise in the 1970s. That was just when greenhouse gas levels reached a level high enough to be important. A pause in warming since ca. 2000, seen in surface air temperature, is not seen here: the planet continues to warm up."    Service Unavailable.

----------


## intertd6

> Just because _you_ cannot see it, does not mean it isn't happening. BTW the data has been provided in this forum many, many times. Here it is again from the American Institute of Physics: "The heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is the most comprehensive measure of changes in the temperature of the planet (the oceans contain far more of any new heat added than the thin atmosphere). As seen in hundreds of thousands of measurements analyzed by three independent groups, it began a steady rise in the 1970s. That was just when greenhouse gas levels reached a level high enough to be important. A pause in warming since ca. 2000, seen in surface air temperature, is not seen here: the planet continues to warm up."    Service Unavailable.

  And what does that have to do with the specifics of the question I posed to you? Other than you not providing it.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> And what does that have to do with the specifics of the question I posed to you? Other than you not providing it.
> regards inter

  If you are referring to this: "pop up the simplified equation using thermofluid dynamics showing the reason for no warming for 16 or so years & the same equation using thermofluid dynamics showing why there was warming before this period" I took this as an unsupported assertion, because there was no question mark, and in any case your claim not reflected in the temperature record.  There is no proof for something that hasn't happened! 
1999 was hotter than 16 years earlier in 1983, 2000 was hotter than 1984, 2001 hotter than 1985, 2002 hotter than 1986, 2003 hotter than 1987, 2004 hotter than 1988, 2005 hotter than 1989, 2006 hotter than 1990, 2007 hotter than 1991, 2008 hotter than 1992, 2009 hotter than 1993, 2010 hotter than 1994, 2001 hotter than 1995, 2002 hotter than 1996, and 2013 was hotter than 1997.

----------


## intertd6

> If you are referring to this: "pop up the simplified equation using thermofluid dynamics showing the reason for no warming for 16 or so years & the same equation using thermofluid dynamics showing why there was warming before this period" I took this as an unsupported assertion, because there was no question mark, and in any case your claim not reflected in the temperature record.  There is no proof for something that hasn't happened! 
> 1999 was hotter than 16 years earlier in 1983, 2000 was hotter than 1984, 2001 hotter than 1985, 2002 hotter than 1986, 2003 hotter than 1987, 2004 hotter than 1988, 2005 hotter than 1989, 2006 hotter than 1990, 2007 hotter than 1991, 2008 hotter than 1992, 2009 hotter than 1993, 2010 hotter than 1994, 2001 hotter than 1995, 2002 hotter than 1996, and 2013 was hotter than 1997.

  if you can't deliver the simple request using your irrefutable quoted laws then just man up & admit that you can't, no need for the worn out useless information & a wasted pedantic English lesson.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> if you can't deliver the simple request using your irrefutable quoted laws then just man up & admit that you can't, no need for the worn out useless information & a wasted pedantic English lesson.
> regards inter

  So back on topic, what is your point about climate change? Please support up whatever you say with real evidence and not just ideological rhetoric and personal attacks. 
Here's a start for a discussion. Your much cited American Physical Society says this:
'The atmosphere does not have much capability to store heat. The heat capacity of the global atmosphere corresponds to that of only a 3.5 m layer of the ocean. However, the depth of ocean actively involved in climate is much greater than that. The specific heat of dry land is roughly a factor of 4.5 less than that of sea water (for moist land the factor is probably closer to 2). Moreover, heat penetration into land is limited by the low thermal conductivity of the land surface; as a result only the top few meters of the land typically play an active role in heat storage and release (e.g., as the depth for most of the variations over annual time scales). Accordingly, land plays a much smaller role than the ocean in the storage of heat and in providing a memory for the climate system. 
"​The oceans cover about 71% of the Earths surface and contain 97% of the Earths water. Through their fluid motions, their high heat capacity, and their ecosystems, the oceans play a central role in shaping the Earths climate and its variability."  APS Physics | FPS | Changes in the Flow of Energy through the Earth

----------


## John2b

> if you can't deliver the simple request using your irrefutable quoted laws then just man up & admit that you can't, no need for the worn out useless information & a wasted pedantic English lesson.
> regards inter

  Oh, and which bit of "the current decade is hotter than the previous decade, and the previous decade is hotter than the one before that, as was the decade before that, which was hotter than the one before that..." don't you understand? 
Also, which bit of the American Institute of Physics statement "A pause in warming since ca. 2000, seen in surface air temperature, is not seen here: the planet continues to warm up" don't you understand?

----------


## intertd6

> Oh, and which bit of "the current decade is hotter than the previous decade, and the previous decade is hotter than the one before that, as was the decade before that, which was hotter than the one before that..." don't you understand? 
> Also, which bit of the American Institute of Physics statement "A pause in warming since ca. 2000, seen in surface air temperature, is not seen here: the planet continues to warm up" don't you understand?

  I understand you can't deliver on any question, request or whatever proof I ask for, just the same old limp, worn out parroted stuff gets regurgitated over & over & over &............. ! 
Nobody from the rational side swallowed it the first time round & seeing the material hasn't changed, neither will the reception of it.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

This just about sums up the AGW Theory pretty well. 
Now is this happening? 
 The build-up of anthropogenic carbon dioxide may lead to dangerous climate change, not because CO2 is a particularly powerful greenhouse gas, but because the slight warming caused by excess CO2 will cause sea water to evaporate, filling the atmosphere with water vapour. Water vapour is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. The evaporation of water vapour will trigger a chain reaction, a runaway greenhouse effect, in which global warming caused by the evaporation of ever increasing amounts of sea water forces yet more sea water to evaporate. In Dr. James Hansens words, The oceans will begin to boil.

----------


## intertd6

> This just about sums up the AGW Theory pretty well. 
> Now is this happening? 
>  The build-up of anthropogenic carbon dioxide may lead to dangerous climate change, not because CO2 is a particularly powerful greenhouse gas, but because the slight warming caused by excess CO2 will cause sea water to evaporate, filling the atmosphere with water vapour. Water vapour is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. The evaporation of water vapour will trigger a chain reaction, a runaway greenhouse effect, in which global warming caused by the evaporation of ever increasing amounts of sea water forces yet more sea water to evaporate. In Dr. James Hansens words, The oceans will begin to boil.

   It explains perfectly why the dweebs are running around like chooks with their vital parts missing.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> I understand you can't deliver on any question, request or whatever proof I ask for, just the same old limp, worn out parroted stuff gets regurgitated over & over & over &............. ! 
> Nobody from the rational side swallowed it the first time round & seeing the material hasn't changed, neither will the reception of it.
> regards inter

  I _have_ answered your questions with links to scientific organisations for validation - sorry if the answers don't fit your ideology. 
I encourage you to post information that explains a possible different mechanism rather than just resorting to denigrating me and my posts. _
And why haven't you answered my questions._ Like these:   Which bit of "the current decade is hotter than the previous decade, and the previous decade is hotter than the one before that, as was the decade before that, which was hotter than the one before that..." don't you understand?  ​ Which bit of the American Institute of Physics statement "A pause in warming since ca. 2000, seen in surface air temperature, is not seen here: the planet continues to warm up" don't you understand?      You claim there is no correlation between CO2 and global warming. How does this graph supports your claim?:     
Here's some more questions if the last ones were too hard:   Why is there no plausible, testable, alternative hypothesis from skeptics of AGW to explain the observational record?     Why is it that the deniers of AGW can't even agree amongst themselves about what is causing the changes in the observed climate record?     Why is it that the "AGW skeptics" find it necessary to make so many claims that are very easily shown to be false, not backed up by data, unsubstantiated or just plain wrong?

----------


## John2b

> This just about sums up the AGW Theory pretty well. 
> Now is this happening? 
>  The build-up of anthropogenic carbon dioxide may lead to dangerous climate change, not because CO2 is a particularly powerful greenhouse gas, but because the slight warming caused by excess CO2 will cause sea water to evaporate, filling the atmosphere with water vapour. Water vapour is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. The evaporation of water vapour will trigger a chain reaction, a runaway greenhouse effect, in which global warming caused by the evaporation of ever increasing amounts of sea water forces yet more sea water to evaporate. In Dr. James Hansens words, The oceans will begin to boil.

  It is obvious that if the Earth continues to warm, eventually it will get hot enough to "boil the oceans" though probably not in our lifetime. 
Have you heard of Venus, which shares some striking similarities with Earth. The two planets are nearly identical in size and makeup. Yet Venus has a mean surface temperature of 462 °C. Venus has no carbon cycle to absorb carbon back into rocks and surface features, and it does not have organic life to absorb carbon in biomass. Over time the atmosphere has built up to be mainly CO2. Venus probably had oceans in the past, but these would have vaporised (boiled) as the temperature rose as a result of the runaway greenhouse effect.  Oceans on Venus Might Have Been Habitable | Space.com

----------


## woodbe

> This just about sums up the AGW Theory pretty well. 
> Now is this happening? 
>  The build-up of anthropogenic carbon dioxide may lead to dangerous climate change, not because CO2 is a particularly powerful greenhouse gas, but because the slight warming caused by excess CO2 will cause sea water to evaporate, filling the atmosphere with water vapour. Water vapour is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. The evaporation of water vapour will trigger a chain reaction, a runaway greenhouse effect, in which global warming caused by the evaporation of ever increasing amounts of sea water forces yet more sea water to evaporate. In Dr. James Hansens words, The oceans will begin to boil.

  Nope, that is not the AGW theory, that is a theory of one of the collateral effects AGW will have: Feedbacks. I think you'll find (and probably already know) that there are positive and negative feedbacks. Boiling the oceans away is a possible end game millennia from now. 
You know the AGW theory Rod. It's all about changing the balance in the climate system we have today.  
Did you ever play see-saw when you were a kid? I think you understand about balance too.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## intertd6

> I _have_ answered your questions with links to scientific organisations for validation - sorry if the answers don't fit your ideology. 
> I encourage you to post information that explains a possible different mechanism rather than just resorting to denigrating me and my posts. _
> And why haven't you answered my questions._ Like these:   Which bit of "the current decade is hotter than the previous decade, and the previous decade is hotter than the one before that, as was the decade before that, which was hotter than the one before that..." don't you understand?  ​ Which bit of the American Institute of Physics statement "A pause in warming since ca. 2000, seen in surface air temperature, is not seen here: the planet continues to warm up" don't you understand?  I don't try to chase red herrings when in the first place a question or request is answered with the same, when you have the decency to answer or provide the relevant material, Ill move on from there as normal person would.    You claim there is no correlation between CO2 and global warming. How does this graph supports your claim?:     So from that you think it proves that CO2 is causing global warming, which I must say with a not so clever  change of scales still doesn't match the temperature. 
> Here's some more questions if the last ones were too hard:   Why is there no plausible, testable, alternative hypothesis from skeptics of AGW to explain the observational record?  You might have to ask them yourself as I am a non believer that CO2 is causing the majority of the global warming and in this debate you would be hard pressed to find that kind of skeptic you describe here.   Why is it that the deniers of AGW can't even agree amongst themselves about what is causing the changes in the observed climate record?  See above   Why is it that the "AGW skeptics" find it necessary to make so many claims that are very easily shown to be false, not backed up by data, unsubstantiated or just plain wrong?  That's too funny & the latest greatest one is above about the oceans boiling, you fellows make the sky is falling claims, then anyone with half a brain shoots them to bits promptly & they don't even have to be a skeptic.

   Regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> That's too funny & the latest greatest one is  above about the oceans boiling, you fellows make the sky is falling  claims, then anyone with half a brain shoots them to bits promptly &  they don't even have to be a skeptic. Regards inter

  Reading comprehension 1/5 
The claim about 'oceans boiling' was raised by Rod. It's not something you commonly read in mainstream discussions regarding AGW. 
Could try harder.

----------


## intertd6

> Reading comprehension 1/5 
> The claim about 'oceans boiling' was raised by Rod. It's not something you commonly read in mainstream discussions regarding AGW. 
> Could try harder.

  Ha Ha even funnier! and you supported the claim by saying it might happen in a some thousands of years ( millennia ) you have a future in comedy when the alarmism falls over.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

*The Real Difference between Skeptics and Deniers**
"When scientists who are genuinely skeptical see something they dont understand, they try to understand it. When deniers see something scientists dont understand, they use it as an excuse to claim that natural variation has been in control, not CO2. * "Yet in spite of the fact that *the so-called pause fails statistical significance*, that it is easily explicable as already-known natural variation _in addition to (but notinstead of) global warming, scientists are so curious about whats happening to climate, so determined to get at the truth, and so damn skeptical, that they have explored many potential causes of the short-term fluctuations in recent temperature._ Thats what scientists do._" _ Move along - nothing for the anti-science, flat-earth, AGW denying brigade here...  The Real Difference between Skeptics and Deniers | Open Mind

----------


## woodbe

> Ha Ha even funnier! and you supported the claim by saying it might happen in a some thousands of years ( millennia ) you have a future in comedy when the alarmism falls over.
> regards inter

  Reading comprehension downgraded to 0/5 
'might happen' does not equal support. It equals open minded acceptance that it is one possibility out of many. 
I might have a future in comedy but I think you are destined to be Mr No.  :Tongue:

----------


## John2b

"The amount of heat stored in the oceans is one of the most important diagnostics for global warming, because about 90% of the additional heat is stored there. (In fact, the first 2.6 metres of ocean has the same heat capacity of _all_ the atmosphere above.) The atmosphere stores only about 2% because of its small heat capacity.  The surface (including the continental ice masses) can only absorb heat slowly because it is a poor heat conductor.  Thus, heat absorbed by the oceans accounts for almost all of the planets radiative imbalance. 
"If the oceans are warming up, this implies that the Earth must absorb more solar energy than it emits longwave radiation into space. This is the only possible heat source. Thats simply the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. Because we understand the energy balance of our Earth, we also know that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases  which have caused the largest imbalance in the radiative energy budget over the last century."  RealClimate: What ocean heating reveals about global warming

----------


## intertd6

> Reading comprehension downgraded to 0/5 
> 'might happen' does not equal support. It equals open minded acceptance that it is one possibility out of many. only once you have been caught out! 
> I might have a future in comedy but I think you are destined to be Mr No. I suppose when the community has only yes men leaders who can't say no to look up to, that would be a fair comment as it would seem alien to you.

   Regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> "The amount of heat stored in the oceans is one of the most important diagnostics for global warming, because about 90% of the additional heat is stored there. (In fact, the first 2.6 metres of ocean has the same heat capacity of _all_ the atmosphere above.) The atmosphere stores only about 2% because of its small heat capacity.  The surface (including the continental ice masses) can only absorb heat slowly because it is a poor heat conductor.  Thus, heat absorbed by the oceans accounts for almost all of the planets radiative imbalance. 
> "If the oceans are warming up, this implies that the Earth must absorb more solar energy than it emits longwave radiation into space. This is the only possible heat source. Thats simply the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. Because we understand the energy balance of our Earth, we also know that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases  which have caused the largest imbalance in the radiative energy budget over the last century."  RealClimate: What ocean heating reveals about global warming

  And yet this still doesn't look like a equation using thermofluid dynamic laws to prove your claim, which on numerous times claimed to prove your argument.
a continuing typical evading tactic when there is no answer to parrot.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Asking for something that doesn't exist is a waste of your time and everyone else's. It also doesn't do you any credit to expect such simplicity in what you know to be a complex system. But that is to be expected too.

----------


## John2b

Another plank in the fallacious "CO2 is good for the planet" is splintered. Cereal plants are shown to produce* less protein* as the levels of atmospheric CO2 are rising:  "Total protein and nitrogen concentrations in plants generally decline under elevated CO2 atmospheres. Explanations for this decline include that plants under elevated CO2 grow larger, diluting the protein within their tissues; that carbohydrates accumulate within leaves, downregulating the amount of the most prevalent protein Rubisco; that carbon enrichment of the rhizosphere leads to progressively greater limitations of the nitrogen available to plants; and that elevated CO2 directly inhibits plant nitrogen metabolism, especially the assimilation of nitrate into proteins in leaves of C3 plants. These findings imply that food quality will suffer under the CO2 levels anticipated during this century..." http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2183.html

----------


## John2b

It Took Less Than 30 Years to Melt Almost All the Permanent Ice in the Arctic.  ""The observations indicate both the planet, as a whole, and the Arctic region, even more rapidly, are warming up. The models are predicting this trend to continue in the foreseeable future," he said. "It should be noted that most of the thick, multiyear polar ice pack, composed in the 1980s of ice 10 years or more in age, has already been lost from the Arctic due to both drifting into the North Atlantic and melting."  And here's the thing: It's never coming back. Not in our lifetime, anyway." 
Watch it disappear in this neat animation:  It Took Less Than 30 Years to Melt Almost All the Permanent Ice in the Arctic | Motherboard

----------


## Danny.S

One day, when I retire, I'm going to read this thread.

----------


## woodbe

Maybe start reading now and you should enjoy a more relaxing retirement.  :Smilie:  
In other news... *
Statistical analysis rules out natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99% certainty*  

> An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the  possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural  fluctuation in the earths climate, according to a new study by McGill  University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.  
>  The study, published online April 6 in the journal Climate Dynamics,  represents a new approach to the question of whether global warming in  the industrial era has been caused largely by man-made emissions from  the burning of fossil fuels. Rather than using complex computer models  to estimate the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions, Lovejoy examines  historical data to assess the competing hypothesis: that warming over  the past century is due to natural long-term variations in temperature.  
>  This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers,  Lovejoy says. Their two most convincing arguments  that the warming is  natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong  are either  directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it. 
> [..] 
> While the statistical rejection of a hypothesis cant generally be used  to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases   including this one  the rejection of one greatly enhances the  credibility of the other.

  Is global warming just a giant natural fluctuation? | Research and International Relations - McGill University 
There you go. No models, same result.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## John2b

> There you go. No models, same result.

  Now that Anthony Watts has vehemently disagreed with nearly every anti-AGW protagonist out there, WUWT (the self-proclaimed most visited climate blog on the internet) is on the verge of closing down or "swapping sides" to acknowledge AGW as the only explanation for the observed climate record - LOL! :Roflmao:  
Where is the last vestige of deniers in this forum going to find solace then?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Now that Anthony Watts has vehemently disagreed with nearly every anti-AGW protagonist out there, WUWT (the self-proclaimed most visited climate blog on the internet) is on the verge of closing down or "swapping sides" to acknowledge AGW as the only explanation for the observed climate record - LOL! 
> Where is the last vestige of deniers in this forum going to find solace then?

  Yeah right!

----------


## intertd6

> Asking for something that doesn't exist is a waste of your time and everyone else's. It also doesn't do you any credit to expect such simplicity in what you know to be a complex system. But that is to be expected too.

  Any dill including me knows it doesn't exist, but you just never know, some nobody might have cracked it, but alas nobody has produced the equation which shows proof of the laws backing up the theory, while ever the claim stands that the law proves the theory, questions will be asked. On the surface the replies just appear to be the usual hot air with the goodness missing responses
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> It Took Less Than 30 Years to Melt Almost All the Permanent Ice in the Arctic.""The observations indicate both the planet, as a whole, and the Arctic region, even more rapidly, are warming up. The models are predicting this trend to continue in the foreseeable future," he said. "It should be noted that most of the thick, multiyear polar ice pack, composed in the 1980s of ice 10 years or more in age, has already been lost from the Arctic due to both drifting into the North Atlantic and melting."And here's the thing: It's never coming back. Not in our lifetime, anyway." 
> Watch it disappear in this neat animation:  It Took Less Than 30 Years to Melt Almost All the Permanent Ice in the Arctic | Motherboard

  So are you certain almost all the ice has "melted" at the North Pole for one particular reason?
Which one? lets hear it!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> So are you certain almost all the ice has "melted" at the North Pole for one particular reason?
> Which one? lets hear it!
> regards inter

  You need to work on your reading comprehension a bit more. 
You can't ask "are you certain almost all the ice has "melted" at the North Pole" when the original quote clearly does not say that.

----------


## intertd6

> You need to work on your reading comprehension a bit more. 
> You can't ask "are you certain almost all the ice has "melted" at the North Pole" when the original quote clearly does not say that.

  In the words of a great philosopher " you no rissen " 
i can reasonably ask whatever I like & I'd like in particular to hear what the opposing sides viewpoint is on what I asked, no need for another wasted English lesson on what you think I should be saying.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> In the words of a great philosopher " you no rissen " 
> i can reasonably ask whatever I like & I'd like in particular to hear what the opposing sides viewpoint is on what I asked, no need for another wasted English lesson on what you think I should be saying.
> regards inter

  Quoted for irony.  :Tongue:  
You are welcome to present as many non-sequiturs as you like. Forgive me for pointing the odd one out.  :Wink:  
Oh, and another comprehension point: That was not an english lesson, it was a logic lesson.  :Cool:

----------


## John2b

The latest report explains why emission trading schemes as a mechanism to reduce carbon emissions are a key strategy:
There is a clear message from science: To avoid dangerous interference with the climate system, we need to move away from business as usual. Scenarios show that to have a likely chance of limiting the increase in global mean temperature to two degrees Celsius, means lowering global greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 70 percent compared with 2010 by mid-century, and to near-zero by the end of this century.  Many different pathways lead to a future within the boundaries set by the two degrees Celsius goal, Edenhofer said. All of these require substantial investments. Avoiding further delays in mitigation and making use of a broad variety of technologies can limit the associated costs.  Estimates of the economic costs of mitigation vary widely. In business-as-usual scenarios, consumption grows by 1.6 to 3 percent per year. Ambitious mitigation would reduce this growth by around 0.06 percentage points a year. However, the underlying estimates do not take into account economic benefits of reduced climate change. The core task of climate change mitigation is decoupling greenhouse gas emissions from the growth of economies and population, Sokona said. Through providing energy access and reducing local air pollution, many mitigation measures can contribute to sustainable development. Climate change is a global commons problem, said Edenhofer." http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/pr_wg3/20..._pc_wg3_en.pdf

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> On the surface the replies just appear to be the usual hot air with the goodness missing responses

  Yeah...your work does seem to seem to suffer in that regard. Shame that...

----------


## intertd6

> Yeah...your work does seem to seem to suffer in that regard. Shame that...

  Of course! But still we all wait patiently for the proof backed up by the the quoted laws. But all that can be trotted out is some more parroted propaganda.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I've got a better idea. Let's just wait it out to see who's right and/or wrong. Business as usual in the meantime. Status quo.  Do nothing different. Except no bitching about any perceived downsides or upsides from either end of the stick...just let Huey sift through the result at some stage in the decades to come. I'd be very cool with that.

----------


## intertd6

> Quoted for irony.  
> Oh, and another comprehension point: That was not an english lesson, it was a logic lesson.

  Out of the all the waffle, it seemed to be the only reason which had a logical meaning, pity in failed English as it went over my head anyway!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Of course! But still we all wait patiently for the proof backed up by the the quoted laws.

  
The Law of Conservation of Energy is the proof - doh! (Unless you can point to some as yet unreported physical laws that override the ones that have worked so far - please share them!)  "If the oceans are warming up, this implies that the Earth must absorb more solar energy than it emits longwave radiation into space. This is the only possible heat source. Thats simply the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. This conservation law is why physicists are so interested in looking at the energy balance of anything. Because we understand the energy balance of our Earth, we also know that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases  which have caused the largest imbalance in the radiative energy budget over the last century." RealClimate: What ocean heating reveals about global warming

----------


## John2b

The leaders of the Western World's financial system also seem to think emission trading is a good idea:
"The leaders of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and United Nations on Friday called upon finance ministers to use fiscal policies, such as carbon taxes, to combat climate change. 
Lagarde said their goal was to explain to ministers and officials what fiscal tools they can use that would benefit the environment while stimulating global economies." IMF, World Bank leaders engage finance ministers to tackle climate change | Reuters

----------


## Random Username

I'm sorry, but the IMF and the World Bank are front organisations for the Illuminati; the Illuminati is secretly funding both the pro- and anti- AGW supporters to create internal dissent and distraction so that it can advance its goals towards the New World Order (as opposed to New Order, which just did bangin' dance choons) and the creation of the technocratic one world government and planned economy. 
Also: UFO's: What part do they play in AGW, and do they leave chemtrails?

----------


## John2b

> I'm sorry, but the IMF and the World Bank are front organisations for the Illuminati; the Illuminati is secretly funding both the pro- and anti- AGW supporters to create internal dissent and distraction so that it can advance its goals towards the New World Order (as opposed to New Order, which just did bangin' dance choons) and the creation of the technocratic one world government and planned economy. 
> Also: UFO's: What part do they play in AGW, and do they leave chemtrails?

  You're a bit late. April Fool's Day was a fortnight ago!

----------


## Danny.S

> One day, when I retire, I'm going to read this thread.

  Of course I'm only 43 so by then maybe we will know one way or the other.   
I hope I'm right because I plan on buying a big fat 1979 351 Fairmont Ghia for a retirement present, and I wouldn't want to feel guilty about its carbon emissions.   :Smilie:   
Let's chat again in 30 years.  Danny

----------


## John2b

> Of course I'm only 43 so by then maybe we will know one way or the other.  Of course I hope I'm right because I plan on buying a big @@@@ 1979 351 Fairmont Ghia for a retirement present, and I wouldn't want to feel guilty about its carbon emissions.   
> Let's chat again in 30 years. 
> Danny

  By 1859 John Tyndall had worked out that certain gases including water vapour and CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere and that is why the average temperature of the Earth is around 15 degrees C and not way below freezing. 
By 1896 Svante Arrhenius had worded out that CO2 the atmosphere was acting as a temperature regulator of the Earth and that a doubling of CO2 might add 4 degrees Celsius to the temperature. 
By 1931 E. O. Hulburt had confirmed what had been roughly worked out by Arrhenius: the amount of temperature rise that would be caused by a doubling of CO2. 
By 1972 the exact amounts of CO2 being added to and remaining in the atmosphere were able to be determined and verified and J.S. Sawyer correctly predicted, in the leading journal Nature, an 0.6°C rise by 2000. 
In 2014, despite 10,000's of scientists researching climate and related fields, and billions of dollars spent over the past 80 years, _there is not a single credible scientific theory or hypothesis that does not include the effect of manmade carbon dioxide emissions that can explain the observed climate record, which matches the temperature rise projected and that has actually been measured since the industrial age began up to the present day._ 
What are you waiting for?  The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

----------


## Rod Dyson

> By 1859 John Tyndall had worked out that certain gases including water vapour and CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere and that is why the average temperature of the Earth is around 15 degrees C and not way below freezing. 
> By 1896 Svante Arrhenius had worded out that CO2 the atmosphere was acting as a temperature regulator of the Earth and that a doubling of CO2 might add 4 degrees Celsius to the temperature. 
> By 1931 E. O. Hulburt had confirmed what had been roughly worked out by Arrhenius: the amount of temperature rise that would be caused by a doubling of CO2. 
> By 1972 the exact amounts of CO2 being added to and remaining in the atmosphere were able to be determined and verified and J.S. Sawyer correctly predicted, in the leading journal Nature, an 0.6°C rise by 2000. 
> In 2014, despite 10,000's of scientists researching climate and related fields, and billions of dollars spent over the past 80 years, _there is not a single credible scientific theory or hypothesis that does not include the effect of manmade carbon dioxide emissions that can explain the observed climate record, which matches the temperature rise projected and that has actually been measured since the industrial age began up to the present day._ 
> What are you waiting for?  The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

  Man and I thought others here had it bad.

----------


## intertd6

> By 1859 John Tyndall had worked out that certain gases including water vapour and CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere and that is why the average temperature of the Earth is around 15 degrees C and not way below freezing. 
> By 1896 Svante Arrhenius had worded out that CO2 the atmosphere was acting as a temperature regulator of the Earth and that a doubling of CO2 might add 4 degrees Celsius to the temperature. 
> By 1931 E. O. Hulburt had confirmed what had been roughly worked out by Arrhenius: the amount of temperature rise that would be caused by a doubling of CO2. 
> By 1972 the exact amounts of CO2 being added to and remaining in the atmosphere were able to be determined and verified and J.S. Sawyer correctly predicted, in the leading journal Nature, an 0.6°C rise by 2000. 
> In 2014, despite 10,000's of scientists researching climate and related fields, and billions of dollars spent over the past 80 years, _there is not a single credible scientific theory or hypothesis that does not include the effect of manmade carbon dioxide emissions that can explain the observed climate record, which matches the temperature rise projected and that has actually been measured since the industrial age began up to the present day._ 
> What are you waiting for?  The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

  The answer to the last few requests & questions would be a start! Did you think we would forget?
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Man and I thought others here had it bad.

  Instead of attacking the character of the poster, why not correct the claims made by the 120,000 strong membership American Institution of Physics that you deem to be incorrect?

----------


## John2b

> The answer to the last few requests & questions would be a start! Did you think we would forget?
> regards inter

  Ditto. Instead of attacking the character of the poster, why not correct the claims made by the 120,000 strong membership American Institution of Physics that you deem to be incorrect?

----------


## intertd6

> Ditto. Instead of attacking the character of the poster, why not correct the claims that you deem to be incorrect?

  what in the name of? What that has to do with my quoted post I will never fathom! Really interesting how some things are perceived when confusion sets in.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Instead of attacking the character of the poster, why not correct the claims made by the 120,000 strong membership American Institution of Physics that you deem to be incorrect?

  No one I know questions the fact Co2 is a greenhouse gas.  The only real questionable thing is how much doubling of co2 will increase temps.  Not 4 deg c either. 
Then then next questionable thing is the % of co2 that is man made.   
Then the next questionable thing is can we stop co2  increasing while we still have developing countries and population growth. 
Then the next questionable thing is, is it better to mitigate than...........  
Then the next .................. I can keep going but its all been said before and it really makes no difference here. The agenda is set for a while yet.  I am patient!

----------


## intertd6

> By 1859 John Tyndall had worked out that certain gases including water vapour and CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere and that is why the average temperature of the Earth is around 15 degrees C and not way below freezing. 
> By 1896 Svante Arrhenius had worded out that CO2 the atmosphere was acting as a temperature regulator of the Earth and that a doubling of CO2 might add 4 degrees Celsius to the temperature. 
> By 1931 E. O. Hulburt had confirmed what had been roughly worked out by Arrhenius: the amount of temperature rise that would be caused by a doubling of CO2. 
> By 1972 the exact amounts of CO2 being added to and remaining in the atmosphere were able to be determined and verified and J.S. Sawyer correctly predicted, in the leading journal Nature, an 0.6°C rise by 2000. 
> In 2014, despite 10,000's of scientists researching climate and related fields, and billions of dollars spent over the past 80 years, _there is not a single credible scientific theory or hypothesis that does not include the effect of manmade carbon dioxide emissions that can explain the observed climate record, which matches the temperature rise projected and that has actually been measured since the industrial age began up to the present day._ 
> What are you waiting for?  The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

  but let's shoot this down while we're here, around 150 million years ago the CO2 levels were above 2000 parts per million & the average temperature was around 17'C, after this period the CO2 levels fell to 1000 parts per million over 100 million years while the average global temperature rose to around 25'C over the same period, this is what historically happened & is exactly the opposite to the the above theory, please explain why your unproven theory over turns what has historically happened?
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> but let's shoot this down while we're here, around 150 million years ago the CO2 levels were above 2000 parts per million & the average temperature was around 17'C, after this period the CO2 levels fell to 1000 parts per million over 100 million years while the average global temperature rose to around 25'C over the same period, this is what historically happened & is exactly the opposite to the the above theory, please explain why your unproven theory over turns what has historically happened?
> regards inter

  So nothing else is different?

----------


## woodbe

> So nothing else is different?

  Not when you're a fake skeptic, John2b  :Wink:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> but let's shoot this down while we're here, around 150 million years ago the CO2 levels were above 2000 parts per million & the average temperature was around 17'C, after this period the CO2 levels fell to 1000 parts per million over 100 million years while the average global temperature rose to around 25'C over the same period, this is what historically happened & is exactly the opposite to the the above theory, please explain why your unproven theory over turns what has historically happened?

  [sigh] Do we have to go through this again and again...again? 
Co2 is not the only GHG.  CO2 (and other GHG's) is not the only influencer/driver of global temperature change.  
Wishing for simplicity won't make it happen...but by all means keep trying...

----------


## intertd6

> So nothing else is different?

  well you tell me, what was different that makes it different? And a sure sign that there isn't an answer is when a question is asked of a question.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> [sigh] Do we have to go through this again and again...again? 
> Co2 is not the only GHG.  CO2 (and other GHG's) is not the only influencer/driver of global temperature change.  
> Wishing for simplicity won't make it happen...but by all means keep trying...

  you seem to telling a story, keep it going with a reasonable explanation of why when the CO2 concentrations halved the temperature increased by nearly 50% ? 
Regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Not when you're a fake skeptic, John2b

  and that is about as close to an answer we will get to the question asked.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> well you tell me, what was different that makes it different? And a sure sign that there isn't an answer is when a question is asked of a question.
> regards inter

  Did you read what you wrote before you posted your question to the question?  :Roflmao2:

----------


## John2b

> well you tell me, what was different that makes it different?

  i will answer your rhetorical question with a rhetorical answer: Everything was different - except the laws of physics (which are able to explain the climate both then and now).

----------


## John2b

> you seem to telling a story, keep it going with a reasonable explanation of why when the CO2 concentrations halved the temperature increased by nearly 50% ? 
> Regards inter

  Read the post. The answer to your question was there.

----------


## intertd6

> Did you read what you wrote before you posted your question to the question?

  the questions about the question are readily mounting up, while answering it slowly is slowly drifting away while your hoping the limp subterfuge will make it a distant memory, yet again no explanation or anything of substance in relation to the question.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> you seem to telling a story, keep it going with a reasonable explanation of why when the CO2 concentrations halved the temperature increased by nearly 50% ? 
> Regards inter

  Why? That'd be like trying to teach my dog to touch type. Not only pointless but a useless waste of my talents.

----------


## John2b

> the questions about the question are readily mounting up, while answering it slowly is slowly drifting away while your hoping the limp subterfuge will make it a distant memory, yet again no explanation or anything of substance in relation to the question.
> regards inter

  What's your post got to do with the warming planet (or emissions trading)?     400 PPM: What's Next for a Warming Planet - Scientific American

----------


## Marc

The bottom line about so called man made global warming is that the minuscule contribution to overall CO2 from our activity does not make any measurable difference to climate. Furthermore all the obscenely expensive "innovations" ( read scam) to "save the planet" also have made zero difference to climate. Like a dung beetle on top of mount kosciusko pretending he can flatten it if he really gets his back into it. 
If you add the fact that climate is by definition fluid and changes and so there is no fix pattern to define what is "right" or what is "wrong" this whole idea that we are changing the climate is absolute crap. And do we really know and understand all the self adjusting mechanism that make all the natural changes and neutralises all the variables we put into the mix?
 Answer, no.
We pretend, we pontificate, we assume.
But we really know s#it. 
There are so many other things we understand and are able to change. Yet we choose to ignore them because we are caught in the glamor of a new religion. Oh yesss, I am vegetaarian, stretch my left pinky every day, light incense and vote greeeen, ahaaa... 
I say everyone has the right to light a candle to his particular saint, yet if you want to do that, buy your own candle, don't ask me for money. I know of better ways to spend my money, including my tax money and it is not in any "alternative" anything.

----------


## intertd6

> Why? That'd be like trying to teach my dog to touch type. Not only pointless but a useless waste of my talents.

  id be able to teach my dog to touch type & produce a best seller before you could come up with a reasonable answer & I don't even have a dog yet.
regards

----------


## intertd6

> What's your post got to do with the warming planet (or emissions trading)?     400 PPM: What's Next for a Warming Planet - Scientific American

  is that the best you can do that has nothing to do with answering this  "  Originally Posted by John2b  By 1859 John Tyndall had worked out that certain gases including water vapour and CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere and that is why the average temperature of the Earth is around 15 degrees C and not way below freezing.   By 1896 Svante Arrhenius had worded out that CO2 the atmosphere was acting as a temperature regulator of the Earth and that a doubling of CO2 might add 4 degrees Celsius to the temperature.   By 1931 E. O. Hulburt had confirmed what had been roughly worked out by Arrhenius: the amount of temperature rise that would be caused by a doubling of CO2.   By 1972 the exact amounts of CO2 being added to and remaining in the atmosphere were able to be determined and verified and J.S. Sawyer correctly predicted, in the leading journal Nature, an 0.6°C rise by 2000.   In 2014, despite 10,000's of scientists researching climate and related fields, and billions of dollars spent over the past 80 years, there is not a single credible scientific theory or hypothesis that does not include the effect of manmade carbon dioxide emissions that can explain the observed climate record, which matches the temperature rise projected and that has actually been measured since the industrial age began up to the present day.   What are you waiting for?   The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect "   _"but let's shoot this down while we're here, around 150 million years ago the CO2 levels were above 2000 parts per million & the average temperature was around 17'C, after this period the CO2 levels fell to 1000 parts per million over 100 million years while the average global temperature rose to around 25'C over the same period, this is what historically happened & is exactly the opposite to the the above theory, please explain why your unproven theory over turns what has historically happened?_ _regards inter"_ 
Regards inter

----------


## John2b

> is that the best you can do that has nothing to do with answering this 
> Regards inter

  there's a saying "You can't teach an old dog new tricks". Not much hope when someone doesn't even have a dog!  :Rolleyes:

----------


## intertd6

> there's a saying "You can't teach an old dog new tricks". Not much hope when someone doesn't even have a dog!

  Yaaaawwwwnnn.......... Waiting........waiting..........& even more waiting, while the blabla, blabla continues.
just face it, man or woman up, you have no answer.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Yaaaawwwwnnn.......... Waiting........waiting..........& even more waiting, while the blabla, blabla continues.
> just face it, man or woman up, you have no answer.
> regards inter

  There is no way to answer inter! 
To attempt to do so would ruin the party.

----------


## Marc

There is no answer because whilst you expect and answer based in logic, the warmist will offer an answer based on faith.
Good luck.

----------


## John2b

> There is no answer because whilst you expect and answer based in logic, the warmist will offer an answer based on faith.
> Good luck.

  Well done! Thanks for a perfect example of ideology overriding logic in an argument.  :Lolabove:

----------


## John2b

Notes from the US Senate 113th Congress March 2014 (deniers look the other way):
Since 1991, scientists have published more than 25,000 scholarly articles on climate change. Only 26 out of the more than 25,000 articles reject the existence of climate change. This is 1 in 1,000. 
Analysis of peer-reviewed scientific studies finds that over 99 percent of actively publishing climate scientists are firmly convinced that climate change is real, that human activities are a significant cause, and it will increase if we continue to burn fossil fuels. 
The idea that because scientists, frankly, are scientists and always leave a little room for additional information or for the possibility of revising their projections, assessments, and estimates somehow introduces significant doubt about what climate change is does violence to the very principles on which science operates. 
This problem is no longer confined just to our wilderness areas or to those of us concerned with biological diversity or environmental issues. 
Climate change has become an urgent national security challenge that our military cannot and will not ignore. Climate change merits national security military attention for very pragmatic reasons. 
What the Department of Defenses efforts to date show is that climate change is no longer solely the purview of conservationists concerned about protecting endangered species, or of environmentalists concerned about preserving the Earth for future generations. 
Insurers are risk expertsit is not their job to care about the environment. Their job is to look at the facts to calculate value and the odds of lossand then put a price tag on insuring the value. And they say the risks are real. In 2009, Lloyds of London issued its assessment: Climate Change and Security: Risks and Opportunities for Business.  
(The ocean) is acidifying for very simple reasons. One-third of the carbon that goes into our atmosphere gets absorbed by the oceans. 
Ninety percent of the heat from climate change gets absorbed into the oceans; 30 percent of the carbon. 
Nobody denies that when we add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, it has this effect. Nobody denies that we have put roughly close on 2,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere since then, and nobody denies these measurements. These are measurements. This isnt theory; these are measurements. 
...when somebody comes to you and says: Ignore that trendline; instead look at it having gotten flat. It is a ridiculous argument. It ruins the credibility of the person who makes it. 
When it comes to these water resource issues, the future is now. The effects of climate change on our water resources are already upon us. 
Some deniers accept the science but say were better off doing nothing. They say its too expensive: regulations will kill jobs and hurt the economy, driving up prices on everything from gasoline to bread and milk. We have heard this argument before; many times in fact, and it is always proven wrong. *Over and over again, large-scale collective action on environmental problems has helped to grow the economy and improve human health.  A market-based approach like carbon tax would be the best path to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington.*   http://beta.congress.gov/crec/2014/0...senate-bk2.pdf

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Notes from the US Senate 113th Congress March 2014 (deniers look the other way):
> Since 1991, scientists have published more than 25,000 scholarly articles on climate change. Only 26 out of the more than 25,000 articles reject the existence of climate change. This is 1 in
> 1,000. 
> Analysis of peer-reviewed scientific studies finds that over 99 percent of actively publishing climate scientists are firmly convinced that climate change is real, that human activities are a significant cause, and it will increase if we continue to burn fossil fuels. 
> The idea that because scientists, frankly, are scientists and always leave a little room for additional information or for the possibility of revising their projections, assessments, and estimates somehow introduces significant doubt about what climate change is does violence to the very principles on which science operates. 
> This problem is no longer confined just to our wilderness areas or to those of us concerned with biological diversity or environmental issues. 
> Climate change has become an urgent national security challenge that our military cannot and will not ignore. Climate change merits national security military attention for very pragmatic reasons. 
> What the Department of Defenses efforts to date show is that climate change is no longer solely the purview of conservationists concerned about protecting endangered species, or of environmentalists concerned about preserving the Earth for future generations. 
> Insurers are risk expertsit is not their job to care about the environment. Their job is to look at the facts to calculate value and the odds of lossand then put a price tag on insuring the value. And they say the risks are real. In 2009, Lloyds of London issued its assessment: Climate Change and Security: Risks and Opportunities for Business.  
> ...

  Ho hum heard it all before. Changes nothing

----------


## woodbe

> Ho hum heard it all before. Changes nothing

  Correct  :Smilie:  It is merely confirming what we already know. 
About the Arctic recovery. Doesn't seem to be going to plan:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> id be able to teach my dog to touch type & produce a best seller before you could come up with a reasonable answer & I don't even have a dog yet.

  No doubt.  That's the difference between you and me...if you were in my shoes, you'd try even though you know that you will fail (because in this case there is no answer that would be found to be reasonable by the target audience).  I, on the other hand, couldn't be stuffed. 
As for the dog...why not?  Major contributors to global warming, don't you know?  Resource guzzlers and all that.  That's why we've one (it sure as hell isn't for the typing).

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Ho hum heard it all before. Changes nothing

  True.  
Cool, eh?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> True.  
> Cool, eh?

   :Wink:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Correct  It is merely confirming what we already know. 
> About the Arctic recovery. Doesn't seem to be going to plan:

  Still not gone as predicted.

----------


## John2b

> Still not gone as predicted.

  What or who's prediction? 
It is completely consistent with the these: NOAA Computer Model Predictions of Sea Ice. The projected number of years computer models project for sea ice extent to decline from present conditions to a summer ice free Arctic has an average of 30 years.  Future of Arctic Climate and Global Impacts - Sea ice and model predictions

----------


## Rod Dyson

> What or who's prediction? 
> It is completely consistent with the these: NOAA Computer Model Predictions of Sea Ice. The projected number of years computer models project for sea ice extent to decline from present conditions to a summer ice free Arctic has an average of 30 years.  Future of Arctic Climate and Global Impacts - Sea ice and model predictions

  Ok I will grant you that its just the end of winter.  Lets see if its ice free come this summer!! 
Al Gore, Hansen and a host of Media comes to mind.

----------


## John2b

> Ok I will grant you that its just the end of winter.  Lets see if its ice free come this summer!! 
> Al Gore, Hansen and a host of Media comes to mind.

  Nope. Al Gore didn't say it. He said that one study concluded it could be completely gone in less than 22 years, and the US Navy study said it could be gone in 7 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPLD8aylRiw#t=16 
What did Hansen say: "We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes. The Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would." ​NASA warming scientist: 'This is the last chance' - USATODAY.com 
Care to refute that claim? You'll have to make up your own data, because the ice extent record completely supports passing a tipping point. 
Hansen has been attributed with saying that: "in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer" but I'll bet you can't find an actual source, just a lot of blogger/denier claims... 
Media isn't climate science, BTW, but I think you know that. 
Oh, and feel free to support your claims with actual evidence. It helps people to believe your posts.

----------


## intertd6

> No doubt.  That's the difference between you and me...if you were in my shoes, you'd try even though you know that you will fail (because in this case there is no answer that would be found to be reasonable by the target audience).  I, on the other hand, couldn't be stuffed. 
> As for the dog...why not?  Major contributors to global warming, don't you know?  Resource guzzlers and all that.  That's why we've one (it sure as hell isn't for the typing).

  the only real difference between us is I have very big feet, don't have a dog yet & am dim enough to have absorbed the relevant factual information to work out that the CO2 theory is a furphy as shown to be by historical data, I was hoping you could explain yourself more given the opportunity, but alas you didn't produce the goods or anything remotely like an answer.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

There is a single climate scientist who said something like "if the warming keeps up like this, there will be no summer ice by 201X" or something like that. It wasn't a scientific prediction, it wasn't published in a peer review journal, it was a personal reaction to a very warm season. Perhaps 2007. Couldn't be bothered looking it up for our fake skeptics, and clearly they couldn't either. We've been there before. The actual language is far less inflammatory than the reporting of it. 
As expected, the climate denial sites parrot that statement as a prediction ad infinitum and ignore the detail and the actual predictions. That's how they work.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I was hoping you could explain yourself more given the opportunity, but alas you didn't produce the goods or anything remotely like an answer.

  Since there would be no result or cash prizes...why would I bother?

----------


## woodbe

> the CO2 theory is a furphy as shown to be by historical data

  You have historical data for 100 million years ago? Show us! 
I can only find reconstructions for 100 million years ago. Did you take your time machine back and train the dinosaurs to record climate data?

----------


## intertd6

> Correct  It is merely confirming what we already know. 
> About the Arctic recovery. Doesn't seem to be going to plan:

  so are you magically expecting the arctic ice to recover while being coated with soot pollution, which has the most destructive impact on any ice or snow.
regards inter

----------


## Marc

I really like this guys ...  :Biggrin:    

> *Questions and answers on Oxfam and climate change* Lost in a swamp of questions about climate change? We've put together some questions and answers to help explain why it's an issue Oxfam is working on. *Why is Oxfam campaigning on climate change?*At Oxfam, we are passionate about ending poverty  yet our work is being increasingly undermined by changes in the worlds climate.
> For poor people, who are dependent on predictable weather patterns, the damage brought about to land and crops  whether by increased flooding, droughts, or rising sea level rises  can mean no food, no earnings, and no way to secure a better future. *It's not going to happen for years and years, so why bother now?*Climate change is happening now. It is real and it is already having a devastating impact on the worlds poorest people.
> While we cant yet pin any single weather event on climate change, what were seeing  like the recent floods in Pakistan, Benin and elsewhere  matches climate change predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UNs scientific body which assesses the potential impacts and ways for coping with climate change
> If we dont want to see the worlds poorest and most vulnerable people suffer more, we must act now to curb the impact of climate change. *Why should rich countries act first?*Everybody has a part to play in combating climate change. Thats why we all have to act. But it is rich countries that have emitted the most carbon, and reaped the benefits of intense use of fossil fuels.
> Therefore rich countries must now provide the money to enable people in developing countries to adapt to the changes in their climate, changes that are already happening.     Rich countries must lead the way in reducing carbon emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050. By doing so, other growing economies, like China and India, will follow so that world emissions can be cut by at least 50 per cent by 2050.

----------


## Marc

I have never seen such a cacophony of unrelated issues bunched together for a business proposition.    

> Poverty, Environment & Climate Change Network (PECCN)          
> ©Evelyn Hockstein/CARE  
> In 2010 CARE, recognizing the strategic importance of climate change, formally designated the Poverty, Environment and Climate Change Network (PECCN) as its first Centre of Expertise (CoE), hosted by CARE Denmark. This supports a global understanding within CARE that climate change is fundamentally linked to a number of its core programming sectors, including food security, water, disaster risk reduction and womens empowerment. 
> PECCN is a CARE-led 'community of practice' with a secretariat and global membership. The Network supports CARE International Members, Country Offices and their partners to develop innovative, people-centred climate change programming that can be shared and replicated at national and global levels. It also works to influence international conventions, as well as regional and national policy frameworks, to more effectively address the interests and rights of poor and marginalised people. 
> PECCN is especially focused on reducing the negative impacts of climate change by transforming policies, institutions and practices that currently obstruct poor people's ability to adapt, and working with rural community members to improve their livelihoods through better management and governance of natural resources. The Network operates globally but with a focus on developing countries. One of the Network's key strengths is its ability to forge collaborative relationships between, and distil lessons from CARE staff members and partners working around the world. 
> Contact the PECCN Secretariat Staff.

----------


## woodbe

> so are you magically expecting the arctic ice to recover while being coated with soot pollution, which has the most destructive impact on any ice or snow.
> Regards inter

  lol.

----------


## intertd6

> You have historical data for 100 million years ago? Show us! 
> I can only find reconstructions for 100 million years ago. Did you take your time machine back and train the dinosaurs to record climate data?

  http://www.climateconversation.words...600m_years.gif 
Somebody & especially nobody would have to be blind & or daft not recognise that there is & has never been a relationship between historical temperatures & CO2. This data is the same as a copy from the IPCC's own report, no need for a time machine, just the need to be not as dim as the common garden variety propaganda believer that the sky is falling.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Nope, that's based on reconstruction, it's not historical data.

----------


## John2b

> so are you magically expecting the arctic ice to recover while being coated with soot pollution, which has the most destructive impact on any ice or snow.
> regards inter

  Is that natural soot or man-made soot?

----------


## intertd6

> lol.

  so in your mind pollution soot is a factor in snow & ice longevity & has an opposite albedo effect to what is proven?
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Is that natural soot or man-made soot?

  Yes
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> http://www.climateconversation.words...600m_years.gif 
> Somebody & especially nobody would have to be blind & or daft not recognise that there is & has never been a relationship between historical temperatures & CO2. This data is the same as a copy from the IPCC's own report, no need for a time machine, just the need to be not as dim as the common garden variety propaganda believer that the sky is falling.
> regards inter

  Which is it: there is? or, there never has been? Do you believe the data? or, do you not believe the data? So when the sun was no where near as strong as it is today, the extra CO2 didn't help to keep the planet Earth warm? or, it did then, but it doesn't now?

----------


## John2b

> Yes
> regards inter

  So would there have been more soot without the activity of mankind, or less soot?

----------


## John2b

> so in your mind pollution soot is a factor in snow & ice longevity & has an opposite albedo effect to what is proven?
> regards inter

  How do "proven" effects of albedo strengthen your position, when you disregard the "proven" effects of CO2. Hint: it's the same physics.

----------


## woodbe

> so in your mind pollution soot is a factor in snow & ice longevity & has an opposite albedo effect to what is proven?
> regards inter

  Keep misreading posts and anything is possible, even pigs flying over the Arctic.  :2thumbsup:  
Hint: 'Arctic recovery' is an often used term by deniers. They use it the year after a massive loss (eg: 2008, 2013) 
I'm sure the soot is helping with the recovery.  :Biggrin:

----------


## intertd6

> Nope, that's based on reconstruction, it's not historical data.

  All data is a reconstruction of findings, readings, observations, tests, etc, etc, etc, but to the point 
its data & it's historical, you can split hairs all you want after that, prove it wrong if you can, but it puts you firmly in the somebody or nobody category.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> How do "proven" effects of albedo strengthen your position, when you disregard the "proven" effects of CO2. Hint: it's the same physics.

  Is that the proven physics that you haven't provided yet verses the effects any idiot can test for them selves on two ice cubes on a tray in the sun, one with soot sprinkled on it.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> All data is a reconstruction of findings, readings, observations, tests, etc, etc, etc, but to the point 
> its data & it's historical, you can split hairs all you want after that, prove it wrong if you can, but it puts you firmly in the somebody or nobody category.
> regards inter

  Nope. 
Historical data is recorded at the time of the event for posterity. 
Reconstructed data is a forensic effort to recreate the data that was never recorded. 
We have historical data for the climate for a couple of hundred years.

----------


## intertd6

> Which is it: there is? or, there never has been?  Both
> Do you believe the data? or, do you not believe the data? I believe the data to its range of accuracy & will do until it is proven otherwise. 
>  So when the sun was no where near as strong as it is today, the extra CO2 didn't help to keep the planet Earth warm? or, it did then, but it doesn't now? Produce some data to back up your assertion otherwise it is just a hypothetical idea like CO2 being the main driver of the global temperature

   Regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Nope. 
> Historical data is recorded at the time of the event for posterity. 
> Reconstructed data is a forensic effort to recreate the data that was never recorded. 
> We have historical data for the climate for a couple of hundred years.

  prove it wrong if you can? Whatever you want to call it
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Produce some data to back up your assertion otherwise it is just a hypothetical idea like CO2 being the main driver of the global temperature
> Regards inter

  No problems. 
"Since its birth 4.5 billion years ago, the Sun's luminosity has very gently increased by about 30%.  This is an inevitable evolution which comes about because, as the billions of years roll by, the Sun is burning up the hydrogen in its core.  The helium "ashes" left behind are denser than hydrogen, so the hydrogen/helium mix in the Sun's core is very slowly becoming denser, thus raising the pressure.  This causes the nuclear reactions to run a little hotter.  The Sun brightens."  The Sun's Evolution

----------


## intertd6

> No problems.
> "Since its birth 4.5 billion years ago, the Sun's luminosity has very gently increased by about 30%.  This is an inevitable evolution which comes about because, as the billions of years roll by, the Sun is burning up the hydrogen in its core.  The helium "ashes" left behind are denser than hydrogen, so the hydrogen/helium mix in the Sun's core is very slowly becoming denser, thus raising the pressure.  This causes the nuclear reactions to run a little hotter.  The Sun brightens."  The Sun's Evolution

  Thats common knowledge, the data which will back up your claim just has to be overlaid on the provided CO2 / temperature graph with the proper explanations which make it relevant.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Thats common knowledge, the data which will back up your claim just has to be overlaid on the provided CO2 / temperature graph with the proper explanations which make it relevant.
> regards inter

  No problem.  "In order to understand the apparent disparity between past temperature and levels of atmospheric CO2 we must appreciate that CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Other drivers of past climate change include variations in solar output, continental drift, orbital variations (known as Milankovitch cycles), volcanism, and ocean variability. Any conclusions that we draw from a perceived lack of correlation in the climate record between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures must take into account these factors. "The further back we go, the higher CO2 levels rise. However, as we go back in time solar activity also falls and in the early Phanerozoic the solar constant was about 4% less than current levels. Royer (2006) combined the radiative forcing from CO2 and solar variations to find their net effect on climate. The result is shown in Figure 2 (cooler climate is indicated by shaded areas which are periods of geographically widespread ice).  
Figure 2: Combined radiative forcing from CO2 and sun through the Phanerozoic. Values are expressed relative to pre-industrial conditions (CO2 = 280 ppm; solar luminosity = 342 W/m2); a reference line of zero is given for clarity. The dark shaded bands correspond to periods with strong evidence for geographically widespread ice (Royer 2006).  "As we can see from the graph, Royer found that when solar variations are taken into account, the total radiative forcing correlates excellently with past temperature reconstructions. _In laymans terms, this means that when the sun is less active, the CO2 level required to initiate a glaciation is much higher. For example, if the CO2-ice threshold for present-day Earth is 500 ppm, the equivalent threshold during the Late Ordovician (450 million years ago) would be 3000 ppm, making it perfectly possible to have widespread glaciation accompanied by comparatively high levels of atmospheric CO2._ This understanding of the correlation between past levels of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature is widely accepted: over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect. https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=179736

----------


## Rod Dyson

> There is a single climate scientist who said something like "if the warming keeps up like this, there will be no summer ice by 201X" or something like that. It wasn't a scientific prediction, it wasn't published in a peer review journal, it was a personal reaction to a very warm season. Perhaps 2007. Couldn't be bothered looking it up for our fake skeptics, and clearly they couldn't either. We've been there before. The actual language is far less inflammatory than the reporting of it. 
> As expected, the climate denial sites parrot that statement as a prediction ad infinitum and ignore the detail and the actual predictions. That's how they work.

  Yes I would also be backing away from these claims too if I were you.  LOL I have notice a little bit of tempering in the warmists world.  Truly a good sign.  There will be further temperance as time goes by.  The IPCC has also downgraded their certainty levels.  Nice to see soon there wont be much difference at all between us.  Just the need to waste money trying to fix a non-problem that cant be fixed any how. 
Like I say I am patient time will reveal all.

----------


## John2b

> Yes I would also be backing away from these claims too if I were you.  LOL I have notice a little bit of tempering in the warmists world.  Truly a good sign.  There will be further temperance as time goes by.  The IPCC has also downgraded their certainty levels.  Nice to see soon there wont be much difference at all between us.  Just the need to waste money trying to fix a non-problem that cant be fixed any how. 
> Like I say I am patient time will reveal all.

   1.  Woodbe was not backing away from any claims. On the contrary, he was demonstrating that the original claims were false constructs made by fake "skeptics". 
2. The IPCC has not downgraded their certainty levels. That notion is another false construct of fake "skeptics". Here is the confidence statement from the fourth IPCC report in 2007: 
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is *very likely [90 percent confidence]* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Summary for Policymakers - IPCC  And here is the confidence statement from the fifth IPCC report in 2013:
"It is _extremely likely [95 percent confidence]_ more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. - See more at: Climate Change 2013.- IPCC. - IEEE 
What isn't obvious from these statements is that the second statement includes an assessment of the impacts of cooling from aerosols, hence the change of term from "anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" to "anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." This makes the later assessment much, much more certain. 
If the case for AGW is so weak, why is it that the "skeptics" of AGW find it necessary to make so many claims that are easily shown to be false, not backed up by data, unsubstantiated or just plain wrong? Why not use facts?

----------


## woodbe

> 1.  Woodbe was not backing away from any claims. On the contrary, he was demonstrating that the original claims were false constructs made by fake "skeptics".

  Correct. This 'no summer ice by 201X' is a statement by one scientist which has been paraded by the fake skeptics on this thread many times. It was never a prediction, and it was never published in peer review. 
Fake skeptics' stories are like zombies. Every time you knock them down by showing them facts, they come back again with the same fake story.   

> Nice to see soon there wont be much difference at all between us.

  I agree you've moved a long way towards understanding climate theory since you started this thread Rod. There is plenty we now agree on.  :Shakehands:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> prove it wrong if you can? Whatever you want to call it

  What if I said that the reconstructed data was extrapolated and assembled from the fossil record by a computer model...would that help?  :Blush7:  
But then if one accept the virtues of this modelled data then one giggles with inanity at the ongoing sociopathic struggle to not accept 'other' modelled data.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The IPCC has also downgraded their certainty levels.

  Not exactly.  They are still quite certain about it.  However, they've finally accepted that we will rarely (if ever) have sufficient power and sensitivity in the models to determine significant details about the scope, scale and timing of climate changes at scales smaller than the regional (their word for continental) scale.  Put simply we can only make sweeping statements rather than provide detailed predictions of what might happen within a continent and when. Planners, bureaucrats and politicians don't like that lack of detail but they'll just have to get used to it

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I agree you've moved a long way towards understanding climate theory since you started this thread Rod. There is plenty we now agree on.

  My opinions haven't changed.

----------


## John2b

> My opinions haven't changed.

  Nor has the science which is based on evidence, not opinion. 
The evidence is that human activities, and in particular the burning of fossil fuels, is causing unprecedented global warming and there is no possibility that there is any other significant contributor to the current unprecedented rate of warming.

----------


## intertd6

> No problem."In order to understand the apparent disparity between past temperature and levels of atmospheric CO2 we must appreciate that CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Other drivers of past climate change include variations in solar output, continental drift, orbital variations (known as Milankovitch cycles), volcanism, and ocean variability. Any conclusions that we draw from a perceived lack of correlation in the climate record between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures must take into account these factors."The further back we go, the higher CO2 levels rise. However, as we go back in time solar activity also falls and in the early Phanerozoic the solar constant was about 4% less than current levels. Royer (2006) combined the radiative forcing from CO2 and solar variations to find their net effect on climate. The result is shown in Figure 2 (cooler climate is indicated by shaded areas which are periods of geographically widespread ice).  
> Figure 2: Combined radiative forcing from CO2 and sun through the Phanerozoic. Values are expressed relative to pre-industrial conditions (CO2 = 280 ppm; solar luminosity = 342 W/m2); a reference line of zero is given for clarity. The dark shaded bands correspond to periods with strong evidence for geographically widespread ice (Royer 2006)."As we can see from the graph, Royer found that when solar variations are taken into account, the total radiative forcing correlates excellently with past temperature reconstructions. _In laymans terms, this means that when the sun is less active, the CO2 level required to initiate a glaciation is much higher. For example, if the CO2-ice threshold for present-day Earth is 500 ppm, the equivalent threshold during the Late Ordovician (450 million years ago) would be 3000 ppm, making it perfectly possible to have widespread glaciation accompanied by comparatively high levels of atmospheric CO2._ This understanding of the correlation between past levels of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature is widely accepted: over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect. https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=179736

  that has nothing to do with proving CO2 causes warming, it is supposedly relevant to causing the onset of glacial periods  ( which is clearly disproven by ice cores proving CO2 follows glacial period not precedes them )& as far as the suns increased output over the 150 m/y period to which I referred to, it's around 0.7% so as usual you have not addressed the question appropriately, as you can see for yourself there is no correlation to the period around 150 m/y , the increase in temperature, solar forcing & falling CO2 levels.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> What if I said that the reconstructed data was extrapolated and assembled from the fossil record by a computer model...would that help?  
> But then if one accept the virtues of this modelled data then one giggles with inanity at the ongoing sociopathic struggle to not accept 'other' modelled data.

  What would you trust? Modelling based on data gathered from what has happened? or something modelled on a loosely based guess on what may happen where critical inputs are manipulated to produce the desired outcome to continue the grants flowing into the desired faculties? I know which one I would trust & it isn't the last one. 
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> 1.  Woodbe was not backing away from any claims. On the contrary, he was demonstrating that the original claims were false constructs made by fake "skeptics". 
> 2. The IPCC has not downgraded their certainty levels. That notion is another false construct of fake "skeptics". Here is the confidence statement from the fourth IPCC report in 2007: 
> "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is *very likely [90 percent confidence]* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Summary for Policymakers - IPCC  And here is the confidence statement from the fifth IPCC report in 2013:
> "It is _extremely likely [95 percent confidence]_ more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. - See more at: Climate Change 2013.- IPCC. - IEEE 
> What isn't obvious from these statements is that the second statement includes an assessment of the impacts of cooling from aerosols, hence the change of term from "anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" to "anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." This makes the later assessment much, much more certain. 
> Any dill knows this means more uncertainty by broadening the terms, somebody would have to very green or naive not to know this is tried & proven political doublespeak from the ipcc, how many times have they changed the name of the supposed problem, what did it start out as..... Global warming or climate change or something different to move the goalposts. 
> If the case for AGW is so weak, why is it that the "skeptics" of AGW find it necessary to make so many claims that are easily shown to be false, not backed up by data, unsubstantiated or just plain wrong? Why not use facts?

  what I really don't understand is what a fake skeptic is ??? Somebody pretending to be a skeptic ? 
Regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Nor has the science which is based on evidence, not opinion. 
> The evidence is that human activities, and in particular the burning of fossil fuels, is causing unprecedented global warming and there is no possibility that there is any other significant contributor to the current unprecedented rate of warming.

  My oh my you really believe that "unprecedented" bit don't you? 
Absolute hogwash. 
Unprecedented eh!  Next you will be referring to Mann's hockey stick as evidence and saying the medieval warm period didn't exist.   :Eek:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> what I really don't understand is what a fake skeptic is ??? Somebody pretending to be a skeptic ? 
> Regards inter

  Yeah that one has me intrigued too. LOL 
If I was to hazard a guess its because they cant see how a skeptic can distinguish between scientific facts and hype.  
I have got to say it is a bit of fun, plays hell with the mind of those that cant tell the difference.

----------


## intertd6

> Nor has the science which is based on evidence, not opinion. 
> The evidence is that human activities, and in particular the burning of fossil fuels, is causing unprecedented global warming and there is no possibility that there is any other significant contributor to the current unprecedented rate of warming.

  Thank goodness there was no particular reference to CO2 in that post, as that is what this debate is really about. About time!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

I have noticed the opposing side must have dropped the soot rebuttal argument after doing the ice cube experiment!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> My oh my you really believe that "unprecedented" bit don't you? 
> Absolute hogwash. 
> Unprecedented eh!  Next you will be referring to Mann's hockey stick as evidence and saying the medieval warm period didn't exist.

  "Absolute hogwash" is not an evidence based conclusion. 
How about you provide some evidence that the current rate of warming is _not_ unprecedented?    Global Warming : Feature Articles  
 medieval warm period happened, but every science study into it shows it just wasn't global.     https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/glob.../medieval.html

----------


## John2b

> Yeah that one has me intrigued too. LOL 
> If I was to hazard a guess its because they cant see how a skeptic can distinguish between scientific facts and hype.  
> I have got to say it is a bit of fun, plays hell with the mind of those that cant tell the difference.

  It's actually rather simple. A true skeptic tests _every_ claim whether it agrees or disagrees with their present view. The true skeptic tests the claim by reviewing whether it is supported by the evidence, and whether the evidence as presented is likely to be valid and not mis-interpreted or unrepresentative of the whole picture. 
A fake "skeptic" is a contrarian who takes a position based on ideology and looks for evidence that supports that position and doesn't test the evidence rigorously lest it fail. 
As this thread shows with ample examples, fake "skeptics" rarely support their arguments with evidence, because it is easily debunked.

----------


## John2b

> Thank goodness there was no particular reference to CO2 in that post, as that is what this debate is really about. About time!
> regards inter

  And what do you contend that happens when fossil fuel is burned? Hint: it has something to do with CO2 released into the atmosphere...

----------


## Marc

*LYING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE TO ADVANCE THE GREEN AGENDA IS GOOD, SAYS PEER-REVIEWED PAPER*   _by JAMES DELINGPOLE_ _4 Apr 2014_ _915_POST A COMMENT  *Lying about climate change to advance the environmental agenda is a good idea, say two economists in a peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.*  The authors, Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, take it as a given that both the media and the science establishment routinely exaggerate the problem of climate change. But unlike the majority of their colleagues in academe - who primly deny that any such problem exists - they go one step further by actively endorsing dishonesty as a way of forcing through (apparently) desirable public policy. The abstract of their paper reads:It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it _ex post_ induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the _ex ante_ perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.This paper will be excellent news for climate scientists working at institutions like NASA GISS, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and Penn State University. For many years now, they have faced the huge challenge of trying to maintain their academic credibility and generous government grant funding despite increasing evidence that man-made global warming theory is a busted flush and that really it is about time they all found jobs more suited to their talents, such as enquiring whether sir would like a large fries and McFlurry with his Big Mac. Now, thanks to the inspired sophistry of their new friends Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao their various data manipulation, decline-hiding, FOI-breaching, scientific-method abusing shenanigans have been made to seem not evil or wrong but actively desirable for the good of mankind. This is not quite the first time that climate scientists have advocated lying in pursuit of the higher cause of greater global regulation, one world government, economic stagnation and higher energy prices. First to do so was the late Stephen Schneider who famously argued as early as 1989:"So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This "double ethical bind" which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."James "Death Trains" Hansen - formerly Chief Alarmist at NASA GISS - too has made the case that "scary scenarios" can be a good way of concentrating the gullible public's mind in the absence of solid evidence. But no peer-reviewed scientific paper till now has articulated the case for lying quite so brazenly as this one by 
Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao. A Nobel Prize for their sterling service to the cause of Climate Alarmism is surely now a mere formality.

----------


## John2b

> *LYING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE TO ADVANCE THE GREEN AGENDA IS GOOD, SAYS PEER-REVIEWED PAPER*   _by JAMES DELINGPOLE_ _4 Apr 2014_ _915_POST A COMMENT  *Lying about climate change to advance the environmental agenda is a good idea, say two economists in a peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.*

  Delingbole hasn't read the paper, only mis-interpreted the abstract. Read the _whole_ paper yourself if you are a true skeptic: Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements
"So what should you do when faced with kooks such as Mr Delingpole attempting to hijack the term skeptic? Easy, just be skeptical."  Real Skeptics vs fake skeptics
James 'I have NEVER read a science paper - I'm an English graduate and know NOTHING about science' Delingpole Global Warming Denier Gets Ass Booted Out Door  Delingpole quits Telegraph ahead of UK launch of Breitbart.com » Spectator Blogs 
So what did the authors of the paper say? Townhall magazine published an article entitled "Academics  Prove It's Okay To Lie About Climate Change" right after our accepted paper was made available online. The phenomenon of publishing the article in Townhall exactly fits in the gap in our paper and *showcases one other (op-* *posite) direction of media bias.* 
Right after our paper was officially published,  further more attacks from media that are skeptical of anthropogenic climate changes came in, but the main tones remained the same: They claimed that our paper advocated lying about climate change, and they used this claim to attack the low carbon movement.   _In order to prevent further mis-interpretation of the scientific result, we_ _invite the media interested in research progresses to distinguish between pos-_ _itive statement (what is) and normative statement (what ought to be). _ http://fhhong.weebly.com/uploads/9/1...s_20140408.pdf  *That's right - the Delingbole article and all the others were total fabrications! * Another fake skeptic caught with his pants down...

----------


## woodbe

> Delingbole hasn't read the paper, only mis-interpreted the abstract. Read the _whole_ paper yourself if you are a true skeptic: Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements
> "So what should you do when faced with kooks such as Mr Delingpole attempting to hijack the term skeptic? Easy, just be skeptical."  Real Skeptics vs fake skeptics
> James 'I have NEVER read a science paper - I'm an English graduate and know NOTHING about science' Delingpole Global Warming Denier Gets Ass Booted Out Door  Delingpole quits Telegraph ahead of UK launch of Breitbart.com » Spectator Blogs

  LOL. Maybe James will take time to actually read the journals in his new job. (I doubt it) 
Yes, he's a fake skeptic.

----------


## PhilT2

I think it's possible to distinguish between fake skeptics and deniers. There are a few right wing politicians who have stated that "only god can change the climate" so I doubt that any science will ever change their mind. This in my view makes them deniers. Fake skeptics on the other hand use bogus questions on the science to hide the fact that their views are decided more by their political ideology or religious beliefs than their understanding of science, which is generally poor. 
The line between the two becomes blurred when genuine deniers use fake skeptic strategies to push their agenda but the difference is clear when deniers expand on their beliefs. Climate change denial and a belief that the world is 6000 years old co-exist comfortably in the mind of true deniers.

----------


## Rod Dyson

So the "fake" skeptic is a new tactic.  Nice. But it still wont work.   
"Facts" can only bent into submission until reality straightens them back out over time. 
I can wait.  Meanwhile warming continues to stagnate.

----------


## woodbe

> So the "fake" skeptic is a new tactic.

  No Rod, it's not a 'tactic', it's not new, and has been mentioned in this very thread multiple times. A cursory search finds it in 2012, but there may be earlier examples.    

> We frequently see comments from fake skeptics here that there has been no warming for 'X' years.

  Fake Skeptics are real, and have been active in this thread since the early days. Are you in denial of Fake Skeptics?  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

> So the "fake" skeptic is a new tactic.  Nice. But it still wont work.   
> "Facts" can only bent into submission until reality straightens them back out over time. 
> I can wait.  Meanwhile warming continues to stagnate.

  The only thing stagnant is your argument. Warning continues to accelerate, even if the global surface air temperature is proceeding in stepwise fashion consistent with how it has for the past century.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> No Rod, it's not a 'tactic', it's not new, and has been mentioned in this very thread multiple times. A cursory search finds it in 2012, but there may be earlier examples.    
> Fake Skeptics are real, and have been active in this thread since the early days. Are you in denial of Fake Skeptics?

  Hmm call us what you like I guess, it doesn't make any difference.   
Given that there is no way in hell that man made Co2 emissions will be reduced any time soon, what do you think will happen to temperatures in the next 10 to 15 years. 
Population growth and developing countries will take care of the co2 emissions regardless of what developed nations do,  so warmist had better hope they are wrong about escalation temperatures and boiling oceans and ending up like Venus!!  Cause sounds like we are doomed, doomed I say.

----------


## woodbe

> Hmm call us what you like I guess, it doesn't make any difference.   
> Given that there is no way in hell that man made Co2 emissions will be reduced any time soon, what do you think will happen to temperatures in the next 10 to 15 years.

  The next 10 to 15 years is a relatively short period of time. I don't think anyone with climate credentials would start publishing predictions for that sort of time period. Personally, I think it won't cool.  :Wink:    

> Population growth and developing countries will take care of the co2  emissions regardless of what developed nations do,  so warmist had  better hope they are wrong about escalation temperatures and boiling  oceans and ending up like Venus!!  Cause sounds like we are doomed,  doomed I say.

  I see what you did there. Repeating an already refuted meme: Boiling oceans and Venus scenario.   :Pointlaugh:  
We've been there before. Published climate science is not predicting boiling oceans or a Venus scenario.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Given that there is no way in hell that man made Co2 emissions will be reduced any time soon, what do you think will happen to temperatures in the next 10 to 15 years.

  They'll go up a little bit. But it's not the temperature I'd be concerned about. Because it's not that simple... 
Ask any dry land farmer...

----------


## PhilT2

Dry land farmers; well that will be most of eastern Aust if the prediction of a strong El Nino prove to be correct. El NIno is associated with a 70%chance of lower than average rainfall and a lot of Qld is already in drought conditions. Still it might stop the endless parroting of "there's been no warming since..." if the intensity of the ENSO approaches the levels of 1998.

----------


## Marc

> I think it's possible to distinguish between fake skeptics and deniers. There are a few right wing politicians who have stated that "only god can change the climate" so I doubt that any science will ever change their mind. This in my view makes them deniers. Fake skeptics on the other hand use bogus questions on the science to hide the fact that their views are decided more by their political ideology or religious beliefs than their understanding of science, which is generally poor. 
> The line between the two becomes blurred when genuine deniers use fake skeptic strategies to push their agenda but the difference is clear when deniers expand on their beliefs. Climate change denial and a belief that the world is 6000 years old co-exist comfortably in the mind of true deniers.

  This is really good! ... reminds me of a debate between a Jehova witness and a 7 Day Adventist about who is going to heaven. Phil, this post desearves a medal.

----------


## Marc

> Dry land farmers; well that will be most of eastern Aust if the prediction of a strong El Nino prove to be correct. El NIno is associated with a 70%chance of lower than average rainfall and a lot of Qld is already in drought conditions. Still it might stop the endless parroting of "there's been no warming since..." if the intensity of the ENSO approaches the levels of 1998.

  I am shaking in my boots. The rain is going to be a thing of the past, 9m ocean rise, Fire and brimstone will fall on us, repent you deniers!!!!

----------


## intertd6

> The next 10 to 15 years is a relatively short period of time. I don't think anyone with climate credentials would start publishing predictions for that sort of time period. Personally, I think it won't cool.  
> You right about nobody game enough to do short term forecasts, they want to be well & truly dead or retired before they fall over & proven to be wrong.   
> I see what you did there. Repeating an already refuted meme: Boiling oceans and Venus scenario.   
> We've been there before. Published climate science is not predicting boiling oceans or a Venus scenario.  
> You must have a short memory! You agreed with it & gave it a time frame to happen! Your complicit by association with the rubbish.

  regards inter

----------


## Marc

*CAL THOMAS: Chicken Little science proponents cluck louder*  *OPINION: Faced with indifference, global warming alarmist raise the decibel level*    *By Cal Thomas**  The cult centered on global warming alarmism is getting hot under the collar. People seem to have stopped paying attention and polls show climate change barely registers on a list of voters concerns.*  *This can only mean, as losing politicians like to say, that their message isnt getting through. What to do? Why shout louder, of course.* *A recent story in The New York Times sought to help alarmists raise the decibel level: The countries of the world have dragged their feet so long on global warming that the situation is now critical, experts appointed by the United Nations reported Sunday, and only an intensive worldwide push over the next 15 years can stave off potentially disastrous climatic changes later in the century.*  *I guess we had better get ready for climate Armageddon then because China, one of the worlds worst polluters, is not likely to comply.* *The Obama administration and liberal politicians in general seem to promote climate change fiction in order to gain even more dominance over our lives. Apparently controlling one-sixth of the economy through Obamacare isnt enough for them.*  *Most of the reporting on the subject is decidedly one-sided, including President Obamas claim in his last State of the Union address that The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. Science is never settled, or it wouldnt be science. It is constantly testing, probing and searching for new information. Thats why science textbooks are regularly revised as new discoveries are made.*  *The Times story was about a meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Berlin. To read it one might think there is unanimity of opinion on the subject by panel members. Maybe thats true of current members of the panel, but it is instructive to read the comments by former IPCC member Richard Tol, who, among other things, is professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.*  *Professor Tol, writes Globalwarming.org, recently accused the IPCC of being too alarmist about global warming and asked to have his name withdrawn from its recently released Working Group II report (WG2) on climate change impacts. In a recent article for the Financial Times titled Bogus prophecies of doom will not fix the climate, Tol explains why, Humans are a tough and adaptable species. People live on the equator and in the Arctic, in the desert and in the rainforest. We survived the ice ages with primitive technologies. The idea that climate change poses an existential threat to humankind is laughable.*  *German meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls goes further. He has written that contrary to the alarmists claims of melting polar ice caps and rising sea levels, the rise in sea levels has declined 34 percent over the last decade. His report, which analyzed satellite data from TOPEX and JASON-1 and JASON-2 missions studying global ocean topography, concluded that the sea level rise has slowed down significantly, and that it should not be speculated on whether the deceleration in the rise is a trend or if it is only noise. What is certain is that there is neither a dramatic rise, nor an acceleration. Conclusion: Climate models that project an acceleration over the last 20 years are wrong.*  *There are plenty of ways to check Puls conclusions, including Climate Depot | A project of CFACT, which provides links to the papers and work of climatologists and other scientists who take a decidedly different position from that of the climate change crowd. Some note the pressure placed on them to conform to the faith in order to receive government subsidies and donations from foundations and wealthy individuals.* *Climate change is a fact? Dont think so.*  *The Washington Posts Charles Krauthammer, writes, If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks todays climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?  Climate-change proponents have made their cause a matter of fealty and faith. For folks who pretend to be brave carriers of the scientific ethic, theres more than a tinge of religion in their jeremiads.*  *Yet another reason not to trust climate change alarmists.*

----------


## John2b

> *CAL THOMAS: Chicken Little science proponents cluck louder*  *OPINION: Faced with indifference, global warming alarmist raise the decibel level*

  
Marc, you are an Olympian Gold Medalist troll, quoting Cal Thomas the Christian "journalist" whilst decrying ideology in the climate debate! Where do you get this rubbish? So there are two scientists who think the IPCC summary is alarmist. Boo hoo. Almost every practising climate scientist thinks the IPCC summaries are conservative and many think the IPCC reports are conservative to the point of euphemism.  "By excluding statements that provoked disagreement and adhering strictly to data published in peer-reviewed journals, the IPCC has generated a conservative document that may underestimate the changes that will result from a warming world, much as its 2001 report did." Conservative Climate - Scientific American

----------


## woodbe

> I see what you did there. Repeating an already refuted meme: Boiling oceans and Venus scenario.   
> We've been there before. Published climate science is not predicting boiling oceans or a Venus scenario.         Originally Posted by intertd6   You must have a short memory! You agreed with it & gave it a time  frame to happen! Your complicit by association with the rubbish.

  Someone's memory is failing. I suggested it is considered an outside chance by a minority of scientists for a timeframe of millennia, and I did not agree with it. Happy for you to show me that I said otherwise, but perhaps you are too challenged supporting your own ideology to go look? 
put up.

----------


## intertd6

> Someone's memory is failing. I suggested it is considered an outside chance by a minority of scientists for a timeframe of millennia, and I did not agree with it. Happy for you to show me that I said otherwise, but perhaps you are too challenged supporting your own ideology to go look? 
> put up.

  your arguments are thin like your excuses for dodging what you said. 
" that is a theory of one of the collateral effects AGW will have: Feedbacks. I think you'll find (and probably already know) that there are positive and negative feedbacks. Boiling the oceans away is a possible end game millennia from now. " 
No mention of " suggested " or " minority " or " outside chance " Im afraid I may be silly but not stupid enough to swallow another limp excuse for trying to dodge some more doublespeak ! And I wouldn't be the only one.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Marc, you are an Olympian Gold Medalist troll, quoting Cal Thomas the Christian "journalist" whilst decrying ideology in the climate debate! Where do you get this rubbish? So there are two scientists who think the IPCC summary is alarmist. Boo hoo. Almost every practising climate scientist thinks the IPCC summaries are conservative and many think the IPCC reports are conservative to the point of euphemism. "By excluding statements that provoked disagreement and adhering strictly to data published in peer-reviewed journals, the IPCC has generated a conservative document that may underestimate the changes that will result from a warming world, much as its 2001 report did." Conservative Climate - Scientific American

  Your out of decent arguments when you shoot the messenger!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> your arguments are thin like your excuses for dodging what you said. 
> " that is a theory of one of the collateral effects AGW will have: Feedbacks. I think you'll find (and probably already know) that there are positive and negative feedbacks. Boiling the oceans away is a *possible end game millennia from now.* " 
> No mention of " suggested " or " minority " or " outside chance " Im afraid I may be silly but not stupid enough to swallow another limp excuse for trying to dodge some more doublespeak ! And I wouldn't be the only one.
> regards inter

  Re-read the thread Inter, a bit more carefully this time. Hint: definition of possible "4. that may or may not happen or have happened; feasible but less than probable: it is possible that man will live on Mars. Possible | Define Possible at Dictionary.com  
Nice work, Inter, you have just hung by yourself with own noose. 
In future posts why don't you confine yourself to providing evidence to support your position, instead of attacking others who have a different view? Continually slagging other forum contributors could be construed as trolling.

----------


## John2b

> Your out of decent arguments when you shoot the messenger!
> regards inter

  Read more carefully. The messenger, Cal Thomas, didn't have an argument, let alone a decent one. Or can you show that he does?

----------


## woodbe

> your arguments are thin like your excuses for dodging what you said. 
> " that is a theory of one of the collateral effects AGW will have: Feedbacks. I think you'll find (and probably already know) that there are positive and negative feedbacks. Boiling the oceans away is a possible end game millennia from now. " 
> No mention of " suggested " or " minority " or " outside chance " Im afraid I may be silly but not stupid enough to swallow another limp excuse for trying to dodge some more doublespeak ! And I wouldn't be the only one.
> regards inter

  Selective quoting much? A perfect example of the art of those that use selective quoting to support their ideology. Anyone with good reading comprehension viewing this thread would know I don't parade or support catastrophic climate change as the most likely outcome, yet somehow you make it your mission to use something I don't support to attack the messenger. Reflects on you. 
Perhaps this will help anyone who has not read the thread to see your weak accusation in true light:  

> I did not suggest runaway global warming, and most  scientists in the field regard runaway global warming as an outside  chance. 'Warmists' regard it as the worst possibility but do not  discount it.

  There is more, but the focus is back on you. You claimed I agreed the oceans would boil away and set a time frame for it. The facts in this thread show that is not my position unless you somehow think that seeing it as an outside chance means agreeing with it as a foregone conclusion. 
Allow me to show you a mirror:  

> Your out of decent arguments when you shoot the messenger!

  A very telling comment given your claim. 
There are many possible disaster scenarios in the far distant future. All are outside chances except for the ultimate death of the sun. Some of them are within our influence and some are not. I don't worry about them and as far as I am concerned they are off topic. You don't need boiling oceans to create a less favourable environment for humanity and climate change doesn't need millennia to deliver that less favourable environment.

----------


## Bedford

Planet B ?  :Biggrin:   NASA discovers Earth-sized planet that may sustain life - CNN.com

----------


## woodbe

> Planet B ?   NASA discovers Earth-sized planet that may sustain life - CNN.com

  LOL. Good point. Maybe I should put a qualifier on Planet B. 
490 million light years away doesn't make it an option though  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

Why should we discuss Climate Change with our pet deniers and fake skeptics? 
Because George Brandis says we would be 'ignorant and medieval' if we didn't.  People who dont engage climate change deniers _ignorant and medieval_ : A-G George Brandis - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
We wouldn't want that, would we? lol. 
So here we are sorting out the discussion with the support of George Brandis, who says he on the side of those who believed in anthropogenic global warming and who believed something ought to be done about it. I hope Mr Rabbit doesn't get wind of that.  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

> So here we are sorting out the discussion with the support of George Brandis, who says he on the side of those who believed in anthropogenic global warming and who believed something ought to be done about it. I hope Mr Rabbit doesn't get wind of that.

  George Brandis says he was "really shocked by the sheer authoritarianism of those who would have excluded from the debate the point of view of people who were climate-change deniers". Tony "climate change is crap" Abbott springs to mind. There are two cocks in the coop. Are we likely to see a cockfight over their two diametrically opposed positions? 
Sadly, I think the ABC has got the wrong end of the stick, and Brandis is actually defending the rights of climate change deniers to not being howled down by people who know what they are talking about.
"The moral straitjacketing of anyone who raises a critical peep about eco-orthodoxies is part of a growing new secular public morality, he says, which seeks to impose its views on others, even at the cost of political censorship."
Knowledge and facts should not override freedom of speech, in Brandis's view. It is perfectly alright to tell lies or profit from misinformation.
"In my view, freedom of speech, by which I mean the freedom to express and articulate beliefs and opinions, is a necessary and essential precondition of political freedom."
Read more if you can be bothered: Free Speech Now! | The state should never be the arbiter of what people can think | Australia | Free speech | spiked

----------


## Marc

Every religion known to man makes some sort of prediction in one way or another usually called a prophecy. The person doing the prediction is the prophet and it is said that the way to test a prophet, is thru the veracity of his prophecies. Rather obvious I may add.
Many ancient religions fell out of flavour simply by failing in their predictions. The only religions that seem to keep on going are those who figured out that it is much better to make an open prediction, that is open to interpretation and without a date. If you disbelieve then you are an unbeliever and a heretic because no one said when, its a matter of waiting for it to happen.  
When it comes to the religion of global warming the differences are academic, the principles the same.  
Note that most if not all prophecies in the warmology religion have failed, yet the religion keeps on going due to the craft used in adapting to said failures. 
And the funniest part is that it is the arrogance of the claim that "the science is settled" that wins them the label of religion. No scientist on earth would claim that his hypothesis is proven forever unless it is to do with global warming. Not even the name of the hypothesis could be sustained and had to be changed between dusk and dawn into something that can not fail, "Climate Change" a meaningless tautology.
So we have on one side a string of prophecies that failed abysmally propped up as best as they can be, by a string of mercenaries pontificating on the infallibility of their dogma. Doubt and you are ditherer or a saboteur to be ostracised to the never never.
On the other side politicians who have figured out there are votes to be harvested, turned into cheer leaders and some even bought themselves a gaun and claim to be high priest themselves.  
In the middle the ordinary person, busy in making a living wonders what is all the fuss about. "Global warming?" If you are old enough you remember when it was colder and warmer and colder again. Fancy making a living in pedalling this half lies and 1/4 trues 
And if you check out the "findings" and find that they are a load of hogwash disguised behind grandstanding and dogma, you start feeling a tad disgusted, no different from how you feel about the TV evangelist that predicts fire and brimstone if you don't give him the content of your wallet  « March 30, 2014 - April 5, 2014 | Main *Those Stubborn Facts: 99.9% Proof That IPCC "Expert" Climate Models Are Hugely Wrong - The Science Is Indisputable**The huge failure of "expert" climate science goes all the way back to the IPCC's genesis: its 1990 predictions provide the 99.9% proof that their global warming fear-mongering is without scientific merit.....*_(click on chart to enlarge)_ 
Climate reality and actual evidence-based science has completely eviscerated the global warming claims of the IPCC's "scientists" and those in the "consensus" choir.
Recent climate change predictions produced by the latest bleeding-edge computer models have proven to be spectacularly wrong.
Longer-term proof that the IPCC (and its climate-doomsday religion acolytes) is provided by the original "expert" predictions that were first published back in 1990. That proof is clearly obvious from the accompanying chart.
Simply stated: the IPCC predicted that if human emissions of CO2 kept growing in a business-as-usual (BAU) manner, the world would experience a high likelihood of global warming acceleration - to a per century rate of 2.8°C.
Instead, as the chart depicts, global warming since 1990 has achieved only a 1.4°C per century rate, per the global-wide 24/7 measurements of satellites. Yet the BAU growth of human emission tonnes actually accelerated to a 13.2% annual rate for the 10 years ending 2013. Those are the stubborn facts that are indisputable, unequivocal and irrefutable. 
This cataclysmic failure of orthodoxy, green religion-based, climate-science-doomsday predictions is now being referred to as one of science's biggest mysteries - a confirmation of 99.9% proof one could surmise, and the public reportedly agrees with. 
And let's not forget the proof that the doomsday climate scientists are confirming their own spectacular prediction failures with the recent plethora of excuses.  
Additional modern, historical and climate-model charts.   April 14, 2014 at 06:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis   *Archives* April 13, 2014 - April 19, 2014March 30, 2014 - April 5, 2014March 23, 2014 - March 29, 2014March 16, 2014 - March 22, 2014March 9, 2014 - March 15, 2014March 2, 2014 - March 8, 2014February 23, 2014 - March 1, 2014February 16, 2014 - February 22, 2014February 9, 2014 - February 15, 2014February 2, 2014 - February 8, 2014 More...  *Categories* 1 Peer-Reviewed Studies2 Climate Deniers-Liars-BSer's2 Green Idiocy/Fraud/Crony/Shill2 Hypocrites R Us2 News4U2 Obama's America2 Serve & Protect?2 The Democrats2 Those Stubborn Facts2 Unicorn Science2 Your Govt @ Work? Are Coral Reefs Dying/Endangered? Are Corporations Global Warming Hypocrites/Liars/Crooks? Are Current Temperatures Unequivocal? Are Global Temperatures Accelerating? Are Ice Sheets Going To Disappear? Are Lefties/Elites/Libs Destroying/Ignoring Empirical Science? Are Leftists/Elites/Libs Violent, Repressive, Deceitful, Corrupt, Stupid? Are Modern Temperatures Unprecedented? Are Oceans Becoming Acidic? Are Oceans Rising? Are Oceans Warming? Are Polar Bears At Risk? Are Severe Weather Events Due To Global Warming? Are Wealthy Investors Global Warming Hypocrites/Liars/Crooks? Can CO2-Based Energy Be Easily Replaced? Can Global Temperatures Be Reduced or Controlled? Can Scientists Predict Climate Results? Is China A Green Paradise?Does the public accept/reject alarmismAl Gore/Env Fanaticism/Alarmism/Religion/HysteriaBig-Govt Propaganda/Deceit/StupidityCancun/Copenhagen/Durban Global Warming FiascoesCap & Trade/Carbon Offsets/Carbon TaxesClimate Fraud/Lies, Climategate, FakegateClimate HistoryClimate ModelsConnect The DotsDeveloping Nations/Impoverished Peoples/PovertyElectric/Hybrid Autos/Other Trnspt.Failed Predictions: Model/HumanFossil FuelsGlobal Cooling: Data/Evidence/TrendsGlobal Warming: Anti-Jobs, Anti-Growth, Anti-ProsperityGlobal Warming: Atmos./Ocean Oscillations/CurrentsGlobal Warming: BESTGlobal Warming: Black Carbon/Soot/AerosolsGlobal Warming: Charts/Images/PDFs/EmbedVidsGlobal Warming: Education/SchoolsGlobal Warming: Evidence-Facts Vs. CO2-AGWGlobal Warming: GeoengineeringGlobal Warming: Jobs/Profits/Taxes/ReparationsGlobal Warming: Kyoto/Regulations/SustainabilityGlobal Warming: Negative/Positive FeedbackGlobal Warming: Non-CO2 Climate Change CausesGlobal Warming: Politics/Correctness/Hypocrisy/CorruptionGlobal Warming: Science Corruption/Censorship/DeceitGlobal Warming: Science Error/Speculation/FictionGlobal Warming: Science Fact/EvidenceGlobal Warming: Sun/Solar/Cosmic/Orbital/Oscillations/CyclesGlobal Warming: Urban Heat Island BiasGreehouse Gases: CO2/Methane/Water VaporGreen nazis/thugs/fanatics/jihadistsHarm To Science Credibility/ReputationHockey-Stick Science, Cherry PickingHysteria: Climate Tipping Points, Alarmist PredictionsHysteria: Diseases/Starvation/Death/Health ImpactHysteria: Drought/Flood/Crop Failures/Forest FiresHysteria: Earthquakes/Tsunamis/VolcanoesHysteria: Greenland/Polar/Glaciers/Sea IceHysteria: Heat Wave/Cold WaveHysteria: Hurricanes/Cyclones/Typhoons/TornadosHysteria: Rain Forests/Boreal/Tundra/PermafrostHysteria: Rain/Snow/Wind/Hail/Fog/Other WeatherHysteria: Sand/Dust StormsHysteria: Seas Rising/Acidic Oceans/Ocean CircHysteria: Species Endangerment/ExtinctionHysteria: War/Conflicts/TerrorismMainsteam Media Bias/Distortion/Deceit/StupidityNon Climate Issue: ImmigrationNon Climate Issue: Internet censorshipNon-Climate Issue: Health CareNon-Climate Issue: Incompetent GovernmentNon-Climate Issue: Public Employees/UnionsNuclear EnergyPolitics: Presidential CandidatesRare EarthRenewables: Algae/Wood/CellulosicRenewables: Bio-Diesel/EthanolRenewables: Energy Fraud/Scam/Failure/Prob.Renewables: Energy IndependenceRenewables: Green JobsRenewables: Solar/WindRepublicans: Memo ToScience / Academia Journals Bias/DistortionTechnology Solutions: CO2 ReductionTemp Readings: Balloons/Buoys/Satellite/Surface/Urban/RuralTemp Readings: Ice Core/Other Proxy DataTwitterUN-IPCC/World GovtVideos/PodcastsZ-2012 Election Headlines

----------


## John2b

> Every religion known to man makes some sort of prediction in one way or another usually called a prophecy. The person doing the prediction is the prophet and it is said that the way to test a prophet, is thru the veracity of his prophecies. Rather obvious I may add.
> Many ancient religions fell out of flavour simply by failing in their predictions. The only religions that seem to keep on going are those who figured out that it is much better to make an open prediction, that is open to interpretation and without a date. If you disbelieve then you are an unbeliever and a heretic because no one said when, its a matter of waiting for it to happen.

  Marc, I got through the first couple of your links. All I could find was a lot of conflicting kindergarten level drivel. I won't bother with reading the rest of the links because they are all hosted by C3. I doubt there is any comfort for a true skeptic in the whole series of links, just a load of demented drivel purveyed by ideologues like you keep decrying in this forum. Evidence has to be testable, and when it is tested it has to bear out. That is the main failing of the links I visited - they were claims of made up stuff, couched in quasi-scientific terms for the foolhardy. Your foolhardy friends may thank you for the links, but I say thanks for nothing - I don't need your dogma when the facts are everywhere to be found by true sceptics. 
And please cut the derogatory crap about the IPCC - it reflects badly on you. The IPCC doesn't make predictions, conduct research, fund research or direct research, so research faulty or not, cannot be attributed to the IPCC. The IPCC is a review panel that searches the world for climate research done by anyone, anywhere, and summarises it. All of the "peer reviewed" papers in your C3 blogosphere links have had every opportunity to be incorporated into the IPCC report, based on factual strength and corroborative research. If they aren't represented in the IPCC summary, it is because the findings were not reproducible, not valid, not relevant, shoddy or just plain bogus.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Why should we discuss Climate Change with our pet deniers and fake skeptics? 
> Because George Brandis says we would be 'ignorant and medieval' if we didn't.  People who dont engage climate change deniers _ignorant and medieval_ : A-G George Brandis - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
> We wouldn't want that, would we? lol. 
> So here we are sorting out the discussion with the support of George Brandis, who says he on the side of those who believed in anthropogenic global warming and who believed something ought to be done about it. I hope Mr Rabbit doesn't get wind of that.

  This is how you sort out discussions in the Warmists world. 
The Noble Lie  

> So supporters of climate change mitigation are increasingly resorting to the Noble Lie, a political concept introduced by Plato in The Republic. Plato believed that most people lacked the intelligence to behave in ways that are in their own and societys best interest. Therefore, he advocated creating religious lies that are fed to the public to keep them under control and happy with their lot in life. False propaganda to enhance public welfare is completely acceptable, Plato argued. 
> Whether the real underlying purpose is to reduce pollution and energy consumption, or to promote foreign aid, crop biotechnology, alternative and nuclear energy, or even personal fitness, social justice, and world government, use of the Noble Lie has become common in the climate debate. 
> Leading the pack is Connie Hedegaard, the European Unions commissioner for climate action. She told the London-based Telegraph newspaper in September 2013 that, even if the science backing the climate scare is wrong, the EUs climate policies are still correct as they would, according to her, lead to more efficient use of resources. Hedegaard asks, Would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change? 
> Former U.S. Congressman and long-standing president of United Nations Foundation Timothy Wirth spelled out this strategy in 1998 when he said,  
> What weve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. 
> Christine Stewart, the Liberal environment minister who negotiated in Kyoto on Canadas behalf, went even further, asserting,  
> No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefitsclimate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world. 
> There are undoubtedly many advocates of such objectives who doubt, or are agnostic about, human-caused climate change. However, they see benefits to promoting, or at least going along with, the climate scare because it furthers their objectives in other fields that they regard as beneficial to society.  One of Canadas top climate modellers said in private communications that, even though he did not believe that todays computerized climate models made reliable forecasts, he would continue to promote them as if they did because he thought this would encourage the expansion of nuclear power, which he supported.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> george brandis says he was "really shocked by the sheer authoritarianism of those who would have excluded from the debate the point of view of people who were climate-change deniers". Tony "climate change is crap" abbott springs to mind. There are two cocks in the coop. Are we likely to see a cockfight over their two diametrically opposed positions? 
> Sadly, i think the abc has got the wrong end of the stick, and brandis is actually defending the rights of climate change deniers to not being howled down by people who know what they are talking about.
> "the moral straitjacketing of anyone who raises a critical peep about eco-orthodoxies is part of a growing new secular public morality, he says, which seeks to impose its views on others, even at the cost of political censorship."
> knowledge and facts should not override freedom of speech, in brandis's view. It is perfectly alright to tell lies or profit from misinformation.
> "in my view, freedom of speech, by which i mean the freedom to express and articulate beliefs and opinions, is a necessary and essential precondition of political freedom."
> read more if you can be bothered: free speech now! | the state should never be the arbiter of what people can think | australia | free speech | spiked

  sadly??

----------


## John2b

> sadly??

  Sadly, because I think it is unfortunate for any media outlet to get the story wrong, don't you?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Lucida Grande]Every religion known to man makes some sort of prediction in one way or another usually called a prophecy. The person doing the prediction is the prophet and it is said that the way to test a prophet, is thru the veracity of his prophecies. Rather obvious I may add.
> Many ancient religions fell out of flavour simply by failing in their predictions. The only religions that seem to keep on going are those who figured out that it is much better to make an open prediction, that is open to interpretation and without a date. If you disbelieve then you are an unbeliever and a heretic because no one said when, its a matter of waiting for it to happen.  
> When it comes to the religion of global warming the differences are academic, the principles the same.  
> Note that most if not all prophecies in the warmology religion have failed, yet the religion keeps on going due to the craft used in adapting to said failures. 
> And the funniest part is that it is the arrogance of the claim that "the science is settled" that wins them the label of religion. No scientist on earth would claim that his hypothesis is proven forever unless it is to do with global warming. Not even the name of the hypothesis could be sustained and had to be changed between dusk and dawn into something that can not fail, "Climate Change" a meaningless tautology.
> So we have on one side a string of prophecies that failed abysmally propped up as best as they can be, by a string of mercenaries pontificating on the infallibility of their dogma. Doubt and you are ditherer or a saboteur to be ostracised to the never never.
> On the other side politicians who have figured out there are votes to be harvested, turned into cheer leaders and some even bought themselves a gaun and claim to be high priest themselves.  
> In the middle the ordinary person, busy in making a living wonders what is all the fuss about. "Global warming?" If you are old enough you remember when it was colder and warmer and colder again. Fancy making a living in pedalling this half lies and 1/4 trues 
> And if you check out the "findings" and find that they are a load of hogwash disguised behind grandstanding and dogma, you start feeling a tad disgusted, no different from how you feel about the TV evangelist that predicts fire and brimstone if you don't give him the content of your wallet

  Now this is what I call SADLY.

----------


## John2b

> Now this is what I call SADLY.

  Please explain...

----------


## Rod Dyson

And here is what happens.  This is also what I call SADLY   

> As the mistakes in the science backing man-made climate concerns become increasingly apparent, the primary rationale used by governments, environmental groups, and the press for energy conservation and other sensible actions evaporates. It is like teaching a child to behave well because Santa will otherwise cross them off his list. When they discover that they have been lied to about Santa, their behavior may quickly deteriorate.  
> Similarly, the public naturally become cynical about conserving energy and protecting nature when they realize that they have been misled about climate change, currently the primary justification for environmentally conscious behaviour. Crying wolf over a non-issue eventually erodes public confidence in authorities and the reputation of sensible environmentalism and even science itself is damaged.

  Then this happens.   

> Earth Hour, observed across the world on March 29, is a case in point. The event was created by World Wide Fund for Nature, Australia, working with American advertising company Leo Burnett Worldwide to increase awareness about the supposed climate crisis. Many people who normally would support energy conservation oppose Earth Hour because they recognize the climate scare to be unfounded. *Some even intentionally increase their energy consumption during Earth Hour*ME for one, partly as an act of defiance and partly to focus attention on the importance of inexpensive energy to our civilization. The International Climate Science Coalition has called for Earth Hour to be replaced with Energy Hour and carried out for the right reasons: to promote energy policy that will keep the lights on.

  See in the end people wake up to scaremongering.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Vain attempt just about sums it up.  

> The lie that we know the future of the climate and how to control it has resulted in a situation where, of the approximately $1 billion a day spent on climate finance across the world, only 6% goes to helping real people today adapt to the climate threats they are facing, however caused. *The rest goes to the vain goal of trying to control the climate* to be experienced by people yet to be born. People from across the political spectrum are starting to realize the immorality of such an approach

----------


## John2b

> And here is what happens.  This is also what I call SADLY   Many people who normally would support energy conservation oppose Earth Hour because they recognize the climate scare to be unfounded.

  Says who? You believe this so you must have a source.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Now this is what I call SADLY.

  Read my posts below.  Then you will see why. This is just the religious angle of the "boy who cried wolf" 
Sad because this mentality diverts funds and attention from real environmental issues such as reduction of real pollution. 
Sad because this mentality diverts funds and attention from solving real poverty issues.   
Yet those believers all believe they are actually achieving the same. 
Really SAD

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Says who? You believe this so you must have a source.

  Says me.  Just among people I know, this is so. 
Fixed edited with a comma!!

----------


## intertd6

> Re-read the thread Inter, a bit more carefully this time. Hint: definition of possible "4. that may or may not happen or have happened; feasible but less than probable: it is possible that man will live on Mars. Possible | Define Possible at Dictionary.com  
> Nice work, Inter, you have just hung by yourself with own noose. 
> In future posts why don't you confine yourself to providing evidence to support your position, instead of attacking others who have a different view? Continually slagging other forum contributors could be construed as trolling.

  It must be strange world indeed where somebody & nobody live, where they could embellish a story then claim they don't support it, then go back to supporting it!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> It must be strange world indeed where somebody & nobody live, where they could embellish a story then claim they don't support it, then go back to supporting it!
> regards inter

  Stange, but not true.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Man I wish I wrote this essay. 
Another morsel for you   

> Finally, the current focus on the impossible objective of stopping climate change has obscured the fact that we do indeed face a long-term energy crisis. It is that, as world usage of hydrocarbon fuelscoal, oil and natural gascontinues to rise, such inexpensive and plentiful sources of power will eventually become increasingly scarce and so more and more expensive. Planning for such a scenario requires that we engage in carefully planned, long-term research, not only to continue to improve the way we use hydrocarbon fuels, but also to develop alternatives that someday may actually be cost effective. Irrespective of the validity of climate change theories, there are good reasons to develop alternative sources of energy, but climate concerns is certainly not one of them. 
> Yet, because of the current obsession with lessening CO2 emissions to solve the supposed climate crisis, billions of dollars are wasted on useless projects such as CCS and the widespread deployment of unsustainable technologies such as wind power. This impoverishes society, making us less able to afford the important research effort we need to eventually develop sustainable alternatives that actually have the potential to enhance long-term energy security. 
> In the long run, the climate scare will be revealed as the most expensive hoax in the history of science. Statements such as that by Hedegaard, why not create a world we like, with a climate we like  while we still have time? will be seen as ridiculous and opportunistic. 
> Scientists and others who knew this but promoted the deception for what they considered good reasons will be disgraced. Then no one will believe them when wolves really are at our doors.

----------


## John2b

> Says me.  Just among people I know this is so.

  I don't support Earth Hour either, but I don't understand your contention, and your reply does nothing to help me understand your contention.

----------


## intertd6

> Stange, but not true.

  Well in the normal world when people flip flop that often distrust is the inevitable outcome.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Man I wish I wrote this essay. 
> Another morsel for you

  Do you really want to be credited with such drivel? I thought you were a sceptic. Why not apply some scepticism to the claims. For example, we do not face an energy crisis. There is 1000 times more energy than we are currently using falling on the surface of the planet every day. And nearly all energy that is "used" is squandered - converted into heat - not used for doing whatever it is that needed to be done.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Do you really want to be credited with such drivel?

  Yes I would. 
It is only drivel to those who cant see the wisdom of it.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I don't support Earth Hour either, but I don't understand your contention, and your reply does nothing to help me understand your contention.

  I think you understand perfectly well.

----------


## John2b

> I think you understand perfectly well.

  You said: "_I know this is so."_ I asked how or why you know. You answered: _"I think you understand perfectly well._" In the absence of any other information, it seems to be a construct of your mind.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Says me.  Just among people I know, this is so. 
> Fixed edited with a comma!!

  There John fixed for you.

----------


## John2b

> Yes I would. 
> It is only drivel to those who cant see the wisdom of it.

  Wisdom: the quality or state of being wise; knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action; sagacity, discernment, or insight. 
There doesn't seem to be any of that in the quote, just a lot of logical fallacies (IOW drivel).

----------


## John2b

> There John fixed for you.

  Thanks Rod, that makes a difference that I understand. My issue with "Earth Hour" is that it is merely conscience cleansing for chardonnay greenies. IOW, it is a reason for many to do nothing because they did "something".

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Wisdom: the quality or state of being wise; knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action; sagacity, discernment, or insight. See just what I said 
> There doesn't seem to be any of that in the quote, just a lot of logical fallacies (IOW drivel).  And this would be your opinion, which you are perfectly entitled to.

   :Wink:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> it is a reason for many to do nothing because they did "something".

  There is a lot of that going around!

----------


## John2b

> _There doesn't seem to be any of that in the quote, just a lot of logical fallacies (IOW drivel).__ And this would be your opinion, which you are perfectly entitled to._

    
Wisdom, on the other hand, is not about opinions, it is about understanding facts in context.

----------


## Marc

> Marc, I got through the first couple of your links. All I could find was a lot of conflicting kindergarten level drivel.

  *Well ... what can I say John, life is like that, sometimes you miss out, other times you join the wrong crowd. 
Fortunately the world does not revolve around you, or around me for that matter. 
We have a situation here, millions of people are making a living over a bold face lie. 
Many more are unwillingly paying this clowns with their taxes. If you support the fiction of global warming, 
you are either paid to do so or you are being used by someone who is being paid to do so. 
It is rather simple really. 
So you don't like C3? Is it because they are not communist, socialist, greens nor involved in envirolatry*? 
They are still people who have a real job, pay taxes and have an opinion.
Just like me. Sinners perhaps, deniers, heretics, yet still entitled to uncover lies and deception that costs us billions.   
Climate FactCheck: Is There Any Empirical Merit For "Runaway" & "Tipping Point" Global Warming Claims? ...Well,...No*  _(click on chart to enlarge)_  Over recent decades, there have been many false claims, misrepresentations and untruths regarding climate change and global warming.Unfortunately, these deceptions are commonly void of any empirical merit, pernicious in nature and stubbornly deep-seated, often held dear by the world's establishment elites. Typical of false claims held dear include: global warming is "accelerating"; "runaway" global warming is at a "tipping point"; and that the greenhouse gas CO2 is a "control knob" or "thermostat" for Earth's climate. 
With an air of authority and trust, agenda-driven, white-coat scientists can make these fictions sound entirely plausible, especially to the incredibly gullible establishment elites. However, these falsehoods rarely can survive even the simplest climate 'factchecks,' which apparently are beyond the intellectual capabilities ofmost elites. 
Case in point, examine the accompanying chart carefully. (click on to enlarge)Using the UK's HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset and NOAA's datasets for CO2, one can plot the per century warming/cooling trends on a monthly basis going back to 1850. Utilizing the easy-to-use plotting and calculation tools of Microsoft's Excel, it is simple to compare the empirical temperature trends of climate reality with the growth of atmospheric CO2 levels. 
What do these empirical climate records actually reveal?*===>* That acceleration of cooling and warming happen with great frequency, then always followed with an inevitable deceleration - "accelerating" warming (nor cooling) persists *
===>* That the different period cooling/warming trends exist in narrow to wider bands over the total instrumental temperature record*===>* That the 10-year trends (cyan) have a narrower ban than the 5-year trends (purple); the 5-year trends have a narrower band than the 3-year trends (green); the 3-year trends have a narrower band than the 2-year trends (blue); and finally, the 2-year trends have a narrower band than the 12-month (one year, red) band *
===>* The 1-year trends (moving 12-month) reach the greatest extremes, with excesses coming close to either a cooling trend of minus 80 degrees per century or a plus 80 degrees warming trend per century - amazingly, within a few years of each other*===>* The greatest warming (acceleration) trends ever recorded took place during the 1870s; the largest cooling trends occurred during the late 1870s and early 1880s.*===>* The highest 10-year warming trend (briefly at 4.14°C/century) happened in 1983, well in advance of the highest CO2 atmospheric levels achieved during the 1990s and the 2000s *
===>* The 2013 year-end per century trends (note the color arrows on chart's right axis) are well below previous warming trends*===>* Although the 1-year moving trends in the distant past have approached both extremely high and cold temperature rates, the natural climate reactions then produced reversing course corrections (i.e. nature responds to extremes by avoiding long-term "runaway" and "tipping point" conditions)*===>* The future climate will continiue to exhibit high natural acceleration and deceleration for both cooling and warming, guaranteed*===>* The continuous growth of cumulative CO2 emissions over the entire span since 1850 has likely zero correlation with the constant acceleration/deceleration of natural climate temperature trends - CO2's impact on the trends is demonstrably minimal *
===>* The immense increase of CO2 levels (110ppm) since 1850 has not produced any trend peak, nor trough, during the post-WWII era that could be even remotely construed as "unprecedented" or "runaway" or a "tipping point" condition (with the possible exception being the 1-year cooling trend trough reached during the 1970s) *
===>* Simply put (which is blatantly obvious from the empirical evidence), human CO2 emissions or total CO2 atmospheric levels are not the "control knob"/"thermostat" that the white-coat, agenda-driven scientists say they can manipulate to manage the globe's temperatures.More of 'those-stubborn-fact' charts.Download datasets used to calculate the 12-month, 24-month, 36-month, 60-month and 120-month trends and plots. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.  February 24, 2014 at 12:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) ShareThis      - See more at: C3: Hysteria: Climate Tipping Points, Alarmist Predictions

----------


## johnc

> Man I wish I wrote this essay. 
> Another morsel for you

  What was contained in that essay read like a foreword to something, on its own it really doesn't convey anything beyond a glimpse of that writers opinion be it either right or wrong. A morsel that yields nothing sadly.

----------


## John2b

> *So you don't like C3? Is it because they are not communist, socialist, greens nor involved in envirolatry*?* *They are still people who have a real job, pay taxes and have an opinion.*

  No, I don't like C3 because in his/her own words "_'C3' is an anonymous, opinionated average person-pundit"_ who, in my opinion, reports science falsely, distorts facts and slanders good people. 
The editor of C3 says that he/she has the following positions on climate change:   _"Human CO2 emissions will cause some warming based on the widely-accepted logarithmic, physical response discovered by scientists."_ _"Other human factors definitely cause warming - black soot, deforestation, agriculture irrigation, paving over farmland, concrete/asphalt urban areas, etc."_ _"The climate's natural feedbacks will overwhelm any positive feedbacks induced by humans."_  
Why does C3 believe the third point? He/she does not say and does not provide any supporting evidence. 
And if C3 does believe points 1 and 2 (AKA Anthropogenic Global Warming) as he/she states, why does the blog publish so much denialist rubbish material? 
To the sceptic in me, the alarm bells of an ideological agenda are ringing loud and clear. But wait, there's more - here's the proof in their own words:
"_On the political spectrum, C3 is of libertarian/conservative nature, favoring a strong defense, conservative fiscal policies, libertarian social policies and possessing, in general, 'a-smaller-government-is-a-better-government' attitude."_ C3: About C3 Headlines

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Man I wish I wrote this essay. 
> Another morsel for you

  There are times, Rod, when I reckon you and I are banging on different doors, in different ways, for different reasons whilst all the time trying to get into the same room. Mind you...I'm fairly sure that neither of us are going to be successful, regardless.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> There are times, Rod, when I reckon you and I are banging on different doors, in different ways, for different reasons whilst all the time trying to get into the same room. Mind you...I'm fairly sure that neither of us are going to be successful, regardless.

   :Wink:  
Yeah I get that.   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> What was contained in that essay read like a foreword to something, on its own it really doesn't convey anything beyond a glimpse of that writers opinion be it either right or wrong. A morsel that yields nothing sadly.

      
Another "sadly" from you!!  
Sadly you just don't get it!

----------


## Marc

> "_On the political spectrum, C3 is of libertarian/conservative nature, favoring a strong defense, conservative fiscal policies, libertarian social policies and possessing, in general, 'a-smaller-government-is-a-better-government' attitude."_

   Uhuuu is that supposed to scare us? Perhaps in you narrow view of the world that is an obvious "alarm bells". In my view an in the view of most people living in the western world that is widely preferably to a totalitarian, leftist, saboteur of the defence, deranged fiscal policies, lunatic erratic unaffordable social agenda, and advocate of large top heavy corrupt invasive government railroading individual rights.
to top it off supporting imaginary threats to smoke screen their agenda.

----------


## John2b

> [/INDENT]Uhuuu is that supposed to scare us? Perhaps in you narrow view of the world that is an obvious "alarm bells". In my view an in the view of most people living in the western world that is widely preferably to a totalitarian, leftist, saboteur of the defence, deranged fiscal policies, lunatic erratic unaffordable social agenda, and advocate of large top heavy corrupt invasive government railroading individual rights.
> to top it off supporting imaginary threats to smoke screen their agenda.

  It isn't an "either / or" situation Marc.

----------


## Marc

> Now this is what I call SADLY.

   Where is your source Rod ?????   :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

> It isn't an "either / or" situation Marc.

  I agree, it could be worst, it could be a Labor Kevin/Julia/Kevin + Greens + assorted morons that gave us 120.000.000.000 dollars deficit and we have nothing to show for it...Oh wait, we have pink batts, school halls, foreign aid, 50,000 "refugee" that will not work for the net 4 generations etc, etc, etc

----------


## John2b

> I agree, it could be worst, it could be a Labor Kevin/Julia/Kevin + Greens + assorted morons that gave us 120.000.000.000 dollars deficit and we have nothing to show for it...Oh wait, we have pink batts, school halls, foreign aid, 50,000 "refugee" that will not work for the net 4 generations etc, etc, etc

  I try to confine my posts to be about the scientific understanding of evidence based observations, meanwhile you appear to be having a self discussion with the topic "My ideology is better than your ideology."  
I am not participating in this forum on the topic of Emission Trading to have a philosophical / ideological debate about conspiracy theories. Sadly, it does not appear to be possible to have a lucid, on-topic discourse with you.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> where is your source rod ????? 
>  :d

  rotflmao

----------


## John2b

> rotflmao

  Source? Is rotflmao an anagram for tomaflor source?  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Marc

You are right, let's focus on pure scientific facts.
Like this for example. Each degree of temperature rise will bring 2 meters of sea rise.  

> *Each degree of global warming might ultimately raise global sea levels by more than 2 meters*  *Posted on 27 July 2013 by John Hartz*  The following article is a reprint of a press release posted by the Potsdam Institute forClimate Impact Research (PIK) on July 15, 2013  *Greenhouse gases emitted today will cause sea level to rise for centuries to come. Each degree of global warming is likely to raise sea level by more than 2 meters in the future, a study now published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows. While thermal expansion of the ocean and melting mountainglaciers are the most important factors causing sea-level change today, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will be the dominant contributors within the next two millennia, according to the findings. Half of that rise might come from ice-loss in Antarctica which is currently contributing less than 10 percent to global sea-level rise.*

  I like it when they claim things will happen "in the future". Remember what I said about resilient religions that prophesize sometimes in the ill defined future? Well there you have it.   
Or this brilliant snippet of pure science:   

> While no single weather eventthe cold snaps that caused this year's pollen vortex, for examplecan be directly attributed to global warming, the science community is engaged ina lively debate over whether climate change is making unusual weather events, including severe cold temperatures, more likely. Jennifer Francis, a research professor at Rutgers University, argues that the rapidly warming Arctic has caused the jet stream to slow, which could result in atmospheric events, such as winter storms, staying put for longer.  But even if climate change can't be blamed for this year's pollen vortex, there is substantial evidence that a warming planet spells a more agonizing allergy season. Cold weather may have caused the current pollen backlog, but over the long term, the opposite may be true......etc etc

  Crappology at work. 
Who needs facts when the envirolatras give you so much material. Just google "Climate change and poverty" or Climate change and sea rise, or allergies, or sex, or obesity, anything goes. It is very amusing.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You are right, let's focus on pure scientific facts.

  That's not a fact. That's a press release. Give it credence at your peril. 
That said though...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yeah I get that.

  No need to be self reverent. It just means you are as deluded as I am.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> No need to be self reverent. It just means you are as deluded as I am.

  Yes I am I guess

----------


## intertd6

> That's not a fact. That's a press release. Give it credence at your peril. 
> That said though...

  it look like your starting to get it, it's just like the IPCC report!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> it look like your starting to get it, it's just like the IPCC report!
> regards inter

  Sorry Dude...but the IPCC reports are a long way from any press release I've ever been associated with. They are more like politicised literature reviews...

----------


## intertd6

> Sorry Dude...but the IPCC reports are a long way from any press release I've ever been associated with. They are more like politicised literature reviews...

  yes you have got it! Now all you have to do realise there is no pure scientific facts in either posts, put 2 & 2 together & you will work out what we are on about.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> you will work out what we are on about.

  Already have: A complete lack of scientific content and a propensity to call any data posted as 'parroting'. I didn't realise you had multiple personas though  :Eek:  
In your own defence, you repeat and parrot your own verbiage, so at least you are consistent and economical with your words.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> yes you have got it! Now all you have to do realise there is no pure scientific facts in either posts, put 2 &amp; 2 together &amp; you will work out what we are on about.
> regards inter

  Yeah...I already have worked it out. It's known as a hiding to nothing. Diving into wilful ignorance is not my thing.

----------


## intertd6

> Already have: A complete lack of scientific content and a propensity to call any data posted as 'parroting'. I didn't realise you had multiple personas though  
> In your own defence, you repeat and parrot your own verbiage, so at least you are consistent and economical with your words.

  And still yet no indisputable scientific proof from your quarter I notice, just another sermon.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> And still yet no indisputable scientific proof from your quarter I notice, just another sermon.

  Scientific proof already posted multiple times in this thread, please read back to find it. 
If you are looking for 'indisputable', you won't find it in science. If you want to go there (ie dispute the science), just arrive at a better theory and publish it. If it all works out, one of you would be famous. Otherwise, refer SBD's post above.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Scientific proof already posted multiple times in this thread, please read back to find it.

   You are kidding RIGHT? 
Not A single bit of PROOF that confirms the CAGW theory.

----------


## John2b

> You are kidding RIGHT? 
> Not A single bit of PROOF that confirms the CAGW theory.

  You are kidding right? You should re-read your own posts!

----------


## woodbe

> You are kidding RIGHT? 
> Not A single bit of PROOF that confirms the CAGW theory.

  LOL @ Rod. 
We're talking about scientific proof of AGW/CC. No need to add CAGW to the list. 
Have you changed your answers, or are you just pretending you don't accept them?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Is CAGW an acronym for Consumer Adapted Global Warming? I've not heard that acronym before.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> LOL @ Rod. 
> We're talking about scientific proof of AGW/CC. No need to add CAGW to the list. 
> Have you changed your answers, or are you just pretending you don't accept them?

  I haven't changed and nothing I accept proves CAGW  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> I haven't changed and nothing I accept proves CAGW

  Note Rod's careful wording. LOL! 
Perhaps we have almost reached the point where we can call Rod a 'Luke Warmer'  :Wink:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Note Rod's careful wording. LOL! 
> Perhaps we have almost reached the point where we can call Rod a 'Luke Warmer'

  
 Not much chance of that Woodbe.  We are so far apart its not funny.  You accept a theory that Co2 is the main driver of global warming in the 20th century, based on some very questionable correlation simply because science cant pin down an alternative theory.  The theory relies entirely on positive feedbacks that have not been proven, yet they have been fed into computer simulations to try and predict future warming.  Those predictions have failed miserably. 
Yet you still believe it whole heartedly.  The only constant here is that co2 is a greenhouse gas and we add co2 to the atmosphere, that is where it ends.  I do not believe that our contribution is significant nor dangerous.  I believe a warmer world is a better place over a cooler world.  I don't believe we can stop Co2 emissions anyway.  I don't believe that additional Co2 causes a feedback loop that adds to more warming, this has simply not been proven.   
I certainly don't believe we should be spending (wasting) money trying to fix a non problem where there is zero chance of fixing, even if there was a problem. 
Luke warmer not a chance.

----------


## woodbe

> Not much chance of that Woodbe.  We are so far apart its not funny.  You accept a theory that Co2 is the main driver of global warming in the 20th century, based on some very questionable correlation simply because science cant pin down an alternative theory.  The theory relies entirely on positive feedbacks that have not been proven, yet they have been fed into computer simulations to try and predict future warming.  Those predictions have failed miserably. 
> Yet you still believe it whole heartedly.  The only constant here is that co2 is a greenhouse gas and we add co2 to the atmosphere, that is where it ends.  I do not believe that our contribution is significant nor dangerous.  I believe a warmer world is a better place over a cooler world.  I don't believe we can stop Co2 emissions anyway.  I don't believe that additional Co2 causes a feedback loop that adds to more warming, this has simply not been proven.   
> I certainly don't believe we should be spending (wasting) money trying to fix a non problem where there is zero chance of fixing, even if there was a problem. 
> Luke warmer not a chance.

  LOL #2 @ Rod  :Biggrin:  
I accept what the science says. That is not a belief. I'll happily change my position just as soon as the bulk of science does.  
You accept what the science says until it challenges your worldview. You accept all the theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are putting it into the atmosphere, you just don't want to accept the rest of the theory so you pull the pin at climate sensitivity. I reckon that makes you a luke warmer, but I also accept that you don't see yourself that way. 
Consider that Pat Michaels calls himself a lukewarmer, here is his canned viewpoint found via google: There is a human influence on the climate, but its not the end of the world  
The Conversation says:   

> Luke-warmists may be defined as those who appear to accept the body of  climate science but interpret it in a way that is least threatening:  emphasising uncertainties, playing down dangers, and advocating a slow  and cautious response.

  Climate change and the soothing message of luke-warmism 
Plenty of people in your camp Rod, if you read the Conversation piece.  :2thumbsup:  For a climate change skeptic, it's probably the most credible position, much more credible than CC deniers. 
What exactly about luke warmism do you disagree with?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You acYou accept all the theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are putting it into the atmosphere, you just don't want to accept the rest of the theory so you pull the pin at climate sensitivity

  .  
Co2 as a greenhouse gas is not a theory. The theory bit begins with the runaway warming due to feedbacks.

----------


## intertd6

> .  
> Co2 as a greenhouse gas is not a theory. The theory bit begins with the runaway warming due to feedbacks.

  Here here, it's funny how they conveniently disregard climate history showing how this runaway warming is an impossibility while ever there is water on the planet.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> .  
> Co2 as a greenhouse gas is not a theory. The theory bit begins with the runaway warming due to feedbacks.

  Nice back pedalling there Rod. 
AGW doesn't need runaway warming to have an effect on the planet. Luke warmers often paint the scenario they don't accept as the extreme end case but all we need is a slight increase in climate sensitivity above the luke warmer's position and we have a future problem. 
You're sounding more like a luke warmer with every response. 
What exactly about luke warmism do you disagree with?

----------


## intertd6

> Scientific proof already posted multiple times in this thread, please read back to find it. 
> If you are looking for 'indisputable', you won't find it in science. If you want to go there (ie dispute the science), just arrive at a better theory and publish it. If it all works out, one of you would be famous. Otherwise, refer SBD's post above.

  Ha ha, let's just call it proof that you could drive a truck through the holes in it, which is so easily done, still no decent explanation from your side why runaway warming has never happened in the past when CO2 levels were in the thousands PPM, I hope someone can inform me with the simple truth if I ever get sucked into a similar vortex of stupidity.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Nice back pedalling there Rod. 
> AGW doesn't need runaway warming to have an effect on the planet. Luke warmers often paint the scenario they don't accept as the extreme end case but all we need is a slight increase in climate sensitivity above the luke warmer's position and we have a future problem. 
> You're sounding more like a luke warmer with every response. 
> What exactly about luke warmism do you disagree with?

  You are trying to be way too cute.  My posistion has never changed. But you sir have softened your line.

----------


## woodbe

> Ha ha, let's just call it proof that you could drive a truck through the holes in it,

  Publish your truck and be famous. Don't bother telling us about it here, we'll read it in the scientific press.

----------


## John2b

> .  
> Co2 as a greenhouse gas is not a theory. The theory bit begins with the runaway warming due to feedbacks.

  Sorry Rod, when accepting the Laws of Physics, you have to acknowledge all of the consequences, not just the ones that conveniently fit your belief system.

----------


## John2b

> Here here, it's funny how they conveniently disregard climate history showing how this runaway warming is an impossibility while ever there is water on the planet.
> regards inter

  
Well done! That statement has to be entered into the Renovate Forums "HALL OF FAME" for absurdity.

----------


## woodbe

> You are trying to be way too cute.  My posistion has never changed. But you sir have softened your line.

  So you're saying you have always been a luke warmer?  :Biggrin:  
You should have said earlier. LOL

----------


## intertd6

> Sorry Rod, when accepting the Laws of Physics, you have to acknowledge all of the consequences, not just the ones that conveniently fit your belief system.

  Ahh those laws of physics which can not explain why the global average temperature hasn't increased since 1998, o dear a truck just drove through that law.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Ahh those laws of physics which can not explain why the global average temperature hasn't increased since 1998, o dear a truck just drove through that law.
> regards inter

  Agreed. If you ignore the bit that warmed and only look at the bit that didn't, you might conclude it hasn't warmed. But if you look at surface heat energy accumulation, there is truck loads of extra heat and it's absolutely cooking! (Damn that Law of Entropy!)

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Agreed. If you ignore the bit that warmed and only look at the bit that didn't, you might conclude it hasn't warmed. But if you look at surface heat energy accumulation, there is truck loads of extra heat and it's absolutely cooking! (Damn that Law of Entropy!)

  What a load of rubbish.  Hidden heat just waiting to pop out and cook us. 
I know the game.  You are pinning your hopes on a perfectly natural el-nino to turn things around so you can claim the release of hidden heat.  Don't think that will work either. 
The dog ate my global warming!!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So you're saying you have always been a luke warmer?  
> You should have said earlier. LOL

  Like I said way too cute.  Just shows how far you will go to try and twist things to suit your theory.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Sorry Rod, when accepting the Laws of Physics, you have to acknowledge all of the consequences, not just the ones that conveniently fit your belief system.

  Total rubbish

----------


## Rod Dyson

Is this guy serious!   

> Dr Davies said while the iceberg on its own would not significantly contribute to sea level rises, Pine Island Glacier had the potential to raise sea levels by 1.5m, although nobody knew how long it would take to melt.

  NASA tracks giant runaway iceberg which broke off Antarctic glacier and is headed for open ocean | News.com.au 
With this as the lead heading   

> A TITANTIC iceberg that broke off a glacier last year is floating out of control in the Southern Ocean, threatening shipping lanes and raising sea levels.

  And you wonder why people are turning off.

----------


## Marc

> Agreed. If you ignore the bit that warmed and only look at the bit that didn't, you might conclude it hasn't warmed. But if you look at surface heat energy accumulation, there is truck loads of extra heat and it's absolutely cooking! (Damn that Law of Entropy!)

  
It's cooooking !!!!! run for the hills !!!!!! 9 meters sea rise !!!!!! The icebergs will melt and the water turn to blood !!!! the locust will darken the sky!!!!! Repent you deniers and BELIEVE!!!!!! 
I say, wouldn't it be easier to get all believers into one place and talk to each other without bothering us? 
Wait a moment that would be a church, right? Mmmmm ..... they could try to get a hall from a school and get together on weekends to talk warmism! Debate ways to survive the next 0.02 C increase, or perhaps the next 1mm sea rise, or organise the next earth minute...

----------


## woodbe

> Like I said way too cute.  Just shows how far you will go to try and twist things to suit your theory.

  This is not a theory, and AGW is not 'my' theory. What is cute is that you are avoiding the question.  :Wink:  
Given your claimed acceptance of the base physics behind AGW you don't fit in the typical AGW Skeptic camps, nor can you be an AGW denier even though you have occasionally repeated denier memes here, probably just for fun. You are also generally painting AGW as CAGW which is a common luke warmer position.  
What exactly about luke warmism do you disagree with?

----------


## John2b

> It's cooooking !!!!! run for the hills !!!!!! 9 meters sea rise !!!!!! The icebergs will melt and the water turn to blood !!!! the locust will darken the sky!!!!! Repent you deniers and BELIEVE!!!!!! 
> I say, wouldn't it be easier to get all believers into one place and talk to each other without bothering us? 
> Wait a moment that would be a church, right? Mmmmm ..... they could try to get a hall from a school and get together on weekends to talk warmism! Debate ways to survive the next 0.02 C increase, or perhaps the next 1mm sea rise, or organise the next earth minute...

  
The words "grow up" spring to mind, but that might be too much to expect LOL.

----------


## woodbe

> sorry rod, when accepting the laws of physics, you have to acknowledge all of the consequences, not just the ones that conveniently fit your belief system.

   

> total rubbish

  lol. John, that rule doesn't apply to Rod.  :Eek:

----------


## PhilT2

> Is this guy serious!    NASA tracks giant runaway iceberg which broke off Antarctic glacier and is headed for open ocean | News.com.au 
> With this as the lead heading  
> And you wonder why people are turning off.

  Turning off News Ltd; yes done that years ago when I realised most of their stuff was rubbish. What was it the judge said about Bolts reporting, "non-factual" wasn't it? But the true believers still lap it up.

----------


## Marc

*A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax*   by Alan CarubaMarch 31, 2014    It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage has yet to be exposed and measured, says Dr. Tim Ball in his new book, The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. Dr. Ball has been a climatologist for more than forty years and was one of the earliest critics of the global warming hoax that was initiated by the United Nations environmental program that was established in 1972 and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established in 1988. 
Several UN conferences set in motion the hoax that is based on the assertion that carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing a dramatic surge in heating the Earth. IPCC reports have continued to spread this lie through their summaries for policy makers that influenced policies that have caused nations worldwide to spend billions to reduce and restrict CO2 emissions. Manmade climate changecalled anthropogenic global warmingcontinues to be the message though mankind plays no role whatever.  There is no scientific support for the UN theory.CO2, despite being a minor element of the Earths atmosphere, is essential for all life on Earth because it is the food that nourishes all vegetation. The Earth has passed through many periods of high levels of CO2 and many cycles of warming and cooling that are part of the life of the planet. 
Science works by creating theories based on assumptions, Dr. Ball notes, then other scientistsperforming their skeptical roletest them. The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction of this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it. 
The atmosphere, Dr. Ball notes, is three-dimensional and dynamic, so building a computer model that even approximates reality requires far more data than exists and much greater understanding of an extremely turbulent and complex system. No computer model put forth by the IPCC in support of global warming has been accurate, nor ever could be. Most of the reports were created by a small group of men working within the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and all were members of the IPCC. The result was a totally false picture supposedly based on science. 
The revelations of emails between the members of the CRU were made available in 2009 by an unknown source. Dr. Ball quotes Phil Jones, the Director of the CRU at the time of the leaks, and Tom Wigley, a former director addressing other CRU members admitting that Many of the uncertainties surrounding the cause of climate change will never be resolved because the necessary data are lacking. 
The IPCC depended upon the publics lack of knowledge regarding the science involved and the global warming hoax was greatly aided because the mainstream media bought into and promoted the unproven theory. Scientists who challenged were denied funding and marginalized. National environmental policies were introduced based on the misleading information of the IPCC summaries of their reports.By the time of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, the politics and hysteria about climate change had risen to a level that demanded clear evidence of a human signal, notes Dr. Ball. An entire industry had developed around massive funding from government. 
A large number of academic, political, and bureaucratic careers had evolved and depended on expansion of the evidence. Environmentalists were increasing pressure on the public and thereby politicians.The growing problem for the CRU and the entire global warming hoax was that no clear evidence existed to blame mankind for changes in the climate and still largely unknown to the public was the fact that the Earth has passed through many natural cycles of warmth and cooling.
 If humans were responsible, how could the CRU explain a succession of ice ages over millions of years?The CRU emails revealed their growing concerns regarding a cooling cycle that had begun in the late 1990s and now, some seventeen years later, the Earth is in a widely recognized cooling cycle.Moreover, the hoax was aimed at vast reductions in the use of coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as nuclear power to produce the electricity on which all modern life depends. There was advocacy of solar and wind power to replace them and nations undertook costly programs to bring about the reduction of the CO2 fossil fuels produced and spent billions on the green energy. That program is being abandoned. 
At the heart of the hoax is a contempt for mankind and a belief that population worldwide should be reduced. The science advisor to President Obama, John Holdren, has advocated forced abortions, sterilization by introducing infertility drugs into the nations drinking water and food, and other totalitarian measures.  
Overpopulation is still central to the use of climate change as a political vehicle, warns Dr. Ball.Given that the environmental movement has been around since the 1960s, it has taken decades for the public to grasp its intent and the torrents of lies that have been used to advance it. More people, notes Dr. Ball, are starting to understand that what theyre told about climate change by academia, the mass media, and the government is wrong, especially the propaganda coming from the UN and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 
Ridiculous claimslike the science is settled or the debate is overtriggered a growing realization that something was wrong.  When the global warming advocates began to tell people that cooling is caused by warming, the public has realized how absurd the entire UN climate change argument has been.Worse, however, has been the deliberate deceptions, misinformation, manipulation of records and misapplying scientific method and research to pursue a political objective. Much of this is clearly unlawful, but it is unlikely that any of those who perpetrated the hoax will ever be punished and, in the case of Al Gore and the IPCC, they shared a Nobel Peace Prize!We are all in debt to Dr. Ball and a score of his fellow scientists who exposed the lies and debunked the hoax; their numbers are growing with thousands of scientists signing petitions and participating in international conferences to expose this massive global deception.[Originally published at Warning Signs]   Tags:assessment reportcimate hoaxCO2global warmingICCCIntergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeIPCCNIPCCTim BallUNUnited Nations _  Alan Caruba Best known these days as a commentator on issues ranging from environmentalism to energy, immigration to Islam, Alan Caruba is the author of two recent books, "Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy" and "Warning Signs", both collections of his commentaries since 2000 and both published by Merril Press of Bellevue, Washington. His commentaries are posted on many leading news and opinion websites, and frequently picked up and shared by blogs as well. Posted daily on his blog site, Warning Signs, known as "Warning Signs", the founder of The National Anxiety Center's commentaries enjoy widespread popularity. The Center is a clearinghouse for information about 'scare campaigns' designed to influence public opinion and policy. _

----------


## Marc

*Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years*_by DR. TIM BALL on MAY 5, 2011_ _in ATMOSPHERE,DATA,GOVERNMENT,POLITICS_  Traditionally, the older scientists held to the prevailing wisdom and were challenged by the new, skeptical graduates looking for wider answers. In climatology, the opposite has happened. The so-called skeptics challenging the prevailing wisdom are the professors who have researched and taught the subject for 30 years or longer. Their knowledge is much wider than that of the new young scientists because climate science has stagnated for thirty years. All the funding was directed to only one side of climate science, and that was the side promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and accepted as the official science by governments.
Its now frightening how little climate science is known by both sides of the debate on human causation of global warming. I wrote this sentence before I saw a paper from Michigan State University that found, Most college students in the United States do not grasp the scientific basis of the carbon cycle  an essential skill in understanding the causes and consequences of climate change.The professor says students need to know because they must deal with the buildup of CO2 causing climate change. This discloses his ignorance about the science of the carbon cycle and the role of CO2 in climate. Its not surprising, and caused by three major factors:  a function of the emotional, irrational, religious approach to environmentalism;the takeover of climate science for a political agenda; andfunding directed to prove the political, rather than the scientific, agenda.
The dogmatism of politics and religion combined to suppress openness of ideas and the advance of knowledge critical to science.
We now have a generation (30 years) of people teaching, researching, or running government that has little knowledge because of lack of fundamental education. Because of them, the public is ill-informed, doesnt understand the problem, and doesnt even know the questions to ask. Correcting the education process will take time, because there are insufficient people with the knowledge or expertise. Correcting and widening the research functions will take longer because of removing or re-educating current personnel and the lack of qualified replacements. Even if achieved, success is unlikely because there is the massive problem of inadequate data.
Reduction in the number of weather stations, elimination of raw data by national governments, unexplained manipulations of existing data, and deliberate loss of data were all done to predetermine and justify results. This couples with failure to fund research to recover and reconstruct historical data. In his autobiography, Hubert Lamb said he founded the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in 1972 because it was clear that the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important.The situation is worse now, sadly, due to the people at the CRU and government weather agencies.
The blame begins with the political manipulations of Maurice Strong, but he only succeeded because of the so-called climate scientists. Among them, computer modelers caused the biggest problem. They needed to know the most, but knew the least. If they knew anything, they would know there is inadequate data and understanding of the major components and mechanisms on which to build the models.
A former editor of an enlightened environmental journal said we need a committee of scientists from the many disciplines involved in climate science. Such a committee existed 25 years ago, and produced groundbreaking work. It was a joint project funded by The National Museum of Canada and Environment Canada under the title _Climatic Change in Canada During the Past 20,000 Years_. Each year a specific topic was considered, and scientists presented material that was published in _Syllogeus_. For example, _Syllogeus 55_ examined _Critical Periods in the Quaternary of Climatic History of Northern North America_. All the problems that plague climate science, such as tree rings, ice cores, circulation patterns, and proxy data, among many others, were identified and researched. In the last meeting, I was elected Chair, and in my acceptance speech I said we needed to consider, carefully and scientifically, the claims of global warming. Environment Canada cut the funding, apparently, because it challenged the political position the agency had already taken; the project died. Canada should reconstitute it, because it was producing useful and non-political science.
People who totally accepted the corrupted, limited and narrowly focused science of the IPCC have taught climate science for the last 30 years. They should all read H.H. Lambs monumental two-volume set _Climate: Present, Past and Future. Vol. 1: Fundamentals and Climate Now_ (1972) and _Climate: Present, Past and Future. Vol. 2: Climatic History and the Future_ (1977).
Theyd learn that all issues now put forward as new are not new at all. They only appear new because of the black hole that politicians, aided by a few climatically uneducated political scientists, have dragged climate science into over the last 30 years. *Related articles:* IPCC Climate Science Failure Requires Someone to BlameThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Has Achieved Its Goal: Its Time To Repair The Damage.Canada Quit Kyoto, Must Now Quit IPCCGradualism: Creeping Corruption of Climate Science and Society?Climate Science Corruption: Practiced and Perpetuated by Scientific Societies   - See more at: Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years

----------


## intertd6

> Agreed. If you ignore the bit that warmed and only look at the bit that didn't, you might conclude it hasn't warmed. But if you look at surface heat energy accumulation, there is truck loads of extra heat and it's absolutely cooking! (Damn that Law of Entropy!)

  Ahh! the old accumulated heat theory that doesn't transmit heat theory, brilliant! Who would believe it!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

Suggestion: If you are going to quote someone as an authority, choose someone who doesn't lie about their credentials, lest casual observers doubt their veracity, and the objectivity of the person doing the citing in the first place.  :Rolleyes:  
Quote: "Dr. Ball has been a climatologist for more than forty years..."  Reality: Dr Ball is not a climatologist - Ball received his PhD (in Geography) in 1983, was a professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996 ... during which Ball did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere."Ball and the organizations he is affiliated with have repeatedly made the claim that he is the first Canadian PhD in climatology. Ball himself claimed he was one of the first climatology PhD's in the world. Many have pointed out that there have been numerous PhD's in the field prior to Ball. Ball was a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. _The University of Winnipeg never had an office of Climatology. His degree was in historical geography and not climatology_."  
"The Alberta Court of Queens Bench ... dismissed Balls credibility saying that Dr. Ball is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.
The guy lies about his own credentials. Why believe what he writes, especially knowing he is funded by Heartland and Exxon? I thought you were a tiny bit of a sceptic Marc, not someone so easily sucked in.

----------


## John2b

> Ahh! the old accumulated heat theory that doesn't transmit heat theory, brilliant! Who would believe it!
> regards inter

  Never heard of latent energy and specific heat? You shouldn't have wagged those Year 8 Science classes in school!

----------


## John2b

Jimmy Carter has criticised the Koch brothers for distorting the climate change debate through multi-million dollar donations. The Koch brothers donated over US$67 million to think-tanks and organisations working on anti-climate agendas between 1997 and 2011. This included $5,760,781 to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, through which they persuaded over 400 politicians to pledge to resist climate change legislation. 
He (Carter) pointed out that during his administration, the US saw the highest number of jobs created since the Second World War, thanks to the focus on new clean energy technology. The soaring price of oil as a result of the 1979 energy crisis, which hit during Carters time in office, demonstrated that shifting the focus towards efficiency and renewables could be one of the best economic boons to the world that weve ever seen. Dont let the false debate being put forward by fossil fuel companies deter you from enthusiastic endorsement of this crusade, he said. Realise its not an economic sacrifice but an economic boon to every country on earth.  Carter slams Koch brothers for funding climate denial

----------


## intertd6

> Never heard of latent energy and specific heat? You should not have wagged those physics classes in school!

  I certainly hope so! Otherwise those letters after my name with science in them don't mean much, hence the reason why I always ask you to explain the missing heat, which I doubt you will ever do. And why there has been no warming since 1998 and why it reasonably stopped for any particular explainable logical reason?
Regards inter

----------


## John2b

> I certainly hope so! Otherwise those letters after my name with science in them don't mean much, hence the reason why I always ask you to explain the missing heat, which I doubt you will ever do. 
> Regards inter

  There is no missing heat. The only thing missing is support for your claims.   Ocean Motion Teacher Guide 5

----------


## intertd6

> There is no missing heat. The only thing missing is support for your claims.   Ocean Motion Teacher Guide 5

  You would probably be in a tiny minority that couldn't read a graph that shows the average global temperature level from 1998 then believe that the energy claimed to be gained by CO2 has somehow switched off from heating the atmosphere to only the oceans. Sometimes people just can't see the wood for the trees, hence the lack of simple logic which is the foundation of science & physics
im not making any claims, just shooting down the lame ones coming from the other side.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Jimmy Carter has criticised the Koch brothers for distorting the climate change debate through multi-million dollar donations. The Koch brothers donated over US$67 million to think-tanks and organisations working on anti-climate agendas between 1997 and 2011. This included $5,760,781 to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, through which they persuaded over 400 politicians to pledge to resist climate change legislation. 
> He (Carter) pointed out that during his administration, the US saw the highest number of jobs created since the Second World War, thanks to the focus on new clean energy technology. The soaring price of oil as a result of the 1979 energy crisis, which hit during Carters time in office, demonstrated that shifting the focus towards efficiency and renewables could be one of the best economic boons to the world that weve ever seen. Dont let the false debate being put forward by fossil fuel companies deter you from enthusiastic endorsement of this crusade, he said. Realise its not an economic sacrifice but an economic boon to every country on earth.  Carter slams Koch brothers for funding climate denial

  So what!! 
Nothing compared to the billions poured into the other side.  yet I know which side I believe.  This argument is a joke.  So you would prefer no money go into "sceptical" science.  If the sceptical science is so wrong you should not have anything to worry about,  you should embrace it so you can cut it down and prove your point.  But you cant so this is the way you attack,  just another reason why not to trust a single thing warmist try to force on us and try to justify as the "true science" 
What a dam joke, no wonder more people see through this farce. 
The warmist have discredited themselves by trying to discredit others.  Kids stuff really.  So transparent to any thinking person.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You would probably be in a tiny minority that couldn't read a graph that shows the average global temperature level from 1998 then believe that the energy claimed to be gained by CO2 has somehow switched off from heating the atmosphere to only the oceans. Sometimes people just can't see the wood for the trees, hence the lack of simple logic which is the foundation of science & physics
> im not making any claims, just shooting down the lame ones coming from the other side.
> regards inter

  It is impossible for logic to be used in a religious argument for which the AGW farce has become.  The warmists will not entertain a single thing that throws doubt on there belief.  
There will not and can not be any concession lest it will destroy the faithful.  So hidden heat it has to be, that is until an el nino year comes forth to boost the massaged data.  So the claims of world ending heat spiral can once again be ramped up to be heard and believed by a gullible part of society that wants to save the world. 
Amen

----------


## Marc

And to comment on the "quality" of the replies in the debate anywhere, I find it amusing how every time a point is put across the "defence" of the global warming religious is to attack the personality or credential of the messenger yet have nothing to counteract the argument put forward.  
The global warming agitators have put forward purposely crafted lies and exaggerations galore, with and without credentials, with and without titles and all 100% fully paid by those who promote and have vested interest in this power and resources shift. Blinded by their faith, they can not see that the majority of their "saints" are actually very corrupt individuals with a very dubious past. However I don't care who is promoting the message, I stick to criticising the message not the messenger 
If someone is paid to lie to support the global warming farce it's ok, if someone is paid to counteract the damage done by this ludicrous movement, it is wrong. Wake up, no one does something for free, well almost no one, there are some skeptics who speak up for free as a matter of principle.

----------


## John2b

> You would probably be in a tiny minority that couldn't read a graph that shows the average global temperature level from 1998 then believe that the energy claimed to be gained by CO2 has somehow switched off from heating the atmosphere to only the oceans. Sometimes people just can't see the wood for the trees, hence the lack of simple logic which is the foundation of science & physics
> im not making any claims, just shooting down the lame ones coming from the other side.
> regards inter

  And some people just can't see the climate for the weather. To paraphrase James Carville: "It's the weather, stupid!" Here's a couple of tips to help you, Inter:   The heat from the Sun predominantly goes into the oceans first. Why? Because they are big and dark, cover most of the Earth and the Sun's rays penetrate through the surface.The temperature on the Earth's surface is predominantly determined by the heat brought back into the atmosphere by the chaotic action of currents into the oceans and air, also know as "the weather". 
Anyone who bothers to look can see that global warming has always risen in a stepwise fashion that can mask the underlying trend. That's why surface temperature is only a proxy for global warming.

----------


## John2b

> It is impossible for logic to be used in a religious argument for which the AGW farce has become.  The warmists will not entertain a single thing that throws doubt on there belief.  
> There will not and can not be any concession lest it will destroy the faithful.  So hidden heat it has to be, that is until an el nino year comes forth to boost the massaged data.  So the claims of world ending heat spiral can once again be ramped up to be heard and believed by a gullible part of society that wants to save the world. 
> Amen

  Rod, please explain why the people in this thread who don't believe in AGW resort to throwing tantrums and name calling. Why not just point out where the accumulated evidence is wrong?

----------


## John2b

> And to comment on the "quality" of the replies in the debate anywhere, I find it amusing how every time a point is put across the "defence" of the global warming religious is to attack the personality or credential of the messenger yet have nothing to counteract the argument put forward.

  Sorry Marc, by throwing tantrums and name calling you are NOT putting points across. (Hint: go back and read your own vitriolic posts!)

----------


## John2b

March 2014 marked the 38th consecutive March and 349th _consecutive_ month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. 
The last below-average temperature for March was in 1976 and the last below-average temperature for any month was February 1985.  https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

----------


## Neptune

I am curious as to why the true believing warmists have to seek alternate opinions on a renovate forum. 
Is it because they're now doubting there own BS, or still trying to justify it? 
Or is it just plain old missionary fervour,  where they are spreading the fear of cooking earth hell, and an ice age heaven?

----------


## John2b

> I am curious as to why the true believing warmists have to seek alternate opinions on a renovate forum.
> Is it because they're now doubting there own BS, or still trying to justify it?
> Or is it just plain old missionary fervour,  where they are spreading the fear of cooking earth hell, and an ice age heaven?

  
False proposition. It wasn't a "warmest" who started this thread. See for yourself: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...trading-77931/ 
The statement should have been: "why do the _climate change deniers_ have to seek alternate opinions on a renovate forum."

----------


## woodbe

> And to comment on the "quality" of the replies in the debate anywhere, I find it amusing how every time a point is put across the "defence" of the global warming religious is to attack the personality or credential of the messenger yet have nothing to counteract the argument put forward.

  Apart from the fact that there is nothing new in the denial/false skeptic world that hasn't already been debunked a zillion times, what you are displaying is the exact method you apparently dislike. You're attacking people for wondering how someone who lies about his credentials should be accepted on his other statements rather than proving he isn't lying about his credentials or his other statements. Could it be that you have blinkers on, and you are so happy with what this person says that fits your worldview that you actually don't care if he is lying? 
If you want to take down a scientific argument, you do that by using the same method by which it was assembled and show where the error was made. If the argument is over a comment published in the media, you present the takedown in the media; if the argument is over a published paper in a peer reviewed journal you publish your improvement to science in a peer reviewed journal. Intertd6 is going to be famous when he publishes his paper that takes down the entire AGW debate with real science, and we can then all go home.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## woodbe

> There will not and can not be any concession lest it will destroy the faithful.  So hidden heat it has to be, that is until an el nino year comes forth to boost the massaged data.  So the claims of world ending heat spiral can once again be ramped up to be heard and believed by a gullible part of society that wants to save the world.

  Translation: I have reviewed the evidence to date and I agree that when the predicted El Nino appears it's going to be hot and probably align with climate science predictions. I'm mentioning this to try and soften the blow to the skeptic camp when the event occurs. We're hoping our 'no warming since' trademark is not set back another 16 years.

----------


## John2b

> If you want to take down a scientific argument, you do that by using the same method by which it was assembled and show where the error was made.

   Fact: glaciers are retreating.Fact: sea ice is contracting.Fact: oceans are warming.Fact: sea surface temperature is rising.Fact: temperature over land is rising.Fact: snow cover is decreasing.Fact: humidity is rising.Fact: the temperature of the lower atmosphere is rising.Fact: sea level is rising.  
In over 10,000 posts, no one posting in this forum has given any explanation as to how these things can be happening concurrently in the absence of a globally warming climate.

----------


## woodbe

Well, the skeptic answers will be: 
Level 1: The tide gauge at Ooodlyupup shown no SLR. (repeat for every parameter of warming/melting/etc) 
Level 2: Oh, but John, that is just natural warming, nothing to do with CO2!  
LOL. 
edit: I left out Level 1b: None of that is happening, the scientists are all frauds.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Fact: glaciers are retreating.Fact: sea ice is contracting.Fact: oceans are warming.Fact: sea surface temperature is rising.Fact: temperature over land is rising.Fact: snow cover is decreasing.Fact: humidity is rising.Fact: the temperature of the lower atmosphere is rising.Fact: sea level is rising.  
> In over 10,000 posts, no one posting in this forum has given any explanation as to how these things can be happening concurrently in the absence of a globally warming climate.

  FACT. None of this confirms AGW.   None of it prooves the feedback loops that is predicted to burn us to hell

----------


## woodbe

> FACT. None of this confirms AGW.   None of it prooves the feedback loops that is predicted to burn us to hell

  Skeptic Level 2 response delivered. Next?  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Skeptic Level 2 response delivered. Next?

  Truth hurts

----------


## John2b

> FACT. None of this confirms AGW.   None of it prooves the feedback loops that is predicted to burn us to hell

  No, but this does confirm AGW: 
Fact: ERBS observations have also been used to determine how human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels affect Earth's radiation balance.
Fact: The additional CO2 in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels has a measured effect on the Earth's Radiation Balance.
Fact: The additional heat energy stored on Earth as a result of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is more than enough to account for the observed global warming.  NASA LaRC Science Directorate : Research - The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) Missions - ERBS - NASA Science  AFAIK, no scientific body has made the statement "the feedback loops that is predicted to burn us to hell" so there is no requirement for disproof for your second claim.

----------


## woodbe

> Truth hurts

  Back at ya  :Biggrin:

----------


## Neptune

> False proposition. It wasn't a "warmest" who started this thread. See for yourself: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...trading-77931/

  I never said it was,  :Rolleyes:  
The topic is Emission Trading.....   

> I am dead set againt the introduction of an ETS *for several reasons.* 
> First even if Global Warming was true we could never reduce emissions to a degree that would have any effect on global temperatures. 
> Second an ETS will cripple the Australian economy for no net benefit. 
> Third I believe that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming and that there need to be irrefutable evidence both scientific and imperical to proove CO2 is warming the planet and that any warming would be as damaging as they claim. 
> Interested to know your thoughts? 
> Cheers Rod

  The  original post related to the reasons why, not if it is, or isn't.   

> The statement should have been: "why do the _climate change deniers_ have to seek alternate opinions on a renovate forum."

  How dare you tell me what question I should ask. :Annoyed:    

> I am curious as to why the true believing warmists have to seek alternate opinions on a renovate forum. 
> Is it because they're now doubting there own BS, or still trying to justify it? 
> Or is it just plain old missionary fervour, where they are spreading the fear of cooking earth hell, and an ice age heaven?

  How about you answer my question? 
The forum carbon tax poll gave a clear outcome of what forum members think.

----------


## John2b

> How dare you tell me what question I should ask.

  I didn't, so why the passion? (Hint: It wasn't a question, it was a proposition.)   

> How about you answer my question?.

  You asked two hypothetical questions based on a false premise. There are no answers - doh!   

> The forum carbon tax poll gave a clear outcome of what forum members think.

  So understanding of what is or isn't science should be done by polls? My, my, what a twisted, flat earth view!

----------


## Marc

> I am curious as to why the true believing warmists have to seek alternate opinions on a renovate forum. 
> Is it because they're now doubting there own BS, or still trying to justify it? 
> Or is it just plain old missionary fervour,  where they are spreading the fear of cooking earth hell, and an ice age heaven?

   Absolute missionary fervour, in this forum anyway, I doubt anyone here is getting paid. In other forums it is a different situation. Plenty of hired hands. 
It is only a matter of time for this to gradually disappear. The only question is how much will the whole farce cost. Clearly it is in the trillions and still going.  
The only consolation is that the money spent comes back in the market somehow. Distorted, subsidised inefficient, ludicrously expensive yet market it is. Of course it comes at the expense of other industries and that is the whole point, shifting the market towards an industry that can not exist on its own, and requires subsidies. Distribute the subsidies with generous gesture (its not their money anyway so they don't care) and harvest votes in the process. 
The alternative energy industry today is like the artist in the middle ages, they existed because the church paid for them to gild the lilies or whatever they did. 
I can't wait to see the windmills stop with a screeching noise.

----------


## johnc

> I never said it was,  
> The topic is Emission Trading.....   
> The  original post related to the reasons why, not if it is, or isn't.   
> How dare you tell me what question I should ask.   
> How about you answer my question? 
> The forum carbon tax poll gave a clear outcome of what forum members think.

  Nobody has told you what question to ask, this thread was never a poll, although it does contain a poll, your question makes no sense, go to a bit more trouble and regardless of who you are no one is entitled to an answer it only occurs when someone can be bothered replying as should be obvious if you have followed this at all. This thread is just a street brawl it will keep going until the second last person gives up.  :Wink:

----------


## intertd6

> And some people just can't see the climate for the weather. To paraphrase James Carville: "It's the weather, stupid!" Here's a couple of tips to help you, Inter:   The heat from the Sun predominantly goes into the oceans first. Why? Because they are big and dark, cover most of the Earth and the Sun's rays penetrate through the surface.The temperature on the Earth's surface is predominantly determined by the heat brought back into the atmosphere by the chaotic action of currents into the oceans and air, also know as "the weather".  
> Anyone who bothers to look can see that global warming has always risen in a stepwise fashion that can mask the underlying trend. That's why surface temperature is only a proxy for global warming.

  so those big dark oceans have decided since 1998 to swallow more heat than ever before & not release it for some unexplainable reason!!! What were those big dark oceans doing before 1998 that changed??
the only thing chaotic is the excuses the AGW mob wheel out every time another theory is shot to pieces,
 its laughable that you claim the ocean currents are chaotic, as they are very predictable & run to well known patterns 
any body who cares to look at the past history of warming patterns will see that there is no such thing as runaway warming & in fact the only runaway thing are the alarmists imaginations the world is going to end a billion years before it actually will.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Fact: glaciers are retreating.Fact: sea ice is contracting.Fact: oceans are warming.Fact: sea surface temperature is rising.Fact: temperature over land is rising.Fact: snow cover is decreasing.Fact: humidity is rising.Fact: the temperature of the lower atmosphere is rising.Fact: sea level is rising.  
> In over 10,000 posts, no one posting in this forum has given any explanation as to how these things can be happening concurrently in the absence of a globally warming climate.

  Fact : No carbon tax in Australia is going to change anything! 
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Fact : No carbon tax in Australia is going to change anything! 
> regards inter

  Fact: Australia did not and does not have a carbon tax.  Explainer: The difference between a carbon tax and an ETS

----------


## John2b

> so those big dark oceans have decided since 1998 to swallow more heat than ever before & not release it for some unexplainable reason!!! What were those big dark oceans doing before 1998 that changed??
> the only thing chaotic is the excuses the AGW mob wheel out every time another theory is shot to pieces,
>  its laughable that you claim the ocean currents are chaotic, as they are very predictable & run to well known patterns 
> any body who cares to look at the past history of warming patterns will see that there is no such thing as runaway warming & in fact the only runaway thing are the alarmists imaginations the world is going to end a billion years before it actually will.
> regards inter

  The big dark oceans are behaving exactly as they always have. Look at the surface temperature record before 1998. 
Sorry Inter, nothing you or any other denier has said in 10,000 + posts has shot science to pieces. 
Learn to read - "chaotic" was referring to weather, not specifically ocean currents. 
And you are wrong yet again. Anybody who cares to look at the past history of warming patterns will see that the there was a sudden warming event in which temperatures rose by about 6º C globally and by 10-20º C at the poles, most likely as a result of a major release of CO2 into the ocean and atmosphere - the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM. www.palaeontologyonline.com | Article: Patterns in Palaeontology > Patterns in Palaeontology: The Paleocene

----------


## John2b

> The alternative energy industry today is like the artist in the middle ages, they existed because the church paid for them to gild the lilies or whatever they did. 
> I can't wait to see the windmills stop with a screeching noise.

  The windmills aren't about to stop anytime soon here in South Australia Marc. Over the past few months they have provided nearly 50% of SA's electricity and over the past few years have enabled SA to do something it has never done previously - export electricity to the eastern states during national energy market peak demand at a profit _whilst displacing more expensive CO2 emitting coal powered electricity._   AEMO South Australian Wind Study Report

----------


## Marc

> The windmills aren't about to stop anytime soon here in South Australia Marc. Over the past few months they have provided nearly 50% of SA's electricity and over the past few years have enabled SA to do something it has never done previously - export electricity to the eastern states during national energy market peak demand at a profit _whilst displacing more expensive CO2 emitting coal powered electricity._   AEMO South Australian Wind Study Report

  Your delusion is amazing. SA is exporting subsidies and cashing subsidies from other states. Take away the ENORMOUS amount of money propping up the industry and the windmills stop dead. The electricity generated by wind is 2-3 times dearer than coal fired, unreliable, in need of massive subsidies and in need of coal fired plants to kick in when they stop. When are you going to realise that no one believes your propaganda? The rest of the world is winding them up.

----------


## John2b

> Your delusion is amazing. SA is exporting subsidies and cashing subsidies from other states. Take away the ENORMOUS amount of money propping up the industry and the windmills stop dead. The electricity generated by wind is 2-3 times dearer than coal fired, unreliable, in need of massive subsidies and in need of coal fired plants to kick in when they stop. When are you going to realise that no one believes your propaganda? The rest of the world is winding them up.

  Get a grip, Marc, your claims are all fallacious and it is all very easily checked and verified (see links below), for those not blinded by ideology. 
Fact: Australia has one of the lowest rates of subsidy of wind energy in the world, and one of the lowest costs of wind energy. The Australian Government Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics recently reported that wind based generation is estimated to already have a lower cost of electricity than many new build, comparable fossil-fuel generation technologies. (AETA) 2013: Update - Bureau of Resources and Energy ... 
Fact: Wind has very low operating costs and therefore tends to displace higher cost conventional generation from market dispatch, reducing both wholesale prices and conventional plant outputs. _All states in Australia have experienced a reduction in average annual wholesale electricity prices because of the inclusion of wind energy with those states with the largest number of operational wind farms experiencing the greatest reductions in average annual prices._ The stand-out states are South Australia and Victoria which experience reductions of between 24.9 and 38.9 per cent and 14.5 to 21.6 per cent over the interval 2010-2012. Reductions in average annual prices also increase over time reflecting the expansion in semi-scheduled wind generation in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales over the time interval 2010-2012. For the NEM, there was a reduction in average wholesale prices that became particularly evident over the interval 2010-2012, encompassing percentage reductions in the range of 9.1 to 11.9 per cent. http://www.uq.edu.au/eemg/docs/workingpapers/2014-1.pdf 
Fact: Wind is currently the fastest growing energy source around the world and US _now and projected into the future_. Press Room - Press Releases - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

----------


## woodbe

> Your delusion is amazing. SA is exporting subsidies and cashing subsidies from other states. Take away the ENORMOUS amount of money propping up the industry and the windmills stop dead. The electricity generated by wind is 2-3 times dearer than coal fired, unreliable, in need of massive subsidies and in need of coal fired plants to kick in when they stop. When are you going to realise that no one believes your propaganda? The rest of the world is winding them up.

  "The rest of the world is winding them up" is just like the other denier statement that "the planet is about to go into a cooling phase" 
Facts are the exact opposite of your statement.   
Wikipedia:  

> Over the past five years the average growth in new installations has been 27.6% each year.

  If you want to argue subsidies, you will find that the fossil fuel industry gets far more subsidy than the renewables industry, despite the renewables industry being relatively new. You'd think it would be standing on it's own two feet by now. (lol) 
SA benefits from selling peak power to the coal burning states, and those states benefit by reducing their costs and helping the environment at the same time. Merit order means that SA's cheaper wind power is displacing polluting peak demand power plants that would otherwise kick in to supply the required extra power. It's something we do to help out  :2thumbsup:   
Solar PV is also giving fossil fuel power a haircut at peak demand times. That is why the fossil fuel energy companies want the RET dialled back - they're being out competed despite the massive subsidies for fossil fuel. 
And the price consumers pay for the RET? 4% per bill. The increase in power prices is to do with the massive investment in power network infrastructure:   

> 'For all of the attention that carbon price has got, from the increasing  attention the renewable energy target's got, the main reason that  electricity has been getting dearer is the overinvestment in poles and  wires, and the fundamental inefficiency in the way that the national  electricity market's working,' says Richard Denniss, executive director  of the Australia Institute. 
> Federal Treasury estimates that 51 per cent of an average household bill  is spent on network costs. Most of that is going towards paying off the  $45 billion network companies have spent on updating our poles and  wires over the last five years. 
> [..] 
> Solar rooftops are wreaking havoc on the traditional power industry,  says Mr Denniss, because they produce the most amount of energy at the  time of day when the power industry makes the most money.

  Read and weep: The price of power - Background Briefing - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## Neptune

> Fact:

  Fact: While you true believers post stuff like this, http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...tml#post923166 
and expect others to believe it , you haven't got a hope in hell of ever getting thinking people to take notice of anything else.

----------


## intertd6

> Fact: Australia did not and does not have a carbon tax.  Explainer: The difference between a carbon tax and an ETS

  Well what is is commonly called then? And what were they planning to move to?
and besides that what will it do other than provide profits for those just wanting to skim money from a new income source that was ultimately created for the greedy by the greedy. 
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Fact: While you true believers post stuff like this, http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...tml#post923166 
> and expect others to believe it , you haven't got a hope in hell of ever getting thinking people to take notice of anything else.

  Diddums! 
It does beg the question: Why do climate change deniers harbour an innate need to disregard facts?

----------


## John2b

> Well what is is commonly called then? And what were they planning to move to?
> and besides that what will it do other than provide profits for those just wanting to skim money from a new income source that was ultimately created for the greedy by the greedy. 
> regards inter

  It is a fixed price emissions trading scheme that was scheduled to move to a variable market price market driven emissions trading scheme. 
Fact: The ETS uses market forces to change behaviours. The market mechanism delivers savings to consumers. The greedy whose's profits will suffer are screaming like pigs to have the ETS scrapped. No one who proposed the ETS stands to benefit from it financially other than through transparent market mechanisms.

----------


## johnc

> Fact: While you true believers post stuff like this, http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...tml#post923166 
> and expect others to believe it , you haven't got a hope in hell of ever getting thinking people to take notice of anything else.

  Really do you know any, I doubt it's the bloke you see in the mirror each morning :Biggrin: . Let's reduce the insults and lift our game a bit shall we, if you have ideas post them if it is just criticism what's the point it doesn't sway views of any side. True believers, give me a break.

----------


## woodbe

> Fact: While you true believers post stuff like this, http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...tml#post923166 
> and expect others to believe it , you haven't got a hope in hell of ever getting thinking people to take notice of anything else.

  Fact: While true deniers post stuff like this: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...tml#post936839 
and expect others to believe it , you haven't got a hope in hell of ever getting thinking people to take notice of anything else. 
Anyone can play this game.  :2thumbsup:  
Here is the core accepted fact: The science is almost totally unequivocal. Mankind is unbalancing the climate system, and it is warming as a result. 
Outside of science, there is a debate (if you can call it that), such as here, but these debates are not moving the knowledge forward or changing it. While we have been having these debates, the science has become even more unequivocal. The nature of scientific enquiry means that of course there will always be a chance that a better theory for the data exists, but the longer we wait for that supposed theory to surface the lower the chance that it exists. It's already a vanishing small chance.  
BTW, Welcome to the ETS, Neptune.  :Wink:

----------


## Marc

Wind farms — are 96% useless, and cost 150 times more than necessary for what they do « JoNova*
Wind farms  are 96% useless, and cost 150 times more than necessary for what they do*   Thanks to Steve Hunter Victorias windfarms have saved virtually no coal from being burnt.
South Australian windfarms have saved 4% of their rated capacity in fossil fuels at a cost of $1,484 per ton.
Thats only $1,474 above the current price of carbon credits per ton in the EU. They are 96% useless, and cost 150 times more than necessary for what they do (except for the times they are more useless and more expensive). *The point of a windfarm is not so much to produce electricity but to reduce greenhouse emissions.* 
If we built windfarms for the electricity they generate, wed be better off paying for reliable electrons from cheap brown coal, and using the savings to research a cure for cancer. The point in putting up expensive, infrasonic thumping towers of steel and concrete that kill eagles and explode bat lungs is because it reduces our carbon dioxide emissions, except that it doesnt really.
Mechanical engineer Hamish Cumming has written a whopper of a report (though I cant find an online copy of it*). Because Victoria doesnt have much of a gas powered grid, it cant take advantage of the odd intermittent peaks of wind power. Like a huge car, the big coal fired plants run best at a steady pace, and all the switching up and down just reduces their mileage so they need more coal per kilowatt.
South Australia does have some gas power, but dont get too excited, even there, wind farms reduce CO2 statewide by about 1%.Cumming references an AEMO presentation to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission where the AEMO showed that for the wind farms in SA in 2009 the greenhouse gas abatement was only 3 per cent of the total capacity of the wind farms installed.
This equated to a 0.6 per cent reduction of greenhouse gases for the entire states electrical generation from fossil fuels.
Since then Cumming says he has established that even with the continued expansion of wind farms in South Australia, the AEMO figures show the abatement has risen to only about 4 per cent of the installed capacity, or just more than 1 per cent greenhouse gas abatement.
This is the same figure that was established in the past three months in The Netherlands and presented to the Dutch parliament. The Netherlands report suggests the greenhouse gas used to build and maintain a wind farm will not be abated even across the total life of the wind farm.The four percent fuel savings (that 4% of nameplate capacity of the windfarm) is similar to experiences in the Netherlands (seeTrick 5 here).
Hamish Cumming is an active campaigner against wind-turbines   so we should ask pro-wind-turbine developers for their point of view too. The Australian did, and their answer was essentially that according to modeling, wind farms would save 26,700 tons of CO2 emissions annually. In other words, the benefits are theoretical, but the actual data  the tons of coal burned  shows they dont help reduce CO2.owners of Yallourn, Hazelwood and Loy Yang power stations had confirmed in writing that the power stations combined consume about 7762 tonnes of coal an hour. They have confirmed that the power stations do not change the coal feed intake 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. 
Cumming has called for Victorias wind developments to be stripped of public subsidies.His farm may have been hit by arsonists:Two woolsheds and three haystacks were set on fire on Hamish Cummings property yesterday. One of the woolsheds had historical significance.
Mr Cummings says he has been threatened before and is positive he was targeted because of his stance on wind farms
[I've] had a number of direct threats in terms of notes and bottles of petrol with notes saying costing people money and if I go to the police theyre going to shoot me and all sorts of things like that, he said.Wind power is a major global industry but its only making in the order of 1.4% of total electricity. Often overlooked by their supporters, the emissions to construct a wind turbine are substantial  making the concrete in the huge base emits a lot of CO2, and all that material has to be transported to what are often remote locations. _Steve Hunter_

----------


## Marc

*OK to kill endangered birds? Yes if you are a windfarm. Greens seem to be fine with that.*  
Its one rule for you, and another for their friends. If a coal plant was wiping out thousands of birds and bats you can be sure Greenpeace would be launching a campaign. But when an industrial turbine with blade-tips travelling at 180mph does the killing, who cares?
The law for normals makes it expensive to kill birds and bats:
Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, BP was fined $100 million for the damage it caused to bird populations in the area, both migratory and resident.   AlaskaDispatch
Exxon Mobil has agreed to pay $600,000 in penalties after approximately 85 migratory birds died of exposure to hydrocarbons at some of its natural gas facilities across the Midwest.   NY Times
And it was going to get expensive for windfarms:
Nov 22 2013 Duke Energy has agreed to pay a $1 million fine for killing 14 eagles and 149 other birds at two Wyoming wind farms.  audublog
That was the first time a windfarm got pinged. And it works out to be about $6000 a bird. Could get expensive, eh?
The Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that 440,000 birds are killed [...]  *December 13th, 2013* | Tags: Renewable Energy, Wind Power | Category: Global Warming |  Print This Post |  Email This Post |Comments (114)  *Big Oil, Big-Gas lobby against coal. Shell leans on World Bank to nobble the competition*  
Well, well, well. When Big-Oil fund skeptics, theyre evil polluters. When Big-Oil pay green lobbyists, theyre just being good citizens (see the ads, right?). Naturally Royal Dutch Shell are concerned about the environment, families, rare marsupials and what not. They wouldnt just be green for the profit would they oh, wait. Shell is one of the six gas super majors and all gas providers profit when coal is unfashionable. In terms of resources, Shell is now more of a gas company than an oil company.
Big-Gas loves wind turbines. Wind farms are fickle and coal power cant ramp up and down quickly to fill in the gaps, but the more expensive gas can. No wonder Shell are lobbying actively against coal, and for wind.
Thanks in part to Shells campaign, the poor family in the Shell Ad are going to have to pay more to stay warm this winter. Meanwhile the marsupials will manage without Shell lobbyists like they have for the last 100 million years, and the environment wont notice any effect from a carbon tax.
As with all cut-throat business deals, Shell (and others) are doing what they are supposed to do: make money. There is nothing [...]  *November 29th, 2013* | Tags: Big-Oil, Shell, Wind Power, WWF | Category: Global Warming |  Print This Post |  Email This Post |Comments (225)  *There goes a massive windfarm  £4bn UK project kaput before it began*  
More money leaves the room. Last week David Cameron said the UK needed to get rid of all that green crap (or double-speak words to that effect). The message, confounded as it is, may be getting through.
(Reuters)  German utility RWE has scrapped plans to build one of the worlds largest offshore wind parks in Britain, as soaring gas and electricity prices fuel uncertainty over the UK governments commitment to renewable energy subsidies.
[Bloomberg] RWEs renewable-energy unit has decided to drop a 4.5 billion-pound ($7.3 billion) offshore wind project in the U.K. because engineering challenges made it too expensive.
RWE says that its because of engineering challenges, but we could assume they didnt suddenly discover how deep the water was this week.
[Bloomberg] At the current time, it is not viable for RWE to continue the Atlantic Array farm because of deep waters and adverse seabed conditions, RWE Innogy said in a statement on its website. The 278-turbine project in the Bristol Channel cant be justified under current market conditions, it said.
Engineering challenges can usually be fixed with money. But translate current market conditions and we see that it was really a money [...]  *November 27th, 2013* | Tags: Climate Money, Renewable Energy, UK, Wind Power | Category: Global Warming |  Print This Post |  Email This Post | Comments (144)  *Bill McKibben says wind is cheap as coal. Jo Nova says so who needs a carbon tax then?*  
Bill McKibben wants to stop a mine in Australia because it might affect the weather. He says wind power is as affordable as coal.
The Australian, Friday Oct 25:    weve reached the point where alternatives have become realistic.Wind power is now as affordable as coal-fired power in Australia, not to mention the limitless energy potential of the powerful sun that shines on your continent.
To which I say, fantastic. If wind power is as cheap as coal, we dont need a carbon tax, emissions trading schemes, renewable targets, or other subsidies  people will use wind simply because it is cheaper. Alternatively, Bill is talking out of his hat.
Kill the schemes, cut the subsidies. Bring it on. I say!
We can see how many people rely on Windpower in Australia
Thats the yellow part. Coal is the black or brown part.
Source: ESAA
Source: ESAA
All the assertions of cheap wind power are only true if we assume our CO2 emissions cause warming, amplified by water vapor and cloud changes, which causes dangerous and expensive outcomes. Furthermore we must assume that it is cheaper to mitigate rather than adapt (which it isnt), and then assume that taxes, [...]  *October 29th, 2013* | Tags: Coal, McKibben (Bill), Renewable Energy, Wind Power | Category: Global Warming |  Print This Post |  Email This Post | Comments (114)

----------


## Marc

*Bill McKibben says wind is cheap as coal. Jo Nova says so who needs a carbon tax then?*  
Bill McKibben wants to stop a mine in Australia because it might affect the weather. He says wind power is as affordable as coal.
The Australian, Friday Oct 25:    weve reached the point where alternatives have become realistic.Wind power is now as affordable as coal-fired power in Australia, not to mention the limitless energy potential of the powerful sun that shines on your continent.
To which I say, fantastic. If wind power is as cheap as coal, we dont need a carbon tax, emissions trading schemes, renewable targets, or other subsidies  people will use wind simply because it is cheaper. Alternatively, Bill is talking out of his hat.
Kill the schemes, cut the subsidies. Bring it on. I say!
We can see how many people rely on Windpower in Australia
Thats the yellow part. Coal is the black or brown part.
Source: ESAA
Source: ESAA
All the assertions of cheap wind power are only true if we assume our CO2 emissions cause warming, amplified by water vapor and cloud changes, which causes dangerous and expensive outcomes. Furthermore we must assume that it is cheaper to mitigate rather than adapt (which it isnt), and then assume that taxes, [...]  *October 29th, 2013* | Tags: Coal, McKibben (Bill), Renewable Energy, Wind Power | Category: Global Warming |  Print This Post |  Email This Post | Comments (114)  *UK Government hides its own graphic comparing Nuclear to Wind and solar*  
Is this a 2013 Streisand-Effect finalist?
The UK has decided to build its first new nuclear power plant in 20 years. The UK Department of Energy & Climate Change posted this graphic below in a News Story probably to help justify why it really did make sense to go nuclear rather than renewable. The Renewable Energy Association called it unhelpful, and lo, it disappeared from gov.uk.
Credit goes to Emily Gosdens Tweet, and  Will Heavens Blog. Hat tip to Colin. 
(Click to enlarge to see the fine print)
The fine print (edited out in the small copy here) says that Hickley Point C is estimated to be equal to around 7% of UK electricity consumption in 2025 and enough to power nearly 6 million homes. About onshore wind, the fine print reads: The footprint will depend on the location and turbine technology deployed. DECC estimates the footprint could be between 160,000 and 490,000 acres. Thats quite some error margin.
How many National Parks does one nuclear plant save then?
Its a good representation of just how much of the Earths surface we have to give up if we want to live off renewables at the moment. So who [...]  *October 26th, 2013* | Tags: Renewable Energy, Solar Energy, Wind Power | Category: Global Warming |  Print This Post |  Email This Post | Comments (79)  *Lets copy Germany: 23,000 wind towers make 7% of its electricity to stop 0 degrees of warming*  
Steve Goreham describes how one of the leading Green economies works: Germany has 23,000 wind turbines, half as many as the United States but packed into one 27th of the area. Average turbines are producing 17% of their stated capacity. All up, they make 7 percent of the nations electricity but consume 2 percent of the nations energy. Crikey! There would be a PhD thesis in making sense of those numbers, because most of that consumption is in the construction phase and depends on assumptions about how long those towers will work. Id like to see a lifetime calculation of a Joules in and Joules out. Heres a part I cant quite wrap my head around: total renewables share of energy consumption (so that includes oil, gas, coal, wood and the like) apparently rose from 4 percent in 2000 to 12 percent in 2012. I can see a most unfortunate meeting of two lines on a graph here
The Big-Green-Government in Germany decreed that everyone had to pay a lot more for the holy electrons from wind and solar (those electrons have good intentions, after all). Thus and verily (and partly thanks to the angel of [...]  *August 29th, 2013* | Tags: Goreham (Steve), Wind Power | Category: Global Warming |  Print This Post |  Email This Post |Comments (92)  *India threatens Wind farms with fines. They must accurately predict the wind a day in advance or else!*  
What the Nanny-State Goddess Giveth
The intermittent power of wind towers plays havoc with electricity grids. Power black outs in India are so bad, they cut off the supply to 600 million or so people for two days last year. To make the grid more stable, an official somewhere decided it would help to have at least one days warning of how much electricity will flow from those towers.  (Why not two days I say?)
A directive took effect this week ordering wind farms with a capacity of 10 megawatts or more to forecast their generation in 15-minute blocks for the following day. 
To put some perspective on this, here is what 7000 wind turbines across Northern Europe (between the North sea, the Baltic Sea and the Austrian-Swiss border) produced in 2004. You can admire the stable predictable output that comes from averaging so many turbines over such a large area. Right?
Percentage of peak grid power supplied by 7000 wind turbines in Northern Europe in 2004
[...]  *July 18th, 2013* | Tags: Wind Power | Category: Global Warming |  Print This Post |  Email This Post | Comments (203)  *The data is in: more Green jobs means less real ones*  
Its not rocket science. If energy costs more, that means we have to make do with less of it, or make do with less of something else. Thus if the government forces everyone to pay more for electricity, companies have less spare cash to employ people. Their margins are tighter, they cant make and sell as many products. So when we are told the clean energy revolution is creating jobs, is it virtually self-evident thats a mythical fairy claim.
I say virtually, because it is theoretical possible it could work, but only if this green power provided some productivity or efficiency gain  that is, if it helped us build more widgets, bake more cakes or warm more toes. In the case of windturbines, the big hope is that they reduce emissions, lower CO2 globally, and in turn stop storms, tornados, floods and what-not and gave us perfect weather again (like the kind we never had).
Might as well bury bottles of money I say. More jobs. Less cost. No infrasound, and no dead bats.
Each green job in Britain costs £100,000 (and 3.7 other jobs):
The Telegraph points out how expensive it is to support a wind-industry job. My plan [...]  *June 18th, 2013* | Tags: Renewable Energy, Wind Power | Category: Global Warming |  Print This Post |  Email This Post |

----------


## Marc

*Whos a conspiracy theorist then Paul Syvret?*Paul Syvret  seems to be hoping no one will notice that he doesnt even try to respond to arguments about wind turbines. His technique to avoid debate is to decree that some other people were wrong once on a different topic. They used a rapid fire technique called a Gish Gallop, so therefore, thusly and henceforth anyone with a rapid fire technique can be dismissed with a handy wave of The Gish. Its just another label in Syvrets all-purpose excuse-list for not having a grown up conversation.
Those who have no evidence just make things up and toss insults. Syvret of The Courier Mail defends the wind industry from its critics  not with data about windfarms, but with allegations of imaginary astroturfing and denialism. He uses all his biggest scientific words: its a barrage of BS, pseudo-science, and a crusade run by a rat-bag in an incestuous network. He wants to make sure his readers know the critics are shills and conspiracy nutters because, well  he says so.
The Australian Environment Foundation is his main target today. Whats it guilty of? Well, it links to unpaid bloggers that Syvret doesnt like: those  sites promoting climate-change denial (such as [...]  *May 29th, 2013* | Tags: Courier Mail, JoNova's Favourites, Syvret (Paul), Wind Power | Category: Global Warming, Media-matters |  Print This Post |  Email This Post |  *Imaginary solar panels rort renewables scheme while Alarmists worry about coal investors.*The Australian
ALMOST 150 suspected rorts of the Gillard governments Renewable Energy Target scheme were reported to the regulator last year, with NSW and federal authorities assisting with the execution of two search warrants as a part of the probe.
The Clean Energy Regulator yesterday released its annual report to government on the administration of the RET  a scheme that provides certificates for both large and small-scale renewable energy generation as part of the bipartisan target of ensuring 20 per cent of Australias electricity comes from renewables by 2020.
The regulators audit report revealed that during 2012 it received 147 allegations of rorts, the majority of which related to the creation of dodgy certificates for rooftop solar panels.
So far three monitoring warrants have been executed by NSW and Australian Federal police. One matter is before the Federal Court as a civil prosecution. One criminal matter was heard last year.
businessman John Testoni of Sydney Solar Eco Solutions pleading guilty to improperly creating $170,000 in RET certificates for 24 non-existent solar system installations in the Sydney area.
Fake markets just ask to be scammed. Who can forget the Spanish winter of late 2009 when 4,500Mw hours of solar [...]  *April 30th, 2013* | Tags: Renewable Energy, Solar Energy, Wind Power | Category: Global Warming |  Print This Post |  Email This Post | Comments (98)  *Wind Farms: Turbines break like match-sticks in medium waves, and their capacity is overestimated*Not a good news week for wind power.
First windpower probably doesnt produce as much electricity as people though it could. If the new estimates are right, humanity would need to cover 3 million square kilometers of the Earth to get just 10% of our electricity from wind. (And how many storms will that prevent do you think?) Could the cure be worse than the condition?
Second, it appears that wind turbines in the ocean might snap like matchsticks in particular conditions  conditions that are different for each turbine and at the moment, impossible to predict. The authors explain that it doesnt have to be big waves or big storms  medium sized waves were the worst.
Windpowers theoretical maximum isnt what we thought it might have been
When we account for the wind shadows that large installations produce, at best, wind power may only give us 1 Watt per square meter (or 1 MW per square kilometer). According to this team our global energy needs are in the order of 30 terawatts, and one terawatt is one trillion (1012) watts. If that is the case, to to supply 10% of our global energy needs wed have to cover  [...]  *March 1st, 2013* | Tags: Renewable Energy, Wind Power | Category: Global Warming |  Print This Post |  Email This Post |  *Two wind-turbines down in a week in the UK  Sabotage or failure?*Two wind towers are down in the last week in the UK 18 miles apart (Devon and Cornwall). It was thought the first tower (a six story £250,000 tower built in 2010) collapsed in the wind:
The bolts on the base could not withstand the wind and as we are a very windy part of the country they [the energy company] have egg on their face, she said. There are concerns about safety.
But, suspiciously, bolts were missing from the base and the second tower collapsed not far away. Sabotage is suspected. Who knows? The first tower was supposed to last for 25 years, and withstand winds of 116 mph. The night it fell, winds were only about 50mph.
There was fierce local opposition to the wind turbines. People do hate those things. That said, tampering with them would be a criminal act and also, logistically, possibly difficult to manage (according to some commenters on the Teles blog, almost impossible).  Accusing people of sabotage might be a convenient excuse for a company with egg on their face. In other words, we dont know. Wind towers have fallen over before: There have been some 1500 incidents or accidents in the [...]  *February 2nd, 2013* | Tags: Wind Power | Category: Global Warming |  Print This Post |  Email This Post |  *Tim Flannery  baseload is just a coal industry idea (Yes and darkness is a renewable idea, right?)*How is this for a scary thought?
Tim Flannery says renewables will run the economy:
What we can now see is the emerging inevitability that renewables are going to be running the economy
And I say: Prepare for economic armageddon. Picture an Australia where we all have jobs  jobs  digging holes, mucking out the stables, and chopping those last few remaining trees down. We may lead the world installing chinese-made solar panels, but they wont help us make anything that anyone else wants to buy. Anton gives us some numbers no one seems to have mentioned to Tim. Like, it takes 1,000 new wind towers to kinda equal one coal plant.  Jo

Guest Post: Anton Lang
Get ready  this is how much the 25 most recent, powerful, high-tech wind plants generate. Not the red line  thats how much electricity we used. Look at the expanse under the blue line  every bit of that (bit being the word) is all thanks to those brand spanking new wind turbines. Courtesy of the National Electricity Market. (NEM)The red line at the top shows total electricity demand for NSW, Vic, Qld, SA, and Tasmania [...]  *November 28th, 2012* | Tags: Climate Commission, Lang (Anton), Wind Power | Category: Energy, Global Warming |  Print This Post | Email This Post |

----------


## Marc

*Renewable energy is a $250 billion dollar industry that makes about 3% of our electricity*
In June this year the UNEP report announced that Global Renewable Energy investment reached $257 Billion in  2011. Its so large it rivals the $302 billion invested in fossil fuel power. But how much electricity do we get for all that money? When the details are pulled from the fog, a quarter of a trillion dollars appears to produce only about 3% of all our global electricity, and even less of our global energy. All that money, so few gigawatts.
The 2012 UNEP report Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment compares the
despite an increasingly tough competitive landscape for manufacturers, total investment in renewable power and fuels last year increased by 17% to a record $257 billion, a six-fold increase on the 2004 figure and 94% higher than the total in 2007, the year before the world financial crisis.
Renewables growth has slowed somewhat:
Although last years 17% increase was significantly smaller than the 37% growth recorded in 2010, it was achieved at a time of rapidly falling prices for renewable energy equipment and severe pressure on fiscal budgets in the developed world.
The last couple of quarters have not been good for [...]  *August 20th, 2012* | Tags: Climate Money, Hydroelectricity, Renewable Energy, Solar Energy, UN, Wind Power | Category: Energy,Global Warming |  Print This Post |  Email This Post |  *A nation still drawing 18,000MW in its sleep cant go solar*Im away, so this is a good time for Guest posts. Here Tony explains that we need lots of electricity even while we sleep. I didnt realize our electricity needs were so high at night. The lowest power use each day is still as much as 60% of the peak. Thats the base load at 3am, and solar panels and wind farms just cant provide it. We can burn the odd $500 billion building hundreds of solar plants, but even then, we would have to go medieval for about 8 hours each night. Candles anyone?  Jo
Guest post by Anton Lang
AUSTRALIAN POWER CONSUMPTION LOAD CURVES
Theres a message in these two diagrams that underlies every decision about national energy. 
Summer power curve  Time of Day versus power consumption (MW) 
These two diagrams are the most misunderstood images in the whole debate  the Load Curves for actual power consumption. These two shown here are for the whole of eastern Australia (including Tasmania and South Australia).
The top diagram shows typical consumption for a day in mid summer (Monday 30th January 2012) and the second is for a typical mid winter day (Friday 22nd July [...]  *May 20th, 2012* | Tags: Lang (Anton), Renewable Energy, Solar Energy, Wind Power | Category: Energy |  Print This Post |  Email This Post |  *Skeptics are winning: the carbon market is dead*The collapse of the Man-Made Myth continues apace. You may not read headlines as such (at least not in major dailies) but all the signs are there.
People who we never would have imagined speaking against the Big Scare Campaign are now doing so. Key glaciers are not melting and corals are happy. Governments wont tell you its over, but they are behaving that way (the Australian one excepted, due to an election fluke that gave the Greens the balance of power). The Catholic Herald headlined it:  Is the anthropogenic global warming consensus on the point of collapse? 
Source Barchart.
The last year of carbon trading in EUR's continues to fall. (Click to enlarge).
Mini update: The carbon market is being referred to as dead. Johannes Teyssen, chief executive of Germanys EON, urged policymakers to make fixes. Lets talk real: the ETS is bust, its dead, Mr Teyssen said in Brussels this week, adding: I dont know a single person in the world that would invest a dime based on ETS signals. [full story: Financial Times]. Point Carbon analysts have downgraded the forecast price of carbon credits for the second time in two months as the carbon market [...]  *February 11th, 2012* | Tags: Carbon Credits, Carbon Market, EU Carbon Market, Solar Energy, Tipping Point (of the Climate Scam), Wind Power | Category: Global Warming |  Print This Post |  Email This Post |  *Wind-farms: Lets copy the UK, pay money for nothing, and lots of it.*by Color CS
You know, the one comforting thing about the insanity going on in the UK is that Australia doesnt seem quite so basket-case, suicidally silly. Actually thats not really true, both countries are barking mad, but thanks to David Cameron its a little less lonely at the loony farm. Democractic dementia has company.
Exhibit A:
In 2008 Ministers were aiming to generate 20 per cent of the countrys energy from renewable sources by 2020. Professor MacKay explained back then, that to reach that, they would have to put wind farms over the entirety of Wales. How did the governing class respond? By 2011, the UK Coalition took that crazy renewable target and doubled it.
Exhibit B:
 Two thirds of Britains turbines are fully or partly owned by foreign businesses.
 Total subsidies paid to these non-UK owned farms is £523 million.
 The subsidies paid to local folk are handy for  Dukes and whatnot, and those who have large estates (especially ones they dont live on) who can pick up the £20,000 a year in subsidies  milked from people who dont have large estates and are [...]  *September 20th, 2011* | Tags: Wind Power | Category: Global Warming |  Print This Post |  Email This Post |  *We can lower Australian CO2 emissions by (wait for it) building new coal plants!*A joint writing project: Jo Nova & Tony Cox,based on an idea and research by Anton Lang (who writes as TonyfromOz at PAPundits)Its the paradox that will torture the Greens. What if the best way to achieve their environmental aims as well as providing jobs and power was to build more coal fired power stations? Imagine if we could reduce CO2 emissions by more than 5%, supply 24 hour baseload electricity, create jobs, and save thousands of square kilometres of Australian bush from industrial domination. Imagine if New Coal turned out to be the lowest cost alternative as well? Anton Lang has researched it, and Tony Cox has confirmed that the big numbers make sense with an Australian electricity company (who shall not be named). Selling the Carbon Tax in Neverland is already a public debate thats pretzel tied in impossible contradictions, so whats one  more unlikely twist? Possibly, just enough to get us out of a knot, or at least enough to expose the real aims of the carbon reduction plan. Old existing large scale coal fired power plants in Australia are all twenty to forty years [...]  *August 3rd, 2011* | Tags: Coal, Cox (Anthony), Lang (Anton), Renewable Energy, Solar Energy, TonyfromOz, Wind Power | Category:Global Warming, Renewables |  Print This Post |  Email This Post |

----------


## Marc

*Renewable energy is a $250 billion dollar industry that makes about 3% of our electricity*  

In June this year the UNEP report announced that Global Renewable Energy investment reached $257 Billion in  2011. Its so large it rivals the $302 billion invested in fossil fuel power. But how much electricity do we get for all that money? When the details are pulled from the fog, a quarter of a trillion dollars appears to produce only about 3% of all our global electricity, and even less of our global energy. All that money, so few gigawatts.
The 2012 UNEP report Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment compares the
despite an increasingly tough competitive landscape for manufacturers, total investment in renewable power and fuels last year increased by 17% to a record $257 billion, a six-fold increase on the 2004 figure and 94% higher than the total in 2007, the year before the world financial crisis.
Renewables growth has slowed somewhat:
Although last years 17% increase was significantly smaller than the 37% growth recorded in 2010, it was achieved at a time of rapidly falling prices for renewable energy equipment and severe pressure on fiscal budgets in the developed world.
The last couple of quarters have not been good for [...]  *August 20th, 2012* | Tags: Climate Money, Hydroelectricity, Renewable Energy, Solar Energy, UN, Wind Power | Category: Energy,Global Warming |  Print This Post |  Email This Post |  *A nation still drawing 18,000MW in its sleep cant go solar*  
Im away, so this is a good time for Guest posts. Here Tony explains that we need lots of electricity even while we sleep. I didnt realize our electricity needs were so high at night. The lowest power use each day is still as much as 60% of the peak. Thats the base load at 3am, and solar panels and wind farms just cant provide it. We can burn the odd $500 billion building hundreds of solar plants, but even then, we would have to go medieval for about 8 hours each night. Candles anyone?  Jo
Guest post by Anton Lang
AUSTRALIAN POWER CONSUMPTION LOAD CURVES
Theres a message in these two diagrams that underlies every decision about national energy. 
Summer power curve  Time of Day versus power consumption (MW) 
These two diagrams are the most misunderstood images in the whole debate  the Load Curves for actual power consumption. These two shown here are for the whole of eastern Australia (including Tasmania and South Australia).
The top diagram shows typical consumption for a day in mid summer (Monday 30th January 2012) and the second is for a typical mid winter day (Friday 22nd July [...]  *May 20th, 2012* | Tags: Lang (Anton), Renewable Energy, Solar Energy, Wind Power | Category: Energy |  Print This Post |  Email This Post |  *Skeptics are winning: the carbon market is dead*  
The collapse of the Man-Made Myth continues apace. You may not read headlines as such (at least not in major dailies) but all the signs are there.
People who we never would have imagined speaking against the Big Scare Campaign are now doing so. Key glaciers are not melting and corals are happy. Governments wont tell you its over, but they are behaving that way (the Australian one excepted, due to an election fluke that gave the Greens the balance of power). The Catholic Herald headlined it:  Is the anthropogenic global warming consensus on the point of collapse? 
Source Barchart.
The last year of carbon trading in EUR's continues to fall. (Click to enlarge).
Mini update: The carbon market is being referred to as dead. Johannes Teyssen, chief executive of Germanys EON, urged policymakers to make fixes. Lets talk real: the ETS is bust, its dead, Mr Teyssen said in Brussels this week, adding: I dont know a single person in the world that would invest a dime based on ETS signals. [full story: Financial Times]. Point Carbon analysts have downgraded the forecast price of carbon credits for the second time in two months as the carbon market [...]  *February 11th, 2012* | Tags: Carbon Credits, Carbon Market, EU Carbon Market, Solar Energy, Tipping Point (of the Climate Scam), Wind Power | Category: Global Warming |  Print This Post |  Email This Post |  *Wind-farms: Lets copy the UK, pay money for nothing, and lots of it.*  
by Color CS
You know, the one comforting thing about the insanity going on in the UK is that Australia doesnt seem quite so basket-case, suicidally silly. Actually thats not really true, both countries are barking mad, but thanks to David Cameron its a little less lonely at the loony farm. Democractic dementia has company.
Exhibit A:
In 2008 Ministers were aiming to generate 20 per cent of the countrys energy from renewable sources by 2020. Professor MacKay explained back then, that to reach that, they would have to put wind farms over the entirety of Wales. How did the governing class respond? By 2011, the UK Coalition took that crazy renewable target and doubled it.
Exhibit B:
 Two thirds of Britains turbines are fully or partly owned by foreign businesses.
 Total subsidies paid to these non-UK owned farms is £523 million.
 The subsidies paid to local folk are handy for  Dukes and whatnot, and those who have large estates (especially ones they dont live on) who can pick up the £20,000 a year in subsidies  milked from people who dont have large estates and are [...]  *September 20th, 2011* | Tags: Wind Power | Category: Global Warming |  Print This Post |  Email This Post |  *We can lower Australian CO2 emissions by (wait for it) building new coal plants!*   A joint writing project: Jo Nova & Tony Cox,
based on an idea and research by Anton Lang (who writes as TonyfromOz at PAPundits)Its the paradox that will torture the Greens. What if the best way to achieve their environmental aims as well as providing jobs and power was to build more coal fired power stations? Imagine if we could reduce CO2 emissions by more than 5%, supply 24 hour baseload electricity, create jobs, and save thousands of square kilometres of Australian bush from industrial domination. Imagine if New Coal turned out to be the lowest cost alternative as well? Anton Lang has researched it, and Tony Cox has confirmed that the big numbers make sense with an Australian electricity company (who shall not be named). Selling the Carbon Tax in Neverland is already a public debate thats pretzel tied in impossible contradictions, so whats one  more unlikely twist? Possibly, just enough to get us out of a knot, or at least enough to expose the real aims of the carbon reduction plan. Old existing large scale coal fired power plants in Australia are all twenty to forty years [...]  *August 3rd, 2011* | Tags: Coal, Cox (Anthony), Lang (Anton), Renewable Energy, Solar Energy, TonyfromOz, Wind Power | Category:Global Warming, Renewables |  Print This Post |  Email This Post |   *Lessons in wasting money: Use more wind and solar and emit just as much CO2*   One windfarm: bad; ten windfarms: useless.
If we replace 5% of the power grid with windpower we could reduce our CO2 emissions by 4% or so. (If only there was some point to doing that.)
But heres the non-linearity trap for the fans of green energy. If we replace 20% of the power grid with wind power, we dont get a 16% reduction in CO2 emissions: we get about 2% reduction (give or take a lot). Indeed if we use enough windpower we might even increase CO2 emissions. Yes Coal + Wind = more CO2. Oh the irony. Quick, can someone email Julia Gillard?
A review of wind powers success in reducing emissions of CO2 shows the folly of pretending that successful small wind and solar power units can be upscaled to replace a large part of our electricity grid.   The major difference between a coal-burning future and a clean technology one turns out to have nothing to do with CO2  instead, in a coal burning future its impossible to waste this much money.
The Gillard Carbon Tax plan very much pretends that Australia can convert to wind and solar,  but a new review by Herbert Inhaber shows [...]

----------


## Marc

And don't forget to concentrate your replies on the authors association with scull and bones, their nipple rings, oil company shares and other very important personal attributes and don't address any of the points raised please.

----------


## woodbe

So what happened to your claim that 'the rest of the world is winding them up' Marc? Your latest posts even agree that wind power is still growing! 
Seems not even the windfarm haters agree with you. 
Fossil fuel power: Low capital costs per output, high running costs, high fuel costs.
Renewable power: Higher capital cost, low running cost, zero fuel costs. 
If you add the lifetime running and fuel costs to the plant capital costs you might find an answer you don't like...

----------


## John2b

> And don't forget to concentrate your replies on the authors association with scull and bones, their nipple rings, oil company shares and other very important personal attributes and don't address any of the points raised please.

  Grow up, Marc. How about participating in the discussion like an adult? 
BTW all of the points raised were addressed in the links given to the authorities who actually manage the energy market and report the facts, unlike your fairytale blog pasteathon.

----------


## Neptune

> (Hint: It wasn't a question, it was a proposition.)

  Why thank you, that's the first proposition I've had in years.    

> So understanding of what is or isn't science should be done by polls?

  The poll had nothing to do with science, http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/ca...ax-poll-98944/   

> My, my, what a twisted, flat earth view!

  Well that's your interpretation.    

> Diddums! 
> It does beg the question: Why do climate change deniers harbour an innate need to disregard facts?

  You know all the answers, you tell the class.   

> Really do you know any, I doubt it's the bloke you see in the mirror each morning.

  I don't see a bloke when I look in the mirror each morning, except if one has a sleepover.

----------


## johnc

> I don't see a bloke when I look in the mirror each morning, except if one has a sleepover.

  I stand corrected  :Doh:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> And don't forget to concentrate your replies on the authors association with scull and bones, their nipple rings, oil company shares and other very important personal attributes and don't address any of the points raised please.

  This says it all. German TV show mocks green policies of grand coalition - YouTube

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So what happened to your claim that 'the rest of the world is winding them up' Marc? Your latest posts even agree that wind power is still growing! 
> Seems not even the windfarm haters agree with you. 
> Fossil fuel power: Low capital costs per output, high running costs, high fuel costs.
> Renewable power: Higher capital cost, low running cost, zero fuel costs. 
> If you add the lifetime running and fuel costs to the plant capital costs you might find an answer you don't like...

  Just like the answers Germany is now finding LOL

----------


## John2b

> This says it all. German TV show mocks green policies of grand coalition - YouTube

  Well it doesn't actually - the essense of the satire was misquoted in the title of the video. But don't let the truth get in the way of your ideology, Rod. Oh, and by the way, they were implying that energy subsidies have pushed the price of electricity up to 6.24 cents per kWh in Germany. How much are you paying for your electricity here in Australia, Rod? Four times or five times as much? About one quarter of the electricity is provided by renewables in Germany BTW.  Renewable Energy Data — Fraunhofer ISE

----------


## John2b

> Just like the answers Germany is now finding LOL

  Yes LOL: Increased renewable energy production in Germany causes electricity costs to plummet 
Not just in Germany, but in surrounding countries too: The price of electricity continues to lower in countries surrounding Germany  German renewable energy cuts electricity costs - Hydrogen Fuel News@|@Hydrogen Fuel News  Platts: European Power Prices Fell 8.4% in March as Ger | Platts Press Release | Media | Platts

----------


## intertd6

> It is a fixed price emissions trading scheme that was scheduled to move to a variable market price market driven emissions trading scheme. 
> Fact: The ETS uses market forces to change behaviours. The market mechanism delivers savings to consumers. The greedy whose's profits will suffer are screaming like pigs to have the ETS scrapped. No one who proposed the ETS stands to benefit from it financially other than through transparent market mechanisms.

  You must be a paid up card carrying member if the opposition govt wanting to be that pedantic about what is commonly called the " carbon tax " by the general public & the present govt, plus that's what it's called in your referenced link which you didn't seem to read before shooting yourself in the foot. Anybody that thinks a "carbon tax" under any guise is going to be successful must be living in dreamland.
"transparent market mechanisms" I fell of my chair laughing when I read that & especially seeing the world still hasn't recovered from the transparent market mechanisms of the worlds banks, ahh it's a nice pink fluffy world some naive folk live in.
regards

----------


## woodbe

> Just like the answers Germany is now finding LOL

  Someone doesn't do their research. Germany is not winding down their Wind Power:    Wind power in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Germany is increasing alternative energy across the board with a goal to wipe non-renewables and nuclear off the slate.   

> The final goal is the abolition of coal and other non-renewable energy sources.

  Energy transition in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## intertd6

> The big dark oceans are behaving exactly as they always have. Look at the surface temperature record before 1998. 
> Sorry Inter, nothing you or any other denier has said in 10,000 + posts has shot science to pieces. 
> Learn to read - "chaotic" was referring to weather, not specifically ocean currents. 
> And you are wrong yet again. Anybody who cares to look at the past history of warming patterns will see that the there was a sudden warming event in which temperatures rose by about 6º C globally and by 10-20º C at the poles, most likely as a result of a major release of CO2 into the ocean and atmosphere - the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM. www.palaeontologyonline.com | Article: Patterns in Palaeontology > Patterns in Palaeontology: The Paleocene

  So your definition of runaway warming is warming that doesn't runaway. I'm sure that makes sense to you!
dont you understand what you parrot?
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> You must be a paid up card carrying member if the opposition govt wanting to be that pedantic about what is commonly called the " carbon tax " by the general public & the present govt, plus that's what it's called in your referenced link which you didn't seem to read before shooting yourself in the foot. Anybody that thinks a "carbon tax" under any guise is going to be successful must be living in dreamland.
> "transparent market mechanisms" I fell of my chair laughing when I read that & especially seeing the world still hasn't recovered from the transparent market mechanisms of the worlds banks, ahh it's a nice pink fluffy world some naive folk live in.
> regards

  Yes I did read the link and it isn't contrary to my points, but this isn't the first time you've failed reading comprehension Inter. Try harder next time.

----------


## intertd6

> Yes I did read the link and it isn't contrary to my points, but this isn't the first time you've failed reading comprehension Inter. Try harder next time.

  "Since July 2012, Australia has had in place its carbon pricing scheme. It is commonly referred to as a carbon tax  "
That's a cut & paste from your linked reference, any normal decent person would admit it & apologise but seeing the calibre of the opposition I think that there is no chance I'll ever see it.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> "Since July 2012, Australia has had in place its carbon pricing scheme. It is commonly referred to as a carbon tax  "
> That's a cut & paste from your linked reference, any normal decent person would admit it & apologise but seeing the calibre of the opposition I think that there is no chance I'll ever see it.
> regards inter

  I did not claim it wasn't _called_ a carbon tax. As the linked article explains, it is commonly and incorrectly referred to as a carbon tax! The article says: "Technically, its not a tax system". That is a cut and paste from my linked reference. Are you going to apologise for your error?

----------


## intertd6

> I did not claim it wasn't _called_ a carbon tax. As the linked article explains, it is commonly and incorrectly referred to as a carbon tax! The article says: "Technically, its not a tax system". That is a cut and paste from my linked reference. Are you going to apologise for your error?

  While ever there are types like you getting caught out on even the most simplest things you will never now the service you are doing against your cause. It's like pure comedic entertainment at the highest level.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> While ever there are types like you getting caught out on even the most simplest things you will never now the service you are doing against your cause. It's like pure comedic entertainment at the highest level.
> regards inter

  The answer to the question posed is "No, you will not admit your error!" There is no "cause" Inter. Just the facts as recorded and there for everyone to see.

----------


## Marc

It is no coincidence that the welfare state of SA with 600,000 Centrelink customers and the most recalcitrant labor supporters that vote labor even after the fiasco fraud corruption and mafia style deals of the last 6 years for more of the same, not surprising,  is also the state that sucks in the most of subsidies including those that go to prop up the wind farm industry, an industry that exists ONLY due to subsidies and wouldn't be able to generate one KW of power if it wasn't for you and me paying extra for the privilege.  
When a religion that dishes out punishment for some phantom greater good or future ill defined reward is called irrational by those who do not belong to the flock the answer is atheist denier infidel or similar epithets. However we are not dealing with a religion here, we are dealing with ordinary political interests disguised as green religion, just like religion in the dark ages was but a political totalitarian force that used the religious fanatics for their own purposes.  
The notion that human activity is altering the climate in any measurable way is an invention created to herd in the fanatics and set them against the bad humans who do something different from collecting Centrelink payments. What flows out of this imaginary notion is that we must do "something, anything" to change this. Of course to reduce the imaginary threat of CO2 we can either embrace unproven and heavily subsidies new technology or reduce the human population by a few billions. The fact that even such drastic measures will make no difference to the climate is irrelevant. Just like burning the mentally ill alive as witches, made no difference to "sin" nor God, the fanatics and their managers-controllers, the politicians who are set to cash in this process, press on because their interests come first and the suckers who "believe" are just pawns in a war for control of power and resources. 
But do not tell this to the true believer. The true believer who made his mission a full time "job" will kill for his cause and literally blow up everything else in the process in order to meet the virgins in heaven or whatever he thinks his reward will be for "saving" the planet. It is rather pathetic that in the 21 century we still live and think like we did 2 or 3 thousand years ago. 
I know this crap will slowly come to pass however humans will not change and something else will become the new religion to be believed or else. 
In the words of George Herbert: "The best revenge is living well".
Live well and produce as much CO2 and CH4 as you feel necessary in the knowledge that even the most recalcitrant fanatic also produces CO2 and CH4 galore, perhaps even more than you. 
Hooroo

----------


## John2b

> *Wind farms  are 96% useless, and cost 150 times more than necessary for what they do*

  In the beginning there was the Blog and the Blog was Watts   We should all thank St Marc, Apostle of the Pentecostal Church of Jo Nova and Latter Day Climate Change Deniers, for his 6000 word Epiphany published yesterday for the benefit of all pagans and believers of science.  St Marcs Gospel is based on the premise that wind generation costs 150 times more than necessary.  Wow, 150 times is a lot, that ought to be easy to verify.  The Howard government introduced the RET scheme in 2001 to encourage growth in renewable energy. The cost of investment in renewable energy has in the past been higher than investment in coal and gas. The RET provides an incentive for companies to invest in renewables.  But is electricity generation by wind increasing the cost of electricity?  According to the Clean Energy Regulator - the federal government body that oversees the RET - at the end of 2011, investment in renewable energy power stations totalled around $10.5 billion. This represents a minor portion of the investment in energy infrastructure. http://www.rebuildingthenation.com.au/energy/renewing-and-expanding-electricity-infrastructure/  The NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal found that 1.3% per cent of the increase in the cost of an electricity bill was because of "green scheme" compliance - of which the RET is a part. http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/Home/Quicklinks/IPART_Submissions_to_External_Reviews/IPART_Submission_-_Climate_Change_Authority_-_Renewable_Energy_Target_Review_-_September_2012  In Queensland, the regulator estimates that the cost of the RET at the retail level to an average yearly household bill in 2013-14 is at least $55.24 (~4%). http://www.qca.org.au/getattachment/8adc8eea-650d-4573-98ab-ec5d91c338fc/Advice-to-the-Minister-on-the-bill-impacts-of-the.aspx  _However_, the RET affects wholesale electricity prices because creating renewable energy once the infrastructure is in place is relatively cheap. Sources like solar and wind power are produced from free energy - unlike coal or gas power, which have higher ongoing production costs. The net effect on energy consumer bills will therefore reflect the balance of the change in wholesale costs and change in RET certificate costs.  The Australian Energy Regulator says wholesale _spot electricity prices hit historic lows in 2011-12, attributable to declining demand and "the rising uptake of renewable generation"._ http://www.aer.gov.au/node/23147  The Business Council of Australias report into emissions trading and the RET concluded that it was causing a drop in the wholesale price. http://www.bca.com.au/publications/modelling-success-designing-an-ets-that-works  The Australian Energy Market Commission says that South Australia's prices would drop by 0.9 per cent a year to 2016, and attributes that in part to_ environmental policies - including the RET - that put downward pressure on prices_. According to the Australian Energy Regulator, renewables made up 28 per cent of the South Australian market in 2012-13. http://www.aemc.gov.au/Media/docs/So...bb88142c-0.PDF  WTF - the RET is causing a reduction in the cost of electricity for all Australians and Archangel Jo Nova hadn't noticed!

----------


## John2b

> It is no coincidence that the welfare state of SA with 600,000 Centrelink customers and the most recalcitrant labor supporters that vote labor blah blah blah

  What has this got to do with Emission Trading?

----------


## woodbe

I think this is the association Marc is aiming for:   

> And don't forget to concentrate your replies on the authors association with scull and bones, their nipple rings, oil company shares and other very important personal attributes and don't address any of the points raised please.

  (i.e. nothing to do with Emission Trading) 
I think that's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. 
The arguments that wind and alternative energy is costly, produces basically nothing and are being 'wound down' overseas are patently false and have been shown as such here. I guess we in this thread are relatively well off compared to the less fortunate in our community but apparently they are fair game when you want to demonise anyone who happens to support alternative energy, all the time supporting commentators who have been shown to be lying about their qualifications and facts.

----------


## intertd6

> I did not claim it wasn't _called_ a carbon tax. As the linked article explains, it is commonly and incorrectly referred to as a carbon tax! The article says: "Technically, its not a tax system". That is a cut and paste from my linked reference. Are you going to apologise for your error?

  we we must have slightly more intellect than your usual audience with goldfish IQ, because the the linked article never said "commonly and incorrectly referred to as a carbon tax!" 
But this is what you said " 
 Originally Posted by intertd6 
Fact : No carbon tax in Australia is going to change anything!  
regards inter
Fact: Australia did not and does not have a carbon tax.  
Explainer: The difference between a carbon tax and an ETS " 
now just because some academic & his wannabe minions want to get pedantic & split hairs doesn't make it so, clearly the prime minister & the general population publicly call it the "carbon tax " so it looks like your out voted. And will be again when the " carbon tax" is repealed in the senate in the near future when the dead wood is cleared out.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> we we must have slightly more intellect than your usual audience with goldfish IQ, because the the linked article never said "commonly and incorrectly referred to as a carbon tax!" 
> But this is what you said "

  Where did I claim to be quoting the article verbatim? (Hint: I didn't!) The linked article's says "_its not a tax system_" therefore I said it is "_incorrectly_ referred to as a carbon tax!" 
The logical progression of this argument is not particularly difficult. Are you sure you are attributing the "goldfish IQ" correctly?

----------


## John2b

> And will be again when the " carbon tax" is repealed in the senate in the near future when the dead wood is cleared out.

  Don't speak too soon. Palmer has warned his party does not support Abbott's direct action policy and Abbott needs the PUP's numbers as well. And it would be surprising if the odd sitting Federal Liberal politician isn't rolled as a result of the corruption being revealed in Liberal Party ranks by NSW's Independent Commission Against Corruption.  Come July, Abbott may not have the numbers you are counting on LOL.  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian  &lsquo;Sham&rsquo; company raised funds for Liberals, ICAC told

----------


## johnc

At this stage it seems unlikely Abbott will be able to repeal the carbon tax in the current term. Unlike the last government he does have control of the lower house but will not get control of the upper house even after the changeover. With the LNP's electoral standing suffering in the polls he will not go for an early election as he had previously threatened and he needs to use some diplomatic skills to get the Senate back on side. He appears to have lost interest in the carbon tax as they really don't have any answers to their election promise of no new taxes and we'll get the budget back into surplus a task that is slipping from them unless they address the issue of the tax base. 
They appear as if they will do better constraining spending than the last lot, their pre-election rhetoric and promises though are now biting them on the bum. Our national accounts had made it clear there would not be a lot of easy spending cut and that our tax base was being eroded.   Swan didn't get it either and I'm not convinced this lot have any answers but at least they understand the question now which is an improvement. As I have consistently maintained there really isn't a lot of difference between the economic management of either side they both tinker at the margins neither address the real issues.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Someone doesn't do their research. Germany is not winding down their Wind Power:    Wind power in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
> Germany is increasing alternative energy across the board with a goal to wipe non-renewables and nuclear off the slate.    Energy transition in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Lets see how this works out for them in the next few years  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Don't speak too soon. Palmer has warned his party does not support Abbott's direct action policy and Abbott needs the PUP's numbers as well. And it would be surprising if the odd sitting Federal Liberal politician isn't rolled as a result of the corruption being revealed in Liberal Party ranks by NSW's Independent Commission Against Corruption.  Come July, Abbott may not have the numbers you are counting on LOL.  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian  &lsquo;Sham&rsquo; company raised funds for Liberals, ICAC told

  That's OK  We don't need the direct action policy either.

----------


## woodbe

> Lets see how this works out for them in the next few years

  I'll take that as an admission that your information was incorrect. 
FYI Germany is not thinking short term like 'the next few years'.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'll take that as an admission that your information was incorrect. 
> FYI Germany is not thinking short term like 'the next few years'.

  No chance I think they are kidding themselves and time will tell. 
Maybe this is a hint.   

> On April 16th, 2014, a few quite remarkable statements were delivered during a discussion event at the premises of SMA Solar Technology AG, a leading German producer of photovoltaic panels and systems:   
> The truth is that the Energy U-Turn (Energiewende, the German scheme aimed at pushing the renewable share of electricity production to 80 % by 2050) is about to fail 
> The truth is that under all aspects, we have underestimated the complexity of the Energiewende 
> The noble aspiration of a decentralized energy supply, of self-sufficiency! This is of course utter madness 
> Anyway, most other countries in Europe think we are crazy 
> Had this been one of the small albeit growing number of German sceptics casting doubt upon the XXL-sized politico-economical scam that has cost the German populace more than  500 billion since its inception in 2000, it would not have gotten more than a footnote in the local press, crammed somewhere in between horoscope and lost and found. In fact, the media actually tried to keep a lid on the facts by giving them as little coverage as possible. 
> But the man at the speakers desk was Sigmar Gabriel, acting vice-chancellor of the German government, Secretary of Commerce with responsibility for the said Energiewende and chairman of the German social democrats (SPD), the second-largest political force in the country. Since December 2013, he is in charge of taming the runaway costs and growing security of supply risks that are unmasking the financial and technical nightmare of this ill-conceived project. In the past few months, he seems to have gotten some unpleasant insights causing him to admit the above-mentioned inconvenient truths when he was pushed too far by a number of aggressive lobbyists of the renewable energy sector. Gabriel, famous for his irascible temper that once already resulted in a heated verbal exchange with a top-dog TV journalist live on air, appears to have become quite candid when he vented his anger during the debate.

----------


## intertd6

> Where did I claim to be quoting the article verbatim? (Hint: I didn't!) The linked article's says "_its not a tax system_" therefore I said it is "_incorrectly_ referred to as a carbon tax!" 
> The logical progression of this argument is not particularly difficult. Are you sure you are attributing the "goldfish IQ" correctly?

  Your still out voted, just because some lone commentary says so & a devout follower of such really doesn't carry much weight, what did carry some weight was when some dill said there wasn't going to be a carbon tax, then introduced one, which ultimately led to their shortened term in office & a contributing factor in the demise of their govt in power. Keep the propaganda going I'm sure there is a prospective goldfish type out there that will swallow it when they pay money to the govt that they think isn't tax but a contribution to the saving of life on earth.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> when some dill said there wasn't going to be a ... tax, then introduced one, which ultimately led to their shortened term in office & a contributing factor in the demise of their govt in power.

  The "No new taxes" government is introducing new taxes. Your logic makes it a foregone conclusion that the Abbott government is about to suffer the same fate you attributed to the previous government:
One Liberal MP said he woke on Tuesday morning to the news of the tax. "It's just shock," the MP said. "There was no communication from the leader's office. We're all just scratching our heads. It's the biggest f----up we've had in a long time. I can't say anything on the record because it's just too stupid," he said. "If it's wrong, then it's bulls--t, because why would you scare the electorate? And if it's right, then it's even worse because we said before the election there'd be no new taxes." 
Another branded Mr Abbott's attempts to recategorise the tax as a levy as "sophistry", calling it "an offence to voters" that was "worse than Gillard's claim that the carbon tax was not a tax".Deficit tax tears at Tony Abbott's credibility

----------


## Marc

Don't underestimate the number of Centrelink funded activist looking for a cause. Saving the earth is just one of them.
Opposing a conservative government must be a default activity, then there is demonstrating for the right of the refugees particularly the sea rise refugees, then the rights of the welfare recipients ... plenty of causes to take up as full time occupation. A large "workforce" at hand...

----------


## Neptune

> The "No new taxes" government is introducing new taxes. Your logic makes it a foregone conclusion that the Abbott government is about to suffer the same fate you attributed to the previous government:
> One Liberal MP said he woke on Tuesday morning to the news of the tax. "It's just shock," the MP said. "There was no communication from the leader's office. We're all just scratching our heads. It's the biggest f----up we've had in a long time. I can't say anything on the record because it's just too stupid," he said. "If it's wrong, then it's bulls--t, because why would you scare the electorate? And if it's right, then it's even worse because we said before the election there'd be no new taxes." 
> Another branded Mr Abbott's attempts to recategorise the tax as a levy as "sophistry", calling it "an offence to voters" that was "worse than Gillard's claim that the carbon tax was not a tax".Deficit tax tears at Tony Abbott's credibility

  And who do you think created this deficit he has to fix?

----------


## John2b

> No chance I think they are kidding themselves and time will tell. 
> Maybe this is a hint.

   In the beginning there was the Blog and the Blog was Watts...
Every time Googling your posts to test veracity always ends up with WUWT as the top hit. Don't you think it's time to put down the Gospel According to St Anthony and start thinking for yourself, like a true sceptic would? Haven't you worked out yet that the loudest deniers of anthropogenic global warming consistently turn out to be cowards who will bluster and insult and threaten, but in the end, they always run away from defending their various claims in an objective manner?

----------


## John2b

> And who do you think created this deficit he has to fix?

  I defer to the experts on that question. If you review the research of independent international financial commentators the only sensible conclusion is John Howard. 
As reported in Australian newspapers, Australia's most needlessly wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments.  http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1305.pdf

----------


## John2b

> Don't underestimate the number of Centrelink funded activist looking for a cause.

  Which brings me to the point I just made, Marc, that "the loudest deniers of anthropogenic global warming consistently turn out to be cowards who will bluster and insult and threaten, but in the end, they always run away from defending their various claims in an objective manner." How about you provide some objective data to support your claim that there are "Centrelink funded activist looking for a cause"?

----------


## Neptune

> Which brings me to the point I just made, Marc, that "the loudest deniers of anthropogenic global warming consistently turn out to be cowards who will bluster and insult and threaten, but in the end, they always run away from defending their various claims in an objective manner."

   

> How about you provide some objective data to support your claim?

  Please.

----------


## Marc

Considering that most skeptics arrive at their conclusions independently and not following a flock, that most are unpaid or even lost their jobs because of their views or because decided to blow the whistle and if you also consider that most if not all supporters of the global warming fraud are paid to do so, funded by taxpayers who have no say in how or why the money is spent that way, I think that your epithet of cowardice is wasted. 
If you on the other hand are calling me a coward, I suggest you retract your words right now.

----------


## John2b

> Please.

  Neptune, I gather your comment is directed to Marc, because I have provided links to objective sources with almost every post I have made. However, if you find fault with the objectivity of these links, I welcome your debating their veracity with your own objective sources of information.

----------


## John2b

> Considering that most skeptics arrive at their conclusions independently and not following a flock, that most are unpaid or even lost their jobs because of their views or because decided to blow the whistle and if you also consider that most if not all supporters of the global warming fraud are paid to do so, funded by taxpayers who have no say in how or why the money is spent that way, I think that your epithet of cowardice is wasted. 
> If you on the other hand are calling me a coward, I suggest you retract your words right now.

  If I did so, it was inadvertent, but I doubt that I did. If you can point to where I personally called you a coward, I will retract it.

----------


## johnc

> And who do you think created this deficit he has to fix?

  Tax cuts either delivered or promised in the Howard era, large concessions on Superannuation taxes greater access to the age pension huge increases in family tax payments have increased outlays and reduced tax receipts. A Treasurer in Swan who never really appeared to grasp what he had inherited who also delivered two of Howards tax cuts, never really contained spending and tried to copy Costello without ever realising the economic sands had shifted. Who is responsible? they all are,  including a stupid moronic public who cheer for one team and denigrate the opposite side without question. I see little sign of fixing any problems yet, that will wait until the budget but no side has done well on this we squandered the mining boom and we are taking to long to address the problems and recalcitrant oppositions need to remember they are there to serve the public not to pout and sulk until they next get into power. I hardly think a $5.5B PPL and $24B in planes we actually don't have money for is a sign of responsibility when they pretend one is fully funded and the other is provided for neither statement is actually true.

----------


## johnc

> Considering that most skeptics arrive at their conclusions independently and not following a flock, that most are unpaid or even lost their jobs because of their views or because decided to blow the whistle and if you also consider that most if not all supporters of the global warming fraud are paid to do so, funded by taxpayers who have no say in how or why the money is spent that way, I think that your epithet of cowardice is wasted. 
> If you on the other hand are calling me a coward, I suggest you retract your words right now.

  Your statements are unsupportable untrue and a fabrication, what is the point in just making stuff up, this borders on the hysterical.

----------


## John2b

Well said, Johnc (in reply to #10679)

----------


## Neptune

> Neptune, I gather your comment is directed to Marc, because I have provided links to objective sources with almost every post I have made. However, if you find fault with the objectivity of these links, I welcome your debating their veracity with your own objective sources of information.

  My comment is directed at you John2b.   

> Which brings me to the point I just made, Marc, that "the loudest deniers of anthropogenic global warming consistently turn out to be cowards who will bluster and insult and threaten, but in the end, they always run away from defending their various claims in an objective manner." How about you provide some objective data to support your claim that there are "Centrelink funded activist looking for a cause"?

  Could you re provide the link to objective sources for the above quote please.

----------


## woodbe

> So what happened to your claim that 'the rest of the world is winding them up' Marc? Your latest posts even agree that wind power is still growing! 
> Seems not even the windfarm haters agree with you. 
> Fossil fuel power: Low capital costs per output, high running costs, high fuel costs.
> Renewable power: Higher capital cost, low running cost, zero fuel costs. 
> If you add the lifetime running and fuel costs to the plant capital costs you might find an answer you don't like...

   

> Just like the answers Germany is now finding LOL

   

> Someone doesn't do their research. Germany is not winding down their Wind Power:    Wind power in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
> Germany is increasing alternative energy across the board with a goal to wipe non-renewables and nuclear off the slate.    Energy transition in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   

> No chance I think they are kidding themselves and time will tell. 
> Maybe this is a hint.

  Your comment was "Just like the answers Germany is now finding LOL" but Germany is clearly not 'now finding' those answers. Like any future proposition, your opinion may turn out right or wrong, but the facts clearly show that Germany is still on a path of alternative energy expansion leading to ongoing reduction and the goal of eventual elimination of fossil fuel power. They are clearly not winding down their wind power efforts. Your comment is not aligned with the present facts. Quoting an opinion piece does not change those facts.

----------


## intertd6

Clearly some seem to way beyond reasonable levels of common sense when they want to go back 3 terms of govt to blame the  debt the present govt has!!! With that logic any argument is possible with the conviction of being right, 
but all this is just a red herring because they can't parrot any reasonable or logical proof that CO2 is causing AGW.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> My comment is directed at you John2b. 
> Could you re provide the link to objective sources for the above quote please.

  1. I said "I have provided links to objective sources with *almost* every post I have made". 
2. The source of the quote is my own post about 10 posts up: #10672 
3. In truth, I pinched the construct from a website here: What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al.  It's a blog and I am not claiming it to be any more objective than any other blog. 
4. If you want to find numerous examples of climate change deniers running away from defending their various claims in an objective manner, you only have to look at this page of the forum, or the previous one, or the one before that, or the page before that.... I don't recall an objective defence of a denialist's claim during my time participating in this forum, but I will be happy to be reminded of any.   The lack of objectivity in the denialist camp is probably why studying the psychology of climate change denial is one of the fastest growth areas of new scientific research. Here's some recent studies into, or with some relevance to, climate change denial. Go ahead and pick them to pieces!  Climate change from the users perspective: The impact of mass media and internet use and individual and moderating variables on knowledge and attitudes. Taddicken, Monika Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, Vol 25(1), 2013, 39-52. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000080   Drawing attention to global climate change decreases support for war. Pyszczynski, Tom; Motyl, Matt; Vail III, Kenneth E.; Hirschberger, Gilad; Arndt, Jamie; Kesebir, Pelin Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, Vol 18(4), Nov 2012, 354-368. doi: 10.1037/a0030328   When human nature confronts the need for a global environmental ethics. Pratarelli, Marc E. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, Vol 6(3), Sep 2012, 384-403. doi: 10.1037/h0099245   Communicating environmental risks: Clarifying the severity effect in interpretations of verbal probability expressions.
Harris, Adam J. L.; Corner, Adam Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol 37(6), Nov 2011, 1571-1578. doi: 10.1037/a0024195   The psychological impacts of global climate change. Doherty, Thomas J.; Clayton, Susan American Psychologist, Vol 66(4), May-Jun 2011, 265-276. doi: 10.1037/a0023141   The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Gifford, Robert American Psychologist, Vol 66(4), May-Jun 2011, 290-302. doi: 10.1037/a0023566   Adapting to and coping with the threat and impacts of climate change. Reser, Joseph P.; Swim, Janet K. American Psychologist, Vol 66(4), May-Jun 2011, 277-289. doi: 10.1037/a0023412   Visceral fit: While in a visceral state, associated states of the world seem more likely. Risen, Jane L.; Critcher, Clayton R. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 100(5), May 2011, 777-793. doi: 10.1037/a0022460   Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. Stern, Paul C. American Psychologist, Vol 66(4), May-Jun 2011, 303-314. doi: 10.1037/a0023235   Human behavioral contributions to climate change: Psychological and contextual drivers. Swim, Janet K.; Clayton, Susan; Howard, George S. American Psychologist, Vol 66(4), May-Jun 2011, 251-264. doi: 10.1037/a0023472   Psychology's contributions to understanding and addressing global climate change. Swim, Janet K.; Stern, Paul C.; Doherty, Thomas J.; Clayton, Susan; Reser, Joseph P.; Weber, Elke U.; Gifford, Robert; Howard, George S. American Psychologist, Vol 66(4), May-Jun 2011, 241-250. doi: 10.1037/a0023220   Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Weber, Elke U.; Stern, Paul C. American Psychologist, Vol 66(4), May-Jun 2011, 315-328. doi: 10.1037/a0023253   Voice in political decision-making: The effect of group voice on perceived trustworthiness of decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions. Terwel, Bart W.; Harinck, Fieke; Ellemers, Naomi; Daamen, Dancker D. L. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Vol 16(2), Jun 2010, 173-186. doi: 10.1037/a0019977   Review of _Climate, affluence, and culture_. Marshall, E. Anne Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, Vol 51(2), May 2010, 145-146. doi: 10.1037/a0019830   Discounting behavior and environmental decisions. Carson, Richard T.; Roth Tran, Brigitte Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, Vol 2(2), Nov 2009, 112-130. doi: 10.1037/a0017685   Psychological sciences contributions to a sustainable environment: Extending our reach to a grand challenge of society. Kazdin, Alan E. American Psychologist, Vol 64(5), Jul-Aug 2009, 339-356. doi: 10.1037/a0015685   Denial of hurricane risks: Reflections of an addictions researcher. Ager, Richard David Traumatology, Vol 14(4), Dec 2008, 48-54. doi: 10.1177/1534765608326758   Denial of evolution: An exploration of cognition, culture and affect. Garvey, Kilian James Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, Vol 2(4), Dec 2008, 209-216. doi: 10.1037/h0099344   Psychology's essential role in alleviating the impacts of climate change. Gifford, Robert Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, Vol 49(4), Nov 2008, 273-280. doi: 10.1037/a0013234   Silence speaks volumes: The effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity- and competence-based trust violations. Ferrin, Donald L.; Kim, Peter H.; Cooper, Cecily D.; Dirks, Kurt T. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 92(4), Jul 2007, 893-908. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.893   Denial of responsibility: A new mode of dissonance reduction. Gosling, Patrick; Denizeau, Maxime; Oberlé, Dominique Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 90(5), May 2006, 722-733. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.722   Coping With Stereotype Threat: Denial as an Impression Management Strategy. von Hippel, William; von Hippel, Courtney; Conway, Leanne; Preacher, Kristopher J.; Schooler, Jonathan W.; Radvansky, Gabriel A. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 89(1), Jul 2005, 22-35. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.1.22   The Scientific Denial of the Real and the Dialectic of Scientism and Humanism. Ramey, Christopher H.; Chrysikou, Evangelia G. American Psychologist, Vol 60(4), May-Jun 2005, 346-347. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.4.346   Removing the Shadow of Suspicion: The Effects of Apology Versus Denial for Repairing Competence- Versus Integrity-Based Trust Violations. Kim, Peter H.; Ferrin, Donald L.; Cooper, Cecily D.; Dirks, Kurt T. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 89(1), Feb 2004, 104-118. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.104

----------


## johnc

> Clearly some seem to way beyond reasonable levels of common sense when they want to go back 3 terms of govt to blame the  debt the present govt has!!! With that logic any argument is possible with the conviction of being right, 
> but all this is just a red herring because they can't parrot any reasonable or logical proof that CO2 is causing AGW.
> regards inter

  Let me put this in very simple terms for you. The Howard government made some very basic mistakes in its final term, The Rudd/Gillard government failed to identify this and compounded the problem, Abbott has identified the problem but has yet to hand down its first budget but has through its own rhetoric limited its options and added to spending. Our current debt situation spans four terms of Government (including the current) and most likely two more to follow at least. 
Each successive term sees government tinker with whatever went before, it has nothing to do with blame unless you are into that game, and the comments about common sense and logic border on the absurd, there was no link with global warming yet it is something deniers continue to raise to hide the shallowness of their own arguments.

----------


## John2b

> Your comment was "Just like the answers Germany is now finding LOL" but Germany is clearly not 'now finding' those answers. Like any future proposition, your opinion may turn out right or wrong, but the facts clearly show that Germany is still on a path of alternative energy expansion leading to ongoing reduction and the goal of eventual elimination of fossil fuel power. They are clearly not winding down their wind power efforts. Your comment is not aligned with the present facts. Quoting an opinion piece does not change those facts.

  "Just like the answers Germany is now finding" comes from the Chapter of Revelations in the New Testament of the Blog of Watts. 
Woodbe, as per normal, it will take a day or two for the authors of words reported out of context as "revelations of admissions of failure" to request a correction or retraction, or in extreme cases, threaten to sue in order to get the record straight. In the meantime, the denialist blogosphere has parroted the Anthony Watt's prevarication on his "Watts Up With That" blog providing hundreds of Google targets with misinformation for those with less rigorous research skills.  http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitu...logosphere.pdf

----------


## Rod Dyson

> "Just like the answers Germany is now finding" comes from the Chapter of Revelations in the New Testament of the Blog of Watts. 
> Woodbe, as per normal, it will take a day or two for the authors of words reported out of context as "revelations of admissions of failure" to request a correction or retraction, or in extreme cases, threaten to sue in order to get the record straight. In the meantime, the denialist blogosphere has parroted the Anthony Watt's prevarication on his "Watts Up With That" blog providing hundreds of Google targets with misinformation for those with less rigorous research skills.  http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitu...logosphere.pdf

  HA HA shoot the messenger again.  Great come back........ sooo boring. 
That is putting you had I the sand rather than finding out why this was said and what's behind it, just bleat out that it cant be true it was reported on WUWT which by the way is the most read blog on climate change on the net. 
LOL I bet you even read it!!

----------


## woodbe

> HA HA shoot the messenger again.  Great come back........ sooo boring. 
> That is putting you had I the sand rather than finding out why this was said and what's behind it, just bleat out that it cant be true it was reported on WUWT which by the way is the most read blog on climate change on the net. 
> LOL I bet you even read it!!

  For someone who is so quick to claim 'shoot the messenger' you seem to do a lot of it...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And who do you think created this deficit he has to fix?

  That's easy.  We did. 
By the by...what makes you think he has to fix it? 
It does have to be said that my suggestion to fixing the Budget going forward (euthanasing the Baby Boomers) was not particularly well received at the last familial conference...mainly because one of that pack pointed out that the carbon emissions from the body disposal would be substantial and (quite possibly) taxable.  They aren't as silly as they often look.

----------


## John2b

> HA HA shoot the messenger again.  Great come back........ sooo boring.
> That is putting you had I the sand rather than finding out why this was said and what's behind it, just bleat out that it cant be true it was reported on WUWT which by the way is the most read blog on climate change on the net.
> LOL I bet you even read it!!

  Sorry to disappoint you Rod, but no, I don't entertain myself reading fictional blogs, I would rather be in a position of having a lucid understanding of reality. Perhaps the moronic popularity of WUWT is why it has attracted so many WUWT debunking websites. But of course, true sceptics already know that. 
Oh, and Watts isn't_ the_ messenger or even _a_ messenger - he is an equivocator and misrepresenter of other peoples words and work - there are many websites devoted specifically to correcting the pseudoscience he eructs on his blog.  
I agree, it _is_ easy to find "out why this was said and what's behind it" - I suggest you take _your_ head out of the sand and try it sometime. You will need to allow for the people whose statements Watts has misconstrued to have time to respond - a few days should be enough for Watt's falsehoods to be exposed. 
WUWT claims to be the most read climate blog on the internet, but that is just not true, it isn't even close. The fact is that Watts has misconstrued "hits" with "visits", showing his lack of understanding of web statistics is consistent with his lack of understanding of climate science. Google it, and you will see for yourself. 
 In any case,* science isn't validated by popular opinion on a web blog*, it is validated by by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication, in case you didn't know. And this is _before_ the IPCC even looks at it.

----------


## Neptune

> That's easy.  We did.

  Not we, you maybe, but not we.   

> By the by...what makes you think he has to fix it?

  Someone has to fix it and "he's" in the position to do so,   

> The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. Margaret Thatcher

  so where are "we" (read you) going to end up?    

> It does have to be said that my suggestion to fixing the Budget going forward (euthanasing the Baby Boomers) was not particularly well received at the last familial conference...mainly because one of that pack pointed out that the carbon emissions from the body disposal would be substantial

  And this wouldn't apply if they died naturally?? Waddawanker.   

> They aren't as silly as they often look.

  They are if you know what you're looking at.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Sorry to disappoint you Rod, but no, I don't entertain myself reading fictional blogs, I would rather be in a position of having a lucid understanding of reality. Perhaps the moronic popularity of WUWT is why it has attracted so many WUWT debunking websites. But of course, true sceptics already know that. 
> Oh, and Watts isn't_ the_ messenger or even _a_ messenger - he is an equivocator and misrepresenter of other peoples words and work - there are many websites devoted specifically to correcting the pseudoscience he eructs on his blog.  
> I agree, it _is_ easy to find "out why this was said and what's behind it" - I suggest you take _your_ head out of the sand and try it sometime. You will need to allow for the people whose statements Watts has misconstrued to have time to respond - a few days should be enough for Watt's falsehoods to be exposed. 
> WUWT claims to be the most read climate blog on the internet, but that is just not true, it isn't even close. The fact is that Watts has misconstrued "hits" with "visits", showing his lack of understanding of web statistics is consistent with his lack of understanding of climate science. Google it, and you will see for yourself. 
>  In any case,* science isn't validated by popular opinion on a web blog*, it is validated by by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication, in case you didn't know. And this is _before_ the IPCC even looks at it.

  Oh my oh my this so wrong, you don't believe anyone can contribute to this unless they are one of the "clan".  There are many people who post on WUWT that know what they are talking about.  You just chose not to agree with them. There are many who do agree that is why the site is so popular.   
The Warmists can eat their hearts out WUWT is here to stay and will continue to sway the fence sitters and bring out the truth behind climate alarmism. 
Warmists hate WUWT because of this and will denigrate it at any opportunity.  Problem is this only galvanises more people to WUWT so keep up the good work driving people there.  I just love it.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Wow this claim looks bad.   

> There may be hordes of climate refugees, fleeing homes on islands and coasts made uninhabitable by climate changeanywhere from 25 million to 1 billion people by 2050

  Home - International Organization for Migration 
@@@@@ we will be over run.  what can we do?  We must donate more!

----------


## John2b

> There are many who do agree that is why the site is so popular. 
> The Warmists can eat their hearts out WUWT is here to stay and will continue to sway the fence sitters and bring out the truth behind climate alarmism.
> Warmists hate WUWT because of this and will denigrate it at any opportunity.  Problem is this only galvanises more people to WUWT so keep up the good work driving people there.  I just love it.

  So what - populism still does not make reality. Watts is running out of climate change deniers he hasn't had a spat and falling out with, so I wouldn't count on WUWT being around forever. I can't speak for warmists, I am simply pointing out the charlatans were I see them regardless of what "side" they are on. In natural history, there are no "sides" only reality. Ignore it at your peril.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Oh my oh my this so wrong, you don't believe anyone can contribute to this unless they are one of the "clan".  There are many people who post on WUWT that know what they are talking about.  You just chose not to agree with them. There are many who do agree that is why the site is so popular.   
> The Warmists can eat their hearts out WUWT is here to stay and will continue to sway the fence sitters and bring out the truth behind climate alarmism. 
> Warmists hate WUWT because of this and will denigrate it at any opportunity.  Problem is this only galvanises more people to WUWT so keep up the good work driving people there.  I just love it.

  Read em and weep  Thirteenth Annual Weblog Awards: The 2013 Bloggies

----------


## John2b

> Read em and weep  Thirteenth Annual Weblog Awards: The 2013 Bloggies

  I agree. Watts, who desperately wants to be considered as having a legitimate weblog, would be weeping about the company he is in LMFAO! 
WEBLOG OF THE YEAR  
HALL OF FAME: The Pioneer Woman has won this category three times.
WINNER: Watts Up With That? (Winner because of the "three times and you're out rule") 
FINALISTS  People I Want to Punch in the ThroatThe BloggessPintesterCowardly FeministMarriage Confessions  
Oh, apparently you still don't get it - *science is not a popularity contest!*

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Not we, you maybe, but not we.

  You live in Australia don't you? The deficit is as much yours as it is mine, Sunshine. Irrespective of political persuasion. Even if you don't think your government represents you... 
It still is your responsibility. Abrogate at your peril.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Read em and weep  Thirteenth Annual Weblog Awards: The 2013 Bloggies

  Right. Has about the same credence as the Logies. Or the Australian political system. And who takes those seriously?

----------


## intertd6

> Wow this claim looks bad.  Home - International Organization for Migration 
> @@@@@ we will be over run.  what can we do?  We must donate more!

  You have it in a nutshell, the typical sky is falling scenario which attracts the crowd that live in a pink fluffy world like moths to a flame & there seems to be an endless supply of moths. But where do they come from?? Nobody I know swallows this stuff! But then I try to mix with normal decent types that aren't easily fooled.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> You have it in a nutshell, the typical sky is falling scenario which attracts the crowd that live in a pink fluffy world like moths to a flame & there seems to be an endless supply of moths. But where do they come from?? Nobody I know swallows this stuff! But then I try to mix with normal decent types that aren't easily fooled.
> regards inter

  Er - the link Rod provided is to a website that has rotating content, so it isn't possible to know exactly what "claim" he was referring to. However the organisation linked to, the International Organisation for Migration, was established in 1951, has offices in over 100 countries, and is dedicated to promoting orderly migration for the benefit of all by providing services and advice to governments and migrants. 
The 2011 Australian Census of Population and Housing reported that of Australia's 21.5 million people, about one quarter were born overseas, with a further 20% of residents having at least one parent born overseas. Over half (53%) of the population are third-plus generation Australians; those having one or more of their grandparents who may have been born overseas or who may have several generations of ancestors born in Australia. 
You seem to swallow all sorts of rubbish, Inter, so what stuff is it that nobody you know ever swallows? You must have a great deal of difficulty mixing with normal decent types who aren't part of the 53% of the population who are third-plus generation Australians!  3416.0 - Perspectives on Migrants, Mar 2013

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Er - the link Rod provided is to a website that has rotating content, so it isn't possible to know exactly what "claim" he was referring to. However the organisation linked to, the International Organisation for Migration, was established in 1951, has offices in over 100 countries, and is dedicated to promoting orderly migration for the benefit of all by providing services and advice to governments and migrants. 
> The 2011 Australian Census of Population and Housing reported that of Australia's 21.5 million people, about one quarter were born overseas, with a further 20% of residents having at least one parent born overseas. Over half (53%) of the population are third-plus generation Australians; those having one or more of their grandparents who may have been born overseas or who may have several generations of ancestors born in Australia. 
> You seem to swallow all sorts of rubbish, Inter, so what stuff is it that nobody you know ever swallows? You must have a great deal of difficulty mixing with normal decent types who aren't part of the 53% of the population who are third-plus generation Australians!  3416.0 - Perspectives on Migrants, Mar 2013

  If it wasn't so important that this climate alarmisim is tempered. I would be tempted to say that this is more fun the poking a bull ant nest.

----------


## John2b

There was a saying in primary school "Small things amuse small minds..."

----------


## John2b

> If it wasn't so important that this climate alarmisim is tempered.

  I think, Rod, that you and I agree that understanding what is really happening is important and not trivial. 
That is why scepticism is so important and why I never take what is read at face value, but always go to the source to test the veracity of the messenger.

----------


## woodbe

LOL @ Mr Rabbit:   
Oh, we're gunna kill off those awful taxes on the Australian people and replace them with new 'temporary' taxes. 
Meanwhile, while we have a 'Budget Emergency' we are still going to hand out a PPL way too generous to the well off. 
Apparently, our PM does not understand how conflicted his position is. Even his own MP's are rebelling over the PPL. 
I trust the posters who called Julia Gillard a liar will be brave enough to have the same response for Tony.

----------


## Neptune

> 

   
August 9, 2013 a month before the election on September 7 2013............ 
Obviously the figures he'd been provided were more porkies that only Juliar and co wanted known. 
When he got to find how bare the cupboard was what choice did he have other than to hock the cupboard?

----------


## John2b

> August 9, 2013 a month before the election on September 7 2013............ 
> Obviously the figures he'd been provided were more porkies that only Juliar and co wanted known. 
> When he got to find how bare the cupboard was what choice did he have other than to hock the cupboard?

  Where is the budget emergency? | The Australia Institute

----------


## PhilT2

> August 9, 2013 a month before the election on September 7 2013............ 
> Obviously the figures he'd been provided were more porkies that only Juliar and co wanted known. 
> When he got to find how bare the cupboard was what choice did he have other than to hock the cupboard?

  Budget figures are provided by Treasury Dept before elections. be kind of silly of them to lie to the party that was widely tipped to win the election.
Opposition has plenty of opportunities to quiz treasury officials during estimates hearings. if they didn't know the real status of the budget their own incompetence is most likely the cause.

----------


## John2b

"The Abbott governments changes to existing climate change policies would cost the budget as much as $40 billion by 2020, and the cost will blow out even further if it weakens the renewable energy target. 
"The estimated costs stem in part from payments to polluters to curb greenhouse gas emissions under the government's Direct Action emissions reduction plan. A bigger blow to the budget, though, will come from the loss of the carbon tax revenues if, as expected, the new Senate votes to repeal it after July 1. Current laws indicate the price will bring in more than $18 billion.  
"That combined tally, at about $24 billion, swells to more than $40 billion by 2020 if the Abbott government sticks with its plan to block the purchase of cheaper international emission reductions to meet domestic commitments. 
"The costs of the Direct Action will balloon further if the government undermines other policies limiting carbon emissions, such as the Renewable Energy Target. The target, now set at supplying 41,000 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy by 2020, is currently being reviewed by businessman and climate change sceptic, Dick Warburton."     Tony Abbott's climate policies a $40 billion budget slug, says Climate Institute

----------


## intertd6

> Er - the link Rod provided is to a website that has rotating content, so it isn't possible to know exactly what "claim" he was referring to. However the organisation linked to, the International Organisation for Migration, was established in 1951, has offices in over 100 countries, and is dedicated to promoting orderly migration for the benefit of all by providing services and advice to governments and migrants. 
> The 2011 Australian Census of Population and Housing reported that of Australia's 21.5 million people, about one quarter were born overseas, with a further 20% of residents having at least one parent born overseas. Over half (53%) of the population are third-plus generation Australians; those having one or more of their grandparents who may have been born overseas or who may have several generations of ancestors born in Australia. 
> You seem to swallow all sorts of rubbish, Inter, so what stuff is it that nobody you know ever swallows? You must have a great deal of difficulty mixing with normal decent types who aren't part of the 53% of the population who are third-plus generation Australians!  3416.0 - Perspectives on Migrants, Mar 2013

  you'd be hard pressed to find me swallowing anything other than my energy intake for the day, anything else has to substantiated with hard proven evidence, it's so fluffy where your at you just don't get what rod was on about, the migration thing is just another method just like a polar bear on some ice to get your crowd in.
But wait!! There is still no evidence that CO2 can cause catastrophic warming because it is disproven by the historical evidence of the past climate. Your CO2 theory falls flat on its face & no amount of massaging the figures can get it over that hurdle & make it remotely believable.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Budget figures are provided by Treasury Dept before elections. be kind of silly of them to lie to the party that was widely tipped to win the election.
> Opposition has plenty of opportunities to quiz treasury officials during estimates hearings. if they didn't know the real status of the budget their own incompetence is most likely the cause.

  You must believe the oldest lie in the book " I'm from the government & I'm here to help"
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> LOL @ Mr Rabbit:   
> Oh, we're gunna kill off those awful taxes on the Australian people and replace them with new 'temporary' taxes. 
> Meanwhile, while we have a 'Budget Emergency' we are still going to hand out a PPL way too generous to the well off. 
> Apparently, our PM does not understand how conflicted his position is. Even his own MP's are rebelling over the PPL. 
> I trust the posters who called Julia Gillard a liar will be brave enough to have the same response for Tony.

  As long as he gets rid of the " carbon tax " & is only half as bad as his predecessor & the mob that followed, everything is up from there.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> As long as he gets rid of the " carbon tax " & is only half as bad as his predecessor & the mob that followed, everything is up from there.
> regards inter

  Only half as bad as the mob that followed his predecessor? I agree, If Abbott was only half as bad as he is, that would be a good thing!

----------


## John2b

> You must believe the oldest lie in the book " I'm from the government & I'm here to help"
> regards inter

  Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black, since you believe in Hockey and Abbott figures? Or are you implying they are lying about the economic situation too?

----------


## Marc

This has turned into a commi/labor/green apologist fanaticist screeching hysteria.  
Pathetic really.

----------


## John2b

> This has turned into a commi/labor/green apologist fanaticist screeching hysteria.

  LOL - Hysteria? Are you hoping nobody has read your posts?   

> Pathetic really.

  Couldn't agree more!

----------


## intertd6

> Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black, since you believe in Hockey and Abbott figures? Or are you implying they are lying about the economic situation too?

  Ha ha ha!! Unlike those in the fluffy world I'm just one not to give my taxes away without question or support any govt of the day that is out of touch with reality, or believe the promises, I suppose I'm just lucky not to be sucked in too much by any of them.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> This has turned into a commi/labor/green apologist fanaticist screeching hysteria.  
> Pathetic really.

  I can't remember you complaining about the screeching right wing apologist fanaticists when they were getting stuck into Julia? 
That's pathetic. 
Apparently, it's ok for Tony to lie, but anyone else  :No:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Some common sense for you all.  Cool It | Standpoint

----------


## John2b

> Some common sense for you all.  Cool It | Standpoint

  Ha ha. I read the article. Here's a couple of bits I agree with: 
"...must admit I am strongly tempted to agree that, since I am not a climate scientist, I should from now on remain silent on the subject". 
"There is, indeed, an accepted scientific theory which I do not dispute. ...the so-called greenhouse effect: the fact that the earth's atmosphere contains so-called greenhouse gases (of which water vapour is overwhelmingly the most important, but carbon dioxide is another) which, in effect, trap some of the heat we receive from the sun and prevent it from bouncing back into space.".   

> Given that there is no way in hell that man made Co2 emissions will be reduced any time soon, what do you think will happen to temperatures in the next 10 to 15 years.

  What will happen will be determined but the laws of physics and thermodynamics, and is pretty well understood, actually. And here it is explained for you on WUWT: Visualizing the Greenhouse Effect  Emission Spectra | Watts Up With That?  
Even your pet spoiler "climate sensitivity" is now pretty well understood since it has been possible to measure the signature and magnitude of the effect of CO2 in the Earth's outward radiation spectrum reflected by the moon.   

> Population growth and developing countries will take care of the co2 emissions regardless of what developed nations do, so warmist deniers had better hope they are wrong about escalation temperatures and boiling oceans and ending up like Venus!! Cause sounds like we are doomed, doomed I say.

  All of the dots have been joined, yet you wonder why people who know are concerned?

----------


## intertd6

> Some common sense for you all.  Cool It | Standpoint

  common sense & alarmism goes together like vinegar & milk, they also behave like they have drunk it!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Ha ha. I read the article. Here's a couple of bits I agree with: 
> "...must admit I am strongly tempted to agree that, since I am not a climate scientist, I should from now on remain silent on the subject". 
> "There is, indeed, an accepted scientific theory which I do not dispute. ...the so-called greenhouse effect: the fact that the earth's atmosphere contains so-called greenhouse gases (of which water vapour is overwhelmingly the most important, but carbon dioxide is another) which, in effect, trap some of the heat we receive from the sun and prevent it from bouncing back into space.".   
> What will happen will be determined but the laws of physics and thermodynamics, and is pretty well understood, actually. And here it is explained for you on WUWT: Visualizing the Greenhouse Effect  Emission Spectra | Watts Up With That?  
> Even your pet spoiler "climate sensitivity" is now pretty well understood since it has been possible to measure the signature and magnitude of the effect of CO2 in the Earth's outward radiation spectrum reflected by the moon.   
> All of the dots have been joined, yet you wonder why people who know are concerned?

  The moon!! So that's where the missing heat is going!
regards inter

----------


## Neptune

> Ha ha. I read the article. Here's a couple of bits I agree with: 
> "...must admit I am strongly tempted to agree that, since I am not a climate scientist, I should from now on remain silent on the subject".

  Are you a climate scientist?

----------


## Marc

And the funniest thing is that I have formal tertiary studies in Climatology. I wonder if anyone else in this thread can say the same. 
Not that it really matters, I said this before it is not a scientific matter but a political one disguised as sociological with a coat of science to justify it, applied by mercenaries protecting their jobs.
Yes minister! 
Run to the hills! 9m sea rise, the rain will be a thing of the past !!!!! 
Pathetic really.

----------


## John2b

> Are you a climate scientist?

  No. But my tertiary qualifications include physics and thermodynamics and I have a very strong BS filter when it comes to science and pseudoscience. 
As far as climate change is concerned, I defer to experts. That's why I do not make unsupported claims, but generally quote from peer reviewed research and analysis, i.e. work that has stood the test of of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation, journal publication and open debate by other experts in the field before being generally accepted.  Try to find a denier, or if you prefer, a contrarian, defending their claims in an objective manner. Go ahead - look at this page of the forum, or the previous one, or the one before that, or the page before that.... There has been no objective defence of an anti-warming claim during my time participating in this forum, just bluster, insults, threats and calls to authority. If you don't think that is so, go ahead and prove me wrong - the record is there for everyone to see!

----------


## John2b

> And the funniest thing is that I have formal tertiary studies in Climatology. I wonder if anyone else in this thread can say the same. 
> Not that it really matters, I said this before it is not a scientific matter but a political one disguised as sociological with a coat of science to justify it, applied by mercenaries protecting their jobs.

  Who stands to profit from climate change? Mining and Big Oil of course! Or perhaps you can set them straight before they make utter fools of themselves, Marc! Their management boards and chief scientists must have been overrun with hysterical screeching commi/labor/green apologist fanatics...  *Carbon Capture and Storage: scaling up to a viable model* 
"Fourteen years into the new millennium, it seems we've finally reached a general consensus that carbon emissions contribute to a climatic environmental situation that could become untenable if tipped beyond a certain point. *Climate change deniers are regarded more and more as fringe-dwellers, while big mining has come to the table in agreeing that we need strategies* for dealing with atmosphere damaging pollutants. Rio Tinto's energy division chief Harry Kenyon-Slaney, while speaking at an Energy Policy Institute of Australia meeting, said we can't simply wish away fossil fuels.  http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/features/carbon-capture-and-storage-scaling-up-to-a-viable *
CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery: The Enabling Technology for CO2 Capture and Storage - Cornerstone Magazine* 
"Cornerstone is a high profile, authoritative, international coal magazine, which is on the desk of every key decision maker in the energy, environment and development sectors." 
Initial Estimates of the Size of the Prize  
The study established that the size of the international oil and CO2 utilization (and storage) *prize* from applying CO2-EOR to already discovered oil fields is about 1300 billion barrels of incremental oil recovery and 370 billion tonnes of CO2 (see Table 3). This is equivalent to utilization (and storage) of captured CO2 from about 1850 GW of coal-fired power for 35 years. Much of this demand can be met by large, existing anthropogenic CO2 sources within distances of 800 kilometers (500 miles) of these oil basins. The international CO2-EOR and CO2 storage assessment was conducted assuming the use of current CO2-EOR technology and a preliminary world oil resource database. Application of next-generation CO2-EOR technologies to a more up-to-date world oil resource database would, most likely, show the international CO2-EOR and CO2 storage potential to be considerably larger.   CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery: The Enabling Technology for CO2 Capture and Storage | CORNERSTONE MAG[COLOR=#F4740D !important] [/COLOR]

----------


## Marc

> No. But my tertiary qualifications include physics and thermodynamics and I have a very strong BS filter when it comes to science and pseudoscience. 
> As far as climate change is concerned, I defer to experts. That's why I do not make unsupported claims, but generally quote from peer reviewed research and analysis, i.e. work that has stood the test of of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation, journal publication and open debate by other experts in the field before being generally accepted.

  
If your BS radar would be working at all it would be beeping relentlessly each time you skim over any "global warming" cannard, humbug or prevarication... instead you post them ad libitum as if gospel. 
The reality is simpler. Had you acquired by means of repetition or otherwise  the basics of climatology instead of physics, and had you learned a healthy disdain for politics rather than an insatiable appetite for it, you may have had the chance to understand that we, the human race that is, know very little of the infinitely complicated mechanism contained in climate and weather and that all we can do at this stage are conjectures and guesses that are conducive to ... well not much at all. 
So one can choose among the vast supply of the so called peer reviewed papers, (meaning a paper written by an ignorant, supported by another ignorant or many of them),  the one that satisfies one's point of view, generally an ignoramus point of view and that includes you and me, simply because we may like the content of what someones opinion is but we lack the information to even begin to assess what is right, wrong, so so or, off the chart.
So what do we do? We choose the one we like and defend, simply because it fits our preconceived view of the subject. In fact generally speaking we choose conclusions that fit our own view of the world or the way we would like the world to be and even because we think it may help to change the world to our own liking...should we mention "saving the world"  ? 
On this line I must say i like "AB" an anonymous author that can be found in the collection of letters published in 1698 as _The mystery of phanaticism_:"Twas well observed by my Lord Bacon, That a little knowledge is apt to puff up, and make men giddy, but a greater share of it will set them right, and bring them to low and humble thoughts of themselves.Or like Pope and Einstein said: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing ... and never were more appropriate words spoken in relation to Climate, let alone the causes for its continuous and infinite changes.

----------


## woodbe

> We choose the one we like and defend, simply because it fits our preconceived view of the subject.

  I think you are talking for yourself, not 'we', but you would be one of the few skeptics here to admit that your worldview dominates your position and causes you to be derogatory to the science because what it proposes conflicts with that worldview. 
Your point that we don't know all there is to know about the climate is well made, but that does not mean that what we do know is of no significance. Perhaps what we don't know will help us, but it's a cop out to ignore what we know blindly hoping for that result.

----------


## intertd6

> I think you are talking for yourself, not 'we', but you would be one of the few skeptics here to admit that your worldview dominates your position and causes you to be derogatory to the science because what it proposes conflicts with that worldview. 
> Your point that we don't know all there is to know about the climate is well made, but that does not mean that what we do know is of no significance. Perhaps what we don't know will help us, but it's a cop out to ignore what we know blindly hoping for that result.

  Unlike the royal you, we are waiting for the scientific proof that what is claimed to happen has a real possibility of happening, from what has been presented as proof so far fails dismally , if the proof comes along I'll jump sides, just like a swinging voter but based on science not politics.
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I have a very strong BS filter

  You better turn it on it works better that way!

----------


## woodbe

> Unlike the royal you, we are waiting for the scientific proof that what is claimed to happen has a real possibility of happening, from what has been presented as proof so far fails dismally , if the proof comes along I'll jump sides, just like a swinging voter but based on science not politics.
> regards inter

  Not how science works, but I admire your perseverance to expect it even after it has been explained.  
I wouldn't worry if I were you, you won't have to jump sides until well after you're pushing up daisies.

----------


## intertd6

> Not how science works, but I admire your perseverance to expect it even after it has been explained.  
> I wouldn't worry if I were you, you won't have to jump sides until well after you're pushing up daisies.

  Now that's more to the point! You haven't worked out it's the politicians doing the explaining and when that happens any ordinary dill knows there is a 99% chance that there is an underlying motive that has nothing to do with the actual point they are on about, Unless of course your one of the masses that follows blindly & will throw it all on the line for the belief.
regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

> And the funniest thing is that I have formal tertiary studies in Climatology.

  I agree, that's the funniest thing you've said so far.

----------


## John2b

> If your BS radar would be working at all it would be beeping relentlessly each time you skim over any "global warming" cannard, humbug or prevarication.

  My BS radar is working just fine. In fact it is deafening when I read the stuff posted in his forum, which is why I participate and _link to factual, verifiable information_. 
Anyone can follow the links. If anyone finds fault with the objectivity of a link, I welcome the site's veracity being challenged _by posting other objective sources of information_. 
So far there has been nothing objective, just bluster, insults and evasion from those refuting the information contained in the links. 
Go back and re-read the last _few thousand_ posts - I'd love to be shown where a link I posted was objectively refuted because if it has been, I must have missed it!

----------


## woodbe

> Now that's more to the point! You haven't worked out it's the politicians doing the explaining and when that happens any ordinary dill knows there is a 99% chance that there is an underlying motive that has nothing to do with the actual point they are on about, Unless of course your one of the masses that follows blindly & will throw it all on the line for the belief.
> regards inter

  Thanks for explaining how YOU reckon I think. No surprise, you're wrong.  :Tongue:  
I don't look to politicians to explain climate science, I look to climate scientists for that. I look for pollies that follow and show an understanding of the science. Not many in the current crop led by Mr 'Climate change is crap' but that is to be expected. 
If you take a look at the actions of the current government, it is clear they are 'explaining' by shutting down any government funded body that supports the science. That's not explaining, that's ideology driven censorship.

----------


## Marc

Which part of no one really knows what is going on is so hard to understand?  
Those who tell us matter of fact that the sky is falling are making it up for their own personal convenience. Opportunistic rubbish since there is good fishing in troubled waters. 
Those who oppose them, do so because they don't want to pay for someone elses fancy crap and also have completely different political point of view. 
Both positions have nothing to do with science even when both use and claim science is at the bottom of their politically tainted statements.  
So the choice of sides can not be taken based on science since there is little science at all to look at, despite all the attempts at simulate and graphicate.  
The choice of side is made by affinity with the political spectrum of those who beat the drum. 
The gimme gimme brigade, beat the drum of gimme mooooore, and are of course on the side of global warming catastrophe crap. Hei, don't expect me to pay, you pay, I am oh so virtuous, I eat lettuce and don't touch money is dirty! 
Those who foot all the bills, don't want to pay for another bill if they can avoid it, and this is so pie in the sky that it is very easy to discredit. 
I say, choose whichever side you want but pay for it yourself, don't ask others to pay for your hobby, and don't make up lies to pretend it is "my" responsibility.

----------


## woodbe

> Which part of no one really knows what is going on is so hard to understand?

  Which part of we do know a good proportion of what is going on is so hard to understand? 
Politics is not science. Opinion is not science. Neither of them change published science. Get over it.  :Rolleyes:  
The bad news about democracy for you (and all of us) is that if the voters decide you're going to pay for their 'hobby' as you call it, then yes, we will be paying whether we agree with it or not.

----------


## Neptune

> The bad news about democracy for you (and all of us) is that if the voters decide you're going to pay for their 'hobby' as you call it, then yes, we will be paying whether we agree with it or not.

  So what we need is a system of government where there is no      secret ballot, and, if you voted them in, and they wasted the      money, or ran up debt's pandering to you, then you as their supporters should be responsible for their debts, not the people that tried to prevent it. 
And if you can't pay, they send the Sheriff around to collect "goods to the value of"

----------


## woodbe

> So what we need is a system of government where there is no      secret ballot, and, if you voted them in, and they wasted the      money, or ran up debt's pandering to you, then you as their supporters should be responsible for their debts, not the people that tried to prevent it. 
> And if you can't pay, they send the Sheriff around to collect "goods to the value of"

  That wouldn't be called a democracy, and according to Marc, "goods to the value of" would be zip. 
And if the people who tried to prevent it turned out to be wrong, what would your system of government do next?  :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

> Thanks for explaining how YOU reckon I think. No surprise, you're wrong.  
> I don't look to politicians to explain climate science, I look to climate scientists for that. I look for pollies that follow and show an understanding of the science. Not many in the current crop led by Mr 'Climate change is crap' but that is to be expected.  well you seem to have no understanding of what the " I " stands for in the IPCC then.   
> If you take a look at the actions of the current government, it is clear they are 'explaining' by shutting down any government funded body that supports the science. That's not explaining, that's ideology driven censorship.  when there is no need to appease the greenies & the save the whatever flavour of the month brigade & cut useless expenditure, that will surely upset you. And more so the best thing they ever did was make film flam redundant as quick as they could!

  regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Which part of we do know a good proportion of what is going on is so hard to understand? 
> Politics is not science. Opinion is not science. Neither of them change published science. Get over it.  
> The bad news about democracy for you (and all of us) is that if the voters decide you're going to pay for their 'hobby' as you call it, then yes, we will be paying whether we agree with it or not.

  As far about published science It seems nothing helps your cause better than a selective attention disorder, like disregarding the unexplainable  pause in global warming since 1998 & the fact that CO2 never caused runaway warming in the globes history, it has been pages of red herrings dodging those simple facts which you mob can't explain in any way!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> well you seem to have no understanding of what the " I " stands for in the IPCC then.

  I certainly do, and I also understand what the IPCC does and does not do. One of the things it does not do is climate research and publishing research in peer review journals. I'm surprised to have to point this out, but when I mention published science, I am not referring to the IPCC reports.   

> As far about published science It seems nothing helps your cause better than a selective attention disorder, like disregarding the unexplainable  pause in global warming since 1998 & the fact that CO2 never caused runaway warming in the globes history, it has been pages of red herrings dodging those simple facts which you mob can't explain in any way!
> regards inter

  Your repeated narrow focus on one single aspect of global warming over too short a period to the exclusion of all others has been repeated here and pointed out here repeatedly. Repeating your own selective attention disorder while ignoring the facts before you does not change those facts. 
Have you got your alternative theory accepted for publication yet?

----------


## intertd6

> I certainly do, and I also understand what the IPCC does and does not do. One of the things it does not do is climate research and publishing research in peer review journals. I'm surprised to have to point this out, but when I mention published science, I am not referring to the IPCC reports.  so you only post published science that isn't recognised by the IPCC ? And then disregard the laundered science the IPCC references? Are you having a lend of us?   
> Your repeated narrow focus on one single aspect of global warming over too short a period to the exclusion of all others has been repeated here and pointed out here repeatedly. Repeating your own selective attention disorder while ignoring the facts before you does not change those facts.  well that narrow focus is the simple banana skin that makes your theory go A over apex. And one would think it would be easy to trump them with a logical reasonable explanation, but instead all we get is pages of hyperbole on everything but what will disprove those simple facts.  
> Have you got your alternative theory accepted for publication yet?  I suppose I still have many years of time to swap disciplines & do the relevant research while waiting for your unproven theory to pick itself up, be proven & be believable, the trouble is your theory can't change the past.

  regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> so you only post published science that isn't  recognised by the IPCC ? And then disregard the laundered science the  IPCC references? Are you having a lend of us?

  I think you already know that when I refer to published science I generally refer to the actual published science. I don't refer to the IPCC report to see if it is 'recognised' or not (whatever that means) by the IPCC.   

> well that narrow focus is the simple banana skin that makes your theory go A over apex

  For those that have a narrow enough mind to fit that artificially narrow focus. Yes, possibly.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Neptune

> That wouldn't be called a democracy

  Why?    

> And if the people who tried to prevent it turned out to be wrong, what would your system of government do next?

  Make them pay or send the Sheriff around to collect "goods to the value of"   Same rules...... 
Question is, do ya feel lucky?  :Wink:

----------


## PhilT2

> Why?   
> Make them pay or send the Sheriff around to collect "goods to the value of"   Same rules...... 
> Question is, do ya feel lucky?

  So what do we do to the voters who elected those who commit our servicemen to pointless wars (found those weapons of mass destruction yet?), do we send a bill or do we just open fire? The question is, do you feel lucky? 
We're trying to raise the level of this debate to a fraction above idiotic, Neptune you could help more.

----------


## woodbe

> Why?

  Well, off topic.  
There are a couple of things that make a democracy work. Participation and freedom to express ones preferences are relevant to this question. 
Your proposal now stands that voters could be held financially responsible for the actions of governments they elected one, two, or more elections ago, even as the majority of voters agreed on a course of action (electing a particular government) at that time. On top of that, what the voters vote for isn't always what they get, are they financially responsible for that too? The reality is that all the population bears the cost of government at the time.  
Perhaps we could give this form of government a democratic name like 'Vindictive Democracy' but I suspect there wouldn't be many people turning out to vote  :Smilie:  
Vindictive payback is akin to something primal that occurs in PNG, not civil society. 
/offtopic

----------


## John2b

As Thomas Edison famously said back in 1931, Id put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we dont have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that. 
This is fossil fuel companies' worst nightmare:   
And here is why plummeting cost of solar is a game-changer:    
Fossil energy companies are under threat of extinction!   This solar graph is so wicked it's titled "Welcome to the Terrordome" : TreeHugger

----------


## Marc

> Which part of we do know a good proportion of what is going on is so hard to understand?

  This belongs in the same category of " the earth is flat and the sun circles around it because the scriptures say so"
i repeat: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
pretending to know "a lot" is deadly.  
" politics is not science" you say? Well there we got common ground. Its a pity that neither you nor 2B ever address the many points made yet choose to crow a different song every time. 
I will spare myself the effort to answer the colorful post above.

----------


## woodbe

> This belongs in the same category of " the earth is flat and the sun circles around it because the scriptures say so"
> i repeat: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
> pretending to know "a lot" is deadly.

  I don't think any of the climate scientists are "pretending" to know a lot, unless you categorise an arm of science that knows a lot more than nothing as pretending to know everything? 
We move forward (have always done so) by continuing to build upon our knowledge, not ignoring it until we know everything (because we will never know absolutely everything) That's the game you are playing: we can't do anything because we don't know everything there is to know. 
nanos gigantum humeris insidentes  
Or, as Isaac Newton put it: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" We gain knowledge incrementally, building on what we do know. We cannot ignore what we know to feed your ideology, but clearly you are free to do so.

----------


## woodbe

Oh, and Marc: The reason why that grey line slopes backward? 
It doesn't. Think about it.  :Cool:  
Edit: Link to article the graph comes from. Interesting reading (PDF):   Bernstein Energy and Power Blast: Equal and Opposite... If Solar Wins, Who Loses?

----------


## dazzler

Sooooooooo.  Hows the climate debate going?  Have the people on here that know more than the scientists convinced those who don't how stupid the scientists are? 
Oh and who was it that owed me an apology for misrepresenting me?  Has that apology been forthcoming?   :Confused:    :Tongue:

----------


## woodbe

> Sooooooooo.  Hows the climate debate going?  Have the people on here that know more than the scientists convinced those who don't how stupid the scientists are? 
> Oh and who was it that owed me an apology for misrepresenting me?  Has that apology been forthcoming?

  Well, all we can say is that the 'debate' is ongoing. LOL. 
As one of the few people in this thread that has actually apologised, I'm offering you an apology on behalf of whoever it was that misrepresented you. I don't _think_ it was me.  
We are deeply sorry for misrepresenting you dazzler, and we will try not to repeat this transgression in the future. 
Peace.  :Hug:

----------


## dazzler

Sorry woodbe I was just taking the pee.......  No apology needed.  I thought a wind up was needed given I have been away sooooo long. 
cheers  
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

----------


## woodbe

No worries. 
I reckon I must have driven past your place a few weeks ago on the way down to Oyster Cove to catch the ferry. Nice part of the world you have there.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## intertd6

> I think you already know that when I refer to published science I generally refer to the actual published science. I don't refer to the IPCC report to see if it is 'recognised' or not (whatever that means) by the IPCC.   
> For those that have a narrow enough mind to fit that artificially narrow focus. Yes, possibly.

  Well just tell us then you haven't repeated or quoted any predictions issued by the IPCC? 
still any old excuse to dodge what you can't explain or even parrot a believable explanation, same old, same old limp stuff.
narrow things amuse narrow minds, even narrower minds can't explain much at all.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Well just tell us then you haven't repeated or quoted any predictions issued by the IPCC?

  Questions based on a false premise have no answer.  "Short-term variations like this have always existed, and they always will. These are mostly random, they are (at least so far) not predictable, and the IPCC has _never claimed to be able to make predictions_ for short periods of 10-15 years, precisely because these are dominated by such natural variations."    RealClimate: The new IPCC climate report

----------


## John2b

No pause in global warming:    Global and European temperature (CSI 012/CLIM 001) - Assessment published May 2011 &mdash; European Environment Agency (EEA) 
No pause in Australian warming:    2013 was hottest year on record in Australia | ClimateState

----------


## woodbe

> Well just tell us then you haven't repeated or quoted any predictions issued by the IPCC? 
> still any old excuse to dodge what you can't explain or even parrot a believable explanation, same old, same old limp stuff.
> narrow things amuse narrow minds, even narrower minds can't explain much at all.
> regards inter

  There is a logical disconnect in your reasoning. 
I say I generally refer to the actual science, re-read the thread if you can't remember or didn't read the posts. Saying that I _generally_ refer to the actual science does not preclude quoting the IPCC or any other source of information. 
Perhaps a dictionary definition will help your quest for understanding.  *gen·er·al·ly* 
  [jen-er-uh-lee]    
   adverb 
  1. usually; commonly; ordinarily: He generally comes home at noon.   
2. with respect to the larger part; for the most part: a generally accurate interpretation of the facts.   
3. without reference to or disregarding particular persons, things, situations, etc., that may be an exception: generally speaking.       *Origin:*  
 12501300;  Middle English;  see general, -ly  
 Synonyms 
1. See often.  
Antonyms 
1. seldom.  Generally | Define Generally at Dictionary.com

----------


## John2b

> There is a logical disconnect in your reasoning.

  Surprise, surprise! Someone who reviews published climate science draws the same conclusions as the IPCC, a body whose is task it is to review and summarise climate science for others.

----------


## John2b

> Sooooooooo.  Hows the climate debate going?  Have the people on here that know more than the scientists convinced those who don't how stupid the scientists are?

  Well, the "people on here who know more than scientists" are doing their darnedest, but the the problem for them is that the climate and those who don't live on the flat earth aren't cooperating! 
The climate is continuing to warm despite the strength of their ideology and the warming is completely consistent with physics and science as mankind has learned how to apply it - to great the advantage of the technological society experienced today. The poor old deniers and contrarians have not yet grasped that "consensus of science" does not mean that all the scientists have got together and agreed to agree (that would be impossible BTW), but that the data shows consensus. It's not a popularity poll, it's the data. 
In the absence of data to support their arguments, the contrarians are having to resort to bluster, tantrums, name calling and calls to authority to try to shout down the climate record, and decry the legitimacy of applying fundamental scientific principles to observed climate behaviour. Bringing objective data to the forum is, as one member observed, live poking a bull ant nest. Unfortunately it tends to end up with vitriol and bile being sprayed in the direction of the "warmists" who have nothing to to shield themselves with but the consensus of scientific observations. Lucky they've got a thick skin LOL.

----------


## Neptune

> The climate is continuing to warm

  So, seeing as you have the answers for everything, how about you tell the class how much carbon tax has been collected, what it was spent on, and why it hasn't slowed the warming.

----------


## John2b

> So, seeing as you have the answers for everything, how about you tell the class how much carbon tax has been collected, what it was spent on, and why it hasn't slowed the warming.

  Firstly, you need to improve your reading comprehension because as I have stated many times over, when it comes to questions about the climate, I defer to experts. Follow the links I have provided and argue with them. 
Secondly, Joe Hockey and Treasury would know how much "carbon tax" has been collected, not me. 
Thirdly, the money expected to be raised from the tax has been / is being paid to Australians through payments to recipients of family benefits, self funded retirees, students and unemployed, and pensioners to offset increases in energy prices. These are payments that the Abbott LNC has vowed to maintain even if the Clean Energy Act is repealed. (No one would doubt Tony Abbott's promises LOL.) In addition payments were made to energy intensive industries (e.g. paper and aluminium manufacturers and electricity generators) to help them transition to lower carbon intensity. 
Fourthly, has the warming stopped or hasn't it? I am losing track of what the contrarians / deniers current position is... 
And finally, the The Clean Energy Act, 2011 is a "Bill for an Act to encourage the use of clean energy" It works through a carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme that puts a price on Australia's carbon pollution and applies to Australia's biggest carbon emitters. It is not specifically a bill to "slow global warming". Wouldn't it make sense to ask if the legislation has met / is meeting it's objectives? The answer to that question is yes, funnily enough:
Based on electricity, petroleum and natural gas energy data, the pitt&sherry Carbon Emissions Index (CEDEX®) is the benchmark indicator for Australias carbon emissions from the energy sectors.  
"_For the last two years, CEDEX® has been reporting each quarter a steady fall in emissions from electricity generation_, while emissions from use of petroleum fuels continued to grow, offsetting about half the reduction in electricity generation emissions." 
Look at what has happened to Australia's total CO2 emissions since the legislation was enacted in 2011 (the grey line):     pitt&sherry's Carbon Emissions Index

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Just found this in the Australian Parliamentary Library http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...lication%2Fpdf 
Hilariously fascinating in an appalling kind of way.  It's a chronology of Federal Government climate change policy between the mid nineteen seventies and the end of last year...

----------


## intertd6

> There is a logical disconnect in your reasoning. 
> I say I generally refer to the actual science, re-read the thread if you can't remember or didn't read the posts. Saying that I _generally_ refer to the actual science does not preclude quoting the IPCC or any other source of information. 
> Perhaps a dictionary definition will help your quest for understanding.  *gen·er·al·ly* 
>   [jen-er-uh-lee]    
>    adverb 
>   1. usually; commonly; ordinarily: He generally comes home at noon.   
> 2. with respect to the larger part; for the most part: a generally accurate interpretation of the facts.   
> 3. without reference to or disregarding particular persons, things, situations, etc., that may be an exception: generally speaking.       *Origin:*  
>  12501300;  Middle English;  see general, -ly  
> ...

  I would say definately but not generally you still are dodging the relevant answers about the simple narrow focus which is your theories downfall.
regards inter

----------


## Marc

*Oh no! Tim Ball ! He is bad, he is bald and he is bold, "we" don't like him, he is an infidel, heretic unbeliever denier galore ajjj spuajjj vade retro !!!!* :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): *  
Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming.*  _by DR. TIM BALL on JANUARY 7, 2014_ _in HISTORICAL,HISTORY,PHILOSOPHY,THEORY_  _It occurred to me Academic gowns show universities are medieval institutions being dragged kicking and screaming into the 17th century._ _Global Warming was just one issue The Club of Rome (TCOR) targeted in its campaign to reduce world population. In 1993 the Clubs co-founder, Alexander King with Bertrand Schneider wrote The First Global Revolution stating,_ _
The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.__They believe all these problems are created by humans but exacerbated by a growing population using technology. Changed attitudes and behavior basically means what it has meant from the time Thomas Malthus raised the idea the world was overpopulated. He believed charity and laws to help the poor were a major cause of the problem and it was necessary to reduce population through rules and regulations. TCOR ideas all ended up in the political activities of the Rio 1992 conference organized by Maurice Strong (a TCOR member) under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The assumptions and objectives became the main structure of Agenda 21, the master plan for the 21st Century. The global warming threat was confronted at Rio through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It was structured to predetermine scientific proof that human CO2 was one contribution of the common enemy._  _
The IPCC was very successful. Despite all the revelations about corrupted science and their failed predictions (projections) CO2 remains central to global attention about energy and environment. For example, several websites, many provided by government, list CO2 output levels for new and used cars. Automobile companies work to build cars with lower CO2 output and, if for no other reason than to appear green, use it in advertising. The automotive industry, which has the scientists to know better, collectively surrenders to eco-bullying about CO2. They are not alone. They get away with it because they pass on the unnecessary costs to a befuddled trying to do the right thing population._ _TCOR applied Thomas Malthuss claim of a race to exhaustion of food to all resources. Both Malthus and COR believe limiting population was mandatory. Darwin took a copy of Malthuss Essay on Population with him and remarked on its influence on his evolutionary theory in his Beagle journal in September 1838. The seeds of distortion about overpopulation were sown in Darwins acceptance of Malthuss claims._ _
Paul Johnsons biography of Charles Darwin comments on the contradiction between Darwins scientific methods and his acceptance of their omission in Malthus.__Malthuss aim was to discourage charity and reform the existing poor laws, which, he argued, encourage the destitute to breed and so aggravated the problem. That was not Darwins concern. What struck him was the contrast between geometrical progression (breeding) and arithmetical progression (food supplies). Not being a mathematician he did not check the reasoning and accuracy behind Malthuss law in fact, Malthuss law was nonsense. He did not prove it. He stated it. What strikes one reading Malthus is the lack of hard evidence throughout. Why did this not strike Darwin? A mystery. Malthuss only proof was the population expansion of the United States.__There was no point at which Malthuss geometrical/arithmetical rule could be made to square with the known facts. And he had no reason whatsoever to extrapolate from the high American rates to give a doubling effect every 25 years everywhere and in perpetuity._ _He swallowed Malthusianism because it fitted his emotional need, he did not apply the tests and deploy the skepticism that a scientist should. It was a rare lapse from the discipline of his profession. But it was an important one.__
Darwins promotion of Malthus undoubtedly gave the ideas credibility they didnt deserve. Since then the Malthusian claim has dominated science, social science and latterly environmentalism. Even now many who accept the falsity of global warming due to humans continue to believe overpopulation is a real problem._ _
Overpopulation was central in all TCORs activities. Three books were important to their message, Paul Ehrlichs The Population Bomb (1968) and Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Environment (1977) co-authored with John Holdren, Obamas Science Czar, and Meadows et al., Limits to Growth, published in 1972 that anticipated the IPCC approach of computer model predictions (projections).  
The latter wrote__If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years.__
Here is what the TCOR web site says about the book.__They created a computing model which took into account the relations between various global developments and produced computer simulations for alternative scenarios. Part of the modelling were different amounts of possibly available resources, different levels of agricultural productivity, birth control or environmental protection.__
They estimated the current amount of a resource, determined the rate of consumption, and added an expanding demand because of increasing industrialization and population growth to determine, with simple linear trend analysis, that the world was doomed._ _Economist Julian Simon challenged TCOR and Ehrlichs assumptions.__In response to Ehrlichs published claim that If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″  a proposition Simon regarded as too silly to bother with  Simon countered with a public offer to stake US$10,000  on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run.__
Simon proposed,__You could name your own terms: select any raw material you wanted  copper, tin, whatever  and select any date in the future, any date more than a year away, and Simon would bet that the commoditys price on that date would be lower than what it was at the time of the wager.__
Global warming used the idea that CO2 would increase to harmful levels because of increasing industrialization and expanding populations. The political manipulation of climate science was linked to development and population control in various ways. Here are comments from a PBS interview with Senator Tim Wirth in response to the question,__What was it in the late 80s, do you think, that made the issue [of global warming] take off?__
He replied,__I think a number of things happened in the late 1980s. First of all, there were the [NASA scientist Jim] Hansen hearings [in 1988].  We had introduced a major piece of legislation. Amazingly enough, it was an 18-part climate change bill; it had population in it, conservation, and it had nuclear in it. It had everything that we could think of that was related to climate change.  And so we had this set of hearings, and Jim Hansen was the star witness.__
Wikipedia says about Wirth,__In the State Department, he worked with Vice President Al Gore on global environmental and population issues, supporting the administrations views on global warming. A supporter of the proposed Kyoto Protocol Wirth announced the U.S.s commitment to legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions.__Gore chaired the 1988 Hansen Senate Hearing and was central to the promotion of population as basic to all other problems. He led the US delegation to the September 1994 International  
Conference on Population and Development in Cairo Egypt._ _
That conference emerged from Rio 1992 where they linked population to all other supposed problems.__Explicitly integrating population into economic and development strategies will both speed up the pace of sustainable development and poverty alleviation and contribute to the achievement of population objectives and an improved quality of life of the population.__
This theme was central to Rio+20 held in June 2012 and designed to re-emphasize Rio 1992._ _
The Numbers_ _
The world is not overpopulated. That fallacy is perpetuated in all environmental research, policy and planning including global warming and latterly climate change. So what are the facts about world population?_ _
The US Census Bureau provides a running estimate of world population. It was 6,994,551,619 on February 15, 2012. On October 30, 2011 the UN claimed it passed 7 billion; the difference is 5,448,381. This is more than the population of 129 countries of the 242 listed by Wikipedia. It confirms most statistics are crude estimates, especially those of the UN who rely on individual member countries, yet no accurate census exists for any of them_ _
Population density is a more meaningful measure. Most people are concentrated in coastal flood plains and deltas, which are about 5 percent of the land. Compare Canada, the second largest country in the world with approximately 35.3 million residents estimated in 2013 with California where an estimated 37.3 million people lived in 2010. Some illustrate the insignificance of the density issue by putting everyone in a known region. For example, Texas at 7,438,152,268,800 square feet divided by the 2012 world population 6,994,551,619 yields 1063.4 square feet per person. Fitting all the people in an area is different from them being able to live there. Most of the world is unoccupied by humans._  _
Population geographers separate ecumene, the inhabited area, from non-ecumene the uninhabited areas. The distribution of each changes over time because of technology, communications and food production capacity. Many of these changes deal with climate controls. Use of fire and clothing allowed survival in colder regions, while irrigation offset droughts and allowed settlement in arid regions.  
Modern environmentalists would likely oppose all of these touted evolutionary advances._ _
Ironically The Fallacious Problem is The Solution_ _
It all sounds too familiar in the exploitation of science for a political and personal agenda. But there is an even bigger tragedy because the development the TCOR and IPCC condemn is actually the solution._ ___All of the population predictions Ehrlich and others made were wrong, but more important and damning was they ignored another pattern that was identified in 1929 and developed over the same period as the Mathusian claims. It is known as the Demographic Transition._ _
It shows and statistics confirm, population declines as nations industrialize and the economy grows. It is so dramatic in developed countries that the population pyramid results in insufficient young people to support the massively expensive social programs for the elderly. Some countries offset this with migration, but they are simply creating other problems. Countries that dont allow or severely limit migration such as Japan face completely different problems. Some countries offer incentives for having more than two children, such as the announcement by Vladimir Putin in Russia. China took draconian, inhuman, steps by limiting families to one child. The irony, although there is nothing funny about it, is they are now the largest producer of CO2 and their economy booms. If they had simply studied the demographic transition and let things take a normal course the tragedies already incurred and yet to unfold could have been avoided._ _
The world is not overpopulated. Malthus began the idea suggesting the population would outgrow the food supply. Currently food production is believed sufficient to feed 25 billion people and growing. The issue is that in the developing world some 60 percent of production never makes it to the table. Developed nations cut this figure to 30 percent primarily through refrigeration. In their blind zeal those who brought you the IPCC fiasco cut their teeth on the technological solution to this problem  better and cheaper refrigeration. The CFC/ ozone issue was artificially created to ban CFCs and introduce global control through the Montreal Protocol. It, like the Kyoto Protocol was a massive, expensive, unnecessary solution to a non-existent problem._ _
TCOR and later UNEPs Agenda 21 adopted and expanded the Malthusian idea of overpopulation to all resources making it the central tenet of all their politics and policies. The IPCC was set up to assign the blame of global warming and latterly climate change on human produced CO2 from an industrialized expanding population. They both developed from false assumptions, used manipulated data and science, which they combined into computer models whose projections were, not surprisingly, wrong. The result is the fallacy of global warming due to human CO2 is a subset built on the fallacy of overpopulation._   _- See more at: Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming._

----------


## dazzler

I have a question that the skeptics may be able to answer.  Is there an actual climate scientist who disagrees with the IPCC consensus on climate change?  I haven't come across one which is a bit of a red flag I reckon.      
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

----------


## woodbe

> I would say definately but not generally you still are dodging the relevant answers about the simple narrow focus which is your theories downfall.
> regards inter

  I can not dodge a relevant question to the debate. Dodging an irrelevant question is easy. You yourself here admit to your own 'simple' 'narrow' 'focus', and I agree with you. This debate can not be constrained to a narrow focus. That would be like looking in one window of a large and busy hotel, seeing no-one and claiming the building is vacant.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> As Thomas Edison famously said back in 1931, Id put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we dont have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that. 
> This is fossil fuel companies' worst nightmare:   
> And here is why plummeting cost of solar is a game-changer:    
> Fossil energy companies are under threat of extinction!   This solar graph is so wicked it's titled "Welcome to the Terrordome" : TreeHugger

  I hope you are right and they get there by being competitive and kicking the fossil fuels as ss  
NOT by being subsidised by us on the pretext of globull warming.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I have a question that the skeptics may be able to answer.  Is there an actual climate scientist who disagrees with the IPCC consensus on climate change?  I haven't come across one which is a bit of a red flag I reckon.      
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Sooooooooo.  Hows the climate debate going?  Have the people on here that know more than the scientists convinced those who don't how stupid the scientists are? 
> Oh and who was it that owed me an apology for misrepresenting me?  Has that apology been forthcoming?

  
 No one here makes that claim.

----------


## John2b

> List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  This list represents about 0.1% of climate scientists actively working on climate change, i.e. about one in a thousand.

----------


## woodbe

> This list represents about 0.1% of climate scientists actively working on climate change, i.e. about one in a thousand.

  And if you look at the list, there are a lot of entries that are people who do not work on climate science or are retired. And that's without removing the entries of people who have proven to have suspect credibility of which there are several. 
Assuming a normal population of working climate scientists, we should expect more than this small number of people to be disagreeing with the conclusions of the IPCC. Probably there are more but they keep their heads down (can't blame them). That's fine by me, we need those people to be working on a better alternative theory so the ruling theory gets turfed out (also fine by me but I'm not holding my breath on that one). 
If inter would stop messing about he could publish his secret theory and we could all go home but apparently he's too busy to save the world. LOL.

----------


## Rod Dyson

How to get cooler past and warmer present.  http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress...y-05-20-57.gif 
Trust me these adjustments are correct and accurately reflect true temperature.  Just trust me.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> This list represents about 0.1% of climate scientists actively working on climate change, i.e. about one in a thousand.

  Only takes one to be right? 
"Climate" scientist are destroying the credibility of scientists.

----------


## John2b

> Only takes one to be right? 
> "Climate" scientist are destroying the credibility of scientists.

  Codswallop!

----------


## John2b

> How to get cooler past and warmer present.  http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress...y-05-20-57.gif 
> Trust me these adjustments are correct and accurately reflect true temperature.  Just trust me.

  Bit embarrassing, Rod, Stephen Goddard is not even a real person - the name is a pseudonym. Who are you going to trust?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Codswallop!

  So say you

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Bit embarrassing, Rod, Stephen Goddard is not even a real person - the name is a pseudonym. Who are you going to trust?

  No not at all.  He could call himself Micky Mouse for all I care.  It is the message that counts.  Something Warmists the world over seem to be taught to ignore to distract from the message. 
Attack the credibility of the messenger and discredit the message.  Nice work, sorry falls of deaf ears of sensible people.

----------


## woodbe

> No not at all.  He could call himself Micky Mouse for all I care.  It is the message that counts.  Something Warmists the world over seem to be taught to ignore to distract from the message. 
> Attack the credibility of the messenger and discredit the message.  Nice work, sorry falls of deaf ears of sensible people.

  So the fact that your hero has been repeatedly shown to be publishing BS has no effect on your belief? Even WUWT doesn't publish his drivel any longer. This is not attacking the credibility of a messenger, it's shining a light on a snake oil salesman. 
If you blindly accept the junk from Steve Goddard, you're on more unstable ground than I thought.

----------


## dazzler

> List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Thats Gold Rod.  Thanks.   
Linking to Wikipedia......  Did you actually read the article?   
Have some fun tonight.  Go to the link you provided and click on each of the scientists that the article lists as deniers.  Have a look at the motley bunch.  Here is one drawn totally at random; 
Salby received his Bachelors degree in aerospace engineering in 1973, and his Ph.D. in environmental dynamics from Georgia Tech in 1978.[5] Salby's work focused on upper atmospheric wave propagation for most of his early career. He began as an assistant professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder in 1984, in a department which eventually became the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. Salby became an associate professor in 1985 and full professor in 1991, gaining tenure in 1997.[citation needed] In 2006 the University of Colorado began an investigation into his financial arrangements, and in 2007 the National Science Foundation sought information from Salby who was then on sabbatical in Australia. Before the university made its final adjudication, Salby resigned from his faculty position. The National Science Foundation investigation subsequently found that Salby had overcharged his grants and violated financial conflict of interest policies, displaying "a pattern of deception, a lack of integrity, and a persistent and intentional disregard of NSF and University rules and policies" and a "consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit."[6] 
After leaving Colorado, Salby joined the faculty of Macquarie University in Australia, where he was appointed Professor of Climate Risk in 2008. In May 2011, Salby's research showing that ozone levels over Antarctica had begun to recover since the Montreal Protocol banned the use of ozone-depleting substances, was published in Geophysical Research Letters.[7][8] Salby's employment at Macquarie was terminated in 2013. Macquarie University stated that he was dismissed for refusing to fulfill his teaching responsibilities and for inappropriate use of university resources.[2][9] 
Yeah I am throwing in with this fella........ 
LOL  
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

----------


## John2b

> No not at all.  He could call himself Micky Mouse for all I care.  It is the message that counts.

  I doesn't matter to you that the message is made up drivel, and the nom de guerre is a ruse to conceal the identity of the perpetrator of the falsehoods? Oh boy! 
BTW you have just won $100,000,000 in a free anonymous lottery. Send me $50,000 and I will help you claim it. You can trust me!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Only takes one to be right?

  
Er...no. Actually.  It's one thing to have an insight or an idea...it's quite another to be able to build a case to convincingly demonstrate the 'truth' behind that insight or idea.  This requires many many more than just one individual. 
And that pretty much explains why no-one has come up with a convincing alternative scenario to the one that contends that the current warming phase is forced primarily by human activities over the last couple of centuries.

----------


## Neptune

> Only takes one to be right?

   

> Er...no. Actually.

  But what about the 3% of Brake Mechanics, surely there's more than one of them?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

You make as much sense as a letter from Centrelink.

----------


## dazzler

> You make as much sense as a letter from Centrelink.

  Thats funny....  
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

----------


## intertd6

> I can not dodge a relevant question to the debate. Dodging an irrelevant question is easy. You yourself here admit to your own 'simple' 'narrow' 'focus', and I agree with you. This debate can not be constrained to a narrow focus. That would be like looking in one window of a large and busy hotel, seeing no-one and claiming the building is vacant.

  funny how it was very relevant until all the lame theories were individually shot down by someone with a barely average intelligence! Then all of a sudden it becomes irrelevant now! Best you get get back to work trying to track something down to parrot because it's as relevant now as it has always been!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> This list represents about 0.1% of climate scientists actively working on climate change, i.e. about one in a thousand.

  the query was somebody didn't know one, more than one was provided and I really does only take one to make a monumental discovery which really grates on the try hard nobodies.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Only takes one to be right? 
> "Climate" scientist are destroying the credibility of scientists.

  i agree & it's the wannabes that come out with all the alarmist predictions that just make the general public turn off from the free flowing garbage that emanates from the ranks.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> the query was somebody didn't know one, more than one was provided and I really does only take one to make a monumental discovery which really grates on the try hard nobodies.
> regards inter

  The question was: "Is there an _actual climate scientist_ who disagrees with the IPCC consensus on climate change?" #10767  The answer did not address the question, because the list provided _isn't restricted to climate scientists_, and on closer examination, the list is not limited to _credible_ _scientists_ apparently either LOL. It could be argued that a discredited scientist is not an actual scientist. It's a tenuous assumption on the available evidence to assert that there was "more than one" _actual climate scientist_ provided, but hang on tenuously. 
The section of the list "Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections" contains scientists including climate scientists _who acknowledge the fact of AGW_ but take issue with one aspect, such as with mainstream views on severity. 
The section of the list "Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes" does not contain any climate scientists, although it does contain a couple of discredited scientists in related fields. 
The section of the list "Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown" contains no climate scientists, but does contain one meteorologist. 
The section of the list "Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences" does not contain any climate scientists.

----------


## woodbe

> funny how it was very relevant until all the lame theories were individually shot down by someone with a barely average intelligence! Then all of a sudden it becomes irrelevant now! Best you get get back to work trying to track something down to parrot because it's as relevant now as it has always been!
> regards inter

  Another sad case of poor reading comprehension. 
Hint: look up the meaning of  'can' and 'will'. Can does not imply 'will'. 
By asking your narrow focus questions you have given the opportunity to point out exactly how narrow focused they are, and why they are not relevant. Sometimes it is worth answering those questions to help the readership understand. 
When you have a time period that is relevant to climate, please come back and ask your narrow focus questions again. I 'can not' guarantee that they will be relevant then, but we won't know until you try. 
See you in 10 or so years.  :Tongue:

----------


## Micky013

Hi 
Way off topic but...
Im using the iphone forum app for this forum. Does anyone know how i can get this out of my "participated" list?

----------


## woodbe

> Hi 
> Way off topic but...
> Im using the iphone forum app for this forum. Does anyone know how i can get this out of my "participated" list?

  I don't know if you can do it on the phone, but on the normal site, go to 'settings; on the Renovate Forum, view 'subscribed threads', select 'Emission Trading', and then click the 'selected threads' button and select 'Delete Subscription' 
hope that helps.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Hi 
> Way off topic but...
> Im using the iphone forum app for this forum. Does anyone know how i can get this out of my "participated" list?

  I'm impressed you had it there in the first place!!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> How to get cooler past and warmer present.  http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress...y-05-20-57.gif 
> Trust me these adjustments are correct and accurately reflect true temperature.  Just trust me.

  Another side step by trying to discredit the information without addressing the content. 
Great job.

----------


## John2b

> Another side step by trying to discredit the information without addressing the content. 
> Great job.

  Plenty of knowledgable people have already discredited Steven Goddard, so there is no need for anyone on this forum to address the fallacious content of his blog. 
The question is why are you touting a discredited and duplicitous blog? Haven't you got any credible sources to support your position?

----------


## woodbe

> How to get cooler past and warmer present.  http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress...y-05-20-57.gif 
> Trust me these adjustments are correct and accurately reflect true temperature.  Just trust me.

   

> Another side step by trying to discredit the information without addressing the content. 
> Great job.

  Rod, you doing your own self-critiquing now? 
Saves us the bother  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Climate models accurate?  Sure they are!   

> IMO, solving the problem the GCMs are trying to solve is a grand challenge problem in computer science. It isnt at all surprising that the solutions so far dont work very well. It would rather be surprising if they did. We dont even have the data needed to intelligently initialize the models we have got, and those models almost certainly have a completely inadequate spatiotemporal resolution on an insanely stupid, non-rescalable gridding of a sphere. So the programs literally cannot be made to run at a finer resolution without basically rewriting the whole thing, and any such rewrite would only make the problem at the poles worse  quadrature on a spherical surface using a rectilinear lat/long grid is long known to be enormously difficult and to give rise to artifacts and nearly uncontrollable error estimates. 
> But until the people doing statistics on the output of the GCMs come to their senses and stop treating each GCM as if it is an independent and identically distributed sample drawn from a distribution of perfectly written GCM codes plus unknown but unbiased internal errors  which is precisely what AR5 does, as is explicitly acknowledged in section 9.2 in precisely two paragraphs hidden neatly in the middle that more or less add up to all of the `confidence given the estimates listed at the beginning of chapter 9 is basically human opinion @@@@@@@@, not something that can be backed up by any sort of axiomatically correct statistical analysis  the public will be safely protected from any dangerous knowledge of the ongoing failure of the GCMs to actually predict or hindcast anything at all particularly accurately outside of the reference interval.

  By Dr. Robert G. Brown, Duke University 
Credible??  Don't know?  You tell me.

----------


## woodbe

> How to get cooler past and warmer present.  http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress...y-05-20-57.gif 
> Trust me these adjustments are correct and accurately reflect true temperature.  Just trust me.

  Did you read the text that went with that graphic from Stephen Bollard? 
Here it is:   

> here is my guess. Obama wants credit for healing the climate. He has  been engaging in every imaginable form of BS to get an international  agreement through this year or next, and after he gets the agreement he  will tell NOAA to stop tampering - and will then take credit for the  drop in temperature.

  Weird. He's fallen off the edge.

----------


## John2b

> Climate models accurate?  Sure they are!   
> By Dr. Robert G. Brown, Duke University 
> Credible??  Don't know?  You tell me.

  The citation comes unstuck in the last sentence "the ongoing failure of the GCMs to actually predict or hindcast anything at all particularly accurately outside of the reference interval." Climate models project climate trends. Climate models can not and do not predict or hind cast weather, but that does not invalidate the model. So far, it would be closer to the mark to call climate models mostly accurate, based on applying the models over the past 150 years. 
People who want a credible discussion about climate change should stop talking about the weather.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Climate models accurate?  Sure they are!   
> By Dr. Robert G. Brown, Duke University 
> Credible??  Don't know?  You tell me.

  
He's both right and wrong. He's right in the fact that virtually every model to date is not particularly 'accurate' (a better word would be 'precise') at scales that are smaller than the continental scale. However, he's also wrong because his expectations are entirely unrealistic.  They were never designed to operate at anything more than a very broad scale and they probably don't need to either.   
The next round of climate projections for Australia (based on a ridiculously long list of climate models...70 something from memory...from climate research and meteorological organisations worldwide) is due from CSIRO in July this year (last lot was in 2008).  These projections are based on (from memory) 250 km grids.  That's as precise as they get...and even that is pushing the boundaries of what's possible. 
Are they accurate in terms of a predicted outcome?  Well if you have 70 models and more than 50% of them suggest that an area of Australia (250 km x 250 km) is going to get warmer and drier by 2050 (compared to today), roughly 20% say warmer with similar rainfall, 10% say warmer and wetter, 10% say same temp and drier and 10% say no change....what do you reckon would be most likely?  I'd suggest that the most likely outcome is it'll probably be warmer but rainfall could go either way.   
The real question is...is that enough information to generate an adaptive response in the population within that area to what in all likelihood lies ahead?  Personally I doubt it but sometimes people surprise me.

----------


## Marc

*Roy Spencer, PhD 
My Initial Comments on the National Climate Assessment* 
May 7th, 2014There will be many comments from others, Im sure, but these are my initial thoughts on the 12 major findings from the latest National Climate Assessment, which proports to tell us how the global climate change anticipated by the IPCC on a global basis will impact us here at home.
The report findings are in bold and italics. My comments follow each finding.   *1. Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.* _Many independent lines of evidence confirm that human activities are affecting climate in unprecedented ways. U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3°F to 1.9°F since record keeping began in 1895; most of this increase has occurred since about 1970. The most recent decade was the warmest on record. Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, rising temperatures are not evenly distributed across the country or over time. _ 
Yes, it has likely warmed, but by an amount which is unknown due to increasing warm biases in thermometer siting, which cannot be removed through homogenization adjustments. But there is no way to know whether The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, because there is no fingerprint of human-caused versus naturally-caused climate change. To claim the changes are unprecedented cannot be demonstrated with reliable data, and are contradicted by some published paleoclimate data which suggests most centuries experience substantial warming or cooling.   *2. Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades, and new and stronger evidence confirms that some of these increases are related to human activities.* _Changes in extreme weather events are the primary way that most people experience climate change. Human-induced climate change has already increased the number and strength of some of these extreme events. Over the last 50 years, much of the United States has seen an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, and in some regions, more severe droughts. _ 
There is little or no evidence of increases in severe weather events, except possibly in heavy rainfall events, which would be consistent with modest warming. The statement panders to the publics focus on the latest severe weather, and limited memory of even worse events of the past.   *3. Human-induced climate change is projected to continue, and it will accelerate significantly if global emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase.* _Heat-trapping gases already in the atmosphere have committed us to a hotter future with more climate-related impacts over the next few decades. The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases that human activities emit globally, now and in the future. _ 
This is a predictive statement based upon climate models which have not even been able to hindcast past global temperatures, let alone forecast changes with any level of accuracy.   *4. Impacts related to climate change are already evident in many sectors and are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond.* _Climate change is already affecting societies and the natural world. Climate change interacts with other environmental and societal factors in ways that can either moderate or intensify these impacts. The types and magnitudes of impacts vary across the nation and through time. Children, the elderly, the sick, and the poor are especially vulnerable. There is mounting evidence that harm to the nation will increase substantially in the future unless global emissions of heat-trapping gases are greatly reduced. _ 
To the extent climate has changed regionally, there is no way to know how much has been due to human activities. In fact, it might well be human-induced changes have reduced the negative impact of natural changes  there is simply no way to know. You see, those scientists who study the natural world cannot bring themselves to consider the possibility than some human impacts are actually positive. Even if the human-caused impacts are a net negative, they are far outweighed by the benefits to society (especially the poor) of access to abundant, affordable energy. Besides, for the next few decades, there is nothing substantial we can do about the problem, unless killing off a large portion of humanity, and making the rest miserable, is on the table.   *5. Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways, including through more extreme weather events and wildfire, decreased air quality, and diseases transmitted by insects, food, and water.* _Climate change is increasing the risks of heat stress, respiratory stress from poor air quality, and the spread of waterborne diseases. Extreme weather events often lead to fatalities and a variety of health impacts on vulnerable populations, including impacts on mental health, such as anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Large-scale changes in the environment due to climate change and extreme weather events are increasing the risk of the emergence or reemergence of health threats that are currently uncommon in the United States, such as dengue fever. _ 
Most of this is just simply made up, and ignores the positive benefits of access to affordable energy which far outweigh the negatives. If there has been an increase in anxiety and PTSD, it isnt from severe weather eventsits from the relentless fear mongering by politicians and the news media.   *6. Infrastructure is being damaged by sea level rise, heavy downpours, and extreme heat; damages are projected to increase with continued climate change.* _Sea level rise, storm surge, and heavy downpours, in combination with the pattern of continued development in coastal areas, are increasing damage to U.S. infrastructure including roads, buildings, and industrial facilities, and are also increasing risks to ports and coastal military installations. Flooding along rivers, lakes, and in cities following heavy downpours, prolonged rains, and rapid melting of snowpack is exceeding the limits of flood protection infrastructure designed for historical conditions. Extreme heat is damaging transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail lines, and airport runways. _ 
Sea level rise (which was occurring before we started emitting carbon dioxide in substantial amounts) is a very slow process, which would have to be accommodated for anyway. And the weaker global warming turns out to be, the slower sea level rise will be. Infrastructure damage occurs anyway, and is often due to weather events which exceed the design limits. You dont engineer roads and buildings and seawalls and levees to handle any possible scenarioit would be too expensive. A large part of our flooding problems are due to the replacement of natural ground with paved surfaces, which enhances runoff into rivers. This has nothing to do with climate change.   *7. Water quality and water supply reliability are jeopardized by climate change in a variety of ways that affect ecosystems and livelihoods.* _Surface and groundwater supplies in some regions are already stressed by increasing demand for water as well as declining runoff and groundwater recharge. In some regions, particularly the southern part of the country and the Caribbean and Pacific Islands, climate change is increasing the likelihood of water shortages and competition for water among its many uses. Water quality is diminishing in many areas, particularly due to increasing sediment and contaminant concentrations after heavy downpours. _ 
This is largely a _non sequitur_. The problems described exist even without human-caused climate changeto the extent that substantial human influences exist.   *8. Climate disruptions to agriculture have been increasing and are projected to become more severe over this century.* _Some areas are already experiencing climate-related disruptions, particularly due to extreme weather events. While some U.S. regions and some types of agricultural production will be relatively resilient to climate change over the next 25 years or so, others will increasingly suffer from stresses due to extreme heat, drought, disease, and heavy downpours. From mid-century on, climate change is projected to have more negative impacts on crops and livestock across the country  a trend that could diminish the security of our food supply. _ 
I work with the people involved in tracking and long-term prediction of agricultural yields, both domestically and internationally. They see no sign of climate change impacts on agricultural yields. There are always natural fluctuations, but if there is any negative human-induced impact, it is swamped by the increasing yields due to improved agricultural practices, seed varieties, and very likely CO2 fertilization.   *9. Climate change poses particular threats to Indigenous Peoples health, well-being, and ways of life.* _Chronic stresses such as extreme poverty are being exacerbated by climate change impacts such as reduced access to traditional foods, decreased water quality, and increasing exposure to health and safety hazards. In parts of Alaska, Louisiana, the Pacific Islands, and other coastal locations, climate change impacts (through erosion and inundation) are so severe that some communities are already relocating from historical homelands to which their traditions and cultural identities are tied. Particularly in Alaska, the rapid pace of temperature rise, ice and snow melt, and permafrost thaw are significantly affecting critical infrastructure and traditional livelihoods. _ 
O..M..G. So lets help poor people by increasing the cost of everything by making the energy on which everything depends even more expensive? The people who write this drivel are so clueless they should not be allowed to influence the decision making process.  *10. Ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society are being affected by climate change. The capacity of ecosystems to buffer the impacts of extreme events like fires, floods, and severe storms is being overwhelmed.* _Climate change impacts on biodiversity are already being observed in alteration of the timing of critical biological events such as spring bud burst and substantial range shifts of many species. In the longer term, there is an increased risk of species extinction. These changes have social, cultural, and economic effects. Events such as droughts, floods, wildfires, and pest outbreaks associated with climate change (for example, bark beetles in the West) are already disrupting ecosystems. These changes limit the capacity of ecosystems, such as forests, barrier beaches, and wetlands, to continue to play important roles in reducing the impacts of these extreme events on infrastructure, human communities, and other valued resources. _ 
Modest warming and more CO2 available to the biosphere is already having positive impacts, such as the recent greening of the planet. Trying to turn the most obvious positive outcomes into negatives leads to logical contortions which would be funny if they werent so serious. Nature changes anyway, folks, as evidenced by glaciers in Europe and North America receding and uncovering ancient tree stumps. Ecosystems are being overwhelmed? I dont think so. Ecosystems are not static.   *11. Ocean waters are becoming warmer and more acidic, broadly affecting ocean circulation, chemistry, ecosystems, and marine life.* _More acidic waters inhibit the formation of shells, skeletons, and coral reefs. Warmer waters harm coral reefs and alter the distribution, abundance, and productivity of many marine species. The rising temperature and changing chemistry of ocean water combine with other stresses, such as overfishing and coastal and marine pollution, to alter marine-based food production and harm fishing communities. _ 
There is increasing evidence that ocean acidification has been greatly overblown. Im not an expert, but from what Ive read lately, more realistic lab experiments with adding CO2 to sea water shows that the natural buffering capacity of sea water limits pH changes, and the increasing CO2 is actually good for life in the ocean.just as it is on land (because CO2 is also necessary for the start of the food chain in the ocean). I think the jury is still out on this issuebut, of course, we cant expect government reports, which are written to facilitate desired policy changes, to provide balance on such things.   *12. Planning for adaptation (to address and prepare for impacts) and mitigation (to reduce future climate change, for example by cutting emissions) is becoming more widespread, but current implementation efforts are insufficient to avoid increasingly negative social, environmental, and economic consequences.*_Actions to reduce emissions, increase carbon uptake, adapt to a changing climate, and increase resilience to impacts that are unavoidable can improve public health, economic development, ecosystem protection, and quality of life. _ 
Translation: We need more government regulation and taxation.  
THE BOTTOM LINE:
Follow the money, folks. This glitzy, 840-page report took a lot of your tax dollars to generate, and involved only those experts who are willing to play the game. It is difficult to answer in its entirety because government has billions of dollars to invest in this, while most of us who try to bring some sanity to the issue must do it in our spare time, because we arent paid to do it. It is nowhere near balanced regarding science, costs-versus-benefits, or implied policy outcomes. Like the previous two National Assessment reports, it takes global climate models which cannot even hindcast what has happened before, which over-forecast global average warming, which are known to have essentially zero skill for regional (e.g. U.S.) predictions, and uses them anyway to instill fear into the masses, so that we might be led to safety by politicians. _Caveat emptor. _ 
(Oh, and if you are tempted to say, What about all the _Big Oil_ money involved in our need for energy? Well, that money was willingly given to Big Oil by all of us for a useful product that makes our lives better. _Government_money is taken from you (Im not anti-taxation, just pointing out a distinction) that they then use to perpetuate the perceived need for more government control. If Big Oil could make a profit by becoming Big Solar, or Big Wind, they would.)

----------


## woodbe

> If Big Oil could make a profit by becoming Big Solar, or Big Wind, they would.)

  And if "Big Oil" could protect their "selling lots of oil" profits, "They Would" and "They Are" 
The climate research money is a tiny pimple on the massive bum of big oil.

----------


## John2b

> *Roy Spencer, PhD 
> My Initial Comments on the National Climate Assessment* 
> May 7th, 2014There will be many comments from others, Im sure, but these are my initial thoughts on the 12 major findings from the latest National Climate Assessment, which proports to tell us how the global climate change anticipated by the IPCC on a global basis will impact us here at home.

  Thanks for the instant replay, Marc, I (and I suspect many other interested people) had already read Roy's responses. Very sad, really, he seems to have lost the plot - his reasoning was "all over the road like a mad woman's breakfast", as my mother used to say. 
Poor old Dr Roy Spenser. He set up the UAH Satellite Temperature Record to show that global warming wasn't happening, but the damn climate record won't play ball and continues to rise.

----------


## intertd6

> Another sad case of poor reading comprehension. 
> Hint: look up the meaning of  'can' and 'will'. Can does not imply 'will'. 
> id be fairly sure your the only one in existence that knows what your on about above.  
> By asking your narrow focus questions you have given the opportunity to point out exactly how narrow focused they are, and why they are not relevant. Sometimes it is worth answering those questions to help the readership understand.  I suppose I could broadly relate to nothing in particular, with no proof what so ever, but alas then I'd be on your side! 
> When you have a time period that is relevant to climate, please come back and ask your narrow focus questions again. I 'can not' guarantee that they will be relevant then, but we won't know until you try. 
> See you in 10 or so years.   Lets see, no climate temperature association to CO2 whether it's 15 years or 600 million years, keep that dream alive!

  
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Lets see, no climate temperature association to CO2 whether it's 15 years or 600 million years, keep that dream alive!

  Yet another irrelevant narrow focus claim purporting to unravel the science. 
I _can_ answer this, but instead, I suggest you do your own research. 
Start here: The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

----------


## John2b

> Lets see, no climate temperature association to CO2 whether it's 15 years or 600 million years, keep that dream alive!

  Ah, Inter, you're like a dog with an old bone. No matter that it's dead and buried, you just keep on digging it up again and again and again. 
Is it only you who can't see there no meat on the bone and the marrow has gone as well? 
Hint: CO2 is not / has never been the only driver of warming. What about the effect of Milankovitch (orbital) cycles affecting climate? 
There is a whole world of data that supersedes your old bone so best you go dig a hole for it, lest you be accused of starting your own Machiavellian climate cycle!

----------


## Marc

This is getting beyond pathetic.
The roof of the cult's church is caving in, and the priest and parishioners are running and using whatever they can for cover. 
The reality is that the global warming cult practitioners will have to actually find a real job for a change. 
Yes, it will not be easy with so many people out of a job at the same time. 
I wish you well anyway. 
Until the next farce ... probably "global cooling caused by global warming?"  
Hooroo
Marc

----------


## Neptune

> This is getting beyond pathetic.

  Agree, but it's always better to be on the outside pizzin' in than the inside trying to pizz out.

----------


## woodbe

> This is getting beyond pathetic.
> The roof of the cult's church is caving in, and the priest and parishioners are running and using whatever they can for cover.

  Point of order, Marc. 
A couple of posts above you made a large copy and paste from Dr Roy Spencer's blog, which was Dr Spencer's very casual and fact-free answer to a rather large body of work. I can only imagine that you hold this fellow in high regard. 
Dr Spencer is signatory to the Cornwall Alliance. Their first item under their 'What we Believe' mantra is below:   

> *WHAT WE BELIEVE*  We believe Earth and its ecosystemscreated by Gods intelligent  design and infinite power  and sustained by His faithful providence  are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably  suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.  Earths climate  system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural  cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

  You can find Dr Spencer's name on the list of signatories here: Cornwall Alliance :: Stewardship Notes :: Prominent Signers of An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming  
This is not skepticism driving knowledge, it is belief driving political position. For people who believe this stuff, they have already made up their mind. Knowing this, how can Dr Spencer practice scientific skepticism? 
If anyone is playing churches and beliefs, it is Dr Spencer and his cohorts, and by association, Marc. That fits as Marc repeatedly talks about churches and beliefs he clearly knows a lot about them.  :Rolleyes:  
So Marc, are you on board with Intelligent Design or Evolution?

----------


## intertd6

> Yet another irrelevant narrow focus claim purporting to unravel the science. 
> I _can_ answer this, but instead, I suggest you do your own research. 
> Start here: The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

  Common sense unravels everything you purport a proven science, something the gullible seem to be always missing.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Common sense unravels everything you purport a proven science, something the gullible seem to be always missing.
> regards inter

  Repeating falsehoods about 'proven science' only displays ignorance about the scientific process.

----------


## intertd6

> Ah, Inter, you're like a dog with an old bone. No matter that it's dead and buried, you just keep on digging it up again and again and again. 
> Is it only you who can't see there no meat on the bone and the marrow has gone as well? 
> Hint: CO2 is not / has never been the only driver of warming. What about the effect of Milankovitch (orbital) cycles affecting climate? 
> There is a whole world of data that supersedes your old bone so best you go dig a hole for it, lest you be accused of starting your own Machiavellian climate cycle!

  Its only dead & buried after your last attempt at parroting utter nonsense, try parroting some new facts that are relevant like showing how in the globes history CO2 drove uncontrolled temperature increases, I won't be holding my breath waiting for a relevant answer.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Repeating falsehoods about 'proven science' only displays ignorance about the scientific process.

   some semi believable proof regarding the subject then would be nice.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> like showing how in the globes history CO2 drove uncontrolled temperature increases, I won't be holding my breath waiting for a relevant answer.

  The answer is that it hasn't always. But what is relevant is that fact is _irrelevant_ to today because CO2 is not the only climate driver. Your bone is dead and buried. 
Just in case you missed the relevant bit, here it is again in big type so you don't miss it again: CO2 is not, and has never been, the only driver of warming.  And no one ever said it was. CO2 just happens to be the major component of the current cause of the rising imbalance in the Earth's energy equation that is causing global warming even while we argue about it.

----------


## intertd6

> The answer is that it hasn't always. But what is relevant is that fact is _irrelevant_ to today because CO2 is not the only climate driver. Your bone is dead and buried. 
> Just in case you missed the relevant bit, here it is again in big type so you don't miss it again: CO2 is not, and has never been, the only driver of warming.  And no one ever said it was. CO2 just happens to be the major component of the current cause of the rising imbalance in the Earth's energy equation that is causing global warming even while we argue about it.

  That's just rubbish & shown to be so by the globes history of no association between CO2 & the earths temperature, no equations just what happened.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> That's just rubbish & shown to be so by the globes history of no association between CO2 & the earths temperature, no equations just what happened.
> regards inter

  The current energy imbalance is not theory, not models, just what's happening and what is being measured - no bones about it. NASA LaRC Science Directorate : Research - The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)

----------


## intertd6

> The current energy imbalance is not theory, not models, just what's happening and what is being measured - no bones about it. NASA LaRC Science Directorate : Research - The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)

  obviously there was no budget back before they got involved, if there was it would have been upto 10 times what it is today with the earth burnt to a crisp with CO2 in the thousands of PPM, ahh that's right ! It didn't happen!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> obviously there was no budget back before they got involved, if there was it would have been upto 10 times what it is today with the earth burnt to a crisp with CO2 in the thousands of PPM, ahh that's right ! It didn't happen!
> regards inter

  Inter, your absolute certainty of atmospheric conditions and temperature 600 million years ago is admirable. Oh that's right, it is based on scientific principles and the application of well understood physical laws - the same scientific principles that explain with _even greater certainty what is happening in the last 150 years!  _

----------


## Marc

> Point of order, Marc. 
> A couple of posts above you made a large copy and paste from Dr Roy Spencer's blog, which was Dr Spencer's very casual and fact-free answer to a rather large body of work. I can only imagine that you hold this fellow in high regard. 
> Dr Spencer is signatory to the Cornwall Alliance. Their first item under their 'What we Believe' mantra is below:   
> You can find Dr Spencer's name on the list of signatories here: Cornwall Alliance :: Stewardship Notes :: Prominent Signers of An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming  
> This is not skepticism driving knowledge, it is belief driving political position. For people who believe this stuff, they have already made up their mind. Knowing this, how can Dr Spencer practice scientific skepticism? 
> If anyone is playing churches and beliefs, it is Dr Spencer and his cohorts, and by association, Marc. That fits as Marc repeatedly talks about churches and beliefs he clearly knows a lot about them.  
> So Marc, are you on board with Intelligent Design or Evolution?

  As usual you play the man and not the points made. 
If you would address one point made by Spencer and talk about that point from your point of view, without speculating on the mans religious beliefs, political association or sources of funds, I would give you _some_ credit. yet as you and your associate keep on crapping about the authors personality rather than addressing the points made, yours and B2's credibility is zero. 
Furthermore, Dr Spencer has a blog and anyone can comment on his findings or opinions freely with the advantage of a quick answer. I suggest you make your points on his blog particularly interesting would be for who2b to post his personal attacks there. 
The figure of speech using cults, churches, priest and flocks is a rather obvious simile I use because it illustrates beyond a shadow of a doubt the behavior of those who follow a sociopolitical position without questioning its dubious claims, and believe based on faith and not logic. 
Religion just like man made global warming can not withstand any logical nor scientific analysis yet can survive millennium based on the believe of what can not be seen nor proven.  
There is a clear association between skepticism and conservatives and warmist alarmism and lefties. The reasons are clear and perfectly logical yet irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the truth not the believe. 
And so far, despite thousands of cases of fraud and creative lies manipulations and other tricks, (not to mention billions if not trillions of money wasted)  the only obvious reality is that man's activity on the planet has near zero effect on climate, and that that minuscule and impossible to measure effect does not merit any of the hysterical reactions we are witnessing. 
Of course if the aim is manipulation, power grab and resources shift, the hysteria is the perfect tool to achieve that. The dictators of the past would have loved to have a global warming scare to use to their advantage. 
Lets watch and see how the modern day pathetic apprentice dictators in disguise fall because of their hysterical claims of the need for intervention. 
And I feel really sorry for those who "believe" in this cult as if gospel. It will be hard to recover after the priest scatter. 
PS 
I particularly like Dr Spencer's note at the end of his last blog:  

> (Oh, and if you are tempted to say, What about all the _Big Oil money involved in our need for energy? Well, that money was willingly given to Big Oil by all of us for a useful product that makes our lives better. Governmentmoney is taken from you (Im not anti-taxation, just pointing out a distinction) that they then use to perpetuate the perceived need for more government control. If Big Oil could make a profit by becoming Big Solar, or Big Wind, they would.)_

----------


## woodbe

Marc, 
I responded to the passage from Dr Spencer you particularly liked already:   

> Oh, and if you are tempted to say, What about all the _Big  Oil money involved in our need for energy? Well, that money was  willingly given to Big Oil by all of us for a useful product that makes  our lives better. Government money is taken from you (Im not  anti-taxation, just pointing out a distinction) that they then use to  perpetuate the perceived need for more government control. If Big Oil  could make a profit by becoming Big Solar, or Big Wind, they would.)_

  Here it is again:   

> And if "Big Oil" could protect their "selling lots of oil" profits, "They Would" and "They Are" 
> The climate research money is a tiny pimple on the massive bum of big oil.

  You claim:   

> As usual you play the man and not the points made.

  Yet reading through your little rant, I can see very little response to points and an awful lot of playing the man.  
You don't seem ready to answer the question: Intelligent Design or Evolution?

----------


## John2b

> As usual you play the man and not the points made.

  A bit rich coming from you, especially as your post is doing exactly the same - playing the man and not addressing the fact that Spenser's points have already been debunked - LOL.   

> There is a clear association between skepticism and conservatives and warmist alarmism and lefties. The reasons are clear and perfectly logical yet irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the truth not the believe.

  I am not sure you want to hang your hat that! There is also a clear association between lack of intelligence and conservatism and above average intelligence and liberalism*, which extends to climate change beliefs as well. 
(*Real liberalism, not like the Australian "Liberal" party, which is ultra conservative and not the slightest bit liberal.) 
Social Psychology Quarterly: Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent  Why Conservative White Males Are More Likely to Be Climate Skeptics - Scientific American

----------


## Marc

If I post opinions of a third party, that means I agree with them even when they are not my own writing. That means I am suggesting to debate those points, not if I happen to have acne or halitosis. 
So the point is can you address and reply Dr Spencer's points here, or preferably in Dr Spencer blog so he can reply to you? When you are done, please post both yours and his so we can have a discussion about it. 
As far as evolution is concerned, do you believe in evolution? Can you explain what it is? And what is intelligent design and why is it in your view just one or the other anyway? No third position? 
Yes that's right, it has nothing to do with climate change, however ... it is more likely for a socialist to believe that the bad rich are spoiling the planet and must be punished for it and in the same sentence that religion is the opium of the people. 
Just like it is natural for a conservative to understand the background of the global warming fraud and its intentions and therefore oppose it even when those behind the scenes organizing and committing the fraud are most likely conservatives using naive lefties greenine to pull it off. At the same time a conservative is more likely to have some form of religious belief. 
Just general associations based on early acquired values. Nothing to be surprised of nor to be "denounced".  
As far as the claim that conservatives are dumber and "liberals" are more intelligent ... uuuhuuu now that is some claim. Perhaps 2b2 can also make an association like white are more intelligent than colored people? or male are more intelligent than female? Perhaps he believes in phrenology? 
Lots of possibilities here.  
Give me a break you two, address the points made by Dr Spencer and stop posting self made drivel. And if you have personal things to say about him, have the courage to post it in his blog and not here.

----------


## John2b

> Marc ... Intelligent Design or Evolution?

   

> And what is intelligent design and why is it in your view just one or the other anyway? No third position?

  
Can't wait to read about the new theory of unintelligent, unnatural selection LOL!

----------


## Neptune

> Can't wait to read about the new theory of unintelligent, unnatural selection LOL!

    :Toot:  :Feedtroll:   :Toot:

----------


## woodbe

> If I post opinions of a third party, that means I agree with them even when they are not my own writing. That means I am suggesting to debate those points, not if I happen to have acne or halitosis. 
> So the point is can you address and reply Dr Spencer's points here, or preferably in Dr Spencer blog so he can reply to you? When you are done, please post both yours and his so we can have a discussion about it.

  So which is it, do you want to have a discussion here, or are you merely someone who commands others to debate a third party on their blog? 
I think this is a free discussion forum. If you're finding the going tough, just stay away for a while.   

> As far as evolution is concerned, do you believe in evolution? Can you explain what it is? And what is intelligent design and why is it in your view just one or the other anyway? No third position?

  I accept the theory of evolution, and no, I'm not going to explain it to you. There are plenty of resources available should you wish to do your own research. Your turn, do you believe in evolution, if not, what is your pick?   

> Give me a brake you two, address the points made by Dr Spencer and stop posting self made drivel. And if you have personal things to say about him, have the courage to post it in his blog and not here.

  Here's a brake for you:  
I find no need to address the 'points' made by Dr Spencer. This is not an authoritarian debate, and his points have been shot to ribbons elsewhere of which I'm sure you could easily find if you had the interest. As for posting on his blog, pfft. I have enough to do without playing dog whistle for his acolytes.

----------


## woodbe

> Can't wait to read about the new theory of unintelligent, unnatural selection LOL!

  How about natural unintelligent design?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

*Yes, Ben Adler, there are liberal equivalents to climate change denial*May 9th, 2014Honestly.these are supposed to be the smartest people in the room?
Ben Adler at Grist has an article entitled Why there is no liberal equivalent to climate change denial. He builds upon arguments from Paul Krugman that conservatives have a way of denying facts that liberals dont when it comes to supporting their ideological beliefs.
Its a clever argument, and Im sure it will convince many weak minds. I have to wonder whether Adler and Krugman are also convinced of what they write.
What they have done is basically redefined the term fact to be anything that Liberals _believe_ is an established fact.
Im going to set aside their examples of creation-vs-evolution, or the optimum marginal tax rate, or whether conservatives only want smaller government but liberals want improved social welfare. Instead, Ill just get to Adlers central claim that there is no liberal equivalent to climate change denial.
Of course there are liberal equivalents. For example, here are seven that immediately come to mind:
1) natural climate change denial
2) denial that coal and petroleum work better than unicorn farts as fuels,
3) denial that a small amount of warming is better than killing millions of poor people by restricting access to inexpensive energy,
4) denial that the human-induced component of climate change is anything but catastrophic and an emergency,
5) denial that an increasing number of scientists are becoming skeptics,
6) denial that IPCC scientists were caught red-handed trying to silence the opposition and hide the decline,
7) denial of the observations, which show much less warming than any of the climate models can explain over the last 30+ years.
Im sure I could think of more, but I dont like to waste any more time than necessary answering such silly claims.
For supposedly being able to understand nuances, these guys cant admit that most conservatives really do believe that humans have _some_ influence on climate. We just dont think the scientific and economic evidence supports spreading more misery around the globe than liberal policies have already created.

----------


## Bedford

> Here's a brake for you:

  Woodbe, there is such a thing as a typo, there is such a thing as English being a second language, there is such a thing as the spell checker getting it wrong, 
AND there is such a thing as teachers who cannot spell, teaching our children. 
One thing the Owner of the Forum hates is spelling Nazis,  Urban Dictionary: spelling nazi

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe, there is such a thing as a typo, there is such a thing as English being a second language, there is such a thing as the spell checker getting it wrong, 
> AND there is such a thing as teachers who cannot spell, teaching our children. 
> One thing the Owner of the Forum hates is spelling Nazis,  Urban Dictionary: spelling nazi

  I know, Bedford. It was a joke playing on the misspelling, an attempt at light humour. I don't think that makes me a spelling whatsit, but you're the boss, feel free to do your thang.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## John2b

Anyone who purports: "2) denial that coal and petroleum work better than unicorn farts as fuels" isn't having a serious discussion. 
Next...

----------


## woodbe

> Of course there are liberal equivalents. For example, here are seven that immediately come to mind:
> 1) natural climate change denial

  
 No, I think natural climate change is accepted. Who is denying it?   

> 2) denial that coal and petroleum work better than unicorn farts as fuels,

   I guess that's just a joke, not a real example...   

> 3) denial that a small amount of warming is better than killing millions of poor people by restricting access to inexpensive energy,

   I think there is denial that the long term effects of AGW result in 'a small amount of warming' or that doing something about it restricts access to inexpensive energy. We are already at the point where the marginal cost of power is equal between fossil fuel and alternative energy.   

> 4) denial that the human-induced component of climate change is anything but catastrophic and an emergency,

   Nope. I think there is acceptance that 'from little things, big things grow'  

> 5) denial that an increasing number of scientists are becoming skeptics,

   Like the denial that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept the science? Where is this increasing list of skeptics and when will they start publishing their theories?   

> 6) denial that IPCC scientists were caught red-handed trying to silence the opposition and hide the decline,

   Oh yea, the fizzled out beatup over some stolen emails.   

> 7) denial of the observations, which show much less warming than any of the climate models can explain over the last 30+ years.

   Hang on, who's denying the observations? At least he's talking about 30 years, Inter should read this guy!   

> Im sure I could think of more, but I dont like to waste any more time than necessary answering such silly claims.
> For supposedly being able to understand nuances, these guys cant admit that most conservatives really do believe that humans have _some_ influence on climate. We just dont think the scientific and economic evidence supports spreading more misery around the globe than liberal policies have already created.

  
 Yep, that's political opinion, not scientific. I like that he says "most conservatives really do believe that humans have _some_ influence on climate"

----------


## John2b

> How about natural unintelligent design?

  
Ah yes Woodbe: the emerging field of Unintelligent Design. From Wikipedia: 
"This article or section possibly contains previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources(!)"
Unintelligent design is a trait inherited through natural selection that is detrimental to the organism. Although evolution through natural selection generally provides organisms with adaptations that benefit its success, there are some traits that are derived from evolution that are not to the benefit of the organism. These traits are not necessarily selected for in the organism because they certainly do not provide advantages over others. These traits were part of an organism that had different traits that made it successful, and through the process of natural selection, these organisms that succeeded due to other traits passed along their ineffective traits to other organisms in the evolutionary chain.  Unintelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I've got a few of those traits!!! 
And there is a bit of Unnatural Selection going on too, which might explain a few observations I have made over the past many decades:
Once upon a time the fittest, smartest people were the ones having kids.  Their kids were fit and smart, and each generation was smarter than the last.  But that stopped happening a long time ago, and these days, less fit, less intelligent people are the ones having kids.  So their kids are not as fit and not as smart, and each generation is less and less intelligent.  This is Unnatural Selection.  Critical Section - Unnatural Selection
It always astounds me that the _more_ humanity has discovered and understood through the pursuit of science, the _less_ humanity collectively (or is that "democratically") knows! Global climate change is a case in point.

----------


## John2b

> If I post opinions of a third party, that means I agree with them even when they are not my own writing.

  That's where you and I are different. I am not confident enough to say I even understand entirely what anybody else means when they say something. That is why I often post points or counterpoints that I think are _worthy_ of consideration, and I post the links to the original writer or source so others can do their own investigation in context in case I got it wrong. I am always happy to be corrected.  :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

> Inter, your absolute certainty of atmospheric conditions and temperature 600 million years ago is admirable. Oh that's right, it is based on scientific principles and the application of well understood physical laws - the same scientific principles that explain with _even greater certainty what is happening in the last 150 years!  _

  what could be more certain than every living thing around us, which evolved through the aeons of so called disastrously high levels of CO2, there is no proof that the globe heated up to any level that was detrimental to life on earth, the simple test where your climate models fail, is to see if they align with past climate change, which they don't!
your so called laws disregard what happened previous to the last 150 years, which proves them false in every way.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> the simple test where your climate models fail, is to see if they align with past climate change, which they don't!

  You say they don't. Please provide a link or a reference, or everyone will think you are just making stuff up.

----------


## John2b

Lloyd's has been firmly of the view for a number of years that the climate scientists know what they are talking about**: climate change is happening; it is largely manmade and it is contributing to many extreme events around the world. Furthermore their basic predictions have not changed since the early 1990s. 
A new report published by Lloyds, the worlds specialist insurer, Catastrophe Modelling and Climate Change, states that with the existence of climate change, and the effect it is having globally, the time has come for the insurance industry and catastrophe modelling firms to recognise factors such as surface sea level and air temperature rises throughout their models. The climate is changing. Lloyd's therefore thinks it is imperative that any trends are considered and incorporated into (risk) models.
"Climate change is real and we need to factor it into all future catastrophe modelling."  "There are good physical reasons to expect events to become more extreme. For example as the temperature rises the humidity rises, giving the potential for larger floods. Whether this translates to observable impacts on-shore will just depend on (bad) luck. Does that mean we should ignore the trend until enough disasters have satisfied a strong statistical test? I dont think so. I believe that, when we prepare for these events, we should take account of the underlying trend even if we have haven't unequivocally observed them yet. _If the laws of physics tell us we should expect things to get worse, I'm not going to argue with them._"  Catastrophe modelling and climate change - Lloyd's

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Lloyd's has been firmly of the view for a number of years that the climate scientists know what they are talking about**: climate change is happening; it is largely manmade and it is contributing to many extreme events around the world. Furthermore their basic predictions have not changed since the early 1990s. 
> A new report published by Lloyds, the worlds specialist insurer, Catastrophe Modelling and Climate Change, states that with the existence of climate change, and the effect it is having globally, the time has come for the insurance industry and catastrophe modelling firms to recognise factors such as surface sea level and air temperature rises throughout their models. The climate is changing. Lloyd's therefore thinks it is imperative that any trends are considered and incorporated into (risk) models.
> "Climate change is real and we need to factor it into all future catastrophe modelling."  "There are good physical reasons to expect events to become more extreme. For example as the temperature rises the humidity rises, giving the potential for larger floods. Whether this translates to observable impacts on-shore will just depend on (bad) luck. Does that mean we should ignore the trend until enough disasters have satisfied a strong statistical test? I dont think so. I believe that, when we prepare for these events, we should take account of the underlying trend even if we have haven't unequivocally observed them yet. _If the laws of physics tell us we should expect things to get worse, I'm not going to argue with them._"  Catastrophe modelling and climate change - Lloyd's

  What do you expect!! They can up their premiums.  DOH

----------


## John2b

> What do you expect!! They can up their premiums.  DOH

  And price themselves out of the market? Sounds like a reckless business plan! DOH  "The insurance industry has in recent years incurred major losses as a result of extreme weather. 2011 is regarded as a record year for natural catastrophe, with insured losses costing the industry more than $127 billion. A series of catastrophes at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s posed a major challenge to the insurance industry. The adoption of natural catastrophe models in the 1990s helped the industry to analyse and measure risk more accurately, and use of these tools has now become the norm. 
"The Earths global climate system is warming. This conclusion is supported by a large body of evidence. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, largely due to human activity such as combustion of fossil fuels and land use change, result in an enhancement of the planets natural greenhouse effect and in increased surface warming. The additionally captured energy is stored to the largest part in the oceans and, in combination with a warming of surface air temperatures, results in changes to the physical climate system. 
"One example is the impact on the hydrological cycle in the form of changed rainfall, in changes to atmospheric circulation and weather patterns, in a reduction of global ice and snow coverage and in thermal expansion of the oceans and subsequent sea level rise. These trends challenge insurers to examine both the economic impact of climate change and the adequacy of the tools used to measure and price risks. 
"One of the primary concerns for insurers is the potential for these changes in climate and weather patterns to affect extreme weather events."  http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/Lloyds...plate%20V6.pdf

----------


## Bedford

You're being conditioned John.  
Can you post a list of Lloyds exclusions please. 
While they say it's all man made I bet if your house floods it will be an act of God and not covered!  :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

The Re-insurance segment (these are the guys who take the bulk of the risk from retail insurers like Bedford's house insurer) have been reporting increased climate change related claims and risks for years. One of the biggest is MunichRe. 
These guys are profit motivated which is a fair call, but they are also risk-averse and they do a lot of research to protect their profits so that they can charge appropriate premiums. If they don't, they go down the drain.

----------


## John2b

> You're being conditioned John.  
> Can you post a list of Lloyds exclusions please. 
> While they say it's all man made I bet if your house floods it will be an act of God and not covered!

  Woodbe is on the money, Bedford. It's the $trillion re-insurance industry, not individual policies, that the paper is talking about. 
For example, Lloyds (and other re-insurance agencies) are likely to not re-insure areas at high risk of storm surge due to higher sea levels where there is a large loss potential such as London and the Thames Estuary, New York and Manhattan Island, and coastlines at increased risk from extra tropical cyclones and windstorms such as the United Kingdom, Ireland and Scandanavia. That will make insurance cover for these events difficult or impossible to buy for the areas concerned.

----------


## John2b

So much for the notion that Antarctic ice growth is balancing Arctic ice loss - it just isn't so! 
New NASA data shows West Antarctic Glacier Loss Appears Unstoppable  These glaciers already contribute significantly to sea level rise, releasing almost as much ice into the ocean annually as the entire Greenland Ice Sheet. They contain enough ice to raise global sea level by 1.2 meters and are melting faster than most scientists had expected. These findings will require an upward revision to current predictions of sea level rise.
Warm sea water propelled by the circumpolar deep current is flowing underneath the glaciers causing them to melt from underneath, which in turn causes a reduction in the weight of ice, allowing the glacier to float upwards and let more warm water in underneath further upstream. In addition, the lower mass at the end of the glacier allows the glacier to speed up, pushed along by the weight of ice higher up.  The "Unstable" West Antarctic Ice Sheet: A Primer | NASA

----------


## woodbe

> So much for the notion that Antarctic ice growth is balancing Arctic ice loss - it just isn't so! 
> New NASA data shows West Antarctic Glacier Loss Appears Unstoppable  The "Unstable" West Antarctic Ice Sheet: A Primer | NASA

  Thankfully we have a resident Antarctic 'expert' on the forum who will answer your post with accurate information and references to data to support his view. 
Arctic extent is currently remaining below the last low season (2012)   
Perhaps it will recover later. lol.

----------


## John2b

> Thankfully we have a resident Antarctic 'expert' on the forum who will answer your post with accurate information and references to data to support his view.

  Good. I need someone to explain: 
"Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are now losing mass at significant rates, as much as a few hundred cubic kilometers per year. If either ice sheet were to lose mass at a rate with doubling time of 10 years or less, multi-meter sea level rise would occur this century."
Based on these measurements, both ice sheets are losing mass at a rate accelerating with a doubling time of between five and ten years:  
Greenland (a) and Antarctic (b) mass change deduced from gravitational field measurements by Velicogna (2009) and best-fits with 5-year and 10-year mass loss doubling times.  http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/

----------


## intertd6

> You say they don't. Please provide a link or a reference, or everyone will think you are just making stuff up.

  What can't you add up? According to Arrhenius's theory, doubling of CO2 means a doubling of the temperature & vice versa with a halving of the concentration the temperature will be halved. It's all contained in the pages beforehand which you supplied, what a failure of a theory when you look at the past history of temperatures! And models are based on these flawed theory's. Oops another shot in the foot!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> So much for the notion that Antarctic ice growth is balancing Arctic ice loss - it just isn't so! 
> New NASA data shows West Antarctic Glacier Loss Appears Unstoppable  These glaciers already contribute significantly to sea level rise, releasing almost as much ice into the ocean annually as the entire Greenland Ice Sheet. They contain enough ice to raise global sea level by 1.2 meters and are melting faster than most scientists had expected. These findings will require an upward revision to current predictions of sea level rise.
> Warm sea water propelled by the circumpolar deep current is flowing underneath the glaciers causing them to melt from underneath, which in turn causes a reduction in the weight of ice, allowing the glacier to float upwards and let more warm water in underneath further upstream. In addition, the lower mass at the end of the glacier allows the glacier to speed up, pushed along by the weight of ice higher up.  The "Unstable" West Antarctic Ice Sheet: A Primer | NASA

  typical alarmism, must be scrounging for more grant money.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> What can't you add up? According to Arrhenius's theory, doubling of CO2 means a doubling of the temperature & vice versa with a halving of the concentration the temperature will be halved. It's all contained in the pages beforehand which you supplied, what a failure of a theory when you look at the past history of temperatures! And models are based on these flawed theory's. Oops another shot in the foot!
> regards inter

  Better check your own feet for bullet holes, Inter, climate models are not based on Arrhenius's theory, and everything else you say is just plain nonsense.

----------


## John2b

> typical alarmism, must be scrounging for more grant money.
> regards inter

  So reporting what is happening is alarmism? Or are you claiming the scientists are melting the glaciers so that they can say the glaciers are melting so they can ask for money to research?

----------


## intertd6

> Better check your own feet for bullet holes, Inter, climate models are not based on Arrhenius's theory, and everything else you say is just plain nonsense.

  It seems besides not adding up, you seem have a selective memory also, but do keep rabbiting on about the irrefutable laws that were posted, linked or produced!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> So reporting what is happening is alarmism? Or are you claiming the scientists are melting the glaciers so that they can say the glaciers are melting so they can ask for money to research?

  its alarmism reporting pure & simple, just like the rest of this type of alarmism reports, I'm just a very ordinary garden variety dill & I can see that! It was missing a polar bear on a chunk of ice though! At least when dealing with the sthn hemisphere they can't use that cherry to get the really smart dills sucked in.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> It seems besides not adding up, you seem have a selective memory also, but do keep rabbiting on about the irrefutable laws that were posted, linked or produced!
> regards inter

  There is nothing wrong with the application of the laws of physics to climate change, or anything else in practical life for that matter. If you bothered to read up on it you would know, of course. 
Arrhenius didn't have an understanding of the laws of physics to base his estimations on. Nor are climate models based on Arrhenius's hypothesis or method. But he was still smart enough to know that rising CO2 would trap heat and that more heat means the temperature goes up. On both those counts he was right and nothing posted by anyone in this forum falsifies that. 
In any case, the "proof" of global warming doe not depend on climate models or theories. The cause and effect are both directly measurable _and_ measured.

----------


## John2b

> its alarmism reporting pure & simple, just like the rest of this type of alarmism reports, I'm just a very ordinary garden variety dill & I can see that! It was missing a polar bear on a chunk of ice though! At least when dealing with the sthn hemisphere they can't use that cherry to get the really smart dills sucked in.
> regards inter

  The glaciers are melting much faster than expected and the estimates of ocean rises will need to be revised upwards. The "missing" heat that went into the oceans is doing it. That's the facts. If you want to call it alarming, so be it. If you want to claim it isn't happening, provide some evidence. Bluster and emotive ranting just doesn't cut it.

----------


## woodbe

Don't expect much in the way of evidence John2b.     NASA-UCI Study Indicates Loss of West Antarctic Glaciers Appears Unstoppable | NASA

----------


## intertd6

> The glaciers are melting much faster than expected and the estimates of ocean rises will need to be revised upwards. The "missing" heat that went into the oceans is doing it. That's the facts. If you want to call it alarming, so be it. If you want to claim it isn't happening, provide some evidence. Bluster and emotive ranting just doesn't cut it.

  This area of antarctica historically has an area of ocean upwelling with warmer water creating a vast polynya, which is why it enabled the south pole explorers around 100 years  ago to access the continent at such a high latitude, so the idea that its recent & just happening is false & alarmism.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> This area of antarctica historically has an area of ocean upwelling with warmer water creating a vast polynya, which is why it enabled the south pole explorers around 100 years  ago to access the continent at such a high latitude, so the idea that its recent & just happening is false & alarmism.
> regards inter

  Are you going to publish your data? It would be very much appreciated by the idiots who don't understand. Even if you don't intend to publish, how about you give this forum a sneak preview of your data, otherwise we might think you are just making stuff up.

----------


## woodbe

> This area of antarctica historically has an area of ocean upwelling with warmer water creating a vast polynya, which is why it enabled the south pole explorers around 100 years  ago to access the continent at such a high latitude, so the idea that its recent & just happening is false & alarmism.
> regards inter

  So you are saying that the glaciers were undercut past their grounding line when exactly? 'Not recent' is how many years ago? Show us your data. Are you making stuff up?  :No:  
I think you need to read the information posted again. The proposition that the loss of West Antarctic glaciers relates to a continuing ocean undercut that has recently compromised the stability of the glaciers by breaching their grounding lines. The expectation is that that loss is now 'unstoppable'. 
The idea that it's recent is based on the acceleration of the glaciers and investigation as to why. If you have a better explanation than Dr. Eric Rignot, you should publish your data, I'm sure he will be happy that he has been found wrong with your superior science if you have any.

----------


## intertd6

> Are you going to publish your data? It would be very much appreciated by the idiots who don't understand. Even if you don't intend to publish, how about you give this forum a sneak preview of your data, otherwise we might think you are just making stuff up.

  if I was making stuff up I would be using key words that suck in the people that don't understand, like "unstoppable"' "unprecedented", etc, etc, etc.
Most of the data has been posted, linked on the pages beforehand, just have to clever enough to understand it, which it seems is a big ask.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> if I was making stuff up I would be using key words that suck in the people that don't understand, like "unstoppable"' "unprecedented", etc, etc, etc.
> Most of the data has been posted, linked on the pages beforehand, just have to clever enough to understand it, which it seems is a big ask.
> regards inter

  If you didn't have a rational basis for you posts, you might say things like:
It was missing a polar bear on a chunk of ice though!  the general public turn off from the free flowing garbage that emanates from the ranks (of scientists)  still any old excuse to dodge what you can't explain or even parrot a believable explanation, same old, same old limp stuff. 
narrow things amuse narrow minds, even narrower minds can't explain much at all.  Yaaaawwwwnnn.......... Waiting........waiting..........& even more waiting, while the blabla, blabla continues.  id be able to teach my dog to touch type & produce a best seller before you could come up with a reasonable answer & I don't even have a dog yet.  It explains perfectly why the dweebs are running around like chooks with their vital parts missing.  lives too short for that, you seem to have time to waste so be my guest to find the data posted.   Oh, that's right, you _did_  say those things!

----------


## intertd6

> So you are saying that the glaciers were undercut past their grounding line when exactly? 'Not recent' is how many years ago? Show us your data. Are you making stuff up?   Are disputing the past warm water off east Antarctica which enabled explorers to SAIL to such high latitudes or believe warm water in this area has just occurred since a satellite capable of taking complex readings came into being? 
> I think you need to read the information posted again. The proposition that the loss of West Antarctic glaciers relates to a continuing ocean undercut that has recently compromised the stability of the glaciers by breaching their grounding lines. The expectation is that that loss is now 'unstoppable'.  Like the rest of the population when words along the lines of "unstoppable" etc, etc, are used these days it's more than likely BS alarmism hype & when reading the story it doesn't disappoint the assumption, it has more holes in it than Swiss cheese as pointed out. 
> The idea that it's recent is based on the acceleration of the glaciers and investigation as to why. If you have a better explanation than Dr. Eric Rignot, you should publish your data, I'm sure he will be happy that he has been found wrong with your superior science if you have any.  If the glaciers are accelerating, then why have the sea levels not increased accordingly? When in fact the ocean level rise has slowed? This information has been posted, linked on the pages beforehand, all you have to be is clever enough to understand it.
> .

   Regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> If you didn't have a rational basis for you posts, you might say things like:
> It was missing a polar bear on a chunk of ice though!  the general public turn off from the free flowing garbage that emanates from the ranks (of scientists)  still any old excuse to dodge what you can't explain or even parrot a believable explanation, same old, same old limp stuff. 
> narrow things amuse narrow minds, even narrower minds can't explain much at all.  Yaaaawwwwnnn.......... Waiting........waiting..........& even more waiting, while the blabla, blabla continues.  id be able to teach my dog to touch type & produce a best seller before you could come up with a reasonable answer & I don't even have a dog yet.  It explains perfectly why the dweebs are running around like chooks with their vital parts missing.  lives too short for that, you seem to have time to waste so be my guest to find the data posted.   Oh, that's right, you _did_  say those things!

  What still no believable answers to some simple questions?
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> So you are saying that the glaciers were undercut past their grounding  line when exactly? 'Not recent' is how many years ago? Show us your  data. Are you making stuff up?   Are  disputing the past warm water off east Antarctica which enabled  explorers to SAIL to such high latitudes or believe warm water in this  area has just occurred since a satellite capable of taking complex  readings came into being?

  Nope, I couldn't care less about non-scientific parroted stories. They do not disprove the current scientific evidence before us.   

> I think you need to read the information posted again. The proposition  that the loss of West Antarctic glaciers relates to a continuing ocean  undercut that has recently compromised the stability of the glaciers by  breaching their grounding lines. The expectation is that that loss is  now 'unstoppable'.  Like the rest of the  population when words along the lines of "unstoppable" etc, etc, are  used these days it's more than likely BS alarmism hype & when  reading the story it doesn't disappoint the assumption, it has more  holes in it than Swiss cheese as pointed out.

  The suggestion seems to be that your story about prior warm water in the area debunks current scientific evidence that the glaciers have accelerated and are unlikely to resume their slow pace again. I think that is a FAIL to address the evidence.   

> The idea that it's recent is based on the acceleration of the glaciers  and investigation as to why. If you have a better explanation than Dr.  Eric Rignot, you should publish your data, I'm sure he will be happy  that he has been found wrong with your superior science if you have any.  If  the glaciers are accelerating, then why have the sea levels not  increased accordingly? When in fact the ocean level rise has slowed?  This information has been posted, linked on the pages beforehand, all  you have to be is clever enough to understand it.

  The posted scientific enquiry is about the acceleration of the glaciers and the reasons behind it. You have posted no evidence that refutes this but you continually try and divert the discussion away from that evidence. SLR is an issue, but this is about the mechanics of the rapid changes to these glaciers.

----------


## John2b

> If the glaciers are accelerating, then why have the sea levels not increased accordingly? When in fact the ocean level rise has slowed?

  Can you point out the slowing in the sea level record, thanks.

----------


## Marc

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.  ― Martin Luther King Jr.

----------


## John2b



----------


## intertd6

> Can you point out the slowing in the sea level record, thanks.

  now I understand it! You may have a deficiency in the red spectrum, when everybody else can see no sea rise for the last few years all you can see is the blue line!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> now I understand it! You may have a deficiency in the red spectrum, when everybody else can see no sea rise for the last few years all you can see is the blue line!
> regards inter

  Oh, I see what you are saying now Inter! 
'No rise since 3013' 
You better write that up and publish it, it will be a hit!

----------


## intertd6

> Oh, I see what you are saying now Inter! 
> 'No rise since 3013' 
> You better write that up and publish it, it will be a hit!

  I'll have to polish my crystal ball first.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> now I understand it! You may have a deficiency in the red spectrum, when everybody else can see no sea rise for the last few years all you can see is the blue line!
> regards inter

  
Can you explain to everyone how the blue dots show "no sea rise for the last few years". Or can't you see them for the red line that follows them almost exactly?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Can you explain to everyone how the blue dots show "no sea rise for the last few years". Or can't you see them for the red line that follows them almost exactly?

  Maybe this will help!  https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...p_image008.png

----------


## PhilT2

Rod, I can only find one paper for Anny Cazenave from 2000 and that graph is not in it. Do you have a source for it? Global ocean mass variation, continental hydrology and the mass balance of Antarctica Ice Sheet at seasonal time scale - Cazenave - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

----------


## intertd6

> Can you explain to everyone how the blue dots show "no sea rise for the last few years". Or can't you see them for the red line that follows them almost exactly?

  i was was only guessing that you may have a issue seeing the red spectrum, but quite surprised that you wanted to prove it!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> If the glaciers are accelerating, then why have  the sea levels not increased accordingly? When in fact the ocean level  rise has slowed? This information has been posted, linked on the pages  beforehand, all you have to be is clever enough to understand it.

     

> now I understand it! You may have a deficiency in the red spectrum, when everybody else can see no sea rise for the last few years all you can see is the blue line!

  'Few Years'? Really? 
I think it is a fair call that one of our posters has a vision problem. I've made an enlargement of the last 6 or so years in the hope that the poster in question can now see that the suggestion that sea levels have been increasing is in fact accurate, and an updated chart may well show that we are now above the fiction that there is no sea level rise (since early 2013, lol) despite the fact that there has been consistent sea level rise across that chart.   
Add this one to the denialist's data wreckage hall of shame, along with the 'no warming since xxxx' baloney.

----------


## intertd6

> 'Few Years'? Really? 
> I think it is a fair call that one of our posters has a vision problem. I've made an enlargement of the last 6 or so years in the hope that the poster in question can now see that the suggestion that sea levels have been increasing is in fact accurate, and an updated chart may well show that we are now above the fiction that there is no sea level rise (since early 2013, lol) despite the fact that there has been consistent sea level rise across that chart.   
> Add this one to the denialist's data wreckage hall of shame, along with the 'no warming since xxxx' baloney.

  That's the thing with the description "few" some take it as many as 6, some not so! But there is a link to a sea rise graph with no "adjustments" just a "few" or more posts ago that disputes an "unstoppable " increase in sea levels
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> That's the thing with the description "few" some take it as many as 6, some not so! But there is a link to a sea rise graph with no "adjustments" just a "few" or more posts ago that disputes an "unstoppable " increase in sea levels
> regards inter

  So you are suggesting 1 is now "few"? lol. 
I think you were talking about the graph posted, not the unsupported graph from Rod that does the other hall of shame thing: Claim that the scientists are fraudulently altering the data. Nice try to hide behind Rod's graph instead of explaining yourself. 
6 years wouldn't be enough, I just enlarged 6 years so you could see that your claim that sea levels have not increased is what it is: rubbish. The whole graph runs from 1992, so about 24 years and approaching a length of time that shows climate changes.

----------


## woodbe

> Rod, I can only find one paper for Anny Cazenave from 2000 and that graph is not in it. Do you have a source for it? Global ocean mass variation, continental hydrology and the mass balance of Antarctica Ice Sheet at seasonal time scale - Cazenave - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

  It's pretty clear that Rod's graphic is not from any paper by Cazenave. A simple search pegs it to a post by Monckton on WUWT. The graphic is one of Monckton's made-up fictions to preach to the deniers. That's probably why Rod only linked the graph and not the page. Hardly any of Monckton's stuff is verified by evidence or science, and is easily and repeatedly debunked. There is even an example from one of his talks where he literally rotates a graph to show that the trend is flat!

----------


## PhilT2

WUWT claim that the graph comes from a paper by Anny Cazenave; I haven't been able to find it anywhere even an image search yeilds nothing. But Cazenave has been a prolific author and it could just be that the date is wrong. As for her opinion on sea level rise ,see this Wet La Nina years mask sea level rise  News in Science (ABC Science) 
From the article "There has been no slowing in the rate of sea level rise".  Anny Cazenave.

----------


## Marc

*Climategate II And The Rise Of Climate McCarthyism*  Written by Investor's Business Daily on May 19 2014. A noted researcher who questioned the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases says his paper is not being published for ideological reasons and because it might fuel doubt in the climate change story. First the climate change zealots tried to manipulate the data. Now they are trying to control the debate they claim is over. It's not over, though, and the science is not settled as true science never is. But those, such as Swedish climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson, who dare to challenge the climate change orthodoxy are being silenced in an organized campaign. In an echo of the infamous Climategate scandal at Britain's University of East Anglia, one of the world's top academic journals has rejected the work of five experts, including Bengtsson. One peer reviewer said the paper "is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse from the climate skeptics media side." The Climategate scandal was a direct result of scientists at Britain's Climate Research Unit and others, such as Michael Mann, conspiring to manipulate "unhelpful" data and to "hide the decline" in global temperatures. The Climategate emails leaked in 2009 made it abundantly clear that the suppression of skeptical papers in learned journals and conflicting data from the alarmist establishment has long been widespread and organized within the field of climate science. Bengtsson's paper suggests that climate is probably less sensitive to greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide than is acknowledged by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Bengtsson and his co-authors say that more research needs to be done to "reduce the underlying uncertainty." The IPCC has not exactly been a bastion of scientific certainty or even honesty. Its claims have led to tabloid predictions of islands disappearing under rising seas  islands, such as Tuvalu, which are still there  and wild reports that the Himalayan glaciers are disappearing. The Bengtsson paper was submitted for publication in the leading journal Environmental Research Letters. But it failed the peer-review process and was rejected. Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading, was stunned not only by the rejection but also by the virulent reaction to him even daring to question climate change orthodoxy, which many consider to be almost a religious cult. In early May, Bengtsson had joined the advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a group that questions the reliability of climate change claims and the costs of policies taken to address warming. Within a week he had to resign after being subjected to verbal abuse from a community he once respected. He was ostracized. One German physicist compared Bengtsson's joining of the group to joining the Ku Klux Klan. "I had not expect(ed) such an enormous worldwide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life," he wrote in his resignation. "Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship." The actions of this once-peaceful community, he wrote in his resignation letter, now reminded him of McCarthyism. Bengtsson, 79, quoted in the Daily Mail, said it was "utterly unacceptable" to advise against publishing a paper on political grounds. He called it "an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views." "The reality" of climate, he said, "hasn't been keeping up with the (computer) models." Judith Curry, climatologist and chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, says the campaign against Bengtsson "a disgraceful display of climate McCarthyism by climate scientists, which has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails." Indeed, among warmists the only acceptable line of inquiry seems to be: Are you now, or have you ever been, a climate skeptic? *Source*

----------


## Marc

What the hell do we know?
Very little really. 
However here we are debating heatedly our views or other's views by elevation because ... well ... because of what? 
None of us has done any serious field research into any of today's topics that may shine some light on the debate. No one can seriously say "I have measured, I have researched and I have therefore concluded ..."
And if we had, the environment where such field research would have been conducted is so heavily biased and qualified that it would have been merely a search to "prove" or to "disprove" and true scientific method would be nonexistent at best and openly corrupted at worst.   
So because of our collective ignorance we simply read the authors name and attempt at discredit him, in the feeble hope that such discredit, (if merited or not is irrelevant) will rub on to his work and make it irrelevant. 
Fat chance. 
I would take economic advise from the Rivkin and the Bond of this world anytime rather than from an honest yet incompetent "well intentioned" and if a drunk tells me that alcohol is dangerous, I listen to him rather than to a salvation army general. 
At the end of the day our opinions are formed by accepting or rejecting the opinions of others and that includes so called science, since scientific "proof" is just what someone thinks he knows today to be true only to be tossed aside tomorrow. Nothing is permanent nor cast in stone.
Not even religion.
Much less what someone tells us is proof that his master is right and our master is wrong.
Why we choose one side over another when we only have our feelings for guide is another, probably much more interesting topic. 
Eppur si muove.

----------


## woodbe

> A noted researcher who questioned the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases says his paper is not being published for ideological reasons and because it might fuel doubt in the climate change story. First the climate change zealots tried to manipulate the data. Now they are trying to control the debate they claim is over. *Source*

  A little background to the misinformation.   

> Bengtsson's submitted paper had made the case that the Earth's climate sensitivity to the increased greenhouse effect  is relatively low by comparing the results of several previous studies,  but had not made the case well. The journal in question, _Environmental Research Letters_ published the full comments from the reviewer in question, showing that the recommendation to reject the paper was because, _"The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low ... The  paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or  understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic  negative message giving at least the implicit impression of "errors"  being made within and between these assessments,"_Comments from a second reviewer were even more brutal.  This is precisely the purpose of peer-review  to filter out papers  that aren't sufficiently accurate or don't add anything significant to  our scientific understanding. In fact, _Environmental Research Letters_  is a high-quality scientific journal with a 65% rejection rate. For  examples of innovative research in this area, see our discussions of  recent papers by NASA's Drew Shindell and Texas A&M's Kummer & Dessler. In fact, Bengtsson himself seemed taken  aback by the conservative media distortions of the journal's rejection  of his research (although one wonders why he leaked the reviewer  comments to _The Times_ to begin with), telling the Science Media Centre, _"I do not believe there is any systematic cover up of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics work is being deliberately suppressed, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is being gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact."_

  Behind The Times - another manufactured climate controversy conspiracy theory 
Best bet is to read the science, not some biassed reporter's take on it, or a conspiracy theory beat up on CC denial blogs. In this case, the full text of the peer review comments is available online:  Statement from IOP Publishing on story in The Times 
Can you spell B e a t  U p ?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Can you spell B e a t  U p ?

  Yes but not as fast as I can generate self righteous indignation...

----------


## woodbe

Please explain. 
1. NY Times: The Big Melt Accelerates. 
                 Muir Glacier at Glacier Bay  National Park and Preserve in Alaska is among the many worldwide that  are disappearing. Muir, left, as seen in August 1941, and photographed  in August 2004.                                       Credit             W. Field; B. Molnia/U.S.G.S., via Glacier Photograph Collection           

> Scientists  say that the melting will continue as long as the heat-trapping carbon  dioxide in the atmosphere increases. Even if carbon dioxide and  temperatures stabilize, the melting and shifting of glaciers will  continue for decades or centuries as they adjust to the new equilibrium. 
> But  a vast majority of the ice is not yet destined to melt. We have not  committed to a lot more that could be committed if we keep turning up  the thermostat, said Dr. Alley of Penn State.

  2. Deeply incised submarine glacial valleys beneath the Greenland ice sheet   

> The bed topography beneath the Greenland ice sheet controls the flow of  ice and its discharge into the ocean. Outlet glaciers move through a set  of narrow valleys whose detailed geometry is poorly known, especially  along the southern coasts1, 2, 3.  As a result, the contribution of the Greenland ice sheet and its  glaciers to sea-level change in the coming century is uncertain4.  Here, we combine sparse ice-thickness data derived from airborne radar  soundings with satellite-derived high-resolution ice motion data through  a mass conservation optimization scheme5.  We infer ice thickness and bed topography along the entire periphery of  the Greenland ice sheet at an unprecedented level of spatial detail and  precision. We detect widespread ice-covered valleys that extend  significantly deeper below sea level and farther inland than previously  thought. Our findings imply that the outlet glaciers of Greenland, and  the ice sheet as a whole, are probably more vulnerable to ocean thermal  forcing and peripheral thinning than inferred previously from existing  numerical ice-sheet models.

  3. Increased ice losses from Antarctica detected by CryoSat-2 - McMillan - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library  

> *Abstract* 
> We use 3 years  of Cryosat-2 radar altimeter data to develop the first comprehensive  assessment of Antarctic ice sheet elevation change. This new dataset  provides near-continuous (96%) coverage of the entire continent,  extending to within 215 kilometres of the South Pole and leading to a  fivefold increase in the sampling of coastal regions where the vast  majority of all ice losses occur. Between 2010 and 2013, West  Antarctica, East Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass  by −134 ± 27, −3 ± 36, and −23 ± 18 Gt yr−1 respectively. In  West Antarctica, signals of imbalance are present in areas that were  poorly surveyed by past missions, contributing additional losses that  bring altimeter observations closer to estimates based on other geodetic  techniques. However, the average rate of ice thinning in West  Antarctica has also continued to rise, and mass losses from this sector  are now 31% greater than over the period 20052011.

  If the planet is not warming, how can these events be occurring? 
Please quote and or link supporting scientific data and published papers for your response or it will not be considered a serious response. 'Data posted previously in this thread' is not an effective replacement for placing the data and links in your response, that is just a euphemism for 'I have no data'.

----------


## intertd6

> So you are suggesting 1 is now "few"? lol. 
> I think you were talking about the graph posted, not the unsupported graph from Rod that does the other hall of shame thing: Claim that the scientists are fraudulently altering the data. Nice try to hide behind Rod's graph instead of explaining yourself. 
> 6 years wouldn't be enough, I just enlarged 6 years so you could see that your claim that sea levels have not increased is what it is: rubbish. The whole graph runs from 1992, so about 24 years and approaching a length of time that shows climate changes.

  We have been through the ocean rise thing pages & pages back & the data is highly sceptical in its accuracy, which was pointed out at the time, for a understanding of northern hemisphere ice you really need to do the simple ice cube experiment for yourself to understand what tiny amounts of airborne particles settling on ice can do to it! I was really expecting a polar bear on a bergy bit as well to get emotions involved. With airborne particulate pollution levels reaching 800+ PPM in areas of the nthn hemisphere where do you think it going? Into outer space never to settle on the globe again!
its nice of you to make up some rules, follow them all you like!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> We have been through the ocean rise thing pages & pages back & the data is highly sceptical in its accuracy, which was pointed out at the time, for a understanding of northern hemisphere ice you really need to do the simple ice cube experiment for yourself to understand what tiny amounts of airborne particles settling on ice can do to it! I was really expecting a polar bear on a bergy bit as well to get emotions involved. With airborne particulate pollution levels reaching 800+ PPM in areas of the nthn hemisphere where do you think it going? Into outer space never to settle on the globe again!
> its nice of you to make up some rules, follow them all you like!
> regards inter

  No problem with the effect of airborne particles accelerating ice loss. I think that is documented and I'm not saying it isn't happening. It is in addition to the ice loss from warming though.  Jason Box is on it: Meltfactor » Blog Archive » Visiting and monitoring South Greenland dark ice  

> Flying across this vast space and on the ground, Im is struck by how  abundant snow algae and other light absorbing impurities can be. The low  reflectivity impurities amplify the effects of the increasing melt  season. Increased melt means a shorter duration of highly reflective  snow cover. The prolonged exposure of an impurity-rich bare ice surface  multiplies melt rates. Ive calculated that without this albedo  feedback, the increase in melt rates would amount to half of whats  observed. Some of this feedback is due to ice crystal rounding. Some is  due to the impurities. Measuring the relative importance of metamorphic  and impurity driven albedo reduction is a subject of our work.

  The 'rules' are my suggestion for those who want a civil conversation. You're welcome.  :Smilie:  
Making up stuff is just making up stuff. If you care about what you write you will have no trouble finding your supporting data and posting at least a link to it.

----------


## The Administration Team

> Please quote and or link supporting scientific data and published papers for your response or it will not be considered a serious response. 'Data posted previously in this thread' is not an effective replacement for placing the data and links in your response, that is just a euphemism for 'I have no data'.

  Last time we looked, *we* were making the rules here. 
The most important one being,  Play the Ball not the Man. 
This applies to members here and also anyone else that is named or referred to external to these Forums. 
Anyone here has the right to their own opinion and is free to post it within the rules they agreed to when registering, without obligation.

----------


## Marc

April 24, 2014 *Global Warming and Settled Science**By Andre Lofthus*  The AGW community would have you believe that the [COLOR=#11B000 !important]science in favor of AGW is settled. As a professional scientist, a physicist with 40 years experience in aerospace and extensive knowledge of atmospheric physics, I can tell you that, indeed, the science is settled, but not the way the AGW extremists would have you believe. Atmospheric transmission measurements taken in the 1950s demonstrate conclusively that[COLOR=#11B000 !important]increasing[/COLOR] CO2 concentration in the atmosphere cannot be the cause of global warming if global warming even exists. A basic principle of science is that correlation does not prove causation. Climate scientists are working overtime fudging temperature related data showing global warming over many decades that correlates with the industrial revolution and increasing use of carbon-based [COLOR=#11B000 !important]fuels[/COLOR]. Climate scientists are boldly asserting that this correlation proves global warming is caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Real scientists would demand to know the physics of how increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming.  Is there any real physics behind this unsupported bold assertion?  As I am about to explain, based on test data from the 1950s, there is not.  There are three points I want to make that fall in the categories of physics and atmospheric physics. First, molecules in the atmosphere absorb lightwaves over what are called spectral bands. The spectral band can be narrow, as small as a single wavelength, or broad, covering a continuum of wavelengths or frequencies. This molecular absorption causes increased vibration within the molecule exciting certain vibration modes. The physics of each molecule determine which wavelengths can be absorbed to excite internal vibrations. Spectral band absorption in the atmosphere can be quantified based on measurements over a certain distance through the atmosphere such as 90 per cent absorption in this spectral band over a distance of 300 meters at sea level through the atmosphere.The second point is not really atmospheric physics, but more fundamental. Objects like the earth emit a spectrum, or wavelength continuum, of radiation that is completely described by Plancks Law of black body radiation, derived in the 1900 by Nobel-winning physicist Max Planck. That curve predicts the peak intensity of light from the sun in the visible spectral band, and the peak intensity of light emitted by the earth in the LWIR spectral band. Plancks curve has been validated by experimental data for over a hundred years, and was a huge breakthrough for the physics community in the 20th Century. The third point is that there are two spectral bands in which the CO2 molecule absorbs infrared radiation. The first band is in what is called the Medium Wave InfraRed (MWIR) spectrum, and the second spectral band is in the LWIR spectrum. Both bands are created by absorption of energy in a CO2 molecule to excite stretching and/or bending modes of vibration within the molecule. The MWIR band of absorption excites stretching vibration modes, and the LWIR band of absorption excites bending vibration modes. Of these two bands, the LWIR band is the most important in the absorption of infrared radiation from the earth because it is centered in the LWIR where most of the energy radiated by the earth is located, and is at least 5 times wider than the MWIR band. The center wavelength of the LWIR absorption band for the CO2 molecule is 15 microns with a width of about 1 micron.  By comparison, the center wavelength at which the maximum spectral radiant emittance occurs for the earth (based on Plancks Law) is approximately 9.5 microns with significant amounts of energy contained in radiation with wavelengths that extend out to beyond 25 microns. So, there is a spectral band centered at 15 micron where the CO2 molecules happily absorb radiating energy in the atmosphere to excite bending modes of vibration within each molecule. This band is in the LWIR where most of the radiation from the earth is contained, and has a spectral width of about 1 micron. This is a small but not insignificant portion of the more than 20 micron wide spectral band over which the earth radiates in the LWIR. A reference book published by the Office of Naval Research, a department of the U.S. Navy, titled _The Infrared Handbook_ was published in 1978 and is used as a bible by everyone I know in the IR community. Atmospheric transmission data at sea level is contained in this book based on measurements that were taken in the 1950 time frame, much before any recent increases in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. These particular measurements are over a path length of 300 meters, and cover the IR spectrum from short-wave infrared out to beyond 20 microns in the LWIR (see Field Measurements of Atmospheric Transmission). In the LWIR absorption band of CO2 (center wavelength of 15 microns) the transmission measured is 0.0 due to CO2 absorption. That is, total 100% absorption over 300 meters at sea level in the spectral absorption band of CO2 that would capture the most energy, or heat, being radiated by the earths surface. Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmospheric mixture of gasses present in the 1950s by burning fossil fuels or by bovine flatulence will not increase the measured absorption in the CO2 LWIR band above the 100% level that was measured and reported in _The Infrared Handbook_.  You cannot get more than 100% absorption. It is not physically possible. And yet that appears to be the basis of the theory of man made global warming The science of anthropogenic global warming is settled, and has been for decades. Just not the way the AGW alarmists would have you believe.  Increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be the cause of global warming, if global warming even exists. [/COLOR]  Share|Share on twitter Twitter
|Share on facebook Facebook
| 249 Comments

----------


## woodbe

Reads pretty well Marc.  :Smilie:  
I did a quick search to see if this super sounding silver bullet of global warming has been published, and the first thing I found was a debunk by your mate Roy Spencer!  Roy Spencer responds to Andre the Physicists essay | JunkScience.com  

> I have serious reservations about climate models, but people like  this writer of the American Thinker article are barking up the wrong  tree.  Unfortunately, they sound like experts, and they persuade a lot  of people.  I then have to spend a lot of my time trying to undo the  damage.
>  -Roy

  It's about time the skeptics started debunking skeptics! +1 for Roy, at least he has a threshold he doesn't jump over just because someone is supporting his ideology.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Please explain. 
> 1. NY Times: The Big Melt Accelerates. 
>                  Muir Glacier at Glacier Bay  National Park and Preserve in Alaska is among the many worldwide that  are disappearing. Muir, left, as seen in August 1941, and photographed  in August 2004.                                       Credit             W. Field; B. Molnia/U.S.G.S., via Glacier Photograph Collection           
> 2. Deeply incised submarine glacial valleys beneath the Greenland ice sheet  
> 3. Increased ice losses from Antarctica detected by CryoSat-2 - McMillan - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library  
> If the planet is not warming, how can these events be occurring? 
> Please quote and or link supporting scientific data and published papers for your response or it will not be considered a serious response. 'Data posted previously in this thread' is not an effective replacement for placing the data and links in your response, that is just a euphemism for 'I have no data'.

  What's to explain?  
So temperatures go up and down climate changes all the time we know these things for sure.  Here is evidence of that, big deal.

----------


## woodbe

> What's to explain?  
> So temperatures go up and down climate changes all the time we know these things for sure.  Here is evidence of that, big deal.

  If you want to take that tack, the bit to explain is the lack of any recent 'down' in climate timescales to match the 'ups' 
Knock yourself out. Extra marks for linking published science to support your explanation.  :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

> Reads pretty well Marc.  
> I did a quick search to see if this super sounding silver bullet of global warming has been published, and the first thing I found was a debunk by your mate Roy Spencer!  Roy Spencer responds to Andre the Physicists essay | JunkScience.com  
> It's about time the skeptics started debunking skeptics! +1 for Roy, at least he has a threshold he doesn't jump over just because someone is supporting his ideology.

  a climatologist  that supposedly doesn't believe in the models thinks he has more physics knowledge than a physicist who doesn't supposedly believe CO2 is causing warming! Is it just me or can anybody else smell something fishy & unbelievable in this story?
inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> If you want to take that tack, the bit to explain is the lack of any recent 'down' in climate timescales to match the 'ups' 
> Knock yourself out. Extra marks for linking published science to support your explanation.

   Where is the need to link to anything in my response!   
Nothing to explain my answer was pretty dam obvious IMO.

----------


## woodbe

> a climatologist  that supposedly doesn't believe in the models thinks he has more physics knowledge than a physicist who doesn't supposedly believe CO2 is causing warming! Is it just me or can anybody else smell something fishy & unbelievable in this story?
> inter

  "serious reservations about climate models," =  "doesn't believe in the models"  :Wink:  
Some skeptics have standards, others clearly do not. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out which is which. 
Head over to the blog of Marc's hero and tell him he's wrong: American Thinker Publishes a Stinker « Roy Spencer, PhD 
I'm happy to wait for Andre to write up his theory and publish it in peer reviewed journal. Then we'll see if it stands up. Not holding my breath, he doesn't seem to publish except in right wing magazines.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## woodbe

> Where is the need to link to anything in my response!

  No need at all. Extra marks though  :Smilie:    

> Nothing to explain my answer was pretty dam obvious IMO.

  I agree, I found it obvious.

----------


## John2b

> What's to explain?  
> So temperatures go up and down climate changes all the time we know these things for sure.  Here is evidence of that, big deal.

  Where is the evidence of temperatures going down? I think you have mistaken weather with climate. At least in the human timeframe, the weather goes up and down, but the climate does not. It's only gone up.

----------


## John2b

> a climatologist  that supposedly doesn't believe in the models thinks he has more physics knowledge than a physicist who doesn't supposedly believe CO2 is causing warming! Is it just me or can anybody else smell something fishy & unbelievable in this story?
> inter

  It's unbelievable that such loosened of truth is posted as "debunking"! 
 1. The first is a meteorologist, not a climatologist. About « Roy Spencer, PhD 
2. The second is a self proclaimed physicist, is an extraordinarily private one who doesn't seem to have ever published a paper. A Google Scholar search comes up with:  Your search - did not match any articles. 
Suggestions:Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try fewer keywords "Andre Lofthus" - Google Scholar 
Since you asked, yes, you're probably in the minority who are struggling with recognising the obvious.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Where is the evidence of temperatures going down? I think you have mistaken weather with climate. At least in the human timeframe, the weather goes up and down, but the climate does not. It's only gone up.

  WHAT??? Re read what I posted I think.

----------


## John2b

> WHAT??? Re read what I posted I think.

  Climate changes all the time, yes, but not in the timeframes we are seeing now, which is about 10 times faster than historical evidence of previous climate change, and in the absence of of external causation.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Climate changes all the time, yes, but not in the timeframes we are seeing now, which is about 10 times faster than historical evidence of previous climate change, and in the absence of of external causation.

  10 times faster?  WOW /sarc 
You truly believe that?  10 times faster than previous climate change. *10 TIMES!! * is that correct.  You wouldn't be gilding the lily here would you?

----------


## Marc

Oh lala 10 times faster!
I thought it was 20 times faster... 
And to think that all is due to an increase in CO2 due to human activity in the order of what is the piffy amount we contribute?...0.005?
And in ancient times when the CO2 was so much higher everything was 10 times slower .... or was it 20 times slower? 
Pleeeeeeeease !!!!!! 
The sky is falling!  Run to the hills!!!! The sea is rising 9 meters! the temperature rising 0.5C Oh no! :Shock: 
Summer in winter, winter in summer, the end of the world is near, repent you deniers!

----------


## John2b

> 10 times faster?  WOW /sarc 
> You truly believe that?  10 times faster than previous climate change. *10 TIMES!! * is that correct.  You wouldn't be gilding the lily here would you?

  According to NASA. But maybe you know something they don't. Perhaps you can enlighten us all. 
"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."    Climate Change: Evidence  Global Warming : Feature Articles

----------


## Rod Dyson

> According to NASA. But maybe you know something they don't. Perhaps you can enlighten us all.
> "As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."    Climate Change: Evidence  Global Warming : Feature Articles

  You claim was that is was 10 times faster than historical evidence.  Leading a reader to believe that the worlds climate has never risen 0.7 in the same time frame ever before and in fact that this 0.7 is 10 times faster than any other rise of .07 in the past. 
Yes I can believe that it took 5000 years to rise 4 degrees.  But I cannot believe this 0.7 rise is 10 times faster than any other 0.07 rise as you would like us to believe.

----------


## intertd6

The AGW crowd just can't see the wood for the trees, the point is the climate temperature now is at the upper most limits of its historic range, so it can't go much higher, the points they make in relation to the temperature rises are when it's been at its historic lows so it can increase, otherwise the globe would have burnt to a crisp 600 million years ago when CO2 levels were in in the multi thousands PPM
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> The AGW crowd just can't see the wood for the trees, the point is the climate temperature now is at the upper most limits of its historic range, so it can't go much higher, the points they make in relation to the temperature rises are when it's been at its historic lows so it can increase, otherwise the globe would have burnt to a crisp 600 million years ago when CO2 levels were in in the multi thousands PPM
> regards inter

  If "the climate temperature now is at the upper most limits of its historic range, so it can't go much higher" why is the temperature currently rising at a rate ten times faster than ever before? 
Who erroneously thinks that radiative forcings heating the planet Earth and that its land mass distributions and climate systems are the same today as they were 600 million years ago? 
And who erroneously thinks that the CO2 relationship is linear? Not any climate scientist, that's for sure, and not anyone who has bothered to do some very basic research.

----------


## John2b

> You claim was that is was 10 times faster than historical evidence.

  It is not *my* claim, I am simply deferring to people who know a lot more than I do and I suspect who know a lot more than anyone else participating in this forum too. If you have an issue, you are arguing with NASA, NOAA, BOM, MET, WMO and others.   

> Yes I can believe that it took 5000 years to rise 4 degrees.  But I cannot believe this 0.7 rise is 10 times faster than any other 0.07 rise as you would like us to believe.

  It is not for me to "like" you to believe or even care what you believe. As the Mods have pointed out, you are entitled to your opinion and entitled to express it, but is is just that, a personal opinion and not necessarily one based on facts. Some people believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden and they are entitled to express their beliefs too.

----------


## intertd6

> If "the climate temperature now is at the upper most limits of its historic range, so it can't go much higher" why is the temperature currently rising at a rate ten times faster than ever before?  well tell us then how hot it is going to get then?
> the historic data shows that it never reached irreversible temperatures when CO2 concentrations were in the thousands PPM 
> Who erroneously thinks that radiative forcings heating the planet Earth and that its land mass distributions and climate systems are the same today as they were 600 million years ago?  who erroneously believes we are somehow living on a different planet & can't understand that the past relationship between CO2 & the temperature must be taken into account, it is the benchmark that outweighs a fictitious model based on everything but what has occurred. 
> And who erroneously thinks that the CO2 relationship is linear? Not any climate scientist, that's for sure, and not anyone who has bothered to do some very basic research.  Who cares what you think the relationship is, non of them show anything to do with CO2 other than a natural range between warm & cold periods

  any free thinker can see this quite clearly. 
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It is not *my* claim, I am simply deferring to people who know a lot more than I do and I suspect who know a lot more than anyone else participating in this forum too. If you have an issue, you are arguing with NASA, NOAA, BOM, MET, WMO and others.   
> It is not for me to "like" you to believe or even care what you believe. As the Mods have pointed out, you are entitled to your opinion and entitled to express it, but is is just that, a personal opinion and not necessarily one based on facts. Some people believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden and they are entitled to express their beliefs too.

  I guess others will decide for themselves if that 10% claim is mendacious or not.  These sorts of claims are what really brings down the warmists argument IMO.  It is as if they are searching for and twisting any information that can help support the theory that science CANNOT.  They put up these misleading claims to try and fool people.  Well you know what they say about fooling people. 
You can try and justify this claim as much as you like it is still very misleading and falsely presented to represent something it is not.

----------


## John2b

> You can try and justify this claim as much as you like it is still very misleading and falsely presented to represent something it is not.

  LOL I haven't try to justify this claim at all. Why don't you simply show why the claim is false?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> LOL I haven't try to justify this claim at all. Why don't you simply show why the claim is false?

  I already have shown how it is misleading and false to the context you tried to make out it referred to. 
And this is precisely why people are looking much closer to the wild claims put forward by the warmist crowd and are making up their own minds to the validity of such claims. 
Seriously do you really think that smart people will believe that our pissy little .07 change is 10 times faster than any period in our climate history.  That is a joke surely you can see that it is so far out of wack with reality that you would feel guilty repeating it? 
Hey but please keep it going knock yourself out.

----------


## johnc

> I already have shown how it is misleading and false to the context you tried to make out it referred to. 
> And this is precisely why people are looking much closer to the wild claims put forward by the warmist crowd and are making up their own minds to the validity of such claims. 
> Seriously do you really think that smart people will believe that our pissy little .07 change is 10 times faster than any period in our climate history.  That is a joke surely you can see that it is so far out of wack with reality that you would feel guilty repeating it? 
> Hey but please keep it going knock yourself out.

   :Flog Deadhorse:   I think when it comes to outlandish claims it pays to look into you own backyard first, to many resort to claims of "religion" or some other slight and simply ignore facts that aren't convenient these last few posts are going nowhere and while you are welcome to the above opinion it actually says nothing on is own that is relevant. The source is reliable enough let's just disagree and move on this is boring and repetitive.

----------


## woodbe

Meanwhile, while our skeptics explore new words learned from their heroes and challenge the language and facts presented by NASA, the climate moves on. 
NOAA presented a new fact recently: 
Apr 2014 global temp ties for record highest    Global Analysis - April 2014 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

----------


## John2b

> Apr 2014 global temp ties for record highest

  The problem with "record highest" is that the comparison with previous records completely lacks context. No other "record highest" in pre-1998 recorded history was preceded by the degree of warmth currently being experienced on the surface of the earth, so the setting of a new record doesn't even tell half the story. 
A great many of the scientists whose papers were reviewed by the IPCC are alarmed that the IPCC AR5 does not reflect the seriousness of the scientific evidence. Of course, as many people (regardless of "belief") have pointed out in this forum the IPCC is a political organisation, not a scientific one. The IPCC is struggling to tone down its summary of the evidence to present it in a form that is palatable by governments and organisations around the world. As you can see from this forum, they are struggling at best and is still being lampooned for being "alarmist" by the ignorant.
Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative - Scientific American 
A broad array of leading climate scientists and policy specialists were also criticizing the panel for the exact opposite reason: They believe the main conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be too general and too conservative to convey a clear message about the grave threat of warming and to inform policies to address local climate change issues. They say that after 25 years it might be time to overhaul the organization and refocus its research priorities. Scientists Call for Overhaul of IPCC Climate Panel | InsideClimate News

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I already have shown how it is misleading and false to the context you tried to make out it referred to. 
> And this is precisely why people are looking much closer to the wild claims put forward by the warmist crowd and are making up their own minds to the validity of such claims. 
> Seriously do you really think that smart people will believe that our pissy little .07 change is 10 times faster than any period in our climate history.  That is a joke surely you can see that it is so far out of wack with reality that you would feel guilty repeating it? 
> Hey but please keep it going knock yourself out.

  John2b (and many others) are perhaps guilty of oversimplification which is a constant hazard in this debate...as is over reaction. 
The 'quote' comes from here Global Warming : Feature Articles and is based on a some work from last decade but still (apparently) holds true. 
This is the paleoclimate record over the last 800,000 years based on analysis of some glacier bubbles    
So anyone can see that we've had some rapid temperature spikes before and that temperature anomalies have been self-limiting.  Of course, none of this has occured within the history of human civilisation except for the latest rise out of the last Ice Age 
Then there's this   
...which is the last 2,000 years of the previous graph....it operates over a much shorter timescale and a far more constricted temperature range.  It also covers most of the period of human civilisation.  
So my read of this is that the original quote is basically true.  As is Rod and Inter's response.  But the key is that global temperatures haven't risen like this at any point in the period of human civilisation. And they clearly (according to the paleoclimate record) have some headroom to move further upwards before some sort of self-limiting mechanism kicks in (which obviously generates an equally rapid decline which presents another interesting adaptive challenge for whatever ecological systems are in place at the time) . 
What is clearly missing from any of this is any significant adaptive response from human civilisation, either to attempt to mitigate the rate at which global temperatures are climbing or to adapt to the impacts that will almost certainly arise from this rapid change in global temperatures.  It's not and never has been (or should have been) about how hot it might get but how fast things are changing and what we might do about.   
If we chose to do nothing...nothing will not happen.  That probably won't be fun. 
Or to use a more familiar analogy...if you don't fix your roof, your carpet will get wet. If you still don't fix your roof, your ceiling will fall in.  You have wet carpet.

----------


## intertd6

> John2b (and many others) are perhaps guilty of oversimplification which is a constant hazard in this debate...as is over reaction. 
> The 'quote' comes from here Global Warming : Feature Articles and is based on a some work from last decade but still (apparently) holds true. 
> This is the paleoclimate record over the last 800,000 years based on analysis of some glacier bubbles    
> So anyone can see that we've had some rapid temperature spikes before and that temperature anomalies have been self-limiting.  Of course, none of this has occured within the history of human civilisation except for the latest rise out of the last Ice Age 
> Then there's this   
> ...which is the last 2,000 years of the previous graph....it operates over a much shorter timescale and a far more constricted temperature range.  It also covers most of the period of human civilisation.  
> So my read of this is that the original quote is basically true.  As is Rod and Inter's response.  But the key is that global temperatures haven't risen like this at any point in the period of human civilisation. And they clearly (according to the paleoclimate record) have some headroom to move further upwards before some sort of self-limiting mechanism kicks in (which obviously generates an equally rapid decline which presents another interesting adaptive challenge for whatever ecological systems are in place at the time) . 
> What is clearly missing from any of this is any significant adaptive response from human civilisation, either to attempt to mitigate the rate at which global temperatures are climbing or to adapt to the impacts that will almost certainly arise from this rapid change in global temperatures.  It's not and never has been (or should have been) about how hot it might get but how fast things are changing and what we might do about.   
> If we chose to do nothing...nothing will not happen.  That probably won't be fun. 
> Or to use a more familiar analogy...if you don't fix your roof, your carpet will get wet. If you still don't fix your roof, your ceiling will fall in.  You have wet carpet.

  I can't speak for anyone but myself, obviously there seems to be a clear link between industrialisation & a warming trend, obviously though through past CO2 levels & temperatures shows that CO2 didn't drive temperatures preceding a warming period, obviously to link CO2 to this warming period it has to be proven why it would suddenly be so, when it never has been so.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I can't speak for anyone but myself, obviously there seems to be a clear link between industrialisation & a warming trend

  Great! We are getting somewhere.   

> obviously to link CO2 to this warming period it has to be proven why it would suddenly be so, when it never has been so...

  Actually this work has been done...just not to your satisfaction.  Or that of many others.  The question I would ask is...is this satisfaction required if those same people (like yourself) accept there is a clear link between industrialisation & a warming trend? 
It is also helpful not to focus just in on CO2.  It's not the only greenhouse gas in the mix and it's not the only one whose concentration in the atmosphere we have altered through the years of industrialisation - it's just the one we've tweaked (and talked about) the most.

----------


## intertd6

> Great! We are getting somewhere.   
> Actually this work has been done...just not to your satisfaction.  Or that of many others.  The question I would ask is...is this satisfaction required if those same people (like yourself) accept there is a clear link between industrialisation & a warming trend? 
> It is also helpful not to focus just in on CO2.  It's not the only greenhouse gas in the mix and it's not the only one whose concentration in the atmosphere we have altered through the years of industrialisation - it's just the one we've tweaked (and talked about) the most.

  of course we have to focus on CO2! That's what the clowns want us to pay a tax on! As it's not proven! They then should change the name of it to an industrialisation tax & have a global agreement on it, end of all arguments.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...end of all arguments.

  You are a funny guy...funny, funny guy. Dead set giggly mess here...

----------


## intertd6

> You are a funny guy...funny, funny guy. Dead set giggly mess here...

  and you have only just worked that out!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> have a global agreement on it, end of all arguments.

  
The last time I looked, there was a global agreement on the reduction of greenhouse gases. It's called the Kyoto Protocol and it sets binding obligations on industrialized countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Kyoto Protocol 
As far as having a universal world emissions tax, that would require a world government, something I have never seen promoted by anyone in this forum, unless you are starting... 
The reason for the focus on CO2 is because it is makes by far the greatest proven contribution to greenhouse gases (more than 75%).    Global Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA

----------


## John2b

The CEO of the world's largest public company thinks policymakers should reverse course and instead debate the benefits of a revenue-neutral carbon tax. CEO Rex Tillerson has been advocating carbon taxes for months now (see _NGI_, Jan. 12), and even though the odds don't appear to be in his favor, on Thursday he asked Congress to take another look.  "As a businessman, I have to take a deep breath every time I speak about this because it's hard for me to speak favorably about any new tax," Tillerson told an audience at the Economic Club of Washington, DC. "I hope you see it shows how serious we are about this issue. A revenue-neutral carbon tax has the advantage of being well focused for achieving our society's shared goal of reducing emissions over the long term. It can be predictable, transparent, and comparatively simple to understand and implement."  http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/20220-exxonmobil-s-tillerson-still-pushing-for-carbon-tax

----------


## intertd6

A couple more propaganda posts! " that's nice "
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> A couple more propaganda posts! " that's nice "
> regards inter

  You wanted a global agreement, and there is one. Glad you are feeling better and back to your normal self, Inter.

----------


## John2b

Further to Inter's expressed desire to "have a global agreement on it, end of all arguments" the only countries not signatories to the Kyoto Protocol are Andorra, South Sudan, Palestine, and Holy See. 
The only country that has withdrawn form the Kyoto Protocol is Canada. Is it any surprise that to end arguments in Canada the Canadian Government has had to gag its Public Servants? 
Faced with a departmental decision or action that could harm public health, safety or the environment, nearly as many (86%) do not believe they could share their concerns with the public or media without censure or retaliation from their department. As one respondent commented: The current government is re-creating federal departments to serve the interests of its industry and business supporters and subverting the science.Public servants with a conscience live in fear [of opening] their mouths to the media or the public .
 THE BIG CHILL: Silencing Public Interest Science Full report 
Meanwhile India's new government led by Narendra Modi is going to radically change India's energy mix to address CO2 emissions, and China is committed to building the equivalent of half of Australia's total electricity generation capacity with new solar generation _every year!_   India's New Leadership: 400 Million People Will Have Power In 5 Years With The Help Of Solar | ThinkProgress  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-26/chinese-solar-growth-to-underpin-record-global-expansion-in-2014.html

----------


## intertd6

> You wanted a global agreement, and there is one. Glad you are feeling better and back to your normal self, Inter.

  No wonder you have trouble understanding something a little more complex like the climate when you can't understand what organisations should be doing to end an argument based on a weak link to that of what is undeniable & then somehow bringing in what I think.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Further to Inter's expressed desire to "have a global agreement on it, end of all arguments" the only countries not signatories to the Kyoto Protocol are Andorra, South Sudan, Palestine, and Holy See. 
> The only country that has withdrawn form the Kyoto Protocol is Canada. Is it any surprise that to end arguments in Canada the Canadian Government has had to gag its Public Servants?
> Faced with a departmental decision or action that could harm public health, safety or the environment, nearly as many (86%) do not believe they could share their concerns with the public or media without censure or retaliation from their department. As one respondent commented: The current government is re-creating federal departments to serve the interests of its industry and business supporters and subverting the science.Public servants with a conscience live in fear [of opening] their mouths to the media or the public .
>  THE BIG CHILL: Silencing Public Interest Science Full report 
> Meanwhile India's new government led by Narendra Modi is going to radically change India's energy mix to address CO2 emissions, and China is committed to building the equivalent of half of Australia's total electricity generation capacity with new solar generation _every year!_   India's New Leadership: 400 Million People Will Have Power In 5 Years With The Help Of Solar | ThinkProgress  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-26/chinese-solar-growth-to-underpin-record-global-expansion-in-2014.html

  so what! More propaganda!the worlds leading industrial powers are not committed to anything other than what they want to do without affecting their economies or industries, which can't be said for Australian govts ability to wreck ours for a vague link to something which is quite easily disproven.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> No wonder you have trouble understanding something a little more complex like the climate when you can't understand what organisations should be doing to end an argument based on a weak link to that of what is undeniable & then somehow bringing in what I think.
> regards inter

  Oh, I think what "organisations would be doing to end an argument based on a weak link" is reviewing all of the scientific evidence and looking for independent lines of corroboration, then looking for alternative prepositions that are supported by science, and then proclaiming where the weight of the evidence is, along with the degree of certainly of that evidence. 
Oh wait - that's what the IPCC does! 
And the reviewers who do the work of the of the IPCC can be and are anyone with relevant expertise (self proclaimed) whether they believe or don't believe in CO2 and global warming, as long as they support their position with real data. The following "skeptics" are all expert reviewers for the IPCC: Jack Barrett, John Christy, Peter Chylek, Judith Curry, Don Easterbrook, Stewart Franks, Vincent Gray, Kimimori Itoh, Richard Keen, Anthony Lupo, Ross McKitrick, Christopher Monckton, Wolfgang Muller, Fred Singer, James Wanliss.

----------


## John2b

> so what! More propaganda!the worlds leading industrial powers are not committed to anything other than what they want to do without affecting their economies or industries, which can't be said for Australian govts ability to wreck ours for a vague link to something which is quite easily disproven.
> regards inter

  As soon as someone works out what the "easy disproof" is, the world can breath a sigh of relief. Right now there isn't even a hint of a disproof in the offing, and repeated requests for a link or reference to something that supports your contention over the past few months by many forum participants have resulting in the grand total of zip (not counting bluster).

----------


## intertd6

> Oh, I think what "organisations would be doing to end an argument based on a weak link" is reviewing all of the scientific evidence and looking for independent lines of corroboration, then looking for alternative prepositions that are supported by science, and then proclaiming where the weight of the evidence is, along with the degree of certainly of that evidence. 
> Oh wait - that's what the IPCC does! 
> And the reviewers who do the work of the of the IPCC can be and are anyone with relevant expertise (self proclaimed) whether they believe or don't believe in CO2 and global warming, as long as they support their position with real data. The following "skeptics" are all expert reviewers for the IPCC: Jack Barrett, John Christy, Peter Chylek, Judith Curry, Don Easterbrook, Stewart Franks, Vincent Gray, Kimimori Itoh, Richard Keen, Anthony Lupo, Ross McKitrick, Christopher Monckton, Wolfgang Muller, Fred Singer, James Wanliss.

  you seem to be stuck on the idea that the ideas of your group out weighs the opposers of such ideas, the facts are your outnumbered whether right or wrong, the last election in this country proved that global warming & all the doom & gloom prophesy's that haven't eventuated is yesterday's news & were all over it, this what is happening globally also, as reflected by the diminishing countries ratifing the new amendments to protocols.
whereas a simple change in a description removes all ambiguity as to the actual cause, what needs to be done to limit are then global in response with nowhere really to hide.
regards in

----------


## intertd6

> As soon as someone works out what the "easy disproof" is, the world can breath a sigh of relief. Right now there isn't even a hint of a disproof in the offing, and repeated requests for a link or reference to something that supports your contention over the past few months by many forum participants have resulting in the grand total of zip (not counting bluster).

  Anybody that can't see the proof really hasn't got the capability to read a graph that a 10 year old can understand.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> .... Australian govts ability to wreck ours for a vague link to something which is quite easily disproven.
> regards inter

  The Abbott government is hell bent on implementing most the the 75 key planks of the Institute of Public Affairs agenda, of which only a few relate to climate and energy. The IPA is an ideological neoliberal objectivism "think (sic) tank". The IPA seem to have more sway with Abbott than even Murdoch. The things that make Australia the great nation that Australian's like are being challenged by Abbott's implementation of the IPA ideological agenda. Ideology doesn't need logic. That's why Abbott can promise one or a dozen things, do the opposite time and time again and claim he hasn't changed his position or broken a promise!!!!

----------


## John2b

> you seem to be stuck on the idea that the ideas of your group out weighs the opposers of such ideas, the facts are your outnumbered whether right or wrong, the last election in this country proved that global warming & all the doom & gloom prophesy's that haven't eventuated is yesterday's news & were all over it, this what is happening globally also, as reflected by the diminishing countries ratifing the new amendments to protocols.

  Science isn't a popular vote!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=cjuGCJJUGsg

----------


## intertd6

> The Abbott government is hell bent on implementing most the the 75 key planks of the Institute of Public Affairs agenda, of which only a few relate to climate and energy. The IPA is an ideological neoliberal objectivism "think (sic) tank". The IPA seem to have more sway with Abbott than even Murdoch. The things that make Australia the great nation that Australian's like are being challenged by Abbott's implementation of the IPA ideological agenda. Ideology doesn't need logic. That's why Abbott can promise one or a dozen things, do the opposite time and time again and claim he hasn't changed his position or broken a promise!!!!

  I don't know what your talking about there & don't care, I was talking about the previous govt & it's obsession with CO2.
Just to prove something a 10 year old can grasp, can you tell me what the global temperature approximately was when CO2 levels were greater than 7000 PPM in the globes past? (You can read it straight off the IPCC report or a dozen or so copies of it on the pages previous to this one contained within) I suppose an excuse around not understanding it is they are making smarter 10 year olds now!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Anybody that can't see the proof really hasn't got the capability to read a graph that a 10 year old can understand.
> regards inter

  I agree wholeheartedly. The trouble is, while you talk about the weather, this forum is about climate...

----------


## John2b

> I don't know what your talking about there & don't care, I was talking about the previous govt & it's obsession with CO2.
> Just to prove something a 10 year old can grasp, can you tell me what the global temperature approximately was when CO2 levels were greater than 7000 PPM in the globes past? (You can read it straight off the IPCC report or a dozen or so copies of it on the pages previous to this one contained within) I suppose an excuse around not understanding it is they are making smarter 10 year olds now!
> regards inter

  If you were there, I am sure you can tell us what the temperature was and save the rest of us looking it up. :Wink:  
I guess you mean the period when the sun's energy at the Earth's surface was also much lower than it is today. Now that wouldn't have had any contribution, would it?  :Tongue:

----------


## intertd6

> If you were there, I am sure you can tell us what the temperature was and save the rest of us looking it up.

  Already done that, you just seem not to understand the ability a 10 year old to read a graph clearly before getting older to have it clouded by some social prejudice like some ideology, religion, politics, cult, then making every excuse under the sun to avoid answering simple questions about the facts. Ahh that's right I haven't got a goldfish memory have I!
 And how much did the suns energy increase over say 600 M yrs & show us this increase with an impact on the increase in global temperature?
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Already done that, you just seem not to understand the ability a 10 year old to read a graph clearly before getting older to have it clouded by some social prejudice like some ideology, religion, politics, cult, then making every excuse under the sun to avoid answering simple questions about the facts. Ahh that's right I haven't got a goldfish memory have I! 
> regards inter

  To quote someone, I don't know what your talking about there. It sounds like you are saying the the strength of radiation from the sun has no impact on temperature and/or that the current scientific understanding/modeling of global temperature considers that CO2 is the only variable, both of which are notions even my chooks would think are silly. Can't ask my goldfish - it died last week...

----------


## intertd6

> To quote someone, I don't know what your talking about there. It sounds like you are saying the the strength of radiation from the sun has no impact on temperature and/or that the current scientific understanding/modeling of global temperature considers that CO2 is the only variable, both of which are notions even my chooks would think are silly. Can't ask my goldfish - it died last week...

  Im not saying any of that at all, but do dispute the ability of CO2 influence the climate to the extent it is claimed other than percentage difference it has increased in the atmosphere.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Im not saying any of that at all, but do dispute the ability of CO2 influence the climate to the extent it is claimed other than percentage difference it has increased in the atmosphere.
> regards inter

  So you accept the increase in CO2 from roughly 300 ppm to 400 ppm as a result of human activity? 
But you dispute that the additional 33% of CO2 is reducing the outward long wave radiation of heat form the planet that keeps the temperature from rising? 
The (poorly named) CO2 "greenhouse" effect was first observed over 150 years ago and is the scientific observation that first made people aware that mankind's activities can influence climate. 
Have you ever tried to measure the CO2 effect yourself?

----------


## intertd6

> So you accept the increase in CO2 from roughly 300 ppm to 400 ppm as a result of human activity?
> But you dispute that the additional 33% of CO2 is reducing the outward long wave radiation of heat form the planet that keeps the temperature from rising? 
> The (poorly named) CO2 "greenhouse" effect was first observed over 150 years ago and is the scientific observation that first made people aware that mankind's activities can influence climate. 
> Have you ever tried to measure the CO2 effect yourself?

  back to the old dodging of simple questions & the red herring tactics again! I asked a simple question in response to your claim the lack of solar energy somehow offset the temperature increased by a CO2 concentration of around 7000 PPM by showing us how much the global temperature actually rose by?
when that simple question is answered I'll gladly move on to your paltry attempts at distraction from the facts.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> back to the old dodging of simple questions & the red herring tactics again! I asked a simple question in response to your claim the lack of solar energy somehow offset the temperature increased by a CO2 concentration of around 7000 PPM by showing us how much the global temperature actually rose by?
> when that simple question is answered I'll gladly move on to your paltry attempts at distraction from the facts.
> regards inter

  Here you go Inter (a 10 year old found this stuff for me):  
...commentators believe the increase in solar radiation has lessened over the last 600 million years, "Most scientists believe that the solar luminosity has increased about 30% since the formation of the Earth some 4.5 billion years ago, 5% of that in the past 600 million years." 
"If the Sun were to cool so that its output was 25% less than now, then the mean temperature of the Earth would not be 14C like now but would fall to somewhere below freezing. By the same argument, if the Earth 3.6 billion years ago was as warm as it is now, then a 25% increase in solar output would have raised the mean temperature above 30C, far too hot for comfort." 
The main reason that increasing solar radiation did not overheat the Earth is because Photosynthesizers extracted Carbon from the atmosphere and thus reduced the greenhouse effect... The amount of Carbon extracted from the atmosphere has been prodigious. The concentration of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has fallen over the Earth's lifetime from 30% to 0.04% 
...without Photosynthesis, the Earths temperature would have approached what it should be for a planet between venus and mars.   HOW DOES THE EARTH STABILIZE THE CLIMATE?

----------


## Marc

*Get At The Truth, And Not Fool Yourself*  Written by Simon, Australian Climate Madness on May 30, 2014.  
John Cooks 97% is, quite frankly, bull$hit.
.A simple statistic by, for and on behalf of, the simple minded, to be bandied about as often as possible, hoping that no-one actually bothers to enquire what it means. And relying on the old adage that a lie, repeated often enough, will eventually become the truth. 97% of climate scientists agree that [insert assertion here] is a big heavy weapon used to beat dissenters around the head. As always, however, the reality is vastly different. What do they agree on?   That CO2 is a greenhouse gas?That emissions have increased since the Industrial Revolution?That temperatures have increased in the same period? If thats the case, then Im in the 97%.Is it also that man has caused some proportion of that warming? If yes, then Im still in. Its only when you get to the next level that things fall apart.Has man caused the _majority_ of the warming since the 19th Century? Probably out on this oneIs the warming dangerous? Im definitely out here.  
So at what point was Cooks 97% measured? After point 3? Or 4? Or 6? Joe Bast and Roy Spencer go into it here, but really, who cares? Science isnt done by a show of hands, so not only are Cooks results bull$hit, but the whole premise of the study is bull$hit too. As Einstein famously said, why get a hundred scientists to diss me when one mother@@@@in fact would do, bro? (Im paraphrasing here.) I just happened to be watching a YouTube clip from the excellent channel _Veritasium_, when the presenter said:  _That is what is so important about the scientific method. We set out to disprove our theories, and its when we cant disprove them we say this must be getting at something really true about our reality. So I think we should do that in all aspects of our lives. If you think that something is true, you should try as hard as you can to disprove it. Only then can you really get at the truth and not fool yourself._
And that is the fundamental message for all the climate zealots out there. Try as hard as you can to disprove your beloved AGW hypotheses. Do precisely the opposite of what Cook and his Un-Skeptical mates have done here, i.e. surrounded themselves with like-minded folk and never allowed any dissent to creep in, genuflecting at the altar of warmism and offering up sacrifices to please the almighty Greenhouse God. If governments and academic institutions _really_ wanted to seek out answers, they would be throwing a bucket load of cash at research to try to show that the AGW hypothesis is flawed. If it stood up to an assault of that magnitude, then you bet Id be on board too. Dancing around, handling the issue with kid gloves, desperate not to scratch the surface too deeply for fear of what might be hidden underneath, thats just delusional. Only when you try hard to disprove your theories can you get to the truth  _and not fool yourself._ Watch the whole thing (its very interesting), but the quote is here. *Source*

----------


## John2b

The whole premise of the above post is false. The notion that science is based on a consensus of opinion ^^ is quite frankly bull$hit. The "consensus" isn't in opinion, it is in the recorded data and it's comprehension. 
The video posted in support of the false premise is for the feeble minded - I worked out his "rule" within seconds, as I am sure many others, including scientists and mathematicians would, seeing straight through the trick presupposition. That is the point of peer review, BTW.

----------


## woodbe

It's far simpler than you suggest, Marc, 
All you need is a simple fact, and you don't have it. Until you do have it, scientists who do active research and publish will continue to agree at the same approximate ratio of 97:3 that humans are causing global warming. This is a result of their research, and their research includes your "Try as hard as you can to disprove your beloved AGW hypotheses." as a matter of course.   

> Today, the most comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed climate research to date  was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. Our  analysis found that among papers expressing a position on human-caused  global warming, over 97% endorsed the consensus position that humans are  causing global warming. Overwhelming agreement among scientists had  already formed in the early 1990s. And the consensus is getting  stronger.

  It's true: 97% of research papers say climate change is happening 
The scientists are not surrounding themselves with 'like minded folk' - they are arriving at similar conclusions by multiple different methods, they are independently replicating results.  
A lack of knowledge of the scientific process does not validate an unsound criticism of the results of scientific research.

----------


## Marc

Ha ha, AGW "supporters" really think they got the truth by the short and curly. 
Just like the preachers, the priest or the gurus of any religion you can think of. THEY KNOW ... we do not.
Repent you deniers!!! Save the planet !!!!  *Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.*   https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...4w2O61Xo#t=246

----------


## Marc

*The flip side of consensus is groupthink*  1 June, 2014  1 Comment     Group-think rules Christopher Booker, writing in the UK _Telegraph_, examines the flip side of consensus:  _Some time back, a reader drew my attention to the book in which, 40 years ago, a Yale professor of psychology, Irving Janis, analysed what, with a conscious nod to George Orwell, he called groupthink. It is a term we all casually use (which even he derived from another writer), but he identified eight symptoms of groupthink. 
One is the urge of its victims to insist that their view is held as a consensus by all morally right-thinking people. 
Another is their ruthless desire to suppress any evidence that might lead someone to question it. 
A third is their urge to stereotype and denigrate anyone who dares hold a dissenting view. Their intolerance of independent critical thinking, as Janis put it, leads them to irrational and dehumanised actions directed against outgroups. _ _Of course, there is nothing new about this. Hostility to heretics and dissenters has characterised the more extreme forms of religious and political belief all down the ages. But as someone who tends often to come to views differing from those held by many other people  what Ibsen called that majority that is always wrong   
I am quite sensitive to the power and prevalence of groupthink in our own time. It is particularly evident in views widely held on several subjects I regularly write about here, from climate change and renewable energy to everything its acolytes like to describe as Europe. It is their groupthinking intolerance that prompts them to stereotype anyone daring to disagree with their consensus as deniers, flat-Earthers, creationists, xenophobes, homophobes, bigots, racists or fascists._ _But another characteristic of groupthink that Janis doesnt fully explore in his book is that those caught up in these mindsets have never actually worked out their thinking on the subject for themselves. 
They have taken on their belief-system, and the reasons for supporting it, ready-made and wholesale from others.  
That is why it is impossible to have any intelligent dialogue with, say, zealots for man-made climate change or the European Union, because they have not really examined the evidence for themselves but have come to a set of opinions that are skin-deep and second-hand. 
They can only parrot the mantras they have picked up from others. _ _That is why, as we see illustrated on every side (not least in much of the output of the BBC, or, for that matter, the online comments below this column), they cannot tolerate or offer rational arguments, or explore the three-dimensional truth of a subject.  
They quickly resort just to dismissing anyone who disagrees with their beliefs as an idiot, hopelessly ignorant, wildly inaccurate or anti-science. Or they appeal to what Gustave Le Bon called prestige, citing supposedly respected authorities, such as the reports of the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which are only voicing the consensus views of other adherents of the same groupthink._More on Irving Janis here.

----------


## woodbe

Ha ha. Having trouble finding that simple fact?  :Cool:  
Attacking accepted science is done by proposing, and supporting with research a better theory to fit the facts. It's really simple. Once that is done and if the process continues successfully, eventually there would be a new consensus born out of independent and replicated research that shows the new theory to be fitting the facts better than the old theory.  
It's been done before but I don't like the chances at this point. 
Playing mind games with groupthink ideas is just a smokescreen covering the lack of a better theory. If they had it, they would publish it.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Oh, I think what "organisations would be doing to end an argument based on a weak link" is reviewing all of the scientific evidence and looking for independent lines of corroboration, then looking for alternative prepositions that are supported by science, and then proclaiming where the weight of the evidence is, along with the degree of certainly of that evidence. 
> Oh wait - that's what the IPCC does! 
> And the reviewers who do the work of the of the IPCC can be and are anyone with relevant expertise (self proclaimed) whether they believe or don't believe in CO2 and global warming, as long as they support their position with real data. The following "skeptics" are all expert reviewers for the IPCC: Jack Barrett, John Christy, Peter Chylek, Judith Curry, Don Easterbrook, Stewart Franks, Vincent Gray, Kimimori Itoh, Richard Keen, Anthony Lupo, Ross McKitrick, Christopher Monckton, Wolfgang Muller, Fred Singer, James Wanliss.

  Trust the IPCC sure can!!  not. 
In House testimony, Botkin dismantles the IPCC 2014 report  In House testimony, Botkin dismantles the IPCC 2014 report | Watts Up With That?

----------


## intertd6

> Here you go Inter (a 10 year old found this stuff for me): 
> ...commentators believe the increase in solar radiation has lessened over the last 600 million years, "Most scientists believe that the solar luminosity has increased about 30% since the formation of the Earth some 4.5 billion years ago, 5% of that in the past 600 million years." 
> "If the Sun were to cool so that its output was 25% less than now, then the mean temperature of the Earth would not be 14C like now but would fall to somewhere below freezing. By the same argument, if the Earth 3.6 billion years ago was as warm as it is now, then a 25% increase in solar output would have raised the mean temperature above 30C, far too hot for comfort." 
> The main reason that increasing solar radiation did not overheat the Earth is because Photosynthesizers extracted Carbon from the atmosphere and thus reduced the greenhouse effect... The amount of Carbon extracted from the atmosphere has been prodigious. The concentration of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has fallen over the Earth's lifetime from 30% to 0.04% 
> ...without Photosynthesis, the Earths temperature would have approached what it should be for a planet 
> between venus and mars.     HOW DOES THE EARTH STABILIZE THE CLIMATE?

  I'm sure your happy with that response but again it fails miserably in answering the posed question for the umpteenth time! 
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Trust the IPCC sure can!!  not. 
> In House testimony, Botkin dismantles the IPCC 2014 report  In House testimony, Botkin dismantles the IPCC 2014 report | Watts Up With That?

  
More fake "scientific" crap from the WUWT blog. Botkin did not dismantle anything and certainly not the IPCC AR5. For one thing, he agrees with the "settled" science of climate change, as he makes clear on his own website.  http://www.danielbbotkin.com/2009/04...s-and-answers/

----------


## John2b

> I'm sure your happy with that response but again it fails miserably in answering the posed question for the umpteenth time! 
> regards inter

  There was a "posed" question? You're such a comedian LOL.

----------


## intertd6

> There was a "posed" question? You're such a comedian LOL.

  I knew there must be a logical reason for still dodging the answer, you haven't worked out there was a question!
What the?
just for you again  
"Just to prove something a 10 year old can grasp, can you tell me what the global temperature approximately was when CO2 levels were greater than 7000 PPM in the globes past?" 
and 
"And how much did the suns energy increase over say 600 M yrs & show us this increase with an impact on the increase in global temperature?" 
and  
"I asked a simple question in response to your claim the lack of solar energy somehow offset the temperature increased by a CO2 concentration of around 7000 PPM by showing us how much the global temperature actually rose by?" 
This is going to be entertaining seeing this unfold!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> "Just to prove something a 10 year old can grasp, can you tell me what the global temperature approximately was when CO2 levels were greater than 7000 PPM in the globes past?" 
> and 
> "And how much did the suns energy increase over say 600 M yrs & show us this increase with an impact on the increase in global temperature?" 
> and  
> "I asked a simple question in response to your claim the lack of solar energy somehow offset the temperature increased by a CO2 concentration of around 7000 PPM by showing us how much the global temperature actually rose by?" 
> This is going to be entertaining seeing this unfold!
> regards inter

  You are easily amused. However the ball is in your court. Bluster like "it fails miserably in answering the posed question for the umpteenth time!" is not worthy of a response when you are yet to provide some basis for why you think you are right and thousands of others who have studied the topic are wrong. That's what's funny.

----------


## intertd6

> You are easily amused. However the ball is in your court. Bluster like "it fails miserably in answering the posed question for the umpteenth time!" is not worthy of a response when you are yet to provide some basis for why you think you are right and thousands of others who have studied the topic are wrong. That's what's funny.

  i was certainly wrong about there being an interesting response, it's funny you should parrot the hide behind the thousands that have studied the topic, maybe all involved haven't the common sense to understand if a 1700% greater concentration of CO2 to offset a 5% solar gain 600my ago somehow equates to justifying a 30% increase in CO2 driving a 0.8'c temperature increase with no measurable solar gain! It is lunacy to imagine CO2 all of a sudden having such a multiplying effect on the atmospheric temperature.
As you haven't answered any questions on the topic it would be delusional to imagine the ball being anywhere but in your court
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> i was certainly wrong about there being an interesting response, it's funny you should parrot the hide behind the thousands that have studied the topic, maybe all involved haven't the common sense to understand if a 1700% greater concentration of CO2 to offset a 5% solar gain 600my ago somehow equates to justifying a 30% increase in CO2 driving a 0.8'c temperature increase with no measurable solar gain! It is lunacy to imagine CO2 all of a sudden having such a multiplying effect on the atmospheric temperature.
> As you haven't answered any questions on the topic it would be delusional to imagine the ball being anywhere but in your court
> regards inter

  You have to actually hit the ball for it to leave your court. The effect of CO2 well understood to be non-linear and only a delusional person clutching at straws thinks it isn't. 
It is easy to measure the effect of CO2 on irradiance both in the laboratory, and in the atmosphere which has been done for the past few decades, and the effect is real, measurable and as good as proven as science gets - no history or models required. NASA LaRC Science Directorate : Research - The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) 
It has been proven to the same extent by the same method of science that describes how minute quantities of impurities (parts per billion) in certain insulating materials turn them into semiconductors that enable the manufacturing of electronics, computers, and subsequently allows this conversation to take place.

----------


## intertd6

> You have to actually hit the ball for it to leave your court. The effect of CO2 well understood to be non-linear and only a delusional person clutching at straws thinks it isn't.  got it a graph of that showing how a CO2 concentration of 7000 ppm  ( 1700 % more than present ) didn't produce uncontrollable warming of the planet? 
> It is easy to measure the effect of CO2 on irradiance both in the laboratory, and in the atmosphere which has been done for the past few decades, and the effect is real, measurable and as good as proven as science gets - no history or models required. NASA LaRC Science Directorate : Research - The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)  see above   
> It has been proven to the same extent by the same method of science that describes how minute quantities of impurities (parts per billion) in certain insulating materials turn them into semiconductors that enable the manufacturing of electronics, computers, and subsequently allows this conversation to take place.  See above again!

  its funny how some can't understand the globe has tried, tested & proven to the extreme what effect CO2 has on the climate. 
Regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> its funny how some can't understand the globe has tried, tested & proven to the extreme what effect CO2 has on the climate.

  What's even funnier is that there is a tiny pocket of people who don't understand that conditions on the planet and the solar system are not the same as they were when the CO2 was higher in the past. 
Do publish inter, if you are correct, (doubtful) you will save a lot of work:   
James Powell's latest analysis of the state of published climate science.

----------


## John2b

> Do publish inter, if you are correct, (doubtful) you will save a lot of work:

  Yes, the fast way to fame _and_ fortune in science is to show that your scientific colleagues were wrong or missed the point. 
And for the first person who shows that current climate change is not predominantly manmade there will be a Nobel Prize guaranteed. 
That's how it works in science and there is only one teensy weeny caveat - _you have to be able to show your premise fits the observed data better than anyone else's!_

----------


## intertd6

> What's even funnier is that there is a tiny pocket of people who don't understand that conditions on the planet and the solar system are not the same as they were when the CO2 was higher in the past. 
> Do publish inter, if you are correct, (doubtful) you will save a lot of work:   
> James Powell's latest analysis of the state of published climate science.

  what more politics! And not one measly fact or graph in relation to your claim! Just one will do.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Yes, the fast way to fame _and_ fortune in science is to show that your scientific colleagues were wrong or missed the point. 
> And for the first person who shows that current climate change is not predominantly manmade there will be a Nobel Prize guaranteed. 
> That's how it works in science and there is only one teensy weeny caveat - _you have to be able to show your premise fits the observed data better than anyone else's!_

  do have a problem understanding some simple things? I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change, not disputing man made climate change. Are you just trolling too many sites to focus on the clearly defined scope of my debate?
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> what more politics! And not one measly fact or graph in relation to your claim! Just one will do.
> regards inter

  My claim is that I doubt you will be successful in changing the accepted science should you publish. I can not offer a graph or fact in relation to that claim because you have not published, but I have shown that you would have become the third publisher to reject man made global warming out of 10,885 (+1) papers if you had published last year. 
Maybe get in early this year so the numbers look better.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

> I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change, not disputing man made climate change.

  Lets be clear. Are you disputing that CO2 is *A* driver of climate change, because that seems to have been your position when anyone mentions CO2 here. 
Perhaps you're a luke warmer too?  :Wink:

----------


## johnc

> do have a problem understanding some simple things? I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change, not disputing man made climate change. Are you just trolling too many sites to focus on the clearly defined scope of my debate?
> regards inter

  I think it would be fair to say your debate is more a meandering succession of posts, some of them to me appear contradictory, so what do you think the main driver of climate change is? Natural variation seemed to be your argument but I note with interest that you claim to not dispute man made climate change but reject CO2 which would indicate you have an alternative man made mechanism. Just curious what do you tribute warming to?

----------


## woodbe

> I think it would be fair to say your debate is more a meandering succession of posts, some of them to me appear contradictory, so what do you think the main driver of climate change is? Natural variation seemed to be your argument but I note with interest that you claim to not dispute man made climate change but reject CO2 which would indicate you have an alternative man made mechanism. Just curious what do you tribute warming to?

  Time to get some popcorn on this one johnc  :Smilie:  
If we look back at the history of this thread, I think our skeptics have come a long way. Other than there not being many of them left, we have at least 2 here now who accept that man made climate change is even a possibility. Who would have thought? 
I'm sure there will be a rapid backing away from this, but channelling Leonard Cohen, it's good to see that there is a crack letting some light in.

----------


## Marc

*Catalysts catastrophism*  4 June, 2014  9 Comments   In cinemas now! _Catalyst_ is supposed to be a science programme, but ends up looking more like a low-budget disaster movie. Last nights episode was a case in point:_NARRATION  But fire is changing. Over the past decade, every forested continent has seen an alarming surge in large, uncontrollable fires. [pause for dramatic effect] Mega-fires.__Prof David Bowman
The sort of metaphoric equivalent of an atomic bomb, thats what a mega fire is, its muscular, its mean, its big, its aggressive.__Prof Tom Swetnam
Really fast burning fires. And their local intensity is just amazing. these are extraordinary fire events.__NARRATION
So extraordinary, they demolish the very ecosystems that have thrived with fire for millennia._Get the idea? And it doesnt take much to work out where this is heading, given _Catalyst_s past form:_Sandra Whight
Because of climate change were going to get changes in our vegetation type and our ecosystems that mean there will be more fuel available to burn that previously wouldnt have burnt. That will mean fires will become harder to suppress. Because of climate change our fire seasons are getting longer. And so we have less time available to us to do the fuel treatments we need before its no longer safe to do those sorts of fuel treatments._and:_Prof David Bowman
I am worried that the worst case scenario is that we get a tumbling out of control of the feedbacks between more fires, more emissions of CO2, more climate change, more hotter weather, less rain, you can go into a fire spiral making it harder for us to pull the brakes back on._Holy crap, were all gonna die! While there have been some significant megafires in the past few years, people (especially environmentalists who have a vested interest) have such short memories, that they do not even bother to look back at the historical records  which themselves are a blink of an eye in geological terms. On the very same day that _Catalyst_ was spreading alarmism, the Environment and Public Works Committee of the US Senate was conducting hearings into this exact topic. Dr David South, retired Emeritus Professor from the School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences at Auburn University, gave evidence regarding the relative importance of climate change and human activity:_In the lower 48 states there have been about ten extreme megafires, which I define as burning more than 1 million acres. Eight of these occurred during cooler than average decades. These data suggest that extremely large megafires were 4-times more common before 1940 (back when carbon dioxide concentrations were lower than 310 ppmv). What these graphs suggest is that we cannot reasonably say that anthropogenic global warming causes extremely large wildfires.____Seven years ago, this Committee conducted a hearing about Examining climate change and the media [Senate Hearing 109-1077]. During that hearing, concern was expressed over the weather, which was mentioned 17 times, hurricanes, which were mentioned 13 times, and droughts, which were mentioned 4 times. In the 41,000 word text of that hearing, wildfires (that occur every year) were not mentioned at all. I am pleased to discuss forestry practices because, unlike hurricanes, droughts, and the polar vortex, we can actually promote forestry practices that will reduce the risk of wildfires. Unfortunately, some of our national forest management policies have, in my view, contributed to increasing the risk of catastrophic wildfires.__In conclusion, I am certain that attempts to legislate a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have no effect on reducing the size of wildfires or the frequency of droughts. In contrast, allowing active forest management to create economically-lasting forestry jobs in the private sector might reduce the fuel load of dense forests._   _Catalyst_ concluded thus:_NARRATION
In the politically-charged debate over whether climate change or high fuel loads are responsible for severe fires, its important to go back to basics. Fires need three things: oxygen, fuel and heat. By adding not one, but two of these critical elements, we are stoking the furnace in an age of mega-fires._Far from being equal contributors to mega-fires, changes in climate are barely significant when compared with other factors and influences. But that doesnt fit with the apocalyptic view of climate change required by _Catalyst_ and the ABC.  Not to mention that mental illness is the cause of most bushfires....then again mental illness seems to be prevalent in the ABC ... so can we conclude that the ABC causes bushfires? perhaps then that the ABC causes "climate change" ? I propose that they do and earthquakes for good measure.

----------


## johnc

> *Catalysts catastrophism*  4 June, 2014  9 Comments   In cinemas now! _Catalyst_ is supposed to be a science programme, but ends up looking more like a low-budget disaster movie. Last nights episode was a case in point:_NARRATION  But fire is changing. Over the past decade, every forested continent has seen an alarming surge in large, uncontrollable fires. [pause for dramatic effect] Mega-fires.__Prof David Bowman
> The sort of metaphoric equivalent of an atomic bomb, thats what a mega fire is, its muscular, its mean, its big, its aggressive.__Prof Tom Swetnam
> Really fast burning fires. And their local intensity is just amazing. these are extraordinary fire events.__NARRATION
> So extraordinary, they demolish the very ecosystems that have thrived with fire for millennia._Get the idea? And it doesnt take much to work out where this is heading, given _Catalyst_s past form:_Sandra Whight
> Because of climate change were going to get changes in our vegetation type and our ecosystems that mean there will be more fuel available to burn that previously wouldnt have burnt. That will mean fires will become harder to suppress. Because of climate change our fire seasons are getting longer. And so we have less time available to us to do the fuel treatments we need before its no longer safe to do those sorts of fuel treatments._and:_Prof David Bowman
> I am worried that the worst case scenario is that we get a tumbling out of control of the feedbacks between more fires, more emissions of CO2, more climate change, more hotter weather, less rain, you can go into a fire spiral making it harder for us to pull the brakes back on._Holy crap, were all gonna die! While there have been some significant megafires in the past few years, people (especially environmentalists who have a vested interest) have such short memories, that they do not even bother to look back at the historical records  which themselves are a blink of an eye in geological terms. On the very same day that _Catalyst_ was spreading alarmism, the Environment and Public Works Committee of the US Senate was conducting hearings into this exact topic. Dr David South, retired Emeritus Professor from the School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences at Auburn University, gave evidence regarding the relative importance of climate change and human activity:_In the lower 48 states there have been about ten extreme megafires, which I define as burning more than 1 million acres. Eight of these occurred during cooler than average decades. These data suggest that extremely large megafires were 4-times more common before 1940 (back when carbon dioxide concentrations were lower than 310 ppmv). What these graphs suggest is that we cannot reasonably say that anthropogenic global warming causes extremely large wildfires.____Seven years ago, this Committee conducted a hearing about Examining climate change and the media [Senate Hearing 109-1077]. During that hearing, concern was expressed over the weather, which was mentioned 17 times, hurricanes, which were mentioned 13 times, and droughts, which were mentioned 4 times. In the 41,000 word text of that hearing, wildfires (that occur every year) were not mentioned at all. I am pleased to discuss forestry practices because, unlike hurricanes, droughts, and the polar vortex, we can actually promote forestry practices that will reduce the risk of wildfires. Unfortunately, some of our national forest management policies have, in my view, contributed to increasing the risk of catastrophic wildfires.__In conclusion, I am certain that attempts to legislate a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have no effect on reducing the size of wildfires or the frequency of droughts. In contrast, allowing active forest management to create economically-lasting forestry jobs in the private sector might reduce the fuel load of dense forests._  _Catalyst_ concluded thus:_NARRATION
> In the politically-charged debate over whether climate change or high fuel loads are responsible for severe fires, its important to go back to basics. Fires need three things: oxygen, fuel and heat. By adding not one, but two of these critical elements, we are stoking the furnace in an age of mega-fires._Far from being equal contributors to mega-fires, changes in climate are barely significant when compared with other factors and influences. But that doesnt fit with the apocalyptic view of climate change required by _Catalyst_ and the ABC.  Not to mention that mental illness is the cause of most bushfires....then again mental illness seems to be prevalent in the ABC ... so can we conclude that the ABC causes bushfires? perhaps then that the ABC causes "climate change" ? I propose that they do and earthquakes for good measure.

  Bushfires are mainly caused by lightning (about 26%) about 25% are deliberately lit of which only a portion can be attributed to mental illness. Play your silly games but leave the mentally ill out of this it is inappropriate and very low act to demonise those who deserve sympathy not bigotry.

----------


## John2b

> Bushfires are mainly caused by lightning (about 26%) about 25% are deliberately lit of which only a portion can be attributed to mental illness. Play your silly games but leave the mentally ill out of this it is inappropriate and very low act to demonise those who deserve sympathy not bigotry.

  In the recent bush fires during the heatwave in Victoria, 256 fires were started by lightning in the space of 7 hours and one fire was suspected as the work of an arsonist. It's not at all inconsequential that the rate of lighting strikes increases substantially during extreme heat waves.  No Cookies | Herald Sun

----------


## intertd6

> My claim is that I doubt you will be successful in changing the accepted science should you publish. I can not offer a graph or fact in relation to that claim because you have not published, but I have shown that you would have become the third publisher to reject man made global warming out of 10,885 (+1) papers if you had published last year. 
> Maybe get in early this year so the numbers look better.

  
It seems you too have the same problem, are you too trolling to many sites to keep up with the specifics of the debate? 
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> I think it would be fair to say your debate is more a meandering succession of posts, some of them to me appear contradictory, so what do you think the main driver of climate change is? Natural variation seemed to be your argument but I note with interest that you claim to not dispute man made climate change but reject CO2 which would indicate you have an alternative man made mechanism. Just curious what do you tribute warming to?

  You can tell some people, just not very much it seems!
I work on the KISS principle, but it seems that's too complex.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Lets be clear. Are you disputing that CO2 is *A* driver of climate change, because that seems to have been your position when anyone mentions CO2 here. 
> Perhaps you're a luke warmer too?

  Maybe if I was to print it in capital letters you maybe able to understand a simple sentence?
What are trying to make yourself out as?
regards

----------


## John2b

> Maybe if I was to print it in capital letters you maybe able to understand a simple sentence?
> What are trying to make yourself out as?
> regards

  With respect, Inter, your questions are exactly what some people would like to ask you....

----------


## woodbe

> Maybe if I was to print it in capital letters you maybe able to understand a simple sentence?
> What are trying to make yourself out as?
> regards

  What I am "making myself out as" in this instance is someone who is trying to get a clear answer to a simple question: 
Lets be clear. Are you disputing that CO2 is *A* driver of climate change, because that seems to have been your position when anyone mentions CO2 here. 
I'm happy for you to spell it out in capital letters and colour them blue if that makes it easier for you to answer the simple question. Go ahead, knock yourself out. 
If you need me to spell the question out in capital letters, I'm happy to oblige. Just ask.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## johnc

> You can tell some people, just not very much it seems!
> I work on the KISS principle, but it seems that's too complex.
> regards inter

  
You seem to have a problem answering simple questions which can be assumed to mean you either don't have an answer or you are aware you are wrong. Don't worry there is no need to respond, however you may reflect on why you feel the need to ask a lot of questions of others and be offended when there is a response that is not to your liking.

----------


## Marc

Bigotry? yes! why not misogyny? ... hum ... wait a minute, there should be a woman involved in that case right? ... well, who cares, if we can attribute global warming to us and the cows passing wind there must be someone out there that would love to call me misogynist.
After all "we" all know that most of the world ills can be attributed to white affluent male including global warming, global cooling and lack of interest in the change. 
 I say kill them all and distribute the spoil to the virtuous poor, that would cool the earth down.  
Then we all go to live in caves ... well not me I would be dead right? Learn to live off those marvelous native fruit trees who give diarrhea even to cockatoos, and we will live happily ever after... well with a bit of a runner but who wants to know the details right?  *I did not attend his funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.*  ― Mark Twain
__________________________________________________  _____________________ 
PSListen to MP3 of this story (minutes)*ALTERNATE WMA VERSION | MP3 DOWNLOAD*  MARK COLVIN: Our final story could easily be headlined simply: Yeah Right.  
In news that's certain to work out perfectly and have absolutely no cost overruns, the US Secret Service has published a tender for an app to detect sarcasm online. 
According to the Secret Service's requirements, the software should have the "ability to detect sarcasm and false positives" and identify the "influencers" on social media website Twitter. 
Will Ockenden reports.   Uhuuuuu I wonder if it will detect global warming and sea rise ?

----------


## Marc

*Angry Summer gives way to Abnormal Autumn*  3 June, 2014  9 Comments   Chief Alarmist I wonder if the propagandists, sorry, er scientists, at the Climate Council sit around all day thinking of these cheesy monikers?
According to head agitprop generator Will Steffen, the climate is in a foul mood. No, really:_The climate system is in a foul mood. From angry summer to abnormal autumn  were running out of words to describe the relentless extreme weather that Australia is experiencing as global temperatures continue to increase because of climate change. Now the exceptional heat has carried on into the autumn of 2014 in Australia._What we are witnessing here is the final crazy rantings of a scare that is in its death throes. Nobody is listening any more and we have to scream, shout and throw tantrums to get any attention.
Yes, we have had a warm start to Autumn, but other parts of the globe are colder than average, meaning, surprisingly, that global temperatures have still barely changed since 2001. As for the climate being in a foul mood, the weather outside today is a beautiful Autumn day, thanks very much. The only ones in a foul mood are the hysterical alarmists who arent getting their way any more.
That wont stop them, however. We will no doubt have Wild Winter, Stormy Spring, Sweltering Summer all thanks to our crazy catastrophist climatologists.

----------


## johnc

The point of those last two posts is?  
Seems to be nothing about not very much.

----------


## intertd6

> What I am "making myself out as" in this instance is someone who is trying to get a clear answer to a simple question: 
> Lets be clear. Are you disputing that CO2 is *A* driver of climate change, because that seems to have been your position when anyone mentions CO2 here. 
> I'm happy for you to spell it out in capital letters and colour them blue if that makes it easier for you to answer the simple question. Go ahead, knock yourself out. 
> If you need me to spell the question out in capital letters, I'm happy to oblige. Just ask.

  *"do have a problem understanding some simple things? I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change, not disputing man made climate change. Are you just trolling too many sites to focus on the clearly defined scope of my debate?" * Just so we can can all make out what is clearly obvious from either side!  
Any relevant answer to a relevant question is what is needed, if that comes by the way of capital letters everyone would be happy, how your going to parrot somebody else's graph of figures or numbers with capital letters proving your case is anyone's guess!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> The point of those last two posts is?  
> Seems to be nothing about not very much.

  
Some will never understand it as displayed by the response, a nice demonstration of the exact thing that sets apart the easily led garden variety types from the free thinking individuals.............. Propaganda!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Some will never understand it as displayed by the response, a nice demonstration of the exact thing that sets apart the easily led garden variety types from the free thinking individuals.............. Propaganda!
> regards inter

  The effect of elevated CO2 levels on reduction of outward bound energy radiation from Earth in today's contexts is well understood, undisputed scientifically, ("proven" if you like), measurable and measured, but: 
"There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know."
Or the biblical version for Marc: 
"Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not."  Still waiting for Inter to present his new scientific theory of thermodynamics that overturns the currently accepted science and shows the last 150 years of science on CO2 is wrong...

----------


## John2b

> *"do have a problem understanding some simple things? I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change, not disputing man made climate change. Are you just trolling too many sites to focus on the clearly defined scope of my debate?"*

  
You have made it clear that you believe that atmospheric CO2 is NOT a factor in the current global warming effect. But you have not made it clear WHY you are disputing the effect of CO2. 
Note: If CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT have the effect attributed to it by science on the energy balance of Earth, it would overturn practically all currently adopted scientific principles.

----------


## Marc

> The point of those last two posts is?  
> Seems to be nothing about not very much.

  The point, my dear John a, b, or c, is a simple one:
 Public figures and paid supporters of the hypothesis of human induced global warming have joined a cult style movement and use a cult style method of proselytising and a cult style method of misinformation and defence. The repetitive use of such systematic and monolithic pack of bull$hit has, in my view changed those mercenary supporters to a point that they actually believe what they are saying over and over.
Sad really, I hope it will end soon so that they can return to be normal members of society and (dare I say it?) part of a scientific process in a not too distant future.    
Present company excluded of course  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Marc

*Q: What do you do when you have no arguments?*27 May, 2014  30 Comments   A: Appeal to emotion instead. From _Un-Skeptical Pseudo-Science:_ Mawkish sentimentality

----------


## woodbe

> *"do have a problem understanding some simple things? I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change, not disputing man made climate change. Are you just trolling too many sites to focus on the clearly defined scope of my debate?" * Just so we can can all make out what is clearly obvious from either side! 
> Any relevant answer to a relevant question is what is needed, if that comes by the way of capital letters everyone would be happy, how your going to parrot somebody else's graph of figures or numbers with capital letters proving your case is anyone's guess!
> regards inter

  LOL. You can't say it can you?  :Biggrin:   
IS CO2 A DRIVER OF CLIMATE CHANGE OR NOT? 
I wait with bated breath for the next wriggle.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Marc

*Home*  *Why CO2 is Good*  *Climate Change*  *Politics are Not Green*  *News & Media*  *Stay Informed*  *About Us*        Benefits to Plants Benefits to Humans    Critical Facts Additional Facts Myths Debunked    Videos In The News Podcasts        Climate Change >>Myths Debunked >>   *Empirical / Tests Myths* _The key test of a hypothesis is whether it can stand up to real world observations. Real observations reveal that the "CO2 is a major cause of global climate change" hypothesis is FALSE!_ *Myth:* The close correlation of CO2 and temperature, as temperature has gone up and down over the last 400,000 years, proves that CO2 is causing the climate changes.  *Fact:* Since 1999, multiple technical, peer reviewed articles have been available that demonstrate exactly the opposite conclusion. CO2 changes lagged temperature changes as temperature increased or decreased. Temperature changed and then, several hundred years later, CO2 levels changed. Since a cause does not follow an effect, this indicates that CO2 is not a primary driver of climate change. Antarctic Temperature and CO2 history from ice core analyses.  Note the amazing rhythmical similarities of the four cycles, which indicate the very strong solar-orbital influences on Earth's climate.  Since Earth's CO2 level do not drive the solar-orbital cycles, your can see why many scientists doubt the currently popular "CO2 CAUSES harmful global warming" argument.  On the other hand, an increase in CO2 may provide some slight positive feedback (support) to a warming Earth, but the magnitude or even the direction of positive or negative feedback is still being debated.  _Adapted from Pettit, et. al., 1999_____________

----------


## Marc

*Home*  *Why CO2 is Good*  *Climate Change*  *Politics are Not Green*  *News & Media*  *Stay Informed*  *About Us*  **       Benefits to Plants Benefits to Humans   Critical Facts Additional Facts Myths Debunked   Videos In The News Podcasts       Climate Change >> * Critical Climate Change Facts*_Earth's climate is very complex.  Below you have a summary of key factors important in affecting Earth's climate._ *Critical Facts* *Additional Facts* *Myths Debunked*   *Critical Facts*      1. There are at least 22 climate change causes (drivers).  2. The drivers exert their influence at different time scales and intensities so the climate is never in equilibrium. Climate change is the norm.  3. The sun supplies over 99% of the heat to Earth's surface.  4. Earth's temperature changes, then CO2 follows.  5. CO2's ability to trap more heat declines very rapidly.  6. Empirical observations indicate CO2 is not a major driver of climate change.  7. Climate models that have focused on CO2 have been very poor at hind-casting Earth's known climate history as well as their recent forecast of the future.  8. The science of what is causing global warming, including humanity's impact, is clearly not settled; debates are badly needed.  9. More research is needed on all climate drivers; not just a focus on one driver.  10. A fossil fuel by-product, the greenhouse gas CO2, has been shown to be very beneficial to Earth's plant and animal kingdoms, as well as humanity's health and well being.          ** For additional peer-reviewed scientific references and an in-depth discussion of the science supporting our position, please visit Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental Planel on Climate Change (www.climatechangereconsidered.org), or CO2 Science (www.co2science.org).

----------


## intertd6

> LOL. You can't say it can you?   
> IS CO2 A DRIVER OF CLIMATE CHANGE OR NOT? 
> I wait with bated breath for the next wriggle.

  this is so funny it is almost ridiculous, Ive made myself clearly obvious and you have made it obvious your clearly living in your own parallel universe no ordinary person can comprehend, apparently there is a fine line between genius & insanity,  a simple fact could put us all at ease.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> *Home*  *Why CO2 is Good*  *Climate Change*  *Politics are Not Green*  *News & Media*  *Stay Informed*  *About Us*        Benefits to Plants Benefits to Humans    Critical Facts Additional Facts Myths Debunked    Videos In The News Podcasts        Climate Change >> * Critical Climate Change Facts*_Earth's climate is very complex.  Below you have a summary of key factors important in affecting Earth's climate._ *Critical Facts* *Additional Facts* *Myths Debunked*   *Critical Facts*      1. There are at least 22 climate change causes (drivers).  2. The drivers exert their influence at different time scales and intensities so the climate is never in equilibrium. Climate change is the norm.  3. The sun supplies over 99% of the heat to Earth's surface.  4. Earth's temperature changes, then CO2 follows.  5. CO2's ability to trap more heat declines very rapidly.  6. Empirical observations indicate CO2 is not a major driver of climate change.  7. Climate models that have focused on CO2 have been very poor at hind-casting Earth's known climate history as well as their recent forecast of the future.  8. The science of what is causing global warming, including humanity's impact, is clearly not settled; debates are badly needed.  9. More research is needed on all climate drivers; not just a focus on one driver.  10. A fossil fuel by-product, the greenhouse gas CO2, has been shown to be very beneficial to Earth's plant and animal kingdoms, as well as humanity's health and well being.          ** For additional peer-reviewed scientific references and an in-depth discussion of the science supporting our position, please visit Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental Planel on Climate Change (www.climatechangereconsidered.org), or CO2 Science (www.co2science.org).

  sums it up perfectly! but it might as well be in hieroglyphics for the cultists who are clutching at the ever slimming CO2 straw
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> this is so funny it is almost ridiculous, Ive made myself clearly obvious and you have made it obvious your clearly living in your own parallel universe no ordinary person can comprehend, apparently there is a fine line between genius & insanity,  a simple fact could put us all at ease.
> regards inter

  Wriggle as expected, with a personal attack attached. Nice. 
Stating "I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change" is not the same as saying "I accept CO2 as A driver of climate change"  
Logically, disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change leaves the question open. You may be accepting or rejecting CO2 as a driver of climate change. 
Here it is visually for you:   
wriggle away  :2thumbsup:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

What?  No knocking off for a Long Weekend?  Shame on you all. 
The firefighter and I actually watched the Catalyst episode that Mark was blatting on about.  I'm not clear as to whether Mark did but no matter.   
The episode actually pointed out that the rise of so-called mega-fires weren't so much linked to actual climate change as they were to the best part of 150 years of inappropriate fire management (at least in both Australia and the US).  Basically, habitual fire suppression simply out of fear instead of the regular and systematic use of fire to control fuel loads means that a fire adapted ecosystem is actually loaded to burn and burn repeatedly.  The impacts of a changing climate is that it has provided more days where dangerous fire conditions are possible and so provide greater potential to create 'mega-fires'.   
The implication was demonstrated quite vividly - widespread landscape change within just a few years.  In New Mexico, they've had huge areas of conifer forest converted into scrublands while here in Oz there are chunks of the high country where significant areas of what was mountain ash forests have been converted to a grassy weedland - basically an ecological work in progress.  Neither of these areas will get these forests back within a human lifespan without human intervention such as aerial reseeding. Mainly because while these particular ecosystems are fire adapted they are only adapted to cool fires that don't crown - big, hot fires kill them dead.  They can only come back from seed.  But these megafires have even burnt the soils in some areas.  Even if the seeds don't get burnt and they get going then if they get another fire before the next cohort has set seed - that's the end of any regeneration of these trees in this area for a significant time period...if at all. 
 It's quite fascinating in a grim kind of way. Bit like this thread actually.

----------


## Marc

> Wriggle as expected, with a personal attack attached. Nice. 
> Stating "I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change" is not the same as saying "I accept CO2 as A driver of climate change"  
> Logically, disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change leaves the question open. You may be accepting or rejecting CO2 as a driver of climate change. 
> Here it is visually for you:   
> wriggle away

  
What is the point of the above?
Replay no point.
Is passing wind by cows a variable in the vast amount of variables that have a variable influence on the large number of variables that vary the climate?
Uhuu ... what about the butterfly effect? Do we account for that too? 
What on earth is your point? CO2 is a consequence of the existence of humans. We exist therefore we make CO2 and that is a good thing.
CO2 positives are way more than the negatives if you actually can make up a negative, (who cares if you do anyway).  
Do you propose euthanasia? Because there is no other way to "reduce emissions" that is a myth, not possible, even if we find a way to split the water molecule in an energy efficient way, we will not be able to produce less CO2, we will increase CO2 production unless there is a war that kills off 2/3 of the population. 
And then there will be a rebound in the population anyway like it happened after every war and we will produce even more CO2. 
Find something else to demonise, something you can actually change, say tobacco or alcohol consumption, now there you have something to demonise. 
Stop embarrassing yourselves with this CO2-is-bad business, because it is as old hat as dancing the Twist.

----------


## Marc

> Wriggle as expected, with a personal attack attached. Nice. 
> Stating "I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change" is not the same as saying "I accept CO2 as A driver of climate change"  
> Logically, disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change leaves the question open. You may be accepting or rejecting CO2 as a driver of climate change. 
> Here it is visually for you:   
> wriggle away

  
What is the point of the above?
Replay no point.
Is passing wind by cows a variable in the vast amount of variables that have a variable influence on the large number of variables that vary the climate?
Uhuu ... what about the butterfly effect? Do we account for that too? 
What on earth is your point? CO2 is a consequence of the existence of humans. We exist therefore we make CO2 and that is a good thing.
CO2 positives are way more than the negatives if you actually can make up a negative, (who cares if you do anyway).  
Do you propose euthanasia? Because there is no other way to "reduce emissions" that is a myth, not possible, even if we find a way to split the water molecule in an energy efficient way, we will not be able to produce less CO2, we will increase CO2 production unless there is a war that kills off 2/3 of the population. 
And then there will be a rebound in the population anyway like it happened after every war and we will produce even more CO2. 
Find something else to demonise, something you can actually change, say tobacco or alcohol consumption, now there you have something to demonise. 
Stop embarrassing yourselves with this CO2-is-bad business, because it is as old hat as dancing the Twist.

----------


## Marc

Uhuu .. Co2 is bad, bad, bad,

----------


## intertd6

> Wriggle as expected, with a personal attack attached. Nice. 
> Stating "I am disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change" is not the same as saying "I accept CO2 as A driver of climate change"  
> Logically, disputing CO2 as the main driver of climate change leaves the question open. You may be accepting or rejecting CO2 as a driver of climate change. 
> Here it is visually for you:   
> wriggle away

  
What still nothing to parrot in regards to proving CO2 being the main driver of climate change, which has the capacity to disprove the past evidence that shows CO2 has never had the capacity to change the climate & cause uncontrollable warming! What sort of person adds their own twisted addendum to someone else's statement of views, then still pushes that barrow for some unknown reason, especially when my statement already answers the question anyway!
regards inter

----------


## ToneG

> [EDIT]      Climate Change >> * Critical Climate Change Facts*_Earth's climate is very complex.  Below you have a summary of key factors important in affecting Earth's climate._ *Critical Facts*  *Additional Facts* *Myths Debunked*   *Critical Facts*     [EDIT]          10. A fossil fuel by-product, the greenhouse gas CO2, has been shown to be very beneficial to Earth's plant and animal kingdoms, as well as humanity's health and well being.

  While plants certainly need CO2, any modern informed discussion of the impact on increased CO2 on plant productivity in agricultural or natural systems, must (obviously) also take into account rising temperatures, which most of the studies on the linked web site do not do. So while increased CO2 can be beneficial on many measures in many cases, there are relatively few studies that address the complex interaction of elevated CO2 and elevated temperature on plant productivity, and even fewer that assess  the impact on larger scales under non-ideal conditions.  
Simply saying "increased CO2 increases plant productivity" is ignoring the complexity ....  rising CO2 isn't  the only issue...

----------


## woodbe

> my statement already answers the question

  Look again:   
Your statement does not answer the question, sorry. Your statement answers a different question, the first one, and leaves the second question hanging. The kind of person who asks such questions is one that seeks clarity over obfuscation without resorting to personal attacks. So far we're not seeing much clarity and too much of the latter. 
The discussion about CO2 being the main driver of climate change was answered previously in the thread by john2b. If you want to continue that discussion you might like to show why the accepted role of CO2 in current climate change is incorrect and propose a better theory and main driver of climate change.

----------


## Marc

> *Home*  *Why CO2 is Good*  *Climate Change*  *Politics are Not Green*  *News & Media*  *Stay Informed*  *About Us*        Benefits to Plants Benefits to Humans    Critical Facts Additional Facts Myths Debunked    Videos In The News Podcasts        Climate Change >> * Critical Climate Change Facts*_Earth's climate is very complex.  Below you have a summary of key factors important in affecting Earth's climate._ *Critical Facts* *Additional Facts* *Myths Debunked*   *Critical Facts*      1. There are at least 22 climate change causes (drivers).  2. The drivers exert their influence at different time scales and intensities so the climate is never in equilibrium. Climate change is the norm.  3. The sun supplies over 99% of the heat to Earth's surface.  4. Earth's temperature changes, then CO2 follows.  5. CO2's ability to trap more heat declines very rapidly.  6. Empirical observations indicate CO2 is not a major driver of climate change.  7. Climate models that have focused on CO2 have been very poor at hind-casting Earth's known climate history as well as their recent forecast of the future.  8. The science of what is causing global warming, including humanity's impact, is clearly not settled; debates are badly needed.  9. More research is needed on all climate drivers; not just a focus on one driver.  10. A fossil fuel by-product, the greenhouse gas CO2, has been shown to be very beneficial to Earth's plant and animal kingdoms, as well as humanity's health and well being.          ** For additional peer-reviewed scientific references and an in-depth discussion of the science supporting our position, please visit Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental Planel on Climate Change (www.climatechangereconsidered.org), or CO2 Science (www.co2science.org).

  Read again, the answer you seek is in the above point form to put it into context.
Must I translate in a different language perhaps?  
The point is much simpler than the enormously complex and mostly unknown mechanisms that drive variations in climate. The Sun is the only source of heat therefore the only one responsible for energy input. How this energy intake moves around, sinks, transfers and is lost is way more complex than the idiotic graphs of our mutual friend Al Gore. 
The only reason the warmist agitators dance around the CO2 is bad lunacy, is a completely different one that has nothing to do with climate. 
It is painstakingly obvious that HUMAN produced CO2 is a byproduct of human existence. Demonising just that minuscule proportion of the total CO2 that constitute another minuscule part of the atmosphere, has just one clear purpose, to demonise humanity as a whole and therefore propose changes to power and resources of the kind we have never seen before and comparable to the inquisition the crusades and world war 3 all at once.
I said this before, it is not possible to reduce humanity's CO2 without attacking humanity itself. 
If you add to that the fact that even suppressing 100% of humans CO2 will have NO EFFECT on climate, you have the complete picture. 
Global warming agitators have a political and social agenda not to do with anything climate. The small players that come to this thread, are just a byproduct of social dissatisfaction and left wing confession seeking for a flag to fly. 
I say, try to find a good cause and forget this lost cause.

----------


## woodbe

> I said this before, it is not possible to reduce humanity's CO2 without attacking humanity itself.

  Yet humanity has means and methods in place to reduce CO2 without 'attacking' humanity. We can see that tipping usage patterns towards alternative energy reduces CO2 emissions for the energy consumed. 
For example, this 5kw domestic solar system has accumulated savings of 22.3 Tonnes of CO2:   
Same result from other alternative energy options as well as efficiency improvements in energy use, all of which leave fossil fuels in the ground, reducing CO2 emissions without 'attacking' humanity. In fact, there is a good case that doing nothing about CO2 is effectively 'attacking' future humanity by reducing the quality of the environment they will be living in.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The point is much simpler than the enormously complex and mostly unknown mechanisms that drive variations in climate. The Sun is the only source of heat therefore the only one responsible for energy input. How this energy intake moves around, sinks, transfers and is lost is way more complex than the idiotic graphs of our mutual friend Al Gore. 
> The only reason the warmist agitators dance around the CO2 is bad lunacy, is a completely different one that has nothing to do with climate. 
> It is painstakingly obvious that HUMAN produced CO2 is a byproduct of human existence. Demonising just that minuscule proportion of the total CO2 that constitute another minuscule part of the atmosphere, has just one clear purpose, to demonise humanity as a whole and therefore propose changes to power and resources of the kind we have never seen before and comparable to the inquisition the crusades and world war 3 all at once.
> I said this before, it is not possible to reduce humanity's CO2 without attacking humanity itself. 
> If you add to that the fact that even suppressing 100% of humans CO2 will have NO EFFECT on climate, you have the complete picture. 
> Global warming agitators have a political and social agenda not to do with anything climate. The small players that come to this thread, are just a byproduct of social dissatisfaction and left wing confession seeking for a flag to fly.

  Holy Smoking Angels, Marc-man!  And I thought I had a distorted World View...I don't feel quite so alone now.  Fortunately mine's based on apathy rather than conspiracy...   

> I say, try to find a good cause and forget this lost cause.

  Ever considered heeding this statement?

----------


## Marc

> Originally Posted by Marc_I say, try to find a good cause and forget this lost cause. _   Ever considered heeding this statement?

  Since you ask, think about it. Who threw the first punch? Who drew blood? Certainly not the skeptics. The millions who like me reacted to being pushed around and robbed by political interest and pretences of altruism and accused of selfishness by ignorant unemployed professional activist who have nothing to lose, are REACTING to a poisonous religion that has our asset and our income and our freedom in their sights. 
As simple as that. Lets say we are like partisans fighting the aliens' invasion.

----------


## woodbe

> As simple as that. Lets say we are like partisans fighting the aliens' invasion.

  Or perhaps you are the aliens fighting the humans trying to save their world.  :Cool:

----------


## intertd6

> Look again:   
> Your statement does not answer the question, sorry. Your statement answers a different question, the first one, and leaves the second question hanging. The kind of person who asks such questions is one that seeks clarity over obfuscation without resorting to personal attacks. So far we're not seeing much clarity and too much of the latter.  Well you defiantly haven't left us hanging proving the ridiculousness of your pursuit in trying to manipulate someone else's statement 
> The discussion about CO2 being the main driver of climate change was answered previously in the thread by john2b. If you want to continue that discussion you might like to show why the accepted role of CO2 in current climate change is incorrect and propose a better theory and main driver of climate change.  far from it! And I haven't let up waiting for proof to appear either, yet all that is regurgitated is limp propaganda with not even one parroted fact to back it up. 
> .

  regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Or perhaps you are the aliens fighting the humans trying to save their world.

  you forgot the other species of beings you seem to be associated with.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Since you ask, think about it. Who threw the first punch? Who drew blood? Certainly not the skeptics. The millions who like me reacted to being pushed around and robbed by political interest and pretences of altruism and accused of selfishness by ignorant unemployed professional activist who have nothing to lose, are REACTING to a poisonous religion that has our asset and our income and our freedom in their sights. 
> As simple as that. Lets say we are like partisans fighting the aliens' invasion.

  Oh the humanity. You are just so hard done by. 
My nose bleeds for you...

----------


## woodbe

> Well you defiantly haven't left us hanging proving  the ridiculousness of your pursuit in trying to manipulate someone  else's statement

  Oh yes, I am defiantly asking for clarity, and I am not manipulating anyone's statement! 
How dare I ask for clarity.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## intertd6

> Oh yes, I am defiantly asking for clarity, and I am not manipulating anyone's statement! 
> How dare I ask for clarity.

  It takes a special type of manipulator to produce a flow chart for their preferred viewpoint. Ive never seen that before & they way it failed to produce the desired outcome I doubt anyone with a modicum of intelligence will copy it anytime soon. 
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> It takes a special type of manipulator to produce a flow chart for their preferred viewpoint.

  A lot of people think I'm special  :Biggrin:  However, please correct the rest of your story, the chart is a graphical representation of a simple question that was not answered. It has nothing to do with my viewpoint but everything to do with your own. If you don't want to share the answer, that's fine, it tells us something anyway. 
I've already posted a chart of my current viewpoint:

----------


## intertd6

> A lot of people think I'm special  However, please correct the rest of your story, the chart is a graphical representation of a simple question that was not answered. It has nothing to do with my viewpoint but everything to do with your own. If you don't want to share the answer, that's fine, it tells us something anyway. 
> I've already posted a chart of my current viewpoint:

   
Im sure I've seen that somewhere before! ( maybe 5 times ) why it has turned up again is anybodies guess? especially when I don't dispute man made global warming!! the lights appear to be on, but its fairly obvious nobody is at home!
at least the flow chart has been given a rest, but going on past records it will be regurgitated several times more for no apparent rhyme or reason.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> you forgot the other species of beings you seem to be associated with.

  No I did not, but you seem to have forgotten that those other species that occupy this planet are not capable of defending themselves against the impacts of our activities. 
Well, perhaps the bacteria and virii will eventually have their own way at our expense  :Wink:

----------


## intertd6

> No I did not, but you seem to have forgotten that those other species that occupy this planet are not capable of defending themselves against the impacts of our activities. 
> Well, perhaps the bacteria and virii will eventually have their own way at our expense

  don't worry! all you have to do is learn to understand the past history of the effects of CO2 on the climate and you may be able to save that head of hair if it already hasn't turned grey of fallen out by worrying sick about something thats an impossibility of happening.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> you forgot the other species of beings you seem to be associated with.
> regards inter

  So, inter, what, in your opinion, is causing global warming?

----------


## intertd6

> So, inter, what, in your opinion, is causing global warming?

  a combination of many factors, some understood, some not, from the globes past history CO2 clearly is not a major contributing factor. 
 regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> a combination of many factors, some understood, some not, from the globes past history CO2 clearly is not a major contributing factor.

  CO2 probably hasn't played much of a role in the past simply because the carbon cycle has been (more or less) in balance.  It's only now that human activity has set the carbon cycle in a giggly wobble by incinerating prehistoric carbon sinks over the last couple of centuries that it has moved up the impacting list with a bullet...along with a few other contemporaries.    
We've been through this before in this thread...back in 2009 I think  :Annoyed:   :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> CO2 probably hasn't played much of a role in the past simply because the carbon cycle has been (more or less) in balance.  It's only now that human activity has set the carbon cycle in a giggly wobble by incinerating prehistoric carbon sinks over the last couple of centuries that it has moved up the impacting list with a bullet...along with a few other contemporaries.    
> We've been through this before in this thread...back in 2009 I think

  Oh I see CO2 is different now. So much, that even though there is far less CO2 now than in the past, the lessor "different" C02 is so much more potent that it will have a dramatic effect on climate now. Even though the far less aggressive but huge quantities of CO2 in the past did not have such an effect on climate.   
Boy glad you cleared that up.  I get it now.

----------


## intertd6

> Oh I see CO2 is different now. So much, that even though there is far less CO2 now than in the past, the lessor "different" C02 is so much more potent that it will have a dramatic effect on climate now. Even though the far less aggressive but huge quantities of CO2 in the past did not have such an effect on climate.   
> Boy glad you cleared that up.  I get it now.

  And I too would be a complete dummkopf to believe their story as well! It is truly amazing how deep the propaganda can impregnate through the thinnest encasement surrounding a brain then cloud rational thought.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Oh I see CO2 is different now.

  Nope. Just your and Inter's (and many others) conceptual understanding of it. But that's OK...I kind of expected that. No big deal.

----------


## John2b

> Oh I see CO2 is different now. So much, that even though there is far less CO2 now than in the past, the lessor "different" C02 is so much more potent that it will have a dramatic effect on climate now. Even though the far less aggressive but huge quantities of CO2 in the past did not have such an effect on climate.

  Nope. The effect of CO2 is just how physics describes it to be, both in the past and today. Past climatic conditions cannot be explained without the inclusion of the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere just the same as the current radiation imbalance that is causing current warming can not be explained without the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.   

> Boy glad you cleared that up. I get it now.

  We're all getting it (global warming) whether you like it (or understand it) or not!

----------


## intertd6

> Nope. The effect of CO2 is just how physics describes it to be, both in the past and today. Past climatic conditions cannot be explained without the inclusion of the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere just the same as the current radiation imbalance that is causing current warming can not be explained without the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.   
> We're all getting it (global warming) whether you like it (or understand it) or not!

  Unless you can come up with a graph or similar proving your claim, we just don't believe it! just highly fanciful ideas with nothing much else worthy of a second glance.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> Unless you can come up with a graph or similar proving your claim, we just don't believe it! just highly fanciful ideas with nothing much else worthy of a second glance.
> regards inter

   :Roflmao: You should look in the mirror and repeat the above, doesn't it also echo posts from those you may consider your own side? The substance of this thread is people come to it with ideas that have been fixed for a long time. There is little sign of flexibility, plenty who accept or reject on prejudice rather than quality of the source. A little window that demonstrates that some posters (not Inter) sadly reject on the basis of political leanings or religious bigotry. Anyway this previous post has given me a good laugh so thanks for that.  :2thumbsup: 
 Let's face it will a graph make any difference to your opinion now?

----------


## Marc

Dear warmist, alarmist, green, lefty, and assorted cheerleader for the CO2 is baaaad side: 
You should look in the mirror and repeat the above, doesn't it also echo posts from those you may consider your own side? The substance of this thread is people come to it with ideas that have been fixed for a long time. There is little sign of flexibility, plenty who accept or reject on prejudice rather than quality of the source. A little window that demonstrates that some posters (not Inter) sadly reject on the basis of political leanings or religious bigotry. Anyway this previous post has given me a good laugh so thanks for that.  :2thumbsup:  [taken without permission from John abc] :Biggrin:  
Green is immature, amateur, illogical, impractical, fanatical, incompetent and insolvent. 
Yet they want to dictate how you should live your life.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## johnc

> Dear warmist, alarmist, green, lefty, and assorted cheerleader for the CO2 is baaaad side: 
> You should look in the mirror and repeat the above, doesn't it also echo posts from those you may consider your own side? The substance of this thread is people come to it with ideas that have been fixed for a long time. There is little sign of flexibility, plenty who accept or reject on prejudice rather than quality of the source. A little window that demonstrates that some posters (not Inter) sadly reject on the basis of political leanings or religious bigotry. Anyway this previous post has given me a good laugh so thanks for that.  [taken without permission from John abc] 
> Green is immature, amateur, illogical, impractical, fanatical, incompetent and insolvent. 
> Yet they want to dictate how you should live your life.

  I think that started about the time the ten commandments got written and has been gradually added to over time, although I think you will find there is actually no green manifesto on how to live your life you would really need to live under the Taliban for that type of control and they aint green sport.  Actually that type of character assassination of a group is just playing the man without being overly specific.

----------


## intertd6

> You should look in the mirror and repeat the above, doesn't it also echo posts from those you may consider your own side? The substance of this thread is people come to it with ideas that have been fixed for a long time. There is little sign of flexibility, plenty who accept or reject on prejudice rather than quality of the source. A little window that demonstrates that some posters (not Inter) sadly reject on the basis of political leanings or religious bigotry. Anyway this previous post has given me a good laugh so thanks for that. 
>  Let's face it will a graph make any difference to your opinion now?

  all I'm asking for is easily understandable proof from those the questions are directed to, not more propaganda from another source!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> all I'm asking for is easily understandable proof from those the questions are directed to, not more propaganda from another source!
> regards inter

  That's very reasonable inter, but I don't believe that the internet can convey communication accurately. Can give me an easily understandable proof that computers, IP protocols and the internet work? That should be no more difficult than your request for proof about the effect of CO2 on the Earth's radiation balance.

----------


## intertd6

> That's very reasonable inter, but I don't believe that the internet can convey communication accurately. Can give me an easily understandable proof that computers, IP protocols and the internet work? That should be no more difficult than your request for proof about the effect of CO2 on the Earth's radiation balance.

  And around we go again! Primarily because you just can't provide anything remotely resembling an answer & never will.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> And around we go again! Primarily because you just can't provide anything remotely resembling an answer & never will.
> regards inter

  Are you responding to yourself? If the shoe fits... it's likely to be yours LOL.

----------


## intertd6

> Are you responding to yourself? If the shoe fits... it's likely to be yours LOL.

  i think universally that can be taken that no you haven't got a decent reply as usual, I wish too I was on such a substance that could give me such a overpowering feeling of triumph, when in fact I was defeated.
I'm not religious but in desperation it has crossed my mind to pray for one fact to be presented!
regards inter

----------


## Marc

> I think that started about the time the ten commandments got written and has been gradually added to over time, although I think you will find there is actually no green manifesto on how to live your life you would really need to live under the Taliban for that type of control and they aint green sport.  Actually that type of character assassination of a group is just playing the man without being overly specific.

  Pissing in the wind is usually a bad choice, invariably one ends with wet pants.  *Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist:* "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed  and hence clamorous to be led to safety  by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."  We start with Mencken's quotes because they are so well known from the past, but yet still so relevant so many years later. His past insights to those whose lives are addicted to the seeking of power, or control, or fame, or money is still as valid today, as it was 70 years ago. Below are quotes from the powerful; the rich; the religious; the studious; the famous; the fanatics; and, the aspiring, all sharing a common theme of keeping "the populace alarmed" to further their own personal, selfish goals. Once you read the below quotes, come back and re-read the previous paragraph. The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose their values and desires on others. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.  *Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace:* "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." *Quote by Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency:* "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment." *Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official:*  "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." *Quote by Club of Rome:* "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or.one invented for the purpose." *Quote by emeritus professor Daniel Botkin:* "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." *Quote by David Suzuki, celebrity scientist, alarmist extraordinaire**: 1990 quote: "*More than any other time in history, the 1990s will be a turning point for human civilization." *Quote by David Suzuki, celebrity scientist, alarmist extraordinaire**: 2011 quote: "*Humanity is facing a challenge unlike any weve ever had to confront. We are in an unprecedented period of change." *Quote by Robert Stavins, the head of Harvards Environmental Economics program:* "Its unlikely that the U.S. is going to take serious action on climate change until there are observable, dramatic events, almost catastrophic in nature, that drive public opinion and drive the political process in that direction." *Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, and large CO2 producer:* "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." *Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist:* "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." *Quote by Sir John Houghton, pompous lead editor of first three IPCC reports:* If we want a good environmental policy in the future well have to have a disaster. *Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist:* "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians  and readers  attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in todays world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty." *Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister:* No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world. *Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator:* Weve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. *Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat:* "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect." *Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21":* "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level." *Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire elitist, primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer:* Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about? *Quote by Gus Hall, former leader of the Communist Party USA:* "Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible." *Quote by Peter Berle, President of the National Audubon Society:* "We reject the idea of private property." *Quote by Jack Trevors, Editor-in-Chief of Water, Air, & Soil Pollution:* "The capitalistic systems of economy follow the one principal rule: the rule of profit making. All else must bow down to this ruleThe current USA is an example of a failed capitalistic state in which essential long-term goals such as prevention of climate change and limitation of human population growth are subjugated to the short-term profit motive and the principle of economic growth." *Quote by Judi Bari, an American environmentalist and labor leader, a feminist, and the principal organizer of Earth First!:*"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically," *Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club:* "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope." *Quote by UN chief Ban Ki-moon: "*Now it is the least developed world who are not responsible for this climate change phenomenon that bore the brunt of climate change consequences so it is morally and politically correct that the developed world who made this climate change be responsible by providing financial support and technological support to these people." *Quote by David Rockefeller, heir to billion dollar fortune:* "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis..." *Quote by Helen Caldicott, an Australian physician and a leading member of the Union of Concerned Scientists:* "Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process...Capitalism is destroying the earth."   *Quote by Judi Dench, famous UK actress:* "The need for a global structure of control in the form of a world environment court is now more urgent than ever before." *Quote by Club of Rome:* "A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income." *Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.:* "The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government." *Quote by Gordon Brown, former British prime minister:* "A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis." *Quote by Club of Rome:*  "Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late." *Quote by Lester Brown, founder of the Worldwatch Institute, and founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute:*"Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance." *Quote by Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S.:* "The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to  compliance *Quote by UN's Commission on Global Governance:* "The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation." *Quote by David Shearman, an IPCC Assessor for 3rd and 4th climate change reports:* "Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task." *Quote by John Holdren, President Obama's science czar:* A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States...De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation...Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being." *Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, mega-millionaire, and large CO2 producer:* Adopting a central organizing principle means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, to halt the destruction of the environment. *Quote by Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary General:* "A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed." *Quote by EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstroem:* "[Kyoto protocol] is not a simple environmental issue, where you can say scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations, this is about the economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what is at stake, and that is why it is serious,..." *Quote by Robert Muller, former UN Assistant Secretary General:* In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government.  There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet.  We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways. *Quote by Jacques Chirac, former French President:* For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument [Kyoto Protocol] of global governance,..."By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace. *Quote by Earth Charter, an environmental organization:* "Radical change from the current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity. Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that address the root causes of poverty and environmental degradation are required and they are required now." *Quote by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, architect of the new Germanic masterplan, the 'Great Transformation':* "Either the Earth System would undergo major phase transitions as a result of unchecked human pressure on natures capacities and resources or a Great Transformation towards global sustainability would be initiated in due course. Neither transitions nor transformations will be manageable without novel forms of global governance and markets..." *Quote by UN's Commission on Global Governance:* "Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself." *Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, mega-millionaire, and large CO2 producer:* "We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth." *Quote by Barbara Stocking, chief executive of Oxfam in Britain:* "Funding from rich countries to help the poor and vulnerable adapt to climate change is not even one percent of what is needed. This glaring injustice must be addressed at Copenhagen in December [2009]." *Quote by Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth:* A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources. *Quote by Michael Oppenheimer, major environmentalist:* "The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." *Quote by Louis Proyect, Columbia University:* The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now. *Quote by Walden Bello, leftist and founding director of Focus on the Global South:* "However it is achieved, a thorough reorganisation of production, consumption and distribution will be the end result of humanity's response to the climate emergency and the broader environmental crisis." *Quote by UK's Keith Farnish, environmental writer, philosopher and activist:* "The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization...Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine." *Quote by James Lovelock, known as founder of 'Gaia' concept:* I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while. *Quote by Club of Rome:* "Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of todays problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time." *Quote by Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury:* We must support government coercion over enforcing international protocols and speed limits on motorways if we want the global economy not to collapse and millions, billions of people to die. *Quote by Paula Snyder, an America promoter of green causes:* "Greed is the enemy - the underlying problem is greed, and that leads into most of the problems with the ecological system and the political system...I wish I could make a total redistribution [of wealth]...Things are going to change. They have to." *Quote by Jeffery Sachs, Columbia University, Director of The Earth Institute:* "Obama is already setting a new historic course by reorienting the economy from private consumption to public investments...free-market pundits bemoan the evident intention of Obama and team to 'tell us what kind of car to drive'. Yet that is exactly what they intend to do...and rightly so. Free-market ideology is an anachronism in an era of climate change." *Quote by René Dubos, French scientist, environmentalist, author of the maxim "Think globally, act locally":* "Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature." *Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, mega-millionaire, and large CO2 producer:* "The fate of mankind, as well as religion, depends on the emergence of a new faith in the future. Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to resanctify the earth." *Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.:* "I envisage the prinicles of the Earth Charter to be a new form of the ten commandments. They lay the foundation for a sustainable global earth community." *Quote by Prabhath P., environmentalist and member of Intuition Network:* "The spirit of our planet is stirring! The Consciousness of Goddess Earth is now rising against all odds, in spite of millennia of suppression, repression and oppression inflicted on Her by a hubristic and misguided humanity. The Earth is a living entity, a biological organism with psychic and spiritual dimensions." *Quote by Club of Rome:* "The greatest hope for the Earth lies in religionists and scientists uniting to awaken the world to its near fatal predicament and then leading mankind out of the bewildering maze of international crises into the future Utopia of humanist hope." *Quote by David Suzuki, celebrity scientist, alarmist extraordinaire:* All life on Earth is our kin. And in an act of generosity, our relatives create the four sacred elements for us...."We have become a force of nature...Not long ago, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought, forest fires, even earthquakes and volcanic explosions were accepted as "natural disasters or "acts of God."  But now, we have joined God, powerful enough to influence these events." *Quote by Robert Muller, former UN Assistant Secretary General:* "Little by little a planetary prayer book is thus being composed by an increasingly united humanity seeking its oneness. Once again, but this time on a universal scale, humankind is seeking no less than its reunion with 'divine,' its transcendence into higher forms of life." *Quote by Maurice Strong, a wealthy elitist and primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer:*  "It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature."  *Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.:* "Nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred; trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals." *Quote by Global Education Associates, an environmental education group:* Their daily Earth pledge - "I pledge allegiance to the Earth and all its sacred parts. Its water, land and living things and all its human hearts."   *Quote by* *Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University:* Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. *Quote by Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation:* The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet. *Quote by* *Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: "*We contend that the position of the nuclear promoters is preposterous beyond the wildest imaginings of most nuclear opponents, primarily because one of the purported benefits of nuclear power, the availability of cheap and abundant energy, is in fact a liability." *Quote by Club of Rome:* "The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man." *Quote by John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal:* "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." *Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University:* "A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer." *Quote by John Holdren, President Obama's science czar:* "There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated...It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."  *Quote by Christopher Manes, a writer for Earth First! journal:* "The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing."  *Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer:* A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal. *Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!:* My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world. *Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club:* "Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." *Quote by Club of Rome:* "...the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million people but less than one billion." *Quote by Susan Blakemore, a UK Guardian science journalist:* "For the planets sake, I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population, because otherwise were doomed." *Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University:* "The addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply. With limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps by lottery". *Quote by Prince Philip, royal billionaire, married to Queen Elizabeth II, and large CO2 producer:* "I don't claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the cull to the size of the surplus population." *Quote by Bill Gates, Microsoft billionaire, and large CO2 producer:* "The world today has 6.8 billion people...that's headed up to about 9 billion. If we do a really great job on vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 to 15 percent." *Quote by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, architect of the new Germanic masterplan, the 'Great Transformation':* "When you imagine that if all these 9 billion people claim all these resources, then the earth will explode. *Quote by Jacques Cousteau, mega-celebrity French scientist:* "In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day." *Quote by UN Commission on Global Biodiversity Assessment:* "A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible." *Quote by John Miller, a NOAA climate scientist:* "I would be remiss, as a scientist who studied this, if I didn't mention the following two things: The first is that, most importantly, we need to do, as a society, in this country and globally, whatever we can to reduce population"....."Our whole economic system is based on growth, and growth of our population, and this economic madness has to end." *Quote by John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal:* "I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." *Quote by Prince Philip, royal billionaire, married to Queen Elizabeth II, and large CO2 producer:* "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." *Quote by Ingrid Newkirk, a former PETA President:* The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth - social and environmental. *Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer:* "There are too many people, that's why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff." *Quote by James Lovelock, known as founder of 'Gaia' concept:* "The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." *Quote by Nina Vsevolod Fedoroff, science advisor to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:* There are probably already too many people on the planet. *Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, mega-millionaire, and large CO2 producer:* "Third world nations are producing too many children too fast...it is time to ignore the controversy over family planning and cut out-of-control population growth..." *Quote by Susan Blakemore, a UK Guardian science journalist: "*Finally, we might decide that civilisation itself is worth preserving. In that case we have to work out what to save and which people would be needed in a drastically reduced population  weighing the value of scientists and musicians against that of politicians, for example." *Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!:* "We advocate biodiversity for biodiversitys sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight." *Quote by Harry Reid, Democrat, U.S. Senate majority leader:* "Coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick. It's global warming. It's ruining our country. It's ruining our world." *Quote by Osama bin Laden, terrorist leader behind 9/11 plot & attacks:* "In fact, the life of all mankind is in danger because of global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations; yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistics speak of the death and displacement of millions of human beings because of global warming, especially in Africa." *Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office:* The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models. *Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University:* Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful. *Quote by David Suzuki, celebrity scientist, alarmist extraordinaire**:* "What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act." *Quote by Amory Lovins, scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute:* "Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." *Quote by David Graber, scientist U.S. Nat'l Park Services:* "We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. *Quote by Eric Pianka**, professor at University of Texas:* Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people. *Quote by John Shuttleworth, founder of Mother Earth News magazine:* "The only real good technology is no technology at all.  Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world. *Quote by Thomas Lovejoy, scientist, Smithsonian Institution:* "The planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have, and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves and our lifestyles." *Quote by Maurice Strong, a wealthy elitist and primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer:* "Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." *Quote by Pentti Linkola, a Finnish ecological philosopher:* An ecocatastrophe is taking place on earth.....discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression are the only solution." "As for those most responsible for the present economic growth and competition, Linkola explains that they will be sent to the mountains for re-education in eco-gulags: the sole glimmer of hope, he declares, lies in a centralised government and the tireless control of citizens. *Quote by Bill Maher, supposedly a comedian, and large CO2 producer:* Failing to warn the citizens of a looming weapon of mass destruction- and thats what global warming is- in order to protect oil company profits, well, that fits for me the definition of treason. *Quote by James Hansen, prominent NASA climate scientist:* "...chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to [should] be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature; [Hansen] accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer. *Quote by George Monbiot, a UK Guardian environmental journalist:* "...every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned." *Quote by Jill Singer, Australian green and "journalist":* "I'm prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics - put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas - say, carbon monoxide." *Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist:* Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say. *Quote by Charles Alexander, Time Magazine science editor:* I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy. *Quote by David Roberts, journalist Grist Magazine:* "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards (global warming skeptics) -- some sort of climate Nuremberg. *Quote by Steven Guilbeault, Canadian environemental journalist and Greenpeace member:* "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter." *Quote by George Monbiot, a UK Guardian environmental journalist: "*It is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves." *Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer:* Global warming will kill most of us, and turn the rest of us into cannibals. *Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!:* We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land. *Quote by Maurice King, well known UK professor:* Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control. *Quote by Jerry Brown, California liberal Democrat politician:* "It's not viable' for poverty stricken developing world to emulate prosperity of U.S." *Quote by Lord Stern elitist UK economist and promoter of UN climate/economic sanctions:*  The US will increasingly see the risks of being left behind, and ten years from now they would have to start worrying about being shut out of markets because their production is dirty. *Quote by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and large CO2 producer:* "Large-scale hog producers are a greater threat to the United States and U.S. democracy than Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network." *Quote by Christian Anton Mayer, aka Carl Amery, German environmentalist and writer:* "We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." *Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!:* "I founded Friends of the Earth to make the Sierra Club look reasonable. Then I founded the Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the Earth seem reasonable." *Quote by Noel Brown, UN official:* "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos." (Editor: Yes, he meant the year 2000.)

----------


## Marc

HomerGlblWrmng - YouTube

----------


## intertd6

And the response silence is deafening.
regards inter

----------


## ringtail

Gold !

----------


## John2b

> And the response silence is deafening.
> regards inter

  If you are referring to the diatribe of "quotes" why respond to someone's attack of "posting diarrhoea"?  
I read the first that claimed that Paul Watson was a founder of Greenpeace [actually he wasn't] and the last that implies that Noel Brown, a UN official Entire said nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels...by the year 2000 (Editor: Yes, he meant the year 2000.) [actually he didn't]. So if the OP needs to use falsehoods to support his ideological claims, all it can say is that deniers are on the nose...

----------


## intertd6

> If you are referring to the diatribe of "quotes" why respond to someone's attack of "posting diarrhoea"?  
> I read the first that claimed that Paul Watson was a founder of Greenpeace [actually he wasn't] and the last that implies that Noel Brown, a UN official Entire said nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels...by the year 2000 (Editor: Yes, he meant the year 2000.) [actually he didn't]. So if the OP needs to use falsehoods to support his ideological claims, all it can say is that deniers are on the nose...

  Im glad we have some body to split hairs all day finding typos, perhaps you could give us a run down on all the above quotes regarding whether they pass the hairsplitting test? And maybe one fact about how astronomical concentrations of CO2 in the past atmosphere didn't burn the earth to a crisp?
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Im glad we have some body to split hairs all day finding typos, perhaps you could give us a run down on all the above quotes regarding whether they pass the hairsplitting test? And maybe one fact about how astronomical concentrations of CO2 in the past atmosphere didn't burn the earth to a crisp?
> regards inter

  I couldn't find any hairs to split before I gave up due to the obvious falsehoods posted and to which you haven't responded. 
Anyone who wants can easily find the reasons why "astronomical concentrations of CO2 in the past atmosphere didn't burn the earth to a crisp" and it's been posted here in this forum as well, but... There are none so blind as those who will not see. Or for Marc: Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.' (Jeremiah 5:21)

----------


## intertd6

> I couldn't find any hairs to split before I gave up due to the obvious falsehoods posted and to which you haven't responded. 
> Anyone who wants can easily find the reasons why "astronomical concentrations of CO2 in the past atmosphere didn't burn the earth to a crisp" and it's been posted here in this forum as well, but... There are none so blind as those who will not see. Or for Marc: Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.' (Jeremiah 5:21)

  Again a lot of words but as usual just not even one tiny fact to parrot! I'm almost down on one knee, hands clasped looking to the heavens for hope now!
even got a sermon to help me on my way & explains the blind faith needed in my quest to join the ranks.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> Again a lot of words but as usual just not even one tiny fact to parrot! I'm almost down on one knee, hands clasped looking to the heavens for hope now!
> even got a sermon to help me on my way & explains the blind faith needed in my quest to join the ranks.
> regards inter

  
No matter how much you polish a @@@@ it is still a @@@@,  those so called quotes have been done before some are almost accurate some are spurious one thing they are not worth is responding to, if you want facts the poster should stick to facts especially ones that extend beyond denialist rubbish. Two things are missing a presentation of any thing worth commenting on and an acceptance that if you are truly interested n reaching common ground you don't use falsehoods and lies. This just proves bias nothing else.

----------


## John2b

> Again a lot of words but as usual just not even one tiny fact to parrot! I'm almost down on one knee, hands clasped looking to the heavens for hope now!
> even got a sermon to help me on my way & explains the blind faith needed in my quest to join the ranks.
> regards inter

  So why is Inter QUOTE: "not disputing man made climate change" (#10958) defending Marc QUOTE: "Public figures and paid supporters of the hypothesis of human induced global warming have joined a cult style movement and use a cult style method of proselytising" (#10979)? 
It seems to be an example of the "honour amongst thieves" of the climate change deniers who can't agree on anything other than everyone else is wrong - LOL.

----------


## intertd6

> No matter how much you polish a @@@@ it is still a @@@@,  those so called quotes have been done before some are almost accurate some are spurious one thing they are not worth is responding to, if you want facts the poster should stick to facts especially ones that extend beyond denialist rubbish. Two things are missing a presentation of any thing worth commenting on and an acceptance that if you are truly interested n reaching common ground you don't use falsehoods and lies. This just proves bias nothing else.

  And who wouldn't be biased with the lack of facts or logical arguments from the opposing side, I'm a swinging voter, so present something believable & I'll swap sides & viewpoints in a heartbeat, but falling for the religious, cultist or flavour of the month fuzzy feeling mobs propaganda just doesn't do it, even for my meagre intelligence. After all one measly fact will do it! There's your challenge to come up with one itty bitty fact?
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> So why is Inter QUOTE: "not disputing man made climate change" (#10958) defending Marc QUOTE: "Public figures and paid supporters of the hypothesis of human induced global warming have joined a cult style movement and use a cult style method of proselytising" (#10979)? 
> It seems to be an example of the "honour amongst thieves" of the climate change deniers who can't agree on anything other than everyone else is wrong - LOL.

  funny how the above still doesn't look or resemble anything like a fact were all waiting for! Propaganda yes! Facts no!
Regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> After all one measly fact will do it! There's your challenge to come up with one itty bitty fact?

  There have already been many facts posted in this thread. It's clear that one more itty bitty fact won't help you, but there is sure to be more itty bitty facts in due course. 
You could help of course by posting some facts to support your own stated view that global warming is happening and how humankind is involved other than CO2. You have repeatedly stated that there is no warming for 16 years, that the warming in the oceans is not significant and your unsupported view that Antarctica is not losing ice, how about explaining your belief in global warming with some itty bitty facts of your own.

----------


## johnc

It is quite bizarre to ask that you be proved wrong Inter, I actually don't think your opinion matters anymore than anybody else, if you are wrong so what, it just means you haven't been able to sort the wheat from the chaff but it is no big deal otherwise. Anyway you have a locked on position, that has shown no propensity to move beyond a fixed point and an amazing ability  to ignore anything that does not suit that position, you cannot apply reason in that situation ad expect it to be absorbed.

----------


## intertd6

> There have already been many facts posted in this thread. It's clear that one more itty bitty fact won't help you, but there is sure to be more itty bitty facts in due course. 
> You could help of course by posting some facts to support your own stated view that global warming is happening and how humankind is involved other than CO2. You have repeatedly stated that there is no warming for 16 years, that the warming in the oceans is not significant and your unsupported view that Antarctica is not losing ice, how about explaining your belief in global warming with some itty bitty facts of your own.

  do you have trouble understanding something so simple as my question? Just for you again because you seem to be trolling too many sites to keep up, the question is for you & your like again is to come up with some simple graph or data that disproves the facts that in the past CO2 in massive concentrations never produced uncontrollable heating of the globes climate & why now with such a minor change in this concentration should it overthrow the past indisputable history.
so yes, one itty bitty fact will do! If there was this fact it could have been parroted ten times over instead of the usual sputum coughed up while dodging & evading the obvious.
 Regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...the facts that in the past CO2 in massive concentrations never produced uncontrollable heating of the globes climate &amp; why now with such a minor change in this concentration should it overthrow the past indisputable history.

  I have a quibble over indisputable...and another regarding uncontrollable but no matter.  
I have nothing further to add as I don't think this crack can be fixed with wallpaper because the foundation is broken...and demolition is prohibited due to a heritage listing. 
On another matter...Marc's quotes broke my tapatalk.

----------


## woodbe

I don't have a lot of trouble understanding questions, but I have trouble answering loaded questions such as you post. In the spirit of good faith, I will offer some answers for you despite the fact that you decided to not answer my previous simple question. If you do your usual put down without facts I probably won't respond to your posts in future.   

> the question is for you & your like again is to come up with some simple graph or data that disproves the facts that in the past CO2 in massive concentrations never produced uncontrollable heating of the globes climate & why now with such a minor change in this concentration should it overthrow the past indisputable history.

  Firstly, what is this 'uncontrollable heating' you speak of? Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will result in warming until the climate reaches a new balance as a result of the forcings in play at that time.  
Do you wish to dispute that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming, or do you wish to dispute that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes runaway warming, or both? 
I can think of a few facts for you for the warming case, not that it will help you hear something you do not want to hear. 
1. CO2 in high concentrations was part of a past climate. It was not introduced into the climate system by us, we did not exist then. We have added CO2 to a relatively stable climate system and the results are playing out. 
2. Back when CO2 was in high concentrations in the past, the energy output of the sun was lower. 
3. Back when CO2 was in high concentrations in the past, the makeup of the climate forcings was not the same as it is now. 
4. Picking an instance in the past where CO2 was high yet temperatures were low or dropping does not prove that raising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere now will not result in warming. That is called cherry picking, and you are very good at it. Well done, but no cigar.  :2thumbsup:  
No graphics for you  :Tongue:

----------


## intertd6

> I don't have a lot of trouble understanding questions, but I have trouble answering loaded questions such as you post. In the spirit of good faith, I will offer some answers for you despite the fact that you decided to not answer my previous simple question. If you do your usual put down without facts I probably won't respond to your posts in future.  the facts have been been displayed ad nauseam previously, to which your types have responded to with nothing resembling an overthrowing argument! No graphs, no data, no nothing! Seeing the data proving my argument has been posted numerous times, we all await eagerly for yours & until that happens you have Buckley's chance of sucking me into your red herring trap   
> Firstly, what is this 'uncontrollable heating' you speak of? Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will result in warming until the climate reaches a new balance as a result of the forcings in play at that time.   Got some data or graphs for your claim? 
> Do you wish to dispute that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming, or do you wish to dispute that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes runaway warming, or both?  i take that as another red herring! 
> I can think of a few facts for you for the warming case, not that it will help you hear something you do not want to hear. 
> 1. CO2 in high concentrations was part of a past climate. It was not introduced into the climate system by us, we did not exist then. We have added CO2 to a relatively stable climate system and the results are playing out.  Got some data or graphs to back up your claim? 
> 2. Back when CO2 was in high concentrations in the past, the energy output of the sun was lower.  yes we've heard that one ad nauseam & if you had thought about it a little more deeply you would understand how stupid it is! 
> 3. Back when CO2 was in high concentrations in the past, the makeup of the climate forcings was not the same as it is now.  got some data or graphs to back up your claim?  
> 4. Picking an instance in the past where CO2 was high yet temperatures were low or dropping does not prove that raising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere now will not result in warming. That is called cherry picking, and you are very good at it. Well done, but no cigar.   Thats the thing about what has actually happened, it trumps all the bizarre "what if" claims every time. 
> No graphics for you

  and not one itty bitty fact as yet I notice!!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> I have a quibble over indisputable...and another regarding uncontrollable but no matter.  
> I have nothing further to add as I don't think this crack can be fixed with wallpaper because the foundation is broken...and demolition is prohibited due to a heritage listing. 
> On another matter...Marc's quotes broke my tapatalk.

  yes I think when those words used to describe AGW they are over the top! especially when there is no factual basis, at least when I used them there are the facts to back the language used. Funny how it hits a nerve when used appropriately! Ahh the workings of biased thought in action!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

In this thread, facts are just opinions with the optional extras fitted. A cloaca with trimmings...nothing more.

----------


## Marc

*Laugh Riot: 190-year climate tipping point issued  Despite fact that UN began 10-Year Climate Tipping Point in 1989!**Climate Depot Factsheet on Inconvenient History of Global Warming 'Tipping Points' -- Hours, Days, Months, Years, Millennium -- Earth 'Serially Doomed'*  
By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotJune 29, 2010 8:42 AM  *Climate Depot Editorial*
Once again, the world is being warned of a climate tipping point. The latest bout of stern warnings comes from a survey of 14 climate experts. Get ready, we only have 190 years! Scientists expect climate tipping point by 2200  UK Independent  June 28, 2010  Excerpt: 13 of the 14 experts said that the probability of reaching a tipping point (by 2200) was greater than 50 per cent, and 10 said that the chances were 75 per cent or more.
Such silliness. Its difficult to keep up whether it is hours, days, months or 1000 years. Here are few recent examples of others predicting climate tipping points of various durations. *HOURS:* Flashback March 2009: We have hours to prevent climate disaster  Declares Elizabeth May of Canadian Green Party *Days:* Flashback Oct. 2009: UKs Gordon Brown warns of global warming catastrophe; Only 50 days to save world *Months:* Prince Charles claimed a 96-month tipping point in July 2009 *Years:* Flashback Oct .2009: WWF: Five years to save world *Millennium:* Flashback June 2010: 1000 years delay: Green Guru James Lovelock: Climate change may not happen as fast as we thought, and we may have 1,000 years to sort it out
It is becoming obvious that the only authentic climate tipping point we can rely is this one: Flashback 2007: New Zealand Scientist on Global Warming: Its All Going to be a Joke in 5 Years (He wasnt Optimistic enough  it only took 3 years!) *Inconvenient History of Climate Tipping Point Warnings*
As early as 1989, the UN was already trying to sell their tipping point rhetoric on the public. See: U.N. Warning of 10-Year Climate Tipping Point Began in 1989  Excerpt: According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a 10-year window of opportunity to solve global warming. According to the 1989 article, A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco-refugees, threatening political chaos. (LINK) & (LINK)
NASA scientist James Hansen has been warning of a tipping point for years now. See: Earths Climate Approaches Dangerous Tipping Point  June 1, 2007  Excerpt: A stern warning that global warming is nearing an irreversible tipping point was issued today by James Hansen. Former Vice President Al Gore invented his own tipping point clock a few years ago. Excerpt: Former Vice-President Al Gore came to Washington on July 17, 2008, to deliver yet another speech warning of the climate crisis. The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis, Gore stated.
Prince Charles claimed a 96-month tipping point in July 2009. Excerpt: The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St Jamess Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world. And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the age of convenience was over. World has only ten years to control global warming, warns Met Office  UK Telegraph  November 15, 2009
Excerpt: Pollution needs to be brought under control within ten years to stop runaway climate change, according to the latest Met Office predictions. [...] To limit global mean temperature [increases] to below 2C, implied emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere at the end of the century fall close to zero in most cases.
The UN chief Ban Ki-moon further shortened the tipping point in August 2009, when he warned of incalculable suffering without climate deal in December 2009!
Newsweek magazine waded into the tipping point claims as well. Newsweek wrote: The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality. But, Newsweeks tipping point quote appeared in a April 28, 1975 article about global cooling! Same rhetoric, different eco-scare.
[*Climate Depot Editor's Note: The public understands that "we must act now" claims are being manufactured for political purposes. See:* *Gore: U.S. Climate Bill Will Help Bring About 'Global Governance' - July 10, 2009** - It is no wonder that more and more Americans are rejecting climate fears. See:* *Polling: 'More Americans believe in haunted houses than man-made global warming' - 37% vs. 36% - October 30, 2009** - For another explanation of why climate fear promoters are failing to convince the public, see:* *MIT Climate Scientist: 'Ordinary people see through man-made climate fears -- but educated people are very vulnerable'  July 6, 2009*] UK Scientist Philip Stott ridiculed tipping point claims in 2007. Excerpt: In essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning regularly for the last fifty or so years. We have been serially doomed. [...] Our post-modern period of climate change angst can probably be traced back to the late-1960s, if not earlier. By 1973, and the global cooling scare, it was in full swing, with predictions of the imminent collapse of the world within ten to twenty years, exacerbated by the impacts of a nuclear winter. Environmentalists were warning that, by the year 2000, the population of the US would have fallen to only 22 million [the 2007 population estimate is 302,824,000]. [...] In 1987, the scare abruptly changed to global warming, and the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was established (1988), issuing its first assessment report in 1990, which served as the basis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). *Related Links:* Flashback 2007: Climatologist Dr. Michaels mocks tipping points: We have to do something in 10 years  they have been saying that for two years. Why dont they at least subtract 2 and make it 8? Another Atmospheric Scientist Dissents: Calls fears of CO2 tipping point alarmist, ludicrous, and totally without foundation  July 13, 2009  Over geologic time there has been 15 to 25 times more CO2 than current concentrations Media Tipping Point! Houston Chronicle Reporter Reconsiders Science is Settled Claims! I am confused. 4 years ago this all seemed like a fait accompli  September 6, 2009 Antarctic Tipping Point? If we dont act soon, the planet will become a barren ball of ice and snow  October 2, 2009  5 of the 6 years with the greatest Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent have occurred in just the last decade 2007  GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM REACHES A TIPPING POINT  October 26, 2007

----------


## intertd6

> In this thread, facts are just opinions with the optional extras fitted. A cloaca with trimmings...nothing more.

  i can't help it if what has happened in the past turned out to be not uncontrollable & indisputable, such is life.
but if it makes you feel better call it an opinion.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

[Giggle] 
Smugness fits you like a glove...just like Marc's ball &amp; chain

----------


## intertd6

> [Giggle] 
> Smugness fits you like a glove...just like Marc's ball &amp; chain

  not feeling better by the looks of it.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:  

> not feeling better by the looks of it.
> regards inter

  Can you see me?

----------


## intertd6

> :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
> Can you see me?

  thats not very likely, but anything is possible with an intelligent answer about the debate at hand.
regards inter

----------


## Marc

What is the attraction in the "Global warming" fallacy? The "Climate change" fraud? the "CO2 is bad for you" boldface lie? 
All have the allure of what I call the Robin Hood syndrome.  
For thousands of years, organised religion, folklore and storytellers have drummed into humanity that it is bad to be rich, the rich don't go to heaven, that rich are evil, also that poor are virtuous and happy when rich are oh so sad and guilty.
After so many years this concepts are part of our DNA. We believe it by default, we have adopted it as our moral standard knowingly or not. Even atheists marxist have bought into the idea. "Surplus value" or what the (bad) rich steal from the (virtuous) poor. 
What could be more attractive than an imaginary problem created by the bad rich  and that makes the virtuous poor suffer? 
You got it, man made (rich man) global warming fits perfectly with the Christian values, the marxist values and the ignorant and the ill informed values. 
So what does someone who believes the have, should give the the one that do not have?
He makes Robin Hood his hero! ... and anything that takes from the rich to give to the poor is embraced with gusto.
The so called "progressive" system of taxation is a direct result of the rich is evil and poor is virtuous concept or the result of the so called Robin Hood syndrome. 
The quest to "save the earth" is in fact a battle against the bad rich by the virtuous poor ...in disguise of course.
And of course most will not see it or admit it and all the possible variations are but a confirmation. I do it for our future, for the kids, for the one that have no voice, for justice etc. 
From a more pragmatic point of view, the Robin Hood syndrome is really just a juvenile tantrum, an immature fancy, a sport that is both impractical and morally bankrupt. 
Just like many other juvenile tantrums, they should pass at age 18 or so, yet they don't always do. 
It is my sincere hope that it will turn into a less damaging form of sport, or perhaps take a form that may have some use for the fringe dwellers that like to take but do not want to give. 
Time will tell.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I may have grown older but that wonderful diatribe will ensure I never grow up...here's to immature fancies. And moral bankruptcy.

----------


## woodbe

> I don't have a lot of trouble understanding questions, but I have  trouble answering loaded questions such as you post. In the spirit of  good faith, I will offer some answers for you despite the fact that you  decided to not answer my previous simple question. If you do your usual  put down without facts I probably won't respond to your posts in future.  the  facts have been been displayed ad nauseam previously, to which your  types have responded to with nothing resembling an overthrowing  argument! No graphs, no data, no nothing! Seeing the data proving my  argument has been posted numerous times, we all await eagerly for yours  & until that happens you have Buckley's chance of sucking me into  your red herring trap

  You are asking for facts yet you claim your own facts have been posted ad nauseum previously. Guess what, the facts you seek are already in this thread and have been posted ad nauseum.   

> Firstly, what is this 'uncontrollable heating' you speak of? Adding CO2  to the atmosphere will result in warming until the climate reaches a new  balance as a result of the forcings in play at that time.   Got some data or graphs for your claim?

  Already posted in this thread. See here: The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect 
Lets hear about your uncontrollable warming.   

> Do you wish to dispute that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming,  or do you wish to dispute that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes  runaway warming, or both?  i take that as another red herring!

  I take it as yet another question unanswered by the thread dodger.   

> I can think of a few facts for you for the warming case, not that it will help you hear something you do not want to hear. 
> 1. CO2 in high concentrations was part of a past climate. It was not  introduced into the climate system by us, we did not exist then. We have  added CO2 to a relatively stable climate system and the results are  playing out.  Got some data or graphs to back up your claim?

  Sure: Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   

> 2. Back when CO2 was in high concentrations in the past, the energy output of the sun was lower.  yes  we've heard that one ad nauseam & if you had thought about it a  little more deeply you would understand how stupid it is!

  And if you had a usable answer, you would have used it! Instead we see yet another play the man.   

> 3. Back when CO2 was in high concentrations in the past, the makeup of the climate forcings was not the same as it is now.  got some data or graphs to back up your claim?

     

> 4. Picking an instance in the past where CO2 was high yet temperatures  were low or dropping does not prove that raising CO2 concentrations in  the atmosphere now will not result in warming. That is called cherry  picking, and you are very good at it. Well done, but no cigar.   Thats the thing about what has actually happened, it trumps all the bizarre "what if" claims every time.

  Thanks for admitting it is a cherry pick. You're in good company with Plimer: Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?   

> No graphics for you

  Ok, I let you have one :Cool:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...but anything is possible with an intelligent answer about the debate at hand.

  Wanna bet?  
An intelligent answer solves nothing on its own.

----------


## intertd6

> You are asking for facts yet you claim your own facts have been posted ad nauseum previously. Guess what, the facts you seek are already in this thread and have been posted ad nauseum.  1.heck we are after the facts that haven't been shot down already, one itty bitty fact that disproves the past history that shows no correlation between warming & CO2 concentrations    Already posted in this thread. See here: The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect  2.see 1. above! 
> Lets hear about your uncontrollable warming.  3.Your trolling again, that's my question  I take it as yet another question unanswered by the thread dodger.  4.See 3. above  Sure: Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
> 5. Give me a hint of what mind altering substance I have to take to make sense of that last link!        6.That's gold! You parrot graph that has already been shot down that has nothing to do with proving CO2 causes warming, it is supposedly relevant to causing the onset of glacial periods ( which is clearly disproven by ice cores proving CO2 follows glacial period not precedes them )& as far as the suns increased output over the 150 m/y period to which I referred to, it's around 0.7% so as usual you have not addressed the question appropriately, as you can see for yourself there is no correlation to the period around 150 m/y , the increase in temperature, solar forcing & falling CO2 levels. I thought the light was on & nobody at home, but your really didn't have to prove it again   Thanks for admitting it is a cherry pick. You're in good company with Plimer: Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?  7.See 6. Above    Ok, I let you have one

  one little fact that hasn't been shot down already is what were after, parroting the worn out stuff doesn't really cut it in any bodies world!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Sure: Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
> 5. Give me a hint of what mind altering substance I have to take to make sense of that last link!

  My claim was:  1. CO2 in high concentrations was part of a past climate. It was not   introduced into the climate system by us, we did not exist then. We have   added CO2 to a relatively stable climate system and the results are   playing out. 
The link clearly shows that Humans have only been on this planet for a couple of hundred thousand years. You don't need any mind altering substances to understand that.    

> 6.That's gold! You parrot graph that has already  been shot down that has nothing to do with proving CO2 causes warming,  it is supposedly relevant to causing the onset of glacial periods (  which is clearly disproven by ice cores proving CO2 follows glacial  period not precedes them )& as far as the suns increased output over  the 150 m/y period to which I referred to, it's around 0.7% so as usual  you have not addressed the question appropriately, as you can see for  yourself there is no correlation to the period around 150 m/y , the  increase in temperature, solar forcing & falling CO2 levels. I  thought the light was on & nobody at home, but your really didn't  have to prove it again

  Lol. You've shot your bolt.  :Biggrin:  
Here was your question:   

> 3. Back when CO2 was in high concentrations in the past, the makeup of the climate forcings was not the same as it is now.  got some data or graphs to back up your claim?

  The graph clearly shows considerable variation in Sun + CO2 forcing over time. You on the other hand have assumed it was an answer to some other question. It may be, but I presented it as an example that the makeup of climate forcings changes over time.  
Inter, you are clearly not interested in sensible discussion. I'm not going to descend to your level of playing the man. You've asked a loaded question and you won't field questions about it, that is not a discussion, that's trolling. No more responses from me, try someone else.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## intertd6

> My claim was:  1. CO2 in high concentrations was part of a past climate. It was not   introduced into the climate system by us, we did not exist then. We have   added CO2 to a relatively stable climate system and the results are   playing out. 
> The link clearly shows that Humans have only been on this planet for a couple of hundred thousand years. You don't need any mind altering substances to understand that.  And yet you still can't just get your head around the facts that the fluctuations of CO2 has followed warming phases since time began, whether present mankind is producing CO2 ( which nobody is disputing! ) is irrelevant just like the need for you to pad out your post with it!    Lol. You've shot your bolt.  
> Here was your question:    The graph clearly shows considerable variation in Sun + CO2 forcing over time. You on the other hand have assumed it was an answer to some other question. It may be, but I presented it as an example that the makeup of climate forcings changes over time.   You really need to understand what your parroting, just because you got it off a biased AGW site with dubious editorial censorship doesn't really cut it in the real world! It has been simply disproven with ice cores showing CO2 increases follow warming phases and the truly unbelievable imagination that a 0.6% change in solar energy  plunged the globe into ice ages, the accuracy of the graph to discern a change of 0.6% in solar energy change 300 my ago is highly unlikely, but you found it on the internet so it must be true!
> If you had taken the time to look at the forcings in the maximum periods & compared that with the temperature record data there was no uncontrollable warming that burnt the earth to a crisp but instead created a climate which was ideal for vigorous  life on earth.  
> Inter, you are clearly not interested in sensible discussion. I'm not going to descend to your level of playing the man. You've asked a loaded question and you won't field questions about it, that is not a discussion, that's trolling. No more responses from me, try someone else.    Just present some facts then ( new ) & try not assuming were all idiots willing to swallow the same stuff you do.

  regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Wanna bet?  
> An intelligent answer solves nothing on its own.

  its a fairly good place to start! just to much of a reach for some though.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> its a fairly good place to start! just to much of a reach for some though.

  In my experience, it is far better to start with an intelligent question...and a measure of respect for the response, regardless of intelligence or conformance with preconceptions. 
That also seems a stretch these days...even sadly for me. <sigh>

----------


## intertd6

> In my experience, it is far better to start with an intelligent question...and a measure of respect for the response, regardless of intelligence or conformance with preconceptions. 
> That also seems a stretch these days...even sadly for me. <sigh>

  
  Re: Emission Trading
 Originally Posted by intertd6 
...but anything is possible with an intelligent answer about the debate at hand. 
The reply 
"Wanna bet?   
An intelligent answer solves nothing on its own." 
I rest my case! 
Any wonder sarcasm is the common ammunition to deal with the ridiculous!
regards inter

----------


## johnc

Actually sarcasm is just the lowest form of wit let's not get ahead of ourselves shall we.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

You're so clever...I just can't help but to bow down to your Godly intellect  
Yep. You're right. Sarcasm works.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Can we lock this thread now? 
Now that's what I call an intelligent question.

----------


## John2b

> Can we lock this thread now? 
> Now that's what I call an intelligent question.

  The thread could be locked with a proviso that if the Planet's surface entropy ever reduces or the effect of CO2 is ever shown to be a non-contributor to global warming, that the thread open again for the righteous to tell us what a scam we all believed in. Of course, there's no chance the righteous will ever have the opportunity, so they will consider it unfair to lock the thread.

----------


## intertd6

> The thread could be locked with a proviso that if the Planet's surface entropy ever reduces or the effect of CO2 is ever shown to be a non-contributor to global warming, that the thread open again for the righteous to tell us what a scam we all believed in. Of course, there's no chance the righteous will ever have the opportunity, so they will consider it unfair to lock the thread.

  Who has ever said CO2 is a non contributor to global warming?
I switched off to the rest of it because it reminded me of a kiddies tantrum, with them wanting to take their bat & ball & go home!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Who has ever said CO2 is a non contributor to global warming?

  Someone did here:   

> I can't speak for anyone but myself, obviously there seems to be a clear link between industrialisation & a warming trend, obviously though through past CO2 levels & temperatures shows that CO2 didn't drive temperatures preceding a warming period, *obviously to link CO2 to this warming period it has to be proven why it would suddenly be so, when it never has been so*.
> regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Someone did here:

  Hmm, shows the thought pattern precisely.

----------


## John2b

> Hmm, shows the thought pattern precisely.

  Yes. Check the facts (as opposed to the anecdotes) to see if a claim is supported. That's what a sceptic does.

----------


## woodbe

> Yes. Check the facts (as opposed to the anecdotes) to see if a claim is supported. That's what a sceptic does.

  Yep. And the fake sceptics? They just run the same debunked memes without adding anything useful to the debate. 
Seeing as we seem to be down to just two sceptics who seem to be incapable of reasonable debate, I agree with SBD. Might as well lock it.  :Cool:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Seeing as we seem to be down to just two sceptics who seem to be incapable of reasonable debate, I agree with SBD. Might as well lock it.

  You forgot Marc.   :Shock:  
Quick!  Lock it before he gets back!!!   :Fingerscrossed:  :Monkey dance:

----------


## Rod Dyson

Don't be so quick to lock it up.  There is a lot of unravelling to do yet. 
Here is another convert from the church of globull warming.   

> If one would have asked statistician Caleb Rossiter a decade ago about global warming, he says he would have given the same answer that President Barack Obama offered at a recent commencement address.   
> He castigated people who dont believe in climate catastrophe as some sort of major fools, Rossiter says of the presidents speech, adding he would have agreed with the president  back then. 
> But Rossiter would give a different answer today. 
> I am simply someone who became convinced that the claims of certainty about the cause of the warming and the effect of the warming were tremendously and irresponsibly overblown, he said in an exclusive interview Tuesday with The College Fix. I am not someone who says there wasnt warming and it doesnt have an effect, I just cannot figure out why so many people believe that it is a catastrophic threat to our society and to Africa. 
> For this belief  based in a decades worth of statistical research and analysis on climate change data  Rossiter was recently terminated as an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive Washington D.C. think tank. 
>  
> I think they believe  that you give legitimacy to the denialists if you debate them, Rossiter adds. I think thats a terrible idea.  At IPS, like many other places, people dont want to debate it because they have this funny statement that, and Mr. Obama repeats it every time he opens his mouth, the debate is over. I have never heard a more remarkable statement in my life about anything. 
>  
> So there is really two big statistical questions: what caused the little warming, and what effect did the warming have on these other climate variables? he said. I am a pretty decent statistician, I have taught for many, many years. The data that support the headlines are very, very weak, very, very notional, and simply not logical. 
> ...

  My bolding  :Smilie:  
Oh just in case you would like to read the entire article http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/18034/

----------


## intertd6

Originally Posted by intertd6 
Who has ever said CO2 is a non contributor to global warming?
Someone did here:  
 Originally Posted by intertd6 
I can't speak for anyone but myself, obviously there seems to be a clear link between industrialisation & a warming trend, obviously though through past CO2 levels & temperatures shows that CO2 didn't drive temperatures preceding a warming period, obviously to link CO2 to this warming period it has to be proven why it would suddenly be so, when it never has been so.
regards inter  
Tell me what substance I have to take to think that those two statements mean the exact same thing?
its back to the ridiculous already!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

Woodly said
"No more responses from me" 
seeing your back maybe you might have a fresh fact tucked under your armpit you can parrot!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Don't be so quick to lock it up.  There is a lot of unravelling to do yet. 
> Here is another convert from the church of globull warming.   
> My bolding  
> Oh just in case you would like to read the entire article http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/18034/

  So I read the whole article (in a right wing blog, BTW) and it is pretty much a fact free zone. If Rossiter is right, he should publish and get in the queue for his Nobel Prize. But it's clear he doesn't have much of a clue (hint - maybe why he got sacked!) Look at his own web page and you will see in his professional career an absence of engagement with the climate debate. Dr. Caleb Rossiter @ Curriculum Vitae In fact his only publication about it is an attack on Al Gore, not science. Why I Flunked Al Gore I have never seen "An Inconvenient Truth" so I am not in a position to comment. 
Rod, sorry, but he is not a convert and adds nothing to the debate. But as "sceptic" who wouldn't take a claim at face value, you would know that already.  :Wink:

----------


## John2b

> Woodly said
> "No more responses from me" 
> seeing your back maybe you might have a fresh fact tucked under your armpit you can parrot!
> regards inter

  Hint: People not taking substances to think can comprehend that Woodbe said he would not respond to _you_, so unless _you_ think _you_ are are the whole Emission Trading forum, he hasn't altered his position, at least yet.

----------


## intertd6

> Hint: People not taking substances to think can comprehend that Woodbe said he would not respond to _you_, so unless _you_ think _you_ are are the whole Emission Trading forum, he hasn't altered his position, at least yet.

  obviously it seems I haven't taken enough.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> So I read the whole article (in a right wing blog, BTW) and it is pretty much a fact free zone. If Rossiter is right, he should publish and get in the queue for his Nobel Prize. But it's clear he doesn't have much of a clue (hint - maybe why he got sacked!) Look at his own web page and you will see in his professional career an absence of engagement with the climate debate. Dr. Caleb Rossiter @ Curriculum Vitae In fact his only publication about it is an attack on Al Gore, not science. Why I Flunked Al Gore I have never seen "An Inconvenient Truth" so I am not in a position to comment. 
> Rod, sorry, but he is not a convert and adds nothing to the debate. But as "sceptic" who wouldn't take a claim at face value, you would know that already.

  it is highly amusing, any normal type can read & assess the information then understand what has happened, the guy has upset their apple cart, that's what happens when one of the "yes men" say "hang on..... No, that's not right" Nobody would expect them to give him a pay rise, promotion & a glowing recommendation when upsetting the status quo, definitely shows some spine in a invertebrate type environment. 
One persons heretic is another's hero. 
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> the guy has upset their apple cart, that's what happens when one of the "yes men" say "hang on..... No, that's not right"

  No, he is just a bad statistician. Don't need to count upset apple carts to understand that and in fact there aren't any upset apple carts anyway, for the non-mind altered observer.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So I read the whole article (in a right wing blog, BTW) and it is pretty much a fact free zone. If Rossiter is right, he should publish and get in the queue for his Nobel Prize. But it's clear he doesn't have much of a clue (hint - maybe why he got sacked!) Look at his own web page and you will see in his professional career an absence of engagement with the climate debate. Dr. Caleb Rossiter @ Curriculum Vitae In fact his only publication about it is an attack on Al Gore, not science. Why I Flunked Al Gore I have never seen "An Inconvenient Truth" so I am not in a position to comment. 
> Rod, sorry, but he is not a convert and adds nothing to the debate. But as "sceptic" who wouldn't take a claim at face value, you would know that already.

  He he he he I love the way you guys attack the man.  
It is gold so predictable I gives me a a belly laugh every time. 
I will sleep well tonight LOL still laughing.

----------


## intertd6

> No, he is just a bad statistician. Don't need to count upset apple carts to understand that and in fact there aren't any upset apple carts anyway, for the non-mind altered observer.

  I suppose if you were a professor with particular skills in statistics & had the ability to asses his theory as false that could be a fair call, or have parliamentary privilege! The likelihood of either would be a bet I'd have money on!  
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> He he he he I love the way you guys attack the man.  
> It is gold so predictable I gives me a a belly laugh every time. 
> I will sleep well tonight LOL still laughing.

  Wrong. Laugh all you like but I didn't even comment on the great body of his work. I only commented on the obvious flaws in his ideologically driven nonsense on climate change which is based on a starting premise that "it can't be so". Like I said, a sceptic (i.e. someone who wants to know the truth) doesn't take things at face value.  
Until such time that the climate "sceptics" on this forum actually show some true scepticism, there will be a continuing propensity to post stuff that is laughably easily shown to be nonsense. It's rather sad for an "grown up" forum.

----------


## Marc

> He he he he I love the way you guys attack the man.  
> It is gold so predictable I gives me a a belly laugh every time. 
> I will sleep well tonight LOL still laughing.

  It is predictably pathetic and it is the same strategy everywhere you turn in the labor, leftie, greenie alien planet.  
As we prepare to "save the world" even further unless we can repel this carbon tax nonsense, dhs is sending UP TO $70,000 in compensation to "victims of terrorism" This "victims" are age pensioners who have returned to their country of origin (the dog returns to his vomit quote comes to mind) and have been living there for a decade and find themselves in a war waged by their relatives and we are "compensating " them .. lovely right? Labor legislation. I wonder which side are we subsidising?  
Harp on as much as you wish, the gravy train and the green nonsense is on shaky ground at great last.

----------


## John2b

> As we prepare to "save the world" even further unless we can repel this carbon tax nonsense, Centrelink is sending UP TO $70,000 in compensation to "victims of terrorism" This "victims" are age pensioners who have returned to their country of origin (the dog returns to his vomit quote comes to mind) and have been living there for a decade and find themselves in a war waged by their relatives and we are "compensating " them .. lovely right? Labor legislation. I wonder which side are we subsiding?

  What is the relevance of your vitriolic outburst to the topic of this forum, which is about responses to anthropogenic induced climate change? 
(Perhaps you should take a couple of Bex and have a lie down before you give yourself a seizure.)

----------


## Marc

Ah the outrage! What's the "relevance"... ha ha ha 
I tell you for your benefit a b or c and would be assorted sympathisers. This thread is called "EMISSION TRADING" and by extension about the carbon tax. 
Emission trading or carbon tax are both a POLITICAL topic. So in essence we are talking about who is against the carbon tax, (the right) and who is in favour of a carbon tax (the left). 
We could engage in speculations about WHY this is so, even when it is rather obvious. The right does not want to spend even more money for an out there pretend non existing problem, the left is happy to push this wheelbarrow since they do not pay for anything anyway, live off "entitlements" and welcome any out there methods for squeezing more money towards whatever cause that helps in shifting power and resources towards them. 
The "science" the hokeyshtick and other cr@p is just a pretense, a way to somehow justify this fraud. 
Let's keep it simple, the left wants to be in power and also wants the right to pay for that. 
Global warming? what global warming?

----------


## intertd6

Ahh that's right! The inconvenient truths will alway come back to haunt the huggers of all things on the fringe of reality.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> It is predictably pathetic and it is the same strategy everywhere you turn in the labor, leftie, greenie alien planet.  
> As we prepare to "save the world" even further unless we can repel this carbon tax nonsense, Centrelink is sending UP TO $70,000 in compensation to "victims of terrorism" This "victims" are age pensioners who have returned to their country of origin (the dog returns to his vomit quote comes to mind) and have been living there for a decade and find themselves in a war waged by their relatives and we are "compensating " them .. lovely right? Labor legislation. I wonder which side are we subsiding?  
> Harp on as much as you wish, the gravy train and the green nonsense is on shaky ground at great last.

  Factually incorrect Centrelink does not pay compensation payments, Australians residents though who return to their country of birth are sometimes entitled to continue to receive a pension the same as other over 65"s born here, who have paid their taxes in this country and decided to live elsewhere. This is racist, irrelevant and not "Labor" legislation nor LNP either but an amalgamation of legislative change by all parties over decades the vomit line is morally reprehensible.

----------


## johnc

> Ahh that's right! The inconvenient truths will alway come back to haunt the huggers of all things on the fringe of reality.
> regards inter

   I actually don't think your flag waving for racist overtones and political lies does anyone a service here let's support decency regardless of side and maintain basic civility.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Ahh that's right! The inconvenient truths will alway come back to haunt the huggers of all things on the fringe of reality.
> regards inter

  can I hug your reality? it might make it a nicer place.

----------


## intertd6

> can I hug your reality? it might make it a nicer place.

  one persons reality is another's illusion caused by the lack of mind altering substances. From the past records its fairly obvious that reality is a dream too far away.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Ah the outrage! What's the "relevance"... ha ha ha

  Apparently no relevance, or at least none demonstrated in another post of more vitriolic ideological bashing. Go take that Bex before you suffer a mental meltdown all of your own making.

----------


## Marc

> Factually incorrect Centrelink does not pay compensation payments, Australians residents though who return to their country of birth are sometimes entitled to continue to receive a pension the same as other over 65"s born here, who have paid their taxes in this country and decided to live elsewhere. This is racist, irrelevant and not "Labor" legislation nor LNP either but an amalgamation of legislative change by all parties over decades the vomit line is morally reprehensible.

  I see.
If I can correlate the "accuracy" of this reply to the other replies of yours, I am afraid you get a very low score. 
Age pension is paid to those over 65 who have 10 years of working life residency (working is a bit of a joke, just bodily functions is enough) or more in Australia, or ... are refugees.
The way the refugee status was determined by the lunatics in charge of immigration for 6 years has produced a score of people who not only have never worked, but did not even live here for one year, sometimes not one month and, you guessed it, go straight to the age pension. 
This perls of humanity, live here at our expenses and sometimes decide that we are not worth it and go back to the hole they came in the first place, clearly demonstrating that the status of refuge was mistakenly given since they are not fleeing the country in fear of their life but just shopping around for a place that will pay their living expenses. 
Only they can do so, any other age pensioner is subject to a strict test of portability of the pension that progressively reduces the rate according to how many years the person has lived in the country. The number of years changes, and at last count I think it is 30 years below age 65 for full rate and down from there. Not so if you are a "refugee" status that is never lost. 
Refugees, once given a resident visa, go back to their country of origin also for holidays, (remember refugee, fleeing in fear of their life?) 
But the most outrageous and little known payment from dhs must be the way the compensation to victims of terrorism is being mishandled. Up to $70,000 is possible to be claimed  by those who, like the Bali bombing victims, are the subject of terrorism attacks, yet since we hardly had any Australian resident victims of terrorism attacks since then, and gladly so, the payments now go to people who lived here some time in the past, decided to go back to their country and find themselves in the crossfire of a sectarian war of their own making. If you think that is right, you have something else coming.  
And yes, this is a thread entitled, Emission trading. A political thread in relation to a political tax somehow degenerated into a pseudo scientific thread, but is is nevertheless a political thread to do with tax. The left loves the tax, the right rightly does not want to pay for it due to it's uselessness

----------


## Marc

Liberal Quiz - What Kind of Liberal Are You? - Political Identity Quiz

----------


## John2b

> Liberal Quiz - What Kind of Liberal Are You? - Political Identity Quiz

  Apparently I am:
"... a _Reality-Based Intellectualist_, also known as the liberal elite. You are a proud member of what's known as the reality-based community, where science, reason, and non-Jesus-centric thought reign supreme."

----------


## Marc

Conservative Quiz - What Kind of Conservative Are You? - Political Identity Quiz  
My result:  You are a _Free Marketeer_, also known as a fiscal conservative. 
You believe in free-market capitalism, tax cuts, and protecting your hard-earned cash from pick-pocketing liberal socialists.    :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Wink 1:  :2thumbsup:

----------


## intertd6

What is truly remarkable is the ability of the AGW crowd here to throw red herrings in to deflect the debate away from the useless pursuit of paying a carbon tax as a means of reducing CO2, which will never happen, especially when in a global market the investment strategies will be 2 steps in front of the flat footed pollies, shifting to places they will never have to pay it.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> What is truly remarkable is the ability of the AGW crowd here to throw red herrings in to deflect the debate away from the useless pursuit of paying a carbon tax as a means of reducing CO2, which will never happen, especially when in a global market the investment strategies will be 2 steps in front of the flat footed pollies, shifting to places they will never have to pay it.
> regards inter

  You do realise that if Australia repeals it's "carbon tax" Qantas et al will be penalised when operating in Europe and other places that impose a levy on businesses operating from a country without a carbon abatement scheme, don't you? The money they don't pay in Australia as their "carbon tax" contribution will be paid instead to other jurisdictions, thus exporting wealth from the Australian economy to other countries. How dumb is that? 
Oh, and are you disregarding the significant reduction in Australia's CO2 emissions as a result of the current scheme? The scheme has been really effective in reducing Australia's CO2 emissions, but the Abbott government wants to repeal it which will disadvantage Australian companies such as Qantas that operate in other markets. How dumb is that?

----------


## intertd6

> You do realise that if Australia repeals it's "carbon tax" Qantas et al will be penalised when operating in Europe and other places that impose a levy on businesses operating from a country without a carbon abatement scheme, don't you? The money they don't pay in Australia as their "carbon tax" contribution will be paid instead to other jurisdictions, thus exporting wealth from the Australian economy to other countries. How dumb is that? 
> Oh, and are you disregarding the significant reduction in Australia's CO2 emissions as a result of the current scheme? The scheme has been really effective in reducing Australia's CO2 emissions, but the Abbott government wants to repeal it which will disadvantage Australian companies such as Qantas that operate in other markets. How dumb is that?

  You will have to enlighten us on how this will be possible with trade agreements & Australia being a member of the world trade organisation? I can tell you now that with our imports from the EU being double that of exports we can tax their goods more & boost our manufacturing if they don't like it!
still no facts I notice on the CO2 debate?
they could be really dumb and try to tax other nations that don't have a carbon tax either but those nations would be the ones that supply them with their energy, raw materials & cheap goods, how dumb would that be?
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> I see.
> If I can correlate the "accuracy" of this reply to the other replies of yours, I am afraid you get a very low score. 
> Age pension is paid to those over 65 who have 10 years of working life residency (working is a bit of a joke, just bodily functions is enough) or more in Australia, or ... are refugees.
> The way the refugee status was determined by the lunatics in charge of immigration for 6 years has produced a score of people who not only have never worked, but did not even live here for one year, sometimes not one month and, you guessed it, go straight to the age pension. 
> This perls of humanity, live here at our expenses and sometimes decide that we are not worth it and go back to the hole they came in the first place, clearly demonstrating that the status of refuge was mistakenly given since they are not fleeing the country in fear of their life but just shopping around for a place that will pay their living expenses. 
> Only they can do so, any other age pensioner is subject to a strict test of portability of the pension that progressively reduces the rate according to how many years the person has lived in the country. The number of years changes, and at last count I think it is 30 years below age 65 for full rate and down from there. Not so if you are a "refugee" status that is never lost. 
> Refugees, once given a resident visa, go back to their country of origin also for holidays, (remember refugee, fleeing in fear of their life?) 
> But the most outrageous and little known payment from dhs must be the way the compensation to victims of terrorism is being mishandled. Up to $70,000 is possible to be claimed  by those who, like the Bali bombing victims, are the subject of terrorism attacks, yet since we hardly had any Australian resident victims of terrorism attacks since then, and gladly so, the payments now go to people who lived here some time in the past, decided to go back to their country and find themselves in the crossfire of a sectarian war of their own making. If you think that is right, you have something else coming.  
> And yes, this is a thread entitled, Emission trading. A political thread in relation to a political tax somehow degenerated into a pseudo scientific thread, but is is nevertheless a political thread to do with tax. The left loves the tax, the right rightly does not want to pay for it due to it's uselessness

  Unadulterated rubbish, it is $75,000 only payable to Australian citizens and cannot predate 2011. That leftie leaning green communist Mr Tony Abbott has an amendment going through parliament though that will backdate it to 2001 (dragging in Bali) and if it gets up then it will apply to those effected in that terrorist incident. Were on earth do you get this distorted nonsense from? up the pub or an internet site populated by liars and idiots ? By the way if you want to score someone you need to know your subject first. Good to see you have had a look at the Centrelink site you actually have most of that right only it isn't relevant to the post I replied to. :No:

----------


## johnc

> You will have to enlighten us on how this will be possible with trade agreements & Australia being a member of the world trade organisation? I can tell you now that with our imports from the EU being double that of exports we can tax their goods more & boost our manufacturing if they don't like it!
> still no facts I notice on the CO2 debate?
> they could be really dumb and try to tax other nations that don't have a carbon tax either but those nations would be the ones that supply them with their energy, raw materials & cheap goods, how dumb would that be?
> regards inter

  It doesn't actually work like that you need to take into account double tax agreements and our capacity to manufacture replacement goods. There are also mechanisms to dismantle certain trade barriers. I'd have a look at the real numbers and the type of goods we import. We have also been the victim of dumping from Europe and have had some underhand dealings ourselves. Sounds simple but not politically doable.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You do realise that if Australia repeals it's "carbon tax" Qantas et al will be penalised when operating in Europe and other places that impose a levy on businesses operating from a country without a carbon abatement scheme, don't you? The money they don't pay in Australia as their "carbon tax" contribution will be paid instead to other jurisdictions, thus exporting wealth from the Australian economy to other countries. How dumb is that? 
> Oh, and are you disregarding the significant reduction in Australia's CO2 emissions as a result of the current scheme? The scheme has been really effective in reducing Australia's CO2 emissions, but the Abbott government wants to repeal it which will disadvantage Australian companies such as Qantas that operate in other markets. How dumb is that?

  LOL so two wrongs make a right LMAO 
Great logic

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> LOL so two wrongs make a right LMAO 
> Great logic

  ...and so the world turns.

----------


## John2b

> You will have to enlighten us on how this will be possible with trade agreements & Australia being a member of the world trade organisation?
> regards inter

  It's old news for those who want to understand these things. 2011:  Qantas will have to raise international airfares to Europe from January next year after the European Union penalised the airline because Australia does not have a price on greenhouse gas emissions.  Under changes to the EU's emissions trading scheme, Qantas would be forced to pay a tax on 15 per cent of its carbon emissions from its nearest port of call, the national carrier told a meeting of business leaders in Canberra this week.  This means flights to ports as far away as Singapore and Bangkok would be taxed under a "border tax" adjustment contained in the EU scheme.  Qantas confirmed it would be hit by the impost, The Weekend Australian reported on Saturday. 
Read more: Qantas | Airfares | Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike

----------


## Marc

> Unadulterated rubbish, it is $75,000 only payable to Australian citizens and cannot predate 2011. That leftie leaning green communist Mr Tony Abbott has an amendment going through parliament though that will backdate it to 2001 (dragging in Bali) and if it gets up then it will apply to those effected in that terrorist incident. Were on earth do you get this distorted nonsense from? up the pub or an internet site populated by liars and idiots ? By the way if you want to score someone you need to know your subject first. Good to see you have had a look at the Centrelink site you actually have most of that right only it isn't relevant to the post I replied to.

  As usual, quality time with John ab or c. 
You see mr John, when you say I am wrong, it is important that you say chapter and verse WHERE I am wrong and WHY.  
The AVTOP is being paid as we speak to foreigners who happen to have had some bowel movements here and were given a visa as a birthday gift and a pension for life by the taxpayer and went to live permanently in their hole of origin. They of course are registered as on holiday to maximise their "entitlements" and have a valid medicare card to come back and have free medical treatment. When hostilities between cousins break up, they lodge a claim. See they ARE australian "resident" and don't need to be citizens.
The backdating of the act will make it possible to pay people who were actually victims of terrorism like US 11/09/01 or bali in october 2012 and not just ex bodily functions in exile choosing to live in the heart of the problem and testing the ropes and shaking the tree to see if something falls out and may be collect some money to buy more RPG for cousin it.  
The lax border protection and the demented lack of real check for illegal arrivals will have negative repercussions for all Australians for generations to come and we owe that to demented Labor and demented Greens plus demented "independent". 
By the way w h ere if it is referring to place is spelled with an "H" and if something affects somebody it is spelled with an "A" as in affectionate.  If the legislation takes effect from 2001 rather than 2011 then it will probably affect more real victims than if it takes effect from 2011 where hardly anyone was effectively affected ...effectively and affectionately speaking that is.  
And yes, all my knowledge of this and other few hundred of court cases I know of, come all from the pub. hehe  good try... best luck next time. 
PS
As far as relevance, yes, it is relevant that political actions of stupid persuasion, have repercussions in the most unexpected places, effectively affecting our wallet so much so that taxpayers (real taxpayers not virtual ones) now all have to pay once more for benefits not received by us, dished out by governments not voted in by us, and now after election won, have to tolerate criticism by those who created the problem in the belief they are riding on a white horse the high moral ground dwelling in the eternal white marble tower of virtue and victimhood....I suppose the white horse stays below though, can not climb the stone steps up to the tower.

----------


## Marc

> It's old news for those who want to understand these things. 2011:Qantas will have to raise international airfares to Europe from January next year after the European Union penalised the airline because Australia does not have a price on greenhouse gas emissions.  Under changes to the EU's emissions trading scheme, Qantas would be forced to pay a tax on 15 per cent of its carbon emissions from its nearest port of call, the national carrier told a meeting of business leaders in Canberra this week.  This means flights to ports as far away as Singapore and Bangkok would be taxed under a "border tax" adjustment contained in the EU scheme.  Qantas confirmed it would be hit by the impost, The Weekend Australian reported on Saturday.

   And that proves once more that the global warming fraud is a POLITICAL fraud and has nothing to do with climate. A bit like the division 293 tax, that has nothing to do with tax and everything to do with "rich is evil" mantra.

----------


## intertd6

> It's old news for those who want to understand these things. 2011: Qantas will have to raise international airfares to Europe from January next year after the European Union penalised the airline because Australia does not have a price on greenhouse gas emissions.  Under changes to the EU's emissions trading scheme, Qantas would be forced to pay a tax on 15 per cent of its carbon emissions from its nearest port of call, the national carrier told a meeting of business leaders in Canberra this week.  This means flights to ports as far away as Singapore and Bangkok would be taxed under a "border tax" adjustment contained in the EU scheme.  Qantas confirmed it would be hit by the impost, The Weekend Australian reported on Saturday. 
> Read more: Qantas | Airfares | Carbon penalty forces Qantas airfare hike

  what clown doesn't know that this tax has been dumped because of pressure from nations that these other idiots get their fuel from! 
Egg on your face again! And still no new facts about CO2 being a major driver of uncontrollable global heating  
Regards inter

----------


## johnc

> what clown doesn't know that this tax has been dumped because of pressure from nations that these other idiots get their fuel from! 
> Egg on your face again! And still no new facts about CO2 being a major driver of uncontrollable global heating  
> Regards inter

  That would imply that Tony Abbott is a little boy that dances to the tunes other nation set for him. Repealing the tax I think you will find was his idea, so where is the evidence that there was pressure from other nations and who are these idiots and clowns you seem to think so highly of. Vague outlandish and unsupported claims really are a waste of time, hang on isn't that your main complaint of others?  :Doh:

----------


## John2b

> And still no new facts about CO2 being a major driver of uncontrollable global heating

  The existing facts are more than enough  :Sneaktongue:

----------


## intertd6

> That would imply that Tony Abbott is a little boy that dances to the tunes other nation set for him. Repealing the tax I think you will find was his idea, so where is the evidence that there was pressure from other nations and who are these idiots and clowns you seem to think so highly of. Vague outlandish and unsupported claims really are a waste of time, hang on isn't that your main complaint of others?

  your trolling again, what are you on about?
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> The existing facts are more than enough

  they sure are! They aren't yours though. Pity you can't provide some as requested.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Conservative Quiz - What Kind of Conservative Are You? - Political Identity Quiz  
> My result:  You are a _Free Marketeer_, also known as a fiscal conservative. 
> You believe in free-market capitalism, tax cuts, and protecting your hard-earned cash from pick-pocketing liberal socialists.

  Informed capitalists will make a killing out of future human induced climate variability:  This isn't about politics, this is about investing. That is something that the 2,000-plus people who commented on our first such discussion missed. In ``Global Warming Battle Is Over Market Share, Not Science,'' we looked at the market competition driven by climate change. The science is settled, with the debate left to the trolls, conspiracy theorists, and corporate shills who much prefer to repeat thoroughly discredited memes than to discuss market share or investment-related issues. As I am fond of pointing out, someone has to be on the money-losing side of the trade, and it might as well be the anti-science crowd. Call it Darwins revenge: Ignorance as an evolutionary adaptive failure.  The Losing Bet on Climate Change - Bloomberg View

----------


## John2b

For the "there's been no global warming since..." crowd:  The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2014 was record highest...  http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-may-breaks-global-temperature-record-1.2684615

----------


## johnc

> your trolling again, what are you on about?
> regards inter

  You are making silly allegations you can't support, I guess if you can't defend you can only attack.

----------


## intertd6

> You are making silly allegations you can't support, I guess if you can't defend you can only attack.

  how about simply answering the question? So we know what your on.................. about!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> For the "there's been no global warming since..." crowd:  The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2014 was record highest...  http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-may-breaks-global-temperature-record-1.2684615

  
And............? Has that has changed the fact that there has been no increase in global warming averages since 1998? 
And no new facts from you, except some more red herrings, there is that much meringue on your face it's a wonder you can see where your going! 
Regards inter

----------


## John2b

> And............? Has that has changed the fact that there has been no increase in global warming averages since 1998?

  Of course you can't calculate an average up to the present, because you need historical data, but here is the eleven year running average for as far forward as can be calculated. *FACT: Global warming averages continue to soar unabated*...

----------


## intertd6

> Of course you can't calculate an average up to the present, because you need historical data, but here is the eleven year running average for as far forward as can be calculated. *FACT: Global warming averages continue to soar unabated*...

  Not that graph again! Are you just trying to insult our intelligence? Something new is what we need, not the usual well worn out tripe you trot out.
regards inter

----------


## Marc

> Informed capitalists will make a killing out of future human induced climate variability:This isn't about politics, this is about investing. That is something that the 2,000-plus people who commented on our first such discussion missed. In ``Global Warming Battle Is Over Market Share, Not Science,'' we looked at the market competition driven by climate change. The science is settled, with the debate left to the trolls, conspiracy theorists, and corporate shills who much prefer to repeat thoroughly discredited memes than to discuss market share or investment-related issues. As I am fond of pointing out, someone has to be on the money-losing side of the trade, and it might as well be the anti-science crowd. Call it Darwins revenge: Ignorance as an evolutionary adaptive failure.  The Losing Bet on Climate Change - Bloomberg View

   
It has always been about anything else but the "science". Think about it. What would you do if you are unhappy about how the money is distributed and who makes the decisions? You create a threat. 
Done at nauseam by everyone in power from time immemorial. The threat was against the nation, the religion, the culture, the race, the language, the integrity of the land, the "need" to conquer more land etc etc. 
The more modern way to create a threat, not that the above are no longer used, they are, is the threat against commerce/economy and more recently against the most unimaginable and creative of them all... "our" climate.   
A fabricated threat, of course needs a fabricated solution or "saviour" and a source of money to be spend to cure the new created ailment. 
What you are pointing out is simply a part of this fabrication. Climate variations are in my view purely natural, but such is irrelevant in this case. Climate affects the economy and has done so for millennia. Religious leaders have forever told the farmers that their crop failure was due to their sins and a way for God to punish them. This modern day finger wagging is no different. Not that the crop failure or the affected economy is not real, it is, just that the reasons are squed to redirect the fixing to a desired target.  
We must go solar to save the sharemarket or it is the bad capitalist who will lose and rightly so since they are the bad guys who created the problem, Sweet justice, sinners repent or the wrath of God will wipe you off the face of the earth to restore the natural balance" wa wa wa wa 
I particularly like the parting shot of the above imbecile author who ends with   

> As I am fond of pointing out, someone has to be on the money-losing side of the trade, and it might as well be the anti-science crowd. Call it Darwins revenge: Ignorance as an evolutionary adaptive failure.

  As if the warmist had anything to do with investing and building, the average warmist is unemployed on the take from the government or a paid agitator chained to a bulldozer to prevent something to be built. Of course the losing side is and will always be the one that pays and builds and invest and that is every time the conservative who has no inclination to change towards an irrational redistribution of resources to fix what does not need to be fixed.

----------


## John2b

> Not that graph again! Are you just trying to insult our intelligence? Something new is what we need, not the usual well worn out tripe you trot out.
> regards inter

  Spare the bluster and insults, Inter, is does not reflect well on you. How about you contribute to the discussion, rather than just throwing bucket loads of manure at people you don't agree with? 
Facts do not wear out, BTW. Even if I had posted this graph previously, which I haven't, it would still show correctly what has actually happened up to that point in time.

----------


## John2b

> As if the warmist had anything to do with investing and building...

  Er... Tim Cook, the CEO of the world's largest and most successful corporation, Apple, is a "warmist" who has told climate change deniers "to get out of (Apple) stock". 
The CEO of the world's second largest corporation Exxon Mobil, Rex Tillerson, has said in response to questions at at last years shareholder meeting "I think ... climate change as a serious issue, it does present serious risk. The engineered solutions side of that isIll maybe biased because Im an engineer and work in a company there is full of scientist and engineers. I have enormous faith in our technologys ability to find solutions as they present themselves to us which will be a combination of mitigation and adaptation." Tillerson is a "lukewarmist" maybe, but he's certainly not a denier! 
The founder of the world's third largest corporation Microsoft, Bill Gates (apparently another "warmist") said after a meeting with one of the Koch brothers "There's just this one crazy thing that CO2 hangs around for a long, long time, and the oceans absorb it, which acidifies them, which is itself a huge problem we should do something about." 
Berkshire Hathaway is the world's fourth largest corporation and chairman Warren Buffet must be a warmist! - "doubling the carbon dioxide we belch into the atmosphere may far more than double the subsequent problems for society. Realizing this, the world properly worries about greenhouse emissions." Berkshire Hathaway is the owner of Coca Cola, and according to Jeffrey Seabright, Cokes vice president for environment and water resources increased droughts, more unpredictable variability, 100-year floods every two years, as a consequence of human induced climate change are some of the problems that are disrupting the companys supply of sugar cane and sugar beets, as well as citrus for its fruit juices. 
The worlds fifth largest corporation, PetroChina, must be run by a bunch of "warmists" too - "Global climate change affects our future. ... we attach great importance to the control and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and actively support the policies and actions to address climate change" (as introduced by the Chinese government in the 12th 5-year plan which has makes enormous efforts to mitigate the causes of climate change). PetroChina has a strategy of "maximization, diversification and orderly replacement of hydrocarbon resources..." and "To develop a green PetroChina, we will strive to provide cleaner, more efficient and high-quality energy resources." 
Google is the world's sixth largest corporation and Google's founders have stated that "the poor in the developing world will be the greatest victims of climate change", "climate change makes poverty worse" and that "the last of our climate initiatives is to try and create a world in which not only the coal stays in the ground, but the oil stays in the ground, the petroleum, the gasoline, isn't consumed."  
Damn, Marc, who put the "warmists" in charge of building the World's biggest public corporations by market capitalisation? 
I'll leave the last word to another lunatic "warmist" capitalist, Richard Branston: "I would urge climate change deniers to get out of our way."

----------


## johnc

Actually when it comes to building and investing there is no correlation to views on climate, real builders of wealth aren't silly enough to resort to the type of closed thinking that blocks out opportunity. If you want to build wealth one of the things to consider is the next "wave". We had newspapers, oil, automation, industrialisation, technology and also the interplay of groups such as baby boomers and cyclical changes in a countries fortunes and stages of development. What's the next wave? what is the next opportunity, retailers are suffering because the internet has eroded their margins and increased competition and some are failing to adapt. Renewables ultimately will deliver cheaper power than coal, in some cases it is already, those that fail to introduce efficiencies  into their production process will fail because they will not be able to compete with those that invest in their businesses. I suspect if you had a close look at the denier brigade most are never do wells looking for scape goats, not the other way around. I guess though if you can't justify a point of view just stick to vilification of your opponents, after all it worked for Hitler didn't it, see how well that turned out for the world. Red necks are generally from the working or non working poor for a reason, they make poor judgements and blame others rather than fix the problem of their own attitudes and lack of skills, the trashiest denier sites are full of rednecks which should tell us something. Those that manipulate the data really rely on the bogans to spread the message, so let's bring on the cut and pastes.

----------


## John2b

The World Bank estimates that implementing programs to tackle climate change would result in net GDP *growth* of $1.8 trillion-$2.6 trillion per year. New Study Adds Up the Benefits of Climate-Smart Development in Lives, Jobs, and GDP

----------


## John2b

Observational data show a continued increase of hot extremes over land during the so-called global warming hiatus. This tendency is greater for the most extreme events and thus more relevant for impacts than changes in global mean temperature. 
This is what is affecting the re-insurance industry, and industries that depending on farming...  http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2145.html

----------


## johnc

The governments own panel looking into the cost of the carbon tax have data showing that abolishing the carbon tax and renewable energy minimums will cause an initial minor price drop in power but that will quickly turn into price pain after 2020. This should do the head in of your average financial light weight but it does make sense based on technology improvements, demand costs and bringing on new supply.

----------


## PhilT2

> By the way w h ere if it is referring to place is spelled with an "H" and if something affects somebody it is spelled with an "A" as in affectionate.  
> And yes, all my knowledge of this and other few hundred of court cases I know of, come all from the pub. hehe  good try... best luck next time.

  And "skewed" not "squed" (#11116) Spelling corrections are a total waste of everybody's time, we all stuff up occasionally. Now can we move on? Time would be better spent posting the transcripts from all those court cases.

----------


## Marc

> Er... Tim Cook, the CEO of the world's largest and most successful corporation, Apple, is a "warmist" who has told climate change deniers "to get out of (Apple) stock". 
> The CEO of the world's second largest corporation Exxon Mobil, Rex Tillerson, has said in response to questions at at last years shareholder meeting "I think ... climate change as a serious issue, it does present serious risk. The engineered solutions side of that isIll maybe biased because Im an engineer and work in a company there is full of scientist and engineers. I have enormous faith in our technologys ability to find solutions as they present themselves to us which will be a combination of mitigation and adaptation." Tillerson is a "lukewarmist" maybe, but he's certainly not a denier! 
> The founder of the world's third largest corporation Microsoft, Bill Gates (apparently another "warmist") said after a meeting with one of the Koch brothers "There's just this one crazy thing that CO2 hangs around for a long, long time, and the oceans absorb it, which acidifies them, which is itself a huge problem we should do something about." 
> Berkshire Hathaway is the world's fourth largest corporation and chairman Warren Buffet must be a warmist! - "doubling the carbon dioxide we belch into the atmosphere may far more than double the subsequent problems for society. Realizing this, the world properly worries about greenhouse emissions." Berkshire Hathaway is the owner of Coca Cola, and according to Jeffrey Seabright, Cokes vice president for environment and water resources increased droughts, more unpredictable variability, 100-year floods every two years, as a consequence of human induced climate change are some of the problems that are disrupting the companys supply of sugar cane and sugar beets, as well as citrus for its fruit juices. 
> The worlds fifth largest corporation, PetroChina, must be run by a bunch of "warmists" too - "Global climate change affects our future. ... we attach great importance to the control and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and actively support the policies and actions to address climate change" (as introduced by the Chinese government in the 12th 5-year plan which has makes enormous efforts to mitigate the causes of climate change). PetroChina has a strategy of "maximization, diversification and orderly replacement of hydrocarbon resources..." and "To develop a green PetroChina, we will strive to provide cleaner, more efficient and high-quality energy resources." 
> Google is the world's sixth largest corporation and Google's founders have stated that "the poor in the developing world will be the greatest victims of climate change", "climate change makes poverty worse" and that "the last of our climate initiatives is to try and create a world in which not only the coal stays in the ground, but the oil stays in the ground, the petroleum, the gasoline, isn't consumed."  
> Damn, Marc, who put the "warmists" in charge of building the World's biggest public corporations by market capitalisation? 
> I'll leave the last word to another lunatic "warmist" capitalist, Richard Branston: "I would urge climate change deniers to get out of our way."

   Oh dear...can you really be that blind?  Let's see ...  GLobal Warming, Climate Change, or Human Induced Rapid Climate Change... There are two kind of people who support the hypothesis of human activity altering the climate to a point of being dangerous. The person you are most likely to encounter is the little person who having swallowed the propaganda and the pseudo science has adopted this as his pet quest. He or she supports the Blues, likes Thai food and believes the global warming fraud.  The other people that support this you are very unlikely to encounter yet you may have seen them on TV. They are the likes of AlGore, BObummer, green and Labor politicians, assorted celebrities, Actors, billionaires, royalty, and lately even MrPalmer. What do they have all in common? They have the knowledge and are strategically positioned to gain power, resources and tons of money from this new religion.  
Anything that involves millions of people is a money making machine. If it involves billions of people and involves the belief system and the emotions and the fanaticism, it is a trillions making machine and the elites of the world are very likely to be involved and are the only one able to gain from it.  Sad really and an indictment of humanity who has fallen for this way too many times in history.  The fact that those likely to benefit from the global warming fraud put their hands up and waive to the crowd is in your mind an endorsement of the science? You must be kidding right? That's like saying, "Look at that guy! He must be a fantastic Christian, he has a factory and makes crucifix and statues, WOW !  If you can not tell who is in it for the opportunity, who is the mercenary the salesman the celebrity who _needs_ to appeal to the crowd to survive and prosper, you have a problem.  
Oh, and the other John acknowledging how commerce works, is rather funny. Yes, John, how true, What is the next wave? We can hardly sell any more paintings and statues of Buddha or the Madonna, the guns are going out of fashion, so lets join this crowd that seems rather loud and short of ideas and lets push this CO2 is bad for you, see where it takes us, lets shake a few trees here and there, some subsidy is likely to fall in our lap. 
Oh yes, now that is a laud and valid endorsement of the "cause". 
As for Phil's demands ... please, is that the best you can do?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

And here's me thinking you were a free marketeer. When  what you actually want is protection from the rest of us... 
Forgive me if I giggle a little...

----------


## John2b

> what clown doesn't know that this tax has been dumped because of pressure from nations that these other idiots get their fuel from! 
> Egg on your face again!

  Egg on whose face? The European Aviation Carbon Tax wasn't dumped and is in effect right now...  Reducing emissions from aviation - European Commission

----------


## intertd6

> Egg on whose face? The European Aviation Carbon Tax wasn't dumped and is in effect right now...  Reducing emissions from aviation - European Commission

  And tell us which of the largest CO2 producing industrial nations have vetoed it? And flights too & from other countries outside the EEU are exempt.............that would mean Qantas!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Spare the bluster and insults, Inter, is does not reflect well on you. How about you contribute to the discussion, rather than just throwing bucket loads of manure at people you don't agree with? 
> Facts do not wear out, BTW. Even if I had posted this graph previously, which I haven't, it would still show correctly what has actually happened up to that point in time.

  That pathetic graph or similar has been done to death previously! You would be just about the only one in existence that still has their head buried in the sand or elsewhere that doesn't accept that there has been no warming since 1998, if you think your really clever just show us all a graph starting in 1998 averaged to the present day showing something different to what every body else knows is shooting the CO2 hoax down?
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> And tell us which of the largest CO2 producing industrial nations have vetoed it? And flights too & from other countries outside the EEU are exempt.............that would mean Qantas!
> regards inter

  Thanks for being so gracious to acknowledge your error.  :Tongue:  
Is the country you are referring to one that may not be penalised because it already has emission trading schemes in place, has introduced aviation biofuels into its commercial fleet and is currently doing more to abate carbon emissions than the rest of the world combined? (i.e. China?)

----------


## John2b

> That pathetic graph or similar has been done to death previously! You would be just about the only one in existence that still has their head buried in the sand or elsewhere that doesn't accept that there has been no warming since 1998, if you think your really clever just show us all a graph starting in 1998 averaged to the present day showing something different to what every body else knows is shooting the CO2 hoax down?
> regards inter

  More bluster and insults - your standard response...  :2thumbsup:

----------


## intertd6

> Thanks for being so gracious to acknowledge your error.  
> Is the country you are referring to one that may not be penalised because it already has emission trading schemes in place, has introduced aviation biofuels into its commercial fleet and is currently doing more to abate carbon emissions than the rest of the world combined? (i.e. China?)

  the coffin has been nailed shut on that red herring on 3 points, meringue anyone?
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> More bluster and insults - your standard response...

  How about the graph then? The standard non response !
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> How about the graph then? The standard non response !
> regards inter

  The Mod's have declared that asking for information that has already been provided in this forum is trolling... 
Fact: warmest decade in the instrument record is the decade 2000 - 2009; fact: nine of the ten hottest years have occurred since 1998; fact: that there has been no warming is pure fantasy. 
Fact: CO2 reflects outbound radiation meaning more heat retained; fact: more CO2 has more effect; fact: human activities have resulted in more CO2; fact: more retained heat means more retained heat.

----------


## Marc

When one of an organisations founders dumps on it, you know its gone off the rails. Patrick Moore, who helped to establish Greenpeace in the 70s, correctly points out that it has morphed from an environmental organisation into a cross between an extreme-left political ideology and a fundamentalist religion. He also lists nine inconvenient truths for the great unwashed:  The concentration of CO2 in the global atmosphere is lower today, even including human emissions, than it has been during most of the existence of life on Earth.The global climate has been much warmer than it is today during most of the existence of life on Earth. Today we are in an interglacial period of the Pleistocene Ice Age that began 2.5 million years ago and has not ended.There was an Ice Age 450 million years ago when CO2 was about 10 times higher than it is today.Humans evolved in the tropics near the equator. We are a tropical species and can only survive in colder climates due to fire, clothing and shelter.CO2 is the most important food for all life on earth. All green plants use CO2 to produce the sugars that provide energy for their growth and our growth. Without CO2 in the atmosphere carbon-based life could never have evolved.The optimum CO2 level for most plants is about 1600 parts per million, four times higher than the level today. This is why greenhouse growers purposely inject the CO2-rich exhaust from their gas and wood-fired heaters into the greenhouse, resulting in a 40-80 per cent increase in growth.If human emissions of CO2 do end up causing significant warming (which is not certain) it may be possible to grow food crops in northern Canada and Russia, vast areas that are now too cold for agriculture.Whether increased CO2 levels cause significant warming or not, the increased CO2 levels themselves will result in considerable increases in the growth rate of plants, including our food crops and forests.There has been no further global warming for nearly 18 years during which time about 25 per cent of all the CO2 ever emitted by humans has been added to the atmosphere. How long will it remain flat and will it next go up or back down? Now we are out of the realm of facts and back into the game of predictions.Delingpole has the story here.

----------


## Marc

What on earth is 403 forbidden?

----------


## John2b

> When one of an organisation’s founders dumps on it, you know it’s gone off the rails.

  Patrick Moore was *not* one of Greenpeace's founders. Who Founded Greenpeace? Not Patrick Moore. | Open Mind 
When someone needs to start a diatribe with a premise based on a falsehood, why would you believe anything else they write?

----------


## Marc

Not only was he *not* the founder ... yea right ... but he uses his undies inside out and has a lot of nasal hair sticking out. eeeewwww that clearly discredits him for life!!! 
He he, poor old Patrick writings are not inspired by the correct deity, his ideas are apocrif and anathema, vade retro Patrizzio you are NOT a founder therefore you are OUT !!!! 
Meantime the only thing that matters, the reality that CO2 is good and that the demonisation of CO2 is political rubbish, stays in the background, it is much more important to talk about Patricks nasal hair.

----------


## John2b

> Oh yes! Did you know old Patrick put his undies inside out? He also has a lot of nasal hair sticking out. That discredits his views big time!

  Whatever you say... 
It's amazing that this diatribe was debunked months ago, but it simply won't go away - it's like a floatie in the the bowl that refuses to flush! I see the "story" has just spread though the denial blogosphere like a virus in a primary school, for the second time around. 
Let's look closely at his "views" then. The reality is that points 1 - 4, true or not, are totally irrelevant the current circumstances, points 5 - 8 falsely represent the significance of elevated CO2 on plants which produce significantly less protein even though they grow faster under high CO2 levels - therefore delivering significantly less nutritional value, and point 9 is false - as has been show ad nauseam in this thread.  http://www.bnl.gov/face/faceProgram.asp

----------


## Marc

Yes it is amazing, amazing how someone can resort to the same bluff time and time again, play the man and avoid the idea.  *  
How to annoy a climate scientist – a guide*  29 June, 2014 — 1 Comment   How annoying can you be? _The Guardian_ helpfully provides a handy cut-out-n-keep guide for how to get up your local climate alarmist’s nose. Graham Readfearn gives the poor little lambs a platform to wail about all the injustices they have to put up with. Here are the edited highlights: _Andy Pitman_ From our very own doorstep, UNSW Sydney. Andy doesn’t like unqualified people saying the moon is made of cheese (as all climate sceptics believe of course), and should basically shut up. Freedom of expression doesn’t rate very highly at UNSW, clearly. Everyone knows sceptics don’t believe the moon is made of cheese… they believe the moon landings were faked, stupid! Duh! _Michael Mann_ The infamous Mann, he of Hockey Stick fame, believes that the more uncertain something is, the more urgently we have to deal with it. So that presumably means extra-galactic alien invasions should be humanity’s top concern? _Michael Raupach_ From ANU in Canberra, resorts to raiding a 19th century dictionary to convey his frustration, referring to the ‘finitude’ of our planet, whilst trivialising those who fear the poverty that will follow a massive tax on energy that will do nothing for the climate. _Steve Sherwood_ Believes that tackling the dangers of CO2 (plant food) is comparable to dealing with other ‘pollutants’ like lead, mercury and asbestos. Steve does however believe that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for ‘hundreds of generations’, which means _anything_ we do now is even more pointless than we previously thought. So thanks for that. _Stephan Rahmsdorf_ Complains that journalists _not_ linking extreme weather events to climate change is ‘misleading’. Because as we all know, every weather event, anywhere in the world, at any time, is due to climate change. _Roger Jones_ Goes off the deep end, posing the question “Who am I?”:_I can buy disaffected scientists to deny sound science with a plane fare to a bogus conference and a little publicity.__I can anonymously threaten researchers online, especially the female ones.__If anyone threatens me with facts, I can call them an antidemocratic, anti-jobs, McCarthyist, communist, anti-freedom, pagan environmentalist.__Everyone says there is no consensus.__I deny everything._Answer: a bizarre, caricatured figment of your warped imagination, perhaps? _Sophie Lewis_ Sophie, from the Parkville Asylum (Melbourne University), complains that lack of action on climate change will leave us ‘vulnerable to a warmer climate’. Like humanity is ‘vulnerable’ to the ability to grow more crops, or ‘vulnerable’ to not dying from cold. _Andrew Glikson_ Bemoans the fact that the media aren’t alarmist enough. No, really:_I think the scale of the changes being seen now when compared to the Earth’s history is something the media and the public do not appreciate._Wow. How much more could we take? _Special mention must go to Richard Betts, the only scientist amongst the bunch who didn’t take the bait that Readfearn dangled in front of their faces. Richard rightly commented that journalists rarely give links to academic papers they cite in articles. I’m surprised Readfearn even bothered including that response at all…_ *Rate this:*         10 Votes   *Share this:*

----------


## Marc

*Sanity check: Chief Scientists prophecy worthy of Tim Flannery*26 June, 2014  9 Comments          
16 Votes  
And thats not a compliment, by the way.
The IPA newsletter this afternoon dredged up this story which was reported early in ACMs life:    Well we are only five and a bit months away from December 2014 by which time it would be too late, but what has happened to global temperatures in the last five years? Pretty much nothing. Despite CO2 levels increasing significantly. Even if we had reduced our emissions to zero on 4 December 2009, the difference it would have made to global temperatures would have been too small to measure  by several orders of magnitude. That she could have been Australias Chief Scientist is mind-blowing. Further from the cool level-headed academic dispassionately reviewing data she could hardly be. There will be plenty more of these duff predictions proven woefully inaccurate, each one a nail in the coffin of climate change alarmism. *Share this:*

----------


## johnc

> What on earth is 403 forbidden?

  Are you trying to access porn?

----------


## John2b

> Yes it is amazing, amazing how someone can resort to the same bluff time and time again, play the man and avoid the idea.

    
What is amazing is I did the opposite of what you say, and you didn't even notice! That is the difference in dancing to an ideology and not being sceptical of what you read.  :Thumb Yello:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> What on earth is 403 forbidden?

  It means they know who you aren't and don't want to let you in as a result.

----------


## intertd6

> The Mod's have declared that asking for information that has already been provided in this forum is trolling...  you must have a real problem reading, I have continually asked for NEW FACTS , all you have to do is understand that & provide them! 
> Fact: warmest decade in the instrument record is the decade 2000 - 2009; fact: nine of the ten hottest years have occurred since 1998; fact: that there has been no warming is pure fantasy.  who cares about the hyperbole, how about showing the average global temperature since 1998, or can't you just face the truth? 
> Fact: CO2 reflects outbound radiation meaning more heat retained; fact: more CO2 has more effect; fact: human activities have resulted in more CO2; fact: more retained heat means more retained heat.  Funny how the reality of what happening doesn't follow the alarmists predictions, oh! that's right there has been a 20 something percent increase in CO2 & no increase in the average global temperature since 1998!

  denial, it's just not a river in Egypt! 
regards inter

----------


## Marc

> denial, it's just not a river in Egypt! 
> regards inter

   Lets change tune here.
Lets assume you are the country's unopposed desition maker, what would you do and please also explain what changes in climate will your changes achieve?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Lets change tune here.
> Lets assume you are the country's unopposed desition maker, what would you do and please also explain what changes in climate will your changes achieve?

  Incentivise energy and resource efficiency in all sectors of the economy, co-invest in decentralised energy generation and storage with a focus on renewable sources, co-invest in R&D and manufacturing capacity to support decentralised energy generation and storage. 
These measures will achieve no significant changes in the short or medium term as the scale of the change is already built into the system and only a wind back of human civilisation will have any significant impact on that trajectory.  In the long term, (100 plus years) it could mean a considerable avoided adaptation cost in the many billions or even trillions.  But it'll have zip impact on the climate that you and I will experience in our remaining lifetime.

----------


## intertd6

> Incentivise energy and resource efficiency in all sectors of the economy, co-invest in decentralised energy generation and storage with a focus on renewable sources, co-invest in R&D and manufacturing capacity to support decentralised energy generation and storage. 
> These measures will achieve no significant changes in the short or medium term as the scale of the change is already built into the system and only a wind back of human civilisation will have any significant impact on that trajectory.  In the long term, (100 plus years) it could mean a considerable avoided adaptation cost in the many billions or even trillions.  But it'll have zip impact on the climate that you and I will experience in our remaining lifetime.

  I thought the opposition govt had already tried this type of idea & failed. They forgot we are a world follower in the global economy & just stuck their heads in the sand with the fact that it sent most of our manufacturing & associated industries offshore where none of this idealism exists. What ever happens I doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that this country will & has to follow what is dictated to us by the big players.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> I thought the opposition govt had already tried this type of idea & failed. They forgot we are a world follower in the global economy & just stuck their heads in the sand with the fact that it sent most of our manufacturing & associated industries offshore where none of this idealism exists. What ever happens I doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that this country will & has to follow what is dictated to us by the big players.
> regards inter

  While it is fair to say we are a small part of the world economy and also that as a result we get buffeted by the economic fortunes of others it is wrong to say we are followers. Our banking system, corporate controls and aversion to national debt and perverse love of personal debt along with our superannuation and social security system are our own and not copies from elsewhere. It is unfortunate when our own nationals talk us down as we have one of the worlds strongest economies and we should be thankful for that. If we want the country to remain strong it will not be by sitting in a corner like little boys with an inferiority  complex to afraid to think for ourselves. If the national desire is to tackle climate change we shouldn't wait for others, it would appear though political expediency has dulled the nations ability to discuss the issue in a rational way, as evidenced by this little thread and the distortions, diversions, bigotry and untruths contain with-in it. 
When the carbon tax is lifted will the removal of this tax reduce a huge burden on the economy that will see a lift in economic growth and a reduction in unemployment? I doubt most will notice the effect beyond a miniscule change in their power bill. Abbot's approach to a carbon tax was only ever political this is not leadership it is chicanery, his personal standing would indicate that most of the population instinctively recognise that fact. If there is general concern about manufacturing then stop worrying about carbon taxes the problem is the size of an elephant and the carbon tax is no more than a couple of fleas riding on its back. In fact if direct action had managed to get up it may well have had a greater cost than the ETS or carbon tax models. 
Renewables will ultimately bring us cheaper power and the current very high power prices will remain and drive greater efficiencies in power use we may be at the point where our emissions fall anyway, regardless of that our biggest risk in this country is lack of business investment in new technology and more efficient processes.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I thought the opposition govt had already tried this type of idea & failed.

  They did (in fact they both have)...but their idea of 'try' is like you or I giving a child a hammer with the expectation that said child will build you a house.  But we still tried to build a house! 
By the by...if you always go in with the expectation of being a small player beholden to the big boys...then that's where you'll remain.  Where's your ambition?

----------


## intertd6

> While it is fair to say we are a small part of the world economy and also that as a result we get buffeted by the economic fortunes of others it is wrong to say we are followers. Our banking system, corporate controls and aversion to national debt and perverse love of personal debt along with our superannuation and social security system are our own and not copies from elsewhere. It is unfortunate when our own nationals talk us down as we have one of the worlds strongest economies and we should be thankful for that. If we want the country to remain strong it will not be by sitting in a corner like little boys with an inferiority  complex to afraid to think for ourselves. If the national desire is to tackle climate change we shouldn't wait for others, it would appear though political expediency has dulled the nations ability to discuss the issue in a rational way, as evidenced by this little thread and the distortions, diversions, bigotry and untruths contain with-in it.  any realist knows were not a superpower of anything globally, so that just means we are followers and can't even be trusted to buy & posses the latest & greatest version of fighter jet because we aren't that far up the food chain!  but we are world leaders in selling out the nations sovereign wealth for the good of the global economy! 
> When the carbon tax is lifted will the removal of this tax reduce a huge burden on the economy that will see a lift in economic growth and a reduction in unemployment? I doubt most will notice the effect beyond a miniscule change in their power bill. Abbot's approach to a carbon tax was only ever political this is not leadership it is chicanery, his personal standing would indicate that most of the population instinctively recognise that fact. If there is general concern about manufacturing then stop worrying about carbon taxes the problem is the size of an elephant and the carbon tax is no more than a couple of fleas riding on its back. In fact if direct action had managed to get up it may well have had a greater cost than the ETS or carbon tax models.  tell that to those that have lost their jobs to the carbon tax & those that will lose their jobs to the ongoing movement of everything that isn't bolted down going offshore. 
> Renewables will ultimately bring us cheaper power and the current very high power prices will remain and drive greater efficiencies in power use we may be at the point where our emissions fall anyway, regardless of that our biggest risk in this country is lack of business investment in new technology and more efficient processes.  Ultimately it's an idealism that economically can't work, as economics dictates the most economical solution, any investment in anything other than renewables will just jump ship to a cheaper place to do business & if everyone is unemployed because political idealism quite simply the wheels will eventually fall off the economy.
> it must take a special type of clown to dig up & export our coal to the global economic superpowers as fast & as much as we can yet deny or move away from using a minuscule amount to benefit our own nation? It defies logic!

  regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> They did (in fact they both have)...but their idea of 'try' is like you or I giving a child a hammer with the expectation that said child will build you a house.  But we still tried to build a house! 
> By the by...if you always go in with the expectation of being a small player beholden to the big boys...then that's where you'll remain.  Where's your ambition?

  when you have a couple of hundred million people & wealth behind you then you know your a big player & I've yet to see those big players dictated to yet unless they want to throw out the occasional bone to appear to be flexible on some matters.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> when you have a couple of hundred million people & wealth behind you then you know your a big player & I've yet to see those big players dictated to yet unless they want to throw out the occasional bone to appear to be flexible on some matters.

  That is what I'd call a cop out...

----------


## Marc

> Incentivise energy and resource efficiency in all sectors of the economy, co-invest in decentralised energy generation and storage with a focus on renewable sources, co-invest in R&D and manufacturing capacity to support decentralised energy generation and storage. 
> These measures will achieve no significant changes in the short or medium term as the scale of the change is already built into the system and only a wind back of human civilisation will have any significant impact on that trajectory.  In the long term, (100 plus years) it could mean a considerable avoided adaptation cost in the many billions or even trillions.  But it'll have zip impact on the climate that you and I will experience in our remaining lifetime.

  "Incentivise energy and resource efficiency"
Translated: Incentivise creative ways to collect maximum amount of subsidies. 
"co-invest in decentralised energy generation and storage with focus on renewable sources"
Translated: prop up with massive subsidies, otherwise inefficient amateurish hobby style unreliable ways to produce pitiful inconsistent amounts of expensive energy.  
"co-invest in R&D and manufacturing capacity to support decentralised energy generation and storage."
Translated: Spend massive amounts of subsidies to prop up an otherwise uncompetitive industry that has a chronic reliance on subsidies for its existence and rides on false pretenses. 
"These measures will achieve no significant changes in the short or medium term as the scale of the change is already built into the system and only a wind back of human civilisation will have any significant impact on that trajectory. In the long term, (100 plus years) it could mean a considerable avoided adaptation cost in the many billions or even trillions. But it'll have zip impact on the climate that you and I will experience in our remaining lifetime."
Translated: Anti global warming measures are, even if implemented at a global scale absolutely useless to alter any variations in the climate simply because humans have a negligible impact on said climate. However it is of paramount importance to implement this measures in order to achieve the agenda to shift power and resources. 
All in all, your and other replies have confirmed what I and others have said all along. All the measures touted to "combat" global warming are but a smoke screen to shift power and resources towards an otherwise useless industry and towards otherwise useless politicians. An industry that sells toys under false pretenses and politicians who claim to ride the high moral ground whilst involved in fraud, deception and conspiracy.  
The scare mongering campaign that tells the naive that we will fry due to Co2 "pollution" is a bold face lie and all it's facet should be banned from having any weight into decision making by politicians of all confessions.

----------


## johnc

OK so you interpret the results to suit your own bias then respond to your bias, delusion whilst amusing remains a worthless exercise.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

If that's the way you want to think, Sunshine, then knock yourself out.  But if you think you're good enough to put words in my mouth then you've got another think coming and are even less of a man than I could be bothered giving you credit for. 
Try being positive and outwarding looking for a change. You'll feel better and live longer.

----------


## intertd6

> That is what I'd call a cop out...

  there is an old roman saying, " lions 3,988 - Samaritans 0!"
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> there is an old roman saying, " lions 3,988 - Samaritans 0!"
> regards inter

  Still a cop out.

----------


## intertd6

> Still a cop out.

  oops 3,989 and the day isn't even over yet! 
The road to oblivion is paved with good intensions! 
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> oops 3,989 and the day isn't even over yet! 
> The road to oblivion is paved with good intensions! 
> regards inter

  But not the blood of cowards,eh?

----------


## intertd6

> But not the blood of cowards,eh?

  Im afraid my training & limited intelligence stops me from participating in fruitless, dangerous, idealistic endeavours, I'll leave that to the fanatics.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Im afraid my training & limited intelligence stops me from participating in fruitless, dangerous, idealistic endeavours, I'll leave that to the fanatics.
> regards inter

  Criticism (even of the gormless variety) is participation.

----------


## John2b

> when you have a couple of hundred million people & wealth behind you then you know your a big player & I've yet to see those big players dictated to yet unless they want to throw out the occasional bone to appear to be flexible on some matters.

  Australia is 51st on the population list but 12th on the GDP list of countries. Yet Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal, iron ore, bauxite, wool, gold and the second largest exporter of LNG, and forth largest exporter of wheat. Australia's major trading customers are the US, China, India and Japan, four of the world's six biggest economies. We are also seen by the developed world as the best country to live in (above all of the 10 largest economies): Where Are The 10 Best Countries To Live, In 2014? - TheRichest 
Australia has enormous world influence both economically and politically.

----------


## intertd6

> Australia has enormous world influence both economically and politically.

  well with that speech you'd think we would be far enough up the food chain to be trusted with the latest & greatest model jet fighter...... Afraid not!
we have world influence, just not that much when it boils down.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Criticism (even of the gormless variety) is participation.

  The witless Samaritans have always said such things, darn Romans, what have they ever done for us!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The witless Samaritans have always said such things, darn Romans, what have they ever done for us!
> regards inter

  Wouldn't know...wasn't there. But if you are happy living on your knees then best wishes to you.

----------


## johnc

> well with that speech you'd think we would be far enough up the food chain to be trusted with the latest & greatest model jet fighter...... Afraid not!
> we have world influence, just not that much when it boils down.
> regards inter

  Besides taking your negativity to new lows and attempting to trash anything positive about the country you live in how about you post some evidence that the joint strike fighter we receive will be inferior to the US version. It's position as greatest jet fighter is contentious as well but don't let me stop you from hyperbole and fiction to support your nonsense.

----------


## intertd6

> Wouldn't know...wasn't there. But if you are happy living on your knees then best wishes to you.

  this debate is living breathing proof that those that would throw it all away for idealism still exist! With " it "  being the unknown quantity? Along with all the lame excuses that go with their cause!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Besides taking your negativity to new lows and attempting to trash anything positive about the country you live in how about you post some evidence that the joint strike fighter we receive will be inferior to the US version. It's position as greatest jet fighter is contentious as well but don't let me stop you from hyperbole and fiction to support your nonsense.

  dont you keep up with world news? The bit about our fighters missing latest top secret sophisticated technology which we were deemed not secure enough to have, was just after the bit about there has been no global warming since 1998! Common knowledge.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> this debate is living breathing proof that those that would throw it all away for idealism still exist! With " it "  being the unknown quantity? Along with all the lame excuses that go with their cause!
> regards inter

  You must be talking about the proponents of neoliberal economics that drives the ideology of climate change deniers, and the lame excuses for their blind adherence, such as "lifting people out of poverty". Hint: it doesn't / hasn't / won't - neo liberal economics is just the world's ultimate internationally sanctioned Ponzi scheme.

----------


## johnc

> dont you keep up with world news? The bit about our fighters missing latest top secret sophisticated technology which we were deemed not secure enough to have, was just after the bit about there has been no global warming since 1998! Common knowledge.
> regards inter

  Go back and have another read, that is idle speculation, it isn't common knowledge at all what rubbish. There is an issue over access to source code at this stage the world is getting the same plane with the same technologies. As it is the plane has a lot of detractors regarding its range, stealth, carrying capacity and single engine set up if they release a downgraded version to their allies they will have a lot of trouble producing the 2400 units they think they need to for it to be a viable unit. Earlier articles about reduced capacity didn't come from either the Australian or U.S. governments they came from sources removed from the process, in the main commentators beating up a story.

----------


## Marc

> "Incentivise energy and resource efficiency"
> Translated: Incentivise creative ways to collect maximum amount of subsidies. 
> "co-invest in decentralised energy generation and storage with focus on renewable sources"
> Translated: prop up with massive subsidies, otherwise inefficient amateurish hobby style unreliable ways to produce pitiful inconsistent amounts of expensive energy.  
> "co-invest in R&D and manufacturing capacity to support decentralised energy generation and storage."
> Translated: Spend massive amounts of subsidies to prop up an otherwise uncompetitive industry that has a chronic reliance on subsidies for its existence and rides on false pretenses. 
> "These measures will achieve no significant changes in the short or medium term as the scale of the change is already built into the system and only a wind back of human civilisation will have any significant impact on that trajectory. In the long term, (100 plus years) it could mean a considerable avoided adaptation cost in the many billions or even trillions. But it'll have zip impact on the climate that you and I will experience in our remaining lifetime."
> Translated: Anti global warming measures are, even if implemented at a global scale absolutely useless to alter any variations in the climate simply because humans have a negligible impact on said climate. However it is of paramount importance to implement this measures in order to achieve the agenda to shift power and resources. 
> All in all, your and other replies have confirmed what I and others have said all along. All the measures touted to "combat" global warming are but a smoke screen to shift power and resources towards an otherwise useless industry and towards otherwise useless politicians. An industry that sells toys under false pretenses and politicians who claim to ride the high moral ground whilst involved in fraud, deception and conspiracy.  
> The scare mongering campaign that tells the naive that we will fry due to Co2 "pollution" is a bold face lie and all it's facet should be banned from having any weight into decision making by politicians of all confessions.

  I actually like my reply so I post it again. It pretty much sums up the warmist agenda. 
The idealist, the "rich is bad" brigade, and the "idle in search of a cause any cause" team, of course are oblivious to such machinations and way low in the food chain to reap any gains. Their satisfaction comes from emitting hot air loaded with CO2 at any given occasion pretending to ride the high moral ground of dignified righteousness. 
Repent you deniers!! The end is near!! 
Yea right. Maybe tomorrow OK?

----------


## johnc

Yes, hot air is a good description Marc, post 11171 has an ample quantity of it.

----------


## John2b

> dont you keep up with world news? The bit about our fighters missing latest top secret sophisticated technology which we were deemed not secure enough to have,

  Which has nothing to do with whether Australia is economically and politically influential. Is the US selling their technology to the world's #2 economy China, #3 Japan, #4 Germany or #5 France? Logical fail yet again  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

I've been away a few days on holidays and I see there is not much positive happening in the thread.  
I know it's easy to get sucked in by the skeptic's barbs and respond to their inane nonsense but I suggest that if they are not engaging in civil discussion that we ignore them. We don't need to respond to requests for new data when they already don't accept the old data, and nor do we need to respond to one person's radical demonisation of an opposing viewpoint. 
On the good news front, I do have something to share:   
The renewable energy naysayers can say what they like, but this graph shows that SA wind power reached 91% of demand at one point and any excess power (above the demand line) got sent to Victoria to reduce the consumption of coal in that power station that should have been shut down by now. A few more wind power farms and SA will be a routine exporter of renewable energy. 
Source: Graph of the Day: Wind hits 91% of demand in South Oz : Renew Economy 
You may also like:  Graph of the Day: Wind energy's big, big week : Renew Economy  Last week, wind energy was the new base load in Australia : Renew Economy

----------


## woodbe

And just so the Queenslanders here don't feel left out...  Solar sends energy prices below zero â in middle of day : Renew Economy     

> The combination of low demand and strong output from the Queenslands  1.1GW of rooftop solar helped send the states electricity prices into  negative territory on Wednesday  in the middle of the day.
>  Daytime electricity prices have historically been the cream on the  cake for electricity generators because that is when demand is usually  the highest, and prices too.
>  But the emergence of rooftop solar as effectively the fourth largest  generator in Queensland has changed the dynamics of the market,  particularly on fine, sunny and warm winter days that have been  experienced this week. Demand is weak because there are no air  conditioners in use, electric heating is not required, and the sunny  days means that solar output is strong.

  Try putting these renewable energy genies back in their boxes. The price of generating power from renewables is coming down and the installed base is expanding. We are reaching parity pricing (some say we are already there) and Fossil fuel is about to become expensive for power generation compared to renewables. Win!

----------


## John2b

> I actually like my reply so I post it again. It pretty much sums up the warmist agenda.

  This must have been written for you...  Australians all let us rejoice
For we are white and straight.
We've mined our soil
and killed for oil
We've turned back refugees.
Our land abounds in trees to log
A reef to dump and dredge.
As Sirs and Dames,
We'll flout the shame
Advance Australia Fair!
Let profits reign, all serve the rich
Advance Australia Fair!

----------


## Marc

The idealist, the "rich is bad" brigade, and the "idle in search of a cause any cause" team, of course are oblivious to such machinations and way low in the food chain to reap any gains.  
Their satisfaction comes from emitting hot air loaded with CO2 at any given occasion, pretending to ride the high moral ground of dignified righteousness.  Repent you deniers!! The end is near!!    :Biggrin:  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  :You rock2:

----------


## intertd6

> I've been away a few days on holidays and I see there is not much positive happening in the thread.  
> I know it's easy to get sucked in by the skeptic's barbs and respond to their inane nonsense but I suggest that if they are not engaging in civil discussion that we ignore them. We don't need to respond to requests for new data when they already don't accept the old data, and nor do we need to respond to one person's radical demonisation of an opposing viewpoint. 
> On the good news front, I do have something to share:   
> The renewable energy naysayers can say what they like, but this graph shows that SA wind power reached 91% of demand at one point and any excess power (above the demand line) got sent to Victoria to reduce the consumption of coal in that power station that should have been shut down by now. A few more wind power farms and SA will be a routine exporter of renewable energy. 
> Source: Graph of the Day: Wind hits 91% of demand in South Oz : Renew Economy 
> You may also like:  Graph of the Day: Wind energy's big, big week : Renew Economy  Last week, wind energy was the new base load in Australia : Renew Economy

  with that self induced propaganda you must be expecting the price of energy to plummet now, those with even a meagre amount of common sense know that won't happen anytime now or later!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Which has nothing to do with whether Australia is economically and politically influential. Is the US selling their technology to the world's #2 economy China, #3 Japan, #4 Germany or #5 France? Logical fail yet again

  your finally working out who the big players are, amazing what is possible when you open your mind!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> You must be talking about the proponents of neoliberal economics that drives the ideology of climate change deniers, and the lame excuses for their blind adherence, such as "lifting people out of poverty". Hint: it doesn't / hasn't / won't - neo liberal economics is just the world's ultimate internationally sanctioned Ponzi scheme.

  No! That's your opinion. 
Regards inter

----------


## John2b

> with that self induced propaganda you must be expecting the price of energy to plummet now, those with even a meagre amount of common sense know that won't happen anytime now or later!
> regards inter

  The price of energy is falling as a result of wind:    Wind power shown to slash NEM prices, cut network volatility : Renew Economy

----------


## John2b

> your finally working out who the big players are, amazing what is possible when you open your mind!
> regards inter

  More bluster and a topic change... Can't address the subject?

----------


## John2b

> No! That's your opinion. 
> Regards inter

  Which point were you arguing and what makes your posts any better than anyone else's? 
Outside of China, world poverty rates are rising:   
Open your mind on world economics:  *The Whole Economy Is Rife with Ponzi Schemes* http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ponzi-schemes/  *The Entire Economy Is a Ponzi Scheme. The Global Financial System is Insolvent* http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ent...olvent/5331143  *Was whole economy a Ponzi scheme?*http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/business/worldbusiness/01iht-col02.1.19024758.html?_r=0

----------


## woodbe

> with that self induced propaganda you must be expecting the price of energy to plummet now, those with even a meagre amount of common sense know that won't happen anytime now or later!
> regards inter

  The wholesale price is falling but don't expect the retail price to drop much if at all. My interest is not in the price but in the reduction of fossil fuels used to produce power. Despite the naysayers the results have been superb as you can see from the facts provided.. 
If the retail price concerns you there are solutions available to insulate yourself from it and help the renewable economy.

----------


## intertd6

> Which point were you arguing and what makes your posts any better than anyone else's? 
> Outside of China, world poverty rates are rising:   
> Open your mind on world economics:  *The Whole Economy Is Rife with Ponzi Schemes*  The Whole Economy Is Rife with Ponzi Schemes - Scientific American  *The Entire Economy Is a Ponzi Scheme. The Global Financial System is Insolvent*  The Entire Economy Is a Ponzi Scheme. The Global Financial System is Insolvent | Global Research  *Was whole economy a Ponzi scheme?* 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/business/worldbusiness/01iht-col02.1.19024758.html?_r=0

  i switched off after the last post of yours I replied to, so I'm not even vaguely interested in anymore tripe unless it's slightly relevant!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> If the retail price concerns you there are solutions available to insulate yourself from it and help the renewable economy.

  It's the carbon tax we are all concerned about, the majority couldn't care less about the internal psychological mechanisms of the AGWists to justify expensive energy.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> It's the carbon tax we are all concerned about, the majority couldn't care less about the internal psychological mechanisms of the AGWists to justify expensive energy.
> regards inter

   Are you? I haven't seen any sign that you have even the slightest understanding or made any effort to understand its real effect on prices. To single it out and not consider other pricing factors shows a desire to follow a belief and a reluctance to discover facts.

----------


## intertd6

> Are you? I haven't seen any sign that you have even the slightest understanding or made any effort to understand its real effect on prices. To single it out and not consider other pricing factors shows a desire to follow a belief and a reluctance to discover facts.

  Umm yes! Just because you don't like the answer there is no need to try the mind games, which by the way are wasted on me, as I'm not in least bit smart enough for them to have any effect on me.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> i switched off after the last post of yours I replied to, so I'm not even vaguely interested in anymore tripe unless it's slightly relevant!
> regards inter

  Obviously, you are not "vaguely" interested in tripe, you are absolutely _obsessed_ with tripe and its propagation. 
BTW - have you ever "replied" to a post? Must have missed that - have only seen bluster and logical fallacies! When have you EVER answered a post supported by factual information in this forum? 
(Feel free to prove this wrong with an example...)

----------


## intertd6

> Obviously, you are not "vaguely" interested in tripe, you are absolutely _obsessed_ with tripe and its propagation. 
> BTW - have you ever "replied" to a post? Must have missed that - have only seen bluster and logical fallacies! When have you EVER answered a post supported by factual information in this forum? 
> (Feel free to prove this wrong with an example...)

  this reminds me of the soup nazi in sienfeld, but you guys aren't after the soup! To say its hilarious is beyond words.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> Umm yes! Just because you don't like the answer there is no need to try the mind games, which by the way are wasted on me, as I'm not in least bit smart enough for them to have any effect on me.
> regards inter

   who cares about your posts, its not as if you try for accuracy and you are incapable of making an intelligent effort to support them, but just like Pavlov's dog if we throw you little tit bits you keep on yapping and yapping and yapping.

----------


## intertd6

> who cares about your posts, its not as if you try for accuracy and you are incapable of making an intelligent effort to support them, but just like Pavlov's dog if we throw you little tit bits you keep on yapping and yapping and yapping.

  woof!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

John2b, what do you think of Myles' take on the warming climate? Do you think he is under or over stating the future situation?        Myles Allen 
Myles Allen is Professor of Geosystem Science in the School of Geography  and the Environment, University of Oxford, and Head of the Climate  Dynamics Group in the University's Department of Physics. His research  focuses on how human and natural influences on climate contribute to  observed climate change and risks of extreme weather and in quantifying  their implications for long-range climate forecasts.

----------


## intertd6

> John2b, what do you think of Myles' take on the warming climate? Do you think he is under or over stating the future situation?        Myles Allen 
> Myles Allen is Professor of Geosystem Science in the School of Geography  and the Environment, University of Oxford, and Head of the Climate  Dynamics Group in the University's Department of Physics. His research  focuses on how human and natural influences on climate contribute to  observed climate change and risks of extreme weather and in quantifying  their implications for long-range climate forecasts.

  you should donate money to him freely after the carbon tax is axed, the money pie for these fellows is slowly diminishing & need all the help they can get before becoming unemployed, even with tenure at a leading university! 
Regards inter

----------


## John2b

> John2b, what do you think of Myles' take on the warming climate? Do you think he is under or over stating the future situation?

  There's two things I do everyday that make me feel he is grossly understating the problem: 1: I eat food; and 2: I grow food. In my travels around the world I have observed how changing climate has impacted severely on food production already. Plants do not have internal temperature controls like warm blooded animals do, and they can't move if the temperature doesn't suit them like cold blooded animals can. As a consequence it has become common in the past few years to see fruit trees painted with white paint throughout the tropics to prevent sunburn, and this is becoming necessary here in South Australia as well, as is sunscreen netting over entire orchards and vineyards to control temperatures. The catch is that plant growth is powered by sunlight and shading to prevent overheating retards growth. Also, many fruit and vegetable plants need a certain amount of chill time before the plant will set fruit. Chill time is defined as a number of hours below a certain temperature - say 500 hours below 7 degrees, for example. This is causing huge problems for fruit set in cherries, apples, kiwi fruit, etc in the Adelaide Hills region due to the rapid rising of winter minimum temperatures. New trees varieties that need lower chill factors can be developed and planted, but not fast enough to keep up with the chaining climate - trees take years to become productive and decades to provide an economic return.

----------


## woodbe

Yes, I think he is not focussing on the impact on plants so much, perhaps because warming will probably give a small benefit in the UK. Last time I was there, I witnessed vignerons talking of planting merlot, chardonnay and Pinot grapes of all things, varieties that would not normally survive in the UK. I'm thinking he is more focussed on the national impacts of climate change in his own country than the global. 
I agree with him when he says that   

> I worry that our children are not going to thank us for giving them the headache we are going to give them if we carry on the path we are following because if we don't get out of this, they will have to, and every decade we postpone doing anything about global warming is another hundred billion tons or so of carbon into the atmosphere and we're that much closer to the sort of climate where we really can't predict where the warming will stop.

  He sees his kids as very flexible and able to adapt to the changes but doesn't seem to consider that some people, plants and species may not be in a position to adapt to the relatively rapid changes occurring in their environment.

----------


## johnc

Rainfall trends are also showing p problems, a 2007 IPCC report 10.2.2 Observed climate trends, variability and extreme events - AR4 WGII Chapter 10: Asia  shows decreasing rainfall in south east Asia which is decreasing crop yields and reducing water available for cheaper hydro power. Other areas are suffering flooding which is also a problem for crops and damage to infrastructure. Of course it is not all bad there are areas benefiting from a change in rainfall. At the moment California is going through a corker of a drought causing problems for domestic water and fires the drought is also wider spread than the one state.

----------


## Marc

"Despacho por favor" ! 
- Porfavorr? 
Come back ... next year! ... NEEXT!!

----------


## John2b

> Rainfall trends are also showing problems, a 2007 IPCC report...

  Sorry, but no farmer or grower needs an IPCC report to know that rainfall patterns are shifting dramatically. Where I live (Adelaide) the average rainfall is much the same, but it is now often delivered by tropical storms from the NW in big dumps with months of dry between, rather than frequent rain from the SW and roughly equal numbers of rainy and dry days. Topsoil dries out and when the big dumps occur, water runs off rather than soak in, so the same amount of rainfall as the historical average does not provide the same benefit for agriculture.

----------


## intertd6

> Sorry, but no farmer or grower needs an IPCC report to know that rainfall patterns are shifting dramatically. Where I live (Adelaide) the average rainfall is much the same, but it is now often delivered by tropical storms from the NW in big dumps with months of dry between, rather than frequent rain from the SW and roughly equal numbers of rainy and dry days. Topsoil dries out and when the big dumps occur, water runs off rather than soak in, so the same amount of rainfall as the historical average does not provide the same benefit for agriculture.

  They need to invest in some nice really big dams! Oh! that's right you guys reckon they will never have any rain to fill them!
regards inter

----------


## Marc

Uhuuu we are back to "the Rain will be a thing of the past" bogeyman...and all because of human activity! Wow, the warmist are truly a rare breed.

----------


## woodbe

John2b your point that the amount of rainfall is the same but the pattern has changed from regular showers to irregular heavy downpours confirms our experience up in the hills. I don't think you said 'rain will be a thing of the past' but with variability it is probably true that some areas will miss out and others will get more than they want.  Climate Change Is Altering Rainfall Patterns Worldwide - Scientific American

----------


## John2b

A report prepared by a team of Republicans from the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush administrations details the costs of inaction in ways that are easy to understand in dollars and cents. For example in the USA:   About $100 billion worth of property underwater by the middle of the century (35 years time); A 50% to 70% loss in average annual crop yields (corn, soy, cotton, and wheat), if agricultural adaptation can't keep up; In some parts of the country ... outside conditions that are literally unbearable to humans, who must maintain a skin temperature below 95°F in order to effectively cool down and avoid fatal heat stroke.  
“In some ways, climate change is like an interest-only loan we are putting on the backs of future generations: They will be stuck paying off the cumulative interest on the greenhouse gas emissions we’re putting into the atmosphere now, with no possibility of actually paying down that ‘emissions principal,’ ” according to the report, titled Risky Business: The Economic Risks of Climate Change to the United States. “This is not a problem for another day. The investments we make today—this week, this month, this year—will determine our economic future.” If Billionaires and Republicans Are Worrying About the Cost of Climate Change, So Should You | TakePart

----------


## John2b

> John2b your point that the amount of rainfall is the same but the pattern has changed from regular showers to irregular heavy downpours confirms our experience up in the hills. I don't think you said 'rain will be a thing of the past' but with variability it is probably true that some areas will miss out and others will get more than they want.  Climate Change Is Altering Rainfall Patterns Worldwide - Scientific American

  Funny how the fact that the change in rainfall patterns is going to severely impact life on earth seems to go straight over the heads of some people. Obviously they don't need to eat for survival, or perhaps they just eat their own $#!? - they certainly seem to love it!

----------


## intertd6

> Funny how the fact that the change in rainfall patterns is going to severely impact life on earth seems to go straight over the heads of some people. Obviously they don't need to eat for survival, or perhaps they just eat their own $#!? - they certainly seem to love it!

  oh dear, panic stations! Reach for your wallet! For those who have swallowed the propaganda hook line & sinker, a casual glance at what has historically happened over the last 15,000 years shows that the climate is & has changed dramatically & quickly over this period, the AGWists are just stuck thinking that the climate shouldn't change, when clearly it did & does no matter what CO2 concentrations are at the time, so there is really no need to spend sqillions on pure waste, if you want a warm fuzzy feeling by spending a lot of money, buy yourself a pedigreed fluffy dog!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

@John2b. You were right about that eating thing ^^^  :Biggrin:

----------


## intertd6

> @John2b. You were right about that eating thing ^^^

  I was that hungry once I could have eaten a s**t sandwich, but I don't like bread! But then I'm not stupid enough to swallow the AGW propaganda.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> Sorry, but no farmer or grower needs an IPCC report to know that rainfall patterns are shifting dramatically. Where I live (Adelaide) the average rainfall is much the same, but it is now often delivered by tropical storms from the NW in big dumps with months of dry between, rather than frequent rain from the SW and roughly equal numbers of rainy and dry days. Topsoil dries out and when the big dumps occur, water runs off rather than soak in, so the same amount of rainfall as the historical average does not provide the same benefit for agriculture.

  That's quite true but it is not consistent, after 10 years of very dry conditions we are now into our third moist season with quite good rainfall, possibly benefiting from some of the Heavy Queensland dumps that have moved down the coast, winners and losers. What farmers have been doing though is investing in more efficient ways to use water and are now reaping the benefits. A bigger problem is a series of extremely hot days that are not normal and cause problems with pasture growth and crop damage. Generally though it is these extremes that cause the damage not the averages.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> That's quite true but it is not consistent, after 10 years of very dry conditions we are now into our third moist season with quite good rainfall, possibly benefiting from some of the Heavy Queensland dumps that have moved down the coast, winners and losers. What farmers have been doing though is investing in more efficient ways to use water and are now reaping the benefits. A bigger problem is a series of extremely hot days that are not normal and cause problems with pasture growth and crop damage. Generally though it is these extremes that cause the damage not the averages.

  Average rainfall in the south east has actually been falling since the 90's but the trend has not been sufficient to statistically call it a step change (as they did with SW West Oz back in the late 60's).  Seasonal variation is all over the shop too. 
Curiously, the new CC projection analysis from CSIRO that are due for public release in October-ish (pending the usual approvals) seem to back this observed trend being maintained into the future but with some wild regional variations which will make the actual risk analysis for adaptation techniques a significant challenge.  Basically, all anyone on the land is going to be able to do is continue to do what they are trying to do now...plan to be flexible...easier to say than do though. 
One of the really cool learning tools that's coming out the work is the climate analogue tool which allows you to plug in the projection possibilities for your town and be presented with a range of localities in the country whose current climate is an analogue for the climate your town might experience come 203 or 2050...Adelaide seems to come out more like Whyalla or Port Augusta with amusing frequency.  It's not particularly useful from a practical scientific perspective but it is interesting. Still there's a lot more than just that to this work...possibly even more than is healthy!!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...if you want a warm fuzzy feeling by spending a lot of money, buy yourself a pedigreed fluffy dog!

  Not necessary.  You can pick them up from the pound for a pittance.  And they are just as tasty. 
On the other hand, don't go cheap with a cat.  The pampered ones are far more tender, less gamey and the extra fat makes for an excellent sunscreen and anti-chafing cream.

----------


## woodbe

> One of the really cool learning tools that's coming out the work is the climate analogue tool which allows you to plug in the projection possibilities for your town and be presented with a range of localities in the country whose current climate is an analogue for the climate your town might experience come 203 or 2050...Adelaide seems to come out more like Whyalla or Port Augusta with amusing frequency.

  Great... So what does Whyalla and Pt Augusta come out like?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Great... So what does Whyalla and Pt Augusta come out like?

  Dunno. I'll try it when I get another shot at it.

----------


## intertd6

> Great... So what does Whyalla and Pt Augusta come out like?

  more or less like the desert meeting the sea as usual wouldn't one say?
regards inter

----------


## Marc

<a onclick="_gaq.push(['_trackEvent', 'Outgoing', 'www.youtube.com', '/watch?v=jW_5BT6oFhQ']);" rel="nofollow" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW_5BT6oFhQ" target="_blank">  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW_5BT6oFhQ

----------


## intertd6

It is always good to see a parody of how ridiculous situations are! There is so much material to work with its a wonder they know where to start!
Regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Not necessary.  You can pick them up from the pound for a pittance.  And they are just as tasty. 
> On the other hand, don't go cheap with a cat.  The pampered ones are far more tender, less gamey and the extra fat makes for an excellent sunscreen and anti-chafing cream.

  we all understand your true need for the cream!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Really? You clever little man. Happy to send you some if you want to try it.

----------


## intertd6

> Really? You clever little man. Happy to send you some if you want to try it.

  I'm waiting for the day I become really really clever & get sucked in by the CO2 propaganda which goes against global climate history & leave the lubricating qualities of the feline species to those with misguided aspirations of saving the planet
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I have no aspirations for saving the planet. It doesn't need saving...any more than the average moggy does. In fact, it is the least of our problems...

----------


## John2b

*You May Be Denying Climate Change, But The US Military Isn't**Climate change threatens national security**This issue is about science, not politics, and the military is taking it very seriously* Climate change affects military readiness, strains base resilience, creates missions in new regions of the world and increases the likelihood that our armed forces will be deployed for humanitarian missions. 
...climate is not about predictions of a specific day’s weather months or years in the future. It’s understanding the trends: hotter or colder, wetter or drier, trends in sea level rise and in severe storms...  http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2014/07/06/Climate-change-threatens-national-security-by-David-Titley/stories/201407060071#ixzz36tHHuDmt

----------


## John2b

according to some people here, Australia should be the last country to do something to mitigate climate change. Well, that we will be is almost a given...  BEIJING: Chinese and US firms and research institutes on Tuesday signed agreements on eight joint projects for coping with climate change ahead of a strategic dialogue between the two countries.   The projects address carbon capture, usage and storage, hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) reduction, and the move toward low-carbon cities and a low-carbon model for the cement industry.   The deals marked some of the achievements by the China-US climate change working group, launched during US Secretary of State John Kerry's visit to China in April 2013 and aimed at enhancing cooperation on climate change, state-run Xinhua news agency reported.   The working group will report to senior Chinese and US leaders attending the sixth China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue beginning tomorrow in Beijing.   The US and China, two of the world's biggest emitters of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming, have agreed to closely work together on concrete steps against climate change.  China, US sign agreements to cope with climate change - The Times of India

----------


## Marc

Since the planet does not need "saving" as correctly pointed out by Silent, since varying or even suppressing totally our CO2 production means nothing to the climate, it is blatantly obvious that all those who jump on the "Global warming" bandwagon do so for commercial purposes. 
Think back a few hundred years, remember what massive money spinner "saving our souls" was. From a massive incentive in the arts, massive building of churches world wide, massive number of employment, the economic value of religion and the outreach was comparable to what the oil and gas industry is today and perhaps more. 
The Global Warming fraud has the hope of stirring up a similar interest and economic money spin. 
Fortunately it seems they will fail in their attempt to fool the punters.

----------


## John2b

> The Global Warming fraud has the hope of stirring up a similar interest and economic money spin. 
> Fortunately it seems they will fail in their attempt to fool the punters.

  Who or what is "they" and who is in charge of "they"?

----------


## johnc

> Who or what is "they" and who is in charge of "they"?

  Amusing isn't it, it implies a sophisticated level of organisation and cooperation beyond the capacity of human beings, must be Martians or Klingons.   :Biggrin:

----------


## John2b

> those who jump on the "Global warming" bandwagon do so for commercial purposes.

  You might be onto something, Marc.  :2thumbsup:  Monsanto has attributed its below expectation financial results in part to increasing climate variability due to global warming. This has driven Monsanto to spend $1 billion dollars to buy Climate Corporation, a weather forecaster that uses sophisticated climate modelling to predict future weather patterns. 
"Our mission is to help all the world’s people and businesses manage and adapt to climate change." 
"We are pushing the bounds of large-scale data analysis, modelling, simulation and software development to find novel solutions to some of our generation's most important problems." 
“For me the most compelling thing is the science. Here, most of my co-workers are actually scientists; I get to work on things that improve our knowledge about the world, not just improve a business product.” - Leon, Software Engineer Michael Specter: Can the Climate Corporation Help Farmers Survive Global Warming? : The New Yorker

----------


## Uncle Bob

You guys might like to read the UN report here: http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads...014_report.pdf

----------


## johnc

> You guys might like to read the UN report here: http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads...014_report.pdf

  Looks like a interesting report, bit long for the attention span for a couple of blokes here plus it contains some big words and an ability to discuss without going "der" first. Will read it later.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Who or what is "they" and who is in charge of "they"?

  Perhaps you should Google it.  If your Google-Fu is righteous then the answers will tumble forth...it clearly works for Marc. 
My G-Fu found the answer to be 'zombies' and 'George A. Romero' but your G-Fu might turn up something completely different!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You guys might like to read the UN report here: http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads...014_report.pdf

  Good find...useful too.  I'm rather pessimistic about the Oz research teams assumptions with regard to potential agroforestry and its potential for 'de-carbonisation'.  In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that they are deeply misled by the potential and the capacity of our landscape to capture and store carbon.  
And then there is the current suite of economic disincentives (also known as the Carbon Farming Initiative) for the land sector (that's farmers to you and me) to actually develop agroforestry on land under their management for the purposes of carbon capture and storage...and this particular community have a long memory when it comes to this particular sort of idiocy.

----------


## intertd6

> I have no aspirations for saving the planet. It doesn't need saving...any more than the average moggy does. In fact, it is the least of our problems...

  Ok I wasn't quite correct, but 1 out of 2 isn't too bad!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> *You May Be Denying Climate Change, But The US Military Isn't*   *Climate change threatens national security*  *This issue is about science, not politics, and the military is taking it very seriously*   Climate change affects military readiness, strains base resilience, creates missions in new regions of the world and increases the likelihood that our armed forces will be deployed for humanitarian missions. 
> ...climate is not about predictions of a specific day’s weather months or years in the future. It’s understanding the trends: hotter or colder, wetter or drier, trends in sea level rise and in severe storms...  http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2014/07/06/Climate-change-threatens-national-security-by-David-Titley/stories/201407060071#ixzz36tHHuDmt

  what haven't you worked this one out yet? Increased budget & military capacity under the guise of global warming, you beauty!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> what haven't you worked this one out yet? Increased budget & military capacity under the guise of global warming, you beauty!
> regards inter

  As good an excuse as any of the other lame duck reasons...like armed escorts for decrepit fishing boats with politically unpalatable cargo.

----------


## intertd6

> As good an excuse as any of the other lame duck reasons...like armed escorts for decrepit fishing boats with politically unpalatable cargo.

  Your nearly, so close, almost, maybe, just not quite there! Just missing the whole pretence, where the US will spend bizillions, most of the money will stay in their country, creating industry & jobs, sadly this nations leaders will do the exact opposite, with *all generating much at all but a trade deficit.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Your nearly, so close, almost, maybe, just not quite there! Just missing the whole pretence, where the US will spend bizillions, most of the money will stay in their country, creating industry & jobs, sadly this nations leaders will do the exact opposite, with *all generating much at all but a trade deficit.
> regards inter

  Oh I don't know about that. Pine Gap and a decent chunk of the Curtin base must be worth a bit in lease fees. Have to be good for us/au balance of trade. Wonder who's in front there? How about finding out, Inter? You're good with facts!

----------


## John2b

> You guys might like to read the UN report here: http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads...014_report.pdf

   *"Avoiding dangerous climate change and achieving sustainable development are inextricably linked.* There is no prospect of winning the fight against climate change if countries fail on poverty eradication or if countries do not succeed in raising the living standards of their people."  
Who wudda thort?

----------


## intertd6

> Oh I don't know about that. Pine Gap and a decent chunk of the Curtin base must be worth a bit in lease fees. Have to be good for us/au balance of trade. Wonder who's in front there? How about finding out, Inter? You're good with facts!

  you really have to tell me what substances I have to take to even imagine how I can make the link from what was being discussed beforehand to the latest red herring above!
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

Just for a change of pace. 
GOTTA LOVE ALL THAT SNOW we were never going to get again this time of year. 
yeah yeah

----------


## intertd6

> *"Avoiding dangerous climate change and achieving sustainable development are inextricably linked.* There is no prospect of winning the fight against climate change if countries fail on poverty eradication or if countries do not succeed in raising the living standards of their people."  
> Who wudda thort?

  Who in their right mind would believe this stuff? I see. A couple of takers already!
Regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Just for a change of pace. 
> GOTTA LOVE ALL THAT SNOW we were never going to get again this time of year. 
> yeah yeah

  Who said that? Was it the "they" organisation that Marc is always quoting? 
Snowfall is very variable. Which previous year are you comparing to?

----------


## intertd6

> Who said that? Was it the "they" organisation that Marc is always quoting? 
> Snowfall is very variable. Which previous year are you comparing to?

  you should ask yourself that question! How about showing this years graph to see how were heading on the average?
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> you should ask yourself that question! How about showing this years graph to see how were heading on the average?
> regards inter

  Don't know which of 3 questions you are referring to! (Exclamation mark used to mirror yours!) As for this year's snowfall, here it is:

----------


## intertd6

Yes in regards to the questions, snow fall is variable & this season is looking good go above well above average, especially after the expected weather dumps more snow! Obviously CO2 is having a holiday this year.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Yes in regards to the questions, snow fall is variable & this season is looking good go above well above average, especially after the expected weather dumps more snow! Obviously CO2 is having a holiday this year.
> regards inter

  Still mixing up weather and climate, eh?  "The difference between weather and climate can be really confusing, but one way to remember it is:_climate is what you’d expect, and weather is what you get.__Weather_ _is what we get, day to day, and this varies in the short term._ _Climate_ is the long term average of the weather patterns we experience, usually taken over 30 years or longer."   The difference between weather and climate change is...? - Climate Council 
Oh, you didn't answer: who said we were never going to get anymore snow?

----------


## intertd6

> Still mixing up weather and climate, eh? "The difference between weather and climate can be really confusing, but one way to remember it is:_climate is what youd expect, and weather is what you get.__Weather_ _is what we get, day to day, and this varies in the short term._ _Climate_ is the long term average of the weather patterns we experience, usually taken over 30 years or longer."   The difference between weather and climate change is...? - Climate Council 
> Oh, you didn't answer: who said we were never going to get anymore snow?

  if you think your really good just find where I have confused weather with climate? 
I didn't answer, because I never made the claim about no snow, no wonder you can't understand the more complex issues.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> if you think your really good just find where I have confused weather with climate?

  Oh, about 3 posts up:   

> Yes in regards to the questions, snow fall is variable & this season is looking good go above well above average, especially after the expected weather dumps more snow! Obviously CO2 is having a holiday this year.

----------


## intertd6

> Oh, about 3 posts up:

  I & many others would find it impossible to comprehend or participate in that delusion.
i suppose with your thought processes anything is possible!
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> I & many others would find it impossible to comprehend or participate in that delusion.
> i suppose with your thought processes anything is possible!
> regards inter

  No point bringing others into it, your interpretations and delusions are your own, I see we are back to basic insults and character assassination again can't we just make an effort to get above that and stick to the topic.

----------


## woodbe

Michael Mann and the UVA kick another goal.   

> *Climate science denier group must pay damages for frivolous lawsuit against UVA, scientist*                                                             	                Virginia's highest court has ruled that the American Tradition  Institute (ATI), a free-market think tank that promotes climate science  denial, must pay damages to the University of Virginia and former  professor Michael Mann for filing a frivolous lawsuit against them. The  decision comes in a case that has sparked controversy about the abuse of  public records laws to harass climate scientists.
>  	Mann, who now directs Penn State's Earth Systems Science Center, has  been a target of climate science deniers for his research showing that  the recent spike in global temperatures -- the so-called "hockey stick" graph -- is linked to the burning of fossil fuels. A Facing South investigation found that ATI had connections to fossil-fuel interests. The group, which last year changed its name to the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (EELI), is a spin-off of the American Tradition Partnership, a dark-money group that has been embroiled in campaign finance controversies.
>  	On July 8, the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the ruling by the  Circuit Court of Prince William County on appeal, ordering ATI to pay  $250 in damages. For a copy of the order, click here.
>  	In a post to his Facebook page, Mann acknowledged that it was a  small fine. "The important thing is that it is a slap in the face of  ATI," he wrote.

  Climate science denier group must pay damages for frivolous lawsuit against UVA, scientist

----------


## intertd6

> Michael Mann and the UVA kick another goal.    Climate science denier group must pay damages for frivolous lawsuit against UVA, scientist

  wow it must have been a serious matter & having to pay $250 in damages! 
 Regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> No point bringing others into it, your interpretations and delusions are your own, I see we are back to basic insults and character assassination again can't we just make an effort to get above that and stick to the topic.

  I love it when people write cheques they can't cash!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Chequebooks are so old fashioned...

----------


## John2b

Brisbane records coldest morning in 103 years - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
Before the denier brigade starts drooling over this, consider this fact: more severe minimums are an expected consequence of a changing climate brought about by global warming. Even though maximum temperatures are generally warmer than average, decreased cloud cover often leads to cooler-than-average night-time temperatures during winter–spring, particularly across eastern Australia.  "One of the greatest impacts of climate variability and climate change occurs through changes in the frequency and severity of extreme events."   Climate information  State of the Climate 2014: Bureau of Meteorology

----------


## John2b

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein  Yet geoengineering is the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate system designed to counter global warming or offset some of its effects. More than 40 schemes have been put forward, with some the subject of intensive research.  There are two types of geoengineering: removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, by capturing it from the air, making biochar, or adding lime to the oceans – and solar shielding aimed at increasing the Earth’s reflectivity, such as painting roofs white, putting mirrors in space and brightening marine clouds. 
Bill Gates is now the world’s leading financial supporter of geoengineering research, including Silver Lining, a company pursuing marine cloud brightening methods, and Carbon Engineering Ltd, a start-up company developing technology to capture carbon dioxide from ambient air on an industrial scale. Richard Branson is also promoting geoengineering as a response to climate change.  Oil companies are quietly backing research into geoengineering. Royal Dutch Shell is funding study of liming the seas, BP was the convener of an expert meeting in 2009 on climate engineering as a response to climate emergencies, and Exxon Mobil, for years the principal funder of climate science disinformation, has also proposed liming the oceans as a means of reducing acidification due to escalating atmospheric carbon. 
In the United States, right-wing think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, which have for years promoted denial of climate science, are now advocating geoengineering as a substitute for cutting emissions. 
Which government would not be enticed by the technofix to beat all technofixes? Think about it: no need to take on powerful fossil fuel companies, no need to tax petrol and electricity, no need to ask consumers to change their lifestyles. And instead of global warming being proof of human failure, geoengineering could be the triumph of human ingenuity.  Spraying sulphur compounds into the upper atmosphere to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the planet? Transforming the chemistry of the world?s oceans so they soak up more carbon? These ideas sound like science fiction, but technologies to ?geoe  
The Heartland Institute, for decades the world's greatest channel of global warming disinformation funding, has this to say about geoenginering:  The scientific community has reached a consensus on this. As Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen admits, efforts to forestall climate change exclusively through reductions in greenhouse gases are no more than "a pious wish." Public reports show nations have rejected this strategy, and without full, massive global cooperation, reliance on greenhouse gas reductions alone will fail. "We need an alternative to the policy myopia that sees emission reductions as the sole path to climate change abatement," and in particular we need to apply geo-engineering that can prevent global warming and reduce acidification of the oceans. Geo-Engineering Seen as a Practical, Cost-Effective Global Warming Strategy | Heartlander Magazine

----------


## johnc

You have to wonder if that band aid will stop the wound getting worse or if it is feasible. Someone has to pay and one would imagine these techno fixes probably carry their on risks. Maybe as a short term effort to lower the impact of warming but long term we still have to do something about the emissions themselves. I would expect that technology is on the verge of seeing renewables becoming cheaper than fossil fuels. They already are when we take health effects into account on coal fired power, gas is still cheaper in most cases, but for countries that don't have abundant coal and oil renewables offer a more reliable and cheaper power source already.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Geoengineering strikes me as like trying to quit smoking with sticky tape.  You don't have to do anything with the cigarette...just put the sticky tape over your mouth. Yeah...that's a solution.

----------


## John2b

> I would expect that technology is on the verge of seeing renewables becoming cheaper than fossil fuels. They already are when we take health effects into account on coal fired power, gas is still cheaper in most cases, but for countries that don't have abundant coal and oil renewables offer a more reliable and cheaper power source already.

  Not on the verge, already cheaper, even without subsidies and even cheaper still if the cost of existing subsidies to fossil fuel power is considered. And that's the _build_ cost - the fuel cost is zero for renewables whereas it still costs money to dig up fossils for the CO2 emitters!  "It is very unlikely that new coal-fired power stations will be built in Australia. They are just too expensive now, compared to renewables”  Renewable energy now cheaper than new fossil fuels in Australia | Bloomberg New Energy Finance

----------


## John2b

> Geoengineering strikes me as like trying to quit smoking with sticky tape.  You don't have to do anything with the cigarette...just put the sticky tape over your mouth. Yeah...that's a solution.

  The real problems will come when, say, the US wants to protect its agriculture industry by cooling the Arctic to bring rain the North America, whereas Russia wants the arctic to melt so that it can open up Siberia to oil, gas and mineral exploration. Meanwhile the poorest nations will have no say in geoengineering, yet will most likely suffer its worst consequences with unintentionally altered climate - without the resources and ability to adapt. 
I believe we are decades past the time by which CO2 emissions had to fall to zero for any chance of keeping future climate change benign, Consequently I think within a decade or two, $100s billions will be spent annually globally on geoengineering schemes, especially ocean cloud brightening, which is considered to be able to be switched off virtually instantly if it causes an unintended catastrophes.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Unlikely. Such actions will require some level of global consensus and if you can't get it on the output side why would get it on this side... 
There's plenty of things to do before you have to go this far.  You don't fix obesity with surgery as the first option.

----------


## John2b

> Unlikely. Such actions will require some level of global consensus and if you can't get it on the output side why would get it on this side... 
> There's plenty of things to do before you have to go this far.  You don't fix obesity with surgery as the first option.

  Here's the rub - because cloud brightening can take place in international waters, it does not (currently) require an international agreement. I agree that there a plenty of things that should be done first. I am horrified by the thought of unintended calamities caused by geoengineering when the climate system isn't understood at all well at a regional precision level. 
BTW - you might want to check the standard approach to obesity in Australia - it often does involve surgery (I am not saying I agree this is how it should be!). The number of bariatric procedures in Australia is roughly doubling every two years. Joe Hockey's dramatic weight loss was due to surgery and there is a dramatic expansion of the Medicare rebate system for bariatric surgery on the cards.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Sheesh...I said not as a first option!!!! The Hockstar probably gave up the pies and Smarties before hitting up the last resort. As it should be elsewhere...

----------


## John2b

> The Hockstar probably gave up the pies and Smarties before hitting up the last resort.

  No, according to Hockey the surgery was prompted by his 6 year old daughter asking if he would still be alive to witness her wedding. And he chose to have irreversible surgery, removing 80% of his stomach, but which allows him to continue enjoying foods such as steak, sausages and bread - not usually possible with a gastric band surgery. His bariatric choices explain a lot about his views on climate change. To paraphrase, why not continue to pig out on fossil energy when you can deal with the consequences by sticking up a giant planetary sunshade?

----------


## intertd6

> Not on the verge, already cheaper, even without subsidies and even cheaper still if the cost of existing subsidies to fossil fuel power is considered. And that's the _build_ cost - the fuel cost is zero for renewables whereas it still costs money to dig up fossils for the CO2 emitters!"It is very unlikely that new coal-fired power stations will be built in Australia. They are just too expensive now, compared to renewables  Renewable energy now cheaper than new fossil fuels in Australia | Bloomberg New Energy Finance

  you would have to wonder why China isn't relying on renewables & their reliance on fossil fuels increased by about 300% over the last 15 years, I don't have to wonder at all, it's unreliable & can never deliver the demand needed when needed. File:Electricity Production in China.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
regards inter

----------


## John2b

Are you trying to start a Wikipedia war? 
Renewable energy is helping the People's Republic of China complete its economic transformation and achieve energy security. China has progressed rapidly along the path of renewable energy development.  Renewable energy in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
"Over the past few years, China has emerged as a global leader in clean energy, topping the world in production of compact fluorescent light bulbs, solar water heaters, solar photovoltaic (PV) cells, and wind turbines. The remarkable rise of China’s clean energy sector reflects a strong and growing commitment by the government to diversify its energy economy, reduce environmental problems, and stave off massive increases in energy imports. Around the world, governments and industries now find themselves struggling to keep pace with the new pacesetter in global clean energy development."  http://www.worldwatch.org/bookstore/publication/worldwatch-report-182-renewable-energy-and-energy-efficiency-china-current-sta

----------


## johnc

> you would have to wonder why China isn't relying on renewables & their reliance on fossil fuels increased by about 300% over the last 15 years, I don't have to wonder at all, it's unreliable & can never deliver the demand needed when needed. File:Electricity Production in China.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> regards inter

  Take the time to read some English language daily's from China, they are really working on renewables and using coal to bridge the gap of their economic expansion. They are retiring the worst of coal and bringing in more efficient plants plus drastically increasing renewables. China has some serious health and air quality issues regarding coal particulate matter which it has listed as next to redress  and understand the cost of coal includes health, it is not cheap power. Unless we get change in America and China of course we are just peeing in the wind, things are changing but is Australia going to be left behind.

----------


## intertd6

> "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein  Yet geoengineering is the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate system designed to counter global warming or offset some of its effects. More than 40 schemes have been put forward, with some the subject of intensive research.  There are two types of geoengineering: removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, by capturing it from the air, making biochar, or adding lime to the oceans – and solar shielding aimed at increasing the Earth’s reflectivity, such as painting roofs white, putting mirrors in space and brightening marine clouds. 
> Bill Gates is now the world’s leading financial supporter of geoengineering research, including Silver Lining, a company pursuing marine cloud brightening methods, and Carbon Engineering Ltd, a start-up company developing technology to capture carbon dioxide from ambient air on an industrial scale. Richard Branson is also promoting geoengineering as a response to climate change.  Oil companies are quietly backing research into geoengineering. Royal Dutch Shell is funding study of liming the seas, BP was the convener of an expert meeting in 2009 on climate engineering as a response to climate emergencies, and Exxon Mobil, for years the principal funder of climate science disinformation, has also proposed liming the oceans as a means of reducing acidification due to escalating atmospheric carbon. 
> In the United States, right-wing think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, which have for years promoted denial of climate science, are now advocating geoengineering as a substitute for cutting emissions. 
> Which government would not be enticed by the technofix to beat all technofixes? Think about it: no need to take on powerful fossil fuel companies, no need to tax petrol and electricity, no need to ask consumers to change their lifestyles. And instead of global warming being proof of human failure, geoengineering could be the triumph of human ingenuity.  Spraying sulphur compounds into the upper atmosphere to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the planet? Transforming the chemistry of the world?s oceans so they soak up more carbon? These ideas sound like science fiction, but technologies to ?geoe  
> The Heartland Institute, for decades the world's greatest channel of global warming disinformation funding, has this to say about geoenginering:  The scientific community has reached a consensus on this. As Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen admits, efforts to forestall climate change exclusively through reductions in greenhouse gases are no more than "a pious wish." Public reports show nations have rejected this strategy, and without full, massive global cooperation, reliance on greenhouse gas reductions alone will fail. "We need an alternative to the policy myopia that sees emission reductions as the sole path to climate change abatement," and in particular we need to apply geo-engineering that can prevent global warming and reduce acidification of the oceans. Geo-Engineering Seen as a Practical, Cost-Effective Global Warming Strategy | Heartlander Magazine

  the simple rule for life on earth is, warmth = life , cold = death! 
The trend over the last 10,000 years has been cooling until the start of industrialisation. Nobody has to be a rocket scientist to work out which way the temperature has to head for life on earth to be healthy & warm
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> you would have to wonder why China isn't relying on renewables & their reliance on fossil fuels increased by about 300% over the last 15 years,

  
So China's growth in fossil energy increased much less than their growth in renewables over the last 15 years...  :2thumbsup:  You'd have to wonder what is the point of your post?  :Shock:

----------


## John2b

> the simple rule for life on earth is, warmth = life , cold = death!

  Try living on Venus... Oops - Venus has a high CO2 atmosphere...

----------


## johnc

> So China's growth in fossil energy increased much less than their growth in renewables over the last 15 years...  You'd have to wonder what is the point of your post?

  As usual no point and no interest in either truth or accuracy, you have to love his consistency.

----------


## John2b

> I don't have to wonder at all, it's unreliable & can never deliver the demand needed when needed.

  You'd have to wonder where you get your information from... 
In South Australia: South Australia leaps towards 40% wind and solar : Renew Economy 
In Germany: Germany Sets New Record, Generating 74 Percent Of Power Needs From Renewable Energy | ThinkProgress

----------


## intertd6

> Take the time to read some English language daily's from China, they are really working on renewables and using coal to bridge the gap of their economic expansion. They are retiring the worst of coal and bringing in more efficient plants plus drastically increasing renewables. China has some serious health and air quality issues regarding coal particulate matter which it has listed as next to redress  and understand the cost of coal includes health, it is not cheap power. Unless we get change in America and China of course we are just peeing in the wind, things are changing but is Australia going to be left behind.

  you should take your own advice, China's energy consumption is measured in terawatts, renewables in gigawatts.
the percentage values on your graph are not relevant to China's total energy consumption but just the breakup of the renewables on their own, but if you had bothered to follow the link in my post you would have known that!
there is an old Chinese proverb " engage brain before putting mouth in gear! "
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> there is an old Chinese proverb " engage brain before putting mouth in gear!

  Er - growth is growth, % is %. Confucius say old Chinese proverb apply equally to everyone...

----------


## John2b

> I don't have to wonder at all, it's unreliable & can never deliver the demand needed when needed.

  Last week, wind energy was the new base load in Australia : Renew Economy

----------


## johnc

> you should take your own advice, China's energy consumption is measured in terawatts, renewables in gigawatts.
> the percentage values on your graph are not relevant to China's total energy consumption but just the breakup of the renewables on their own, but if you had bothered to follow the link in my post you would have known that!
> there is an old Chinese proverb " engage brain before putting mouth in gear! "
> regards inter

  You really have no idea how to behave do you.

----------


## intertd6

> Try living on Venus... Oops - Venus has a high CO2 atmosphere...

  Even a farmer can't confuse apples & oranges, but you surely can, trying to compare Venus to the earth in this way.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Even a farmer can't confuse apples & oranges, but you surely can, trying to compare Venus to the earth in this way.

  Farmers are too busy panicking about rapid climate change to be comparing Venus to Earth, but they have a stake in reality...

----------


## intertd6

> You really have no idea how to behave do you.

  you still haven't followed the link yet have you? 
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Farmers are too busy panicking about rapid climate change to be comparing Venus to Earth, but they have a stake in reality...

   The only thing farmers are panicking about is whether their financial institution is going to foreclose on their business when the natural climatic extremes of this country come about, which have done since settlement & beyond!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Their bank's are the least of their worries. They tend to behave in a predictable way, decade after decade.  Now if that was the case with the weather and commodity markets...there'd be nothing to worry about.

----------


## intertd6

> Their bank's are the least of their worries. They tend to behave in a predictable way, decade after decade.  Now if that was the case with the weather and commodity markets...there'd be nothing to worry about.

  it seems there is a new tributary to denial, naive, when I comes to financial institutions!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> it seems there is a new tributary to denial, naive, when I comes to financial institutions!
> regards inter

  Reads like an admission. 
So you have multiple tributaries of denial in you, inter. Who would have thought?  :2thumbsup:

----------


## johnc

> it seems there is a new tributary to denial, naive, when I comes to financial institutions!
> regards inter

  You are brave to admit you are naïve when it comes to dealing with financial institutions. It's simple really you only have a problem borrowing when you are lacking adequate security or the means to repay, the bank will never be a problem while you meet you repayments and aren't bouncing cheques. Banking 101 for you. :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> it seems there is a new tributary to denial, naive, when I comes to financial institutions!

   :Sad3:  
Did we have a tapatalk typing fail or a Google Translate fail...or some other type of fail? Cause I have no idea what you are talking about...and the other two weren't any help either!!!!

----------


## intertd6

> You are brave to admit you are naïve when it comes to dealing with financial institutions. It's simple really you only have a problem borrowing when you are lacking adequate security or the means to repay, the bank will never be a problem while you meet you repayments and aren't bouncing cheques. Banking 101 for you.

  words clearly fail to describe your delusions as usual! It seems anything is truly possible!

----------


## intertd6

> Did we have a tapatalk typing fail or a Google Translate fail...or some other type of fail? Cause I have no idea what you are talking about...and the other two weren't any help either!!!!

  swwooossshhhhh! It went way over your head!
 Regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Reads like an admission. 
> So you have multiple tributaries of denial in you, inter. Who would have thought?

  its not surprising what you can read into anything, after looking at this debate! 
Regards inter

----------


## intertd6

With the latest AGW deviation from the topic it must be really hard for them to be faced with the ultimate demise of the carbon tax, Hooray! the tax is going! And it took someone with guts to stipulate that the door is nailed closed on the unscrupulous doing what they do best.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> words clearly fail to describe your delusions as usual! It seems anything is truly possible!

  Your grammar completely failed you, lighten up and develop a sense of humour, it is not as if any of us take you seriously anyway. What you wrote made no sense you are like that dolt Freud so wrapped up in yourself you can't see the wood for the trees.

----------


## John2b

From BRW, the leading Australian business magazine examining the trends and opportunities shaping business: 
"Australia is the only country in the world dismantling a working carbon price: one that has, in its short life, already reduced emissions by nearly 40 megatonnes CO2 equivalent." 
Australiaâs climate plan: are you serious?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> With the latest AGW deviation from the topic it must be really hard for them to be faced with the ultimate demise of the carbon tax, Hooray! the tax is going! And it took someone with guts to stipulate that the door is nailed closed on the unscrupulous doing what they do best.
> regards inter

  My nose bleeds for the carbon tax... 
If you want to do something right...do it once, do it properly. The carbon tax was a bodge job...

----------


## intertd6

> From BRW, the leading Australian business magazine examining the trends and opportunities shaping business: 
> "Australia is the only country in the world dismantling a working carbon price: one that has, in its short life, already reduced emissions by nearly 40 megatonnes CO2 equivalent." 
> Australiaâs climate plan: are you serious?

   If you had been keeping up, Australia will move to some sort of carbon pricing scheme WHEN other countries do! What could be fairer than that & that is still moving towards carbon pricing, just not an idiotic scheme like the last one!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

Moving to a carbon pricing scheme was never part of the Abbott government's plan, it's a result of doing deals with minor parties, something Abbott said he would NEVER do. And a carbon pricing scheme is EXACTLY what we already have...

----------


## intertd6

> Your grammar completely failed you, lighten up and develop a sense of humour, it is not as if any of us take you seriously anyway. What you wrote made no sense you are like that dolt Freud so wrapped up in yourself you can't see the wood for the trees.

  no you just failed my grammar! Which isn't hard in any sense of the word, but who really cares! While ever you guys post your nonsense on here my sense of humour will be at an all time high! Money couldn't buy the laughs you give me!
Freud, Pavlov, now all we need is Maslow to complete our behavioural study lesson for the week, that is of course after the completing the mandatory grammar lesson!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Moving to a carbon pricing scheme was never part of the Abbott government's plan, it's a result of doing deals with minor parties, something Abbott said he would NEVER do. And a carbon pricing scheme is EXACTLY what we already have...

  Exactly what we had was an idiotic scheme which drove manufacturing out of the country & was pushed on the labour govt by a minority party! The greens, PUP has effectively got rid of it forever with the greedy having to hand back the tax, what a bonus! Clive is my hero!
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> Exactly what we had was an idiotic scheme which drove manufacturing out of the country & was pushed on the labour govt by a minority party! The greens, PUP has effectively got rid of it forever with the greedy having to hand back the tax, what a bonus! Clive is my hero!
> regards inter

  So one eyed, what about the high dollar, what about the fact that despite a doubling of power prices, your real bogey man, only small portion is due to the carbon tax. Remove the tax but most of the problems remain. These one dimensional arguments are a stupid waste of time unless you can see the total problem not the one some politician pointed you towards. Clive may have helped repeal the tax but he put a hold on the repeal of the associated spending measures making the deficit an even bigger problem, nice to see your hero is a financial wastrel, but that's ok it's not Labor or Greens so you can't see it a bit dumb don't you think, cut income and maintain spending to not fix the problem.

----------


## intertd6

> So one eyed, what about the high dollar, what about the fact that despite a doubling of power prices, your real bogey man, only small portion is due to the carbon tax. Remove the tax but most of the problems remain. These one dimensional arguments are a stupid waste of time unless you can see the total problem not the one some politician pointed you towards. Clive may have helped repeal the tax but he put a hold on the repeal of the associated spending measures making the deficit an even bigger problem, nice to see your hero is a financial wastrel, but that's ok it's not Labor or Greens so you can't see it a bit dumb don't you think, cut income and maintain spending to not fix the problem.

  clive reminds the the govt that it also has a social duty as well as not just the bottom line, somewhere between the two parties that are often to far to the left or right! & thank goodness for that! We don't want the same mess johnny left behind, squirrelling away money at the expense of the nation going ahead just so he could say at election time, "look at all this money i have saved!"
regards inter

----------


## John2b

Dear ol' Johnny was the most profligate spender in Australia's history. Even Intertd6's great-grandchildren will still be paying the debt back...  IMF says Howard Most Wasteful Spender

----------


## johnc

> clive reminds the the govt that it also has a social duty as well as not just the bottom line, somewhere between the two parties that are often to far to the left or right! & thank goodness for that! We don't want the same mess johnny left behind, squirrelling away money at the expense of the nation going ahead just so he could say at election time, "look at all this money i have saved!"
> regards inter

  
What Howard saved was the equivalent of only a few weeks spending although they did manage to pay off debt, that government remains the biggest spending in terms of percentage of GDP. It is irresponsible to remove a tax and retain its compensation measures blowing out the deficit in the process. We have inherited a huge issue in blown out social security spending and reduced tax revenue as a result of Howard era changes, the previous government didn't address the Liberals largesse and added even more spending, this lot seem hell bent on blowing spending out even further despite their rhetoric and are not doing anything at all about the revenue shortfall and compounding the problem by gutting the ATO's audit division as part of removing 3500 staff from the ATO. ATO audit staff are estimated to recover about three times their wages in tax recovered from bludgers in the system, it is a business no brainer but no business brains Hockey has never been in business so wouldn't understand. The way this lot are going they will match Whitlam for changing everything they can get their hands on and blowing the nations finances to pieces at the same time. This lot applies to all of parliament not just the LNP.

----------


## intertd6

> What Howard saved was the equivalent of only a few weeks spending although they did manage to pay off debt, that government remains the biggest spending in terms of percentage of GDP. It is irresponsible to remove a tax and retain its compensation measures blowing out the deficit in the process. We have inherited a huge issue in blown out social security spending and reduced tax revenue as a result of Howard era changes, the previous government didn't address the Liberals largesse and added even more spending, this lot seem hell bent on blowing spending out even further despite their rhetoric and are not doing anything at all about the revenue shortfall and compounding the problem by gutting the ATO's audit division as part of removing 3500 staff from the ATO. ATO audit staff are estimated to recover about three times their wages in tax recovered from bludgers in the system, it is a business no brainer but no business brains Hockey has never been in business so wouldn't understand. The way this lot are going they will match Whitlam for changing everything they can get their hands on and blowing the nations finances to pieces at the same time. This lot applies to all of parliament not just the LNP.

  bla bla bla! There is 10,001 pluses & minuses for every political party out there! At the end of the day the stupid carbon tax all but gone untill another bunch of clowns decide to resurrect it, the people have spoken & your in the minority, you lost! If you don't like it you can always emigrate to a place where you can gladly pay a useless tax!
regards inter

----------


## Whitey180

11298 posts! I must admit I'm not one for politics I think that mostly they are all tarred with the same brush to a degree.  
No matter how hard I've tried to understand how putting a price on carbon helps anyone or anything other than governments getting rich is beyond me.  
Putting a price on carbon does not eliminate emissions, all
It does is give the government a way to regulate emissions, and get $$ out of it at the same time. 
If any government was serious about the environment they would be rewarding people for 'going green' not penalising everyone via a tax.    
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

----------


## johnc

> bla bla bla! There is 10,001 pluses & minuses for every political party out there! At the end of the day the stupid carbon tax all but gone untill another bunch of clowns decide to resurrect it, the people have spoken & your in the minority, you lost! If you don't like it you can always emigrate to a place where you can gladly pay a useless tax!
> regards inter

  I can see you don't get it at all, the Government has scrapped a tax, it is spending more than it earns so it has compounded an existing problem. It has no real solutions to its spending problems because Palmer has the LNP on a leash, not just the mincing poodle but Hockey and Abbott. There are no winners in this, if business confidence remains at  its current low levels and supermarket prices don't shift beyond normal fluctuations then all you have is  bigger deficit and no real gain. Tax is just tax sport, to little the country goes broke to much and pubic consumerism collapses and business takes a dive. It is not a single issue what a pathetic response, winners losers, what a joke, we are all in this together did anyone win or lose of course not, it is just a decision in time it is not a beginning or end on its own account.

----------


## John2b

> If any government was serious about the environment they would be rewarding people for 'going green' not penalising everyone via a tax.

  Where would the government get the money form to reward those going green? From government revenue, of course, but where does that come from - TAX! So the reward is still penalising everyone via taxes - doh! 
The difference with the way the carbon "tax" was set up is that it was revenue neutral - i.e. the government did increase revenues from it, but returned the revenue to taxpayers vie concessions &c-.

----------


## Marc

*Celebrate! Australia’s carbon [dioxide] tax is GONE!*17 July, 2014 by Simon 9 Comments        
12 Votes   Crack open the bubbly! The carbon tax, that utterly pointless environmental gesture that would have done nothing for the climate, has been repealed today in the Senate. Good riddance.
The toxic tax, together with the originally planned emissions trading scheme, has claimed, over the years, about half a dozen senior politicians, including Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Malcolm Turnbull, all of whom have shackled themselves to the altar of climate change alarmism, and paid the price. _The Australian_ reports: _THE carbon tax has been repealed, fulfilling Tony Abbott’s “pledge in blood” to abolish the landmark Gillard government scheme._ _The Senate passed the government’s amended carbon tax repeal bills by a margin of 39 votes to 32 at 11.14am, with only the Labor Party and the Greens opposing their passage into law._ _It was the Senate’s third attempt to pass the repeal legislation._ _The vote was held as Bill Shorten gave a clear pledge to take a new carbon pricing mechanism to the next federal election, due in 2016, in the form of an emissions trading scheme._They never learn, do they? Idiots. You can add Shorten to the above list of climate victims. *Share this:*

----------


## Whitey180

> The difference with the way the carbon "tax" was set up is that it was revenue neutral - i.e. the government did increase revenues from it, but returned the revenue to taxpayers vie concessions &c-.

  I still fail to understand how putting a price on carbon reduces emissions.   
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

----------


## intertd6

> I can see you don't get it at all, the Government has scrapped a tax, it is spending more than it earns so it has compounded an existing problem. It has no real solutions to its spending problems because Palmer has the LNP on a leash, not just the mincing poodle but Hockey and Abbott. There are no winners in this, if business confidence remains at  its current low levels and supermarket prices don't shift beyond normal fluctuations then all you have is  bigger deficit and no real gain. Tax is just tax sport, to little the country goes broke to much and pubic consumerism collapses and business takes a dive. It is not a single issue what a pathetic response, winners losers, what a joke, we are all in this together did anyone win or lose of course not, it is just a decision in time it is not a beginning or end on its own account.

  more bla, bla bla, bla bla! They are just going to have to grow some spine & close the multinational company tax loop holes which bleed this country dry of billions & billions of $ a year, everybody else is paying their fair share, instantly this would put the country in a better monetary balance position. And no, we don't have to follow any other nation in doing this to stop the greed!
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

:Logic wins again:  :Fireworks:  
What a great day.

----------


## intertd6

> I still fail to understand how putting a price on carbon reduces emissions.   
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

  thats exactly how the majority of the senate sees it also, so your not on your own, only dolts & soon to be wannabes are clinging to the sinking raft of idiotic ideas. The first sign of failure is believing their own lies!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> bla bla bla! the people have spoken & your in the minority, you lost!

  Science doesn't care about popular politics or who is on the minority. *“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” Neil deGrasse Tyson Quotes (Author of Death by Black Hole)* 
Which means that Intertd6, Rod and Marc still get the benefits of science based technology, such as the opportunity to participate in this debate suing the internet, even though they do not believe the science that underpins it - the same science that predicates global warming as a consequence of burning off fossil energy originally stored over billions of years in the space of a few decades and the CO2 emissions that result...

----------


## John2b

> The first sign of failure is believing their own lies!

  So how long does the current LNP government have, td6?

----------


## John2b

> What a great day.

  I take it you are well over 70, live off a self managed super fund (share market based) and don't eat food. Yeah, it's a great day...

----------


## PhilT2

> I still fail to understand how putting a price on carbon reduces emissions.   
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

  The basic economic theory behind this is that if something costs more people will use less of it. So when electricity prices rise we tend to buy more of the things that will reduce our energy consumption eg energy efficient appliances, solar hot water and solar panels. Also we change our behaviour, become more aware of turning off lights, get rid of the second fridge etc.  
Even though the tax is gone its impact will continue.  Many people believe that energy prices will not fall significantly and may even continue to rise sharply. So the demand for energy efficient appliances, solar hot water and solar panels will continue. 
Less power usage=less emissions

----------


## woodbe

> I still fail to understand how putting a price on carbon reduces emissions.

  Because it is designed to tilt the market in favour of reduced or non-carbon energy sources. 
Firstly by adding a premium to power prices that gets consumers thinking about using less power to save their cash. 
Secondly by enticing investment in low carbon technologies. 
Companies that build power plants would be more likely to invest in low carbon power as a result. 
The genie is out of the bottle and you can't cram it back. Australia's energy use from CO2 producing power stations has reduced during the carbon tax, solar PV prices have fallen and there is a large and growing installed base. Wind power is already a significant contributor to the grid. Even rabid CC deniers have been sucked into installing Solar PV on their roofs to their own and alternate energy's benefit.

----------


## intertd6

> Dear ol' Johnny was the most profligate spender in Australia's history. Even Intertd6's great-grandchildren will still be paying the debt back...  IMF says Howard Most Wasteful Spender

  That is by far the funniest thing I have read on these pages so far! But to some it is legitimate because they can't grasp a simple balance sheet of the countries finances, no wonder they can't grasp the CO2 hoax!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

Installed, unsubsidised renewable generation is already cheaper that non-renewables such as coal and gas - without even taking into account the massive subsidies / tax concessions the fossil energy industries get. And that is just the plant cost, renewable "fuel" is essentially free, unlike coal and gas which has to be dug up out of the ground and transported to the generator. Carbon tax or not, it is unlikely that any new fossil energy plants will be built in Australia.  Renewable energy now cheaper than new fossil fuels in Australia | Bloomberg New Energy Finance

----------


## intertd6

> Because it is designed to tilt the market in favour of reduced or non-carbon energy sources. 
> Firstly by adding a premium to power prices that gets consumers thinking about using less power to save their cash. 
> Secondly by enticing investment in low carbon technologies. 
> Companies that build power plants would be more likely to invest in low carbon power as a result. 
> The genie is out of the bottle and you can't cram it back. Australia's energy use from CO2 producing power stations has reduced during the carbon tax, solar PV prices have fallen and there is a large and growing installed base. Wind power is already a significant contributor to the grid. Even rabid CC deniers have been sucked into installing Solar PV on their roofs to their own and alternate energy's benefit.

  That was what it was designed to do, but what it actually did was drive manufacturing out of this country & if we weren't digging up & selling our resources feverishly we would be in the realms of Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Iceland........ & broke.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> That is by far the funniest thing I have read on these pages so far! But to some it is legitimate because they can't grasp a simple balance sheet of the countries finances, no wonder they can't grasp the CO2 hoax!

  Let's say there is an asset that generates revenue that goes into government consolidated revenue, reducing the need for taxes. Howard sells the asset for a one-time revenue bonus, but now the asset that was once public owned sends its profits to private, not public benefit. The public now has to pay more for the uses of the asset it once owned and more in taxes to offset the loss of revenue from said asset. Someone who "can't grasp a simple balance sheet of the countries finances" might think they are better off since Howard. Look at how household debt escalated during the Howard years (statistics from the Reserve Bank of Australia):

----------


## intertd6

> So how long does the current LNP government have, td6?

  I don't really care, But I think they will get a second term, only because there is a good balance of power in the senate to keep them in check from self imploding from idiotic policies, which from history is the political sword they fall on that brings them undone.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> That was what it was designed to do, but what it actually did was drive manufacturing out of this country & if we weren't digging up & selling our resources feverishly we would be in the realms of Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Iceland........ & broke.

  Open your eyes! The carbon "tax" hasn't had a poofteenth of the impact of the Abbott government in damaging business confidence in Australia - and Abbott's first year isn't even up yet... 
BTW, digging stuff out of the ground and exporting the profits offshore (the only kind of business that has benefited under Abbott) is the kind of business that Australia would be better off without!

----------


## Whitey180

> Installed, unsubsidised renewable generation is already cheaper that non-renewables such as coal and gas - without even taking into account the massive subsidies / tax concessions the fossil energy industries get. And that is just the plant cost, renewable "fuel" is essentially free, unlike coal and gas which has to be dug up out of the ground and transported to the generator. Carbon tax or not, it is unlikely that any new fossil energy plants will be built in Australia.  Renewable energy now cheaper than new fossil fuels in Australia | Bloomberg New Energy Finance

  Ohhhh, the PV scheme and Clean energy council are nothing but a joke. Sure it's beneficial to the environment, I'll give them that and that is a massive bonus. They also did a great job of lining their own pockets in the process, and will continue to do so now all the rebates and tariffs have been cut. 
Not to mention how the clean energy council and labour conducted their business in relation to contractors. Talk about an expensive exercise only to have it now fall flat on its face.  
But that's ok, the governments revenue keeps flowing from PVs installed on people's roofs that were paid for by them. All is well.   
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

----------


## John2b

> They also did a great job of lining their own pockets in the process, and will continue to do so now all the rebates and tariffs have been cut.

  Who is "they", who is in charge of "they" and how is "they" organised?

----------


## Yande

Well now at least I understand this Forum.  Previous statements such as "The Chinese just want to conquer the world" took me by surprise.  But now I realise just how many shiny tails, living off their super, with nothing better to do than sprout about their latest reno, and right leaning beliefs, spend their time here.. 
So the Tax is gone...  Wooppee, now I can burn the electrics day and night.. Especially as i am going to be $550 better off!!  (No tony didn't say that, Bill did, apparently.)  And according to most here,  I need have no regard to the CO2 emissions I create.  Unreal.  Burn the plastic.  Recycle??  No Too hard.  Burn..   
Honestly, of late, it is embarrassing being a 7th generation Australian..  One only has to look at the clowns telling us what is right...  Abbott, Hockey, and that douzy.. Pine..  If you voted for them fine..  I'm just smarter than most.

----------


## intertd6

> Science doesn't care about popular politics or who is on the minority. *“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” Neil deGrasse Tyson Quotes (Author of Death by Black Hole)* 
> Which means that Intertd6, Rod and Marc still get the benefits of science based technology, such as the opportunity to participate in this debate suing the internet, even though they do not believe the science that underpins it - the same science that predicates global warming as a consequence of burning off fossil energy originally stored over billions of years in the space of a few decades and the CO2 emissions that result...

  You lost on that one too, as nothing has been proven on your front & actually if the average temperature since 1998 doesn't start to rise it will fade into a distant memory of other similar urban myths throughout history!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> You lost on that one too, as nothing has been proven on your front & actually if the average temperature since 1998 doesn't start to rise it will fade into a distant memory of other similar urban myths throughout history!

  Huh? You are the one quoting an urban myth.

----------


## intertd6

> Who is "they", who is in charge of "they" and how is "they" organised?

  Well obviously, them, they & you are not us.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Huh? You are the one quoting an urban myth.

  we could only hope that that could be the final word from what appears to be a cult following, aptly called so because there is no conclusive proof! The basis of all cults.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> we could only hope that that could be the final word from what appears to be a cult following, aptly called so because there is no conclusive proof! The basis of all cults.

  So that's it? Your final word as apostle of the it ain't happening cult? Be sad to see you go, Intertd6 - will miss your blow-off valve "PSSSSHHHH" sound when you let off...

----------


## intertd6

> So that's it? Your final word as apostle of the it ain't happening cult? Be sad to see you go, Intertd6 - will miss your blow-off valve "PSSSSHHHH" sound when you let off...

  Check out this grammar? I hoped wrong!
 You can always tell the cult members from the rest by their religious fervour. 
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> Check out this grammar? I hoped wrong!
>  You can always tell the cult members from the rest by their religious fervour. 
> regards inter

  Bet you can't even point out the grammar faults  :Doh:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Well now at least I understand this Forum.  Previous statements such as "The Chinese just want to conquer the world" took me by surprise.  But now I realise just how many shiny tails, living off their super, with nothing better to do than sprout about their latest reno, and right leaning beliefs, spend their time here..

  On the other hand, it is the safest place for them. A few dedicated souls distract them here where they have almost no audience and some well made furniture to sit on...so that way they can do less harm elsewhere. Though how much harm they could actually do is debatable...the world is passing most of them by.

----------


## intertd6

> Bet you can't even point out the grammar faults

  i bet I can't either! But I can spot a scam from a mile away & the idiots that peddle them!
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> i bet I can't either! But I can spot a scam from a mile away & the idiots that peddle them!
> regards inter

  OK another one for the Inter absolutely useless posts list, which seems to be nearing 2000, so away you go.

----------


## intertd6

> OK another one for the Inter absolutely useless posts list, which seems to be nearing 2000, so away you go.

  absolutely,! we can put it with the English & grammar lessons plus CO2 blarney that it well & truly takes the Micky out of!
regards inter

----------


## Marc

> I still fail to understand how putting a price on carbon reduces emissions.   
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

  *Not much to understand, in fact it does not reduce anything...that if you actually think CO2 should be "reduced" at all. I say pump more CO2 anytime. I  want to see the greenies cringe.  
Media sheds tears for axed carbon tax*  17 July, 2014 by Simon 13 Comments        
13 Votes   It’s all too much! Sob! The inner-city basket-weaving yoghurt-knitting sandalistas that make up the Fairfax and ABC’s environment desks are already writing the eulogies for their beloved tax.
First cab off the rank is the ABC’s Sara Phillips (see ACM here), who attributes the public’s lack of enthusiasm to an ignorant fear of the unknown, stoked up by who else? Tony Abbott:_In the lead-up to last year’s election, Abbott repeatedly told us that the carbon tax would be a wrecking ball through the economy. He told us that electricity prices would be all kinds of terrible as a result of the carbon tax. He told us that the carbon tax wouldn’t bring down Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a tax, he said. A Great Big New Tax On Everything._ _He was wrong on all of these accounts, of course. But the damage was done._‘Of course’ he was wrong! You fools! She continues:_But like Shelley’s creation, it was not quite the horrendous beast we feared. The economy continues to defy prediction, quietly growing._ _The latest figures from December show that Australia’s emissions have dropped 0.8 per cent, with most of the fall being explained by a 5 per cent drop in emissions from electricity generation._It grew thanks to putting adults in charge of the shop last September, and the removal of that hopeless bunch of pre-schoolers who had spent six years grinding the country into the ground with their incompetence. But nice try, anyway. Just remind me what difference those emission reductions would have made to the climate again… oh, that’s right, zero.
Fairfax isn’t far behind, with a gushing, tear-stained hymn of praise for the Senate climate warriors of the Left. Be warned, strong stomach required:_Amid ongoing speculation over Christine Milne’s leadership style and future, the Greens leaders’ Senate performance has been passionate, emotional and, most of all, resolute. Senator Milne had a great deal invested in the legislation that created the price on carbon that kicked in on July 1, 2012. Its abolishment [sic] on Thursday was personal._ _She has spent much of this week seamlessly switching between offering forceful condemnations of the government’s undoing of the legislation and in promising renewed vigour from her minor party in restoring action to address global warming._ _Just moments before the final Senate action that killed the carbon tax 39 votes to 32,Senator Milne appeared very much a political leader determined to keep climate change at the forefront of the political debate._ _“This is a critical moment for our nation and there are a number of new senators in this chamber today,” she said._ _“Their vote today and the vote of every person in this debate will be the legacy of their political career.”_ _And with Opposition Leader Bill Shorten committing Labor to campaign on an emissions trading scheme as a central theme of the next federal election, his party’s leader in the Senate, Penny Wong, championed the cause with her usual skill and smooth, calculated passion._ _Another standout performer in this debate has been Tasmanian Labor senator Lisa Singh, grasping her new junior environment and climate change portfolio with gusto._ _The shadow parliamentary secretary was Labor’s most riveting advocate this week for keeping the price on carbon._ _Again, just moments before that argument was lost, Senator Singh delivered a stinging rebuke to the government and those senators who joined with it in repealing the legislation._ _“We are sending this country backwards,” she said._ _“All for what? For playing politics. Playing politics with Australia’s future; playing politics with the environment; playing politics with our children._ _“And it is an outrageous moment in Australia’s history.”_Too much for my stomach… Pass the sick bag. *Share this:*

----------


## woodbe

Meanwhile, in the real world:  - 2013 | BAMS State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)                   

> The  report uses dozens of climate indicators to track patterns,  changes, and trends  of the global climate system, including greenhouse  gases; temperatures  throughout the atmosphere, ocean, and land; cloud  cover; sea level; ocean  salinity; sea ice extent; and snow cover. These  indicators often reflect many  thousands of measurements from multiple  independent datasets. The report also details  cases of unusual and  extreme regional events, such as Super Typhoon Haiyan,  which devastated  portions of Southeast Asia in November 2013. 
>          Highlights:  *Greenhouse gases continued to climb:* Major greenhouse gas concentrations, including carbon dioxide (CO2),  methane and nitrous oxide, continued to rise during 2013, once again reaching  historic high values. Atmospheric CO2  concentrations increased by  2.8 ppm in 2013, reaching a global average  of 395.3 ppm for the year. At the Mauna  Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the  daily concentration of CO2 exceeded  400 ppm on May 9 for  the first time since measurements began at the site in  1958. This  milestone follows observational sites in the Arctic that observed  this  CO2 threshold of 400 ppm in spring 2012.*Warm temperature trends continued near the Earths surface:*  Four major independent datasets show 2013 was among the warmest  years  on record, ranking between second and sixth depending upon the dataset   used. In the Southern Hemisphere, Australia observed its warmest year on   record, while Argentina had its second warmest and New Zealand its  third  warmest.*Sea surface temperatures increased:* Four  independent datasets indicate that the globally averaged sea  surface  temperature for 2013 was among the 10 warmest on record. El Niño  Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-neutral conditions in the eastern central  Pacific Ocean and a negative Pacific decadal oscillation pattern in the  North Pacific had the largest impacts on the global sea surface  temperature during the year.  The North Pacific was record warm for  2013.*Sea level continued to rise:* Global mean   sea level continued to rise during 2013, on pace with a trend of 3.2 ±  0.4 mm  per year over the past two decades.*The Arctic continued to warm; sea ice extent remained low:*  The Arctic observed its seventh warmest year since records began  in  the early 20th century. Record high temperatures were measured at  20-meter  depth at permafrost stations in Alaska. Arctic sea ice extent  was the sixth  lowest since satellite observations began in 1979. All  seven lowest sea ice extents  on record have occurred in the past seven  years.*Antarctic sea ice extent reached record high for second year in a  row; South Pole station set record high temperature:*  The Antarctic maximum sea ice extent reached a record high of 7.56   million square miles on October 1. This is 0.7 percent higher than the  previous  record high extent of 7.51 million square miles that occurred  in 2012 and 8.6  percent higher than the record low maximum sea ice  extent of 6.96 million  square miles that occurred in 1986. Near the end  of the year, the South Pole  had its highest annual temperature since  records began in 1957.*Tropical cyclones near average overall / Historic Super Typhoon:*  The number of tropical cyclones during 2013 was slightly above   average, with a total of 94 storms, in comparison to the 1981-2010  average of  89. The North Atlantic Basin had its quietest season since  1994. However, in  the Western North Pacific Basin, Super Typhoon Haiyan   the deadliest cyclone  of 2013  had the highest wind speed ever  assigned to a tropical cyclone, with one-minute  sustained winds  estimated to be 196 miles per hour.  _State of the Climate in  2013_ is the 24th edition in  a peer-reviewed series published annually as a special supplement to   the Bulletin of the American  Meteorological Society. The journal makes  the full report openly available online.

----------


## John2b

> *Not much to understand, in fact it does not reduce anything...that if you actually think CO2 should be "reduced" at all. I say pump more CO2 anytime. I  want to see the greenies cringe.*

  "Many people who would not dream to claim they understand how antibiotics, microprocessors or immunisations work seem happy to wax lyrical on their views on climate change. A politician or media identity who would be laughed out of office if they said vaccines don't work" or I am certain the moon is made of cheese" happily speak equivalent rubbish on climate science, believing their views deserve credit. I want engineers to build bridges; I want a trained surgeon to operate on hearts and I want some of our decision-makers and commentators to either shut up, or familiarise themselves with climate science well enough to talk sense." Professor Andrew Pitman 
^^Case in point....

----------


## Marc

You are here: Home / Climate / ACM retrospective: a look back at six years of climate madness *ACM retrospective: a look back at six years of climate madness*18 July, 2014 by Simon 10 Comments The climate bureaucracy is reduced to rubble This blog started in September 2008, when we were one year into the Kevin Rudd Labor government. It was Labor policy to introduce an emissions trading scheme (ETS), and as we approached the end of 2009, Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull was indicating that he would give it bipartisan support.
But Coalition backbenchers were stirring, as ACM reported on 20 October 2009: _Now is the time for all good men (and women) to come to the aid of the Party  in this case, the Liberal party. The backbenchers need to stand up for their principles and not be steamrollered by their worryingly green-tinged leader:_ _MALCOLM Turnbull is on a collision course with his own back bench after staking his leadership on a demand that they back his climate change strategy.Several MPs immediately refused to do so.If the partyroom refused to back his strategy of negotiating amendments to the governments emissions trading scheme, Mr Turnbull said yesterday, the Coalition would literally be a party with nothing to say  a party with no ideas, and that was not the party I am prepared to lead._ _Throwing down the gauntlet to his internal critics, Mr Turnbull said: I am asserting my authority as the leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Opposition._ _If the partyroom were to reject my recommendation to them, that would obviously be a leadership issue. Thats perfectly plain, perfectly clear, he told ABC Radio in Adelaide._By 20 November, things were beginning to look very grim as Tony Abbott abandons his previous support for the ETS: _Another major figure in the Liberal party has hardened his position on the ETS, making it even more difficult for Malcolm Turnbull to claim that the party backs his views on climate change:_ _MALCOLM Turnbull is facing growing shadow cabinet pressure to vote down the governments emissions trading bills, with former minister Tony Abbott abandoning his earlier support for the Opposition Leaders strategy to try to amend and pass the scheme._ _Mr Abbotts shift, and Liberal Senate leader Nick Minchins strong advocacy of the vote no view within the Coalition, will make it harder for Mr Turnbull to persuade his shadow cabinet to support the deal expected to be finalised between the government and the opposition by early next week._And then, to add to the already explosive mix, came the firecracker that was _Climategate_, as thousands of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were made public, just days before the start of the Copenhagen climate summit: _Apparently a huge quantity of highly sensitive emails and data have been hacked from the Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK. I havent yet had a chance to consider any of them in detail. I am not publishing anything until we know more clearly what their precise legal status is._ _However, I have read some of them and if they are real and not fake, this is absolute dynamite, and will destroy the credibility of the alarmist cause._ _Check out my other posts on this:_  Marooned  hilarious photoshopped image from the Hadley Files;Hadley/CRU emails/data are realMoonbat media plays down Hadley leakA leadership spill is called, and despite Turnbull not having the numbers, he pulls a trick out of the bag, and claims victory: _Turnbull refused to comment on the numbers in the party room, but sources indicate that a majority of the party room spoke against accepting the amendments, with numbers approximately 41  33 against the governments proposals._ _But then Turnbull pulls a trick. The usual procedure is for the shadow cabinet to vote on the issue. This they did  in favour of accepting the amendments. The next step is for the issue then to be put to the party room  so according to this, it should have been rejected._ _But what Turnbull did was add in the votes of the shadow cabinet to the party room result, thereby claiming that the party room was in favour, at the same time including Nationals front benchers in the shadow cabinet (who were actually against it), but excluding Nationals back benchers, who were also against it!_ _It was an astonishing display. Turnbull just kept repeating the phrase Im the leader and Ive made the call, so desperate is he to satisfy his own green tendencies against the will of the party room. All I can say is, I hope you wont be leader for long._ _To those in the Liberal party who voted against this climate madness, you cannot let this stand. You know what you need to do._Abbott resigned a few days later, scuttling Labors plan to get the ETS through parliament. And then came the news we in the climate realist camp were hoping for: _Liberal Tony Abbott says he will throw his hat into the ring against Malcolm Turnbull tomorrow whether or not Joe Hockey is a contender for the liberal leadership._ _Mr Abbott said after a day of discussions with Mr Hockey, who is in favour of a free vote on the emissions trading scheme, he had decided he needed to challenge whoever may be standing at the Liberal party room meeting._ _The latest bombshell throws yet more confusion into the leadership debacle._ _Mr Abbott had always said he would stand aside if Mr Hockey contested the leadership, but that position has changed because the shadow treasurer isnt willing to adopt the hard line on the ETS._Game on! The vote is set for 1 December. ACM writes: _The leadership election boils down to this:_  Malcolm Turnbull  we will have an ETS by the end of the day on a policy voteJoe Hockey  we will have an ETS by the end of the day on a conscience voteTony Abbott  we _wont_ have an ETS today _Come on guys  dont let us down. There is only one choice._In the evening of 1 December, the news comes through that Abbott is the leader. I was following events on my Blackberry, and posted the update from a theatre in North Sydney! Abbott comes outfighting: _This is precisely what we need  as has been said before, an election campaign is the only way in which the ETS can be exposed for what it is  a tax on everything based on flawed and exaggerated science._ _TONY Abbott will steer the Liberal Party back to its conservative roots with a 2010 election campaignportraying Kevin Rudd as a Whitlamesque big spender whose climate change policies will smash Australian jobs._ _The new Opposition Leaders first act after ousting Malcolm Turnbull in a partyroom vote yesterday was to scrap his partys support for Labors carbon emissions trading scheme, which he dismissed as a great big tax._ _And Mr Abbott immediately moved to repair the Liberals shattered relations with the Nationals, embracing their contempt for the ETS after months of Mr Turnbull dismissing their views as irrelevant._The UN talks in Copenhagen are an unmitigated disaster, and the ETS was voted down in the Senate. By early 2010, the ETS had been shelved until at least 2013  and Rudd signs his own death warrant, as ACM reports on 23 June: _As I watch Skys coverage, there is a possible leadership challenge to Kevin Rudd underway in Canberra right now._ _It is being reported that the challenge is being pushed by the right factions in Victoria and South Australia. The question is whether Julia Gillard will agree to be put forward as replacement._By the next day, we had a new PM: _Kevin Rudd has stepped down and Julia Gillard is now Australias first female prime minister. In the end, there was no ballot in the Labor caucus room  Rudd realised that he had so little support. Wayne Swan is the new deputy PM._ _The press are pinning Rudds downfall primarily on his failure to go ahead with the ETS back in April._ _A disastrous day for Labor, and it will be very interesting to see what Gillard does with the policy nightmares  the mining tax, asylum seekers etc, but in particular the ETS, which may be back on the policy table._Days before the 2010 election, Gillard makes her now infamous promise: _There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead._The result of the 2010 election is on a knife edge, with three independents, Bob Katter, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott holding the balance of power. After several weeks of negotiation, Windsor and Oakeshott back Gillard and Labor, ignoring their conservative electorates: _Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor, the two witless and gutless independents that handed power to Julia Gillard earlier this week, betrayed their electorates by siding with Labor, as John Styles explains in The Spectator:_ _When you enjoy the sound of your own voice as much as the giggling, grinning Rob Oakeshott apparently does, there is always a chance you will say more than you may have intended. So it was during the Independent/maybe-Labor ministers media conference on Tuesday at which he and Tony Windsor delivered federal government to the Labor-Greens alliance._ _Weve just had to go through an incredibly unnatural decision to draw some conclusions about lining up with a party that fundamentally we dont believe with [sic], he said, during a typically long, rambling response to a journalists question about how the pair of independents could make a decision that was so comprehensively out of step with the conservative nature of their electorates._ _Here was Oakeshott admitting that he was giving crucial support to a party he didnt believe in. He described his decision as unnatural. How about bizarre, weird, crazy? How about calling it just plain nuts?_In February 2011, however, Gillard drops the bombshell  a carbon tax in 2012: _Climate Madness in its purest form. What we suspected all along has been proved right. Julia Gillards promise in August 2010 not to introduce a carbon tax under the government I lead was a barefaced lie. How many more has she told? Will we ever find out? She has cynically deceived the electorate on this crucial issue, and should suffer the consequences at the next election._ _JULIA Gillard plans to introduce a carbon price from July 1 next year and defy the Greens by insisting on compensation for the coal and electricity industries, in a move that will infuriate its minority government partner._ _The Weekend Australian understands the government will present its multi-party climate change committee next week with a plan for a fixed carbon price to operate from July 1, 2012, until about 2015-16 when the regime will move to an emissions trading scheme._ACM reminds readers what a carbon tax would do: _So in summary, assuming that the carbon tax is passed into law, lets remind ourselves what it would achieve:_  nothing whatsoever for climatenothing whatsoever for global temperaturesnothing whatsoever for local temperaturesnothing whatsoever for the Arcticnothing whatsoever for polar bearsnothing whatsoever for the drought or floods or clyclonesnothing whatsoever for the Great Barrier Reefnothing whatsoever for Kakadunothing whatsoever for Tuvalu and all the other sinking islandsnothing whatsoever for the ringtail possum and other cuddly creaturesnothing whatsoever for bushfires and heatwavesin fact, nothing whatsoever for _anything_ even remotely related to the climate _On the other hand it will do the following:_  everything to damage Australias economyeverything to damage Australias competitivenesseverything to increase the cost of living for ordinary Australianseverything to make the poorest in society worse offeverything to damage emissions intensive industrieseverything to ensure that our industries move offshoreeverything to create more unemploymenteverything to raise electricity, gas and food priceseverything to assist a pointless global dealeverything to advance the cause of global government and global wealth distribution _Have I missed anything there?_At the end of June 2012, ACM wrote an editorial on the coming climate madness: _On Sunday 1 July 2012, the Labor/Green governments carbon tax of $23 per tonne will finally take effect in Australia._ _Weve heard all the usual spin from Greg Combet about how other countries are taking similar action and Australia must catch up. Its all @@@@@@@@ as anyone with half a brain could work out. Unfortunately, Combet and Gillard and their Green mates dont have half a brain between them, so they cant work it out. In any case, its all Green blackmail anyway, to keep Gillard in power._ _Coming at a time when:_  the European economy could collapse at any moment thanks to any number of bankrupt states teetering on the brink of default,economic confidence in the US is low, andour own resources-run economy is feeling the pinch from decreased demand from China (even ignoring the punishing mining tax), _to legislate what is essentially the worlds highest carbon tax, when European carbon prices have been falling like a stone, and now stand around $10, is pure climate madness  and what originally gave this blog its name back in 2008._ _And of course, it will do NOTHING for the climate. Our emissions will actually rise. And China and Indias emissions will rise several orders of magnitude more than any notional reduction here in Australia for decades to come. [read the remainder here]_The broken promise of the carbon tax goes down like Lord Monckton at a Greenpeace fundraiser: _The vultures are circling. Labor politicians are openly discussing the need for drastic action. Labor primary vote has sunk to 28%. And the carbon tax backflip has a lot to do with it, that and Labors desperate agreement with the extremist Greens to form a minority government:_ _A LABOR senator says todays disastrous Newspoll should be a clarion call to the party to make dramatic changes or face a decade in the political wilderness._ _Rudd supporter Mark Bishop said the poll, revealing a three point slump in Labors primary vote to 28 per cent, should be a wake-up call to the party to respond to the will of voters._ _While stopping short of calling for Julia Gillard to stand down, the West Australian senator said it was clear there was now no prospect of a recovery under current circumstances._Gillard was already finished. Prior to the 2013 election, Gillard was dumped, and Kevin Rudd was installed. Despite a brief bump in the polls, the electorate soon remembered that Rudd was a psychopath, and Labors electoral chances were zero: _Rudd is branded an elitist grub who thinks he is superior to all by someone who had the misfortune to have to work with him, whereas Abbott is a gentleman with a capital G. Following the debate last night, the make-up artist who worked on both Rudd and Abbott wrote on her Facebook page:_ _One of them was absolutely lovely, engaged in genuine conversation with me, acknowledge that I had a job to do and was very appreciative. The other did the exact opposite! Oh boy, I have ever had anyone treat me so badly whilst trying to do my job. Political opinions aside from one human being to another Mr Abbott, you win hands down.__Just confirms the fact (if such confirmation were needed) that Rudd is a pompous, arrogant, sociopathic bully, disconnected with real people to the point of autism.  [via Bolt]_On 8 September 2013, Australia woke up from the nightmare. The hangover was gone, the headache cleared, and there was a bright future ahead: _The six-year Labor/Green nightmare is finally over. Tony Abbott is the nations new Prime Minister._ _Abbott gave a brief, dignified victory speech, promising to govern for all Australians, in stark contrast to Labor who only sought to entrench division and disunity. Rudd, on the other hand, rambled on for what seemed like an eternity in his concession speech, as if he himself was the victor  delusional to the last._ _Whilst Rudd will not contest the Labor leadership, he will remain in parliament as an ever-present threat of destabilisation._ _Labors nightmare has only just begun._Then we had the unparalleled joy of seeing the climate infrastructure rapidly demolished, with Tim Flannery and the Climate Commission the first to go: _The Climate Commission didnt have one single climate realist on board, and was stacked with Australias worst alarmists, Will Steffen, David Karoly and Flannery himself. Far from being an independent climate body, it was a mouthpiece for Labor government propaganda and shameless scaremongering._ _Good riddance to the lot of em._ _UPDATE: Commissions Twitter account (@ClimateComm) has vanished already! Sad to see the website still there not for long, however._ _UPDATE 2: The ever-warmist ABC (Anything But Conservatives) gives Flannery space to gnash his teeth and wail about the injustice of it all:_ _Professor Flannery, who is also a former Australian of the Year, has defended the commissions role._ _Weve stayed out of the politics and stuck to the facts, he said. [BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! - Ed]_ _As a result weve developed a reputation as a reliable apolitical source of facts on all aspects of climate change. [Stop it!! Stop it!! My sides are splitting!!!!! - Ed]_ _I believe that Australians have a right to know  a right to authoritative, independent and accurate information on climate change. [Er, I think I just wet myself... - Ed]_ _Weve just seen one of the earliest ever starts to the bushfire season in Sydney following the hottest twelve months on record. [And, Flannery goes out true to form, with a ridiculously alarmist statement... See ya' later pal. Glad we won't have to hear from you any more - Ed]_And now, finally, after over 2,700 posts and over 16,000 comments from you, the readers, the carbon tax has gone. I think we can all be proud of our achievement.
Bill Shorten, however, hasnt learned his lesson. He has vowed to take carbon pricing to the next election, and as Christopher Pyne rightly says, it will hang like a rotting carcass round his neck until election day.
As Albert Einstein once remarked, insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results. Shorten is doing precisely that. *Rate this:*     
10 Votes   *Share this:*4138

----------


## Marc

> "Many people who would not dream to claim they understand how antibiotics, microprocessors or immunisations work seem happy to wax lyrical on their views on climate change. A politician or media identity who would be laughed out of office if they said “vaccines don't work" or “I am certain the moon is made of cheese" happily speak equivalent rubbish on climate science, believing their views deserve credit. I want engineers to build bridges; I want a trained surgeon to operate on hearts and I want some of our decision-makers and commentators to either shut up, or familiarise themselves with climate science well enough to talk sense." Professor Andrew Pitman

   What do you know, a quote from John I can use. 
Yes,we all want that, real experts to make decisions, real experts to give advice, yet in the case of climate madness and to be honest in many other areas this does not happen. 
First of all there are not many scientist who have real experience. Most just jumped on the bandwagon because it is fascionable and the word "Climate change" is an automatic money allocation mechanism.
Second, how do you expect any trained surgeon to operate when the tumor is imaginary? Following on the health analogy Global Warming is like an hysterical pregnancy, a lot of swelling yet no baby.
Oh yes, there are graphs and there is data galore, showing what the politician with the open purse like to hear. That does not make them less hysterical.
And as far as vaccines, I would like to use that analogy too. There are millions around the world who are vegetarian, build mud and straw houses, claim they are saving the world by pooing in a bucket and producing less CO2 (?) and also claim that vaccines are a conspiracy against their health AND DO NOT VACCINATE THEIR KIDS. Oh yes, there are tens of thousands in Sydney who come to the surgery asking for a certificate of conscientious objectors to take their time bomb kid to school and line up at Centrelink with stretched out hand for the payment for vaccinating their kids. Yes this too, claim that we must reduce CO2 "emissions".
The world is a funny place, and the greenies are the clowns that make us laugh and sometimes cry.

----------


## Marc

> Well now at least I understand this Forum.  Previous statements such as "The Chinese just want to conquer the world" took me by surprise.  But now I realise just how many shiny tails, living off their super, with nothing better to do than sprout about their latest reno, and right leaning beliefs, spend their time here.. 
> So the Tax is gone...  Wooppee, now I can burn the electrics day and night.. Especially as i am going to be $550 better off!!  (No tony didn't say that, Bill did, apparently.)  And according to most here,  I need have no regard to the CO2 emissions I create.  Unreal.  Burn the plastic.  Recycle??  No Too hard.  Burn..   
> Honestly, of late, it is embarrassing being a 7th generation Australian..  One only has to look at the clowns telling us what is right...  Abbott, Hockey, and that douzy.. Pine..  If you voted for them fine..  I'm just smarter than most.

  What a pathetic post. If you don't like people writing about their renovation, what are you doing here? As far as self funded retirees, you will find that most people posting here are either tradies or owner builders in full time employment. Oh yes with the few exceptions like you I suppose.
So a 7th generation Australian, is that some sort of badge of honour? Why not use an Australian avatar then? Obviously you would have liked the same mob that delivered the worst 6 years of government we ever had, to win the elections. Wouldn't that be great!  Would you like to see a tax on non Australians? perhaps a doubling of Centrelink payments?

----------


## woodbe

> What a pathetic post. If you don't like people writing about their renovation, what are you doing here? As far as self funded retirees, you will find that most people posting here are either tradies or owner builders in full time employment. Oh yes with the few exceptions like you I suppose.
> So a 7th generation Australian, is that some sort of badge of honour? Why not use an Australian avatar then? Obviously you would have liked the same mob that delivered the worst 6 years of government we ever had, to win the elections. Wouldn't that be great!  Would you like to see a tax on non Australians? perhaps a doubling of Centrelink payments?

  A sure sign that you have nothing to counter a person's post is when you decide to insult and abuse them. Unacceptable and reported. 
Try reading the rules.   http://www.renovateforum.com/f36/for...ad-them-33202/  http://www.renovateforum.com/f36/whi...ead-too-33200/

----------


## PhilT2

Marc's post on the history of the Liberal leadership change creates an opportunity to point out how deeply divided the Liberal Party is, not just on climate change, but many other issues as well. How much the electorate dislikes disunity was illustrated yesterday in a by-election in the Brisbane electorate of Stafford. Labor won  easily with a swing to them of 20%, not needing Green preferences to take the seat. The greens also increased their vote by 2%. 
I was at a forum last night where John Cook from Skeptical Science was one of the speakers. There was nothing new in his talk that hasn't already appeared on his blog but he did clarify one thing about his consensus paper. The 97% figure refers to the number of papers that support climate change; because many papers have multiple authors the percentage of scientists supporting the consensus is 98.4%

----------


## Uncle Bob

*dust's off Mod hat*
Please guys, leave the insults and negative stuff out of the forum.
Excuse the pun, but I know it's a heated subject, so we've let a lot slide.
*doff's Mod hat and stuffs in bottom drawer*

----------


## John2b

> What do you know, a quote from John I can use. 
> Yes,we all want that, real experts to make decisions, real experts to give advice, BLAH BLAH BLAH

  ...and then goes on sprouting logical fallacies and farcical assumptions on an Olympic Gymnastics scale. Classic example of the original quote, if any proof were needed!

----------


## woodbe

Exhibit 1.    

> Yes,we all want that, real experts to make decisions, real experts to give advice, yet in the case of climate madness and to be honest in many other areas this does not happen. 
> First of all there are not many scientist who have real experience. Most just jumped on the bandwagon because it is fascionable and the word "Climate change" is an automatic money allocation mechanism.
> Second, how do you expect any trained surgeon to operate when the tumor is imaginary? Following on the health analogy Global Warming is like an hysterical pregnancy, a lot of swelling yet no baby.
> Oh yes, there are graphs and there is data galore, showing what the politician with the open purse like to hear. That does not make them less hysterical.

  Precis: Climate Scientists don't know what they are talking about.  Most climate scientists are inexperienced, and they are only there for  the money. They have invented Global Warming even though it doesn't exist, it's imaginary. 
Exhibit 2:  

> And as far as vaccines, I would like to use that analogy too. There are millions around the world who are vegetarian, build mud and straw houses, claim they are saving the world by pooing in a bucket and producing less CO2 (?) and also claim that vaccines are a conspiracy against their health AND DO NOT VACCINATE THEIR KIDS. Oh yes, there are tens of thousands in Sydney who come to the surgery asking for a certificate of conscientious objectors to take their time bomb kid to school and line up at Centrelink with stretched out hand for the payment for vaccinating their kids. Yes this too, claim that we must reduce CO2 "emissions".

  Precis: Vegetarians are more than likely to not vaccinate their kids and are probably greenies. They think vaccines are a conspiracy to damage their health. Vaccine science is real and effective. 
Reflection: The irony of this little tirade is amazing. Someone hasn't joined the dots - the process of science has delivered both vaccines and our understanding of the impact of our CO2 emissions and other inputs on the climate, yet somehow the vaccine science is 'good' and the climate science is 'bad' even though they come out of the same rigorous process. How someone can claim that climate science is based on money grubbing inexperienced scientists who just make stuff up when there is masses of evidence that shows that their pay is not anything to be jealous of, their experience is basically their lifetime plus all the scientists that came before them.  
The only real difference between vaccine and climate science is that we don't have a spare planet to test our climate theories on but we can test our vaccine theories on volunteer subjects and hapless animals. 
Conclusion: If you accept the science of vaccines, you have to respect the science of the climate, even if you are sceptical of the future predictions presented. Doing anything else just displays an unsupportable opinion.

----------


## John2b

Carbon tax repeal reaction

----------


## johnc

> What a pathetic post. If you don't like people writing about their renovation, what are you doing here? As far as self funded retirees, you will find that most people posting here are either tradies or owner builders in full time employment. Oh yes with the few exceptions like you I suppose.
> So a 7th generation Australian, is that some sort of badge of honour? Why not use an Australian avatar then? Obviously you would have liked the same mob that delivered the worst 6 years of government we ever had, to win the elections. Wouldn't that be great!  Would you like to see a tax on non Australians? perhaps a doubling of Centrelink payments?

  I'm eighth generation, don't make an issue of it, you weren't born here, you can't have been because you have continually carried on about being born in a communist country. Those of us who have deep roots with this land have welcomed you here and for once show a bit of respect for the decency you have been shown.

----------


## intertd6

> Carbon tax repeal reaction

  We will see how bill shorton fairs peddling a revived carbon tax to the next election? If he makes it that far! 
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> We will see how bill shorton fairs peddling a revived carbon tax to the next election? If he makes it that far!

  Climate change is an economic issue, not a political one.

----------


## intertd6

> Climate change is an economic issue, not a political one.

  climate change is history, past, present & future, CO2 being the cause is just the flavour of the month the the save the cotton wool bud brigade got sucked in by, as they have to believe in something, however far fetched & ridiculous it proves to be!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Future history? 
Only for those with access to a time machine. 
For the climate, humans are flavour of the month and sure, we're having an impact. Some of us don't like to admit it.

----------


## intertd6

> Future history? 
> Only for those with access to a time machine. 
> For the climate, humans are flavour of the month and sure, we're having an impact. Some of us don't like to admit it.

  Yes you read it right! What is clear you don't understand the statement! Maybe it will dawn on you one day? 
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Renewable energy is ready to supply all of Australia's electricity   

> Using conservative projections to 2030 for the costs of renewable energy by the federal governments Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE), we found an optimal mix of renewable electricity sources. The mix looks like this:  Wind 46%; Concentrated solar thermal (electricity generated by the heat of the sun) with thermal storage 22%; Photovoltaic solar 20% (electricity generated directly from sunlight);Biofuelled gas turbines 6%; andExisting hydro 6%. 
>  So two-thirds of annual energy can be supplied by wind and solar  photovoltaic  energy sources that vary depending on the weather  while  maintaining reliability of the generating system at the required level.  How is this possible?
>   It turns out that wind and solar photovoltaic are only unable to meet  electricity demand a few times a year. These periods occur during peak  demand on winter evenings following overcast days that also happen to  have low wind speeds across the region.
>   Since the gaps are few in number and none exceeds two hours in  duration, there only needs to be a small amount of generation from the  so-called flexible renewables (those that dont depend on the vagaries  of weather): hydro and biofuelled gas turbines. Concentrated solar  thermal is also flexible while it has energy in its thermal storage.
>   The gas turbines have low capital cost and, when operated  infrequently and briefly, low fuel costs, so they play the role of  reliability insurance with a low premium.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Renewable energy is ready to supply all of Australia's electricity

  not in our life time

----------


## johnc

> not in our life time

  Living under a rock are we? that is very naïve when you consider how far we have come with technology

----------


## Whitey180

the 'technology' surrounding reducing emissions is just a by - product of creating another market in order for the rich to become richer.   
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

----------


## John2b

> not in our life time

  Too late, Rod. Or are you speaking from the "other side" LOL!  :Rip:  Rod

----------


## John2b

The baseload advantage of fossil fuel is a myth. Baseload require "spinning reserve" which is another way of saying that fossil generators continue to burn fossil energy to spin the generators even when the electricity isn't being consumed, thus using a limited resource and producing pollution even for no benefit. 
On the other hand, "spinning reserve" in wind is when the turbines are feathered and the wind energy isn't all used (so what!) and in solar it means that all of the sun falling onto the solar panel isn't used as electricity (again - so what!). Spinning reserve in renewable energy generation does not burn fossil fuel or create pollution or CO2 emissions. 
Up to 65% of electricity generation is SA has come from wind, and there are several large wind farms under construction that will substantially increase the states generation capacity. Wind power generation has increased substantially in South Australia in the last eight years, from supplying 6% of the state’s needs in 2005/06 to 25% in 2012/13. This increase in wind generation has been the primary reason for a 34% reduction in CO2-e emissions due to electricity generation. The electricity network has managed to accommodate this increase in wind power without increasing the amount of electricity required from peaking power plants. Energy produced from these peaking plants has actually reduced during this same period, which has helped further reduce CO2-e emissions. Wholesale prices have not risen over the period (even with LGC costs included) and we conclude the cost of abatement using wind is low.   Wind energy delivers cost effective abatement in South Australia : Renew Economy  Germany Sets New Record, Generating 74 Percent Of Power Needs From Renewable Energy

----------


## intertd6

> the 'technology' surrounding reducing emissions is just a by - product of creating another market in order for the rich to become richer.   
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

  Of course this is so, the time to make money is at the start up of any market or technology, but to compete with cheap coal it has first has to be priced out of the market by an artificial means.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> to compete with cheap coal it has first has to be priced out of the market by an artificial means.

  Remove the massive subsidies granted to the fossil fuel industries and fossil electricity isn't cheap at all. It is already more expensive to build fossil burning electricity generation capacity (with subsidies) than renewable electricity generation capacity (without subsidies) as has been posted in this forum previously. And once built, the renewables have no fuel costs!

----------


## intertd6

> Remove the massive subsidies granted to the fossil fuel industries and fossil electricity isn't cheap at all. It is already more expensive to build fossil burning electricity generation capacity (with subsidies) than renewable electricity generation capacity (without subsidies) as has been posted in this forum previously. And once built, the renewables have no fuel costs!

  Thats true only if you believe in the propaganda.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Thats true only if you believe in the propaganda.

  Published in nearly 18 months ago: Renewable energy now cheaper than new fossil fuels in Australia | Bloomberg New Energy Finance 
There has been plenty of time for the report to be shot to pieces if it wasn't true. You seem sure it is nonsense, so what analysis do you base your claim on?

----------


## Marc

HOME | ALL STOCKS | MUTUAL FUNDS | ETFs | WIND | SOLAR | GEOTHERMAL | BIOFUEL | BATTERY | ENERGY EFFICIENCY SMART GRID | EFFICIENT VEHICLES | ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORT | CLEANTECH NEWS | ADVERTISE | CONTACT | ABOUT   « Wind Fall | Main | Is Energy Sourcing the Gateway Drug to Energy Efficiency? »      *The Alternative Energy Fallacy*_John Petersen_ 
In 2009, the world produced some 13.2 billion metric tons of hydrocarbons, or about 4,200 pounds for every man, woman and child on the planet. Burning those hydrocarbons poured roughly 31.3 billion metric tons of CO2 into our atmosphere. The basic premise of alternative energy is that widespread deployments of wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles will slash hydrocarbon consumption, reduce CO2 emissions and give us a cleaner, greener and healthier planet. That premise, however, is fatally flawed because our planet cannot produce enough non-ferrous industrial metals to make a meaningful difference and the prices of those metals are even more volatile than the prices of the hydrocarbons that alternative energy hopes to supplant. 
The ugly but undeniable reality is that aggregate global production of non-ferrous industrial metals including aluminum, chromium, copper, zinc, manganese, nickel, lead and a host of lesser metals is about 35 pounds for every man, woman and child on the planet. All of those metals are already being used to provide the basic necessities and minor luxuries of modern life. There are no significant unused supplies of industrial metals that can be used for large-scale energy substitution. Even if there were, the following graph that compares the Dow Jones UBS Industrial Metals Index (^DJUBSIN) with the Amex Oil Index (^XOI) shows that industrial metal prices are more volatile and climbing faster than hydrocarbon prices, which means that most alternative energy schemes are like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.   
For all their alleged virtues and perceived benefits, most alternative energy technologies are prodigious consumers of industrial metals. The suggestion that humanity can find enough slop in 35 pounds of per capita industrial metals production to make a meaningful dent in 4,200 pounds of per capita hydrocarbon production is absurd beyond reckoning. It just can't happen at a relevant scale. 
I'm a relentless critic of vehicle electrification schemes like Tesla Motors (TSLA) because they're the most egregious offenders and doomed to fail when EV hype goes careening off the industrial metals cliff at 120 mph. Let's get real here. Tesla carries a market capitalization of $2.8 billion and has a net worth of less than $400 million, so its stock price is 86% air – a bubble in search of a pin. Tesla plans to become a global leader in the development of new electric drive technologies that will use immense amounts of industrial metals to conserve irrelevant amounts of hydrocarbons. Even if Tesla achieves its lofty technological goals it must fail as a business. Investors who chase the EV dream without considering the natural resource realities are doomed to suffer immense losses. Tesla can't possibly succeed. Its fair market value is zero. The stock is a perfect short. 
I won't even get into the sophistry of wind turbines and solar panels. 
Next on my list of investment catastrophes in the making are the lithium-ion battery developers like A123 Systems (AONE), Ener1 (HEV), Valence Technologies (VLNC) and Altair Nanotechnologies (ALTI) that plan to use prodigious quantities of industrial metals as fuel tank substitutes, or worse yet for grid-connected systems that will smooth the power output from inherently variable wind and solar power facilities that also use prodigious quantities of industrial metals as hydrocarbon substitutes. Talk about compounding the foolishness. 
I can only identify one emerging battery technology that has a significant potential to reduce hydrocarbon consumption and industrial metal consumption at the same time while offering better performance. That technology is the PbC® Battery from Axion Power International (AXPW.OB), a third generation lead-acid-carbon battery that uses 30% less industrial metals to deliver all of the performance and five to ten times the cycle life. There may be other examples, but I'll have to rely on my readers to identify them. 
Humanity cannot reduce its consumption of hydrocarbons by increasing its consumption of industrial metals. The only way to reduce hydrocarbon consumption is to use less and waste less.  There are a world of sensible and economic fuel efficiency technologies that can help us achieve the frequently conflicting long-term goals of reduced hydrocarbon consumption and increased industrial metals sustainability. They include but are not limited to:  Better buiding design and insulation;Smarter power management systems;Telecommuting;Denser cities with shorter commutes;Smart transportation management to reduce congestion;Buses and carpooling;Bicycles and ebikes;Shifting freight to rail from trucks;Smaller vehicles that use lightweight composites to replace industrial metals;Deploying solar and wind with battery backup for remote power and in developing countries;Shipping efficiency technologies, such as better hull coatings, slow steaming, etc.; andRecycling, recycling and recycling
My colleague Tom Konrad wrote a 28 part series on "The Best Peak Oil Investments." While I'm skeptical about the future of biofuels after suffering major losses in the biodiesel business, Tom's work provides an exhaustive overview of the energy efficiency space and a wide variety of investment ideas that have the potential to make a real difference. Since we can't simply take a couple of giant leaps into the future, we'll just have to get out of our current mess the same way we got into it – one step at a time. 
We live in a cruel world. There is no fairy godmother that can miraculously accommodate the substitution of scarce industrial metals for hydrocarbons that are a hundred times more plentiful. We can and we must do better, but we can't solve humanity's problems until we accept the harsh realities of global resource constraints without the filters of political ideology and wishful thinking.  *Disclosure:* Author is a former director of Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) and owns a substantial long position in its common stock.      The Alternative Energy Fallacy was posted on AltEnergyStocks.com.    Tweet   in[COLOR=#333333 !important]*Share*[/COLOR][COLOR=#04558B !important]*2*[/COLOR]           [/COLOR]

----------


## woodbe

Yep, that's right. You have to build power plants from something. Alternative energy plants use lightweight materials with embodied energy in them, but they reap the benefits of zero emissions in use, zero raw materials costs once deployed. They pay back the embodied energy within a few years of savings from zero emissions compared to coal plants and after that they have 20+ years of emission free production. 
Its a surprise a former director and stock holder of Axion Power International would be arguing against it.  Axion Power International: Imagine a world where energy efficiency meets cost effectiveness 
Renewables are taking a growing slice out of coal fired power stations. Here in SA we have one coal fired station that is dormant and the other is used about 50% capacity. Doubt they will ever be replaced with new coal power plants, they are just too expensive to build and run compared to Alternative energy. 
And it's not just here this is happening, look at Minnesota:  Dayton calls for eliminating coal from Minnesota's energy production | Minnesota Public Radio News   

> Gov. Mark Dayton today challenged a group of energy policy and business  leaders to figure out a way for Minnesota to eliminate coal from the  state's energy production.

   

> David Mortenson, president of Mortenson Construction, said his  company and others are embracing renewable energy as a cost-competitive  solution. He said the cost of wind and solar has dropped while coal and  natural gas markets become increasingly volatile.   
>  "And when you  can guarantee the price of delivering a kilowatt 20 years from today,  because that's what you can do with solar and wind, you have a  competitive advantage because coal, natural gas, they can't tell you  want the cost to produce power in six months will be," he said.

  Get used to it, the Fossil Fuel industry is strong but no longer strong enough to deliver cheaper power than alternative energy. Its a dying dinosaur in terms of the environment _and_ economics.

----------


## John2b

> The only way to reduce hydrocarbon consumption is to use less and waste less.   Better buiding design and insulation;Smarter power management systems;Telecommuting;Denser cities with shorter commutes;Smart transportation management to reduce congestion;Buses and carpooling;Bicycles and ebikes;Shifting freight to rail from trucks;Smaller vehicles that use lightweight composites to replace industrial metals;Deploying solar and wind with battery backup for remote power and in developing countries;Shipping efficiency technologies, such as better hull coatings, slow steaming, etc.; andRecycling, recycling and recycling

    :Busted:  You are sounding like a gay chardonnay drinking, tree hugging, green hippy, Marc...

----------


## woodbe

> You are sounding like a gay chardonnay drinking, tree hugging, green hippy, Marc...

  He's got solar panels on his roof too!

----------


## intertd6

> Published in nearly 18 months ago: Renewable energy now cheaper than new fossil fuels in Australia | Bloomberg New Energy Finance 
> There has been plenty of time for the report to be shot to pieces if it wasn't true. You seem sure it is nonsense, so what analysis do you base your claim on?

  there is that much propaganda & mis-information out there it's near impossible to believe anything these days! We will see what comes out in the wash now the idiotic carbon tax has bit the dust.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

^^ that would be: you don't have anything to base your claims on...  :2thumbsup:

----------


## johnc

> Yes you read it right! What is clear you don't understand the statement! Maybe it will dawn on you one day? 
> regards inter

  If yo dun rigt beterer may bee weed understand

----------


## intertd6

> ^^ that would be: you don't have anything to base you claims on...

  that would mean I haven't seen enough unbiased sources to verify your claim, I'm not making any claims! 
Regards inter

----------


## John2b

> I'm not making any claims! 
> Regards inter

  And what is this, then?   

> there is that much propaganda & mis-information out there it's near impossible to believe anything these days! 
> regards inter

  If it walks like a lame duck and quacks like a lame duck, it's an intertd6 claim!

----------


## intertd6

> Yep, that's right. You have to build power plants from something. Alternative energy plants use lightweight materials with embodied energy in them, but they reap the benefits of zero emissions in use, zero raw materials costs once deployed. They pay back the embodied energy within a few years of savings from zero emissions compared to coal plants and after that they have 20+ years of emission free production. 
> Its a surprise a former director and stock holder of Axion Power International would be arguing against it.  Axion Power International: Imagine a world where energy efficiency meets cost effectiveness… 
> Renewables are taking a growing slice out of coal fired power stations. Here in SA we have one coal fired station that is dormant and the other is used about 50% capacity. Doubt they will ever be replaced with new coal power plants, they are just too expensive to build and run compared to Alternative energy. 
> And it's not just here this is happening, look at Minnesota:  Dayton calls for eliminating coal from Minnesota's energy production | Minnesota Public Radio News     
> Get used to it, the Fossil Fuel industry is strong but no longer strong enough to deliver cheaper power than alternative energy. Its a dying dinosaur in terms of the environment _and_ economics.

  Obviously all this hype means nothing in china, or can't they add up over there, or maybe coal powered generation is so cheap & reliable there is not better alternative to meet their energy demands? We don't make anything anymore so how can we be objective about it?
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> And what is this, then?   
> If it walks like a lame duck and quacks like a lame duck, it's an intertd6 claim!

  one nit pickers claim is another's statement of their views.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Obviously all this hype means nothing in china, or can't they add up over there, or maybe coal powered generation is so cheap & reliable there is not better alternative to meet their energy demands? We don't make anything anymore so how can we be objective about it?
> regards inter

  "*New coal capacity dips as hydro utilization falls*In 2012, new generation from coal slowed to a near standstill as wind, hydro and nuclear all had historic years."  China and Electricity Overview | The Energy Collective

----------


## intertd6

> If yo dun rigt beterer may bee weed understand

  No need to disguise it hasn't dawned on you yet!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

^^ IT hasn't dawned on someone - but that isn't johnc LOL  :Roflmao:

----------


## intertd6

> "*New coal capacity dips as hydro utilization falls*In 2012, new generation from coal slowed to a near standstill as wind, hydro and nuclear all had historic years."  China and Electricity Overview | The Energy Collective

  what do you think in china they're going to burn coal to not produce goods because of the global downturn & appear to be trying to reduce emissions.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> ^^ IT hasn't dawned on someone - but that isn't johnc LOL

  second prize is just beside the carbon tax for the losers.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> what do you think in china they're going to burn coal to not produce goods because of the global downturn & appear to be trying to reduce emissions.
> regards inter

  Er... the global downturn is over... Power demand typically follows economic cycles and began to rebound in 2010 as the Chinese economy recovered from the recession. China has the world's second largest wind generation capacity and has been doubling wind generation capacity each year since 2005. China was the world's largest producer of hydroelectric power in 2011, yet China's hydroelectric generation grew massively with the Three Gorges Dam project opening in 2012. Following Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in March 2011, China suspended government approvals for new nuclear plants. China has prohibited companies from building new coal-fired power plants around its three major cities - Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou.   China - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

----------


## Marc

*UK: outgoing minister slams the ‘Green Blob’*  20 July, 2014 by Simon 5 Comments        
28 Votes   Our very own Green Blob (© Bill Leak) Owen Paterson, who has been moved on from his post as the UK’s Environment Secretary, unloads:_I leave the post with great misgivings about the power and irresponsibility of – to coin a phrase – the Green Blob._  _By this I mean the mutually supportive network of environmental pressure groups, renewable energy companies and some public officials who keep each other well supplied with lavish funds, scare stories and green tape. This tangled triangle of unelected busybodies claims to have the interests of the planet and the countryside at heart, but it is increasingly clear that it is focusing on the wrong issues and doing real harm while profiting handsomely._ _
Local conservationists on the ground do wonderful work to protect and improve wild landscapes, as do farmers, rural businesses and ordinary people. They are a world away from the highly paid globe-trotters of the Green Blob who besieged me with their self-serving demands, many of which would have harmed the natural environment._ _
I soon realised that the greens and their industrial and bureaucratic allies are used to getting things their own way. I received more death threats in a few months at Defra than I ever did as secretary of state for Northern Ireland. My home address was circulated worldwide with an incitement to trash it; I was burnt in effigy by Greenpeace as I was recovering from an operation to save my eyesight. But I did not set out to be popular with lobbyists and I never forgot that they were not the people I was elected to serve._ _
Indeed, I am proud that my departure was greeted with such gloating by spokespeople for the Green Party and Friends of the Earth._ _It was not my job to do the bidding of two organisations that are little more than anti-capitalist agitprop groups most of whose leaders could not tell a snakeshead fritillary from a silver-washed fritillary. I saw my task as improving both the environment and the rural economy; many in the green movement believed in neither._ _
Their goal was to enhance their own income streams and influence by myth making and lobbying. Would they have been as determined to blacken my name if I was not challenging them rather effectively?_ Every country has its own Green Blob. I think ours is Christine Milne…

----------


## woodbe

That's right John2b. China views coal power as a stop gap measure while they build their renewable energy infrastructure.     _Source: Pew Charitable Trusts, Bloomberg New Energy Finance._    _China: Proportion of installed power capacity from renewable sources (hydro, wind and solar): 2006-2013
Source  of primary data: data up to 2011 available from the US EIA, data for  2012 and 2013 available from the China Electricity Council_ 
South Australia is the best example of renewable energy in Australia with ~30% of annual power provided from renewables. China is reaching the same proportion on the national scale. 
Edit: SA is the best non-hydro example of RE in Australia. Tasmania is of course holding the top spot with nearly 100%, mostly hydro.

----------


## intertd6

> Er... the global downturn is over... Power demand typically follows economic cycles and began to rebound in 2010 as the Chinese economy recovered from the recession. China has the world's second largest wind generation capacity and has been doubling wind generation capacity each year since 2005. China was the world's largest producer of hydroelectric power in 2011, yet China's hydroelectric generation grew massively with the Three Gorges Dam project opening in 2012. Following Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in March 2011, China suspended government approvals for new nuclear plants. China has prohibited companies from building new coal-fired power plants around its three major cities - Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou.   China - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

  I hope you don't believe all of that? Not many would. But there is always one!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> That's right John2b. China views coal power as a stop gap measure while they build their renewable energy infrastructure.     _Source: Pew Charitable Trusts, Bloomberg New Energy Finance._   
> China is reaching the same proportion on the national scale.

  no it isn't.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> no it isn't.
> regards inter

  Another vacant claim. Where are your sources?

----------


## intertd6

> Another vacant claim. Where are your sources?

  Some posts back I supplied a link showing the mix, of course you obviously were to lazy to read & understand it!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Every country has its own Green Blob. I think ours is Christine Milne…

  So what evidence do you have that Christine Milne is "enhancing her own income streams and influence by myth making and lobbying" and have you raised your concerns with the Attorney-General's Department? 
Oh, and by the way, Greenpeace did not burn an effigy of Owen Paterson ever, so one has to question why he should be believed when he needs to make such crap up.

----------


## woodbe

> Some posts back I supplied a link showing the mix, of course you obviously were to lazy to read & understand it!
> regards inter

  Oh, you mean this old graph you quoted?   
Conveniently chosen not to show the results of the Three Gorges Dam (22,500 MW fully on line July 2012) and other renewable sources coming on line since 2010. 
Not at all, I read that post and it doesn't refute that China is growing it's RE capacity. It's also 3+ years out of date and as you can see on the provided information above, China has continued to invest heavily in renewables since then. If you add the hydro, nuclear and renewable together they look pretty close to the 2010 <26% shown on the graphic I posted earlier. 
Here are the 2013 figures:  

> Total installed capacity in 2013 was 1247 GW. [3] Coal 801 GW [4]
>  Other thermal, natural gas, bio-mass 61 GW[5]
>  Hydropower capacity 280 GW [6]
>  Wind power capacity was 91.4 GW [7]
>  Solar power capacity was 18 GW [8]
>  Nuclear power capacity was 15.69 GW[9]

  Conclusion: Use current data and don't waste our time with vacant and unsupportable claims.

----------


## Marc

[QUOTE]  

> Originally Posted by *Yande*_Well now at least I understand this Forum. Previous statements such as "The Chinese just want to conquer the world" took me by surprise. But now I realise just how many shiny tails, living off their super, with nothing better to do than sprout about their latest reno, and right leaning beliefs, spend their time here.. 
> So the Tax is gone... Wooppee, now I can burn the electrics day and night.. Especially as i am going to be $550 better off!! (No tony didn't say that, Bill did, apparently.) And according to most here, I need have no regard to the CO2 emissions I create. Unreal. Burn the plastic. Recycle?? No Too hard. Burn..  _  _Honestly, of late, it is embarrassing being a 7th generation Australian.. One only has to look at the clowns telling us what is right... Abbott, Hockey, and that douzy.. Pine.. If you voted for them fine.. I'm just smarter than most. [_/QUOTE]

  Originally Posted by *Marc*  _What a pathetic post. If you don't like people writing about their renovation, what are you doing here? As far as self funded retirees, you will find that most people posting here are either tradies or owner builders in full time employment. Oh yes with the few exceptions like you I suppose.
So a 7th generation Australian, is that some sort of badge of honour? Why not use an Australian avatar then? Obviously you would have liked the same mob that delivered the worst 6 years of government we ever had, to win the elections. Wouldn't that be great! Would you like to see a tax on non Australians? perhaps a doubling of Centrelink payments?_  

> I'm eighth generation, don't make an issue of it, you weren't born here, you can't have been because you have continually carried on about being born in a communist country. Those of us who have deep roots with this land have welcomed you here and for once show a bit of respect for the decency you have been shown.

  In every debate there are occasions when this happens, a woman will claim "misogyny" a minority person discrimination or racism or denyer, the poor oppression or classism, the rich reverse discrimination or something else. 
It is a fact that this claims do not help the debate and lead to political correctness, or unwanted and unnecessary caution to avoid being branded the usual popular anti something or other.  
It is however highly interesting when the same exact sort of slander comes from the group using this worn out tactics. The silence is deafening. 
If a man that is in the public eye would say he likes women with lots of money and tight between the legs and that it does not matter she can't talk, he would be crucified upside down in a public place. However a women elected representative can say the equivalent about a man and the feminist turn the other side.  
It is of course no surprise but very interesting show of the mind of the minority cults. 
I reserve a special mention for the generation counting. I can understand when the measuring tape comes out, at least those personal attribute belong to each of those doing the measuring, however in this case, the relevance is missing. When does a person become "more" and when is a person "less"? 2,3,4 generations? Is that all there is to our national pride? the number of time we reproduce? Isn't there a place for personal achievements?, or perhaps, why not ancestor's achievements? 
Last but not least ... To say that someone or some mysterious collectivity welcomed me is a gratuitous comment since the opposite is more the case.
To say I should be grateful, is an affront since it implies I did not deserve to be let in yet was let in as a gesture of goodwill. 
 And just to satisfy your curiosity and stop you repeating poorly construed guesses, no, I did not live in a communist country, in fact I can boast of possessing a genealogy tree that goes back to the 1200 containing a large number of professionals, doctors, pharmacist, lawyers, politicians, in the distant past and in the present time, currently in my family I have 4 doctors, one architect, 2 lawyers and one Quantum physicist, and a minister in a western europe country only recently retired and even a town founder many centuries ago whose surname I still carry and who gave the name to a well known western europe town.
All of which does not make me any different or special.

----------


## John2b

> Some posts back I supplied a link showing the mix, of course you obviously were to lazy to read & understand it!
> regards inter

  Your link was four years out of date. Do try to keep up - look what's happened in the last three years of this graph, which has happened since your vintage data:

----------


## John2b

[QUOTE=Marc;942960]  

> It is however highly interesting when the same exact sort of slander comes from the group using this worn out tactics. The silence is deafening. 
> If a man that is in the public eye would say he likes women with lots of money and tight between the legs and that it does not matter she can't talk, he would be crucified upside down in a public place. However a women elected representative can say the equivalent about a man and the feminist turn the other side.

   
1. What has this got to do with the current forum?
2. Don't you follow the news? Lambie has been crucified for her comments...     

> I can boast of possessing a genealogy tree that goes back to the 1200 containing a large number of professionals, doctors, pharmacist, lawyers, politicians, in the distant past and in the present time, currently in my family I have 4 doctors, one architect, 2 lawyers and one Quantum physicist, and a minister in a western europe country only recently retired and even a town founder many centuries ago whose surname I still carry and who gave the name to a well known western europe town. _All of which does not make me any different or special_.

  So why bother to mention it?

----------


## Marc

*Wind Power Investors: Get Out While You Can* 
May 5, 2014 by stopthesethings 12 Comments RUN! Don’t walk. For anyone still foolish enough to have their hard earned cash invested in wind power companies the warnings to grab your money and run couldn’t be louder or clearer. The members of the RET review panel have signalled their intention to take an axe to the RET: spelling out the fact that the review has absolutely nothing to do with “climate change” or CO2 emissions – their task is simply to analyse, model and forecast “the cost impacts of renewable energy in the electricity sector” (see our post here). 
The Treasurer, Joe Hockey entered the fray last week – during an interview with Alan Jones – when he branded wind turbines “a blight on the landscape” and “utterly offensive”. However, it’s what he went on to say about the “age of entitlement” that should have wind power investors quaking in their boots (see our posts here and here). 
Joe outlined the Coalition’s plans to scrap a raft of public sector departments and agencies ostensibly charged with controlling the climate (there are currently 7 climate change agencies, 33 climate schemes and 7 departments). 
Joe went on to say that the Coalition’s attack on the “age of entitlement” will be directed at “business as much as it applies to each of us.” If ever there was a beneficiary of the “age of entitlement” it was the wind industry and the rort created in its favour by the mandatory RET/REC scheme – quite rightly described by Liberal MP, Angus “the Enforcer” Taylor as: “corporate welfare on steroids” (see our post here). 
The chances of the mandatory RET surviving the RET Review panel – and a Coalition itching to scrap it – are slimmer than a German supermodel. 
With the wind industry on the brink of collapse there are three main groups facing colossal financial losses: retailers, financiers and shareholders. 
Wind power companies – like any company – raise capital by borrowing (debt) or issuing shares (equity). Bankers price the risk of lending according to the likelihood that the borrower will default and, if so, the ability to recover its loan by recovering secured assets. Share prices reflect the underlying value of the assets held by the company and projected returns on those assets (future dividends). Share prices fall if the value of the assets and/or the projected returns on those assets falls. 
Retail power companies saw the writing on the wall as the Green-Labor Alliance disintegrated at the end of 2012, presaging the Coalition’s election victory in September 2013. The risk point for retailers sits in their Power Purchase Agreements with wind power generators – the value of which depends on the amount of “renewable” energy fixed by the mandatory Renewable Energy Target and the value of Renewable Energy Certificates. Scale back the mandatory RET and the price of RECs will plummet; scrap it and RECs won’t be worth the paper they’re written on. Faced with that increasingly likely scenario, (sensible) retailers stopped entering PPAs around December 2012. RECs are transferred from wind power generators to retailers under their PPAs, and the retailer gets to cash them in at market value. Retailers that haven’t signed PPAs can thank their lucky stars – chances are they will have avoided the very real prospect of being left with millions of worthless RECs. 
Bankers have also baulked at lending to new wind power projects, keeping their cheque books firmly in the top drawer over the last 18 months or so. However, having lent $billions to wind power developers over the last 13 years, Australian banks have more than their fair share of exposure – exposure, that is, to the insolvency of the wind power company borrowing from it. 
Ordinarily, bankers protect themselves by holding valuable security over the assets held by the borrower (eg the mortgage you granted over your patch of paradise when you borrowed to buy it). However, the value of the security granted by a wind power company is principally tied up in the future stream of income guaranteed under its PPA with its retail customer (the true value of which is tied to the value of RECs). 
In the event that the RET were scaled back or scrapped it is highly likely that retailers (left with a bunch of worthless RECs) will seek to get out of their PPAs, making the bank’s security largely worthless. A wind farm with a fleet of worn-out Suzlon s88 turbines – on land owned by someone else – is unlikely to yield all that much for a receiver or liquidator charged with recovering the assets of an insolvent wind power company for its creditors. 
Were banks forced to write off $billions in loans to wind power companies as bad and doubtful debts, then shareholders in that bank can expect to see the value of their shareholdings fall. Now would be a prudent time for those with shareholdings in banks to find out just how much that the bank has lent to wind power companies and, therefore, the bank’s exposure and risk they face as shareholders of that bank. 
Shareholders in wind power companies, of course, have direct exposure to the declining fortunes of the wind industry. A decline in the share price obviously reduces the value of the shareholder’s investment. However, in the event of insolvency shareholders rank last behind all creditors, which means their shares are, ordinarily, worthless. In the case of wind power companies this will be invariably the case, as the companies in question are merely $2 companies with no real assets to speak of. 
However, it is superannuation funds that have, by far, the greatest total exposure to the imminent collapse of Australian wind power companies. Australian superannuation funds (particularly industry and union super funds) have invested very heavily in wind power. These investments are either directly through shareholdings (equity) or through investment banks lending to wind power companies (debt). Examples include Members Equity Bank and IFM Investors (outfits run by former union heavy weight, Gary Weaven and Greg Combet) which have channelled $100s of millions into wind power operator, Pacific Hydro. It’s little wonder then that Labor apparatchiks and Union bosses come out swinging whenever the RET faces attack. 
If you think that superannuation funds are somehow magically immune from the risk of the financial collapse of the companies they invest in, then cast your mind back to the wholesale corporate collapse of companies involved in Managed Investment Schemes that saw banks and super funds lose $100s of millions (see this story). 
Anyone with their money in superannuation should be asking their fund just how much exposure their fund has to wind power companies? Since the RET review panel outlined their mission a couple of weeks ago it seems that the word “RISK” – associated with investing in, or lending to, wind power companies – is the word that’s on everyone’s lips. Here’s the Australian Financial Review. *
Green energy on tenterhooks*
Australian Financial Review
Tony Boyd
30 April 2014 
Contrary to popular opinion, leading businessman Dick Warburton does not have any pre-determined views about the future of Australia’s $20 billion Renewable Energy Target scheme. While it is reassuring he is determined to be completely impartial in his rapid fire review of the RET scheme, Warburton makes it clear in an interview with Chanticleer that there will not necessarily be a grandfathering of existing arrangements. 
“We have not made a decision on that – how could we when we have just started consulting with the industry,” he says.
In other words, it is possible that Warburton’s committee will abandon the RET targets and the accompanying certificates that are used by renewable energy developers to subsidise operations. 
That helps explain why the renewables industry is starting to be priced for a disastrous outcome that could wipe out billions of dollars in existing investments and see a wave of bankruptcies and restructuring. 
Shares in wind farm operator Infigen Energy have fallen 25 per cent since the RET scheme review was announced. Its shares are being priced for a negative outcome from Warburton’s review. Chief executive Miles George says Infigen’s Australian business would lose roughly 40 per cent of its revenue in the event of existing targets and certificate arrangements not being honoured. “Our business would fail, along with most other wind farms in Australia,” he says. Infigen has 20,000 shareholders split about one third between mums and dads and two thirds institutions. They could lose their entire investments.” 
Infigen is not the only company worried about the potential damage to its business from changing the RET target, which is 41,000 GWh. One of Australia’s largest infrastructure investors, IFM Investors, is concerned its renewable energy business, Pacific Hydro, will have to shut down and move its investment offshore. Garry Weaven, chairman of IFM Investors and Pacific Hydro, tells Chanticleer that while he respects Warburton’s independence and ability as a businessman, he is particularly worried by the “climate change vibes” emanating from the Abbott government. 
Weaven told CEDA in a speech last month that renewable energy development in Australia has been severely handicapped by inconsistent and untimely interventions by successive governments. He makes the perfectly valid point that investors in renewables have to measure their investments over at least 25 to 30 years. “It is simply not possible to generate an acceptable project IRR for a wind farm without that assumption, and other forms of renewable energy generation are still less economic and also require a very long investment life-cycle,” he told CEDA. 
Weaven’s broader point is that with the plan to scrap the carbon tax and the uncertainty surrounding the government’s Direct Action policy, there is no new investment in any form of energy generation in Australia at the moment. Banks are unwilling to go anywhere near power generation investment unless it is the purchase of existing assets, such as Macquarie Generation, which is being sold by the NSW Government. Warburton says George and Weaven should not be barking at shadows, especially since the expert panel has only just begun speaking to industry participants. 
But he is also crystal clear that every aspect of the RET scheme is up for grabs. As Warburton says, there is good reason why sovereign risk is one of the five key areas being examined by an expert panel which also includes Brian Fisher, Shirley In’t Veld and Matt Zema.  
The key words used in the terms of reference in relation to sovereign risk are as follows: “The review should provide advice on the extent of the RET’s impact on electricity prices, and the range of options available to reduce any impact while managing sovereign risk.” 
Sovereign risk is not something normally associated with investment in Australia. It last raised its ugly head when the former Labor government introduced the Mineral Resources Rent Tax. But investors around the world are getting used to escalating sovereign risk in democratic countries with normally predictable long term policies. 
Recently in Norway, the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) was severely burned when the government changed the tariff that can be charged by a private company that bought the rights to manage a gas pipeline. CPPIB’s return from its company, Solveig, was slashed from 7 per cent to 4 per cent. 
Warbuton says potential management of sovereign risk would not have been a part of the terms of reference for the RET scheme review if all options were not on the table. Warburton, chairman of Westfield Retail Trust and Magellan Flagship Fund, will use a cost-benefit analysis from ACIL Allen as the foundation of the RET review. ACIL Allen has been accused of being in the pocket of the fossil fuel lobby but its data was used on Tuesday by the Clean Energy Council in a document in support of keeping the RET scheme in its current form. 
The Clean Energy Council report, which was prepared by ROAM Consulting, modelled three scenarios: a business as usual case, a no RET scenario, where the RET is repealed, with only existing and financially committed projects being covered by the scheme and an increased and extended RET scenario where the RET is increased by 30 per cent by 2030 target and extended to 2040. The report concluded that the legislated large scale RET can be met under the business as usual scenario. It also says that both RET scenarios result in lower net electricity costs to consumers in the medium to long term.
… *Australian Financial Review* When AFR refers to “the $20 billion Renewable Energy Target scheme” – it underplays the cost of the RET by at least $30 billion (probably just small change to the AFR?). The energy market consultants engaged by the RET review panel, ACIL Allen produced a report in 2012, that showed that the mandatory RET – with its current fixed target of 41,000 GW/h – would involve a subsidy of $53 billion, transferred from power consumers to wind power generators via Renewable Energy Certificates and added to all Australian power bills. From modelling done by Liberal MP, Angus “the Enforcer” Taylor – and privately confirmed by Origin Energy – ACIL Allen’s figure for the REC Tax/Subsidy is pretty close to the mark. 
Adding $53 billion to power consumers’ bills can only increase retail power costs, making the Clean Energy Council’s claims about wind power lowering power prices complete bunkum (see our post here). And that figure is a fraction of the $100 billion or so needed to roll out the further 26,000 MW in wind power capacity needed to meet the current RET – and the duplicated transmission network needed to support it (see our post here). 
Yet again, the wind industry and its parasites seek to hide behind the furphy of “sovereign risk”. “Sovereign risk” and “regulatory risk” are two entirely different animals: the wind industry is the product of Federal Government regulation which, of course, is prone to amendment or abolition at any time. “Sovereign risk” is the risk that the country in question will default on its debt obligations with foreign nationals or other countries; and, by some definitions, includes the risk that a foreign central bank will alter its foreign-exchange regulations thereby significantly reducing or completely nulling the value of foreign-exchange contracts. It has nothing at all to do with changes in legislation that impact on industry subsidy schemes – which is precisely what the mandatory RET/REC scheme is: the prospect that a subsidy might be reduced or scrapped is simply “regulatory risk”. 
To claim that the alteration of a government subsidy scheme is “sovereign risk” is complete nonsense. At one point during the RET review panel’s meeting in Sydney, as Dick Warburton spelt out the panel’s mission, the boys from Infigen howled from the back of the room: “but, what about sovereign risk?!?” To which a nonplussed Warburton retorted: “what about it? Sovereign risk is your problem, it’s not our problem.” 
And, indeed, it appears that Infigen has serious problems (whether or not “sovereign risk” is one of them). Infigen is bleeding cash (it backed up a $55 million loss in 2011/12 with an $80 million loss, last financial year). It’s been scrambling to get development approvals for all of its projects so they can be flogged off ASAP. If it finds buyers it can use the cash to retire debt and fend off the receiver – who must be circling like a vulture all set to swoop. Reflecting its fading fortunes, Infigen’s share price has taken a pounding in the last 8 months (if the graphs below look fuzzy, click on them, they’ll open in a new window and look crystal clear):  Note the drop after the Coalition took office in September; the dive after the RET Review was announced in January; and the plummet in April, when the Panel defined what its mission was about, as it called for submissions (see our post here). The drop seen above – from the year high of $0.32 (in August 2013) to $0.20 (now) – represents a 36% loss for investors who bought in at the top of the market this financial year. But spare a thought for those that bought in back in 2009 – when Infigen emerged from the ashes of Babcock and Brown:  The early movers have seen their shares freefall from over $1.40 to $0.20 – representing an 80% loss. Ouch! The collapse in Infigen’s share price simply highlights our warning to bankers and investors. Remember this is an outfit that used to be called Babcock and Brown – which collapsed spectacularly in 2009 – taking $10 billion of investors’ and creditors’ money with it on the way out (see this story). Get set for a replay. Consider this STT’s fair warning to anyone with exposure to wind power companies – be it shareholders, bankers or those who face exposure through their super fund’s investments – grab your money and get out while you can. Passengers, please take this time to locate your nearest exit. *Share this:*   Twitter26Facebook65PrintMore       *Related*  German Energy Giant E.On says: It’s Time for Wind Power to Grow UpIn "Australia" Australian Wind Industry’s House of Cards CollapsingIn "Australia" Energy Market Gorillas Beat Up on the Wind Power MonkeysIn "Australia"    
Filed Under: Australia, Big wind industry, Big wind politics, RET ReviewTagged With: Coalition RET review, collapse in renewables, collapse wind power companies, Infigen, Infigen Energy, infigen share price, insolvency wind power, investor risk wind farm, Pacific Hydro, RET review, RET review panel, Union Super Funds, wind farm shares 
« Joe Hockey keen to scrap Infigen’s “utterly offensive” Lake George Wind Farm Wind Power in Britain: it’s Robin Hood in Reverse »  *About stopthesethings* We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.  *Comments*   Tim brew says: May 7, 2014 at 6:44 pm  The capitulation will not be complete until the fraud investigation has been undertaken, all liability paid to sufferers and refunds of all the monies received from non-complying turbines!  Reply

----------


## Marc

Bon says: May 6, 2014 at 10:31 am 
I dont recall hearing these bleating, wind weasels express any concern about the lack of regulatory consistency that saw coal and gas generation industry assets devalued when they had their competitive free market removed overnight by politically motivated mandatory subsidies and taxes propping up useless uneconomic wind farms? Furthermore the prospect of future investment in large scale, cost effective, base load power generation plant has been put on hold due to the distortion of the electricity market caused by the RET and the Labor/Green carbon dioxide tax.
Facing massive unemployment and economic ruin Spain made the only sensible decision it could and stopped subsidising renewables  its now time for Australia to do the same. And please no tears for these wind rent seekers, theyve long had it coming to them!  ReplyTerry Conn says: May 5, 2014 at 8:58 pm 
To claim that the alteration of a government subsidy scheme is sovereign risk  is complete nonsense is absolutely correct. It is even more correct when the scheme says in its legislation that it is subject to two yearly reviews. All investment in this country in renewable energy products that rely on the REC subsidy have always been a speculative venture (ie a gamble). I have not been able to see a power purchase agreement between a wind farm company and a retailer of electricity but Warburton and crew should insist on it because as a solicitor admitted to practice in 1975 I cannot believe all those highly paid lawyers for electricity retailers failed to insist that a get out clause be included in the event the RECs were thrown out or the RET changed in accordance with existing legislation. That would be the same reason lease agreements with hosts have clauses that allow wind farm developers to give notice to quit the lease at any time but tie a host up for 25 to 75 years. All this just goes to prove that the bigger the fraud, the bigger the lie the more we fall for it  that includes smart Alecs from the union movement and well meaning environmentalists. I desperately hope Mr. Warburton and the government and eventually the Australian people come to see the wind industry for the great big fraud that it is. In the event those who played the game of speculating on a crook horse lose their money then so be it.  ReplyGodzilla is Real says: May 5, 2014 at 7:05 pm 
Didnt Shorten invest a pile of his Unions super cash in wind?

----------


## Uncle Bob

I'm suggesting the TPTB that this thread get's either locked or deleted. Since you guys can't stop with the BS and the constant posts being reported, well, I'm over it and have been for ages. If you guys want the thread kept, then I'd suggest you clean up all your posts by getting rid of all the defamatory trolling and all the crap that's been copied from other sources which doesn't have self created content. Please use links instead of copying others work. 
Thanks Bob.

----------


## woodbe

> I'm suggesting the TPTB that this thread get's either locked or deleted. Since you guys can't stop with the BS and the constant posts being reported, well, I'm over it and have been for ages. If you guys want the thread kept, then I'd suggest you clean up all your posts by getting rid of all the defamatory trolling and all the crap that's been copied from other sources which doesn't have self created content. Please use links instead of copying others work. 
> Thanks Bob.

  Agree 100% No point in a debate when it descends to vast copied posts from other sources with no self created content, personal attacks and defamatory trolling. The reasons for the trolling are obvious. 
The only reason I post in this thread is to try and keep it on topic and accurate to the facts on the ground and the science behind AGW/CC. If it gets closed or deleted I won't have to do that any more so I'm happy either way. 
What is a TPTB?

----------


## Uncle Bob

TPTB = The Powers That Be  :Wink:

----------


## johnc

If you read back through there are numerous vicious and quite frankly childish attacks on individuals including distortions of name in a sexist and demeaning way on a serving prime minister which fails to give satisfactory respect to the position. There are a lot of cut and pastes from places which are not even credible, facts which are not supportable and the careful grooming of information to distort the facts. There is little respect for others, a tendency to make stupid statements then either ignore questions to explain or even acknowledge the truth when it is clear the post is wrong. There is confected outrage when no offence is given and there is reams of childish sarcasm when called to account or asked for explanations. 
Can't see the slightest reason to lock the thread, I only came here when a forum resident went elsewhere to peddle his distortions and followed him back to return the compliment, I stay because I can't believe how limited some can be at basic analytical skills when they don't agree with their existing political bias, a fascinating study in human fallibility. Lock it by all means the joke has run its course.

----------


## James

Happy to keep this thread open. Just use common sense when posting and please refrain from copy/pasting large chunks of text. A simple link to the article is sufficient.

----------


## John2b

> Happy to keep this thread open. Just use common sense when posting and please refrain from copy/pasting large chunks of text. A simple link to the article is sufficient.

  One particular person has hijacked ~40% of this very page's real-estate with pasted blah blah, all by themselves. Does that particular person have the objective of shutting down this thread, or is their objective to make so much noise that no one else can be heard? 
This forum does have a purpose - to air and test people's understanding of climate change and how to deal with it, or not, as the case may be based on the evidence. Bullys shouldn't be allowed to steamroll everyone else. Just my two bob's worth for Uncle Bob LOL.

----------


## woodbe

Thanks Uncle Bob. 
James, so you must be one of TPTB ?  :Smilie:  
Happy with your direction. If you choose to enforce it then this thread should become a more reasonable place.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Happy to keep this thread open. Just use common sense when posting and please refrain from copy/pasting large chunks of text. A simple link to the article is sufficient.

  Definitely agree with the wholesale cutting and pasting of text/clickbait sentiment.  It makes Tapatalk go completely insane (let alone Yours Truly)...and the whole forum then becomes an un-fun place on mobile devices.

----------


## Bedford

> I'm suggesting the TPTB that this thread get's either locked or deleted.

    

> Happy to keep this thread open.

    

> Happy with your direction. If you choose to enforce it then this thread should become a more reasonable place.

  Phew! that was close!  :Biggrin:

----------


## intertd6

Really the debate is in it's death throws as the carbon tax is buried for the next 2 or 3 years, this will be a disappointment for the audience, you only have to look at the numbers of non members getting their daily dose of free entertainment, it's like having evangelical door knockers locked in a room & listening to them come up with every excuse which defies belief.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Really the debate is in it's death throws

  Which debate is that?   

> this will be a disappointment for the audience,

  You are part of the "audience". Are you disappointed?   

> you only have to look at the numbers of non members getting their daily dose of free entertainment, it's like having evangelical door knockers locked in a room & listening to them come up with every excuse which defies belief.

  Huh? What about the evidence? Doesn't that count as far as you are concerned? Oh, I think everyone knows the answer to that question...

----------


## intertd6

> Which debate is that?  If you have to ask, you didn't know in the first place!  
> You are part of the "audience". Are you disappointed?   Ah! It must be like one of those audience participation pantomime debates then! And the people outside who haven't paid are the other audience, so logical for some it defies logic! 
> Huh? What about the evidence? Doesn't that count as far as you are concerned? Oh, I think everyone knows the answer to that question...  Yes that phantom irrefutable evidence? We will be able to spot it when it does actually appear because it will be able to fully explain why CO2 never had catastrophic global warming consequences on the past, when now it supposedly does have that capability, we really don't have to provide any evidence as we are living breathing proof that your evangelical belief isn't possible.

  regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Really the debate is in it's death throws as the carbon tax is buried for the next 2 or 3 years, this will be a disappointment for the audience, you only have to look at the numbers of non members getting their daily dose of free entertainment, it's like having evangelical door knockers locked in a room & listening to them come up with every excuse which defies belief.
> regards inter

  Sounds like Inter is advocating the demise of the thread.  I'd second that - though for very different reasons.  Perhaps we can leave it up to Rod to have the final word and then move on to something useful, comfortable in the knowledge that everyone is happy because they were right in the end...

----------


## intertd6

> Sounds like Inter is advocating the demise of the thread.  I'd second that - though for very different reasons.  Perhaps we can leave it up to Rod to have the final word and then move on to something useful, comfortable in the knowledge that everyone is happy because they were right in the end...

  Sounds like your making stuff up! its obvious that the ETS is buried for some time so this debate will naturally fade away........ unless someone new, with brilliance comes along & provides facts undoing the history of CO2 & the role it didn't play in the globes temperatures.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Sounds like your making stuff up! its obvious that the ETS is buried for some time so this debate will naturally fade away........ unless someone new, with brilliance comes along & provides facts undoing the history of CO2 & the role it didn't play in the globes temperatures.
> regards inter

  Even if they were brilliant they would fade against the natural glow of your everknowing self. 
Sometimes it's easier to go around obstacles. And often the obstacles have no idea they've even be passed by.  So it is in this case...

----------


## intertd6

> Even if they were brilliant they would fade against the natural glow of your everknowing self. 
> Sometimes it's easier to go around obstacles. And often the obstacles have no idea they've even be passed by.  So it is in this case...

  You guys are the only ones claiming I have anything above my quoted barely below average intelligence & from your efforts on trying to justify CO2 as the main cause of global warming, it may seem that intelligence I lack is superior!  
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I never said the natural glow suggested intelligence...  
I've met many people whose ignorant glow has powered whole committees into glorious redundancy despite the best efforts of some very big brains. Your wilful glee about your own perceived short comings bring back some not so wonderful memories of this experience. 
If you truly think you are stupid then why do you continue to believe you have a meaningful contribution to make to the 'debate'?

----------


## intertd6

> I never said the natural glow suggested intelligence...   Thank goodness for that! 
> I've met many people whose ignorant glow has powered whole committees into glorious redundancy despite the best efforts of some very big brains. Your wilful glee about your own perceived short comings bring back some not so wonderful memories of this experience.  you lucky lucky fellow! 
> If you truly think you are stupid then why do you continue to believe you have a meaningful contribution to make to the 'debate  I'm only implying I'm not a rocket scientist, not an evangelical nitwit! Now that's the epitanmy of stupidity & if it makes you feel good that's great!  
> '?

  Regards inter

----------


## John2b

It is a moot point that the ETS in Australia is buried. Australian business and international trade will be penalised by countries that do have an ETS in the interest of their maintaining a level playing field (and yes, expect our largest trade partners China and Japan to penalise Australian trade too, once their ETSs are up and running). So whilst Australia will forego the benefit of moving to a modern energy economy as a result of an ETS, cancelling the ETS will not spare Australian industry of the downside to industry and growth that opponent purport the ETS would invoke. 
Instead of corporate carbon polluters paying the tax, ordinary Australians will all be taxed to pay the carbon polluters through "direct action". Sounds like a great plan - NOT.

----------


## intertd6

> It is a moot point that the ETS in Australia is buried. Australian business and international trade will be penalised by countries that do have an ETS in the interest of their maintaining a level playing field (and yes, expect our largest trade partners China and Japan to penalise Australian trade too, once their ETSs are up and running). So whilst Australia will forego the benefit of moving to a modern energy economy as a result of an ETS, cancelling the ETS will not spare Australian industry of the downside to industry and growth that opponent purport the ETS would invoke. 
> Instead of corporate carbon polluters paying the tax, ordinary Australians will all be taxed to pay the carbon polluters through "direct action". Sounds like a great plan - NOT.

  Now any sane person would reasonably recognise that when that happens, it would be the time to introduce what ever the global agreement dictates! Now this situation could be 5, 10, 15 or more years away or never!
Not before!
I'm wondering what planet has a business that doesn't make a profit on their wares whatever tax is plied on them! The users pay, no matter what, some action/taxes are direct & some not
regards inter

----------


## John2b

...and some taxes change behaviour...

----------


## intertd6

> ...and some taxes change behaviour...

  this is not beer or tobacco tax! And there is no economical choice unless artificially induced! When the cheaper alternative can stand on its own it will naturally commercially succeed & change behaviour.
regards inter

----------


## Marc

> this is not beer or tobacco tax! And there is no economical choice unless artificially induced! When the cheaper alternative can stand on its own it will naturally commercially succeed & change behaviour.
> regards inter

  That is not how totalitarian regime operate and make no mistake, the green agenda is one of total control like the inquisition, Stalin, Castro and others. You must only look at how the "green" councils treat the farmers and how they destroy farmland with national parks infested with noxious weeds and feral pest that no one manages. 
In the cultist mind, us the vulgar populace, are ignorant and don't know. "They" know better whats good for us. Offer and demand play no role in a greenie commie world since the priests impose the dogma and the peasants pay. 
Oh yes! China and their ETS "up and running" ha ha, sure they are up and running they can smell the money coming from the caffe latte politicians who buy votes with false pretenses. 
By the way, what happened to "Global Warming"? By now we should be frying in a dry hell with no rain ever again, 9 meters of sea rise, 40C in the shade in winter and lets not forget, billions of climate refugees. 
 is this the case of the dog ate my warming?

----------


## John2b

> is this the case of the dog ate my warming?

  Nope, the dog ate your logic... 
Oh, and many farmers are "greener" than the people you are forever disparaging.  They are intimately connected with the land, the climate, and the interplay between the two. And the multinationals in agribusiness are @@@@-scared of what global warming induced climate change will do to their returns, even if they like to keep that concern largely to themselves. The only thing the corporate agribusiness operators consider to be of greater concern than the disruption to production from global warming, is another global financial crisis.  Agriculture Risks 2014

----------


## intertd6

> Nope, the dog ate your logic... 
> Oh, and many farmers are "greener" than the people you are forever disparaging.  They are intimately connected with the land, the climate, and the interplay between the two. And the multinationals in agribusiness are @@@@-scared of what global warming induced climate change will do to their returns, even if they like to keep that concern largely to themselves. The only thing the corporate agribusiness operators consider to be of greater concern than the disruption to production from global warming, is another global financial crisis.  Agriculture Risks 2014

  nope your logic ate your dog, 
just what we need, corporate farmers! We already have corporate greed in the retail of farmers goods, now we can expect the same from farms, with profits being sucked from each end of the chain, the workers & the consumers!
regards inter

----------


## johnc

There are plenty of corporate farmers, but that is not what he was saying. Obviously you feel the need to respond to the logical but overlook Marc's inaccurate drivel.

----------


## intertd6

> There are plenty of corporate farmers, but that is not what he was saying. Obviously you feel the need to respond to the logical but overlook Marc's inaccurate drivel.

  I only respond to punctuate both sides of the drivel 
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> If you truly think you are stupid then why do you continue to believe you have a meaningful contribution to make to the 'debate'?

  When Ignorance Begets Confidence: The Classic Dunning-Kruger | Psychology Today  "The Dunning-Kruger effect describes a cognitivebias in which people perform poorly on a task, but lack the meta-cognitive capacity to properly evaluate their performance. As a result, such people remain unaware of their incompetence and accordingly fail to take any self-improvement measures that might rid them of their incompetence."

----------


## intertd6

> When Ignorance Begets Confidence: The Classic Dunning-Kruger | Psychology Today"The Dunning-Kruger effect describes a cognitivebias in which people perform poorly on a task, but lack the meta-cognitive capacity to properly evaluate their performance. As a result, such people remain unaware of their incompetence and accordingly fail to take any self-improvement measures that might rid them of their incompetence."

  aha! our pseudo psychologist is back at work again! If only I was stupid & ignorant enough to believe the stuff you fellows do with no proof other than belief! I'd fit right in with your crowd then. 
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> If only I was stupid & ignorant enough to believe the stuff you fellows do with no proof other than belief!

  Want proof? Look no further than this thread  :2thumbsup:  
(BTW, it's something you have accused me of dozens and dozens of time and now you say it is not true!  :Shock: ) 
The "proofs" actually make very interesting reading, based on actual studies of real populations as they are:  Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one  Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence 
Want to see it in living action? See if you can find a person competently fulfilling their responsibilities in this bunch: https://www.liberal.org.au/our-team

----------


## woodbe

> aha! our pseudo psychologist is back at work again! If only I was stupid & ignorant enough to believe the stuff you fellows do with no proof other than belief! I'd fit right in with your crowd then. 
> regards inter

  Dunning-Kruger is a well known and researched effect, it is not a belief. Unfortunately, the effect is rife amongst CC Skeptics. The science behind the accepted position on mankind's effect on the climate is also not a belief. What is a belief is people who claim the science is wrong without showing why with accurate and peer reviewed science. If the skeptics can't publish anything to refute the accepted science where does that leave our unqualified and untrained Dunning-Kruger Skeptics? Up the creek. We have been there before: James Powell: 2013; 10,885 Peer Reviewed Climate Articles; 2 reject man-made global warming. 
How about we focus on the topic rather than playing the man? Of course if you do want this thread shut down you're doing exactly what is required.  
Show us some science that refutes the accepted scientific position.

----------


## woodbe

Sydney and Melbourne going green despite uncertainty over future of Renewable Energy Target - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   

> Sydney plans to reduce its emissions by 70 per cent by 2030 while  Melbourne aims to have zero net emissions in just five-and-a-half years.

  Local governments seem to be in tune with their public.

----------


## Marc

> Nope, the dog ate your logic

  There has be no warming since 1998, and despite the many explanation you can google, designed to "rebuke" the bad skeptics, the reality is irrefutable, CO2 UP, temperature, steady. Please do not repeat the Ocean's heatsink that will sometimes all of a sudden explode and cook us all. 
Facts are facts, computer rubbish is ... well just rubbish.  CO2 is not the bad guy, just an easy target to shift power and resources. 
Not long ago, humans needed to be saved from their sinful ways in order to avoid the wrath of God. Of course God had better things to do and no wrat to be seen and the church slipped away into irrelevance. Climatolatry will follow suit. 
Of course another cult will spring up quick smart. I wonder what it will be?    

> In an e-mail to GWPF, Lennart Bengtsson has declared his resignation of the advisory board of GWPF. His letter reads :“I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
> Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.”I am reproducing this letter with permission of Lennart Bengtsson.

   Source: http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.nl/2014...ory-board.html 
The Cult priests have found Bengtsson sins unforgivable, he will go to climate hell forever ...

----------


## Yande

> What a pathetic post. If you don't like people writing about their renovation, what are you doing here? As far as self funded retirees, you will find that most people posting here are either tradies or owner builders in full time employment. Oh yes with the few exceptions like you I suppose.
> So a 7th generation Australian, is that some sort of badge of honour? Why not use an Australian avatar then? Obviously you would have liked the same mob that delivered the worst 6 years of government we ever had, to win the elections. Wouldn't that be great!  Would you like to see a tax on non Australians? perhaps a doubling of Centrelink payments?

  I just do not understand what message you are attempting to convey here with that post marc that is, apart from attempting to slander me..  BTW, My name is Mark, with a "K."    Also my avatar is my Companies logo. and has nothing to do with nationality.  I sell nuts.   Which, despite what you wrongly assumed, leaves me in the Full time, self employed bracket.. (Crikeys..!!  Are you Paranoid or obversely Nationalistic?) I am glad to see how I pressed your buttons though marc/mate....  .

----------


## Marc

> Well now at least I understand this Forum.  Previous statements such as "The Chinese just want to conquer the world" took me by surprise.  But now I realise just how many shiny tails, living off their super, with nothing better to do than sprout about their latest reno, and right leaning beliefs, spend their time here.. 
> So the Tax is gone...  Wooppee, now I can burn the electrics day and night.. Especially as i am going to be $550 better off!!  (No tony didn't say that, Bill did, apparently.)  And according to most here,  I need have no regard to the CO2 emissions I create.  Unreal.  Burn the plastic.  Recycle??  No Too hard.  Burn..   
> Honestly, of late, it is embarrassing being a 7th generation Australian..  One only has to look at the clowns telling us what is right...  Abbott, Hockey, and that douzy.. Pine..  If you voted for them fine..  I'm just smarter than most.

   I suggest that you re-read your own post and think:
...."shiny tails, living off their super, with nothing better to do than sprout about their latest reno, and right leaning beliefs, spend their time here.."
...."One only has to look at the clowns telling us what is right... Abbott, Hockey, and that douzy.. Pine.. If you voted for them fine.. I'm just smarter than most." 
Do you really think you are "smarter than most" ... ?

----------


## John2b

> There has be no warming since 1998

  Dealing with this statement puts the rest of the post into perspective... 
The current favorite argument of those who argue that climate changes isn’t happening, or a problem, or worth dealing with, is that global warming has stopped. The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has *not* stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth.  The actual data are easy for anyone to find – they all independently say the same thing: the Earth is warming – precisely the conclusion the scientific community has reached based on observations and fundamental physics.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/  You choose which of the three camps our friend belongs to, lying, ignorant or blatantly disregarding reality... or Dunning Kruger champion, perhaps.

----------


## intertd6

> Dealing with this statement puts the rest of the post into perspective...
> The current favorite argument of those who argue that climate changes isn’t happening, or a problem, or worth dealing with, is that global warming has stopped. The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has *not* stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth.  The actual data are easy for anyone to find – they all independently say the same thing: the Earth is warming – precisely the conclusion the scientific community has reached based on observations and fundamental physics.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/  You choose which of the three camps our friend belongs to, lying, ignorant or blatantly disregarding reality... or Dunning Kruger champion, perhaps.

  Are you saying that data & scientific institutions that show there has been no significant increase in the globes average temperature since 1998 are lying, ignorant or disregarding reality then?
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Are you saying that data & scientific institutions that show there has been no significant increase in the globes average temperature since 1998 are lying, ignorant or disregarding reality then?
> regards inter

  Presumably that is a hypothetical question, because there aren't any scientific institutions or data sets that "show there has been no significant increase in the globes average temperature since 1998".

----------


## intertd6

> Presumably that is a hypothetical question, because there aren't any scientific institutions or data sets that "show there has been no significant increase in the globes average temperature since 1998".

  It was a question & already your trying to squirm your way out of it as usual!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> It was a question & already your trying to squirm your way out of it as usual!

  Not at all. Here is (yet another) opportunity for you put aside the disparaging remarks and contribute some evidence instead...

----------


## intertd6

> Not at all. Here is (yet another) opportunity for you put aside the disparaging remarks and contribute some evidence instead...

   Well seeing I asked my question first, off you go with some proof to back up your claim?
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Well seeing I asked my question first, off you go with some proof to back up your claim?

  Your 'question" was based on a false premise - the premise that "data & scientific institutions that show there has been no significant increase in the globes average temperature since 1998" simply isn't true. Whether you asked it first or not is rather irrelevant. 
I repeat, why not put aside the disparaging remarks and contribute with some evidence instead...

----------


## John2b

For the "There's been no global warming since 199x brigade", you are wrong. This plot is surface temperature only - there is no "the ocean ate my warming" in this data...  _Last 20 years global monthly average surface air temperature. The thin blue line represents the monthly values. The thick red line is the linear fit, with 95% confidence intervals indicated by the two thin red lines. The thick green line represents a 5-degree polynomial fit, with 95% confidence intervals indicated by the two thin green lines. A few key statistics is given in the lower part of the diagram (note that the linear trend is the monthly trend). Last month included in analysis: May 2014. Last diagram update: 11 June 2014._    http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTem...ature%20trends

----------


## Marc

> It was a question & already your trying to squirm your way out of it as usual!
> regards inter

  But that is precisely the fun of it. 
It's like following the process of sanctification of some poor average person who unknown to him or her is attributed the most unbelievable exploits.  *The Pause: warmaholics tie themselves in knots*23 July, 2014 by Simon  This is the awkward result when reality confronts ideology. 
According to _Un-Skeptical Pseudo-Science_, the Pause is just a myth:_Climate myth… It hasn’t warmed since 1998_ _“For the years 1998-2005, temperature did not increase. This period coincides with society’s continued pumping of more CO2 into the atmosphere.” (Bob Carter)_ _No, it hasn’t been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn’t the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What’s more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.“_And in case that turns out not to be correct, there’s always a fallback position:_“There’s also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on surface air temperatures when there are other, more useful [yeah, more useful all right... more useful to plug your agenda - Ed], indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance — due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called ‘thermal mass’) — tend to give a much more ‘steady’ indication of the warming that is happening.  Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon…”_The now-famous ‘dog ate my warming’ excuse. Surface temperatures? We don’t need no stinkin’ surface temperatures… Please just ignore the fact that we obsessed over surface temperatures for the last 25 years, OK? So how come, _Un-Sk Ps-Sc,_ a paper published in _Geophysical Research Letters_ (a peer-reviewed journal, note) acknowledges the existence of the Pause and tries to explain it?_In his new paper, [Shaun] Lovejoy applies the same approach to the 15-year period after 1998, during which globally averaged temperatures remained high by historical standards, but were somewhat below most predictions generated by the complex computer models used by scientists to estimate the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions._ _The deceleration in rising temperatures during this 15-year period is sometimes referred to as a “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming, and has raised questions about why the rate of surface warming on Earth has been markedly slower than in previous decades. Since levels of greenhouse gases have continued to rise throughout the period, some skeptics have argued that the recent pattern undercuts the theory that global warming in the industrial era has been caused largely by human-made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels._ _Lovejoy’s new study concludes that there has been a natural cooling fluctuation of about 0.28 to 0.37 degrees Celsius since 1998 — a pattern that is in line with variations that occur historically every 20 to 50 years, according to the analysis._But surely climate models were supposed to take account of natural climate variations, not just the effect of anthropogenic CO2? Why is it that the models failed to predict the Pause? Is it because the variables in the models are set such that CO2 has far too large an influence on the model output, and natural variations have been minimised? Just a thought. _In any case, just enjoy the embarrassing squirming and wriggling of the warm-mongers as they battle it out to explain (or ignore) the Pause. _ *The best of all  the warmist topics is the one about China joining the ETS stated as a positive. It's like applauding Chechnya joining the Sicilian mafia. Oh yes!, now our credibility will shoot up sky high!
Woohoo ...*

----------


## John2b

^^ Since the premise of the above post is false, as shown in the post immediately above it, the cut and paste above is yet another waste of forum space. Good one Marc  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

> I repeat, why not put aside the disparaging remarks and contribute with some evidence instead...

  +1 
I think we have been asked to debate the topic, not engage in personal attacks and trolling. Some of our posters don't seem to be able to understand something this simple, way more simple than understanding the climate...

----------


## intertd6

> For the "There's been no global warming since 199x brigade", you are wrong. This plot is surface temperature only - there is no "the ocean ate my warming" in this data...  _Last 20 years global monthly average surface air temperature. The thin blue line represents the monthly values. The thick red line is the linear fit, with 95% confidence intervals indicated by the two thin red lines. The thick green line represents a 5-degree polynomial fit, with 95% confidence intervals indicated by the two thin green lines. A few key statistics is given in the lower part of the diagram (note that the linear trend is the monthly trend). Last month included in analysis: May 2014. Last diagram update: 11 June 2014._    climate4you GlobalTemperatures

  what can't you provide the data from the year requested?  have another go. You too have started the weaselling tactics again!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Your 'question" was based on a false premise - the premise that "data & scientific institutions that show there has been no significant increase in the globes average temperature since 1998" simply isn't true. Whether you asked it first or not is rather irrelevant. 
> I repeat, why not put aside the disparaging remarks and contribute with some evidence instead...

  Would it be too much to ask to man or woman up, have some backbone & just answer the question without evading it in your typical fashion!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Are you saying that data & scientific institutions that show there has been no significant increase in the globes average temperature since 1998 are lying, ignorant or disregarding reality then?
> regards inter

  Answered:   

> There aren't any scientific institutions or data sets that "show there has been no significant increase in the globes average temperature since 1998".

  Your response:   

> Would it be too much to ask to man or woman up, have some backbone & just answer the question without evading it in your typical fashion!

  My question:   

> Why not put aside the disparaging remarks and contribute with some evidence instead?

----------


## John2b

> what can't you provide the data from the year requested?  have another go. You too have started the weaselling tactics again!
> regards inter

  For the record (and intertd6), here is a graph based on the UAH satellite record - the one endorsed by climate skeptics like Dr Roy Spenser - for the skeptics' cherry-picked period 1998 to the present. Nothing has been done to manipulate the red data line. The green mathematical linear trend line shows whether it is warming or cooling since the start of the data series in 1998.     
It is not surprising to see that the trend is showing continued warming, since 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of the instrument temperature record have occurred since 2000. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.

----------


## woodbe

You can tell when the skeptics are desperate when they repeatedly ask for a single range of years. We've been over this before and it is pretty clear that the 'since 1998' meme represents two things: 
Firstly, as John2b points out, it is a cherry pick. If you pick the year before or after 1998 the gradient of the trend line alters (up) markedly. This is the reason why climate science doesn't waste much time with short spans less than 25 years or so; year by year noise makes seeing the climate trends messy and inaccurate. Even so, there are other signs that the planet has continued to warm even over that short time period. The longer the question gets asked, the less likely the trend will be flat because warming has continued. Pretty soon, it will be irrelevant so the cherry pickers will move on to another hot year, perhaps 2010. 
Secondly, repeatedly asking for 'since 1998' is trolling. The question has been answered plenty of times in this thread, and the responses are all approximately the same.  
I also support John2b's request to 'put aside the disparaging remarks and contribute with some evidence instead?'

----------


## intertd6

> For the record (and intertd6), here is a graph based on the UAH satellite record - the one endorsed by climate skeptics like Dr Roy Spenser - for the skeptics' cherry-picked period 1998 to the present. Nothing has been done to manipulate the red data line. The green mathematical linear trend line shows whether it is warming or cooling since the start of the data series in 1998.     
> It is not surprising to see that the trend is showing continued warming, since 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of the instrument temperature record have occurred since 2000. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.

  well you have some manipulated data loosely based on some facts to suit your cause that clearly shows no significant warming since 1998, there are a number of different data sets from your site which range from your less than 0.07'C / 16 years increase to approx' 0.01'C increase / 16 years, ( because your relatively new on the debate, the content of these data sets have already been argued & displayed by some of your comrades on the debate previously & shown to be alarmist garbage!) but back to my question which was a simple yes or no answer, now that you have shown that there has been no significant warming over the period since 1998, are the people who provide & interpret this data lying, ignorant or blatantly disregarding reality?
A little clue to the manipulation of your so called facts can be seen in the top ten warmest years data, funny how one set of data shows 1998 as the warmest year & the other states 2010 as the warmest year, the two do not correlate to each other! Do you think we are all fools or something?
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> You can tell when the skeptics are desperate when they repeatedly ask for a single range of years. We've been over this before and it is pretty clear that the 'since 1998' meme represents two things: 
> Firstly, as John2b points out, it is a cherry pick. If you pick the year before or after 1998 the gradient of the trend line alters (up) markedly. This is the reason why climate science doesn't waste much time with short spans less than 25 years or so; year by year noise makes seeing the climate trends messy and inaccurate. Even so, there are other signs that the planet has continued to warm even over that short time period. The longer the question gets asked, the less likely the trend will be flat because warming has continued. Pretty soon, it will be irrelevant so the cherry pickers will move on to another hot year, perhaps 2010. 
> Secondly, repeatedly asking for 'since 1998' is trolling. The question has been answered plenty of times in this thread, and the responses are all approximately the same.  
> I also support John2b's request to 'put aside the disparaging remarks and contribute with some evidence instead?'

  you can tell when the alarmists are floundering when they can't explain why the temperature isn't rising as predicted when CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere at an exponential rate & ruining there doomsday predictions.
as far as the disparaging remarks, your camp started back on that tact as soon as a simple question was asked of them.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> but back to my question which was a simple yes or no answer, now that you have shown that there has been no significant warming over the period since 1998, are the people who provide & interpret this data lying, ignorant or blatantly disregarding reality?

  Since I have just shown that there *IS* significant warming in the period 1998 to today (_and you have failed to provide any information to show that there has not been a continuing rise in global surface temperature since 1998_), the answer is yes - I think the people who claim there isn't are "lying, ignorant or blatantly disregarding reality".

----------


## intertd6

> Since I have just shown that there *IS* significant warming in the period 1998 to today (_and you have failed to provide any information to show that there has not been a continuing rise in global surface temperature since 1998_), the answer is yes - I think the people who claim there isn't are "lying, ignorant or blatantly disregarding reality".

  Sorry, but just because your interpretation of significant justifies your belief doesn't make it so, but to the rest if the population significant means 
1.sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy."a significant increase in sales"
 I would be certainly confident you don't have the credibility or credentials to rewrite the meaning of the word in any reference literature. 
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Sorry, but just because your interpretation of significant justifies your belief doesn't make it so, but to the rest if the population significant means 
> 1.sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy."a significant increase in sales"
>  I would be certainly confident you don't have the credibility or credentials to rewrite the meaning of the word in any reference literature.

  
Thank you for your candid assessment of my personal credibility. Now back to the forum topic... 
The dictionary definition of "significant" that you gave works just fine - there is no need to re-interpret anything. The ~0.1 degree increase in the 15 year period since 1998 represent a warming rate that matches that of the last century, which is extraordinary. If sales went up by ten times, _most_ people would consider that "significant". Quote from NASA: 
"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, *roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming*."   Global Warming : Feature Articles

----------


## intertd6

> Thank you for your candid assessment of my personal credibility. Now back to the forum topic... 
> The dictionary definition of "significant" that you gave works just fine - there is no need to re-interpret anything. The ~0.1 degree increase in the 15 year period since 1998 represent a warming rate that matches that of the last century, which is extraordinary. If sales went up by ten times, _most_ people would consider that "significant". Quote from NASA: 
> "As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, *roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming*."   Global Warming : Feature Articles

  what ever! You still haven't answered a simple yes on no question to the time frame quoted? I must say your political expertise of ducking, diving, weaving & weaselling out of a simple question is certainly honed to candidate level! The trouble is you forget that there are real people here with real life experience that separates them from the wannabe backslappers.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> what ever! You still haven't answered a simple yes on no question to the time frame quoted?

  The answer aligns perfectly well to the time frame quoted and I specifically couched the answer to make that clear, by saying the rate of warming in the last 15 years being ~0.1 degrees (equivalent to ~0.7 degrees per century) is "*roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming"* and, yes, most people (me included) would call that "significant".   

> I must say your political expertise of ducking, diving, weaving & weaselling out of a simple question is certainly honed to candidate level! The trouble is you forget that there are real people here with real life experience that separates them from the wannabe backslappers.

  For the umpteenth time, please keep you disparaging remarks to yourself and constrain your replies to the topic of the forum. Your persistent muck-raking adds no credibility to your arguments.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Do you think we are all fools or something?
> regards inter

   Is that a rhetorical question? 
If not then...I think you are all something. Really something.

----------


## woodbe

> you can tell when the alarmists are floundering when they can't explain why the temperature isn't rising as predicted when CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere at an exponential rate & ruining there doomsday predictions.
> as far as the disparaging remarks, your camp started back on that tact as soon as a simple question was asked of them.
> regards inter

  The reason why climate science focusses on longer term periods is so that short term variability does not mask the signal. That is exactly what is going on. Greenhouse gases aren't the only influence on climate and climate science would be the last to suggest it is the only one. Picking a short period starting with a high surface air temperature and then claiming that CO2 is not having the effect claimed is just loading the bases for trolling.   Global Temperature: the Post-1998 Surprise | Open Mind   

> Given how rapidly global temperature was rising prior to 1998, whats the most surprising thing about global temperature _since_ 1998?
>   Most who call themselves skeptics of global warming would probably say  No global warming since 1998! Under the name hiatus or pause, it  features prominently in public discussion and even in senate testimony  (e.g. from Judith Curry). In truth, such a pause or hiatus is _not_  that surprising, neither from a statistical point of view nor based on  climate model output. But there is one thing about post-1998  temperatures, compared to the pre-1998 temperatures, that is quite a  surprise. 
> It has  quite rightly  been pointed out that surface air temperature  (SAT) isnt all there is to global climate or global warming. Since 1998  weve witness sizeable warming of the oceans, including the deep ocean.  Weve seen a _staggering_ decline of Arctic sea ice and the  continued dwindling of most of the worlds glaciers. Sea level has  continued to rise at a rate much faster than the 20th-century average  (which itself was much higher than the average over the last several  thousand years). It has been emphasized that a lack of statistically  significant warming is not the same as a lack of warming. It has also  been pointed out that the pause in SAT is _not_ inconsistent with  climate model simulations, that in fact climate models show episodes  like weve observed since 1998″ even in a still-warming world. And it  has been shown (as climate scientists knew all along) that greenhouse  gases arent the only factor influencing temperature, that since 1998″  weve seen the most prominent known non-greenhouse factors (_el Nino_  southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols, and solar variations) conspire  to lower global temperature. Its obvious to those whose eyes are open  that _without_ continued greenhouse-gas warming to offset these  natural factors, we would have seen a notable decline in global  temperature since 1998.

  See if you can put your mind to a logical response without disparaging comments. If you think the only measure of changes in the climate is SAT since 1998 you're sadly mistaken.

----------


## Marc

Moderating Climate Change Hysteria
Christopher Calder - nonprofit, nonpartisan food security advocate 
 It is now my opinion, given all the facts at hand, that Climate Change, a.k.a. global warming, has become a pathological, somewhat Orwellian faith based doomsday religion that has sailed far away from honest science.  Speculation and hunches are not the same as proof, yet many are frightened and/or titillated that mankind is headed for certain annihilation. 
I do not welcome mass death, but many Christians who believe in End Times theology seem to long for it.  I cannot help but notice how much Climate Change enthusiasts and Christian doomsayers have in common in terms of their basic subconscious psychology 
The Left has embraced Climate Change philosophy with a certain amount of glee.  Climate Change proves that free markets are bad, that governments know best, and that industrialized society is somehow sinful.  But if one looks at the actual facts, it is certain that government efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have largely been economic, environmental, and humanitarian disasters.  In addition, greenhouse gas emissions have increased worldwide despite all the rules, regulations, and costly renewable energy projects.  Much of what we have done so far has only made matters worse, so my plea is for more thoughtful consideration as to the negative effects of proposed climate change cures.  Many Climate Change true believers have now become so hysterical that they have lost all rational perspective and no longer care about the scientific method, freedom of speech, or the welfare of the world's poor.   
     The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (*IPCC*), the organization that governments look to for justification for spending money on renewable energy projects and carbon taxes, found that the Earth has not warmed since 1998 despite the fact that greenhouse gas emissions have increased.  The acceleration in greenhouse gas release was due in no small part to global biofuel farming, which dramatically increased the production of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases.  So why did global warming stop in 1998 as greenhouse gas emissions accelerated?  That fact goes counter to the basic premises of man made global warming theory.   
     Voters should read about the shocking IPCC climate change cover up scandal.  Government officials told climate scientists to "cover up" the fact that Earth's temperature has not risen since 1998.  Also read the apt *criticisms* of the IPCC report which were presented byMassachusetts Institute of Technology climate expert, *Dr. Richard* *Lindzen*, who was a lead author of Chapter 7 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change.  Lindzen stated that _"The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence  "It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going."_  
Read the rest here: Moderating Climate Change Hysteria

----------


## Marc

The debate is over, the consensus is universal ... or is it?   *Below is a* quote from famous Gaia theory author and climatologist, James Lovelock. _
     "I made a mistake."_ - _"The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing." - "We thought we knew 20 years ago.  That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened." -  "There’s nothing much really happening yet.  We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world." - "[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that."_

----------


## intertd6

> The dictionary definition of "significant" that you gave works just fine - there is no need to re-interpret anything.

   So it appears its not me where the interpretation problem is! But that has been glaringly obvious for a long while!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Is that a rhetorical question? 
> If not then...I think you are all something. Really something.

  You must be an extremely close companion of his to know what he thinks & to answer for him.
regards inter

----------


## Marc

*
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK* _If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause..._ *Sunday, July 27, 2014*  *Why the IPCC exaggerates greenhouse warming of the oceans by at least 2.5 times* 
A new paperfinds the deep oceans have cooled contrary to alarmist claims of deep ocean warming by Trenberth's "missing heat" from carbon dioxide. Trenberth's theory, one of at least 14 excuses for the ~18 year 'pause' of global warming, now appears to be dead in the water.   Data from the new paper can be used to derive that the world's oceans have warmed only about 0.008°C over the past 19 years from 1992-2011, and imply that the IPCC exaggerates net greenhouse forcing on the oceans by at least a factor of 2.5 times.   According to the author Dr. Carl Wunsch, one of the world's most respected oceanographers, "A total change in [world ocean] heat content, top-to-bottom, is found (discussed below) of approximately *4 × 10^22 Joules in 19 years*, for *a net heating of 0.2±0.1 W/m2*, smaller than some published values (e.g., Hansen et al., 2005, 0.86±0.12 W/m2 ; Lyman et al., 2010, 0.63±0.28 W/m2; or von Schuckmann and Le Traon, 2011, 0.55±0.1 W/m2; but note the differing averaging periods), but indistinguishable from the summary Fig. 14 of Abraham et al. (2013). Perhaps coincidentally, it is similar to the 135-year 700 m depth ocean rate of 0.2±0.1 W/m2 of Roemmich et al. (2012)." 
Read the whole article here:          *http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au...e-forcing.html*

----------


## woodbe

> If you guys want the thread kept, then I'd suggest you clean up all your posts by getting rid of all the defamatory trolling and all the crap that's been *copied from other sources which doesn't have self created content*. Please use links instead of copying others work. 
> Thanks Bob.

  Hint for Marc.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I read that paper. Can't say I came to the same conclusion as the blogger's... 
The paper certainly didn't set out to shoot down the ocean warming evidence. Seems to me that someone else has been thinking liberally with the limited data within the paper and forming their opinions.

----------


## John2b

> A new paperfinds the deep oceans have cooled contrary to alarmist claims of deep ocean warming by Trenberth's "missing heat" from carbon dioxide. Trenberth's theory, one of at least 14 excuses for the ~18 year 'pause' of global warming, now appears to be dead in the water.  
> Data from the new paper can be used to derive that the world's oceans have warmed only about 0.008°C over the past 19 years from 1992-2011, and imply that the IPCC exaggerates net greenhouse forcing on the oceans by at least a factor of 2.5 times.

  No, the paper does NOT find anything that substantiates or even vaguely supports the claims you have parroted.  "Over the 20 years of the present ECCO state estimate, changes in the deep ocean on multiyear time-scales are dominated by the western Atlantic basin and Southern Oceans. These are qualitatively consistent with expectations there of the comparatively rapid response to surface forcing. 
"A very weak long-term cooling is seen over the bulk of the rest of the ocean below that depth (2000 m), including the entirety of the Pacic and Indian Oceans, along with the eastern Atlantic Basin. The pattern below 3600 m is similar, with much smaller amplitude. 
"_Direct determination of changes in oceanic heat content over the last 20 years are not in conflict with estimates of the radiative forcing..."_ 
Read it for yourself: http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papers...dec2013_ph.pdf

----------


## intertd6

> No, the paper does NOT find anything that substantiates or even vaguely supports the claims you have parroted. "Over the 20 years of the present ECCO state estimate, changes in the deep ocean on multiyear time-scales are dominated by the western Atlantic basin and Southern Oceans. These are qualitatively consistent with expectations there of the comparatively rapid response to surface forcing. 
> "A very weak long-term cooling is seen over the bulk of the rest of the ocean below that depth (2000 m), including the entirety of the Pacic and Indian Oceans, along with the eastern Atlantic Basin. The pattern below 3600 m is similar, with much smaller amplitude. 
> "_Direct determination of changes in oceanic heat content over the last 20 years are not in conflict with estimates of the radiative forcing..."_ 
> Read it for yourself: http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papers...dec2013_ph.pdf

  NEWS FLASH! Different experts / institutions have differing explanations of the findings!
who would have thought it was possible?
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> NEWS FLASH! Different experts / institutions have differing explanations of the findings!
> who would have thought it was possible?

  It is possible for different experts to interpret observations differently, and why peer review in science is so important. Who wudda thort? 
If you went to the source and read the original research paper and then read the "report" linked by Marc you would conclude that has NOT what happened here. Hint: scientific research isn't progressed by ideological blogs... 
What has happened is an anonymous blogger has pounced on some words in a contextual vacuum and used them to make a ridiculous claim to suit his/her own ideological mantra.  
It is like saying: "The thermometer was read in Timbuktu yesterday and it was colder than the day before - NEWS FLASH - The World Is Cooling!!!!"

----------


## woodbe

Inter is correct, however this is not a matching of equivalent experts and institutions. More a case of a mismatch between non-experts versus experts; political/ideological blogs versus published science; echo chamber versus scientific process.

----------


## intertd6

> It is possible for different experts to interpret observations differently, and why peer review in science is so important. Who wudda thort? 
> If you went to the source and read the original research paper and then read the "report" linked by Marc you would conclude that has NOT what happened here. Hint: scientific research isn't progressed by ideological blogs... 
> What has happened is an anonymous blogger has pounced on some words in a contextual vacuum and used them to make a ridiculous claim to suit his/her own ideological mantra.  
> It is like saying: "The thermometer was read in Timbuktu yesterday and it was colder than the day before - NEWS FLASH - The World Is Cooling!!!!"

  Who in the real world has the time to read scientific papers other than wannabe academics & come to their own conclusions? 
According to the author Dr. Carl Wunsch, one of the world's most respected oceanographers,"A total change in [world ocean] heat content, top-to-bottom, is found (discussed below) of approximately 4 × 10^22 Joules in 19 years, for a net heating of 0.2±0.1 W/m2, smaller than some published values (e.g., Hansen et al., 2005, 0.86±0.12 W/m2 ; Lyman et al., 2010, 0.63±0.28 W/m2; or von Schuckmann and Le Traon, 2011, 0.55±0.1 W/m2; but note the differing averaging periods), but indistinguishable from the summary Fig. 14 of Abraham et al. (2013). Perhaps coincidentally, it is similar to the 135-year 700 m depth ocean rate of 0.2±0.1 W/m2 of Roemmich et al. (2012)."
Normal people just read the summary, now if this quote above is not correct tell us so, but it appears to be more ammunition against the AGW alarmists exaggerating everything they can get their hands onto, to back the belief they are following. Examples like this just erode their credibility, which really is fine by most people.
regards inte

----------


## woodbe

> Who in the real world has the time to read scientific papers

  Anyone with an ounce of real interest in the subject. 
Probably time better spent reading scientific papers than trawling the echo chamber for blog posts to support one's own opinion.

----------


## John2b

> Who in the real world has the time to read scientific papers other than wannabe academics & come to their own conclusions?

  If you haven't got time to inform yourself of the conclusions of the paper, summarised BTW for everyone to see in the introduction and conclusion, before repeating outrageous claims, perhaps you should put a sock in it... 
How do you get from: "A total change in [world ocean] heat content, top-to-bottom, is found (discussed below) of approximately 4 × 10^22 Joules in 19 years, for a net heating of 0.2±0.1 W/m2, smaller than some published values (e.g., Hansen et al., 2005, 0.86±0.12 W/m2 ; Lyman et al., 2010, 0.63±0.28 W/m2; or von Schuckmann and Le Traon, 2011, 0.55±0.1 W/m2; but note the differing averaging periods), but indistinguishable from the summary Fig. 14 of Abraham et al. (2013). Perhaps coincidentally, it is similar to the 135-year 700 m depth ocean rate of 0.2±0.1 W/m2 of Roemmich et al. (2012)."
to the blogosphere headline:  *Why the IPCC exaggerates greenhouse warming of the oceans by at least 2.5 times?*  
The author Dr. Carl Wunsch, who as you point out is one of the world's most respected oceanographers and who's research isn't even focused on the heat content of the oceans above 2000 metres, in any case says that at the present time _warming in the upper oceans is roughly consistent with those regions of the ocean expected to display the earliest responses to surface disturbances_. That's kind of the opposite of the ideoblog's headline claims!    

> Normal people just read the summary, now if this quote above is not correct tell us so, but it appears to be more ammunition against the AGW alarmists exaggerating everything they can get their hands onto, to back the belief they are following. Examples like this just erode their credibility, which really is fine by most people.

  The quote is correct - the blogocrap conclusion is not. Normal people make normal conclusions, not conclude the opposite of what was said. Ideobloggers make stuff up for lazy people to confirm their misbeliefs. We can do without that misinformation being repeated here, thank you.

----------


## intertd6

> Anyone with an ounce of real interest in the subject. 
> Probably time better spent reading scientific papers than trawling the echo chamber for blog posts to support one's own opinion.

  You must be an extremely talented person to have done the academic study to phd or greater level in all the fields of the research study to know what was being said other than the literary summary or conclusions like the rest of us mere mortals! What would the chances of that being possible? 
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> If you haven't got time to inform yourself of the conclusions of the paper, summarised BTW for everyone to see in the introduction and conclusion, before repeating outrageous claims, perhaps you should put a sock in it... 
> How do you get from:"A total change in [world ocean] heat content, top-to-bottom, is found (discussed below) of approximately 4 × 10^22 Joules in 19 years, for a net heating of 0.2±0.1 W/m2, smaller than some published values (e.g., Hansen et al., 2005, 0.86±0.12 W/m2 ; Lyman et al., 2010, 0.63±0.28 W/m2; or von Schuckmann and Le Traon, 2011, 0.55±0.1 W/m2; but note the differing averaging periods), but indistinguishable from the summary Fig. 14 of Abraham et al. (2013). Perhaps coincidentally, it is similar to the 135-year 700 m depth ocean rate of 0.2±0.1 W/m2 of Roemmich et al. (2012)."
> to the blogosphere headline:  *Why the IPCC exaggerates greenhouse warming of the oceans by at least 2.5 times?*  
> The author Dr. Carl Wunsch, who as you point out is one of the world's most respected oceanographers and who's research isn't even focused on the heat content of the oceans above 2000 metres, in any case says that at the present time _warming in the upper oceans is roughly consistent with those regions of the ocean expected to display the earliest responses to surface disturbances_. That's kind of the opposite of the ideoblog's headline claims!    
> The quote is correct - the blogocrap conclusion is not. Normal people make normal conclusions, not conclude the opposite of what was said. Ideobloggers make stuff up for lazy people to confirm their misbeliefs. We can do without that misinformation being repeated here, thank you.

  What your reading isn't what I'm reading & understanding, your missing a vital link in the chain, but that is obvious to any observer.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

Intertd6, re your two previous posts: what's with the defamatory trolling and personal attacks? If you have nothing to contribute to the topic, why post anything at all?

----------


## woodbe

> Intertd6, re your two previous posts: what's with the defamatory trolling and personal attacks? If you have nothing to contribute to the topic, why post anything at all?

  +1 
Nothing to say but personal attacks.

----------


## johnc

> Intertd6, re your two previous posts: what's with the defamatory trolling and personal attacks? If you have nothing to contribute to the topic, why post anything at all?

  It's been a bit of a trend of late with Inter but it is getting out of hand. +1

----------


## intertd6

> It's been a bit of a trend of late with Inter but it is getting out of hand. +1

  do you think that when clear evidence is posted & you fellows come to your own conclusions bagging any discussion into the matter & think that doesn't insult anybodies intelligence, then your need & are getting a reality check, that's the thing about these online discussions, your going to get other differing opinions other than the ones your used to, where your influence or charisma could have mesmerised them into agreeing with what ever you may think is appropriate.
if you still feel that strongly about the missing tax, donate your own money freely, nobody in the wider community will complain at all or care less.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> do you think that when clear evidence is posted & you fellows come to your own conclusions bagging any discussion into the matter & think that doesn't insult anybodies intelligence, then your need & are getting a reality check, that's the thing about these online discussions, your going to get other differing opinions other than the ones your used to, where your influence or charisma could have mesmerised them into agreeing with what ever you may think is appropriate.
> if you still feel that strongly about the missing tax, donate your own money freely, nobody in the wider community will complain at all or care less.
> regards inter

  The problem is the "clear evidence" it often isn't clear and it's seldom evidence, the rest of this is disjointed, lacks clarity and draws a conclusion unrelated to your premise of discussion.

----------


## woodbe

> do you think that when clear evidence is posted & you fellows come to your own conclusions bagging any discussion into the matter & think that doesn't insult anybodies intelligence

  There has been ample clear evidence of climate change posted. From your quarter, we do not hear much discussion of the evidence, we hear repeated personal attacks on the messenger and avoidance of engaging the topic. Bagging the discussion would be a step forward from the current methods employed. 
The conclusions we share is with mainstream science. If unsupported opinion sourced from idealogical blog sites is posted, forgive us for not heeding it as valuable as peer reviewed science developed over many years. 
Regarding insults to intelligence, failing to engage in valid discussion and tending to personal derogatory attacks informs the other parties of one's own ability to communicate and displays a lower level of intelligence than I and probably others here think you have. Short version: Self inflicted wound. 
As teachers often say 'could do better'.

----------


## intertd6

> The problem is the "clear evidence" it often isn't clear and it's seldom evidence, the rest of this is disjointed, lacks clarity and draws a conclusion unrelated to your premise of discussion.

  i still think you should donate freely, regardless.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> There has been ample clear evidence of climate change posted. From your quarter, we do not hear much discussion of the evidence, we hear repeated personal attacks on the messenger and avoidance of engaging the topic. Bagging the discussion would be a step forward from the current methods employed. 
> The conclusions we share is with mainstream science. If unsupported opinion sourced from idealogical blog sites is posted, forgive us for not heeding it as valuable as peer reviewed science developed over many years. 
> Regarding insults to intelligence, failing to engage in valid discussion and tending to personal derogatory attacks informs the other parties of one's own ability to communicate and displays a lower level of intelligence than I and probably others here think you have. Short version: Self inflicted wound. 
> As teachers often say 'could do better'.

  As above! Maybe borrow some as well.
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> i still think you should donate freely, regardless.
> regards inter

  ...maybe I will...when you work for free.   https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/donate/

----------


## johnc

> i still think you should donate freely, regardless.
> regards inter

  Really? I see this is your new catch cry, donate what to where? These comments do you no credit, it is not discussion, it is not supported by any other comments, it is not humour, and is really rather puerile.

----------


## Marc

*How many times have the resident warmist or those in the diaspora repeated at nausea the mantra that 97% of climate scientist agree about the dangers of global warming? Too many for my taste, however much more interesting is the realization of how that figure was achieved.* *http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...9#.U9n8Z-OSzCx * And if that is not enough check this one out for good measure:
The 97% consensus myth busted by a real survey:  Posted on November 20, 2013    by Anthony Watts We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “_97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah_” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.
In short, it was a lie of omission enabled by a “pea and thimble” switch Steve McIntyre so often points out about climate science.
Most people who read the headlines touted by the unquestioning press had no idea that this was a collection of Skeptical Science raters opinions rather than the authors assessment of their own work. Readers of news stories had no idea they’d been lied to by John Cook et al².
So, while we’ll be fighting this lie for years, one very important bit of truth has emerged that will help put it into its proper place of propaganda, rather than science. A recent real survey conducted of American Meteorological Society members has blown Cook’s propaganda paper right out of the water.
The survey is titled: *Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members¹
Read the article here: The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey | Watts Up With That?*

----------


## John2b

More crap from the blogosphere courtesy of Marc. In a torrent of outpouring seven (yes folks, that's lucky number 7) out of several tens of thousands (10,000s) of paper authors have responded that they feel their papers were poorly classified. Thanks a lot for the heads-up - NOT! 
Oh, and it misses the whole point anyway. Science is not a popularity contest, and the significant consensus is in the data and its analysis - not peoples' opinions. But hey, why get hung up on minor details!

----------


## johnc

The hilarious part is Marc thinking he has taste.

----------


## John2b

... or wit, or insight...

----------


## intertd6

> ...maybe I will...when you work for free.   https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/donate/

  It's nice of you to try to include me in your delusion, but I will and always will decline the offer!
great link, now the others don't have an excuse not to know where to donate to. ( I know the grammar is enough to make an incontinent pad uncomfortable)
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> +1 
> Nothing to say but personal attacks.

  If you really do have the qualifications & can decipher all the technical jargon of the majority of the climate research papers, then you actually received a complement! Seeing that's a million to one possibility, it's nice of you to try & convince us to waste our time like you claim to do! Nobody is attacking your credibility more than yourself
regards inter

----------


## John2b

Normally, consistency might be considered a virtue. But consistently ignoring the rules of civil discussion (and the rules of this forum), consistently failing to address the topic of the thread, and consistently attacking the character of others participating in the conversation, seems to be a speciality of a particular kind of person, one who is able to disregard the avalanche of evidence on account of they found a grain of sand that wasn't affected.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## intertd6

> Really? I see this is your new catch cry, donate what to where? These comments do you no credit, it is not discussion, it is not supported by any other comments, it is not humour, and is really rather puerile.

   No I'm serious, I'm worried sick about your dilemma of having extra money in your pocket & not know where to direct it. The rest of us will spend it on beer, women, cars & if there's any left over we might waste some of it!
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> No I'm serious, I'm worried sick about your dilemma of having extra money in your pocket & not know where to direct it. The rest of us will spend it on beer, women, cars & if there's any left over we might waste some of it!
> regards inter

  This is idiotic and tiresome, reducing a discussion to this level just demonstrates a lack of focus. Do you just knock out stupid replies to keep this blundering along because the refusal to accept anything beyond your own view seems arranged to frustrate it certainly doesn't inform.

----------


## intertd6

> This is idiotic and tiresome, reducing a discussion to this level just demonstrates a lack of focus. Do you just knock out stupid replies to keep this blundering along because the refusal to accept anything beyond your own view seems arranged to frustrate it certainly doesn't inform.

  Makes for a pleasant change & anything is better than the usual bleating of the same worn out limp excuses for dodging simple questions from the opposing side. 
Regards inter

----------


## johnc

> Makes for a pleasant change & anything is better than the usual bleating of the same worn out limp excuses for dodging simple questions from the opposing side. 
> Regards inter

  I think it would be fair to say you have elevated dodging any questions to an art form, while the other side has actually put forward replies and supportive information.

----------


## Marc

Interesting isn't it? The major claims of the warmist camp that believe support or otherwise promote the global warming fraud, is: 
a)Human made CO2 is responsible for DANGEROUS warming. 
b) 97% of climate scientist agree to this. 
Both premise are busted and have been busted for decades yet no one listens. Why? Simple, the advantages of keeping this up far outweigh the opposite, that is, to tell the truth that it was all a fabrication with a hidden agenda or at least, pretend that it was a mistake.
So much easier to attack the author, and I don't mean myself, mind you. I find the post in this thread rather hilarious and harmless since the authors themselves are rather lovable and easygoing judging from their post in the rest of the forum.  
Yet worldwide, the global warming fallacy involves too many emotions, this fabrication is a perfect fit for the hate the successful mob who find through the global warming myth the perfect channel to blame anything that produces money or is in any way a success on its own right, and forces money earned genuinely towards industries who exist only propped by subsidies, or rather gifts based on ideology. Furthermore it empowers obscure political forces who received only marginal votes, by capturing also the opportunist in the mainstream politics who see the opportunity to capture the deluded voter.  
A win win situation, why change it right? 
Wrong!  
A rather pathetic situation but that is the reality of today's political landscape. 
Tomorrow will bring it's own challenges. I always wonder what will they be ... Global cooling perhaps? Who will be blame? The Russians who left the fridge open?

----------


## woodbe

a) Human made CO2 is responsible for warming. 
b) 97% of climate scientist agree to this. 
DANGEROUS is a value judgement. You might read that in the media, not so much in scientific papers.   

> Both premise are busted and have been busted for decades yet no one listens. Why?

  Actually, no. Both premises are current and not busted. These represent the state of our scientific understanding. Scientific understanding is not something that can be busted by opinion, what is requried is scientific research that shows a more plausible alternative theory. Currently, there is none that holds sway and very, very few have been published at all.  
You want it busted, then someone has to do the hard yards to bust it, and if they did they would be famous, probably pick up a Nobel prize if their new theory was shown to be more likely than the current one. Unfortunately, the likelihood of a new theory chucking out the current one is becoming vanishingly small as time goes on, it's been a long time now. Always a chance, however small.

----------


## intertd6

> I think it would be fair to say you have elevated dodging any questions to an art form, while the other side has actually put forward replies and supportive information.

  I only I was that imaginative & stupid to believe that ludicrous statement, but try as I might it is beyond the normal terms of reasonable sanity, so I'd rather stay on the side of reality, as there are no lies to remember!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> I only I was that imaginative & stupid ...

  Is there a point to your post in relation to the the forum topic?

----------


## Marc

July 2011
You Call This Consensus?
By Joseph L. Bast1
Contrary to what you read repeatedly in daily newspapers or hear on television, most scientists
do not believe there is a “scientific consensus” that man-made climate change (often labeled
anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) is or will be a catastrophe. Unfortunately, the
old/mainstream/dead media will be the last folks to acknowledge this, so people who dispute the
“consensus” will continue to be slandered and abused for years to come.
It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific
consensus that AGW is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is
changing (of course it is, it is always changing) and that most scientists believe there may be a
human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an
impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural
variation).
The three different statements are not contradictory or mutually exclusive. Yet it is difficult to
find a reporter for a major daily newspaper who understands this elementary distinction. Since
reporters aren’t all stupid, we can only guess as to their motives for blurring this important
distinction.
What evidence is there to support my claim? I believe it follows from a reasonable interpretation
of the following evidence.
(1) The latest international survey of climate scientists by German scientists Dennis Bray and
Hans von Storch2
 found (quoting my own interpretation of their results) that “for two-thirds of
the questions asked, scientific opinion is DEEPLY DIVIDED, and in half of those cases, most
scientists DISAGREE with positions that are at the foundation of the alarmist case.”3 _​Read further here:_ http://heartland.org/sites/default/f..._consensus.pdf

----------


## Marc

*The Myth of a Global Warming Consensus*  Written by Joseph Bast, Taylor Smith, Heartland Institute on 15 May 2014. Many legislators are told they must enact climate change legislation because an alleged “scientific consensus” holds that man-made climate change requires urgent action. They are repeatedly told “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that human activities are causing dangerous climate change, and that the only way to prevent this disaster from occurring is to adopt government policies that raise the price of fossil fuels and subsidize or mandate the use of alternatives such as wind and solar energy. But what evidence is there for such unanimity? What do scientists really say? 
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims to represent more than 2,500 scientists who agree that man-made global warming is a serious problem. But this is misleading. While a total of 2,500 (or some similar number) scientists participate in some way in the writing or review of its reports, the IPCC’s working group responsible for assessing the causes of climate change and its future trajectory consists of only about 600 scientists, and many of those are activists working for environmental interest groups. For the Fourth Assessment Report, only 62 were responsible for reviewing the chapter that attributed climate change to man-made greenhouse gas emissions, with 55 of those being known advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Of the seven impartial reviewers, two disagreed with the statement, leaving only five credible scientific reviewers who unequivocally endorse the IPCC’s conclusion, a far cry from 2,500. 
In 2004, science historian Naomi Oreskes wrote an essay for the journal _Science_ that examined abstracts from 928 papers reported by the Institute for Scientific Information database published in scientific journals from 1993 and 2003, using the key words “global climate change.” She concluded 75 percent of the abstracts either implicitly or explicitly supported the alarmist view while none directly dissented. Oreskes’ essay, which was not peer-reviewed, became the basis of a book (_Merchants of Doubt_)and an academic career built on claiming that global warming “skeptics” were a tiny minority within the scientific community. Her claim appeared in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie, _An Inconvenient Truth_.
Oreskes’ claim was immediately debunked by scores of scientists pointing to their own papers published in peer-reviewed journals that directly contradict the claim of man-made global warming. More than 1,300 such articles are now identified in an online bibliography at populartechnology.net. Anthropologist Benny Peiser attempted to replicate Oreskes’ findings and found only one-third of the papers endorsed the alarmist view and only 1 percent did so explicitly. In 2008, medical researcher Klaus-Martin Schulte used the same database and search terms as Oreskes to examine papers published from 2004 to February 2007 and found fewer than half endorsed the “consensus” and only 7 percent did so explicitly. Schulte counted 31 papers (6 percent of the sample) that explicitly or implicitly rejected the “consensus.” 
In 2009, a paper by Doran and Zimmerman published in _EOS_ claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that mean global temperatures have risen since before the 1800s and that humans are a significant contributing factor. This study, too, has been debunked. The survey asked the wrong questions. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming _also_ support those statements. The survey was silent on whether or not the human impact was large enough to constitute a problem or would cause a problem in the future. Moreover, the “97 percent” figure represents the views of only 79 of the 3,146 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than 50 percent of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. This is not evidence of consensus. 
And more and more HERE: *The Myth of a Global Warming Consensus | Climate Change Dispatch*

----------


## John2b

:Haha2:  
Why post a load of debunked nonsense, regurgitated crap from ideology blogs?    :ReadFAQ:  and if you must post, then just post the link, not the whole steaming pile of doggy-do.  
And anyone who indiscriminately believes anonymous bloggers on Heartland or Climate Change Despatch (or any other blog on any other topic), you are nearby notified :Urstupid:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Do we have any consensus that having a consensus is actually of any consequence? The current consensus about T. Abbot's performance as PM runs counter to his likely preference...but he's still PM. A consensus of no significance then. So it is with this 'other' consensus...

----------


## intertd6

> Is there a point to your post in relation to the the forum topic?

  if you think your rhetoric will bore us to death, your right! It's working!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Why post a load of debunked nonsense, regurgitated crap from ideology blogs?    and if you must post, then just post the link, not the whole steaming pile of doggy-do.  
> And anyone who indiscriminately believes anonymous bloggers on Heartland or Climate Change Despatch (or any other blog on any other topic), you are nearby notified

  Names have been quoted in regards to the post, we need some more info on your debunking proof, otherwise it would appear you have put your mouth in gear without engaging your brain again!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Marc, 
You can draw an alternative consensus as your blogger copy/paste has, and shoot it down but that is just a straw man argument. The consensus is not about the word 'dangerous' or 'alarming', it's about the unequivocal results of scientific investigation. The consensus is that we have been and are in fact still pumping enough  CO2 into the atmosphere to impact the climate.  
For policy makers, it isn't rocket science. It's quite simple, and it's  just like a noisy wheel bearing: Fix it now and the cost will be far  less than fixing it when it fails, if it is even possible to fix it  after it has caused mayhem.

----------


## John2b

> Names have been quoted in regards to the post, we need some more info on your debunking proof, otherwise it would appear you have put your mouth in gear without engaging your brain again!
> regards inter

  Re-read the post, a bit more carefully this time, and then reflect on who put their "mouth in gear without engaging your brain again" - the statement about anonymous bloggers is a deliberately general one, not specifically referring to Marc's cut and past nonsense. 
But since you mentioned names: Joseph L Bast - an economics student who didn't finish his degree, who claims that the idea smoking is harmful is a lie, and founded a bogus ideological front organisation with the intention of deception, the non-scientific "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" covertly funded by Exxon-Mobil, and you still want believe this guy?. 
And please don't rabbit on about shooting the messenger - what do you think Joseph L Bast et al are doing?

----------


## Marc

Ha ha, I did not expect any replies, only outrage at the authors. Well I have the same outrage at all the rubbish published by the ipcc and the rest of the propaganda machine including the mercenary scientist, but that does not matter. What matters is the facts. Of course anyone posting one position would expect a rational explanation saying why this position is wrong. For example if the 97% figure is not a fiction how was it achieved? 
There is wide held disagreement among scientist, and the disagreement is directly proportional to the differential pay among the dissenters. There is not even agreement that the amount of CO2 produced by human activity has any relevant influence on temperatures. Therefore it is very important to debunk the 97% consensus myth. There is no consensus because the sane scientist did not get paid enough to pretend and look the other way. 
Of course  there is a sector of the population that believes in the CO2 mythology, and also believes that a totalitarian regime, possibly of marxist extraction is the best way to preserve gaia from our unholy attacks. Each one to its own, some search for bigfoot, the Hawkesbury monster and the aliens in area 52. And that is Ok too. Yet when it comes to forcibly ask for contributions and to forcibly take away our freedom in order to save what does not need to be saved from an imaginary foe, well I draw the line. 
No amount of scaremongering and false pretenses will change the facts. Computer models massaging do not change reality unless you live in a virtual alternative reality.   *THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX* The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is *NO GLOBAL WARMING!* Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960's and 70's were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people's lives and for financial gain. There are not many individuals, groups, or organizations willing to stand up against this fraud that is being perpetuated for fear of being persecuted, harassed, and ostracized by those who support global warming within the scientific and other communities. But fortunately, a few have decided to do the right thing and take a stand against this evil, proving just how unscientifically founded global warming is and exposing those who are behind it. Below, you will find links to information and articles showing the proof that global warming is nothing more than just a bunch of hot air (pun intended). The date that you see by each headline is the date when it was posted here. If you know of a news story, research, or information that should be posted here, please let us know and provide us with a link. The articles posted for previous years have been archived and links are provided to them; by year; at the bottom of this page. 
31 July 2014 - Global Warming Proponents Attribute Rapid Sea Ice Growth To Computer Error [What a load of nonsense! Whenever proof of their global warming lies come to light they always come up with some really lame excuse to try to discard and discredit it!] 02 July 2014 - Link Between Warming, CO2 Is Absent [Despite what the Cult of Global warming would have you believe, CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Plants need CO2 to live and in return they give us oxygen. It is called the cycle of life, not pollution!] 01 July 2014 - NASA Launches Satellite To Study Global Warming After Revelation Of Faked Data [Does this make sense to you? They get caught lying and falsifying information and now spend even more money to do more lying and faking!] 01 July 2014 - NOAA Quietly Revises Website After Getting Caught In Global Warming Lie, Admitting 1936 Was Hotter Than 2012 26 June 2014 - Obama Mocks Climate Skeptics In Congress: ‘I’m Going To Just Pretend...I Can’t Read' [He is just an idiot who has his own little world to live in. If anyone disagrees or questions him they get attacked, called names, and belittled!] [Has an embedded video on the web page] 24 June 2014 - Global Warming 'Fabricated' By NASA And NOAA 24 June 2014 - Just Another Lie Revealed In The Lie Of Manmade Climate Change 24 June 2014 - Global Warming Data FAKED By Government To Fit Climate Change Fictions 16 June 2014 - Barack Obama: Climate "Deniers" Are "Threat To Everybody's Future" [Actually HE is the one who is a threat to everybody’s future] [Has an embedded video on the web page] 16 June 2014 - Obama: Climate Change Deniers Ignore Science [Actually it is he and the Cult of Global Warming that are denying science and the facts!] 09 June 2014 - Local Taxpayers Threatened With Lawsuits If they Don't Sink Money Into "Preparing for Climate Change" [More government nonsense to force people to become part of this idiotic movement and cult! And even more of them taking away your right to think and decide things for yourself] 09 June 2014 - Obama 'Absolutely' Wants To Go Off On Climate Change Deniers In Congress [Has an embedded video on the web page] 09 June 2014 - As Global Warming Falls Apart, The Worshipers Of Mother Earth Get More Shrill [That’s the typical way a cult acts when its teachings, beliefs, and practices are exposed as being nothing but falsehoods and lies!!!] 09 June 2014 - A History Of The Disastrous Global Warming Hoax 02 June 2014 - Climate Change Pentagon Expert: My Goal Was To Induce Fear, Not Be Accurate 02 June 2014 - States Move To Blunt Obama Carbon Plan 02 June 2014 - If Storms Are Evidence Of Climate Change Then What Are No Storms Evidence For? 29 May 2014 - Behind The Lie That 97% Of Scientists Back Global Warming Hoax 23 May 2014 - Why Global Warming Believers Don’t Talk About These Storms 22 May 2014 - John Kerry Says “So What If We’re Wrong About Climate Change?” [What’s there to say? Almost every word out of his mouth just shows how much of an idiot he really is!] 22 May 2014 - Climate Fear Mongers: Global Warming Threatening The Statue Of Liberty [These nuts have obviously skipped or ignored the part in the Bible where God promises never to flood the earth again! – See Genesis 9:11] 21 May 2014 - Kerry Mocks Climate Skeptics: ‘Flat Earth Society’ [That is because he is an IDIOT who does not want to face the real facts and only goes along with what he thinks will benefit him in one capacity or another!] [Has an embedded video on the web page] 20 May 2014 - Preachers Of Deception: Global Warming Alarmists Are Feeding Us Lies 19 May 2014 - Letter: Don’t Demonize Those Who Deny Climate Change 19 May 2014 - Yet Another “Peer-Reviewed” Cover-Up For Global Warming 14 May 2014 - What Freedoms Will Christians Be Duped Into Surrendering In The Name Of The Environment? 14 May 2014 - You Say 'Climate Change,' I Say 'Weather' 14 May 2014 - Global “Warming:” Antarctic Sea Ice Continues To Break Records 14 May 2014 - They're Not Melting: 87% Of Himalayan Glaciers Are ‘Stable’ 09 May 2014 - Not Climate Change Anymore: Climate Disruption [As with any cult or false teachings, they constantly change what exactly it is they believe in, and constantly change the names so it fits with what they are doing and the things around them!] 07 May 2014 - WH Climate Report: Sea Level Could Rise 8 Inches, 11 Inches, 4 Feet, Or 6.6 Feet [More lies from the Cult of Global Warming. This is the same nonsense they keep trying to push year after year!] 07 May 2014 - The Great Climate Change Hoax Rolls On 06 May 2014 - Satellite Data Proves Earth Has Not Been Warming The Past 18 Years - It's Stable   Plenty more here:*THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX*

----------


## Marc

This is my pick of the bunch and yes there are a few that are a bit too American for my taste, but some may like them.
This is real good and to the point.  Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions - NaturalNews.com

----------


## John2b

> This is my pick of the bunch and yes there are a few that are a bit too American for my taste, but some may like them.
> This is real good and to the point.

  Bigger letters must make it truer!  :Logic wins again:  NOT! 
Which government was that, Marc? And how did they get every other government, eastern and western, communist and capitalist, first world and third world, to go along with their scam? Or could it be that you have a propensity to believe the Tooth Fairy (amongst other things)?

----------


## intertd6

> Bigger letters must make it truer!  NOT! 
> Which government was that, Marc? And how did they get every other government, eastern and western, communist and capitalist, first world and third world, to go along with their scam? Or could it be that you have a propensity to believe the Tooth Fairy (amongst other things)?

  maybe he thinks you can't read it because you conveniently misplace your glasses when he posts, which from the casual observer maybe the reason why the message isn't getting through! 
The brighter amongst us realise the scam is along the same lines as religion / cults which have been the foundation of civilisations for thousands of years, now I'm not saying your not bright, but maybe just in your own special way only our mothers can fully appreciate.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

Inter, still nothing pertinent to say, just more smutty personal innuendoes? 
Oh BTW - no need for your concern about my ability to read - Marc's post is targeted to the lazy-minded who live off drip-feed BS, not people who are conscientious sceptics, like me.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Well I have the same outrage at all the rubbish published by the ipcc and the rest of the propaganda machine including the mercenary scientist, but that does not matter.

  You are of course well aware that you are also linking to the products of just another propaganda machine. At least I hope you are...not that it matters either.

----------


## John2b

> You are of course well aware that you are also linking to the products of just another propaganda machine. At least I hope you are...not that it matters either.

  Oh, and the much maligned (by Marc et al) IPCC is a review body only. The IPCC doesn't conduct, direct or finance research, it simply reviews the research financed, conducted and published by anyone anywhere, regardless of how they are financed and what their ideology might be. The IPCC's "expert" review panel is open to anyone and everyone - even celebrated denialists like Christopher Monckton and Anthony Watts are registered as expert reviewers for the IPCC. Would the Heartland Institute welcome, for example, Michael Mann on its review panel for the publications of the pseudoscientific Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change? Hypothetical question: since they do not have a review panel anyway - LOL!

----------


## johnc

> maybe he thinks you can't read it because you conveniently misplace your glasses when he posts, which from the casual observer maybe the reason why the message isn't getting through! 
> The brighter amongst us realise the scam is along the same lines as religion / cults which have been the foundation of civilisations for thousands of years, now I'm not saying your not bright, but maybe just in your own special way only our mothers can fully appreciate.
> regards inter

  I think we can award you the prize "master of the cheap shot" along with the "bugger the ball just play the man" prize. At least pretend you are trying please

----------


## intertd6

> I think we can award you the prize "master of the cheap shot" along with the "bugger the ball just play the man" prize. At least pretend you are trying please

  That may well be so, but I pale into insignificance when compared to the "master debaters" here who "drop the ball" & can't explain or answer the nagging facts about insignificant warming since 1998, nor how the globe never heated up catastrophically in the past when CO2 levels were around 20 times what they are now. 
regards inter

----------


## Marc

*I have written this in very little font so it takes up very little room 
Here's the proof of the climate change fraud*  Here's the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930's, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:     The authenticity of this chart is not in question. It is published by James Hansen on NASA's website. (2) On that page, Hansen even wrote, "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought."  After the Obama administration took office, however, and started pushing the global warming narrative for political purposes, NASA was directed to alter its historical data in order to reverse the cooling trend and show a warming trend instead. This was accomplished using climate-modeling computers that simply fabricated the data the researchers _wished to see instead of what was actually happening in the real world. 
Using the exact same data found in the chart shown above (with a few years of additional data after 2000), NASA managed to misleadingly distort the chart to depict the appearance of global warming:    The authenticity of this chart is also not in question. It can be found right now on NASA's servers. (4) 
This new, altered chart shows that historical data -- especially the severe heat and droughts experienced in the 1930's -- are now systematically suppressed to make them appear cooler than they really were. At the same time, temperature data from the 1970's to 2010 are strongly exaggerated to make them appear warmer than they really were. 
This is a clear case of scientific fraud being carried out on a grand scale in order to deceive the entire world about global warming.  EPA data also confirm the global warming hoax 
What's even more interesting is that even the EPA's "Heat Wave Index" data further support the notion that the U.S. was far hotter in the 1930's than it is today. 
The following chart, published on the EPA.gov website (4), clearly shows modern-day heat waves are far smaller and less severe than those of the 1930's. In fact, the seemingly "extreme" heat waves of the last few years were no worse than those of the early 1900's or 1950's.  
Learn more: Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions - NaturalNews.com_

----------


## Marc

Best article ever on the definition of junk "science" aka climate change.   "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts. Science isn't about joining the herd. Science isn't about confirming someone else's work. Science is about looking at the world, looking at the current explanation, deciding that the world is wrong and you are right, and then going out and proving it. In real science the status quo is the null hypothesis to be rejected, not confirmed. Never in my life have I seen scientists going out to prove the null hypothesis is true...except in the field of climate "science." In real science studies are done to reject the null hypothesis, not confirm it. It is called the "scientific method," something people that blindly accept the man made climate change theory apparently know nothing about. Like medieval inquisitors, supporters of climate change "science" don't debate the issue, they insult, intimidate, smear and ridicule. Real scientists are by nature skeptical, it is a defining characteristic of science. Somehow in Orwellian fashion being a "skeptic" has become an insult, not a merit is climate "science." Skeptics are called "flat earthers," "deniers," and climate "heritics." Skeptics are to be shunned and ignored, and ironically the ones who don't have science on their side."
Read it all here: http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/73...st-the-experts

----------


## John2b

_"While the Earth's atmosphere has seen higher levels of carbon dioxide than it does now, as well as higher temperatures and far greater sea levels, those instances were due to natural drivers of climate change, such as periodic variations in the planet's orbit and in solar energy output. Scientists have studied and ruled out natural climate drivers as the main cause of global warming since the preindustrial era." _ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...950493/?no-ist

----------


## John2b

> *I have written this in very little font so it takes up very little room 
> Here's the proof of the climate change fraud*  Here's the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930's, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:

   
You could have saved a lot more room, Marc: US land surface temperatures do not represent global surface temperatures. The rest of your post is based on a false premise - FAIL.

----------


## Marc

"I could go on and on and on about how flawed the statistics, data, methods, results and conclusions are of the "consensus" scientists, but I think I've made my point. If you want more you can read thisinstablog post. Climate science is the manifestation of what President Eisenhower warned society about in his farewell address. He warned of an "intellectual elite" that would abuse their power, and that in a nutshell is what climate "science" is all about. Political activists masquerading as "scientists" have used their respected positions to push a political agenda. Few things in history have a more horrifying record than thepoliticization of science, and everyone should be concerned when "science" is used to promote political objectives. Policy should reflect the science, science should not reflect the policy."

----------


## Marc

And a bit of history about political fraud, recent history it is but apparently it only takes 15 years for people to forget the past. :brava: Size does matter   http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/73...nd-the-curtain

----------


## John2b

> "I could go on and on and on about how flawed the statistics, data, methods, results and conclusions are of the "consensus" scientists, but I think I've made my point.

  The point you made was based on faulty logic and therefore all of the subsequent conclusions are most likely wrong as well.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Marc

> You could have saved a lot more room, Marc: US land surface temperatures do not represent global surface temperatures. The rest of your post is based on a false premise - FAIL.

  Well, I did not expect you to read any of the very interesting published data and reasoning, but here is a hint: that particular article is about fraud. You know? falsification of data for political purposes. It does not matter it is the US or Kazakhstan, it is fraud, or rather the usual scientific method of warmist mercenaries.

----------


## Marc

Why politicized science is dangerous MichaelCrichton.com | This Essay Breaks the Law

----------


## woodbe

> *I have written this in very little font so it takes up very little room 
> Here's the proof of the climate change fraud*  Here's the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930's, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:     The authenticity of this chart is not in question. It is published by James Hansen on NASA's website. (2) On that page, Hansen even wrote, "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought."

  Welcome to 2007.  
Interesting rewrite of temperature trend history you have found on a non-scientific blog there Marc. 
If you want to find the REAL reason the trend changed, it's not real hard.   Error in NASA climate data sparks debate   

> On Aug. 4, however, the well-known climate change skeptic    and former mining executive Steven McIntyre  who previously challenged    climatologist Michael Mann's 1998 finding that temperatures have increased rapidly    since 1900 A.D., compared with the previous thousand years, forming a distinctive    "hockey stick" temperature pattern  observed    a strange jump in the U.S. data occurring around January 2000. He sent an e-mail    to NASA about his observation, and the agency responded with an e-mail acknowledging    a flaw in the calculations and thanking him for his help, he says. By Aug. 7,    he says, the agency had removed the incorrect U.S. data from the GISS    Web site and replaced it with corrected numbers for all 1,200 stations.

  So the data was found to have errors and it was corrected. Denialists would have said nothing if the change reduced the recorded temperature trend, but because it did the opposite, they were all up in arms. That's the difference between skepticism and denialism. The skeptic finds something actually wrong with the data regardless of the result, whereas the denialist finds something wrong with the data just because it disagrees with his opinion. 
Despite this historical storm in a teacup, you will be happy to know that the data rework had no effect on the global trend. The only change was for the US itself.

----------


## John2b

> Well, I did not expect you to read any of the very interesting published data and reasoning,

  Oh I did read it, Marc, because I am a true sceptic and willing to test what I believe. I just spared everyone else an analysis of the drivel, since it has already been debunked in this thread. 
You since haven't said who you think is in charge of the "great global warming fraud" or offered any insight into how they control 1000's of institutions, some public, some private, some industry funded, some in first world countries and some third world countries, some with capitalist governments, some communist, some dictatorships, and how the that control extends to the 10,000s of researchers, plus the 10,000s of radical students who would all like to shove it up their professors, mostly working in dependently and yet all in general agreement... 
Wouldn't the same people want to be in charge of international relationships, making sure we don't have conflict and wars. That would be a simpler task by far...

----------


## woodbe

> Well, I did not expect you to read any of the very interesting published data and reasoning, but here is a hint: that particular article is about fraud. You know? falsification of data for political purposes. It does not matter it is the US or Kazakhstan, it is fraud, or rather the usual scientific method of warmist mercenaries.

  Long bow there Marc.  
What would have been fraud, would be if NASA failed to investigate and correct the errors pointed out by McIntyre. What was actually done (investigating, recognising and correcting errors pointed out by a third party) represents honesty, not fraud. If they were fraudulent, they would have removed any data on their own site that shows the fraud, yet as your article explains, both charts are on their website.

----------


## John2b

> Why politicized science is dangerous MichaelCrichton.com | This Essay Breaks the Law

  Eugenics was a political and social exercise, not a scientific one. The science behind Eugenics (genetics, for example) hasn't been de-bunked or put aside at all, it still features prominently in medical research. 
Just a minor point, Eugenics was never a response to a perceived "impending problem" anyway so the comparison to global warming is fallacious. Your BS filter is broken, Marc.

----------


## John2b

> And a bit of history about political fraud, recent history it is but apparently it only takes 15 years for people to forget the past.Size does matter  for the feeble minded perhaps  http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/73...nd-the-curtain

  The fraud didn't happen. Peak oil did happen. But because it was based on projected consumption growth, and governments acted and legislated for energy efficiency and unconventional oil has displaced conventional oil, _and_​ there was a little thing called the GFC, petroleum supply has kept up with demand.

----------


## Marc

" The above graphic demonstrates what would never, I repeat never, happen in an objective science, especially when modeling something with countless variables and infinite complexity. 
What the above graphic proves isn't scientific evidence of warming, it proves to the 95% confidence level that there is an undeniable group think systemic bias in climate "science." 88 and 86 out of 90 IPCC computer models overstated estimated temperatures, some by as much as 0.8 degrees C. Those kinds of findings and models are what deserves ridicule, not those pointing out the obvious fact that this is junk science on a monumental scale. 
I can say this is junk science because I am very familiar with junk science, almost any analyst that has ever taken econometrics is. In order to create a good model you have to run certain tests to ensure your model is a "BLUE" model, best linear unbiased estimator. The other thing you are taught is how to cheat with statistics, and identify flaws and fraud in models and results. Financial analysts are very skilled in these statistical techniques, in fact that is how they could have caught Bernie Maydoff. In a normal science you establish a hypothesis, define a model, identify the variables, collect the data and then test the data. The key is, the hypothesis, model and variables are consistent with a unique and independently reached theory and specified in advance of testing. That isn't done in climate "science," the above graphic proves it. Climate science starts with a conclusion, CO2 causes warming, and then works backwards. It is science in reverse."  http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/73...st-the-experts

----------


## John2b

> " The above graphic demonstrates what would never, I repeat never, happen in an objective science, especially when modeling something with countless variables and infinite complexity.

  I wholeheartedly agree with your cut & paste statement, Marc. The above graphic (shown below) would never happen in objective science, because it is a complete and utter fabrication, as debunked here:  HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception   Dr Roy Spenser's*deceptive fudge - move the graphs up or down to match the story you want to tell.*  
Hint: Your argument is pretty flimsy when you need to depend on blogs that post nonsense that is so easily debunked... 
Want to know what the graph without the fudge would look like?

----------


## Marc

The reason climate "scientists" rely on statistical nonsense and bully tactics like ridicule and insults is because the entire foundation of their "science" is garbage and they have to discourage people from looking behind the curtain. This entire "global warming" movement is a government manufactured effort to raise money through carbon related taxes. It is the ideal way to siphon money off "big oil, gas and coal." Voters won't vote for higher taxes, but they will vote to save the earth and polar bears. That is why the entire focus is on a relatively weak trace greenhouse gas called carbon dioxide. The problem the climate "scientists" have with pinning their entire theory on carbon dioxide is that atmospheric absorption of infrared radiation or IR by greenhouse gases is a logarithmic, not linear relationship. The greenhouse gas effect is like painting a window with black paint. The first coat blocks out a whole lot of light, but every coat afterwards blocks less and less light. Once CO2 reaches 100 parts per million or PPM it pretty much has saturated the atmosphere's absorption of the IR spectrum related to CO2. This following chart demonstrates the atmospheric absorption by CO2 at 100 PPM related to a blackbodies of different temperatures. The pocket of absorption at 15 nm or wave number 667 is the atmospheric absorption by CO2. 
I overlapped the identical graph with CO2 at 1,000 PPM and highlighted the difference in absorption in red.The difference is almost negligible for a 10x increase in atmospheric CO2. Currently atmospheric CO2 is 400 PPM. This following chart demonstrates the impact on atmospheric absorption by a 2.5x increase in the level of atmospheric CO2 to 1,000 PPM. Increasing atmospheric CO2 from 400 PPM to 1,000 PPM increases atmospheric absorption by about 1.76% tops, and that ignores that the widening of the CO2 absorption band expands into the areas absorbed by other green house gases.

----------


## woodbe

> The reason climate "scientists" rely on statistical nonsense and bully tactics like ridicule and insults is because the entire foundation of their "science" is garbage and they have to discourage people from looking behind the curtain.

  A random selection of courses for you. Can you point out the science courses that are based on your claim?  Bachelor of Science in Climate Science - Domestic - Macquarie University  Climate Science | UNSW Science  Ocean and Climate Sciences - Major - Flinders University  Masters Degree Program in Climate & Society | Earth and Environmental Sciences  Study BSc Climate Science at the University of East Anglia (UEA) - UEA  Master of Climate Change - ANU  Atmospheric & Climatic Studies Â· OSU Geography  Specialization in Climate Science, Adaptation and Mitigation | Yaleâs Environment School 
The conspiracy theory you are peddling must run pretty deep, and those undergrads, grads, phd's etc are all sucked into the worldwide conspiracy... 
I have a bridge to sell at a bargain, and I think you're the just person to buy it:     :2thumbsup:

----------


## intertd6

> _"While the Earth's atmosphere has seen higher levels of carbon dioxide than it does now, as well as higher temperatures and far greater sea levels, those instances were due to natural drivers of climate change, such as periodic variations in the planet's orbit and in solar energy output. Scientists have studied and ruled out natural climate drivers as the main cause of global warming since the preindustrial era." _ Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Is Now at Its Highest Point in Human Existence | Smart News | Smithsonian

  what a load of rubbish! Please explain how the globe didn't burn up with CO2 concentrations around 20 times what they are now & solar cycles of up to 25% in the differing of the suns output! makes the 5% that the sun has increased in output over the last 600 million years out to be a farcical drongo's argument. There is no escaping these facts! The brighter amongst us know  the earth goes through an average of 50% change in solar absorption yearly which is well documented, which puts the 5% variation into perspective of being insignificant!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> A random selection of courses for you. Can you point out the science courses that are based on your claim?

  It took me a moment to work out what Marc was on about. He means the "science" courses where Monckton, Bast, Delingpole, Christy, Nova, et al got their qualifications.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## John2b

> what a load of rubbish! Please explain how the globe didn't burn up with CO2 concentrations around 20 times what they are now & solar cycles of up to 25% in the differing of the suns output!

  Easy peasy, it never coincided that way - when CO2 was up, solar radiation was down. And the laws of energy conservation held true then, just as they do today. Who wudda thort?

----------


## intertd6

> Easy peasy, it never coincided that way - when CO2 was up, solar radiation was down. And the laws of energy conservation held true then, just as they do today. Who wudda thort?

  You have been asked before & nothing appeared! we need the proof backing up what you say?  Is this time going to be different? I doubt it! Peasy maybe but not so easy!
but hey how are you going to explain the CO2 levels being in the high thousands ppm for hundreds of millions of years, solar cycles of around 41,000 years & no catastrophic heating, oh dear! Einstein was right, stupidity is infinite! ( but then again his all knowing school teacher said he could "do better")
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> You have been asked before & nothing appeared! we need the proof backing up what you say?

  You are asking for proof that the laws of energy conservation didn't hold in the past? Or now? BTW, the point "stupidity is infinite", it is implicit in your posts - no need to bring Einstein into it!

----------


## intertd6

> You are asking for proof that the laws of energy conservation didn't hold in the past? Or now? BTW, the point "stupidity is infinite", it is implicit in your posts - no need to bring Einstein into it!

  here we go again! The same run around! That's a question of a question & far from proof, now if those laws were actually indicative & associated to the climate directly, the globe would definitely have burnt to a crisp millions of years ago, alas no, it didn't happen & it's not going to happen for an immensely long time. But still no proof showing anything other than a quote & a belief it's going to happen! Surely there must be something obscure to parrot? Actually come to think of it, a talking parrot could recite a more detailed relevant rebuttal!
Your report so far wouldn't read "could do better" it would more likely read "can't do better"
regards inter

----------


## John2b

^^ Back to slandering and personal attacks. You sure know how to win an argument.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## intertd6

> ^^ Back to slandering and personal attacks. You sure know how to win an argument.

   Maybe your perception of how you & your proof is treated would change, if you actually had & presented some, in other words your boring us to Kingdom come & back, but not into submission!
i ask again, where is your proof that 5% less solar irradiance offset & nullified the 20 times more super heating capabilities of CO2 concentrations 600 million years ago?
regards inter

----------


## John2b

In a nut-shell, as a consequence of Beer-Lambert's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer–Lambert_law), the relationship between the concentration of CO2 and the warming effect increases in a diminishing logarithmic way, not linearly increasing as might be thought. The difference in temperature forcing between, say, 1000ppm and, say, 10,000 ppm is negligible. On the other hand, the forcing by a drop off of 5% in the radiation from the sun does cause a linear drop off in retained heat, an effect that is much more significant than the heat retention caused by 20 times CO2 levels over pre-industrial levels.

----------


## intertd6

> In a nut-shell, as a consequence of Beer-Lambert's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeerLambert_law), the relationship between the concentration of CO2 and the warming effect increases in a diminishing logarithmic way, not linearly increasing as might be thought. The difference in temperature forcing between, say, 1000ppm and, say, 10,000 ppm is negligible. On the other hand, the forcing by a drop off of 5% in the radiation from the sun does cause a linear drop off in retained heat, an effect that is much more significant than the heat retention caused by 20 times CO2 levels over pre-industrial levels.

  Thank goodness you have found something to parrot, now all you have to do is include the important parts of the question relative to the solar energy to answer the question! 
To the casual observer the graph you have provided has no reference to where it has come from, nor the critical input parameters, but does go to show that there will never be catastrophic heating of the atmosphere with the amount of CO2 humans could ever pump into the atmosphere, ( but we already know that from history! ) good work!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

More bluster and abuse to prove your point - who wudda thort? 
The limit of heat entrapment of CO2 is already built in to climate models and the heat imbalance is not only theoretical, but measured, so your claim about what the physics proves is just as silly as everything else you post.

----------


## intertd6

> More bluster and abuse to prove your point - who wudda thort? 
> The limit of heat entrapment of CO2 is already built in to climate models and the heat imbalance is not only theoretical, but measured, so your claim about what the physics proves is just as silly as everything else you post.

   In short you haven't even come close to answering the question, have another go!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> In short you haven't even come close to answering the question, have another go!

  Since you know with such certainty that the laws of Physics, the laws Conservation of Energy and Thermodynamics are either entirely wrong, or being comprehensively misapplied by the hundreds of thousands of professionals in industry, academics in research and universities and other people in tens of thousands of institutions in countries all around the world, who have applied their minds to this problem over the past 150 years, what are you doing in this piddly little forum casting smutty innuendoes and throwing mud at other people? 
Why not save the world from itself from your very own armchair by publishing what you alone know? And we'll all be proud to have known you!

----------


## intertd6

> Since you know with such certainty that the laws of Physics, the laws Conservation of Energy and Thermodynamics are either entirely wrong, or being comprehensively misapplied by the hundreds of thousands of professionals in industry, academics in research and universities and other people in tens of thousands of institutions in countries all around the world, who have applied their minds to this problem over the past 150 years, what are you doing in this piddly little forum casting smutty innuendoes and throwing mud at other  
> Why not save the world from itself from your very own armchair by publishing what you alone know? And we'll all be proud to have known you!

  Anybody would think with all those quoted sources you could at least come up with some sort of data or proof to answer the question posed! I ask again, where is your proof that 5% less solar irradiance offset & nullified the 20 times more super heating capabilities of CO2 concentrations 600 million years ago? if you can't provide it just say so & move on so we all have a clear understanding of the facts & fiction on the subject.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

It may be incomprehensible to you, but it has been provided.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I'm struggling to understand the ongoing significance to Inter of the Earth's atmospheric concentration of CO2 600 million years ago.  If it is because it doesn't seem to align with the geological/modelled record of likely air temperatures...so (it is modelled data after all)? That's hardly a surprise.  The mix of gaseous components in the atmosphere at the time was almost certainly significantly different to that of today since it is a time that predates the widespread existence of land plants.  So the physical response to the prevailing atmosphere to solar input was likely very very different. 
But in the end...there was no significant life anywhere on the planet at the time?  Why the myopic fixation?  The modern world and the life that developed in it over the last million years or so has never seen those CO2 levels and if they did then the various physical laws that we understand to be true ensure that because the atmosphere is a different gaseous mix and solar output is greater then the atmospheric response is going to be very different to what it was way back then...and that would hold true even 50-100 million years back...let alone 500 to 600 million.

----------


## Marc

> I'm struggling to understand the ongoing significance to Inter of the Earth's atmospheric concentration of CO2 600 million years ago...etc etc.

  Your reply is of very little value. 
650 millions years ago things may or may not have been like you say, (more like wild speculation)... however only 12000 years ago, CO2 was 430ppm and we where still in an ice age. 
The fact remains, CO2 let alone human produced CO2 has as much influence on climate as a butterfly's fart in the Kimberley has on the air freshness in SA. 
If in doubt ask John x 2

----------


## John2b

> 12000 years ago, CO2 was 430ppm and we where still in an ice age. 
> The fact remains, CO2 let alone human produced CO2 has as much influence on climate as a butterfly's fart in the Kimberley has on the air freshness in SA. 
> If in doubt ask John x 2

  Your reply has the same relevance as your favourite butterfly's fart. Today, CO2 is leading climate change, because CO2 is causing it. What drove the climate between past glacials and interglacials was astronomical. Whether the relationship between temperature and CO2 levels today mimics 12000 years ago is not relevant to the current discussion. 12,000 years ago the Laws of Entropy held true just as they do today. The additional CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of human activity is causing addition heat to accumulate on the surface of the planet, incontrovertibly - slander by innuendo notwithstanding.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Your reply is of very little value. 
> 650 millions years ago things may or may not have been like you say, (more like wild speculation)... however only 12000 years ago, CO2 was 430ppm and we where still in an ice age. 
> The fact remains, CO2 let alone human produced CO2 has as much influence on climate as a butterfly's fart in the Kimberley has on the air freshness in SA. 
> If in doubt ask John x 2

  Thank you for your esteemed consideration. 
As for your ice age reference...do you care to enlighten us as to why you think this was the case or is this information as irrelevant to you as a civil discussion with your peers?

----------


## intertd6

> It may be incomprehensible to you, but it has been provided.

  As this hasn't been provided, I suggest you read the question again! where is your proof that 5% less solar irradiance offset & nullified the 20 times more super heating capabilities of CO2 concentrations 600 million years ago?
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> I'm struggling to understand the ongoing significance to Inter of the Earth's atmospheric concentration of CO2 600 million years ago.  If it is because it doesn't seem to align with the geological/modelled record of likely air temperatures...so (it is modelled data after all)? That's hardly a surprise.  The mix of gaseous components in the atmosphere at the time was almost certainly significantly different to that of today since it is a time that predates the widespread existence of land plants.  So the physical response to the prevailing atmosphere to solar input was likely very very different. 
> But in the end...there was no significant life anywhere on the planet at the time?  Why the myopic fixation?  The modern world and the life that developed in it over the last million years or so has never seen those CO2 levels and if they did then the various physical laws that we understand to be true ensure that because the atmosphere is a different gaseous mix and solar output is greater then the atmospheric response is going to be very different to what it was way back then...and that would hold true even 50-100 million years back...let alone 500 to 600 million.

  so you don't have the answer either!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> so you don't have the answer either!
> regards inter

  Clearly I'm in good company... 
Still...why do I (or for that matter, you) need an answer to such an unimportant question?

----------


## intertd6

> Clearly I'm in good company... 
> Still...why do I (or for that matter, you) need an answer to such an unimportant question?

  Who would own up to be associated to some champion question dodgers?
It's only unimportant to you guys because it throws out the theory that CO2 in high concentrations will cause catastrophic heating of the atmosphere!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Who would own up to be associated to some champion question dodgers?
> It's only unimportant to you guys because it throws out the theory that CO2 in high concentrations will cause catastrophic heating of the atmosphere!
> regards inter

  You were included in that association. 
We are not talking about concentrations approaching anything like the numbers you are ranting about. Nor is anyone talking about warming that is catastrophic to life on this planet. Only warming that will challenge the maintenance or enhancement of our current standard of living in the coming century...

----------


## John2b

> Who would own up to be associated to some champion question dodgers?
> It's only unimportant to you guys because it throws out the theory that CO2 in high concentrations will cause catastrophic heating of the atmosphere!

  The answer to your question should not depend on the slimy character innuendoes that are a part of almost every post of yours, and BTW does not throw out any theory, in any case.

----------


## intertd6

> You were included in that association. 
> We are not talking about concentrations approaching anything like the numbers you are ranting about. Nor is anyone talking about warming that is catastrophic to life on this planet. Only warming that will challenge the maintenance or enhancement of our current standard of living in the coming century...

   So now there isn't going to be catastrophic warming of the atmosphere! Now that's a first from the AGW side! You seem to be joining the dots together!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> The answer to your question should not depend on the slimy character innuendoes that are a part of almost every post of yours, and BTW does not throw out any theory, in any case.

  
i ask again, where is your proof that 5% less solar irradiance offset & nullified the 20 times more super heating capabilities of CO2 concentrations 600 million years ago? 
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> So now there isn't going to be catastrophic warming of the atmosphere! Now that's a first from the AGW side! You seem to be joining the dots together!

  Warming "that will challenge the maintenance or enhancement of our current standard of living" is a dire enough problem. Who has talked about anything else in this forum?

----------


## John2b

> i ask again, where is your proof that 5% less solar irradiance offset & nullified the 20 times more super heating capabilities of CO2 concentrations 600 million years ago?

  A: It is not my theory and does not require "my proof"; 
B: Your own posts over the past little while contain all of the required data to establish that the premise you are making is fanciful; 
C: What is the relevance of your persistent hallucination to the topic of this forum?; and/or 
D: When are you going to publish your cortical revelation and save the world?

----------


## intertd6

> Warming "that will challenge the maintenance or enhancement of our current standard of living" is a dire enough problem. Who has talked about anything else in this forum?

  Still dodging the question? 
Regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> A: It is not my theory and does not require "my proof"; 
> B: Your own posts over the past little while contain all of the required data to establish that the premise you are making is fanciful; 
> C: What is the relevance of your persistent hallucination to the topic of this forum?; and/or 
> D: When are you going to publish your cortical revelation and save the world?

   Your still dodging the question!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

Inter, answer just one question: Why don't YOU ever answer a question?

----------


## intertd6

> Inter, answer just one question: Why don't YOU ever answer a question?

  What still no answer? And more futile attempts to deflect the subject!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

No answer? 
BTW - RE your question: Still can't read?

----------


## intertd6

> No answer? 
> BTW - RE your question: Still can't read?

   Your getting pathetic now! 
Regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Your getting pathetic now!

  Thank you for your candid assessment of my contribution. It makes participation in this forum worthwhile.  :Biggrin:  In the past few hundred posts on this topic, you haven't posted any significant data or theory, or links to credible sites to support your contention, yet you have posted dozens of personal attacks and made scores of snide remarks about other people. ++ for consistency, - - for substance.

----------


## johnc

> Your getting pathetic now! 
> Regards inter

  Pure playing the man, can't get much lower than that can we! Look this is for no other reason than the fact you have been asked to be accountable for repeated unsupported comments yet fail to do so. If you have been backed into a corner it is one of your own making, this is not about you but the topic the fact your position is one you are unwilling to back up speaks volumes.

----------


## intertd6

> Thank you for your candid assessment of my contribution. It makes participation in this forum worthwhile.  In the past few hundred posts on this topic, you haven't posted any significant data or theory, or links to credible sites to support your contention, yet you have posted dozens of personal attacks and made scores of snide remarks about other people. ++ for consistency, - - for substance.

  And there I was, hoping & almost praying that this time you might have found something to parrot about proving CO2 has the ability to burn up the planet, as has predictably turned out your cupboard is bare with proof & now we have to endure the seeming endless ranting of some one who can't admit it!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> You were included in that association. 
> We are not talking about concentrations approaching anything like the numbers you are ranting about. Nor is anyone talking about warming that is catastrophic to life on this planet. Only warming that will challenge the maintenance or enhancement of our current standard of living in the coming century...

  Wow! another downgrade on the effects of AGW, at least it's realistic for a change, the brighter amongst us know this already & realise that the alarmists exaggerations to instil fear in the population will never eventuate, in other words you have been sucked into a cult following!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Pure playing the man, can't get much lower than that can we! Look this is for no other reason than the fact you have been asked to be accountable for repeated unsupported comments yet fail to do so. If you have been backed into a corner it is one of your own making, this is not about you but the topic the fact your position is one you are unwilling to back up speaks volumes.

  it appears you don't have the answer or proof either, other than say so or belief! The hallmarks of a devout cult follower!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

Ants will save the day: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/12...save-earth.htm 
If the sharks don't eat us first: http://www.onenewsnow.com/media/2014...s#.U-FjD1Z9oeU

----------


## intertd6

> Ants will save the day: Global warming woes? Tiny ants might save Earth : SCIENCE : Tech Times 
> If the sharks don't eat us first: Global warming: Flying sharks eat the surviving hockey players

  "Global warming woes? Tiny ants might save Earth".  Which will save us from Warming "that will challenge the maintenance or enhancement of our current standard of living" no wonder your so worried sick about it! Forget all the other global issues killing people right now, this is the number one priority!
Regards inter

----------


## johnc

> it appears you don't have the answer or proof either, other than say so or belief! The hallmarks of a devout cult follower!
> regards inter

  Insight Inter, you need some insight, only then will you see the light and realise the fallacy of your delusions, particularly the attack as the only form of defence delusion.

----------


## John2b

China to ban coal use in Beijing from 2020 
Not just Beijing, China is banning the use of coal in many other provinces as well, including Shandong, the largest coal-consuming province in China which burns as much coal as Germany and Japan combined. Time to divest of shares in Australian coal mining companies...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So now there isn't going to be catastrophic warming of the atmosphere! Now that's a first from the AGW side! You seem to be joining the dots together!
> regards inter

   

> Wow! another downgrade on the effects of AGW, at least it's realistic for a change, the brighter amongst us know this already & realise that the alarmists exaggerations to instil fear in the population will never eventuate, in other words you have been sucked into a cult following!
> regards inter

  It's getting worrisome when you feel the need to respond to the same post twice. Did I hit a nerve? 
To my knowledge, no-one has alleged herein that we are going to 'burn the planet to a crisp' as a result of AGW.   
There certainly has been some conjecture (more like though experiments) amongst some scientists as to whether our influence could eventually (like hundreds of millions of years eventually) lead to runaway warming as with Venus but that is akin to similar thought experiments such as 'what the world would look like without human being?' and 'what the world would look like without life?' - interesting but not of immediate use. 
As for catastrophic warming...the level used to describe 'catastrophe' really depends on the one doing the describing.  I would regard a sea level rise of 5 metres from 1990 levels as 'unfortunate' rather than catastrophic but if you live in any Australian capital city (except Canberra) you might think otherwise.  Our beloved media certainly would...

----------


## Marc

> Thank you for your esteemed consideration. 
> As for your ice age reference...do you care to enlighten us as to why you think this was the case or is this information as irrelevant to you as a civil discussion with your peers?

  Well, to be honest I expected someone to say ... no Marc, you are wrong, it was 427 ppm, or perhaps .. no it was 12700 years ago or something like that.
Anyway, the "relevance" is rather obvious. If someone makes up a story that CO2 is bad for you and that is so because it is heating the world beyond repair and the sea will rise by 9 meters tomorrow and we must run to the hills today ... or words to that effect ... then the logical reasoning is: If CO2 is so bad TODAY, how come it wasn't so bad 12000 years ago?
Answer: It wasn't and it isn't, so the story is rubbish. Simple.  
As far as all the other long bows and long shots and pretend angers and offenses and ohmagosh, not to mention the "reported post" aaaaaaa... I find them all rather amusing. Yes the butterfly fart is a very good analogy, and perhaps someone catches up and mentiones the butterfly effect, who knows, so many knowledgeable and erudite persons here and me the only one struggling for a thought or two, hehe. 
Anyway, since there is no butterfly gas smell in SA or we would have known by now, perhaps another story may tickle your fancy.  _This report examines in detail the mechanisms and methods of a far-left environmental machine that has been erected around a small group of powerful and active millionaires and billionaires who exert tremendous sway over a colossal effort. Although startling in its findings, the report covers only a small fraction of the amount of money that is being secreted and moved around. _ http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ind...6-be947c523439

----------


## intertd6

> It's getting worrisome when you feel the need to respond to the same post twice. Did I hit a nerve? 
> To my knowledge, no-one has alleged herein that we are going to 'burn the planet to a crisp' as a result of AGW.   
> There certainly has been some conjecture (more like though experiments) amongst some scientists as to whether our influence could eventually (like hundreds of millions of years eventually) lead to runaway warming as with Venus but that is akin to similar thought experiments such as 'what the world would look like without human being?' and 'what the world would look like without life?' - interesting but not of immediate use. 
> As for catastrophic warming...the level used to describe 'catastrophe' really depends on the one doing the describing.  I would regard a sea level rise of 5 metres from 1990 levels as 'unfortunate' rather than catastrophic but if you live in any Australian capital city (except Canberra) you might think otherwise.  Our beloved media certainly would...

   Your revelation was certainly worth 2 posts & I'm sure it will be brought up again & again at the appropriate & inappropriate times!
you mustn't have been paying attention lately, didn't you see the data one of you comrades presented showing that the more CO2 concentrations rise the less effect it has on the atmosphere! So in reality you guys are sinking your own boat slowly but steadily, yet you don't appear realise it by then coming out with the ridiculous alarmist rubbish about sea rise that seemingly is going to happen quicker that the life of people, structures, infrastructure & goodness knows whatever else!  Good one!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> China to ban coal use in Beijing from 2020 
> Not just Beijing, China is banning the use of coal in many other provinces as well, including Shandong, the largest coal-consuming province in China which burns as much coal as Germany and Japan combined. Time to divest of shares in Australian coal mining companies...

  thats some nice propaganda! It would take a special type of a galah believe they will use less coal though?
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

My boat floats just fine. I (amongst many) write the policy response to climate change on behalf of government...even this one. I am part of your future. What do you do?

----------


## John2b

> Well, to be honest I expected someone to say ... no Marc, you are wrong, it was 427 ppm, or perhaps .. no it was 12700 years ago or something like that.
> Anyway, the "relevance" is rather obvious. If someone makes up a story that CO2 is bad for you and that is so because it is heating the world beyond repair and the sea will rise by 9 meters tomorrow and we must run to the hills today ... or words to that effect ... then the logical reasoning is: If CO2 is so bad TODAY, how come it wasn't so bad 12000 years ago?
> Answer: It wasn't and it isn't, so the story is rubbish. Simple.

  Well, no one has said that CO2 is bad for you or that the sea will rise by 9 meters tomorrow, so (to quote your esteemed self) your post is rubbish. Simple.

----------


## intertd6

> My boat floats just fine. I (amongst many) write the policy response to climate change on behalf of government...even this one. I am part of your future. What do you do?

  I try to avoid the influence of idiots on myself & loved ones future, people tend to live longer healthier lives that way!
One would think you could at least supply something in regards to my question posed, seeing you claim to some way involved the the bureaucratic climate change policy process! Or it seems facts have no place in the process!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Which question? Why? Don't you trust the Government? We have a Department for that.

----------


## intertd6

> Which question? Why? Don't you trust the Government? We have a Department for that.

    I know! The whole government!
regards inter

----------


## Marc

Risky Business: The Best Global Warming Alarmism Money Can Buy | National Legal and Policy Center

----------


## John2b

Global Warming Deniers Grow More Desperate By The Day | DeSmogBlog 
"The Heartland Institutes recent International Climate Change Conference in Las Vegas illustrates climate change deniers desperate confusion. As Bloomberg News noted, Heartlands strategy seemed to be to throw many theories at the wall and see what stuck. A whos who of fossil fuel industry supporters and anti-science shills variously argued that global warming is a myth; that its happening but natural  a result of the sun or Pacific Decadal Oscillation; that its happening but we shouldnt worry about it; or that global cooling is the real problem."
Every one of those contradictory myths has been thrown up in this forum in the past few days!  :2thumbsup: 
"Personal attacks are common among deniers. Their lies are continually debunked, leaving them with no rational challenge to overwhelming scientific evidence that the world is warming and that humans are largely responsible."  Who would have thought?

----------


## intertd6

> Global Warming Deniers Grow More Desperate By The Day | DeSmogBlog
> "The Heartland Institutes recent International Climate Change Conference in Las Vegas illustrates climate change deniers desperate confusion. As Bloomberg News noted, Heartlands strategy seemed to be to throw many theories at the wall and see what stuck. A whos who of fossil fuel industry supporters and anti-science shills variously argued that global warming is a myth; that its happening but natural  a result of the sun or Pacific Decadal Oscillation; that its happening but we shouldnt worry about it; or that global cooling is the real problem."
> Every one of those contradictory myths has been thrown up in this forum in the past few days! 
> "Personal attacks are common among deniers. Their lies are continually debunked, leaving them with no rational challenge to overwhelming scientific evidence that the world is warming and that humans are largely responsible."  Who would have thought?

  who cares! The carbon tax is gone, there has been next to near nothing warming since 1998 & CO2 has never nor is ever going to cause catastrophic warming, you should sell you recipe for waffling on about a lost cause for the sleep deprived as drug free remedy for instant sleep!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

Has there been no warming since 1998? This is what you see when put skeptic Dr Roy Spenser's satellite data of the temperature of the lower troposphere on a graph with trend lines for the rate of warming before 1998 and a trend one for no warming since 1998:   
WHOOPS! Given how fast global temperature was rising prior to 1998, the real surprise is not that temperatures slowed or stopped their increase … the real surprise is that temperatures rose so far so fast and were so damn hot. All sixteen years have been hotter than the still-warming as previously trend (red line), so of course they also were above the no-warming prediction (blue line).

----------


## intertd6

> Has there been no warming since 1998? This is what you see when put skeptic Dr Roy Spenser's satellite data of the temperature of the lower troposphere on a graph with trend lines for the rate of warming before 1998 and a trend one for no warming since 1998:  
> ).

  so now in some backfiring bizarre way your acknowledging that there hasn't been any warming since 1998, but then continue with some irrelevant waffle! It was almost as if there was a glimmer of hope you might actually come out with something relevant, but it wasn't! So now the sleep deprived are crashing headlong into their keyboards....... Again!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

This graph is the UAH satellite data - no fiddles, no missing holes, no heat islands, just average global lower atmosphere temperature measured from space. No warming since 1998 would be indicated by the black line to the right of 1998 enclosing equal areas above and below the solid blue "no warming" trend line. It is clear that the rate of warming is intact faster since 1998 than previously, because the measured post-1998 temperatures remain entirely above the solid red pre-1998 warming trend line. Anyone who looks at this data and doesn't see warming post 1998 is acknowledging they have a severe comprehension impairment.

----------


## John2b

> who cares! The carbon tax is gone

  Yeah, who cares since no one is really going to be better off! 
According to local councils around Adelaide, the saving will be less than $1 per household per year on council expenses. That is despite estimate its impact at more than 20 times that amount before it was introduced. The carbon tax wasn't a tax, because it was avoidable by changing practises, which was the intention of the carbon trading price. And it worked as intended, which is why governments all over the world are scrambling to introduce carbon trading schemes as an effecting way of dealing with transitioning to clean energy, and revitalising economies. 
Developing countries have realised that conventional economic models will not "lift them out of poverty" when they have to import high cost energy. The rapid growth of the world's renewable energy sector is being led increasingly by developing and emerging nations. 95 developing countries have renewable energy development policies today, comprising the majority of the 138 countries with such policies around the world. The rise of support in the developing world contrasts with declining support and policy uncertainty in some industrialized economies, like Australia. Instead of placing the nation to take advantage of growth in the world renewable energy sector, our government's policies are ensuring Australia will be trampled in the rush. Great result - NOT!  http://www.worldwatch.org/renewables...-energy-growth  http://about.bnef.com/press-releases...rough-to-2030/

----------


## intertd6

> This graph is the UAH satellite data - no fiddles, no missing holes, no heat islands, just average global lower atmosphere temperature measured from space. No warming since 1998 would be indicated by the black line to the right of 1998 enclosing equal areas above and below the solid blue "no warming" trend line. It is clear that the rate of warming is intact faster since 1998 than previously, because the measured post-1998 temperatures remain entirely above the solid red pre-1998 warming trend line. Anyone who looks at this data and doesn't acknowledge continued warming post 1998 has a severe comprehension impairment.

  i couldn't lift my head off the table for a long relevant reply to this dribble!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Yeah, who cares since no one is really going to be better off! 
> According to local councils around Adelaide, the saving will be less than $1 per household per year on council expenses. That is despite estimate its impact at more than 20 times that amount before it was introduced. The carbon tax wasn't a tax, because it was avoidable by changing practises, which was the intention of the carbon trading price. And it worked as intended, which is why governments all over the world are scrambling to introduce carbon trading schemes as an effecting way of dealing with transitioning to clean energy, and revitalising economies. 
> Developing countries have realised that conventional economic models will not "lift them out of poverty" when they have to import high cost energy. The rapid growth of the world's renewable energy sector is being led increasingly by developing and emerging nations. 95 developing countries have renewable energy development policies today, comprising the majority of the 138 countries with such policies around the world. The rise of support in the developing world contrasts with declining support and policy uncertainty in some industrialized economies, like Australia. Instead of placing the nation to take advantage of growth in the world renewable energy sector, our government's policies are ensuring Australia will be trampled in the rush. Great result - NOT!  Renewables 2014 Global Status Report Highlights Another Year of Impressive Renewable Energy Growth | Worldwatch Institute  Strong growth for renewables expected through to 2030 | Bloomberg New Energy Finance

  look at the score board loser! The tax has gone, if don't want to be labelled a hypocrite, donate your own money for the lost cause! 
Regards inter

----------


## John2b

> if don't want to be labelled a hypocrite, donate your own money for the lost cause!

  Thank you for your touching concern about my committing inadvertent hypocrisy. There is no need for you to worry on my account and I am probably doing enough to cover for you as well. My family and I do many things for the "lost cause", including investing in land for regeneration and conservation, running our suburban house on own own power and rainwater, growing much of our own food, and planting many 10,000s of trees. 
Oh - I wouldn't say that the Abbott Government's scoreboard is looking very good at all. The carbon "tax" may be gone and they have not been able to make up the lost revenue, but you are apparently happy to pay for that!

----------


## johnc

> look at the score board loser! The tax has gone, if don't want to be labelled a hypocrite, donate your own money for the lost cause! 
> Regards inter

  While ignoring the petty insult in the first sentence, how do you propose someone donate money to a repealed carbon tax, it would appear after 100's of ineffective posts you have absolutely no understanding of how either the tax works or how little it impacted on the average Australian.

----------


## intertd6

> While ignoring the petty insult in the first sentence, how do you propose someone donate money to a repealed carbon tax, it would appear after 100's of ineffective posts you have absolutely no understanding of how either the tax works or how little it impacted on the average Australian.

  Waffle on all you like, all that matters is it's gone! One of your comrades supplied a link a page or so ago as to where you can donate your savings from the carbon tax, so now you don't have to be ignorant any more on the subject nor a hypocrite worrying about where the lost cause can still get some funds to keep nitwit followers hooked on the belief!
regards inter

----------


## James

Intertd6, you should be able to have this debate without resorting to calling people "losers".

----------


## John2b

Wind generation supplied 43% of demand in SA in July. At times, there was more than 100% of demand available from wind. Wind has kept the wholesale price of electricity suppressed in SA, and SA is now a net exporter of electricity. SA has installed capacity of about 1500 MW as of a few weeks ago, with another 600 MW under construction and another ~600 MW approved for construction, plus 550MW of installed solar.

----------


## johnc

> Waffle on all you like, all that matters is it's gone! One of your comrades supplied a link a page or so ago as to where you can donate your savings from the carbon tax, so now you don't have to be ignorant any more on the subject nor a hypocrite worrying about where the lost cause can still get some funds to keep nitwit followers hooked on the belief!
> regards inter

   No you could donate to a group defunded by the Federal government, no need to link it to anything at all. Watch out you're going communist on us, I don't think comrade is still used by anyone who has mentally been able to progress from the 1950's.

----------


## johnc

> Wind generation supplied 43% of demand in SA in July. At times, there was more than 100% of demand available from wind. Wind has kept the wholesale price of electricity suppressed in SA, and SA is now a net exporter of electricity. SA has installed capacity of about 1500 MW as of a few weeks ago, with another 600 MW under construction and another ~600 MW approved for construction, plus 550MW of installed solar.

  
Just hook a generator to Inter I reckon he could manage enough hot air and wind to power a small town.

----------


## John2b

CO2 levels have reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in human existence. When CO2 levels were this high 15 to 20 million years ago, it was 2° to 5°C warmer globally and seas were also 25 to 40 metres higher than now. Anyone betting on a low sensitivity of the climate to carbon is literally betting against history. That means returning as quickly as possible back to 350 ppm is a vastly more rational course of action for a non-suicidal civilisation, than allowing carbon to climb relentlessly towards 1000 ppm. Bring back carbon trading!  Climate Sensitivity Stunner: Last Time CO2 Levels Hit 400 Parts Per Million The Arctic Was 14°F Warmer! | ThinkProgress

----------


## Marc

400 ppm wow ! unprecedented, earth shattering! The end of life as we know it, we will literally choke to death gasping for oxygen .... burning to a crisp and drowning under 9?, 5?, you tell me how many meters of sea rise? (I lost count) 
Oh, and yes please do not forget to remind me that the sun back then when CO2 was sky high, the sun was actually switched off. it was replaced by LED very soft and mild. a real breeze. 
Come on guys, your claims are so undefensible that if they were part of a business presentation to raise capital for a new venture you would be laughed out the door.

----------


## PhilT2

Marc, could you just point out for us on your graph the period of human existence on earth or just the last three ice ages, where temp and CO2 levels varied significantly.

----------


## Micky013

Cant believe this thread is still going. Love it!!!!

----------


## John2b

> Come on guys, your claims are so undefensible that if they were part of a business presentation to raise capital for a new venture you would be laughed out the door.

  
Who is going to be laughed out the door? Someone with ridiculous claims? You mean ridiculous claims like this?:    

> 400 ppm wow ! unprecedented, earth shattering! The end of life as we know it, we will literally choke to death gasping for oxygen .... burning to a crisp and drowning under 9?, 5?, you tell me how many meters of sea rise? (I lost count) 
> Oh, and yes please do not forget to remind me that the sun back then when CO2 was sky high, the sun was actually switched off. it was replaced by LED very soft and mild. a real breeze.

  You made those claims - not any scientific body studying climate change!

----------


## PhilT2

Lewandowsky (2013) has already established that some deniers apt to believe some unscientific things; something that was obvious to anyone who has spent any time on the internet. However, just to remove any lingering doubts anyone might have, Eric Abetz chipped in with his contribution to the triumph of ideology over reality yesterday. The spin doctors are working overtime to reverse and rephrase what he said but expect the polls to reflect how the public see this circus.

----------


## Marc

Absolutely agree, it is a circus.
The owners of the circus are the industry magnates who have seen the rise of a new industrial age and bought the tent and funded the show to stir up interest. The men with the long whip, are the politicians, the public are the taxpayers and the clowns? yes of course they are the well intentioned yet misled and deluded conservationist used by the owners to decorate the show, happy to make a point in anyway they can. 
Eventually the tent will collapse and be blown away by the wind, the taxpayers will run for cover thinking why on earth did they ever pay for this show, the politicians had inside knowledge and got airlifted by their taxpayer paid helicopter, the animals went back to nature and the clowns? They had a meeting in an overturned trailer and decided to take up a new challenge, yet I am not privy to such information. Will let you know when I hear what they are up to next. (Save the bees? ... who knows!)

----------


## John2b

> Lewandowsky (2013) has already established that some deniers apt to believe some unscientific things; something that was obvious to anyone who has spent any time on the internet. However, just to remove any lingering doubts anyone might have, Eric Abetz chipped in with his contribution to the triumph of ideology over reality yesterday. The spin doctors are working overtime to reverse and rephrase what he said but expect the polls to reflect how the public see this circus.

  Abetz was just chipping in his bit for the team (the Liberal team that is, not Team Australia, which has to carry this bunch of eristic cretins). 
Abbott: Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and its not necessarily everyones place to come to Australia. 
Bishop: 'China doesnt, China doesnt respect weakness.' (Resulted in the China Global Times describing the Australian Foreign Minister as a "complete fool".) 
Truss: 'Increasingly, the lifestyle and the savings for superannuation are being seen as an opportunity to enjoy a few cruises and the luxuries of life for a few years until it runs out and then people wish to fall back on the age pension.' 
Hockey: '...higher income households pay half their income in tax. Lower income households pay virtually no tax.' 
Brandis: 'People do have a right to be bigots.' 
Hunt: 'We have countries like Zimbabwe, Moldova, Burkina Faso, we have Libya and even the Islamic Republic of Iran which are considered more friendly, less burdensome in relation to how government approaches investment in projects.' 
Morrison: 'Make a decision to get on with the rest of your life.' 
Pyne: 'Now, women are well-represented amongst the teaching and nursing students. They will not be able to earn the high incomes that say dentists or lawyers will earn.' 
Turnbull: 'Well, what about the man who inherits from his parents an enormous intellect? That is equally, that's an equally undeserved, unearned inheritance, so you've got to bear that in mind.'

----------


## John2b

Marc is "in the emperor's tent", but can't see it (pun intended).

----------


## John2b

> (Save the bees? ... who knows!)

  One presumes you mean honey bees, one of thousands of bee species, but still economically and agriculturally important, and one that has a unique habit of forming colonies or swarms. 
Think about it: Spray millions of hectares with systemic insecticide (which is taken in by the plant and remains active inside the plant), bees collect the nectar (with insecticide inside), feed it to the pupae, the pupae become sick adult bees and prematurely die and the colony dies out. In some areas, 80% of commercially owned and operated bee hives have been wiped out. Who wudda thort?  Scientists discover what’s killing the bees and it’s worse than you thought – Quartz

----------


## Marc

One presumes well. Honeybees, not those pesky native bees you have to feed to keep alive.
Good post John. Comes to show what I have said a million times. There are many worthy causes for warmist's zeal, pesticide contamination of our food (or the bee's food) is one of them. Many more out there, too many to list. Most the fault of those nasty greedy rich ... psst ... farmers are not rich ... oh well lets say the fault of all those greedy people out there, rich or poor. (Can poor people be greedy? Apparently so and just as nasty)  
The sad reality my dear John2bee, is that the last 20 years of "global warming" bonanza has reaped trillions for the ecomafia, generated billions of votes worldwide for pretend conservationist politicians,  and as a result has diverted the well meaning and honest yet amateurish real conservationist from the real pollutants and therefore away from the barons of pollution that far from being those who produce CO2 are those who pollute legally because politicians rise the threshold for "safe" content or chemicals, and the world goes round and round.  
And even if you believe the story about CO2isbadforyou, think about it. Where would you rather live, in a world that is 2C hotter (wow) maybe 3?, sea rise 1/2 a meter? (Launceston harbor would love that one.) or in a world that is unlivable because is gone poisonous and we can not even eat what we grow in our backyard? 
The CO2 "cause" is not only fake, it is lost even if it was true. The chemicals war can be won, all it needs is dedication and compliant media. Not too hard for people with your talents.

----------


## intertd6

> 

   The simple but undeniable graph that shows that CO2 doesn't drive climate change nor cause catastrophic global warming, now when AGW cult come up with some reasonable proof & explanations of why climate change happened in reverse to their " modelled forecasts " they actually could be taken seriously & not be taken like rest of the galahs that have no solid evidence to base their cult / belief / whatever on
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> And even if you believe the story about CO2isbadforyou, think about it.

  Marc, that is _your_ 'story', which has no relevance to reality or climate science. But go on, make stuff up and believe it to be true - it's your right!

----------


## John2b

> One presumes well. Honeybees, not those pesky native bees you have to feed to keep alive.

  In contrary to your assertion, native bees don't need me or you to feed to keep alive. Missing the point in the first sentence of your post sets a precedes for the rest of your post...

----------


## John2b

> The simple but undeniable graph

  Correct, it's a graph.   

> shows that CO2 doesn't drive climate change nor cause catastrophic global warming

  Nope, the graph shows a historic computer modelling of of past temperature and CO2 level, _not_ cause and effect.   

> they actually could be taken seriously & not be taken like rest of the galahs that have no solid evidence to base their cult / belief / whatever on

  You have solid evidence to the contrary of conventional wisdom? So why are you hiding it? Let's have it now! Please!

----------


## intertd6

> Correct, it's a graph.  You started out fine!  
> Nope, the graph shows a historic computer modelling of of past temperature and CO2 level, _not_ cause and effect.  Dream on! I didn't say it was cause and effect! Trying to manipulate things already as usual! But it does contradict the galahs theory that CO2 drives climate change!  
> You have solid evidence to the contrary of conventional wisdom? So why are you hiding it? Let's have it now! Please.  Now I'm hiding something! All I have is what is available to everybody, there is nothing to prove or answer! The known data clearly shows no correlation between CO2 & the past climate, how about you show us your intelligence & provide something that no other person or institution has been able to do as yet so far, which is explain why CO2 concentrations are now linked intimately, yet never were in the past! You can try to twist & connive the debate away from you inability to provide theses explanations!

  regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Dream on! I didn't say it was cause and effect! Trying to manipulate things already as usual! But it does contradict the galahs theory that CO2 drives climate change!

  Er... if it _was_ a graph of cause and effect, it _MIGHT_ show that past climate was not "forced" by CO2. But as you said it isn't, and your average galah would realise that the graph isn't relevant to the current circumstances, or the current debate. 
CO2 has _always_ contributed to the planet's energy balance in the past as it does now - in absolute conformance with the laws of physics and entropy. To suggest that CO2 is the only, or the major, contributor to the current global temperature is foolish, disingenuous, dishonest or just plain stupid. And irrelevant. 
To suggest that the current excess warming phase is not in response to human emissions of CO2 is equally foolish, disingenuous, dishonest or just plain stupid. Where do you fit, Inter?

----------


## John2b

> The spin doctors are working overtime to reverse and rephrase what he said but expect the polls to reflect how the public see this circus.

  And the rest of the LNC "government" Then and now: the Abbott government's broken promises

----------


## intertd6

> Er... if it _was_ a graph of cause and effect, it _MIGHT_ show that past climate was not "forced" by CO2. But as you said it isn't, and your average galah would realise that the graph isn't relevant to the current circumstances, or the current debate.  The the data shows no cause for the effect! That's why it is used to debunk the AGW theory that CO2 is the major driver of climate change nor can cause catastrophic heating of the atmosphere & that's why the AGW cultists haven't got a argument or data to disprove it!   
> CO2 has _always_ contributed to the planet's energy balance in the past as it does now - in absolute conformance with the laws of physics and entropy. To suggest that CO2 is the only, or the major, contributor to the current global temperature is foolish, disingenuous, dishonest or just plain stupid. And irrelevant.  your starting to join the dots now I see! That's a far cry from your usual alarmists rhetoric. 
> To suggest that the current excess warming phase is not in response to human emissions of CO2 is equally foolish, disingenuous, dishonest or just plain stupid. Where do you fit, Inter?  your contradicting yourself within one paragraph, the only thing that is consistent is the description of your type of thinking, clever hey! And I hope I never get that clever! Ultimately it shows some people couldn't tell the difference between Arthur, Martha or Captain MacArthur no matter how clever they think they are!

  regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> And the rest of the LNC "government" Then and now: the Abbott government's broken promises

   So what? Another red herring perhaps? Wouldn't that be different!
regards inter

----------


## Marc

Well... John...you live in Adelaide. I live in Sydney. Unless we both move to queensland we can not keep native bees without feeding them. Ask the guys who sell them, they will tell you. I know a thing or two about bees. I have kept around 30 beehives for the good part of 40 years. But I only keep Italian bees, I discriminate with prejudice.
PS
If I can not see the emperor's tent and you can, then things are all good. The Emperor's tent or cloths for that matter can only be seen by highly intelligent people. Ordinary people like me can not. Ha ha

----------


## John2b

> Well... John...you live in Adelaide. I live in Sydney. Unless we both move to queensland we can not keep native bees without feeding them. Ask the guys who sell them, they will tell you. I know a thing or two about bees. I have kept around 30 beehives for the good part of 40 years. But I only keep Italian bees, I discriminate with prejudice.

  You should check your facts before pulling the authority stunt. For what it's worth I have beehives too, although I by no means consider myself an apiarist! What little I know about bees comes from Dr Katja Hogendoorn, who is rather knowledgable on the topic. Dr Katja Hogendoorn | The University of Adelaide Staff Directory There are about five hundred species of native bees that live in South Australia and do just fine without being fed by humans. Introduction - South Australian Native Bees In an odd twist, the city has become a sanctuary for native bees because of the relative lack of broad-acre loss of habitat and wholesale insecticide use that surrounds the remnant areas of rural native bee habitat. But, that to the topic...   

> If I can not see the emperor's tent and you can, then things are all good. The Emperor's tent or cloths for that matter can only be seen by highly intelligent people. Ordinary people like me can not. Ha ha

  It is obvious you are quite intelligent, Marc. Even if you can't see what side of the parable you fit into, others can make that judgement.

----------


## Marc

There are a number of very interesting studies in the ICNBW syndrome. None of them talk about wisdom. 
In the parable the clothes do not exist, they are made up and no one dares to say the emperor is naked because the scam is covered by a lie that only intelligent people can see the clothes. Just like global warming is made up yet no one talks against it because he may be considered unintelligent. 
As far as native bees is concerned, you may have native bees in the wild but you can not keep them in a box in Adelaide nor Sydney as it is possible in Queensland or NT without feeding them through winter.

----------


## John2b

> In the parable the clothes do not exist, they are made up and no one dares to say the emperor is naked because the scam is covered by a lie that only intelligent people can see the clothes. Just like global warming is made up yet no one talks against it because he may be considered unintelligent.

  I think we both understand the parable of the Emperor's Clothes. Where we don't agree is over who is seeing something that doesn't exist. 
All of the inputs to the Earth's surface temperature are currently suppressed (low solar output, La Nina weather pattern, very high pollution levels over substantial areas of the planet) yet instead of falling, the surface temperature is rising faster than ever, as recorded globally by satellite from outer space. 
What is going to happen, Marc, as the Sun's output picks up again as the next solar cycle rolls around, El Nino takes its turn to warm up ocean surface temperatures and China comes good on its next five year plan to rid its skies of sunlight blocking pollution? My money would be on the Earth's surface temperature to rise even faster than previously.

----------


## Marc

Yes, it going to be warmer and then is going to be cooler. It has been like that for a while, a long while. I wouldn't sweat over it neither shiver over it.  
However you did get the story wrong, not only the emperors clothes but also the native bee keeping wrong yet are not game to admit it.  
Not easy to have a conversation with someone who wants to be always right even when he is wrong. http://www.aussiebee.com.au/beesinyo...#stinglessbees

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I think we both understand the parable of the Emperor's Clothes. Where we don't agree is over who is seeing something that doesn't exist. 
> All of the inputs to the Earth's surface temperature are currently suppressed (low solar output, La Nina weather pattern, very high pollution levels over substantial areas of the planet) yet instead of falling, the surface temperature is rising faster than ever, as recorded globally by satellite from outer space. 
> What is going to happen, Marc, as the Sun's output picks up again as the next solar cycle rolls around, El Nino takes its turn to warm up ocean surface temperatures and China comes good on its next five year plan to rid its skies of sunlight blocking pollution? My money would be on the Earth's surface temperature to rise even faster than previously.

  Are you freaking serious?

----------


## John2b

> Are you freaking serious?

  About what are you taking issue?

----------


## John2b

> Not easy to have a conversation with someone who wants to be always right even when he is wrong.

  I am not always right, not even close. And I have made corrections in this forum in the past and acknowledged them. How about yourself?

----------


## Marc

John, besides having fun giving me bad reputation points, something that belongs with the primary school kids, in this particular instance you are wrong on both counts and very clearly so. What do you do? do you admit to it? No! you stick yet another bad reputation comment on my profile, and keep on making puerile attempts to get out of it.
Is it really that important to you to be right at all costs? 
I you were any closer I would offer you one of my very special cups of coffee and show you my latest bathroom reno done in my best and unsustainable way. ha ha honestly John come on ...

----------


## Bedford

> John, besides having fun giving me bad reputation points, something that belongs with the primary school kids

  And Mods & Admins can see those reputation comments.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## John2b

Marc, what has your latest post got to do with the forum topic? Many forums ban people for off topic posts. I won't bother to answer your off topic posts in future.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The CO2 "cause" is not only fake, it is lost even if it was true.

  Not fake...but yes, quite lost.   

> The chemicals war can be won, all it needs is dedication and compliant media.

  Nope that's pretty much lost too. 
The next fifty years is going to be so very entertaining...especially if (like me) you are into black comedies.

----------


## Marc

A man is driving down the road when he realizes he is lost. He pulls over and asks a person on the footpath: -Scuse me, can you help me? I have an appointment at 2 with a friend, I am half an hour late, and I don't know where I am.
-Sure, the other replies, -you are sitting in a car, 7 miles from the city center, 48 latitude north and 52 longitude west.
-You are a climatologist right? the man in the car replies. 
_Yes I am!, how did you guess? 
-Well you see, all you told me is technically correct, but useless in practice. I am still lost, I will be late, and I don't know what to do with your information.  
-You are a politician right?
-Yes in deed, he replies proudly, how did you know? 
- Because you don't know where you are nor where you are going, you made a promise you can't keep and you expect others to solve your problem. In fact you are in exactly the same situation you were before asking me... but now, for some strange reason, it seems it is my fault.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> In fact you are in exactly the same situation you were before asking me... but now, for some strange reason, it seems it is my fault.

  The last paragraph pretty much sums up this entire thread...

----------


## intertd6

> I am not always right, not even close. And I have made corrections in this forum in the past and acknowledged them. How about yourself?

   That's a broad statement & maybe true somewhere else on the forum, but it doesn't appear to apply to this debate that's for certain, which has been just been proved on this recent page!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> That's a broad statement & maybe true somewhere else on the forum, but it doesn't appear to apply to this debate that's for certain, which has been just been proved on this recent page!
> regards inter

  I'd really like to suggest you get off your high horse...but I think the fall might kill you....

----------


## intertd6

> I'd really like to suggest you get off your high horse...but I think the fall might kill you....

   There is an old Chinese proverb " it's hard to fly with the eagles when your surrounded by turkey's !"
My rocking horse level may seem lofty to the level you guys operate from! Yeha, giddy up!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

Meanwhile, back on topic, *eagles* are suffering as a result of climate change and the Balkan Peninsula and *Turkey* climate change is particularly rapid, and especially summer temperatures are expected to increase strongly.  http://cawcr.gov.au/staff/lec/Emu105_1to20.pdf  Climate change - Turkey - Climate Adaptation

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Meanwhile, back on topic, *eagles* are suffering as a result of climate change and the Balkan Peninsula and *Turkey* climate change is particularly rapid, and especially summer temperatures are expected to increase strongly.  http://cawcr.gov.au/staff/lec/Emu105_1to20.pdf  Climate change - Turkey - Climate Adaptation

  so there is a spell of hot weather in Turkey?

----------


## intertd6

> Meanwhile, back on topic, *eagles* are suffering as a result of climate change and the Balkan Peninsula and *Turkey* climate change is particularly rapid, and especially summer temperatures are expected to increase strongly.  http://cawcr.gov.au/staff/lec/Emu105_1to20.pdf  Climate change - Turkey - Climate Adaptation

  if we we were back on topic you wouldn't have a problem answering this, 
"how about you show us your intelligence & provide something that no other person or institution has been able to do as yet so far, which is explain why CO2 concentrations are now linked intimately, yet never were in the past! You can try to twist & connive the debate away from you inability to provide theses explanations!"
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> so there is a spell of hot weather in Turkey?

  they say it lovely at this time of year!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

I don't think Adam Sandler who is credited with the saying in the movie Mr Deeds was Chinese, or old, or the author of old Chinese proverbs. Meanwhile, back on topic, *eagles* are suffering as a result of climate change and the Balkan Peninsula and *Turkey* climate change is particularly rapid, and especially summer temperatures are expected to increase strongly.  http://cawcr.gov.au/staff/lec/Emu105_1to20.pdf  Climate change - Turkey - Climate Adaptation

----------


## intertd6

> I don't think Adam Sandler is credited with the saying in the movie Mr Deeds was Chinese, or old, or the author of old Chinese proverbs. Meanwhile, back on topic, *eagles* are suffering as a result of climate change and the Balkan Peninsula and *Turkey* climate change is particularly rapid, and especially summer temperatures are expected to increase strongly.  http://cawcr.gov.au/staff/lec/Emu105_1to20.pdf  Climate change - Turkey - Climate Adaptation

  Its clearly another crafty off the topic red herring! But as DDT is still being used, but not officially in Turkey, has this been ruled out!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> "how about you show us your intelligence & provide something that no other person or institution has been able to do as yet so far, which is explain why CO2 concentrations are now linked intimately, yet never were in the past!"

  Ignoring the personal attack, the premise of your contention is false. No person or institution has shown that the laws of energy conservation did not hold in the past or present. CO2 in the atmosphere has always behaved as defined by the laws of physics. It isn't possible to explain past or present climate without taking into account atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

----------


## John2b

> so there is a spell of hot weather in Turkey?

  After >10,000 posts the difference between weather and climate is still a source of confusion? Or is that prevarication?

----------


## John2b

> Its clearly another crafty off the topic red herring!

  Did you follow and read the links before making your assertion that the post was "off topic"?

----------


## intertd6

> Did you follow and read the links before making your assertion that the post was "off topic"?

  When your parroting garbage that is disproven by the historical data, then waffle on endlessly about something else not in the slightest way linked, any reasonably normal person realises it's " off topic " the only regional thing were concerned about is that the carbon tax is gone & buried for a long time, just like the galahs that promised it would never eventuate!
"donate all you can for the useless cause if it makes you feel better"
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> When your parroting garbage that is disproven by the historical data, then waffle on endlessly about something else not in the slightest way linked, any reasonably normal person realises it's " off topic " the only regional thing were concerned about is that the carbon tax is gone & buried for a long time, just like the galahs that promised it would never eventuate!
> "donate all you can for the useless cause if it makes you feel better"
> regards inter

  Take a leaf out of your own book and provide the proof that this has been disproven rather than just another attack accompanied by a sad little rant. This is very tiresome as all it proves is that some people aren't the least bit interested in doing anything beyond making unsubstantiated noise.

----------


## intertd6

> Take a leaf out of your own book and provide the proof that this has been disproven rather than just another attack accompanied by a sad little rant. This is very tiresome as all it proves is that some people aren't the least bit interested in doing anything beyond making unsubstantiated noise.

  just because you can't understand or comprehend the missing relationship between CO2 & the globes temperature displayed by the data in post #11606, there is no need for you to go out of your way to prove it beyond all doubt!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

There are no models or theories that can account for past or present climate without considering the contribution of CO2 in the atmosphere. The same laws of physics applied then as now. The graph referred does not show any cause or effect relationship between CO2 and surface temperature because the graph does not show the effect of other inputs to the climate system, all of which have varied over time and many of which are quite significant. 
Perhaps somewhere, someone has done an analysis which supports your proposition, Inter, but repeated internet searches lead inevitably to the blogosphere and not peer reviewed science, and despite repeated requests from many different participants in the forum you have been astoundingly reluctant to provide a reference.

----------


## johnc

> just because you can't understand or comprehend the missing relationship between CO2 & the globes temperature displayed by the data in post #11606, there is no need for you to go out of your way to prove it beyond all doubt!
> regards inter

  You aren't correctly applying the graph and the graph doesn't actually support that assertion, as if you didn't know already.

----------


## intertd6

> There are no models or theories that can account for past or present climate without considering the contribution of CO2 in the atmosphere. The same laws of physics applied then as now. The graph referred does not show any cause or effect relationship between CO2 and surface temperature because the graph does not show the effect of other inputs to the climate system, all of which have varied over time and many of which are quite significant. 
> Perhaps somewhere, someone has done an analysis which supports your proposition, Inter, but repeated internet searches lead inevitably to the blogosphere and not peer reviewed science, and despite repeated requests from many different participants in the forum you have been astoundingly reluctant to provide a reference.

   So in other words you still have nothing!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> You aren't correctly applying the graph and the graph doesn't actually support that assertion, as if you didn't know already.

   And your truly proving it now!
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> And your truly proving it now!
> regards inter

  Really, you are the one with the history of baseless assertions and on the rare occasions you post a link to back up an opinion invariably use an unrelated piece of data or a source that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So in other words you still have nothing!
> regards inter

  Clearly nothing that penetrates your personal penumbra...

----------


## intertd6

> Really, you are the one with the history of baseless assertions and on the rare occasions you post a link to back up an opinion invariably use an unrelated piece of data or a source that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

  "All I have is what is available to everybody, there is nothing to prove or answer! The known data clearly shows no correlation between CO2 & the past climate, how about you show us your intelligence & provide something that no other person or institution has been able to do as yet so far, which is explain why CO2 concentrations are now linked intimately, yet never were in the past! You can try to twist & connive the debate away from you inability to provide theses explanations!"
Go your hardest!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Clearly nothing that penetrates your personal penumbra...

  see above!
if only the department of defence had the ability to dodge the enemy half as fast as you fellows can dodge a question, wars would be over in minutes!
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> "All I have is what is available to everybody, there is nothing to prove or answer! The known data clearly shows no correlation between CO2 & the past climate, how about you show us your intelligence & provide something that no other person or institution has been able to do as yet so far, which is explain why CO2 concentrations are now linked intimately, yet never were in the past! You can try to twist & connive the debate away from you inability to provide theses explanations!"
> Go your hardest!
> regards inter

  You are asking someone to prove a point when the original statement was your graph didn't support your conclusion, no wonder you have without exception proven your statements are nothing more than hot air. It's like dealing with dense fog, nothing can be seen nothing can be identified.

----------


## Neptune

> Will let you know when I hear what they are up to next. (Save the bees? ... who knows!)

   

> One presumes you mean honey bees, one of thousands of bee species, but still economically and agriculturally important, and one that has a unique habit of forming colonies or swarms. 
> Think about it: Spray millions of hectares with systemic insecticide (which is taken in by the plant and remains active inside the plant), bees collect the nectar (with insecticide inside), feed it to the pupae, the pupae become sick adult bees and prematurely die and the colony dies out. In some areas, 80% of commercially owned and operated bee hives have been wiped out. Who wudda thort?  Scientists discover whats killing the bees and its worse than you thought  Quartz

   

> Marc, what has your latest post got to do with the forum topic? Many forums ban people for off topic posts. I won't bother to answer your off topic posts in future.

   

> Meanwhile, back on topic, *eagles* are suffering as a result of climate change and the Balkan Peninsula and *Turkey* climate change is particularly rapid, and especially summer temperatures are expected to increase strongly.  http://cawcr.gov.au/staff/lec/Emu105_1to20.pdf  Climate change - Turkey - Climate Adaptation

   

> Many forums ban people for off topic posts.

  It seems to me that John2b has run it off topic chasing the birds and bees  :Rolleyes:  
In case you missed it, the topic is Emission Trading.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Get with it! Keep up! We are long past that pathetic nonsense...  :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

> You are asking someone to prove a point when the original statement was your graph didn't support your conclusion, no wonder you have without exception proven your statements are nothing more than hot air. It's like dealing with dense fog, nothing can be seen nothing can be identified.

  huh! still got nothing?
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Get with it! Keep up! We are long past that pathetic nonsense...

  thats not at all what it seems like from our side! 
regards inter

----------


## Marc

For climate-change alarmists, the heat is on… their foreheads. Their desperation is starting to bead up and roll into their collars like flop sweat. California Gov. Jerry Brown’s absurd contention that LAX Airport is going to be turned into a bathtub because of climate change is the latest example of how know-nothings in the media, entertainment and politics are reaching for ever more questionable arguments... http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmit...ing-desperate/

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> thats not at all what it seems like from our side! 
> regards inter

  Yeah but you take it all too seriously...that doesn't count.

----------


## John2b

Er, the drivel is rolling off the lips after reading the conclusion of a "social science" survey LOL. 
It is going to get harder to sell the denialist's mantra, as many of the world's top PR companies have taken a stance on not working with clients who misrepresent the science of anthropogenic climate change.  PR Firms Take a Stand on Climate Change

----------


## intertd6

> Yeah but you take it all too seriously...that doesn't count.

  thats obvious when the facts don't count for you fellows either!
seriously you fellows are the best entertainment money can't buy!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Er, the drivel is rolling off the lips after reading the conclusion of a "social science" survey LOL. 
> It is going to get harder to sell the denialist's mantra, as many of the world's top PR companies have taken a stance on not working with clients who misrepresent the science of anthropogenic climate change.  PR Firms Take a Stand on Climate Change

  thats a bit rich from someone who has been evading answering some simple questions for what must be 20 pages!
regards inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Er, the drivel is rolling off the lips after reading the conclusion of a "social science" survey LOL. 
> It is going to get harder to sell the denialist's mantra, as many of the world's top PR companies have taken a stance on not working with clients who misrepresent the science of anthropogenic climate change.  PR Firms Take a Stand on Climate Change

  LOL they will go broke soon they wont have any clients!!

----------


## John2b

If they are right, why do climate change deniers need to go to such extreme lengths such as producing counterfeit documents? Spot the fake:   
They look almost exactly the same, but that's very much on purpose. The "report" on the right, designed to look almost identical to the U.S. Government's National Climate Assessment on the left, was written by the Cato Institute—an organization founded by fossil fuel billionaire Charles Koch, with the intention of confusing the public about the real science on climate change.

----------


## John2b

Coffee shortages caused by climate change have increased the likelihood that ground coffee has “fillers” in it like wheat, soybean, brown sugar, barley, corn, seeds, and even stick and twigs. So much for the hollow claims that a warming climate will be better for agriculture!  Your Coffee May Have Fillers in It - TIME

----------


## intertd6

> Coffee shortages caused by climate change have increased the likelihood that ground coffee has “fillers” in it like wheat, soybean, brown sugar, barley, corn, seeds, and even stick and twigs. So much for the hollow claims that a warming climate will be better for agriculture!  Your Coffee May Have Fillers in It - TIME

  "If they are right, why do climate change deniers need to go to such extreme lengths such as producing counterfeit documents? Spot the fake:      
They look almost exactly the same, but that's very much on purpose. The "report" on the right, designed to look almost identical to the U.S. Government's National Climate Assessment on the left, was written by the Cato Institute—an organization founded by fossil fuel billionaire Charles Koch, with the intention of confusing the public about the real science on climate change." 
Well that's the most typical load of AGW garbage that you normally come out with! Devoid of facts and just plainly untrue, counterfeit & fake! And coffee shortages where demand is outstripping supply, really it seems like your trying to insult our intelligence again but I know that's not true, because it appears you are thoroughly occupied with your own being!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Well that's the most typical load of AGW garbage that you normally come out with!

  Thank you for your thoughtful and carefully worded response to my post. Your contribution is valuable guidance on the topic...   

> Devoid of facts

  I don't own the facts. All the facts you want are just a keyboard click away:  Coffee Cup Quality | World Coffee Research   

> And coffee shortages where demand is outstripping supply

  Sure demand for coffee is growing. But the big problem is the coffee producing lands are receding due to climate change, both temperature creep and rainfall changes. Small changes in temperature affect the fruit set of many food plants, apples, cherries, kiwi fruit and coffee, for example. Coffee plants take many years to reach production, so it isn't as simply as moving up the mountains and planting more coffee. This is not news to gardeners and primary producers across Australia.   

> it seems like your trying to insult our intelligence again

  I won't take the credit for that.

----------


## johnc

My goodness, intelligence, how can you insult something that is seldom put on display. :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Marc

WHAAAT!!!! Coffee in danger!!!!!!????????? NO WAY!!!!!!!!! Where is the local warmist church? Please please, pretty please, I'll convert straight away, even do a penitence, walk on my knees to the nearest temperature station, that one right next to the incinerator on the black ashfield ....   :Yikes2:  
End of joke. 
Psst, John2bee, what happened to the story of the emperor's clothes? I can't see the tent ... :Rolleyes:  
PS
I love it when the "Fossil fuel" is a swear word and when "billionaire" is an automatic ticket to hell, absolutely love it.

----------


## Marc

Do you hate rich people? Come on, be honest. Rich people are greedy and shallow. They get rich by taking advantage of others. They are miserly and selfish. Money is their god.  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-over-money/201003/rich-people-are-greedy

----------


## intertd6

> My goodness, intelligence, how can you insult something that is seldom put on display.

  you virtually took the words out of my mouth! Amazingly I must just have a minute amount of that rare commodity lurking somewhere to provide some proof for my side of an argument, whereas after endless pages of requests asking to provide some sort of proof to counter it.............NOTHING! Mmmmm what does that say?
just for the ones lacking the rare commodity I will ask again,
" how about you show us your intelligence & provide something that no other person or institution has been able to do as yet so far, which is explain why CO2 concentrations are now linked intimately, yet never were in the past? "
Your attempts that try's to twist & connive the debate away from you inability to provide these explanations reinforces what is clearly obvious!  
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> you virtually took the words out of my mouth! Amazingly I must just have a minute amount of that rare commodity lurking somewhere to provide some proof for my side of an argument, whereas after endless pages of requests asking to provide some sort of proof to counter it.............NOTHING! Mmmmm what does that say?
> just for the ones lacking the rare commodity I will ask again,
> " how about you show us your intelligence & provide something that no other person or institution has been able to do as yet so far, which is explain why CO2 concentrations are now linked intimately, yet never were in the past? "
> Your attempts that try's to twist & connive the debate away from you inability to provide these explanations reinforces what is clearly obvious!  
> regards inter

  No mate, half the time I just reply to see how long it takes you to respond, it is rare to see someone so afflicted with last word syndrome. You actually appear to be serious yet can't rise above petty insults.

----------


## johnc

> Do you hate rich people? Come on, be honest. Rich people are greedy and shallow. They get rich by taking advantage of others. They are miserly and selfish. Money is their god.  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-over-money/201003/rich-people-are-greedy

  ? what's your point, I actually don't think climate change has a rich/poor divide. May as well say those on the wrong side are generally stupid morons you'd get almost 100% agreement but then they would go straight back arguing about to just who is wrong

----------


## intertd6

> No mate, half the time I just reply to see how long it takes you to respond, it is rare to see someone so afflicted with last word syndrome. You actually appear to be serious yet can't rise above petty insults.

  The other half of time we're all rolling around on the ground after the last half baked evaded question! And when you put 3 of you guys together we're 50% overloaded with the ridiculous!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> " how about you show us your intelligence & provide something that no other person or institution has been able to do as yet so far, which is explain why CO2 concentrations are now linked intimately, yet never were in the past? "

  FFS inter!  How many times do we have to say "it isn't" before it sinks in. There is a link but it's not intimate and it never has been. Which is why there's not much of a relationship in your simplistic graph (grasp) of prehistory. It's just not as simple as you'd like to think.

----------


## Marc

*The Secretary-General of the United Nations gave a speech over the weekend. He announced the following.*Climate change is the defining issue of our time. If we do not take urgent action, all our plans for increased global prosperity and security will be undone."United Nations News Centre - &#39The race is on, it&#39;s time to lead&#39, UN chief tells Abu Dhabi climate change eventThis speech indicates that the climate change movement is now a politically lost cause. The classic statement of a politically lost cause is this declaration: "If nothing is done immediately, it will soon be too late. But there is time to save ourselves if we act now." Why is this evidence of a lost cause? Because nothing is ever done politically to solve major long-term problems. Politicians take action only when the public demands it, and therefore their re-election is at risk. By the time the public is unified enough to demand action, the voters are already feeling the pain. By the time they feel the pain, the crisis is upon them. It is no longer a long-term problem. It is a short-term problem. The Global Warming Movement Has Run Out of Gas

----------


## intertd6

> FFS inter!  How many times do we have to say "it isn't" before it sinks in. There is a link but it's not intimate and it never has been. Which is why there's not much of a relationship in your simplistic graph (grasp) of prehistory. It's just not as simple as you'd like to think.

  Tell us something we don't know! So then if it's not intimately linked then basically the majority of warming is from other variables, we dont have to worry about catastrophic warming AND there is no need for a carbon tax! 
Your limp argument is being watered down, like we didn't know that already!
Regards inter

----------


## PhilT2

> FFS inter!  How many times do we have to say "it isn't" before it sinks in. There is a link but it's not intimate and it never has been. Which is why there's not much of a relationship in your simplistic graph (grasp) of prehistory. It's just not as simple as you'd like to think.

  Real Climate has a story on that graph and a link back to the original site where they have the latest version, changed somewhat from the "indisputable" one inter commented on previously. The copy most favoured by denier sites is the one that does not show the large area of uncertainty.  RealClimate: Can we make better graphs of global temperature history? 
There are some events in history where co2 is directly linked to warming and they show on other versions of the graph.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So then if it's not intimately linked then basically the majority of warming is from other variables, we dont have to worry about catastrophic warming AND there is no need for a carbon tax!

  Only in your simple little world...long may you live there.

----------


## Marc

The big "renewable energy" fraud. 
The puny ridiculous amount of wind energy, (solar does not even show) is less than the amount generated by methane from rotting rubbish.
And for that ridiculously low and unreliable amount of energy we paid subsidies so high that besides making the merchants rich, makes the rest of the electricity so much dearer that makes many industries non viable and they must go to other countries.
And that is not counting the permanent and irretrievable pollution by mining for all the elements that go in a wind generator, the visual pollution, the alleged wildlife impact, the very real noise pollution, and I can go on and on.
Will we ever see anyone jailed for fraud about this?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...and I can go on and on.

  We know...   

> Will we ever see anyone jailed for fraud about this?

  Nope. Posting rubbish on the internet is quite legal.

----------


## intertd6

> Only in your simple little world...long may you live there.

  obviously there are too many concepts for you to cope with at one time, maybe it needs some sort of expensive committee a decade or 2 to work out what any garden variety person can see clearly!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Nope. Posting rubbish on the internet is quite legal.

  You have proven that! The trouble is we're not quite stupid enough to swallow what you believe!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You have proven that! The trouble is we're not quite stupid enough to swallow what you believe!
> regards inter

  That's good. Wouldn't want you getting any worse...

----------


## Marc

So the energy suppliers association of australia posts rubbish right? esaa ::
Can you kindly point at the errors in their website? Please not a skewed ABC kind of graph it affects my digestion.

----------


## intertd6

> That's good. Wouldn't want you getting any worse...

  you said it!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So the energy suppliers association of australia posts rubbish right? esaa ::
> Can you kindly point at the errors in their website? Please not a skewed ABC kind of graph it affects my digestion.

  I didn't say that. I was merely responding to your question...my response still stands.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> you said it!
> regards inter

  Yes you did...so all is right with the world.

----------


## intertd6

> So the energy suppliers association of australia posts rubbish right? esaa ::
> Can you kindly point at the errors in their website? Please not a skewed ABC kind of graph it affects my digestion.

  anybody holding their breath waiting for the answer for that will be awfully blue in the face & expired well before it never appears!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So the energy suppliers association of australia posts rubbish right? esaa ::
> Can you kindly point at the errors in their website? Please not a skewed ABC kind of graph it affects my digestion.

  Was it on the internet? Yes? Ergo rubbish. Not fraudulent. No jail for them or you. 
As for pointing out errors...no. Couldn't be stuffed. Kindly or otherwise. Waste of my time.  If I were to guess though I suspect the 'error' lies somewhere else...as they intended.

----------


## intertd6

> Yes you did...so all is right with the world.

  I can only again agree fully when you are referring about post #11682 .
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Was it on the internet? Yes? Ergo rubbish. Not fraudulent. No jail for them or you. 
> As for pointing out errors...no. Couldn't be stuffed. Kindly or otherwise. Waste of my time.  If I were to guess though I suspect the 'error' lies somewhere else...as they intended.

  a classic example of a whole lot of dribble to say nothing at all, it makes normal people think they are suffering from sleep apnoea as they pass out for no explainable reason!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Why is this evidence of a lost cause? Because nothing is ever done politically to solve major long-term problems. Politicians take action only when the public demands it, and therefore their re-election is at risk.

  The premise on which your cut'n'paste blogologue is based is false. What about the action on acid rain, photochemical smog, CFC's, vaccines for polio, pox and measles, votes for women, fluoride in water to proven tooth decay, communications satellites, clean air laws, safe water supplies, weather bureaus, safe cars, safe banks, safe footpaths, safe child care, schools and countless other actions undertaken by politicians running governments without being forced by public demand, but done because they were the right thing to do?

----------


## andy the pm

> a classic example of a whole lot of dribble to say nothing at all, it makes normal people think they are suffering from sleep apnoea as they pass out for no explainable reason!
> regards inter

  You mean Narcolepsy not sleep apnoea

----------


## John2b

> So the energy suppliers association of australia posts rubbish right?

  The ESAA is an industry lobby group that, according to its website, seeks to influence government policy decisions. Of course they are going to spin things to suit their agenda. If you want to see the real data, go to the body that collates the data, the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics: Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics   

> Can you kindly point at the errors in their website? Please not a skewed ABC kind of graph it affects my digestion.

  For a start their data isn't current and doesn't reflect the recent effects of past renewable energy policy. There's a more up to date version here (warning - it does not support your "puny" assertion at all): http://www.bree.gov.au/sites/bree.go...statistics.pdf

----------


## intertd6

> There are some events in history where co2 is directly linked to warming and they show on other versions of the graph.

  You must point them out?
regards

----------


## John2b

South Australia’s wind farms produced enough electricity to meet a record 43 per cent of the state’s power needs during July, and on occasions during the month provided all the state’s electricity needs. 
Combined with the state’s 550MW of solar power, it is likely that nearly half of the state’s electricity demand came from variable renewable sources such as wind and solar, and remember SA does not have any hydro.

----------


## intertd6

> You mean Narcolepsy not sleep apnoea

   That too
regards inter

----------


## Marc

Oh yes, it is 2 years old, sorry. I am sure in 2 years we gone from 3% to 30% Wow!
The truth is that wind and solar are another con, unsustainable, depending on subsidies as heavy as a state library but without the advantages. Well that if you don't count the good folks that make a killing selling us this con, oh, and also the religious folks who get high on this between puffs of dope.  http://www.esaa.com.au/policy/data_a...y_in_australia  
PS
Oh yes and before you mention it, I am part of the con too. I have solar panels and you are paying for my electricity bill. I get 3 times the cost of retail electricity for what I produce. I wish I could get into wind but I think the banks are catching up on that, no future only short term gain. I wonder what a brown coal generator costs. mmm may be a good time to buy one now.

----------


## Marc

Wow look at this baby! I can see this puffing away in my backyard oh yeeess!
Have to check the best source of coal. Newcastle probably a good choice. Cheap electricity here I come!  2mw Coal Steam Boiler With Turbine Electricity Generation Power Plant - Buy Coal Fired Steam Boiler For Sale,Coal Fired Boiler For Sale,Biomass Steam Boiler Product on Alibaba.com 
Wow! I just read the ad, it says it works on many different fuels, even biomass. This is what I do, instead of burning the cheapest coal I can find, and be all competitive and all that, (who wants to do that anyway so old hat)  i'll go to the government and ask for money not to burn coal and to burn wheat instead. Yes, wheat has it days when it is so cheap we can not get rid of it, so ... I burn it and have a Green power plant, how about that! Beatifull, I get all tingly just from thinking about it. And don't forget, I will re negotiate the feeding tariff too. Since I am at a disadvantage for the love of the environment and the local green priests, I want double .... no, 3 times the going rate for my sweety power...and guess who will pay for my private island, lar jet and gentlemen yacht?
You of course not me!
Love it.

----------


## John2b

> Oh yes, it is 2 years old, sorry. I am sure in 2 years we gone from 3% to 30% Wow!

  Imagine if we had started in the 1980s when it was first obvious that we needed too. We would be 100% renewables now and all getting "free" energy.   

> Oh yes and before you mention it, I am part of the con too. I have solar panels and you are paying for my electricity bill. I get 3 times the cost of retail electricity for what I produce.

  That is very noble of you. Not only are you reducing your own CO2 emissions, you are reducing the CO2 emissions of others. The most efficient electricity generation is that done at the point of use. Oh, and you are reducing the wholesale cost of electricity to commercial users as well, through the "order of merit" effect, you grand do-gooder, Marc. And deferring the need for the state of NSW to spend money bolstering peak capacity in both generation and distribution, on which rooftop solar has had a huge mitigating effect. 
Oh, and another thing, the construction costs of renewable generation plant are now less than the same capacity of fossil fuel generation plant, but renewable generation does not have a fuel cost. Is it any wonder there is no fossil fuel generation plant planned for anywhere in Australia? Or is it any wonder that the fossil fuel generators who run the ESAA are spewing. And before you bring up subsidies, please don't ignore that the fossil fuel industry is incredibly heavily subsidised at many levels of government, much more subsidised in dollar value per watt of capacity than renewables ever were.

----------


## John2b

> Wow look at this baby! I can see this puffing away in my backyard oh yeeess!
> Have to check the best source of coal. Newcastle probably a good choice. Cheap electricity here I come!

  Even nuclear uses a steam boiler process not unlike this one, and so could solar thermal or geothermal. Your point is?

----------


## intertd6

The thing is as you fellows have said, CO2 isn't a major contributor to global warming, isn't going to cause catastrophic global warming &  MAY effect our standard of living ( that old cherry of propaganda! ), so one would wonder what the who har is all about?
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> The thing is as you fellows have said, CO2 isn't a major contributor to global warming, isn't going to cause catastrophic global warming &  MAY effect our standard of living ( that old cherry of propaganda! ), so one would wonder what the who har is all about?
> regards inter

  Which fellows said that? Oh, that's right, not climate scientists, but virtuoso cherry pickers of the irrelevant... 
CO2 is THE major contributor to the Earth's _current_ energy *imbalance*, which is causing surface warming at an unprecedented rate. That is what the who har is all about, in case you were wondering...

----------


## intertd6

> Which fellows said that? Oh, that's right, not climate scientists, but virtuoso cherry pickers of the irrelevant... ah! Your very close online comrades on this very debate! So nice of you to describe them so appropriately! 
> CO2 is THE major contributor to the Earth's _current_ energy *imbalance*, which is causing surface warming at an unprecedented rate. That is what the who har is all about, in case you were wondering.  ah the major contributor that's being having a holiday since 1998 despite more than 30% of emissions occurring since this date, the energy imbalance you have when you don't have an imbalance!

   Regards inter

----------


## Marc

*Global warming is nothing more than an expensive con**THE concept of manmade global warming has become one of the most powerful ideologies of our age. Dressed up as concern for the planet's future, this rigid orthodoxy has been used by politicians to expand their power and bully the public.*http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/370670/Global-warming-is-nothing-more-than-an-expensive-con

----------


## John2b

> ah the major contributor that's being having a holiday since 1998 despite more than 30% of emissions occurring since this date

  What holiday since 1998? Global heat content is tracking CO2 emissions since 1998. Who wudda thort?

----------


## John2b

> *Global warming is nothing more than an expensive con*

  Thanks for the reference to an article by Leo McKinstry. Wondering who he is? Leo McKinstry - journalisted.com

----------


## intertd6

> What holiday since 1998? Global heat content is tracking CO2 emissions since 1998. Who wudda thort?

   Still peddling the worn out graphs outside the time frame I see! Still not working yet either!
we liked it better when you were describing your fellow comrades! Now that was nice!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Still peddling the worn out graphs outside the time frame I see! Still not working yet either!
> we liked it better when you were describing your fellow comrades! Now that was nice!
> regards inter

  Simple question for you, intertd6. Since it covers 1960 to 2010, how is the graphic is outside of the relevant time frame?

----------


## Marc

I still would like to know how the welfare state of SA is supposed to run 40% on renewables when the average of the whole country is 3%. 
Usually political convictions do show the world in different colours, be it red green brown or blue, but hei ... from 3% to 40% ? Only religious belief plays those tricks on people's mind. 
As far as "What's my point" John, it was not steam.
Still, not a bad idea to run a generator on biomass and claim some subsidies whilst it lasts, Could run it on all those fruits and vegetables that go to waste because of imports. Could have run it on cattle when our dear Julia busted the live cattle export. (Missed that one I'm afraid) And it would be oh so greeeen  :Ohyaaa: 
Piti all those little people who need to eat for a living. Oh well who cares, I have my cafe latte and a bong at home.

----------


## Marc

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/skeptical-view-makes-australian-front-page-climate-madness-dishonesty-fraud-deception-lies-and-exploition-says-maurice-newman/
“Why are taxpayers promoting for-profit enterprises? *“From the UN down, the climate change delusion is a gigantic money tree. It is a tyranny that, despite its pretensions, favours the rich and politically powerful at the expense of the poor and powerless. But the madness of the crowds is waning and, as Mackay writes of the perpetrators: “Punishment is sure to overtake them sooner or later.” We can only hope it comes before most of us descend into serfdom. 
..................................................  ......................* http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/the-global-warming-fraud-here-is-great.html "Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth's remaining resources.   Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe. "  Well, readers, it is now 2014, some two years since "4.5 billion people" were to have died from "Global Warming related" causes, and we are all still here....The only people who may have died from "climate change" have been those who have FROZEN to death due to the intense cold we have experienced over the last few winters....

----------


## intertd6

> Simple question for you, intertd6. Since it covers 1960 to 2010, how is the graphic is outside of the relevant time frame?

  The answer is the same as the last 20, 30, 50 times you have tried the same type of rubbish, Maybe we are the subjects of some sort of weird psychological self flagellation demonstration needed to join a special group?
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> The only people who may have died from "climate change" have been those who have FROZEN to death due to the intense cold we have experienced over the last few winters....

  There aren't many of those during the current record global surface temperature...  The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the JanuaryJuly period (year-to-date) was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F), tying with 2002 as the third warmest such period on record.  Global Analysis - July 2014 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

----------


## John2b

> Simple question for you, intertd6. Since it covers 1960 to 2010, how is the graphic is outside of the relevant time frame?

   

> The answer is the same as the last 20, 30, 50 times you have tried the same type of rubbish, Maybe we are the subjects of some sort of weird psychological self flagellation demonstration needed to join a special group?

  So that's a "No", you can't answer a simple question.

----------


## intertd6

> So that's a "No", you can't answer a simple question.

   Is the latest demonstration over now?
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Is the latest demonstration over now?
> regards inter

  Is that a simple question?

----------


## intertd6

> Is that a simple question?

  You seem to like answering questions for other people! You tell me?
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

Some light reading. âGlobal warmingâ is rubbish says top professor - Yorkshire Evening Post
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You seem to like answering questions for other people! You tell me?
> regards inter

  In that case, no.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Some light reading. âGlobal warmingâ is rubbish says top professor - Yorkshire Evening Post
> regards inter

  Very light reading indeed...

----------


## PhilT2

There is no reproducible scientific  evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.  Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not  significant…”
Read more at NASA Scientist: Global Warming Is Nonsense 
Is this a misprint? Nobody could believe that, could they?

----------


## Marc

[QUOTE]Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist along with other impressive accomplishments on his distinguished professional resume.In an interview, he laughed off man-made climate change as nonsense and a money-making industry for the green lobby, which approaches the subject with a religious fervor. Explained Woodcock: “The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis 
Read more at NASA Scientist: Global Warming Is Nonsense/QUOTE]

----------


## Marc

> Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist along with other impressive accomplishments on his distinguished professional resume.In an interview, he laughed off man-made climate change as nonsense and a money-making industry for the green lobby, which approaches the subject with a religious fervor. Explained Woodcock: “The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis 
> Read more at NASA Scientist: Global Warming Is Nonsense

  So why are most scientist who are vocal against the global warming fraud retired?
Does not require a detective mind to understand that if you want to keep employed you don't go against the moves that bring the bacon in. If you want to pay off your mortgage, you don't tell the media that your employer is a mercenary sold out to those who pay for the grants. If you want to keep your reputation intact, you don't tell the opposition that they are right and the guy at the top is just mouthing what brings the marginal's vote in. If you want to keep your job, you don't tell the boss that earth hour is a political statement and should not be promoted at work.... well I actually did that and confronted the CEO where I work with exactly those words and earth hour is no longer sprooked via work email.  Sometimes you are just lucky.

----------


## intertd6

> Very light reading indeed...

  any lightweight would agree, the really interesting parts of this story are the responces below the article. 
regards inter

----------


## John2b

[QUOTE=Marc;945435]So why are most scientist who are vocal against the global warming fraud retired?/QUOTE] 
In the case of L.V.Woodcock it is because he is past retirement age and has lost his faculty. No conspiracy theory needed.

----------


## John2b

> any lightweight would agree, the really interesting parts of this story are the responces below the article.

  To get to the responses requires ignoring the misinformation at the top of the article. 
Emeritus Professor Leslie V Woodcock is not and was never a NASA scientist. Nor is he a professor, he is an emeritus professor (different thing). In the past when he was a professor, he was not a "top" professor going by the lack of citations of his work in Google Scholar and other professional citation indices.  
Oh, and what is Woodcock doing now? Teaching a short university course on the importance of "Monte Carlo Method" computer simulations in scientific research - the very same method that has been pooh-poohed as producing results that are nonsense by climate change contrarians.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> any lightweight would agree, the really interesting parts of this story are the responces below the article.

  The views of the Peanut Gallery on any such story on any such website long ago ceased to be interesting...beyond the never ending amazement provided at the breadth and depth of the human condition.  Given the choice, I prefer the more condensed environment of this thread...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So why are most scientist who are vocal against the global warming fraud retired?
> Does not require a detective mind to understand that if you want to keep employed you don't go against the moves that bring the bacon in.

  Alternatively...does not require a detective mind to understand that if you are unemployed or retired on an former academics income/superannuation then you make whatever moves that continue to bring the bacon in so you can maintain the lifestyle you've become accustomed to. 
To be honest though...they are as human and contrarian as the rest of us. It's no wonder there's a few outliers on show...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> To get to the responses requires ignoring the misinformation at the top of the article. 
> Emeritus Professor Leslie V Woodcock is not and was never a NASA scientist. Nor is he a professor, he is an emeritus professor (different thing). In the past when he was a professor, he was not a "top" professor going by the lack of citations of his work in Google Scholar and other professional scitation indices.  
> Oh, and what is Woodcock doing now? Teaching a short university course on the importance of "Monte Carlo Method" computer simulations in scientific research - the very same method that has been pooh-poohed as producing results that are nonsense by climate change contrarians.

  
LOL as expected right on cue, attack the person and not the points made.  Good work John.  Most people are so over this tactic, it becomes just a joke now to be laughed off.  
Destroys credibility for sure.  But who's credibility does it destroy??  I guess that depends where your "beliefs" lie now doesn't it.

----------


## John2b

> The views of the Peanut Gallery on any such story on any such website long ago ceased to be interesting...beyond the never ending amazement provided at the breadth and depth of the human condition.

  I follow up on every link. You never know when doing so might turn up something that shakes the foundations of my understanding of things, but so far it's been just bone-shaking hilarious puff...

----------


## John2b

> LOL as expected right on cue, attack the person and not the points made.  Good work John.

  Read again Rod. Talk about right on cue you are wrong again. I didn't attack Woodcock - I attacked the false claims made by a third party in an attempt to bolster the third party's ideological position.   

> But who's credibility does it destroy?? I guess that depends where your "beliefs" lie now doesn't it.

  To any rational person, it destroys the credibility of the person telling the porky pies, in this case "reporter" Neil Hudson.

----------


## PhilT2

> LOL as expected right on cue, attack the person and not the points made.  Good work John.  Most people are so over this tactic, it becomes just a joke now to be laughed off.  
> Destroys credibility for sure.  But who's credibility does it destroy??  I guess that depends where your "beliefs" lie now doesn't it.

  I did post a link to an article where Prof Woodcock states that CO2 has not increased in 100 years. Do you accept that as true?

----------


## Marc

*The Claim:* 50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said:  …*it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.*

----------


## John2b

> The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said:

  Er, no that wasn't a statement issued by the UN General Assembly. A speaker named Srgjan Kerim made that statement when addressing at the 62nd General Assembly.  Tony Abbott said ""We are very confident that we know the position of the MH370 black box flight recorder to within some kilometres." He was only out by a few thousand kilometres, and it was contrary to the advice given to him from the navy undertaking the search. Now Australia has committed another $100 million to find someone else's plane that isn't in our waters. And you think climate scientists are scamming government funds - LOL.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *The Claim:* 50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said:  *it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.*

  It's easy to be smug with hindsight...and yet few of those areas have been spared from facing some real challenges. Check out the issues facing the Sacramento River Delta for example...just one tiny example.

----------


## John2b

> It's easy to be smug with hindsight...and yet few of those areas have been spared from facing some real challenges.

  Of course one of the big reasons the disasters haven't yet come to pass is that people acted on the alarm bells tolling - once the risks were highlighted, and national, international government agencies and NGOs have swung into action to mitigate the affects of climate change and assist with adaption. Organisations like IRRI who have developed drought tolerant rice for 23 million hectares of affected area in SE Asia and India, and acid sulphate soil tolerant rice for areas of the Mekong Delta suffering from seawater inundation as far inland as 100 kilometres from the coast. IRRI - Rice science for a better world.

----------


## John2b

> I still would like to know how the welfare state of SA is supposed to run 40% on renewables when the average of the whole country is 3%.

  Adelaide rates as the fifth best city in the world to live in ahead of Sydney. Adelaide's not such a bad place to live in since renewable policies ensure that all those horrid welfare recipients are mixed onto the concrete bases for the wind generator towers, thus reducing welfare energy consumption and making it easier to reach the target of generating 40% by wind. Oh, and the welfare state always has visiting federal LNC politicians to give their speeches in front of a wind farm - all that puff and hot air boosts output significantly.   

> Oh well who cares, I have my cafe latte and a bong at home.

  Really? Who would have thought! Your posts are always so lucid and well thought out. I thought the Aldous Huxley signature was an a curious "do as I say, not as I do" moment - never connected it to drug driven theorisation inspired by "the man who gave drug driven Utopias a bad name..."

----------


## Neptune

> Adelaide rates as the fifth best city in the world to live in ahead of Sydney. Adelaide's not such a bad place to live in since renewable policies ensure that all those horrid welfare recipients are mixed onto the concrete bases for the wind generator towers, thus reducing welfare energy consumption and making it easier to reach the target of generating 40% by wind. Oh, and the welfare state always has visiting federal LNC politicians to give their speeches in front of a wind farm - all that puff and hot air boosts output significantly.   
> Really? Who would have thought! Your posts are always so lucid and well thought out. I thought the Aldous Huxley signature was an a curious "do as I say, not as I do" moment - never connected it to drug driven theorisation inspired by "the man who gave drug driven Utopias a bad name..."

    

> Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  .

----------


## Marc

There are websites dedicated to post false and unfulfilled "prophecies" from the priests of the global warming confession, there are HUNDREDS of crappy, ridiculous, impossible, farcical, absurd, facetious and comical "predictions" pontificated as fact at the time that in time did not even come close to reality. THis is one of them. And no this is not "hindsight" it is called testing the prophet. When you rub your crystal ball and pretend to know the future based on bad data, all I need to do is wait, and then read the bull$hit again, and see that it is @rap from mercenaries who live off the taxpayer selling to the emperor air clothes and telling him they are oh so real and if you can't see them you must be a denier. 
Oh and John2bee, so the sea did not rise because we acted so quickly that all those disasters were averted? DO you seriously believe that? A lie of that magnitude can not be sold not even to the Baron of Munchausen.

----------


## intertd6

> The views of the Peanut Gallery on any such story on any such website long ago ceased to be interesting...beyond the never ending amazement provided at the breadth and depth of the human condition.  Given the choice, I prefer the more condensed environment of this thread...

  that is the common view of someone with their head planted where the sun doesn't shine, if you don't understand the information contained in the trailing comments or realise that they maybe the work of a very learned person in physics, then get someone to explain it for you! Information of value can come from any source anytime! 
Regards inter

----------


## John2b

> .

  Thank you Neptune. Duly noted and I agree it was a weak willed parody because I was sick of the tirade of digs against people not liked by another participant. I am sorry if you or anyone else was affronted. 
It is a pity that you could make the same observation of a great number of the posts by a number of participants in this thread. I wonder why you chose mine? Surely you have something better to contribute than attacking me in this thread? It seems to be coming a bit of an obsession - have you improved on the silence? Perhaps you have by drawing an apology from me...

----------


## John2b

> Oh and John2bee, so the sea did not rise because we acted so quickly that all those disasters were averted? DO you seriously believe that?

   Of course I don't believe that mankind averted sea rise by quick action and nor did I suggest that I might believe it. Perhaps you should re-read my post. 
Basically what I said was that actions by many governmental and non-governmental organisations in response to the alarms raised have gone a long way to mitigating the disaster of a "nothing's wrong, so do nothing" approach, and that is what has prevented the great number of climate refugees that would have otherwise resulted. 
Sea rise has outstripped predictions BTW. When I was in My Tho in the heart of the Mekong Delta in 2011, at high tide the water was above the gutters covering the footpaths. My Tho is 50 km inland, yet sea water is inundating the land and poisoning it, land where people have lived and farmed for thousands of years. The Mekong Delta produces 50% of Vietnam's rice crop. http://irri.org/networks/climate-cha...e-mekong-delta

----------


## intertd6

> To get to the responses requires ignoring the misinformation at the top of the article. 
> Emeritus Professor Leslie V Woodcock is not and was never a NASA scientist. Nor is he a professor, he is an emeritus professor (different thing). In the past when he was a professor, he was not a "top" professor going by the lack of citations of his work in Google Scholar and other professional citation indices.   So tell us that the dear professor has never had an association with NASA? The rest of your paragraph looks like it's just nitpicking garbage of a frustrated tugger! 
> Oh, and what is Woodcock doing now? Teaching a short university course on the importance of "Monte Carlo Method" computer simulations in scientific research - the very same method that has been pooh-poohed as producing results that are nonsense by climate change contrarians  Who cares? 
> .

  regards inter

----------


## John2b

> he rest of your paragraph looks like it's just nitpicking garbage of a frustrated tugger!

  I do not know if the reasons Neil Hudson needs to make stuff up to bolster his ideological position is because he is a frustrated whatever or not. But make it up, he does.   

> Who cares?

  People who want to know the truth care, and people who don't want to know the truth don't care.

----------


## johnc

Calling someone a frustrated tugger is setting new lows, that level of depravity should not be acceptable on a public forum.

----------


## intertd6

> Of course I don't believe that mankind averted sea rise by quick action and nor did I suggest that I might believe it. Perhaps you should re-read my post. 
> Basically what I said was that actions by many governmental and non-governmental organisations in response to the alarms raised have gone a long way to mitigating the disaster of a "nothing's wrong, so do nothing" approach, and that is what has prevented the great number of climate refugees that would have otherwise resulted. 
> Sea rise has outstripped predictions BTW. When I was in My Tho in the heart of the Mekong Delta in 2011, at high tide the water was above the gutters covering the footpaths. My Tho is 50 km inland, yet sea water is inundating the land and poisoning it, land where people have lived and farmed for thousands of years. The Mekong Delta produces 50% of Vietnam's rice crop. IRRI - Climate change affecting land use in the Mekong Delta

  Oh dear another AGW alarmist cr*p story! If you knew even the slightest about the garbage you parrot you would know that the mekon delta is in danger of sinking below sea level because of ground water removal for human use, it is subsiding around 23mm per year & has subsided around 30cm to 70cm over the last 20 years!

----------


## intertd6

> Calling someone a frustrated tugger is setting new lows, that level of depravity should not be acceptable on a public forum.

   I didn't call anybody that! As usual you need to read & understand things a bit better!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> People who want to know the truth care, and people who don't want to know the truth don't care.

  he could be crocheting lace doilies now for all I care,  he has some public documented respected credentials, what do you have?
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Oh dear another AGW alarmist cr*p story! If you knew even the slightest about the garbage you parrot you would know that the mekon delta is in danger of sinking below sea level because of ground water removal for human use, it is subsiding around 6mm per year! DADS!

  Thanks Inter for succinctly illuminating the issue of subsidence in the Mekong, which I did not know about. The subsidence is being compounded by sea level rise running at an average of 3mm per year around the Mekong. Subsidence can be stopped or even reversed by stopping the ground water extraction. On the other hand, sea level rise as a consequence of human emissions of CO2 can not be stopped in any meaningful timeframe.

----------


## John2b

> he has some public documented respected credentials, what do you have?

  What would you know? It isn't for me to claim authority and I don't anyway. The stuff I post is mostly referenced so you can check it for yourself. And if it is obviously made up stuff, you can point that out, like I do, with reasons why, like I do. It probably never requires denigrating someone to prove a point...

----------


## intertd6

> What would you know? It isn't for me to claim authority and I don't anyway. The stuff I post is mostly referenced so you can check it for yourself. And if it is obviously made up stuff, you can point that out, like I do, with reasons why, like I do. It probably never requires denigrating someone to prove a point...

  And it doesn't take much checking to see it's mostly BS
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> And it doesn't take much checking to see it's mostly BS

  I look forward to the end of your tirade of personal attacks against anyone and everyone you don't agree with, and instead some posts from you explaining where mainstream science is wrong and why.

----------


## intertd6

> I look forward to the end of your tirade of personal attacks against anyone and everyone you don't agree with, and instead some posts from you explaining where mainstream science is wrong and why.

  really can't you see what you post or something? I don't really care for mainstream anything when disproven by history, or what is actually happening now, contradicting some ideological theories.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> really can't you see what you post or something? I don't really care for mainstream anything when disproven by history, or what is actually happening now, contradicting some ideological theories.
> regards inter

  I agree that what is actually happening now is contradicting some ideological theories, like yours for example. The fallacy of your tightly held tenet has been pointed out many times by many people, and yet you haven't shown reason why everyone is wrong and you are right. Indeed if you were able to do that it would turn science as we know it on its head. And you would be the next Noble Lariat, and we could all be smug to have known and communicated with you!

----------


## Marc

> Of course I don't believe that mankind averted sea rise by quick action and nor did I suggest that I might believe it. Perhaps you should re-read my post. 
> Basically what I said was that actions by many governmental and non-governmental organisations in response to the alarms raised have gone a long way to mitigating the disaster of a "nothing's wrong, so do nothing" approach, and that is what has prevented the great number of climate refugees that would have otherwise resulted. 
> Sea rise has outstripped predictions BTW. When I was in My Tho in the heart of the Mekong Delta in 2011, at high tide the water was above the gutters covering the footpaths. My Tho is 50 km inland, yet sea water is inundating the land and poisoning it, land where people have lived and farmed for thousands of years. The Mekong Delta produces 50% of Vietnam's rice crop. IRRI - Climate change affecting land use in the Mekong Delta

   

> *Climate change affecting land use in the Mekong Delta: Adaptation of rice-based cropping systems*The Mekong Delta is Vietnam's main rice area and accounts for half of annual rice production.Use of rice land in the Delta is divided into agro-hydrological zones controlled by flood duration and depth, water availability, and salinity regimes. Over the last 30 years, Vietnamese farmers have been adapting to changing environmental conditions by diversifying and modifying their production systems and water management. But recent, as well as forecast, agro-hydrological changes threaten the viability of these farming and social systems and, subsequently, food security within Southeast Asia. The main constraints to farmers' ability to adapt to the new hydrological regime are availability of suitable cultivars, soil nutrient management options, insufficient knowledge of potential harm from acid sulphate soil inundation, and planning tools.

  This is a perfect example of politically and religious bent propaganda.  
Not even the linked article if we can call it that, suggests for a minute that the problems they have there has anything to do with the sea rise that has been rising at 1-2mm a year for a very long time. There are scores of other reasons that make floods last longer, salinity rise and what is not mentioned there massive water pollution in the mekong delta. 
The priest of old had an easier task than you, they would say: "Sinners repent, this is the wrath of the gods!" Today it is a bit different and slapping "Climate change" to any other human or natural induced change is rather tragic.

----------


## John2b

> This is a perfect example of politically and religious bent propaganda.

  Do keep up, Marc. That was dealt with here: #11749

----------


## intertd6

> Do keep up, Marc. That was dealt with here: #11749

   That still doesn't matter, what was quoted still fits the ideology of the fanaticism that is associated with the cult.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

A pedestrian crosses the road. A bystander can see that an approaching car will likely hit the pedestrian and yells "Look out!". The pedestrian looks up, sees the car coming and scurries out of the way. And you climate contrarians would tell us that the bystander was peddling falsehood and lies, because what he could see was likely to happen did not come true...

----------


## intertd6

> A pedestrian crosses the road. A bystander can see that an approaching car will likely hit the pedestrian and yells "Look out!". The pedestrian looks up, sees the car coming and scurries out of the way. And you climate contrarians would tell us that the bystander was peddling falsehood and lies, because what he could see was likely to happen did not come true...

   Yes but after a few hundred warnings with no car within sight, it just gets boring! Hence the term "alarmism" But do please donate all your spare earnings to the belief if it will make you feel better than the rest of the non believers who are going to burn in an apocalyptic climate catastrophe!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Yes but after a few hundred warnings with no car within sight, it just gets boring!

  Sorry to hear about your myopia. Boring as it might be, it must be awful when you can't see the obvious. Hope someone looks out for you when you cross the road.

----------


## John2b

Inter, you might be onto something - someone else thinks it's not about CO2:  _Forget everything you think you know about global warming. The really inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon—it’s about capitalism. The convenient truth is that we can seize this existential crisis to transform our failed economic system and build something radically better.   In her most provocative book yet, Naomi Klein tackles the most profound threat humanity has ever faced: the war our economic model is waging against life on earth. _ Naomi Klein

----------


## intertd6

> Sorry to hear about your myopia. Boring as it might be, it must be awful when you can't see the obvious. Hope someone looks out for you when you cross the road.

  yes it's truly amazing that by some stroke of reality I haven't been, or ever will be hit by an imaginary car! Don't hold your breath waiting for us to donate or willingly give any money to your slowly dying ideology, or expend any useful gases defending your belief!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Inter, you might be onto something - someone else thinks it's not about CO2: _Forget everything you think you know about global warming. The really inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon—it’s about capitalism. The convenient truth is that we can seize this existential crisis to transform our failed economic system and build something radically better.   In her most provocative book yet, Naomi Klein tackles the most profound threat humanity has ever faced: the war our economic model is waging against life on earth. _ Naomi Klein

  with nothing more than philosophy it's not a wonder your using it!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> yes it's truly amazing that by some stroke of reality I haven't been, or ever will be hit by an imaginary car!

  Me either - we have something in common as in not being hit by an imaginary car. When it comes to being hit by an ideology, well that is a different thing altogether. The current campaign to deny the reality and threat of climate change feeds off a very large, ideologically-driven partisan divide that is grounded in anti-regulatory beliefs and libertarian principles. Just read any of Marc's posts (not that his beliefs and yours are aligned in any way other than being against the common enemy).

----------


## intertd6

> Me either - we have something in common as in not being hit by an imaginary car. When it comes to being hit by an ideology, well that is a different thing altogether. The current campaign to deny the reality and threat of climate change feeds off a very large, ideologically-driven partisan divide that is grounded in anti-regulatory beliefs and libertarian principles. Just read any of Marc's posts (not that his beliefs and yours are aligned in any way other than being against the common enemy).

   We just need proof! Not imaginary outcomes from imaginary beliefs!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> We just need proof! Not imaginary outcomes from imaginary beliefs!

  Define proof...

----------


## intertd6

> Define proof...

  Err........that would be the stuff you haven't provided yet!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Err........that would be the stuff you haven't provided yet!

  Thanks, you have clarified your anserine attitude for the benefit of everyone.

----------


## woodbe

Feeding the troll is never a satisfying business is it? 
I've been away, walking above the Arctic circle. It's a super place, very dramatic scenery, warm! Drank glacier melt and camped on arctic flora. Hard to imagine the area under metres of snow and suffering -20C during winter. Here's some 'proof'  :Smilie:  for those that need it:    
This was in northern Sweden. Lands of the Sami, none of whom had any reservations about the facts of AGW. Their lands are in the firing line but the Sami aren't the nomadic people they once were, they walk the line between western and traditional lifestyles. We could use a bit of Swedish attitude towards renewable energy here. The train from the main airport into Stockholm runs at up to 200kmh, takes 20 minutes and runs on renewable energy. 
Meanwhile, we have some new research that has been working on Aussie droughts and Antarctic temperatures.  Ocean winds keep Antarctica cold, Australia dry -- ScienceDaily   

> New Australian  National University-led research has explained why Antarctica is not  warming as much as other continents, and why southern Australia is  recording more droughts.  
>                                    Researchers have found rising levels of carbon dioxide in the  atmosphere are strengthening the stormy Southern Ocean winds which  deliver rain to southern Australia, but pushing them further south  towards Antarctica.
>  Lead researcher Nerilie Abram, from the ANU Research School of Earth  Sciences, said the findings explained the mystery over why Antarctica  was not warming as much as the Arctic, and why Australia faces more  droughts.
>  "With greenhouse warming, Antarctica is actually stealing more of  Australia's rainfall. It's not good news -- as greenhouse gases continue  to rise we'll get fewer storms chased up into Australia," Dr Abram  said.
>  "As the westerly winds are getting tighter they're actually trapping  more of the cold air over Antarctica," Abram said. "This is why  Antarctica has bucked the trend. Every other continent is warming, and  the Arctic is warming fastest of anywhere on earth."
>  While most of Antarctica is remaining cold, rapid increases in summer  ice melt, glacier retreat and ice shelf collapses are being observed in  Antarctic Peninsula, where the stronger winds passing through Drake  Passage are making the climate warm exceptionally quickly.
>  Until this study, published in _Nature Climate Change_, Antarctic climate observations were available only from the middle of last century.

----------


## Marc

It’s desperation time for global warming alarmists. Don’t believe me? Just look at what they’re parading as their best media story right now. They’re in a frenzy this week, crying “The Sky Is Falling!” in light of predictions by a group called DARA that global warming will kill more than 100 million people during the next 18 years and destroy the global economy. Yes, you read that right – global warming will kill more than 100 million people during the next 18 years! The predictions are laughable on their face. Perhaps if the head of some respected scientific organization made such claims, we would chalk up the ridiculous predictions as an early sign of dementia and mercifully decline to report the predictions so as not to embarrass the person as he or she checks out of the real world. But this is not an accomplished scientist or a respected scientific organization making the ridiculous predictions. DARA is an obscure, heretofore irrelevant non-government organization dedicated to guilting people in wealthy nations into forking over money to the rest of the world due to a host of Western Democracy sins, and especially our climate change sins. The problem for DARA is that up until now, nobody has known or cared about the group’s existence. DARA has long been in the lower minor leagues of non-government organizations, assuming there is a lower minor league desperate enough to have them. 100 Million Examples of Global Warming Absurdity - Forbes

----------


## Marc

This was in northern Sweden. Lands of the Sami, none of whom had any reservations about the facts of AGW. Their lands are in the firing line but the Sami aren't the nomadic people they once were, they walk the line between western and traditional lifestyles. We could use a bit of Swedish attitude towards renewable energy here. The train from the main airport into Stockholm runs at up to 200kmh, takes 20 minutes and runs on renewable energy.  _The same Swedish attitude they had for centuries against the Sami? I hope not. After being enslaved and exploited and their land robbed by everyone in northern europe and Russia, the last of the Sami worries is the farcical hypothesis of "global warming". If anything a bit of warming and some extra CO2 would do them a world of good.  _ 
(Censored by mod)

----------


## woodbe

> _The same Swedish attitude they had for centuries against the Sami? I hope not. After being enslaved and exploited and their land robbed by everyone in northern europe and Russia, the last of the Sami worries is the farcical hypothesis of "global warming". If anything a bit of warming and some extra CO2 would do them a world of good.  _ 
> Vad an massa skit!

  I was there a few days ago Marc, and this was not the Swedish attitude towards the Sami, it is the Sami's response to changes in their environment. Two seconds on google would confirm that.  
As an example, the Reindeer survives on lichen, they dig into the snow to find and consume it. Fast changes in the climate cause rapid snow melt and refreezing, locking the lichens below ice, resulting in the need to manage the Reindeer in a farm situation rather than a nomadic herd. Climate Change is not the only pressure on the Sami and the Reindeer, but it is a significant one. 
Regarding the attitude of Swedes to Sami, Just about every indigenous population has historically suffered at the hands of  their non-indigenous countrymen, just ask the American Indians, the  Aussie Aborigines or any other you can think of. I certainly saw quite a few Sami and observed no current attitude problems between Swedes and Sami. 
This is a family friendly forum. Posting swearing is not acceptable in any language.

----------


## woodbe

The Swedes attitude toward renewable energy is very positive, and nothing to do with historical attitudes that may have existed towards the nomadic Sami people. Let me stop Marc's little strawman argument right there. :P 
Sweden's population is less than half Australia, but the standard of their infrastructure is amazing compared to ours. The use of trains to move the bulk of commuters saves energy by the truckload compared to them moving around in cars and planes. It cost us 140kr (about $20) to travel on the airport train, and local train trips cost about $3.00 for 75 minutes (you can get a long way on the Stockholm metro in that time!) The cheapest taxi fare from the airport I saw was 330kr so you'd need 3 people to save money but you wouldn't save time. Train fares are cheaper for locals with long term passes. As well as being economical to use, the trains were pleasant, clean, fast and frequent. That's how you build acceptance in public transport, something we in Australia just don't seem to get. 
Sweden's renewable energy is near 50% of the total consumption and their CO2 emissions have been falling as a result. Hydro is their main renewable production method, solar not so much.  Google would confirm that for you if you need "proof".

----------


## intertd6

> Feeding the troll is never a satisfying business is it? 
> I've been away, walking above the Arctic circle. It's a super place, very dramatic scenery, warm! Drank glacier melt and camped on arctic flora. Hard to imagine the area under metres of snow and suffering -20C during winter. Here's some 'proof'  for those that need it:    
> This was in northern Sweden. Lands of the Sami, none of whom had any reservations about the facts of AGW. Their lands are in the firing line but the Sami aren't the nomadic people they once were, they walk the line between western and traditional lifestyles. We could use a bit of Swedish attitude towards renewable energy here. The train from the main airport into Stockholm runs at up to 200kmh, takes 20 minutes and runs on renewable energy. 
> Meanwhile, we have some new research that has been working on Aussie droughts and Antarctic temperatures.  Ocean winds keep Antarctica cold, Australia dry -- ScienceDaily

  i was fully expecting to see another polar bear on a bergy bit, but obviously that little gem is well worn out so they have to get some sympathy by another method! but the question is CO2 causing the warming? …………. no proof yet!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

Here's some photos from the other end of the globe above the Antarctic circle in late November, (thats 1.4M of ice by the way)
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Here's some photos from the other end of the globe above the Antarctic circle in late November, (thats 1.4M of ice by the way)
> regards inter

  What year?

----------


## intertd6

> What year?

  1997 from memory.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

Antarctic ice volume is declining at an incredible 500 cubic kilometres per year, a rate that has doubled in just five years since 2009 and the same rate of ice volume loss as the Arctic. It's not just the oceans that "stole the warming".  http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/1539...-1539-2014.pdf

----------


## woodbe

> Antarctic ice volume is declining at an incredible 500 cubic kilometres per year, a rate that has doubled in just five years since 2009 and the same rate of ice volume loss as the Arctic. It's not just the oceans that "stole the warming".  http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/1539...-1539-2014.pdf

  Those figures are for Greenland and Antarctica, not Antarctica alone. I've previously posted info from Jason Box regarding the losses in Greenland and his efforts to document it. Chasing Ice is a documentary he features in with photographer James Bolag born out of the Extreme Ice Survey.  
That said, Antarctica still accounts for a loss of about 128 cubic km/yr. Inter can keep taking cool baths in his skimpy bathers for a few years yet but he may have to move his ice hole closer to land.   

> The combined volume change of Greenland and Antarctica for the observation period is estimated to be
>  503 ± 107 km3/yr. Greenland contributes nearly 75 % to the total volume change with − 375 ± 24 km3/yr.

----------


## Marc

I find your apology for a country that applied eugenics to their own people from 1930 to 1974 imposing forced sterilizations to over 20000, mostly mentally ill women,pathetic. A country that imposes the highest 70% income tax may be up there for a welfare state supporter but makes any thinking person cringe.

----------


## johnc

> I find your apology for a country that applied eugenics to their own people from 1930 to 1974 imposing forced sterilizations to over 20000, mostly mentally ill women,pathetic. A country that imposes the highest 70% income tax may be up there for a welfare state supporter but makes any thinking person cringe.

  What country are you referring to? Are you aware that at one time we had a 66% tax rate here? Are you aware we have also sterilised people who did not give informed consent, also how on earth is this the slightest bit relevant.

----------


## Neptune

> That said, Antarctica still accounts for a loss of about 128 cubic km/yr.

  Wow a whole four truckloads (by weight)  :Doh:  
WESTERN STAR 4800 
                 Aluminium bulk tipper body 
 Rollover tarps 
 Grain chutes 
 Tri-axle dog trailer 
 Total Capacity - 30 tonne or 45 cubic metres  TRAEGERS EARTHMOVING AND TRANSPORT

----------


## woodbe

> I find your apology for a country that applied eugenics to their own people from 1930 to 1974 imposing forced sterilizations to over 20000, mostly mentally ill women,pathetic. A country that imposes the highest 70% income tax may be up there for a welfare state supporter but makes any thinking person cringe.

  Playing the messenger again? What country are you from, Marc?  
If you have no on topic response to my post about climate change impacts in Sweden and the country's engagement in CO2 reduction then perhaps you should re-read your signature.  
If you wish to demonise the population of a country for past mistakes, then again, I suggest you look at the country you come from before you start hurling off topic rocks. The current population of Sweden would be the people who voted out those mistakes.

----------


## woodbe

> Wow a whole four truckloads (by weight)  
> WESTERN STAR 4800 
>                 • Aluminium bulk tipper body 
> • Rollover tarps 
> • Grain chutes 
> • Tri-axle dog trailer 
> • Total Capacity - 30 tonne or 45 cubic metres  TRAEGERS EARTHMOVING AND TRANSPORT

  Maths not your strong point, Neptune? 
How many 45 cubic metre trucks would it take to move 128 cubic KILOMETERS? 
If you want to do it 'by weight' then how many tonnes of Antarctic ice would fit in a 45 cubic metre tipper? 
Don't rush your answers, there is plenty of time to check before you post.

----------


## PhilT2

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_...eport/c01.ashx 
Senate inquiry into forced sterilization 2012; still happening everywhere in the world.

----------


## Neptune

> Maths not your strong point, Neptune?

  I apoligise, I misread what you wrote.   

> How many 45 cubic metre trucks would it take to move 128 cubic KILOMETERS?

  Sorry, haven't got enough fingers for that one.   

> If you want to do it 'by weight' then how many tonnes of Antarctic ice would fit in a 45 cubic metre tipper?

   I think it would be 40.5 tonnes, but it would need more wheels under it to be legal!  :Biggrin:     

> Don't rush your answers, there is plenty of time to check before you post.

  I'll keep that in mind.

----------


## woodbe

> I apoligise, I misread what you wrote.

  And I accept your apology. It's rare for someone on the sceptical side of the discussion to openly apologise.  
I dips me lid to you.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## John2b

> Those figures are for Greenland and Antarctica, not Antarctica alone.

  Oops, thanks Woodbe. 128 cubic kilometres is still a lot of ice to be losing each year when the climate contrarians pathetically keep trying to assert that the loss of ice in the northern pole is being balanced by growth at the southern pole.

----------


## John2b

> How many 45 cubic metre trucks would it take to move 128 cubic KILOMETERS?

  I make it approximately two billion, eight hundred and forty four million, four hundred and forty four thousand four hundred and forty five (2,844,444,445) truck loads of ice each year - or more subject to axle limits. That's a lot of cocktails.

----------


## John2b

> I find your apology for a country that applied eugenics to their own people from 1930 to 1974 imposing forced sterilizations to over 20000, mostly mentally ill women,pathetic.

  Australia still has legal forced sterilisation in 2014, often dealt out to women with intellectual disabilities. What's your point Marc? That Sweden is backward because they ceased forced sterilisation in 1974?  No Ban on Forced Sterilisation in Australia

----------


## Marc

Ha ha, very cute. Sweden is now the perfect model we all must follow because someone there likes the idea of the nanny state imposing the tune at which we must pass wind. (only re#, none of that rude la flat please)
The past is all forgotten, castrating people is now out of fashion so it never happened, and what are you talking about since we do it here all the time! 
Let's tax the hell out of people now,  and use that money we steal from workers to do some more social engineering, yea, and the lefties and warmist of the world will applaud us for it. Hurra! Long live the nanny state and 70% tax, long live the welfare state.  
So who is next going to Cuba and tell as how wonderful it is there?, and next Russia? and China?  
Get a grip, Che Guevara is dead and to use the pathetic fraud of Global warming to promote some personal warm feeling towards socialist regimes is as low as it can get.

----------


## John2b

Get a grip Marc, the discussion is about one topic - whether humanity should act on CO2 in the atmosphere which many believe to be causing warming that will be detrimental to humanity, the belief based on humanity's collective scientific understanding of things - the same scientific collective understanding that has given humanity all of its modern amenities and much lauded freedom from poverty.

----------


## woodbe

Totally off topic Marc. 
The maximum tax rate in Sweden is about 50% 
The policies of the past have changed in Sweden as they have in almost every other country.  
Sweden is a country that is seeing the results of Climate Change and it is a lot harder to deny it there than when you live in NSW Australia, even if there are still forced sterilsations in NSW when there are none in Sweden. 
Get a grip is right.

----------


## intertd6

> Antarctic ice volume is declining at an incredible 500 cubic kilometres per year, a rate that has doubled in just five years since 2009 and the same rate of ice volume loss as the Arctic. It's not just the oceans that "stole the warming".  http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/1539...-1539-2014.pdf

  There is a slight of hand with your figures which doesn't take fully into consideration snow acculmulation, as a whole the balance of the antarctic ice sheet volume is slightly decreasing, west antarctica decreacing & east Antarctica increasing, this proof was posted many pages back sourced from the australian antarctic division (AAD) before you splashed down into the scene. Lately the AAD just parrots the IPCC reports. I wonder why? 
regards inter

----------


## Marc

I could write pages about the the difference of the eugenics in Sweden from the 30ties to the 70ties, done with the purpose of "cleaning out" their gene pool from undesirable impure genes, (just like it was done in Germany) and the equally regrettable yet completely different sterilization of mentally ill patients today with the purpose of preventing pregnancies of those with no sense of restraint and their exposure to exploitation. 
Yet that is not the point of the thread and it came up only due to your propaganda parody. 
Tax in Sweden http://www.thelocal.se/20121018/43900
 And "what a pile of manure" is hardly a swearword. 
And I welcome this little incident to show once more that the Global warming fraud IS POLITICAL and has nothing to do with climate, temperatures, environment or social concerns and everything to do with control and the imposition of an ideology. 
The best part of the above is that the minions that do the leg work for the promoters of the global warming fraud, do so in the hope that they can in turn advance their pet projects of different shades of red. Good luck! The bosses of the global warming fraud are as far to the right as it can be and are in it for themselves and will not share crumbs with anyone. 
However, there is nothing to worry about. The global warming fraud is well in the open, the emperor is naked and everyone is aware of it. Well almost everyone. 
To bee or not to bee that is the question

----------


## John2b

> There is a slight of hand with your figures which doesn't take fully into consideration snow accumulation...

  Er no, not at all, it is taking _everything_ into consideration. The 128 cubic kilometres per year (not the 500 in my original post, which is south and north poles together, see correction in posts above) is the *net* *loss* measured by CryoSat-2, an ice mass measuring satellite system launched in 2010. This data acquisition has only just been analysed and published at the link posted previously. Here it is again: http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/1539...-1539-2014.pdf

----------


## John2b

> I could write pages about the the difference of the eugenics in Sweden from the 30ties to the 70ties, done with the purpose of "cleaning out" their gene pool from undesirable impure genes, (just like it was done in Germany) and the equally regrettable yet completely different sterilization of mentally ill patients today with the purpose of preventing pregnancies of those with no sense of restraint and their exposure to exploitation. 
> Yet that is not the point of the thread and it came up only due to your propaganda parody.

  Correction Marc, it came up for no other reason than because _you_ brought it up, total off topic and totally irrelevant. You might claim otherwise, but the internet is witness.

----------


## Marc

uhuu the "internet" is witness? Wow !  
Suffering from stage delusion are we? I think there are some 3 people reading this

----------


## John2b

No delusions Marc, just saying that the twists and turns you make are there for everyone to see.

----------


## intertd6

> Er no, not at all, it is taking _everything_ into consideration. The 128 cubic kilometres per year (not the 500 in my original post, which is south and north poles together, see correction in posts above) is the *net* *loss* measured by CryoSat-2, an ice mass measuring satellite system launched in 2010. This data acquisition has only just been analysed and published at the link posted previously. Here it is again: http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/1539...-1539-2014.pdf

  So we are to fully believe that the degree of accuracy over snow with backscatter interference is in the order of a few mm which is more than the 128 km/3 estimate? This estimate is around 10mm difference over the area of Antarctica, believable accuracy? No! Rapid decline? No! Alarmism? YES!
dream on!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> dream on!

  You do just what ever you want, Inter - it's your right. However, if you want to take issue with the results of the data analysis in The Cryosphere (the international scientific journal dedicated to the publication and discussion of research articles, short communications and review papers on all aspects of frozen water and ground on Earth and on other planetary bodies) TC - Home by Helm, Humbert, and Miller, then by all means publish!

----------


## John2b

> Suffering from stage delusion are we? I think there are some 3 people reading this

  Just 3 people, eh? On the ball as always, Marc. You're just a few people short of a picnic.   * Emission Trading* 
Started by Rod Dyson, 7th Oct 2009 06:51 PM 12345678910...237  Replies: 11,800Views: 405,287

----------


## intertd6

> You do just what ever you want, Inter - it's your right. However, if you want to take issue with the results of the data analysis in The Cryosphere (the international scientific journal dedicated to the publication and discussion of research articles, short communications and review papers on all aspects of frozen water and ground on Earth and on other planetary bodies) TC - Home by Helm, Humbert, and Miller, then by all means publish!

  So why did you think I mentioned backscatter interference which has been raised as issue with the accuracy of this data? Then the other factor totally independent of satellite surface measurements which has to be taken into consideration is the amount of precipitation falling & accumulating over the continent, over such a short timespan its not uncommon to have periods of low or high precipitation, the question is was this amount on the high or low side of the average? if it was low or a "dry" period this would effect the surface levels significantly giving a gross ice loss measurement from the satellite data. precipitation certainty over the antarctic continent is not very accurate & can't be estimated so the satellite data on its own over this period is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> So why did you think I mentioned ...

  Can't wait to read your paper! 
Look, honestly Inter, obviously there might be issues with the interpretation of the data - that's why peer review of science is so important. But sneer review is not peer review ...

----------


## intertd6

> Can't wait to read your paper! 
> Look, honestly Inter, obviously there might be issues with the interpretation of the data - that's why peer review of science is so important. But sneer review is not peer review ...

  anybody with half a brain can see the gaping holes in the alarmists repertoire & understand the clinging on to anything to verify the cult preachings mentality!
But if it pleased you it would be the shortest paper ever!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> anybody with half a brain can see the gaping holes in the alarmists repertoire & understand the clinging on to anything to verify the cult preachings.
> but if it pleased you it would be the shortest paper ever!
> regards inter

  So where is it? (The short paper that proves everybody else is wrong). 
To help you publish, I'll give you about 100 times what the carbon was costing me per annum. Where do you want me to send the fifty cents to?

----------


## woodbe

> A country that imposes the highest 70% income tax may be up there for a welfare state supporter but makes any thinking person cringe.

   

> Tax in Sweden Swedes pay 70 percent of salary in taxes: study - The Local

  Income tax in Sweden tops out at just over 50%:   

> Income tax Sweden has a progressive income tax, the rates for 2014 are as follows:  0% from 0 kr to 18,800 kr (~0 - 2,690 USD)Circa 31% (ca. 7% county and 24% municipality tax): From 18,800 kr to 433,900 kr (~2,690 - 62,140 USD)31% + 20%: From 433,900 kr to 615,700 kr (~62,140 - 88,180 USD)31% + 25%: Above 615,700 kr (88,180 USD and up) [4]

  Factually incorrect. Income Tax in Sweden is not 70%, and even if it was, it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic or global warming. 
It is very clear that you have nothing to counter the on topic behaviour of the Swedish population regarding climate change other than to attack their history and spread misinformation. A common and often repeated behaviour from your quarter.  
Try discussing the topic rather than attacking the messengers.

----------


## intertd6

> So where is it? (The short paper that proves everybody else is wrong). 
> To help you publish, I'll give you about 100 times what the carbon was costing me per annum. Where do you want me to send the fifty cents to?

  it will be written on the back of a postage stamp and you will get 45 cents change as well!

----------


## intertd6

> Try discussing the topic rather than attacking the messengers.

  you would have to have one first for that to happen!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> it will be written on the back of a postage stamp and you will get 45 cents change as well!

  I take it you saying the carbon tax would cost you less than 5 cents per year...

----------


## John2b

> you would have to have one first for that to happen!

  If you don't think there is a topic here to discuss, what on earth are you doing responding to posts in this forum? (Especially when your science reversing insight into entropy is yet to be presented to the world!)

----------


## John2b

> Try discussing the topic rather than attacking the messengers.

  Party pooper!

----------


## intertd6

> I take it you saying the carbon tax would cost you less than 5 cents per year...

  no, thats the cost to publish, it was pretty obvious!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> no, thats the cost to publish, it was pretty obvious!

  Oops - sorry! Where can I send you a postage stamp so you can afford to publish?

----------


## intertd6

> If you don't think there is a topic here to discuss, what on earth are you doing responding to posts in this forum? (Especially when your science reversing insight into entropy is yet to be presented to the world!)

  maybe your belt is just a couple of notches too tight then? 
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Oops - sorry! Where can I send you a postage stamp so you can afford to publish?

  What! I'm going to get some carbon tax cash before some starving AGW gold diggers? i nearly fell of my chair in excitement!
regards inter

----------


## Marc

Good, so we are over the ridiculous panegyric of a country on the basis of their socialist political system and their outrageous welfare state running on atrociously high taxes, (yes 70% is correct) disguised as an ode to their alleged support of the Global warming fraud.  
So lets see what we can read about the global warming soap opera.    *Global Cooling, Not Global Warming, Doomed the Ancients*  Global cooling rather than global warming or climate change doomed ancient societies, despite the _New York Times latest efforts to invent a new global warming alarm. The Times published an articleTuesday claiming climate change doomed ancient societies to famine and collapse, but those societies thrived while temperatures were significantly warmer than today. It was only when temperatures cooled that shorter growing seasons and less favorable climate conditions doomed crop production and the food supplies of ancient civilizations._ _The Times noted an extreme and prolonged drought lasting up to 300 years decimated crop production in Greece, Israel, Lebanon and Syria. According to the Times, around 1,200 B.C. A centuries-long drought in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean regions, contributed to  if not caused  widespread famine, unrest and ultimately the destruction of many once prosperous cities._ _Ignoring the fact that droughts, crop failures and famines have occurred throughout human history and likely always will, the Times claimed climate change must have caused the ancient tragedy.Global Cooling, Not Global Warming, Doomed the Ancients - Forbes_

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So lets see what we can read about the global warming soap opera...

  ...we get yet another episode of retarded story ideas, ludicrous scripts and pretentious over acting.  What ever happened to quality programming, eh?

----------


## intertd6

> ...we get yet another episode of retarded story ideas, ludicrous scripts and pretentious over acting.  What ever happened to quality programming, eh?

  denying the truth of the message we see, perhaps you can point out the inaccuracies in history of the post?
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Ignoring the fact that droughts, crop failures and famines have occurred throughout human history and likely always will...

  ..but to conclude therefore that the additional heat in the Earth's weather system as a result of human emissions of CO2 is something inevitable, trivial, unavoidable or whatever, is just logical gibberish.

----------


## intertd6

> ..but to conclude therefore that the additional heat in the Earth's weather system as a result of human emissions of CO2 is something inevitable, trivial, unavoidable or whatever, is just logical gibberish.

  are you talking about the same CO2 that in the as past was in high concentrations that never was reliably a cause of global warming, or the 30% increase in CO2 emissions since 1998 that haven't caused global warming?
what you come out with just typifies the alarmism rubbish that comes forth!
regards inter

----------


## Marc

*The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.*At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius _cooling_ per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees _warming_ per century. At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.  Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming

----------


## Marc

*WISDOM:  "The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement" -- Karl Popper   "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts"  Richard Feynman   "The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" -- H L Mencken   'Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action' -- Goethe   Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire  *   _The CRU graph. Note that it is calibrated in tenths of a degree Celsius and that even that tiny amount of warming started long before the late 20th century. The horizontal line is totally arbitrary, just a visual trick. The whole graph would be a horizontal line if it were calibrated in whole degrees -- thus showing ZERO warming_

----------


## John2b

Each of your questions is based on a demonstrable false premise. I refer you to Dr Roy Spenser, grand master of AGW denial:  *Skeptical Arguments that Dont Hold Water* 
April 25th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.There are some very good arguments for being skeptical of global warming predictions. But the proliferation of bad arguments is becoming almost dizzying.  *1.    THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT.* Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didnt exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED) *Please stop the no greenhouse effect stuff. Its making us skeptics look bad*.  *7.    WARMING CAUSES CO2 TO RISE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND* The rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 is currently 2 ppm/yr, a rate which is _100 times as fast_ as any time in the 300,000 year Vostok ice core record. And we know our consumption of fossil fuels is emitting CO2 _200 times as fast_! So, where is the 100x as fast rise in todays temperature causing this CO2 rise? Cmon people, think. But not to worryCO2 is the elixir of lifelets embrace more of it!  And if you want to see the rise in the surface temperature since 1998, there's no need to look further than the UAH satellite record, specifically designed to prove the skeptics, and which measures the Earth's surface temperature from space, including the poles - no bodgy data, no heat islands - but wait, it still shows warming!!!!!    *Mike Bromley says:* April 25, 2014 at 11:52 AM
Thanks for the clarifications! Too many armchair scientists can spoil the broth.  
+1 from me.

----------


## intertd6

> Each of your questions is based on a demonstrable false premise. I refer you to Dr Roy Spenser, grand master of AGW denial: *Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water* 
> April 25th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.There are some very good arguments for being skeptical of global warming predictions. But the proliferation of bad arguments is becoming almost dizzying.  *1.    THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT.* Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… *Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad*.  *7.    WARMING CAUSES CO2 TO RISE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND* The rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 is currently 2 ppm/yr, a rate which is _100 times as fast_ as any time in the 300,000 year Vostok ice core record. And we know our consumption of fossil fuels is emitting CO2 _200 times as fast_! So, where is the 100x as fast rise in today’s temperature causing this CO2 rise? C’mon people, think. But not to worry…CO2 is the elixir of life…let’s embrace more of it!  And if you want to see the rise in the surface temperature since 1998, there's no need to look further than the UAH satellite record, specifically designed to prove the skeptics, and which measures the Earth's surface temperature from space, including the poles - no bodgy data, no heat islands - but wait, it still shows warming!!!!!   *Mike Bromley says:* April 25, 2014 at 11:52 AM
> Thanks for the clarifications! Too many armchair scientists can spoil the broth.  
> +1 from me.

  still nothing new & relevant to parrot?
regards inter

----------


## John2b

There is no point in debating someone that does not have a point.
What is their point? The greenhouse effect does not exist? Global warming does not exist?
Those are non debatable opinions. They are based on belief.
Does God exist?
Does St Anthony perform miracles? 
If I rub a Budda statue do I have a better chance at lotto?

----------


## intertd6

> There is no point in debating someone that does not have a point.
> What is their point? The greenhouse effect does not exist? Global warming does not exist?
> Those are non debatable opinions. They are based on belief.
> Does God exist?
> Does St Anthony perform miracles? 
> If I rub a Budda statue do I have a better chance at lotto?

  what are you going on about?
the point is there is no proof CO2 that the major cause of global warming, or will cause catastrophic global warming, it is just wishfull alarmist rubbish!
your rubbing your Buddha with the hope your belief is true!
meanwhile the sane people are waiting for the proof to appear on this, along with the second coming!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> what are you going on about?
> the point is there is no proof CO2 that the major cause of global warming, or will cause catastrophic global warming, it is just wishfull alarmist rubbish!
> your rubbing your Buddha with the hope your belief is true!
> meanwhile the sane people are waiting for the proof to appear on this, along with the second coming!
> regards inter

  I was just parodying another regular contributor to the forum and I agree that their line of "logical" argument does not make much sense at all.  :Wink:  
Oh, and inter, you are bringing the skeptics into disrepute: _"Because when skeptics embrace “science” that is worse that the IPCC’s science, we hurt our credibility." _ Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water Â« Roy Spencer, PhD

----------


## John2b

> *WISDOM: Blah Blah Balh...*  _The CRU graph. Note that it is calibrated in tenths of a degree Celsius and that even that tiny amount of warming started long before the late 20th century. The horizontal line is totally arbitrary, just a visual trick. The whole graph would be a horizontal line if it were calibrated in whole degrees -- thus showing ZERO warming_

  
Point of clarification: The 20th century started in ~1901, your graph shows warming starting at 1910, well into the 20th century. Your age would be a flat line at 0 if it were shown in whole centuries, BTW.

----------


## woodbe

> _The horizontal line is totally arbitrary, just a visual trick. The whole graph would be a horizontal line if it were calibrated in whole degrees -- thus showing ZERO warming_

  The horizontal line represents the zero anomaly point of the underlying data. It is not a visual trick, it is a graphical representation of a fact. 
A visual trick would be to increase the scale of the graph (as you suggest) to hide the movement shown in the data. Even if you did that, the graph would not show zero warming, it would show the same amount of warming but it might look 'less' to the ignorant.  
That is how misinformation propaganda is produced.

----------


## intertd6

> I was just parodying another regular contributor to the forum and I agree that their line of "logical" argument does not make much sense at all.  
> Oh, and inter, you are bringing the skeptics into disrepute: _Because when skeptics embrace “science” that is worse that the IPCC’s science, we hurt our credibility. _ Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water Â« Roy Spencer, PhD  Like didn't you read the rest of the comments shooting down this galahs arguments?

  regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Like didn't you read the rest of the comments shooting down this galahs argument? regards inter

  I think what Dr Spencer is doing here is cutting off the lunatic fringe from his acolytes. He must be getting some bad rep within academic circles for pandering to the non-science dweebs who fill his comments section with piffle. He's just drawing a line in the sand and sending them off to Curry or Jo's. Can't blame him...

----------


## intertd6

> I think what Dr Spencer is doing here is cutting off the lunatic fringe from his acolytes. He must be getting some bad rep within academic circles for pandering to the non-science dweebs who fill his comments section with piffle. He's just drawing a line in the sand and sending them off to Curry or Jo's. Can't blame him...

   You didn't read the comments either obviously! ( or don't understand them?)
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> You didn't read the comments either obviously! ( or don't understand them?)
> regards inter

  I read and understood. No surprise you think that, you'd be happy over there except Roy would probably kick you off.

----------


## intertd6

> I read and understood. No surprise you think that, you'd be happy over there except Roy would probably kick you off.

   So you agree with the high percentage of comments that give other explanations for global warming other that CO2 & understand that the good Dr had no repudiation of those comments or even a reply. And I can tell you there was no 97% consensus in agreement with him! It's funny how his skeptical arguments don't include the 2 most damning of the CO2 hoax! 
Regards inter

----------


## John2b

> *"The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement" -- Karl Popper*

  "(Popper's) notion was that knowing the truth is impossible. He held that all that one can know is that which is false. By that self same principle, one cannot know that it is true that it was found false. The notion becomes self contradictory." http://junkscience.com/2014/01/07/karl-popper-and-reliable-science/   

> *"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts"  Richard Feynman*

   Had Richard Feynman the opportunity to review the massive evidence for anthropogenic climate change amassed since he died and the consensus position of the National Academy of Sciences I very much doubt that hed have dismissed global warming as a conspiracy of left wing dunces. Claiming the endorsement of an anti-science position by a highly respected scientist who cannot respond from the grave is the height of arrogance, reminiscent of baptizing the dead into the Mormon faith. http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=41469   

> *"The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" -- H L Mencken*

  Correction: _H. L. MENCKEN_ _1880-1956 American editor, essayist and philologist_ _"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."_ _Minority Report, 1956"_ http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/04/06/rule-humanity/   

> *'Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action' -- Goethe*

  "Although the accuracy of Goethe's observations does not admit a great deal of criticism, his theory's failure to demonstrate significant predictive validity eventually rendered it scientifically irrelevant." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Wolfgang_von_Goethe#Scientific_work     

> *Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire*

  Tell that to inter....

----------


## John2b

China's carbon emission has declined by 5 percent this year, the largest progress in recent years, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said on Tuesday.  http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchin...t_18495235.htm  Regions given deadline for establishing emissions trading 
BEIJING - China's State Council has published a guideline to promote the purchase and trading of emissions permits in regions piloting the program. The pilot regions must establish mechanisms for the purchase and trading of emissions rights by 2017 to lay a foundation for the program to be rolled out nationwide, said a statement posted on the government's website on Monday.  Regions given deadline for establishing emissions trading|Green China|chinadaily.com.cn  Could a Climate Change Deal Fit Chinas Economic Reform Agenda?  Why an ambitious deal on climate change is much more likely now than it was in Copenhagen in 2009.  Could a Climate Change Deal Fit Chinaâs Economic Reform Agenda? | The Diplomat

----------


## Marc

Thank you for all the replies, I do read them as I find the time for that. I notice that most of the time the usual standard reply is the product of a google search on the author of the article or quote, and almost never a reply to the content of the article or quote. Basically nothing to say so therefore no reply from me.   The reason of course is rather obvious and summed up in the following line taken from the article below: " ...  _The new stories [__about global warming] demonstrate convincingly, if there was any doubt left, that global warming “science” is purely political. This is because people believe global warming not because of the science but because they desire its “solution." _ So like I repeated ad nauseam in this thread, the exchange of ideas or opinions on this subject are purely for the purpose of displaying one's own bias and conviction, our own political view, the display of a defence because our income depends from the perpetuation of this fraud or any other personal political or economical reason, and clearly never for an interest in finding the truth. So if an article by Jo Blow states an inconvenient truth, the answer will inevitably be that Jo was caught with his pants down and never a sensible well worded reply to what Jo had to say.  
Politics are a funny subject (after all remember, global warming is a fraud invented for political purposes), one takes a position and it seems to be set in concrete for decades. Some people do change allegiances in politics but is is rare and when it happens it is likely to be in relation to the person's age or may be aging rather than any logical reasoning. The swinging voters of course are a different animal, they do not have any allegiance at all, their vote is calculated as "what's in it for me" sort of thing, like the one that goes pentecostal to cure his back pain and then turns catholic to promote his business.   
All in all, there is a lot of entertainment left here, and we may generate a lot of traffic (or not, no idea if the number of people allegedly reading here is at all accurate) but clearly each participant mind is made up as to the validity or irrelevance of the global warming hypothesis and so it is only time that will tell where the truth lies.  
Considering that the urgency calls from the warmist side is being increasingly ignored, and seen that the temperatures keep on refusing to collaborate with the ludicrous little toy programs fed to the alarmist computers, and considering that the fraudulent activities to falsify data are uncovered with regularity, it is a matter of time for this soap opera to draw curtains. I wonder if the actors will line up to bow out in unison?   ---------------------------------------------------------------------  _Regular readers will have expected the next installment in our tour of_ Summa Contra Gentiles. _This will appear next week after my class is over. I may say that the day-after effects of copious wine and sunshine are more than sufficient proof for God’s divine instruction, and therefore it follows God exists._ Have you noticed, really noticed, that the concept of proof has all but disappeared from major media stories on global warming? Proof-stories are those that say “The science predicted this-and-such, and here is the evidence verifying the prediction.” These were common in the early days of the panic, back in the late ’90s when temperatures cooperated with climate models, but are now as rare as conservatives in Liberal Arts departments. The reason is simple: there is little in the way of proof that the dire predictions of global warming are true, and much evidence, plain to the senses, that they are false. Global warming stories still appear with the same frequency as before, but they have changed character. The new stories demonstrate convincingly, if there was any doubt left, that global warming “science” is purely political. This is because people believe global warming not because of the science but because they desire its “solution.” Take this example from the San Francisco _Chronicle_, “Democrats use climate change as wedge issue on Republicans“. Final Proof Global Warming Purely Political | William M. Briggs

----------


## woodbe

> So you agree with the high percentage of comments that give other explanations for global warming other that CO2 & understand that the good Dr had no repudiation of those comments or even a reply. And I can tell you there was no 97% consensus in agreement with him! It's funny how his skeptical arguments don't include the 2 most damning of the CO2 hoax! 
> Regards inter

  I agree that the good Dr drew a line in the sand and his wacko acolytes tried to jump over it with abandon. He attracts plenty of loonies who want him to go beyond a position that can be supported by the science. He is smart enough to know when to stop and cast them off. A lack of response to a comment on his blog does not equal acceptance of that comment. Repudiating comments from such people is a waste of time as you have demonstrated and he obviously understands. You should join!

----------


## intertd6

> I agree that the good Dr drew a line in the sand and his wacko acolytes tried to jump over it with abandon. He attracts plenty of loonies who want him to go beyond a position that can be supported by the science. He is smart enough to know when to stop and cast them off. A lack of response to a comment on his blog does not equal acceptance of that comment. Repudiating comments from such people is a waste of time as you have demonstrated and he obviously understands. You should join!

  i absolutely love it when the mindless minions make up excuses for their idealistic leaders, just shows the mentality of the cult & have no idea how stupid it makes them look! History has shown time & time & time again that this is a fundamental human flaw of the inbuilt social herd instinct.
come up with some relevant believable facts & all but a few will believe it!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> i absolutely love it when the mindless minions make up excuses for their idealistic leaders, just shows the mentality of the cult & have no idea how stupid it makes them look! History has shown time & time & time again that this is a fundamental human flaw of the inbuilt social herd instinct.
> come up with some relevant believable facts & all but a few will believe it!
> regards inter

  I love it when people make irrational assumptions without doing their homework. Dr Spencer is not a supporter of the general consensus on climate change, he's on your side, he just doesn't want to be associated with the more extreme denier rabble that you apparently support. 
Who would have guessed?  :Rolleyes:

----------


## John2b

> i absolutely love it when the mindless minions make up excuses for their idealistic leaders

  Er, you are getting a bit mixed up about which "side" Dr Roy Spenser is on. He is certainly not any leader of the pro AGW science rationalists you are always attacking. Global Warming Â« Roy Spencer, PhD

----------


## John2b

>>woodbe: Snap!

----------


## intertd6

> Er, you are getting a bit mixed up about which "side" Dr Roy Spenser is on. He is certainly not any leader of the pro AGW science rationalists you are always attacking. Global Warming Â« Roy Spencer, PhD

  "Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[30][31] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, "
I'm not quoting anything from this fellow, but you guys are! And with a stance like that who would? Unless your whole world rotates around unfounded belief!
Regards inter

----------


## John2b

> "Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming...

  You mean the declaration with _this_ caveat?:
"While our signatures express our endorsement only of this Declaration and *do not imply agreement with every point...*" Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming | Cornwall Alliance 
Honestly, your "side" needs to go and have a big punch-up and come back when two or more of you who don't believe in God can at least agree on one thing about climate science...

----------


## intertd6

> You mean the declaration with _this_ caveat?:
> "While our signatures express our endorsement only of this Declaration and *do not imply agreement with every point...*" Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming | Cornwall Alliance 
> Honestly, your "side" needs to go and have a big punch-up and come back when two or more of you who don't believe in God can at least agree on one thing about climate science...

  what ever that means? Any normal person wouldn't have been a signatory to it!
regards inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> denying the truth of the message we see, perhaps you can point out the inaccuracies in history of the post?
> regards inter

  ...my comment had nothing much at all to do with the linked 'article' in Marc's post.  It was more about Marc's "what we can read about the global warming soap opera" comment.  Thank you for your contribution.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> _The CRU graph. Note that it is calibrated in tenths of a degree Celsius and that even that tiny amount of warming started long before the late 20th century. The horizontal line is totally arbitrary, just a visual trick. The whole graph would be a horizontal line if it were calibrated in whole degrees -- thus showing ZERO warming_

  Oh for the love of statistics...that is such an ignorant statement you've found there about that graph that the fall to that depth could kill a normal person...count me as 'gobsmacked'.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.*  At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius _cooling_ per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees _warming_ per century. At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.  Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming

  Did it occur to you to enquire of the BoM as to their view and reasoning on the matter?  I'm not interested as to whether one accepts their reasoning...merely that you (or the other mob) might've even tried to find out.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> _The new stories [__about global warming] demonstrate convincingly, if there was any doubt left, that global warming “science” is purely political. This is because people believe global warming not because of the science but because they desire its “solution."_

  It's not so much the science that's political....it's actually the human response to it.  As for expecting a 'solution' to AGW...not a hope in hell.  The soap opera has quite a ways yet to run...

----------


## woodbe

> "Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[30][31] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems  created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence  are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, "

  Snap! Already mentioned in this thread in response to your side singing Dr Spencer's praises. Now your side wants to sink his blog by playing his personal beliefs - Rod would not be impressed! lol 
You're digging yourself a hole. Dr Spencer and his comment acolytes are not AGW science supporters. Even bearing in mind his signing of that declaration, he is still one of the more rational skeptics on your side. You'd definitely fit in his comment community.

----------


## intertd6

> ...my comment had nothing much at all to do with the linked 'article' in Marc's post.  It was more about Marc's "what we can read about the global warming soap opera" comment.  Thank you for your contribution.

  just here for an argument then?

----------


## intertd6

> Snap! Already mentioned in this thread in response to your side singing Dr Spencer's praises. Now your side wants to sink his blog by playing his personal beliefs - Rod would not be impressed! lol 
> You're digging yourself a hole. Dr Spencer and his comment acolytes are not AGW science supporters. Even bearing in mind his signing of that declaration, he is still one of the more rational skeptics on your side. You'd definitely fit in his comment community.

  yeah what ever! You won't find me quoting from anybody remotely resembling somebody with those beliefs, unlike you fellows who will pick any dribble you can to support your cult beliefs, which was proven by johnwannabe, just supply some proof for your belief to bring it into the world of reality!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

I don't quote beliefs, I accept the mainstream science. If it changes, then I will accept that too. 
Chances of a radical about turn in science now on Climate Change? 0.000000000001% 
You believe the science is wrong, that is a position not supported by science, it is a belief. Look in the mirror!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> just here for an argument then?

  I've got your back if you falter...

----------


## intertd6

> I don't quote beliefs, I accept the mainstream science. If it changes, then I will accept that too. 
> Chances of a radical about turn in science now on Climate Change? 0.000000000001% 
> You believe the science is wrong, that is a position not supported by science, it is a belief. Look in the mirror!

  Mainstream science opinion is basing their CO2 theories on the last 100 years of climate records, which when compared to the previous historic climate data shows that it is anecdotal evidence linking CO2 to the last centuries warming, there is no proof for your belief that that they are intimately linked, hence the global institution industry churning out evermore ludicrous theories still attempting to prove it, opinion is not science & Only fools accept opinions that parade as science.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> I've got your back if you falter...

   Well you don't seem to be here for a legitimate reason! And come to think of it you haven't produced anything other than hot air, no data, no links, nothing of substance! A perfect policy maker!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Mainstream science opinion is basing their CO2  theories on the last 100 years of climate records, which when compared  to the previous historic climate data shows that it is anecdotal  evidence linking CO2 to the last centuries warming, there is no proof  for your belief that that they are intimately linked, hence the global  institution industry churning out evermore ludicrous theories still  attempting to prove it, opinion is not science & Only fools accept  opinions that parade as science.
> regards inter

  What a load of hogwash! 
Unbelievably, that apparently is your belief, but it is nothing like  what the science reveals or how it is carried out. Science is not based  on opinion, nor is the understanding of the science of CO2 based on 100  years of climate records. Where did you get that idea?  
I think it's about time you started doing some honest reading on the  subject because you are clearly inventing a story about science that  does not agree with the facts about how science is executed or what the  results of scientific enquiry into the climate are. 
"Only fools accept opinions that parade as science" lol. Please point  out the published climate science papers that are opinions parading as  science.  
Again, look in the mirror, you might see a fool!

----------


## Marc

> Did it occur to you to enquire of the BoM as to their view and reasoning on the matter?

  Silent, I am well aware of the logic (or illogic) of massaging data for a purpose, it is the "purpose" that is in question ... The same applies to scaling the x and the y for a purpose. Look at the share price grafts done for the purpose of disinformation, showing wild price fluctuations. The reality is that such fluctuation turn out to be irrelevant because the scale of the y is way too big. Similarly to graph temperature anomalies in tenth of a centigrade for a period of 160 years is insane.  
However this time, I want to ask you a personal question if you don't mind. Did you mention some time back, that you are in a team of advisers to the government on matters of this nature or did I misunderstand a post of yours?

----------


## Marc

> Again, look in the mirror, you might see a fool!

  Woodbe, we are all aware of your convictions, and we all suffer your strategies to parade them here. When I deplore them, it is abundantly clear that resorting to call Inter a fool, is way below the waist. You can say that his ideas are foolish, that skeptics are fools but clearly not that he is one in your view. I suggest that you edit your post.

----------


## John2b

That is well and truly beyond the pale. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe, we are all aware of your convictions, and we all suffer your strategies to parade them here. When I deplore them, it is abundantly clear that resorting to call Inter a fool, is way below the waist. You can say that his ideas are foolish, that skeptics are fools but clearly not that he is one in your view. I suggest that you edit your post.

  I suggest you read the post I responded to and understand your bias. Neither of us directly called the other a fool. 
However, should inter edit his post to remove the inference that anyone who respects climate science is a fool, I would be happy to remove my inference that anyone who believes climate science is only an opinion etc is a fool. 
Happy to oblige  :Biggrin:

----------


## intertd6

> I suggest you read the post I responded to and understand your bias. Neither of us directly called the other a fool. 
> However, should inter edit his post to remove the inference that anyone who respects climate science is a fool, I would be happy to remove my inference that anyone who believes climate science is only an opinion etc is a fool. 
> Happy to oblige

  the chances of me seeing a fool in the mirror are about 20 million to one, as we will never ever be in the same room at the same time!
Regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> What a load of hogwash! 
> Unbelievably, that apparently is your belief, but it is nothing like  what the science reveals or how it is carried out. Science is not based  on opinion, nor is the understanding of the science of CO2 based on 100  years of climate records. Where did you get that idea?  
> I think it's about time you started doing some honest reading on the  subject because you are clearly inventing a story about science that  does not agree with the facts about how science is executed or what the  results of scientific enquiry into the climate are. 
> "Only fools accept opinions that parade as science" lol. Please point  out the published climate science papers that are opinions parading as  science.  
> Again, look in the mirror, you might see a fool!

  so the science is settled then? How many fools have seen their demise saying or thinking that worn out gem! I believe the presented arguments with the best data to back up the theory, CO2 fails miserably to all but the most fanatical clingons.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> so the science is settled then? How many fools have seen their demise saying or thinking that worn out gem! I believe the presented arguments with the best data to back up the theory, CO2 fails miserably to all but the most fanatical clingons.
> regards inter

  I think you need to reread what I wrote, especially this:   

> I don't quote beliefs, I accept the mainstream science. If it changes, then I will accept that too.

  What's bleeding obvious is you don't accept the science unless it suits your opinion. So you accept the science behind the device you post with here but another branch of science is based on opinion and fanatics. no wonder you have a dual personality inter/reggie. :P 
And where are all the published scientific papers you can quote that back up your assertion that climate science is based on opinion? You've got nothing!

----------


## John2b

> I believe the presented arguments with the best data to back up the theory, CO2 fails miserably to all but the most fanatical clingons.

  Geochemical and other analysis from ice cores and ocean sediment core, infer large climate changes have occurred over Earth’s history as you often remind us. 
Climate projections are based on universal scientific principles, such as the laws of thermodynamics and radiative transfer, and optical properties of gases. Climate models are based on the best understanding of the physical, chemical, and biological processes being modelled. 
Evidence that there have been high concentrations of CO2 in the distant past, or that temperature changes have preceded changes in carbon dioxide concentrations, only shows that CO2 alone does not set global temperature. 
Those events _do not invalidate the laws of thermodynamics_ and radiative transfer, and _do not prove_ that the increase of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations will not case warming.

----------


## intertd6

> I think you need to reread what I wrote, especially this:   
> What's bleeding obvious is you don't accept the science unless it suits your opinion. So you accept the science behind the device you post with here but another branch of science is based on opinion and fanatics. no wonder you have a dual personality inter/reggie. :P 
> And where are all the published scientific papers you can quote that back up your assertion that climate science is based on opinion? You've got nothing!

  i accept the scientific data that's based on history, your science is based on no such thing, if your models are applied to past climates they fail! Full stop! As not shown by your side, science can't explain why when CO2 fell temperatures rose & when CO2 rose temperatures fell, it's just plain flat ignorance of this that makes your theory stink, only galahs seeking some sort of evangelical forfillment in one way or another feel the need to ram home something that hasn't been proven either way, I'll wait for real scientific conformation not opinion or stacked concensus. I'm quite happy for the galahs to donate all their spare cash & more to their cause, but don't expect the rest of us to follow blindly when some half baked gov't imposes a stupid ideology on the population.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Those events _do not invalidate the laws of thermodynamics_ and radiative transfer, and _do not prove_ that the increase of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations will not case warming.

  you must present your repeatable real world experiment that shows how a atmosphere containing CO2 at 60 parts per million more than normal can heat it by around 1 degree
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> you must present your repeatable real world experiment that shows how a atmosphere containing CO2 at 60 parts per million more than normal can heat it by around 1 degree
> regards inter

  You and I have participated in that experiment already and and you must have known the outcome because here is the result which, as you suggested, is around 1 degree.:

----------


## John2b

> i accept the scientific data that's based on history, your science is based on no such thing, if your models are applied to past climates they fail! Full stop!

  Not true. CP - Abstract - Historical and idealized climate model experiments: an intercomparison of Earth system models of intermediate complexity

----------


## John2b

duplicate post removed

----------


## woodbe

> i accept the scientific data that's based on history, your science is based on no such thing

  Again, you misunderstand or misinform on science. 
Scientific data is not science, it is data! 
Science is based on analysing the components and coming up with a theory that is testable with data.  
No surprises here, you twist science around your opinion.  
Where are all the published scientific papers you can quote that back up your assertion that climate science is based on opinion? You've got nothing!

----------


## intertd6

> Not true. CP - Abstract - Historical and idealized climate model experiments: an intercomparison of Earth system models of intermediate complexity

  So I'm wondering why you would use this link to prove that the temperature predictions are not being realised since 1998, any normal person would reach the conclusion that nothing is making sense!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> You and I have participated in that experiment already and and you must have known the outcome because here is the result which, as you suggested, is around 1 degree.:

  Your insulting your own intelligence again by the look of it, that's what's happening, now just for you the question again, 
"you must present your repeatable real world experiment that shows how a atmosphere containing CO2 at 60 parts per million more than normal can heat it by around 1 degree" 
seeing you appear a bit short in the understanding department this is the meaning of experiment, 
experiment
ɪkˈspɛrɪm(ə)nt,ɛk-/
noun
1.
a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact.
  Surely you can parrot something remotely relevant?
Regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Again, you misunderstand or misinform on science.  i understand science is based on ALL the available data, not just selected parts of the data! 
> Scientific data is not science, it is data!  see my previous reply above! 
> Science is based on analysing the components and coming up with a theory that is testable with data.   see my previous reply above! 
> No surprises here, you twist science around your opinion.  
> No i can just understand all the data 
> Where are all the published scientific papers you can quote that back up your assertion that climate science is based on opinion? You've got nothing!  until the theory is proven its nothing more than opinion, nothing is proven either way, so it's all opinions & not worth wasting gazillions of $ on, but please send all the cash you can to your nominated opinion cash taker & don't feel bad about us sane lot that decline the stupid offer!

  regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Again, you misunderstand or misinform on science.

   

> i understand science is based on ALL the available data, no just selected parts of the data!
> regards inter

  Science is not data, it is a process. All, or which part of the data is used is a selection made by the scientist doing the research. There is no requirement to use all of the data, and there is so much climate data that it would be extremely difficult to include all of the climate data in a single research paper. The results of science is not data, it is theories and methods that explain the data, or incremental improvements and modifications to those theories and methods that explain the data. 
You just don't get it, do you? For you, the output of science is some data that you can refute with some ignorant myth that rattles around your brain, born not from science but from opinion. 
Where are all the published scientific papers you can quote that back up  your assertion that climate science is based on opinion? You've got  nothing!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...Similarly to graph temperature anomalies in tenth of a centigrade for a period of 160 years is insane.

  Year on year anomalies are tiny...   

> However this time, I want to ask you a personal question if you don't mind. Did you mention some time back, that you are in a team of advisers to the government on matters of this nature or did I misunderstand a post of yours?

  You misunderstood. I merely plan the response to policy...lots of freedom there. Fear naught. There's not much response, policy or not. Things are going as we expected long ago so we can plan for it regardless and you can all remain clueless... 
Ahhh...Utopia.

----------


## John2b

> seeing you appear a bit short in the understanding department this is the meaning of experiment,

  Ahhhh, you are talking about the weather, whilst everyone else is talking about climate, which is by definition the average over thirty years - doh! It isn't possible to look at 15 years of data in isolation and make any conclusions about climate, and certainly not the conclusion you come up with. 
And it isn't even possible to conclude there hasn't been any warming since 1998, because the record shows otherwise, as any one who mastered primary school maths and graphs can understand.

----------


## intertd6

> Science is not data, it is a process. All, or which part of the data is used is a selection made by the scientist doing the research. There is no requirement to use all of the data, and there is so much climate data that it would be extremely difficult to include all of the climate data in a single research paper. The results of science is not data, it is theories and methods that explain the data, or incremental improvements and modifications to those theories and methods that explain the data. 
> You just don't get it, do you? For you, the output of science is some data that you can refute with some ignorant myth that rattles around your brain, born not from science but from opinion. 
> Where are all the published scientific papers you can quote that back up  your assertion that climate science is based on opinion? You've got  nothing!

  So when your scientists develop a theory about future CO2 concentrations & temperature they disregard the past CO2 concentrations & temperatures & include everything else that's irrelevant! Your argument is too stupid to even contemplate!
I say again 
"Until the theory is proven its nothing more than opinion, nothing is proven either way, so it's all opinions & not worth wasting gazillions of $ on, but please send all the cash you can to your nominated opinion cash taker & don't feel bad about us sane lot that decline the stupid offer!"
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

Originally Posted by intertd6 
seeing you appear a bit short in the understanding department this is the meaning of experiment,     

> Ahhhh, you are talking about the weather, whilst everyone else is talking about climate, which is by definition the average over thirty years - doh! It isn't possible to look at 15 years of data in isolation and make any conclusions about climate, and certainly not the conclusion you come up with. 
> And it isn't even possible to conclude there hasn't been any warming since 1998, because the record shows otherwise, as any one who mastered primary school maths and graphs can understand.

   
WTF! WOW! It only appeared that that way, then you have to go all out & prove it!!! And a whole lot more.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> So when your scientists develop a theory about future CO2 concentrations & temperature they disregard the past CO2 concentrations & temperatures & include everything else that's irrelevant! Your argument is too stupid to even contemplate!

  Since past CO2 concentrations & temperatures DO NOT invalidate the laws of conservation of energy or the laws of physics, it would appear YOUR argument is too stupid to contemplate.   

> "Until the theory is proven its nothing more than opinion, nothing is proven either way, so it's all opinions

  Science is not based on opinions as anyone with any interest would know. To quote a well known source, the statement above is just "too stupid to contemplate"...

----------


## intertd6

> Since past CO2 concentrations & temperatures DO NOT invalidate the laws of conservation of energy or the laws of physics, it would appear YOUR argument is too stupid to contemplate.   
> Science is not based on opinions as anyone with any interest would know. To quote a well known source, the statement above is just "too stupid to contemplate"...

   After your last post it's all too evident!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Originally Posted by intertd6 
> seeing you appear a bit short in the understanding department this is the meaning of experiment, 
> WTF! WOW! It only appeared that that way, then you have to go all out & prove it!!! And a whole lot more.

  Here is the UAH temperature record curated by global warming skeptics Dr Spenser and Dr Christy, but with a 37 month running average line added to show the climate trend for those who can't judge trends by eye. Even though I am short in the understanding department, as you so kindly pointed out, even I can see that the trend since 1998 is very definitely upwards.    _Global monthly average lower troposphere temperature since 1979 according to University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA. This graph uses data obtained by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) TIROS-N satellite, interpreted by Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy, both at Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA. The thick line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. The cooling and warming periods directly influenced by the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo volcanic eruption and the 1998 El Niño, respectively, are clearly visible. Reference period 1981-2010. Last month shown: July 2014. Last diagram update: 14 August 2014._

----------


## intertd6

> Since past CO2 concentrations & temperatures DO NOT invalidate the laws of conservation of energy or the laws of physics, it would appear YOUR argument is too stupid to contemplate.   
> Science is not based on opinions as anyone with any interest would know. To quote a well known source, the statement above is just "too stupid to contemplate"...

  And a little more for those who want to redefine meanings....
Scientific opinion
"The scientific opinion" (or scientific consensus) can be compared to "the public opinion" and generally refers to the collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities and individual scientists in the relevant field. Science may often, however, be "partial, temporally contingent, conflicting, and uncertain"[2] so that there may be no accepted consensus for a particular situation. In other circumstances, a particular scientific opinion may be at odds with consensus.[2] Scientific literacy, also called public understanding of science, is an educational goal[3] concerned with providing the public with the necessary tools to benefit from scientific opinion. 
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Here is the UAH temperature record curated by global warming skeptics Dr Spenser and Dr Christy, but with a 37 month running average line added to show the climate trend for those who can't judge trends by eye. Even though I am short in the understanding department, as you so kindly pointed out, even I can see that the trend since 1998 is very definitely upwards.    _Global monthly average lower troposphere temperature since 1979 according to University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA. This graph uses data obtained by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) TIROS-N satellite, interpreted by Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy, both at Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA. The thick line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. The cooling and warming periods directly influenced by the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo volcanic eruption and the 1998 El Niño, respectively, are clearly visible. Reference period 1981-2010. Last month shown: July 2014. Last diagram update: 14 August 2014._

  But this was the question asked
"you must present your repeatable real world experiment that shows how a atmosphere containing CO2 at 60 parts per million more than normal can heat it by around 1 degree"
please let me know what substances I have to take to get your perspective?
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> And a little more for those who want to redefine meanings....
> Scientific opinion
> "The scientific opinion" ....

  The definition works just fine for me, thank you anyway. But can you explain how the definition of the scientific opinion repudiates the scientific method (otherwise know as science)? Or is it that you do not understand that science and scientific opinion are two different things?

----------


## John2b

> But this was the question asked
> "you must present your repeatable real world experiment that shows how a atmosphere containing CO2 at 60 parts per million more than normal can heat it by around 1 degree"
> please let me know what substances I have to take to get your perspective?

  I think the substances you are taking now will work just fine if you apply yourself to it. 
As regards you experiment, the fundamental physics are all in place and are the basis of just about every technological advance in use today and few if any of which would have been possible without using the same logical deductions that are used in climate science. It's all irrelevant because it isn't a theory when in fact it can be, and is, measurable and measured directly.

----------


## woodbe

> So when your scientists develop a theory about future CO2 concentrations & temperature they disregard the past CO2 concentrations & temperatures & include everything else that's irrelevant! Your argument is too stupid to even contemplate!

  Can you show us the proof that climate science disregards past CO2 concentrations and temperatures. 
You still haven't adequately supported your previous assertion. Rather than racing ahead with yet more unsupported BS, how about you show us that you are genuine and not just trolling. 
Where are all the published scientific papers you can quote that back up   your assertion that climate science is based on opinion? You've got   nothing!

----------


## John2b

Come woodbe, can't you recognise a genuine troll?

----------


## intertd6

> The definition works just fine for me, thank you anyway. But can you explain how the definition of the scientific opinion repudiates the scientific method (otherwise know as science)? Or is it that you do not understand that science and scientific opinion are two different things?

  who would have expected anything less in your answer? A prime example laid out for all to see the intimate workings of cult behaviour!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> I think the substances you are taking now will work just fine if you apply yourself to it. 
> As regards you experiment, the fundamental physics are all in place and are the basis of just about every technological advance in use today and few if any of which would have been possible without using the same logical deductions that are used in climate science. It's all irrelevant because it isn't a theory when in fact it can be, and is, measurable and measured directly.

  still no experiment to parrot then?
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Is there any such thing as a _genuine_ troll?

----------


## intertd6

> Can you show us the proof that climate science disregards past CO2 concentrations and temperatures.  a couple of pages back, it was the climate history for the last 600 My, it shows the opposite reaction to warming / cooling from CO2 in both directions, now for science to disregard these periods they have to be fully explained & proved to be invalid, this hasn't occurred yet, so your followed science commentators are disregarding past history! 
> You still haven't adequately supported your previous assertion. Rather than racing ahead with yet more unsupported BS, how about you show us that you are genuine and not just trolling.  see above! 
> Where are all the published scientific papers you can quote that back up   your assertion that climate science is based on opinion? You've got   nothing!  What, I need to be like you fellows & parrot something that you can't understand? I haven't looked for any papers & I doubt I will, when it's just so easy to shoot down the AGW CO2 theory, at the end of the day historic data wins hands down over imaginary data!

  inter

----------


## intertd6

> Is there any such thing as a _genuine_ troll?

  If you can't handle the easy questions you could always chuck a tanty & take your bat & ball home!

----------


## woodbe

> Can you show us the proof that climate science disregards past CO2 concentrations and temperatures.

   

> a  couple of pages back, it was the climate history for the last 600 My,  it shows the opposite reaction to warming / cooling from CO2 in both  directions, now for science to disregard these periods they have to be  fully explained & proved to be invalid, this hasn't occurred yet, so  your followed science commentators are disregarding past history!

  No, that is not proof that climate science disregards past CO2 concentrations and temperatures, you also are not quoting science, you are holding a graphic up to support your opinion. That just shows that you don't understand that climate science investigates all the drivers of the climate.   

> You still haven't adequately supported your previous assertion. Rather  than racing ahead with yet more unsupported BS, how about you show us  that you are genuine and not just trolling.

   

> see above!

  Cop out. You're not doing the hard yards to support your claims about climate science. Your assertions are baseless.   

> Where are all the published scientific papers you can quote that back up    your assertion that climate science is based on opinion? You've got    nothing!

   

> What, I need to be like you  fellows & parrot something that you can't understand? I haven't  looked for any papers & I doubt I will, when it's just so easy to  shoot down the AGW CO2 theory, at the end of the day historic data wins  hands down over imaginary data!

  So you are giving in on this assertion then? You can't find any scientific papers that show climate science is based on opinion? You make claims and you cannot back them up. You've now got less than nothing!

----------


## John2b

Is a troll interested only in obfuscation, antagonisation and not in participating in a debate? Might that mean they get stuck on a couple of issues despite a lack of corroborative evidence and an avalanche of contradictory evidence, meaning they can not contribute anything meaningful to advance their tightly help position and have to resort to personal attacks, snide remarks, innuendoes, calls to authority and evasion of the obvious? If some one behaved like that in a discussion about climate science, that might define them as a *genuine* troll.

----------


## Marc

_Key points on the science_  The earth’s climate is _always_ changing – it has for 4.5 billion years and will continue to do so – to speak of climate change as if it is something “new” is misleading.There is nothing particularly special about the climate we live in at the moment – it is very benign compared to some of the alternatives – but to attempt to stop the clock and “freeze” the present state is misguided.That the earth is currently in a long-term warming phase is not in dispute. It has been since the end of the last Ice Age, and in particular since the end of the Little Ice Age a couple of hundred years ago. It is therefore not surprising, nor alarming, that temperatures today are higher than they were a century ago.However, the cause of that warming is where the dispute arises.There is no historical link (on geological time scales) between the harmless gas carbon dioxide (CO2) and temperature. Levels of CO2 have been far higher (thousands of parts per million compared to a few hundred at present) in the past without the planet entering “runaway global warming” or passing “tipping points” from which it could not recover – the fact that we are here today is evidence enough of that.Al Gore’s _An Inconvenient Truth_ showed a large graph of temperature and CO2 fitting together very closely, except that it was at such a small scale that it was not possible to determine that rises in CO2 actually lag behind rises in temperature (and vice versa) by about 800-1000 years. The long term warming and cooling of oceans releases and absorbs huge quantities of CO2. ACM Summary â Australian Climate Madness

----------


## John2b

> _Key points on the science_

  I got all excited when I began to read your post "key points on the science", but the post is completely devoid of science. You should have started with "Key points of the dogma pushed by AGW climate change deniers".    The earth’s climate is always changing_ -_ _which is irrelevant drivel in the current context which is not about natural climate change, but the climate change caused by human activity that is imposed on top._...to attempt to stop the clock and “freeze” the present state is misguided - _unless you want a habitable environment for your later life and the lives of your offspring._...It is therefore not surprising, nor alarming, that temperatures today are higher than they were a century ago - _but it is alarming that the temperature rise has been much greater that natural forcings acting on their own._However, the cause of that warming is where the dispute arises - _amongst the armchair experts maybe, but there is no dispute in the scientific community that studies climate change._There is no historical link (on geological time scales) between the harmless gas carbon dioxide (CO2) and temperature - _maybe_ _true if you ignore the other parameters of global warming because CO2 has never acted on its own, which anyone who studies climate forcings knows._...The long term warming and cooling of oceans releases and absorbs huge quantities of CO2 - _the point of this statements seems to be obfuscation. Of course the cycle of CO2 and heat into and out of the oceans is a key player in climate._  _​_

----------


## Marc

Al Gore’s _An Inconvenient Truth_ showed a large graph of temperature and CO2 fitting together very closely, except that it was at such a small scale that it was not possible to determine that rises in CO2 actually lag behind rises in temperature (and vice versa) by about 800-1000 years. The long term warming and cooling of oceans releases and absorbs huge quantities of CO2.On shorter time-scales, temperatures rose in the early part of the 20th century with little or no man-made emissions of CO2.They also fell in the period 1950-1970 when CO2 emissions were rising rapidly in the post-war economic boom.The link between future global warming and CO2 is based predominantly on computer climate models.None of the computer models predicted the pause in warming (and even slight cooling) we have seen since 2001, despite rising emissions, so we must assume those models are flawed.There must be other factors at work, such as solar variations, cosmic ray variations, cloud cover, ocean currents etc, which have a far more significant effect on the climate than anthropogenic CO2 (which in any event is only a tiny part of the global CO2 budget)Every day, new peer-reviewed scientific studies change our understanding of the climate – to say the “science is settled” is pure hubris.The livelihood of many (most?) climate scientists depends on perpetuating the existence of the climate crisis, and there is presently a worrying lack of impartiality in this discipline.ACM Summary â Australian Climate Madness

----------


## Marc

_ Key points on the politics_  There seems to be, amongst Western societies generally, a desire to “do something” in order to assuage our collective guilt for 200 years of economic progress (although why we should feel guilty about this is a mystery, since that economic progress has lifted billions of people out of a miserable life of poverty).For some reason we are embarrassed about our standards of living, and believe that we must engage in a quasi-religious penitence for the sins we have committed against the planet (see here for an excellent comparison between climate change hysteria and religion).History shows us that environmental causes have often been used to advance political agenda.The present climate “crisis” unfortunately provides such an opportunity for: more global governance and regulation by the UN;a redistribution of wealth on a global scale from richer to poorer nations;widespread increases in taxation at the expense of economic growth and prosperity;a scaling back of Western economic progress; and ultimately,a dismantling of capitalist systems (anti-globalisation)  This is evidenced by the allegiances of environmental (“green”) and/or climate change activists, many of whom align themselves with socialist ideals (witness the composition of demonstrators at climate change protests – primarily from the political left).http://australianclimatemadness.com/acm-summary/

----------


## John2b

> _ Key points on the politics_

  Thanks for the list of dog-whistle statements designed to appeal to the witless. What's it got to do with the topic? In fact, your reference website seems to be unable to discuss the topic of climate change or climate change politics either. The site is just an vulgar blow-hole in the blogosphere...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> History shows us that environmental causes have often been used to advance political agenda.

  So has every other 'cause' one would care to name....every political agenda there ever was has at least one cause behind it. So this is hardly a key point...   

> The present climate crisis unfortunately provides such an opportunity for: more global governance and regulation by the UN;a redistribution of wealth on a global scale from richer to poorer nations;widespread increases in taxation at the expense of economic growth and prosperity;a scaling back of Western economic progress; and ultimately,a dismantling of capitalist systems (anti-globalisation)

   
...or an opportunity for a good old piece of conservative upper middle class first world fear mongering.  But if that floats your boat then good for you.  After all, every rabid nutjob greenie needs a counterpoint to maintain the balance.

----------


## Rod Dyson

The fat lady is clearing her throat.....  Not long to go now.  Matt Ridley in the WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming? | Watts Up With That? 
Cant come soon enough 17 years and 11 months no warming. This has gotta hurt the alarmists.  Global Temperature Update – No global warming for 17 years 11 months | Watts Up With That?

----------


## woodbe

Been covered to death before in this thread Rod. 
It's not an accurate summary of the climate and 17 years 11 months does not qualify as a climate significant time span. 
Looks like you've got nothing too!

----------


## John2b

> The fat lady is clearing her throat.....

  Interesting association: The reference to the fat lady comes from a saying that cautions that one should not presume to know the outcome of an event which is still in progress. When she does sing, there is going to be a lot of faces covered with eggs sunny side up. 
And from an article in the Wall Street Journal - obviously Ridley couldn't get it published anywhere with a cognisant editor. Where do you go for building technical advice Rod - Australian Yoga Journal? 
Chairman Xi may not be attending the UN summit in Sept, but in fact China is front runner for a number of awards in the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group for CO2 emission reductions announced the day before as part of the event.

----------


## Marc

> Year on year anomalies are tiny...   
> You misunderstood. I merely plan the response to policy...lots of freedom there. Fear naught. There's not much response, policy or not. Things are going as we expected long ago so we can plan for it regardless and you can all remain clueless... 
> Ahhh...Utopia.

  So if you are employed to contribute to response to policy, what value have your post here? Your position must be aligned with your employment

----------


## Marc

March 12, 2014 *The Dead Parrot of Man-Made Climate Change*  Charles Battig “Monty Python” did not foresee the current, catastrophic man-made global warming/climate change hoax.  The group did, however, have a firm grasp of everyday absurdities.  Their 1969 “Dead Parrot Sketch” depicts two completely different viewpoints of the reality of a dead “Norwegian Blue” parrot.  The parrot is quite dead to any objective outside observer.  The pet shop owner is unwilling to accept this reality, and he contrives a variety of absurd excuses to explain the parrot’s immobility.Such is the case now with those denying the fact that their claim – that catastrophic climate change results from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide – has proved false.  For seventeen-plus years, global atmospheric carbon dioxide has continued to increase, yet global temperatures have remained flat.Schoolchildren are indoctrinated with the dogma of destructive climate change caused by human activity.  However, none of those seventeen or younger have experienced the claimed global warming. In less than three years, the current global temperature plateau will match the prior twenty-year warming trend, itself preceding a thirty-year global cooling period.  Such reality conflicts with current political dogma and the investment schemes built on political favoritism.  The reality of a defunct, bogus claim that human activity has measurably or harmfully impacted global climate is not accepted by the shopkeepers who sold the public this dead parrot.  Said shopkeeper is exemplified in real life by Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research: “The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.” The parrot may look dead, but we are not looking at the parrot.  We are looking at our computer, which says the parrot is alive. 
Read more: Blog: The Dead Parrot of Man-Made Climate Change 
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So if you are employed to contribute to response to policy, what value have your post here? Your position must be aligned with your employment

  Why? Why should my opinion reflect what I get paid for? Or vice versa. I'm not a politician. 
Hahahahahajaghafhgnvjvxhgx vx ....<cough>

----------


## woodbe

> So if you are employed to contribute to response to policy, what value have your post here? Your position must be aligned with your employment

  Playing the man again? 
Same as anybody else's. SBD's are arguably a step up as he probably is paid to do some conscientious research assembling a response to policy.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Been covered to death before in this thread Rod. 
> It's not an accurate summary of the climate and 17 years 11 months does not qualify as a climate significant time span. 
> Looks like you've got nothing too!

  LOL It doesn't matter a damn what is said here it is over and we all know it.  Gloss over this stuff like it means nothing all you like.  We are very close to the end of this charade and most people know it.  It cant come soon enough.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Been covered to death before in this thread Rod. 
> It's not an accurate summary of the climate and 17 years 11 months does not qualify as a climate significant time span. 
> Looks like you've got nothing too!

  It may have been cover to death but nothing, NOT A SINGLE THING on this thread has demonstrated AGW is as dangerous and accelerating like all the scaremongerers would have us believe.   
It is going to be the biggest joke and embarrassment the world has ever seen.

----------


## John2b

> LOL It doesn't matter a damn what is said here it is over and we all know it.  Gloss over this stuff like it means nothing all you like.  We are very close to the end of this charade and most people know it.  It cant come soon enough.

  Unfortunately, you could not be further from the truth - the longer the "hiatus" the more severe the next step up in surface air temperature. 
In fact, there has been no hiatus in the heat energy gain in the climate, something horticulturalists and agriculturalists appreciate world-wide as they scramble to find plants and trees that don't need so many "cold hours" to set fruit or be productive. This unprecedented mad race against the climate has accelerated tremendously in the past decade due to the changes that have occurred over the past few years. 
If your belief makes you feel better that's just fine - for you in your insulated thought bubble. However obtuse ignorance should not be erroneously paraded as episteme.

----------


## John2b

[QUOTE=Rod Dyson;946874]It may have been cover to death but nothing, NOT A SINGLE THING on this thread has demonstrated AGW is as dangerous and accelerating like all the scaremongerers would have us believe./QUOTE] 
Eyes WIDE SHUT? Or is the actual destruction of life as we know it the only demonstration you will accept? 
In fact NOT A SINGLE THING in this thread shown that AGW is erroneous.

----------


## Marc

So we have seen graphs about CO2, temperatures, sea levels, and any other imaginable pseudo science attempting to support the fairy tales and those attempting to discredit them and expose the fraud. 
I did not know that there are graphs showing the mention of the words climate change in media and blogs. Had I know this, I would have written c1im4t c+4nge so to avoid contributing to this graphs, but it seems there was no need for me to resort to such extreme measures. The global warming fraud is in it's last death throes and not soon enough.   *The day the Global Warming death spiral began* Let the historic dissection begin. Man-made global warming is a dying market and a zombie science.
The Carbon Capture Report, based in Illinois, tallies up the media stories from the English speaking media on “climate change” daily. Thanks to the tip from Peter Lang, we can see the terminal trend below. The big peak in late 2009 was the double-whammy of Climategate and Copenhagen (aka Hopenhagen). It’s all been downhill since then. 
But something that caught my eye was the drop in mid 2011 (or precisely — July 29, 2011) when media stories fell by half, a step-change fall from which they never recovered.
Media Matters, and Joe Romm make much of of the fact that after Paul Ingrassia (a skeptic) was appointed as Reuters deputy-editor-in-chief news coverage of climate change fell by half. Media Matters found a 48% decline in climate-change coverage over a six-month period, after Ingrassia joined the agency in 2011.
But Ingrassia started in _April 2011_ not July. Media Matters compares 6 months before the global fall Oct 2010 – April 2011 — to a six month period after the global fall (Oct 2011 – April 2012). Media Matters and Romm missed the big picture.
The Carbon Capture report graph above includes news, articles, blogs, tweets. The step change occurs in news stories and tweets, but doesn’t happen in blogs til October 15, 2011. When it comes, the use of “climate change” in blogs plummets about 70%. What happened? (Suggestions welcome). Is this an artefact, does it include comments? Is this a moment when the 50c army got new instructions (and why?), or, who knows, perhaps paychecks for astroturfing stopped? I have no data…  The day the Global Warming death spiral began Â« JoNova

----------


## woodbe

> LOL It doesn't matter a damn what is said here it is over and we all know it.  Gloss over this stuff like it means nothing all you like.  We are very close to the end of this charade and most people know it.  It cant come soon enough.

  Rod, unlike most of your fellow sceptics in this thread, you have previously accepted the science of CO2 here. I commend you for that.  
You cannot now turn around and claim that it is a charade. You choose a low sensitivity as your get out of jail card but even so that low sensitivity is not low enough to support your claim that is is over. 
Perhaps you could find a scientific paper to support _your opinion_ that it is over? Or perhaps one that changes your acceptance of the science of CO2?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> unfortunately, you could not be further from the truth - the longer the "hiatus" the more severe the next step up in surface air temperature. 
> In fact, there has been no hiatus in the heat energy gain in the climate, something horticulturalists and agriculturalists appreciate world-wide as they scramble to find plants and trees that don't need so many "cold hours" to set fruit or be productive. This unprecedented mad race against the climate has accelerated tremendously in the past decade due to the changes that have occurred over the past few years. 
> If your belief makes you feel better that's just fine - for you in your insulated thought bubble. However obtuse ignorance should not be erroneously paraded as episteme.

  lol

----------


## Rod Dyson

[QUOTE=John2b;946887]  

> It may have been cover to death but nothing, NOT A SINGLE THING on this thread has demonstrated AGW is as dangerous and accelerating like all the scaremongerers would have us believe./QUOTE] 
> Eyes WIDE SHUT? Or is the actual destruction of life as we know it the only demonstration you will accept? 
> In fact NOT A SINGLE THING in this thread shown that AGW is erroneous.

  GRAND ALARMISIM like this is dead, and can only affect the weak minded sheep in society.  The average Joe is over it and has tuned out.  Alarmists went in too strong with ridiculous claims that have not eventuated,  how can you possibly think adding more ridiculous claims will benefit you!! 
Ding dong the witch is dead

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod, unlike most of your fellow sceptics in this thread, you have previously accepted the science of CO2 here. I commend you for that.  
> You cannot now turn around and claim that it is a charade. You choose a low sensitivity as your get out of jail card but even so that low sensitivity is not low enough to support your claim that is is over. 
> Perhaps you could find a scientific paper to support _your opinion_ that it is over? Or perhaps one that changes your acceptance of the science of CO2?

  This has to be your biggest fail of all woodbe.  Failure to recognise the difference here.   
It is so obvious to anyone else yet you play on it like its some gottcha event.  This is ingenious on your part and shows how you can be manipulated by "data" or "evidence" no matter how twisted of massaged, as long as it supports you view of the world.

----------


## John2b

[QUOTE=Rod Dyson;946906]  

> Ding dong the witch is dead

  Is that a summary of the science/evidence to support your view? Are you going to publish this breathtaking reversal of scientific laws?

----------


## woodbe

> This has to be your biggest fail of all woodbe.  Failure to recognise the difference here.   
> It is so obvious to anyone else yet you play on it like its some gottcha event.  This is ingenious on your part and shows how you can be manipulated by "data" or "evidence" no matter how twisted of massaged, as long as it supports you view of the world.

  I think you should read those words in the mirror. 
Your choices are to reneg on your support of the science of CO2 or to change your opinion. 
I've said it plenty of times here. I support the science. If the science changes, so will I. You on the other hand claim to support the science but run away from the results.  
In 17 years and 11 months (by your quote), the science has not backed away from the published science around CO2 and it's effect on the climate. Neither has it backed away from the science that shows that CO2 is one of many forcings in the climate system. Opinion skeptics play the game claiming science ignores other inputs, a convenient ruse not supported by even cursory glances at the actual science. 
Just because a bunch of opinion skeptics latch onto one facet of the climate (surface temperature), cherry pick convenient dates to show a contrived lack of warming, and ignore all other data does not mean the climate is not warming. This is the big skeptic card but it doesn't hold water on so many levels but it is repeated ad nauseum because apart from media and blog political posts, that is all skeptics have to reply to the science.  
The climate is more than just surface temperature, but in any case you will get your next temperature spike in due course, what are you going to claim then? No warming since 20XX ?

----------


## Marc

Caruba: Global Warming, R.I.P. | The Federal Observer *Caruba: Global Warming, R.I.P.*  Leave a reply Have you noticed that you rarely hear “global warming” mentioned on radio or television and the term rarely occurs any more in the print media?
One reason is that it has been replaced with “_climate change_” and the other reason is that the only people talking about climate change seem to be leaders of governments like the United States or Australia. 
To borrow a line from Shakespeare, I come to bury global warming, not to praise it.
An early and unrelenting skeptic from the days it first debuted in the late 1980s, I rather instinctively knew that the only warming occurring was the same natural warming that always follows a cooling cycle; in this case the warming that began in 1850 after the Little Ice Age that began around 1300.
It never made sense to me that “industry” should be blamed for pumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when the amount of CO2 was a minuscule 0.038 percent with far greater amounts of hydrogen and oxygen that protect the Earth from becoming the galactic equivalent of a toasted marshmallow.
.......................  The legacy of “global warming” has been the decades-long attack on U.S. energy sources until today our vast resources of coal and oil remain in the ground instead of being available as the price of oil increases due to troubles in the Middle East and the cost of electricity increases due to laws mandating that utilities must buy from wind and solar electricity producers who would be out of business by next week without those government mandates. http://www.federalobserver.com/2011/...warming-r-i-p/

----------


## John2b

> (copious blogosphere paste ensues)

  July 2014 was the 353rd consecutive month in which global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th-century monthly average. The last time the global average surface temperature fell below that 20th-century monthly average was in February 1985, as reported by the US-based National Climate Data Center. This means that anyone born after February 1985 has not lived a single month where the global temperature was below the long-term average for that month. New study finds 99.999 percent certainty humans are causing global warming

----------


## Rod Dyson

> New study finds 99.999 percent certainty humans are causing global warming

  ho hum

----------


## Rod Dyson

The more you cry wolf the more people are turned away!! 
Keep it up guys .......... 
As its credibility dwindles due to its slanted “science” and politically motivated advocacy of anti-growth diktats, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is preparing a report so dire that it hardly seems to concern the same Earth on which the rest of humanity lives.  
A draft of that IPCC report, due out in final form in early November, says greenhouse gas emissions are outrunning political reduction measures and predicts decades of “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts,” according to The New York Times. The world's loudest climate-clucking Chicken Littles foresee grain harvests diminishing, Greenland's ice sheet melting, sea levels rising and extreme weather increasing. And there's less time than ever to head off disaster by submitting to IPCC orthodoxy.  
But even the loudest clucking can't drown out contrary facts. U.S. temperatures haven't risen in a decade. Global temperatures have been flat for 17 years. Prior warming was within natural variability. The IPCC's main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide,  isn't a pollutant. And humanity's climate impact is negligible, so top-down “solutions” are pointless and economically harmful, as shown by Australia repealing its carbon tax in favor of voluntary clean-energy incentives.  
Still, there's value in this draft report. It shows how much at odds with reality the IPCC is — and how far climate science is from being “settled.”   
Read more: Chicken Littles can&apos;t cluck away climate facts | TribLIVE 
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

----------


## John2b

> The more you cry wolf the more people are turned away!!

  Oh dear, still can't understand the difference between weather and climate?  difference between weather and climate - Google Search

----------


## Marc

> ho hum

  I find it so funny that some "climate" activist find it their duty to reply to every post with either a disparaging comment about the author or the website that originates the initial post and never addressing the points made.
 If it is so obvious that this sinners and deniers are oh so wrong, their apostatic heresy should be easy to debunk. 
Hei no, it is easier to say, your fart stinks! He he ... show me the "man made global warming".  
Sinners repent! the day of reckoning is at hand, fire and brimstone will burn you, the doors of hades are open! 
Yea yea, we heard it all before ...

----------


## John2b

^^ Mirror, anyone? LMFAO

----------


## Marc

Its business as usual in Big Green world, as their Climate Religion Scam comes apart around them, the policy makers and propagandists continue to push ideas that are never going to win them new friends or stem the tide of dwindling support. Their faith is either touching, or stupid because they still believe that their boondoggle will come to fruition in Paris in 2015, that all the countries of the world will sign up to  a legally binding climate treaty. A key part of the climate treaty is further emissions cuts and wealth redistribution, the warming alarmists will say that wealth redistribution is a denier lie, as usual they are either wrong or lying, in the words of UN IPCC official Ottmar Edenhoffer “_ we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy._“ Wealth Redistribution or “Climate Justice” is sanitized Greenspeak, really it  is all about the 2 core left wing principles: apportionment of blame and payback. READ THE REST OF THIS ENTRY →

----------


## woodbe

^^^ 
Like I said to Rod; (paraphrasing) "apart from no warming since..., media and blog political posts, that is all skeptics have to reply to the science".

----------


## John2b

Carbon emissions from the country's main electricity grid have risen since the end of the carbon tax by the largest amount in nearly eight years. Data from the National Electricity Market, which covers about 80 per cent of Australia's population, shows that emissions from the sector rose by about 1 million tonnes, or 0.8 per cent, at an annualised rate last month compared with June.  Emissions from energy generation jump most in eight years after carbon price axed

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The more you cry wolf the more people are turned away!!

  
If I recall the tale correctly...the wolf turned up in the end.

----------


## John2b

> But even the loudest clucking can't drown out contrary facts.

  "We've recorded all sorts of climate change shifts in multiple areas. However, the scientific process is consistent. Every single individual study that has been done, has gone through the same rigorous process, data collection, research analysis, and qualified peer review. At the moment, we've at least 10 000 different papers, completed over 20 years, each using different data sets, and they are all coming to the same climate change conclusions. We've a weight of evidence that the average person is simply not aware of - and this frightens me..."   Shauna Murray Biological Scientist University of Technology Sydney, University of Tokyo, University of New South Wales

----------


## Marc

Wind Power Fraud  WIND  POWER  FRAUDWHY WIND WON'T WORKby Charles S. Opalek, PE Everyone believes alternative energies are the answer to all our power problems, with wind power leading the way.  The truth is: Wind power is unsustainable and a total waste of resources. 
This the book exposes the utter uselessness of wind power, including how:  Wind turbines rarely produce their advertised full power.  On average, wind turbines only produce about 20% of their nameplate rating.Wind power is unreliable and undispatchable.  When it is needed most, it will likely be unavailable to provide any power when it is needed most.Wind power is not clean.  It takes a lot of dirty energy to make the materials, manufacture and install a wind turbine facility.Wind turbines are not environmentally friendly.  They are noisy, unsightly, kill bats and birds, interfere with radars, and have been shown to be responsible for a slew of health problems.Wind turbines consume electricity whether operating or not.  Often this power is not even metered.  Care to guess who is paying the bill for this power?In theory, if 20% of US electric generation was replaced by wind power, the decrease in CO2 emissions would be an unnoticeable 0.00948%.In reality, wind power doesn't reduce CO2 emissions at  all, because backup fossil power plants have to cycle wildly and inefficiently trying to keep up with erratic wind power output.Wind power will not replace fossil fired power plants.  Germany estimates that by 2020 up to 96% of its wind power capacity will need to be backed up by new coal fired power plants.Wind power will not reduce US dependency on foreign oil.  If wind power replaced 20% of US electric generation, the resulting decrease in oil imports would be a measly 0.292%.Wind turbines have an embarrassingly low Energy Returned On Energy Invested value of 0.29.  The manufacture, installation and operation of wind power facilities will consume more than 3 times the energy they will ever produce.  Wind Power is Big Business.  The big winners will be developers, land owners, brokerage houses, banks, manufacturers, governments, the "green" movement, environmentalists, researchers, academia, and the news media.  The big losers will be the taxpayers and electric bill payers. 
If you: 
       suspect that wind power isn't all that it is crapped up to be -       are suspicious with all the seemingly endless positive hype surrounding wind power - 
      wonder why no one has anything negative to say about wind power -       need a complete source of information to refute all the claims about wind power  - 
Then Wind Power Fraud is the book for you. 
To orderyour copy go to www.lulu.com.  WIND POWER FRAUD: 230 pages, 6" x 9", perfect bound, black and white, soft cover for $19.70, or download for $5.24.   *About the Author:* Charles S. Opalek is a registered Professional Engineer with a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering. He has been practicing engineering since 1965, and has been in private practice since 1987.  Much of his background was in power generation. He is an active consulting engineer to architects, designing heating, ventilating, and air conditioning, plumbing and electrical systems for industrial, commercial and residential projects. 
Updated 06-23-10

----------


## John2b

> Wind turbines rarely produce their advertised full power. On average, wind turbines only produce about 20% of their nameplate rating.

  So what? Cars are rarely driven at full speed...   

> Wind power is unreliable and undispatchable.

  Nonsense. Wind is predictable allowing energy markets to take advantage of it's low cost. If supply exceeds demand, wind turbines can be feathered; thermal power plants cannot.   

> Wind power is not clean. It takes a lot of dirty energy to make the materials, manufacture and install a wind turbine facility.

  Absolute rubbish. The whole of life manufacturing, running and decommissioning of wind generation has one of the lowest energy footprints (about 1/100 that of equivalent coal generation capacity).  http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57131.pdf  
I could go on... Honestly Marc, what is the point of mindlessly regurgitating all this drivel when it is so easily shown to be absolute nonsense? Haven't you got any legitimate points to make?

----------


## John2b

Despite 5.3% annual growth in electricity consumption and despite 35 GW of new coal generation capacity in the past 12 months (Australia's _total_ generation capacity is 'only' 45 GW), Chinese year on year coal consumption has started to decline as low cost wind power displaces higher cost coal power:  A coal analyst might take comfort in the substantial 35.5GW of new coal-fired power capacity installed (7/2013-6/2014). However, the merit order effect is very clear – low marginal cost electricity sources will take priority in supplying demand. High marginal costs mean that coal fired capacity utilisation rates have fallen in the last twelve months. Hence the report that China’s domestic coal consumption actually declined 0.9% year-on-year in the first six months of 2014. 
 China is a centrally controlled economy. There is no point in their "cheating" or cross subsidising energy costs - they will just do what is cheapest.  Wind energy surges in China, as demand for coal fades : Renew Economy

----------


## Marc

I usually avoid replying unless it has to do with native bees. This time I'll make an exception  

> Wind is predictable

  I rest my case. 
The rest of the "replies" fall in the same category, but the one above takes the cake. Well done! 
La cucaracha, la cucaracha,

----------


## John2b

Spelt out for those with a cognition deficit: In the context of wind energy, wind is predictable in the timescale of planning the despatch of electricity.

----------


## John2b

In July 2014, wind farms in South Australia provided 6% of Australia's total electricity generation. 
In 2012, 27% of South Australian installed capacity was wind, and that wind generated 25% of annual total electrical energy in South Australia. Wind generation was relatively consistent on a typical hourly basis when averaged across the whole of South Australia, though it does display a generally higher output in the early morning.

----------


## Marc

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/rich-trzupek/the-wind-farm-scam/ 
I never thought I’d agree with a member of the Kennedy clan, but Bobby Kennedy’s son got it right when he dismissed the much-hyped Cape Wind project that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar approved last week. “It’s a boondoggle of the worst kind,” Kennedy said. “It’s going to cost the people of Massachusetts $4 billion over the next 20 years in extra costs.” 
If anything, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer, underestimated the cost of Cape Wind. The project will see the construction of 130 wind-powered turbines off the coast of Cape Cod Massachusetts that will, according to its developers, generate an average of 170 megawatts of electricity for the Bay State. 
The turbines will cost about $1 billion to build. Let’s assume that the useful life of the wind turbines is twenty years, that the maintenance costs of the windmills is zero, and that nobody has to pay a dime of interest on the $1 billion worth of financing needed to construct these windmills. Even if we accept such wildly inaccurate and charitable assumptions, the cost of energy generated by Cape Wind over those twenty years will be over thirty-three cents per kilowatt. 
That’s more than six times the typical wholesale price for electrons today, around six cents per kilowatt, depending on the market.....................  If a coal-fired plant providing base-load power operates at something less than a ninety percent capacity factor, it’s owners are going to take a long, hard look at the way it’s being run. But windmills – both because they’re expensive and thus often among the last units to called into service to meet demand, and because you just can’t count on the wind – are built in droves despite the fact they are eighty percent useless. But for government subsidies, Cape Wind, or any of the big wind farms sprouting up across the country, would not exist.

----------


## Marc

It took great courage for Lloyd to write up his expose of the tremendous damage being caused by a wind farm to a small community in Waterloo, north of Adelaide. Most newspaper environment editors -- from Australia to Britain and the US -- tend, unfortunately, to be so ideologically wedded to the supposed virtues of renewable energy they find it all but impossible to criticise it. Lloyd interviewed a number of victims whose lives had been ruined by the vast, swooshing wind towers looking over their homes. They found sleep almost impossible; they couldn't concentrate; they had night sweats, headaches, palpitations, heart trouble. Their chickens were laying eggs without yolks; their ewes were giving birth to deformed lambs; their once-active dogs spent their days staring blankly at the wall. The damage, it seems, is caused not so much by the noise you can hear but by what you can't hear: the infrasonic waves that attack the balance mechanism in the ear and against which not even home insulation can defend you. Its effects can be felt more than 10km away.  Inspired by Lloyd's article, I went to investigate and was heartbroken by what I found. Until you've seen what it can do to people, it's easy to dismiss wind turbine syndrome as a hypochondriac's charter or an urban myth. But it's real all right. Waterloo felt like a ghost town: shuttered houses and a dust-blown aura of sinister unease, as in a horror movie when something dreadful has happened to a previously ordinary, happy settlement and at first you're not sure what. Then you look up on to the horizon and see them, turning slowly in the breeze . . . 
Even more shocking than this, though, were my discoveries about the finance arrangements and behaviour of the wind farm companies. What we have here, I believe, is the biggest and most outrageous public affairs scandal of the 21st century -- one in which the Gillard government is implicated and that far exceeds in seriousness and scope of the Slipper or Thomson sideshows. 
At the heart of this scandal are the union superannuation funds that are using the wind farm scam as a kind of government-endorsed Ponzi scheme to fill their coffers at public expense.  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...9452a757d5a232

----------


## Marc

http://stopthesethings.com/2013/07/0...y-peter-quinn/

----------


## Marc

The "global warming" aka "climate change" may as well be called "wet rain" scam is, in case you missed it, a political fraud. It has political origins, political purposes, it exists only due to political subsidies disguised as environmental concerns, is promoted by paid activist who defend their livelihood like a salesman of a pyramid scheme would. 
The cost of the global warming fraud will one day be calculated in the quadrillions of dollars and in decades of de-development to the west. 
The fraud to the public who voted influenced by this con, will probably be impossible to estimate.  
At this stage and with the amount of information available, it is difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to the sincerity of those who still today support and defend this gargantuan fraud.

----------


## John2b

"On last Friday, 27 June 2014, wind generation in South Australia rose to match 100% of  the state's electricity demand early that morning. 
According to data provided by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), wind generation was easily the leading electricity generating source in South Australia for almost the entire week as shown in the graph.  
AEMO's daily market price data shows that South Australia also had the lowest wholesale electricity price for any of the mainland National Energy Market for the first six days of that period.   
This is the merit order effect - where wind farms underbid coal and gas fired electricity in the wholesale market due to their zero cost fuel, thereby lowering wholesale electricity prices."

----------


## johnc

> It took great courage for Lloyd to write up his expose of the tremendous damage being caused by a wind farm to a small community in Waterloo, north of Adelaide. Most newspaper environment editors -- from Australia to Britain and the US -- tend, unfortunately, to be so ideologically wedded to the supposed virtues of renewable energy they find it all but impossible to criticise it. Lloyd interviewed a number of victims whose lives had been ruined by the vast, swooshing wind towers looking over their homes. They found sleep almost impossible; they couldn't concentrate; they had night sweats, headaches, palpitations, heart trouble. Their chickens were laying eggs without yolks; their ewes were giving birth to deformed lambs; their once-active dogs spent their days staring blankly at the wall. The damage, it seems, is caused not so much by the noise you can hear but by what you can't hear: the infrasonic waves that attack the balance mechanism in the ear and against which not even home insulation can defend you. Its effects can be felt more than 10km away.  Inspired by Lloyd's article, I went to investigate and was heartbroken by what I found. Until you've seen what it can do to people, it's easy to dismiss wind turbine syndrome as a hypochondriac's charter or an urban myth. But it's real all right. Waterloo felt like a ghost town: shuttered houses and a dust-blown aura of sinister unease, as in a horror movie when something dreadful has happened to a previously ordinary, happy settlement and at first you're not sure what. Then you look up on to the horizon and see them, turning slowly in the breeze . . . 
> Even more shocking than this, though, were my discoveries about the finance arrangements and behaviour of the wind farm companies. What we have here, I believe, is the biggest and most outrageous public affairs scandal of the 21st century -- one in which the Gillard government is implicated and that far exceeds in seriousness and scope of the Slipper or Thomson sideshows. 
> At the heart of this scandal are the union superannuation funds that are using the wind farm scam as a kind of government-endorsed Ponzi scheme to fill their coffers at public expense.  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  
What a load of unmitigated tripe, eggless yolks and deformed lambs, give me a break. There is no evidence to support wind farm syndrome and plenty to show it is a fallacy that has more to do with the power of suggestion. A modern turbine should run for about 120,000 hours, a modern car lasts 4000 to 6000 hours of use. A turbine on land should last 20 years before it needs a major rebuild of its moving parts. It's embedded energy should be returned after six months or so of use. It will run about 66% of the time and wind frequency is predictable thanks to modern forecasting models. Is it cost effective? probably locally and certainly in places that generate power using diesel. It didn't take courage for Lloyd to produce what he did, bigots only need a cause and ammunition drawn from whatever source no matter how contaminated and unreliable. There are currently calls to shut down some Australian coal fired power plants because they are pushing up the price of power (who would have thought it 10 yeas ago). A lot of articles are written simply because people can neither cope with change nor understand that everything is fluid and changes with time and technology. Alternatives will become increasingly more efficient as that is the way of technology, we need to remain mentally flexible to take advantage of change and the cost benefits it brings. In time current wind and solar will be redundant to either new generations of the same or possibly something completely different, who knows but articles written by individuals wishing to live in the middle ages should be treated with compassion but ignored as trivial, myopic and against the economic interests of the majority.

----------


## John2b

> It took great courage for Lloyd to write up his expose of the tremendous damage being caused by a wind farm to a small community in Waterloo, north of Adelaide.

  Rubbish. If you know Waterloo, you would that it was a "ghost" town long before wind farms were built nearby. Others might have the benefit of ignorance. You might also know that the resistance to wind farms was fostered by sham organisations financed by the coal industry, of which the residents of Waterloo are unknowing victims.

----------


## John2b

> The "global warming" aka "climate change" may as well be called "wet rain" scam is, in case you missed it, a political fraud.

  Anyone born during or after April 1985 hasn't lived through a month that was colder than average. That the wider population does not appreciate this is the real political/media scam.

----------


## John2b

The ozone layer that shields life from the sun's cancer-causing ultraviolet rays is showing its first sign of thickening after years of dangerous depletion. It shows the success of a 1987 ban on manmade gases that damage the fragile high-altitude screen, an achievement that would help prevent millions of cases of skin cancer and other conditions. 
Oh dear, computer models were used to understand and predict the effect of human emissions on the atmosphere and action was taken as a result and fixed it  :Doh:   http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...ering-25410598

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The cost of the global warming fraud will one day be calculated in the quadrillions of dollars and in decades of de-development to the west.

  Quite possibly...but not for the reasons you might imagine.

----------


## woodbe

> Cape Wind project

  I have no in depth understanding of the Cape Wind Project. It is the first offshore wind project in the US apparently. 
One single project does not represent the state of the windfarm projects globally or in Australia. I'm waiting for the rest of Australia to catch up with the high wind farm proportion of electricity generated with zero consumables in SA. Those with a coal or gas bent forget that the ongoing cost of windfarms is just plant maintenance, they have no consumables. If you sit a coal plant next to a wind plant the the running costs are a significant % of the output of a coal plant, but insignificant in a wind plant. In 25 years the cost of consumables in a coal plant will be extraordinary but in a wind plant, they will be the same as when the plant was first installed: zero.

----------


## Marc

At this stage and with the amount of information available, it is difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to the sincerity of those who still today support and defend this gargantuan fraud.

----------


## johnc

> At this stage and with the amount of information available, it is difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to the sincerity of those who still today support and defend this gargantuan fraud against the _reality of climate change ._

  I added the few words you left off, no need to thank me, you are quite welcome.

----------


## John2b

> At this stage and with the amount of information available, it is difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to the sincerity of those who still today support and defend this gargantuan fraud.

  It is pretty unequivocal which side of the "debate" the fraud is on. Why are you a supporter, Marc?  "We've recorded all sorts of climate change shifts in multiple areas. However, the scientific process is consistent. Every single individual study that has been done, has gone through the same rigorous process, data collection, research analysis, and qualified peer review. At the moment, we've at least 10 000 different papers, completed over 20 years, each using different data sets, and they are all coming to the same climate change conclusions. We've a weight of evidence that the average person is simply not aware of - and this frightens me..."    Shauna Murray Biological Scientist University of Technology Sydney, University of Tokyo, University of New South Wales

----------


## Marc

JohnC  

> be aware that (inaccurately) putting words into your interviewee's mouth that diminish his reputation and expose him to "hatred, contempt, or aversion" can, in fact, be actionable.

   It is called libel.

----------


## Marc

The real cost of the windmill fraud: Politicians & Business Finally Waking Up to the Massive Costs of the LRET â STOP THESE THINGS
Now, after over 13 years of operation, Coalition MPs – including lightweights like young Greg Hunt and Ian “Macca” Macfarlane – have finally dusted off their copies of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 to learn, apparently for the first time, that the LRET contains a mighty sting in the tail. The “sting” is the mandated shortfall charge of $65 per MWh which – under the current 41,000 GWh target – starts to impact from 2017. There is no way that the annual target set from 2017 (that escalates to 41,000 GWh in 2020, where it stays until 2031) will be met. Wind farm construction is almost at a standstill: “investment” in the construction of wind farms went from $2.69 billion in 2013 to a piddling $40 million this year (see this article). And, from here on, no retailer is going to sign a Power Purchase Agreement with a wind power outfit; which means hopeful wind farm developers will never get the finance needed to build any new wind farms (see our post here).Given current renewable capacity of 23,000 GWh – under the legislation – the shortfall charge (fine) starts to bite from 2017. *Year* *Target GWh* *Shortfall GWh* *Penalty Cost*  2017 27,200 4,200 $273 million  2018 31,800 8,800 $572 million  2019 36,400 13,400 $871 million  2020 41,000 18,000 $1.17 billion    *Total* *$2.886 billion*   The mandatory RET continues until 2031; and the $65 per MWh fine with it. That means power consumers will be paying around $1.17 billion every year from 2020 until the RET expires in 2031. In addition to the $2.886 billion in fines added to power bills (up to and including 2020) – between 2021 and 2031 – fines of almost $12 billion will be issued to retailers, recovered from power consumers and the proceeds pocketed by the Commonwealth.

----------


## woodbe

Wind is a very successful and important component of a renewable energy grid. Despite the bleating naysayer here, renewable energy is taking the lead in reduced CO2 power generation and beating fossil fuel powered grids at their own game: reliability.   

> Last Friday Germany’s grid regulator released the 2013 data for grid  reliability, and the figures have renewable energy advocates crowing.  The latest numbers (released in German)  reveal no sign of growing instability despite record levels of  renewable energy on the grid — 28.5 percent of the power supplied in the  first half of 2014. In fact, Germany's grid is one of the world's most  reliable.
>   	According to the Bundesnetzagentur, unplanned outages left the average  German consumer without electricity for 15.32 minutes in 2013, down from  15.91 minutes in 2012 and 21.53 minutes in 2006. The performance, using  the power industry's System Average Interruption Duration Index  (SAIDI), affirms Germany's place in the top five for grid reliability  for European countries.
>    	German grid reliability, meanwhile, far outstrips the best SAIDI  results delivered by U.S. and Canadian utilities. The top quartile of  SAIDI results captured by last year's North American reliability benchmarking exercise by  the IEEE Power & Energy Society, for example, had consumers without  power for an average of 93 minutes — six times longer than outages  experienced by the average German consumer.

  Germany's Grid: Renewables-Rich and Rock-Solid - IEEE Spectrum

----------


## woodbe

> There is no way that the annual target set from 2017 (that escalates to 41,000 GWh in 2020, where it stays until 2031) will be met. Wind farm construction is almost at a standstill: “investment” in the construction of wind farms went from $2.69 billion in 2013 to a piddling $40 million this year

  And the reason for this was?

----------


## woodbe

> At this stage and with the amount of information available, it is difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to the sincerity of those who still today support and defend this gargantuan fraud.

  Please quote peer reviewed science to back up your claim that the acceptance of AGW is a fraud. 
The amount of supporting information behind our understanding of humankind's effect on the planet is overwhelming, despite the inability of some to alter their opinions in line with the facts before their eyes.

----------


## johnc

> JohnC
>  It is called libel.

  Don't be absurd, it is not libel, either develop a sense of humour  or stop posting cut and pastes that are full of lies and misquotes, clearly you are not interested in truth or accuracy at any time.

----------


## John2b

*libel*1)n.topublishinprint(includingpictures),writingorbroadcastthroughradio,televisionorfilm,anuntruthaboutanotherwhichwilldoharmtothatpersonorhis/herreputation,bytendingtobringthetargetintoridicule,hatred,scornorcontemptofothers. 
When the ridicule is a result of self-published statements, it's not libel.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Germany is certainly doing well with wind power (at generating money), at least for someone.    What next for troubled Bard? | Windpower Monthly

----------


## PhilT2

> Germany is certainly doing well with wind power (at generating money), at least for someone.    What next for troubled Bard? | Windpower Monthly

  A large construction project with budget and schedule problems, gee, never heard of that happening before. Lucky the Germans have a reliable supply of Russian gas piped through the Ukraine, nothing likely to go wrong there.
And WUWT is all pure gospel, every word.

----------


## John2b

> And WUWT is all pure gospel, every word.

  WUWT is never blogged down with factual representation...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> WUWT is never blogged down with factual representation...

  
Nice! attack WUWT.  The most popular site on the web for global warming!!

----------


## Marc

COMPARING THE COSTS OF
INTERMITTENT AND DISPATCHABLE
ELECTRICITY GENERATING TECHNOLOGIES 
Introduction and Summary*
This paper makes a very simple point regarding the proper methods for comparing the economic value 
of intermittent generating technologies (e.g. wind and solar) with the economic value of traditional 
dispatchable generating technologies (e.g. CCGT, coal, nuclear). I show that the prevailing approach 
that relies on comparisons of the “levelized cost” per MWh supplied by different generating 
technologies, or any other measure of total life-cycle production costs per MWh supplied, is seriously 
flawed. It is flawed because it effectively treats all MWhs supplied as a homogeneous product 
governed by the law of one price. Specifically, traditional levelized cost comparisons fail to take 
account of the fact that the value (wholesale market price) of electricity supplied varies widely over 
the course of a typical year. The difference between the high and the low hourly prices over the course 
of a typical year, including capacity payments for generating capacity available to supply power 
during critical peak hours, can be up to four orders of magnitude (Joskow 2008). It is important to take 
wholesale market price variations into account because the hourly output profiles, and the associated 
market value of electricity supplied, of intermittent generating technologies and competing 
dispatchable generating technologies can be very different. Moreover, different intermittent generating 
technologies (e.g. wind vs. solar) also can have very different hourly production and market value 
profiles, and indeed, specific intermittent generating units using the same technology (e.g. wind) may 
have very different production profiles depending on where they are located.1
 Wholesale electricity 
prices reach extremely high levels for a relatively small number of hours each year (see Figure 1) and 
generating units that are not able to supply electricity to balance supply and demand at those times are 
(or should be) at an economic disadvantage. These high-priced hours account for a large fraction of 
the quasi-rents that allow investors in generating capacity to recover their investment costs (Joskow 
2008) and failing properly to account for output during these critical hours will lead to incorrect 
economic evaluations of different generating technologies. 
In a nutshell, electricity that can be supplied by a wind generator at a levelized cost of 6¢/KWh is 
not “cheap” if the output is available primarily at night when the market value of electricity is only 
2.5¢/KWh. Similarly, a combustion turbine with a low expected capacity factor and a levelized cost of 
25¢/KWh is not necessarily “expensive” if it can be called on reliably to supply electricity during all 
hours when the market price is greater than 25¢/KWh. http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handl...5.pdf?sequence

----------


## John2b

> Nice! attack WUWT. The most popular site on the web for global warming!!

  Correction. The most popular site on the web for global warming misinformation!! 
Oh, how about a fact check on Anthony Watt's "most popular" claim? Not even close - who wudda thort??? 
Climate.nasa.gov has received an estimated 9,713,400 visits over the last 30 days.  Centre for Atmospheric Science (The Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Cambridge) has received an estimated 2,312,000 visits over the last 30 days.  National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) | The world's largest active archive of weather and climate data producing and supplying data and publications for the world. has received an estimated 13,057,000 visits over the last 30 days. 
Climatechange.gc.ca has received an estimated 20,607,000 visits over the last 30 days. 
Earthobservatory.nasa.gov has received an estimated 9,713,400 visits over the last 30 days. 
wattsupwiththat.com has received an estimated 1,804,300 visits over the last 30 days.  http://www.trafficestimate.com

----------


## PhilT2

The author of Marcs cut an paste is Prof Paul Joskow, an economist from MIT. He supports legislation to reduce CO2 emissions and believes that the correct policies will not have a severe impact on the economy. Google has a number of his articles available; try this one to start with. http://economics.mit.edu/files/5509

----------


## John2b

> The author of Marcs cut an paste is Prof Paul Joskow, an economist from MIT. He supports legislation to reduce CO2 emissions and believes that the correct policies will not have a severe impact on the economy. Google has a number of his articles available; try this one to start with. http://economics.mit.edu/files/5509

  If Marc had read the paper, he may not have been so enthusiastic to cut and paste an out of context summary that does not support his previously stated position LOL. 
"I do not opine here on whether the policies for promoting renewable generating technologies are good or bad, but focus on the appropriate methods for evaluating their costs and benefits." 
The paper was written some years ago and does not represent the current circumstances in mature renewable markets such as South Australia and Europe, in any case.

----------


## Marc

At this stage and with the amount of information available, it is difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to the sincerity of those who still today support and defend this gargantuan fraud. A few decades ago people use to be straight forward about their confession and wear a red T shirt with Che Guevara on it.

----------


## John2b

> At this stage and with the amount of information available, it is difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to the sincerity of those who still today support and defend this gargantuan fraud. A few decades ago people use to be straight forward about their confession and wear a red T shirt with Che Guevara on it.

  Global warming as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is unequivocal. What is your sincerity level given you support the fraudsters? 
Reminder, its now been 353 consecutive months since the last cooler-than-average month on planet Earth, based on the 1961 to 1990 average. That was back in February 1985.

----------


## johnc

Give Marc credit I guess, rather than argue science his views seem to be mainly supported by references to religion and politics so he is consistent. This is the problem, if you can convince yourself that it is ok to ignore science on the basis you think the other side is making it up you don't have to look any further to hold your position. This covers the rump that refute the science, hand over eyes don't look for goodness sake and don't mention science, well not the part coming from those working in it, just the odd one on the fringe that three per cent that keep the faith going that it isn't happening.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> A few decades ago people use to be straight forward about their confession and wear a red T shirt with Che Guevara on it.

  Who's on yours?

----------


## John2b

Ayn Rand?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Ayn Rand?

  That made me giggle... 
...and make me think that Ignatius J Reilly might also be appropriate.  Until I realised that it'd just be an artists impression and so not in keeping with the original train of thought.

----------


## John2b

Especially for Marc: 
Coal industry scientists say wind turbines could blow the Earth right into the sun.  In The Know: Coal Lobby Warns Wind Farms May Blow Earth Off Orbit | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

----------


## Marc

Al Gore vs. Reality on Planetary Ice Caps and Global Warming | CCD
Written by Chris Banescu, American Thinker on 16 September 2014. It appears that reality is not cooperating with the myth that man-made CO2 is causing global warming. Recent satellite images show that both the Arctic and the Antarctic sea ice have dramatically increased in size and thickness. 
Despite Al Gores 2007 apocalyptic predictions that in just 7 more years the Arctic ice cap will be completely gone, it has instead dramatically increased by 43% in size since 2012.  The North Pole ice cap grew by 1.715 million square kilometers, an area the size of Alaska, in the last two years.  In solidarity, the South Pole ice cap has also reached record-breaking levels, and not stands at 20 million square kilometers, the highest level since records began. *Al Gore (2007):* "The [Arctic] ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as 7 years from now." *Reality (2014):* ARCTIC Ice Cap: Ice sheet growth has been dramatic. The North Pole ice cover has reached 5.62 million square kilometers. This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years an impressive 43 percent. ANTARCTIC Sea Ice Cap: Scientists have declared a new record has been set for the extent of Antarctic sea ice since records began. Satellite imagery reveals an area of about 20 million square kilometers covered by sea ice around the Antarctic continent.  That is roughly double the size of the Antarctic continent and about three times the size of Australia.
Our planets actual climate continues to expose the fraud and junk science that Al Gore and other Global Warming cult followers have been spreading over the last few decades.  Scientific observations show that theres been no increased global warming for the last 17 years.  None of the hysterical weather predictions and doomsday climate scenarios Al Gore and his minions promised us ever materialized.
Of course, it may be that our weather satellites have been compromised by the Koch brothers and both the North and South Poles are now part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.  After all, in Al Gores universe anything is possible! *Source*

----------


## Marc

On the anniversary of Climategate the Watermelons show their true colours – Telegraph Blogs 
Indeed, the fraud was conceived as a fraud, was always a fraud is a fraud and will remain a fraud. The watermelons and assorted cheerleaders rejoice.
Not for long though.... 
If you ever had any doubt that the global warming fraud is anything but political, read the following demented statement by global warming alarmist in chief.  
as Edenhoffer so helpfully puts it it Neue Zurcher Zeitung: (H/T Global Warming Policy Foundation):First of all, developed countries have basically expropriatedthe atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.  also... 
I would give you the link to the Times article in which Ben Webster's interview appears, but sadly it's hidden behind a paywall. Still, Watts Up With That has the gist: Lord Stern said that Europe and the Far East (sic) were forging ahead of the US in controlling emissions and switching to low carbon sources of energy. They would not tolerate having their industries undermined by American competitors that had not paid for their emissions. If you are charging properly for carbon and other people are not, you will take that into account, he said. Many of the more forward-looking people in the US are thinking about this. If they see a danger on the trade front to US exports that could influence public discussion. Asked what type of US products could face restrictions, Lord Stern said: Aircraft, clearly, some cars, machine tools  its not simply whats in the capital good, its what kind of processes the capital good is facilitating."  Meantime the world keeps on cooling. The bureau of meteorology will not be able to keep on "homogenising" (read falsifying) the temperature data to turn a cooling trend into a warming for much longer.
The fraud will soon be so evident that it will have to be changed into something more credible. What will it be? I can not wait to see what they will come up next, and how quickly the corrupt vote hungry politician will run to embrace it "for our own good".

----------


## Marc



----------


## woodbe

> Despite Al Gores 2007 apocalyptic predictions that in just 7 more years the Arctic ice cap will be completely gone, it has instead dramatically increased by 43% in size since 2012.  The North Pole ice cap grew by 1.715 million square kilometers, an area the size of Alaska, in the last two years.  In solidarity, the South Pole ice cap has also reached record-breaking levels, and not stands at 20 million square kilometers, the highest level since records began.

  View the context of this stroke of climate change denial ideology:   
2012 was a record low. We have a thirty year average on the chart and every year since has been pushing or more than two standard deviations below that average. Cherry picking a low year for Arctic ice is exactly the same as cherry picking a high year for surface temperature.  
It's tiresome to have to repeat it, but two years is not climate, even if it appeases your opinion.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> On the anniversary of Climategate the Watermelons show their true colours  Telegraph Blogs 
> Indeed, the fraud was conceived as a fraud, was always a fraud is a fraud and will remain a fraud. The watermelons and assorted cheerleaders rejoice.
> Not for long though.... 
> If you ever had any doubt that the global warming fraud is anything but political, read the following demented statement by global warming alarmist in chief.  
> as Edenhoffer so helpfully puts it it Neue Zurcher Zeitung: (H/T Global Warming Policy Foundation):First of all, developed countries have basically expropriatedthe atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.  also... 
> I would give you the link to the Times article in which Ben Webster's interview appears, but sadly it's hidden behind a paywall. Still, Watts Up With That has the gist: Lord Stern said that Europe and the Far East (sic) were forging ahead of the US in controlling emissions and switching to low carbon sources of energy. They would not tolerate having their industries undermined by American competitors that had not paid for their emissions. If you are charging properly for carbon and other people are not, you will take that into account, he said. Many of the more forward-looking people in the US are thinking about this. If they see a danger on the trade front to US exports that could influence public discussion. Asked what type of US products could face restrictions, Lord Stern said: Aircraft, clearly, some cars, machine tools  its not simply whats in the capital good, its what kind of processes the capital good is facilitating."  Meantime the world keeps on cooling. The bureau of meteorology will not be able to keep on "homogenising" (read falsifying) the temperature data to turn a cooling trend into a warming for much longer.
> The fraud will soon be so evident that it will have to be changed into something more credible. What will it be? I can not wait to see what they will come up next, and how quickly the corrupt vote hungry politician will run to embrace it "for our own good".

   :2thumbsup:

----------


## johnc

> Al Gore vs. Reality on Planetary Ice Caps and Global Warming | CCD
> Written by Chris Banescu, American Thinker on 16 September 2014. It appears that reality is not cooperating with the myth that man-made CO2 is causing global warming. Recent satellite images show that both the Arctic and the Antarctic sea ice have dramatically increased in size and thickness. 
> Despite Al Gores 2007 apocalyptic predictions that in just 7 more years the Arctic ice cap will be completely gone, it has instead dramatically increased by 43% in size since 2012.  The North Pole ice cap grew by 1.715 million square kilometers, an area the size of Alaska, in the last two years.  In solidarity, the South Pole ice cap has also reached record-breaking levels, and not stands at 20 million square kilometers, the highest level since records began. *Al Gore (2007):* "The [Arctic] ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as 7 years from now." *Reality (2014):* ARCTIC Ice Cap: Ice sheet growth has been dramatic. The North Pole ice cover has reached 5.62 million square kilometers. This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years an impressive 43 percent. ANTARCTIC Sea Ice Cap: Scientists have declared a new record has been set for the extent of Antarctic sea ice since records began. Satellite imagery reveals an area of about 20 million square kilometers covered by sea ice around the Antarctic continent.  That is roughly double the size of the Antarctic continent and about three times the size of Australia.
> Our planets actual climate continues to expose the fraud and junk science that Al Gore and other Global Warming cult followers have been spreading over the last few decades.  Scientific observations show that theres been no increased global warming for the last 17 years.  None of the hysterical weather predictions and doomsday climate scenarios Al Gore and his minions promised us ever materialized.
> Of course, it may be that our weather satellites have been compromised by the Koch brothers and both the North and South Poles are now part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.  After all, in Al Gores universe anything is possible! *Source*

  And what is the cause for that and how do you balance massive summer ice loss against record winter ice gain?  I'll give you a hint it is to do with wind, why is it that this article doesn't mention that the increase only applies to sea ice while land ice continues to show a reducing trend, the omission is just to convenient to be accidental. This cut and paste is interesting in what it doesn't contain rather than what it does and illustrates the dishonesty of bias arrived at by selective quoting. Not even a nice try and certainly no cigar.

----------


## John2b

The Anatomy of climate fraud   Here is the reality:  Antarctica’s ice loss: 19 May 2014. Three years of observations from ESA’s CryoSat satellite show that the Antarctic ice sheet is now losing 159 billion tonnes of ice each year – twice as much as when it was last surveyed.  CryoSat finds sharp increase in Antarcticaâ€™s ice losses / CryoSat / Observing the Earth / Our Activities / ESA  Yet here is a fraudulent counter claim by some cretin in the blogosphere (If you doubt the blogger is a cretin, here is his personal blog: The Voice Blog - Bearing Witness to the Truth), reposted unthinkingly in this forum :  

> It appears that reality is not cooperating with the myth that man-made CO2 is causing global warming. Recent satellite images show that both the Arctic and the Antarctic sea ice have dramatically increased in size and thickness.

  As the denial machine to kicks into gear, more minions come to the fray and make posts such as:  

> 

  And the FRAUD is perpetuated... 
Thanks guys  :Screwy:

----------


## John2b

> the increase only applies to sea ice while land ice continues to show a reducing trend, the omission is just to convenient to be accidental. This cut and paste is interesting in what it doesn't contain rather than what it does and illustrates the dishonesty of bias arrived at by selective quoting.

  Only a person setting out to perpetuate the fraud that the sea ice increasing in extent is more significant that ice loss could overlook this - here is a clue to the relative significance of antarctic sea ice extent versus antarctic ice volume:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The Anatomy of climate fraud   Here is the reality:  Antarctica’s ice loss: 19 May 2014. Three years of observations from ESA’s CryoSat satellite show that the Antarctic ice sheet is now losing 159 billion tonnes of ice each year – twice as much as when it was last surveyed.  CryoSat finds sharp increase in Antarcticaâ€™s ice losses / CryoSat / Observing the Earth / Our Activities / ESA  Yet here is a fraudulent counter claim by some cretin in the blogosphere (If you doubt the blogger is a cretin, here is his personal blog: The Voice Blog - Bearing Witness to the Truth), reposted unthinkingly in this forum :
> As the denial machine to kicks into gear, more minions come to the fray and make posts such as:  And the FRAUD is perpetuated... 
> Thanks guys

  Your welcome.  Happy to perpetuate any time!

----------


## John2b

> Your welcome.  Happy to perpetuate any time!

  Really? What purpose are you serving helping to perpetuate fraudulent claims?

----------


## johnc

> Your welcome.  Happy to perpetuate any time!

  The fact that you openly support fraud does you no credit, perhaps it would pay to think carefully before you respond.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The fact that you openly support fraud does you no credit, perhaps it would pay to think carefully before you respond.

  Only you guys think its a fraud.

----------


## John2b

> Only you guys think its a fraud.

  We dont get to choose the truth about climate change - popular debate does not decide the scientific facts. Deniers love to frame this as a debate when none exists.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> We don’t get to choose the truth about climate change - popular debate does not decide the scientific facts. Deniers love to frame this as a “debate” when none exists.

  Wow oh Wow LOL really?  You call us deniers!!  The truth about climate change.......... hmm now I wonder what that is? 
Facts you say we know the facts and they don't support the fear mongering of ALARMIST that's for sure.  One fact for you is the feed back loops in the climate models that forms the basis of runaway global warming are a joke.

----------


## John2b

> You call us deniers!!

  That appears to be a self assessment. Where did I call you a denier?   

> The truth about climate change.......... hmm now I wonder what that is?

  The truth is in the evidence, the evidence that is being fraudulently misrepresented by climate change deniers in a way you said here #11983 you were happy to perpetuate. Climate is unequivocally changing as a result of human activity.   

> the facts and they don't support the fear mongering of ALARMIST that's for sure.

  I challenge you to find an example of an "alarmist" statement by a regular participant of this forum who understands AGW is actually happening. Nice try at moving the goal posts BTW.   

> One fact for you is the feed back loops in the climate models that forms the basis of runaway global warming are a joke.

  Models are irrelevant to whether the climate is changing. It has been 353 consecutive months since the last cooler-than-average month, based on the 1961 to 1990 average. Global warming is not a joke. It is foolish to think that rapid climate change is harmless or beneficial to the well being of humanity.

----------


## Marc

*Dr Karl’s Klimate Krap…*  18 September, 2014 by Simon 4 Comments    
More Klimate Krap Dr Karl is on a krappy Krusade… to keep the warming scare going.
Rusted-on warmists like Dr Karl have invested so much emotional energy in their substitute religion that when the evidence no longer fits their theory, they just, er,  ignore the evidence. It’s tragic to see a supposed “scientist” in such a confused state of cognitive dissonance:_In general, scientists are a pretty mild and inoffensive bunch. But over the last decade, one specific group of scientists has come in for a lot of criticism. So let’s dive into the topic of ‘the pause in global warming’._ _In the USA, the Wall Street Journal wrote, “temperatures have been flat for 15 years – nobody can properly explain it.”_ _Another newspaper from the same stable, the UK Daily Mail wrote “global warming ‘pause’ may last 20 more years, and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover”. Both of these statements are very reassuring, but unfortunately, very very wrong._ _With regard to this ‘pause’, there are two major claims made by those who deny the science of climate change._ _The first one is that the climate is actually cooling – not warming. This is incorrect._ _The second claim is that after some previous warming, the global climate is now constant, and neither warming nor cooling. In other words, that the climate is in a kind of holding pattern, or haitus. This is also incorrect._ You can read the rest here, but quite frankly, save your time. Rather than accept that something is going on that the models failed to predict, Dr Karl would rather stick his fingers in his ears and shout “La, la, la!” Pretty much like the ABC in general, really… *Share this*

----------


## Marc

*The Oceans Ate Global Warming?*  Written by Jonathon Moseley, American Thnker on 15 September 2014. In _Alice in Wonderland_, by Lewis Carroll, Alice says she cannot believe impossible things. The Queen of Hearts is surprised: “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Therefore, suppose we compare two events:  Global warming advocates argue that the oceans are absorbing the extra heat that their computer models predicted, which has mysteriously vanished. The missing heat over the last 18 years has been going into the oceans.Yet, the Arctic Sea Ice Cap aound the North Pole has grown by 43% since 2012. As confirmed by satellites from orbit, the Arctic ice pack has grown by 1.715 million square kilometers in the last two years, as reported in England’s _Daily Mail_. That is the size of the truly massive state of Alaska.  So, might we ask a question?  Yes, you with your hand up. 
If the Earth hasn’t warmed for the last 18 years because the predicted heat is going into the oceans, then why is there 43% more ice in the last two years? If you add heat to water containing ice, doesn’t the ice normally melt? Does it normally freeze over, creating more ice? The Oceans Ate Global Warming? | CCD

----------


## Marc

And if you forgot that Global Warming is actually a religion, listen to this demented nonsense Should the US protect Muslim countries from global warming? : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery

----------


## John2b

> If the Earth hasn’t warmed for the last 18 years because the predicted heat is going into the oceans, then why is there 43% more ice in the last two years?

  Indeed. The first problem with your statement is that the earth has continued to warm. The second problem is that there is not more ice volume in the past two years.   

> If you add heat to water containing ice, doesn’t the ice normally melt?

  Mightn't that depend on whether the water being warmed was in the same location as the water with the ice in it? Wouldn't want to get hung up on inconvenient details...  World continues to warm:   Arctic sea ice falls far faster than models predicted:    No significant recovery in sea ice in the last two years:

----------


## John2b

> listen to this demented nonsense

  Got to agree with you Marc, the whole "interview" (which has the hallmarks of actually being scripted and rehearsed) is demented nonsense. 
BTW, I don't agree with the statement of John Kerry anymore than I expect you would, but it does not change the reality of climate change whether Kerry is a nutter or not.

----------


## Marc

And John Kerry does not believe what he himself is saying either.  
The "reality" of global [may or may not be] warming is as follows:  
Someone more clever than you and me, worked out that there is a large number of people who have a personality that makes them likely to "follow" an idea that places blame of whatever you can think of on those who are well off. Marx was a clever person but attempting to blame naturally occurring climate variations on the rich is way more clever.  
Mixing a tad of true with a lot of baloney is an old strategy and so came your hero Al Gore that after his many political failures and a lot of time to machinate something new. "A convenient lie" was born and with the inside knowledge of mass manipulation that only an ex politician has at his fingertips, he plotted and lied and plotted and lied again so convincingly that he got a Nobel prize.  
Never mind that in his chart temperature variations lag behind CO2 changes by a several hundreds of years, all you do is change the scale and voila! they go hand in hand.   
With the ball rolling, the crowd of dissatisfied watermelons with nothing to do rolled behind en mass. The politicians worked out fast that there are votes to be harvested by talking up an imaginary threat from global [may be] warming, the wind and solar and wave and you name it industry who was starved for funds for decades, saw their dawn coming and jumped in grabbing subsidies galore. The mercenary scientist who worked out that being skeptical about an unproven hypothesis would cost them their job, put the mortgage before ethics and scientific principles and clapped along looking the other way.   
With only conservatives to protest and retired or independent scientist to provide skeptical  views, the story of the biggest con in human history was born. Just like the many religions made up to control the masses, a new modern religion is controlling the millions of dissatisfied and pretend altruist that walk this earth (altruist with other peoples money that is).  
The new religion determines their votes, use their dissent against conservatives and industry, manipulate funds and subsidies, control "scientific" studies and unfortunately, distracts from the real environmental problems. Industry gets away with poisoning our food and water because there is a pretend imaginary greater good, the world temperature! As if we had the power to turn the knob and adjust it at will. Even if we did made a difference in the temperature, to think that we can reverse it is so naive that beggars belief.  
Of course human presence makes a difference. Anything makes a difference to everything. A butterfly flapping its wing makes a difference, everything is interconnected and billions of humans building and doing everything we do changes everything over and over. You only have to ride a motorbike in winter from the country into the city or even a small town to feel the change in temperature on your skin.  
Does it mean we can reverse this? Sure, lets demolish everything we have ever built, and then commit mass suicide to return the world to how it was. Will that be possible? No, nothing will turn back to how it was, the world changes and rolls forward and adapts to changes with its multiple and unknown mechanism to adapt to ever occurring changes. There are a lot of things we can do to better our environment, from regulating the food industry with proper rules, jail the coal seam gas industry board and politicians who grant them licenses there are many things that can be done for the right reasons.  
Turn the economy on its head in order to reduce CO2 in order to achieve nothing at all at an astronomical cost is not one of them. 
The global (yea right) warming agitators deserve a better cause. May be soon someone will work out one for them.

----------


## John2b

353 consecutive months since the last cooler-than-average month. 
Plenty of watermelons on both "sides" BTW.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> 353 consecutive months since the last cooler-than-average month. 
> Plenty of watermelons on both "sides" BTW.

  
How ingenious.. it depends on where and how you take your average from for this to mean anything at all.    
Load of absolute rubbish.

----------


## intertd6

> 353 consecutive months since the last cooler-than-average month. 
> Plenty of watermelons on both "sides" BTW.

  one only has to have the intelligence to read a graph rather than be an idiot & swallow the propaganda.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> How ingenious.. it depends on where and how you take your average from for this to mean anything at all.

  Relative to the average global surface temperature from 1961 to 1990. If out were relative to the average since records began, the period of no months with a less than average temperature would be a lot longer.  With records dating back to 1880, the global temperature across the world's land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was 0.75°C (1.35°F) higher than the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F). This makes August 2014 the warmest August on record for the globe since records began in 1880, beating the previous record set in 1998. 
Nine of the 10 warmest Augusts on record have occurred during the 21st century. 
Additionally, August 2014 marked the 38th consecutive August with a temperature above the 20th century average. 
The last below-average global temperature for August occurred in 1976.  Global Analysis - August 2014 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)   

> Load of absolute rubbish.

  If you have better information, please share it.

----------


## John2b

> one only has to have the intelligence to read a graph rather than be an idiot & swallow the propaganda.

  Welcome back. Looking forward to more intelligent contributions and insight from your quarter.

----------


## Marc

____________________ _Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July_ *2013* _“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The_ *global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years*_,”_ ____________________ _Dr. Kevin Trenberth – NPR – 23 August_ *2013* _“_*They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods*_, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,”_ ____________________ _Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August_ *2013* _“_*Recent global-warming hiatus*_ tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling_ _Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”_ ____________________ _Professor Anastasios Tsonis – Daily Telegraph – 8 September_ *2013* _“We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt_ *the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped*_.”_ ____________________ _Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth – Nature News Feature – 15 January_ *2014* _“The_ *1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus*_,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist…_ ____________________ _Dr. Gabriel Vecchi – Nature News Feature – 15 January_ *2014* _“A few years ago you saw the_ *hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist…“Now it’s something to explain*_.”….._ ____________________ _Professor Matthew England – ABC Science – 10 February_ *2014* _“Even though_ *there is this hiatus in this surface average temperature*_, we’re still getting record heat waves, we’re still getting harsh bush fires…..it shows we shouldn’t take any comfort from this_ *plateau in global average temperatures*_.”_  ____________________ The Australian Climate Sceptics Blog: Quotable Warming Hiatus Quotes

----------


## Rod Dyson

> ____________________ _Professor Rowan Sutton  Independent  22 July_ *2013* _Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The_ *global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years*_,_ ____________________ _Dr. Kevin Trenberth  NPR  23 August_ *2013* __*They probably cant go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods*_, is suddenly theres a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,_ ____________________ _Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al.  Nature  28 August_ *2013* __*Recent global-warming hiatus*_ tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling_ _Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century_ ____________________ _Professor Anastasios Tsonis  Daily Telegraph  8 September_ *2013* _We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt_ *the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped*_._ ____________________ _Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth  Nature News Feature  15 January_ *2014* _The_ *1997 to 98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think thats very probably the beginning of the hiatus*_, says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist_ ____________________ _Dr. Gabriel Vecchi  Nature News Feature  15 January_ *2014* _A few years ago you saw the_ *hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise, says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientistNow its something to explain*_..._ ____________________ _Professor Matthew England  ABC Science  10 February_ *2014* _Even though_ *there is this hiatus in this surface average temperature*_, were still getting record heat waves, were still getting harsh bush fires..it shows we shouldnt take any comfort from this_ *plateau in global average temperatures*_._  ____________________ The Australian Climate Sceptics Blog: Quotable Warming Hiatus Quotes

  What hiatus Mark?? 
The world is warming at an unprecedented rate, and its only getting worse............ isn't it? :Redface:

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc

_Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July,_ *2005* _“_*The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998*_. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”_  _Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May,_ *2009* _‘Bottom line: the ‘_*no upward trend*_’ has to continue for a total of_ *15 years before we get worried*_.’_ ____________________ _Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug_ *2009* _“…_*This lack of overall warming*_ is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”_ ____________________ _Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct._ *2009* _“Well, I have my own article on_ *where the heck is global warming*_…..The fact is that_ *we can’t account for the lack of warming*_ at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”_ ____________________ _Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November_ *2009* _“At present, however, the_ *warming is taking a break*_,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”_ ____________________ _Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November_ *2009* _“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”_*We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place*_ at this point.”_ ____________________ _Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February_ *2010*  _“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been_ *cooling*_ I’d say so. But it hasn’t until_*recently*_ – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”_ ____________________ _Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February_ *2010* _[Q] B – “_*Do you agree that from 1995*_ to the present there has been_ *no statistically-significant global warming*_”_ _[A] “_*Yes*_, but only just”._ ____________________ _Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research –_*2010* _“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the_ *global temperature increment is near zero*_;…”_ ____________________ _Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February_ *2011* _“Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the_ *cause of the hiatus*_ in the current global warming trend.”_ ____________________ _Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June_ *2011* _“…..it has been unclear why_ *global surface temperatures did not rise*_ between 1998 and 2008…..”_ ____________________ _Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September_*2011* _“There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a_ *hiatus*_ period)….”_ ____________________ _Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October_ *2012* _“We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a_ *very small amount of warming*_ in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is_ *0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997*_ equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”_ _Source:_ _metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012_

----------


## Marc

_Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January_ *2013* _“The 5-year mean_ *global temperature has been flat for a decade*_, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”_ ____________________ _Dr Doug Smith – Met Office – 18 January_ *2013* _“The exact_ *causes of the temperature standstill are not yet understood*_,” says climate researcher Doug Smith from the Met Office._ _[Translated by Philipp Mueller from Spiegel Online]_ ____________________ _Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April_ *2013* _“…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the_ *Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused* _its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”_ ____________________ _Dr. Judith Curry – House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment – 25 April_ *2013* _” If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct, then_ *the current flat trend in global surface temperatures*_ may continue for another decade or two,…”_ ____________________ _Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June_ *2013* _“…_*the increase over the last 15 years*_ was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value_ *very close to zero*_….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”_ ____________________ _Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June_ *2013* _“The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from_ *hiatus*_ in coming decades.”_ ____________________ _Met Office – July_ *2013* _“_*The recent pause in global warming*_, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?_ _……….._ _Executive summary_ *The recent pause in global surface temperature rise*_ does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century.”_  _Source:_ _metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf_ ____________________

----------


## Marc

OF course there is a solution to this. Build a graphic with an X scale divided into 100ths of a degree and you will be able to show massive temperature increases in the order of fractions of a degree.
WOW! we all are going to die tomorrow!

----------


## Marc

Attachment 102534

----------


## Marc

*All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter* “Climate is and always has been variable. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually.” ~Professor Tim Patterson  Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/p/hall-of-shame-aka-bastards.html

----------


## Marc

*Questions for the Australian Bureau of Meteorology**Open Letter – 4th March 2014* *
Q1. Could the Bureau explain why it uses 1910 as the start date for the official temperature record rather than a year such as 1860, given there was a large amount of reliable temperature data available from the mid 1800s? 
Q2. Further to 1, if the pre-1910 data is not suitable for official domestic use, can the Bureau explain why it finds it suitable enough to provide this data for generation of a global annual mean temperature anomaly back to 1850? 
Q3. Could the Bureau please provide a list of the actual stations used to calculate the 2013 average mean temperature anomaly, the specific databases and time intervals applied to each of these stations, as well as the adjustments that have been made to the raw data? 
Q4. Given potential and actual conflicts of interest, could the Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS) rather than the Bureau of Meteorology, be tasked with the job of leading the high quality and objective interpretation of the historical temperature record for Australia? 
Q.5. What is the explanation for the discrepancy between allocated funding for salary and actual salary of climate change modelers employed under the Climate Change Science Program? 
Q6. Is the reliance by the Bureau on a General Circulation Model (GCM) to provide monthly and seasonal forecasts justified when methods that use historical patterns have proven to be more accurate? Q7. Could the Bureau explain why it doesn’t publish the actual quantity of rain forecast by the GCM when issuing its monthly and seasonal forecasts, and why it shouldn’t establish a publicly available archive showing quantities of rainfall forecast in the past? 
See answers and comments here: Questions for the Australian Bureau of Meteorology | Jennifer Marohasy*

----------


## Marc

Jennifer Marohasy  The Australian Bureau of Meteorology takes a revisionist approach to history, changing the historical temperature record so that it accords with the theory of anthropogenic global warming. This process of homogenisation is explained in ‘Modelling Australian and global temperatures: what’s wrong? Bourke and Amberley as case studies’, recently presented at a meeting of the *Sydney Institute* by Jennifer Marohasy, and published in Issue 26 of the Sydney Papers Online.   *Stop Press.* Recent articles from *News Ltd* regarding corruption of the raw temperature data for Australia: August 23 – Bureau of Meteorology ‘altering climate figures’ &  Heat is on over weather bureau revising records (Graham Lloyd, The Australian).  August 26 – ‘Amateurs’ challenging Bureau of Meteorology climate figures (Graham Lloyd, The Australian). August 27 – Climate records contradict Bureau of Meteorology (Graham Lloyd, The Australian). August 29 – Bureau of Meteorology told to be more transparent (Graham Lloyd, The Australian).  August 29 – Groupthink reigns in climate change research(Maurice Newman, The Australian).  August 30 – Weatherman’s records detail heat that ‘didn’t happen’ (Graham Lloyd, The Australian).  August 30 – Distorting the data on our changeable climate (Adelaide Advertiser, The Australian’s Chris Kenny). September 2 –Bureau of Meteorology defended over temperature records by climate scientists (Graham Lloyd, The Australian). September 3 – Heat off Bourke after Bureau of Meteorology revision (Graham Lloyd, The Australian). September 4 – ‘More time’ to find Rutherglen temperature record (Graham Lloyd, The Australian).  September 5 – Bureau of Meteorology ‘adding mistakes’ with data modelling (Graham Lloyd, The Australian)

----------


## intertd6

Marc, all those scientists quoted are obviously wrong according to our resident armchair experts, so we should stop thinking with our brains & follow them blindly propagating the fear propaganda further away from reality! 
Regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Or, alternatively: Marc has demonstrated that cherry picking propaganda is an art form on his side of the fence.  
Pick less than climatological time scale, pick a single temperature series and claim it represents all temperature series, then pick selected out of context comments from a mix of sources to support your cherry pick. 
These are cherry picks on cherry picks.

----------


## Marc

Now the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been forced to try to explain the large adjustments. Australians may finally gain a better understanding of what “record” temperatures mean, and the certainty ascribed to national trends. There is both a feature and a news piece today in _The Weekend Australian._ The odd case of Amberley minima. If you live nearby the local thermometer would say that mornings now are slightly cooler for you than they were in 1941. The BOM says otherwise. Both Jennifer Marohasy and Graham Lloyd are both doing great work here: The Australian *Bureau of Meteorology ‘altering climate figures’**THE Bureau of Meteorology has been accused of manipulating historic temperature records to fit a predetermined view of global warming.* Researcher Jennifer Marohasy claims the adjusted records resemble “propaganda” rather than science. After a description of some of the problems, the BOM responds to explain the adjustments. Most of it the usual argument from authority, and handwaving about how they are experts and a very complicated technique (that produces odd results) is “likely” right: “‘BOM has rejected Dr Marohasy’s claims and said the agency had used world’s best practice and a peer reviewed process to modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country. The heat is on. Bureau of Meteorology âaltering climate figuresâ — The Australian Â« JoNova

----------


## John2b

> The Australian Bureau of Meteorology takes a revisionist approach to history, changing the historical temperature record so that it accords with the theory of anthropogenic global warming. This process of homogenisation is explained in ‘Modelling Australian and global temperatures: what’s wrong? Bourke and Amberley as case studies’, recently presented at a meeting of the *Sydney Institute* by Jennifer Marohasy, and published in Issue 26 of the Sydney Papers Online.

  You must be so disappointed you didn't check your facts before you posted, Marc. You would be screaming that the BOM is hiding rising temperatures in Australia, because the net effect of all of the BOM adjustments combined was downwards, not upwards like the idiot you have quoted implied.  “Far from being a fudge to make warming look more severe than it is, most of the bureau’s data manipulation has in fact had the effect of reducing the apparent extreme temperature trends across Australia,"  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bureau-of-meteorology-defended-over-temperature-records-by-climate-scientists/story-e6frg6xf-1227044313807 
Never one to let the facts get in the way of prothletising your ideology, eh Marc?

----------


## intertd6

> It is a pity you didn't check your facts before you posted, Marc. You should be screaming that the BOM is hiding rising temperatures in Australia, because the net effect of all of the the adjustments combined was downwards, not upwards like the idiot you have quoted implied.  “Far from being a fudge to make warming look more severe than it is, most of the bureau’s data manipulation has in fact had the effect of reducing the apparent extreme temperature trends across Australia,"  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bureau-of-meteorology-defended-over-temperature-records-by-climate-scientists/story-e6frg6xf-1227044313807 
> Never one to let the facts get in the way of prothletising your ideology, eh Marc?

  that at has to be the stupidest thing I have read this month & what fool would believe it? Other than the blind followers of propaganda. The BOM has been caught out fudging raw data with statistical manipulation, yet fails to be open to independent statistical analysis.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> that at has to be the stupidest thing I have read this month & what fool would believe it? Other than the blind followers of propaganda.

  You must be busting to share the data you have to support your claim. Let's have it Inter. Don't hold back now... 
For reference, below is the effect of the BOM homogenisation showing clearly how it has reduced the rate of warming (blue curve after adjustment, red curve before adjustment):

----------


## intertd6

> You must be busting to share the data you have to support your claim. Let's have it Inter. Don't hold back now... 
> For reference, below is the effect of the BOM homogenisation showing clearly how it has reduced the rate of warming (blue curve after adjustment, red curve before adjustment):

  how bright is somebody to put a graph like that which shows 32 higher changes through homogenisation against 6 lower changes. I would normally say " should have gone to specsavers!" But it's obvious what is lacking is at the end of the optic nerves.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> The BOM has been caught out fudging raw data with statistical manipulation, yet fails to be open to independent statistical analysis.

  That has to be the stupidest thing I have read this month (to quote a phrase). BOM's data is freely available on their website. Anybody can do their own statistical analysis and many people do. 
The methodology of data homogenisation is provided here: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change.../#tabs=Methods. 
Claims that the BOM is not open or is secretive are at best fallacious or otherwise simply malicious.

----------


## John2b

> how bright is somebody to put a graph like that ... it's obvious what is lacking is at the end of the optic nerves.

  So will you share _your_ data or data source for the benefit of all? Otherwise people may be forgiven for thinking you are just making stuff up.

----------


## intertd6

> So will you share _your_ data or data source for the benefit of all? Otherwise people may be forgiven for thinking you are just making stuff up.

  like don't you know when your being shown up? Or are your neurons just not transmitting? 
"how bright is somebody to put a graph like that which shows 32 higher changes through homogenisation against 6 lower changes."
You supplied the data too! I rest my case!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> like don't you know when your being shown up?

  I would love to be shown up. Have you got something to post? Don't hold back, share it with everyone. Dispense with the name calling and innuendoes and post the evidence to support your position!

----------


## John2b

> like don't you know when your being shown up? Or are your neurons just not transmitting? 
> "how bright is somebody to put a graph like that which shows 32 higher changes through homogenisation against 6 lower changes."
> You supplied the data too! I rest my case!

  Sorry inter, I gave you the benefit of having some intelligence. Now I realise that you have got it ass-about. The 32 changes LOWER the RATE of temperature increase and the 6 changes RAISE it (your counts, not mine). You may need glasses, you may need to turn your computer screen the right way up, or you may need to stop standing on your head - I really don't know which.

----------


## intertd6

> Sorry inter, I gave you the benefit of having some intelligence. Now I realise that you have got it ass-about. The 32 changes LOWER the homogenised data set and the 6 changes RAISE it (your counts, not mine). You may need glasses, you may need to turn your computer screen the right way up, or you may need to stop standing on your head - I really don't know which.

  Really?  "(blue curve after adjustment, red curve before adjustment)": the 32 points above are in blue! just like anybodies face colour when they are in over their depth. Keep digging your hole this is entertaining!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Really?  "(blue curve after adjustment, red curve before adjustment)": the 32 points above are in blue!

  Yes that's absolutely correct, Inter. Most of those adjustments were in the distant past, which means the RATE of warming from THEN until NOW is effectively lowered. The BOM's adjustments have lowered the rate of warming. Glad you spotted it!

----------


## intertd6

> Yes that's absolutely correct, Inter. Most of those adjustments were in the distant past, which means the RATE of warming from THEN until NOW is effectively lowered. The BOM's adjustments have lowered the rate of warming. Glad you spotted it!

  Really? http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph...djustments.jpg
the point is homogenisation has artificially raised the temperature records past or present & false impressions are being discovered which need to be fully explained, your biased ideology is clouding clear thinking & explanations.
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> Really? http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph...djustments.jpg
> the point is homogenisation has artificially raised the temperature records past or present & false impressions are being discovered which need to be fully explained, your biased ideology is clouding clear thinking & explanations.
> regards inter

  You've still got nothing! 
Homogenisation is a necessary step in climate data sets. It is done to clean a data set as much as possible from changes in the location, type, breaks in data and changes to the surroundings of the instrumentation etc. Homogenization (climate) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
You claim John2b is biassed, but you quote one of the most extreme anti-science blogs for your information. Look in the mirror! 
Read and weep: ACTION COST-ES0601   

> The action is over, the main conclusions are: 
> 1. Homogenisation improves climate data  and does not cause artificial trends. Because the test was blind and  because of the realism of the data, this can now be stated with  confidence.
> 2. Modern algorithms, which are designed to also work  with an inhomogeneous reference, are clearly better than traditional  ones. It needed a realistic benchmark dataset with surrogate climate  networks to see this difference clearly. 
> 3.  Two new software packages containing some of the methods recommended by  HOME are now avalible. The code has been produced by Olivier Mestre,  École Nationale de la Météorologie, Météo France, Tolouse". *HOMER* (for monthly data) and *HOM/SPLIDHOM* (for daily data) 
> Benchmarking homogenization algorithms for monthly data
> V. K. C. Venema1, O. Mestre2, E. Aguilar3, I. Auer4, J. A. Guijarro5, P. Domonkos3, G. Vertacnik6, T. Szentimrey7, P. Stepanek8,9, P. Zahradnicek8,9, J. Viarre3, G. Müller-Westermeier10, M. Lakatos7, C. N. Williams11, M. J. Menne11, R. Lindau1, D. Rasol12, E. Rustemeier1, K. Kolokythas13, T. Marinova14, L. Andresen15, F. Acquaotta16, S. Fratianni16, S. Cheval17,18, M. Klancar6, M. Brunetti19, C. Gruber4, M. Prohom Duran20,21, T. Likso12, P. Esteban20,22, and T. Brandsma23 1Meteorological institute of the University of Bonn, Germany 2Meteo France, Ecole Nationale de la Meteorologie, Toulouse, France 3Center on Climate Change (C3), Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain 4Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik, Wien, Austria 5Agencia Estatal de Meteorologia, Palma de Mallorca, Spain 6Slovenian Environment Agency, Ljubljana, Slovenia 7Hungarian Meteorological Service, Budapest, Hungary 8Czech Hydrometeorological Institute, Brno, Czech Republic 9Czechglobe-Global Change Research Centre AS CR, v.v.i., Brno, Czech Republic 10Deutscher Wetterdienst, Offenbach, Germany 11NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, USA 12Meteorological and hydrological service, Zagreb, Croatia 13Laboratory of Atmospheric Physics, University of Patras, Greece 14National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology  BAS, Sofia, Bulgaria 15Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway 16Department of Earth Science, University of Turin, Italy 17National Meteorological Administration, Bucharest, Romania 18National Institute for R&D in Environmental Protection, Bucharest, Romania 19Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (ISAC-CNR), Bologna, Italy 20Grup de Climatologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain 21Meteorological Service of Catalonia, Area of Climatology, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain 22Centre d'Estudis de la Neu i de la Muntanya d'Andorra (CENMA-IEA), Andorra 23Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt, The Netherlands

  You don't get valid scientific information from climate change denier blogs. You get stupid information set to attack the science with no valid scientific review.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You don't get valid scientific information from climate change denier blogs. You get stupid information set to attack the science with no valid scientific review.

  In your opinion!!  And no one I know and certainly no blogs I know deny climate change!

----------


## John2b

> In your opinion!!  And no one I know and certainly no blogs I know deny climate change!

  No, they just create mountains of fraudulent pseudoscientific claptrap to create obfuscation and fodder for unthinking minions. 
(Nice attempt to move the gaol posts again Rod, BTW.)

----------


## Rod Dyson

> No, they just create mountains of fraudulent pseudoscientific claptrap to create obfuscation and fodder for unthinking minions. 
> (Nice attempt to move the gaol posts again Rod, BTW.)

  no moving goal posts nothing has changed.  All the above is also just your opinion as it suit your thinking.

----------


## John2b

> no moving goal posts nothing has changed.  All the above is also just your opinion as it suit your thinking.

  I'll ask you again, Rod: If your "side's" bloggers are right, why do they need to continually and fraudulently publish claims that are so easily shown to be false, out of context, misinterpretations or just plain wrong?

----------


## woodbe

> In your opinion!!  And no one I know and certainly no blogs I know deny climate change!

  Back at you.. In your own opinion!! We're talking AGW here, not natural forcings. 
Have you heard of WUWT?, it routinely denies the impact of humankind on the climate, not to mention Jonova, or Marc's right wing repertoire of blogs, etc, etc. There are masses of them and very little based on real published science, and those that do usually quote well out of context or cherry pick. Read back a few pages of this thread and there are plenty of examples. 
Just come up with published peer reviewed science that knocks the accepted science out of the park. Anything else is just more claptrap to support an ideology.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'll ask you again, Rod: If your "side's" bloggers are right, why do they need to continually and fraudulently publish claims that are so easily shown to be false, out of context, misinterpretations or just plain wrong?

  
I cant speak for them all there are good and bad on both sides but it is again only your opinion.  I really think the fraudulent claims are by far more prevalent on your side of the argument.  You just cant see it.  All the scare mongering that is preceded with "may" "could" and the like are all presented as facts to whip up support by scaring people.  This is by far more fraudulent and a misrepresentation of facts.   
Yet it will be excused as a justifiable means to get the message across.   
Your side has relied on so much on these fraudulent and misrepresentative claims that HAVE NOT eventuated, so much so that no one believes anything the warmists say anymore.  They have shot themselves in the foot and you know it. 
The only fraud being conducted here is the bullchet claims that AGW is the dominant factor in climate change, supported by climate models that are pre-fed feedback loops that don't exist.  The global warming movement may have started out with all good intentions, but it has been hijacked by anyone that can find a way to profit from the scare. 
It is only a matter of time before it is a dead issue.  Nothing absolutely nothing has been presented here that could change my view of this.  But by all means knock yourself out trying to come up with some thing to change my mind.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Back at you.. In your own opinion!! We're talking AGW here, not natural forcings. 
> Have you heard of WUWT?, it routinely denies the impact of humankind on the climate, not to mention Jonova, or Marc's right wing repertoire of blogs, etc, etc. There are masses of them and very little based on real published science, and those that do usually quote well out of context or cherry pick. Read back a few pages of this thread and there are plenty of examples. 
> Just come up with published peer reviewed science that knocks the accepted science out of the park. Anything else is just more claptrap to support an ideology.

  Oh boy.  The claptrap comes from the warmists.  If your case for runaway dangerous AGW that will burn up the world is so strong, you would not have any skeptics.  The facts are that it is rubbish.  A few truths which most of us all agree even most at WUNT, Jonova  etc. have been embellished to represent a catastrophic future.   
It is the embellishments that we all disagree on.   
A warmer climate is better for humans than a colder climate in any case.  More C02 is better than less as far as plants are concerned.   
The scare tactics have come around and bit you on the butt.  Most of these blogs delight in pointing out the failure of wild, false and fraudulent claims by warmists.  Hell even I have great enjoyment from that! 
Any way it is going to take a long time yet for some to see this for what it is.

----------


## woodbe

> Oh boy.  The claptrap comes from the warmists.  If your case for runaway dangerous AGW that will burn up the world is so strong, you would not have any skeptics.  The facts are that it is rubbish.  A few truths which most of us all agree even most at WUNT, Jonova  etc. have been embellished to represent a catastrophic future.

  Who said I agree that there is a near term catastrophic future? Not I, and not most climate scientists. You're trying to peg me to a very small portion of warmists. What I do agree with is that we sould be actively doing something now about our effect on the climate because it will only get harder for future generations to undo the harm we create by continuing to increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.   

> It is the embellishments that we all disagree on.   
> A warmer climate is better for humans than a colder climate in any case.  More C02 is better than less as far as plants are concerned.

  It's already warmer, Rod. The chances of it getting significantly colder are very slim. We have a lot of existing warming to lose before we get back to where we were before the industrial revolution and there is absolutely no sign that we are heading back. The most we hear is that there is no more warming in the last couple of decades. That's not cooling back to pre industrialisation! In any case, just wait for that to get blown out of the water in due course. What are you going to claim then? The ocean ate your cooling?  :Biggrin:    

> The scare tactics have come around and bit you on the butt.  Most of these blogs delight in pointing out the failure of wild, false and fraudulent claims by warmists.  Hell even I have great enjoyment from that!

  The 'scare tactics' is the science telling us where we are at and what effects our actions will have. If you read the science, you would understand that the scary results are hundreds of years in the future, not next year. We can ignore it, but unless there is science to prove otherwise, it will happen. Some people find that scary, others see it as a call for change. No surprise which side of the fence you and I are on.   

> Any way it is going to take a long time yet for some to see this for what it is.

  Sure. Like the dry rot in a wall. By the time you realise it's there, the wall is toast. If you test the wall when you think there is no problem, you're going to find out you have some repairs to make. Much easier and much more economical to do it early than wait for it to collapse.

----------


## John2b

> The only fraud being conducted here is the bullchet claims that AGW is the dominant factor in climate change,

  There you go Rod, you have sprouted another easily disprovable claim. The radiation balance that has been altered by anthropogenic CO2 emissions is easily measurable. No models or climate change theories required. It's a fact that human emissions of CO2 have altered the energy balance of the planet that is causing warming the amount can be directly measured.  NASA LaRC Science Directorate : Research - The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)

----------


## Marc

*10 Ways To Tell Tuesday’s UN Climate Summit Isn’t About Climate  1. There is no way with current technology to get beyond 15%-20% renewable energy in the next 20 years or so….and even that will be exceedingly expensive. No matter how much you care about where your energy originates, physics and economics trump emotions.**2. The UN doesn’t care that global warming stopped 17 years ago.* It doesn’t matter. Full steam ahead. *3. The UN’s own climate models have grossly over-forecast warming*. Doesn’t matter. Full steam ahead. *4. Scientists and politicians have had to resort to blaming severe weather eventson climate change.* Like, we never had severe weather before? Really? (Oh, BTW,severe weather hasn’t gotten worse.) *5. The UN Climate Summit participants’ “carbon footprints” far exceed those of normal people…and they don’t care.* Flying jets all over the world, traveling and dining in style, and telling a billion poor they can’t have inexpensive electricity? That’s the moral high ground? *6. Leonardo DiCaprio, UN’s Messenger of Peace. Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize andcrony capitalist.* ‘Nuff said. *7. The leaders of Australia, China, India, Canada, and Germany are opting out of Tuesday’s meeting.* They have real problems to attend to, not manufactured ones. *8. A UN official admitted the climate goal was wealth redistribution.* Naomi Klein has admitted what Obama, Kerry, and Clinton won’t admit: it’s about stopping Capitalism. Unless you are a crony capitalist friend getting green energy subsidies. *9. What they can’t admit is that global greening and increasing global crop productivity is the result of us putting some of that CO2 back where it was in the first place – in the atmosphere.* I’m still predicting some day we will realize more CO2 is a good thing. *10. The UN’s climate reports exaggerate and misrepresent the science.* For example, the warming of the deep oceans over the last 50 years is described in terms of gazillions of joules (which sounds impressive) rather than what was actually measured…hundredths of a degree (not so impressive). The resulting average planetary energy imbalance, if it really exists, is only 1 part in 1,000.  Read more at Roy Spencer PHD

----------


## Marc



----------


## woodbe

> *10 Ways To Tell Tuesday’s UN Climate Summit Isn’t About Climate  1. There is no way with current technology to get beyond 15%-20% renewable energy in the next 20 years or so….and even that will be exceedingly expensive. No matter how much you care about where your energy originates, physics and economics trump emotions.*

  I'll take the first one  :Biggrin:    

> Commenting on the report on RenewEconomy; pitt&sherry principal consultant Hugh Sherry said if solar PV was factored into South Australia's results, the shares would be: coal 15%, gas 43%, wind 26%, interconnector 12% and PV 4%; putting renewables at 30% overall.

  If SA can reach 30%, just about anyone can get above 15-20%. Of course, replacing fossil fuel plants requires capital expenditure, but the ongoing running costs are lower because fuel costs are zero. SA's goal is 33% by 2020, looks like we'll be spinning our wheels for a few years waiting for the rest of Australia to catch up!

----------


## John2b

The hottest 20 year continuous period is the latest 20 years. The hottest 10 year continuous period is the latest 10 years.
The hottest 5 year continuous period is the latest 5 years.  It has been 353 consecutive months since the last cooler-than-average month.

----------


## John2b

> *1. There is no way with current technology to get beyond 15%-20% renewable energy in the next 20 years or so.and even that will be exceedingly expensive. No matter how much you care about where your energy originates, physics and economics trump emotions.*

  Nonsense!  "With more than 40 per cent of the states power demand provided by wind energy for the entire month, it is clear that large amounts of renewable energy can be added to the system without the need for extra backup generation to be built."  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/south-australia-hits-43-wind-mark/story-e6frg90f-1227017985137

----------


## intertd6

> The hottest 20 year continuous period is the latest 20 years. The hottest 10 year continuous period is the latest 10 years.
> The hottest 5 year continuous period is the latest 5 years.  It has been 353 consecutive months since the last cooler-than-average month.

  And who cares or would swallow that propaganda when the difference is less than 0.00 something of a degree.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> There you go Rod, you have sprouted another easily disprovable claim. The radiation balance that has been altered by anthropogenic CO2 emissions is easily measurable. No models or climate change theories required. It's a fact that human emissions of CO2 have altered the energy balance of the planet that is causing warming the amount can be directly measured.  NASA LaRC Science Directorate : Research - The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)

  now all your ERBE do dad has to do is prove which one of the 20 or so factors that have an influence on the heating capacity of the atmosphere, we all know that it has warmed! But now all that extra energy is magically disappearing into space.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> I'll take the first one    
> If SA can reach 30%, just about anyone can get above 15-20%. Of course, replacing fossil fuel plants requires capital expenditure, but the ongoing running costs are lower because fuel costs are zero. SA's goal is 33% by 2020, looks like we'll be spinning our wheels for a few years waiting for the rest of Australia to catch up!

  Do they have anymore than a domestic demand  & manufacture anything of substance in SA now ? Soon it will be a welfare state.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> we all know that it has warmed! But now all that extra energy is magically disappearing into space.

  No it hasn't. That is exactly what the EREB studies prove is not happening. 90% of the heat transferred from the sun is absorbed by the oceans until weather cycles move the heat from the oceans to the surface. That's how it is, and how it has always been. 
Weather is variable, which is why climate science isn't determined by short  term weather variations, but is the average of thirty year periods. The next El Nino event will see some of the excess heat in the oceans moved to the surface, and the surface temperature record will take the next step up the temperature escalator. It is the inevitable consequence of the laws of conservation of energy.

----------


## John2b

> Do they have anymore than a domestic demand  & manufacture anything of substance in SA now ? Soon it will be a welfare state.

  The interstate electrical interconnect that was built to meet South Australia's peak electricity demand is now used to _export_ electricity from South Australia to Victoria and NSW. South Australia provided 6% of Victoria's electricity from surplus South Australian wind generation in August. This had the effect of reducing wholesale electricity prices in Victoria for the period. No need for thanks - you're welcome. South Australian wind generated electricity has also been sold into the NSW market where it displaces dirty Victorian brown coal generated electricity.

----------


## John2b

> And who cares ... when the difference is less than 0.00 something of a degree.

  The actual magnitude of surface temperature change does not reveal the significance of slight shifts in temperature. One problem is that fruit trees fail to set fruit if they do not receive enough chill hours during winter. New varieties of fruit trees can be bred or developed, but trees take years to reach productive maturity. 
As a result of the loss of regional chill hours, there have been significant fruit crop failures in the order of 80-90% in specific regions around the world in recent years. Agricultural research is on steroids trying to find solutions quickly enough to keep up with the rate of climate change.  The *chilling requirement of a fruit is the minimum period of cold weather after which a fruit-bearing tree will blossom. It is often expressed in chill hours, which can be calculated in different ways, all of which essentially involve adding up the total amount of time in a winter spent at certain temperatures * Chilling requirement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Rod Dyson

> No it hasn't. That is exactly what the EREB studies prove is not happening. 90% of the heat transferred from the sun is absorbed by the oceans until weather cycles move the heat from the oceans to the surface. That's how it is, and how it has always been. 
> Weather is variable, which is why climate science isn't determined by short  term weather variations, but is the average of thirty year periods. The next El Nino event will see some of the excess heat in the oceans moved to the surface, and the surface temperature record will take the next step up the temperature escalator. It is the inevitable consequence of the laws of conservation of energy.

  riiiight,  the oceans ate our warming.... and wait for it... they will throw it up for us!!   
We all know about El Nino.  When the next one occurs you will be hoping like hell it will be bigger than the 98 one.  But hey fudge a few numbers and it will be.  There Global warming back dangerous as ever!! 
We could almost write your script for you.    So sad.

----------


## John2b

> riiiight, the oceans ate our warming.... and wait for it... they will throw it up for us!!

  Correct. That is how climate and weather works on planet Earth. Always has been and always will be - the law of conservation of energy makes it so. 
Why do the oceans absorb 90% of the heat energy? Because the oceans cover ~70% of the planet and have a very low albedo. Land only covers ~30% of the planet and has a higher albedo.  Albedo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Marc

I propose a new "link" just as valid as the CO2 link to heating proposed by your friend Al Gore.
I say that there is a link between the internet and radio and tv activity in relation to "climate change" and temperature. 
Clearly the large reduction in talk resulting in a substantial reduction  of hot air emanating from this talks is depleting the atmosphere of the much needed energy to produce any relevant upward trend. 
Personally I would prefer them to be correct even in part since I have never used as much firewood as this year, and I don't remember a September as cold as this one. My aircon is running as I type and it will soon be October. 
When the bureau of meteorology embarks in falsifying data to protect what they perceive as a source of funds, our own logic and our own senses must kick in to make some sense out of this. Clearly there is widespread worldwide empiric data that we are not heating up but rather cooling. Heating is better than cooling for humans and last time I checked I am human. 
However this is academic and is not worth getting too excited about since the causes are natural and even if they were not natural there is no chance that we can do anything to change this.
 The proof is that the UN "climate change" is a dud and none of the leaders that count are attending. They have bigger fish to fry and have given up on this nonsense because it no longer produces interest and therefore votes. The fact that it is a fraud has been clear to them from day one. It just stopped being useful.

----------


## woodbe

> We all know about El Nino.  When the next one occurs you will be hoping like hell it will be bigger than the 98 one.

  It won't have to be bigger than '98 to be significant, but it probably will be. There is a lot of stored energy in the oceans. 
Look on the bright side, you'll have a new 'no warming since' year to spout about.  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

> When the bureau of meteorology embarks in falsifying data to protect what they perceive as a source of funds, our own logic and our own senses must kick in to make some sense out of this.

  Pity you still haven't checked you facts before you reposted the same fraudulent claim about the effect of BOM's data homogenisation. BOM's adjustments had the net effect of actually REDUCING the apparent rate of surface temperature warming in Australia. This has already been dealt with here: #12016   

> Clearly there is widespread worldwide empiric data that we are not heating up but rather cooling.

  So are you going to provide a source for this claim or are you just pontificating from your ideological soap box?   

> Heating is better than cooling for humans and last time I checked I am human.

  The best temperature range for humans is the one the human race evolved and adapted to live in.

----------


## woodbe

*Google will stop supporting climate change science deniers, calls them liars.*  Link   

> Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt today said it was a mistake to  support the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that  has said human-created climate change could be beneficial and opposes  environmental regulations. Schmidt said groups trying to cast doubt on climate change science are "just literally lying."

   

> The company has a very strong view that we should make decisions in  politics based on facts, what a shock, and the facts of climate change  are not in question anymore, Schmidt said. Everyone understands that  climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really  hurting our children and grandchildren and making the world a much worse  place. And so we should not be aligned with such people. Theyre just  literally lying.

----------


## John2b

Google has joined Microsoft, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Walmart, Amazon, Pacific Gas and Electric, and scores of other corporate members in relinquishing their membership of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) over it's promotion of climate change denial, amongst other things.  Corporations that Have Cut Ties to ALEC - SourceWatch

----------


## Marc

Ha ha ha ha.   So now Google and Coca Cola are reputable Climatologists and have had their findings "peer reviewed" ?   I love it. When it is a sceptical claim it is invalid because it is not pontificated by a mercenary ... sorry .. I mean to say "paid" scientist. (The retired or independent do not count as we all know)     When it is an opposition to the heretics sinners who dare challenge the supreme authority of the clowns in chrge of the circus it is OK to cite corporations who make billions out of this scam and are afraid to loose face.    Keep it up guys, it is all part of the fun.

----------


## John2b

> So now Google and Coca Cola are reputable Climatologists and have had their findings "peer reviewed" ?

  You've got a bit of a wild imagination Marc, and an apparent inability/unwillingness to understand the significance of the post. Science and technology companies, or companies that depend on science and technology, can't deny mainstream science and retain credibility with their boards, employees and customers. Get it now?

----------


## Marc

The Climate March in NY was another outpouring of innumerate frustration. Marc Morano went to the Climate March, despite being listed as the hate figure of the day and found no one was even bothering to hide the real aim, which was pro-socialist and anti-capitalist. Naomi Klein even admitted that the science is irrelevant, and she would be supporting all the same “solutions” even if the science was wrong. During the panel discussion, Klein was asked: “Even if climate change issue did not exist, you would be calling for same structural changes. Klein responded:  ‘Yeah.’
Following the panel, Climate Depot asked Klein if she would support all the same climate “solutions” even if the science was wrong.
“Yes, I would still be for social justice even if there was not climate change. Yes, you caught me Marc,” Klein answered sarcastically as she abruptly ended the interviewNaomi Klein’s new book is titled _“This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate”_. The enemy is “Capitalism” — hence big-coal is a target and big-dependent-renewables are her friends. It’s all about wealth redistribution. Since Klein has a crippling problem with numbers, she would prefer a world where people get ahead by networking and speaking, and not by competition to produce things that other people want. It makes sense in a self-serving kind of way. Who are the ideologues now? Klein doesn’t care if science is wrong. Kennedy wants to jail dissenters Â« JoNova

----------


## John2b

One day a big light will go on in some rather small minds: Capitalism as it exists now was built on and depends on the planet's historically stable climate.

----------


## intertd6

> The actual magnitude of surface temperature change does not reveal the significance of slight shifts in temperature. One problem is that fruit trees fail to set fruit if they do not receive enough chill hours during winter. New varieties of fruit trees can be bred or developed, but trees take years to reach productive maturity. 
> As a result of the loss of regional chill hours, there have been significant fruit crop failures in the order of 80-90% in specific regions around the world in recent years. Agricultural research is on steroids trying to find solutions quickly enough to keep up with the rate of climate change.  The *chilling requirement of a fruit is the minimum period of cold weather after which a fruit-bearing tree will blossom. It is often expressed in chill hours, which can be calculated in different ways, all of which essentially involve adding up the total amount of time in a winter spent at certain temperatures * Chilling requirement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  only a true fool would swallow some more propaganda that tries to back up the original propaganda.
inter

----------


## John2b

Rockefeller family abandons oil legacy with fossil fuel divestments | Campden FB  
John D Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil, moved out of whale oil and into petroleum, said Stephen Heintz, president of the fund, which is worth $US850 million. We are quite convinced if he were alive today, as an astute businessman looking out to the future, he would be moving out of fossil fuels and investing in renewable energy.  Investors, analysts, and research institutions are quickly getting to grips with the drivers of risks like climate change, how they might be correlated, and what this then means for asset specific and total fund performance.  The Fund's initial priorities for investments from this 10 percent pool are focused on support for clean energy technologies and other business strategies that advance energy efficiency, decrease dependence on fossil fuels, and mitigate the effects of climate change.  http://www.rbf.org/content/divestment-statement

----------


## intertd6

> *Google will stop supporting climate change science deniers, calls them liars.*  Link

  nothing like a bit of censorship from what should be a neutral information platform?
inter

----------


## John2b

> nothing like a bit of censorship from what should be a neutral platform?

  Do you have a source that shows Google is censoring anything about climate change or climate change denial? All they said is they will stop funding lobby groups which deny science. 
It is difficult for a science and technology company to reconcile funding science deniers, when the same science underpins those science and technology companies. There is only one set of law of physics, BTW.

----------


## intertd6

> Rockefeller family abandons oil legacy with fossil fuel divestments | Campden FB  
> “John D Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil, moved out of whale oil and into petroleum,” said Stephen Heintz, president of the fund, which is worth $US850 million. “We are quite convinced if he were alive today, as an astute businessman looking out to the future, he would be moving out of fossil fuels and investing in renewable energy.”  “Investors, analysts, and research institutions are quickly getting to grips with the drivers of risks like climate change, how they might be correlated, and what this then means for asset specific and total fund performance.  The Fund's initial priorities for investments from this 10 percent pool are focused on support for clean energy technologies and other business strategies that advance energy efficiency, decrease dependence on fossil fuels, and mitigate the effects of climate change.  http://www.rbf.org/content/divestment-statement

  and some more propaganda, for those that feed on this stuff!
inter

----------


## John2b

> Originally Posted by *John2b*_Rockefeller family abandons oil legacy with fossil fuel divestments | Campden FB  
> “John D Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil, moved out of whale oil and into petroleum,” said Stephen Heintz, president of the fund, which is worth $US850 million. “We are quite convinced if he were alive today, as an astute businessman looking out to the future, he would be moving out of fossil fuels and investing in renewable energy.”  “Investors, analysts, and research institutions are quickly getting to grips with the drivers of risks like climate change, how they might be correlated, and what this then means for asset specific and total fund performance.  The Fund's initial priorities for investments from this 10 percent pool are focused on support for clean energy technologies and other business strategies that advance energy efficiency, decrease dependence on fossil fuels, and mitigate the effects of climate change. _  _Divestment Statement | Rockefeller Brothers Fund_ 
> and some more propaganda, for those that feed on this stuff!

  You must have liked it so much that you reposted it, thanks!

----------


## John2b

> only a true fool would swallow some more propaganda that tries to back up the original propaganda.

  Not propaganda. Fruit tree chill requirements are well know in the field of horticulture independent of anything to do with climate change. All that has happened is that crop failures are becoming more frequent as traditional growing areas do not get enough winter chill for fruit set. Read for yourself about the chill requirements for stone fruit.  DEPI - Chill units of stone fruit   Figure 1. The above ready reckoner can be used to give an estimation of the chill units accumulated in a given season. As a guide only, it uses the average temperature of the coldest month to indicate possible chill units (Dr Jill Campbell, NSW Agriculture).

----------


## intertd6

> Do you have a source that shows Google is censoring anything about climate change or climate change denial? All they said is they will stop funding lobby groups which deny science. 
> It is difficult for a science and technology company to reconcile funding science deniers, when the same science underpins those science and technology companies. There is only one set of law of physics, BTW.

  anything is possible with profound views like the science is settled, we all know where that ends up!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> anything is possible with profound views like the science is settled, we all know where that ends up!

  It appears to end up with you glossing over the falsehoods and lies of your ideology as they are exposed one by one, and the result that you are digging yourself into a deeper hole with every post.

----------


## intertd6

> Not propaganda. Fruit tree chill requirements are well know in the field of horticulture independent of anything to do with climate change. All that has happened is that crop failures are becoming more frequent as traditional growing areas do not get enough winter chill for fruit set. Read for yourself about the chill requirements for stone fruit.  DEPI - Chill units of stone fruit   Figure 1. The above ready reckoner can be used to give an estimation of the chill units accumulated in a given season. As a guide only, it uses the average temperature of the coldest month to indicate possible chill units (Dr Jill Campbell, NSW Agriculture).

  Lap it up boys, if you hadn't worked it out the main reason low chill fruits are being developed is so they can be grown where the masses of cheap labour are situated, non temperate third world countries.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> It appears to end up with you glossing over the falsehoods and lies of your ideology as they are exposed one by one, and the result that you are digging yourself into a deeper hole with every post.

  If that's the case I have a terrible lot of catching up to do & digging.
inter

----------


## woodbe

Point of order. 
Google is being neutral. They are not altering their search engine to hide climate change denial. They just aren't throwing money at it. They recognise the current state of the science.

----------


## John2b

> If that's the case I have a terrible lot of catching up to do.

  Oh I don't think so. Your hole is so deep you are already well positioned to inform of the Earth's core temperature...

----------


## John2b

> Lap it up boys, if you hadn't worked it out the main reason low chill fruits are being developed is so they can be grown where the masses of cheap labour are situated, non temperate third world countries.

  Tropical fruits that are affected as well, although in the case of tropical fruits, it is often the roots that need chill, rather than the buds. What cheap labour market are they going to move to if they are already in third world countries? It isn't compulsory to display ignorance, BTW.

----------


## intertd6

> Point of order. 
> Google is being neutral.

  just like the impartial media, universities, NGO's, etc, etc, dream on!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Tropical fruits that are affected as well, although in the case of tropical fruits, it is often the roots that need chill, rather than the buds. What cheap labour market are they going to move to if they are already in third world countries? It isn't compulsory to display ignorance, BTW.

  It's not very interesting where the dribble oozes to from an original bit of 0.00 something of a degree warming propaganda, just endless insignificant tripe.
Inter

----------


## John2b

> It's not very interesting where the dribble oozes to from an original bit of 0.00 something of a degree warming propaganda, just endless insignificant tripe.

  Tell that to the horticultural industry (except I don't think they can hear you from down there in your hole).  A harvest less than 25 per cent of last year's crop is behind the shortage and prices  Mr Flavell said some cherry growers would have no viable income this year   there was limited opportunity for fruit to be brought in from other states because low yields are also affecting other growing regions 
I haven't got any kiwi fruit from my vines for the past few years because the winters have not been cold enough. On the flip side, I have had seven bunches of tropical bananas (that's over 1000 bananas) in the garden over winter, here in Adelaide!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Tell that to the horticultural industry (except I don't think they can hear you from down there in your hole).  A harvest less than 25 per cent of last year's crop is behind the shortage and prices  Mr Flavell said some cherry growers would have no viable income this year   there was limited opportunity for fruit to be brought in from other states because low yields are also affecting other growing regions 
> I haven't got any kiwi fruit from my vines for the past few years because the winters have not been cold enough. On the flip side, I have had seven bunches of tropical bananas (that's over 1000 bananas) in the garden over winter, here in Adelaide!

  Yeah our temps have changed that much LOL

----------


## John2b

> Yeah our temps have changed that much LOL

  That is correct. It has been 353 consecutive months since the last cooler-than-average month worldwide. 
2013 was Australia's warmest year on record. Persistent and widespread warmth throughout the year led to record-breaking temperatures and several severe bushfires.  http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/annual...13/index.shtml

----------


## intertd6

> That is correct. It has been 353 consecutive months since the last cooler-than-average month worldwide. 
> 2013 was Australia's warmest year on record. Persistent and widespread warmth throughout the year led to record-breaking temperatures and several severe bushfires.  Annual Climate Report 2013

  by 0.00 something of a degree! "Whoop de do basil....... it's a bit nutty"
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> by 0.00 something of a degree! "Whoop de do basil....... it's a bit nutty"

  "Maxima were the warmest on record for September for more than half of the country, with anomalies reaching six to seven degrees in central Australia and parts of southern inland Queensland." 
"The mean temperature for September was not only the warmest on record by more than one degree, but had the largest positive anomaly on record for any month: *+2.75 °C*." 
"Numerous heatwaves were recorded during 2013, the first commenced in the last week of December 2012. Heat built over southwest Western Australia before spreading along the southern coastline and covering much of the southeast a few days later. Areas of southern and eastern Australia continued to experience temperatures more than *ten degrees above average* until 18 December." 
"The year ended with further widespread and persistent warmth. High temperatures developed over southwest Western Australia from 15 December, migrating eastward with maximum temperatures *more than 12 degrees above average* along large areas of the southern coastline over following days before contracting into inland New South Wales and dissipating by the 22nd."  Annual Climate Report 2013

----------


## intertd6

> "Maxima were the warmest on record for September for more than half of the country, with anomalies reaching six to seven degrees in central Australia and parts of southern inland Queensland." 
> "The mean temperature for September was not only the warmest on record by more than one degree, but had the largest positive anomaly on record for any month: *+2.75 °C*." 
> "Numerous heatwaves were recorded during 2013, the first commenced in the last week of December 2012. Heat built over southwest Western Australia before spreading along the southern coastline and covering much of the southeast a few days later. Areas of southern and eastern Australia continued to experience temperatures more than *ten degrees above average* until 18 December." 
> "The year ended with further widespread and persistent warmth. High temperatures developed over southwest Western Australia from 15 December, migrating eastward with maximum temperatures *more than 12 degrees above average* along large areas of the southern coastline over following days before contracting into inland New South Wales and dissipating by the 22nd."  Annual Climate Report 2013

  So the BOM is changing the definitions now! Yearly weather is now the climate, & how quickly it changes too! 
Inter

----------


## John2b

The proposal to develop a 180 million tonne per annum coal export facility at Dudgeon Point in Queensland has been cancelled. 
This highlights the rapid deterioration in the global coal industry prospects, with key turning points this last month by Chinas President Xi Jinpings call for an energy revolution and President Obamas Clean Power Plan.  Massive Australia coal project dumped in face of China energy revolution : Renew Economy

----------


## Marc

> The proposal to develop a 180 million tonne per annum coal export facility at Dudgeon Point in Queensland has been cancelled. 
> This highlights the rapid deterioration in the global coal industry prospects, with key turning points this last month by China’s President Xi Jinping’s call for an “energy revolution and President Obama’s “Clean Power Plan”.  Massive Australia coal project dumped in face of China energy revolution : Renew Economy

  And I am sure you are rubbing your hands with glee at the prospect of the coal industry collapse. I think I shouldn't use the expletives that you deserve in this case. 
The global warming fraud target was always political and economical. New world communist government, the destruction of capitalism and free market. Dictatorship and micromanagement.
Fortunately the global warming fraud will not succeed but has and will continue to inflict enormous damage against the west for no other purpose then relocate power and resources. 
Your schadenfreude is rather pathetic.

----------


## John2b

China is now the world leader in both wind and hydro power with fast growth in other renewable sources.   Xie Zhenhua, China's top official on climate change, said on Friday that new renewable energy capacity installed by China in 2013 accounted for 37 percent of global new capacity, and from 2005 to 2013, China accounted for 24 percent of the world's total.   As of June this year, China's hydropower capacity stood at around 290 GW, more than double that of 2005. On-grid windpower capacity surpassed 81 GW, more than 60 times of that in 2005.

----------


## John2b

> And I am sure you are rubbing your hands with glee at the prospect of the coal industry collapse.

  Marc, you have a wild imagination and exhibit a dangerous propensity to think you "know" what other people are thinking. I am not "rubbing my hands with glee" at all. Climate change is not a football match. Your intolerant ideology manifests in some rather ridiculous statements.

----------


## John2b

> So the BOM is changing the definitions now! Yearly weather is now the climate, & how quickly it changes too!

  Good point Inter. BOM seems to be erroneously interchanging the words weather and climate in the summary report. However the terms used do not change the significance of the temperature record or the facts.

----------


## intertd6

> Good point Inter. BOM seems to be erroneously interchanging the words weather and climate in the summary report. However the terms used do not change the significance of the temperature record or the facts.

  what significance? Something of significance is no global warming since 1998 when they said the warming to come in a few years was going to be catastrophic, back then the gullible airheads swallowed it hook line & sinker & have been repeating the mantra ever since, still seeking more sophisticated manipulative means of propaganda to satisfy their inner fear & spread their evangelical like crusade so they can feel like they are part of a group, oh dear I've just described another cult! Like that's a revelation? The tiny little cogs must be spinning frantically inside their heads creating all sorts of panic to which some sort of higher power must be able to save their needy beings & stop Hobart from becoming a tropical paradise.
inter

----------


## John2b

> Something of significance is no global warming since 1998 when they said the warming to come in a few years was going to be catastrophic

  Only two posts ago you were blasting others for mistaking weather for climate, and now you are erroneously doing the same thing! 
Climate is defined as the thirty year trend, so you will have to wait until 2028 before you can say warming stopped in 1998. There will have to be dramatic and radical cooling starting fairly soon for that to be a possibility. Reminder:  _The hottest 20 year continuous period is the latest 20 years._ _The hottest 10 year continuous period is the latest 10 years.
The hottest 5 year continuous period is the latest 5 years. _ _It has been 353 consecutive months since the last cooler-than-average month._

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yeah our temps have changed that much LOL

  Not so much the temperature but the frequency at which a particular maxima or minima temperature recurs, both seasonally and annually.   
Weirdly, much of inland SE Aust is expected to experience an increasing frequency of frost days during winter in the short to medium term (out to 2050 or so) because of higher frequency of winter days with low humidity and low cloud coverage.  After 2050, expected frost days taper off as other influences (and uncertainty factors) take hold... 
We see some evidence of that here - if the winter is dry (like the one just past) then we get more days with harder frosts than we do in an average or near average winter rainfall year.  The stone fruit and nut trees loved it but the frost sensitive citrus and avocados were slaughtered this year.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Not so much the temperature but the frequency at which a particular maxima or minima temperature recurs, both seasonally and annually.   
> Weirdly, much of inland SE Aust is expected to experience an increasing frequency of frost days during winter in the short to medium term (out to 2050 or so) because of higher frequency of winter days with low humidity and low cloud coverage.  After 2050, expected frost days taper off as other influences (and uncertainty factors) take hold... 
> We see some evidence of that here - if the winter is dry (like the one just past) then we get more days with harder frosts than we do in an average or near average winter rainfall year.  The stone fruit and nut trees loved it but the frost sensitive citrus and avocados were slaughtered this year.

  I guess that's never happened before.

----------


## John2b

> I guess that's never happened before.

  It's happened before. The concern is the frequency and severity with which it is happening and the increasing areas affected.

----------


## intertd6

> Not so much the temperature but the frequency at which a particular maxima or minima temperature recurs, both seasonally and annually.   
> Weirdly, much of inland SE Aust is expected to experience an increasing frequency of frost days during winter in the short to medium term (out to 2050 or so) because of higher frequency of winter days with low humidity and low cloud coverage.  After 2050, expected frost days taper off as other influences (and uncertainty factors) take hold... 
> We see some evidence of that here - if the winter is dry (like the one just past) then we get more days with harder frosts than we do in an average or near average winter rainfall year.  The stone fruit and nut trees loved it but the frost sensitive citrus and avocados were slaughtered this year.

  And not more than a few posts ago there was a AGWist running around like a chook without its vital bits panicking & preaching about not enough frosts to set stone fruit, looks like they have a little time up their sleeves to develop some new varieties for our country! 40 years seems like a easy timeframe to meet. The not so intellectually challenged know that the no chill varieties will be well & truly established in third world countries & the only fruit grown here will be for the boutique market
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The not so intellectually challenged know that the no chill varieties will be well & truly established in third world countries & the only fruit grown here will be for the boutique market

  You are a Zen Master at conspiracy theories with a tale like that...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I guess that's never happened before.

  Of course it has.  The problem is that it is happening more often in the last decade or two.  Our historic pattern of generally winter dominant rainfall (and corresponding higher humidity) has drifted more recently towards a pattern where rainfall is spread roughly equally (but sporadically) across winter and summer which is not an ideal situation in a low rainfall area (~230mm/year) dominated by winter cropping cereals.  This year is a case in point - excellent start but almost no follow up rain. 
Curiously, the latest modelling suggests that rainfall in our region won't change significantly in terms of totals but it will shift seasonally (as it has seemingly started to do) and be more unreliable.  When you couple that with a greater number of warm or hot days then things like evapotranspiration rates tend to create longer periods of plant stress and reduced yields....despite the stuff all shift in total rainfall.

----------


## intertd6

> "The not so intellectually challenged know that the no chill varieties will be well & truly established in third world countries & the only fruit grown here will be for the boutique market" 
> You are a Zen Master at conspiracy theories with a tale like that...

  That would be a given answer for the challenged.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Only two posts ago you were blasting others for mistaking weather for climate, and now you are erroneously doing the same thing! 
> Climate is defined as the thirty year trend, so you will have to wait until 2028 before you can say warming stopped in 1998. There will have to be dramatic and radical cooling starting fairly soon for that to be a possibility. Reminder:  _The hottest 20 year continuous period is the latest 20 years._ _The hottest 10 year continuous period is the latest 10 years.
> The hottest 5 year continuous period is the latest 5 years. _ _It has been 353 consecutive months since the last cooler-than-average month._

  You certainly have confirmed you seem it have a vivid imagination indeed! Imagining that I have somehow said that no warming since 1998 means anything other than a statement of the facts! No need for more repeated rhetoric about 0.00 degrees of change propaganda! Save it for your fellow brethren as it's just a waste on the sensible.
inter

----------


## John2b

> Imagining that I have somehow said that no warming since 1998 means anything other than a statement of the facts!

  It is factually incorrect to say there has been no warming since 1998. That is obvious to sensible people, since the hottest 5 year continuous period is the latest 5 years and the last 5 years happened entirely after 1998.

----------


## intertd6

> It is factually incorrect to say there has been no warming since 1998. That is obvious to sensible people, since the hottest 5 year continuous period is the latest 5 years and the last 5 years happened entirely after 1998.

  if you imagine so!
inter

----------


## John2b

Going by the 30-year linear trend from 1968-1997, the temperature in 2014 would have expected to be 0.63C above the 1951-1980 mean - slightly below what the 2014 result is likely to be.  Global Land-Ocean Temperature Anomaly

----------


## woodbe

> Going by the 30-year linear trend from 1968-1997, the temperature in 2014 would have expected to be 0.63C above the 1951-1980 mean - slightly below what the 2014 result is likely to be.  Global Land-Ocean Temperature Anomaly

  But John2b, don't you know we're supposed to ignore the oceans here?

----------


## John2b

> But John2b, don't you know we're supposed to ignore the oceans here?

  Far from there being a "hiatus", surface temperature rise is in fact running above trend _despite_ the acceleration of heat retention in the oceans, as the graphic shows: Global Land-Ocean Temperature Anomaly

----------


## John2b

The Abbott LNC Government's coal fired economic revitalisation is unlikely to occur, despite the $billions in tacit fossil fuel subsidies the industry still gets. 
Not that many people in Australia will notice the difference. The coal mining industry represents just 0.3% of Australian employment and most of the profit goes overseas or to superrich business owners. Gina Rinehart pays herself 59,800 times the average Australian wage for example. (Rinehart alone probably earns more than the _combined income of all_ regular Australian workers employed in the coal industry.) 
The reason: China has decoupled GDP growth from coal consumption, and for the first time in modern history China's coal consumption is officially in decline.   _Compiled from China National Bureau of Statistics and China National Coal Association statistical releases._

----------


## johnc

The smart money is moving out of coal, it still has demand especially coking coal for steel production and higher grade coal in power generation. Coal has now moved into over supply with the likelihood that we will see further drops in the coal price and closure of marginal mines. It is simply old technology, banks are starting to walk away from funding new mines because the risk profile is to high. Coal will still be with us for a long time to come but the muddle headed idea that we can mine and transport our brown coal reserves at a price that leaves a decent profit is looking shaky at best. Gas,another fossil fuel looks a far better investment bet at the moment.

----------


## John2b

> Gas,another fossil fuel looks a far better investment bet at the moment.

  Yes, but what most people don't realise is that gas means coal seam gas, which means a patchwork of wells covering arable land, water syphoned off from farming and ecology for fracking, and ground water contamination and destruction of farm/agricultural viability in many cases. One day, Australia will be like Roma, Queensland, all over:  https://www.google.com/maps/@-25.985...!3m1!1e3?hl=en 
Or this (Texas):

----------


## intertd6

> Yes, but what most people don't realise is that gas means coal seam gas, which means a patchwork of wells covering arable land, water syphoned off from farming and ecology for fracking, and ground water contamination and destruction of farm/agricultural viability in many cases. One day, Australia will be like Roma, Queensland, all over:  https://www.google.com/maps/@-25.985...!3m1!1e3?hl=en 
> Or this (Texas):

  looks like your stuffed either way, better start rubbing 2 sticks together & keep panicking.
inter

----------


## John2b

> looks like your stuffed either way, better start rubbing 2 sticks together & keep panicking.

  Make fun if you wish - whatever - we're all "fracked" together, for better or worse.

----------


## John2b

*Joe Hockey says wind turbines 'utterly offensive', flags budget cuts to clean energy schemes*  http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-...502-zr3co.html 
Yet Hockey doesn't mind if the fossil energy companies frack Australia to death and is continuing their multi-billion dollar dollar subsidies. Maybe he thinks coal seam gas fields are aesthetically decorative like his grandmother's lace doilies.  
I like the irony that wind turbines not only produce energy without contributing to climate change, but they take energy _out_ of the climate system - excess energy that is there as a result of the burning of fossil fuels.

----------


## intertd6

> Make fun if you wish - whatever - we're all "fracked" together, for better or worse.

  Of course I will make fun of it, how can anything you fellows come up with be treated in any other way, so I'll just file it with the other things that I have no need to worry about, like the idea that CO2 will cause catastrophic warming with not a shred of proof.
inter

----------


## John2b

> I'll just file it with the other things that I have no need to worry about

  Sorry to hear that you don't have many years left, Inter. Commiserations. 
(...and I'll just make fun of your unwillingness to apply yourself to rational discussion...)

----------


## intertd6

> Sorry to hear that you don't have many years left, Inter. Commiserations. 
> (...and I'll just make fun of your unwillingness to apply yourself to rational discussion...)

  hopefully I have a a few more left in me than the CO2 hoax has left. The rational discussion departed long ago with your inability to provide anything of substance & it has progressively gotten funnier since, the mileage we get from it is phenomenal.
inter

----------


## John2b

> hopefully I have a a few more left in me than the CO2 hoax has left.

  The only CO2 hoax I know about is the one that human emissions of CO2 do not affect climate and that hoax _is_ dead, except perhaps in your imagination. But it's your imagination and you're allowed to have it.   

> The rational discussion departed long ago with your inability to provide anything of substance & it has progressively gotten funnier since, the mileage we get from it is phenomenal.

  Glad to be of service! No need to thank me, shucks. Your life is a bit sad then, if you you need this thread for amusement?

----------


## intertd6

> The only CO2 hoax I know about is the one that human emissions of CO2 do not affect climate and that hoax _is_ dead, except perhaps in your imagination. But it's your imagination and you're allowed to have it.

  what galah doesn't realise CO2 has an SOME effect on the climate? The brighter galahs that fly backwards to keep the dust out of their eyes know that every bit of real scientific evidence shows that increasing CO2 levels cannot cause catastrophic or dangerous global warming which the propaganda machine & it's nobody hanger on-erers  is trying to push down our throats.
inter

----------


## John2b

> what galah doesn't realise CO2 has an SOME effect on the climate? The brighter galahs that fly backwards to keep the dust out of their eyes know that every bit of real scientific evidence shows that increasing CO2 levels cannot cause catastrophic or dangerous global warming which the propaganda machine & it's nobody hanger on-erers  is trying to push down our throats.

  Then the difference between you and me is what each of us considers catastrophic. I don't think Earth is going to end up like Venus. But lifeforms on Earth have evolved over thousands of years to operate in the climate of the recent past. Very small changes in climate can have very large impacts on the viability of individual lifeforms, including humans. Humans (at least those with financial resources) are more able to adapt than any other life form because of access to technology.

----------


## intertd6

> Then the difference between you and me is what each of us considers catastrophic. I don't think Earth is going to end up like Venus. But lifeforms on Earth have evolved over thousands of years to operate in the climate of the recent past. Very small changes in climate can have very large impacts on the viability of individual lifeforms, including humans. Humans (at least those with financial resources) are more able to adapt than any other life form because of access to technology.

  Obviously it comes down to those with not much life experience who thrive at being panic merchants.
regards inter

----------


## johnc

Oh dear, the life experience card, can't we do a bit better than that

----------


## John2b

> the life experience card

  Yes, so ephemeral... *
Can I exchange my LifeExperience certificate or card for another package that you have listed on your website?* *ABSOLUTELY!  * Life Experiences :: FAQs

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Then the difference between you and me is what each of us considers catastrophic. I don't think Earth is going to end up like Venus. But lifeforms on Earth have evolved over thousands of years to operate in the climate of the recent past. Very small changes in climate can have very large impacts on the viability of individual lifeforms, including humans. Humans (at least those with financial resources) are more able to adapt than any other life form because of access to technology.

  Oh boy, its called evolution its been going on a while now.   
Climate has always changed and always will.  Do you really think we have the power to keep it and evolution static??  What are you smoking?

----------


## John2b

> Oh boy, its called evolution its been going on a while now.   
> Climate has always changed and always will.  Do you really think we have the power to keep it and evolution static??  What are you smoking?

  I am not smoking what you are, that's for sure! The issue under discussion is manmade climate change, which is causing climate change about ten times faster than natural climate change ever occurred on its own. It is known that with natural rates of climate change, many species were unable to adapt. Times that by ten and what effect do you think that will have? In any case, the issue is a tad more significant than you are making out.

----------


## John2b

At last - Australia is being recognised on the world stage. But not for generosity of spirit, or leading world security. Australia was named as the "dirtiest country" in the developed world. An article titled "The Saudi Arabia of the South Pacific" by U.S.-based tech magazine Future Tense that was published at Slate.com, described how Australia is the worst polluter in the world and referred to the Abbott government's decision to repeal the carbon tax.  Australiaâs environmental movement has been overthrown.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I am not smoking what you are, that's for sure! The issue under discussion is manmade climate change, which is causing climate change about ten times faster than natural climate change ever occurred on its own. It is known that with natural rates of climate change, many species were unable to adapt. Times that by ten and what effect do you think that will have? In any case, the issue is a tad more significant than you are making out.

  LMAO TEN time faster than EVER.  You have got to be kidding me right?  You seriously believe this stuff? Come on now. 
This is why the credibility of warmists scientist is lower than that of a used car salesman.  
I guess some people are more gullible than others, particularly if they figure there is a moral high ground to be attained by believing this stuff.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> At last - Australia is being recognised on the world stage. But not for generosity of spirit, or leading world security. Australia was named as the "dirtiest country" in the developed world. An article titled "The Saudi Arabia of the South Pacific" by U.S.-based tech magazine Future Tense that was published at Slate.com, described how Australia is the worst polluter in the world and referred to the Abbott government's decision to repeal the carbon tax.  Australiaâ€™s environmental movement has been overthrown.

  They can say what they like its not true.  For one thing CO2 is not a pollutant. 
And the only thing the environmental movement has been overthrown by is the lefties and luvies. 
check this insightful video http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/2...mate-activism/ 
Yeah Yeah Yeah we all know you hate WUWT so save your fingers. Please try to keep your comments to the video.

----------


## John2b

> LMAO TEN time faster than EVER.  You have got to be kidding me right?  You seriously believe this stuff? Come on now.

  In the context of the current ecology of the planet it is true, and you or anyone else has never shown it to be not true. It is irrelevant if climate has changed faster at a time when the planet wasn't habitable.

----------


## John2b

> Yeah Yeah Yeah we all know you hate WUWT so save your fingers. Please try to keep your comments to the video.

  
Scientists are realists, not warmists. By all means, shoot the messenger and try to claim the high moral ground with your silly, ignorant position.  
I guess some people are more gullible than others. Some actually go to WUWT for "information" LMFAO. 
I ask you agin Rod, while do those who deny AGW need to fabricate and falsify stuff in a way that is so easily disprovable? For example, the WUWT claim to be "the most visited site on climate change" is out by a factor of >10 times as I have shown previously! (#11965) Why the need to tell lies? And why would you believe someone who has the irresistible need make false claims?

----------


## woodbe

> why would you believe someone who has the irresistible need make false claims?

  Because, even as he claims to accept the basic science, WUWT supports his opinion. It's simply far easier to ignore the non-science spewing from that site than to change an opinion.

----------


## intertd6

> In the context of the current ecology of the planet it is true, and you or anyone else has never shown it to be not true. It is irrelevant if climate has changed faster at a time when the planet wasn't habitable.

  we can see you displaying your ignorance again for all to see, the warming rate around 12,000 years ago was in the region of 4'C over a hundred or so years & not a thirsty carbon consuming human society yet established but inhabited by humans well and truly! And your well & truly wrong again!
inter

----------


## John2b

> we can see you displaying your ignorance again for all to see, the warming rate around 12,000 years ago was in the region of 4'C over a hundred or so years & not a thirsty carbon consuming human society yet established but inhabited by humans well and truly! And your well & truly wrong again!

  That's what I like about you Inter - you make contributions that are easy to verify. It is a pity that the information out there doesn't agree with your claim. In the temperature reconstuctions I could find, not one has anything remotely approaching 4 degrees per century 12,000 years ago, or anything approaching the current rate of change in the past 20,000 years ever. Rather than focussing on character assassination, how about you provide some basis to your claims. Otherwise everyone reading your posts can be forgiven for thinking you are just making stuff up...

----------


## intertd6

> That's what I like about you Inter - you make contributions that are easy to verify. It is a pity that the information out there doesn't agree with your claim. In the temperature reconstuctions I could find, not one has anything remotely approaching 4 degrees per century 12,000 years ago, or anything approaching the current rate of change in the past 20,000 years ever. Rather than focussing on character assassination, how about you provide some basis to your claims. Otherwise everyone reading your posts can be forgiven for thinking you are just making stuff up...

  Im not clever enough to make stuff up, http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nB6ytWuj_g...-blue-line.jpg
 but just clever enough to understand a hoax.
you would really have to wonder how clever you are!
inter

----------


## John2b

> Im not clever enough to make stuff up

  Putting aside the snide personal remarks which do your argument no service at all, you have overlooked two very significant issues that expose the ridiculousness of your claim anyway: 
1. Greenland is not the world and the temperature record for Greenland is not the temperature record for the world. The global temperature record is the one that matters and that hasn't ever risen at 4 degrees per century in the past 20,000 years. 
2. 12,000 years ago, Greenland was _not_ inhabited. Settlement didn't happen until about 4500 years ago. So human life was not exposed/did not adapt to the rapid temperature changes that occurred in Greenland ~12,000 years ago. 
Repeat, it is irrelevant if climate change has occurred faster than currently, if there was no human habitation at the time.

----------


## intertd6

> Putting aside the snide personal remarks which do your argument no service at all, you have overlooked two very significant issues that expose the ridiculousness of your claim anyway: 
> 1. Greenland is not the world and the temperature record for Greenland is not the temperature record for the world. The global temperature record is the one that matters and that hasn't ever risen at 4 degrees per century in the past 20,000 years. 
> 2. 12,000 years ago, Greenland was _not_ inhabited. Settlement didn't happen until about 4500 years ago. So human life was not exposed/did not adapt to the rapid temperature changes that occurred in Greenland ~12,000 years ago. 
> Repeat, it is irrelevant if climate change has occurred faster than currently, if there was no human habitation at the time.

  the clever ones amongst us can read nowhere that this graph is only indicative of Greenland, but is typical of the global average deviation from an arbitrary baseline. Then the really clever ones can work out it backs up my claim & your waffling on with useless irrelevant garbage again.
ps. The Greenland average temps over that period are in the vicinity of -49'C with an increase of around 12'C so it's really easy to know the difference. https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&r...11914628425294
inter

----------


## John2b

> the clever ones amongst us can read nowhere that this graph is only indicative of Greenland, but is typical of the global average deviation from an arbitrary baseline. Then the really clever ones can work out it backs up my claim & your waffling on with useless irrelevant garbage again.

  If you spent less time composing denigrating remarks against those you don't agree with and more time looking at the data before you post, you would see that the time scale on your graph is nonlinear. Below is your linked graphic (look at the x-axis timescale - it is compressed 100 times in the past compared to the present!), and under that is much the same data with a linear timescale. And under that is the same data graphed (with revised timescale) on your own linked website. The rapid global temperature rise you postulate occurred 12,000 years ago is not evident in your own data sources, whereas the present rapid warming is evident - just the opposite of your claim!

----------


## John2b

It is amazing how news censorship is alive and well in Australia even though we think we are in a free country. Media news services all covered Bishop's embarrassing address to the UN Climate Council in NY National statement - United Nations Secretary-Generalâ€™s Climate Summit, Speech, 23 Sep 2014, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, The Hon Julie Bishop MP. 
But what wasn't reported was the mass walkout by UN delegates. Dear old Julie was talking to herself!

----------


## PhilT2

Did they walk out in protest or was it just lunchtime? She could make a New York hotdog seem appealing.

----------


## John2b

> Did they walk out in protest or was it just lunchtime? She could make a New York hotdog seem appealing.

  A bit of both as far as I understand.  https://twitter.com/AustraliaVote/st...52660139892736  Australia's climate stance savagely condemned at New York summit

----------


## intertd6

> If you spent less time composing denigrating remarks against those you don't agree with and more time looking at the data before you post, you would see that the time scale on your graph is nonlinear. Below is your linked graphic (look at the x-axis timescale - it is compressed 100 times in the past compared to the present!), and under that is much the same data with a linear timescale. And under that is the same data graphed (with revised timescale) on your own linked website. The rapid global temperature rise you postulate occurred 12,000 years ago is not evident in your own data sources, whereas the present rapid warming is evident - just the opposite of your claim!

   I wonder what happened to the Greenland tripe? Conveniently dropped when the ruse was discovered as usual! Then all you can provide is two irrelevant graphs, the first one about Antarctic average temps, then another that doesn't even come within the time frame mentioned originally, now that's clever! But I'm sure that type of garbage works for your usual captive audience who can't tell the difference.
inter

----------


## John2b

> I wonder what happened to the Greenland tripe? Conveniently dropped when the ruse was discovered as usual! Then all you can provide is two irrelevant graphs, the first one about Antarctic average temps, then another that doesn't even come within the time frame mentioned originally, now that's clever! But I'm sure that type of garbage works for your usual captive audience who can't tell the difference.
> inter

  Still nothing to say except personal denigration? No evidence for your claims? Your own links refute your claims. Surely you can do better than that.

----------


## PhilT2

The Younger Dryas: Relevant in the Australian region?
"this review suggests that there is no conclusive evidence for cooling,  or indeed any distinctive climate patterning, during the Younger Dryas  Chronozone in Australia."

----------


## intertd6

> Still nothing to say except personal denigration? No evidence for your claims? Your own links refute your claims. Surely you can do better than that.

  I suppose you could always not try it on all the time & see how that works for you, because what your doing now obviously isn't working & is beyond the ridiculous!
the graph I presented is linear between the year markers, an easy mistake to make for some who just can't quite grasp the change in scales along time axis. Your imagination appears to be running rampant again with your gross overstatement in the use of language in relation to your ridiculous ploys.
inter

----------


## John2b

> I suppose you could always not try it on all the time & see how that works for you, because what your doing now obviously isn't working & is beyond the ridiculous!

  Thanks for the additional personal denigration. My character obviously needs it.   

> the graph I presented is linear between the year markers, an easy mistake to make for some who just can't quite grasp the change in scales along time axis.

  Whether the time frame is linear between the year markers or not it does not support your contention, namely that global temperature were changing at 4 degrees per century. Not even close. Not even far. Just made up crap.

----------


## intertd6

> Thanks for the additional personal denigration. My character obviously needs it.  Thats rubbish, grow up!  
> Whether the time frame is linear between the year markers or not it does not support your contention, namely that global temperature were changing at 4 degrees per century. Not even close. Not even far. Just made up crap.

  keep digging that hole for yourself, its so entertaining 
"Measurements of oxygen isotopes from the GISP2 ice core suggest the ending of the Younger Dryas took place over just 40–50 years in three discrete steps, each lasting five years. Other proxy data, such as dust concentration, and snow accumulation, suggest an even more rapid transition, requiring about a 7 °C (13 °F) warming in just a few years.[6][7][28][29] Total warming in Greenland was 10 ± 4 °C (18 ± 7 °F).[30]  
The end of the Younger Dryas has been dated to around 11.55 ka BP, occurring at 10 ka BP (radiocarbon year), a "radiocarbon plateau" by a variety of methods, with mostly consistent results:  
11.50 ± 0.05     ka BP:    GRIP ice core, Greenland[31]
11.53 + 0.04
− 0.06     ka BP:    Krakenes Lake, western Norway[32]
11.57     ka BP:    Cariaco Basin core, Venezuela[33]
11.57     ka BP:    German oak/pine dendrochronology[34]
11.64 ± 0.28     ka BP:    GISP2 ice core, Greenland[28]
"
Inter

----------


## John2b

> _Thats rubbish, grow up!_

  Grow up yourself and stop posting derogatory personal attacks and innuendoes.   

> "Measurements of oxygen isotopes from the GISP2 ice core suggest the ending of the Younger Dryas took place over just 4050 years in three discrete steps, each lasting five years. Other proxy data, such as dust concentration, and snow accumulation, suggest an even more rapid transition, requiring about a 7 °C (13 °F) warming in just a few years.[6][7][28][29] Total warming in Greenland was 10 ± 4 °C (18 ± 7 °F).[30]

  So you are back to talking about Greenland and erroneously extrapolating local temperature records to global temperatures?

----------


## Marc

*100 reasons why climate change is natural*  *HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:*  By: Charlotte Meredith
Published: Tue, November 20, 2012 *1)* There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity. *2)* Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. *3)* Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. *4)* After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissionsMore...
• Climate change lies exposed
• The Romans were producing greenhouse gases
• Prince Charles in climate change warning *5)* Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high. *6)* Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. *7)* The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.  *8)* The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited. *9)* Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming *10)* A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. *11)* Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago http://www.renovateforum.com/newrepl...reply&p=949278

----------


## Marc

*The Global Warming Inquisition Has Begun*by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. 
A new “study” has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) which has examined the credentials and publication records of climate scientists who are global warming skeptics versus those who accept the “tenets of anthropogenic climate change”. Not surprisingly, the study finds that the skeptical scientists have fewer publications or are less credentialed than the marching army of scientists who have been paid hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 20 years to find every potential connection between fossil fuel use and changes in nature. After all, nature does not cause change by itself, you know. The study lends a pseudo-scientific air of respectability to what amounts to a black list of the minority of scientists who do not accept the premise that global warming is mostly the result of you driving your SUV and using incandescent light bulbs. There is no question that there are very many more scientific papers which accept the mainstream view of global warming being caused by humans. And that might account for something if those papers actually independently investigated alternative, natural mechanisms that might explain most global warming in the last 30 to 50 years, and found that those natural mechanisms could not. As just one of many alternative explanations, most of the warming we have measured in the last 30 years could have been caused by a natural, 2% decrease in cloud cover. Unfortunately, our measurements of global cloud cover over that time are nowhere near accurate enough to document such a change. But those scientific studies did not address all of the alternative explanations. They couldn’t, because we do not have the data to investigate them. The vast majority of them simply assumed global warming was manmade. I’m sorry, but in science a presupposition is not “evidence”. Instead, anthropogenic climate change has become a scientific faith. The fact that the very first sentence in the PNAS article uses the phrase “tenets of anthropogenic climate change” hints at this, since the term “tenet” is most often used when referring to religious doctrine, or beliefs which cannot be proved to be true. So, since we have no other evidence to go on, let’s pin the rap on humanity. It just so happens that’s the position politicians want, which is why politics played such a key role in the formation of the IPCC two decades ago. The growing backlash against us skeptics makes me think of the Roman Catholic Inquisition, which started in the 12th Century. Of course, no one (I hope no one) will be tried and executed for not believing in anthropogenic climate change. But the fact that one of the five keywords or phrases attached to the new PNAS study is “climate denier” means that such divisive rhetoric is now considered to be part of our mainstream scientific lexicon by our country’s premier scientific organization, the National Academy of Sciences. Surely, equating a belief in natural climate change to the belief that the Holocaust slaughter of millions of Jews and others by the Nazis never occurred is a new low for science as a discipline. The new paper also implicitly adds most of the public to the black list, since surveys have shown dwindling public belief in the consensus view of climate change. At least I have lots of company. Spencer: The Inquisition | Watts Up With That?

----------


## intertd6

> Grow up yourself and stop posting derogatory personal attacks and innuendoes.  you really cant can't tell the difference can you? Your seriously funny.   
> So you are back to talking about Greenland and erroneously extrapolating local temperature records to global temperatures?  Not at all! That's your rubbish argument! My paste does make refeference to Greenland but it in no way means that this is the subject of the reference, which the more astute could plainly see by the references of the data sources, the hint being the Venezuela data

   You have failed again, off to another worthless argument is my prediction!
inter

----------


## John2b

[QUOTE=Marc;949281]*100 reasons why climate change is natural* *1)* There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity. *[*/QUOTE] 
Failed at point one. Not a good start Marc. Can't be bothered reading the rest of the dog whistle libretto. 
Update: I did read the list. A work of serious dementia with so many built in contradictions and blatantly obvious falsehoods LOL. Still doing your bit to promulgate the global warming is not happening fraud, eh Marc?

----------


## John2b

> *The Global Warming Inquisition Has Begun*

  Ha ha, you jest! It’s no longer fashionable to be a climate denier, or to promote climate denial. And it’s proving to be a rather unprofitable position as well.

----------


## intertd6

> Ha ha, you jest! It’s no longer fashionable to be a climate denier, or to promote climate denial. And it’s proving to be a rather unprofitable position as well.

  Its just human nature to live the lie, for some they would rather be poor & honest!
inter

----------


## John2b

> Its just human nature to live the lie

  Speak for yourself.   

> for some they would rather be poor & honest!

  I know that feeling well.

----------


## intertd6

> I know that feeling well.

  we all see the gist of post #12140 travelled straight through your head & didn't find much to adhere to!
inter

----------


## John2b

> we all see the gist of post #12140 travelled straight through your head & didn't find much to adhere to!

  Back to personal attacks and denigration without a word on climate change. Well done.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## intertd6

> Back to personal attacks and denigration without a word on climate change. Well done.

   Good to see you wingeing about something your also guilty of! Bravo!
inter

----------


## John2b

Its no longer fashionable to be a climate denier, or to promote climate denial. And its proving to be a rather unprofitable position as well. 
More than 340 institutional investors representing $24 trillion in assets on Thursday called on government leaders attending next week's United Nations climate summit to set carbon pricing policies that encourage the private sector to invest in cleaner technologies. Firms signing a joint letter include BlackRock, Calvert Investments, BNP Paribas Investment Partners and Standard Bank. They want countries to set a price tag on pollution by taxing carbon emission or implementing cap and trade emissions policies to create incentives for investing in cleaner technologies. "Stronger political leadership and more ambitious policies are needed in order for us to scale up our investments," the investors' statement said.  Global investors urge leaders to act on carbon pricing ahead of UN meeting | Reuters

----------


## John2b

Nine billion people are expected to be living on the planet in 25 years and food production will need to spike in order to feed them. 
At the biggest climate conference in history, more than 20 Governments, and 30 organizations and companies announced they would join the newly launched Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture, which aims to enable 500 million farmers worldwide to practice climate-smart agriculture. 
A similar initiative in North-American will be launched in 2015 to help farmers adapt and improve resilience to climate change. 
Several major companies, including Kellogg's, McDonald's, L’Oréal and Nestlé were among those who signed an ambitious pledge at the New York summit on Tuesday. 
Major corporations have committed to increase the amount of food in their supply chains that are produced with climate-smart approaches - an important step to curb carbon emissions. 
Walmart, the world’s largest grocery store, sells 70 million tonnes of food annually. McDonald’s buys two per cent of the world’s beef, a major source of agricultural greenhouse gas production. 
Signed by more than 150 corporate, government, and civil-society groups, meeting these goals would cut between 4.5 billion and 8.8 billion tons of carbon pollution every year — about as much as the total annual emissions for the U.S., according to the document. 
The agreement marks a growing shift in efforts by corporations to promote sustainability efforts. Environmental issues are becoming more urgent for companies, as climate change begins to affect their bottom line.

----------


## intertd6

> Nine billion people are expected to be living on the planet in 25 years and food production will need to spike in order to feed them. 
> At the biggest climate conference in history, more than 20 Governments, and 30 organizations and companies announced they would join the newly launched Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture, which aims to enable 500 million farmers worldwide to practice climate-smart agriculture. 
> A similar initiative in North-American will be launched in 2015 to help farmers adapt and improve resilience to climate change. 
> Several major companies, including Kellogg's, McDonald's, L’Oréal and Nestlé were among those who signed an ambitious pledge at the New York summit on Tuesday. 
> Major corporations have committed to increase the amount of food in their supply chains that are produced with climate-smart approaches - an important step to curb carbon emissions. 
> Walmart, the world’s largest grocery store, sells 70 million tonnes of food annually. McDonald’s buys two per cent of the world’s beef, a major source of agricultural greenhouse gas production. 
> Signed by more than 150 corporate, government, and civil-society groups, meeting these goals would cut between 4.5 billion and 8.8 billion tons of carbon pollution every year — about as much as the total annual emissions for the U.S., according to the document. 
> The agreement marks a growing shift in efforts by corporations to promote sustainability efforts. Environmental issues are becoming more urgent for companies, as climate change begins to affect their bottom line.

  And the worst part of propaganda is the long winded soapbox follower variety, it's morning & I'm almost back to a non rapid eye sleep phase! And a global plague of people is going to end well!
inter

----------


## John2b

> And the worst part of propaganda is the long winded soapbox follower variety

  Funny, you've never mentioned that to Marc, the forum's greatest A-grade offender... 
I posted the information because it is relevant to the discussions over the past few weeks about the impacts that climate change is having on agriculture.

----------


## intertd6

> Funny, you've never mentioned that to Marc, the forum's greatest A-grade offender...  who cares? 
> I posted the information because it is relevant to the discussions over the past few weeks about the impacts that climate change is having on agriculture.  and any normal person could work out this is just a pure propaganda red herring ploy to lead away from the fact that you have been shown up being not able to prove CO2 can, has, or will ever cause catastrophic or dangerous warming  
> You are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but please leave rule enforcement to the the mods.

   The old crying about the rule enforcement ploy again, you certainly have a very peculiar grasp on the ridiculous coming out with stuff like that, what's even funnier is it I didn't work last time or the times before that!
inter

----------


## John2b

Fair enough. I have edited the post. 
Care to make a post on the subject, instead of yet another a post about your perception of my personal inadequacies, just for a change?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> must be something in it! Your bunch seem to thrive on it besides the auto pleasure it gives you!
> inter

  Ok boys out of the gutter, I did not mean it literally.  Sorry I made the comment.   
Just a short way of saying that this is just lip service to appease and make everyone feel good and that something positive has been achieved.   
It will mean jack in real terms.  But all these companies can say, "look at moi, look at moi"  No wonder they all beat the same drum.

----------


## intertd6

It was a very clever red herring of them using selected posts to divert attention away from their dying CO2 debate.
inter

----------


## John2b

> It will mean jack in real terms.

  Having had a peripheral involvement in agricultural research and land management for the past 40 years, I cannot agree with your view. 
Global warming and climate change has already affected agriculture and is so blatantly obvious to growers and farmers that there is already considerable urgency in adaption across the agricultural and horticultural industries world-wide. People on the ground don't need reports from committees and do-gooders to know what is staring them in the face every day. 
But to get governments to act does need campaigns to overcome bureaucratic torpidity, and that is one of the objectives of the UN Climate Smart program. (I am not enamoured with the name, either.)

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Having had a peripheral involvement in agricultural research and land management for the past 40 years, I cannot agree with your view. 
> Global warming and climate change has already affected agriculture and is so blatantly obvious to growers and farmers that there is already considerable urgency in adaption across the agricultural and horticultural industries world-wide. People on the ground don't need reports from committees and do-gooders to know what is staring them in the face every day. 
> But to get governments to act does need campaigns to overcome bureaucratic torpidity, and that is one of the objectives of the UN Climate Smart program. (I am not enamoured with the name, either.)

  Having come from a farming family, who are still farming I am well aware of shifting seasons and the like.  There is always a quest going on for more resilient crops and hardier seed, adaptability to rainfall etc.  It is an ongoing thing.  Always will be and in fact we are getting very good at it. 
We don't need a climate change conference to confirm what is already happening and will always be going on.  Of course people will always be on the look out for more funding and grants to work with.  So yeah lets whoop it up and get the cash.  There is NO reason for these people NOT to whip up a frenzy on this, NONE AT ALL.

----------


## Marc

Now, back to Kerry's question: What is the worst that could happen if governments, to use Al Gore's clumsy phrase, fight global warming? Here are a few unpleasant consequences: • Last year, the Stern Review on the Economics of Social Change said policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will slice two to four percentage points of economic growth each year over the next 10. • Spain lost 2.2 jobs elsewhere in its economy for each green job it created with its green energy program. • Germany dropped its green energy initiative, which was beset by "massive expenditures" while showing "little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment or increasing energy security," a German university economic paper reported. • Rules already in place will cost the economy $2.23 trillion from 2015 to 2038. They will also kill 600,000 jobs and slash a family of four's yearly income by $1,200 by 2023, according to the Heritage Foundation. • Legislation that would cut carbon dioxide emissions 80% by 2050 would cause an aggregate income loss to the U.S. of $207.8 trillion by 2100, according to Heritage research. • An International Energy Agency estimate says that cutting global emissions by half by 2050 would cost $45 trillion. Kerry, of course, claimed green policies will "put millions of people to work transitioning our energy" and "give ourselves greater security through greater energy independence." But we've seen what happens when government pours taxpayers' money into projects such as Solyndra, Ener1 and Beacon Power. It's a colossal waste of resources. The worst that can happen? The ugly mess left behind by those who say they're trying to save the earth. *Source* http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/expect-the-worst-if-governments-address-global-warming.html

----------


## John2b

So the underlying meaning of what you are saying Marc is that:   The cost of 2 - 4% off economic growth is far less than the hit to economic growth as a result of disruption if global warming isn't stopped.Spain would have lost at least 45% MORE jobs without its green energy program.Germany's green energy initiative has been so successful that the government has been able to taper off the stimulus.As a result of rules already in place, families will SAVE MORE off their annual energy bills than the cost of the rules to their net annual income.The income loss as a result of cutting CO2 over the next 85 years is far lower than the cost of adapting to climate change.Ditto for the next 35 years.  
On every measure, most people will be far better off if governments act on climate change. Sounds almost too good to be true, but it must be true because you posted it!

----------


## John2b

> Having come from a farming family, who are still farming I am well aware of shifting seasons and the like.

  This is more than shifting seasons. I have friends on the land from Tarcoola in the west, Parachilna in the north, Wirrabara and Jamestown (where I was born) in the mid north, The Tothills north of Adelaide (near Waterloo wind farm and where I share own property with some local farmers), Penola in the South East, the Adelaide Hills, McLaren Vale, Kangaroo Island and Bordertown in the east. They are running sheep, beef and dairy cattle, bees, growing grapes, apples, kiwi fruit, cherries, wheat, beans, vegetables, canola, olives, strawberries and so on. 
Without exception, these landowners and farmers have noticed sudden and disruptive alternations to climate patterns over the past few years. Changes to the frequency of rainfall (many fewer days of rain), the direction that rain comes from (no longer predominantly the south west), milder winters that interfere with fruit set, increased severity of storms causing crop damage, severe summer heat waves that kill trees and plants which don't have cooling systems and can't move into the shade like animals, to mention a few of the observations. 
Horticulturalists and vignerons are having to resort to covering entire broad-acre orchards and vineyards with horticultural shade cloth to prevent catastrophic damage not just to the summer crop, but the trees and vines as well. 
We have just had a state-wide fire ban a couple of weeks out of winter - unheard of in my lifetime. No one I know who depends on the land for their livelihood has any doubt about the disruptive climate change that has already occurred. I do not doubt that there are land owners who do not believe in AGW, but so what?

----------


## Marc

Yes, it reminds me of a manufacturing operation I had back in the 80ties with a business partner who was a 7DAdventist. He use to argue in a similar fashion and with similar groundless, unsubstantiated unproven and unsupported arguments, with vehement conviction and in an agitated state that we should keep the Sabbath, and that it should be Saturday and not Sunday....yes, ground braking news that about the change in the weather. We must all curl up and die.

----------


## johnc

> Yes, it reminds me of a manufacturing operation I had back in the 80ties with a business partner who was a 7DAdventist. He use to argue in a similar fashion and with similar groundless, unsubstantiated unproven and unsupported arguments, with vehement conviction and in an agitated state that we should keep the Sabbath, and that it should be Saturday and not Sunday....yes, ground braking news that about the change in the weather. We must all curl up and die.

  Well sport, keeping the Sabbath on a Saturday is consistent with the old testament (in so far as Exodus names it as the last day of the week) , in terms of context though it is no more relevant than me saying next doors cat is a ginger tabby. His argument is reasonably supported but really who cares.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

...I'd prefer the Sabbath on Wednesday.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It was a very clever red herring of them using selected posts to divert attention away from their dying CO2 debate.
> inter

  Oh Inter...you are just so  :Doh:  
Please never go away...my life would be incomplete.

----------


## johnc

> ...I'd prefer the Sabbath on Wednesday.

  Dunno, why not make it both  Saturday and Sunday to keep most happy and just keep Wednesday as a RDO.

----------


## Marc

> ...I'd prefer the Sabbath on Wednesday.

   I have it on Friday ha ha, sarcasm is lost on the fanatic. At least you have some sense of humor. 
As for JohnC, if you want to debate the scripture, well... the law is no more according to the NT so "keeping" the sabbath makes no sense and one can not keep the the law and Christ at the same time as the 7DA do. My mention of it was precisely to highlight absurdities supported frantically by fanatics, and just as mentioning the inquisition, it is very pertinent to this conversation we are having here.  
Global warming believers behaved for the last 20 years like a modern day inquisition and their doctrine is comparable to the, in my view, absurdities in the 7DA doctrine. Of course there are many who would disagree with such simile. If you do, bad luck, the point is not the accuracy of the simile but the fact that AGW is a lie invented for political purposes.

----------


## johnc

> I have it on Friday ha ha, sarcasm is lost on the fanatic. At least you have some sense of humor. 
> As for JohnC, if you want to debate the scripture, well... the law is no more according to the NT so "keeping" the sabbath makes no sense and one can not keep the the law and Christ at the same time as the 7DA do. My mention of it was precisely to highlight absurdities supported frantically by fanatics, and just as mentioning the inquisition, it is very pertinent to this conversation we are having here.  
> Global warming believers behaved for the last 20 years like a modern day inquisition and their doctrine is comparable to the, in my view, absurdities in the 7DA doctrine. Of course there are many who would disagree with such simile. If you do, bad luck, the point is not the accuracy of the simile but the fact that AGW is a lie invented for political purposes.

  Debating scripture? where is the quote?,  a quote requires more than a vague indication of the book, it actually  requires the reference, talk about desperation. Calling some poor Seven Day Adventist a religious fanatic is a low act, especially from someone who appears more interested in scapegoating than the truth. As usual no substance all bile, most of us have come across or worked with those that have strong religious convictions, the more extreme carry on much the same as you do with you views on religion, I would suggest you take your own advice for once and stop spruiking these stupid ideas on religion based fervour and a non existent link to the original topic.

----------


## John2b

> the fact that AGW is a lie invented for political purposes.

  It took ~80 years AFTER the discovery of AGW and its establishment as a scientific fact before politics had anything to do it in the mid 1980's. But don't let the facts get in the way of your ideology, Marc.

----------


## Marc

Sorry JohnC, but if you are unable to keep composure and prefer to debate an illustration rather than the topic at hand, you are welcome to do so but do not expect a reply. I used a simile as it is customary to highlight a point of view, and gone further in giving a brief explanation for your benefit since you asked, but if you really want a debate on sects and doctrines, I suppose you can start a thread in ... mm... I suppose odds and sods perhaps? Not sure. Oh... you'll figure it out.

----------


## johnc

> Sorry JohnC, but if you are unable to keep composure and prefer to debate an illustration rather than the topic at hand, you are welcome to do so but do not expect a reply. I used a simile as it is customary to highlight a point of view, and gone further in giving a brief explanation for your benefit since you asked, but if you really want a debate on sects and doctrines, I suppose you can start a thread in ... mm... I suppose odds and sods perhaps? Not sure. Oh... you'll figure it out.

  This is just a moving target, enjoy swimming at your current level, it beggars belief that you may actually be serious.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...but the fact that AGW is a lie invented for political purposes.

  
AGW is no lie - it actually and demonstrably exists.  The only quandary that remains is precisely how the ecosphere responds to it over the coming century. Which then leads on to how humans then respond to those impacts... 
And that response to it (or lack of it) _is certainly_ politicised and has been adopted by all and sundry to satisfy a broad spectrum of personal, political and financial ends.  I'd be downright disappointed in humanity if it wasn't.

----------


## Marc

> AGW is no lie - it actually and demonstrably exists.  The only quandary that remains is precisely how the ecosphere responds to it over the coming century. Which then leads on to how humans then respond to those impacts... 
> And that response to it (or lack of it) _is certainly_ politicised and has been adopted by all and sundry to satisfy a broad spectrum of personal, political and financial ends.  I'd be downright disappointed in humanity if it wasn't.

       Agree and ...agree.                                                     
Even when it is probably unnecessary lets clarify. I agree that humans have an impact on the environment. That includes the atmosphere.  
Humans as a species affect everything including the moon. Many species have massive impact on the environment. Insects, bacteria, plants, probably affect the environment the most. To what degree however do humans affect the environment is the subject of the debate.  
                                                                             When politics got involved, politicians paid to find any even remote link between CO2 and temperature increases and if none could be found, it had to be made up or exaggerated to the nth degree.  
           The great loss in this massive fraud is that when trillions were wasted in searching for bigfoot (this is a figure of speech, please no one ask me to provide chapter and verse about the existence of bigfoot) no one tried to find OTHER explanations to the inexplicable temperature changes be it up or down. Solar, cloud cover, and hundred of other variables have been ignored because the money is on CO2 and warming. Nothing else pays. Nothing else brings the marginal vote in, nothing else delivers power and resources to be handed out like hot cakes.  
                          We will look back to this era of madness and shake our head. How on earth did we ever believe that crap?                           Humans are really funny some time...........By the way ..... If anyone is interested I have a really hot deal in environmentally friendly incandescent globes.

----------


## Marc

To be interested in the changing  seasons is a happier state of mind than to be hopelessly in love with  spring. George  Santayana    And also    
Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your  aim.  George Santayana

----------


## John2b

> To what degree however do humans affect the environment is the subject of the debate.

  Ignoring for a moment ill-informed public discussion about climate change (which isn't a scientific "debate"), there is no scientific debate that the effect of humans on climate is minimal or inconsequential. The "debate" you are implying exists only in the lunatic fringe of pseudo science and skulduggery.   

> When politics got involved, politicians paid to find any even remote link between CO2 and temperature increases and if none could be found, it had to be made up or exaggerated to the nth degree.

  The links between CO2 and the planet Earth's energy balance were clearly understood and documented long before political bodies were even conscious of climate change. The effect of politics has been to protect the status quo.   

> no one tried to find OTHER explanations to the inexplicable temperature changes be it up or down. Solar, cloud cover, and hundred of other variables have been ignored because the money is on CO2 and warming.

  In the best endeavours of science to understand climate, the *only* variables not factored in are "unknowns". Solar, cloud cover and hundreds of other variables ARE factored into climate science because it simply does not work without them. GHGs are a minor player in the overall physics of the thermal equilibrium of the planet, but a major player in explaining the divergence of recent observations from what would be expected if CO2 was not having an effect.

----------


## John2b

"It is possible to be a master in false philosophy, easier, in fact, than to be a master in the truth,
because a false philosophy can be made as simple and consistent as one pleases."   http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgesant402136.html

----------


## Marc

> ignoring for a moment ill-informed public discussion about climate change (which isn't a scientific "debate"), there is no scientific debate that the effect of humans on climate is minimal or inconsequential. The "debate" you are implying exists only in the lunatic fringe of pseudo science and skulduggery.

  Made it nice and big just to make sure I am not mistaken somehow. John2b with or without bees, mate, we agree on this one, there is no debate that the effect of humans is minimal, the consensus is clear and irrefutable, even the global warming supporters agree on this one, we, humans have minimal or inconsequential effect on climate.
In effect, we do not affect it at all...just a pfff here and there, that's all, he he he 
Feww, what a relief, I can leave this page forever now.
PS
Skulduggery (big word, had to look it up in the dictionary)1705-15, Americanism; variant of _sculduddery,_ orig. Scots: fornication,obscenity < ?
Uhuuu

----------


## John2b

It's October. That means 355 months since the last time the planet had a month that was cooler than its average monthly temperature of the 20th Century. 
And for the "sceptics", no warming since 2010 the hottest year on record, except that 2014 is tracking to knock 2010 off the record books.  2014 on Track to Be Hottest Year on Record - Scientific American

----------


## John2b

> we agree on this one

  You might condone skulduggery in relation to AGW, but do not misrepresent what others think - who can think and speak for themselves. 
355 continuous months of hotter than average temperatures. Anyone less than 29 1/2 years old has never experienced in a cooler than average (global) month.

----------


## intertd6

> You might condone skulduggery in relation to AGW, but do not misrepresent what others think - who can think and speak for themselves. 
> 355 continuous months of hotter than average temperatures. Anyone less than 29 1/2 years old has never experienced in a cooler than average (global) month.

  the last anybody looked the globe has been in a warming phase since halfway through the last millennium! Nobody here has expected to see anything different, yet you still persist with the same propaganda, the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over & over & expecting a different answer!
intrr

----------


## John2b

> definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over & over & expecting a different answer!

  Which begs the question: Why do you come here?

----------


## John2b

> the last anybody looked the globe has been in a warming phase since halfway through the last millennium! Nobody here has expected to see anything different

  This person expected something different:   

> Something of significance is no global warming since 1998

  Which is it Inter, warming or no warming? What side are you on?

----------


## intertd6

> Which begs the question: Why do you come here?

  no prizes for second place here! Losers just have to cop it on the chin! Just like in the real world!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> This person expected something different:   
> Which is it Inter, warming or no warming? What side are you on?

  Im quite happy not panicking untill the real cause is found, up, down, stabile, but willing to take it to the fear mongers jumping the gun!
inter

----------


## John2b

> Im quite happy not panicking untill the real cause is found...

  The real cause of denial?

----------


## intertd6

> The real cause of denial?

  only a galah would be in denial of science which provides irrefutable, accurate, repeatable experiments which prove a theory, only a galah would accept anecdotal evidence as proof before it is proven beyond doubt to an acceptable scientific level.
inter

----------


## John2b

> only a galah would be in denial of science which provides irrefutable, accurate, repeatable experiments which prove a theory, only a galah would accept anecdotal evidence as proof before it is proven beyond doubt to an acceptable scientific level.

  So now you say you accept the irrefutable, accurate, repeatable experiments _and_ measurements which demonstrate that AGW is happening. Or should I post you some sunflower seeds?

----------


## intertd6

> So now you say you accept the irrefutable, accurate, repeatable experiments _and_ measurements which demonstrate that AGW is happening. Or should I post you some sunflower seeds?

  "It was a very clever red herring of them using selected posts to divert attention away from their dying CO2 debate.
inter"
I wouldn't normally eat anything sent by some unknown nutcase off the internet as it could be laced with poison, but in your case I would eat them no matter what.
inter

----------


## Marc

> ..._ignoring for a moment ill-informed public discussion about climate change (which isn't a scientific "debate"), there is no scientific debate that the effect of humans on climate is minimal or inconsequential._

  You said it not me
...............
So we agree, the effect on climate by humans is so minimal that does not deserve a debate nor any "action". Furthermore since we don't even know by what mechanism this happens nor do we know nor understand the multiplicity of mechanism that act to compensate for changes, we are talking hot air here and in any other big convention to save a planet that does not need saving.

----------


## Marc

*Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon dioxide levels*  Anthony Watts / June 4, 2013 *NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 312 JUNE 4th 2013* *CARBON DIOXIDE* There are two gases in the earth’s atmosphere without which living organisms could not exist. Oxygen is the most abundant, 21% by volume, but without carbon dioxide, which is currently only about 0.04 percent (400ppm) by volume, both the oxygen itself, and most living organisms on earth could not exist at all. This happened when the more complex of the two living cells (called “eukaryote”) evolved a process called a “chloroplast” some 3 billion years ago, which utilized a chemical called chlorophyll to capture energy from the sun and convert carbon dioxide and nitrogen into a range of chemical compounds and structural polymers by photosynthesis. These substances provide all the food required by the organisms not endowed with a chloroplast organelle in their cells. This process also produced all of the oxygen in the atmosphere The relative proportions of carbon dioxide and oxygen have varied very widely over the geological ages.    It will be seen that there is no correlation whatsoever between carbon dioxide concentration and the temperature at the earth’s surface. During the latter part of the Carboniferous, the Permian and the first half of the Triassic period, 250-320 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration was half what it is today but the temperature was 10ºC higher than today . Oxygen in the atmosphere fluctuated from 15 to 35% during this period From the Cretaceous to the Eocene 35 to 100 million years ago, a high temperature went with declining carbon dioxide. The theory that carbon dioxide concentration is related to the temperature of the earth’s surface is therefore wrong. The growth of plants in the Carboniferous caused a reduction in atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide, forming the basis for large deposits of dead plants and other organisms. Plant debris became the basis for peat and coal., smaller organisms provided oil and gas, both after millions of years of applied heat and pressure from geological change; mountain building, erosion, deposition of sediments, volcanic eruptions, rises and fall of sea level and movement of continents. Marine organisms used carbon dioxide to build shells and coral polyps and these became the basis of limestone rocks The idea promulgated by the IPCC that the energy received from the sun is instantly “balanced” by an equal amount returned to space, implies a dead world, from the beginning with no place for the vital role of carbon dioxide in forming the present atmosphere or for the development or maintenance of living organisms, or their ability to store energy or release it. Increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by return to the atmosphere of some of the gas that was once there promotes the growth of forests, the yield of agricultural crops and the fish, molluscs and coral polyps in the ocean. Increase of Carbon Dioxide is thus wholly beneficial to “the environment” There is no evidence that it causes harm. Cheers Vincent Gray Wellington, New Zealand

----------


## John2b

> You said it not me

  What I said in context was:   

> Ignoring for a moment ill-informed public discussion about climate change (which isn't a scientific "debate"), there is no scientific debate that the effect of humans on climate is minimal or inconsequential. The "debate" you are implying exists only in the lunatic fringe of pseudo science and skulduggery. 
> The links between CO2 and the planet Earth's energy balance were clearly understood and documented long before political bodies were even conscious of climate change. The effect of politics has been to protect the status quo. 
> In the best endeavours of science to understand climate, the *only* variables not factored in are "unknowns". Solar, cloud cover and hundreds of other variables ARE factored into climate science because it simply does not work without them. GHGs are a minor player in the overall physics of the thermal equilibrium of the planet, but a major player in explaining the divergence of recent observations from what would be expected if CO2 was not having an effect.

   

> So we agree

  No we don't. If you can twist a diametrically opposed statement into an "agreement" in your head, it's no wonder that you can fabricate a belief in anything and everything to suit your own mantra.   

> Furthermore since we don't even know by what mechanism this happens nor do we know nor understand the multiplicity of mechanism that act to compensate for changes

  The physics of human induced climate change is pretty well understood and has been for decades. In fact it is much better understood than the psychology of climate change denial. Why people unwittingly persist in promulgating falsehoods and duplicity will probably never be understood.   

> we are talking hot air here and in any other big convention to save a planet that does not need saving.

  Tell that to the people and companies who have funded the whole climate science obfuscation, some of the same entities that have spent up enormously on geoengineering development and are standing in the wings ready to make a killing out of geoengineering as a last resort to cool the planet - companies including Exxon, Canadian Natural Resources (a tar sands oil company), Kilimanjaro Energy and Monsanto. You had better tell them they are investing your money unwisely.

----------


## Rod Dyson

:2thumbsup:   

> only a galah would be in denial of science which provides irrefutable, accurate, repeatable experiments which prove a theory, only a galah would accept anecdotal evidence as proof before it is proven beyond doubt to an acceptable scientific level.
> inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

Happy Birthday!!  :Birthday:   Global warming pause just tuned 18  Happy Anniversary: 1 October Marks 18 Years Without Global Warming Trend | Watts Up With That? 
ITS OLD ENOUGH TO VOTE

----------


## John2b

> Happy Birthday!!   Global warming pause just tuned 18 
> ITS OLD ENOUGH TO VOTE

  You mean the warming pause HOAX just turned 18. 
It has been 29 years and seven months since the last cooler than average month, based on 1900 - 2000 averages.

----------


## John2b

Money spent by big oil/coal on climate science obfuscation and selling anti-science has been spent well, going on the claptrap that some people post in this forum.    http://www.drexel.edu/culturecomm/ne...others-brulle/

----------


## John2b

Question for Rod: 
Why does the climate change countermovement feel the need to fund its propaganda through dark money? If it is right, why does it feel the need to hide the billions of dollars it spends selling its story?  Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square, he said. Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise public doubts about the roots and remedies of this massive global threat. At the very least, (people) deserve to know who is behind these efforts.Ruth McCambridge  Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort | Now | Drexel University

----------


## intertd6

> Money spent by big oil/coal on climate science obfuscation and selling anti-science has been spent well, going on the claptrap that some people post in this forum.    Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort | Department of Culture & Communication | Drexel University

  And to the weak minded that somehow proves that CO2 is the cause of global warming!!!
inter

----------


## johnc

> And to the weak minded that somehow proves that CO2 is the cause of global warming!!!
> inter

  Or rather that is how much they spend to brainwash the weak minded and gullible. It hasn't been wasted either, we have some examples of its success here.

----------


## intertd6

> You mean the warming pause HOAX just turned 18. 
> It has been 29 years and seven months since the last cooler than average month, based on 1900 - 2000 averages.

  yes but what are you trying to prove? Nobody is denying what your quoting as incorrect, but you on the other hand are in complete denial about the pause in global warming since 1998 & what's more is you seem to think your misguided belief has more standing than all the quoted academics accepting that there has been no warming over this timeframe, it would certainly be interesting being a fly on the wall watching you shop for a hat.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Or rather that is how much they spend to brainwash the weak minded and gullible. It hasn't been wasted either, we have some examples of its success here.

  you obviously are describing the breakaways from your camp, because without irrefutable proven scientific evidence this side isn't quite stupid enough to accept propaganda as such.
inter

----------


## John2b

> you on the other hand are in complete denial about the pause in global warming since 1998

  The warming rate post 1998 is greater than the warming rate prior to 1998. See for yourself. Here is the one year trend (moving one year average) of the global land surface temperature for 1980 to 2014:   
There is no other possible position for the trend line, where the area between observations (red) and trend (green) has the same magnitude above and below the trend line. Therefore warming has not reversed, stopped or even slowed.  
Even if you make 1998 as the start year, the trend is positive:

----------


## johnc

> you obviously are describing the breakaways from your camp, because without irrefutable proven scientific evidence this side isn't quite stupid enough to accept propaganda as such.
> inter

  I actually don't think your mind is open to the possibility it is wrong, regardless of anything  put before you do you honestly think you have the capacity to move from what is clearly an entrenched position.

----------


## John2b

> And to the weak minded that somehow proves that CO2 is the cause of global warming!!!

  The question was: Why do the deniers of climate change need to hide the fact that they receive billions of dollars of funding from people and companies with vested interests in fossil fuel?

----------


## intertd6

> I actually don't think your mind is open to the possibility it is wrong, regardless of anything  put before you do you honestly think you have the capacity to move from what is clearly an entrenched position.

  thats nice! Meanwhile we will wait for some proof to eventuate to back up your beliefs, given the amount time & invitations it hadn't appeared yet but given the absurdity of the claims against the climate history so far, there is more chance of a second coming, than your camp providing credible scientific proof.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> The question was: Why do the deniers of climate change need to hide the fact that they receive billions of dollars of funding from people and companies with vested interests in fossil fuel?

  who cares? Only the true galahs can't tell fact from fiction with propaganda, whatever side it originates from.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> The warming rate post 1998 is greater than the warming rate prior to 1998. See for yourself. Here is the one year trend (moving one year average) of the global land surface temperature for 1980 to 2014:   
> There is no other possible position for the trend line, where the area between observations (red) and trend (green) has the same magnitude above and below the trend line. Therefore warming has not reversed, stopped or even slowed.  
> Even if you make 1998 as the start year, the trend is positive:

  This ploy again! Really do you take us for idiots who can read & understand the graphs & what your attempting to do? Just because it fools you doesn't mean everybody else is a galah too!
inter

----------


## johnc

> thats nice! Meanwhile we will wait for some proof to eventuate to back up your beliefs, given the amount time & invitations it hadn't appeared yet but given the absurdity of the claims against the climate history so far, there is more chance of a second coming, than your camp providing credible scientific proof.
> inter

  Thankyou for proving the point, you really have nothing to contribute in that case.

----------


## John2b

> This ploy again! Really do you take us for idiots who can read & understand the graph & what your attempting to do? Just because it fools you doesn't mean everybody else is a galah too!

  Then instead of denigrating me, how about giving us your interpretation of the data and explain how that supports your claim that there has been no warming since 1998, because otherwise, some might be inclined to think you cannot interpret a graph.

----------


## johnc

> Then instead of denigrating me, how about giving us your interpretation of the data and explain how that supports your claim that there has been no warming since 1998, because otherwise, some might be inclined to think you cannot interpret a graph.

  It's like dealing with someone running around in circles fingers in ears and eyes closed, as usual a net contribution of nothing.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> only a galah would be in denial of science which provides irrefutable, accurate, repeatable experiments which prove a theory, only a galah would accept anecdotal evidence as proof before it is proven beyond doubt to an acceptable scientific level.
> inter

  He's OK. He's just trying to figure out which subspecies of _Eolophus roseicapilla_ he wants to be.  That's enough to render anyone null...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Question for Rod: 
> Why does the climate change countermovement feel the need to fund its propaganda through dark money? If it is right, why does it feel the need to hide the billions of dollars it spends selling its story?  Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square, he said. Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise public doubts about the roots and remedies of this massive global threat. At the very least, (people) deserve to know who is behind these efforts.Ruth McCambridge  Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort | Now | Drexel University

  How in hell should I know? 
Anyway they are funding the exposure of a giant scam.  Far less than the funding available to support the scam.  Because of the gravy train to support AGW is a self perpetuating train, I cant see the funding of sceptics out weighing that of warmist any time soon.  If I were you I wouldn't bring funding into the debate as it is sure to embarrass you!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Then instead of denigrating me, how about giving us your interpretation of the data and explain how that supports your claim that there has been no warming since 1998, because otherwise, some might be inclined to think you cannot interpret a graph.

  
sheez you are one of few warmists that are still hanging on to the no pause in warming charade.  The pause in warming is an UN-DENIABLE fact recognised by your hero climate scientists.   Even they know it does them no good to deny a blatant fact albeit some of them like to pretend the ocean ate our warming and its going to spew it back at us with a vengeance. RONFLMAO at that one.   
So who are the deniers?

----------


## John2b

> How in hell should I know? Anyway they are funding the exposure of a giant scam.

  Do you always put your faith in people who are mendacious? Don't you think if they are right they could be honest, and if they are being dishonest maybe it is because they are not right?   

> Far less than the funding available to support the scam. Because of the gravy train to support AGW is a self perpetuating train, I cant see the funding of sceptics out weighing that of warmist any time soon.

  The spend on climate science obfuscation by your so-called sceptics (over $900 million per year in the US alone) is many, many times as great as the money spent on climate science education.   

> If I were you I wouldn't bring funding into the debate as it is sure to embarrass you!

  No need to worry your mind about me being embarrassed, I am quite widely read on the topic.

----------


## woodbe

> How in hell should I know? 
> Anyway they are funding the exposure of a giant scam.  Far less than the funding available to support the scam.  Because of the gravy train to support AGW is a self perpetuating train, I cant see the funding of sceptics out weighing that of warmist any time soon.  If I were you I wouldn't bring funding into the debate as it is sure to embarrass you!

  You sure, the funding for science is more than the funding available from the Fossil Fuel Industry?  
Crude oil consumption in 2011 was 87,000,000 barrels PER DAY. = about 32 Billion barrels PER YEAR.  World Crude Oil Consumption by Year (Thousand Barrels per Day) 
Price of crude averages about US$90 per barrel.  Crude Oil Price, Oil, Energy, Petroleum, Oil Price, WTI & Brent Oil, Oil Price Charts and Oil Price Forecast 
Cash flow from crude oil in a single year approximates US$2,900 Billion. On top of that, we need to add the other major Fossil Fuels (Gas, Tar Sands) to get a good picture of the whole industry, and we should then include the value add from processing and marketing. 
Please show me where climate science receives anything like the cashflow available to the fossil fuel industry. 
You're dreaming.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Do you always put your faith in people who are mendacious? Don't you think if they are right they could be honest, and if they are being dishonest maybe it is because they are not right?

  Your opinion only this entire discussion is about who is right and who is wrong.  It is a no brainer that you would make this comment.  This doesn't make it true.  Only that is supports your position.    

> The spend on climate science obfuscation by your so-called sceptics (over $900 million per year in the US alone) is many, many times as great as the money spent on climate science education.

  nice evasive answer,  but then again why would I expect any different.  I have no idea if what you say is true or not but it is evasive, I really don't know who you are trying to kid here.  I talk grants for "research" and you talk education, ignoring the grants.  Slick .....NOT   

> No need to worry your mind about me being embarrassed, I am quite widely read on the topic.

  We are all widely read on the subject, We just choose to believe in a different outcome.  That is only possible because there is no evidence  scientific or otherwise that AGW is going to be dangerous to humans or cause the temperature increases that they keep downgrading every few years.  If the evidence was clear we would not be having this debate.

----------


## John2b

> The pause in warming is an UN-DENIABLE fact recognised by your hero climate scientists.

  No, there is no pause in warming showing in the temperature record - not even the satellite temperature record set up by "skeptics" Spenser and Christie to show mainstream data was wrong. It does not matter who said what to whom, when, or who reported what they said out of context - there is no pause in warming apparent in the temperature record.   

> Even they know it does them no good to deny a blatant fact albeit some of them like to pretend the ocean ate our warming and its going to spew it back at us with a vengeance. RONFLMAO at that one.

  Of course most of the heat from the sun goes into the ocean - it's big and dark whilst the land is small and (relatively) bright. Weather is the result of the heat from the oceans moving into the atmosphere. Weather, as everyone knows, is very variable, which is why climate is defined by the average over a long period, typically 30 years. Even if the warming trend had ended, it would not be possible to be certain for another decade or two.   

> So who are the deniers?

  Rhetorical question, Rod? As if you want to know...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You sure, the funding for science is more than the funding available from the Fossil Fuel Industry?  
> Crude oil consumption in 2011 was 87,000,000 barrels PER DAY. = about 32 Billion barrels PER YEAR.  World Crude Oil Consumption by Year (Thousand Barrels per Day) 
> Price of crude averages about US$90 per barrel.  Crude Oil Price, Oil, Energy, Petroleum, Oil Price, WTI & Brent Oil, Oil Price Charts and Oil Price Forecast 
> Cash flow from crude oil in a single year approximates US$2,900 Billion. On top of that, we need to add the other major Fossil Fuels (Gas, Tar Sands) to get a good picture of the whole industry, and we should then include the value add from processing and marketing. 
> Please show me where climate science receives anything like the cashflow available to the fossil fuel industry. 
> You're dreaming.

  Come on seriously, even you can do better than that!  It is the reasoning behind this post that just clearly shows the close mindedness of your position, and why we should question anything you say that supports it

----------


## John2b

> Your opinion only this entire discussion is about who is right and who is wrong.

  That is a bit of an over simplification but, yes, I am interested in the truth. Aren't you?   

> I talk grants for "research" and you talk education, ignoring the grants.

  Yes, let's not ignore the grants. Grants are not generally made on the basis of proving or disproving anything. And there is plenty of funding in the "free market" for climate "research" that is just blatant climate change obfuscation.   

> We are all widely read on the subject, We just choose to believe in a different outcome.

  The subject was funding.   

> If the evidence was clear we would not be having this debate.

  
The evidence is clear and there is no scientific debate. The debate you *think* is happening is just in the lunatic fringe of pseudoscience.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The evidence is clear and there is no scientific debate. The debate you *think* is happening is just in the lunatic fringe of pseudoscience.

  The sad thing is that you truly believe this to be true. 
Fortunately there are many that don't share your faith.

----------


## Rod Dyson

[QUOTE=John2b;949771]
The subject was funding.  
 [QUOTE]
So what?  
You brought up the "well read" comment and I responded to it. 
Re read your post.

----------


## John2b

> The sad thing is that you truly believe this to be true.

  Here's an easy challenge: list the scientific organisations have a position that AGW isn't happening. There are thousands of government, public, private, university, corporate, capitalist, communist, eastern, western, first world, third world, etc, etc to choose from.   

> Fortunately there are many that don't share your faith.

  There is no act of faith in looking at the temperature record and seeing this:

----------


## John2b

> Re read your post.

  Re-read indeed. And read well this time, instead of reading what you want to believe. #12213 
You said: I would be embarrassed to bring up funding. I said: I would not be embarrassed as I was well read on the topic. It is pretty obvious I was talking about funding.

----------


## intertd6

> " Originally Posted by intertd6 
> you obviously are describing the breakaways from your camp, because without irrefutable proven scientific evidence this side isn't quite stupid enough to accept propaganda as such.
> inter"  
> I actually don't think your mind is open to the possibility it is wrong, regardless of anything  put before you do you honestly think you have the capacity to move from what is clearly an entrenched position.

  So a stance on waiting for proof either way is entrenched, any fool can clearly see who is & are the fanatics in the debate!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Here's an easy challenge: list the scientific organisations have a position that AGW isn't happening. There are thousands of government, public, private, university, corporate, capitalist, communist, eastern, western, first world, third world, etc, etc to choose from.   
> There is no act of faith in looking at the temperature record and seeing this:

  Your off on a looney tangent again, the topic is whether CO2 is CAUSING AGW
inter

----------


## intertd6

> The warming rate post 1998 is greater than the warming rate prior to 1998. See for yourself. Here is the one year trend (moving one year average) of the global land surface temperature for 1980 to 2014:   
> There is no other possible position for the trend line, where the area between observations (red) and trend (green) has the same magnitude above and below the trend line. Therefore warming has not reversed, stopped or even slowed.  
> Even if you make 1998 as the start year, the trend is positive:

  What galah wouldn't notice the heading description of the graphs, for the second or third time again we would only be interested in the global mean from 1998, not some galahs manipulation of irrelevant data to weasel out of accepting they have been caught out again providing typical useless information, I suppose when your in so deep it must be natural to use such useless tactics.
inter

----------


## John2b

> Your off on a looney tangent again, the topic is whether CO2 is CAUSING AGW

  Who is on a "looney tangent"?   

> The pause in warming is an UN-DENIABLE fact

----------


## Marc

A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.  They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy. Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007. Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models. But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions.   The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures  – and not taken enough notice of natural variability. They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997. lThey admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower. lThe IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why. lA forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.   This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall.  
Read more: World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Daily Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

----------


## intertd6

> "Originally Posted by intertd6 
> only a galah would be in denial of science which provides irrefutable, accurate, repeatable experiments which prove a theory, only a galah would accept anecdotal evidence as proof before it is proven beyond doubt to an acceptable scientific level.
> inter" 
> He's OK. He's just trying to figure out which subspecies of _Eolophus roseicapilla_ he wants to be.  That's enough to render anyone null...

  well it fairly obvious I'm not the type of galah described in last part of my post!
inter

----------


## John2b

> What galah wouldn't notice the heading description of the graphs, for the second or third time again we would only be interested in the global mean from 1998, not some galahs manipulation of irrelevant data to weasel out of accepting they have been caught out again providing typical useless information, I suppose when your in so deep it must be natural to do such useless tactics.

  
It's like Weight Watchers. you only want to know you weight gain AFTER you stopped pigging out at McDonalds. 
Well, here is the temperature record from 1998:

----------


## woodbe

> Come on seriously, even you can do better than that!  It is the reasoning behind this post that just clearly shows the close mindedness of your position, and why we should question anything you say that supports it

  So no response that shows that climate science is funded to the tune of more than US$2900 BILLION per year? Can't find that sort of funding? What a surprise, your suggestion that climate science has more funding than the fossil fuel industry is a smoking wreck. Try basing your proposals on facts. 
I don't need to do better than to point out the hollow argument you propose. This is a very unbalanced discussion on financial terms, thankfully the facts unearthed by the science tend to balance the discussion. Parts of the the fossil fuel industry are funding the proposal that science is a scam and some people believe them. Surprise!

----------


## Marc



----------


## John2b

> This is a very unbalanced discussion on financial terms, thankfully the facts unearthed by the science tend to balance the discussion. Parts of the the fossil fuel industry are funding the proposal that science is a scam and some people believe them. Surprise!

  Unfortunately, the temperature record doesn't give a damn who has the most money. It has now been 355 months since the last cooler than average month. No amount of money could have bought that.

----------


## John2b

How about a bit of respect for your colleagues intelligence, Marc... 
Oh, sorry, I just realised he is a comedian and you didn't mean anyone should take it seriously LOL

----------


## intertd6

> It's like Weight Watchers. you only want to know you weight gain AFTER you stopped pigging out at McDonalds. 
> Well, here is the temperature record from 1998:

   Ah that still isn't the global mean, you must be addicted to lies or something, let alone mc Donald's, what galah would parade a land mean temperature as the global mean temperature when the land component of the globe is about 30%? This was ploy was tried on by you many many pages ago and shown to be incorrect, so really your just trolling now for a bite, haven't you got something better to do?
inter

----------


## John2b

> Ah that still isn't the global mean

  Go right ahead and post "the global mean".

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> well it fairly obvious I'm not the type of galah described in last part of my post!
> inter

  Oh I dunno...they all look the same to me. Tasty.

----------


## John2b

> Oh I dunno...they all look the same to me. Tasty.

  And this one is in _denial of science which provides irrefutable, accurate, repeatable experiments which prove a theory_

----------


## Marc

> How about a bit of respect for your colleagues intelligence, Marc...

  Colleagues?
Uhuu John2bee ... come down from that high tower of yours the heat is getting to you.
Must be the globo warming

----------


## John2b

> Colleagues?
> Uhuu John2bee ... come down from that high tower of yours the heat is getting to you.

  Get a grip Marc, your stilettos are higher than my tower.

----------


## intertd6

> Go right ahead and post "the global mean".

  Its been posted ad nauseam but from some trolling types it's not good enough.
inter

----------


## John2b

> A leaked copy of the worlds most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.

  Marc, can you explain why the report you linked shows that global warming has become more severe since 1998? This is the graphic from your link:

----------


## John2b

> Its been posted ad nauseam but from some trolling types it's not good enough.

  So easy for you to fix things once and for all. Just do it! Or even just post a link to where it was posted before for dumbasses like me...

----------


## intertd6

> So easy for you to fix things once and for all. Just do it! Or even just post a link to where it was posted before for dumbasses like me...

  your still trolling, you obviously have too much time or whatever on your hands to play sick little games.
inter

----------


## John2b

> your still trolling, you obviously have too much time or whatever on your hands to play sick little games.

  You're teasing now. Why no link? C'mon Inter, gimme a link. You said it wa true. There mustha bin 'undreds of links. I only bin here sux months an' neva sin wunna ur links that pruvs evruthink...

----------


## John2b

Inter, no answer from Marc. Inter, can you explain why the climate deniers' graphic shows warming after 1998?   

> Marc, can you explain why the report you linked shows that global warming has become more severe since 1998? This is the graphic from your link:

----------


## intertd6

> You're teasing now. Why no link? C'mon Inter, gimme a link. You said it wa true. There mustha bin 'undreds of links. I only bin here sux months an' neva sin wunna ur links that pruvs evruthink...

  your reinforcing the obvious!
inter

----------


## John2b

> your still trolling

  Thank you for your concern Inter - I was so worried I looked up tolling, but I didn't need to worry after all.  a *troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.  *

----------


## John2b

> your reinforcing the obvious!

  Derr, yes. the obvious. You haven't a link, and haven't posted a link, to a record of temperature to support your fallacious position. 
I might be wrong, and I will apologise if you post the link.  :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

> Inter, no answer from Marc. Inter, can you explain why the climate deniers' graphic shows warming after 1998?

  Thats a leaked report from your side! And not the global average since 1998, Or haven't you properly focused yet?
inter

----------


## John2b

> Thats a leaked report from your side!

   1. Climate science doesn't have "sides".
2. The graphic was from Marc's post here: #12227

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Re-read indeed. And read well this time, instead of reading what you want to believe. #12213 
> You said: I would be embarrassed to bring up funding. I said: I would not be embarrassed as I was well read on the topic. It is pretty obvious I was talking about funding.

  Oh my god who cares

----------


## John2b

[QUOTE=intertd6;949816] not the global average since 1998, Or haven't you properly focused yet?[/QUOT 
I must confess I had not focussed yet. The global average since 1998... Kind of like asking what is your intelligence since you had your head cut off. I really am struggling in this forum... (not)

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So no response that shows that climate science is funded to the tune of more than US$2900 BILLION per year? Can't find that sort of funding? What a surprise, your suggestion that climate science has more funding than the fossil fuel industry is a smoking wreck. Try basing your proposals on facts. 
> I don't need to do better than to point out the hollow argument you propose. This is a very unbalanced discussion on financial terms, thankfully the facts unearthed by the science tend to balance the discussion. Parts of the the fossil fuel industry are funding the proposal that science is a scam and some people believe them. Surprise!

  Is this post for real?  Are you trying to say that skeptics get funded by 2900 billion a year?

----------


## John2b

> Oh my god who cares

  Why post then?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I really am struggling in this forum

  True that

----------


## intertd6

> Derr, yes. the obvious. You haven't a link, and haven't posted a link, to a record of temperature to support your fallacious position. 
> I might be wrong, and I will apologise if you post the link.

  what link? It's been posted on this debate on the pages beforehand by your side, who in their right mind would get sucked into some time wasters perverse little time wasting games, it's not my problem you have a problem by trolling up this stuff. 
inter

----------


## John2b

> what link? It's been posted on this debate on the pages beforehand by your side, who in their right mind would get sucked into some time wasters perverse little time wasting games, it's not my problem you have a problem.
> inter

  Inter, the only problem is you havn't provided the link that proves all the things you claim. Don't waste time arguing - just post your link. It will counter Marc's link #12227 showing warming is continuing.

----------


## intertd6

> what link? It's been posted on this debate on the pages beforehand by your side, who in their right mind would get sucked into some time wasters perverse little time wasting games, it's not my problem you have a problem by trolling up this stuff. 
> inter 
> Inter, the only problem is you havn't provided the link that proves all the things you claim. Don't waste time arguing - just post your link. It will counter Marc's link #12227 showing warming is continuing.

   Are you in need of help or something?
inter

----------


## John2b

> Are you in need of help or something?

  Just post your link - not for my benefit, but for the benefit of all others reading this forum. And if you have time, you might explain why you are in disagreement with Marc's post which purports to expose the worse liars of the world.

----------


## intertd6

> Just post your link - not for my benefit, but for the benefit of all others reading this forum. And if you have time, you might explain why you are in disagreement with Marc's post which purports to expose the worse liars of the world.

  You can try & get your jollies off someone else!
inter

----------


## John2b

> You can try & get your jollies off someone else!

  What no link? Some casual observers might think you have been making a bit up along the way. But they don't know like we forum regulars do - you've been making it all along.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Inter, the only problem is you havn't provided the link that proves all the things you claim. Don't waste time arguing - just post your link. It will counter Marc's link #12227 showing warming is continuing.

  nor have you john

----------


## John2b

> nor have you john

  Lazy claim Rob, and not true. I very often post links. You are welcome to take issue with the veracity of the information in the links, but don't shoot the messenger. 
FWIW Inter has stated several times in the past couple of days that he does not dispute the data I have linked. You can't both be right.

----------


## woodbe

> Is this post for real?  Are you trying to say that skeptics get funded by 2900 billion a year?

  Nice try to move the goal posts Rod. 
The fossil fuel industry is substantially better funded through their massive cash flow than the relatively piddling amounts spent on climate science. Your proposal was "anyway they are funding the exposure of a giant scam.  Far less than the funding available to support the scam." 
My suggestion is that there is far higher funding available to the FF industry than to climate science. I'm not suggesting that it is all spent on climate science denial. 
At least you admit that portions of the FF industry are funding denial. Accepting facts is a good trait to have.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Lazy claim Rob, and not true. I very often post links. You are welcome to take issue with the veracity of the information in the links, but don't shoot the messenger. 
> FWIW Inter has stated several times in the past couple of days that he does not dispute the data I have linked. You can't both be right.

  Yes but none that prove your claim as you are asking!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Nice try to move the goal posts Rod. 
> The fossil fuel industry is substantially better funded through their massive cash flow than the relatively piddling amounts spent on climate science. Your proposal was "anyway they are funding the exposure of a giant scam.  Far less than the funding available to support the scam." 
> My suggestion is that there is far higher funding available to the FF industry than to climate science. I'm not suggesting that it is all spent on climate science denial. 
> At least you admit that portions of the FF industry are funding denial. Accepting facts is a good trait to have.

  Why do you always have to try a gotcha on something you know full well is not true?  Anyone reading this forum would know its not true so why bother?

----------


## John2b

> Yes but none that prove your claim as you are asking!

  No one has refuted any of the links I have posted, by explaining why they are wrong or have misinterpreted things. Not you, not Marc, not Inter. All you have collectively done is post a lot of emotive claptrap with not a fact in sight.

----------


## intertd6

> What no link? Some casual observers might think you have been making a bit up along the way. But they don't know like we forum regulars do - you've been making it all along.

  who would need a link when the subject in recent history started out the same as this latest silly little farce, a claim was made that we were all dreaming that there had been no significant warming since 1998, some one provided a doctored graph, it was pointed out that it was a farce, other graphs turned up, these again were a farce, finally a graph was presented which was indicative of reality which showed 0.02'C or so warming over the period ( 1998 to then ) , then you or one of your clones claimed this was significant warming in their opinion, then it was pointed out that the real definition meaning of significant did not apply to this increase in temperature, then you or one of your clones dropped the argument like a hot potato because they didn't have a leg to stand on! Now tell us all this isn't basically what happened? then ask yourself who in their right mind would engage any further in such a fruitless pursuit when nothing has changed other than their contempt for anything but your own warped agenda.
inter

----------


## John2b

> who would need a link when the subject in recent history started out the same as this latest silly little farce, a claim was made that we were all dreaming that there had been no significant warming since 1998, some one provided a doctored graph, it was pointed out that it was a farce, other graphs turned up, these again were a farce, finally a graph was presented which was indicative of reality which showed 0.02'C or so warming over the period ( 1998 to then )

  Where? Not in this forum. BTW none of the graphs I provided were "doctored". You can provide your own graphs if you don't agree with the ones posted. The data is available for free to everyone.   

> then you or one of your clones claimed this was significant warming in their opinion, then it was pointed out that the real definition meaning of significant did not apply to this increase in temperature, then you or one of your clones dropped the argument like a hot potato because they didn't have a leg to stand on! Now tell us all this isn't basically what happened? *then ask yourself who in their right mind would engage any further in such a fruitless pursuit* when nothing has changed other than their contempt for anything but your own warped agenda*.*

  So here's a challenge Inter: don't. Especially as all you seem to do is denigrate and belittle the people you don't agree with.

----------


## intertd6

> So here's a challenge Inter: don't. Especially as all you seem to do is denigrate and belittle the people you don't agree with.  Wake up! I already said I won't  
> BTW none of the graphs I provided were doctored. You can provide your own graphs if you don't agree with the ones posted.  Just like the latest ones hey! You couldn't lie straight in bed

  inter

----------


## John2b

> _Wake up! I already said I won't_

  But you just have.   

> _You couldn't lie straight in bed_

  And another dose of denigration thrown in for good measure.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

> Why do you always have to try a gotcha on something you know full well is not true?

  I agree with you that FF companies are funding denial of climate science. Where is the gotcha?  
You claim to accept the basics of climate science, but you call it a scam. If anyone is playing gotcha, it is you.

----------


## intertd6

> Is this post for real?  Are you trying to say that skeptics get funded by 2900 billion a year?

  What's funny is they think it is! Somehow gross turnover means funding!!! If that was the basis of an argument, then this amount would be a minuscule fraction of the globes govt revenues in the multi trillions that go on to fund climate research & so they lose another red herring argument!
Regards inter

----------


## Marc

*Prof. Says Global Warming to Blame for ISIS*by Jeff Davis on September 30, 2014 in Loonies A professor is blaming climate change and overpopulation for the creation of the terrorist group ISIS.  Charles Strozier, Professor of History and the founding Director of the John Jay College Center on Terrorism and Kelly Berkell, research assistant at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, wrote a blog piece in the Huffington Post called “ How Climate Change Helped ISIS,” where they argue that a four-year drought in Syria, from 2006 through 2010, “devastated the livelihoods of 800,000 farmers and herders; and knocked two to three million people into extreme poverty.”
Read more at Campus Reform

----------


## Marc

*BIG NEWS VIII: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling*   To recap — using an optimal Fourier Transform, David Evans discovered a form of notch filter operating between changes in sunlight and temperatures on Earth. This means there must be a delay — probably around 11 years. This not only fitted with the length of the solar dynamo cycle, but also with previous independent work suggesting a lag of ten years or a correlation with the solar activity of the previous cycle. The synopsis then is that solar irradiance (TSI) is a leading indicator of some other effect coming from the Sun after a delay of 11 years or so.
The discovery of this delay is a major clue about the direction of our future climate.  The flickers in sunlight run a whole sunspot cycle ahead of some other force from the sun. Knowing that solar irradiance dropped suddenly from 2003 onwards tells us the rough timing of the fall in temperature that’s coming (just add a solar cycle length). What it doesn’t tell us is the amplitude — the size of the fall. That’s where the model may (or may not) tell us what we want to know. That test is coming, and _very soon_. This is an unusual time in the last 100 years where the forecasts from the CO2 driven models and the solar model diverge sharply. Oh the timing!
Ponder how ambitious this simple model is — the complex GCM’s only aim to predict decadal trends, and have failed to even do that. Here is a smaller simpler model proffering up a prediction which is so much more specific. The Solar Model has not shown skill yet in predictions on such short time-scales, though it hindcasts reasonably well on the turning points and longer scales. It cannot predict ENSO events, and obviously not aerosols, nor volcanoes. But if the notch-delay theory is right,  the big drop coming is larger than the short term noise.
As we head to the UNFCCC meeting in Paris 2015 where global bureaucracy beckons, a sharp cooling change appears to be developing and set to hit in the next five years. Yet consortia of five-star politicans are not preparing for climate change, only for global warming. Around the world a billion dollars a day is invested in renewable energy, largely with the hope of changing the weather. Given that 20% of the world does not even have access to electricity, history books may marvel at how screwed priorities were, and how bureaucratized science cost so much more than the price of the grants.
As Bob Carter has been saying for a long time, politicians need to prepare for everything the climate may throw at us — see Climate the Counter Consensus.
Jo

----------


## John2b

> What's funny is they think it is! Somehow gross turnover means funding!!!

  No Woodbe did not. What's more, that fallacious claim has already been dealt with here: #12264   

> If that was the basis of an argument, then this amount would be a minuscule fraction of the globes govt revenues in the multi trillions that go on to fund climate research & they lose another red herring argument!

  Keep digging Inter - you're nearly at Senegal LOL!

----------


## woodbe

> Somehow gross turnover means funding!!!

  US$2,900 BILLION is not gross turnover. What's funny is that you think it is!  
There is a difference between raw material costs and gross turnover.  
What is missing from your post is recognition that the results of climate science threaten the fossil fuel industry and they clearly have a lot to lose. Even Rod accepts that the industry is funding attacks on climate science. The exact same thing happened in the tobacco industry, they used funding to bury the science for as long as they could. Truth came out in the end, and for those who are not sycophants for the fossil fuel industry, the truth is already out.  
You should send a bill to the FF industry for flying their flag here for them.  :Biggrin:

----------


## John2b

> *BIG NEWS VIII: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling*

  Ah - a theory that disproves conservation of energy - that might work. Except everything built on the assumption that the conservation of energy holds would be broken, and that is just about everything that has been designed or made by mankind. 
Just more tripe - who wudda thort. It is hard to find two of Marc's counter climate theories that can even co-exist, because they are so often mutually contradictory. But who cares when the mantra running inside someone's head is all that is required to justify the means?

----------


## intertd6

> Why do you always have to try a gotcha on something you know full well is not true?  Anyone reading this forum would know its not true so why bother?

  The funniest thing is their perceived gotcha's turn out to be, got themselves into such a mess, so they have to lie, doctor, weasel & manipulate their way into more of a mess, it a laugh a minute which never ends!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> The funniest thing is their perceived gotcha's turn out to be, got themselves into such a mess, so they have to lie, doctor, weasel & manipulate their way into more of a mess, it a laugh a minute which never ends!
> regards inter

  Not to mention those that still don't understand the simple concept of industry defending it's position by funding attacks on science. (not to mention the inability to grasp the difference between raw material cost and gross turnover) 
You've still got less than nuffin, inter.

----------


## PhilT2

> Ah - a new theory that disproves conservation of energy - that might work. Except everything built on the assumption that the conservation of energy holds would be broken, and that is just about everything that has been designed or made by mankind. 
> Just more tripe - who wudda thort. It is hard to find two of Marc's counter climate theories that can even co-exist, because they are so often mutually contradictory. But who cares when the mantra running inside someone's head is all that is required to justify the means?

  Not exactly new; Evans has been pushing this one in different variations for about ten years now.

----------


## intertd6

> US$2,900 BILLION is not gross turnover. What's funny is that you think it is!  
> There is a difference between raw material costs and gross turnover.  
> What is missing from your post is recognition that the results of climate science threaten the fossil fuel industry and they clearly have a lot to lose. Even Rod accepts that the industry is funding attacks on climate science. The exact same thing happened in the tobacco industry, they used funding to bury the science for as long as they could. Truth came out in the end, and for those who are not sycophants for the fossil fuel industry, the truth is already out.  
> You should send a bill to the FF industry for flying their flag here for them.

  you dreaming stuff up again I see! Some how you have dreamed up I have some where confused your unquoted material costs to my referenced turnover amount.
I couldn't care less about who funds what propaganda because I'm only just bright enough to see it for what it is & not be one of the sheep that follows the herd whatever direction it goes in! then wait to see the scientific proof what ever or way it reveals the facts. You guys or girls only have your immovable dogma that you follow & can't or won't entertain anything else! Oops I by accident just described the followers of a cult again!
inter

----------


## John2b

> Not exactly new; Evans has been pushing this one in different variations for about ten years now.

  Thanks. Edited.

----------


## Marc

I mentioned the link between eugenics and the global warming fabrication before.
This article mainly dedicated to the modern version of eugenics mentions the link once again.*The Population Reduction Agenda For DummiesPaul Joseph Watson* http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-popu...r-dummies.htmlPrison Planet.com
Friday, June 26, 2009 There are still large numbers of people amongst the general public, in academia, and especially those who work for the corporate media, who are still in denial about the on-the-record stated agenda for global population reduction, as well as the consequences of this program that we already see unfolding.  As was reported only last month by the London Times, a “secret billionaire club” meeting in early May which took place in New York and was attended by David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Bill Gates and others was focused around “how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population”.  We questioned establishment media spin which portrayed the attendees as kind-hearted and concerned philanthropists by pointing out that Ted Turner has publicly advocated shocking population reduction programs that would cull the human population by a staggering 95%. He has also called for a Communist-style one child policy to be mandated by governments in the west. In China, the one child policy is enforced by means of taxes on each subsequent child, allied to an intimidation program which includes secret police and “family planning” authorities kidnapping pregnant women from their homes and performing forced abortions. 
The notion that these elitists merely want to slow population growth in order to improve health is a complete misnomer. Slowing the growth of the world’s population while also improving its health are two irreconcilable concepts to the elite. Stabilizing world population is a natural byproduct of higher living standards, as has been proven by the stabilization of the white population in the west. Elitists like David Rockefeller have no interest in “slowing the growth of world population” by natural methods, their agenda is firmly rooted in the pseudo-science of eugenics, which is all about “culling” the surplus population via draconian methods.  As is documented in Alex Jones’ seminal film Endgame, Rockefeller’s father, John D. Rockefeller, exported eugenics to Germany from its origins in Britain by bankrolling the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute which later would form a central pillar in the Third Reich’s ideology of the Nazi super race. After the fall of the Nazis, top German eugenicists were protected by the allies as the victorious parties fought over who would enjoy their “expertise” in the post-war world.  As Dr. Len Horowitz writes, “In the 1950s, the Rockefellers reorganized the U.S. eugenics movement in their own family offices, with spinoff population-control and abortion groups. The Eugenics Society changed its name to the Society for the Study of Social Biology, its current name.” 
In the latter half of the 20th century, eugenics merely changed its face to become known as “population control”. This was crystallized in National Security Study Memorandum 200, a 1974 geopolitical strategy document prepared by Rockefeller’s intimate friend and fellow Bilderberg member Henry Kissinger, which targeted thirteen countries for massive population reduction by means of creating food scarcity, sterilization and war. 
Marie Stopes was a feminist who opened the first birth control clinic in Britain in 1921 as well as being Nazi sympathizer and a eugenicist who advocated that non-whites and the poor be sterilized.Stopes, a racist and an anti-Semite, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich. 
Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. 
The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.In the 21st century, the eugenics movement has changed its stripes once again, manifesting itself through the global carbon tax agenda and the notion that having too many children or enjoying a reasonably high standard of living is destroying the planet through global warming, creating the pretext for further regulation and control over every facet of our lives.As we have tirelessly documented, the elite’s drive for population control is not based around a benign philanthropic urge to improve living standards, it is firmly routed in eugenics, racial hygiene and fascist thinking.
The London Times reports that the secret billionaire cabal, with its interest in population reduction, has been dubbed ‘The Good Club’ by insiders. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Anyone who takes the time to properly research the origins of the “population control” movement will come to understand that the Rockefeller- 
Turner-Gates agenda for drastic population reduction, which is now clearly manifesting itself through real environmental crises like chemtrails, genetically modified food, tainted vaccines and other skyrocketing diseases such as cancer, has its origins in the age-old malevolent elitist agenda to cull the human “chattel” as one would do to rodents or any other species deemed a nuisance by the central planning authorities. As we highlighted at the time, respondents to a Daily Mail article about Royal Mail honoring Marie Stopes by using her image on a commemorative stamp were not disgusted at Royal Mail for paying homage to a racist Nazi eugenicist, but were merely keen to express their full agreement that those deemed not to be of pure genetic stock or of the approved character should be forcibly sterilized and prevented from having children.“A lot of people should be sterilized, IMO. It’s still true today,” wrote one.“Just imagine what a stable, well-ordered society we’d have if compulsory sterilisation had been adopted years ago for the socially undesirable,” states another respondent, calling for a “satellite-carried sterilisation ray” to be installed in space to zap the undesirables.Shockingly, another compares sterilization and genocide of those deemed inferior to the breeding and culling of farmyard animals, and says that such a move is necessary to fight overpopulation and global warming. Here is the comment in full from “Karen” in Wales;We breed farm animals to produce the best possible stock and kill them when they have fulfilled their purpose. We inter-breed pedigree animals to produce extremes that leave them open to ill-health and early death. It is only religion that says humans are not animals. The reality is that we are simply intelligent, mammalian primates.The world population of humans has increased from 2 billion to 6.5 billion in the last 50 years. This planet can support 2 billion humans comfortably. 6.5 billion humans use too many resources and leads to global warming, climate change and a very uncertain future for all of us – humans and all other life sharing this planet with us.Marie Stopes believed in population control and in breeding the best possible humans. So did Hitler._Neither of the aims are bad in themselves_. It is how they are achieved that is the problem. The fact that we still remember Marie Stopes is an achievement in itself.

----------


## woodbe

> you dreaming stuff up again I see! Some how you have dreamed up I have some where confused your unquoted material costs to my referenced turnover amount.

  If someone is dreaming stuff up, it is inter dreaming up ways to weasel out of his misunderstanding.   
The subject is clearly the value of the crude oil consumption, not gross turnover. Man up, big boy  :Smilie:  and admit to a mistake. 
You've still got nothing.  :Wink:

----------


## PhilT2

World Scientific have made all their journals open access for the month of October. http://www.worldscientific.com/page/highlights-physics
One of their journals, the International Journal of Modern Physics B has some discussion on the the Gerlich & Tscheuschner "greenhouse" paper and the Lu paper on cosmic rays.  
Sadly they do not have any articles on the conspiracy by the illumanati or the secret lizard people to form a one world govt with the UN under Agenda 21 and kill off the population with vaccines. i know that will be a disappointment to some.

----------


## Marc

In the sixties and seventies the catchcry phrase was "information is power". When that may have been the case in the middle ages where only the elite could read and write, today information is not power at all and probably was not so even then. Otherwise university professors would all be millionairs.  
It is not information that is power or being informed that makes you powerful, but it is what you do with the information you receive.
So in essence the power comes from action and not from knowledge.I know well respected people with decades of experience in investment that were told to buy shares in Yahoo and in Google at the time the shares were a dollar or so, yet dismissed it as a fad, another .com bubble. Their position as experts clashed with the possibility that someone else, new, green, not in the loop, may possibly know and act outside of what it is done by those in the know. 
Most amazing is that they refused to buy even after years of phenomenal performance each year dismissing it as the last and now the beginning of the end. The bubble will bust any minute now... 
What each individual does with the information available, will depend from his own set of values. If you "like" what you hear or read, you might act on it, maybe or maybe not.
If you don't like it or would rather it be wrong, you ridicule it or call it a conspiracy theory. 
Usually there is an official position that appeals to the majority and then there is the minority report (pun intended) that is suppressed in any way possible or if made public, ridiculed and called a conspiracy theory. This title automatically labels the information as fringe lunacy to be dismissed by any thinking person with even a trace of personal balance. 
As you probably notice, this can be applied back to the majority position and the majority position labelled lunatic. it does not matter. The only thing that matters is what each person does with what he or she knows or is told or taught.  
The world is an amazing place.

----------


## PhilT2

The term 'Knowledge is power" does not necessarily have anything to do with wealth. Information maybe, especially a bit of inside information may help with your google shares; I'll leave that up to you. The laws of physics do not care whether you like them or ridicule them. If your ideas requires that those laws cease to work then being labelled a conspiracy is the least you can expect to happen to them.

----------


## intertd6

> If someone is dreaming stuff up, it is inter dreaming up ways to weasel out of his misunderstanding.   
> The subject is clearly the value of the crude oil consumption, not gross turnover. Man up, big boy  and admit to a mistake. 
> You've still got nothing.

  we'll see if you can re produce your invisible reference to material costs in your original claim of the amount?
you have nothing yet claim it's something! Mmmmm seems to be a pattern emerging!
inter

----------


## John2b

> Mmmmm seems to be a pattern emerging!

  Not emerging. The pattern of your posts has been consistent and obvious to all for yonks. Miss the point of the post, point the finger at others, duck the obvious issue, lose the plot, denigrate those who you don't agree with, drop your claim like a stone as though you never posted.

----------


## intertd6

> we'll see if you can re produce your invisible reference to material costs in your original claim of the amount?
> you have nothing yet claim it's something! Mmmmm seems to be a pattern emerging!
> inter

  and also mysteriously material costs have been reinvented into the value of crude oil consumption! Which anybody with half an ounce of intelligence would know is.........ta da! Gross turnover!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Not emerging. The pattern of your posts has been consistent and obvious to all for yonks. Miss the point of the post, point the finger at others, duck the obvious issue, lose the plot, denigrate those who you don't agree with, drop your claim like a stone as though you never posted.

  i miss a lot! Especially the recognition that there has been no significant warming since 1998, or something that proves CO2 can, has, or ever will cause uncontrollable catastrophic dangerous warming of the atmosphere from you, then as the old saying goes "you can't miss something you have never had! 
Everybody including me is sick & tired of me asking the same questions over & over & over...............again! So in the meantime we are all amused with evangelical like antics of your farce evasion of some of the least complicated straight forward questions directed to your side, yet they remain unanswered!
Inter

----------


## John2b

> i miss a lot! Especially the recognition that there has been no significant warming since 1998

  I miss that as well. Never seen any record posted by you or anyone else that shows no significant arming since 1998. Why are you hiding your "piece de resistance"?   

> or something that proves CO2 can, has, or ever will cause uncontrollable catastrophic dangerous warming of the atmosphere from you

   Where have I made that claim (hint: I have not.) You say I have, so show everyone, or they will be justified in believing you just made it up.    

> Everybody including me is sick & tired of me asking the same questions over & over & over...............again!

  The big unanswered question is where you base your belief system - it isn't based on the record of what is happening on this planet.   

> So in the meantime we are all amused with evangelical like antics of your farce evasion of some of the least complicated straight forward questions directed to your side, yet they remain unanswered!

  I'll leave that for others to judge. But thank you (yet again) for pointing out my personal failings. Lucky for me I have you to remind me, and you find it more pressing to do it for my benefit than to show why you think you are right about climate change by posting something relevant on topic.

----------


## John2b

> and also mysteriously material costs have been reinvented into the value of crude oil consumption! Which anybody with half an ounce of intelligence would know is.........ta da! Gross turnover!
> inter

   

> Not to mention those that still don't understand the simple concept of industry defending it's position by funding attacks on science. (not to mention the inability to grasp the difference between raw material cost and gross turnover)

  Suggestion to Inter: when you are in a hole, don't keep digging. You can't see from down there what is obvious to everyone above.

----------


## intertd6

> I miss that as well. Never seen any record posted by you or anyone else that shows no significant arming since 1998. Why are you hiding your "piece de resistance"?  are you for real? Or just a habitually contentious   
>  Where have I made that claim (hint: I have not.) You say I have, so show everyone, or they will be justified in believing you just made it up.  It seems you agree with of our side then & there is nothing more to discuss then!  
> The big unanswered question is where you base your belief system - it isn't based on the record of what is happening on this planet.  It would be truly marvellous for you to open your eyes & engage your brain before running off at the mouth! its quoted by me on this very page. 
> I'll leave that for others to judge. But thank you (yet again) for pointing out my personal failings. Lucky for me I have you to remind me, and you find it more pressing to do it for my benefit than to show why you think you are right about climate change by posting something relevant on topic.  And there I was thinking I was just describing your antics, no wonder you come to all sorts of weird & wonderful assumptions & conclusions!

  inter

----------


## John2b

> _are you for real? Or just a habitually contentious_

  Simple request. Show your evidence.   

> _And there I was thinking I was just describing your antics_

  How about focusing on climate change, instead of describing your opinion of my antics? You don't even know me. I am honoured but as much as you might want to make it, this forum isn't about me. It is about this:  Indicators of climate change    *Greenhouse Gases*Global Greenhouse Gas EmissionsAtmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse GasesClimate Forcing    *Weather and Climate*U.S. and Global TemperatureHigh and Low TemperaturesU.S. and Global PrecipitationHeavy PrecipitationDroughtTropical Cyclone Activity    *Oceans*Ocean HeatSea Surface TemperatureSea LevelOcean Acidity    *Snow and Ice*Arctic Sea IceGlaciersLake IceSnowfallSnow CoverSnowpack    *Health and Society*Heating and Cooling Degree Days***Heat-Related DeathsLyme Disease***Length of Growing SeasonRagweed Pollen Season    *Ecosystems*Wildfires***StreamflowGreat Lakes Water Levels and Temperatures***Bird Wintering RangesLeaf and Bloom Dates

----------


## Rod Dyson

> . Even Rod accepts that the industry is funding attacks on climate science.

  Pathetic Woodbe just pathetic. 
It is a no brainer that funding goes to both sides of the debate.  There are vested interest all over the place on both sides of the debate.   
I also ACCEPT that grant money is paid to carpetbaggers that are on the AGW bandwagon funding all sorts of BS claims that *IF* this happens then this *MAY* happen all sold as if it is a foregone conclusion.   
I also ACCEPT that Billions of dollars of Government money all over the world are poured into a giant money pit called climate science.  Money that should be used to prevent the REAL pollution and environment issues facing the world.  This pisses me off more than anything.  
Yes I agree money should be spent bringing people to account on outlandish claims and waste of public money.  Bring it on, spend more outing this farce.

----------


## John2b

> Pathetic Woodbe just pathetic. 
> It is a no brainer that funding goes to both sides of the debate.

  Pathetic Rod. There is no debate, excluding the pseudoscientific lunatic fringe.   

> There are vested interest all over the place on both sides of the debate.

  There are corporations and people who profit from the exploitation of fossil fuel reserves on the one side, and there are people who just observe what is happening to the planet on the other side.    

> I also ACCEPT that Billions of dollars of Government money all over the world are poured into a giant money pit called climate science. Money that should be used to prevent the REAL pollution and environment issues facing the world. This pisses me off more than anything.

  Money for research does not normally determine the result of that research; the exception is if the money comes from profit vested interests. It seems you don't think money should be spent on research if there is a chance it will find results that don't suit your agenda.    

> Yes I agree money should be spent bringing people to account on outlandish claims and waste of public money. Bring it on, spend more outing this farce.

  The farce is the spending of billions of dollars of money syphoned of in profits charged to YOU for the cost of energy and services provided that YOU have paid for, to convince YOU that the world isn't as we know it. More than a farce, it's a joke.

----------


## woodbe

> and also mysteriously material costs have been reinvented into the value of crude oil consumption! Which anybody with half an ounce of intelligence would know is.........ta da! Gross turnover!
> inter

  Do we have to do this? Are you so ignorant of FF and business that it has to be explained? 
A Barrel goes for $90 average. It contains 159 litres of crude oil. That is the raw material. Without going into huge detail, lets just look at something simple enough for you to grasp.   
149 litres x 50% = 74.5 Litres. How much are you paying for petrol? Lets say $1.50 There is $111.75 Gross Turnover from petrol alone from that barrel. 
Raw material costs do not equal gross turnover. If they did, the business would go out the door backwards. 
You still have less than nothing.

----------


## woodbe

> Pathetic Woodbe just pathetic.

  Came from your mouth not mine. You agreed that the industry is funding attacks on climate science, a science you have agreed the basic tenets of. Yet you want it taken down because you don't like the answers it provides.  
Like inter, you've got nothing.

----------


## johnc

> Not emerging. The pattern of your posts has been consistent and obvious to all for yonks. Miss the point of the post, point the finger at others, duck the obvious issue, lose the plot, denigrate those who you don't agree with, drop your claim like a stone as though you never posted.

  Sums him up perfectly.

----------


## intertd6

> Simple request. Show your evidence.  Do you really think it's possible for you to get your jollies this way from me? To engage any further on this reminds me of an old saying " try not to argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level & beat you with experience every time" 
> How about focusing on climate change, instead of describing your opinion of my antics? You don't even know me. I am honoured but as much as you might want to make it, this forum isn't about me. It is about this:  Indicators of climate change    *Greenhouse Gases*Global Greenhouse Gas EmissionsAtmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse GasesClimate Forcing    *Weather and Climate*U.S. and Global TemperatureHigh and Low TemperaturesU.S. and Global PrecipitationHeavy PrecipitationDroughtTropical Cyclone Activity    *Oceans*Ocean HeatSea Surface TemperatureSea LevelOcean Acidity    *Snow and Ice*Arctic Sea IceGlaciersLake IceSnowfallSnow CoverSnowpack    *Health and Society*Heating and Cooling Degree Days***Heat-Related DeathsLyme Disease***Length of Growing SeasonRagweed Pollen Season    *Ecosystems*Wildfires***StreamflowGreat Lakes Water Levels and Temperatures***Bird Wintering RangesLeaf and Bloom Dates   The simple truth is CO2 hasn't been proven to be causing the majority of these global warming symptoms "& the problem with the simple truth is it always takes a gaggle of complete idiots or a team of all-knowing geniuses to miss it."

  inter

----------


## intertd6

> Do we have to do this? Are you so ignorant of FF and business that it has to be explained? 
> A Barrel goes for $90 average. It contains 159 litres of crude oil. That is the raw material. Without going into huge detail, lets just look at something simple enough for you to grasp.   
> 149 litres x 50% = 74.5 Litres. How much are you paying for petrol? Lets say $1.50 There is $111.75 Gross Turnover from petrol alone from that barrel. 
> Raw material costs do not equal gross turnover. If they did, the business would go out the door backwards. 
> You still have less than nothing.

   
 Originally Posted by intertd6 
and also mysteriously material costs have been reinvented into the value of crude oil consumption! Which anybody with half an ounce of intelligence would know is.........ta da! Gross turnover!
inter 
your definitely right about me having nothing! I'm only quoting what you've said!
inter

----------


## John2b

> _The simple truth is CO2 hasn't been proven to be causing the majority of these global warming symptoms_

  I thought you said there was no significant warming. Now you are saying there is significant warming?   

> _ the simple truth is it always takes a gaggle of complete idiots or a team of all-knowing geniuses to miss it."_

  Team Inter, Rod and Marc.

----------


## John2b

> your definitely right about me having nothing! I'm only *MISQUOTING* what you've said!

  There, fixed it for you, Inter.

----------


## intertd6

> I thought you said there was no significant warming. Now you are saying there is significant warming?  Back down to your low level & beating me again with your experience I see!  
> Team Inter, Rod and Marc.  You didn't happen to miss the flat spot in the global ave' temp over the last 16 years did you?

  inter

----------


## intertd6

> Not emerging. The pattern of your posts has been consistent and obvious to all for yonks. Miss the point of the post, point the finger at others, duck the obvious issue, lose the plot, denigrate those who you don't agree with, drop your claim like a stone as though you never posted.

  wow! now that's original! Is that all your own work?
inter

----------


## intertd6

> There, fixed it for you, Inter.

  How miraculously inventive of you!
inter

----------


## PhilT2

For the benefit of any neutral observers who may happen to run across this and want to seek answers for themselves there is an abundance of resources out there. Start with this site. If that doesn't work for you there are a number of textbooks on basic atmospheric physics out there. Try Pierrehumbert's 'Principles of Planetary Climate; a bit expensive and fairly heavy into the math but really good. There is the alternative of signing up for one of the online courses offered through the open university program. Both Harvard and MIT offer online courses on atmospheric physics. They're free but be aware that some classes have 40,000 students. They have student forums so you do have a chance of getting some help if you need it.

----------


## intertd6

> For the benefit of any neutral observers who may happen to run across this and want to seek answers for themselves there is an abundance of resources out there. Start with this site. If that doesn't work for you there are a number of textbooks on basic atmospheric physics out there. Try Pierrehumbert's 'Principles of Planetary Climate; a bit expensive and fairly heavy into the math but really good. There is the alternative of signing up for one of the online courses offered through the open university program. Both Harvard and MIT offer online courses on atmospheric physics. They're free but be aware that some classes have 40,000 students. They have student forums so you do have a chance of getting some help if you need it.

  Now the really interesting thing would be know the number of onlookers doing a PHD in psychology & using this forum as research tool for findings of AGWists psyche defending their cult like belief, not that the psyche is different for any cult of belief but the topic is relatively new! One just has to look at the number of guest of onlookers to see it very popular entertainment wise or a valuable tool for students & spooks.
inter

----------


## John2b

> _Back down to your low level & beating me again with your experience I see!_

  All your own work.

----------


## John2b

> Now the really interesting thing would be know the number of onlookers doing a PHD in psychology & using this forum as research tool for findings of AGWists psyche defending their cult like belief, not that the psyche is different for any cult of belief but the topic is relatively new! One just has to look at the number of guest of onlookers to see it very popular entertainment wise or a valuable tool for students & spooks.
> inter

  The psychology of climate science denial is a hot topic, Inter. You would be chuffed if you were smart enough to realise you are the subject of so many PhD's.   Specifically, we have found that the denial of environmental problems is facilitated by information-processing distortions associated with system justification that affect evaluation, recall, and even tactile perception (Hennes, Feygina, & Jost, 2011). In one study, we found that individuals who scored higher (vs. lower) on Jost and Thompson’s (2000) Economic System Justification scale (which measures responses to such statements as “If people work hard, they almost always get what they want,” and “It is unfair to have an economic system which produces extreme wealth and extreme poverty at the same time,” reverse-scored) found messages disparaging the case for global warming to be more persuasive, evaluated the evidence for global warming to be weaker, and expressed less willingness to take action to curb global warming.   psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2013/april-13/the-mind-of-the-climate-change-skeptic.html  '+windowtitle+'

----------


## John2b

Despite the pain, shame, difficulty and minefield of other psychological barriers that we face in fully addressing climate change, both Lertzman and Gifford are still upbeat about our ability to face up to the challenge. Its patronizing to say that climate change is too big or abstract an issue for people to deal with, says Lertzman. There cant be something about the human mind that stops us grappling with these issues given that so many people already are  maybe thats what we should be focusing on instead.  http://science.time.com/2013/08/19/in-denial-about-the-climate-the-psychological-battle-over-global-warming/

----------


## John2b

Global Warming: The Psychology of Ignoring a SuperthreatÂ@|Â@Adam Alter

----------


## John2b

Why climate deniers are winning: The twisted psychology that overwhelms scientific consensus - Salon.com

----------


## John2b

Climate-Change Denialism and the Problems of Psychology | TIME.com

----------


## John2b

What topic has 396,000 Google hits?  Let me google that for you

----------


## woodbe

> Originally Posted by intertd6 
> and also mysteriously material costs have been reinvented into the value of crude oil consumption! Which anybody with half an ounce of intelligence would know is.........ta da! Gross turnover!
> inter

  Nice try, no cigar. It's the fossil fuel industry we are talking about and their capacity to fund attacks on climate science. Crude oil is one of the basic inputs and there is a lot of value add in refining and marketing the resulting products. Gross turnover of the fossil fuel industry does not equal the value of crude oil consumption. There is a lot more to gross turnover, ask your Accountant to explain it to you. 
Here is what I said in the original post that challenged the silly suggestion that there is more funding available to climate science than the FF Industry:   

> Cash flow from crude oil in a single year approximates US$2,900 Billion.  *On top of that, we need to add the other major Fossil Fuels (Gas, Tar  Sands) to get a good picture of the whole industry, and we should then  include the value add from processing and marketing.*

  Inter must have slept through Accounting 101  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

*Talk of climate change is hoax for some*  Harold R. Wanless, chairman of the University of Miami Department of Geological Sciences and chairman of the Miami-Dade Climate Change Advisory Task Force, laughed at the notion that warning folks about climate change  and getting lambasted by conservative politicians for their trouble  was a lucrative pursuit. I pay my own way to most speaking engagements. I dont get paid to speak. I do it for the same reason most scientists do it. Because we clearly see a horrible situation. Were just trying to awaken people.  The real money, he said, was in climate change denial. The fossil fuel industry has the big bucks  much more than academia  and funds pseudo-science outfits like the Heartland Institute to generate doubt and skepticism about global warming.   Fred Grimm: Talk of climate change is âhoaxâ for some | The Miami Herald

----------


## Marc

> The term 'Knowledge is power" does not necessarily have anything to do with wealth. Information maybe, especially a bit of inside information may help with your google shares; I'll leave that up to you. The laws of physics do not care whether you like them or ridicule them. If your ideas requires that those laws cease to work then being labelled a conspiracy is the least you can expect to happen to them.

   Just semantics Phil, I expected more from you.

----------


## Marc

> Marc, can you explain why the report you linked shows that global warming has become more severe since 1998? This is the graphic from your link:

  Warming becoming "more severe" after 1998?  
You must be looking at a different graph.
In the above one, the black line shows a heating of ...hard to see but about 0.1 to 0.2 after 98 flattening and seeming to go down after 2004. 
In case you missed it, the point of this graph is to show the crap your side has been feeding us just to keep the gravy train rolling. Those are all the crap fabrications that are represented by the many little pretentious line above.

----------


## intertd6

> Despite the pain, shame, difficulty and minefield of other psychological barriers that we face in fully addressing climate change, both Lertzman and Gifford are still upbeat about our ability to face up to the challenge. “It’s patronizing to say that climate change is too big or abstract an issue for people to deal with,” says Lertzman. “There can’t be something about the human mind that stops us grappling with these issues given that so many people already are — maybe that’s what we should be focusing on instead.”  http://science.time.com/2013/08/19/in-denial-about-the-climate-the-psychological-battle-over-global-warming/

  Oh dear! were counting 2000 + years with some believing in something with no proof, like that belief, come up with some proof that CO2 is going to do something other than what it has done continually for the last billion years or so with no relationship to temperature changes & make some new believers in the process. Like I said before the psyche is the same just a different topic, that's why it will suck in the herd following dills who don't need much evidence for their belief while ever there is a breathable atmosphere.
inter

----------


## intertd6

And that was a great game league football!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> Warming becoming "more severe" after 1998?  
> You must be looking at a different graph.
> In the above one, the black line shows a heating of ...hard to see but about 0.1 to 0.2 after 98 flattening and seeming to go down after 2004. 
> In case you missed it, the point of this graph is to show the crap your side has been feeding us just to keep the gravy train rolling. Those are all the crap fabrications that are represented by the many little pretentious line above.

  Any sane logical person would describe it as "insignificant", for the panic merchants, doom & gloom is all that can be conjured up from pause in global warming to fog the realities of what is really happening!
inter

----------


## John2b

> Warming becoming "more severe" after 1998?  
> You must be looking at a different graph.
> In the above one, the black line shows a heating of ...hard to see but about 0.1 to 0.2 after 98 flattening and seeming to go down after 2004.

  Nope. Your graph does not go down after 2004. Put a ruler on it.     

> In case you missed it, the point of this graph is to show the crap your side has been feeding us just to keep the gravy train rolling. Those are all the crap fabrications that are represented by the many little pretentious line above.

  In case you missed it, your graph does not support your contention at all. There are no "sides" in climate science - it is not a football match FFS.

----------


## John2b

> Oh dear! were counting 2000 + years with some believing in something with no proof, like that belief, come up with some proof that CO2 is going to do something other than what it has done continually for the last billion years or so with no relationship to temperature changes & make some new believers in the process. Like I said before the psyche is the same just a different topic, that's why it will suck in the herd following dills who don't need much evidence for their belief while ever there is a breathable atmosphere.
> inter

  Is this ramble meant to convey some meaning? Or are you just providing fodder for the shrinks earning their psych PhDs...

----------


## intertd6

> Is this ramble meant to convey some meaning? Or are you just providing fodder for the shrinks earning their psych PhDs...

  it just goes to show that anything remotely sensible, similar or logical is completely lost on those so severely afflicted with a belief! 
Inter

----------


## Marc

> Nope. Your graph does not go down after 2004. Put a ruler on it.
> In case you missed it, your graph does not support your contention at all. There are no "sides" in climate science - it is not a football match FFS.

  To be or not to be, that is the question. 
Honestly ... just like your reply to the stingless bees. 
The graph in question shows computer predictions that did not eventuated. FACT. And a graph with real data. FACT. 
The point is to show that computer predictions are rubbish and therefore policy can not be based on this rubbish.  
If the said graph shows o.1 cooling or heating and if it stopped in 1998 or in 2004, who cares? Its not the point.  Your side and yes there are sides in this just like in a football match or just like during a election campaign, base their scaremongering on predictions that did not eventuate to their great disappointment I must add.  
Making gratuitous predictions aimed at "scaring" the masses into "believing' is a deceitful practice better left to TV evangelist and doomsday cults.  
And your comments on the most meaningless variations of temperature are called, "to strain the gnat and swallow the camel". 
Gulp !

----------


## John2b

> The graph in question shows computer predictions that did not eventuated. FACT. And a graph with real data. FACT. 
> The point is to show that computer predictions are rubbish and therefore policy can not be based on this rubbish.

  Data casting doubt on climate scientists’ predictions? Find any climate scientist who has “predicted” in the peer reviewed literature (or anywhere else for that matter) that global temperatures will rise uniformly year upon year.  This only becomes “politically sensitive” if the politicians in question accept spoon-fed misrepresentation of the science from the anti-warming pseudoscience of the lunatic fringe. 
No, the point is that nothing in any of your posts has ever shown that the laws of conservation of energy are broken, nor that the planet has miraculously entered a cooling phase despite the planet's measured radiation balance tipping further into heat gain. Earth is continuing to warm and weather is continuing to play with the distribution of heat energy between the ocean and the surface like it always has.    http://www.readfearn.com/wp-content/.../Escalator.gif

----------


## intertd6

> Data casting doubt on climate scientists’ predictions? Find any climate scientist who has “predicted” in the peer reviewed literature (or anywhere else for that matter) that global temperatures will rise uniformly year upon year.  This only becomes “politically sensitive” if the politicians in question accept spoon-fed misrepresentation of the science from the anti-warming pseudoscience of the lunatic fringe. 
> No, the point is that nothing in any of your posts has ever shown that the laws of conservation of energy are broken, nor that the planet has miraculously entered a cooling phase despite the planet's measured radiation balance tipping further into heat gain. Earth is continuing to warm and weather is continuing to play with the distribution of heat energy between the ocean and the surface like it always has.    http://www.readfearn.com/wp-content/.../Escalator.gif

  thats an idiots guide for following propaganda! And you just proved that you have swallowed it! We don't care about any other time frame outside 1998 to the present! As that is not been discussed, the really funny thing is that after all your denials that there has been no warming since 1998 you again provide a graph that shows it! I would be ashamed to be as clever as that!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Data casting doubt on climate scientists’ predictions? Find any climate scientist who has “predicted” in the peer reviewed literature (or anywhere else for that matter) that global temperatures will rise uniformly year upon year.  No it wasn't us! we didn't do it! It was the computer model!  This only becomes “politically sensitive” if the politicians in question accept spoon-fed misrepresentation of the science from the anti-warming pseudoscience of the lunatic fringe.  I can't speak for anybody else, but the planets history & no scientific proof that CO2 can, has, or will ever do any harm to humans wins me over from any fear mongers claptrap. 
> No, the point is that nothing in any of your posts has ever shown that the laws of conservation of energy are broken, nor that the planet has miraculously entered a cooling phase despite the planet's measured radiation balance tipping further into heat gain. Earth is continuing to warm and weather is continuing to play with the distribution of heat energy between the ocean and the surface like it always has.  you really must show us how your laws of energy conservation were annulled & reversed throughout the globes climate history in the provided link, as you have been asked to provide these answers before it could be ascertained that your theory isn't solely or even a minor component which is applicable to the globes climate systems. Yet totally applicable in the vacuum of a AGWists head http://www.renovateforum.com/attachm...historical.jpg

  inter

----------


## woodbe

> We don't care about any other time frame outside 1998 to the present!

  One would have to be incredibly dumb not to notice that. You clearly don't really care about the climate then, who ever said that the only period in the climate of significance was 1998 to the present, and even if that was the case, why would you take such a narrow view of planetary temperatures that excludes anything that is warming? 
Because you've got nothing, and you're parading it as if it was something!

----------


## intertd6

> One would have to be incredibly dumb not to notice that. You clearly don't really care about the climate then, who ever said that the only period in the climate of significance was 1998 to the present, and even if that was the case, why would you take such a narrow view of planetary temperatures that excludes anything that is warming? 
> Because you've got nothing, and you're parading it as if it was something!

  So you have given up denying the pause in global warming since 1998 then? Or this is just the continuation of the limp red herring repertoire. Too right I have nothing! So give us some proof that CO2 is going to cause the end of man kinds future & we will both have something to worry about! Even the less than blessed know the difference between facts & faith based beliefs.
inter

----------


## woodbe

Reading comprehension 101. 
Let me spell it out for you.  
One would have to be incredibly dumb not to notice that you "don't care about any other time frame outside 1998 to the present!" 
Apparently, the climate didn't exist before 1998 in your book. 
You think 1998 is the answer but it's just another year in the climate record. I accept that the climate is changing and the rate of change due to CO2 varies as a result of natural processes. That's why the records continue to show an uphill sawtooth over time. The fingerprint of CO2 remains and will remain long after the peak of 1998 looks like yet another anthill on the future temperature records just like the previous peaks do in the escalator graphic John2b posted. 
1998 is simply an idealogical cherry pick, it does not cover all the temperature series, it is too short a time frame, and there has been warming since than as has been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread. None so deaf as those who won't hear. It's one of your big nothings you carry around like a badge of honour for your membership of the 'I've got nothing' club.

----------


## Marc

New paper is a huge blow to CAGW: ‘Missing heat’ NOT found in the deep oceans – Published in Nature Climate Change*Study finds the deep oceans [below 2000 meters]cooled from 2005-2013, debunking the convenient excuse that Trenberth's AGW 'missing heat' has been hiding in the deep oceans. According to the authors, this deep ocean cooling caused a global sea level decrease of -0.13 mm/yr from 2005-2013.* _  As the paper notes, this is a reversal from the deep ocean warming from the 1990's to 2005, which led to a sea level rise of +0.11 mm/yr during that period, but has reversed since 2005 to deep ocean cooling and a negative contribution to sea levels. Thus, there is no evidence of the AGW "missing heat" hiding in the deep oceans as many warmists have claimed.   Even though the heat content of the upper oceans has slightly warmed 0.09C over the past 55 years [Levitus et al 2012], this is also not nearly enough to explain the alleged AGW "missing heat." Therefore, the "missing heat" is missing from both the upper and lower oceans.   Thirdly, since there has been no statistically-significant warming of the atmosphere [troposphere] over the past 18-26 years during the so-called "pause" or "hiatus", the AGW "missing heat" is missing from the atmosphere as well.   There is one inescapable conclusion: The "missing heat" is nowhere to be found in Earth's atmosphere or oceans, and has escaped to space, or never existed in the first place [except in computer models]. Indeed, measurements of outgoing longwave radiation to space [infrared from greenhouse gases] have increased over the past 62 years, not decreased as predicted by models from the rise in greenhouse gases._

----------


## Marc

*AGW Falsified: NOAA Long Wave Radiation Data Incompatible with the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming**Posted by Michael Hammer, December 17th, 2013*  ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming (AGW) theory claims the earth is warming because rising CO2 is like a blanket, reducing Earth’s energy loss to space. However, data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that at least for the last 30 years, Earth’s energy loss to space has been rising. The last 30 years of NOAA data is not compatible with the theory of AGW. It would appear that either 30 years of NOAA data is wrong or the theory of AGW is flawed. This is Michael Hammer’s conclusion following analysis of the official outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) data. Read the complete article here: ‘The NOAA Outgoing Long Wave Radiation Data Appears to be Incompatible with The Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming’ by Michael Hammer.
The research uncovers some interesting trends and most importantly highlights that:
1. Earth can only warm if the rate of energy input exceeds the rate of energy loss;
2. Thus earth would warm if energy absorbed from the sun increased or energy loss to space (outgoing longwave radiation or OLR for short) decreased – or of course both;
3. The theory of AGW claims that Earth is warming because rising CO2 is reducing the energy loss to space i.e. is causing OLR to decrease;
4. *Thirty years of experimental data published by NOAA (one of the prime AGW reference sites) shows OLR has been rising progressively between 1980 and 2010 and is now 2.5 watt/sqM higher than in 1980*; and
5. The period between 1980 and 2010 is when almost all the CO2 induced warming is supposed to have taken place.
“If the corner stone of AGW theory says earth is warming because outgoing long wave radiation is decreasing yet 30 years of experimental data shows OLR is rising (remember 30 years is the time AGW proponents claim is the interval necessary to separate climate from weather) it would seem the theory of AGW is as a minimum extremely seriously compromised.”
Read the complete article here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-conte...ael_Hammer.pdf
****
Michael Hammer has a B Eng Sci and M Eng Sci from Melbourne university. His original training was as an electrical engineer but for the last 35 years he has been employed to carry out research across a wide range of technologies for a major multinational spectroscopy company. Over that time he has taken around 20 patents and his work has resulted in a significant number of commercially successful products.  
Related: *Analysis finds both water vapor & increased CO2 act as negative feedbacks to cool the Earth surface**New data falsifies basis of man-made global warming alarm, shows water vapor feedback is negative*    Posted by MS at 8:04 AM  Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

----------


## John2b

> New paper is a huge blow to CAGW: ‘Missing heat’ NOT found in the deep oceans – Published in Nature Climate Change Study finds the deep oceans [below 2000 meters] cooled from 2005-2013, debunking the convenient excuse that Trenberth's AGW 'missing heat' has been hiding in the deep oceans. According to the authors, this deep ocean cooling caused a global sea level decrease of -0.13 mm/yr from 2005-2013.

     DANGER, Will Robinson: more psuedoscience drivel approaching!   Honestly Marc, is that the best you can do? You really should take a moment to check your sources before posting such embarrassing flimflam.    The “paper” is not a paper, it is a letter to the editor of “Nature Climate Change” and has not gone through editorial review.   The letter is a response to a peer reviewed paper by Paul J. Durack, Peter J. Gleckler, Felix W. Landerer & Karl E. Taylor:  This study uses satellite observations and climate models to investigate upper-ocean (0-700 m) warming. The analysis shows that the use of extrapolation leads to a bias that under-represents upper-ocean heat content.   … large increases (2.2–7.1 × 1022 J 35 yr−1) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates…   There is more heat in the oceans than previously believed!   The letter starts by stating:  In recent decades, over nine-tenths of Earth's top-of-the-atmosphere energy imbalance has been stored in the ocean, which is rising as it warms.    Funny, I have been attacked many, many times for saying that in this forum. Now you are posting a confirmation!!!   Their conclusion that the heat may be “missing” is based on - wait for it - *COMPUTER MODELS*, which are attempting to reconcile the different measurements from Argo buoys, satellites and other records. They acknowledge that the models have very large residual errors.  
You have made dozens, if not hundreds, of posts deriding the use of computer models in climate science, and then post an article based on a COMPUTER MODEL to back up your position.  *Whoops!*

----------


## SilentButDeadly

This paper (released back in April) is interesting A probabilistic analysis of human influence on recent record global mean temperature changes 
It demonstrates an approach that suggests that the current so-called "pause/hiatus/stall/whatever it is" in the mean global temperature profile since 1998 is actually the result of AGW.  Basically without the influence of GHGs...there'd be more of these pauses and they'd be shorter.  So it is actually an anomalous event...just like a bunch of others...whose comparatively large size & scale (compared to normal) can be attributed to AGW. 
It's Open Access by the way so anyone can read it...the guts of it are hard going but the abstract and discussion are a fair distillation. 
If you want a dummies guide to the article then the authors prepared this more recently ECOS Magazine - Towards A Sustainable Future

----------


## Rod Dyson

> This paper (released back in April) is interesting A probabilistic analysis of human influence on recent record global mean temperature changes 
> It demonstrates an approach that suggests that the current so-called "pause/hiatus/stall/whatever it is" in the mean global temperature profile since 1998 is actually the result of AGW.  Basically without the influence of GHGs...there'd be more of these pauses and they'd be shorter.  So it is actually an anomalous event...just like a bunch of others...whose comparatively large size & scale (compared to normal) can be attributed to AGW. 
> It's Open Access by the way so anyone can read it...the guts of it are hard going but the abstract and discussion are a fair distillation. 
> If you want a dummies guide to the article then the authors prepared this more recently ECOS Magazine - Towards A Sustainable Future

  Hmm pause in AGW caused by AGW... makes sense!

----------


## John2b

> Hmm pause in AGW caused by AGW... makes sense!

  Yep, stairs would not make much sense if they were all risers and no treads, but they still go up. 
When are you guys going to understand that the weather is overlaid on top of climate change? This isn't anything new. What IS new is the ratio and scale of rises to plateaus.

----------


## intertd6

> Reading comprehension 101. 
> Let me spell it out for you.  
> One would have to be incredibly dumb not to notice that you "don't care about any other time frame outside 1998 to the present!   "We don't care about any other time frame outside 1998 to the present! As that is not been discussed"
> There is nothing like some creative editing to shoot yourself in the foot,  
> Apparently, the climate didn't exist before 1998 in your book. 
> Only in your delusions obviously! 
> You think 1998 is the answer but it's just another year in the climate record. I accept that the climate is changing and the rate of change due to CO2 varies as a result of natural processes. That's why the records continue to show an uphill sawtooth over time. The fingerprint of CO2 remains and will remain long after the peak of 1998 looks like yet another anthill on the future temperature records just like the previous peaks do in the escalator graphic John2b posted.  i don't think anything is the answer! But some points are fantastic at easily unraveling the AGW mantra, then the hilarious scrambling of them & the endless drivel that flows forth! 
> 1998 is simply an idealogical cherry pick, it does not cover all the temperature series, it is too short a time frame, and there has been warming since than as has been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread. None so deaf as those who won't hear. It's one of your big nothings you carry around like a badge of honour for your membership of the 'I've got nothing' club.  It's this, it's that, it's something you can't explain! Basically your putting your fingers in your ears & going La la la la la la!

  inter

----------


## intertd6

> Hmm pause in AGW caused by AGW... makes sense!

  It goes with the global warming you have when you have no warming, pure nonsense at its greatest!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> DANGER, Will Robinson: more psuedoscience drivel approaching! 
> what like the anecdotal evidence you parade as undeniable proven scientific fact!   Honestly Marc, is that the best you can do? You really should take a moment to check your sources before posting such embarrassing flimflam.    The “paper” is not a paper, it is a letter to the editor of “Nature Climate Change” and has not gone through editorial review.   The letter is a response to a peer reviewed paper by Paul J. Durack, Peter J. Gleckler, Felix W. Landerer & Karl E. Taylor:  This study uses satellite observations and climate models to investigate upper-ocean (0-700 m) warming. The analysis shows that the use of extrapolation leads to a bias that under-represents upper-ocean heat content.   … large increases (2.2–7.1 × 1022 J 35 yr−1) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates…   There is more heat in the oceans than previously believed!  But by some miracle this heat is not being transferred to the air above it! Yet before this pause in global warming the oceans heat was being released! Before you start rabbiting on about El Niño it's irrelevant, as it has shifted since 1998 The letter starts by stating:  In recent decades, over nine-tenths of Earth's top-of-the-atmosphere energy imbalance has been stored in the ocean, which is rising as it warms.   But by some miracle this heat is not being transferred to the air above it! Yet before this period the heat was being released?  Funny, I have been attacked many, many times for saying that in this forum. Now you are posting a confirmation!!!  Funny you haven't been able explain it yet!  Their conclusion that the heat may be “missing” is based on - wait for it - *COMPUTER MODELS*, which are attempting to reconcile the different measurements from Argo buoys, satellites and other records. They acknowledge that the models have very large residual errors.  But your computer models are infallible! 
> You have made dozens, if not hundreds, of posts deriding the use of computer models in climate science, and then post an article based on a COMPUTER MODEL to back up your position.  you are missing the simple point that your models are being proven to be wrong! To be fair & equitable find the errors in those quoted models before you run off at the typing before engaging the brain!  *Whoops!*

  inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It goes with the global warming you have when you have no warming, pure nonsense at its greatest!
> regards inter

  Ahhh the ideological response I expected. You rarely disappoint.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Hmm pause in AGW caused by AGW... makes sense!

  ...but clearly not to you. Is that because you are intellectually lazy or just couldn't be bothered looking up at the possibility? 
Don't answer that. It is immaterial.

----------


## woodbe

> "We don't care about any other time frame outside 1998 to the present! As that is not been discussed"
> There is nothing like some creative editing to shoot yourself in the foot,

  Oh really, it 'is' (has) not been discussed? Perhaps this is a feature of your lack of reading comprehension. It has been pointed out multiple times that the climate involves long term changes, but you are fixated on a single short period of time, and you think that it is a let out clause even though there have been multiple similar step changes throughout recorded climate whilst the warming trend continues. 
If all you have is the period since '98 to justify your denial, then you truly have nothing. What else have you got?

----------


## intertd6

> Ahhh the ideological response I expected. You rarely disappoint.

   Still denying no significant global warming since 1998? That's the ideological reality you can't swallow!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> Still denying no significant global warming since 1998? That's the ideological reality you can't swallow!
> inter

  Still denying that the climate is a long term system and changes often occur step-wise? 
That's a climate science fact you won't swallow because it conflicts with your ideology.

----------


## intertd6

> Oh really, it 'is' (has) not been discussed? Perhaps this is a feature of your lack of reading comprehension. It has been pointed out multiple times that the climate involves long term changes, but you are fixated on a single short period of time, and you think that it is a let out clause even though there have been multiple similar step changes throughout recorded climate whilst the warming trend continues. 
> If all you have is the period since '98 to justify your denial, then you truly have nothing. What else have you got?

  we just love to watch your group splutter every time you can't explain it! The entertainment factor is priceless.
inter

----------


## woodbe

> What else have you got?

   

> we just love to watch your group splutter every time you can't explain it! The entertainment factor is priceless.

  That's it? That's all you've got? Repeating a nonsense that has already been explained? 
All you are doing is confirming that you are trolling and you have nothing.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## intertd6

> Still denying that the climate is a long term system and changes often occur step-wise? 
> That's a climate science fact you won't swallow because it conflicts with your ideology.

  I have no ideology! That's the realm of cultists.
Inter

----------


## intertd6

> That's it? That's all you've got? Repeating a nonsense that has already been explained? 
> All you are doing is confirming that you are trolling and you have nothing.

  That's right I have nothing, I am asking for something (proof), so that you can provide something to change my viewpoint, as you have nothing other than the limp mantra you leave the door open for further questioning unless you want to do the unthinkable & admit your cult has no logical proven scientific explainable reason! Quite legitimate when one looks at it & hilariously funny when the replies start dribbling on & on
inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> That's right I have nothing, I am asking for something (proof), so that you can provide something to change my viewpoint, as you have nothing other than the limp mantra you leave the door open for further questioning unless you want to do the unthinkable & admit your cult has no logical proven scientific explainable reason!
> inter

  Inter we will be waiting a long time for the proof. It just isn't there, if it were we would already know about it.  If it were we would not be having this debate.  If there were proof, there would be no skeptics.   
But it is not just the fact there is no proof that there are an ever increasing amount of skeptics, it is all the failed predictions of calamities.  It is the failure of temperatures to increase as the models said it would despite increasing C02. It is the fact that science has been hijacked by pollies.............  I could go on. 
The beauty of all this is that there is an increasing awareness in the general public that AGW is a crock.  It ranks dead last in a poll of peoples concerns.  Surely this is a wake up call for the warmists to provide the proof.  It is duly noted that the scale of the scare has been progressively wound back over the past 10 years or so.   
I am so glad I made it so public so early that I was not taken in by this scam.   :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

> I have no ideology! That's the realm of cultists.

  Does that mean you will stop posting personal attacks and start posting relevant information on climate change?

----------


## John2b

> Inter we will be waiting a long time for the proof. It just isn't there, if it were we would already know about it.  If it were we would not be having this debate.  If there were proof, there would be no skeptics.

  There is no debate. What a joke - sucked in by the lunatic fringe and proud of it! 
You guys are not skeptics. Skepticism is the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility, as part of a methodological norm pursuing "the extension of certified knowledge". You guys are denying knowledge, so stop claiming the high ground!

----------


## Marc

I post it only because I like the analogy with the dog. hehe
You guys are too much. If Catholics had the same faith, the world would be a monoculture by now. *The cause of climate alarmism has been struck another near-fatal blow by a new study from a NASA research team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.*Using a combination of satellite observations and direct measurements taken by a network of 3,000 floating Argo temperature probes, the NASA team set out to calculate temperature changes and thermal expansion in the deep ocean (below 1.24 miles). What they have found is that the deep ocean has not warmed measurably since at least 2005. This unfortunate discovery represents a major problem for the climate alarmists because the "missing heat" supposedly hiding in the deep oceans has long been their favoured explanation as to why there has been no measured "global warming" for the last 18 years. Here, for example, is what Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) told _National Geographic_ in February this year: "Strong trade winds are bringing cooler water to the surface in the equatorial Pacific and mixing more heat into the deeper ocean."This meant, National Geographic helpfully summarised, that "the missing heat from global warming is being stored in a deeper warm pool in the western Pacific." And here is NCAR's Kevin Trenberth, Godfather of the "missing heat hiding in deep ocean" theory, speaking in October last year to Bloomberg. In fact, there is mounting evidence that deeper regions of the ocean, down to 2000 meters, are absorbing heat faster than ever, Trenberth said in a phone call. His research shows the oceans began taking on significantly more heat at around the same time the surface warming began to slow in 1998. His widely cited work was published just after the cutoff to be included in the IPCC report. The irony, says Trenberth, is that when the surface of the planet is unusually sweltering, the Earth actually radiates more heat into the atmosphere, in effect slowing the long-term warming of the planet. And in hiatus years, when the surface is cooler, the Earth absorbs more of the suns heat deep the oceans, slowly cooking the planet. What you see isn't always what you get.What has happened here, in other words, is that for years the warmists have been fobbing off their teachers with the excuse that "the dog ate their homework". But it simply won't wash any more because the teacher has now discovered that they don't actually own a dog.      *by Taboola Sponsored Links  We Recommend [you change hobby, woodwork is a good suggestion, Balsa wood models for example]*

----------


## Marc

Meanwhile, the great warming pause continues in the atmosphere, too:   For how much longer can politicians ignore the science? UPDATE But when did science matter to academia’s public intellectuals, now huddled inside the latest Trojan horse outside the gates of capitalism? Nick Cater:   _IN 1992 Robert Manne edited a book called Shutdown that ... attacked the policies of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, the “radical free-market economics” Manne believed was driving Australia to permanent recession.__Manne later admitted that he didn’t know what he was talking about, telling the ABC’s Terry Lane in 2005: “I have never studied economics formally and found pretty quickly when I began to argue about economic rationalism or neoliberalism, I found myself out of my depth."…[in] the latest edition of The Monthly,… Manne takes umbrage at Kelly’s Triumph and Demise…“On dozens of occasions Kelly spices his narrative with irrational pronouncements from the songbook of climate-change denialism. He thinks that the warnings of the scientists are ‘alarmist’; that the problem of climate change is self-evidently not ‘a moral issue’; that climate change has become a Labor ‘faith’; that imagined catastrophes in the future provide ‘a poor basis for policy action now’; that only a political ‘mug’ would call upon people to make a ‘sacrifice’ for future generations; and, flatly, that ‘climate change was the priority for neither Australia nor the world at this point’.”__Manne may not know much about economics, but he reckons he knows his climate science._

----------


## Marc

*Missing heat not in deep oceans but “found” in missing data in upper ocean instead*Two papers on ocean heat released together today. The first says the missing heat is not in the deep ocean abyss below 2000m. The second finds the missing heat in missing data in the Southern Hemisphere instead. Toss out one excuse, move to another. The first paper by Llovel and Willis et al, looked at the total sea-level rise as measured by adjusted satellites*, then removed the part of that rise due to expanding warming oceans above 2,000 m and the part due to ice melting off glaciers and ice-sheets.** The upshot is that the bottom half of the ocean is apparently _not warming_ — there was nothing much left for the deep oceans to do. This result comes from Argo buoy data which went into full operation in 2005. (Before Argo the uncertainties in ocean temperature measurements massively outweigh the expected temperature changes, so the “data” is pretty useless.)  The second paper provides the excuse that the missing heat is really in the top 700m of the Southern Hemisphere instead. The title tells us they are adding up what they don’t know: “Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming”. The data they use comes satellites and “simulations” of the Earth’s climate.  Using satellite altimetry observations *and a large suite of climate models,* we conclude that observed estimates of 0–700 dbar global ocean warming since 1970 are likely biased low.So we all know that this is an excellent estimate of heat accruing on a planet a lot like Earth — except that global warming didn’t pause on that planet, the upper tropospheric humidity is rising instead of falling, the sea-ice is shrinking at the south pole instead of increasing, and so on. Simulated Earth is a different planet. On that planet, the ARGO buoys are “biased low”. *Yet again, the missing heat is found in missing data:* This underestimation is* attributed to poor sampling* of the Southern Hemisphere, and limitations of the analysis methods that conservatively estimate temperature changes in data-sparse regions.We only have half-decent data on the ocean starting around 2005. But thousands upon millions of joules are arriving every day, and if some of that energy is being trapped on Earth, it must be somewhere. What incredible bad luck for climate scientists: yet again the observations are biased low, like 28 million weather balloons which underestimate heatand humidity, the 3,000 Argo buoys are underestimating ocean heat too.*** The models could not possibly be wrong … Another recent paper by Schulz found that the first air-sea flux mooring in the Southern Ocean was recording a heat loss at a rate of -10Wm-2. That would kind of fit with the record increase in sea ice perhaps? This is the part, below, where Durack concludes the models are probably right, and the observations are probably wrong. The black horizontal lines are the model predictions, and the diamonds in color are the observations. (Notice too that the period is 1970 to 2004, ending just as the ocean temperature starts to get measured properly for the first time.) In their own words, the observations agree with each other, but not with the models. “All but one of the four observational OHC trend estimates in Fig. 3b suggest a much smaller SH contribution, with stabilized ratios at timescales of 15 years and longer, well outside the intermodel standard deviation (0.500.63, MMM 0.56 versus 0.330.49 for observations).” Astute reader Robbo says this is his favorite passage from Durack et al: _“Thus, it seems that our preliminary finding is robust: the SH contribution to the total upper-OHC change found in the five observational data sets is inconsistent with the CMIP model ensembles (Figs 3b and 4). The agreement between the observed and simulated SSH changes, the close correspondence between OHC and SSH (Fig. 2), and the better agreement of observed and simulated OHC for the recent Argo period (with improved SH coverage) suggests systematic model biases are not the dominant factor. We thus conclude, in agreement with previous works, that long-term observational estimates of SH upper-ocean heat content change are biased low._ _If models are correct in their hemispheric partitioning of OHC changes, we can use them to guide observational adjustment over the data-sparse SH.“_ *Thus, the data is inconsistent with the models, therefore the data is biased, and we can use models to adjust the data.*Two more Classic Climatology sentences from the Durack paper: _“we adjust the poorly constrained SH estimates (Methods) so that they yield an inter-hemispheric ratio that is consistent with the MMM [multi-model-mean] (Fig. 4). When this adjustment is applied, the various observational estimates of 35-year global upper-OHC change are substantially increased in all cases.”_ _“Adjusting the poorly constrained SH OHC change estimates to yield an improved consistency with models.”_Who would have thought… after adjusting to the data to fit the models, they get a better agreement with the models. I hear the ABC reported it as proof that it’s warming faster than we thought. For those who want to gawk at the observations of the Southern Hemisphere heat content versus the models. Here is Fig 3 parts b, c, and d. Note how the observation lines almost all run entirely below the models. *Figure 3 | Southern Hemisphere fractional contributions to global upper-OHC or global average SSH anomaly for varying trend lengths (1–35 years).* a,b, Results over 1–35-years (1970–2004) for SSH (a) and OHC (b). c,d, Results for a shorter 11-year period (1993–2004) for SSH (c) and OHC (d) duringwhich observed SSH data is available. Observed results extend to 2012 if available. Discontinuous black and grey lines extend 2004 CMIP5 values to 2012. The CMIP5MMMand one standard deviation spread are obtained from CMIP5 historical simulations. **Satellite altimetry has its own problems.* As near as I can tell, these are probably the same satellites that showed virtually no sea-level rise in the 1990s until they were calibrated against one tide gauge in Hong Kong, which is sinking compared to the four gauges around it. _Durack says: “From 2005 to 2013, sea level rose at a rate of 2.78 ±0.32mmyr-1.”_ Nils Axel-Morner and others like Beenstock have shown that hundreds of tide gauges around the world record an average rate of about 1mm a year or so. 182 gauges are showing a rise of about 1.6mm annually. In one location with long records and a lot of data about crustal movements of the land, Axel Morner estimates the rise is 0.8-0.9mm annually.  Llovel estimates steric sea level rise at 0.9mm. The globally averaged steric sea level between 66° of latitude and above 2,000m depth (red curve in Fig. 1) rose with a linear trend of 0.9 ±0.15mmyr-1 between 2005 and 2013.Either way, without adjustments, the sea level rises shown by satellites would find a lot less “heat” content. **Melting ice etc was estimated by GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) ***Assuming the ARGO buoys are giving meaningful results, which I’m unconvinced of. *The papers:*The deep heat is missing: Llovel, W., Willis, J. K. ,  Landerer,F. W.,  Fukumori.I. *Deep-ocean contribution to sea level and energy budget not detectable over the past decade*[Abstract] As the dominant reservoir of heat uptake in the climate system, the world’s oceans provide a critical measure of global climate change. Here, we infer deep-ocean warming in the context of global sea-level rise and Earth’s energy budget between January 2005 and December 2013. Direct measurements of ocean warming above 2,000 m depth explain about 32% of the observed annual rate of global mean sea-level rise. Over the entire water column, independent estimates of ocean warming yield a contribution of 0.77 ± 0.28 mm yr−1 in sea-level rise and agree with the upper-ocean estimate to within the estimated uncertainties. Accounting for additional possible systematic uncertainties, the deep ocean (below 2,000 m) contributes −0.13 ± 0.72 mm yr−1to global sea-level rise and −0.08 ± 0.43 W m−2 to Earth’s energy balance.* The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 ± 0.44 W m−2 from 2005 to 2013.* The models predicted an imbalance of about 0.69W/m2, so Llovel et al would be happy with finding the implications of finding an imbalance of “0.64W/m2.”  But this assumes that most of the observed sea level rise (as measured by tide gauges, rather than adjusted satellites) is due to warming oceans, not to melting ice or glaciers. If those satellite altimeters were calibrated against other tide gauges, the heat content could shrink by 50% – 70%. That would fit with the models overestimating warming by a similar degree, as well as fitting with the pause, which fits with the slowdown in sea level rise, but it does not fit with modelers mindsets. The missing heat is “found” in missing data: Durack, Paul, Gleckler, Peter J. , Landerer, Felix W. , Taylor, Karl E. *Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming*[Abstract] The global ocean stores more than 90% of the heat associated with observed greenhouse-gas-attributed global warming1, 2, 3, 4. Using satellite altimetry observations and a large suite of climate models, we conclude that observed estimates of 0–700 dbar global ocean warming since 1970 are likely biased low. This underestimation is attributed to poor sampling of the Southern Hemisphere, and limitations of the analysis methods that conservatively estimate temperature changes in data-sparse regions5, 6, 7. We find that the partitioning of northern and southern hemispheric simulated sea surface height changes are consistent with precise altimeter observations, whereas the hemispheric partitioning of simulated upper-ocean warming is inconsistent with observed _in-situ_-based ocean heat content estimates. Relying on the close correspondence between hemispheric-scale ocean heat content and steric changes, we adjust the poorly constrained Southern Hemisphere observed warming estimates so that hemispheric ratios are consistent with the broad range of modelled results. *These adjustments yield large increases (2.2–7.1 × 1022 J 35 yr−1) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates,* and have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments.  *The bottom line:* energy can be neither created nor destroyed, so it has be somewhere. If it isn’t in the ocean (where 90% of the energy in the planet’s climate system is) then it’s probably in space. *REFERENCES*Llovel, W., Willis,J. K. ,  Landerer,F. W.,  Fukumori.I. (2014) *Deep-ocean contribution to sea level and energy budget not detectable over the past decade*. _Nature Climate Change_, 2014; DOI: 10.1038/nclimate238 Durack, Paul, Gleckler, Peter J. , Landerer, Felix W. , Taylor, Karl E. (2014) *Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming*. _Nature Climate Change_, 2014; DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2389 Schulz, E.W., Josey S.A., & Verein, R. (2014)  First air-sea flux mooring measurements in the Southern Ocean GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L16606, 8 PP., 2012
doi:10.1029/2012GL052290       
Rating: 9.3/*10* (44 votes cast)   Missing heat not in deep oceans but "found" in missing data in upper ocean instead, 9.3 out of 10 based on 44 ratings

----------


## John2b

> For how much longer can politicians ignore the science?

  Come on Marc. How much longer can YOU ignore the science. 
First you post a graph that shows only surface ocean heat pretending it is total ocean heat! 
Then you post a graph showing that global warming has continued after 1998!    

> _that only a political mug would call upon people to make a sacrifice for future generations_

  You mean sacrifices like spending money on polio and small pox vaccinations, common effluent systems, hospitals, schools and roads, WW1 and WW2? Those politicians really screwed everything!

----------


## John2b

> Missing heat not in deep oceans but “found” in missing data in upper ocean instead

   

> The cause of climate alarmism has been struck another near-fatal blow by a new study from a NASA research team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

  Mmmm. Really? Didn't read the papers did you? Neither paper challenges the theory of AGW. Your headlines just show how ridiculously dogmatic the lunatic blogosphere really is.   

> I would get 2 or 3 bottles of super glue and poor them on the neighbor's car paintwork.

  Nice. With well thought out reasoning like that, you can solve everyone's problems.

----------


## Marc

Ha ha, yes ... it's all too confusing isn't it?     ................Most religions are 'kungfusing' :Laughing1:  ...  PS ........You must be really desperate if you troll through my post in other unrelated thread trying to find something to discredit me. What do you think you can achieve? I copy and paste other peoples articles, they are not written by me, they don't carry my signature. If you find I have robbed a bank do you really think it will make your already hopelessly discredited position be seen in a better light? It does not work like that, you have to address the points made by the authors of the articles, by others who have some credibility. I mean ... say Al Gore for example?  Mm may be not ... I know ... the ABC, now there is credibility and impartiality galore!  Mm may be not ... anyway I leave it to you and the bees.

----------


## John2b

> You must be really desperate if you troll through my post

  Get off your high horse Marc, this isn't the only forum topic I read. I have no interest in what you say about anything other than the topics I am participating in.   

> trying to find something to discredit me.

  You do a fine job, all by yourself.   

> do you really think it will make your already hopelessly discredited position be seen in a better light?

  My position is to support accepted science - the same science that makes everything in the modern technological world work.   

> It does not work like that, you have to address the points made by the authors of the articles, by others who have some credibility.

  That's a bit rich coming form you. Your beloved posters of drivel in the lunatic fringe blogosphere obviously don't adhere to your rules, which is what I was pointing out. But if you read the original papers you would already have known that.

----------


## John2b

"There have been several instances in recent months when wind energy has accounted for all, or nearly all, electricity demand in South Australia. Last Tuesday, however, set a new benchmark  the combination of wind energy and rooftop solar provided more than 100 per cent of the states electricity needs, for a whole working day between 9.30am and 6pm."   South Australia hits 100% renewables - for a whole working day : Renew Economy

----------


## PhilT2

The Daily Show - Burn Noticed - YouTube

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Still denying no significant global warming since 1998?

  Yes...especially your simplistic interpretation of it   

> That's the ideological reality you can't swallow!

  Do you have any idea what an ideological reality actually is?   :brava:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Inter we will be waiting a long time for the proof. It just isn't there, if it were we would already know about it.  If it were we would not be having this debate.  If there were proof, there would be no skeptics.   
> But it is not just the fact there is no proof that there are an ever increasing amount of skeptics, it is all the failed predictions of calamities.  It is the failure of temperatures to increase as the models said it would despite increasing C02. It is the fact that science has been hijacked by pollies.............  I could go on. 
> The beauty of all this is that there is an increasing awareness in the general public that AGW is a crock.  It ranks dead last in a poll of peoples concerns.  Surely this is a wake up call for the warmists to provide the proof.  It is duly noted that the scale of the scare has been progressively wound back over the past 10 years or so.   
> I am so glad I made it so public so early that I was not taken in by this scam.

  
As we've said more than once in the past...there's plenty of proof.  It's just there's none that you'll accept.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> you have to address the points made by the authors of the articles, by others who have some credibility

  
Which points by which authors of which articles?  
If you mean the ham-fisted frippery that you cut and paste then no I don't...that'd be like debating with Inter (amusing but pointless) 
If you mean the original papers that your cut and paste was apparently taking umbrage with...then no I don't....in fact I can't...because I don't have a subscription to Nature Climate Change so I can't read the papers for myself.

----------


## John2b

We are governed by a bunch of tools.
The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) briefed the environment minister, Greg Hunt, on the link between climate change and extreme weather shortly before he cited Wikipedia as evidence that Australia had experienced bushfires regardless of global warming.  
Documents released under freedom of information laws show Hunt was told on 3 October 2013 the link between extreme weather and climate trends was “increasingly established” in scientific literature in Europe, Australia and the US.
Yet he still went on to sprout a lot of crap and attract international mockery as the Minster for Wikipedia of the Australian government.  Greg Hunt told of climate change link to weather before he quoted Wikipedia | Australia news | theguardian.com 
Now the government is trying to change science by erasing references on the internet.
A document on the Department of Environment’s website, aimed at informing the public on how climate change is influencing dangerous weather, has removed an explicit reference linking the two. A previous version of the document opened with the statement: “There is a growing and robust body of evidence that climate change will increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Extreme weather official advice rewritten to remove climate change link | Environment | theguardian.com 
This Abbott LNC government has not got the intellectual capacity to organise a game of pass the parcel. Pathetic.

----------


## Marc

> We are governed by a bunch of tools.

   ... Metabo, Makita, Feins, Panasonic ... Labor had Ozito, GMC, and Black and decker he he .............. So besides the typo, the problem seems to be that "CLIMATE CHANGE WILL PRODUCE MORE CLIMATE CHANGE"  Whoopydoo !!  we must run to the hills! the sea is going to raise 1/1000 of a METER!!!!

----------


## John2b

> It does not work like that, you have to address the points made by the authors of the articles, by others who have some credibility.

   

> ... Metabo, Makita, Feins, Panasonic ... Labor had Ozito, GMC, and Black and decker he he .............. So besides the typo, the problem seems to be that "CLIMATE CHANGE WILL PRODUCE MORE CLIMATE CHANGE"  Whoopydoo !!  we must run to the hills! the sea is going to raise 1/1000 of a METER!!!!

  Setting an example, Marc?

----------


## John2b



----------


## Marc

Geee, you did not even give me time to edit my own post, what are you doing, do you live here?   Guys, I must admit you are too much fun. Honestly! stop taking yourself so seriously and have a beer or two. The "world/planet/globe" does not need your help... well I don't want to think of a case where the poor old planet actually needs your help ... uhuu can you imagine?  The debates! The talks! The finger pointing! The 100 years war would seem brief in comparison.  
Aren't we lucky we don't actually need to help poor old worn out planet?   :Biggrin thumb: .Ham-fisted?      Is that Kosher?

----------


## John2b

> The beauty of all this is that there is an increasing awareness in the general public that AGW is a crock.  It ranks dead last in a poll of peoples concerns.  Surely this is a wake up call for the warmists to provide the proof.  It is duly noted that the scale of the scare has been progressively wound back over the past 10 years or so.

  Rod, you must be talking about another country or another planet. The proportion of people who do not think climate change is an issue is in decline with only 15% of the population of Australia believing nothing should be done, and 83% of Australians believing the government should be spending money on mitigating climate change.  Lowy 2014 Interactive Poll

----------


## intertd6

> Yes...especially your simplistic interpretation of it  We don't accept or ever will accept drivel as an answer! 
> Do you have any idea what an ideological reality actually is?    I know what it is, there is no such thing, it doesn't exist & you lot have it in excessive quantities!

  inter

----------


## intertd6

> Rod, you must be talking about another country or another planet. The proportion of people who do not think climate change is an issue is in decline with only 15% of the population of Australia believing nothing should be done, and 83% of Australians believing the government should be spending money on mitigating climate change.  Lowy 2014 Interactive Poll

  well the poll that really tells the story of climate change acceptance was the last election, it was voted down by the majority, the losers were pro climate action & tax the living day lights out of us, the winners were......... We all know the rest, you lose!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> We are governed by a bunch of tools.
> The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) briefed the environment minister, Greg Hunt, on the link between climate change and extreme weather shortly before he cited Wikipedia as evidence that Australia had experienced bushfires regardless of global warming.  
> Documents released under freedom of information laws show Hunt was told on 3 October 2013 the link between extreme weather and climate trends was “increasingly established” in scientific literature in Europe, Australia and the US.
> Yet he still went on to sprout a lot of crap and attract international mockery as the Minster for Wikipedia of the Australian government.  Greg Hunt told of climate change link to weather before he quoted Wikipedia | Australia news | theguardian.com 
> Now the government is trying to change science by erasing references on the internet.
> A document on the Department of Environment’s website, aimed at informing the public on how climate change is influencing dangerous weather, has removed an explicit reference linking the two. A previous version of the document opened with the statement: “There is a growing and robust body of evidence that climate change will increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Extreme weather official advice rewritten to remove climate change link | Environment | theguardian.com 
> This Abbott LNC government has not got the intellectual capacity to organise a game of pass the parcel. Pathetic.

  What really good is everybody is over the exaggerators of all things big & small & for the time being common sense will prevail.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> 

  Go on be brave, put the global average numbers up so it can be shot to pieces like last time!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> As we've said more than once in the past...there's plenty of proof.  It's just there's none that you'll accept.

  No! without proven repeatable scientific evidence it's just an opinion, an idea, nothing much at all!
inter

----------


## John2b

> Go on be brave, put the global average numbers up so it can be shot to pieces like last time!

  Which bit of the globe isn't in the graphics already present?

----------


## John2b

> No! without proven repeatable scientific evidence it's just an opinion, an idea, nothing much at all!

  So why do you continue to hide any scientific evidence to support your position? The argument would be over if you showed the "proof" you are forever implying exists.

----------


## John2b

> well the poll that really tells the story of climate change acceptance was the last election, it was voted down by the majority, the losers were pro climate action & tax the living day lights out of us, the winners were......... We all know the rest, you lose!

  We live in the same country. If I lose, you lose.

----------


## intertd6

> "There have been several instances in recent months when wind energy has accounted for all, or nearly all, electricity demand in South Australia. Last Tuesday, however, set a new benchmark – the combination of wind energy and rooftop solar provided more than 100 per cent of the state’s electricity needs, for a whole working day between 9.30am and 6pm."   South Australia hits 100% renewables - for a whole working day : Renew Economy

  wow the welfare state had an instant or more where it was carbon neutral! at a great prolonged subsidised expense to the rest of the nation!
inter

----------


## John2b

> wow the welfare state had an instant or more where it was carbon neutral! at a great prolonged subsidised expense to the rest of the nation!

  Overlooking for a moment the offensiveness of your innuendoes (those who can do, and those who can't throw insults)... 
So why does your NSW buy SA wind power? Hint: because it is cheaper than brown coal fired Victorian power, even despite the additional transmission distance.

----------


## John2b

> Go on be brave, put the global average numbers up so it can be shot to pieces like last time!

  Go ahead and shoot it to pieces - but leave out the insults and innuendoes, just for something different.

----------


## intertd6

> We live in the same country. If I lose, you lose.

  thats not what the majority says! You need to spend some more wasted time on that clapped out soapbox in the park, don't worry some derro will come along one day & think your ideology is the best thing since chilled metho.
inter

----------


## johnc

> well the poll that really tells the story of climate change acceptance was the last election, it was voted down by the majority, the losers were pro climate action & tax the living day lights out of us, the winners were......... We all know the rest, you lose!
> inter

  I would like to think that the voting public has enough intelligence not to vote on singe issues, which begs the question do you really think the environment was the key issue or was there perhaps other factors such s financial management.

----------


## intertd6

> Go ahead and shoot it to pieces - but leave out the insults and innuendoes, just for something different.

  must be believable, in inches & no references.
inter

----------


## John2b

> I would like to think that the voting public has enough intelligence not to vote on singe issues, which begs the question do you really think the environment was the key issue or was there perhaps other factors such s financial management.

  Or perceptions of party disarray. Every student of politics knows that Abbott's LNC did not "win", they were elected by default. And no, I am not a Labor supporter.

----------


## johnc

> must be believable, in inches & no references.
> inter

  What is your silly little jibe on inches, isn't it possible it is an American reference, for goodness sake slow down the pathetic attacks long enough to show you are capable of basic thought processes.

----------


## John2b

> must be believable, in inches & no references.

  So drop the innuendoes and shoot it down like you said you would. Can't find a source? Here it is: Sea Level | Climate Change | US EPA

----------


## intertd6

> Overlooking for a moment the offensiveness of your innuendoes (those who can do, and those who can't throw insults)... 
> So why does your NSW buy SA wind power? Hint: because it is cheaper than brown coal fired Victorian power, even despite the additional transmission distance.

  Der! Because NSW hasn't built any new power stations, it has a large manufacturing industry, greater population, demand & there is a shortfall in electricity! 
Inter

----------


## John2b

> Der! Because NSW hasn't built any new power stations, it has a large manufacturing industry, greater population, demand & there is a shortfall in electricity!

  I see. So that's why they don't buy more expensive coal fired electricity, even though there is a surplus on your doorstep. You are a genius. Anyone else would have thought it was price... 
So shoot down the sea level data like you said you would...

----------


## intertd6

> So drop the innuendoes and shoot it down like you said you would. Can't find a source? Here it is: Sea Level | Climate Change | US EPA

  thats not what the experts say! Are sea-levels rising? Nils-Axel Mörner documents a decided lack of rising seas Â« JoNova

----------


## John2b

> Der! Because NSW ... has a large manufacturing industry...

    "NSW manufacturing value added is the same as Victoria and South Australia combined."
It's a bit sad really, isn't it Inter, when NSW has to BOAST it is bigger than Victoria and your so-called cot-case SA TOGETHER - LOL.  Manufacturing - NSW Trade & Investment: Business in NSW

----------


## John2b

> thats not what the experts say!

  Where are the "experts"? Your link goes to the lunatic fringe of the blogosphere.  Nils-Axel Mörner is a retired professor from the University of Stockholm where he was the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department from 1991 to 2005.
At least he is an "expert":
Mörner claims to be an expert in dowsing, the practice of finding water, metals, gemstones etc. through the use of a Y-shaped twig. 
Maybe that 'blow to pieces' sea level changes recorded by satellites?

----------


## intertd6

> I see. So that's why they don't buy more expensive coal fired electricity, even though there is a surplus on your doorstep. You are a genius. Anyone else would have thought it was price... 
> So shoot down the sea level data like you said you would...

  HA ha de ha ha! So they only ever buy power from SA renewable energy sources then? They must have an incredibly accurate crystal ball to time the delivery of that impossibility!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Where are the "experts"? Your link goes to the lunatic fringe of the blogosphere. Nils-Axel Mörner is a retired professor from the University of Stockholm where he was the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department from 1991 to 2005.
> At least he is an "expert":
> Mörner claims to be an expert in “dowsing,” the practice of finding water, metals, gemstones etc. through the use of a Y-shaped twig. 
> Maybe that 'blow to pieces' sea level changes recorded by satellites?

  And could possibly beat you in a game of marbles as well! 
I didn't think it had a chance at passing your armchair peer review
And he only has 500+ published papers in associated fields of tides, sea levels etc! It's funny that outspoken against the claptrap are usually retired, no job to loose & everything to gain by having a clear conscience.
But you really must point out specifically where he has obviously gone wrong in you view!
inter

----------


## John2b

> But you really must point out specifically where he has obviously gone wrong in you view!

  Nope. Just waiting for you to point out where he has gone right. Like you said you would, but haven't. Anyone can make any claim they like - it does not mean it is true. 
So don't hold back anymore, Inter - blow science to pieces like you said you would. The forum is depending on you! 
Just don't expect your buddies at the lunatic fringe of pseudoscience to count for much - they can't even agree with each other FFS.

----------


## intertd6

> So why do you continue to hide any scientific evidence to support your position? The argument would be over if you showed the "proof" you are forever implying exists.

  it has been shown over the last couple of pages, it's historical data showing no link between CO2 & temperature changes! We can't help you if don't appear bright enough to work it out for yourself from there! 
Inter

----------


## intertd6

> Nope. Just waiting for you to point out where he has gone right. Like you said you would, but haven't. Anyone can make any claim they like - it does not mean it is true. 
> So don't hold back anymore, Inter - blow science to pieces like you said you would. The forum is depending on you! 
> Just don't expect your buddies at the lunatic fringe of pseudoscience to count for much - they can't even agree with each other FFS.

  but the ball is in your court! We all wait for for your learned reply, (not with anticipation I must add) the drivel prediction calculator is already peaking already when you not satisfied with a world leading expert on the subject that shoots down your doctored data. 
inter

----------


## John2b

> it has been shown over the last couple of pages, it's historical data showing no link between CO2 & temperature changes!

  Nope. The last couple of pages have shown no such thing. The only thing you have contributed for most of the last year is personal attacks and insults, like this:   

> We can't help you if don't appear bright enough to work it out for yourself from there!

----------


## John2b

> but the ball is in your court! We all wait for for your learned reply, (not with anticipation I must add) the drivel prediction calculator is already peaking already when you not satisfied with a world leading expert on the subject that shoots down your doctored data.

  According to you, one partisan and in no way a "world leading expert" on sea levels* retired hack shoots down hundreds of thousands of researchers and tens of thousands of scientific investigations drawing the opposite conclusion, your hack's opinion that doesn't agree with observations (did he "douse" his position with a Y shaped twig?), and you are satisfied. I am sure everyone appreciates your sharing of wisdom. 
What does Mörner base his beliefs about se levels on? He discovered a tree growing close to the shoreline in the Maldives and considered that evidence to support his claim that sea level had actually fallen rather than risen.  
*His area of expertise is paleoseismicity - the study of historical earthquake activity.

----------


## Marc

*Climate change: The case of the missing heat* 
Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.   Jeff Tollefson 
                                             15 January 2014        http://www.nature.com/news/climate-c...g-heat-1.14525

----------


## intertd6

> Nope. The last couple of pages have shown no such thing. The only thing you have contributed for most of the last year is personal attacks and insults, like this:

  then it appears you haven't got much hope of absorbing anything of relevance when you argue with such wilful ignorance & arrogance of something so simple as a link posted so recently!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> According to you, one partisan and in no way a "world leading expert" on sea levels* retired hack shoots down hundreds of thousands of researchers and tens of thousands of scientific investigations drawing the opposite conclusion, your hack's opinion that doesn't agree with observations (did he "douse" his position with a Y shaped twig?), and you are satisfied. I am sure everyone appreciates your sharing of wisdom. 
> What does Mörner base his beliefs about se levels on? He discovered a tree growing close to the shoreline in the Maldives and considered that evidence to support his claim that sea level had actually fallen rather than risen.  
> *His area of expertise is paleoseismicity - the study of historical earthquake activity.

  maybe you could tell him yourself of what you think of such a highly qualified individual of academia who has a divining hobby, I'm sure he has dealt with many nitwits of the years & could respond to you personaly in the appropriate manner fitting your status.
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Now the government is trying to change science by erasing references on the internet.

  
They don't have to erase them...they just unlink them.  They are still there if you know what you are looking for...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> then it appears you haven't got much hope of absorbing anything of relevance when you argue with such wilful ignorance & arrogance of something so simple as a link posted so recently!

  That was just what I was going to say about your good self... 
Damn.  I'm no more imaginative than Inter.  Sad that.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *Climate change: The case of the missing heat* 
> Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.   Jeff Tollefson 
>                                              15 January 2014        Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment

  
This is a slightly more recent re-cap from the same source plus it includes a discussion of sentiment I quite happen to agree with (so you have been warmed ...err....warned)  Climate policy: Ditch the 2°C warming goal : Nature News & Comment

----------


## John2b

> maybe you could tell him yourself of what you think of such a highly qualified individual of academia who has a divining hobby, I'm sure he has dealt with many nitwits of the years & could respond to you personaly in the appropriate manner fitting your status.

  You are so funny, Inter, so willing to look away so that you don't see anything that challenges your petty dogma. 
Divining as a hobby? He was offering University courses in it, something which won him the notoriety of being awarded "Deceiver of the Year" in 1995 by Vetenskap och Folkbildning (Science and Popular Enlightenment) in Sweden. 
The International Union for Quaternary Science (INQUA) dissociates itself from Mörner's views. Current president of the INQUA commission on Coastal and Marine Processes, Professor Roland Gehrels of the University of Plymouth, says his view is not representative, and the organisation has previously stated that it is "distressed" that Mörner continues to falsely "represent himself in his former capacity."

----------


## John2b

> Climate policy: Ditch the 2°C warming goal : Nature News & Comment

  The whole temperature thing was/is a political construct. No climate scientist, or for that matter no genuine scientist of any background, has ever claimed that surface temperature was anything other than a proxy for global warming, one affected by the weather. Most climate websites are devoted to presenting the whole suite of climate change indicators:  Indicators | Climate Change | US EPA  Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence  Indicators of climate change | climatechange.gov.au  Environments Climate Change Indicators - CDC Tracking Network  https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...ate-indicators  The science behind climate change - Met Office  Understanding Climate Change | CSIRO

----------


## John2b

The federal Cabinet has ruled out the two options for downscaling the Renewable Energy Target which were recommended by the government's hand-picked review panel led by businessman Dick Warburton.  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

----------


## intertd6

> You are so funny, Inter, so willing to look away so that you don't see anything that challenges your petty dogma. 
> Divining as a hobby? He was offering University courses in it, something which won him the notoriety of being awarded "Deceiver of the Year" in 1995 by Vetenskap och Folkbildning (Science and Popular Enlightenment) in Sweden.  Tell these fellows that then Now comes a massive set of data that suggests there may be some validity to dowsers' claims. The encouraging words are contained in a study financed by the German government and published in the Journal Of Scientific Exploration, http://www.jse.com/betz_toc.html, which is a peer-reviewed scientific journal published at Stanford University. The project was conducted by the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit in the hope of finding cheaper and more reliable ways of locating drinking water supplies in Third World countries. Researchers analyzed the successes and failures of dowsers in attempting to locate water at more than 2000 sites in arid regions of Sri Lanka, Zaire, Kenya, Namibia and Yemen over a 10-year period. To do this, researchers teamed geological experts with experienced dowsers and then set up a scientific study group to evaluate the results. Drill crews guided by dowsers didn't hit water every time, but their success rate was impressive. In Sri Lanka, for example, they drilled 691 holes and had an overall success rate of 96 percent. "In hundreds of cases the dowsers were able to predict the depth of the water source and the yield of the well to within 10 percent or 20 percent," says Hans-Dieter Betz, a physicist at the University of Munich, who headed the research group.
> he could have been offering PhDs in marbles for all anybody cares! But because that's just red herring nonsense to try & shift the focus off the real subject, fools will swallow it every time, which you have just proved yet again!    
> The International Union for Quaternary Science (INQUA) dissociates itself from Mörner's views. Current president of the INQUA commission on Coastal and Marine Processes, Professor Roland Gehrels of the University of Plymouth, says his view is not representative, and the organisation has previously stated that it is "distressed" that Mörner continues to falsely "represent himself in his former capacity."  What did you think they would say when they think the gravy train may stop if their found to be fiddling the books? Like that hasn't happened before!

  inter

----------


## intertd6

> That was just what I was going to say about your good self... 
> Damn.  I'm no more imaginative than Inter.  Sad that.

  
"then it appears you haven't got much hope of absorbing anything of relevance when you argue with such wilful ignorance & arrogance of something so simple as a link posted so recently!" 
so you must be in a similar state! Your dogma has got you all by the *all / *alls
inter

----------


## intertd6

> The whole temperature thing was/is a political construct. No climate scientist, or for that matter no genuine scientist of any background, has ever claimed that surface temperature was anything other than a proxy for global warming, one affected by the weather. Most climate websites are devoted to presenting the whole suite of climate change indicators:  Indicators | Climate Change | US EPA  Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence  Indicators of climate change | climatechange.gov.au  Environments Climate Change Indicators - CDC Tracking Network  https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...ate-indicators  The science behind climate change - Met Office  Understanding Climate Change | CSIRO

  if that's the case why do you persist in posting misleading land temperature graphs trying to display overall global warming rise since 1998 unless your trying to be a charlatan of great expertise.
inter

----------


## John2b

> _Now comes a massive set of data that suggests there may be some validity to dowsers' claims. The encouraging words are contained in a study financed by the German government and published in the Journal Of Scientific Exploration,_ http://www.jse.com/betz_toc.html_, which is a peer-reviewed scientific journal published at Stanford University._

  I tried the link. I got:  *Not Found*  The requested URL /journal/betz_toc.html was not found on this server. Apache/2.2.3 (CentOS) Server at Society for Scientific Exploration Port 80    The idea that water flows in mysterious underground streams is just plain silly. Water will always be found once you bore done to the water table level. It's an no-brainer that a dowser can find water, when the water is everywhere to be found.  In 1949, an experiment was conducted in Maine by the American Society for Psychical Research. Twenty-seven dowsers "failed completely to estimate either the depth or the amount of water to be found in a field free of surface clues to water, whereas a geologist and an engineer successfully predicted the depth at which water would be found in 16 sites in the same field...." (Zusne and Jones 1989: 108; reported in Vogt and Hyman: 1967). There have been a few other controlled tests of dowsing and all produced only chance results (ibid.). [In addition to Vogt and Hyman, see R. A. Foulkes (1971) "Dowsing experiments," _Nature, 229, pp.163-168); M. Martin (1983-1984). "A new controlled dowsing experiment." Skeptical Inquirer. 8(2), 138-140; J. Randi(1979). "A controlled test of dowsing abilities." Skeptical Inquirer. 4(1). 16-20; and D. Smith (1982). "Two tests of divining in Australia." Skeptical Inquirer. 4(4). 34-37.]_

----------


## John2b

> if that's the case why do you persist in posting misleading land temperature graphs trying to display overall global warming rise since 1998 unless your trying to be a charlatan of great expertise.

  The graphs are the recorded temperature data - nothing else. You have access to the same data. Use it to create you own graph. Or explain to everyone why 10,000's of temperature recoding stations operated by 100,000s of people and several satellites operated by different countries are all wrong, but you are right.

----------


## intertd6

> I tried the link. I got:  *Not Found*  The requested URL /journal/betz_toc.html was not found on this server. Apache/2.2.3 (CentOS) Server at Society for Scientific Exploration Port 80    The idea that water flows in mysterious underground streams is just plain silly. Water will always be found once you bore done to the water table level. It's an no-brainer that a dowser can find water, when the water is everywhere to be found.  In 1949, an experiment was conducted in Maine by the American Society for Psychical Research. Twenty-seven dowsers "failed completely to estimate either the depth or the amount of water to be found in a field free of surface clues to water, whereas a geologist and an engineer successfully predicted the depth at which water would be found in 16 sites in the same field...." (Zusne and Jones 1989: 108; reported in Vogt and Hyman: 1967). There have been a few other controlled tests of dowsing and all produced only chance results (ibid.). [In addition to Vogt and Hyman, see R. A. Foulkes (1971) "Dowsing experiments," _Nature, 229, pp.163-168); M. Martin (1983-1984). "A new controlled dowsing experiment." Skeptical Inquirer. 8(2), 138-140; J. Randi(1979). "A controlled test of dowsing abilities." Skeptical Inquirer. 4(1). 16-20; and D. Smith (1982). "Two tests of divining in Australia." Skeptical Inquirer. 4(4). 34-37.]_

   If the article is over 2 years old it is only available to members only
inter

----------


## John2b

> If the article is over 2 years old it is only available to members only

  Oh, I found the article. What I didn't find was any credibility. 
When others have done controlled tests of dowsers, the dowsers do no better than chance and no better than non-dowsers (Vogt and Hyman; Hyman; Enright 1995, 1996; Randi 1995). Some of Betz's data are certainly not scientific, e.g., the subjective evaluations of Schröter regarding his own dowsing activities. Much of the data is little more than a report that dowsing was used by Schröter and he was successful in locating water. Betz assumes that chance or scientific hydrogeological procedures would not have produced the same or better results. It may be true that in one area they had a 96% success rate using dowsing techniques and that  "no prospecting area with comparable sub-soil conditions is known where such outstanding results have ever been attained." However, this means nothing for establishing that dowsing had anything to do with the success. Analogous sub-soil condition seems to be an insufficient similarity to justify concluding that dowsing, rather than chance, or use of landscape or geological features, must account for the success rate.  dowsing (a.k.a. water witching) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Oh, I found the article. What I didn't find was any credibility. 
> When others have done controlled tests of dowsers, the dowsers do no better than chance and no better than non-dowsers (Vogt and Hyman; Hyman; Enright 1995, 1996; Randi 1995). Some of Betz's data are certainly not scientific, e.g., the subjective evaluations of Schröter regarding his own dowsing activities. Much of the data is little more than a report that dowsing was used by Schröter and he was successful in locating water. Betz assumes that chance or scientific hydrogeological procedures would not have produced the same or better results. It may be true that in one area they had a 96% success rate using dowsing techniques and that  "no prospecting area with comparable sub-soil conditions is known where such outstanding results have ever been attained." However, this means nothing for establishing that dowsing had anything to do with the success. Analogous sub-soil condition seems to be an insufficient similarity to justify concluding that dowsing, rather than chance, or use of landscape or geological features, must account for the success rate.  dowsing (a.k.a. water witching) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

  That's ok you seem to only find credibility when it suits you.

----------


## John2b

> That's ok you seem to only find credibility when it suits you.

  The world is not a convenient set of facts. I am looking for credibility. Are you? Or just looking for convenient constructs to support your view?   

> The beauty of all this is that there is an increasing awareness in the general public that AGW is a crock. It ranks dead last in a poll of peoples concerns.

  Nope. Less than 20% of Australians think the government should not spend money mitigating climate change, and nearly 80% think the government should.

----------


## intertd6

> The graphs are the recorded temperature data - nothing else. You have access to the same data. Use it to create you own graph. Or explain to everyone why 10,000's of temperature recoding stations operated by 100,000s of people and several satellites operated by different countries are all wrong, but you are right.

   
"if that's the case why do you persist in posting misleading land temperature graphs trying to display overall global warming rise since 1998 unless your trying to be a charlatan of great expertise." 
Still trying & succeeding we notice
inter

----------


## John2b

Here is a GLOBAL (land AND ocean) graph:

----------


## intertd6

> The world is not a convenient set of facts. I am looking for credibility. Are you? Or just looking for convenient constructs to support your view?

  WTF!!! well now it all makes sense! You disregard the facts but put all the onus on your own definition of credibility!
too stupid for words. 
inter

----------


## John2b

> your trying to be a charlatan of great expertise Still trying & succeeding we notice

  I suggest you withdraw that post.

----------


## intertd6

> Sh$t inter, you got me!!! Here is a GLOBAL (land AND ocean) graph (oh -wadda ya no - it the same):

  My goodness you just can't help yourself can you! You seem to have stopped trying to be a charlatan & progressed to the full blown stage! Try starting it at 1998 & while your at it make the temperature scale less sensitive so it doesn't make 0.1'C look like its significant!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> I suggest you withdraw that post.

  what are you trying to do then with your misleading antics?
inter

----------


## John2b

> My goodness you just can't help yourself can you! You seem to have stopped trying to be a charlatan & progressed to the full blown stage! Try starting it at 1998 & while your at it make the temperature scale less sensitive so it doesn't make 0.1'C look like its significant!
> inter

  Here you go, Inter, start year 1998. BTW, I don't set the vertical axis:   
The trend line is placed where the area between the trend line above the record it is equal to the area between the trend line below the record. There is only one possible position for the trend line.

----------


## John2b

> what are you trying to do then?

  Post the truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

----------


## John2b

> what are you trying to do then with your misleading antics?

  I suggest you withdraw or un-edit your post.

----------


## intertd6

> Post the truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

  thats rubbish & you keep proving it time & time again. It's like Groundhog Day! Just like the last time you or one of your clones denied no significant warming since 1998 you have finally displayed a reasonably accurate graph after half a dozen misleading attempts which shows an insignificant 0.1'C warming over the last 16 years! Furthermore if the input data of the graph was from hadcrut3 it would show 0.01'C warming over the same period. I suppose you could always blame oldtimers disease for not remembering the old details of this specific debate which you or one of your clones was lost many many pages ago
inter

----------


## John2b

> tFurthermore if the input data of the graph was from hadcrut3 it would show 0.01'C warming over the same period.

  If you find a dataset that ignores significant areas of the globe and cherry pick the start time, this is what you get: 
 HADCRUT3 global unadjusted:

----------


## intertd6

> I suggest you withdraw or un-edit your post.

  i will follow your example.
inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

:2thumbsup:   

> WTF!!! well now it all makes sense! You disregard the facts but put all the onus on your own definition of credibility!
> too stupid for words. 
> inter

   :2thumbsup:  
Inter I agree this is how most ardent warmist think.  The only facts and credibility are those that fit their view of the world. 
The one big fact that remains is that there is NO FACT that proves AGW will produce the temperatures that they claim or that it is as dangerous as they claim.  There is no fact that confirms the theory of feed backs that lead to the temperature increases they claim.  It is all theory that they consider credible and consider to be fact.   
Boy what are we going to do for entertainment when this is all over? 
Then there are others who simply accept what they are fed and know no better.

----------


## John2b

> Inter I agree this is how most ardent warmist think.  The only facts and credibility are those that fit their view of the world.

  That is pretty much the same as saying: "there is no fact that proves computers or cars work".   

> Boy what are we going to do for entertainment when this is all over?

  I am sure you will think of something. You guys have a very creative imagination.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Post the truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

  Your truth John, only your truth.  I sincerely believe you believe it is the truth.  So not calling you a liar or anything like that, just simply miss-guided.  Yes You can say the exact same thing of me, accepted. 
So why? 
The only reason is that there is no proof C02 is dangerous and that our emission will lead to dangerous global warming.  What you and others consider proof and what I and many others consider proof is poles apart.   
That is why the science is far from settled.

----------


## John2b

> The only facts and credibility are those that fit their view of the world.

  The only facts are the real ones that are actually happening. It is just that they don't fit YOUR world view.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> That is pretty much the same as saying: "there is no fact that proves computers or cars work".   
> I am sure you will think of something. You guys have a very creative imagination.

  That is so far from a reasonable comparison it is laughable.  But is really shows just how blindsided you are to any other explanations, or theories.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The only facts are the real ones that are actually happening. It is just that they don't fit YOUR world view.

  Right back at you. 
stalemate!

----------


## John2b

> That is so far from a reasonable comparison it is laughable.  But is really shows just how blindsided you are to any other explanations, or theories.

  Nope. The science that underpins all technology is the same science that underpins understanding of climate change.

----------


## John2b

> Right back at you. 
> stalemate!

  Nope. You mock me for posting what is actually happening. Yet you only post unsubstantiated flimflam.

----------


## John2b

> I sincerely believe you believe it is the truth.  So not calling you a liar or anything like that, just simply miss-guided.

  Thank you Rod.   

> So why?

  I am an engineer by training. I study cause and effect and I accept the laws of conservation of energy and the laws of physics.  
The change in the Earth's radiation balance is directly measurable. It is not a theory dependent on climate models or computer simulations. 
Global warming as a result of CO2 and other greenhouse gas increases is as inevitable as needing a pee after too much beer.

----------


## John2b

> *Climate change: The case of the missing heat* 
> Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.

  Marc has stumbled upon an inconvenient fact highlighted by his past few posts: Oceans Are Getting Hotter Than Anybody Realized  Oceans Getting Hotter Than Anybody Realized | Climate Central

----------


## John2b

"It's worse than we thought. Scientists may have hugely underestimated the extent of global warming because temperature readings from southern hemisphere seas were inaccurate. Comparisons of direct measurements with satellite data and climate models suggest that the oceans of the southern hemisphere have been sucking up more than twice as much of the heat trapped by our excess greenhouse gases than previously calculated. This means we may have underestimated the extent to which our world has been warming."  The world is warming faster than we thought - environment - 05 October 2014 - New Scientist

----------


## Rod Dyson

> "it's worse than we thought. Scientists may have hugely underestimated the extent of global warming because temperature readings from southern hemisphere seas were inaccurate. comparisons of direct measurements with satellite data and climate models suggest that the oceans of the southern hemisphere have been sucking up more than twice as much of the heat trapped by our excess greenhouse gases than previously calculated. This means we may have underestimated the extent to which our world has been warming."  the world is warming faster than we thought - environment - 05 october 2014 - new scientist

  spare me please.

----------


## John2b

> spare me please.

  
“An important result of this paper is the demonstration that the oceans have continued to warm over the past decade, at a rate consistent with estimates of Earth’s net energy imbalance,” says Steve Rintoul, a researcher at Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation." 
Like I said Rod, the energy imbalance is measured, the heat has to go somewhere. It's called the conservation of energy and it is a principle that underpins ALL science and technology. 
I do take issue with the headline. No genuine scientist or engineer who has given any thought to climate change would be "stunned". It is the armchair commentators and media commentators that will be stunned.  Experts Are "Stunned" By How Quickly Oceans Are Warming | DeSmogBlog

----------


## John2b

Flat Earthers resent Obama's jibe about not believing in climate change: 
For what its worth, the Flat Earth Society doesnt have an official position on climate change. President Daniel Shenton told Business Insider in an email from England. Personally, though, I believe the evidence available does support the position that climate change is at least partially influenced by human industrialisation. 
Shenton said that Obama should refer to more mainstream groups  like the American Enterprise Institute  the next time he needs a joke in a speech. 
So if President Obama wants to reference people that actively deny anthropogenic climate change, hed probably be better served by citing groups like the American Enterprise Institute rather than the Flat Earth Society, Shenton said.  The AEI denies that the organization is skeptical about global warming, although that statement is difficult to reconcile with their website: Search - AEI  The Flat Earth Society

----------


## intertd6

> Flat Earthers resent Obama's jibe about not believing in climate change:
> For what its worth, the Flat Earth Society doesnt have an official position on climate change. President Daniel Shenton told Business Insider in an email from England. Personally, though, I believe the evidence available does support the position that climate change is at least partially influenced by human industrialisation. 
> Shenton said that Obama should refer to more mainstream groups  like the American Enterprise Institute  the next time he needs a joke in a speech. 
> So if President Obama wants to reference people that actively deny anthropogenic climate change, hed probably be better served by citing groups like the American Enterprise Institute rather than the Flat Earth Society, Shenton said.  The AEI denies that the organization is skeptical about global warming, although that statement is difficult to reconcile with their website: Search - AEI  The Flat Earth Society

  so you think your propaganda is more believable when it comes from the generators of the the most sophisticated propaganda ever designed who hold the highest office? just to snap you back to reality, this debate is centred around whether CO2 is causing what appears to be industrially driven warming, nothing has proved that out of the 20 or so factors that can influence the atmosphere CO2 in trace quantities has the ability to have more effect on the climate than any other factor. You have had more than enough chances & time to produce such proof!
inter

----------


## John2b

[QUOTE=intertd6;950786]so you think your propaganda is more blah, blah, blah/QUOTE] 
Snap out of it Inter, just posted this for everyone's amusement. I didn't count on you not having a sense of humour!   

> You have had more than enough chances & time to produce such proof!

  Your statement begs the question: As a participant in this forum for many years, why haven't YOU posted proof of your assertions?

----------


## Marc

> spare me please.

   Yes, it's getting like that, it's like talking to a JW that has a foot in your door. He KNOWS to be right and also KNOWS I am wrong. 
I never enjoyed so much being "wrong".  
Aaaaaah you sinners, pagan, miscreant, reprobates how dare you challenge divinely inspired wisdom?
The world is HEATING UP, BURRRRNING !!! ......
and it is all my fault ... well and yours of course and a few others, but that does not matter, what matters is that me and you we don't want to PAY for our wrongdoings, see, you are a stingy, egotistic, self centered, greedy, materialistic, rapacious, and usurious creature ... and me too of course ... ha ha.  
I love global warming, it is cosy and warm and all full of CO2 that is good for you. We all know that ... well not all, almost all. The farmers know it, the polar bears know it ...  
Ok I am off to refuel my boat with lots of premium petrol ( a product of fossil fuel  :2thumbsup: ) An then up to burn it all for fun towing and getting towed. I must say that this thread is a special motivation to produce as much CO2 as I can.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9wmZwaXUWo

----------


## John2b

> The farmers know it...

  Sure, some rural people are climate "sceptics", but what are the things farmers do know?
Climate change and increased climate variability have already impacted severely on WA broadacre crop and animal production over the past ten years, with serious rainfall deficiency and frost challenging farm profitability and sustainability. Future climates for the SW of WA indicate the possibility of further rainfall decline and higher frost incidence. Project details - Grains Research & Development Corporation
The head of one of the world's largest agricultural commodity trading companies is warning Australian primary producers to take climate change seriously.Olam International chief executive Sunny Verghese has told Landline that agricultural producers and processors need to take action now."It is absolutely a reality that climate change is going to significantly impact agriculture," he said."It impacts it both from the nexus it has with water, and the nexus it has with micro-climate as well, so it is probably the most important driver to future agricultural production, productivity and therefore price." Agricultural giant Olam International says climate change is 'absolutely a reality' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Climate change will play havoc with farming, and policy makers and researchers aren't fully aware of the significance on food supply, according to the World Bank. Earth will warm by 2 degrees celsius “in your lifetime,” Rachel Kyte, the World Bank's vice-president for climate change, said at a meeting of agriculture ministers in Berlin over the weekend. That will make farming untenable in some areas, she said.  Policymakers aren't aware of threat to farming from climate change, World Bank says
‘There’s evidence that the changes we’ve already seen in terms of climate change are having impacts on food production and food security, and that these changes are likely to increase very significantly over the next decade,’ he says.Adaptation strategies can take different forms. Incremental adaptation involves minor adjustments, such as changes to crop variety for hotter conditions. Then there are systemic changes. For instance, reductions in rainfall make conditions more marginal for cropping, but more appropriate for grazing. So integrating grazing with cropping is another strategy.Transformational change involves swapping from a cropping system entirely to a grazing system, or moving to a different environment to continue cropping. For example a farmer in Murrumbidgee in south-east Australia could move to the Northern Territory to grow rice. ECOS Magazine - Towards A Sustainable Future

----------


## woodbe

If you want to be 'spared' from the posts in this thread, don't read them, you are in control of what you read.  :Tongue:   What is the role of the deep ocean in global warming? Climate science deniers get this wrong.  Greg Laden's Blog   

> ...various individuals, including sadly at least one climate scientist (Judith Curry: Evidence of deep ocean cooling?),  but mostly anti-science climate trolls, crowing that the deep ocean  is cooling therefore we are not experiencing global warming. However,  the truth is that the total amount of heat that is going into the ocean,  instead of the atmosphere or other places, was thought to be large, is  still known to be large, and in fact is larger than we were originally  thinking (from these papers and several others that have come out  recently). And, the contribution of the abyss ocean to both sea level  rise and energy imbalance is statistically nil. It might be negative, it  might be positive, but it is tiny either way.  The deep ocean, on the  other hand, is in strong positive energy balance.

  Imagine that. The people who don't want to accept science don't read it or understand it enough to report on it accurately.

----------


## intertd6

[QUOTE=John2b;950790]  

> QUOTE]     
> Your statement begs the question: As a participant in this forum for many years, why haven't YOU posted proof of your assertions?

  yes & when it is posted you run for the hills & start posting propaganda red herrings. And after the last page of wilful ignorance you have shot down your own credibility better than anybody else could do.
inter

----------


## John2b

[QUOTE=intertd6;950826]  

> yes & when it is posted you run for the hills & start posting propaganda red herrings.

  When was what posted?  :Shock:  When have you ever posted anything on climate change that stood up to scrutiny?  :Shock:  
Even your "side" can't agree on more than a couple of things once in a blue moon.

----------


## intertd6

[QUOTE=John2b;950828]  

> When was what posted?  When have you ever posted anything on climate change that stood up to scrutiny?  
> Even your "side" can't agree on more than a couple of things once in a blue moon.

  Just another 3 red herrings for good measure we notice, credibility still not remarkably missing!
inter

----------


## John2b

A while back (http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...tml#post949281)  Marc posted the "100 reasons why climate change is natural". They are mostly good for a belly laugh for the logical fallacies like: Everything yellow isn't a banana, therefore bananas aren't bananas because they are yellow, and as has already been established, everything yellow is not a banana. 
Or Inter's version: All greenhouse gases are not CO2, therefore CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, because as was established at the start all greenhouse gases are not CO2. 
My favourite so far is, a retired professor of Oriental and African Studies in London, who says climate change is too complicated to be caused by factors like greenhouse gases.  :Fireworks:  
Then there is “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming" - that is astounding proof - who could argue with that! 
And someone who works at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland, says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapour. Priceless! 
Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful. Therefore global warming must be natural. 
The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions. Because global warming is natural, of course. 
The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting. Why would international decision making be irrational if global warming was not natural? 
Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country. Global warming must be natural. 
Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”. Absolute proof global warming is natural! 
Even Abbott gets a mention. The fact he is a "skeptic" and displaced Turnbull as opposition leader is irrefutable proof that climate change is natural, apparently. 
As much as I am enjoying this enlightenment, I think everyone gets the picture.  :2thumbsup:  
Which ones do you like, Inter?  100 reasons why climate change is natural | UK | News | Daily Express

----------


## woodbe

> yes & when it is posted you run for the hills & start posting propaganda red herrings.

  I can't remember inter posting any proof of his assertions, but he posts plenty of attacks on anything posted which supports the state of the science and anyone who posts it. His usual response to queries is 'posted previously in this thread' which is never found. 
Schoolboy stuff from the troll handbook.

----------


## Marc

*The Archie Bunkers Of Settled Science*  *Written by Melanie Sturm, Aspen Times on Oct 09, 2014.   As if on cue, settled-science believer Auden Schendler delivered a punishing retort in The Aspen Times to my recent column“Inconvenient Truths Denied By Climate Faithful” (Sept. 11, Commentary). Archie Bunker-like in frustration, Schendler wants me to stifle myself. If I don’t “dummy up” like Archie’s wife, Edith, he suggests Aspen Times editors Think Again before publishing my commentary without peer reviews or risk “being complicit in promoting falsehoods.”   Schendler calls this “ground-truthing of scientific claims,” noting that the Los Angeles Times doesn’t publish pieces that “deny established climate science.” Like Robert Kennedy Jr., who recently called for the jailing of treasonous nonconformists who break with “settled-science” orthodoxy, Schendler insists it’s not censorship when there’s no argument. My crime — tantamount to “yelling ‘fire’ in a movie theater” — is considering climate change as “a naturally reoccurring phenomenon to which mankind has always adapted, and still can.” Apparently, I can’t acknowledge Earth’s warming and ice-age cycles without embracing political agendas that require living-standard cuts — lifestyle sacrifices that activists won’t acknowledge and elites like Kennedy, Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio won’t obey. 
Resisting cataclysmic theorizers and their “starve the peasants to save the pheasants” thinking, I criticized alarmists who “invoke the moral equivalent of Holocaust denial to reject those deeming climate change less dangerous than other threats.” I did so believing an economically robust and energy-secure America is the ultimate threat-deterrent. Today, I’d add to my threat list the failure of public institutions to protect and serve Americans, considering recent incompetence, corruption and unaccountability in government agencies — those Schendler wants to grant unprecedented powers to centrally plan and control economic life. 
Though denounced by climate “groupthinkers,” dissidents like I am are troubled by “the stunning failure of … doomsday-predicting models to forecast warming’s nearly 18-year pause (confirmed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) or Al Gore’s 2007 prediction that polar bears’ Arctic habitat would be ice-free by 2013.” These irrefutable observations riled Schendler. Accusing me of “cherry-picking data,” he contends I’m “willfully blind or statistically illiterate to claim warming has stopped.” Citing a Politifact article to support his contention, he apparently overlooked the fact-checker’s concession that “over roughly the past 15 years, global surface temperatures have plateaued.” 
So who’s the “meathead” — considering widespread acceptance of unexpected global temperature stability and the existence of more Arctic ice than in 2007, never mind record Antarctic ice levels? As if answering this question, President Obama’s former undersecretary of energy, Steve Koonin, wrote a consensus-disrupting op-ed, “Climate science is not settled.” Lamenting how the settled-science claim “demeans and chills the scientific enterprise” and distorts “policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment,” Koonin argues, “We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy.” 
Noting warming’s pause amid rising carbon dioxide emissions, Koonin posits, “natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.” Despite “different explanations for this (prediction) failure … the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling,” he said. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author Kevin Trenberth admitted this in one of the embarrassing emails leaked in the “Climategate” scandal of 2009. “The fact is,” he wrote, “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty.” 
Probing the disconnect between observed temperatures and predictions, The Economist asked, “Who pressed the pause button?” in a March global-warming article. Because “the models embody the state of climate knowledge,” they concluded, “if they are wrong, the knowledge is probably faulty, too.” Even the Los Angeles Times broke with the climate consensus, reporting last month: “Naturally occurring changes in winds, not human-caused climate change, are responsible for most of the warming on land and in the sea along the West Coast of North America over the last century.” 
Meanwhile, amid calls to stifle climate debates, technological breakthroughs have made America the world’s most energy-endowed nation, possessing more oil than Saudi Arabia and more natural gas than Russia (according to an International Energy Agency report in June). 
In substituting lower-carbon resources for coal, we’ve hit the energy jackpot: cheaper energy (a rebate for the poor and an offset of foreign manufacturers’ cheap labor advantages), cleaner air, new jobs, increased governmental revenues, greater energy independence and carbon dioxide emissions at a 20-year low, outpacing Europe, whose expensive renewable-energy strategies have failed. Despite these advantages, activists refusing to moderate their climate conclusions — no matter the evidence — rally to curb the development of our cheapest energy resources, denying citizens who can’t afford Whole Foods environmentalism or the benefits of our energy bounty. 
Unfortunately, except for the rich, Americans are suffering crisis levels of income stagnation, underemployment, economic immobility and poverty. These truths — not doomsday predictions — preoccupy Americans. Think Again — Climate-mongers intent on squashing free inquiry and expression insist that dissenters are “dead from the neck up,” Archie Bunker-style. But being “meatheads” is not our destiny if we refuse to stifle ourselves. Source *

----------


## woodbe

Is Melanie Sturm your 'Nom de Plume' Marc, or are you going back to cutting and pasting with no words of your own? 
It's a nice opinion piece, dog whistling to the deniers. 'Here boy, come eat some more trash'  :Biggrin:  
Just link articles, quote an important paragraph if you want, and use your own voice.

----------


## Marc

*Abdusamatov: humanity to prepare for an ice age*   *11:00* 19/09/2014 4193 19 0 On what global climate change will occur on the planet in the coming decades than face this period of humanity and how to to prepare for it, in an interview with RIA Novosti said Head of the Department of Space Research of the Sun Central (Pulkovo) Astronomical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences Habibullo Abdusamatov.  © Photo: Personal archive Habibullah Abdusamatov  _According to research by scientists in St. Petersburg, in the world since the end of 2014 - beginning of 2015 can begin the age-old era of the Little Ice Age, and the phase of deep cold snap is expected by 2060._ _On what global climate change will occur on the planet in the coming decades than face this period of humanity and how to to prepare for it, in an interview with RIA Novosti Angelica Bolmat said Head of the Department of Space Research of the Sun Central (Pulkovo) Astronomical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences Habibullo Abdusamatov._ - Habibullo Ismailovich, which means the Little Ice Age, and based on what your theory? - Based on the study of long-term variations in solar radiation power we have over ten years of talking about what comes the Little Ice Age. Big and Little Ice Age - a big difference in the understanding of the situation, the nature and physics of the process. Large glacial periods have a span temperature variations of 10-12 degrees. These ice ages are caused by changes in the parameters of the orbit of the Earth and the angle of inclination of the axis of rotation. As a result, changing the distance from the Earth to the Sun, so the less solar radiation flux reaching the Earth. Everyone knows that in this period, almost all the continents are covered with glaciers. Little Ice Age is associated with a change in the radiation power of the Sun and has a quasi-period of 200 years. Roughly speaking, two centuries of plus or minus 70 years. During this period, a decrease in the radiation power of the sun can reach up to 0.5%, which, together with the subsequent (secondary) climate feedback mechanisms (an increase of the Earth's albedo, reducing the concentration of water vapor and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere) leads to the Little Ice Age. In this small glacial periods by the temperature is much lower than the big glacial periods, and account for about 1-1.5 degrees Celsius.     http://ria.ru/interview/20140919/1024726102.html  ​Scary stuff !!!! 
Run to the hills!!!! ....Err... no that was for sea level rises ... rather 
Run underground!!!!!  As long as you run scared somewhere all is good !

----------


## John2b

> Just link articles, quote an important paragraph if you want, and use your own voice.

  That would mean using his own mind to think with - too hard!

----------


## Marc

*This is part of a good article to be found here: * Why Climate Change Doesn’t Scare Me | Watts Up With That?  *
Fantasy vs. Reality* Fossil fuel reserves are limited. Most of the low cost high quality deposits are already depleted and the rate of new discoveries is decreasing. Maintaining production increasingly depends upon non-conventional sources and advanced technologies with low production rates and high costs resulting in increasing prices for end users. At the same time technological advances are making alternatives more effective and affordable. At present we could not feed, clothe and shelter the existing population without fossil fuels, nor could we maintain the economic health necessary to develop effective alternatives.  Trying to force wide scale adoption of premature technologies is a recipe for disaster as has been every other attempt at central planning of economies. Both theory and practice indicate that complex interactive systems (_e.g._ climate, ecosystems, and economies) incorporating numerous non-linear relationships cannot be managed from top down but can effectively self-organise if permitted to do so. Despite the sometimes messy self-adjustments, free markets have repeatedly proved to be the best way we have found to do this in the economic sphere. Failing to recognise this and mindlessly repeating to attempt a centrally planned approach proposed by self-anointed “experts’ is beyond simply foolish. It requires wilful ignorance compounded by unbounded self-regard. Trying to implement the climate alarmist’s half-baked theoretical solutions to imaginary problems can at best only result in economic stagnation and delay. More likely the harm would be even greater as the recognition of failure and the necessity to change course then determining what to do next would all be impeded by political resistance, uncertainty and compromises while the damage continues to intensify. Although the danger from climate change itself appears to have been greatly exaggerated the economic impact of ill-conceived measures to control it are already real, substantial and on-going. These include significant increases in the cost of energy and food, job losses, large scale environmental degradation from wind farms and bio-fuel production as well as the diversion of hundreds of billions of dollars from other far more real and urgent needs. *Biggest threat is corruption, not carbon* Perhaps the greatest harm of all has been the damage to the integrity and credibility of science itself.  This affects not just science but also our ability to effectively govern ourselves in the increasingly complex technological world we are creating. Gross scientific malpractice has become endemic in climate science. Misleading or even false claims, cherry-picking of data, hiding or ignoring conflicting evidence, unexplained manipulations of data, refusal to permit independent examination of methods and evidence, abuse of peer review to supress adverse findings and vicious personal denigration of dissent have all become widespread practice in climate research. Worse yet, when such conduct has been exposed, the response of alarmists has not been to condemn it, but to first try to deny it, then to attempt to justify it and finally to pretend to dismiss it as trivial and of no consequence. In the most prominent examples a post script has been to announce some prestigious sounding award to the miscreants thus appearing to erase the taint of any impropriety. The climate change bandwagon has afforded a tantalising shortcut to generous funding and expert status for any third rate academic willing to abandon the scientific ethos and many have done so. For the unwilling, any public dissent means a level of professional ostracism and personal denigration few are willing to bear. *Research is not a license for fraud* The evidence of widespread corruption in climate and other environmental science is clear and abundant. The harm done has been great and is increasing. Relevant laws against fraud, professional misconduct, misleading parliament and other offences are being blatantly violated. The research institutions involved have also routinely made false claims in press releases widely reported in the mainstream media. It is past time to begin to demand professional honesty and apply the relevant laws to academic researchers that are applied to all other activities. Terminating both current and future government funding of those found guilty of serious violations of scientific standards could be a simple effective cure to treat the malaise now infecting environmental science.  To continue to ignore it can only assure more disastrously poor decisions in the future. The idea that we must take drastic steps now for the benefit of our great grandchildren is also emotive nonsense.  History clearly shows that the problems faced by future generations and the means to solve them are almost certain to be very different from anything we can predict. If we leave them a healthy economy and uncorrupted science, they will be equipped far better than we to decide if climate change is indeed becoming a problem and what to do about it. If we cripple our economy and debase our best tool for understanding the world we live in we will be doing our descendants no favour and they will not be thankful for our foolishness.

----------


## Marc

The economic system can be described in many ways. One would be to divide it into productive systems and dependent systems. 
A productive system is one that is self sufficient and leaves a remanent be it profit or excess production that can be used to support other systems.  A profitable agricultural or manufacturing operation is an example. 
A dependent system is one that can not be self sufficient yet it's existence is essential for the productive systems. Railways and some of the other forms of public transport and the health system are examples of a dependent system. To ignore this fact and to pretend that a dependent system should follow the rules of self sufficient systems is a fallacy and doomed to failure.
The degree of dependence is generally the realm of politics yet dependent systems make a loss only on paper since the profits are done by the productive systems with the aid of the dependent systems. In other words, without dependent systems the profits in the productive system deteriorate rapidly.  
There is however a third sort that attaches itself to the economic model. It is clearly not productive and does not fit the dependent model, and can therefore only be described as a parasitic system. 
A parasitic system is self generating, it comes from nothing and grows with the only purpose of retro feeding itself and it's only preoccupation is with its own existence. Parasitic systems work on the basis of fear and guilt, using media and any other means for manipulating the masses into "believing" what would be otherwise a rather baseless story, or, exploit a real situation to extract funds in order to fund themselves first to the tune of very high percentages and using leftovers for the so called cause. 
Parasitic systems take many forms, religion, charities, research foundations, pseudo-altruistic political movements, or, yes, you guessed it, environmental movements.    
What makes the parasitic industry so great that every second ad on TV is someone asking for money and that someone is already being funded by government?
Easy. The parasitic system does not pay taxes, does not have to respond to shareholders, will never face an inquiry providing it invests SOME of the money donated in the alleged cause and that some can be as little as 15% ... Administrative cost are hardly ever scrutinised and in those cost one can include a holiday place in the Bahamas, a ski resort in Switzerland, and a yacht with a helipad on the stern deck. Nothing wrong with that and all happily paid by taxpayers and assorted fools ... oops sorry, donors.  
Why is the "environmental movement" so aggressive? Why are those promoting "action" on "climate change" so vocal? Are they really so altruistic and so inclined to act for the good of humanity? Not really ... in the parasitic system the world is rosy and different, no deadline, no k.p.i., no sales quota, no competition, just cloak yourself in righteousness and pretend moral high ground, and monkey the preachers of old shouting fire and brimstone and damnation galore. Who wouldn't want to cling to such way of life for good? Who wouldn't want to nail their colours to the mast of eternal milk and honey?  
The very thing that will destroy the parasitic system however, is the denial of their own nature. A real parasite knows that his survival depends on the life of the host. The parasitic system does not know that. They are agitated and red in the face, dishing out lies and excuses, fear and guilt are their currency and all of the above is poison to the productive system. 
Yet the productive system is the only engine pulling the gravy train.  
And as always it is the public that will ultimately shake the parasite off and forget about them soon after.
Lets hope it is sooner rather than later.

----------


## John2b

> A productive system is one that is self sufficient and leaves a remanent be it profit or excess production that can be used to support other systems.  A profitable agricultural or manufacturing operation is an example.

  So what is the view of the "productive system" in Australia?
"Australian businesses want the Abbott government to set tougher emissions reduction targets and fear the *country's economy will suffer if it does not move away from fossil-fuel intensive industries*, a new analysis shows. 
"The survey of 245 companies also found that 87 per cent believe the government should not act alone in setting Australia's post-2020 targets and _should follow advice from an independent body such as the Climate Change Authority."_  Businesses want tougher climate action, low carbon economy: survey  
There is nothing new about this. BHP was urging the same thing more than four years ago: 
"THE world's biggest mining company has urged Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott to act on climate change ahead of other countries, warning that* Australia's economy will suffer unless it looks to a future beyond coal*. 
"In a dramatic intervention into the stalled climate debate, BHP Billiton chief executive Marius Kloppers yesterday called for ''a clear price signal'' on carbon dioxide emissions, possibly including both a carbon tax and a limited carbon trading scheme covering power plants."  Move on climate, BHP Billiton urges

----------


## intertd6

> So what is the view of the "productive system" in Australia?
> "Australian businesses want the Abbott government to set tougher emissions reduction targets and fear the *country's economy will suffer if it does not move away from fossil-fuel intensive industries*, a new analysis shows. 
> "The survey of 245 companies also found that 87 per cent believe the government should not act alone in setting Australia's post-2020 targets and _should follow advice from an independent body such as the Climate Change Authority."_  Businesses want tougher climate action, low carbon economy: survey  
> There is nothing new about this. BHP was urging the same thing more than four years ago:
> "THE world's biggest mining company has urged Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott to act on climate change ahead of other countries, warning that* Australia's economy will suffer unless it looks to a future beyond coal*. 
> "In a dramatic intervention into the stalled climate debate, BHP Billiton chief executive Marius Kloppers yesterday called for ''a clear price signal'' on carbon dioxide emissions, possibly including both a carbon tax and a limited carbon trading scheme covering power plants."  Move on climate, BHP Billiton urges

     
they have (BHP)– especially through the aggressive advocacy work of the Minerals Council of Australia – campaigned to effectively nobble both Rudd’s emissions trading scheme and the Gillard government’s carbon tax. It is worth noting that Dean Dalla Vale, the head of BHP Billiton’s Coal division, is one of twelve members of the MCA’s Board of Directors.  
While BHP Billiton’s policy states that it supports a carbon price you can’t help but get the impression that what they want is something like ???
how soon they change there tune, must be some money to be made somewhere in it for them to do an about face, as the last time I looked they weren't a charity.
inter

----------


## John2b

> While BHP Billitons policy states that it supports a carbon price you cant help but get the impression that what they want is something like ???
> how soon they change there tune, must be some money to be made somewhere in it for them to do an about face, as the last time I looked they weren't a charity.
> inter

  It would be an unequivocal about face - if only it had not their position for a considerable time. The post I made previously was from four years ago. 
"We accept the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) assessment of climate change science which has found that warming of the climate is unequivocal, the human influence is clear and physical impacts are unavoidable." 
And here is their policy from 2007:  http://www.bhpbilliton.com/home/inve...angepolicy.pdf  
BHP Billiton believes that the risks of climate change associated with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere need to be addressed through accelerated action. The actions should aim to stabilise concentrations at levels guided by the research of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Behavioural change, innovation and technological progress are necessary to achieve stabilisation in a manner consistent with meeting natural resource and energy needs. Building on our earlier efforts, we will take action within our own businesses and work with governments, industry and other stakeholders to address this global challenge and find lasting solutions consistent with our goal of Zero Harm.

----------


## woodbe

Several times we have seen in this thread and elsewhere views expressed that alternative energy consumes more resources than created, or the lifetime assessment of wind power and solar cells results in little or no environmental benefit. PNAS has recently published a research paper on the subject:  Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies   

> *Conclusion:*
> Our analysis indicates that the large-scale implementation of wind, PV, and CSP has the potential to reduce pollution-related environmental impacts of electricity production, such as GHG emissions, freshwater ecotoxicity, eutrophication, and particu- late-matter exposure. The pollution caused by higher material requirements of these technologies is small compared with the direct emissions of fossil fuel-fired power plants. Bulk material requirements appear manageable but not negligible compared with the current production rates for these materials. Copper is the only material covered in our analysis for which supply may be a concern.

----------


## John2b

*Pentagon Says Global Warming Presents Immediate Security Threat*  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us...reat.html?_r=0  These climate-related effects are already being observed at installations throughout the U.S. and overseas and affect many of the Department’s activities and decisions related to future operating environments, military readiness, stationing, environmental compliance and stewardship, and infrastructure planning and maintenance.  Climate change also will interact with other stressors in ways that may affect the deployment of U.S. Forces overseas and here at home. As climate change affects the availability of food and water, human migration, and competition for natural resources, the Department’s unique capability to provide logistical, material, and security assistance on a massive scale or in rapid fashion may becalled upon with increasing frequency. As the incidence and severity of extreme weather events change, the Department will adapt to meet these dynamic operational realities.  The changing climate will affect operating environments and may aggravate existing or trigger new risks to U.S. interests. For example, sea level rise may impact the execution of amphibious landings; changing temperatures and lengthened seasons could impact operation timing windows; and increased frequency of extreme weather could impact overflight possibility as well as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability.  The opening of formerly frozen Arctic sea lanes will increase the need for the Department to monitor events, safeguard freedom of navigation, and ensure stability in this resource rich area. Maintaining stability within and among other nations is an important means of avoiding full-scale military conflicts.  The impacts of climate change may cause instability in other countries by impairing access to food and water, damaging infrastructure, spreading disease, uprooting and displacing large numbers of people, compelling mass migration, interrupting commercial activity, or restricting electricity availability.  These developments could undermine already fragile governments that are unable to respond effectively or challenge currently stable governments, as well as increasing competition and tension between countries vying for limited resources. These gaps in governance can create an avenue for extremist ideologies and conditions that foster terrorism. Here in the U.S., state and local governments responding to the effects of extreme weather may seek increased DSCA.  http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/CCARprint.pdf

----------


## intertd6

I'm wonder what is the point of all this propaganda, everybody who can understand the data can see that warming has occurred in the last several hundred years up to 1998, then for some unknown reason all sensible understanding goes out the door for some who try to blame the recent CO2 rise as the culprit out of 20 or so factors for such warming with no proof! Some are not as gifted logic wise as others, but there is no reason for them to abuse the privilege.
inter

----------


## John2b

> I'm wonder what is the point of all this propaganda,

  Did you read the report? Maybe you would not need to ask the question...   

> everybody who can understand the data can see that warming has occurred in the last several hundred years up to 1998

  Most of the people on your "side" are denying there is global warming. Are any two of you ever going to agree about anything substantial?   

> then for some unknown reason all sensible understanding goes out the door for some who try to blame the recent CO2 rise as the culprit out of 20 or so factors for such warming with no proof!

  What has the cause of global warming got to do with the Department of Defence's response to it? You are jumping to (illogical) conclusions.   

> Some are not as gifted logic wise as others, but there is no reason for them to abuse the privilege.

  Back to casting aspersions - is that the best you can do?

----------


## woodbe

Very good sculpture for consideration:   
The title could be "Politicians discussing global warming" according to someone on twitter, but the artist's website doesn't offer a name for the work, just that it is part of a series called 'Follow the Leaders'

----------


## John2b

> the artist's website doesn't offer a name for the work, just that it is part of a series called 'Follow the Leaders'

  "Follow the leaders is a critical reflection on our inertia as a social mass." 
I bet that will go over the heads of some here LOL.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I'm wonder what is the point of all this propaganda it keeps everyone busy and entertained, everybody who can understand the data can see that warming has occurred in the last several hundred years up to 1998, true then for some unknown reason not so unknown actually - have you noticed the sharp rise in the *rate* of temperature increase since the Industrial Revolution? all sensible understanding goes out the door for some who try to blame the recent CO2 rise it's not just CO2 []'s that are rising as the culprit out of 20 or so factors for such warming with no proof! So you keep saying...but as I keep pointing out there's plenty of proof but you don't accept them Some are not as gifted logic wise as others, but there is no reason for them to abuse the privilege. Feel free to cut back any time you like...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Very good sculpture for consideration...

  Needs a few pigeons...

----------


## John2b

> Needs a few pigeons...

  Seagulls. Pigeons don't like high tide. Love your work, BTW!

----------


## intertd6

> "Follow the leaders is a critical reflection on our inertia as a social mass." 
> I bet that will go over the heads of some here LOL.

  " there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead!"
 Inter

----------


## intertd6

> Did you read the report? Maybe you would not need to ask the question...  I'm like the opposite of you, I don't pay much attention to propaganda, like you don't pay much attention to the globes historic data 
> Most of the people on your "side" are denying there is global warming. Are any two of you ever going to agree about anything substantial?  Just goes to show there are dills on each side, you can't understand the globes history data & they can't read a graph either. 
> What has the cause of global warming got to do with the Department of Defence's response to it? You are jumping to (illogical) conclusions.  Der! Propaganda so the dills don't feel bad about paying more taxes which in reality are mainly to justify & expand defence spending! 
> Back to casting aspersions - is that the best you can do?  And there I was thinking something totally different!

  inter

----------


## John2b

Phoooosht!   

> " there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead!"

  Are you making a comment about political integrity? 
No changes to pensions. 
No cuts to the ABC or SBS. 
No new taxes. 
No cuts to health. 
No cuts to education. As far as school funding is concerned, Kevin Rudd and I are on a unity ticket. There is no difference between Kevin Rudd and myself when it comes to school funding. 
No excuses. 
No surprises. 
Supported an emissions trading scheme under Howard, and advocated for a carbon tax in 2009.

----------


## intertd6

> Phoooosht!   
> Are you making a comment about political integrity? 
> No changes to pensions. 
> No cuts to the ABC or SBS. 
> No new taxes. 
> No cuts to health. 
> No cuts to education. As far as school funding is concerned, Kevin Rudd and I are on a unity ticket. There is no difference between Kevin Rudd and myself when it comes to school funding. 
> No excuses. 
> No surprises. 
> Supported an emissions trading scheme under Howard, and advocated for a carbon tax in 2009.

  No! Just the dills that fall for it hook line & sinker, then perpetuate it further for free like the nice little deciples they are!
inter

----------


## Marc

if you have the stomach to listen to the so called experts that emit hot air on radio or tv on the subject of the economy, you will probably know that most of what they say is rubbish. There are a few reasons for this. 
First, the fact that the so called journalist get's paid to read someone else's opinion and that, even if they read the lines for 150 years in a row does not make them experts. Second, the authors of the "opinions" are themselves employees of some bigger organisation like a bank, or super fund that has as primary goal, not to inform what they may or might not know in relation to possible movements in the economy but to either kickstart the economy by making up some reason for confidence real or imaginary, or cool down a trend for their own benefit. All that if they even know what they are doing, something they do not, most of the time.
I call this pretend expert "agitators" since that is their primary goal, to agitate the listener or viewer into paying attention and as a consequence listen to the ads that come next. The only value of the show is in the money paid by the advertiser for you and me to buy KFC... 
The parallel with the "climate" expert is obvious. Like the economist who can not predict anything at all with any accuracy and make up their self proclaimed expertise as they go, the climate commentators produce a barrage of rubbish we are supposed to believe just because they are paid to do so. The economist looks a the past and frantically tries to predict what will happen based on what happened in the past in similar occasions. If there was no similar situation, he just makes it up. The enviro-clima-crapper just makes it up as he goes with a few obvious observations thrown in for good measure. it does not matter what he says, just like with the economist, no one will take him to account if he get's it wrong. And they do with alarming regularity. We have desalinisation plants thanks to Tim Flannery. Anyone ever taking him to account? Al Gore? anyone? 
The manipulation of the public in relation of the economy has many players. Some we know others we do not, and most people play in the string pullers hand, by repeating the lines fed to them on a daily basis by the local clowns dressed with a suit from the waist up and with shorts and thongs under the table.  
The manipulation of the public in relation to the alleged threat from human induced global warming, is no different. People take to it with religious faith, because it fits with their personality. A global warming concerned citizen fits the profile of a nice person, altruistic and "humane" who would like to help and who resents, in a vague and ill defined way the prosperity of others. In other words, 95% of people. 
To attempt to produce changes in the economy via influential opinions is not new, even the so called independent central bank takes to it with gusto spewing malaise or doom and gloom or being silent when it should speak. The "global warming" soap opera is no different, and when the objectives may be less defined, they are clearly far removed from the common good they pretend to serve.  
The economic talks and the climate talks however, serve another clear purpose and that is to entertain the person that is able to see further than the end of his own nose.

----------


## John2b

*NASA: September 2014 Hottest In Recorded Weather History*  
September 2014 marks the second consecutive record-breaking warmest month, as August 2014 also was the warmest such month in NASA's records. May 2014 also was the hottest on record, NOAA said earlier this summer, while four of the five hottest Mays have occurred in the past five years. 
Though temperatures for the rest of the year remain to be seen, this year's record-breaking warmth indicates that 2014 could go down as the world's hottest year on record, according to temperature trends identified by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.  NASA: September 2014 Hottest In Recorded Weather History - weather.com

----------


## John2b

*Coastal Flooding Becoming Routine, Thanks to Sea Level Rise*  
“Impacts from sea level rise are real and now,” said NOAA oceanographer William Sweet, one of the authors of the agency’s June report. “They’re best viewed in terms of an increase of nuisance flood frequencies. These frequencies have risen dramatically over the last several decades, especially along the East Coast and parts of the Gulf Coast.” 
The new report provides examples of some of ways in which hard-hit communities are already adapting to rising seas, such as work to raise roads in New York City’s Jamaica Bay.  
In Annapolis, along the vulnerable Chesapeake Bay coastline, a partnership between the Navy and local authorities has produced what Fitzpatrick called “the most forward thinking” approach to adapting to rising seas, partly because the floods are being viewed as a national security threat. 
"Communities need to be talking to each other," Fitzpatrick said. "There's enough happening up and down the coast that communities can learn from places, like Miami and Atlantic City, that are dealing with flooding on a regular basis."  http://www.weather.com/news/science/...-rise-20141008

----------


## John2b

*The myth of the global warming ‘pause’ – actually due to gaps in data on Arctic temperatures*   
The “pause” in global warming that sceptics have used to bolster their arguments against anthropogenic climate change is just a failure to include all temperature data. Global temperatures have not flat-lined over the past 15 years, as weather station records have been suggesting, but have in fact continued to rise as fast as previous decades, during which we have seen an unprecedented acceleration in global warming. 
The “pause” or “hiatus” in global temperatures can be largely explained by a failure of climate researchers to record the dramatic rise in Arctic temperatures over the past decade or more. 
They have found a way of estimating Arctic temperatures from satellite readings. Getting Arctic readings has been difficult, due to seasonal melting so fixed stations are more difficult. When these readings are included, the so-called pause effectively disappeared. NOAA monthly temperature data on land surface, ocean surface and combined land ocean show recent years have been much warmer than previous averages.    http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...g-8945597.html

----------


## John2b

*The Tory right is becoming desperate on climate change and energy*  
The former Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, will this week demonstrate how desperate the right wing of the Conservative party has become in its attempts to force energy and climate change policies into an ideological straitjacket.  
In a speech on Wednesday to Lord Lawson’s lobby group for so-called climate change sceptics, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Paterson will argue that the UK should turn its back on renewable energy in favour of fracking and nuclear power.  New Statesman | The Tory right is becoming desperate on climate change and energy

----------


## John2b

*New South Wales snow and floods a sharp contrast to 2013 bushfires*  
This time last year, the Blue Mountains were suffering through some of the worst bushfires this country has ever seen. This year it's snowing. 
Only weeks ago, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service warned this year's bushfire risk was even higher than last year. 
"Just because parts of New South Wales were currently under water did not mean the threat of bushfires was completely erased."  https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/25262159...013-bushfires/    
"Honestly, what more proof do you need at this point? Would you like the West Antarctic ice shelf to personally come up here and pay you a visit with a big “climate change is real” banner draped across it? Because it’s well on the way to doing that already — albeit in liquid form. Because it’s melting."

----------


## John2b

Payback Time? What the Internationalization of Climate Litigation Could Mean for Canadian Oil and Gas Companies  The global financial cost of private and public property and other damage associated with climate change in 2010 has been estimated at $591 billion, rising to $4.2 trillion in 2030. Canadian oil and gas companies could be liable for billions of dollars of damages per year for their contribution to climate change caused by toxic greenhouse gas emissions. Five oil and gas companies currently trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange  Encana, Suncor, Canadian Natural Resources, Talisman, and Husky  could presently be incurring a global liability as high as $2.4 billion annually.  http://wcel.org/sites/default/files/...ack%20Time.pdf

----------


## John2b

*Auditor-General says Victoria's heatwave plan inadequate*   
Victoria does not have a clear enough statewide plan to protect people from catastrophic heatwaves despite two heat disasters causing more than 500 deaths since 2009, the state Auditor-General has found. 
In a damning report on Victoria's preparedness for extreme heat, Auditor-General John Doyle revealed that Victorians were receiving mixed messages about preventing heat-related illnesses this year and that at least four hospitals lost power during the heatwave in January, which killed about 167 people.  
"While heatwaves are estimated to have contributed to more deaths than any other natural disaster nationally, there are no clear arrangements in place in in Victoria to prepare for and drive the response to heatwaves," the report said.   
The incidence of heat waves in Australia is increasing:    Warming Australia has more heatwaves, greater bushfire risk: report : Renew Economy

----------


## johnc

> *New South Wales snow and floods a sharp contrast to 2013 bushfires*  
> This time last year, the Blue Mountains were suffering through some of the worst bushfires this country has ever seen. This year it's snowing. 
> Only weeks ago, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service warned this year's bushfire risk was even higher than last year. 
> "Just because parts of New South Wales were currently under water did not mean the threat of bushfires was completely erased."  https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/25262159...013-bushfires/    
> "Honestly, what more proof do you need at this point? Would you like the West Antarctic ice shelf to personally come up here and pay you a visit with a big climate change is real banner draped across it? Because its well on the way to doing that already  albeit in liquid form. Because its melting."

  On the logic of some of our posters that is probably proof of a cooling trend.

----------


## woodbe

> On the logic of some of our posters that is probably proof of a cooling trend.

  That's right johnc  :Biggrin:  
"No warming since 17 Oct 2013" lol

----------


## johnc

I thought this article was interesting, a discussion that shows more intelligence and less mindless debate. A slowing of the rate of increase based on recent figures, our pet sceptic's would probably find it as proof of something bizarre I'm sure but it is really a discussion of the science with a true sceptical view of what has gone before modified with new information. No doubt to be accepted or rejected based on future data all aimed a proving the science rather than just reacting to it because you have an inflexible mind and an inability to digest new information  and apply it to your own cherished opinions.   Growth in carbon dioxide levels 17pc lower than predicted, plants absorbing more CO2 than expected: study - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Cool.  Interesting paper. I note that it only discusses C3 plants so I wonder if there is a similar underestimation for C4 plants as well...

----------


## John2b

> On the logic of some of our posters that is probably proof of a cooling trend.

  Ah yes, it has been pointed out to me many times that I can't see the obvious. Here is absolute proof LOL.

----------


## John2b

> I thought this article was interesting, a discussion that shows more intelligence and less mindless debate. A slowing of the rate of increase based on recent figures, our pet sceptic's would probably find it as proof of something bizarre I'm sure but it is really a discussion of the science with a true sceptical view of what has gone before modified with new information. No doubt to be accepted or rejected based on future data all aimed a proving the science rather than just reacting to it because you have an inflexible mind and an inability to digest new information  and apply it to your own cherished opinions.   Growth in carbon dioxide levels 17pc lower than predicted, plants absorbing more CO2 than expected: study - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  
Full paper here (not pay-walled): http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/b...pdf?sequence=1  "Finally we believe that there is a need for world-wide collaboration amongresearchers who routinely conduct leaf gas exchange measurements. " 
I think a few forum members have been conducting their own "leaf gas exchange" experiments, but they seem to come up with diametrically opposed conclusions LOL.

----------


## intertd6

Well that would have had to be almost the best display of propaganda this week! And will certainly take some time to top that effort!(maybe a week or two) The poor little deciples must have been working feverously behind the scenes doing unpaid overtime to their hearts content, quite unexpectedly there wasn't picture of a polar bear on a bergy bit to get all the kiddies in as well.
inter

----------


## johnc

Is a deciple a decibel with a lisp or are you trying for something different, post is the usual standard of negativity though, with nothing to add.

----------


## John2b

> Well that would have had to be almost the best display of propaganda this week!

  The antonym of propaganda is: truth. Propaganda Synonyms, Propaganda Antonyms | Thesaurus.com 
So what is the truth, Inter? 
Last month was NOT the hottest September on record? 
Flooding of coastal cities is NOT increasingly happening? 
The Arctic temperature is NOT rising more rapidly than everywhere else? 
The Torys are NOT in favour of tracking and nuclear power? 
Extremes in Blue Mountain weather conditions are NOT happening? 
The burning of fossil fuels does NOT cause greenhouse gas emissions? 
Heat waves are NOT increasing in frequency?

----------


## intertd6

> The antonym of propaganda is: truth. Propaganda Synonyms, Propaganda Antonyms | Thesaurus.com 
> So what is the truth, Inter? 
> Last month was NOT the hottest September on record?  
> Flooding of coastal cities is NOT increasingly happening? 
> The Arctic temperature is NOT rising more rapidly than everywhere else? 
> The Torys are NOT in favour of tracking and nuclear power? 
> Extremes in Blue Mountain weather conditions are NOT happening? 
> The burning of fossil fuels does NOT cause greenhouse gas emissions? 
> Heat waves are NOT increasing in frequency?

  what do you expect the climate not to change or something, especially since the globe has been warming for around half a millennium?  And magically paying a carbon tax is going to stop the burning of fossil fuels until they are no longer economically viable? It's quite funny how you can claim a month of September as significant yet disregard no warming for 16 years as significant as well! Pure panic merchant pandemonium at its best!
inter

----------


## johnc

> what do you expect the climate not to change or something, especially since the globe has been warming for around half a millennium?  And magically paying a carbon tax is going to stop the burning of fossil fuels until they are no longer economically viable? It's quite funny how you can claim a month of September as significant yet disregard no warming for 16 years as significant as well! Pure panic merchant pandemonium at its best!
> inter

  You know this is similar to Linus's security blanket in peanuts, take away your 16 years and you have nothing, pity it has been discredited and now only has acceptance by a few die hards on the lunatic fringe.  Pure denial merchant pandemonium at its best! Just keep repeating the same line with fingers in ears and hope no one realises how hollow the denial is.

----------


## woodbe

Don't fret inter. Marc will be along with some real propaganda instead of facts in due course.

----------


## intertd6

> You know this is similar to Linus's security blanket in peanuts, take away your 16 years and you have nothing, pity it has been discredited and now only has acceptance by a few die hards on the lunatic fringe.  Pure denial merchant pandemonium at its best! Just keep repeating the same line with fingers in ears and hope no one realises how hollow the denial is.

  http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/ha.../to:2014/trend
there must be some terribly cold places around the globe to offset the hot places you alway harp on about to keep the average global temperature mean level for the last 16 or so years, propaganda! You have to love it! The way it sweeps up the galahs in their state of gay abandon, turns their brains to mush & makes all other things irrelevant.
inter

----------


## woodbe

> http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/ha.../to:2014/trend
> there must be some terribly cold places around the globe to offset the hot places you alway harp on about to keep the average global temperature mean level for the last 16 or so years, propaganda! You have to love it! The way it sweeps up the galahs in their state of gay abandon, turns their brains to mush & makes all other things irrelevant.
> inter

  Well, playing your own game, I notice you cherry picked a start date and left 2014 off your graph. 
Can you explain why there has been plenty of warming since 1999:   
or since 1997:   
FYI, 1997, 1998 and 1999 to present are not long enough to show the long term climate signal, so although it's great fun pointing out your fixation with a single year, none of these graphs mean anything in terms of anthropogenic global warming/climate change.

----------


## johnc

> http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/ha.../to:2014/trend
> there must be some terribly cold places around the globe to offset the hot places you alway harp on about to keep the average global temperature mean level for the last 16 or so years, propaganda! You have to love it! The way it sweeps up the galahs in their state of gay abandon, turns their brains to mush & makes all other things irrelevant.
> inter

  Don't make things up, I have said nothing of the sort as you well know. The rest of the tripe written above is just rubbish built on a false premise. Anyway the 16 years nonsense as has been pointed relies entirely on a peak  surface temperature year in 1998, you can't make it work on other years, any honest person pushing that line would acknowledge that weakness.

----------


## John2b

What global warming pause? Take the ten year HadCRUT3v (Inter's choice data set BTW) average centred on 1998 - the anomaly is 0.3. Take the ten year HadCRUT3v average centred on 2008 - the anomaly is 0.42. That is a rise of 0.12 C per decade or 1.2 C per century. Using the cherry picked year of 1998 just confirms the CLIMATE has warmed post 1998 at a rate faster than the century average.

----------


## intertd6

> Well, playing your own game, I notice you cherry picked a start date and left 2014 off your graph. 
> Can you explain why there has been plenty of warming since 1999:   
> or since 1997:   
> FYI, 1997, 1998 and 1999 to present are not long enough to show the long term climate signal, so although it's great fun pointing out your fixation with a single year, none of these graphs mean anything in terms of anthropogenic global warming/climate change.

  i just provided a link from the previous page that one of your clones originally gave! 
i just notice your not complaining about one of your clones providing claims about one month being hot! Looks like a blind hypocrites assessment.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> What global warming pause? Take the ten year HadCRUT3v (Inter's choice data set BTW) average centred on 1998 - the anomaly is 0.3. Take the ten year HadCRUT3v average centred on 2008 - the anomaly is 0.42. That is a rise of 0.12 C per decade or 1.2 C per century. Using the cherry picked year of 1998 just confirms the CLIMATE has warmed post 1998 at a rate faster than the century average.

  That would be the pause that has been recognised by everybody except the dyed in the wool clones which don't have a reset switch from their original brainwashing! It's not the Bourne identity is the gone identity!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> i just provided a link from the previous page that one of your clones originally gave! Looks like a blind hypocrites assessment.
> i just notice your not complaining about one of your clones providing claims about one month being hot!
> inter

  Regardless of the source of your link, you made the claim and you have no answer to the question.   

> Can you explain why there has been plenty of warming since 1999 or 1997

  Cherrypicker!  :Tongue:  
As usual, you've got nothing.

----------


## woodbe

The top ten Septembers, global average temperature land and sea surfaces: 
 2006    14.58    10
2008    14.58    9
2007    14.61    8
2002    14.62    7
2003    14.62    6
2009    14.63    5
2012    14.67    4
2013    14.72    3
2005    14.73    2
2014    14.77    1

----------


## intertd6

> Regardless of the source of your link, you made the claim and you have no answer to the question.   
> Cherrypicker!  
> As usual, you've got nothing.

  Too right I have nothing! As explained many times before we are all waiting for you and your clones to come up with something that scientifically proves CO2 is causing the majority of the global climate change, not propaganda, beliefs, unproven propositions or anecdotal evidence! Then I'll have something!
inter

----------


## John2b

> i just notice your not complaining about one of your clones providing claims about one month being hot!

  The last below average September was in 1976.

----------


## woodbe

> Too right I have nothing! As explained many times before we are all waiting for you and your clones to come up with something that scientifically proves CO2 is causing the majority of the global climate change, not propaganda, beliefs, unproven propositions or anecdotal evidence! Then I'll have something!
> inter

  So no answer to the question then? I think you've just admitted you are a cherry picker, with nothing. 
As for something that scientifically proves CO2 is causing the majority of the global climate change, it has been repeatedly referenced and quoted in this very thread. The only problem is you don't accept any science that challenges your worldview. 
Here's one you have already shown your disregard for: The Discovery of Global Warming

----------


## John2b

> As for something that scientifically proves CO2 is causing the majority of the global climate change, it has been repeatedly referenced and quoted in this very thread. The only problem is you don't accept any science that challenges your worldview.

  There is a view that was expressed earlier in the thread about 400 ppm of CO2 being near or above the threshold of saturation for blocking of long wave radiation by CO2. However this is far from true. Because heat is radiated from atmospheric layer to atmospheric layer, the level of CO2 required to saturate or "close" the radiation window is many, many times 400 ppm.  RealClimate: A Saturated Gassy Argument

----------


## intertd6

> So no answer to the question then? I think you've just admitted you are a cherry picker, with nothing. What can't you read & understand or something? It's been plainly said many times over in the debate that we have nothing, what else would you say to my unwavering unchanging reference to the past global temperatures data which covers just a few simple patterns, which you & your clones cannot for all your worth come up with any answer to challenge & disprove the fact that CO2 driving temperature changes or catastrophic heating of the climate has ever happened, but we all wait patiently enduring endless pages of propaganda waffle for something impossible to happen!
> As for something that scientifically proves CO2 is causing the majority of the global climate change, it has been repeatedly referenced and quoted in this very thread. The only problem is you don't accept any science that challenges your worldview. the old "the science is settled" argument, ha ha! What galah still uses that one? 
> Here's one you have already shown your disregard for: The Discovery of Global Warming

  inter

----------


## John2b

Inter, nothing in the past temperature record disproves the laws of physics and entropy. 
Have you ever read a scientific paper that makes a case to suggest that CO2 did not block long wave outward radiation in the past? I don't think so! But you conveniently ignore there have been one or two (or fifty) other factors at play! 
What would be contrary to the laws of physics and entropy is your suggestion that CO2 is not significant in the current, continuing, rapid global surface temperature rise.  "The last cooler-than-average month (based on a 1961 to 1990 average) on a global level was February of 1985, the year the first version of Microsoft Windows was released and the first _Back to the Future_ film hit theatres."   Next you'll be saying Microsoft Windows is responsible for global warming, the way your logic is applied!  http://mashable.com/2014/03/19/29-ye...-than-average/

----------


## woodbe

> What can't you read & understand or something? inter

  Yes I can. You have repeatedly asked about the temperature trend since 1998. You have had plenty of answers that you don't like. I asked you about the temperature trend since 1997 and 1999 but you won't even attempt to answer that. Probably because it shows up your choice of start date for exactly what it is. 
You are a one-eyed cherrypicker with nothing.    

> the old "the science is settled" argument, ha ha! What galah still uses that one?

  I'm not suggesting the science is settled, I'm suggesting that we have science that goes back over a hundred years showing the action of CO2 and other greenhouse gases on our environment. Science is never truly settled, and there is a chance that all this work could be tossed out the window if a new theory is proposed that proves to be more valid than what we now have. However, the chance of such a theory turning up is even less likely than you directly answering a question or not attacking the questioner.

----------


## intertd6

> Inter, nothing in the past temperature record disproves the laws of physics and entropy.  yes it does! The fact that when in the globes past CO2 fell & temperatures rose or when CO2 rose & temperatures fell proves that your laws are not intimately linked to how the atmosphere functions! 
> Have you ever read a scientific paper that makes a case to suggest that CO2 did not block long wave outward radiation in the past? I don't think so! But you conveniently ignore there have been one or two (or fifty) other factors at play!  has anybody ever produced irrefutable scientific evidence that CO2 is the major contributing factor that can or will cause catastrophic global warming against the data that shows it has never happened before? 
> What would be contrary to the laws of physics and entropy is your suggestion that CO2 is not significant in the current, continuing, rapid global surface temperature rise.  the other 20 or so factors obviously

  inter

----------


## johnc

What 20 or so other factors, as usual just delusions, back up your claims if you can (it's ok we know you can't). 
This is it isn't it Inter, you have nothing, just wild claims thrown around to form a smoke screen.

----------


## woodbe

Have a look on Skeptical Science, john. There's probably way more than 20 other factors.  
The trick is to prove which factor/s are adding energy into the climate system. 100+ years of climate science says we need to take CO2 seriously. Inter suggests otherwise, he doesn't have 100+ years of science behind him but he has some great cherrypicks.  :Biggrin:

----------


## John2b

> Inter, nothing in the past temperature record disproves the laws of physics and entropy.

   

> _yes it does!_

   Past temperature records prove that the laws of physics and entropy are false!  :Shock:  
The current global warming grand can only be explained when ALL known factors are taken into account. 
The only thing that can't be accounted for is your dogmatic, repetitive, nonsensical claim that somehow what happened in the past to one factor defines current climate behaviour under under a completely different suite of forcing conditions.

----------


## woodbe

Climate change forcing rethink on fire risk, RFS chief Shane Fitzsimmons says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   

> Climate change is having an impact on every level of  fire management, the New South Wales rural fire chief has said on the  first anniversary of the Blue Mountains bushfires. 
> The NSW Rural  Fire Service Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons said with more days of high  fire danger, there is now a shrinking window of opportunity to carry out  back-burning and other hazard reduction. 
> "If our window of  opportunity continues to shrink, in order to get those really important  pre-season activities underway then, yes, there's a broader argument  that needs to be had around matters of climate change and its effect on  fire management and fire seasons," he said. 
> Last year, Prime  Minister Tony Abbott said that senior UN official Christiana Figueres  was "talking through her hat" when she said there was a clear link  between climate change and the sort of bushfires seen in NSW.

  Nah, that can't be right if there has been no warming since 1998 can it?   :Eek:

----------


## intertd6

> Past temperature records prove that the laws of physics and entropy are false!   Your getting a little ahead of yourself there & having trouble understanding the whole my statement obviously, don't worry we are all used to it now & how you give a us all a massive belly laugh with unbelievable rubbish you come out with! 
> The current global warming grand can only be explained when ALL known factors are taken into account.  its a miracle! Now you have said it we will see if you have absorbed it! 
> The only thing that can't be accounted for is your dogmatic, repetitive, nonsensical claim that somehow what happened in the past to one factor defines current climate behaviour under under a completely different suite of forcing conditions. Really, you must present some sort of data to back up your empty words, but as this has been asked of you & your clones many many times before the probability of two miracles in one day would be a million to one chance

  inter

----------


## intertd6

> Have a look on Skeptical Science, john. There's probably way more than 20 other factors.  
> The trick is to prove which factor/s are adding energy into the climate system. 100+ years of climate science says we need to take CO2 seriously. Inter suggests otherwise, he doesn't have 100+ years of science behind him but he has some great cherrypicks.

  inter says & has always said "give us the undeniable scientific proof" obviously it has never been provided, otherwise why would myself & the others keep asking for it?
inter

----------


## John2b

> inter says & has always said "give us the undeniable scientific proof" obviously it has never been provided, otherwise why would myself & the others keep asking for it?

  Only YOU know the answer to that question!

----------


## woodbe

lol. a denier asks for undeniable proof. 
Not possible.  :Biggrin:

----------


## John2b

> lol. a denier asks for undeniable proof.

  Sounds like undeniable proof that someone's a denier, lol. 
Even in the lunatic fringe, this is not a mainstream view. A lunatic's view of what the lunatics think?

----------


## intertd6

And as usual out comes the usual rubbish try to hide the fact they can't produce zip as usual, the propaganda show will be along very shortly predictably to try & cover their tracks as well!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> And as usual out comes the usual rubbish try to hide the fact they can't produce zip as usual, the propaganda show will be along very shortly predictably to try & cover their tracks as well!
> inter

  Still no explanation for the warming since 1997 and 1999 I see, as usual out comes the usual rubbish try to hide the fact he can't  produce zip as usual, the propaganda show will be along very shortly  predictably to try & cover his tracks as well!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Sounds like undeniable proof that someone's a denier, lol. 
> Even in the lunatic fringe, this is not a mainstream view. A lunatic's view of what the lunatics think?

  Sick puppy!  You guys are like school kids.

----------


## John2b

> Sick puppy!  You guys are like school kids.

  Get a grip Rod. You have stated in this forum that you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

----------


## John2b

The first thing to note about a response to a CO2 rise, is that an increase in the temperature of the global climate is completely expected. 
It is known that CO2 is a radiatively active gas that allows the shortwave (visible) radiation from the sun into the climate system and slows that same energy down on its way out as longwave (infrared) radiation, therefore it is clearly expected that adding more CO2 will raise the average temperature of the earth’s surface. This has been expected for over 100 years! 
The basic scientific process is to examine the known properties of a system, observe or surmise a change of some sort, and then formulate an expectation based on an hypothesis. In the case of CO2 emissions, the system is the earth/ocean/atmosphere; the known properties are those of radiative gases, thermodynamics and electromagnetic radiation; and the change to the system is a slow and inexolerable increase in the amount of CO2 in the air. 
The next step is to perform an experiment and thus confirm or deny the hypothesis when the expectations are or are not met. Humanity has gone ahead and run that experiment on this planet. 
The results are in. Yes, the planet is warming. And there are plenty of other indicators besides direct measurements of surface temperature. 
But expected things can happen for unexpected reasons, and correlation is not causation. Other  potential causes must be eliminated. Maybe it’s the sun? Maybe it’s natural causes? Maybe it’s volcanoes? Maybe it’s geothermal? Maybe it’s galactic cosmic rays? 
Well, the sun has not changed its output significantly since the fifities, or enough overall to explain the degree of warming. Saying “natural causes” is really just a cop out: what natural cause?? Blaming volcanoes or geothermal is silly and sillier. Cosmic rays is a pretty far fetched grasp at straws. The connection is only plausible, far from demonstrable, it has been looked for and not found, and it requires that some major foundations of current climate theory be completely wrong. That’s never impossible, but that possiblilty becomes more vanishingly unlikely all the time, having all but vanished decades ago. 
It was never just taken it for granted that because it was expected, it happened, and therefore it is understand. But for all of this hard researching, no other primary candidate cause has emerged that can explain the observations. 
Just to pile on, there are some rather key specific observations beyond the rise in seasonally averaged global temperature that fit in well with an enhanced greenhouse effect (the relevant effect of increasing CO2 concentrations). These observations do not fit with other potential forcings.   Temperatures have risen more at night than during the day. This really defeats the notion of a solar powered climate change on its face.The stratosphere is cooling. Models that predict the warming we are seeing also predict this particular feature of the current climate change.An increasingly enhanced greenhouse effect should cause an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation. This has been detected.  
To summarize: it is known anthropogenic climate change is real because there is no other likely candidate cause, the CO2 rise is unquestionably the result of our activities, the particulars of the warming signature are consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect and the whole phenomenon is entirely consistent with very long standing theories and expectations. 
If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, only a lunatic would think it isn't a duck.   
(With apologies to What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming? – A Few Things Ill Considered )

----------


## John2b

> And as usual out comes the usual rubbish try to hide the fact they can't produce zip as usual, the propaganda show will be along very shortly predictably to try & cover their tracks as well!

  
I'll leave it to leading AGW skeptic Dr Roy Spenser to answer for you, Inter:  *Skeptical Arguments that Dont Hold Water**1.	THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT.* Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didnt exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED) *Please stop the no greenhouse effect stuff. Its making us skeptics look bad.* Ive blogged on this numerous timesmaybe start here.  http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

----------


## intertd6

> I'll leave it to leading AGW skeptic Dr Roy Spenser to answer for you, Inter:  *Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water*   *1.    THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT.* Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… *Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad.* I’ve blogged on this numerous times…maybe start here.  http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

   Just as I predicted! No facts just propaganda! Idiotic propaganda as well!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Still no explanation for the warming since 1997 and 1999 I see, as usual out comes the usual rubbish try to hide the fact he can't  produce zip as usual, the propaganda show will be along very shortly  predictably to try & cover his tracks as well!

  Cant even come up with your own original reply! Classic!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> The first thing to note about a response to a CO2 rise, is that an increase in the temperature of the global climate is completely expected. 
> It is known that CO2 is a radiatively active gas that allows the shortwave (visible) radiation from the sun into the climate system and slows that same energy down on its way out as longwave (infrared) radiation, therefore it is clearly expected that adding more CO2 will raise the average temperature of the earth’s surface. This has been expected for over 100 years! 
> The basic scientific process is to examine the known properties of a system, observe or surmise a change of some sort, and then formulate an expectation based on an hypothesis. In the case of CO2 emissions, the system is the earth/ocean/atmosphere; the known properties are those of radiative gases, thermodynamics and electromagnetic radiation; and the change to the system is a slow and inexolerable increase in the amount of CO2 in the air. 
> The next step is to perform an experiment and thus confirm or deny the hypothesis when the expectations are or are not met. Humanity has gone ahead and run that experiment on this planet. 
> The results are in. Yes, the planet is warming. And there are plenty of other indicators besides direct measurements of surface temperature. 
> But expected things can happen for unexpected reasons, and correlation is not causation. Other  potential causes must be eliminated. Maybe it’s the sun? Maybe it’s natural causes? Maybe it’s volcanoes? Maybe it’s geothermal? Maybe it’s galactic cosmic rays? 
> Well, the sun has not changed its output significantly since the fifities, or enough overall to explain the degree of warming. Saying “natural causes” is really just a cop out: what natural cause?? Blaming volcanoes or geothermal is silly and sillier. Cosmic rays is a pretty far fetched grasp at straws. The connection is only plausible, far from demonstrable, it has been looked for and not found, and it requires that some major foundations of current climate theory be completely wrong. That’s never impossible, but that possiblilty becomes more vanishingly unlikely all the time, having all but vanished decades ago. 
> It was never just taken it for granted that because it was expected, it happened, and therefore it is understand. But for all of this hard researching, no other primary candidate cause has emerged that can explain the observations. 
> Just to pile on, there are some rather key specific observations beyond the rise in seasonally averaged global temperature that fit in well with an enhanced greenhouse effect (the relevant effect of increasing CO2 concentrations). These observations do not fit with other potential forcings.   Temperatures have risen more at night than during the day. This really defeats the notion of a solar powered climate change on its face.The stratosphere is cooling. Models that predict the warming we are seeing also predict this particular feature of the current climate change.An increasingly enhanced greenhouse effect should cause an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation. This has been detected.  
> ...

  can't you understand what is anecdotal evidence? Especially when the globes past history disproves your argument in an instant! Some people couldn't tell difference between a duck & skateboard by sight, touch & sound!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> Cant even come up with your own original reply! Classic!
> inter

  No response to 1997 and 1999?  
You just don't have a reply do you. You still have nothing. 
john2b, that Spencer post is hilarious. He is having to bat away the worst of his anti-science acolytes.

----------


## John2b

> can't you understand what is anecdotal evidence? Especially when the globes past history disproves your argument in an instant!

  The globe's past history can only be understood when the laws of conservation of energy apply just as they do today. Nothing in past history disproves the current understanding of global warming.   

> Some people couldn't tell difference between a duck & skateboard by sight, touch & sound!

  It's not just Inter versus the rest of the global warming "sceptics", it's now Inter versus the world - LOL.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Michael Asten, from the school of earth atmosphere and environment at Monash University, says there have been 15 articles commenting on and analysing the pause, or hiatus, published by the top journal group Nature in the past two years.  
 “While opinions on causes differ, existence of the pause is settled; only activists dare claim the pause in global temperature does not exist,” Asten says. 
Tolstoy would surely have warmists in mind today:    
 I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Get a grip Rod. You have stated in this forum that you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

  So what! 
Everyone accepts that.  I don't know a single person, personally or online that does not accept that.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I'll leave it to leading AGW skeptic Dr Roy Spenser to answer for you, Inter:  *Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water**1.	THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT.* Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… *Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad.* I’ve blogged on this numerous times…maybe start here.  http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

  Nothing new here, who says there is NO green house effect?

----------


## John2b

> “While opinions on causes differ, existence of the pause is settled; only activists dare claim the pause in global temperature does not exist,” Asten says.

  Straight from the mouths of Bolt and the Australian (and plastered indiscriminately here by Rod)! 
Aston's assertion that "only activists dare claim the pause in global temperature does not exist" is juvenile nonsense that even a cursory examination of the published commentary explodes.  http://bit.ly/1sTs9be 
We are all adults here and we all know that the global surface temperature is only a proxy for the real issue: global warming. The problem with equating temperature with warming is that the surface temperature is affected by the weather. So we are back to talking about the weather and not the climate - argh! Talk about a record with a scratch in it!

----------


## John2b

> Nothing new here, who says there is NO green house effect?

  Who indeed? Reponse to the same post...   

> Just as I predicted! No facts just propaganda! Idiotic propaganda as well!

  #12530 
It is hard to conclude that Inter is not calling you (amongst others) "idiotic".

----------


## John2b

Scientists analysing more than three decades of weather data for the northern Alaska outpost of Barrow have linked an astonishing 7°C temperature rise to the decline in Arctic sea ice.  Ice loss sends Alaskan temperatures soaring | Climate News Network

----------


## intertd6

> Scientists analysing more than three decades of weather data for the northern Alaska outpost of Barrow have linked an astonishing 7°C temperature rise to the decline in Arctic sea ice.  Ice loss sends Alaskan temperatures soaring | Climate News Network

  and still the propaganda spews forth, no facts what so ever on CO2, just the typical dribble on everything but!
the sensible ( the majority of the australian public who voted no ) don't really want to pay a tax on something which is unsubstantiated & at best anecdotal evidence as to the major cause of global warming, the psyche of the cult followers is truly amazing, they cannot except anything but the narrow minded focus, whereas the non believers go "not enough facts, too much hype & BS, we'll wait for some real proof to appear, then carry on life as normal" The cultists have always carried on in the most bizarre methods to convince their own believers & the amused onlookers of their cause, like throwing themselves to the lions, crawling on their hands & knees a few hundred kilometres, going to cult boot camps & knowingly drinking dodgy refreshments, etc, etc, etc, but the possibility of there being another idea outside the realm of their cult, no way!! The're in too deep to back out & save face!
inter

----------


## John2b

> and still the propaganda spews forth, no facts what so ever on CO2, just the typical dribble on everything but!
> the sensible ( the majority of the australian public who voted no ) don't really want to pay a tax on something which is unsubstantiated & at best anecdotal evidence as to the major cause of global warming, the psyche of the cult followers is truly amazing, they cannot except anything but the narrow minded focus, whereas the non believers go "not enough facts, too much hype & BS, we'll wait for some real proof to appear, then carry on life as normal" The cultists have always carried on in the most bizarre methods to convince their own believers & the amused onlookers of their cause, like throwing themselves to the lions, crawling on their hands & knees a few hundred kilometres, going to cult boot camps & knowingly drinking dodgy refreshments, etc, etc, etc, but the possibility of there being another idea outside the realm of their cult, no way!! The're in too deep to back out & save face!

  
Wow! 180 words without punctuation. 180 words without reference to facts! And CO2 was not even mentioned in the cited article!

----------


## intertd6

> Scientists analysing more than three decades of weather data for the northern Alaska outpost of Barrow have linked an astonishing 7°C temperature rise to the decline in Arctic sea ice.  Ice loss sends Alaskan temperatures soaring | Climate News Network

  Thank goodness they have given up on the polar bear on a bergy bit to get the kiddies in! No mention of the main factor in ice degradation which is the daily blanketing of industrial carbon soot, this reduces the albedo warming the rock & landscape with the suns energy that normally would be reflected back into space, oh dear I have pointed out one factor out of many that causes global warming that isn't CO2! I wonder how many trillion tons of the earth is heated every day in the northern hemisphere that wouldn't have been when it was covered by snow or ice? At a guess it would by far outweigh a trace element in the atmosphere.
inter

----------


## John2b

> Thank goodness they have given up on the polar bear on a bergy bit to get the kiddies in! No mention of the main factor in ice degradation which is the daily blanketing of industrial carbon soot, this reduces the albedo warming the rock & landscape with the suns energy that normally would be reflected back into space, oh dear I have pointed out one factor out of many that causes global warming that isn't CO2! I wonder how many trillion tons of the earth is heated every day in the northern hemisphere that wouldn't have been when it was covered by snow or ice? At a guess it would by far outweigh a trace element in the atmosphere.
> inter

  You are obviously oblivious to the significance of what you just posted. 
I think I could be forgiven for thinking you are as simple minded as you keep claiming to be.  :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

> Wow! 180 words without punctuation. 180 words without reference to facts! And CO2 was not even mentioned in the cited article!

  oh how we haven't missed the obligatory English lesson! Yet an empty head can't remember a few facts that haven't changed over the debate of 12,000 posts! Brilliant! Keep that cult alive!
inter

----------


## John2b

> oh how we haven't missed the obligatory English lesson! Yet an empty head can't remember a few facts that haven't changed over the debate of 12,000 posts! Brilliant! Keep that cult alive!

  Is your post meant to convey any meaning?

----------


## John2b

THE Australian newspaper has run a free advertisement today for the coal industry in the form of an op-ed column by a leading industry figure that says that coal is one of the best things ever.  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&  dest=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/coal-critics-wasting-energy/story-e6frg6zo-1227093043561&memtype=anonymous

----------


## intertd6

> You are obviously oblivious to the significance of what you just posted.  Not as oblivious as you it appears! 
> I think I could be forgiven for thinking you are as simple minded as you keep claiming to be.  If that was truly the case I would be parroting garbage like you do! You appear to have not mastered that infinite space between your ears yet to think on your own!

  inter

----------


## intertd6

> Is your post meant to convey any meaning?

  dont worry the feeling is mutual!
inter

----------


## John2b

> over the debate of 12,000 posts

  Over the debate of 12,000 posts, the global surface temperature has risen by 0.1 degrees C, according to the AGW sceptics data.

----------


## John2b

> _You appear to have not mastered that infinite space between your ears yet to think on your own!_

  Thank-you yet again, Inter, for an invaluable assessment of my personal (in)competence. It's a wonder I can tie my shoe laces, isn't it? But I can. And I can tie cause and effect as well.

----------


## woodbe

> THE Australian newspaper has run a free advertisement today for the coal industry in the form of an op-ed column by a leading industry figure that says that coal is one of the best things ever.  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&  dest=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/coal-critics-wasting-energy/story-e6frg6zo-1227093043561&memtype=anonymous

  Not only that, read the editorial where they tell their readers where the 'Truth' can be found. On a skeptic blog. lol.

----------


## John2b

> Is your post meant to convey any meaning?

   

> dont worry the feeling is mutual!

  Apparently not.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Who indeed? Reponse to the same post...    #12530 
> It is hard to conclude that Inter is not calling you (amongst others) "idiotic".

  Are you trying for a cheap shot at inter here?  Where has he said that there is NO greenhouse effect. 
You guys argue like school kids.

----------


## John2b

> where the 'Truth' can be found. On a skeptic blog. lol.

  Hey Woodbe - don't knock the pillars of belief. Some people here think internet blogs hold the secrets of life. The secret is - they don't, hahahahaha.

----------


## intertd6

> Over the debate of 12,000 posts, the global surface temperature has risen by 0.1 degrees C, according to the AGW sceptics data.

  actually you presented data that showed 0.01 warming since 1998 from one of your sites, must be too much data for you to comprehend, which would completely explain your lack of understanding on a lot of matters!
inter

----------


## John2b

> Are you trying for a cheap shot at inter here?.

  Let's just leave that for others to decide. I don't think it will be too hard.  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> THE Australian newspaper has run a free advertisement today for the coal industry in the form of an op-ed column by a leading industry figure that says that coal is one of the best things ever.  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&  dest=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/coal-critics-wasting-energy/story-e6frg6zo-1227093043561&memtype=anonymous

  It is isn't it?  Just ask India they certainly see it as a way to get electricity to their impoverished population.  Who are we to deny them access to cheap energy?

----------


## John2b

> actually you presented data that showed 0.01 warming since 1998 from one of your sites, must be too much data for you to comprehend, which would completely explain your lack of understanding on a lot of matters!

  Oh, thanks for pointing that out. Show everyone where so we can sort it out.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Over the debate of 12,000 posts, the global surface temperature has risen by 0.1 degrees C, according to the AGW sceptics data.

  Wow we are all gonna die!! 0.1 deg c MY GOD

----------


## intertd6

> Are you trying for a cheap shot at inter here?  Where has he said that there is NO greenhouse effect. 
> You guys argue like school kids.

  school kids are by far way above the level of these fellows!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> Just ask India they certainly see it as a way to get electricity to their impoverished population.

  India is about to turn Chinese (as in India is starting to become conscious of what coal consumption means). Just watch this space. 
Oh, BTW, how f'ing disingenuous to use the poverty card. Someone called ME a sick puppy!

----------


## John2b

> Wow we are all gonna die!! 0.1 deg c MY GOD

  0.1 degree per 4 years. No we are not all gonna die. MY GOD you just don't get it, do you!

----------


## John2b

> Where has he said that there is NO greenhouse effect. 
> You guys argue like school kids.

   

> school kids are by far way above the level of these fellows!

  Gotta love honour amongst thieves!

----------


## intertd6

> Oh, thanks for pointing that out. Show everyone where so we can sort it out.

   It's contained in the last few pages or so, but unlike you they would have a distinct memory of it & don't have to see it again to know your just throwing in another typical red herring as usual!
inter

----------


## John2b

> It's contained in the last few pages or so

  Stop teasing, Inter, be specific (sorry, I know that is not something that comes naturally to you).

----------


## intertd6

I never tease people less fortunate than myself, is not good manners.
inter

----------


## John2b

> I never tease people less fortunate than myself, is not good manners.

  So you are going to post a link? After all, it is your claim and trivial to substantiate.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> India is about to turn Chinese (as in India is starting to become conscious of what coal consumption means). Just watch this space. 
> Oh, BTW, how f'ing disingenuous to use the poverty card. Someone called ME a sick puppy!

  What is the problem pointing out that India has an impoverished population and that their government sees coal fired power as a means to lift people out of poverty? 
This is true.  It is alright for us to sit back here with all the mod cons and preach to the rest of the world about reducing a harmless gas.   This just keeps the lid on poverty in 3rd world countries.    
What right have we got to stop these people from developing their countries to our living standards?   
We all know that for these counties to develop they will need to increase consumption, with that comes massive increase in C02 emissions,  wonderful prospect eh. 
We should be grateful, they will assist in greening the world.  The greenies should love this.

----------


## woodbe

Rod, you argue like a schoolboy. 
Harmless gas? Have you decided not to accept the science of CO2 now? 
Greening the world? That works in the lab when the temperature and moisture content remain normal. Increase CO2, warm the world and dry it out and you might not find greening is the result.

----------


## intertd6

> Rod, you argue like a schoolboy. 
> Harmless gas? Have you decided not to accept the science of CO2 now?  what a silly question! 
> Greening the world? That works in the lab when the temperature and moisture content remain normal. Increase CO2, warm the world and dry it out and you might not find greening is the result. If you understood the globes climate history you would know that a warmer climate means more humidity which equates to wider tropical & subtropical zones. Warm is good for life, Cold means more energy to feed, clothe & keep warm.

  inter

----------


## intertd6

> So you are going to post a link? After all, it is your claim and trivial to substantiate.

  You won't catch me chasing a galahs red herring too often for their benefit.
inter

----------


## John2b

> What is the problem pointing out that India has an impoverished population and that their government sees coal fired power as a means to lift people out of poverty?

  The problem is that it is disingenuous to suggest that it is necessary or helpful to exacerbate global warming, so that people can be lifted out of poverty. But don't take my word for it: 
http://bit.ly/1tCXn8U

----------


## John2b

> You won't catch me chasing a galahs red herring too often for their benefit.

  Priceless!  http://bit.ly/1y6t3lj

----------


## Marc

> What is the problem pointing out that India has an impoverished population and that their government sees coal fired power as a means to lift people out of poverty? 
> This is true.  It is alright for us to sit back here with all the mod cons and preach to the rest of the world about reducing a harmless gas.   This just keeps the lid on poverty in 3rd world countries.    
> What right have we got to stop these people from developing their countries to our living standards?   
> We all know that for these counties to develop they will need to increase consumption, with that comes massive increase in C02 emissions,  wonderful prospect eh. 
> We should be grateful, they will assist in greening the world.  The greenies should love this.

  The enemy is not CO2 the enemy is capitalism. The AGW mob are watermelons, green from the outside, red from the inside. They are however a bit out of touch, since even russia and china are capitalist. So what it means is that for the watermelons pretend altruism, the only "example" left is North Korea and perhaps Cuba. 
Que nos gusta la pachanga? Siii Fidel !

----------


## John2b

> Global warming alarmists panicked gullible Labor governments into building desalination plants with scares like Tim Flannery’s: _So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush…_
> I think there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis…
> Perth is facing the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the city’s water supply…

  So what has happened to Perth's water supply? Coming out off the traditional wet season, Perth's storage capacity is at only ⅓  :Shock:   Water Storage - Bureau of Meteorology water storage levels for Australia 
The "alarmist" predictions have already come true, and it is only because the Perth Water Corporation acted on "alarmist" advice that Perth averted a serious calamity. And even then, Perth is in serious difficulty with water supply. 
Solutions to Perth's water supplyWith our fresh water thinking, we are diversifying our sources to secure our water supply for generations to come. _We no longer rely on the rain to fulfil WA’s water needs. Instead, we have turned to climate independent sources such desalination, groundwater replenishment and other water recycling. _ https://www.watercorporation.com.au/...s-water-supply

----------


## Marc

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...77648437,d.dGY  I find capitalism repugnant. It is  filthy, it is gross, it is alienating... because it causes war, hypocrisy and  competition. Fidel  Castro 
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...ZU6XKSjtrjY.99

----------


## johnc

> http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...77648437,d.dGY  I find capitalism repugnant. It is  filthy, it is gross, it is alienating... because it causes war, hypocrisy and  competition. Fidel  Castro 
> Read more at Fidel Castro Quotes - BrainyQuote

  Oddly enough he may even be right but there are plenty of other systems that are even worse. Politics is a bit like diet, 100% of one thing will be harmful.  Economies need a balance of free market and social planning, anything that ignores that will fail. Even communist systems like China and Vietnam  only survived because they allowed capitalist style micro businesses to exist from the beginning. Failure of any system occurs when to much power is ultimately abused by the group yielding it to crush the opinions and financial enterprise of others.

----------


## Marc

> Failure of any system occurs when to much power is ultimately abused by the group yielding it to crush the opinions and financial enterprise of others.

     Yes, done many time in history and precisely what the enviromafia is trying to achieve.

----------


## johnc

> Yes, done many time in history and precisely what the enviromafia is trying to achieve.

  
I think it is more likely to be those that use descriptors such as "eviromafia" that are the cause simply because it replaces rational discussion with emotive nonsense designed to alienate differing parties rather than unite them to a common purpose or cause. It replaces what is often a complex matter and reduces it to a single issue obscuring what may have been of advantage to all.

----------


## intertd6

> Priceless!  Let me google that for you

  its amazing how stupid it is to winge about something, play dumb (or for real) then instead of using a partial part of their recent memory bank or taking time to look they would rather do something which does nothing and prove how subversive their tactics are!
inter

----------


## Marc

> I think it is more likely to be those that use descriptors such as "eviromafia" that are the cause simply because it replaces rational discussion with emotive nonsense designed to alienate differing parties rather than unite them to a common purpose or cause. It replaces what is often a complex matter and reduces it to a single issue obscuring what may have been of advantage to all.

  Semantics. If a group behaves like mafia it deserves the tag. Emotional calls for victimhood status does not change that.  
If you think that the AGW creation and it's enforcement at a (today) tune of one billion a day is for "the greater good" you must be very optimistic but far removed from reality. 
Nothing that is political has not even remote relation to common good. It has to do with harvesting votes, negotiate support, assure resources, shift allegiances. Not even religion has anything to do with common good, it has to do with exactly the same I listed above. Only some low level preacher, a little cog in the mechanism thinks he is doing things for the greater good.  
Pretend altruistic political movements are just a substitute religion and are just another product that targets a particular population in different ways. Their objectives are the same. 
Those who invented AGW have done so to shift power and resources their way. Those who oppose the AGW fallacy do so not because they are particularly interested in set the record straight with the long string of bulldust pedalled by the AGW side but because they do not want power or resources to go the way of a lunatic fringe of aspiring totalitarian mob.  
So as I said many times, there is no much point to quote the biased and paid for opinions of those who have once graduated from courses who gave them license to have an opinion. It is not about someone's opinion, it is about providing excuses to direct others to do, stop doing and paying tribute to a new pretend common good for the purpose of power shift. 
The only environment we have to worry about today is the intellectual environment and a real pollutant rather than CO2 is the lies dressed as fact

----------


## John2b

> Semantics. If a group behaves like mafia it deserves the tag. Emotional calls for victimhood status does not change that.

  Mafia is a type of organized crime syndicate that primarily practices *protection racketeering*  the use of *violent intimidation* to manipulate local economic activity, especially illicit trade; secondary activities may be practiced such as *drug-trafficking, loan sharking and fraud*.  Mafia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Not how I would describe the IPCC, MET, BOM, NASA or for that matter, ANY environmental organisation I have any knowledge of. 
Could not be bothered reading any further after such a ridiculous statement.

----------


## Marc

The difference between you and me among a multiplicity of other things is that you need to look up the term mafia in Wikipedia to make a credible description.

----------


## woodbe

> The difference between you and me among a multiplicity of other things is that you need to look up the term mafia in Wikipedia to make a credible description.

  The actions of the Mafia are well known and documented. If you already  knew what the Mafia is about you wouldn't equate them with the people  and organisations you clearly did in your post. 
I refer you to your beloved, Aldus Huxley: 
  Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know.  Aldous Huxley

----------


## John2b

> The difference between you and me among a multiplicity of other things is that you need to look up the term mafia in Wikipedia to make a credible description.

  One difference I will acknowledge is that I check what I am posting and I am happy to provide a reference so that people can see I am not just making stuff up or selectively quoting, using statements out of context, presenting logical fallacies, and so on. 
Surely my post was your opportunity to give examples of the IPCC using violent intimidation, or NASA's involvement in drug trafficking, or the MET office's loan shark activities. Or just acknowledge it was a foolish statement.

----------


## intertd6

> One difference I will acknowledge is that I check what I am posting and I am happy to provide a reference so that people can see I am not just making stuff up or selectively quoting, using statements out of context, presenting logical fallacies, and so on. 
> .

  "2       n-count   You can use mafia to refer to an organized group of people who you disapprove of because they use unfair or illegal means in order to get what they want.  
usu with supp     (disapproval)    They are well-connected with the south-based education-reform mafia. " 
It it a pity you don't practice what you preach! But we all know that anyhow, but this last post of yours reinforces it yet again for us!
inter

----------


## John2b

> "2       n-count   You can use mafia to refer to an organized group of people who you disapprove of because they use unfair or illegal means in order to get what they want.  
> usu with supp     (disapproval)    They are well-connected with the south-based education-reform mafia. "

  Goody. Now is your opportunity to provide examples of the climate research institutions systemically using unfair or illegal means in order to get what they want. Or are you just making stuff up too?

----------


## johnc

> The difference between you and me among a multiplicity of other things is that you need to look up the term mafia in Wikipedia to make a credible description.

  It is nothing like the Mafia, the Mafia operates in secret, kills at will to protect it's franchise and does not care who it destroys as long as it can fill it's pockets, it only looks after its own the community is irrelevant. It is not a parallel, it is as usual just a weak attempt at denigration in an attempt to divert attention away from the weakness of the argument and lack of credible factual support. You have no respect for opinions different than your own which makes your comments look extremely hollow and obviously based on emotion and not substance.

----------


## johnc

> "2       n-count   You can use mafia to refer to an organized group of people who you disapprove of because they use unfair or illegal means in order to get what they want.  
> usu with supp     (disapproval)    They are well-connected with the south-based education-reform mafia. " 
> It it a pity you don't practice what you preach! But we all know that anyhow, but this last post of yours reinforces it yet again for us!
> inter

  This makes no sense, it also fails any basic test of logical connection to the point of reference. For goodness sake behave with some level of basic civility, these petty insults are just adolescent boreishness repeated post after mind numbing post on your part.

----------


## intertd6

> Goody. Now is your opportunity to provide examples of the climate research institutions systemically using unfair or illegal means in order to get what they want. Or are you just making stuff up too?

  What do you think were all seat polishers like you & have nothing better to do all day! I'm going to finish my morning tea & go out & do something more constructive!
just because your sucked in by the ecomafia propaganda don't assume the rest of us are!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> This makes no sense, it also fails any basic test of logical connection to the point of reference. For goodness sake behave with some level of basic civility, these petty insults are just adolescent boreishness repeated post after mind numbing post on your part.

   It's a quote from the English dictionary for learners! Right up your alley!
inter

----------


## johnc

> What do you think were all seat polishers like you & have nothing better to do all day! I'm going to finish my morning tea & go out & do something more constructive!
> just because your sucked in by the ecomafia propaganda don't assume the rest of us are!
> inter

  
Some people can't sort fact from fiction, the thicker the dolt the more rigid they are to change.

----------


## johnc

> It's a quote from the English dictionary for learners! Right up your alley!
> inter

  Pettiness is all you have, pleased to keep serving you up the opportunity to deliver it in spades.

----------


## John2b

NASA data shows that September was the hottest since temperature records began, in 1880, besting the previous record in 2005. September was 1.4 degrees warmer than the average for 1951-1980, putting 2014 on pace to be the hottest on record. If this is all sounding like a broken record, it may be because the new data marks September as the 355th month in a row that was hotter than the 20th-century average.  Earth Just Had Its Hottest September On Record | ThinkProgress

----------


## John2b

> Blah blah blah

  
You could have just posted the link: The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About--Because They Helped Cause Them: Iain Murray: 9781596980549: Amazon.com: Books 
All of this nonsense has been fully discredited many times over. You are entitled to your own opinions (not you own facts), but please spare everyone the fruit of Murray's delusional disorders.

----------


## John2b

> Fraud…The Green Mafia

  What is the point of your post Marc? Are you contending that the IPCC is implicated in legal action in Ecuador that is an argument over whether pollution causing land degradation was caused by Texaco or Petroecuador? 
And what is the relevance to this thread?

----------


## John2b

> Italian Mafia Goes Green blah blah blah...

  What are you trying to prove? Wouldn't it be more extraordinary if a crime syndicate showed no interest in exploiting a particular area of the economy? 
And what is the relevance to the current thread?

----------


## Marc

Found this interesting article on VM. a really good read.       http://www.parncutt.org/victim.html

----------


## John2b

September as the 355th month in a row that was hotter than the 20th-century average.  http://article.wn.com/view/2014/10/20/This_Past_September_Ranks_As_Hottest_On_Record_NOA  A_Says/

----------


## John2b

> Found this interesting article on VM. a really good read.

  What's your take on this bit?:  "Many rightwing voters and politicians believe in the myth of the "self-made man". According to this myth, people (normally understood to be men, strangely enough) can "make it to the top" by their own efforts and without any support from the government. And of course this really does happen, or seem to happen, quite often. It follows from this somewhat myopic logic that people receiving social security benefits or free health insurance are too lazy to fend for themselves, and if they claim to be victims of an unfair system, they must have VM. 
"The big picture looks rather different. Most "self-made men" got all kinds of help from other people on the way, most of which they do not acknowledge - or perhaps did not even notice. They could never have "made it" without the everyday infrastructures that only government can provide and only taxation can make possible."

----------


## John2b

"It was an unusual experiment, Gore Vidal once said (of the Whitlam Government), for Australia to choose as its Prime Minister its most intelligent man. It will not, I fear, be repeated."

----------


## John2b

As the western U.S. faces its third year of severe drought, firefighters are still battling two large fires in California. The state, which is experiencing its worst drought since record keeping began in 1895, has already exhausted the year's $209 million budget for fighting wildfires and its fall fire season has just begun. 
With 1,200 more wildfires than average, state officials have called this wildfire season "unprecedented." In Oregon and Washington, more acres burned this year than in any other region of the country. So far in 2014, 3,070,737 acres across the U.S. have been ravaged by firesthat's an area almost the size of Connecticut.   What do wildfires have to do with climate change?

----------


## John2b

*Record October temperatures to be given a nudge as mercury rises and fire danger escalates*   Total fire bans have been declared across South Australia, and parts of the state remain on track to hit 40C amid damaging winds and thunderstorms. Just after midday, Adelaide had already hit 35C - on track to reach its 37C forecast maximum. Youre right to think its unseasonally hot in the city - 10C above average for this time of year. Never before has the city recorded four consecutive days of 32C or more in October.  No Cookies | The Advertiser

----------


## John2b

*Republicans flail about looking for alternative to climate denialism*   The conservative base is convinced that climate change is a U.N. plot for world government. Meanwhile, mainstream elites in the U.S. and virtually every other country in the world, along with every major scientific institution on the planet, say climate change is a real problem. This puts some Republicans in a bit of a pickle.  As you can see, the minute the GOPs position(s) on climate change are put under the slightest pressure, babbling incoherence follows. They jump from no climate change to climate change but its not caused by humans to caused by humans but too expensive to solve to quit talking about science I want to talk about job-killing regulations LA LA LA! And so on, back and forth among them, with no thought of how they contradict one another. Its an intellectual train wreck.  The more the media and the public start caring about this, the more they push, the more trouble the GOP will face. Once you leave behind truculent denialism and acknowledge that climate change is a real problem, you are on a slippery slope. Oddly, the best summary of this dynamic comes from, of all places, a Republican consultant and energy lobbyist, Mike McKenna: 
If you really believe the apocalyptic rhetoric coming out of the White House, then youve got to do something, he said, echoing a point often made by climate advocates. Youre morally required to do something. It is untenable, politically, philosophically, ideologically and from a common-sense basis to say, We agree that everything is going to hell, but we dont think anything should be done about it. Or we want to sit around and wait for another six months to figure out what to do.' http://grist.org/politics/republicans-flail-about-looking-for-alternative-to-climate-denialism/

----------


## intertd6

> *Record October temperatures to be given a nudge as mercury rises and fire danger escalates*   Total fire bans have been declared across South Australia, and parts of the state remain on track to hit 40C amid damaging winds and thunderstorms. Just after midday, Adelaide had already hit 35C - on track to reach its 37C forecast maximum. You’re right to think it’s unseasonally hot in the city - 10C above average for this time of year. Never before has the city recorded four consecutive days of 32C or more in October.  No Cookies | The Advertiser

  we all know that's propaganda, got any scientific facts about CO2 being able to cause catastrophic irreversible warming?
inter

----------


## intertd6

> *Republicans flail about looking for alternative to climate denialism*   The conservative base is convinced that climate change is a U.N. plot for world government. Meanwhile, mainstream elites in the U.S. and virtually every other country in the world, along with every major scientific institution on the planet, say climate change is a real problem. This puts some Republicans in a bit of a pickle.  As you can see, the minute the GOP’s position(s) on climate change are put under the slightest pressure, babbling incoherence follows. They jump from “no climate change” to “climate change but it’s not caused by humans” to “caused by humans but too expensive to solve” to “quit talking about science I want to talk about job-killing regulations LA LA LA!” And so on, back and forth among them, with no thought of how they contradict one another. It’s an intellectual train wreck.  The more the media and the public start caring about this, the more they push, the more trouble the GOP will face. Once you leave behind truculent denialism and acknowledge that climate change is a real problem, you are on a slippery slope. Oddly, the best summary of this dynamic comes from, of all places, a Republican consultant and energy lobbyist, Mike McKenna: 
> “If you really believe the apocalyptic rhetoric coming out of the White House, then you’ve got to do something,” he said, echoing a point often made by climate advocates. “You’re morally required to do something. It is untenable, politically, philosophically, ideologically and from a common-sense basis to say, ‘We agree that everything is going to hell, but we don’t think anything should be done about it. Or we want to sit around and wait for another six months to figure out what to do.'” http://grist.org/politics/republicans-flail-about-looking-for-alternative-to-climate-denialism/

  more of the same! 
 we all know that's propaganda, got any scientific facts about CO2 being able to cause catastrophic irreversible warming?
inter

----------


## John2b

> we all know that's propaganda

   Which bit of *Record October temperatures to be given a nudge as mercury rises and fire danger escalates* is propaganda and not fact?

----------


## John2b

> got any scientific facts about CO2 being able to cause catastrophic irreversible warming?

  Refute this, point by point:                   Full  WGI AR5 Report                                                                        PDF - 1535 Pages - 375 MB

----------


## intertd6

> Which bit of *Record October temperatures to be given a nudge as mercury rises and fire danger escalates* is propaganda and not fact?

  It was also 48'C somewhere in Australia last summer, which also could be used as useless propaganda to further your cause! We want some irrefutable repeatable scientific proof rather than endless anecdotal dribble about everything but what really counts!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> We want some irrefutable repeatable scientific proof

  Someone has accidentally revealed that they have absolutely no idea about science.  
It has been said many times in this thread that there is a remote chance you are correct. That would not be possible if there was "irrefutable repeatable scientific proof". 
Best you get off to work before you put your foot in your mouth again.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## intertd6

> Refute this, point by point:                   Full  WGI AR5 Report                                                                        PDF - 1535 Pages - 375 MB

  There must be some really mind numbing stuff in that report! Not much in the way of any ground breaking science or anything even remotely relevant, otherwise every AGW nitwit would have been spruiking it from every soapbox medium they could!
There is little chance of you succeeding in your quest to waste my valuable time polishing a seat, about as much chance as CO2 proving to be able to cause irreversible dangerous global warming.
inter

----------


## johnc

> There must be some really mind numbing stuff in that report! Not much in the way of any ground breaking science or anything even remotely relevant, otherwise every AGW nitwit would have been spruiking it from every soapbox medium they could!
> There is little chance of you succeeding in your quest to waste my valuable time polishing a seat, about as much chance as CO2 proving to be able to cause irreversible dangerous global warming.
> inter

  An interesting comment given that the report is over 1500 pages long, and you only had the time from when you got up this morning to 8.59 when you posted a reply. Obviously you don't taint your world view with any information contrary to your existing opinion, heaven forbid you may discover your opinion may be based on hot air, what a suprise.

----------


## intertd6

> An interesting comment given that the report is over 1500 pages long, and you only had the time from when you got up this morning to 8.59 when you posted a reply. Obviously you don't taint your world view with any information contrary to your existing opinion, heaven forbid you may discover your opinion may be based on hot air, what a suprise.

   And there I was, thinking, hoping, almost praying that you might have some facts that would at least convince us that paying a carbon tax or similar is going to somehow save the world from a fiery or boiled end some billions of years before it should!
If you were awake at all you would have worked out from my response I haven't, or ever will read the report in its entirety, unlike you I'm not pretending to understand anything more than what is presented across the whole debate & leave that to the unbiased to dissect a report with dubious inputs.
inter

----------


## John2b

> We want some irrefutable repeatable scientific proof rather than endless anecdotal dribble about everything but what really counts!

  You say this, yet all you have done for the past few 100s posts or so is mind numbingly dribble on about an anecdotal historical association that has been refuted 100s times over!

----------


## John2b

> Best you get off to work before you put your foot in your mouth again.

  He has dedicated his working life to it LOL.

----------


## John2b

> Not much in the way of any ground breaking science or anything even remotely relevant

  Inter, can you point to an instance where you have shown any interest in any scientific relevance of anything in this thread? Just one instance will do!

----------


## Rod Dyson

John it would help heaps if you could just provide the scientific proof inter is asking for. I would even change my position if you do.  Thanks. Waiting patiently.

----------


## John2b

> John it would help heaps if you could just provide the scientific proof inter is asking for. I would even change my position if you do.  Thanks. Waiting patiently.

  That is very disingenuous Rod. Scientific proof of enough rigour has been provided to satisfy 100,000s of learned people who study the field (Full  WGI AR5 Report                                                                        PDF - 1535 Pages - 375 MB), and only a relatively few "scientists" in the lunatic fringe of pseudoscience dispute it. 
Inter has even said he refuses to read the scientific proof #12614, so i don't know why he (and/or you) are asking for it, or why you are waiting to change your position.

----------


## John2b

*Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and inaccurate*  Its hard to find a reputable scientist who denies that human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the planet and that there will be consequences for human society and the biological health of the planet. There are a few holdouts who, for various reasons, either think humans are not causing warming or that the warming will not have much consequence.  Some members of this vocal minority spend a lot of time trying to convince the public that they are right. They write letters to newspapers, appear in slick movies, give press conferences, promote their views to Congress, and so on. Their high profile gives the public a false sense that there are two relatively equal-sized bodies of experts that cannot agree on climate change; this is not true.   An even smaller subset also tries to publish their views in the scientific literature  the dueling ground for experts. Sometimes these contributions have been useful, adding some nuance to the discussion, but all too often they have proven to be of very poor quality when other scientists have had a chance to dissect them. 
A few months ago, I co-authored an article which charted the different quality in scientific output from the Dwindling Few contrarians compared to the majority of experts. My colleague, Dana Nuccitelli, summarized the article here. What we show is that the Dwindling Few have had a very poor track record  having papers rebutted time after time after time because of errors they have made. The low quality of their research has caused journal editors resign, and they have wasted the time of their colleagues who have had to publish the rebuttals to their work.   Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and inaccurate | John Abraham | Environment | theguardian.com

----------


## woodbe

> John it would help heaps if you could just provide the scientific proof inter is asking for. I would even change my position if you do.  Thanks. Waiting patiently.

  You have already accepted the science in this very thread, Rod.  
No proof of the kind inter is asking for is required for you. Just as well, as it simply cannot exist within the framework of science.

----------


## intertd6

> That is very disingenuous Rod. Scientific proof of enough rigour has been provided to satisfy 100,000s of learned people who study the field (Full  WGI AR5 Report                                                                        PDF - 1535 Pages - 375 MB), and only a relatively few "scientists" in the lunatic fringe of pseudoscience dispute it. 
> Inter has even said he refuses to read the scientific proof #12614, so i don't know why he (and/or you) are asking for it, or why you are waiting to change your position.

  No wonder you have trouble seen through the fog of your cult when you can't understand even a simple sentence! I said "If you were awake at all you would have worked out from my response I haven't, or ever will read the report in its *entirety*" can't you understand English or something? Or more likely it's charlatan tactics again as a low response for your inability to provide the requested facts.
inter

----------


## woodbe

> No wonder you have trouble seen through the fog of your cult when you can't understand even a simple sentence! I said "If you were awake at all you would have worked out from my response I haven't, or ever will read the report in its *entirety*" can't you understand English or something? Or more likely it's charlatan tactics again as a low response for your inability to provide the requested facts.
> inter

  If the requested facts are in the report, you want john to read the report for you and copy them here? 
Lazy. Get back to work!

----------


## intertd6

> If the requested facts are in the report, you want john to read the report for you and copy them here? 
> Lazy. Get back to work!

  if the requested facts were indeed contained in the report they would be front page news across the globe, with every AGWist spruiking that they have proved CO2 is the major contributor to global warming! And if the were in the report you & your clones would have parroted it here before the major media outlets would have time to turn on the lights in their offices! But alas the report is just 1500 pages of collective observations & highly questionable assumtions!
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> No wonder you have trouble seen through the fog of your cult when you can't understand even a simple sentence! I said "If you were awake at all you would have worked out from my response I haven't, or ever will read the report in its *entirety*" can't you understand English or something? Or more likely it's charlatan tactics again as a low response for your inability to provide the requested facts.
> inter

  
Even if a proof was presented to you...you probably wouldn't read it...so then, in your opinion, it wouldn't be a proof.  That's a fantastic mindset from which to operate.  
Given that we have actually presented a number of links over the years to various works that offer insights into the proof that you seek...and you clearly haven't be bothered to consider them...why should we continue to respond to your infantile pursuit of personal ignorance (except of course to annoy you and entertain ourselves  :Biggrin: )?.

----------


## woodbe

> But alas the report is just 1500 pages of collective observations & highly questionable assumtions!
> inter

  But you haven't read it!  
You're just making stuff up. Haven't you got work to do? Go dig yourself another hole.

----------


## intertd6

> Even if a proof was presented to you...you probably wouldn't read it...so then, in your opinion, it wouldn't be a proof.  That's a fantastic mindset from which to operate.  
> Given that we have actually presented a number of links over the years to various works that offer insights into the proof that you seek...and you clearly haven't be bothered to consider them...why should we continue to respond to your infantile pursuit of personal ignorance (except of course to annoy you and entertain ourselves )?.

  Your dreaming as usual!
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Your dreaming as usual!
> inter

  Sadly...no. My dreams are madder by more than one order of magnitude than anything I've posted here. And they are even madder than your posts...no mean feat I can tell you. Even my official observer is nodding agreement. 
Besides the wilful ignorance on display thanks to you and others like you keeps me well grounded. After all, we have to account for you and yours in our future planning...

----------


## intertd6

> But you haven't read it!  
> You're just making stuff up. Haven't you got work to do? Go dig yourself another hole.

  You're really switched on today aren't you, for the third time "If you were awake at all you would have worked out from my response I haven't, or ever will read the report in its *entirety*" Now i mustn't be the only one here who has read parts of this report posted, leaked or linked on this very debate by you, one of your clones or even somebody else with out a vested interest in the ridiculous, really some only open their mouths to change feet! Quite often too!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Sadly...no. My dreams are madder by more than one order of magnitude than anything I've posted here. And they are even madder than your posts...no mean feat I can tell you. Even my official observer is nodding agreement.  dont worry, it's just an illusion caused by the lack of mind altering substances 
> Besides the wilful ignorance on display thanks to you and others like you keeps me well grounded. After all, we have to account for you and yours in our future planning...  Yes comrade, thank goodness it will have to be paid for by donations by you & your clones for quite few years yet, unless they aren't donating & being hypocrites which wouldn't surprise anybody! After all they have some low expectations set by their political leaders as an example!

  Inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Inter

  Are you suggesting that my nearest and dearest is a drug addled illusion? You poor sad little smear on the world.

----------


## woodbe

> You're really switched on today aren't you, for the third time "If you were awake at all you would have worked out from my response I haven't, or ever will read the report in its *entirety*" Now i mustn't be the only one here who has read parts of this report posted, leaked or linked on this very debate by you, one of your clones or even somebody else with out a vested interest in the ridiculous, really some only open their mouths to change feet! Quite often too!
> inter

  It's pretty obvious how much of the report you've read. Keep digging.

----------


## intertd6

> It's pretty obvious how much of the report you've read. Keep digging.

   
 Originally Posted by intertd6 
You're really switched on today aren't you, for the third time "If you were awake at all you would have worked out from my response I haven't, or ever will read the report in its entirety" Now i mustn't be the only one here who has read parts of this report posted, leaked or linked on this very debate by you, one of your clones or even somebody else with out a vested interest in the ridiculous, really some only open their mouths to change feet! Quite often too!
inter
It's pretty obvious how much of the report you've read. Keep digging. 
"if the requested facts were indeed contained in the report they would be front page news across the globe, with every AGWist spruiking that they have proved CO2 is the major contributor to global warming! And if the were in the report you & your clones would have parroted it here before the major media outlets would have time to turn on the lights in their offices! But alas the report is just 1500 pages of collective observations & highly questionable assumptions!"  
Who needs to dig, when we have your lot digging enough to make your whole weak!
There is also the highly remote possibility that you or one of your clones is actually sitting on the requested evidence hatching a cunning plan to spring it on us when we least expect it in many years from now!
inter

----------


## johnc

> Originally Posted by intertd6 
> You're really switched on today aren't you, for the third time "If you were awake at all you would have worked out from my response I haven't, or ever will read the report in its entirety" Now i mustn't be the only one here who has read parts of this report posted, leaked or linked on this very debate by you, one of your clones or even somebody else with out a vested interest in the ridiculous, really some only open their mouths to change feet! Quite often too!
> inter
> It's pretty obvious how much of the report you've read. Keep digging. 
> "if the requested facts were indeed contained in the report they would be front page news across the globe, with every AGWist spruiking that they have proved CO2 is the major contributor to global warming! And if the were in the report you & your clones would have parroted it here before the major media outlets would have time to turn on the lights in their offices! But alas the report is just 1500 pages of collective observations & highly questionable assumptions!"  
> Who needs to dig, when we have your lot digging enough to make your whole weak!
> There is also the highly remote possibility that you or one of your clones is actually sitting on the requested evidence hatching a cunning plan to spring it on us when we least expect it in many years from now!
> inter

  You obviously don't realise how ludicrous and petty these have become, although you can make a whole week,  or a hole weak but a whole weak is an impossibility not that reality seems to exit anywhere else in that post I guess.

----------


## woodbe

> "if the requested facts were indeed contained in the report they would be front page news across the globe

  There's the proof you haven't read it. 
There are facts in the report, and plenty have been repeated in newspapers, but none of them meet your requirement for    

> *some irrefutable repeatable scientific proof*

  You can't get that sort of 'proof' from science or any valid report based on science. 
Even if you did read the report, you wouldn't find what you want from it. That's why we enjoy watching you spend your life digging holes.

----------


## intertd6

> Are you suggesting that my nearest and dearest is a drug addled illusion? You poor sad little smear on the world.

  Not necessarily, but then again I'm not privy to your personal perception of reality!
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Not necessarily, but then again I'm not privy to your personal perception of reality!
> inter

  So why are we blessed with yours?

----------


## intertd6

> There's the proof you haven't read it. 
> There are facts in the report, and plenty have been repeated in newspapers, but none of them meet your requirement for    
> You can't get that sort of 'proof' from science or any valid report based on science. 
> Even if you did read the report, you wouldn't find what you want from it. That's why we enjoy watching you spend your life digging holes.

  thats funny the rest of us like our science like science is suppose to be  
"When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, *especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.* 
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. *In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured*, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, *but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change." * 
 Inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> thats funny the rest of us like our science like science is suppose to be  
> "When used in non-scientific context, the word theory implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, *especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.* 
> Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. *In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured*, and theories, which are scientists explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, *but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change." * 
>  Inter

  "...and that is why you fail".

----------


## intertd6

> So why are we blessed with yours?

  it seems that you have been blessed with some people that don't nod or hang on to your every word! Welcome to the real world!
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> it seems that you have been blessed with some people that don't nod or hang on to your every word! Welcome to the real world!
> inter

  No...just you. But that's OK you aren't significant. 
By the way, are you aware that recent scientific research has suggested that an individual perception of the real world is just that...a perception.

----------


## woodbe

Yep inter, you're digging yourself another hole. Now you who clearly do not respect science, are lecturing people who respect science about how science works? LOL. 
Facts are not proof. Tick. You spend a lot of time here claiming facts are wrong to support your opinion but you never prove your facts are correct. That is something you could do, but you don't, we can only suppose you don't have that proof. pfft. 
You ask for Irrefutable repeatable scientific proof. Not possible. Anyone who respects science or even vaguely understands how it works and what the results are wouldn't ask for that. 
Read what you wrote big boy, and look in the mirror before you go and start digging yet another hole:   

> if the *requested facts* were indeed contained in the report they would be  front page news across the globe, with every AGWist spruiking that they  have proved CO2 is the major contributor to global warming!

  We're dealing with science here, not your opinion. There is scientific proof regarding the effects of CO2, based on known and measured facts, repeated and linked in this thread plenty of times but you just don't like it and probably won't ever read it.

----------


## intertd6

> No...just you. But that's OK you aren't significant. 
> By the way, are you aware that recent scientific research has suggested that an individual perception of the real world is just that...a perception.

  still no no facts I take then?
inter

----------


## woodbe

> still no no facts I take then?
> inter

  no no facts? You playing double negative games now or are you going to blame your ipad again? 
You giving up on irrefutable repeatable scientific proof now?  :Tongue:

----------


## woodbe

Issues Related to the Use of One-dimensional Ocean-diffusion Models for Determining Climate Sensitivity. (PDF)  
John P Abraham, Sameer Kumar, Barry R Bickmore and John T Fasullo    

> Taken together, this study shows that errors in one-dimensional 
> numerical models have a significant impact on their ability to both 
> match ocean measurements and serve as a check on more complex 
> global models. Consequently, the conclusions based on these flawed 
> models must be viewed with extreme skepticism and cannot be used 
> as a surrogate for more complex and physically realistic models. While 
> one-dimensional diffusion models have some use in climate studies, 
> they must first be thoroughly evaluated and be grounded on a physically 
> sound methodology. The analysis of SB14 is based on a model that fails 
> these basic tests.

  You "skeptics" must love this paper. Fancy a climate science paper criticising use of a model! LOL.

----------


## intertd6

> Yep inter, you're digging yourself another hole. Now you who clearly do not respect science, are lecturing people who respect science about how science works? LOL. 
> Facts are not proof. Tick. You spend a lot of time here claiming facts are wrong to support your opinion but you never prove your facts are correct. That is something you could do, but you don't, we can only suppose you don't have that proof. pfft. 
> You ask for Irrefutable repeatable scientific proof. Not possible. Anyone who respects science or even vaguely understands how it works and what the results are wouldn't ask for that. 
> Read what you wrote big boy, and look in the mirror before you go and start digging yet another hole:   
> We're dealing with science here, not your opinion. There is scientific proof regarding the effects of CO2, based on known and measured facts, repeated and linked in this thread plenty of times but you just don't like it and probably won't ever read it.

  it seems the voting public don't have your evangelical beliefs & don't particularly want to waste more of the budget or economy on your belief until some more substantial science appears, welcome to the real world! your out voted & at the end of the day if the public think it's more economical to shift up the beach in a hundred years if it ever happens at all then that's democracy comrade
inter

----------


## woodbe

> it seems the voting public don't have your evangelical beliefs & don't particularly want to waste more of the budget or economy on your belief until some more substantial science appears, welcome to the real world! your out voted & at the end of the day if the public think it's more economical to shift up the beach in a hundred years if it ever happens at all then that's democracy comrade
> inter

  Seems you've got nothing again. Except a hole you refuse to fill in. 
The voting public, even though the majority accept the results of science that is not the only thing that pulls their votes. It doesn't help that both major parties claim they are acting on climate change even though one of them has their fingers crossed behind their back.

----------


## John2b

Those who don't move from the coast will have trouble getting insurance. It's already happening. Why? Because the impact of climate change on communities through coastal flooding is not something in the future.
Today, from Florida to Delaware, property insurance near the water is becoming harder and harder to find.
“I’m worried because insurers only stay in markets until they deem them not profitable,”   http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/bu...ters.html?_r=0

----------


## John2b

Our analysis shows that many East Coast communities now see dozens of tidal ﬂoods each year. Some of these communities have seen a *fourfold increase in the annual number of days with tidal ﬂooding since 1970*. When tidal ﬂoods occur, water can cover coastal roads for hours, making passage risky or impossible. With water on the street, some residents can be eﬀectively trapped in their homes, and homes can be damaged. Entire neighborhoods can be affected, even isolated. In many communities, retail stores, restaurants, other businesses, and public infrastructure are clustered in low-lying waterfront areas, in easy reach of tidal flooding.  https://www.scribd.com/doc/242262170...ding-Report-v9

----------


## intertd6

> Our analysis shows that many East Coast communities now see dozens of tidal ﬂoods each year. Some of these communities have seen a *fourfold increase in the annual number of days with tidal ﬂooding since 1970*. When tidal ﬂoods occur, water can cover coastal roads for hours, making passage risky or impossible. With water on the street, some residents can be eﬀectively trapped in their homes, and homes can be damaged. Entire neighborhoods can be affected, even isolated. In many communities, retail stores, restaurants, other businesses, and public infrastructure are clustered in low-lying waterfront areas, in easy reach of tidal flooding.  https://www.scribd.com/doc/242262170...ding-Report-v9

  More propaganda!     
This photograph shows that the ground level in California’s San Joaquin Valley has been lowered about 30 feet in 50 years by groundwater depletion. This aquifer has lost about 20 cubic miles of water in the last seven years.  
As the level of the groundwater is lowered by pumping, the earth above an aquifer may lose support. Over time, soil particles will consolidate, which will result in settling, also called subsidence. In some places where pumping has gone on for many years, subsidence is extreme.
Subsidence can damage structures.  
This map shows areas of the U.S. experiencing subsidence (which is the basically the whole east coast of the US) http://actionplushi.wordpress.com/ca...rticle/page/8/ 
inter

----------


## John2b

> More propaganda!

  You own source does not support your claim that areas of the U.S. experiencing subsidence "is the basically the whole east coast of the US." Nor does your source challenge anything to do with the additional risks of sea level rise and storm surges as a result of global warming. Of course coastal land subsidence will exacerbate coastal inundation from shifting ocean currents and sea level rise - so what?  http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/fs00165/   Tidally adjusted estimates of topographic vulnerability to sea level rise and flooding for the contiguous United States - IOPscience

----------


## woodbe

> This map shows areas of the U.S. experiencing subsidence (which is the basically the whole east coast of the US) Tulsa, OK Home Inspection Article | actionplushi | Page 8 
> inter

  More Propaganda! 
Subsidence is taken into account when investigating tide gauges. Of course it is. If there is local subsidence it is in addition to sea level rise, and sure, if that is the local issue it will just make the issue more urgent.

----------


## intertd6

> You own source does not support your claim that areas of the U.S. experiencing subsidence "is the basically the whole east coast of the US." Nor does your source challenge anything to do with the additional risks of sea level rise and storm surges as a result of global warming. Of course coastal land subsidence will exacerbate coastal inundation from shifting ocean currents and sea level rise - so what?  http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/fs00165/   Tidally adjusted estimates of topographic vulnerability to sea level rise and flooding for the contiguous United States - IOPscience

  yes I should not have made such a broad statement to a nitpicker, but basically it covers the areas your concerned about sea level rise, what a coincidence!!!! Nice map you have posted which has nothing to do with subsidence or sea level rise that has happened! more propaganda!
inter

----------


## John2b

> yes I should not have made such a broad statement

  Your attempts to misrepresent the information available to all are pitiful. Why don't you just give up while you are behind? You already have an enormous handicap.

----------


## woodbe

> Your attempts to misrepresent the information available to all are pitiful. Why don't you just give up while you are behind? You already have an enormous handicap.

  Don't encourage him john, he's supposed to be out working! 
I'm sure he has real holes to dig instead of the virtual holes he leaves all over this thread. Hopefully he fills in the real holes when he's finished, no chance of that here. There are so many holes he's left lying about in this thread that he keeps falling back into them!  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> More propaganda!

  Not exactly. Both John's and your links are actually true and of equal value.  They are both happening.  And one is exacerbating the other.  It is also happening in the Bay of Bengal... 
The San Joaquin Valley photo is made all the more interesting by the fact that the levee's that are now required to protect these agricultural areas from the Sacramento River estuary are under threat not only from rising sea levels and falling ground levels but also insufficient ongoing maintenance and...above all...earthquakes (virtually all the levee's construction post date major earthquakes in this area).  Some have already failed...often spectacularly.  The entire valley area is on borrowed time...with or without climate change.

----------


## woodbe

Anyone care to comment regarding the focus of Climate Change 'skeptics' on 17 year 'pauses'?    When was the last 17 year long hiatus (pause) in global warming?  Greg Laden's Blog   

> I keep hearing about this 17 year long pause in global warming.  So I  went and looked.  I did a regression analysis of the last 17 full years  of surface temperatures from the GISS database.  There is an upward  trend in warming during this period and it is statistically significant.    
>  Then I calculated a running slope over 17 year long periods from  the beginning of the record (plus 8 years) to the end of the record  (minus 8 years).  For each slope I tested to see if the slope was less  than +0.1 (the average slope across the record is 0.75).  If a year  centered on any 17 year period had a low or negative slope as defined, I  counted it as a year in a Hiatus.  I then made a chart showing when  these hiatuses happened.  They used to be more common, but it has been  quite a while since the last one: 
> Since 2014 is not over yet, I did not include it. But, the last year  (12 month interval) was the warmest 12 month interval for the entire  record.  2014 is likely to be in the top two or three warmest years  globally on record, quite possibly the warmest.  That is not going to  help the now discredited hiatus theory very much.

  If you're a skeptic, just let this sink in, then see if you can respond sensibly.

----------


## johnc

> Anyone care to comment regarding the focus of Climate Change 'skeptics' on 17 year 'pauses'?    When was the last 17 year long hiatus (pause) in global warming? – Greg Laden's Blog   
> If you're a skeptic, just let this sink in, then see if you can respond sensibly.

  They can't, the lack of statistical nous that leads brainless nongs to believe there is a seventeen year hiatus means they are unlikely to have sufficient IQ to apply that graph in a logical manner. Light never shines through a closed fire door.

----------


## intertd6

> They can't, the lack of statistical nous that leads brainless nongs to believe there is a seventeen year hiatus means they are unlikely to have sufficient IQ to apply that graph in a logical manner. Light never shines through a closed fire door.

  But we can read & compare the related data & see that what your harping on about is irrelevant as usual! The CO2 emissions at the time frames your waffling on about were less than 1/10th of today's emissions & barely rising! A hiatus across the board! http://www.skepticalscience.com/imag..._Emissions.gif
what a lame limp argument! But more than likely the best you can do!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Don't encourage him john, he's supposed to be out working! 
> I'm sure he has real holes to dig instead of the virtual holes he leaves all over this thread. Hopefully he fills in the real holes when he's finished, no chance of that here. There are so many holes he's left lying about in this thread that he keeps falling back into them!

  With that many holes it's no wonder you've made your sides hole weak!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Originally Posted by intertd6 
> yes I should not have made such a broad statement 
> Your attempts to misrepresent the information available to all are pitiful. Why don't you just give up while you are behind? You already have an enormous handicap.

  Its good to see your reinforcing you true skill that was left off the quote! Bravo!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> But we can read & compare the related data & see that what your harping on about is irrelevant as usual! The CO2 emissions at the time frames your waffling on about were less than 1/10th of today's emissions & barely rising! A hiatus across the board! http://www.skepticalscience.com/imag..._Emissions.gif
> what a lame limp argument! But more than likely the best you can do!
> inter

  Pity you didn't follow my suggestion:   

> If you're a skeptic, just let this sink in, then see if you can respond sensibly.

----------


## intertd6

> Pity you didn't follow my suggestion:

  pity you can't read & understand the relevant data! Your 17 year hiatus happened at the same time where there was no significant increases in CO2 emissions, nothing resembling the present period where CO2 emissions are exponentially rising yet there is no similar response to global temperature increases in any significant way since 1998
inter 1/0

----------


## woodbe

> pity you can't read & understand the relevant data! Your 17 year hiatus happened at the same time where there was no significant increases in CO2 emissions, nothing resembling the present period where CO2 emissions are exponentially rising yet there is no similar response to global temperature increases in any significant way since 1998
> inter 1/0

  Nope, you haven't noticed it yet. Try using more neurones. 
Shouldn't you be working rather than playing on the internet?

----------


## intertd6

> Nope, you haven't noticed it yet. Try using more neurones. 
> Shouldn't you be working rather than playing on the internet?

  yes I should be working while I have my lunch! But really who would in their right mind would leave the lunatics in charge of the asylum  for too long?
inter

----------


## johnc

> yes I should be working while I have my lunch! But really who would in their right mind would leave the lunatics in charge of the asylum  for too long?
> inter

  Trying to get pettiness to new lows are we? really denial and tripe are all you have.

----------


## John2b

> Trying to get pettiness to new lows are we? really denial and tripe are all you have.

  Sometimes for lunch I have tripe with capers and lettuce - haven't tried it with denial and pettiness.  :Biggrin:

----------


## intertd6

> Sometimes for lunch I have tripe with capers and lettuce - haven't tried it with denial and pettiness.

   I've heard it's quite a hit with the girly man types!
inter

----------


## John2b

> (Personal abuse deleted) 17 year hiatus happened at the same time where there was no significant increases in CO2 emissions, nothing resembling the present period where CO2 emissions are exponentially rising yet there is no similar response to global temperature increases in any significant way since 1998

  _"While the rate of increase in surface air temperatures slowed in the last 10 to 15 years, the heat stored by the planet, which is heavily dominated by the oceans, has steadily increased as greenhouse gases have continued to rise." _ Experts 'stunned' at how fast oceans are warming - The Ecologist

----------


## John2b

This is hardly "new" information, but "old" information doesn't make the news:  In their study, the researchers say the major cooling of Earth and continental ice build-up in the Northern Hemisphere 2.7 million years ago coincided with a shift in the circulation of the ocean – which pulls in heat and carbon dioxide in the Atlantic and moves them through the deep ocean from north to south until it’s released in the Pacific. The ocean conveyor system, Rutgers scientists believe, changed at the same time as a major expansion in the volume of the glaciers in the northern hemisphere as well as a substantial fall in sea levels. It was the Antarctic ice, they argue, that cut off heat exchange at the surface and forced it into deep water. They believe this caused global climate change at that time, not carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.   http://news.rutgers.edu/news/past-climate-change-was-caused-ocean-not-just-atmosphere-new-rutgers-study-finds/20141023#.VEnGT76QgeU

----------


## John2b

*European Union reaches landmark climate deal, agrees to cut emissions by 40 per cent by 2030*   European Union leaders agreed Friday, October 24, what they hailed as the world's most ambitious climate change targets for 2030, paving the way for a new UN-backed global treaty next year. The 28 leaders overcame deep divisions at a summit in Brussels to reach a deal including a commitment to *cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least* *40% compared to 1990 levels*. They also agreed on *27% targets for renewable energy* supply and efficiency gains, in spite of reservations from some member states about the cost of the measures.  EU agrees on landmark climate change deal  The European Union is catching up with China!  The Chinese government has pledged a 40 percent to 45 percent reduction of carbon dioxide intensity by 2020 from the levels in 2005 and is committed to making every effort to achieve the target.  *China sees big drop in carbon emissions: Premier* http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/regional/2014-09/10/content_18576988.htm

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> But we can read & compare the related data & see that what your harping on about is irrelevant as usual! The CO2 emissions at the time frames your waffling on about were less than 1/10th of today's emissions & barely rising! A hiatus across the board! http://www.skepticalscience.com/imag..._Emissions.gif
> what a lame limp argument! But more than likely the best you can do!
> inter

  For the Love of Moses...which bit of 'coming off a low base' did you not comprehend? 
This is a rhetorical question.

----------


## intertd6

> *European Union reaches landmark climate deal, agrees to cut emissions by 40 per cent by 2030*   European Union leaders agreed Friday, October 24, what they hailed as the world's most ambitious climate change targets for 2030, paving the way for a new UN-backed global treaty next year. The 28 leaders overcame deep divisions at a summit in Brussels to reach a deal including a commitment to *cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least* *40% compared to 1990 levels*. They also agreed on *27% targets for renewable energy* supply and efficiency gains, in spite of reservations from some member states about the cost of the measures.  EU agrees on landmark climate change deal  The European Union is catching up with China!  The Chinese government has pledged a 40 percent to 45 percent reduction of carbon dioxide intensity by 2020 from the levels in 2005 and is committed to making every effort to achieve the target.  *China sees big drop in carbon emissions: Premier*   http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/regional/2014-09/10/content_18576988.htm

  so basically those nations are essentially going to offload their manufacturing to countries that won't have such commitments, just like what we successfully did without really lowering emissions! You'd think they would have picked up what a disaster that was!
inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *European Union reaches landmark climate deal, agrees to cut emissions by 40 per cent by 2030*   European Union leaders agreed Friday, October 24, what they hailed as the world's most ambitious climate change targets for 2030, paving the way for a new UN-backed global treaty next year. The 28 leaders overcame deep divisions at a summit in Brussels to reach a deal including a commitment to *cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least* *40% compared to 1990 levels*. They also agreed on *27% targets for renewable energy* supply and efficiency gains, in spite of reservations from some member states about the cost of the measures.  EU agrees on landmark climate change deal  The European Union is catching up with China!  The Chinese government has pledged a 40 percent to 45 percent reduction of carbon dioxide intensity by 2020 from the levels in 2005 and is committed to making every effort to achieve the target.  *China sees big drop in carbon emissions: Premier* http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/regional/2014-09/10/content_18576988.htm

  crazy stuff cant understand why they want to commit economic suicide?  Will cause a lot of angst in the coming years.

----------


## intertd6

> This is hardly "new" information, but "old" information doesn't make the news: In their study, the researchers say the major cooling of Earth and continental ice build-up in the Northern Hemisphere 2.7 million years ago coincided with a shift in the circulation of the ocean – which pulls in heat and carbon dioxide in the Atlantic and moves them through the deep ocean from north to south until it’s released in the Pacific. The ocean conveyor system, Rutgers scientists believe, changed at the same time as a major expansion in the volume of the glaciers in the northern hemisphere as well as a substantial fall in sea levels. It was the Antarctic ice, they argue, that cut off heat exchange at the surface and forced it into deep water. They believe this caused global climate change at that time, not carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.   http://news.rutgers.edu/news/past-climate-change-was-caused-ocean-not-just-atmosphere-new-rutgers-study-finds/20141023#.VEnGT76QgeU

  Are you certain there couldn't be other influencing factors omitted like the magnetic pole reversal that also has been responsible for ocean current changes?
inter

----------


## John2b

> crazy stuff cant understand why they want to commit economic suicide?  Will cause a lot of angst in the coming years.

  On the contrary, and forgetting for a moment that Europe may have a certain aversion to climate suicide, one could be cynical and say that Europe has decided to transition to a renewable energy economy to reap the economic benefit, rather than for environmental reasons! 
The following are typical of dozens of studies.  Catching two European birds with one renewable stone: Mitigating climate change and Eurozone crisis by an energy transition     The threat of climate change and other risks for ecosystems and human health require a transition of theenergy system from fossil fuels towards renewable energies and higher efficiency. The Europeangeographical periphery, and specifically Southern Europe, has considerable potential for renewableenergies. At the same time it is also stricken by high levels of public debt and unemployment, andstruggles with austerity policies as consequences of the Eurozone crisis. Modeling studies find a broadoptimum when searching for a cost-optimal deployment of renewable energy installations. This allowsfor the consideration of additional policy objectives. Simultaneously, economists argue for an increase inpublic expenditure to compensate for the slump in private investments and to provide economicstimulus. This paper combines these two perspectives. We assess the potential for renewable energies inthe European periphery, and highlight relevant costs and barriers for a large-scale transition to arenewable energy system. *We* *find that a European energy transition with a high-level of renewableenergy installations in the periphery could act as an economic stimulus, decrease trade deficits, and possibly have positive employment effects.*  https://www.mcc-berlin.net/uploads/m...s_Creutzig.pdf
Climate Policy and Economic Bust: The European Challenges to Create GreenStimulus    _This paper addresses these dimensions by, first, pointing out the short and the long-term cost effects of climate policy measures, second, by discussing the potential for a business-cycle stimulus from climate-friendly investment. In particular, the focus is on the EU situation where recovery plans meet with climate policy measures already in place. Finally, the EU policy approach on green investment, carbon pricing and international climate leadership is analysed with a view to the international climate negotiations, which suffer from the economic constraints, especially when it comes to developing countries and emerging economies._   
http://www.lexxion.de/pdf/cclr/cclr_209_reading-sample.pdf  *Crisis and unemployment? Eco-innovation is a green solution for jobs*  *A recent report by MEP Karin Kadenbach (Austrian, S&D) calls on Member States and the European Commission to boost eco-innovation in order to spur growth and create new green jobs throughout Europe. * Crisis and unemployment? Eco-innovation is a green solution for jobs - Eco-innovation Action Plan

----------


## John2b

> Are you certain there couldn't be other influencing factors omitted like the magnetic pole reversal that also has been responsible for ocean current changes?

  I am not certain about anything except this: I am utterly certain that I am not perfectly certain about climate change like you appear to be.

----------


## intertd6

> I am not certain about anything except this: I am utterly certain that I am not perfectly certain about climate change like you appear to be.

  Your certainly making stuff up again!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> On the contrary, and forgetting for a moment that Europe may have a certain aversion to climate suicide, one could be cynical and say that Europe has decided to transition to a renewable energy economy to reap the economic benefit, rather than for environmental reasons! 
> The following are typical of dozens of studies.  Catching two European birds with one renewable stone: Mitigating climate change and Eurozone crisis by an energy transition     The threat of climate change and other risks for ecosystems and human health require a transition of theenergy system from fossil fuels towards renewable energies and higher efficiency. The Europeangeographical periphery, and specifically Southern Europe, has considerable potential for renewableenergies. At the same time it is also stricken by high levels of public debt and unemployment, andstruggles with austerity policies as consequences of the Eurozone crisis. Modeling studies find a broadoptimum when searching for a cost-optimal deployment of renewable energy installations. This allowsfor the consideration of additional policy objectives. Simultaneously, economists argue for an increase inpublic expenditure to compensate for the slump in private investments and to provide economicstimulus. This paper combines these two perspectives. We assess the potential for renewable energies inthe European periphery, and highlight relevant costs and barriers for a large-scale transition to arenewable energy system. *We* *find that a European energy transition with a high-level of renewableenergy installations in the periphery could act as an economic stimulus, decrease trade deficits, and possibly have positive employment effects.*  https://www.mcc-berlin.net/uploads/m...s_Creutzig.pdf
> Climate Policy and Economic Bust: The European Challenges to Create GreenStimulus    _This paper addresses these dimensions by, first, pointing out the short and the long-term cost effects of climate policy measures, second, by discussing the potential for a business-cycle stimulus from climate-friendly investment. In particular, the focus is on the EU situation where recovery plans meet with climate policy measures already in place. Finally, the EU policy approach on green investment, carbon pricing and international climate leadership is analysed with a view to the international climate negotiations, which suffer from the economic constraints, especially when it comes to developing countries and emerging economies._   
> http://www.lexxion.de/pdf/cclr/cclr_209_reading-sample.pdf *Crisis and unemployment? Eco-innovation is a green solution for jobs*  *A recent report by MEP Karin Kadenbach (Austrian, S&D) calls on Member States and the European Commission to boost eco-innovation in order to spur growth and create new green jobs throughout Europe. * Crisis and unemployment? Eco-innovation is a green solution for jobs - Eco-innovation Action Plan

  What fool doesn't realise that the green socialist movements are eventually going to run out of somebody else's money!
inter

----------


## John2b

> What fool doesn't realise that the green socialist movements are eventually going to run out of somebody else's money!
> inter

  Probably the same fool who doesn't realise that the European renewable economy is construct of conservative mainstream economic think tanks.

----------


## PhilT2

> Are you certain there couldn't be other influencing factors omitted like the magnetic pole reversal that also has been responsible for ocean current changes?
> inter

  Haven't heard of that before; got a source?

----------


## John2b

*By the Numbers: How the U.S. Economy Can Benefit from Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions*Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the United States isn't hurting the economyin fact, it actually benefits the economy by saving businesses and consumers money and improving public health.  http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/10/numbers-how-us-economy-can-benefit-reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions

----------


## intertd6

> Haven't heard of that before; got a source?

  Transcript:
"The most widely disseminated possible consequence of  Global Warming is a shift in the course of the  Gulf Stream that triggers an Ice Age that sweeps suddenly across the Northern Hemisphere with catastrophic affects. Deep ocean currents of fresh water from glacial melt change the salinity and density of sea water in ways that effect the regional thermodynamic fluid flow. Thus, thermal transport currents like the Gulf Stream can change direction rapidly as the whole system moves from one equilibrium state to another.  If you have ever seen the smoke streaming up from a cigarette in an ashtray suddenly change direction in a room where the air is very still, you have witnessed this effect in action. The mechanical analog is a long slender object, like a book, standing momentarily on edge before a breeze tips it over. The equilibrium forces can be out of balance for an undetermined period of time before finally reaching the critical stage or “tipping point” were the object falls over. The concern of scientists about an “imbalance” comes from the fact that once the hammer falls, there is no way to stop it.  Unfortunately for us, there is a wild card in this mix of thermodynamic fluid forces that we may have no control over.  
The Earth's magnetic field has weakened and changed polarity many many times over the life span of our planet. It's called Geomagnetic Reversal. The shortest of these polarity flips is called an excursion  and takes at the least two hundred some odd years and will remain flipped for at least 400 years, so it's not a sudden change that can happen any second. No, it's a meandering process that involves a slow movement and weakening of the poles. In fact, the process can take as long as ten thousand years and the polarity will remain in that state for as long as a million years. The last time the poles flipped was about 41,000 years ago during the last ice age. Interestingly, the farthest extent of glaciation during that period was 22,000 years ago, or about 19,000 years after this last Geomagnetic polarity change.  
In spite of the fact that it is a polar solvent with a magnetic dipole, pure water is diamagnetic and a dielectric. Throw in a few ions like Na+ and Cl- and it acts like a pretty good conductor. When ever a conductor moves in a magnetic field, an electric field forms that produces a counter magnetic field. This is called the Lorentz Force.  This force can act like a brake, slowing the momentum or changing the direction of ocean currents.  This last statement may seem like a no-brain-er to some, but finding corroboration on the internet could be difficult. In any case, it is an established fact that the Earth's magnetic field is weakening and shifting. At the very least, this shift may affect thermal mixing of the oceans. At the most, entire currents like the Gulf Stream may change course in unexpected ways, with unexpected results." From the daily KOS
inter

----------


## John2b

> Haven't heard of that before; got a source?

   

> ...finding corroboration on the internet could be difficult...

  I think that is a "Nope!"

----------


## intertd6

> Probably the same fool who doesn't realise that the European renewable economy is construct of conservative mainstream economic think tanks.

  Which any dill knows is essentially to capture the green looney voter or votes whatever the cost!
inter

----------


## John2b

> Which any dill knows is essentially to capture the green looney voter or votes whatever the cost!

  
Ah - you mean looney green voters like Acciona, Coca-Cola Enterprises, DSM, Ferrovial, Philips, Skanska, Shell, and Unilever who were urging EU ministers to agree an ambitious package on climate change at last week’s European Council meeting, and thereby sustain European leadership internationally.
Philippe Joubert, Chair of The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group said: *“We have systematically called for an ambitious 2030 Climate & Energy package that takes energy security into consideration and delivers EU emission-reduction targets. This is in businesses’ interests, and in the interests of all European citizens.* Failure to agree a deal this week will delay much-needed low carbon investments in Europe and will impact innovation and low carbon competitiveness.”  _The group supports a target of at least a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and 50% if other countries take comparable action._ It also supports targets of at least _30% for renewables deployment_ and at least 30% for energy savings. This is the most progressive stance taken by a group representing such a wide variety of sectors - from retail to energy companies. 
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&u  act=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cisl.cam.  ac.uk%2F~%2Fmedia%2FFiles%2FResources%2FPress%2FPR  _2030_package_21_Oct_Final.pdf&ei=TFRLVPKAKsGMmwXH  n4HoAw&usg=AFQjCNEW1dXjsYsWd0U5Q74tE5vHWZTanA

----------


## intertd6

> I think that is a "Nope!"

  another "the science is proven!" line.
inter

----------


## John2b

> another "the science is proven!" line.

  Get a grip, Inter - it was _your_ reference!

----------


## intertd6

> Ah - you mean looney green voters like Acciona, Coca-Cola Enterprises, DSM, Ferrovial, Philips, Skanska, Shell, and Unilever who were urging EU ministers to agree an ambitious package on climate change at last week’s European Council meeting, and thereby sustain European leadership internationally.
> Philippe Joubert, Chair of The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group said: *“We have systematically called for an ambitious 2030 Climate & Energy package that takes energy security into consideration and delivers EU emission-reduction targets. This is in businesses’ interests, and in the interests of all European citizens.* Failure to agree a deal this week will delay much-needed low carbon investments in Europe and will impact innovation and low carbon competitiveness.”  _The group supports a target of at least a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, and 50% if other countries take comparable action._ It also supports targets of at least _30% for renewables deployment_ and at least 30% for energy savings. This is the most progressive stance taken by a group representing such a wide variety of sectors - from retail to energy companies. 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&u  act=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cisl.cam.  ac.uk%2F~%2Fmedia%2FFiles%2FResources%2FPress%2FPR  _2030_package_21_Oct_Final.pdf&ei=TFRLVPKAKsGMmwXH  n4HoAw&usg=AFQjCNEW1dXjsYsWd0U5Q74tE5vHWZTanA

   Do those companies get more than one vote do they? No! Can they influence & lobby govts for their perceived benefits ? Yes!
inter

----------


## John2b

> Do those companies get more than one vote do they?

  Do you have any understanding of anything? No need to answer, it's a rhetorical question. 
You appear to have suggested these companies are promoting their position for unfair benefits. What unfair benefits? 
If that isn't what you meant, can you explain lucidly what you did mean?

----------


## intertd6

> Get a grip, Inter - it was _your_ reference!

   But I'm not the galah with one eye!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Do you have any understanding of anything? No need to answer, it's a rhetorical question. 
> You appear to have suggested these companies are promoting their position for unfair benefits. What unfair benefits? 
> If that isn't what you meant, can you explain lucidly what you did mean?

   "Can they influence & lobby govts for their perceived benefits ? Yes!" They do it every day of the week!
nothing like an idle nitpicker to run rampant with their imagination!
inter

----------


## John2b

> But I'm not the galah with one eye!

  That's right, Inter. Everyone here is familiar with your uncanny willingness to be open to discussion, to consider the possibility that things are not one dimensional. Your ability to understand issues has made an impression on everyone.

----------


## John2b

> "Can they influence & lobby govts for their perceived benefits ? Yes!" They do it every day of the week!

  So Shell Petroleum thinks they should influence the EU to legislate for 50% reductions in CO2 emissions. What do you think the perceived benefit for Shell is?

----------


## intertd6

> That's right, Inter. Everyone here is familiar with your uncanny willingness to be open to discussion, to consider the possibility that things are not one dimensional. Your ability to understand issues has made an impression on everyone.

   A bit like me mentioning the possibility of the magnetic pole shifts having an influence on the ocean currents & you poo pooing such a possibility, yes we clearly get it now!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> So Shell Petroleum thinks they should influence the EU to legislate for 50% reductions in CO2 emissions. What do you think the perceived benefit for Shell is?

   Not to lose money! And make more money! you must be new to this business thing!
inter

----------


## John2b

> Not to lose money! And make more money! you must be new to this business thing!

  So acting to reduce CO2 emissions makes money for fossil fuel companies whilst simultaneously preventing global warming. Cool. Glad you are on to it, inter!

----------


## intertd6

> So acting to reduce CO2 emissions makes money for fossil fuel companies whilst simultaneously preventing global warming. Cool. Glad you are on to it, inter!

  all they need is some genius like you to to tell them how to go about it!
inter

----------


## PhilT2

> A bit like me mentioning the possibility of the magnetic pole shifts having an influence on the ocean currents & you poo pooing such a possibility, yes we clearly get it now!
> inter

  Just want to see some evidence before we believe it. Call us skeptical.

----------


## intertd6

> Just want to see some evidence before we believe it. Call us skeptical.

  Yes that's the thing with possibilities, the more astute are waiting for more evidence that CO2 has the possibility to cause irreversible or dangerous global warming! Call us skeptical also!
inter

----------


## PhilT2

> Yes that's the thing with possibilities, the more astute are waiting for more evidence that CO2 has the possibility to cause irreversible or dangerous global warming! Call us skeptical also!
> inter

  All I want is one decent research article published by someone with qualifications that supports your magnetic field/ ocean currents idea. For evidence of CO2 and global warming see any physics textbook in any major university anywhere in the world.

----------


## John2b

> Yes that's the thing with possibilities, the more astute are waiting for more evidence that CO2 has the possibility to cause irreversible or dangerous global warming! Call us skeptical also!

  Waiting for what? The European Space Agencys Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Chartography and clear sky infrared brightness temperatures from successive Meteosat satellites measure the effect of increasing CO2 absorption on outbound radiation directly.  https://earth.esa.int/web/guest/eart...tor=true&cur=1

----------


## intertd6

> Waiting for what? The European Space Agencys Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Chartography and clear sky infrared brightness temperatures from successive Meteosat satellites measure the effect of increasing CO2 absorption on outbound radiation directly.  https://earth.esa.int/web/guest/eart...tor=true&cur=1

  Thats a nice link to nothing!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> All I want is one decent research article published by someone with qualifications that supports your magnetic field/ ocean currents idea. For evidence of CO2 and global warming see any physics textbook in any major university anywhere in the world.

  Me too, but as funds are being directed in the direction of the fruitless CO2 theory it maybe some time before the needed research can claw some money from the other camp
For CO2 that would mean "the science is proven" when in reality there is only a consensus among a select biased group that man is causing AGW through man made emissions!
inter

----------


## John2b

> For CO2 that would mean "the science is proven" when in reality there is only a consensus among a select biased group that man is causing AGW through man made emissions!

  The existence of anthropogenic climate change is not a matter of debate, it's a matter of evidence, which you and your cohorts haven't shown to be false in thousands of posts. 
To suggest that there is a body of science that disagrees with the interpretation of the evidence is to mislead, misrepresent, and misinform.

----------


## intertd6

> The existence of anthropogenic climate change is not a matter of debate, it's a matter of evidence, which you and your cohorts haven't shown to be false in thousands of posts. that is just absolute rubbish as usual
> To suggest that there is a body of science that disagrees with the interpretation of the evidence is to mislead, misrepresent, and misinform Your dreaming again! The descriptions you use in response to the post are absolute garbage & all your own!
> .

  inter

----------


## John2b

Come off it, Inter, who are you trying to kid? There'a hardly a point that any two of your apostles of the lunatic pseudoscience fringe can agree on about what is or isn't climate change. You should all go away and fight amongst yourselves, before you try to take on the scientific community.

----------


## woodbe

> The descriptions you use in response to the post are absolute garbage & all your own!

  The words might be all john2b's own, but they are a fair representation of the state of the scientific community on this subject. 
For someone who is claiming a relationship between ocean currents and magnetic field reversal, this is a laughable proposition. There are too many scientific studies that show the effects of CO2 on the climate to count, but there is no clearly defined, replicated study showing any relationship between ocean currents and the magnetic field reversal. 
You've got nothing except another hole.

----------


## intertd6

> The words might be all john2b's own, but they are a fair representation of the state of the scientific community on this subject. 
> For someone who is claiming a relationship between ocean currents and magnetic field reversal, this is a laughable proposition. There are too many scientific studies that show the effects of CO2 on the climate to count, but there is no clearly defined, replicated study showing any relationship between ocean currents and the magnetic field reversal. 
> You've got nothing except another hole.

   It nice to see some galahs showing their charlatan tactics turning nothing more than a possibility into a claim! I suppose when they have nothing they have to invent a subterfuge to cover their shortcomings! Yes I have nothing other than some unproven possibilities & more than enough A's waffling on with nothing better to do than prove their association to ground cavities!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> Yes I have nothing other than some unproven possibilities & more than enough A's waffling on with nothing better to do than prove their association to ground cavities!
> inter

  Been there before, apparently you didn't read. You're the one that asked for:   

> We want some irrefutable repeatable scientific proof

  And it has been explained why you cannot have that in science. What we have is virtually unanimous results among publishing scientists in climate science. It has also been explained that the results can be thrown out but it needs a new theory that is a better fit to the facts. No sign of that, and the chances of it after well over a hundred years of study would barely even be rated as a remote chance.

----------


## intertd6

> Been there before, apparently you didn't read. You're the one that asked for:   
> And it has been explained why you cannot have that in science. What we have is virtually unanimous results among publishing scientists in climate science. It has also been explained that the results can be thrown out but it needs a new theory that is a better fit to the facts. No sign of that, and the chances of it after well over a hundred years of study would barely even be rated as a remote chance.

   Still no proof it appears!
inter

----------


## John2b

> *Personal denigration deleted* Yes I have nothing

  Well said, Inter. You are getting closer to the truth!

----------


## intertd6

> Well said, Inter. You are getting closer to the truth!

  not at all! You haven't produced or parroted anything of relevance yet! And doubt if you ever will!
inter

----------


## Neptune

> Originally Posted by *intertd6*   
>  *Personal denigration deleted* Yes I have nothing

   :Arrow Up:  *via John2b*    

> Well said, Inter. You are getting closer to the truth!

  Honestly John2b, you lose all credibility when you start tampering with quotes. 
It appears to me that when _you_ make multiple posts between the opposition responses you are not debating the topic, you are just using the forum to push your own agenda.

----------


## John2b

> *via John2b* 
> Honestly John2b, you lose all credibility when you start tampering with quotes.

  What tampering? Can't you read? I laughed so hard when I read your post that I fell off my chair and hurt my shoulder!

----------


## woodbe

> Still no proof it appears!
> inter

  To be correct, there is plenty of proof just none that you accept.  
That is not the same as no proof.

----------


## John2b

> To be correct, there is plenty of proof just none that you accept.  
> That is not the same as no proof.

  The pseudoscientific "experts" of the lunatic fringe will never accept the overwhelming evidence.  Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate. Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: How do we know?

----------


## John2b

> It appears to me that when _you_ make multiple posts between the opposition responses you are not debating the topic, you are just using the forum to push your own agenda.

  Why the emphasis on the word "_you_" which refers to _me_? Are _you_ implying there are different rules for _me_ than other participants in this discussion? A quick scan down this page and it is obvious that "opposition" (your word) participants have made just as many "multiple posts between responses"! Surely _they_ are not pushing _their_ own agenda! 
Get a grip. This is not a football match. It is a discussion about what is fact supported by evidence and what is fantasy. Those without evidence to back them up might be forced to resort to name calling and denigrating the people they don't agree with statements like:   

> I've heard it's quite a hit with the girly man types!

   

> What fool doesn't realise

   

> Which any dill knows

   

> I'm not the galah with one eye

   

> nothing like an idle nitpicker to run rampant with their imagination

   

> you must be new to this business thing

   

> all they need is some genius like you

   

> that is just absolute rubbish as usual...  absolute garbage & all your own

   

> It nice to see some galahs showing their charlatan tactics... enough A's waffling on with nothing better to do than prove their association to ground cavities

  Thanks for the tip on credibility, Neptune!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Why the emphasis on the word "_you_" which refers to _me_? Are _you_ implying there are different rules for _me_ than other participants in this discussion? A quick scan down this page and it is obvious that "opposition" (your word) participants have made just as many "multiple posts between responses"! Surely _they_ are not pushing _their_ own agenda! 
> Get a grip. This is not a football match. It is a discussion about what is fact supported by evidence and what is fantasy. Those without evidence to back them up might be forced to resort to name calling and denigrating the people they don't agree with statements like:

  John you have repeatedly been asked for hard evidence to back up the claim that CO2 is capable of creating dangerous accelerating warming that will as proposed by warmists.  This has not been forthcoming because it does not exist.  You claim that all the anecdotal "evidence" is enough for our governments to waste billions of dollars to prevent something that does not exist.  
Unfortunately our governments fall for the rhetoric and activist pressure.  None of this makes it so.  I truly believe it is you and your fellow warmist/activist that are living in a fantasy land. It is up to you to prove your case and for this, you and your fellow warmists have failed miserably. 
The warmist are the experts at name calling and shouting down opposition to their pet theory, denigrating anyone who speaks out.  Scientist are too afraid to speak out due to persecution, well done on that!  But the truth of all this will prevail in the long term. 
So get a grip!!

----------


## johnc

So the only reason this warming hasn't been blown wide open and shown as a sham is because scientists are to afraid to speak out, really, are you serious. Even in countries that are actively trying to avoid doing anything about this scientists are still far too afraid to speak out in support of their governments. You have got to be joking, just who should get a grip here? Besides who cares about a few drongo's living in cloud cuckoo land that can't face reality, it is there, it is happening, get over the refusenik mentality it is just so cold war "please don't bother me" nonsense.

----------


## John2b

> John you have repeatedly been asked for hard evidence to back up the claim that CO2 is capable of creating dangerous accelerating warming that will as proposed by warmists.

  I am not here to defend the "warmists" you talk about - I have no time for people who live in fantasy land regardless of what "side" they are on.   

> You claim that all the anecdotal "evidence" is enough for our governments to waste billions of dollars to prevent something that does not exist.

  Your position "nothing should be done" is based on a fantasy. The evidence is in such abundance that if it was all spread out covering the globe it would probably induce an ice age!   

> Unfortunately our governments fall for the rhetoric and activist pressure.

  They certainly do, otherwise they would have acted to prevent man made climate change decades ago and we wouldn't be having this conversation.   

> The warmist are the experts at name calling and shouting down opposition to their pet theory, denigrating anyone who speaks out. Scientist are too afraid to speak out due to persecution, well done on that! But the truth of all this will prevail in the long term.

  I would not know. I have never followed the "warmists" you speak of, only scientists grounded in reality. And they are speaking out in droves, but not what you want to hear!   

> But the truth of all this will prevail in the long term.

  Won't it just! And then what are you going to do?

----------


## intertd6

> Why the emphasis on the word "_you_" which refers to _me_? Are _you_ implying there are different rules for _me_ than other participants in this discussion? A quick scan down this page and it is obvious that "opposition" (your word) participants have made just as many "multiple posts between responses"! Surely _they_ are not pushing _their_ own agenda! 
> Get a grip. This is not a football match. It is a discussion about what is fact supported by evidence and what is fantasy. Those without evidence to back them up might be forced to resort to name calling and denigrating the people they don't agree with statements like:                   
> Thanks for the tip on credibility, Neptune!

  And still you can't parrot, link or quote anything relevant to CO2 having the capability to cause irreversible dangerous or catastrophic global warming, yet we can & have produced data that shows that CO2 isn't capable of such things.
inter 2/0

----------


## Neptune

> Are _you_ implying there are different rules for _me_ than other participants in this discussion?

  Absolutely, 100%, without a doubt.

----------


## intertd6

> Absolutely, 100%, without a doubt.

  i agree
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> And still you can't parrot, link or quote anything relevant to CO2 having the capability to cause irreversible dangerous or catastrophic global warming, yet we can & have produced data that shows that CO2 isn't capable of such things.
> inter 2/0

  No you haven't, being a legend in your own lunch time might make you feel good but delusion doesn't cut it in the real world.

----------


## johnc

> Absolutely, 100%, without a doubt.

  Inter and Rod would ask you to post proof of your supposition, but you haven't any, if all you can do is throw mud then perhaps you might be happier making mud pies with the kinder kiddies.

----------


## intertd6

> Inter and Rod would ask you to post proof of your supposition, but you haven't any, if all you can do is throw mud then perhaps you might be happier making mud pies with the kinder kiddies.

  no we wouldn't! Your just displaying an overactive imagination.......again!
inter

----------


## John2b

Meanwhile, back in reality, the Earth has just had its hottest September for 135 years, and the last time there was a September that was below the 20th century average was 1976, 38 years ago! The hottest ten years in 135 years of temperature records have all occurred since the year 2000.

----------


## intertd6

> No you haven't, being a legend in your own lunch time might make you feel good but delusion doesn't cut it in the real world.

  http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content...-over-time.jpg
for the umpteenth time here it is again.
inter 3/0

----------


## intertd6

> Meanwhile, back in reality, the Earth has just had its hottest September for 135 years, and the last time there was a September that was below the 20th century average was 1976, 38 years ago! The hottest ten years in 135 years of temperature records have all occurred since the year 2000.

  do you think it has changed the fact that there has been no significant warming since 1998? We all know that it hasn't so there have been corresponding low temperatures since 1998 to keep the average almost level!
inter

----------


## John2b

> do you think it has changed the fact that there has been no significant warming since 1998?

  Short term trends are not significant indicators of climate but rather show short term variability within the long term climate trend. Global warming is about climate change, and warming has _continued unabated_ since 1998.  Global Warming Stopped in 1998 â€” OSS Foundation 
Simply put, if you want to see if Earth is warming or not you need to look at the place where most of the heat energy is going: the oceans. The Earth climate system is steadily warming.    http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env...e-leading-edge 
It's easy to think that weather is climate, but it isn't.  NASA - What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate? | NASA 
The warming is attributable to CO2 and other greenhouse gases and proven by measurements of spectrum of outbound radiation, so there is no lack of scientifically proven evidence whatsoever.  https://earth.esa.int/workshops/envi...1/461182sc.pdf

----------


## intertd6

> Short term trends are not significant indicators of climate but rather show short term variability within the long term climate trend. Global warming is about climate change, and warming has _continued unabated_ since 1998.  Global Warming Stopped in 1998 â€” OSS Foundation 
> Simply put, if you want to see if Earth is warming or not you need to look at the place where most of the heat energy is going: the oceans. The Earth climate system is steadily warming.    2013 July - The Leading Edge â€” OSS Foundation 
> It's easy to think that weather is climate, but it isn't.  NASA - What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate? | NASA 
> The warming is attributable to CO2 and other greenhouse gases and proven by measurements of spectrum of outbound radiation, so there is no lack of scientifically proven evidence whatsoever.  https://earth.esa.int/workshops/envi...1/461182sc.pdf

  here we go! this worn out old chestnut! You Can't even put a temperature increase to the graph because it's that minuscule of an increase! Some how remarkably & unexplainable a switch has happened to drive the missing heat into the oceans then remarkably & unexplainable this switch will reverse in the near future & expel this so called missing heat & before you say it's the El Niño, that rubbish as it's only in one part of one ocean & is heat being shifted in a historically known manner!
inter 4/0

----------


## woodbe

> here we go! this worn out old chestnut! You Can't even put a temperature increase to the graph because it's that minuscule of an increase!

  Been there before inter, you talk of chestnuts but you keep trotting out your own. The only difference you have nothing to support them! 
You are aware that the oceans have way higher mass than the atmosphere, and that gives them the capacity to absorb a lot of heat without jumping up in temperature like the same heat would in the atmosphere? 
Dry air is is approximately 1.29 kg/m3 (dry air is denser than moist air at the same temp) 
Pure water is 1000 kg/m3   Sea water is approximately 1025 kg/m3  Basically, water is nearly 1000 times denser than air (edit: 775x to be more precise). Try this on your stove at lunchtime:  
1. Get a bowl and put 1ml of water in it, put it in the microwave on high and time how long it takes to boil. Write down the time it took. This represents the heat capacity of the air at ground level.
2. Get another similar bowl and put 775ml of water in it, put it in the microwave on high and time how long it takes to boil. Write down the time it took. This represents the heat capacity of the oceans at the surface. 
You can do this on the stove, but the pan will take longer to heat than the 1ml of water but you will still get your 'lightbulb' moment.  :Rolleyes:  
Come back to us with some numbers that show the oceans should be warming the same as the atmosphere, genius. 
References regarding total mass of each for our planet:  The Earth's Atmosphere  

> Our atmosphere is unique in the solar system.  At sea level it has a pressure    of about 1 x 105 pascals (Pa).  The total mass is *5.3 x 1018*    km which is about 1 millionth of the total mass of the planet (5.97 x 1024    kg).

  (1 millionth = *0.0001 percent*)  Ocean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  

> The total mass of the hydrosphere is about 1,400,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons (1.5×1018 short tons) or *1.4×1021 kg*, which is about *0.023 percent* of the Earth's total mass.

----------


## woodbe

Liberal Government replaces carbon tax with another carbon tax 
LOL. They can't help themselves, can they? 
Anyway, this is a good thing. Will probably spur people from buying gas guzzlers, improve the use of public transport, and keep more fuel in the ground. 
I support this Liberal Government action even though it is driven by political failure not policy.

----------


## John2b

> Some how remarkably & unexplainable a switch has happened to drive the missing heat into the oceans then remarkably & unexplainable this switch will reverse in the near future & expel this so called missing heat & before you say it's the El Niño, that rubbish as it's only in one part of one ocean & is heat being shifted in a historically known manner!

  There is nothing remarkable or inexplicable about the ocean's dominant influence over climate. 90% of the heat from the sun is absorbed by the oceans in the first instance. 2014 Jan - The Leading Edge â€” OSS Foundation 
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. _The current state of these ocean oscillations should mean that the current surface temperature should be in a cool phase, not a record maximum temperature phase seen over the last decade or so._         Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) â€” OSS Foundation  Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) â€” OSS Foundation  http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env...fixed.jpg/view

----------


## intertd6

> Been there before inter, you talk of chestnuts but you keep trotting out your own. The only difference you have nothing to support them! 
> You are aware that the oceans have way higher mass than the atmosphere, and that gives them the capacity to absorb a lot of heat without jumping up in temperature like the same heat would in the atmosphere? 
> Dry air is is approximately 1.29 kg/m3 (dry air is denser than moist air at the same temp) 
> Pure water is 1000 kg/m3   Sea water is approximately 1025 kg/m3  Basically, water is nearly 1000 times denser than air (edit: 775x to be more precise). Try this on your stove at lunchtime:  
> 1. Get a bowl and put 1ml of water in it, put it in the microwave on high and time how long it takes to boil. Write down the time it took. This represents the heat capacity of the air at ground level.
> 2. Get another similar bowl and put 775ml of water in it, put it in the microwave on high and time how long it takes to boil. Write down the time it took. This represents the heat capacity of the oceans at the surface. 
> You can do this on the stove, but the pan will take longer to heat than the 1ml of water but you will still get your 'lightbulb' moment.  
> Come back to us with some numbers that show the oceans should be warming the same as the atmosphere, genius. 
> References regarding total mass of each for our planet:  The Earth's Atmosphere 
> (1 millionth = *0.0001 percent*)  Ocean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  and there I was thinking I was going to get another English lesson for no sentence breaks but instead it's a git nuts science lesson, the trouble is I haven't forgotten my years of applied science study to get my academic qualifications in applied science, so it was really wasted on me! Just off the top of my head though I could imagine it would be several millions of years to heat the oceans back up to record heat levels at an extra couple of watts or so per m2
inter

----------


## intertd6

> There is nothing remarkable or inexplicable about the ocean's dominant influence over climate. 90% of the heat from the sun is absorbed by the oceans in the first instance. 2014 Jan - The Leading Edge â€” OSS Foundation 
> Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. _The current state of these ocean oscillations should mean that the current surface temperature should be in a cool phase, not a record maximum temperature phase seen over the last decade or so._         Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) â€” OSS Foundation  Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) â€” OSS Foundation  Solar Forcing â€” OSS Foundation

  so deforestation is a cause of global warming now? But we already knew that when it was stated there were 20 or so contributing factors ! But not long back there were no other factors greater than CO2 causing the warming according to you & your clones!  I could imagine it would be several millions of years to heat the oceans back up to record heat levels at an extra couple of watts or so per m2
Inter

----------


## John2b

> so deforestation is a cause of global warming now? But we already knew that when it was stated there were 20 or so contributing factors ! But not long back there were no other factors greater than CO2 causing the warming according to you & your clones!

  Now it is my turn to say "Rubbish!" I have only ever said that climate change is the net response to the whole suite of forcings, and that it cannot be explained (both past and present) if the effect of CO2 is disregarded.

----------


## woodbe

> the trouble is I haven't forgotten my years of applied science study to get my academic qualifications in applied science

  If that were the case, you wouldn't represent the heating of the oceans as a non-issue just because the heat absorbed doesn't move the thermometer as much as it would for air. You're just playing with numbers to suit your opinion. 
You better go and do the experiment, you clearly need to refresh your 'applied science'  :Tongue:

----------


## John2b

> and there I was thinking I was going to get another English lesson for no sentence breaks but instead it's a git nuts science lesson, the trouble is I haven't forgotten my years of applied science study to get my academic qualifications in applied science, so it was really wasted on me! Just off the top of my head though I could imagine it would be several millions of years to heat the oceans back up to record heat levels at an extra couple of watts or so per m2

  Perhaps you should try some applied science: Surface area of Earth = 510 million square kilometre = 510,000,000,000,000 square meters   At 2 watts per square meter, the total watts = 1020,000,000,000,000 watts.   1 watt = 1 joule per second. 1 year = 31536000 seconds.   1 year at 2 watts per square meter =  2 x 1020,000,000,000,000 x 31536000 = 64,333,440,000,000,000,000,000 Joules per year    Mass of ocean = 1,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grams   4.184 joules will raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree.   5,857,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules will raise the oceans by 1 degree.   How many years will that take at 2 watts per meter squared?   5,857,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 / 64,333,440,000,000,000,000,000 = 91.05 years 
Oh dear, it looks like "off the top of your head" you are only out by a factor of 100,000 or so!  :2thumbsup:  
Which begs the question: What is happening with ocean temperatures? No surprises there - it is doing exactly what climate science would expect, warming at a bit over 1 degree per century.    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...face-temp.html

----------


## intertd6

> Perhaps you should try some applied science: Surface area of Earth = 510 million square kilometre = 510,000,000,000,000 square meters   At 2 watts per square meter, the total watts = 1020,000,000,000,000 watts.   1 watt = 1 joule per second. 1 year = 31536000 seconds.   1 year at 2 watts per square meter =  2 x 1020,000,000,000,000 x 31536000 = 64,333,440,000,000,000,000,000 Joules per year    Mass of ocean = 1,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grams   4.184 joules will raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree.   5,857,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules will raise the oceans by 1 degree.   How many years will that take at 2 watts per meter squared?   5,857,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 / 64,333,440,000,000,000,000,000 = 91.05 years 
> Oh dear, it looks like "off the top of your head" you are only out by a factor of 100,000 or so!  
> Which begs the question: What is happening with ocean temperatures? No surprises there - it is doing exactly what climate science would expect, warming at a bit over 1 degree per century.    Sea Surface Temperature | Climate Change | US EPA

  You don't seem really good at applied physics either it seems?
You have made the beginner mistake of mixing time units! I certainly hope you don't teach this stuff!
inter 5/0

----------


## woodbe

> You don't seem really good at applied physics either it seems?

  Thanks for admitting you're not any good at it inter. Recognising your failings is the best way to step onto the road to recovery. 
Well done!

----------


## John2b

> ou have made the beginner mistake of mixing time units

  How so?

----------


## intertd6

> How so?

  ah! Yes mixed up thinking that the sun shines on every square meter of the earths surface every second of the day every day of the year! Then thinking that all the heat gained through the sunshine hours isn't lost partially during the day through evaporation or heat loss at night! Then also mixed up thinking that 1 degree rise in ocean temperature is in any way anywhere near the record ocean heat temperatures that happened millions of years ago! 
Also your sea surface temperature is only the first 0.01mm of the water column!
its always good to apply your brain to applied physics!
inter

----------


## John2b

> ah!

  Wrong, wrong, irrelevant and wrong. And you haven't shown where I mixed up time units either, which was your first claim #12741. 
Hint: The radiation imbalance is *net* after all of your objections are taken into account. The 2w/m2 is from YOUR post #12737 You obviously didn't read about how the ocean temperature anomaly was measured in the link provided. 
You really should check that your brain is engaged before posting, especially as practically every post you make attacks the intelligence and integrity of people you don't agree with. You argue from a very weak position considering you are in a vanishingly small group that includes the charlatans of the lunatic fringe of pseudo science, most of whom would not agree with you, or each other for that matter, about anything scientific anyway! 
Mark 0/5. Go to the corner and put your dunce hat on.

----------


## intertd6

> Wrong, wrong, irrelevant and wrong. And you haven't shown where I mixed up time units either, which was your first claim #12741. 
> Hint: The radiation imbalance is *net* after all of your objections are taken into account. The 2w/m2 is from YOUR post #12737 You obviously didn't read about how the ocean temperature anomaly was measured in the link provided. 
> You really should check that your brain is engaged before posting, especially as practically every post you make attacks the intelligence and integrity of people you don't agree with. You argue from a very weak position considering you are in a vanishingly small group that includes the charlatans of the lunatic fringe of pseudo science, most of whom would not agree with you, or each other for that matter, about anything scientific anyway! 
> Mark 0/5. Go to the corner and put your dunce hat on.

  with gross calculation errors & omissions like you produced it's no wonder your running around like a chook thinking the worlds going to end!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> with gross calculation errors & omissions like you produced it's no wonder your running around like a chook thinking the worlds going to end!
> inter

  Says the turkey who reckons water heats the same as air! 
Have you done the experiment yet, or are you just resting on your laurels of 'applied science' ignorance?

----------


## John2b

> ...it's no wonder your running around like a chook...

  Why is it so important for you to belittle people that have a different understanding of global climate change to you? 
Why haven't you answered the first question put to you: how have I the time units wrong? #12741 
Why don't you advance the discussion by providing credible (as opposed to untenable) evidence to support your position?

----------


## johnc

> with gross calculation errors & omissions like you produced it's no wonder your running around like a chook thinking the worlds going to end!
> inter

  All you ever do is throw mud but don't even have the decency to back up your slurs, it just proves you can't support your view, why bother. Full marks or tenacity zero for accuracy and substance.

----------


## John2b

*Germany’s energy transition*   80 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2050Nuclear plants shut down by 2022Carbon emissions cut by up to 95 per cent of 1990 figures by 2050   “We have created additional employment for up to 400,000 people. They all pay taxes, they all pay social security charges.”  Germany's renewable energy incentives and regulations attracting Australian companies - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Somehow I don't think that Rod and Inter's much discussed 'AGW is bulldust' theory is going to get up anytime soon given that even the US DoD thinks it is a clear and present danger The Department of Defense Must Plan for the National Security Implications of Climate Change | The White House 
The plan itself can be found here http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/CCARprint.pdf

----------


## woodbe

I suspect you are right, SBD!  :Smilie:  
Not to mention the US Navy is on the ball too:  http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/climate-change/

----------


## John2b

Didn't you guys know that the US DoD and Navy are just a bunch of socialist, religious, hippy, left wing pansies run by the Green Mafia? They are just trying to cash in on the green loot!

----------


## woodbe

Of course they are!  :Biggrin:

----------


## John2b

> Somehow I don't think that Rod and Inter's much discussed 'AGW is bulldust' theory is going to get up anytime soon

  Yes, the Fat Lady has sung, but it wasn't the tune Rod thought he was going to hear - LOL.  *The Fat Lady Sings - YouTube*

----------


## johnc

I suspect our two culprits are tone deaf, how else can you explain the inability to hear anything of substance and a willingness to latch onto the poorest song sheets going.

----------


## intertd6

> Says the turkey who reckons water heats the same as air! 
> Have you done the experiment yet, or are you just resting on your laurels of 'applied science' ignorance?

  where do you get inspiration for your delusions?
inter

----------


## John2b

> where do you get inspiration for your delusions?

  Why is it so important for you to belittle people that have a different understanding of global climate change to you?  Why haven't you answered the question put to you: how have I the time units wrong? #12741  Why don't you advance the discussion by providing credible (as opposed to untenable) evidence to support your position?

----------


## johnc

> where do you get inspiration for your delusions?
> inter

  How do you get any satisfaction out of your endless negativity? must be a sad well of nothingness at your end, no ideas, nothing positive, just another insulting post.

----------


## intertd6

> Why haven't you answered the first question put to you: how have I the time units wrong? #12741  its explained in the first sentence of post# 12744  
> Why don't you advance the discussion by providing credible (as opposed to untenable) evidence to support your position?  The latest umpteenth repeat of this evidence was in post #12729

  inter

----------


## intertd6

> How do you get any satisfaction out of your endless negativity? must be a sad well of nothingness at your end, no ideas, nothing positive, just another insulting post.

   Do you think anybody in their right mind is going to take an out right lie laying down you've been living in bureaucrat world too long! I have never said or implied air heats the same as water, try & find it if you can because it's never happened!
inter

----------


## woodbe

Basically, inter has demonstrated that he either can not or will not answer a direct question except by attacking the messenger. 
That is a very common tactic for someone who cannot support their opinion but is unwilling to change it. Instead, the activity involves trolling the posters in the thread with repeated myths that have been extinguished a zillion times here and elsewhere.  
None of the answers are acceptable (to him) because he sets the standards for the answers to his questions at an unattainable level "We want some irrefutable repeatable scientific proof" yet does not apply that standard to his own opinion which gets off scott free with no evidence. When challenged, we get a whole lot more attacking the messenger and phoney cop-out explanations like we saw recently with his ocean currents and magnetic pole reversal claims.

----------


## intertd6

> All you ever do is throw mud but don't even have the decency to back up your slurs, it just proves you can't support your view, why bother. Full marks or tenacity zero for accuracy and substance.

  Read post #12744 before the automatic response!
inter

----------


## John2b

> its explained in the first sentence of post# 12744

  No it isn't - 12744 does not address the question of time units at all.   

> The latest umpteenth repeat of this evidence was in post #12729

  Your link does not provide credible evidence to support your position. On the contrary, it supports the view that your understanding of current circumstances is deficient.

----------


## woodbe

> I have never said or implied air heats the same as water, try & find it if you can because it's never happened!

  No, not directly.   

> here we go! this worn out old chestnut! You Can't   even put a temperature increase to the graph because it's that   minuscule of an increase!

  What you have implied is that there is insignificant heat going into the oceans by claiming the temperature increase is 'miniscule'. What has been explained to you (and I'm sure you understand) is that the energy going in is massive and increasing. The energy is measured in Joules because the mass of the oceans is hundreds of times more than the atmosphere, so of course the actual ocean temperature increase is small in degrees (but still significant and accelerating) despite the increasing energy input. As has again been pointed out to you in the past, the oceans are not evenly mixed so it again makes more sense to show the energy input into the oceans than a single temperature measurement.  
Thank heavens we have those oceans is all I can say. 
The water heating experiment offered was to show the readers the phoney and unsupportable position you take when faced with the facts of ocean heat. Of course you were never expected to accept the challenge and of course exactly on cue you didn't, you just attacked the messenger (again) and failed to support your phoney ocean temperature myth.

----------


## intertd6

> like we saw recently with his ocean currents and magnetic pole reversal claims.

  So what did I claim then? Was it any more than considering a possibility? Where do you get your inspiration from! so we can avoid it a much as humanly possible
inter

----------


## intertd6

> No, not directly.   
> What you have implied is that there is insignificant heat going into the oceans by claiming the temperature increase is 'miniscule'. What has been explained to you (and I'm sure you understand) is that the energy going in is massive and increasing. The energy is measured in Joules because the mass of the oceans is hundreds of times more than the atmosphere, so of course the actual ocean temperature increase is small in degrees (but still significant and accelerating) despite the increasing energy input. As has again been pointed out to you in the past, the oceans are not evenly mixed so it again makes more sense to show the energy input into the oceans than a single temperature measurement.  
> Thank heavens we have those oceans is all I can say. 
> The water heating experiment offered was to show the readers the phoney and unsupportable position you take when faced with the facts of ocean heat. Of course you were never expected to accept the challenge and of course exactly on cue you didn't, you just attacked the messenger (again) and failed to support your phoney ocean temperature myth.

  your full of it! I never implied any such thing!
inter

----------


## John2b

> your full of it! I never implied any such thing!

  So what did you mean by this then?:   

> sI could imagine it would be *several millions of years* to heat the oceans back up to record heat levels at an extra couple of watts or so per m2

  #12737  Why is it so important for you to belittle people that have a different understanding of global climate change to you?  Why don't you advance the discussion by providing credible (as opposed to untenable) evidence to support your position?

----------


## woodbe

> So what did I claim then? Was it any more than considering a possibility? [personal attack redacted]

   

> Are you certain there couldn't be other  influencing factors omitted like *the magnetic pole reversal that also  has been responsible for ocean current changes*?

  "Has been responsible" looks more like a claim than a possibility to me. You changed it to 'possibility' after you were challenged for evidence to support it. 
You propose a wild ass 'possibility' of ocean currents and magnetic pole reversal yet you don't accept an actual possibility of climate change that has actually been researched. Pfft.

----------


## woodbe

> [personal attack redacted] I never implied any such thing!
> inter

  You said miniscule. That implies insignificant. You implied that there was no significant warming in the oceans. 
The fact is that there IS significant warming in the oceans.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So what did you mean by this then?:   #12737  Why is it so important for you to belittle people that have a different understanding of global climate change to you?  Why don't you advance the discussion by providing credible (as opposed to untenable) evidence to support your position?

  Sorry Buddy. Here you are THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK.  This really pisses me off you guys are the experts in denigrating anyone that opposes AGW faith. 
You saying this simply shows me the sort of person you are.

----------


## John2b

> Sorry Buddy. Here you are THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK.  This really pisses me off you guys are the experts in denigrating anyone that opposes AGW faith.

  You have to be joking, right? Don't hyperlinks work on your computer or you can't read? 
Without bothering to list all of the personal attacks again from this page (just scan down), here are the ones from the previous page: #12718 
This isn't a boxing match or a chess game. It is a discussion about what is fact supported by evidence and what is fantasy.   

> You saying this simply shows me the sort of person you are.

  You have nothing scientific to back your position, Rod, so you attack people instead.

----------


## johnc

> Read post #12744 before the automatic response!
> inter

  Most of your posts are simply attacking, you are finally being called out for what you are, if you can't do the time don't commit the crime.

----------


## John2b

> This really pisses me off you guys are the experts in denigrating anyone that opposes AGW faith.

  And who made these denigrating comments?:   

> your full of it!

   

> Do you think anybody in their right mind is going to take an out right lie laying down you've been living in bureaucrat world too long!

   

> where do you get inspiration for your delusions?

   

> it's no wonder your running around like a chook thinking the worlds going to end!

   

> it's a git nuts science lesson

   

> _I've heard it's quite a hit with the girly man types!_

   

> _What fool doesn't realise_

   

> _Which any dill knows_

   

> _I'm not the galah with one eye_

   

> _nothing like an idle nitpicker to run rampant with their imagination_

   

> _you must be new to this business thing_

   

> _all they need is some genius like you_

   

> _that is just absolute rubbish as usual... absolute garbage & all your own_

   

> _It nice to see some galahs showing their charlatan tactics... enough A's waffling on with nothing better to do than prove their association to ground cavities_

  Scroll down the page to find out.

----------


## Uncle Bob

Breaking news is the mad monk may be doing a backflip on an ETS

----------


## Rod Dyson

No he won't. He will get kicked out of the leadership if he tried that.  Lip service to Palmer.

----------


## John2b

"The truth is that Abbott’s beliefs on climate-change science don’t govern his political actions. *He supported an ETS under Howard*, then opposed one in _Battlelines_. *He supported one again under Turnbull’s leadership*, then unseated his boss and took his job in order to defeat it. Now he rails against the carbon tax. Clearly, he opposes an ETS or a carbon tax as a matter of principle. *
Whether or not he supports one as a matter of policy is, at all times, a matter of political judgement. If he thinks it is inevitable, if he thinks the argument against it is ultimately lost, then he will acquiesce.* That’s what led John Howard to adopt one just before his political demise. It’s what led Abbott to go along with Turnbull, who famously declared that the Coalition would be “wiped out” without one."  http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2013/july/1372600800/waleed-aly/inside-tony-abbotts-mind

----------


## Rod Dyson

Cuts both ways. Never denied that

----------


## John2b

> Lip service to Palmer.

  I think you underestimate Palmer: 
"Which brings us, of course, to Clive Palmer, the man who was more or less prime minister for a week a month ago when Slow Joe Hockey was on holiday, and Tony Abbott had done what he always does in a crisis – run away, in this case to pose with the Japanese PM. For the commentariat, Palmer was more or less inexplicable – erratic, bumptious, contradictory, focused solely on his own publicity, a rube. Yet somehow, by the end of this sitting fortnight, the only two major multipart pieces of legislation – the carbon tax repeal omnibus and the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) regulation bill – had gone through in the form he wanted. 
The Palmer United Party had created an image of itself as at the very centre of the balance of power, and Palmer was seen as both the bloke who killed the carbon tax _and_ the one who had saved the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. God knows what would happen if he was, in the assessment of the political elite, competent. 
How have so many smart people managed to get this so wrong, from top to bottom? From the Coalition who didn’t start talking to him until a week before the senate sat, to the commentators who never saw his back-and-forth moves coming? The answer is that Palmer brings a deal-maker’s mind to the business of politics, and the two major parties, for all their self-flattery about being Machiavellian realists and so on, don’t.  "  The deal with Clive Palmer | The Saturday Paper

----------


## Neptune

> Originally Posted by *John2b*   
>  Are _you_ implying there are different rules for _me_ than other participants in this discussion?

   

> "The truth is that Abbotts beliefs on climate-change science dont govern his political actions. *He supported an ETS under Howard*, then opposed one in _Battlelines_. *He supported one again under Turnbulls leadership*, then unseated his boss and took his job in order to defeat it. Now he rails against the carbon tax. Clearly, he opposes an ETS or a carbon tax as a matter of principle. *
> Whether or not he supports one as a matter of policy is, at all times, a matter of political judgement. If he thinks it is inevitable, if he thinks the argument against it is ultimately lost, then he will acquiesce.* Thats what led John Howard to adopt one just before his political demise. Its what led Abbott to go along with Turnbull, who famously declared that the Coalition would be wiped out without one."  http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2013/july/1372600800/waleed-aly/inside-tony-abbotts-mind

   

> I think you underestimate Palmer: 
> "Which brings us, of course, to Clive Palmer, the man who was more or less prime minister for a week a month ago when Slow Joe Hockey was on holiday, and Tony Abbott had done what he always does in a crisis  run away, in this case to pose with the Japanese PM. For the commentariat, Palmer was more or less inexplicable  erratic, bumptious, contradictory, focused solely on his own publicity, a rube. Yet somehow, by the end of this sitting fortnight, the only two major multipart pieces of legislation  the carbon tax repeal omnibus and the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) regulation bill  had gone through in the form he wanted. 
> The Palmer United Party had created an image of itself as at the very centre of the balance of power, and Palmer was seen as both the bloke who killed the carbon tax _and_ the one who had saved the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. God knows what would happen if he was, in the assessment of the political elite, competent. 
> How have so many smart people managed to get this so wrong, from top to bottom? From the Coalition who didnt start talking to him until a week before the senate sat, to the commentators who never saw his back-and-forth moves coming? The answer is that Palmer brings a deal-makers mind to the business of politics, and the two major parties, for all their self-flattery about being Machiavellian realists and so on, dont.  "  The deal with Clive Palmer | The Saturday Paper

   

> Absolutely, 100%, without a doubt.

  .

----------


## John2b

> .

  And what has your esoteric post got to do with the forum topic? Haven't you got something to add to the thread other than attacks on my integrity? To quote someone else:   

> Sorry Buddy. Here you are THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK. This really pisses me off you guys are the experts in denigrating anyone that opposes AGW faith.

----------


## woodbe

> No he won't. He will get kicked out of the leadership if he tried that.  Lip service to Palmer.

  Yet he got away with the fuel tax, which is in effect another carbon tax. 
He's an appeaser, not a leader. Put him in a room with CC deniers and he will rubbish CC science. Put him in a room with CC advocates and he will talk up the science. Put him in a room with feminists and he will propose a massive maternity pay policy.  
When the party decides it has to do something about climate change, then he will follow or get kicked out. That day is coming when the public sees what a sham their 'action plan' is. Paying a few serial polluters to stop polluting instead of requiring all of them to stop polluting? LOL.

----------


## John2b

> Paying a few serial polluters to stop polluting instead of requiring all of them to stop polluting? LOL.

  Paying with taxpayers' money to boot. As if the big polluters don't get enough subsidies as it is! 
Right now, the federal government spends around $10 billion a year as handouts – in the form of subsidies, cash, tax breaks and infrastructure - to big polluters. 
These handouts make fossil fuels (like coal, gas and petroleum) artificially cheap. So companies use more fossil fuels than they would with a level playing field – creating more pollution, blocking clean energy projects and fuelling the threat of climate change to all Australians. 
The Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency has said removing fossil fuel subsidies around the world could cut half the emissions needed to avoid exceeding two degrees of warming. Major international organisations like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the OECD and the UN have all said fossil fuel subsidies should be scrapped.  *These fossil fuel subsidies also put a massive black hole in the Federal budget and represent the most perverse form of corporate welfare.*   Whatâ€™s up with Fossil Fuel Subsidies | Paid to Pollute

----------


## johnc

> .

  I take it you are just agreeing, although for my part I think the whole political class needs a rocket and a good shake up at the same time.

----------


## intertd6

> And who made these denigrating comments?:                        
> Scroll down the page to find out.

  For all appearances it looks like a display of VM, when clearly you have been shown to be a willing participant in similar responses! Rod hit the nail on the head with the old phrase " the pot calling the kettle black" and Neptune showed your form denigrating politicians in the last few posts! Everything seems fine until it has anything to do with you!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Paying with taxpayers' money to boot. As if the big polluters don't get enough subsidies as it is!
> Right now, the federal government spends around $10 billion a year as handouts – in the form of subsidies, cash, tax breaks and infrastructure - to big polluters. 
> These handouts make fossil fuels (like coal, gas and petroleum) artificially cheap. So companies use more fossil fuels than they would with a level playing field – creating more pollution, blocking clean energy projects and fuelling the threat of climate change to all Australians. 
> The Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency has said removing fossil fuel subsidies around the world could cut half the emissions needed to avoid exceeding two degrees of warming. Major international organisations like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the OECD and the UN have all said fossil fuel subsidies should be scrapped.  *These fossil fuel subsidies also put a massive black hole in the Federal budget and represent the most perverse form of corporate welfare.*   Whatâ€™s up with Fossil Fuel Subsidies | Paid to Pollute

  Only Politicians & there clone followers think CO2 within historic levels is a pollutant! But happy for you to provide some proven scientific evidence that shows otherwise?
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Most of your posts are simply attacking, you are finally being called out for what you are, if you can't do the time don't commit the crime.

  so you don't read anything either it appears, brilliant! Bravo! A fine display of the calibre we are dealing with!
Inter

----------


## johnc

> For all appearances it looks like a display of VM, when clearly you have been shown to be a willing participant in similar responses! Rod hit the nail on the head with the old phrase " the pot calling the kettle black" and Neptune showed your form denigrating politicians in the last few posts! Everything seems fine until it has anything to do with you!
> inter

  They are newspaper quotes with references Inter have a close look, you are barking up the wrong tree, if you want to really find those who can't get low enough look for the ones that twisted a former PM's name to include liar, that is just systemic online bullying, people of that persuasion that post repetitive denigrating drivel deserve no respect anywhere as they fail the basic test of human decency and courtesy for senior political figures who can't reply, it is without doubt just an act of cowardice from the key board.

----------


## johnc

> so you don't read anything either it appears, brilliant! Bravo! A fine display of the calibre we are dealing with!
> Inter

  Sometimes I do read tripe, but it would be nice if it contained something new, however I did read your post which was up (or down perhaps) to your usual standard.

----------


## woodbe

> Only Politicians & there clone followers think CO2 within historic levels is a pollutant! But happy for you to provide some proven scientific evidence that shows otherwise?
> inter

  Pollutant is a word describing something, it is not a scientific theory.  Pollutant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   

> A *pollutant* is a substance or energy introduced into the  environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the  usefulness of a resource.

  Whether CO2 is within historical levels or not is irrelevant to the use of the term. The last time CO2 was at the levels it is today, there were no humans around describing it, and the levels were not caused by human activity.   
Got any 650,000 year old textbooks to check? :P

----------


## intertd6

> They are newspaper quotes with references Inter have a close look, you are barking up the wrong tree, if you want to really find those who can't get low enough look for the ones that twisted a former PM's name to include liar, that is just systemic online bullying, people of that persuasion that post repetitive denigrating drivel deserve no respect anywhere as they fail the basic test of human decency and courtesy for senior political figures who can't reply, it is without doubt just an act of cowardice from the key board.

  To quote & propagate something without being a journalist with those freedoms is no justification for exemption! At the end of the day everybody is guilty at sometime of some minor infractions, but what gets up a normal persons mangina is the evangelistic types who claim to to be holier than thou!
Unfortunately a lot of people don't have the opportunity to call someone who has lied on national television, a liar to their face, so it is quite legal to do so by other means! Your just upset because your perceived demigod was knocked of their perch!
Inter

----------


## intertd6

> Pollutant is a word describing something, it is not a scientific theory.  Pollutant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   
> Whether CO2 is within historical levels or not is irrelevant to the use of the term. The last time CO2 was at the levels it is today, there were no humans around describing it, and the levels were not caused by human activity.   
> Got any 650,000 year old textbooks to check? :P

  why? When you can understand post #12729 reality may follow, but the second coming is more likely!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> why? When you can understand post #12729 reality may follow, but the second coming more likely!
> inter

  The post is an answer to your claim that CO2 is not a pollutant, that scientific proof is required to call it a pollutant, and that pre human history concentrations of CO2 are relevant to not using the term today. This has nothing to do with #12729. 
As usual, you don't discuss because you have nothing to discuss. You are quite simply wrong about the use of the pollutant term.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

This hilariously quixotic solution of Palmer Hunt's for the current governments legislative impasse concerning climate change gives me a heartening sense of deja vu.  I feel like it is 2007 all over again...

----------


## John2b

> For all appearances it looks like a display of VM, when clearly you have been shown to be a willing participant in similar responses!

  Feel free to list then. I am only too happy to have a _balanced_ discussion!   

> Neptune showed your form denigrating politicians in the last few posts!

  I did nothing of the sort! I think that most people would have worked out that I did not write those published articles, especially as I provided the links to the sources. 
If you don't agree with the article or the author's position, then by all means discuss why you don't agree! Attacking and belittling the messenger is not advancing your position at all.

----------


## John2b

> Only Politicians & there clone followers think CO2 within historic levels is a pollutant! But happy for you to provide some proven scientific evidence that shows otherwise?

  CO2 and/or carbon dioxide was *not even mentioned* in the section I quoted _or_ the original article. DOH!

----------


## John2b

> so you don't read anything either it appears, brilliant! Bravo! A fine display of the calibre we are dealing with!

  It might be true (I would not know), but since *you* haven't provided any *evidence*, it is just another *unsubstantiated slur*.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## intertd6

> CO2 and/or carbon dioxide was *not even mentioned* in the section I quoted _or_ the original article. DOH!

  Whats that got to do with my statement? But please tell us what the main perceived pollutant of burning fossils fuels is then in this day & age? or are purposely appearing to be conniving thinking the debate has just started with no previous history on the debate, I'm sure that worked at the bottom of the schoolyard once apon a time, but most of us have grown up & have risen to more intelligent debating.
inter

----------


## John2b

> Whats that got to do with my statement?

  More to the point, what has your statement got to do with the post it quoted?   

> But please tell us what the main perceived pollutant of burning fossils fuels is then in this day & age?

  Perhaps the World Health Organisation can inform:   Ambient (outdoor air pollution) in both cities and rural areas was estimated to cause 3.7 million premature deaths worldwide in 2012. Policies and investments supporting cleaner transport, energy-efficient housing, power generation, industry and better municipal waste management would reduce key sources of urban outdoor air pollution.  Reducing outdoor emissions from household coal and biomass energy systems, agricultural waste incineration, forest fires and certain agro-forestry activities (e.g. charcoal production) would reduce key rural and peri-urban air pollution sources   WHO | Ambient (outdoor) air quality and health   

> or are purposely being conniving thinking the debate has just started with no previous history on the debate

  If you are arguing a different point, then why quote my post?   

> I'm sure that worked at the bottom of the schoolyard once apon a time, but most of us have grown up & have risen to more intelligent debating.

  You think you are capable of intelligent debate, do you? The best you seem to do is to attack the integrity of the person you don't agree with. I have yet to see you *debate* anything.

----------


## intertd6

> More to the point, what has your statement got to do with the post it quoted?  it was in response to this tripe, Right now, the federal government spends around $10 billion a year as handouts – in the form of subsidies, cash, tax breaks and infrastructure - *to big polluters.* These handouts make fossil fuels (like coal, gas and petroleum) artificially cheap. So companies use more fossil fuels than they would with a level playing field –* creating more pollution*, blocking clean energy projects and fuelling the threat of climate change to all Australians. The Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency has said *removing fossil fuel subsidies around the world could cut half the emissions*     
> Perhaps the World Health Organisation can inform:   Ambient (outdoor air pollution) in both cities and rural areas was estimated to cause 3.7 million premature deaths worldwide in 2012. Policies and investments supporting cleaner transport, energy-efficient housing, power generation, industry and better municipal waste management would reduce key sources of urban outdoor air pollution.  Reducing outdoor emissions from household coal and biomass energy systems, agricultural waste incineration, forest fires and certain agro-forestry activities (e.g. charcoal production) would reduce key rural and peri-urban air pollution sources   WHO | Ambient (outdoor) air quality and health   
> If you are arguing a different point, then why quote my post?  it appears you are though!    
> You think you are capable of intelligent debate, do you? The best you seem to do is to attack the integrity of the person you don't agree with. I have yet to see you *debate* anything. How can anybody attack something you don't appear to have?

  we are only interested in finding the hard facts about CO2 & not really interested in the usual diatribe & propaganda that spews forth when it can't be produced!
inter

----------


## woodbe

More playing the man from inter <yawn>

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> we are only interested in finding the hard facts about CO2 & not really interested in the usual diatribe & propaganda that spews forth when it can't be produced!
> inter

  History would suggest otherwise...but history is a mug's game. 
As for this being tripe:  _Right now, the federal government spends around $10 billion a year as handouts  in the form of subsidies, cash, tax breaks and infrastructure - to big polluters. These handouts make fossil fuels (like coal, gas and petroleum) artificially cheap. So companies use more fossil fuels than they would with a level playing field  creating more pollution, blocking clean energy projects and fuelling the threat of climate change to all Australians. The Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency has said removing fossil fuel subsidies around the world could cut half the emissions_  
...some simple research would suggest it has the Scotch Fillet of Truth about it.

----------


## intertd6

> History would suggest otherwise...but history is a mug's game. 
> As for this being tripe:  _Right now, the federal government spends around $10 billion a year as handouts – in the form of subsidies, cash, tax breaks and infrastructure - to big polluters. These handouts make fossil fuels (like coal, gas and petroleum) artificially cheap. So companies use more fossil fuels than they would with a level playing field – creating more pollution, blocking clean energy projects and fuelling the threat of climate change to all Australians. The Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency has said removing fossil fuel subsidies around the world could cut half the emissions_  
> ...some simple research would suggest it has the Scotch Fillet of Truth about it.

  to which I say, only politicians & their witless clones truly believe CO2 within historical concentrations is a pollutant!
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> to which I say, only politicians & their witless clones truly believe CO2 within historical concentrations is a pollutant!
> inter

  What then if it isn't?  
Granted...it's within prehistoric concentrations which is a bit meaningless...but I'm aware of your love of semantics so I thought I'd mention it anyway.

----------


## johnc

> to which I say, only politicians & their witless clones truly believe CO2 within historical concentrations is a pollutant!
> inter

  That would imply all politicians believe that CO2 is a pollutant, and they have an army of clones moulded on their likeness on top of that this is all about CO2 being labelled a pollutant, really, sounds a bit delusional to me. Keep digging if you must, although posts like this hardly advance the idea that rational thought has been applied here. However this form of slap stick nonsense is entertaining.

----------


## intertd6

> What then if it isn't?  
> Granted...it's within prehistoric concentrations which is a bit meaningless...but I'm aware of your love of semantics so I thought I'd mention it anyway.

  Calling atmospheric CO2 a pollutant is a political construct, propaganda! politicians truly believe what ever is the flavour of the moment to gain more power! That's how they can sell it so convincingly! Unfortunately being a witless clone inoculates them from nearly all rational individual though processes as demonstrated over hundreds of pages on this debate!
inter

----------


## John2b

> to which I say, only politicians & their witless clones truly believe CO2 within historical concentrations is a pollutant!

  What do these company have in common?:  3M, Acciona, Águas de Portugal, Aldersgate Group, Alstom, Barilla, BDEW, Bilfinger Power Systems, BWE, CEZ, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Dansk Energi, Dong Energy, Doosan Power, DSM, Electricité de France, Ecover, Eneco, E.On, Eurogas, EURELECTRIC, EUGINE, EUTurbines, EnBW, Energie Nederland, EnergiNorge, Ferrovial, Fortum, GDF Suez, General Electric, Gorenje Surovina, GSK, IKEA Group, Interface, Kingfisher, Mirova, Novo Nordisk, Novozymes, Philips, Shell, Skanska, SSE, STF, SWM, Tesco, Unilever, Vattenfall, VELUX Group, VERBUND 
According to your "logic" they are witless clones of government. Which government? Many are trans- or multi-nationals. What they have in common is that all called on the EU to take more drastic action on fossil fuel reductions than the EU did!  http://www.environmentalleader.com/2...mate-policies/

----------


## johnc

It is just plain silly carrying on about CO2 as a pollutant and making an issue of that label. Let's face it CO2 is a gas with known effects, interestingly it has been labelled a pollutant by the US supreme court, perhaps Inter would like to call them witless political clones as well, just to further his reputation for avoiding reasoned factual discussion, although there doesn't sadly seem to be any recognition either that semantics are just that and mean nothing in the end.

----------


## intertd6

> What do these company have in common?:  3M, Acciona, Águas de Portugal, Aldersgate Group, Alstom, Barilla, BDEW, Bilfinger Power Systems, BWE, CEZ, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Dansk Energi, Dong Energy, Doosan Power, DSM, Electricité de France, Ecover, Eneco, E.On, Eurogas, EURELECTRIC, EUGINE, EUTurbines, EnBW, Energie Nederland, EnergiNorge, Ferrovial, Fortum, GDF Suez, General Electric, Gorenje Surovina, GSK, IKEA Group, Interface, Kingfisher, Mirova, Novo Nordisk, Novozymes, Philips, Shell, Skanska, SSE, STF, SWM, Tesco, Unilever, Vattenfall, VELUX Group, VERBUND 
> According to your "logic" they are witless clones of government. Which government? Many are trans- or multi-nationals. What they have in common is that all called on the EU to take more drastic action on fossil fuel reductions than the EU did!  Major Firms to EU: Adopt âRobustâ 2030 Climate Policies Â· Environmental Management & Sustainable Development News Â· Environmental Leader

  not quite! They are the ones that will profit from the pollies decisions & the witless maniacs that spread the  dogma for free feel somehow better for it, the rest of us just get caught in the trap of another political disaster!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> It is just plain silly carrying on about CO2 as a pollutant and making an issue of that label. Let's face it CO2 is a gas with known effects, interestingly it has been labelled a pollutant by the US supreme court, perhaps Inter would like to call them witless political clones as well, just to further his reputation for avoiding reasoned factual discussion, although there doesn't sadly seem to be any recognition either that semantics are just that and mean nothing in the end.

  you must be a bit new & naïve to understanding the law making business thinking the clones can pass laws at the stroke of a pen like politicians do?
inter

----------


## johnc

> you must be a bit new & naïve to understanding the law making business thinking the clones can pass laws at the stroke of a pen like politicians do?
> inter

  Back to just insults, or is this a space you permanently occupy? Your response is both ignorant and confused, politicians pass laws, courts interpret them, if a certain court finds CO2 is pollution it is not creating as in your reply it is simply interpreting what is there. There I hope tis helps you try to understand because your tiresome responses generally indicate a minimal grasp of the most basic concepts. So there you have it a response in your own likeness, attack the poster and provide a half @rsed answer. 
Of course what you couldn't grasp is that your ponderous flogging of the "name" card is irrelevant and serves no purpose other than obscure the weakness of your argument. I hope you aren't this negative in real life otherwise you would be a miserable individual to live with. You actually can't answer anything, everything is off the mark and pointless.

----------


## John2b

> Back to just insults, or is this a space you permanently occupy? Your response is both ignorant and confused, politicians pass laws, courts interpret them, if a certain court finds CO2 is pollution it is not creating as in your reply it is simply interpreting what is there. There I hope tis helps you try to understand because your tiresome responses generally indicate a minimal grasp of the most basic concepts. So there you have it a response in your own likeness, attack the poster and provide a half @rsed answer. 
> Of course what you couldn't grasp is that your ponderous flogging of the "name" card is irrelevant and serves no purpose other than obscure the weakness of your argument. I hope you aren't this negative in real life otherwise you would be a miserable individual to live with. You actually can't answer anything, everything is off the mark and pointless.

  What he said!

----------


## intertd6

> Back to just insults, or is this a space you permanently occupy? Your response is both ignorant and confused, politicians pass laws, courts interpret them, if a certain court finds CO2 is pollution it is not creating as in your reply it is simply interpreting what is there. There I hope tis helps you try to understand because your tiresome responses generally indicate a minimal grasp of the most basic concepts. So there you have it a response in your own likeness, attack the poster and provide a half @rsed answer. 
> Of course what you couldn't grasp is that your ponderous flogging of the "name" card is irrelevant and serves no purpose other than obscure the weakness of your argument. I hope you aren't this negative in real life otherwise you would be a miserable individual to live with. You actually can't answer anything, everything is off the mark and pointless.

  More of the pot calling the kettle black again we see, the wind could blow the wrong way & insult your precious types, but all we are waiting for is some hard evidence that CO2 has, can, or ever will cause irreversible catastrophic dangerous warming, we have already supplied the evidence in post #12729 that is has never done such things so 33% of your task is already complete! Should we assume it's impossible for the last 66% to ever appear! because to the casual observer that is positively what it seems! 
inter

----------


## intertd6

> What he said!

  see above!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> all we are waiting for is some hard evidence that CO2 has, can, or ever will cause irreversible catastrophic dangerous warming

  Before we waste time on this, can you please be more precise: 
1. Define irreversible in the context of damage to the environment caused by CO2. What timescale do you have in mind? 
2. Define catastrophic in terms of warming of the planet. 
3. Define dangerous warming. 
4. Please identify the level of scientific proof required. Previously you have demanded: "We want some irrefutable repeatable scientific proof". Have you modified your requirements of proof or are you still asking for something not deliverable by science?  
Given your prolific posts on this topic you should be able to dish up a precise answer to each question.

----------


## johnc

> More of the pot calling the kettle black again we see, the wind could blow the wrong way & insult your precious types, but all we are waiting for is some hard evidence that CO2 has, can, or ever will cause irreversible catastrophic dangerous warming, we have already supplied the evidence in post #12729 that is has never done such things so 33% of your task is already complete! Should we assume it's impossible for the last 66% to ever appear! because to the casual observer that is positively what it seems! 
> inter

  
Post 12729 provides nothing of the kind, you own requirement of irrefutable accuracy would render it void anyway, you should at least provide evidence to the standard you profess you need to satisfy yourself something is true. As for pot and kettle if you stuck to facts so would the rest of us, you set the original standard long before I arrived.

----------


## intertd6

> Before we waste time on this, can you please be more precise: 
> 1. Define irreversible in the context of damage to the environment caused by CO2. What timescale do you have in mind? 
> 2. Define catastrophic in terms of warming of the planet. 
> 3. Define dangerous warming. 
> 4. Please identify the level of scientific proof required. Previously you have demanded: "We want some irrefutable repeatable scientific proof". Have you modified your requirements of proof or are you still asking for something not deliverable by science?  
> Given your prolific posts on this topic you should be able to dish up a precise answer to each question.

  We don't use any of those terms 1 to 3 as your AGW clones do, so you are the ones that have the explaining to do & prove that those claims are going to eventuate, your just trying to manipulate your way out of the obvious again!
As far as point 4 just the standard definition using scientific method, 
"The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis."
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Post 12729 provides nothing of the kind, you own requirement of irrefutable accuracy would render it void anyway, you should at least provide evidence to the standard you profess you need to satisfy yourself something is true. As for pot and kettle if you stuck to facts so would the rest of us, you set the original standard long before I arrived.

  what do you think post # 12729 demonstrates then, other than the obvious couple of sqiggly lines that a 5 year old would see?

----------


## John2b

> what do you think post # 12729 demonstrates then, other than the obvious couple of sqiggly lines that a 5 year old would see?

  It demonstrates that a five year old intellect can be convinced anything. As far regards the current climate situation it is irrelevant.

----------


## John2b

> "The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis."
> inter

  Using those terms AGW is "proven" to the 99.9%+ confidence level, so what is your point?  http://publications.mcgill.ca/report...omment-page-1/

----------


## intertd6

> It demonstrates that a five year old intellect can be convinced anything. As far regards the current climate situation it is irrelevant.

   are you taking turns not to answer the simplest of questions now? What are you trying to prove other than the obvious?
inter

----------


## johnc

> what do you think post # 12729 demonstrates then, other than the obvious couple of sqiggly lines that a 5 year old would see?

  
Consider how the data was assembled then apply the same tests you tend to use on the accuracy of measurement, it fails your own measurement tests along with almost anything else. By your logic everything fails, anyway you can't use that graph as anything but an indicator of what may have happened it relies on to many extrapolations to be anything more than an indicator. In any case it has no relevance to this topic.

----------


## John2b

> are you taking turns not to answer the simplest of questions now? What are you trying to prove other than the obvious?

  You are doing a fine job all on your own. Congratulations.

----------


## intertd6

> Using those terms AGW is "proven" to the 99.9%+ confidence level, so what is your point?  Odds that global warming is due to natural factors: slim to none : McGill Reporter

  oops! missed the key part of the process! "involving the observation of phenomena" which is contained in post # 12729! Brrrrrrrrring..... Fail!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> You are doing a fine job all on your own. Congratulations.

  Whatever, how about the answering the question?
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Consider how the data was assembled then apply the same tests you tend to use on the accuracy of measurement, it fails your own measurement tests along with almost anything else. By your logic everything fails, anyway you can't use that graph as anything but an indicator of what may have happened it relies on to many extrapolations to be anything more than an indicator. In any case it has no relevance to this topic.

  we don't want know the silly things going on in your mind to justify not answering a simple question! Just an answer to the question?
inter

----------


## John2b

> oops! missed the key part of the process! "involving the observation of phenomena" which is contained in post # 12729! Brrrrrrrrring..... Fail!

  Written by the only person who's seem incapable of grasping the key part of anything! 
As if this hasn't been debunk 20 times or so, Inter, move on or add something of relevance.

----------


## John2b

> Whatever, how about the answering the question?

  The question has been answered to death, you just choose not to accept the answer.

----------


## intertd6

> The question has been answered to death, you just choose not to accept the answer.

  nah! Unless I've missed it in the last 10 posts since it was asked! your side have only reinforced the weakness of their  debating & shown how they can't produce anything above what a five year old would be ashamed to be coming out with! Bravo! Fantastic! Keep it going you must be proud!
inter

----------


## John2b

> your side have only reinforced the weakness of their  debating & shown how they can't produce anything above what a five year old would be ashamed to be coming out with! Bravo! Fantastic! Keep it going you must be proud!

  Inflect the negatives and you get "can produce what five year old would not be ashamed to be coming out with". _YOU_ must be proud.

----------


## John2b

> nah! Unless I've missed it in the last 10 posts since it was asked!

  You've missed the significance of the previous few thousand posts in which your "question" has been trashed more often than a Hollywood star.

----------


## woodbe

> all we are waiting for is some hard evidence that CO2 has, can, or ever will cause irreversible catastrophic dangerous warming

   

> Before we waste time on this, can you please be more precise: 
> 1. Define irreversible in the context of damage to the environment caused by CO2. What timescale do you have in mind? 
> 2. Define catastrophic in terms of warming of the planet. 
> 3. Define dangerous warming. 
> 4. Please identify the level of scientific proof required. Previously you have demanded: "We want some irrefutable repeatable scientific proof". Have you modified your requirements of proof or are you still asking for something not deliverable by science?  
> Given your prolific posts on this topic you should be able to dish up a precise answer to each question.

   

> We don't use any of those terms 1 to 3 as your AGW clones do

  Oh but inter, you just did use those terms and my question was for you, not someone else. YOU want the evidence for those terms , YOU have used them, so YOU must be able to explain your meaning of those terms, otherwise no-one can answer your question. 
You also won't find many of the posters here using those terms, so it is up to you to explain them. The reason they are not used is that they are not the usual scenarios discussed in the science, they are extreme outlier possibilities way, way into the future. Most posters here are concentrated on the present and near future impacts of climate change. (well, apart from the deniers)  :Smilie:    

> As far as point 4 just the standard definition using scientific method,

  Aha. So you are backing down form your "We want some irrefutable repeatable scientific proof" now? Could it be that woodbe has schooled intertd6 who claims "Applied Science" education on understanding scientific proof? LOL. Seeing as we won't hear it from you, I'll take that as an admission you were wrong to request that proof.

----------


## John2b

Look out - this summer is likely to be stinker, if things keep going the way they have been. We have been blessed for the past few years by ocean behaviour that has cooled the surface temperature, yet the planet has still had record high temperatures. What will happen when the oceans start to give back the heat they have stored over the past decade or so?  Each of the three warmest (Jan-Dec 12-month period) years on record came on the heels of an El Nino, which typically has a warming influence on global temperatures, but 2013 (tied 4th warmest) and 2014 (which could end up the warmest) did not come on the heels of an El Nino. As of this writing we are still waiting for the official start of El Nino.   2014 Global Temperatures in Perspective - Climate Change Weather Blog

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Look out - this summer is likely to be stinker, if things keep going the way they have been. We have been blessed for the past few years by ocean behaviour that has cooled the surface temperature, yet the planet has still had record high temperatures. What will happen when the oceans start to give back the heat they have stored over the past decade or so?  Each of the three warmest (Jan-Dec 12-month period) years on record came on the heels of an El Nino, which typically has a warming influence on global temperatures, but 2013 (tied 4th warmest) and 2014 (which could end up the warmest) did not come on the heels of an El Nino. As of this writing we are still waiting for the official start of El Nino.   2014 Global Temperatures in Perspective - Climate Change Weather Blog

  phhht weak El Nino at best.  In any event its perfectly natural.

----------


## John2b

> phhht weak El Nino at best.  In any event its perfectly natural.

  Absolutely right - El Nino is  a natural phenomena. The heat in the ocean that is waiting to be released isn't. It is a result of the burning of fossil fuel.

----------


## John2b

An insight into the tactics of the fossil fuel anti-science campaign:  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us...aped.html?_r=0

----------


## intertd6

> An insight into the tactics of the fossil fuel anti-science campaign:   http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us...aped.html?_r=0

  i wish I was just clever enough to come up with something that would stop the clones from endlessly dribbling on for at least a small amount of time! Unfortunately the clones are by far genetically superior & are at least a generation in front of the rest of the human race when it comes to not using their own intelligence or common sense, which makes them perfect vehicles for transporting & spreading the ridiculous! But alas I'm not that clever so we will have to endure it endlessly until a freak of nature reverses the genetic anomaly!
inter

----------


## John2b

> we will have to endure it endlessly until a freak of nature reverses the genetic anomaly!

  We all have to endure you, Inter.

----------


## intertd6

> phhht weak El Nino at best.  In any event its perfectly natural.

  And even a five year old could see that since the mid 90's there has been no significant warming during these months, there is a good saying which goes "never interrupt the witless while they are making a mistake!"
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> We all have to endure you, Inter.

  a fitting quote from the life of Brian "you lucky lucky b*****d!
some are under the false impression they can go their whole life dodging reality, then they get their mangina in a terrible twist when it eventually dawns on them that they can never escape it!
inter

----------


## John2b

> there is a good saying which goes "never interrupt the witless while they are making a mistake!"

  Oops, sorry for interrupting you, Inter!  :Cry:

----------


## John2b

> And even a five year old could see that since the mid 90's there has been no significant warming

  Even a five year old is smart enough to know that is rubbish. Perhaps if your mental age is less than five years it might be an appealing notion.

----------


## intertd6

> Oops, sorry for interrupting you, Inter!

  yep! I'm obviously deluded enough to think I posted a graph showing no warming since the mid 90's, ha ha what a classic!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Even a five year old is smart enough to know that is rubbish. Perhaps if your mental age is less than five years it might be an appealing notion.

  With a reply like that against the reality of the graph we could all chip in for your little lunch!
inter

----------


## intertd6

I heard on the radio today a perfect fitting description of the AGW crowd & it's clones, "moralistic busybodies"
inter

----------


## johnc

Still the one dimensional air temperatures with the convenient time period, at least you didn't get a job as an analyst you wouldn't have made it past week one.

----------


## intertd6

> Still the one dimensional air temperatures with the convenient time period, at least you didn't get a job as an analyst you wouldn't have made it past week one.

  nothing like being a well paid professional analyst to get it wrong! My conscience wouldn't let me do it for more than a week!
inter

----------


## John2b

> nothing like being a well paid professional analyst to get it wrong! My conscience wouldn't let me do it for more than a week!

  But then your conscience relented and let you do it for life?

----------


## John2b

Australias scientific research programs will be cut back and replaced by a recent experience the guy down the shops had, it was revealed today. A government spokesperson said it was a move to a more common-sense approach to research and development. The spokesperson said the Coalition wanted to avoid the dangerous precedent set by previous Governments whereby science was left to professionals and experts. Scientists have a right to an opinion too. But lets not forget the various other equally valid views and opinions in the community.   http://www.theshovel.com.au/2014/10/30/science-to-be-replaced-by-anecdotes/

----------


## intertd6

> But then your conscience relented and let you do it for life?

  another one of your typical delusions we see!
inter

----------


## John2b

A little journalist satire for the evening contemplation: 
"Little fella, Greg Hunt, once won a debating tournament at university, studied law, graduated, became an advisor to then Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, went into politics, stayed there, and wound up the current Minister for the Environment, having once been Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water, and then Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage. 
"As we no longer do climate here, and heritage is just a bunch of old s**t standing in the way of new s**t, the word environment now means all the other stuff. 
"Greg learnt all about the environment from Wikipedia, and is currently managing it for us by getting rid of as much of it as possible."

----------


## intertd6

> Australia’s scientific research programs will be cut back and replaced by a recent experience the guy down the shops had, it was revealed today. A government spokesperson said it was a move to a more common-sense approach to research and development. The spokesperson said the Coalition wanted to avoid the dangerous precedent set by previous Governments whereby science was left to professionals and experts.“Scientists have a right to an opinion too. But let’s not forget the various other equally valid views and opinions in the community”.   http://www.theshovel.com.au/2014/10/30/science-to-be-replaced-by-anecdotes/

  it appears you & your moralistic megalomaniac busybody crowd are losing ground!
inter

----------


## John2b

> it appears you & your moralistic megalomaniac busybody crowd are losing ground!

  Megalomaniac?  Do you mean Murdoch or his puppet Abbott? Murdoch will spit Abbott and his incompetent cronies out soon enough. Remember it was Murdoch who claimed credit for electing Gough Whitlam. "Sir Frank, without even warning him, sold the Telegraph to a young ratbag called Rupert Murdoch, who was openly advocating a Labor vote at the 1972 election. Murdoch made himself a part of the Gough Whitlam inner circle, and not only extended a lot of helpful propaganda in his newspapers, but also not a little free advertising space. Gough Whitlam sneaked in, and Murdoch was inclined to think he deserved the credit"    Oh, and the original post was satire - doh!

----------


## intertd6

> Megalomaniac?  Do you mean Murdoch or his puppet Abbott? Murdoch will spit Abbott and his incompetent cronies out soon enough. Remember it was Murdoch who claimed credit for electing Gough Whitlam. "Sir Frank, without even warning him, sold the Telegraph to a young ratbag called Rupert Murdoch, who was openly advocating a Labor vote at the 1972 election. Murdoch made himself a part of the Gough Whitlam inner circle, and not only extended a lot of helpful propaganda in his newspapers, but also not a little free advertising space. Gough Whitlam sneaked in, and Murdoch was inclined to think he deserved the credit"    Oh, and the original post was satire - doh!

  The entertainment just never stops!
inter

----------


## John2b

> The entertainment just never stops!

  Others have said it and I should too: thank you for your entertaining piffle.

----------


## intertd6

> Others have said it and I should too: thank you for your entertaining piffle.

  pity your not a bit quicker! You might have been able to come up with something original!
inter

----------


## John2b

Hmmm, weeding, Abbott's new strategy to combat global warming:  *The Federal Government's Green Army workers take to the tools today for the first time.*  Over the next four years, the government will provide $525 million for volunteers to carry out small-scale environmental jobs in rural areas.  Groups of workers aged 17 to 24 were deployed this morning in the central west New South Wales towns of Bathurst, Crookwell and Yass.  Team leader for the projects in Bathurst, Jack Fry, says some of the jobs will include *weeding* and planting trees.  Green Army gets cracking on volunteer environmental work - ABC Rural (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## John2b

From the Sydney Morning Herald: Your taxes at work... 
In the bad old days with things like the carbon not-actually-a-tax and the Emissions Trading Scheme, the onus was on polluters to pay more if they polluted, thereby giving them a clear economic incentive to reduce emissions. 
Direct Action goes the other way: you can pollute all you like, and there's no reason to look at reducing your emissions whatsoever. The scheme is completely voluntary.But if you want to get some free money you can promise to pollute less and the government will give you a lovely subsidy for saying so. And if you don't actually reduce your emissions having taken the bri… sorry, "subsidy"? There's no penalty, so heck - why not ask for some more? After all, ol' Hunty has made clear that he "didn't expect any businesses to be penalised." But what say you're not a polluting company - in fact, you're working in renewable energy tech? You know, the type that doesn't contribute to climate change and which is ready to supply literally all of our power needs right now?  Well, tough: not only are you getting nothing, FInance Minister Mathias "G-Man" Cormann has made clear that there are still plans afoot to get rid of both the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, thereby ensuring that you upstarts _don't start competing with existing energy companies who have profits to protect_. View from the Street: humans v kangaroos - the road to victory!

----------


## John2b

Australia's plan to reduce carbon emissions by *5%* by 2020 has been described by Environment Minister Greg Hunt as *"one of the world's leading" reduction targets.*   Greg Hunt says IPCC report vindicates the government's Direct Action policy 
So how does Australia's 5% compare?: 
Canada *17%* below 2005 levels by 2020 
European Community *30%* below 1990 levels by 2020 
Japan *25%* below 1990 levels by 2020 
New Zealand *10-20%* below 1990 levels by 2020 
Russia *15-25%* below 1990 levels by 2020 
United States *17%* below 2005 levels by 2020 
Brazil* 36.1-38.9%* below business-as-usual projected emissions level in 2020 
Chile *20%* below business-as-usual projected emissions in 2020, projected from 2007 levels 
China *40-45%* reduction in CO2 emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) from 2005 level by 2020 
India *20-25%* reduction in emissions per unit of GDP (excluding agriculture sector) from 2005 level by 2020 
Indonesia *26%* below business-as-usual projected emissions in 2020 
Israel *41%* below business-as-usual projected emissions in 2020 
Mexico *30%* below business-as-usual projected emissions in 2020 
Korea (Republic of) *30%* below business-as-usual projected emissions in 2020 
Singapore *16%* below business-as-usual projected emissions in 2020 
South Africa *42%* below business-as-usual projected emissions in 2025

----------


## intertd6

> Australia's plan to reduce carbon emissions by *5%* by 2020 has been described by Environment Minister Greg Hunt as *"one of the world's leading" reduction targets.*   Greg Hunt says IPCC report vindicates the government's Direct Action policy 
> So how does Australia's 5% compare?: 
> Canada *17%* below 2005 levels by 2020 
> European Community *30%* below 1990 levels by 2020 
> Japan *25%* below 1990 levels by 2020 
> New Zealand *10-20%* below 1990 levels by 2020 
> Russia *15-25%* below 1990 levels by 2020 
> United States *17%* below 2005 levels by 2020 
> Brazil* 36.1-38.9%* below business-as-usual projected emissions level in 2020 
> ...

  why didn't you just say " calling all clones! Calling all clones! Come & get your morning dose of propaganda!" If you cant swallow it we can deliver it another way!" It's from the government so it must be true & it's going to happen,( like it ever has!)
inter

----------


## John2b

> why didn't you just say " calling all clones! Calling all clones! Come & get your morning dose of propaganda!" If you cant swallow it we can deliver it another way!" It's from the government so it must be true & it's going to happen,( like it ever has!)

  I more or less did here: #12858 
Australia's mining interests are going to be trampled in the rush to renewables (it has already started), and our current Government's position will condemn our economy to one becoming of a third world country.

----------


## intertd6

> I more or less did here: #12858 
> Australia's mining interests are going to be trampled in the rush to renewables (it has already started), and our current Government's position will condemn our economy to one becoming of a third world country.

  an now your issuing the afternoon dose! The last idiots in power were told that mining was the only thing keeping the country afloat, didn't stop em from breaking the bank thinking the bubble would never burst!
inter

----------


## John2b

> The last idiots in power

  The last idiots in power were the last ones to preside of a prolonged period of trade surpluses, after a prolonged period of deterioration under Howard. What was your point?

----------


## John2b

An interesting article in The Age: 
Power down: What the Melbourne Cup can teach us about fighting climate change  Power down: What the Melbourne Cup can teach us about fighting climate change

----------


## intertd6

> The last idiots in power were the last ones to preside of a prolonged period of trade surpluses, after a prolonged period of deterioration under Howard. What was your point?

  and along you come & back me up, you beauty an own goal!

----------


## John2b

> and along you come & back me up, you beauty an own goal!

  You think Australia should have a deteriorating trade deficit, like has happened under Abbott? Help us out Inter - what is good about that?

----------


## intertd6

> An interesting article in The Age: 
> Power down: What the Melbourne Cup can teach us about fighting climate change  Power down: What the Melbourne Cup can teach us about fighting climate change

  yeh we'll all go to the races every day & stop watching neighbours!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> You think Australia should have a deteriorating trade deficit, like has happened under Abbott? Help us out Inter - what is good about that?

   He must be a real magician to backdate the trade deficit almost a year before he took power, quite feasible for a clone, not quite so for those with a few more functioning marbles!
the really stupid thing is how you have gone from the red herring price of coal when coal usage is continually increasing, then ending up tieing the balance of trade to it! The weird & wonderful goings on in between a cultist's ears & defies belief to those not struck between the eyes with a cult!
inter

----------


## John2b

The emissions trading scheme was actually working. Who wudda thort?  Emissions from Australias electricity sector have risen significantly since the repeal of the carbon price, with a record rise in emissions predicted this financial year. An analysis of the National Electricity Market (NEM) by Mike Sandiford, a University of Melbourne energy academic, has shown their emissions will rise about 9% in 2014-15 compared with 2013-14  the equivalent of 14m extra tonnes of carbon dioxide. The figure could be as high as 10%, according Sandiford.  The NEM covers about 80% of Australias electricity consumption.  Carbon tax demise leading to large rise in emissions, says academic | Environment | theguardian.com

----------


## John2b

China's consumption of coal is in decline. India will soon follow. Abbott's views on coal are, at best, strange under the circumstances. 
The amount of coal used to generate electricity in China fell by nearly one-quarter in the month of August, according to new data – a blip on the global coal consumption radar that could soon become the norm, as the Chinese government commits to a 2014 target of slashing thermal coal imports and more and more major international funds join the fossil fuel divestment movement.  http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/china-coal-consumption-down-23-as-more-funds-dump-fossil-fuels-40314  NEW DELHI: Air pollution in India is impacting the productivity of wheat crops, reducing it by almost half, a research paper has said.   Noting that India has already been negatively affected by recent climate trends, the paper said the significant decreases in yield could be attributed to two air pollutants -- black carbon and ground level ozone.   The research paper "Recent Climate and Air Pollution Impacts on Indian Agriculture" that analysed yields of wheat and rice crops for 30 years, found that air pollution caused wheat yields in densely populated states to be 50 per cent lower than 2010.   Air pollution in India cuts wheat yields by half: Study - The Economic Times   Abbott: “For the foreseeable future coal is the foundation of our prosperity."  http://www.thestar.com.my/Business/Business-News/2014/11/04/Australia-PM-defends-coal-after-UN-warning-on-climate/?style=biz

----------


## intertd6

> The emissions trading scheme was actually working. Who wudda thort?  *Emissions* from Australias electricity sector *have risen significantly* since the repeal of the carbon price, with a record *rise in emissions predicted* this financial year. An analysis of the National Electricity Market (NEM) by Mike Sandiford, a University of Melbourne energy academic, has shown their* emissions will rise* about 9% in 2014-15 compared with 2013-14  the equivalent of 14m extra tonnes of carbon dioxide. The figure could be as high as 10%, according Sandiford.  The NEM covers about 80% of Australias electricity consumption.  Carbon tax demise leading to large rise in emissions, says academic | Environment | theguardian.com

  who would of thought we all can read its a propaganda BS story to keep the witless clones sucked in!
inter

----------


## John2b

> who would of thought we all can read its a propaganda BS story to keep the witless clones sucked in!

  Here is the data from AEMO (National Energy Market Operator). Do you have some other data that shows a different result?   
Emission intensity (tonnes per megawatt hour) of average daily output for the 6 week period 20th July through 29th August for years 2011 through 2014.

----------


## John2b

Hyundai and Kia motor companies will pay as much as $350 million for overstating the fuel efficiency of their cars. The Justice Department and the EPA on Monday announced that the two Korean automakersboth part of the Hyundai Motor Grouphad agreed to pay a $100 million fine and forfeit another $200 million in emissions credits in the largest civil penalty ever levied under the Clean Air Act. The total cost to the companies could reach $350 million, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told reporters at a press conference.  Hyundia, Kia Slapped With Record Penalty in Climate-Change Settlement - The Atlantic

----------


## John2b

The 18th Annual Chatham House Conference on Climate Change being held today in London is sponsored by Shell. * * *I didn’t know Shell was sponsoring this conference when I agreed to do it, but I’m glad for the chance to say in public that Shell is among the most irresponsible companies on earth. When they write the history of our time, the fact that Shell executives watched the Arctic melt and then led the rush to go drill for oil in that thawing north will provide the iconic example of the shortsighted greed that marks the richest people on our planet. -* Bill McKibben Shell executives get slammed at their own climate change conference – Quartz

----------


## intertd6

The usual morning parroting of the propaganda! Nothing much in the way of facts as requested, everything including the kitchen sink that we don't need!
inter

----------


## johnc

> He must be a real magician to backdate the trade deficit almost a year before he took power, quite feasible for a clone, not quite so for those with a few more functioning marbles!
> the really stupid thing is how you have gone from the red herring price of coal when coal usage is continually increasing, then ending up tieing the balance of trade to it! The weird & wonderful goings on in between a cultist's ears & defies belief to those not struck between the eyes with a cult!
> inter

  Inter, anything we either export or import is tied to the balance of trade figures. The price of coal and its volume are directly linked to the BOT, do you seriously question this? We are already seeing companies questioning the viability of some of their marginal mines and BHP has shut one down. This is business, the real world pays a unit cost to dig coal, if market price drops below this then irrespective of volume the mine isn't worth operating. You are so busy "debunking" you can no longer see the wood for the trees.

----------


## John2b

*German bank reports solar power cost has reached grid parity*   Solar is currently competitive without subsidies in at least 19 markets globally and we expect more markets to reach grid parity in 2014 as systemprices decline further.   
 LOCE means Levalised Cost OF Electricity (solar), which is the accounting method used to compare electricity sources with different cost structures.  https://www.deutschebank.nl/nl/docs/...Rush_Begin.pdf

----------


## intertd6

> Inter, anything we either export or import is tied to the balance of trade figures. The price of coal and its volume are directly linked to the BOT, do you seriously question this? We are already seeing companies questioning the viability of some of their marginal mines and BHP has shut one down. This is business, the real world pays a unit cost to dig coal, if market price drops below this then irrespective of volume the mine isn't worth operating. You are so busy "debunking" you can no longer see the wood for the trees.

  still trying to cover up your BS story about the rabbit causing a trade deficit with pure unadulterated propaganda waffle is what your doing & any nong knows it! I have never seen some one get belted so much, so often & keep turning up with more of the same to be belted again, the hide of an elephant is delicate in comparison! 
inter

----------


## johnc

> still trying to cover up your BS story about the rabbit causing a trade deficit with pure unadulterated propaganda waffle is what your doing & any nong knows it! I have never seen some one get belted so much, so often & keep turning up with more of the same to be belted again, the hide of an elephant is delicate in comparison! 
> inter

  What on earth are you talking about, it would also appear that you may be confusing the trade balance with the current account deficit. Look Inter these insults are just childish how about growing up a bit and do us all  favour.

----------


## intertd6

> What on earth are you talking about, it would also appear that you may be confusing the trade balance with the current account deficit. Look Inter these insults are just childish how about growing up a bit and do us all  favour.

  And you know what your talking about!
"You think Australia should have a deteriorating trade deficit, like has happened under Abbott? Help us out Inter - what is good about that?"
Its like talking to Siamese twins, but with only one brain! And I'm baffled which one has it!
inter

----------


## johnc

> And you know what your talking about!
> "You think Australia should have a deteriorating trade deficit, like has happened under Abbott? Help us out Inter - what is good about that?"
> Its like talking to Siamese twins, but with only one brain! And I'm baffled which one has it!
> inter

  I have said nothing of the sort, your absurd suppositions have gone to far, stick your lies where the sun doesn't shine. Our trade balance is not the result of a single government as you imply, the loss of our car manufacturing along with drops in coal and iron ore commodity prices hurt our position although the sudden fall in oil price will help. If you had a basic understanding of economics you would not make half the absurd comments you manage to type out. The pathetic Siamese twin comment just illustrates that you find it impossible to admit you are wrong which is another reason you are so seldom right. Learn from your mistakes and for once rather than just insult as a default position have the balls to admit you got it wrong.  Also I do not refer to our nations leaders as Rabbit, Juliars or any other tag trotted out by in most cases gormless halfwits. A number of this governments decisions have not helped or trade imbalance and our trade problems with manufactured goods span decades.

----------


## intertd6

> I have said nothing of the sort, your absurd suppositions have gone to far, stick your lies where the sun doesn't shine. Our trade balance is not the result of a single government as you imply

  Yes we have worked out that you think everybody besides you & your clones are lying idiots, but by some freak of human nature we manage to put up with your types! Thank goodness you provide all the evidence that proves the opposite! 
Inter

----------


## johnc

> Yes we have worked out that you think everybody besides you & your clones are lying idiots, but by some freak of human nature we manage to put up with your types! Thank goodness you provide all the evidence that proves the opposite! 
> Inter

  All you have is insults, keep digging that hole.

----------


## intertd6

> All you have is insults, keep digging that hole.

   It's lucky I'm not a delicate petal like some, who can give it but not take what they dish out!
inter

----------


## johnc

> It's lucky I'm not a delicate petal like some, who can give it but not take what they dish out!
> inter

  No humility, still on the attack, incapable of admitting a mistake. You are the one who dished it out sunshine, you are the one who can't take it, keep digging you only have the one factory default setting apparently.

----------


## James

Is it hot in here or is it just me? 
Let's cool down for 7 days.

----------


## John2b



----------


## Rod Dyson

> 

  what crap

----------


## John2b

> what crap

  Good to see your well reasoned argument is up to the normal standard. 
This isn't crap: It has been *38 years* since the Earth had and average October temperature below the 20th century average. 
It has been *356 months* since the last time the global temperature of *any month* was below the 20th century average.

----------


## John2b

McCreath noted, “Farmers are at the pointy end of climate change. Last year was our hottest on record, this one’s shaping up to be even worse, and we’ve got a raging drought over a vast area. In spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence, our idiotic politicians are hooked on coal and gas, which is the cause of the problem.” Commenting on his own giant message he said, “We have huge reserves of sunshine, so making use of it is simply a matter of common sense. Our government’s reluctance to do so is an international embarrassment.” He added ‘I hope Angela Merkel shirtfronts Tony Abbott and asks him, if Germany can go solar then why on earth can’t Australia?’   http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/ploughing-on-with-climate-message/2716755.aspx

----------


## John2b

In 1990 Greg Hunt co-authored a university thesis entitled _A Tax to Make the Polluter Pay.  
His conclusion:    "Ultimately it is by harnessing the natural economic forces which drive society that the pollution tax offers us an opportunity to exert greater control over our environment."  http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-ed...427-zr04d.html_  
Compare that to the claptrap that comes out of Hunt's mouth these days. He truly is a flat-earth denier.   Most coal must stay in the ground, UN climate chief Christiana Figueres says  http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...#ixzz3ISVglBSs   *Australia can continue to burn coal, despite UN warning, Greg Hunt says*  http://www.theguardian.com/australia...greg-hunt-says

----------


## John2b

This November marks the fifth anniversary of Climategate - when millions of emails were illegally hacked and spun as evidence that the world's leading global warming researchers were engaged in a conspiracy. 
Six inquiries exonerated the scientists and he science. It was no more than a faux scandal sponsored by the lunatic fringe. 
None of which can hide the fact that it has now been 356 months since the last time the global temperature of any month was below the 20th century average.

----------


## John2b

Based on this forum who wudda thort?:  "A new study from Duke University finds that people will evaluate scientific evidence based on whether they view its policy implications as politically desirable. If they dont, then they tend to deny the problem even exists."  http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/107/5/809/

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Based on this forum who wudda thort?:  "A new study from Duke University finds that people will evaluate scientific evidence based on whether they view its policy implications as politically desirable."  http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/107/5/809/

  Now there is a quote I can agree with. Just about nails warmists to a tee.  LOL never thought I would ever agree with anything you say.  For this very reason.

----------


## John2b

> Now there is a quote I can agree with. Just about nails warmists to a tee.  LOL never thought I would ever agree with anything you say.  For this very reason.

  Not that you would ever let facts get in the way of your views, it's a pity you didn't read the story linked. It nails people of right wing political views. Participants in the experiment, including both self-identified Republicans and Democrats, read a statement asserting that global temperatures will rise 3.2 degrees in the 21st century. They were then asked to evaluate a proposed policy solution to address the warming.  When the policy solution emphasized a tax on carbon emissions or some other form of government regulation, which is generally opposed by Republican ideology, only 22 percent of Republicans said they believed the temperatures would rise at least as much as indicated by the scientific statement they read.  But when the proposed policy solution emphasized the free market, such as with innovative green technology, 55 percent of Republicans agreed with the scientific statement.  For Democrats, the same experiment recorded no difference in their belief, regardless of the proposed solution to climate change.  Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

----------


## John2b

Joe Hockey has described the recent landmark US-China CO2 abatement deal as "greatly encouraging", though Paul Keating was on the money:
"It shows what a complete nonsense policy the government has," he said. "This idea that, you know, we get rid of the carbon tax. The carbon tax was there to price - price pollution. "When you stop pricing pollution, you start gifting money to polluters, you know, you're on the wrong tram," he said.  Now that Paul Keating mentioned it, I do think Joe Hockey missed his true calling as a tram conductor. But then, based on his recent performance I don't think Hockey can be trusted with other people's money...  Paul Keating: US-China emissions deal exposes 'nonsense' of Abbott's policies

----------


## intertd6

> Joe Hockey has described the recent landmark US-China CO2 abatement deal as "greatly encouraging", though Paul Keating was on the money:
> "It shows what a complete nonsense policy the government has," he said. "This idea that, you know, we get rid of the carbon tax. The carbon tax was there to price - price pollution. "When you stop pricing pollution, you start gifting money to polluters, you know, you're on the wrong tram," he said.  Now that Paul Keating mentioned it, I do think Joe Hockey missed his true calling as a tram conductor. But then, based on his recent performance I don't think Hockey can be trusted with other people's money...  Paul Keating: US-China emissions deal exposes 'nonsense' of Abbott's policies

  what is your point? Other than showing which political bias you have from a terribly small soapbox!
I couldn't think of anyone less qualified to comment on another treasurer, but I suppose he's in la la land thinking it's the carbon tax we need to have!
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I couldn't think of anyone less qualified to comment on another treasurer

  How unimaginative!  I could think of millions...though admittedly I couldn't name them all.  
We don't need to have a carbon tax or even a price on carbon (there are other ways)...but you can be very sure that this deal is a large step to having one return to the Australian landscape no matter which side of politics is in ascendency.

----------


## John2b

Whilst CO2 ravages the atmosphere causing the retention of heat and the oceans through _falling_ pH, there are other consequences of human activities. Dead zones in the oceans the water have unusually low dissolved oxygen content, and aquatic animals that wander in quickly die. 
Dead zones have doubled in frequency every 10 years since the 1960s, largely due to increases in nutrient-filled runoff and global warming and other aspects of climate change. Dead zones often occur when runoff from farms and cities drains into an ocean or lake and loads up the water with excess nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Those nutrients feed a bloom of algae, and when those organisms die, they sink through the water column and decompose. The decomposition sucks up oxygen from the water, leaving little available for fish or other marine life.   History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian 
Edit: Corrected the direction of change of pH. It is interesting to see that someone in their haste to denounce this post had not even picked up the error!

----------


## Neptune

> Whilst CO2 ravages the atmosphere causing the retention of heat and the oceans through rising pH, there are other consequences of human activities. Dead zones in the oceans the water have unusually low dissolved oxygen content, and aquatic animals that wander in quickly die. 
> Dead zones have doubled in frequency every 10 years since the 1960s, largely due to increases in nutrient-filled runoff and global warming and other aspects of climate change. Dead zones often occur when runoff from farms and cities drains into an ocean or lake and loads up the water with excess nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Those nutrients feed a bloom of algae, and when those organisms die, they sink through the water column and decompose. The decomposition sucks up oxygen from the water, leaving little available for fish or other marine life.   History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian

  Yawn, more Elmer, Fear, uncertainty and doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## John2b

There's none so blind as those who will not see. there are none so blind as those who will not see - Wiktionary    
"We have fished out the big fish, changed the ocean's chemistry, trawled thickets and nurseries down to rubble and mud, and created massive dead zones through urban and agricultural runoff. In many places ecosystems are now functioning as just a shadow of their former selves. And instead of getting the message of these damaged ecosystems, we are pushing full steam ahead creating more." Jellyfish Blooms and the Future of the Ocean

----------


## intertd6

:Feedtroll:  
Inter

----------


## John2b

The world is acting on CO2 emissions causing a slump in world coal prices. Pity Australia's government is counting on coal to secure Australia's financial future. 
"Glencore Plc, the world's largest exporter of thermal coal, said on Friday it would shut its Australian coal production for three weeks from mid-December to help ease a supply glut.  http://www.theage.com.au/business/mining-and-resources/glencore-shuts-down-coal-mines-for-three-weeks-20141114-11mhp2.html
Meanwhile, this is what Abbott and Hockey expect the G20 leaders to do:      G20: Australians bury heads in sand to mock government climate stance | Environment | theguardian.com

----------


## Rod Dyson

Give it up john!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The world is acting on CO2 emissions causing a slump in world coal prices. Pity Australia's government is counting on coal to secure Australia's financial future. 
> "Glencore Plc, the world's largest exporter of thermal coal, said on Friday it would shut its Australian coal production for three weeks from mid-December to help ease a supply glut.  http://www.theage.com.au/business/mining-and-resources/glencore-shuts-down-coal-mines-for-three-weeks-20141114-11mhp2.html
> Meanwhile, this is what Abbott and Hockey expect the G20 leaders to do:      G20: Australians bury heads in sand to mock government climate stance | Environment | theguardian.com

  Hahaha have some fun kicking butt there LOL What a bunch of crazy people.  That is really going to change things LOL

----------


## Rod Dyson

I like the last words here.  

> Professor Michael Asten is astonished that global warming activists are using dated data to hide the recent decline in temperatures:     
> THE climate lobby will be working the corridors of the G20 @meeting in Brisbane this weekend, using the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Synthesis Report and Climate Council @commentary…  
> Both the Synthesis Report and the Climate Council report use old plots that show a steady rise in smoothed temperature to 2010 (the decade of the start of the hiatus).  
> Yet NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies’ global temperature graphs are updated monthly, show five-year averages, are publicly available on the internet and show average temperatures peaked in 2004 and show a decline for the following eight years…  
> The dichotomy between observational data and models is similarly marked with sea-level data of the past 120 years. The rate of rise across the past century is 1.7mm a year and has increased to about 3.2mm a year across the past 20 years. The data shows that the fast 3.2mm a year rate of rise has occurred twice in historic times (around 1860-80 and 1930-50). The IPCC modelling studies of sea level rise to 2100 show up to 80cm of total rise by 2100, increasing from the present 3.2 to a predicted huge 15mm a year....  
>  Yet neither the IPCC nor the Climate Council, or the publicly funded CSIRO on its website, even admits the existence of recent data such as that by Anny Cazenave and co-workers at the Geophysical and Oceanography Laboratory, Toulouse, which shows that from 1994 to 2011 the rate of observed rise in global sea level decreased from 3.5 to 2.5mm a year.   
> Oh, and as for the excuse that the missing heat is hiding in the deep ocean:   
> This has been studied in a series of important papers, most recently by William Llovel and co-workers at the California Institute of Technology who used quantitative observations of global ocean mass and temperature profiles to show that the deep ocean has in fact cooled slightly in the past decade.  *Just the fact that warming activists and politicians don’t mention these facts tell me they are not interested in the truth and cannot be trusted.*

  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

----------


## John2b

> I like the last words here.

  Which last words? The deep ocean has cooled. It's a theory based on computer modelling by climate scientists!:  The study took advantage of the fact that water expands as it gets warmer. The sea level is rising because of this expansion and the water added by glacier and ice sheet melt.  To arrive at their conclusion, the JPL scientists did a straightforward subtraction calculation, using data for 2005-2013 from the Argo buoys, NASA's Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites, and the agency’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites. From the total amount of sea level rise, they subtracted the amount of rise from the expansion in the upper ocean, and the amount of rise that came from added meltwater. The remainder represented the amount of sea level rise caused by warming in the deep ocean.  The remainder was essentially zero. Deep ocean warming contributed virtually nothing to sea level rise during this period.  Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that d_uring the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up._ Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down.  *Just the fact that denialists and the politicians in their pay don’t mention these facts tells everyone they are not interested in the truth and cannot be trusted.*  Study Finds Earthâ€™s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed - NASA Science

----------


## John2b

> _Yet neither the IPCC nor the Climate Council, or the publicly funded CSIRO on its website, even admits the existence of recent data such as that by Anny Cazenave and co-workers at the Geophysical and Oceanography Laboratory, Toulouse, which shows that from 1994 to 2011 the rate of observed rise in global sea level decreased from 3.5 to 2.5mm a year._

  That might just be because the statement grossly misrepresents the findings of Anny Cazenave.
"There is no slowing in the rate of sea level rise" after accounting for the natural variations, lead author Anny Cazenave of the Laboratory for Studies in Geophysics and Spatial Oceanography in Toulouse, France, told Reuters.  In La Nina years, more rain fell away from oceans, including over the Amazon, the Congobasin and Australia, she said. It is unclear if climate change itself affects the frequency of La Ninas. Rainfall over land only temporarily brakes sea level rise.  "Eventually water that falls as rain on land comes back into the sea," said Anders Levermann, a professor at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who was not involved in the study. "Some of it goes into ground water but most of it will drain into rivers, or evaporate."  Shifts in rainfall, not warming pause, slow sea level rise | Reuters  Sea level rise and its coastal impacts - Cazenave - 2014 - Earth's Future - Wiley Online Library

----------


## woodbe

> I like the last words here.     
> 			
> 				Oh, and as for the excuse that the missing heat is hiding in the deep ocean:   
> This has been studied in a series of important papers, most recently by  William Llovel and co-workers at the California Institute of Technology  who used quantitative observations of global ocean mass and temperature  profiles to show that the deep ocean has in fact cooled slightly in the  past decade.

  That's a load of crap. No-one has been claiming that significant heat is 'hiding' in the *deep* ocean. The ocean heat changes shown so far are in the 0-2000m depths. The deep ocean is 2000m+ and no science is claiming significant heat is being accumulated in that zone. The science suggest a possible range of 0-5% for the deep ocean and way more than that in the upper regions.    What is the role of the deep ocean in global warming? Climate science deniers get this wrong.  Greg Laden's Blog

----------


## John2b

Just in case anyone thought the agenda was driven by politics...  Investors worth 9trillion have called on world leaders gathering for the G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, to put climate change on the agenda and press for a global deal.
The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, which represents 91 European companies, said the group should build on the momentum of the emissions agreement signed by China and the US earlier in this week.  Investors urge G20 climate action - Politics | ReNews - Renewable Energy News

----------


## John2b

Abbott does us all proud...   
It's lonely when the only thing you have to hide your ideology is a pair of budgie smugglers...

----------


## Neptune

> Abbott does us all proud...   
> It's lonely when the only thing you have to hide your ideology is a pair of budgie smugglers...

  Thanks for posting all the comics, it really adds to your cause. :Rolleyes:  
Pleased to see that the comics are up to your usual standard and the quality of your usual posts. 
You see, anyone with half a brain would automatically doubt the credibility,  when constantly presented with such quality submissions.

----------


## intertd6

> Abbott does us all proud...   
> It's lonely when the only thing you have to hide your ideology is a pair of budgie smugglers...

  http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/...b__430x286.jpg
nothing like saying one thing while the reality is most the G20 are lining up & will continue lining up for the stuff! A tried & proven deception technique used to fool the clones which has been in operation since the turn of time & still working its magic as demonstrated here.... Unless your not a clone!
inter

----------


## johnc

> Thanks for posting all the comics, it really adds to your cause. 
> Pleased to see that the comics are up to your usual standard and the quality of your usual posts. 
> You see, anyone with half a brain would automatically doubt the credibility,  when constantly presented with such quality submissions.

  The "half a brain line" can't we do better than just attacking the poster, that position has been taken by someone else anyway. Considering half the rubbish posted here a bit of comic relief is welcome, at least it is clearly what it is rather than some ones vitriol.

----------


## intertd6

> The "half a brain line" can't we do better than just attacking the poster, that position has been taken by someone else anyway. Considering half the rubbish posted here a bit of comic relief is welcome, at least it is clearly what it is rather than some ones vitriol.

  I thought neptunes comments were quite clear & not attacking you or anybody, just that anybody with half a brain can see through the ruse! Is there really a need for the dramatics appearing to be a victim?

----------


## woodbe

Neptune's last post is of the same calibre as yours, inter. No surprise you agree with it.  :Tongue:  
Not all of Neptune's posts have been rubbish though, so there is a difference.

----------


## John2b

> Thanks for posting all the comics, it really adds to your cause.

  You're welcome. As it happens, I don't have a "cause" other than balancing fantasy with facts.   

> You see, anyone with half a brain would automatically doubt the credibility, when constantly presented with such quality submissions.

  Yes, I can see people with half a brain do doubt credibility....  :Rolleyes:  
BTW, are you ever going to post something on topic, and not just attacks on my integrity?

----------


## John2b

Who said global warming is a myth? Half of the days of extreme temperatures (above the 99th percentile) in the recorded temperature in Australia have happening the past 20 years. How can that be if global warming has paused?    _Number of days each year where the Australian area-averaged daily mean temperature is above the 99th percentile for the period 1910–2013. The data are calculated from the number of days above the climatological 99th percentile for each month and then aggregated over the year. This metric reflects the spatial extent of extreme heat across the continent and its frequency. Half of these events have occurred in the past twenty years._  State of the Climate 2014: Bureau of Meteorology

----------


## John2b



----------


## johnc

> I thought neptunes comments were quite clear & not attacking you or anybody, just that anybody with half a brain can see through the ruse! Is there really a need for the dramatics appearing to be a victim?

  ? dramatics? victim? really, an attack might also suggest if someone used a whole brain rather than just half of it we would all be better off.

----------


## intertd6

> ? dramatics? victim? really, an attack might also suggest if someone used a whole brain rather than just half of it we would all be better off.

  much ado as nothing & scrambling for excuses on the subject which is.........nothing except drama! Sing along now, Neighbours, everybody loves good neighbours.......la la la la la!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Neptune's last post is of the same calibre as yours, inter. No surprise you agree with it.  
> Not all of Neptune's posts have been rubbish though, so there is a difference.

   As per usual, long on hyperbole & short on facts we see!

----------


## intertd6

> The world is acting on CO2 emissions causing a slump in world coal prices. Pity Australia's government is counting on coal to secure Australia's financial future.
> "Glencore Plc, the world's largest exporter of thermal coal, said on Friday it would shut its Australian coal production for three weeks from mid-December to help ease a supply glut.  http://www.theage.com.au/business/mining-and-resources/glencore-shuts-down-coal-mines-for-three-weeks-20141114-11mhp2.html
> Meanwhile, this is what Abbott and Hockey expect the G20 leaders to do:      G20: Australians bury heads in sand to mock government climate stance | Environment | theguardian.com

  I though what an silly thing to do! But on the upside what a great place to park some bikes with fat tyres for a really long time!
inter

----------


## Neptune

> BTW, are you ever going to post something on topic, and not just attacks on my integrity?

   

> 

  More comics, thanks for the giggles.

----------


## John2b

> More comics, thanks for the giggles.

  You're welcome. Did you notice that, unlike your posts in this forum, the cartoon is on topic (namely whether emission trading is an appropriate political/economic strategy)?

----------


## intertd6

> You're welcome. Did you notice that, unlike your posts in this forum, the cartoon is on topic (namely whether emission trading is an appropriate political/economic strategy)?

   Those amongst us that aren't clones require something somewhat more substantial than the last page dominated by propaganda dribble! How about some empirical evidence for a welcome change instead of the biased political rhetoric!
inter

----------


## John2b

> How about some empirical evidence for a welcome change instead of the biased political rhetoric!

  You mean like my previous post? #12918

----------


## intertd6

> You mean like my previous post? #12918

  that there be a rationalists idea of evidence, that CO2 alone is causing global warming & for every high point in your statistical graph somewhere else on the globe there is a corresponding low series of temperatures to keep the global warming average on the level for the last 16 or more years, sucks the clones in every time as demonstrated yet again! 
inter

----------


## John2b

> for every high point in your statistical graph somewhere else on the globe there is a corresponding low series of temperatures to keep the global warming average on the level for the last 16 or more years

  No, you are incorrect. BTW, the graph is not even a temperature series, it is a graph of the frequency of high temperature extremes . There is no corresponding increase in frequency of low temperature extremes anywhere.

----------


## woodbe

Lol 
:d

----------


## woodbe

*Australia suffers another cringeworthy moment during G20 summit* 
            Date             November 17, 2014 - 12:28PM                *Robyn Dixon* 
 The G20 summit had  Australians cringing more than cheering, says Robyn Dixon, a former  Fairfax Media journalist, in this article which first appeared in the  Los Angeles Times.  *G20: Tony Abbott's 'weird' welcome* 
             Prime Minister Tony Abbott boasts  about domestic achievements in his G20 welcome to leaders, before  complaining about the difficulties of budget reform. 
The adolescent country. The bit player. The shrimp of the schoolyard. 
                               For Australians it's not so bad - most of the time - to be so  far away, so overlooked, so seemingly insignificant as to almost never  factor in major international news. The lifestyle makes up for it.    
Awkward moment: Prime Minister Tony Abbott. _Photo: Andrew Meares_  
But occasionally, there's an awkward, pimply youth moment so  embarrassing that it does sting. Like when 19 of the world's most  important leaders visit for a global summit and Prime Minister Tony  Abbott opens their retreat on Saturday with a whinge about his doomed  efforts to get his fellow Australians to pay $7 to see a doctor.  
                       And then he throws in a boast that his government repealed  the country's carbon tax, standing out among Western nations as the one  willing to reverse progress on climate change - just days after the  United States and China reached a landmark climate change deal.
          The Group of 20 summit could have been Australia's moment,  signalling its arrival as a global player, some here argued. But in all,  the summit had Australians cringing more than cheering.    
President Barack Obama. _Photo: Andrew Meares_  
It was a classic example of what Fairfax Media journalist and  Australian author Peter Hartcher calls the "pathology of parochialism"  in a recent book, _The Adolescent Country_. Hartcher argues that  the nation's politicians rarely miss a chance to trump important foreign  policy matters of long-term national interest to score cheap domestic  political points. 
          "The big matters are commonly crowded out by the small," the  Fairfax journalist argues. "International policy is used for domestic  point-scoring." 
Opposition leader Bill Shorten called Abbott's opening G20 address "weird and graceless." 
          "This was Tony Abbott's moment in front of the most important  and influential leaders in the world and he's whingeing that  Australians don't want his GP tax," said Shorten, referring to the $7  fee. 
It's a tendency some observers argue not only damages the  country's credibility but Australians' ability to take themselves  seriously. 
          Historians such as Geoffrey Blainey, who wrote _The Tyranny of Distance_  in 1966, explained Australia's "cultural cringe" and parochialism as a  product of the continent's historic isolation and vast distance from the  colonial power, Britain. The title became an explain-all catchphrase.  But almost 50 years later, with China and other Asian powers rising,  Australia leaning toward its Asian neighbours, and NATO dominance  waning, surely Australia had grown up? 
Hartcher believes that Australian politicians have lately  squandered opportunities to strengthen the country's global position at  the time of a major global power shift. 
          "The great crises that threaten Australia's national  prosperity come from abroad," he wrote. "So do the grandest  opportunities. But the reflex in Australia's national politics is that  where these biggest stakes come into competition with the smallest, the  small are the ones that very often win.
          "Measured against its potential today and its needs tomorrow,  Australia is seriously underperforming and it is underperforming  because of the pathology of parochialism." 
In a book about Australia last year, the BBC's former Sydney  correspondent, Nick Bryant, said parochial politics had been taken to  the point of absurdity and "the party room has trumped the halls of  international summitry". 
          After the July shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17,  widely blamed on pro-Russia Ukrainian separatists, Abbott publicly vowed  to "shirt-front" Russian President Vladimir Putin - a term conveying a  chest-to-chest male physical confrontation. After orchestrated Western  pressure and pointed slights against Putin at the G20, the Russian  leader reportedly planned to leave early.
          Since his election last year, Abbott has also taken a tough  line with China, his country's biggest trading partner. He offended the  world's most populous Muslim country and one of Australia's closest and  most important neighbours, Indonesia, over his handling of his policy to  turn back boats carrying would-be asylum seekers from countries such as  Afghanistan, who often depart from Indonesia.
          In the lead-up to the G20 summit, the conservative Abbott  insisted climate change would not be on the agenda, only to be  wrong-footed by the US-China climate change deal and President Barack  Obama's pledge to contribute $3 billion to a fund to help developing  countries deal with the effects of global warming.
          "Australia has a choice," said analyst Michael Fullilove,  director of the Lowy Institute for International Policy, a Sydney-based  think tank, in a recent article, noting the country's shrinking  diplomatic corps and military. "Do we want to be a little nation, with a  small population, a restricted diplomatic network, a modest defence  force, and a cramped vision of our future? Or do we want to be larger: a  big, confident country with the ability to influence the balance of  power in Asia, a constructive public debate, and a foreign policy that  is both ambitious and coherent?" 
For some, the G20 moment stung all the more after a memorial  service this month for a reformist Australian, former Labor Party prime  minister Gough Whitlam, who died in October at 98. It was a day of  stirring speeches, with nostalgia for a time when leaders had sweeping  ideas of the country's identity, vision and place in the world and  weren't afraid to spell them out in grand, compelling speeches.  
Don Watson, a speechwriter for Labor's former prime minister  Paul Keating, said recently that great speeches took words and ideas  seriously. 
          "Funnily enough, not many in politics do anymore" in  Australia, he said. "I mean, the main objective, one would think from  listening to politicians now is to try to remove the meaning from words,  to make them as anodyne and dull as possible, not to generate human  interest but to squash it." *Los Angeles Times * Australia suffers another cringeworthy moment during G20 summit    
Cringeworthy on every level. Can Malcolm Turnbull please step up!

----------


## intertd6

> No, you are incorrect. BTW, the graph is not even a temperature series, it is a graph of the frequency of high temperature extremes . There is no corresponding increase in frequency of low temperature extremes anywhere.

  Ha ha! Obviously the goldfish aren't at home today, cause if they were even they wouldn't have forgot the the global warming that has caused cooling! With record low temperatures that have occurred in the northern hemisphere over the last decade or more! "Bring out zee clone!"
inter

----------


## John2b

> Ha ha! Obviously the goldfish aren't at home today, cause if they were even they wouldn't have forgot the the global warming that has caused cooling! With record low temperatures that have occurred in the northern hemisphere over the last decade or more! "Bring out zee clone!"

  Wrong again. A few goldfish may have forgotten what winters used to be like, maybe, but record low temperatures in the northern hemisphere are not as frequent as they used to be. For example in Washington D.C. in the last couple of decades the ratio of highs to lows has gone from 4.6:1to 15.5:1. _That's an increase by a factor of more than three since global warming supposedly stopped!!!_:

----------


## intertd6

> Wrong again. A few goldfish may have forgotten what winters used to be like, maybe, but record low temperatures in the northern hemisphere are not as frequent as they used to be. For example in Washington D.C. in the last couple of decades the ratio of highs to lows has gone from 4.6:1to 15.5:1. _That's an increase by a factor of more than three since global warming supposedly stopped!!!_:

  even funnier is it was you or one of your clones that posted the reference that was ultimately dubbed "global warming that causes cooling" the laughable antics just keep coming & coming & coming!
inter

----------


## autogenous

Actually, China is building close to 30 nuclear power stations and demand is falling.  Any country like Japan wont use coal because the exhaust is too high for the small land area. Same with solar PV, not enough land area for the power required. German going back to coal. 
Most the emissions are in the Northern hemisphere. The CO2 is held in the Northern hemisphere by the equator, like an invisible fence.      

> The world is acting on CO2 emissions causing a slump in world coal prices. Pity Australia's government is counting on coal to secure Australia's financial future.
> "Glencore Plc, the world's largest exporter of thermal coal, said on Friday it would shut its Australian coal production for three weeks from mid-December to help ease a supply glut.  http://www.theage.com.au/business/mining-and-resources/glencore-shuts-down-coal-mines-for-three-weeks-20141114-11mhp2.html
> Meanwhile, this is what Abbott and Hockey expect the G20 leaders to do:      G20: Australians bury heads in sand to mock government climate stance | Environment | theguardian.com

----------


## autogenous

Sea level has been rising for 17000 odd years, about 2-3mm per year. The Atols sink. Living on an island has inevitable consequences even without anthropogenic contribution. 
Australia has the highest growth in solar panel usage in the world, yet Gillard let Aussie university technology be sold to Germany.  Gillards carbon tax is just a pig trough for scientists and the current job she holds in the United Nations.  
European coal is not subject to a carbon tax.   

> That might just be because the statement grossly misrepresents the findings of Anny Cazenave.
> "There is no slowing in the rate of sea level rise" after accounting for the natural variations, lead author Anny Cazenave of the Laboratory for Studies in Geophysics and Spatial Oceanography in Toulouse, France, told Reuters.  In La Nina years, more rain fell away from oceans, including over the Amazon, the Congobasin and Australia, she said. It is unclear if climate change itself affects the frequency of La Ninas. Rainfall over land only temporarily brakes sea level rise.  "Eventually water that falls as rain on land comes back into the sea," said Anders Levermann, a professor at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who was not involved in the study. "Some of it goes into ground water but most of it will drain into rivers, or evaporate."  Shifts in rainfall, not warming pause, slow sea level rise | Reuters  Sea level rise and its coastal impacts - Cazenave - 2014 - Earth's Future - Wiley Online Library

----------


## autogenous

A century is weather, not climate.  'Climate change' by definition is a mixture of Anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic contribution so the term can be used to mislead the public.   

> Who said global warming is a myth? Half of the days of extreme temperatures (above the 99th percentile) in the recorded temperature in Australia have happening the past 20 years. How can that be if global warming has paused?    _Number of days each year where the Australian area-averaged daily mean temperature is above the 99th percentile for the period 1910–2013. The data are calculated from the number of days above the climatological 99th percentile for each month and then aggregated over the year. This metric reflects the spatial extent of extreme heat across the continent and its frequency. Half of these events have occurred in the past twenty years._  State of the Climate 2014: Bureau of Meteorology

----------


## autogenous

The Pew Charitable Trusts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
The Trusts, a single entity, is the successor to, and sole beneficiary  of, seven charitable funds established between 1948 and 1979 by J. Howard Pew, Mary Ethel Pew, Joseph N. Pew, Jr., and Mabel Pew Myrin — the adult sons and daughters of Sun Oil Company founder Joseph N. Pew and his wife, Mary Anderson Pew. 
Do more research on these groups and where the money is going.  Remember, information is going to be supressed by a multi billion dollar entity  http://oilsandstruth.org/can-pew039s-charity-be-trusted   

> As per usual, long on hyperbole & short on facts we see!

----------


## autogenous

Funny how Greens are so anti nuclear when now there is means to burn the waste.  GE Hitachi PRISM | The Future of Nuclear Energy 
Are Greens getting funds off particular oil & gas trust proxies?  Think about the oil spills that have occurred in Australia and around the world in the past couple of years. How much damage did the oil dispersant's do? Deepwater Horizon oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
How coal dramatically reduce anthropogenic contribution http://www.cementaustralia.com.au/wp...-products.html 
According to Twitter, Australia uses so much coal slag, it imports coal slag on top of its normal usage which dramatically reduces its CO2 emissions.  Australia also adds further coal slag to concrete which reduces the amount of cement needed. This also reduces emissions in the most emission intensive CO2 producer, cement production, bar aluminium production.

----------


## John2b

> AThe CO2 is held in the Northern hemisphere by the equator, like an invisible fence.

  Nope. Atmospheric CO2 is not held in the northern hemisphere:   JPL | News | NASA Maps Shed Light on Carbon Dioxide's Global Nature

----------


## John2b

> German going back to coal.

  Nope: German coal consumption for the year 2014 is expected to be down more than 9%.  Finally, Germany Makes Progress on Coal - Forbes

----------


## John2b

> Actually, China is building close to 30 nuclear power stations

  True. China plans to add 150 Gw of nuclear capacity by 2030, a bit less than 20% of the 800 to 1000 Gw of zero emission 2030 electricity generation target.  A new China-US emissions pledge mostly confirms what China was going to do anyway – Quartz

----------


## John2b

> Sea level has been rising for 17000 odd years, about 2-3mm per year.

  Sea levels rose as glaciers melted at the end of the last ice age:   
What does that tell us about current sea level rise? No much, really (look at the last 100 years!):    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-of-sea-level/

----------


## John2b

> European coal is not subject to a carbon tax.

  Maybe because the EU has an emissions trading scheme which operates in the 28 EU countries and the three EEA-EFTA states (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway), covers around 45% of the EU's greenhouse gas emissions and limits emissions from more than 11,000 heavy energy-using installations in power generation and manufacturing industry and aircraft operators performing aviation activities in the EU and EFTA states.  The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) - European Commission

----------


## johnc

> Funny how Greens are so anti nuclear when now there is means to burn the waste.  GE Hitachi PRISM | The Future of Nuclear Energy 
> Are Greens getting funds off particular oil & gas trust proxies?  Think about the oil spills that have occurred in Australia and around the world in the past couple of years. How much damage did the oil dispersant's do? Deepwater Horizon oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
> How coal dramatically reduce anthropogenic contribution Sustainable products - Cement Australia 
> According to Twitter, Australia uses so much coal slag, it imports coal slag on top of its normal usage which dramatically reduces its CO2 emissions.  Australia also adds further coal slag to concrete which reduces the amount of cement needed. This also reduces emissions in the most emission intensive CO2 producer, cement production, bar aluminium production.

  Prism is a big step forward in dealing with spent nuclear fuel, but it doesn't eliminate it there is still waste from the process that has to be dealt with. Hopefully in time a process will be found that achieves that as well. Nuclear has a safety perception problem it has to over come, things don't go wrong very often but both Japan and Russia are examples of how damaging it can be to effected
communities as well as loss of productive agricultural land. Nuclear has a future but will require more Prism's (technology) before it gets there. 
I'm not sure about the coal slag or fly ash argument, there seems to be some slight of hand in the way some conclusions have been arrived at in the link.

----------


## John2b

> Australia has the highest growth in solar panel usage in the world

  Are you sure about that?  Top 10 Countries Using Solar Power - Pure Energies

----------


## John2b

> According to Twitter, Australia uses so much coal slag, it imports coal slag on top of its normal usage which dramatically reduces its CO2 emissions.  Australia also adds further coal slag to concrete which reduces the amount of cement needed. This also reduces emissions in the most emission intensive CO2 producer, cement production, bar aluminium production.

  Twitter, now the gold standard reference source? Someone better tell Greg Hunt that Wikipedia is old hat! 
Australia imports coal slag because it is not produced in any significant quantity in Australia. It is a byproduct of coking coal used in steel production, not the burning of thermal coal.

----------


## John2b

> Funny how Greens are so anti nuclear when now there is means to burn the waste.

  What most people probably don't realise is that most nuclear power stations are huge repositories of nuclear waste. There is no solution for the nuclear waste already in existence. There is no solution for the decommissioning of old nuclear power stations. Both Chernobyl and Fukashima disasters were compounded by the enormous amounts of nuclear waste in storage on site. 
Australia is about to get back the nuclear waste from the uranium we sold France from 1999. It is a consequence of the international agreement that requires the country of origin of nuclear fuel to take back the nuclear waste. And there is a lot more to come to Australia from other countries as the clock rolls around.  https://news.vice.com/article/austra...-nuclear-waste

----------


## autogenous

So your saying CO2 is  spread even top to bottom? LOL You crazy algorithm modellers trying to model mother nature.  
There is more than one article on the equator fence line and CO2 
1000 nuclear reactors worldwide. Countries with the reactors are the ones wanting an ETS with the advantage for obvious reasons. 
Climate change is happening, but it is so over scaled its a joke.  A big hello to those traditional gas producers wanting to lift their share price  :Rolleyes:  :Biggrin:    

> Nope. Atmospheric CO2 is not held in the northern hemisphere:   JPL | News | NASA Maps Shed Light on Carbon Dioxide's Global Nature

----------


## autogenous

If you have a  look, the new power stations burn the waste.   
Wood burns cleaner than gas. Traditional oil and gas producers are trying to shut down their competitors such as coal and coal seam gas. CSG has been in Australia 30 years. Protestors started 3 years ago with methane coming out their taps 
There is broiken down wind farms left to rot everywhere. Wait till Australian householders get prices to take Solar PV off their roof and disposed. How much will that cost in 15 years? 
There has been so much misleading information put out by Climate salesmen, its a joke.   

> What most people probably don't realise is that most nuclear power stations are huge repositories of nuclear waste. There is no solution for the nuclear waste already in existence. There is no solution for the decommissioning of old nuclear power stations. Both Chernobyl and Fukashima disasters were compounded by the enormous amounts of nuclear waste in storage on site. 
> Australia is about to get back the nuclear waste from the uranium we sold France from 1999. It is a consequence of the international agreement that requires the country of origin of nuclear fuel to take back the nuclear waste. And there is a lot more to come to Australia from other countries as the clock rolls around.  https://news.vice.com/article/austra...-nuclear-waste

----------


## autogenous

Disposal refuse just went up 40% in parts of Australia. Add the disposal fee for your solar panels on your roof in 15 years time to your net pay back on the purchase. How much money you making again? 
Remember its the back to grid infrastructure that cost the money. We cant roll that back now even if the CT goes. The cost is there. Poor people will pay.

----------


## autogenous

They are building another coal fire power station. Germany buy their power from  nuclear France. 
Yes yes yes lol    

> Nope: German coal consumption for the year 2014 is expected to be down more than 9%.  Finally, Germany Makes Progress on Coal - Forbes

----------


## John2b

> So your saying CO2 is  spread even top to bottom? LOL You crazy algorithm modellers trying to model mother nature.  
> There is more than one article on the equator fence line and CO2

  Er, no, I did not say "CO2 is spread even top to bottom". I posted a graphic showing the distribution of atmospheric CO2 measured by satellite and a link to where the graphic came from.  You are most welcome to tear the science therein linked to pieces and provide your well reasoned and supported arguments as to where and how the scientists at NASA got it wrong.

----------


## John2b

.

----------


## John2b

> Remember its the back to grid infrastructure that cost the money. We cant roll that back now even if the CT goes. The cost is there. Poor people will pay.

  A couple of things about renewables is that the energy tends to be used where it is generated, reducing the grid infrastructure requirement, and that it tends to reduce peak demand for a variety of reasons, which again reduces the the grid infrastructure requirement. That's already happened in Australia, and one of the reasons the traditional energy providers are squealing so loudly.

----------


## autogenous

If Australia reduces its coal usage, it will have to create more emissions in cement production by burning gazillions of gas funny enough, not! Of course the jobs could go overseas

----------


## John2b

> They are building another coal fire power station.

  Germany's last nine coal fired power stations were all approved for construction prior to the decision to phase out nuclear power. They were actually built as a strategy to reduce emissions from older less efficient coal fired generation plants that are being de-commissioned. Once the last new one opens in a year or so, there are no further coal fired plants approved in Germany.  Germany Energy Changes and Coal Use | The Energy Collective

----------


## John2b

> If Australia reduces its coal usage, it will have to create more emissions in cement production by burning gazillions of gas funny enough, not!

  How? Coal is not used in the production of cement in Australia and the coal slag used does not come from Australian coal burning industries. #12947

----------


## johnc

> If Australia reduces its coal usage, it will have to create more emissions in cement production by burning gazillions of gas funny enough, not! Of course the jobs could go overseas

  Let's not get obsessed with cement production, it is a known energy intensive product and the whole world uses it. It is also undergoing a lot of technological change as it looks for more efficient processes and inputs. It is also looking at ways to use others waste products, these debates hide rather than tell that story which end up serving no purpose beyond personal division.

----------


## woodbe

> Disposal refuse just went up 40% in parts of Australia. Add the disposal fee for your solar panels on your roof in 15 years time to your net pay back on the purchase.

  Don't know about you, but our panels have already paid for themselves. Dispose of them in 15 years? Why? In 20 more years they will still be producing 80% or more of their output when new. Maybe we'll add a couple to boost the total output back up but why throw away a perfectly good system, it isn't going to just stop at the end of the warranty. 
Quality PV panels come with output warranty, often 25 years. eg: http://www.etsolar.com/kk/upload/201411071807406284.pdf

----------


## woodbe

> If Australia reduces its coal usage, it will have to create more emissions in cement production by burning gazillions of gas funny enough, not! Of course the jobs could go overseas

  Or Australia could just reduce it's coal usage despite the cement industry. It's not like the only current use of coal is for making cement, there are plenty of opportunities to reduce coal usage, such as for electricity which cement plants also use.

----------


## autogenous

You didnt read what I said. Read the link. Cement has been replaced with coal slag which intern lowers the amount of emissions used to produce the cement by about 40%. Coal slag is then also used in concrete as a replacement for cement.  
So much coal slag is used, it is imported from China. If coal power is reduced then gas emissions will be increased to produce more cement. 
Of course the slag comes from Australia, plus it comes from China. Its put in both cement and again concrete.   

> How? Coal is not used in the production of cement in Australia and the coal slag used does not come from Australian coal burning industries. #12947

----------


## autogenous

Cement is the highest producer of CO2 next to Aluminium production. If you want to dramatically lower emissions then thats the way to do it. 
Also, Australia might have high emissions per head pop but Australia has low population and a first world country industrial production.  
To get rid of coal is stupid, the reason being is that cement production is teetering on going to China with the jobs right now. Coal slag is important in lowering Australias emissions.  

> Let's not get obsessed with cement production, it is a known energy intensive product and the whole world uses it. It is also undergoing a lot of technological change as it looks for more efficient processes and inputs. It is also looking at ways to use others waste products, these debates hide rather than tell that story which end up serving no purpose beyond personal division.

----------


## autogenous

The back to grid infrastructure cost us a bloody fortune. That cost cant be rolled back.  
There is a place for the odd windmill in a small town but there is already dead windmills left everywhere because its not viable to fix them or pull them down. Disposal costs 
If China felt windmills were viable they wouldnt be building nigh on 30 new nuclear power stations along with more coal fired power stations.  
The interesting thing about China is they don't have the same green tape costs Australia has, dramatically reducing cost to build Nuclear power. 
Japan is already firing up its nuclear power stations again. Japan didn't maintain their nuclear power stations and they still survived a tsunami. 
Now they will go 4 back generators with 2 being sealed units    

> A couple of things about renewables is that the energy tends to be used where it is generated, reducing the grid infrastructure requirement, and that it tends to reduce peak demand for a variety of reasons, which again reduces the the grid infrastructure requirement. That's already happened in Australia, and one of the reasons the traditional energy providers are squealing so loudly.

----------


## autogenous

They are going to start burning the nuclear waste stocks as we speak. Of course there is a solution. Its coming on now. 
Chernobyl was the result of gross negligence. None of the workers had been paid for 6 months letting the plant fail. 
Fukishima was the result of generators not being water resistant in a 9 on the richter scale earthquake and resulting tsunami. If it was renewables, they all would have been sitting in the ocean. Japan no power for months resulting in economic collapse.  Japan literally does not have enough space to produce the electricity it requires by solar. You can only imagine the amount of windmills.    

> What most people probably don't realise is that most nuclear power stations are huge repositories of nuclear waste. There is no solution for the nuclear waste already in existence. There is no solution for the decommissioning of old nuclear power stations. Both Chernobyl and Fukashima disasters were compounded by the enormous amounts of nuclear waste in storage on site. 
> Australia is about to get back the nuclear waste from the uranium we sold France from 1999. It is a consequence of the international agreement that requires the country of origin of nuclear fuel to take back the nuclear waste. And there is a lot more to come to Australia from other countries as the clock rolls around.  https://news.vice.com/article/austra...-nuclear-waste

----------


## autogenous

This is because Germany buys its extra electricity from France. So your agreeing with me. Germany are building coal fired power stations because naturally, their old coal power stations have reached their end life.  _IT'S been a black Christmas for green thinkers as Germany, the  world leader in rooftop solar and pride of the renewable energy  revolution has confirmed its rapid return to coal.  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226799246334_   

> Germany's last nine coal fired power stations were all approved for construction prior to the decision to phase out nuclear power. They were actually built as a strategy to reduce emissions from older less efficient coal fired generation plants that are being de-commissioned. Once the last new one opens in a year or so, there are no further coal fired plants approved in Germany.  Germany Energy Changes and Coal Use | The Energy Collective

----------


## John2b

> Fukishima was the result of generators not being water resistant in a 9 on the richter scale earthquake and resulting tsunami. If it was renewables, they all would have been sitting in the ocean. Japan no power for months resulting in economic collapse.  Japan literally does not have enough space to produce the electricity it requires by solar. You can only imagine the amount of windmills.

   My wife is Japanese and I travel there often. Your claims are irreconcilable with what I know of Japan and its power industry.

----------


## John2b

> This is because Germany buys its extra electricity from France. So your agreeing with me.

  I'll decide if I agree with you (I don't). Nor does the post, which links independent information. Murdoch's rag, The Australian, is not a credible source.

----------


## John2b

> Cement is the highest producer of CO2 next to Aluminium production.

  No, cement is not, transportation and electricity generation is. And aluminium made from renewable electricity doesn't need to be a large emitter of CO2 either.    What are the main sources of carbon dioxide emissions? | What's Your Impact

----------


## John2b

> They are going to start burning the nuclear waste stocks as we speak.

  Are you joking, or trolling, or just plain ignorant of what nuclear waste is and what would happen if it were burned?

----------


## John2b

> If China felt windmills were viable they wouldnt be building nigh on 30 new nuclear power stations along with more coal fired power stations.

  China is building 150 Gw of nuclear and 650 - 850 Gw of wind and solar. What does that tell you?  China&#039;s Gigantic New Commitment To Renewable Energy, Explained | ThinkProgress

----------


## autogenous

Johns a paid social media bureaucrat. This is all straight out the Greens propaganda handbook. See ya Renovate forum

----------


## intertd6

> Johns a paid social media bureaucrat. This is all straight out the Greens propaganda handbook. See ya Renovate forum

  hence why they can't even answer the most basic easy questions!
inter

----------


## johnc

> Johns a paid social media bureaucrat. This is all straight out the Greens propaganda handbook. See ya Renovate forum

  Sadly although the stuff on cement was interesting a lot of the comment on burning nuclear waste and redundant wind turbines is just plain wrong.

----------


## woodbe

> Japan didn't maintain their nuclear power stations and they still survived a tsunami.

  For some version of 'survive'. The country survived, but the reactor, the power plant and surrounding area is a wipe out and uninhabitable.

----------


## woodbe

> Johns a paid social media bureaucrat. This is all straight out the Greens propaganda handbook. See ya Renovate forum

  You are welcome to your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts. If you think you can post a whole lot of misinformation here without getting it pulled to pieces then you're in the wrong thread.

----------


## johnc

> hence why they can't even answer the most basic easy questions!
> inter

  A bit rich coming from someone that says he requires proof to accept anything. In this case no proof gets ready acceptance how do you justify that? Simply amazing  :Doh:

----------


## woodbe

Perhaps we can get back on track. 
Our pet skeptics love to claim that there is no warming for the last 16 years, yet they have no supporting evidence other than a (relatively) flat surface atmospheric temperature record. The planet exists of atmosphere, oceans, land and icecaps. Yet we only hear about surface temperatures... Here's something to help our pet skeptics take their blinkers off: 
A recent publication goes over the details of the warming 'pause' and delivers a conclusion that explains why and how the planet can still be warming regardless of short term atmospheric surface temperature trends.   

> *Conclusion* 
> Recent research provides a clearer picture of a seemingly enigmatic eventthe apparent slowdown in global warming over the past decade. An emerging understanding allows ar- ticulation of clear conclusions. First, despite views expressed in the popular press, global warming did not cease 15 years ago. Measurements taken with modern equipment show that the thermal energy contained within Earths thermal reservoirs has continued to in- crease unabated at a rate of 0.5 to 1.0 Watt per square meter of Earth surface area. This conforms to expectations based on relatively simple atmospheric physics, given the addi- tion of important greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and positive feedbacks reinforcing the effects of this change. 
> As we have explained, much of the extra heat is being stored in deep ocean waters. The increase in deep-water storage is likely to have been driven by changes in wind patterns in the Pacific Ocean, which bring cool water to the ocean surface while burying surface waters to intermediate depths. In terms of the implications for surface temperatures, stud- ies that have accounted for the impact of short-term natural changes, the solar cycle, and changes in atmospheric aerosols and particulates show remarkable agreement in quantify- ing both the persistence and intensity of the long-term warming trend.  
> In short: Earth is still warmingthere simply is no data to support any other conclusion.

  Continued Global Warming in the Midst of Natural Climate Fluctuations | Abraham | Reports of the National Center for Science Education 
And a little picture to help the understanding of why we need to look at more than just surface temperature records:

----------


## intertd6

> Perhaps we can get back on track. 
> Our pet skeptics love to claim that there is no warming for the last 16 years, yet they have no supporting evidence other than a (relatively) flat surface atmospheric temperature record. The planet exists of atmosphere, oceans, land and icecaps. Yet we only hear about surface temperatures... Here's something to help our pet skeptics take their blinkers off: 
> A recent publication goes over the details of the warming 'pause' and delivers a conclusion that explains why and how the planet can still be warming regardless of short term atmospheric surface temperature trends.    Continued Global Warming in the Midst of Natural Climate Fluctuations | Abraham | Reports of the National Center for Science Education 
> And a little picture to help the understanding of why we need to look at more than just surface temperature records:

  in a hyphenated word, k-rap
inter

----------


## woodbe

> in a hyphenated word, k-rap
> inter

  Where is your evidence that proves your claim? I know you're really, really short on evidence but you must have some knocking around. 
Did you read the paper? Which parts do you think are k-rap?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> in a hyphenated word, k-rap
> inter

  Fortunately, that's only _your_ opinion...and without further explanation as to the reasoning behind _your_ opinion....my opinion is that _your_ opinion (in this case) is completely without value.  Not for the first time either... 
As for Woodbe's post...I've no idea whether it is right or wrong...I haven't read the linked article.  However, it does accord with my recent reading

----------


## intertd6

> Where is your evidence that proves your claim? I know you're really, really short on evidence but you must have some knocking around. 
> Did you read the paper? Which parts do you think are k-rap?

  its waiting to be revealed after you come up with your proof that CO2 can, or ever will cause dangerous catastrophic global warming!
it looks like you, I & the rest of us will never see either!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Fortunately, that's only _your_ opinion...and without further explanation as to the reasoning behind _your_ opinion....my opinion is that _your_ opinion (in this case) is completely without value.  Not for the first time either... 
> As for Woodbe's post...I've no idea whether it is right or wrong...I haven't read the linked article.  However, it does accord with my recent reading

  you should maybe use some simple maths before engaging your bias!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> its waiting to be revealed after you come up with your proof that CO2 can, or ever will cause dangerous catastrophic global warming!

  Not my claim and not something I support, so no way I have any proof for it. 
On the other hand, you yourself have just made a claim and don't seem to have the spine to support it. Predictable. 
Also, the linked paper does not claim "dangerous catastrophic global warming" either. You are employing a dishonest tactic known as the straw man. Neither the paper or I make the claim you are trying to lay on us. The paper does discuss your little broken hobby horse though:   

> In this manuscript, two issues are addressed. The first is whether the lack of a trend in the five-year mean of surface temperature change is indicative of a cessation or halt to Earth’s energy imbalance (global warming). Second, a review of recent scientific literature is provided to quantify the role that short-term fluctuations have in masking long-term trends.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> you should maybe use some simple maths before engaging your bias!

  I did. But I wasn't about to be picky in the face of 0.1% 
As for bias engagement...pot:kettle:black  :brava:

----------


## intertd6

> I did. But I wasn't about to be picky in the face of 0.1% 
> As for bias engagement...pot:kettle:black

   Really? The sun mustn't shine on the earth & heat it then, with an global area of 30% & mass at least 2.5 times that of the oceans that doesn't have any evaporation cooling factors, why does that heat mysteriously not show up on that pie graph? Easy, it is just ridiculous! But totally believable to a clone.
inter

----------


## woodbe

Climate council report on Renewables in Australia:  The Australian Renewable Energy Race: Which States are Winning or Losing? 
Some interesting quotes: 
"Other than South Australia, no other Australian state has a current 
target to increase renewable energy." 
"Victoria and NSW have moved from leaders to 
 laggards in Australias renewable energy race." 
"Australia has substantial opportunities for renewable 
energy. A lack of clear federal policy has led to a drop in 
renewable energy investment." 
"Following the election of a new government in 
 march 2014, Tasmania has abandoned its 2020 emissions 
reduction goal and abolished the states Climate Action Council."

----------


## intertd6

> Climate council report on Renewables in Australia:  The Australian Renewable Energy Race: Which States are Winning or Losing? 
> Some interesting quotes: 
> "Other than South Australia, no other Australian state has a current 
> target to increase renewable energy."  the rest of the states aren't as much of welfare states 
> "Victoria and NSW have moved from leaders to 
>  laggards in Australia’s renewable energy race."  they didnt want want to become welfare states 
> "Australia has substantial opportunities for renewable 
> energy. A lack of clear federal policy has led to a drop in 
> renewable energy investment."  australia doesnt want want to become a welfare nation 
> ...

  inter

----------


## intertd6

Parts of the USA today are experiencing global warming that is causing severe global cooling & record snow falls dropping the years average in a matter of days!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

Happy to let those last two posts stand. They precisely sum up the inability to discuss climate intelligently by those that deny the science.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Shocker: Top Google Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’ | Watts Up With That?  

> “At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …
> Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.” What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change - IEEE Spectrum

  snigger snigger

----------


## woodbe

> What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change - IEEE Spectrum 
> snigger snigger

  Thanks Rod. 
You do know that the article quoted does not deny climate change? 
snigger snigger

----------


## PhilT2

_So our best-case scenario, which was based on our most optimistic  forecasts for renewable energy, would still result in severe climate  change, with all its dire consequences: shifting climatic zones,  freshwater shortages, eroding coasts, and ocean acidification, among  others._  
Seems like they believe in catastrophic climate change.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> _So our best-case scenario, which was based on our most optimistic  forecasts for renewable energy, would still result in severe climate  change, with all its dire consequences: shifting climatic zones,  freshwater shortages, eroding coasts, and ocean acidification, among  others._  
> Seems like they believe in catastrophic climate change.

  If it is what is being planned for then it MUST be cost effective!😀

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Thanks Rod. 
> You do know that the article quoted does not deny climate change? 
> snigger snigger

  Didn't say it did!

----------


## woodbe

> Didn't say it did!

  No, but the article you linked supports everything you reckon isn't happening... 
Check your foot, I think it has a hole in it.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> No, but the article you linked supports everything you reckon isn't happening... 
> Check your foot, I think it has a hole in it.

  
Not at all,  you miss the point!!

----------


## woodbe

> Not at all,  you miss the point!!

  I understand the article, there is nothing in it that supports your published opinion on climate change, and there is nothing in it that suggests we should give up on renewable energy. 
You do not accept the underlying climate sensitivity behind climate change, therefore you are only quoting that article because you read it on WUWT as some kind of anti environmental paper. What the paper is actually saying is we need to find ways to do more, not less. Nothing in the paper suggests we should ignore the facts of AGW or turn away from renewable energy. 
If you wish to make a point other than 'snigger snigger' you should use your own words to describe your point.

----------


## John2b

> Not at all,  you miss the point!!

  The point, aptly shown by Rod on this and many other occasions, is that logical fallacies are par for the course when it comes to climate change denial! When you get to the core of it, there are barely two things that the deniers in this forum actually agree on, and the main one of those two points is that everyone who accepts the evidence and the science is wrong... 
BTW, Google seems to have overlook one substantial fact, there are plenty of existing renewable energy economies: Countries with 100% renewable energy | Make Wealth History 
Rod, it's about time you stopped reading BS blogs and started availing yourself of substantiated facts. It's not like they are hard to find if you are interested...

----------


## John2b

Five of the past six months have been the hottest months recorded globally since records began in 1880: 
With records dating back to 1880, the global temperature averaged across the world's land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average. This also marks the third consecutive month and fifth of the past six with a record high global temperature for its respective month (July was fourth highest). Global Analysis - October 2014 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

----------


## intertd6

> Five of the past six months have been the hottest months recorded globally since records began in 1880:
> With records dating back to 1880, the global temperature averaged across the world's land and ocean surfaces for October 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average. This also marks the third consecutive month and fifth of the past six with a record high global temperature for its respective month (July was fourth highest). Global Analysis - October 2014 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

  lucky for most of us non clones, you are doing the panicking for everybody, not that is of any concern to anybody but a clone!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> I understand the article, there is nothing in it that supports your published opinion on climate change, and there is nothing in it that suggests we should give up on renewable energy. 
> You do not accept the underlying climate sensitivity behind climate change, therefore you are only quoting that article because you read it on WUWT as some kind of anti environmental paper. What the paper is actually saying is we need to find ways to do more, not less. Nothing in the paper suggests we should ignore the facts of AGW or turn away from renewable energy. 
> If you wish to make a point other than 'snigger snigger' you should use your own words to describe your point.

  you missed the point alright, the proposed solution to the political problem isn't cost effective except for greasing the pockets of the clever leeches along the way!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> the proposed solution to the political problem

  The article wasn't about a political problem. It was dealing with facts. 
No surprise you didn't notice...

----------


## johnc

> The article wasn't about a political problem. It was dealing with facts. 
> No surprise you didn't notice...

  Don't be to hard on him, quite seriously it is a defence mechanism common in people with a limited ability to deal with new or complex information. It is unusual of course to see it on public display, most tend to avoid scrutiny.

----------


## intertd6

> Don't be to hard on him, quite seriously it is a defence mechanism common in people with a limited ability to deal with new or complex information. It is unusual of course to see it on public display, most tend to avoid scrutiny.

  i switched off to the politicians & their evangelical band of clones long ago when they started referring to an essential atmospheric trace gas as a pollutant & then they get sucked in by the most ludicrous claims like the last one! but hey that's just me! A fitting quote from Frau Farbissina " bring out zee clone!"
inter

----------


## John2b

> i switched off to the politicians & their evangelical band of clones long ago when they started referring to an essential atmospheric trace gas as a pollutant

  That's fine. But you haven't explained why you have switched off the actual physical science embodied by the laws of physics and conservation of energy and the evidence that supports it.

----------


## intertd6

> That's fine. But you haven't explained why you have switched off the actual physical science embodied by the laws of physics and conservation of energy and the evidence that supports it.

  still trying to float that one are you? You really must 
Produce your calculations which explain why the average global temperature has been flat since 1998, you could win the Nobel prize in physics with it, then we would know we have been truly graced with your presence. After your last effort calculating a 1'C ocean temperature rise every 95 years there is about as much chance of you winning it as me winning the Melbourne cup without a horse!
inter

----------


## John2b

[QUOTE=intertd6;955022]Produce your calculations which explain why the average global temperature has been flat since 1998/QUOTE] 
The Laws of Physics and Conservation of Energy are not broken. Heat is accumulating in the weather system unabated, and I have never seen you post anything that challenges that fact.    Has global warming taken a holiday? | Weather and Climate @ Reading

----------


## intertd6

[QUOTE=John2b;955025]  

> Produce your calculations which explain why the average global temperature has been flat since 1998/QUOTE] 
> The Laws of Physics and Conservation of Energy are not broken. Heat is accumulating in the weather system unabated, and I have never seen you post anything that challenges that fact.    Has global warming taken a holiday? | Weather and Climate @ Reading

  you forgot one other major factor in the warming farce " el  logro demente "
inter

----------


## woodbe

> still trying to float that one are you? You really must 
> Produce your calculations which explain why the average global temperature has been flat since 1998

  And look who's trying to float a dead horse. 
You should at least say "the average global _surface air_ temperature _excluding any other known rising heat sinks such as the oceans, the ice caps, the glaciers, etc._"  
The planet consists of far, far more mass than the thin atmosphere close to the surface. A dog wags it's tail, the tail doesn't wag the dog. 
Whilst animals are referred to in this post, none were harmed.  :Biggrin:

----------


## John2b

> And look who's trying to float a dead horse.

  To quote Jo Nova ( :Shock: )  "Who can say whether compulsory name-calling is deliberate or involuntary? Some people just don’t seem to be able to help themselves."

----------


## intertd6

> And look who's trying to float a dead horse. 
> You should at least say "the average global _surface air_ temperature _excluding any other known rising heat sinks such as the oceans, the ice caps, the glaciers, etc._"   no that's the clones response as shown, but really you must tell us why the earths surface mass isn't absorbing all this extra energy, gaining heat as well, then emitting it back out to warm the atmosphere above it? Or is it being absorbed deep into the earths crust like the oceans waiting to burst forth in a second coming? 
> The planet consists of far, far more mass than the thin atmosphere close to the surface. A dog wags it's tail, the tail doesn't wag the dog.  If only you could join the dots & work it out, but alas no! I don't know much about your silly dog but you guys are living proof clones were invented long before dolly the sheep! 
> Whilst animals are referred to in this post, none were harmed.

  inter

----------


## johnc

I think you've worn 'clone' out, although the petty insults appear to continue unabated. Perhaps some slightly more grown up behaviour is long overdue.

----------


## John2b

> the petty insults appear to continue unabated. Perhaps some slightly more grown up behaviour is long overdue.

  Perhaps it should be respected that it is the only thing he can do, when the real world and his beliefs are so discordant.

----------


## johnc

> Perhaps it should be respected that it is the only thing he can do, when the real world and his beliefs are so discordant.

  There is certainly no depth there, we never seem to wade out of the shallow end of the pool, for a change it would be nice to actually discuss the issue beyond the hissy fit of "nah nah not happening"

----------


## John2b

> Produce your calculations which explain why the average global temperature has been flat since 1998, you could win the Nobel prize in physics with it

  Too late, the physicist who made the relevant discoveries in 1893 was awarded the Nobel prize in 1911.

----------


## intertd6

> Originally Posted by intertd6 
> Produce your calculations which explain why the average global temperature has been flat since 1998, you could win the Nobel prize in physics with it  
> Too late, the physicist who made the relevant discoveries in 1893 was awarded the Nobel prize in 1911.

  You cant understand the question obviously! ( and many many others! ) Nor how to understand a calendar.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> I think you've worn 'clone' out, although the petty insults appear to continue unabated. Perhaps some slightly more grown up behaviour is long overdue.

   How about you resist the urge to insult our intelligence & give us an explanation of why the earths crust mass isn't accumulating all this extra heat & not re emitting it back to warm the atmosphere & explain why the oceans can do this, instead of the earths crust? Some things are just too silly for words!
Inter

----------


## intertd6

> Perhaps it should be respected that it is the only thing he can do, when the real world and his beliefs are so discordant.

  You still can't answer or even parrot anything relevant to questions asked as usual we see!
inter

----------


## John2b

> You cant understand the question obviously!

  I understood the question and the answer is determined by the science. Your inability or unwillingness to understand the answer, or the science, does not invalidate either. Just like someone's inability to understand  electron tunnelling in semiconductor junctions does not invalidate computers, even though without it computers would not work.

----------


## John2b

> How about you resist the urge to insult our intelligence & give us an explanation of why the earths crust mass isn't accumulating all this extra heat & not re emitting it back to warm the atmosphere & explain why the oceans can do this, instead of the earths crust?

  The answer has been given. Here is one version again for those too intellectually challenged to find it for themselves: The role of the ocean in tempering global warming | NOAA Climate.gov   

> Some things are just too silly for words!

  You said it...

----------


## John2b

.

----------


## Neptune

> .

  Quoted for truth.

----------


## John2b

> Quoted for truth.

  Neptune, honoured as I am to be the centre of your frequent, thinly veiled attempts to disparage my personal integrity, one must wonder why you have not posted even once on topic in this forum since I joined it. Are you channelling Inter?

----------


## intertd6

> The answer has been given. Here is one version again for those too intellectually challenged to find it for themselves: The role of the ocean in tempering global warming | NOAA Climate.gov   
> You said it...

  that doesn't address anything I asked for in my questions, therefor you haven't even got something to parrot!
inter

----------


## John2b

> that doesn't address anything I asked for in my questions

  Your false premises cannot be explained logically or scientifically. But really, why would that be surprising? 
Meanwhile in a few days it will have been 347 months since the last time the planet had a below average monthly temperature based on the 20th century average.

----------


## intertd6

> Your false premises cannot be explained logically or scientifically. But really, why would that be surprising? 
> Meanwhile in a few days it will have been 347 months since the last time the planet had a below average monthly temperature based on the 20th century average.

   Can you seriously be that unintelligent to think that out of all the suns energy that hits this planet, it is not equally absorbed by the earths crust & the oceans? 
Inter

----------


## woodbe

> Can you seriously be that unintelligent to think that out of all the suns energy that hits this planet, it is not equally absorbed by the earths crust & the oceans? 
> Inter

  There is intelligence involved in understanding the difference in the heat uptake between the 'earths crust' and the oceans. It takes intelligence to understand that the ocean surfaces outranks the land area by 2.4:1. It also takes intelligence to understand that currents in the oceans can move warm water from the surface thereby increasing the heat uptake relative to stationary land masses. Intelligence is required to understand that the oceans are not opaque like land. 
So yea, the heat uptake between land and ocean is different, not equal. Even if it were the same by unit area, the sum total for each would be different because of the different areas.

----------


## johnc

> Can you seriously be that unintelligent to think that out of all the suns energy that hits this planet, it is not equally absorbed by the earths crust & the oceans? 
> Inter

  Lay off the insults, you are out of control, there are basic levels of civility we should all aspire to. I respect the fact you have a strong belief and clearly lack the ability to discuss it and that is why you are forced to rely on insults but by you now you should have been able to develop your knowledge to the point you can discuss scientific detail in a balanced rather than partisan manner.

----------


## woodbe

> Can you seriously be that unintelligent...

  A little education for you:

----------


## intertd6

> Lay off the insults, you are out of control, there are basic levels of civility we should all aspire to. I respect the fact you have a strong belief and clearly lack the ability to discuss it and that is why you are forced to rely on insults but by you now you should have been able to develop your knowledge to the point you can discuss scientific detail in a balanced rather than partisan manner.

  that was a question if you noticed, if you want to do something usefull with your time answer it!
( it was a yes or no question too )
inter

----------


## intertd6

> A little education for you:

  Haven't you got an answer to the question either, just more dribble instead of answering legitimate questions, It is clearly obvious you & your like ( I won't use the word clone as I have come to the conclusion they are significantly more advanced ) haven't a clue at all in the matter because you can't even parrot anything remotely associated to the question & start on the victim routine!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> There is intelligence involved in understanding the difference in the heat uptake between the 'earths crust' and the oceans. It takes intelligence to understand that the ocean surfaces outranks the land area by 2.4:1. It also takes intelligence to understand that currents in the oceans can move warm water from the surface thereby increasing the heat uptake relative to stationary land masses. Intelligence is required to understand that the oceans are not opaque like land. 
> So yea, the heat uptake between land and ocean is different, not equal. Even if it were the same by unit area, the sum total for each would be different because of the different areas.

   Did your intelligence realise that the earths crust has a mass at least 2 times that of water so takes the equation up to around 1:1 in exposed mass and the idiots guide to the where the warming is going shows only a 2.1 percent going into the continents! It is silly beyond words! And how so called intelligent people can cling to rubbish like that is truly remarkable!
and what's even funnier is this has all come about because the woven web of lies of the AGW mob and they can't except that the globes average air temperature hasn't warmed since 1998!
inter

----------


## johnc

> Did your intelligence realise that the earths crust has a mass at least 2 times that of water so takes the equation up to around 1:1 in exposed mass and the idiots guide to the where the warming is going shows only a 2.1 percent going into the continents! It is silly beyond words!
> inter

  So what do you think that means? do you have temperature readings of the earths crust? Also why use the idiots guide, the laws of self improvement would suggest you opt for a better quality source.

----------


## John2b

> Can you seriously be that unintelligent to think that out of all the suns energy that hits this planet, it is not equally absorbed by the earths crust & the oceans?

  Thank you for your touching concern about my intellectual capacity. But no need to worry, I am intelligent enough to know that the sun's energy is NOT equally absorbed by the Earth's crust and the oceans for a whole raft of reasons including albedo (the ocean is darker on average than land is on average and reflects less solar radiation than land), surface area (the oceans make up most of the Earth's surface area) and circulation (currents move heat from the ocean's surface into deeper water) to name some major ones. 
"Weather" is essentially a consequence of the chaotic process by which the Earth's surface temperature is synchronised with the heat content of the oceans. Heat currently being stored in the oceans will arrive at the surface soon enough.

----------


## John2b

> Did your intelligence realise that the earths crust has a mass at least 2 times that of water so takes the equation up to around 1:1 in exposed mass

  Of course the factors you mention are taken into account when the energy budget is calculated, they just aren't nearly as significant as a casual observer without a fundamental understanding of the physics may think. Land surface reflects heat and the surface layer acts as an insulator, preventing heat from moving below the surface. Oceans don't reflect as much heat, and currents act as a heat conveyor moving heat down from the surface.

----------


## intertd6

> So what do you think that means? do you have temperature readings of the earths crust? Also why use the idiots guide, the laws of self improvement would suggest you opt for a better quality source.

   The idiots guide was the one you guys supplied & I have been disputing it vigorously ever since because it was so silly, so really you guys have to lift your game!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> Did your intelligence realise that the earths crust has a mass at least 2 times that of water so takes the equation up to around 1:1 in exposed mass and the idiots guide to the where the warming is going shows only a 2.1 percent going into the continents! It is silly beyond words! And how so called intelligent people can cling to rubbish like that is truly remarkable!
> and what's even funnier is this has all come about because the woven web of lies of the AGW mob and they can't except that the globes average air temperature hasn't warmed since 1998!
> inter

  Still playing the losing position I see. 
The differences between the land and the ocean have been well summarised here in response to your post. The result is it is quite clear that the take up of heat from the sun is not equal between the land and ocean, and THAT was your claim:   

> Can you seriously be that unintelligent to think that out of all the  suns energy that hits this planet, it is not *equally absorbed by the  earths crust & the oceans*?

   Totally busted! 
If you have any data to support your claim of equal absorbtion for the earth's crust and oceans, I and probably others here will be most happy to read about it. Sadly, you don't seem to be able to find any data to support your position, so excuse us for not holding our breath waiting for you to come up with your evidence.

----------


## intertd6

> Still playing the losing position I see. 
> The differences between the land and the ocean have been well summarised here in response to your post. The result is it is quite clear that the take up of heat from the sun is not equal between the land and ocean, and THAT was your claim:   
>  Totally busted! 
> If you have any data to support your claim of equal absorbtion for the earth's crust and oceans, I and probably others here will be most happy to read about it. Sadly, you don't seem to be able to find any data to support your position, so excuse us for not holding our breath waiting for you to come up with your evidence.

   Try & defend the 2.1% claim with some credible evidence then? Its basically claiming the earths crust doesn't exist! Nor has any capacity for heat retention!
Inter

----------


## woodbe

> Try & defend the 2.1% claim with some credible evidence then? Its basically claiming the earths crust doesn't exist! Nor has any capacity for heat retention!
> Inter

  I have no problems with you wanting to debate the accuracy of a previously pasted graphic. If it's wrong, then it's wrong, but we are not there yet and I suspect it may well be correct. Consider yourself harping on about no warming since '98 and the fact that land is where most of the thermometers are. If that graphic reflects 'since 98' then you just might have tripped yourself up there.  :Wink:  
However, you cannot debate the accuracy of a graphic by making apparently erroneous claims yourself. Just to be clear, I'm talking about**: '*equally absorbed by the  earths crust & the oceans*?'  
Here's the deal. I'll go and see if I can find the background data behind that graphic, and if I can find it I will link and quote it here. While I chase that down, can you please either:  
a) show the data behind your claim that the earth's crust and the oceans absorb equally the same amount of energy from the sun, or  
b) simply back away from that claim. 
If you cannot find it in yourself to do either of those, then the deal is off.  :Tongue:

----------


## Neptune

> Neptune, honoured as I am to be the centre of your frequent, thinly veiled attempts to disparage my personal integrity,

  That's your opinion, but if it makes you feel good you're most welcome.   

> one must wonder why you have not posted even once on topic in this forum since I joined it.

  Well I thought I had, (maybe admin deleted it?) but if it was not supporting your side of this massdebate I suppose you would consider it off topic and report the post? 
At great risk of being BANNED for copying and pasting content to this debate as one valued member was, [there are two sets of rules here and you are privileged] I post this for your consideration, New Analysis Suggests Earth's Magnetic Field Is Destabilizing | IFLScience.   

> Are you channelling Inter?

  Is that a channel like the far canal?

----------


## John2b

> but if it was not supporting your side of this massdebate I suppose you would consider it off topic and report the post?

  Hardly, I have never reported a post for being off topic, but if that's your opinion, and it makes you feel good you're most welcome.

----------


## woodbe

> At great risk of being BANNED for copying and pasting content to this debate as one valued member was, [there are two sets of rules here and you are privileged] I post this for your consideration, New Analysis Suggests Earth's Magnetic Field Is Destabilizing | IFLScience.

  That is not pasting content, it is pasting a link. 
Do you have anything to add regarding the link that is relevant to the topic? Personally. I'm a bit distressed that my several accurate and adjustable compasses might be rendered useless, but vis a vis climate change, I'm struggling to see that this is something to be concerned about. Happy to be enlightened.

----------


## Neptune

> Hardly,

  Are you saying you wouldn't run to mum to have someone banned if you didn't like what they posted?    

> but if that's your opinion, and it makes you feel good you're most welcome.

  Speaking of parrots!

----------


## John2b

> Speaking of parrots!

  And the relevance of your post to the forum topic is????

----------


## John2b

> your side of this mass debate

  "The so-called climate debate presumes that there is, in fact, debate among the scientists who study our climate. This is simply not the case."  https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/is...ong-scientists

----------


## Neptune

> I post this for your consideration, New Analysis Suggests Earth's Magnetic Field Is Destabilizing | IFLScience.

   

> That is not pasting content, it is pasting a link.

  Correct, but it contains some content I hoped to sneak in while no-one was looking.   

> Do you have anything to add regarding the link that is relevant to the topic?

   No, I'm waiting on your sides consideration of it.

----------


## John2b

> No, I'm waiting on your sides consideration of it.

  Science doesn't have "sides", at least not once the fundamentals are established and agreed on, like the scientific fundamentals of climate change which are around 150 years old. (Maybe you are confusing the "debate" between pseudoscience and science, other wise known as the debate between fantasy and reality.) Like woodbe I am wondering what relevance your posted link has to the forum topic.

----------


## John2b

> Shocker: Top Google Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’ | Watts Up With That? 
> snigger snigger

  Another BS blog deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of the original report. Rod, don't you think it is time to wean yourself off Anthony Watt's teat?  What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change - IEEE Spectrum

----------


## woodbe

> No, I'm waiting on your sides consideration of it.

  Don't know about any 'sides' on that one, but I have already posted my consideration of it. 
Are you suggesting that you are on inter's side? Perhaps you are inter. lol.

----------


## intertd6

> I have no problems with you wanting to debate the accuracy of a previously pasted graphic. If it's wrong, then it's wrong, but we are not there yet and I suspect it may well be correct. Consider yourself harping on about no warming since '98 and the fact that land is where most of the thermometers are. If that graphic reflects 'since 98' then you just might have tripped yourself up there.  
> However, you cannot debate the accuracy of a graphic by making apparently erroneous claims yourself. Just to be clear, I'm talking about**: '*equally absorbed by the  earths crust & the oceans*?'  
> Here's the deal. I'll go and see if I can find the background data behind that graphic, and if I can find it I will link and quote it here. While I chase that down, can you please either:  
> a) show the data behind your claim that the earth's crust and the oceans absorb equally the same amount of energy from the sun, or  
> b) simply back away from that claim. 
> If you cannot find it in yourself to do either of those, then the deal is off.

  I would really like to accommodate you on that, but seeing you have set the bar so low by your own examples on being wrong so often, it is only reasonable you have the same reciprocated.
inter

----------


## intertd6

[QUOTE=woodbe;955370 
Are you suggesting that you are on inter's side? Perhaps you are inter. lol.[/QUOTE] 
The reds were under the bed too comrade! The clones of the day were sucked in by that one too!
paranoia is the common denominator! 
inter

----------


## woodbe

> I would really like to accommodate you on that, but...

  you can't, so you are making up a feeble excuse. 
Predictable.  :Rolleyes:  
I'll take that as inter-speak for a backdown on your silly claim. You can't find any research to support it because it doesn't exist.

----------


## intertd6

> you can't, so you are making up a feeble excuse. 
> Predictable.  
> I'll take that as inter-speak for a backdown on your silly claim. You can't find any research to support it because it doesn't exist.

   Yes we all know after the endless pages of your examples how it goes!
it is really satisfying to turn the tables for once!
inter

----------


## John2b

"_Proposals for the first trials to cool the planet include cloud brightening and spraying aerosols into the ozone layer. They might start in just two years__IF WE can't reduce emissions enough, what else can cool the planet? We need to find out if geoengineering works, and soon, say a group of atmospheric scientists."_  _Geoengineering the planet: first experiments take shape - environment - 27 November 2014 - New Scientist_

----------


## johnc

> "_Proposals for the first trials to cool the planet include cloud brightening and spraying aerosols into the ozone layer. They might start in just two years__IF WE can't reduce emissions enough, what else can cool the planet? We need to find out if geoengineering works, and soon, say a group of atmospheric scientists."_  _Geoengineering the planet: first experiments take shape - environment - 27 November 2014 - New Scientist_

  Cane toads seemed like a good idea once upon a time as well. Can't help but feel this is along those lines

----------


## John2b

> Cane toads seemed like a good idea once upon a time as well. Can't help but feel this is along those lines

  Agreed. Of course, fossil corporations are rubbing their hands with glee. Who do you think is going to undertake the geoengineering if/when it gets underway? It's another reason for the billions they have spent on climate change obfuscation, quite successfully it seems. 
There is a simple alternative, but as this forum shows they have made the alternative about as popular as a communist at a neoliberal economic convention as far as the general mal-informed public are concerned. 
If governments had acted in the '80s when the trajectory of future climate as a result of CO2 emissions first became unequivocally apparent, the problem would have been solved by now and there would be no fossil industry today. And, except for the fossil industry, everyone worldwide would be better off financially as well as environmentally. 
Instead, in the '80s the neoliberal philosophy usurped governments worldwide and people have been subverted as fodder for the (economic) machine. Thanks Reagan, Thatcher, Keating, Howard - not!

----------


## johnc

> Agreed. Of course, fossil corporations are rubbing their hands with glee. Who do you think is going to undertake the geoengineering if/when it gets underway? It's another reason for the billions they have spent on climate change obfuscation, quite successfully it seems. 
> There is a simple alternative, but as this forum shows they have made the alternative about as popular as a communist at a neoliberal economic convention as far as the general mal-informed public are concerned. 
> If governments had acted in the '80s when the trajectory of future climate as a result of CO2 emissions first became unequivocally apparent, the problem would have been solved by now and there would be no fossil industry today. And, except for the fossil industry, everyone worldwide would be better off financially as well as environmentally. 
> Instead, in the '80s the neoliberal philosophy usurped governments worldwide and people have been subverted as fodder for the (economic) machine. Thanks Reagan, Thatcher, Keating, Howard - not!

  The world was actually on board in the 80's, Howard changed course suddenly and there is plenty that shows he was influenced by others and didn't actually come to the conclusion himself, Bush much the same. Our own pet denier is a classic example of someone who is very limited to the point of being one dimensional that thinks using one liners shows intelligence when it shows the opposite. This is the group we lost, the bottom end of the primeval soup but you need to carry them with you if you want to get anywhere. Easily influenced but a like dog with a bone once they have decided what they will blindly follow and impervious to rational discussion and reasoned debate. This is the group you use as cannon fodder because the lack of ability to think for themselves means they can be led without challenge.

----------


## woodbe

So my follow up on the information asked for is complete. Here we go with some evidence inter asked for, even though he couldn't man up and admit he was up the creek without a paddle. 
The original graphic he took issue with:  
This graphic came via the Abraham, Fasullo, Laden, Paper available here: Continued Global Warming in the Midst of Natural Climate Fluctuations | Abraham | Reports of the National Center for Science Education 
The graphic is based on this one from the IPCC which is based on published scientific papers referenced below the graphic:  
Figure 5.4. Energy content changes in different components of the Earth  system for two periods (19612003 and 19932003). Blue bars are for 1961  to 2003, burgundy bars for 1993 to 2003. The ocean heat content change  is from this section and Levitus et al. (2005c); glaciers, ice caps and  Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets from Chapter 4;  continental heat content from Beltrami et al. (2002); atmospheric  energy content based on Trenberth et al. (2001); and arctic sea ice  release from Hilmer and Lemke (2000). Positive energy content change  means an increase in stored energy (i.e., heat content in oceans, latent  heat from reduced ice or sea ice volumes, heat content in the  continents excluding latent heat from permafrost changes, and latent and  sensible heat and potential and kinetic energy in the atmosphere). All  error estimates are 90% confidence intervals. No estimate of confidence  is available for the continental heat gain. Some of the results have  been scaled from published results for the two respective periods. Ocean  heat content change for the period 1961 to 2003 is for the 0 to 3,000 m  layer. The period 1993 to 2003 is for the 0 to 700 m (or 750 m) layer  and is computed as an average of the trends from Ishii et al. (2006),  Levitus et al. (2005a) and Willis et al. (2004). 
So the bottom line is the original graphic is based on published, peer reviewed science, and inter's rejection of the graphic is not based on any verifiable fact. He is rejecting facts and published research based on opinion and ideology. Simple. Inter still has nothing! 
You're welcome, inter. Please try and come up with some evidence based criticisms next time you feel the need to call a pasted graphic k-rap.

----------


## intertd6

> The world was actually on board in the 80's, Howard changed course suddenly and there is plenty that shows he was influenced by others and didn't actually come to the conclusion himself, Bush much the same. Our own pet denier is a classic example of someone who is very limited to the point of being one dimensional that thinks using one liners shows intelligence when it shows the opposite. This is the group we lost, the bottom end of the primeval soup but you need to carry them with you if you want to get anywhere. Easily influenced but a like dog with a bone once they have decided what they will blindly follow and impervious to rational discussion and reasoned debate. This is the group you use as cannon fodder because the lack of ability to think for themselves means they can be led without challenge.

  one liners are the common ammunition used to show how ridiculous the evangelical holier than thou clones are & their unfounded beliefs based on anecdotal evidence & this has been so since the turn of time, it's quite funny that so called primeval are in power & have ditched the carbon tax,  it would be so uncharacteristic of this group to be labelled so when they don't follow the herd mentality when the clones actually do!
inter

----------


## johnc

> one liners are the common ammunition used to show how ridiculous the evangelical holier than thou clones are & their unfounded beliefs based on anecdotal evidence & this has been so since the turn of time, it's quite funny that so called primeval are in power & have ditched the carbon tax,  it would be so uncharacteristic of this group to be labelled so when they don't follow the herd mentality when the clones actually do!
> inter

  Pure over reach, sarcastic on liners are the lowest form of wit, no more no less. It is what people resort to when they have no answers, I see the newest favourite word is clone, used twice in one sentence, amusing twaddle no substance as usual.

----------


## intertd6

> Pure over reach, sarcastic on liners are the lowest form of wit, no more no less. It is what people resort to when they have no answers, I see the newest favourite word is clone, used twice in one sentence, amusing twaddle no substance as usual.

  How to spot the fanatics, nothing is ever humorous, and they are always the victim!
inter

----------


## John2b

Plato: Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.

----------


## intertd6

> Plato: “Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.”

   We all love your self damning quotes, then the AGW ones top it all off, 
Well worth a read – self damning words of alarmists
Larry Bell has a great column at Forbes titled:  
In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their “Science”  
Here’s a few gems from the first page:  
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)    
Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”  
In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”  
I highly recommend this article, read it in full here, and bookmark it for future reference:   In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science' - Forbes
inter

----------


## John2b

> Well worth a read  self damning words of alarmists 
> In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their Science

   Aficionados of fallacies and scams may well like to bookmark the link! 
Spot the logical fallacy: the politicians that Larry Bell cites are not climate scientists, thus their statements do not "debunk" anything. 
It's a bit sad for someone to place any credibility in an opinion piece that is based on a fallacy. Just in case there was any doubt, a couple of random checks shows the article for what it is - a sham of obfuscation! For example: 
Bell says: "Regarding wildfires, for example, their numbers since 1950 have decreased globally by 15%. According to the National Academy of Sciences, they will likely continue to decline until around midcentury." 
Wrong! The National Academy of Sciences says: "The area burned by wildfire is estimated to increase by a factor of about 3 per 1.8°F (1°C) increase for the West, with some areas increasing by a factor of 7 or more."  
Bell says: "a recent study published in the letter of the journal Nature indicates that globally, there has been little change in drought over the past 60."
Wrong! There is no such study published by Nature! A _letter_ discusses how a computer model of climate systems showed "Little change in global drought over the past 60 years". 
In any case all expectations from climate science are that global precipitation will _increase,_ so the letter Bell calls a "published study" and claims "debunks" climate science actually is entirely consistent with climate science and global warming.  
Bell says: "In fact, the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century." 
Correct, but meaningless. Here's the frequency between US hurricane landfalls for the past 113 years. Large variability is clearly visible:   
Thanks for recommending the article, Inter, but here's a tip for future posts: choose links the _support_ your position, not links that _undermine_ your arguments.

----------


## intertd6

> Aficionados of fallacies and scams may well like to bookmark the link! 
> Spot the logical fallacy: the politicians that Larry Bell cites are not climate scientists, thus their statements do not "debunk" anything. 
> It's a bit sad for someone to place any credibility in an opinion piece that is based on a fallacy. Just in case there was any doubt, a couple of random checks shows the article for what it is - a sham of obfuscation! For example: 
> Bell says: "Regarding wildfires, for example, their numbers since 1950 have decreased globally by 15%. According to the National Academy of Sciences, they will likely continue to decline until around midcentury." 
> Wrong! The National Academy of Sciences says: "The area burned by wildfire is estimated to increase by a factor of about 3 per 1.8°F (1°C) increase for the West, with some areas increasing by a factor of 7 or more."  
> Bell says: "a recent study published in the letter of the journal Nature indicates that globally, “…there has been little change in drought over the past 60."
> Wrong! There is no such study published by Nature! A _letter_ discusses how a computer model of climate systems showed "Little change in global drought over the past 60 years". 
> In any case all expectations from climate science are that global precipitation will _increase,_ so the letter Bell calls a "published study" and claims "debunks" climate science actually is entirely consistent with climate science and global warming.  
> Bell says: "In fact, the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century." 
> ...

  pure manipulation as typical of your sort, your reply isn't relative to the quotes made, what galah would try to confuse "In fact, the U.S. *is currently experiencing* the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century." Then show an trend line for the century, which are two different things! You are the best advertisement for the lost cause there is & we can only benefit every time you open your mouth to change feet, which goes back to your Plato quote which was you have shown many times again, to be inverse to your perceived intent, keep them coming, it is still the best free entertainment money can't buy!
inter

----------


## John2b

Why does a valid argument need to start off with invalid statements? Maybe because some people are so uncritical they would believe it, like they did't even notice that the x-axis of a graph is days between incidents, not a time scale! 
Oh, thanks for your example of Plato's axiom, not that anyone needed it.

----------


## intertd6

> Why does a valid argument need to start off with invalid statements? Maybe because some people are so uncritical they would believe it, like they did't even notice that the x-axis of a graph is days between incidents, not a time scale! 
> Oh, thanks for your example of Plato's axiom, not that anyone needed it.

  the question is, why do your types keep trying it on all the time in the face of such self ridicule?
inter

----------


## woodbe

> they did't even notice that the x-axis of a graph is days between incidents, not a time scale!

  Yep. They don't follow the facts or the science, they follow the denial machine. Plenty of them quietly following it along, oiling it's wheels and criticising anyone who holds real facts in front of it.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> the question is, why do your types keep trying it on all the time in the face of such self ridicule?
> inter

  Is this a rhetorical question?

----------


## intertd6

> Is this a rhetorical question?

  why would it be? Its obviously another question your types can't answer!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Yep. They don't follow the facts or the science, they follow the denial machine. Plenty of them quietly following it along, oiling it's wheels and criticising anyone who holds real facts in front of it.

  what can't you read the part of the graph at storm 78 where is was nearly 3000 days between storms, which was around 700 days more than the previous record? Only a galah would post such a graph which backs up my referred quote!!! Then think it somehow disproves  the quote "In fact, the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century."it's beyond the ridiculous how any sane person could come to that conclusion! I don't think Plato had a quote for something that dumb!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> what can't you read the part of the graph at storm 78 where is was nearly 3000 days between storms, which was around 700 days more than the previous record?

  You didn't do statistics, did you?

----------


## intertd6

> You didn't do statistics, did you?

  none what so ever, but I can read & I'm not stupid enough to then produce data that includes cat 1 & 2 storms that never made landfall & that are not included in the original graph just to prove the point I was wrong!
lies, damn lies & statistics!
inter

----------


## John2b

The ignoramus, so long as he is ignorant of his ignorance, is comfortable and self-satisfied. The educated man sees how slender his attainments really are, and discontentedly strives for deeper knowledge. Let us be impartial, whether we praise, blame, or satirize. Blessed be stupidity, for it shall not be conscious of its own deficiencies. By Professor F. W. CLARKE.   Popular Science Monthly/Volume 18/January 1881/The Advantages of Ignorance - Wikisource, the free online library

----------


## woodbe

> none what so ever

  And it shows.  
Count the dots, denier man. There are at least 42 cat 3,4,5 storms making landfall on the east coat of the US between 1950 and 2011. 
On top of that, consider that making landfall on the coast of the US is chance. Not all hurricanes arrive on land, and the trend is nothing like you suggest for all hurricanes or just cat 345. Have a look at the frequency of Cat 4 hurricanes in the Atlantic:  List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
So your suggestion about hurricanes is just another load of diversionary waffle.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> why would it be? Its obviously another question your types can't answer!
> inter

  If its not a rhetorical question then its a stupid question. And stupid questions are difficult to answer without upsetting the questioner...and possibly forum moderators. 
Therefore I was asking merely to save myself from doing something pointlessly stupid at my expense.  
You should try it sometime.  (:

----------


## John2b

Global warming stopped in 1998? Why is it hotter now than ever before? 
If spring felt a lot like summer, you wouldn't have been far wrong almost anywhere in the country. Nationwide, Australia's mean temperatures during the September-November stretch were 1.66 degrees above the 1961-90 average, making it the hottest spring on record for the second year in a row. This gap was even more pronounced for maximum temperatures, with tops 2.33 degrees above average, compared with last year's previous record anomaly of 2.06 degrees.  Hottest spring on record for second year in a row as storm clouds loom

----------


## intertd6

> And it shows.  
> Count the dots, denier man. There are at least 42 cat 3,4,5 storms making landfall on the east coat of the US between 1950 and 2011. 
> On top of that, consider that making landfall on the coast of the US is chance. Not all hurricanes arrive on land, and the trend is nothing like you suggest for all hurricanes or just cat 345. Have a look at the frequency of Cat 4 hurricanes in the Atlantic:  List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
> So your suggestion about hurricanes is just another load of diversionary waffle.

  who cares what dribble you want to scrape up to defend a fellow clone who posted a data that shot himself in the foot, knee & leg, and still the endless dribble continues, ducking, diving, weaving, conniving until nobody even remembers what the original point was! You fellows do the best dis-service to your cause imaginable! Keep up the good work, it makes everybody else's easier!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Global warming stopped in 1998? Why is it hotter now than ever before? If spring felt a lot like summer, you wouldn't have been far wrong almost anywhere in the country. Nationwide, Australia's mean temperatures during the September-November stretch were 1.66 degrees above the 1961-90 average, making it the hottest spring on record for the second year in a row. This gap was even more pronounced for maximum temperatures, with tops 2.33 degrees above average, compared with last year's previous record anomaly of 2.06 degrees. Hottest spring on record for second year in a row as storm clouds loom

  What! The global average temp' has magically risen above what you posted here some pages back ( 0.01'C) ? Or is it just more propaganda drivel? And drivel it is!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> The ignoramus, so long as he is ignorant of his ignorance, is comfortable and self-satisfied. The educated man sees how slender his attainments really are, and discontentedly strives for deeper knowledge. Let us be impartial, whether we praise, blame, or satirize. Blessed be stupidity, for it shall not be conscious of its own deficiencies. By Professor F. W. CLARKE.   Popular Science Monthly/Volume 18/January 1881/The Advantages of Ignorance - Wikisource, the free online library

  Im just not quite smart enough to be ignorant.
Not so for these people though! 
        *        “I am a skeptic … . Global warming has become a new religion.” — Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.  
        *        “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly … . As a scientist I remain skeptical.” — Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology  and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years.”  
        *        Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history … . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” — U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.  
        *        “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds … . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” — Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.  
        *        “The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” — Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.  
        *        “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” — U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  
        *        “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” — Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.  
        *        “After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” — Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.  
        *        “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” — Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.  
        *        “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp … . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” — Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.  
        *        “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” — Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.  
        *        “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense … . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” — Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.  
        *        “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another … . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so … . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” — Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.  
        *        “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” — Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.  
Inter

----------


## John2b

> Im just not quite smart enough to be ignorant.

  Another own goal LOL. Keep digging - you'll soon be physically in the forefront of China's emission controls in action. 
"The ignoramus, so long as he is ignorant of his ignorance, is comfortable and self-satisfied." 
Oh - thanks for the list of people who are, in your words, "smart enough to be ignorant". We can on your advice ignore what they have to say about global warming!

----------


## intertd6

> Another own goal LOL. Keep digging - you'll soon be physically in the forefront of China's emission controls in action. 
> "The ignoramus, so long as he is ignorant of his ignorance, is comfortable and self-satisfied." 
> Oh - thanks for the list of people who are, in your words, "smart enough to be ignorant". We can on your advice ignore what they have to say about global warming!

  you will never see a fanatic not taking themselves seriously, spot the difference? I doubt it!
Everybody appears to ignorant in your eyes, what cult fanatic hasn't believed that?
your trying manipulate words again with who is & isn't ignorant & were all smart enough to see that! Even me!
inter

----------


## John2b

> you will never see a fanatic not taking themselves seriously, spot the difference? I doubt it!
> Everybody appears to ignorant in your eyes, what cult fanatic hasn't believed that?

  I am not pretending to know what you think, nor should you pretend to know what I think... 
Just offering a mirror.

----------


## John2b

With temperatures rising faster in the Alps than the rest of the world, alpine countries are working together to adapt to climate change and hope to set an example. Switzerland's Stockhorn ski region has dismantled its ski lifts to refocus on winter hiking and snowshoeing. 
Dismantling ski lifts and moving villages: Alps adapt to climate change | i24news - See beyond

----------


## woodbe

> who cares what dribble you want to scrape up to defend a fellow clone who posted a data that shot himself in the foot, knee & leg, and still the endless dribble continues, ducking, diving, weaving, conniving until nobody even remembers what the original point was! You fellows do the best dis-service to your cause imaginable! Keep up the good work, it makes everybody else's easier!
> inter

  My post was countering your own drivel. You didn't post evidence, you spouted rubbish from every orifice. The fact that you have nothing to counter my post (or anyone else's for that matter) except personal abuse shows that you were once again caught out posting k-rap.

----------


## intertd6

> My post was countering your own drivel. You didn't post evidence, you spouted rubbish from every orifice. The fact that you have nothing to counter my post (or anyone else's for that matter) except personal abuse shows that you were once again caught out posting k-rap.

  wow how original! How many hours did that take to copy!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> I am not pretending to know what you think, nor should you pretend to know what I think... 
> Just offering a mirror.

  just stating the obvious, no need for your smoke & mirrors.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> With temperatures rising faster in the Alps than the rest of the world, alpine countries are working together to adapt to climate change and hope to set an example. Switzerland's Stockhorn ski region has dismantled its ski lifts to refocus on winter hiking and snowshoeing. 
> Dismantling ski lifts and moving villages: Alps adapt to climate change | i24news - See beyond

  more propaganda we see ^  
Another albedo-related effect on the climate is from black carbon particles. The size of this effect is difficult to quantify: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that the global mean radiative forcing for black carbon aerosols from fossil fuels is +0.2 W m−2, with a range +0.1 to +0.4 W m−2.[36] *Black carbon is a bigger cause of the melting of the polar ice cap in the Arctic than carbon dioxide due to its effect on the albedo.[37]*  
inter

----------


## John2b

> *Black carbon is a bigger cause of the melting of the polar ice cap in the Arctic than carbon dioxide due to its effect on the albedo.[37]*

  So according to Inter (since no reference was given), black carbon is causing global warming in the arctic. Black carbon comes from the incomplete burning of fossil fuels, another byproduct being CO2. Perhaps there needs to be a carbon tax or carbon trading scheme to control this.

----------


## intertd6

> So according to Inter (since no reference was given), black carbon is causing global warming in the arctic. Black carbon comes from the incomplete burning of fossil fuels, another byproduct being CO2. Perhaps there needs to be a carbon tax or carbon trading scheme to control this.

  why? Tax 2 things when only one is a problem! brilliant that will be financially sound to all who collect the tax, but not the majority that have to try & survive the stupidity of the rort!
it was referenced from your favourite place, wikistraw & the stated source of the IPCC
inter

----------


## John2b

World Meteorological Organization: 2014 on course to be one of hottest, possibly hottest, on record. Exceptional heat and flooding in many parts of the world    “The provisional information for 2014 means that fourteen of the fifteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “There is no standstill in global warming,” he said.  
Global annual average temperature anomalies (relative to the 1961-1990 average) for 1950-2013, based on an average of the three data sets (GISTEMP, MLOST and HadCRUT.4.3.0.0). The January to October average is shown for 2014. The colouring of the bars indicates whether a year was classified as an El Niño year (red), an ENSO neutral year (grey) or a La Niña year (blue)  https://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_1009_en.html

----------


## intertd6

> World Meteorological Organization: 2014 on course to be one of hottest, possibly hottest, on record. Exceptional heat and flooding in many parts of the world    “The provisional information for 2014 means that fourteen of the fifteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “There is no standstill in global warming,” he said.  
> Global annual average temperature anomalies (relative to the 1961-1990 average) for 1950-2013, based on an average of the three data sets (GISTEMP, MLOST and HadCRUT.4.3.0.0). The January to October average is shown for 2014. The colouring of the bars indicates whether a year was classified as an El Niño year (red), an ENSO neutral year (grey) or a La Niña year (blue)  https://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_1009_en.html

   Ahh! & the silence was truly golden until interrupted again by another endless drivel attempt, at some really lame propaganda, not even a attempt of a retort on the last batch that was shot down we notice? we'll just jump to the next page of the propaganda script which is really just written for clones who only believe this stuff anyhow! How anybody but a clone could describe 0.1'C difference in temperature as exceptional is truly amazing, it's just scaremongering as typical of this mob! Read the news, everybody is over it & doesn't swallow it anymore! ( unless they are a dyed in the wool clone)
inter

----------


## johnc

> Ahh! & the silence was truly golden until interrupted again by another endless drivel attempt, at some really lame propaganda, not even a attempt of a retort on the last batch that was shot down we notice? we'll just jump to the next page of the propaganda script which is really just written for clones who only believe this stuff anyhow! How anybody but a clone could describe 0.1'C difference in temperature as exceptional is truly amazing, it's just scaremongering as typical of this mob! Read the news, everybody is over it & doesn't swallow it anymore! ( unless they are a dyed in the wool clone)
> inter

    Only shot down in your own mind, or is it a case of so little space in there to store information you can't fit anything in beyond 1998.

----------


## John2b

Just a tad more than 0.1 degree around here...  *Tracking Australia's climate: 2014 and the severe weather season*  The year-to-date and the 12-month running mean temperature ending in October 2014 are the 5th- and 6th-highest on record (+0.82 °C and +0.77 °C, respectively). This continues a spell of high temperatures since 2013, following two relatively cooler ('near normal') years in 2011 and 2012 that were influenced by twin La Niña events in the Pacific.   Climate change and variability

----------


## intertd6

> Only shot down in your own mind, or is it a case of so little space in there to store information you can't fit anything in beyond 1998.

  quite the contrary! even though I have a very limited amount of brain cells, thank goodness you supply the relevant information that makes them virtually redundant & they don't have work much!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Just a tad more than 0.1 degree around here...  *Tracking Australia's climate: 2014 and the severe weather season* The year-to-date and the 12-month running mean temperature ending in October 2014 are the 5th- and 6th-highest on record (+0.82 °C and +0.77 °C, respectively). This continues a spell of high temperatures since 2013, following two relatively cooler ('near normal') years in 2011 and 2012 that were influenced by twin La Niña events in the Pacific.   Climate change and variability

  that must be why they are experiencing global warming that is causing global cooling in the northern hemisphere, which is the logical reason for counteracting any warm areas in the Southern Hemisphere or elsewhere & basically levelling the global average temp'. But everybody knows that already because they can read a graph which shows it, as the non clones turned off to the sky us falling act ages ago!
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Inter...you are as reassuring and intellectually adaptable as the 9:40 train from Central to Strathfield. Long may you run...

----------


## John2b

If global warming were a race, the Northern Hemisphere would be winning. It is warming faster than the Southern Hemisphere, with some of the most rapid warming rates on Earth    _The top chart shows the steady rise in Northern and Southern Hemisphere temperature since the beginning of the 20th century. The second chart shows little change in the interhemispheric temperature asymmetry (ITA) until the 1980s._
In Warming, Northern Hemisphere is Outpacing the South | Climate Central

----------


## intertd6

> Inter...you are as reassuring and intellectually adaptable as the 9:40 train from Central to Strathfield. Long may you run...

  like myself I don't take a train schedule or fanatics too seriously! Just like them, if you miss one another will be along shortly to reinforce the stupidity of it all!
inter

----------


## John2b

Like you, I don't take you seriously. If you did not come along on schedule, you seriously would not be missed! Being a trained fanatic, you will be along shortly to reinforce the stupidity of all your posts.

----------


## intertd6

> If global warming were a race, the Northern Hemisphere would be winning. It is warming faster than the Southern Hemisphere, with some of the most rapid warming rates on Earth    _The top chart shows the steady rise in Northern and Southern Hemisphere temperature since the beginning of the 20th century. The second chart shows little change in the interhemispheric temperature asymmetry (ITA) until the 1980s._
> In Warming, Northern Hemisphere is Outpacing the South | Climate Central

  Who cares about your typical red herring avoiding the recent history of the last 16 or so years, the global average temp has been basically flat since 1998 no matter what drivel you try to parade as proof that it hasn't!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Like you, I don't take you seriously. If you did not come along on schedule, you seriously would not be missed! Being a trained fanatic, you will be along shortly to reinforce the stupidity of all your posts.

  another original post we see! I'm quite exited waiting for the next instalment to send me off to sleep! If the boredom of the first one doesn't get me first!
inter

----------


## John2b

Right on schedule...

----------


## johnc

> Inter...you are as reassuring and intellectually adaptable as the 9:40 train from Central to Strathfield. Long may you run...

  It is not often you come across someone with such a capability of taking stupid and making it there own and advertising it so well. It would be hilarious if he didn't actually believe his own bull.

----------


## intertd6

> It is not often you come across someone with such a capability of taking stupid and making it there own and advertising it so well. It would be hilarious if he didn't actually believe his own bull.

  dont tell us you have finally worked out how your lot are perceived? Now that would be putting some intelligence to good use, that & using some to come up with some proof CO2 is going to burn the globe to a crisp anytime in the future!
inter

----------


## johnc

> dont tell us you have finally worked out how your lot are perceived? Now that would be putting some intelligence to good use, that & using some to come up with some proof CO2 is going to burn the globe to a crisp anytime in the future!
> inter

  
I rest my case

----------


## intertd6

> I rest my case

  i would like to say you haven't even got one of any description, but apon further thought you must stand on something in the park to try & unsuccessfully get your message across to the captive audience of bench bound dero's, who are by nature unable to move quick enough to avoid the droll ramblings of a cult preacher.
inter

----------


## johnc

This is just sad, another petulant response, grow up.

----------


## intertd6

> This is just sad, another petulant response, grow up.

  Obviously when you & the clone fraternity come up with something believable then you will be taken seriously & not so humorously, until then we will all have to endure the tantrums that go with that sort mentality & deal with the fringe dwellers in the time honoured manner.
so in other words back up you belief with some facts!
inter

----------


## johnc

There are plenty of facts, your mindset prevents you from accepting anything other than what you have decided suits you. The insults though are the one endearing theme, although they are becoming nastier and totally lack the humour mentioned in 13110

----------


## johnc

An interesting article rom the NSW government of the likely impacts of a warming climate in that state.  *Climate change in NSW: New projections reveal likely local impacts of rising temperatures*      By Sarah Gerathy 
      Updated     55 minutes agoSat 6 Dec 2014, 11:03am      *        Photo:*       The projections have mapped out for the first time how different parts of the state could be affected by climate change. (Supplied: Peter Robey)        *Related Story:*       2014 on track to be hottest year on record  *Map:*         Moree 2400 
Parts of north-western NSW could spend more than a third of the year above 35 degrees Celsius by 2070, according to new projections released by the NSW Government.
The projections map out for the first time how different parts of New South Wales could be affected by climate change in the near and distant future.
The detailed modelling, produced through a partnership with the NSW and ACT governments and the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre, suggested that by 2070 average temperatures in the state will have risen by 2.1 degrees.
Summer and spring will see the largest change with maximum temperatures up to 3 degrees higher.
The Office of Environment and Heritage's director of climate and atmospheric science, Matt Riley, said north-west New South Wales would notice the difference with up to 40 extra days each year reaching 35 degrees by 2070 in areas like Bourke and Moree.
"So that means that by 2070 it's likely that more than a third of the year in north-western NSW will be above 35 degrees," he said.
Other regions where changes in temperature could wreak havoc include the Snowy Mountains, with up to 40 fewer nights expected to have temperatures below 2 degrees.
The modelling suggests the impact will already be felt by 2030, with 20 fewer cold, snow-producing nights in the area.
"That will obviously have an impact on ecosystems that rely on cold weather, agriculture that relies on cold weather - for example for buds to form or fruiting to commence - but also snow tourism as well," Mr Riley said.
While the amount of rain expected overall across the state is predicted to remain fairly stable - the modelling suggests there will be more rain in autumn and less in spring.
Mr Riley said that sort of information could be used by the Department of Primary Industries, farmers and local communities in planning crops and water infrastructure.
Other changes predicted by the modelling include:  Spring rainfall in southern NSW and the Riverina will decrease by more than 10 per cent by 2070The greatest increases in severe fire weather will occur west of the Great Dividing Range during springIncreases in severe weather days during spring may increase bushfire risk and reduce opportunities for hazard reduction burning.
NSW Environment Minister Rob Stokes said it was world-leading research that would help state and local authorities plan for the future.
"I think some of the takeaways that some of the agencies will be interested in will obviously be in relation to water security and future planning around water infrastructure," he said.
"Also extreme temperatures and what that means in relation to health the consequences of extreme heatwaves, for example, and also particularly the ever-present threat of bushfire." *        Photo:*       Viticulture consultant Liz Riley examines a vineyard in the Hunter Valley that could be affected by climate change. (Supplied: Peter Robey)       
Increases in severe fire weather were predicted in Canberra for both summer and spring, ACT's Environment Minister said.
"The implications mean it will be much harder to manage fire, it will be much harder to undertake hazard reduction burns because spring will be too hot," Simon Corbell said.
"The analysis tells us that we will see up to an extra 20 days above the 35-degree [Celsius] mark by the year 2070.
"It's worth remembering that this will occur within the lifetime of young man who is now 15 years old, this is not some far distant future."
The NSW Government spent about $2.8 million on the project and Mr Stokes said it was a sound investment.
"If it can help people make wise decisions to make infrastructure and investments resilient to future change, then ultimately we believe that this investment up front can save hundreds and hundreds of millions into the future," he said.

----------


## John2b

> so in other words back up you belief with some facts!

  You demand other people do what you refuse to do, disregard it when they do, and never with any substantive reason. This is how "your lot" thinks and you claim you have the high moral ground? Yeah, right...

----------


## johnc

> You demand other people do what you refuse to do, disregard it when they do, and never with any substantive reason. This is how "your lot" thinks and you claim you have the high moral ground? Yeah, right...

  I wouldn't even go as far as "his lot", this one stands alone, no wonder Australia is becoming the dumb country when we have a total incapacity for critical thought of any issue and so much criticism of the individual. Forget the merits of the case just go the man.

----------


## intertd6

> An interesting article rom the NSW government of the likely impacts of a warming climate in that state.  *Climate change in NSW: New projections reveal likely local impacts of rising temperatures* 
>       By Sarah Gerathy 
>       Updated     55 minutes agoSat 6 Dec 2014, 11:03am      *        Photo:*       The projections have mapped out for the first time how different parts of the state could be affected by climate change. (Supplied: Peter Robey)        *Related Story:*       2014 on track to be hottest year on record  *Map:*         Moree 2400 
> Parts of north-western NSW could spend more than a third of the year above 35 degrees Celsius by 2070, according to new projections released by the NSW Government.
> The projections map out for the first time how different parts of New South Wales could be affected by climate change in the near and distant future.
> The detailed modelling, produced through a partnership with the NSW and ACT governments and the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre, suggested that by 2070 average temperatures in the state will have risen by 2.1 degrees.
> Summer and spring will see the largest change with maximum temperatures up to 3 degrees higher.
> The Office of Environment and Heritage's director of climate and atmospheric science, Matt Riley, said north-west New South Wales would notice the difference with up to 40 extra days each year reaching 35 degrees by 2070 in areas like Bourke and Moree.
> "So that means that by 2070 it's likely that more than a third of the year in north-western NSW will be above 35 degrees," he said.
> ...

   Just as expected! That has absolutely nothing to do with proving CO2 being the major cause of AGW, all you have done is just provided more guilt trip sustenance for clones, so they are quite content paying more taxes for no real gain or good!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> I wouldn't even go as far as "his lot", this one stands alone, no wonder Australia is becoming the dumb country when we have a total incapacity for critical thought of any issue and so much criticism of the individual. Forget the merits of the case just go the man.

  and you still can't provide or parrot anything relevant to prove CO2 is a major cause of AGW!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> There are plenty of facts, your mindset prevents you from accepting anything other than what you have decided suits you. The insults though are the one endearing theme, although they are becoming nastier and totally lack the humour mentioned in 13110

  if there are many facts how come you can't even provide one to back your belief that CO2 is the major cause of AGW?
inter

----------


## John2b

The oceans that "ate global warming" are giving it back. Antarctic ice loss has tripled in the past decade due to warm water swelling in the ocean.  The melt rate of glaciers in west Antarctica has tripled in the past 10 years due in large part to global warming, according to a new study. That surge means the glaciers lost a Mount Everest-sized amount of water every two years over the past 21 years, at roughly a mass of 91.5 billion tons per year, according to scientists at NASA and the University of California-Irvine.  NASA: Rate of Antarctic ice loss triples in a decade 
The water temperatures on the West Antarctic shelf are rising. The reason for this is predominantly warm water from greater depths, which as a result of global change now increasingly reaches the shallow shelf. Antarctic Heat Comes From Deep Water Says Study

----------


## dazzler

A question for intertd6 
Seems you have taken over from others as the most prolific poster from the non supportive side of climate change so I will ask my questions straight to you. 
Can you agree that most of the worlds coal was laid down during the carboniferous period?
At that time the atmospheric CO2 was far higher (upwards of 800ppm from ice samples) than it is now and before the industrial age ? 
Can we agree on those two points?  Lets say we do, or at least the general idea. 
So here is the simple question.  No scientific studies, no links, nothing but your ideas.   
If our atmosphere is now around the 300ppm, and all the vegetation (carbon) that was around then is trapped as coal, and we burn it, what will happen? 
As you know we live in a bubble.  We cant destroy something, just change its form and effect.  So, as we release all the trapped carbon from the ground into the air what happens to it? 
So what is the cause and effect of this? 
Cheers 
Daz

----------


## Marc

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/05/friday-funny-over-a-centurys-worth-of-failed-eco-climate-quotes-and-disinformation/  
The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. -Saul Alinsky *
And finally, to regain some composure after all of that science-ish disinformation, I suggestreading this monologue from the late George Carlin:* Were so self-important. Everybodys going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails. And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we dont even know how to take care of ourselves yet. Im tired of this @@@@. Im tired of f-ing Earth Day. Im tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there arent enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides,  environmentalists dont give a @@@@ about the planet. Not in the abstract they dont. You know what theyre interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. Theyre worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesnt impress me. The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles  hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages  And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isnt going anywhere. WE are! Were going away. Pack your @@@@, folks. Were going away. And we wont leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam  The planetll be here and well be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planetll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after were gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, cause thats what it does. Its a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if its true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesnt share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didnt know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, Why are we here? Plastic asshole. -George Carlin  As noted, this article contains a compendium of quotes available online. Some sources include: Revisiting Climategate as Climatism Falters -Steve Gorham  June 6, 2013 C3: Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human-Caused Global Warming Advocates/Supporters 124 Year of Failed Climate predictions and Environmental Predictions Quotes on Climate Change, Environment, and Energy Â« | Climatism Quotes About Global Warming (53 quotes) Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

----------


## intertd6

> A question for intertd6 
> Seems you have taken over from others as the most prolific poster from the non supportive side of climate change so I will ask my questions straight to you. 
> Can you agree that most of the worlds coal was laid down during the carboniferous period?  i don't know for sure do you have some figures? 
> At that time the atmospheric CO2 was far higher (upwards of 800ppm from ice samples) than it is now and before the industrial age ?  i don't know for sure do you have some figures? 
> Can we agree on those two points?  Lets say we do, or at least the general idea.  not until we have the figures! 
> So here is the simple question.  No scientific studies, no links, nothing but your ideas.   
> If our atmosphere is now around the 300ppm, and all the vegetation (carbon) that was around then is trapped as coal, and we burn it, what will happen?  It is a physical & economic impossibility to dig up & burn all the coal in the ground! But burning coal will raise the atmospheric CO2 levels untill re absorbed by the oceans & vegetation. 
> As you know we live in a bubble.  We cant destroy something, just change its form and effect.  So, as we release all the trapped carbon from the ground into the air what happens to it? 
> So what is the cause and effect of this?  Again it is a physical & economic impossibility to burn all the carbon trapped in the ground, but hypothetically if it did happen the atmospheric CO2 would be raised to many thousands of PPM & from past history the globe will not catastrophically warm 
> ...

  inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Carlin was right. Though there are ways to mitigate the ongoing risks of our demise as a species. Climate adaptation is one of them. 
The other question is 'Is being an environmentalist being selfish, self righteous or merely humanist?'. And I would ask 'Are any of those potential answers actually wrong'.

----------


## intertd6

> Carlin was right. Though there are ways to mitigate the ongoing risks of our demise as a species. Climate adaptation is one of them. 
> The other question is 'Is being an environmentalist being selfish, self righteous or merely humanist?'. And I would ask 'Are any of those potential answers actually wrong'.

  is that clone speak for down playing their hyper alarmism?
inter

----------


## Marc

> Carlin was right. Though there are ways to mitigate the ongoing risks of our demise as a species. Climate adaptation is one of them. 
> The other question is 'Is being an environmentalist being selfish, self righteous or merely humanist?'. And I would ask 'Are any of those potential answers actually wrong'.

  Selfish or altruistic are ill defined attributes. if you look deep into the motivation of our actions, everything we do and I mean everything, is purely for our own individual reasons and therefore completely selfish. 
The altruist, acts that way because he expects a gain by acting that way, directly or by elevation. even the martyr, the one that dies for another, every action has one and one only intended result. Our own personal benefit, consciously or not we are individuals who act for our own individual benefit, every time all the time 24/7. That is how our brain is wired.

----------


## johnc

> Selfish or altruistic are ill defined attributes. if you look deep into the motivation of our actions, everything we do and I mean everything, is purely for our own individual reasons and therefore completely selfish. 
> The altruist, acts that way because he expects a gain by acting that way, directly or by elevation. even the martyr, the one that dies for another, every action has one and one only intended result. Our own personal benefit, consciously or not we are individuals who act for our own individual benefit, every time all the time 24/7. That is how our brain is wired.

  Humans are inherently selfish, but we are also pack animals, our social structures indicate we are quite capable of actions that benefit family and the group (society). I think there are plenty of examples of individuals who act for the group and set the self to one side.

----------


## intertd6

> Humans are inherently selfish,  I think there are plenty of examples of individuals who act for the group and set the self to one side.

  For example politicians or similar, Who then with their charisma get a merry band of clone followers to do what ever they preach as the best for humanity, we all know how that has ended the lives of millions, or could possibly be billions!
inter

----------


## Marc

> Humans are inherently selfish, but we are also pack animals, our social structures indicate we are quite capable of actions that benefit family and the group (society). I think there are plenty of examples of individuals who act for the group and set the self to one side.

  Precisely the problem. You use the term "set the self to one side" in the traditional sense. Yet that is not correct. There is no point in debating so called selfless acts, since we all know they seem to exist. I challenge that concept because I know that every selfless action is motivated by a code that promises the actor a reward. This may be conscious or not but it is how the brain works. There is no escape from that. No religious code, no moral or ethical or relationship or allegiance code can make us do things unless we perceive, know or otherwise are programmed to believe there is a reward for our action.

----------


## John2b

> Humans are inherently selfish, but we are also pack animals, our social structures indicate we are quite capable of actions that benefit family and the group (society). I think there are plenty of examples of individuals who act for the group and set the self to one side.

  It's a trivial extension that acting for the group is acting in one's self-interest, a notion that is apparently incompressible to some.

----------


## johnc

> Precisely the problem. You use the term "set the self to one side" in the traditional sense. Yet that is not correct. There is no point in debating so called selfless acts, since we all know they seem to exist. I challenge that concept because I know that every selfless action is motivated by a code that promises the actor a reward. This may be conscious or not but it is how the brain works. There is no escape from that. No religious code, no moral or ethical or relationship or allegiance code can make us do things unless we perceive, know or otherwise are programmed to believe there is a reward for our action.

  The human brain under extreme stress makes poor decisions and those will usually mean self preservation in often irrational ways. We have though developed societys based on the group over the individual. It is quite clear humans can be selfish but they can also put community first. Parents and the protective behaviour towards their children being one example so are those who volunteer time and cash to projects they don't benefit from. John2B is correct tough when he says some can't grasp this concept, these tend to be the takers.

----------


## johnc

> For example politicians or similar, Who then with their charisma get a merry band of clone followers to do what ever they preach as the best for humanity, we all know how that has ended the lives of millions, or could possibly be billions!
> inter

  That appears to state the followers of politicians are charismatic which is not what you probably meant, careful how you use your new word "clone" repetition has it's limits.

----------


## Marc

JohnC, you continue to use the term in the traditional socially acceptable way. There is nothing wrong with that, that is how we communicate, using known codes. I have given you something to think about away from the tribal acceptable way. A view based on how the brain is wired and what makes us do things, all things. Understanding this does not take away from the apparent value of noble acts over selfish acts. it just takes you one step further and makes you see things from a different perspective. or at least it should do so. One obvious consequence of understanding this is to put the value of noble or generous acts into perspective.

----------


## intertd6

> That appears to state the followers of politicians are charismatic which is not what you probably meant, careful how you use your new word "clone" repetition has it's limits.

  not at all! The Clones of past & the present clones are the same, they just follow the charisma of their chosen belief, leader, cult, flavour of the month, etc! We have had to put up with the repetition of the alarmists false claims, exaggeration, failed prophesy's, red herrings, etc, so you have got a lot of catching up to do on the acceptance of a little repetition!
inter

----------


## johnc

> JohnC, you continue to use the term in the traditional socially acceptable way. There is nothing wrong with that, that is how we communicate, using known codes. I have given you something to think about away from the tribal acceptable way. A view based on how the brain is wired and what makes us do things, all things. Understanding this does not take away from the apparent value of noble acts over selfish acts. it just takes you one step further and makes you see things from a different perspective. or at least it should do so. One obvious consequence of understanding this is to put the value of noble or generous acts into perspective.

  The article rails against various movements and views, I wouldn't go as far as to say it challenges any current views on the way the brain is wired although I guess you can say it takes a slant on accepted norms. In some ways our responses are solely on how  the individual reacts to stress and stimulus from there we can understand how we behave in groups, the two are in my view intertwined I don't think we can say all acts are selfish nor can we say all altruistic acts are done for nil reward as even "feel good" has its own value. Every human is different with some common attributes and those are in different measure in each human, they are also effected by genetic makeup, influence of family and piers along with any damage caused to the brain itself.

----------


## Marc

Yes, you are correct. The difficulty and apparent differences stem from the fact that you can not describe a problem with the same definitions that create the problem.  There are no selfish nor selfless acts, we like to believe there are, we like noble acts because they make life easier. The very moral code that labels actions in that way is there to keep cohesion and social integrity, however if it comes to the basics, no such thing exists, we act that way simply because we are programmed to seek the most reward. There is fringe benefit in being prosperous, in being poor, in being healthy and in being sick, in being noble and in being selfish.

----------


## intertd6

> Yes, you are correct. The difficulty and apparent differences stem from the fact that you can not describe a problem with the same definitions that create the problem.  There are no selfish nor selfless acts, we like to believe there are, we like noble acts because they make life easier. The very moral code that labels actions in that way is there to keep cohesion and social integrity, however if it comes to the basics, no such thing exists, we act that way simply because we are programmed to seek the most reward. There is fringe benefit in being prosperous, in being poor, in being healthy and in being sick, in being noble and in being selfish.

  i don't know what your secret weapon is, but it seems to have worked! Quiet at last!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

A NOAA-sponsored study examines the drivers of rainy season (November-April) precipitation during the previous three years (2011-2012 to 2013-14). The study compares observations with a large set of model simulations to detect the relevant natural and manmade contributions to the drought.
The build-up of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere may worsen western droughts in the future. “Natural oceanic and atmospheric patterns” are to blame for the drought, the 42-page report says.   
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20141208_californiadrought.html

----------


## intertd6

> A NOAA-sponsored study examines the drivers of rainy season (November-April) precipitation during the previous three years (2011-2012 to 2013-14). The study compares observations with a large set of model simulations to detect the relevant natural and manmade contributions to the drought.
> The build-up of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere may worsen western droughts in the future. Natural oceanic and atmospheric patterns are to blame for the drought, the 42-page report says.   
> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20141208_californiadrought.html

  i wonder what could be causing these droughts? Oh that's right, they tell us in black & white "Natural oceanic and atmospheric patterns are to blame for the drought, the 42-page report says."
 The rest is clone fear mongering with another alarmist prediction! Which has obviously worked because it's being repeated here!
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> i don't know what your secret weapon is...

  How about the fact that he contributed a well reasoned argument with a civil tongue instead of behaving like a 4 year old who dropped his ice cream?

----------


## johnc

What Silent said, it was a refreshing change to have a discussion with respect on both sides.

----------


## intertd6

> What Silent said, it was a refreshing change to have a discussion with respect on both sides.

   Probably because there was no BS propaganda drivel from the opposing side & Marc's post was a clever diversion from such drivel which knocked the clones momentarily sensible. It was bliss while it lasted!
inter

----------


## John2b

There are no sides in the science of climate change. There are, however, the fools who disparage anything even if it supports their position, simply because it was posted by someone they perceive to be an "opponent". Such people would not even recognise "BS propaganda drivel" coming from their own mouths, as it often does...

----------


## intertd6

> There are no sides in the science of climate change. There are, however, the fools who disparage anything even if it supports their position, simply because it was posted by someone they perceive to be an "opponent". Such people would not even recognise "BS propaganda drivel" coming from their own mouths, as it often does...

  And it was nice while it lasted!
inter

----------


## johnc

> Probably because there was no BS propaganda drivel from the opposing side & Marc's post was a clever diversion from such drivel which knocked the clones momentarily sensible. It was bliss while it lasted!
> inter

  This is an illustration of not letting go, sad isn't it.

----------


## intertd6

> This is an illustration of not letting go, sad isn't it.

  seeing you relatively new here you should go back to page one & have a look at where your sides drivel started, no proof has ever been presented as requested, just limp lame propaganda drivel paraded as proof! Now that's an fine example of not letting go! I really must try harder to follow the clones lead on that one!
inter

----------


## johnc

> seeing you relatively new here you should go back to page one & have a look at where your sides drivel started, no proof has ever been presented as requested, just limp lame propaganda drivel paraded as proof! Now that's an fine example of not letting go! I really must try harder to follow the clones lead on that one!
> inter

  As opposed to limp lame denialism?

----------


## woodbe

If there are 'sides' to this debate, it is between science and non-science. 
Until the non-science 'side' can validate their claims that the science is incorrect they have nothing.  
Could the science be incorrect? Of course it could. Given the amount of published research around the topic over more than a hundred years, I'm not expecting the science to be dramatically wrong at this point, but I and most that follow the science are open to the possibility.

----------


## johnc

Trouble with the non science side is most have trouble tying their own shoe laces and need instructions on the toilet paper but have the advantage I guess of having their IQ stamped on their shoes.

----------


## intertd6

Using the old science & non science chestnut which doesn't apply! straight from the AGW alarmist propaganda handbook of red herring arguments! Generally the sides here are, science based on past observations camp, then the science based on future projections of models which are not reliable nor believable. True clones prove day in & day out that their closed minds with supposedly superior intellect will not accept anything other than the preachings of their chosen cult, " here! drink this coolaid " is a prime example of cult idiocy!
inter

----------


## John2b

> True clones prove day in & day out that their closed minds with supposedly superior intellect will not accept anything other than the preachings of their chosen cult, " here! drink this coolaid " is a prime example of cult idiocy!

  Your personal expression of cult idiocy in this forum is unassailable, but thanks anyway for providing another example.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Generally the sides here are, science based on past observations camp, then the science based on future projections of models which are not reliable nor believable.

  Errr...future projections are informed and indeed calibrated by past observations (amongst many other things)...otherwise they'd be little different from a wild eyed guess and just as useful.  
It is also worth noting that most 'observations' about the past (say pre 1750) are actually projections based on limited contemporary observational data and much inferred climate data from other sources (tree rings, trapped bubbles etc.). 
So which side are you actually on?

----------


## woodbe

I thought it was obvious which side inter was on?  
The side that says its not happening.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## intertd6

> Errr...future projections are informed and indeed calibrated by past observations (amongst many other things)...otherwise they'd be little different from a wild eyed guess and just as useful.  That is one of the dopiest things I've read this week! There is around 70 odd model projections & not one of them is close to reality! 
> It is also worth noting that most 'observations' about the past (say pre 1750) are actually projections based on limited contemporary observational data and much inferred climate data from other sources (tree rings, trapped bubbles etc.).  And they are still 10 times more accurate than the crystal ball temperature projections that have coincidentally been happening since the little ice age! 
> So which side are you actually on?  not your fruit loop side that's for sure!

  inter

----------


## intertd6

> I thought it was obvious which side inter was on?  
> The side that says its not happening.

  You would prove to be smart, intelligent & highly inventive if you can find anywhere where I said global warming is not happening!
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> inter

  Actually the figure is more like 150. And they are only the ones that have been peer reviewed by the CSIRO... 
...and given they are forecasting then I am unclear how you can perceive they are not close to reality. Unless you are from the future...in which case, do tell!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You would prove to be smart, intelligent & highly inventive if you can find anywhere where I said global warming is not happening!
> inter

  But if we said you meant then it was neither your fault or your problem? Which would take to mean too puerile to take responsibility or too old to take into account from here on in... 
I'd be fine with that. I hereby declare that Interd6 is merely old and in the way.  Bulldoze it at your leisure.

----------


## intertd6

> But if we said you meant then it was neither your fault or your problem? Which would take to mean too puerile to take responsibility or too old to take into account from here on in... 
> I'd be fine with that. I hereby declare that Interd6 is merely old and in the way.  Bulldoze it at your leisure.

  Is your name woodbee? But it appears you can't provide any substance either!
inter

----------


## woodbe

This is a forum, mate, anyone can respond to any post. 
You continually say its not happening. No warming since '98. CO2 not significant etc, etc.  
Yep, I think SBD might be on to something. The problem might not be facts, you're just old and in the way. 
What is the next year you're going to pick now that it's looking like '98 is toast? 
Also: Is Earths temperature about to soar? | Open Mind

----------


## intertd6

> This is a forum, mate, anyone can respond to any post. 
> You continually say its not happening. No warming since '98. CO2 not significant etc, etc.  
> Yep, I think SBD might be on to something. The problem might not be facts, you're just old and in the way. 
> What is the next year you're going to pick now that it's looking like '98 is toast? 
> Also: Is Earths temperature about to soar? | Open Mind

  is your name SBD? See the pattern emerging? And what's even funnier between the three amigo clones you still can't produce anything of substance! This is from this very page "temperature projections that have coincidentally been happening since the little ice age!" Then you think that myself & the majority refer to the pause or hiatus in global atmospheric warming since 1998 means global warming has never happened, according to your warped sense of perception! Keep reading & believing those crystal ball clone premonitions, when parroted here they are the best material to extinguish the smouldering pile of BS propaganda there is!
Inter

----------


## John2b

> Then you think that myself & the majority refer to the pause or hiatus in global atmospheric warming since 1998 means global warming has never happened, according to your warped sense of perception!

  What pause in global atmospheric warming? The only suggestion there has been any use in global atmospheric warming are through records that ignore/under-report warming in the polar regions. Last time I check, the poles were part of the globe.

----------


## intertd6

> What pause in global atmospheric warming? The only suggestion there has been any use in global atmospheric warming are through records that ignore/under-report warming in the polar regions. Last time I check, the poles were part of the globe.

   This just gets better & better! You guys just can't help yourselves, now there is a conspiracy in the global temperature recording to show no warming! 
Inter

----------


## woodbe

> is your name SBD? See the pattern emerging? 
> Inter

  I do see a pattern emerging. It's looking like SBD is right about old age.    

> This is a forum, mate, anyone can respond to any post.

  SBD might respond to your post but so can anyone else who could bother to respond to your petulant piffle. 
And now you are quietly turning the soil ready to back away from your countless and cherry picked calls of _no warming since '98_. That in itself is a LOL. Now you say you accept global warming, but you are not saying you accept the science that shows we have a hand in it by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. 
There is plenty of substance posted in this thread, the only problem for you is that you are unable to accept any of it. That's not a problem of the science, it's a problem of your perception and understanding. The vast majority of scientists who have spent their entire careers studying it, continually increase our understanding and they accept it, but for you is a 'smouldering pile of BS'  
credibility zero. It's been said before, if you have an answer that is better than what the science shows, you should produce it. History demonstrates you haven't got an answer to counter the results of thousands of published research papers over more than a hundred years. The only thing you have to offer is a cherry picked short scale temperature feature that proves nothing.

----------


## John2b

> You guys just can't help yourselves, now there is a conspiracy in the global temperature recording to show no warming!

  Who needs a conspiracy? Here's your first challenge: find *any* accepted published global surface temperature record to the present day that shows *no warming trend*. You can even choose your own starting year! 
Your second challenge: stop making false claims about a pause in global warming when you can't show one.

----------


## intertd6

> Who needs a conspiracy? Here's your first challenge: find *any* accepted published global surface temperature record to the present day that shows *no warming trend*. You can even choose your own starting year! 
> Your second challenge: stop making false claims about a pause in global warming when you can't show one.

  the three amigos minus the apprentice are very excited this morning! Not so for their memories it seems, which have been conveniently turned off! More red herrings, manipulation, distortion, evasion, etc, etc, etc, like a broken record it goes around again playing the same moronic tune, it's upto the clones to prove CO2 is causing the global warming with more than anecdotal evidence or propaganda, so then the head clones can then legitimately tax or control its output! Until then donate your own money freely & give us a tally of this sum so we can all have a nice chuckle!
inter

----------


## John2b

> like a broken record it goes around again playing the same moronic tune

  You can't show a pause in the global warming record, so you play the only moronic mantra you have. LMFAO

----------


## intertd6

> You can't show a pause in the global warming record, so you play the only moronic card you have. LMFAO

  what and chase one of your classic red herrings for no benefit! If did I would only be re posting something you provided in the first, second & possibly the third time, that showed the pause in global warming since 1998 and what's funny is when you have tried this tactic numerous times before it never worked either! If only I was that clever! I'd be a champion clone with a little band of clone underlings hanging off my every word!
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Why repeatedly provide proof of human emitted co2's influence on climate when you steadfastly refuse to accept it? These days it's more intellectually rewarding just to play Smack The Troll...

----------


## intertd6

> Why repeatedly provide proof of human emitted co2's influence on climate when you steadfastly refuse to accept it? These days it's more intellectually rewarding just to play Smack The Troll...

  this is too funny! The gaggle of clones have repeatably provided the proof that there has been no significant warming of the atmosphere since 1998 yet don't believe it! Now what galah doesn't know how puerile it is to engage with types that operate at that dismal low level? But by geez it is a humorous pastime which nobody in their right mind would take too seriously!
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Sorry, child Inter but no such proof was provided - you merely chose to interpret what was provided in you own curoius way. To each his own but don't go tarring others with your perceptual failings... 
In the end...we don't have to convince you of anything.  You are on the outside while I'm in here writing out the ways you will live your life and pay your way (like it or not) into the future...now that's what I call Direct Action!

----------


## woodbe

> The gaggle of clones have repeatably provided the proof that there has been no significant warming of the atmosphere since 1998

  And the significance of this cherry pick since 1998 is...  Insignificant. 
Climate change exists in long term trends. It's been said before, (this is one of the things you don't listen to) regardless if the change since 1998 has been minimal or not, short term trends can and do mask the underlying signal. That's why _since 1998_ is a red herring and a cherry pick. Multiple published papers have been referenced here to explain this to you but you don't want to know about it. 
We can go around in circles forever, but the facts are the same. The atmosphere is not the only indication of temperature on the planet, but you think that by picking one cherry picked atmospheric temperature year you can disprove the longterm trend facts in front of you. If you really believe that, then as soon as 2014 or 2015 bounces way above 1998 you are going to have to change your story to global warming is taking off. LOL.

----------


## intertd6

> And the significance of this cherry pick since 1998 is...  Insignificant. 
> Climate change exists in long term trends. It's been said before, (this is one of the things you don't listen to) regardless if the change since 1998 has been minimal or not, short term trends can and do mask the underlying signal. That's why _since 1998_ is a red herring and a cherry pick. Multiple published papers have been referenced here to explain this to you but you don't want to know about it. 
> We can go around in circles forever, but the facts are the same. The atmosphere is not the only indication of temperature on the planet, but you think that by picking one cherry picked atmospheric temperature year you can disprove the longterm trend facts in front of you. If you really believe that, then as soon as 2014 or 2015 bounces way above 1998 you are going to have to change your story to global warming is taking off. LOL.

  what is significant is the disconnection the clones have between the reality of an exponential growth of CO2 emissions & insignificant global warming since 1998. It's quite funny how your long term trend cherry picked facts are in reality just a blink of an eye in comparison to those I have shown, which shoot down any relationship that CO2 drives climate change. Any normal person will accept proof that changes their view point, clones on the other hand are the exact opposite as demonstrated here, they believe the propaganda paraded as proof, then have no latitude to change even in the slightest because of the web of lies & deceit that they have woven into the farce!
inter

----------


## John2b

> insignificant global warming since 1998.

  Notice how *NO* global warming since 1998, has become "insignificant" warming since 1998.   

> myself & the majority refer to the pause or hiatus in global atmospheric warming since 1998

  Still waiting for you to show ANY data set that does not have a warming trend in recent history to the present from any date YOU choose to pick, no matter how stupid (like an outlier year such as 1998). 
Luckily (for some) you don't need even the most basic understanding of statistics and trends to be able to tie your shoe laces...

----------


## woodbe

> what is significant is the disconnection the clones have between the reality of an exponential growth of CO2 emissions & insignificant global warming since 1998.

  There you go again, again, again. 
In climate science short term trends do not blitz long term trends. We've been pumping significant CO2 into the atmosphere for well over a hundred years but you think _since 1998_ is your get out of jail card. You'll be staying in jail, bud.  :Biggrin:  
inter vs thousands of published, peer reviewed papers. LOL.

----------


## intertd6

> Notice how *NO* global warming since 1998, has become "insignificant" warming since 1998.   
> Still waiting for you to show ANY data set that does not have a warming trend in recent history to the present from any date YOU choose to pick, no matter how stupid (like an outlier year such as 1998). 
> Luckily (for some) you don't need even the most basic understanding of statistics and trends to be able to tie your shoe laces...

    
what and chase one of your classic red herrings for no benefit! If did I would only be re posting something you provided in the first, second & possibly the third time, that showed the pause in global warming since 1998 and what's funny is when you have tried this tactic numerous times before it never worked either! If only I was that clever! I'd be a champion clone with a little band of clone underlings hanging off my every word!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> There you go again, again, again. 
> In climate science short term trends do not blitz long term trends. We've been pumping significant CO2 into the atmosphere for well over a hundred years but you think _since 1998_ is your get out of jail card. You'll be staying in jail, bud.  
> inter vs thousands of published, peer reviewed papers. LOL.

  anybody but a clone would expect you to parrot at least one paper that has empirical evidence proving CO2 has, can, or will ever cause catastrophic global warming! Were all still waiting for that measly one to appear!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> anybody but a clone would expect you to parrot at least one paper that has empirical evidence proving CO2 has, can, or will ever cause catastrophic global warming! Were all still waiting for that measly one to appear!
> inter

  There are thousands of papers that clearly demonstrate the effects of CO2 on the climate. 
So you are agreeing that CO2 causes global warming but not _catastrophic_ global warming now?  
See what I did there? I played your fallacy argument back at you. The science accepts at the base level that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will increase the radiative balance of the planet. Maybe it could turn catastrophic at some point, depending on your definition of catastrophic, but we're getting ahead of ourselves - your position is no warming from CO2. The science shows warming from CO2. You're still in jail. :P

----------


## John2b

> Were all still waiting for that measly one to appear!

  When are you going to show your proof of the "global warming hiatus"? Your choice of data set and start date - just show a flat or declining trend to the present. Or are you too busy trying to learn how to tie shoe laces...

----------


## johnc

> anybody but a clone would expect you to parrot at least one paper that has empirical evidence proving CO2 has, can, or will ever cause catastrophic global warming! Were all still waiting for that measly one to appear!
> inter

   Continually repeating oneself can be a sign of dementia or mental illness, are you sure you are OK?

----------


## intertd6

> There are thousands of papers that clearly demonstrate the effects of CO2 on the climate. It shouldn't be hard for you to parrot a measly one of them then that has empirical evidence backing it then?
> So you are agreeing that CO2 causes global warming but not _catastrophic_ global warming now?   Your obviously getting yourself all excited! CO2 does cause some global warming, it's a greenhouse gas & more than likely will never cause catastrophic global warming 
> See what I did there? I played your fallacy argument back at you. The science accepts at the base level that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will increase the radiative balance of the planet. Maybe it could turn catastrophic at some point, depending on your definition of catastrophic, but we're getting ahead of ourselves - your position is no warming from CO2. The science shows warming from CO2. You're still in jail.  I see a clone with no empirical evidence that CO2 has, can or ever will cause dangerous global warming!
> :P

   Inter

----------


## intertd6

> Continually repeating oneself can be a sign of dementia or mental illness, are you sure you are OK?

   Or someone who is efficient with their time when it comes to dealing with clones!
inter

----------


## John2b

> someone who is efficient with their time when it comes to dealing with clones!

  Says   

> like a broken record it goes around again playing the same moronic tune

----------


## intertd6

> When are you going to show your proof of the "global warming hiatus"? Your choice of data set and start date - just show a flat or declining trend to the present. Or are you too busy trying to learn how to tie shoe laces...

  My post 13173 explains it for you, again!
inter

----------


## John2b

> My post 13173 explains it for you, again!

  You say I provided your proof. I say I haven't. You want to put words in my mouth? Then the onus is on you to show where I did. 
Or just provide some evidence to back your claim FFS.   

> Continually repeating oneself can be a sign of dementia or mental illness, are you sure you are OK?

  Ditto.

----------


## intertd6

> You say I provided your proof. I say I haven't. You want to put words in my mouth? Then the onus is on you to show where I did. 
> Or just provide some evidence to back your claim FFS.

  yes! No! And you already have!
inter

----------


## John2b

> yes! No! And you already have!

  So you can't show where I did, and you can't/won't provide any evidence to support your position. How's the shoe laces going?

----------


## intertd6

> So you can't show where I did, and you can't/won't provide any evidence to support your position. How's the shoe laces going?

  You already have done so! Also I can't help you with your memory of convenience, maybe a change of substance could improve it?
inter

----------


## John2b

> You already have done so! Also I can't help you with your memory of convenience, maybe a change of substance could improve it?

  You made the claim, the onus is on you to substantiate it - regardless of what substance you are abusing...

----------


## woodbe

> it's a greenhouse gas & more than likely will never cause catastrophic global warming

  Only more than likely? So you don't discount catstrophic altogether? This just gets better and better.   

> no empirical evidence that CO2 has, can or ever will cause dangerous global warming!

  Oh, so not catastophic anymore, just dangerous? LOL.  
I'm not going to reference yet another paper for you to ignore, but if you start here you will find the information you _say_ you require:  Introduction - Summary

----------


## John2b

There is plenty of empirical evidence, for example the change in the Earth's spectral emissions as a result of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere that have been measured by Earthshine reflected by the moon for decades. 
In any case there was no empirical evidence for a lot of things, e.g cars, computers, nuclear reactors, etc, etc, but they were all constructed by understanding the laws of physics and conservation of energy. Why should it be necessary to find empirical evidence of CO2 causing dangerous warming, when the laws of physics and conservation of energy predicate the inescapable consequences.

----------


## intertd6

> There is plenty of empirical evidence, for example the change in the Earth's spectral emissions as a result of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere that have been measured by Earthshine reflected by the moon for decades.  Yet not one has been parroted by you to prove your belief! 
> In any case there was no empirical evidence for a lot of things, e.g cars, computers, nuclear reactors, etc, etc, but they were all constructed by understanding the laws of physics and conservation of energy. Why should it be necessary to find empirical evidence of CO2 causing dangerous warming, when the laws of physics and conservation of energy predicate the inescapable consequences. So now you admitting you have nothing but hot air!

   Inter

----------


## intertd6

> Only more than likely? So you don't discount catstrophic altogether? This just gets better and better.   
> Oh, so not catastophic anymore, just dangerous? LOL.  
> I'm not going to reference yet another paper for you to ignore, but if you start here you will find the information you _say_ you require:  Introduction - Summary

   Oh dear! so now I have to consistently selective when using alarmist quotes of the doom & gloom to appease a few clones!
thank goodness it doesn't worry anybody of substance too much!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> You made the claim, the onus is on you to substantiate it - regardless of what substance you are abusing...

  actually you have made most of the false claims & verified them so by you own doing, now you deny these facts. Nobody in their right mind is going to give you much time of the day with your frivolous endeavours!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> In the end...we don't have to convince you of anything.  You are on the outside while I'm in here writing out the ways you will live your life and pay your way (like it or not) into the future...now that's what I call Direct Action!

  It is quite normal to believe we are all important, but you have just displayed how self inflated ones importance can become when involved in a bureaucracy !
inter

----------


## John2b

> Nobody in their right mind is going to give you much time of the day with your frivolous endeavours!

  Then given your obsession to unthinkingly rebuke anything and everything others say in this forum, the only conclusion a reasonable person could make is that you are not "someone in their right mind".

----------


## John2b

> actually you have made most of the false claims

  Regardless of what you think of anything I said, are you going to provide some basis for your claims at last? 
All I am asking is for you to play by *your own rules*. Not just more hot air - of which you have provided enough to contribute to global warming all by yourself!

----------


## intertd6

> Regardless of what you think of anything I said, are you going to provide some basis for your claims at last? 
> All I am asking is for you to play by *your own rules*. Not just more hot air - of which you have provided enough to contribute to global warming all by yourself!

  so now you have invented some fictional rules! The utterings of a desperate person indeed!
inter

----------


## John2b

> Yet not one has been parroted by you to prove your belief!

  Here you go, nearly 100 years of measuring earthshine from the moon:  We have been making sustained observations of the earthshine from Big Bear SolarObservatory in California since late 1998. We also have intermittent observations from19941995. We have reinvigorated and modernized a nearly forgotten way of measuringthe Earths albedo, and hence its energy balance, previously studied by A. Danjon and hisfollowers for about 25 years early in the last century using their observations of theearthshine from France.  http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Qiu_etal_2003_JGR.pdf

----------


## intertd6

> Then given your obsession to unthinkingly rebuke anything and everything others say in this forum, the only conclusion a reasonable person could make is that you are not "someone in their right mind".

   It quite easy to pick the odd one out of the group, clone, cult follower, fanatic, someone in their right mind.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Here you go, nearly 100 years of measuring earthshine from the moon: We have been making sustained observations of the earthshine from Big Bear SolarObservatory in California since late 1998. We also have intermittent observations from1994–1995. We have reinvigorated and modernized a nearly forgotten way of measuringthe Earth’s albedo, and hence its energy balance, previously studied by A. Danjon and hisfollowers for about 25 years early in the last century using their observations of theearthshine from France.  http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Qiu_etal_2003_JGR.pdf

  now all you have to do is highlight the relevant part where it empirically proves that CO2 is solely responsible for causing atmospheric global warming, especially when there has been virtually none since 1998.
inter

----------


## John2b

> so now you have invented some fictional rules! The utterings of a desperate person indeed!

  You keep demanding proof, so why don't you provide some of your own?!   

> anybody but a clone would expect you to parrot at least one paper that has empirical evidence proving CO2 has, can, or will ever cause catastrophic global warming! Were all still waiting for that measly one to appear!

   

> it's upto the clones to prove CO2 is causing the global warming

   

> no proof has ever been presented as requested, just limp lame propaganda drivel paraded as proof!

   

> i don't know for sure do you have some figures? 
> i don't know for sure do you have some figures?  
> not until we have the figures!

   

> if there are many facts how come you can't even provide one

  Just because you are impervious to observations does not mean that CO2 is not a contributing factor to global warming.

----------


## John2b

> now all you have to do is highlight the relevant part where it empirically proves that CO2 is solely responsible for causing atmospheric global warming, especially when there has been virtually none since 1998.

  1. I have never read anywhere in the scientific literature or this forum anyone claim that "CO2 is solely responsible for causing atmospheric global warming". 
2. Global warming didn't stop in 1998, or any other year, according to the recorded temperature trend. You have been asked to show otherwise and you have declined the opportunity many times.

----------


## woodbe

> Oh dear! so now I have to consistently selective when using alarmist quotes of the doom & gloom to appease a few clones!
> thank goodness it doesn't worry anybody of substance too much!
> inter

  You didn't use quotes. You're trying to slime your way out of what you said. These were _your_ words:   

> CO2 does cause some global warming, it's a greenhouse gas & more than likely will never cause catastrophic global warming

  You are accepting science there and suggesting there is some small chance of catastrophic global warming. Your words, not mine. You typed them, you didn't quote them. 
and   

> I see a clone with no empirical evidence that CO2 has, can or ever will cause dangerous global warming!

  And here we have a backdown from your claim that I and others only support catastrophic global warming by your previous fallacious suggestion. Probably a result of having that fallacy pointed out to you for all to see. 
So now you have exposed yourself.  :Biggrin:  You accept greenhouse gases and CO2 of being a driver of the climate. You accept that there is some unlikely chance of catastrophic global warming, but you don't accept the rest of the information provided to you by the science that gave you that information. Cherry picking science to suit your opinion on a grand scale. pfft.

----------


## intertd6

> 1. I have never read anywhere in the scientific literature or this forum anyone claim that "CO2 is solely responsible for causing atmospheric global warming".  well you would have ask yourself then, what bright spark wants to pay a tax on something that doesn't drive the climate? 
> 2. Global warming didn't stop in 1998, or any other year, according to the recorded temperature trend. You have been asked to show otherwise and you have declined the opportunity many times. thats not what the data you presented here 3 or so times shows, & you even tried to reinvent the meaning of "significant" to suit your own idealogical cause!

  inter

----------


## intertd6

> You didn't use quotes. You're trying to slime your way out of what you said. These were _your_ words:   
> You are accepting science there and suggesting there is some small chance of catastrophic global warming. Your words, not mine. You typed them, you didn't quote them. 
> and   
> And here we have a backdown from your claim that I and others only support catastrophic global warming by your previous fallacious suggestion. Probably a result of having that fallacy pointed out to you for all to see. 
> So now you have exposed yourself.  You accept greenhouse gases and CO2 of being a driver of the climate. You accept that there is some unlikely chance of catastrophic global warming, but you don't accept the rest of the information provided to you by the science that gave you that information. Cherry picking science to suit your opinion on a grand scale. pfft.

  WTF are you on?
inter

----------


## woodbe

> WTF are you on?
> inter

  No defence of your own words, just another attack on the messenger. Predictable. 
I'm on absolutely nothing, no meds, no recreational drugs, no alcohol. Your cat is out of the bag, and you have now proven you have nothing. Just like Rod, you think you can cherry pick the science that suits your opinion, but that is not how science works.

----------


## John2b

> well you would have ask yourself then, what bright spark wants to pay a tax on something that doesn't drive the climate?

  The sun drives the climate. You want a tax on the sun? 
Excess CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of humans burning fossil fuel is the most significant (but not only) cause of the recent energy imbalance that is pushing the temperature up to a new equilibrium point higher than the stable temperature of the past several thousand years - the temperature at which life as we know it established and colonised the planet.   

> thats not what the data you presented here 3 or so times shows

  The data I posted/linked to has always shown a continuing warming trend. You've been challenged, but failed, to show a data set that shows otherwise. If you contend that I have, then you should be able to find one easily.

----------


## intertd6

> I'm on absolutely nothing, no meds, no recreational drugs, no alcohol.

  well it must be caused by environmental or natural causes then! Institutions are full of these types! Up north they call it mango madness! And down south they call it tunnel fever! In the middle it must be the upwardly mobile left wing latte set!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> The sun drives the climate. You want a tax on the sun?  you would have to ask yourself that question as you seem to like useless taxes?
> one doesn't have to be really bright to know my response to the idea of stupid taxes! Unless your a clone & can't see the obvious! 
> Excess CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of humans burning fossil fuel is the most significant (but not only) cause of the recent energy imbalance that is pushing the temperature up to a new equilibrium point higher than the stable temperature of the past several thousand years - the temperature at which life as we know it established and colonised the planet.  ah I hate to tell you, but life as we know it started in one form or another hundreds of millions of years ago! ah the old imbalance chestnut! The earth has never been in balance & is aways moving from one imbalance or to another since the dawn of time, but a gaggle of genius clones with qualifications in jack think they can change that!   
> The data I posted/linked to has always shown a continuing warming trend. You've been challenged, but failed, to show a data set that shows otherwise. If you contend that I have, then you should be able to find one easily.  So mysteriously now you have provided the data that showed an insignificant amount of atmospheric global warming since 1998! Only you & the three amigo laypersons are of the worldly opinion that it is significant & even tried to re invent the meaning of the word to suit your ideology

  inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Life as we know it will prevail just fine in the face of climate change...but probably not life as we would like it. Adelaide wouldn't really enjoy the climate of Port Hedland but hey people still live there... 
As for the no warming since 1998...Tamino whacked out an interesting analysis that suggests how that perception was mathematically unlikely just the other day. Buggered if I know whether he was barking in a barb wire canoe but he read more sensibly than Inter...

----------


## woodbe

> well it must be caused by environmental or natural causes then! Institutions are full of these types! Up north they call it mango madness! And down south they call it tunnel fever! In the middle it must be the upwardly mobile left wing latte set!
> inter

  Have you ever considered the problem you are seeing is inside you? Maybe you took too many meds, see if you can get someone else to count them out for you.

----------


## woodbe

> As for the no warming since 1998...Tamino whacked out an interesting analysis that suggests how that perception was mathematically unlikely just the other day. Buggered if I know whether he was barking in a barb wire canoe but he read more sensibly than Inter...

  He always reads more sensibly...   

> A recent blog post on RealClimate by Stefan Rahmstorf shows that when it comes to recent claims of a pause or hiatus, or even a _slowdown_ in global surface temperature, there just isnt any reliable evidence to back up those claims.   
>  Yet for years one of the favorite claims of those who deny the danger of global warming has been _No global warming since [insert start time here] !!!_  They base the statement on the observed data of earths surface  temperature or its atmospheric temperature. Then they claim that such a  pause or hiatus in temperature increase disproves, in one fell  swoop, everything about man-made climate change.
>   They seem a bit worried lately because it is very likely that the data  from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) will record  this year as the hottest on record; we wont know, of course, until 2014  is complete. A single year, even if the hottest on record, has only a  little to do with the validity of such claims, but a lot to do with how  hard it is to _sell_ the idea. Perhaps they dread the prospect that  if the most recent year is the hottest on record  in any data set  it  will put a damper on their claims of a pause in global warming. If  they cant claim that any more, it deprives them of one of their most  persuasive talking points (whether true or not). Still the claims  persist; theyve even begun preparing to ward off genuine skepticism  spurred by the hottest year on record. 
> Read the rest here: Is Earths temperature about to soar? | Open Mind

  And the post SBD is probably referring to is here: A pause or not a pause, that is the question. | Open Mind

----------


## Rod Dyson

> No defence of your own words, just another attack on the messenger. Predictable. 
> I'm on absolutely nothing, no meds, no recreational drugs, no alcohol. Your cat is out of the bag, and you have now proven you have nothing. Just like Rod, you think you can cherry pick the science that suits your opinion, but that is not how science works.

  Pathetic

----------


## John2b

> Pathetic

  You are stating the obvious: Posts from Inter, like the one you are referencing Rod, are mostly puerile personal attacks, or outrageous claims with no collaborating references. 
Pathetic indeed!

----------


## John2b

> I hate to tell you, but life as we know it started in one form or another hundreds of millions of years ago!

  Pure Inter obscurantism. If you disregard human civilisation, global warming is not all that important as there have been warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. Hundreds of millions of years ago, life was mostly algae and jellyfish. When you call that "life as we know it", Inter,  you are speaking for yourself not greater humanity. Civilisation was made possible by relatively stable climate that began around 10,000 years ago. Oh, that's the same stable temperature that CO2 emissions are whacking off the face of the planet.

----------


## woodbe

> Pathetic

  Oh the irony. Someone who couldn't be bothered to visit his thread for ages comes back with a one word post. 
Pathetic indeed.

----------


## John2b

> Someone who couldn't be bothered to visit his thread for ages comes back with a one word post.

  Don't knock it, woodbe, it was probably his best effort.

----------


## intertd6

> Oh the irony. Someone who couldn't be bothered to visit his thread for ages comes back with a one word post. 
> Pathetic indeed.

  its more than likely relative to the amount of time one can be bothered to afford the lunatic fringe! And only a few can afford any time at all! But yours & the three amigos posts are getting longer!
inter

----------


## Rod Dyson

> its more than likely relative to the amount of time one can be bothered to afford the lunatic fringe! And only a few can afford any time at all! But yours & the three amigos posts are getting longer!
> inter

  They are clutching every straw to keep there pet alive. 
Me I am happy to sit back and watch the slow motion train wreck.  Nothing more to add.  No sense trying to counter every bit of circumstantial puffed up "science" put up by warmist to try and prop things up.  Most of us see through all that now anyway. 
Let nature take its course and just hope the pollies can avoid an economic tragedy in the name of trying to prevent the un-preventable.  Big ask I know but hey AGW is falling like a stone on the plebs worry list!  Your pet clones inter, on the other hand have got to get more shrill to try and get the big scare moving again. 
Tough ask. 
I will be lurking!  Speak to you all again when I feel the need to say something.

----------


## woodbe

> I will be lurking!  Speak to you all again when I feel the need to say something.

  We look forward to your "Pathetic" words of wisdom.  :Tongue:

----------


## John2b

Why is it that AGW deniers post nonsense so easily rebuked? For example:  
Six out of 10 of Australians think Tony Abbott's Direct Action policy has left the country with an inadequate policy response to the problem of global warming, according to the latest *Fairfax Ipsos poll*.  Fairfax Ipsos poll shows climate change concerns heating up around Tony Abbott  
AUSTRALIANS ARE MORE concerned about climate change than they were last year, according to the latest *Lowy Poll.* Concern is up five per cent.  Concern for climate change is rising â€“ Blog â€“ ABC Environment (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   *JWS Research:* Climate change and renewable energy remain signature concerns of voters. The Abbott government’s Direct Action policy has failed to feed the bulldog, while the attack on the Renewable Energy Target has rattled its cage. 
In the survey, 16 per cent judgedthe government as doing a good job. But 20 per cent rated it as poor and 29 per cent as very poor. The top issues within the policy were climate change (44 per cent), renewable energy (35 per cent) and reducingcarbon emissions (24 per cent). 
Labor’s decision not to abandon its policy principles on climate change do not look so dumb. Little wonder Julie Bishop felt the need to attend next week’s climate change summit in Peru when the government wanted to send only officials.  Green time bomb ticking under Abbott's agenda - JWS ...   An opinion poll across Australia by* Essential media* has found that most people expect extreme weather events to get worse, and that this trend is linked to climate change.  Opinion Poll: more extreme weather expected, linked to climate change by Australian public | Climate Citizen  
However, this poll takes the cake - LOL at Rod:  _There was strong evidence that people overestimate the prevalence of their own views on the nature of climate change. _ Annual surveys of Australian attitudes to climate change | CSIRO

----------


## Neptune

> Why is it that AGW deniers post nonsense so easily rebuked? For example:  
> Six out of 10 of Australians think Tony Abbott's Direct Action policy has left the country with an inadequate policy response to the problem of global warming, according to the latest *Fairfax Ipsos poll*.  Fairfax Ipsos poll shows climate change concerns heating up around Tony Abbott  
> AUSTRALIANS ARE MORE concerned about climate change than they were last year, according to the latest *Lowy Poll.* Concern is up five per cent.  Concern for climate change is rising â Blog â ABC Environment (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   *JWS Research:* Climate change and renewable energy remain signature concerns of voters. The Abbott governments Direct Action policy has failed to feed the bulldog, while the attack on the Renewable Energy Target has rattled its cage. 
> In the survey, 16 per cent judgedthe government as doing a good job. But 20 per cent rated it as poor and 29 per cent as very poor. The top issues within the policy were climate change (44 per cent), renewable energy (35 per cent) and reducingcarbon emissions (24 per cent). 
> Labors decision not to abandon its policy principles on climate change do not look so dumb. Little wonder Julie Bishop felt the need to attend next weeks climate change summit in Peru when the government wanted to send only officials.  Green time bomb ticking under Abbott's agenda - JWS ...   An opinion poll across Australia by* Essential media* has found that most people expect extreme weather events to get worse, and that this trend is linked to climate change.  Opinion Poll: more extreme weather expected, linked to climate change by Australian public | Climate Citizen  
> However, this poll takes the cake - LOL at Rod:  _There was strong evidence that people overestimate the prevalence of their own views on the nature of climate change. _ Annual surveys of Australian attitudes to climate change | CSIRO

  That's a lot of Polls, they must have the same 23 people on their mailing lists. 
BTW, the only poll that matters is on election day. 
As far as being pathetic goes, what is pathetic is the amount of time and effort you true believers put into trying to convert a few people here who clearly will not convert. 
Or is it that no-one will listen to you elsewhere and the only place you can push your broken barrow is on a bloody house renovating forum? 
Or is it that you don't actually believe the BS you've been spruiking so seek alternate views here? 
From a CSIRO chief scientist,

----------


## woodbe

> As far as being pathetic goes, what is pathetic is the amount of time and effort you true believers put into trying to convert a few people here who clearly will not convert.

  If the goal of any of us here who accept and respect the science was to convert the handful of 'skeptics' here, then you would be 100% correct.

----------


## Neptune

> If the goal of any of us here who accept and respect the science was to convert the handful of 'skeptics' here, then you would be 100% correct.

  So if that's the case, after your 1482 posts in this thread, what exactly is your goal?

----------


## John2b

> That's a lot of Polls, they must have the same 23 people on their mailing lists.

   Back to attack my integrity again, Neptune? And disingenuity is your speciality today?    

> BTW, the only poll that matters is on election day.

   What next - let's take a vote on whether the earth is round or flat?    

> As far as being pathetic goes, what is pathetic is the amount of time and effort you true believers put into trying to convert a few people here who clearly will not convert.

  
When you are not being disingenuous, you are practising your logical fallacies? Who says the objective is to convert any sceptic, contrarian or denier? BTW the amount of time and effort is balanced by “your side”. How pathetic is that or is the irony lost on you?  The four of you whose only interest is in casting doubt upon what of science has shown is true are not the only people who visit the forum BTW: 473457 view(s).   

> Or is it that no-one will listen to you elsewhere and the only place you can push your broken barrow is on a bloody house renovating forum?

   I am probably here for the same reason as anyone else - I am renovating a house. That doesn’t mean I should stand idly by whilst misinformation is being passed around by blokes who can’t keep their hand off it.   

> Or is it that you don't actually believe the BS you've been spruiking so seek alternate views here?

   If the facts are on “your side” why doesn’t “your side” post some facts instead of the ridiculous piffle that is so easy to point out for what it is and that offends you so much when it is exposed as nonsense that it is.

----------


## johnc

Some dogs are to dumb to be worth the effort to train, same goes for sceptics, some are simply to thick to take it in. Fortunately for sceptics they aren't farm dogs or their numbers would be dwindling fast.

----------


## woodbe

> So if that's the case, after your 1482 posts in this thread, what exactly is your goal?

  Well, if it isn't obvious to you then explaining it to you won't really help.  
And as someone who doesn't post here on the subject of the thread, what is your goal?

----------


## John2b

> Well, if it isn't obvious to you then explaining it to you won't really help.  
> And as someone who doesn't post here on the subject of the thread, what is your goal?

   :Roflmao:

----------


## Neptune

> Well, if it isn't obvious to you then explaining it to you won't really help.

  How about you try explaining it for me, it might help?   

> And as someone who doesn't post here on the subject of the thread, what is your goal?

  My goal is to work out what your goal is if you're not trying to convert others, obviously by your comments you realise it's a waste of time but you still bash your heads against the wall.   

> 

  Yeah, hilarious.

----------


## John2b

> My goal is to work out what your goal is if you're not trying to convert others, obviously by your comments you realise it's a waste of time but you still bash your heads against the wall.

  You should start a thread on it...

----------


## woodbe

> How about you try explaining it for me, it might help?

  I don't think so. You are not engaged in this thread, you are just playing the ad hominem game. Work it out for yourself. I'll let you know if you get close.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Neptune

> Back to attack my integrity again, Neptune?

  
 I didn't know you ran all those polls, if you didn't you're a little sensitive aren't you.   

> And disingenuity is your speciality today?

  Is it?   

> What next - let's take a vote on whether the earth is round or flat?

  
 Why not create a poll?   

> When you are not being disingenuous, you are practising your logical fallacies?

  
 Got a link to that?   

> Who says the objective is to convert any sceptic, contrarian or denier?

  
 Well woodbe doesn't......and seems a little loath to reveal the real reasons for being here. 
I suppose it's like when the kiddies are in school, they feed them a line of BS and and then condemn them when they question.   

> BTW the amount of time and effort is balanced by your side. How pathetic is that or is the irony lost on you?

  
 Can you prove that?   

> The four of you whose only interest is in casting doubt upon what of science has shown is true are not the only people who visit the forum BTW: 473457 view(s).

  
 Yes I see that and I admit I did actually view it a couple of times, have you got proof  that anyone else is looking, if so, provide a link please.   

> I am probably here for the same reason as anyone else - I am renovating a house,

    

> You should start a thread on it...

   Funny, must have needed a plasterer as your first few posts were here canning Rod.    

> That doesnt mean I should stand idly by whilst misinformation is being passed around by blokes who cant keep their hand off it.

  
 Off what?    

> If the facts are on your side why doesnt your side post some facts instead of the ridiculous piffle that is so easy to point out for what it is and that offends you so much when it is exposed as nonsense that it is.

  
 So if you are always right why bother posting so much contradicting, belittling, comments to detract from your own credibility?

----------


## Neptune

> Some dogs are to dumb to be worth the effort to train, same goes for sceptics, some are simply to thick to take it in. Fortunately for sceptics they aren't farm dogs or their numbers would be dwindling fast.

  So I take it your side was trainable, like Pavlov's dogs?

----------


## John2b

> So if you are always right why bother posting so much contradicting, belittling, comments to detract from your own credibility?

  You're so great on forum statistics, I am sure that you must have noticed that "your side" has set the tone of this forum. Your own posts are very much in line with the rest of your lot - your posts have not once addressed the topic of the forum, but focused on denigrated others.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## John2b

> Funny, must have needed a plasterer as your first few posts were here canning Rod.

  For someone who specialises in ad hominem attacks (at least in this thread), it is surprising you don't recognise what constitutes one. My first posts were not canning Rod. Below, for you reference, is the first couple of posts I addressed to Rod. It's a very low bow to make them out as personal attacks. You are being a bit sensitive, aren't you?   

> The Earth's surface area is about 75% oceans and the oceans absorb almost all of the Sun's energy, unlike land which reflects a lot. The consequence is that 90% of the heat from the Sun goes into the oceans first, before is is moved to the atmosphere and warms the environment that humans live in. The process of heat moving from the ocean to the air drives weather, and it is quite variable and subject to many overlapping oscillations, some short and some long. That is why the surface temperature has been rising in steps, not linearly - "it's the weather"! 
> As to whether heat is still accumulating, that is really very obvious. 
> Have a think about this analogy - imagine the Earth is like a leaky bucket and and heat like water. The level of water in the bucket is a function of the balance between water in and water out. If the water comes in faster the water level rises, until the higher water level forces the leaks to catch up and a new higher equilibrium is reached. Likewise, if the leaks start to seal over, the water level will rise increasing the pressure on the leaks until a new equilibrium is reached. 
> Heat is pouring in from the Sun and leaking out to space. CO2 is a blanket that blocks the outward radiation of heat from Earth to space. The effect can be and is measured directly by satellites. This in not an unproven theory and does not depend on models or paleontological climate histories. It's physics - the same physics that make all of our modern technology work so we know the physics "works". 
> Whatever is causing the current "hiatus" in air temperature rise which has climate scientists puzzled, will come to an end. (BTW there isn't a hiatus anyway, that's a myth - nine of the hottest years in recorded history have occurred since the year 2000 after warming supposedly "stopped!") That you can be certain of, and air temperatures resume their upward climb it isn't going to be nice. I suspect we are at/near the end of the current flat spot now and will see a large step up in surface temperatures in the next few years.   
> If you are going to attack science, the least you can do is arm yourself with a little skepticism. Challenge everything you read, not just what you don't agree with, and you will see the holes in everyone's arguments when and where they exist.

   

> Putting your post in perspective, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 1000 times as much as the amount of doping molecules needed to turn silicon (sand, if you like) into semiconductors used to make electronics like your computer. 
> As your link demonstrates, extremely small amounts of a substance can have an enormous effect in the right circumstances.

----------


## intertd6

> He always reads more sensibly...   
> And the post SBD is probably referring to is here: A pause or not a pause, that is the question. | Open Mind

  We always love it when the three amigos & the apprentice post anything in defence of no significant warming since 1998 & then predictably always show a graph mean starting in 1880! like how dumb is it when they have already shown the data which supports a pause in atmospheric global warming, yet they still try it time & time again, to describe it as unbelievably ridiculous is an understatement, it's like they have just been caught red handed, on video, in front of witnesses, yet still deny their culpability! Must be a hereditary trait of the left wing as demonstrated by their clone leaders, then followed implicitly by the clone followers.
inter

----------


## Neptune

> You're so great on forum statistics, I am sure that you must have noticed that "your side" has set the tone of this forum.

  Yes, actually they started this thread in case you missed it, says so in the first post.   

> Your own posts are very much in line with the rest of your lot

  Pssst, a thinking person would expect that.

----------


## John2b

> Yes, actually they started this thread in case you missed it, says so in the first post.

  So the whole point of the thread is that it isn't open to discussion? If you don't agree, don't post?   

> Pssst, a thinking person would expect that.

  Sorry, but most thinking people think the discussion is about the topic. "Your side" thinks it is about attacking people who disagree with "your side's" views, as was aptly pointed out to me very early on:   

> Welcome to the forum John2b, just to help you out I'll spell out a few of the informal rules that might help you when posting here. 
> 1 If you want to convince people that what you say is true use large font. The larger the font the greater the truthiness.
> 2 Include at least one logical fallacy in each post. Ad homs are good but straw men are a favourite too.
> 3 If you post a link don't check it first. It may be total garbage written by by an uneducated moron but it's ok to rely on others to do your work for you.
> 4 Act like a two year old.
> 5 Don't bother with evidence, facts or other crap like that; nobody's interested.
> 6 Even though you don't understand the science feel free to call the people who do frauds and liars without evidence. If you don't have the stones to actually name names that's ok.
> 7 Beware the zombie apocalypse. Long dead and discredited ideas will be resurrected regularly.

----------


## Neptune

> you're a little sensitive aren't you.

   

> You are being a bit sensitive, aren't you?

  Parroting again I see...

----------


## John2b

> We always love it when the three amigos & the apprentice post anything in defence of no significant warming since 1998 & then predictably always show a graph mean starting in 1880!

  You are only out by 100 years (the graph started in 1980). 
Want a trend starting in 1998? Here you go:

----------


## John2b

> Parroting again I see...

  Absolutely. Understanding irony is not one of your strengths?

----------


## johnc

> Yes, actually they started this thread in case you missed it, says so in the first post.  
> Pssst, a thinking person would expect that.

  
The original post focused on an ETS and its economic impact. It was a false premise as neither an ETS nor the later carbon tax could have that impact. Let's face it most people swallow the drivel poured down their throats by a sympathetic press. The real threats to the economy are the inevitable end of the mining boom, falling manufacturing and an erosion of the tax base. Most punters are not able to recognise both sides are guilty which allows the political class to get away with it.

----------


## woodbe

> the data which supports a pause in *atmospheric* global warming

  I'm liking how you are modifying your language to accommodate the errors which have been pointed out to you. 
So there _has_ been global warming since 98. lol.

----------


## Neptune

> So the whole point of the thread is that it isn't open to discussion?

  Well it is a discussion forum, one would expect so. 
And the first post asks?    

> Interested to know your thoughts?

   

> If you don't agree, don't post?

  Nope, wrong again.    

> Sorry, but most thinking people think the discussion is about the topic. "Your side" thinks it is about attacking people who disagree with "your side's" views, as was aptly pointed out to me very early on:

  Yep that was a classic that one, by one from your side.

----------


## John2b

> Yep that was a classic that one, by one from your side.

  And right on the money, as your last string of (off topic) posts have made abundantly clear.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Let nature take its course and just hope the pollies can avoid an economic tragedy in the name of trying to prevent the un-preventable.

  I actually support this view though I don't reckon the pollies can avoid an economic 'tragedy' (or a suite of other societal ailments) regardless of what they think they might be trying to prevent, avoid or subvert. 
We made our bed long ago...and the guest is on its way.

----------


## johnc

> I actually support this view though I don't reckon the pollies can avoid an economic 'tragedy' (or a suite of other societal ailments) regardless of what they think they might be trying to prevent, avoid or subvert. 
> We made our bed long ago...and the guest is on its way.

  The economic tragedy is our deficit, born of to many tax cuts, our mining boom windfall squandered when it should have gone into infrastructure and development a whining stupid public and populist politicians, we have become the stupid country and it is to late to turn the ship. Four terms of useless Federal parliament with no light on the hill our current treasurer even worse than the last. It is a revenue problem so they cut revenue but leave spending measures in place, pathetic.

----------


## intertd6

> You are only out by 100 years (the graph started in 1980). 
> Want a trend starting in 1998? Here you go:

  wow it like we have never seen this type of BS tactic before, (this is the second or third time it has been tried & it didn't work on any of those attempts either) the presumed stupidly of your perceived audience to swallow this stuff is totally inverse to your ability to get any one but a seasoned alarmist clone to believe its significant!
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The economic tragedy is our deficit...

  Hardly. The deficit is the least of our economic problems. Its no worse than the average mortgage.  
It's the underlying structure of our economy and its lack of diversity coupled with a road block in educational development and a dearth of political innovation that is the long term issue. Put simply...we live in the moment without a collective eye to the future. 
Thing is...we've always done this and muddled through nicely. However, the more specialised and sophisticated we get and the more we try to wring out of our economy, our resources and dare I say our environment then the closer we get to operating at ten tenths. The closer we are to that then the more likely we are to come to a trip hazard...like the so called GFC. And we dance on that edge more frequently...

----------


## johnc

> Hardly. The deficit is the least of our economic problems. Its no worse than the average mortgage.  
> It's the underlying structure of our economy and its lack of diversity coupled with a road block in educational development and a dearth of political innovation that is the long term issue. Put simply...we live in the moment without a collective eye to the future. 
> Thing is...we've always done this and muddled through nicely. However, the more specialised and sophisticated we get and the more we try to wring out of our economy, our resources and dare I say our environment then the closer we get to operating at ten tenths. The closer we are to that then the more likely we are to come to a trip hazard...like the so called GFC. And we dance on that edge more frequently...

  At the moment the national debt isn’t a big deal norparticularly is the current deficit, the bigger problem is despite the rhetoricleading up to the LNP getting in they actually didn’t have any ideas justmarketing. Now they are in the driving seat they don’t seem to have found thewheel nor do they seem to understand it is no longer 2004. The world haschanged we have a tax system that favours financial speculation and hitsindustrial development which has in part fuelled house prices. They maintainthey are low taxing but it is their tax cuts that have created most of theproblem. They got in saying they would slash a bloated public service but thesilly drongos had overlooked the fact Labor had set about reducing the publicservice and there really isn’t a lot to cut, on historical numbers it isn’tbloated either. Spending is about where it has been over the last 20 years as apercentage of GDP but tax collections on the same measure are down. Industry is struggling, Education needs our best andbrightest we need improved research as we lag on world indicators, our citiesneed mass transit but we only want to build roads, it is a litany of failure.There isn’t an alternative there isn’t much that divides the main parties whatwe do need is a genuine effort to lead and an end to the personal and negativeattacks that have dogged politics in recent years.

----------


## John2b

The Howard government sold off $70 billion of commonwealth assets that used to generate income for the commonwealth and gave it out to the electorate as free lolly. That encouraged investment in property that pushedd up its value, amongst other things. The services once provided to the general public at a profit to the government are now hugely more expensive to the general public (e.g. phones, electricity, gas, to name a few) and the profits go mostly overseas owners or shareholders, which has the effect of removing that money from circulation in the Australian economy and is a loss of tax revenue. The government also has to buy back those services, so they have gone from a positive effect on the budget to a negative one. Combined with both sides of politics ineptitude at managing the federal budget the current direction Australia is going in is unremarkable. We are about to endure some economic ordure, especially as Howard urged everyone to spend the increased equity in the family home on more lolly, which further pushed up the value of property so people had more to spend on lolly. Wealth without effort - who in their right mind would think there wasn't going to be a down side.

----------


## John2b

The Japanese Meteorological Agency's five-year running average of the global temperature temperature (from their own independent data set) shows every year since 1998 has been warmer than 1998. The trend is similar to the HADCRUT4 global temperature trend line shown previously.    Global Average Surface Temperature Anomalies

----------


## intertd6

> The Japanese Meteorological Agency's five-year running average of the global temperature temperature (from their own independent data set) shows every year since 1998 has been warmer than 1998. The trend is similar to the HADCRUT4 global temperature trend line shown previously.    Global Average Surface Temperature Anomalies

  Right on cue as described! So it will be replied with the same amount of original effort!
"We always love it when the three amigos & the apprentice post anything in defence of no significant warming since 1998 & then predictably always show a graph mean starting in 1890! like how dumb is it when they have already shown the data which supports a pause in atmospheric global warming, yet they still try it time & time again, to describe it as unbelievably ridiculous is an understatement, it's like they have just been caught red handed, on video, in front of witnesses, yet still deny their culpability! Must be a hereditary trait of the left wing as demonstrated by their clone leaders, then followed implicitly by the clone followers."
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Still can't interpret a graph in quite the same way as its designer intended, eh Inter? Good man. Consistent. Well done.

----------


## John2b

> Still can't interpret a graph in quite the same way as its designer intended, eh Inter? Good man. Consistent. Well done.

  With apologies to Mark Twain:  "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to post nonsense and remove all doubt."  A five year running average centred on 1998 starts midway through 1985. What happens to the left of that in a graph is irrelevant to the average, irrelevant to the argument and irrelevant to the present  temperature trends.

----------


## woodbe

> "We always love it when the three amigos & the apprentice post anything in defence of no significant ^^^ warming since 1998 &

  ^^^ Point of order. You left out _atmospheric_. 
You have already implicitly agreed the planet is warming. No idea why you hang on to your _since 1998_ atmospheric cherry pick, but at least you could describe it accurately.

----------


## intertd6

> ^^^ Point of order. You left out _atmospheric_. 
> You have already implicitly agreed the planet is warming. No idea why you hang on to your _since 1998_ atmospheric cherry pick, but at least you could describe it accurately.

  perhaps your just conveniently ignorant to the posts data I was replying to, which was at the bottom referred to as "global average surface temperature anomalies" Who really wants to be that pedantic & repeat the bleeding obvious just to satisfy some OCD's compulsion! 
inter

----------


## woodbe

There is a whole lot of difference between 'no significant warming since 1998' and 'no significant _atmospheric_ warming since 1998' 
You didn't respond with any reason you solely focus on atmospheric warming since 1998? 
If I was being pedantic I would be requesting 'no significant surface temperature warming' since that reflects the series in the JMA graph.  
You can call me pedantic, OCD, whatever, but I'm not wrong. You are avoiding the facts of planetary warming by focussing on a single, cherry picked, short, and obviously insignificant time series. And that's a time series that is getting old fast.

----------


## intertd6

> With apologies to Mark Twain:  "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to post nonsense and remove all doubt."  A five year running average centred on 1998 starts midway through 1985. What happens to the left of that in a graph is irrelevant to the average, irrelevant to the argument and irrelevant to the present  temperature trends.

  its a pity you can't quote the requested proof about CO2 driving the climate change or being able to cause dangerous catastrophic global warming! If there was such material you could have supplied it a hundred times over instead of wasting every bodies time reading the usual irrelevant tripe!
can you at least try to attempt to parrot something relevant? As you do a lot of talking without anything relevant being produced!
inter

----------


## John2b

The "proof" you seek (as far as such a thing exists in science) has been posted hundreds of times, you choose not to accept it for reasons known only by yourself. The forum waits for your alternative AGW theory that is so obvious to you but is a mystery to everyone else. 
To paraphrase someone else, its a pity you can't quote the often requested evidence/science/data/records/research papers that CO2 is _not_ causing anthropogenic warming. If there was such evidence you could have supplied it a hundred times over instead of wasting everybodies' time writing the usual irrelevant tripe, ducking and weaving, creating straw man arguments, changing the topic, throwing logical fallacies, and attacking the integrity of everyone you don't agree with. 
On the few occasions in the past year when you have attempted to cite evidence or science to support your ideological beliefs, it has been shown to be trivial or false or naively unrepresentative, a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation of the facts, and not supportive at all. One has to admire your tenacity. Keep it up, but be careful not to blow your gaskets. 
I'll let you have the last word:   

> Of course humans are influencing the climate, the data clearly shows that

  http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...tml#post930892

----------


## intertd6

> The "proof" you seek (as far as such a thing exists in science) has been posted hundreds of times, you choose not to accept it for reasons known only by yourself. The forum waits for your alternative AGW theory that is so obvious to you but is a mystery to everyone else. 
> To paraphrase someone else, its a pity you can't quote the often requested evidence/science/data/records/research papers that CO2 is _not_ causing anthropogenic warming. If there was such evidence you could have supplied it a hundred times over instead of wasting everybodies' time writing the usual irrelevant tripe, ducking and weaving, creating straw man arguments, changing the topic, throwing logical fallacies, and attacking the integrity of everyone you don't agree with. 
> On the few occasions in the past year when you have attempted to cite evidence or science to support your ideological beliefs, it has been shown to be trivial or false or naively unrepresentative, a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation of the facts, and not supportive at all. One has to admire your tenacity. Keep it up, but be careful not to blow your gaskets. 
> I'll let you have the last word:  http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...tml#post930892

  we can take it that you haven't even got one decent thing to parrot! Temperature record data, propaganda & anecdotal evidence doesn't even come close to answering the hard questions of why anybody should be paying an ETS or carbon tax on a trace element of the atmosphere when it isn't proven to cause the inflated alarmist claims made by a gaggle of left wing clones!
inter

----------


## John2b

> we can take it that you haven't even got one decent thing to parrot! Temperature record data, propaganda & anecdotal evidence doesn't even come close to answering the hard questions of why anybody should be paying an ETS or carbon tax on a trace element of the atmosphere when it isn't proven to cause the inflated alarmist claims made by a gaggle of left wing clones!
> inter

  There is no need to pay for an ETS, which is the whole point. The planet is drowning in free energy that does not release CO2 and other greenhouse gases, far far more energy that will ever be available from fossils. An ETS is a means to transfer the economy in a relatively painless way to free energy, from which everyone (except maybe some fossil intensive multinationals who have a record of unconscionable corporate behaviour anyway) will benefit whether they believe in AGW or not. The alternative, which the planet is rapidly approaching, will not be cheap or painless.

----------


## intertd6

> There is no need to pay for an ETS, which is the whole point. The planet is drowning in free energy that does not release CO2 and other greenhouse gases, far far more energy that will ever be available from fossils. An ETS is a means to transfer the economy in a relatively painless way to free energy, from which everyone will benefit whether they believe in AGW or not. The alternative, which the planet is rapidly approaching, will not be cheap or painless.

  Feel free to donate all you like to your lost cause, society will transfer to alternative energy sources when they become economically viable, that's the way it works, with your idealism eventually you will run out of somebody else's money!
inter

----------


## John2b

> society will transfer to alternative energy sources when they become economically viable, that's the way it works

  If the fossil fuel industry was not so heavily subsidised (with taxpayer money including yours, as much as you might like to give fossil industries your money) renewable energy would have been cheaper per unit of energy many decades ago, and even decades earlier if entire costs (including whole of life and consequential costs) were included.

----------


## Neptune

> To paraphrase someone else,

  Do you actually paraphrase this stuff yourself or use a ghost writer?   

> 

  Do you really believe in this stuff you post?     

> If the fossil fuel industry was not so heavily subsidised (with taxpayer money including yours, as much as you might like to give fossil industries your money) renewable energy would have been cheaper per unit of energy many decades ago, and even decades earlier if entire costs (including whole of life and consequential costs) were included.

  Can you prove that,   

> renewable energy would have been cheaper per unit of energy many decades ago

   Can you provide a link?

----------


## John2b

> Do you actually paraphrase this stuff yourself or use a ghost writer?

  No. Do you use a ghost writer?   

> Do you really believe in this stuff you post?

  Yes. Do you really believe the stuff you post?   

> Can you prove that

  Yes. Many, many links have been provided over the past twelve months on this very topic. But let me refer to the mods:  "Consistently asking for answers that are already in the thread could be construed as Trolling and has been the downfall of many along the way, as you would know if you'd read the thread."  #9701

----------


## Neptune

> renewable energy would have been cheaper per unit of energy many decades ago,

   

> Can you provide a link?

   

> Yes. Many, many links have been provided over the past twelve months on this very topic.

  Well you've just gone back nearly twelve months, did you happen to find the referred link that proves,   

> renewable energy would have been cheaper per unit of energy many decades ago

  because I can't find it, perhaps being a gentleman you could find it for me.    

> But let me refer to the mods:  "Consistently asking for answers that are already in the thread could be construed as Trolling and has been the downfall of many along the way, as you would know if you'd read the thread."  #9701

  Perhaps the mods can find it, because if it's not there it would seem that you were trolling.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> we can take it that you haven't even got one decent thing to parrot! Temperature record data, propaganda & anecdotal evidence doesn't even come close to answering the hard questions of why anybody should be paying an ETS or carbon tax on a trace element of the atmosphere when it isn't proven to cause the inflated alarmist claims made by a gaggle of left wing clones!
> inter

  ETS will no longer make a difference to you, me or my great kids. As for whether CO2 matters...not to you or me...but to my great kids...could you do me the favour of hanging around to ask?

----------


## John2b

> Perhaps the mods can find it, because if it's not there it would seem that you were trolling.

  Thanks for the tip, Neptune. I'll have to remember that the next time Rod, Inter, Marc, or even you, refuse to provide a link on the basis it has been provided previously. It happens a lot...

----------


## intertd6

> No. Do you use a ghost writer?  Wow! What a display! 
> Yes. Do you really believe the stuff you post?  ?????? Really! 
> Yes. Many, many links have been provided over the past twelve months on this very topic. But let me refer to the mods:  "Consistently asking for answers that are already in the thread could be construed as Trolling and has been the downfall of many along the way, as you would know if you'd read the thread."  #9701  Now how clever is that!!!! To refer to a warning you got for doing what you have continually done since you hopped on the soapbox!!

  Too funny or silly for words!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> ETS will no longer make a difference to you, me or my great kids. As for whether CO2 matters...not to you or me...but to my great kids...could you do me the favour of hanging around to ask?

   Don't forget the polar bear clinging to a bergy bit to pedal your alarmist claptrap propaganda! Still you can't even provide proof that CO2 will, can, or ever has caused uncontrollable catastrophic dangerous warming!
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Polar bears will be fine. They are just big dogs. No bergy bits required. 
As for proof...and you...couldn't be stuffed.

----------


## John2b

> As for proof...and you...couldn't be stuffed.

  We all go to the movies and eat popcorn. Someone insists they have proof that popcorn doesn't pop. Is it any wonder you can't be stuffed explaining why popcorn pops? I don't think so.

----------


## John2b

> with that self induced propaganda you must be expecting the price of energy to plummet now, those with even a meagre amount of common sense know that won't happen anytime now or later!
> regards inter

   :Rotfl:

----------


## intertd6

> Polar bears will be fine. They are just big dogs. No bergy bits required. 
> As for proof...and you...couldn't be stuffed.

  But the polar bears used to sell the unsellable propaganda, maybe there are some cave dwelling clones out there that are still yet to be sucked in by it!
Thanks for reinforcing the part about the proof! It speaks volumes about the effort you put in dribbling on to provide something you can't!
One could only dream that you could give up on your lost cause belief, but rest assured there are some with a depth of character that are not likely to give the self inflated righteous a moments rest while they think they can squander the nations hard won coin on their idealogical pursuits.
got any proof yet?
Inter

----------


## intertd6

> 

  seeing we were talking about electricity prices then,  perhaps your could show us your drop in energy costs per kW/h now? Or is this another push to claim the title of apparatus of the year?
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> got any proof yet?
> Inter

  Plenty. Still couldn't be stuffed. You aren't worth it.

----------


## John2b

LOL @ Inter. Your score is rather higher than a polar bear on an iceblock: 
The following can indicate a delusion:  The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.That idea appears to have an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.There is a quality of _centrality_: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background.The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.   Delusional disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## John2b

> seeing we were talking about electricity prices then,  perhaps your could show us your drop in energy costs per kW/h now?
> inter

  Er - no, you were not talking about electricity prices then. Go back and re-read the thread, if you care. 
However, since you mention it, SA has just permanently mothballed another major gas fired electricity generation plant because there is too much free wind power to keep the old fossil going.  Energy company AGL to mothball half of SA's Torrens Island power plant - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## John2b

*Global warming 56 million years ago holds lessons for climate change today*   Inter may be on to something. There may be hope for the planet after all.  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/global-warming-56-million-years-ago-holds-lessons-for-climate-change-today/

----------


## Neptune

> renewable energy would have been cheaper per unit of energy many decades ago

   

> Yes. Many, many links have been provided over the past twelve months on this very topic.

   

> Thanks for the tip, Neptune.

  You're welcome. 
So you couldn't find the links that have been posted here "many, many" times in the last twelve months? 
Perhaps you just wished or imagined they were there?    

> It happens a lot...

----------


## John2b

> So you couldn't find the links that have been posted here "many, many" times in the last twelve months?

  No, _you_ could not find the links. But I don't think _you_ really care. If you were following the conversation _you_ would not have to ask. Perhaps you just wished or imagined they are not there?  
Here's the answer I got when I questioned someone else:   

> Read all my other posts.

  followed swiftly by:   

> The rules here are, Play the Ball not the Man. Consistently asking for answers that are already in the thread could be construed as Trolling and has been the downfall of many along the way, as you would know if you'd read the thread.

  And I only asked once!   

> Point me to a post where you have explained what physical mechanisms you believe define climate systems, but do not work when applied to other everyday aspects of nature, and I will read it.

----------


## John2b



----------


## John2b

The Waubra Foundation has lost its charity status. 
The foundation is an astroturf (fake) charity funded and supported by the fossil energy industry, with links to the Liberal Party and the IPA and with an anti-windfarm agenda that purports to "to promote the prevention or control of the many diseases already known and established by medical acoustic research to be directly caused by exposure to sound energy" was found to increase health issues for the people it purports to protect, due to fostering unnecessary anxiety and stress. 
Residents of Waubra have previously petitioned the charity to desist from using the name of their community for the astroturf organisation.  Waubra Foundation, prominent anti-wind farm lobby, stripped of health promotion charity status - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## intertd6

> LOL @ Inter. Your score is rather higher than a polar bear on an iceblock: 
> The following can indicate a delusion:  The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.That idea appears to have an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.There is a quality of _centrality_: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background.The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.    Delusional disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  it is amazing how you could post something like that! You scored 8/10, those close to you more than likely could add another 2 points such as asked in points 9 & 10!
got any proof yet? Those that aren't delusional require it to separate fact from fiction! As shown by the clones it's not needed, your post shoots yourself in the foot yet again! 
Inter

----------


## woodbe

> got any proof yet?

  Plenty of proof already posted in this thread. 
Got any capacity to accept proof yet? No, you haven't. 
You deny warming on the basis of a cherry pick but you ask for 'proof' lol. You wouldn't know proof it you tripped over it.

----------


## johnc

> it is amazing how you could post something like that! You scored 8/10, those close to you more than likely could add another 2 points such as asked in points 9 & 10!
> got any proof yet? Those that aren't delusional require it to separate fact from fiction! As shown by the clones it's not needed, your post shoots yourself in the foot yet again! 
> Inter

  Another attack post, as usual you have nothing but bile how about some grown up behaviour for a change. You have nothing as the rubbish you spout time and again proves.

----------


## John2b

> Another attack post, as usual you have nothing but bile how about some grown up behaviour for a change. You have nothing as the rubbish you spout time and again proves.

  Don't be too hard on him. All's fair in the rough and tumble of a forum! Let him use the ad hominem if it is all he has to argue with. (We're all guilty as charged LOL).  Ad hominem An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.  Urban Dictionary: Ad hominem

----------


## John2b

Marsabit West County, where the Lake Turkana wind farm is being built, is among the poorest counties in Kenya. The project will cost of €623 million and will save Kenya €150 million in fuel imports each year. That's a payback period any coal, oil, gas or nuclear power station would be very envious of!  http://www.siliconrepublic.com/clean...-go-ahead-for/  Lake Turkana Wind Power*​*

----------


## intertd6

> 

  looks like the typical propaganda you parade as some thing totally irrelevant to the subject being discussed, which was electricity energy production subsidies, not an unknown combination of who knows what from different industries.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Marsabit West County, where the Lake Turkana wind farm is being built, is among the poorest counties in Kenya. The project will cost of €623 million and will save Kenya €150 million in fuel imports each year. That's a payback period any coal, oil, gas or nuclear power station would be very envious of!  Kenya gives go-ahead for Africas largest wind farm - Clean Tech - Clean Tech | siliconrepublic.com - Ireland&#039;s Technology News Service  Lake Turkana Wind Power*​*

  and your point is?
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Plenty of proof already posted in this thread. 
> Got any capacity to accept proof yet? No, you haven't. 
> You deny warming on the basis of a cherry pick but you ask for 'proof' lol. You wouldn't know proof it you tripped over it.

  nothing you & the three amigos have shown so far has anything at all to do with what has been asked of you to produce, just propaganda & anecdotal drivel!  
Inter

----------


## woodbe

> nothing you & the three amigos have shown so far has anything at all to do with what has been asked of you to produce, just propaganda & anecdotal drivel!  
> Inter

  And there be your downfall. There has been mountains of peer reviewed science quoted in this thread, but to you it's all propaganda and anecdotal drivel.  
One wonders what you base your opinions on, it certainly isn't peer reviewed science. No wonder SBD says:   

> Plenty. Still couldn't be stuffed. You aren't worth it.

  He has a good point!  :Tongue:

----------


## intertd6

> Another attack post, as usual you have nothing but bile how about some grown up behaviour for a change. You have nothing as the rubbish you spout time and again proves.

  best you restrain yourself in posting stuff like that, which coincidently suits the description of your cause!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> And there be your downfall. There has been mountains of peer reviewed science quoted in this thread, but to you it's all propaganda and anecdotal drivel.  
> One wonders what you base your opinions on, it certainly isn't peer reviewed science. No wonder SBD says:   
> He has a good point!

   It shouldn't be really hard to parrot just one then ? 
Inter

----------


## woodbe

> It shouldn't be really hard to parrot just one then ? 
> Inter

  So that you can accuse me of parroting something you don't like? 
Get lost, go and look for yourself.

----------


## John2b

> Get lost, go and look for yourself.

  Yeah!   

> Who really wants to be that pedantic & repeat the bleeding obvious just to satisfy some OCD's compulsion!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> seeing we were talking about electricity prices then,  perhaps your could show us your drop in energy costs per kW/h now? Or is this another push to claim the title of apparatus of the year?
> inter

  My power company gave me back $9.80 due to carbon tax repeal...about $1 for each day of the last billing period. I can tell you that their generosity really made a big difference to our budgetary bottom line.

----------


## intertd6

> So that you can accuse me of parroting something you don't like? 
> Get lost, go and look for yourself.

  dont worry, nobody ever expected you to reply in a different manner, or produce anything, which is typical of point 6 & point 3 of post #13276!
 Now let's see, your worried about me rubbishing you for producing something we all want to view, yet sure as a clone will follow the leader, you will post something irrelevant & nothing to do with what is requested then chuck a wobbly when the post is ridiculed, defies logic doesn't it?
inter

----------


## woodbe

Inter, I'm not worried about you rubbishing me, if I was I would be stressed out of my brain with all the pitiful personal attacks you have wrought.  
I'm just considering another waste of effort on my part, and like SBD I'm deciding you're not worth it. There's plenty of facts are already in this thread and if you want more, google it yourself. You'll be wasting your time though, because you won't read or accept anything that counters your opinion, which might as well be on the threatened species list.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## intertd6

> Inter, I'm not worried about you rubbishing me, if I was I would be stressed out of my brain with all the pitiful personal attacks you have wrought.  
> I'm just considering another waste of effort on my part, and like SBD I'm deciding you're not worth it. There's plenty of facts are already in this thread and if you want more, google it yourself. You'll be wasting your time though, because you won't read or accept anything that counters your opinion, which might as well be on the threatened species list.

  
nice of you to cover & display some more points of post #13276, particularly 4 & 8!
But back to the lack of proof! when you remove the so called proof posts such as polar sea ice extent & thickness, glacial ice extents & thickness, renewable energy, energy subsidies, around a century of atmospheric temperature data, ocean temperature data, gross alarmist exaggerations, change in ocean PH levels, political propaganda, sea levels, model predictions of all the previous, (& a few more not worthy of mentioning) nothing provided has any direct relevance or evidence proving any link that CO2 is primarily driving climate change or being capable of causing dangerous catastrophic global warming!
Now when it (proof) appears it will be worth the wait, parroted or in any relevant form! We are all eyes & ears because it would be certainly worth the extended wait! Those who have grown a set & have some spine find difficult pivotal things in life & learning are really worth it!
inter

----------


## John2b

> blah irrelevant blah illogical blah false blah stupid blah ignorant blah

  More of the same. Nothing of relevance. Why bother? Does your mum read this forum?

----------


## John2b

The decision to deregister a controversial anti-wind farming group as a charity has been hailed as a "victory for science".  Removal of anti-windfarm group's charity status is a 'victory for science' | Environment | The Guardian

----------


## Neptune

> The decision to deregister a controversial anti-wind farming group as a charity has been hailed as a "victory for science".  Removal of anti-windfarm group's charity status is a 'victory for science' | Environment | The Guardian

  So removing their ability to receive tax deductible donations is a victory for science. 
Can you please explain in your own words how this is a *victory for science* or does it mean a victory for the greens as they think it will stop waubra protesting. 
Pretty obvious just a setup by the greens to reduce their funding.

----------


## John2b

> Can you please explain in your own words how this is a *victory for science* or does it mean a victory for the greens asthey think it will stop waubra protesting.

  It's pretty obvious that my post was a citation and I even provided a link. Can you please explain in your own words what you don't agree with. 
I find it absolutely staggering that you seem to be implying that you are happy to give your hard earned money (through taxation) to a bogus organisation whose sole purpose of existence is to protect the tax payer subsidised market dominance of multinational corporations' so that can charge more than their fair share of your hard earned money for the goods and service they provide.

----------


## Neptune

> It's pretty obvious that my post was a citation and I even provided a link. Can you please explain in your own words what you don't agree with.

   Where is the connection between the money and the science?   

> I find it absolutely staggering that you seem to be implying that you are happy to give your hard earned money (through taxation) to a bogus organisation

  You say it's bogus. 
Where does it state in your link the government donates (and therefore my tax)to that organisation? 
Big difference between a government donation and getting a tax deduction on a personal donation. 
The organisation can still collect as many donations as it likes, it just means it is no longer tax deductable for the donor.    

> whose sole purpose of existence is to protect the tax payer subsidised market dominance of multinational corporations' so that can charge more than their fair share of your hard earned money for the goods and service they provide.

  WTF?

----------


## intertd6

Originally Posted by intertd6 
blah irrelevant blah illogical blah false blah stupid blah ignorant blah     

> More of the same. Nothing of relevance. Why bother? Does your mum read this forum?

  so now your falsifying quotes in my signature, I recommend you remove it or you will be reported!
inter

----------


## woodbe

I'm surprised this even needs explaining? 
An anti-windfarm group that claimed to be a health promotion charity gained a tax free status for donations. When the basis of their health promotion science was inspected it was found to be entirely false, and their charity status was revoked. 
The group is anti-science. Having their 'science' inspected and found wanting resulted in the loss of tax-free charity status. Of course this is a victory for science and a victory for truth. Even many of the residents of the town they named their group after don't want their town name associated with a bunch of anti-science liars.

----------


## woodbe

> so your falsifying quotes now in my name, I recommend you remove it or you will be reported!
> inter

  And here is the pot calling the kettle black. Inter has deliberately changed words in quotes and claimed his ipad did it.  
I think you will find that what john2b did was summarise your post. Reading the original and comparing it to the summary, they appear to have the same meaning.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

> So if that's the case, after your 1482 posts in this thread

  Neptune, can you please explain how you found I had 1482 posts in this thread?

----------


## John2b

> so now your falsifying quotes in my signature, I recommend you remove it or you will be reported!
> inter

  Grow up. If you want respect, I suggest you show some.

----------


## intertd6

> And here is the pot calling the kettle black. Inter has deliberately changed words in quotes and claimed his ipad did it.  
> I think you will find that what john2b did was summarise your post. Reading the original and comparing it to the summary, they appear to have the same meaning.

  If anybody wants to summarise a post they can do it under their own signature, fraudulently doing that sort of thing under someone else's signature is no typo! 
Inter

----------


## John2b

> If anybody wants to summarise a post they can do it under their own signature, fraudulently doing that sort of thing under someone else's signature is no typo! 
> Inter

  I didn't do anything fraudulently. Everyone can see what I did and it was with my signature.

----------


## woodbe

Still claiming typo I see  :Tongue:  
Quotes are quotes, unless you change them, there is no opportunity for typos.

----------


## John2b

> Where is the connection between the money and the science?

  I linked to an article. I didn't write it and it's not for me to defend it. Read the article or one of the hundreds of others that have been written. (Is Google broken on your 'puter FFS, or is it that you just don't want to know?)

----------


## Neptune

> Neptune, can you please explain how you found I had 1482 posts in this thread?

  If you go to the index where it shows the particular thread and click on the number of replies it will open a box showing you who posted and the amount. 
It was 1482 at the time I posted it.  **   *Emission Trading*  Started by Rod Dyson, 7th Oct 2009 08:21 PM 12345678910...267      Replies: 13,312Views: 475,909

----------


## John2b

> Big difference between a government donation and getting a tax deduction on a personal donation. 
> The organisation can still collect as many donations as it likes, it just means it is no longer tax deductable for the donor.

  Where do you think the government makes up the taxes it forgoes on tax deductible donations? Oh that's right, it collects more tax from other taxpayers!

----------


## John2b

> You say it's bogus.

  A government commission has determined that it's reason for claiming tax deductibility is bogus. 
Is it any wonder? Waubra Foundation - SourceWatch 
So you don't have to tax your finger and click on the link:  *What's the real agenda of the Waubra Foundation?*  Because the Waubra Foundation has nothing to do with concerns about any local wind farm, its members are pro-mining advocates, climate change denialists and have links with conservative politics and right wing think tanks. The Waubra Foundation is an anti-renewables, astroturf group.   *Key identities associated with the Waubra Foundation:*   *Peter Mitchell*:Founder and chair of the Waubra Foundation, Founding chairman of Moonie Oil Company Limited, Chairman or a Director of related companies including Clyde Petroleum Plc, Avalon Energy Inc, North Flinders Mines Ltd, Paringa Mining & Exploration Plc (most now delisted on the ASX), Director of Lowell Resources Funds Management Ltd. Investment interests include gold, copper, rare earths, natural gas, uranium, iron ore and coal, Spokesman for the Western Plains Landscape Guardians.*Sarah Laurie*: A non-practising, unregistered doctor living in South Australia. According to her submission to the NSW inquiry she's now CEO of the Waubra Foundation. [3]*Clive Tadgell*: Retired judge. [4]*Dr. Michael Wooldridge*: The former Howard minister is also listed as a Director. [5]*Kathy Russell*: Director, is Vice-President of the Australian Landscape Guardians, Vice-President of the Victorian Landscape Guardians and spokesperson for the Western Plains, Mount Pollock Landscape Guardians and the Barrabool Hills Landscape Guardians. [6]*Tony Hodgson*: Helped fund the campaign against the Collector wind farm in New South Wales, also linked with the Booroowa Landscape Guardians. [7]*Randall Bell*: President of Victorian Landscape Guardians, climate change sceptic, conspiracy theorist.*Paul Miskelly*: Worked for Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation.  *New directors*   *Alby Schultz*: Retired Liberal Party of Australia politician*Alexandra Nicol*: A former Liberal Party of Australia staffer*Charlie Arnott*: Organic farmer and climate change skeptic

----------


## woodbe

> If you go to the index where it shows the particular thread and click on the number of replies it will open a box showing you who posted and the amount. 
> It was 1482 at the time I posted it.

  Thanks for the info. 
Looks like I'm catching up on Rod, but I have a ways to go to catch Dr Freud. Where is Dr Freud, haven't heard from him for ages? 
Also looks like john2b will overtake me soon!  :Biggrin thumb:

----------


## johnc

> Where is the connection between the money and the science?   
> You say it's bogus. 
> Where does it state in your link the government donates (and therefore my tax)to that organisation? 
> Big difference between a government donation and getting a tax deduction on a personal donation. 
> The organisation can still collect as many donations as it likes, it just means it is no longer tax deductable for the donor.    
> WTF?

   It is very straightforward they are lobby group falsely claiming to promote public health so they can solicit donations on the basis that they are tax deductable , they have accordingly had  their registration revoked. Nobody has said anything about government donations, it is a cost to tax revenue something Smokin' Joe needs like a hole in the head.

----------


## johnc

> Thanks for the info. 
> Looks like I'm catching up on Rod, but I have a ways to go to catch Dr Freud. Where is Dr Freud, haven't heard from him for ages? 
> Also looks like john2b will overtake me soon!

  I think he had a psychotic melt down over politics and disappeared up a fundamental orifice, he certainly got increasingly unpleasant.

----------


## intertd6

> I didn't do anything fraudulently. Everyone can see what I did and it was with my signature.

   
 Originally Posted by intertd6 
blah irrelevant blah illogical blah false blah stupid blah ignorant blah 
i didn't write that, you did, your a blatant lying fraud, get a life! 
Inter

----------


## woodbe

> i didn't write that, you did, your a blatant lying fraud, get a life! 
> Inter

  I can claim the same about you so get off your high horse. 
Bad night last night inter?  :Rolleyes:

----------


## woodbe

Back on topic, the updated NOAA/ESRI 2013 AGGI index for 2013 has been published.  NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)   

> The AGGI is a measure of the warming influence of long-lived trace gases  and how that influence is changing each year.  The index was designed  to enhance the connection between scientists and society by providing a  normalized standard that can be easily understood and followed. The  warming influence of long-lived greenhouse gases is well understood by  scientists and has been reported by NOAA through a range of national and  international assessments. Nevertheless, the language of scientists  often eludes policy makers, educators, and the general public. This  index is designed to help bridge that gap.  The AGGI provides a way for  this warming influence to be presented as a simple index.

  Significant greenhouse gases:   
And CO2 on it's own:   
Total greenhouse gas radiative forcing up 34% since 1990 and CO2 on it's own heading for 50% increase.

----------


## Neptune

> Thanks for the info.

  You're welcome.   

> Also looks like john2b will overtake me soon!

  And win the post whore of the year award.

----------


## woodbe

Actually, the Doc still wins and he hasn't been here for years!

----------


## Neptune

> Actually, the Doc still wins and he hasn't been here for years!

  Not on a posts per day of activity,    

> *Dr Freud* 
> Join Date
>  14th Aug 2009
>  Last Activity 17th May 2013 01:12 AM

   1.8 to 3.4 so 2b wins.

----------


## intertd6

> I can claim the same about you so get off your high horse. 
> Bad night last night inter?

  Another propaganda claim more than likely! Your association with the blatant reminds me of an old saying, when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> Another propaganda claim more than likely!

  Losing your memory now? Don't you remember changing one of my posts in a quote to alter the meaning, and then claiming your iPad did it when you were caught out? 
Situation normal in skeptic land.

----------


## John2b

The report "Managing climate change in Spain in 2014" reveals that 9 out of 10 Spanish managers (94%) of the public and private sectors, consider that climate risks may affect the development of their business: 69% of that to be substantial 25% and less so. Only 3% are not concerned by climate change risks, lower than those who do not know / no answer to this question (3.5%). 
Regarding the price of carbon, half of the respondents opted for a figure of between 5 and 10  for the next three years, while four in ten believe to be between 10 and  20 in 2020.  9 de cada 10 agentes públicos y privados españoles cree que el cambio climático afectará al desarrollo de su actividad / Destacado / Actualidad / Factor CO2

----------


## intertd6

> Losing your memory now? Don't you remember changing one of my posts in a quote to alter the meaning, and then claiming your iPad did it when you were caught out? 
> Situation normal in skeptic land.

  That's the beautiful thing about the truth, there isn't much to remember!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> That's the beautiful thing about the truth, there isn't much to remember!
> inter

  That's true. If you are not looking for the truth you never find it so I guess you have nothing to remember. 
If we can put the off topic drivel off to one side for a minute, You're happy with the AGGI index I posted above?   

> Total greenhouse gas radiative forcing up 34% since 1990 and CO2 on it's own heading for 50% increase.

----------


## woodbe

2014 will be the hottest year on record | John Abraham | Environment | The Guardian   

> For those of us fixated on whether 2014 will be the hottest year on  record, the results are in. At least, we know enough that we can make  the call. According the global data from NOAA, 2014 will be the hottest year ever recorded.  
>  I can make this pronouncement even before the end of the year because  each month, I collect daily global average temperatures. So far,  December is running about 0.5°C above the average. The climate and  weather models predict that the next week will be about 0.75°C above  average. This means, December will come in around 0.6°C above average.  Are these daily values accurate? Well the last two months they have been  within 0.05°C of the final official results.  
>  What does this all mean? Well, when I combine December with the  year-to-date as officially reported, I predict the annual temperature  anomaly will be 0.674°C. This beats the prior record by 0.024°C. That is  a big margin in terms of global temperatures.
>  For those of us who are not fixated on whether any individual year is  a record but are more concerned with trends, this year is still  important. Particularly because according to those who deny the basic  physics and our understanding of climate change, this year wasnt  supposed to be particularly warm.

  Get ready to kiss the 1998 cherry pick goodbye. Which year will you pick next?

----------


## John2b

> 2014 will be the hottest year on record | John Abraham | Environment | The Guardian   
> Get ready to kiss the 1998 cherry pick goodbye. Which year will you pick next?

  In fact, in two month's time, due to unmitigated warming it will be exactly thirty years since the last time the planet had a below average monthly surface temperature, based on 1961 to 1990 averages.

----------


## intertd6

Normally its foolproof to tell the difference between the CO2 propaganda, model projections based on specifically selected assumptions & what has happened in the past historic data, it's just not idiotproof yet!
merry Xmas inter

----------


## johnc

It's boxing day, give it a rest!

----------


## John2b

Ok - for the idiots: You might have heard claims like “there’s been no warming since 1998”. Look at temperatures starting in 1998 (the year sticking out most above the trend line).* 
Recent global warming trends: significant or paused or what?*      _G__lobal temperature 1979 to present – monthly values (crosses), 12-months running mean (red line) and linear trend line with uncertainty (blue)_ - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php....WtXrYRt1.dpuf

----------


## John2b

Happy boxing day!  Hottest ever ocean temperatures signal end of warming “pause”? That is doubly wrong – there never was a significant pause to start with, and of course a single year couldn’t tell us whether there has been a change in trend.  http://www.rtcc.org/2014/11/19/hottest-ever-ocean-temperatures-signal-end-of-warming-pause/

----------


## intertd6

> Ok - for the idiots: You might have heard claims like “there’s been no warming since 1998”. Look at temperatures starting in 1998 (the year sticking out most above the trend line).* 
> Recent global warming trends: significant or paused or what?*      _G__lobal temperature 1979 to present – monthly values (crosses), 12-months running mean (red line) and linear trend line with uncertainty (blue)_ - See more at: RealClimate: Recent global warming trends: significant or paused or what?

  it looks like the typical false misrepresentation of data that we are all used to, we aren't just low enough in intelligence not to be able to tell the difference between 1979 & 1998. You have failed miserably again! have another go!
merry past Xmas & a happy new year

----------


## John2b

> it looks like the typical false misrepresentation of data that we are all used to

  It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt... 
The world didn't start in 1998 and nor did global warming temperature trends. If you look at the highest confidence interval for 1998 and compare it to the lowest confidence interval in 2014, there is plenty of temperature rise in the *climate* since 1998. Nor would starting the time series at 1998 remove the warming trend, as has been shown previously. (Think of the blue line as representing climate and the red line as representing weather.)

----------


## intertd6

> Its better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt... 
> The world didn't start in 1998 and nor did global warming temperature trends. If you look at the highest confidence interval for 1998 and compare it to the lowest confidence interval in 2014, there is plenty of temperature rise in the *climate* since 1998. Nor would starting the time series at 1998 remove the warming trend, as has been shown previously. (Think of the blue line as representing climate and the red line as representing weather.)

  you may think that's having a go, but it just seems like the same old underachievement failing to meet any realistic expectations. Try again! you may be able to do better!
inter

----------


## woodbe

I agree with Inter. 
There is a certain underachievement and failing to meet expectations when we take 1998 as the poster boy of recent global warming, ignore the ongoing long term trend and the evolving train smash of increasing temperatures on the planet in all data sets that make a choice of 1998 not only be the cherry pick that it is, but also irrelevant. 
We don't need to do better, sadly the climate is smashing 1998 for us. Good as gone, inter. What year will you pick next?  :Biggrin:

----------


## intertd6

> I agree with Inter. 
> There is a certain underachievement and failing to meet expectations when we take 1998 as the poster boy of recent global warming, ignore the ongoing long term trend and the evolving train smash of increasing temperatures on the planet in all data sets that make a choice of 1998 not only be the cherry pick that it is, but also irrelevant. 
> We don't need to do better, sadly the climate is smashing 1998 for us. Good as gone, inter. What year will you pick next?

  and more of the same! Maybe it's just impossible for the three amigos & the apprentice to do any better!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> and more of the same! Maybe it's just impossible for the three amigos & the apprentice to do any better!
> inter

  Or perhaps you are unable to understand the responses? 
You've been banging on about 1998 at every opportunity. It's a broken idea to choose a recent year as your goto 'proof' the planet isn't on a warming trend, and now your beloved has fallen by the wayside before she is old enough to earn respect. I'm sure you will suffer some grieving once the facts sink in, but rest assured there will be another irrelevant and flippantly young year to fall for because that's what you do. You're the hopeless romantic for young ones with cherries.

----------


## John2b

There has been further warming despite the extreme cherry pick of 1998. 
The warming since 1998 is not significantly less than the long-term warming of the past four decades. 
The record is not outside of what is expected due to year-to-year natural variability. 
The warming is real (in all global surface temperature data sets), and it is factually wrong to claim there has been no warming since 1998.   RealClimate: Recent global warming trends: significant or paused or what?

----------


## intertd6

> Or perhaps you are unable to understand the responses? 
> You've been banging on about 1998 at every opportunity. It's a broken idea to choose a recent year as your goto 'proof' the planet isn't on a warming trend, and now your beloved has fallen by the wayside before she is old enough to earn respect. I'm sure you will suffer some grieving once the facts sink in, but rest assured there will be another irrelevant and flippantly young year to fall for because that's what you do. You're the hopeless romantic for young ones with cherries.

  and now begins the witless droning/cloning on of everything that has nothing to do with any galahs capability that can tell the difference between 1880, 1979 & 1998, along with IQ to read a temperature graph which changes from an incline to flattening off from 1998.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> There has been further warming despite the extreme cherry pick of 1998. 
> The warming since 1998 is not significantly less than the long-term warming of the past four decades. 
> The record is not outside of what is expected due to year-to-year natural variability. 
> The warming is real (in all global surface temperature data sets), and it is factually wrong to claim there has been no warming since 1998.   RealClimate: Recent global warming trends: significant or paused or what?

  says you who posted the data that disproves your statements above, or was it just falsified data?
inter

----------


## John2b

> and now begins the witless droning/cloning on of everything that has nothing to do with any galahs capability that can tell the difference between 1880, 1979 & 1998,

  Still don't know the difference between climate and weather? Or just another excuse to cast insults.   

> along with IQ to read a temperature graph which changes from an incline to flattening off from 1998.

  Climate isn't temperature. Change climate is indicated by trends. There has been very little tapering off and certainly NO flattening of the surface temperature trend, even if you plot the trend starting (incredulously stupidly) in 1998, as has been shown. The temperature trend is known with as much certainty as anything can be known. 
Here's a mathematical trend analysis by Niamh Cahill of the School of Mathematical Sciences, University College Dublin using a technique called change point analysis. This time GISTEMP data from NASA GISS is used from 1880 to the present. 2014 was represented by January to October data, the latest available. 
The algorithm used sorts through the data looking for changes in the trend lines, which it finds automatically. Show me where the rise in surface temperature flattened off in 1998...   The end of the warming pause that wasn’t 
Just to sure, here's a plot for those who have trouble reading graphs, showing the trend from 1970 to the present. Surely you can point out the "flattening" in this one, Inter...
(Hint: to be certain, the temperature record would have to fall consistently below the confidence intervals.)   http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12/...about-to-soar/

----------


## John2b

> says you who posted the data that disproves your statements above

  You keep saying that but it doesn't make it true. I did't and you can't prove me wrong, because I didn't.

----------


## intertd6

> Still don't know the difference between climate and weather? Or just another excuse to cast insults.   
> Climate isn't temperature. Change climate is indicated by trends. There has been very little tapering off and certainly NO flattening of the surface temperature trend, even if you plot the trend starting (incredulously stupidly) in 1998, as has been shown. The temperature trend is known with as much certainty as anything can be known. 
> Here's a mathematical trend analysis by Niamh Cahill of the School of Mathematical Sciences, University College Dublin using a technique called change point analysis. This time GISTEMP data from NASA GISS is used from 1880 to the present. 2014 was represented by January to October data, the latest available. 
> The algorithm used sorts through the data looking for changes in the trend lines, which it finds automatically. Show me where the rise in surface temperature flattened off in 1998...   The end of the warming pause that wasn’t 
> Just to sure, here's a plot for those who have trouble reading graphs, showing the trend from 1970 to the present. Surely you can point out the "flattening" in this one, Inter...
> (Hint: to be certain, the temperature record would have to fall consistently below the confidence intervals.)   Is Earth’s temperature about to soar? | Open Mind

  the trend now is not to listen or pay any attention to alarmist clones trumpeting the worn out alarmist dribble!
we notice you still can't tell the difference between 1880 & 1970!  
 Originally Posted by intertd6 
along with IQ to read a temperature graph which changes from an incline to flattening off from 1998. 
it's obviously a bridge to far for a clone to comprehend!
inter

----------


## John2b

> along with IQ to read a temperature graph which changes from an incline to flattening off from 1998.

  A temperature graph isn't climate, it's a record of the weather. The _trend_ in temperature is what is happening to _climate_. There just isn't any mathematically supportable flattening of the temperature _trend_ since 1998. 
It has not stopped warming and it's been shown time and time again. You have done nothing to disprove that (casting insults doesn't make you right BTW). Here's a challenge: Find a _trend_ in the _global_ surface temperature record that shows flattening off. You can pick ANY start date you like in the last 40 years.

----------


## intertd6

> A temperature graph isn't climate, it's a record of the weather. The _trend_ in temperature is what is happening to _climate_. There just isn't any mathematically supportable flattening of the temperature _trend_ since 1998. 
> I never said it was! Besides that's not what you eventually showed or implied in your data! Or did you falsify that? 
> It has not stopped warming and it's been shown time and time again. You have done nothing to disprove that (casting insults doesn't make you right BTW). Here's a challenge: Find a _trend_ in the _global_ surface temperature record that shows flattening off. You can pick ANY start date you like in the last 40 years Thats not what you showed in your data!  And 1998! As if anybody had to ask?
> .

  inter

----------


## John2b

> Thats not what you showed in your data!

  Why can't _you_ show a temperature record that shows a trend that is flat or falling? Show the one _you_ say I posted, or just show _any_ trend of global surface temperature. Can't be fairer than that!

----------


## intertd6

> Why can't _you_ show a temperature record that shows a trend that is flat or falling? Show the one _you_ say I posted, or just show _any_ trend of global surface temperature. Can't be fairer than that!

  just because we engage in the entertainment factor of your trolling, this in no way means we are sucked in by it!
inter

----------


## John2b

> just because we engage in the entertainment factor of your trolling, this in no way means we are sucked in by it!

  It's your claim, so just show a global temperature trend that is flat. Your's, or anyone's. Why is it so hard? Are _you_ just trolling?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Why can't _you_ show a temperature record that shows a trend that is flat or falling? Show the one _you_ say I posted, or just show _any_ trend of global surface temperature. Can't be fairer than that!

  He doesn't have to...even if he could. After all...it would be a meaningless contribution to an irrelevant debate that really should have moved on long ago... 
...but of course hasn't.  
But that's fine too. All futures are built on the bones of the fallen...

----------


## intertd6

> It's your claim, so just show a global temperature trend that is flat. Your's, or anyone's. Why is it so hard? Are _you_ just trolling?

  it is quite amazing how the clones can remember a single word typo, yet can't remember self damning data they themselves have posted 3 times or more! That's taking trolling stupidity to a whole new level!
inter

----------


## woodbe

Yes he's just trolling...  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Ashore

John 2b when will you ever learn                
Never wrestle with a pig you only get dirty and the pig enjoys it

----------


## intertd6

> John 2b when will you ever learn                
> Never wrestle with a pig you only get dirty and the pig enjoys it

  And pigs might fly if the AGW alarmist clones ever become honest & upfront!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Yes he's just trolling...

  It's not a revelation nor original, but what else would you say when you keep going around & around not being able to give any straight answers to any straight questions? There is probably a typo or 2 coming that you can pounce on that can erode your credibility even more than what it is now.
inter

----------


## woodbe

Answers have been provided, the problem is that you are blind to them. 
Moving on...    _Figure 1. Monthly global sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly (ERSST v3b) from 1990-October 2014. June through to October 2014 has seen the 5 warmest months of SST ever recorded. Image based on data from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center._ 
Climate science is not based on cherry picking high years over short time spans. It analyses all the data over 25 or more years to show the underlying trend beyond the many short term influences to the climate. For those that remain focussed on non-climate outlier years it looks like 2014 might be the next 'no warming since' year. I guess that depends on 2015 though. lol.

----------


## intertd6

> Answers have been provided, the problem is that you are blind to them. 
> Moving on...    _Figure 1. Monthly global sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly (ERSST v3b) from 1990-October 2014. June through to October 2014 has seen the 5 warmest months of SST ever recorded. Image based on data from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center._ 
> Climate science is not based on cherry picking high years over short time spans. It analyses all the data over 25 or more years to show the underlying trend beyond the many short term influences to the climate. For those that remain focussed on non-climate outlier years it looks like 2014 might be the next 'no warming since' year. I guess that depends on 2015 though. lol.

  you must be still answering fictitious questions in your head, because that has nothing to do with CO2 being the major driver of climate change, nor proves that it has, can or ever will cause dangerous catastrophic global warming! You have failed yet again! Have another go!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> you must be still answering fictitious questions in your head, because that has nothing to do with CO2 being the major driver of climate change, nor proves that it has, can or ever will cause dangerous catastrophic global warming! You have failed yet again! Have another go!
> inter

  The answers have already been provided. We can't spend every post responding to your petulant requirement for information already posted to be re-posted. As if that would help you to understand the climate or science in general. If you have been unable to understand published science referenced here in the past, what proof can you offer that you would somehow be able to grasp this information today with your feeble denier mind? 
Once again you ask for proof of CO2 causing _dangerous catastrophic global warming_. Already answered in this thread. That is a straw man argument. 
My post was to present some new information showing that yet again, the climate is continuing on the established long term trend regardless of the ongoing short term variability. 
Of course this information was not meant for you, and as predicted it has no meaning for you.

----------


## John2b

> Of course this information was not meant for you, and as predicted it has no meaning for you.

  On the contrary, it's more proof...

----------


## intertd6

> The answers have already been provided. We can't spend every post responding to your petulant requirement for information already posted to be re-posted.  Your deamin again, nothing remotely relevant has ever been posted, if it had you would be your coup de grace to shut me up full stop! but no you & your lot waste your lives away posting everything but that which has been asked for! So in other words you have absolutely nothing but an I'll conceived belief!  
> As if that would help you to understand the climate or science in general. If you have been unable to understand published science referenced here in the past, what proof can you offer that you would somehow be able to grasp this information today with your feeble denier mind?  You are actually the denier with a closed mind, why do you think the term "clone" relates so well with your lot? 
> Once again you ask for proof of CO2 causing _dangerous catastrophic global warming_. Already answered in this thread. That is a straw man argument.  just one bit of proof will do? 
> My post was to present some new information showing that yet again, the climate is continuing on the established long term trend regardless of the ongoing short term variability. 
> Of course this information was not meant for you, and as predicted it has no meaning for you Of course it doesn't, I'm far from being a closed minded witless clone! It's still a miserable fail, try again!
> .

   Inter

----------


## intertd6

> On the contrary, it's more proof...

  Seeing there is so many to choose from perhaps you could show us one of the facts which proves CO2 has, can & is able to cause catastrophic dangerous global warming then? Or is this just a cartoon falsifying your belief even more?
inter

----------


## woodbe

> Your deamin again, nothing remotely relevant has  ever been posted, if it had you would be your coup de grace to shut me  up full stop! but no you & your lot waste your lives away posting  everything but that which has been asked for! So in other words you have  absolutely nothing but an I'll conceived belief!
> Inter

  I actually don't have a belief about Climate Change. I accept the current state of the science. I've said it before but apparently I have to say it again: If the science changes I will accept that too. You on the other hand have a fixed belief about Climate Change: it isn't happening.  
There have been probably hundreds of posts in this thread referring to the state of the science. You think those hundreds of posts are 'nothing remotely relevant'. That right there is denial. You deny the science, and you deny that the science has been posted here. 
The science is clear: Adding CO2 to the atmosphere alters the radiative balance of the planet. You think the only possible result that you require proof[*] of is 'dangerous catastrophic warming'. Also said before: Science doesn't work like that. There are many possible warming outcomes and the accepted balance of projections in the next few hundred years or so is uncomfortable changes to the climate for humans and worse for other living things, sea level rise causing displacement of populations centred around the shores of the oceans, and ongoing manifestations of the increased energy in the climate system. There is no proof of that, because they are predictions based on scientific knowledge, but there is agreement among the vast majority of scientists working in the field that we are on that course and we should be doing something about it.  
You waste your life away posting nothing but your own denial of the state of the science.
 [*] Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  

> While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[13] many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper  once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us  with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we  mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the  truth of a theory,"[14] and Satoshi Kanazawa has argued that "Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science."[15]

----------


## intertd6

> I actually don't have a belief about Climate Change. I accept the current state of the science. I've said it before but apparently I have to say it again: If the science changes I will accept that too. You on the other hand have a fixed belief about Climate Change: it isn't happening.  
> There have been probably hundreds of posts in this thread referring to the state of the science. You think those hundreds of posts are 'nothing remotely relevant'. That right there is denial. You deny the science, and you deny that the science has been posted here. 
> The science is clear: Adding CO2 to the atmosphere alters the radiative balance of the planet. You think the only possible result that you require proof[*] of is 'dangerous catastrophic warming'. Also said before: Science doesn't work like that. There are many possible warming outcomes and the accepted balance of projections in the next few hundred years or so is uncomfortable changes to the climate for humans and worse for other living things, sea level rise causing displacement of populations centred around the shores of the oceans, and ongoing manifestations of the increased energy in the climate system. There is no proof of that, because they are predictions based on scientific knowledge, but there is agreement among the vast majority of scientists working in the field that we are on that course and we should be doing something about it.  
> You waste your life away posting nothing but your own denial of the state of the science.
>  [*] Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Instead of wasting every bodies time you could have posted the required evidence 5 times in the space of time it took to you to post that dribble, so you still have nothing! Have another try, you have failed miserably again!
inter

----------


## John2b

No need to waste anyone's time. Let's get straight to the point. There is no “proof” in science — that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in. 
In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate’s behavior over the last century. 
It's pretty simple. There is the field of radiative physics, the same physics that has been used to build sensors, to build cell phones, computers and radars and that physics has been tested in the field and works pretty well, so you'll have to point out where it doesn't work.

----------


## woodbe

> No need to waste anyone's time. Let's get straight to the point. There is no proof in science  that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in. 
> In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climates behavior over the last century. 
> It's pretty simple. There is the field of radiative physics, the same physics that has been used to build sensors, to build cell phones, computers and radars and that physics has been tested in the field and works pretty well, so you'll have to point out where it doesn't work. 
> [IMG]http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/561*425/ows_139950568090504.jpg[/IMG]

  +1 
Fixed your image, I think maybe the * has upset the parsing of the url or something:

----------


## intertd6

> No need to waste anyone's time. Let's get straight to the point. There is no proof in science  that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in. 
> In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climates behavior over the last century. 
> It's pretty simple. There is the field of radiative physics, the same physics that has been used to build sensors, to build cell phones, computers and radars and that physics has been tested in the field and works pretty well, so you'll have to point out where it doesn't work.

  still nothing we see, your analogy doesn't mean anything, same as, cr*p is good for you, 60 trillion flies can't be wrong!
again your just wasting time, you could have posted something relevant instead of useless clone drivel! It's another miserable fail, have another go!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> still nothing we see, your analogy doesn't mean anything, same as, cr*p is good for you, 60 trillion flies can't be wrong!
> again your just wasting time, you could have posted something relevant instead of useless clone drivel! It's another miserable fail, have another go!
> inter

  Clearly you don't like the picture, you must think that you are the climate denier then  :Biggrin:  
The science you think is cr*p, but you want us to be bothered to post something else for you? Just read back, there is plenty already posted but none of the proof* you reckon you need for the reasons already posted (just read back if you are incapable of remembering why your demand for proof is cr*p)

----------


## John2b

> your analogy doesn't mean anything

  What analogy?   

> Of course humans are influencing the climate, the data clearly shows that

  Agreed.

----------


## UseByDate

> There is no proof of that, because they are predictions based on scientific knowledge, but there is agreement among the vast majority of scientists working in the field that we are on that course and we should be doing something about it.

  Woodbe 
 I have always thought that when the word “proof” is used in the context of science it means “test” . It does not mean to establish “truth”.
 My concept of the scientific process is:
 1 observe facts
 2 theorise (think of an explanation that agrees with the facts)
 3 prove ie *test* theory (predict new facts and then think up experiments and observations that either confirm or contradict the predicted facts). 
 A good theory is one that can predict new facts. 
 Until you get your fellow interlocutors to accept that the word “proof”, when used in science, does not mean to establish “truth”, then you are wasting your time with the argument. 
edit: sorry I have somehow mucked up the displayed quote.

----------


## John2b

> I have always thought that when the word “proof” is used in the context of science it means “test” . It does not mean to establish “truth”.
>  My concept of the scientific process is:
>  1 observe facts
>  2 theorise (think of an explanation that agrees with the facts)
>  3 prove ie *test* theory (predict new facts and then think up experiments and observations that either confirm or contradict the predicted facts). 
>  A good theory is one that can predict new facts.

  Which is exactly where the notion that "the science is settled" comes from - it passes the test of "proof" that you have outlined, despite the many "scientists" who have tried to show otherwise and have had to retract their papers when they were exposed as faulty. 
Happy New Year everyone. Being the first day 0f 2015, we will have to wait until the end of the year before it is possible to say "There has been no warming since 2014!" 
BTW UseByDate your post is missing a "]" at the end of "[QUOTE=woodbe;958312"

----------


## woodbe

Welcome to the thread UseByDate. 
If you look at the language used here asking for 'proof', the questions are asking for incontrovertible truth, not the results of tests. The tests that are done in science show that the hypothesis or theory is the most likely outcome, but it can never be proved to that incontrovertible truth level. 
The science has been quoted here on many occasions, and published science always runs the scientific process or it would not get past review. The fact is that our skeptics either do not read the science or are incapable of understanding it or the underlying process. The 'tests' you refer to exist in the quoted science should anyone care to read it.    

> A good theory is one that can predict new facts.

  Perhaps, it first has to fit known facts, and from there it can be used to look back at previous facts. If that works out then it can be used to look forward with a guarded level of confidence in such a complex system as the climate. Do you think this is not being done already?   

> Until you get your fellow interlocutors to accept that the word proof,  when used in science, does not mean to establish truth, then you are  wasting your time with the argument.

  The answers to the questions here have to be framed by those questions. Perhaps if the questions were asked regarding the intricacies of the science rather than opinion and the result was an intelligent discussion then we could move forward. Clearly we do not have that discussion here and I'm happy for the readers to decide why.

----------


## UseByDate

[QUOTE=John2b;958417] 
BTW UseByDate your post is missing a "]" at the end of "[QUOTE=woodbe;958312"[/QUOTE] 
Thanks John2b 
Edit. no I have stuffed it up again. What am I doing wrong?

----------


## woodbe

[QUOTE=UseByDate;958424]  

> BTW UseByDate your post is missing a "]" at the end of " 
> Thanks John2b 
> Edit. no I have stuffed it up again. What am I doing wrong?

  Each QUOTE has to have an opening [ and a closing ] and the same for the /QUOTE. 
I think the system is confused with all the brackets and stray QUOTEs  :Smilie:

----------


## UseByDate

> If you look at the language used here asking for 'proof', the questions are asking for incontrovertible truth, not the results of tests    Absolutely. A non-scientist will ask for proof, and assume that proof is equivalent to the truth. In science the word proof means to test (originally from Latin “to probe”). No scientist would claim “truth”.     
>  The tests that are done in science show that the hypothesis or theory is the most likely outcome, but it can never be proved to that incontrovertible truth level. I do agree with you. The best theory is the one that best explains the facts and will be modified if inconsistent facts are exposed (assuming a scientist can  think of a better theory that incorporates the new facts).  
> The science has been quoted here on many occasions, and published science always runs the scientific process or it would not get past review. The fact is that our skeptics either do not read the science or are incapable of understanding it or the underlying process. The 'tests' you refer to exist in the quoted science should anyone care to read it.   I am sure they are.   
> Perhaps, it first has to fit known facts, and from there it can be used to look back at previous facts. If that works out then it can be used to look forward with a guarded level of confidence in such a complex system as the climate. Do you think this is not being done already? Of course it is done. I am not a retired scientist, but have worked with many scientists and do understand the scientific process.    Facts are facts. Known facts are facts and previous facts are facts. Unknown facts are also facts yet to be discovered.  
>   The answers to the questions here have to be framed by those questions. Perhaps if the questions were asked regarding the intricacies of the science rather than opinion and the result was an intelligent discussion then we could move forward. Clearly we do not have that discussion here and I'm happy for the readers to decide why. Yes. It is hard to have a scientific argument with a non-scientist.    I was once having a “philosophical” discussion with a scientist one sunny lunch break in the pub and I asked him “What is the use of science?”.  His instantaneous reply was ”It keeps the witches at bay”.  .

  UseByDate

----------


## woodbe

All we need is for non-scientists to have a basic interest and understanding of the science, a respect for the science and the people working in the field and I think it would be possible to have reasonable discussion. AFAIK there is but one qualified scientist posting here occasionally and it isn't me  :Smilie:  
It always amazes me that someone can stand in front of a hundred or more years of a barrage of scientific studies they haven't tried to read or understand and certainly couldn't jump over will happily wave their hand at them all and announce its all crap. That's what we have here, so it's no wonder this is more a purile mud slinging contest than an intelligent discussion.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It always amazes me that someone can stand in front of a hundred or more years of a barrage of scientific studies they haven't tried to read or understand and certainly couldn't jump over will happily wave their hand at them all and announce its all crap. That's what we have here, so it's no wonder this is more a purile mud slinging contest than an intelligent discussion.

  Many people have the same opinion of sparkies and plumbers (over educated, over paid so and so's raking it in at the expense of the rest of us) so there's not much chance of sorting out the opinion towards climate science. 
Unlike the trades though there is no barrier to the pursuit of scientific interest other than a simple knowledge and acceptance of the basic process of scientific inquiry...but most of the Great Unwashed don't even want consider that! Not is this Age of Entitlement.  
On the flip side, it does make the scientific landscape far more intellectually challenging.

----------


## UseByDate

> Many people have the same opinion of sparkies and plumbers (over educated, over paid so and so's raking it in at the expense of the rest of us) so there's not much chance of sorting out the opinion towards climate science. 
> Unlike the trades though there is no barrier to the pursuit of scientific interest other than a simple knowledge and acceptance of the basic process of scientific inquiry...but most of the Great Unwashed don't even want consider that! Not is this Age of Entitlement.  
> On the flip side, it does make the scientific landscape far more intellectually challenging.

  Burn the witch. Burn the witch :Shock:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Burn the witch. Burn the witch

  That's just the easy option...😀  
Make sure you do it well away from habitation though. They do burn quite well but the smoke and stench are something else.

----------


## intertd6

> Clearly you don't like the picture, you must think that you are the climate denier then  Clearly its just a propaganda cartoon which has sucked in you and the three amigo clones & you don't like to find out how witless it really is! 
> The science you think is cr*p, but you want us to be bothered to post something else for you? Just read back, there is plenty already posted but none of the proof* you reckon you need for the reasons already posted (just read back if you are incapable of remembering why your demand for proof is cr*p)  What is the real K-rap is the clonedom  parading unsubstantiated scientific theories as fact, then thinking their leftist views are that of the majority & therefor should be blindly paying copious amounts of tax to satisfy some alarmists fear!

   Happy new year clones
inter

----------


## intertd6

> What analogy? Id be swapping medications with a reply like that!   
> Agreed. So you have worked out what I have been plainly stating since day one, your clearly a genius!

   Happy new year clones
inter

----------


## John2b

[QUOTE=UseByDate;958424]  

> BTW UseByDate your post is missing a "]" at the end of " 
> Thanks John2b 
> Edit. no I have stuffed it up again. What am I doing wrong?

  Each [ QUOTE ] to start the quote has to have a matching [ /QUOTE ] to end the quote. (I've put spaces between the brackets so you can see - the spaces stop it working.) 
In your above quote, there are two starts, but only one end, so the forum software could not properly resolve the text to show as quotes. Hope that helps. John

----------


## woodbe

> What is the real K-rap is the clonedom  parading unsubstantiated scientific theories as fact,

  For example:   

> Of course humans are influencing the climate, the data clearly shows that

  Can you show how your theory that humans are influencing the climate is any more or less substantiated than changing the CO2 level influences the climate? 
Or are you just going to continue avoiding reasonable discussion?

----------


## Neptune

> Clearly we do not have that discussion here and I'm happy for the readers to decide why.

  So it's not about the science as far as Renovate Forum responses are, it's about your opportunity to use that platform to spam your ideals? (to the readers)   

> All we need is for non-scientists to have a basic interest and understanding of the science, a respect for the science and the people working in the field and I think it would be possible to have reasonable discussion. AFAIK there is but one qualified scientist posting here occasionally and it isn't me

   What is there to discuss, you blokes would never accept/ believe anyone's opinion here.   

> It always amazes me that someone can stand in front of a hundred or more years of a barrage of scientific studies they haven't tried to read or understand and certainly couldn't jump over will happily wave their hand at them all and announce its all crap.

  How do you know this for fact?   

> That's what we have here, so it's no wonder this is more a purile mud slinging contest than an intelligent discussion.

   Yeah, not hard to see where the mud is coming from either.   

> Many people have the same opinion of sparkies and plumbers (over educated, over paid so and so's raking it in at the expense of the rest of us)

   Got some proof or stats to back that up?   

> so there's not much chance of sorting out the opinion towards climate science.

   Really, sorting or converting?   

> but most of the Great Unwashed don't even want consider that!

  Well , if you're referring to the opposing side to you in this debate, I respectfully request you either post the proof or formally apologise  for the above comment,

----------


## John2b

Can't be bothered listing all of the logical fallacies in your off-topic post. 
I hate to point out - it's the first of January, not the first of April! (You don't really mean what you posted do you? Oh dear!!!!!)

----------


## woodbe

> So it's not about the science as far as Renovate Forum responses are, it's about your opportunity to use that platform to spam your ideals? (to the readers)

  No, it is about the science, but those that disrespect the science are not interested in discussing it. When posted it gets the usual disrespect.   

> What is there to discuss, you blokes would never accept/ believe anyone's opinion here.

  I don't need to believe anyone elses opinion. It's their opinion, and apparently they are not interested in discussing it. That is their choice.   

> How do you know this for fact?

  Because the evidence is plastered all over this thread.   

> Yeah, not hard to see where the mud is coming from either.

  I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader thanks.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Dearest Damp Demi God.... 
I have way too many giggles to even consider a remotely sensible response right now. Maybe later. Feel free to slap yourself repeatedly with a kipper whilst waiting ... 
Yours Truly
SBD

----------


## intertd6

> For example:   
> Can you show how your theory that humans are influencing the climate is any more or less substantiated than changing the CO2 level influences the climate?  why? If you think we should be paying tax on CO2 emissions you have to come up with the evidence, as you haven't & can't you & your clonies should donate freely to your belief of choice! I have asked for the running tally of donated funds but no figures have appeared so it could be taken that most clones are hypocrites, all noise & no action!  
> Or are you just going to continue avoiding reasonable discussion?  I will follow you lead when the reasonable requested answers appear!

  inter,  happy new clone year

----------


## woodbe

> Can you show how your theory that humans are influencing the climate is  any more or less substantiated than changing the CO2 level influences  the climate?  why?

  Isn't it obvious? 
Because you repeatedly refute CO2 as a significant driver of the climate, yet you clearly accept humans as a source of climate change. I am interested to see your theory and the science to back it up. 
Over to you.

----------


## John2b

The mud comes from the people who sling it - doh! In this forum thread, mostly it comes from users with IDs beginning with I, M & N. There's probably a Ph.D. thesis for someone in that...

----------


## intertd6

> Isn't it obvious? 
> Because you repeatedly refute CO2 as a significant driver of the climate, yet you clearly accept humans as a source of climate change. I am interested to see your theory and the science to back it up.    why? If you think we should be paying tax on CO2 emissions you have to come up with the evidence, as you haven't & can't you & your clonies should donate freely to your belief of choice! I have asked for the running tally of donated funds but no figures have appeared so it could be taken that most clones are hypocrites, all noise & no action! 
> PS we are still all waiting for evidence that CO2 is the major driver of climate change which can, has or will ever cause dangerous catastrophic global warming, nothing really to refute yet we can all see!  
> Over to you.

   Have another go, it's a miserable fail as usual!
inter, happy new clonedom

----------


## woodbe

> Isn't it obvious? 
> Because you repeatedly refute CO2 as a significant driver of the  climate, yet you clearly accept humans as a source of climate change. I  am interested to see your theory and the science to back it up.  why?

  I don't know, it was your theory not mine. I'm interested to hear your scientific justification.

----------


## Neptune

> The mud comes from the people who sling it - doh!

   

> the Great Unwashed

  You're really not helping their cause are you?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Cause/effect. It's all the same box of chocolates.

----------


## intertd6

> I don't know, it was your theory not mine. I'm interested to hear your scientific justification.

  
PS we are still all waiting for evidence that CO2 is the major driver of climate change which can, has or will ever cause dangerous catastrophic global warming, at least give us something to refute!
inter, happy clone to you

----------


## intertd6

> You're really not helping their cause are you?

  Self inflated bureaucrats & umbilical attached clones have a surprising habit of doing that!
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> PS we are still all waiting for evidence that CO2 is the major driver of climate change which can, has or will ever cause dangerous catastrophic global warming, at least give us something to refute!

   IPCC Fifth Assessment Report 
Refute away!

----------


## intertd6

> IPCC Fifth Assessment Report 
> Refute away!

  which paragraph/s on one of the 2000 or so pages of the clones bible proves that CO2 can, has or ever will cause catastrophic dangerous global warming?
inter, a very boring clone new year to you!

----------


## John2b

> which paragraph/s on one of the 2000 or so pages of the clones bible proves that CO2 can, has or ever will cause catastrophic dangerous global warming?
> inter, a very boring clone new year to you!

  The IPCC summary of current scientific understanding of climate change is what the "warmists" in this thread are defending. You are claiming that science is nonsense, so you tell us which paragraphs of the IPCC summary are nonsense and why!

----------


## intertd6

> The IPCC summary of current scientific understanding of climate change is what the "warmists" in this thread are defending. You are claiming that science is nonsense, so you tell us which paragraphs of the IPCC summary are nonsense and why!

  thats nothing to do with my question, you have failed miserably, have another go!
inter, another null & void clone new year!

----------


## woodbe

I'll save you inter. You won't find dangerous catastrophic climate change in there. If you look at _Chapter 12: Long term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility_ you will find one or two references to dangerous. However the part you may be referring to could be this one (Page 1033)   

> Abrupt Change 
> Several components or phenomena in the climate system could potentially exhibit abrupt or nonlinear changes, and some are known to have done so in the past. Examples include the AMOC, Arctic sea ice, the Greenland ice sheet, the Amazon forest and mon- soonal circulations. For some events, there is information on potential consequences, but in general there is low confidence and little con-sensus on the likelihood of such events over the 21st century. {12.5.5, Table 12.4}

  I'm afraid there isn't an answer to your question because dangerous catastrophic climate change isn't in the list of current or long term predictions, and the Abrupt change referred to above doesn't look like a starter, does it? 
Perhaps you have a more reasonable question?

----------


## intertd6

> I'll save you inter. You won't find dangerous catastrophic climate change in there. If you look at _Chapter 12: Long term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility_ you will find one or two references to dangerous. However the part you may be referring to could be this one (Page 1033)   
> I'm afraid there isn't an answer to your question because dangerous catastrophic climate change isn't in the list of current or long term predictions, and the Abrupt change referred to above doesn't look like a starter, does it? 
> Perhaps you have a more reasonable question?

  the more astute amongst us already knew you had nothing, but it's nice of you to reinforce it even further!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> the more astute amongst us already knew you had nothing, but it's nice of you to reinforce it even further!
> inter

  Au Contraire. I have pushed back at your suggestion of dangerous catastrophic climate change in the past, but now we can see that your question is not relevant to the current understanding of climate science. 
Can you point us to where in the scientific literature you read that mainstream climate science is predicting dangerous catastrophic climate change please? 
If you cannot show us, then your question is baseless, and it is actually you who have nothing.

----------


## woodbe

Break from pig wrestling:  World Glacier Monitoring Service   

> *latest glacier mass balance data*      *1   Summary of the balance years 2012/13 and 2013/14*  Mass balance values for the observation period  2012/13 have been reported from more than 125 glaciers worldwide. The  mass balance statistics (Table 1) are calculated based on all reported  values and on available data from the 37 reference glaciers in ten  mountain ranges (Table 2) with continuous observation series back to  1980. In addition, preliminary mass balance values are given for 2013/14  for the reference glaciers only.  The average mass balance of the glaciers with  available long-term   observation series around the world continues to  be negative, with   tentative figures indicating a further thickness  reduction of 0.89 metres   water equivalent (m w.e.) during the  hydrological year 2013. The new   data continues the global trend in  strong ice loss over the past few   decades and brings the cumulative  average thickness loss of the   reference glaciers since 1980 at  17.5 m  w.e. (see Figures 1 and 2).   All so far reported mass balance values   given in Table 3, are   tentative.

  And that's interesting, the last two years have exceeded the losses of 1998. Significance: Nothing. It's the long term trend that is significant.  :Tongue:

----------


## intertd6

> Break from pig wrestling:  World Glacier Monitoring Service   
> And that's interesting, the last two years have exceeded the losses of 1998. Significance: Nothing. It's the long term trend that is significant.

  thats interesting that you've come clean that you have nothing regarding the impending CO2 catastrophe, yet still persist pushing the propaganda & dogma surrounding your myth belief! Must be a far left initiation process that is never ending which normal people have to painfully endure when around your presence!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> thats interesting that you've come clean that you have nothing regarding the impending CO2 catastrophe

  I don't think so. You are the one trying to push claims of dangerous catastrophic climate change on me, and if I agreed with it I would be defending it. You need proof that I have made that claim because I am calling you on it. If you can't show that proof then you are lying. 
You are also clearly unaware of what a straw man argument is.   

> A *straw man* is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

  I don't think the audience is ignorant of the original argument: CO2 is an important driver of climate change, we are continuing to add it to the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate, it is impacting the radiative balance of the planet and we should be doing something about it. 
Here is what I said about it recently:   

> The science is clear: Adding CO2 to the atmosphere alters the radiative  balance of the planet. You think the only possible result that you  require proof[*] of is 'dangerous catastrophic warming'

  I also asked:   

> Can you point us to where in the scientific literature you read that  mainstream climate science is predicting dangerous catastrophic climate  change please?

  You have no answer to that question. Your attack on climate science is baseless. You are unable to defend a position that suggests that CO2 is not a driver of the climate, nor are you able to separate the human drivers of climate from CO2 as previously asked. 
You have nothing. Zip. Zero. You play the pig because there is no other role for someone who admits humans have an effect on climate yet denies the role of CO2. Oink away!  :Tongue:

----------


## johnc

> I don't think so. You are the one trying to push claims of dangerous catastrophic climate change on me, and if I agreed with it I would be defending it. You need proof that I have made that claim because I am calling you on it. If you can't show that proof then you are lying. 
> You are also clearly unaware of what a straw man argument is.   
> I don't think the audience is ignorant of the original argument: CO2 is an important driver of climate change, we are continuing to add it to the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate, it is impacting the radiative balance of the planet and we should be doing something about it. 
> Here is what I said about it recently:   
> I also asked:   
> You have no answer to that question. Your attack on climate science is baseless. You are unable to defend a position that suggests that CO2 is not a driver of the climate, nor are you able to separate the human drivers of climate from CO2 as previously asked. 
> You have nothing. Zip. Zero. You play the pig because there is no other role for someone who admits humans have an effect on climate yet denies the role of CO2. Oink away!

  You have to wonder if we are dealing with wilfully stupid or just garden variety dumb, I think it's the latter.

----------


## intertd6

> I don't think so. You are the one trying to push claims of dangerous catastrophic climate change on me, and if I agreed with it I would be defending it. You need proof that I have made that claim because I am calling you on it. If you can't show that proof then you are lying. 
> You are also clearly unaware of what a straw man argument is.   
> I don't think the audience is ignorant of the original argument: CO2 is an important driver of climate change, we are continuing to add it to the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate, it is impacting the radiative balance of the planet and we should be doing something about it. 
> Here is what I said about it recently:   
> I also asked:   
> You have no answer to that question. Your attack on climate science is baseless. You are unable to defend a position that suggests that CO2 is not a driver of the climate, nor are you able to separate the human drivers of climate from CO2 as previously asked. 
> You have nothing. Zip. Zero. You play the pig because there is no other role for someone who admits humans have an effect on climate yet denies the role of CO2. Oink away!

  still got nothing? Not even a believable excuse!
Inter

----------


## woodbe

> still got nothing? Not even a believable excuse!
> Inter

  You are the one trying to push claims of dangerous catastrophic climate  change on me, and if I agreed with it I would be defending it. You need  proof that I have made that claim because I am calling you on it. If you  can't show that proof then you are lying.

----------


## intertd6

> You have to wonder if we are dealing with wilfully stupid or just garden variety dumb, I think it's the latter.

  we haven't wondered at all with you fellows!
inter

----------


## intertd6

> You are the one trying to push claims of dangerous catastrophic climate  change on me, and if I agreed with it I would be defending it. You need  proof that I have made that claim because I am calling you on it. If you  can't show that proof then you are lying.

  o dear somebody has their mangina in a twist, you seem to be thinking what I'm asking for can be falsified by you in someway to mean something else in a twisted way! If only you were as clever as you think you are there might be a slim chance of pulling it off instead of the obvious!
inter

----------


## woodbe

> o dear somebody has their mangina in a twist, you seem to be thinking what I'm asking for can be falsified by you in someway to mean something else in a twisted way! If only you were as clever as you think you are there might be a slim chance of pulling it off instead of the obvious!
> inter

  You are the one trying to push claims of dangerous catastrophic climate   change on me, and if I agreed with it I would be defending it. You need   proof that I have made that claim because I am calling you on it. If  you  can't show that proof then you are lying.

----------


## John2b

The beginning of 2015 marks 100 years since the last time a record was set for a global coldest month.

----------


## woodbe

Climate Science Legal Defense Fund Hires New Executive Director | Global Warming: Man or Myth?   

> The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund is excited to announce the  hiring of Lauren Kurtz as its first Executive Director. Lauren Kurtz is  joining CSLDF from Dechert LLP, a top tier law firm where she was a  litigator. There she served as project manager on a high-profile $3  billion litigation initiative and she represented commercial and  individual clients on cases involving FOIA requests and litigation over  FOIA requests, discovery disputes, and defamation claims. Prior to  working at Dechert, she held legal and policy positions at the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  She has a law degree from the  University of Pennsylvania Law School and a master’s in Environmental  Policy from the University of Pennsylvania. 
>  Ms. Kurtz was hired by the board of directors after a widely  publicized summer fundraising campaign to grow CSLDF from an  all-volunteer organization to one with a full time professional staff.  CSLDF was started to help scientists cope with the barrage of  politically motivated attacks. Early successes included a victory for  Dr. Michael Mann at the Virginia Supreme Court, legal clinics at major  scientific conferences and a legal education campaign.

  Good to see the deniers of climate science getting called on their misinformation through the courts, and now with a professional appointed as Executive Director, misinformers will be worried.

----------


## intertd6

> You are the one trying to push claims of dangerous catastrophic climate   change on me, and if I agreed with it I would be defending it. You need   proof that I have made that claim because I am calling you on it. If  you  can't show that proof then you are lying.

  your dreaming again, how far will you go to prove how foolish your latest ploy is? Based on your previous history it will be right over the top?
The questions I have asked are fairly straight forward, yet you & the three amigos have nothing & will stop at nothing to weasel out of the facts that you have nothing!

----------


## intertd6

> The beginning of 2015 marks 100 years since the last time a record was set for a global coldest month.

   How do you sleep at night?

----------


## woodbe

> The questions I have asked are fairly straight forward, yet you & the three amigos have nothing & will stop at nothing to weasel out of the facts that you have nothing!

  Your question is not 'fairly straight forward'. It is a loaded question. The facts of CO2 have already been posted in this thread, you have not ever engaged in sensible discussion of the facts of CO2 and climate change. 
However, the solution is simple: If you want your loaded question answered, show that the mainstream prediction of climate science is "dangerous catastrophic climate   change" and I will be happy to respond to your straw man question. That won't be possible of course, because as previously demonstrated on this page there is no evidence to support that false claim.

----------


## woodbe

West Antarctic melt rate has tripled 
Link to published paper: Mass loss of the Amundsen Sea Embayment of West Antarctica from four independent techniques - Sutterley - 2014 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library*  Precis: 
Mass loss of the Amundsen Sea Embayment of West Antarctica from four independent techniques * *Abstract*We  compare four independent estimates of the mass balance of the Amundsen  Sea Embayment of West Antarctica, an area experiencing rapid retreat and  mass loss to the sea. We use ICESat and Operation IceBridge laser  altimetry, Envisat radar altimetry, GRACE time-variable gravity,  RACMO2.3 surface mass balance, ice velocity from imaging radars, and ice  thickness from radar sounders. The four methods agree in terms of mass  loss and acceleration in loss at the regional scale. Over 19922013, the  mass loss is 83 ± 5 Gt/yr with an acceleration of 6.1 ± 0.7 Gt/yr2. During the common period 20032009, the mass loss is 84 ± 10 Gt/yr with an acceleration of 16.3 ± 5.6 Gt/yr2,  nearly 3 times the acceleration over 19922013. Over 20032011, the  mass loss is 102 ± 10 Gt/yr with an acceleration of 15.7 ± 4.0 Gt/yr2.  The results reconcile independent mass balance estimates in a setting  dominated by change in ice dynamics with significant variability in  surface mass balance.   *Conclusion*In  this study, we quantify the ice sheet mass balance of the ASE using  four independent geodetic techniques. We find an excellent agreement in  mass loss and acceleration in mass loss from these independent  techniques during common periods at the regional scale in a sector that  dominates the mass balance of the continent. We show that OIB campaign  style measurements are sufficient to extend the time series of mass  balance estimates using ICESat laser altimetry data in time and maintain  a record of ice mass balance in the region. We also show that the  significant fluctuations in SMB observed over short periods average out  after a couple of decades. The comprehensive record, evaluated from  multiple techniques, of mass loss in West Antarctica, produced here  shows a tripling in mass loss in recent years with respect to the entire  analyzed period 19922013. The rapid rate of convergence of the  independent techniques examined herein indicates that the measurements  have now reached maturity and may be used with increased confidence for  glaciological interpretation and inclusion in ice sheet numerical models  with data assimilation methods.

----------


## woodbe

Multidecadal warming of Antarctic waters  *Abstract:* 
Decadal trends in the properties of seawater adjacent to Antarctica are  poorly known, and the mechanisms responsible for such                         changes are uncertain. Antarctic ice sheet mass  loss is largely driven by ice shelf basal melt, which is influenced by  ocean-ice                         interactions and has been correlated with  Antarctic Continental Shelf Bottom Water (ASBW) temperature. We document  the spatial                         distribution of long-term large-scale trends in  temperature, salinity, and core depth over the Antarctic continental  shelf                         and slope. Warming at the seabed in the  Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas is linked to increased heat content and  to a shoaling                         of the mid-depth temperature maximum over the  continental slope, allowing warmer, saltier water greater access to the  shelf                         in recent years. Regions of ASBW warming are  those exhibiting increased ice shelf melt. 
So there we have some new research recently released regarding the mass balance changes going on in W Antarctica and an analysis of the process behind it. I'm doubting that we will get sensible discussion of this science, but you never know...

----------


## John2b

> How do you sleep at night?

  I sleep pretty well, thanks, knowing that the laws of entropy and physics are not broken and that climate observations are exactly as expected as the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. 
If the laws were broken, everything about modern technological society would be inexplicable and there would be just random chance that anything (e.g. phones, cars, computers, fuel, surgery, fertiliser, etc.) would work as expected. 
And here's why heat records are being broken every day, but monthly global cold records not for a century:

----------


## Rod Dyson



----------


## woodbe

>

----------


## John2b

This could be the year of extinction for the climate-change denier, writes Peter Hannam.  Heat is on Abbott government over climate change as world turns

----------


## woodbe

> This could be the year of extinction for the climate-change denier, writes Peter Hannam.  Heat is on Abbott government over climate change as world turns

   

> As with Yates, Wootton is also outspoken on climate change. He helped found and continues to chair The Climate Institute, one of the country's leading non-government agencies on the issue.
> Wootton said the most ardent climate change sceptics in his industry tend to be "male, over-70 and cranky"

  Lol. Can we have a show of hands, who is over 70 here?

----------


## John2b

A cartoon for the smoking non sequitur deniers here LOL:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> A cartoon for the smoking non sequitur deniers here LOL:

  You are a sick puppy

----------


## John2b

> You are a sick puppy

  Thanks for the insight, Rod. If showcasing the blindingly obvious non sequiturs makes me a sick puppy, I guess I can learn to live with that.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> 

  Fairly certain that Wiley would not appreciate your use of his work given your previously stated point of reference. But he would get the irony... 
His politics are more left wing than you might prefer and his opinions on AGW (or whatever it's now called) are fairly clearly in support of the IPCC view.

----------


## John2b

> Fairly certain that Wiley would not appreciate your use of his work given your previously stated point of reference. But he would get the irony...

  This one of Wiley's is for Rod who loves his WUWT blog:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> This one's for Rod who loves his WUWT blog:

  so what?

----------


## UseByDate

> Each [ QUOTE ] to start the quote has to have a matching [ /QUOTE ] to end the quote. (I've put spaces between the brackets so you can see - the spaces stop it working.) 
> In your above quote, there are two starts, but only one end, so the forum software could not properly resolve the text to show as quotes. Hope that helps. John

   John2b
 Thanks.
 I think the penny has just dropped. :Doh: 
 [ QUOTE ] and  [ /QUOTE ] are programming instructions or assembly directives indicating “quote on” and “quote off”.
 I must try harder.
 I must try harder.
 I must try harder.
 I must try harder.
 Thanks again for your help and patience.

----------


## Rod Dyson

And so on it goes.   
Read all about it here.  The Great Pause lengthens again | Watts Up With That?

----------


## John2b

> And so on it goes.

  Why not to get your information from blogs LOL. 
The RSS temperature is the average of the troposphere, not the Earth's surface level temperature where people live. Guess what? As the surface temperature rises, a few kilometres up the atmosphere is cooling off. This has been identified as a possible reason why RSS and UAH satellite temperature records are not matching surface records. On top of that, the RSS data may be showing spurious cooling because RSS is still using an old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model which does not quite match reality. Of course, the objective of the "scientists" behind the RSS program are out to "prove" that AGW is not as bad as mainstream science believes, so they are a bit loose with their "facts". 
The tropospheric temperature and the surface temperature are behaving differently. Who wudda thort. Certainly not a WUWT blog devotee! No wonder you didn't get the cartoon I posted!

----------


## woodbe

> And so on it goes.

  Lol. I thought you didn't like predictions and models?   

> *TLT (Temperature Lower Troposphere)*  TLT is constructed by calculating a weighted difference between  MSU2 (or AMSU 5) measurements from near limb views and measurements from  the same channels taken closer to nadir, as can be seen in Figure 1 for  the case of MSU. This has the effect of extrapolating the MSU2 (or  AMSU5) measurements lower in the troposphere, and removing most of the  stratospheric influence. Because of the differences involves  measurements made at different locations, and because of the large  absolute values of the weights used, additional noise is added by this  process, increasing the uncertainty in the final results. For more  details see Mears et al., 2009b.

  Upper Air Temperature | Remote Sensing Systems 
So, WUWT comes out with 'amazing news' that they have found a temperature record that is not the surface air, is not the ocean, is calculated from other measurements and is weighted, which involves more uncertainty than just about any temperature record mentioned here and they pick less than 25 years of that record to tell us that the planet is not warming. 
Don't tell me, the WUWT lemmings are cheering, right? 
LOL.

----------


## woodbe

Here is the real chart for TLT by the way:   
LOL x100

----------


## intertd6

> Here is the real chart for TLT by the way:   
> LOL x100

  the jokes on you again! Only brainwashed clone wouldn't notice your trend starting at............. You guessed it 1980!
now who wouldn't have guessed that was coming! Everyone except the three stooges! Moronic is not a descriptive enough word for this ploy!
looking at the data with a basic eyecrometer the average looks to be falling since 1998, but we all know that anyhow & that's including the three stooges & the apprentice!
inter

----------


## John2b

> Only brainwashed clone wouldn't notice your trend starting at............. You guessed it 1980!

  Do try to keep up and you won't embarrass yourself by making an out of context post for which "moronic is not a descriptive enough word" to quote someone.

----------


## intertd6

> A cartoon for the smoking non sequitur deniers here LOL:

  there's no real need to post cartoons of what sucks you & your crowd in! For non clones we can see it for the puerile tripe it is!

----------


## Rod Dyson

It is rather amusing how the warmist react to this chart.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> looking at the data with a basic eyecrometer...

  Looks like you got dudded (again?) on Alibaba. You eyecrometer appears to have a right leaning bias. You could spend big to get it recalibrated but I'd recommend a good blast of Barossa GSM in the first instance to see if that gets it working closer to level before investing big time for spurious improvements.

----------


## intertd6

> Do try to keep up and you won't embarrass yourself by making an out of context post for which "moronic is not a descriptive enough word" to quote someone.

  how can I even come close to embarrassing myself in the presence of your company!!!

----------


## intertd6

> It is rather amusing how the warmist react to this chart.

  I reckon! Its beyond the ridiculous to even imagine anybody being dim enough even use it, then imagining anybody being silly enough to think it relates to the climate!!!!
the entertainment never stops!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> looking at the data with a basic eyecrometer the average looks to be falling since 1998

  You must have the special climate change denier eyecrometer with cherry pick adjuster. 
The data since 1980 shows clearly that 1998 was just another normal year. LOL.  
1980 was just another year close to the trend, 1998 wasn't and it is well short of the time span for climate trends. You know that, but you have to ignore it. Sucks to be you  :Biggrin:  
Even if you had an ounce of merit in your choice of years, you are still ignoring that this is a calculated temperature record, and it is not surface temperature, and even then it has a high level of uncertainty. 
Given that 2014 looks to have been the hottest year on record for global surface temperature, and the increase in ocean heat continues apace, looks like you need to focus on the the troposphere. Maybe next year you can show us that the temperature on the moon has stayed the same since 1998 so global warming has stopped.  :Tongue:

----------


## PhilT2

> the jokes on you again! Only brainwashed clone wouldn't notice your trend starting at............. You guessed it 1980!

  The RSS satellite was launched in 1978 but the data set doesn't actually start until Nov 1979. Microwave Sounding Unit Temperature Anomalies | Temperature, Precipitation, and Drought | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

----------


## intertd6

> Looks like you got dudded (again?) on Alibaba. You eyecrometer appears to have a right leaning bias. You could spend big to get it recalibrated but I'd recommend a good blast of Barossa GSM in the first instance to see if that gets it working closer to level before investing big time for spurious improvements.

  It's funny what people imagine they see in the world of make believe, thanks for the example!

----------


## intertd6

> You must have the special climate change denier eyecrometer with cherry pick adjuster. 
> The data since 1980 shows clearly that 1998 was just another normal year. LOL.  
> 1980 was just another year close to the trend, 1998 wasn't and it is well short of the time span for climate trends. You know that, but you have to ignore it. Sucks to be you  
> Even if you had an ounce of merit in your choice of years, you are still ignoring that this is a calculated temperature record, and it is not surface temperature, and even then it has a high level of uncertainty. 
> Given that 2014 looks to have been the hottest year on record for global surface temperature, and the increase in ocean heat continues apace, looks like you need to focus on the the troposphere. Maybe next year you can show us that the temperature on the moon has stayed the same since 1998 so global warming has stopped.

  so are you making a complete fool of yourself & now saying it isn't "the real chart" ?

----------


## intertd6

> The RSS satellite was launched in 1978 but the data set doesn't actually start until Nov 1979. Microwave Sounding Unit Temperature Anomalies | Temperature, Precipitation, and Drought | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

  And?

----------


## John2b

> For non clones we can see it for the puerile tripe it is!

  Ah - the bliss of anti-science  :Wink:

----------


## John2b

> And?

  Do you _really_ need someone to explain? Perhaps you should ask your mum or your grade 3 teacher.

----------


## PhilT2

> And?

   You said the graph started in 1980; given that the satellite had just been launched and calibrated, what year did you expect it to start?

----------


## John2b

> It is rather amusing how the warmist react to this chart.

  Warmists, coolists, whatever. Data that is falsely proclaimed to show something it doesn't show is pseudoscience. Isn't the pursuit of objective truth the objective no matter what your partiality is? If it isn't you are just trolling.

----------


## intertd6

> You said the graph started in 1980; given that the satellite had just been launched and calibrated, what year did you expect it to start?

  you need to pay a little more attention to what actually I said & not what you think I said!

----------


## John2b

> You said the graph started in 1980; given that the satellite had just been launched and calibrated, what year did you expect it to start?

  His mum should know...

----------


## woodbe

> so are you making a complete fool of yourself & now saying it isn't "the real chart" ?

  No. I'm saying that Monckton hasn't changed his spots. The data is what it is, and if it is viewed with all of the climate data the picture hasn't changed. If the troposphere hasn't warmed, that does not mean the planet hasn't warmed, and the global surface temperature records are looking like 2014 is a new record. 
Sucks to be you. You have nothing, so you have to coattail onto this baloney and play personal attacks rather than discussion. It's been this way for quite a while, seems you're enjoying Monckton's company.

----------


## John2b

> you need to pay a little more attention to what actually I said & not what you think I said!

  Careful: people might _think_ you said what you _actually_ said:   

> And?

   :Roflmao:

----------


## intertd6

> Ah - the bliss of anti-science

  you seem to be mixing up your anti science with our anti idiot!
inter

----------


## John2b

> you seem to be mixing up your anti science with our anti idiot!

  Some idiots don't understand the effect of greenhouse gases and how increasing greenhouse gases increases global warming.

----------


## intertd6

> Do you _really_ need someone to explain? Perhaps you should ask your mum or your grade 3 teacher.

  "the jokes on you again! Only brainwashed clone wouldn't notice your *trend* starting at............. You guessed it 1980!
now who wouldn't have guessed that was coming! Everyone except the three stooges! Moronic is not a descriptive enough word for this ploy!
looking at the data with a basic eyecrometer the average looks to be falling since 1998, but we all know that anyhow & that's including the three stooges & the apprentice!
inter" 
Im certain my mum could read it & tell the difference, I'm not too sure about my grade 3 teacher! But you have certainly shown us you can't tell the difference! Thanks for the display once again!

----------


## John2b

> "the jokes on you again! Only brainwashed clone wouldn't notice your *trend* starting at............. You guessed it 1980!

  "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt." 
And just in case no one noticed, you posted in red!!!    

> Moronic is not a descriptive enough word for this ploy! looking at the data with a basic eyecrometer the average looks to be falling since 1998, but we all know that anyhow & that's including the three stooges & the apprentice!

  Hint: the world did not begin in 1998, and nor did trends. Moronic indeed! You provide the best descriptors for your own posts.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## johnc

> "the jokes on you again! Only brainwashed clone wouldn't notice your *trend* starting at............. You guessed it 1980!
> now who wouldn't have guessed that was coming! Everyone except the three stooges! Moronic is not a descriptive enough word for this ploy!
> looking at the data with a basic eyecrometer the average looks to be falling since 1998, but we all know that anyhow & that's including the three stooges & the apprentice!
> inter" 
> Im certain my mum could read it & tell the difference, I'm not too sure about my grade 3 teacher! But you have certainly shown us you can't tell the difference! Thanks for the display once again!

  You have summed it up with moronic, keep going you have a proven capability to do much better, although this does seem to be all you have, nothing as usual!

----------


## intertd6

> Some idiots don't understand the effect of greenhouse gases and how increasing greenhouse gases increases global warming.

  were just the not so special people that understand simple green house physics does not explain a complex physical, geological, ecological and planetary climate system, empirical evidence shows CO2 in no way controls global temperature, beyond that is where your "special" types come in with no evidence, feel free to post some when you have it!

----------


## John2b

> were just the not so special people that understand simple green house physics does not explain a complex physical, geological, ecological and planetary climate system, empirical evidence shows CO2 in no way controls global temperature, beyond that is where your "special" types come in with no evidence, feel free to post some when you have it!

  You've done it again! "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt."  In case you thought otherwise, empirical evidence does not explain a complex physical, geological, ecological and planetary climate system.  :Rotfl:

----------


## intertd6

> You have summed it up with moronic, keep going you have a proven capability to do much better, although this does seem to be all you have, nothing as usual!

  
 John2b
 Originally Posted by intertd6 
you need to pay a little more attention to what actually I said & not what you think I said!
Careful: people might think you said what you actually said: 
And there I was responding to this & you were proving moronic wasn't descriptive enough for your ploys!
silly me!

----------


## John2b

> silly me!

  Yep, silly you. People might think you said what you actually said.

----------


## intertd6

> You've done it again! "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt."  Your noticeably living the dream!   Empirical evidence does not explain a complex physical, geological, ecological and planetary climate system.   WTF! That quote is going to follow you around for a looooong time, thanks for the example of someone who claims to follow the science yet denies the basics of science, it is hilarious beyond words

  ,!!!

----------


## intertd6

> Yep, silly you. People might think you said what you actually said.

  WTF Get some help!

----------


## John2b

> someone who claims to follow the science yet denies the basics of science...is hilarious beyond words

  As anyone who reads your posts knows.  :Roflmao:

----------


## John2b

> you need to pay a little more attention to what actually I said & not what you think I said!

   

> silly me!

   

> Yep, silly you. People might think you said what you actually said.

   

> WTF Get some help!

  It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt. Oops - too late intertd6!

----------


## PhilT2

> Only brainwashed clone wouldn't notice your *trend* starting at............. You guessed it 1980! 
> the average looks to be falling since 1998

  The trend was well under way by the time RSS started collecting data from the satellite, again, 1980 is just the start of the data. There is a standard mathematical process to calculate a trend from that data. If you believe those calculations to be wrong feel free to show us where they have made the mistake.

----------


## UseByDate

> Im certain my mum could read it & tell the difference, I'm not too sure about my grade 3 teacher! But you have certainly shown us you can't tell the difference! Thanks for the display once again!

  intertd6
You have a grade 3 teacher?

----------


## intertd6

> intertd6
> You have a grade 3 teacher?

  most normal people have had a grade 3 teacher, some more than once & for some home schooling at the cult seems to have been the rage by the calibre of the arguments.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> intertd6
> You have a grade 3 teacher?

  You can buy them online from China, three at a time so I'm told.

----------


## johnc

I'm amazed he got to grade 3, but if he did he didn't gain from it.

----------


## intertd6

> You've done it again! "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt."  In case you thought otherwise, empirical evidence does not explain a complex physical, geological, ecological and planetary climate system.

   
"I'm amazed he got to grade 3, but if he did he didn't gain from it." 
Mmmmmm, its a little wonder home schooling comes to mind!

----------


## intertd6

> You can buy them online from China, three at a time so I'm told.

  It seems you have first hand knowledge of buying grade 3 teachers online, but what happens when there is a mix up & you mistakingly get the French maid or nurse instead within no puncture repair kit?

----------


## John2b

> most normal people have had a grade 3 teacher, some more than once

  I fondly remember being taught by Mrs Martin, my grade three teacher, and the eight A's on my end of year report card. But I never had her, not even once.

----------


## Rod Dyson

How about getting back on topic (or close there to) rather than this school boy heckling.   
That is all of us!!   Don't even bother coming back with finger pointing "he started it".

----------


## John2b

The end of December 2014 means there has been a continuous streak of 358 months breaking the 20th century average; the hottest 15 years ever recorded have come since 1997; and the hottest decade so far ended in 2010, the third decade in a row to break the record for global temperatures.  
This record warming occurred despite several natural factors working to create cooler surface temperatures: solar minimums, recent back-to-back La Niña events, and the absence of an El Niño event. Denialists are just blowing smoke for multinational fossil energy corporations.

----------


## intertd6

> The end of December 2014 means there has been a continuous streak of 358 months breaking the 20th century average; the hottest 15 years ever recorded have come since 1997; and the hottest decade so far ended in 2010, the third decade in a row to break the record for global temperatures.  
> This record warming occurred despite several natural factors working to create cooler surface temperatures: solar minimums, recent back-to-back La Niña events, and the absence of an El Niño event. Denialists are just blowing smoke for multinational fossil energy corporations.

  you have proved that you can parrot simple temperature data & records that everyone knows & understands, how about coming up with the really top secret data about CO2 being the main contributor to global warming & why it's had a holiday doing this task since 1998?

----------


## woodbe

> why it's had a holiday doing this task since 1998?

  Here it is:   

> *Abstract.* We analyze five prominent  time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their  common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from  NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT)  temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and  UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from  0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove  the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature  variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar  variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as  noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly  to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface  temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates  to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming  rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the  two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.

  Global temperature evolution 1979â2010 - IOPscience 
The CO2 influence has been done to death. Denying it wont help, it's an accepted fact.

----------


## johnc

I wonder who is the parrot? this has been done to death, how stupid can one person possibly be, or is it a case of asking but never reading.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Here it is:    Global temperature evolution 1979â€“2010 - IOPscience 
> The CO2 influence has been done to death. Denying it wont help, it's an accepted fact.

  It sure has.  The influence is stuff all and can only fit the theory with un-proven feedback loops that would have us fry to a crisp if they are real.   
No cigar.

----------


## woodbe

I thought you were against school boy heckling, Rod? 
Show us the science you accept that proves your point.

----------


## intertd6

> Here it is:    Global temperature evolution 1979â€“2010 - IOPscience 
> The CO2 influence has been done to death. Denying it wont help, it's an accepted fact.

  the old done to death line, without being ever done! Just because a gaggle of alarmist clones & the three stooges accept it doesn't make it a fact, feel free to post this fact anytime it becomes reality.

----------


## intertd6

> I wonder who is the parrot? this has been done to death, how stupid can one person possibly be, or is it a case of asking but never reading.

  Still nothing but hot air & wind we see! The only thing stupid here is the amount of time it has taken you to evade & avoid producing nothing! A seemingly impossible nut to crack!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I thought you were against school boy heckling, Rod? 
> Show us the science you accept that proves your point.

  Where is the heckling??

----------


## woodbe

> Where is the heckling??

  You and inter clearly don't understand heckling:   

> A *heckler* is a person who harasses and tries to disconcert others with questions, challenges, or gibes.

  You asked for us all to stop heckling and to get back on topic. There have been 2 on-topic posts with no intelligent discussion and every other post has been heckling, including your own. If you want civil discussion you have to be part of it. You are not the major heckler around here but you did say "That is all of us!" Does that include you and inter, or are you two exempt?

----------


## Bros

Be nice to each others otherwise I might have to get out my Heckler & Koch

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Be nice to each others otherwise I might have to get out my Heckler & Koch

  lol

----------


## Rod Dyson

> You and inter clearly don't understand heckling:   
> You asked for us all to stop heckling and to get back on topic. There have been 2 on-topic posts with no intelligent discussion and every other post has been heckling, including your own. If you want civil discussion you have to be part of it. You are not the major heckler around here but you did say "That is all of us!" Does that include you and inter, or are you two exempt?

  it would be a lot easier if you answered the question.

----------


## John2b

*Climate changes amid the blaming game*  

> I propose an amnesty on those still engaged in the divisive name-calling and facile arguments. Even though some people are still clinging to the drama of this ridiculously one-sided "debate", the atmosphere isn't. It's going to keep getting hotter until we do something about it.The unfolding consequences of a few degrees of temperature change are the reason I think it's time to move on from the "climate change debate", as it's been portrayed. I believe the public has a broad understanding of the issue and wants to have a mature conversation about what comes next – impacts, adaption and solutions.

   http://www.theage.com.au/comment/cli...06-12irt2.html

----------


## woodbe

> it would be a lot easier if you answered the question.

  It would be a lot easier, and a lot more civil if you discussed with me what part of my answer didn't answer your question. 
Try and be civil.  :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *Climate changes amid the blaming game*   Climate changes amid the blaming game

  
That's far too sensible a PoV to get any traction...

----------


## John2b

*2014 has set a new temperature record. So can we please stop claiming global warming has “stopped”?*    2014 may set a new temperature record. So can we please stop claiming global warming has “stopped”? - The Washington Post  *The Five Warmest Years have all been since 1998 (Anomalies):**1st.* 2014(+0.27°C), *2nd.* 1998(+0.22°C), *3rd.* 2013,2010(+0.20°C), *5th.* 2005(+0.17°C)  http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/pro...p/ann_wld.html

----------


## johnc

Every time you look at that graph you have to wonder at the level of stupidity required to claim warming stopped in 1998, breathtakingly dim isn't it.

----------


## John2b

> Every time you look at that graph you have to wonder at the level of stupidity required to claim warming stopped in 1998, breathtakingly dim isn't it.

  Maybe the obviousness of reality is why many of the world’s top PR companies have recently publicly ruled out working with climate change deniers. The companies include WPP, Waggener Edstrom (WE) Worldwide, Weber Shandwick, Text100, and Finn Partners.
“We would not knowingly partner with a client who denies the existence of climate change,” said Rhian Rotz, spokesman for WE.  
Weber Shandwick would also not take any campaign to block regulations cutting carbon emissions or promoting renewable energy. “We would not support a campaign that denies the existence and the threat posed by climate change, or efforts to obstruct regulations cutting greenhouse gas emissions and/or renewable energy standards,” spokeswoman Michelle Selesky said. “There may be scenarios in which we could represent a client that has different views on climate change, just not on this issue.” 
The UK-based WPP, the world’s largest advertising firm by revenue and parent company of Burson Marsteller and Oglivy Public Relations, said taking on a client or campaign disputing climate change would violate company guidelines. “We ensure that our own work complies with local laws, marketing codes and our own code of business conduct. These prevent advertising that is intended to mislead and the denial of climate change would fall into this category,” the company said.  World's top PR companies rule out working with climate deniers | Environment | The Guardian

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Maybe the obviousness of reality is why many of the world’s top PR companies have recently publicly ruled out working with climate change deniers. The companies include WPP, Waggener Edstrom (WE) Worldwide, Weber Shandwick, Text100, and Finn Partners.
> “We would not knowingly partner with a client who denies the existence of climate change,” said Rhian Rotz, spokesman for WE.  
> Weber Shandwick would also not take any campaign to block regulations cutting carbon emissions or promoting renewable energy. “We would not support a campaign that denies the existence and the threat posed by climate change, or efforts to obstruct regulations cutting greenhouse gas emissions and/or renewable energy standards,” spokeswoman Michelle Selesky said. “There may be scenarios in which we could represent a client that has different views on climate change, just not on this issue.” 
> The UK-based WPP, the world’s largest advertising firm by revenue and parent company of Burson Marsteller and Oglivy Public Relations, said taking on a client or campaign disputing climate change would violate company guidelines. “We ensure that our own work complies with local laws, marketing codes and our own code of business conduct. These prevent advertising that is intended to mislead and the denial of climate change would fall into this category,” the company said.  World's top PR companies rule out working with climate deniers | Environment | The Guardian

  
What complete fools

----------


## woodbe

> What complete fools

  What, people who stand by their principles are fools? They don't seem to be suffering if they are the worlds largest PR company.

----------


## johnc

> What complete fools

  Seems perfectly reasonable, who wants to work with complete morons, lying morons in many cases.

----------


## John2b

> Seems perfectly reasonable, who wants to work with complete morons, lying morons in many cases.

  Reason and dogma are strange bedfellows LOL.   

> How about getting back on topic (or close there to) rather than this school boy heckling.

   

> What complete fools

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> What complete fools

  Not really.  They are PR & advertising companies.  This is a PR based decision.  They can't make any other sort of decision.  Therefore, they probably didn't have any climate denial clients in the first place,  Given that knowledge...their decision has almost certainly cost them precisely nothing in income and may in fact earn them some cash as a result of the publicity. Companies that don't want to be seen as 'denialist' (like every resource and oil company that one cares to name) may throw some business their way to maintain or improve that perception...both service provider and their client wins 
That's how PR works.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Just to try and bring this back to basics and simply as a result of hunting some words for inspiration on some other work I'm doing I thought I'd link to a US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration page for their Earth System Research Laboratory which has put together a usefully simplified look at the carbon cycle and why CO2 is actually a rather important thing in this climate debate and not a complete crock.  ESRL Integrating Research and Technology Theme: Carbon Cycle Science 
Not that I expect it to even scratch the armour of our friends and colleagues here...

----------


## Rod Dyson

if you call that heckling then lets get back to heckling again!!

----------


## John2b

> if you call that heckling then lets get back to heckling again!!

  What about the "getting back on topic" sentiment which you expressed, but seems to be absent in your posts.

----------


## woodbe

> if you call that heckling then lets get back to heckling again!!

  So not willing to discuss?  
You do know this is a DISCUSSION forum? I think you are doing yourself bad PR lol.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> if you call that heckling then lets get back to heckling again!!

  If you want to waste your intellect then feel free.

----------


## Rod Dyson

The sun driving climate????  Who wouldaa thunk That??  Crazy??  Only CO2 can drive climate!!  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/09/two-new-papers-suggest-solar-activity-is-a-climate-pacemaker/

----------


## John2b

> The sun driving climate????

  
Earth is currently experiencing a solar minimum. If the sun was solely driving the climate, why isn't the current surface temperature at a minimum instead of at a maximum? 
BTW the "paper" isn't a paper (it isn't peer reviewed) but rather preliminary findings of research (of which there is ONE body of research, not two, another WUWT mistruth) and refutes nothing about AGW theory. The authors are just finessing what is already known FFS and providing insight to what drives El Nino / La Nina cycles.  If the case for AGW is so weak, why is it that the "skeptics" of AGW find it necessary to make so many claims that are easily shown to be false, not backed up by data, unsubstantiated or just plain wrong? Why not use facts?  The research finds a possible mechanism for climate change to precede in "steps" rather than continuously. Who wouldaa thunk That?? Crazy??

----------


## John2b

*Professor Steven Sherwood, ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science:*We face a problem that could be addressed with relatively minor shared sacrifices, but instead there is a mass effort to ignore, defer, deny, and lie. Knowing that it will fall mostly on our own children, and their kids. On the part of people  of a generation  who are farther from hardship than almost any in history. Global warming doesnt bother me as much as what it is revealing about humans.   http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellyoakes/h...nge#.ngJkoABRy   *The economic damage inflicted by climate change could be six times worse than previously thought, US scientists have warned.* The US government takes climate policy decisions on the basis emitting one tonne of carbon dioxide incurs US$37 of social costs. In a study published in Nature Climate Change, researchers from Stanford University reached a figure of US$220 a tonne. http://www.rtcc.org/2015/01/12/social-cost-of-carbon-six-times-higher-than-thought-study/#sthash.89uBsGxQ.dpuf

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *Professor Steven Sherwood, ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science:*We face a problem that could be addressed with relatively minor shared sacrifices, but instead there is a mass effort to ignore, defer, deny, and lie. Knowing that it will fall mostly on our own children, and their kids. On the part of people – of a generation – who are farther from hardship than almost any in history. Global warming doesn’t bother me as much as what it is revealing about humans.   http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellyoakes/h...nge#.ngJkoABRy   *The economic damage inflicted by climate change could be six times worse than previously thought, US scientists have warned.* The US government takes climate policy decisions on the basis emitting one tonne of carbon dioxide incurs US$37 of social costs. In a study published in Nature Climate Change, researchers from Stanford University reached a figure of US$220 a tonne. http://www.rtcc.org/2015/01/12/social-cost-of-carbon-six-times-higher-than-thought-study/#sthash.89uBsGxQ.dpuf

  Yeah it also bothers me what it reveals about humans!!

----------


## John2b

> Yeah it also bothers me what it reveals about humans!!

  What's this - a moment of introspection? Or you just didn't get the significance of what he was saying...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> What's this - a moment of introspection? Or you just didn't get the significance of what he was saying...

  Oh I get his significance.  Do you get mine?

----------


## John2b

Talking about significance, here two facts of significance: 
2014 marks only the latest in a string of years with record-breaking heat. It has been 358 months since we had a cooler-than-average month, and the fifteen hottest years on record have all come since 1997. 
We belong to the first generation a position to eliminate poverty, and the last generation that will live in times of relative climate stability.  End of Year: 2014 is Hottest Year Ever & Most Active Year for Climate Action | Climate Nexus

----------


## John2b

*Deniers are not Skeptics*The mission of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry was launched in 1976 to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. The Committee recently lobbied the media to stop using the term "skeptic" inappropriately in cases of climate science denial:   

> As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is “denial.” 
> Public discussion of scientific topics such as global warming is confused by misuse of the term “skeptic.”  Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.

  Press Releases - CSI

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *deniers are not skeptics*the mission of the committee for skeptical inquiry was launched in 1976 to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. The committee recently lobbied the media to stop using the term "skeptic" inappropriately in cases of climate science denial:    press releases - csi

  garbage

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Talking about significance, here two facts of significance: 
> 2014 marks only the latest in a string of years with record-breaking heat. It has been 358 months since we had a cooler-than-average month, and the fifteen hottest years on record have all come since 1997. 
> We belong to the first generation a position to eliminate poverty, and the last generation that will live in times of relative climate stability.  End of Year: 2014 is Hottest Year Ever & Most Active Year for Climate Action | Climate Nexus

  Yes it is all about wealth re-distribution

----------


## woodbe

> garbage

  Hmm. Very intelligent response. 
Rod, can you point out any deniers who are genuine skeptics? 
We haven't had any post here, maybe you know some?

----------


## woodbe

> Yes it is all about wealth re-distribution

  Or perhaps deniers who do not cling to conspiracy theories?

----------


## John2b

> Yes it is all about wealth re-distribution

  Someone is seriously deluded. The same someone who has defended burning fossil fuel because it "lifts people out of poverty" is now saying preventing climate change is about wealth redistribution! And the CSI was formed in 1976 when you lot say climate scientists were warning of global cooling. WTF???

----------


## johnc

Wealth distribution implies economies have a finite amount of money and one has to loose for another to gain. This is quite untrue GDP growth is economic expansion and that increases the amount of cash in the economy but to lift people out of poverty we need to make sure the poorest get some of the gain which is why we need policy. Rod thinks he understands but go easy on him, he's just another individual who jumps on a concept with no understanding of why he follows the ideas of others that he then repeats with big gaps.

----------


## John2b

> Rod thinks he understands but go easy on him, he's just another individual who jumps on a concept with no understanding of why he follows the ideas of others that he then repeats with big gaps.

  Just the odd gap wide enough for a few billion people to fall through...   

> What is the problem pointing out that India has an impoverished population and that their government sees coal fired power as a means to lift people out of poverty?

  The problem is that India and its government does not think coal fired power is going to lift its people out of poverty at all. Most of the people living without electricity in India are nowhere near a grid connection and only renewables are going to lift them out of poverty.  Ministry of New and Renewable Energy - Off-Grid Power

----------


## Hoff

> Just the odd gap wide enough for a few billion people to fall through...   
> The problem is that India and its government does not think coal fired power is going to lift its people out of poverty at all. Most of the people living without electricity in India are nowhere near a grid connection and only renewables are going to lift them out of poverty.  Ministry of New and Renewable Energy - Off-Grid Power

  While coal consumption increases by 300% out to 2030.   Thermal Power Plants - Emissions and Health Impacts of India's Coal Expansion

----------


## John2b

> While coal consumption increases by 300% out to 2030.

  The projected increase in coal fire electricity in India will do nothing to improve the lives of the 300 million + people living in poverty in rural areas off the electricity grid. 
And why wouldn't India's middle class want to use energy profligately like Australians who emit >10 times the CO2 per capita of their Indian counterparts, yet refuse to act on climate change? 
Australia could certainly learn a few things from India about clean energy policy: 
"Indias National Action Plan on Climate Change, drafted by a special government council, has set a target of generating 15 percent of its domestic power from renewable energy sources by 2020, and Prime Minister Modi has reportedly called for harnessing hydropower, solar energy, biomass and wind power, to bring about an energy revolution in the country."  Narendra Modi Government To Raise $25B For Green Energy Funds: Report 
"The India GHG Program acts as a Center of Excellence by disseminating regional, sectorial and global best practices to create a culture of inventorisation and benchmarking of GHG emissions in India."  India GHG Program | Promoting profitable, sustainable and competitive business

----------


## John2b

> garbage

  "Thus, as a scientist who has published in the peer-reviewed climate science literature, I find it really upsetting and disturbing to hear the smear campaign by right-wing climate deniers that scientists are “in a big conspiracy”, that we are creating a “hoax”  to make big money from government grants. Not only is this bizarrely untrue, but it angers me that people call me and my colleagues liars and frauds, yet they don’t know the first thing about how science works, or what scientists really do and what motivates them."   

> Yes it is all about wealth re-distribution

  "Even more bizarre is that false notion that the alarms over global climate change is some sort of “left-wing conspiracy” to foist Big Government on us. In fact, scientists come in every political color and stripe, but most try to rigorously exclude politics from their science."  Skepticblog Â» the pot calling the kettle black

----------


## John2b

NOAA's global summary for 2014:  The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880. This also marks the 38th consecutive year (since 1977) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Including 2014, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 135-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. 1998 currently ranks as the fourth warmest year on record.The 2014 global average ocean temperature was also record high, breaking the previous records of 1998 and 2003. Notably, ENSO-neutral conditions were present during all of 2014.The 2014 global average land surface temperature was the fourth highest annual value on record. Global Analysis - Annual 2014 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

----------


## John2b

It's official. There has NOT been a "global warming pause".

----------


## woodbe

It's been 'official' for years. If you have genuine interest in the climate you wouldn't focus on short term trends.

----------


## woodbe

New York Times Puts AGW Above The Fold, But   Greg Laden's Blog 
And Time calls it like it is:  Climate Change Deniers Have a Very Bad Day 
I think we told you 'skeptics' that focussing on 1998 was a bad plan but you didn't listen. Perhaps you still won't listen. What year are you going to pick next?

----------


## johnc

There is I'm afraid no limit to stupid, it is infinite, they'll find something.

----------


## John2b

> There is I'm afraid no limit to stupid, it is infinite, they'll find something.

  "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."  
Read more: Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. by Albert Einstein

----------


## John2b

So the Abbott "government"* has #fixed# climate change by removing references to climate change on the CSIRO website. Deniers everywhere, and especially on this forum, will be delighted! 
Meanwhile, the planet continues to heat up, and disruptive climate change affects almost everyone, everywhere, whether believer, denier or agnostic.  The CSIRO and the missing climate change data - » The Australian Independent Media Network 
*OXYMORON ALARM - to what extent is the Abbott government 'governing'? What metric shows the Abbott government has been successful in implementing any "policy" since election?

----------


## Random Username

Can we leave Tony Abbott out of this, please.  He's still finding it hard to come to terms with the fact that no-one in Australia shares his vision of a glorious US-style medical insurance scheme for Australia (like America’s *before* Obama started messing with it, that is).

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So the Abbott "government"* has #fixed# climate change by removing references to climate change on the CSIRO website. Deniers everywhere, and especially on this forum, will be delighted! 
> Meanwhile, the planet continues to heat up, and disruptive climate change affects almost everyone, everywhere, whether believer, denier or agnostic.  The CSIRO and the missing climate change data - » The Australian Independent Media Network 
> *OXYMORON ALARM - to what extent is the Abbott government 'governing'? What metric shows the Abbott government has been successful in implementing any "policy" since election?

  The least he does about " global warming hmm no, dangerous  ah no, catastrophic, ah no, runaway hmm not even, ahh now its disruptive climate change"  the better.

----------


## John2b

> The least he does about ... the better.

  Agreed. It would be better if Abbott and his government stopped forcing government agencies to redact and/or deny what those agencies know is actually happening.

----------


## PhilT2

> The least he does about " global warming hmm no, dangerous  ah no, catastrophic, ah no, runaway hmm not even, ahh now its disruptive climate change"  the better.

  Expect some policy changes after the Qld election. The LNP will win but the swing against them will be large. The federal liberal backbenchers are already in a panic and Abbotts popularity was down to levels that even Gillard never reached. More backflips are on the way.

----------


## johnc

I think Tony may need to start wearing a Ned Kelly suit, before the knives come out, he seems almost as bad as Rudd, I would expect the Liberals are working out the spin when they bring in a new leader given the silly unelected line he ran on Julia when Kevin was deposed. How do you counteract stupid, we may be about to find out and hopefully they will dump a few dopes like Pyne and Hockey at the same time.

----------


## John2b

Burning of coal for thermal power plants is down in both of the world's biggest coal consumers as they switch to cheaper and more efficient electricity generation.   

> For the first time since 1993, coal production in the U.S. fell below 1 billion short tons in 2013, down to about 985 million tons in 2013 from 1.01 billion in 2012.

  Coal Declines in U.S. But Grows Internationally - Scientific American  
Meanwhile in China, 32% of electricity generation was from renewable sources in 2014.   

> China’s overall 2014 electricity-market numbers have just been released, and they bear out our assertions that the Chinese government is serious about bringing more clean energy online and on curbing the country’s appetite for coal.

  Chinaâ€™s Numbers Show Renewables Gaining on Fossil Fuels : Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis

----------


## intertd6

> What, people who stand by their principles are fools? They don't seem to be suffering if they are the worlds largest PR company.

  The greater fools are the ones thinking that a PR company has anything but a gimmick in mind to get free headlines in the press worldwide!

----------


## John2b

> The greater fools are the ones thinking that a PR company has anything but a gimmick in mind to get free headlines in the press worldwide!

  Welcome back Inter. Had you ever considered that to get to be the biggest PR company in the world they actually had to satisfy client's requirements? And what free headlines are you referring to anyway?

----------


## intertd6

> "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."  
> Read more: Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. by Albert Einstein

  Your a couple of years too late, it's already been used in this debate to describe your lot. Still nothing new as per usual

----------


## woodbe

lol. Mr 1998 is back  :Smilie:  
Nice holiday, inter98?

----------


## johnc

> Your a couple of years too late, it's already been used in this debate to describe your lot. Still nothing new as per usual

  Try You're (you are), the second your is correct though. Nice holiday?

----------


## intertd6

> Try You're (you are), the second your is correct though. Nice holiday?

  thats the first thing yourve gotten right since posting on this debate!

----------


## intertd6

> It's official. There has NOT been a "global warming pause".

  You still don't know when 1998 was we see!

----------


## intertd6

> Welcome back Inter. Had you ever considered that to get to be the biggest PR company in the world they actually had to satisfy client's requirements? And what free headlines are you referring to anyway?

  its funny how PR / propaganda attracts & traps the weak minded!

----------


## John2b

> You still don't know when 1998 was we see!

  1998 was the fourth hottest year after 2005, 2010 and 2014 which were hotter. 1998 was an outlier year, but still didn't break the trend in using temperatures as the graph shows. with a piecewise linear break at 1998 (solid red line). That is not surprising since fourteen of the fifteen hottest years in the recorded temperature record have occurred after 1998.  NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record | NASA 
Here's a bigger version for the visually challenged. The break at 1998 is clearly visible as is the lack of a _significant_ change in red.

----------


## intertd6

> 1998 was the fourth hottest year after 2005, 2010 and 2014 which were hotter. 1998 was an outlier year, but still didn't break the trend in using temperatures as the graph shows. with a piecewise linear break at 1998 (solid red line). That is not surprising since nine of the ten hottest years in the recorded temperature record have occurred after 2000.  NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record | NASA 
> Here's a bigger version for the visually challenged. The break at 1998 is clearly visible as is the lack of a _significant_ change in red.

  it must be one of those graphs of convenience that shows a 0.7'C increase in global warming since 1970, when the recognised increase is 0.8'C since 1880! A real clone catcher! And nothing even resembling your posted graphs starting in 1998

----------


## John2b

A graph of 1880 to 2014. See how far _above_ trend it has been since 1998:

----------


## woodbe

> And nothing even resembling your posted graphs starting in 1998

  Because all we want to know about or care about is 1998. lol. 
1998 is over inter98. It's significance has been diminished by 2014.  
You reckon you did applied science, that would have included a level of statistics. You understand that in a large complex system a long term trend is more significant than short term variability, right?

----------


## johnc

> Because all we want to know about or care about is 1998. lol. 
> 1998 is over inter98. It's significance has been diminished by 2014.  
> You reckon you did applied science, that would have included a level of statistics. You understand that in a large complex system a long term trend is more significant than short term variability, right?

  
 Inter98 can't have possibly completed a degree in applied science and post the rubbish responses he does without realising you are fibbing.

----------


## John2b

> You still don't know when 1998 was we see!

  "The reaction of the “pausemaniacs” to the record hottest year has mostly been protest. Breakin’ some temperature record just don’t mean a gosh-darn thing worth payin’ no attention to. It only broke the record by a _little_ bit. And besides, it ain’t the individual years, record hot or not, that count, it’s the _pause_ that counts — a record hottest year don’t end the pause!" 
The "pause" that didn't happen LOL.  *It’s the Trend, Stupid*   https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/01...rend-stupid-3/

----------


## John2b

> 1998 is over inter98. It's significance has been diminished by 2014.

  Rigorous statistical analysis shows that whether 2014 set a new record or not makes no difference. The hottest-on-record for 2014 will dampen the enthusiasm of claims for “No global warming since [insert start time here]. 
The actual evidence subjected to rigorous statistical analysis, shows no slowdown, not even close! There is no possibly statistically significant slowdown regardless of which of the 8 data sets from GISS, NOAA, HadCRUT4, Cowtan & Way, CRUTEM4, BEST,  UAH and RSS is chosen, for any possible start date from 1990 to 2008, even without 2014's data. 
Those who insist there definitely has been a “pause” or “hiatus” in temperature increase are making claims despite a lack of statistical evidence.  https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12...about-to-soar/

----------


## John2b

The news last week from NOAA and NASA was that 2014 was the hottest year on record, breaking the highs of 2005 and 2010.   

> But the bigger story got buried: Global warming has continued unabated in recent years.
> Indeed, it’s not just that there not been a hiatus or pause or even slowdown in surface temperature warming (see below). The oceans, where the vast majority of human-caused global warming heat goes, have seen an acceleration in warming in recent years. As climate expert Prof. John Abraham writes in the UK Guardian, “The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists’ charts.”

  'Hottest Year' Story Obscures Bigger News: Ocean Warming Now Off The Charts | ThinkProgress

----------


## intertd6

> A graph of 1880 to 2014. See how far _above_ trend it has been since 1998:

  thanks for another graph showing warming stalled since 1998, those that aren't clones just naturally disregard the PR & propaganda spiel of the indiscernible 0.02'C that the clones think is somehow is significant!

----------


## intertd6

> Inter98 can't have possibly completed a degree in applied science and post the rubbish responses he does without realising you are fibbing.

  its nice of you to go that extra step to prove how wrong you can get it, no matter what the subject!

----------


## John2b

> thanks for another graph showing warming stalled since 1998, those that aren't clones just naturally disregard the PR & propaganda spiel of the indiscernible 0.02'C that the clones think is somehow is significant!

   

> *And* *it’s the trend that’s the real issue, not the fluctuations which happen all the time. 
> After all, if you noticed one chilly spring day that all that week it had been colder than the previous week, you wouldn’t announce “No more summer on the way! No more seasons since [insert start time here]!!!” 
> You’d know that in spite of such short-term fluctuations, the trend (the march of the seasons) will continue unabated. You wouldn’t even consider believing it had stopped without some strong evidence. 
> You certainly wouldn’t believe it based on weak evidence, and if the evidence is far too weak …*

  https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12...about-to-soar/

----------


## intertd6

> The news last week from NOAA and NASA was that 2014 was the hottest year on record, breaking the highs of 2005 and 2010.    'Hottest Year' Story Obscures Bigger News: Ocean Warming Now Off The Charts | ThinkProgress

  it is truly mind boggling how anybody can't see the flaws in the above, even more mind boggling is why anybody would attempt to post it again when those flaws were pointed out the last time!

----------


## John2b

> it is truly mind boggling how anybody can't see the flaws in the above

  What flaws? Can you point out the were the claims are shown to be false by other scientific organisations? Have your written to NOAA and NASA to correct their work, since you know something they have overlooked?

----------


## intertd6

> Rigorous statistical analysis shows that whether 2014 set a new record or not makes no difference. The hottest-on-record for 2014 will dampen the enthusiasm of claims for “No global warming since [insert start time here]. 
> The actual evidence subjected to rigorous statistical analysis, shows no slowdown, not even close! There is no possibly statistically significant slowdown regardless of which of the 8 data sets from GISS, NOAA, HadCRUT4, Cowtan & Way, CRUTEM4, BEST,  UAH and RSS is chosen, for any possible start date from 1990 to 2008, even without 2014's data. 
> Those who insist there definitely has been a “pause” or “hiatus” in temperature increase are making claims despite a lack of statistical evidence.  https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12...about-to-soar/

  Only a clone could get wrapped up in individualistic statistics without taking into consideration the fact that CO2 emissions have been increasing at an ever increasing rate, which just proves how silly the idea of the intimate connection of the two really are, but we already know this from past history!

----------


## intertd6

> What flaws? Can you point out the were the claims are shown to be false by other scientific organisations? Have your written to NOAA and NASA to correct their work, since you know something they have overlooked?

  Why aren't the continents heating up? Or doesn't the sun shine over land anymore?

----------


## Bros

We'll all be rooned said hanrahan we'll all be rooned.

----------


## John2b

> Why aren't the continents heating up? Or doesn't the sun shine over land anymore?

  All of the surface temperature records show the continents are heating up, so your question is nonsensical. 
The only pause in temperature records is in the satellite data, but satellites do not measure temperature. Satellites measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature, but it is the inferred temperature of a column of air many kilometres high, not the surface temperature. 
But even statistically analysing the satellite data it is impossible to conclude that there has been any change in trend, which was shown in this post down the page here: #13555 Follow the link in the post for the details of trend change analysis and why the certainty there has been no change in trend is so incredibly high.

----------


## John2b

> (Insults redacted) CO2 emissions have been increasing at an ever increasing rate, which just proves how silly the idea of the intimate connection of the two really are, but we already know this from past history!

  Then you have some explaining to do as to why a review of 490 published proxy records of CO2 spanning the Ordovician to Neogene with records of global cool events to evaluate the strength of CO2-temperature coupling over the Phanerozoic (last 542 million years) show that   

> A pervasive, tight correlation between CO2 and temperature is found both at coarse (10 my timescales) and fine resolutions up to the temporal limits of the data set (million-year timescales), indicating that CO2, operating in combination with many other factors such as solar luminosity and paleogeography, has imparted strong control over global temperatures for much of the Phanerozoic.

   In other words, the far historical proxy temperature records do not preclude or contradict the current CO2 induced AGW warming.  CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic

----------


## intertd6

> Then you have some explaining to do as to why a review of 490 published proxy records of CO2 spanning the Ordovician to Neogene with records of global cool events to evaluate the strength of CO2-temperature coupling over the Phanerozoic (last 542 million years) show that   In other words, the far historical proxy temperature records do not preclude or contradict the current CO2 induced AGW warming.  CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic

  Still can't read & understand the provided literature we see! Just like the last couple of times your proof was shot down, the theory is about cooling phases, also your story doesn't provide the proof that CO2 drove the temperature, just associated with the cooling phases which can mean preceding or succeeding. Nothing about  driving heating phases! further understanding of the data of glacial periods shows that CO2 rises after glacial temperature increases! Try again!

----------


## intertd6

> All of the surface temperature records show the continents are heating up, so your question is nonsensical. 
> The only pause in temperature records is in the satellite data, but satellites do not measure temperature. Satellites measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature, but it is the inferred temperature of a column of air many kilometres high, not the surface temperature. 
> But even statistically analysing the satellite data it is impossible to conclude that there has been any change in trend, which was shown in this post down the page here: #13555 Follow the link in the post for the details of trend change analysis and why the certainty there has been no change in trend is so incredibly high.

  the trend since 1998 is basically flat, just like you have shown in the data provided by you & your clones!

----------


## John2b

> further understanding of the data of glacial periods shows that CO2 rises after glacial temperature increases!

  So what? That does not disprove the current climate physics.

----------


## intertd6

> All of the surface temperature records show the continents are heating up, so your question is nonsensical. 
> The only pause in temperature records is in the satellite data, but satellites do not measure temperature. Satellites measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature, but it is the inferred temperature of a column of air many kilometres high, not the surface temperature. 
> But even statistically analysing the satellite data it is impossible to conclude that there has been any change in trend, which was shown in this post down the page here: #13555 Follow the link in the post for the details of trend change analysis and why the certainty there has been no change in trend is so incredibly high.

  That in no way explains why there is only a 2.1% uptake of the global warming energy to the continents, yet 93.4% is somehow being diverted to the oceans! beyond absurd is an understatement of how ridiculous it is!

----------


## John2b

> the trend since 1998 is basically flat, just like you have shown in the data provided by you & your clones!

  Do you know what a trend is? This trend line on this graph is the solid red line. The graph shows what happens to the *trend* if you add a break point at your magic 1998. Which bit of the trend is flat?

----------


## intertd6

> So what? That does not disprove the current climate physics.

  you have just been flogged on numerous theories, I suppose it's just natural to run to another that's been flogged thinking that everyone is silly enough to chase that red herring again!

----------


## John2b

> That in no way explains why there is only a 2.1% uptake of the global warming energy to the continents, yet 93.4% is somehow being diverted to the oceans! beyond absurd is an understatement of how ridiculous it is!

  It has been explained before. The oceans cover more than 75% of the surface. The oceans have the lowest albedo and absorb considerably more of the incident radiation. The oceans only rise minutely in temperature diurnally and therefore don't lose the heat absorbed during the day overnight like land masses do. Heat also migrates from land to sea overnight transported by the atmosphere.

----------


## John2b

> you have just been flogged on numerous theories,

  Inter98 no one, including yourself, has provided any disproof of any of my posts, despite being asked hundreds of times. I don't know why you claim you have. What you have mostly done is make a lot of nonsensical and unsupported claims. On the few occasions you have provided links to support your argument the links have not done so, but have contradicted your postulations, and was pointed out at those times.

----------


## johnc

> its nice of you to go that extra step to prove how wrong you can get it, no matter what the subject!

  If its true then it's an example of an education wasted.

----------


## johnc

> Inter98 no one, including yourself, has provided any disproof of any of my posts, despite being asked hundreds of times. I don't know why you claim you have. All you have done is make a lot of nonsensical and unsupported claims. On the few occasions you have provided links to support your argument, the links have not done so, but have contradicted your claims, as was pointed out at the times.

  He has from the start been hot air, no substance, no ethics just wind.

----------


## woodbe

Good grief.   

> the trend since 1998 is basically flat, just like you have shown in the data provided by you & your clones!

  You still concentrating on your broken 1998 lol.   

> Because all we want to know about or care about is 1998. lol. 
> 1998 is over inter98. It's significance has been diminished by 2014.  
> You reckon you did applied science, that would have included a level of  statistics. You understand that in a large complex system a long term  trend is more significant than short term variability, right?

----------


## intertd6

> Do you know what a trend is? This trend line on this graph is the solid red line. The graph shows what happens to the *trend* if you add a break point at your magic 1998. Which bit of the trend is flat?

  I wasn't referring to that data of convenience,  which coincidentally is totally different to your previous data which shows no significant warming since 1998, a break in a trend line starting in 1970 to 1998 or to 2013 just shows you don't know what your talking about, that isn't a trend starting in 1998 for the period to 2013!

----------


## woodbe

> that isn't a trend starting in 1998 for the period to 2013!

  Correct. Because the trend we are dealing with is a long term trend. Why would we bother about short term variability? The only reason would be so we can deny the long term trend.  
Convenient that you left off 2014 haha.

----------


## intertd6

> Inter98 no one, including yourself, has provided any disproof of any of my posts, despite being asked hundreds of times. I don't know why you claim you have. What you have mostly done is make a lot of nonsensical and unsupported claims. On the few occasions you have provided links to support your argument the links have not done so, but have contradicted your postulations, and was pointed out at those times.

  Just not like post #13567 then ! Too funny!

----------


## intertd6

> Correct. Because the trend we are dealing with is a long term trend. Why would we bother about short term variability? The only reason would be so we can deny the long term trend.  
> Convenient that you left off 2014 haha.

  ha ha! That's because that graph didn't go to 2014! Now that's bright! Really how far does one have to go to prove they have all the hallmarks of a serial arguer!

----------


## woodbe

Taking the cherry picked lead from inter98, I think we should consider the trend from 2008 to 2014:   
There has been no pause since 2008. LOL.

----------


## woodbe

> ha ha! That's because that graph didn't go to 2014! Now that's bright!

  Someone is showing their lack of bright:   
Fail...

----------


## John2b

> I wasn't referring to that data of convenience,  which coincidentally is totally different to your previous data which shows no significant warming since 1998

  I have never seen any data that shows not significant warming since 1998. This is an opportune time for you to produce some...   

> a break in a trend line starting in 1970 to 1998 or to 2013 just shows you don't know what your talking about, that isn't a trend starting in 1998 for the period to 2013!

  In case you didn't realise, climate did not start in 1998. 
The real question is: has the warming rate changed since about 1970 when it took on its rapid value? The proper null hypothesis is: the warming rate (the trend, not the fluctuations) is the same after our choice of start year as it was before (basically, since 1970). Only if it can contradict that null hypothesis is there valid evidence of a slowdown. All possible “start of trend change” years from 1990 through 2008, computed with the best-fit statistical model that includes a change in trend starting at that time show no “statistically significant” change in trend. 
Don't believe me? Just look how the trend predicted from pre-1998 data has panned out:

----------


## intertd6

> He has from the start been hot air, no substance, no ethics just wind.

  spoken only like only a true clone could! Pity you couldn't come through providing the proof asked for instead of your self description!

----------


## John2b

> Just not like post #13567 then ! Too funny!

  You are refuting 490 papers that you have not read?

----------


## woodbe

> You are refuting 490 papers that you have not read?

  Of course he is. None of those papers ignored the climate before 1998.

----------


## intertd6

> Someone is showing their lack of bright:   
> Fail...

   
 Originally Posted by intertd6  
that isn't a trend starting in 1998 for the period to 2013!   
thats not where the trend in the graph went to, it was 2013, it's written in plain English on the right of the graph!

----------


## intertd6

> You are refuting 490 papers that you have not read?

  im refuting your wild interpretation of something totally irrelevant which you are attempting to use as evidence that CO2 is intimately linked to driving global warming! My post clearly explains that!

----------


## woodbe

> thats not where the trend in the graph went to, it was 2013, it's written in plain English on the right of the graph!

  It says 2014 is almost exactly on trend. 2014 is on the plot and it is clearly 'almost exactly on trend'  
I guess you must have your 2014 blanking glasses on.

----------


## John2b

> im refuting your wild interpretation of something totally irrelevant which you are attempting to use as evidence that CO2 is intimately linked to driving global warming! My post clearly explains that!

  Climate conditions under different forcings eons ago is irrelevant and doesn't refute physics or the laws of conservation of energy, it's just climate under different conditions eons ago. It's a safe bet that the laws of physics held then, just as they do now. Under the present conditions anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere has clearly and measurably increased the surface temperature and is continuing to do so. There is at this point in time no other plausible explanation in physics for the recent temperature record, and certainly no point you have raised AFAIAA shows otherwise.

----------


## John2b

> I guess you must have your 2014 blanking glasses on.

  It happens sometimes...

----------


## intertd6

> It says 2014 is almost exactly on trend. 2014 is on the plot and it is clearly 'almost exactly on trend'  
> I guess you must have your 2014 blanking glasses on.

  your almost so close but just quite haven't grasped it yet! the trend is from 1970-2013 as stated on your graph! Best you read the fine print instead of the headlines! keep pushing that door sunshine!

----------


## Bros

I think more than the climate is hotting up so we will call stumps for tonight and play will resume tomorrow.

----------


## John2b

40% of all electricity in 2014 in South Australia came from renewable sources (wind and solar). Two coal fired power stations were decommissioned. And wholesale electricity prices plummeted. 
Imagine the result if Australia still had an effective incentive scheme such as a revenue neutral market based carbon pricing mechanism!  https://robertscribbler.wordpress.co...stralian-grid/

----------


## woodbe

Or even more simple: Imagine if the other states had a consistent and incremental renewable energy policy like we have witnessed in SA - the whole country could be in this position. Instead, there has been constant knee jerking at the state level which scares off long term strategies. Just like we are now seeing at the Federal level.

----------


## intertd6

> Or even more simple: Imagine if the other states had a consistent and incremental renewable energy policy like we have witnessed in SA - the whole country could be in this position. Instead, there has been constant knee jerking at the state level which scares off long term strategies. Just like we are now seeing at the Federal level.

  the rest of the country really doesn't look at SA as anything more than a welfare state, your going to run out of other peoples money sooner rather than later to support hugely subsidised green energy for a state population with a high percentage of no employment. No Cookies | The Advertiser

----------


## woodbe

> the rest of the country really doesn't look at SA as anything more than a welfare state, your going to run out of other peoples money sooner rather than later to support hugely subsidised green energy for a state population with a high percentage of no employment. No Cookies | The Advertiser

  Attacking a state rather that appropriately responding to a valid point is another fail.    LMIP | Labour Market Information Portal

----------


## John2b

> the rest of the country really doesn't look at SA as anything more than a welfare state, your going to run out of other peoples money sooner rather than later to support hugely subsidised green energy for a state population with a high percentage of no employment. No Cookies | The Advertiser

  According to your own link the welfare hogs don't live in South Australia - welfare payments in SA are 20% below the national average. 
Australia's population (June 2014): 23,490,700; SA's population: 1,685,700; in % = 7.2%. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0 
From your link Australia's welfare cost projected for 2015: $139 billion; SA's share: 9 billion; in % = 6.5%. 
SA exports cheap electricity to the benefit of other states. Your state (NSW) has for the past couple of years been buying cheap electricity from SA, in preference to more expensive brown coal electricity from Victoria. It's called the "order of merit" effect.

----------


## intertd6

> According to your own link the welfare hogs don't live in South Australia - welfare payments in SA are 20% below the national average. 
> Australia's population (June 2014): 23,490,700; SA's population: 1,685,700; in % = 7.2%. 3101.0 - Australian Demographic Statistics, Jun 2014 
> From your link Australia's welfare cost projected for 2015: $139 billion; SA's share: 9 billion; in % = 6.5%. 
> SA exports cheap electricity to the benefit of other states. Your state (NSW) has for the past couple of years been buying cheap electricity from SA, in preference to more expensive brown coal electricity from Victoria. It's called the "order of merit" effect.

  You must have a frugal bunch then! 
"Almost 164,000, or 15 per cent of the state's working-age population, receive working-age income support such as Newstart Allowance.  
That is nearly four per cent higher than the national average. About 239,000 receive family benefits and many are middle-income earners.  
On top of this, more than 460,000 health care and concession cards are held by South Australians."

----------


## woodbe

Still no intelligent response to the lost opportunity in the eastern states for generating a significant proportion of their energy from renewables. All we are seeing is fictional ad hominum attacks on a state that has created and followed a long term plan, a plan which is showing results.  
If you want to debate welfare between the states, start a thread for it. This is the Emission Trading thread, remember?

----------


## John2b

> Still no intelligent response...

----------


## intertd6

> Still no intelligent response to the lost opportunity in the eastern states for generating a significant proportion of their energy from renewables. All we are seeing is fictional ad hominum attacks on a state that has created and followed a long term plan, a plan which is showing results.  
> If you want to debate welfare between the states, start a thread for it. This is the Emission Trading thread, remember?

  Making up your own rules again we see! You have a strange perception thinking that a state govt racking up public debt to pay for a utopian dream of renewable energy, that is only producing long term employment & long term debt while draining the nations welfare budget when it needn't be, hasn't anything to do with this debate which is ultimately CO2 & taxes to pay for the stupidity!

----------


## johnc

You didn't point to debt, you pointed to welfare, it's like wrestling with a greasy pig, to slippery to be worth the effort and pig probably likes it.

----------


## woodbe

Getting back on topic.  Grand Opening! The Mojave Solar Project is now officially fully operational | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building 
It's not just SA that has long term plans to reduce the fossil fuel component of it's electricity generation. This new plant in the Mojave uses advanced parabolic trough technology that has made the  280 MegaWatt plant one of the most innovative projects in the US  and the second-largest plant of its kind in the world.  NREL: Concentrating Solar Power Projects - Mojave Solar Project

----------


## intertd6

> You didn't point to debt, you pointed to welfare, it's like wrestling with a greasy pig, to slippery to be worth the effort and pig probably likes it.

  And Understandably so from a serial oinker!

----------


## intertd6

> Getting back on topic.  Grand Opening! The Mojave Solar Project is now officially fully operational | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building 
> It's not just SA that has long term plans to reduce the fossil fuel component of it's electricity generation. This new plant in the Mojave uses advanced parabolic trough technology that has made the  280 MegaWatt plant one of the most innovative projects in the US  and the second-largest plant of its kind in the world.  NREL: Concentrating Solar Power Projects - Mojave Solar Project

  you seem to think that we are against renewable energy, which is not the case! Most normal people are against cheap fossil fuelled energy artificially being made expensive so that they will be conned into thinking that expensive solar & wind renewable energy is cheaper! This simple thing separates the blind clone followers from the sensible.

----------


## John2b

> Most normal people are against cheap fossil fuelled energy artificially being made expensive so that they will be conned into thinking that expensive solar & wind renewable energy is cheaper. (Insults redacted.)

  Australian governments provide over $4 billion per year in subsidies the fossil fuel industry in Australia. Australian coal, oil and gas companies receive $4b in subsidies: report - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  
Thanks Inter98 - It's so nice to have you back. I haven't had so many belly laughs since the ABC stopped broadcasting The Goon Show!

----------


## woodbe

> you seem to think that we are against renewable energy, which is not the case!

  You seem think spewing CO2 into the atmosphere by burning cheap fossil fuel is the way to go because it's a 'harmless gas' Pfft.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Righto Kids...here's the latest climate change projections from CSIRO and BoM and released today by the Federal Government  
Knock yourselves out Home 
Technical report here Technical Report 
and regional reports herehttp://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/publications-library/cluster-reports/ 
Sadly, some of the useful visualisation tools and toys haven't been seen as fit for Australian consumption (perhaps due to being far too obvious or potentially contentious?) but it is way better than nothing at all..

----------


## intertd6

> Australian governments provide over $4 billion per year in subsidies the fossil fuel industry in Australia. Australian coal, oil and gas companies receive $4b in subsidies: report - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  
> Thanks Inter98 - It's so nice to have you back. I haven't had so many belly laughs since the ABC stopped broadcasting The Goon Show!

  Thats irrelevant garbage, the non clones can just look at their electricity bills over the last years to see the cost of electricity has risen while coming out of the same power plants, coming down the same grid system.

----------


## intertd6

> You seem think spewing CO2 into the atmosphere by burning cheap fossil fuel is the way to go because it's a 'harmless gas' Pfft.

  you must produce something more than your ample amount of hot air to prove otherwise, we are all waiting! And it has been many years!

----------


## John2b

> Thats irrelevant garbage, the non clones can just look at their electricity bills over the last years to see the cost of electricity has risen while coming out of the same power plants, coming down the same grid system.

  Looking at your bill doesn't mean you understand the electricity market. According to the federal government network charges account for 51% of the cost of electricity. The grid has had to have its capacity increased to cope with demand, mostly from new air conditioners (installed to cope with our increasing long summer heat waves). 
You can thank people like me who spent their own money on solar panels. Rooftop PV has significantly reduced summer daytime peak load on the grid because each house's excess solar electricity is distributed locally and not through the grid. Without household solar systems, your electricity would be even more expensive. 
Rooftop solar has even caused coal fired power stations to _pay_ to get rid of their electricity - i.e. sell at _negative_ wholesale prices.  Solar has won. Even if coal were free to burn, power stations couldn't compete | Giles Parkinson | Comment is free | The Guardian

----------


## John2b

From the coal-fired power station point of view, you couldn't have a worse competitor, because solar is at its best when the market is at its most profitable.  *RICHARD DENNISS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE*   The price of power - Background Briefing - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## johnc

> And Understandably so from a serial oinker!

  That is positively kind compared to most of your efforts, I feel all warm and gooey inside as a result.

----------


## woodbe

> you must produce something more than your ample amount of hot air to prove otherwise, we are all waiting! And it has been many years!

  Well, you will never ever accept anything that comes from science then. 97%  are agreeing that CO2 is an issue and we need to do something about it.  
Inter98, Mr 3%. You and your handful of stooges think you know better than over a hundred years of research. Publish!

----------


## intertd6

> Well, you will never ever accept anything that comes from science then. 97%  are agreeing that CO2 is an issue and we need to do something about it.  
> Inter98, Mr 3%. You and your handful of stooges think you know better than over a hundred years of research. Publish!

  We see you are utterly confused again, between 97% of a few hundred select scientists that agree that they think global warming is man made & the fact that there are no facts that prove CO2 alone is causing the warming, so far the best the clone camp can do is show that global cooling is associated with low CO2 levels & no evidence that it precedes these events!

----------


## woodbe

> We see you are utterly confused again, between 97% of a few hundred select scientists that agree that they think global warming is man made & the fact that there are no facts that prove CO2 alone is causing the warming

  We see you are trying to wiggle out of your denial of science again. Just admit it. The 97% of scientists who agree we need to do something about CO2 are qualified and publishing climate scientists, and they have repeatedly demonstrated and published their research to support their findings. No surprise that you don't read or understand their work.

----------


## johnc

> We see you are utterly confused again, between 97% of a few hundred select scientists that agree that they think global warming is man made & the fact that there are no facts that prove CO2 alone is causing the warming, so far the best the clone camp can do is show that global cooling is associated with low CO2 levels & no evidence that it precedes these events!

   Just making it up as we go along are we?

----------


## intertd6

> That is positively kind compared to most of your efforts, I feel all warm and gooey inside as a result.

  What myself & everybody else wants are some facts to back up your idealism!

----------


## intertd6

> We see you are trying to wiggle out of your denial of science again. Just admit it. The 97% of scientists who agree we need to do something about CO2 are qualified and publishing climate scientists, and they have repeatedly demonstrated and published their research to support their findings. No surprise that you don't read or understand their work.

  lets see you try & back up your claim that says 97% of scientists agree or believe CO2 is causing global warming?

----------


## woodbe

> lets see you try & back up your claim that says 97% of scientists agree or believe CO2 is causing global warming?

  Correction: 97% of *publishing climate scientists*! Looking for another straw man I see. 
Already posted in this thread, several times. Please try to keep up!

----------


## intertd6

> Just making it up as we go along are we?

  The truth is stranger than fiction for a clone!

----------


## intertd6

> Correction: 97% of *publishing climate scientists*! Looking for another straw man I see. 
> Already posted in this thread, several times. Please try to keep up!

  them too then!

----------


## johnc

I see despite his usual ability to post anything containing a fact he mentions a few hundred climate scientists, even this isn't right nor is it supported by the doubters, although we are back to using the word clone again which is just stupid for "I ain't got nuthin"

----------


## woodbe

> them too then!

  Reading list for you inter98: Reading List in XLSX format 
Not that you would bother reading anything to refute your anti-science views, but just an indication that there is mountains of research you choose to ignore.

----------


## intertd6

> I see despite his usual ability to post anything containing a fact he mentions a few hundred climate scientists, even this isn't right nor is it supported by the doubters, although we are back to using the word clone again which is just stupid for "I ain't got nuthin"

  if you clones want to pay a useless tax on a essential atmospheric gas that's at a relatively low level then I'm afraid its you that has to come up with the proof, all you are doing is proving how much of a leftist cultist warped sense of entitlement & righteousness you have!

----------


## intertd6

> Reading list for you inter98: Reading List in XLSX format 
> Not that you would bother reading anything to refute your anti-science views, but just an indication that there is mountains of research you choose to ignore.

  And there we were thinking you could possibly at least meet the challenge of  
 "Originally Posted by intertd6 
lets see you try & back up your claim that says 97% of ( and that would mean ALL )  scientists agree or believe CO2 is causing global warming? "Including them too"" 
we just can't wait for the endless dribble & waffle that doesn't meet the description of the challenge on this one!

----------


## woodbe

Already posted in this very thread.  
No waffle required from this side, just some reading on yours, something you don't seem to be able to accomplish.

----------


## woodbe

> 97% of (* and that would mean ALL )  scientists* agree or believe CO2 is causing global warming

  Not my claim. I wouldn't expect 97% of all scientists to agree or 'believe' the results of climate science research, just as I woldn't expect 97% of all scientists to accept or 'believe' the results of another field they are not expert in. 
97% refers to qualified publishing climate scientists who happen to accept the results of climate science research. 
Another strawman from inter98, Mr 3%

----------


## intertd6

> Already posted in this very thread.  
> No waffle required from this side, just some reading on yours, something you don't seem to be able to accomplish.

  and it was disproved on this very debate as well, your dribble has started already! The waffle started on your post #13626!

----------


## woodbe

> and it was disproved on this very debate as well

  Published Scientific research has never been disproved in this thread. The way to disprove scientific research is to publish research that shows there is a better hypothesis and theory to fit the known facts. We've been waiting a hundred years for the basics of climate science and CO2 to be disproven but it hasn't happened yet. Now, someone who denies science claims it has been disproven on an internet forum. lol. 
Please link the original published scientific paper and the published scientific paper that disproves all of climate science as it stands today.

----------


## intertd6

> Not my claim. I wouldn't expect 97% of all scientists to agree or 'believe' the results of climate science research, just as I woldn't expect 97% of all scientists to accept or 'believe' the results of another field they are not expert in. 
> 97% refers to qualified publishing climate scientists who happen to accept the results of climate science research. 
> Another strawman from inter98, Mr 3%

  still evading such a simple challenge we see & can't even quote a quote accurately
 "Originally Posted by intertd6 lets see you try & back up your claim that says 97% of ( and that would mean ALL ) scientists agree or believe CO2 is causing global warming? "*Including them too"" * Those other scientists must have gone to lessor universities where they didn't teach anything about CO2, the poor uneducated souls, may they not burn up in the oncoming CO2 holocaust!

----------


## intertd6

> Published Scientific research has never been disproved in this thread. The way to disprove scientific research is to publish research that shows there is a better hypothesis and theory to fit the known facts. We've been waiting a hundred years for the basics of climate science and CO2 to be disproven but it hasn't happened yet. Now, someone who denies science claims it has been disproven on an internet forum. lol. 
> Please link the original published scientific paper and the published scientific paper that disproves all of climate science as it stands today.

  earth calling clone? Earth calling clone? The subject was the 97% of all climate scientists saying that CO2 was causing the global warming? You can keep your irrelevant waffle for your vast empty inner spaces!

----------


## woodbe

> still evading such a simple challenge we see & can't even quote a quote accurately
>  "Originally Posted by intertd6 lets see you try & back up your claim that says 97% of ( and that would mean ALL ) scientists agree or believe CO2 is causing global warming? "*Including them too""*

  Already answered. Not my claim. The claim is that 97% of qualified publishing climate scientists accept the current state of the science which includes CO2 as a driver of the climate. 
You are just playing strawman argumentum ad nauseum.

----------


## woodbe

The Pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science  Expert credibility in climate change 
There's plenty more if you care to look, but you won't.

----------


## intertd6

> Published Scientific research has never been disproved in this thread. The way to disprove scientific research is to publish research that shows there is a better hypothesis and theory to fit the known facts. We've been waiting a hundred years for the basics of climate science and CO2 to be disproven but it hasn't happened yet. Now, someone who denies science claims it has been disproven on an internet forum. lol. 
> Please link the original published scientific paper and the published scientific paper that disproves all of climate science as it stands today.

  So an inordinate amount of unproven theory's somehow has outweighed the basic proven concept of science, Then you or one of the clones come out with stuff like this that defies lunacy
 "In case you thought otherwise, empirical evidence does not explain a complex physical, geological, ecological and planetary climate system."
what a joke! And everybody is laughing but you lot!

----------


## woodbe

> still evading such a simple challenge we see & can't even quote a quote accurately
>  "Originally Posted by intertd6 lets see you try & back up your claim that says *97% of ( and that would mean ALL ) scientists* agree or believe CO2 is causing global warming? "Including them too"" 
>  Those other scientists must have gone to lessor universities where they didn't teach anything about CO2, the poor uneducated souls, may they not burn up in the oncoming CO2 holocaust!

   

> earth calling clone? Earth calling clone? The subject was the *97% of all climate scientists* saying that CO2 was causing the global warming? You can keep your irrelevant waffle for your vast empty inner spaces!

  So you are now backing down on 97% of (and that would mean ALL) scientists ? Caught playing straw man again!

----------


## intertd6

> The Pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science  Expert credibility in climate change 
> There's plenty more if you care to look, but you won't.

  are you too lazy to quote the bit that says 97% of all climate scientists agree that CO2 is causing the global warming?

----------


## intertd6

> So you are now backing down on 97% of (and that would mean ALL) scientists ? Caught playing straw man again!

  Why! did you want to exclude them again?

----------


## woodbe

> ]
>  "In case you thought otherwise, empirical evidence does not explain a complex physical, geological, ecological and planetary climate system."
> what a joke! And everybody is laughing but you lot!

  There is over a hundred years of research resulting in the current understanding of this complex climate system. Empirical evidence is not the explanation, it is the data representation of the system. If empirical evidence explained the climate we wouldn't need science, we would just need data.  
In your case, you don't accept the data or the science.

----------


## woodbe

> Why! did you want to exclude them again?

  I don't need to. You added them to the claim, then took them out when your strawman was exposed.   

> earth calling clone? Earth calling clone? *The  subject was the 97% of all climate scientists* saying that CO2 was  causing the global warming? You can keep your irrelevant waffle for your  vast empty inner spaces!

----------


## woodbe

> are you too lazy to quote the bit that says 97% of all climate scientists agree that CO2 is causing the global warming?

  Go read it for yourself. This is not the spoon feed a denier forum.

----------


## woodbe

> Reading list for you inter98: Reading List in XLSX format 
> Not that you would bother reading anything to refute your anti-science views, but just an indication that there is mountains of research you choose to ignore.

  Have you read any of these articles yet? 
Thought not.

----------


## John2b

> if you clones want to pay a useless tax on a essential atmospheric gas that's at a relatively low level then I'm afraid its you that has to come up with the proof, all you are doing is proving how much of a leftist cultist warped sense of entitlement & righteousness you have!

  The Australian government's own economic documents released at the G20 summit show that Australian governments will have subsidised the fossil fuel industry by $111 billion dollars between 2005 and 2016. That's enough to build more solar generation capacity at current prices than Australia's total electrical generation capacity.  Inventory of Estimated Budgetary Support and Tax Expenditures for Fossil Fuels 2013 | OECD READ edition 
It is beyond ridiculous to decry subsidies for renewable energy whilst there are such extravagant government contributions to fossil fuel businesses (currently more than $10 billion per annum).

----------


## woodbe

Scientific consensus shifts public opinion on climate change   

> Will J Grant from the Australian National Centre for the Public  Awareness of Science at the Australian National University said it was  an interesting and useful study.
>   We can say people are convinced by the consensus but the big caveat  is sceptics and climate change sceptics in particular are never going to  be convinced by this, he said. They will say science doesnt work by  vote, its about facts.
>   Realistically, though, most of those sceptics are of an older  generation. We are never going to convince them but they will be  disappearing from the political discourse soon.

  Looks like if Will's prediction is correct inter98 will disappear soon. lol.

----------


## johnc

> Scientific consensus shifts public opinion on climate change   
> Looks like if Will's prediction is correct inter98 will disappear soon. lol.

  The nations IQ rate should improve as these dolts slip into their graves, there is always an upside.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> the fact that there are no facts that prove CO2 alone is causing the warming...

  
For the Love of Huey....how many times do you have to be told that NO-ONE in the climate science community(or anyone else with their thinking caps engaged) says that CO2 is alone in contributing to warming.  It is but one player.   
However, because of its l-o-n-g retention time in the atmosphere and its effectiveness as a barrier...it punches well above its volume.  So even the comparatively tiny volumetric amounts that fossil fuel incineration by humans contributes considerably (and measurably) to the overall impact. 
It's a bit like when you fart in a site shed...tiny volumetric addition and yet you still manage to clear the room...  
Regardless, an effective carbon emission reduction scheme at a global scale by 2020 will only mean that we [might] stay within the RCP 6.5 emission scenario...so we are planning for 8.5 whilst still hoping for 6.5 or dreaming of 4.5.  Which means we are planning for 'really, really expensive' adaptation needs and hoping for 'quite expensive' adaptation needs.  Not particularly clever but sadly quite necessary...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> For the Love of Huey....how many times do you have to be told that NO-ONE in the climate science community(or anyone else with their thinking caps engaged) says that CO2 is alone in contributing to warming.  It is but one player.   
> However, because of its l-o-n-g retention time in the atmosphere and its effectiveness as a barrier...it punches well above its volume.  So even the comparatively tiny volumetric amounts that fossil fuel incineration by humans contributes considerably (and measurably) to the overall impact. 
> It's a bit like when you fart in a site shed...tiny volumetric addition and yet you still manage to clear the room...  
> Regardless, an effective carbon emission reduction scheme at a global scale by 2020 will only mean that we [might] stay within the RCP 6.5 emission scenario...so we are planning for 8.5 whilst still hoping for 6.5 or dreaming of 4.5.  Which means we are planning for 'really, really expensive' adaptation needs and hoping for 'quite expensive' adaptation needs.  Not particularly clever but sadly quite necessary...

  your kidding right?

----------


## John2b

> your kidding right?

  Which bit? This? Right on the money, if you ask me.   

> It's a bit like when you fart in a site shed...tiny volumetric addition and yet you still manage to clear the room...

----------


## intertd6

> your kidding right?

  And so the backdown changes again, but come hell or high water they want to steer this tiny nation on the idiotic path of economic destruction, I certainly hope they ( labour, greens & associated clones ) try to win another election campaign with a nice lead weight like that around around their necks so they get another flogging at the polls.
regards inter

----------


## John2b

> And so the backdown changes again, but come hell or high water they want to steer this tiny nation on the idiotic path of economic destruction, I certainly hope they ( labour, greens & associated clones ) try to win another election campaign with a nice lead weight like that around around their necks so they get another flogging at the polls.

  Yes, looking forward to watching them (Greens, Labor and everyone except the LNP) get flogged in Queensland on Saturday.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> your kidding right?

  Nope.  
Though I might have been gilding the lily with the site shed analogy since I only seem to clear lifts...though on a typical builders diet I wouldn't rule it out.

----------


## intertd6

> Scientific consensus shifts public opinion on climate change   
> Looks like if Will's prediction is correct inter98 will disappear soon. lol.

  the clones must be truly desperate thinking a hundred pedestrians in Perth are going to be proof enough to back up a limp story claiming to be the basis of public opinion

----------


## intertd6

> Nope.  
> Though I might have been gilding the lily with the site shed analogy since I only seem to clear lifts...though on a typical builders diet I wouldn't rule it out.

  hand rolling poop is more like it!

----------


## intertd6

> Yes, looking forward to watching them (Greens, Labor and everyone except the LNP) get flogged in Queensland on Saturday.

   They can then hide themselves away in a very quiet back water where nothing much ever happens, like SA

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> hand rolling poop is more like it!

  That's LNP policy for you, eh? Can't blame me if I have to work with it.

----------


## John2b

> They can then hide themselves away in a very quiet back water where nothing much ever happens, like SA

  The irony obviously went over your head. But surely even you can acknowledge that by far the greatest poll appeal of any left wing, fringe, tree hugging political movement in Australia is Tony Abbott of "Climate change is crap!" fame.  http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/60...5-201501280418

----------


## johnc

Even Andrew Bolt is saying Abbotts position is terminal, really Tony is now the best weapon Labor has so it is hardly surprising his old mates now see him as the enemy.

----------


## John2b

> Even Andrew Bolt is saying Abbotts position is terminal, really Tony is now the best weapon Labor has so it is hardly surprising his old mates now see him as the enemy.

  The irony is that Abbott has behaved just as any thinking person would have expected, utterly consistent with his well demonstrated prior character, which just goes to show how imbecilicly stupid anyone was to ever back or vote for him. 
Abbott's own behaviour must have been what he was referring to when he said he would lead a "no surprises" government!

----------


## Rod Dyson

cant get over the hot summer we are having.  Hottest evah.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> cant get over the hot summer we are having.  Hottest evah.

  And your point is...(let me guess)...that you feel the need to yet again demonstrate your complete inability to differentiate between weather and climate. 
Ignorance triumphs again!

----------


## John2b

> And your point is...(let me guess)...that you feel the need to yet again demonstrate your complete inability to differentiate between weather and climate. 
> Ignorance triumphs again!

  I think that is a harsh judgment. I don't doubt that Rod understands the difference between weather and climate. It's just that deniers can't resist using every trick in the book to support their ideological position.   

> whatever the underlying purpose, one result is clear: Tens of thousands of Denialists egotistically assume that their fact-poor, pre-spun, group-rage opinion entitles them to howl "corrupt fools!" at the men and women who have actually studied and are confronting this important topic.

  Climate Skeptics v. Climate Deniers

----------


## Rod Dyson

> and your point is...(let me guess)...that you feel the need to yet again demonstrate your complete inability to differentiate between weather and climate. 
> Ignorance triumphs again!

  lmao right on cue!!  Maybe I should have added the sarc /sarc tags to the original post.  But hell, that ruins the fun!!

----------


## John2b

> lmao right on cue!!  Maybe I should have added the sarc /sarc tags to the original post.  But hell, that ruins the fun!!

  What was the point of your original post? Just trolling? Successfully by your own assessment, apparently.

----------


## intertd6

> lmao right on cue!!  Maybe I should have added the sarc /sarc tags to the original post.  But hell, that ruins the fun!!

  i would love to know a fishing spot where they bit half as hard & quick as the clones do here!
regards inter

----------


## woodbe

> lmao right on cue!!  Maybe I should have added the sarc /sarc tags to the original post.  But hell, that ruins the fun!!

   

> i would love to know a fishing spot where they bit half as hard & quick as the clones do here!
> regards inter

  Well, this would be the first time you two fake skeptics have admitted you don't have a serious supportable position against the science, and your only ploy is act like schoolkids.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Well, this would be the first time you two fake skeptics have admitted you don't have a serious supportable position against the science, and your only ploy is act like schoolkids.

  Now that ladies and gentleman is how to jump to conclusions.  Kinda says it all really!

----------


## woodbe

> Now that ladies and gentleman is how to jump to conclusions.  Kinda says it all really!

  More schoolkid jibes?  
Fake skeptics trade on fake skepticism of science and frequent personal derision. I'm not jumping to conclusions, I've concluded for some time based on your long histories of posting in this thread. The only surprise is that you are now both admitting to it.

----------


## dazzler

> More schoolkid jibes?  
> Fake skeptics trade on fake skepticism of science and frequent personal derision. I'm not jumping to conclusions, I've concluded for some time based on your long histories of posting in this thread. The only surprise is that you are now both admitting to it.

  
Seriously Woodbe.  If anyone deserved a knighthood its you.  How can you keep debated these posters

----------


## John2b

> Now that ladies and gentleman is how to jump to conclusions.

  Rod, after 5 years and hundreds of posts in this forum topic _nobody_ needs to jump to any conclusions about your position.   

> Kinda says it all really!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Seriously Woodbe.  If anyone deserved a knighthood its you.  How can you keep debated these posters

  It's like Centrelink. If you don't keep them entertained and enriched then they'd only go off and do something really stupid and/or socially inappropriate.  
So Woodbe is (like Centrelink) performing a critical community service that benefits the wider community by distracting and diverting potential malcontents.  
Frankly though...we haven't debated anything here for years.

----------


## intertd6

> Well, this would be the first time you two fake skeptics have admitted you don't have a serious supportable position against the science, and your only ploy is act like schoolkids.

  Besides not admitting anything other than the clones have highly vivid hallucinogenic imaginations, this would make the clones the real skeptics of reality!

----------


## PhilT2

Reality has just bitten the Qld premier on the a###. he has lost his seat and there is a possibility of a Labor win. Swings of up to 20% reported in some areas. This will mean there will be desperate policy changes from Abbott as he seeks to avoid the same fate. What odds on a new emissions policy under Prime Minister Bishop or Turnbull?

----------


## intertd6

> Reality has just bitten the Qld premier on the a###. he has lost his seat and there is a possibility of a Labor win. Swings of up to 20% reported in some areas. This will mean there will be desperate policy changes from Abbott as he seeks to avoid the same fate. What odds on a new emissions policy under Prime Minister Bishop or Turnbull?

  none! It's what nailed the coffin shut on the liar that said there wasn't going to be one!
and like workchoices that nailed the others shut previously before that! The memories have to fade for longer than a few terms for the nitwits to resurrect the idiotic!

----------


## woodbe

> Seriously Woodbe.  If anyone deserved a knighthood its you.  How can you keep debated these posters

  Thanks for your thoughts dazzler, you should drop in more often!  :2thumbsup:  
I think I could have gotten a knighthood if I could prove I was a member of the royal family. lol. 
Looks like Tony better read the writing on the wall or he'll be a one term government as well. If it's not already too late.

----------


## John2b

> none! It's what nailed the coffin shut on the liar that said there wasn't going to be one!

  You must be talking about Abbott's coffin LOL! "One LNC MP said if Mr Abbott did not dump the policy in his speech on Monday, he would be carried out of the Press Club "in a box"."

----------


## John2b

> Besides not admitting anything other than the clones have highly vivid hallucinogenic imaginations, this would make the clones the real skeptics of reality!

  I am happy to be labeled a "real skeptic of reality" as would any scientist. Skepticism is the first plank of scientific research and understanding. Highly vivid hallucinogenic imaginations are the domain of the pseudo-skeptics.

----------


## intertd6

> I am happy to be labeled a "real skeptic of reality" as would any scientist. Skepticism is the first plank of scientific research and understanding. Highly vivid hallucinogenic imaginations are the domain of the pseudo-skeptics.

  when you come out with the stuff that defies the basis of science like 
"In case you thought otherwise, empirical evidence does not explain a complex physical, geological, ecological and planetary climate system." Everything that follows just proves your in a serial arguing world of your own!

----------


## John2b

> when you come out with the stuff that defies the basis of science like 
> "In case you thought otherwise, empirical evidence does not explain a complex physical, geological, ecological and planetary climate system." Everything that follows just proves your in a serial arguing world of your own!

  Your post is superfluous. You are simply demonstrating your inability to comprehend, which has been amply displayed already. 
The output of a multi-dimension system does not depend solely on one single input, no matter how well you've measured that single input empirically. 
CO2 is not the only, or even the major, driver of climate, it just happens to be the one that is causing the current temperature rise, a temperature which cannot be explained by the contributions of all of the other drivers. In fact, take out the change in CO2 and the sum of all of the other drivers is negative, i.e. the Earth should be cooling, not warming.

----------


## woodbe

> CO2 is not the only, or even the major, driver of climate, it just happens to be the one that is causing the current temperature rise, a temperature which cannot be explained by the contributions of all of the other drivers. In fact, take out the change in CO2 and the sum of all of the other drivers is negative, i.e. the Earth should be cooling, not warming.

  Like our fake skeptics are going to believe that! 
Stand by for the trace gas argument, lol.

----------


## woodbe

More empirical data collection on the way:  Rocket blasts off with NASA satellite to help track climate change - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   

> A NASA satellite that will help will help with weather  forecasting and tracking of global climate change by measuring how much  water is in the Earth's soil has rocketed into orbit.   *         Photo:*        The rocket carrying a NASA satellite to measure how much water is in the Earth's soil blasts off. (Reuters: Gene Blevins)        
> The satellite measures the tiny amount of  soil moisture that links the planet's overall environmental systems -  its water, energy and carbon cycles - as well as determines whether  particular regions are afflicted with drought or flooding.

----------


## intertd6

> Your post is superfluous. You are simply demonstrating your inability to comprehend, which has been amply displayed already. 
> The output of a multi-dimension system does not depend solely on one single input, no matter how well you've measured that single input empirically. 
> CO2 is not the only, or even the major, driver of climate, it just happens to be the one that is causing the current temperature rise, a temperature which cannot be explained by the contributions of all of the other drivers. In fact, take out the change in CO2 and the sum of all of the other drivers is negative, i.e. the Earth should be cooling, not warming.

  "In case you thought otherwise, empirical evidence does not explain a complex physical, geological, ecological and planetary climate system." 
No amount of wriggling or squirming will release you from making one of the all time most stupidest statements made on this debate so far, congratulations it will certainly take some topping!

----------


## intertd6

> More empirical data collection on the way:  Rocket blasts off with NASA satellite to help track climate change - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  i can see by the picture why all the clones are attracted by all the promises made in what this rocket can do!

----------


## intertd6

> That's LNP policy for you, eh? Can't blame me if I have to work with it.

   You have the hands for it though!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You have the hands for it though!

  Whilst you have the mouth...so at least it's a level playing field.

----------


## John2b

> "In case you thought otherwise, empirical evidence does not explain a complex physical, geological, ecological and planetary climate system."

  Funny that you should argue this point when your own tenet is based on anecdotal (proxy) evidence, not empirical evidence! By your own proclamation, your denial of AGW is untenable.   

> No amount of wriggling or squirming will release you from making one of the all time most stupidest statements made on this debate so far, congratulations it will certainly take some topping!

  Don't worry Inter98, your record for stupidity isn't being challenged, not even close, nor is your reputation for arguing like a greasy pig.

----------


## John2b

It has now been 359 months in a row breaking the 20th century temperature average; the hottest 16 years ever recorded have come since 1997; and the hottest decade so far ended in 2010, the third decade in a row to break the record for global temperatures.

----------


## intertd6

> Funny that you should argue this point when your own tenet is based on anecdotal (proxy) evidence, not empirical evidence! By your own proclamation, your denial of AGW is untenable.   
> Don't worry Inter98, your record for stupidity isn't being challenged, not even close, nor is your reputation for arguing like a greasy pig.

  now that is funny! Your projecting all your own traits!

----------


## intertd6

> Whilst you have the mouth...so at least it's a level playing field.

  you must have some poor role models if you think your on a normal decent persons playing field!

----------


## intertd6

> It has now been 359 months in a row breaking the 20th century temperature average; the hottest 16 years ever recorded have come since 1997; and the hottest decade so far ended in 2010, the third decade in a row to break the record for global temperatures.

  And it's still not working for you, nobody cares about the propaganda anymore, especially stuff like this which is well & truly worn out!

----------


## intertd6

"CO2 is not the only, or even the major, driver of climate, it just happens to be the one that is causing the current temperature rise, a temperature which cannot be explained by the contributions of all of the other drivers. In fact, take out the change in CO2 and the sum of all of the other drivers is negative, i.e. the Earth should be cooling, not warming." 
you have placed bets multiple ways with that post, but let me ask you where is your proof that shows CO2 is causing the current temperature rise? Where is your proof that the other driver contributors are not warming the atmosphere? The globes atmospheric temperature trend since 1998 has been stable, yet CO2 emission have been ever increasing at a steep rate! Then why has the temperature not followed suit? (And forget the myth the oceans ate it)

----------


## woodbe

> Originally Posted by john2b  CO2 is not the only, or even the major, driver of climate, it just happens to be the one that is causing the current temperature rise, a temperature which cannot be explained by the contributions of all of the other drivers. In fact, take out the change in CO2 and the sum of all of the other drivers is negative, i.e. the Earth should be cooling, not warming.    you have placed bets multiple ways with that post, but let me ask you where is your proof that shows CO2 is causing the current temperature rise?

  I thought you said there was no temperature rise?  
Here it is:   

> The globes atmospheric temperature trend since 1998 has been stable

  So which is it?   

> Where is your proof that the other driver contributors are not warming the atmosphere? The globes atmospheric temperature trend since 1998 has been stable, yet CO2 emission have been ever increasing at a steep rate! Then why has the temperature not followed suit? (And forget the myth the oceans ate it)

  We have already shown the fake skeptics this information in this very thread. There are many drivers of the climate, and their each net forcings have been calculated:   
This is science, not a bet about a horse down at your local pub. Science does not work like that and you are either in denial about it or you know it. Either way, the proof question is dumb and has been answered before. 
And yes, the ocean heat is not a myth. It is measured empirical evidence, just evidence you don't want to accept.

----------


## intertd6

> I thought you said there was no temperature rise?  
> Here it is:   
> So which is it?   
> We have already shown the fake skeptics this information in this very thread. There are many drivers of the climate, and their each net forcings have been calculated:   
> This is science, not a bet about a horse down at your local pub. Science does not work like that and you are either in denial about it or you know it. Either way, the proof question is dumb and has been answered before. 
> And yes, the ocean heat is not a myth. It is measured empirical evidence, just evidence you don't want to accept.

  with that level of assumed accuracy one would expect the prediction, forecasting & explanation of why with ever increasing CO2 emissions the plateauing of global atmospheric temperatures would of been explained! Oh that's right they haven't been able to explain ANY of those things, so therefore something isn't correct in the assumptions! We all guessed it! The radiative forcings! You clones are the only ones thinking "the science is proven"
you really must explain the huge switch which must have been thrown in clonesville that has directed the 94 odd % of this extra heat into the oceans! when the El Niño phases have been back & forth several times, too funny for words!

----------


## John2b

> with that level of assumed accuracy one would expect the prediction, forecasting & explanation of why with ever increasing CO2 emissions the plateauing of global atmospheric temperatures would of been explained!

  It isn't possible or necessary to explain something that didn't happen and isn't happening.     

> you really must explain the huge switch which must have been thrown in clonesville that has directed the 94 odd % of this extra heat into the oceans!

  There has been no switch so there is nothing to explain. Oceans are where the vast majority of heat from the sun is first absorbed and always has been. The climate is closely related to the amount of heat in the oceans. The transfer of heat from the oceans to the surface is mostly a function of weather (ocean currents, wind, precipitation, etc), and because weather is variable, chaotic and influenced by other external influences, so is the transfer of heat from the oceans to the surface.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> you must have some poor role models if you think your on a normal decent persons playing field!

  You are one of my role models....

----------


## intertd6

> You are one of my role models....

   Don't let the rest of the clones catch onto your fantasies, you could turned apon & be excommunicated!

----------


## intertd6

> It isn't possible or necessary to explain something that didn't happen and isn't happening.     
> There has been no switch so there is nothing to explain. Oceans are where the vast majority of heat from the sun is first absorbed and always has been. The climate is closely related to the amount of heat in the oceans. The transfer of heat from the oceans to the surface is mostly a function of weather (ocean currents, wind, precipitation, etc), and because weather is variable, chaotic and influenced by other external influences, so is the transfer of heat from the oceans to the surface.

  arent you bright enough to see the difference between the 1.6'C/decade trend to 1998 on your NASA data and the 0.06'C/17years trend since 1998 in this data? In your words  "It’s the Trend, Stupid"

----------


## John2b

> arent you bright enough to see the difference between the 1.6'C/decade trend to 1998 on your NASA data and the 0.06'C/17years trend since 1998 in this data?

  Here are some temperature data sets on NASA's website:   
A trend line, or linear regression, is a smoothed line running through the middle of the data set. Choose whatever temperature data set you like. Where is the* break in trend* at 1998? And why is 1998 a magic year of special significance, but not 1990? Or 1983, 1973, 1963, 1953, 1944, 1915, 1906, 1899...?   

> "It’s the Trend"

  We know, we know!

----------


## woodbe

> You clones are the only ones thinking "the science is proven"

  You really should read the other posts here other than your own and the one or two other fake skeptics. There isn't enough fake skeptics to call you clones, but you all behave the same way, like Dolly you live for a while ruminating on the same regurgitated grass and then pfft, you've got nothing. 
Discussion about 'proof' and science has been posted here regularly, you should read up on it.  :Cool:

----------


## woodbe

> "Its the Trend, Stupid"

  I'm glad you mentioned that: It's the trend, Stupid | Open Mind   

> The news that last year was so hot is certainly no surprise. The simple  reason is that for the last 15 or 20 years, lets say since the turn of  the millenium just to be specific  you know, since back when we  expected global warming to continue without slowing down  global  warming has continued and shows no sign of slowing down.

  and:   

> Based on the vehemence of their reaction, the record year is something  of an embarrassment to the pause crowd. Heck, the next time Ted Cruz  says such a thing at a press conference some sassy reporter might ask  him, But what about last year being the hottest on record? Perhaps  Cruz will respond by saying hes not a scientist.  
>   They just dont seem to realize that the real embarrassment to their precious pause is the trend.

  Indeed, they surely don't...  :Rolleyes:

----------


## intertd6

> I'm glad you mentioned that: It's the trend, Stupid | Open Mind   
> and:   
> Indeed, they surely don't...

  Thanks for the clear demonstration of how in clonesville propaganda outweighs your own posted data, it is becoming apparent that even dolly couldn't confuse that.

----------


## John2b

> Thanks for the clear demonstration of how in clonesville propaganda outweighs your own posted data

  The data posted in this topic from these sources is not "our" data and it is freely available for everyone and anyone to analyse. The data is that collected from 10,000s monitoring stations across the globe, by dozens of different organisations, under many different control regimes.  
If there a different data set that you have special access to that contradicts the general view, then you or its owner should make it publicly available for statisticians to analyse.

----------


## woodbe

> Thanks for the clear demonstration of how in clonesville propaganda outweighs your own posted data, it is becoming apparent that even dolly couldn't confuse that.

  Apparently InterDolly is confused. InterDolly thinks his amazing building skills better the trend analysis capability of a qualified, publishing climate statistician. 
InterDolly, you need to realise that you are reaching beyond your capability. We all know that you despair at the loss of 1998, but please keep your grief private and in check. There will be another hot year for you to make fake stats claims over in due course, but 98 is dead and buried.

----------


## intertd6

> The data posted in this topic from these sources is not "our" data and it is freely available for everyone and anyone to analyse. The data is that collected from 10,000s monitoring stations across the globe, by dozens of different organisations, under many different control regimes.  
> Is there a different data set that you have special access to that contradicts the general view, then you or its owner should make it publicly available for statisticians to analyse.

  your demonstrating how a serial arguer could continue their highly honed skills whilst underwater with a mouthful of marbles!

----------


## intertd6

> Apparently InterDolly is confused. InterDolly thinks his amazing building skills better the trend analysis capability of a qualified, publishing climate statistician. 
> InterDolly, you need to realise that you are reaching beyond your capability. We all know that you despair at the loss of 1998, but please keep your grief private and in check. There will be another hot year for you to make fake stats claims over in due course, but 98 is dead and buried.

   Some more projection we see!

----------


## John2b

> your demonstrating how a serial arguer could continue their highly honed skills whilst underwater with a mouthful of marbles!

  
If there a different data set that you have special access to that contradicts the general view, then you or its owner should make it publicly available for statisticians to analyse.

----------


## woodbe

> Some more projection we see!

  Except my posts quote the available verified data and qualified comment by qualified, publishing scientists. That is not projection, it is posting valid information in this thread.  
InterDolly posts idealogical opinion and personal attacks that do not negate the known science and data we are dealing with.  
It takes a committed, blinkered ignorance to ignore the facts in front of our eyes and claim that the planet stopped warming in 1998. Given inter98 has recently let slip "the current temperature rise" in one of his posts, it is clear that once again, we are not dealing with a discussion of the facts, we are dealing with trolling and denial.

----------


## intertd6

> If there a different data set that you have special access to that contradicts the general view, then you or its owner should make it publicly available for statisticians to analyse.

   Why would I want to post a different data set, when the ones you have posted are the best at shooting down your own stupid argument! I may be silly but I'm not stupid!

----------


## intertd6

> Except my posts quote the available verified data and qualified comment by qualified, publishing scientists. That is not projection, it is posting valid information in this thread.  
> InterDolly posts idealogical opinion and personal attacks that do not negate the known science and data we are dealing with.  
> It takes a committed, blinkered ignorance to ignore the facts in front of our eyes and claim that the planet stopped warming in 1998. Given inter98 has recently let slip "the current temperature rise" in one of his posts, it is clear that once again, we are not dealing with a discussion of the facts, we are dealing with trolling and denial.

   You guys must be sharing a snorkel!
how about the long lost facts we need to convince us?

----------


## woodbe

> I may be silly but I'm not stupid!

  It would be an easy job to mount an effective argument that you could be both, but I leave that as an exercise for the reader. 
Where is your data that there has been no warming since 1998?

----------


## woodbe

> how about the long lost facts we need to convince us?

  You have a split personality now? How many is your 'us'? 
You think we could convince you. HAHAHA  :Laughing1:

----------


## intertd6

How you lot can entertain us at your own expense is a truly noble undertaking!

----------


## woodbe

> How you lot can entertain us at your own expense is a truly noble undertaking!

  Replace 'entertain' with 'correct' and we may be on our way to our first agreement.  :Tongue:  
Can you provide data on the number of 'us' there is in your personality? Surely not 98 LOL.

----------


## John2b

> Why would I want to post a different data set, when the ones you have posted are the best at shooting down your own stupid argument! I may be silly but I'm not stupid!

  Others will judge if you are silly or stupid, but you haven't provided any reason why the clearly evident trends in the temperature record are not real. The trend in the temperature has been shown on this page many times, each time from one of the recognised world temperature data sets.

----------


## intertd6

> You have a split personality now? How many is your 'us'? 
> You think we could convince you. HAHAHA

  well that wasn't 9 of me viewing theses posts when I just looked at the bottom of the page! So there is more than one of "us" we know they are not fence sitters because they would of fallen of the fence laughing at entertainment you clones provide, day in, day out! So it's obviously the entertainment factor that draws the crowd!
non clones need more than the propaganda you lot lap up to convince them, feel free to post some relevant specific proof anytime you like! (If there was any it would have been re posted everyday like the worn out regurgitated limp propaganda material that sucks in the witless clones, that is posted every other day)

----------


## woodbe

> well that wasn't 9 of me viewing theses posts when I just looked at the bottom of the page! So there is more than one of "us" we know they are not fence sitters

  So each of your personalities has a separate login? Sounds complicated.  :Biggrin:  
There are only two (or perhaps three if you include Marc) regular fake skeptic posters in this thread. Viewers shown on the list below are of unknown persuasion, you cannot claim them for your side. Some of them in fact will be bots which you may not be aware of, but they in fact have no interest in the merits of any side. Yet another analysis failure, but given your prior failures that is an unsurprising and predictable conclusion from you.

----------


## Marc

Ha ha, so after so many years of unfulfilled prophecies and failed end of the world doom and gloom, and after so many years of shrill squeaking about the skeptics being so un-religious and so in-fidel, global warming beat up artists have finally realised that skepticism is actually a virtue and a necessary mental attitude for science to be even credible. 
So now after being called "deniers" to hopefully associate them and smear them by elevation with the holocaust deniers, and after calling them skeptics, they now have changed to a less honorable title and added "fake" in front of the term skeptics.
And don't believe for a minute that this change originated here. Not in your wildest dreams. The global warming mafia, their cheerleaders and associated believers and clappers move in flocks and go with trends and waves. 
Their leaders when in public hyperventilate and breath in a paper bag before talking about "climate change" the biggest challenge to human kind, jea right, when in private they pull their calculator and work out how many millions a minute they are making out of this FRAUD.  
The thing I want to ask the participants of this little domestic comedy is to refrain to use my name in any way shape or form.

----------


## intertd6

> So each of your personalities has a separate login? Sounds complicated.   Sounds like something a clone would do to fill in the day! 
> There are only two (or perhaps three if you include Marc) regular fake skeptic posters in this thread. Viewers shown on the list below are of unknown persuasion, you cannot claim them for your side. Some of them in fact will be bots which you may not be aware of, *but they in fact have no interest in the merits of any side*. Yet another analysis failure, but given your prior failures that is an unsurprising and predictable conclusion from you  Are you on something? If they have no interest in the merits, then they are looking at the post ............. for the entertainment factor! I know I am! And it never ceases to amaze, just like the last few pages! 
> .

  .

----------


## John2b

> Ha ha, so after so many years of unfulfilled prophecies and failed end of the world doom and gloom, and after so many years of shrill squeaking about the skeptics being so un-religious and so in-fidel, global warming beat up artists have finally realised that skepticism is actually a virtue and a necessary mental attitude for science to be even credible.

  Wow - all of this has happened inside your head! What you have posted has nothing to do with real world of climate science and climate scientists, who are skeptics to the core - as anyone who cares enough to actually involve themselves in critical understanding knows. 
True scientists challenge themselves to improve their understanding. But this doesn't happen with climate change denial. Fake skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. 
Climate change has followed what is the consequence of the application of the laws of physics - nothing more, nothing less. Surprise, surprise! The same laws of physics are behind everything else in modern technology that works. Science is credible because it describes how the real world works. Pseudoscience describes what fake sceptics, including AGW deniers, would like to believe.   

> So now after being called "deniers" to hopefully associate them and smear them by elevation with the holocaust deniers, and after calling them skeptics, they now have changed to a less honorable title and added "fake" in front of the term skeptics.

  Denying science is just that - denying science. And the people who deny climate science are global warming deniers, no matter what their name is. Welcome to their club, Marc, but I suspect you already have a place reserved at the bar.   

> The thing I want to ask the participants of this little domestic comedy is to refrain to use my name in any way shape or form.

  No one in this forum can un-associate your name from that which _you_ have already associated it with.

----------


## woodbe

> Are you on something? If they have no interest in  the merits, then they are looking at the post ............. for the  entertainment factor! I know I am!

  Yes, I am. I'm on facts and information.  :Cool:  
If bots are looking at a post they are scanning it for adwords, keywords for searches and who knows what else. They are not evaluating the quality or the amusement value of the posts. A bot is not a human, it is a computer software program scanning the internet. 
I guess troglodytes are unaware of them.  :Wink:

----------


## woodbe

> The thing I want to ask the participants of this little domestic comedy is to refrain to use my name in any way shape or form.

  Marc, if you don't want to be associated with this thread, you should not reply to it and like Dr Freud, you will gradually disappear from the conversation. If your need is genuine (which I doubt based on the content of your post), then you should approach the Mods who may accommodate your wishes if you are able to convince them that you are genuine. 
I'm amused by your post which sings the praises of science and genuine skepticism and then calls the results of science and skepticism FRAUD.  :Biggrin:

----------


## John2b

> The globes atmospheric temperature trend since 1998 has been stable, yet CO2 emission have been ever increasing at a steep rate! Then why has the temperature not followed suit?

  Er, it has:    It's the trend, Stupid | Open Mind

----------


## John2b

Sea levels aren't the only things rising due to climate change - swaths of land are too, including the nation of Iceland. There are indications parts of Alaska and Chile are also experiencing a "rebound" phenomenon as glaciers retreat.  This height change isn't noticeable to the average human observer, but its consequences will be. Iceland sits atop one of the world's most active volcanic hot spots, roiling with molten magma. The pressure reductions caused by the melting glaciers and rising land could create conditions that would cause mantle rocks to melt, further feeding Iceland's already well-supplied volcanoes.  http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/climate-change-melting-glaciers-make-iceland-spring-skyward-like-a-trampoline-20150202-134gln.html

----------


## intertd6

> Er, it has:    It's the trend, Stupid | Open Mind

  not it this one again! Off to sleep we go!

----------


## intertd6

> Yes, I am. I'm on facts and information.  
> If bots are looking at a post they are scanning it for adwords, keywords for searches and who knows what else. They are not evaluating the quality or the amusement value of the posts. A bot is not a human, it is a computer software program scanning the internet. 
> I guess troglodytes are unaware of them.

  it looks & sounds like some nerd punching above their weight again!

----------


## John2b

> not it this one again! Off to sleep we go!

  Nine hours before you posted your non-response. We're all suffering from idiotic denial withdrawal! 
Are you ever going to post something that supports your tenet? (Ignoring the stuff you posted so far that was immediately shown to be ridiculously silly!)

----------


## John2b

> it looks & sounds like some nerd punching above their weight again!

  Just punching seems to be your speciality. Are you ever going to post anything of substance on topic?

----------


## intertd6

> Sea levels aren't the only things rising due to climate change - swaths of land are too, including the nation of Iceland. There are indications parts of Alaska and Chile are also experiencing a "rebound" phenomenon as glaciers retreat.  This height change isn't noticeable to the average human observer, but its consequences will be. Iceland sits atop one of the world's most active volcanic hot spots, roiling with molten magma. The pressure reductions caused by the melting glaciers and rising land could create conditions that would cause mantle rocks to melt, further feeding Iceland's already well-supplied volcanoes.  http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/climate-change-melting-glaciers-make-iceland-spring-skyward-like-a-trampoline-20150202-134gln.html

  have you got some data showing time frames of these rises so the none clones can tell the difference between the truth & your parroted witless propaganda!

----------


## John2b

> have you got some data showing time frames of these rises so the none clones can tell the difference between the truth & your parroted witless propaganda!

  It's not *my* propaganda - most people are bright enough to see that the statement is from an article in The Age. If you wanted to know more, you could simply follow the links in the newspaper article, but obviously it's more satisfying for you to throw mud at people than to actually put your brain in gear.

----------


## intertd6

> Just punching seems to be your speciality. Are you ever going to post anything of substance on topic?

  Seeing your trying to sell a car with no wheels, it's up to you Einstein to prove it can go anywhere, imaginary wheels may fool the clones but this audience is not as dim as your usual captive one!

----------


## intertd6

> It's not *my* propaganda - most people are bright enough to see that the statement is from an article in The Age. If you wanted to know more, you could simply follow the links in the newspaper article, but obviously it's more satisfying for you to throw mud at people than to actually put your brain in gear.

  your the only one parroting it & the link doesn't work

----------


## woodbe

> it looks & sounds like some nerd punching above their weight again!

  Au Contraire. What is plain as day is that you are not reading, nor understanding what has been written.  
bots have been around for decades, but you have apparently never heard of them. Perhaps you might understand more if you took your fingers out of your ears and your head out of the sand!

----------


## intertd6

> Nine hours before you posted your non-response. We're all suffering from idiotic denial withdrawal! 
> Are you ever going to post something that supports your tenet? (Ignoring the stuff you posted so far that was immediately shown to be ridiculously silly!)

  It must be a new alien experience for you to converse with someone that isn't a clone & doesn't shine a seat all day

----------


## intertd6

> Au Contraire. What is plain as day is that you are not reading, nor understanding what has been written.  
> bots have been around for decades, but you have apparently never heard of them. Perhaps you might understand more if you took your fingers out of your ears and your head out of the sand!

  Before you self inflate any further about being an expert on nerd speak, do you have any evidence that proves it wasn't legitimate onlookers or as you claim something different?

----------


## johnc

> Before you self inflate any further about being an expert on nerd speak, do you have any evidence that proves it wasn't legitimate onlookers or as you claim something different?

   when has evidence ever bothered you?

----------


## intertd6

> when has evidence ever bothered you?

  When it famously never ever appears! And we have your likes dreaming that it has!

----------


## John2b

> your the only one parroting it & the link doesn't work

  Referring to a link isn't parroting and the link works just fine. http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/clim...02-134gln.html 
Are you ever going to post something that supports your tenet?

----------


## woodbe

> well that wasn't 9 of me viewing theses posts when I just looked at the bottom of the page! So there is more than one of "us" we know they are not fence sitters because they would of fallen of the fence laughing at entertainment you clones provide, day in, day out!

   

> Before you self inflate any further about being an expert on nerd speak, do you have any evidence that proves it wasn't legitimate onlookers or as you claim something different?

  This is nothing about self inflation, it's about your own self deflation. You are ignorant of the workings of the internet, completely unaware of bots until I educated you to their existence, and yet now you want evidence of exactly who the guests on this site might have been despite your claim without evidence that they were all of the persuasion you suggest. 
bots are not 'nerd speak' they are commonly understood by anyone who has the capacity to keep current with the times. They are an abbreviation of robot, and you will find a robots.txt offering bots permission or not to trawl a site such as this one, which has a robots.txt loaded with links into the commercial services side of this site.  
You did not read properly, did not understand, and now playing your usual attack the messenger strategy to hide your lack of understanding of facts that have been plain as day in front of your eyes. 
No wonder you cannot mount anything but a personal attack and denial of the science without evidence.

----------


## Bros

Well looks like we are having climate change here as the temperature is warming up so i suggest you all sleep on it and come back in the morning. 
Goodnight all

----------


## intertd6

> This is nothing about self inflation, it's about your own self deflation. You are ignorant of the workings of the internet, completely unaware of bots until I educated you to their existence, and yet now you want evidence of exactly who the guests on this site might have been despite your claim without evidence that they were all of the persuasion you suggest. 
> bots are not 'nerd speak' they are commonly understood by anyone who has the capacity to keep current with the times. They are an abbreviation of robot, and you will find a robots.txt offering bots permission or not to trawl a site such as this one, which has a robots.txt loaded with links into the commercial services side of this site.  
> You did not read properly, did not understand, and now playing your usual attack the messenger strategy to hide your lack of understanding of facts that have been plain as day in front of your eyes. 
> No wonder you cannot mount anything but a personal attack and denial of the science without evidence.

  how surprising! No evidence as usual!

----------


## johnc

> how surprising! No evidence as usual!

  Evidence of working brain cells would be a good start, you are always good for a laugh.

----------


## woodbe

> how surprising! No evidence as usual!

  I don't need to add evidence, you typed it yourself! Apparently you don't even read your own posts. 
I can add the robots.txt location and content for you if you would like to be spoon fed. Just ask.

----------


## intertd6

"Before you self inflate any further about being an expert on nerd speak, do you have any evidence that proves it wasn't legitimate onlookers or as you claim something different?" 
 Originally Posted by intertd6 
how surprising! No evidence as usual! 
 Originally Posted by woody
"I don't need to add evidence, you typed it yourself! Apparently you don't even read your own posts."    
it is really extraordinary the lengths some will go to prove how much of a serial arguer they are, keep up the good work !

----------


## woodbe

> it is really extraordinary the lengths some will go to prove how much of a serial arguer they are, keep up the good work !

  Now you're projecting. 
You claimed all the guests as yours. You typed it, not me. I pointed out it was unlikely and that some could be bots anyway with no interest in the discussion. From there, you try to argue I have no evidence. I don't need evidence, the evidence is on this page and it shows inter98 claiming the guests are of the one mind whilst I claim it is unlikely. As unlikely as tossing a coin 7 times and coming up all tails. 
If there is evidence required, it is from someone claiming unlikely probabilities. 
Perhaps we could get back on topic?

----------


## John2b

> Perhaps we could get back on topic?

  Unlikely... but I'll have a go. 
Who wudda thort - CO2 obeyed the laws of physics millions of years ago, just like it does today, confirming the expected climate response to elevated CO2 levels from the burning of fossil fuels:  During the Pliocene, the Earth was around 2C warmer than it is today and atmospheric CO2 levels were around 350-400 parts per million (ppm), similar to the levels reached in recent years. By studying the relationship between CO2 levels and climate change during a warmer period in Earth's history, the scientists have been able to estimate how the climate will respond to increasing levels of carbon dioxide, a parameter known as climate sensitivity. The findings, which have been published in Nature, also show how climate sensitivity can vary over the long term. Dr Gavin Foster, co-author of the study, said: "Today the Earth is still adjusting to the recent rapid rise of CO2 caused by human activities, whereas the longer-term Pliocene records document the full response of CO2-related warming. "Our estimates of climate sensitivity lie well within the range of 1.5 to 4.5C increase per CO2 doubling summarised in the latest IPCC report. This suggests that the research community has a sound understanding of what the climate will be like as we move toward a Pliocene-like warmer future caused by human greenhouse gas emissions."  CO2 evidence 'backs climate study' Â« Express & Star  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v518/n7537/full/nature14145.html

----------


## Bros

> Perhaps we could get back on topic?

  Good idea.

----------


## intertd6

> Unlikely... but I'll have a go. 
> Who wudda thort - CO2 obeyed the laws of physics millions of years ago, just like it does today, confirming the expected climate response to elevated CO2 levels from the burning of fossil fuels:  During the Pliocene, the Earth was around 2C warmer than it is today and atmospheric CO2 levels were around 350-400 parts per million (ppm), similar to the levels reached in recent years. By studying the relationship between CO2 levels and climate change during a warmer period in Earth's history, the scientists have been able to estimate how the climate will respond to increasing levels of carbon dioxide, a parameter known as climate sensitivity. The findings, which have been published in Nature, also show how climate sensitivity can vary over the long term. Dr Gavin Foster, co-author of the study, said: "Today the Earth is still adjusting to the recent rapid rise of CO2 caused by human activities, whereas the longer-term Pliocene records document the full response of CO2-related warming. "Our estimates of climate sensitivity lie well within the range of 1.5 to 4.5C increase per CO2 doubling summarised in the latest IPCC report. This suggests that the research community has a sound understanding of what the climate will be like as we move toward a Pliocene-like warmer future caused by human greenhouse gas emissions."  CO2 evidence 'backs climate study' Â« Express & Star  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v518/n7537/full/nature14145.html

  With a time frame of less than 0.2% of the last 500MY it's a tiny sample to base anything on when compared to the other 499MY that proves otherwise Articles: CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming

----------


## John2b

> With a time frame of less than 0.2% of the last 500MY it's a tiny sample to base anything on when compared to the other 499MY that proves otherwise Articles: CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming

  Thanks for the link to "American Thinker" Inter98. It is an odd name for a unthinking blog full of such obvious logical fallacies that it is amazing anyone could be taken in by them. The "Congratulations you have won a free iPhone6" banner on the LHS of the page is a fake as the rest of the page, and the hidden pop-up link to casino.com is a dead giveaway of a bogus site. The page contains no information that refutes the role of CO2 in the atmosphere and repeats a whole lot of easily disprovable nonsenses designed to appeal to older conservative white male denier types. At least it is correctly titled CO2 Fairytales; isn't it time you stopped believing them? 
Do you really expect people to believe that an astounding number of scientists across a multitude of disciplines in public and private employment, in capitalist and communist nations, in first world and third world countries are all stupendously wrong?

----------


## woodbe

> With a time frame of less than 0.2% of the last 500MY it's a tiny sample to base anything on when compared to the other 499MY that proves otherwise Articles: CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming

  Well done inter98. You posted a link! 
Let's see. 
Here's what john2b posted: *Plio-Pleistocene climate sensitivity evaluated using high-resolution CO2 records*  
Authors:   M. A. Martínez-Botí, G. L. Foster, T. B. Chalk, E. J. Rohling, P. F. Sexton, D. J. Lunt, R. D. Pancost, M. P. S. Badger                                  & D. N. Schmidt  
Nine co-authors qualified in their fields, working within universities. 
The paper is published in a peer reviewed journal, Nature. An international Journal of science. 
Your link: Articles: CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming 
Author: Gregory Young. Unknown Author with no available credentials, qualifications or peer reviewed publications. 
The article (it is not a scientific paper) is published on a right wing blog. The article shows the author's opinion in the first sentence, and never comes close to showing why the author's opinion bests nine qualified publishing scientists. 
Can't you find any science to counter the science john2b posted? Opinion does not counter science. Fail.

----------


## John2b

Denial of climate science is a burgeoning field of psychological research" 
"Now, do I think conservative white men consciously wake up in the morning and say to themselves, Im going to go on blogs and attack climate science today so I can screw over the little guy? Certainly not. 
Rather, I simply think they experience modern climate science and climate advocacy as an affront, an attack on _them_ and what they _believe_. They were brought up in a certain way, they believe certain things, and they have no reason to think of themselves as bad peopleand indeed, mostly theyre not bad people. They give to charity. They go to church. They provide for a family. And so on.
But then they perceive all these attacks on their values coming from outsidershippie environmentalists and ivory tower climate scientists. If you didnt do anything wrong, and you consider yourself as reasonable and intelligentbut people are attacking you and your valuesyou maybe get kind of outraged and worked up."  Whatâs Up With Conservative White Men and Climate Change Denial? | DeSmogBlog  "Notably, the researchers say that CWMs also tended to assert a stronger understanding of global warming than other adultsand those who said they understood it best were the most likely to be the strongest deniers. This, of course, seems an untenable self-assessment, the authors write, given that conservative white males are more likely than are other adults to reject the current scientific consensus."  http://conservationmagazine.org/2011/09/cool-white-dudes-2/

----------


## John2b

> Author: Gregory Young. Unknown Author with no available credentials, qualifications or peer reviewed publications.

  But Gregory Young does think that even 50 years is too short a timeframe to detect a trend, so he would not agree with the "no warming since xxxx" myth. I guess Inter98 will have to slog it out with Young, they can't both be right LOL. 
On Antarctic warming Young says: "the study looks at data only from 1957 to the present. *A 50-year trend is just that ... only 50 years*. Depending on who one wants to fool, the scientists could also look at 5 years using the same data, or 10 or 20 years for that matter, and they would likely determine different statistical results in each case, all derived from the same data. Analyzing short-term trends exacerbates statistical errors. Most reputable scientists know this." 
And Gregory Young is a neuroscientist (specialising in autism in babies), not a climate scientist. I guess he gets his financial advice from the garden shop.

----------


## woodbe

> Denial of climate science is a burgeoning field of psychological research" 
> "Now, do I think conservative white men consciously wake up in the morning and say to themselves, “I’m going to go on blogs and attack climate science today so I can screw over the little guy?” Certainly not. 
> Rather, I simply think they experience modern climate science and climate advocacy as an affront, an attack on _them_ and what they _believe_. They were brought up in a certain way, they believe certain things, and they have no reason to think of themselves as bad people—and indeed, mostly they’re not bad people. They give to charity. They go to church. They provide for a family. And so on.
> But then they perceive all these attacks on their values coming from outsiders—hippie environmentalists and ivory tower climate scientists. If you didn’t do anything wrong, and you consider yourself as reasonable and intelligent–but people are attacking you and your values—you maybe get kind of outraged and worked up."

  I think this bloke is on to something. I certainly see that attitude in people over about 70 who I meet and who deny the science of climate change. 
How old are you inter98?

----------


## intertd6

> Well done inter98. You posted a link! 
> Let's see. 
> Here's what john2b posted: *Plio-Pleistocene climate sensitivity evaluated using high-resolution CO2 records*  
> Authors:   M. A. Martínez-Botí, G. L. Foster, T. B. Chalk, E. J. Rohling, P. F. Sexton, D. J. Lunt, R. D. Pancost, M. P. S. Badger                                  & D. N. Schmidt  
> Nine co-authors qualified in their fields, working within universities. 
> The paper is published in a peer reviewed journal, Nature. An international Journal of science. 
> Your link: Articles: CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming 
> Author: Gregory Young. Unknown Author with no available credentials, qualifications or peer reviewed publications. 
> The article (it is not a scientific paper) is published on a right wing blog. The article shows the author's opinion in the first sentence, and never comes close to showing why the author's opinion bests nine qualified publishing scientists. 
> Can't you find any science to counter the science john2b posted? Opinion does not counter science. Fail.

  well done! You haven't used your brain at all to understand your 1 million year snapshot over 500 MYrs means jack in the face of the evidence that shows no relationship between CO2 levels & the temperature over the the greater period, the clones are just upset because it's the truth, just about any galah with half a functioning brain is well past believing the clones or even highly credentialed clones pushing their agenda on a hair like thread which does nothing to disprove the non relationship over the greater period

----------


## intertd6

> Denial of climate science is a burgeoning field of psychological research" 
> "Now, do I think conservative white men consciously wake up in the morning and say to themselves, “I’m going to go on blogs and attack climate science today so I can screw over the little guy?” Certainly not. 
> Rather, I simply think they experience modern climate science and climate advocacy as an affront, an attack on _them_ and what they _believe_. They were brought up in a certain way, they believe certain things, and they have no reason to think of themselves as bad people—and indeed, mostly they’re not bad people. They give to charity. They go to church. They provide for a family. And so on.
> But then they perceive all these attacks on their values coming from outsiders—hippie environmentalists and ivory tower climate scientists. If you didn’t do anything wrong, and you consider yourself as reasonable and intelligent–but people are attacking you and your values—you maybe get kind of outraged and worked up."  Whatâ€™s Up With Conservative White Men and Climate Change Denial? | DeSmogBlog  "Notably, the researchers say that CWMs also tended to assert a stronger understanding of global warming than other adults—and those who said they understood it best were the most likely to be the strongest deniers. “This, of course, seems an untenable self-assessment,” the authors write, “given that conservative white males are more likely than are other adults to reject the current scientific consensus.”"  http://conservationmagazine.org/2011/09/cool-white-dudes-2/

   That's grand coming from someone that's got nothing but a belief! Non clones need more than that or it's rejected like the cultists that peddle it

----------


## woodbe

> well done! You haven't used your brain at all to understand your 1 million year snapshot over 500 MYrs means jack in the face of the evidence that shows no relationship between CO2 levels & the temperature over the the greater period

  Sorry inter98, I don't have a 1 million year snapshot and I'm not claiming to have one, but apparently you claim I have? 
If you want to make claims about CO2 and temperature, please quote some recognised, published science by people qualified in the field. Blog posts by Autism researchers don't qualify. I think you'll find quite a few published papers but you won't enjoy them.  :Tongue:   
So how old are you, inter? Over 70?

----------


## John2b

> (Insult redacted) your 1 million year snapshot over 500 MYrs means jack in the face of the evidence that shows no relationship between CO2 levels & the temperature over the the greater period,(insults redacted)

  Wrong - even the Irish have worked it out:  What can we learn from 200 million year old plants?   The most striking feature of these records is that CO2 levels and global temperatures have been closely coupledover the last 450 million years, with low CO2 epi‐sodes associated with the formation of extensivepolar ice sheets [4]. Conversely, during times of high atmospheric CO2, the polar latitudes are ice free.   http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/CC9_20Feb09_JMcE_Paper.pdf

----------


## John2b

> That's grand coming from someone that's got nothing but a belief! Non clones need more than that or it's rejected like the cultists that peddle it

  It is not coming from me, I have simply cited peer reviewed research by others, without even endorsing it. If you have an issue with their propositions, then don't just cast insults but present what your issue is. People reading your posts are likely to form opinions, in case you hadn't realised.

----------


## intertd6

> Wrong - even the Irish have worked it out:  What can we learn from 200 million year old plants?   The most striking feature of these records is that CO2 levels and global temperatures have been closely coupledover the last 450 million years, with low CO2 epi‐sodes associated with the formation of extensivepolar ice sheets [4]. Conversely, during times of high atmospheric CO2, the polar latitudes are ice free.   http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/CC9_20Feb09_JMcE_Paper.pdf

  That's not the case at all, even the IPCC data showing climate history over the last 500MY doesn't show any coupling & actually shows opposite deviations in either direction, you are obviously having an epi-sode only a clone would understand

----------


## John2b

Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist in Canada, has successfully sued a publisher for defamation and been awarded damages after they published several articles denigrating his character and presenting an anti-scientific climate denial position. Four articles published in 2009 and 2010 refer to Weaver as an “alarmist” who disseminates “agit-prop” and a “sensationalist” that “cherry-picked” data as “Canada’s warmest spinner-in-chief.” The ruling names Terence Corcoran, editor of the Financial Post, Peter Foster, a columnist at the National Post, Kevin Libin, a journalist that contributes to the Financial Post and National Post publisher Gordon Fisher. Justice Burke concluded the defendants “have been careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts,” adding, “they were more interested in espousing a particular view than assessing the accuracy of the facts.” Burke’s also ordered the Post to remove the offending articles from the Internet, which includes withdrawing consent given to third parties to re-publish the stories, and requires these third parties (mostly anti-science climate blogs) to cease re-publication. 
This should put other blog sites on notice that there is a responsibility to avoid such irresponsible assaults on climate science and scientists, and a real cost for failing to do so. Take notice Andrew Watts.  Climate scientist Andrew Weaver wins defamation case against National Post | Toronto Star

----------


## PhilT2

> That's not the case at all, even the IPCC data showing climate history over the last 500MY doesn't show any coupling & actually shows opposite deviations in either direction, you are obviously having an epi-sode only a clone would understand

  Do you have a link to that IPCC data?

----------


## PhilT2

> Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist in Canada, has successfully sued a publisher for defamation and been awarded damages after they published several articles denigrating his character and presenting an anti-scientific climate denial position. Four articles published in 2009 and 2010 refer to Weaver as an alarmist who disseminates agit-prop and a sensationalist that cherry-picked data as Canadas warmest spinner-in-chief. The ruling names Terence Corcoran, editor of the Financial Post, Peter Foster, a columnist at the National Post, Kevin Libin, a journalist that contributes to the Financial Post and National Post publisher Gordon Fisher. Justice Burke concluded the defendants have been* careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts,* adding, they were more interested in espousing a particular view than assessing the accuracy of the facts. Burkes also ordered the Post to remove the offending articles from the Internet, which includes withdrawing consent given to third parties to re-publish the stories, and requires these third parties (mostly anti-science climate blogs) to cease re-publication. 
> This should put other blog sites on notice that there is a responsibility to avoid such irresponsible assaults on climate science and scientists, and a real cost for failing to do so. Take notice Andrew Watts.  Climate scientist Andrew Weaver wins defamation case against National Post | Toronto Star

  "Careless with the facts"; next you'll be accusing the pope of being a catholic. Big difference between Canadian and US defamation law though.

----------


## intertd6

> Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist in Canada, has successfully sued a publisher for defamation and been awarded damages after they published several articles denigrating his character and presenting an anti-scientific climate denial position. Four articles published in 2009 and 2010 refer to Weaver as an alarmist who disseminates agit-prop and a sensationalist that cherry-picked data as Canadas warmest spinner-in-chief. The ruling names Terence Corcoran, editor of the Financial Post, Peter Foster, a columnist at the National Post, Kevin Libin, a journalist that contributes to the Financial Post and National Post publisher Gordon Fisher. Justice Burke concluded the defendants have been careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts, adding, they were more interested in espousing a particular view than assessing the accuracy of the facts. Burkes also ordered the Post to remove the offending articles from the Internet, which includes withdrawing consent given to third parties to re-publish the stories, and requires these third parties (mostly anti-science climate blogs) to cease re-publication. 
> This should put other blog sites on notice that there is a responsibility to avoid such irresponsible assaults on climate science and scientists, and a real cost for failing to do so. Take notice Andrew Watts.  Climate scientist Andrew Weaver wins defamation case against National Post | Toronto Star

  So what do we do with the overpaid galahs that say things like, the rain that falls isn't going to fill the dams! Not even an apology!

----------


## intertd6

> Do you have a link to that IPCC data?

    It has been posted on this debate numerous times in the past, but just for you the same data was contained in the link I provided on this very page above.

----------


## John2b

> So what do we do with the overpaid galahs that say things like, the rain that falls isn't going to fill the dams! Not even an apology!

  Take them to court, but don't expect to win. An ideologically driven willingness to be careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts of who said what, when, and in what context, is unlikely to be shared by the judiciary.

----------


## intertd6

> Take them to court, but don't expect to win. An ideologically driven willingness to be careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts of who said what, when, and in what context, is unlikely to be shared by the judiciary.

  It just cost the country many billions of dollars on an ideology which have been mostly mothballed, who but a left wing clone thinks that's good? Oh that's right it other peoples money!

----------


## John2b

> It just cost the country many billions of dollars on an ideology which have been mostly mothballed, who but a left wing clone thinks that's good? Oh that's right it other peoples money!

  Nobody actually said "the rain that falls isn't going to fill the dams ever again". That is just a thick-as-a-brick intentionally distorted misquote From Andrew Bolt. https://indifferencegivesyouafright....er-fill-again/ 
Environmentalists did not support the building of desalination plants - quite the opposite. Most environmental organisations were doing all they could to challenge the veracity of the half-baked economic modelling and environmental impact statements. Who benefited from the building of desalination plants? Oh that's right, big business made a killing out of it - billions of dollars in fact. What did Tim Flannery make out of it? Nothing.

----------


## PhilT2

> It has been posted on this debate numerous times in the past, but just for you the same data was contained in the link I provided on this very page above.

  You'll have to help me out here. I can't find any links to the IPCC in your recent posts.

----------


## woodbe

> That's not the case at all, even the IPCC data showing climate history over the last 500MY doesn't show any coupling & actually shows opposite deviations in either direction, you are obviously having an epi-sode only a clone would understand

   

> Do you have a link to that IPCC data?

   

> You'll have to help me out here. I can't find any links to the IPCC in your recent posts.

  The reason you aren't being given the link is that you are being told a little white lie. Inter98 isn't talking about the science, he's talking about his personal misinformation based on his personal eyeballing of the data in a graphic.  
If he can show us that the IPCC supports his claim that there is no coupling between CO2 and temperature then I will be happy to retract that comment. Of course, that would have to be in text and graphics, not an inter98 re-interpretation of one graphic, which is what I think we are dealing with here.

----------


## intertd6

> The reason you aren't being given the link is that you are being told a little white lie. Inter98 isn't talking about the science, he's talking about his personal misinformation based on his personal eyeballing of the data in a graphic.  
> If he can show us that the IPCC supports his claim that there is no coupling between CO2 and temperature then I will be happy to retract that comment. Of course, that would have to be in text and graphics, not an inter98 re-interpretation of one graphic, which is what I think we are dealing with here.

  The chances of you doing something happily without an argument would be a pipe dream

----------


## intertd6

> You'll have to help me out here. I can't find any links to the IPCC in your recent posts.

   That's because I said the same data was contained in the above link, it's not a link to the data in the IPCC.

----------


## woodbe

> That's not the case at all, even the IPCC data showing climate history over the last 500MY doesn't show any coupling & actually shows opposite deviations in either direction, you are obviously having an epi-sode only a clone would understand

   

> That's because I said the same data was contained  in the above link, it's not a link to the data in the IPCC.

  Oh, I see. the data you mentioned is not actually the data you mentioned. Is this some Jedi mind trick? 
Time to show the data, big boy.

----------


## woodbe

> The chances of you doing something happily without an argument would be a pipe dream

  Look in the mirror, and you will see the source of the argument with inter98. 
I'm very happy to point out the massive holes in your arguments. I also note that you have not answered the 'over 70' question.

----------


## woodbe

So, what does the IPCC say about past climate and greenhouse gases? 
Lots, but here is some from AR4 Palaeoclimate that covers the suggested 500m years.    IPCC AR4 Working Group 1: Chapter 6 - Palaeoclimate 
Maybe inter98 has a better link?

----------


## Bros

> I also note that you have not answered the 'over 70' question.

  Stick to the subject as his age is his business.

----------


## woodbe

Here's a video on subject. 2014 hottest year on record.    
The globe is warmer now than it has been in the last 100 years and more  likely in at least 5,000 years, said climate scientist Jennifer  Francis of Rutgers University.  Any wisps of doubt that human activities are at fault are now gone with  the wind.

----------


## johnc

> Stick to the subject as his age is his business.

   That's right, we should stick to his shoe size, just as useful a measure.

----------


## intertd6

> Oh, I see. the data you mentioned is not actually the data you mentioned. Is this some Jedi mind trick? 
> Time to show the data, big boy.

  youve mastered the readin n rightin, the understandin bit may possibly come along later in the piece!

----------


## intertd6

> Stick to the subject as his age is his business.

  i remember sharing a cabin for a few weeks on a long ocean voyage with a few professors heavily involved in climate research, all in their 60's & 70's, funnily enough they weren't clones, nor particularly panicky about anything catastrophic happening.
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> So, what does the IPCC say about past climate and greenhouse gases? 
> Lots, but here is some from AR4 Palaeoclimate that covers the suggested 500m years.    IPCC AR4 Working Group 1: Chapter 6 - Palaeoclimate 
> Maybe inter98 has a better link?

   It quite funny how you quote proof for 500MY, yet the stuff you quoted material only covers 55MY, didn't you think we wouldn't notice the short fall? Must be the standard in left wing mathematics

----------


## intertd6

> That's right, we should stick to his shoe size, just as useful a measure.

  in the European measure I'm quite middle aged then!

----------


## intertd6

> Nobody actually said "the rain that falls isn't going to fill the dams ever again". That is just a thick-as-a-brick intentionally distorted misquote From Andrew Bolt. https://indifferencegivesyouafright....er-fill-again/ 
> .

   Sorry but you are so wrong (again), flammery not only said it or similar once but several times, here is a link to the herald sun quotes, Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
as it hasn't been retracted we can safely say its accurate.
ps, I didn't  put quotation marks on my original sentence referring to what he actually said because I couldnt be bothered to be that accurate, I left that for you to do & show how accurate your weren't!

----------


## John2b

> It quite funny how you quote proof for 500MY, yet the stuff you quoted material only covers 55MY, didn't you think we wouldn't notice the short fall?

  No there was no restriction on the time period just because the examples chosen were in the last 55my. You must have been channeling yourself when you posted:   

> youve mastered the readin n rightin, the understandin bit may possibly come along later in the piece!

----------


## woodbe

> It quite funny how you quote proof for 500MY, yet the stuff you quoted material only covers 55MY, didn't you think we wouldn't notice the short fall? Must be the standard in left wing mathematics

  Edit. 
Yes, You are correct. I made an error with the years and happy to admit a mistake. One of the few who admits a mistake on this thread. 
55 million years is plenty. Seeing as we are adding CO2 into the atmosphere at an increasing rate and seeing the results, how many years are required?

----------


## intertd6

> No there was no restriction on the time period just because the examples chosen were in the last 55my. :

   Yes as you have demonstrated, there is no restriction to the absurd!

----------


## intertd6

> Edit. 
> Yes, You are correct. I made an error with the years and happy to admit a mistake. One of the few who admits a mistake on this thread. 
> 55 million years is plenty. Seeing as we are adding CO2 into the atmosphere at an increasing rate and seeing the results, how many years are required?

  Reedin n rightin good, understandin n mafmatcs not so good!

----------


## woodbe

An error admitted does not justify further criticism. 
The physics stands. Temperature and CO2 is shown by the IPCC over the last 55my to co vary. Humans have been around for how long, and for how long have we been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere?

----------


## John2b

> here is a link to the herald sun quotes, as it hasn't been retracted we can safely say its accurate.

  Are you serious? You can't safely say it was accurate at all. Even if the words _were_ verbatim, without the context in which they were said, the meaning attributed is maliciously false. 
The Herald Sun is hardly known for accuracy: They have had a judgement against them in 2003 for $246,000 for an article that was not true, that it was not a faithful and accurate record and that it was not fair comment on a matter of public interest, and the paper's conduct was “at worst, dishonest and misleading and at best, grossly careless.”

----------


## John2b

> i remember sharing a cabin for a few weeks on a long ocean voyage with a few professors heavily involved in climate research, all in their 60's & 70's, funnily enough they weren't clones, nor particularly panicky about anything catastrophic happening.

  I once shared a lift with some Seventh Day Adventists whose views were much the same, and that must be as good a reason to believe as your broken logic.

----------


## John2b

> Edit. 
> Yes, You are correct. I made an error with the years and happy to admit a mistake. One of the few who admits a mistake on this thread.

  Actually Chapter 6 of AR4 was on Pre-Quaternary Climates, which go back way, way past 55my, to 400 million years ago in the context of the chapter.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Are you serious? You can't safely say it was accurate at all. Even if the words _were_ verbatim, without the context in which they were said, the meaning attributed is maliciously false. 
> The Herald Sun is hardly known for accuracy: They have had a judgement against them in 2003 for $246,000 for an article that was not true, that it was not a faithful and accurate record and that it was not fair comment on a matter of public interest, and the paper's conduct was at worst, dishonest and misleading and at best, grossly careless.

  Are you saying he didn't say it? Or are you just being apologetic.  Or trying to down play what was said /meant. 
Ho hum this is getting boring  you guys are just so predictable, unlike our climate.

----------


## John2b

> Are you saying he didn't say it? Or are you just being apologetic.  Or trying to down play what was said /meant.

  Despite what you might read on a discredited denialist blog or "newspaper", the meaning attributed by others to what Flannery said is not a logical conclusion from the quote in context. 
Rod, you once said you wouldn't play the game of answering a question so someone else could catch you out on a "gotcha". Can't you see that this is exactly what this is?   

> Ho hum this is getting boring you guys are just so predictable, unlike our climate.

  Excluding volcanoes and meteor strikes, the climate is highly predictable, but you are still struggling with the difference between weather and climate.  http://bit.ly/1C6U3kE

----------


## intertd6

> Are you saying he didn't say it? Or are you just being apologetic.  Or trying to down play what was said /meant. 
> Ho hum this is getting boring  you guys are just so predictable, unlike our climate.

   They are so deep into denial that they are making a profession of it!
regards inter

----------


## intertd6

> I once shared a lift with some Seventh Day Adventists whose views were much the same, and that must be as good a reason to believe as your broken logic.

  I bet they were happy when you got out!

----------


## woodbe

> They are so deep into denial that they are making a profession of it!
> regards inter

  Taking stuff out of context to misinform is not an honest strategy. 
That is exactly what was going on with that attack on Flannery. Perhaps he could have been more careful with what he said so that his meaning was harder to distort later, but those that are deep into denial attack anyone who puts their hand up to support the science.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Taking stuff out of context to misinform is not an honest strategy. 
> That is exactly what was going on with that attack on Flannery. Perhaps he could have been more careful with what he said so that his meaning was harder to distort later, but those that are deep into denial attack anyone who puts their hand up to support the science.

   How was it distorted?

----------


## woodbe

> How was it distorted?

  It was taken out of context. Read the link on john2b's post.

----------


## John2b

> How was it distorted?

  Why the need to play dumb?

----------


## woodbe

> Why the need to play dumb?

  Because Bolt!  :Biggrin:

----------


## intertd6

> Taking stuff out of context to misinform is not an honest strategy. 
> That is exactly what was going on with that attack on Flannery. Perhaps he could have been more careful with what he said so that his meaning was harder to distort later, but those that are deep into denial attack anyone who puts their hand up to support the science.

  you really are in your own little world, the " they " i was referring to was your camp in this debate! Following on from rods "you guys" NFI !

----------


## woodbe

> you really are in your own little world, the " they " i was referring to was your camp in this debate! Following on from rods "you guys" NFI !

  I know who you were referring to, but you don't seem to know who I was referring to. The 3%! 
Reedin n rightin good, understandin not so good!

----------


## John2b

The main reason that reservoirs and water systems in Australia haven't dried up to the extend that was alluded to is behavioural change brought about through government actions. Look at how household water consumption has been falling in recent years as a consequence of water prices being aligned to the cost of delivery water, and due to behavioural changes wrought through seasonal water restrictions:  *3.7.2 Water efficiency*  *Table 5: Summary of water efficiency measures across Australia from 2004 to 2014*  Jurisdiction Summary  NSW Water Wise Rules have replaced water restrictions and apply to Sydney, the Blue Mountains, the Illawarra and lower Hunter region. Local council water providers also have a range of water restriction measures imposed during water shortages.  Vic. Permanent water saving rules for the state took effect in December 2011. These form part of each water corporation's permanent water saving plan but do not preclude water restrictions during drought periods. Water restrictions are managed by Victoria's urban water corporations and are only applicable to customers on a reticulated supply. They do not apply to recycled, reclaimed, rain or grey water other than when supplemented by drinking water.  Qld Water restrictions in place in Queensland during the previous drought period have now been lifted, including the requirement for large water—using businesses to develop water efficiency management plans (WEMPs). The amended _Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008_ allows South East Queensland (SEQ) water service providers to impose restrictions or require WEMPs, although the Act does not specify the circumstances in which these would be imposed.
The government, together with Seqwater and the SEQ council water businesses, intends to develop a long—term restriction framework. Water savings targets for new houses and commercial and industrial buildings, which included rainwater tanks, have been reviewed.  WA Restrictions are in place throughout Western Australia which prescribe outside water use conditions and limitations. The restrictions include permanent water efficiency measures, and can also include extra efficiency measures and restrictions as required.  SA Water Wise Measures are in place across the state, replacing water restrictions. Penalties continue to apply for non—compliance. Conditional use is allowed for some areas such as irrigation of domestic gardens and lawns and sportsground irrigation.  Tas. There are currently no water restrictions. TasWater reserves the option to enact water restrictions when storages become critically low due to unforeseen operational issues or due to drought conditions.  ACT Permanent water conservation measures are in place when the ACT is not in a drought situation as determined by a range of publicly available criteria, in particular dam storage levels and pending weather conditions. When water supplies are scarce, a four—stage scheme of temporary water restrictions is enacted.  NT The Northern Territory has programs in place to reduce water consumption rates in Darwin and Alice Springs. The Northern Territory Government, through the Power and Water Corporation, has recently launched Living Water Smart in the Darwin region. This is a five—year water conservation initiative, targeted at residential, business and government customers, with the objective of reducing Darwin's water use by 25 per cent. Alice Water Smart comprises several programs to support water conservation measures within Alice Springs, which aims to save 1.6 GL of water over two years.      http://www.nwc.gov.au/publications/t...ter-3-progress

----------


## John2b

> Johnwant2b you forgot the bit about the rain actually filling the dams contrary to your sacked idols stupid predictions, which your still trying to defend in some silly warped way!

  Water storages fill when the recharge rate exceeds the extraction rate. Kind of the reverse of how the planet is heating because the inward radiation currently exceeds the radiation back out to space. You still seem to be confusing seasonal year to year variability in weather with long term climate trends. BTW, no mainland state's water storages are near full: Water Storage - Bureau of Meteorology water storage levels for Australia

----------


## John2b

It seems like the rivers are not filling the dams and reservoirs in WA any more. Perth's water storage capacity is at about ¼ and its superficial groundwater supply is in crisis.__  _Rainfall in south-west_ _WA__ has already reduced by around 15 per cent since the mid-1970s. From 1911 to 1974 the average stream flow into Perth Dams was 338 gigalitres. From 1975 to 2000 average stream flow was almost half this value at 177 gigalitres. From 2001 to 2010 inflows again halved to approximately 75 gigalitres. _ Declining runoff into Perth reservoirs linked to groundwater __ http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/impacts/wa_ _

----------


## John2b

> and the funniest thing is the witless clone disiciples running around making up excuses for their failed icons, that will help!

  Perth water storage inflows have dropped from 338 gigalitres average 1911 to 1974, down to 75 gigalitres average 2001 to 2010. Do you thing governments should NOT act on that information?

----------


## woodbe

> and the funniest thing is the witless clone disiciples running around making up excuses for their failed icons, that will help! Not!
> more on flammery Another dose of Flim-Flannery â Quadrant Online

  Hmm. Lets consider the scientific veracity of the last two posts then. 
john2b quotes* an article about a scientific study* showing that Perth river flows have been significantly reducing since the mid 70's, and he also links the article and a government webpage that does not directly quote the science but clearly supports it. 
A google search turns up several affirming published scientific studies such as *this one* (PDF). The current level of Perth Reservoirs also empirically supports the published science. 
inter98 parades his usual distaste for anything that shows climate change is real and attacks the messenger by quoting a right wing blog article written by a cohort of Bob Carter who is apparently still licking his wounds from having their science denial exposed. No published science is apparent in the blog post, but there is a lot of ad hominem attacks and cherry picking. 
Readers can decide on the scientific basis for this little spat. 
Whether Tim Flannery is a 'failed icon' or not is irrelevant to the state of the science. If our skeptics wish to reveal that the science is in error, they could do themselves a favour by finding prevailing scientific studies that show these errors. Given that there is a dearth of significant studies to this end, perhaps our skeptics might be moved to publish the science that they apparently know but is not yet published, doing the world a favour revealing the amazing unknown gotchas that show where the science is so wrong.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## intertd6

> Perth water storage inflows have dropped from 338 gigalitres average 1911 to 1974, down to 75 gigalitres average 2001 to 2010. Do you thing governments should NOT act on that information?

  I'd prefer govt doesn't pander to minority extremists, whether it's your failed icon of the present or some other idiots who stopped cheaper more efficient water storage civil works being implemented in the last 30 years

----------


## intertd6

> Hmm. Lets consider the scientific veracity of the last two posts then. 
> john2b quotes* an article about a scientific study* showing that Perth river flows have been significantly reducing since the mid 70's, and he also links the article and a government webpage that does not directly quote the science but clearly supports it. 
> A google search turns up several affirming published scientific studies such as *this one* (PDF). The current level of Perth Reservoirs also empirically supports the published science. 
> inter98 parades his usual distaste for anything that shows climate change is real and attacks the messenger by quoting a right wing blog article written by a cohort of Bob Carter who is apparently still licking his wounds from having their science denial exposed. No published science is apparent in the blog post, but there is a lot of ad hominem attacks and cherry picking. 
> Readers can decide on the scientific basis for this little spat. 
> Whether Tim Flannery is a 'failed icon' or not is irrelevant to the state of the science. If our skeptics wish to reveal that the science is in error, they could do themselves a favour by finding prevailing scientific studies that show these errors. Given that there is a dearth of significant studies to this end, perhaps our skeptics might be moved to publish the science that they apparently know but is not yet published, doing the world a favour revealing the amazing unknown gotchas that show where the science is so wrong.

   You can consider to your hearts content, all the meaningless things to disguise that fact your backing losers.

----------


## woodbe

> You can consider to your hearts content, all the meaningless things to disguise that fact your backing losers.

  C'mon inter, where did you get the idea I was backing you?  :Tongue:  
I back the results of scientific investigation. If that turns out to be losers then it won't be because they were incorrect, it will be because of denial of science.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I'd prefer govt doesn't pander to minority extremists....

  
You might find it interesting that, when it comes to pandering and decision making with respect to essential services, most Governments and their public servants are even more conservative than you are... 
Civil works in the realm of water storage over the last 30 years have not been pursued mostly because the economists realised the water efficiency projects were cheaper than dams and they 'recovered' just as much water (much the same as what has happened more recently in the power generation sector) .   
The civil engineers didn't believe them at the time (and I tended to side with them) but budget cuts being what they were (not enough money for dam projects) ...the engineers were forced to give way and the money went to water efficiency...and blow me down if it didn't get a result. Saved so much water that it actually made the proposed Welcome Reef Dam entirely uneconomic.  Then suddenly every other water authority around the country was doing the same thing... 
Now it has gone so far...that the only way for a Government to build a dam is if it builds and owns it itself.  And I can't see that happening in this modern era of government asset sales...

----------


## John2b

> I'd prefer govt doesn't pander to minority extremists, whether it's your failed icon of the present or some other idiots who stopped cheaper more efficient water storage civil works being implemented in the last 30 years

  Climate scientists do NOT tell governments which policies should be adopted or how to achieve them. Governments act how they choose on, for example, the information about future water supplies and future water consumption. 
No climate scientist told governments to build desalination plants. Climate scientists do climate science and governments do public infrastructure policy. Environmentalists campaigned strongly against desalination plants and if anything it was the business lobby that won the day. The logical conclusion of your post is that the business lobby are minority extremists and I agree, the government should not pander to them.

----------


## intertd6

> You might find it interesting that, when it comes to pandering and decision making with respect to essential services, most Governments and their public servants are even more conservative than you are... 
> Civil works in the realm of water storage over the last 30 years have not been pursued mostly because the economists realised the water efficiency projects were cheaper than dams and they 'recovered' just as much water (much the same as what has happened more recently in the power generation sector) .   
> The civil engineers didn't believe them at the time (and I tended to side with them) but budget cuts being what they were (not enough money for dam projects) ...the engineers were forced to give way and the money went to water efficiency...and blow me down if it didn't get a result. Saved so much water that it actually made the proposed Welcome Reef Dam entirely uneconomic.  Then suddenly every other water authority around the country was doing the same thing... 
> Now it has gone so far...that the only way for a Government to build a dam is if it builds and owns it itself.  And I can't see that happening in this modern era of government asset sales...

  thats just a complete load of rubbish!

----------


## intertd6

> Climate scientists do NOT tell governments which policies should be adopted or how to achieve them. Governments act how they choose on, for example, the information about future water supplies and future water consumption. 
> No climate scientist told governments to build desalination plants. Climate scientists do climate science and governments do public infrastructure policy. Environmentalists campaigned strongly against desalination plants and if anything it was the business lobby that won the day. The logical conclusion of your post is that the business lobby are minority extremists and I agree, the government should not pander to them.

   Johnwant2b so now your claiming climate scientists are extremist minority groups as well as the business lobby, yet clones don't get a mention, every body is to blame but you! A not so interesting concept

----------


## woodbe

> Johnwant2b so now your claiming climate scientists are extremist minority groups as well as the business lobby, yet clones don't get a mention, every body is to blame but you! A not so interesting concept

  Individual members of the public are not to blame for government decisions to build desal plants. If you think back there was enormous hype about the dwindling water supplies in the press which created pressure to act on the government. 
I wasn't against building the infrastructure, but I was against signing long term operation contracts regardless of water requirements. That was just dumb and a handout to business. The plants should have been mothballed between drought periods at very little cost to the public instead of paying for water production regardless of demand for it.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> thats just a complete load of rubbish!

  Hardly, Good Sir. I was there.  
Your statement is akin to me saying your time in Antarctica was nothing more than a figment of your mind. Was it?

----------


## johnc

> Hardly, Good Sir. I was there.  
> Your statement is akin to me saying your time in Antarctica was nothing more than a figment of your mind. Was it?

  Hmm, if there is a mind is it functional?

----------


## intertd6

> Hardly, Good Sir. I was there. 
> ?

   You probably were there protesting for all I know! While I was working with the guys that were adding a bandaid remedy for water needs, designing & constructing the dam wall lifting projects because there were no dams bring built because the govts pandering to the minority green groups, obviously clonesville as you've shown has a very narrow view of what really went on in the real world!

----------


## intertd6

> Hmm, if there is a mind is it functional?

  nobody would mind if you were functional!

----------


## johnc

> nobody would mind if you were functional!

  
Gee, even I wouldn't mind that.

----------


## woodbe

> You probably were there protesting for all I know!

  So what are you saying? You think SBD is making stuff up, or he is an outright liar? 
Seriously? 
You claimed SBD's post was "just a complete load of rubbish" How about you prove it, otherwise you are the one posting a complete load of rubbish.

----------


## intertd6

> So what are you saying? You think SBD is making stuff up, or he is an outright liar? 
> Seriously? 
> You claimed SBD's post was "just a complete load of rubbish" How about you prove it, otherwise you are the one posting a complete load of rubbish.

  Woodly for all I know you too may have been protesting as a member of rent a crowd as well!  NotsoSBD was just expounding typical parroted bureaucratic claptrap, I used to work for the the same mob & hear the same stuff daily, the difference was I hadn't been brainwashed & lost all sense of realism.

----------


## johnc

> Woodly for all I know you too may have been protesting as a member of rent a crowd as well!  NotsoSBD was just expounding typical parroted bureaucratic claptrap, I used to work for the the same mob & hear the same stuff daily, the difference was I hadn't been brainwashed & lost all sense of realism.

   Being in denial more like it, refusing to take in anything that doesn't suit your own bias is not a sign of a rigorous intellect.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodly for all I know you too may have been protesting as a member of rent a crowd as well!  NotsoSBD was just expounding typical parroted bureaucratic claptrap

  So no evidence to support your claims, just slurs on other posters' characters? 
The 3% look like they are raking the bottom of the barrel now.

----------


## intertd6

> So no evidence to support your claims, just slurs on other posters' characters? 
> The 3% look like they are raking the bottom of the barrel now.

  what more evidence do you need? No dams being built, dam walls being raised as bandaid storage measures, politicians & their bureaucratic underlings trotting out the well rehearsed mantra while building desal plants which cost 20 to 30 billion dollars, then if operational mostly use fossil fuels which emit so called harmful gases, then if they are mothballed still cost billions. Then we have notsoSBD's hearsay! It's really like chalk & cheese to see the difference! Unless of course your a clone!

----------


## woodbe

> what more evidence do you need?

  Thank you for asking. 
What I need is evidence that proves your claim:   

> thats just a complete load of rubbish!

  To this post by SBD:   

> You might find it interesting that, when it comes to pandering and decision making with respect to essential services, most Governments and their public servants are even more conservative than you are... 
> Civil works in the realm of water storage over the last 30 years have not been pursued mostly because the economists realised the water efficiency projects were cheaper than dams and they 'recovered' just as much water (much the same as what has happened more recently in the power generation sector) .   
> The civil engineers didn't believe them at the time (and I tended to side with them) but budget cuts being what they were (not enough money for dam projects) ...the engineers were forced to give way and the money went to water efficiency...and blow me down if it didn't get a result. Saved so much water that it actually made the proposed Welcome Reef Dam entirely uneconomic.  Then suddenly every other water authority around the country was doing the same thing... 
> Now it has gone so far...that the only way for a Government to build a dam is if it builds and owns it itself.  And I can't see that happening in this modern era of government asset sales...

  I'm not asking for personal attacks on SBD, myself or anyone else who  might not agree with you. I'm just asking for plain and simple evidence  that proves that everything in SBD's post is "just a complete load of  rubbish!" 
You said it, you must have proof, show it.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## johnc

> what more evidence do you need? No dams being built, dam walls being raised as bandaid storage measures, politicians & their bureaucratic underlings trotting out the well rehearsed mantra while building desal plants which cost 20 to 30 billion dollars, then if operational mostly use fossil fuels which emit so called harmful gases, then if they are mothballed still cost billions. Then we have notsoSBD's hearsay! It's really like chalk & cheese to see the difference! Unless of course your a clone!

  Calling people clones in a wilfully stupid manner seems to be your current hallmark, I've never seen someone so keen to showcase ignorance of intelligent discourse or so incapable of arguing a case

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You probably were there protesting for all I know! While I was working with the guys that were adding a bandaid remedy for water needs, designing & constructing the dam wall lifting projects because there were no dams bring built because the govts pandering to the minority green groups, obviously clonesville as you've shown has a very narrow view of what really went on in the real world!

  Then you should know better. I spent most of the nineties working at Sydney Water in the water supply and treatment sector while you were apparently just an inattentive hammer thrower. 
And even if you worked on the Warragamba project as you appear to claim then even a simpleton of your stature should recall why that project came about - it was primarily done to improve dam safety after it was determined that the wall was at risk of damage or failure in the event of flooding greater than 1 in 100 (though I'm not sure how much greater). So the total height of the wall was raised (though little was added to the operational height) and new gates installed plus the mother of all diversionary spillways. Not much to do with the actual volume of water being stored... 
As for the rest of your conspiracy minded groupthink....whatever. Your one track monomaniacal mind precludes your ability to credible...probably even as a tradesman. Sad really.

----------


## intertd6

> Thank you for asking. 
> What I need is evidence that proves your claim:   
> To this post by SBD:   
> I'm not asking for personal attacks on SBD, myself or anyone else who  might not agree with you. I'm just asking for plain and simple evidence  that proves that everything in SBD's post is "just a complete load of  rubbish!" 
> You said it, you must have proof, show it.

  Woodflea its still a load of heresay rubbish the second time around!

----------


## woodbe

> Woodflea its still a load of heresay rubbish the second time around!

  No evidence then? Your claims are looking pretty scuffed up, you should shine them up with some real information. 
Or perhaps you don't have any?

----------


## intertd6

> Calling people clones in a wilfully stupid manner seems to be your current hallmark, I've never seen someone so keen to showcase ignorance of intelligent discourse or so incapable of arguing a case

   I among many would love to be less ignorant, if you ever came through with the facts, which these red herrings are used to creat a subterfuge covering up the fact that you've got no case to argue, your usual audience is obviously lacking the intelligence to know any different & the spine to be able to tell you so!

----------


## John2b

> I among many would love to be less ignorant

  It is entirely within your own power to be less ignorant, and entirely your own fault for not being so. There is no one else to blame for that but yourself.

----------


## intertd6

> Then you should know better. I spent most of the nineties working at Sydney Water in the water supply and treatment sector while you were apparently just an inattentive hammer thrower. 
> And even if you worked on the Warragamba project as you appear to claim then even a simpleton of your stature should recall why that project came about - it was primarily done to improve dam safety after it was determined that the wall was at risk of damage or failure in the event of flooding greater than 1 in 100 (though I'm not sure how much greater). So the total height of the wall was raised (though little was added to the operational height) and new gates installed plus the mother of all diversionary spillways. Not much to do with the actual volume of water being stored... 
> As for the rest of your conspiracy minded groupthink....whatever. Your one track monomaniacal mind precludes your ability to credible...probably even as a tradesman. Sad really.

  Well now we know the cause of all that self inflation, with a resume like that the floor sweepers in parliament house will be scared witless worried about their jobs being in jeopardy seeing you've moved up the food chain from water & sewage!

----------


## woodbe

> Well now we know the cause of all that self inflation, with a resume like that the floor sweepers in parliament house will be scared witless worried about their jobs being in jeopardy seeing you've moved up the food chain from water & sewage!

  No evidence to support your claim, just another personal attack?

----------


## intertd6

> No evidence then? Your claims are looking pretty scuffed up, you should shine them up with some real information. 
> Or perhaps you don't have any?

  woodflea don't you know what heresay is? Everything I have said is on the public record!

----------


## woodbe

> woodflea don't you know what heresay is? Everything I have said is on the public record!

  I know what heresay is. You are claiming what SBD said is a "just a complete load of  rubbish!", everything you have said might be on the public record, but none of it is evidence to support your claim. You did ask: "what more evidence do you need" but you are not very forthcoming after making such an offer. 
What I need is the evidence you must have that proves what you said (on the public record) shows that SBD's post is "just a complete load of  rubbish!" 
Thanks in advance.  :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

> It is entirely within your own power to be less ignorant, and entirely your own fault for not being so. There is no one else to blame for that but yourself.

  Well that seems to close the door on you with the superior education & intellect providing anything enlightening, educational or factual to the lowly, less fortunate hammer swingers of the world! And there we all were waiting expectantly for years on the promise it would appear!

----------


## intertd6

> I see we are back to petty insults and fact free denial, doesn't this guy have anything beyond empty rhetoric.

  Johncwhowants2b how about the proof instead of the usual pathetic ridiculous tripe evading it!

----------


## John2b

> Well that seems to close the door on you with the superior education & intellect providing anything enlightening, educational or factual to the lowly, less fortunate hammer swingers of the world! And there we all were waiting expectantly for years on the promise it would appear!

  The post was directed at you, and you alone. Hundreds of avenues have been provided for you to enlighten and educate yourself to the facts already. It's your choice not to and to continue to bring up zombie arguments that have been shown to be wrong, again and again. 
This is a peculiar forum where one participant has the moderators' sanction to insult and belittle others, both other participants and bystanders, whilst not advancing the topic. Savour your opprobrium while you can.

----------


## John2b

_Royal Dutch Shell CEO Ben van Beurden believes it is time for his industry to take a more active role in the conversation about climate change and become "less aloof." Putting a price on carbon is a "crucial" part of lowering emissions and addressing climate change, he said at an industry conference in London on Thursday evening. _ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6671800.html

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Well now we know the cause of all that self inflation, with a resume like that the floor sweepers in parliament house will be scared witless worried about their jobs being in jeopardy seeing you've moved up the food chain from water & sewage!

  Not interested in floor sweeping anymore.  Already did that back in the early days... 
As for moving up the food chain from water and sewage...hardly. There's too much really interesting @@@@ going on down here...   
I came up with a new word last night: INTEROGANCE.  Definition - "a public display of wilfully arrogant ignorance, often with a self congratulatory tone."

----------


## woodbe

> Woodflea any normal person would have come clean that they had nothing, but not you lot!

  Here's a list of researched climate science and events that prove you wrong. We definitely have something that is older than you and will still be around and even more accurate when we are all returned to dust:  *Timeline (Milestones*)          _Here are gathered in chronological sequence the most important events in           the history of climate change science. (For a narrative see the Introduction:           summary history.) This list of milestones includes major influences           external to the science itself. Following it is a list           of other external influences_.  *1800-1870* 
Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere,          as later measured in ancient ice, is about 290 ppm (parts per million).        
Mean global temperature (1850-1870) is about 13.6°C.        
First Industrial Revolution. Coal, railroads, and land clearing speed           up greenhouse gas emission, while better agriculture and sanitation speed           up population growth.           *1824* Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked          an atmosphere. =>Simple models   *1859*
Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests           that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change.           =>Other gases   *1896* 
Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions           of CO2. =>Simple models  *1897      * 
Chamberlin produces a model for global carbon exchange including feedbacks.           =>Simple models  *1870-1910* 
Second Industrial Revolution. Fertilizers and other chemicals, electricity,           and public health further accelerate growth.  *1914-1918 * 
World War I; governments learn to mobilize and control  industrial  societies.  *1920-1925* 
Opening of Texas and Persian Gulf oil fields inaugurates era of cheap           energy.  *1930s* 
Global warming trend since late 19th century reported. =>Modern temp's
Milankovitch proposes orbital changes as the cause of ice ages. =>Climate cycles  *1938      * 
Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming           is underway, reviving interest in the question. =>CO2 greenhouse  *1939-1945* 
World War II. Military grand strategy is largely driven by a struggle to control           oil fields.  *1945* 
US Office of Naval Research begins generous funding of many fields of           science, some of which happen to be useful for understanding climate change.           =>Government  *1956* 
Ewing and Donn offer a feedback model for quick ice age onset. =>Simple models
Phillips produces a somewhat realistic computer model of the global           atmosphere. =>Models (GCMs)
Plass calculates that adding CO2 to the atmosphere           will have a significant effect on the radiation balance. =>Radiation math  *1957* 
Launch of Soviet Sputnik satellite. Cold War concerns support 1957-58           International Geophysical Year, bringing new funding and coordination           to climate studies. =>International
Revelle finds that CO2 produced by humans will           not be readily absorbed by the oceans. =>CO2 greenhouse  *1958* 
Telescope studies show a greenhouse effect raises temperature of the atmosphere           of Venus far above the boiling point of water. =>Venus & Mars  *1960* 
Mitchell reports downturn of global temperatures since the early 1940s.=>Modern temp's
Keeling accurately measures CO2           in the Earth's atmosphere and detects an annual rise. =>CO2 greenhouse The level           is 315 ppm. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 13.9°C.  *1962* 
Cuban Missile Crisis, peak of the Cold War.  *1963* 
Calculations suggest that feedback with water vapor could make the climate           acutely sensitive to changes in CO2 level. =>Radiation math  *1965* 
Boulder, Colo. meeting on causes of climate change: Lorenz and others           point out the chaotic nature of climate system and the possibility of           sudden shifts. =>Chaos theory   *1966* 
Emiliani's analysis of deep-sea cores and Broecker's analysis of ancient corals show that the timing of ice ages was           set by small orbital shifts, suggesting that the climate system is sensitive           to small changes. =>Climate cycles  *1967* 
International Global Atmospheric Research Program established, mainly           to gather data for better short-range weather prediction, but including           climate. =>International
Manabe and Wetherald make a convincing calculation           that doubling CO2 would raise world temperatures a couple of degrees. =>Radiation math  *1968* 
Studies suggest a possibility of collapse of Antarctic ice sheets, which           would raise sea levels catastrophically. =>Sea rise & ice  *1969* 
Astronauts walk on the Moon, and people perceive the Earth as a fragile           whole. =>Public opinion 
Budyko and Sellers present models of catastrophic ice-albedo feedbacks.           =>Simple models
Nimbus III satellite begins to provide comprehensive global atmospheric           temperature measurements. =>Government  *1970* 
First Earth Day. Environmental movement attains strong influence, spreads           concern about global degradation. =>Public opinion
Creation of US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the world's           leading funder of climate research. =>Government
Aerosols from human activity are shown to be increasing swiftly. Bryson           claims they counteract global warming and may bring serious cooling. =>Aerosols  *1971* 
SMIC conference of leading scientists reports a danger of rapid and serious           global change caused by humans, calls for an organized research effort.           =>International
Mariner 9 spacecraft finds a great dust storm           warming the atmosphere of Mars, plus indications of a radically different           climate in the past.=>Venus & Mars  *1972* 
Ice cores and other evidence show big climate shifts in the past between           relatively stable modes in the space of a thousand years or so, especially           around 11,000 years ago. =>Rapid change
Droughts in Africa, Ukraine, India cause world food crisis, spreading fears about climate change. =>Public opinion  *1973* 
Oil embargo and price rise bring first "energy crisis". =>Government  *1974* 
Serious droughts since 1972 increase concern about climate, with cooling           from aerosols suspected to be as likely as warming; scientists are doubtful           as journalists talk of a new ice age.=>Public opinion  *1975* 
Warnings about environmental effects of airplanes leads to investigations           of trace gases in the stratosphere and discovery of danger to ozone layer.           =>Other gases
Manabe and collaborators produce complex but plausible computer models           which show a temperature rise of several degrees for doubled CO2.           =>Models (GCMs)  *1976* 
Studies show that CFCs (1975) and also methane and ozone (1976) can make           a serious contribution to the greenhouse effect. =>Other gases
Deep-sea cores show a dominating influence from 100,000-year Milankovitch         orbital changes, emphasizing the role of feedbacks. =>Climate cycles  
Deforestation and other ecosystem changes are recognized as major factors         in the future of the climate. =>Biosphere          Eddy shows that there were prolonged periods without sunspots in past           centuries, corresponding to cold periods .=>Solar variation  *1977* 
Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as           the chief climate risk in next century. =>Public opinion  *1978* 
Attempts to coordinate climate research in US end with an inadequate           National Climate Program Act, accompanied by rapid but temporary growth           in funding. =>Government  *1979* 
Second oil "energy crisis." Strengthened environmental movement encourages           renewable energy sources, inhibits nuclear energy growth. =>Public opinion
US National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that           doubling CO2 will bring 1.5-4.5°C global warming. =>Models (GCMs)
World Climate Research Programme launched to coordinate international           research. =>International  *1981* 
Election of Reagan brings backlash against environmental           movement to power. Political conservatism is linked to skepticism about           global warming. =>Government 
IBM Personal Computer introduced. Advanced economies are increasingly           delinked from energy.
Hansen and others show that sulfate aerosols can significantly cool           the climate, raising confidence in models showing future greenhouse warming.           =>Aerosols
Some scientists predict greenhouse warming "signal" should           be visible by about the year 2000. =>Modern temp's  *1982* 
Greenland ice cores reveal drastic temperature oscillations in the space           of a century in the distant past. =>Rapid change
Strong global warming since mid-1970s is reported, with 1981 the warmest           year on record. =>Modern temp's  *1983* 
Reports from US National Academy of Sciences and Environmental Protection           Agency spark conflict, as greenhouse warming becomes prominent in mainstream           politics. =>Government  *1985* Ramanathan and collaborators announce that global warming may come           twice as fast as expected, from rise of methane and other trace greenhouse           gases.=>Other gases
Villach Conference declares consensus among experts that some global           warming seems inevitable, calls on governments to consider international           agreements to restrict emissions.=>International 
Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 and temperature           went up and down together through past ice ages, pointing to powerful           biological and geochemical feedbacks. =>CO2
Broecker speculates that a reorganization of North Atlantic Ocean circulation           can bring swift and radical climate change. =>The oceans  *1987*
Montreal Protocol of the Vienna Convention imposes international restrictions           on emission of ozone-destroying gases. =>International  *1988* 
News media coverage of global warming leaps upward following record heat           and droughts plus testimony by Hansen. =>Public opinion
       Toronto conference calls for strict, specific limits on greenhouse gas           emissions; UK Prime Minister Thatcher is first major leader to call for           action. =>International
Ice-core and biology studies confirm living ecosystems give climate           feedback by way of methane, which could accelerate global warming.           =>Other gases
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is established. =>International  *1989* Fossil-fuel and other U.S. industries form Global Climate Coalition           to tell politicians and the public that climate science is too uncertain           to justify action. =>Public opinion  *1990*
First IPCC report says world has been warming and future warming seems           likely. =>International   *1991*
Mt. Pinatubo explodes; Hansen predicts cooling pattern, verifying (by           1995) computer models of aerosol effects. =>Aerosols
Global warming skeptics claim that 20th-century temperature changes followed           from solar influences. (The solar-climate correlation would fail in the           following decade.) =>Solar variation
Studies from 55 million years ago show possibility of eruption of methane           from the seabed with enormous self-sustained warming. =>Rapid change  *1992*
Conference in Rio de Janeiro produces UN Framework Convention on Climate           Change, but US blocks calls for serious action. =>International
Study of ancient climates reveals climate sensitivity in same range as           predicted independently by computer models. =>Models (GCMs)  *1993* Greenland ice cores suggest that great climate changes (at least           on a regional scale) can occur in the space of a single decade. =>Rapid change  *1995* Second IPCC report detects "signature" of human-caused           greenhouse effect warming, declares that serious warming is likely in           the coming century. =>International 
Reports of the breaking up of Antarctic ice shelves and other signs of           actual current warming in polar regions begin affecting public opinion.           =>Public opinion  *1997* Toyota introduces Prius in Japan, first mass-market electric           hybrid car; swift progress in large wind turbines and other energy alternatives.
International conference produces Kyoto Protocol, setting targets for industrialized nations to           reduce greenhouse gas emissions if enough nations sign onto a treaty  (rejected by US Senate in advance).           =>International  *1998*
"Super El Niño" causes weather disasters and warmest           year on record (approximately matched by 2005, 2007 and 2010). Borehole data           confirm extraordinary warming trend. =>Modern temp's
Qualms about arbitrariness in computer models diminish as teams model           ice-age climate and dispense with special adjustments to reproduce current           climate. =>Models (GCMs)  *1999* Criticism that satellite measurements show no warming are dismissed           by National Academy Panel. =>Modern temp's
Ramanathan detects massive "brown cloud" of aerosols from South           Asia. =>Aerosols  *2000* Global Climate Coalition dissolves as many corporations grapple           with threat of warming, but oil lobby convinces US administration to deny           problem. =>Public opinion
Variety of studies emphasize variability and importance of biological           feedbacks in carbon cycle, liable to accelerate warming. =>Biosphere  *2001* Third IPCC report states baldly that global warming, unprecedented           since end of last ice age, is "very likely," with possible severe           surprises. Effective end of debate among all but a few scientists. =>International
Bonn meeting, with participation of most countries but not US, develops           mechanisms for working towards Kyoto targets. =>International
National Academy panel sees a "paradigm shift" in scientific           recognition of the risk of abrupt climate change (decade-scale). =>Rapid change
Warming observed in ocean basins; match with computer models gives a           clear signature of greenhouse effect warming. =>Models (GCMs)  *2002* Studies find surprisingly strong "global dimming,"           due to pollution, has retarded arrival of greenhouse warming, but dimming           is now decreasing. =>Aerosols  *2003* Numerous observations raise concern that collapse of ice sheets           (West Antarctica, Greenland) can raise sea levels faster than most had           believed. =>Sea rise & ice
Deadly summer heat wave in Europe accelerates divergence between European           and US public opinion. =>Public opinion  *2004* First major books, movie and art work featuring global warming appear.           =>Public opinion  *2005* Kyoto treaty goes into effect, signed by major industrial nations           except US. Work to retard emissions accelerates in Japan, Western Europe,           US regional governments and corporations         .  =>International
Hurricane Katrina and other major tropical storms spur debate over impact           of global warming on storm intensity. =>Sea rise & ice  *2006* In longstanding "hockey stick" controversy, scientists  conclude post-1980 global warming was unprecedented for centuries or  more.  =>Modern temp's The rise could not be attributed to changes in solar energy. =>Solar variation
"An Inconvenient Truth" documentary persuades many but sharpens political polarization.          =>Public opinion  *2007* Fourth IPCC report warns that serious effects of warming have          become evident; cost of reducing emissions would be far less than the          damage they will cause. =>International
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and Arctic Ocean sea-ice cover found          to be shrinking faster than expected.=>Sea rise & ice   *2009* Many experts warn that global warming is arriving at a faster          and more dangerous pace than anticipated just a few years earlier. =>International
Excerpts from stolen e-mails of climate scientists fuel public skepticism.=>Public opinion
Copenhagen conference fails to negotiate binding agreements: end of hopes of avoiding dangerous future climate change. =>International  *2012*
Controversial "attribution" studies find recent disastrous heat  waves, droughts, extremes of precipitation, and floods were made worse  by global warming. =>Impacts  *2013*
An apparent pause or "hiatus" in global warming of the atmosphere  since 1998 is discussed and explained; the oceans have continued to get  warmer.   =>Modern temp's 
Mean global temperature  is 14.6°C, the warmest    in  thousands of years.
Level of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 397 ppm, the highest in millions of years. Global Warming Timeline

----------


## johnc

> So no evidence to support your claims, just slurs on other posters' characters? 
> The 3% look like they are raking the bottom of the barrel now.

  Given the continual insults in his posts, the crassness and lack of basic social skills and etiquette  the moderators of most forums would have banned the dill long ago.

----------


## Bros

Congratulations intertd6 as you sympathy card has also expired and you are on an enforced holiday, come back in 2 weeks time. Any more abuse from other posters will get double his treatment as you have been warned.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I reckon the rest of us can take a couple of weeks off this thread and see if we can't fossilise it in the process...carbon sequestration anyone?

----------


## johnc

Seeing as it had become nothing more than a slanging match fossilisation probably sounds like a good idea. As long as no one wants to start up a political one such as "I Love the <insert favourite pack of ratbags here> party because it's leader could be my lovechild"

----------


## John2b

It seems Tim Flannery was correct after all:  Where things went badly for the lakes this year - and in the last three years - was a lack of rain in the spring that was needed to generate run-off from the soil that had been made wet in the winter. By the end of the 2014 winter, says Mr Eldridge, the soils were saturated and had started running. If 60mls had fallen in August ``we would have filled those lakes and that's from scratch, not from being half full". That's how it used to work - but not any more. As climate scientists have been predicting, the southern part of Australia is getting drier, not just seasonally or even in terms of chronic drought, but as a trend. ``It takes an event like this for people to realise that climate change is real."  Where has all the water gone? Maybe lakes are no longer permanent

----------


## Rod Dyson

> South Australian electricity prices are among the most expensive in the developed world, according to the Energy Users’ Association of Australia.

  HMMMM. 
Why would SA be looking at nuclear power if the current status of electricity supply is so great according to you guys.  Most expensive? wonder why?

----------


## johnc

> HMMMM. 
> Why would SA be looking at nuclear power if the current status of electricity supply is so great according to you guys.  Most expensive? wonder why?

  Rod, you need to look at both wholesale and retail pricing, if you are actually looking at genuine discussion it is an interesting topic, if just point scoring it is hardly worth the effort of replying.

----------


## woodbe

> HMMMM. 
> Why would SA be looking at nuclear power if the current status of electricity supply is so great according to you guys.  Most expensive? wonder why?

  Investment in renewable energy to reduce CO2 output is a significant factor, as is population size and transmission distances. Not a free investment in the short term but it will reap dividends in the longer term. The difference between SA and the rest of Australia per kWh is cents, so if SA is among the most expensive in the developed world, so is the rest of Australia. 
As already shown in this thread, the status of SA's power generation is great and improving all the time. For a few cents and a quantum of political vision we have a much higher ratio of renewable energy than every mainland state.  
The premier of SA has announced a Royal Commission to investigate opportunities for the whole industry, not just power generation.   

> He will set up a royal commission to look at the risks and opportunities  in expanding the industry to include enrichment, energy and storage to  both deliver better economic growth and help alleviate climate change.  “The question is whether we should deepen our involvement for our  @benefit,” Mr Weatherill said at a press conference on Sunday.

  Jay Weatherill appoints royal commission to debate SAÂ@nuclear industry 
Just pulling uranium (or any resource) out of the ground and shipping it overseas is only one of the processes involving the nuclear industry. I'm not a big fan of nuclear power but treating Australia as a resources mine with no processing isn't one of my favourite ideas either. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this.

----------


## John2b

> HMMMM. 
> Why would SA be looking at nuclear power if the current status of electricity supply is so great according to you guys.

  SA is not looking at generating nuclear power ROTFL. Last year 40% of all the state's electricity came from renewables and an additional 270 MW commissioned in November 2014, and another 184 MW currently under construction, the two combined will boost the total capacity so that more than 50% of the state's electricity will come from wind and solar in 2015. 
Since SA has the largest reserves of uranium ore on the planet, the government is looking at getting more value buy processing the ore in SA rather than shipping out unprocessed uranium, and by becoming a repository for spent fuel, some of which will start shipping into Australia under agreements signed with France ~20 years ago, to take back fuel Australia sold to France. Without a permanent repository, the waste is likely to be stored indefinitely at Lucas Heights, which no doubt thrills Sydney-siders.  Nuclear waste returning to Sydney from France

----------


## woodbe

> South Australian electricity prices are among the most expensive in the  developed world, according to the Energy Users Association of  Australia.

  Found your report, Rod. 
Did you read it, or did you just quote out of some blog? 
Read and weep:   

> As shown in Figure 3, out of 91 comparator countries, states or provinces, household electricity prices in 
> four Australian jurisdictions in 2011 were in the top six.  
> They are South Australia (third highest), New South Wales (fourth highest), Victoria (fifth highest), and Western
> Australia (sixth highest) Tasmania is the eleventh highest and only Queensland (sixteenth), the Australian Capital 
> Territory (twenty-first) and the Northern Territory (twenty-ninth) lie outside of the top eleven.

  http://www.euaa.com.au/wp-content/up...MARCH-2012.pdf (PDF)

----------


## johnc

https://au.pfinance.yahoo.com/compar...icity/?cmp=ger 
According to this report from Ernst and Young prepared for the NSW government both NSW and QLD are currently dearer and some SA charges have dropped. Perhaps Rod's info is a cherry pick from some right wing site.

----------


## John2b

The fat lady doesn't seem to get her repertoire from Rod's song book LOL. On Saturday, the leaders of the UKs three major parties  Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Labor  all signed a joint pledge to aggressively fight climate change and phase out the use of coal.  Britain’s most powerful politicians agree fighting climate change is a jolly good idea | Grist 
Even BP is championing a carbon trading scheme: BP chief executive Bob Dudley said "A global carbon price would help to unleash market forces and provide the right incentives for everyone to play their part.
"A meaningful global carbon price would provide the right incentives for the most cost-effective decisions and investments to be made."  BP's two-word fix for global climate change - CSMonitor.com

----------


## johnc

I think in most countries deniers are seen as flat earth luddites of limited intelligence, a well earned title I expect.

----------


## John2b

> I think in most countries deniers are seen as flat earth luddites of limited intelligence, a well earned title I expect.

  Oh, they didn't WORK hard to earn that title. They are only luddites because they KNOW if the physics of climate change was REAL and worked, so would the other consequences of the application of physics work, like cars and computers, air conditioners and aeroplanes, and they know how foolish it is to place faith in things designed on the basis of physical laws.

----------


## John2b

*Verbal Warming: Labels in the Climate Debate*  

> Climate scientists are among the most vocal critics of using the term “climate skeptic” to describe people who flatly reject their findings. They point out that skepticism is the very foundation of the scientific method. The modern consensus about the risks of climate change, they say, is based on evidence that has piled up over the course of decades and has been subjected to critical scrutiny every step of the way.

  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/sc...name.html?_r=2

----------


## John2b

It seems like not having a carbon "tax" is bad for business in Australia...    

> Australia's approach to carbon emissions is making some international investors increasingly "reserved" towards the country, says the local head of French banking giant BNP Paribas.

  http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/australias-approach-to-carbon-emissions-causes-concern-among-foreign-investors-20150213-13e68b.html  
And according to Ratan Tata, chairman of the Tata Group manufacturing conglomerate; Paul Polman, chief executive of Unilever; Mo Ibrahim, the telecommunications billionaire; Guilherme Leal, the Brazilian billionaire; Francois-Henri Pinault, chairman of the luxury goods group Kering; Arianna Huffington, the media entrepreneur; and a handful of others:    

> A target of net-zero emissions by 2050 is not only desirable but necessary. Setting a net-zero GHG emissions target by 2050 will drive innovation, grow jobs, build prosperity and secure a better world for what will soon be 9 billion people.

  Richard Branson leads call to free global economy from carbon emissions | Environment | The Guardian

----------


## John2b

Many scientific organisations now think it is too late to avoid disruptive climate change without enlisting the use of global geoengineering:   

> The US National Academy of Sciences has released two reports on geoengineering that recommend investments in solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon capture and storage (CCS). Geoengineering has become known as the US government’s “Plan B” response to climate change. Geoengineering proponents have recently pushed for government funding of geoengineering research in Nature and the Washington Post.

  Plan B? What Happened to Plan A? | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community  http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/02/1...ntion-reports/

----------


## woodbe

Looks like Willie Soon is on the skids. Amazing it took so long...  Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher   

> For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change  have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of  scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
> One  of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a  scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims  that variations in the suns energy can largely explain recent global  warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified  before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of  people who deny the risks of global warming.  
> But  newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soons work has  been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
> He  has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel  industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of  interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has  published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of  those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the  journals that published his work.  
> The  documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate  funders, described many of his scientific papers as deliverables that  he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to  describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
> Though  Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long  stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific  findings.  
> The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.
> The  documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in  fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global  warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that  greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization. Continue reading the main story

----------


## PhilT2

> Looks like Willie Soon is on the skids. Amazing it took so long...  Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

  Harvard, like all universities, take a cut of any grant monies that researchers bring in. Soon may get a rap over the knuckles for the ethics violation and lose credibility but he is unlikely to lose his job. 
Tomy Abbott on the other hand.....

----------


## woodbe

And the Smithsonian is distancing itself from Soon:   

> *Smithsonian Statement on Willie Soon, researcher at the Smithsonian Astrophysics Observatory.* 
>  The Smithsonian is greatly concerned about the allegations  surrounding Dr. Willie Soons failure to disclose funding sources for  his climate change research. 
> The Smithsonian is taking immediate action to address the issue: Acting  Secretary Albert Horvath has asked the Smithsonian Inspector General to  review the matter. Horvath will also lead a full review of Smithsonian  ethics and disclosure policies governing the conduct of sponsored  research to ensure they meet the highest standards. 
>  Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon is a part-time researcher at the Smithsonian  Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Mass. He was hired to conduct  research on long-term stellar and solar variability. The Smithsonian  does not fund Dr. Soon; he pursues external grants to fund his research. 
> The Smithsonian does not support Dr. Soons conclusions on climate  change. The Smithsonians official statement on climate change, based  upon many decades of scientific research, points to human activities as a  cause of global warming.  Smithsonian Statement on Climate Change

  So he was hired to research long-term stellar and solar variability but instead spewed out a mishmash of unsupportable anti climate science drivel. Don't be so sure the Smithsonian will keep him now he has bounced up onto their radar. The Smithsonian itself deserves a kick in the rear for not enforcing it's ethics requirements in the first place.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Many scientific organisations now think it is too late to avoid disruptive climate change without enlisting the use of global geoengineering:   Plan B? What Happened to Plan A? | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community  Civil Society statements on release of NAS "Climate Intervention" reports | FCEA

  
And they'd probably be wrong.  Did you actually read the US NAS report on geoengineering?  Highly critical especially of albedo modification...basically dangerous and foolish given current state of knowledge National-Academies.org | Where the Nation Turns for Independent, Expert Advice  More supportive of carbon dioxide extraction and sequestration but even then recognises that development is too slow to make a meaningful impact on emissions AND avoid substantial climate change impacts

----------


## John2b

> And they'd probably be wrong.  Did you actually read the US NAS report on geoengineering?  Highly critical especially of albedo modification...basically dangerous and foolish given current state of knowledge National-Academies.org | Where the Nation Turns for Independent, Expert Advice  More supportive of carbon dioxide extraction and sequestration but even then recognises that development is too slow to make a meaningful impact on emissions AND avoid substantial climate change impacts

  I wasn't endorsing geoengineering, quite the contrary, and that was the point of my post! I can't reconcile your comment "And they'd probably be wrong" with your comment "development is too slow to make a meaningful impact on emissions AND avoid substantial climate change impacts". The second statement implies "they'd probably be right" in the sense that "it is too late to avoid disruptive climate change ... without global geoengineering" even if geoengineering isn't going to have an impact fast enough to avoid disruptive climate change. And geoengineering cannot and will not prevent disruptive climate change at a local level, even if it could* prevent global warming exceeding 2 degrees C in the next few decades. (*I sincerely doubt that geoengineering can arrest global warming to below 2 degrees anyway.)

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Then we are in furious agreement and semantic confusion

----------


## John2b

> Then we are in furious agreement and semantic confusion

   :2thumbsup:

----------


## John2b

Not only is the burning of fossil fuel causing global warming, but it has caused a tripling of the mercury content of the upper layers of the ocean where humans tend to catch fish for eating. The level of mercury in fish is now high enough to cause concern for regular fish eaters and pregnant women. Fish high in mercury include: king mackerel, marlin, orange roughy, shark, Spanish mackerel, swordfish, salmon, trevally, and tuna, fresh or canned. And our fearless punch-drunk boxer come Prime Minister says "coal is good for humanity!" When will this neo-economic madness end? I suspect not until the Earth has rid itself of "intelligent" lifeforms, one way or another.  What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish and Shellfish (Brochure)

----------


## Rod Dyson

You guys seem to be having fun while I am away skiing in Japan

----------


## woodbe

You're skiing in Japan and you are posting in the ET thread. 
lol. Skiing not so good?

----------


## John2b

> You guys seem to be having fun while I am away skiing in Japan

  I off to visit my outlaws in Kyoto in April. It will be interesting to see if the cherry blossoms last until I arrive. Cheery blossom dates have been used to create a proxy temperature record gain back nearly 1200 years that agrees in the thermometer record post 1880 to about 0.1 degree. Since about the 1950s, the blossoms have been coming earlier as AGW kicks in.  What Can Cherry Blossoms Tell Us About Climate Change? | The New Republic 
Oh - enjoy the skiing while you can! Even though snowfalls are expected to rise on Hokkaido (though not the rest of Japan) skiing is likely to be affected by previously unheard of rainfalls, a consequence of AGW.  Much less snow likely in Japan if climate change continues - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun

----------


## John2b

Eleven years of data showing the impact in energy balance directly measured shows about 0.2 watts per square meter per decade as a result of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere due to human activity. The result agrees with predictions from models based on well understood laws of physics and thermodynamics, the same laws used as the basis for climate models.    Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010 : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

----------


## John2b

Alumina Limited, who's three aluminium refineries in Western Australia are the biggest single source of alumina in the world, said its energy costs had risen in the six months since the carbon tax was repealed.   Carbon tax repeal raised energy prices: Alumina

----------


## woodbe

Isn't that increase cost because the government handed them a bunch of carbon tax credits to offset the tax? 
Aluminium is just solidified raw energy. It should be made from renewables.

----------


## John2b

> Isn't that increase cost because the government handed them a bunch of carbon tax credits to offset the tax?

  Yes, clever wasn't it - how the carbon "tax" incorporated very strong price signals to industry whilst being revenue neutral!

----------


## John2b

The end of February means that the means the climate has changed. It has been thirty years since the last month that the global average temperature was at or below the 1900s average, which was February 1985. Roughly half the world's population, or 3.5 billion people, have never experienced a month when the world temperature was below average. 30 years of above-average temperatures means the climate has changed

----------


## John2b

The businesses of the world are acting where the Abbott government is too stupid: repealing the carbon "tax" has and will continue to adversely affect our trading position in the world economy, and worsen the economic outlook of ordinary Australians as a consequence.  
The world’s richest sovereign wealth fund (larger than Australia's GDP) removed 32 coal mining companies from its portfolio in 2014, citing the risk they face from regulatory action on climate change. Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG), worth US$850bn revealed a total of 114 companies had been dumped on environmental and climate grounds in its first report on responsible investing, released on Thursday. The companies divested also include tar sands producers, cement makers and gold miners.  World's biggest sovereign wealth fund dumps dozens of coal companies | Environment | The Guardian 
And Goldman Sachs is advising investors not to put funds into coal mining because "thermal coal has reached its retirement age" and there is already enough "built capacity to satisfy future demand. Someone should tell the Federal, and former Liberal Victorian and Queensland Governments!  http://www.eenews.net/assets/2015/02...ment_cw_01.pdf 
I suppose the AGW deniers will smugly hold onto their resources shares based on their pseudo-science beliefs, or will they trample everyone else in the rush to divest as their position becomes untenably and financially embarrassing?

----------


## Neptune

> The businesses of the world are acting where the Abbott government is too stupid: repealing the carbon "tax" has and will continue to adversely affect our trading position in the world economy, and worsen the economic outlook of ordinary Australians as a consequence.  
> The worlds richest sovereign wealth fund (larger than Australia's GDP) removed 32 coal mining companies from its portfolio in 2014, citing the risk they face from regulatory action on climate change. Norways Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG), worth US$850bn revealed a total of 114 companies had been dumped on environmental and climate grounds in its first report on responsible investing, released on Thursday. The companies divested also include tar sands producers, cement makers and gold miners.  World's biggest sovereign wealth fund dumps dozens of coal companies | Environment | The Guardian 
> And Goldman Sachs is advising investors not to put funds into coal mining because "thermal coal has reached its retirement age" and there is already enough "built capacity to satisfy future demand. Someone should tell the Federal, and former Liberal Victorian and Queensland Governments!  http://www.eenews.net/assets/2015/02...ment_cw_01.pdf 
> I suppose the AGW deniers will smugly hold onto their resources shares based on their pseudo-science beliefs, or will they trample everyone else in the rush to divest as their position becomes untenably and financially embarrassing?

  Looks like you're talking to yourself again John, but I suppose if you've had all your opposition banned you'd have to?   

> Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

----------


## woodbe

> Looks like you're talking to yourself again John, but I suppose if you've had all your opposition banned you'd have to?

  and you're here because...?

----------


## John2b

> Looks like you're talking to yourself again John, but I suppose if you've had all your opposition banned you'd have to?

  Talking to myself?  

> Emission Trading: Views: 521,833

  I don't have "opposition" - this isn't a football match. One person got himself banned all by his own self - read his posts if you are wondering why he got banned. And what's your point Neptune? Got anything to post on topic, or just trolling?

----------


## PhilT2

> Looks like you're talking to yourself again John, but I suppose if you've had all your opposition banned you'd have to?

  When did we get this magic power to have people banned? i thought mods made these decisions.

----------


## John2b

This is intergenerational theft:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=d-nI8MByIL8

----------


## John2b

I previously posted how BP is promoting a carbon trading scheme. Well so is Shell: 
“Shell has been open and firm in its advocacy of cleaner-burning natural gas, carbon capture and storage,” which takes carbon from combustion and stores it in places like underground reservoirs “and carbon pricing. And we’re hopeful that policy makers will recognize the value of all three at the gathering in Paris later this year,” the transcript says.  http://www.wsj.com/articles/shells-ollila-says-society-must-find-middle-way-on-climate-change-1425497418

----------


## woodbe

Finally, someone has catalogued all the claptrap that has spewed out of fake skeptics mouths.  Climatology Versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics  Greg Laden's Blog

----------


## dazzler

Steve Shives on climate change;  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZSJzfpS5Tk

----------


## woodbe

And if there is any doubt 1998 is dead and buried:    February Was Very Warm, Continues Upward Global Warming Trend – Greg Laden's Blog

----------


## PhilT2

A report released by University of Melbourne spells out how different Australian crops will react to rising temperatures.  http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/si...eport_2015.pdf

----------


## Rod Dyson

having fun guys.   

> It is our duty as skeptics/deniers/disrupters to practice T.H Huxley’s creed;  
> “The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”

----------


## woodbe

> having fun guys.    
> 			
> 				It is our duty as skeptics/deniers/disrupters to practice T.H Huxleys creed;

  Science is based on scepticism. Denialism is based on blind faith that science is wrong. Same for fake scepticism. 
Got to tip my hat to Tim Ball, at least he admits he is a climate change denier. The rest should follow his lead.

----------


## John2b

> having fun guys.  _It is our duty as skeptics/deniers/disrupters to practice T.H Huxley’s creed;_  _“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”_

   

> What skepticism isn’t is being dubious or suspicious. Just because you don’t trust someone doesn’t mean that you’re being skeptical. If you don’t trust someone, you check what they’ve presented; either by doing it again yourself, or by finding other sources that either confirm or contradict what they’ve presented. Real skepticism takes effort and investigation. Of course, you can use your distrust of someone to prompt some skeptical inquiry, but ultimately your conclusions about the topic should be based on the scientific evidence that you encounter...

  https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...te-skepticism/ 
 Can't wean yourself off the teat of the world's most discredited "authoritative climate blog", eh Rod?   

> _Never explain – your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe you anyway_

  At least Anthony has you as a friend!   http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/faqs/

----------


## woodbe

Oops. Seems the Arctic sea ice has dropped below 2 standard deviations from the mean again...

----------


## PhilT2

Hmmm...ice melting....warmest year on record?? Just a coincidence surely.

----------


## John2b

A Texas city is to go 100% solar and wind because it is cheaper and more reliable than coal / gas / nuclear:  https://news.georgetown.org/2015/03/...nergy-by-2017/

----------


## Bros

Yanks make a lot of wind.

----------


## johnc

The burger effect?

----------


## John2b

Costa Rica, a Latin-American country with 1/6 the GDP per capita of Australia, has met nearly 100 percent of its power demand with renewable energy for 75 straight days - the whole of 2015. That means lower prices for electricity that was already cheaper than in Australia:   

> Costa Rica will lower its electricity rates an average of 12 percent from April because it has met demand this year almost entirely with renewable energy, the state utilities regulator said on Thursday.

    http://www.grupoice.com/wps/portal/gice/acercaDe/acerca_ice_sala_prensa/acerca_ice_sala_prensa_comun/!ut/p/c5/jY3NCoJAFIWfxRfwXp0fZ5aTDqgwKankuBGLMCE1Iuz1c9VO8p  zldz4ONLB26pah797DPHUPqKHhbZl6WRwKiplOI0w4SRjjDHPC  Vm5562NBi1IZRRIeoioM1SU1RFS4x_5xzKVeuTbyxDUi0j02bk  T9-z6DPcAxnscbWGiCjamQgkMJNoQUmuEyup_r6KLrS19SFhDOPIG  CEagjeI5VVS33F-sd5wunx_G3/dl3/d3/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/

----------


## John2b

Anthony Watts, who claims to have the world most visited climate blog, is panicking about Google's new truth rankings, which are likely to replace popularity in rankings for search engines. 
Ranking websites according to truthfulness will mean that WUWT will virtually disappear off Google's search engine results, and Anthony Watt's income will plummet:   

> Google has recently implemented a kind of Knowledge-Based Truth score _lite_ with its medical search results. Now, doctors and real medical experts vet search results about health conditions, meaning anti-vaxx propaganda will not appear in the top results for a “measles” search, for instance.Even though the former program is just in the research stage, some anti-science advocates are upset about the potential development, likely because their websites will become buried under content that is, well, true.  *“I worry about this issue greatly,” said Anthony Watts, founder of climate denying website “Watts Up With That,” in an interview with FoxNews.com. “My site gets a significant portion of its daily traffic from Google…*

   Anti-science advocates are freaking out about Google truth rankings - Salon.com  Determining the trustworthiness of a website is an automated probabilistic model that jointly estimates the correctness of extractions and source data, and the trustworthiness of sources, or in other words it is determined by the probability that a website contains the correct value for a fact. 
By showing concern for the effect of truth ratings in Google search results, Anthony Watts is tacitly acknowledging that his WUWT blog is a cesspit of disinformation.  http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03519v1.pdf

----------


## woodbe

Hang on, Anthony Watts reckons he is showing the truth, why would he be worried unless he is lying about his 'truth' 
Sounds like his game is up if Google implements this.

----------


## Bros

And who would determine truth? There have been many people ridiculed in the past which ended up being true. On example was John Snow.

----------


## John2b

> And who would determine truth? There have been many people ridiculed in the past which ended up being true. On example was John Snow.

  The truthfulness of a website would be determined by the integrity of its links and by the consistency of its information. A website that posts a lot of contradictory information, such as WUWT, will not rate highly because if the website had integrity in truthfulness it simply would not be posting information that contradicts other information on its own website. 
The concept is not that hard really - a human "value" judgement is not required. You can have a personal opinion, but not personal facts.

----------


## PhilT2

> And who would determine truth? There have been many people ridiculed in the past which ended up being true. On example was John Snow.

  I think John Snow is a great example of a scientist at work; someone who, like todays climate scientists, collected evidence and performed experiments to back up his theory. his opponents were the Anthony Watts of their day; people who clung to outdated beliefs not supported by facts. 
We've accepted the fact that dirty drinking water causes disease. Carbon dioxide causes warming; a fact and accepted science proven by lab experiments, observations and the study of paleoclimatology.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And who would determine truth? There have been many people ridiculed in the past which ended up being true. On example was John Snow.

  Google's approach has nothing to do with 'truth'. It is more like a statistical examination of consensus of content based on certain topics...which is but an indicator of possible reliability of the content. Not the truth. 
Just because a particular website is akin to a busy street...it doesn't always mean it is the best way to get where you want to go.  This particular site is a case in point...

----------


## woodbe

> I think John Snow is a great example of a scientist at work; someone who, like todays climate scientists, collected evidence and performed experiments to back up his theory. his opponents were the Anthony Watts of their day; people who clung to outdated beliefs not supported by facts. 
> We've accepted the fact that dirty drinking water causes disease. Carbon dioxide causes warming; a fact and accepted science proven by lab experiments, observations and the study of paleoclimatology.

  As the science moves forward, there are always those who resist new theory. Scientists remain skeptical until the new theory can be repeatedly confirmed or falsified via multiple lines of enquiry and the scientific method. With climate science, as was with tobacco, there is a lot of motivation for  resisting the 'new' theory even though the basic evidence is now not at all new...  
None of the people posting on Watt's blog are bringing in new facts that upset the known state of the science. They are just rock throwers resisting the known facts by cherry picking and misinformation. Watt's site sits in the same space as those who claim we should not vaccinate against measles, or the now (in)famous (Dr) Wakefield who manufactured biassed information to claim that vaccines caused Autism. 
Will these sites and people go away? Nope. There are still people who deny that smoking causes cancer and other diseases. We can all choose what we are prepared to accept (or not) but the world moves on regardless, and the proof stacks higher and higher. The chances of climate science being wildly wrong are now so remote as to not be worth considering.

----------


## John2b

> Google's approach has nothing to do with 'truth'.

  Truth was the word used, perhaps incorrectly, by the site Salon.com referenced in my first post. Google use the word trustworthiness. The consequences are much the same for websites that specialise in mis-information, no matter whether the host actually believes the mis-information they purvey, or not.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Hang on, Anthony Watts reckons he is showing the truth, why would he be worried unless he is lying about his 'truth' 
> Sounds like his game is up if Google implements this.

  Because so called experts have different versions of THEIR OWN truths.  This amounts to a form of censorship. but as long as it helps your own version of the truth who cares.

----------


## John2b

> Because so called experts have different versions of THEIR OWN truths.  This amounts to a form of censorship. but as long as it helps your own version of the truth who cares.

  Censorship, no. Google is not proposing to take sites down, just rank them according to trustworthiness. 
Anthony Watts' own protagonists can't agree on anything much other than the "warmists are wrong!" There is too much contradictory crap on WUWT, but the intended audience with its rusted on confirmation bias only sees what they already believe. If Anthony Watts wants to attain a trustworthy rating, all he needs to do is stop allowing utter BS to be published on his blog.

----------


## woodbe

> Because so called experts have different versions of THEIR OWN truths.  This amounts to a form of censorship. but as long as it helps your own version of the truth who cares.

  Never mind whether you think an expert is an expert or not.  Just read the science instead of an anti-science blog.  
The anti-science crowd have been trying to mis construe and censor facts and science for years, but the tables are turning because the facts have not changed and the misinformation from the likes of Watts has become obvious and is being stacked up 100 high at the tip.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Censorship, no. Google is not proposing to take sites down, just rank them according to trustworthiness. 
> Anthony Watts' own protagonists can't agree on anything much other than the "warmists are wrong!" There is too much contradictory crap on WUWT, but the intended audience with its rusted on confirmation bias only sees what they already believe. If Anthony Watts wants to attain a trustworthy rating, all he needs to do is stop allowing utter BS to be published on his blog.

  Yeah yeah it is still a form of censorship. like it or not.  But WUWT will still get plenty of visitors.  Like that or not.  
I expect nothing more from you and quite frankly it disgusts me how left leaning people cry foul when things are against them yet applaud when it suits them.   
Like that or not.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Never mind whether you think an expert is an expert or not.  Just read the science instead of an anti-science blog.  
> The anti-science crowd have been trying to mis construe and censor facts and science for years, but the tables are turning because the facts have not changed and the misinformation from the likes of Watts has become obvious and is being stacked up 100 high at the tip.

  Watts puts stuff up for discussion right or wrong.  That is what free speech is all about.  So don't go crying when free speech does not suit you.

----------


## John2b

> I expect nothing more from you and quite frankly it disgusts me how left leaning people cry foul when things are against them yet applaud when it suits them.

  Your mirror broken, Rod? WTF do you think you are doing now?

----------


## John2b

> Watts puts stuff up for discussion right or wrong.  That is what free speech is all about.  So don't go crying when free speech does not suit you.

  Free speech is not about obfuscation, sorry.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Your mirror broken, Rod? WTF do you think you are doing now?

  I have no idea what you are on about and what it has to do with what I have written

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Free speech is not about obfuscation, sorry.

  Free speech is free speech it is only obfuscation in your little one eyed mind

----------


## johnc

> Free speech is free speech it is only obfuscation in your little one eyed mind

   Think about it, you are actually arguing for and against your free speech view depending on source. Free speech comes with responsibility that a reasonable effort will be made to get your facts right, liars abuse the process and cause public harm, the misinformed confuse the truth and allow the liars oxygen rather than expose their shallowness

----------


## PhilT2

> Watts puts stuff up for discussion right or wrong.  That is what free speech is all about.

  Let me try and understand the point you're trying to make here. When Watts puts something up for discussion "right or wrong" then that's free speech. when Google puts something up for discussion, right or wrong, then you consider that to be censorship? Help me out here, that seems to me to be a classic example of double standards.

----------


## woodbe

> Let me try and understand the point you're trying  to make here. When Watts puts something up for discussion "right or  wrong" then that's free speech. when Google puts something up for  discussion, right or wrong, then you consider that to be censorship?  Help me out here, that seems to me to be a classic example of double  standards.

  Except Watts doesn't put anything other than rocks aimed at science up for 'debate' 
Watts  is free speech for the CC Deniers. If anyone actively calls the errors  in the comments, they get edited or deleted and probably banned. That's  not free speech.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Think about it, you are actually arguing for and against your free speech view depending on source. Free speech comes with responsibility that a reasonable effort will be made to get your facts right, liars abuse the process and cause public harm, the misinformed confuse the truth and allow the liars oxygen rather than expose their shallowness

  *Again who's truth??*

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Except Watts doesn't put anything other than rocks aimed at science up for 'debate' 
> Watts  is free speech for the CC Deniers. If anyone actively calls the errors  in the comments, they get edited or deleted and probably banned. That's  not free speech.

  Have you tried? Do you know that for fact?  So this doesn't happen on AGW sites??  Like real climate??  Get real woodbe.   
You guys would love to have any debate or contrary opinion shut down.  Well that is not going to happen real soon, any attempt to do so I am sure will be a turning point.   
They should go ahead,  because any attempt at shutting down sceptical opinion just puts another nail in the coffin of the great warming scare.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Let me try and understand the point you're trying to make here. When Watts puts something up for discussion "right or wrong" then that's free speech. when Google puts something up for discussion, right or wrong, then you consider that to be censorship? Help me out here, that seems to me to be a classic example of double standards.

  Seriously?  you can do better than that.  What a joke.  It is posts like this that shows how warmists are prepared to completely twist the storey to suit themselves. 
Just explain to me how what goes on WUWT and what google have proposed is similar in any way.

----------


## woodbe

> Just explain to me how what goes on WUWT and what google have proposed is similar in any way.

  What google has proposed is nothing like what goes on at WUWT.

----------


## John2b

> You guys would love to have any debate or contrary opinion shut down.

  Er, is that what YOU have been trying to do with this thread for more than 5 years?    

> Well that is not going to happen real soon, any attempt to do so I am sure will be a turning point.

  *Genuine* contrary scientific debate about CO2 induced climate change has been dead and buried for decades. The turning point in *popular* consensus will be when lies and obfuscation don't overwhelm reality anymore, and that point is coming regardless of ideological beliefs. Agree that truth is in the eye of the beholder, but *your* truth or *my* truth does not make diddly squat difference to the reality of AGW, which is recorded and documented to death.

----------


## woodbe

> Have you tried? Do you know that for fact?  So this doesn't happen on AGW sites??  Like real climate??  Get real woodbe.

  I am real, and yes I know that for a fact. I have watched people stand up to blatantly posted rubbish on WUWT and have had their posts edited. If they keep at it, their posts disappear and they get banned. Do people get banned from AGW sites? Yes, but not for being reasonable and discussing the science, which is exactly why people get banned from WUWT.

----------


## John2b

> What google has proposed is nothing like what goes on at WUWT.

  And Anthony Watts has already acknowledged the important thing as far as he is concerned is not facts, but click traffic that generates income for his website.

----------


## PhilT2

> What google has proposed is nothing like what goes on at WUWT.

  They're both free speech to me. Why do you think Google doesn't have the right to their opinion of Watts?

----------


## John2b

> Why do you think Google doesn't have the right to their opinion of Watts?

  The "trustworthiness" ranking isn't about opinion, it is a ranking based on the reliability of "facts" posted on a website. If the "facts" are conflicted within the website and/or not support by links from the website, then the trustworthiness will be low. That's where contrarians like AW at WUWT come unstuck: AW doesn't give a @@@@ about the content of posts on his blog as long as the posts are anti-science.

----------


## John2b

> Just explain to me how what goes on WUWT and what google have proposed is similar in any way.

  It isn't. WUWT is an attempt to obfuscate reality. Google is attempting to overcome the obfuscation of facts by testing credibility of sites based on their level of self-contradiction.

----------


## woodbe

> They're both free speech to me. Why do you think Google doesn't have the right to their opinion of Watts?

  Google is just trying to improve the quality of their search results. It's not an opinion, it's an active attempt to improve their search system. It will effect Watts and other sites that have similar problems regardless of the subject they cover, be it Climate or knitting.  
What goes on at Watts is trying to convince it's readers that the science is incorrect. Most of their readers are not really interested in the actual science so they are easy pickings for Watts, but that is not the same as arming your search system to put accuracy and consistency above delivery of multiple blog posts in an attempt to fight your way up the page search order.

----------


## PhilT2

Sorry,I put the wrong quote in there, it was intended as a reply to Rod. But yes to me level of trustworthiness is an opinion. It may be based on data about the number of incorrect facts on a site but it's still an opinion based on that data. We all get the occasional fact wrong but how many make a career of it? And how would you describe some of Watts classic clangers? They go beyond basic factual errors. Like the comparison between the two graphs, one showing actual temperature and the other temperature anomaly. Or the claim that UHI was causing the warming, completely ignoring the rural stations that were not affected but still show warming; the list is endless and available to anyone with basic research skills.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Er, is that what YOU have been trying to do with this thread for more than 5 years?    
> *Genuine* contrary scientific debate about CO2 induced climate change has been dead and buried for decades. The turning point in *popular* consensus will be when lies and obfuscation don't overwhelm reality anymore, and that point is coming regardless of ideological beliefs. Agree that truth is in the eye of the beholder, but *your* truth or *my* truth does not make diddly squat difference to the reality of AGW, which is recorded and documented to death.

  LMAO YOUR interpretation of lies and obfuscation only.  You just don't get it do you?

----------


## woodbe

> Sorry,I put the wrong quote in there, it was intended as a reply to Rod. But yes to me level of trustworthiness is an opinion.

  Agreed, we can develop an opinion about a level of trustworthiness. What Google is doing is creating a _measure_ for trustworthiness based on information posted. It's not an opinion.

----------


## John2b

> LMAO YOUR interpretation of lies and obfuscation only.  You just don't get it do you?

  You are right - I don't get why supposedly intelligent people can't tell the difference between fabricated nonsense and substantiated, corroborated research, or why supposedly intelligent people think the laws of entropy and physics should be suspended when it comes to climate science.

----------


## johnc

> *Again who's truth??*

  You misunderstand, this isn't about sides. To be genuine about free speech you have to accept that others have a right to speak but all have an obligation to try to be truthful. This means you don't attack the person and if genuine don't indulge in slight of hand or debating tactics but actually discuss. Good ideas come with open minds not closed ones. The response to this is not for an individual to claim they are themselves open either, this thread is full of closed minds, childish debate and frequent attacks on peoples character, it is important to be self critical for all of us.

----------


## John2b

Breaking: Australia has joined countries like Scotland and Costa Rica announcing an ambitious plan to go 100% renewable. More: https://www.facebook.com/climatecoun...type=1&theater

----------


## John2b

*France decrees new rooftops must be covered in plants or solar panels*Rooftops on new buildings built in commercial zones in France must either be partially covered in plants or solar panels, under a law approved on Thursday.  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/20/france-decrees-new-rooftops-must-be-covered-in-plants-or-solar-panels

----------


## johnc

April 1st, although this joke is on us.

----------


## John2b

> April 1st, although this joke is on us.

  Yep. The world is going one way, but the joke is on us, with Abbott, Hockey, Hunt and Co. in charge. Oh yeah, the *adults* in control who couldn't organise a booze up in a brewery. Maybe the LNC should put "Mr Fixit" Pyne in charge - he couldn't do any worse than the misogynist, abbo hating, senile, serial liar, punch drunk boxer we have running the show now. In fact, Pyne hasn't done *anything* yet (apart from upset everyone and whine a lot), so he's a better performer than the incumbent who's done heaps of thing to f Australia and Australians.   

> The renewables that _came online_ worldwide last year can generated the same amount of electricity as all the nuclear power plants in the U.S. combined — more than 100 gigawatts. The International Energy Agency announced in March that CO2 emissions related to energy consumption had stabilized in 2014, primarily from global efforts to build more renewables to reduce climate-changing CO2 emissions. IEA officials said that stabilization — the first during a period of economic growth — shows a booming economy is no longer tied to increasing use of fossil fuels.

  Investments in Renewables Herald 'Paradigm Shift' | Climate Central

----------


## johnc

I think that is right about Pyne, never been anything, never achieved anything, unlikely to ever make anything of himself but despite that he'll retire very comfortably.

----------


## Uncle Bob

It's possible that the world can relegate the burning of coal, oil and gas to history soon (hopefully there will be a shift away starting by 2020).  
If anyone has stock in these types of energy companies, it might be prudent to think about unloading yourself of them.  http://cleanplanet.co.jp/news/en/15....%20release.pdf

----------


## johnc

The writing is on the wall for coal, it still has a market and coal used to produce steel is yet to have a viable replacement but the health impacts of coal alone make long term use of coal a negative. Technology will see renewables eventually replace coal on cost competitive basis for power generation it is happening already. I figure if emissions are brought under control we will see some limited use for coal but most mines will be unviable. The big miners will hope that coal is around long enough to exhaust existing mines, we are gradually going to see new mines being commercially not worth the risk.

----------


## John2b

> The writing is on the wall for coal, it still has a market and coal used to produce steel is yet to have a viable replacement but the health impacts of coal alone make long term use of coal a negative.

  One of the "side effects" of an emission trading scheme is to reduce the levels of particulates, for which there is no "safe" level, and fugitive emissions of cancer-causing chemicals benzene and nitrous oxide from coal seam gas extraction, which combined kill more Australians than road accidents. It is unbelievable that some people would defend the "rights" of the fossil fuel companies doing this, with threads like this one, when the world is drowning in un-tapped energy from non-polluting renewable alternatives.  Coal the biggest contributor to toxic air pollution: study

----------


## John2b

Humans are literally eating and wearing out the planet at the same time as altering climate. Which part of this reality are Abbott and his all consuming denialists not getting....?    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater

----------


## John2b

The Abbott government's coal-led recovery is becoming obviously more ludicrous every day. Eleven international banks have now said they will not fund the $16.5 billion Galilee Basin megamine in central Queensland. The axing of the "carbon tax" has just deferred the inevitable and will cost Australians who's income is dependent on the financial industry dearly, especially white Australian males nearing retirement.  Major French banks rule out Galilee coal funding | Business Spectator

----------


## SilentButDeadly

If anyone is interested...the full functionality of the Climate Change in Australia website has finally been implemented.  There's quite a lot there to go through.  But the funnest thing is the Climate Analogue Explorer About analogues  but the data explorer is pretty as well About Data Explorers 
Mind you...it is worth noting that, while these updated projections contained at the site are new, they are not new information.  The findings remain not appreciably different from the previous projections in 2007.  Where they do differ is the intensity and scale of the data...

----------


## PeterHorse

> If anyone is interested...the full functionality of the Climate Change in Australia website has finally been implemented.  There's quite a lot there to go through.  But the funnest thing is the Climate Analogue Explorer About analogues  but the data explorer is pretty as well About Data Explorers 
> Mind you...it is worth noting that, while these updated projections contained at the site are new, they are not new information.  The findings remain not appreciably different from the previous projections in 2007.  Where they do differ is the intensity and scale of the data...

  Thanks for that post, SBD! Makes for very interesting reading and a good reference source.  The online training modules look as if they would be well worth doing to get more familiar with the whole subject, which is bound to become more important for renovators as much as anyone else, as time moves on.  :2thumbsup:   
[IMG]chrome://interclue/content/cluecore/skins/default/pixel.gif[/IMG][IMG]chrome://interclue/content/cluecore/skins/default/pixel.gif[/IMG][IMG]chrome://interclue/content/cluecore/skins/default/pixel.gif[/IMG][IMG]chrome://interclue/content/cluecore/skins/default/pixel.gif[/IMG][IMG]chrome://interclue/content/cluecore/skins/default/pixel.gif[/IMG][IMG]chrome://interclue/content/cluecore/skins/default/pixel.gif[/IMG]

----------


## PeterHorse

> The Abbott government's coal-led recovery is becoming obviously more ludicrous every day. Eleven international banks have now said they will not fund the $16.5 billion Galilee Basin megamine in central Queensland. The axing of the "carbon tax" has just deferred the inevitable and will cost Australians who's income is dependent on the financial industry dearly, especially white Australian males nearing retirement.  Major French banks rule out Galilee coal funding | Business Spectator

  Agreed,J2b. The next few years are shaping to be rather ugly given the political trajectory Australia is currently on.  Queensland in particular may be left with a huge amount of environmental damage and monumental stranded assets, while the government revenue and the Super fund income that is dependent on taxes and profits from the extraction of lower quality coal will take an enormous hit. 
It is not environmental activism that Abbott should be worried about, but the financial reality which is already gripping the international money markets as the rest of the world shifts to clean energy sources.

----------


## John2b

> It is not environmental activism that Abbott should be worried about, but the financial reality which is already gripping the international money markets as the rest of the world shifts to clean energy sources.

  The change to the economics of renewable energy happened before Abbott was elected, so he has no excuse whatsoever for the stupidity on the LNC's direct action taxpayer funded gift to polluters who take profits from Australians offshore to tax havens.   

> The race for renewable energy has passed a turning point. The world is now adding more capacity for renewable power each year than coal, natural gas, and oil combined. And there's no going back. The shift occurred in 2013, when the world added 143 gigawatts of renewable electricity capacity, compared with 141 gigawatts in new plants that burn fossil fuels, according to an analysis presented Tuesday at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance annual summit in New York. The shift will continue to accelerate, and by 2030 more than four times as much renewable capacity will be added.  "The electricity system is shifting to clean,'' Michael Liebreich, founder of BNEF, said in his keynote address. "Despite the change in oil and gas prices there is going to be a substantial buildout of renewable energy that is likely to be an order of magnitude larger than the buildout of coal and gas."

  Fossil Fuels Just Lost the Race Against Renewables - Bloomberg Business 
The Fat Lady's songbook doesn't seem to have any denialists's anthems...

----------


## woodbe

Climate change: US agency says March hottest globally on record as Barack Obama urges action - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   

> For March, the average global temperature was 0.85 degrees Celsius above the 20th-century average.
> "This was the highest for March in the 1880-2015 record, surpassing the previous record of 2010 by 0.05C," the report said.
> For the first three months of the year, the average temperature worldwide was 0.82 degrees above the 20th-century average.
> That marked the highest ever recorded for that period, surpassing the previous record in 2002 by 0.05 degrees.
> Also of concern was the finding that Arctic sea ice was the lowest on record for March.
> "The  average Arctic sea ice extent for March was 430,000 square miles  (1,113,699 square kilometres, 7.2 per cent) below the 1981-2010  average," the report said.
> "This was the smallest March extent since records began in 1979."

  Sure looks like that 1998 trend fixation among the wishful thinkers is well and truly broken now.

----------


## John2b

> Climate change: US agency says March hottest globally on record as Barack Obama urges action - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
> Sure looks like that 1998 trend fixation among the wishful thinkers is well and truly broken now.

  Actually, it was an anti-trend fixation. There never was any change to the underlying _trend_ in global warming.   
Here's tip for those struggling with weather and climate trends: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...heated-planet/  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vj-0imOLw   
BTW, calling denialists "wishful thinkers" is a bit of wishful thinking in itself, LOL.

----------


## John2b

Does your parent, grandparent or political representative suffer from climate change denial disorder? CCDD is a rapidly spreading disease that, world health officials say, if left untreated, could destroy the entire planet.  http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/9bd64b041b/climate-change-denial-disorder

----------


## John2b

After scrapping carbon pricing in July, emissions have risen in Australia, reversing a previous downward trend. Australia is one of just four nations not on track to meet emissions reduction promises, a UN report has warned, while a US-based research firm has poured scorn on Tony Abbotts insistence that coal is good for humanity.  Australia one of only four nations forecast to miss 2020 emissions target | Australia news | The Guardian

----------


## Marc

Tech to Cool Down Global Warming Should Be Tested Now - Scientific American 
The lunacy of the deluded, the mercenary and the pathetic.

----------


## woodbe

> The thing I want to ask the participants of this little domestic comedy is to refrain to use my name in any way shape or form.

   

> Marc, if you don't want to be associated with this thread, you should not reply to it and like Dr Freud, you will gradually disappear from the conversation. If your need is genuine (which I doubt based on the content of your post), then you should approach the Mods who may accommodate your wishes if you are able to convince them that you are genuine. 
> I'm amused by your post which sings the praises of science and genuine skepticism and then calls the results of science and skepticism FRAUD.

  Marc, I thought you wanted out of this thread, but you're back!  :Eek:

----------


## woodbe

> Tech to Cool Down Global Warming Should Be Tested Now - Scientific American 
> The lunacy of the deluded, the mercenary and the pathetic.

  Yep, like importing Cane Toads. That worked well...

----------


## Marc

Aaaah but _they_ have a dispensation from the green pope to vandalise the ecosystem. Anything to turn the thermostat up 4C by 2100. 
That sentence alone is enough to show what a mockery the global warming religion is.

----------


## woodbe

> Aaaah but _they_ have a dispensation from the green pope to vandalise the ecosystem. Anything to turn the thermostat up 4C by 2100. 
> That sentence alone is enough to show what a mockery the global warming religion is.

  Who is "They" I don't think you will find a majority of scientists supporting the ideas put forward in that article. The big problem, identified by the Cane Toad catastrophe is that we don't have a 'test' planet to play with. See my sig.  :Smilie:  
We're already vandalising the ecosystem. You seem to be supporting the idea that we vandalise it less. Good idea, lets reduce the burning of fossil fuels amongst other things we could do.

----------


## John2b

Yeah, what happened to 'Plan A'?
Why we shouldnt fund geoengineering experimentation, and what we still need to learn about the climate. http://www.etcgroup.org/content/plan...-happened-plan

----------


## Rod Dyson

Yeah right... the Sydney storm caused by climate change. 
Like they have never had storms like this in the past.  I think I am gonna puke.

----------


## woodbe

> Yeah right... the Sydney storm caused by climate change. 
> Like they have never had storms like this in the past.  I think I am gonna puke.

  lol, spitting the dummy? 
No-one here is saying they have never had storms like this in the past.    In a Warming World, the Storms May Be Fewer But Stronger : Feature Articles   

> Storms feed off of latent heat, which is why scientists think global  warming is strengthening storms. Extra heat in the atmosphere or ocean  nourishes storms; the more heat energy that goes in, the more vigorously  a weather system can churn. 
>          Already, there is evidence that the winds of some storms may be  changing. A study based on more than two decades of satellite altimeter  data (measuring sea surface height) showed that hurricanes intensify  significantly faster now than they did 25 years ago. Specifically,  researchers found that storms attain Category 3 wind speeds nearly nine  hours faster than they did in the 1980s. Another satellite-based study   found that global wind speeds had increased by an average of 5 percent  over the past two decades.  
>                           There is also evidence that extra water vapor in the atmosphere is  making storms wetter. During the past 25 years, satellites have measured  a 4 percent rise in water vapor in the air column. In ground-based  records, about 76 percent of weather stations in the United States have  seen increases in extreme precipitation since 1948. One analysis found  that extreme downpours are happening 30 percent more often. Another  study found that the largest storms now produce 10 percent more  precipitation.

  We've always had storms, Rod, but the nature and frequency of those storms is changing due to changes occurring in the climate system. 
You accept the warming, but you deny the cause. Now you are claiming what exactly? That the climate won't change with the warming?

----------


## Marc

I can't believe we are still going around using semantics. 
Who cares if and how the climate changes. The only question is if humans have anything to do with it.
And no one can answer that. Correction everyone answers that, but each one has his own agenda and answers accordingly to divert funds into his own pockets, and sends the gullible altar boys to ring the bell and hold the hat out. 
Donate to the green church you sinners, fire and brimstone will fall thick and fast unless you repent from your evil ways and give generously.

----------


## PhilT2

> repent from your evil ways and give generously.

  Well the taxpayers have given generously, to the tune of over $600mil, in the first auction of the direct action plan. The big winners appear to be those who have promised to protect trees but i haven't seen any detail yet. Foreign companies are rumoured to be the main beneficiaries of the scheme so far. Anyone got a good link to the details?

----------


## woodbe

Wow, Marc. You're back. Sorry for mentioning your name on the ET Thread  :Biggrin:  
The science tells us humans have an effect on the climate by our carbon emissions and our other ongoing impacts on the planet. This is not semantics, this is the best information we have based on thousands of independent scientific studies, it's been in place for a long time now and it has yet to be taken down. 
Anyone with an ounce of common sense cares if and how the climate changes because they know the state of the science shows it will impact the future generations of this planet.

----------


## John2b

> Yeah right... the Sydney storm caused by climate change. 
> Like they have never had storms like this in the past.  I think I am gonna puke.

  Storms happen in response to the weather. Weather happens in response to the climate. It's not rocket science, yet some people puke in response to facts that don't suit their ideology.

----------


## John2b

> I can't believe we are still going around using semantics.

  As usual Marc pontificates using the royal 'we'. 
He means 'I' of course, lest his post makes no logical sense. 
No one else here needs to use religion to justify their  position.

----------


## Marc

It is unfortunate that so many people prefer to choose a flag/belief rather than investigate the reasons that lead to conflicts.  
Wars, be it for nationalistic, territorial, economic or religious reasons are all created for the one reason, business. 
What keeps taxpayers happy paying such a large chunk of their earnings in tax is the existence of a common enemy. The end of the soviet union has created a lack of real enemies so a new one had to be created. 
Multiculturalism and political correctness that allow marginals to immigrate and become a home grown enemy was a stroke of genius that is working a treat, but the best manufactured enemy ever is clearly global warming or any of the new names invented to avoid discredit by failed prophecies.  
Global warming has the added virtue of making humankind the enemy. Just like religion that makes the human nature evil and in need of redemption, global warming makes any human activity the enemy. The mega rich as usual support both sides so that they never lose. So you have support for the "alternative" and for the traditional forms of energy with money flowing to both sides and keep the conflict alive. 
It is a sad day when we send soldiers to Afghanistan, the place where 80% of the world opium is grown safely protected by the US army and safely transported by Us war planes. But even more sad when so many seemingly sensible people take sides in a fabricated "scientific" conflict that makes humankind the enemy and whose only objective is protecting old and creating new business.

----------


## woodbe

What a load of drivel. 
There is no scientific conflict over climate change, and it is not 'fabricated'. The conflict is between those members of public who read the science and those who only ever read the rubbish in the tabloids.

----------


## PhilT2

lewandowsky has so got this worked out.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Speaking of supporting old and creating new businesses...anyone checked out the list of projects funded by the tax payer via Direct Action's public 'auction' of GHG sequestration/capture?   
Basically a handful of private companies are to be given money to try and do things like: 'protect' remnant vegetation on leasehold Crown Estate in the NSW Western Division (it is already partially protected by legislation), capture methane at many, many landfill sites and plant trees to offset massive land development projects in the peri-urban growth zones around some capital cities. 
And they spent a quarter of their budget buying a fifth(?) of their targeted abatement....so much for the 80:20 rule 
Colour me 'amused'....

----------


## PhilT2

> Speaking of supporting old and creating new businesses...anyone checked out the list of projects funded by the tax payer via Direct Action's public 'auction' of GHG sequestration/capture?   
> Basically a handful of private companies are to be given money to try and do things like: 'protect' remnant vegetation on leasehold Crown Estate in the NSW Western Division (it is already partially protected by legislation), capture methane at many, many landfill sites and plant trees to offset massive land development projects in the peri-urban growth zones around some capital cities. 
> And they spent a quarter of their budget buying a fifth(?) of their targeted abatement....so much for the 80:20 rule 
> Colour me 'amused'....

  Got link?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Got link?

  http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov....d-auction.aspx

----------


## John2b

Remind everyone - why did we get rid of emissions trading????  Meeting low post-2020 emissions target could cost $20bn under Direct Action | Environment | The Guardian

----------


## PhilT2

Seems like Terra Carbon Pty Ltd were big winners in this auction. I was looking through the list to see what projects were Qld based and there is one right here in Logan. The Browns Plains Landfill Gas Project is, I presume, a plan to draw off the methane gas from the local tip. This was set up a few years ago and has been producing electricity for some time. There may be good reasons why the company is now being paid for something they were doing anyway, most likely the federal govt funds will replace the subsidy from previous sources. Browns Plains Landfill - Logan City Council 
But if other projects are like this and the Terra Carbon contracts are mostly for protecting existing trees then how is this progress in any meaningful way?

----------


## John2b

Whilst Abbott and his troupe of FWs spin around in ever decreasing circles, Obama has the balls to do this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=HkAK9QRe4ds

----------


## Marc

> What a load of drivel. 
> There is no scientific conflict over climate change, and it is not 'fabricated'. The conflict is between those members of public who read the science and those who only ever read the rubbish in the tabloids.

  That's OK, I consider the opinions and arguments of those who believe in AGW, UFO the Loch Ness Monster and the miracles by Saint Facciatosta, endless drivel too.
Manufactured conflicts and dangers have been the tool for submitting subjects for millennia. They work time and time again because the masses have the memory of a goldfish and prefer to believe whatever makes their little world more palatable.

----------


## John2b

> the masses have the memory of a goldfish and prefer to believe whatever makes their little world more palatable.

  One of the best examples of that phenomena is here: #13971

----------


## woodbe

> That's OK, I consider the opinions and arguments of those who believe in AGW, UFO the Loch Ness Monster and the miracles by Saint Facciatosta, endless drivel too.

  Let's see. Can you spot the one that doesn't fit your criteria? 
UFO's are claims not backed up by science.
Loch Ness Monster claims are not backed up by science.
AGW claims are backed up by science. 
Manufactured conflict is exactly the game you are playing.  
The science overwhelmingly says adding CO2 to the climate IS altering the climate. Whether the masses are convinced by the science or prefer to bolster their opinions borne by resisting change or listening to radio shock jocks or reading media that denies the science, does not alter the science. The only thing that can alter the science is a tidal wave of published research that shows previous science is wrong. I'm more than happy for people to hope for that, I do myself, but that does not alter the best information we have now.

----------


## John2b

> Yeah right... the Sydney storm caused by climate change. 
> Like they have never had storms like this in the past.

  Warming of the atmosphere increases the number of times temperatures reach extreme levels and evaporates more water from the oceans. From this hotter, wetter background extreme weather events emerge more frequently. Global warming over the last century means heat extremes that previously only occurred once every 1,000 days are happening four to five times more often - and that is a historical statistic, not a projection or a model.  http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nclimate2617

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> But if other projects are like this and the Terra Carbon contracts are mostly for protecting existing trees then how is this progress in any meaningful way?

  For the Love of Tony...I hope that's a rhetorical question. 
Did you do the other math with that list?  Average carbon price was $13.50/tonne.  There's more than a few property owners out there who have a very health income stream coming to then over the next decade or so...just for doing nothing more than not remove a feature of their property (which is leased from the Crown) that they couldn't afford to remove even if they were allowed to under legislation.  That's brilliant on their part!!   
But the landfill gas stuff is even better since most projects are predicated on the gas already being worth something....and now it's worth so much more.  So we are paying for something...that was already paid for.  Now that is truly money for jam.

----------


## John2b

WUWT reports that a "a team of climate scientists to Rome next week to inform Pope Francis of the truth about climate science", except that there isn't a single climate scientist on the team, AND the Pope isn't going to meet with the delegation anyway! Somehow I don't think God is on their side. Still, there is as much factual information in this WUWT post as most of them...  Heartland Institute Heads to Rome to Advise Pope Francis on Climate Policy | Watts Up With That?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Whilst Abbott and his troupe of FWs spin around in ever decreasing circles, Obama has the balls to do this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=HkAK9QRe4ds

  You mean the stupidity

----------


## John2b

Of the man who repealed the incorrectly labelled 'carbon tax' just 12% of all electors cite him as preferred Liberal Party leader:  Spotlight on Australian Politics: Can Abbott recover? - Roy Morgan Research

----------


## John2b

BP shareholders voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to publish regular updates on how its strategies were affecting climate change from next year, making it one of the first global oil companies to disclose such details.  https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/27...-change-risks/

----------


## Rod Dyson

> BP shareholders voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to publish regular updates on how its strategies were affecting climate change from next year, making it one of the first global oil companies to disclose such details.  https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/27...-change-risks/

  Funny how they feel the need to pay penance to maintain market share and to keep the devil away!

----------


## John2b

> Funny how they feel the need to pay penance to maintain market share and to keep the devil away!

  The diverse shareholders of BP include JPMorgan Chase, the government pension fund of Norway, Schroders and AXA Asset Management, Legal & General investment services, and the governments of Kuwait, Singapore and China. Ninety-eight percent of BP shareholders supported the plan proposed by a group of investors and non-governmental organisations at its annual general meeting in London. 
Do you have any idea how silly it sounds when you try to make this out as some kind of conspiracy?

----------


## John2b

From this year's BP Energy Outlook:   

> To abate carbon emissions further will require additional significant steps by policy makers beyond the steps already assumed, and the _Outlook provides comparative information for possible options and their relative impacts on emissions. However, as no one option is likely to be sufficient on its own, multiple options will need to be pursued. This underlines the importance of policymaking taking steps that lead to a meaningful global price for carbon which would provide incentives for everyone to play their role in meeting the world’s increasing energy needs in a sustainable manner._

  _  Outlook in brief | About BP | BP Global_

----------


## John2b

The idea that fossil energy lifts people out of poverty is slowly being exposed for the economic falsehood that is is:    

> The Church of England has pulled its money out of two of the most polluting fossil fuels as part of what it called its moral responsibility to protect the world’s poor from the impact of global warming.

   http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/30/church-of-england-ends-investments-in-heavily-polluting-fossil-fuels?CMP=soc_567

----------


## John2b

In yet another broken promise, it turns out that the Abbott LNC government's Direct Action policy for emissions reduction includes a emissions trading scheme! 
In an interview this week, the environment minister Greg Hunt said: “It is a two-part system. An emissions reduction fund … [and] secondly, we have the safeguards mechanism..." 
The "safeguards mechanism" is just emission/carbon trading by another name FFS!!! If baselines are exceeded, the offending companies can make up for it by “*purchasing credits created by other accredited emissions reduction projects*”.  
Rod, surely you can see the funny side of this LOL.  :Roflmao:   Direct Action will force heavy polluters to cut back after 2020, Greg Hunt says | Environment | The Guardian

----------


## John2b

*Academy of Science urges Australia to cut emissions to zero by 2050*    

> Building on the Australian Government’s commitment of achieving at least a 5% reduction of emissions levels by 2020 (relative to year 2000 emissions), the Academy recommends that based on the best available evidence, a 2030 emissions reduction target of 30–40% below 2000 levels is consistent with approaching zero carbon emissions by 2050, and broadly in line with the level of global emissions reductions considered necessary to limit future human-induced global warming to not more than 2°C above preindustrial levels.

  https://www.science.org.au/sites/def...semissions.pdf

----------


## Rod Dyson

> In yet another broken promise, it turns out that the Abbott LNC government's Direct Action policy for emissions reduction includes a emissions trading scheme! 
> In an interview this week, the environment minister Greg Hunt said: “It is a two-part system. An emissions reduction fund … [and] secondly, we have the safeguards mechanism..." 
> The "safeguards mechanism" is just emission/carbon trading by another name FFS!!! If baselines are exceeded, the offending companies can make up for it by “*purchasing credits created by other accredited emissions reduction projects*”.  
> Rod, surely you can see the funny side of this LOL.   Direct Action will force heavy polluters to cut back after 2020, Greg Hunt says | Environment | The Guardian

  I don't agree with any false solution to a false problem.  Nothing funny here at all just a waste of money.

----------


## woodbe

Well, at least we agree it's a false solution  :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Well, at least we agree it's a false solution

  any attempt at a solution is false in my opinion.  So don't get too excited about any "agreement"

----------


## woodbe

> any attempt at a solution is false in my opinion.  So don't get too excited about any "agreement"

  Yep, that's your opinion. You say you accept the basics of the science but select outlier caveats that eliminate any possible risk for the future.  
Very convenient, but not very realistic.

----------


## woodbe

Meanwhile, a new post at Tamino's explores the progression of record temperatures.  
Here's the graph showing new records set since 1970 (in red)   
Whatever the 'pause' may or may not have been, it's gone, and we have two successive record months already this year, and I'm not seeing any record global minimums to match those highs...

----------


## John2b

> any attempt at a solution is false in my opinion. So don't get too excited about any "agreement"

   

> Yep, that's your opinion. You say you accept the basics of the science but select outlier caveats that eliminate any possible risk for the future.

  It could be that someone thinks they will be gone before it gets serious. It is hard to believe one could be so indifferent, given that robust statistical analysis has already shown the frequency and severity of some types of outlier weather events _has already increased_ as expected due to global warming. 
It could be that a person says they accept the science, but simply does not accept the science. We'll all human, but why on earth would a logical person think the laws of entropy, thermodynamics, and physics in general, would be selective and only apply to useful things like cars, computers and weather forecasting, but not to inconvenient things like climate change? And conversely, who would seriously fly planes if they thought flight engineers were making flight path decisions using weather forecasts based on pseudoscience?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It could be that someone thinks they will be gone before it gets serious. It is hard to believe one could be so indifferent, given that robust statistical analysis has already shown the frequency and severity of some types of outlier weather events _has already increased_ as expected due to global warming. 
> It could be that a person says they accept the science, but simply does not accept the science. We'll all human, but why on earth would a logical person think the laws of entropy, thermodynamics, and physics in general, would be selective and only apply to useful things like cars, computers and weather forecasting, but not to inconvenient things like climate change? And conversely, who would seriously fly planes if they thought flight engineers were making flight path decisions using weather forecasts based on pseudoscience?

  Ha Ha what total ignorance of my position.

----------


## John2b

> Ha Ha what total ignorance of my position.

  Only you have the power to remove others' ignorance of your position. So, pray tell the forum, what is your position on science?   

> “The basic physics that CO2 causes warming and that humans are responsible is incredibly well established,” according to Mark Maslin, professor of physical geography at University College London. “... *there’s never been science that’s been examined in so much detail*.”

   http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/03/climate-change-myths-warming-ice-antarctic-arctic

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Only you have the power to remove others' ignorance of your position. So, pray tell the forum, what is your position on science?   http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/03/climate-change-myths-warming-ice-antarctic-arctic

  I don't need too my position here is quite clear.  You guys seem intent on trying to make some sort of gotcha out of it by miss-representing my stated position. of which I have no intention or restating here again.  
So go for it, bring out your true colours again.  I really don't care less what you think, I just enjoy how you hang yourselves.

----------


## woodbe

Correct, you have already stated your position. You say you agree with the science except you choose a lowball climate sensitivity rather than a reasonable range which gives you the window you need to disagree with doing anything about the future climate. 
Did I get anything wrong?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Correct, you have already stated your position. You say you agree with the science except you choose a lowball climate sensitivity rather than a reasonable range which gives you the window you need to disagree with doing anything about the future climate. 
> Did I get anything wrong?

  lmao 
You don't get it and never will.

----------


## woodbe

That is the summary of ideas you have expressed here in my view. 
The floor is yours Rod. Correct me.

----------


## woodbe

In other news, Tesla, the US electric vehicle manufacturer has announced their home and utility scale battery packs. 10kWh for US$3500 
Power that from solar on the roof and a lot of homes could easily go off grid, off fossil fuel, and off utility access charges.  Powerwall | Tesla Motors

----------


## John2b

> I don't need too my position here is quite clear. You guys seem intent on trying to make some sort of gotcha out of it by miss-representing my stated position. of which I have no intention or restating here again.

  In the past year or two, the few positions you have deigned to reveal have been thoroughly debunked.   

> lmao 
> You don't get it and never will.

  You are hung by your own arrogance. But thanyou for helping at least some of the casual visitors to the thread to understand that change 'scepticism' is not scientifically based, but just the domain of older, conservative, white, english speaking men.  Why Conservative White Males Are More Likely to Be Climate Skeptics - Scientific American

----------


## John2b

A bit off topic, but for anyone interested, you can read more about the "white male effect" here (or Google it): http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/st...right_2011.pdf

----------


## Marc

So following this politically (in) correct reasoning then, black female socialist must be the main supporters of the AGW mythical religion ... interesting. Are you black female and socialist?  

> The left believes they can automatically assume who’s a liberal and who’s a conservative. For instance, if you’re a wealthy, straight white male over the age of 50, you’re supposed to be a conservative (to which I say, explain the phenomenon that _is_ Harry Reid). If you’re a young black female, you’re supposed to be a liberal. It’s they way it works. Liberals have complete conniptions whenever these people–who they shamelessly stereotype– deviate from their script. The truth is, to the left, there’s nothing worse than being conservative. If you’re a minority/gay/female/poor conservative, you’re suddenly the enemy. Nothing else matters. It turns into a giant witch hunt.

  Black Female Rand Paul Supporter Responds To Her Liberal Haters, And It's PERFECT - Chicks on the Right 
And of course this simply demonstrates in another of the hundred different ways possible that the AGW priest, believers and assorted cheer leaders are but a social/religious/ political movement with nothing to do with the environment and a fervent desire to re engineer society according to the agenda the puppet master has supplied.

----------


## John2b

> And of course this simply demonstrates in another of the hundred different ways possible that the AGW priest, believers and assorted cheer leaders are but a social/religious/ political movement with nothing to do with the environment and a fervent desire to re engineer society according to the agenda the puppet master has supplied.

  No, your post simply demonstrates that you have the typical belief system of older conservative white males *in relation to climate change*, one where logical fallacies can be used to explain everything. 
EDIT: Added qualification within asterisks.

----------


## Marc

So you have the typical belief system of the black female lefty, correct?

----------


## John2b

> So you have the typical belief system of the black female lefty, correct?

  A quick Google Scholar search turned up nothing about what such a thing as "the typical belief system of the black female lefty" might be, so I am unable to comment. However, it is well known that _in general_ culture and experience are more significant than knowledge when it comes to belief or otherwise in climate change and global warming. For example:  A national, representative survey of the U.S. public found that Americans have moderate climate change risk perceptions, strongly support a variety of national and international policies to mitigate climate change, and strongly oppose several carbon tax proposals. Drawing on the theoretical distinction between analytic and experiential decision-making, this study found that American risk perceptions and policy support are strongly influenced by experiential factors, including affect, imagery, and values, and demonstrates that public responses to climate change are influenced by both psychological and socio-cultural factors.  http://environment.yale.edu/leiserow...aticChange.pdf 
For what it is worth, I am reasonably confident that my beliefs in relation to climate change are based on an informed appraisal of the available evidence, both in relation to climate science and human psychology, both areas I have had a lifelong casual interest in. I'm a retired consulting engineer in a highly specialised field that spans the disciplines of physics, acoustics, thermodynamics, and mechanical, electrical and electronic engineering. In my "real" career I spent a lot of time and effort understanding and removing personal bias (both my own and that of others), observer-expectancy effect and confirmation bias from experimental observations, and over 25 years ago developed a much simpler and less obfuscative, self-controlled double-blind test algorithm than the fairly well known AB/X methodology. Along the way I have developed a fairly robust BS filter. 
I need to qualify that my previous post should not have read like it did - it was a comment only relevant to the topic under discussion and not meant to extend beyond that. I am sure there are a lot of things we agree about outside of this topic. I have edited the post.

----------


## John2b

> Well, at least we agree it's a false solution

  So does the Grattan Institute:    

> The Grattan Institute says in its submission that the safeguards mechanism "sacrifices environmental integrity in order to avoid imposing immediate cost impacts on emitting facilities. In the short term this is disappointing; in the long term it is unacceptable."

    

> "As a result, its impact on reducing emissions is likely to be zero," the submission says.

  Direct action's emissions safeguards 'designed to fail': Grattan Institute

----------


## dazzler

> In other news, Tesla, the US electric vehicle manufacturer has announced their home and utility scale battery packs. 10kWh for US$3500 
> Power that from solar on the roof and a lot of homes could easily go off grid, off fossil fuel, and off utility access charges.  Powerwall | Tesla Motors

  Good god Woodbe, how can you keep this up.  You must run on redbull to respond to all the 'bull' they post. 
You have my eternal admiration.   :Biggrin:

----------


## PhilT2

I don't buy the Australian or any other Murdoch rag for that matter so can someone please confirm for me that Maurice Newman has stated, in an article published by that paper, that he believes global warming is actually a plot by the UN to take over the world? This man is a senior adviser to the PM, if this is the sort of people Abbott listens to we need to replace him as a matter of urgency. 
Found the link http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opin...-1227343839905

----------


## John2b

> I don't buy the Australian or any other Murdoch rag for that matter so can someone please confirm for me that Maurice Newman has stated, in an article published by that paper, that he believes global warming is actually a plot by the UN to take over the world? This man is a senior adviser to the PM, if this is the sort of people Abbott listens to we need to replace him as a matter of urgency. 
> Found the link Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

  The link goes to a page behind a paywall for those who don't imbibe in Murdoch's feculence. A summary is here: Newman: Climate change is world plot - MacroBusiness 
Funny that Newman thinks the world is on the verge of cooling, but BoM (and WMA, NOAA, the MET, etc) think it is likely that LaNina has arrived. We could be in for a summer that makes the recent record-breaking ones look mild. We'll have to wait to see just how screwed the eastern states of Australia are this summer.  World headed for an El Nino and it could be a big one, scientists say

----------


## woodbe

It's in the open now:  Greg Hunt distances himself from Maurice Newman&#039;s claim UN seeks global authoritarian rule - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## PhilT2

Apologies, that article was accessible for non-subscribers at the time I put that post up. Not that you've missed much, just the usual collection of long discredited zombie talking points; ice age predicted in the '70s, predictions all wrong, reds under the bed etc etc. What I thought was actually new was a direct statement from Newman that it was all a UN conspiracy for world domination. 
 According to the latest Morgan poll most people would prefer someone else to run the country anyway. The LNP is well behind and Labor would win easily if an election were held tomorrow.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Got you all in a tizz lol

----------


## PhilT2

> Got you all in a tizz lol

  Got to admit that when the PM is taking advice from those not smart enough to realise that WUWT is gibberish it's a bit of a concern. But the country will survive and as already mentioned the polls predict Abbott will be gone shortly, either voted out or knifed by his party. Things could be worse; take a look at the extreme right wing in US politics. The conspiracy whackos there actually get elected to congress. Google "jade helm 15" to see the current piece of paranoia. The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, has had to reassure the nutters in his state that planned military exercises are not a plot to conquer Texas and make it part of the US......oh wait... 
The real shame is the lack of real planning for the future, though Abbott and co are not the first nor will they be the last, to fail in this area. The people of Alberta, Canada this week threw out a conservative govt that had run the state for over forty years. One of the big issues appears to have been a lack of planning for a time when fossil fuel royalties collapsed, making big tax increases necessary.

----------


## John2b

The University of WA has decided the $4million of Christopher Pyne's lolly to set up climate change denier Bjorn Lombard's "Consensus Centre" isn't worth the damage it will cause the university LOL. You have to wonder who did what to whom for the appointment of the Vice Chancellor who thought this ideological think tank was a good idea!  Christopher Pyne vows to find new home for Bjørn Lomborg centre | Australia news | The Guardian

----------


## PhilT2

They returned the $4mil cheque??? Lombard's ideas must really suck. Still Aust universities depend on their reputations to attract fee paying foreign students; maybe they figured being associated with him would cost them in the long run. Maybe Pyne could try CQU, they have Jennifer Marohasy already.

----------


## Rod Dyson

This is becoming a real lefties party lol. Dream on.

----------


## woodbe

> This is becoming a real lefties party lol. Dream on.

  Well, you can't really complain when people react to excessive right wing tactics from the government. 
Like most governments that get kicked, they are building their own doom.

----------


## John2b

> Well, you can't really complain when people react to excessive right wing tactics from the government.

  I don't see how science has any connection to ideology, either left or right wing. I don't think the weather or climate cares who is in power. I don't see Abbott's LNC government or the Labor opposition refusing to use cars, computers or aeroplanes because they don't trust science, either.

----------


## woodbe

Agree. The problem is the political choices made by those elected around the issue of climate change. Often, the choice of leader makes a difference, and in our case, our PM has been dogwhistling the deniers since day one. Is anyone surprised by their CC policies?

----------


## PhilT2

> I don't see how science has any connection to ideology, either left or right wing. I don't think the weather or climate cares who is in power. I don't see Abbott's LNC government or the Labor opposition refusing to use cars, computers or aeroplanes because they don't trust science, either.

  There's a strong link between ideology and whether people can accept science or not. Extreme right wing groups like the Tea Party, many of whom hold fundamentalist religious views cannot accept the science of evolution. Surveys show they almost all deny climate science as well. See for example the US senator who said "Only god can change the climate". Psychologists have a field day with the reasons behind this, but basically they can't be persuaded by reason or evidence.

----------


## John2b

> Psychologists have a field day with the reasons behind this, but basically they can't be persuaded by reason or evidence.

  Look no further than this thread for proof of that! On the other hand, dog whistling works incredibly well with the OCWM types that frequent the Renovate Forum. 
They are a pretty elite group of smug deniers: according to a recent survey a clear majority of Australians view global warming as already causing extreme weather events such as storms, droughts and floods, and just 3 per cent say "there is no such thing as climate change" and another 4 per cent viewed changes as entirely naturally. 
On the other hand, about 40 per cent of Australians viewed climate change as either _entirely or mainly_ caused by human activity, while another 43 per cent said _both human and natural forces_ are at play. According to the survey, the vast majority of Australians believe climate change is a real phenomenon that is likely to have a serious impact on our environment, if not our way of life, in the future. Furthermore, many believe we are already experiencing many of the detrimental impacts of climate change. 
I guess that means Rod views 83% of Australians as "real lefties". But maybe it is just that he is to the ideological right of 83% or more of his fellow Australians. Almost everyone looks left wing from there LOL.  http://ipsos.com.au/Ipsos_docs/CC201...eport_2015.pdf

----------


## Rod Dyson

You have no idea what it means.  Particularly what it means to me.   
Warmists only have one view.  That is if one is asked is climate change real? And the answer is yes, then that person must whole heartedly agree with the entire AGW meme.   
That makes you what you are.

----------


## Marc

Eat dung, millions of flies can not be wrong.

----------


## John2b

> You have no idea what it means. Particularly what it means to me.

  Ditto.   

> Warmists only have one view.  That is if one is asked is climate change real? And the answer is yes, then that person must whole heartedly agree with the entire AGW meme.   
> That makes you what you are.

  WOW! That is the most ill-informed thing I have read here yet. And it comes from someone who bleats about not being understood FFS. You really don't have any idea, do you? No need to respond - the answer is self evident LOL.

----------


## John2b

> Eat dung, millions of flies can not be wrong.

  "Consider thy meals as a duty, not a pleasure." _​Edward Counsel_

----------


## Rod Dyson

I absolutely don't care a damn if you "understand" me or not.  The evidence here is quite clear that anyone who agrees that climate changes must also agree with the AGW meme. You can't escape that.  Look how woodbe tried to implicate me.   
Any clear thinking person can see that.  Some people have their thinking clouded.

----------


## Marc

By                                             Geoffrey Lean6:30PM BST 17 Apr 2015 
Forget floods, *droughts*, sea-level rise and even the melting polar ice caps. Here’s a really compelling reason to worry about global warming. 
Spiders. 
 Research has already suggested that there will be more of them – and they will grow bigger – as temperatures rise. Now a new study, p*ublished in the journal Experimental Biology*, has concluded that they are likely to be able to run faster and therefore, be harder to catch.    Warm weather speeds up the spiders' joints (AP)  
 It all comes down to how the arachnids move. Instead of using muscles, they rely on fluid to move their limbs. And as it heats up, the fluid’s ebb and flow gets faster. So the researchers found that while they moved sluggishly at a cool 59F (15C), they sprinted around at three times the speed when the thermometer rose to a stifling 104F (40C).  
 They sped up mainly by taking more steps, which also made them clumsier because they were unable to control their limbs so well. So there you have it: more bigger, speedier spiders, which are more liable to stumble into your bath.  
 Memo to Miss Muffet: our response to those insisting that we will easily adapt to climate change has to be: “No whey!”  :Shutup:

----------


## John2b

> The evidence here is quite clear that anyone who agrees that climate changes must also agree with the AGW meme. You can't escape that.

  That is a most preposterous statement! Full marks for using a logical fallacy to build a strawman argument.   

> Some people have their thinking clouded.

  Agreed. Thanks for providing an example.

----------


## woodbe

> I absolutely don't care a damn if you "understand" me or not.  The evidence here is quite clear that anyone who agrees that climate changes must also agree with the AGW meme. You can't escape that.  Look how woodbe tried to implicate me.   
> Any clear thinking person can see that.  Some people have their thinking clouded.

  Correction. Woodbe pointed out your bias. You claim you accept the science except the bit that says that the range of likely warming levels presents a problem for the future. You claim that the norm for the warming is at the absolute lower edge of the range of numbers suggested by the science. How convenient for you. 
A normal conversation is one where there is a two way discussion that results in a clearer understanding of one person's presented idea. You're not doing that, you apparently don't want a reasonable discussion when you blurt out "I absolutely don't care a damn if you "understand" me or not." 
In other news, we recently bust through 400ppm for a whole month...   Global carbon dioxide levels break 400ppm milestone | Environment | The Guardian  Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: NASA scientists react to 400 ppm carbon milestone

----------


## John2b

I trust, following my earlier warning, that everyone has by now divested themselves of superannuation and money management funds that invest in coal, which is on a no-return downhill slide:
Coal use accounts for about 66 percent of China’s primary energy consumption (down from ~80% a few years ago), 35 percentage points higher than the world average, according to the NEA. But the government plans to slash coal consumption by 160 million tons in the next five years (equivalent to 3 years of Australia's 54 million tons per annum of coal exports to China), and to cut energy intensity, or units of energy per unit of GDP, by 3.1 percent in 2015.
As China’s economy is slowing, overcapacity is posing a challenge for policy-makers to balance growth and reforms. China will eliminate 77.79 million tons of outdated production capacity in the coal sector and close down 1,254 coal mines in 2015, the country’s energy watchdog said yesterday.  Coal sector to be slashed this year | Shanghai Daily 
Now if Australia could follow the lead and divest itself of the idiotic Abbott LNC "coal is good for humanity" thugocracy....

----------


## dazzler

> You have no idea what it means.  Particularly what it means to me.   
> Warmists only have one view.  That is if one is asked is climate change real? And the answer is yes, then that person must whole heartedly agree with the entire AGW meme.   
> That makes you what you are.

  What a silly statement Rod. 
Climate change is real.  Its been warming since the last ice age.  Tasmanian Aborigines lived in Tasmania when the last of the glaciers were still near Cradle Mtn.  There are no glaciers in tasmania any more. See - getting warmer. 
So yes, I believe the climate changes but that does not mean I 'must whole heartedly agree with the entire AGW meme.' 
Like you I am not a climate scientist.  Hell, I am not even a scientist.  So I need to read, and listen, and learn about the subject. Even after all that learnin' I am still a babe in the woods on this stuff.  So I default to the knowledge that climate scientists possess to guide me.  Now firstly I gotta admit one thing - I am no conspiracy theorist simply because humans cant keep their mouths shut.  So as soon as someone suggests a conspiracy by scientists to make all this up so they can get $$ then I consider that person to be rather misguided. 
So chucking aside the conspiracy crowd you are left with three possibilities; 
1. The climate is still warming (coming out of the last ice age) but man has no bearing on it.
2. The climate is still warming (coming out of the last ice age) and man has a little to do with it.
3. The climate is still warming (coming out of the last ice age) and man is accelerating that rate. 
The vast majority of climate scientists support number three.  Like you I know very little compared to these scientists so I throw my hat in with them. 
Now to the import thing.  For good or for bad fossil fuels are rapidly going out of favor.  Our govt is betting our future on fossils fuels and that will, IMO, be to our detriment.   
So here is a question.  
Lets just say that the world moves to a renewable based energy system.  Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal you name it.  Given that you and I are mere blinks in world time, and there are thousands of future Rods and Dazza's to come, what are the negatives to this? Now if you are going to suggest the world economy will struggle then yep, you are probably correct.  Just like it struggled in the 30's and in '08.  But, once again, the economy recovers and the world moves on. 
So, other than the economy possibly taking a hit, wheres the negative?

----------


## woodbe

Here you go Rod, looks like they wrote this just for you.   

> Its the hottest trend in climate denial. Long gone are the days when people can publicly deny that the planet is warming or that humans are responsible without  facing widespread mockery. Those who oppose taking serious action to  curb global warming have mostly shifted to Stage 3 in the 5 stages of climate denial.    Stage 1: Deny the problem existsStage 2: Deny were the cause*Stage 3: Deny its a problem*Stage 4: Deny we can solve itStage 5: Its too late  
> Each of the 5 stages shares one  main characteristic  all can be used to argue against efforts and  policies to slow global warming. If the planet isnt warming, or if  were not causing it, or if its not a problem, or if we cant solve it,  or if its too late, in each case theres no reason to implement climate policies.   
> People who favor the status quo will often bounce back and forth between the various stages of climate denial. However, as Stages 1 and 2 have become increasingly untenable, Stage 3 has become more popular.  
> As a result, so-called Lukewarmers have emerged. This group believes that the climate is relatively insensitive to the increasing greenhouse effect, and hence that climate change will proceed slowly enough as to not be a serious concern in the near future. This group has also become known as Luckwarmers, because they essentially want to gamble our future on the small chance that the best possible case scenario will come to fruition.  *The Luckwarmer Case* 
>  Its akin to rolling dice and betting all of our money that theyll come up as snake eyes. For the Luckwarmer case to be true, first the climate sensitivity must be close to the lowest end of possible values. This requires rejecting the vast body of evidence suggesting that the climate is in reality quite sensitive to the increasing greenhouse effect.

  More introspection on the link:   Lukewarmers â the third stage of climate denial, gambling on snake eyes

----------


## John2b

Best explained by Dilbert's Logical Falacies #17:  *IGNORING THE ADVICE OF EXPERTS WITHOUT A GOOD REASON
Example: Sure, the experts think you shouldnt ride a bicycle into the eye of a hurricane, but I have my own theory.*  Dilbert's Logical Fallacies

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Here you go Rod, looks like they wrote this just for you.   
> More introspection on the link:   Lukewarmers â€“ the third stage of climate denial, gambling on snake eyes

  LMAO so we all have to agree that co2 in the main driver of climate and that it is a serious problem that requires immediate draconian action while there is no evidence at all that this action will alter the climate in any discernable way.   
Just like Dazzlers post above.   Most skeptics have always agreed climate changes including me, very few have ever suggested otherwise.  Most skeptics also agree that Co2 is a greenhouse gas few have ever suggested otherwise.   
The main difference here is that most skeptics disagree with the extent that Co2 affects the climate and that any action to reduce co2 will have any effect on temperatures.  Most skeptics are not against renewable energy, they just want it to be introduced for the right reasons and competitively with other power sources.   
So what's new? This has been my position all along.  We just don't believe the @@@@@@@@ that co2 is going to cause the earth to fry.  We don't believe the models presented are accurate as the feedbacks they rely on are not accurate, and this is being proved slowly as time goes on.  The co2 has gone up yet the temperatures are flat, totally contrary to the expectation of the models.  
So we will still have to wait a few more years for the gap to widen enough for the rusted on warmists to see the difference that we already see. 
There is no doubt our co2 emissions will keep rising China and India will see to that themselves, even our emissions will keep going up regardless of what we do to try and prevent them from doing so. Our population growth will take care of that.  So we will get plenty of opportunity to see how the gap in the predictions and reality widens even further.   
I think you need to pray for some hot weather.

----------


## John2b

> We don't believe the models presented are accurate as the feedbacks they rely on are not accurate, and this is being proved slowly as time goes on.  The co2 has gone up yet the temperatures are flat, totally contrary to the expectation of the models.

  Nice false claim that "temperatures are flat" - they are not. The natural variations of weather are all that is needed to account for the noise in the increase in average global temperature. 
If you think temperatures are flat, here's a challenge - find a better fit than the dashed red trend-line on the record of global surface temperature:   
Don't like the start date or the data set? Try finding a better fit for the trend-line on this record:    
And how does a "sceptic" explain the other evidence of a warming planet?   Sea level rise; Warming oceans; Shrinking ice sheets; Contraction of polar ice volumes; Disappearing glaciers; Decreased snow cover, ski resorts having many less days of snow cover; Shifting seasons, bud burst of trees moving earlier into spring; Movement of fish, land animals, birds and trees and plants to new territories as traditional habitats warm.  
And how do "sceptics" explain the direct measurement of significant changes in the spectrum of heat radiating out into space corresponding to the rise in atmospheric CO2? 
How do "sceptics" explain the directly measured increase in downward infrared radiation corresponding to the rise in atmospheric CO2? 
How do "sceptics" explain the cooling of the stratosphere, whilst the troposphere warms? 
How do "sceptics" explain why nighttime temperatures are warming faster than daytime temperatures?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Nice false claim that "temperatures are flat" - they are not. The natural variations of weather are all that is needed to account for the noise in the increase in average global temperature. 
> If you think temperatures are flat, here's a challenge - find a better fit than the dashed red trend-line on the record of global surface temperature:   
> Don't like the start date or the data set? Try finding a better fit for the trend-line on this record:    
> And how does a "sceptic" explain the other evidence of a warming planet?   Sea level rise; Warming oceans; Shrinking ice sheets; Contraction of polar ice volumes; Disappearing glaciers; Decreased snow cover, ski resorts having many less days of snow cover; Shifting seasons, bud burst of trees moving earlier into spring; Movement of fish, land animals, birds and trees and plants to new territories as traditional habitats warm.  
> And how do "sceptics" explain the direct measurement of significant changes in the spectrum of heat radiating out into space corresponding to the rise in atmospheric CO2? 
> How do "sceptics" explain the directly measured increase in downward infrared radiation corresponding to the rise in atmospheric CO2? 
> How do "sceptics" explain the cooling of the stratosphere, whilst the troposphere warms? 
> How do "sceptics" explain why nighttime temperatures are warming faster than daytime temperatures?

  LOL you really think .03 deg c is significant, and/or that world temperatures can be measured accurately to that extent without a + - factor bigger than the .03 as claimed. 
Joke joke joke. 
In respect to your longer timeframe graph... no one is disputing there has been a rise in temperatures!!  Who would have thought that!
Temperatures have been rising since the LIA that's a certainty! Thank god they have BTW.

----------


## woodbe

> LMAO so we all have to agree that co2 in the main driver of climate and that it is a serious problem that requires immediate draconian action while there is no evidence at all that this action will alter the climate in any discernable way.   
> Just like Dazzlers post above.   Most skeptics have always agreed climate changes including me, very few have ever suggested otherwise.  Most skeptics also agree that Co2 is a greenhouse gas few have ever suggested otherwise.   
> The main difference here is that most skeptics disagree with the extent that Co2 affects the climate and that any action to reduce co2 will have any effect on temperatures.

  The science tells us that CO2 is one of many drivers of the climate but because of our CO2 emissions it has taken front of stage. 
Yep, you have just confirmed you are a luckwarmer. You take a convenient and unsupportable view of climate sensitivity so that you can ignore and deny the effect mankind is having on the climate.

----------


## John2b

> LOL you really think .03 deg c is significant

  Yes, I really think that the post 1970 warming rate of >1.5 degrees per century is significant. It equates to an enormous additional number of record breaking outlier climate events, such as storms, heatwaves, droughts and cold-snaps. Funny, just what has been happening this century...   

> or that world temperatures can be measured accurately to that extent without a + - factor bigger than the .03 as claimed.

  Perhaps you should avail yourself an understanding of statistics. Individual measurements do not need to be particularly accurate when millions of measurements are averaged. Yes, world temperatures can be measured accurately enough. The biggest issue has been spacial coverage and NOT accuracy. Improving spacial coverage (by more measurement locations in remote areas) has shown that the rate of warming is faster than thought previously.    

> In respect to your longer timeframe graph... no one is disputing there has been a rise in temperatures!! Who would have thought that!
> Temperatures have been rising since the LIA that's a certainty! Thank god they have BTW.

  Yes, temperatures have been rising and falling as a result of natural forcings since the beginning of time. Right now, if natural forcings -CO2 were driving the climate, temperatures would be FALLING. They are not, they are going up. But here's the funny part - the amount that global temperature is going up above the natural fall of the current lower external forcings, is the amount of warming expected for the additional CO2 humankind has added to the atmosphere. Who would have thought that!

----------


## John2b

Rod, you forgot to explain how you reconcile your position with:   Sea level rise;Warming oceans;Shrinking ice sheets;Contraction of polar ice volumes;Disappearing glaciers;Decreased snow cover, ski resorts having many less days of snow cover;Shifting seasons, bud burst of trees moving earlier into spring;Movement of fish, land animals, birds and trees and plants to new territories as traditional habitats warm.  
Oh, and can you plot a trend line on the graphs going down - or is that too hard?

----------


## dazzler

> Just like Dazzlers post above.   Most skeptics have always agreed climate changes including me, very few have ever suggested otherwise.  Most skeptics also agree that Co2 is a greenhouse gas few have ever suggested otherwise.  
>  .

  Hey Rod 
You forgot to address my post.  Dont be shy now.

----------


## dazzler

Just so you dont miss it Rod;  
So here is a question.  
Lets just say that the world moves to a renewable based energy system.   Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal you name it.  Given that you and I are  mere blinks in world time, and there are thousands of future Rods and  Dazza's to come, what are the negatives to this? Now if you are going to  suggest the world economy will struggle then yep, you are probably  correct.  Just like it struggled in the 30's and in '08.  But, once  again, the economy recovers and the world moves on.  *So, other than the economy possibly taking a hit, wheres the negative?*

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Just so you dont miss it Rod;  
> So here is a question.  
> Lets just say that the world moves to a renewable based energy system.   Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal you name it.  Given that you and I are  mere blinks in world time, and there are thousands of future Rods and  Dazza's to come, what are the negatives to this? Now if you are going to  suggest the world economy will struggle then yep, you are probably  correct.  Just like it struggled in the 30's and in '08.  But, once  again, the economy recovers and the world moves on.  *So, other than the economy possibly taking a hit, wheres the negative?*

  Don't shout!

----------


## dazzler

> Don't shout!

  Shouting is in CAPS.  LIKE THIS.... 
Has it come to this Rod?  You are now so brittle that enlarging text so you dont miss it, and I suggest you missed it on purpose given that you referred briefly to it, that you fall to the mirrors trick - 'look over here, he's being nasty to me.  Don't look there though' 
Heres the question again modified for your new brittleness;   *So, other than the economy possibly taking a hit, wheres the negative?*,

----------


## John2b

> *So, other than the economy possibly taking a hit, wheres the negative?*,

  And why the assumption that a huge amount of economic activity in new industries needed to replace the whole fossil fuel infrastructure will be a "hit" to the economy? Rather, it would be a huge boost.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Shouting is in CAPS.  LIKE THIS.... 
> Has it come to this Rod?  You are now so brittle that enlarging text so you dont miss it, and I suggest you missed it on purpose given that you referred briefly to it, that you fall to the mirrors trick - 'look over here, he's being nasty to me.  Don't look there though' 
> Heres the question again modified for your new brittleness;   *So, other than the economy possibly taking a hit, wheres the negative?*,

  The large red writing just make you shrill not me brittle.  I am sure a smart man like you, if he put his thinking cap on, could come up with a few negatives on his own.  Unless of course he is blinded by the AGW faith.   
Why don't you try first?   
The economy taking a hit is quite a big one, as there is big flow on from that one alone.  You try and think of a few for yourself first.

----------


## John2b

> The co2 has gone up yet the temperatures are flat

  How do you reconcile that statement when very obviously the temperatures are NOT flat:   

> In terms of air temperature... (the) yearly global average air temperature continues to climb. 2014 marked the 38th year in a row that the yearly global air temperature was hotter than the 20th century average. 13 of the 14 hottest years on record have occurred this century ... the overall global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.16°C per decade since 1970, with each decade since the 1970s warmer than the previous decade.

  https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201401

----------


## dazzler

> The large red writing just make you shrill not me brittle.  I am sure a smart man like you, if he put his thinking cap on, could come up with a few negatives on his own.  Unless of course he is blinded by the AGW faith.   
> Why don't you try first?   
> The economy taking a hit is quite a big one, as there is big flow on from that one alone.  You try and think of a few for yourself first.

  Apologies for the red writing Rod.  Seriously, I didn't realise it would upset some so. 
Anyways, back to the point.  I cant actually think of any.  Seriously.  Not one.  Maybe I am stupid.  Maybe I AM (acceptable use of both underline and caps btw) completely blinded by AGW faith and too stupid and blinded to see it.  
So I trust you can name some negatives.  Then, if the negatives you raise are reasonable and I refuse to accept your reasoning then I am surely what you claim. 
Away you go Rod.

----------


## dazzler

> And why the assumption that a huge amount of economic activity in new industries needed to replace the whole fossil fuel infrastructure will be a "hit" to the economy? Rather, it would be a huge boost.

  psst - (I am throwing a bone)

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Apologies for the red writing Rod.  Seriously, I didn't realise it would upset some so. 
> Anyways, back to the point.  I cant actually think of any.  Seriously.  Not one.  Maybe I am stupid.  Maybe I AM (acceptable use of both underline and caps btw) completely blinded by AGW faith and too stupid and blinded to see it.  
> So I trust you can name some negatives.  Then, if the negatives you raise are reasonable and I refuse to accept your reasoning then I am surely what you claim. 
> Away you go Rod.

  Not upset in the slightest.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> psst - (I am throwing a bone)

  You will have to throw a better one than that

----------


## John2b

Nothing to see here. Move along "sceptics"...  NASA finds Antarctic ice shelf just a few years from disintegration  Antarctic ice shelf melting from above and below âº News in Science (ABC Science)

----------


## woodbe

> Not upset in the slightest.

  But somehow unable to respond to the actual question...

----------


## John2b

> But somehow unable to respond to the actual question...

  Or, in fact, _any_​ question...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Nothing to see here. Move along "sceptics"...  NASA finds Antarctic ice shelf just a few years from disintegration  Antarctic ice shelf melting from above and below âº News in Science (ABC Science)

  What's new ice shelves break up and renew all the time!  No mention that the Antarctic ice is at a record high and breaking records almost daily?  How convenient to leave this out.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> But somehow unable to respond to the actual question...

  Or simply doesn't careless!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Or, in fact, _any_​ question...

  No need to respond to every question.  You feel the need to pounce on every little thing that disrupts your AGW theory,  I don't.  There are enough people doing that and time will be the judge of AGW alarmism.  I just have to sit back with the popcorn and watch your pathetic need with amusement.

----------


## dazzler

> No need to respond to every question.  You feel the need to pounce on every little thing that disrupts your AGW theory,  I don't.  There are enough people doing that and time will be the judge of AGW alarmism.  I just have to sit back with the popcorn and watch your pathetic need with amusement.

  So Rod am I reading this correctly. 
You cannot name a single negative to acting on climate change?   
I think you've been called Rod.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So Rod am I reading this correctly. 
> You cannot name a single negative to acting on climate change?   
> I think you've been called Rod.

  You think too much or to little.  I'm not sure which!

----------


## John2b

> Or simply doesn't careless!

  Sorry but... Thou doth protest too much...  _You_ started the forum topic and _you_ are still "participating" after 14,000 posts (that's if taking potshots at dissenting views without contributing rational arguments or information can be called "participating").   

> I just have to sit back with the popcorn and watch your pathetic need with amusement.

  Whose pathetic need?!

----------


## John2b

> What's new ice shelves break up and renew all the time!  No mention that the Antarctic ice is at a record high and breaking records almost daily?  How convenient to leave this out.

  It isn't. But that's the problem when you get your information from idiots, Rod. When are you going to wean yourself off the WUWT teat and start to think for yourself?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It isn't. But that's the problem when you get your information from idiots, Rod. When are you going to wean yourself off the WUWT teat and start to think for yourself?

  Seriously LMAO 
open your mind a bit. Growing Antarctic sea ice limiting access to continent

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It isn't. But that's the problem when you get your information from idiots, Rod. When are you going to wean yourself off the WUWT teat and start to think for yourself?

  Here is some more if you still cant see.   

> Antarctica’s sea ice is changing in ways that scientists and climate models didn’t predict. Each of the past three years has broken the record for sea ice extent, continuing an increasing trend over the past three decades.

  Expanding sea ice is causing headaches for Antarctic stations 
Just shows what your view of the world is.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It isn't. But that's the problem when you get your information from idiots, Rod. When are you going to wean yourself off the WUWT teat and start to think for yourself?

  Just another quote for you.   

> The long term trend   
> Sea ice reaches its peak in September. Rob Johnson  
> Click to enlarge
> . 
> The maximum extent of Antarctic sea ice, which occurs in September each year, has increased over the past 35 years by about 1% per decade.

  Have fun with that.  Not even from wuwt.   :Smilie:

----------


## Random Username

There's a difference between sea ice and land ice.   
Sea ice is increasing, while land ice is decreasing.   
What you are seeing is the difference between losses on a kilometer thick sheet of land ice verses the gains on a five or six meter thick sheet of sea ice - to counter every square meter reduction in area of land ice, you need a 200 square meter increase in the area of sea ice to offset it. 
It is thought that the melting land ice is decreasing the salinity of the surrounding ocean, leading to increased formation rate of sea ice (less salt equals a warmer freezing point, so ice forms more readily). 
Between 1992 and 2011, it is estimated that the Antarctic ice sheets lost an overall 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans; or a loss of ice mass of around 70 gigatonnes per year.

----------


## John2b

> Seriously LMAO 
> open your mind a bit. Growing Antarctic sea ice limiting access to continent

  You appear to be implying that the area of sea ice, which everyone knows has grown, is the significant factor. It is not. The amount of latent heat absorbed by ice is a function of volume, not area!

----------


## woodbe

> Just another quote for you.     
> 			
> 				The maximum extent of Antarctic sea ice, which occurs in September each  year, has increased over the past 35 years by about 1% per decade.
> 			
> 		   Have fun with that.  Not even from wuwt.

  And the Arctic? Decreasing by 2.4% per decade.   
Figure 3. Monthly April ice extent for 1979 to 2015 shows a decline of 2.4% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. 
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center  
Have fun with that. lol.

----------


## John2b

> Here is some more if you still cant see. 
> Just shows what your view of the world is.

  Nope. It shows you can't even understand simple concepts. Give up while you are behind, Rod.

----------


## John2b

> Have fun with that.  Not even from wuwt.

  You must read while you are asleep then. Follow this link and see where it goes: NASA Announces New Record Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice ...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> And the Arctic? Decreasing by 2.4% per decade.   
> Figure 3. Monthly April ice extent for 1979 to 2015 shows a decline of 2.4% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. 
> Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center  
> Have fun with that. lol.

----------


## dazzler

> 

  
Yaaaaaayyyyyyy 
Rod found a graph.  Yippeeeeee. 
I take it google didn't come up with an answer for the question you are dodging?  
Come on Rod.  No more hiding.  No more silly little smart ass answers.  Whats the answer to my question.  If you don't know just say so.

----------


## woodbe

> 

  Got a reference for that image, it looks bodgy. In any event you have taken a short period to try and play up variations in the record as cherry picks. In fact, your 15 year graph is in itself a cherry pick. 
Here is a published image based on the NSIDC data including 1974:   
Reliable records of Arctic sea ice begin in 1953. Satellites provide a  near-continuous record of sea ice beginning in 1979. Monthly (light  blue) and annual (dark blue) sea ice anomalies vary from year to year.  Scientists describe the range of variability with statistics (the number  of standard deviations above or below the mean).  Up until the 1970s,  Arctic sea ice extent was relatively constant, but it has been  decreasing since the 1980s. (Graph by Walt Meier, National Snow and Ice Data Center.) 
From: Sea Ice : Feature Articles 
Have even more fun with that, lol. You're showing your colours now!

----------


## Marc

> So here is a question.  
> Lets just say that the world moves to a renewable based energy system.  Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal you name it.  Given that you and I are mere blinks in world time, and there are thousands of future Rods and Dazza's to come, what are the negatives to this? Now if you are going to suggest the world economy will struggle then yep, you are probably correct.  Just like it struggled in the 30's and in '08.  But, once again, the economy recovers and the world moves on. 
> So, other than the economy possibly taking a hit, wheres the negative?

  Somehow reluctant to answer someone who's avatar is a drunken moron and signature depicting bestiality, but hey, all for the science right?.  
The problem with your question is this ... "chucking aside the conspiracy crowd"
it would be like pretending to explain the start of WW2, the assassination of Kennedy or 9/11 stating how can we explain it "chucking aside conspiracy theories". The answer is that you can not. The world is not black and white, and the answers to most things have no relation to the official version of events.  
So really you either go with the majority crowd (eat dung), or you use your head for activities other than keeping a hat in place.

----------


## PhilT2

Good on you , Marc. Someone has to protect us from the UN Agenda 21 one world socialist govt takeover by the secret illuminati lizard people and you're just the man for the job.

----------


## John2b

> Most skeptics are not against renewable energy, they just want it to be introduced for the right reasons and competitively with other power sources.

  Good to see you are ready to act on factual information, Rod. According to the International Monetary Fund, _subsidies for fossil energy are more than 40 times greater than subsidies for renewable energy!_  "The IMF estimate of $5.3tn in fossil fuel subsidies represents 6.5% of global GDP. ...subsidies for renewable energy  a relatively tiny $120bn a year  would also disappear, if fossil fuel prices reflected the full cost of their impacts."  How Large Are Global Energy Subsidies?

----------


## Rod Dyson

Nice response to a simple question.... not. LiveLeak.com - The Uncomfortable Pause; EDF climate expert explains lack of global warming: 'I, the, yeh, uhh...' 
I could watch this over and over LOL

----------


## dazzler

Got an answer Rod?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Got an answer Rod?

  Dazzler you may think you are onto some kind of gotcha here, but I'm not going to waste my time if you can't think for yourself.  The question you pose doesn't deserve an answer.

----------


## dazzler

> Somehow reluctant to answer someone who's avatar is a drunken moron and signature depicting bestiality, but hey, all for the science right?.  
> The problem with your question is this ... "chucking aside the conspiracy crowd"
> it would be like pretending to explain the start of WW2, the assassination of Kennedy or 9/11 stating how can we explain it "chucking aside conspiracy theories". The answer is that you can not. The world is not black and white, and the answers to most things have no relation to the official version of events.  
> So really you either go with the majority crowd (eat dung), or you use your head for activities other than keeping a hat in place.

  Well lets have a go at explaining your three questions.  *WW2* 
WW2 had its roots primarily in the 33 Billion US dollar reparations imposed upon Germany as a result of the Treaty of Versailles and the public humiliation that Germans felt.  Along comes a young firebrand with a dodgy moe and sells a nationalist agenda that the populace falls for.  He builds jobs and prosperity on an infrastructure and armed forces build up platform and is allowed to take ultimate control of the State and the armed forces.  Hitler and Mussolini join forces, Hitler invades Czechoslovakia and Poland and Italy annexes Albania.  England declares war on Germany and Italy.     
Wow, what a conspiracy. *
Kennedy Assassination* 
Recently a retired South Australian Detective Colin McLean reviewed the evidence surrounding the Kennedy death.  McLaren is a specialist in the management of crime scenes and investigative techniques and lectured at the SA Police Detective Training School.  Using actual policework he determined; 
Three shots were fired when Kennedy was assassinated.  Lee Oswald fired two. The first missed him, struck the pavement and hit a cop in the leg causing minor injuries. The second shot went through his shoulder. 
The round that actually struck and killed Kennedy was accidentally fired by a secret service agent in the follow up car who was armed with an assault rifle and was an accident.  I wont bore you with all the details but he wrote a book and they made a doco on it.   
But of course he may have been a party to the conspiracy when he was eight years old at the time.  Yeah.  I think he was.  *9/11* 
Really?  A conspiracy?  Hahahahahahahahahaahahahah. 
Bin Laden told the US he was going to attack them on home soil.  Khaled Sheihk Mohammad orchestrated the first bombing in 1993 and openly stated they would be back.  Ramsi Yousef openly bragged that they would be back to finish it off. 
Occam's Razor Marc.  Occam's Razor. 
Anyway.  Lets grant you its a HUGE conspiracy.  All the scientists are in on it and not one of them is going to break the code to pick up their Nobel Prize for blowing the conspiracy to pieces and proving its all BS. 
So its granted.   
Now, wheres the negative to a move to renewables?

----------


## dazzler

> Dazzler you may think you are onto some kind of gotcha here, but I'm not going to waste my time if you can't think for yourself.  The question you pose doesn't deserve an answer.

  Really Rod? 
You can spend days and days quoting and block and pasting other peoples work from Google yet you cant answer this simple question? 
Why is that Rod?  Can you explain why the question doesn't deserve an answer?.  Seriously.  I dont get it.  Here is your opportunity to school all of us blinded AGW people on the horrors awaiting us and you dont want to grab it. 
Now there are three possibilities here; 
1. You actually don't know the answer and cant admit it.
2. You know the answer but cant admit you do.
2. You are just playing games. 
If its number 1 then have the balls to admit it.
If its number 2 then have the balls to admit it.
If its number 3 then pick the appropriate descriptor.

----------


## John2b

> I could watch this over and over LOL

  And then, let's guess, you "Watch what happens. Kate in zero G" over and over again, Rod. Don't you find it is odd that your "reference" sites seem to link to "information posts" best suited to smutty schoolboys behind the shelter shed? Credible information, eh Rod???   
Kate in Zero Gravity....

----------


## John2b

> 

   

> Got a reference for that image, it looks bodgy. 
> You're showing your colours now!

  Woodbe, correct on both points. It is a bodgy graph. (No wonder Rod rarely provides links!) You can read all about the origins of this fake "science" in these two links. (Sorry to disappoint the "sceptics, but neither site links to smut and scam sites):  LAZARUS: Reason from a dead man walking: Goddard’s Great Arctic Conspiracy  https://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.c...steve-goddard/

----------


## Rod Dyson

> And then, let's guess, you "Watch what happens. Kate in zero G" over and over again, Rod. Don't you find it is odd that your "reference" sites seem to link to "information posts" best suited to smutty schoolboys behind the shelter shed? Credible information, eh Rod???   
> Kate in Zero Gravity....

  What in earth are you on about?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Really Rod? 
> You can spend days and days quoting and block and pasting other peoples work from Google yet you cant answer this simple question? 
> Why is that Rod?  Can you explain why the question doesn't deserve an answer?.  Seriously.  I dont get it.  Here is your opportunity to school all of us blinded AGW people on the horrors awaiting us and you dont want to grab it. 
> Now there are three possibilities here; 
> 1. You actually don't know the answer and cant admit it.
> 2. You know the answer but cant admit you do.
> 2. You are just playing games. 
> If its number 1 then have the balls to admit it.
> If its number 2 then have the balls to admit it.
> If its number 3 then pick the appropriate descriptor.

  Exactly like I said.  You think you have a gotcha moment.  I cant see how any good can come from harming the economy or making electricity prices more expensive than they need to be, with no discernable result to the intended purpose.   
If you think that this is ok and cant think of a single negative, then nothing I can say will change your view of the world.  I am just happy to let people reading this smirk at your persistence in trying to make a gotcha moment out of it.   
So I guess if I had to select any of the above it would be your 2nd number 2 as this probably best describes how I feel about your posts.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Just so you know Dazzler, I have nothing against renewable energy or its use in the right circumstances.   
I have nothing against research into renewable energy. 
I am sure that there will be a time in the near future when the world will run on non fossil fuel energy simply because it is the cheapest option.  Forcing it on people as an expensive option is not going to make it happen any quicker.  
I also believe (my opinion only) that wind generated power will not be apart of the long term energy mix.  More likely to be far more efficient solar, (provided they find a way to store the energy) and nuclear/thorium mix. 
As fossil fuels become scarcer the alternative will become cheaper.

----------


## John2b

> I also believe (my opinion only) that wind generated power will not be apart of the long term energy mix.

  In the largest and fastest growing energy market in the world, China, wind power provides the third greatest proportion of electricity after coal and hydro, and a long way ahead of nuclear. 
10.2% of EU electricity came from wind in 2014, up from 8% in 2013. There are more nuclear many more nuclear power stations being retired, than being constructed in the EU.    

> More likely to be far more efficient solar, (provided they find a way to store the energy)

  Wind provides a more consistent energy supply than solar ever will. There is already plenty of unused capacity in energy storage - pumped hydro. 
As long as the planet turns, there will be wind. Distributing wind turbines over a large geographical area, like what has been done in South Australia, ensures consistency of supply - wind can be designed with over capacity as excess energy does not have to be consumed (unlike fossil and nuclear thermal generators). It is easier to feather a wind turbine than to throttle a nuclear or fossil power station, which are often forced into negative pricing their power just to get rid of it.

----------


## notvery

> *WW2* 
> WW2 had its roots primarily in the 33 Billion US dollar reparations imposed upon Germany as a result of the Treaty of Versailles and the public humiliation that Germans felt.  Along comes a young firebrand with a dodgy moe and sells a nationalist agenda that the populace falls for.  He builds jobs and prosperity on an infrastructure and armed forces build up platform and is allowed to take ultimate control of the State and the armed forces.  Hitler and Mussolini join forces, Hitler invades Czechoslovakia and Poland and Italy annexes Albania.  England declares war on Germany and Italy.     
> Wow, what a conspiracy.

  Sorry but "England declares war on Germany???? WTF?? when did that happen??? i think you will find that it was GREAT BRITAIN not England.  
Facts are always better when they are right. 
lets not get involved in your whimsical view on Hitlers rise to power and the reparation thing that you seem to have made up as you went along. 
sheepies you might love, facts not so much

----------


## John2b

notvery, does you post have any relevance to the forum topic?

----------


## notvery

John2b
I would say no not much to do with ET but then the item i responded to wasn't either but only i deserved this response?
Could you honestly say many of the 14000 messages have been about ET? 
This thread should be about facts as one of the main contributors/protagonists on this thread i would have thought you would champion my cause of people using facts actually getting them right?
Anyway this thread should be a bloody good argument but like the monty python argument clinic skit its more about contradiction and insults. 
Shame really could be so much more

----------


## John2b

> John2b
> I would say no not much to do with ET but then the item i responded to wasn't either but only i deserved this response?

  Read the forum, you haven't got any special treatment from me. I am inclined to ask about relevance when a post appears to be no more than a personal attack.

----------


## notvery

Well it wasn't a personal attack it was an attack on incorrect information presented as fact.  
And I'm sure even you would let the sheepies bit through to the keeper as a bit of fun or is that not acceptable,  being wrong is but a bit of a leg pull isn't.  
Ps. Genuinely Dazzler there was nothing personal meant in my response. Just corrections

----------


## Neptune

> Don't you find it is odd that your "reference" sites seem to link to "information posts" best suited to smutty schoolboys behind the shelter shed?

  Speaking of shelter sheds, do you know if  Nuriootpa High is having an 80th birthday celebration this year?

----------


## John2b

You won't fin this on WUWT - Fossil energy company bosses call for action on carbon emissions:  
Ben van Beurden, the chief executive of Shell, has endorsed warnings that the worlds fossil fuel reserves cannot be burned unless some way is found to capture their carbon emissions. The oil boss has also predicted that the global energy system will become zero carbon by the end of the century, with his group obtaining a very, very large segment of its earnings from renewable power.  http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/22/shell-boss-endorses-warnings-about-fossil-fuels-and-climate-change  Calls for tougher carbon pricing are coming from what may, on the surface, seem like an unlikely source: Calgary business leaders, including the boss of Canada's biggest oilsands player. "Climate change is happening," Suncor Energy CEO Steve Williams said in a speech Friday. "Doing nothing is not an option we can choose."  http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/Oilsands+boss+calls+tougher+action+climate+change/11077420/story.html#__federated=1 
And Rupert's world-wide blockade on the reporting of climate science will be challenged by a new global alliance of newspapers. An unprecedented alliance of news publishers including the Guardian, El País, Le Monde and China Daily have agreed to share climate change content to raise awareness in the runup to the next UN summit.  Global news organisations agree to share climate change content | Media | The Guardian

----------


## John2b

At the recent Pacific Islands Leaders Meeting where Julie Bishop represented Australia, the ultra conservative Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, has pledged $453million over three years to Pacific Island nations threatened by climate change as a result of the developed worlds emissions of CO2.  "As a pledge of the Japanese government, we will provide no less than 55 billion yen ($453 million) to you in the upcoming three years ... in order to foster resilient capabilities that will not be defeated by climate change or disasters" said Abe.  Australia's would have to pledge at least $150million to match Japan's generosity. Despite having five times the population of Australia and Japan being an Asian business powerhouse, Japan emits less than three times as much CO2 as Australia, and that is without counting the emissions Australia exports in the form of fossil energy supplies, and imports in the form of manufactured goods (where the associated emissions have been exported to another country's total).  Japan Pledges $400 Million to Pacific Islands to Fight Climate Change

----------


## woodbe

Dynamic thinning of glaciers on the Southern Antarctic Peninsula by B.  Wouters, A. Martin-Español, V. Helm, T. Flament, J. M. van Wessem, S. R.  M. Ligtenberg, M. R. van den Broeke, J. L. Bamber.   

> Growing evidence has demonstrated the importance of ice shelf  buttressing on the inland grounded ice, especially if it is resting on  bedrock below sea level. Much of the Southern Antarctic Peninsula  satisfies this condition and also possesses a bed slope that deepens  inland. Such ice sheet geometry is potentially unstable. We use  satellite altimetry and gravity observations to show that a major  portion of the region has, since 2009, destabilized. Ice mass loss of  the marine-terminating glaciers has rapidly accelerated from close to  balance in the 2000s to a sustained rate of 56 ± 8 gigatons per year,  constituting a major fraction of Antarcticas contribution to rising sea  level. The widespread, simultaneous nature of the acceleration, in the  absence of a persistent atmospheric forcing, points to an oceanic  driving mechanism.

    
ht to Greg Laden. New Research: Antarctic Glaciers Destabilized  Greg Laden's Blog

----------


## John2b

> Dynamic thinning of glaciers on the Southern Antarctic Peninsula

  Yes, just moronically looking at sea ice extent (essentially the area of dispersed floating ice) and thinking it represents cooling in the Antarctic is, well, moronic...   

> ice appears to be melting from below, as changing ocean currents are bringing relatively warm water to bathe the shelves’ undersides — and as the ice shelves lose mass, they also lose their ability to slow land-based ice in its slide toward the sea.

  The Bad News Continues to Flow About Antarctica's Ice | Climate Central

----------


## John2b

*NOAA Global Analysis - April 2015*  The year-to-date global land surface temperature has been the highest for January–April in the 1880-2015 record, surpassing the previous record of 2007. The average global ocean surface temperature for January–April was the second highest in the 136-year period of record, trailing 1998. Record high temperatures in the much of the northeast to central equatorial Pacific, along with large parts of the western equatorial Pacific, contributed to the overall record warmth.  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201504  Some people in this forum still premise there has been a pause or reversal in global warming FFS.  World temperatures for January to April this year have been the hottest on record – sparking fears that global warming is stepping up a gear.  http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/global-warming-back-increase-say-5767926 
Now El Nino has finally made a return, things are going to really heat up.  http://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/march-2015-enso-discussion-el-niño-here

----------


## woodbe

Just watch, very few words required here:

----------


## John2b

> Just watch, very few words required here:

  There you go, Woodbe, to the eyes of a "sceptic" Arctic sea ice is recovering since 2012!

----------


## dazzler

> Just so you know Dazzler, I have nothing against renewable energy or its use in the right circumstances.   
> I have nothing against research into renewable energy. 
> I am sure that there will be a time in the near future when the world will run on non fossil fuel energy simply because it is the cheapest option.  Forcing it on people as an expensive option is not going to make it happen any quicker.  
> I also believe (my opinion only) that wind generated power will not be apart of the long term energy mix.  More likely to be far more efficient solar, (provided they find a way to store the energy) and nuclear/thorium mix. 
> As fossil fuels become scarcer the alternative will become cheaper.

  Well said Rod.   
And well done on finally actually making a reasonable argument.  However I think you may be wrong with regard to cost.  Supply and demand would suggest that the more demand there is the cheaper it would become.  Demand for our coal is falling;  Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian 
And as other countries develop better and smarter alternate energies our country will be left behind. 
My opinion is that we are stupid not going nuclear AND renewables. 
Nuclear for base load and renewables for non baseload.

----------


## woodbe

It's a bit hard to accept Rod's idea that wind won't be any part of a long term energy mix, given that wind already produces more power than solar in Australia... 
dazzler, watch the oncoming effect of household batteries like Tesla's powerwall. It will throw a hot rod into the fire and give householders the opportunity to use their solar power when their electricity demand is high rather than exporting it to the grid for a pittance and buying it back after work at top dollar.

----------


## John2b

> I am sure that there will be a time in the near future when the world will run on non fossil fuel energy simply because it is the cheapest option. Forcing it on people as an expensive option is not going to make it happen any quicker.

  You're a little late to the party, but there is still time to enter the 21st century, Rod. 
“Renewables are regularly denigrated for being too expensive and a drain on the taxpayer. Not only does the EU commission’s report show the alarming cost of coal, but it also presents onshore wind as both cheaper and more environmentally friendly.”  Wind Power Blows Away Coal and Gas as Europeâ€™s Cheapest Energy Source | TakePart  http://ec.europa.eu/energy/studies/d..._eu_energy.pdf 
As long as the earth continues to turn, there'll be more enough wind for everyone's energy needs.

----------


## UseByDate

> Sorry but "England declares war on Germany???? WTF?? when did that happen??? i think you will find that it was GREAT BRITAIN not England.  
> Facts are always better when they are right. 
> lets not get involved in your whimsical view on Hitlers rise to power and the reparation thing that you seem to have made up as you went along. 
> sheepies you might love, facts not so much

  The UK declared war on Germany. Great Britain is the name of an island and is not a country.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> watch the oncoming effect of household batteries like Tesla's powerwall. It will throw a hot rod into the fire and give householders the opportunity to use their solar power when their electricity demand is high rather than exporting it to the grid for a pittance and buying it back after work at top dollar.

  You can bet the big local players like AGL and Origin are already hard at work devising product mixes that address this niche.  I'd reckon that they'd be nuts to not offer an integrated battery lease product on a subscription basis.  The flipside is that they can then specify & design these products to provide a balance opportunity on the local supply network which might influence the resultant wholesale cost to retailers (by shifting or negating network infrastructure costs) and improve retail margins

----------


## John2b

> ...improve retail margins

  The electricity retail margins are already obscene. The retailers don't generate or distribute the electricity, or even read the meters, but they make more money than everyone else combined just for the privilege of sending an invoice! That's why the greedy bastards are so desperate not to give an inch on anything.

----------


## John2b

75% of the worlds carbon emissions are now covered by legislation targeting limits, or by carbon trading or cap and trade agreements. 53 countries, including the 28 Member States of the European Union, which have national targets that set either absolute or relative limits on annual emissions of greenhouse gases across their economies.  Globally, legislation to tackle climate change has surged with climate laws almost doubling from 426 in 2009 to 804 by the end of 2014. 
Australia has become the first developed country to take a legislative step backwards from action on climate change. The OWM in this forum might be smugly basking over the actions of our mindless Abbott government, but they won't be basking for long. Australia has been singled out as climate change laggard and will face a grilling from the international community at Bonn, where government representatives will have to justify Australia's climate change actions to date. Watch the mighty Libs back-pedal their policy rhetoric like drunken circus clowns on unicycles.  http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitu...ional-targets/

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Hate to be the pessimist...but there's legislation.  And there's effective legislation.  I rank most carbon emission legislation around the world up there in the effectiveness scale at about the same as that of 'war on drugs' legislation.

----------


## John2b

Duke Energy on Tuesday announced plans to retire Asheville's 376-megawatt coal plant. This is the 190th coal-fired power plant that will be taken off line in the US since 2010 meaning that more than one third of all coal fired electricity generation plants have closed in the last five years.  http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2015-05-20/environment/retirement-of-nc-coal-plant-signals-positive-change-say-advocates/a46330-1

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Duke Energy on Tuesday announced plans to retire Asheville's 376-megawatt coal plant. This is the 190th coal-fired power plant that will be taken off line in the US since 2010 meaning that more than one third of all coal fired electricity generation plants have closed in the last five years.  http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2015-05-20/environment/retirement-of-nc-coal-plant-signals-positive-change-say-advocates/a46330-1

  With the EPA laws they will all close then they will get what they deserve for letting it happen.

----------


## John2b

> With the EPA laws they will all close then they will get what they deserve for letting it happen.

  We are all going to get what "we" deserve for letting "it" happen. For every 1 joule of energy release by burning fossil energy, 100,000 joules of heat will be retained on Earth as a result of the CO2 released is the finding of a new study:  Thermal emissions from fossil fuel combustion are not negligible, especially at local or regional scales; however, CO2radiative forcing from fossil fuel combustion greatly exceeds thermal emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Considered globally, direct thermal forcing from fossil fuel combustion is about 1.71% the radiative forcing from CO2 that has accumulated in the atmosphere from past fossil fuel combustion. When a new power plant comes on line, the radiative forcing from the accumulation of released CO2 exceeds the thermal emissions from the power plant in less than half a year (and about 3 months for coal plants). 
Due to the long lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 radiative forcing greatly overwhelms direct thermal forcing on longer time scales.* Ultimately, the cumulative radiative forcing from the CO**2 exceeds the direct thermal forcing by a factor of ~100,000. * Time scales and ratios of climate forcing due to thermal versus carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels - Zhang - 2015 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library *  *

----------


## John2b

Rod, the team you are barracking for doesn't want you on their side anymore... Yet another fossil energy company figurehead is bemoaning the lack of a price on carbon, to add to the string I have already posted in this forum.  The former chairman of Shell has said that investors moving their money out of fossil fuel companies is a rational response to the industry’s “distressing” lack of progress on climate change. 
Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, who spent almost four decades at Shell and rose to be its chairman, also said the big oil and gas companies had been calling for a price to be put on CO2 emissions for 15 years but had done little to make it happen.  Fossil fuel divestment is rational, says former Shell chairman | Environment | The Guardian

----------


## DaveTTC

Wow i was reading this when i noticed it started in 2009 
I'll say yes,  yes, yes, no, yes to the various comments 
Want claim to know what I'm talking about but I do believe we have impacted the planet with modern technology on an unprecedented scale. 
Will one person make change ... no
One country ... no 
There was a time so many argued smoking had no ill effects (some still do lol) 
Some intereting comments on both sides  
Dave TTC 
Turning Wood Into Art

----------


## Marc

https://www.facebook.com/7newssydney...type=1&theater   
Aah that pesky global warming, so reluctant isn't it?

----------


## woodbe

Lol. Marc thinks that if winter happens, then there is no global warming. 
Welcome DaveTTC.

----------


## Marc

> Lol. Marc thinks that if winter happens, then there is no global warming. 
> Welcome DaveTTC.

   Yes yes, we all know that logic. If it is cold it's "winter" and even if it is the coldest day in 5 years it is still winter ... if it is hot it is global warming... actually, I have seen a lot of "global warming causes cooling" articles too, come to think of it. Nothing like a good belly laugh in the midst of the heating agitators... I can picture my friend .. what's his name, the one that got the boot and bought a house on the Hawkesbury even when we all know it is going to rise 9 meters? professor something .. anyway, I can picture him carrying bundles of discarded newspapers rowing his perilously overloaded tinnie to the house and running his slow combustion red hot in summer hoping to make a difference and get his prediction coming through  ...  :2thumbsup:

----------


## woodbe

> Yes yes, we all know that logic. If it is cold it's "winter" and even if it is the coldest day in 5 years it is still winter ... if it is hot it is global warming... actually, I have seen a lot of "global warming causes cooling" articles too, come to think of it. Nothing like a good belly laugh in the midst of the heating agitators... I can picture my friend .. what's his name, the one that got the boot and bought a house on the Hawkesbury even when we all know it is going to rise 9 meters? professor something .. anyway, I can picture him carrying bundles of discarded newspapers rowing his perilously overloaded tinnie to the house and running his slow combustion red hot in summer hoping to make a difference and get his prediction coming through  ...

  Yep, you're a class AGW denial act Marc. 
If it is the coldest day in 5 years in one location, it means squat. Even if it is a single coldest year, it means squat. The significance is in the 25 year plus global trends. 
Your 'friend' with the Hawkesbury house? He will be long gone by the time the 9 meter water level is a concern. As I remember the picture, the house is well above the river anyway. No one is predicting 9 meters in a short while or his lifetime. 
Climate has global variability (and local variability) , but the trend is what is important.  Throwing up a picture of a cold lake just shows you're either in denial or you're just not serious. 
I thought you wanted out of this discussion, but you keep coming back throwing crackers in the fire.  :Sneaktongue:

----------


## Marc

How true.
However that does not stop the agitators from screaming blue murder when we have hot days in SUMMER. In case you missed it I am pointing at the absurdity of the constant double standards, but you knew that. You are just too sold out on the global warming thingy. Climate change sorriii 
haha yes crackers in the fire, isn't that what we do for the Quens birthday anyway?

----------


## woodbe

In case you missed it Marc, I follow the science, not the media circus. I'm not sold out on AGW either, as soon as the science shows us that global warming is all a mistake I'll be happy to accept the majority view. Chances of that happening are vanishingly slim. 
You on the other hand are sold out on the non-science. Opinion seems to trump science in your world.   :Blowup:

----------


## Marc

The Great Pause lengthens again | Watts Up With That? 
Must watch those "flames" very baaaaad for the environment

----------


## woodbe

Like I said (perhaps you didn't read it?) I follow the science, not the media, and definitely not the deniers congregating around and contributing to that non-science, denial site. 
Here's something for you to read. Beware, it's written by a scientist, and it's about the science. It even quotes science. If you can't stomach science, don't click...  New Research On Global Warming Hiatus  Greg Laden's Blog

----------


## woodbe

Now, about your quoted graphic. 
Have you any idea why they chose October 1996? Could it be that they selected the most convenient period to support their opinion? They wouldn't do that would they?   
And why would they choose RSS?   
It's a mystery, isn't it? LOL.

----------


## John2b

> The Great Pause lengthens again | Watts Up With That?

  Anyone knows the only reason to visit the misinformation site of WUWT is to affirm a faulty view of things. 
I'll see your blog, and raise you mine :Redface:   Science does not deal in certainty, so "fact" can only mean a proposition affirmed to such a high degree it would be perverse to withhold one's provisional assent.   http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/the-perversity-of-deniers-and-pause.html 
No matter what statistical analysis is applied, and what dates you choose to start or stop the series, it is impossible to show a statistically significant pause in the warming trend since the 1970s. Over to you Marc to show this is wrong.  https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/slowdown-skeptic/

----------


## John2b

> And why would they choose RSS?

  Pick me! Pick me! Because the RSS *climate model derived* temperature record is of the troposphere, NOT the global _surface_ temperature, and whilst the lower troposphere is warming, the upper troposphere is cooling as one would expect from global warming retaining heat lower down! Who wudda thort?

----------


## John2b

The G7 countries (the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada) representing more than 64% of the net global wealth have just agreed:   To decarbonise the global economy over the course of the centuryCommit to strive towards transformation of the energy sector by 2050Agree the importance of binding rules that underpin the integrity of an agreement in Paris and support regular rounds of ambition in futureProvide insurance and protection to the poorest and most vulnerable peopleAccelerate renewable energy access in AfricaSupport continued progress in the OECD on how export credits can contribute to addressing climate changePledge to incorporate climate mitigation and resilience into development assistance and investment decisions 
Is this what Rod meant when he said (over and over again) that all this nonsense debate over climate change action would come to a conclusion soon? Rod has powers of clairvoyance that even I had disregarded LOL.  http://e3g.org/news/media-room/g7-ma...ahead-of-paris

----------


## Marc

I think it looks better this way ...  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

It's official - Australia has now been outpaced by the rest of the industrial world and will be severely economically disadvantaged by its unpreparedness to deal with changes in the world energy systems. 
"The conservative Australian government has ... reversed the climate policies previously in effect. As a result, the country (Australia) lost a further 21 positions ... thus replacing Canada as the worst performing industrial country." 
Australia is now grouped with Iran, Canada, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia at the bottom of the list of climate protection performance of 58 countries that together are responsible for more than 90% of global energy-related CO2 emissions. 
Many "luke warmers" in this forum have expressed the view that Australia should only act on climate change if/when the rest of the world does. It will be interesting to watch if Rod & company live up to their previous position statements and now support immediate action on climate change! I won't be holding my breath...  Australia named worst-performing industrial country on climate change | Environment | The Guardian 
Read the full report here: https://germanwatch.org/en/download/10407.pdf

----------


## DaveTTC

> Lol. Marc thinks that if winter happens, then there is no global warming. 
> Welcome DaveTTC.

  Thank you 
Dave TTC 
Turning Wood Into Art

----------


## John2b



----------


## Rod Dyson

> 

  Very good!

----------


## John2b

96% of people disagree with Abbott's ideological musings over the aesthetics of fossil versus renewable energy:  "Australian prime minister Tony Abbott has said his government has been doing as much as it can to reduce the number of windfarms, describing them as 'visually awful'. Treasurer Joe Hockey has previously described them as 'utterly offensive' and 'a blight on the landscape'. Meanwhile, the government has approved several large coalmines and exploration licenses. 
But what do you think? Which is more 'visually awful' – a windfarm or a coalmine?  Which is more 'visually awful', a windfarm or a coalmine?  4% windfarm  96% coalmine   
Poll closes in 13 hours"      Poll: which is more 'visually awful', a windfarm or a coalmine? | Environment | theguardian.com

----------


## woodbe

Coal closures give South Australia the chance to go 100% renewable   

> South Australia is facing the closure of its Northern and Playford B power stations and Leigh Creek coal mine,  after Alinta Energy yesterday announced plans to shut them ahead of  schedule. It will cost 438 jobs in the coal-mining and coal-fired  electricity industries. But this threat to employment could be  transformed into an opportunity for creating many new jobs in renewable  energy.
>   The South Australian electricity system could be operated entirely on  scaled-up, commercially available, renewable energy sources. This is  the conclusion of my forthcoming report (to be published next week) to  the Conservation Council of South Australia. 
> [..]   *Bye bye baseload* 
>   Our calculations show that SA does not need any baseload power  stations, such as coal or nuclear. Indeed, the lack of operational  flexibility of coal and nuclear makes them poor partners for high  penetrations of variable renewable energy. The SA system has already  operated reliably for long periods without its coal-fired stations, as last weekends incident demonstrated.

----------


## John2b

Amazing isn't it?! The ideologues were ranting that the scheduled closure of Port Augusta's coal-fired power stations by early 2018 would drive up electricity prices in South Australia.   Port Augusta power stations, Leigh Creek coal mine closures set to drive up electricity prices, economist says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  South Australia's power prices set to become highest in world says ... 
Yet when coal generation was _actually_ shut off (due to a fire in the only coal fired power station running) prices went DOWN not up, and even dived into negative territory on several occasions during the day, which means that the gas generators were not making any money. *With NO baseload generation at all,* *South Australia had the cheapest wholesale electricity prices in the country!*  
So what does Murdoch's rag The Australian publish as a front page headline on the scheduled closure:  Jobs blown away as turbines kill coal | The Australian 
Ignoring the facts of course - there are more jobs in renewable energy than in fossil energy, vastly more, many times more. 
"It leaves one in utter wonderment at the parallel universe going on at the Senate Inquiry into Wind Power which is seriously entertaining the views of out-of-touch and long-retired engineers and assorted conspiracy theorists suggesting that wind power doesn’t really produce useful power that displaces fossil fuels – because, apparently, it is way too variable and unreliable."  http://www.businessspectator.com.au/...l-should-worry

----------


## John2b

All the conspiracy theorists, denialists and lukewarmers here had better hope they are wrong!_ 
Despite strong scientific consensus that global climate disruption is real and due in significant part to human activities, stories in the mass media often still present the opposite view, characterizing the issue as being “in dispute.” Even today, the media devote significant attention to small numbers of denialists, who claim that scientific consensus assessments, such as those by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are “exaggerated” and “political.” Such claims, however, are testable hypotheses—and just the opposite expectation is hypothesized in the small but growing literature on Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods. 
 Rather than being a reflection of legitimate scientific disagreement, the intense criticisms of climate science may reflect a predictable pattern that grows out of “the politics of doubt”: If enough doubt can be raised about the relevant scientific findings, regulation can be avoided or delayed for years or even decades. Ironically, though, while such a pattern can lead to a bias in scientific work, the likely bias is expected to be just the opposite of the one usually feared. 
 Certain theories or findings, such as those indicating the significance of climate disruption, are subjected to systematically greater challenges than are those supporting opposing conclusions._ *These findings suggest that, if current scientific consensus is in error, it is likely because global climate disruption may be even worse than commonly expected to date. * Reexamining Climate Change Debates
Scientific Disagreement or Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods?  Reexamining Climate Change Debates

----------


## UseByDate

> "It leaves one in utter wonderment at the parallel universe going on at the Senate Inquiry into Wind Power which is seriously entertaining the views of out-of-touch and long-retired engineers and assorted conspiracy theorists suggesting that wind power doesnt really produce useful power that displaces fossil fuels  because, apparently, it is way too variable and unreliable."

  My experience is that government takes no notice of advice given to them by engineers. By employing out-of-touch and long-retired engineers to advise, who will be ignored,  the government may stumble on the best long term solution for electrical energy generation. Would the situation be any better if they took advice from out-of-touch and long-retired scientists?

----------


## johnc

I suspect many of the current crop of politicians are not only out of touch, they probably never were and should be retired. The dearth of Australian political talent is holding the entire country back, it is as if we have removed the driver from the train and we are slowly running to a stop. Where did the vision and direction go, it seemed to depart around 1996-1998 and hasn't been seen since.

----------


## John2b

> Where did the vision and direction go, it seemed to depart around 1996-1998 and hasn't been seen since.

  The vision got buried under some overgrown eyebrows on about 11th March 1996, give or take a few hours.

----------


## Marc

> I suspect many of the current crop of politicians are not only out of touch, they probably never were and should be retired. The dearth of Australian political talent is holding the entire country back, it is as if we have removed the driver from the train and we are slowly running to a stop. Where did the vision and direction go, it seemed to depart around 1996-1998 and hasn't been seen since.

  It is a worldwide problem. Politicians are in general, professional politicians with none or minimal real life experience as true leaders having achieved respect due to personal achievements and not simply negotiating skills for votes from colleagues.  What most of them seem to excel at, is hiding and talking down their dubious past.
J2b that someone can accuse Mr Howard of lack of vision after the 6 years of Labour relentless incompetence, corruption and disregard for the taxpayer is breathtaking. Religious affiliation to some lefty utopia hidden in an anonymous attic ... or is it a basement?

----------


## woodbe

Two wrongs don't make a right, Marc.  
Howard made his own mistakes including the disadvantaged, the environment and hanging on too long.

----------


## John2b

> J2b that someone can accuse Mr Howard of lack of vision after the 6 years of Labour relentless incompetence, corruption and disregard for the taxpayer is breathtaking.

  You have conveniently forgotten about the $290million AWB / Iraq scandal that occurred under Howard's watch. $290million - that's breathtaking! And that wealth inequality rose faster in the last term of Howard's rule than at any other time in Australian history. Household savings ratio fell to its lowest level ever during Howard's years. Was that his vision Marc? Why are the majority of Australians culturally, morally and economically impoverished in the wake of the Howard era? Was that part of Howard's vision too? 
And to get back to topic, Howard acknowledged he only ever read ONE book on climate change and he based all of his beliefs on the ONE book. It was by a journalist, Nigel Lawson, who has no professional credentials in the area of climate science, and according to a search of Google Scholar, has not published any work in the area of climate science. I suppose you take your medical prognoses from the local real estate agent, and your financial advice form the local mechanic, do you?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Came across this paper today (published last week) concerning the changing number of days suitable for the growing of plants under various emission scenarios.  PLOS Biology: Suitable Days for Plant Growth Disappear under Projected Climate Change: Potential Human and Biotic Vulnerability  
The implications for this country if the analysis is correct are...interesting.

----------


## Neptune

> I suppose you take your medical prognoses from the local real estate agent, and your financial advice form the local mechanic, do you?

  Already been suggested.......   http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...tml#post923166

----------


## Marc

Yes yes, remarkable logic ... you remind me of some of my uni student friends who in their lefty lofty ideological cloud assured me that sex should be completely free and unhampered and that kids should then be left to "the state" to rise.  I kind of liked the idea i must say ... grown up since then though.
Personal savings ... consumption not savings drive the economy. Highest rate of personal savings recorded was during the war. People dug holes in the ground and hid all they could.  
By the by ... love the new approach to windmills. Hopefully we will see them demolished soon and the subsidies that we give so generously to chinese and kuwaiti owners used for something useful ... may be buyback Vegemite? Nee we wouldn't need that much money for that. We could do it with the savings from firing the ABC board ... Ah must love ideology !

----------


## John2b

> Yes yes, remarkable logic ... you remind me of some of my uni student friends who in their lefty lofty ideological cloud assured me that sex should be completely free and unhampered and that kids should then be left to "the state" to rise.

  You must have an unrestrained and wild imagination. Your characterisations of my ideology are off the mark by just a galaxy or two. Never mind, reality doesn't care what you think.   

> By the by ... love the new approach to windmills.

  You must have missed this post #14130 , because when SA lost its base-load coal generation, electricity prices went down, not up.   

> Hopefully we will see them demolished soon and the subsidies that we give so generously to chinese and kuwaiti owners used for something useful ... may be buyback Vegemite?

  According to the International Monetary Fund subsidies for fossil energy are more than 40 times greater than subsidies for renewable energy. That's obviously another bit of reality you've missed.  How Large Are Global Energy Subsidies?   

> We could do it with the savings from firing the ABC board ... Ah must love ideology !

  That's an interesting thought. Five places on the board come up soon. I bet you won't find any fans of your idea in the current cabinet. How is Abbott's LNC guvmint going to reward its cronies whilst simultaneously subverting the independence of the ABC if there isn't a board?

----------


## John2b

Given the unbounded religious fervour shown by some denialists in this forum, I feel compelled to post the following link for everyones' amusement:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=76BtP1GInlc

----------


## PhilT2

Denialists with religious fervour brings to mind the blacksmith from Ballarat who, on the strength of the 2% of Victorians who voted for him, seeks to impose his religious beliefs on all Australians. His role on the wind turbine inquiry show that he lacks the ability to extract the truth from witnesses and perhaps should have stuck to the forge.

----------


## Marc

Organised religion be it the traditional one we all know or the new "de facto" enviro one, all operate like the mafia and have multiple agendas full of strings. Their leaders do not necessarily pull strings and usually just dance at the tune of someone else less exposed that pulls the strings and makes them jump. 
It is a common misconception to assume that a conservative must be religious and a lefty must be an atheist. Not necessarily so.
The current head of the vatican is a common criminal that besides being the personal counsellor of the Junta that presided over 32,000 murders, mostly jews and lefty uni students, was also directly and personally involved in handing several priest over to the army who butchered them because they hid some of those so called extremist that did not like the military dictatorship. 
Imagine what relevance do I place on what this pathetic individual has to say or what dark allegiances he has decided to plug.

----------


## woodbe

> The current head of the vatican is a common criminal that besides being  the personal counsellor of the Junta that presided over 32,000 murders,  mostly jews and lefty uni students, was also directly and personally  involved in handing several priest over to the army who butchered them  because they hid some of those so called extremist that did not like the  military dictatorship. 
> Imagine what relevance do I place on what this pathetic individual has  to say or what dark allegiances he has decided to plug.

  Marc  only brings this load of BS up after the Pope tells his church that  climate change is actually real? He's a bit late, but nowhere near as  late as Marc is with this claim. I wonder where you dredged this one up  Marc? Was it from an anti catholic website or a climate denial site, or  perhaps it was an anti catholic climate denial site. lol. 
Show us the link so we can have a laugh  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

I do not BS on my own life experiences. It woodbe wrong ...  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> I do not BS on my own life experiences. It woodbe wrong ...

  Well, put up then big boy. Where is your evidence? :P

----------


## Marc

Any minion can google up more links than you can read in one day. 
However opinions of writers that dig up dirty past, do not necessarily add credibility and sometimes produce the contrary effect not because the stories are false but because the writer's own reputation contaminates the story. 
Witness to historical events on the other hand, tend not to talk about them unless in a courtroom or among peers who wouldn't ask for "proof" since they are satisfied with the witness word and trust the veracity of the events. 
I am afraid that if you want proof, you will have to google it yourself and proof test the writers of the stories you find.

----------


## John2b

> Any minion can google up more links than you can read in one day.

  It's _your_ story, Marc. If you could manage just one reference that would be enough.   

> Witness to historical events on the other hand, tend not to talk about them unless in a courtroom or among peers who wouldn't ask for "proof" since they are satisfied with the witness word and trust the veracity of the events.

  Absolute rubbish, unless you are referring to conspiracy theorists...   

> I am afraid that if you want proof, you will have to google it yourself and proof test the writers of the stories you find.

  Marc's post is a good example of Dilbert's Logical Fallacy #15 - Circular Reasoning: "Example: I’m correct because I’m smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I’m correct." 
You can't argue with that!

----------


## John2b

The first five months of this year have been the hottest five-month period on record by a considerable margin. These record high temperatures have occurred even before a substantial El Niño has yet to take full effect. If it stays hot this year, any "hiatus" looks as if it will be nothing but a memory soon, with all the other hiati of the past. Hint: Spot the "pause" in the graph below-

----------


## woodbe

> I am afraid that if you want proof, you will have to google it yourself and proof test the writers of the stories you find.

  I didn't ask for proof, I asked you for your evidence. You raised the claim, but you run away from backing up your claim.  
If you can't show us any evidence, then don't bother bringing up what now clearly sounds even more like an attack on someone who is challenging your denial of climate change. No surprise there.

----------


## John2b

> If you can't show us any evidence, then don't bother bringing up what now clearly sounds even more like an attack on someone who is challenging your denial of climate change.

  "It's the do as I say, not as I do" brigade. How many times has Marc berated others for slurring the messenger? Regardless, the Pope has eloquently stated the bleeding obvious and has got the bullyboy politicians squirming.  Pope Francis called Thursday for a bold cultural revolution to correct what he described as a "structurally perverse" economic system where the rich exploit the poor, turning Earth into an "immense pile of filth." Francis framed climate change as an urgent moral issue to address in his eagerly anticipated encyclical, blaming global warming on an unfair, fossil fuel-based industrial model that harms the poor most.

----------


## Marc

> Well, put up then big boy. Where is your evidence? :P

  You ask for "evidence". Evidently you are more interested in chatting with me then in discovering some evidence or you would do a google search yourself and find a long list of evidence. 
My own evidence on the other hand is not on the internet but in my memory bank so unless we have some gargantuan leap in technology I can not "link" my own personal experiences. Yet you can see what others have to say on the subject rather easy. 
I am sorry J2b I will ignore your replies. To use the pope to advance your own religious beliefs is low even for an AGW supporter.
PS
Just one for you woodbe.
I can not read it past the first few sentences but it seems ok. Many more where that came from.   http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...military-junta  http://itccs.org/2014/02/02/pope-fra...ood-agreement/

----------


## woodbe

> You ask for "evidence". Evidently you are more interested in chatting with me then in discovering some evidence or you would do a google search yourself and find a long list of evidence. 
> My own evidence on the other hand is not on the internet but in my memory bank so unless we have some gargantuan leap in technology I can not "link" my own personal experiences. Yet you can see what others have to say on the subject rather easy. 
> I am sorry J2b I will ignore your replies. To use the pope to advance your own religious beliefs is low even for an AGW supporter.

  Why would I run random google searches to try and find the same information you suggest you have in your head? How would I know if I found the same information? I wouldn't. I'm not interested in what others have to say, I'm interested in you backing up your vague accusations of the head of a rather large church (of which I am not a member btw) 
And regardless of the history of the pope, he has finally come out and supported what anyone who reads the science already knows. It's going to cause a bit of a stir inside the church, but I'm guessing other heads of churches will respond in kind. This will probably tip the balance of general opinion closer to that of the results of scientific analysis and help straighten out the political responses. LOL at Tony Abbot, he's suddenly stuck in a bit of a corner.  :Smilie:  
There you go claiming falsehoods again. John2b hasn't declared his religous beliefs, has he? Agreeing with someone who supports the science isn't the same as being a member of their religion. What if John points out that the Buddhists support action on climate as well, does that make him a Catholic Buddhist? LOL

----------


## PhilT2

Marc's link to the "International Tribunal into the crimes of church and state" leads to a one man blog run by a defrocked priest in Canada. The other link is to a newspaper article which states the evidence is "inconclusive." That's five minutes of a good Sunday morning wasted in confirming what I already knew.

----------


## woodbe

> Just one for you woodbe.
> I can not read it past the first few sentences but it seems ok. Many more where that came from.   Pope Francis: questions remain over his role during Argentina's dictatorship | World news | The Guardian

   

> The main charge against Bergoglio involves the kidnapping of two Jesuit  priests, Orland Yorio and Francisco Jalics, who were taken by Navy  officers in May 1976 and held under inhumane conditions for the  missionary work they conducted in the country's slums, a politically  risky activity at the time.

  So Marc, you lived in Argentina between 1976 and 1983 and you personally knew these priests? Do tell us your personal story from your memory, because googling up links doesn't help your personal claims, it just shows that you can google. As PhilT2 shows, the claims in the paper are not found:   

> "As archbishop, he faced a monumental task, and he was even accused of  collaboration with the dirty war, which he strenuously denied and was  ultimately cleared.

  Phil, it's Satuday!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

Ha ha, "cleared" do you really think you can make an armchair assessment of a war fought 40 years ago in a country you did not know existed? 
Hundred of decision makers in that war have been "cleared" 30,000 murders that we know of have not been solved and the murders and disappearances continued for decades _after_ the military left power. 
Thousands of children born in captivity from Uni students that committed the sin of thinking, tortured and murdered have been "adopted" by their executioners with the help of the church. 
The smell of bodies burnt on barbecue grills in the Navy cadets school is still in my nose, the thought of pregnant girls with hands and feet taped to a pushbike until they aborted wakes me up at night, the sight of a machine gun in my face is permanently in my retina. The sight of people shot yet still alive, surrounded by police and onlookers waiting for them to die will be always with me.
I have made a choice to leave and forget, the election of that individual as head of the church only reaffirms my belief that nothing changed from the Spanish inquisition to today. If Al Capone or Idi Amin had stood up and spoken politically correct support for AGW you would probably quote them too.

----------


## John2b

> Marc's link to the "International Tribunal into the crimes of church and state" leads to a one man blog run by a defrocked priest in Canada. The other link is to a newspaper article which states the evidence is "inconclusive." That's five minutes of a good Sunday morning wasted in confirming what I already knew.

  For the claims of the de-frocked priest to be true, the junta would have had to have had control over Pope John Paul II, because the Pope appointed Jorge Bergoglio as Coadjutor Bishop to Archbishop Antonio Quarracino with automatic succession, and Bergoglio consequently succeeded to the position of "the top spot in the Argentine church" when Quarracino died in 1998. 
Marc is capable of taking such large gaps of credibility in his stride, apparently. Maybe a few too many psychotropic Huxley episodes...

----------


## woodbe

> Ha ha, "cleared" do you really think you can make an armchair assessment of a war fought 40 years ago in a country you did not know existed? 
> Hundred of decision makers in that war have been "cleared" 30,000 murders that we know of have not been solved and the murders and disappearances continued for decades _after_ the military left power. 
> Thousands of children born in captivity from Uni students that committed the sin of thinking, tortured and murdered have been "adopted" by their executioners with the help of the church. 
> The smell of bodies burnt on barbecue grills in the Navy cadets school is still in my nose, the thought of pregnant girls with hands and feet taped to a pushbike until they aborted wakes me up at night, the sight of a machine gun in my face is permanently in my retina. The sight of people shot yet still alive, surrounded by police and onlookers waiting for them to die will be always with me.
> I have made a choice to leave and forget, the election of that individual as head of the church only reaffirms my belief that nothing changed from the Spanish inquisition to today. If Al Capone or Idi Amin had stood up and spoken politically correct support for AGW you would probably quote them too.

  'Cleared' was not my comment, it was the comment from the article you linked. 
Why do you think that I did not know Argentina existed?  
So, you are from Argentina, and you saw the nasty results of conflict. Sorry that you had to be there to witness it, but blaming the pope for it isn't going to wash, and that does not excuse the denial of the scientific facts in front of us. Even the pope you blame for atrocities accepts the science, perhaps that is the reason you deny it?

----------


## John2b

> Thousands of children born in captivity from Uni students that committed the sin of thinking, tortured and murdered have been "adopted" by their executioners with the help of the church.

  I am struggling here. Is this a coherent argument for global warming being a hoax?

----------


## John2b

> If Al Capone or Idi Amin had stood up and spoken politically correct support for AGW you would probably quote them too.

  I wonder if Marc will be calling upon Hitler and Osama bin Laden next...

----------


## John2b

Sunday morning satire? Or is there hope for Earth after all.... 
"Hundreds and even thousands of years will pass before the full aftermath from our fossil fuel orgy plays out, but we’ll see plenty of nasty surprises in feedback loops and tipping points this century, perhaps most notably sea level rise. Another area of glaciers once thought to be stable has fallen to the human CO2 spike which is occurring 14,000 faster than natural processes and 10-200 times faster than the PETM extinction event. 
Keep in mind that we have yet to take our foot off the gas pedal of economic growth..."   Ecological Overshoot | Collapse of Industrial Civilization 
Sixth mass extinction is here, humans can be the first victims : US study 
The world is embarking on its sixth mass extinction with animals disappearing about 100 times faster than they used to, scientists warned Friday, and humans could be among the first victims. 
Not since the age of the dinosaurs ended 66 million years ago has the planet been losing species at this rapid a rate, said a study led by experts at Stanford University, Princeton University and the University of California, Berkeley.  http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253

----------


## Marc

One of the reasons I stopped listening to preachers and their rants, was the absurdity of their convoluted illogic, accepted by the majority only because most held a comonn belief and the end, the belief, justified the method. It did not matter that away from the pulpit a reasoning on that line would be a case of mental health in need of investigation.
Similarly, the fervor and zeal of AGW fanatics allows for anything and everything that will somehow support their beliefs, regardless of source, methods or ethics. 
Yes, if a quote from Hitler or Osama was available supporting their cause they wouldn't hesitate using it, the pope quote is just such example.  
Another such example is the manipulation of temperature data.   

> *The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever*  *New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming*  When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.  Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.  This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

  
Read more here:  The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph

----------


## Marc

The fallacy of considering the ecosystem without humans and humans as not belonging int it, some form of weed in need to extirpation ... leads to the mea culpa chest beating by finger pointing marginals who would like to see humanity reduced to one tenth and use any method to achieve that.  
Since none of us asked to be here we clearly are indigenous and part of nature even if green"peace" has a problem with that.  
Bea Molina Ateneo de Manila University   *Is extinction a natural process and part of evolution?* 
Extinction has always been a major concern by conservation biologists and other environmentalists. They blame and hold people responsible for its occurrence. With this, I have thought about the possibility that extinction might be a significant component of ecological balance. Thus, I would like to know if there are positive effects of extinction and how this might be compared to its negative effects, aside from decreased biodiversity. May 23, 2014    *Robert F Baldwin* · Clemson University
Bea - of course yes, extinction is part of evolution. And, as humans are a naturally occurring species on the planet, human-caused extinction is also "natural". Most conservation biologists are motivated by ethical concerns that the human-caused loss of species is on some level "wrong". War and famine could also be considered "natural" as they are products of humanity, but are nearly universally considered wrong.  
In terms of the concept of ecological balance, that is a quagmire. Many ecologists feel there is no such thing as a balance of nature, which presumes some kind of desired endpoint. But could extinction have some positive effects? Positive for what? The extinction of a disease would be great. Would the extinction of snow leopards be good?  
The ecological function of species and of diversity is a topic that has received much attention in the literature. Aside from benefits to humans, some species may influence certain ecosystem level processes, or they may not. Presence of a top mammalian predator can have ecosystem wide effects. But in other cases there has been shown to be some functional redundancy, so the loss of a species or population in a locality may not have ecosystem wide effects at least under current, measured conditions.  
As human beings are most likely the single most influential species on the planet, and our effects can be detected in every biome and throughout most ecological processes, it is wise to consider what living in a human dominated world will be like. We will lose a lot of species, a lot more than we have so far. Will nature keep changing and will there always be ecosystems and species, even if they are "novel"? Yes I believe so. But will we also lose those organisms least able to co-exist with people? We can see these changes happening all around us. That is why conservation biology and restoration ecology are so important.  
Good questions you ask. And not uncommonly encountered.

----------


## woodbe

> Read more here:[/FONT]
>  [/FONT][/COLOR] The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph

  Right. We should trust a newspaper to deliver our science.

----------


## PhilT2

> Right. We should trust a newspaper to deliver our science.

  The bigger issue is the selective method of dealing with this. When AGW scientists adjust temperatures then cries of "fraud" and "hoax" arise from the denier camp. When Roy Spencer adjusted the UAH data for about the sixth time the silence was deafening.

----------


## John2b

> Right. We should trust a newspaper to deliver our science.

  Especially the Torygraph! 
What does AGW skeptic Judith Curry (a climatologist BTW, not a journalist) have to say about adjustments to the temperature record?  "...the impact of all adjustments (Adjusted-NonAdjusted) is effectively zero back to 1900. And prior to that the adjustments cool the record slightly. "  The "greatest crime of the century" never happened! But neither Marc or the Torygraph would let facts get in the way of an ideological rant.  09 | February | 2015 | Climate Etc.

----------


## DaveTTC

Still passing thru here guys but uave little to offer 
Dave TTC 
Turning Wood Into Art

----------


## John2b

> The fallacy of considering the ecosystem without humans and humans as not belonging int it, some form of weed in need to extirpation ... leads to the mea culpa chest beating by finger pointing marginals who would like to see humanity reduced to one tenth and use any method to achieve that. 
> Since none of us asked to be here we clearly are indigenous and part of nature even if green"peace" has a problem with that.

  
Well done! Another strawman diversionary rant based a fallacious opening statement. 
Human self-determination is fine if it means digging up coal and poisoning the ecosystem, but self-determination should not be considered when it comes to keeping the environment habitable for all species including humans? What kind of twisted logic is that?

----------


## Marc

Green dementia knows no boundary.
Reintroduction of Bears in the European Alps, why not lions in Spain and Italy and Greece? 
After all they where there not long ago.
Errr ... anyone has thought of the rights of the poor smallpox virus? Well I believe it should be re-introduced for biodiversity sake. Human made it extinct, and that must be baaaaad.

----------


## woodbe

Relevance to action on reducing out CO2 output? 
zip.

----------


## notvery

> Relevance to action on reducing out CO2 output? 
> zip.

  consistent with the vast majority of posts in this thread 
 and isnt this about  emission trading? not "reducing out C02 output?"

----------


## Marc

Well ... the madness goes like this:
Lie number one: Man made CO2 is heating up the planet in a catastrophic way. 
Lie number two: If we reduce man made CO2 we revert back to "normality" and "save the planet" 
Many more lies on that line but let's cover them with a veil of piti. 
"Save the planet" has many facets and comes from the same source. Guilt trip for humans who dare to exist and don't die in the right numbers to make room for vegetables, minerals and bacteria.
So let's repopulate the planet with bisons, wolves, bears, mammoths and helo! why not european lions? They may eat a few tourist and help depopulate the planet! Isn't that oh so great  :Cry:

----------


## John2b

> ...isnt this about  emission trading? not "reducing out C02 output?"

  Emission trading was a means to an end, and the end it was meant to achieve was reducing CO2 output. It is difficult to understand how you can separate the two without losing all of the context of the thread.

----------


## woodbe

> Well ... the madness goes like this:
> Lie number one: Man made CO2 is heating up the planet in a catastrophic way. 
> Lie number two: If we reduce man made CO2 we revert back to "normality" and "save the planet"

  Truth number one: Adding CO2 to the atmosphere heats up the planet and if we don't control our CO2 emissions the atmosphere will become unpleasantly warm with long term catastrophic outcomes: Sea level rise, species reduction, food security loss, etc, etc. 
Truth number two: If we reduce man made CO2 outputs we will not drop the warming back to 'normality', we will just stop it continuing to rise. Reduction of the CO2 we already have spewed into the environment will take a long time.

----------


## notvery

> Emission trading was a means to an end, and the end it was meant to achieve was reducing CO2 output. It is difficult to understand how you can separate the two without losing all of the context of the thread.

  Sorry if you don't understand the word trading but that's your problem not mine. It is shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is moving the problem using the nimby system. trading does not mean reduction. Move it to China move it to anywhere that is poor enough to soak it up. Or let's buy their credits cos we can't be arsed to be cleaner. It means a pointless exercise in accounting.more money for erp suppliers. More overheads for emission providers.more pushed onto the consumer. In the hope that people will in themselves exert pressure back up the line to. .well i don't know what but it's a dumb idea with more waste than anything it was ever going to save.  Instead of  ETS just set draconian limits and lower them every x period of time. 
so no john2b sorry but reduction is not part of it.

----------


## John2b

> Well ... the madness goes like this:
> Lie number one: Man made CO2 is heating up the planet in a catastrophic way. 
> Lie number two: If we reduce man made CO2 we revert back to "normality" and "save the planet"

  Who are you having this conversation with. It does not appear to be relevant to any contribution in this thread. Nobody has claimed the planet is at risk as a result of AGW. It is the stable climate of the past few thousand years that is at risk, the same stable climate that allowed humans to escape a nomadic existence and develop 'civilization'.

----------


## John2b

> Sorry if you don't understand the word trading but that's your problem not mine.

  No need to be patronising, I do understand trading and in any case you haven't addressed my point. Trade was the financial incentive to reduce emissions because if the emissions were not made, there was no need to BUY (trade) emission permits and/or owned 'spare' permits could be turned into revenue. In the past emission trading schemes have been used to effectively reduce emissions of other noxious chemicals such as SO2. What's more the ETS worked well in reducing Australia's CO2 emissions which fell dramatically in the short duration of the scheme, before accelerating again when the scheme ended.

----------


## woodbe

> Sorry if you don't understand the word trading but that's your problem not mine. It is shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

  Your suggestion for reducing CO2 output then, notvery?

----------


## notvery

> Your suggestion for reducing CO2 output then, notvery?

  My suggestion. I have several but i will keep the one involving 7+billion deaths to myself you might not like it.  
Ets is stupid. It's hiding the truth. It needs either global involvement or its time to fold and move on. Global agreement? Never while profit is to be made.
Thus its local. We set our benchmark then set Massive trade tariffs on none participating nations or trade exclusively with a block of countries with similar reduction standards. While investing massively in green energy. 
And to please marc release lions everywhere! 
Fact. Oil,coal, yellowcake et al will run out. Why wait till the boat leaves so your waving at the docks?
Do it now do it in a measured reasonable way, use Germany as a very good example. But you do need to be a bit of a bstrd cos otherwise it won't get done. 
Sadly we don't have politicians working for the betterment of the country we have capitalist fat cats in charge who only care about a giant pay day from their puppetmasters the moment they leave govt. and that is from both major parties. So we are torpedoing or boats not building them
Whats stopping us doing something real?apart from the current jug eared git in charge is money.

----------


## notvery

> No need to be patronising, I do understand trading and in any case you haven't addressed my point. Trade was the financial incentive to reduce emissions because if the emissions were not made, there was no need to BUY (trade) emission permits and/or owned 'spare' permits could be turned into revenue. In the past emission trading schemes have been used to effectively reduce emissions of other noxious chemicals such as SO2. What's more the ETS worked well in reducing Australia's CO2 emissions which fell dramatically in the short duration of the scheme, before accelerating again when the scheme ended.

  What's good for the goose is good for the gander

----------


## notvery

> No need to be patronising, I do understand trading and in any case you haven't addressed my point. Trade was the financial incentive to reduce emissions because if the emissions were not made, there was no need to BUY (trade) emission permits and/or owned 'spare' permits could be turned into revenue. In the past emission trading schemes have been used to effectively reduce emissions of other noxious chemicals such as SO2. What's more the ETS worked well in reducing Australia's CO2 emissions which fell dramatically in the short duration of the scheme, before accelerating again when the scheme ended.

  It only reduces co2 or whatever if they're is an Alternative in place. If not you grab the money and polute elsewhere.

----------


## Marc

reducing CO2 Output?
What for? to reduce heat by 0.0001C at the cost of going back to the stone age?
You can do it.
I am happy to drive a big diesel and a nice big boat on the water.
Fart a lot too .... uups ...sorry.

----------


## Marc

*http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2015/03/15/global-warming-hype-is-mocked-by-the-worlds-most-powerful-market-signal  Global Warming Hype Is Mocked By The World's Most Powerful Market Signal*  A frequent reply to deniers from those on the true believer side of the global warming debate is the oft-mentioned stat revealing 97% consensus among climate scientists that humans are the cause of global warming.  Supposedly the number confirms what warming’s believers feel strongly, all the while exposing the skeptics as willfully blind to an allegedly monolithic view held by those seen as most qualified to comment on climate. It’s an interesting statistic, but to quote Nigel Lawson, scientific truth “is not established by counting heads.” Whatever the actual rate of belief among scientists, nothing in this column should be construed as a presumption of scientific knowledge, or what scientists believe.  While some skeptics well-immersed in the debate have called into question the validity of the 97% number, this piece doesn’t presume to referee who is right or wrong _about 97%_.  In fact, what’s written here will actually attempt to shift the statistical debate back toward the kind of head counting frequently used by warming’s deepest believers. In that case let’s accept the 97% number as fact for the purposes of this piece.  People like Lawson have been criticized for presuming to have an opinion about the science behind global warming for _not_ being scientists, and implicit in such a view is that one must have very unique schooling and training to know the actual warming truth.  In short, climate scientists are rare, presumably a microscopic percent of 1 percent of the world’s total population.   And once again for the purposes of this piece, they almost to man and woman believe that global warming is caused by humans.   More interesting, they’ve convinced non-scientists like Vice Media founder Shane Smith that the threat of global warming is truly dire.  As Smith put it on Vice’s HBO show last year, the melting glaciers [purportedly caused by global warming] “scare the piss out of me,” and to hear him presumably parrot actual scientists, sea level is set to rise substantially in the coming decades due to ice erosion in Greenland such that “80 of the world’s largest cities” will eventually be “under water.”  The scientific consensus about global warming, one trumpeted by major members of the media well beyond Smith, is that things could get really ugly unless the carbon emissions that are purportedly causing the earth to warm are greatly reduced.   Of course, the idea of reducing carbon emissions is a bit of a fantasy.  And it’s no major insight to see why.  All one need do is visit India and/or China, the most populated countries on earth.  Thanks to the economic liberalization taking place after decades of staggering poverty, it’s fairly apparent that the citizens in each nation couldn’t care less about their carbon footprint; rather their focus is on living like we do in the industrialized world.  We love our cars, airplanes, and air-conditioned living spaces, and they want in.  Glacier melting and sea level be damned! It’s possible, however, that relief is at hand.  If the warmists are to be believed, major advances in solar, wind and other forms of “clean energy” will render oil and coal obsolete. But as evidenced by the inability of these energy concepts to exist without substantial financial support coerced from taxpayers, it’s perhaps fanciful to presume (whether profitable or not) that a credible rollout of these alternative energy forms is coming anytime soon. The problem with the above, if global warming’s believers are again to be believed, is that we’ve run out of time already.  Indeed, it was nearly 25 years ago that Noel Brown, then director of the United Nation’s Environment Program, talked about a “10-year window of opportunity” to solve global warming or else “entire nations could be wiped off the face of Earth by rising sea levels if the global-warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” Or consider this prediction by prominent climate scientist James Hansen in 2009 that President Obama “has only four years to save the earth.” In defense of  the warming believers, they could point to an absence of warming over the last 17 years (the latter according to some accounts, not all) to explain away overdone predictions, but such an argument – if true – might amount to some kind of inconvenient admission.  Whatever the truth about temperatures, and this piece doesn’t presume to know which side is right or wrong about whether the earth has warmed or cooled over the last 17 years, what can’t be denied is that if the warmists are to be believed then we’re already very much living on borrowed time.  Worse, and this goes back to India and China, it’s pure fantasy to presume that carbon emissions will decline in the near to long-term, and this is true no matter what developed countries decide to do.  In short, we might as well throw up our hands and start telling our best friends and family members how nice it was knowing them.  We should because with it apparent that the Chinese and Indians are in no mood to stop buying carbon-powered cars that they drive home to their air-conditioned houses and apartments, it’s fair to say that there’s no realistic carbon-consumption reversal that’s about to take place.  Even worse for a world that is allegedly birthrate challenged (conservatives are as emotional about birthrates as U.S. style liberals are about a supposedly warming earth), the_Wall Street Journal_ recently reported that 44% of the world’s human beings live in the very coastal communities purported to be very much in the eye of the coming global warming storm. Repeat the above again: _44% of the world’s humans live in coastal communities_.  Conversely, 97% of scientists think humans cause global warming, the causes of global warming by seemingly all accounts are not being corrected, and according to scientists of varying certainty, if the causes are not corrected the world’s coastal cities face a fairly bleak future; possibly one under water.  Interesting about the latter is that while scientists apparently believe one thing, where people live is the most information-pregnant market signal of all.  _Nothing else comes close_. Facts are stubborn things, head counting is seen as perfectly valid among warming believers when it comes to client science, so while 97% of scientists may believe in human-caused global warming much to the delight of warmist head counters, nearly half of the world’s population presumably thinks all the hand wringing about warming is much ado about nothing.  What else could explain much of the world’s residential choices?  Can scientists really be so smart as to see what nearly half of the world’s population apparently does not?   It’s doubtful.  The late Jude Wanniski once said to William F. Buckley a variation of “You may be the smartest man in the stadium, but those in the stadium are much smarter than you in total.” Wanniski was talking about information.  The masses ultimately know everything.  As my upcoming book _Popular Economics_ argues with great frequency, markets are very wise for reflecting all available knowledge. Applying the latter to the horrors global warming is supposedly set to bring to much of the coastal world, either the masses have their heads in the sand or scientists have overstated the problem of what they now call “climate change” in substantial fashion. Whom to believe? No scientist here, but if “science” is correct with its predictions, then a microscopic sliver of the world’s population would have to know more than nearly half of the world’s inhabitants.  That’s very unlikely.  Simply put, the purest market signal of all – where people live – is plainly mocking the scientific consensus about global warming.   [I rest my case]

----------


## notvery

Marc
Here is where you and i and possibly John2b woodbe and i all disagree. I'm not sure your wrong or they are wrong. Maybe no one is. Do you want to be wrong?  Do you want to get to the point when the"sorry no more diesel" sign goes up" i lived through the 3 day week in the uk ...oki was 2 but i was there man! He he. 
Why not be ahead of the curve. Why not make the future fund THE FUTURE FUND. Heck it might not be right but it's not wrong

----------


## Marc

No need to run around as if our trousers are on fire. 
The sign no more diesel sorry, will come up as soon as there is a viable alternative. The smart-@r$es in new York predicted that if the population kept on rising the horse manure would soon reach the level of the first story windows.
Well it did not, NY did not drown in poo and the motorcar was invented.
Sit back relax and enjoy the ride... and remember ... the best revenge is living well.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## John2b

Of course, the idea that 'free' market signals will save us from ourselves is a giant fantasy. Why the very economic system that has created this mess suddenly do a massive U-turn? 
The Forbes article is all over the road like a mad woman's breakfast, as my mother would say. There is a logical fallacy or misrepresentation of fact in every sentence. Still for some, it's a case of "if the ideology fits, wear it!"

----------


## John2b

Yes the smart @r$e Club of Rome made wild predictions about all sorts of things in the 1970s 'Limits to Growth' analysis. 
Last year Melbourne University decided to map what has actually happened to the projections in the forty years since the report. It turns out, the projections are being born out incredibly well. Have a gander, if you dare:  http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/si...urner_2014.pdf

----------


## notvery

> Of course, the idea that 'free' market signals will save us from ourselves is a giant fantasy. Why the very economic system that has created this mess suddenly do a massive U-turn? 
> The Forbes article is all over the road like a mad woman's breakfast, as my mother would say. There is a logical fallacy or misrepresentation of fact in every sentence. Still for some, it's a case of "if the ideology fits, wear it!"

  It won't. But then I'm more out of the trotsky draw than the abbot one. So i have the view that free market means free if you're a fat cat.free as in free lunch. It's not free the little man pays. Thus the solution requires trotsky based ideals. Not going to happen but you asked for my solution not reality

----------


## notvery

> No need to run around as if our trousers are on fire. 
> The sign no more diesel sorry, will come up as soon as there is a viable alternative. The smart-@r$es in new York predicted that if the population kept on rising the horse manure would soon reach the level of the first story windows.
> Well it did not, NY did not drown in poo and the motorcar was invented.
> Sit back relax and enjoy the ride... and remember ... the best revenge is living well.

  You should be able to run your diesel car,  boat, excavator, heck have a diesel powered dog for all i care but when you click a switch why not have that come from your roof or out of geothermal. guess what you will allow your grandkids grandkids to destroy the environment in their diesel powered hover cars

----------


## John2b

> You should be able to run your diesel car, boat, excavator, heck have a diesel powered dog for all i care but when you click a switch why not have that come from your roof or out of geothermal. guess what you will allow your grandkids grandkids to destroy the environment in their diesel powered hover cars

  The 'Limits to Growth' central point, much criticised since, is that “the earth is finite” and the quest for unlimited growth in population, material goods etc would eventually lead to a crash. Primary school arithmetic is all that is needed to appreciate that infinite growth is an impossibility in a finite world. Evidently there are some people contributing to this forum who didn't do, or failed, grade 1 arithmetic. Not to worry, the internet gives them a forum to be wise, as George Orwell noted: 
"All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome." _George Orwell_

----------


## John2b

“Looks like a chocolate bar” says Mark.  
“Looks like a dog poo” says Luke, and he picks it up, sniffs it and touches his finger to the tip of his tongue. “Yep, it looks like a dog poo, it feels like a dog poo, it smells like a dog poo and it tastes like a dog poo. I’d say it’s settled - it’s a dog poo.”  
“Crap!” exclaims Mark. “Ages ago I saw the remnants of an empty Snickers wrapper in the park, and that is all the evidence I need to know that you, Luke, are part of a world-wide conspiracy to impose a global government with a communist economy because you resent how wealthy I have become!”

----------


## PhilT2

> “Looks like a chocolate bar” says Mark.  
> “Looks like a dog poo” says Luke, and he picks it up, sniffs it and touches his finger to the tip of his tongue. “Yep, it looks like a dog poo, it feels like a dog poo, it smells like a dog poo and it tastes like a dog poo. I’d say it’s settled - it’s a dog poo.”  
> “Crap!” exclaims Mark. “Ages ago I saw the remnants of an empty Snickers wrapper in the park, and that is all the evidence I need to know that you, Luke, are part of a world-wide conspiracy to impose a global government with a communist economy because you resent how wealthy I have become!”

  You forgot to mention the lizard people; they're the ones behind it all. It's sad to see that Forbes article accepted as making any kind of sense at all, really sad.

----------


## Marc

"Ladran Sancho, señal que cabalgamos"  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

*Understanding the Global Warming Debate*Comment Now Follow Comments       Likely you have heard the sound bite that “97% of climate scientists” accept the global warming “consensus”.  Which is what gives global warming advocates the confidence to call climate skeptics “deniers,” hoping to evoke a parallel with “Holocaust Deniers,” a case where most of us would agree that a small group are denying a well-accepted reality.  So why do these “deniers” stand athwart of the 97%?  Is it just politics?  Oil money? Perversity? Ignorance? We are going to cover a lot of ground, but let me start with a hint. In the early 1980′s I saw Ayn Rand speak at Northeastern University.  In the Q&A period afterwards, a woman asked Ms. Rand, “Why don’t you believe in housewives?”  And Ms. Rand responded, “I did not know housewives were a matter of belief.”  In this snarky way, Ms. Rand was telling the questioner that she had not been given a valid proposition to which she could agree or disagree.  What the questioner likely should have asked was, “Do you believe that being a housewife is a morally valid pursuit for a woman.”  That would have been an interesting question (and one that Rand wrote about a number of times). In a similar way, we need to ask ourselves what actual proposition do the 97% of climate scientists agree with.  And, we need to understand what it is, exactly,  that the deniers are denying. It turns out that the propositions that are “settled” and the propositions to which some like me are skeptical are NOT the same propositions.  Understanding that mismatch will help explain a lot of the climate debate. *The Core Theory* Let’s begin by putting a careful name to what we are talking about.  We are discussing the hypothesis of “catastrophic man-made global warming theory.”  We are not just talking about warming but warming that is somehow man-made.  And we are not talking about a little bit of warming, but enough that the effects are catastrophic and thus justify immediate and likely expensive government action.    In discussing this theory, we’ll use the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as our main source.   After reading through most of the IPCC’s last two reports, I think it is fair to boil the logic behind the theory to this picture:  As you can see, the theory is actually a chain of at least three steps:  CO2, via the greenhouse effect, causes some warming.A series of processes in the climate multiply this warming by several times, such that most of the projected warming in various IPCC and other forecasts come from this feedback, rather than directly from the greenhouse gas effect of CO2.Warming only matters if it is harmful, so there are a variety of theories about how warming might increase hazardous weather (e.g. hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts), raise sea levels, or affect biological processes. In parallel with this theoretical work, scientists are looking for confirmation of the theory in observations.  They have a variety of ways to measure the temperature of the Earth, all of which have shown warming over the past century.  With this warming in hand, they then attempt to demonstrate how much of this warming is from CO2.  The IPCC believes that much of past warming was from CO2, and recent work by IPCC authors argues that only exogenous effects prevented CO2-driven warming from being even higher. This is just a summary.  We will walk through each step in turn.  Page *1 / 4***Continue      Understanding the Global Warming Debate

----------


## Marc

*Understanding the Global Warming Debate*_Continued from page 1_  Comment Now Follow Comments Following Comments Unfollow Comments      *CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas*  The first step in the theory is the basic greenhouse gas theory — that CO2 will raise the temperature of the Earth as its concentration increases (through a process of absorption and re-radiation that we will not get into). Its probably irresponsible to call anything in a science so young as climate “settled,” but the fact that increased atmospheric CO2 will warm the Earth by some amount is pretty close to being universally accepted. More debatable is how much warming will occur.  We have measurements of warming from laboratory experiments, but these are hard to translate directly to the complex climate system.  The generally accepted value for direct greenhouse gas warming from CO2 is something like 1-1.2C per doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and most past IPCC reports have settled on a number in this range. While some of the talk-show-type skeptics have tried to dispute this greenhouse theory, most of what I call the science-based skeptics do not, and accept a number circa 1C for the direct warming effect of a doubling of CO2. So what’s the problem?  Why the debate?  Isn’t this admission a “game over” for the skeptics?  Actually, no.  To understand this, let us do a bit of extrapolation.  Current CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere today are around 390ppm, or about 0.039%.    But even if we were to hit a relatively pessimistic level of 800ppm by the end of the century, this would, by the numbers above, imply a warming of about one degree.  While potentially undesirable, a degree of warming is hardly catastrophic.   The catastrophe comes from the second chained theory. *The Positive Climate Feedback Theory*  As the Earth warms, we expect there to be changes that may further accelerate or decelerate the warming.  These are called feedbacks.  Take one example — as the Earth warms, there will likely be less snow and ice coverage of the Earth.  Snow and ice tend to reflect heat back into space more than does bare land or water, so that this loss could add additional warming above and beyond the initial warming from CO2.  On the opposite end of the scale, many plants grow faster with warmer air and more airborne CO2, and such growth could in turn reduce atmospheric carbon and slow expected warming. It turns out the critical feedback involves water vapor.  While CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, it is a weak one when compared to water vapor.    Rising temperatures may increase evaporation and therefore the amount of water vapor in the air, thus adding powerful greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere and accelerating warming.  On the other hand, water evaporated by rising temperatures may form more clouds that shade the Earth and help to reduce temperatures.  Whether future man-made global warming is catastrophic depends a lot on the balance of these effects. The IPCC assumed that strong positive feedbacks dominated, and thus arrived at numbers that implied that feedbacks added an additional 2-4 degrees to the 1 degree from CO2 directly.  So in the IPCC numbers, at least two thirds of the future warming comes not from the basic greenhouse gas effect but a second independent theory that the Earth’s climate is dominated by strong positive feedbacks.  Other more alarmist scientists have come up with feedback numbers even higher.  When Al Gore says that we will see a tipping point where temperatures will run away, he is positing that feedbacks will be nearly infinite (a phenomenon we can hear with loud feedback screeches from a microphone). But the science of this positive climate feedback theory is far from settled.  Just as skeptics are probably wrong to question the basic greenhouse gas effect of CO2, catastrophic global warming advocates are wrong to over-estimate our understanding of these feedbacks.   Not only may the feedback number not be high, but it might be negative, as implied by some recent research, which would actually reduce the warming we would see from a doubling of CO2 to less than one degree Celsius.  After all, most long-term stable natural systems (and that would certainly describe climate) are dominated by negative rather than positive feedbacks.  Page *2 / 4***Continue

----------


## Marc

*Understanding the Global Warming Debate*_Continued from page 2_  Comment Now Follow Comments       *Nice Theory, But What Do We Actually See Happening?*  At some point, theorizing becomes stale unless the theories are supported by observations.  And the most important single observation relative to catastrophic man-made global warming theory is that the world has indeed warmed over the last century, by perhaps 0.7C, coincident with the period mankind has burned a lot of fossil fuels. Some skeptics have tried, relatively futilely I think, to deny that the world is warming at all.  Certainly skeptics have a lot of evidence that this measured warming may be exaggerated —  there are some serious flaws in our surface temperature measurement system today and almost certainly much worse flaws in the numbers from, say, 1900 to which we are comparing current readings.    But radically new technologies, such as satellites, that are not susceptible to these same flaws and coverage gaps have still measured an upward drift in temperatures over the last 30 years.  When looking at the historic temperature record, skeptics today tend to focus more on the fact that temperatures have leveled off over the last 10-15 years.   Both sides of the debate play annoying games with cherry-picked end-points and graph scales to try to support their arguments, but most reasonable people look at the graph above of the last 15 years and will agree temperatures have been relatively flat.  Even more important for scientists (since the oceans are a much larger heat reservoir than the atmosphere) is the fact that the new ARGO floating temperature stations have measured little or no increase in ocean heat content since they were put in service in 2003. These facts actually lead to one of my favorite examples of the two sides in the debate talking past each other (this example actually played out in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal over the past several weeks).  Skeptics will say, “temperatures have been flat for 10-15 years.”  Global warming advocates will respond, “the last decade has seen some of the hottest temperatures in the last 100 years.”  Both statements are actually correct.  Imagine spending all day climbing to the top of a tall plateau.  Walking around on the plateau, with every step, it is correct to say that you are at the highest point you have been all day, but it is also correct to say you are no longer climbing.   Whichever the case, the flat surface temperatures and ocean heat content create a real problem for the man-made catastrophic global warming theory.  There is no reason why warming should take a break, and we are starting to hear more frequently, even among catastrophic global warming supporters, discussion of “the missing heat.”   *Attributing the Action of Complex Systems to Individual Inputs*  A couple of years ago, the Obama Administration was tasked with figuring out how many jobs, if any, were created by the stimulus.  Just adding up jobs at firms that had received government cash was not good enough — the theory of the Keynesian stimulus is that there is a multiplier (similar to the positive feedback in climate) that creates far more jobs than just the ones that can be directly measured.  But how do we count these jobs?  We don’t have any sort of measuring device to tell us that one job would or would not have existed if, say, Solyndra had not gotten stimulus money. What the Administration did was this:  they took a computer model, the same one that originally said the stimulus would be effective, and plugged in the actual spending numbers to get a modeled job creation number.   As political messaging, this made perfect sense.  As science, the notion of checking a theoretical model’s output with additional runs of the same model, rather than observational data, certainly leaves something to be desired.  But to be fair, it’s a tough problem – how does one sort out the effect of changing one variable in a complex system where hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of other variables are changing simultaneously? This is the problem scientists face in trying to determine the causes of the 0.7C warming over the last century.  And, ironically, the IPCC’s main argument was very similar to the way the stimulus was scored.  They took computer models, which by their own admission left out a lot of the complexity in the climate, and ran them with and without manmade CO2 in the 20th century.  Their conclusion:  only man’s CO2 could have caused the measured warming.  Skeptics like to describe this logic slightly differently:  the IPCC says it had to be CO2 because they couldn’t think of anything else it could be. So could it be anything else?  Skeptics will argue that the period of rapid temperature increase the IPCC studied was relatively short, basically the 20 years from 1978 to 1998.  Skeptics will point out that the world experienced a near identical pace of temperature increase from 1910-1940, well before our modern society began emitting CO2 in earnest, casting into doubt whether the more recent increase was truly unprecedented and only possible given manmade CO2. Further, skeptics like to point to at least four other climate factors that might reasonably have contributed to the 0.7C of warming:  Solar output, which was higher in the second half of the 20th century than the firstOcean cycles, like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which were in their warm period during the critical warming period from 1978-1998 that so worried the IPCCContinued recovery from the Little Ice Age, which bottomed out world temperatures in the 17th and 18th centuriesMan’s land use, including agriculture and urbanization All told, there is no doubt that CO2 is helping to warm the planet, but skeptics are reluctant to ascribe all of the last century’s warming to this one cause when there were so many other forces working in the same direction. The problem for global warming supporters is they actually need for past warming from CO2 to be higher than 0.7C.  If the IPCC is correct that based on their high-feedback models we should expect to see 3C of warming per doubling of CO2, looking backwards this means we should already have seen about 1.5C of CO2-driven warming based on past CO2 increases.  But no matter how uncertain our measurements, it’s clear we have seen nothing like this kind of temperature rise.  Past warming has in fact been more consistent with low or even negative feedback assumptions. To defend the hypothesis of strong positive climate feedback, global warming supporters must posit that there are exogenous climate effects that are in fact holding down the increase due to CO2.  Thus has been born the theory of man-made sulfate aerosols, basically pollution from burning dirty fuels, that is keeping the Earth cool.  When the rest of the world gets around to reducing these emissions as has the US, the theory goes, then we will see rapid catch-up warming.  Skeptics point out that no one really has any idea of the magnitude of the cooling from these aerosols, and that, ironically, every global warming model just happens to assume exactly the amount of cooling from these aerosols that is needed to make their models match history.  Skeptics call this their “plug variable.”  Page *3 / 4***Continue

----------


## Marc

*Understanding the Global Warming Debate*_Continued from page 3_  Comment Now Follow Comments       *Hurricanes and Tornadoes and Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My*  Certainly changing atmospheric temperatures, and perhaps even more importantly, changes in ocean temperatures, can be expected to have knock-on effects, both negative and positive  (yes, I know the suggestion of positive effects borders on heresy, but don’t you think folks in higher latitudes might appreciate longer growing seasons?)  Skeptics argue, however, that too often the studies of these effects suffer from one of four types of mistakes:  _Measurement Technology Bias_ – Improvements in our ability to accurately count or measure a phenomenon is mistaken for a real underlying change in the frequency of the phenomenon.  A great example is tornadoes.  The count of annual tornadoes appears to have increased over the last fifty years, but this increase is almost entirely due to Doppler radar and other technologies identifying previously unrecognized twisters.  If one looks solely at larger tornadoes (class F3-F5) that were unlikely to be overlooked even with older technologies, annual counts are flat to slightly down over the last fifty years._One sample makes a trend_ – This is less a flaw of any particular formal study and more a flaw in media coverage and among catastrophic global warming advocates (e.g. Al Gore).  Individual extreme weather events are pointed to as proof of climate shifts, even whensummary statistics show no such thing.  For example, individual hurricanes like Katrina are pointed to as proof that global warming is increasing hurricane frequency and severity, when in fact measures of hurricane frequency and total energy (e.g. total cyclonic energy) have actually been decreasing over the last several years, to near all-time _lows_._What is normal_ -  Trends in certain variables are labeled as “abnormal” or “unprecedented” or “not natural” despite our having an extraordinarily short history of measurements such that it is almost impossible for us to say with any confidence exactly what “normal” is.  In some cases, recent trends are labeled abnormal or unprecedented even when that trend appears to be long-standing and pre-date man-made CO2.  A great example is glacier retreat.  We have good measurements showing substantial retreats in glaciers dating all the way back to the late 1700s (at the end of the little ice age).  However, recent retreats in these same glaciers are portrayed as new and shocking and man-made, rather than in context of a longer-term trend (the exact same situation obtains with sea levels)._Everything looks like a nail_ - Climate is an extremely complex system with many, many variables changing simultaneously.  It’s a big, complicated engine we really don’t understand that takes all these inputs and spits out certain outputs  (e.g. snow in Washington today).  Like a religious zealot that sees the face of God in his piece of toast, some observers seem to be able to magically attribute particular weather outcomes to the action of one single variable out of these millions.  Even more amazingly, time after time, it seems to be the exact same variable, man-made CO2, that is unilaterally creating the result.   *Conclusion* So let’s come back to our original question — what is it exactly that skeptics “deny.”  As we have seen, most don’t deny the greenhouse gas theory, or that the Earth has warmed some amount over the last several year.  They don’t even deny that some of that warming has likely been via man-made CO2.  What they deny is the catastrophe — they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2.  And, they are simultaneously denying that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated. So how about the “97% of scientists” who purportedly support global warming?  What proposition do they support?  Let’s forget for a minute a variety of concerns about cherry-picking respondents in studies like this  (I am always reminded by such studies of the quote attributed, perhaps apocryphally,  to Pauline Kael that she couldn’t understand how Nixon had won because no one she knew voted for him).  Let’s look at the actual propositions the 97% agreed to in one such study conducted at the University of Illinois.  Here they are: 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?The 97% answered “risen” and “yes” to these two questions.  But depending on how one defines “significant” (is 20% a significant factor?) I could get 97% of a group of science-based skeptics to agree to the same answers. So this is the real problem at the heart of the climate debate — the two sides are debating different propositions!  In our chart, proponents of global warming action are vigorously defending the propositions on the left side, propositions with which serious skeptics generally already agree.   When skeptics raise issues about climate models, natural sources of warming, and climate feedbacks, advocates of global warming action run back to the left side of the chart and respond that the world is warming and greenhouse gas theory is correct.    At best, this is a function of the laziness and scientific illiteracy of the media that allows folks to talk past one another;  at worst, it is a purposeful bait-and-switch to avoid debate on the tough issues. *Postscript:* I wrote more on this topic in a previous discussion of the science of the skeptics position here.  These topics, with charts, data, and sources, are expanded substantially in a video presentation here.  Page *4 / 4*

----------


## DaveTTC

Thisnis a rather amazing off topic discussion and some of you guys have put heaps into it  
Dave TTC 
Turning Wood Into Art

----------


## PhilT2

If this is a competition to see who can post the most factually inaccurate article i haven't got time to play that game right now. I will happily concede that the Forbes article is up there with the best in logical fallacies and outright inaccuracies. The figures for the doubling of CO2 for example and the "quotes" from the IPCC (bet you can't actually find them there). And the old "holocaust denier" link that exists in their minds only. All the old favourites.

----------


## PhilT2

> Thisnis a rather amazing off topic discussion and some of you guys have put heaps into it  
> Dave TTC 
> Turning Wood Into Art

  No, no real effort at all. It's just a game of cut and paste that doesn't require any mental effort from the poster at all.
Sorry to hear about your brother, hope his youngsters are doing ok.

----------


## John2b

I'll just do one cut and paste. Quantity is no substitute for quality...

----------


## Marc

> Thisnis a rather amazing off topic discussion and some of you guys have put heaps into it  
> Dave TTC 
> Turning Wood Into Art

  If the Forbes article about the Global Warming Fallacy is off topic I would like to know why. You can agree with the author or disagree but to call it "off topic" ...(?) what is the topic again? 
By the way the others' disparaging snippets are rather funny. 
If you ever write something worthwhile, I promise I read it and may even quote it.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## DaveTTC

> No, no real effort at all. It's just a game of cut and paste that doesn't require any mental effort from the poster at all.
> Sorry to hear about your brother, hope his youngsters are doing ok.

  They seem to be doing ok. Both are on the spectrum and dont show emotional stuff a lot. It is hard to tell. Was going up the stairs at hisnplace as I was building a partition wall for the daughter to be close to her step mum and as we walked up the stairs together she said 
You lost a brother and I lost a dad  
For her that was quite profound 
Dave TTC 
Turning Wood Into Art

----------


## John2b

Marc, you should read the Forbes "understanding the climate debate" article more carefully. It does not support your frequently stated position(s) at all. It does not fundamentally disagree with the IPCC or 'warmists'. 
What the authors do disagree with is the (unwritten by anyone as far as I am aware) definition of climate catastrophe. They obviously do not think that a climate that can't provide food for the burgeoning population of the Earth and oceans that revert to algae and jellyfish without the higher forms of life as a catastrophe. 
You do realise that most fruit trees need a certain number of chill hours in winter to set fruit, and climate is changing faster that trees can be moved leading to wholesale failures of cherry, apple and almond crops in traditional growing zones, for example. You do realise that the food bowls of Asia such as the Mekong Delta and the Ganges Delta are regularly inundated with sea water up to 100 kilometres inland from the cost due to rising sea levels and that the resulting salt contaminated soil will not grow food crops. 
The authors are free to believe extinction of mammalian species at 20-100 times the rate of the past, as is happening NOW, is not a catastrophe. It is hard to imagine what the authors would deem to be catastrophic. 
Yes it's evolution in action. Yes humans didn't chose to be put on Earth. But at the rate things are going, humankind will be the first species that self-determines its own extinction.

----------


## DaveTTC

> If the Forbes article about the Global Warming Fallacy is off topic I would like to know why. You can agree with the author or disagree but to call it "off topic" ...(?) what is the topic again? 
> By the way the others' disparaging snippets are rather funny. 
> If you ever write something worthwhile, I promise I read it and may even quote it.

  Sorry Marc. My mistake, should have clarified. I meant off renovating topic not off thread topic 
Dave TTC 
Turning Wood Into Art

----------


## Marc

:Biggrin: Aah ... yes ... way off topic I agree ha ha.
Still a "debate" of sorts, with mix of confabulations, myth and legends, political machinations, doomsday preparations and green cultism thrown in the mix, hu hu.
We could start a branch off this thread on the line of ... "The effects of Global warming and earth's axis displacement on wood turning" ... :Wink 1:

----------


## PhilT2

> We could start a branch off this thread on the line of ... "The effects of Global warming and earth's axis displacement on wood turning" ...

  I'll go with that...would make more sense than that rubbish from Forbes.

----------


## Marc

> Marc, you should read the Forbes "understanding the climate debate" article more carefully. It does not support your frequently stated position(s) at all. It does not fundamentally disagree with the IPCC or 'warmists'. etc etc

  Balderdash

----------


## John2b

> Balderdash

  _Conclusion So lets come back to our original question  what is it exactly that skeptics deny. As we have seen, most dont deny the greenhouse gas theory, or that the Earth has warmed some amount over the last several year. They dont even deny that some of that warming has likely been via man-made CO2. What they deny is the catastrophe  they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2._

----------


## woodbe

> When looking at the historic temperature record, skeptics today tend to focus more on the fact that temperatures have leveled off over the last 10-15 years.   Both sides of the debate play annoying games with cherry-picked end-points and graph scales to try to support their arguments, but most reasonable people look at the graph above of the last 15 years and will agree temperatures have been relatively flat.  Even more important for scientists (since the oceans are a much larger heat reservoir than the atmosphere) is the fact that the new ARGO floating temperature stations have measured little or no increase in ocean heat content since they were put in service in 2003.

  What a load of bunk. 
Firstly, the article talks about cherry picked dates and then goes on to supply a 15 year graph from UAH. Have the authors not read the most basic climate texts? Do they realise that regardless of the last 15 years, there is a long term trend occuring and in any case, we have inconveniently just leapt out of the 'no warming' but the graph stops at 2012/2013. 
Secondly, the Ocean heat content is not flat, perhaps they were looking at the graph whilst riding down Lombard Street in SF? LOL

----------


## Marc

A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.What do you think?   
A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.What do you think?   
What do aerosols have to do with anything? Well, aerosols are created from human activities like burning coal, driving cars or from fires. There are also natural aerosols like clouds and fog. Aerosols tend to reflect solar energy back into space, giving them a cooling effect that somewhat offsets warming from increased CO2 emissions.What do you think?   
The Max Planck study suggests “that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.” In layman’s terms, aerosols are offsetting less global warming than was previously thought. And if aerosols aren’t causing as much cooling, it must mean carbon dioxide must be causing less warming than climate models predict.What do you think?      
“Going forward we should expect less warming from future greenhouse gas emissions than climate models are projecting,” write climate scientists Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger with the libertarian Cato Institute, adding that this study could be a “death blow” to global warming hysteria.What do you think?   
Independent climate researcher Nick Lewis put out a study last year with Georgia Tech’s Dr. Judith Curry that found that the climate’s response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels — a measurement called “climate sensitivity” was 1.64 degrees Celsius.What do you think?   
Lewis revised his findings based on the Max Planck aerosol study and found something astounding: climate sensitivity drops dramatically. Lewis also looked at climate sensitivity estimates given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — often regarded as the world’s top authority on global warming.What do you think?   
The IPCC’s latest assessment put climate sensitivity between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius. The IPCC says that despite “the large uncertainty range, there is a high confidence that aerosols have offset a substantial portion of [greenhouse gas] global mean forcing.”What do you think?   
Basically, the IPCC says aerosols deflect a lot of warming — the opposite of the Max Planck study’s finding.What do you think?   
But incorporating the results from the Max Planck study dramatically reduces the upper bound estimate of climate sensitivity from 4.5 degrees to 1.8 degrees Celsius.What do you think?   
To put this into perspective, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 currently stand at around 400 parts per million, if this were to double, according to the IPCC’s estimates temperatures could rise as high as 4.5 degrees Celsius.What do you think?   
But incorporate the Max Planck study results and warming would only be as high as 1.8 degrees Celsius — less than half what the IPCC originally predicted.What do you think?   
Michaels and Knappenberger say Lewis’s findings basically eliminate “the possibility of catastrophic climate change—that is, climate change that proceeds at a rate that exceeds our ability to keep up.”What do you think?  
“Such a result will also necessarily drive down estimates of social cost of carbon thereby undermining a key argument use by federal agencies to support increasingly burdensome regulations which seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” write Michaels and Knappenberger.  
Read more:  New Study Is A âDeath Blowâ To Global Warming Hysteria | The Daily Caller

----------


## Marc

*Conclusion* So let’s come back to our original question — what is it exactly that skeptics “deny.”  As we have seen, most don’t deny the greenhouse gas theory, or that the Earth has warmed some amount over the last several year.  They don’t even deny that some of that warming has likely been via man-made CO2.  What they deny is the catastrophe — they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2.  And, they are simultaneously denying that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated. So how about the “97% of scientists” who purportedly support global warming?  What proposition do they support?  Let’s forget for a minute a variety of concerns about cherry-picking respondents in studies like this  (I am always reminded by such studies of the quote attributed, perhaps apocryphally,  to Pauline Kael that she couldn’t understand how Nixon had won because no one she knew voted for him).  Let’s look at the actual propositions the 97% agreed to in one such study conducted at the University of Illinois.  Here they are:1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?The 97% answered “risen” and “yes” to these two questions.  But depending on how one defines “significant” (is 20% a significant factor?) I could get 97% of a group of science-based skeptics to agree to the same answers. So this is the real problem at the heart of the climate debate — the two sides are debating different propositions!  In our chart, proponents of global warming action are vigorously defending the propositions on the left side, propositions with which serious skeptics generally already agree.   When skeptics raise issues about climate models, natural sources of warming, and climate feedbacks, advocates of global warming action run back to the left side of the chart and respond that the world is warming and greenhouse gas theory is correct.    At best, this is a function of the laziness and scientific illiteracy of the media that allows folks to talk past one another;  at worst, it is a purposeful bait-and-switch to avoid debate on the tough issues. *Postscript:* I wrote more on this topic in a previous discussion of the science of the skeptics position here.  These topics, with charts, data, and sources, are expanded substantially in a video presentation here. 
[ The conclusion simply put means we are wasting trillions for no reason but to make the global warming mafia richer and leave the "climate" indifferent to our antics.  
The funny thing is that the article actually puts some sense back in the debate  and "mutatis mutandis" puts the debate into a situation of the glass is half full or the glass is half empty ... admitting that some of the claims of the warmist are correct just like the other side is too. Only fanatics would blindly attack an article that states repeatedly to be non scientific and that presents the debate as a foolish debate that is arguing different things.]

----------


## John2b

> [ The conclusion simply put means we are wasting trillions for no reason but to make the global warming mafia richer and leave the "climate" indifferent to our antics.

  That may be _your_ conclusion, but it is _not_ a conclusion drawn by the article you pasted.   

> The funny thing is that the article actually puts some sense back in the debate and "mutatis mutandis" puts the debate into a situation of the glass is half full or the glass is half empty ... admitting that some of the claims of the warmist are correct just like the other side is too.

  The article does acknowledge some well established facts, but also attempts to falsify some facts, as woodbe pointed out. Was that an act of ignorance or obfuscation by the writers? _Either way, it is very sloppy journalism._    

> Only fanatics would blindly attack an article that states repeatedly to be non scientific and that presents the debate as a foolish debate that is arguing different things.

  It takes a person blinded by ideology to defend a poorly written article, just because it suits their life view and even despite that the article contradicts many of the positions that person has stated categorically in the recent past! It is called 'clutching at straws'.

----------


## John2b

> A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.What do you think?

  Paste in haste and repent at leisure, Marc. The rubbish from the blogosphere you parroted here is entirely inconsistent with the report. 
The report finds that the warming of CO2 has been _underestimated_, because the mostly historical cooling effect of aerosols has been underestimated. The uncertainty of climate models has been reduced threefold, which means_ the scientific certainty of future global warming has been increased threefold as a result of this study._ 
Read it for yourself: Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie: New study: Cooling by aerosols weaker and less uncertain

----------


## John2b

It's a question I have asked before, but I still no closer to having an answer. 
If the case for climate change is so weak, why don't 'skeptics' use verifiable facts to make an argument against it? Why is it necessary for 'skeptics' to make so many claims that are easily shown to be false, not backed up by data, unsubstantiated or just plain wrong?

----------


## PhilT2

Climate Scientist: No, My Study Is Not A "Death Blow To Global Warming Hysteria" | Blog | Media Matters for America 
Author of study says "Daily Caller" article misrepresents study and that he supports the consensus on global warming. 
Here's a link to the paper, what do you think?
The "Daily Caller" is full of s**t. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/...I-D-14-00656.1

----------


## woodbe

> Climate Scientist: No, My Study Is Not A "Death Blow To Global Warming Hysteria" | Blog | Media Matters for America 
> Author of study says "Daily Caller" article misrepresents study and that he supports the consensus on global warming. 
> Here's a link to the paper, what do you think?
> The "Daily Caller" is full of s**t. An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

  And here is what the Author reckons about the misrepresentation by Marc's mates:   

> Others have used my findings to suggest that Earth's surface  temperatures are rather insensitive to the concentration of atmospheric  CO2. I do not believe that my work supports these suggestions, or  inferences.
>  [...]
>  [E]ven a warming of only 2ºC from a doubling of CO2 poses  considerable risks for society. Many scientists (myself included)  believe that a warming of more than 2ºC from a doubling of the  concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is consistent with both my  new study and our best understanding.
>  [...]
>  So contrary to some reports that have appeared in the media,  anthropogenic climate change is not called into question by my study. I  continue to believe that warming of Earth's surface temperatures from  rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society  must take seriously, even if we are lucky and (as my work seems to  suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely.

  Next...

----------


## Marc

*The Renewable Energy Disaster**FOOD = ENERGY & ENERGY = FOOD!* If we have fancy boutique priced energy, we will have fancy boutique priced food! by Christopher CalderIt is a mathematically provable fact that you cannot replace oil, coal, and natural gas with windmills, solar panels, and biofuels.  Hobbits may be able to live poetically, generating energy from the wind, the sun, and the soil.  Real human beings living in an industrialized civilization need highly concentrated nonrenewable energy sources to survive.  Renewable energy schemes other than hydroelectric and geothermal power are resource hogs that take up huge amounts of space while providing very little usable energy in return.  Contrary to popular belief, solar, wind, wave energy, and biofuel schemes are not "energy efficient," and their ultra-high cost is an accurate measurement of that inherent inefficiency.  If they were efficient they would cost less than using fossil fuels, not dramatically more than using fossil fuels. *EXAMPLE:*  To satisfy 100% of New York City's electricity needs with wind power would require impossible around-the-clock winds within a limited speed range, and a wind farm the size of the entire state of Connecticut.  Solar photovoltaic cells are so inefficient that it would take about 60 square miles of expensive solar panels to generate just one gigawatt of electricity.  [Statistical source - Scientist Jesse H. Ausubel, author of "Renewable and nuclear heresies."]  Fortunately, there are affordable, *carbon free*energy solutions which are described in detail near the bottom of this web page.  First, let's analyze the energy solutions that don't work, and which cause much more harm than good.   NEWS!Two Georgetown University professors spill the beans about *"The secret, dirty cost of Obama's green power push." * *NEWS!* See* Germany's Green Energy Disaster. * *NEWS! * The National Research Council says wind, solar, and biofuel subsidies are a failure at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 48 billion in federal subsidies have had no significant positive effects on global warming.NEWS!* Study: Fuel from corn waste not better than gas*** *
Biofuels * See the dramatic 15 minute YouTube video, The Global Biofuel Disaster.  *NEWS!*  Read the terrific and explosive pdf file, *“**Twenty-First Century Snake Oil - Why the United States Should Reject Biofuels as Part of a Rational National Security Energy Policy**”* by Captain T. A. “Ike” Kiefer of the United States Navy.  
     Ethanol (199 proof vodka) and biodiesel (cooking oil) are made from food or inedible crops which displace normal agricultural activity.  Biofuel crops include corn, soybeans, rapeseed (canola oil), sugarcane, and palm trees (palm oil).  The majority of the world's corn is grown in the United States, and an ever increasing percentage of that crop is ending up in gas tanks instead of stomachs.  Increasing amounts of soybean and rapeseed are being diverted to biodiesel production, and world supplies of cooking oil are now low.  Corn and soybeans are the foundation of America's food supply, because they feed our farm animals which give us dairy products, eggs, and meat.  When the cost of animal feed is pushed up by biofuel production, the price American families pay for essential high protein foods also rises.  [See corn price chart]         
     Biofuels require large amounts of fertilizers to produce, and the price of fertilizer rose by more than 200% in 2007 alone.  Nitrogen fertilizers are largely made from natural gas, which experienced no significant price gain in 2007, so the main driving force of *fertilizer price hyperinflation*is undeniably biofuel production.  Biofuels are pushing up the cost of all foods that require fertilizers, including rice, wheat, potatoes, tomatoes, lettuce, and broccoli.  To make matters worse, the world is gradually running out of economically obtainable phosphates, a prime ingredient in fertilizers.  If we use up our supplies of phosphates growing fuel instead of food, we bring closer the global collapse of the human food supply.     According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, global food prices rose an incredible 40% in 2007.  The World Bank states that the cost of staple foods rose by 83% during the 3 year period from 2005 to 2008.  The International Food Policy Research Institute states that biofuels are responsible for rapid grain price inflation, and a detailed analysis by Don Mitchell, an internationally respected economist at the World Bank, stated that biofuels have helped push global staple food prices up to record heights.The United Nations states that its charity programs can no longer afford to feed the starving peoples of the world because of the high cost of staple foods.  Mr. Jean Ziegler, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, repeatedly denounced biofuels as _"a crime against humanity."_  The new UN food envoy, Mr. Olivier De Schuster, has called for United States and European Union biofuel targets to be abandoned, and said the world food crisis is _"a silent tsunami affecting 100 million people."_  Oil price increases have not shrunk the human food supply, but biofuel production has.  The more biofuels we produce, the less food we have to eat, because we grow biofuel crops using the same land, water, fertilizer, farm equipment, and labor we use to grow food.*Ten reasons to oppose biofuels* Moderating Climate Change Hysteria

----------


## johnc

I bet in 1900 if anyone told you that in 100 years you could get 450 people into  the sky and have them cruise through the air at 900KMH for 14 hours or so they would have been considered fruitcakes and common sense and God or even physics would make it impossible. Never overlook the pace of change and mans ability to invent, develop and improve. Technology delivers efficiency, coal has had it's day with steam and is coming to and end on cost alone, the new and emerging technologies will wipe it out as a fuel source. Those who think it is here to stay belong to the pre coal era of sail, the only constant is change, the only uncertainty is how much longer coal will be with us as a power generator. It's use though in steel production is a different matter, watch this space those who can't adapt to change are simply to mentally lazy to dream or imagine, the food of all inventors and next wave businesses.

----------


## John2b

The 'it can't be done' brigade is overlooking that many countries are already 100% renewable and net exporters of renewable energy as well.  Countries with 100% renewable energy | Make Wealth History

----------


## Marc

> I bet in 1900 if anyone told you that in 100 years you could get 450 people into  the sky and have them cruise through the air at 900KMH for 14 hours or so they would have been considered fruitcakes and common sense and God or even physics would make it impossible. Never overlook the pace of change and mans ability to invent, develop and improve. Technology delivers efficiency, coal has had it's day with steam and is coming to and end on cost alone, the new and emerging technologies will wipe it out as a fuel source. Those who think it is here to stay belong to the pre coal era of sail, the only constant is change, the only uncertainty is how much longer coal will be with us as a power generator. It's use though in steel production is a different matter, watch this space those who can't adapt to change are simply to mentally lazy to dream or imagine, the food of all inventors and next wave businesses.

   I agree entirely. No one in his right mind wants coal or nuclear or diesel to "stay" for some idea of tradition or misplaced loyalty. The problem as I see it and millions like me, is that the so called renewables can not stand on their own feet and are not a genuine replacement to fossil fuels. They are toys that need massive subsidies to even exist. The "renewable energy" market should be called the SUBSIDY MARKET. Every single so called source of energy that is not fossil, nuclear or hydro and perhaps with the exception of geothermal yea may be one day, every other one like wind and solar are a large CON job, to extract subsidies from people who feel guilty about breathing and pooping. "Ooh isn't that marvelous!!, look at the windmill turn little Charley, it makes electricity free! " Oh yes, after billions of taxpayers money have gone to China to build it and to subsidies it's massive inefficiencies that will never improve not in 100 years. Free my foot, it's more expensive than firing up the turbines with hot bread. Aren't we Oh so clever! 
Of course eventually some invention will bridge the gap and become a real competitor, and subsidies should go towards something that has a chance not something that needs subsidies to function and that will never become competitive.
And the argument that you must subsidise new products so that they can become competitive is of course rubbish because such subsidies should go towards DEVELOPMENT so that they become competitive and hook them to the network only after they are at least as cheap as coal and not before. To put them in use when they are a liability is stupid and guarantees they will never get off the ground since doing so will mean lose the subsidies that make them a nice source of money.
The reality is that renewables exist to extract subsidies and for that purpose only banking on a scaremongering campaign called GLOBAL WARMING.

----------


## John2b

> The reality is that renewables exist to extract subsidies and for that purpose only banking on a scaremongering campaign called GLOBAL WARMING.

  How do you explain the fact (reality) that the fossil energy subsidised worldwide by more than US$550billion per annum? Fossil energy subsidies are four times greater than subsidies for renewable energy yet at the same time the proportion of fossil energy is falling whilst renewables are adding around 50% of the growth in energy.  IEA - Energy Subsidies  http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/me...Factsheets.pdf

----------


## woodbe

lol

----------


## Marc

Easy, answer ready made for me:  *Renewables Get 25 Times The Subsidy That Fossil Fuels Do*Comment Now Follow Comments		 		 Following Comments		 		 Unfollow Comments		 	      
There are various ways that you can look at the various subsidies that go to different types of fuels and of course people will pick the one that best supports the case they want to make. For example, various green types would point to the fact that globally the subsidies to fossil fossil fuels are far higher than those to renewables. I, desiring to make a rather different case, might point to the fact (yes, both are indeed facts) that renewables in the US receive 25 times the subsidy that fossil fuels do. That both are correct, both are straight facts, depends on the point that the details of what is being measured are different.
Mark Perry makes the second point well with this chart:                
Per unit of energy produced renewables do indeed get 25 times the subsidy of fossil fuels. This is for the US alone of course.
Elsewhere in the world it is indeed different, as Bjorn Lomborg points out: Global fossil-fuel subsidies do exceed those for renewables in raw dollars—$523 billion to $88 billion, according to the International Energy Agency. But the disparity is reversed when proportion is taken into account. Fossil fuels make up more than 80% of global energy, while modern green energy accounts for about 5%. This means that renewables still receive three times as much money per energy unit.
But much more important, the critics ignore that these fossil-fuel subsidies are almost exclusive to non-Western countries. Twelve such nations account for 75% of the world’s fossil-fuel subsidies. Iran tops the list with $82 billion a year, followed by Saudi Arabia at $61 billion. Russia, India and China spend between $30 billion and $40 billion, and Venezuela, Egypt, Iran, U.A.E., Indonesia, Mexico and Algeria make up the rest.
These subsidies have nothing to do with cozying up to oil companies or indulging global-warming skeptics. The spending is a way for governments to buy political stability: In Venezuela, gas sells at 5.8 cents a gallon, costing the government $22 billion a year, more than twice what is spent on health care.There’s another point that should be made here too. Those fossil fuel subsidies described above, they’re not subsidies to the producers of fossil fuels, they’re subsidies to the consumers of them. Yes, certainly, there’s some leakage as the higher demand for fuels stimulated by the subsidies leads to higher prices for producers. But this is still conceptually different from the renewables subsidies which are expressly designed to go to the producers. Indeed, given the way that most of the green energy subsidies are constructed the producers are subsidised by directly over-charging the consumers.
These are, as I say, very different types of subsidies. We’re not wandering around throwing money at Exxon and Shell but we are very much doing so for their counterparts in the renewables industry. And we’re not subsidising the consumption of renewables but certain foreign countries are for their citizens.

----------


## John2b



----------


## John2b

> Easy, answer ready made for me

  Easy answer but the *wrong answer!* 
Subsidies need to be compared at in terms of the benefit - at least that is what _you_ have been arguing for ages! The amount of new energy capacity created per subsidy dollar is FOUR TIMES GREATER for renewables than for fossil energy. Now surely that is the way to lift third world countries out of poverty, as you fake sceptics keep reminding us is the great virtue of cheap energy. 
It's very sad, Marc, that you insist on getting your information from ideologically driven blogs or 'think tanks', and not the actual sources. Otherwise you would have seen the qualifying statement that put a bit more perspective on things:  simply dividing the current value of subsidies by current consumption or production does not reflect either the long-term impact of the imbedded subsidies and or the future impacts of current subsidies and support that may only be starting to impact energy markets  New research from Bloomberg New Energy Finance reveals that despite many
platitudes and pledges, governments of the world are spending substantially
more on subsidizing dirty forms of energy than on renewables and biofuels. In
fact, support for cleaner sources is dwarfed by the help the oil, coal, and
other fossil fuel sectors receive.  http://www.bloomberg.com/company/announcements/subsidies-for-renewables-biofuels-dwarfed-by-supports-for-2/  In all, governments of the world provided approximately $43-46bn to renewable energy and biofuels technologies, projects, and companies in 2009, BNEF concludes in preliminary analysis. This total includes the cost of feed-in-tariffs (FiTs), renewable energy credits or certificates (RECs), tax credits, cash grants, and other direct subsidies. (It does not include more upstream support, such as subsidies to corn farmers to grow feedstock for use in US ethanol plants, nor does not include any value transfer due to carbon cap-and-trade schemes.) The $43-46bn figure stands in stark contrast to the $557bn spent on subsidizing fossil fuels in 2008, as estimated by the International Energy Agency last month.    http://www.gizmag.com/government-sub...iofuels/15907/

----------


## Marc

And if you add to the cost of the hopeless wind and solar and the rest of the con, the cost of the advertising campaign called Climate Change the cost goes into the trillions FOR NO GAIN WHATSOEVER.
You can save yourself a lot of time by looking up the answer given by warmist to the Forbes article and the replies. 
Renewables are a con, the global warming scaremongering is their advertising  campaign and the IPPP their PR representative.
Do you know how much money Al bloody Gore made out of this scam? Check it out, you will be pleasantly surprised.

----------


## John2b

> And if you add to the cost of the hopeless wind and solar and the rest of the con

  In Australia there is a state where at times there has been no base-load power generation only wind, solar and gas. During such times that state has been able to export wind power to NSW and its gas-fired generators have been forced to negatively price their electricity to avoid turning off their fossil plants. At such times SA has had the cheapest wholesale electricity price in Australia. All of which just proves your statements are a load of baloney that do not acknowledge what is already history. Take your deceit somewhere else please.

----------


## woodbe

Yep, nothing like an actual state running significant renewables to blow Marc's bogus post clean off the planet. 
Not to mention the other countries in the world who also have significant renewables. Even the US is ditching significant coal/oil fossil fuel plants and replacing them with renewables. 
Tony hates the look of wind farms, but loves the look of coal power plants. Probably likes the idea of living in a cave too.  :Biggrin:

----------


## johnc

> And if you add to the cost of the hopeless wind and solar and the rest of the con, the cost of the advertising campaign called Climate Change the cost goes into the trillions FOR NO GAIN WHATSOEVER.
> You can save yourself a lot of time by looking up the answer given by warmist to the Forbes article and the replies. 
> Renewables are a con, the global warming scaremongering is their advertising  campaign and the IPPP their PR representative.
> Do you know how much money Al bloody Gore made out of this scam? Check it out, you will be pleasantly surprised.

  Come on Marc, you can do better than this hocus pocus, lets stick to the topic and lay off the attacks. You may not like the messenger but that is only because it challenges your closely held beliefs

----------


## Marc

What does it matter if SA runs on renewables when they are running on subsidies? And why should we be paying subsidies when the reason for not using coal is a con? 
The point in case you missed it is that the global warming scam has provided some selected few with the tool to make us pay more for electricity based on a false assumption that we need to do so to save the planet. 
Once the background is set for the Greek tragedy, the salesman come out in rows offering "clean" energy, blessed by the gods of the Olympus, sprinkled with the holy water of the Ganges and even Halal certified. And we are supposed to pay for it. Why? because their con artist are better than ours?
It is all too convenient. 
In fact your so much tooted "renewables" that pollute like hell in order to be built, are one big reason no real invention will come to the surface any time soon until the money that is supposed to be used for research stoops being wasted to support inefficient toy like wind mills or hobby like solar panels.
And I will avoid talking about wave energy and the other machines that failed so miserably that it would be embarrassing talking about them ... even when we paid for each and every single failure. Should I mention pink batts?
What about the bottled nuclear energy scam? that is an oldie but a goodie.

----------


## woodbe

More hooey. 
Fossil fuel gets more subsidy than renewables. 
Creating renewable equipment does create pollution, but be aware that some renewables are created using renewable energy, so the scale is not as heavy as it might be, and in any case, once the solar panels are on a roof they do not spew pollution into the environment and after a short time they save more CO2 than is used creating them.  
The Tesla battery plant has an enormous solar power station on it, and the BMW iCars are built with renewable energy. We are at the thin end of the wedge, Marc and before long Australia will be impacted by international action against our reprobate policies towards emissions reduction because the rest of the world is beginning to jump out of the coal age and it will cost us dearly hold on to our past.

----------


## Neptune

> We are at the thin end of the wedge, Marc and before long Australia will be impacted by international action against our reprobate policies towards emissions reduction because the rest of the world is beginning to jump out of the coal age and it will cost us dearly hold on to our past.

  Do you have a link to this "international action against our reprobate policies " ?

----------


## woodbe

> Do you have a link to this "international action against our reprobate policies " ?

  I don't have a time machine to step a few years into the future, Neptune. Perhaps you can use yours and report back.   :Smilie:

----------


## Neptune

> I don't have a time machine to step a few years into the future, Neptune. Perhaps you can use yours and report back.

   

> Originally Posted by *woodbe*   
>    We are at the thin end of the wedge, Marc and before long Australia  will be impacted by international action against our reprobate policies  towards emissions reduction because the rest of the world is beginning  to jump out of the coal age and it will cost us dearly hold on to our  past.

  So it was just a pure BS statement?

----------


## woodbe

> So it was just a pure BS statement?

  No, it is an expected outcome. It may be correct (I think so) or it may be proven wrong. Like any prediction, the only way to prove it wrong is to wait for the actual outcome. Too early to call it BS, but hopefully you have re read the sentence and realised your mistake ignoring the words 'before long'

----------


## Neptune

> Too early to call it BS, but hopefully you have re read the sentence and realised your mistake ignoring the words 'before long'

  I was well aware of the "before long" bit that's why I asked for a link that you couldn't provide. 
It was just another BS prediction  the same as the "before long" we'll be under water or whatever is the flavour this month.

----------


## John2b

> What does it matter if SA runs on renewables when they are running on subsidies?

  Because your beloved fossil energy can't even run a light without four times the subsidy of renewals, that's why.

----------


## John2b

> It was just another BS prediction  the same as the "before long" we'll be under water or whatever is the flavour this month.

  No need for a time machine, it's already history:  Australia Called A 'Free Rider' Amid Global Climate Change Concerns  Australia singled out as a climate change 'free-rider' by international panel

----------


## Neptune

> Because your beloved fossil energy can't even run a light without four times the subsidy of renewals, that's why.

  Are you sure about the mathes on that?

----------


## John2b

> Are you sure about the mathes on that?

  Don't trust me, ask the International Energy Agency, which I linked to earlier. If you have an argument with their maths, take it up with them. #14223

----------


## Marc

> Because your beloved fossil energy can't even run a light without four times the subsidy of renewals, that's why.

  That is pure rhetoric, I provided an article that explains perfectly and irrefutably why your statement is BS. Repeating the fallacy does not make it valid. Subsidies to renewables go to the producer, that is chinese and Kuwaiti owners. Subsidies to oil go to consumers in third world countries and not to oil companies and in proportion the subsidies to fuel consumers is a quarter than wind and solar. To argue otherwise is farcical but hey ... didn't expect anything else. The whole global warming is a farce so... must keep consistent I suppose.    

> Per unit of energy produced renewables do indeed get 25 times the subsidy of fossil fuels. This is for the US alone of course. Elsewhere in the world it is indeed different, as Bjorn Lomborg points out: Global fossil-fuel subsidies do exceed those for renewables in raw dollars—$523 billion to $88 billion, according to the International Energy Agency. But the disparity is reversed when proportion is taken into account. Fossil fuels make up more than 80% of global energy, while modern green energy accounts for about 5%. This means that renewables still receive three times as much money per energy unit.
> But much more important, the critics ignore that these fossil-fuel subsidies are almost exclusive to non-Western countries. Twelve such nations account for 75% of the world’s fossil-fuel subsidies. Iran tops the list with $82 billion a year, followed by Saudi Arabia at $61 billion. Russia, India and China spend between $30 billion and $40 billion, and Venezuela, Egypt, Iran, U.A.E., Indonesia, Mexico and Algeria make up the rest.
> These subsidies have nothing to do with cozying up to oil companies or indulging global-warming skeptics. The spending is a way for governments to buy political stability: In Venezuela, gas sells at 5.8 cents a gallon, costing the government $22 billion a year, more than twice what is spent on health care. There’s another point that should be made here too. Those fossil fuel subsidies described above, they’re not subsidies to the producers of fossil fuels, they’re subsidies to the consumers of them. Yes, certainly, there’s some leakage as the higher demand for fuels stimulated by the subsidies leads to higher prices for producers. But this is still conceptually different from the renewables subsidies which are expressly designed to go to the producers. Indeed, given the way that most of the green energy subsidies are constructed the producers are subsidised by directly over-charging the consumers. These are, as I say, very different types of subsidies. We’re not wandering around throwing money at Exxon and Shell but we are very much doing so for their counterparts in the renewables industry. And we’re not subsidising the consumption of renewables but certain foreign countries are for their citizens.

----------


## John2b

> That is pure rhetoric, I provided an article that explains perfectly and irrefutably why your statement is BS.

  No you have not posted anything that refutes my post. All you have posted is excrement from ideological wankfests. Especially the crap from the AEI, who by their own admission are a 'community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity and strengthening free enterprise', whereas I posted quotations from the EIA, a body formed by the governments of 28 countries, including Australia, in response to the need to ensure energy security as a key element of prosperity.

----------


## John2b

> Subsidies to oil go to consumers in third world countries and not to oil companies

  OK, you can't really be sooooo stupid as to even post this, let alone believe it. Was it 1 April today??? Or are you just trying to get people banned for calling crap, well, crap.

----------


## johnc

> Do you have a link to this "international action against our reprobate policies " ?

  Have a look at what the Dutch courts have just served up to their government, the sands are shifting, when courts start ordering the reduction of emissions something is changing. There is also speculation that China will move against countries not matching their own targets, theirs are more ambitious then ours and they can source alternate supplies of coal and ore we would be negligent to ignore what is going on around us.

----------


## John2b

For those who think India will take up the slack from China:  “It was clearly a mistake to invest so heavily in an Australian coal business, and Adani are struggling with what to do,” said Prabodh Agarwal, head of research at India Infoline, a broker in Mumbai.  “At the time they did it because it looked as if India wouldn’t have enough domestic coal, but now we know domestic production is going up under [Prime Minister Narendra] Modi, so the idea of importing coal into India from Australia just doesn’t make much economic sense.”  http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/44635...#axzz3dyzWdBRc

----------


## Marc

*The truth about energy subsidies*      By                                   Chris Berg              
      Updated      2 Feb 2011, 9:12amWed 2 Feb 2011, 9:12am     
Is the Australian Government subsidising the fossil fuel industry? 
So said the Climate Institute, when they heard Julia Gillard was scrapping solar schemes to pay the flood bill. 
This claim shouldn’t be casually dismissed. 
Because it’s one thing for fossil fuels to be cheaper and more efficient when all energy technologies are competing on a level playing field. 
But it’s quite another if government policy is artificially boosting the competitiveness of fossil fuels. If, in other words, taxpayers' money is being used to boost the dirtiest technologies and suppress the cleanest. 
Would it be unfair to describe this argument as typically “neo-liberal”? The Climate Institute’s claim suggests a free market in energy, where the Government treats all forms of energy production neutrally, would be a more environmentally friendly one than what we have today. 
One writer on Greenpeace Australia’s website condemned “taxpayer handouts” being used to “line the pockets of the wealthy fossil fuel industries”. Remove corporatist government subsidies - instantly get a greener Australia. 
It’s a shame these claims don’t really hold up. 
The definitive version of the subsidy argument is contained in a 2007 Greenpeace paper written by a researcher at the University of Sydney’s Institute of Sustainable Futures. 
And the Institute of Sustainable Futures’ definition of what constitutes a subsidy to the energy industry is broad, to say the least. 
Take, for instance, what the paper describes as the largest subsidy to the energy industry - roads. In the author’s view, roads are a government subsidy to private transport, therefore a subsidy to petrol, therefore a subsidy to fossil fuels. 
Never mind buses use roads too, or bike lanes are being built into roads across the country – two climate-friendly modes of transport which would struggle without roads. 
But, on the facts, this subsidy claim is wrong. The Department of Infrastructure’s own figures show the money raised by road and vehicle-specific taxes ($16.2 billion in 2006-07) is much more than is spent by all levels of government on roads ($12.1 billion the same year). 
Anyway, it’s hardly reasonable to describe government investment in roads as a direct subsidy to the energy industry. Unless you are happy to describe government investment in health as a subsidy to the pharmaceutical industry. Or government investment in schools as a subsidy to the whiteboard industry. 
Certainly, other subsidies exist, but it’s unclear why they would be of deep concern to environmentalists. 
The Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program, for one. Or the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, which supports a range of carbon capture projects. There are more. 
These are programs specifically designed to make energy more environmentally friendly. It’s a bit rich to insist, on the one hand, the Government should encourage cleaner energy, and, on the other hand, criticize the Government for implementing projects which try to. 
It’s hard to see many environmentalists congratulating a government which eliminated those sorts of programs. Sure, Greenpeace would like those programs to be replaced with fully renewable energy programs. But subsidies are either bad or good. It seems Greenpeace would like their elimination to be contingent on introducing other subsidies. Hardly the most principled anti-subsidy position. 
Complicated tax arrangements for company cars are often cited as subsidies, without the proviso that those arrangements are designed to ensure company cars are treated exactly the same as all other forms of income. 
Similarly, some environmentalists are also upset about fuel tax concessions for primary producers being available to miners. But, like it or lump it, miners are primary producers too. The fuel tax concession is not an energy subsidy. Quite the opposite. It’s a measure to ensure the tax office treats all forms of production the same. 
Instead, the environmentalists just want to penalise miners for existing. 
Nor does Australia’s lack of a carbon tax constitute a subsidy for energy. Well: any more than our lack of an idiot tax constitutes a subsidy for idiots. The Gillard Government argues the externality of carbon pollution should be internalised through some sort of price mechanism. But the absence of that mechanism is not a “subsidy” in any useful sense of the word. 
This is not to say that, globally, subsidies to fossil fuels aren’t a problem. The 20th century’s mania for central planning left its mark on the energy sector. 
Electricity and petrol was as subject to misguided industry policy as any other industry. The global energy landscape is a mesh of tax breaks, tariffs, quotas, preferential planning and regulatory controls price controls, grants, government investments, rebates, and outright subsidies. 
Government support for fossil fuels in the last century was as fashionable as government support for renewable energy is today. 
If we were smart, we would approach this modern fashion much more cautiously, keeping in mind the perverse consequences of the fashions of past. 
According to the OECD, eliminating global fossil fuel subsidies would reduce energy-related carbon dioxide emissions 5.8 per cent by 2020 compared to the baseline scenario. Because subsidies to favoured industries are inefficient, the world economy would be richer to boot. 
The OECD is very careful defining what constitutes a subsidy. 
The Climate Institute and Greenpeace aren’t. They want to make a political point: that free marketeers, so diligent finding government programs to cut, deliberately ignore taxpayers’ money being handed to their fossil fuel mates. 
Cutting those subsidies would be the lowest possible hanging fruit of emissions reduction. If they existed, doing so would have bipartisan support. 
But apart from a few emissions reduction programs - which most environmentalists would oppose eliminating - they are nothing more than green mythology.  _Chris Berg__ is a Research Fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs. Follow him at twitter.com/chrisberg_

----------


## Marc

*97 percent of Australian renewables investment dries up without subsidies (so the ABC gives free adverts to the industry)*We’re told “clean” energy is a viable and cost effective. But cut the government subsidies, and 97 percent of investors vanish (in Australia it’s collapsed from $2.6b annually to $80m). The truth is that renewables are almost totally dependent on taxpayer largess. No wonder they lobby like their life depends on it. It does.
Peter Hannam of the SMH: “Australia’s investment in renewable energy all but dried up in the first half of 2014 amid uncertainty fuelled by the government’s latest review of the mandatory target, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
In the six months to June, just $40 million was invested in large-scale renewable energy, such as wind farms, the lowest level since the first half of 2001, according to Kobad Bhavnagri, head of BNEF’s Australian unit.
The investment tally compared with $2.691 billion in 2013, the second largest annual inflow of funds to the clean energy sector behind the peak year of 2010.”Elsewhere investment in renewables has slowed from its peak in 2011 but still running at $64b a quarter, or nearly $700 million every day. Spot that vested interest! From_ The Australian:_  “Global clean energy investment surged to $US63.6bn in the second quarter of 2014, up 33% compared to the first quarter and 9% compared to Q2 2013, according to the latest authoritative figures from research company Bloomberg New Energy Finance.”*The ABC runs free disguised advertising for the renewables sector*One oil and gas worker is worth 10 renewables workers, not that the ABC will say so. Today ABC online reports that _“Mr George says 24,000 jobs are at stake – almost as many jobs as in the oil and gas industry.”_ Miles George is the managing director of wind power firm Infigen Energy, and chairman of industry body the Clean Energy Council. Obviously, he’s out to drum up sympathy for his industry.
ABC “resources” reporter Sue Lannin didn’t mention that those 24,000 people in the renewables energy sector provide only 6% of our total energy needs, while 24,000 or so in “oil and gas” provide 60%. *Pie Chart source EIA.  (Click to enlarge)*  
The photo chosen for the story on the poor plight of 24,000 not-very-useful workers subsidized by the taxpayer is this sunset shot of wind-turbines, where the turbines are almost the same color as the sky behind them. The caption implies Joe Hockey is being unreasonable thinking these almost invisible towers are “offensive”. *Photo:* Treasurer Joe Hockey has described this wind farm near Canberra as visually “offensive”. (Lucy Barbour.) 
The ABC could’ve chosen to use the EIA graph instead, but you need to visit an unfunded blogger to get that sort of perspective.    (At a billion dollars a year, the ABC’s role apparently is to provide adverts telling Australians to pay more tax.) *In ABC-world renewables are “booming” and “soaring”*The ABC reported the fall in Australian renewables investment as if everywhere else in the world was doing the opposite.
They didn’t mention that Europe is in the grip of a coal boom, or that Germany is cutting its renewable subsidies, as well as their RET (from 30% to 27%). Spain is retrospectively capping its renewables subsides, lopping 40% off the earnings of its largest solar operator. There were public protests about electricity prices in Bulgaria that were so bad, the government is demanding some subsides get paid back!
Our public funded broadcaster provides third party free advertising for the renewables industry. Mark Colvin made out that investment is “soaring” everywhere except Australia, but doesn’t mention that overall, renewables investment is lower today than it was in 2011. ABC listeners come away misinformed. “MARK COLVIN: A new report shows investment in renewable energy is soaring around the world.
But the opposite is true in Australia.
The report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance says China and the US led a total renewable investment pool of $63 billion in the last three months.
The money mainly went into wind and solar projects. By contrast just $40 million was invested in renewable projects in Australia – the lowest total since 2001.
Analysts here are blaming the uncertainty over the future of the renewable energy target for the downturn.”An ABC listener would never know how many other countries are pulling out of renewables, because neither ABC journalist David Mark or Mark Colvin asked hard questions of the Bloomberg “New Energy” Finance corp, or the Clean Energy Council representative. “DAVID MARK: What do you put that down to?
KOBAD BHAVNAGRI: This is almost entirely, in fact this is entirely due to the Coalition Governments review of the renewable energy target, in which it’s considering options to lower the target or scrap it all together have put the complete brakes on investment in the sector. No one is prepared to invest dollars and put shovels in the ground in a policy that maybe torn up all together.
DAVID MARK: What does that say Kobad Bhavnagri, that countries like the United States and China, which were the ones which were seen to be dragging the chain on action on climate and also on renewable energy are now leading the way and yet Australia has almost slowed to a halt?
KOBAD BHAVNAGRI: Yeah will it shows that Australia on the policy front is really now going in a direction that’s counter to the rest of the world. For a long time there’s been a perception created that Australia was really leading the pack and that the rest of the world in particular China and the US were going slower and we were putting our neck out in front.
However the fact and the evidence never really supported that argument and now we see in stark detail, investment in China, the United States and Europe surging ahead as they have over the last few years whilst Australia has fallen off a cliff.”The Clean Energy Council are an industry body here to sell their goods. Apparently we pay the ABC to do no background research and ask no hard questions. “DAVID MARK: Kane Thornton is the acting chief executive of the Clean Energy Council.
KANE THORNTON: What that means is that projects have approval, there’s a lot of exciting projects right around the country that are ready to go, but those businesses can’t really get those projects financed, they can’t go ahead with them while there is so much uncertainty about the policy that really will provide the revenue to pay off those projects in years to come.
DAVID MARK: Kane Thornton says the uncertainty in Australia over renewables flies in the face of what’s happening internationally.
KANE THORNTON: This report really tells us that there is a global race on in renewable energy. This report tells us that many many countries right around the world are pushing very hard to move away from coal and from gas for their electricity generation and move towards renewable energy, because that’s what’s the most cost effective increasingly in those countries and that helps them to reduce their emissions and transition their energy sector.”_Time to privatize the ABC. It does not represent taxpayers of Australia._ 
h/t to the GWPF and Climate Depot.

----------


## John2b

> *The truth about energy subsidies* 
>       By                                   Chris Berg              
>       Updated      2 Feb 2011, 9:12amWed 2 Feb 2011, 9:12am     
> Is the Australian Government subsidising the fossil fuel industry?  *Chris Berg is a Research Fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs.*

  Give it up Marc. If you only read partisan ideological blogs or site, you will only find partisan dan ideological claims. The real data on subsidies is freely available for those who actually want to know.

----------


## John2b

Anyone who really wants to know what the state of renewable energy is globally should read this (it makes a mockery of the fantasies being parroted here):  http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uplo...15_ENGLISH.pdf  Record installations for wind and solar PV in 2014; Renewable energy targets created in 20 more countries, new total: 164;Renewables account for over 59% of net additions to worlds power capacity;Policy-makers more attentive to green energy heating / cooling;Developing world investments on par with developed world, total $301 billion

----------


## John2b

> The truth is that renewables are almost totally dependent on taxpayer largess. No wonder they lobby like their life depends on it. It does.

  Who's life depends on what? The spend power of the fossil energy industry lobby exceeds that of renewables by about 10 to 1 and probably relates to why the fossil energy industries get five times the subsidy level of renewables.   Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change | Environment | The Guardian

----------


## Marc

The Renewable Energy Target forces power companies to supply 20 per cent of our power from wind, solar, hydro and other “renewable” sources by 2020.  
The trouble:- building dams is now almost politically impossible, and many of the best sites already taken. 
- wind is expensive and when the winds don’t blow the power doesn’t flow, and backup sources are needed. 
- solar is very expensive, and when the sun goes down or is hidden behind clouds ... 
- none of this will actually make any measurable difference to world temperatures. 
- meanwhile our power bills soar.Then there is this political question for the Abbott Government. Next year, it hopes, it will have scrapped the carbon tax, but if power prices fail to fall as promised the public might feel conned and cross. The Government will be desperate to do all it can to drive power bills even lower to extract maximum credit - and to deliver the maximum effect on an economy that could be struggling.  
How useful would it be to have also scrapped the renewable energy target by then, to further drive down power prices?  
Sure, there would be deafening screams from green activists, ABC and Fairfax journalists and the renewable energy rent-seekers. But Janet Albrechtsen says Germany shows the green power dream is turning into a nightmare:  _An article in Der Spiegel last month summed up the reasons Germany provides a critical lesson about a green energy utopia. Headlined “How Electricity Became a Luxury Good”, it blows the whistle on the bogus nature of the green dream as Germans pay the highest electricity costs in Europe… 
“This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26bn) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants - electricity with a market price of just over €3bn. 
“Even the figure of €20bn is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project. Solar panels and wind turbines at times generate huge amounts of electricity, and sometimes none at all. Depending on the weather and the time of day, the country can face absurd states of energy surplus or deficit.” 
And Germans are discovering that their warm embrace of green policies is leaving the most vulnerable citizens out in the cold - quite literally. Charities call it “energy poverty”. Rising electricity bills, in large part due to Germany’s renewable energy surcharges, have seen power cut off to more than 300,000 households a year because of unpaid bills. 
As Stefan Becker from Catholic charity Caritas in Berlin told Der Spiegel, “People here have to decide between spending money on an expensive energy-saving bulb or a hot meal."… 
The same crunch is happening in Britain where Prime Minister David Cameron once declared his government would be the “greenest government ever”. Cameron now admits that green levies for renewable energy are causing “energy poverty” for 2.4 million British households. 
The lessons from Germany and Britain should be high in the minds of the Abbott government…  Last year the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal found that green schemes in Australia will add $316 to the average power bill, the carbon tax adding $168 and the renewable energy schemes another $148. The Productivity Commission and the Institute of Public Affairs have warned that renewable energy policies in Australia defy reality with increased electricity bills delivering no environment benefit… _ _ Rather than mandate a 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020, why not let the market decide?_ It strikes me as little short of insane that we insist on using forms of power that costs more than some can afford and ruin some our best views, yet have zero effect on any global warming. 
How is this remotely rational?   Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

----------


## johnc

Another cut and paste, a little old as it happens. Subsidies will soon be gone from solar anyway, they are on the phase out. Gold plating of the grid has cost more than anything else, really all the carbon tax bitching about power prices just provided a smoke screen for excessive price increases. Now the carbon tax has gone there is hardly any decrease, surprise, surprise. Those that bought into the argument let the resellers off the hook, they got away with murder and the anti everything drongo's provided the cover the actual wholesale price of power be it coal or any other source really isn't much of the total bill. 
About half to 60% of the bill is the grid, 20 to 30% is the wholesale price of power, subsidies of all kinds may make up to 6% of the bill but that is declining. Lets face it the whole renewable tripled our bill cries we hear are just hot air and are really only a minor part of the cost structure.

----------


## John2b

> Lets face it the whole renewable tripled our bill cries we hear are just hot air and are really only a minor part of the cost structure.

  In fact, the peaking of rooftop solar that coincides with peak demand for air-conditioning has actually reduced the expenditure on grid upgrades to the point that the grid operator in South Australia has had price rises knocked back by the regulator because planned grid upgrade are no longer necessary. In other words, even despite growth in overall electricity demand, peak demand has fallen as a result of roof-top solar, and that has reduced the power costs to all electrical consumers, private and commercial. 
But the 'renewables blew out our bill cries' are a good storyline for a pantomime...

----------


## Marc

I busied myself to find a sure
Snug hermitage
That should preserve my Love secure
From the world's rage;
Where no unseemly saturnals,
Or strident traffic-roars,
Or hum of intervolved cabals
Should echo at her doors. I laboured that the diurnal spin
Of vanities
Should not contrive to suck her in
By dark degrees,
And cunningly operate to blur
Sweet teachings I had begun;
And then I went full-heart to her
To expound the glad deeds done. She looked at me, and said thereto
With a pitying smile,
"And THIS is what has busied you
So long a while?
O poor exhausted one, I see
You have worn you old and thin
For naught! Those moils you fear for me
I find most pleasure in!"    [The end]
Thomas Hardy's poem: Misconception _______________________________

----------


## John2b

One reason that 'peak oil' hasn't impacted the way it was expected to is because of 'unconventional oil' AKA fracking and tar sands. Who would have though there would be a problem with that?  Fracking may activate faults, linked to Ohio earthquakes in 2014  Connections Between Earthquakes, Fracking, and Sinkholes | Real Liberty Media

----------


## John2b

What's warming the planet? Is it the orbit, or volcanoes? Here is a great graphic showing the contribution attributed to the main climate players:  What's Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise

----------


## John2b

Is this what Rod means we he repeatedly says the climate debate is coming to a head? Citizens win a court case in Holland after suing the Dutch Government for inadequate action to limit greenhouse gas emissions. This is a precedent - expect many more citizen against government actions worldwide:  Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling | Environment | The Guardian

----------


## John2b

> No need to run around as if our trousers are on fire. 
> The sign no more diesel sorry, will come up as soon as there is a viable alternative. The smart-@r$es in new York predicted that if the population kept on rising the horse manure would soon reach the level of the first story windows.
> Well it did not, NY did not drown in poo and the motorcar was invented.
> Sit back relax and enjoy the ride... and remember ... the best revenge is living well.

  I am sure your comments are of great consolation to the motorists in this 280 kilometre long traffic jam:

----------


## johnc

> In fact, the peaking of rooftop solar that coincides with peak demand for air-conditioning has actually reduced the expenditure on grid upgrades to the point that the grid operator in South Australia has had price rises knocked back by the regulator because planned grid upgrade are no longer necessary. In other words, even despite growth in overall electricity demand, peak demand has fallen as a result of roof-top solar, and that has reduced the power costs to all electrical consumers, private and commercial. 
> But the 'renewables blew out our bill cries' are a good storyline for a pantomime...

  Quite correct, it has removed the need for additional base load capacity to cover heat spikes (air conditioning) because peak for solar generation coincides with peak use of air-cons, it has also brought downward pressure on wholesale power prices at those times for the same reason. Because solar is widely distributed through the grid it also reduces the strain on poles and wires of carrying peak generation loads. Solar and wind like all new technology take awhile to deliver big gains but as cost of production falls and efficiency increases they are bringing down wholesale power prices and reducing risk of major blackouts by greater diversity and geographical spread of our generators. The big union brownouts of the '70's are probably now almost impossible to achieve and neither terrorism, sabotage or generator failure has the capacity to knock out sufficient generation capacity to cause major disruption. Current solar and wind generation will also become redundant in time, that is the thing about change, nothing is forever.

----------


## John2b

http://dai.ly/x2uvvbu

----------


## John2b

> So we will still have to wait a few more years for the gap to widen enough for the rusted on warmists to see the difference that we already see.

  
You mean like this Rod?:  *1.* The Oil Minister of the world’s largest exporter of crude oil, Saudi Arabia’s Ali al-Naimi, spoke in mid-May about how he could see the phase-out of fossil fuels by mid-century and said his country planned to become a global leader in solar and wind energy.  *2.* On 3 June, the world’s largest furniture retailer, IKEA, pledged $1 billion of climate finance, dwarfing amounts pledged by some entire countries.  *3.* The world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, Norway’s $890-billion pension fund, has just agreed to divest $10 billion of coal stocks, joining a global divestment movement turning its back on the most polluting fossil fuel.  *4.* On 8 June, a study by Lord Stern and the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics revealed that Chinese emissions could peak by as early as 2025, 5 years ahead of a government-agreed deadline of 2030.   *5.* On the same day, a poll by the International Trade Union Confederation showed that *9 out of 10 people around the world are demanding their elected leaders do more to tackle climate change*.   *6.*On 8 June the G7 called for the decarbonization of the global economy by the end of the century and announced reform of the national energy systems of G7 nations.   *7.* The UN climate negotiations are showing progress, aiming to peak at the first fully global pact to begin addressing climate change at the COP21 meeting in Paris in December. Countries are in the process of submitting their ‘intended nationally determined contributions’, or INDCs, which will make up the Paris deal.   *8.* Ethiopia, Africa’s second most populous country, said it would target a *64% reduction in its current emissions trajectory within 15 years*.  *
9.* Pope Francis’ Papal Encyclical on the Environment, which argues that humanity’s exploitation of the planet’s resources has pushed the world to breaking point and make the case for an ethical and economic revolution to address climate change.  *10.* On 17 June, people took part in the first mass lobby of Britain’s Parliament. 1,000s people outside Westminster in London urged MPs to make tackling climate change a government priority.  From oil-producing nations and furniture shops to economists and the Pope, the world is seemingly beginning to get on board the transition to a low-carbon world. - See more at: 10 signs that climate change success is coming -- New Internationalist

----------


## John2b

This must be another sign of 'the end' of the 'debate' Rod:  Business and industry alliance sets out climate ‘principles’, including that climate policy should be ‘capable of achieving deep reductions’ in emissions   Groups included in the “climate roundtable”, which has been meeting secretly for more than a year, are the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Aluminium Council, the Investor Group on Climate Change, the Australian Conservation Foundation, WWF, the Energy Supply Association of Australia (ESAA), the Australian Aluminium Council and the ACTU.   *The Coalition is engaging in double talk on climate policy – it has no other option*    “This is born of collective frustration,” said the chief executive of the ESAA, Matthew Warren.   Australian climate policy paralysis has to end, business roundtable says | Environment | The Guardian

----------


## John2b

It has been obvious to me since I was a child that the real problem with renewables is this:

----------


## woodbe

SA looks like Australia's leading renewable energy states, but we are not leading the world by a long shot. 
NZ has 4th highest share of renewable energy in the world. 2014 share of electricity generation by renewables: 79.9%, Goal for 90% by 2025.

----------


## John2b

> It is a mathematically provable fact that you cannot replace oil, coal, and natural gas with windmills, solar panels, and biofuels.

  Explain again, Marc, why renewables won't work? And then tell the Chinese to stop defying your logic! 
China added a world record 23 gigawatts of new wind power capacity in 2014, for a cumulative installed capacity of nearly 115 gigawatts.  Data Highlights - 50: Wind Power Beats Nuclear Again in China | EPI 
China generated more power from wind last year than all of the US nuclear power stations combined.  Chinaâ€™s wind farms produce more energy than Americaâ€™s nuclear plants - ScienceAlert 
 Meanwhile CO2 emissions in Chaina are falling despite economic growth continuing!    China's CO2 emissions have been plummeting lately. What's going on? - Vox

----------


## John2b

"China has been rejecting Australian coal cargos that don't pass new import quality restrictions, and the local industry is concerned that the testing is being misused to favour China's struggling coal industry." 
It is not like it wasn't anticipated: 
"Australia exports about 50 million tonnes of thermal coal to China each year, which is about a quarter of the 200 million tonnes of thermal coal it ships annually. When China unveiled its new quality thresholds (9/2014), Australia's Bureau of Resource Economics said they could affect up to 25 million tonnes of coal sold each year. "  When I suggested in this forum some time ago that people should worry if their superannuation or savings funds are invested in the fossil energy industries, there was a howl of smug indignation. Still feeling smug are we, anthropogenic global warming deniers?  'Inconsistent' quality tests see China reject Australian coal | afr.com

----------


## woodbe

For those that were poking sticks at Germany's Nuclear phase out:   

> Several months after the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Germany's  coalition government agreed June 30, 2011, to accelerate its phase-out  from nuclear power.
>   Immediately after Fukushima, eight of 17 functioning nuclear plants were  shut down, and the June decision established a timeline of taking the  remaining plants offline by 2022.
>   This past weekend, at midnight on Saturday (25.06.2015), the next shutdown took place: The  Grafenrheinfeld power plant in Bavaria has been removed from the power grid, nearly exactly on schedule.
>   So is Germany is on track in its nuclear phase-out?   *Lost nuclear power replaced with renewables*
>   Germany's nuclear phase-out has come off more successfully than many  expected - Rainer Baake, state secretary at Germany's Ministry for  Economic Affairs and Energy, expressed his satisfaction with the first  few years of the phase-out.
>   "We have the highest security of [energy] supply in Europe, export more  electricity than ever, and have very low wholesale prices on the energy  market," Baake told DW.
>   Electricity that was generated through nuclear fission has been replaced  through a dynamic addition of wind, solar and biomass capacity.
>   In 2014, renewable sources accounted for a landmark 28 percent of Germany's electricity.

  How far along is Germanyâ²s nuclear phase-out? | Environment | DW.COM | 29.06.2015

----------


## John2b

> For those that were poking sticks at Germany's Nuclear phase out:  How far along is Germanyâ€²s nuclear phase-out? | Environment | DW.COM | 29.06.2015

  Not just Germany, China is set to phase out nuclear as a future energy source as well. 
Despite the expansion of nuclear underway in China for decades, _the upstart renewable wind already produces vastly more energy (115 GW) than nuclear (20 GW) in China_. 
At inland sites, nuclear competes with people, industry and farming for precious water supplies - there simply isn't enough water to go around. And since Fukushima China is not putting any more nuclear plants on earthquake or tsunami prone sites. Locations on the coast with access to cooling water are also in extremely short supply. 
The recent experience with Westinghouse 3rd generation 'safe' reactors being built at Sanmen has been disastrous for nuclear with enormous cost blowouts and continuously deferred completion and no definite start date in sight despite being years behind schedule. 
Ironically, most of China's wind energy has come on line in the time that the Sanmen plants have been under construction. China even has more solar PV generation capacity than nuclear! 
The Chinese government has come to the conclusion that renewables offer a more expeditious path than nuclear power does.  Data Highlights - 50: Wind Power Beats Nuclear Again in China | EPI

----------


## John2b

Even if global warming wasn't happening, emissions trading was doing a lot of good for Australians. Unfortunately, Abbott's feebleminded removal of the "carbon tax" _shows just how effect it had been_. A year on from the abolition of the carbon price, greenhouse pollution from electricity generation has rebounded as Australia burns more brown coal to meet its power needs.  Carbon dioxide emissions from the national electricity grid jumped by 6.4 million tonnes in the financial year after the Abbott government repealed the scheme that required big industry to buy pollution permits, according to analysis by consultants Pitt & Sherry. 
The 4.3 per cent increase unwound part of an 11 per cent fall in emissions across the grid in the two years the carbon price was in place.  It can mainly be attributed to Victoria's four large brown coal generators running at greater capacity more often as the electricity they generate became cheaper. Output from the ageing Latrobe Valley quartet was up about nine per cent.   The climate one year on: exit carbon tax, enter brown coal 
Aside from the affect on people's health, it's yet another form of subsidy for the fossil fuel industry: Victoria’s brown coal power stations are imposing annual health costs of $831 million. Environment Victoria’s Safe Climate Campaign Manager, Dr Nicholas Aberle, stated in relation to the findings, “Victoria’s old and polluting power stations are continuing to operate well past their use-by date. They’ve got every incentive to hold on because they’re cheap to run, but *they’re not paying for any of the pollution or damage they create*.”   http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/brown-coal-imposes-800m-health-cost-annually-on-victorians/story-e6frg90f-1227312495280 
It makes a mockery of the thesis for this thread!

----------


## John2b

How helpful was repealing the "carbon tax". Heres some statistics - take note of September 2013!  Engineering work done for the public sector - annual growth  Value of engineering work done for the public sector

----------


## PhilT2

Those of us that can handle the excitement are watching the satellite pics of the ice melting in the arctic. Wildfires have been burning in Alaska and Canada for a while now. Link shows smoke from fires in north western Alaska. image is approx 1500k wide. Rapid Response - LANCE - Aqua/MODIS 2015/187 23:00 UTC Fires and smoke in northern Alaska

----------


## John2b

ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change resulting from carbon emissions, years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists.   http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-campaign-to-mislead-the-american-people/2015/05/29/04a2c448-0574-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html 
Instead of acting prudently on this knowledge, the six largest fossil energy companies banded together corruptly create “a deliberate and organized effort to misdirect the public discussion and distort the public’s understanding of climate.” Over the ensuing decades, the fossil energy companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars promulgating deception, even to the point of forging letters.  The Climate Deception Dossiers: Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation | Union of Concerned Scientists 
There is a growing view that fossil energy industry executives should be prosecuted under the RICO laws (anti-gangster Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), the same as was used to prosecute tobacco executives.  Sheldon Whitehouse: Sue Fossil Fuel Companies For Climate Fraud 
And if governments don't act, they themselves are like to come under fire as in Holland where Dutch citizens are suing the government over its lack of action to prevent climate change.  http://phys.org/news/2015-04-dutch-c...e-climate.html 
Maybe _that_ is what Rod means when he insists all of the 'debate' about climate change is coming to a head!

----------


## Marc

*Exxonomics*Willis Eschenbach / 7 hours ago July 9, 2015  *Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach* The British rag “The Guardian” gets astounding web traction. Here’s the headline and first part of a story that, despite only being posted yesterday, has already spawned ninety-five copies across the web: *Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years* A newly unearthed missive from Lenny Bernstein, a climate expert with the oil firm for 30 years, shows concerns over high presence of carbon dioxide in enormous gas field in south-east Asia factored into decision not to tap it  ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial. The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.Now, with that as the lead-in, what would you say was the date of the “_newly unearthed missive_” that they are discussing? At first I naively figured it must be from 1981 … but then I thought _“wait a minute, genius, wasn’t much email in 1981″_ … so then I figured that perhaps it was from a 2003 internal Exxon email describing some in-house Exxon memo from the 1980s, or something like that. However, with the Guardian, truth is always stranger than fiction, and rarely found within its pages. The “newly unearthed missive” was not from 1981, nor from 1989, nor 1999. It was not an Exxon document at all. Instead, it was an email written in 2014 to someone at Ohio University and publicly printed by the University with the author’s permission on the University website … hardly a “newly unearthed missive” under any rubric. In fact, the “newly unearthed” email is an interesting insider’s view of Exxon, so I’m going to reproduce it here in full: Corporations are interested in environmental impacts only to the extent that they affect profits, either current or future. They may take what appears to be altruistic positions to improve their public image, but the assumption underlying those actions is that they will increase future profits. ExxonMobil is an interesting case in point. Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia. This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2. That CO2 would have to be separated to make the natural gas usable. Natural gas often contains CO2 and the technology for removing CO2 is well known. In 1981 (and now) the usual practice was to vent the CO2 to the atmosphere. When I first learned about the project in 1989, the projections were that if Natuna were developed and its CO2 vented to the atmosphere, it would be the largest point source of CO2 in the world and account for about 1% of projected global CO2 emissions. I’m sure that it would still be the largest point source of CO2, but since CO2 emissions have grown faster than projected in 1989, it would probably account for a smaller fraction of global CO2 emissions. The alternative to venting CO2 to the atmosphere is to inject it into ground. This technology was also well known, since the oil industry had been injecting limited quantities of CO2 to enhance oil recovery. There were many questions about whether the CO2 would remain in the ground, some of which have been answered by Statoil’s now almost 20 years of experience injecting CO2 in the North Sea. Statoil did this because the Norwegian government placed a tax on vented CO2. It was cheaper for Statoil to inject CO2 than pay the tax. Of course, Statoil has touted how much CO2 it has prevented from being emitted. In the 1980s, Exxon needed to understand the potential for concerns about climate change to lead to regulation that would affect Natuna and other potential projects. They were well ahead of the rest of industry in this awareness. Other companies, such as Mobil, only became aware of the issue in 1988, when it first became a political issue. Natural resource companies – oil, coal, minerals – have to make investments that have lifetimes of 50-100 years. Whatever their public stance, internally they make very careful assessments of the potential for regulation, including the scientific basis for those regulations. Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system. It did question – legitimately, in my opinion – the validity of some of the science. Political battles need to personify the enemy. This is why liberals spend so much time vilifying the Koch brothers – who are hardly the only big money supporters of conservative ideas. In climate change, the first villain was a man named Donald Pearlman, who was a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. (In another life, he was instrumental in getting the U.S. Holocaust Museum funded and built.) Pearlman’s usefulness as a villain ended when he died of lung cancer – he was a heavy smoker to the end. Then the villain was the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a trade organization of energy producers and large energy users. I was involved in GCC for a while, unsuccessfully trying to get them to recognize scientific reality. (That effort got me on to the front page of the New York Times, but that’s another story.) Environmental group pressure was successful in putting GCC out of business, but they also lost their villain. They needed one which wouldn’t die and wouldn’t go out of business. Exxon, and after its merger with Mobil ExxonMobil, fit the bill, especially under its former CEO, Lee Raymond, who was vocally opposed to climate change regulation. ExxonMobil’s current CEO, Rex Tillerson, has taken a much softer line, but ExxonMobil has not lost its position as the personification of corporate, and especially climate change, evil. It is the only company mentioned in Alyssa’s e-mail, even though, in my opinion, it is far more ethical that many other large corporations. Having spent twenty years working for Exxon and ten working for Mobil, I know that much of that ethical behavior comes from a business calculation that it is cheaper in the long run to be ethical than unethical. Safety is the clearest example of this. ExxonMobil knows all too well the cost of poor safety practices. The Exxon Valdez is the most public, but far from the only, example of the high cost of unsafe operations. The value of good environmental practices are more subtle, but a facility that does a good job of controlling emission and waste is a well run facility, that is probably maximizing profit. All major companies will tell you that they are trying to minimize their internal CO2 emissions. Mostly, they are doing this by improving energy efficiency and reducing cost. The same is true for internal recycling, again a practice most companies follow. Its just good engineering. I could go on, but this e-mail is long enough. SOURCE  Let me draw your attention to a few points. The first is that for a company like Exxon, all decisions are made with respect to the “bottom line” of the balance sheet, which shows whether the company is gaining or losing economic ground. However, as the author points out, this is often also the most ethical decision. In the author’s example, an emphasis on safety is both the ethical choice and the best choice for the bottom line. Note how the author describes how that plays out for natural resource companies (emphasis mine) In the 1980s, Exxon needed to understand the potential for concerns about climate change to lead to regulation that would affect Natuna and other potential projects. They were well ahead of the rest of industry in this awareness. Other companies, such as Mobil, only became aware of the issue in 1988, when it first became a political issue. Natural resource companies – oil, coal, minerals – have to make investments that have lifetimes of 50-100 years. Whatever their public stance, internally they make very careful assessments of the potential for regulation, including the scientific basis for those regulations. Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system. *It did question – legitimately, in my opinion – the validity of some of the science*.Not exactly the slant the Guardian put on it … next, the author details the attempts of the alarmists to find one single evil company to personify the evil supporters of skeptical climate science, and closes that section by saying (emphasis mine): Exxon, and after its merger with Mobil ExxonMobil, fit the bill, especially under its former CEO, Lee Raymond, who was vocally opposed to climate change regulation. ExxonMobil’s current CEO, Rex Tillerson, has taken a much softer line, but ExxonMobil has not lost its position as the personification of corporate, and especially climate change, evil. It is the only company mentioned in Alyssa’s e-mail, even though, in my opinion,* it is far more ethical than many other large corporations*.Of course, the Guardian carefully avoided giving either a quote of this interesting section, or for that matter even a link to the location of the original publication of the email … The author of the email was Lenny Bernstein, a PhD in Chemical Engineering who was also a Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 7 (Industry) of the Mitigation section of the IPCC AR4. However, I would not describe him as an alarmist, as he was also involved with the George C. Marshall Institute’s production entitled “Climate Science and Policy: Making the Connection”. I can find no details of his work for Exxon, but I doubt greatly that he was Exxon’s “in-house climate expert” as is claimed by the Guardian. Although he discusses Exxon’s position in 1981 about climate change involving the Natuna Gas Field, he says he himself didn’t become aware of it until 1989. After working for the petroleum industry, he had a short-lived environmental consulting business from 2005 to 2008 called L S Bernstein & Associates LLC., and an extensive involvement with the IPCC. Prior to leaving the petroleum industry, however, I don’t find anything at all by Dr. Bernstein involving the climate. Finally, both the Guardian article and the email strongly imply that Exxon decided not to develop Natuna because of Exxon’s concerns about climate change. However, to the contrary, Exxon _did_ try to develop Natuna, _starting in 1980._ In the event, the economic and political situations both mitigated against development, and climate was a minor concern. Exxon sunk $400 million into the field and got nothing out of it. Big oil is a big money gamble, and sometimes it involves big losses like Natuna. From Offshore Technology.com  (emphasis mine): *Natuna Gas Field* Natuna gas field is in the Greater Sarawak Basin about 1,100km (700 miles) north of Jakarta and 225km (140 miles) northeast of the Natuna Islands, Indonesia’s northernmost territory in the South China sea. Discovered in 1970 by Italy’s Agip, the field is the biggest in Southeast Asia with an estimated 46 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of recoverable reserves, but has been developed only recently. *A 1980, 50-50 venture in Natuna D-Alpha area, East Natuna, between Pertamina (Indonesia’s state-owned petroleum company) and Exxon Mobil Corp of the US, didn’t result in production.* The 71% CO2 content made gas extraction from the huge 1.3-trillion-cubic-metre area expensive, and development difficult. Despite Exxon’s $400m and Pertamina’s $60m investments, the Indonesian Government terminated its contract with Exxon in 2007 leaving Pertamina in charge. East Natuna has been little explored over the last 15 years, mainly due to political disruption, its remoteness, and because* discoveries such as Exxon’s have proved uneconomic to develop*. Reservoirs in the region are in the Middle to Late Miocene reefs, underlain and overlain by deltaic sediments.Note the lack of any comment about climate concerns in the reasons for not developing the field. Anyhow, that’s my effort towards promoting a more balanced view and discussion of the issues. Rain here today in July, unheard of and most welcome. I’d say it must be global warming but everyone knows that global warming only causes bad things … w. *The Usual Request:* If you disagree with someone please have the courtesy to quote the exact words that you disagree with, so we can all understand just what you are objecting to.

----------


## John2b

Come on Marc, it wasn't just one email as claimed by your blog whore, the hapless Willis Eschenbach. The report is about 85 internal memos totalling more than 330 pages, which revealed a range of deceptive tactics deployed by the fossil fuel industry. These include forged letters to Congress, secret funding of a supposedly independent scientist, the creation of fake grassroots organisations, multiple efforts to deliberately manufacture uncertainty about climate science, and more, all organised and funded by BP, Chevron, Conoco, Exxon, Mobil, Phillips, and Shell through the American Petroleum Institute (API). As late as 1998 the API was still drafting plans to secretly support independent researchers who would publicly dispute established climate science. 
The documents clearly show that:   Fossil fuel companies have intentionally spread climate disinformation for decades.Fossil fuel company leaders knew that their products were harmful to people and the planet but still chose to actively deceive the public and deny this harm.The campaign of deception continues today. 
All the documents associated with the report are available online so there was no excuse for Eschenbach to lie about it.  https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documen...ssiers_All.pdf

----------


## woodbe

If the only response available is from a known climate denier on a known climate denier website, then it looks like the story has merit. 
We're following the tobacco story down the plughole 30 years later...

----------


## John2b

Alan Jones and 2GB have been found guilty of breaching broadcasting rules over statements made by Jones about climate change in 2013, because neither made “reasonable efforts to ensure that factual material was reasonably supportable as being accurate.” 
Apparently Jones had sourced his information from Murdoch's rag The Australian but that a “range of credible material threw doubt on the original article” in the newspaper. And Jones ignored that The Weekend Australian and the Daily Telegraph had both published corrections to the original article before Jones broadcast the falsehoods on his show.

----------


## John2b

> *The truth about energy subsidies*

  So Marc, can you explain why Chevron Australia, despite having an operating income of $3.2 billion last year, paid no tax and instead claimed a $5.7 million refund from the ATO? Don't forget that even before the $5.7million 'tax rebate', Chevron had roads, ports and other infrastructure already provided for them with taxpayer funds.  Energy giants called to explain billions in tax havens

----------


## woodbe

Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling | Environment | The Guardian 
Dutch court orders state to reduce emissions by 25% within five years to  protect its citizens from climate change in world’s first climate  liability suit. 
“The state should not hide behind the argument that the solution to the  global climate problem does not depend solely on Dutch efforts,” the  judges’ ruling said. “Any reduction of emissions contributes to the  prevention of dangerous climate change and as a developed country the Netherlands should take the lead in this.”

----------


## John2b

> The Renewable Energy Target forces power companies to supply 20 per cent of our power from wind, solar, hydro and other “renewable” sources by 2020.  
> The trouble:- building dams is now almost politically impossible, and many of the best sites already taken. 
> - wind is expensive and when the winds don’t blow the power doesn’t flow, and backup sources are needed. 
> - solar is very expensive, and when the sun goes down or is hidden behind clouds ... 
> - none of this will actually make any measurable difference to world temperatures. 
> - meanwhile our power bills soar.

  The cheapest electricity (based on new 20 year wholesale contract prices) is *tah dah* SOLAR!  Buffett Scores Cheapest Electricity Rate With Nevada Solar Farms - Bloomberg Business

----------


## Marc

Yes, true. Another one: the most tax efficient income to have is "tah dah" Centrelink payments!

----------


## johnc

> Yes, true. Another one: the most tax efficient income to have is "tah dah" Centrelink payments!

  Context?

----------


## woodbe

None.  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

Well ... if I must spell it for you ... Renewables = subsidies = renewables, so how do you measure drum roll tada!! the cheapest energy? 
The sun is free so ignoring how much it costs to get to it, clearly it is the cheapest. 
Just like dole payments are the cheapest way to get around. 
ignoring those who pay for it that is. I thought it was rather obvious. You guys are getting slow.  :Smilie:  
The Netherlands, have no issue with displaying illegal immigrant prostitutes in shop windows and making it a tourist attraction, sell and consume illegal drugs as if it is curry, harbour criminals from all walks of life so much so that it is unsafe to walk the streets almost at any time ... yet 900 people out of how many millions? "sue" the governemt for not taking care of the climate .... 
BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH  :Rotfl:

----------


## woodbe

Very funny Marc. 
Have you noticed that Fossil Fuels = Subsidies = Fossil Fuels = Corporate profits? 
The problem with solar for the big end of town and government is that it gives consumers control over their energy needs. They just can't stuff that genie back into the bottle. 
BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH  :Rotfl:

----------


## John2b

Emissions trading make electricity cheaper for everyone: 
A regional cap-and-trade program has added $1.3 billion in economic activity to nine New England and Mid-Atlantic states since 2011, while decreasing their carbon emissions by 15 percent. In addition to stimulating the economy and reducing carbon, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) has also reduced the cost of electricity for consumers, saving residential, businesses, and public users $460 million.  http://www.analysisgroup.com/uploade..._july_2015.pdf

----------


## johnc

> Well ... if I must spell it for you ... Renewables = subsidies = renewables, so how do you measure drum roll tada!! the cheapest energy? 
> The sun is free so ignoring how much it costs to get to it, clearly it is the cheapest. 
> Just like dole payments are the cheapest way to get around. 
> ignoring those who pay for it that is. I thought it was rather obvious. You guys are getting slow.  
> The Netherlands, have no issue with displaying illegal immigrant prostitutes in shop windows and making it a tourist attraction, sell and consume illegal drugs as if it is curry, harbour criminals from all walks of life so much so that it is unsafe to walk the streets almost at any time ... yet 900 people out of how many millions? "sue" the governemt for not taking care of the climate .... 
> BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

  It would be better if you removed the comments regarding the Netherlands, the ladies in the shop windows are regulated you comments are crass, offensive and untrue, not even a poor attempt at humour.   
Poking fun at the unemployed lacks any depth of understanding, the reasons people draw the dole are many and varied, sure there are some leaners but there are also a lot of genuine unemployed who simply can't get work, lets get out of the gutter please.

----------


## notvery

> It would be better if you removed the comments regarding the Netherlands, the ladies in the shop windows are regulated you comments are crass, offensive and untrue, not even a poor attempt at humour.

  I worked in the Netherlands for a lot of years and i would have to say that while i disagree with what marc said on the whole about the place what he stated wasnt untrue or offensive or crass, unlike many other childish beatups that appear on this thread. while many of the prostitutes are regulated, mainly in the high tourist areas you also find that the immigrants, tend to be further out and not regulated to the same level should we say and lets be honest thems the ones he mentioned. The drugs bit and the crime well you take that as you will ive never been to a city i felt safer in than Amsterdam. Rotterdam...different matter not as nice...

----------


## johnc

> I worked in the Netherlands for a lot of years and i would have to say that while i disagree with what marc said on the whole about the place what he stated wasnt untrue or offensive or crass, unlike many other childish beatups that appear on this thread. while many of the prostitutes are regulated, mainly in the high tourist areas you also find that the immigrants, tend to be further out and not regulated to the same level should we say and lets be honest thems the ones he mentioned. The drugs bit and the crime well you take that as you will ive never been to a city i felt safer in than Amsterdam. Rotterdam...different matter not as nice...

  I've also been to Amsterdam and Rotterdam, the girls in the windows are regulated and rent their rooms, I don't like it but it is what it is. Do the illegal immigrants sit in windows as well? I doubt it, in fact a lot of windows have been closed as part of a clean up, Marc mentioned windows, not street walkers, correct me if I'm wrong no doubt but that comment was a slur and inaccurate as far as I'm concerned. Like many of Marc's posts a dash of fact used to gloss over bigotry, not really good enough. Sure there is a problem with exploitation of the girls brought in from overseas, it is known crime gangs are involved, intimidation is used against some of these women, it is a trade with a dirty underbelly but I don't think trivialising it as Marc has done is acceptable behaviour in todays society and particularly in one like ours that seems to have a real problem in the treatment of women in itself. Look how many are killed in Australia each year by violent partners and ex partners. We really need to start to pay attention to our public utterances concerning women and they way we look at them, something has to change and challenging ill considered stereo typing is a good place to start.

----------


## Marc

Again, pissing in the wind.
 The constant glorification of energy sources that need to be on life support at taxpayers expense to even exist and the extensive abuse of our welfare system are two perfectly similar cases and my comparison is valid if you had any wits to be used in a debate. A
 s it stands and obviously nothing has changed, when lacking ideas, the "offence" card or the "racist" card are always at the ready. If you had ever been mugged in full daylight in Amsterdam or known personally the score of illegal migrants women that make it there to work and end up in the window or the back door, (regulated my foot) you would probably be more carful with your language. 
I don't particularly care nor will I bother addressing the string of inaccuracy and personal attacks
 My best revenge is living well and I do so most of the time. 
As far as global warming, that is missing in action for ... what is it now 19? 20 years? and the futile attempts at stopping CO2 as if life depended on it ... well it does, no CO2 no life, but what is the truth in the way of a good story right? The reality will soon hit home. With new techniques to predict the sun's behaviour we now know that a slowing down of the sun activity is on the cards and we will most probably hit a new mini ice age in the not too distant future. Global warming my foot ... oh ... I forgot you now call it "climate change" well in that case YES THERE IS CLIMATE CHANGE but certainly not the kind you would so dearly see happening and that is so reluctant to show up like 9m sea rises, no more rain ever, ...(desalinisation plant anyone?) ... CO2 causing tornadoes and earthquakes and baldness to name a few 
 I suppose that all the BS about the use of coal and the attempts to make it unfashionable will have some benefit, in the sense that we will have that much more reserves when the times comes and we really need them to survive.  
 And may I suggest you tone down your personal attacks? The fact that you ride on the left side of the planet does not give you the ownership of the truth nor gives you the high moral ground. Not by a long shot.

----------


## notvery

> I've also been to Amsterdam and Rotterdam, the girls in the windows are regulated and rent their rooms, I don't like it but it is what it is. Do the illegal immigrants sit in windows as well? I doubt it, in fact a lot of windows have been closed as part of a clean up, Marc mentioned windows, not street walkers, correct me if I'm wrong no doubt but that comment was a slur and inaccurate as far as I'm concerned. Like many of Marc's posts a dash of fact used to gloss over bigotry, not really good enough. Sure there is a problem with exploitation of the girls brought in from overseas, it is known crime gangs are involved, intimidation is used against some of these women, it is a trade with a dirty underbelly but I don't think trivialising it as Marc has done is acceptable behaviour in todays society and particularly in one like ours that seems to have a real problem in the treatment of women in itself. Look how many are killed in Australia each year by violent partners and ex partners. We really need to start to pay attention to our public utterances concerning women and they way we look at them, something has to change and challenging ill considered stereo typing is a good place to start.

  Ok yes i will correct you as you are wrong. Yes illegals get windows too as i suggested they just arent so much in the centre. generally if you take a wander off the beaten track you will see streets with multi story blocks of "windows" with the immigrants in them(which if youve just spent a few hours in a cafe is really freaky!). They operate in theory in the same way as the tourist areas but they are in the murky area of criminal activity and control where there is an basic attempt to provide a legal front so they dont get shut down but the girls arent regulated and dont receive the same health and protection you get in the "showroom windows". hey crime i would say that at least it isnt completely underground so there has to be more access to solutions than in countries where it is illegal.  Im sure it was a slur and inaccurate as far as your concerned i hope ive cleared that up for you. so you feel less slurred or rather the women of the Netherlands feel less slurred and are a whole lot more accurate now????
Im not sure i see what Marc did as trivialising. how did he trivialise? he stated what is happening in a place and was relatively accurate. i thought that his belly laugh was related to a tiny percentage of people(0.005%) in the country raising an issue relative to ongoing social issues in the same? i think he is suggesting that relative to the social injustice, as he sees it, of prostitution, criminal activity and drug use 900 people sueing the govt about global warming might be seen as misplaced effort when compared to the the other issues as he sees them. 
I guess it all comes down to whether your reading what he posts or just looking for a beat up?

----------


## Marc

Beat up is always easier and needs less thinking.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Marc

> Very funny Marc. 
> Have you noticed that Fossil Fuels = Subsidies = Fossil Fuels = Corporate profits? 
> The problem with solar for the big end of town and government is that it gives consumers control over their energy needs. They just can't stuff that genie back into the bottle. 
> BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

  Sure true too. 
Yet for me, "corporate profits" (sometime seems to be used as a swear word) is not a problem, in fact legal profits of all kinds far from being evil is what makes the world go around (Figure of speech just in case)   
The global warming industry is a newcomer to the corporate world and uses way more dirty tactics than the fossil fuel market has ever done but what pricks me the most is that they pretend to be on the high horse fighting the good cause when they are like any other mug using street fighting strategies to make a buck and make believe you that it is the right cause.  
I feel so good about myself since I have solar panels on the roof  :Tongue:  ... in fact I think I have become a better person since that very day !

----------


## John2b

> Again, pissing in the wind.

  Thanks for warning everyone what the rest of your post was about. You still haven't answered this: #14279

----------


## woodbe

> Sure true too. 
> Yet for me, "corporate profits" (sometime seems to be used as a swear word) is not a problem, in fact legal profits of all kinds far from being evil is what makes the world go around (Figure of speech just in case)

  I see. 
So it's ok for fossil fuel companies to get subsidies, pollute and make profits, but it's not ok for renewable companies to get subsidies, pollute less and make profits because 'global warming industry'. 
I'm ok with you thinking that, after all, it fits with the other things you have posted, forgive me for pointing it out.

----------


## John2b

> As far as global warming, that is missing in action for ... what is it now 19? 20 years?

  What globe are you talking about, Marc? Certainly not Planet Earth. Seventeen of the eighteen warmest years on record have occurred over the last 18 years (since 1997). The year to date global temperature is so off the scale it does not fit inside this chart, BTW:    http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cf...imate-in-2014/

----------


## Marc

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Daily Mail Online *Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it*   The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperaturesThis means that the pause in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996   
Read more: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Daily Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

----------


## Marc

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.   This stands in sharp contrast  to the release of the previous  figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.   Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.   *RELATED ARTICLES*Previous1Next   Wettest start to autumn for 12 years as South West continues...  *SHARE THIS ARTICLE*Share   Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions. Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.   Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.      
Disagreement: Professor Phil Jones, left, from the University of East Anglia, dismissed the significance of the plateau. Professor Judith Curry, right, from Georgia Tech university in America, disagreed, saying the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’    
Warmer: Since 1880 the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius. This image shows floating icebergs in Greenland  The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.   Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees  Celsius by the end of the century. The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own  carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts.  At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms. *Flawed science costs us dearly*  Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and  b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill? You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.   From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.    
Surprising: News that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years will come as something of a shock. This picture shows drifting ice in Canada  Not that there has been any  coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend. The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.   They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it  is being imposed for only one  reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher. Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.   And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock. It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy. This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.    But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as  those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.   ‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability  [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.   ‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’ Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did. The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’. Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’  
Headache: The evidence is beginning to suggest that global warming may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed - a conclusion with enormous policy implications for politicians at Westminster, pictured  Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.   Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom  line: the “no upward trend” has to  continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the  models’ gloomy predictions:  ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’ Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to  wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years. Meanwhile, his Met Office  colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’ He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was ‘unlikely’. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 – that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record – he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote. Why all this matters should be obvious. Every quarter, statistics on the economy’s output and  models of future performance have a huge impact on our lives. They trigger a range of policy responses from the Bank of England and the Treasury, and myriad decisions by private businesses.   Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both the statistics and the modelling are extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding date three months’ hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast. Few people would be so foolish. But decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century – and this despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’. The most depressing feature  of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity. So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.    *Share or comment on this article*       
Read more: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Daily Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

----------


## woodbe

You had to search back to 2012 to find something to support your denial? 
Eventually, the few remaining deniers will have to let go of their no warming since 98 mantra. That won't stop them finding some other irrelevant cherry pick to hang their hats on though! 
The lid is off, Marc, and the genie is long gone.

----------


## Marc

The very name of the "pause" or "hiatus" or whatever adjective meaning a slowing down or stop of heating adopted with alacrity by the warmist alarmist, and I must say the other side too, implies by elevation that heating is a constant that will never turn into cooling so not heating is a pause in heating. 
Pathetic.
So what are we going to call the next cooling trend? Reverse heating?  
The warmist alarmist, cheerleaders and assorted members of the global warming claque, will eventually realise that their enthusiasm desires a better cause. They have been taken for a ride by the corporations that benefit from our taxpayers dollars so called subsidies. 
Corporate profits, yes, and they are the foot soldiers that make it possible. Funny hei!

----------


## woodbe

> Ending the data  then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but  2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this  trend is erased.

  8 months of data can erase a trend? LOL. These are amazing scientists you are quoting. Can you give us a link to a peer reviewed paper they published to support that claim? 
So I guess, with this broken logic, ending the data in 2015 instead of 2012 shows that the trend is re-instated!   
HAHAHAHA!

----------


## John2b

> *Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it*

  So Marc ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act") if you want to know the truth, you would seek out what the MET Office actually said. The MET Office refutes that any such interpretation can be placed on data it has released - see for yourself if you are interested in the truth:  Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 | Met Office News Blog 
This isn't the first time this rubbish from David Rose has been debunked in this thread. I'm surprised the best you can do is drag up some drivel from three years ago - seems like an act of desperation. So Marc, you have revealed you are not interested in the truth, indeed you appear to have revealed you are prepared to willingly and knowing promulgate deceit.

----------


## Marc

Well, they would say that wouldn't they? Their funding depends on it. 
It's a simple equation. The more advertising/propaganda and the more foot soldiers out there clapping and cheering, the more funding support and grave political remarks. If I need to bring up a pizza in a hurry because I am told it has Chinese imported topping, all I need to do is remember KR telling us of the greatest challenge of our time ... Mmmmphhhhoaaaaa .... mmm sorry, I am over it now. 
The truth has nothing to do with anything remotely associated with global so called warming cooling or doing nothing. No one is interested in the truth. Everyone is interested in pontificating their side of the story to push their own agenda for their own personal gain, be it monetary, spiritual, ethical, political or cultural and that includes everyone from the political punditry and random banter for votes, to the amateur drumming up intellectual satisfaction. 
Time will tell. So far the sea has not risen 9 meters and the rain has not stopped and turned into a thing of the past , and we did not need to go live underground. 
May be in a new life in the next re-incarnation? Who knows, but the bets are on for a new little ice age and to avoid that one if the CO2 warming theory stands up (dubious) we may need to burn a lot of old tires to keep warm. 
Like I said many times, your zeal deserves a better cause.

----------


## woodbe

> Time will tell. So far the sea has not risen 9 meters and the rain has not stopped and turned into a thing of the past , and we did not need to go live underground. 
> May be in a new life in the next re-incarnation? Who knows, but the bets are on for a new little ice age and to avoid that one if the CO2 warming theory stands up (dubious) we may need to burn a lot of old tires to keep warm. 
> Like I said many times, your zeal deserves a better cause.

  Your zeal deserves a better cause. 
Where is your proof that an Ice Age is coming? Where is your proof that warming has stopped? Who said in a published scientific paper that the sea would have risen 9 metres or the rain will stop by 2015?  
You can't cherry pick information from 3 years ago and ignore the changes since. 
The truth is the science tells us the energy balance is out of whack mostly because of the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and the temperature trends over time are showing us that the science is on track. No scientist has published that there will be no variability in the warming trend, and it's pretty obvious what the 'since 98' 'hiatus', 'whatever' is just variability in the trend.

----------


## John2b

> Well, they would say that wouldn't they? Their funding depends on it.

  No it doesn't, their funding depends on pepople like you and me who want to fly safely and eat agriculturally grown food, etc. 
And you have committed another logical fallacy: Whether or not what the MET Office said was true, David Rose and the Telegraph published a considered and deliberate misrepresentation, a falsehood, a deception, a dishonest piece of fakery. There is no other way to describe the facts, and you are complicit by repeating it.   

> No one is interested in the truth.

  Since when were you my spokesman, or anybody else's? _You speak for yourself and no one else Marc_.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Time will tell. So far the sea has not risen 9 meters and the rain has not stopped and turned into a thing of the past , and we did not need to go live underground.

  Time will indeed.  But the key messages are frequently updated regardless... 
These are the latest 'key messages' with regard to climate change impacts for Eastern Australia from the Australian Government   

> KEY MESSAGES Average temperatures will continue to increase in all seasons (_very high confidence_).More hot days and warm spells are projected with _very high confidence_. Fewer frosts are projected with _high confidence_.Average winter and spring rainfall is projected to decrease with _medium confidence_. Changes in summer and autumn are possible but unclear.Increased intensity of extreme rainfall events is projected, with _high confidence_.Mean sea level will continue to rise and height of extreme sea-level events will also increase (_very high confidence_).A harsher fire-weather climate in the future (_high confidence_).On annual and decadal basis, natural variability in the climate system can act to either mask or enhance any long-term human induced trend, particularly in the next 20 years and for rainfall.   Super-Clusters

  As for predicted sea level rises for eastern Australia...the actual predicted range is roughly between 0.3 and 0.9 metres greater by 2090 compared to 1986-2005 depending on the emissions pathway we travel after 2030...

----------


## woodbe

From OpenMind: 
CNN has published an important article by John Cook outlining The 5 telltale techniques of climate change denial. 
In summary, the five techniques are:  
  1. Fake experts
2. Logical fallacies
3. Impossible expectations
4. Cherry-picking
5. Conspiracy theory  
  The article gives more detail on each; it’s well worth a read. 
Remind you of anyone posting here? lol.

----------


## John2b

Most new generating capacity in the US now comes from renewables (~70%):

----------


## John2b

> Well ... if I must spell it for you ... Renewables = subsidies = renewables, so how do you measure drum roll tada!! the cheapest energy? 
> The sun is free so ignoring how much it costs to get to it, clearly it is the cheapest.

  The IMF estimate the value of Australian subsidies to the oil, coal, and gas industries will be $41billion in 2015. That equates to about 20 times the total investment (public and private) in renewables, of which the subsidies you complain about are only a small part.  http://www.smh.com.au/environment/renewable-energy-expense-attacked-as-australia-gifts-41-billion-to-fossil-fuels-20150725-gijsvh

----------


## Marc

*Ocean Heat: New Study Shows Climate Scientists Can Still Torture Data until the Data Confess*Bob Tisdale / 1 day ago July 26, 2015  Guest Post by Bob Tisdale A week or so ago, a troll left a link at my blog (Thanks, David) to a supposed-to-be-alarming blog post about a new climate study of ocean heat content. According to the study, a revised method of tweaking ocean heat reconstructions has manufactured new warming so that the top 700 meters of the oceans are warming faster than predicted by climate models. In other words, the “missing heat” is missing no more. The new paper is Cheng et al. (2015) Global Upper Ocean Heat Content Estimation: Recent Progress and the Remaining Challenges. (Not paywalled. A pre-print edition is available.) John Abraham, alarmist extraordinaire from SkepticalScience and _The Guardian_’s blog ClimateConsensus, was a coauthor. See Abraham’s post The oceans are warming faster than climate models predicted. Can anyone guess the goal of their study from the title of Abraham’s post?   While the stories about the paper focused on the newly manufactured warming, the paper itself was somewhat critical of (1) the large uncertainties in the reconstructions, (2) the lack of consensus in infilling (mapping) methods used in the reconstructions and (3) climate model simulations of ocean warming. The Cheng et al. abstract reads: Ocean heat content (OHC) change contributes substantially to global sea level rise, so it is a vital task for the climate research community to estimate historical OHC. While there are large uncertainties regarding its value, in this study, the authors discuss recent progress to reduce the errors in OHC estimates, including corrections to the systematic biases in expendable bathythermograph (XBT) data, filling gaps in the data, and choosing a proper climatology. These improvements lead to a better reconstruction of historical upper (0–700 m) OHC change, which is presented in this study as the Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP) version of historical upper OHC assessment. Challenges still remain; for example, there is still no general consensus on mapping methods. Furthermore, we show that Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 5 (CMIP5) simulations have limited ability in capturing the interannual and decadal variability of historical upper OHC changes during the past 45 years.Bottom line: To manufacture the new warming, Cheng et al. adjusted, tweaked, modified (tortured) subsurface ocean temperature reconstructions to the depths of 700 meters starting in 1970. My Figure 1 compares the “unadjusted” data versus the much-adjusted ocean heat content reconstruction from the NODC. It is not the data presented in Cheng et al. (I used the UKMO EN3 reconstruction for the NODC “unadjusted” data. It used to be available through the KNMI Climate Explorer.) I’m providing Figure 1 to give you an idea of how horribly the data had already been mistreated to prepare the base NODC reconstruction.  Figure 1 If you were to read Cheng et al., they bounce back and forth between the metrics of ocean heat content and average subsurface temperatures, both to depths of 700 meters. That is, in the text, Cheng et al. present trends in ocean heat content for the period of 1970 to 2005, but in their Figure 4, my Figure 2, they’re showing trends for subsurface ocean temperatures. (Their Figure 4 made the rounds in the warmist blogs and mainstream media.) It appears climate scientists have realized the public will relate better to temperature than joules. But the trends listed on the graph are so minute, shown in ten-thousandths of a degree C per year, they’re likely losing some of their audience with all of those zeroes.  Figure 2 Presenting the subsurface ocean reconstructions using those two metrics is not unusual. Subsurface ocean temperature reconstructions and ocean heat content reconstructions mimic one another because subsurface ocean temperatures are the primary component of ocean heat content. You just have to keep track of which metric they’re discussing and illustrating. Take a closer look at the results of the revised Cheng et al. reconstruction (red curve) in the top cell (Cell a) of their Figure 4 (my Figure 2) and the curve of the data using the “NODC-mapping” method of infilling (blue curve), which is not the NODC data. We can see Cheng et al. employed the cool-the-early-data method to increase the warming rate for the period of 1970 to 2005. [sarc on] They’re probably saving the warm-the-more-recent-data method for the next paper, which will then show the oceans warming even faster so the modelers can crank up climate sensitivities. [sarc off] After seeing the trends listed on their Figure 4 for the “NODC-mapping” method, I decided to check to see what the vertical mean temperature reconstruction directly from the NODC website shows for the world oceans, to 700 meters, for the period of 1970 to 2005 (data here.) See my Figure 3.  Figure 3 Isn’t that amazing? Using the “NODC-mapping” method, Cheng et al. show a warming rate for the global oceans of +0.0045 deg C/year for the period of 1970-2005, but the reconstruction for the same depths of 0-700 meters directly from the NODC website show a warming rate of only +0.0033 deg C/year. Now consider that the outcome of Cheng et al.’s new method of infilling the oodles and oodles of missing data in the depths of the oceans shows the global oceans warming at a rate of +0.0061 deg C/ year. In other words, for the period of 1970 to 2005, Cheng et al. have almost doubled the warming rate of the basic NODC reconstruction for the depths of 0-700 meters. Now, I guess you’re wondering about the differences in warming rates between the Cheng et al. “NODC-mapping” method and the reconstruction at the NODC website itself. Under the heading of “2 Data”, Cheng et al. write: Assessment of OHC change relies on in-situ temperature observations. In this study, ocean subsurface temperature profiles for 1970–2014 are from the Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP) and the Global Ocean Temperature (IGOT) dataset (Cheng and Zhu, 2014b), which is a quality-controlled and bias-corrected dataset. The in-situ temperature profiles of the IGOT dataset are sourced from the World Ocean Database 2013 (WOD13) (Boyer et al., 2013).In other words, it appears for the Cheng et al. results, the (1) data starts out as the observations-based data from the NODC’s World Ocean Database, then (2) the data are mistreated for the IGOT reconstruction, and, not satisfied with those results, (3) Cheng et al. tortured the IGOT reconstruction even more for this study and presented it two ways and one of those ways was the “NODC-mapping” method. Did you notice the other remarkable coincidence? In their Figure 4 (my Figure 2) Cheng et al. show a climate model-simulated warming rate of +0.0053 deg C/year…for the multi-model mean of the climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive. That’s the archive used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report published in 2013. The (good) “Observation” reconstruction presented by Cheng et al. has a trend of +0.0061 deg C/ year, while the already-tweaked and tweaked again (bad) “NODC-mapping” reconstruction shows a trend of +0.0045 deg C/year. The average of the “good” and “bad” reconstructions is +0.0053 deg C/year, exactly the same as the models. [sarc on.] Kind of, sort of, looks like the revisions to the data were planned to surround the models. Sheesh! [sarc off.] *CLOSING – NO MATTER HOW THEY TRY TO LEGITIMIZE OCEAN HEAT CONTENT DATA, IT’S STILL IN THE REALM OF MAKE-BELIEVE BEFORE THE ARGO ERA…AND QUESTIONABLE DURING IT* For years, climate scientists have been concerned about the “missing heat”, which was the difference between modeled and observed ocean warming to depth. The actual value of the missing heat has always been hard to find because the modeled ocean heat content and depth-averaged temperature of the oceans are not available in an easy-to-use format…from the KNMI Climate Explorer for example. Luckily, for the depths of 0-700 meters, Cheng et al. listed a warming rate for the global oceans of +0.0053 deg C/year for the multi-model mean of the CMIP5 climate models, while the reconstruction directly from the NODC website show a warming of only +0.0033 deg C/year. While the missing heat isn’t actually half of what was predicted by the models, it’s still a big chunk…almost 40%. That missing heat, of course, suggested that the climate models were way to sensitive to carbon dioxide. But things have changed rapidly in the past few years. Climate scientists have not only “found” the missing heat by tweaking their reconstruction methods, they’ve manufactured more heat than the models show by torturing the reconstructions even more. Unfortunately for the climate science community, no matter how they mistreat the source data, their reconstructions are still make-believe. Why? There’s very little source data, especially in the Southern Hemisphere. See Figure 4, which is an annotated version of Figure 13 from Abraham et al. (2013) Review of Ocean Temperature Observations: Implications for Ocean Heat Content Estimates and Climate Change. The IPCC used an edited version of it in Chapter 3: (Observations Ocean) of their 5th Assessment Report. See the IPCC’s Figure 3.A.2. We discussed the IPCC’s version in the post AMAZING: The IPCC May Have Provided Realistic Presentations of Ocean Heat Content Source Data.  Figure 4 Is it any wonder why Cheng et al. didn’t bother trying to reconstruct the temperature observations below 700 meters? For more information about the numerous problems with ocean heat content reconstructions, see the post Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It’s Stacked up to Be? Once again, the climate science community has shown, when the models perform poorly, they won’t question the science behind the models, they are more than happy to manufacture warming by adjusting the data to meet or exceed the warming rate of the models. This paper will make a nice addition to a chapter in my upcoming book. Thanks, Cheng et al.

----------


## Marc

And for the rehashed outrage at "OH NO! NOT SUBSIDIES TO _OIL (eeek)_ COMPANIES!!! Aaaaaahhh :Yikes2: " .. from those who are most likely to _benefit from such subsidies ..._   
Have a read at this: *The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them [American "Liberals" are our Labour equivalent just in case]*  Robert Rapier , Contributor  Comment Now Follow Comments   [Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba]    *Survey Says…*  If you were to survey people and ask the question “_Should we subsidize oil companies?_” — the overwhelming majority would undoubtedly respond “ No!” The idea that we are subsidizing oil companies generates outrage in many people, but in this article I will show why these subsidies aren’t going to go away any time soon. The reason may surprise you. So let’s ask the question in a different way: “_Should we allow oil companies to take a tax deduction also available to any U.S. manufacturer such as Apple orMicrosoft?_” A lot of people will still answer “ No” to that question, but certainly fewer than answered “No” to the original question. Now ask the question “_Should farmers be allowed a fuel tax exemption for the fuel they use on the farm?_” In this case, some people are going to say “ No”, but farmers are going to be near unanimous in saying “Yes!” Let’s ask one final question: “_Should we fund programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) that help low-income families with their heating bills?_” The irony in this question is that some of the people who are the most vehemently opposed to fossil fuel subsidies will argue that this is an important program that helps keep poor people from freezing to death in winter, and thus it would be inhumane to eliminate it. Yet unless you answered “ No” to all four questions you support programs that have been specifically identified as fossil fuel subsidies.   Environmental activist and author Bill McKibben recently wrote an article called Payola for the Most Profitable Corporations in History. In the article McKibben proposes “_five rules of the road that should be applied to the fossil-fuel industry_.” But even as he advocates getting rid of them, McKibben demonstrated that he doesn’t really understand the nature of these subsidies — and this sort of misunderstanding largely explains why they persist. McKibben himself indicates sympathy for subsidies when he wrote: “_Many of those subsidies, however, take the form of cheap, subsidized gas in petro-states, often with impoverished populations — as in Nigeria, where popular protests forced the government to back down on a decision to cut such subsidies earlier this year._” However, he then incorrectly asserts “ _In the U.S., though, they’re simply straightforward presents to rich companies, gifts from the 99% to the 1%._”    That’s just not true, and a failure to understand this is why we continue to be outraged over fossil fuel subsidies in the U.S. (As an aside, characterizing the oil companies as “
the 1%” is also misleading, because oil companies are overwhelmingly owned by the 99%). Oil Change International is an organization focused on exposing fossil fuel subsidies. On their site they have apage on fossil fuel subsidies, which they define as “_any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers_.” They include a spreadsheet breaking down various fossil fuel subsidies utilizing data from a joint OECD-IEA report called Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Other Support. The summary of oil-related subsidies in the U.S. for 2010 totals $4.5 billion. That is a number often put forward; $4 billion a year or so in support for those greedy oil companies. But look at the breakdown. The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel. The justification for that tax exemption is that fuel taxes pay for roads, and the farm equipment that benefits from the tax exemption is technically not supposed to be using the roads. The third largest category? $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (This program is classified as a petroleum subsidy because it artificially reduces the price of fuel, which helps oil companies sell more of it). Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in “oil subsidies.” *Oil Subsidies that Liberals Love*     So why do we still have fossil fuel subsidies? Because almost nobody — not even Bill McKibben — wants to get rid of all of the programs that are classified as fossil fuel subsidies. I suspect McKibben would not advocate eliminating the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Two of the most outspoken Democratic opponents of oil subsidies have strongly defended this particular program — even though it is classified by the OECD as the 3rd largest petroleum subsidy. When Republicans tried to cut funding for the program, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the proposal an “_extreme idea_” that would “ _set the country backwards_.” Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass, states on his website that he is a “_longtime Congressional champion of providing assistance to low-income families to heat and cool their homes_.” In fact, look at the reaction from Democrats when President Obama tried to reduce funding for the program. Rep. Markey’s office said: “_If these cuts are real, it would be a very disappointing development for millions of families still struggling through a harsh winter_.” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., noted her opposition: “_The President’s reported proposal to drastically slash LIHEAP funds by more than half would have a severe impact on many of New Hampshire’s most vulnerable citizens and I strongly oppose it_.” Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., wrote a letter to President Obama that stated in part: “_We simply cannot afford to cut LIHEAP funding during one of the most brutal winters in history. Families across Massachusetts, and the country, depend on these monies to heat their homes and survive the season_.” Yet each one of these Democrats was defending a program that is lumped into that all-encompassing category of “oil subsidies.” *What is the Impact of Eliminating the Subsidy?*  Of course many Democrats will complain that those aren’t the kinds of subsidies they are protesting. That’s not the point; the fact that some programs that are popular with Democrats are classified as oil subsidies is exactly why we will never be rid of oil subsidies. People don’t take the time to consider just what an oil subsidy actually is. If they did they might find that they are a beneficiary. There are certainly other tax deductions that do more directly benefit the oil industry, just like every taxpayer has tax deductions that benefit them. Many taxpayers take advantage of a mortgage interest deduction, but I bet they don’t think they are collecting subsidies just because they sliced a small portion off of their tax bill with that deduction. Last year CNN did a story where they put together their own list of the so-called oil subsidies, and in their list the “largest single tax break” — amounting to $1.7 billion per year for the oil industry — is a manufacturer’s tax deduction that is defined in Section 199 of the IRS code. This is a tax credit designed to keep manufacturing in the U.S., but it isn’t specific to oil companies. It is a tax credit enjoyed by highly profitable companies like Microsoft and Apple, and even foreign companies that operate factories in the U.S. Further, the deduction for oil companies is already limited. Apple is able to take a 9% manufacturer’s tax deduction, but ExxonMobil is only allowed to take a 6% deduction. It is really irrelevant how profitable Apple might be. The argument that “they are rich and therefore don’t need it” doesn’t mean that elimination of the tax credit will therefore have no impact. If there is a compelling financial advantage for them to build a factory overseas they will do so. This tax credit provides incentive for them to keep manufacturing in the U.S.

----------


## Marc

And the thought of the day, inspired by the title "Most new generating capacity in the US now comes from renewables (~70%)" 
"Most new shoes in peoples cupboards come from shoe stores that actively sell them" 
Wow! that is deep !!  :brava: _bravoo!_

----------


## John2b

Another episode of cut & paste diarrhea. This forum needs a flush button. Whats wrong with a link?

----------


## John2b

> And the thought of the day, inspired by the title "Most new generating capacity in the US now comes from renewables (~70%)" 
> "Most new shoes in peoples cupboards come from shoe stores that actively sell them" 
> Wow! that is deep !! _bravoo!_

  Deep? An infant can drown in ½ inch of water - that's how deep it is. 
The stores are not selling Oxford Bags and spatterdashes any more, in case you hadn't noticed.

----------


## Marc

And just in case, the summary again ...  Of course many Democrats will complain that those aren’t the kinds of subsidies they are protesting. That’s not the point; the fact that some programs that are popular with Democrats are classified as oil subsidies is exactly why we will never be rid of oil subsidies. People don’t take the time to consider just what an oil subsidy actually is. If they did they might find that they are a beneficiary. There are certainly other tax deductions that do more directly benefit the oil industry, just like every taxpayer has tax deductions that benefit them. Many taxpayers take advantage of a mortgage interest deduction, but I bet they don’t think they are collecting subsidies just because they sliced a small portion off of their tax bill with that deduction. Last year CNN did a story where they put together their own list of the so-called oil subsidies, and in their list the “largest single tax break” — amounting to $1.7 billion per year for the oil industry — is a manufacturer’s tax deduction that is defined in Section 199 of the IRS code. This is a tax credit designed to keep manufacturing in the U.S., but it isn’t specific to oil companies. It is a tax credit enjoyed by highly profitable companies like Microsoft and Apple, and even foreign companies that operate factories in the U.S. Further, the deduction for oil companies is already limited. Apple is able to take a 9% manufacturer’s tax deduction, but ExxonMobil is only allowed to take a 6% deduction. It is really irrelevant how profitable Apple might be. The argument that “they are rich and therefore don’t need it” doesn’t mean that elimination of the tax credit will therefore have no impact. If there is a compelling financial advantage for them to build a factory overseas they will do so. This tax credit provides incentive for them to keep manufacturing in the U.S.

----------


## John2b

> And just in case, the summary again ...

  So Marc, can you explain why Chevron Australia, despite having an operating income of $3.2 billion last year, paid no tax and instead claimed a $5.7 million refund from the ATO? Don't forget that even before the $5.7million 'tax rebate', Chevron had roads, ports and other infrastructure already provided for them with taxpayer funds.  Energy giants called to explain billions in tax havens

----------


## Marc

> The stores are not selling Oxford Bags and spatterdashes any more, in case you hadn't noticed.

  I beg to differ, spatterdashes have been popular for snake bait protection for a long time. They are just called snake gaiters but are exactly the same thing ... and besides you reply makes no sense whatsoever. What is that? You don't use shoes? Just Havaianas and shorts? Well if so that's OK with me, has no relevance to my comment. 
Just like it has no relevance to the comment about subsidies to the OH NOOOO oil companies. The OH NOOO oil subsidies are an essential part of subsidies to alleviate cost of living, and not money handed over to oil barons in brown bags between dusk and dawn as it seems to feature in popular folklore. 
The article above already addresses some corporate tax structures as in the US. Our tax system is different but not that different. The tax advantages given legally by the government of the day to all companies equally not only to oil companies are part of decision made by our mostly incompetent elected representatives. In fact apple and microsoft enjoy the same tax heavens. That is a smoke screen. Demonising tax incentives for oil companies without mentioning that it is part of the tax system for all companies may be OK to post in a global warming greens blog, but that does not make it relevant to anything to do with the fact that renewables get brown paper bags in full daylight. Oil companies get to play in a subsidised market simply because their product dictates cost of living and our socialist system of tax and community expectations force governments of all persuasions to subsidise the market to alleviate costs. 
Eliminating oil subsides if we can call them that, would mean that petrol would cost probably 3 dollars a litre and most people would not be able to go to work in their car.
If that is your ideological aim ... may be not a bad thing for me. Empty roads, plenty of parking, lower car prices ... wow, just occurred to me that the cost of boats would plummet to 1/4 of todays value or less. wow! endless possibilities ... for me that is. Not sure it will go down well with most Australians hu hu.

----------


## John2b

> The OH NOOO oil subsidies are an essential part of subsidies to alleviate cost of living, and not money handed over to oil barons in brown bags between dusk and dawn as it seems to feature in popular folklore.

  You are making a very good argument that subsidies for renewable energy sources should be ramped up by 20 times to match the level of fossil fuel subsidies, especially when the fuel cost once established is near zero. And it won't run out unlike your beloved oil.

----------


## Marc

Yes, your reply is typical of global warming ideology. Appeal to emotions and provide no solution. 
I gather that you do not have a car nor go to work with it so don't care if money directed to reduce cost of fuel for consumers is eliminated. Like I said before, that's OK with me, but will turn the economy of most countries on their head. Probably one of the goals of AGW supporters. Chaos and anarchy can be a gain for some.  
Until electric cars become the norm, and battery technology achieves what fuel does, that is 500K of autonomy, and until the cost of charging the batteries with electricity can be achieved with the same speed and same or lower cost as refuelling at the servo, oil will stay the preferred fuel, not because people "love" it but because it is the only practical thing available. 
Yes, we can pretend that the solution is to live in an inner city with grass growing on the street and long haired conservationist moving around on pushbikes exchanging pot pipes and singing Kumbaya, but the reality for 99 % of the population that needs to work to support the family and pay the mortgage is a tad different.
The market will eventually provide an alternative to fossil fuel vehicles. I only want this to be a smooth transition leaded by choice and availability and not forced by agendas and subsidies stolen from my tax money for political purposes. 
And I realise also that in your personal case a market driven transition is not what you would like to happen and that perhaps you prefer a revolution brandishing flags and producing anarchy. 
Good luck!
Each one to his own.

----------


## John2b

> Until electric cars become the norm, and battery technology achieves what fuel does, that is 500K of autonomy, and until the cost of charging the batteries with electricity can be achieved with the same speed and same or lower cost as refuelling at the servo, oil will stay the preferred fuel, not because people "love" it but because it is the only practical thing available.

  Marc, if the level of subsidies to renewable energy was even close to the level of subsidies of fossil energy, the conditions you state for transitioning to renewable to be reasonable would have happened decades ago. What has stopped the market from transitioning to renewable energy already is the embedded beneficiaries of the current status quo *preventing* your beloved market economics from functioning.   

> And I realise also that in your personal case a market driven transition is not what you would like to happen and that perhaps you prefer a revolution brandishing flags and producing anarchy.

  Marc, you have NFI what I want! Better to keep your thoughts to yourself than make statements others will judge to be foolish.

----------


## John2b

The IPA (Institute of Puerile Affairs?) has recently published a report, titled: The life saving potential of coal: How Australian coal could help 82 million Indians access electricity. It's a pity that the IPA doesn't seem to know that the Indians who don't currently have electricity are nowhere near electricity grids and are certainly *not* going to benefit from centrally distributed electricity, whether coal fired or generated by massed butterflies. 
That's one reason why distributed renewable electricity generation is the focus of the Indian government: ::Welcome to INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ::

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Doesn't matter what the IPA think...its going to happen anyway. Word out of Paris is that limiting emissions to a 2 degree rise is a lost cause and we might struggle to limit sufficiently to prevent 4 degrees so the RCP 8.5 scenario we've started to plan for already is looking likely. 
Coal emissions are potentially increasing in the future due to the falling price of coal, the high price of gas and the cost and fast turnaround of the coal burning technology...especially in gasification for chemical and industrial raw hydrocarbons. 
Fun times...

----------


## PhilT2

> Doesn't matter what the IPA think....

  There's thinking going on at the IPA? Sorry, but we need to see evidence before we accept that.
There are a number of scientists who think that we blew past the 2 degree rise some time ago, bearing in mind the full effect of the current level of CO2 is still to be felt. I will be surprised if Paris produces a binding agreement of any significance and it will be interesting to see which useful idiot Abbott sends on our behalf. Not that it matters; the latest Morgan poll has Libs well behind Labor and with Bronwyn's help labor will move further ahead. Now if Shorten can avoid shooting himself in the foot he will have Abbott's job next year. 
Two papers out recently are both worth a look; James Hansen's epic on sea levels and Kevin Cowtan's comparison of climate models are both causing a disturbance in denier dens. Take a look at the discussion on Hansen's paper to see how disconnected from reality the WUWT fanboys are. ACPD - Interactive Discussion - Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming is highly dangerous

----------


## Marc

I agree. I miss the good ol' julia-rudd couple and the all inclusive craig thompson, robb oakshot, tony windsor, peter slipper and how to forget the best treasurer in the world? Did I mention Penny and the rest of the gang? I miss them dearly. Let's bring them back so that we stoop lower than Indonesia once more. Who cares ? Centrelink will keep on doling so... Nothing to lose.

----------


## PhilT2

The Morgan folks are skilled pollsters and their results reflect the opinion of the population within the margin of error of the poll. If their work shows that a significant percentage of the people have now decided that they would rather have Labor back than the current LNP then you can be reasonably confident that is accurate. Why these people have made that decision I can only guess. The Liberal climate change policy, or lack thereof, may not be a big factor out there among swinging voters. More likely the poor performance of the economy will be the telling factor. Apparently there are now more long term unemployed than during the GFC.  
What will be interesting to see will be whether the party decides to stick with Abbott if the polls continue to show they will lose with him in charge. This is exactly where they were in 2007. Howard was deeply unpopular but the party lacked the will to dump him with the inevitable result. 
Here's Jon Stewart explaining right wing policy on climate. starts about 3.00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgZfhnCAdI

----------


## Marc

"More likely the poor performance of the economy" ... are you kidding? A heard of mad elephants has trampled down the country for 6 years and left a mountain of rubble and after 3 years people want the mad elephants back because ... of the mountain of rubble?  
I have a different explanation. No one in Labour land cares about anything that is not tight to something for nothing. What can the government dish out that I can pick up with no effort. The word "free" has to be there somewhere, if not free then subsidised, rebated, doled, distributed, tax free. Also the general concept of higher taxes for those who are rich ( that is anyone earning over $100,000, yes all those rich bastard) and no tax for anyone under $30,000 (yea !!) Now that is equality at work. Then to sweeten the deal, you brandish green flags of any description that somehow demonise any economic activity under the sun ... besides Centrelink workers of course. Global warming is the collective fault of corporate farting, down with the bastards, the future of our kids is at stake!!!  And your work is done.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I have a different explanation. No one in Labour land cares about anything that is not tight to something for nothing. What can the government dish out that I can pick up with no effort. The word "free" has to be there somewhere, if not free then subsidised, rebated, doled, distributed, tax free. Also the general concept of higher taxes for those who are rich ( that is anyone earning over $100,000, yes all those rich bastard) and no tax for anyone under $30,000 (yea !!) Now that is equality at work. Then to sweeten the deal, you brandish green flags of any description that somehow demonise any economic activity under the sun ... besides Centrelink workers of course. Global warming is the collective fault of corporate farting, down with the bastards, the future of our kids is at stake!!!  And your work is done.

  
That's because you've done it.  Your average swinging voter (ie the ones that decide most election outcomes) might look at that little tirade (and others like it in the media and blogosphere) and think...'is that really the way that Liberals think? They sound a little hare-brained to me.  I might put my vote with the other idiots this time'... 
Oh and wherever from do you get the idea that the Government Of The Day (which is a bit like Catch Of The Day but with less bargains) runs the Country?

----------


## John2b

Cameron Clyne, who was chief executive of NAB from 2009 until he stood down last year, said he doesn’t “think any of us have grasped quite how revolutionary” the emergence of renewable energy will be, warning that Australia cannot continue to be wedded to carbon-heavy fuels such as coal.  “The truth is that Australia’s lack of diversification is economically reckless,” Clyne wrote in Fairfax newspapers. “Most of our electricity generation is reliant on coal; an overwhelming majority of our transport and a very large percentage of our export industries are reliant on fossil fuels.  “When you look at this, you would be blind to not see a myriad of looming business risks.” 
Don't look Marc - the truth is your little applecart got rolled ages ago.  Australia's leaders 'wilfully blind' about climate change, says former NAB chief | Environment | The Guardian

----------


## John2b

> The constant glorification of energy sources that need to be on life support at taxpayers expense to even exist... 
>  I suppose that all the BS about the use of coal and the attempts to make it unfashionable will have some benefit, in the sense that we will have that much more reserves when the times comes and we really need them to survive.

  Marc you are so sharp, but you missed and opportunity to buy this coal mine for $1, down from $860million: Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian 
Then you could have bought your own coal fired power station. A stake in this one is up for sale in Germany for  1, down from 2.5billion: http://www.handelsblatt.com/my/unter...giacc02.vhb.de

----------


## Marc

Why I hate the renewable energy market:
Because they are a bunch of liars who are stuck to our jugular yet want to be the "clean" guys at the same time. They are a fraud, act like the mafia yet want to smell like roses. If wind or solar are such a good thing, they wouldn't need politicians to "support" them,( meaning throw billions at them to keep them alive) nor would they use emotional blackmail as every day currency. The whole industry was is and will always be a fraud, until the day a technological advance will make them viable. Meantime they should not be supported at all. In fact I believe that subsidies are the very reason there are no new inventions. No necessity, no inventive.  
As far as those offers at $1 John, I think that if environmentalist get together say 20 or 30 of them they can afford to buy it! they should then all get their greenie mates and camp on the roof and get a pot session going to affirm their conquest. Cool!  
PS
What does that prove John? Have you ever seen a car for $1? A boat for $1? A house for $1? I have. So? You have to rethink your strategy John, Post something meaningful for a change, stop pretending to be the holder of the truth and the high moral ground. There are two commercial positions here, and that is all they are, commercial position that battle for supremacy. The one you chose happens to use pretences of morality altruism and save the planet strategies. Does it mean it is really their goal? Not for a minute. Both camps want to increase their market share and use any means to their disposal. I chose the cheapest side, the side that cost me less, because I have to earn my keep.     *Renewable energy: Senate inquiry push to slash wind farm subsidies will 'destroy sector'*  DateJuly 31, 2015  *Environment and immigration correspondent* David Leyonhjelm is leading the Senate inquiry alongside John Madigan and Bob Day.The future of renewable energy in Australia would be destroyed if "radical" recommendations from a Senate inquiry into wind power are adopted, the clean power industry says. An investigation has been launched into how details of the final report, due to be tabled in Parliament on Monday, were leaked to News Corp and published on Friday.The Senate inquiry is led by anti-wind power crossbenchers David Leyonhjelm, John Madigan and Bob Day.  According to _The Australian_, the report will urge the Abbott government to restrict renewable energy certificates for new wind farms to a period of five years, down from more than 20. Advertisement The certificates are a type of subsidy that support wind and other clean power projects. The report will also reportedly recommend the certificates be granted only to projects in states that adhere to federal rules on infrasound and low-frequency noise. Prime Minister Tony Abbott has described wind farms as "noisy" and "visually awful" and says they may be harmful to health. The National Health and Medical Research Council last year concluded there was no reliable or consistent evidence wind farms caused health problems. The reported recommendations follow the government's moves to prevent the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation from backing wind energy and household solar projects. The clean power industry is still recovering from a long period of investment uncertainty after months of political deadlock over the renewable energy target. Clean Energy Council chief executive Kane Thornton said   
Bla bla bla   
was being investigated. A spokesman for Senator Madigan, the inquiry's chairman, said he asked the committee's secretariat "to deal with this in the appropriate manner". He said Senator Madigan had not released details of the report.   
Read more: Renewable energy: Senate inquiry push to slash wind farm subsidies will 'destroy sector' 
I think that the choice of  having an "Immigration and environment" section is priceless.

----------


## PhilT2

Are you trying to tell us that the fossil fuel industry doesn't buy politicians to protect their interests? The LNP here in Qld were about to pour billions of taxpayer dollars into a rail link for a coal mine. The market for that coal now seems to be drying up as India decide to develop their own mines and worldwide demand slows.

----------


## Marc

Which part of "Two commercial positions" you don't understand? 
Both commercial positions use the strategies they see fit. 
Only one pretends to be the moral champion. 
But the SMH takes the cake with their "Immigration and environment" section.
Why not have one called Refugees and Centrelink affairs?

----------


## John2b

> Are you trying to tell us that the fossil fuel industry doesn't buy politicians to protect their interests? The LNP here in Qld were about to pour billions of taxpayer dollars into a rail link for a coal mine. The market for that coal now seems to be drying up as India decide to develop their own mines and worldwide demand slows.

  
PhilT, which part of "Two commercial positions" you don't understand? They are clearly explained in Marc's posts - fossil energy companies and the obscene profits generated for shareholders and concurrent tax avoidance are a good thing, so fossil energy justifiably needs the $1.9trillion dollar annual subsidy it gets globally (http://grist.org/climate-energy/imf-says-global-subsidies-to-fossil-fuels-amount-to-1-9-trillion-a-year-and-thats-probably-an-underestimate/). And that's without factoring consequential costs which are a direct hit to consumers as expenses estimated at $5trillion per year in the US alone http://www.wsj.com/articles/imf-estimates-trillions-in-hidden-fossil-fuel-costs-1431958586 
But renewables are BBAADD, or the market would buy them! Why are they bad - because they divert subsidies from the fossil energy industries!

----------


## John2b

> And may I suggest you tone down your personal attacks?

  Agreed. No one should follow the example of this guy:   

> ...they are a bunch of liars who are stuck to our jugular yet want to be the "clean" guys at the same time. They are a fraud, act like the mafia yet want to smell like roses...

----------


## Marc

Don't see your name in that quote, unless you want to imply by elevation that you are part of something much bigger than I can possibly imagine and that any reference to "them" includes you personally.
Very interesting.
Do you live in the Vatican?
Just in case ... must know for future reference.  :Tdown:

----------


## John2b

> Why I hate the renewable energy market: Because they are a bunch of liars who are stuck to our jugular yet want to be the "clean" guys at the same time. They are a fraud, act like the mafia yet want to smell like roses.

   

> And may I suggest you tone down your personal attacks?

   

> Don't see your name in that quote ... Do you live in the Vatican?

  Could you just clarify Marc, are you accusing the Vatican of personal attacks against you, or are you accusing the Vatican of running the renewable energy market? Or both?

----------


## Marc



----------


## Neptune

> Could you just clarify Marc, are you accusing the Vatican of personal attacks against you, or are you accusing the Vatican of running the renewable energy market? Or both?

   :Toot:  :Feedtroll:  :Toot:

----------


## Marc



----------


## John2b

> 

  No need to use your inconvenient lighter, Marc, reality is truth.   
Ice melt in Greenland

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc

Greenland is losing ice? So what! not long ago the Vikings were cultivating wheat in Greenland. It must have been all that fish the Vikings ate, lots of gas ...  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

> Greenland is losing ice? So what! not long ago the Vikings were cultivating wheat in Greenland. It must have been all that fish the Vikings ate, lots of gas ...

  Yes, we all know about the medieval warm period and we all know that it wasn't global, and we know that people who cite the MWP as evidence that current climate change is natural are attempting deliberate obfuscation.  https://vimeo.com/131786795

----------


## woodbe

> Greenland is losing ice? So what! not long ago the Vikings were cultivating wheat in Greenland.

  Cough. Try Barley.  https://ancientfoods.wordpress.com/2...-in-greenland/ 
The Greenland icecap has been there for hundreds of thousands of years. The Vikings colonised the southern area during a warm period and the climate basically kicked them out later, as it had with the Inuits who occupied it previously. 
Whether wheat or barley has been grown during relatively short warm periods in Greenland has nothing to do with the global climate. Saying that growing wheat or barley in Greenland by the Vikings is refutation of warming is just another straw man argument.

----------


## John2b

> Saying that growing wheat or barley in Greenland by the Vikings is refutation of warming is just another straw man argument.

  Wheat, barley, who cares - they both grow on straw...

----------


## Marc

We had warmer periods and colder periods in a relatively short period of time. Greenland colonisation is just one small fact and if they grew rice, radish or artichoke is completely irrelevant. The warmer period was way hotter than enviro mental can dream about and the point is that throwing trillions up in the air to "stop" temperatures rising is like using a hammer to clobber the top of a mountain to make it flat.  
The global warming fraud is just that, a fraud, concocted for political and economical reasons, mixing up a bit of truth with a lot of lies. 
What I say is that even if it was true, which it is not, the threat to humanity is not from warming but from cooling. And at this point, we have way more chances to see a statistically significant reduction in temperatures in our life time than to see an increase. 
Everyone is free to "believe" what he or she wants. After all the mechanism man uses to assess what he wants to believe and what he does not, is so far removed from logic and reality that it is rather depressing. You can also believe that JFK was killed by a single person, L.H.Oswald, that the Port Arthur massacre was the work of Martin Bryant and so many other official versions of event with great "consensus". 
Sheep also have great consensus.  
Bahahaha

----------


## John2b

> The global warming fraud is just that, a fraud, concocted for political and economical reasons, mixing up a bit of truth with a lot of lies.

  Tell everyone then Marc, why the people behind the 'fraud' are scientists of the same ilk that have make all of the other discoveries that comfort your life, and many have to make great personal and sometimes economic sacrifices to prevail in the face of deniers who *are* in politics, or power, or *are* financial beneficiaries of denying climate science?   

> What I say is that even if it was true, which it is not, the threat to humanity is not from warming but from cooling.

  You might say that but is not a representation of fact. Historical data over the last 110 years shows the relative risk of dying at extremes of temperatures is _many times greater_ for heat waves than cold for most countries.   

> Everyone is free to "believe" what he or she wants. After all the mechanism man uses to assess what he wants to believe and what he does not, is so far removed from logic and reality that it is rather depressing.

  How do you believe yourself Marc?

----------


## woodbe

> We had warmer periods and colder periods in a relatively short period of time. Greenland colonisation is just one small fact and if they grew rice, radish or artichoke is completely irrelevant. The warmer period was way hotter than enviro mental can dream about and the point is that throwing trillions up in the air to "stop" temperatures rising is like using a hammer to clobber the top of a mountain to make it flat.

  Except Greenland temperature fluctuations are not the same as global fluctuations. 
You missed the whole point about the straw man argument. Or perhaps you deliberately ignored it so you could type up some conspiracy stories that have nothing to do with the scientific process or even this thread. 
JFK shooting and Martin Bryant conspiracy theories are not based on science. Consensus occurs in science when the vast majority agrees the basics are unable to be dis-proven and so they move on.  
Of course you are free to believe what you want. You can deny the science and believe it is wrong. Anyone can be a Luddite if they want to, just ask Tony Abbott.

----------


## Marc

Consensus is not scientific, consensus is compliance. the JFK and Port Arthur events are perfect examples of consensus thinking. If you think different it is a "conspiracy theory" 
The global warming fraud exists only because of consensus thinking. Go with the flow.
Pathetic isn't it?

----------


## woodbe

Opinion consensus is not the same as scientific consensus. 
Science is not based on 'going with the flow' or 'consensus thinking'. Sounds like you have an opinion of science based on the daily rag, not an actual understanding of the scientific process.

----------


## John2b

Forget the consensus, what about the odds?  First, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration calculates global average temperature going back to 1880. That's 135 years. So if no other forces were in play and temperatures last year were totally at random, then the odds of 2014 being the warmest on record are 1 in 135. Not too high.  The three hottest years on record — 2014, 2010 and 2005 — have occurred in the last 10 years. The odds of that happening randomly are 3,341 to 1, calculated John Grego of the University of South Carolina. Kai Zhu of Stanford University, Robert Lund of Clemson University and David Peterson, a retired Duke statistician, agreed.  Nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the 21st century. The odds of that being random are 650 million to 1, the statisticians said.  Thirteen of the 15 the hottest years on record have occurred in the last 15 years. The odds of that being random are more than 41 trillion to 1, the statisticians said.  All 15 years from 2000 on have been among the top 20 warmest years on record. They said the odds of that are 1.5 quadrillion to 1. A quadrillion is a million billion.  And then there's the fact that the last 358 months in a row have been warmer than the 20th-century average, according to NOAA. The odds of that being random are so high — a number with more than 100 zeros behind it — that there is no name for that figure, Grego said.  http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7a5be...bal-hot-streak

----------


## Marc

Oh yes ... forgot the "hottest ever" years of doom. We are having the hottest ever winter in Sydney yes? HA HA ... oh I forgot, climate is not weather, yes, tell the americans that one.
Hu hu, well, have a look at this series of graphs, before and after tampering. I find them interesting. Will only post the link because the graph will probably not move after pasting it. 
I am sure you have an answer prepared already by your coaching website that has all the answers "how to reply to a denier". 
I remember a little red books that the lefties would distribute to their acolytes at uni, with replies to any possible question by the (bastard) conservatives. A few are stuck in my mind. I told you about the one were sex had to be free and the kids to be given to the state, loved that one, but another, in reply to why don't you have a car was priceless: 
... I prefer that one more tractor ploughs the fields then me having a car.  Note the appeal to the emotions, the complete absence of logic and how the way markets work is utterly ignored. 
As far as the graphs in question and the fraud exposed, (yes yes I know you have a perfectly scientific explanation to all of this and a biography exposing the author as a nursing home burglar or in fact locked up in a mental institution) but spare a moment for the comments at the bottom of the graphs. I find them rather good. Plenty from your church too you know ... I like this one here, I copy and paste, yes, terrible I know ...  :Smilie:   dbhalling _says:_ April 15, 2014 at 2:24 pm Explain why AGW prophets always have to lie. Let’s start with Al Gore’s absurd hockey stick graph, which anyone with an iota of knowledge knew missed the Little Ice Age and the Roman Warming period. If AGW were a science, then you would have expected all the AGW people to point out this fraud and throw Gore out on his ear. But no, AGW prophets tried to cook the books and protect this fraud. Perhaps you saw the peer reviewed paper by two economists defending AGW prophets uses of lies.
What is amazing to me is that AGW prophets are disgusted with the unscientific approach of creationists/Intelligent Design advocates, but both AGW and ID prophets ignore evidence and logic. In fact AGW prophets make ID advocates almost look honest and Al Gore makes televangelists look like pikers. AGW and ID are two peas in a pod – religion.  https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-at-ushcngiss/

----------


## John2b

> Oh yes ... forgot the "hottest ever" years of doom. We are having the hottest ever winter in Sydney yes? HA HA ... oh I forgot, climate is not weather, yes, tell the americans that one.
> Hu hu, well, have a look at this series of graphs, before and after tampering. I find them interesting.

   No need to look up how to respond to a denier - just look at the source of their information. Stephen Goddard is not a real person. His claims have been shown to be false. Why didn't you claim global warming stopped in 1932?

----------


## Marc

Alex EpsteinContributorFOLLOW  _I write about the environmental benefits of industrial progress.full bio →_ Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. *OPINION 2/27/2014 @ 12:19PM 8,319 views*  *The Unscientific Consensus* Growing up in the 80s and 90s in Chevy Chase, Maryland, an inside-the-Beltway suburb, I only learned one thing about fossil fuels: they were causing global warming. That is, the CO2 my parents’ SUV was producing was making the Earth a lot hotter and that would make a lot of things worse. Oh, and one more thing: that this was a matter of scientific consensus. Looking into the issue a bit, I found that there were professionals in climate science, such as Richard Lindzen of MIT, and Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia, who said that global warming wasn’t the big deal it was made out to be. But they seemed to be very much in the minority. Who was right? Of course, I knew the majority isn’t always right—but it certainly isn’t always wrong. What was I supposed to make of all this? I think this is a predicament most of us experience. On the one hand, there is something authoritarian about calls to obey “consensus” such as John Kerry’s recent “When 97 percent of scientists agree on anything, we need to listen, and we need to respond.” On the other hand, there is something anti-science about the militant skepticism of some critics of the “climate change consensus.” For instance, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson says: “The term scientific consensus is an oxymoron in itself.” Not true. How can we possibly function in a complex division-of-labor society if we don’t consult experts—which includes learning about what there is consensus on (and what there isn’t) among the experts in different fields? Scientific consensuses are an important part of any modern society—they tell us the general state of agreement in a field, not so we can blindly obey the experts in question (experts and consensuses can be wrong) but so that we can understand and critically think about those experts’ views. For example, if you are thinking about nutrition, it is a valuable starting point to know where there is general agreement, where there isn’t, and why. If I read a book endorsing a controversial diet, I can’t really have a responsible opinion until I know what most experts in the field think about the issues—including whether they have powerful arguments against the book’s claims that I couldn’t have thought of myself. 
Thus, statements of scientific consensus can be extremely valuable tools. But they are only valuable, and only scientific, if they are explained clearly to the public. We need to know exactly who agrees with what for what reasons, and just as importantly, where there is disagreement within the consensus and for what reasons.  For example, it makes a big difference if there is a consensus that there is some global warming vs. a consensus that there will be catastrophic global warming. It makes a big difference if the consensus is based on issues that the experts have expertise on, such as climate records, vs. issues that they do not have expertise on, such as the economics of fossil fuels vs. solar and wind. Most consensus statements, however, are very unclear on who agrees with what and why. They are unscientific consensuses—misrepresentations of the state of scientific opinion designed to further a political agenda. Take the consensus statement of the American Geophysical Union, which can be found in its entiretyhere. Like most consensus documents, it starts with something there is definitely a consensus on: “Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming.” But then, with equal certainty, it cites dramatic predictions of climate models that, even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reluctantly acknowledged, demonstrably failed to predict the climate of the past two decades. And still, with equal certainty, it calls for “urgent” political action to reduce fossil fuel use—with no acknowledgment of the cost of doing so. Are observations, dramatic model predictions, and complex political decisions really all on the same scientific footing? No—but this kind of statement makes it seem as if they are all a matter of expert consensus. I have spent quite a bit of time querying experts on this issue, and in my understanding the actual consensus in the field is something like the following. When CO2 is added to the atmosphere it, all things being equal, has a mild, decelerating (logarithmic) warming effect; each additional CO2 molecule leads to less warming than the last. This effect has made some contribution to the widely-accepted .8 degrees C average warming in the last 150 years. Within this consensus, there is considerable disagreement about whether other aspects of the atmosphere, called “feedbacks,” significantly amplify the CO2-induced warming or not. This is called the issue of “climate sensitivity.” More climate scientists than not seem to believe in significant climate sensitivity, as evidenced by the fact that the computer models used to predict climate are based on the assumption of significant climate sensitivity.  At the same time, there is also consensus that in the last 15+ years there has been no significant global warming, despite record, accelerating CO2 emissions, and the climate models based on high sensitivity failed to predict this. There is dispute over whether and to what extent this supports the low-sensitivity theory of CO2. (Here is an account of the data and debate.)  I could go on about the consensus or lack thereof on other issues—the relationship between warming and extreme weather events, whether there have been significant changes in extreme weather events, etc.—but the point is I want the field of climate science to do that, so that we can think critically about it and ask questions. What it shouldn’t be doing—but is—is telling us what political policies, namely fossil fuel policies, to adopt. The question of fossil fuel policy is an interdisciplinary one covering many fields that climate scientists are not experts on. That means we need botanists to explain to us the potential benefits of increased CO2 in the air for plant growth. We need economists to share their knowledge about the consequences of more expensive energy if fossil fuels are restricted—and the capacity of human beings to adapt to climate change (man-made or not) over a period of decades. We need energy experts to tell us how far away solar, wind, and other alternatives are from providing the benefits of fossil fuels. We need geographers to share their knowledge on whether the climate has become more or less livable as we’ve used fossil fuels. Having tried to get this information myself from these fields, I believe that if the state of knowledge and agreement in each field were objectively presented, we would conclude that the consequences of continuing to use large amounts of fossil fuels would be overwhelmingly positive to human life, and the consequences of restricting them would be overwhelmingly negative. But right now it’s hard for anyone to know what to conclude, because in today’s “consensus” statements, representatives of scientific fields neither explain the state of knowledge precisely, nor do they stick to their area of specialization. Take a look at the NASA Global Climate Change Consensus page, which features 18 different consensus statements from professional scientific societies. The vast majority of these organizations don’t specialize in climate science, yet they make definitive statements about climate science. And many also use their scientific credibility to demand specific political policies. The prestigious American Physical Society says “We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” Really? Many in the fields of energy and economics have argued that forced reductions in greenhouse gases would lead to catastrophic consequences for human life, particularly in developing countries that need affordable energy to develop. As an association of physicists with no specialized knowledge of these issues, it is an abuse of scientific standing for the American Physical Society to support specific energy policies. A proper consensus statement by physicists would educate us about the physics of climate, not the politics of physicists. I say, bring on the scientific consensus about climate change—and the scientific consensuses about everything else related to energy and environmental policy. Knowing what specialists in these fields think would be truly valuable information for our critical thinking about vital issues. But it’s time to stop the intimidation and manipulation. It’s time to throw out the unscientific consensus. *Alex Epstein is founder of the Center for Industrial Progress and author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.*

----------


## Marc

Oh come on! Only "He is not a real person"? Not a pedophile, murderer or terrorist? You are disappointing.  
See, that is the problem with most AGW supporters and assorted cheer leaders, you truly believe to have the truth in your pocket and the high moral ground. You say Steven Goddard is not a real person. John2b is not a real person either. What does it matter that an author uses a nom de plume? Do I have to list the authors that don't use their real name?  *Steven Goddard (pseudonym for Tony Heller) is a blogger and the publisher of "Real Science," a website he established to promulgate his assertions that concerns over anthropogenic global warming are unfounded. Before establishing hiw own blog, Goddard built his reputation as a challenger to anthropogenic climate change theories through frequent postings on the Watts Up with That? blog.[1] Goddard wrote pseudonymously until 2014 when he revealed his true real identity on his blog.[2] He has a BS in geology from Arizona State University and a Master's degree in electrical engineering from Rice University.*

----------


## woodbe

> *Alex Epstein is founder of the Center for Industrial Progress and author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.*

  HaHA! 
"A philosopher by training" 
Apparently, scientists who actually have _university degrees_ are eclipsed by this dude who argues we can use more fossil fuel AND save the environment. The center for industrial progress is a 'for profit think tank'. I agree, he thinks he can make a profit by oil company sponsorship, and he's probably right about that but clearly wrong about the science.

----------


## woodbe

I think Steven Goddard got kicked off WUWT. That's a hard ask for a denier but somehow he managed it.  :Biggrin:

----------


## John2b

Deniers - they all agree they disagree, but that can't agree on what they are disagreeing about. 
Anthony Watts of WattsUpWithThat says “Goddard” is wrong is his assertions of fabrication...

----------


## John2b

> HA HA ... oh I forgot, climate is not weather, yes, tell the americans that one.
> Hu hu, well, have a look at this series of graphs, before and after tampering. I find them interesting.

  You probably find your naval hair interesting... 
CRU was not in a position to withhold access to [temperature] data or tamper with it. Any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis.  
The global land temperature trends are evident regardless of station selections and the use of adjusted or unadjusted data. Independent analyses by others produces the same result.  
If the data was tampered with it wouldn't agree with other records e.g The Met, Japan, BOM, GISS, HADCRUT or whatever.

----------


## Marc

By Christopher Booker  10:15PM GMT 07 Feb 2015 *31433 Comments*   When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.  Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.  This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.   Watch: Climate change explained in 60 second animation Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.  *Related Articles*     Barack Obama's personal battle against climate change  23 Jan 2015Rise in sea levels is 'faster than we thought'  14 Jan 2015   Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy. One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.  Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all. Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time. *For more stories, like the Telegraph's Facebook page by clicking on the link below:*

----------


## Marc

_What has the global warming fraud to do with the assassination of JFK and the Port Arthur massacre? 
On the surface, nothing at all. In reality all three are an example of fraud, murder, collusion to achieve a hidden agenda. 
The defence in each case is consensus, sheep mentality and ridicule by the extensive use of "conspiracy theory" labelling. _ 
 Imagine, for a moment, sitting at a prestigious steakhouse in Palm Beach, Florida, a hot spot for some of the most wealthy and famous — Donald Trump, Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey, James Patterson, Rush Limbaugh, and hundreds more. And, imagine dining with a handful of men you’ve only read about. Some of them are worth millions, others published best-selling books, and some have held prominent positions at the White House. In essence, you’re sitting at a five-person table of VIPs. You’re about to take a bite of your New York strip when one of the men, a top U.S. intelligence agent, slams a 164-page document in the middle of the table. This document, you soon find out, contains damning evidence that a network of politicians, corporations, and scientists have conspired together to promote the fear of “global warming” . . . despite evidence clearly stating no such “global warming” exists. *The motive: $22 billion per year.* To be clear . . . that’s $22 billion of taxpayers’ money . . . the amount that our government pays to stop the “global warming” epidemic. That comes out to $41,856 every minute. Or, to put it in perspective, that is twice as much as what our government spends on securing our borders. Then, imagine this top U.S. intelligence agent turning to you, and asking for you to join him on a mission to out those involved in the “global warming” lie. Doing so would cost a lot of money, a lot of time, and could cost you your reputation. But, pretending you never saw the document, and carrying on with your life, would allow the scandal to continue and _actually put lives at risk_. So, imagine if you were at that table, and the scenario I just described happened to you. *How Would You Respond?* 
My name is *Tom Luongo*. I am a former scientist with the University of Florida and currently run the_Resolute Wealth Letter_ program.     My name is Tom Luongo, and I’ve recently had this exact experience.In the following few pages, I am going to show you the alarming research in the document that was laid before me that night in Palm Beach. I will tell you why this network of politicians, corporations, and scientists tried to hide this research . . . and how you can be part of a newly formed initiative with the aim of getting this research into the hands of every American. This research proves, once and for all, that “global warming” is a sham . . . a sham perpetuated by a network of dirty government officials, greedy corporations, and bought-off “scientific” organizations. How you respond will be up to you. I can guarantee you one thing: After reading the next few pages, you will never look at government officials the same way . . . you will never trust what you hear in the media again . . . in fact, you will become skeptical of any and all authority figures going forward. It’s unfortunate, but the betrayal you’re going to discover today runs very deep, and revealing the *truth* about “global warming” comes with great risk. As a scientist for over 20 years, I’ve always upheld the truth. I’ve worked with the University of Florida to do some amazing things . . . I’ve helped make crop yields more productive for third world countries . . . I helped create an intermetallic coating for gun barrels that dropped maintenance requirements on firearms by half . . . and I’ve helped cure diseases. I have seen a lot of research go across my desk. But none of it can compare to the 164-page document that landed in front of me that night in Palm Beach. That’s why I’m going to lay the facts from this document before you today, and then I’m going to ask that you join me, and the man who composed this document, on our mission to _defund_ the “global warming” sham . . . All it will take is a click of your mouse. With one click, you’re going to put more momentum behind what I hope to be the largest effort . . . _ever_ . . . to annihilate the “global warming” lie and defund the government’s multibillion-dollar spending frenzy to keep it alive. Now, before we begin, I ask that you excuse any “rough” elements in this letter. What I’m sharing with you today is so urgent that I’ve made a huge effort to get the research in this 164-page document available to you as quickly as possible . . . With President Obama’s recent speech about getting tougher on “global warming” issues I think it’s critical that we don’t waste a minute in getting this information out. The sooner we get this information into the hands of the public . . . _your hands_ . . . the more informed voters will be when they cast their ballots. First, you should know who put this document in my hands — a man whom Al Gore is _personally_ attacking . . . *His Name Is John Casey.*  *John Casey* is a former White House space program advisor, consultant to NASA Headquarters, and space shuttle engineer. He is now one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts.     John is a former White House space program adviser, consultant to NASA headquarters, and space shuttle engineer. He is now one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts. In short, John is the very definition of a government insider. He spent 35 years conducting classified research, examining confidential documents, and directing critical scientific programs. For example: In 1986, when the space shuttle _Challenger_ tragically exploded, killing seven crew members, John testified before Congress on the cause of the accident. After the testimony, Congress instructed NASA headquarters to bring John in to chair a special internal investigation into why these critical systems failed. Now, keep that in mind for a moment: Capitol Hill and NASA trusted John’s detailed analytical approach and his engineering credentials so much _they asked him to investigate the cause of one of our nation’s greatest tragedies_. After 35 years of serving his country, John quietly retired in Florida. He planned on living peacefully, spending time with his wife, children, and grandkids. 
When the space shuttle _Challenger_ crashed in 1986, the U.S. government asked John Casey to investigate.      But on one April afternoon in 2007, John made an “unfortunate” discovery that changed everything. The discovery would ultimately lead him to abandon his plans for retirement in order to support a cause that was bigger than himself . . . that was bigger than anything he had done in his 35-year career. In fact, this discovery would result in him becoming hated by all those who once heralded him as their friend and adviser. After this outright rejection, John realized that despite his science not changing, despite the thousands of pages of irrefutable data, and despite millions of lives at risk . . . *he was alone*. The responsibility of letting the world know about this discovery rested solely on his shoulders, and those who would listen to him. Indeed, what he has to say goes contrary to everything you have been told about “climate change.” I initially rejected what John had to tell me. But when he showed me what was in his 164-page document, I couldn’t argue with him. Facts are facts. What John discovered that fateful afternoon was . . . *'Global Warming' Is an Outright Sham* You see, John found evidence — buried right in the government’s own environmental studies — that _destroys_ their argument for “global warming.” Using _their_ own data, John has proven, once and for all, “global warming” is a sham. And perhaps the most expensive — and lethal — sham in American history. A sham that our government spends _$22 billion a year financing_. Think about that: our government spends $22 billion a year financing “global warming” initiatives. _Again, that’s almost double_ what the government spends on securing our borders. Or, to break it down to real numbers . . . *That's $41,856 Every Minute!* But this is just the tip of the iceberg. John’s research also uncovered a different looming cataclysm that will ruin every _nation_ that’s not prepared . . . a calamity that has been accelerating for the last 17 years . . . _and brewing for over 200 years_. This impending catastrophe is as natural as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. And just as unstoppable. I’m talking about a tectonic shift in the world’s economies that will . . .  Send oil to over _$300 a barrel_Cause food prices to triple and in some places make food completely unavailableLead to violence erupting in the streets of your suburban neighborhoodCause governments to topple, nations to descend into chaos, and international wars to break out.   In the 164-page document John handed me, he went to great lengths to explain exactly how serious this crisis will be. It’s going to be worsened by the fact our politicians are bullheadedly ignoring it. The result will be every American being blindsided . . . unable to see it coming because of Al Gore and his cronies preaching false dogma. As I said before, I didn’t believe it either until I saw the evidence in John’s dossier. And even then, it took me _hours of talking to John afterward_ to digest it. John’s research has now been corroborated by _17 independent scientific individuals and organizations_. These are some of the top scientific minds in the field of climate science . . . in the world. *But That Hasn't Stopped the Hostile Attacks...* When John retired, he had many allies and supporters in the government. However, when he turned that same analytical approach Washington loved so much on Washington itself . . . He became, in essence, their “public enemy No. 1.” 
Read the rest here: http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/MKTNews/Global-Warming-climate-change/2014/11/17/id/607827/

----------


## John2b

> When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records  on which the entire panic ultimately rested  were systematically adjusted to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

  Don't be ridiculous, Marc.

----------


## woodbe

> *How Would You Respond?*

  Well, I'd look at the facts rather than the accumulation of cherrypicked data from a bunch of denialists. 
par example:   
How about coming up with some real science instead of a bunch of right wing hooey published in the Telegraph or a blog, Marc?

----------


## woodbe

And from a recent post by Tamino:   

> *Climate and Weather*  _Climate_ is defined as _the average and range of variation of weather over long periods of time_.   The main reason to insist on long periods of time is that for short  periods of time, weather is random.  In a sense, weather is not truly  random because its determined by exact laws of physics.  But weather  also defies prediction more than a week or so into the future because  the physics determining weather exhibits the property of _chaos_.   Discussion of chaos theory is well beyond the scope of this book, but  suffice it to say that it makes the details of weather unpredictable,  although we can predict the average and probable variation of it.  This  leads to a _statistical_ characterization of weather, which is what the _climate_  is.  Over the long run, the actual day-to-day weather measurements  behave just like random variables, so its perfectly correct to treat  them as though they were random. 
>   The standard length of time to meet the requirements of estimating  climate rather than just weather, is 30 years. Experience has shown that  for quantities relevant to weather (temperature, rainfall and snowfall,  wind and storms and air pressure) this is a long enough time span for  the true normal behavior to emerge from the background noise. This  gives us our first clue about how long a time is necessary to detect a  change in the climate rather than just a change in the weather: about 30  years. 
>   That doesnt mean that all measurements have to span 30 years or more in  order for us to establish climate change. If a climate-related variable  is changing, the amount of time required to show it depends on how  rapidly its changing (the size of the signal) and how big the noise is.   A larger signal is easier to detect and requires less time; more noise  makes the signal harder to detect, requiring more time.  A good way to  characterize how hard it is to establish that variables are changing  over time is the _signal-to-noise ratio_; the bigger this ratio  (the bigger the signal relative to the noise), the less time is  required, the smaller this ratio, the more time is required. But as a  very rough rule of thumb, the time span required to define climate is  about 30 years.

----------


## Marc

Like I said before, JFK was killed by L.H.Oswald and the P.Arthur massacre performed by M.Bryant. If you say or believe otherwise you are a denier and conspiracy theorist and relegated to the asylum ... funded by big oil of course. 
The evidence is overwhelming ... in fact 97%   :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

Relevance to this thread: nil. 
Unless you are suggesting the climate deniers performed those deeds. lol

----------


## Marc

> _One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."_ -- Carl Sagan_"  
> The real deniers are people who think our climate was and should remain static and unchanging."_ -- Paul Driessen and Chris Skates

  Read more: whatreallyhappened.comCLIMATEGATE: A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY (UPDATED FOR WINTER 2015) | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

----------


## Marc

*CAMBRIDGE PROFESSOR: BIG-OIL-FUNDED DEATH SQUADS TRIED TO MURDER ME BECAUSE I KNEW TOO MUCH ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING*_1752_  _6_ _151_    The Associated Press  _by_ JAMES DELINGPOLE25 Jul 2015948  *A Cambridge professor whose doomsday predictions of Arctic ice melt have been proved consistently wrong by reality has found an exciting new way to draw attention to his shaky scientific cause: mysterious, unnamed figures are trying to murder him and have already assassinated three of his colleagues.*There were only four people in Britain who were “really leaders on ice thickness in the Arctic”, Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, has told the_Times._ Three of them are now dead. He said: “It seems to me to be too bizarre to be accidental but each individual incident looks accidental, which may mean it’s been made to look accidental.” He named the three as Seymour Laxon of University College London, Katharine Giles, a climate change scientist who worked with Professor Laxon at UCL, and Tim Boyd of the Scottish Association for Marine Science.According to coroners and police, Professor Laxon died after falling downstairs at a New Year’s Eve party; Dr Giles was killed by a lorry while cycling to work; and Dr Boyd is believed to have been struck by lightning while walking by a loch in Scotland. Professor Wadhams has been unable to explain how these “accidents” were staged – especially the last one, acts of nature being notoriously hard to replicate, even by dark sinister, well-funded groups of assassins – but he suspects it may have something to do with Big Oil or climate change deniers. He said: “If it was some kind of death squad, you don’t expect that with something like climate change. I know oil companies have been giving lots and lots of money to . . . climate change denialist organisations but you don’t expect them to kill people.”Professor Wadhams himself claims only narrowly to have escaped these death squads himself, when the “driver of an unmarked lorry tried to push his car off the M25″. But his theory has met with scorn from the widow of one of the alleged assassination victims: Fiona Strawbridge, Professor Laxon’s partner, said that she had seen similar claims by “ridiculous conspiracy theorists” on the internet but she was certain his death was an accident. She said that she knew Dr Giles and it was clear that her death was also an accident.Another possible weakness in Professor Wadhams’s theory is his inability to provide a plausible motivation for his mystery, would-be death squad. For a period, it’s true, Professor Wadhams’s extravagant predictions of imminent, catastrophic Arctic ice melt were reported assiduously by the media because they provided apparent high-level scientific credence to the fashionable doomsday narrative. However, more recently, Professor Wadham’s theories have been recognised as extravagantly, risibly wrong even by his alarmist peers, who have openly derided his “science” on social media. A letter by Professor Wadhams to the Royal Society protesting about his disrespectful treatment was greeted with short shrift. The Royal Society, a bastion of climate alarmism, issued the following statement last year: ‘Climate scientists are often accused of not being critical of work presented by “their own”.”we re-iterate that climate scientists have long been criticized for not speaking against those who some may consider “extremists” within our community.’

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc

The corporate media has launched a blitz of claims that 2015 is the hottest year on record, despite the record cold and snow this winter. The claim that 2015 is the hottest year is put forward by both NASA and NOAA, which work for the same government that assured you Saddam had nuclear weapons. In June, 1934 half of the US was over 100 degrees. 
Click for larger image Compare that with the number of stations reporting over 100 desgree in June 2015. (And there are more stations than back in 1934!) 
Click for larger image However, NASA is already hedging their bets by admitting that the statistical methods used to arrive at this claim have a very wide margin of error, so much so that it is only a 38% chance the claim that 2014 was the hottest year on record (before 2015) is accurate. Meanwhile, the satellite launched to measure Earth's temperature does not confirm this claim. In fact, 2014 came in at sixth place in the time since since the satellite was launched! Here is a comparison of Earth's temperature between April 2015 and April 1998, showing the scale of the lie by NASA and NOAA that 2015 is the hottest year on record.  Chinese scientists doing very finely detailed measures of isotopes trapped in giant clam shells have reconstructed a detailed record of Earth's climate that confirms that the Roman and Medieval warm periods were indeed far warmer than Earth is today, and oddly enough, were also periods of lower CO2 content in the atmosphere. Contrary to the carbonazis' claims of impending doom if the Earth gets warmer, the Roman and Medieval warm periods were times of immense fertility and productivity, allowing humans freed from the scramble to find food to create the flowering of the Roman civilization, with its art and engineering, then later the Renaissance.  
Read more: whatreallyhappened.com CLIMATEGATE: A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY (UPDATED FOR WINTER 2015) | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

----------


## woodbe

> _One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been  bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.  We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has  captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves,  that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you  almost never get it back."_ -- Carl Sagan_"  
> The real deniers are people who think our climate was and should remain static and unchanging."_ -- Paul Driessen and Chris Skates

  Alternatively, the real deniers are those who believe unscientific excuses from the fossil fuel industry for the known impact of CO2 on the climate. The bamboozle is cleared or clearing for most of us, unfortunately it will take a while for the most rusted on to realise they have been drinking kool aide.

----------


## woodbe

> The corporate media has launched a blitz of claims that 2015 is the hottest year on record, despite the record cold and snow this winter. The claim that 2015 is the hottest year is put forward by both NASA and NOAA, which work for the same government that assured you Saddam had nuclear weapons. In June, 1934 half of the US was over 100 degrees. 
> Click for larger image Compare that with the number of stations reporting over 100 desgree in June 2015. (And there are more stations than back in 1934!) 
> Click for larger image However, NASA is already hedging their bets by admitting that the statistical methods used to arrive at this claim have a very wide margin of error, so much so that it is only a 38% chance the claim that 2014 was the hottest year on record (before 2015) is accurate. Meanwhile, the satellite launched to measure Earth's temperature does not confirm this claim. In fact, 2014 came in at sixth place in the time since since the satellite was launched!

  So the USA is the whole of the planet now? Did you realise that the climate consists of many years, and a single year is only weather?

----------


## John2b

> _The real deniers are people who think our climate was and should remain static and unchanging."_

  Well glad that's settled. Your quote points out that *scientists researching into the causes of climate change by your definition cannot be deniers*. Thanks for clearing that up, Marc!

----------


## John2b

> The corporate media has launched a blitz of claims that 2015 is the hottest year on record, despite the record cold and snow this winter.  Meanwhile, the satellite launched to measure Earth's temperature does not confirm this claim.

  More clangers from someone who can't be bothered trying to understand, or who does understand and wants to make sure others don't understand? 
The record cold and snow is confined to the north east corner of continental USA, just a few % of the planet. 
Satellites do not measure the surface temperature of the Earth, they measure the first several kilometres, and as expected the top part of that is cooling as the lower part (near the surface) retains more heat. 
Who wudda thort - more codswallop and rubbish from Mr Denier.

----------


## Marc

Considering that there are only 3 people reading this thread I suppose it is utterly irrelevant, but tell me one thing John, do you really believe that the fact that climate changes just like it has been changing for millennia is anything worth tooting about? 
Climate changes, landscape changes, people change, the alignment of the stars changes, the mood changes, politics changes, the value of the dollar changes, my car changes restaurant's menu changes, fashion changes. Investment opportunity change ...
So? 
Why something that changes by its very definition, becomes such a drama?
Why was "global warming" changed into "climate change" ... Just in case the warming stops? 
The whole argument is so pathetic that only repeating it at nauseam makes it true to the masses that like to go with the flow (remember JFK and Port Arthur and the assassins killing off Alarmist scientist)   
The earth is warming (so what) the climate is changing (really? so what) we must pay trillions into our own pockets to appease Gaia ... Pleeeeeeeeeeease

----------


## John2b

Marc, I need something exercise my mind and I don't do crosswords. I like checking whether what you say is meaningful or not. Like this:   

> Considering that there are only 3 people reading this thread

  Let's see: 14,376 posts and  644,420 views, that's about 45 views per post. Now I, and I am willing to bet woodbe, only view posts once or less. So are you implying you are so obsessed that you view each post 43 times on average? This forum is more widely read than you suggest.   

> John, do you really believe that the fact that climate changes just like it has been changing for millennia is anything worth tooting about?

  Of course the climate has changed in the past and will continue to change long after humankind is extinct. So what? I am concerned about the change that humans are effecting on climate. Why - because burning fossil reserves that took billions of years to accumulate at a rate that will exhaust them in thousands of years is evoking change so fast that neither flora nor fauna can adapt quickly enough. You can turn on an air conditioner, but a tree can't pull up stumps and move. And a tree can't survive without thousands of synergistic relationships with other plants and animals, bacteria and fungi, all of which are affected by temperature.   

> Why something that changes by its very definition, becomes such a drama?

  Your statement is meaningless when life depends on _relative_ stability. Human activity is evoking change vastly more rapidly than any natural rate of change in the history of humankind.   

> Why was "global warming" changed into "climate change" ... Just in case the warming stops?

  It wasn't - both terms have been in use for more than 150 years. You can have that conspiracy theory all to yourself.   

> The whole argument is so pathetic that only repeating it at nauseam makes it true to the masses that like to go with the flow

  Which is why people have gone with the flow, except for older white conservative males in Australia who continue to be deniers, and as readers of Dunning & Kruger know, also think that the majority of people agree with them when in fact they are a tiny minority. The rest of the world is acting, not arguing. Dunning-Kruger effect - RationalWiki   

> The earth is warming (so what) the climate is changing (really? so what) we must pay trillions into our own pockets to appease Gaia ... Pleeeeeeeeeeease

  The economy is agnostic to the nature of economic activity. Business in renewables is just a good as business in fossils, perhaps more so due to the rate of employment versus turnover being higher, at least in the short term. Employment is what drives the economy - people earning money to spend it. Changing to a system where input costs are low will simply mean that wealth accumulates faster. Isn't that what ever good free market disciple would want? 
A question for you, Marc: Why is it so important for you to twist and misrepresent the meanings of other people, and why repeat the fabrications of others? Because you want be an active participant in the current 'time of deceit'?

----------


## Marc

Yes, the anti middle-aged-white-male and the extinction of humanity are both essential elements to drive out the marginal that are the pawns used to propagate the global warming fraud  
"There are two types of people who will tell you that you cannot make a difference in this world: Those who are afraid to try themselves, and those who are afraid that you will succeed."  *Ray Goforth  *

----------


## SilentButDeadly

The above really depends whose TRUTH you are pedalling at the time...

----------


## John2b

> Yes, the anti middle-aged-white-male and the extinction of humanity are both essential elements to drive out the marginal that are the pawns used to propagate the global warming fraud

  I am a middle-aged white Australian male, but you certainly don't speak for me, Marc. You don't even speak for the majority of middle-aged white Australian males, just the Dunning-Kruger inflicted ones who _think_ they are the majority.

----------


## John2b

> The above really depends whose TRUTH you are pedalling at the time...

  Marc's post says telling the truth is 'hate speech'. But Marc insists _he_ is telling the truth. Classic Dunning-Kruger!

----------


## Marc

*    
			
				Marc's post says telling the truth is 'hate speech'
			
		   There is an example of intentional misrepresentation but I did not expect anything different really nor will I bother to correct your pointless attempt.   
 Global Warming as Mass Neurosis  *   
By               Bret Stephens            
      Updated July 1, 2008 12:01 a.m. ET     <!--[if ! lte IE 8]--> <!--[endif]-->       
 Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it's time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in. 
 What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist otherwise, none more noisily than NASA's Jim Hansen, who first banged the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered with all the modesty of "99% confidence"). <!--[if ! lte IE 8]-->                   ENLARGE                  <!--[endif]-->   
 The New True Believers                   AP                  
 But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that "80% to 90% of global warming involves heating up ocean waters," according to a report by NPR's Richard Harris. 
 The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere's coldest in decades. In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse resumes in 2020. 
 This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what _isn't_ evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science. 
 So let's stop fussing about the interpretation of ice core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations. 
 The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore &ndash; population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations &ndash; and global warming provides a justification.  
One wonders what the left would make of a scientific "consensus" warning that some looming environmental crisis could only be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to "patriarchal" science; curtains to the species. 
 A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen. 
 And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the "solutions" chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on. A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence. 
 Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about? 
 As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success. 
 In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion. Global Warming as Mass Neurosis - WSJ

----------


## John2b

> There is an example of intentional misrepresentation but I did not expect anything different really nor will I bother to correct your pointless attempt.

  
It's pretty hard to read your post another way that what it was posted as. Correct your post - you _are_ telling the truth _and_ truth is _not_ the new hate speech????? 
Maybe others might like to know WTF you mean - or are you just dog whistling to your minority OAWM friends?

----------


## Neptune

> Marc, I need something exercise my mind and I don't do crosswords. I like checking whether what you say is meaningful or not. Like this: 
> Let's see: 14,376 posts and  644,420 views, that's about 45 views per post.

    Marc may have been just referring to who was actually viewing the thread at that particular time. :Rolleyes:    

> Now I, and I am willing to bet woodbe, only view posts once or less.

  So you're a gambler?   

> So are you implying you are so obsessed that you view each post 43 times on average? This forum is more widely read than you suggest.

  Waddawanker, maybe someone just has it set on auto page refresh while they're on the can or at the pub, maybe you're just making this stuff up? 
I suppose you'll have my opposing view removed again?

----------


## John2b

> I suppose you'll have my opposing view removed again?

  Pray tell me how would I do that? You give me far too much credit for having supernatural powers. 
BTW what was the 'opposing view' you are talking about? 11 people are browsing this thread right now. I'm sure everyone is interested.

----------


## woodbe

> Marc may have been just referring to who was actually viewing the thread at that particular time.   
> So you're a gambler?   
> Waddawanker, maybe someone just has it set on auto page refresh while they're on the can or at the pub, maybe you're just making this stuff up? 
> I suppose you'll have my opposing view removed again?

  Neptune, what are you doing in this thread? 
You are not engaged in any Emission Trading discussion, you are just poking sticks at people. 
Tell us what you think of Climate Change and Emission Trading, or back off. There is enough touch paper around this discussion without you pouring petrol on the fire.

----------


## Marc

*Ok,  ll give you the benefit of the doubt.  Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, colour, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.* * So, if someone wants to discredit another that is telling the truth, all he/she needs to do is calling his a "hate speech". That's it, bang, gone. A bit like calling someone a denier. Hate, racism or holocaust denying, are all very good discrediting tools use extensively by political agitators.* * So ... the essence of the comment posted above is that the person that tells the truth runs the risk of being labelled hate preacher. It is not very hard to understand.  Now lets see this next little article.  * * The Great Global Warming Fizzle*  *The climate religion fades in spasms of anger and twitches of boredom.*       By BRET STEPHENS  November 29, 2011 How do religions die? Generally they don't, which probably explains why there's so little literature on the subject. Zoroastrianism, for instance, lost many of its sacred texts when Alexander sacked Persepolis in 330 B.C., and most Zoroastrians converted to Islam over 1,000 years ago. Yet today old Zoroaster still counts as many as 210,000 followers, including 11,000 in the U.S. Christopher Hitchens might say you can't kill what wasn't there to begin with. Still, Zeus and Apollo are no longer with us, and neither are Odin and Thor. Among the secular gods, Marx is mostly dead and Freud is totally so. Something did away with them, and it's worth asking what.    Columnist Bill McGurn on the Air Force Academy's $80,000 outdoor worship center for witches, pagans, and Wiccans.   Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen. As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term "climate change" when thermometers don't oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other "deniers." And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit. This week, the conclave of global warming's cardinals are meeting in Durban, South Africa, for their 17th conference in as many years. The idea is to come up with a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire next year, and to require rich countries to pony up $100 billion a year to help poor countries cope with the alleged effects of climate change. This is said to be essential because in 2017 global warming becomes "catastrophic and irreversible," according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency. Yet a funny thing happened on the way to the climate apocalypse. Namely, the financial apocalypse. The U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada and the EU have all but confirmed they won't be signing on to a new Kyoto. The Chinese and Indians won't make a move unless the West does. The notion that rich (or formerly rich) countries are going to ship $100 billion every year to the Micronesias of the world is risible, especially after they've spent it all on Greece. Cap and trade is a dead letter in the U.S. Even Europe is having second thoughts about carbon-reduction targets that are decimating the continent's heavy industries and cost an estimated $67 billion a year. "Green" technologies have all proved expensive, environmentally hazardous and wildly unpopular duds. All this has been enough to put the Durban political agenda on hold for the time being. But religions don't die, and often thrive, when put to the political sidelines. A religion, when not physically extinguished, only dies when it loses faith in itself. That's where the Climategate emails come in. First released on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit two years ago and recently updated by a fresh batch, the "hide the decline" emails were an endless source of fun and lurid fascination for those of us who had never been convinced by the global-warming thesis in the first place. But the real reason they mattered is that they introduced a note of caution into an enterprise whose motivating appeal resided in its increasingly frantic forecasts of catastrophe. Papers were withdrawn; source material re-examined. The Himalayan glaciers, it turned out, weren't going to melt in 30 years. Nobody can say for sure how high the seas are likely to rise—if much at all. Greenland isn't turning green. Florida isn't going anywhere.  The reply global warming alarmists have made to these dislosures is that they did nothing to change the underlying science, and only improved it in particulars. So what to make of the U.N.'s latest supposedly authoritative report on extreme weather events, which is tinged with admissions of doubt and uncertainty? Oddly, the report has left climate activists stuttering with rage at what they call its "watered down" predictions. If nothing else, they understand that any belief system, particularly ones as young as global warming, cannot easily survive more than a few ounces of self-doubt.  Meanwhile, the world marches on. On Sunday, 2,232 days will have elapsed since a category 3 hurricane made landfall in the U.S., the longest period in more than a century that the U.S. has been spared a devastating storm. Great religions are wise enough to avoid marking down the exact date when the world comes to an end. Not so for the foolish religions. Expect Mayan cosmology to take a hit to its reputation when the world doesn't end on Dec. 21, 2012. Expect likewise when global warming turns out to be neither catastrophic nor irreversible come 2017.  And there is this: Religions are sustained in the long run by the consolations of their teachings and the charisma of their leaders. With global warming, we have a religion whose leaders are prone to spasms of anger and whose followers are beginning to twitch with boredom. Perhaps that's another way religions die.

----------


## John2b

> *Ok,  ll give you the benefit of the doubt.  Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, colour, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.* * So, if someone wants to discredit another that is telling the truth, all he/she needs to do is calling his a "hate speech". That's it, bang, gone. A bit like calling someone a denier. Hate, racism or holocaust denying, are all very good discrediting tools use extensively by political agitators. * * So ... the essence of the comment posted above is that the person that tells the truth runs the risk of being labelled hate preacher. It is not very hard to understand. *

  Thanks Marc. 
I don't think that was the kind of 'truth' Orwell was talking about, though.

----------


## woodbe

> *The climate religion fades in spasms of anger and twitches of boredom.*     By BRET STEPHENS 
> November 29, 2011

  Except... We're dealing with empirical science here. The extent and scholarly confirmation of the science has not faded, it has strengthened since 2011.  
Perhaps those who wish the science told us something else other than the results of research are twitching with boredom, but anyone who follows the actual science would be aware that all those that deny the science have not been able to put up anything to take it down other than an effort to attack the persona rather than to publish science that actually tells us something else than what the actual published science tells us. 
What is very significant in this discussion, Marc, is that you are copy and pasting opinion articles from non-science publications. Tying an acceptance of published science to whacko religions is a desperate attempt to undermine the scientific basis of our entire understanding of science and technology. Are you ready to ditch your computer, telephone and motor vehicle yet? When you do that, please carve some runes on a piece of driftwood and throw it in the ocean to let us know how you're doing.

----------


## Marc

In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse resumes in 2020.  This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what_isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science. 
So let's stop fussing about the interpretation of ice core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief... _ I find the above article very cleverly written. I have been saying the same thing for years, conceded his wordsmith skills make it sound way better. 
Science you say? What science? You mean consensus? Kumbaya? Lets dance in circle and keep our fundings? Lets agitate the masses so they vote for the new saviour?  
There ain't no science in Global warming, just belief and politics.  
It is however the most interesting secular social experiment ever attempted at such a massive scale. I believe it dwarfs even communism. 
And it will end just as unceremoniously.

----------


## woodbe

> There ain't no science in Global warming, just belief and politics.

  Really? Still no published science from you, just more opinion? 
What's this graph tell us then?     Analysis: The most 'cited' climate change papers 
I wonder what this is all about if it isn't about science instead of opinion:   
Have you read any of these scientist's published work?:   
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on their actual papers after you actually read them rather than bouncing opinion out of right wing blogs and news sites...

----------


## John2b

> In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse resumes in 2020.

  That's May 2008, not May 2015! 10 years from May 2008 is less than 3 years away. What they predicted came to pass and is likely to be ending now, roughly on schedule. 
The fluctuating climate of the North Atlantic has profound consequences, inducing changes in hurricane activity, surface temperatures and rainfall from North America to Europe and Africa. In principle, these changes could be predicted if the current state of the ocean were known, but the necessary subsurface observations are lacking. Keenlyside _et al. now show that detailed knowledge of the ocean state is not strictly necessary for producing useful predictions on decadal timescales. Their approach, which has proved its worth in 'retro-spective' forecasts, uses existing sea surface temperature observations to improve the forecasting power of climate models. The new model predicts that over the next decade, natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific oceans will temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming: surface temperatures in Europe and North America may even cool a little during this period. _ Decadal climate prediction : Nature

----------


## John2b

> It is however the most interesting secular social experiment ever attempted at such a massive scale. I believe it dwarfs even communism. 
> And it will end just as unceremoniously.

  How does it dwarf communism - economics? Climate change mitigation spending isn't even ½% of world GDP currently.

----------


## Marc

I love that graph with the number of paper published per year Woodbe ... As you probably know numbers mean very little, reminds me of a slogan used during a particularly nasty political campaign were the opposition would mock, in reply to the slogan vote xxx millions can not be wrong ... they reply was ..."eat sh*#, millions of flies can not be wrong" ... 
Anyway, long time ago ... I would like to see a graph of the amount of money thrown at "funding" superimposed to the number of papers published, now that would be revealing. 
My guess ... more money, more paper.  Eventually it will be less money, less papers, until another funds attracting quest comes on the horizon and the mercenaries scramble for funds in that direction, writing frantically and giving long convoluted speeches with grave solidary faces in full consensus. 
Can you imagine the amount of "papers" published in support of the nazi party during that era? the papers published in Russia during Stalin, in China during Mao?

----------


## woodbe

So no reading of the science by Marc, just left field accusations of fraud. 
Could try harder...

----------


## Marc

*Global warming consensus claim doesn’t stand up*    RICHARD TOLTHE AUSTRALIANMARCH 25, 2015 12:00AM    PrintSave for later   83  *Now almost two years old, John Cook’s 97 per cent consensus paper on anthropogenic global warming has been a runaway success. Downloaded more than 300,000 times, voted the best 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters, frequently cited by peers and politicians from around the world, the paper seems to be the definitive proof that the science of climate change is settled. It isn’t.* 
Consensus has no place in science. Academics agree on lots of things, but that does not make them true. Even so, agreement climate change is real and human-caused does not tell us anything about how the risks of climate change weigh against the risks of climate policy. But in our age of pseudo-Enlightenment, having 97 per cent of researchers on your side is powerful rhetoric for marginalising political opponents. All politics ends in failure, however. Chances are the opposition will gain power well before the climate problem is solved. Polarisation works in the short run, but is counterproductive in the long run. 
Cook and colleagues argue 97 per cent of the relevant academic literature endorses that humans have contributed to observed climate change. This is unremarkable. It follows immediately from the 19th century research by @Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius. In popular discourse, however, Cook’s finding is often misrepresented. The 97 per cent refers to the number of papers, rather than the number of scientists. The alleged consensus is about any human role in climate change, rather than a dominant role, and it is about @climate change rather than the dangers it might pose.Although there are large areas of substantive agreement, climate science is far from settled. Witness the dozens of alternative explanations of the 18-year pause in warming of the surface atmosphere.  
The debate on the seriousness of @climate change or what to do about it ranges even more widely.The Cook paper is remarkable for its quality, though. Cook and colleagues studied 12,000 papers, but did not check whether their sample is representative for the scientific literature. It isn’t. Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: a number of papers that should have been analysed were not, for no apparent reason.The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter.Cook enlisted a small group of environmental activists to rate the claims made by the selected papers. Cook claims the ratings were done independently, but the raters freely discussed their work. There are systematic differences between the raters. Reading the same abstracts, the raters reached remarkably different conclusions — and some raters all too often erred in the same direction. 
Cook’s hand-picked raters disagreed on what a paper was about 33 per cent of the time. In 63 per cent of cases, they disagreed about the message of a paper with the authors of that paper. The paper’s reviewers did not pick up on these things. The editor even praised the authors for the “excellent data quality” even though neither he nor the referees had had the opportunity to check the data. Then again, that same editor thinks @climate change is like the rise of Nazi Germany. Two years after publication, Cook admitted that data quality is indeed low.Requests for the data were met with evasion and foot-dragging, a clear breach of the publisher’s policy on validation and reproduction, yet defended by an editorial board member of the journal as “exemplary scientific conduct”. Cook hoped to hold back some data, but his internet security is on par with his statistical skills, and an alleged hacker was not intimidated by the University of Queensland’s legal threats. Cook’s employer argued that releasing rater identities would violate a confidentiality agreement. That agreement does not exist.Cook first argued that releasing time stamps would serve no scientific purpose.  
This is odd. Cook’s raters essentially filled out a giant questionnaire. Survey researchers routinely collect time stamps, and so did Cook. Interviewees sometimes tire and rush through the last questions. Time stamps reveal that. Cook argued time stamps were never collected. They were. They show one of Cook’s raters inspected 675 abstracts within 72 hours, a superhuman @effort.The time stamps also reveal something far more serious. After collecting data for eight weeks, there were four weeks of data analysis, followed by three more weeks of data collection. The same people collected and analysed the data. After more analysis, the paper classification scheme was changed and yet more data @collected.Cook thus broke a key rule of scientific data collection: observations should never follow from the conclusions. Medical tests are double-blind for good reason.You cannot change how to @collect data, and how much, after having seen the results. 
Cook’s team may, perhaps unwittingly, have worked towards a given conclusion. And indeed, the observations are different, significantly and materially, between the three phases of data collection. The entire study should therefore be dismissed.This would have been an amusing how-not-to tale for our students. But Cook’s is one of the most influential papers of recent years. The paper was vigorously defended by the University of Queensland (Cook’s employer) and the editors of Environmental Research Letters, with the Institute of Physics (the publisher) looking on in silence. Incompetence was compounded by cover-up and complacency.Climate change is one of the defining issues of our times. We have one uncontrolled, poorly observed experiment. We cannot observe the future.  
Climate change and policy are too complex for a single person to understand. Climate policy is about choosing one future over another. That choice can only be informed by the judgment of experts — and we must have confidence in their learning and trust their intentions.Climate research lost its aura of impartiality with the unauthorised release of the email archives of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. Its reputation of competence was shredded by the climate community’s celebration of the flawed works of Michael Mann. Innocence went with the allegations of sexual harassment by Rajendra Pachauri and Peter Gleick’s fake memo. Cook’s paper shows the climate community still has a long way to go in weeding out bad research and bad behaviour. If you want to believe climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point._Richard Tol teaches economics at the University of Sussex and the Vrije University Amsterdam._​

----------


## johnc

Perhaps we should just have a new thread for Marc's conspiracy theories, most of those links are to poorly constructed tripe, sort of a zombie world for those who have lost track of reality. All the same it does highlight a certain thought process that before the internet was thankfully hidden from view, wasn't it Einstein that said only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity.

----------


## John2b

> *Global warming consensus claim doesn’t stand up*​

  Thanks for bring it up, Marc, you are right there isn’t 97% agreement among climate scientists. 
In more than 24,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published in 2013 and 2014 only five propose a hypothesis for the observed global warming that rejects that human emissions of CO2 are the cause. 
So the real consensus is more like *99.99%*  How climate change deniers got it right â€” but very wrong | MSNBC 
We all know your conspiracy theory that climate scientist act only for the money, so why isn't there a flood of climate scientists waiting to take the cash prizes from the ever more desperate fossil energy industries? Why do the fossil energy industries have to depend on nut-cases and fruit-loops, like Monckton and Delligpole to purvey their position? Why can't their money buy climate scientists? Why do they have to settle for spokesmen from unrelated fields like geology, philosophy, journalism or politics????  #14343

----------


## Marc

*The day the Global Warming death spiral began* Let the historic dissection begin. Man-made global warming is a dying market and a zombie science.
The Carbon Capture Report, based in Illinois, tallies up the media stories from the English speaking media on “climate change” daily. Thanks to the tip from Peter Lang, we can see the terminal trend below. The big peak in late 2009 was the double-whammy of Climategate and Copenhagen (aka Hopenhagen). It’s all been downhill since then. Mentions of “climate change” in news, blogs and tweets dropped suddenly from July 29, 2011 
Source: Carbon Capture ReportBut something that caught my eye was the drop in mid 2011 (or precisely — July 29, 2011) when media stories fell by half, a step-change fall from which they never recovered.
Media Matters, and Joe Romm make much of of the fact that after Paul Ingrassia (a skeptic) was appointed as Reuters deputy-editor-in-chief news coverage of climate change fell by half. Media Matters found a 48% decline in climate-change coverage over a six-month period, after Ingrassia joined the agency in 2011.But Ingrassia started in _April 2011_ not July. Media Matters compares 6 months before the global fall Oct 2010 – April 2011 — to a six month period after the global fall (Oct 2011 – April 2012). Media Matters and Romm missed the big picture.
The Carbon Capture report graph above includes news, articles, blogs, tweets. The step change occurs in news stories and tweets, but doesn’t happen in blogs til October 15, 2011. When it comes, the use of “climate change” in blogs plummets about 70%. What happened? (Suggestions welcome). Is this an artefact, does it include comments? Is this a moment when the 50c army got new instructions (and why?), or, who knows, perhaps paychecks for astroturfing stopped? I have no data… Blog mentions of “climate change” apparently fell after Oct 13th 2011 Mentions of “wind power” similarly fell off their own cliff the same week as media mentions of “climate change”. The dot just above the fall is July 26th, 2011. Mentions of “Wind Power” drop from July 26th 2011.  
The term “solar power” fell into a ditch that week, but recovered on and off. It was not the same pattern. Mentions of “Solar Power” in media, blogs and tweets  
I wondered what events has caused the fall. I figured there would be clues in the carbon market, and sure enough, the death spiral in prices began in June 2011. Carbon credit prices  
Global mentions of carbon credits reached a wild peak on July 1o.
What was going on? Everyone was talking about carbon credits on July 10, 2011. *So I started hunting*I skimmed through wayback machine pages of Climate depot and Tom Nelson. (Keep hunting, you may find something I missed).
In mid-2011 there appear to be a few not-so-good polls released, like  _Poll: Most see disasters, few climate turn_ [July 11th] and  _Climate Change Belief_ _Down 27 Percentage Points in Four Years?_ [July 12]. There were also media stories talking about a coming ice age, like  “E_arth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade_ “[June 14th] and Christopher Booker _“Global warming? A new ice age?”_ [July 6th].
None of which were enough.
The Chicago Climate Exchange collapsed in late 2010. That wasn’t the trigger. Though it was an early victim of the same general trend. The Republicans took control of the US Senate House in Nov 2010, and Cap n Trade was declared deadthen. By February 2011, renewables were off the agenda in “austerity-struck Europe” and I noted the money was leaving the room. *What looks like the most important clue was a key report issued on June 1* by the World Bank which said the international carbon market was in deep trouble: World Bank warns of ‘failing’ international carbon market [Guardian June 2] . Another version said:  “Carbon credits market at point of collapse”. They are talking about the international CDM market, which is not the same as the EU market, though the _Guardian_ had a leaked report suggesting that the big EU market was in trouble too. “THE international market in carbon credits has suffered an almost total collapse, with only $US1.5 billion of them traded last year – the lowest since the system opened in 2005, says a report from the World Bank.
A fledgling market in greenhouse gas emissions in the United States also declined, and only the European Union’s internal market in carbon remained healthy, worth $US120 billion. However, leaked documents appear to show that even the EU’s system is in danger.
The international market in carbon credits was brought about under the Kyoto Protocol, as a way of injecting investment in low-carbon technology in the developing world.
Under the system, known as the clean development mechanism [CDM], projects such as wind farms or solar panels in developing countries are awarded credits for every tonne of carbon avoided. These credits are bought by rich countries to count towards their emissions reduction targets.”By June 25th 2011 on WUWT we can see that the EU price was falling too.  Poland was blocking EU legislation as well.  EU Carbon Credit trading takes a dive. In Greece, they could hardly give EU carbon credits away  Last week, Greece started auctioning their EUAs (European Union Allowances). They need the money, and probably other countries will follow, including Portugal. But they were not that lucky! Of the 1 million permits,only 6000 EUA were sold. The reason: *nobody is buying…*
In the meantime, Poland has blocked an EU deal on CO2 emissions. They are the largest producer of hard coal in the EU, and the share of coal in electricity generation (92% in 2004) is the highest among the EU Member States. They are also pushing for shale gas. The result for them: the biggest GDP growth in 2009 and the third in 2010, amongst the 27 European member states.
Finally, Yvo de Boer has confirmed what everyone knows: the Kyoto Protocol is dead*What about the monster spike in carbon credits stories?*By July 10th, perhaps the world’s media finally realized what traders, bloggers, then bureaucrats had already figured out. The price of everything to do with carbon credits was falling. It could be that in a brief flurry they woke up, announced that, and then lost interest. Meanwhile all the groups who normally issue press releases were downsizing or closing, didn’t feel like telling the world, and the rain of wind-power and climate change news slowed as the investment money, and the press writers, moved to different industries.
It seems hard to believe, but the July 10 spike could have had something to do with Australian PM Julia Gillard. With impeccable timing and style, as carbon markets fell, Julia Gillard signed Australia up to the most expensive carbon taxscheme in the world. She announced those details on Sunday July 10th. She really did pick the last possible moment to leap from the life-raft onto the burning ship. And hasn’t Australia paid dearly for that.
So Copenhagen was the peak, the markets lived on sheer momentum for another year, but underneath the surface the big players were quietly leaving. Meanwhile the Greek and other EU economies were hitting the wall at the same time as the promise of the renewables industry and the carbon market were proving to be hollow. The carbon market for the EU maintained the price in 2010, but had none of the strength, and when the World Bank report appeared the medium-serious-money started walking away too, and has been walking away ever since. *Pure speculation…*It may have taken 18 months,  but the Great Global Warming Scare was tested for real for the first time in Copenhagen and it failed. The collision with decades of dismal EU monetary policy, and a couple of cold winters help seal its fate. How much of that was due to FOIA and Climategate, we’ll probably never know.
If the media had really reported what happened in Climategate at the time, they could have led opinions instead of being the mere recorders of history after the fact — telling the world what it mostly already knew. The MSM is in its own little version of a death spiral, largely because we no longer trust it to report the news without omissions. Science journalists could have punctured the global warming scare years ago if they’d been doing their jobs. Thank goodness for Booker, Bolt and Ridley, and for Delingpole. Thank goodness for Blogs.

----------


## Marc

*Zombie attacks might increase due to global warming, study shows*JANUARY 31, 2008 / BRIGGS / 53 COMMENTS  A new study by scientists has suggested that zombie attacks might increase if the current projections of global warming are realized. “If the earth gets warmer, it means longer springs, summers, and falls, and shorter winters,” said John Carpenter-Romero, Ph.D., a zombie-ologist who co-authored the study. “And shorter winters means more time for the undead to prey on the populace.” Dr. Harrister, the other co-author, and head of Zombie Robotics at Wayward Robot, Inc., explained that cold winters typically stalled the walking dead. “It is well known that zombies can’t operate in cold weather. It freezes their brains.” The pair calculated a 32.782412% increase in zombie attacks if CO2 increased to twice its pre-industrial rate. “Clearly, this is a very troubling result,” said Dr. Harrister, “If we don’t do something soon, the streets will be filled with blood.”   *Update: be sure to read the follow-up post: Zombies no joke, global warming can cause anything.*

----------


## PhilT2

Speaking of zombies, Abbott and the LNP have slumped to a new low in the opinion polls; it must only be a matter of time before a change of leadership becomes the only option. The latest Morgan poll also shows support for both the ALP and Greens rising strongly. If the inevitable happens can we then blame Tony's demise on global warming? It's all part of the conspiracy. Or maybe Hanlon's razor.

----------


## johnc

I think it is what happens when you choose a political warrior for his narrow brutal focus on issues and opponents while forgetting that you also need a leader capable of thinking broadly if you want to unite enough people to progress sound ideas.

----------


## Marc

> Speaking of zombies, Abbott and the LNP have slumped to a new low in the opinion polls; it must only be a matter of time before a change of leadership becomes the only option. The latest Morgan poll also shows support for both the ALP and Greens rising strongly. If the inevitable happens can we then blame Tony's demise on global warming? It's all part of the conspiracy. Or maybe Hanlon's razor.

  Sorry Johnc, your reply is too loaded to be able to be answered without a "please explain" ...  "brutal force" ... "thinking broadly" ... "sound ideas" ... completely subjective concepts. 
Opinion polls are a joke. Think about it. 100% of politicians abuse the overly generous traveling allowances using the family reunion concept for private holidays, and junket at all levels and all political confessions is a matter of fact for federal state and local morons. 
They singled out BB because of her position and because she was giving labour a hard time. The poor little sods, innocent vanilla dudes riding the high moral ground. 
They realised now that in a glass house you can not throw stones and made a truce so now liberals come out in defence of labour own rorts. Pathetic.
If anything Liberals must be accused of going slow, too afraid of upsetting the Centrelink sponsored voter. 
The global warming scam is a scourge that affects all levels of government in all countries comparable only to the inquisition in Europe when atheism was a sin punishable with death. 
If we used half the energy wasted in debating pretend moral high standing in creating new sources of prosperity, the country would be much better served. Yet this will never happen until we can scrap the poisonous concept of prosperity being wrong, and will never happen with a backwards tax system that punishes success.

----------


## John2b

> Yet this will never happen until we can scrap the poisonous concept of prosperity being wrong, and will never happen with a backwards tax system that punishes success.

  Well, Abbott is well on the way to moving the tax burden to the poor. The trouble is that they don't have money to pay taxes in the first place. I think there is a minor floor in you argument, Marc. The tax system only works because* people pay in accordance with their means.* Successful people use public resources to a greater extent. To paraphrase Kerry Packer, only stupid wealthy people pay tax. A user pays system would 'tax' successful people to a greater extent than our current system, not the other way around.

----------


## John2b

> They singled out BB because of her position and because she was giving labour a hard time. The poor little sods, innocent vanilla dudes riding the high moral ground.

   
Yes, BB has to slum it in cattle class with the rest of us. But luckily she always keeps some sanitiser in her handbag just in case. 
According to newspaper reports, BB misappropriated $260,000 in limousine hire falsely recorded as taxi fares just in the past five years. PS got a jail sentence for a few hundred dollars in misappropriated taxi vouchers.

----------


## Neptune

> Tell us what you think of Climate Change and Emission Trading,

  I think there is a huge amount of people that are very easy to con.   

> or back off.

  I do hope that is not a threat Michael??   

> Yes, BB has to slum it in cattle class with the rest of us. But luckily she always keeps some sanitiser in her handbag just in case. 
> According to newspaper reports, BB misappropriated $260,000 in limousine hire falsely recorded as taxi fares just in the past five years. PS got a jail sentence for a few hundred dollars in misappropriated taxi vouchers.

  And this post has what to do with Climate Change and Emission Trading? 
The trouble with you blokes is you're in so deep you believe your own BS.

----------


## John2b

> And this post has what to do with Climate Change and Emission Trading?

  *Good point. So Neptune, what has YOUR post got to do with climate change and emission trading?????* 
Absolutely agree the post was off topic, it was in response to an off topic post by your champion poster (who's posts are 99.9% off topic), just like your post is off topic.

----------


## Neptune

> *So Neptune, what has YOUR post got to do with climate change and emission trading?????*

  Surely you can understand my post was answering Michael?   

> Absolutely agree it is off topic

   

> but was in response to an off topic post by your champion poster (who's posts are 99.9% off topic).

  Well actually he was a responding to these,   

> Speaking of zombies, Abbott and the LNP have  slumped to a new low in the opinion polls; it must only be a matter of  time before a change of leadership becomes the only option. The latest  Morgan poll also shows support for both the ALP and Greens rising  strongly. If the inevitable happens can we then blame Tony's demise on  global warming? It's all part of the conspiracy. Or maybe Hanlon's  razor.

   

> I think it is what happens when you choose a  political warrior for his narrow brutal focus on issues and opponents  while forgetting that you also need a leader capable of thinking broadly  if you want to unite enough people to progress sound ideas.

   

> Apologies if you have a disability that means you can't read or comprehend simple English.

  As I said, you believe your own BS.

----------


## John2b

> As I said, you believe your own BS.

  So why did you quote MY post, FW? And why not answer the question: what does your post have to do with the topic? The 14 people currently viewing this forum will judge who believes who's BS based on who said what to whom about what.

----------


## John2b

What chance is there that this won't be the hottest ever year...

----------


## johnc

Ok Marc lets spell it out for you, it is nothing to do with opinion polls. Abbott is still in opposition mode to function as a leader he has to sort his administration. That means formulating ideas, working with stakeholders and getting the public informed so he can get the legislation needed through. Other than a bit of opposition bashing he is not trying to spell out those ideas and he has burned those within his own party as well as those outside. Even the union RC which we need he has blown with his stupid captains picks and juvenile over reach. The blokes hopeless but the party does have talent, about time it pruned the deadwood and brought the talent to the front line it will be a one term government that quite frankly is worse than both the McMahon and Whitlam administrations.

----------


## Marc

> Well, Abbott is well on the way to moving the tax burden to the poor. The trouble is that they don't have money to pay taxes in the first place. I think there is a minor floor in you argument, Marc. The tax system only works because* people pay in accordance with their means.* Successful people use public resources to a greater extent. To paraphrase Kerry Packer, only stupid wealthy people pay tax. A user pays system would 'tax' successful people to a greater extent than our current system, not the other way around.

  Correction... 50% of working people, not counting those on welfare of course, pay zero tax.
That's right,they pay with one hand and get it back with the other, net tax zero.
There is only one kind of tax system that is fair and just. Flat rate tax. everyone pays the same percentage. Why should one pay 47% and another 25 % and then get the money back in "benefits"(read vote bribe)?
I do agree that a consumption tax would go some way to level things out. There was a proposal of a 2dollar tax on "everything" that was supposed to replace all other tax. Not sure how far out there that is.  
As as far as paying in accordance with their means, that sentence may be attractive to some for its emotional content, but tax is to do with numbers, mathematics.
if a person earns 18,500 in a year, that person pays no tax. Fair? Not really, and if you consider that those who do pay tax will fork out one to three times that amount to subsidise this person even further, the fairness clearly is non existing.
Now take someone that after decades of study,and sacrifice achieves a decent 200k a year. His marginal tax rate is 47%. Almost half of every dollar above that goes for tax. And as far as this pet myth of tax claims and deductions, when that may be possible in some cases, in many others it is not possible legally. Yes you can claim your home renovation on your rental, or you can claim your family vacation as work expense or you can take a gun and rob the next bank. Eventually you get caught.
you would probably say ... Not sustainable.   :Smilie:  
Flat rate is the answer.Everyone to pay say 20% from the first dollar onwards, or 25 or 30 the rate itself will need to be revenue neutral but it has to apply to every person that is alive and under 65. 
Had they done so with GST in stead of listening to the moron democrats ... Remember them? The fight tooth and nail to exempt books ... BOOKS ! Who buys books anymore?

----------


## johnc

Everyone gets the tax free threshold, the scales are developed to ensure those on low incomes have a chance to meet the basics of life, when you think about it high income earners get the same low rates on their income it is only when income rises that your higher income gets heftier rates. There was a time when the top marginal rate was 66% and that high rate was brought in by Menzies and it was the Hawke government that reduced it, fancy that. It was also Hawke that reduced company tax rates. What has this to do with Labor/Liberal? nothing much it had more to do with who was in power at a given time and the economic winds of the time. 
Sustainable? well if you have had decades of study you would be a slow learner wouldn't you? really lets keep this sane, we have a mix of taxes coming out of households and social security going in, most Australians pay tax and most also get social security. Is the system sustainable long term, probably not but all sides have created this mess and allowed the cost of housing to go ballistic in the process, the problem isn't going to be solved by pretending one side has the answer because it is blindingly obvious that neither side has any answers at all. Labor is trying to pretend it is as good as the Liberals on economic management, the Liberals are trying to pretend they can do the impossible, neither side is being honest with itself if they think they have the smarts or ideas to fix anything or even if they have the answers engage the nation sufficiently to fix the mess we are heading into.

----------


## Marc

Well ... Basically agree with most.
Yet would like to add that the reason neither party has a handle on things is that both have ignored the elephant in the room.
basically the vast majority of Australians think that those who earn above a number that is sadly very low, are greedy,dishonest, generally bastards.
when that may go well in a pub chat, it is poison for person and for a nation prosperity. Until that time the successful is the hero starting in primary school, basically we are screwed.

----------


## John2b

The vast majority of Australians think that the government is not doing enough to prevent climate change:  In The News | Galaxy Research

----------


## Marc

By the climate institute ... Ha ha, aren' they the one to lose the most from skepticism? 
I think in this "action against global warming" like those medieval churches built with the equivalent of billions, among a mostly pauper population. A form of advertising, grandstanding, and instrument for mass manipulation and delusion.
the difference is that churches took centuries to become irrelevant. Global warming worship places will only take decades to turn into a monument to human stupidity.

----------


## johnc

> Well ... Basically agree with most.
> Yet would like to add that the reason neither party has a handle on things is that both have ignored the elephant in the room.
> basically the vast majority of Australians think that those who earn above a number that is sadly very low, are greedy,dishonest, generally bastards.
> when that may go well in a pub chat, it is poison for person and for a nation prosperity. Until that time the successful is the hero starting in primary school, basically we are screwed.

  I think that the bigger problem is politicians going for short term populism most of our tax changes in the last decade have been knee jerk rather than considered. I think there is a general perception out there that high income earners should pay tax and we take a dim view of it if they don't and it becomes public. I don't think though that it applies the other way round. Tax shirkers are seen the same as social security fraudsters in both cases sponging off the rest of us, the opprobrium comes with the action not the income.

----------


## Neptune

> So why did you quote MY post, FW?

  To show that you are posting stuff that has nothing to do with the topic.    

> And why not answer the question: what does your post have to do with the topic?

  It was answered in my post at 6:03 Pm yesterday, the one that you quoted part of, before my post was removed and replaced, http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...tml#post981202   

> Apologies if you have a disability that means you can't read or comprehend simple English.

----------


## Marc

> I think that the bigger problem is politicians going for short term populism most of our tax changes in the last decade have been knee jerk rather than considered. I think there is a general perception out there that high income earners should pay tax and we take a dim view of it if they don't and it becomes public. I don't think though that it applies the other way round. Tax shirkers are seen the same as social security fraudsters in both cases sponging off the rest of us, the opprobrium comes with the action not the income.

   Agree again, there is however a lot of urban myth surrounding the actions of the so called rich.
It is somehow comforting to some to project wrongdoing on the successful as if success is achieved by doing the wrong thing.
"I am poor but I am honest" is a classic concept.
I have seen in the course of 20 years of work in this field, a lot of fraud against the government and I can tell you that it is in no way the exclusive realm of the wealthy, far from it.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Flat rate is the answer.

  Flat rate is not the only answer.  Better would be a flat rate tax on all types of consumption.  If you consume then you get taxed accordingly   

> BOOKS ! Who buys books anymore?

  I do.  Quite frequently. Periodicals as well.  No way am I going to rely on the internet for all my information and entertainment...

----------


## Marc

Yes, I wonder what happened to that $2 tax that was doing the round. 
Yes, I know I also buy the occasional book, but the idea that the Democrats "saved" the students from the grubby hands of Howard was laughable even then.

----------


## John2b

Australian companies, including the big fossil energy companies, have been found to be 'exporting' more than $30billion in profits offshore annually to avoid paying tax on Australian earnings.  Multinational crackdown as firms avoid AU$31b in Australian tax | ZDNet 
At the same time the fossil energy companies accepted $1,712 for every Australian in government handouts.  Australia still subsidising fossil fuels at rate of $1,712 per person a year : Renew Economy 
Shell paid $0 tax on $60 billion in Australian revenue over the past three years.  Shell pumped $20 billion a year from motorists but paid no company tax 
If these companies paid the tax on the income they generated in Australia at Australian company tax rates, it would wipe out the deficit which has raced ahead under Hockeynomics. 
The slowest rate of Australian Federal Government debt escalation since 2000 was during the years of Labor government 2007 - 2013, when it was about half the rate of the current Abbott government, and about ⅔ the rate of debt escalation under the Howard government.  History - Australian Debt Clock

----------


## Marc

Yes, I heard this latest "discovery" I say why did it take a French whistleblower to tell us they are robbing us blind?
Companies abroad buy money at 5%, and lend it to their subsidiaries in Australia at 50% and since interests are a tax deduction the local company pays no tax. If I do that they would "discover" this quick smart. It is the same with mining that sell for a pittance to shell companies in Singapore who on sell at the real market price. If the common person has known this for decades, what has the ATO done? 
There is a lesson here. No one has broken the law. This is equivalent to the worker claiming laundry expenses. The fault lays square on the one making the rules. The latest "surprise"is rather pathetic.

----------


## johnc

> Yes, I heard this latest "discovery" I say why did it take a French whistleblower to tell us they are robbing us blind?
> Companies abroad buy money at 5%, and lend it to their subsidiaries in Australia at 50% and since interests are a tax deduction the local company pays no tax. If I do that they would "discover" this quick smart. It is the same with mining that sell for a pittance to shell companies in Singapore who on sell at the real market price. If the common person has known this for decades, what has the ATO done? 
> There is a lesson here. No one has broken the law. This is equivalent to the worker claiming laundry expenses. The fault lays square on the one making the rules. The latest "surprise"is rather pathetic.

  There is actually legislation on transfer pricing that is meant to limit the practice for companies, trouble is a lot sail close to the wind while others flout the law and get away with it. There is also the anti avoidance provisions in part 1VA it is very difficult to get this stuff through the courts, unless parliament adopt a bi partisan approach I can't see anything improving.

----------


## John2b

> There is actually legislation on transfer pricing that is meant to limit the practice for companies, trouble is a lot sail close to the wind while others flout the law and get away with it. There is also the anti avoidance provisions in part 1VA it is very difficult to get this stuff through the courts, unless parliament adopt a bi partisan approach I can't see anything improving.

  It doesn't help that on several occasions Joe Hockey has publicly stated that the LNC government has no intention of pursuing multinational corporations which legally or illegally shift profits off shore.  Hockey backflips on tax laws to target multinational profit shifters  Joe Hockey steps in to protect suspected tax dodger multinationals from being identified   http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...x.html?stb=twt

----------


## Marc

So what happens if I lend a few hundred K to my daughter at 50% interest and she claims in on tax?

----------


## PhilT2

> It is the same with mining that sell for a pittance to shell companies in Singapore who on sell at the real market price. If the common person has known this for decades, what has the ATO done?

  Wasn't there an attempt to get mining companies to pay more, called a "mining tax" I think. Got repealed if I recall correctly. The fact that mining companies spent $22mil on political ads and donations had nothing to do with that of course.

----------


## Marc

Ha ha, good try but no cigar. 
Two different things. The current rules that allow companies like mining and oil and google and ebay and Microsoft and the rest, to legally circumvent our tax system is our own doing and our own fault and should have been rectified eons ago. To produce a new tax that would have been revenue neutral after the dust settles was a political banter comparable to Venezuela confiscating foreign assets or Argentina declaring war against Germany in March 1945

----------


## PhilT2

Agreed, it wasn't a perfect plan.Let me know when the LNP produce a better one. Of course they're too busy right now with same sex marriage and their expense accounts to bother with such petty details but I'm sure they'll get to it eventually.

----------


## Marc

Funny how the anti-conservative crowd is always riding the high moral ground ... Almost not touching the ground, forgetting that they had 6years to do  ... What exactly? ... Oh yes .. I remember now, encourage 50,000 illegals that will be welfare depending for 3 generation at best, sink the country in a debt spiral for the comrades to buy flat screen TV and the builders to swindle they way to 500% overpriced shade cloths and pink bats it is embarrassing to even remember rob oakshot and the rest of the clowns and parasites. Even funnier to think that the tax situation was exactly the same with Labour. Ah the irony!

----------


## John2b

> Funny how the anti-conservative crowd is always riding the high moral ground

  Australian debt grew at a compound rate of 11.2% per annum under Howard (3/96 to 12/2007), 4.8% per annum under Rudd/Gillard/Rudd (12/2007 - 9/2013), and is growing at 24% per annum under Abbott. 
Funny how you think simply reporting actual data is 'taking the moral high ground'.  History - Australian Debt Clock

----------


## johnc

> So what happens if I lend a few hundred K to my daughter at 50% interest and she claims in on tax?

   In what circumstances? Essentially non arms length, probably a sham transaction on non commercial terms,wouldn't get up. Plenty of these go before the tribunals, most fail

----------


## John2b

> *The day the Global Warming death spiral began*

  The big steps are due to changes in mythology as even Jo Nova acknowledges. 
It's a bit funny why all the series you pasted end in 2013. I don't suppose it had anything to do with the fact that the rate of reporting of climate change has undergone significant growth since that date? Never one to let facts impinge on an ideological position, are you Marc?  Daily Report: Climate Change

----------


## woodbe

> Originally Posted by woodbe  or back off.    I do hope that is not a threat Michael??

  I think you should read the whole post, not just read three words so you can use them as some sort of inflammatory response. Here, read again:   

> Neptune, what are you doing in this thread? 
> You are not engaged in any Emission Trading discussion, you are just poking sticks at people. 
> Tell us what you think of Climate Change and Emission Trading, or back  off. There is enough touch paper around this discussion without you  pouring petrol on the fire.

  I asked you what are you doing in this thread. You are not engaged in the discussion, you are throwing rocks from the side. It sure looks like you are just trying to ignite the debate rather than engage in the debate.

----------


## woodbe

> Surely you can understand my post was answering Michael?

  And my post was asking you what you are doing in this thread because you have not engaged in the discussion, so John's post was entirely relevant.

----------


## woodbe

> The big steps are due to changes in mythology as even Jo Nova acknowledges. 
> It's a bit funny why all the series you pasted end in 2013. I don't suppose it had anything to do with the fact that the rate of reporting of climate change has undergone significant growth since that date? Never one to let facts impinge on an ideological position, are you Marc?  Daily Report: Climate Change

  Not to mention the simple fact: Science is not measured via the number of news articles, blog posts, youtube videos, etc. Unless the existing, published, Climate Change science is falsified, it stands.  
Given that the number of posts, blogs, news articles, etc have dropped away, there is an alternative explanation: We are now past the worst of the massive push by denialists in the media. They are losing the battle because they have not published significant science to counter the enormous amount of published science before us. Just look at the response by 'Climate Change is Crap' Tony Abbot: He's increasing his CO2 reduction goals ahead of Paris, a clear indication that he is caving in under public and worldwide scrutiny. Looks like votes are more important than his denial, makes him look like a hypocrite.

----------


## John2b

The US banking giant Citigroup estimates that up to $44 trillion could be lost from US GDP if the world does not act on climate change. The flip side is that a shift to renewable energy would increase economic activity and boost GDP in the short term, and the freed up capital from reduced energy costs would also further investment and greater growth in GDP in the longer term.  Cost of not acting on climate change $44 trillion: Citi  https://www.citivelocity.com/citigps...on?recordId=41

----------


## PhilT2

> Just look at the response by 'Climate Change is Crap' Tony Abbot: He's increasing his CO2 reduction goals ahead of Paris, a clear indication that he is caving in under public and worldwide scrutiny. Looks like votes are more important than his denial, makes him look like a hypocrite.

  A number of the Liberals and nationals do not accept the science behind climate change. Yet they all voted for the "direct action" policy and spending millions of tax dollars on a problem that they are sure is a hoax. They also support Julie Bishop going to Paris with a plan to reduce greenhouse gases; just as long as she doesn't take a helicopter to get there.
Hypocricy...no, just politics.

----------


## woodbe

> A number of the Liberals and nationals do not accept the science behind climate change. Yet they all voted for the "direct action" policy and spending millions of tax dollars on a problem that they are sure is a hoax. They also support Julie Bishop going to Paris with a plan to reduce greenhouse gases; just as long as she doesn't take a helicopter to get there.
> Hypocricy...no, just politics.

  Hypocricy, yes. 
Announce 'Climate Change is crap' but still claim they are doing something about it to appease the swinging voters. Hypocricy.
Put in place a 'Direct Action' plan that rewards polluters and has no chance of meeting the targets. Hypocricy. 
Playing politics does not negate hypocrisy. Hypocricy is still hypocricy.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

But is it hypocrisy if you don't actually invest anything in your policy? Either intellectually or financially.  
Direct Action is not being delivered with new money...merely redirected money from other ideologically insupportable programs!

----------


## woodbe

> But is it hypocrisy if you don't actually invest anything in your policy? Either intellectually or financially.  
> Direct Action is not being delivered with new money...merely redirected money from other ideologically insupportable programs!

  Yes, it's hypocrisy.... and lies... and Politicking.

----------


## Marc

> Australian debt grew at a compound rate of 11.2% per annum under Howard (3/96 to 12/2007), 4.8% per annum under Rudd/Gillard/Rudd (12/2007 - 9/2013), and is growing at 24% per annum under Abbott. 
> Funny how you think simply reporting actual data is 'taking the moral high ground'.  History - Australian Debt Clock

  not even you can possibly believe that. Where you overseas whilst rudd/gillard/rudd squandered our money?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

That's the problem with debt, Marc. Sometimes we actually spend the profits rather than suck up the debts.

----------


## John2b

> not even you can possibly believe that. Where you overseas whilst rudd/gillard/rudd squandered our money?

  The figures presented on the website are based on publically available information. It's the same information that government, banks and financial institutions use everyday.  You better hope it is correct because If the information is not correct, the economy is in even deeper dodo running on false data...

----------


## Marc

http://budget.liberal.org.au/images/laborsmess.jpg

----------


## woodbe

> http://budget.liberal.org.au/images/laborsmess.jpg

  Not comparing apples with oranges, Marc.

----------


## John2b

> http://budget.liberal.org.au/images/laborsmess.jpg

  Thanks for the link to the Liberal comic book cartoon, Marc. How's it going in the real world?  http://www.theguardian.com/australia...odelling-shows  Joe Hockey's mess is of his own making  The worst wages growth in 20 years is Joe Hockey's 'good news' | Business | The Guardian  The myth of Coalition economic management - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  Leadership turmoil may prove an economic disaster - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## Marc

Budget deficit or surplus is the only way to compare. To graph debt pure and simple means nothing. A Nation with increasing revenues can have increased borrowing, or in other words, a debt of a million dollars may be different for you or me. 
Deficit or surplus is the right way to check the health of a company or a nation or an individual. 
By the way John, your inability to keep a level head in a debate is getting tiresome. So it is OK to post Green/Labor/Commie rubbish but it is not OK to post Liberal rubbish?
We all know that politicians lie, that is their profession and their god and voter given right. 
I would like you to tell me what is incorrect in that graph of Labor tragic deficit, not the obvious notion that you dislike Joe Hockey because ... mm ... he is fat?
By the way I only read the ABC link and boy oh boy is that trash! How easy is it to talk trash, polish a t#rd and add a pink bow to it ... or is it a green one? The ABC is ready for a purge Stalin style.

----------


## woodbe

> ... to post Liberal rubbish?

  Thanks for admitting your Liberal party quote is rubbish. I agree with you.  :Biggrin:

----------


## John2b

> I would like you to tell me what is incorrect in that graph of Labor tragic deficit

  Your Liberal surplus a fantasy, that's what is wrong with it. The deficit has not reduced under liberals as your graph shows, it has exploded. Broadcasting your fantasy world to everyone is becoming tiresome. Why can't you accept reality? If you want to know something, go to the source, not some ideological blogger! 
Howard only had a surplus by selling of $billions of public assets, things that the public now has to pay for that it once owned, leaving the biggest technical deficit in the history of Australia. You can get rid of a credit card debt by selling your house, and your car, and then rent them back at an inflated rate if the buyer only bought them on the basis they were going to cream on profit, and you have no other option as the supplier is effectively a monopoly. You might not have debt, but will you be better off? 
I would not even know what green/labor/commie rubbish is as I am not a supporter of any of those sectors. I just know neoliberal economics is rubbish and unmitigated growth in a finite world is cancer. That's basic grade one arithmetic, in case you didn't know. 
Australia compared to US shows lower debt to GDP under Labor and higher debt to GDP under Liberal:

----------


## Marc

I say it once more in case you missed it. Talking debt is a useless exercise. It is the deficit that matters not the debt in itself. Labor saddled us with an astronomical deficit from borrowing without even considering how it was going to repay. And we don't have a thing to show for it since the flat screen TV are already out of date, the pink bats installers are broke and the builders that built the 800,000 shade cloth have sent all the money to Lebanon. Meantime Julia refurbishes an office for $400,000 with our money and the other moron has the gall to question the head of the RC because he had the intention to go to a fundraiser yet did not, when he stole and cheated and screwed those he was supposed to represent. Appalling.
Yet you would go back to that vomit in a heartbeat because ... mm ... what was it again? oh yes, Tony is a misogynist and uses speedos and Joe is fat.

----------


## John2b

> Yet you would go back to that vomit in a heartbeat because ... mm ... what was it again? oh yes, Tony is a misogynist and uses speedos and Joe is fat.

  This says more about you than Australian politics.

----------


## Marc

Classic. So would you vote for the best treasure in the world and Julia Guilford ... I mean Guillard? Or Rudd ? Or what's his name? (I call him edison)
They did give us record deficits in a row, all of their doing. Was that Tony's fault too? or my fault perhaps? Or Howard who sold everything and they the poor sod had nothing to sell anymore? 
Yes it is Howard's fault, that's it. You convinced me I will vote Labor forever or bust. 
Yes, tell me who's fault was the 6 years of deficit? Just a simple answer. Was it the fault of the american imperialist? The monetary fund? The illuminati? The Chinese ... it must be the Chinese... those global warming cheap tools manufacturing communist invading polluters ... it must be them.
It was the deficit we had to have .... (yes I did not forget Keating's 18% banana republic interest rate)

----------


## John2b

And the relevance of your post to the topic is...?

----------


## johnc

The LNP has proved themselves incapable of matching their own rhetoric on fiscal management, both at a Federal level or even at basic financial management in Victoria with lax systems that allowed fraud by one of their own. Get over it, neither side is much better than the other until they grow up and admit the fault is not the exclusive actions of one party, it's the economy, world forces, market forces blame who you like all sides have made mistakes all sides have got things right. Look back at the record of debt and deficit since 1900, the ups and downs are part fiscal management but mainly the market, it's a market driven economy the stupidity of the current LNP line isn't that it is wrong it is the silly sheep who repeat it without any sign of self awareness of the hollowness of the political line.

----------


## notvery

Anybody else think this got off typical to long?

----------


## John2b

> Anybody else think this got off typical to long?

  Yes! Back on topic: July Was Earthâ€™s Warmest Month in Records Going Back to 1880 - Bloomberg Business 
The last month that was at or below that 1900s average was _February 1985._ Thats *365 months in a row* where every single month has been above the average temperature globally.  http://phys.org/news/2015-02-years-a...s-climate.html

----------


## Marc

Global warming is the fault of the overheated economy ... now I get it!

----------


## Marc

> The LNP has proved themselves incapable of matching their own rhetoric on fiscal management, both at a Federal level or even at basic financial management in Victoria with lax systems that allowed fraud by one of their own. Get over it, neither side is much better than the other until they grow up and admit the fault is not the exclusive actions of one party, it's the economy, world forces, market forces blame who you like all sides have made mistakes all sides have got things right. Look back at the record of debt and deficit since 1900, the ups and downs are part fiscal management but mainly the market, it's a market driven economy the stupidity of the current LNP line isn't that it is wrong it is the silly sheep who repeat it without any sign of self awareness of the hollowness of the political line.

  Yes, Johnc, I am well aware. The point here. if there is one, is that man made global warming is a political tool. Forget the debate that I believe it is a complete fabrication, and others believe we are partly to blame, both side are playing the voters saying I am holier than "them". The labor/green keep on repeating their mantra from the top of a white marble tower of moral superiority as if the liberal had stormed to power in a coup using the army. 
And this moral superiority somehow wipes out all their sins. There is no more 6 years of shambolic idiocy, no more 6 years of straight deficit, no one remembers the green activist going to Indonesia and paying a worker to abuse cattle on video to shut down the live cattle market, and I can write for one hour straight. Yes the liberals have a lot of mistakes in their books, one that should not be forgotten is the Port Arthur massacre.
What I object is to the use of the global warming fraud to claim moral high ground. It is rather pathetic.

----------


## John2b

> The point here. if there is one, is that man made global warming is a political tool.

  Oh really?  30 years of above-average temperatures means the climate has changed 
Some researchers are employed by governments democratically elected, some employed by totalitarian governments, some employed by communist governments, some employed by universities in Eastern countries, some employed by universities in Western counties, some employed by business corporations, some who work in first world countries and some who work in third world counties, and yet the 100,000s of climate scientists are 99.99% in agreement over the reality and cause of global warming. 
Please explain how politicians manipulate the outcomes of scientific research undertaken independently by the 100,000s of climate scientists, some who have political views to the left and some who have political views to the right.  About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, one disagrees. - The Curious Wavefunction - Scientific American Blog Network

----------


## Marc

*Public stances on global warming*  *Politicization of the issue*  Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out. Bill Gray, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, wrote:  The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.[22]  Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake "consensus" Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publicly supported the global warming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.[23] Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA & NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. [24] The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.[25] In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.[26] The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform stated:[27]We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer-term threat from climate change.and[C]limate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern—this is a national security crisis.The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform stated:[28]The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmospere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.There have also been some Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who at one point believed that global warming is a critical problem, and that Conservatism and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking to those who are skeptical of global warming, in the Summer of 2001, he wrote, "[T]here is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence."[29] On October 10, 2009, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham coauthored (with Democrat Senator John Kerry) an op ed piece in the _New York Times_ which stated "Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk." [30] In 2008 the Center for Naval Analyses empaneled eleven retired generals and admirals to prepare a paper titled "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change". They concluded that Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions.[31] The Central Intelligence Agency has opened The Center on Climate Change and National Security to study the impact of climate change on US national security.[32] Conservative activist and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for a Conservative Environmentalism to find solutions to global warming by free market mechanisms.[33] *Climate change as a cult*  The zeal of climate-change advocates and lack of objectivity has led some observers to see it as a core belief in a new eco-theology, using themes of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. Columnist Deon Feder warns[34] , that following other attempts such as Marxism, overpopulation, _Silent Spring_,now we have the Church of Global Warming, under the leadership of Pope Albert I and his college of cardinals (the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and editorial board of _The New York Times_).Its Office for the Propagation of the Faith works overtime, churning out books, movies (from the fictional “The Day After Tomorrow” to the fictional “An Inconvenient Truth”), textbooks, concerts, congressional hearings, media pleading and inquisitions.Commenting on the tendency to hastily issue dire warnings of Climate Change, seen in the coming Ice Age scare of the 70's, Maurizio Morabito[35] asked, "Is the problem with the general public, who cannot talk about climate except in doom-laden terms, and for whom the sky is the last animist god?" Mark Steyn writes in _Macleans_[36],Forty years ago conventional religious belief was certainly in decline in what we once knew as Christendom, but the hole was not yet ozone-layer sized. Once the sea of faith had receded far from shore, the post-Christian West looked at what remained and found “Gaia.”And while, "When man was made in the image of God, he was fallen but redeemable", among these devotees of Gaia,Anti-humanism is everywhere, not least in the barely concealed admiration for China’s (demographically disastrous) “One Child” policy advanced by everyone from the_National Post_’s Diane Francis to Sir David Attenborough, the world’s leading telly naturalist but also a BBC exec who once long ago commissioned the great series _The Ascent of Man_. If Sir David’s any guide, the great thing about man’s ascent is it gives him a higher cliff to nosedive off.*Politics of global warming and dissent*  _For a more detailed treatment, see Politics of global warming. _ http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming

----------


## John2b

> The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.

  Oh really?  Isn't it remarkable that among the legions of scientists working around the world, many with tenured positions, secure reputations and largely nothing to lose, not even a hundred out of ten thousand come forward to deny the phenomenon in the scientific literature? Should it be that hard for them to publish papers if the evidence is really good enough? Even detractors of the peer review system would disagree that the system is that broken; after all, studies challenging consensus are quite common in other disciplines. So are contrarian climate scientists around the world so utterly terrified of their colleagues and world opinion that they would not dare to hazard a contrarian explanation at all, especially if it were based on sound science? The belief stretches your imagination to new lengths.

----------


## Marc

*CO2: The Greatest Scientific
Scandal of Our Time
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., March 2007 
Read pdf paper of this strong critique of the IPCC from EIR Science 16 March 2007.  (Note typo error near top of page 50 . After 'The Near Future',  the "..2 million years.." should be 1 million.* *Foreword by Professor Hartmut Frank to a 1994 paper by Dr* *Zbigniew Jaworowski  in the journal Environmental  Science and Pollution Research. Download 146KB pdf file*** *1997 paper by Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski setting out errors in measurements of gas trapped in ancient ice cores.   Download  pdf paper 1.4 MB* Statement written for the Hearing before the US  Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation *Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2* 
 March 19, 2004 
Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski *Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection 
Warsaw, Poland                                                                        
I am a Professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection (CLOR) in Warsaw, Poland, a governmental institution, involved in environmental studies. CLOR has a Special Liaison relationship with the US National Council on Radiological Protection and Measurements (NCRP). In the past, for about ten years, CLOR closely cooperated with the US  Environmental Protection Agency, in research on the influence of industry and nuclear explosions on pollution of the global environment and population. I published about 280 scientific papers, among them about 20 on climatic problems. I am the representative of Poland in the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and in 1980  1982 I was the chairman of this Committee.  
For the past 40 years I was involved in glacier studies, using snow and ice as a matrix for reconstruction of history of man-made pollution of the global atmosphere. A part of these studies was related to the climatic issues. Ice core records of CO2 have been widely used as a proof that, due to mans activity the current atmospheric level of CO2 is about 25% higher than in the pre-industrial period. These records became the basic input parameters in the models of the global carbon cycle and a cornerstone of the man-made climatic warming hypothesis. These records do not represent the atmospheric reality, as I will try to demonstrate in my statement.  Relevant Background 
In order to study the history of industrial pollution of the global atmosphere, between 1972 and 1980, I organized 11 glacier expeditions, which measured natural and man-made pollutants in contemporary and ancient precipitation, preserved in 17 glaciers in Arctic, Antarctic, Alaska, Norway, the Alps, the Himalayas, the Ruwenzori Mountains in Uganda, the Peruvian Andes and in Tatra Mountains in Poland. I also measured long-term changes of dust in the troposphere and stratosphere, and the lead content in humans living in Europe and elsewhere during the past 5000 years. In 1968 I published the first paper on lead content in glacier ice[1]. Later I demonstrated that in pre-industrial period the total flux of lead into the global atmosphere was higher than in the 20th century, that the atmospheric content of lead is dominated by natural sources, and that the lead level in humans in Medieval Ages was 10 to 100 times higher than in the 20th century. In the 1990s I was working in the Norwegian Polar Research Institute in Oslo, and in the Japanese National Institute of Polar Research in Tokyo. In this period I studied the effects of climatic change on polar regions, and the reliability of glacier studies for estimation of CO2 concentration in the ancient atmosphere.   FALSE LOW PRE-INDUSTRIAL CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE 
Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Perusal of these determinations convinced me that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to 73oC) contains liquid water[2]. More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice[3].  
One of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates. In the highly compressed deep ice all air bubbles disappear, as under the influence of pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates, which are tiny crystals formed by interaction of gas with water molecules. Drilling decompresses cores excavated from deep ice, and contaminates them with the drilling fluid filling the borehole. Decompression leads to dense horizontal cracking of cores, by a well known sheeting process.  After decompression of the ice cores, the solid clathrates decompose into a gas form, exploding in the process as if they were microscopic grenades. In the bubble-free ice the explosions form a new gas cavities and new cracks[4]. Through these cracks, and cracks formed by sheeting, a part of gas escapes first into the drilling liquid which fills the borehole, and then at the surface to the atmospheric air. Particular gases, CO2, O2 and N2 trapped in the deep cold ice start to form clathrates, and leave the air bubbles, at different pressures and depth. At the ice temperature of 15oC dissociation pressure for N2 is about 100 bars, for O2 75 bars, and for CO2 5 bars. Formation of CO2 clathrates starts in the ice sheets at about 200 meter depth, and that of O2 and N2 at 600 to 1000 meters. This leads to depletion of CO2 in the gas trapped in the ice sheets. This is why the records of CO2 concentration in the gas inclusions from deep polar ice show the values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for the epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now.  Figures 1A and 1B The data from shallow ice cores, such as those from Siple, Antarctica[5, 6], are widely used as a proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, notably by IPCC[7]. These data show a clear inverse correlation between the decreasing CO2 concentrations, and the load-pressure increasing with depth (Figure 1 A). The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was too high. This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328 ppmv was measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii  as later as in 1973[8], i.e. 83 years after the ice was deposited at Siple.   An ad hoc assumption, not supported by any factual evidence[3, 9], solved the problem: the average age of air was arbitrary decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The corrected ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record (Figure 1 B), and reproduced in countless publications as a famous Siple curve. Only thirteen years later, in 1993,  glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the age assumption[10], but they failed[9].       Figure 2  The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].  
Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. In peer reviewed publications I exposed this misuse of science [3, 9]. Unfortunately, such misuse is not limited to individual publications, but also appears in documents of national and international organizations. For example IPCC not only based its reports on a falsified Siple curve, but also in its 2001 report[14] used as a flagship the hockey curve of temperature, showing that there was no Medieval Warming, and no Little Ice Age, and that the 20th century was unusually warm. The curve was credulously accepted after Mann et al. paper published in NATURE magazine[15]. In a crushing criticism, two independent groups of scientists from disciplines other than climatology [16, 17] (i.e. not supported from the annual pool of many billion climatic dollars), convincingly blamed the Mann et al. paper for the improper manipulation and arbitrary rejections of data. The question arises, how such methodically poor paper, contradicting hundreds of excellent studies that demonstrated existence of global range Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, could pass peer review for NATURE? And how could it pass the reviewing process at the IPCC?  The apparent scientific weaknesses of IPCC and its lack of impartiality, was diagnosed and criticized in the early 1990s in NATURE editorials [18, 19]. The disease,  seems to be persistent.   Conclusion 
The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning. The climatically inefficient and economically disastrous Kyoto Protocol, based on IPCC projections, was correctly defined by President George W. Bush as fatally flawed. This criticism was recently followed by the President of Russia Vladimir V. Putin. I hope that their rational views might save the world from enormous damage that could be induced by implementing recommendations based on distorted science.   References 
1.    Jaworowski, Z., Stable lead in fossil ice and bones. Nature, 1968. 217: p. 152-153.
2.    Mulvaney, R., E.W. Wolff, and K. Oates, Sulpfuric acid at grain goundaries in Antarctic ice. Nature, 1988. 331(247-249).
3.    Jaworowski, Z., T.V. Segalstad, and N. Ono, Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? The Science of the Total Environment, 1992. 114: p. 227-284.
4.    Shoji, H. and C.C. Langway Jr., Volume relaxation of air inclusions in a fresh ice core. Journal of Physical Chemistry, 1983. 87: p. 4111-4114.
5.    Neftel, A., et al., Evidence from polar ice cores for the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries. Nature, 1985. 315: p. 45-47.
6.    Friedli, H., et al., Ice core record of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries. Nature, 1986. 324: p. 237-238.
7.    IPCC,  Climate Change - The IPCC Scientific Assessment. ed. J.T. Houghton et al. 1990, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 364.
8.    Boden, T.A., P. Kanciruk, and M.P. Farrel, TRENDS '90 - A Compendium of Data on Global Change. 1990, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, Tennssee, pp. 257.
9.    Jaworowski, Z., Ancient atmosphere - validity of ice records. Environ. Sci. & Pollut. Res., 1994. 1(3): p. 161-171.
10.    Schwander, J., et al., The age of the air in the firn and the ice at Summit, Greenland. J. Geophys. Res., 1993. 98(D2): p. 2831-2838.
11.    Slocum, G., Has the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere changed significantly since the beginning of the twentieth century? Month. Weather Rev., 1955(October): p. 225-231.
12.    Callendar, G.S., On the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Tellus, 1958. 10: p. 243-248.
13.    Wagner, F., et al., Century-scale shifts in Early Holocene atmospheric CO2 concentration. Science, 1999. 284: p. 1971-1973.
14.    IPCC, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis., ed. J.T. Houton et al. 2001, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 892.
15.    Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes, Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature, 1998. 392: p. 779-787.
16.    Soon, W., et al., Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the past 1000 years: A Reappraisal. Energy & Environment, 2003. 14: p. 233-296.
17.    McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick, Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy data base and Northern hemispheric average temperature series. Energy & Environment, 2003. 14(6): p. 751-771.
18.    Editorial, A., IPCC's ritual on global warming. Nature, 1994. 371: p. 269.
19.    Maddox, J., Making global warming public property. Nature, 1991. 349: p. 189.   *

----------


## John2b

[QUOTE=Marc;982118]*Read pdf paper of this strong critique of the IPCC from EIR Science 16 March 2007.[*/QUOTE] 
Oh goodness me! A letter (not a research paper) published by a scientist not working in climate science from eight years ago. 
There's been a many tens of thousands of research papers peer reviewed and published by people _working_ in climate science since then.

----------


## PhilT2

> Yes the liberals have a lot of mistakes in their books, one that should not be forgotten is the Port Arthur massacre.

  Just let me get this straight. The Howard govt conspired to murder 35 people at Port Arthur so they could introduce harsh anti-gun laws, but we should support them because at least they didn't get us into debt. Or have I got the wrong conspiracy theory? 
Either way, you just can't argue with that kind of logic.

----------


## woodbe

Thanks for explaining Marc's conspiracy theory. I never knew the Liberal Party was involved in all those murders so they could restrict firearms.  :Biggrin:  
Can we get back on topic now?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Just let me get this straight. The Howard govt conspired to murder 35 people at Port Arthur so they could introduce harsh anti-gun laws, but we should support them because at least they didn't get us into debt. Or have I got the wrong conspiracy theory? 
> Either way, you just can't argue with that kind of logic.

  That so called conspiracy theory about Port Arthur is just so wrong.  My brother happened to be in charge of the SOG there at the time and has been labelled as the "shooter" in this theory.  Him and his family are still harassed by these claims.  Total and utter bull.

----------


## woodbe

> That so called conspiracy theory about Port Arthur is just so wrong.  My brother happened to be in charge of the SOG there at the time and has been labelled as the "shooter" in this theory.  Him and his family are still harassed by these claims.  Total and utter bull.

  Rod! Are you ok? The Port Arthur conspiracy was brought to this thread by your climate change denial mate Marc. Are you saying Marc is telling Total and utter bull? 
I agree with you. What is a SOG?

----------


## John2b

It is understandable that people discussing global warming focus on air temperatures. Lower atmospheric temperatures are shown on the news and weather reports every day. We walk around in the air. We breathe it in. We talk about how hot it’s been this summer, how warm last winter was, or how this is the hottest day on record. 
But global warming is all about water. Water, not the atmosphere, drives the weather, and drives climate. The atmosphere is mostly affected by the water on Earth, not the other way around. Atmospheric temperatures are volatile. Not so ocean temperatures. 
The oceans absorb a _thousand times more heat than the atmosphere_ and holds 90% of the heat of global warming. 
A huge deadly warm water blob, the biggest in history, now stretches from Mexico to Canada, threatening even more marine life. Warm ocean temperatures are killing coral reefs. Ocean productivity at the base of the food chain decreases as temperatures rise. Warm waters holds less oxygen, and that’s killing fish, crabs and other marine life.
Amazingly, climate change is caused by government agents murdering coffee shop patrons to ban gun imports for some mysterious reason...  Climate Change Has Got The Earth In Hot Water

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Rod! Are you ok? The Port Arthur conspiracy was brought to this thread by your climate change denial mate Marc. Are you saying Marc is telling Total and utter bull? 
> I agree with you. What is a SOG?

  I don't care who makes reference to it, it is bull. Special Operations Group.

----------


## woodbe

> I don't care who makes reference to it, it is bull. Special Operations Group.

  Over to you, Marc. Rod reckons you're posting bull.

----------


## John2b

> I don't care who makes reference to it, it is bull.

  Bull, like the idea that most Australians don't want governments to do something about climate change. Only 3% of Australians think the government should _not_ act in concert with an international agreement:  Many citizens don't want their representatives to do anything to address climate change

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Over to you, Marc. Rod reckons you're posting bull.

  You spin it like a typical lefty!!  disgusting

----------


## John2b

> You spin it like a typical lefty!!  disgusting

  However, spinning it like an extreme right wing nut case is perfectly fine, however. Go figure...

----------


## Rod Dyson

> However, spinning it like an extreme right wing nut case is perfectly fine, however. Go figure...

  AH can you tell me exactly how I did that?

----------


## John2b

> AH can you tell me exactly how I did that?

  What is apparent to the casual observer, if not yourself, is that your derision is clearly focussed on someone with whom you have a difference of opinion about the cause of climate change.

----------


## PhilT2

> Over to you, Marc. Rod reckons you're posting bull.

  Rod's not alone on that.

----------


## Marc

When people have personal involvement in a case or close relatives, they can not be impartial in their views. That is a fact. 
Another fact is that Bryant couldn't possibly have even remotely achieved such high rate of one shot head kills shooting from the right side and from the hip since he was a lousy shot and left handed,not to mention an IQ of 60.There are in fact only a handful of people in the world who could shoot that way. 
 That alone would warrant further investigation. In stead, he was kep in isolation for month and told that unless he confessed he would never see his mother. Ergo .. confession and permanent incarceration without ever seen a courtroom nor any of the extremely contradictory facts ever seen the light of day. 
However the above was only brought in as an _EXAMPLE_ of mass delusion. An example where the majority is wrong. I could have used the JFK assassination but this one is close to home and still in darkness. The earth is flat by the religious leaders of the time is another good one.
Here we have another case of flat earthers (mis)guided by the priest of today for very similar advantages, money and power. 
At this point it is irrelevant if human activity has some influence on climate as infinitesimal as it may be, since the remedy proposed are preposterous retrograde and so damaging to humans that their proponent should be in gaol. If there was any sensible action worth taking just in case, that is long gone down a slippery slope of religious zeal and lunacy and will never come back. All it is left is denounce the actions of the lobbyist for what they are, acts of terrorism.
A bit like the Port Arthur massacre.

----------


## Marc

*14. "There will never be uniform Gun Laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania", said Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier, December, 1987 at a conference in Hobart. Prophecy or Planning? *  The TRUTH about Port Arthur The Facts

----------


## PhilT2

Port Arthur- Conspiracy to introduce harsh laws to take away our freedoms, control our lives, introduce one world govt, etc, etc. 
9/11- Conspiracy to introduce harsh laws to take away our freedoms, control our lives, introduce one world govt, etc, etc 
Global Warming- Conspiracy to introduce....starting to see a trend yet?

----------


## Marc

I find it really interesting that we have this exclusive club of professional one-thread-posters who post exclusively here and most probably on 20 other agitator websites. And boy oh boy are they quick in their replies!
Global Warming is BS yes, and supporters of "action" are deluded at best or interested parties at worst.

----------


## woodbe

> I find it really interesting that we have this exclusive club of professional one-thread-posters who post exclusively here and most probably on 20 other agitator websites. And boy oh boy are they quick in their replies!
> Global Warming is BS yes, and supporters of "action" are deluded at best or interested parties at worst.

  
Who is in this "club" of one thread posters? 
What your conspiracy ignores about Martin Bryant is that he is on the ASD spectrum. People on that spectrum commonly have what is called 'Splinter skills', capabilities way in excess of their general skills, sometimes way in excess of anyone else. I would also question the accuracy of an IQ of 60, given that the IQ tests are not friendly or accurate for people on the spectrum:  How IQ Tests Underestimate Autistic Students' Intelligence | Care2 Causes  

> In fact, the examiner’s manual of one IQ test, the WISC-IV,  cautions that “it is important not to attribute low performance on a  cognitive test to low intellectual ability when, in fact, it may be  attributable to physical, language, or sensory difficulties.”

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *14. "There will never be uniform Gun Laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania", said Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier, December, 1987 at a conference in Hobart. Prophecy or Planning? *  The TRUTH about Port Arthur The Facts

  Mark, on this you are totally wrong.  I know this for a fact.  You are right it is very personal to me and that is WHY I know with 100% certainty this is wrong.

----------


## woodbe

> Mark, on this you are totally wrong.  I know this for a fact.  You are right it is very personal to me and that is WHY I know with 100% certainty this is wrong.

  If you search for this quote, it will only show up on conspiracy websites. I wonder what Barry Unsworth actually said and what the context is.

----------


## woodbe

While this whole Port Arthur sidetrack is totally off topic for this thread, it is a clear indication of fact vs conspiracy. 
Rod has a personal connection and accepts the facts of Port Arthur as they stand because he is closely connected to someone who the conspiracy is attacking. Rod knows his relative is not a murderer. 
The facts of Climate Change are in published science, yet those that attack Climate Change ignore published science and defer to blogs, paid industry shills, and conspiracy theories. 
Yet another problem for Rod, not so much for Marc. Try reading some science, Rod, instead of WUWT!  :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

> Another fact is that Bryant couldn't possibly have even remotely achieved such high rate of one shot head kills shooting from the right side and from the hip since he was a lousy shot and left handed,not to mention an IQ of 60.There are in fact only a handful of people in the world who could shoot that way.

  Martin Bryant was tried in Tasmania in November 1996. He pleaded guilty  to all charges and was locked up for the rest of his life. Pro snipers  are not "in awe of his accuracy". He walked into a cafe with a  semi-automatic and shot most of his victims at point blank range. He  chased people around a bus before shooting them at point blank range. He  chased the Mikacs family, a mother and two children aged 3 and 6 into  the bush and shot them at point blank range. He pulled cars over and  shot the occupants at point blank range. He shot his final victims in a  lodge after tying them up and shooting them at point blank range.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_A....C3.A9_murders 
End of conspiracy.

----------


## John2b

> "There will never be uniform Gun Laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania", said Barry Unsworth

  Can you provide a reference for this quotation. A search on the internet only reveals a myriad of virtually identical copycat blogs. It purports to be something Unsworth said at a Premiers conference in Hobart in 1987. It took the guvmint a while to act apparently. 
And what has it got to do with emission trading anyway?

----------


## John2b

> I find it really interesting that we have this exclusive club of professional one-thread-posters who post exclusively here and most probably on 20 other agitator websites. And boy oh boy are they quick in their replies!

  I find it really interesting that you _think_ you know more about who I am, what I do and what social media sites that I frequent than I do. (Hint: you don't.) And what is the relevance of your post to the topic 'emission trading' anyway?

----------


## johnc

The outcome from Port Arthur in regard to gun laws shows what happens when a policy is explained to the public, it is supported rationally by all sides of politics and we don't have a self interested group like the NRA sowing misinformation. The outcome was supported by the majority of Australians although some would qualify that support on specific details. Using it in the way it was in this thread is inappropriate because it  brought in something that was clearly untrue and offensive but in our current highly charged political climate it is a reminder that we can achieve good outcomes if we recognise the sowers of half truths and despatch them to the margins where they belong. Of course if we applied that to the current wedging and smear of our current pollies we would be despatching a large number from all sides.

----------


## John2b

> If you search for this quote, it will only show up on conspiracy websites. I wonder what Barry Unsworth actually said and what the context is.

  Back in December 1987, former NSW premier Barrie Unsworth said, “It will take a massacre in Tasmania beforewe get gun law reform in Australia”. (Damien Murphy, The Bulletin, 14 May 1996, p. 15.) 
That statement - reported in several media outlets - has been taken out of context by some in the gun lobby to support the claim that some in the government wanted a massacre, or even engineered the Port Arthur shootings in order to disarm Australians. 
The above statement is in the context of the Victorian Cain government attempting to get a quorum on uniform gunlaws in Australia following the Hoddle and Queen Streetshootings. In frustration at the lack of progress in gun control reform, Unsworth “... stormed out of the meeting and declared on the steps of the old Parliament House in Canberra: ‘It will take a massacre in Tasmania before we get gun law reform in Australia’”. 
But why did Unsworth mention Tasmania? He could hardly be planning a massacre in Tasmania. His statement would give the game away. He quite logically mentioned Tasmania and not NSW or any other State because Tasmania was well-known by those seeking gun control reform to have the weakest gun control laws in the country. (“The Bulletin”, 14 May 1996, p. 17.)  Regarding Tasmania’s gun laws back in 1996, “The Bulletin’ says, “... Tasmania is generally regarded as having Australia’s least stringent legislation; there is limited gun registration, licences are for life, and automatic and semiautomatic weapons are readily available”. (Damien Murphy, “The Bulletin”, 7 May 1996, p. 19.)  Now perhaps that the Unsworth statement has been put into context, the thread can get back onto topic...

----------


## Marc

https://www.nexusmagazine.com/index....d=29&Itemid=71  Martin Bryant and the Broad Arrow Cafe massacre  SydWalker.infoÂ» Blog Archive Â» The Port Arthur Massacre: A sceptical re-appraisal 
Hardly identical article.
However, let's forget for a minute the content of this particularly sad events and concentrate on the reason I posted it and it's relevance to the global warming industry. 
It is human nature that we need to identify ourselves with a group, and we mostly prefer "the majority who is right".
When a universally accepted position is questioned by a few who prefer to think for themselves, like in the case of the Global Warming fraud, those who dare to say the earth is not flat, are labelled conspiracy theorist not only by the conspirators, but also by the majority who feel their position threatened and their choice of sides in danger of being exposed as wrong. No one wants to be supporting the wrong side.  
It is a well known strategy that effectively puts the whole questioning into disrepute, ant that is the aim. Whoever questions the official position is wrong and should either be punished or shunned.  
There are several ex conspiracy theories that are now accepted facts. Not nearly as numerous as they should be. Let's face it after 50 years people are usually either dead, in a nursing home or lost interest altogether and it all falls into the realm of curiosity at best just the way we look at courtesan intrigues in the middle ages, or Vatican murders and plots. 
In order to accept the possibility of a contrarian view being right even in part, it is necessary to be a very well centered person and have a flexible mind. When you meet someone who is rock steady in absolutely everything he believes, you have met most probably an ignorant and a zealous person.  A dangerous combination ... stay away.

----------


## John2b

> Whoever questions the official position is wrong and should either be punished or shunned.

  Thousands of climate scientists question the 'official position' _every day_ - it's called peer review. Near every one of those scientists would like the notoriety of finding fault in the status quo. It's the ticket to fame, fortune and Nobel Prizes.   

> When you meet someone who is rock steady in absolutely everything he believes, you have met most probably an ignorant and a zealous person.

  No points given for guessing who on this forum fits that description best LOL.

----------


## woodbe

> https://www.nexusmagazine.com/index....d=29&Itemid=71  Martin Bryant and the Broad Arrow Cafe massacre  SydWalker.infoÂ» Blog Archive Â» The Port Arthur Massacre: A sceptical re-appraisal 
> Hardly identical article.

  Have you thought for a minute why these articles are 'hardly identical'? 
They are opinions, not facts. If you want facts about climate science, read published science, not opinion pieces and blog posts.  
You're a sucker for opinion rather than facts, Marc.

----------


## Marc

How dare you challenge god's word?
Burn you pagan ....  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> How dare you challenge god's word?
> Burn you pagan ....

  Sorry God, but In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. haha!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Sorry God, but In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

  ...with rather mixed outcomes as it turns out.

----------


## woodbe

Back on topic:     *Published on Aug 31, 2015*
President Obama delivers remarks at the GLACIER Conference in Alaska. August 31, 2015.   
Pretty daunting information in this speech. 
Top quote regarding science:   

> Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island. [Audience cheers and claps]

----------


## PhilT2

Interesting. Wonder what it's like to live in a country where the leader can speak intelligently on the future? 
The conference that matters, COP21 in Paris, is now less than 2 months away. Canadian elections are one month away and the Canning byelection in WA is two weeks away. By the time Paris rolls around both Aus abd Canada may have new leaders.

----------


## John2b

The hottest year-to-date is about to ramp up with a strong and persistent El Nino event.  "The last big El Niño was 1997-1998. The planet has changed a lot in 15 years,. We have had years of record Arctic sea ice minimum. We have lost a massive area of northern hemisphere snow cover, probably by more than 1 million square kilometers in the past 15 years. We are working on a different planet and we fully do not understand the new patterns emerging." He said the 2015 El Niño is unique because of the unprecedented combination of the Equatorial influence of El Niño, and the Arctic influence of low sea ice and snow cover in place at the same time. "This is a new planet. Will the two patterns reinforce each other or cancel each other? We have no precedent. Climate change is increasingly going to put us in this situation.  We dont have a previous event like this," he said.  https://www.wmo.int/media/content/el-niño-expected-be-strongest-1997-98  The first seven months of 2015 comprised the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 0.85°C (1.53°F) above the 20th century average, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.09°C (0.16°F). Five months this year, including the past three, have been record warm for their respective months. January was the second warmest January on record and April third warmest.    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201507

----------


## Marc

*Is There Man Made Global Warming?* 
               (the answer may not be what you expected)      Global Warming ArticlesLinksAbout the authorUN IPCCSkepticismRegulation-EPAPolar IcePolar BearsGlaciersSolar Activity/Cosmic RaysBiofuelsWind PowerSolar PowerNatural Gas-Hydraulic FracturingCO2 ArticlesCarbon CaptureSea Level ChangeForests-AgricultureOcean Acidification - CoralsOcean TemperatureElectric - Hybrid VehiclesClimate - Global Warming AlarmismVolcanic Activity and ClimateGreen JobsAir TemperatureDiseaseEnergy and HealthStormsWeather-StormsClouds-AtmosphereRenewable EnergyMethane   *There has now been over 18 years with no measurable atmospheric global warming and a slight cooling in the past 12 years. I will try to give you the answer to the question "is there global cooling?" As you are well aware there is a huge effort around the globe to counter the alleged impact of mankind on the world's climate.  If in fact mankind will cause the seas to rise appreciably by causing CO2 induced global warming then certainly let's do something about it. But, what if global warming is not what they say it is? What if the world's temperature is headed in the opposite direction? Global temperatures increased for twenty years from the late 1970s to the late 1990s but have either stopped warming or have begun to cool in the last seventeen years.  The global warming and subsequent cooling were even predictable due to hundreds of years of historical trends and observation of the impact of variations in solar activity and ocean cycles on global temperatures.* *Did you know that in the past the Roman Period and Medieval Period were both several degrees warmer than today's temperature. The world then cooled at least four degrees from approx. 1450 to 1850. This period was called the Little Ice Age (a period of glacial advance, the same glaciers that have been in retreat until recently). These temperature variations were not caused by man. They were caused entirely by natural forces.*
﻿﻿See my *FACEBOOK PAGE* https://www.facebook.com/pages/Is-There-Global-Cooling/913105855421340﻿  *Latest Climate News (August update)* _*The reason why solar power can never power Germany link_
*_German scientists conclude that the 0.7 deg warming in the past century is caused by normal cycles, that there is no unusual warming attributed to rising CO2, and that normal solar and ocean cycles will cause temperatures to cool to 2080. We will see cold temperatures last seen in 1870s. link_
*_What is true and what is false in Obama's latest global warming plans link_ _*Early July frost in central Europe, Scotland and England link_ _*Scientists predict low solar activity will lead to a mini ice age link_ _*Scientists predict low solar activity to 2014 will cause global cooling. link_ _*Bill Gates says wind and solar power is not the solution, we can not afford them and they can not replace fossil fuels link_ _*Study shows 20 times more people die from cold temperatures than warm ones link_
*_UK evening temperatures coolest since records began link_
*_UK Met office says solar activity is falling faster than anytime since the last ice age, change of Maunder Minimum growing link_ _*Atlantic water temperature off Iceland coldest since 1997 link_
*_High level noctilucent clouds never seen this early before link_
*_Antarctica sets record for most May ice link_
* _Record low temps in Netherlands link_
*_Arctic ice thickest in eight years for this date link_
*_Boston has lowest June temperatures ever recorded link_
*_New England ski slopes still open into early May link_
*_Record low temps in northern Australia link_
*_Global hurricanes at 45 year lows  link_
*_January-March 2015 temperatures in ten states in the Northeast USA, coldest ever recorded for this period._
*_15 ships stuck in Great Lakes ice link_
*_2015 is the latest date for cherry tree blossoms in Washington DC link_
*_This is our President's science advisor link_
*_Record low temps in east this week link_ _*Deep freeze halts shipping on Great lakes link_ _*Boston breaks all time record snow totals link_
*_Giant chuncks of ice, mini icebergs, drift ashore on Cape Cod link_ _*Italy captures one-day snowfall record, 8.5 feet. link_ _*Quebec and Ontario set record low February temperatures. link Central European winters have distinct cooling trend. link_
*Record low February temps in New York State, Boston headed toward all time record snow totals. link 
*_Great lakes headed to record ice cover link US has record snow cover link_  *Recommended videos*
Nobel winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever explains why global warming isnt a problem. link 
Dr Don Easterbrook's comprehensive presentation  on why man made global warming isnt a big problem. link 
See Dr William Happer, the myth of carbon pollution link 
Global warming swindle link  *Henrik Svensmark, clouds control the climate link﻿*   *There has been no measurable atmospheric global warming for 17+ years. *  Is There Global Warming? The answer may not be what you expected. - Home  *Global Cooling* The best and most accurate way to measure global temperatures are from satellites that measure atmospheric temperatures. See how atmospheric temperatures have changed since the start of measurement in 1979 link ﻿﻿ Though the 2011/12 Winter temperatures were warm in the U.S. global temps were the 11th coolest in 32 years of satelite measurement link  *Europe, North America and many other areas of the Earth have recently experienced a score of unusually low temperatures. So where is the global warming that we are  preparing for? Does anyone really think global warming causes global cooling?*  *Is a carbon cap and trade system that would raise hundreds of billions of dollars each year for the government necessary if in fact the slightly warmer temperatures of 1978-1998 were caused by natural forces such as the Sun's increased activity in that period, and that many scientists are now becoming skeptical of the theory of man made global warming (AGW)? link  Is the re-engineering of society to reduce CO2 emissions necessary when in the geological history of the planet warming temperatures were never preceeded by rising CO2 levels? Did you know that if this country eliminates 100% of its CO2 emissions China will replace it within in 2 years due to their high growth rate? It appears to me that the man made global warming theory is looking more and more like the Y2K scare of the late 1990s. Perhaps we are seeing a Climate-Industrial Complex.*  *If you have doubts about the conventional beliefs of global warming and want to learn more please do read on.* **the use of information on this website is unrestricted and can be reproduced without permission.* *Author* Geoffrey Pohanka, November 2014 *geoff@isthereglobalwarming.com*

----------


## woodbe

Lol. So STILL no published science, just links to media and blog articles? 
The 'no warming' was only in relation to atmosphere, ignoring oceans, for a short period. It's over, so your 'no warming' articles are old and out of date.

----------


## John2b

Great, now we get to hear what a used car salesman thinks about anthropogenic global warming.   

> *The global warming and subsequent cooling were even predictable due to hundreds of years of historical trends and observation of the impact of variations in solar activity and ocean cycles on global temperatures.*

  Yep, sure were predictable (and are): ttp://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

----------


## John2b

New information from emails disclosed through the bankruptcy proceedings of coal company Alpha Natural Resources: Attorneys general in at least a dozen US states are being funded by energy companies in exchange for favourable legislation. The companies are providing the politicians with record amounts of money for their political campaigns, including at least $16 million this year. 
The New York Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us...eral.html?_r=0

----------


## Marc

I mentioned the Porth Arthur massacre as an example of governments acting illegally with an agenda like the global warming agenda.
it is only fitting that I post a link with a witness point of view.  https://www.facebook.com/ExposeAustr...19654561401328

----------


## John2b

> I mentioned the Porth Arthur massacre as an example of governments acting illegally with an agenda like the global warming agenda.

  You can train a dog to fetch a stick. Therefore, you can train a potato to dance. I like your logic, Marc. 
\\Dilbert's Logical Fallacies

----------


## PhilT2

> I mentioned the Porth Arthur massacre as an example of governments acting illegally with an agenda like the global warming agenda.
> it is only fitting that I post a link with a witness point of view.  https://www.facebook.com/ExposeAustr...19654561401328

  Just to correct any misunderstanding the person in the clip on facebook, Wendy Scurr, was not an eyewitness to the actual shooting. She never saw who shot at her neither did she witness any of the other murders. Her story does confirm that the shooter was not skilled because she is alive to tell her story, She also confirms that Bryant was at the cafe just prior to the shootings. The comments on the youtube video name the person whom the nutters claim was the killer. I wonder has he considered his legal options?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I mentioned the Porth Arthur massacre as an example of governments acting illegally with an agenda like the global warming agenda.
> it is only fitting that I post a link with a witness point of view.  https://www.facebook.com/ExposeAustr...19654561401328

  Mark this is total Bull.....

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Just to correct any misunderstanding the person in the clip on facebook, Wendy Scurr, was not an eyewitness to the actual shooting. She never saw who shot at her neither did she witness any of the other murders. Her story does confirm that the shooter was not skilled because she is alive to tell her story, She also confirms that Bryant was at the cafe just prior to the shootings. The comments on the youtube video name the person whom the nutters claim was the killer. I wonder has he considered his legal options?

  That person happens to be my Brother.  And no he just treats this with the contempt it deserves.

----------


## John2b

I've been accused in this forum of hoping for a strong El Nios event this year. Of course I didn't and I don't. 
Here's a comparison of the development of 1997 with the development of 2015. Spoiler - deniers look away...  1997 and 2015 El Nio Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies - YouTube

----------


## Marc

*Quicky Early August 2015 ENSO Update: NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies Still Just Above the Threshold of a Strong El Nio*Bob Tisdale / August 3, 2015  Guest Post by Bob Tisdale The post provides a look at the most recent weekly sea surface temperature anomalies for the equatorial Pacific. It also includes a Hovmoller diagram of the wind stress (not anomalies) along the equator…to confirm that there was another westerly wind burst at the beginning of last month.   NOAA’s weekly sea surface temperature anomalies for the NINO regions (based on Reynolds OI.v2 data) are furnished on Mondays. Today’s update for the week centered on July 29, 2015 shows the sea surface temperature anomalies of the NINO3.4 region (5S-5N, 170W-120W), which NOAA uses to define an El Nio and its strength, is at 1.7 deg C, just above the 1.5 deg C threshold of a strong El Nio…where it’s been hovering for a few weeks. But it’s still early in the development of an “average” El Nio, which typically peaks in December. The weekly NINO region sea surface temperature anomaly data for Figures 1 and 2 are from the NOAA/CPC Monthly Atmospheric & SST Indices webpage, specifically the datahere. The base years for anomalies for the NOAA/CPC data are referenced to 1981-2010. Figure 1 includes the weekly sea surface temperature anomalies of the 4 most-often-used NINO regions of the equatorial Pacific. They start in January 1990. From west to east they include:  NINO4 (5S-5N, 160E-150W)NINO3.4 (5S-5N, 170W-120W)NINO3 (5S-5N, 150W-90W)NINO1+2 (10S-0, 90W-80W)  Figure 1 And for Figure 2, the evolutions of the sea surface temperature anomalies in 2015 are compared to 1997 as a reference for a very strong El Nio and compared to 2014 as a reference for a very weak El Nio. Keep in mind that 2015 started the year at or near El Nio conditions, where that was not the case in 1997 and 2014.  Figure 2 *ANOTHER WESTERLY WIND BURST* In the post ENSO Basics: Westerly Wind Bursts Initiate an El Nio, we discussed how westerly wind bursts prompt the downwelling Kelvin waves that appear early in the development of an El Nio. Later in the process of El Nio evolution, westerly winds bursts also help to push more warm surface water than normal eastward along the Pacific Equatorial Countercurrent. So they too help to strengthen an El Nio. The most recent update at the NOAA GODAS website includes the 12-month Hovmoller of wind stress (not anomalies) along the equator through July 27th. See Figure 3. It shows yet another westerly wind burst in late June/early July. That westerly wind burst should be the response to the two tropical depressions that recently straddled the equator in the west-central tropical Pacific.  Figure 3 That’s all for now. I’ll try to provide the full update next week when the data for July are available. I’ll also try to provide an update on The Blob next week.

----------


## John2b

> Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

  Thanks for pasting the corroborating post from Tisdale who concludes "Let’s hope a very strong La Nia follows the El Nio this year and finally overcomes the effects of “The Blob” on the North Pacific". (A summary and a link would have been sufficient, BTW.) 
I don't know why Tisdale's blog was pasted on WUWT, but even a casual observer can tell that Watts hasn't got a clue... A whole lot of stupid going on | The Policy Lass

----------


## johnc

BOM are also indicating we may be looking at the strongest El Nino since 1998, like everything else all comes to those who wait, an indication is just that we will have to see how it unfolds .  *El Nio strengthens but a warm Indian Ocean**Issued on 1 September 2015*  | Product Code IDCKGEWW00
The 2015 El Nio is now the strongest El Nio since 1997–98. The tropical Pacific Ocean and atmosphere are fully coupled, with sea surface temperatures well above El Nio thresholds, consistently weak trade winds, and a strongly negative Southern Oscillation Index. Weekly tropical Pacific Ocean temperature anomalies (i.e. difference from normal) in the central Pacific are now at their highest values since 1997–98, though still remain more than half a degree below the peak observed during 1997–98.  
Most international climate models surveyed by the Bureau of Meteorology indicate the tropical Pacific will continue to warm, with the largest anomalies occurring later in the year. Typically, El Nio peaks during the late austral spring or early summer, and weakens during late summer to autumn. The 2015 event has, so far, been following a normal El Nio life cycle. 
While the Indian Ocean as a whole has been at near-record temperatures, the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) index has been at or above +0.4 C for the past four weeks. To be considered a positive event, the IOD would need to remain at or above +0.4 C through September. Three of the five international models surveyed by the Bureau of Meteorology indicate a positive IOD event is likely during spring.  
El Nio is usually associated with below-average winter–spring rainfall over eastern Australia, and a positive IOD typically reinforces this pattern over central and southeast Australia. However, sea surface temperatures to the north of Australia and more broadly across the Indian Ocean basin, also affect Australia's climate and are likely to be moderating the influence of these two climate drivers in some locations.

----------


## John2b

Look away, older white conservative males and other contrarians, nothing to see here. (Hope your inoculations are up to date for pre-historic pathogens, BTW.)  Climate change is warming the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions at more than twice the global average, which means that permafrost is not so permanent any more.
"A few viral particles that are still infectious may be enough, in the presence of a vulnerable host, to revive potentially pathogenic viruses," one of the lead researchers, Jean-Michel Claverie, told AFP.  Frankenvirus emerges from Siberia's frozen wasteland

----------


## Marc

The garden variety agitators hoping for a climate catastrophe that will not eventuate are now hoping for a biological one.
Pathetic is too mild of a word.

----------


## John2b

> The garden variety agitators hoping for a climate catastrophe that will not eventuate are now hoping for a biological one.
> Pathetic is too mild of a word.

  You know someone who is 'hoping for a climate catastrophe'? Please share...

----------


## dazzler

> That so called conspiracy theory about Port Arthur is just so wrong.  My brother happened to be in charge of the SOG there at the time and has been labelled as the "shooter" in this theory.  Him and his family are still harassed by these claims.  Total and utter bull.

  
Hi Rod 
I also had friends in Taspol at Port Arthur.  The SOG deserve a lot of praise for their patience.  I dont think many could have been as professional. 
cheers

----------


## dazzler

> I mentioned the Porth Arthur massacre as an example of governments acting illegally with an agenda like the global warming agenda.
> it is only fitting that I post a link with a witness point of view.  https://www.facebook.com/ExposeAustr...19654561401328

  
Do you have any idea how suggesting that Port Arthur was a conspiracy or any other crap other than a piece of garbage killing 35 people dead diminishes any future argument you make.   
Just because you find a conspiracy on the internet doesn't make it real or 'linkable' nor support your other links. 
Take the JFK 'conspiracies'.  Put to rest, beyond doubt, by a retired SA detective.

----------


## Marc

_That's allright ... they can always reschedule for 2030 when 2020 comes and goes without them, ha ha_ *  
The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt*  Anthony Watts / April 15, 2011 Hoo boy, government bureaucratic idiocy at its finest. Not only is the original claim bogus, the attempts to disappear it are hilariously inept. Apparently, they’ve never heard of Google Cache at the UN. Rather than simply say “we were wrong”, they’ve now brought even more distrust onto the UN. Back on April 11th, Gavin Atkins of _Asian Correspondent_ asked this simple question: *What happened to the climate refugees?*  It is a valid question, and he backs it up with census numbers. Here’s the first part of his story: ==================================================  ============ In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production. The UNEP even provided a handy map. The map shows us the places most at risk including the very sensitive low lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean. It so happens that just a few of these islands and other places most at risk have since had censuses, so it should be possible for us now to get some idea of the devastating impact climate change is having on their populations. Let’s have a look at the evidence:  Bahamas:Nassau, The Bahamas – The 2010 national statistics recorded that the population growth increased to 353,658 persons in The Bahamas.  The population change figure increased by 50,047 persons during the last 10 years.St Lucia:The island-nation of Saint Lucia recorded an overall household population increase of 5 percent from May 2001 to May 2010 based on estimates derived from a complete enumeration of the population of Saint Lucia during the conduct of the recently completed 2010 Population and Housing Census.Seychelles:Population 2002, 81755 Population 2010, 88311Solomon Islands:The latest Solomon Islands population has surpassed half a million – that’s according to the latest census results. It’s been a decade since the last census report, and in that time the population has leaped 100,000.==================================================  ======= After _Asian Correspondent_ posted the story on April 11th, it was picked up by news outlets around the world such as Investor News, American Spectator and was cited in theAustralian newspaper. It was also a report on Fox News. Since that story appeared, the “handy map” he cites in his original story, which has this URL: GRID-Arendal - Maps & Graphics library *…seems to be gone down the memory hole.* This is what you get now, note my yellow highlight:  Only one small problem there UN people, a little annoyance called Google cache, which has that page archived here. It pulls up this page that had been removed, with the 50 million refugees title, but the map is missing. Click to enlarge.  Fear not dear readers, because as astoundingly smart as those UN people think they are, they forgot one very important yet tiny detail. The map links to a hi-resolution version of the “climate refugee map” and if you delete the page above and the map it contains, you_also have to delete the hi-res image it links to._ GRID-Arendal - Maps & Graphics library Ooops. I’m always happy to help the UN in times of “need”, sooooo I’ve recovered it and saved it here on WUWT, because that image link is likely to go down the memory hole on Monday. Here’s the map at web resolution as it would have appeared in the disappeared web page above. UNEP map, Emmanuelle Bournay And here it is in full sized hi-resolution glory, suitable for printing, slides, or coffee mugs…wherever it might be appropriate to show the folly of these boneheads. Click the link for the hi-res image:11kap9climat.png 3012 x 1699 pixels PNG (577K) And there you have it folks, another bogus climate claim rubbished by reality, followed by an inept cover up attempt. Thanks to the reality of census numbers, followed by the UN’s handling of this, we can now safely say that the claim is “climate refugees” is total fantasy. Be sure to leave comments on any website that makes this claim, and link to this and the _Asian Correspondent_ website. Kudos to Gavin Atkins for asking this simple question after 6 years of this fantasy being used to push an agenda *UPDATE:* A couple of commenters asked for the source of the predictions. Happy to oblige. This is what the UNEP web page originally said and the author cited: *Fifty million climate refugees by 2010*. Today we find a world of asymmetric development, unsustainable natural resource use, and continued rural and urban poverty. There is general agreement about the current global environmental and development crisis. It is also known that the consequences of these global changes have the most devastating impacts on the poorest, who historically have had limited entitlements and opportunities for growth. Sources Norman Myers, ‘Environmental refugees, An emergent security issue’, 13. Economic forum, Prague, OSCE, May 2005 ; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 ; Liser, 2007.  Link to web-site http://www.agassessment.org/  Cartographer/
Designer Emmanuelle Bournay  Appears in IAASTD – International assessment of agricultural science and technology for development  Published 2008   *UPDATE2:* The goal posts are already being moved, now it is 2020 instead of 2010, see below. click image for original story And here’s the source of this new goal post, an announcement at the AAAS meeting in February: Which a compliant media has bloviated all over the net, as if this new bogosity is somehow better than the old one. The professor who made that new 10 years hence claim, UCLA’s Cristina Tirado, has a public web page at UCLA here. I’ve sent her this message tonight:Dear Professor Tirado, It appears that the original claim made by the UN of 50 million climate refugees by 2010 has been proven totally false by a simple census count. UNEP has already removed the claim from their website. See this story: The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt | Watts Up With That? At AAAS in Feburary, you made a nearly identical claim, but simply 10 years into the future. On what basis did you make this claim, and in light of the failed prediction and removal by UNEP of the old claim, are you prepared to retract the new 2020 refugee claim you made here:http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...5cf1d402e3.c41 Millions of readers await your response at WUWT. Thank you for your consideration. Anthony Watts http://www.wattsupwiththat.com*UPDATE3:* Reader Andrew30 provides the linkage of this farce to the main body of the UN, not just the UNEP as some have complained. General Assembly, 8 July 2008
GA/10725
Sixty-second General Assembly
Informal Meeting on Climate Change and Most Vulnerable Countries (AM) Statements
SRGJAN KERIM, President of the General Assembly, opened the discussion by saying that 11 of the last 12 years had ranked among the 12 warmest since the keeping of global temperature records had begun in 1850. Two points were significant: that climate change was inherently a sustainable-development challenge; and that more efforts than ever before must be exerted to enable poor countries to prepare for impacts *because it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.* Panel Discussion
The Assembly then held a panel discussion moderated by author and journalist Eugene Linden. The panellists were Reid Basher, Senior Coordinator at the Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction; Ian Noble, Senior Climate Change Specialist at the World Bank; and Veerle Vandeweerd, Director of the Environment and Energy Group at the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Source: BATTLE AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE CALLS FOR €˜WAR FOOTING€™, DEPUTY SECRETARY-GENERAL SAYS AS GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOLDS FOLLOW-UP TO FEBRUARY THEMATIC DEBATE | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases *UPDATE4:* In comments, there’s a suggestion that I’m laying claim to “first discovery”. I’m not, nor did I. This path of discovery that I learned today from various bits and pieces in email and posts is helpful. Gavin Atkins was the first to call attention to the expired UN claim, he also highlighted the Google cache issue saying “However, if you are quick, you may yet be able to download a copy via google cache here.” …which I followed and was able to find and recover the high-res map myself and made my own screen caps. I found out Monday morning that Gatkins got the cache issue from Aaron Worthing here, who got it from his commenter “Carlos” – so it is Carlos who actually deserves credit for first noticing it (the 404 error). Worthing was upset that I didn’t mention him but did mention Atkins. I’m writing this to correct that unintentional oversight. I didn’t notice the small link on Atkins post to Worthing’s post (much further down than the Google cache link) because I was already on my way down the rabbit hole from the UNEP link Atkins provided high up in his post, paying attention to Atkins admonition: “However, if you are quick…” to follow the link. I know from experience that sometimes Google cache can last for days, sometimes minutes. When I followed it, the map was already gone as you can see in my own screencaps above. Today I also found out that apparently I was getting Tweets from Atkins and Worthing last Fri/Sat that I should take notice of the issue…but those got left in the bit bucket because I never follow/read Tweets. I only use Twitter as an announcement service for WUWT. So if anyone expects to reach me via Twitter, please note that it is a lost cause. I’m always happy to point out who gets credit when I know about it, and now that I know about it, here’s the credit chain: Gavin Atkins was the one to raise the issue, Aaron Worthing was the first to blog about the 404 error here, and his commenter “Carlos” was the first to notice the 404 error. I hope that clears up any misunderstandings. The most important thing is that the UN issue is well known now and that many many people worked independently to make it happen. – Anthony

----------


## John2b



----------


## Marc

Your arms and legs appear very skinny John ... who is your friend?  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

> _That's allright ... they can always reschedule for 2030 when 2020 comes and goes without them, ha ha_

  If you guys are so right that climate change is not real, why do you post stuff that is clearly falsehoods and made up lies? Why not just publish stuff that can be verified? There's just a couple of problems with your regurgitated claptrap, Marc. 
1.The original document was not produced by the UNEP. It is from a paper published by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). You can read it here: Contribution by Prof. Norman Myers, Green College, Oxford University, U.K., "Environmental Refugees: An Emergent Security Issue" | OSCE 
2. The paper does not reference 50 million climate refugees let alone our a time frame on it. 
3. The image published on the WUWT blog is not in the paper. It was created not by the UN, but by Danish organisation, the GRID-Arendal. 
4. The map was no endorsed by the UN, nor was it hosted on an UN website. 
5. How does positive population growth disprove global warming?

----------


## Marc

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian  50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns | Environment | The Guardian  Feared Migration Hasn't Happened: UN Embarrassed by Forecast on Climate Refugees - SPIEGEL ONLINE  How many climate migrants will there be? - BBC News 
And the "new" version is now 2020.
I am really looking forward to 2030 very soon.  50 million 'environmental refugees' by 2020, experts say 
Funny but I did not write this my friend, it is "your" S.M.H. the paladin of justice, the mouth piece of all matters green and enviro and sustainable and compassionate and humanitarian. 
Gee the smh makes us dark money grubbing right wing diesel driving troglodytes look really bad!

----------


## Marc

> "When people are not living in sustainable conditions, they migrate," she said ...

  Isn't that great!
Clearly shooting RPG at each other and chop each other to pieces is not a sustainable living condition so hei! Let's migrate to Germany ... we are environmental refugees ! 
Soon the adjective will be dropped and everything will be blended into one. One big population the victim of my diesel 4wd and your coal fired PowerStation. 
A bit like Global warming that without the warming lost it's sting so became "Climate change" only to turn into just plain "climate"
I am the victim of "climate". let's claim refugee status ... can you give me the address for Centrelink and a free taxi ride there? 
50 millions ... huhu ... what happened to the de-salinization plant?
My Kevin solar panels will soon be depleted, I think I will claim subsidies to erect a windmill on my roof this time. It will lull me to sleep ... wosh wosh wosh. Love it. 
Mm ... not so fast ... I bet I am up for a stiff bill from the tip to get rid of old solar panels. All for the environment you know, must punish the b@$#rds trying to pull a swiftie and dumping toxic stuff!

----------


## dazzler

> Isn't that great!
> Clearly shooting RPG at each other and chop each other to pieces is not a  sustainable living condition so hei! Let's migrate to Germany ... we  are environmental refugees !

  So Marc, who EXACTLY are "shooting RPG" and "chop each other to pieces" at whom? 
Try it without a google link.....

----------


## Marc

> Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! --Homer Simpson

  .
Sorry, couldn't find any relevant quote from the sheep

----------


## John2b

> And the "new" version is now 2020.

  You didn't answer the question why you posted stuff that was clearly falsehoods and lies. What credibility should people attach to your subsequent posts?

----------


## dazzler

> .
> Sorry, couldn't find any relevant quote from the sheep

  
No answer Marc.  Just sprouting racist crap?

----------


## Marc

The gratuitous vitriol of the trifling, the hollow and the pettifogging.

----------


## dazzler

No answer Marc?

----------


## johnc

No answer to what was racist crap of the most breathtaking shallowness. Makes you wonder how people can even think this can be read as anything other than uninformed bigotry.

----------


## Bros

I'm tired lets go to bed on it.

----------


## John2b

Global warming stopped in 1998. Yeah, right...

----------


## John2b

Things working out like you keep telling the forum they will, Rod? Mr Turnbull said parties with vested interests were trying to muddy the waters on climate science to prolong the export of coal, comparing their actions to tobacco companies discrediting the connection between smoking and lung cancer.  "It is undoubtedly correct that there has been a very effective campaign against the science of climate change by those opposed to taking action to cut emissions, many because it does not suit their own financial interests, and this has played into the carbon tax debate," he said.  "Normally, in our consideration of scientific issues, we rely on expert advice [and] agencies like CSIRO or the Australian Academy of Science, are listened to with respect.  "Yet on this issue there appears to be a licence to reject our best scientists both here and abroad and rely instead on much less reliable views.  "So in the storm of this debate about carbon tax, direct action and what the right approach to climate change should be, do not fall into the trap of abandoning the science."  http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/sep/14/malcolm-turnbull-the-three-things-we-need-to-know-about-the-challenger

----------


## PhilT2

We can now head off to the convention in Paris knowing that the people in charge know the difference between real science and blogs. Also the Canadian federal election is only a few weeks away and with a bit of luck Steve Harper will be gone too. 
No point having dinosaurs at a meeting about the future.

----------


## John2b

> We can now head off to the convention in Paris knowing that the people in charge know the difference between real science and blogs. Also the Canadian federal election is only a few weeks away and with a bit of luck Steve Harper will be gone too. 
> No point having dinosaurs at a meeting about the future.

  I spent last weekend in the Riverland with one of Australia's leading horticulturalists who was detailing how the food production industry is desperately trying to keep up with climate change. Most fruit trees need a certain number of winter 'chill hours' before they set fruit. Chill hours are defined as the time below an average daily temperature. Many typical varieties need 500 - 1000 hours, but in the Riverland that doesn't happen anymore. The scramble is on to select cultivars that need only 100 hours. Of course, trees can't be replaced instantly even if a low chill cultivar of suitable fruiting quality (size, timing, taste, disease resistance, transportable, etc) is found. 
I knew about chill hours, but I didn't know that many pest insects, fungi and diseases need a certain number of 'warm hours' (time above a certain temperature) before there genetic reproduction is turned on.  Mild winters induced by climate change means that many pests and diseases have already moved thousands of kilometres south - many of tropical origin are now prevalent in the Riverland and will soon arrive in Melbourne and even Tasmania. 
The interesting thing was that there was one of BOM's associate directors at the event. He said that Abbott had secretly created a new funding source for research into the impacts of climate change on Australia's food production industries because he was S$%^ scared about the consequences. The funding had to be secret because of Abbott's public position on AGW.

----------


## woodbe

One thing for sure, it's going to be interesting to see if and how the Government changes it's talk about climate change now that the lead denier has been sacked.

----------


## PhilT2

There won't be a lot of change straight away, Turnbull likely made promises to consult cabinet on policy changes and the extreme right wing religious faction of the party still has a bit of influence. Climate change policy partly caused his downfall last time so he's likely to be overly cautious in that area. If he is successful in winning the next election then he'll be a hero; they will all line up to kiss his butt and he will be able to force through some changes. More investment in renewables may be an option. 
But the immediate problem is the economy, if unemployment keeps rising then his honeymoon period of popularity will be brief and Labor will be back on top in the polls again. I think Shorten's job has just got a whole lot harder. I suspect he knows that if he doesn't win the next election his job will be the next to go.

----------


## John2b

> There won't be a lot of change straight away, Turnbull likely made promises to consult cabinet on policy changes and the extreme right wing religious faction of the party still has a bit of influence. Climate change policy partly caused his downfall last time so he's likely to be overly cautious in that area. If he is successful in winning the next election then he'll be a hero; they will all line up to kiss his butt and he will be able to force through some changes. More investment in renewables may be an option. 
> But the immediate problem is the economy, if unemployment keeps rising then his honeymoon period of popularity will be brief and Labor will be back on top in the polls again. I think Shorten's job has just got a whole lot harder. I suspect he knows that if he doesn't win the next election his job will be the next to go.

  Turnbull's problem is that he is personally a very rare politician indeed - a small 'l' *Liberal* but he's in a *Tory* coalition. The rest of the key players in the Australian (un)Liberal party either don't trust him, hate his guts or think even less highly of him than that! 
Turnbull has a very low chance of being a successful Prime Minister, unfortunately for everyone. He has already vowed to toss out most of his *true liberal* policy positions, just to appease the Tory lynch mob that rule the LNC. They may give him a chance to win the next election, but it will only alter the timing of his demise by a few months either way. The only thing that could save Turnbull's scalp is _​overwhelming public support, similar to Bob Hawke's first few terms._ But it seems Turnbull has already blown that chance by publicly stating he won't be introducing the liberal reforms that the vast majority of Australians want.  
Shorten has about the same very low chance of making a good Prime Minister if he was ever gifted the opportunity. On most things he is politically to the right of Turnbull. The state of politics in Australia is absolutely appalling IMHO, with no vision, no aspiration and no leadership for Australians in either major political party. 
At least the senior officials in the Department for the Environment should be able to develop a more aspirational position ready for Paris, before the LNC heavies wake up from their stunned reaction to the leadership change and start kicking LNC party member's heads again.

----------


## dazzler

So still no reply from Marc. 
Probably expected but still sad.  Most of us have the balls to back up what we say or accept when we have a brain fart and type something stupid. 
Found some links that may be of use;  http://www.xojane.com/diy/but-what-i...like-a-grownup  Learning to Say “I Was Wrong” | Authentic Intimacy | A Blog by Dr. Juli Slattery

----------


## dazzler

> Turnbull's problem is that he is personally a very rare politician indeed - a small 'l' *Liberal* but he's in a *Tory* coalition. The rest of the key players in the Australian (un)Liberal party either don't trust him, hate his guts or think even less highly of him than that! 
> Turnbull has a very low chance of being a successful Prime Minister, unfortunately for everyone. He has already vowed to toss out most of his *true liberal* policy positions, just to appease the Tory lynch mob that rule the LNC. They may give him a chance to win the next election, but it will only alter the timing of his demise by a few months either way. The only thing that could save Turnbull's scalp is _​overwhelming public support, similar to Bob Hawke's first few terms._ But it seems Turnbull has already blown that chance by publicly stating he won't be introducing the liberal reforms that the vast majority of Australians want.  
> Shorten has about the same very low chance of making a good Prime Minister if he was ever gifted the opportunity. On most things he is politically to the right of Turnbull. The state of politics in Australia is absolutely appalling IMHO, with no vision, no aspiration and no leadership for Australians in either major political party. 
> At least the senior officials in the Department for the Environment should be able to develop a more aspirational position ready for Paris, before the LNC heavies wake up from their stunned reaction to the leadership change and start kicking LNC party member's heads again.

  
Hi John 
Insightful as always.  I actually disagree that he has a low chance of being successful. 
I look at it as him being the new coach, mid way through the season. 
He knows there is talent, he knows there are those past their prime, and those of little value.  He needs to play them all so they stay a team at least until the finals are over and the new season starts.  (post elections).
If he gets them back in, with a larger majority particularly, they will tend to go along with him more. 
I am passionate about addressing climate change however I think his value is greater than sacrificing himself over it at the moment. 
Thats a long way of saying give him time.  If the poles stay up, and god help me they should with Shorten being so ineffective, they will give him more leeway to be human. 
cheers

----------


## John2b

> I actually disagree that he has a low chance of being successful.

  I hope you are right, and that Turnbull gets to enact some of the small 'l' liberal policies that the majority of Australians are looking to their elected members to do on their behalf, including resource depletion, coal pollution and climate change.

----------


## Marc

I must agree with JohnC on most point. It's a pity that Turnbull was unsuccessful in getting into the Labor party and just as regrettable that he was admitted into the Liberal party. 
As for Shorten, it is unclear if it is his own absence of ideas or his party creating a vacuum and eliminating any vestige of them. "The state of Australian politics is appalling" absolutely agree, and unless we remove the choice of a challenge to a PM and unless we do away with the preferential system of voting, we have no chance of seeing any change ever. 
As for my previous post that you all got so excited about ... (isn't that the point?) if you had the most minimal use of lateral thinking you would have seen the small quote that preceded it taken from this link  50 million 'environmental refugees' by 2020, experts say "In 2020, the UN has projected that we will have 50 million environmental refugees," Cristina Tirado, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). "When people are not living in sustainable conditions, they migrate," she said, 
The enormity of this hollow claims can only be addressed with irony sarcasm and ridicule. What are "unsustainable living conditions" and how did they came about? Is it the yet to happen global warming or the RPG that created it and how can we possibly call the steady flow of people moving illegally to europe in search of a better job or cheaper dental work environmental refugees? In what dementia induced nightmare is it possible to even contemplate such boldface lie? 
No need to answer, the left has no ethics and has burned the rule book a long time ago when they discovered that the save-the-planet quest was the only line left to resuscitate their dreams of grandeur, and their hopes of a new Jacobin dictatorship with a watermelon for a flag. 
Like I said before
Pathetic really.

----------


## PhilT2

First polls show that the knifing of Abbott was enormously popular with the Libs now level with Labor and Turnbull well ahead as preferred PM. I expect Turnbulls popularity will soar even further the day he sacks Joe Hockey. The changes that Turnbull will be able to achieve will not be in hard policy areas but in more subtle ways. I expect that efforts to demonise low income people, the "leaners" will fade away, the attacks on environmental groups and scientists associated with climate won't get the airtime they formally did. A decision on where to build our submarines will be made based on the polls not the price. Media ownership decisions will be made that will get the big donors back on side. A lot might hinge on who gets the Environment portfolio but the big environmental change will be the decrease in hostility towards those working in areas related to climate change.

----------


## dazzler

> I must agree with JohnC on most point. It's a pity that Turnbull was unsuccessful in getting into the Labor party and just as regrettable that he was admitted into the Liberal party. 
> As for Shorten, it is unclear if it is his own absence of ideas or his party creating a vacuum and eliminating any vestige of them. "The state of Australian politics is appalling" absolutely agree, and unless we remove the choice of a challenge to a PM and unless we do away with the preferential system of voting, we have no chance of seeing any change ever. 
> As for my previous post that you all got so excited about ... (isn't that the point?) if you had the most minimal use of lateral thinking you would have seen the small quote that preceded it taken from this link  50 million 'environmental refugees' by 2020, experts say "In 2020, the UN has projected that we will have 50 million environmental refugees," Cristina Tirado, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). "When people are not living in sustainable conditions, they migrate," she said, 
> The enormity of this hollow claims can only be addressed with irony sarcasm and ridicule. What are "unsustainable living conditions" and how did they came about? Is it the yet to happen global warming or the RPG that created it and how can we possibly call the steady flow of people moving illegally to europe in search of a better job or cheaper dental work environmental refugees? In what dementia induced nightmare is it possible to even contemplate such boldface lie? 
> No need to answer, the left has no ethics and has burned the rule book a long time ago when they discovered that the save-the-planet quest was the only line left to resuscitate their dreams of grandeur, and their hopes of a new Jacobin dictatorship with a watermelon for a flag. 
> Like I said before
> Pathetic really.

  
Nice try Marc, 
here is what YOU said; 
YOU quoted this;
			 				"When people are not living in sustainable conditions, they migrate," she said ... 
And YOU commented with this;
    "Isn't that great!
Clearly shooting RPG at each other and chop each other to pieces is not a  sustainable living condition so hei! Let's migrate to Germany ... we  are environmental refugees !" 
Now I know you are not a stupid man.  So I am sure you can back up your statement with facts.  I know you are very good at searching the net and copying other peoples work to support your arguments and that is all fine, provided you can actually explain what they mean. 
You see Marc, your comment actually appears to be bigoted and unsupported by what is actually happening in the region. 
So man up and explain, in your own words, how your statement is supported.

----------


## johnc

I suspect Turnbull will try to work through the party room, he must have given a lot of assurances to get the top job and I don't think he will be cut any slack. Being PM will be different to being opposition leader but at least he will elevate economic comments beyond its current pathetic level, if Shorten does the same we may get back to the quality of discussion we began in the late 70's essentially with Fraser although it was happening before that (Gorton/McMahon/Whitlam although Gough did get things moving) and ended halfway through Howards period. Abbott is the low point we can't afford as a country to dig a hole any deeper than he has so lets hope all political parties have got the message that as a country we ask for better than the vindictiveness that we have been getting. As for Abbott, the word is nope, nope, nope, do the right thing and leave at the next election your pension is more than you are worth and more than you have earned, your political ambition and meanness has been at the cost of your country.

----------


## Marc

I hope you are right but I hold no much hope. The current generation of politicians have proven time and time again they are there for themselves and nothing else matters. If there is one person in parliament that isn't a selfish brat that is Abbot, but that is academic now. 
As for homer and his mate behind the sheep, I have expanded on my comments enough for any normal person to understand if it was unclear the first time. Perhaps reading the SMH article may give a further insight into the mind of the luminaries who from their marble tower want to dictate how we, little tax paying peasants are supposed to pay our tribute to the moral titans of our time.

----------


## John2b

> As for my previous post that you all got so excited about ... (isn't that the point?) if you had the most minimal use of lateral thinking you would have seen the small quote that preceded it taken from this link  50 million 'environmental refugees' by 2020, experts say

  From your link:  Among ways that climate change has impacted food security is by making winters warmer, which allows pests that carry plant diseases to survive over the cold months and attack crops in the spring, soil physicist Ray Knighton of the US Department of Agriculture said. An increase in fungal pathogens caused by more rainfall during harvest time - another result of climate change - can also "dramatically impact yield and quality," said Knighton.  
This isn't just happening in Africa, it's happening in Australia as well to such a great extent it even put the wind up Tony Abbott enough that he has secretly authorised funding for research into climate change mitigation for food production in Australia, as I revealed here: #14536

----------


## woodbe

> If there is one person in parliament that isn't a selfish brat that is Abbot, but that is academic now.

  Selfishness isn't just about getting material benefits for yourself. Abbott was a one sided selfish brat who gave no quarter to anyone who was not on his right wing agenda. His lack of consideration for the plurality in the electorate, and especially those less well off is what did him in. Even his 'Captains Calls' excluded his own colleagues from sharing in some decisions that undermined his support. 
However Turnbull turns out, he is leagues ahead.

----------


## John2b

> The enormity of this hollow claims can only be addressed with irony sarcasm and ridicule.

  Your link is to a newspaper report of a 'she said they said' nature with no cited references. I can't find where the UN actually provides projections of climate refugees. Do you have a link Marc? 
What I did find was statistics on climate related displaced populations over the past few years from a non-UN body that monitors refugee movements:    IDMC » Global Estimates 2015: People displaced by disasters

----------


## johnc

> Selfishness isn't just about getting material benefits for yourself. Abbott was a one sided selfish brat who gave no quarter to anyone who was not on his right wing agenda. His lack of consideration for the plurality in the electorate, and especially those less well off is what did him in. Even his 'Captains Calls' excluded his own colleagues from sharing in some decisions that undermined his support. 
> However Turnbull turns out, he is leagues ahead.

  He isn't right wing though, that is the contradiction, yet his fawning to the right wing betrayed his own social leanings. He was a selfish brat, no interest in his adopted country it was only ever about his own ambition, decisions were all about his own political advantage, just a low rent street fighter with zero interest or understanding of the economy or his own responsibility to lead and govern. A man with limited ethics, limited ability and a destroyer, I doubt history will be kind, I would label him the worst prime minister in our post war history. I don't know enough about the pre war individuals to comment.

----------


## John2b

> He was a selfish brat, no interest in his adopted country it was only ever about his own ambition, decisions were all about his own political advantage, just a low rent street fighter with zero interest or understanding of the economy or his own responsibility to lead and govern. A man with limited ethics, limited ability and a destroyer, I doubt history will be kind, I would label him the worst prime minister in our post war history.

  And those are just some of Abbott's better character traits...

----------


## PhilT2

The irony is that Abbott's term as PM was shorter than both Rudd and Gillard, (and less successful in terms of getting his legislative agenda through the parliament.)

----------


## John2b

> The irony is that Abbott's term as PM was shorter than both Rudd and Gillard, (and less successful in terms of getting his legislative agenda through the parliament.)

  Abbott blamed the failure to pass legislation on needing the consent of both houses but not having a LNC majority in the Senate. A single party holding majority in both houses has been a rare exception, but that didn't seem to be a problem for every other post war government except Abbott's.

----------


## Marc

> Your link is to a newspaper report of a 'she said they said' nature with no cited references. I can't find where the UN actually provides projections of climate refugees. Do you have a link Marc? 
> What I did find was statistics on climate related displaced populations over the past few years from a non-UN body that monitors refugee movements:    IDMC » Global Estimates 2015: People displaced by disasters

  Since when is a disaster the result of Global warming? Who defines that a tornado a volcano eruption or a tsunami is because of my diesel 4wd? You?  

> Latest figures from IDMC estimate that more than 19.3 million people were forced to flee their homes by disasters in 100 countries in 2014. Hundreds of thousands more are still displaced following disasters in previous years.
> Since 2008, an average of 26.4 million people per year have been displaced from their homes by disasters brought on by natural hazards. This is the equivalent to one person being displaced every second. The number and scale of huge disasters creates significant fluctuation from year to year in the total number of people displaced, while the trend over decades is on the rise.
> The time is opportune for displacement to be better addressed in major global policy agenda and their implementation in the post-2015 period. A comprehensive approach to displacement will help to forge strong links and continuity between these initiatives. 
> This annual report, the sixth of its kind, draws on information from a wide range of sources, including governments, UN and international organisations, NGOs and media, to provide up-to-date figures and analysis on displacement caused by disasters associated with rapid-onset geophysical and weather-related hazards such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods and storms.

   NATURAL HAZARDS !!!!!!!!!!!!  
This is very good example of agitation agenda. Stir and muddy the waters and blame it on "climate change" ... uuu yes, Marc's diesel fumes have made Krakatoa erupt. Bad bad Marc ... Burn the deniers ... infidels!

----------


## John2b

> Since when is a disaster the result of Global warming? Who defines that a tornado a volcano eruption or a tsunami is because of my diesel 4wd?

  People displaced by volcanoes or tsunamis are not included in the 'weather' category.   

> This is very good example of agitation agenda.

  Good point. Don't post nonsense and reduce muddying of the waters and causing agitation. Here's another good point: Put your own house in order before you start giving others advice.

----------


## Marc

The way I see it, AGW propaganda mouthpiece are their own worst enemies. 
The only constant in this trash reports is the mantra, the end justifies the means. 
And this is precisely what happens here and everywhere else you bother to dig a bit deeper. 
Floods in Japan? GLOBAL WARMING! 1000 freeze to death in Russia? GLOBAL WARMING!  
Whatever small credibility was left is quickly eroded away by this poor attempts at drumming up support.
The sad part is that this stunts actually do drum up support even when they are bold faced fabrications... and vote chasing government take notice of the gullibility of voters and "act" accordingly. 
That is a success story achieved by deceit, lies, fabrications and emotional claptrap.   
Are sceptics guilty of the same? Of course!
The intensity and the volume of the rubbish published in my personal view favours the agitators ten to one but  you would probably disagree. 
Be my guest.
We live in interesting times where agnostics and atheists invent a new religion and convince governments around the world they are the sinners in need of redemption.
Love it.

----------


## woodbe

Thanks for describing the reasons you don't read the science.  
You're so infatuated with opinion you don't even know where to find the science, let alone spend any time educating yourself so you can tell opinion from facts and science.

----------


## Marc

Fortunately it is not about me but about how the populous reacts and votes and consequently how governments act to capture that vote.
In the end the loser is of course the environment. You only need to look at how foreign mining companies are allowed to use ancient aquifers paying nothing for it and allowed to pollute with complete disregard and allowed to walk all over private ownership. And all for a pittance of a percentage of our resources that should be producing cheap electricity for us.
Oh but we go _soooolar_  we sooo much nicer and cleaner ...  :Annoyed:

----------


## dazzler

> The way I see it, AGW propaganda mouthpiece are their own worst enemies.

  Yep like bigots with large mouths I reckon.   Ranting away without a supportive argument.   
🐵🙈🙉🙊

----------


## Marc

I bet the sheep has a different opinion.

----------


## dazzler

So Marc 
Came up with your own explanation 
Your batting 100 on ducking ATM.

----------


## woodbe

> Fortunately it is not about me but about how the populous reacts and votes and consequently how governments act to capture that vote.

  Except... 
My response was to you and your opinion scraping, not the populous.  
Even if you have valid points about the politics, your posts about the science are boundless and factless opinion. If you understood the science you wouldn't post such blatant dribble from non-science sources. 
See my sig for further reference.

----------


## Uncle Bob

> See my sig for further reference.

  Maybe the sig could link to something about skeptopathy and cryptodenialism  :Wink:

----------


## johnc

> I bet the sheep has a different opinion.

   You seem so infatuated with sheep I bet you have your very own monogrammed Velcro gloves and matching rubber boots.

----------


## Rod Dyson

So you WANT the thread to shut down again??

----------


## woodbe

Look at the date, Rod. The post has been unblocked by the Mods, not re-posted.

----------


## Marc

*Friday, Sep 18th 2015 7AM  13C 10AM  16C 5-Day Forecast*  *It's politics, not science, driving climate mania: Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice?*   *UN computer predictions subject of ridicule: not got it right for 18 years**Across the globe, there are about 1m sq km more sea ice than 35 years ago**Authorities are now guessing global temperatures based on nearby weather stations*   *By ANDREW MOUNTFORD, CLIMATE CHANGE AUTHOR* *PUBLISHED: 07:01 EST, 6 July 2014 | UPDATED: 09:54 EST, 6 July 2014 * *For years, computer simulations have predicted that sea ice should be disappearing from the Poles.**Now, with the news that Antarctic sea-ice levels have hit new highs, comes yet another mishap to tarnish the credibility of climate science.*  *Climatologists base their doom-laden predictions of the Earth’s climate on computer simulations.* *But these have long been the subject of ridicule because of their stunning failure to predict the pause in warming – nearly 18 years long on some measures – since the turn of the last century.*  * 
+2* *An adult chinstrap penguin jumps out of the sea at Port Lockroy, Antarctica*  *It’s the same with sea ice. We hear a great deal about the decline in Arctic sea ice, in line with or even ahead of predictions.* *But why are environmentalists and scientists so much less  keen to discuss the long-term increase in the southern hemisphere?* *In fact, across the globe, there are about one million square kilometres more sea ice than 35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began.* *RELATED ARTICLES*   *New species of water bear found living in Antarctica - and...Freedom! Retirement day arrives for 110 chimpanzees as they...*   *It’s fair to say that this has been something of an embarrassment for climate modellers. But it doesn’t stop there.*  *In recent days a new scandal over the integrity of temperature data has emerged, this time in America, where it has been revealed as much as 40 per cent  of temperature data there are not real thermometer readings.* *Many temperature stations have closed, but rather than stop recording data from these posts, the authorities have taken the remarkable step of ‘estimating’ temperatures based on the records of surrounding stations.*   * 
+2*  *A Crabeater seal on an iceberg in Paradise Bay, Antarctica. Crabeater seals are the most common large mammal on the planet after humans, with an estimated population of 15 million*  *So vast swathes of the data are actually from ‘zombie’ stations that have long since disappeared.  This is bad enough, but it has also been discovered that the  US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is using estimates even when perfectly good raw data is available to it – and that it has adjusted historical records.* *Why should it do this? Many have noted that the effect of all these changes is to produce a warmer present and a colder past, with the net result being  the impression of much faster warming.* *They draw their conclusions accordingly.* *Naturally, if the US temperature records are indeed found to have been manipulated, this is unlikely to greatly affect our overall picture of rising temperatures at the end of the last century and  a standstill thereafter.* *The US is, after all, only a  small proportion of the globe.*  *Similarly, climatologists’ difficulties with the sea ice may be of little scientific significance in the greater scheme of things.* *We have only a few decades of data, and in climate terms this is probably too short to demonstrate that either the Antarctic increase or the Arctic decrease is anything other than natural variability.*  *But the relentless focus by activist scientists on the Arctic decline does suggest a political imperative rather than a scientific one – and when put together with the story of the US temperature records, it’s hard to avoid the impression that what the public is being told is less than the unvarnished truth.*  *As their credulity is stretched more and more, the public will – quite rightly – treat demands for action with increasing caution…*   *Share or comment on this article**
Read more: It's politics not science that is driving the climate change mania: UN predictions subject of ridicule because of their stunning failure | Daily Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook*

----------


## John2b

> *It's politics, not science, driving climate mania: Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice?*

  Why is it necessary for a newspaper article to headline with an obvious falsehood? Far from trying to hide it, the increase in Antarctic sea ice is a headline story in the realms of climate science!  *NASA: Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum*   Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s.  https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum   

> It’s fair to say that this has been something of an embarrassment for climate modellers.

  Climate modellers are not embarrassed at all. Why is it necessary for the newspaper article to contain easily disproven falsehoods? Why can't they stick to facts? 
Counterintuitive, perhaps, but the extra ice is because it is WARMER not cooler. Oceans are not pure water and the temperature at which they freeze is function of salt content. The increase in ice extent is well understood to be a consequence of warmer temperatures melting on-land ice and reducing the saltiness of the surrounding ocean, thus raising the temperature at which ice freezes. 
Read all about it:  https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/index.html

----------


## woodbe

It's like telling some kids to look the other way while you steal their candy.    Will Antarctica sea ice set a new record in 2014?   

> ...on average the Antarctic Sea Ice Area is going up by 0.2% per year,  and the average thickness is going up 0.2% per year, resulting in an  average sea ice volume increase of 0.4% per year.  However, these  numbers are orders of magnitude lower than the corresponding changes  taking place to the Arctic Sea Ice. 
> ... 
> Therefore, taken at face value, there is little to discuss in this  thread, unless denialist intend to claim (incorrectly) that a maximum  Antarctic Sea Ice Extent record in 2014 means that global warming is not  occurring.  If any denialists care to make such a claim in this thread,  I hope that they are prepared to back-up any such claim with facts, as  it has already been clearly demonstrated that the increase in Antarctic  Sea Ice is related to such positive feedback mechanisms for global  warming as: (a) the increase in the westerly wind velocities that causes  the sea ice to both spread, and raft; but which also causes CO₂ venting  from the Southern Ocean and the advection of warm CDW to contribute to  grounded ice mass loss (which contributes to SLR); (b) the freshening of  the Southern Ocean surface waters (largely associated with ice  sheet/shelf ice mass loss, and increased precipitation); and (c) the  reduction in the rate of AABW production.

  Holland, Paul R., Nicolas Bruneau, Clare Enright, Martin Losch, Nathan  T. Kurtz, Ron Kwok, (2014), "Modeled Trends in Antarctic Sea Ice  Thickness", J. Climate, 27, 3784–3801,  doi: Link  Link2  
Short version: It's a load of bunk, Marc.

----------


## dazzler

> So Marc, who EXACTLY are "shooting RPG" and "chop each other to pieces" at whom? 
> Try it without a google link.....

  
Between 2006 and 2011 Syria experienced the WORST DROUGHT ON RECORD with in excess of 60 EXTREME DUST EVENTS between 2001 and 2010.  They have lost all water in their via ducts.  Turkey had dammed the Euphrates River resulting in water flow reductions of 40%. 
In 2008 75% of crops had been lost.  90% of cattle had been lost.  This drought continued to 2012. The UN advised that the social fabric of the country was at extreme risk due to poverty and lack of food. 
Over 800,000 Syrians left the countryside and fled to the cities to find work.  
Over 500,000 additional refugees from Palestine and Iraq also filled the cities fighting for scarce resources. 
The US reimplemented sanctions aimed at toppling the Govt (Assad). 
2010 the drought worsens and 3 million Syrians in the countryside are living in extreme poverty. Many of these move to the cities, adding to the problem.  These people are ECONOMIC AND CLIMATE refugees. 
March 2011 a small group of farmers protest against Assad, Assad retaliates and a civil war erupts.

----------


## Bros

Two posts have been deleted and one edited as they are irrelevant to the thread, keep it up and the thread will be locked again.

----------


## Marc

Abstract An irreducibly simple climate-sensitivity model is designed to empower even non-specialists to research the question how much global warming we may cause. 
In 1990, the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expressed ‘‘substantial confidence’’ that near-term global warming would occur twice as fast as subsequent observation. 
Given rising CO2 concentration, few models predicted no warming since 2001. Between the pre-final and published drafts of the Fifth Assessment Report, IPCC cut its near-term warming projection substantially, substituting ‘‘expert assessment’’ for models’ near-term predictions. Yet its long-range predictions remain unaltered. The model indicates that IPCC’s reduction of the feedback sum from 1.9to 1.5 W m-2 K-1 mandates a reduction from 3.2 to 2.2 K in its central climate-sensitivity estimate; that, since feedbacks are likely to be net-negative, a better estimate is1.0 K; that there is no unrealized global warming in the pipeline; that global warming this century will be \1 K;and that combustion of all recoverable fossil fuels will cause \2.2 K global warming to equilibrium. 
Resolving the discrepancies between the methodology adopted by IPCC in its Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports that are highlighted in the present paper is vital. Once those discrepancies are taken into account, the impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century, and even asfar as equilibrium many millennia hence, may be no more than one-third to one-half of IPCC’s current projections.

----------


## Marc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrO0_BE-Nl4

----------


## woodbe

Nope, not a climate scientist, just another paid denier. 
What else have you got?

----------


## John2b

> Nope, not a climate scientist, just another paid denier.

  If you wondered why only two people clapped at the introduction, that is because apart from a couple of off camera assistants organisers, the entire 9 people at the 'conference' were journalists LMFAO!

----------


## Marc

Your post contains two falsehoods, ignoring the parting question of course.
One:
Lord Monckton gets paid.
Now that is a bit of a funny one because I would like to know who of all those who give conferences and speeches of all descriptions does _not_ get paid. There is nothing wrong with being paid. To infer so is to forward that ancient anti-value that money is dirty and that poverty is a virtue. So yes, he most probably get's paid for his trouble however I don't really know because I am not his accountant nor his personal friend so I wonder how do you know he gets paid?
Yet the answer is irrelevant because there is no shame in getting paid for your time. The only shame is to get paid to say what you wouldn't say otherwise. 
For example if you get paid to spread falsehood and say we will run out of water so that a de-salinization plant gets built, or that we will have 50,000 climate refugees by 2010 and we must prevent this by building windmills built by Qatar and pay Qatar billions of subsidies to thank them for their efforts, and it turns out to be all bold faced lies, now there is shame.
But of course no one in the global warming camp is keen in details of such small nature. 
Second falsehood:
Someone that is not a scientist and specialising in climate can not comment on this matters, his comments are to be dismissed.
False on several front but lets just mention two.
One: anyone with a functioning brain can read reports, understand them compare them and make intelligent comments without a university degree on the subject. Millions of parents with sick children become experts in a particular illness for the sake of their child and sometimes give the specialist a run for their money.
Two: The Global Warming Fraud has come to be for political and economical reasons, so the science is rather irrelevant. It is far more relevant and interesting the motivations and plots behind the BS from taxpayers funded institutions that go with the flow to keep their funding.  
If you bothered listening to Lord Monckton conferences you would know that he predicted the removal of Tony Abbot by M Turnbull_  BEFORE THE DECEMBER CONFERENCE IN PARIS._ And it is on public record that the UN has promised to make sure the Canadian PM looses the election to be had before December so that the only two countries to oppose an unelected dictatorial communist entity on all global warming matter does not come to be. 
What else do I have? I've got heaps more than you can possibly imagine yet I also know you wouldn't be interested.
Now I need help from you because I also want to get paid. Can you tell me who would part with some dough for me?

----------


## woodbe

> Your post contains two falsehoods, ignoring the parting question of course.
> One:
> Lord Monckton gets paid.
> Now that is a bit of a funny one because I would like to know who of all those who give conferences and speeches of all descriptions does _not_ get paid. There is nothing wrong with being paid.

  I have no problem with people getting paid either. Good luck to Monckton for getting paid. The point is not about getting paid, it is by whom. Mockton is a paid denier, and he gets paid by organisations that deny climate science. Climate scientists, get a stipend from their university or other organisations that do not deny science. It would be very rare for a publishing climate scientist to accept payment from a climate denial organisation. Willie Soon is one that does.   

> Second falsehood:
> Someone that is not a scientist and specialising in climate can not comment on this matters, his comments are to be dismissed.
> False on several front but lets just mention two.
> One: anyone with a functioning brain can read reports, understand them compare them and make intelligent comments without a university degree on the subject. Millions of parents with sick children become experts in a particular illness for the sake of their child and sometimes give the specialist a run for their money.

  I have a couple of comments and questions on your proposition of falsehoods: 
One: I have no problem with people making comments on the science. What I do have a problem with is people who have a particular bent and who are not qualified, to turn around and tell us that people who are actually qualified in climate science do not know what they are talking about. That is exactly what Monckton proposes. It's total BS. 
Two: I'm excited to hear that you think anyone with a functioning brain can read science. My question is, why do you not read the science, only blog posts and other drivel that suggests that the science you have not read is incorrect?   

> Two: The Global Warming Fraud has come to be for political and economical reasons, so the science is rather irrelevant. It is far more relevant and interesting the motivations and plots behind the BS from taxpayers funded institutions that go with the flow to keep their funding.  
> If you bothered listening to Lord Monckton conferences you would know that he predicted the removal of Tony Abbot by M Turnbull_  BEFORE THE DECEMBER CONFERENCE IN PARIS._ And it is on public record that the UN has promised to make sure the Canadian PM looses the election to be had before December so that the only two countries to oppose an unelected dictatorial communist entity on all global warming matter does not come to be. 
> What else do I have? I've got heaps more than you can possibly imagine yet I also know you wouldn't be interested.
> Now I need help from you because I also want to get paid. Can you tell me who would part with some dough for me?

  The only way the current state of the science can be shown to be incorrect, is for the scientists to find a better solution to the data in front of us. Calling the science irrelevant is a bogus argument. Science has delivered us the current state of improvement in every field of science, but those that deny the accepted climate change theories in front of us try and tell us that the science is wrong and is some kind of conspiracy. 
Predicting that Abbott would get turned over before the conference is not much of a glorious prediction. He was given 6 months in February and he didn't improve. No surprise there. In any case, TA's removal is not a science based prediction, it's a political prediction. If Monckton was right about a political prediction, how does that make the balony he speaks about the science correct? 
If you seriously want to get paid for filling this thread up with bunk, I can suggest you approach the GWPF and who knows, they fund Monckton so they should throw you a few notes too.

----------


## Marc

Ha ha ... you are truly funny.

----------


## Marc

*When messaging collides with science: The ‘Hottest Year Ever’ Inside a Global Warming ‘Pause’?*Anthony Watts / 20 hours ago September 23, 2015 *Excerpt  from a story by statistician William M. Briggs*  There are two stories floating around about the state of the earth’s atmosphere. Both are believed true by government-funded scientists and the environmentally minded. The situation is curious because the stories don’t mesh. Yet, as I said, both are believed. Worse, neither is true. Story number one is that this year will be the hottest ever. And number two is that the reason it is _not_ hot is because “natural variation” has masked or stalled man-caused global warming. Which is it? Either it’s hotter than ever or it isn’t. If it is, then (it is implied) man-caused global warming has not “paused.” If it isn’t, if man-caused global warming has “paused,” then it is not growing hotter. There are two things to keep straight: (1) why these divergent contentions are believed, and (2) why they are incompatible and individually false. The first point is easy. Climatology has become a branch of politics. And in politics, particularly in our rambunctious democracy, statements asserted in the name of some political goal are usually believed or at least supported by those who share the goal. It is necessary for global-warming-of-doom to be true in order to attain the government’s goal (of increasing in size and power), so any statement which supports global warming is likely to be touted by government supporters, even mutually incompatible statements. Scientists — and some very big names indeed — who have made their living on government grants, and who provide arguments in line with the government’s desire that global-warming-of-doom be true, recently wrote a letter to the President and Attorney General asking these officials to _criminally prosecute_ under the RICO Act scientists like myself and organizations that might fund me. Which scientists and organizations? Those, they say, who have “knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.” In other words, arguments put forth by independent scientists and organizations that do not support the government’s line cannot be considered science, but should instead be classified as criminal acts. Incidentally, it has come out that the scientist leading the effort to prosecute the innocent has “paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from gov’t climate grants for part-time work.” Climatology is thus a branch of politics. _Quod erat demonstrandum_. I’m no politician and can’t predict what will come of this. But I am a scientist and know good physics from bad. To understand why the claims about the atmosphere mentioned above are false, it is necessary to grasp, at least in broad outline, some rather complicated statistics and physics. Let’s try. Read the rest of the story here: https://stream.org/climate-change-sp...warming-pause/

----------


## Bros

Where do you blokes dredge up this stuff from? You must spend all day on the computer.

----------


## John2b

> Which is it? Either it’s hotter than ever or it isn’t. If it is, then (it is implied) man-caused global warming has not “paused.” If it isn’t, if man-caused global warming has “paused,” then it is not growing hotter.

  Either way, everything you have ever posted from the blogs is bunkum, as you have demonstrated yet again... No climate scientist ever said there was a pause in global warming.

----------


## Marc

*The big list of failed climate predictions*  Anthony Watts / April 2, 2014 Reader “Sasha” responding to Jeff Alberts in comments provided a large list that I thought was worth sharing. Submitted on 2014/04/02 at 8:37 am The question wasn’t “what do people think is caused by global warming”, but “what was predicted by scientists and activists 25 years ago that would be a result of global warming.” Big difference. *OK. Hang on to your hat!*
The original post was asking for a list of failed climate predictions, so here are 107: *FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS* (and some related stupid sayings)  1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006 **** 2. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10, 2010. **** 3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.” Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008. **** 4. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.”
Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), March 2, 2007 **** 5. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4C, in the Alps by up to 5C.”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009. **** 6. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”
Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005. **** 7. “The more than ‘unusually ‘warm January weather is yet ‘another extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. … The global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2C’”
Michael Mller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment,
Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007 **** 8. “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”
Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010 9. “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”
Gerhard Mller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010 **** 10. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000 **** 11. “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
Spiegel, 1 April 2000 **** 12. “In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these benefits. In some regions up to 60% of the species could die off by 2080.” 3Sat, 26 June 2003 **** 13. “Although the magnitude of the trends shows large variation among different models, Miller et al. (2006) find that none of the 14 models exhibits a trend towards a lower NAM index and higher arctic SLP.”
IPCC 2007 4AR, (quoted by Georg Hoffmann) **** 14. “Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.”
Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007 **** 15. “Assuming there will be a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is projected by the year 2030. The consequences could be hotter and drier summers, and winters warmer and wetter. Such a warming will be proportionately higher at higher elevations – and especially will have a powerful impact on the glaciers of the Firn regions.” and “ The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to 1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses warmer winters have to be anticipated.”
Scinexx Wissenschaft Magazin, 26 Mar 2002 **** 16. “Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006 **** 17. “Spring will begin in January starting in 2030.”
Die Welt, 30 Sept 2010 **** 18. “Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007 **** 19. “Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Mller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.”
Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007 **** 20. “Warm in the winter, dry in the summer … Long, hard winters in Germany remain rare: By 2085 large areas of the Alps and Central German Mountains will be almost free of snow. Because air temperatures in winter will rise more quickly than in summer, there will be more precipitation. ‘However, much of it will fall as rain,’ says Daniela Jacob of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.”
FOCUS, 24 May 2006 **** 21. “Consequences and impacts for regional agriculture: Hotter summers, milder plus shorter winters (palm trees!). Agriculture: More CO2 in the air, higher temperatures, foremost in winter.”
Dr. Michael Schirmer, University of Bremen, presentation of 2 Feb 2007 **** 22. “Winters: wet and mild”
Bavarian State Ministry for Agriculture, presentation 23 Aug 2007 **** 23. “The climate model prognoses currently indicate that the following climate changes will occur: Increase in minimum temperatures in the winter.”
Chamber of Agriculture of Lower Saxony Date: 6 July 2009 **** 24. “Both the prognoses for global climate development and the prognoses for the climatic development of the Fichtel Mountains clearly show a warming of the average temperature, whereby especially the winter months will be greatly impacted.”
Willi Seifert, University of Bayreuth, diploma thesis, p. 203, 7 July 2004 **** 25. “Already in the year 2025 the conditions for winter sports in the Fichtel Mountains will develop negatively, especially with regards to ‘natural’ snow conditions and for so-called snow-making potential. A financially viable ski business operation after about the year 2025 appears under these conditions to be extremely improbable (Seifert, 2004)”.
Andreas Matzarakis, University of Freiburg Meteorological Institute, 26 July 2006 **** 26. “Skiing among palm trees? … For this reason I would advise no one in the Berchtesgadener Land to invest in a ski-lift. The probability of earning money with the global warming is getting less and less.”
Hartmut Gral, Director Emeritus,
Max Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 3, 4 Mar 2006 **** 27. “Climate warming leads to an increasingly higher snow line. The number of future ski resorts that can be expected to have snow is reducing. […] Climate change does not only lead to higher temperatures, but also to changes in the precipitation ratios in summer and winter. […] In the wintertime more precipitation is to be anticipated. However, it will fall more often as rain, and less often as snow, in the future.”
Hans Elsasser, Director of the Geographical Institute of the University of Zurich, 4 Mar 2006 **** 28. “All climate simulations – global and regional – were carried out at the Deutschen Klimarechenzentrum [German Climate Simulation Center]. […] In the winter months the temperature rise is from 1.5C to 2C and stretches from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean Sea. Only in regions that are directly influenced by the Atlantic (Great Britain, Portugal, parts of Spain) will the winter temperature increase be less (Fig. 1).”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Press Release, Date: December 2007/January 2013. **** 29. “By the year 2050 … temperatures will rise 1.5C to 2.5C (summer) and 3C (winter). … in the summer it will rain up to 40% less and in the winter up to 30% more.
German Federal Department of Highways, 1 Sept 2010 **** 30. “We are now at the threshold of making reliable statements about the future.”
Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 44, 10/2001 **** 31. “The scenarios of climate scientists are unanimous about one thing: In the future in Germany we will have to live with drier and drier summers and a lot more rain in the winters.”
Gerhard Mller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 20 May 2010 **** 32. “In the wintertime the winds will be more from the west and will bring storms to Germany. Especially in western and southern Germany there will be flooding.” FOCUS / Mojib Latif, Leibniz Institute for Ocean Sciences of the University of Kiel, 27 May 2006. **** 33. “While the increases in the springtime appear as rather modest, the (late)summer and winter months are showing an especially powerful warming trend.”
State Ministry of Environment, Agriculture and Geology, Saxony, p. 133, Schriftenreihe Heft 25/2009. **** 34. “Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model … Despite appearing as part of a natural climate oscillation, the large increases in wintertime surface temperatures over the continents may therefore be attributable in large part to human activities,”
Science Daily, Dr. Drew Shindell 4 June 1999 **** 35. “Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000 **** 36. “This data confirms what many gardeners believe – winters are not as hard as they used to be. … And if recent trends continue a white Christmas in Wales could certainly be a thing of the past.”
BBC, Dr Jeremy Williams, Bangor University, Lecturer in Geomatics, 20 Dec 2004 **** 37. The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999 **** 38. “Computer models predict that the temperature rise will continue at that accelerated pace if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not reduced, and also predict that warming will be especially pronounced in the wintertime.”
Star News, William K. Stevens, New York Times, 11 Mar 2000 **** 39. “In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn.”
Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005 ***** 40. “We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.”
Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, 11 Mar 2000 **** 41. “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001 **** 42. “Global climate change is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as warmer summers and milder winters…9.4.2. Decreased Mortality Resulting from Milder Winters … One study estimates a decrease in annual cold-related deaths of 20,000 in the UK by the 2050s (a reduction of 25%)”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001 **** 43. “The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe. …The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease in at least most of Europe.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2007 **** 44. “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”
WalesOnline, Sir John Houghton – atmospheric physicist, 30 June 2007 **** 45. “In the UK wetter winters are expected which will lead to more extreme rainfall, whereas summers are expected to get drier. However, it is possible under climate change that there could be an increase of extreme rainfall even under general drying.”
Telegraph, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 24 July 2007 **** 46. “Winter has gone forever and we should officially bring spring forward instead. … There is no winter any more despite a cold snap before Christmas. It is nothing like years ago when I was younger. There is a real problem with spring because so much is flowering so early year to year.”
Express, Dr Nigel Taylor, Curator of Kew Gardens, 8 Feb 2008 **** 47. “The past is no longer a guide to the future. We no longer have a stationary climate,”…
Independent, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 27 Jul 2007 **** 48. “It is consistent with the climate change message. It is exactly what we expect winters to be like – warmer and wetter, and dryer and hotter summers. …the winter we have just seen is consistent with the type of weather we expect to see more and more in the future.”
Wayne Elliott, Met Office meteorologist, BBC, 27 Feb 2007 **** 49. “ If your decisions depend on what’s happening at these very fine scales of 25 km or even 5 km resolution then you probably shouldn’t be making irreversible investment decisions now.”
Myles Allen, “one of the UK’s leading climate modellers”, Oxford University, 18 June 2009 **** 50. “It’s great that the government has decided to put together such a scientifically robust analysis of the potential impacts of climate change in the UK.”
Keith Allott, WWF-UK, 18 June 2009 ****

----------


## Marc

51. The data collected by experts from the university [of Bangor] suggests that a white Christmas on Snowdon  the tallest mountain in England and Wales  may one day become no more than a memory.
BBC News, 20 Dec 2004
[BBC 2013: Snowdon Mountain Railway will be shut over the Easter weekend after it was hit by 30ft (9.1m) snow drifts.] **** 52. Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first conclusive proof that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.
Guardian, 26 Aug 2006. **** 53. Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century. (p. 19), and but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change  moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation! (p38)
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix, Greenpeace, 2004 **** 54. Shindells model predicts that if greenhouse gases continue to increase, winter in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm. In our model, were seeing a very large signal of global warming and its not a naturally occurring thing. Its most likely linked to greenhouse gases, he said.
NASA, GISS, 2 June 1999 **** 55. We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isnt nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alpsespecially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.
Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005 **** 56. Planning for a snowless future: Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.
Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel, 17 Feb 2005 **** 57. Rhineland-Palatinate, as will be the case for all of Central Europe, will be affected by higher than average warming rates and winters with snow disappearing increasingly.
Prof. Dr. Hartmut Grassl, internationally renowned meteorologist, Director Emeritus, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 20 Nov 2008 **** 58. With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.
Guardian, 14 February 2004
[4 January 2013: Nevis Range, The Lecht, Cairngorm, Glenshee and Glencoe all remain closed today due to the heavy snow and strong winds.] **** 59. Unfortunately, its just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry.
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 14 Feb 2004 **** 60. For the Baltic ringed seal, climate change could mean its demise warned a team of scientists at the Baltic Sea Experiment (Baltex) conference in Goteborg. This is because the warming leads to the ice on the Baltic Sea to melt earlier and earlier every year.
Spiegel, 3 June 2006
[The Local 2013: Late-season freeze sets Baltic ice record  Ive never seen this much ice this late in the season.] **** 61. Forecasters Predict More Mild Winter for Europe Reuters, Nov 09, 2012 FRANKFURT  European weather in the coming winter now looks more likely to be mild than in previous studies, German meteorologist Georg Mueller said in a monthly report. The latest runs are generally in favor of a milder than normal winter, especially over northern Europe. **** 62. Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first conclusive proof that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.
Guardian, 26 August 2006. Earlier springs and later autumns: climate change sends nature awry | Environment | The Guardian **** 63. Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century. (p19) but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change  moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation! (p38) Impact of the climate change in Belgium (translated from Dutch).
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004 **** 64. The hottest year since 1659 spells global doom
Telegraph December 14, 2006 The hottest year since 1659 spells global doom - Telegraph **** 65. Jay Wynne from the BBC Weather Centre presents reports for typical days in 2020, 2050 and 2080 as predicted by our experiment.
BBCs Climate Change Experiment BBC - Science & Nature - Climate Change **** 66. Cold winters would gradually disappear. (p.4)
67. In Belgium, snow on the ground could become increasingly rare but there would be plenty of grey sky and rain in winter.. (p.6)
The Greenpeace report Impacts of climate change in Belgium is available in an abbreviated version in English: http://www.greenpeace.org/belgium/Pa...9/SumIB_uk.pdf
Impacts of climate change in Belgium
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004
Climate scientist van Ypersele is Vice Chair of the IPCC. **** 68. Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked to Increasing Greenhouse Gases.
NASA, June 2, 1999 NASA GISS: Research News: Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked to Increasing Greenhouse Gases **** 69. The global temperature will increase every year by 0.2C
Michael Mller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment, in Die Zeit, January 15, 2007 **** 70. Unfortunately, its just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry. It is very vulnerable to climate change; the resorts have always been marginal in terms of snow and, as the rate of climate change increases, it is hard to see a long-term future.
David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
February 14, 2004 Global warming forces sale of Scottish winter sports resorts | UK news | The Guardian **** 71. Climate change will have the effect of pushing more and more winter sports higher and higher up mountains,
Rolf Burki and his colleagues at the University of Zurich On the rocks: the grim forecast for winter sports as global warming increases | World news | The Guardian **** 72.  In the future, snowdrops will be out in January, primroses in February, mayflowers and lilac in April and wild roses in May, the ponds will be full of tadpoles in March and a month later even the oaks will be in full leaf. If that isnt enough, autumn probably wont begin until October.
Geraint Smith, Science Correspondent, Standard British seasons start to shift | News | London Evening Standard **** 73. The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds wont be there. The trees in the median strip will change.There will be more police cars.[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.
Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss.
Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansens office in NYC in the next 20 years. **** 74. March 20, 2000, from The Independent, According to Dr David Viner of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, snowfall in Britain would become a very rare and exciting event and children just arent going to know what snow is. **** 75. September 2006, Arnold Schwarzenegger signing Californias anti-emissions law, We simply must do everything in our power to slow down global warming before it is too lateThe science is clear. The global warming debate is over. **** 76. 1990 Actress Meryl Streep By the year 2000  thats less than ten years awayearths climate will be warmer than its been in over 100,000 years. If we dont do something, therell be enormous calamities in a very short time. **** 77. April 2008, Media Mogul Ted Turner on Charlie Rose (On not taking drastic action to correct global warming) Not doing it will be catastrophic. Well be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.
[Strictly speaking, this is not a failed prediction. It wont be until at least 2048 that our church-going and pie-baking neighbors come after us for their noonday meal. But the prediction is so bizarre that it is included it here.] **** 78. January 1970 Life Magazine Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollutionby 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half **** 79. Earth Day 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: At the present rate of nitrogen build-up, its only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable. **** 80. Earth Day 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age. **** 81. April 28, 1975 Newsweek There are ominous signs that Earths weather patterns have begun to change dramatically.The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.The central fact is thatthe earths climate seems to be cooling downIf the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. **** 82. 1976 Lowell Ponte in The Cooling,: This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. **** 83. July 9, 1971, Washington Post: In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the suns rays that the Earths average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to ten years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age. **** 84. June, 1975, Nigel Calder in International Wildlife: The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. **** 85. June 30, 1989, Associated Press: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAPentire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco-refugees, threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect. **** 86. Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now. **** 87. December 5, 1989, Dallas Morning News: Some predictions for the next decade are not difficult to makeAmericans may see the 80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. **** 88. Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computersThe Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands. **** 89. April 18, 1990, Denver Post: Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to deserthuge sand dunes extending east from Colorados Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming Americas rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered by NASA satellite photos are expected to re-emerge over the next 20 t0 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected greenhouse effect scientists believe. **** 90. Edward Goldsmith, 1991, (5000 Days to Save the Planet): By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle.Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the Norths greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we liveAt present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. **** 91. April 22, 1990 ABC, The Miracle Planet: I think were in trouble. When you realize how little time we have leftwe are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening. **** 92. February 1993, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution: Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late. **** 93. November 7, 1997, (BBC commentator): It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Nios are going to become more frequent, and theyre going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, well go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, well have El Nio upon El Nio, and that will become the norm. And youll have an El Nio, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years. **** 94. July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post: Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people. **** 95. October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan: The planet could face an ecological and agricultural catastrophe by the next decade if global warming trends continue. **** 96. Sept 11, 1999, The Guardian: A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world. **** 97. March 29, 2001, CNN: In ten years time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalus nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels. **** 98. 1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earths surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter. **** 99. 2005, Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation: Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes. **** 100. Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown UK Prime Minister (referring to the Copenhagen climate conference): World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming. **** 101. June 2008, Ted Alvarez, Backpacker Magazine Blogs: you could potentially sail, kayak, or even swim to the North Pole by the end of the summer. Climate scientists say that the Arctic iceis currently on track to melt sometime in 2008.
[Shortly after this prediction was made, a Russian icebreaker was trapped in the ice of the Northwest Passage for a week.] **** 102. May 31, 2006 Al Gore, CBS Early Show: the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people whove looked at the scienceWell, I guess in some quarters, theres still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round. **** 103. January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York City: But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown. **** 104. 2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain: The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.
[Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.] **** 105. June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years. **** 106. June 8, 1972, Christian Science Monitor: Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000. **** 107. May 15, 1989, Associated Press: Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.

----------


## Marc

> Where do you blokes dredge up this stuff from? You must spend all day on the computer.

  Ha ha, Bros, it takes about 10 seconds to find. Millions of articles are posted frantically every day in order to maintain the appearance of "consensus" and the funds flowing  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> Ha ha, Bros, it takes about 10 seconds to find. Millions of articles are posted frantically every day in order to maintain the appearance of "consensus" and the funds flowing

  Especially if your last three content posts are just a copy/paste from a climate denial site. 
Still no science Marc?

----------


## Marc

> I have no problem with people getting paid either. Good luck to Monckton for getting paid. The point is not about getting paid, it is by whom. Mockton is a paid denier, and he gets paid by organisations that deny climate science. Climate scientists, get a stipend from their university or other organisations that do not deny science. It would be very rare for a publishing climate scientist to accept payment from a climate denial organisation. Willie Soon is one that does. 
> One: I have no problem with people making comments on the science. What I do have a problem with is people who have a particular bent and who are not qualified, to turn around and tell us that people who are actually qualified in climate science do not know what they are talking about.

  How true!
What did I say before?  

> The only shame is to get paid to say what you wouldn't say otherwise.  For example if you get paid to spread falsehood and say we will run out of water so that a desalination plant gets built, or that we will have 50,000 climate refugees by 2010 and we must prevent this by building windmills built by Qatar and pay Qatar billions of subsidies to thank them for their efforts, and it turns out to be all bold faced lies, now there is shame. But of course no one in the global warming camp is keen in details of such small nature.

  And as far as _who_ pays who, that is a sad one. Agitators and assorted mercenaries (dutifully qualified) are paid by you and me (the suckers) and will spread falsehood galore at the maximum rate possible just to keep the money flowing.
Those who oppose this gargantuan load of garbage, pay with their own money to stem the flow of lies, because it hurts their business. Yes, they have vested interest who doesn't? Both camps have vested interest. The difference is that the global warming agitators are feathering their own nest with our tax money, the politicians collude with them because they have worked out it produces votes and the western economy goes down at an accelerated rate and billions flow towards unelected entities that will determine who does what and how. 
And the world heats up at a 0.0001C a year and the sea rises at a rate of 0.0001 cm a year. And if we all move to Mars it would do exactly the same. 
Oh yes, we live in interesting times. 
I say I loathe communism and it's associated corruption but Marx did say something that is really true.  _"Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes" _ And "global warming" is truly a religion.

----------


## woodbe

The difference is that deniers of climate change spew non-science from non-scientists. Apparently a small section of the community, including Marc, think that people like Anthony Watts know more than climate science so they copy paste his BS all over the internet. That does not prove anything except that they actually don't read the science, they read the non-science and believe it. 
Yet you say my comment is true?

----------


## John2b

> The big list of failed climate predictions

  This is not a list of failed predictions. If you are 'right', Marc, why post stuff that is so obviously incorrect?  Many of the references have already come pass and many others are not testable or not on topic.   Anthony Watts has just put up such a list (archived here).  He said it was a list to answer the question of "what was predicted by scientists and activists 25 years ago that would be a result of global warming." and "The original post was asking for a list of failed climate predictions". 
Thing is, I only counted fifteen of his 107 predictions that were made 25 years or more ago.  All the rest were more recent.  And of those fifteen, only eight were about global warming.  In fact quite a few of them were about global cooling and some weren't about either warming or cooling but something completely different.  So not only does Anthony fail arithmetic but he can't even stick to the subject he himself chose. 
Here are some others that he reckons are failed predictions.  Let me know what you think of their failure:  1. “_Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder_.”
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006I couldn't find any trace of Professor Rahmstorf saying this, though it was plastered all over a lot of denier websites.  I can say, without a shadow of doubt, that winters in my local region have become milder.  I don't know about yours.    *Data Source:* Bureau of Meteorology Australia    If he did say it, then I'd rate this as *scientist pass; deniers fail. * http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/04/t...ony-watts.html

----------


## Bros

> Ha ha, Bros, it takes about 10 seconds to find. Millions of articles are posted frantically every day in order to maintain the appearance of "consensus" and the funds flowing

  And do you ever bother to read it or just Cut and Paste?

----------


## Marc

*http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/71-new-papers-reported-in-2013.html?spref=tw  THE HOCKEY SCHTICK*   _If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause...& all opinions are mine, & not those of my self-employer _ *Thursday, January 2, 2014*  *71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2*    Club du Soleil has compiled a listing of new papers published during 2013 demonstrating that the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2. Visit Club du Soleil for many more published in 2012 and earlier.  _These papers don't exist according to paid climate propagandist John Cook of SS_

----------


## woodbe

Which of these papers have you actually read, Marc?

----------


## John2b

> Club du Soleil has compiled a listing of new papers published during 2013 demonstrating that the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2. Visit Club du Soleil for many more published in 2012 and earlier. 
> These papers don't exist according to paid climate propagandist John Cook of SS

  It is easy enough to find and read the papers. The first paper in your link is on regional flooding in Switzerland, has nothing to do with global climate change and makes no comment on it. That would be a good reason not to include it in a survey of papers on climate change. And it does not in any way challenge the conventional understanding of climate science anyway. 
The second paper is an investigation of the solar cycles on humidity, has nothing to do with climate change or global warming and makes no comment on it. That would be a good reason not to include it in a survey of papers on climate change. And it does not in any way challenge the conventional understanding of climate science anyway. 
I am detecting a trend here. 
I still don't have an answer to the question: If the AGW deniers in this thread are correct, why do they continually post stuff that is clearly wrong? Why not post facts that are verifiable?

----------


## John2b

> Which of these papers have you actually read, Marc?

  It's fairly obviously - none of them. Why else would he post stuff that when actually followed up does not support his pentecostal dogma?

----------


## Marc

NEW! Energy DepotA project of CFACTSupport Climate Depot      *Latest ‘97% consensus’ study collapses: Study found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it!Read the Full Article *  *Warmist study author John Cook's email: j.cook3@uq.edu.au* *Too funny: John Cook's much touted study finds more papers that reject AGW completely than believe mostly manmade!* *Barack Obama: 'Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous' (Note: The other 3% get an IRS audit)* *Skeptic's Letter To John Cook: Hi John, It appears that the results of your survey have been misrepresented in the press and by the President of The United States. In fact, more papers rejected CAGW than claimed that humans were the dominant influence. I am certain that you would not want your name associated with this spectacular misrepresentation of your modest finding. What actions are you taking to get the facts cleared up?'*  By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotMay 17, 2013 8:53 AM *Related Links:*  *Latest ’97% consensus’ study goes belly up: Study found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it!* *Too funny: John Cook’s much touted study finds more papers that reject AGW completely than believe mostly manmade!* *Barack Obama: ‘Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous’ (Note: The other 3% get an IRS audit)* *Skeptic’s Letter To John Cook: Hi John, It appears that the results of your survey have been misrepresented in the press and by the President of The United States. In fact, more papers rejected CAGW than claimed that humans were the dominant influence. I am certain that you would not want your name associated with this spectacular misrepresentation of your modest finding. What actions are you taking to get the facts cleared up?’* *Analysis: Warmist John Cook’s fallacy ’97% consensus’ study is a marketing ploy — ‘Cook’s study shows 66% of papers didn’t endorse man-made global warming Cook calls this ‘an overwhelming consensus’ — ‘What does a study of 20 years of abstracts tell us about the global climate? Nothing. But it says quite a lot about the way government funding influences the scientific process…New paper confounds climate research with financial forces, is based on the wrong assumptions, uses fallacious reasoning, wasn’t independent, and confuses a consensus of climate scientists for a scientific consensus, not that a consensus proves anything anyway, if it existed. Given the monopolistic funding of climate science in the last 20 years, the results he finds are entirely predictable’ — ‘The number of papers is a proxy for funding': ‘As government funding grew, scientists redirected their work to study areas that attracted grants. It’s no conspiracy, just Adam Smith at work. There was no funding for skeptical scientists to question the IPCC or the theory that man-made climate science exaggerates the warming. More than $79 billion was poured into climate science research and technology from 1989 to 2009. No wonder scientists issued repetitive, irrelevant, and weak results. How hard could it be? Taxpayers even paid for research on climate resistant oysters. Let no barnacle be unturned’* *Nonsensus: Warmists proclaim bogus survey proves 97% ‘consensus’ — ‘It truly is a CONsensus’* *Media ignores fatal flaw of study: ‘‘There were almost 12,000 studies — two-thirds of which (i.e, 8,000) expressed no opinion. What consensus?‘* *What Consensus? Two-thirds of climate studies (8,000) from 1991-2011 take no position on cause of global warming — ‘An inconvenient fact from a new study attempting to bolster the 97% consensus myth’* *Fuzzy math: In a new soon to be published paper, John Cook claims ‘consensus’ on 32.6% of scientific papers that endorse man-made global warming: ‘You have to wonder how somebody can write (let alone read) the claims made here in the press release by Cook with a straight face. It gives a window into the sort of things we can expect from his borked survey he recently foisted on climate websites which seems destined to either fail, or get spun into even stranger claims’*       
Read more: Latest ‘97% consensus’ study collapses: Study found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it! | Climate Depot

----------


## Marc

Interesting!
First paper in "my" list  *Deep Solar Activity Minima, Sharp Climate Changes, and Their Impact on Ancient Civilizations*  Raspopov et al. 2013   It is shown that, over the past c. 10000 years (the Holocene), deep Maunder type solar minima have been accompanied by sharp climate changes. These minima occurred every 2300-2400 years. It has been established experimentally that, at ca 4.0 ka BP, there occurred a global change in the structure of atmo spheric circulation, which coincided in time with the discharge of glacial masses from Greenland to North Atlantic and a solar activity minimum. The climate changes that took place at ca 4.0 ka BP and the deep solar activity minimum that occurred at ca 2.5 ka BP affected the development of human society, leading to the degradation and destruction of a number of ancient civilizations. 
Second paper in "my" list  *Late Holocene ecohydrological and carbon dynamics of a UK raised bog: impact of human activity and climate change*  Turner et al. 2014   Quaternary Science Reviews Understanding the ecohydrological responses of peatlands to climate change is particularly challenging over the late Holocene owing to the confounding influence of anthropogenic activity. To address this, a core spanning the last c. 2400 years from a raised bog in northern England was analysed using a comprehensive suite of proxy methods in an attempt to elucidate the drivers of change. A testate amoebae-based transfer function was used to quantitatively reconstruct changes in water table depth, supported by humification analysis and a plant macrofossil-derived hydroclimatic index. Pollen and plant macrofossil data were used to examine regional and local vegetation change, and human impacts were inferred from charcoal and geochemistry. Chronological control was achieved through a Bayesian age-depth model based on AMS radiocarbon dates and spheroidal carbonaceous particles, from which peat and carbon accumulation rates were calculated. Phases of both increased and decreased bog surface wetness (inferred effective precipitation) are present, with dry phases at c. AD 320-830, AD 920-1190 and AD 1850-present, and a marked period of increased effective precipitation at c. AD 1460-1850. Coherence with other records from across Northern Europe suggests that these episodes are primarily driven by allogenic climatic change. Periods of high bog surface wetness correspond to the Wolf, Sporer and Maunder sunspot activity minima, suggesting solar forcing was a significant driver of climate change over the last c. 1000 years. Following the intensification of agriculture and industry over the last two centuries, the combined climatic and anthropogenic forcing effects become increasingly difficult to separate due to increases in atmospheric deposition of anthropogenically derived pollutants, fertilising compounds, and additions of wind-blown soil dust. We illustrate the need for multiproxy approaches based on high-resolution palaeoecology and geochemistry to examine the recent trajectories of peatlands. 
I am sure you don't want me to copy the whole report just for you do you?

----------


## Marc



----------


## PhilT2

> I am sure you don't want me to copy the whole report just for you do you?

  No just show us the part that proves co2 does not cause warming.

----------


## John2b

> Interesting! First paper in "my" list

  Why, if you are 'right' do you keep posting stuff that disagrees with your position? Why not link to stuff that _supports_ your position? 
Did I mention your list, or your link? Whatever. The first paper (Deep Solar Activity Minima, Sharp Climate Changes, and Their Impact on Ancient Civilizations) purports that changes in solar output affect global temperatures. Who wudda thort? The paper does not in any way challenge the conventional understanding of climate science, and makes no comment on the current global warming that is resulting from CO2 emissions, nor does it question CO2 as a climate driver.  The second paper you give above acknowledges the contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect and global warming and studies the effect that the warming of both anthropogenic and natural changes are having on peat bogs.

----------


## John2b

Fluctuations in the temperature record, AKA weather, does not imply 'no warming'. Show any period historically when there was not temperature fluctuations caused by weather. Climate is defined by the 30 year running average. 
Please tell where you think the excess heat from the observed and measured energy imbalance, caused by the increased greenhouse effect of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, is going to go, and why do you think that extra heat energy is not going to cause extra heat?

----------


## Marc

I thought it was rather obvious.
Changes in temperatures are disproportionately due to variation in the source of the heat and in a negligible part due to all the BS about CO2. *Lapse Rates for Dummies or Smarties, With & Without Greenhouse Gases*  Some commenters have claimed that a theoretical pure Nitrogen (N2) Earth atmosphere without any IR-active 'greenhouse gases' could not have a lapse rate nor a _Maxwell et al_ gravito-thermal greenhouse effect.  However, many prior posts have shown this to be false for a number of reasons, including two posts quoting the Feynman lectures on statistical mechanics of a Boltzmann Distribution pure N2 atmosphere, and the HS post, "Why Greenhouse Gases Don't Affect the Greenhouse Equation or Lapse Rate," which also calculates a pure N2 Boltzmann Distribution for Earth.   We will now use a couple of illustrations for smarties or dummies to understand why the so-called 'greenhouse gas' water vapor _cools_, not warms, the Earth surface by up to ~25C via changes in heat capacity (Cp) alone (_not even including additional cooling from latent heat transfer or clouds_). We will also show why a pure N2 atmosphere without any greenhouse gases would have a surface temperature ~25C warmer than the present, due to a much steeper lapse rate.  Recall that the dry adiabatic lapse rate formula is a very simple, linear relationship whereby the change in temperature (dT) with change in height from the surface (dh) is solely dependent upon the gravitational acceleration constant (g) divided by the heat capacity of the atmosphere at constant pressure (Cp):  dT/dh = -g/Cp  And note that change in temperature dT is_ inversely_ related to change in heat capacity (Cp). Since water vapor has a much higher heat capacity Cp than air or pure N2, addition of water vapor greatly decreases the lapse rate (dT/dh) by almost one-half (from ~9.8K/km to ~5K/km), thereby _cooling_, not warming, the surface by up to 25C.   In our hypothetical 1st atmosphere consisting only of N2 plus addition of < 1% water vapor, we assume the addition of water vapor creates a _wet_ adiabatic lapse rate of 5K/km, the same as the _wet_adiabatic lapse rate on Earth. By calculating the center of mass as the HS Greenhouse Eqn does, and calculating the fixed 255K equilibrium temperature between the Earth and Sun, we can then calculate the entire tropospheric temperature profile from the surface to tropopause, and replicate the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere model:    Thought experiment 1 of a N2 atmosphere with < 1% GHG water vapor. Note for easy illustrative purposes only, the actual numbers are rounded slighly, e.g. the actual height of the center of mass is ~5.1km rather than 5.0 km, and the actual dry adiabatic lapse rate is ~9.8K/km, not 10K/km.   Note in the above "greenhouse atmosphere," there is a ~33C "greenhouse effect" from the 255K center of mass to the ~288K surface, as well as an even larger _"anti-greenhouse effect"_ of negative 35K from the 255K center of mass to the ~220K top of troposphere. Thus, gravity has _not added any energy_ to the atmospheric system; gravity has simply _redistributed the available energy_ from the only source the Sun, more towards the surface and less towards the top of the troposphere. *That* is the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect of Poisson, Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzmann, Feynman, US Std Atmosphere, HS greenhouse eqn et al, and has no dependence whatsoever upon IR emission/absorption from greenhouse gases.   Now lets consider a hypothetical Earth atmosphere without any greenhouse gases, consisting solely of pure N2. We again use the dry lapse rate equation above, since obviously N2 is affected by gravity (g) and has a heat capacity (Cp). In this pure N2 Boltzmann distribution, the lapse rate can thus be calculated as ~10K/km, essentially the same as our present atmosphere dry lapse rate (9.8K/km).    For illustrative purposes only, the atmospheric mass of a pure N2 atmosphere is close to that of our present atmosphere, and thus the center of mass is also located near ~5km in the troposphere. However, since the lapse rate is much steeper in a pure N2 atmosphere, the "greenhouse effect" is about 50K from the 255K center of mass to 305K surface, and the "anti-greenhouse effect" is also ~50K from the 255K center of mass to the ~205K top of the troposphere, producing a ~100K temperature gradient from the surface to top of the troposphere:     Thus, we find the net effect of the addition of < 1% 'greenhouse gas' water vapor was to _cool_, not warm the surface of an N2 atmosphere by up to ~25C.   Thus, the Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory (which confuses the cause with the effect) is once again demonstrated to be unphysical and falsified, and the Maxwell et al gravito-thermal greenhouse effect once again vindicated. One and only one of these two competing greenhouse theories can be correct, otherwise the observed effect would be double (66C) that observed (33C). The Maxwell et al theory is the only option which does not violate any laws of thermodynamics.

----------


## Marc

> No just show us the part that proves co2 does not cause warming.

  Oh, look who is here! 
 "CO2 does not cause warming" ... ha ha. That's a good one ... a bit like how long is a piece of string...or the 97% consensus.
97% of scientist agree that there is or that there has been heating ...  I thought it should be 100%. Who could possible say no to that? 
Does CO2 produce heating? 100% consensus! 
Wow, Marc must have jumped camps, he is converted! Praise gaia for that! one less heretic refusing to kneel at the pope of global-warming-climate-change-rapid-climate-change-global-cooling-whatever-happens-that-one-yea. 
OK seriously now Phil. If you want a serious answer ask a serious question, not a butterfly effect sort of question.
 For example ... mm ... say you ask is the minuscule addition of CO2 by human activity making dramatic irreversible changes to climate that will make life on earth unbearable, rise the sea by 20 meters, make half of the planet too hot to live, produce massive hurricanes, catastrophic storms, floods, and ultimately freeze the earth instantly like the movie the day after tomorrow wants us to believe? 
Now that is a serious question. I wonder if you get 97% "consensus" on that one, hu?
Probably not. May be one or two in an asylum may believe you.

----------


## John2b

> I thought it was rather obvious.
> Changes in temperatures are disproportionately due to variation in the source of the heat and in a negligible part due to all the BS about CO2.

  No climate 'theory' is needed to measure the change in spectral balance of the Earth's radiation due to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Early on this was done by spectral analysis of the reflection of "Earthglow" in the moon. Now it is done by direct measurement from satellites. CO2s spectral absorption lines are all over the measurements like a criminal's fingerprints, and they have changed in magnitude in step with the increase in CO2. 
If you are correct and AGW is not occurring, why post nonsense that does not pass even casual assessment? Why not post stuff that can be validated? 
The Hockey Schtick is an anonymous blogger who writes his own 'comments' using various additional pseudonyms, is it any wonder that it is incorrect and publishes pseudo-scientific gibberish?

----------


## Rod Dyson

> The difference is that deniers of climate change spew non-science from non-scientists. Apparently a small section of the community, including Marc, think that people like Anthony Watts know more than climate science so they copy paste his BS all over the internet. That does not prove anything except that they actually don't read the science, they read the non-science and believe it. 
> Yet you say my comment is true?

  Ha ha . Watts is mostly just the messenger.

----------


## woodbe

> Ha ha . Watts is mostly just the messenger.

  Correct. The messenger of denial. 
Watts is not a scientist, he is an anti-scientist. That's the kind of person you need to support the shrinking group of climate change deniers.

----------


## John2b

> Ha ha . Watts is mostly just the messenger.

  One of his messages is that WUWT is 'The world's most most viewed site on global warming and climate change'. Not according to Google Analytics, on which WUWT doesn't even rate. But the claim is consistent with most of the other stuff posted on WUWT - just totally bollocks. 
In any case, Watts doesn't actually post much, his is just an open blogdumpster for deniers to drop their drivel - a lot of which is contradictory - but hell at least they all agree that millions of people who are educated in science are wrong about that science.

----------


## PhilT2

To be fair to Watts there are some messages that are too stupid even to be posted on his blog. For example the material posted by Marc from the Hockey Schtick blog, which originates from the authors of "Slaying the Sky Dragon", is banned from WUWT. Even Judith Curry thinks its nonsense.When your level of scientific literacy does not reach theirs it may be time to re-evaluate.

----------


## dazzler

> Abstract An irreducibly simple climate-sensitivity model is designed to empower even non-specialists to research the question how much global warming we may cause. 
> In 1990, the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expressed substantial confidence that near-term global warming would occur twice as fast as subsequent observation. 
> Given rising CO2 concentration, few models predicted no warming since 2001. Between the pre-final and published drafts of the Fifth Assessment Report, IPCC cut its near-term warming projection substantially, substituting expert assessment for models near-term predictions. Yet its long-range predictions remain unaltered. The model indicates that IPCCs reduction of the feedback sum from 1.9to 1.5 W m-2 K-1 mandates a reduction from 3.2 to 2.2 K in its central climate-sensitivity estimate; that, since feedbacks are likely to be net-negative, a better estimate is1.0 K; that there is no unrealized global warming in the pipeline; that global warming this century will be \1 K;and that combustion of all recoverable fossil fuels will cause \2.2 K global warming to equilibrium. 
> Resolving the discrepancies between the methodology adopted by IPCC in its Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports that are highlighted in the present paper is vital. Once those discrepancies are taken into account, the impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century, and even asfar as equilibrium many millennia hence, may be no more than one-third to one-half of IPCCs current projections.

  Marc why have you plagiarised others work here; 
Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model
paperity.org  why-models-run-hot-resul... 
If you are going to quote put it in quotes and where you cut n pasted it from.  
Or better still,  explain it in your own words.    
🐵🙈🙉🙊

----------


## dazzler

> OK seriously now Phil. If you want a serious answer ask a serious question, not a butterfly effect sort of question.
>  For example ... mm ... say you ask is the minuscule addition of CO2 by human activity making dramatic irreversible changes to climate that will make life on earth unbearable, rise the sea by 20 meters, make half of the planet too hot to live, produce massive hurricanes, catastrophic storms, floods, and ultimately freeze the earth instantly like the movie the day after tomorrow wants us to believe?

  Well based upon " For example ... mm ... say you ask is the minuscule addition of CO2" this anyone would suggest, as my three year old says, "that's just silly talk".  
However, CO2 has increased over the past 50yrs from 315 to 398 which is a 26% increase increase. About 26 times a minuscule increase.  
So Marc my answer to your question, based upon reality is, I personally don't have the scientific knowledge to tell you.  
What I do know and understand is the scientific method and how peer review works.  
I also understand the basic scientific principal that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (simplified). So I understand there will be something that will happen as a result.  
Which is why I look to experts to explain these things to me. The vast majority of peer reviewed science supports the view that a 25% increase is not a good thing.   
So here's your question Marc.  
What effect do YOU think the increase will have and why.?      
🐵🙈🙉🙊

----------


## woodbe

From research by an oil company in 1981. Never released, never shared with the scientific community, restricted to Exxon employees and never acted upon. 
Smelling more like tobacco companies all the time.  http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/d...e%20Effect.pdf

----------


## Marc

Dear Homer.
If you ask me, and since you insist in a personal and close direct question, (perhaps you think I'll get scared?)  I say that 26% increase in CO2 ( if that figure is even correct, did not bother checking mind you) will do bugger all to the overall global temperature simply because after 20 years of bugger all increases in real temperatures (as opposed to massaged and fake average temperatures) and steady increases in CO2 this is blatantly clear:  CO2 when responsible for some minuscule changes, has reached saturation in what it can do and any changes in temperature are to be attributed to ..... drum roll ..... wait for it ..... the actual source of heat! Yes! no not the moon the sun! 
Oh boy!
I enjoied the following link with all the videos in it immensely. 
AL Gore playing scientist.   *Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment* *Replicating Al Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment (from the 24 hour Gore-a-thon) shows that his “high school physics” could never work as advertised*
Readers may recall my previous essay where I pointed out how Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 Video, used in his “24 hours of climate reality”, had some serious credibility issues with editing things to make it appear as if they had actually performed the experiment, when they clearly did not. It has taken me awhile to replicate the experiment. Delays were a combination of acquisition and shipping problems, combined with my availability since I had to do this on nights and weekends. I worked initially using the original techniques and equipment, and I’ve replicated the Climate 101 experiment in other ways using improved equipment. I’ve compiled several videos. My report follows. Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment | Watts Up With That?

----------


## John2b

> From research by an oil company in 1981. Never released, never shared with the scientific community, restricted to Exxon employees and never acted upon. 
> Smelling more like tobacco companies all the time.  http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/d...e%20Effect.pdf

  And if you plotted the current 2014 global temperature on this chart, it would be just under the '2' of the 'including CO2 effect' above the word 'past' in the upward trend, right in the middle of the range predicted by Exxon back in 1981.

----------


## John2b

> CO2 when responsible for some minuscule changes, has reached saturation in what it can do

  Incorrect. Even the notoriously false WUWT blog acknowledges that increasing CO2 above 300, 400 or even 600 ppm will increase heat retention, though not by as much as happens in reality. The atmosphere is not a thin layer and long wavelength infrared heat does not transmit through it in one 'jump', but layer by layer. Within individual layers CO2 is not even close to saturation levels in the respective CO2 absorption bands.

----------


## dazzler

> Dear Homer.
> If you ask me, and since you insist in a personal and close direct question, (perhaps you think I'll get scared?)  I say that 26% increase in CO2 ( if that figure is even correct, did not bother checking mind you) will do bugger all to the overall global temperature simply because after 20 years of bugger all increases in real temperatures (as opposed to massaged and fake average temperatures) and steady increases in CO2 this is blatantly clear:  CO2 when responsible for some minuscule changes, has reached saturation in what it can do and any changes in temperature are to be attributed to ..... drum roll ..... wait for it ..... the actual source of heat! Yes! no not the moon the sun! 
> Oh boy!
> I enjoied the following link with all the videos in it immensely. 
> AL Gore playing scientist. 
> [/url]

  HiMarc 
My question was directed at you as you had directly asked a question to another member in the exact post I quoted.  
See the irony?   
The other reason is when people post rubbish they should be called on it. Like I did to you with the heavily moderated response to your false claims regarding Syrian refugees.  
Now to your response.  Once again you hit Google and YouTube to find amusing arguments against climate change. Marc, you do this almost indefinitely as the Internet is full of it. You see Marc, Bill Nye is not a climate scientist and neither is Gore. One is a media science presenter and the other an ex VP.  
Which gets back to the crux of the matter.   Your misapplication of scientific research.  
To be valid and to reach consensus, the scientist produces a paper and has it published for ANY scientist to comment on.  
IF,  the paper can be refuted it is thrown in the bin. If it can meet the scientific process and cannot be disproved but proven AND replicated it is accepted and hence is PEER REVIEWED.  
The fact that you continue to link to non peer reviewed sources indicates you know as much about science as you do the cause of the exodus out of Syria.  
That would be zero.     
🐵🙈🙉🙊

----------


## Marc

*List of excuses for ‘The Pause’ in global warming* *The Official list of excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming* (compiled by WUWT and The HockeySchtick) *The current count: 52 excuses* RSS satellite data showing the 18 year ‘pause’ of global warming  _An updated list of at excuses for the 18-26 year statistically significant ‘pause’ in global warming, including recent scientific papers, media quotes, blogs, and related debunkings._  _List last updated on September 11th, 2014_  *1) Low solar activity* *2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]**3) Chinese coal use [debunked]**4) Montreal Protocol* *5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]**6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]**7) Stratospheric Water Vapor* *8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]**9) Stadium Waves**10) ‘Coincidence!’**11) Pine aerosols**12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”**13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data” http://**14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere**15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]**16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation**17) AMOC ocean oscillation**18) “Global brightening” has stopped**19) “Ahistorical media”**20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]**21) Few El Ninos since 1999**22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”**23) “Not scientifically relevant”**24) The wrong type of El Ninos**25) Slower trade winds [debunked]**26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]**27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here**28) ENSO**29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations**30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific*[paper] [debunked by Trenberth & Wunsch] *31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason”* *32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important**33) NAO & PDO**34) Solar cycles**35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”**36) The models really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]**37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?**38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
 [debunked] [Dr. Curry’s take] [Author: “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus”]**39) “Slowdown” due to “a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum”**40) The “pause” is “probably just barely statistically significant” with 95% confidence:The “slowdown” is “probably just barely statistically significant” and not “meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change”**41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:*The “recent hiatus in global warming is mainly caused by internal variability of the climate” because “anthropogenic aerosol emissions from Europe and North America towards China and India between 1996 and 2010 has _surprisingly warmed rather than cooled_ the global climate.”
[Before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to have minimal effects on climate, but as of now, they “surprisingly warm” the climate] *42) Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ really is missing and is not “supported by the data itself” in the “real ocean”:*“it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself. Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic.” [Josh Willis] *43) Ocean Variability: [NYT article]*“After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of climate the “pause”] is ocean variability. That’s actually quite impressive progress.” [Andrew Dessler] *44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:*” I think the findings that the heat is going into the Atlantic and Southern Ocean’s is probably pretty robust. However, I will defer to people like Josh Willis who know the data better than I do.”-Andrew Dessler. Debunked by Josh Willis, who Dessler says “knows the data better than I do,” says in the very same NYT article that “it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself” – [Josh Willis] *45) We don’t have a theory that fits all of the data:*“Ultimately, the challenge is to come up with the parsimonious theory [of the ‘pause’] that fits all of the data” [Andrew Dessler] *46) We don’t have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the “pause” is due to such natural cycles:*“If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I don’t think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozens of cycles to determine what the actual underlying variability looks like. In fact, I don’t think we even know if it IS a cycle.” [Andrew Dessler] *47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both*“this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to implicitly take the position that it’s purely internal variability, which I’m not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future.” [Andrew Dessler in an NYT article ] *48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:*It’s the Atlantic, not Pacific, and “the hiatus in the warming…should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke” [John Michael Wallace] *49) The other papers with excuses for the “pause” are not “science done right”:*” If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.” [Carl Wunsch] *50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway: [Carl Wunsch in an NYT Article]*“The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up…How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?” *51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then” [NCAR press release]*[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] [“pause” due to natural variability] *52) ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend*PLOS one Paper Macia et al. discussed in European Commission news release here.   
Additional related comments from climate scientists about the “pause”
1) My University screwed up the press release & didn’t let me stop them from claiming my paper shows the “hiatus will last another decade or two.” [Andrew Dessler]
2) “This [the ‘pause’] is not an existential threat to the mainstream theory of climate.” [Andrew Dessler]
3) “In a few years, as we get to understand this [the ‘pause’] more, skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.” [Andrew Dessler]

----------


## John2b

> List of excuses for The Pause in global warming

  When was there a pause? 14 of the 15 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000 and this year looks set the break the record for hottest year yet again.  https://www.wmo.int/media/?q=content...continues-2014  ENSO Wrap-Up

----------


## Marc

It looks as if this trend continues, we will be able to cook our roast on the veranda and save from burning all of that global warming fuel. Win win situation  :Smilie: 
 Sorry couldn't resist. 
Don't worry too much John, there is nothing you or me can do about it. We certainly don't have the whole information. May be if we get to live another 30 years we will know how futile our efforts or lack of it have been, and who profited and for what reasons. 
Meantime it seems Homer has the right idea. Crack a cool one or two!
PS
Come to think of it ... when you open a can and it makes pssss ... does it mean you are releasing some of that nasty CO2 ?????????
We need a new research and consequent graph: The relationship between Beer drinking and global warming ...  :Smilie:

----------


## dazzler

Thanks for the links Marc. What these links reference is the fact that the  IPCC reported a possible slowing of the warming based on NOAA findings.  
This alone demonstrates that the scientists are doing what scientists do and that is to research and report their findings. 
Sadly the hope that warming had slowed was not correct and now that the information is in the initial reports of "the pause" we're in fact incorrect.  
Your links actually show scientists being scientists and throwing around theories as to why the reported "pause" had occurred.   
Sadly those theories were all debunked and we are back to warming.  
From nature.com  
"That finding, which contradicts the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is based on an update of the global temperature records maintained by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The previous version of the NOAA data set had showed less warming during the first decade of the millennium. 
Researchers revised the NOAA data set to correct for known biases in sea-surface-temperature records and to incorporate data from new land-based monitoring stations that extend into the Arctic  an area where observations are sparse. The updated NOAA data set also includes observations from 2013 and 2014; the latter ranked as the warmest year on record." 
Science really is really amazing.    
🐵🙈🙉🙊

----------


## John2b

> It looks as if this trend continues, we will be able to cook our roast on the veranda and save from burning all of that global warming fuel.

  Who is postulating that air temperatures are going to rise that fast? If your body temperature was 38.0 instead of 37.0, you know all about it because you would have a fever. If it was 40.0 degrees your life would be at risk. These are the same sorts of rises the worlds ecosystems are going to face in the next few decades, and unlike humans many species cannot turn up the air-conditioning or move a cooler climate.   

> May be if we get to live another 30 years we will know how futile our efforts or lack of it have been, and who profited and for what reasons.

  If the changes had been made back in the early eighties when it was first known beyond any reasonable scientific doubt that the Planet would be on the heat gain trajectory is is now on, we would not have an anthropogenic climate change problem now or in the future and everyone would be better off already using much cheaper renewable energy sources.   

> Come to think of it ... when you open a can and it makes pssss ... does it mean you are releasing some of that nasty CO2 ?????????

  The CO2 in a beer can is carbon neural - it came out of the atmosphere in the first place. It did not come out of fossilised algae reserves laid down millions of years ago.

----------


## dazzler

> Who is postulating that air temperatures are going to rise that fast? If your body temperature was 38.0 instead of 37.0, you know all about it because you would have a fever. If it was 40.0 degrees your life would be at risk. These are the same sorts of rises the worlds ecosystems are going to face in the next few decades, and unlike humans many species cannot turn up the air-conditioning or move a cooler climate.   
> If the changes had been made back in the early eighties when it was first known beyond any reasonable scientific doubt that the Planet would be on the heat gain trajectory is is now on, we would not have an anthropogenic climate change problem now or in the future and everyone would be better off already using much cheaper renewable energy sources.   
> The CO2 in a beer can is carbon neural - it came out of the atmosphere in the first place. It did not come out of fossilised algae reserves laid down millions of years ago.

  Stop it right now.  
Just google stuff you don't understand that supports your pre conceived ideas and post the link ! 
Making posts that make sense should be reported.
Lol.    
🐵🙈🙉🙊

----------


## John2b

Anyone else notice how hot it's getting around here?    It is an extremely warm year for our planet. Last week we learnt from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that the first eight months of 2015 were the hottest such stretch yet recorded for the globe's surface land and oceans, based on temperature records going to 1880.  Scientists worried about cold 'blob' in North Atlantic amid record hot spell

----------


## Marc

*Well... actually I think it was bloody cold this winter.
 I measure winters in terms of how much firewood I use. This year so far I have used 5 m3, 1.5 m3 more than usual and yesterday I still had the fire going so, if the heat does not come son I may need to get some more. It's October and we are usually sweating by now.  How can you possibly pedal that pink balloon?    Melbourne shivers through coldest winter in 26 years, no warm start to Spring in sight*  Updated 1 Sep 2015, 10:50am *PHOTO:* There were more than average grey days in Melbourne although rainfall totals were below average. (Flickr: Gavin Haberfield) *MAP:* Melbourne 3000 *If you thought Melbourne's winter was colder than usual, you are not wrong.* It was the coldest winter in terms of maximum temperature in Melbourne for 26 years, the Bureau of Meteorology has confirmed. The maximum winter temperature was just under 14C for the first time since 1989, about 1 degree Celsius lower than normal. *Key points:*   2015 the coldest winter since 1986Average temperature was just under 15CMore rain days but below average rainfallNo days above 20C in August    But that one degree made a big difference, said senior meteorologist Richard Carlyon from the weather bureau. "It doesn't sound much, but in winter that's a big difference, because it's an average," he said. "In summer, temperatures vary more than in the winter. "[In the winter] we don't see too much variation. [It's] normally 9-15 degrees, so a departure from the average is never as great." It was also drier than normal, despite a higher than average number of rain days. "Actual rain in Melbourne was below average, but in terms of number of rain days, we had a higher than average number of days," he said. He said there were a lot of days with light rainfall that did not add up to much in total. There was about average snowfall for the winter of 2015 but it was colder than normal. "It started around Queen's Birthday weekend, falling in early in June, but never huge amounts," he said. "Maximum temperatures were generally colder by about a degree or so." The rainfall varied widely across Victoria - it was dry in the west, below average in central regions and close to average or just above in the eastern part of the state. Summer also finished abruptly in March, a month when there are normally quite summery conditions. "Summer didn't last as long and then the winter has kept going," Mr Carlyon said. And with spring officially set to begin on Tuesday there are still no 20C days in the forecast, Mr Carlyon said. It will be around 17C next weekend, which is well below the normal 20C for this time of year. "On this day last year it was 22C and year before [it was] 22C and it's 12.5C today," he said. *PHOTO:* The blooms on the trees are the only signs of spring in Melbourne. (Flickr: Greenstone Girl)

----------


## woodbe

Except... 
The graphic John posted is from January to August 2015...   

> Land and ocean temperature percentiles from January to August 2015._ Illustration: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Centres for Environmental Information_

  Perhaps you missed the link? 
So, it includes most of summer as well. If we had a colder than average winter, we must have had a hotter than average summer too...

----------


## John2b

Some of the headlines this winter—‘Bitter cold snap’, ‘Icy cold front to hit much of Australia’, ‘Australia’s sunshine state covered in snow’, etc.— may have implied that Australia just survived one of its coldest winters on record. For some it was on the cool side. Victorians shivered through a mean temperature (the average of the maximum and minimum) of just 8.3 °C; the coldest since the last big El Niño year of 1997.  It is hardly surprising that people may extrapolate cool conditions in southeast Australia or snowy photos on their television to imagine cold conditions across the whole of the country. Winter 2015 temperatures for Australia as a whole were actually above the long-term average, continuing the trend which has seen only two below average seasons since 2000. The national average winter temperature was 0.8 °C above the 1961–90 reference period, making it the ninth warmest winter on record.  Both the Victorian and Melbourne temperature anomalies were not significant in the longer-term context. This can be seen if we plot the number of times per decade that Victoria has experienced a cooler winter than that just passed (temperature anomaly of −0.26 °C).    Bureau of Meteorology Climate change and variability

----------


## John2b

Maurice Newman is an uber conspiracy theorist is not just a denier, he's a hard core conspiracy nutter who thinks, for example, that the sustainability action plan, is some sort of evil plot. Well, now he is out of a job, which is a a relief to almost everyone, especially to the other members of the council.    
Is THIS what Rod meant when he repeatedly asserted everything was coming to a head?

----------


## Marc

So he posted a graph from last summer in September with the comments "Have you noticed how hot it is" 
Boy oh boy. 
And how come no one is telling me off for confusing weather with climate? You guys are slipping bad.

----------


## John2b

> So he posted a graph from last summer in September with the comments "Have you noticed how hot it is"

  And I posted this #14616  14 of the 15 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000 and this year looks set the break the record for hottest year yet again.  https://www.wmo.int/media/?q=content...continues-2014  ENSO Wrap-Up 
Compare with a person who is really confusing weather with climate and posted this: #14622

----------


## Marc

Shocking! This is the end of the world. It horrifies me just to think that we will have ... mm ... what was it again... 1/4 of a centigrade hotter in the next 20 years? 
The sea will rise 20 meters, and we will have 50 million climate change refugee by tomorrow or Thursday.
I think I retire and go in a mountain cave and live off cabbage and ants.

----------


## John2b

Words matter in journalism. Thousands of publications around the world use the Associated Press style guidelines. Last week the AP announced it was scrapping the terms climate deniers and climate skeptics to refer to those who don’t accept human influence on climate change. Instead of denier or skeptic, the AP now prefers the term climate doubters, or, for the long-winded: those who reject mainstream climate science.  
Crowdsourcing by the Huffington Post created a new list of alternatives. At the top of the list: drought enthusiasts, grandchildren haters, and reality challenged. Which do you like?

----------


## John2b

> mm ... what was it again... 1/4 of a centigrade hotter in the next 20 years?

  If someone puts on a kilo per year, in 40 years they will be 40 kilograms overweight. And in 60 years... well most people, if not all, can appreciate the consequences.

----------


## Marc

Are you calling me fat???
Come on John not even you believe that. It is well known that CO2 capacity to produce greenhouse effect gets to a point of saturation and new additions make no difference. Plus, in 60 years ? What will we burn in 60 years?
The Horse manure crisis comes to mind  *The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894:*  
Writing in the _Times_ of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure.  
It seemed that The End of Civilisation As We Know It would be brought about, not by a meteor strike, global sickness or warfare, but by an excess of manure, by the urban equine.  
Steven Davies, a senior lecturer in history at Manchester Metropolitan University in England, has written about this crisis and drawn some lessons from it, referring to it as the Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894, the name it is known by in internet discussions.   *Some interim measures:*  
Problems with horse drawn transport were not new.  Julius Caesar had banned the presence of horse drawn carts from Rome between dawn and dusk in an effort  to curb gridlock, noise, accidents, and the other unpleasant byproducts of equine transport.  
In 1866 Henry Bergh founded the ASPCA, mainly to improve the lot of horses in the cities.  
At the turn of the 20th century, William Phelps Eno was responsible for:
·         inventing road rules to reduce the number of accidents caused by horse-drawn vehicles;
·         devising the stop sign, the stop light, the yield sign, the crosswalk, the pedestrian island, the one-way street, the traffic circle, and the taxi stand.
·         Codifying driving on one side of the road.  
These interim measures were not enough to solve the problem.   *The 1898 conference:*  
In 1898 the first international urban planning conference convened in New York.  One topic dominated discussion: manure.  Cities all over the world, including Sydney, were experiencing the same problem.  Unable to see any solution to the manure crisis, the delegates abandoned the conference after three days instead of the scheduled ten days.   *The problem solved:*  
Then, quite quickly, the crisis passed as millions of horses were replaced by millions of motor vehicles.  
The change did not happen immediately, rather it happened function by function, with freight haulage being the last.  Motorised haulage did not take over from horse drawn haulage in the US until the 1920’s.  
Cars were cheaper to own and operate than horse-drawn vehicles, both for the individual and for society. In 1900, 4,192 cars were sold in the US; by 1912 that number had risen to 356,000. In 1912, traffic counts in New York showed more cars than horses for the first time.   *And the moral of the story is?*  
That is a matter for dispute:  
·         Davies points out that there have been similar predictions as the manure crisis in respect of oil prices and the reliance upon oil products.  
Davies says:  
“What this misses is that in a competitive market economy, as any resource becomes more costly, human ingenuity will find alternatives.  
We should draw two lessons from this. First, human beings, left to their own devices, will usually find solutions to problems, but only if they are allowed to; that is, if they have economic institutions, such as property rights and free exchange, that create the right incentives and give them the freedom to respond. If these are absent or are replaced by political mechanisms, problems will not be solved.  
Second, the sheer difficulty of predicting the future, and in particular of foreseeing the outcome of human creativity, is yet another reason for rejecting the planning or controlling of people’s choices. Above all, we should reject the currently fashionable “precautionary principle,” which would forbid the use of any technology until proved absolutely harmless.  
Left to themselves, our grandparents solved the great horse-manure problem. If things had been left to the urban planners, they would almost certainly have turned out worse.”

----------


## John2b

It is a well known fact that the CO2 saturation effect can be demonstrated in a short column of gas in a vial in a laboratory. It is also a well known fact that the atmosphere does not behave like a short column of gas in a laboratory. 
Arrhenius' greenhouse law developed from measuring Earth's spectrum reflected in the Moon in 1896 is still used today and has been verified by direct measurement by satellite. 
This is no longer theory - the change in outward bound infrared radiation can be directly measured and shows that the laboratory saturation effect does not apply in the atmosphere. 
Many things in modern society are planned for by projections. The free market would not have provided roads, schools, hospitals, water supplies, electricity and gas ready for new housing developments. 
Many things in climate science have been avoided or averted by scientific projections. The free market wold not have prevented acid rain, photochemical smog, ozone depletion, particulates, etc, all of which have been controlled or significantly abated by regulation. 
The free market isn't going to stop people pissing in your swimming pool, either.

----------


## Marc

You are right it is not a theory. It's a hypothesis.

----------


## johnc

An unrestrained free market economy will fail just as a fully regulated market will fail. It is the same as diet, you need a balance, sufficient regulation to ensure the free market doesn't blow itself apart. An example of free market excess is the dutch tulip disaster. Think of the economy as a motor car, the free market is the engine, regulation is brakes and steering, you need both for the package to work.

----------


## Marc

*The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect".* 
Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
Consulting Geologist 
First Uploaded ISO: 2009-Oct-13
Revision 5 ISO: 2011-Dec-07 
Some former elements of this article such as the laser experiment, radiation budget commentary, and the UHI implications are to be later reproduced in an additional article concerning the mid-20th century revival of the "Greenhouse Effect". This notice will be removed when the new article is uploaded.*Abstract*  This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. 
The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. 
Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. 
Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation.*1.0 Introduction: What on Earth Is the "Greenhouse Effect"?*  *Confusion and Lack of Thermodynamic Definition*  Although the "Greenhouse Effect" is of crucial importance to modern climatology and is the putative cornerstone of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis, it lacks clear thermodynamic definition. This forecasts the likelihood that the name is misapplied. Even general descriptions of the "Greenhouse Effect" may seem confused when compared to one another. In the first year university geology text by Press & Siever (1982, p. 312) we read:  "The atmosphere is relatively transparent to the incoming visible rays of the Sun. Much of that radiation is absorbed at the Earth's surface and then reemitted as infrared, invisible long-wave rays that radiate back away from the surface (Fig. 12-14). The atmosphere, however, is relatively opaque and impermeable to infrared rays because of the combined effect of clouds and carbon dioxide, which strongly absorbs the radiation instead of allowing it to escape into space. This absorbed radiation heats the atmosphere, which radiates heat back to the Earth's surface. This is called the 'greenhouse effect' by analogy to the warming of greenhouses, whose glass is the barrier to heat loss."  This explanation is fundamentally confusing because it is seemingly contradictory, as impermeable materials cannot absorb on the minute to minute timescale that applies to the "Greenhouse Effect", even if such an impermeable material has a very high fluid storage capacity or porosity. According to Press & Siever's explanation above, the atmosphere is relatively impermeable due to the presence of clouds and carbon dioxide, which are part of the atmosphere. How then, can the part of the atmosphere that makes it impermeable to infrared, simultaneously facilitate infrared absorption? Moreover, the idea of thermal permeability is a product of the 19th century pseudoscientific notion that heat was actually a fluid (called "caloric"). This led to a great deal of misunderstanding amongst the scientifically illiterate when it came to the findings of Fourier (e.g. Kelland, 1837). We may compare this description of the "Greenhouse Effect" with that of Whitaker (2007, pp. 17-18), which lacks the misplaced 19th century usage:  "The incoming solar radiation that the earth absorbs is re-emitted in the form of so-called infra-red radiation - this is where the vital 'greenhouse effect' begins. Because of the chemical structure of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they absorb the infra-red radiation from the Earth, and then emit it, into space and back into the atmosphere. The atmospheric re-emission helps heat the surface of the Earth - as well as the lower atmosphere - and keeps us warm."  This explanation describes the "Greenhouse Effect" as "vital", perhaps because, as Whitaker points out, it warms the earth's surface. Wishart (2009, p. 24) explains that this "Greenhouse Effect" is useful for a completely different reason:  "The Moon is another excellent example of what happens with no greenhouse effect. During the lunar day, average surface temperatures reach 107ºC, while the lunar night sees temperatures drop from boiling point to 153 degrees below zero. No greenhouse gases mean there's no way to smooth out temperatures on the moon. On Earth, greenhouse gases filter some of the sunlight hitting the surface and reflect some of the heat back out into space, meaning the days are cooler, but conversely the gases insulate the planet at night, preventing a lot of the heat from escaping."  In Wishart's explanation above, the Greenhouse Effect" is no longer a warming mechanism but a thermal buffer that moderates the extremes of temperature. In fact, Plimer (2001) uses the term "greenhouse" to denote interglacial periods (e.g. Plimer, 2001, p. 80). In describing the conditions when life evolved on earth 3800 million years ago, Plimer (2001, p. 43), like Wishart, is more reminiscent of Frankland (1864) and Tyndall (1867):  "The Earth's temperature had moderated because the atmosphere was rich in carbon dioxide and water vapour created a greenhouse."The above quotes demonstrate a confusing array of "Greenhouse Effect" definitions, including the first one which seems to contradict itself. Plimer (2009, p. 365) really describes this situation very well when he writes:  "Everyone knows what the greenhouse effect is. Well ... do they? Ask someone to explain how the greenhouse effect works. There is an extremely high probability that they have no idea. What really is the greenhouse effect? The use of the term 'greenhouse effect' is a complete misnomer. Greenhouses or glasshouses are used for increasing plant growth, especially in colder climates. A greenhouse eliminates convective cooling, the major process of heat transfer in the atmosphere, and protects the plants from frost."  The "Greenhouse Effect" was originally defined around the hypothesis that visible light penetrating the atmosphere is converted to heat on absorption and emitted as infrared, which is subsequently trapped by the opacity of the atmosphere to infrared. In Arrhenius (1896, p. 237) we read:  "Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hothouse, because it lets through the light rays of the sun but retains the dark rays from the ground."  This quote from Arrhenius establishes the fact that the "Greenhouse Effect", far from being a misnomer, is so-called because it was originally based on the assumption that an atmosphere and the glass of a greenhouse are the same in their workings. Interestingly, Fourier doesn't even mention hothouses or greenhouses, and actually stated that in order for the atmosphere to be anything like the glass of a hotbox, such as the experimental aparatus of de Saussure (1779), the air would have to solidify while conserving its optical properties (Fourier, 1827, p. 586; Fourier, 1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, pp. 11-12).In spite of Arrhenius' misunderstanding of Fourier, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th Edition) reflects his initial opening description of the "Greenhouse Effect":  "*Greenhouse Effect* noun the trapping of the sun's warmth in the planet's lower atmosphere, due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet's surface."  These descriptions of the "Greenhouse Effect" all evade the key question of heat transfer. Given that the "Greenhouse Effect" profoundly affects heat transfer and distribution, what are the thermodynamic properties that govern the "Greenhouse Effect" and how, exactly, is this "Greenhouse Effect" governed by these material properties? Moreover, all of the elements expressed in the preceding quotations can be found in Arrhenius' proposition of the "Greenhouse Effect". While Arrhenius credits Tyndall with the thermal buffer idea expressed in Plimer (2001) and Wishart (2009), he then goes on to express the more complicated idea described in Press & Siever (1982) and Whitaker (2007). The "atmospheric re-emission" that "helps heat the surface of the earth" of Whitaker (2007, pp. 17-18) is the key to Arrhenius' original proposition, which revolves around the backradiation notion first proposed by Pouillet (1838, p. 42; translated by Taylor, 1846, p. 61). However, Pouillet used this idea to explain rather than add to the thermal gradient measured in transparent envelopes while, as we shall see, Arrhenius treated backradiation as an addition to the conductive (i.e. net) heat flow indicated by the thermal gradient.  *2.0 How the "Greenhouse Effect" Is Built upon Arrhenius' Legacy of Error: Misattribution, Misunderstanding, and Energy Creation*  Arrhenius' first error was to assume that greenhouses and hotboxes work as a radiation trap. Fourier explained quite clearly that such structures simply prevent the replenishment of the air inside, allowing it to reach much higher temperatures than are possible in circulating air (Fourier, 1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12; Fourier, 1827, p. 586). Yet, as we have seen in the previous quotation of Arrhenius, this fundamental misunderstanding of greenhouses is attributed by Arrhenius to Fourier.  *2.1 Misattribution versus What Fourier Really Found*  Contrary to what Arrhenius (1896, 1906b) and many popular authors may claim (Weart, 2003; Flannery, 2005; Archer, 2009), Fourier did not consider the atmosphere to be anything like glass. In fact, Fourier (1827, p. 587) rejected the comparison by stipulating the impossible condition that, in order for the atmosphere to even remotely resemble the workings of a hotbox or greenhouse, layers of the air would have to solidify without affecting the air's optical properties. What Fourier (1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, p. 12) actually wrote stands in stark contrast to Arrhenius' claims about Fourier's ideas:  "In short, if all the strata of air of which the atmosphere is formed, preserved their density with their transparency, and lost only the mobility which is peculiar to them, this mass of air, thus become solid, on being exposed to the rays of the sun, would produce an effect the same in kind with that we have just described. The heat, coming in the state of light to the solid earth, would lose all at once, and almost entirely, its power of passing through transparent solids: it would accumulate in the lower strata of the atmosphere, which would thus acquire very high temperatures. We should observe at the same time a diminution of the degree of acquired heat, as we go from the surface of the earth."   A statement to the same effect can be found in Fourier (1827, p. 586). This demonstrates the sheer dissonance between these statements and what proponents of the "Greenhouse Effect" claim that Fourier says in their support. Moreover, I am not the first author to have discovered this fact by reading Fourier for myself (e.g. Fleming, 1999; Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2007 and 2009). Furthermore, in his conclusion, the optical effect of air on heat is dropped by Fourier (1824, translated by Burgess, 1837, pp. 17-18) and Fourier (1827, pp. 597-598) which both state:  "The earth receives the rays of the sun, which penetrate its mass, and are converted into non-luminous heat: it likewise possesses an internal heat with which it was created, and which is continually dissipated at the surface: and lastly, the earth receives rays of light and heat from innumerable stars, in the midst of which is placed the solar system. These are three general causes which determine the temperature of the earth."  Fourier's fame has, in fact, nothing to do with any theory of atmospheric or surface temperature. This fame was earned years before such musings, when Fourier derived the law of physics that governs heat flow, and was subsequently named after him. About this, Fourier (1824, p. 166; Translation by Burgess, 1837, p. 19) remarks:  "Perhaps other properties of radiating heat will be discovered, or causes which modify the temperatures of the globe. But all the principle laws of the motion of heat are known. This theory, which rests upon immutable foundations, constitutes a new branch of mathematical sciences."  As you can see, Fourier admits that his work is constrained to the net movement of heat. In fact, nowhere does Fourier differentiate between radiative and, for example, "kinetic" heat transfer, because the means to tell the difference were not available when Fourier studied heat flow. What this tells us is that Fourier's Law, and only Fourier's Law, can describe the transfer of heat between bodies in thermal contact. Thus the distribution of heat between the atmosphere and the surface of the earth, with which it has thermal contact, cannot be correctly calculated using the radiative transfer equations derived from Boltzmann (1884) because the thermal contact of these bodies makes this a question of Fourier's Law. However, to better understand this it is necessary to explore the motion of heat and the modes of heat transfer more thoroughly than did Arrhenius.  *2.2 Aethereal Misunderstanding versus Subatomic Heat Transfer*  Arrhenius (1906b, pp. 154 and 225) still clung to the aether hypothesis, which refers to the unspecified material medium of space. Arrhenius' adherence to this hypothesis remained firm in spite of its sound refutation by Michelson & Morley (1887). This leaves the conceptual underpinning of radiation in Arrhenius' "Greenhouse Effect" to Tyndall (1864, pp. 264-265; 1867, p. 416), who ascribes communication of molecular vibration into the aether and communication of aethereal vibration to molecular motion. This interaction conceptually separates radiated heat from conducted heat so that radiation remains separate and distinct from conductive heat flow - effectively isolating conductive heat flow from the radiative mode of heat transfer. Thus no consideration is made for internal radiative transfer as a part of conductive transfer, in the context of aethereal wave propagation. 
However, Arrhenius' contemporaries, having moved beyond the debunked aether hypothesis, had a much more realistic perspective of the interactions between radiation, heat, and subatomic particles.During the life of Arrhenius' "Greenhouse Effect", the scientific community understood that radiation was electromagnetic (Maxwell, 1864; Heaviside, 1881; Hertz, 1888), and by the time Arrhenius first published on the subject of the "Greenhouse Effect", Thompson (1896) had extended his idea of electrons to photoelectric effects on gases due to ionizing radiation, known then as röntgen rays. The photoelectric effect, by which a current or charge could be generated in certain materials by their exposure to electromagnetic radiation, was a matter of inquiry at the time. 
The emission of radiation in discrete quanta, though first suggested by Boltzmann in 1877, was mathematically formalised by Planck (1901). Einstein (1905) experimentally confirmed Planck's Equation after adapting it to the photoelectric effect, which was the subject of his study. However, ideas concerning the internal structure of the atom and it's relationship to ionisation, magnetism, photoelectric interactions, and discrete quanta of electromagnetic radiation were under intense development at the time (Thomson, 1902; Thomson, 1903; Thomson, 1904). 
By the time Bohr (1913) corrected the problems in Thomson's atomic model, the relationship between changes in electron shell (i.e. orbit) potential and photoelectric emission of radiation were a foregone conclusion. The relevance of these discoveries to the question of heat transfer is that unlike the notion of aethereal heat transfer, emission of electromagnetic energy quanta by atoms and molecules in materials confirmed that the radiative mode of heat transfer was as much a part of thermal conduction as any other mode of heat transfer.In order to understand how heat _moves_ through materials, we must first examine the structure and behaviour of the material media at a sub-atomic level. An atom comprises a nucleus within a shell. 
The shell is due to "Thomson's corpuscles", later known as electrons, which are negatively charged particles that orbit a nucleus with a positive charge corresponding to the number of these electrons. These orbital paths are also known as electron shells and, when shared by more than one atom, electron shells form the chemical bond between those atoms. When a "photon", or rather an electromagnetic wave pulse, passes through the electron shell -which is the region defined by the corresponding mathematical function called an orbital- one of a number of things may occur. 
It may pass through the "shell", it may be deflected by the "shell", or it may be absorbed by an electron in the "shell". When an electromagnetic wave pulse or 'photon' of light or heat is absorbed by an electron, the energy imparted to the electron is converted to kinetic energy, which moves the electron out to an orbital level commensurate with the energy gained. If we consider, from the mass of both electron and nucleus, that the centre of mass is somewhere between the electron and the nucleus, then this centre of mass does not coincide with the centre of positive charge, about which the electron orbits. Imagine a circumstance in which this centre of mass remains static, while the nucleus revolves around it. 
As the electron shell is centred on the nucleus, then in this case the shell and the entire atom or molecule is thus seen to wobble or vibrate about a particular point. The higher the electron shell, the more intense this wobble or vibration becomes. As a consequence, the absorption of electromagnetic radiation by a material manifests itself as what appears to be a corresponding net increase in the kinetic energy of constituent molecules.If we take the processes we have just examined and apply them to more than one molecule, we may then perceive as Waterson (1843, 1846, 1892) did, that through collisions between molecules, the material must either expand or its internal pressure will increase. By this we may infer the kinetic propagation of heat through a medium by the collision of its molecules, as the momentum of one molecule is transferred to another in the collision. This is not the only consequence of molecular collision. 
Such a collision may transfer the kinetic energy from an electron of the inbound molecule to an electron of the outbound molecule. It is also possible that the collision may destabilise one or both electron shells resulting in the corresponding drops to lower electron potentials. When an electron falls to a lower orbit or electron shell of lesser potential, a "photon" or pulse of electromagnetic radiation is emitted. That electromagnetic wave pulse then propagates through the material until it is either absorbed by another molecule or escapes from the material. However short-lived, such radiation quanta carry a proportion of heat flow in all materials. Whether we are talking about air, glass, or steel, a component of internal heat transfer is via internal radiation, however short the path of that radiation may be. Ergo, thermal conduction is not solely the kinetic transfer of heat, but also the transmission and reception of radiation within a material or materials in thermal contact. 
This is confirmed by the fact that conductive heat transfer, as defined by Fourier (1822), is only concerned with total heat flow and therefore describes the sum of both radiative and kinetic transfer without addressing either specifically. This differs markedly from the separation of radiative and kinetic transfer implicit in the ethereal model of heat transfer proposed by Tyndall and favoured by Arrhenius. This divergence of Arrhenius' idea of heat transfer from the facts of contemporary science forecasts a major error in Arrhenius' thermodynamics.  *2.3 Obfuscated Energy Creation versus "Kirchhoff's Law"*  It is an interesting fact that Arrhenius (1896 and 1906b) obfuscates his critical backradiation mechanism of the "Greenhouse Effect" by focusing the reader's attention on the idea he falsely attributed to Fourier, which is now found in the dictionary; namely, that the atmosphere admits the visible radiation of the sun but obstructs the infrared radiation from the earth. However, Arrhenius' calculations are based on surface heating by backradiation from the atmosphere (first proposed by Pouillet, 1838, p. 44; translated by Taylor, 1846, p. 63), which is further clarified in Arrhenius (1906a). This exposes the fact that Arrhenius' "Greenhouse Effect" must be driven by recycling radiation from the surface to the atmosphere and back again. Thus, radiation heating the surface is re-emitted to heat the atmosphere and then re-emitted by the atmosphere back to accumulate yet more heat at the earth's surface. 
Physicists such as Gerlich & Tscheuschner (2007 and 2009) are quick to point out that this is a _perpetuum mobile_ of the second kind - a type of mechanism that creates energy from nothing. It is very easy to see how this mechanism violates the first law of thermodynamics by counterfeiting energy _ex nihilo_, but it is much more difficult to demonstrate this in the context of Arrhenius' obfuscated hypothesis.Suffice it to say that heat is lost at the earth's surface when it is radiated to the atmosphere. The atmosphere having gained this heat loses it when it is re-radiated, half into space and half back to earth because radiation is omnidirectional - being emitted by a molecule in any direction. However, such heat losses are not represented in the "Greenhouse Effect", which recycles this heat instead. 
According to this hypothesis, this heat joins yet more heat absorbed from direct solar radiation during the relay - much of which is simultaneously emitted and recycled again. The intensity of terrestrial radiation absorbed by the atmosphere is thus increased and, taken in addition to that absorbed by the earth's surface, now totals more than the radiation available from the sun (e.g. Kiehl & Trenberth, 1997; Trenberth et al., 2009). The logic is seductive, yet flawed. Radiation is simply the amount of power per square metre. This power cannot be used and stored at the same time. 
Power cannot be raised without intensifying the source or adding another source of energy. You can prove this at home by observing the consequences when you unceremoniously unplug the power lead from your amplifier (while listening to some music). Without the additional source of power, it simply cannot amplify the signal from the radio receiver or the DVD pickup.Authors who defend the "Greenhouse Effect" attempt to characterise it as a form of heat congestion (e.g. Archer, 2009). The problem with this defense is that no amount of heat congestion can result in an average power output exceeding the average power input. The defense is also subject to the limitations of "Kirchhoff's Law". "Kirchhoff's Law" dictates that while emissivity and absorptivity are always equal for a given material or body, the equality of absorption (not absorptivity) and emission (not emissivity) of radiation defines thermal equilibrium between bodies that are not in thermal contact. 
Even the misconception that selective absorptivity makes it easier for radiation to get in than to escape, breaks down when both the atmosphere and the surface of the earth are treated as a whole body. Regardless of internal complexities, a whole body ultimately can only emit the exact amount of radiation it receives, or a lesser amount corresponding to a lower pre-equilibrium temperature if thermal equilibrium has not been reached. 
By increasing absorption, emission is increased - which was confirmed experimentally by Stewart (1858, 1860a, 1860b) and Kirchhoff (1859 & 1860). Moreover, this greater emission has a cooling effect on the atmosphere and Frankland (1864, p. 326) asserts that without this loss of heat by emission to space, atmospheric water vapour could not condense into clouds and precipitation. This cooling by radiative emission is further confirmed by Ellsaesser (1989) and Chillingar et al. (2008). Thus surface evaporation and subsequent condensation at altitude has a powerful cooling effect, which in addition to convection, offsets the high degree of heating that occurs at the surface.Inasmuch as we raise the absorptivity of the atmosphere, we equally raise its capacity to emit radiation to space. This was understood by Tyndall, Frankland and Fourier, as well being experimentally confirmed by Pouillet (1838, p. 44; translated by Taylor, 1846, p. 63). This concept of "Kirchhoff's Law" possibly dates back to the experimental work of Leslie (e.g. 1804, p. 24). However, the inclusion of "Kirchhoff's Law" in Fourier (1822) is highly suggestive of a much earlier source given the abundance of pre-existing qualitative thermodynamic principles that were subsequently quantified by Fourier. 
The principle that a material's absorptivity is equal to it's emissivity, thus, has a long history with many experimental confirmations. This same law of physics, experimentally conifrmed by numerous scientists, dictates that the temperature of the atmosphere cannot be changed simply by increasing absorptivity. "Kirchhoff's law" thereby functions as the key to understanding the behaviour of passive body temperature in constant incident radiation. Moreover, when Arrhenius (1896, p. 255) added the radiative transfer between the earth's surface and the atmosphere to the conductive transfer between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, he effectively duplicated the radiative transfer quantity, because it was already included in the conductive transfer quantity ("M"). 
This quantity is representative of net heat flow in accordance with Fourier's Law which, further, does not distinguish between kinetic and radiative modes of heat transfer across a thermal contact.Not only did Arrhenius duplicate heat, thereby invoking an energy creation mechanism to equip carbon dioxide with a power source it does not have, he propagated an erroneous explanation of how greenhouses work, which he falsely attributed to Fourier. Moreover, Arrhenius used this erroneous explanation as an alternative focal point for his "Hothouse Effect". 
With respect to the "Greenhouse Effect", as it later became known, this misdirection proved most effective in drawing scrutiny away from the weakest proposition of the idea - as attested by its consequent _Concise Oxford Dictionary_definition. It is upon this litany of error and misdirection that the "Greenhouse Effect" and the implicitly "anthropogenic" nature of global warming and climate change is based. Having ascertained the various mechanisms of the "Greenhouse Effect", we are ready to test this hypothesis against the laws of physics as they apply to real and repeatable experimental results of a physical and material nature.  http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

----------


## Marc

*3.0 Elementary Physics versus the "Greenhouse Effect"*  Heat distribution amongst materials in thermal contact is controlled by respective thermal conductivities rather than any putative optical properties. The relationship between thermal gradient -the change in temperature per unit length- and heat flux -the rate of energy flow across a unit area- is key to understanding the relationship between thermal conductivity and heat distribution within a material or materials in thermal contact. This is limited by the overall power available via the heat flux, which may come from another body in thermal contact or as radiation from a body isolated by a vacuum. However, the amount of heat available to a system due to increased absorption, is lost to corresponding emission. Thus a change in materials without a change in incident radiation -the radiation that falls on a body- can, at most, alter the distribution of heat within those materials.*3.1 The Physics of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon Dioxide*  The relationship between conductivity and net heat transfer explains why physicists, as Gerlich & Tscheuschner (2007 and 2009) point out, only consider the question of heat and temperature in terms of measurable physical properties such as thermal conductivity and heat capacity, unless that heat is being radiated across a vacuum. The latter case presents a question only answered by the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation, explained below. However, in terms of bodies in thermal contact, such as the atmosphere and the surface of the earth, the assertions of Arrhenius with respect to backradiation must necessarily be accompanied by a great variation in thermal conductivity in order to account for a comparably greater change in thermal gradient. This question is addressed in Gerlich & Tscheuschner (2007 and 2009, pp. 6-10), which shows an insufficient difference in the thermal conductivities of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen to account for the claims of Arrhenius.Carbon dioxide does, in fact, have a lower thermal conductivity than either nitrogen or oxygen (by roughly 36%, calculated from the figures of Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2007 and 2009).  
So a large increase (i.e. by hundreds of thousands of parts per million) in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration that would increase the thermal gradient accordingly, could produce a measurable surface warming. As this cannot change the amount of heat flowing through the system, the effect would be manifest by a decrease in atmospheric temperature offset by a corresponding increase in surface temperature. However, a meagre doubling of the presently insignificant levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide cannot have a measurable effect. In fact, geological history records that other factors have a much greater influence on global climate than carbon dioxide.If carbon dioxide produced the backradiation claimed by Arrhenius, thermal conductivity measurements of carbon dioxide would be so suppressed by the backradiation of heat conducted into this material, that the correspondingly steep temperature gradient would yield a negative thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide. In reality, a 10,000ppm increase in carbon dioxide could, at most, reduce the conductivity of air by 1%. Given the actual difference between the thermal conductivities of carbon dioxide (0.0168) and zero grade air (0.0260), a 10,000ppm increase in carbon dioxide would lower the thermal conductivity of zero grade air by 0.36%.  
That would represent a 0.36% increase in thermal gradient, or a surface warming of 0.18% and a ceiling cooling of 0.18% of the total difference in temperature between the top and bottom of the affected air mass. In the case of a tropospheric carbon dioxide increase of 10,000ppm, that would correspond to a warming of 0.125ºC, or one eighth of a degree Celsius at the earth's surface, offset by a cooling of 0.125ºC at the tropopause. On the scale of doubling the troposphere's carbon dioxide, the surface warming predicted by this simple and materialistic thermodynamic approach is on the order of 0.004ºC.  *3.2 Extending the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation to Incidence of Radiation*  Beyond the material medium of the atmosphere, heat is transferred across the vacuum of space by electromagnetic radiation. In fact, radiation is the only way heat can cross a vacuum and this radiative transfer of heat is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. As we shall see, this is critical to calculating body temperature from heat entering an otherwise thermally isolated body. It also dictates the temperature of the ideal greenhouse. However, as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law concerns radiation emitted, we must first extend this law to relate temperature to incident radiation. This is achieved by applying the the principle of equal absorptivity and emissivity best known as "Kirchhoff's Law"."Kirchhoff's Law" can be used to simplify the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation (Boltzmann, 1884) yielding a form that is surprisingly elegant. The significance of Kirchhoff's Law lies in the fact that emissivity not only constrains the proportion absorbed, but the readiness with which the body may emit (Kirchhoff, 1859; Kirchhoff, 1860, translated by Guthrie, 1860).  
Thus as emissivity decreases for the same emission of radiation, the temperature rises. However, given a constant incident radiation, the proportion by which temperature is raised by lack of emissivity is balanced by the reduced proportion of absorbed radiation. Substituting incident radiation multiplied by emissivity for emitted radiation in the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation arises the following way:Where:
Wb = Radiation (heat flux) in Wm-2 emitted by the body in question if it is a perfect black body
Wi = Radiation (heat flux) in Wm-2 incident upon the body in question
We = Radiation (heat flux) in Wm-2 emitted by the body in question
T = Absolute Temperature in ºK of the body in question
ε = Emissivity = Absorption / (Absorption + Reflection) of the body in question
σ = Stefan's Constant = 0.000000056704
Wm = Mean incidence of radiation over the entire surface of the body in Wm-2
Ax = Mean cross-sectional area of radiation incident on the body in m2
At = Topographical area of the body in m2Wb = σT4     Stefan's Law relating black body radiation to temperature (Stefan, 1879)
We = εWb   Emissivity is the proportion of hypothetical black body radiation emitted
Wb = Wi     And at thermal equilibrium, black body radiation is equal to incident radiation
We = εWi    Ergo emissivity is also the proportion of incident radiation emitted
We = σεT4   As the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation (Boltzmann, 1884) elaborates on emitted radiation:
εWi = σεT4  Thus a body's temperature response to incident radiation is entirely independent of emissivity, such thatWi = σT4This is confusing because it looks just like Stefan's Law for black bodies. However, as the radiation in question is not the body's emitted radiation as used by Stefan (1879), but is instead the incident radiation, it applies not only to black bodies but in general - as shown by the simple derivation. However, this case is strictly for omnidirectional radiation, which is only incident when all the radiation is diffuse or scattered. Radiation from a given source is directional and when the source is distant, the radiation is measured in a plane perpendicular to incidence. As a body is a three dimensional object with a much larger surface area than the area across which incident radiation falls, the emitted radiation of a body is always correspondingly lower in intensity then the incident radiation. As the area of incidence is less than the area of emission, we must further modify our equation so:WiAx/At = σT4
Wm = WiAx/At
Wm = σT4As you can see, the temperature of a body in constant incident radiation cannot be raised by compositional changes, and solely depends on the intensity of the radiation. This confirms the duplication of energy and to some degree, the _perpetuum mobile_ inherent in the "Greenhouse Effect."  *3.3 Returning to Wood's Experiment to Test Pouillet's Backradiation Hypothesis & Arrhenius' Greenhouse Effect*  We may well ask if it is at all possible for backradiation to coexist as a significant process alongside contact transfer. It would certainly seem possible within the limitations of thermal gradients. However, if we revisit the experiment conducted by Robert Wood in 1909, an entirely different picture emerges. Wood constructed two miniature greenhouses identical in all but one respect. One used a plate of halite to transmit light into the interior, while the other used a plate of glass to transmit light into the interior (Wood, 1909). While glass absorbs more than 80% of infrared radiation above 2900nm, halite does not and is regarded as quite transparent to infrared.  
The point of the experiment was to test whether the halite's lack of absorption and re-emission of infrared radiation relative to that of glass would have any effect on the temperature of the greenhouse.Taking Pouillet (1838) and Arrhenius (1906a) into account, we may extend the backradiation hypothesis to this particular situation. In this case, the glass lets through the light of the sun but absorbs 85% of the terrestrial infrared radiation radiation returning to space - at least that emitted above 2900nm. We may suppose that this 85% is of the half of the radiation that is absorbed above 2900nm and is augmented by about 15% of the other half of the outgoing infrared radiation based on the numbers from Nicalau and Maluf (2001). That is a total absorption of 50% of the outgoing radiation. This radiation is subsequently emitted from the glass itself; half radiated outside and half radiated back inside the miniature greenhouse. The amount of radiation reaching the bottom of the greenhouse is equal to that directly received from the sun plus the 25% radiated back by the glass.  
Although halite is more transmissive than glass in the visible spectrum, this is offset by the fact that halite is much more reflective than glass in the visible spectrum (Lane & Christensen, 1998). The difference in light transmission is less than 5%. Thus in the case of this experiment, the glass greenhouse bottom can be said to have received at least 120% (100-5+25) of the radiation received by the halite greenhouse bottom according to the Arrhenius' revision of Pouillet's hypothesis. Thus we expect the temperatures of the respective greenhouses to reflect this significant difference in hypothetical radiation reaching the respective bases.In Wood's experiment, the halite greenhouse interior temperature rose to 65ºC or 338ºK (Wood, 1909). Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as shown above, to the relationship between incident radiation and body temperature we may determine from:
Wm = σT4That:
Wm = 0.000000056704 x 3384
Wm = 740 Wm-2Now, according to the backradiation hypothesis and the measurable optical properties of glass and halite, this 740 Wm-2 should be supplemented, in the glass greenhouse, by 20% in backradiation from the glass. Thus we may surmise, via Arrhenius' variation on Pouillet's backradiation idea, that the radiation at the bottom of the glass greenhouse in the first stage of Wood's experiment was 888 Wm-2. This predicts the temperature of the glass greenhouse as follows:
T = {Wm/σ}0.25Given Wm = 888 Wm-2:
T = {888/0.000000056704}0.25 = 353.8ºK = 80.6ºCAs you can see, Arrhenius' hypothetical backradiation should raise the glass greenhouse temperature 15ºC above the halite greenhouse temperature, in Wood's experiment. In fact, the first stage of the Wood experiment resulted in the glass greenhouse being slightly cooler than the halite greenhouse. Considering the possibility that this could be due to the fact that the glass filters some of the sun's radiation that is not filtered by the halite, Wood proceeded to conduct a second stage in his historic experiment. This time, he filtered the radiation entering both greenhouses with a sheet of glass. This had the effect of reducing the internal temperature of the halite greenhouse to 55ºC or 328ºK. Thus the radiation incident on the bottom of the halite greenhouse is as follows:
Wm = σT4That:
Wm = 0.000000056704 x 3284
Wm = 656 Wm-2Allowing for additional 20% of backradiation gives us Wm = 788 Wm-2 in the glass greenhouse, predicting:
T = {Wm/σ}0.25Given Wm = 788 Wm-2:
T = {788/0.000000056704}0.25 = 343.3ºK = 70.2ºCOnce again, the backradiation hypothesis predicts a temperature difference of 15ºC but in this second stage of the Wood experiment no significant difference in temperature was recorded between the glass greenhouse and the halite greenhouse. From the recorded results of the Wood experiment, we can only conclude that the backradiation hypothesis of Arrhenius creates heat _ex nihilo_, but only in theory.  *3.4 Is the "Greenhouse Effect" Really Necessary?*  The temperature of the earth's surface is often explained using the "Greenhouse Effect". However, having refuted the "Greenhouse Effect", we may wonder if it was necessary in the first place. The earth orbits the sun in the vacuum of space. There is no aether as Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius believed. Moreover, there is no heat capacity or thermal conductivity in space. The only way for heat to escape the planet is by emission to space. That makes the temperature of the absorbing mass of the earth a question of radiative heat transfer. Hereafter, I will refer to the that portion of the earth's mass which absorbs solar radiation as the "solarsphere" because the atmosphere does not include the surface layer warmed by the sun on a day to day basis and there is no other term to encompass both. The method of calculation is to treat the solarsphere as an absorbing body subject to incident radiation from the sun.Given the solar constant of 1368 Wm-2 (Fröhlich & Brusa, 1981) and the fact that the cross-sectional area of solar radiation incident upon the earth is roughly one quarter of the earth's surface area, it is unsurprising to observe that authors such as Kiehl & Trenberth (1997) arrive at 342 Wm-2 as the mean quantity of solar radiation that falls on the entire surface of the earth. Using this, we may calculate the expected geographical and altitudinal mean temperature of the earth's solarsphere. Wm = σT4
T4 = Wm/σ
T = {Wm/σ}0.25Given Wm = 342:
T = {342/0.000000056704}0.25 = 278.7ºK = 5.5ºC  This figure, is an average or mean temperature for all times, latitudes, and altitudes of the the earth's solarsphere. Just as the balance point or centre of gravity is found at the centre of mass, this average temperature may be found at the centre of heat capacity. In materials of similar heat capacity, this can be found near the centre of mass. Thus, in order to determine how well our 5.5ºC result -calculated above- corresponds to observed reality, we must first determine the average observed temperature at the barometric median in the part of the earth penetrated by solar energy.From the diagrams supplied by Vallier-Talbot (2007, pp. 25-26), we may roughly determine the centre of mass for a one square metre column extending from two metres below the surface to 50 kilometres above the surface. Soils and clays amount to roughly 2 tons per cubic metre, with the atmospheric column having to weigh 10 tons in order to yield a mean barometric pressure of roughly 1000 hectopascals at the surface.  
The total column weighs 14 tons with the centre of gravity corresponding to the barometric median at 700 hPa. Referring once again to Vallier-Talbot (2007, p. 26) we may determine that on average, this pressure corresponds to an elevation of roughly a mile or 1600m above the surface. Given the observed average atmospheric thermal gradient of -7ºC with every 1000m of elevation above the surface (Vallier-Talbot, 2007, p. 25), we may calculate the average absorbing mass temperature as it occurs at the altitude of the barometric mean for our absorbing column. No doubt you've worked out that the temperature drop over a tropospheric ascent is 11ºC per mile, and we all know that the average surface temperature is 15ºC (Arrhenius, 1896, p. 239; Burroughs, 2007, p. 124). Notwithstanding 100 years of apparently constant mean temperature from Arrhenius to Burroughs, we may determine that the observed temperature at the altitude corresponding to the centre of absorbing mass is 4ºC or 277ºK.  
This, via the reasoning above, extends to an observed average absorbing mass temperature for planet earth of 4ºC or 277ºK. This is slightly cooler than the mean absorbing mass temperature calculated above from the solar constant (278.7ºK, 5.5ºC) even if we do allow for 0.5º warming over the last century. However, if we were to consider the impact of convective cooling, I think we can agree that the temperature we derive from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is well within the tolerance we must allow for such tests.Adding the tropospheric thermal gradient of 11ºC per mile we got from Vallier-Talbot (2007) above, our temperature (278.7ºK, 5.5ºC), calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation using the Solar Constant, yields a calculated surface temperature of around 16.5ºC. The fact that this is warmer than the observed mean surface temperatures of Arrhenius and Burroughs (15ºC) leaves no room for such dubious free energy mechanisms as Arrhenius' "Greenhouse Effect".  
The surface temperature of the earth can be much more simply explained without resorting to such complex and unverifiable entities as radiative amplification and power recycling via backradiation of the "Greenhouse Effect". Absorptivity of any of the parts can vary, but that only alters the overall emissivity, which in turn leaves unchanged, the gross power flowing though the system. Once equilibrium is reached it is only the power flowing through a thermally isolated system that controls and maintains mean temperature. This is because comtinuing and ongoing power is required to offset the amount of heat that is lost spontaneously and continuously due to emission of radiation.Our calculation of mean surface temperature without the "Greenhouse Effect" above (16.5±0.5ºC corresponding to 16-17ºC) is made without considering the effect of carbon dioxide.  
According to Arrhenius (1906a, translated by Gerlich & Tscheuschner, 2009, pp. 56-57) the observed temperature should be 20.9ºC higher than that yielded by a calculation such as this, owing to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The observed surface temperature of 15ºC (Arrhenius, 1896; Burroughs, 2007) is actually 1-2ºC lower than the calculated mean surface temperature of 16-17ºC. The lower atmosphere will always be warmer than the upper atmosphere because higher material density in the lower atmosphere dictates a much higher thermal conductivity, absorption and density of heat. In contact with an opaque surface warmed by the bulk of the heat absorbed from the sun, it is not difficult to explain why the surface is so much warmer than the altitude corresponding to the centre of mass in the solarsphere.  
Moreover, the Ideal Gas Law (PV = nRT) dictates that the temperature of a gas containing a given amount of heat invariably increases with pressure. As the highest atmospheric pressure is at the surface, it makes sense that the higher temperature is there, especially if obstruction to radiative outflow decreases with altitude.Turning our attention to the example of Langley's greenhouse experiment on Pike's Peak in Colorado (mentioned by Arrhenius, 1906b), we may be tempted to ask how it is that a greenhouse can reach such high temperatures. Qualitatively, we may attribute the difference between the 15ºC mean surface temperature and the 113ºC observed in Langley's greenhouse to the fact that noon-time radiation at the surface is three to four times as intense as the mean radiation over the whole of the earth's surface. Repeating our calculation method, this time for the midday conditions of a greenhouse: T = {Wm/σ}0.25Given Wm = 1368:
T = {1368/0.000000056704}0.25 = 394.1ºK = 121.0ºCAs you can see, our application of the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation predicts that incident Solar radiation at 1368 Wm-2 should produce a maximum daytime temperature of 394.1ºK or 121.0ºC in a greenhouse fully protected from heat losses to conduction. Although Langley's temperature is lower by eight degrees, it is near enough and, allowing for conductive heat loss, remains a testament to the insulating effectiveness of double glazing.What is demonstrated in the above examples, is the fact that surface temperature and the temperature in a greenhouse can be explained without resorting to the extraneous entity called the "Greenhouse Effect". This is significant in light of Ockham's Razor, which states:_Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem._This reads in English as:Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.Although the terminology may seem unfamiliar in light of 20th century usage, if we look at the words for what they mean we can, nonetheless, understand this statement. This suggests, in modern palance, that it is simply not valid to hypothesise beyond what is strictly necessary to explain the material evidence we possess. A hypothesis that does go beyond the support of material evidence violates this principle in that the evidence is already explained by a simpler theory. This is one of the most fundamental and definitive principles of science.  *4.0 Conclusion: a Greenhouse with neither Frame nor Foundation Cannot Stand*  In the frame of physics, a "greenhouse effect" as such, can only be used to describe a mechanism by which heat accumulates in an isolated pocket of gas that is unable to mix with the main body of gas. The elimination of convection within the troposphere by stratification, and the consequent temperature rise at the surface, presents us with a natural, if not hypothetical, example of a "greenhouse mechanism" in the frame of physics. Pseudoscience, popular misconception and political misuse of the term "greenhouse effect" have given it quite a different and unrelated meaning.  *The Hothouse Limerick* 
There was an old man named Arrhenius
Whose physics were rather erroneous
He recycled rays
In peculiar ways
And created a "heat" most spontaneous!  _Timothy Casey, 2010 _ Since its original proposition by Arrhenius, the definition of the "Greenhouse Effect" has been chaotic and, as such, has successfully obfuscated the weakest and most important part of that proposition. Namely, that terrestrial heat radiated into the atmosphere is there absorbed and re-emitted back to earth to raise surface temperatures beyond what is possible from the incident radiation alone. In fact the physics, as we have examined them, only allow compositional changes to redistribute heat within the absorbing mass of the earth if no change in mean incident radiation occurs. This predicts that atmospheric warming due to increased opacity can only result in surface cooling, which effectively does no more than alter the thermal gradient, thereby redistributing the heat without adding or subtracting from it.  
This was confirmed by observations of surface cooling during eruptions that ejected ash and carbon dioxide into the stratosphere (Angell & Korshover, 1985) and by observations of stratospheric warming as a consequence of these same eruptions (Angell, 1997). The "Greenhouse Effect" would predict that backradiation from this warmer stratosphere would instead warm the surface significantly. Evidently, this did not occur. If the power recycling mechanisms that typify the "Greenhouse Effect" really existed, we could build cars that ran on nothing but their own recycled momentum and free energy machines could be built to create energy out of nothing more than spent energy. With a viable "Greenhouse Effect" a windscreen would not need a demister as the heat back-radiated by the glass would prevent ice and water drops from condensing and double-glazed windows filled with carbon dioxide would be self heating. In reality, heat flows and is conducted via two modes of heat transfer.  
One mode of heat flow is by contact transfer, and the other is by radiative transfer. By taking the radiative transfer part of conductive transfer and adding it to the total amount of conductive transfer between the surface of the earth and the atmosphere, Arrhenius (1896) duplicated a portion of the existing heat _pro rata_ to the degree of absorption by carbon dioxide when, in fact, this portion of radiative transfer is already included in the conductive transfer figure.In the real physics of thermodynamics, the measurable thermodynamic properties of common atmospheric gases predict little if any influence on temperature by carbon dioxide concentration and this prediction is confirmed by the inconsistency of temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations in the geological record. 
 Moreover, when the backradiation "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis of Arrhenius is put to a real, physical, material test, such as the Wood Experiment, there is no sign of it because the "Greenhouse Effect" simply does not exist. This is why the "Greenhouse Effect" is excluded from modern physics textbooks and why Arrhenius' theory of ice ages was so politely forgotten. It is exclusively the "Greenhouse Effect" due to carbon dioxide produced by industry that is used to underpin the claim that humans are changing the climate and causing global warming. However, without the "Greenhouse Effect", how can anyone honestly describe global warming as "anthropogenic"?  http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

----------


## woodbe

> Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
> Consulting Geologist  How then, can the part of the atmosphere that makes it impermeable to infrared, simultaneously facilitate infrared absorption?

  Could it possibly be that the reason the atmosphere is impermeable to infrared is that it absorbs it?   
Goes to show, Petroleum Geologists are not well across atmospheric physics. (or perhaps they have worked too long for the oil companies)

----------


## John2b

> Could it possibly be that the reason the atmosphere is impermeable to infrared is that it absorbs it?

  Yes, he's obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer who, in his own words, has in the past ten years worked his "way up in the petroleum industry, from chip-logging ("mud-logging") to well-site geologist and drilling supervisor ("company man")". 
It's astounding that as ignorant as Casey is, he can summon people even less knowledgeable to prothletise his claptrap. 
You can view his CV here: Timothy Casey B.Sc.(Hons.), Petroleum Geologist (+614) 1290 1844

----------


## PhilT2

When i saw that bit in the last paragraph where Casey claims the greenhouse effect is not mentioned in modern physics textbooks I picked up one of the ones I have here (Pierrehumbert 2010) and checked. Strangely, the greenhouse effect is mentioned numerous times (pages 5, 146-150, 201, 202, 392). That was just the easiest error to find. 
The rest of his article is just a rehash of the Girlich & Tscheuschner paper which has been discredited in numerous papers. (See the "Science of Doom" blog) Some of the ideas are also borrowed from the "Slaying the Skydragon" crowd whose ideas are too bizarre even for WUWT. 
I haven't seen it piled up this high since the local sewer main ruptured.

----------


## Marc

*Incriminating Behaviour*The one thing the Flat Earth theorists, Creationists, and religious fundamentalists including Church of God, Assemblies of God, the Holy Inquisition, and Al Qaeda have in common is that they all try to discredit the idea by attacking the person, instead of attacking the data to discredit the idea. To further their own agenda, such cults deploy various fallacies because in place of truthful arguments about verifiable facts; polemics, fallacies, and outright fraud sound convincing (Archer, 1988a, 1988b, 1988c, 1988d; Brown, 1988; Falconer, 1988; Ritchie, 1988; Strahan, 1988; Price, 1990; Plimer, 1994). I have observed the same pattern of behaviour amongst the global warming catastrophist camp (Royer et al., 2004; Oreskes, 2004; Armitage, 2005; Jones et al., 1990; Wang et al., 1990) with fallacies & abuses exposed by (Shaviv & Veizer, 2004; by McIntyre & McKitrick, 2003, 2005; Wegman et al., 2006; Carter, 2007; Keenan, 2007; Harper, 2007). Windshuttle & Elliot (1999) discuss the difference between a false argument or fallacy and a correct argument.  The attribution of a rise in mean temperature trends coincident with industrialisation to carbon emissions produced by industrialisation is clearly demonstrated by Archibald (2007) to be based on a false cause. Slurs such as the increasingly common application of the label, "Flat-Earther" to anyone who attempts to discuss the implications of global warming from an evidence based perspective are ad homenim (Carter, 2007). Ad homenim attacks are becoming increasingly frequent and beginning to find their way into peer reviewed literature (Eg. Armitage, 2005).  Claims of scientific consensus behind the idea that global warming is a cause for alarm combine appeal to popularity with appeal to authority (Oreskes, 2004). In an interesting twist, more than 19000 U.S. scientists have signed the petition against measures to be implemented for the reduction of anthropogenic contributions to greenhouse gases (Home - Global Warming Petition Project). This raises questions about fraud when considered alongside scientific consensus claims.  While the "hockey stick" of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) is soundly discredited (by McIntyre & McKitrick, 2003, 2005; Wegman et al., 2006), its proponents claimed that this discrediting of the hockey stick did not matter. As it turns out, surface based thermometer readings produce a "hockey stick" of their own. The hockey stick path of these measurements has been explained by the heat island effect inherent in temperature readings taken mostly from towns and cities where human activity raises mean daily temperatures substantially as the towns and cities grow. While the vast majority of the temperature recorders are situated in towns and cities - some within effective distance of exhaust vents, heated buildings and bitumen car parks, Wang et al. (1990) & Jones et al. (1990) claimed to have verified the exclusion of heat island effected instrumentation from the current instrumental hockey-stick. Keenan (2007) completely discredits this claim and alleges in a peer-reviewed journal article, that it was made fraudulently.  As with religious extremists, the behaviour of global warming catastrophists becomes increasingly serious. Harper (2007) reports that proponents of the global warming panic have used death threats in an attempt to silence those who seek to publicly discuss the evidence. Although not the objective of this article, I intend to dedicate a separate page on this site to both global warming and Creationist howlers for the purpose of demonstrating both the similarities of Creationist tactics with global warming catastrophist tactics and the various kinds of fallacy used to deceive or otherwise coerce the public into adopting an idea that is not supported by evidence.  Intellectual extortion is a tactic universally employed by political and religious zealots of every stripe. A focus on the unacceptable consequences however speculative, of making the wrong choice about global warming demonstrates a tactic common to religious fundamentalists. Of particular note are the Creationists who threaten those who disagree with them with the rather speculative prospect of eternal damnation in Hell. It appears that the global warming catastrophists are likewise trying to short-circuit rationality with the threat of eternal damnation in Hell on Earth if we don't collectively accept their dogma. Whether we fret about the, "The Day After Tomorrow", or simply ponder, "An Inconvenient Truth", we are all being threatened by these people, whether with purely speculative environmental consequences or direct threat's to our own persons implicit in the libel and death threats deployed against the critics of alarmism.  
This pattern of behaviour proves independently of the scientific evidence that alarmism over global warming lacks merit and is likely to form part of an elaborate economic swindle. One of the popular pieces of research used to bludgeon reason from the public is the work of Nisbet (1990) on the discovery of methane trapped in ice and permafrost around the world. On this planet, methane is a limited resource and the climate has been much warmer in the past without the so called, "runaway methane global warming". Certainly, if any events of Planet Earth's past were indeed "runaway" events, the conditions would remain permanently and immutable to human intervention. If anything, the nearest to thing to runaway events this planet has ever experienced was the loss of methane to anoxic bacteria (Plimer, 2001), the oxygenation of the atmosphere by photosynthesising bacteria 2500 million years ago (Plimer 2001), and most recently the loss of much of the planet's carbon dioxide over the last billion years to photosynthesis.*Conclusion*The scientific evidence does not support alarm over global warming. Global warming is not unprecedented, neither in rate nor in magnitude. While global warming may lead to sea level rises, melting continental ice will avail arable farmland; an increasingly diminishing commodity that is of greater benefit to humanity than some over-priced waterfront real-estate. Global warming will result in the retreat of deserts further extending arable farmland. Global warming will also result in biological radiation making it easier for us to conserve the biodiversity many of us are so fond of. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a cause of global warming and is either an indirect product of warming or a product of deforestation.  Investigation of the evidence exposes a number of tactical omissions, errors, and perhaps a hoax or two on the part of the catastrophists. Tactics employed by those pushing a catastrophist agenda are consistent with those used by other branches of pseudoscience such as Creationism. The lack of support for alarm over global warming by scientific evidence is certainly sufficient reason for some to evade discussion of the evidence by focussing on attacking those who do wish to address the evidence. There are strong economic and political arguments in favour of ignoring the evidence and using alarm over global warming as propaganda to sell the government funding of research and initiatives that will benefit select commercial sectors to the exclusion of the tax payer.  The observed expansion of deserts during the current mildly "warm" period is unprecedented in geological history. Deforestation is the only cause of desertification aside from global cooling and represents the principle human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Yet, the emphasis of public attention on exaggerated greenhouse effects only serves to divert public scrutiny from vastly more practical and important issues such as moderating land clearance, not to mention the desperate need for communities to decentralise sufficiently to bring most services within walking distance of most residences (thereby reducing reliance on motorised transport) before the impact of peak oil. It would appear that the catastrophist movement is more concerned with curbing development in underdeveloped countries than with vital environmental issues like the expansion of deserts as a consequence of excessive and unnecessary deforestation. Tragically, although desertification as a direct result of excessive land clearance is a far greater threat to the ability of our environment to support current human populations, this very real and well documented threat is neglected in favour of what amounts to little more than sensationalised science fiction.

----------


## woodbe

Wegman? Really? 
There goes your argument. What a load of twaddle.

----------


## Marc

> Wegman? Really? 
> There goes your argument...

   Are you sure about that? 
This is the argument:   

> The one thing the Flat Earth theorists, Creationists, and religious fundamentalists including Church of God, Assemblies of God, the Holy Inquisition, and Al Qaeda have in common is that they all try to discredit the idea by attacking the person, instead of attacking the data to discredit the idea.... Intellectual extortion is a tactic universally employed by political and religious zealots of every stripe. A focus on the unacceptable consequences however speculative, of making the wrong choice about global warming demonstrates a tactic common to religious fundamentalists. Of particular note are the Creationists who threaten those who disagree with them with the rather speculative prospect of eternal damnation in Hell. It appears that the global warming catastrophists are likewise trying to short-circuit rationality with the threat of eternal damnation in Hell on Earth if we don't collectively accept their dogma. Whether we fret about the, "The Day After Tomorrow", or simply ponder, "An Inconvenient Truth", we are all being threatened by these people, whether with purely speculative environmental consequences or direct threats to our own persons implicit in the libel and death threats deployed against the critics of alarmism.

  PS
Besides this _not_ being 'my' argument. the last paragraph is something that I have said probably 50 times over in different words. The global warming catastrophist argument is damaging the little effort that governments around the world might be willing to put into preserving or repairing the environment. Instead, and thanks to the agitators and the cheer leaders, governments show the voting public they care by clapping at unison with the AGW BS and think of ways to tax the use of electricity and subsidise alternatives with obscene amounts of money even if the money goes overseas. Win win situation. do nothing and collect money and votes. How can you go wrong with that?  

> The observed expansion of deserts during the current mildly "warm" period is unprecedented in geological history. Deforestation is the only cause of desertification aside from global cooling and represents the principle human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Yet, the emphasis of public attention on exaggerated greenhouse effects only serves to divert public scrutiny from vastly more practical and important issues such as moderating land clearance, not to mention the desperate need for communities to decentralise sufficiently to bring most services within walking distance of most residences (thereby reducing reliance on motorised transport) before the impact of peak oil. It would appear that the catastrophist movement is more oncerned with curbing development in underdeveloped countries than with vital environmental issues like the expansion of deserts as a consequence of excessive and unnecessary deforestation. Tragically, although desertification as a direct result of excessive land clearance is a far greater threat to the ability of our environment to support current human populations, this very real and well documented threat is neglected in favour of what amounts to little more than sensationalised science fiction.

----------


## John2b

> The hockey stick path of these measurements has been explained by the heat island effect inherent in temperature readings taken mostly from towns and cities where human activity raises mean daily temperatures substantially as the towns and cities grow. While the vast majority of the temperature recorders are situated in towns and cities - some within effective distance of exhaust vents, heated buildings and bitumen car parks,

  Wrong. Many urban areas are actually cooler that the surrounding countryside due to the creation of irrigated green spaces - Las Vegas for example. It works out that for the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the US it pretty much balances out.    The Urban Heat Island Effect and City Contiguity - ResearchGate 
Meteorologists go to a lot of effort to minimise and correct for the urban heat island effect. For example, in Adelaide the BOM is moving its station back into the parklands near where it used to be for about 100 years, before it was moved to an inner suburb in the 1970s.

----------


## woodbe

> PS
> Besides this _not_ being 'my' argument. the last paragraph is something that I have said probably 50 times over in different words. The global warming catastrophist argument is damaging the little effort that governments around the world might be willing to put into preserving or repairing the environment. Instead, and thanks to the agitators and the cheer leaders, governments show the voting public they care by clapping at unison with the AGW BS and think of ways to tax the use of electricity and subsidise alternatives with obscene amounts of money even if the money goes overseas. Win win situation. do nothing and collect money and votes. How can you go wrong with that?

  I can understand you don't like the idea of industry money going overseas. That's nothing to do with any attempt to deal with a worldwide problem though. If you need tech and it comes from overseas, that's where you get it from. 
One of the issues is that if the Government goes on the back foot for an industry, there is then little support for that industry and the country then moves into import mode for the tech instead of building it locally. 
Asserting that Global Warming or Climate Change is debatable is not facing the facts. The world is way past that discussion, it's accepted by the bulk of the public, the pollies and the scientists. The only debate we have now is how much we should do about it. 
See .sig

----------


## dazzler

> So he posted a graph from last summer in September with the comments "Have you noticed how hot it is" 
> Boy oh boy. 
> And how come no one is telling me off for confusing weather with climate? You guys are slipping bad.

  Why bother Marc. You know your incorrect.

----------


## Marc

> Why bother Marc. You know your incorrect.

  I know my incorrect what? Cousin? Haircut? Algebra? Color choice?

----------


## Marc

*Volcanic Carbon Dioxide*Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
Consulting Geologist 
Uploaded ISO:2009-Oct-25
Revision 3 ISO:2014-Jun-07*Abstract*A brief survey of the literature concerning volcanogenic carbon dioxide emission finds that estimates of subaerial emission totals fail to account for the diversity of volcanic emissions and are unprepared for individual outliers that dominate known volcanic emissions. Deepening the apparent mystery of total volcanogenic CO2 emission, there is no magic fingerprint with which to identify industrially produced CO2 as there is insufficient data to distinguish the effects of volcanic CO2 from fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. Molar ratios of O2 consumed to CO2 produced are, moreover, of little use due to the abundance of processes (eg. weathering, corrosion, etc) other than volcanic CO2 emission and fossil fuel consumption that are, to date, unquantified. Furthermore, the discovery of a surprising number of submarine volcanoes highlights the underestimation of global volcanism and provides a loose basis for an estimate that may partly explain ocean acidification and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels observed last century, as well as shedding much needed light on intensified polar spring melts. Based on this brief literature survey, we may conclude that volcanic CO2 emissions are much higher than previously estimated, and as volcanic CO2 contributions are effectively indistinguishable from industrial CO2 contributions, we cannot glibly assume that the increase of atmospheric CO2 is exclusively anthropogenic.*1.0 Introduction: How Volcanoes make the Carbon Budget Holier than Thou*If we neglect to ask how the greenhouse effect of various gases is quantified in terms of real, measurable thermodynamic properties, the idea of anthropogenic global warming may well survive long enough for us to ask how the carbon budget establishes that observed increases in CO2 (Keeling et al., 2005) could not be caused by anything other than human activity. Plimer (2001), Wishart (2009), and Plimer (2009) point out that an enormous and unmeasured amount of CO2 degases from volcanoes. This is not such a silly idea given that the source chemistry for lavas contains a surprising amount of carbon dioxide. Along with H2O, CO2 is one of the lightest volatiles (materials of relatively low melting point), found in the mantle (Wilson, 1989). The fluid nature of the aesthenosphere, or upper mantle of the earth, ensures that lighter volatiles are fractionated, buoyed towards the surface, and either extruded or outgassed into the atmosphere via volcanoes and faults. The "solid earth", a term popular amongst climatologists, is a deceptive misnomer as the aesthenosphere is a deeply convecting fluid upon which flexible sheets of crust (i.e. plates) float. This deeply convecting fluid tears these delicate plates apart at rift zones and crushes them together like the bonnet of a wrecked car at convergence zones. Mountains rise out of fold belts resulting from the crumpling of plates, and where differences in plate buoyancy allow, one plate rides over another, forcing the other plate to follow the convection current into the aesthenosphere. Furthermore, this liquid aesthenosphere, which continues to create new crust at rifting zones such as the mid oceanic ridges, melts down subducting crust as the residue of this crust is drawn deeper into the mantle. While volatiles trapped in the remaining crustal residue are ultimately assimilated into the mantle, lighter volatiles from the crustal melt are fractionated and float up towards the surface to feed plate margin volcanoes. Volatiles, such as CO2, are more prone to outgassing at the surface via tectonic and volcanic activity because of the fluid nature of the earth.*1.1 The Importance of CO2 in Volcanic Emissions*The importance of juvenile (erupted and passively emitted) volcanic CO2 is due to the fact that carbon, and particularly carbon dioxide has a strong presence in mantle fluids, so much so that it is a more abundant volcanic gas than SO2 (Wilson, p. 181; Perfit et al., 1980). According to Symonds et al. (1994) CO2 is the second most abundantly emitted volcanic gas next to steam. Although you might imagine that there is no air in the mantle, the chemical conditions favour oxidation, and shortages of oxygen ions are rare enough to ensure a strong presence of CO2 (Schneider & Eggler, 1986). Oxidation of subducted carbon sources such as kerogen, coal, petroleum, oil shales, carbonaceous shales, carbonates, etc. into CO2 and H2O makes volcanic CO2 quite variable in back arc and continental margin volcanoes, where these volatile gases can be surprisingly abundant (eg. Vulcano & Mount Etna). Subduction isn't the only way CO2 enters magma. At continental rift zones, where an entire continent is being pulled apart by divergent mantle convection, magma rising to fill the rift is enriched in CO2 from deep mantle sources (Wilson, 1989, p. 333). Oldoinyo Lengai is an example of a continental rift zone volcano, which has above average CO2 outgassing at 2.64 megatons of CO2 or 720 KtC per annum (Koepenick et al., 1996)._If_ volcanoes produce more CO2 than industry when they are not erupting, then variations in volcanic activity may go a long way towards explaining the present rise in CO2.*1.2 The Location of CO2 Monitoring Station in regions enriched by volcanic CO2*Volcanic CO2 emission raises some serious doubts concerning the anthropogenic origins of the rising atmospheric CO2 trend. In fact, the location of key CO2 measuring stations (Keeling et al., 2005; Monroe, 2007) in the vicinity of volcanoes and other CO2 sources may well result in the measurement of magmatic CO2 rather than a representative sample of the Troposphere. For example, Cape Kumukahi is located in a volcanically active province in Eastern Hawaii, while Mauna Loa Observatory is on Mauna Loa, an active volcano - both observatories within 50km of the highly active Kilauea and its permanent 3.2 MtCO2pa plume. Samoa is within 50 km of the active volcanoes Savai'i and/or Upolo, while Kermandec Island observatory is located within 10 km of the active Raoul Island volcano.Observatories located within active volcanic provinces are not the only problem. There is also the problem of pressure systems carrying volcanic plumes several hundred kilometers to station locations. For example, the observatory in New Zealand, located somewhere along the 41st parallel, is within 250 km of Tanaki and the entire North Island active volcanic province. Low pressure system centres approaching and high pressure system centres departing the Cook Strait will displace volcanic plumes from the North island to the South Island.Another class of problem for monitoring stations plagues "Christmas Island", which is actually Kiribati Island (02º00'N, 157º20'W) where the Clipperton Fracture Zone (Taylor, 2006) crosses the Christmas Ridge and is nowhere near Christmas Island (10º29'S, 105º38'E; located on the other side of Australia, 10,000 km due west of Kiribati). Christmas Ridge is formed in a concentration of Pacific Seamounts. Extraordinary numbers of seamounts are volcanically active (Hillier & Watts, 2007). Moreover, active fracture zones also offer a preferred escape route for magmatic CO2, as this CO2 also finds its way into aquifers (eg. Giggenbach et al., 1991), which can be cut by fracture zones that consequently provide a path to the surface (Morner & Etiope, 2002). This may raise doubts concerning measurements taken at the La Jolla observatory, which is located near the focal point of a radial fault zone extending seaward from the San Andreas Fault (see imagery sourced to SIO, NOAA, USN, NGA, & GEBCO by Europa Technologies & Inegi, for Google Earth).Amundsen Scott South Pole Station appears to be well separated by 1300 km from the volcanic lineation extending along Antarctica's Pacific Coast (From the Ross Shelf to the Antarctic Peninsula), However, Antarctic volcanoes are not nearly as well mapped as those in more populated regions, such as Japan. In any case, the strong circumpolar winds that delay mixing will inevitably concentrate Antarctica's volcanic CO2 emissions over the Antarctic continent, including Amundsen Station. The same potential problem exists with the observatory at Alert in Northern Canada, because it is located inside the circumpolar wind zone along with the Arctic Rift and thousands of venting seamounts along key parts of the Northwest Passage.That leaves us with Point Barrow, arguably the only CO2 monitoring station whose CO2 measurements are unlikely to be influenced by magmatic gas plumes. However, the Canada Basin, extending seaward from Point Barrow, is also referred to as "the Hidden Ocean" because of poor access, which consequently leaves us with very little information about the sea floor in this region. The high probability of active seamounts in the vicinity of Point Barrow has not been ruled out, and in view of the fact that the other observatories probably experience significant skew due to magmatic CO2, it would not be unreasonable to remain skeptical until this possibility has been ruled out.This question of volcanic skew in CO2 measurements has been raised a number of times, in addition to other more serious allegations (Bacastow, 1981; Jaworowski et al., 1992; Segalstad, 1996).*2.0 Calculated Estimates: Glorified Guesswork*The estimation of worldwide volcanic CO2 emission is undermined by a severe shortage of data. To make matters worse, the reported output of any individual volcano is itself an estimate based on limited rather than complete measurement. One may reasonably assume that in each case, such estimates are based on a representative and statistically significant quantity of empirical measurements. Then we read statements, such as this one courtesy of the USGS (2010):Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.In point of fact, the total worldwide estimate of roughly 55 MtCpa is by one researcher, rather than "scientists" in general. More importantly, this estimate by Gerlach (1991) is based on emission measurements taken from only seven subaerial volcanoes and three hydrothermal vent sites. Yet the USGS glibly claims that Gerlach's estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes in roughly equal amounts. Given the more than 3 million volcanoes worldwide indicated by the work of Hillier & Watts (2007), one might be prone to wonder about the statistical significance of Gerlach's seven subaerial volcanoes and three hydrothermal vent sites. If the statement of the USGS concerning volcanic CO2 is any indication of the reliability of expert consensus, it would seem that verifiable facts are eminently more trustworthy than professional opinion.This is not an isolated case. Kerrick (2001) takes a grand total of 19 subaerial volcanoes, which on p. 568 is described as only 10% of "more than 100 subaerial volcanoes". It is interesting to observe that Kerrick (2001) leaves out some of the more notable volcanoes (eg. Tambora, Krakatoa, Mauna Loa, Pinatubo, El Chichon, Katmai, Vesuvius, Agung, Toba, etc.). Nevertheless, despite these omissions Kerrick calculates 2.0-2.5 x 1012 mol of annual CO2emissions from all subaerial volcanoes, which is understated on the assumption that the sample is from the most active volcanic demographic. This is in spite of the fact that eight of the world's ten most active volcanoes are omitted from Kerrick's study (Klyuchevskoy Karymsky, Shishaldin, Colima, Soufriere Hills, Pacaya, Santa Maria, Guagua Pichincha, & Mount Mayon). At 44.01g/mol, 2.0-2.5 x 1012 mol of CO2 amounts to a total of 24-30 MtCpa - less than 0.05% of total industrial emissions (7.8 GtCpa according to IPCC, 2007). My main criticism of Kerrick's guess is that it putatively covers only 10% of a highly variable phenomenon on land, and with the cursory dismissal of mid oceanic ridge emissions, ignores all other forms of submarine volcanism altogether. If we take the Smithsonian Institute's list of more than 1000 potentially active subaerial volcanoes worldwide, Kerrick's 10% is reduced to 1-3%.According to Batiza (1982), Pacific mid-plate seamounts number between 22,000 and 55,000, of which 2,000 are active volcanoes. However, none of the more than 2,000 active submarine volcanoes have been discussed in Kerrick (2001). Furthermore, Kerrick (2001) justifies the omission of mid oceanic ridge emissions by claiming that mid oceanic ridges discharge less CO2 than is consumed by mid oceanic ridge hydrothermal carbonate systems. In point of fact, CO2 escapes carbonate formation in these hydrothermal vent systems in such quantities that, under special conditions, it accumulates in submarine lakes of liquid CO2 (Sakai, 1990; Lupton et al., 2006; Inagaki et al., 2006). Although these lakes are prevented from escaping directly to the surface or into solution in the ocean, there is nothing to prevent superheated CO2 that fails to condense from dissolving into the seawater or otherwise making its way to the surface. It is a fact that a significant amount of mid oceanic ridge emissions are not sequestered by hydrothermal processes; a fact which is neglected by Kerrick (2001), who contends that mid oceanic ridges may be a net sink for CO2. This may well sound reasonable except for the rather small detail that seawater in the vicinity of hydrothermal vent systems is saturated with CO2 (Sakai, 1990) and as seawater elsewhere is not saturated with CO2, it stands to reason that this saturation is sourced to the hydrothermal vent system. If the vent system consumed more CO2 than it emitted, the seawater in the vicinity of hydrothermal vent systems would be CO2 depleted.Morner & Etiope (2002) published a somewhat more representative estimate of subaerial volcanogenic CO2 output based on a more comprehensive selection and found as a bare minimum that subaerial volcanogenic CO2 emission is on the order of 163MtCpa. Morner & Etiope (2002) also provide a much better explanation of how CO2 is cycled through the mantle and the lithosphere. However, this still does not account for active volcanic emissions and remains vulnerable to eruptive variability. Based on data reproduced in Shinohara (2008), there were on average about five subaerial volcanic eruptions every year producing an average of 300KtSpa (kilotons of sulphur per year) from 1979-1989. Shinohara (2008) also presents molar ratios of CO2, SO2, & H2S from which, via the same academic daring as Gerlach (1991) and Kerrick (2001), we might derive an average ratio of 3.673 mol carbon for every mol of sulphur in gaseous volcanic emissions. That would loosely translate to 1.376KtC for every 1.000KtS. This gives us a figure of around 2MtCpa for minor volcanic activity based on SO2 emission events reported in Shinohara (2008). However, applying the same statistical assumption to some of the more notable eruptions of recent history, contrasted with one or two slightly older examples, gives us the following estimates:Year Volcano Mean Sulphurous Output Source Est. Carbon output during year(s) of eruption  1883AD Krakatoa 38 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 26.14 MtCpa  1815AD Tambora 70 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 48.16 MtCpa   1783AD Laki 130 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 89.44 MtCpa  1600AD Huaynaputina 48 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 33.02 MtCpa  1452AD Kuwae 150 MtH2SO4pa Witter & Self (2007) 67.40 MtCpa  934AD Eldja 110 MtSO2 Shinohara (2008) 75.68 MtCpa  1645BC Minoa 125 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 86.00 MtCpa  _circa_ 71,000BP Toba 1100 MtH2SO4pa Zielenski et al. (1996) 494.24 MtCpa   Notice how all but one of the individual annual volcanogenic carbon outputs, estimated above, dwarf the global subaerial volcanogenic carbon outputs estimated by both Gerlach (1991) & Kerrick (2001). Even the Morner & Etiope (2002) subaerial estimate (163 MtCpa) is shaken by most of these figures and dwarfed by one. If this is not enough evidence of just how unreliable volcanic emission estimates can be, let us take a closer look at my 89 MtCpa estimate for the 1783AD Laki eruption. Consider the difference it makes if, instead of using the average ratio by weight for carbon and sulphur emissions I derived from Shinohara (2008), we take the ratio we use for the Laki estimate from more direct observations. Agustsdottir & Brantley (1994) studied emissions from Grimsvotn, from which Laki extends as a fissure, and found that Grimsvotn outgasses 53 KtCpa for 5.3 KtSpa. In other words, the weight of carbon emitted at Grimsvotn is ten times that of the sulphur emitted there. This would extend to Laki, which shares the same source, and is described by Agustsdottir & Brantley (1994) as a fairly stable ratio. By this ratio, Laki's 130 Mt of sulphur dioxide in 1783AD translates to an emission of 650 MtCpa that year. This demonstrates just how much uncertainty is involved when trying to audit the volcanic contribution to the "carbon budget".As you can see, volcanic systems are diverse and unpredictable. They cannot be statistically second-guessed for the same reason that lottery numbers cannot be statistically second-guessed. This in itself raises serious doubt concerning the reliability of volcanic carbon dioxide emission estimates. This is especially problematic when significant elements of the estimates, such as passive submarine volcanic emission, all active volcanic emission, and at least 96% of passive subaerial emissions, are based on statistical assumptions rather than on any actual measurement.*3.0 Abusing Doctor Suess: Pulling the Cat out of the Hat*So far, the evidence presents the rather tantalizing implication that volcanogenic CO2 emission is a significant if not dominant contributor to atmospheric CO2 levels. The next logical step for those trying to prove that the CO2 rise is anthropogenic is to find a signature to fingerprint anthropogenic CO2 as separate from all other sources of CO2. The research of one Harmon Craig, first submitted for publication on ISO:1953-Apr-20, found that 13C & 14C are enriched in carbonates. Harmon Craig discusses the carbon dating errors that can be introduced by natural isotopic fractionation, along with other processes (Craig, 1954). While Rankama (1954), suggests that 13C depletion is characteristic of biogenic sources, Craig (1954) goes so far as to suggest the use of 13C as a tracer for 14C. This becomes the subject of research by Hans E. Suess into the contamination of 14C dates by variations in normal atmospheric 14C, which quantified the effect of processes discussed by Craig (1954). Part of Suess' explanation of his own results was seized upon as a way to fingerprint fossil fuel CO2 because fossil fuels, being too old to contain measurable amounts of this cosmogenic isotope, will deplete atmospheric concentrations of 14C when burned. In Cleveland & Morris (2006, p. 427) Hans Suess and the Suess Effect, used to account for contamination of radiocarbon dates by various phenomena, are given the following entries:*Suess, Hans  * 1909-1993, U.S Chemist who developed an improved method of carbon-14 dating and used it to document that the burning of fossil fuels had a profound influence on the earth's stocks and flows of carbon. (Fossil fuels are so ancient that they contain no C-14.)*Suess Effect  * _Climate Change._ a relative change in the ratio of C-14/C or C- 13/C for a carbon pool reservoir; this indicates the addition of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere.However, this is only half of the explanation offered by Suess. In Suess (1955, p. 415) we read:The decrease can be attributed to the introduction of a certain amount of C14-free CO2 into the atmosphere by artificial coal and oil combustion and to the rate of isotopic exchange between atmospheric CO2 and the bicarbonate dissolved in the oceans.As you can see, Suess himself puts the Suess Effect down to more than just fossil fuel consumption. Yet, the exclusion of other processes, such as isotopic exchange and volcanic input, are hardly surprising given the assumption that fossil fuels are the only cause of 14C depletion. This assumption has quite some history in the literature. According to Tans et al (1979):THE dilution of the atmospheric 14CO2 concentration by large amounts of fossil-fuel derived CO2 which do not contain any 14C is commonly called the Suess effect. Its magnitude can be calculated with the same geochemical models as the global carbon cycle that also predict the future rise of atmospheric CO2 to be caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.Keeling (1979) concurs with a bizarre emphasis on "formulating models rather than surveying and interpreting data". This reflects the rather general attitude, amongst anthropogenic global warming proponents, that the _Suess Effect_ fingerprints the rising atmospheric carbon dioxide as the exclusive product of fossil fuel combustion. Does such a narrow interpretation concur with the original author's idea? Suess (1955), who first proposes the idea that fossil fuels may contaminate the carbon isotope reservoir with adverse effects on carbon dating methods, estimates that fossil fuel CO2 accounted for less than 1% of carbon isotope reservoir contamination.The smaller effects noted in the other three trees indicate relatively large local variations of CO2 in the atmosphere derived from industrial coal combustion, and that the worldwide contamination of the earth's atmosphere with artificial CO2 probably amounts to less than 1 percent.While, superficially, this may be interpreted as either 1% of contamination or 1% of total atmospheric carbon, the apparently "smaller effects" of "large local variations" in atmospheric CO2 due to industry shows that something other than industrial CO2 accounts for the bulk of the effect. Suess' next statement further clarifies this point:Hence the rate by which this CO2 exchanges and is absorbed by the oceans must be greater than previously assumed.It does not necessarily follow from a 1% contamination of total atmospheric carbon that other processes are at work. Only if industrial CO2 provides 1% of the 14C contamination does it necessarily follow that, hence, another process must play a greater role. In other words, Suess acknowledged that other sources of contamination played a much larger role (Suess, 1955, p.416), but authors, such as Fergussen (1958), Keeling (1979), Tans (1979), Cleveland & Morris (2006), ignored this rather important point. Moreover, insistent on correcting the "misleading" arguments of Durkin (2007) in their 2007 glossy handout, _Climate Change Controversies: a simple guide_, the Royal Society gets its name plastered to this evident _faux pas_:In contrast to this natural process, we know that the recent steep increase in the level of carbon dioxide  some 30 per cent in the last 100 years  is not the result of natural factors. This is because, by chemical analysis, we can tell that the majority of this carbon dioxide has come from the burning of fossil fuels.Aside from the fact that isotopic analysis is not chemical analysis, I would go so far as to suggest that the same basin sediment kerogen (the carbon source for oil) in addition, no doubt, to some petroleum reservoirs have been subducted and are a major source for volcanic CO2 emissions at continental margins. Due to the fact that the subduction zone is where crustal material enters the mantle, subducted carbon reservoirs would represent the youngest magmatic source of CO2. Given the confirmed presence of carbon and particularly CO2 enriched fluids in magma and lava (Wilson, 1989), one may well ask if it would not be so irrational to suppose that volcanogenic carbon released at continental margins (closest to the subduction zone) is very old; far too old in fact to contain any measurable amount of 14C. Moreover, mantle carbon and CO2 is vastly older still, as only longer lived cosmogenic isotopes such as 10Be can be used to confirm the speed of mantle convection. In fact, Clark & Fritz (1997) document that there is no volcanic emission of 14C.The misuse of the _Suess Effect_ as a fossil fuel fingerprint instead of an empirical standard for the correction of carbon dating contamination, lead to an initially idiosyncratic expansion of this concept by Keeling (1979), who sought to include 13C depletion of vegetation and its effect on the atmosphere. The atmosphere is enriched in 13CO2 by the process of photosynthesis, which favours the assimilation of 12C into plant tissue during growth (Furquhar et al., 1989). This is used to differentiate between terrestrial and oceanic CO2 sources (Keeling et al., 2005), and the concept, proposed by Craig (1954), is actually older than Suess' original research. Moreover, plant based fossil fuel derivatives are therefore considered to be 13C depleted. Following this line of logic, fossil fuel emissions, being derived from plants, should be 13CO2 depleted as well. However, when the Keeling (1979) article expanded its internal definition of the _Suess Effect_ to include this observation, it was once again to the exclusion of volcanic influence.In point of fact, magmatic carbon is, for the most part, 13C depleted. This is solidly confirmed by numerous studies of deep mantle rocks (Deines et al., 1987; Pineau & Mathez, 1990; Cartigny et al., 1997; Zheng et al., 1998; Puustinen & Karhu, 1999; Ishikawa & Marayuma, 2001; Schultz et al., 2004; Cartigny et al., 2009; Statchel & Harris, 2009) as well as mid-oceanic ridge outgassing (De Marais & Moore, 1984). Moreover, 13C depletion of volcanic emissions is so well known that Korte and Kozur (2010) explore volcanism, amongst other possible causes, in search of an explanation for atmospheric depletion of 13C across the Permian-Triassic boundary. Although many significant carbonates are not 13C depleted, they are eventually subducted along with organic carbon sources depleted in 13C. Nevertheless, the emissions of continental margin and back arc volcanoes that source a significant proportion of their carbon from subducted volatiles, remain 13C depleted (eg. Giggenbach et al., 1991; Sano et al., 1995; Hernández et al., 2001). Thus, as plants continue to enrich the atmosphere in 13C while supplying the 13C depleted kerogen that is subducted into the mantle, volatiles failing to return to the surface may cause the mantle to become increasingly 13C depleted over time. Moreover, the significant proportion of volcanic carbon dioxide that diffuses through the soil (Gerlach, 1991) has its carbon isotope chemistry further contaminated by 13 depleted biogenic soil carbon (Hernández et al., 2001).Both tectonic and volcanic CO2 are magmatic and depleted in both 13C & 14C. In the absence of statistically significant isotope determinations for each volcanic province contributing to the atmosphere, this makes CO2 contributions of volcanic origin isotopically indistinguishable from those of fossil fuel consumption. It is therefore unsurprising to find that Segalstad (1998) points out that 96% of atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from volcanic degassing. So much for the Royal Society's unexplained "chemical analysis". If you believe that we know enough about volcanic gas compositions to distinguish them chemically from fossil fuel combustion, you have indeed been mislead. As we shall see, the number of active volcanoes is unknown, never mind a tally of gas signatures belonging to every active volcano. We have barely scratched the surface and as such, there is no magic fingerprint that can distinguish between anthropogenic and volcanogenic sources of CO2.*4.0 The Rise and Fall of Oxygen*Manning et al. (1999) find, as an average at La Jolla, that 1.3 mol of O2 are consumed for every mol of CO2 produced. They point out that if all atmospheric CO2 was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, this result would be 1.44 mol of O2 consumed for every mol of CO2 produced. Cellular respiration as a simplified reaction is as follows:C6H12O6 (aq) + 6 O2 (g) → 6 CO2 (g) + 6 H2OPhotosynthesis does not throw out the balance of cellular respiration following the same molar ratios of CO2 and O2 in play:6 CO2 (g) + 6 H2O → C6H12O6 (aq) + 6 O2 (g)As you can see, the net effect of respiration is to lower the number of mols of O2 consumed for every mol of CO2 produced with no skew introduced by photosynthetic consumption of CO2. Volcanoes, once again ignored by Manning et al (1999), produce CO2 freely without any directly observed O2consumption, although it remains possible that volcanic activity may well consume significant amounts of O2. This could explain the mystery of the loss of half the atmosphere's oxygen 250 million years ago; a mystery that remains unsolved (see Berner et al, 2003). As we can't clearly identify exactly what amount of atmospheric O2 is consumed by volcanic processes (eg. oxidation of H2S to H2O, SO2, H2SO4) for every mol of volcanogenic CO2released to the atmosphere, we can only guess that volcanogenic emissions reduce this ratio towards a figure substantially less than unity. The argument is therefore made that because we don't see a significantly lower ratio, volcanogenic CO2 cannot possibly be very much. This however, is a deduction from a guess, and clearly neglects common oxidation reactions that consume O2 without producing any CO2, such as some forms of corrosion, combustion of certain volcanic volatiles, and weathering. For example:4 Fe + 3 O2 → 2 Fe2O3
H2S + 2 O2 → H2SO4
2 H2S + 3 O2 → 2 H2O + 2 SO2
4 FeSiO3 + 2 O2 + 2 H2O → 4 FeO(OH) + 4 SiO2Weathering and the successive oxidation of elements like iron from minerals such as pyroxenes present a major example of how oxygen is consumed without producing carbon dioxide, because carbon is *not* the only element on the planet that preferentially combines with oxygen. Such reactions drive the number of mol of O2 consumed per mol of CO2 produced higher. As you can see, it is not only fossil fuels that drive this ratio in this direction, and it is a simpler matter to more comprehensively measure volcanic CO2 output to determine whether volcanoes are indeed a significant CO2 contributor.*5.0 Plimer Strikes Again: 139,000 Intraplate Volcanoes Leaking CO2 into the Ocean*Until reading Hillier & Watts (2007), I would have estimated that the oceans, occupying twice the surface area of land, would have twice the number of volcanoes. In fact the number of submarine volcanoes is very much higher than twice the number of subaerial volcanoes. Given the update of Werner & Brantley (2003), which raises the estimate of subaerial volcanogenic CO2 from 27±3 MtCpa to 78±6 MtCpa, this would seem to imply roughly 200 MtCpa from submarine volcanogenic CO2 and brings the total estimate of volcanic CO2 in line with the bare minimum determined by Morner & Etiope (2002). Plimer (2001; 2009) & Wishart (2009) maintain that the amount of CO2 from volcanoes is enormous, and without estimating an amount suggests that it dwarfs anthropogenic contributions. If we take the updated estimate, correct the conservative bias, and extend to submarine environments we still wind up with a figure around 1.5 GtCpa for total passive volcanic emissions (excluding imponderables such as mid oceanic ridge emissions) and that is still only 20% of the 7.8 GtCpa attributed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions by the IPCC. As it turns out, there is a lot more to the distribution of volcanoes across different tectonic settings, and Plimer (2009) omits the rather small detail of a 2007 paper presenting primary evidence that underpins his claim in spectacular fashion.Hillier & Watts (2007) surveyed 201,055 submarine volcanoes estimating that a total of 3,477,403 submarine volcanoes exist worldwide. According to the observations of Batiza (1982), we may infer that at least 4% of seamounts are active volcanoes. We can expect a higher percentage in the case of the count taken by Hillier & Watts (2007) because it includes smaller, younger seamounts; a higher proportion of which will be active. Nevertheless, in the spirit of caution and based on our minimum inference of 4% seamount activity from Batiza's observations, I estimate 139,096 active submarine volcanoes worldwide. If we are to assume, in the absence of other emission figures for mid oceanic plate volcanoes, that Kilauea is a typical mid oceanic plate volcano with a typical mid oceanic emission of 870 KtCpa (Kerrick, 2001), then we might estimate a total submarine volcanogenic CO2 output of 121 GtCpa. Even if we assume, as Kerrick (2001) and Gerlach (1991) did, that we've only noticed the most significant outgassing and curb our estimate accordingly, we still have 24.2 GtCpa of submarine volcanic origin.If guesses of this order are anywhere near the ballpark, then we can take it that either what has been absorbing all this extra CO2 is not absorbing as much or there has been some variation to volcanic output over the past 500 years or so. Both are normal assumptions given the variable state of the natural environment, and considering that vegetation consumed something on the order of 38GtCpa more in 1850 than today (see my Deforestationarticle for the quick and dirty calculation), it is hardly surprising that we were missing a large natural CO2 source in the carbon budget. The other possibility is that both Werner et al (2000: approx. 38 KtCpa) and Werner & Brantley (2003: approx. 4000 KtCpa) are correct, which could imply that volcanogenic CO2 emissions are increasing. This certainly would explain steadily rising CO2 observed at stations in regions most affected by volcanic emissions, it could partly explain the recent increase in ocean acidification discussed by Archer (2009, pp. 114-124), and further it would explain the more intense Spring melting centred on the Pacific Coast of Antarctica and along the Gakkel Ridge under the Arctic ice cap.*6.0 Conclusion: Three Million Volcanoes "Can't be Wrong"*The second most erupted gas on the planet next to steam has a significant magmatic source in which it is preferentially fractionated towards the surface. On the scale of atmospheric composition, the isotopic composition of volcanogenic CO2 is effectively indistinguishable from fossil fuel CO2 due to the complete lack of statistically significant carbon isotope determinations for each of the contributing volcanic and tectonic provinces. Moreover, molar oxidation estimates cannot be used to constrain volcanogenic CO2 output because such estimates neglect the fact that carbon is not the only abundant element on the planet that preferentially combines with oxygen. It is only through emission monitoring taken in statistically significant empirical samples for each volcanic province that we may calculate a scientific estimate of total worldwide volcanic CO2 emission and perhaps, with statistically significant carbon isotope data for each volcanic province, we may one day be able to distinguish volcanic and industrial CO2 contributions in the atmosphere.Eruptions and volcanic geochemistry are highly variable and so too are volcanic emissions. The lack of any sizeable volcanic eruptions (on the scale of Krakatoa, Tambora, Laki, Huaynaputina, Kuwae, Eldja, etc.) in the 20th Century confirms the volcanic quiescence of this time. Perhaps the reduction of frequency and amount of SO2 ejected into the stratosphere may explain the slight upward trend of atmospheric temperature last century. Perhaps the simplest explanation for the last century's volcanic quiescence is a greater and more consistent release of volcanic gases in passive emissions whose sub-surface accumulation would have otherwise resulted in the buildup of pressure in magma chambers, and consequently much more violent eruptions.Irrespective that some authors may neglect to allow for significant volcanogenic CO2 input to the atmosphere, volcanoes represent an enormous CO2source that is mostly submarine. Furthermore, volcanic activity beneath both ice caps and localized to the regions of most intense melting has demonstrated an obvious cause of stronger Spring melts at the Poles. It is evident from the observations of Sohn et al. (2008) & Reves-Sohn et al. (2008) that the Northwest Passage was opened up by powerful volcanic activity under the Arctic Ice along the Gakkel Ridge, while West Antarctic melting (as opposed to thickening of ice throughout the rest of Antarctica) can be explained by recent volcanic activity beneath the ice (Corr & Vaughan, 2008). Moreover, there are simply too many volcanoes to deny that the atmospheric concentration of the most erupted gas next to water is predominantly controlled by the balance or lack thereof between volcanic activity and photosynthesis. Furthermore, there is simply no established volcanic CO2fingerprint by which we may distinguish atmospheric proportions of anthropogenic and volcanogenic contributions. This leaves us with no empirical method by which we may attribute the 20th century rise in CO2 to human energy consumption.*7.0 Postscript: Science Overtakes Philosophy*This has been a wild ride upon ricketty speculations about a subject, of which, we know far too little. 2011 has seen a couple of publications which shine a spotlight on the great divide between officially sanctioned conjecture and the facts determined from actual research. Moreover, it is these two publications which establish the profoundly fraudulent nature of any further claims that "the science is settled". Speaking for the United States Geological Survey, Gerlach (2011) continues to underestimate the statistical limitations of his conclusion. In fact he had this to say:"Humans currently live in a time of volcanic quiescence [Plimer, 2009, pp. 149, 211, 225]. But if the Earths volcanoes were emitting more CO2 than present-day human activities, volcanic quiescence would be a rare experience." _Sic._ (The incorrect use of square brackets, in this quote, is not mine. This error is probably on the part of the publisher.)Gerlach, in this statement, seems to have forgotten the elementary role of volatiles in volcanic eruptions. In fact, volatiles play a pivotal role in determining the violence and explosivity of volcanic eruptions. This is because it is the accumulation of volatiles, such as water vapour and carbon dioxide, which dicates the amount of internal pressure and this, in turn, dicates the explosivity of a volcanic eruption. The only reason we are experiencing a period of volcanic quiescence is because volatiles, such as carbon dioxide, are being released to the atmosphere instead of being bottled up for an eruption. Volcanic quiescence, thus, dictates greater volcanic emission of carbon dioxide - and it is only when that emission is hampered by conditions that we enter a period of more "active" or, rather, violent volcanism. As we have seen, Gerlach (2011) says precisely the opposite. However, as Cardellini _et al._ (2011) point out:"Large amounts of CO2 is also discharged by soil diffuse degassing at the quiescent volcanoes."It seems that Gerlach (2011) drew his interpretation from a preference for the "global" "magmatic" carbon dioxide emission estimate of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998) which was devoloped from the generalisation of isotope ratios across provinces of varied geochemistry. This multimodal generalisation, as I have shown in the example of Laki (Section 2, above), can be spectacularly inaccurate. Gerlach reports this figure in the following contrastive statement:"The projected 2010 anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of 35 gigatons per year is 135 times greater than the 0.26-gigaton- per-year preferred estimate for volcanoes."In the units I am using here, that translates to a "preferred" estimate of worldwide volcanic carbon emission at 0.071 GtCpa. At this point, I think it worth contrasting this with a quote from Cardellini _et al._ (2011) who are actually engaged in some real research:"Quantitative estimates provided a regional CO2 flux of about 9 Gt/y affecting the region (62000 km2), an amount globally relevant, being ~ 10% of the present-day global CO2 discharge from subaerial volcanoes."That 9GtCO2pa translates to 2.45 GtCpa for just one region, which is more than 34 times the latest personally "preferred" "global" estimate offered by Gerlach (2011). This statement, by Cardellini _et al._ (2011) seems to originate with Chiodini _et al._ (2004) which states:"The total CO2 released by TRSD and CDS (2.1 x 1011 mol/y) is globally significant, being ~10% of the estimated present-day total CO2discharge from subaerial volcanoes of the Earth [Kerrick, 2001]." _Sic._ (The incorrect use of square brackets, in this quote, is not mine. This error is probably on the part of the publisher.)This figure, by Chiodini _et al._ (2004) translates to 0.0025 GtCpa which is about 10% of the lower figure for the estimate of Kerrick (2001). This is suggestive that the figure published in Cardellini _et al._ (2011) may have been misreported (unless, of course, it has since been revised). Assuming that the figure has, indeed, been misreported, we will consider the source paper. It would seem that the figure offered by Gerlach (2011) is more in line with this figure published by Chiodini _et al._ (2004). However, when we return to the to the point made by both Cardellini _et al._ (2011) and Chiodini _et al._(2004) a very important question is raised. Chiodini _et al._ (2004, p. 3) contextualise their results as follows:"This result suggests an underestimation on CO2 globally released by the Earth, because unquantified processes of CO2 Earth degassing from non-volcanic environment affect almost all tectonically active areas of the world."It seems that Chiodini _et al._ (2004, p. 3) may have considered it somewhat implausible that a meagre 62,000 square kilometre area on the earth's surface could be responsible for 10% of all magmatic outgassing, worldwide. How else could they come to conclude that their result _suggested_underestimation in the first place? They then go on to point out what they think has been left out of the picture. In context, this "CO2 Earth degassing from non-volcanic environment" which "affect almost all tectonically active areas of the world." refers to magmatic outgassing due to tectonic activity rather than volcanic activity. This points to a largely unstudied area and, certainly, extrapolating the results of the study across all tectonically active areas will still produce a very high figure for magmatic outgassing of carbon dioxide, worldwide (i.e. much more than 1.0 GtCpa). However, in the absence of more representative sampling, it remains an incontrovertible fact that, at this point of history, we have absolutely no idea how much volcanic (i.e. magmatic) Carbon Dioxide is annually released into the atmosphere at the surface of the earth.*7.1 Volatile Terminology and how volcanic gases encompass all magmatic gases released at the surface.*Unlike the current Oxford English Dictionary definition (which reports diction in press), use of the term "volcanic" in the field of geology is not confined to association with volcanos, _per se_. For example, lava exposed at the surface by tectonic rifts does not flow out of an actual volcano but is still considered volcanic, nonetheless. So, in the field of geology, volcanic materials encompass any magmatic materials extruded at the surface. This extrusive definition contrasts volcanic materials with intrusive materials. These intrusive materials are magmatic in origin but are only exposed at the surface by erosion of overburden. In this sense, all magmatic gases which vent out of active faults and fault zones, as part of tectonic processes, are "volcanic" by geological definition - whether or not an identifiable volcano was involved. This is important because it establishes the relevance of gases released by tectonic processes and deep magmatic carbon isotope considerations.

----------


## PhilT2

This Casey guy doesn't seem to have any actual original ideas of his own does he? The whole volcanic co2 theory comes from Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth. (I have a copy if you want to borrow it) One of the criticisms of Plimer's work was that many of the papers he quoted did not actually say what he claimed they did. Others pointed out that Plimer quoted old research that had since been corrected. In Casey's article he quotes research on isotopes dated from 1954; there's lots more recent stuff out there.  
In the end Casey fails to do what Plimer couldn't do either. He has no hard evidence that there is an increase in volcanic activity to match the increase in co2, nor does he have an adequate explanation for the loss of oxygen from the atmosphere. No theory, just a wild guess.

----------


## PhilT2

In the above article Casey states "as volcanic CO2 contributions are effectively indistinguishable from industrial CO2 contributions,"
Link to article proving him wrong. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/11805270_Concentration_and_isotope_ratios_of_carbo  n_nitrogen_and_sulfur_in_ocean-floor_basalts

----------


## PhilT2

Here's another article detailing the change; starting around 1740, in the carbon isotopes in carbon dioxide trapped in ice cores. A revised 1000âyear atmospheric []13C-CO2 record from Law Dome and South Pole, Antarctica - Rubino - 2013 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library 
Climate change is all about change (doh) If Casey can't prove an increase in volcanism at the same time as the increase in co2, or explain how those volcanoes suddenly changed the chemistry of the co2 they produced at the beginning of the industrial revolution, or show why the oxidation and weathering of rock suddenly changed at the same time then his theory fails...badly.

----------


## John2b

> Link to article proving him wrong.

  Based on recent history, it would be surprising if the stuff Marc regurgitates in this forum was anything other than wrong. Someone seems to think that pasting countless pages of previously discredited twaddle somehow gives their ideology some kind of credibility. Maybe it does to wilfully ignorant OCWM.

----------


## Marc

*Volcanic Halocarbons: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in Volcanic Emissions*  *Abstract*  One of Ian Plimer's misquotes happens to be heavily underpinned by numerous scientific measurements and practical experimentation. Although commonly regarded as not naturally occuring, halocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) do occur naturally and are emitted from volcanoes. This applies to both the environment and the atmosphere. As a consequence, we can expect that volcanic activity has a much higher impact on ozone depletion than previously thought.  *How Controversial are Volcanic CFCs?*  In his book, _a short history of planet earth_, Plimer (2001, p. 200) reports that in 1991, Mt Pinatubo released massive quantities of CFCs. Interestingly, nobody disagreed and the book won Plimer the _Reed New Holland 2002 Eureka Science Book Prize_. However, when Plimer (2009) went on to make a similar statement, this time in _Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science_, this statement was given quite a different reception.*Oops!*  Plimer (2009, p. 217) underpins his Pinatubo CFC claim with Brasseaur & Granier (1992). As it turns out, Brasseur & Granier (1992) go to some lengths to point out that they are only taking anthropogenic CFCs into account and make neither measurement nor estimate of volcanic CFCs. Although misquotes are quite common in the literature (eg. Whitaker, 2007, p. 137; misattributes the graph by Michael Mann to the "_Bureau of Meteorology_"), the typical reaction of Plimer's opposition is to revel in Plimer's apparent ignorance of the "fact" that CFCs are strictly anthropogenic. The attitude that only anthropogenic CFCs affect climate is not new. Roscoe (2001) states:  Ozone depletion at mid-latitudes is caused by reactive halogens from man-made halocarbons. The stratospheric sulphate aerosol which follows large volcanic eruptions enhances (multiplies) this ozone depletion (it has no effect on ozone without halocarbons).This statement assumes that stratospheric sulphate aerosols (produced by volcanic eruption) are not accompanied by volcanic CFCs. However, it is a foregone conclusion that CFCs are not naturally occurring substances, as demonstrated by Flannery (2005, p.31):The rarest of all the greenhouse gases are members of the HFC & CFC families of chemicals. These children of human ingenuity did not exist before industrial chemists began to manufacture them.Colice (2008):Albuterol MDIs were initially formulated with CFC propellants. CFCs are not naturally occurring compounds.Colice (2007, p. 15):*
CFCs and the Environment*
CFCs are not naturally occurring chemicals. Frederic Swarts pioneered fluorocarbon chemistry in the late 1890s. In 1928, two scientists in the Frigidaire Division of General Motors selected CFC-12 as an ideal refrigerant for home refrigerators.And Hendeles et al. (2007):[...] with CFC albuterol inhalers. Political and Regulatory Mandates. CFCs are not naturally occurring substances. When developed in the [...]This idea that CFCs do not occur naturally is further stated by Warrick & Farmer (1990), Grimston (1992), and Mazur & Lee (1993). Thus it comes as no surprise that methodology is influenced by what apears to be a widely acepted idea (Green & Stewart, 2008, p. 18):The age dating estimates of groundwater samples were achieved using carbon-14 and CFC-11 and CFC-12 dating techniques. These techniques are effective in different age ranges: carbon-14 dating being useful for samples of ages greater than 100–200 years; while CFC dating is effective only for groundwaters that have recharge since 1965. As CFCs are not natural in the environment and did not exist in the atmosphere until approximately 1965, groundwater recharged prior to that year should have CFC concentrations that are zero or below detection levels.It appears that even accepted methods such as CFC dating are based on the widely accepted idea that CFCs are not natural.  *Water Solubility & Weight Precluded Volcanic Emissions*  When the patents on conventional refrigerants were due to expire, the thinning of the ozone layer was deftly correlated with CFC usage and the correlation cross-referenced with chemistry indicating the breakdown of ozone in the presence of CFCs. When it was regularly pointed out that volcanoes erupt large quantities of chlorine and fluorine, proponents of the ozone disaster glibly stated that all volcanogenic emissions that could effect the ozone layer were either water soluble or otherwise too heavy to remain in the stratosphere for significant periods of time.  *Plume Chemistry that Overcomes Water Solubility & Weight Issues*  The focus of the movement to save the ozone layer is CFCs and not halocarbons in general. Interestingly, this fuss over CFCs excludes other, more potent halocarbons such as bromomethane. Although bromine is 40 times as potent as chlorine in the breakdown of the ozone layer it is ignored by in favour of halocarbons in common use, namely CFCs. Those who may be inclined to point out that bromocarbons and bromohalocarbons are heavy and are not carried up into the stratosphere omit the fact that significant quantities of such gases are produced by magmatic (Bureau, 2000) and volcanic processes (Schwandner et al., 2002, 2004). As such, these gases along with significant quantities of far heavier dust, regularly rise on volcanic plumes into the stratosphere. Noteworthy eruptions of this magnitude include Pinatubo (Philippines, 1991), Gunung Agung (Bali, 1963), Katmai (Alaska, 1912), Santa Maria (Guatemala, 1902), Krakatoa (Indonesia, 1883), Tambora (Indonesia, 1815), and Laki (Iceland, 1783-1784). These are all still relatively minor eruptions except for Laki, which released enough sulphur to generate 250 megatons of sulphuric acid aerosol, in addition to 7 megatons of HF (hydrofluoric acid aerosol) and 15 megatons of HCl (hydrochloric acid aerosol).  *"CFCs are not Volcanic" - Oh Really?*  This statement is one that I keep seeing on websites and blogs, and ties in with the assertions repeated by Warrick & Farmer (1990), Grimston (1992), Hendeles et al. (2007), Colice (2007), Colice (2008), and Green & Stewart (2008, p. 18) to the effect that CFCs are not natural in the environment. If one chooses to measure the gases emerging from volcanic vents instead of taking a politician's word for it, one discovers that volcanoes produce a variety of halocarbons, including CFCs. This fact, along with other natural sources of CFCs including sponges, other marine animals, bacteria (both marine & terrestrial), fungi (both marine & terrestrial), plants (both marine & terrestrial), lichen, insects, is so well documented that it is the subject of ongoing textbook publication (Gribble, 2003; Jordan, 2003). Stoiber et al. (1971) first measured and documented CFCs venting from Santiaguito in Guatamala. Since, there have been many studies corroborating the volcanic emission of CFCs (Isidorov et al, 1990; Isidorov et al., 1993; Jordon et al., 2000; Schwandner et al., 2000; Schwandner et al., 2002; Schwandner et al., 2004; Frische et al., 2006). Although some authors attempt to correlate volcanogenic CFCs to atmospheric variations, the confirmation of soil diffusion decay with distance from the vent (Schwandner et al., 2004) still stands in stark contradiction of Frische's hypothesis.  *Omitted Reaction Series*  Elements of the typical volcanic plume chemistry such as HCl & HF in the presence of other halocarbons (such as bromomethane) and hydrocarbons, will substitute chlorine and fluorine for bromine, favouring a halocarbon light enough to remain long term in the stratosphere, while the heaviest (eg. bromine) ion returns to earth in water soluble form without the rest of the halocarbon. The hypothesis that volcanic chlorine & fluorine is removed from the atmosphere by precipitation omits the fact that lighter halogens are favoured by halocarbons while heavier halogens are favoured by water soluble acid formation. This ensures that once the bromine has done its damage, lighter halogens are then combined with non-polar chemicals that are too light to settle out, and neither sufficiently water soluble nor hydrophylic to be removed from the stratosphere by precipitation. Furthermore, the surface of the volcanic aerosol not only provides an increased surface area on which ozone can be broken down, but additionally increases the fraction of stratospheric halogen that occurs in ozone destroying forms - as observed in the substantial increase in the ozone destroying forms of chlorine by Wilson et al., (1993).  *The Awful Truth about Plimer, Volcanoes, and CFCs*  As it turns out, Plimer was dead right about the production of CFCs by volcanic processes. He may have misattributed this to the wrong source, but he was still dead right. What about Mt Pinatubo you may ask? Bureau et al. (2000) determined that the eruption of Mt Pinatubo released between 15 and 25 kilotons of Bromine, which in the form of bromocarbons as observed in other locations (eg. Schwandner et al. 2004), and in the presence of large quantities of HCL and HF, would undergo a substitution reaction to produce sufficient CFCs to have a prolonged effect. The impact of this was observed in the wake of the Pinatubo Eruption with substantial increases in ClO and in particular the substantial increase in the ozone destroying forms of chlorine as a product of Pinatubo's emissions (Wilson et al., 1993). Aiuppa et al. (2005) determined that ongoing passive emissions from Mount Pinatubo alone include 700 tons of bromine and 10 tons of iodine annually. As halocarbons, it is inevitable that these recombine with more reactive halogens found in abundant volcanogenic acids such as HCl and HF to form CFCs, HI, and HBr.  *Conclusion*  In spite of numerous erroneous academic assertions, CFCs _are_ naturally occurring chemicals and are a significant component of active volcanism. Volcanic CFCs are emitted in the presence of compounds that raise the residence time of volcanic halogens in addition to intensifying their ozone damaging effect. This would suggest that volcanoes have had a significant impact on the ozone layer. Furthermore, when someone like Plimer appears to misquote one source, it is likely that it is the source that is misattributed and that underpinning can be found elsewhere for the assertion. It is just a matter of looking.  *Bibliography*  *Aiuppa*, A., Federico, C., Franco, A. Giudice, G., Gurrieri, S., Inguaggiato, S., Liuzzo, M. McGonigle, A. J. S., & Valenza, M., *2005*, "Emission of bromine & iodine from Mount Etna volcano", _Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems_, Vol. 6, American Geophysical Union, DOI: 10.1029/2005GC000965*Brasseur*, G. & *Granier*, C., *1992*, "Mount Pinatubo aerosols, chlorofluorocarbons, and ozone depletion.", _Science_, Vol. 257, p. 1239-1242*Bureau*, H., Keppler, H., & Metrich, N., *2000*, "Volcanic degassing of bromine and iodine: experimental fluid/melt partitioning data and applications to stratospheric chemistry", _Earth & Planetary Science Letters_, Vol. 183, pp. 51-60*Butler*, J. H., *2000*, "Atmospheric chemistry: Better budgets for methyl halides?", _Nature_, Vol. 403, p. 260-261*Colice*, G. L., *2007*, "The CFC to HFA Transition for Albuterol", _Chest Physician_, Vol. 2, p. 15*Colice*, G. L., *2008*, "Albuterol HFA for the management of obstructive airway disease", _Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine_, Vol. 2, pp. 149-159*Flannery*, T. *2005*, _The Weather Makers_, ISBN13: 978-1-9208-8584-7*Frische*, M., Garofalo, K., Hansteen, T. H., Borchers, R., Harnisch, J., *2006*, "The Origin of Stable Halogenated Compounds in Volcanic Gases",_Environmental Science and Pollution Research_, Vol. 13, pp. 406-413.*Green*, G., & *Stewart* S., *2008*, "Interactions between groundwater and surface water systems in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges", _Government of South Australia Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation DWLBC REPORT 2008/27_, 101 pp, http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/publications/reports/html*Gribble*, G. W., *2003*, "The Diversity of Naturally Produced Organohalogens", _The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry_, Vol. 3, Part P, pp. 1-15.*Grimston*, *1992*, "Nuclear power - a view in perspective", _Physics Education_, Vol 27, pp. 202-205.*Hendele*, L., Colice, G. L., & Meyer, R. J., *2007*, "Withdrawal of Albuterol Inhalers Containing Chlorofluorocarbon Propellants", _New England Journal of Medicine_, Vol. 356, pp. 1344-1351*Isidorov*, V. A., Zenkevich, I. G., & Ioffe, B. V., *1990*, "Volatile organic compounds in solfataric gases", _Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry_, pp. 329-340.*Isidorov*, V. A., Povarov, V. G., & Prilepsky, E. B., *1993*, "Geological sources of volatile organic components in regions of seismic and volcanic activity",_Journal of Ecological Chemistry_, Vol 1, pp. 19-25.*Jordan*, A., Harnische, J. Borchers, R., Le Guern, F., Shinohara, H., *2000*, "Volcanogenic Halocarbons", _Environmental Science and technology_, Vol. 34, Part P, pp. 1122-1124.*Jordan*, A., *2003*, "Volcanic Formation of Halogenated Organic Compounds", _The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry_, Vol. 3, Part P, pp. 121-139.*Mazur*, A., & *Lee*, J., *1993*, "Sounding the Global Alarm: Environmental Issues in the US National News", _Social Studies of Science_, Vol. 23, pp. 681-720.*Plimer*, I. R., *2001*, _a short history of planet earth_, 250 pp., ISBN13: 978-0-7333-1004-0*Plimer*, I. R., *2009*, _Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science_, 503 pp., ISBN13: 978-1-9214-2114-3*Roscoe*, H. K., *2001*, "The Risk of Large Volcanic Eruptions and the Impact of this Risk on Future Ozone Depletion"_Natural Hazards_, Vol. 23, pp. 231-246*Schwandner*, F., Gize, A. P., Seward, T. M., Hall, K., Dietrich, V. J., *2000*, "Natural Halocarbon Compounds in Volcanic Gases", _Goldschmidt 2000 Journal of Conference Abstracts_, Vol. 5, p. 898.*Schwandner*, F., Gize, A. P., Seward, T. M., Hall, K., Dietrich, V. J., *2002*, "Quiescent Diffusive and Fumarolic Volcanic Bromocarbon Emissions", _AGU fall meeting 2002_, Abstract 7627*Schwandner*, F.M., Seward, T. M., Gize, A. P., Hall, P.A. & Dietrich, V.J., *2004*, "Diffuse emission of organic trace gases from the flank and crater of a quiescent active volcano (Vulcano, Aeolian Islands, Italy)", _Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres_, Vol. 109, pp*Stoiber*, R. E., Legget, D. C., Jenkins, T. F., Murrmann, R. P., Rose (jr), W. I., *1971*, "Organic Compounds in Volcanic Gas from Santiaguito Volcano, Guatemala", _Geological Society of America Bulletin_, Vol. 82, pp. 2299-2302.*Thordarson*, T., Self, N., Oskarsson, N., & Hulsebosch, T., *1996*, "Sulfur, chlorine, and fluorine degassing and atmospheric loading by the 1783–1784 AD Laki (Skaftar Fires) eruption in Iceland", _Bulletin of Volcanology_, Vol. 82, pp. 2299-2302.*Warrick*, R., & *Farmer*, G., *1992*, "The Greenhouse Effect, Climatic Change and Rising Sea Level: Implications for Development", _Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers_, Vol. 15, pp. 5-20.*Whitaker*, R., *2007*, _Understanding Climate Change: the Story of the Century_, ISBN13: 978-1-8770-6943-7*Wilson*, J. C., Jonsson, H. H., Brock, C. A., Toohey, D. W., Avallone, L. M., Baumgardner, D., Dye, J. E., Poole, L. R., Woods, D. C., DeCoursey, R. J., Osborn, M., Pitts, M. C., Kelly, K. K., Chan, K. R., Ferry, G. V., Loewenstein, M., Podolske, J. R., & Weaver, A., *1993*, "In Situ Observations of Aerosol and Chlorine Monoxide After Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: Effect of Reactions on Sulfate Aerosol", _Science_, Vol. 261, pp. 1140-1143.

----------


## John2b

> Although commonly regarded as not naturally occuring, halocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) do occur naturally and are emitted from volcanoes. This applies to both the environment and the atmosphere. As a consequence, we can expect that volcanic activity has a much higher impact on ozone depletion than previously thought.

  Incorrect. Naturally occurring halocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons make a small and quantifiable contribution to greenhouse gases that is quite well understood. You can easily see the effect of international regulations to reduce the impact of human sources of these gases.  
Mean mid-year tropospheric CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and nitrous oxide (N2O) concentrations in the northern (NH) hemisphere for the period 1765.5 to 2015.5 The concentrations are expressed as the mixing ratio (mole fraction) of the trace gas in dry air and are reported in parts-per-trillion (ppt) for CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CCl4, SF6 and as parts-per-billion (ppb) for N2O.

----------


## Marc

> Based on recent history, it would be surprising if the stuff Marc regurgitates in this forum was anything other than wrong. Someone seems to think that pasting countless pages of previously discredited twaddle somehow gives their ideology some kind of credibility. Maybe it does to wilfully ignorant OCWM.

  John, when referring to hypothesis, there are different positions from authors that know way more than you ... or me for that matter. I appreciate that you align with those authors that support the version you personally prefer. 
I prefer a different version for reasons I do not hide behind pretend altruism and universal salvation from various boogyman. 
You post stuff that supports one view, I post stuff that supports a different view. Everybody happy. 
I don't remember to go not even once googling the name of the twaddling author of your choice and attempt at discredit him as a person because I have it very clear that what "your" authors support is a bad idea created for alternative purposes not related to anything remotely close to the environment. So it is the idea that is the object of my criticism and the criticism of thousands of authors that oppose that line of thought. 
I ask you to please comply with minimum decorum and not to embarrass yourself by either writing that the author is demented, stupid, has 3 wives, is a pedophile was in gaol or is bankrupt... neither is very interesting and nothing changes the person's position or authority on matters regarding climate...or to use verbs or adjectives directed at shining a bad light on my person. When both are rather puerile, I ask you to refrain from using them any further. It has the opposite effect of putting you in a rather dim light and the question arises ... is that all you got?   
And the same applies to Woodbe and Homer.
I am sure it is not too much to ask.

----------


## John2b

> John, when referring to hypothesis, there are different positions from authors that know way more than you ... or me for that matter. I appreciate that you align with those authors that support the version you personally prefer.

  No Marc, that is not what I do. I am fully cognisant that I am not an expert in atmospheric physics. When a claim is made, I go to the source of the claim and see if it is substantiated by the original authors or the data. *Opinion* does not factor in *misrepresentation*. If you are correct about your position, why post stuff that is so easily shown to be a misrepresentation of the source of the information? 
Thanks for the tips on not criticising others.

----------


## woodbe

> Remember to only write in your replies what you would say in a face to face conversation with me. I am sure you would choose your words way more carefully in such situation. 
> And the same applies to Woodbe and Homer.

  This is a forum Marc. Have you noticed? 
A forum allows people to communicate with others that they have never met and probably never will. The tone of your request is clearly threatening. I do agree that we should be courteous to each other, but that is a personal decision and the mods will step in where required, as they have. My point is, if you want people to be courteous to you, why would you post a veiled threat? Are you trying to scare us into agreeing with your position? 
I will continue to point out basic errors in your posts. Quoting the marginalised, demented or oil industry shills as proof that the other 97% of scientists are wrong is not any worthwhile exercise. Wegman, Plimer, Casey? Really? 
see .sig

----------


## John2b

*Shell CEO Ben van Beurden says carbon price needed to tackle climate change*  "Putting, in one form or another, a real, clear price on carbon that compels people to act with rational economic actions, I think is something that we need"  Shell CEO Ben van Beurden says carbon price needed to tackle climate change - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  However, our request to policy-makers as they prepare for the UN talks is not to ask for special treatment for any resource, including natural gas, or any single route to a lower- carbon future. It is rather to ensure that the outcome of these talks leads to widespread carbon pricing in all countries.  Carbon pricing policies in every country will stimulate all forms of low-carbon technologies. It will drive energy efficiency as rapid urbanisation increases demand from our cities. It will benefit all sectors including power, mobility, heating and energy-intensive industries along with renewable energy and natural gas, the cleanest-burning fossil fuel. Market forces will operate to favour the least expensive and most efficient ways of reducing carbon in each country or region.  http://www.shell.com/global/aboutshe...ial-times.html

----------


## woodbe

To educate yourself on the agreement regarding Climate Change, please read James Powell's comment on the Cook 97% paper.   

> If the consensus were 97%, then if you read, say, 300 peer-reviewed  articles you should find on average 9 that reject AGW. Instead, to find  even a single rejecting article, you must read nearly 5,000. (Try this  yourself with a random selection of 300 peer-reviewed articles here.) *The true consensus on AGW cannot possibly be as low as 97%. 
> [...] * The only sound and practical way to  judge the extent of a scientific consensus is to search for articles  that reject the prevailing theory. For 2013 and 2014, I found that only 5  of 24,210 articles and 4 of 69,406 authors rejected anthropogenic  global warming, showing that the consensus on AGW is above 99.9% and  likely verges on unanimity.

  The best scientific papers you can find to support the position on your shrinking island would be from scientists who are on the island with you. Unfortunately, you will have to find people like Wegman, Plimmer and Casey. Here are some other islanders for you: Avakyan, Gervais (not Ricky  :Biggrin:  ), Happer, Hug.

----------


## dazzler

> John, when referring to hypothesis, there are different positions from authors that know way more than you ... or me for that matter. I appreciate that you align with those authors that support the version you personally prefer. 
> I prefer a different version for reasons I do not hide behind pretend altruism and universal salvation from various boogyman. 
> You post stuff that supports one view, I post stuff that supports a different view. Everybody happy. 
> I don't remember to go not even once googling the name of the twaddling author of your choice and attempt at discredit him as a person because I have it very clear that what "your" authors support is a bad idea created for alternative purposes not related to anything remotely close to the environment. So it is the idea that is the object of my criticism and the criticism of thousands of authors that oppose that line of thought. 
> I ask you to please comply with minimum decorum and not to embarrass yourself by either writing that the author is demented, stupid, has 3 wives, is a pedophile was in gaol or is bankrupt... neither is very interesting and nothing changes the person's position or authority on matters regarding climate...or to use verbs or adjectives directed at shining a bad light on my person. When both are rather puerile, I ask you to refrain from using them any further. It has the opposite effect of putting you in a rather dim light and the question arises ... is that all you got?   
> And the same applies to Woodbe and Homer.
> I am sure it is not too much to ask.

  Really Marc 
This is seriously the funniest thing you have ever wrote.  Priceless! 
Pot kettell black my friend. 
Go back through your posts as you will find quite possibly every descriptor imaginable to describe people. 
I attack your posts directly at you.  As I would do if I met you face to face.  But you see, using that line infers that one is weak and would be too scared to say it to you in person.  This is the internet Marc.  No one knows who we really are.   Marc, I would say exactly the same thing to you that I have said on here face to face.  You see, you are  here of your own free will.  I am not standing outside your house  calling you out.  You come and post on a forum thread that is solely  about debating Emission Trading and Climate Change.  It is a debate  thread.  Deal with it.  
I consider some of your posts to be bigoted.  That's not to say YOU are a bigot but the statement is.  Now, if you cant deal with your statement being called bigoted, or the view as being bigoted, or that someone who says such a thing could in all fairness be named a bigot, then you may as well leave.  
As is my criticism of much of what you post.  If YOU cant explain the content then why post it.  At least put a disclaimer on the bottom saying "I dont know what this actually means, or how it was determined, or who peer reviewed it, but I googled and found it so here it is".  Or words to that effect.  And I think this goes for all posters, for and against. 
So Marc seriously.  I think its time for you to get a grip on yourself.  You constantly attach descriptors to people based upon their views on here.  You constantly throw out stupid comments (like your refugee comment) and then cry foul when you are pulled up on it. 
Pot Kettle Black.

----------


## Bros

I have edited two posts for vulgar suggestions and hints of violence so children you can think about it for while before you post again.

----------


## johnc

We have certainly hit spring with a blast of heat down this way, hottest start to October ever.

----------


## Marc

Home  Weather News  Sydney's coldest September in five years  *Weather News*  *Sydney's coldest September in five years*  Press Release, Thursday September 30, 2010 - 12:49 EST
After their coldest winter in 13 years Sydney residents have just experienced their coldest September in five years, according to weatherzone.com.au.   
Global warming aaaaaah !!!!!!!! :Aargh:

----------


## John2b

> *Sydney's coldest September in five years*

  How cold was it in Sydney in September? Not cold at all, according to the temperature record:  Maximum temperatures were 0.5°C above average for Sydney, with most of the greater Sydney region recording cool days in the first week of September; and in the days after the 22nd. The warmest day was 29.8°C recorded on 15th, with warm conditions throughout Sydney around the middle of the month associated with a high pressure system which brought clear and calm conditions. Generally, Sydney records 1-2 days above 28°C during September. Minimum temperatures were 0.6°C above average. Four nights fell below 10°C, well below the historical average of 11 nights. Despite both days and nights being above average, September temperatures were the coolest since 1997 for Sydney.  Sydney in September 2015

----------


## johnc

> How cold was it in Sydney in September? Not cold at all, according to the temperature record:  Maximum temperatures were 0.5°C above average for Sydney, with most of the greater Sydney region recording cool days in the first week of September; and in the days after the 22nd. The warmest day was 29.8°C recorded on 15th, with warm conditions throughout Sydney around the middle of the month associated with a high pressure system which brought clear and calm conditions. Generally, Sydney records 1-2 days above 28°C during September. Minimum temperatures were 0.6°C above average. Four nights fell below 10°C, well below the historical average of 11 nights. Despite both days and nights being above average, September temperatures were the coolest since 1997 for Sydney.  Sydney in September 2015

  
Did you notice that with Marc's standard attention to detail and desire for accuracy his link is actually 2010, another classic.

----------


## John2b

> Did you notice that with Marc's standard attention to detail and desire for accuracy his link is actually 2010, another classic.

  Ha ha. I was so earnest in looking for a corroborating source that I overlooked the overt calumny in his post! I need to be a better sceptic...

----------


## John2b

> Ha ha. I was so earnest in looking for a corroborating source that I overlooked the overt calumny in his post! I need to be a better sceptic...

  Here's what Weatherzone said of the 'cold snap' in Sydney in 2010:   The city had an average maximum temperature of 21 degrees, making it the coldest September in terms of daytime temperatures in three years.* This is despite being warmer than the long-term norm of 20.* The most notable feature was a lack of warm days. It took until the 27th to warm to 27 degrees, the longest it's taken in 17 years. There was a 23-day period that stayed colder than 25 degrees, the longest in September in 10 years.   The nights were not particularly cold overall, averaging a minimum of 12.3 degrees, one above the long-term average. This made it the coldest in terms of overnight minimums in two years. There were only six nights that cooled below 10 degrees, typically there are are 11 nights.   When both daytime and overnight temperatures were combined, Sydney?s average temperature came in at just under 17 degrees. This made it the coldest September in five years, *despite being one degree above the the long-term norm*.  http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/sydneys-coldest-september-in-five-years/15106

----------


## PhilT2

The El Nino is reported to be intensifying which will mean a warm summer with a greater chance of lower than average rainfall for Qld. Much of the state is already in drought. On the other side of the pacific California has yet to receive the rain that the El Nino usually brings. But South Carolina got a little wet with 16 inches of rain on Sunday. Still, it's only weather....

----------


## Marc

Thursday, 1 October 2015 - Monthly Climate Summary for Sydney - Product code IDCKGC15L0*Sydney in September 2015: Wet month with coolest temperatures since 1997*  Rainfall in Sydney was above-average for September, particularly along the coastal fringes. Days and nights were above average, with conditions cooler in western parts of Sydney. Warm days and nights compared to average, but coolest since 1997Above-average rainfall 
And here is what your own link provides. 
Clearly cause for alarm. 
We must all go and live in caves and eat lettuce and sign a treaty with the UN to tell us what to do because clearly we are lost without them. 
Can you please explain the relationship between your disparaging personal comments about feet and guns to the matter of cultism and global warming?

----------


## woodbe

Marc, even if Sydney had the coldest September since 1997, it is just one month and one location.  
Have you looked at a map of Australia? Sydney is a tiny dot on the smallest continent on the planet. It's normal to have variations against the long term trend, that's what weather is. 
Weather is not climate. 
One month in one city is not cause for alarm. Look for trends over 20+ years and you are looking at climate.

----------


## Marc

> Marc, even if Sydney had the coldest September since 1997, it is just one month and one location.  
> Have you looked at a map of Australia? Sydney is a tiny dot on the smallest continent on the planet. It's normal to have variations against the long term trend, that's what weather is. 
> Weather is not climate. 
> One month in one city is not cause for alarm. Look for trends over 20+ years and you are looking at climate.

  Yes, Woodbe I noticed.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): In fact my reply was ... in case someone missed it ... tongue in cheek because it is rather tiring that each time we have one and a half day of hot weather, the media takes it upon themselves to interview the most extreme alarmist who claim that from now on life on the planet will be limited to Antarctica and surroundings due to your car and mine. 
So yes, wether it is, yet hot weather sells advertising space but cold weather does not. At least not in Australia apparently.

----------


## John2b

> So yes, wether it is, yet hot weather sells advertising space but cold weather does not. At least not in Australia apparently.

  Cold weather might be a news item if the Earth had just had 367 straight months of below average weather. Instead it has been 367 continuous months of above average temperature.  http://phys.org/news/2015-02-years-a...s-climate.html

----------


## woodbe

> Yes, Woodbe I noticed. In fact my reply was ... in case someone missed it ... tongue in cheek

  Nope, you need to work on your tongue in cheek language. 
It is normal for warm weather to be reported because that is what we have. The long term trend is up across the whole planet and the science has been showing us why for a very long time. I know it's not something you agree with, but that doesn't alter the facts. See .sig.

----------


## John2b

A consequence expected from global warming is more chaotic weather.  "In the 119 years of record keeping, what Perth experienced was the earliest arrival of spring, marked by temperatures exceeding 30C. But, that was just a teaser, and the temperatures dropped by 10 degrees the very next day.  "Ten days later, Melbourne, the capital of the state of Victoria, recorded its coldest pair of days in 15 years. Hobart, Tasmania, dragged itself up to a mere 10C, five degrees below average." 
Who wudda thort?  Five days of record-breaking temperatures in Australia - Al Jazeera English

----------


## phild01

> Ha ha. I was so earnest in looking for a corroborating source that I overlooked the overt calumny in his post! I need to be a better sceptic...

  _"calumny" - what was the false statement and how was it defaming?
This usage may border being inflammatory!_

----------


## John2b

> _"calumny" - what was the false statement and how was it defaming?_

  It doesn't have to be a false statement, just one that is intended to misrepresent and/or injure someone or something, in this case the science of climate change.

----------


## John2b

> We must all go and live in caves and eat lettuce and sign a treaty with the UN to tell us what to do because clearly we are lost without them.

  Far from the UN being a forum for gay green world government, it turns out that influence of the UN has been for sale to big business and wealthy businessmen. U.N. General Assembly president from September 2013 to September 2014, John Ashe, and others face charges for allegedly using their positions as a "platform for profit," the U.S. federal prosecutor says.  Former U.N. leader John Ashe charged - CNN.com

----------


## PhilT2

Bribery in relation to big construction contracts...gee, never heard of that before....

----------


## Marc

Global Warming, Fanatics, and FreedomPeople who claim to be making the world a better place have often delivered misery. The Soviets, for example, said they were building a more equal society. Instead, they murdered tens of millions.The environment is important. But so are other things. The freedoms that generations of our forbearers sacrificed and died for cannot be brushed aside in the name of saving the planet. Do we want to live in a world:  where asking questions is considered immoral?where industries that have helped us achieve long, prosperous lives are demonized?where elected politicians who think differently than unelected activists are jailed?
Most people concerned about global warming are sensible individuals who know the ends don't justify the means. But every movement has its extremists. And in this case, those extremists are hearing some disturbing messages about our right to hold different points-of-view. Gro Harlem Brundtland, the United Nations' Special Envoy on Climate Change, insists:*"It is irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to question the seriousness of the situation we are in."* [p. 2, paragraph 3] James Hansen, NASA's activist scientist and Al Gore's science advisor, thinks oil company bosses should be put on trial for challenging the global warming hypothesis.*"I'm not a lawyer, I don't know how you do it, but it seems to me that it is, indeed, a crime against humanity and nature."*[news story here] [quote comes from mp3 here] David Suzuki, a Canadian activist scientist who is critical of elected officials' response to global warming, has advised audiences:*"What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act."* [source]  
Environmental activists who believe their cause is more important than other people's *free speech*aren't hard to find. DeSmogBlog.com argues that alternative perspectives on global warming amount to a plot to confuse and mislead the public. In other words, everyone else is a deliberate liar who has no right to be heard. Declares DeSmogBlog: "_Free speech does not include the right to deceive._" [read acritique of DeSmogBlog here]    The American Library Association *says*:_Intellectual freedom is the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be explored.__Intellectual freedom is the basis for our democratic system._Green activists who attempt to silence the voices of climate skeptics threaten intellectual freedom as well as free speech. *http://tinyurl.com/ifreedom*     
It's difficult to dismiss the DeSmogBlog group as fringe players who don't represent mainstream environmentalism. Its founder, James Hoggan, is currently the chairman of the David Suzuki Foundation and the author of _Climate Cover-up_ - which has received rave reviews from Leonardo DiCaprio and NASA's James Hansen. DeSmogBlog's operating officer, Kevin Grandia, was "trained by Al Gore."
Nor do environmentalists stop at repudiating free speech. *Democracy itself is now being presented as a problem* that must be solved in the interests of saving the planet. According to the authors of _The__Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy_, liberal democracy must give way to "a form of authoritarian government by experts." [Experts have often been spectacularly wrong. See here, hereand here.]
The online description of another book, _The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty_, indicates that its author proposes "constitutional and multilateral arrangements that could help transform the liberal democratic state into a postliberal green democratic state." In other words, if we can't convince the electorate to undertake the measures we believe are necessary, we'll have to replace democracy with a re-jigged system that ensures our own point of view prevails.
Three-time Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman has argued in the pages of the _New York Times_ thathuman-rights abusing China's system of government is superior to American democracy. In his words, its leaders are "a reasonably enlightened group of people" who (because they don't have to worry about that pesky matter of getting re-elected) "can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century." Such measures, in Friedman's view, include promoting clean power, energy efficiency, and "boosting gasoline prices, from the top down." *Individual freedoms* are also imperiled by the concept of personal carbon rationing, which has been discussed seriously since at least 2006. This means that ordinary people's vacations, educational opportunities, and job prospects could be restricted for the good of the planet. In a blog post on May 28th, 2007 [near the bottom of the list of comments], one person illustrates such thinking: *"The cases* [sic]* for exemptions on the grounds of educational benefit or overseas charitable work sound weak to me. In the case of students, there is nothing stopping parents or relatives from saving or transferring their allowance to the student..."* Again and again we're told that global warming effects every part of our life - and that individuals, communities and nations must now do everything differently. A 2009 report commissioned by the British government declares: "Global, national and local systems...must be re-engineered" [p. 2, paragraph 2]. The authors of the report say a new world order is inevitable, and that countries that choose not to participate in international carbon reduction programs could be excommunicated.
Such countries would "sit outside the international system and [be] effectively barred from all forms of international cooperation" including trade [p. 29, 3 paragraphs from the bottom]. Vaclav Klaus, the current President of the Czech Republic, is the author of _Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?_ Klaus involuntarily lived most of his life under Communist rule and is, therefore, sensitive to the notion that there is "only one permitted truth" in  public debate. He is also suspicious of a movement "which puts nature...before and above freedom."
While he believes we have a responsibility to protect the environment on behalf of future generations, he considers it another matter altogether to embark on "ambitious attempts to radically reorganize and change the world, human society, our behavior and our values."
Global-warming activists say we must act for the sake of our children and grandchildren. But how grateful will those children be if we leave them a planet in which:  free speech and other democratic rights have disappearedvoters in individual countries are no longer able to chart their own destiniesgovernment bureaucrats decide whether you'll be permitted to take a flight to visit a dying friend - or whether your child has sufficient carbon credits to study abroad   In May 2010 BBC radio devoted an entire 30-minute program to a discussion of *whether democracy should be abandoned* so that governments can impose anti-global-warming measures. Here are some of the scary comments made by those appearing on the show: *Mayer Hillman*: "I think it’s irrelevant how I sound. I’m just trying to talk commonsense...there are times in history when democracy has to be set aside because of our wider obligation."*Michael Jacobs*: "I don’t think it’s right to call something anti-democratic if it has the consent of the public, even if you couldn’t say that they were actively in favour of it."*Halina Ward*: "We don’t have to be driven by what 50% plus 1 of the population wants [in order] to say that we represent a majority view...I think what this really points to is in a democracy are there issues where the sum of individual views can be overridden by something else..."     
>> Bullies need not apply
>> Green time capsule: 1970 eco ideas not pretty
>> Climate skepticism is free speech
>> Can we recycle Bono?  _[last edit: Sept 23, 2010]_

----------


## John2b

> The freedoms that generations of our forbearers sacrificed and died for cannot be brushed aside in the name of saving the planet.

  Who is going to decide which species and which humans must be eliminated to maintain the 'freedoms' of a select few hundred million in the industrialised world? The 'free' market? One thing is absolutely certain - there isn't enough of everything like food, water and other resources on this planet for 7 billion humans to live like you and I do.  Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century.  Unlike past mass extinctions, caused by events like asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions, and natural climate shifts, the current crisis is almost entirely caused by us — humans. In fact, 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming. Because the rate of change in our biosphere is increasing, and because every species’ extinction potentially leads to the extinction of others bound to that species in a complex ecological web, numbers of extinctions are likely to snowball in the coming decades as ecosystems unravel.  What's your solution Marc? 
http://www.biologica...inction_crisis/

----------


## PhilT2

> According to the authors of _The__Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy_, liberal democracy must give way to "a form of authoritarian government by experts."  _[last edit: Sept 23, 2010]_

  Don't these guys have a right to free speech as well?

----------


## Marc

Everyone has the right to free speech, providing they are not inciting to illegal or violent acts.
The end... as far fetched as it my seem to me and as much as others may classify it as imperative in order to save "the planet" or the frog, or the grass ... does not justify the means. 
To say that a totalitarian government is necessary and that democracy is in the way to achieve whatever this people would like to see happening, is clearly a criminal act that should be prosecuted. In fact it is classified as treason since we have a sovereign and democratically elected system of government.  
Don't hold your breath though ... just like many other similar events we see unfold around us, governments take no action that may damage their vote base, regardless of the legality or illegalities in question.  Global Warming, Fanatics, and FreedomPeople who claim to be making the world a better place have often delivered misery. The Soviets, for example, said they were building a more equal society. Instead, they murdered tens of millions.The environment is important. But so are other things. The freedoms that generations of our forbearers sacrificed and died for cannot be brushed aside in the name of saving the planet. Do we want to live in a world:   where asking questions is considered immoral?where industries that have helped us achieve long, prosperous lives are demonized?where elected politicians who think differently than unelected activists are jailed? 
To propose a "solution" one must first define the problem and understand it's causes. Neither is the case with "global warming" nor the extinction of species. Furthermore to mix both is intentionally misleading. 
What is next? The link between sales of Amway face cream by the western middle aged women and lack of rain in North Korea?

----------


## John2b

> Don't these guys have a right to free speech as well?

  No, apparently free speech is a privilege for older conservative white men only.  People nearly everywhere, including majorities in developed Asia and Latin America, are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities rather than natural causes. The U.S. is the exception, with nearly half (47%) -- and the largest percentage in the world -- attributing global warming to natural causes.  Worldwide, Blame for Climate Change Falls on Humans 
Opposition to reaching an agreement in Paris this year on mitigating climate change is remarkably low:  In the US, the opposition was as high as 17 per cent. This was followed by Norway on 10 per cent, Sweden (8 per cent) and Britain (7 per cent). 1 per cent of the Chinese population disagreed with signing an agreement on climate change. 
Outside of the US in the second largest emitter of CO2, China, only 1% of the population is opposed to signing an agreement to mitigate climate change. And about 60 per cent of those in China believed the country should take a leadership role in tackling climate change, but they don't have a right to free speech either. 
In Australia, the proportion of people in Marc's camp who _don't_ want Australia to sign an international agreement on climate change is *just 3%!*  Climate change: YouGov survey reveals some donâ€™t want action

----------


## John2b

> To say that a totalitarian government is necessary and that democracy is in the way to achieve whatever this people would like to see happening, is clearly a criminal act that should be prosecuted.

  Who said that? When did they say it? I only come across it as a as a misrepresentation or a construct repeated by AGW deniers.

----------


## Marc

The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy (Politics and the Environment)                                               1st Edition           
                                                    by                                                                                                         David Shearman                                                                            (Author),                                                                                                                                                          Joseph Wayne Smith                                                                            (Author 
Climate change threatens the future of civilization, but humanity is impotent in effecting solutions. Even in those nations with a commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions, they continue to rise. This failure mirrors those in many other spheres that deplete the fish of the sea, erode fertile land, destroy native forests, pollute rivers and streams, and utilize the world's natural resources beyond their replacement rate. In this provocative book, Shearman and Smith present evidence that the fundamental problem causing environmental destruction—and climate change in particular—is the operation of liberal democracy. Its flaws and contradictions bestow upon government—and its institutions, laws, and the markets and corporations that provide its sustenance—an inability to make decisions that could provide a sustainable society.
Having argued that democracy has failed humanity, the authors go even further and demonstrate that this failure can easily lead to authoritarianism without our even noticing. Even more provocatively, they assert that there is merit in preparing for this eventuality if we want to survive climate change. They are not suggesting that existing authoritarian regimes are more successful in mitigating greenhouse emissions, for to be successful economically they have adopted the market system with alacrity. Nevertheless, the authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power. There are in existence highly successful authoritarian structures—for example, in medicine and in corporate empires—that are capable of implementing urgent decisions impossible under liberal democracy. Society is verging on a philosophical choice between liberty or life. But there is a third way between democracy and authoritarianism that the authors leave for the final chapter. Having brought the reader to the realization that in order to halt or even slow the disastrous process of climate change we must choose between liberal democracy and a form of authoritarian government by experts, the authors offer up a radical reform of democracy that would entail the painful choice of curtailing our worldwide reliance on growth economies, along with various legal and fiscal reforms. Unpalatable as this choice may be, they argue for the adoption of this fundamental reform of democracy over the journey to authoritarianism.  
........................................
Not different from the argument by religious fanatics that our polluted legal system must be changed by a more moral and purely inspired religious law.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Not different from the argument by religious fanatics that our polluted legal system must be changed by a more moral and purely inspired religious law.

  No it isn't.  And is therefore spectacularly unrealistic as a climate adaptation technique. 
Bring on the Utopian Dystopia! :Happydance:

----------


## John2b

> The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy (Politics and the Environment)

  What are you suggesting that every person who is concerned for the environment has somehow unknowingly accepted this old book as gospel? I doubt many people have ever heard of it. 
The process of democracy is what is leading the world to a climate agreement. So if democracy is broken are you arguing we need an authoritarian government? How does this accommodate your precious 'freedom of speech'?

----------


## Marc

> No it isn't.  And is therefore spectacularly unrealistic as a climate adaptation technique.

  Says who? 
 The argument is surprisingly similar and equally demented. 
 Bring on totalitarianism because free speech and democracy is immoral and in the way of achieving what "we" (the enlightened one) want to achieve "for your own good".".

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Says who? 
>  The argument is surprisingly similar and equally demented. 
>  Bring on totalitarianism because free speech and democracy is immoral and in the way of achieving what "we" (the enlightened one) want to achieve "for your own good".".

  Dude.  Have another read. I know English is not your first language but that's no excuse for not even trying to do more than simply jump to conclusions.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The process of democracy is what is leading the world to a climate agreement.

  I think you'll find that the market is leading democracy (and other 'ocracies' of government) to something that might look like a climate agreement...eventually. Whether that agreement generates any positive outcomes is merely the next thing to argue about. 
In the meantime...dystopian utopia. Or was that the other way around?

----------


## John2b

> I think you'll find that the market is leading democracy (and other 'ocracies' of government) to something that might look like a climate agreement...eventually. Whether that agreement generates any positive outcomes is merely the next thing to argue about.

  Fair call. I do have some sense that this time is different and that is cause for a modicum of optimism.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I do have some sense that this time is different and that is cause of a modicum of optimism.

  This time IS different. The question is whether it is better.  
My given unit of optimism rarely strays from 'what will happen, will happen'.  After that I choose to either run, duck or dance as and wherever necessary.

----------


## Marc

> Dude.  Have another read. I know English is not your first language but that's no excuse for not even trying to do more than simply jump to conclusions.

  Your inference is out of line and your attempt at putting lipstick on a pig noted. 
Nothing changes the fact that some of the global warming activist are extremist. Oh yes we know it is not all ... only a small minority (who said that recently?) ... yet those are the one leading the debate ... even when the debate has ended... 
I wonder how long until we have "green wars"

----------


## PhilT2

> Everyone has the right to free speech, providing they are not *inciting* to illegal or violent acts.
> The end... as far fetched as it my seem to me and as much as others may classify it as imperative in order to save "the planet" or the frog, or the grass ... does not justify the means. 
> To* say* that a totalitarian government is necessary and that democracy is in the way to achieve whatever this people would like to see happening, is clearly a criminal act that should be prosecuted. In fact it is classified as treason since we have a sovereign and democratically elected system of government.

  The law hinges on the difference here.

----------


## johnc

> Your inference is out of line and your attempt at putting lipstick on a pig noted. 
> Nothing changes the fact that some of the global warming activist are extremist. Oh yes we know it is not all ... only a small minority (who said that recently?) ... yet those are the one leading the debate ... even when the debate has ended... 
> I wonder how long until we have "green wars"

  Barely plausible conclusions from what is a convoluted and chaotic preamble does not pass the most basic tests. That applies to the cut and paste, however it equally applies to your implication that a tiny minority of extremists are leading the debate.  
Yes the debate has ended, the extremists are long ago sidelined even though they never really existed and the world has moved on. We still have a rear guard action from those opposing change but few are listening. This was never about extremists, it was a few industry figures who managed to get a ragtag following to slow the pace of change, they succeeded and those figures have now settled back comforted they gave themselves time to adjust and it is now just the ragtag camp followers who are slowly running out of steam.

----------


## Marc

It would be nice to believe that. 
It's a pity that it is not true.  
The reality is that the extremist have left the trenches, got in a suit and found a position in the UN or in various governments or media outlet, whispering in the ear of the puppets in charge. 
The industrialist have adapted and are now pretending to be green, polluting by manufacturing so called renewables and pocketing billions in subsidies as they have done before only much better. 
Everyone is on the bandwagon for a quid. The enthusiast that are too late to sign up to something, anything, believing they have won are left watching the empty seats, and tasting the crumbs left on the table after the wedding. 
The bastard sons of ideology and totalitarianism are conceived behind closed doors 
The sceptics have long left in disgust.

----------


## johnc

> It would be nice to believe that. 
> It's a pity that it is not true.  
> The reality is that the extremist have left the trenches, got in a suit and found a position in the UN or in various governments or media outlet, whispering in the ear of the puppets in charge. 
> The industrialist have adapted and are now pretending to be green, polluting by manufacturing so called renewables and pocketing billions in subsidies as they have done before only much better. 
> Everyone is on the bandwagon for a quid. The enthusiast that are too late to sign up to something, anything, believing they have won are left watching the empty seats, and tasting the crumbs left on the table after the wedding. 
> The bastard sons of ideology and totalitarianism are conceived behind closed doors 
> The septics have long left in disgust.

  That is so pre 1966, we no longer have quids, perhaps after almost 50 years we can let go the past. 
Whispering in the ears of puppets? that wont work, a puppet has no brains or capacity to hear.
Billions in subsidies, as if!
Out of interest out of Totalitarianism and Ideology which is male and which is female?, enquiring minds would like to know. 
This is just a few labels thrown together along with the odd weird phrase, it has nothing to support itself, there is no substance, vacuous nonsense at best.

----------


## John2b

> This is just a few labels thrown together along with the odd weird phrase, it has nothing to support itself, there is no substance, vacuous nonsense at best.

  Well said.

----------


## woodbe

> Everyone has the right to free speech, providing they are not inciting to illegal or violent acts.

  So Marc, should you censor yourself after the recent moderation over your threatening post ? lol...

----------


## dazzler

Hey. Where out of the naughty corner.  
Yayyyyy!     :Wink:   
🐵🙈🙉🙊

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Your inference is out of line and your attempt at putting lipstick on a pig noted.

  Marc...for the love of Huey...read the sodding post AGAIN! 
I was agreeing with your statement. Though I was quibbling with your intent. 
Sheesh!!!! 
As for 'green wars'....the first water war will happen in the next twenty years. Either over the Nile, Ganges or Euphrates...take your pick.

----------


## PhilT2

> As for 'green wars'....the first water war will happen in the next twenty years. Either over the Nile, Ganges or Euphrates...take your pick.

  War break out in the middle east.. surely not. I think the Syrian conflict is water related and the ongoing israel-Palestine non-conflict has some water related issues. And in parts of Africa. Problem is these things never have one clear cut cause so we may never be able to point to one event and say climate change caused it. But in lots of places it is already adding to existing tensions.

----------


## dazzler

> War break out in the middle east.. surely not. I think the Syrian conflict is water related

  Definitely a player. 10 yrs of drought and huge migration from rural areas into the overburdened cities is a stressor.  
Add in the Iraq refugees as well.   
🐵🙈🙉🙊

----------


## PhilT2

Years ago Turkey dammed the Euphrates and their control of the flow has been a source of tension with Syria. The Syrians have also dammed the river and limit the flow down into Iraq. So in times of drought each country makes the situation worse for its neighbour downstream by diverting water for their own needs. 
I'm not sure how much of the flow of either the Euphrates or the Tigris is dependent on glacier melt but if so then the situation will deteriorate as the glaciers disappear. 
Oh well, its not like peace was about to happen anyway.

----------


## Marc

Jack had an ingrown toenail.
It got infected yet his mother had no money to take him to the doctor so a backyard healer put some potions on his finger.
It didn't get any better so another quack cut his finger off.
Finally he was rushed to another town's hospital on a two days horseback journey, and his leg had to be amputated.
Years later he was hobbling along a cliff edge when a goat headbutted him and he fell to his death.
On his epitaph you can read ... died from an ingrown toenail. 
To say that the current migration crisis in the middle east is due to water (or global warming) uses the same logic.    *The Roots of the Migration Crisis*  *The Syrian refugee disaster is a result of the Middle East’s failure to grapple with modernity and Europe’s failure to defend its ideals*  By WALTER RUSSELL MEAD 
Sept. 11, 2015 2:16 p.m. ET  The migration crisis enveloping Europe and much of the Middle East today is one of the worst humanitarian disasters since the 1940s. Millions of desperate people are on the march: Sunni refugees driven out by the barbarity of the Assad regime in Syria, Christians and Yazidis fleeing the pornographic violence of Islamic State, millions more of all faiths and no faith fleeing poverty and oppression without end. Parents are entrusting their lives and the lives of their young children to rickety boats and unscrupulous criminal syndicates along the Mediterranean coast, professionals and business people are giving up their livelihoods and investments, farmers are abandoning their land, and from North Africa to Syria, the sick and the old are on the road, carrying a few treasured belongings on a new trail of tears. *RELATED READING*   Obscure German Tweet Helped Spur Migrant March From Hungary (Sept. 10)Migration and Euro Pose Similar Challenges for Europe (Sept. 10)Europe’s Migrant Crisis Explained(Sept. 10)Would New Borders Mean Less Conflict in the Middle East?(April 10)Immigration and Islam: Europe’s Crisis of Faith(Jan. 16)The Plight of the Middle East’s Christians (May 15)    It is the first migration crisis of the 21st century, but it is unlikely to be the last. The rise of identity politics across the Middle East and much of sub-Saharan Africa is setting off waves of violence like those that tore apart the Balkans and the Ottoman Empire in the 19th and 20th centuries. The hatreds and rivalries driving endangered communities to exile and destruction have a long history. They probably have a long future as well. What we are witnessing today is a crisis of two civilizations: The Middle East and Europe are both facing deep cultural and political problems that they cannot solve. The intersection of their failures and shortcomings has made this crisis much more destructive and dangerous than it needed to be—and carries with it the risk of more instability and more war in a widening spiral. The crisis in the Middle East has to do with much more than the breakdown of order in Syria and Libya. It runs deeper than the poisonous sectarian and ethnic hatreds behind the series of wars stretching from Pakistan to North Africa. At bottom, we are witnessing the consequences of a civilization’s failure either to overcome or to accommodate the forces of modernity. One hundred years after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and 50 years after the French left Algeria, the Middle East has failed to build economies that allow ordinary people to live with dignity, has failed to build modern political institutions and has failed to carve out the place of honor and respect in world affairs that its peoples seek. http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-root...sis-1441995372

----------


## UseByDate

> Jack had an ingrown toenail. It got infected yet his mother had no money to take him to the doctor so a backyard healer put some potions on his finger. It didn't get any better so another quack cut his finger off. Finally he was rushed to another town's hospital on a two days horseback journey, and his leg had to be amputated. Years later he was hobbling along a cliff edge when a goat headbutted him and he fell to his death. On his epitaph you can read ... died from an ingrown toenail.   To say that the current migration crisis in the middle east is due to water (or global warming) uses the same logic.

    Cut off his finger because he had an ingrown toenail seems, even to me, a complete layman, a bit silly. :Doh:

----------


## PhilT2

Many species of the genus "logical fallacy" are known to inhabit this forum. In particular the "straw man" and "single cause" variety are common inhabitants of this area.

----------


## dazzler

> Jack had an ingrown toenail.
> It got infected yet his mother had no money to take him to the doctor so a backyard healer put some potions on his finger.
> It didn't get any better so another quack cut his finger off.
> Finally he was rushed to another town's hospital on a two days horseback journey, and his leg had to be amputated.
> Years later he was hobbling along a cliff edge when a goat headbutted him and he fell to his death.
> On his epitaph you can read ... died from an ingrown toenail. 
> To say that the current migration crisis in the middle east is due to water (or global warming) uses the same logic.    *The Roots of the Migration Crisis*  *The Syrian refugee disaster is a result of the Middle Easts failure to grapple with modernity and Europes failure to defend its ideals*
>  [COLOR=#333333][FONT=Arial] By WALTER RUSSELL MEAD 
> Sept. 11, 2015 2:16 p.m. ET  The migration crisis enveloping Europe and much of the Middle East today is one of the worst humanitarian disasters since the 1940s. Millions of desperate people are on the march: Sunni refugees driven out by the barbarity of the Assad regime in Syria, Christians and Yazidis fleeing the pornographic violence of Islamic State, millions more of all faiths and no faith fleeing poverty and oppression without end. Parents are entrusting their lives and the lives of their young children to rickety boats and unscrupulous criminal syndicates along the Mediterranean coast, professionals and business people are giving up their livelihoods and investments, farmers are abandoning their land, and from North Africa to Syria, the sick and the old are on the road, carrying a few treasured belongings on a new trail of tears.
> [/URL]

  
Well there we go. Marc has googled and found the reason for the Syrian crisis. Well done Marc.  
Let's look at who you found to quote. The current professor on US Foreign policy at Yale and supported the Iraq war instead of continued sanctions "to contain Saddam Hussain".  
That would be the same Saddam that the US funded wouldn't it.  
Spare me Marc if I don't put too much weight on his opinion.  
The Wests meddling in the Middle East, and the support of their chosen dictator when it suits, has severely damaged the region. Most citizens in those areas are far stronger and endure hardship better than the pampered west and tend to roll with the political punches, when you are starving, your crops are dead, your animals are dead and your life is at risk you tend to move.  
But you should stick with your original statements Marc. At least it was your own work.

----------


## Marc

Bravo Homer, i see that amidst the  beer haze you can see a bit of reality. So the illegal migrants are not due to global warming. Well we agree on something. 
Use By Date, you disappoint me. Clearly you have not read Mark Twain.

----------


## John2b

> I ask you to please comply with minimum decorum and not to embarrass yourself by either writing that the author is demented, stupid, has 3 wives, is a -deleted- was in gaol or is bankrupt... neither is very interesting and nothing changes the person's position or authority on matters regarding climate ... both are rather puerile, I ask you to refrain from using them any further. It has the opposite effect of putting you in a rather dim light and the question arises ... is that all you got?" 
> And the same applies to Woodbe and Homer.
> I am sure it is not too much to ask.

   

> Bravo Homer, i see that amidst the beer haze you can see a bit of reality.

  Obviously too much to ask you apply it to your own posts. It must be all you have...

----------


## dazzler

> Bravo Homer, i see that amidst the  beer haze you can see a bit of reality. So the illegal migrants are not due to global warming. Well we agree on something. 
> Use By Date, you disappoint me. Clearly you have not read Mark Twain.

  No we don't agree Marc. 
Syrian refugees are a result of both man made and natural issues. 
The region has been destabilised over a number years by conflict and manipulation of govts around it.  
What has added to it, as I explained it to you earlier in response to your silly comments about chopping and shooting RPGs at each other as the root cause, is that Syria has experienced the wait for; 
The worst drought on record resulting in the mass migration of rural populations to the cities.  These refugees combine with those from Iraq and get stuck in the middle of a conflict and leave.  
Is the worst drought on record due to climate change?  I have no idea. I do know that scientists have predicted that communities will be effected by climate change in the way these rural people have been effected.  And they also suggest that climate change has a multiplying affect on global instability.  
So YES, many of the refugees are environmental refugees. Are they climate change refugees? I don't have the scientific knowledge to say though scientists suggest it as a factor.  
I think we can agree that neither of us have sufficient expertise to say. Though I think by now you have sufficient understanding of the situation to accept that the refugee crisis is not a result of them chopping and shooting RPGs at each other.  
And I have not read Twain.  I have read an inordinate amount on failed states and the effect they have on increased terrorism as my job required it. So if you have questions on that I am happy to help out.

----------


## Marc

The middle east has been a basket case for a very long time ... hundreds of years if not thousands. What was common practice then is still "practiced" today and that is the main problem. Yes, I summarised it with shooting RPG at each other. That is the root of the problem, hate and an outdated tribal behaviour. 
A behaviour that both encourages and depends from tyranny to hold some resemblance of stability among the chaos. 
Take away the tyrant and you take away the restrain, and you get what we have now.
Democracy is a bad idea in the middle east. Only totalitarian regimes have a chance. And murder even mass murder just part of government measures required.
Intervention by the west is of course also a bad idea. 
Intervention under false pretenses, even worst. 
Pretending that it has to do with climate change is just a big joke.

----------


## John2b

> The middle east has been a basket case for a very long time ... hundreds of years if not thousands. What was common practice then is still "practiced" today and that is the main problem. Yes, I summarised it with shooting RPG at each other. That is the root of the problem, hate and an outdated tribal behaviour. A behaviour that both encourages and depends from tyranny to hold some resemblance of stability among the chaos.  Take away the tyrant and you take away the restrain, and you get what we have now.

  How is that any different to Europe, where each nation state can be traced back to different tribes? Poland has been invaded and annexed under five or more different totalitarian rules for most of the past 1000 years until quite recently when the Soviets left. So what do you expect for Poland now the tyrants have gone? 
Poland, by the way, has a very low level of industrialisation of the food production industry. When I last visited a few years ago it was obvious that the country was already almost in a state of panic over the effects of climate change on agricultural productivity. 
"There have been significant changes in Polish agriculture recently. These changes have taken place under the influence of political transformation after 1989 as well as the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union after 2004. However, despite of development and intensification of agriculture (e.g. growth of the use of fertilizers), yields of most crops have not increased, which can be associated with adverse effects of climate change. 
"A direct impact of climate change on agricultural production is expressed by the change in weather conditions optimal for plant growth and the amount of yields. These are following: thermal conditions, total precipitation, frequency and intensity of extreme events, as well as increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and ozone in the lower atmosphere. The factors that indirectly determine yielding of plants also change together with the climate change. These are: growing and fertilization requirements, occurrence and escalation of plants’ diseases and pests, erosion , degradation of organic matter in the soil and more. These interactions may influence the development of technology and the organization of agricultural production. 
"Climate changes can also affect livestock production by limiting the accessibility of pastures and crops intended for animal feed or by the changes in ranges and vectors of the spread of farm animal diseases and parasites. 
"The research that has been conducted shows that the noted increase of average temperatures in Poland of about 0.8 °C is important for  maturation of thermophilic crops (corn) and contributes to acceleration of pest development creating a greater threat for crops."  Agriculture 
Changes in Australia are at the lower range of global changes, with some areas of Europe at the upper range. It is easy for us here in our ignorance to pooh pooh what's happening elsewhere.     http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/fe...ker/page2.html

----------


## Marc

Are we talking about Poland now? 
You could have chosen Italy. Best example of tribalism or Principati like they called it.
But they are over it. 
I don't see any polish or italian religious tribal wars.
I said it before I say it again. We can argue about the global warming BS, if it is CO2 or intestinal gas, but to say that tornados, earthquakes, riots or migration has to do with Global Warming is low even for global warming activist standard.

----------


## John2b

> We can argue about the global warming BS

  No, there is no argument. Every technology used today is a consequence of the understanding of the laws of physics and its application to engineering, the very same physics that predicates global warming is real. We can argue about how bad it will be and who's fault is was that it happened, maybe...

----------


## John2b

> ... but to say that tornados, earthquakes, riots or migration has to do with Global Warming is low even for global warming activist standard.

  I don't think you can legitimately categorise the US or Nato's Secretaries as "global warming activists".  Leon Edward Panetta served as the 23rd Secretary of Defense from July 2011 to February 2013. Before joining the Department of Defense, Mr. Panetta served as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from February 2009 to June 2011. Mr. Panetta led the agency and managed human intelligence and open source collection programs on behalf of the intelligence community.  
Here's what Panetta had to say on climate change and security: 
"Both when I was at the CIA and at the Defense Department, I established offices to focus on the security impacts of climate change. At the CIA I thought it was critical to look at where are droughts occurring, where are water problems occurring, where are the coastlines being impacted by sea levels rising or by the increase in the temperature of our oceans. So there is in a very real sense a relationship between what’s happening to our climate and what’s happening to the security of our planet." 
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was the NATO Secretary General 2004 – 2009. Here's his prediction on the greatest security risk to Europe back in 2008: 
"NATO  Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, described the  greatest security challenges facing the alliance. And he said the following: 
"In tomorrow's 
uncertain world, we cannot wait for threats to mature before 
deciding how we counter them. The nature of this new 
environment is already taking shape. It will be an environment 
that will be marked by the effects of climate change, such as 
territorial conflicts, rising food prices, and migration."

----------


## Marc

That is so pathetic and at the root of the change in name from global warming to climate change.
Climate changes? The wind changes direction too. So? Do we have a knob that we can turn and make it a bit cooler? Does the CIA have such knob?And what purpose would that achieve?
Do we need to monitoring what effect the climate has on national security? Sure! Seems like a sensible thing to do.
But blending this into the AGW debate as if humans are causing this changes and therefore we need a new authority to monitor and manage this human made changes is so obviously beyond pathetic! 
And that is precisely my point. One day of heat in the coldest September and heat is the big news. Hammer home to the masses that we, the bad guys are making this hot day all by ourselves. We must go and pray a penitence and allow the UN to impose taxes and send the army to the non compliant nations.
In fact we should all drop off the perch to allow this world to be without this human imposition.

----------


## John2b

> That is so pathetic and at the root of the change in name from global warming to climate change.

  There is no 'change in name', they are different phenomena in science literature: 
"Within scientific journals global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect."  What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change

----------


## John2b

> And that is precisely my point. One day of heat in the coldest September and heat is the big news.

  Coldest September??  The national September mean temperature was 0.19 °C above the long-term mean. Maximum temperatures were 0.82 °C above average while minimum temperatures were 0.44 °C below average for the country as whole.    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/curren.../summary.shtml 
Why were warm temperatures news? Maybe because "September maximum temperatures were _above average to very much above average_ around broad areas of coastal Australia."

----------


## John2b

Suggestion to would-be AGW sceptics: If you want to argue your case, it would be helpful to make points that are not easily shown to be misrepresentations or falsehoods. 
And just for fun, let's look at a "sceptic's" projection for global temperature:   
Well that prediction didn't happen LOL. It would look even worse if I could find an up-to-date chart with a polynomial smoothing line.    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/07/a-reminder.html

----------


## Marc

Forget the climate  Spend billions to stop Australia being called names like Pariah and Denier »     « Which country has the most skeptics? Australia tops name-calling, limited, biased, ambiguous survey! *Is a mini-ice age coming in 2030, and does the sun have two dynamos?**Is the Sun driven by two dynamos, each running on slightly different 11 year cycles?*
Many people are talking about a new forecast of a mini-ice age (which seems to be an increasingly popular thing to predict.) This one comes from a paper published last year but presented at the Royal Astronomical Society last week. Shepard, Zharkov and Zharkova may have gotten us a step closer to understanding why the solar cycle varies in length from 8 to 14 years. Since the level of solar activity correlates with both the the length of the current solar cycle and the surface temperatures on Earth one solar cycle later (the notch-delay theory, and see the work of David Archibald),  it may make it possible to predict the climate decades in advance. (With the caveat that this new study is still a model, correlation is not causation, etc.)
One of the better descriptions comes from Astronomy Now.
The Sun, like all stars, is a large nuclear fusion reactor that generates powerful magnetic fields, similar to a dynamo. The model developed by Zharkovas team suggests there are two dynamos at work in the Sun; one close to the surface and one deep within the convection zone. They found this dual dynamo system could explain aspects of the solar cycle with much greater accuracy than before  possibly leading to enhanced predictions of future solar behaviour. We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs; originating in two different layers in the Suns interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different [for both] and they are offset in time, says Zharkova. The two magnetic waves either reinforce one another to produce high activity or cancel out to create lull periods.
With the Sun, we struggle for good data. Shepard et al only have three sunspot cycles of magnetic field data to go on but used the longer sunspot records as well. Figure 4. Modulus summary principal component (solid curve) calculated from Equations (6) and (7) for cycles 2123 and predicted for cycles 2426, the modulus summary PC derived from SBMF in cycles 2123 (dotted curve) and in cycle 24 (dashed curve). | Click to expand. The debate on this one is certainly not over. The new paper suggest there are two solar dynamos but in 2011 Nicola Scafetta argued that solar dynamics is best modeled with three interference circulation modes. His model reproduces past solar activity for millennia and also predicted a grand minimum by 2030. *Guest post by Dr David Evans*http://sciencespeak.com/
The topic is a prediction publicized over the weekend that Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to mini ice age levels. This is quite plausible, because it fits with several other predictions made in 2013 by a number of authors _(Special Issue of Pattern Recognition in Physics_, Mörner, Tattersall & Solheim, 2013).
Be aware that solar activity refers to the number of sunspots, not the total energy output of the Sun  which is very near constant and has varied less than 0.15% over the last 400 years. Its not as if the Sun is going to be producing 60% less heat: it will produce almost exactly the same heat as it always does, just with far fewer sunspots. A comparison of three images over four years apart illustrates how the level of solar activity has risen from near minimum to near maximum in the Suns 11-years solar cycle. These images are captured using He II 304  emissions showing the solar corona at a temperature of about 60,000 degrees K. Many more sunspots, solar flares, and coronal mass ejections occur during the solar maximum. The increase in activity can be seen in the number of white areas, i.e., indicators of strong magnetic intensity .Source:NASA However, even this is very significant. Last year we blogged that the number of sunspots accurately predicts the small changes in temperature here on Earth, such as those associated with global warming, but with a _delay_ of one sunspot cycle (which averages 11 years, but is only half the Suns full cycle, which averages about 22 years).
There was a largish fall in solar activity in 2004 (in 11 year smoothed TSI), so there will be a significant and sustained fall in global temperature on Earth starting in about 2017 (the current sunspot cycle is a long one, about 13 years, 2004 + 13 = 2017). This will outweigh the warming effect of extra carbon dioxide.
The Earth has been in a warming trend for the past 350 years, since the depth of the Little Ice Age during the Maunder Minimum, in the second half of the 1600s. This warming trend appears to be driven by solar activitycarbon dioxide didnt start increasing until 1800 or so, and didnt really get going until after WWII with post-war industrialization.
So the Shepard papers prediction that the Sun is going inactive, and will lead to a cooler Earth such as last seen in the Maunder Minimum of the 1600s (when ice fairs on the Thames River in London were common), is plausible and likely.
Note that the influence of sunspots on terrestrial temperatures is not because the heat of the Sun varies (that variation is pretty insignificant in terms of global warming or cooling). It is because something about the Sun, perhaps its UV output or a magnetic influence on the Earths upper atmosphere, affects the cloud cover on Earth, and thus how much sunlight the Earth reflects back out to space. More clouds mean more sunlight is reflected without warming the Earth, so the Earth is cooler. If the Sun is affecting the cloud cover on Earth, it is affecting the Earths temperature even though the heat from the Sun stays about constant.
Note also that the delay of one sunspot cycle (averaging 11 years) mentioned above, between the change in solar activity and Earthly temperatures, is because there is a half-cycle delay between sunspots and force X. Force X is the name weve given to the solar influence on Earths cloudinessthe X is because we arent sure what it is, like x-rays were so named because by their discoverer William Röntgen because he didnt know what they really were. The Suns full cycle is around 22 years  the sunspot cycle is only half of it, because the number of sunspots goes as the _square_ of the magnetic field strength so the positive and negative phases of the 22-year cycle look the same in terms of sunspots. The sunspots merely signal where force X will be in about 11 years time.
This is a bit like a four stroke combustion engine, which has four phases (suck, squeeze, bang, blow). If you know how much fuel and air is sucked in during the suck phase then you know how much power will be produced in the bang phase, which comes half a cycle (or two phases) later. Similarly with the Sun: the sunspots (or solar activity) tell us how much force X there will be half a full cycle (about 11 years) later.
The finding in the Shepard paper that the Sun has two dynamos is exciting for force X, making it quite plausible that the UV or magnetic effects that constitute force X are following the trends in bulk radiation produced by the dynamos.
The IPCC does not include any solar influence in the climate models except the direct heating by the Sun. But the total radiation from the Sun is almost constant  it is even known as the Solar Constant, because it wasnt found to vary until observed by satellites starting in 1979. So, along with Bloomberg, NASA, and the IPCC, we say that changes in solar activity will have only a negligible _direct_ effect.
There are some major updates concerning the notch-delay theory, which we will be blogging on soon. *What would be the impact on the climate?*
If Shepard and Scafetta are correct about the upcoming dearth of solar activity by the 2030s,  by 2040 it will have cooled significantly, by maybe 0.5C to 1.0C, undoing the global warming since 1800 or even 1700. That cooling could start as early as 2017. This cooling would be counteracted by a mild warming due to rising carbon dioxide, but the net effect would be cooling.
The ratio of La Ninas to El Ninos will presumably increase, making for slightly more floods and fewer droughts in eastern Australia. A Maunder type phase of the sun,
Could put climate-change hype on the run,
When predictions would crumble,
And temperatures tumble,
As a Mini Ice Age had begun.Rauiri  *REFERENCES*Simon J. Shepherd, Sergei I. Zharkov, and Valentina V. Zharkova (2014) Prediction of Solar Activity from Solar Background Magnetic Field Variations in Cycles 21-23,_ The Astrophysical Journal,_  *795* 46  doi:10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/46
Scafetta, N.: Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on JupiterSaturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296311 (2012). 
h/t Terry D, Colin, Stephan, Tom, Turtle, Joffa and Eric Worrall. Also in comments, Pat, el gordo, aussieute, CCreader, others, thanks!

----------


## Marc

*How many things can Lord Deben get wrong?* 
I did a spot on the ABC Drum today. Very odd to do it from a studio where I could not see any of the panel at all, and didn’t know the etiquette of how these things work. (I know a lot more now). But I’m glad to have a chance to speak, even if it was short.So just in case there is anyone out there thinking that Lord Deben had some good points, here’ s what I was thinking as he spoke without pausing to breathe, and here’s my reply (it would have been nice to say it on air):Firstly, all of this presupposes that there is a reason to reduce CO2. Thousands of scientists and millions of measurements suggest not.That aside, saying Australia is “not a special case” is to deny geography and demographics.The UK might have the fastest growth rate in the EU but Australia’s population growth rate is two-to-three times faster than the UK.  Do those people count? Not in climate change maths. Australia’s population has grown by 38% since 1990. It’s massive and it matters.Adding more wind power won’t help solve the problem that on our Eastern National Grid, about once every ten days or so the wind towers contribute nothing. More towers on the same grid only makes for more wild swings: 3,000 MW one day, nothing the next. We have to have the coal or gas back up, and wind can’t replace it.Nor can Lord Deben add a mountain range and large rivers to an ancient flat land that doesn’t have them. Other nations doing “renewables” like Norway and China can do hydro power. Without adding another Great Dividing Range, we can’t.  And politically, thanks to the Greens and Labor Party, we won’t consider nuclear, which is how France meets its renewable targets.As for China, its efforts are just token. They are producing massive emissions, adding new coal stations, planning even more, and it isn’t just because they are making the “world’s products” that they produce large emissions. It turns out they are also hopelessly inefficient. For every kilo of product made, they produce four times as much CO2 as factories in the EU would produce. So shipping our jobs and our factories to China would be making the problem worse, (if there was a problem). And they may well promise big cuts in future, but how much of that is due to them inflating their emissions right now? How easy would it be for them to artificially pump up the numbers now, and can anyone trust any of the figures coming out of China? (I have two posts coming up on exactly these points).Deben said he likes Australia but spends most of his time unfairly putting the nation down trying to give us the guilts in the hope of getting us to cough up more money to support the Green industry. He claimed that Australia wasn’t pulling its weight at Kyoto, but he ignores the fact that we actually met our targets and most of the countries that promised to do more than us, didn’t. Per capita we cut our carbon emissions by 28% from 1990 to 2014 – and that includes us gaining 38% more people. That’s really spectacular (not that I think it was useful, worthwhile, or “an achievement” in any sense).As for us being more “vulnerable” to climate change — they say that to everyone. All nations are more vulnerable than every other nation, it just depends on which nation the UN is trying to scare some money from this particular minute, doesn’t it? (See this map of countries most at risk? Australia isn’t one of them).Deben pulled the “science is settled” excuse, which is always what someone says when they really don’t want a debate about the science. Climate science is immature, and thousands of scientists are protesting around the world: go online and find them. Thirty thousand scientists have put their names to a petition protesting at this exaggerated scare, that includes 9,000 PhD’s, astrophysicists, nuclear chemists, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, and thousands of geologists and engineers. It also includes two guys who won Nobels in Physics, and three men who walked on the moon. Those guys have reputations that matter. They certainly know a lot more about climate science than Lord Deben.If Lord Deben was really concerned about the environment, he would want the best science and open public debate.You can watch it (though the Deben arguments are the same-old-same-old tedium) Deben runs from 2:00 – 8:40. I speak from 8:50 – 10:30, he replies from then to 13:00. Yes, typical mainstream media “time-share”. There are a few more bits after that like from 17:25.If the ABC Drum got some real interchange, with to and fro, and live debate going, its ratings would probably double. A TV in the studio with the show on (muted) would be a helpful thing.  Rating: 8.9/*10* (129 votes cast)How many things can Lord Deben get wrong?, 8.9 out of 10 based on 129 ratingsThe short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot. Tiny Url for this post: How many things can Lord Deben get wrong? Â« JoNova*October 6th, 2015* | Tags: ABC, Media Coverage | Category: Global Warming, Media-matters, Politics |  Print This Post |  Email This Post |  *199 comments to How many things can Lord Deben get wrong?*   *#Malcolm HillOctober 6, 2015 at 9:06 pm · ReplyBy accident I saw the interview with Lord Deben on the Drum and whilst some of it was interesting it was pretty obvious what the purpose of his to Australia was about.namely1. A big suck up to Turnbull.2. A plug for Flannery ….now he as really getting desparate.3. Show to us what a real alarmist drama queen he really is.4. Give the appearances of knowing some facts about GW by trotting out the usual twisted shibboleths.5 put pressure on Turnbull a Bishop and crew re the looming Paris shindig.If the Coalition changes its stance it will lose votes big timeTell the garrulous Lord to piss off.*

----------


## John2b

> *Is a mini-ice age coming in 2030, and does the sun have two dynamos?*

   

> Suggestion to would-be AGW sceptics: If you want to argue your case, it would be helpful to make points that are not easily shown to be misrepresentations or falsehoods.

  I should have added it would be helpful to make points that are not "obviously nonsensical!" 
How doe the solar minimum in 1997/8 explain the extreme high global temperature that year? The sun is obviously not the driver of climate change.

----------


## John2b

> *How many things can Lord Deben get wrong?*

  Are you running a competition with him?

----------


## PhilT2

Deben's position illustrates how strong support for the science of climate change is among right wing conservatives in Europe. As for being wrong he doesn't even come close to Monckton. Jonova's contribution to that debate was fairly sad, all she had was the tired old Oregon petition. She didn't get to mention that her other half predicted a strong cooling phase which should have started ten years ago.

----------


## John2b

Another oil company sees global warming as a positive, surprise, surprise...  "Between 1986 and 1992, Croasdale’s team looked at both the positive and negative effects that a warming Arctic would have on oil operations, reporting its findings to Exxon headquarters in Houston and New Jersey. The good news for Exxon, he told an audience of academics and government researchers in 1992, was that “potential global warming can only help lower exploration and development costs” in the Beaufort Sea. But, he added, it also posed hazards, including higher sea levels and bigger waves, which could damage the company’s existing and future coastal and offshore infrastructure, including drilling platforms, artificial islands, processing plants and pump stations. And a thawing earth could be troublesome for those facilities as well as pipelines."  http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

----------


## Marc

*Top 10 Global Warming Lies  *    *Alarmist Assertion #1* Bats Drop from the Sky  In 2014, a scorching summer heat wave caused more than 100,000 bats to literally drop dead and fall from the sky in Queensland, Australia.  *The Facts* Global warming alarmists preferred electricity source  wind power  kills nearly 1 million bats every year in the United States alone.1 This appalling death toll occurs every year even while wind power produces just 3 percent of U.S. electricity. Ramping up wind power to 10, 20, or 30 percent of U.S. electricity production would likely mean annual bat kills of 10 to 30 million. Killing 30 million bats every year in response to dubious claims that global warming might once in a great while kill 100,000 bats makes no sense.  Just as importantly, alarmists present no evidence that global warming caused the summer heat wave in a notoriously hot desert near the equator. To the contrary, climate change theory and objective data show our recent global warming is occurring primarily in the winter, toward the poles, and at night.  Australias highest recorded temperature occurred more than half a century ago, and only two of Australias seven states have set their all-time temperature record during the past 40 years.2 Queenslands 2014 heat wave paled in comparison to the 1972 heat wave that occurred 42 years of global warming ago. If global warming caused the 2014 Queensland heat wave, why wasnt it as severe as the 1972 Queensland heat wave?  Blaming every single summer heat wave or extreme weather event on global warming is a stale and discredited tactic in the alarmist playbook. Objective science proves extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, and droughts have become less frequent and less severe as a result of the Earths recent warming.3  *Alarmist Assertion #2* Lyme Disease Spreads  Warmer temperatures are contributing to the range expansion and severity of tick-borne Lyme disease.  *The Facts* Lyme disease is much more common in northern, cooler regions of the United States than in southern, warmer regions.4 Asserting, without any supporting data or evidence, that a disease that prospers in cool climates will become more prevalent as a result of global warming defies objective data and common sense. Moreover, a team of scientists extensively researched Lyme disease climate and habitat and reported in the peer-reviewed science journal EcoHealth, the only environmental variable consistently associated with increased [Lyme disease] risk and incidence was the presence of forests.5  Granted, alarmists can argue that forests are thriving under global warming, with the result that forest-dwelling ticks will also benefit. However, expanding forests are universally  and properly  viewed as environmentally beneficial. Alarmist attempts to frame thriving forests as harmful perfectly illustrate the alarmists proclivity to claim anything and everything  no matter how beneficial  is severely harmful and caused by global warming.  Moreover, even if global warming expanded Lyme disease range, one must look at the totality of global warmings impact on the range of viruses and diseases. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports Lyme disease is rare as a cause of death in the United States.6 According to the CDC, Lyme disease is a contributing factor in fewer than 25 deaths per year in the United States. During a recent five-year span examined by the CDC, only 1 [death] record was consistent with clinical manifestations of Lyme disease. Any attempts to claim global warming will cause a few more Lyme disease deaths must be weighed against the 36,000 Americans who are killed by the flu each year.7 The U.S. National Institutes of Health have documented how influenza is aided and abetted by cold climate.8 Any attempt to connect a warmer climate to an increase in Lyme disease must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of a warmer climates propensity to reduce influenza incidence and mortality. The net impact of a warmer climate on viruses and diseases such as Lyme disease and influenza is substantially beneficial and life-saving.  *Alarmist Assertion #3* National Security Threatened  The impacts of climate change are expected to act as a threat multiplier in many of the worlds most unstable regions, exacerbating droughts and other natural disasters as well as leading to food, water and other resource shortages that may spur mass migrations.  *The Facts* The alarmists asserted national security threat depends on assertions that (1) global warming is causing a reduction in food and water supplies and (2) migrations of people to places with more food and water will increase risks of military conflict. Facts refute both assertions. Regarding food and water supplies, global crop production has soared as the Earth gradually warms.9Atmospheric carbon dioxide is essential to plant life, and adding more of it to the atmosphere enhances plant growth and crop production. Longer growing seasons and fewer frost events also benefit plant growth and crop production. As repeatedly documented in my Forbes.com columns,10 global crops set new production records virtually every year as our planet modestly warms. If crop shortages cause national security threats and global warming increases crop production, then global warming benefits rather than jeopardizes national security.  The same holds true for water supplies. Data show there has been a gradual increase in global precipitation and soil moisture as our planet warms. Warmer temperatures evaporate more water from the oceans, which in turn stimulates more frequent precipitation over continental land masses. The result of this enhanced precipitation is an improvement in soil moisture at almost all sites in the Global Soil Moisture Data Bank.11 If declining precipitation and declining soil moisture are military threat multipliers, then global warming is creating a safer, more peaceful world. *Alarmist Assertion #4* Sea Levels Rising  Warmer temperatures are causing glaciers and polar ice sheets to melt, increasing the amount of water in the worlds seas and oceans.  *The Facts* The pace of sea level rise remained relatively constant throughout the twentieth century, even as global temperatures gradually rose.12 There has similarly been no increase in the pace of sea level rise in recent decades. Using twentieth century technologies, humans effectively adapted to global sea level rise. With twenty-first century technologies, humans will be even better equipped to adapt to global sea level rise.  Also, the alarmist assertion that polar ice sheets are melting is simply false. Although alarmists frequently point to a modest recent shrinkage in the Arctic ice sheet, that decline has been completely offset by ice sheet expansion in the Antarctic. Cumulatively, polar ice sheets have not declined at all since NASA satellite instruments began precisely measuring them 35 years ago.13  *Alarmist Assertion #5* Allergies Worsen  Allergy sufferers beware: Climate change could cause pollen counts to double in the next 30 years. The warming temperatures cause advancing weed growth, a bane for allergy sufferers. *The Facts* Pollen is a product and mechanism of plant reproduction and growth. As such, pollen counts will rise and fall along with plant health and vegetation intensity. Any increase in pollen will be the result of a greener biosphere with more plant growth. Similar to the alarmist argument, discussed above, that expanding forests will create more habitat for the ticks that spread Lyme disease, alarmists here are taking overwhelmingly good news about global warming improving plant health and making it seem like this good news is actually bad news because healthier plants mean more pollen. NASA satellite instruments have documented a spectacular greening of the Earth, with foliage gains most prevalent in previously arid, semi-desert regions.14 For people experiencing an increase in vegetation in previously barren regions, this greening of the Earth is welcome and wonderful news. For global warming alarmists, however, a greener biosphere is terrible news and something to be opposed. This, in a nutshell, defines the opposing sides in the global warming debate. Global warming alarmists claim a greener biosphere with richer and more abundant plant life is horrible and justifies massive, economy-destroying energy restrictions. Global warming realists understand that a greener biosphere with richer and more abundant plant life is not a horrible thing simply because humans may have had some role in creating it. *Alarmist Assertion #6* Beetles Destroy Iconic Western Forests  Climate change has sent tree-killing beetles called mountain pine beetles into overdrive. Under normal conditions those beetles reproduce just once annually, but the warming climate has allowed them to churn out an extra generation of new bugs each year.  *The Facts* Alarmists claim warmer winters are causing an increase in pine beetle populations. This assertion is thoroughly debunked by real-world data. As an initial matter, alarmists have responded to recent bitterly cold winters by claiming global warming is causing colder winters.15 One cannot claim global warming is causing colder winters and then turn around and simultaneously claim global warming is causing warmer winters. Global warming activists propensity for doing so shows just how little value they place on truthful debate.  Scientific data verify winters are getting colder, countering the key prerequisite to EDFs pine beetle claim. NOAA temperature data show winter temperatures in the United States have been getting colder for at least the past two decades.16 Pine beetles cannot be taking advantage of warmer winters if winters are in fact getting colder. Moreover, recent U.S. Forest Service data show pine beetle infestations have recently declined dramatically throughout the western United States.17  Forests and plant life are expanding globally, and particularly in the western United States.18 Pine beetles are a natural part of forest ecosystems. Expanding pine forests can support more beetles. The predictable increase in pine beetles is largely a product of, rather than a foil against, expanding pine forests. One can hardly argue that pine beetles are destroying iconic Western forests when western forests are becoming denser and more prevalent as the planet warms.  Also, beetles have bored through North American forests for millennia, long before people built coal-fired power plants and drove SUVs. Beetles are not dependent on warm winters, as evidenced by their historic prevalence in places such as Alaska.19  Finally, pine beetles tend to target dead, unhealthy, more vulnerable pine trees rather than healthy trees. Decades of over-aggressive fire suppression policies have caused an unnatural buildup of older, denser, more vulnerable pine forests. These conditions predictably aid pine beetles. *Alarmist Assertion #7* Canada: The New America  Lusher vegetation growth typically associated with the United States is now becoming more common in Canada, scientists reported in a 2012 Nature Climate Change study. *The Facts* Only global warming alarmists would claim that lusher vegetation and more abundant plant life are a bad thing. Playing on a general tendency of people to fear change, EDF and global warming alarmists argue that changes in the biosphere that make it richer, lusher, and more conducive to life are changes to be feared and opposed. If barren ecosystems constitute an ideal planet, then the alarmist fears of more plant life make sense. But global warming realists understand a climate more conducive to richer, more abundant plant life is beneficial rather than harmful. *Alarmist Assertion #8* Economic Consequences  The costs associated with climate change rise along with the temperatures. Severe storms and floods combined with agricultural losses cause billions of dollars in damages, and money is needed to treat and control the spread of disease  *The Facts* Severe storms, floods, and agricultural losses may cost a great deal of money, but such extreme weather events  and their resulting costs  are dramatically declining as the Earth modestly warms.20 Accordingly, EDFs asserted economic costs are actually economic benefits.  As documented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and at Forbes.com, severe storms are becoming less frequent and severe as the Earth modestly warms. This is especially evident regarding hurricane and tornado activity, which are both at historic lows. Similarly, scientific measurements and peer-reviewed studies report no increase in flooding events regarding natural-flowing rivers and streams.21 Any increase in flooding activity is due to human alterations of river and stream flow rather than precipitation changes.22  Also, the modest recent warming is producing U.S. and global crop production records virtually every year, creating billions of dollars in new economic and human welfare benefits each and every year. This creates a net economic benefit completely ignored by EDF.  Regarding the spread of disease, as documented in Alarmist Assertion #2, evidence shows global warming will thwart deadly outbreaks of influenza and other cold-dependent viruses. Additionally, the alarmists desired means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions  more expensive energy sources  make economic conditions even worse. Forcing the American economy to operate on expensive and unreliable wind and solar power will have tremendous negative economic consequences. President Barack Obama acknowledged this fact when he promised that under his global warming plan, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. The economic consequences of Obamas global warming policies can already be seen in electricity prices, which are currently the highest in U.S. history. Remarkably, Obamas global warming policies are increasing electricity prices even while new natural gas discoveries, revolutionary advances in natural gas production technologies, and a dramatic resultant decline in natural gas prices would otherwise spur a dramatic decline in electricity prices.  *Alarmist Assertion #9* Infectious Diseases Thrive  The World Health Organization reports that outbreaks of new or resurgent diseases are on the rise and in more disparate countries than ever before, including tropical illnesses in once cold climates.  *The Facts* Outbreaks of new or resurgent diseases are occurring precisely because governments have caved in to environmental activist groups like EDF and implemented their anti-science agendas. For example, DDT had all but eliminated malaria in the United States and on the global stage during the mid-twentieth century. However, environmental activists championed false environmental accusations against DDT and dramatically reduced use of the life-saving mosquito killer throughout much of the world. As a result, malaria has re-emerged with a vengeance and millions of people die every year as a result.23  Also, as documented above in Alarmist Assertion #2, global warming will reduce the impact and death toll of cold-related viruses such as influenza. In the United States alone, influenza kills 36,000 people every year, which dwarfs all heat-dependent viruses and diseases combined. Few people other than global warming alarmists would argue that it is better to have 36,000 people die each year from influenza than have a few people die each year from Lyme disease (which, as documented above, isnt even related to global warming).  *Alarmist Assertion #10* Shrinking Glaciers  In 2013, an iceberg larger than the city of Chicago broke off the Pine Island Glacier, the most important glacier of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. And at Montanas Glacier National Park glaciers have gone from 150 to just 35 over the past century.  *The Facts* Calling attention to anecdotal incidents of icebergs breaking off the Antarctic ice sheet, while deliberately ignoring the overall growth of the Antarctic ice sheet, is a misleading and favorite tactic of global warming alarmists. Icebergs break off the Antarctic ice sheet every year, with or without global warming, particularly in the Antarctic summer. However, a particular iceberg  no matter how large  breaking off the Antarctic ice sheet does not necessarily result in Shrinking Glaciers as EDF alleges.  To the contrary, the Antarctic ice sheet has been growing at a steady and substantial pace ever since NASA satellites first began measuring the ice sheet in 1979. During the same year EDF claims an iceberg larger than the city of Chicago broke off the Antarctic ice sheet and caused Shrinking Glaciers, the Antarctic ice sheet repeatedly set new records for its largest extent in recorded history.24 Those 2013 records were repeatedly broken again in 2014. The Antarctic ice sheet in 2013 and 2014 was more extensive than at any time in recorded history, yet EDF pushes the lie that the Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking. EDFs assertion about Glacier National Park is also misleading. Alpine glaciers at Glacier National Park and elsewhere have been receding for more than 300 years, since the Earths temperature bottomed out during the depths of the Little Ice Age.25 The warming of the past 300 years and the resulting recession of alpine glaciers predated humans building coal-fired power plants and driving SUVs. Moreover, opening up more of the Earths surface to vegetation and plant and animal life would normally be considered a beneficial change, if global warming alarmists had not so thoroughly politicized the global warming discussion.  There you have it. These are the 10 best arguments global warming activists like EDF can make, along with the objective scientific facts that prove them wrong.  No wonder global warming alarmists are so terrified of people having access to both sides of the debate.  _James M. Taylor (__jtaylor@heartland.org__) is vice president for external relations and senior fellow for environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute. Taylor is the former managing editor (2001  2014) of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism._

----------


## John2b

> *Alarmist Assertion #1* Bats Drop from the Sky  In 2014, a scorching summer heat wave caused more than 100,000 bats to literally drop dead and fall from the sky in Queensland, Australia.  *The Facts* Global warming alarmists preferred electricity source  wind power  kills nearly 1 million bats every year in the United States alone.1 This appalling death toll occurs every year even while wind power produces just 3 percent of U.S. electricity.

  Hundreds of thousands of birds and bats are killed by wind turbines in the U.S. each year, including some protected species such as the golden eagle and the Indiana bat. _Thats only a small fraction of the hundreds of millions killed by buildings, pesticides, fossil-fuel power plants, and other human causes_

----------


## woodbe

> _James M. Taylor (__jtaylor@heartland.org__) is vice president for external relations and senior fellow for environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute. Taylor is the former managing editor (2001 – 2014) of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism._

  All you need to know. 
Heartland has zero credibility. They blew it.

----------


## John2b

> *Top 10 Global Warming Lies* *Alarmist Assertion #2* Lyme Disease Spreads  Warmer temperatures are contributing to the range expansion and severity of tick-borne Lyme disease.

  I have been a climate watcher for 50 years and had never even heard of Ixodes scapularis. I am a little shocked to hear that I had never heard of the number 2 assertion supposedly made by 'warmists' like me.

----------


## John2b

> *Top 10 Global Warming Lies*

  I could go on dissecting this list of fact free dribble. 
But the question remains, if you are right why not post stuff that supports your premise? Why post stuff that is easily shown to be false and/or misleading?

----------


## woodbe

Not the same 10, but seeing as copy and paste is how we should be discussing with Marc, here is another 'top 10'* 
The top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments answered* 
         Contrarian climate scientist Roy Spencer put forth the top 10 'skeptic' arguments - all are easily answered  
  Global temperatures are rising, and the top 10 climate contrarian  explanations are not good. Photograph: Aaron Tilley for the Guardian     Dana Nuccitelli
   Tuesday 6 May 2014 23.00 AEST   Last modified on Saturday 21 June 2014 10.31 AEST    Roy Spencer is one of the less than 3% of climate scientists  whose research suggests that humans are playing a relatively minimal  role in global warming. As one of those rare contrarian climate experts,  he's often asked to testify before US Congress and interviewed by media outlets that want to present a 'skeptical' or false balance climate narrative. He's also a rather controversial figure, having made remarks about "global warming Nazis" and said, "I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer,  to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of  government."In any case, as one of those rare contrarian climate scientists,  Spencer is in a good position to present the best arguments against the  global warming consensus. Conveniently, he recently did just that on his  blog, listing what he considers the "Top Ten Good Skeptical Arguments,"  throwing in an 11th for good measure. He also conveniently posed each  of these arguments as questions; it turns out they're all easy to  answer.  1) No Recent Warming. If global warming science is so "settled", why  did global warming stop 15 years ago, contrary to all "consensus"  predictions?Quite simply, it hasn't. Even global surface temperatures (which is how Spencer is likely measuring 'global warming', although they only account for about 2% of the Earth's warming), have warmed about 0.2°C over the past 15 years, according to the best available measurements. More importantly, the planet has continued to accumulate heat at a rate equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second over the past 15 years.  2) Natural or Manmade? If we don't know how much of recent warming is natural, then how can we know how much is manmade?We do.  
  Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global  surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000  (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07,  light green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011  (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), Wigley and Santer  2012 (WS12, dark green), and Jones et al. 2013 (J12, pink).  SkepticalScience.com   The IPCC stated with 95% confidence  that most of the global warming since 1950 is human-caused, with a best  estimate that 100% is due to humans over the past 60 years. The IPCC  was able to draw this conclusion with such high confidence because  that's what the scientific evidence and research clearly and  consistently concludes.  3) IPCC Politics and Beliefs. Why does it take a political body (the  IPCC) to tell us what scientists "believe"? And when did scientists'  "beliefs" translate into proof? And when was scientific truth determined  by a voteespecially when those allowed to vote are from the Global  Warming Believers Party?The IPCC merely organizes the world's top climate scientists every 5  to 7 years. It's those scientists who summarize the up-to-date status of  the scientific research in their respective fields of expertise. The  IPCC report and the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming are themselves not proof of anything. They summarize and reflect the scientific evidence  that vast body of evidence is the reason the consensus exists.  4) Climate Models Can't Even Hindcast. How did climate modelers, who  already knew the answer, still fail to explain the lack of a significant  temperature rise over the last 30+ years? In other words, how to you  botch a hindcast?Global surface temperatures have risen more than 0.5°C over the past 30 years. That rise is significant, both in the statistical and figurative sense. Climate models have accurately reproduced that rise.  5) But We Should Believe Model Forecasts? Why should we believe  model predictions of the future, when they can't even explain the past?Climate models have accurately reproduced the past, but let's put  them aside for a moment. We don't need climate models to project future  global warming. We know from past climate change events  the planet will warm between about 1.5 and 4.5°C from the increased  greenhouse effect of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (the 'climate sensitivity'). 
 In a business-as-usual scenario, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are expected to surpass 900 ppm by 2100   that's close to two doublings from the pre-industrial level of 280  ppm. Hence we know that business-as-usual will cause between 2.5 and  7.5°C (most likely 5°C) warming if we stop carbon dioxide levels from  rising beyond about 900 ppm. This is based on simple math and what we  know about the physics of the climate  no fancy models needed.  6) Modelers Lie About Their "Physics". Why do modelers insist their  models are based upon established physics, but then hide the fact that  the strong warming their models produce is actually based upon very  uncertain "fudge factor" tuning?Putting aside the accusation that hundreds of climate modelers are  all liars  the answer is that their models are indeed based upon well  established physics. NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt's TED talk on  the subject is well worth watching. 
  Spencer's question likely refers to the uncertain size of the cooling  influence of aerosols. However, that is a physical uncertainty. We  don't have very good measurements of this effect; unfortunately the  rocket carrying NASA's Glory satellite that had instruments to measure  the climate effect of aerosols crashed two years ago.  Nevertheless, climate models use the available data to account for  their influence, and their projections include the associated  uncertainties.  7) Is Warming Even Bad? Who decided that a small amount of warming is necessarily a bad thing?We're headed for about 5°C global surface warming above  pre-industrial temperatures by 2100 if we continue on a  business-as-usual path. 5°C is the difference between average  temperatures now and those during the last ice age. That's not "small"  by any stretch of the imagination. As for who decided that amount  warming is a bad thing  climate scientists researching the impacts of climate change.  8) Is CO2 Bad? How did carbon dioxide, necessary for life on Earth  and only 4 parts in 10,000 of our atmosphere, get rebranded as some sort  of dangerous gas?Carbon dioxide itself is not "bad." Water is also necessary for life.  Too much water will kill you. Too much carbon dioxide causes dangerous  climate change. Greenhouse gases were determined to be pollutants as  defined in the US Clean Air Act . This was a ruling of the (politically conservative) US Supreme Court.  9) Do We Look that Stupid? How do scientists expect to be taken  seriously when their "theory" is supported by both floods AND droughts?  Too much snow AND too little snow?This question is a bit like asking, "Do I look fat?". Do you want an honest answer?
 The warming of the atmosphere, happening especially at high latitudes, reduces the temperature difference between higher and lower latitudes. This tends to make storms move more slowly.  This results in storms dumping more precipitation in localized areas,  which causes more flooding in those areas and droughts outside of them.  Higher temperatures also increase evaporation, exacerbating droughts and  adding more moisture to the air for stronger storms. A climate  scientist should understand these concepts.  10) Selective Pseudo-Explanations. How can scientists claim that the  Medieval Warm Period (which lasted hundreds of years), was just a  regional flukeyet claim the single-summer (2003) heat wave in Europe  had global significance?There is no contradiction here  a regional event can have global significance, for example via economic impacts. In any case, the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon and the planet as a whole was cooler than today.  11) (Spinal Tap bonus) Just How Warm is it, Really? Why is it that  every subsequent modification/adjustment to the global thermometer data  leads to even more warming? What are the chances of that? Either a  warmer-still present, or cooling down the past, both of which produce a  greater warming trend over time. And none of the adjustments take out a  gradual urban heat island (UHI) warming around thermometer sites, which  likely exists at virtually all of them  because no one yet knows a good  way to do that.  Ironically, most of the adjustments to Spencer's own satellite temperature data set have been in the warming direction,  so this question may be an example of psychological projection.  Scientists also recently identified a problem in Arctic temperature data  analysis that's leading to an incorrect adjustment in the cooling direction,  and there have of course been other cooling adjustments in the surface  temperature record. The urban heat island effect has also been  demonstrated over and over to have no significant influence on the surface temperature record. *Notice a Pattern?* 
 You  may have noticed some patterns in these questions. Most are based on  false premises and are trivially simple to answer. These 'top ten good  skeptic arguments' are frankly not very good or challenging. They also  reveal a very one-sided skepticism, although to his credit Spencer did  also list 10 'skeptic' arguments that don't hold water.  These are glaringly wrong arguments like 'there is no greenhouse  effect' and 'CO2 cools the atmosphere,' that some contrarians  nevertheless believe. Interestingly, Spencer discusses the science  disproving the 10 bad arguments, but there's no scientific discussion  supporting his to 'good' arguments. 
 From reading and answering Spencer's questions, we learn that the  basic science behind how we know humans are causing global warming and  that it's a problem are quite well-established. There are some remaining  uncertainties, like how much warming is being offset by aerosol  cooling, but overall we have a very strong understanding of the big picture. For quite a while now we've understood the Earth's climate well enough to know that we can't continue on our current high-risk path.  
 When will we stop using these trivially wrong contrarian arguments as  an excuse for climate inaction? Now that's a tough question to answer.

----------


## John2b

> Contrarian climate scientist Roy Spencer put forth the top 10 'skeptic' arguments - all are easily answered. Roy Spencer is one of the less than 3% of climate scientists whose research suggests that humans are playing a relatively minimal role in global warming.

  Actually, I beg to differ. Roy Spencer's research _does not_ suggest humans are playing a relatively minimal role in global warming. If you follow Spenser (I often visit to look at his UAH temperature record updated every month) you would have noticed a sense of increasing frustration from his quarters that the data he processes is NOT playing out the way he said it should LOL. And he is also showing increasing frustration with the pseudo scientists in the 'it isn't happening' and 'there's no such thing as the greenhouse effect' camps. It's true he is tenaciously holding onto his insupportable position. But one wonders if he is just hoping to drop off his perch before he is forced to admit failure.

----------


## woodbe

Agree the data supports your suggestion, but Spencer put his own slant on it. He walks a fine line so he can support denial.

----------


## PhilT2

When you talk about Spencer's position on global warming it would help to be more specific and state which one, as he has had a few different ones over the years. After the satellites went up he firmly believed for quite a few years that there was no warming at all. Then he discovered what people had been trying to tell him for years; that the satellite's orbit was not stable. So an "adjustment" had to be made to the data. This was followed by a few more "adjustments" over the years, all showing a little more warming. Then the latest one just recently showed a little cooling. 
Nothing wrong with that; many scientists have made errors and had to recalculate data. The issue is that when some scientists do it it's part of the conspiracy, a hoax, evidence of fraud. When Spencer does it, it's good scientific practice. It's all in how you look at it.

----------


## John2b

> Cumulatively, polar ice sheets have not declined at all since NASA satellite instruments began precisely measuring them 35 years ago.

  Really? Look's like a decline to me. This is what satellites are measuring:

----------


## John2b

> *Alarmist Assertion #7* Canada: The New America  Lusher vegetation growth typically associated with the United States is now becoming more common in Canada, scientists reported in a 2012 Nature Climate Change study. *The Facts* Only global warming alarmists would claim that lusher vegetation and more abundant plant life are a bad thing. Playing on a general tendency of people to fear change, EDF and global warming alarmists argue that changes in the biosphere that make it richer, lusher, and more conducive to life are changes to be feared and opposed. If barren ecosystems constitute an ideal planet, then the alarmist fears of more plant life make sense. But global warming realists understand a climate more conducive to richer, more abundant plant life is beneficial rather than harmful.

  Reality doesn't support the notion that global warming is a great thing for agriculture. 
"...this years harvest is about half of what it has been in previous years. If we look at April-May-June, theres a very clear trend toward wetter springs, Rippey said.  Pumpkin Lovers Face Slim Pickings, Thanks to Climate Change - Scientific American Climate Change Haunts This Year&#39;s Pumpkin Crop 
"Increasing incidences of pest outbreaks, prolonged periods of drought, change in the pattern of rain distribution, and rising number of hailstorms are harbingers of climate change for the already struggling tea industry sector. 
"... rising level of atmospheric carbon dioxide and increasing temperature were the two most visible and incontrovertible manifestations of climate change. Measures to mitigate climate change impact include better planting materials, improvement in organic matter, soil and water conservation measures and establishment of vegetative barriers."  Climate-change threat for tea estates - The Hindu

----------


## Marc

Monday, October 12, 2015  RSS  Email Newsletters  Put PRWeb on your site  *Friends of Science Promotes Freedom of Speech on Climate Change in English and French as a Precious Human Right*   *Share Article*           *Courage and integrity are necessary to stand up to the crowd say the Friends of Science new videos. One video is in English and questions why President Obama is anti-bullying on everything but climate science – the other video is in French and points out that it was the French who wrote the “rules” about Freedom of Speech during the worst recent climate crisis of the Little Ice Age.*     The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely...
CALGARY, ALBERTA, CANADA (PRWEB) APRIL 09, 2015
In response to the 'denier' hunt on Barack Obama's website, Friends of Science Society has released two video productions promoting freedom of speech on climate change. The English version questions why people must follow the ‘religion’ of the IPCC and informs people of past witch hunts during the Little Ice Age where people were tortured and executed for ‘weather cooking.’ The video entitled "Freedom of thought" is on YouTube. youtu.be/I0TxfZZN59k    
Friends of Science salute the integrity and courage of the thousands of scientists who hold informed and rational, dissenting views on the alleged climate change 'consensus' who are now being cyber attacked as “deniers” on virtually every front in the US as reported in theWashington Times Mar. 5, 2015. In a Nov. 18, 2013 article in Macleans magazine, while on tour in Australia, Canadian eco-guru David Suzuki reportedly " drew criticism for suggesting the country’s new prime minister, Tony Abbott, is guilty of negligence and “crimes against future generations” for scrapping a carbon tax..."
The second video, in French, is an on-camera rendition of an earlier blog post by Friends of Science wherein “Freedom of Speech/Liberté de parole” is the central focus, reminding people that the Declaration of the Rights of Man were developed during the brutal climate of the Little Ice Age, when famine gripped most of Europe. The YouTube video is here: youtu.be/16GJbs4U0Qg An English version of the text was published by Troy Media, Dec. 5, 2014 and the HuffPost covered the charitable foundation angle of the story Nov. 13, 2014. Article 11 of that declaration says:"The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, save to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law."
Friends of Science are calling out the climate change bullies with these two videos and asking people who stand for freedom, justice, and scientific inquiry to stand with them and stop the climate change bullies.
About 
Friends of Science have spent a decade reviewing a broad spectrum of literature on climate change and have concluded the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2). The core group of the Friends of Science is a growing group of earth, atmospheric and solar scientists, engineers and citizens.
Friends of Science Society 
P.O. Box 23167, Mission P.O. 
Calgary, Alberta 
Canada T2S 3B1 
Toll-free Telephone: 1-888-789-9597 
Web: friendsofscience.org 
E-mail: contact(at)friendsofscience(dot)org

----------


## John2b

> Friends of Science Promotes Freedom of Speech on Climate Change in English and French as a Precious Human Right

  Come off it Marc. 
"The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, save to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law."   What's that got to do with deliberate obfuscation and lies? Any citizen has the right to mislead others to the detriment of the mislead? I don't think so.

----------


## johnc

We have the right of free speech, we also have the moral responsibility to try and be correct and truthful. A lot of the cut and pastes here are not.

----------


## PhilT2

Some people confuse freedom of speech with freedom from criticism. They may also be labouring under the delusion that there is an obligation on society to provide a platform for their ideas. No one is obligated to publish nonsense, no university is obliged to hire or retain a lecturer who has abandoned rational thought. 
When the conference in Paris convenes nobody will feel it necessary to make room for half baked ideas that defy the basic laws of physics.

----------


## woodbe

> Friends of Science have spent a decade reviewing a broad spectrum of literature on climate change and have concluded the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2). The core group of the Friends of Science is a growing group of earth, atmospheric and solar scientists, engineers and citizens.
> Friends of Science Society 
> P.O. Box 23167, Mission P.O. 
> Calgary, Alberta 
> Canada T2S 3B1 
> Toll-free Telephone: 1-888-789-9597 
> Web: friendsofscience.org 
> E-mail: contact(at)friendsofscience(dot)org

  Friends of Science - SourceWatch 
Another hotbed of deniers. Debunked a thousand times.

----------


## Marc

*CATO AT LIBERTY*  *MAY 26, 2015 5:56PM* *The Spin Cycle: Accelerating Sea Level Rise*  _By PAUL C. "CHIP" KNAPPENBERGER and PATRICK J. MICHAELS_ *SHARE*  The Spin Cycle_ is a reoccurring feature based upon just how much the latest weather or climate story, policy pronouncement, or simply poo-bah blather spins the truth. Statements are given a rating between 1-5 spin cycles, with less cycles meaning less spin. For a more in-depth description,_ _visit the inaugural edition__._
—
A popular media story of the week was that sea level rise was accelerating and that this was worse than we thought. The stories were based on a new paper published in the journal_Nature Climate Change_ by an author team led by the University of Tasmania’s Christopher Watson.
Watson and colleagues re-examined the satellite-based observations of sea level rise (available since the early 1990s) using a new methodology that supposedly better accounts for changes in the orbital altitude of the satellites—obviously a key factor when assessing sea levels by determining the height difference between the ocean’s surface and the satellites, the basic idea behind altimetry-based sea level measurements.
So far so good.
Their research produced two major findings, 1) their new adjusted measurements produced a lower rate of sea level rise than the old measurements (for the period 1993 to mid-2014), but 2) the rate of sea level rise was accelerating.
It was the latter that got all of the press.
But, it turns out, that in neither case, were the findings statistically significant at even the most basic levels used in scientific studies. Generally speaking, scientists report a findings as being “significant” if there is a less than 1-in-20 chance that the same result could have been produced by random (i.e., unexplained) processes. In some fields, the bar is set even higher(like 1 in 3.5 million). We can’t think of any scientific field that accepts a lower than a 1-in-20 threshold (although occasional individual papers do try to get away with applying a slightlylower standard).
But in the sea level rise paper that is getting all the attention, the author’s team push a result—an acceleration in sea level rise—that has about _a 1-in-4_ chance of being zero or below—i.e., that no acceleration in actuality is taking place. That’s like betting the farm that you won’t get two heads in a row when flipping a coin. No one outside of someone who is extremely desperate would make such a bet.
Given such a result—a finding that grossly failed the standard test of statistical significance—the  authors of the paper _should_ have concluded that over the past 22+ years, there has been no reliably detectable change in the rate of sea level rise in the satellite-observed dataset.
Instead, the lead authors wrote in their paper’s abstract that:“[I]n contrast to the previously reported slowing in the rate during the past two decades, our corrected [global mean sea level] data set indicates an acceleration in sea-level rise…which is of opposite sign to previous estimates.”Further down in the details of the paper (where no reporter dares to go), the authors do admit that the acceleration was in fact statistically insignificant. But that’s not the impression left to the press.
And the press, always eager for a paper predicting doom and gloom from human-caused climate change was more than happy to run with headlines like:“Sea Level Rise Accelerating Faster Than Thought” (from _Science_ magazine)
“Sea levels are rising at faster clip as polar melt accelerates, new study shows” (fromthe _Washington Post_)
“Sea level rise accelerated over the past two decades, research finds” (from _The Guardian_)
“Study: Sea level rise accelerating worldwide” (from _USA Today_)For the misleading claims, and the cascade of misinformation that flowed from them, we determine that the Spin Cycle setting of this story is _Permanent Press_.     *Topics:*Energy and Environment *Tags:*Spin Cycle, climate change, sea level rise

----------


## John2b

> *The Spin Cycle: Accelerating Sea Level Rise*

  Tim Watson does indeed make some fundamental errors in his _analysis_ of sea level rise around Australia. But was he wrong in claiming that sea level rise is _accelerating?_ 
Emphatically not. When properly analysed the data he used shows significant acceleration of sea level rise.   https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07...de-gauge-data/

----------


## woodbe

> *CATO AT LIBERTY*  *MAY 26, 2015 5:56PM* *The Spin Cycle: Accelerating Sea Level Rise*  _By PAUL C. "CHIP" KNAPPENBERGER and PATRICK J. MICHAELS_

  So Pat Michaels still funded 40% by the fossil fuel industry?

----------


## Marc

*Cherry-picking sea level rises in Perth (a city which happens to be sinking)* *“Gale Force” cherries coming your way…*
Two weeks ago, it was all over the news. The ocean near Perth (where I live) was rising at the terrifying rate of 9-10mm per year since 1993, which was, shockingly, “three times the global average”. (Since Perth is flatter than flat, at this rate, in a few years everything bar Kings Park and a few sky-scrapers would be washed away). The myth started because a government department that knows a lot about our roads, trains, and buses wrote a dot point in a Fact Sheet. That was the State of Australian Cities report, and a pollie (Albanese) raved. Then the _West Australian_ newspaper headlined it, and it all got out of hand.
In contrast, Chris Gillham got the raw data (something you’d think The Department of Infrastructure might have thought of), and shows below why its nonsense on stilts.  The rate is not measured from when records began, but from 1993, which (surely it’s just a coincidence) also happens to be the lowest level in local tide gauges since 1941. (See that second last “dip” near the right-end in the graph below?) If they’d started the “rate” from the year 1999, the headlines would tell us the seas were _falling_…
If that’s not bad enough, the sea level data comes from two spots, 20 km apart (Hillarys and Fremantle), and Gillham points out that the rates are quite different. Apparently parts of Perth are subsiding by as much as _6mm year_ thanks to groundwater extraction, and one of those parts doing-the-subsiding happens to be around a tide gauge. More than half the scary rise is due to the gauge sinking.
As far as global sea levels go, Fremantle is a rare long record from the Southern Hemisphere, and is based on a very stable continent — shame about that aquifer that’s mucking up the record. Odd how mistakes, like not-correcting-for-the-subsidence make their way past scientists, bureaucrats, department heads, ministers, and then journalists too. Doesn’t anyone check these any more? Are they all incompetent, or in the grip of a mind-numbing religion perhaps?
All credit goes to Chris for doing so much research here.  — Jo 100 years of tidal records at Fremantle show a fairly steady small rise. Note how high the oceans were in the 1940′s and how low it was in 1993. Given past rises and falls, why are we getting excited about a rise since the dip in 1993? (Data: Bureau of Met.)  *Guest post: Chris Gillham*—————————— *Perth sea level myth swamped by a rising tide of facts*A myth was started in early December that sea levels off the Perth coastline have been rising at 9-10mm per year since 1993, three times the global average. _The West Australian_ newspaper published a page 3 story quoting a State of Australian Cities report that Perth sea levels have been rising far quicker than anywhere else, which Federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese described as “disturbing” and “extraordinary”. The foreboding news was quickly propagated by other mainstream media and the sea level myth took hold. *The facts*Closer analysis of the claim shows it is based only on a selective comparison of 1993 and 2010 sea levels off Perth that are monitored by tide gauges in Fremantle and Hillarys. The averaged mean sea level at Fremantle in 1993 was the lowest recorded since 1941, which makes it an extraordinary year for comparison since this critical fact is ignored by a Federal Government department, a Federal Cabinet Minister and the media. The mean sea level at Fremantle and Hillarys was higher in 1999 than in 2010, the most recent year of publicly available data, and a comparison of averages in the first and second halves of the 18 years since 1993 shows sea levels have risen about .61mm per year at Fremantle and 2.2mm per year at Hillarys.
Not quite so disturbing or extraordinary, is it? Fremantle sea levels 1993 – 2010 (Note the high point was 1999) *That sinking feeling*If you’re curious about how sea levels can rise at such different rates, it’s worth noting a university report published by the Journal of the Royal Society of WA in April 2012: “Proper quantification, mapping and monitoring of recent-past subsidence in the Perth Basin also have implications for sea-level change measurements, because the Fremantle and Hillarys tide-gauges are located on it.”
“There is good correlation between changes in the depth of the water table in the confined Yarragadee Aquifer and the rates of subsidence of the CGPS installation at Gnangara (Figure 3). Depending on the time-span chosen over which linear regression is applied, different subsidence rates can be obtained. Fourteen years of data give a subsidence rate of -4.6 mm/yr, but this increases to -6.1 mm/yr during the 2000–2005 period of increased groundwater extraction.”
“Perth will need a dedicated subsidence-monitoring program if future water shortages necessitate recommencement of increased groundwater extraction from the Yarragadee Aquifer. This would also be necessary to correct relative sea-level change measurements at the Fremantle and Hillarys tide-gauges.”The Fremantle and Hillarys tide gauges, which have not been corrected, suggest an average 1.4mm per year rise in Perth coastline sea levels since 1993. Published university research confirms an average 4.6mm per year metropolitan land subsidence that contaminates and exacerbates the tidal measurements. *Damaging myth*On 7 December, The West Australian newspaper repaired some of the mythology it had created a few days earlier by publishing a page 6 story headlined Groundwater use sinking Perth. “Just days after a Federal Government report claimed Perth’s sea levels had risen at three times the global average, prominent research and scientific institutions pointed the finger at the city’s thirstiness.
“Commonwealth survey body Geoscience Australia used GPS monitoring to conclude Perth’s land heights had fallen up to 6mm a year on the back of increased extraction from the Yarragadee aquifer.”However, there’s still been no media attention to the cherry picked choice of 1993 by Federal agencies to make a sensational but demonstrably false claim, believed from the ministerial level down, that Perth is being swamped by the Indian Ocean.
That’s where policy is formulated and Australia’s coastal planning policies, which influence billions of dollars worth of property development values, are nowadays based on predicted rising sea levels. *Media bias*The media headlined an inaccurate sea change myth but had no interest in the leak of IPCC second order draft AR5 on 14 December amid claims that the heating contribution of enhanced solar forcing from cosmogenic cloud formation has been ignored by the intergovernmental panel.
The claims suggest a far greater contribution to warming by the historically high solar cycles since 1950 that finished in 1996, a blast with lingering effects on sea levels.
As illustrated in the chart below, the leaked IPCC report predicts a dangerous future for Fremantle with worst case sea levels as much as half a metre higher by 2100, based on the port city’s tide gauge which is an important southern hemisphere contributor to global sea level calculations because of its longevity since 1897. The IPCC paints a terrifying picture for Fremantle The leaked IPCC papers also chart different land temperature anomaly projections since the first intergovernmental report in 1990, as well as anticipated heating to 2015 and actual global temperature anomalies (relative to 1961-90) which confirm they’ve been flat since 1997/98.
Warming temperatures cause thermal expansion which is the major contributor to rising sea levels, so it’s worth comparing the IPCC’s charted global temperature records and projections overlaid with Perth’s local tide gauge readings since 1990: Tide Gauge results from Fremantle and Hillarys are overlaid onto the AR5 IPCC graph. The two gauges look quite different to each other, but both come from Perth. Possibly also, the rises and falls in  sea level lag the surface record.  
Observed global temperature anomalies since 1990 are marked by black dots with error bars which suggest the climate is barely agreeing with the IPCC’s best possible projections. *An interesting correlation*Despite probable contamination from confirmed subsidence of the Perth metropolitan land area, there’s little doubt that Fremantle and Hillarys sea levels correlate with global temperatures, as would be expected, but with a lag of about a year during the rapidly heating 1990s and about two years during the stable temperature plateau of the new millennium.
The temperature/sea level correlation suggests flat to slightly higher Perth sea levels were recorded in 2011 and 2012 (data not yet available), with a drop likely in 2013/14 in response to weaker 2011 global temperatures reducing thermal expansion. With solar cycle 24 currently looking chilly, it seems a fair bet that neither Fremantle or Hillarys will be underwater by 2015.
The delayed sea level reaction to temperatures doesn’t mean tide records necessarily reflect actual thermometer readings before 1990 but it’s nevertheless interesting that, due to the low 1992 global temperature indicated in the IPCC chart above (Mt Pinatubo?), Fremantle sea levels in 1993 were the lowest since 1941. *We won’t drown*So Perth sea levels haven’t risen by up to 10mm per year since 1993, they aren’t rising three times faster than the global average, land subsidence indicates they’ve been closer to flat and possibly even fallen since 1993, and the leaked IPCC report confirms they’ve been as stable as global temperatures for well over a decade.
If Australian governments and media want to research instead of ignore facts about global warming and sea levels, they might begin at Sea Levels on Perth Coastline and at Sea Level: Not so Fast released on 14 December.
Cheers!
Chris  *Other related posts:**Are sea-levels rising? Nils-Axel Morner documents a decided lack of rising seas**Man-made sea-level rises are due to global adjustments*Australian sea level rises exaggerated by 8 fold (or maybe ten)*It wasn’t CO2: Global sea levels started rising before 1800*Australian sea-levels respond to CO2 by slowing down…10% of sea level rise is due to land rising too. Got that?Shock! Climate models can’t even predict a linear rise        
Rating: 9.1/*10* (65 votes cast)  
Cherry-picking sea level rises in Perth (a city which happens to be sinking), 9.1 out of 10 based on 65 ratings

----------


## Marc

You guys are amazing. You are really on top of it! Yes, keeping the current trend, Perth will be the next Atlantis. 
Glu glu glu  
But nothing to worry about. Since it will take probably 20 or 30 thousand years providing the "trend" keeps on going as per computer models (hu hu fat chance) Western Australians will have by then evolved gills and fins for sure.  
Picture of the new Perthites

----------


## woodbe

Whatever spin you want to put on it, sea level rise is a fact. 
Land ice including Glaciers and Greenland is shrinking (also including Antartica land ice), Arctic ice is disappearing.  
The melting water has to go somewhere. Add to that, the increasing ocean temperatures causes expansion of the volume of water and so we just know that sea level rise is on the up.   
Where do you think the water goes, Marc?

----------


## John2b

> *Cherry-picking sea level rises in Perth (a city which happens to be sinking)*

  Thanks for dusting the cobwebs off that old story! Where do you dig them up from BTW? And was there a point to the post? 
For people who want to understand what is really happening, there is more recent analysis that takes into account land subsidence and errors cause by it, as well as errors caused by drift in satellite calibrations. See levels are rising much faster than previously thought and match expectations from the accelerated rate of ice loss in Greenland. Sea level rise is currently running at around 3mm per year, but that rise is far from evenly distributed around the world.  http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2635.html

----------


## Marc

The BS and the exaggerations know no limits. Even among agitators there is no agreement as to how much to pump up the rhetoric.  
My family has been living on different waterfront properties for the last 100 years. The properties are still there, the jetties and the rocks are still there and family photos from before the first world war show no change in water level. By Brian Clark Howard, National Geographic   PUBLISHED TUE JUL 21 16:56:11 EDT 2015    A bombshell climate study published this week warns that sea levels may rise a catastrophic 10 feet (3 meters) by the end of this century, rather than the currently predicted 3 feet (.9 meters). But mainstream climate scientists say the report appears speculative and is not in sync with the leading understanding of melting sea ice.  As a result, the study is unlikely to change leading scientific consensus or affect the current negotiations on a comprehensive global agreement on climate change.  The new study, led by former NASA climate scientist James Hansen (now at Columbia University) is set to be published in the peer-reviewed journal_Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry__. Hansen and 16 colleagues argue in the paper that increasing melting of the ice sheets over Greenland and Antarctica will lead to a shutdown of the ocean’s currents. That would lead to warm waters trapped under Antarctica, which would increase the melting of ice there (if all the continent’s ice melted, it would raise sea level by around 200 feet)._  _Hansen’s prediction is more dire than the scenario deemed most likely by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which foresees no more than 3 feet of sea level rise by century’s end. (See an interactive of sea level rise.)_  *RELATED CONTENT*_  Sea Levels Rising Fast on U.S. East Coast New York's Sea-Level Plan: Will It Play in Miami? Report: Gulf and Atlantic Coasts Not Prepared for Sea-Level Rise _    _The 10 feet Hansen predicts would make many of the world’s coastal cities, from New York to Shanghai, unlivable. It would also flood South Florida, making everything below Interstate 75 unlivable (from Ft. Lauderdale on down). Three feet would put many of New York’s airport runways underwater, but would be much easier to mitigate with seawalls. (Learn more about the damage expected for Florida.)_  _A number of prominent climate scientists are skeptical of Hansen’s conclusions._  _Ian Joughin, a professor of Earth sciences at the University of Washington, says melting glaciers and ice sheets contribute only about 1 millimeter (0.04 inches) of sea level rise a year._  _While Hansen and team predict a doubling in the rate of ice melt in Greenland in the coming years, Joughin says that seems unlikely given past trends and what we currently know about the processes._  _“I don't think you can extrapolate current melt rates to get to 10 feet,” says Joughin._  _Hansen was not available to comment on the study or the reaction._  _Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the Hansen report is merely “one scenario, and not evidence for that scenario.”_  _Schmidt says the study “might add to the discussions” but is far enough from conventional thinking that it is unlikely to change mainstream climate views, international negotiations on reducing carbon, or the IPCC’s recommendations to world governments._  _“There's plenty of reason to worry about sea level rise, but I don't see 10 feet happening by end of century,” says Joughin._  _“Ten feet is well outside the range of peer-reviewed projections and peer-reviewed scientific literature,” says Benjamin Strauss, a scientist at Climate Central, a non-profit climate research and journalism organization in Princeton, New Jersey. _

----------


## John2b

> The BS and the exaggerations know no limits.

  Couldn't agree more, Marc. The question is: why do you keep doing it?

----------


## Marc

> Whatever spin you want to put on it, sea level rise is a fact.. 
> Where do you think the water goes, Marc?

  So according to your appeal to emotions with the sinking child picture (very scientific) from 1880 to today we had 8" of sea rise. That is a significant amount easily recognisable with the naked eye, no need for gauge or satellites. 
So from 1910 to today what did we have? Let's be generous 6" ok?
So how come I can not see any difference? Not a iota?

----------


## Marc

*Sea level rise was less than thought (skeptics were right)*Skeptics, and particularly Nils-Axel Mörner have been saying that sea level rise, as recorded by tide gauges has been much slower than widely advertised. They’ve also pointed out how the rates of sea-level rise have either stayed the same or slowed down. There’s been no sign of the acceleration needed for the wildly speculative  hypothesis that your SUV, and China’s coal plants are warming the ocean.
This week a new Nature paper (Hay et al) shows the skeptics were right  — but did that view make it to any news broadcast? *Watch the sea-level scare mutate*Even in _The Australian_ the spin from the propaganda machine gets a running, and the previous slow rise is used to pump the scare that the modern “acceleration” is even scarier. What _the Australian_ (and selected sea level “experts”) don’t mention is that the tide-gauges don’t show any acceleration, and nor did the raw recordings from satellites. The 3mm rising sea claims apparently come from satellites that were calibrated to one subsiding tide gauge in Hong Kong.
It’s cherry picking par excellence. We might finally accept tide gauges up to 1990, but after that the tide gauges don’t count — bring in the “adjusted” satellites. *[The Australian] SEA levels increased at a slower rate last century than previously thought, according to new @research.*
A fresh analysis of tide-gauge records, published in the journal _Nature_, found that the sea level rose by 1.2mm a year from 1901 to 1990, compared with earlier estimates of between 1.6mm and 1.9mm a year.
Researchers said this meant the acceleration in sea-level rise to 3mm a year over the past two decades was greater than previously thought.*REFERENCES*Michael Beenstock, Daniel Felsenstein,*Eyal Frank & Yaniv Reingewertz, (2014)  Tide gauge location and the measurement of global sea level rise,  Environmental and Ecological Statistics, May 2014 [Abstract]
Cazenave, A.,  Dieng, H., Meyssignac, B., von Schuckmann, K., Decharme. B., & Etienne Berthier (2014)  The rate of sea-level rise, _Nature Climate Change_ | Letter   [Abstract] doi:10.1038/nclimate2159
and many more… see these posts, especially the first three here.  Sea level rise less than 1mm for last 125 years in Kattegatt, Europe — Nils-Axel MornerAre sea-levels rising? Nils-Axel Mörner documents a decided lack of rising seasGlobal sea level rise a bit more than 1mm a year for last 50 years, no accelerationSea level rise slowed from 2004 – Deceleration, not acceleration as CO2 rises.Man-made sea-level rises are due to global adjustmentsAustralian sea levels have been falling for 7000 yearsAustralian sea level rises exaggerated by 8 fold (or maybe ten)It wasn’t CO2: Global sea levels started rising before 1800Australian sea-levels respond to CO2 by slowing down…10% of sea level rise is due to land rising too. Got that?South Pacific sea levels – Best records show little or no rise?!Mass carbon emissions, yet Australian sea levels rise at similar speed as 1920 – 1950

----------


## Marc

*Sea level rise less than 1mm for last 125 years in Kattegatt, Europe — Nils-Axel Morner*Nils‐Axel Mörner has a new paper out (his 589th). For 60 years he has been tracking the coastlines close to him, and carefully isolated the exact part which appears to be the most stable. From that he shows that the real sea-level rise in Northern Europe is less than 1 millimeter a year since 1890. This is less that the 1.6mm trend in 182 NOAA tide gauges, and far below the estimates of the IPCC reports. There is also _no sign of acceleration in sea-levels for the last 50 years_. (How much should Europeans spend to stop a 1mm annual rise that was already going in 1890 and has not changed much since then?) If anything, Nils work shows how difficult it is to measure true sea-level rise on land that shifts. In this graph below, he compares the rise of most tide gauges with the Kattegatt region, and the IPCC results. This is only one result from one place, but it is based on thousands of readings from sites all around Kattegatt. His painstaking attention to extreme detail and empirical data stands in stark contrast to the IPCC where the trend depends heavily on adjustments. (Those adjustments appear to be based on a tide gauge in Hong Kong that is subsiding compared to the four other records nearby). Nils notes that people once thought true eustatic sea level changes would be the same all over the world, but this is not so. He remarks that the search for a meaningful mean global rate has become “illusive”. Nils explained that the superb thing with the Kattegatt region is that we have both a perfect control on the crustal movements, as well as a number of fine tide gauges, so, we can separate the two factors in a way hardly possible anywhere else. FIG. 1. SPECTRUM OF RATES OF SEA LEVEL CHANGES IN RELATION TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF RATE VALUES OF THE NOAA TIDE GAUGE STATIONS [18, 22, 24]. ESTIMATES OF RISE BY THE IPCC FOR YEAR 2100 (GREEN ARROWS) [1], SATELLITE ALTIMETRY (+3.2 mm/yr) [23], MEAN OF 182 NOAA TIDE GAUGE STATIONS (+1.6 mm/yr) [24], THE NEW DATA FROM THE KATTEGATT SEA HERE PRESENTED (+0.8‐0.9 mm/yr), AND THE VALUE FROM SOME KEY SITES (±0.0 mm/yr) [22, 24]. The rise since 1890 is consistent, slow, and linear.FIG. 5. TIDE GAUGE RECORDS OF KORSÖR, NYBORG AND AARHUS AS PRESENTED BY NOAA [18]. KORSÖR LIES RIGHT AT THE ZERO ISOBASE OF UPLIFT, AND THE SEA LEVEL RECORD (+0.81 ±0.18 mm/yr) SHOULD HENCE REPRESENT REGIONAL EUSTASY. (His graph includes two other areas, not shown here) THIS IMPLIES THAT ALL THREE RECORDS GIVE A CONGRUENT RECORD OF A REGIONAL EUSTATIC RISE IN THE ORDER OF 0.8‐0.9 mm/yr (THE MEAN BEING +0.87 ±0.15 mm/yr). THIS TREND HAS REMAINED STABLE OVER THE LAST 125 YEARS. To show how much work goes into analyzing land masses for their tilt and change in height, here is one graph of norther Europe. The boxed area (Kattegatt) lies on the edge in between areas which are moving in opposite directions. FIG. 2. GEOMETRY OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF GLACIAL ISOSTATIC UPLIFT OF FENNOSCANDIA [8, 9, 16]. THE KATTEGATT SEA REGION OCCUPIES THE MARGINAL ZONE AND TRANSITION FROM UPLIFT (YELLOW) TO SUBSIDENCE (BLUE). IT IS MARKED WITH AN OPEN BOX CORRESPONDING TO FIG. 4. A close up map of the area. The top graph shown is of Korsor, marked below. FIG. 4. THE UPLIFT PROFILE OF THE KATTEGATT REGION: AS ESTABLISHED FROM 40 SYNCHRONOUS SHORELINES [2, 3] AND THE ISOBASES OF THE PRESENT RATE OF UPLIFT (in mm/yr) AS ESTABLISHED FROM A COMBINATION OF GEODETIC  BENCHMARKS AND SHORELINE DATA [5]. THE THREE TIDE GAUGES [18] (RED DOTS) LOCATED AT OR CLOSE TO THE ZERO POINT OF UPLIFT (WHICH HAS REMAINED STABLE FOR AT LEAST 8000 YEARS) ARE HERE ANALYSED WITH RESPECT TO  PRESENT REGIONAL EUSTASY. THE EXTRAPOLATION OF THE ISOBASES TO THE EAST WOULD IMPLY A TRANSITION TO AN E–W EXTENSION IN THE BALTIC REGION. *ABSTRACT*Changes in global sea level is an issue of much controversy. In the Kattegatt Sea, the glacial isostatic component factor is well established and the axis of tilting has remained stable for the last 8,000 years. At the point of zero regional crustal movements, there are three tide gauges indicating a present rise in sea level of 0.8 to 0.9 mm/yr for the last 125 years. This value provides a firm record of the regional eustatic rise in sea level in this part of the globe. *CONCLUSIONS*The eustatic changes in sea level were originally held to be the same all over the globe [21]. We now know that this is not correct [3, 22] and that sea level changes significantly over the globe. The search for a mean rate of sea level change has become almost illusive as illustrated in Fig. 1. The pros and cons in this debate lie outside the scope of the present paper. In this paper, focus is set on one single region: the Kattegatt Sea. The reason for this is that we here have a condensed record of the sea level changes and postglacial isostatic uplift [2‐9]. The direction of uplift and the location of the zero isobase (hinge between uplift to the NE and subsidence to the SW have remained stable over the past 8000 years [4, 5] as evidenced by 12 individual shorelines (Fig. 3) [2‐9], 39 benchmarks along the Swedish West Coast [3, 7] and available tide gauges [3, 16‐18]. At, and close to, the line of zero uplift over the last 8000 years, there are three tide gauge stations [13], which are here used in order to define the regional eustatic component in the Kattegatt region. The three sites give a converging picture: a eustatic component indicating a rise in the order of 0.8‐0.9 mm/yr. *Whatever sea level may be doing in other part of the world, the mean regional eustatic value of the last 125 years is hereby shown to have been about 0.8‐0.9 mm/yr in the Kattegatt region (Fig. 1).* A second outcome of the analysis is that there are no signs of any acceleration in the last 50 years. *REFERENCES*Nils‐Axel Mörner (2014) Deriving the Eustatic Sea Level Component in the Kattaegatt Sea,  _Global Perspectives on Geography (GPG)._ American Society of Science and Engineering, Volume 2, 2014, www.as‐se.org/gpg _Mörner was born in Stockholm, Sweden. He took his Ph.D. in Quaternary Geology in 1969. He became_ _associate professor in Quaternary Geology in 1969, and in General and Historical Geology in 1981. He_ _held a personal Associate Professorship at the Swedish Research Council in Paleogeophysics &_ _Geodynamics from 1978. He was head of the institute on Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm_ _University (1991‐2005). Major fields: sea level changes, paleoseismology and neotectonics, Sun‐Earth_ _interaction._ _ He has personal field experiences from 49 different countries scattered all over the globe. He has an extensive publication. This is his paper no. 589._

----------


## John2b

> So from 1910 to today what did we have? Let's be generous 6" ok?
> So how come I can not see any difference? Not a iota?

  I don't know Marc. Had you noticed the land subsidence due to ground water extraction around your area?

----------


## woodbe

> So according to your appeal to emotions with the sinking child picture (very scientific) from 1880 to today we had 8" of sea rise. That is a significant amount easily recognisable with the naked eye, no need for gauge or satellites. 
> So from 1910 to today what did we have? Let's be generous 6" ok?
> So how come I can not see any difference? Not a iota?

  Sorry, Marc. The graphic doesn't have a line showing 1910, and what is the relevance if YOU cannot see any difference? You've been watching the water at the front of your place since 1910? 
The records and the science clearly show we are in for substantial sea level rise. It will effect many cities around the planet.  
Nils-Axel Morner. Yea, right.  
Still no alternative explanation for where all the water is going from the shrinking ice, just a whole heap of guff from denier sites?

----------


## John2b

> Nils‐Axel Mörner has a new paper out (his 589th).

  Yes, Mörner claims "In the 1970s, sea level fell by about 20 cm to its present level". Marc, I am surprised you hadn't noticed the change. Not one iota!  http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/Ch7Elsevier.pdf

----------


## Marc

> Sorry, Marc. The graphic doesn't have a line showing 1910, and what is the relevance if YOU cannot see any difference? You've been watching the water at the front of your place since 1910? 
> The records and the science clearly show we are in for substantial sea level rise. It will effect many cities around the planet.

  In effect, it probably will not affect much at all. It may affect people emotionally due to media pumping up the issue and interested parties effectively making a fool of themselves, but no, I doubt it will have any deleterious effect or affect anyone. 
So why do you ask me for an explanation where the water is going? To me it is going nowhere. Just sitting in the usual place.
And yes 1910 was my date. based on family photos of the same place then and now, showing no change whatsoever, effectively no change affecting anyone.  
What do you know. Not even wet feet  :Smilie:  
9 meters? 9 feet? how much was it again?
More like 9 cm in 150 years when the southerly is blowing badly.

----------


## woodbe

So you're 105 years old? That explains the bias. 
Denying science doesn't give you a leave pass for the facts. The planet IS warming, the seas ARE expanding, the ice IS reducing. Most cities are in low lying areas close to the sea, they are already copping it, but because one non-scientific story from Marc, we should ignore those facts and pretend nothing at all is happening.  
Ask an Ostrich, they know how to handle unwanted facts.

----------


## Marc

I am 105 years old? 
Is that your conclusion? :Doh:  
By the way ... ostriches hiding their head in the sand myth is as false as the global warming fraud.     *Australian sea levels have been falling for 7000 years [No Woodbe, I am not 7000 years old ... actually I wish I was ... ]*   It’s hard to measure sea levels, because land often moves up and down too (which is known as “isostatic“). But Australia is stable tectonically, so the Australian sea-level record is more useful than most. It preserves the holocene era and the rises and falls, and correspond more with glacio-eustatic (ice equivalent) sea-level changes, rather than changes in land masses.
During the coldest days of the last ice age (known as a glacial maximum) 20,000 years ago, the oceans were 125m lower than today. They peaked at around 1 -2 meters higher than present between 9000 and 5000 years ago, and have been trending down ever since. Our current rate of 30cm/century (if that continues) hardly seems unprecedented or highly unusual. And 10% of that is apparently due to an isostatic “adjustment”. Worse, if you look at the_ raw_ data, the rate iscloser to zero. Hmm. Lucky we have all those adjustments eh?
If Australian sea levels keep falling at this rate, we might really need to save That Reef.
Clearly there are many details yet to be worked out about sea-levels. *That phenomenal rise out of the ice age:*  …   *WA and NSW coastlines are considered the most stable* “Bryant (1992) reviewed the variable sea-level highstands of the last interglacial (based on the analysis of Murray-Wallace and Belperio, 1991) and mid-Holocene around Australia and found that there was possible downwarping of northern Australia and up warping along the southern edge of the continent (including Tasmania). Most of the east coast of New South Wales and west coast of Western Australia were classed as relatively stable.
Although most parts of the Australian continent reveals a high degree of tectonic stability, research conducted since the 1970s has shown that the timing and elevation of a Holocene highstand varies systematically around its margin.This is attributed primarily to variations in the timing of the  response of the ocean basins and shallow continental shelves to the increased ocean volumes  following ice-melt, including a process known as ocean siphoning (i.e. glacio-hydro-isostatic adjustment processes).” *The holocene period in NSW*  …   *A steady decline in sea levels in WA for 7000 years*   … *The last 8000 years in Queensland*  …  
The reviewers call for empirical evidence of the past, so we can predict the future. *” Conclusions*
Fairbridge’s pioneering research led, not to a global eustatic curve as he had anticipated, but to the recognition that the pattern of relative sea-level change in the Australian region differed from that observed in the Atlantic. A series of seminal sea-level studies were undertaken in the following 25 years. The stabilisation of sea level close to its present elevation in the mid- Holocene set the scene for the detailed reconstructions that were undertaken at different locations around the Australian  mainland.
…
A clearer understanding of past sea-level changes and their causes is urgently needed to better inform our ability to forecast future changes. A concerted effort is required, through the compilation of existing data, renewed fieldwork, dating analysis and modelling to address the issues of whether there have been oscillations of the sea surface and if so, of what magnitude.” 
h/t The Hockey Schtick *REFERENCE:* 
Lewis, S.E., et al., Post-glacial sea-level changes around the Australian margin: a review, _Quaternary Science_ _Reviews_ (2012), Post-glacial sea-level changes around the Australian margin: a review [abstract] (paywalled). *Other posts on sea levels*  Man-made sea-level rises are due to global adjustmentsCouncils become climate experts too. (Now Big-government insanity comes from small councils)Australian sea level rises exaggerated by 8 fold (or maybe ten)It wasn’t CO2: Global sea levels started rising before 180010% of sea level rise is due to land rising too. Got that?

----------


## John2b

> *Australian sea levels have been falling for 7000 years*

  Add water to a bucket and the level rises, add heat to water and the level rises. Take water out and the level falls, drop the temperature and the level falls - doh! 
What in your cut-and-paste-athon is relevant to the current discussion? 
Nothing circumvents basic physics and thermo-fluid dynamics. Past sea levels have responded to global heat energy equilibriums, just as present ones do and future ones will.

----------


## woodbe

> *Australian sea levels have been falling for 7000 years*

  We've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for 7000 years? Nope. Try 200.  
Australia is the whole planet? Nope. 
Perth is the whole planet? Nope 
Picking cherries does not show that you understand the science, it shows that you are trawling for something to hang your denier hat on while ignoring the facts in front of you. 
Maybe Ostriches don't stick their head in the sand, but science deniers sure do.

----------


## Marc

*It wasn’t CO2: Global sea levels started rising before 1800*Fans of man-made global warming frequently tell us seas are rising, but somehow forget to mention the rise started 200 years ago, long before our coal-fired electricity plants cranked up, and long before anyone had an electric shaver, or a 6 cylinder fossil-fuel-spewing engine. Something else was driving that warming trend. Here is the data from tide gauges going back 300 years from a paper by Jevrejeva et al 2008. [Graphed by Joanne Nova based on data from Jevrejura et al located at this site *PMSML*]This graph was calculated from 1023 tide gauge records [Jevrejeva et al., 2006] going back to 1850.The 2008 study extended the record further using  three of the longest (though discontinuous) tide gauge records available: Amsterdam, since 1700 [Van Veen, 1945], Liverpool, since 1768 [Woodworth, 1999] and Stockholm, since 1774 [Ekman, 1988]. Obviously since there are only three old records, the error bars are a riot.
The Jevrejeva paper is also useful for portraying the 60 year rolling cycle. The regular ups and downs are obvious when the rate of change is plotted (see below). Source: Jevrejeva 2008  *But wait… there must be a tipping point?*While the graph itself seems like it was made for skeptics (how can anyone say _that_ linear warming trend was started by CO2?)  some back-seat critics will say that Jevrejeva et al claim that  _“it will be worse than the IPCC thinks”_ – which they do say. But that’s the name of the game isn’t it, to find “acceleration”. Are sea levels are rising faster _because_ of CO2?
Here’s where Jevrejeva et al make the “it’s worse than we thought” statement. Look closely at the reasoning: “We show that sea level rose by 28 cm during 1700 – 2000; simple extrapolation leads to a 34 cm rise between 1990 and 2090. The lowest temperature rise (1.8°C) IPCC [Meehl et al., 2007] use is for the B1 scenario, which is 3 times larger than the increase in temperature observed during the 20th century. The IPCC sea level projection for the B1 scenario is 0.18– 0.38 m. Our simple extrapolation gives 0.34 m. The mean sea level rise for B1, B2 and A1T is below our estimate. However, oceanic thermal inertia and rising Greenland melt rates imply that even if projected temperatures rise more slowly than the IPCC scenarios suggest, sea level will very likely rise faster than the IPCC projections [Meehl et al., 2007].”*Have I got this right, it appears they predict that:*
a/ Based on the acceleration in the last 300 years, they expect seas to rise by 34 cm this century anyway (without man-made global warming).
b/ That the IPCC  reckons it will all get much warmer (frying-hot) on top of that trend, thanks to CO2.
If so,  this would be double counting, and they can’t have it both ways. The IPCC _assumes_ that all the warming since 1780 is man-made and then extrapolates that wildly. These authors (between the lines) say the sea level rise (a proxy for warming) was _natural_,  and then extrapolate that trend and add it to the IPCC extrapolation. Both extrapolations are based on the same trend — with opposing assumptions, and added together. No No No.
If the warming so far was natural, then CO2 has little effect, so there would be nothing much to add on top of their extrapolation. *Finding curves in short lines*Part of the problem with calculating acceleration with this data is the 60 year cycle of rises and falls. Basically, if we had a nice long record we could figure out the current cycle and see whether it was accelerating. But given that the cycle is 60 years long; we only have good records going back 160 years, and sparse records going back another 150, we really don’t have much at all to work with.  Worse, it’s a multivariate system of which we don’t even know all the factors.
Hence I’ve drawn a straight line trend through the top graph. Jevrejura used a polynomial fit to calculate a small acceleration. When we have such short records, who can say which fit is the winner? Wait 100 years and find out.
Since sea levels rose 19cm in the last century and the trend is linear, so we don’t need an intergovernmental panel, $200,000 grant and 5 year study to project a rise for the 21st Century of… 19cm, more or less.
—————————————————– *REFERENCES*Jevrejeva, S., A. Grinsted, J. C. Moore, and S. Holgate (2006), Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records, _J. Geophys. Res_., 111,
Jevrejeva, S., J. C. Moore, A. Grinsted, and P. L. Woodworth (2008), Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?, _Geophys. Res. Lett._, 35, L08715, doi:10.1029/2008GL033611. [PDF]
—————————————————– *Additional thoughts on the Jevrejeva paper from Lionell Griffith*The one thing that pops out the most is the typical trick of picking convenient dates as starting and ending points for their so called curve fits and using an arbitrary order for the curve.  Then they extrapolate that curve beyond all rationality.    They would be better off flipping a coin and guessing.  At least that way they have a finite chance to be right.  The way it is, they are not connected enough to reality to be wrong.
You can fit any order of curve to any set of data as long as you have more data points than orders of your curve.  All that does is give a more or less accurate way to interpolate between actual data points used in the curve fit.  You can even get high values of goodness of fit but it is all quite meaningless outside of the specific data set.  Statistical significance is not always significant in terms of real world validity.  Without grasping ALL of the meta data, you can draw no conclusions about reality other than that is what the calculations applied to the numbers produced.
Extrapolation from a random (non causal) curve fit is 100% a dangerous thing to rely on.  The error bars explode the further away from the end points you are.  Even the ability to estimate the error bars decays to nearly zero at some short distance from the end points.  This is a process that should NEVER be relied upon to make judgments about the future PERIOD!  Only if you have a causal bases for your fitted curve does extrapolation have any reliability.  Even then, the reliability is heavily dependent upon the quality of the input data AND the degree that all causes are included in the curve you are fitting.  This alone should be sufficient to discredit anything they conclude.  Their statistics are no more valid than those of the Hockey Stick Mann.  However, I will give them one point for disclosing as much detail as they did.
Now taking the plot below at face value.  The first thing I see is the presentation of two dissimilar data sets (1700 to ca 1860 and ca 1860 to 2000).  They may be incommensurate and quite inappropriate to use in ANY kind of curve fitting over the entire time series. From the data itself you cannot determine the cause of the discontinuity at ca 1860.  You must have a massive amount of meta data that gives the full context of each time series.  Then and only then do you have even a remote chance of blending them into a coherent pattern.
I suggest two things go a long way to explain the discontinuity.  The first is that ca 1860 was about the time the little ice age started to resolve itself.  The second is that the data set was likely differently instrumented and with greater attention to consistency, frequency, and quality control over the process.
It is quite likely that there is a lot of selection bias hidden behind the graph.  There is no way to prove it one way or the other.   Check into the exacting work of determining the mass of the electron.  The pattern of the results show some interesting things going on even with honest hard working scientists.  This even when there was no government financing to stimulate a given end result.
I also find that the second data set shows NO visible response to CO2.  It is simply a continuation of whatever the cause of the resolution of the little ice age.  There is no visually significant change in the trend line between ca 1860 to ca 1945 and ca 1945 to 2000.   You could select starting and ending points such that there were two different trends.  This too is a source of selection bias that is invalid.  There must be a reason independent of the data itself that is used to choose the starting and ending points.
The null hypothesis (natural process is the cause)  is sustained and ANY man produced CO2 causality remains undetectable.   You don’t need 100,000 words to say it.  You need only a legitimately produced graph and a few supporting words.
The fundamental principle here is one cannot properly go beyond the evidence and call it science.  It becomes speculation at best and demagoguery or fraud at worst.

----------


## Marc

So yes ... if the confounded CO2 had anything to do with sea levels, the areas that have no rise and the one that do would show a relation to CO2 increase. 
THEY DO NOT> 
And that is the only point of interest, not if the sea rises or by how much, only if it has to do with human activity.
Does the sea rise or the sea no rise have any relation to human producing CO2.
Answer: NO
I rest my case.

----------


## woodbe

Global sea levels have been rising and falling for millennia, but your cherry pick ignores the obvious facts shown on the graphic. 1700-1850 has some variability but is pretty much level. Since then, we're clearly on the up. I thought you said there was no sea level rise? Couldn't you find anything in denier land that said the sea level has not risen? 
Sea level rises due to increased heat in the climate system. Adding CO2 traps more heat in the climate system and it takes time for the temperature increase to play out. As the temperature increase due to CO2 plays out, so will the ice melt, so will the oceans expand and so will the sea levels rise.  
Sea level rise is definitely a result of CO2 causing warming of the climate system. Warming is not the only input, but it is currently the major one.

----------


## John2b

> I rest my case.

  Which case is that? 
1. The one that sea levels are rising but not nearly as fast as climatologists claim as you posted here #14745 and here #14749 , 
2. Or the one where you cite Nils-Axel Mörner who says sea levels are _falling_ posted here #14752 , 
3. Or the one where you acknowledge that sea levels are rising as fast as climatologists claim, but not as a result of AGW as you posted here #14762 ? 
You've got more positions than a game of Twister.

----------


## John2b

In an analysis published by the International Monitory Fund, it is estimated the level of subsidy for fossil energy companies in 2015 will be $5.3 trillion, equivalent to 6.5 percent of global GDP. Even if CO2 emissions from the use of fossil energy sources is of no consequence, that is an obscene amount of money to be gifting fossil energy producers.  http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf 
Fossil energy subsidies run to many times the TOTAL public and private, non-profit and commercial research and development expenditure globally. The bulk of world research is focussed on defense and aerospace, energy, life science, information technology, chemicals, advanced materials and pharmaceuticals. Only a minuscule proportion of total research and development is spent on climate research.  http://www.battelle.org/docs/tpp/201...g_forecast.pdf

----------


## John2b

Historic carbon emissions have already locked in enough future sea level rise to submerge most of the homes in each of several hundred American towns and cities.  Our research does not project, and this animation does not show, exactly when sea level will reach heights great enough to pose these dangers — likely centuries. Rather, our findings assess when enough carbon pollution will have accumulated, under each scenario, to lock in future sea level rise posing existential threats for each town or city — sea level rise that could submerge land where more than half of today’s population lives.  http://www.climatecentral.org/news/mapping-choices-us-cities-we-could-lose-to-sea-level-rise-19542

----------


## Marc

Run for the hills !!!!!!

----------


## John2b

Who's running for the hills? It looks like the fossil energy businesses. Ahead of Paris, the CEOs of Total, Statoil, BP, Shell, BG Group, Saudi Aramco, Pemex, Sinopec, Eni, Reliance, and Repsol have signed a Joint Collaborative Declaration under the Oil & Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) recognising the need to limit global average temperature rise to 2⁰C. In the declaration, the oil and gas giants call for “widespread and effective pricing of carbon emissions”. 
"Seeking opportunities to accelerate climate change solutions by working individually or collectively in collaboration with United Nations, other multilateral organisations, governments and civil society such as:  IPIECA, the global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues;the Sustainable Energy for All initiative;the Global Methane Initiative;the World Bank, and its Zero Routine Flaring initiative;the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, and its Oil and Gas Methane Partnership;the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum;the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the Low-carbon Technology Partnerships initiative, in particular on Carbon Capture and Storage;the Global Compact and Caring for Climate.  
OGCI member companies will regularly and consistently report on our progress. Our shared ambition is for a 2°C future. It is a challenge for the whole of society. We are committed to playing our part."   
Maybe THAT is what Rod meant by his often repeated insistence that things were coming to an undefined head.  http://www.oilandgasclimateinitiativ...ation-2015.pdf

----------


## PhilT2

Canadians head to the polls tomorrow and there is a chance that the Conservatives led by Steve Harper will lose office.Tony Abbott had tried to form an alliance with Harper to slow progress on climate change. That never really got off the ground. If Harper is removed there will be one less dinosaur at the Paris conference 
The problem is that Canada has a "first past the post" system and voters opposing the Conservatives are split between the Liberals and the New Democrats. Voting is not compulsory so any party can govern with the support of about 20% of the population. Results should be available Tuesday afternoon, Aust time.

----------


## Marc

*Why The Left Needs Climate Change* Steven F. Hayward , CONTRIBUTOR _Try this out as a thought experiment: what would happen if, tomorrow morning, we had definitive proof that catastrophic climate change was impossible, wasn’t happening, and would never happen. Would Al Gore breathe a big sigh of relief and say—“Well good; now we can go back to worrying about smoking, or bad inner city schools, or other persistent, immediate problems.”_ _Of course not. The general reaction from environmentalists and the left would be a combination of outrage and despair. The need to believe in oneself as part of the agency of human salvation runs deep for leftists and environmentalists who have made their obsessions a secular religion. And humanity doesn’t need salvation if there is no sin in the first place. Hence human must be sinners—somehow—in need of redemption from the left._ _I got to thinking about this when reading a short passage from an old book by Canadian philosopher George Grant, Philosophy in the Mass Age:__“During the excitement over Sputnik, it was suggested that the Americans were deeply depressed by Russian success. I thought this was a wrong interpretation. Rather, there was a great sigh of relief from the American elites, for now there was an immediate practical objective to be achieved, a new frontier to be conquered—outer space.”_ _This tracks closely with Kenneth Minogue’s diagnosis of liberalism in his classic The Liberal Mind.  Minogue compared liberals to medieval dragon hunters, who sought after dragons to slay even after it was clear they didn’t exist. The liberal, like the dragon hunter, “needed his dragons. He could only live by fighting for causes—the people, the poor, the exploited, the colonially oppressed, the underprivileged and the underdeveloped. As an ageing warrior, he grew breathless in pursuit of smaller and smaller dragons—for the big dragons were now harder to come by.”_  _Hence on college campuses today the liberal mind is relentlessly hunting after “microaggressions,” which is pretty pathetic as dragons of injustice go. Environmentalists are still after the fire-breathing dragon of climate change, now that previous dragons like the population bomb have disappeared into the medieval mists—so much so that even theNew York Times recently declared the population bomb to have been completely wrongheaded._ _Or perhaps a better metaphor for true-believing environmentalism is drug addiction: the addictive need for another rush of euphoria, followed by the crash or pains of withdrawal, and the diminishing returns of the next fix. For there’s always a next fix for environmentalists: fracking, bee colony collapse disorder, de-forestation, drought, floods, plastic bags . . . the list is endless._The political scientist Anthony Downs diagnosed this aspect of environmentalism in a famous 1972 essay in _The Public Interest_ entitled “Up and Down with Ecology—The Issue-Attention Cycle.”  In analyzing the then fairly new public enthusiasm over environmentalism (though it tended to go by the term “ecology” back then), Downs laid out a five-step cycle for most public policy issues. A group of experts and interest groups begin promoting a problem or crisis, which is soon followed by the alarmed discovery of the problem by the news media and broader political class. This second stage typically includes a large amount of euphoric enthusiasm—you might call this the dopamine stage—as activists conceive the issue in terms of global salvation and redemption.But then reality starts to intrude. The third stage is the hinge. As Downs explains, there comes “a gradually spreading realization that the cost of ‘solving’ the problem is very high indeed.” This is where we have been since the Kyoto process proposed completely implausible near-term reductions in fossil fuel energy—a fanatical monomania the climate campaign has been unable to shake. “The previous stage,” Downs continued, “becomes almost imperceptibly transformed into the fourth stage: a gradual decline in the intensity of public interest in the problem.” Despite the relentless media and activist drumbeat and millions of dollars in paid advertising, public concern for climate change has been steadily waning for the last several years. “In the final [post-problem] stage,” Downs concluded, “an issue that has been replaced at the center of public concern moves into a prolonged limbo—a twilight realm of lesser attention or spasmodic recurrences of interest.” Activist liberal elites always need a Grand Cause to satisfy their messianic needs, or for the political equivalent of a dopamine rush. For such people, the only thing worse that catastrophic climate change is the catastrophe of not having a catastrophe to obsess over—and use as an excuse to extend political control over people and resources, which is the one-side-fits-all answer for every new crisis that starts through the issue-attention cycle. Downs did think that the issue-attention cycle would be longer for environmental issues than other kinds of issues like civil rights and crime, for a variety of reasons.  So environmental junkies should chill. They’ll find new ways to get their fix. They always do.

----------


## John2b

> Despite the relentless media and activist drumbeat and millions of dollars in paid advertising, public concern for climate change has been steadily waning for the last several years.

  Waning public concern must be why 150 countries representing around 90 percent of the world's carbon emissions have already filed pledges to curb CO2 emissions ahead of the Paris summit in December - *NOT*! 
Marc, perhaps you can point out the 'steady decline' for me here:    http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/0...politics_2-09/

----------


## John2b

"If we were to halt all emissions now, we would expect (over a few hundred years), the enhancement in atmospheric concentration to approximately halve (i.e., go from 400ppm to about 340ppm).  "Halting emissions leads to a reduction in atmospheric CO2, but does not lead to much of a reduction in temperature. 
"Even though warming may stop, thermal expansion of the oceans does not."  *Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions* The severity of damaging human-induced climate change depends not only on the magnitude of the change but also on the potential for irreversibility. This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years. Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450–600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the “dust bowl” era and inexorable sea level rise. Thermal expansion of the warming ocean provides a conservative lower limit to irreversible global average sea level rise of at least 0.4–1.0 m if 21st century CO2 concentrations exceed 600 ppmv and 0.6–1.9 m for peak CO2 concentrations exceeding ≈1,000 ppmv. Additional contributions from glaciers and ice sheet contributions to future sea level rise are uncertain but may equal or exceed several meters over the next millennium or longer.  http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full

----------


## Marc

What a load of hogwash.

----------


## John2b

> What a load of hogwash.

  What is?

----------


## woodbe

> What a load of hogwash.

  Can you point out the 'hogwash'?   
Looks reasonable. You think the CO2 will suddenly disappear as soon as we stop pumping it into the atmosphere?

----------


## PhilT2

> What a load of hogwash.

  Don't hold back Marc, tell us how you really feel. And don't be afraid of quoting any actual science that supports your point of view. You have got some, haven't you?

----------


## Marc

*Mm ... Hogwash has a wide variety of synonyms ... I like balderdash ... sounds a lot like "blaterare" in Italian. By the way I disagree with the spanish translation. Way too soft and domestic to be accurate.  hog·wash* _1. Worthless, false, or ridiculous speech or writing; nonsense. 2. Garbage fed to hogs; swill._ _1. nonsense_  _noun (Informal) nonsense, rubbish, garbage (informal), balls (taboo slang), bull (slang), rot, crap (slang), trash, bunk(informal),, hot air (informal), tosh (slang, chiefly Brit.), pap, cobblers (Brit. taboo slang), bilge (informal), drivel,twaddle, tripe (informal), guff (slang), moonshine, hokum (slang, chiefly U.S. & Canad.), bunkum (chiefly U.S.), piffle (informal), poppycock(informal), balderdash, bosh (informal), eyewash (informal), kak (S. African taboo slang), hooey (slang), tommyrot That's a load of hogwash._  *TranslationsSpanish / Español* *hogwash* * tonterías fpl*     

> Activist liberal elites always need a Grand Cause to satisfy their messianic needs, or for the political equivalent of a dopamine rush. For such people, the only thing worse that catastrophic climate change is the catastrophe of not having a catastrophe to obsess over—and use as an excuse to extend political control over people and resources, which is the one-side-fits-all answer for every new crisis that starts through the issue-attention cycle. Downs did think that the issue-attention cycle would be longer for environmental issues than other kinds of issues like civil rights and crime, for a variety of reasons. So environmental junkies should chill. They’ll find new ways to get their fix. They always do.

  Yes, they do, and we pay for it, they do not.

----------


## John2b

On global warming and climate change, Harper and Abbott were peas in a pod. They both think that obfuscating evidential science can make the problem go away. 
"In 2006, the Harper government introduced strict procedures around how its scientists are allowed to speak about their research to the media."   FAQ: The issues around muzzling government scientists - Technology & Science - CBC News 
Maybe that's where Abbott got the idea to make scientists fear they may lose their jobs if they spoke openly and honestly. At least the Canadian public has had the good sense to ride themselves of Harper, the ignoramus. In Australia, the conservatives had to do the dirty work themselves to get rid of Abbott, the ignoramus.   Canada's Trudeau topples PM Harper in shock election win | Reuters

----------


## PhilT2

> In Australia, the conservatives had to do the dirty work themselves to get rid of Abbott, the ignoramus.

  They just got to him first, before the voters did, he was a dead duck either way. The important thing is both of them are gone. Both nations can now attend COP with an intelligent approach.

----------


## johnc

Harper was probably more like Howard, in the end people had lost trust and confidence, after all he lasted awhile. Abbott on the other hand was never really liked, on the world stage he showed himself as very limited in his thinking and unable to grasp broad issues, at home we voted Labor out not Abbott in, always a lame duck it just took some time for a majority in his party to feel the same way. Really it was all over with the first budget, no economic thinking, poor reasoning, illogical statements the bloke never had what it took and is probably the most spectacular example of a political failure we have seen.

----------


## John2b

> Harper was probably more like Howard, in the end people had lost trust and confidence, after all he lasted awhile. Abbott on the other hand was never really liked, on the world stage he showed himself as very limited in his thinking and unable to grasp broad issues, at home we voted Labor out not Abbott in, always a lame duck it just took some time for a majority in his party to feel the same way. Really it was all over with the first budget, no economic thinking, poor reasoning, illogical statements the bloke never had what it took and is probably the most spectacular example of a political failure we have seen.

  The comment about Harper and Abbott being peas in a pod was in relation to global warming and climate change. 
The most spectacular failure in regards of Abbott was that he ever got elected. There wasn't a single moment in time after Abbott got elected that he behaved one iota out of his previously demonstrated character. His behaviour was no less than exactly what any thinking person would have expected.

----------


## johnc

> The comment about Harper and Abbott being peas in a pod was in relation to global warming and climate change. 
> The most spectacular failure in regards of Abbott was that he ever got elected. There wasn't a single moment in time after Abbott got elected that he behaved one iota out of his previously demonstrated character. His behaviour was no less than exactly what any thinking person would have expected.

  I considered his elevation to the leadership of his party as an indictment on the intelligence of the Liberal party, the fact he got them into the treasury benches showed little more than the infinite stupidity of the electorate, none more so than his own stomping ground. I do agree about climate change and global warming plus a few other issues, neither man had much depth, just a few snippets of ideology bound up in a desire to be top dog, I find it hard to believe Harper lasted as long as he did.

----------


## PhilT2

More evidence that grown-ups are now making some of the decisions in the Liberal Party. The new Education Minister announced that the money set aside for the Lomborg consensus centre could be "better utilized elsewhere". Couldn't agree more. While Lomborg's salary at the proposed centre was appropriate (zero) the taxpayer would have been providing the platform for his inaccuracies. Lomborg Errors

----------


## John2b

> More evidence that grown-ups are now making some of the decisions in the Liberal Party. The new Education Minister announced that the money set aside for the Lomborg consensus centre could be "better utilized elsewhere". Couldn't agree more. While Lomborg's salary at the proposed centre was appropriate (zero) the taxpayer would have been providing the platform for his inaccuracies. Lomborg Errors

   Canada&#039;s Harper follows fellow "climate villain" Abbott into political oblivion : Renew Economy 
One can only hope...

----------


## Marc

*Pointless Predictions*  _The climate crisis is the latest in a long line of predictions about how bad things are going to be in the future. Lets remember that while scary headlines sell newspapers, journalists have a terrible track record._ click to enlarge; distribute at will 140 years ago, when George Eliot was writing _Middlemarch_, that great work describedby Virginia Woolf as one of the few English novels written for grown-up people, it was obvious that most predictions are a pointless waste of time. Humans have little idea of what the future holds. Conventional wisdom, prevailing orthodoxies, reigning intellectual fads  all of these prevent us from seeing the world clearly. In 2008, Canadas weekly news magazine, _Macleans_, ran an article titled _Soaring energy costs are about to change everything_. Should oil hit US$200 [a barrel] in the next few years, the world will be scarcely recognizable, it warned. We were told that our lives were about to change in profound and dramatic ways. That the apocalyptic fallout would turn suburbs into ghost towns, slums, and salvage yards since it would become unfeasible for people to drive from the burbs to distant jobs. We were advised that the coming era of expensive oil would redraw everything, and that the world had entered a whole new realm. A mere six-a-half-years later, the rhetoric in that news storys final paragraph strikes us as pathetically idiotic:All signs suggest that *planning for real change* wont come until its too late. People dont wake up until things are flying apart, says Matt Savinar, a California lawyerEverything that hes been preaching is coming true, but still *no one is listening* If you imagine *your worst nightmare, were right on track* for that to come true. [bold added]Oil is currently trading at US$52 a barrel. The two journalists who wrote that 2008 news story didnt have a clue. Nor did the magazines editors. Nor did all the experts who were interviewed and quoted. Rank speculation masquerading as news. That is what predictions about the future amount to. And that, dear friends, is what the entire climate crisis boils down to. Experts imagining they know what will happen next. Journalists pretending that experts know what theyre talking about. Whatever the future holds, it will likely surprise us all. So be of good cheer  and have a Happy New Year! . *CUT & PASTE QUOTE:*  Among all forms of mistake, prophecy is the most gratuitous. _George Eliot,Middlemarch_ .http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/01/02/pointless-predictions/  More predictions:

----------


## Marc

http://geologist-1011.mobi/  *The Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain.*  *Abstract.*  I have reproduced the full text of a number of articles that seem to be chronically misquoted or misunderstood. This is possibly because access is difficult, and so my objective is that by improving access, perhaps the many people who misquote these papers will endeavour to read what is written before citing it. Fourier, putatively the father of the "Greenhouse Effect" says something quite different in the text of his work (Fourier, 1824; Fourier, 1827; Burgess, 1837). Tyndall (1861), who first proposes the radiation trap on which the "Greenhouse Effect" is based, not only misquotes Fourier but bases his own heat transfer theory on the assumption of luminiferous aether - an idea Fourier impled might change substantially. Moreover, Tyndall confused opacity and absorption, in spite of the significant visible reflection presented by chlorine gas - which he examined. This is perhaps because he neglected to consider gaseous reflection of wavelengths outside the visible spectrum. Tyndall is celebrated as the scientist who proved the "Greenhouse Effect" when in actual fact, his work on the infrared absorption of gases failed to address absorption as opposed to opacity. Moreover, his speculations on climate were hypothetical and rooted in his own aethereal heat transfer mechanism, which was refuted in 1887. Moving on from the "Greenhouse Effect" to natural sources of carbon dioxide, Gerlach (1991) is spectacularly misrepresented as a tally of measured volcanic carbon dioxide emissions. In fact,Gerlach (1991) is a guess based on a grand total of seven subaerial volcano emission measurements, three hydrothermal vent site emission measurements, and corroboration with even more tenuous estimates available at the time.*Introduction*  In a very interesting paper demonstrating the real, rather than imagined, origins of key elements in folk tradition, Luciani (2013) opens with a quotation, concerning folklore, which is strangely relevant to the behaviour of some modern scientists:the mediæval story-teller is pillaging an antiquity of which he does not fully possess the secret; he is like a peasant building his hut on the site of Halicarnassus or Ephesus; he builds, but what he builds is full of materials of which he knows not the history, or knows by a glimmering tradition merely; stones ‘not of this building’, but of an older architectureThis quote, from Arnold (1867, p. 61), could just as easily be said of the modern scientists, of certain political persuasion, who _are pillaging an antiquity of which they do not possess the secret; they are like a peasant building his hut on the site of Halicarnassus or Epesus; they build their science but what they build is full of conceptual underpinning of which they neither know the history nor the facts. At most, such scientists know the meagrest glimmering tradition concerning these texts which they have not even bothered to read themselves and, as such, their science is not of modern science, but of an older conjecture_. Unlike the peasant's hut, this is a profound problem for science and, it is for the demonstration of this problem, that I showcase some of the most misquoted literature in the sciences; so that you may read for yourself, what the "experts" did not bother to read, before citing it.   http://geologist-1011.mobi/

----------


## PhilT2

Not quite sure what the point of those two cut and pastes is, to be honest. The first talks about a newspaper that got a prediction wrong. Earth shattering, the media wrong, who ever heard of such a thing. 
The second bit seems to be saying that early scientists didn't get everything right. Not too sure on that because the author could use a few tips on how to get to the point without so much waffle. But if that's his point then he's right, the pioneers in nearly all fields of science rarely got everything perfect right from the start. Nobody disagrees with that.  
But if you have any actual evidence that the science of today is wrong now would be a good time to put it out there. Your Nobel prize awaits you.

----------


## John2b

> The second bit seems to be saying that early scientists didn't get everything right. Not too sure on that because the author could use a few tips on how to get to the point without so much waffle. But if that's his point then he's right, the pioneers in nearly all fields of science rarely got everything perfect right from the start. Nobody disagrees with that.

  I recommend following Marc's links and reading the many and varied views of Timothy Casey B.Sc.(Hons.): Consulting Geologist. 
There you will see how his "site combines multiple browser compatibility, printer friendliness, standards-compliance, fixed panels & branding, dropdown menus, Triple-A rated accessibility for visually impaired, and operability under all security settings. As I was the first to solve the problem of successfully combining all these features, I believe this comprises the strongest demonstration of my problem-solving abilities."   geologist-1011.bizgeologist-1011.comgeologist-1011.infogeologist-1011.mobigeologist-1011.namegeologist-1011.netgeologist-1011.org "

----------


## Marc

* HOME»NEWS»WORLD NEWS»EUROPE»FRANCE *     *France's top weatherman sparks storm over book questioning climate change**Philippe Verdier, weather chief at France Télévisions, the country's state broadcaster, reportedly sent on "forced holiday" for releasing book accusing top climatologists of "taking the world hostage"*      [COLOR=#565656 !important]19K[/COLOR]         [COLOR=#565656 !important]2K[/COLOR]         [COLOR=#565656 !important]12[/COLOR]         [COLOR=#565656 !important]70[/COLOR]         [COLOR=#565656 !important]21K[/COLOR]     Email          Philippe Verdier's outspoken views reportedly led France 2 to send him on a 'forced holiday'           By Henry Samuel, Paris  5:45PM BST 14 Oct 2015    Every night, France's chief weatherman has told the nation how much wind, sun or rain they can expect the following day.  Now Philippe Verdier, a household name for his nightly forecasts on France 2, has been taken off air after a more controversial announcement - criticising the world's top climate change experts.  Mr Verdier claims in the book Climat Investigation (Climate Investigation) that leading climatologists and political leaders have “taken the world hostage” with misleading data.  In a promotional video, Mr Verdier said: “Every night I address five million French people to talk to you about the wind, the clouds and the sun. And yet there is something important, very important that I haven’t been able to tell you, because it’s neither the time nor the place to do so.”  He added: “We are hostage to a planetary scandal over climate change – a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear.”  His outspoken views led France 2 to take him off the air starting this Monday. "I received a letter telling me not to come. I'm in shock," he told RTL radio. "This is a direct extension of what I say in my book, namely that any contrary views must be eliminated." The book has been released at a particularly sensitive moment as Paris is due to host a crucial UN climate change conference in December.  TEASER OFFICIEL - CLIMAT INVESTIGATION... _par Editions_Ring_ According to Mr Verdier, top climate scientists, who often rely on state funding, have been “manipulated and politicised”. He specifically challenges the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, saying they “blatantly erased” data that went against their overall conclusions, and casts doubt on the accuracy of their climate models. The IPCC has said that temperatures could rise by up to 4.8°C if no action is taken to reduce carbon emissions. Mr Verdier writes: “We are undoubtedly on a plateau in terms of warming and the cyclical variability of the climate doesn’t not allow us to envisage if the natural rhythm will tomorrow lead us towards a fall, a stagnation or a rise (in temperature).” The 330-page book also controversially contains a chapter on the “positive results” of climate change in France, one of the countries predicted to be the least affected by rising temperatures. “It’s politically incorrect and taboo to vaunt the merits of climate change because there are some,” he writes, citing warmer weather attracting tourists, lower death rates and electricity bills in mild winters, and better wine and champagne vintages. Asked whether he had permission from his employer to release the book, he said: “I don’t think management liked it, let’s be honest.” "I put myself via this investigation on the path of COP 21, which is a bulldozer, and we can see the results." The book was criticised by French newspaper Le Monde as full of “errors”. “The models used to predict the average rise in temperatures on the surface of the globe have proved to be rather reliable, with the gap between observations and predictions quite small,” it countered. Mr Verdier told France 5: “Making these revelations in the book, which I absolutely have the right to do, can pose problems for my employer given that the government (which funds France 2) is organising COP [the climate change conference]. In fact as soon as you a slightly different discourse on this subject, you are branded a climate sceptic.” He said he decided to write the book in June 2014 when Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, summoned the country’s main weather presenters and urged them to mention “climate chaos” in their forecasts. “I was horrified by this discourse,” Mr Verdier told Les Inrockuptibles magazine. Eight days later, Mr Fabius appeared on the front cover of a magazine posing as a weatherman above the headline: “500 days to save the planet.” Mr Verdier said: “If a minister decides he is Mr Weatherman, then Mr Weatherman can also express himself on the subject in a lucid manner. “What’s shameful is this pressure placed on us to say that if we don’t hurry, it’ll be the apocalypse,” he added, saying that “climate diplomacy” meansleaders are seeking to force changes to suit their own political timetables. According to L’Express magazine, unions at France Television called for Mr Verdier to be fired, but that Delphine Ernotte, the broadcaster’s chief executive, initially said he should be allowed to stay “in the name of freedom of expression”.

----------


## John2b

> Philippe Verdier, weather chief at France Télévisions, the country's state broadcaster, reportedly sent on "forced holiday" for releasing book accusing top climatologists of "taking the world hostage.

  Philippe Verdier made the statements below quite recently (apologies for machine translation, but the meaning and content is clear). What caused him to suddenly change position? Hint: money.   The climate is a global issue that puts everyone on the same level. We are both responsible and victims of this global pollution. Today, we still emit more C02 than yesterday. The day will change will be the true breaking point.I finally appreciated that the climate skeptics have the right to speak. Allegre we invited to speak on BFM TV the day before the opening of Copenhagen. We also interviewed Greenpeace. Despite the differences, the debate does not prevent the negotiation. Today there consensus on the issue, but disagreement on the means of action. Simply because this is no longer separable from political, social, economic, environmental. It is normal that disagreements are immense. The climate is the sign of globalization and sustainable development.I believe more global agreements by sector (energy, IT, transportation). This is already done with the results. I believe that if global governance fails on this issue, there will a takeover of local communities. American megacities, Chinese, European, they have already signed agreements. Cities invest and act. They emit three-quarters of CO2 and therefore credible.  
WUWT got its knickers in a knot and posted:   

> Yesterday we informed you about how France’s lead television weatherman was forced to take a “holiday” in response to him publishing a book that is critical towards climate change alarmism. So far, all the TV network has done is unleash *the Striesand Effect*, heaping negative attention upon their decision, which is being seen as prohibiting free speech.

  This claim does not seem to be supported given how few people have signed the petition to have Verdier reinstated (currently at 0.007% of the French population): https://www.change.org/p/remy-pfimli...ce-télévisions

----------


## PhilT2

Anyone seen a credible review of his book? By someone with the qualifications to assess it accurately?

----------


## John2b

> Anyone seen a credible review of his book? By someone with the qualifications to assess it accurately?

   It's only been released a few days. But Le Monde (newspaper) had a go here: https://translate.google.com/transla...ml&prev=search 
FWIW one hardly needs to be an expert in anything to see logical fallacies and misrepresentations from a kilometre away.

----------


## John2b

NASA’s terrifying new discovery shows how quickly the Earth is running out of water  
Of course this isn't news to anyone who had anything to do with agricultural planning in the 1960s.   NASA finds Earth is running out of groundwater

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> NASAs terrifying new discovery shows how quickly the Earth is running out of water  
> Of course this isn't news to anyone who had anything to do with agricultural planning in the 1960s.   NASA finds Earth is running out of groundwater

  By Crikey, New Ltd know how to click bait... 
Yeah the problem is real enough but the actual research concerns only a few major groundwater basins that happen to support significant human population. 
Actually we aren't running out of water...just redistributing it in a number of stupid ways!!

----------


## PhilT2

> Actually we aren't running out of water...just redistributing it in a number of stupid ways!!

  Maybe if we had somebody to oversee all these things, you know, like a one world govt with an Agenda, illuminati and lizard men etc.... 
The aquifers in California have been heavily used during their prolonged drought. This has caused significant land subsidence in some areas. The immediate problem is the damage this causes to infrastructure, roads, bridges etc but the issue I wonder about is whether the underground aquifer ever returns to its original capacity or is the reduction permanent? News | NASA: California Drought Causing Valley Land to Sink

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...but the issue I wonder about is whether the underground aquifer ever returns to its original capacity or is the reduction permanent?

  Depends on your concept of permanent... 
If your mind works only on human time scales then the reduction may well be permanent...but on geological scales, we'll be ace!! 
Fortunately, not all aquifers are fossilised. Our own Great Artesian Basin is a good example and its one that's on the comeback in places thanks to some excellent work from land managers and some public investment. 
But there are other shallow aquifers around the country that are indeed toast at this point in time...the Gnagara (spelling?) Mound under Perth and others in East Gippsland come to mind. 
No need for lizard men...

----------


## johnc

> Depends on your concept of permanent... 
> If your mind works only on human time scales then the reduction may well be permanent...but on geological scales, we'll be ace!! 
> Fortunately, not all aquifers are fossilised. Our own Great Artesian Basin is a good example and its one that's on the comeback in places thanks to some excellent work from land managers and some public investment. 
> But there are other shallow aquifers around the country that are indeed toast at this point in time...the Gnagara (spelling?) Mound under Perth and others in East Gippsland come to mind. 
> No need for lizard men...

  Depends on recharge rate as much as anything around here, some aquifers have real problems and new bores aren't allowed, yet just up the road you can be fine, a lot of work is being done to manage the problem. Of course coal mine pumping and oil extraction is causing land subsidence as water is being pumped in large volumes one to keep open cuts dry and the other as oil draws water up as well and as the wells age the impact grows. The two extractive industries are a problem, one option is to flood the mines as they are exhausted, should be interesting we aren't talking about duck ponds here but seriously large holes in the ground both in depth and area, stabilising the banks alone would be an engineering feat I would expect let alone managing the filling you just can't divert a river for the next decade.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> one option is to flood the mines as they are exhausted, should be interesting we aren't talking about duck ponds here but seriously large holes in the ground both in depth and area, stabilising the banks alone would be an engineering feat I would expect let alone managing the filling you just can't divert a river for the next decade.

  Mines of that age are an issue as they weren't always approved with a sound mind and financial incentive to rehabilitation back then... 
So the rehabilitation process in these cases often operates by a schema known as 'Three Wise Monkeys and their Camel'.  It rarely turns out well for the Camel.

----------


## Marc

> Depends on your concept of permanent... 
> If your mind works only on human time scales then the reduction may well be permanent...but on geological scales, we'll be ace!! 
> Fortunately, not all aquifers are fossilised. Our own Great Artesian Basin is a good example and its one that's on the comeback in places thanks to some excellent work from land managers and some public investment. 
> But there are other shallow aquifers around the country that are indeed toast at this point in time...the Gnagara (spelling?) Mound under Perth and others in East Gippsland come to mind. 
> No need for lizard men...

  Heretic!  Denier!!  You must be on the big oil payroll !!! 
Or may be you just have common sense ... unlike the agitators who know the value of scaremongering.  
How much is all this costing us? Anyone done the maths? ... how many trillions thrown to the wind?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> How much is all this costing us? Anyone done the maths? ... how many trillions thrown to the wind?

  Human society has invested heavily in ignorance for centuries. And spent even more paying the price for it. 
Though it'd be brave or foolish or even more ignorant to think it was wasted. 
Like matter, money is never destroyed...merely transformed. Therefore...even when scattered to the wind...it is never wasted. Call it a 'tangential investment in the human experience' instead!

----------


## John2b

> How much is all this costing us? Anyone done the maths? ... how many trillions thrown to the wind?

  According to the International Monetary Fund: "Governments around the world will subsidise the cost of oil, gas and coal to the tune of US$5.3 trillion this year".  http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7c651...#axzz3pfpE6EaZ 
To put that in perspective, "for all people on earth to have access to fresh water would cost US$190 billion, US$370 billion could cover universal access to sanitation, and US$430 billion could finance access to electricity".  Fossil fuel subsidies? Or water, power, sanitation for all | Assemble Papers

----------


## Marc

Oh, absolutely. 
However there is such thing as opportunity cost ... you can spend money to fuel the ego of a group of cretins that are "in charge" due to another bunch of cretins voting them, or you can spend on infrastructure that does not make distinctions between the left and the right... but not for both. Decisions decisions ...  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

> Human society has invested heavily in ignorance for centuries.

   The vatican should be proof enough!

----------


## Marc

*Gates: Renewable energy can't do the job. Gov should switch green subsidies into R&D*  *'Only way to a positive scenario is innovation'*  *Gates says renewables are rubbish. Probably won't win over the Linux fanciers.*26 Jun 2015 at 15:03, Lewis Page  Retired software kingpin and richest man in the world Bill Gates has given his opinion that today's renewable-energy technologies aren't a viable solution for reducing CO2 levels, and governments should divert their green subsidies into R&D aimed at better answers.  Gates expressed his views in an interview given to the _Financial Times_ yesterday, saying that the cost of using current renewables such as solar panels and windfarms to produce all or most power would be "beyond astronomical". At present very little power comes from renewables: in the UK just 5.2 per cent, the majority of which is dubiously-green biofuel burning1 rather than renewable 'leccy - and even so, energy bills have surged and will surge further as a result.  In Bill Gates' view, the answer is for governments to divert the massive sums of money which are currently funnelled to renewables owners to R&D instead. This would offer a chance of developing low-carbon technologies which actually can keep the lights on in the real world.  “The only way you can get to the very positive scenario is by great innovation,” he told the pink 'un. “Innovation really does bend the curve.” Gates says he'll personally put his money where his mouth is. He's apparently invested $1bn of his own cash in low-carbon energy R&D already, and “over the next five years, there’s a good chance that will double,” he said.  The ex-software overlord stated that the _Guardian_'s scheme of everyone refusing to invest in oil and gas companies would have "little impact". He also poured scorn on another notion oft-touted as a way of making renewable energy more feasible, that of using batteries to store intermittent supplies from solar or wind.  “There’s no battery technology that’s even close to allowing us to take all of our energy from renewables," he said, pointing out - as we've noted on these pages before - that it's necessary "to deal not only with the 24-hour cycle but also with long periods of time where it’s cloudy and you don’t have sun or you don’t have wind." So what are the possible answers, in Gates' view?  Gates is already well known as a proponent of improved nuclear power tech, and it seems he still is. He mentioned the travelling-wave reactors under development by his firm TerraPower, which are intended to run on depleted uranium stockpiled after use in conventional reactors. He also spoke of methods of using solar power to produce liquid hydrocarbons, which, unlike electricity, can be stored practicably in useful amounts: "one of the few energy storage things that works at scale", as he put it. Gates also spoke of the radical plan of high-altitude wind farming using kite-balloons flying high up in the jet stream - though he admitted that that one was something of a long shot. In Gates' view, decades from now a few of today's new-energy companies will have become massive and early investors will have reaped the sort of rewards that he, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer have from Microsoft. But many others won't be so lucky. "Now there’s a tonne of software companies whose names will never be remembered," he told the _FT_interviewers. *Analysis*  Gates has said a lot of this before. The main new thing is the firm assertion that renewable energy technology as it now is has no chance of powering a reasonably numerous and well-off human race. This is actually a very simple thing to work out, and just about anybody numerate who thinks about the subject honestly comes to the same conclusion - examples include your correspondent, Google renewables experts, global-warming daddy James Hansen, even your more honest hardline greens (they typically think that the answer is for the human race to become a lot less numerous and well-off).  Unfortunately a lot of people aren't numerate and/or aren't honest, so it's far from sure that the colossal subsidies pumped into today's useless renewables will get diverted into R&D which could produce something worthwhile. In the UK at least this would be quite difficult, as the subsidies are not actually subsidies as such - no tax money is paid out to windfarmers and solar-panellists from the Treasury.  Rather, the system works by artificially pumping up the price of 'leccy and gas and channelling the extra cash - minus various margins for various people involved - to the windfarmers and panel people, such that they get paid vastly more than the market price of the power they produce.  A lot of people - including the government at times - prefer to pretend that this isn't happening at all: that prices are going up because of the gas market, or corporate profiteering, or something, and that green policy is actually saving people money in some way.  So given that officially nobody is paying any more money and therefore there aren't any subsidies, they probably can't be diverted to anywhere. The newly-reelected Chancellor is trying to stop them getting bigger, but he probably won't manage to seriously reduce them overall, let alone re-purpose them. ® *Bootnote*  1DUKES chapter 1 (pdf page 1) and chapter 6 (pdf page 4)

----------


## John2b

> Gates says renewables are rubbish.

  Funny person for you to quote, Marc. I guess integrity is not a strong point for AGW deniers.  Bill Gates: "Only Socialism Can Save the Climate, ‘The Private Sector is Inept’"   http://usuncut.com/climate/bill-gates-only-socialism-can-save-us-from-climate-change/  Oh, and what does Bill Gates invest in that he doesn't want everyone to know about? Geoengineering, of course - that and the $billion or so he has invested in fossil energy companies. So Bill Gates is hedging his bets, hoping to make a killing either way.   Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering | Environment | The Guardian

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Funny person for you to quote, Marc. I guess integrity is not a strong point for AGW deniers.  Bill Gates: "Only Socialism Can Save the Climate, ‘The Private Sector is Inept’"   http://usuncut.com/climate/bill-gates-only-socialism-can-save-us-from-climate-change/  Oh, and what does Bill Gates invest in that he doesn't want everyone to know about? Geoengineering, of course - that and the $billion or so he has invested in fossil energy companies. So Bill Gates is hedging his bets, hoping to make a killing either way.   Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering | Environment | The Guardian

  the idea that bill gates is in it for the money is laughable.  He has given away a large portion of his wealth and makes no secret of the plans for large (ie govt sized) charitable donations along with Buffet.  He has been extremely fortunate and is working at leaving a lasting legacy - his interest in climate change is one of those

----------


## johnc

> the idea that bill gates is in it for the money is laughable.  He has given away a large portion of his wealth and makes no secret of the plans for large (ie govt sized) charitable donations along with Buffet.  He has been extremely fortunate and is working at leaving a lasting legacy - his interest in climate change is one of those

  His contribution to eliminating polio alone is enough to put him up on a bit of a pedestal in my book. Gates is one of a few genuine people in the world who actually gives a stuff about others and backs it up, everyone is flawed and we shouldn't assume anyone is perfect but Gates on balance will leave a positive legacy.

----------


## John2b

> Gates is one of a few genuine people in the world who actually gives a stuff about others and backs it up, everyone is flawed and we shouldn't assume anyone is perfect but Gates on balance will leave a positive legacy.

  I am not so sure that I like Gates' attitude to nuclear energy, genetically modified organisms, geoengineering, etc. When you look at it closely, Gates often has strings attached to his 'philanthropy' so much so that it has been dubbed 'Philanthro-capitalism'. And I think outside of money, some of Gates' motivation is just 'conscience cleansing' after his less than noble corporate behaviour that found his company convicted of anti-trust breaches.  The flip side to Bill Gates&#39; charity billions -- New Internationalist

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I am not so sure that I like Gates' attitude to nuclear energy, genetically modified organisms, geoengineering, etc. When you look at it closely, Gates often has strings attached to his 'philanthropy' so much so that it has been dubbed 'Philanthro-capitalism'. And I think outside of money, some of Gates' motivation is just 'conscience cleansing' after his less than noble corporate behaviour that found his company convicted of anti-trust breaches.
>  I The flip side to Bill Gates&#39; charity billions -- New Internationalist

  well, if he's anti GMO, then you have an argument, because anti GMO is typical anti science - no different to global warming denial

----------


## John2b

> well, if he's anti GMO, then you have an argument, because anti GMO is typical anti science - no different to global warming denial

  I cannot agree with you on that issue. There is an abundance of scientific evidence cautioning against GMO.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I cannot agree with you on that issue. There is an abundance of scientific evidence cautioning against GMO.

  Rubbish. There's an abundance of opinion cautioning against GMO.  The scientific opinion from those in the field is similar to climate science - ie the doubt is a small group. The vast majority of disagreement is from those with little scientific training, and no specifically relevant scientific education.  For exactly the same reason, I don't make the assumption I know more than the majority of climate scientists. 
edit - 2 clear examples.  Nature and scientific American make it painfully clear that climate change is science and not opinion.  Similarly, both organisations make it clear that GMO is not bad, but good scientific method should evaluate each product, but in general the technology is excellent. 
eg http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...they-are-safe/  http://www.nature.com/news/fields-of-gold-1.12897

----------


## John2b

> Nature and scientific American make it painfully clear that climate change is science and not opinion.  Similarly, both organisations make it clear that GMO is not bad.

  Er... no they do not. Re-read your links without the blinkers...

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Er... no they do not. Re-read your links without the blinkers...

  Really, so the very first paragraph in scientific American article ( a magazine with proper editorial review of content) says,  "Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have met with enormous public opposition over the past two decades. Manypeoplebelieve that GMOs are bad for their health – even poisonous – and that they damage the environment. This is in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence that proves that GMOs are safe to eat, and that they bring environmental benefits by making agriculture more sustainable. Why is there such a discrepancy between what the science tells us about GMOs, and what people think?" 
what at could that possibly mean, apart from that GMOs are generally safe ? 
do you not notice, it says "many people", not many scientists?  Perhaps you missed "overwhelming scientific evidence"? 
this is equally up there with anti vaccination, "organic" foods, alternative medicine etc etc.  it is also incredibly close to the debate on climate change, where people with no training, experience, usually a low level of education, decide that they know best and don't seek expert advice.   Then in the same way as climate science, if the expert advice disagrees with their "Belief", they tend to invoke conspiracies - eg this scientist was once paid by Monsanto or Bayer and is therefore irrelevant. 
scientific literacy is also required to an extent, in that you need to understand what probably, likely etc mean.

----------


## John2b

Perhaps you could start a new thread on GMO and leave this one for 'emission trading'  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

Funny how some people here repeat the same banal hackneyed at nauseam as if it was some sharp comment. 
Bill Gates said: Renewable energy can't do the job. Governments should switch green subsidies into research and development ...
What on earth does it matter whatever _else_ Bill Gate may have said, where he invest his money or if he kissed his cousin?  
I post comments from people i respect when they happen to say things I agree with. If Bill Gates says communism is the answer to Global warming, or Christian Science has the answer to baldness, I don't post it and that opinion as aberrant as may be has no bearing on the opinion that makes sense. 
A drunk can state as a matter of fact that drinking is bad for your health. And then drink himself do death. His statement is still valid.  
The only possible answer to a post from BG that says renewables are rubbish, is to post an analysis as to why you think BG is wrong IN THIS PARTICULAR POINT, not that his fart stink too much therefore he is wrong in relation to renewables. 
This eternal repetition of side morsels made in an attempt to discredit the messenger rather than addressing the point is absolutely stale. 
In fact it is past stale, it stinks. :Flog Deadhorse:

----------


## John2b

> The only possible answer to a post from BG that says renewables are rubbish, is to post an analysis as to why you think BG is wrong IN THIS PARTICULAR POINT

  Bill Gates is wrong because are already examples in the world that prove him wrong - Denmark for example, and even poor old cot-case South Australia. 
Can we all look forward to the end of your mammoth cut-and-paste-athon and the opportunity read _your_ analysis... or will it be more of the "do as I say, not as I do" Marc?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Bill Gates is wrong because are already examples in the world that prove him wrong - Denmark for example, and even poor old cot-case South Australia. 
> Can we all look forward to the end of your mammoth cut-and-paste-athon and the opportunity read _your_ analysis... or will it be more of the "do as I say, not as I do" Marc?

  How does Denmark prove him wrong? 
denmark has 6Mw of wind power, nut it also interconnects with Germany , Norway and sweden, and imports approximately 6mW as well .  This of course makes sense because they are nearly completely reliant on wind power for their 40% renewable energy and the wind doesn't always blow. 
further, you may find that Denmark has the highest price of domestic electricity in Europe, so it certainly isn't cheap. 
finally, of all the EU countries, Denmark has the best position of coastline winds versus population, yet will unlikely be able to get over 50% wind power, without faking it by selling to its neighbours on windy days then buying it back on still days but counting their total output as their %of renewables. 
bit if a buggar if they happened to be an island......... 
incidentally, Denmark has double the capacity for generation of its highest demand day  -- unfortunately when relying on unpredictable technologies that is what you have to do.

----------


## John2b

> incidentally, Denmark has double the capacity for generation of its highest demand day  -- unfortunately when relying on unpredictable technologies that is what you have to do.

  A wind generator can be feathered, but coal fired and nuclear power stations cannot be feathered. They sit there burning fuel and heating cooling water all night waiting for the next days demand -- unfortunately that is what you have to do when you rely on 18th century 'boiling water' technology for energy. Pity about the planet and the people who live on it, though! 
Oh and since when is wind 'unpredictable'? As long as the Sun shines and the Earth turns, there will be wind.

----------


## Marc

> Can we all look forward to the end of your mammoth cut-and-paste-athon and the opportunity read _your analysis... or will it be more of the "do as I say, not as I do" Marc?_

  Total nonsense as usual. I choose articles that state what I think is right. No need to add some amateurish comment. Furthermore I don't constantly rubbish the authors of what you copy and post in an attempt to discredit their character. That is my criticism. The constant pathetic scrutiny of the authors' character or past peccadilloes completely irrelevant to the topic.
The reality is that renewable as they are today are a cash cow for crook government and mafia enterprise to buy votes and favours. An opportunity for greens and lefties to drum up allegiancy and support under the false pretence of altruism and greater good. Renewables market is a dirty and corrupt as any other energy market has ever been. To pretend it is not because it is "clean" is to believe in the faries in the bottom of the garden red riding hood, sleeping beauty and cinderella all at once. 
And we pay for it. Those who work and produce pay, those who talk hot air and ask for subsidies spend what we earn. 
The day of reckoning will be big and painful.

----------


## johnc

> How does Denmark prove him wrong? 
> denmark has 6Mw of wind power, nut it also interconnects with Germany , Norway and sweden, and imports approximately 6mW as well .  This of course makes sense because they are nearly completely reliant on wind power for their 40% renewable energy and the wind doesn't always blow. 
> further, you may find that Denmark has the highest price of domestic electricity in Europe, so it certainly isn't cheap. 
> finally, of all the EU countries, Denmark has the best position of coastline winds versus population, yet will unlikely be able to get over 50% wind power, without faking it by selling to its neighbours on windy days then buying it back on still days but counting their total output as their %of renewables. 
> bit if a buggar if they happened to be an island......... 
> incidentally, Denmark has double the capacity for generation of its highest demand day  -- unfortunately when relying on unpredictable technologies that is what you have to do.

  Denmark started the shift to renewables when they got screwed on oil prices in the 1970's and moved to coal, not having reserves of its own it is moving to renewables so it doesn't have to import. In some ways the oil price shocks moved them to where they are today. The plan is 100% renewables and to import and export power as needed which is the smart way to operate. Grid management is very different to the old coal plants but no worse. They have always had very high power prices renewables will eventually give them cheaper power as the technologies continue to improve and capital costs are recouped. let's not get excited by Bill Gates, some of his comments are good some aren't I think that means he is human, but he doesn't indulge in wedging or other political tactics to spread miss information, what you see is what you get.

----------


## John2b

> No need to add some amateurish comment.

  I would not know if your comments would be amateurish, because you rarely add any comments to the diarrhoea of unthinking garbage you paste. 
So just more of the 'Do as I say, not as I do" it is. Thanks for the clarification, and the acknowledgement 'I choose articles that state what I think is right' - irrespective of falsehoods and inconsistencies. Integrity is not relevant to your posting activity, apparently.    

> I don't constantly rubbish the authors of what you copy and post in an attempt to discredit their character.

  What utter rot! You are trying to posit that you have never bagged, well let's see, Rudd, Gillard, Suzuki, Gore, Nye, Flanagan, Mann... Come off it Marc, your slip is showing...

----------


## John2b

> further, you may find that Denmark has the highest price of domestic electricity in Europe, so it certainly isn't cheap.

  Yet Denmark has much cheaper electricity for industry than most European states, and cheaper than France whose primary source of electricity is 'low cost' nuclear: Denmark 0.088, France 0.091.

----------


## woodbe

Not often you see the realities before us spelled out so clearly for our climate change denier mates:     

> Cover your eyes so you cant see! Dont look at what happened before, or what came after! Dont even _think_  about whats really going to happen  believe the fairy tales that its  all a hoax, that everything is going to be fine, that we shouldnt  interfere.

  Remind you of anyone here?  :Biggrin:

----------


## John2b

> Remind you of anyone here?

  The temperature is pretty normal around Sydney, plus there's a spot on the tip of Antarctica that as cold as ever, ergo global warming is a scam!

----------


## Marc

*French Mathematical Calculation Society: Global Warming Crusade is absurd and pointless*   The hard sciences are less and less fooled by the charade of sciencey fear mongering (unlike some psychologists). It is great to see scientific groups speaking out, though we know this PDF, which was first published on the 24th of August 2015, will be ignored by the ABC, BBC, and CBC science propaganda teams. Not the right message. The Société de Calcul Mathématique SA, in France has issued a long in depth white paper on climate change: *The battle against global warming: an absurd,costly and pointless crusade* http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf  *The battle against global warming* 195  page PDF_ The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious.__There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the worlds climate is in any way disturbed__Conclusions based on any kind of model should be disregarded. As the SCM specializes in building mathematical models, we should also be recognized as competent to criticize them. Models are useful when attempting to review our knowledge, but they should not be used as an aid to decision-making until they have been validated._ The English Translation of the Calculation Mathematical Society, SA web page.   SCM was established in 1987, by University professor, Dr. Bernard Beauzamy. Their first specialty is mathematical modeling. A few excerpts of this long paper below *Summary*  All public policies, in France, Europe and throughout the world, find their origin and inspiration in the battle against global warming. The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious. No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct reference to global warming. You want to look at the geology of the Garonne Basin? It is, after all, an entirely normal and socially useful subject in every respect. Well, your research will be funded, approved and published only if it mentions the potential for geological storage of CO2. It is appalling. The crusade has invaded every area of activity and everyones thinking: the battle against CO2 has become a national priority. How have we reached this point, in a country that claims to be rational? At the root lie the declarations made by the IPPC, which have been repeated over the years and taken up by the European Commission and the Member States. France, which likes to see itself as the good boy of Europe, adds an extra layer of virtue to every crusade. When others introduce reductions, we will on principle introduce bigger reductions, without ever questioning their appropriateness: a crusade is virtuous by its very nature. And you can never be too virtuous. But mathematicians do not believe in crusades; they look at facts, figures, observations and arguments. *Part 1: The facts*  *Chapter 1: The crusade is absurd*
There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the worlds climate is in any way disturbed. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planets global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable. Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events  they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes. *Chapter 2: The crusade is costly* Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as ‗virtuous runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of ‗energy saving, which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed  it is the price we have to pay for our virtue. *Chapter 3: The crusade is pointless* If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (lets not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way. This just goes to show the truth of the matter: we are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2 emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.

----------


## Marc

I. Conclusion 
On reading through this list, one has the feeling that human activity and civilization affect the climate in every possible way, and clearly in a negative sense. But after a littleconsideration one realizes that that is true for all species, both animals and plants. Everylifeform influences its environment, and to call this influence ―negative‖ is a biaseddecision.A recent article in Science et Vie [Chauveau] explains that ―French cows emit as much gasin a year as 15 million automobiles!‖ What then? Should cows be killed? Should automobilesbe banned?It is a very one-sided process to list human activities and then for each one to check itsenvironmental impact, presented as something negative. This approach is essentially dishonest.  
Any animal species modifies its ecosystem, so we see no reason why human beings should be banned from building towns because it is warmer in them. Penguins toogather in vast troops to limit heat loss – should they be banned from doing so?II. Can human beings change the climate?What would be the consequences of a sudden halt to human activities? As we have seen inthe preceding sections, human influence on the greenhouse effect and the albedo is veryweak, almost negligible. Even though this influence is negligible, many try to reduce it.However, do we have the ability to do so? 
For many environmental problems, we have a tendency to apply simple logic: once we stop the disturbance the problem will stabilize and things will get back to ―normal‖. Forexample, when there are high levels of fine particulate pollution near a highway, limitingtraffic may solve the problem.147SCM SA White paper "Global Warming", 2015/09Are we in a similar situation with greenhouse gas emissions? We are tempted to think so—if the situation gets out of hand, we merely need to cut emissions drastically (assuming thatthat is possible) and the climate will ―recover‖ by itself.Unfortunately that is impossible, and there is a simple explanation: the lifespan of the greenhouse gases in question (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbons) is much greater than the timescales that interest us. 
 The lifespans of the main greenhouse gases are given below:
Gas Lifespan (years)Methane 12CO2 100Nitrous oxide 114Sulfur hexafluoride 3,200Perfluorocarbons 2,600 to 50,000Table 2: 
Lifespans of the main greenhouse gases (source: IPCC) 
In practice, if we completely stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow morning (including breathing), the only effect it would have would be to make CO2 levels in the atmosphere fall very slowly.There is also a fundamental error of logic in this approach, which is to believe that natureis stable and that only human activities alter this stability.
 For example, one might believe that there is a natural, stable level for CO2 which human activities have disturbed. That idea is essentially false: there is of course a CO2 cycle, in which CO2 is constantly being made, stored, and used. Human emissions are not added to this cycle; they are part of it.Even if human beings were so stupid as to want to do so, they have no technological meansto change the composition of the atmosphere. The ―carbon sequestration‖ schemes that weoften hear about are childish inanities that have no effect. Nor do they have any means toalter the composition or temperature of the oceans, the albedo of the Earth, etc. 
Here is an example of a measure that no minister has yet thought of: to increase the albedo and reduce the greenhouse effect, one could ask the whole population of France, including the women, to shave their heads and paint their scalps white, or varnish them!
Another measure in the same vein would be to implement an alternate-day traffic scheme. only people with varnished pates would have the right to go out on very sunny days. The reflectivity of their heads would be checked annually with a special instrument based on the principle of frequency-domain reflectometry. They would also enjoy a special privilegecalled the ―albedo tax credit‖. Other, hairy people, especially women, would only be allowedout at night, or on rainy days by special dispensation; they would be subject to a taxsurcharge proportional to the thickness of their hair

----------


## John2b

> *French Mathematical Calculation Society: Global Warming Crusade is absurd and pointless*

  Ah, yes. The Société de Calcul Mathématique SA; the organisation with the name confusingly meant to sound like a the real academic mathematical representative body in France the Société de Mathématiques Appliquées, the organisation with the headquarters in a rented office on the second floor above a jeweller and a frock shop, the organisation that claims to be a "not for profit' organisation, but is in fact a public limited company doing paid work in research and development for the energy industry in France, the organisation who's CEO writes a load of pseudo scientific gibberish without attributing a single author or providing any sources for his claims and fronts it as a "science paper" - is that the one, Marc? And who gives a cr*p about what he says, other than the Boltwattanova blogdysentery denier-sphere.

----------


## John2b

> Here is an example of a measure that no minister has yet thought of: to increase the albedo and reduce the greenhouse effect, one could ask the whole population of France, including the women, to shave their heads and paint their scalps white, or varnish them!

  Marc, you claim to be citing this a 'serious' discussion. Pasting this sort of absurdity does not help your case, it simply shows up your star writer as the dissimulator he is. But don't take my word for it; read his 'paper' for yourself: http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

----------


## John2b

About 10% of Iceland's surface area is covered by about 300 different glaciers. About 11 billion tons of ice per year is being lost due to global warming. Not only is that damaging Icelandic habitats and contributing to the global rise in sea levels, it is also causing the island to rise at around 35 mm per year. During the last deglaciation period 12,000 years ago geologic records suggest that volcanic activity across Iceland increased as much as 30-fold.  
The current pace of uplift is likely to cause an equivalent of one Eyjafjallajökull-scale volcanic blow every seven years. The Eyjafjallajökull eruption threw volcanic ash several kilometres up in the atmosphere and led to air travel disruption in northwest Europe in 2010 and caused many damaging electrical storms. 
It seems a no-brainer that global warming will also lead to an increase in earthquake activity, but there are bound to be benefits from earthquakes that the deniers will shortly point out...  Volcanoes and Climate Change: How They&#039;re Linked

----------


## John2b

> I choose articles that state what I think is right. The constant pathetic scrutiny of the authors' character or past peccadilloes completely irrelevant to the topic.

  If you don’t like people pointing out the association of your 'sources' to ridiculousness, stop quoting ridiculous sources. You can’t have it both ways.

----------


## John2b

For those interested, here are the sources for my post here: http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...31/#post989786   Here is the website of the society that is representative of applied mathematicians and academia in France: [SMAI]   Here is the website of the similarly sounding non academic Société de Calcul Mathématique SA: http://www.scmsa.eu   Here is the location of the registered office of the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA (you can see the plaque on the door): https://www.google.com/maps/place/So...3e5266!6m1!1e1   Here is where the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA claims to be “not for profit”: SCM, SA : prÃ©sentation   Here you can see the company’s structure and financial position: https://translate.googleusercontent....L5OM8iZzbzrT3g   Here you can see that the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA work is almost entirely in the defence and energy industries: Les fiches de compÃ©tence de la SCM   Here you can read the paper and see for yourself it is devoid of attributions for its claims and full of logical fallacies that even a child can see through: http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

----------


## pharmaboy2

> About 10% of Iceland's surface area is covered by about 300 different glaciers. About 11 billion tons of ice per year is being lost due to global warming. Not only is that damaging Icelandic habitats and contributing to the global rise in sea levels, it is also causing the island to rise at around 35 mm per year. During the last deglaciation period 12,000 years ago geologic records suggest that volcanic activity across Iceland increased as much as 30-fold.  
> The current pace of uplift is likely to cause an equivalent of one Eyjafjallajökull-scale volcanic blow every seven years. The Eyjafjallajökull eruption threw volcanic ash several kilometres up in the atmosphere and led to air travel disruption in northwest Europe in 2010 and caused many damaging electrical storms. 
> It seems a no-brainer that global warming will also lead to an increase in earthquake activity, but there are bound to be benefits from earthquakes that the deniers will shortly point out...  Volcanoes and Climate Change: How They&#039;re Linked

  there was a book on this effect a few years ago, and the conclusions were that the effects are " speculative" - general comment being that it was damaging the climate change cause with scaremongering.  Author personally felt that climate change was catastrophic within 85 years ( his words) 
so it's not a no brainer, it's speculative research and mostly comment. 
otoh, I seem to remember that Icelands retreat was driven by 2 local effects - Ocean currents and local environmental degradation - which effect snow fall more than anything.  Glacier retreat is not simple temperature change, it's precipitation as well

----------


## John2b

> there was a book on this effect a few years ago, and the conclusions were that the effects are " speculative" - general comment being that it was damaging the climate change cause with scaremongering.  Author personally felt that climate change was catastrophic within 85 years ( his words) 
> so it's not a no brainer, it's speculative research and mostly comment.

  Are you talking about the conclusions of the old book, or have you read the new study which has been accepted for publication (peer reviewed) but is yet to be published? Science does move on.

----------


## Marc

Thank you John for providing a link to the White paper for all to read. http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf 
I look forward to a scientific reply to this paper and a political one if any grown up can venture there. It would be twice as interesting if one can be found without the usual litany of irrelevant information like where the office is located, who is selling what at ground level (yes, support for alternative points of view is usually way less generous than the mainstream funding comfortably located in government offices funded by the usual suckers.... for now anyway) ... perhaps also omitting the name of the organisation with allusions to intentional misleading due to identity confusion, (called libel)  or perhaps the culinary habits of the doorman or his wife's dog.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Are you talking about the conclusions of the old book, or have you read the new study which has been accepted for publication (peer reviewed) but is yet to be published? Science does move on.

  Exactly as I said.  I also have a great enough understanding that single papers do not evidence make.  Further, the process of Peer review is not sancrosanct, and by statistical definition a large number of papers on a given subject are wrong - it works out at something over 20% for a simple chance test ( some authors estimate incorrect conclusions at only faintly better than chance).  
You seem not to know enough to have a sense of doubt? 
but you didn't link a paper, so how could I, you linked an opinionated piece written by what seems to be a journalist

----------


## woodbe

> there was a book on this effect a few years ago, and the conclusions were that the effects are " speculative" - general comment being that it was damaging the climate change cause with scaremongering.  Author personally felt that climate change was catastrophic within 85 years ( his words)

  What is the book title and author? Is it a novel dressed up as science, a printed copy of a peer reviewed science paper, or is it a textbook? 
Usually, published science runs ahead of books about science. Well, except when the CC deniers publish, they just reshape the history to suit their ideology. 
One paper does not turn over the established science, but I don't think we are in that category. The science has been published about ice loss data ad nauseum. As we get more data, we get more accurate information and more useful predictions. See the WGMS: latest glacier mass balance data – world glacier monitoring service

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Thank you John for providing a link to the White paper for all to read. http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf 
> I look forward to a scientific reply to this paper and a political one if any grown up can venture there. It would be twice as interesting if one can be found without the usual litany of irrelevant information like where the office is located, who is selling what at ground level (yes, support for alternative points of view is usually way less generous than the mainstream funding comfortably located in government offices funded by the usual suckers.... for now anyway) ... perhaps also omitting the name of the organisation with allusions to intentional misleading due to identity confusion, (called libel)  or perhaps the culinary habits of the doorman or his wife's dog.

  Hi Marc, is it not relevant at all who the author is and whether they are somewhat misleading in whom they are? 
i know I'm not going to get an unbiased view from either the guardian or fox, so I throw them out straight away.  What someone wants to believe always effects how they filter and seek information.  Someone who privately names an organisation to give it an air of offciialdom is totally relevant. 
quite rightly you can consider that an article from Greenpeace is going to be biased, as is many other left wing organisations who also consider themselves environmentalists, but the same process should also be applied in the other direction.

----------


## Marc

The battle against global warming:
An absurd,costly and pointless crusade
White Paper drawn up by the
SociétédeCalculMathématiqueSA 
Is the battle against "global warming" absurd costly and pointless, yes or no.
I say yes.
Others say ... what? 
That the author suffers from tinea? Or that he is jealous of channel 1 anchorman's fame?
An argument ad hominem is a low and useless argument that only shows lack of authority or imagination.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Is the battle against "global warming" absurd costly and pointless, yes or no.

  Yes it's costly. Pointless depends entirely on your point of view.   
For instance, I know that recreational boating is costly but I also believe it is pointless.... 
But is the 'battle against global warming' pointless (in my view)?  My response is.....mostly yes.  But then it is but a battle...not a war.

----------


## John2b

> but you didn't link a paper, so how could I, you linked an opinionated piece written by what seems to be a journalist

  Correct, a piece written by a journalist in a respected science magazine. You haven't read the paper, yet you feel compelled to use a call to authority to dismiss it based on something you remember reading in an undisclosed book years ago. That certainly triggers my sense of doubt.

----------


## John2b

> An argument ad hominem is a low and useless argument that only shows lack of authority or imagination.

  So why do you make  ad hominem statements against your 'opponents' in this forum?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Correct, a piece written by a journalist in a respected science magazine. You haven't read the paper, yet you feel compelled to use a call to authority to dismiss it based on something you remember reading in an undisclosed book years ago. That certainly triggers my sense of doubt.

  Time magazine is a respected science magazine? 
a call to authority?  Like perhaps calling time magazine a respected science magazine?  You are too funny dude  
you should doubt me, then do some research

----------


## John2b

> Yes it's costly. Pointless depends entirely on your point of view.   
> For instance, I know that recreational boating is costly but I also believe it is pointless.... 
> But is the 'battle against global warming' pointless (in my view)?  My response is.....mostly yes.  But then it is but a battle...not a war.

  Economic activity is economic activity. It doesn't much matter whether its changing to renewable energy sources or digging fossil energy out of a hole in the ground. Wealth, on the other hand, is accumulated when resources do not need to be continually consumed to maintain the status quo. One could argue that the creation of wealth is a strong argument to deal with CO2 emissions by moving to renewable energy. 
The battle against anthropogenic caused global warming has already been lost as far as the maintenance of a human habitable environment on the scale of centuries. Most people in environmental and climate science already know this but don't acknowledge it publicly, because of the derision the dominantly denier owned world media causes.

----------


## John2b

> Time magazine is a respected science magazine?

  My mistake, sorry. Mental disfunction LOL. I had in my mind that it was another journal. 
I should have written:  
Correct, a piece written by a journalist in a respected magazine. You haven't read the paper, yet you feel compelled to use a call to authority to dismiss it based on something you remember reading in an undisclosed book years ago. That certainly triggers my sense of doubt.  
There, it's all correct now.

----------


## Marc

Ha ha good try.
I think you must check the meaning of my words ... say Oxford dictionary ?

----------


## John2b

> Thank you John for providing a link to the White paper for all to read. http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf 
> I look forward to a scientific reply to this paper and a political one if any grown up can venture there.

  It is not a scientific paper. A collection of logical fallacies and misrepresentations of other people's work and data does not warrant a scientific response, indeed one would not be possible.

----------


## John2b

if the 'climate sceptics' are correct and know that the whole AGW thing is a scam, why don't they publish? 
I am not talking about unqualified people publishing - there is plenty of that on at Heartland and on Nova, Watts and innumerable other copycat blogs. Where are the papers from the qualified researchers who know it is a scam? They can't claim there are no journals for them to publish in, because journals have been created specifically and especially as an avenue to subvert normal scientific peer review process, such as 'The Open Atmospheric Society', 'Energy and Environment', and 'The Open journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change", plus there are journals that will publish anything for a fee: Some Online Journals Will Publish Fake Science, For A Fee : Shots - Health News : NPR 
Yet still the 'sceptical' scientists don't publish scientific articles offering alternative theories of climate change. The number of articles published (whether scientific or not) in journals such as these and others represents less than 0.01% of research papers published on climate change.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> My mistake, sorry. Mental disfunction LOL. I had in my mind that it was another journal. 
> I should have written:  
> Correct, a piece written by a journalist in a respected magazine. You haven't read the paper, yet you feel compelled to use a call to authority to dismiss it based on something you remember reading in an undisclosed book years ago. That certainly triggers my sense of doubt.  
> There, it's all correct now.

  ah, the edit function..... 
Hang on, didn't you just post earlier   

> It seems a no-brainer that global warming will also lead to an increase in earthquake activity, but there are bound to be benefits from earthquakes that the deniers will shortly point out...

  nb. - this is the unplagiarised part of the post that seems to be Johns thoughts  
And wasn't that on the basis of an article in Time magazine, about a paper that you haven't access to, and haven't read? 
then you have the gall to question me when I provided an opinion? 
that was no call to authority either because none was made - you are trying to sound like you are educated when clearly you are not.  You seem to have little underlying understanding of what you are speaking about nor even the basics of the scientific method.  Further you don't even understand the basics of fallacies - maybe you read it once on Wikipedia. 
i don't mind discussions with people of all backgrounds, but I draw the line at pompous people who don't even know enough to know they know little.  Spend more time reading and learning and a little less on pretending to be smart.  
have a nice day

----------


## John2b

> And wasn't that on the basis of an article in Time magazine, about a paper that you haven't access to, and haven't read?

  Correct. And one I didn't offer an opinion on, although you did. Opinion is fine, but best reserved to things known, not unknown.

----------


## John2b

> Hi Marc, is it not relevant at all who the author is and whether they are somewhat misleading in whom they are? 
> i know I'm not going to get an unbiased view from either the guardian or fox, so I throw them out straight away.  What someone wants to believe always effects how they filter and seek information.  Someone who privately names an organisation to give it an air of offciialdom is totally relevant. 
> quite rightly you can consider that an article from Greenpeace is going to be biased, as is many other left wing organisations who also consider themselves environmentalists, but the same process should also be applied in the other direction.

  Good points well expressed.

----------


## Marc

*Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’*  *Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: 'Global warming is a non-problem'* *'I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you're wrong. Dead wrong.'* *'Global warming really has become a new religion.'* *"I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November...I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position.'* *'We have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming.'*  By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotJuly 6, 2015 8:34 PM with 912 comments *Climate Depot Exclusive*Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, declared his dissent on man-made global warming claims at a Nobel forum on July 1, 2015. “I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Dr. Giaever announced during his speech titled “Global Warming Revisited.”  Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work on quantum tunneling. Giaever delivered his remarks at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany, which drew 65 recipients of the prize. Giaever is also featured in the new documentary “Climate Hustle”, set for release in Fall 2015. Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008 when he joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. Giaever signed his name to the letter which read in part: “The country urgently needs a visionary leader…We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.” But seven years after signing the letter, Giaever now mocks President Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”. Giaever called it a “ridiculous statement.” “That is what he said. That is a ridiculous statement,” Giaever explained. “I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said. (Watch Giaever’s full 30-minute July 1 speech here.) “How can he say that? I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” he added. “Obama said last year that 2014 is hottest year ever. But it’s not true. It’s not the hottest,” Giaever noted. [*Note*: _Other scientists have reversed themselves on climate change. See: Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming_] The Nobel physicist questioned the basis for rising carbon dioxide fears. “When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained.  *Global Warming ‘a new religion’* Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “I was horrified by what I found” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted. “Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”   *Concern Over ‘Successful’ UN Climate Treaty* “I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November. I really worry about that. Because the [2009 UN] conference was in Copenhagen and that almost became a disaster but nothing got decided. But now I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position,” Giaever said. “The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,” he noted. “I would say that the global warming is basically a non-problem. Just leave it alone and it will take care of itself. It is almost very hard for me to understand why almost every government in Europe — except for Polish government — is worried about global warming. It must be politics.” “So far we have left the world in better shape than when we arrived, and this will continue with one exception — we have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming. We have to do that or that may take us backwards. People think that is sustainable but it is not sustainable. *On Global Temperatures & CO2* Giaever noted that global temperatures have halted for the past 18 plus years. [*Editor’s Note*_: Climate Depot is honored that Giaever used an exclusive Climate Depot graph showing the RSS satellite data of an 18 year plus standstill in temperatures at 8:48 min. into video._]  Giaever accused NASA and federal scientists of “fiddling” with temperatures. “They can fiddle with the data. That is what NASA does.” “You cannot believe the people — the alarmists — who say CO2 is a terrible thing. Its not true, its absolutely not true,” Giaever continued while showing a slide asking: ‘Do you believe CO2 is a major climate gas?’ “I think the temperature has been amazingly stable. What is the optimum temperature of the earth? Is that the temperature we have right now? That would be a miracle. No one has told me what the optimal temperature of the earth should be,” he said. “How can you possibly measure the average temperature for the whole earth and come up with a fraction of a degree. I think the average temperature of earth is equal to the emperor’s new clothes. How can you think it can measure this to a fraction of a degree? It’s ridiculous,” he added.  _Ivar Giaever and King Carl Gustaf at the Nobel Prize ceremony in Stockholm in December 1973_ *Silencing Debate* Giaever accused Nature Magazine of “wanting to cash in on the [climate] fad.” “My friends said I should not make fun of Nature because then they won’t publish my papers,” he explained. “No one mentions how important CO2 is for plant growth. It’s a wonderful thing. Plants are really starving. They don’t talk about how good it is for agriculture that CO2 is increasing,” he added.  *Extreme Weather claims* “The other thing that amazes me is that when you talk about climate change it is always going to be the worst. It’s got to be better someplace for heaven’s sake. It can’t always be to the worse,” he said. “Then comes the clincher. If climate change does not scare people we can scare people talking about the extreme weather,” Giaever said. “For the last hundred years, the ocean has risen 20 cm — but for the previous hundred years the ocean also has risen 20 cm and for the last 300 years, the ocean has also risen 20 cm per 100 years. So there is no unusual rise in sea level. And to be sure you understand that I will repeat it. There is no unusual rise in sea level,” Giaever said. “If anything we have entered period of low hurricanes. These are the facts,” he continued. “You don’t’ have to even be a scientist to look at these figures and you understand what it says,” he added. “Same thing is for tornadoes. We are in a low period on in U.S.” (See: Extreme weather failing to follow ‘global warming’ predictions: Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Droughts, Floods, Wildfires, all see no trend or declining trends)  _Physicist Giaever in 1973_ *Media Hype*  “What people say is not true. I spoke to a journalist with [German newspaper Die Welt yesterday…and I asked how many articles he published that says global warming is a good thing. He said I probably don’t publish them at all. Its always a negative. Always,” Giever said. *Energy Poverty* “They say refugees are trying to cross the Mediterranean. These people are not fleeing global warming, they are fleeing poverty,” he noted. “If you want to help Africa, help them out of poverty, do not try to build solar cells and windmills,” he added. “Are you wasting money on solar cells and windmills rather than helping people? These people have been misled. It costs money in the end to that. Windmills cost money.” “Cheap energy is what made us so rich and now suddenly people don’t want it anymore.” “People say oil companies are the big bad people. I don’t understand why they are worse than the windmill companies. General Electric makes windmills. They don’t tell you that they are not economical because they make money on it. But nobody protests GE, but they protest Exxon who makes oil,” he noted. *#* _Ivar Giaever in 2008_ Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears. In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming. See: Prominent Physicist Hal Lewis Resigns from APS: ‘Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen…Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science’ Other prominent scientists are speaking up skeptically about man-made global warming claims. See: Prominent Scientist Dissents: Renowned glaciologist declares global warming is ‘going to be a big plus’ – Fears ‘Frightening’ Cooling – Warns scientists are ‘prostituting their science’ Giaever has become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears. He was featured prominently in the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of (then) Over 700 Dissenting International Scientists from Man-made global warming. Giaever, who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and won the 1973 Nobel Prize for Physics. _(Watch news coverage__here__.)_ Giaever was also one of more than 100 co-signers in a March 30, 2009 letter to President Obama that was critical of his stance on global warming. See: More than 100 scientists rebuke Obama as ‘simply incorrect’ on global warming: ‘We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated’ Giaever is featured on page 89 of the 321 page of Climate Depot’s more than 1000 dissenting scientist report (updated from U.S. Senate Report). Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion,” Giaever declared._ “__I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around,” Giaever explained. “Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don’t really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he concluded._ _Giaever also told the New York Times in 2010 that global warming “can’t be discussed — just like religion…there is NO unusual rise in the ocean level, so what where and what is the big problem?”_ _Related Links:_ _On Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 36 signed the declaration. As is typical of the suppression of the alternate views on climate, we never heard the opinion of the 35 who were in the [nearly equal] majority. Today, one of the Nobel laureates who was an attendee has spoken out._ _In Lindau Giaever speaks to young researchers and other Nobel laureates. In the second row: Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy in Barack Obama’s first Cabinet, where he drew a lot of money in research into renewable energies. The Nobel Laureate in Physics sinks deeper and deeper into his purple armchair, runs his fingers through his hair, scratching her on the forehead, shaking her head._ _Exclusive: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents! Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group’s Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming – Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘The temperature (of the Earth) has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’_ __ _2012: Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Ivar Giaever: ‘Is climate change pseudoscience?…the answer is: absolutely’ — Derides global warming as a ‘religion’ – ‘He derided the Nobel committees for awarding Al Gore and R.K. Pachauri a peace prize, and called agreement with the evidence of climate change a ‘religion’… the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements—and small enough not to matter in any case: “What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.”_ _When Science IS Fiction: Nobel Physics laureate Ivar Giaever has called global warming (aka. climate change) a ‘new religion’ -When scientists emulate spiritual prophets, they overstep all ethical bounds. In doing so, they forfeit our confidence’_ _American Physical Society Statement on Climate Change: No Longer ‘Incontrovertible,’ But Still Unacceptable – Because of the following statement from the American Physical Society: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”_ _Giaver: “I resigned from the society in 2011. First: nothing in science is incontrovertible. Second: the “measured” average temperature increase in 100 years or so, is 0.8 Kelvin. Third: since the Physical Society claim it has become warmer, why is everything better than before? Forth: the maximum average temperature ever measured was in 1998, 17 years ago. When will we stop wasting money on alternative energy?”_ _Skeptic win… American Physical Society removes ‘incontrovertible’ from climate change position_  _Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming_ _SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore – Climate Depot Exclusive: 321-page ‘Consensus Buster’ Report_ _Another Prominent Scientist Dissents! Fmr. NASA Scientist Dr. Les Woodcock ‘Laughs’ at Global Warming – ‘Global warming is nonsense’ Top Prof. Declares_ _Green Guru James Lovelock on Climate Change: ‘I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess’ – Lovelock Reverses Himself on Global Warming_ _More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore_ _Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’ – Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified’_ _‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Climate Scientist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’ – ‘If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic’_ _German Meteorologist reverses belief in man-made global warming: Now calls idea that CO2 Can Regulate Climate ‘Sheer Absurdity’ — ‘Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us’_ _UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report – Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist._ _‘Some of the most formidable opponents of climate hysteria include politically liberal physics Nobel laureate, Ivar Giaever; Freeman Dyson; father of the Gaia Hypothesis, James Lovelock — ‘Left-center chemist, Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of the German environmental movement’_ _Flashback: Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’_ _Read more: Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’ | Climate Depot_ 
Bjorn Ramstad • 4 months agoIvar Giver probably could have been a much richer man, had he, like disappointing many others, joined "the other side".
He's an honest man. So honest that mainstream media blocks him from saying the truth. There's a consensus. Not about science. They agree to mislead People for political purposes. This is a sad time.

----------


## John2b

> *Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’*

  From the man with no expertise in climate or the environment and who has by his own admission spent just a few hours on Google studying global warming...  "I am not really terribly interested in global warming.  Like most physicists I don't think much about it.  But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it.  And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned." _Dr. Ivar Giaever_ 
​More blather from Marc who seems to thank that pasting voluminous amounts of twaddle somehow gives it credibility. Hint: it doesn't. Not even when it is posted twice.

----------


## woodbe

> _Giaver:  “I resigned from the society in 2011. First: nothing in science is  incontrovertible. Second: the “measured” average temperature increase in  100 years or so, is 0.8 Kelvin. Third: since the Physical Society claim  it has become warmer, why is everything better than before? Forth: the  maximum average temperature ever measured was in 1998, 17 years ago.  When will we stop wasting money on alternative energy?”_

  First: Probably nothing is incontrovertible, but many things are pretty much past it. Climate change is one of them. Of course, anyone can prove a scientific theory wrong, we've been waiting even in this thread for six years, and nothing but dribble. 
Second: Yep. The relevance is the trend, dude. 
Third: Nope. Everything is not better than before. We are seeing more wild weather, more warming, reducing ice, SLR, increasing species extinction, etc, etc. Indeed, 1998 was a maximum year, but you do know that the climate is variable even when it is warming so 1998 is no surprise but it is history now, we've already topped it? Why show RSS which is upper air temperature instead of the area of the atmosphere humans occupy? 
Fourth: Such a shame to see a Nobel winner step out of their field, trip themselves up, and embarrass themselves in their old age.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> First: Probably nothing is incontrovertible, but many things are pretty much past it. Climate change is one of them. Of course, anyone can prove a scientific theory wrong, we've been waiting even in this thread for six years, and nothing but dribble. 
> Second: Yep. The relevance is the trend, dude. 
> Third: Nope. Everything is not better than before. We are seeing more wild weather, more warming, reducing ice, SLR, increasing species extinction, etc, etc. Indeed, 1998 was a maximum year, but you do know that the climate is variable even when it is warming so 1998 is no surprise but it is history now, we've already topped it? Why show RSS which is upper air temperature instead of the area of the atmosphere humans occupy? 
> Fourth: Such a shame to see a Nobel winner step out of their field, trip themselves up, and embarrass themselves in their old age.

  Not convinced we are seeing more wild weather, nor whether species extinction is related to climate - it's far more likely that species extinction is a seperate entity related to the drastic changes in the environment man has made , for a species to have made it this far, it has had to survive far greater changes in climate before, but it hasn't had to endure our denudation of forests, heavy metals, pesticides in the sea etc. 
one of the difficulties we have here over such long timescales is dealing with increasing data through time.  Even in the personal you can see how the media over blows things just in the last decade versus previous ones.  Eg, look at how parents have fears about their children being abducted and how it's not safe for children to play out in the street these days, or walk or ride to school.  Those risks haven't changed at all, merely the perception and reporting of them. 
so for weather, you need to restrict yourself to areas that have very good historical data, and that historical data has to be the only reason you choose the site, then start building trends with specific data points.   
Upper atmosphere makes sense when you are talking greenhouse effects and it's also a set of numbers unaffected by local environment changes around land based stations.  This was also the set of readings that brought about the discovery of warming oceans and that was where the temperature was going.   Rightly so, that is a concern to people when a model predicts something (atmospheric temperature rise) but it doesn't come about, so they change the model because clearly the change is going into the ocean .  Hopefully you can see how that's a shortcut of the scientific method - while one side says we are changing the model to reflect new information and reflect the physical world, someone else might say you are simply fitting models to observations and who is to say this one is correct when the previous one was incorrect? 
I was debating this 20 years ago, the same people who were predicting large rises in sea level by 2015 are now predicting it for 2035, or decades droughts and famine are still on the same @@@@@@@@.  That why people like john2b do so much damage to the discussion of climate change - they provide no convincing argument to people like Marc, and continue on with catastrophic claims, linking earthquakes with CC etc, and Marc can dismiss it as ravings .   More importantly people like Putin can also do so. 
as temp warms there will indeed be winners and losers, now we may win, or we may lose.  Some of the obvious solutions available to us are to engineer our water supplies to be drought proof - the biggest problem with that is the same people who are most panicky about global warming are also against any such plans as anti environmental. Crickey, the greens are anti hydro and anti uranium and coal - they need to get the priorities in order

----------


## Marc

*“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”* — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium. *“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!”* — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace. *“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself*.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. *“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data”* — Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems. *“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.”* — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences. *“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.”* — Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Lus Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.” *“I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore*” — Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic’s View.” *“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.”* — Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [_Update December 9, 2010_] *“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.”* — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [_Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring’s quote._] *“Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.”* — Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004″ by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.” *“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.”* — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research. *“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening*.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering. *“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cyclesare related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.”* — Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. *“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.”* — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.” *“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud*.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.  
Read more: SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot

----------


## woodbe

Marc, if you keep this up, I'll start copy pasting climate papers :P 
This is not a copy/paste testing area, it is a discussion area.

----------


## woodbe

Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet after local destabilization of the Amundsen Basin   Johannes Feldmanna,b andAnders Levermanna,b,1 *Significance*                            The Antarctic Ice Sheet is losing  mass at an accelerating rate, and playing a more important role in  terms of global sea-level                               rise. The Amundsen Sea sector of West  Antarctica has most likely been destabilized. Although previous  numerical modeling studies                               examined the short-term future evolution  of this region, here we take the next step and simulate the long-term  evolution of                               the whole West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Our  results show that if the Amundsen Sea sector is destabilized, then the  entire marine                               ice sheet will discharge into the ocean,  causing a global sea-level rise of about 3 m. We thus might be  witnessing the beginning                               of a period of self-sustained ice  discharge from West Antarctica that requires long-term global adaptation  of coastal protection.                               *Abstract*                            The future evolution of the  Antarctic Ice Sheet represents the largest uncertainty in sea-level  projections of this and upcoming                               centuries. Recently, satellite  observations and high-resolution simulations have suggested the  initiation of an ice-sheet                               instability in the Amundsen Sea sector of  West Antarctica, caused by the last decades enhanced basal ice-shelf  melting. Whether                               this localized destabilization will yield a  full discharge of marine ice from West Antarctica, associated with a  global sea-level                               rise of more than 3 m, or whether the ice  loss is limited by ice dynamics and topographic features, is unclear.  Here we show                               that in the Parallel Ice Sheet Model, a  local destabilization causes a complete disintegration of the marine ice  in West Antarctica.                               In our simulations, at 5-km horizontal  resolution, the region disequilibrates after 60 y of currently observed  melt rates.                               Thereafter, the marine ice-sheet  instability fully unfolds and is not halted by topographic features. In  fact, the ice loss                               in Amundsen Sea sector shifts the  catchment's ice divide toward the FilchnerRonne and Ross ice shelves,  which initiates grounding-line                               retreat there. Our simulations suggest  that if a destabilization of Amundsen Sea sector has indeed been  initiated, Antarctica                               will irrevocably contribute at least 3 m  to global sea-level rise during the coming centuries to millennia.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The battle against anthropogenic caused global warming has already been lost as far as the maintenance of a human habitable environment on the scale of centuries. Most people in environmental and climate science already know this but don't acknowledge it publicly, because of the derision the dominantly denier owned world media causes.

  Actually it's nowhere near lost. Not by a long shot. At least in terms of human habitation. We are harder to kill than cockroaches. However if we want to keep what we have then it's probably time to do hard graft...or we can put it off for a bit and do harder graft...and we should consider the positive economic stimulus of harder graft in times of stagflation!!! 
In terms of things like biodiversity and natural habitat...oh yeah they are toast. Well their current iterations are anyway...something different will always come along in time. Thing is though...they were toast already due to a range of other legacies of history...  
Murray River is a perfect example.  To maintain functionality for human benefit we'd be better off abandoning any concerns over river and floodplain health and just concreting the sucker...

----------


## John2b

> This is not a copy/paste testing area, it is a discussion area.

  I'll just 'test paste' something too:  "More than 1000 scientists" claims to include many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.  Really?  I decided to comb through the highlights page to see how impressive their stable of contrarians was.  *Here are the first few of the people mentioned.* *1. Tom Tripp.* Yes, Tom Tripp, the very first dissenter listed in the highlights, was a lead author for part of the last IPCC report!  Impressive, right?  Well, I dunno, which part did he work on?  As I reported way back in March, he worked on the section about greenhouse gas emissions from magnesium production operations.  Since Tripp is a metallurgist working for U.S. Magnesium, he is presumably well qualified to comment on the chemistry of magnesium production.  Unfortunately, it also means that he is likely to be quite unqualified to make comments about the state of climate science. *2. Leonard Weinstein.* It turns out that Weinstein is a retired NASA aerospace engineer.  Which means his specialty was designing aircraft/spacecraft.  Two people and Im already sensing a pattern, here *3. Robert Laughlin.* Although he won a Nobel Prize in physics, Laughlin is a particle physicist, not an atmospheric physicist.  Oh well, Nobel winners have a tradition of publicly commenting on whatever they feel like, and why not?  Smart people know everything about everything, dont they? *4. Christopher Kobus.* Heres how the Climate Depot page lists him:  Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.  Yep.  A mechanical engineer.  It sounds like his background would give him a leg up on others who want to get up to speed on atmospheric physics, but wheres the evidence that he has done so?  A quick check of the ISI Web of Science database, which indexes all the major peer-reviewed scientific literature, revealed a number of articles on engineering topics, but none on climate. *5. Anatoly Levitin.* Again, heres how the Climate Depot page lists this guy:  the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.  Well, at least the Ionosphere is part of the atmosphere.  So, at last!!!!  Five people into the list, and we have an actual atmospheric scientist of some sort!!!  A quick check of the Web of Science shows that he has published a number of articles about the interaction of solar radiation with the Earths magnetic field, and the like. *6. Geraldo Lus Lino.* Lino is a Brazilian geologist who wrote a book called The Global Warming Fraud.  Some geologists study past climates, so I wondered what Linos research specialty is, and looked him up on the Web of Science.  Guess what?  Lino didnt show up.  In other words, he has never published anything, about any scientific topic, unless it was in some obscure Portuguese journal, or something.  As far as I can tell, Lino doesnt have a PhD, either. *7. Mary Mumper.* Dr. Mumper is apparently the Chemistry Department chair at Frostburg State University in Maryland.  Her faculty web page doesnt list any research specialties, so I assume her job is limited to teaching.  But if she has a PhD, surely she has published something, hasnt she?  Yep.  the Web of Science says she published 3 articles and one abstract in the period from 1993-1998 about biochemistry.   So she isnt an active researcher, and her training was not in anything to do with climate science. *8. William C. Gilbert.* The Climate Depot page says:  Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere and he published a paper in August 2009 titled Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.  _Energy and Environment_ is a joke of a journal that will seemingly publish anything by anyone, as long as its skeptical of mainstream climate science.  The second article seems to just be something Gilbert posted on the Internet.  What is Gilberts real research specialty?  Well, Im not sure.  There is a person named WC Gilbert listed in the Web of Science who has co-authored a few studies of anesthesiology.  Another winner. *9. Hans Jelbring.* Climate Depot introduces him as: Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.  An actual climatologist?  Wow!  Lets look in the Web of Science and see what hes published about climatology.  Wait he doesnt have ANY peer-reviewed articles about ANYTHING listed in the Web of Science?  What a surprise. *Ok, Im quitting now, since this is getting a bit boring.*  I checked the first nine people on Marc Moranos list, and found exactly two of them with training in something to do with climate, and one of those doesnt appear to have published anything in the major peer-reviewed literature.  Im sure there are more active climate scientists in the list, somewhere, (I could name a few off the top of my head,) but I get the impression that their number is FAR less than 1000.  Apparently, Moranos list is *just another cheap red herring to distract attention from the fact that there is a strong consensus AMONG ACTIVE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS*.  Not engineers.  Not mechanics.  Not dog catchers.

----------


## John2b

> Marc, if you keep this up, I'll start copy pasting climate papers

  It is an experiment in the self fulfilling prophecy: Marc pastes more and more dubious crap to prove that 'alarmists' only want to draw attention to the dubiousness of his sources - doh!

----------


## John2b

"Our strategy must be to reduce pollution before it is ever generated -- to prevent problems at the source," he said. "That will involve working at the edge of scientific knowledge and developing new technology at every scale on the engineering spectrum. ...Prevention on a global scale may even require a dramatic reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels -- and a shift toward solar, hydrogen, and safe nuclear power. It may be possible -- just possible -- that the energy industry will transform itself so completely that observers will declare it a new industry."  
Richard F. Tucker, Mobil President, November 1988 at the American Institute of Chemical Engineers national conference.   
 "Doubt is our product. Victory will be achieved when: average citizens 'understand' (recognize) uncertainties in climate science." 
American Petroleum Institute communications team campaign memo, co-written by Chevron, Southern Company and a handful of fossil fuel industry-funded think tanks, 1988   $1.2 million   The amount of funding Willie Soon received from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade to provide "deliverables' i.e. scientifically indefensible papers and congressional testimony that posit solar activity as the main cause of global warming and carbon emissions have had little or no impact.

----------


## Marc

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat       *James Taylor** ,* *CONTRIBUTOR* _I write about energy and environment issues._  *FOLLOW ON FORBES (237)* 
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.
The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent. Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)    
A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.
In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.
Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.
During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?  
The frequency of polar ice cap stories may have abated, but the tone and content has not changed at all. Here are some of the titles of news items I pulled yesterday from the front two pages of a Google News search for “polar ice caps”:
“Climate change is melting more than just the polar ice caps”
“2020: Antarctic ice shelf could collapse”
“An Arctic ice cap’s shockingly rapid slide into the sea”
“New satellite maps show polar ice caps melting at ‘unprecedented rate’” 
The only Google News items even hinting that the polar ice caps may not have melted so much (indeed not at all) came from overtly conservative websites. The “mainstream” media is alternating between maintaining radio silence on the extended run of above-average polar ice and falsely asserting the polar ice caps are receding at an alarming rate.
To be sure, receding polar ice caps are an expected result of the modest global warming we can expect in the years ahead. In and of themselves, receding polar ice caps have little if any negative impact on human health and welfare, and likely a positive benefit by opening up previously ice-entombed land to human, animal, and plant life. Nevertheless, polar ice cap extent will likely be a measuring stick for how much the planet is or is not warming. *T*he Earth has warmed modestly since the Little Ice Age ended a little over 100 years ago, and the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors. As a result, at some point in time, NASA satellite instruments should begin to report a modest retreat of polar ice caps. The modest retreat – like that which happened briefly from 2005 through 2012 – would not be proof or evidence of a global warming crisis. Such a retreat would merely illustrate that global temperatures are continuing their gradual recovery from the Little Ice Age. Such a recovery – despite alarmist claims to the contrary – would not be uniformly or even on balance detrimental to human health and welfare. Instead, an avalanche of scientific evidence indicates recently warming temperatures have significantly improved human health and welfare, just as warming temperatures have always done.

----------


## John2b

> Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat *Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own*.
> Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

  
Classic 'sleight of hand' obfuscation, Marc; no wonder Forbes absolved themselves of editorial responsibility for the 'report'! 
The heat energy gained when ice melts is a function of volume, not area. The observed reduction in ice volume at the polar caps is is a dramatic indication of global warming.   
Everybody knows that as land ice melts and reduces the salinity of coastal sea water, the temperature at which the sea freezes rises and new sea ice forms at warmer temperatures than before. New sea ice is an indicator of warming, not stable, temperatures - doh!  *News | New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning*  https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...hinner-younger

----------


## pharmaboy2

Didn't do physics huh? 
there is no appreciable change in salinity that would effect freezing levels - that's a superbly rediculous claim. 
claims of such usually run into multiple centuries as a minimum if not Millenia ( that's how long it would take to lose the Greenland ice sheet and a decent amount if Antarctica  
either way Al Gore trumpeted some rediculous doomsday scenarios for the arctic icecap, and they are not ringing true.  We don't have enough history of the depth of arctic ice to be sure if we have lost substantial volume or whether 1979 was a bit of a high or normal so we are reliant on 2010 sat data going forward for volume 
nevertheless the size of the ice cap over summer is very important because it's a significant albedo effect. 
it is an example though that cool rational minds and not alarmism is needed.  All the stupid alarmists simply give the skeptical view more examples of people being wrong with their predictions

----------


## Marc

Not to mention that when sea water freezes it squeezes out the salt so sea ice has hardly any salt in it. The salt goes down to form underwater currents. The contribution of fresh water to the sea salinity reduction from land ice is as negligible as CO2 additions to the atmosphere by left handed calf born on Mondays in a leap year.

----------


## John2b

> Not to mention that when sea water freezes it squeezes out the salt so sea ice has hardly any salt in it.

  Correct Marc. Ice (land or sea) has no salt in it, so when land ice melts and runs into coastal seas it dilutes the salt level in the sea. The temperature at which war freezes is a function of the salt content, because it takes energy to have that salt out. Normally sea water has about 35 psu, meaning is needs to drop to about -2 degrees below zero to freeze.  
Brine is also more dense that freshwater and falls, leaving the less salty land ice meltwater on the surface, as you pointed out.      

> The contribution of fresh water to the sea salinity reduction from land ice is as negligible as CO2 additions to the atmosphere by left handed calf born on Mondays in a leap year.

  Incorrect. The contribution of land ice melt freshwater to sea salinity reduction is significant enough to cause the expansion of sea ice, despite the sea surface temperature being warmer:   
The ice forms along the coast where the dilution is significant, and then floats out to sea replacing older sea ice that has melted, which is why sea ice is becoming younger:  https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...hinner-younger

----------


## John2b

> Didn't do physics huh?

  Using salt to change the temperature of ice was part of school science classes in my day.

----------


## PhilT2

The contribution of changing salinity levels to increasing Antarctic sea ice originates with this paper I think. Not sure how well received it was. http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/...20-11-2515.pdf

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Using salt to change the temperature of ice was part of school science classes in my day.

  Salt in solution - you need to study how fast it dissipates into the total solution.  Eg salt water (3% or thereabouts ) is a total of 97% of the earths water.  Do the maths of a change of 1% of 3% times 3% salinity on the effect

----------


## pharmaboy2

> The contribution of changing salinity levels to increasing Antarctic sea ice originates with this paper I think. Not sure how well received it was. http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/...20-11-2515.pdf

  At least it makes sense Phil.  The currents driven by salinity at the poles are important - perhaps even provide some opportunity for geo engineering in the future to reverse or modify atmospheric temperature change

----------


## John2b

> Salt in solution - you need to study how fast it dissipates into the total solution.  Eg salt water (3% or thereabouts ) is a total of 97% of the earths water.  Do the maths of a change of 1% of 3% times 3% salinity on the effect

  The water concerned is near the coast where the fresh water melt runs in. The melt water is lighter that salty sea water and layers on the surface where it freezes at a higher temperature that normal sea water. The total size of the ocean and its total salt content is not relevant to the effect being discussed here: #14864

----------


## pharmaboy2

> The water concerned is near the coast where the fresh water melt runs in. The melt water is lighter that salty sea water and layers on the surface where it freezes at a higher temperature that normal sea water. The total size of the ocean and its total salt content is not relevant to the effect being discussed here: #14864

  Do you have some proof for this as the mechanism? 
why you may ask?  Because in order to freeze water it's not as simple as getting it to 0 or -1.8c in the case of std sea water.  What happens is the water gets to melting point, then stays at that temperature for a significant period of time while crystals zing - this requires more energy loss (actually is very substantial energy loss), then the water freezes and the temperature of the ice then declines. 
the reason this is important is that there is lots of time for the fresh water to dissipate into the salty water.  Further, because of the maths I put above, it requires a seriously large amount of fresh water to make even a 1c difference in the melting point ( at least 2/3 fresh to 1/3rd ocean ).  In practice, because of the process of enthalpy, even if the water didn't mix (no current, no tide, no waves) it's all still only marginally under freezing and won't lose enough heat to the environment to crystallise. 
ice forms at the coast frequently because the water mass is 0 or -1.8 (fresh or ocean) and the land mass is colder - therefore the land mass removes the heat from the water allowing the crystallising process to work. Oceans are mild, land is either hotter or colder  
If if water snapped frozen the process could indeed occur, but it doesn't, and you also have to fight the tendency of dilution which is very efficient and very rapid.  Besides in that circumstance, the land flow water is relatively far warmer than the sea, and you would have to have the colder sea water removing heat from the fresh FASTER than it dilutes as a minimum - that seems quite impossible to me.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Anyway, interesting stuff to look into, because I didn't realise the deep sea conveyor was driven by salt in that way. 
it is however an interesting microcosm of the doomsayers, who made the claim that reducing northern sea ice was a positive feedback and hence once it started it would accelerate away until Al Gore style, we would be able to sail around Canada's north.  In science when you make a prediction and it doesn't turn out you re examine from the start, not just try and look for a way to keep your original theory still right. 
eg, the reaction that sea ice volume is what really matters not sea ice size.  But they didn't say that 10 years ago, they said the ice cap would be gone, so they are just changing the rules.  This is wrong because the ice surface area is indeed very important because even if it's only a metre thick, it still provides albedo and it still insulates the lower waters from atmospheric temperature just as it does when it's 2m thick. 
its mistakes like these that make climate change a 50/50 thing in the us. Also the reason nothing will be done on reductions and so we need to plan for change and or perhaps geo engineering solutions.

----------


## John2b

> Do you have some proof for this as the mechanism?...Besides in that circumstance, the land flow water is relatively far warmer than the sea, and you would have to have the colder sea water removing heat from the fresh FASTER than it dilutes as a minimum - that seems quite impossible to me.

  From The National Snow and Ice Data Centre:   Sea ice is fresh because sea ice expels salt into the water as it forms. When the ice moves south through the Fram Strait into the North Atlantic, it melts, creating a layer of fresh water over the ocean surface. This fresh water is less dense than salty water, so it tends to stay at the top of the ocean. This lower density discourages the normal process of sinking at high latitudes (poles) that supports thermohaline circulation, which makes it harder to move the warm water north from the equator. Strong evidence shows that this stagnation process happened over a period of several years in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when extra fresh water entered the North Atlantic and affected the climate of northern Europe. Scientists call this event the “Great Salinity Anomaly.”  https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/index.html  
From "Physics of the Earth: Oceanography" National Academy of Sciences, June 1932:  (Note that they use the term 'fast ice' for what is now called 'sea ice'.)  "Fast ice: Horizontal ice formed by the freezing of the sea out from the shore.  "Regions for growth of 'fast ice' develop largely reflect bathymetrical conditions. Other important influences are the degree and duration of low air temperatures; the decrease of salinity due to snow melting, to river discharge and precipitation; the amount of storminess; and the pressure of grounded hummocks, icebergs and flows of pack ice.   From a climate course at Columbia University:  "In polar regions buoyancy of the surface layer is mainly a consequence of the freshness of the surface water. The Arctic Sea is very fresh, due to the enormous amount of river water that drains into it from the northern continents.  "Towards the sea floor temperatures reach below 0C marking the presence of Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW) derived from the shores of Antarctica. Below the thermocline is a low salinity layer derived from the surface water of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and the associated ocean polar frontal zone. This water mass, made relatively fresh by excess precipitation of the circum-Antarctic belt is called the Antarctic Intermediate Water (AAIW). The sequence of AAIW, NADW, AABW is clearly seen in the meridional circulation of the Atlantic Ocean and around Antarctica.  "Oceanographers often use a temperature/salinity (T/S) diagram to determine the origin of the seawater properties (Fig. 24). A parcel of seawater achieves its temperature and salinity at the sea surface in response to sea-air heat and freshwater exchange. Its surface derived T/S values change within the ocean interior only by mixing with other water parcels. Hence seawater spreading from the surface into the ocean volume can be to trace by T/S properties. That 75% of the ocean volume falls with a narrow range of temperature and salinity indicates that only a small part of the sea surface contributes to the characteristics of the deep ocean."  http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/index.html  Or if you want to get into academic papers on the subject, there are dozens if not hundreds here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=antarctic+sea+ice+extent+growth+meltwate  r&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

----------


## John2b

> But they didn't say that 10 years ago, *they* said the ice cap would be gone, so they are just changing the rules.  This is wrong because the ice surface area is indeed very important because even if it's only a metre thick, it still provides albedo and it still insulates the lower waters from atmospheric temperature just as it does when it's 2m thick.

  Research into climate change and global warming is undertaken by undergraduates and postgraduates, by amateurs and professionals; by corporations, universities, colleges, societies and government agencies; paid for  by industry, by philanthropists, by governments and public donations; in first world countries and third world countries; under free-market governments, socialist governments and totalitarian governments. 
Who is this *"they"* you refer to that has the authority to express the singular view of this incredibly disparate group of hundreds of thousands of individuals, all with their own experiences and beliefs?

----------


## Marc

An no one is even mentioning the fact that when sea ice forms it forms in blocks of hundreds of meter deep that after trapping thousands of tons of salt, it releases the salt out back in the sea water. That means that there is a massive amount of extra salt available in the sea water that far outweighs the pissy amount of fresh water that is supposed to dilute sea water salt concentration. 
This is the typical convoluted doctrinal explanation heavy with formulas and assumptions and thin on logic, akin to eschatological apocalyptic prophecies based solely on faith and human programming with an agenda. 
Repent you sinners, the day of reckoning is at the doors! Salt is running thin, global cooling makes warming, heating makes ice, and warming is the condemnation of humanity to life on top of mountain peaks escaping 20 meters sea rise. 
Meantime here I am typing away in a winter day in November. Global warming my foot.

----------


## John2b

> An no one is even mentioning the fact that when sea ice forms it forms in blocks of hundreds of meter deep that after trapping thousands of tons of salt, it releases the salt out back in the sea water. That means that there is a massive amount of extra salt available in the sea water that far outweighs the pissy amount of fresh water that is supposed to dilute sea water salt concentration.

  Do try to keep up. Have a read of the 1932 book I linked to.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Everybody knows that as land ice melts and reduces the salinity of coastal sea water, the temperature at which the sea freezes rises and new sea ice forms at warmer temperatures than before. New sea ice is an indicator of warming, not stable, temperatures - doh!

   "Everybody" clearly doesn't include the national snow and ice data centre , nor Antarctica.gov.au, nor Wikipedia but some 1932 textbook puts it in amongst half a dozen other things so that's everybody!  Lol 
so there you go everybody, MORE sea ice means we are getting warmer.  Presumably this also mean less sea ice means we are getting colder too -  such clear and present logic is hard to fight . 
nutbag.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> An no one is even mentioning the fact that when sea ice forms it forms in blocks of hundreds of meter deep that after trapping thousands of tons of salt, it releases the salt out back in the sea water. That means that there is a massive amount of extra salt available in the sea water that far outweighs the pissy amount of fresh water that is supposed to dilute sea water salt concentration. 
> This is the typical convoluted doctrinal explanation heavy with formulas and assumptions and thin on logic, akin to eschatological apocalyptic prophecies based solely on faith and human programming with an agenda. 
> Repent you sinners, the day of reckoning is at the doors! Salt is running thin, global cooling makes warming, heating makes ice, and warming is the condemnation of humanity to life on top of mountain peaks escaping 20 meters sea rise. 
> Meantime here I am typing away in a winter day in November. Global warming my foot.

  Just because you are successfully arguing with a moron doesn't mean the the whole climate change thing is some hoax - it just means you are arguing with a moron......or perhaps a zealot ( hard to differentiate sometimes)

----------


## John2b

> "Everybody" clearly doesn't include the national snow and ice data centre , nor Antarctica.gov.au, nor Wikipedia but some 1932 textbook puts it in amongst half a dozen other things so that's everybody!

  You are wrong about NSIDC ( https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/index.html), 
You are wrong about Antarctica.gov.au (Model simulations investigate Totten thinning €” Australian Antarctic Division); and 
You are wrong about Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater). 
By 'everybody' I meant "everybody an interest in the topic of sea ice'. Apologies if that was too obtuse for you.

----------


## John2b

> MORE sea ice means we are getting warmer.  Presumably this also mean less sea ice means we are getting colder too -  such clear and present logic is hard to fight .

   

> Salt is running thin, global cooling makes warming, heating makes ice, and warming is the condemnation of humanity to life on top of mountain peaks escaping 20 meters sea rise.

  Peas in a pod.

----------


## Marc

> Just because you are successfully arguing with a moron doesn't mean the the whole climate change thing is some hoax - it just means you are arguing with a moron......or perhaps a zealot ( hard to differentiate sometimes)

  Not sure about successfully ...  :Smilie:

----------


## PhilT2

> the fact that when sea ice forms it forms in blocks of hundreds of meter deep

  ??????

----------


## John2b

> ??????

  I used to have that problem with the ice block trays in my freezer. But it was solved when I told the blocks I would not respect them in the morning if they didn't respect the science...

----------


## PhilT2

Sorry, I forgot we were in reality free mode, here's a link for those obsessed with facts. Robot Sub Finds Surprisingly Thick Antarctic Sea Ice
Short version 5m max.

----------


## Marc

*OK should have said tens of meters deep. Same principle applies. 
Sea ice formation and features*Sea ice that is not more than one winter old is known as first-year ice. Sea ice that survives one or more summers is known as multiyear ice. Most Antarctic sea ice is first-year pack ice. Multiyear ice is common in the Arctic, where most of it occurs as pack ice in the Arctic Ocean. Pack ice is made up of many individual pieces of ice known as cakes, if they are less than 20 m (about 66 feet) across, and floes, which vary from small (20–100 m [about 66–330 feet] across) to giant (greater than 10 km [about 6 miles] across). As the ice drifts, it often breaks apart, and openwater appears within fractures and leads. Leads are typically linear features that are widespread in the pack ice at any time of year, extend for hundreds of kilometres, and vary from a few metres to hundreds of metres in width. In winter, leads freeze quickly. Both new and young ice are often thickened mechanically by rafting and ridging, when they are compressed between thicker floes. A pressure ridge is composed of a sail above the waterline and a keel below. In the Arctic most keels are 10–25 m (about 33–80 feet) deep and typically four times the sail height. Keel widths are typically 2–3 times the sail width. Antarctic pressure ridges are less massive than Arctic pressure ridges. Though they only make up about 25 percent of the total ice area in both polar regions, approximately 40–60 percent of the total ice mass is contained within pressure ridges.

----------


## John2b

> OK should have said tens of meters deep. Same principle applies.

  
Nope, different principle. Where your article refers to 10-25 meter deep 'keels' is it referring to pack ice which is formed by the compression of new and old ice, not by freezing. Pressure actually causes ice to melt, so for pack ice to form, the ice must be well below freezing temperature.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Just to tear the 'debate' away from the minutiae of ice crystals and their formation in the future...I'll throw the new Australian National Outlook 2015-2050 from the CSIRO your way Australian National Outlook 2015 - CSIRO 
Of course, it has been prepared by a bunch of neophyte conspiratorial group think scientists on the payroll of the Australian Government...but don't let that get in the way of a good read. 
By the way...the portal page has the latest funky layout that requires one to scroll down for the content rather than showing a 'complicated' menu structure...

----------


## Marc

Is that how we spend our money?
What is the age group target? 8? 
It sounds like an STD risk management plan video...  :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

I see you boys are still having fun!! 
Nothing changed I see,  except the models are further and further from the reality. 
At least more Australians are seeing through the BS.  That is somewhat encouraging.   
Yet we still have a way to go.  Slowly slowly catch the monkey.   
Nice to see Pharmboy taking it up to the warmers and rightly correcting skeptics when required.   
Just as all the failed predictions of the warmists have turned the tide of believers, (since Al Gore published his great global scare), it is important that skeptics do not fall into the same trap.  The warmists have hung themselves out to dry with their doomsday predictions.  The more the try to change the goal post the less credible they look.  It is fun to see. 
Like I said, nothing changed here.  Just needs a bit more time, no argument is going to win this battle.  Just time, we have plenty of it!

----------


## Marc

The argument has been lost a long time ago by the warmist. The current problem is a political and economical one. Politicians have realised that there is power in the rhetoric and that the rhetoric can be maintained indefinitely by keeping up with the grants to "scientist" (read mercenary).
It is not a new model by any stretch of the imagination. The romans had the oracles, the european masters had the church.  
For anything to change, a new con must be fabricated. A newer and more credible one.
Make popcorn and sit back ... it's going to be fun.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

The current con is working just fine, thanks very much. It still has plenty of payoff in the bank and more than enough capacity to bite everyone in the @@@@ when the time comes... 
Fortunately, I'll be a very very old man by then.

----------


## johnc

> I see you boys are still having fun!! 
> Nothing changed I see,  except the models are further and further from the reality. 
> At least more Australians are seeing through the BS.  That is somewhat encouraging.   
> Yet we still have a way to go.  Slowly slowly catch the monkey.   
> Nice to see Pharmboy taking it up to the warmers and rightly correcting skeptics when required.   
> Just as all the failed predictions of the warmists have turned the tide of believers, (since Al Gore published his great global scare), it is important that skeptics do not fall into the same trap.  The warmists have hung themselves out to dry with their doomsday predictions.  The more the try to change the goal post the less credible they look.  It is fun to see. 
> Like I said, nothing changed here.  Just needs a bit more time, no argument is going to win this battle.  Just time, we have plenty of it!

  Try Pharmaboy, there is an 'a' there you seem to have missed (plus a 2 as it happens). You are reading what you want into someone else's comments, you need to let go Rod, an open mind wouldn't hurt you know.

----------


## johnc

> The argument has been lost a long time ago by the warmist. The current problem is a political and economical one. Politicians have realised that there is power in the rhetoric and that the rhetoric can be maintained indefinitely by keeping up with the grants to "scientist" (read mercenary).
> It is not a new model by any stretch of the imagination. The romans had the oracles, the european masters had the church.  
> For anything to change, a new con must be fabricated. A newer and more credible one.
> Make popcorn and sit back ... it's going to be fun.

  
Really? still think it is political, or was that religious, ever thought about science (as opposed to funding grants). This has no credibility and no substance and is simply a diversion to obscure the hollowness of the base premise these views are supported on.

----------


## John2b

Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General  "Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.The investigation focuses on whether statements the company made to investors about climate risks as recently as this year were consistent with the company’s own long-running scientific research.  The people said the inquiry would include a period of at least a decade during which Exxon Mobil funded outside groups that sought to undermine climate science, even as its in-house scientists were outlining the potential consequences — and uncertainties — to company executives."  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/sc...tatements.html

----------


## John2b

> At least more Australians are seeing through the BS.  That is somewhat encouraging.

  Laugh at Rod's myopia! A survey of almost 18,000 people over five years showed 78 per cent of Australians believed in climate change. Those who thought climate change was not happening (7.9% of respondents) strongly overestimated the prevalence of their own opinion (49.1%), overestimating the support for their view by more than 600%!  *The fifth survey in 2014* allowed the research team to assess the findings across the whole longitudinal survey period of 2010 to 2014. The survey showed that attitudes about climate change remained relatively unchanged over the survey period. *A strong majority of Australians think climate change is happening*, and support a wide variety of initiatives to both mitigate and adapt to the potential impacts.  http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/LWF/Areas/Social-economic/Climate-change/Climate-attitudes-survey

----------


## PhilT2

Obama has finally done what everyone expected and officially knocked back approval for the keystone pipeline. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/us...line.html?_r=0

----------


## Marc

That's it. Checkmate. Global warming is now a thing of the past. The drought will be lifted, the sea will go down, the temperatures started dropping already. After the storm today it is as cool as a winter day. Thank you Mr Oh Bummer you made my day!  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

> A survey of almost 18,000 people over five years showed 78 per cent of Australians believed in climate change.

  What does that even mean? "To believe ... IN _climate change?_"
If you _ believe_ it means you think it exists ... who can possibly deny the existence of changes in climate.
Or you believe it is good, like "I believe in organic food". 
So what is it that this believers believe?

----------


## John2b

> What does that even mean? "To believe ... IN _climate change?_"

  Whether the majority of 18,000 Australians *believe* in climate change or not is not particularly relevant to the point being made, the point being it is statistical fact the tiny faction of people who do not believe that human activity is causing climate change erroneously think that the_ majority_ of people agree with them. 
The discordance of AGW disbelievers with the reality of public sentiment is a consequence of wilful ignorance, just like their wilful ignorance of the reality of the overwhelming physical evidence of AGW.

----------


## Marc

Yes, it is so relevant isn't it.
Question: Do you "_believe"_ in climate change? :Shock: 
Reply: Yes.  :2thumbsup: 
..... so ?
Does that change the fact that AGW is a fabrication for political and economical reasons?
No, in fact what it does it gives the propaganda machine a sample to gage their effectiveness in spreading false data and pretend consensus. And in this way they don't even have to pay for it, we do, like everything else we pay for. 
Do you believe in climate change sir?
Oh yes, mate, you must believe in it or bust!
 In fact I light a candle to Climate Change every Thursday in a shrine I built in my garage when it is payday and invariably I find extra money in my pay. One time I forgot and got a pay cut. never again. Long live Climate change!

----------


## PhilT2

> Does that change the fact that AGW is a fabrication for political and economical reasons?

  Could you just remind us again who was behind this fabrication, especially the local participants?...oh, and the evidence you have to back up your accusations? After all you don't want everyone to think you pulled this all out of your a@#@, do you?

----------


## johnc

> Yes, it is so relevant isn't it.
> Question: Do you "_believe"_ in climate change?
> Reply: Yes. 
> ..... so ?
> Does that change the fact that AGW is a fabrication for political and economical reasons?
> No, in fact what it does it gives the propaganda machine a sample to gage their effectiveness in spreading false data and pretend consensus. And in this way they don't even have to pay for it, we do, like everything else we pay for. 
> Do you believe in climate change sir?
> Oh yes, mate, you must believe in it or bust!
>  In fact I light a candle to Climate Change every Thursday in a shrine I built in my garage when it is payday and invariably I find extra money in my pay. One time I forgot and got a pay cut. never again. Long live Climate change!

  The impact of climate change is having political and economic consequences but that is because of, there is no logical reason someone would make this up for that reason. You will pay for inaction, at the moment you may not be paying for anything don't forget Tony abolished the carbon tax and we haven't started paying for direct action in any major way. The bigger economic risk is our ongoing deficit.

----------


## woodbe

> Question: Do you "_believe"_ in climate change?

  You don't have to "believe" in Climate Change. It is a scientific position based on facts and research. 
You have the option of accepting the current state of the science, or not accepting it. 
Confusing "belief" with science is just muddying the waters.

----------


## Marc

> The impact of climate change is having political and economic consequences but that is because of, there is no logical reason someone would make this up for that reason. You will pay for inaction, at the moment you may not be paying for anything don't forget Tony abolished the carbon tax and we haven't started paying for direct action in any major way. The bigger economic risk is our ongoing deficit.

  Sure, in a sense you are correct. I would word it differently. I say the AGW hypothesis has provided political and economic ammunition to shift power and resources with the excuse of a nebulous greater good. I compare it with the inquisition that burned people alive for their own good. Not there yet, however there is potential if we keep on going down that road of "settled science" and 100% consensus ... or was it 99? 
We have other more pressing problems? You bet! Another added fringe benefit of the AGW farce is that it provides abundant scope for smoke screens of all descriptions, and rubber stamp for all sort of projects. 
We live in interesting times.

----------


## John2b

> Confusing "belief" with science is just muddying the waters.

  What's more, nobody was asked if they 'believe' in climate change. They were asked did they think climate change was happening. 78% indicated they do think climate change is happening.

----------


## John2b

> We have other more pressing problems? You bet! Another added fringe benefit of the AGW farce is that it provides abundant scope for smoke screens of all descriptions, and rubber stamp for all sort of projects.

  Yet research spending on the fields of energy _and_ the environment together accounts for just a couple of % of all research funding worldwide and only 1.8% in Australia. Note that climate change is a subset of the environment part of the Energy & Environment field. 
In other words, probably more than 99% of research monies spent have nothing to do with the climate sector. Much more is spent on *sports research* than climate change. It takes a certain kind of ideological blindness to get one's knickers in a knot over the reality.  The Australian Government’s 2014-15 Science, Research and Innovation Budget Tables: http://www.industry.gov.au/aboutus/b...les2014-15.pdf

----------


## pharmaboy2

> You don't have to "believe" in Climate Change. It is a scientific position based on facts and research. 
> You have the option of accepting the current state of the science, or not accepting it. 
> Confusing "belief" with science is just muddying the waters.

  what is does impact though is political will. 
for every Marc who says it's a croc and all made up, we have at least as many capital B believers for whom AGW is not just certain but certainly extremely bad with catastrophic outcomes, eg al gore, and our resident poster here. 
this demonstrates that there is a "belief" part in it, even though there shouldn't be.  Having said that, this sort of polarisation seems endemic to the human condition. 
i do recommended seeking an understanding of the Dunning Kruger effect for everyone - sometimes it brings rationality with a little bit of introspection

----------


## woodbe

> this demonstrates that there is a "belief" part in it, even though there shouldn't be.

  Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are people who "believe" one way or another. I can understand that some people just don't have the interest or ability to absorb the knowledge available to them so they skim the news and decide which side to "believe" rather than use their logical capabilities to make their own choices. 
When you look at the skeptical side of the 'discussion' (if you can stretch the meaning of the word to include this mud slinging competition) there are very little in the way of historical building blocks that rely on one another to build the position that anthropogenic climate change is nonsense. What we see (and it is repeatedly aired here [thanks for the examples, Marc]) is simple, short term, cherry picks that "prove" [not] that climate change isn't happening. Classic example: "Warming stopped in 1998". Other than that, we see news reports from the denier camp, and often cherry picked articles that do not support the position the poster suggests it does. 
On the other hand, the science of climate change has been built on the basis of science from early times, eg., Tyndall. This is not to say that Tyndall was 100% correct, but he and others paved the basis of the science upon which further research corrected errors and found new facts and theories.  
The bottom line is that the science of climate change is a positive science that improves our knowledge of many facets of our massive interconnected climate system. When we look at those who deny that science built up over a couple of hundred years, they just pull facts or non-fact from cherry picked info from the data or from simple newpaper or blog non-science.

----------


## John2b

> many capital B believers for whom AGW is not just certain but certainly extremely bad with catastrophic outcomes, eg al gore, and our resident poster here.

  I haven't seen those posts, but I'm interested. Can you point to some posts where this 'regular poster' has pushed the "extremely bad with catastrophic outcomes" position?

----------


## johnc

For me the problem is the deniers really waste the oxygen needed to inform and explain to the general public, which probably includes everyone here. It is (climate change) happening and it would be far better if we spent our time understanding that the science is fluid and varies as theories are tested along with models. We can never be 100% certain of anything with so many variables although it would seem certain that going on doing nothing will have very poor outcomes. Not unlike the negative style of Mr Abbott which set one against the other yet within the same party we see a new leader and just a simple change in the way we discuss things at the top leads to better explanation of ideas and a greater chance of achieving something, anything, positive. 
On climate change there are things we can be doing now that aren't being done and one we are not considering is how the developing world provides power to its citizens at an affordable cost. At this stage all we talk about is coal whereas in many remote areas solar panels would provide them with light now, the polarising notion that coal will always be cheaper is bull, it is not feasible for small communities now and unless you have industry not particularly affordable for denser population centres. Travel around the Pacific islands, a number of communities use solar power to light homes and recharge mobile phones, this is probably the future, for about $700 you could get a unit that included five lights, battery backup and a panel for recharging phones.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...for about $700 you could get a unit that included five lights, battery backup and a panel for recharging phones.

  True.  But very few Australians would want to get by on something like that.  So why are we satisfied (often to the point of smugness) that this is an appropriate solution for anyone else?  More power to them I say...regardless of how it might be done.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are people who "believe" one way or another. I can understand that some people just don't have the interest or ability to absorb the knowledge available to them so they skim the news and decide which side to "believe" rather than use their logical capabilities to make their own choices. 
> When you look at the skeptical side of the 'discussion' (if you can stretch the meaning of the word to include this mud slinging competition) there are very little in the way of historical building blocks that rely on one another to build the position that anthropogenic climate change is nonsense. What we see (and it is repeatedly aired here [thanks for the examples, Marc]) is simple, short term, cherry picks that "prove" [not] that climate change isn't happening. Classic example: "Warming stopped in 1998". Other than that, we see news reports from the denier camp, and often cherry picked articles that do not support the position the poster suggests it does. 
> On the other hand, the science of climate change has been built on the basis of science from early times, eg., Tyndall. This is not to say that Tyndall was 100% correct, but he and others paved the basis of the science upon which further research corrected errors and found new facts and theories.  
> The bottom line is that the science of climate change is a positive science that improves our knowledge of many facets of our massive interconnected climate system. When we look at those who deny that science built up over a couple of hundred years, they just pull facts or non-fact from cherry picked info from the data or from simple newpaper or blog non-science.

  First paragraph - oh contrare!  The whole point is people shouldn't be trying to use their own logical capabilities -that would require an in depth knowledge of an exceedingly complex topic. 
"cherry pricking". - how do you know that you, me, or anyone else has cherry picked?  Is it perhaps that it is cherry picked if it disagree with what I see as truth?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> For me the problem is the deniers really waste the oxygen needed to inform and explain to the general public, which probably includes everyone here. It is (climate change) happening and it would be far better if we spent our time understanding that the science is fluid and varies as theories are tested along with models. We can never be 100% certain of anything with so many variables although it would seem certain that going on doing nothing will have very poor outcomes. Not unlike the negative style of Mr Abbott which set one against the other yet within the same party we see a new leader and just a simple change in the way we discuss things at the top leads to better explanation of ideas and a greater chance of achieving something, anything, positive. 
> On climate change there are things we can be doing now that aren't being done and one we are not considering is how the developing world provides power to its citizens at an affordable cost. At this stage all we talk about is coal whereas in many remote areas solar panels would provide them with light now, the polarising notion that coal will always be cheaper is bull, it is not feasible for small communities now and unless you have industry not particularly affordable for denser population centres. Travel around the Pacific islands, a number of communities use solar power to light homes and recharge mobile phones, this is probably the future, for about $700 you could get a unit that included five lights, battery backup and a panel for recharging phones.

  "We can never be 100% certain of anything with so many variables although it would seem certain that going on doing nothing will have very poor outcomes." - seems internally inconsistent to me. 
is change necessarily poor?  Are we certain that the future will hold for less predictable rainfall, and if so, for which regions?  With an increased greenhouse effect, you should get less diurnal fluctuation, is this always a bad thing?  burning carbon generally is pollution causing, is it bad that we aim to reduce this as a consequence of AGW? 
i don't know the answers, but I question whether anyone does. 
i think on the developing world and electricity question, it's of the too simplified that you just need to provide a modicum of power, but as developing world moves forward, it's not lights they need, it's large scale transport and infrastructure, factories, production of aluminium, steel etc.  the sort of things that China is doing - this can't be provided for a few million shekels by solar power ( houses yes, industry no.)

----------


## John2b

> "cherry pricking". - how do you know that you, me, or anyone else has cherry picked?  Is it perhaps that it is cherry picked if it disagree with what I see as truth?

  It generally pretty obvious when 'cherry picking' is going on if you read the original source material and actively look for logical fallacies and discrepancies. That's the thing about *real* published science research, the data sources and methods are disclosed for others to scrutinise and or replicate (or falsify) the results. The 'peer review' process can be quite brutal, because for many scientists, there is nothing better than to call out someone else who made a mistake in their research or published paper - it's one way to get famous. 
By the time nonsense or pseudoscience gets posted here, someone else has almost always already done the leg work and debunked the 'cherry picked' claim. Just Google it. That doesn't stop it becoming a zombie argument, never dying whilst there is a denier still breathing.

----------


## John2b

> i think on the developing world and electricity question, it's of the too simplified that you just need to provide a modicum of power, but as developing world moves forward, it's not lights they need, it's large scale transport and infrastructure, factories, production of aluminium, steel etc.  the sort of things that China is doing - this can't be provided for a few million shekels by solar power ( houses yes, industry no.)

  At 45GW China already has more installed capacity of solar than Australia's entire generation capacity from all sources, and plans the quadruple that by 2020 (they usually exceed their plans, too). It was business groups in China that lobby the government to increase to solar capacity, so that industry will not suffer from a shortfall in electricity as demand grows and nuclear and hydro generation are falling progressive further behind target due to technical obstacles. 
In India, more than 350 million people live in rural ares not serviced an electricity grid. The India government has recognised that extending the grid to all these regions is too infrastructure heavy, isn't practical and doesn't make economic sense. Renewable energy is innately distributed, which is one reason why India has announced a target to build an additional 225GW of renewable capacity by 2022.

----------


## woodbe

> First paragraph - oh contrare!  The whole point is people shouldn't be trying to use their own logical capabilities -that would require an in depth knowledge of an exceedingly complex topic.

  I'm sorry? People should not be using their own logical capabilities?  
What are you doing? Flipping a coin? lol. So, you "believe", and you don't read any of the science, nor do you try to understand the science if you do read it? 
Sounds like a lemmings scenario. 
Science can be understood on many levels, and it is possible to gain a fair understanding of science without being a full blown in depth scientist. Even full blown in depth scientists cannot cover the whole field, it is way too broad. Again, there is a difference between 'believe' and 'accept'. In my case, I spend a lot of time following the science, reading it, doing my best to understand it. I'm happy to accept the mainstream state of the science, and if it changes, I will accept those changes once they become mainstream (i.e., not because one scientist publishes a single left field paper; or one journalist claims the science is wrong)   

> "cherry pricking". - how do you know that you, me, or anyone else has cherry picked?

  Needs logic capabilities. Refer to my example of "No warming since 1998". Climate change is a long term event. We're dealing with 25+ year trends. Since 1998 is not long term in climate terms, and 1998 is a single year in a variable climate. Logically, it is a cherry pick, and as we now know, the trend continues. There will be more single high and low years to pick in the future, but unless the long term trend peaks and heads down again for 25+ years (it hasn't) then we know that picking a single year like 1998 is a gorgeous (but wrong) cherry pick.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> At 45GW China already has more installed capacity of solar than Australia's entire generation capacity from all sources, and plans the quadruple that by 2020 (they usually exceed their plans, too). It was business groups in China that lobby the government to increase to solar capacity, so that industry will not suffer from a shortfall in electricity as demand grows and nuclear and hydro generation are falling progressive further behind target due to technical obstacles.

  Against my better judgment I'll reply to you. 
numbers can't possibly be right hours versus annual or something, so I'll check 
ok checked, according to wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elec...ector_in_China
solar produced 9 Twh out of a total production of 5,329 Twh,  so 0.00169 of output. 
i don't know, but I am highly skeptical that any industry in China (apart from those building solar ) have been lobbying govt because they are concerned about a shortfall of energy.  If they did, they clearly haven't the faintest idea of where their power actually comes from.  Maybe they were hoping that the govt could magically multiply it by a hundred in a year and get it into the teens as a percentage?

----------


## woodbe

> i think on the developing world and electricity question, it's of the too simplified that you just need to provide a modicum of power, but as developing world moves forward, it's not lights they need, it's large scale transport and infrastructure, factories, production of aluminium, steel etc.  the sort of things that China is doing - this can't be provided for a few million shekels by solar power ( houses yes, industry no.)

  Clearly, we are unable to immediately switch from fossil fuel to renewables in a blink of an eye. I question your suggestion that industry cannot be powered by renewable power, but I do agree that it cannot be powered immediately. But, if our renewables systematically take all of the light industry and domestic power away from fossil fuels, we will be in a far better position than if we left them burning dead dinosaurs, while we build the infrastructure to finally retire fossil fuels. 
Watch:     

> We talk a lot about the changing shape of the electricity grid, but what does it look like?
>  We first came across this rather hypnotic GIF via the Union of Concerned Scientists blog, The Equation, who borrowed it from Pat Knight at Synapse Energy Economics.
>  It shows, in animated graph form, how the electricity mix has changed  in each state of America over the past 15 years. And as UCS senior  energy analyst John Rogers notes, the only constant in the mesmerising  GIF is change.

  Graph of the Day: Watch US electricity grid evolve before your eyes : Renew Economy

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Clearly, we are unable to immediately switch from fossil fuel to renewables in a blink of an eye. I question your suggestion that industry cannot be powered by renewable power, but I do agree that it cannot be powered immediately. But, if our renewables systematically take all of the light industry and domestic power away from fossil fuels, we will be in a far better position than if we left them burning dead dinosaurs, while we build the infrastructure to finally retire fossil fuels.

  if we can't do it now, are we going to somehow ask the developing world to not develop? 
i think they will run their countries to the good of their own people, and as we retire aluminium plants, other countries will bring them online (as a quaint example) - the countries that bring them online will be those with cheap electricity.  Eg China taking over aluminium when hydro provided them with vast amounts of cheap power.  Whatever is cheapest wins in the developing world, they can't afford a high horse like we can.  :Wink:

----------


## woodbe

> if we can't do it now,

  It's not about doing it NOW. It's about moving forward. We and any nation cannot possibly replace our generation capacity overnight.  
I think Germany is running at about 33% renewables this year and growing. 
Found it:   

> Figures from research institute, ZSW for solar energy and hydrogen,  and the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW),  indicate renewable energy will meet roughly 33% of Germany’s gross  energy demand in 2015, up from 27% last year.
>  Led by wind and PV power, *renewables are set to generate around 193 billion kWh* of energy, compared to 161 billion in 2014.

  Be great to do it overnight, ne pas possible...

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I'm sorry? People should not be using their own logical capabilities?  
> What are you doing? Flipping a coin? lol. So, you "believe", and you don't read any of the science, nor do you try to understand the science if you do read it? 
> Sounds like a lemmings scenario. 
> Science can be understood on many levels, and it is possible to gain a fair understanding of science without being a full blown in depth scientist. Even full blown in depth scientists cannot cover the whole field, it is way too broad. Again, there is a difference between 'believe' and 'accept'. In my case, I spend a lot of time following the science, reading it, doing my best to understand it. I'm happy to accept the mainstream state of the science, and if it changes, I will accept those changes once they become mainstream (i.e., not because one scientist publishes a single left field paper; or one journalist claims the science is wrong)   
> Needs logic capabilities. Refer to my example of "No warming since 1998". Climate change is a long term event. We're dealing with 25+ year trends. Since 1998 is not long term in climate terms, and 1998 is a single year in a variable climate. Logically, it is a cherry pick, and as we now know, the trend continues. There will be more single high and low years to pick in the future, but unless the long term trend peaks and heads down again for 25+ years (it hasn't) then we know that picking a single year like 1998 is a gorgeous (but wrong) cherry pick.

  Using their own logic makes the assumption that they have enough information, that the information is correct, and they have the capabilities to infer something correct from the information. 
no, I read science for a living, can actually understand statistical discussion (mostly) in a paper.  I've probably read a thousand articles on AGW, watched countless presentations, read plenty of papers.  That doesn't qualify me even remotely to come to a considered opinion on the subject - not least of all because I know the more I know about a subject, the more I realise I don't know very much. 
its a serious case of ove confidence for Joe blogs to think he can read a bit and then make a decision.  If you want to know if your brain cancer is operable you don't read papers to make your own decision, you go see a neuro surgeon.  I don't think it's any different. 
that said, you can use some discerning reason to figure out who has an end in mind and is trying to prove their point rather Than discover a truth

----------


## John2b

> numbers can't possibly be right hours versus annual or something, so I'll check 
> ok checked, according to wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elec...ector_in_China
> solar produced 9 Twh out of a total production of 5,329 Twh,  so 0.00169 of output.

  From Wikipedia (out of date, BTW, the development of China’s PV sector only started to accelerate during 2015) solar generating capacity in 2014 was 28 GW and a lot of that capacity (more than 10 GW) came on line _during_ the year 2014. But then you conflate the issue by using a figure for generation from the _previous_ year 2013, so your ratio is meaningless at two levels. 
According to the latest statistics from China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) the  total PV power generation reach 30.6 billion kWh for the first three quarters of 2015. On that rate it will be well over 40 TWh for 2015, as there is still a lot of capacity scheduled to come on line before the end of the year. Total renewables accounted for much more, of course.

----------


## John2b

> Using their own logic makes the assumption that they have enough information, that the information is correct, and they have the capabilities to infer something correct from the information.

  As good as Wikipedia is, it is not the 'source' and not the place to go to check information if your are actually sceptical in the scientific sense.   

> I've probably read a thousand articles on AGW, watched countless presentations, read plenty of papers. That doesn't qualify me even remotely to come to a considered opinion on the subject - not least of all because I know the more I know about a subject, the more I realise I don't know very much.

  Which is why the IPCC exists so that many experts in each field can digest, discuss, access and distill the pertinent points for everyone else, especially the non-scientific and politicians. Some bozos on this forum act like they think that the IPCC is a climate research body LOL.

----------


## woodbe

> Using their own logic makes the assumption that they have enough information, that the information is correct, and they have the capabilities to infer something correct from the information.

  I don't think we need to assume we have all the information required, and that it is all correct. If we wait for the absolute truth (ie. the final result), we will have gone way past the point of no return. What we need is enough research, enough data, and enough interest. We need to come to a personal decision whether the operation of the research is reasonably following scientific principles, whether there is enough of it done from a significantly varied number of qualified scientists across many facets of the science, and enough data continually collected and analysed so we are not dealing with the cherry picks such as you raised.  
Of course the science _could_ be wrong, but we are a long way in now. The basics remain, and have for a very long time. I think if the science is wrong, it would be by small degrees of direction, not a completely different direction.

----------


## Marc

> Travel around the Pacific islands, a number of communities use solar power to light homes and recharge mobile phones, this is probably the future, for about $700 you could get a unit that included five lights, battery backup and a panel for recharging phones..

  This is probably the future? Are you seriously saying this and expecting people to believe it? What is next? Having a dump in a bucket? 
Digression to the point of living in caves and eat raw food may appeal to the fringe but I doubt it appeals to anyone in the western world and in his right mind. 
And all for avoiding ... what was it again ? 0.1C ... or was it 0.01C ? 
I am replacing all my halogen lamps for 100W filaments just to contribute a bit of heat to this cold spring we are having. 
If such assertion don't belong to a religious belief I don't know what does.

----------


## John2b

> If we wait for the absolute truth (ie. the final result), we will have gone way past the point of no return.

  Kind of like suggesting that in the case of an impending crash, those who don't understand the physics of motion should allow the crash so that the ideal point at which the brakes should have been applied can be calculated by the amount of damage done.

----------


## John2b

> This is probably the future? Are you seriously saying this and expecting people to believe it? What is next? Having a dump in a bucket? 
> Digression to the point of living in caves and eat raw food may appeal to the fringe but I doubt it appeals to anyone in the western world and in his right mind. 
> And all for avoiding ... what was it again ? 0.1C ... or was it 0.01C ? 
> I am replacing all my halogen lamps for 100W filaments just to contribute a bit of heat to this cold spring we are having. 
> If such assertion don't belong to a religious belief I don't know what does.

  You have a way of totally losing the plot that endears you, Marc. You could not have misunderstood the point of johnc's point more if you tried. But then, missing and/or misrepresenting the point is something you do with religious fervour.

----------


## woodbe

Lol. Marc hasn't been to any small Pacific Islands yet... 
Having reliable lighting is a new benefit for many underprivileged. Not something we see in the developed world, but unfortunately it is a fact. Powering a small community from scratch is cheaper via renewables than fossil fuels, and the running costs are near zero. 
I guess fossil fuel companies aren't very happy about that. Bad luck for them.

----------


## johnc

> This is probably the future? Are you seriously saying this and expecting people to believe it? What is next? Having a dump in a bucket? 
> Digression to the point of living in caves and eat raw food may appeal to the fringe but I doubt it appeals to anyone in the western world and in his right mind. 
> And all for avoiding ... what was it again ? 0.1C ... or was it 0.01C ? 
> I am replacing all my halogen lamps for 100W filaments just to contribute a bit of heat to this cold spring we are having. 
> If such assertion don't belong to a religious belief I don't know what does.

  You have absolutely no idea what the comment was about. To background you for two weeks each year I head off to Vanuatu on a program that sees us go from village to village usually staying in guest houses which are essentially a hut with a concrete floor and thin mattress. There is no way most of these will get mains power in their life time but small scale solar provides lighting which allows kids to study and mobile phones to be charged. We don't take a bucket for a dump either which was a very dopey comment and plainly insulting. Generally it is into a pit, some have a porcelain toilet and the flush will be with a bucket. It is about improvement in these regions small scale solar that powers vaccination fridges exists in most places and some houses will have a solar panel. These communities may be poor but most strive to improve through health and education. A shower is also with a bucket hygiene is good in these communities despite the lack of plumbing. 
Forget about steel production or aluminium smelters there isn't the resources nor the demand, what these communities don't need is imported coal or oil, wind and solar will provide the greatest good for the least cost. Next time a cyclone goes through they will still have problems with blown down power poles but in Port Vila the French built wind turbines survived just fine in +300kph winds when Cyclone Pam hit because they removed the turbines just prior thanks to decent weather advice.  
We have heard you before on all sorts of nonsense, do you really think anyone cares what you stick in your light sockets, I don't. 
Sitting here in Australia we can pontificate all we like about dirty industries relocating elsewhere as impoverished countries with laxer controls take up the slack. It really isn't that simple, dumb decisions, corruption, capacity, resources, stupidity all effect outcomes. For any economic or environmental decision we make there is never a guarantee of a fixed outcome, there are to many variables. Every situation is different we pretty much make decisions then weigh the outcomes and adjust. That is how the economy works if we are functioning properly and the same process can be applied to the environment. Set the course and study the charts least we get blown off course.

----------


## Marc

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...n-useless.html  "Consensus" anyone? *Oh ... I forgot ... they all believe ... oh yea !  
Climate change is a problem. But our attempts to fix it could be worse than useless*  *Panicked, ill-thought-through responses to the threat of climate change could hurt more people than they save*     Photo: PA       [/COLOR]  By Bjorn Lomborg  2:40PM GMT 03 Nov 2014 *1264 Comments*   The UN Climate Panel came out with its final report yesterday. It is a summary of its 3 main reports, published over the last year. It tells us that global warming is real and a significant problem. And as usual, the media hears something else – in the words of Mother Jones magazine, how future warming will be “ghastly, horrid, awful, shocking, grisly, gruesome.”  In between the alarmist hype and the reality of climate change we once again risk losing an opportunity to think smartly about energy and find a realistic way to fix global warming.  *Fossil fuels aren't going anywhere*   The world will continue to rely on fossil fuels for a long time to come  We need to realise that the world will not come off fossil fuels for many decades. Globally, we get a minuscule 0.3pc of our energy from solar and wind. According to the International Energy Agency, even with a wildly optimistic scenario, we will get just 3.5pc of our energy from solar and wind in 2035, while paying almost $100 billion in annual subsidies. Today, the world gets 82pc of its energy from fossil fuels, in 21 years it will still be more than 79pc.  *Related Articles*    China and the US clean up on emissions  13 Nov 2014Sir Paul McCartney: why I have a beef with meat-eating  15 Nov 2014'Alarmist' green groups made 'exaggerated' claims about global warming  03 Nov 2014UN to warn of 'severe, pervasive' global warming impacts  01 Nov 2014UN: Time running out to prevent 'dangerous, irreversible' climate change  02 Nov 2014Did global warming give rise to Boko Haram?  31 Oct 2014   The simple reason is that cheap and abundant energy is what powers economic growth. And for now, that means four fifths from fossil fuel, and much of the rest from water and nuclear. While wind is lower cost in a few, rural areas, coal is for the most part much cheaper, and provides power, also when the wind is not blowing. As the poor half of our world is reaching for a similar development to that of China, they will also want much, much more power, most of it powered by coal. Even the climate-worried World Bank president accepts that "there’s never been a country that has developed with intermittent power." Realising that fossil fuels will be here for a long time means stronger focus on moving from coal to gas, since gas emits about half the greenhouse gasses. The US shale gas revolution has reduced gas prices and lead to a significant switch from coal to gas. This has reduced US CO₂ emissions to their lowest in 20 years. In 2012, US shale gas reduced emissions three times more than all the solar and wind in Europe. At the same time, Europe paid about $40 billion in annual subsidies for solar, while the Americans made more than $200 billion every year from the shale gas revolution. Gas is obviously still a fossil fuel and not the final solution, but it can reduce emissions over the next 10-20 years, especially if the shale revolution is expanded to China and the rest of the developing world. *Climate change is a problem - but not the biggest the world faces*  Poverty, disease, poor sanitation and starvation kill more people than climate change will While global warming will be a problem, much of the rhetoric is wildly exaggerated – like when UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon calls it “an existential challenge for the whole human race.” The IPCC finds that the total cost of climate change by 2070 is between 0.2pc and 2pc of GDP. While this is definitely a problem, it is equivalent to less than one year of recession over the next 60 years. Global warming pales when compared to many other global problems.While the WHO estimates 250,000 annual deaths from global warming in 30 years, 4.3 million die right now each year from *indoor air pollution*, 800 million are starving, and 2.5 billion live in poverty andlack clean water and sanitation. When the UN asked 5 million people for their top priorities the answers were better education and health care, less corruption, more jobs and affordable food. They placed global warming at the very last spot, as priority number 17. *Bad 'solutions' can cause more problems than they fix*  Growing crops for biofuels has destroyed rainforests and driven up the cost of food Climate policies can easily cost much more than the global warming damage will – while helping very little. The German solar adventure, which has cost taxpayers more than $130 billion, will at the end of the century just postpone global warming by a trivial 37 hours. While a low carbon tax in theory could help a little, the political reality is that climate policies almost everywhere have been ineffective, done little good while sustaining the most wasteful technologies. The IPCC warns than less-than-perfect climate policies can be 2-4 times more expensive. Biofuels, for instance, have driven up food costs, likely causing an extra 30 million starving, with prospects of starving another 100 million by 2020. And it is likely that biofuels cause net increase in CO₂ emissions, because they force agriculture to cut down forests elsewhere to grow food. This is why we have to be careful in pushing for the right policies. For twenty years, the refrain has been promises to cut CO₂, like the Kyoto Protocol. For twenty years these policies have failed. We should instead look to climate economics to find smarter solutions. The fundamental problem is that green energy is too expensive, which is why it will need billions in subsidies the next two decades. Instead of making more failed promises to pay ever more subsidies, we should spend the money on research and development of the next generations of green energy sources. If we can innovate the price of green energy down below the cost of fossil fuels, everyone will switch, including China and India. Economics confirm that for every dollar spent on green R&D, we will avoid $11 of climate damage. But this requires us to separate the hype from the real message from IPCC: global warming is a problem, but unless we fix it smartly, we won’t fix it at all.

----------


## John2b

> We don't take a bucket for a dump either which was a very dopey comment and plainly insulting.

  I think the original poster will be gratified that you find it insulting; since he doesn't have facts to back up posts, insults and innuendos are all that's left.

----------


## John2b

> In between the alarmist hype and the reality of climate change we once again risk losing an opportunity to think smartly about energy and find a realistic way to fix global warming.

  Yep. Agree with you Marc.

----------


## Marc

You would agree with me if I had written that article. As it stands I have not, so you agree with the author not me. 
That article is there to show how pathetically inappropriate and ill thought the hype, hyperbole, exaggerations, fabrications, lies and confabulations that make up the AGW farce are and how even those who _believe_ disagree with the so called solutions proposed, including the de-development proposed by some. 
By the way JohnC, if you said that solar powered batteries are "the future" for island communities as a transition from kero lamps, you should have said so in a clearer way. If you throw a line saying it is the way of the future, I am entitled to interpret that you propose de-development back to batteries and as I added to make a point, back to the caves. 
It wouldn't be a novelty, in fact it is part of the green rhetoric together with culling humanity back to one billion. May be using different words.

----------


## John2b

> You would agree with me if I had written that article. As it stands I have not, so you agree with the author not me. 
> I am entitled to interpret that you propose de-development back to batteries and as I added to make a point, back to the caves.

  Marc, just explain again why YOU are entitled to misinterpret and misrepresent what other people say, but take offence when it is done to you?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> From Wikipedia (out of date, BTW, the development of China’s PV sector only started to accelerate during 2015) solar generating capacity in 2014 was 28 GW and a lot of that capacity (more than 10 GW) came on line _during_ the year 2014. But then you conflate the issue by using a figure for generation from the _previous_ year 2013, so your ratio is meaningless at two levels. 
> According to the latest statistics from China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) the  total PV power generation reach 30.6 billion kWh for the first three quarters of 2015. On that rate it will be well over 40 TWh for 2015, as there is still a lot of capacity scheduled to come on line before the end of the year. Total renewables accounted for much more, of course.

  Its called like with like - it's how you do comparisons.  Double it to update it, you still get 0.003 or thereabouts  - SFA is an understatement 
the problem is, your mind has difficulty in comprehending how big China is.  You see 45 gw! And think oh wow, that's a massive number, look how that compares to Australia, it must be really important.  Small thinking. 
now if you think .003 of the power used is significant, then all power to you, I'm just reporting the reality, and even highlighting sources, while you're all over the shop. 
now if you want to mention a percentage of renewables, maybe you should point out hydro, but that is against your religion isn't it - old Bob Brown told you that even though hydro is clean and plentiful that it's bad, and it just is.   Hydro and nuclear are the biggest output by far of low carbon energy, but they are dismissed out of hand.  
so either the problem isn't as big as it you say, or you are prepared to lose the war on principle. 
Well, the world needs pragmatists, not dreamers 
edit - lomborg article above is perfect case of pragmatism over ideology

----------


## John2b

> so either the problem isn't as big as it you say, or you are prepared to lose the war on principle. 
> Well, the world needs pragmatists, not dreamers

  Pragmatism starts by getting facts right. Your conjectures of what/why I think are both incorrect and foolish.

----------


## John2b

Lomborg: 'The German solar adventure, which has cost taxpayers more than $130 billion...'  Why is spending $130 billion and employing 100,000s people in a renewable energy industry an economic disaster, when spending the same amount of money employing a few 1000 people digging fossil energy out of the ground an economic miracle? 
Economic activity is just that - economic activity. Wealth, on the other hand, accumulates when money isn't expended continually replacing a non-renewable commodity.  BTW Lomborg is wrong, burning fossil fuel for 'cheap' electricity is over and that has little to do with climate change. Air pollution in many parts of the world is 50 times over the WHO recommendations. Millions of people are dying every year as a result.  http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/

----------


## johnc

> You would agree with me if I had written that article. As it stands I have not, so you agree with the author not me. 
> That article is there to show how pathetically inappropriate and ill thought the hype, hyperbole, exaggerations, fabrications, lies and confabulations that make up the AGW farce are and how even those who _believe_ disagree with the so called solutions proposed, including the de-development proposed by some. 
> By the way JohnC, if you said that solar powered batteries are "the future" for island communities as a transition from kero lamps, you should have said so in a clearer way. If you throw a line saying it is the way of the future, I am entitled to interpret that you propose de-development back to batteries and as I added to make a point, back to the caves. 
> It wouldn't be a novelty, in fact it is part of the green rhetoric together with culling humanity back to one billion. May be using different words.

  No you are making to many assumptions, each community/country has its own needs, Large regional areas need more reliable power which comes best from larger generating units, small communities may be better progressing in increments, small scale solar is better than what they have. However if you are developing it is simply the next step, what do you do after that? You also assume kero lamp use, you need to get out more some are moving on from nothing or an open fire, kero is expensive and has to be transported which can also be very expensive when you are living on a few hundred dollars per year. You start with education and health, building economic capacity then using those funds (oh no, not taxation) to build better communities, it is a path without an end point. I think China currently produces around 40GW of power from renewables, there is a lot of capacity coming on, earlier this year I read they had passed the 33GW level. 
If you are a country that produces aluminium and steel as things stand you will probably be looking at coal fired power to produce the generating capacity you need as things stand today. Just like the island communities though you have to consider what comes next in generation technology? we are in a constant state of change we need to be onto what is coming up and planning for it. 
On current population growth trends the world will need to double food production by 2050 just to feed itself. Looking forward it is very obvious we can't continue to have ever expanding populations, this isn't some green thing as you propose but just a reality that has to be faced. China has, India hasn't and is busy exporting surplus population by default. These are wide issues and not ones anyone who simply subscribes to a left/right view of the worlds complexities will ever get their head around, you have to let go of the silly political stuff and start to think broadly.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Lomborg: 'The German solar adventure, which has cost taxpayers more than $130 billion...'  Why is spending $130 billion and employing 100,000s people in a renewable energy industry an economic disaster, when spending the same amount of money employing a few 1000 people digging fossil energy out of the ground an economic miracle? 
> Economic activity is just that - economic activity. Wealth, on the other hand, accumulates when money isn't expended continually replacing a non-renewable commodity.  BTW Lomborg is wrong, burning fossil fuel for 'cheap' electricity is over and that has little to do with climate change. Air pollution in many parts of the world is 50 times over the WHO recommendations. Millions of people are dying every year as a result.  http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/

  Maybe this is why Adelaide is stagnating, do all people think that economics is just economic activity - have they not heard of efficient allocation of resources for instance. 
your answer, even if your posi tied rediculous assertion were true, is that it frees 99,000 people to use that electricity to produce iPhones or whatever other item the market is willing to pay for

----------


## John2b

> On current population growth trends the world will need to double food production by 2050 just to feed itself.

  That's an interesting notion. Producing 30% of the world's food takes as much as 70% of the resources used globally in agriculture, and the other 70% of world food production uses just 30%. It the first world industrial food system that is less efficient and uses vastly more inputs, like fossil oil based fertilisers, pesticides and water.

----------


## John2b

> Maybe this is why Adelaide is stagnating, do all people think that economics is just economic activity - have they not heard of efficient allocation of resources for instance.

  How is digging something out of the ground and burning it, then having to dig more of it out of the ground to burn, an 'efficient allocation of resources', when a renewable energy plant has near zero input costs and just keeps producing 'free' energy? 
BTW, calling people you don't agree with 'morons' and denigrating where they live may lead people to think your arguments cannot stand on their own merits.

----------


## johnc

> Maybe this is why Adelaide is stagnating, do all people think that economics is just economic activity - have they not heard of efficient allocation of resources for instance. 
> your answer, even if your posi tied rediculous assertion were true, is that it frees 99,000 people to use that electricity to produce iPhones or whatever other item the market is willing to pay for

  Maybe the decline of its car industry has something to do with it, anyway Adelaide power is not a very large part of vehicle production costs. You can direct efficient allocation of resources with cost mechanisms but control is a tad harder. In any case the price per unit of power is largely costs other than wholesale/production costs. It would seem if you want to look at efficient allocation we should be looking at distribution and retail margins long before we look at generation costs. there are many reasons we have lost car manufacturing, power costs are not really part of that equation, it was an idea floated by both Abbott and Hocky but flatly denied by the industry who pointed to the value of the Australian dollar at the time.

----------


## johnc

> How is digging something out of the ground and burning it, then having to dig more of it out of the ground to burn, an 'efficient allocation of resources', when a renewable energy plant has near zero input costs and just keeps producing 'free' energy? 
> BTW, calling people you don't agree with 'morons' and denigrating where they live may lead people to think your arguments cannot stand on their own merits.

  I think our new friend is a reader not a doer, we seem to be getting half ideas rather than complete thoughts. Pharmaboy2 needs to put a bit more thought into his comments and make a bit more sense.

----------


## johnc

> That's an interesting notion. Producing 30% of the world's food takes as much as 70% of the resources used globally in agriculture, and the other 70% of world food production uses just 30%. It the first world industrial food system that is less efficient and uses vastly more inputs, like fossil oil based fertilisers, pesticides and water.

  In poor communities working on rotation and companion planting does more for the economics of production than fertiliser. Unless fertiliser can be delivered in bulk cheaply it is not cost effective. I suspect new varieties will give greater gains down the track, we will have to wait and see what the experts come up with.

----------


## John2b

> You would agree with me if I had written that article. As it stands I have not, so you agree with the author not me.

  I accept I agreed with the statement I quoted.   

> That article is there to show how pathetically inappropriate and ill thought the hype, hyperbole, exaggerations, fabrications, lies and confabulations that make up the AGW farce.

  On the contrary, it just shows the farcical hype, hyperbole, exaggerations, fabrications, lies and confabulations deniers use to weave fact and fiction into some type of palatable dog whistle pap.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> How is digging something out of the ground and burning it, then having to dig more of it out of the ground to burn, an 'efficient allocation of resources', when a renewable energy plant has near zero input costs and just keeps producing 'free' energy? 
> BTW, calling people you don't agree with 'morons' and denigrating where they live only leads people to think your arguments cannot stand on their own merits.

  Dont rememember calling you a moron, though if I did, it may have been a salient moment. 
however your posts demonstrate that you are happy to provide an opinion, no less an assured opinion, on things that your posts demonstrate no level of understanding beyond a grade school education - eg that answer on economics. 
there is no argument to be had with a post that demonstrates not the slightest dictionary level of understanding of the question, so no discussion can be had.  That's fine, not everyone can have an understanding of any particular area, but your posts indicate a level of confidence that really can only come from complete ignorance, yet you continue on as if you are still correct. 
on China, you either lied, delieberatly mislead or were simply ignorant of the tiny influence solar has on electrical output in that country .  Then you say Wikipedia is wrong - what the! 
someone here makes an effort to call you out on misleading, made up un cited claims,and you get all huffy about it.  Well the answer is not to make rediculous claims that you can't substantiate, perhaps even put question marks here or there, or IMO. 
ypu are not a moron, but your posts do seem to be trying to project yourself as something you are not - quit the game playing and act like an adult.  As far as I can see, your steadfastness simply reinforces everything that Marc and other skeptics say. 
change your style of posts and perhaps more people will actually engage with you 
alas, not me anymore, found the ignore function, so all good  :Wink:

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Maybe the decline of its car industry has something to do with it, anyway Adelaide power is not a very large part of vehicle production costs. You can direct efficient allocation of resources with cost mechanisms but control is a tad harder. In any case the price per unit of power is largely costs other than wholesale/production costs. It would seem if you want to look at efficient allocation we should be looking at distribution and retail margins long before we look at generation costs. there are many reasons we have lost car manufacturing, power costs are not really part of that equation, it was an idea floated by both Abbott and Hocky but flatly denied by the industry who pointed to the value of the Australian dollar at the time.

  sorry, don't read too much into the Adelaide comment - it was simply a cheap shot for my own amusement.  The car industry is a whole different economic and political discussion - in fact, probably as much a historical question and not to do with anything in this thread

----------


## johnc

> Dont rememember calling you a moron, though if I did, it may have been a salient moment. 
> however your posts demonstrate that you are happy to provide an opinion, no less an assured opinion, on things that your posts demonstrate no level of understanding beyond a grade school education - eg that answer on economics. 
> there is no argument to be had with a post that demonstrates not the slightest dictionary level of understanding of the question, so no discussion can be had.  That's fine, not everyone can have an understanding of any particular area, but your posts indicate a level of confidence that really can only come from complete ignorance, yet you continue on as if you are still correct. 
> on China, you either lied, delieberatly mislead or were simply ignorant of the tiny influence solar has on electrical output in that country .  Then you say Wikipedia is wrong - what the! 
> someone here makes an effort to call you out on misleading, made up un cited claims,and you get all huffy about it.  Well the answer is not to make rediculous claims that you can't substantiate, perhaps even put question marks here or there, or IMO. 
> ypu are not a moron, but your posts do seem to be trying to project yourself as something you are not - quit the game playing and act like an adult.  As far as I can see, your steadfastness simply reinforces everything that Marc and other skeptics say. 
> change your style of posts and perhaps more people will actually engage with you 
> alas, not me anymore, found the ignore function, so all good

  This is not mature nor very edifying, you could apply what you have written to yourself. You have taken exception to one player here and it clearly taints your responses, in as such that is playing the man. Great hit the ignore button but next time also take time to reflect on your own bias and thin skin.

----------


## woodbe

> on China, you either lied, delieberatly mislead or were simply ignorant of the tiny influence solar has on electrical output in that country .  Then you say Wikipedia is wrong - what the!

  To be fair, wasn't john2b's post comparing China's solar output with the entire energy demand of Australia? 
And the wikipedia claim wasn't that it was wrong, but that it was out of date. 
China has already moved to decouple energy demand from Coal. They are also retiring the worst of the older coal plants, so although their CO2 output is horrific, they are acting on it.     

> Statistics for the first six months of the year released this week by  Chinas National Energy Administration show the continuation of a major  electricity sector transformation, with profound ramifications for the  coal export industry. While Chinas electricity demand grew by 1.3 percent year over year  from June through January, its coal consumption dropped by 5 percent,  building on the 3 percent decline reported in the full year of 2014.
>  What it comes down to is that China has decoupled its economic growth  from its coal usage. These new figures starkly demonstrate that while  electricity demand continues to rise and GDP growth remains at a level  that would turn any Western treasury green with envy, coal consumption  is rapidly declining as the country focuses on shifting to an  everything but coal energy mix.

  New China data shows how Australiaâs coal industry is at risk : Renew Economy

----------


## pharmaboy2

> To be fair, wasn't john2b's post comparing China's solar output with the entire energy demand of Australia? 
> And the wikipedia claim wasn't that it was wrong, but that it was out of date.

  That part would be OK, it was the claim that China business groups were lobbying govt to provide solar power to provide for a shortfall in generation - at a 1/3rd of 1%?   And I shouldn't be highly critical of such a claim? 
the first one on entering this thread was j2b claiming climate change caused earthquakes, he then admonished me for not reading the scientific paper when his source was time magazine - he even claimed it was a scientific publication for a post, then withdrew that claim. 
dear oh dear, the skeptics on this thread sure don't stand by Marc's crazy posts  (conspiracy stuff), but it seems j2b shouldn't be questioned when he brings the AGW question into disrepute.   I grant, that no one will ever convince Marc, but there are other people who occasionally read but don't bother posting - I wonder why..... 
i know its a crazy idea, but wouldn't it be great if this subject wasn't a political left right divide?  But looking back into this thread, that's exactly what it is - the true believers are nearly all left wing and the skeptics and the deniers seem right ( yes, I deliberately split the groups on the no side)

----------


## pharmaboy2

And woodbe, on that coal decline in China - I'm guessing that the cause is actually hydro coming on, it surely isn't solar.  And to be sure, I'm a supporter of hydro wherever it can be done .  There are historical tables of use from different sources available 
maybe the answer is in here  https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/...ina-last-year/

----------


## John2b

> That part would be OK, it was the claim that China business groups were lobbying govt to provide solar power to provide for a shortfall in generation - at a 1/3rd of 1%?   And I shouldn't be highly critical of such a claim?

  Is your Google button broken?  China Advised to Double Solar Goal to Fill Nuclear, Hydro - Bloomberg Business 
And what's more, the government did double the solar target from 100 GW to 200 GW by 2020.

----------


## John2b

> the first one on entering this thread was j2b claiming climate change caused earthquakes, he then admonished me for not reading the scientific paper when his source was time magazine - he even claimed it was a scientific publication for a post, then withdrew that claim.

  No I did not make the *claim* that climate change caused earthquakes, I was speculating that they might - removing thousands of tons per square meter over thousands of square kilometres - Pretty well founded speculation as it turns out with hundreds of scientific papers already written on the potential: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?s...=en&as_sdt=0,5 
And I made a mistake which I acknowledged as a mistake and made a correction, hardly a case of 'withdrawing a claim". The mistake was the title of a journal where I read about some research; the mistake did not invalidate the research or the fact that it had been written about. For that I am referred to as a 'moron''? #14880 and you think that is a salient point?

----------


## woodbe

> And woodbe, on that coal decline in China - I'm guessing that the cause is actually hydro coming on, it surely isn't solar.  And to be sure, I'm a supporter of hydro wherever it can be done .  There are historical tables of use from different sources available 
> maybe the answer is in here  https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/...ina-last-year/

  The Coal decline is due to China's uptake of renewables. They have decoupled growth from Coal. I can't see where I suggested it was only about Solar, but you're suggesting it is only about hydro now?? Hydro is a significant part of it, but we cannot ignore Solar, wind, etc. No single renewable source is going to be the solution. Well, unless there is one we haven't discovered yet that gives enormous energy for even less investment. 
China is doing all it can to retire as much FF as possible. They are not denying the science of climate change. Big hydro is a great asset, but it takes a long time to come onstream. Three Gorges took about 18 years.

----------


## John2b

> i know its a crazy idea, but wouldn't it be great if this subject wasn't a political left right divide?  But looking back into this thread, that's exactly what it is - the true believers are nearly all left wing and the skeptics and the deniers seem right ( yes, I deliberately split the groups on the no side)

  It would be great if people did not assume they know what is inside someone else's head, and instead concentrated on expressing their own thoughts and research. 
The 'divide' between 'believers' and 'non-believers' more clearly defined by age and education, with university graduates most likely to accept science and older, well off, white, conservative males rejecting it. The following from a British survey in 2011 is similar in its findings to the latest CSIRO research I referred to earlier, which also concurs with recent US findings:   66% of those aged over 65 believed that climate change is caused by human actionsby contrast, 79% of 18-34 year olds take the view that human action is responsible for climate change63% of those with no post-school qualifications were unconvinced about the role of humans in producing climate changeUniversity graduates were much more likely to take the opposite view, with 86% agreeing that human activity was responsible  Differences in attitude were also noted based on income levels, with those in the highest quartile more likely than those in the lowest to believe that human activity was behind the changes in the earth’s climate. 
A separate study by Aaron M McCright found a difference in attitudes based on gender. Using eight years of Gallup poll data from the United States, the study concludes that: “Contrary to expectations from scientific literacy research, women convey greater assessed scientific knowledge of climate change than do men. Also, women express slightly greater concern about climate change than do men.”  Access to information is possibly significant overall in people’s views on environmental matters.  The fact is, the more information people have about the environment and climate change, the more likely they are to realize that it’s real and something must be done.  - See more at: Demographics of Climate Change: Who Believes It Is Real? | Ecopedia

----------


## woodbe

Apparently, anyone who accepts science is a left winger  :Smilie:  
Actually, that is out of date. That idea died with the slaying of our climate change denying PM. Have you noticed that our right wing government has now quietly moved back towards the centre on Climate Change views?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> i know its a crazy idea, but wouldn't it be great if this subject wasn't a political left right divide?

  The divide is stronger on the internet than it is in real life.  Same as many other topics (MTB vs CX on RB for example...don't think that'll go over your head).  Which tends to skew things a bit... 
Also the stridency of the poster at the time tends to profoundly affect their editorial capacity over the quality of the material they link to...regardless of their political stance.  All the rest of us can do is perhaps ignore them equally.   
It's harder to ignore Marc's posts because they often compromise the readership experience of this thread because of the post structure.  It is even worse if you happen to use Tapatalk!!!  
By golly though...I miss Dr. Freud.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Apparently, anyone who accepts science is a left winger

  Hah.  I know quite a few scientists who accept the science of human induced climate change but have the sort of social politics that would be familiar to George Brandis and Corey Bernardi...   

> Have you noticed that our right wing government has now quietly moved back towards the centre on Climate Change views?

  Moved? Perhaps only in terms of rhetoric...

----------


## pharmaboy2

> The divide is stronger on the internet than it is in real life.  Same as many other topics (MTB vs CX on RB for example...don't think that'll go over your head).  Which tends to skew things a bit... 
> Also the stridency of the poster at the time tends to profoundly affect their editorial capacity over the quality of the material they link to...regardless of their political stance.  All the rest of us can do is perhaps ignore them equally.   
> It's harder to ignore Marc's posts because they often compromise the readership experience of this thread because of the post structure.  It is even worse if you happen to use Tapatalk!!!  
> By golly though...I miss Dr. Freud.

  lols - nail struck hard and centred on the head, and not skewed  :Wink:   
i had just happened to read about 10 pages back on this thread woodbe, and when the off topic was political, it was indeed split down the altogether predictable lines. 
but as pointed out by silent but deadly, the Internet isn't really a centrist kind of place. It becomes true believer versus true believer, especially after 300 pages, so the argument goes round and round and each side progressive
y gets farther and farther from centre . 
just occasionally an outsider jumps in......  :Biggrin:

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Hah.  I know quite a few scientists who accept the science of human induced climate change but have the sort of social politics that would be familiar to George Brandis and Corey Bernardi... 
> Moved? Perhaps only in terms of rhetoric...

  Most influence comes from within, not from the sidelines.  MT will get things done, but not overnight - the trick will be not only dragging the party but also getting cross bench support - note the continued adversarial diatribes......

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> just occasionally an outsider jumps in......

  More the merrier I say...

----------


## PhilT2

Rumour has it that Malcolm has pencilled in a trip to Paris. Does that make him a left winger? But most of us would be to the left of Bernardi, even Atilla the hun...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

S'not a rumour Turnbull to attend UN climate conference | SBS News but it (like much of the Paris meeting) is still rhetoric

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Been having a lot of fun with this today...  Surging Seas: Sea level rise analysis by Climate Central 
Just whack in your preferred coastal location and temperature/carbon scenario and enjoy the spectacle.  All the usual caveats apply when it comes to making meaningful conclusions around what one sees but even so...I see many new surf breaks in my future!!

----------


## PhilT2

A binding agreement may be a bit much to hope for this time around but progress will still be made. But the lack of a binding agreement will be hailed as a sign of weakness by the denialisphere who will make a big deal of it to cover up the fact that their wacky ideas and poor science will not get any mention at all.

----------


## notvery

> Been having a lot of fun with this today...  Surging Seas: Sea level rise analysis by Climate Central 
> Just whack in your preferred coastal location and temperature/carbon scenario and enjoy the spectacle.  All the usual caveats apply when it comes to making meaningful conclusions around what one sees but even so...I see many new surf breaks in my future!!

  Wooo hooo my house doesnt get effected... well ok so i can only leave the drive in one direction as the other is underwater....but apart from that im unaffected.....oh and the whole town is underwater so i guess that has to be good for my house price if everyone needs to find somewhere else to live!??? and the garden shouldnt need watering... i can only see positives.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ... i can only see positives.

  That's the spirit!

----------


## John2b

> And woodbe, on that coal decline in China - I'm guessing that the cause is actually hydro coming on, it surely isn't solar.

  Neither. Hydro's share of total electricity production declined from 22.7% in 2005 to 22.2% in 2014, and solar's share of electricity production increased from 0.0% to 1.9%.  http://www.nrdc.cn/coalcap/console/P...9/YangH_EN.pdf 
The main reason for the decline in coal consumption is a consequence of the government's 5-year development plans. They are replacing inefficient old coal fired power stations with gas. The same amount of electricity can be generated with less CO2 emissions in newer, high efficiency power stations:  *Emission reduction – China's commitment and progress* In 2014 (in just one year) 55,000 coal-fired boilers were shut down, and the newly-increased gas consumption reached 2.5 billion cubic meters due to the nationwide project of switching from coal to natural gas. Desulfurization, denitrification, and dust elimination devices for coal-fueled power generators were upgraded, with respective capacities of 130 million kw, 260 million kw, and 240 million kw. Moreover, 2,080 cases involving environmental violations were reported to the police nationwide, twice the sum of the previous decade.  Emission reduction â€“ China's commitment and progress - China Climate Change Info-Net

----------


## John2b

Peabody Energy, the world's largest coal mining company, ignored the advice of its own scientists when it produced its submission to the White House making claims that: greenhouse gas is a non-existent harm and a benign gas that is essential to all life. Instead the submission cited more than 100 non-scientific references such as opinion articles published by media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and groups tied to the fossil fuel industry like the Cato Institute, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and the Global Warming Policy Foundation, all denials 'think' tanks. (BTW think tank is such an oxymoron!) 
A two-year investigation by the New York attorney general that found that Peabody had not been forthright with investors and regulators about threats to its business that the company projected in private. 
This case represents an unprecedented first step in the absolutely critical work of forcing coal and other fossil fuel companies to start being honest about the damage they are doing to our planet, Mr. Schneiderman said in a statement, and the risks they create, both for the public _and for shareholders_.  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/bu...isks.html?_r=0 
In a press release, Peabody stated: "Peabody Energy announced today that it has reached a resolution with the New York Attorney General's office regarding the company's disclosures involving climate change. There is no other action associated with this settlement, no admission or denial of wrongdoing and no financial penalty." 
The real reason that Peabody is not being financially penalised, which it could be under the law, is that there is no mechanism in the law to evaluate the past and future costs of global damages as a result of Peabody's actions. 
It's good to see that the free world economic system instead has finally caught up with these liars and cheats. Peabody shares closed up 3.43% at $15.09 (Nov 9). The coal giant's stock has lost more than 87% of its value since a Feb. 25 high of $118.95-a-share amid a global plunge in energy prices.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Someone might find this an interesting read  http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...enialism/?_r=0

----------


## John2b

> Someone might find this an interesting read  http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...enialism/?_r=0

  "When we cynically pretend to withhold belief long past the point at which ample evidence should have convinced us that something is true, we have stumbled past skepticism and landed in the realm of willful ignorance. This is not the realm of science, but of ideological crackpots. And we don’t need a poll to tell us that this is the doorstep to denialism." 
I have wondered for most of my life why isn't critical thinking something taught and developed as a skill in schools? That, and a whole lot of other 'life skills' seem to be missing from school curriculum.  *How much can we really trust our own rationality and reason?*Not much at all. Most psychological research shows that we are all very much overly confident when it comes to trusting our own reasoning ability, our own perception, our own memory, all kinds of stuff. We live inside this kind of illusion that our brains concoct for us that we are seeing the world objectively and that we are coming to our beliefs because they are just the most sensible beliefs to have, but all the research shows we have a whole host of biases built into our brains that shape and colour our perception and beliefs about the world constantly without us being aware of it.  http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...em?CMP=soc_567

----------


## Marc

Interesting in deed.
If only it was that simple.Quote: In logic, an argument is valid if and only if its conclusion is logically entailed by its premises and each step in the argument is logical. A formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation, and an argument form (or schema) is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.    
Galileo had to swallow a string of tripe like that dished out by the church stating that it was an obvious _fact_ that the sun was circling the earth. How could that possible be denied! and how could anyone contradict the scriptures and avoid being burned to the stake. 
Denier!!!! 
Geee if only people would listen to the _facts._ Oh yea ...  
The effort in making sceptics look stupid is noted, however a sceptic is entitled to disbelief what is presented as fact and call it for what it is, a lie. If the facts are not facts, the conclusion is also false. 
It is rather simple really.  
Eppur si muove ...  
And yes yes yes ... don't bother telling me that Galileo did not say those words, because you were not there listening.

----------


## John2b

> Galileo had to swallow a string of tripe like that dished out by the church stating that it was an obvious _fact_ that the sun was circling the earth. How could that possible be denied! and how could anyone contradict the scriptures and avoid being burned to the stake.

  Funny you should bring up Galileo. The modern equivalent of Galileo are climate scientists, who are being suppressed by those with ideological authority, just as Galileo was. 
How did Galileo determine that the earth revolved around the sun? By applying logic to observations, just as modern climate scientists are doing. There are plenty of examples in history where scientific knowledge has invoked a backlash from vested financial, industrial, ideological or religious interests, for example medicine and religious practices, vehicle emissions and photochemical smog, tobacco and lung cancer, seat belts and crash survivability; the list is endless. 
'Skeptics' on the other hand, are rarely involved in science, let alone climate science. More likely the common theme among 'skeptics' is an ideological opposition to regulation.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The effort in making sceptics look stupid is noted, however a sceptic is entitled to disbelief what is presented as fact and call it for what it is, a lie. If the facts are not facts, the conclusion is also false. 
> It is rather simple really.

  Sceptics/denialists are entitled to disbelief of something purported to be a fact.  However, they can not reasonably describe said purported fact as a lie without provision of facts as to why the purported fact is a lie...unless they want to continue looking stupid. 
The aforementioned Galileo (who, despite being one of the founders of the scientific method, doesn't mean he was always right...or a nice person) had his science countered by politics dressed up as religion.  Most of the climate denialists are using exactly the same tactic (except they are dressed differently) when responding to climate science.

----------


## woodbe

> Sceptics/denialists are entitled to disbelief of something purported to be a fact.  However, they can not reasonably describe said purported fact as a lie without provision of facts as to why the purported fact is a lie...unless they want to continue looking stupid.

  +1 
If you re going to call a fact a lie, you better be able to prove it. 
Not something our 'skeptics' seem capable of...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> If you're going to call a fact a lie, you better be able to prove it.

  It is always worth remembering that it works both ways...if a 'skeptic' drops what hesheit regards as a fact and someone calls it out as otherwise then that call-out needs some fact-based support rather than just a plethora of smirks and giggles. 
Too many times though...it's just funnier to laugh.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Sceptics/denialists are entitled to disbelief of something purported to be a fact.  However, they can not reasonably describe said purported fact as a lie without provision of facts as to why the purported fact is a lie...unless they want to continue looking stupid. 
> The aforementioned Galileo (who, despite being one of the founders of the scientific method, doesn't mean he was always right...or a nice person) had his science countered by politics dressed up as religion.  Most of the climate denialists are using exactly the same tactic (except they are dressed differently) when responding to climate science.

  Within that quote is one of the reasons I changed from being skeptic some years ago - I noted that too many of my fellow skeptics had one of 2 things  
they either believed in some part conspiracy for this subject or another, or had a basis in religious thought that somehow us humans couldn't effect climate. 
neither of those are sides I want to be on - bermshot......  :Wink:

----------


## johnc

> Within that quote is one of the reasons I changed from being skeptic some years ago - I noted that too many of my fellow skeptics had one of 2 things  
> they either believed in some part conspiracy for this subject or another, or had a basis in religious thought that somehow us humans couldn't effect climate. 
> neither of those are sides I want to be on - bermshot......

  I must admit behind every conspiracy theory I have come to the conclusion you have someone who wishes to maintain a belief in the total absence of supporting evidence. Generally the theories rely on a perfectly managed 'world order" or secret government departments when all evidence points to the fact that human are flawed to the point not a single one is perfect. Oddly enough this view is supported by the bible and most religious teachings so you even have to distort your religious roots to form that belief. The reality is that there is always someone who can spill the beans or who stuffs up at some point.

----------


## chromis

Bloody hell this thread still going.. 
Rod Dyson should be banned from the forum for starting this thread  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> neither of those are sides I want to be on - bermshot......

  Hahahahahahahaaahaheeehee[breathe]gigglesmirkohstopit... 
Sorry lads...in-joke from 'another place' regarding a  very special soul who would have made one of this thread's long lost right of right contributors seem like Gandhi.... 
[Still giggling]

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Bloody hell this thread still going.. 
> Rod Dyson should be banned from the forum for starting this thread

  Rather than banning...how about being forced to reread it from the top?

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc



----------


## John2b

Anyone who believes in indefinite growth in anything physical, on a physically finite planet, is either mad, an economist, or Marc.

----------


## John2b

> Rather than banning...how about being forced to reread it from the top?

  The world didn't end this year, so he was right all along! Doh...

----------


## John2b

We need carbon to live, so more carbon is a good outcome. Just like we need water to live, so drowning is a good outcome.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> bloody hell this thread still going.. 
> Rod dyson should be banned from the forum for starting this thread :d

  lol  Im just sitting back waiting to say I told you so!! 
Might take a few more years but I am patient

----------


## Rod Dyson

Failure in Paris cop 21 might be good for a giggle.  Or even better will be how you guys spin failure as success LMAO

----------


## John2b

> Or even better will be how you guys spin failure as success LMAO

  Spinning failure as success seems to be your particular speciality, Rod, especially the failure to accept empirical observations.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> spinning failure as success seems to be your particular speciality, rod, especially the failure to accept empirical observations.

  ha ha

----------


## PhilT2

In the recent auction $557 million has been spent by the Clean Energy Regulator to purchase carbon abatement contracts from 77 contractors. Farmers have been the big winners in this latest round, getting money to not clear native vegetation or to control fires.  About the Clean Energy Regulator NewsItem

----------


## Marc

I wonder what the saviours of the earth crowd will choose to save after this pathetic and crude fraud is finally exposed for what it is?
There is a group of people who pull weeds selectively in a reserve nearby. Not all weeds mind you, just the foreign weeds and keep the local ones ... fair enough, it's their time. The funny bit is that they planted jacaranda among other natives in the belief that it is also a native tree. 
Love it! Why not blackberries? At least you get something out of them to make jam.

----------


## John2b

> I wonder what the saviours of the earth crowd will choose to save after this pathetic and crude fraud is finally exposed for what it is?

  Yes, what are you going to do, Marc, now that your bogus campaign to save the world from 'the people that want to save the world' has been exposed?  energy companies climate denial exposed - Google Search  Peabody reaches agreement on climate change disclosures | Reuters  Just Climate and Weather News / Exxon Exposed for Spending Millions on Climate Change Denial – EcoWatch  "Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American  Climate Deniers Exposed: Top Scientist Got Funding from ExxonMobil, Koch Brothers, Big Coal | Democracy Now!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> In the recent auction $557 million has been spent by the Clean Energy Regulator to purchase carbon abatement contracts from 77 contractors. Farmers have been the big winners in this latest round, getting money to not clear native vegetation or to control fires

  WOFTAM!  A big chunk of that 'not clearing' is basically for not controlling woody weeds and native regrowth as a result of either clearing and overgrazing (or both), both of which were often requirements of the Crown Land lease conditions from State Government.  In the past five years, many of these same farmers received government fund FOR woody weed control...[sigh] 
Look I'm glad we've invested millions of dollars in regional communities so they can grow back a few plants and go on a cruise but is this really the best bang for buck?  This is up there with subsidised roof insulation.... :Doh:

----------


## John2b

> Look I'm glad we've invested millions of dollars in regional communities so they can grow back a few plants and go on a cruise but is this really the best bang for buck?  This is up there with subsidised roof insulation....

  I agree with your sentiment. Maybe we should all go and buy some unfarmable land so that we can leave the trees on it and get paid carbon credits. We had a carbon abatement scheme that worked, was killed by Abbott, and this is the best the Liberal* guvmint can do? 
(*nuthng libral bout our govmint, they make Tories look like socialists!)

----------


## pharmaboy2

Strikes me, there are 2 effects policy can make in regard to overall co2 output. 
the first is a price mechanism - much like the effect we have seen from electricity price increases over the past decade  which have seen domestic demand drop instead of increase (the causes of course, not related to environmental policy at all), but this has a very limited effect on commercial demand for whom electricity is a realtively small proportion of costs. (Eg look at success also of fuel excise) 
the second is causing locking up of carbon.   There are all sorts of small policy changes that can have an effect here.  Some obvious ones - make house building and construction more recyclable and better quality so houses don't only last 50 years.  A lot of this is in construction design. 
my ideas would be  - limit the use of nails ( for recycling reasons)
- limit plasterboard as an internal lining material (encourage ply, other board materials)
- limit nailing plates - encourage bolt or screw through plates
- mandate all footings to be minimum strip suitable for 2 storeys (then only allow new building on existing footings)
- tax brick veneer heavily. 
maybe some more, but the fundamental is we could be making sure all new domestic buildings use lots of timber and then ensure a design life of a century as minimum. 
i hate waste, one terrible example I see, is that the govts response to a this problem is to simply radically increase dumping fees - the outcome of that seems to be, that a whole lot of timber waste, gets burned in firepits.  The tip fees are simply too blunt an instrument to help with recycling or repairing. 
consumer products also should have far more significant design lives. - see fridges, washing machines etc etc that people dispose of because they are uneconomical to repair. 
this is mainly aimed at domestic because they are far easier to influence than business

----------


## John2b

Can't wait for the deniers' explanation of how the temperature record reflects the 'pause' in global warming...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...the fundamental is we could be making sure all new domestic buildings use lots of timber and then ensure a design life of a century as minimum.

  I'm not a fan of policy as it relates to building design as I suspect that it would potentially stifle innovation that could lead to something even better.  Price signals relating to an individual product's 'carbon' budget is fine but not so much in an aggregation of products like a domestic dwelling.  Of course the flip side to this is that this would mean we couldn't ban the current daft trend of eaveless dwellings...but since these sort of houses will cost their owners a megatruckload in energy and money over time to keep comfortable that's their problem not mine!!! 
Whilst I support your view with respect to timber it is worth bearing in mind that many new forms of cement and concrete are not only made from less carbon intensive components but also include ingredients that capture carbon as part of the curing process...so why limit oneself (or worse, give favour) to a particular material over another if they both provide an appropriate solution.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Ha 15,000 post go by without a word!!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Can't wait for the deniers' explanation of how the temperature record reflects the 'pause' in global warming...

  Who would bother.  81 to 2010 what about 1900 to 2000 or something else?  It is all meaningless.  But for you guys who so whole heartedly want to be proven right. 
Time is on our side buddy.  No matter of figure fudging will save you. 
Its just like when I was a Pro black jack player, we could hide our winnings for a while, but after a while it just got to much to hide and then bang, banned for life!!

----------


## John2b

> Who would bother. 81 to 2010 what about 1900 to 2000 or something else? It is all meaningless.

  A baseline is a baseline. The period from which the baseline is taken has no bearing on the trend; choosing 1900 to 2000 alters ABSOLUTELY nothing other than the position of the horizontal axis relative to today. But when one's trying to actively misunderstand, then why not throw in red herring?   

> Time is on our side buddy. No matter of figure fudging will save you.

  I don't need saving, but thanks for the thought. This isn't a game of poker, BTW, and there are no winnings for the taking, regardless of what the outcome is.

----------


## John2b

Australia has agreed to a deal to cut funding for dirty coal-fired electricity by *billions of dollars a year*. That's tens of times more money than the government spends on energy and environment research, of which climate change research is just a small part.  Australia backs down on coal stand-off

----------


## Marc

*Antarctica gaining ice mass   
H. Sterling Burnett is reporting that a new NASA study published in the Journal of Glaciology shows snow in Antarctica began a long-term accumulation 10,000 years ago and is adding much more ice to the continent each year than it is losing as some glaciers melt. The thinning of some glaciers has been shown to be due largely to geologic (volcanic) activity below the ice mass. According to NASAs analysis, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001, slowing to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. 
Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, the lead author of the study, stated, "The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away." The persistent ice mass accumulation in Antarctica confounds climate model predictions. As NASA's analysis shows, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which said Antarctica was overall losing land ice, is just dead wrong. Both on land and at sea, ice growth continues.*

----------


## John2b

> Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, the lead author of the study, stated, "The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away."

  "But this is also bad, news" Zally said. "If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."  Study: Mass gains of Antarctic ice sheet greater than losses   

> The persistent ice mass accumulation in Antarctica confounds climate model predictions.

  Er, no it doesn't. The link between global warming and the cooling of East Antarctica has been known since 2007: 
"Scientists think the Antarctic region is experiencing a slower temperature rise than the Arctic, because the ozone hole over Antarctic has created weather trends, specifically in East Antarctica, that has slowed it down. East Antarctica is not warming as fast as West Antarctica — that's the part of Antarctica that is the most susceptible to ice loss. In 2007, researchers found a link between this phenomenon and the ozone hole over Antarctica. Depleting ozone in the upper atmosphere changes wind dynamics there. That change causes a strengthening of the jet stream and the polar winds, but it also traps the cold air in the regions around East Antarctica, creating a cooling effect."  Climate Change in Antarctica | Climate Nexus

----------


## Marc

Quote: _If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. But the lie can only be maintained for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic (or metrological) consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State._  Joseph Goebbels    (My brackets.)  http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri15/ralph_ellis_oct15.html   The missing Ice Ages: However, the potential flaw in this ice-albedo climate feedback theory is the missing Ice Ages in the geological record, as has been mentioned previously. If the NH Great Spring and NH Great Summer seasons of the Seasonal Great Year are the initiator of Interglacials, because of their strong insolation warming influences in the higher northern latitudes, then we should surely get four Interglacials every 90,000 years, rather than one. The Great Year (GY) is 21,700 years long, and so each GY should produce a summer season (an Interglacial) and a winter season (an Ice Age). (With this effect only correlating with NH GY seasons, because of the larger NH landmasses.)   However, take a look at fig 7 again. Notice that 170,000 years ago there was a very strong Great Year summer season with an increased insolation of about 80 wm2. This greatly increased Sun-strength would surely have been enough to end an Ice Age, and yet the temperature remained stubbornly cold all the way though this GY summer season. Clearly, there must be another factor influencing and modulating these Interglacial periods besides the seasons of the Great Year, but what can it be?  Surprisingly, the answer is dust. Yes, a humble wind-blown dust storm.    As we saw previously, the albedo of fresh snow can go as high as 85%. So no matter how hot the GY summer season is, the ice sheets and glaciers are not going to melt if they are covered by a fresh layer of snow. The net insolation at 65ºN is about 380 wm2, and so the absorption of the northern ice sheets may well be just 115 wm2 (at 70% albedo). And the GY summer insolation only adds another 25 wm2 to that(at 70% albedo). So yes, the increased insolation during the GY summer season that peaked 170,000 years ago, could well have been shrugged off by pristine snow and ice, resulting in no additional warming or melting. What an Interglacial warming period requires, in order to be successful, is a layer of dust and dirt on the ice-sheets, to reduce the albedo and allow the GY summer season to get a grip on this reflective layer and melt the ice sheets.    Surprisingly, this is exactly what happened, as can bee seen in fig 8. This graph demonstrates that every Interglacial warming period was preceded by at least 10,000 years of dust storms (red line). In scientific journals it is sometimes claimed that this dust was derived from retreating ice-sheets leaving a barren landscape. But as we all know, plant recolonisation with grasses is likely to be rapid after ice sheets retreat, and so this explanation is highly improbable. Besides, it is indisputable that each dust era *preceded* the end of the Ice Age by some 10,000 years, rather than occurring during the Interglacial glacial retreat period.    So what caused the dust-storms, that reduced the albedo and allowed the Ice Ages to end? Fig 8 gives us the answer, because it also shows that CO2 levels during each Ice Age came all the way down to 180 ppm (green line), and that is dangerously low for plant life. CO2 is probably the most important gas in the atmosphere, because it is an essential plant food. Without CO2 plants die, and if all the plants die then the entire world ecosystem dies with it. And this has been confirmed by none other than Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace who said:   Quote, Patrick Moore:  _'CO2 is lower today than it has been through most of the history of life on earth … At 150 ppm CO2 all plants would die, resulting in the virtual end of life on earth' *3_  So the most likely reason for these isolated and sudden dust-storm eras, is that when CO2 reached its minimum value there was a massive dieback of vegetation.  This dieback would have caused large areas of barren ground to be exposed. And the high winds caused by the ice sheet terminus temperature difference can blow dust from those newly barren lands into the atmosphere, with much of it settling on the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets (the ice core data in fig 8 is from Antarctica). So the barren ground was not caused by retreating ice sheets, it was caused by not enough CO2.  __   But if an era of dusty conditions is required to end an Ice Age, as is quite apparent from fig 8, then this is yet further evidence that the primary feedback regulating world temperature is albedo, rather than CO2.  Dust has no connection whatsoever with world CO2 levels, but it does have a very strong correlation with world albedo strength, especially during an Ice Age. The dust layers on the ice sheets will get deeper and deeper by the century, until there is a thick layer of dust-laden ice in the upper layers of the ice sheets. And so the net result of this lack of CO2, and the barren regions and dust storms that followed, was that the critical northern latitude ice sheets had greatly reduced albedo.    But there is one other critical requirement for the end of an Ice Age, and that is increasing insolation in the northern hemisphere during a Great Year's spring and summer. And now the GY summer sunshine could at last get some leverage on the highly reflective ice, because of its reduced dusty albedo. And the albedo of the ice sheets would have reduced even further, year by year, because the dust and dirt remains on the surface while the ice melts all around it. And so the surface dust merges with older dust from previous centuries, creating an increasingly dirty surface - until the pristine white ice sheets look more like the dusty glacial moonscape on the Baltoro glacier in fig 6. And so at last this vast sea of dirty ice could begin to warm and melt. Which is why the Interglacial warming periods in fig 7 are so closely correlated with the summer season of the Great Year and always follow a dust-storm era.    And it was this warming Interglacial period that was the savior of all plant and animal life on the Earth. The real life-threatening aspect of CO2 is having too little of it, rather than having too much. But the increasing Interglacial temperatures eventually allowed CO2 outgassing from the oceans, which gave more food to plants and saved all plant and animal life from certain extinction. And the resulting revitalised plant growth further reduced world albedo by recolonising the barren lands, which further assisted the Interglacial warming trend. Thus the critical elements necessary for the end of an Ice Age are:   a.  CO2 reducing below 200 ppm. b.  Wholesale plant-life die-back. c.  Large areas of exposed barren ground. d.  High winds that form at the ice sheet terminus. e.  Thick dust deposited on the ice sheets, for successive centuries. f.   Greatly reduced albedo on the ice sheets. g.  A Great Year summer season in the northern hemisphere.   And this results in:   a.  Warming temperatures. b.  A positive feedback were melting ice concentrates dust on the ice, giving even more warming. b.  A positive feedback were retreating ice sheets result in less albedo and even more warming. c.   Increasing ocean temperatures, resulting in CO2 outgassing from the oceans. d.   Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. e.  Plant life recovering, and reducing albedo even more.   Only with all these many conditions in place, will there be a virtuous feedback cycle which can rapidly end an Ice Age. And the primary feedback that encourages this warming trend is albedo. Albedo can provide tens of extra wm2 to the all-important northern ice-sheets, while the puny CO2 molecule can do little or nothing to assist. And we know that CO2 is only a minor player in this drama, because when albedo reaches a minimum during the Interglacial era, when the ice sheets have all gone, the warming stops. So CO2 is only a bit-player in this drama, while the stars of the show are the Great Year seasons in the NH and albedo feedbacks.   This is why the Great Year summer season that peaked 170,000 years ago was completely ignored by the surface temperature - because there had been no plant-life die-back, and no dust storms.  It would appear that the world's cloud-modulating thermostat can keep the world quite stable at Ice Age temperatures, even when subjected to a northern hemisphere high latitude warming trend of plus 80 wm2.  Yes, the snow-ice albedo and the negative cloud feedbacks are that strong, that they can maintain an Ice Age in the face of very high increases in NH insolation.     And so the Great Year summer 170,000 years ago did absolutely nothing to global temperatures. It was only after the later plant-life die-back resulting in barren regions and dust storms  -  which happened around 150,000 years ago  -  that the world was primed and ready for an Interglacial warming period. And as can be seen in fig 7, as soon as the next NH Great Year summer came along, the surface temperatures immediately responded and the Ice Age ended.         Fig 8.  _Ice Ages and dust strength, from the Vostok ice core. Note that the dust events all occur before the Interglacial warming, and so before the melting of the ice-sheets._  Post Script.     Prior to about 1.2 million years ago, the Earth's temperature had a 41 k year cycle, as can be seen in fig 4, and so the climate was obviously following the 41 k year change in the Earth's obliquity or tilt angle. Since the Great Year is normally the dominant forcing factor in the Earth's insolation and climate, this change is peculiar. One possible reason for the effect of the Great Year seasons reducing, is that there was little or no eccentricity prior to 1.2 million years ago. The Great Year seasons can only differ in insolation and therefore temperature, when they are combined with a large orbital eccentricity. When there is no eccentricity the Earth still precesses on its axis, but all the Great Year seasons become much the same in insolation. However, why the Earth's orbit should lack eccentricity before 1.2 million years ago, is another matter entirely.    Fig 9 shows the Earth's many orbital perturbations in past and future eras. The change in obliquity has a variable 41 k year cycle (blue line).  The orbital eccentricity has a variable 100 k year cycle (green line). And the Seasonal Great Year precessionary cycle has a short but very stable 21,700 year cycle (purple line).   If we combine the eccentricity and the precessionary Great Year cycles, the result is the Precession Index (red line). The Precession Index shows the strength of the Great Year's seasons - large oscillations mean large variations in insolation between the Great Summer and Great Winter at high latitudes.  The insolation line (black) is the changes in insolation at 65ºN, and it includes changes in obliquity.  This black line is the same as the blue line in fig 7, and shows the changes in insolation during the NH Great Summer (cycle peaks) and NH Great Winter (cycle troughs).   The recent lack of orbital eccentricity (green line) may also explain the modern extended Interglacial. Without any eccentricity there will be no NH Great Winter (cycle troughs in red line and black line), and so there will be no new Ice Age  -  because the variations in the strength of the Great Seasons depends upon there being some orbital eccentricity. But the recent stabilisation of global temperature at Interglacial levels is a bit premature, for the NH insolation has already fallen a reasonable amount and world temperature should have followed it.   There is a possible solution to this, but it would imply that the temperature line 125 k years ago in fig 7 is erroneously displaced into the past by about 5 k years. If a new Ice Age requires the full Great Year NH winter forcing, before the temperature falls, as the current situation might suggest, then the temperature fall 125 k years ago is potentially misaligned. The temperature fall into the last Ice Age should be slightly to the right of the Great Year insolation line, so that the full reduction in insolation can act upon the NH and cause the ice sheets to grow.    This may be a possible solution. Since the researchers creating these ice core graphs are counting hundreds of thousands of ice layers, it would not be surprising to find that some of these climatic changes are not quite in their correct chronological positions. If this is so, then in the current era we may have already entered a 50 k year period of stable climatic conditions before the next Great Winter is due, as depicted on the black line. And even that Great Winter is not particularly severe. The next full blown Ice Age winter is not really due until 180,000 AD, and so human civilisation has emerged at a particularly fortuitous moment with a particularly benign climate for the next 180 k years.    So the dire predictions of certain extinction being made by Big Green are totally FALSE. CO2 is not the great driver of world temperature, Great Year forcing and albedo feedbacks are. And CO2 is not an evil gas, it is the most essential and beneficial gas in the atmosphere. In fact, it was a lack of CO2 that nearly extinguished every form of life on Earth seven times within the last million years, and we were only saved on each occasion by a humble dust storm.    So the only evil in this world is not in the atmosphere, it lies in the hearts of those who wish to starve plants and animals of their most essential food supply  --  CO2.           Fig 9.  _Milankovitch cycles plus a temperature record from the Vostok ice core. Note that the precessional Great Year is highly regular over time, while orbital eccentricity varies considerably. When eccentricity is at a minimum, the Great Seasons of the Great Year (the precession index) also come to a minimum. The Great Year cannot generate different Great Seasons, when there is no orbital eccentricity._    **1*Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle: eccentricity or orbital inclination? eccentricity is ruled out *       Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle: eccentricity not orbital inclination? Spectrum of 100-Kyr Glacial Cycle: Orbital Inclination, not Eccentricity on JSTOR* **2*_Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Earth's Climate History, James Hansen, Makiko Sato_ _ http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailin...ensitivity.pdf_ _*3_ _ Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: ‘Thank goodness we came along & reversed 150 million-year trend of reduced CO2 levels in global atmosphere. Long live the humans’ | Climate Depot_ _
There is a discussion on this paper Albedo regulation of Ice Ages,                 with no CO2 feedbacks. at _

----------


## John2b

> Quote: _If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it._

  Keep trying Marc. Someone's bound to believe you.

----------


## Marc

*Albedo regulation of Ice Ages,* *                 with no CO**2** feedbacks.* *                                by Ralph Ellis  * 
This is a very simple and apparently novel proposal for the initiation and modulation of Ice Ages and Interglacials, that explains all the many peculiarities and periodicities of recent Ice Age cycles. And it is a theory without unwarranted preconceptions. In _Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Earth's Climate History_, by James Hansen and Makiko Sato,*2 they declare _a priori_ in the first sentence of their introduction:   _The largest climate forcing is the human made increase of atmospheric greenhouse gasses, especially CO2, from the burning of fossil fuels._  
While that may be an essential statement to assure further grants, it is an unwarranted and incorrect assumption that is *directly contradicted by the paper itself*. And if the very first sentence in a paper is wrong, there is little hope for the following study.    
In great contrast, the proposal for consideration in this paper is that the recent Ice Ages and Interglacials are initiated by precessional Milankovitch cycles, and enhanced almost exclusively by albedo feedbacks, plus a special* 'secret' ingredient*. The main conclusions of this research paper are that:  
a.   Ice Ages and Interglacials are initiated by precessional Milankovitch cycles.
b.  An incorrect orbital cycle has been assumed, as the initiator for Interglacials.
c.   Ice Ages and Interglacials are enhanced by albedo feedbacks, not CO2. 
d.  Milankovitch forcing has been erroneously reduced in climate research.
e.  Albedo feedbacks have been erroneously reduced in climate research.
f.   CO2 feedbacks have been erroneously exaggerated in climate research.
g.  CO2 feedbacks are unnecessary, to explain Ice Age modulation.
h.  An extra 'secret' ingredient is involved in Interglacial initiation.  
While the following arguments may be very simple, they do manage to explain almost every aspect of recent Ice Age cycles, and also some of the lesser known ones. And if this hypothesis is true, then it is likely that CO2 plays a greatly reduced role in all modern climate feedbacks, not just Ice Age feedbacks. And this would mean that all the IPCC predictions about the present climate are likewise false. 
Abbreviations used:
NH    =  northern hemisphere
SH     =  southern hemisphere
GY    =  Great Year (a precessional 'year')
Ice Age initiation (forcing):
In the standard Ice Age temperature graph in fig 1, we see that Interglacials are regular events that must therefore be triggered by some very stable, long-term regular cycle. This is not the chaotic initiation via a random weather event, but the regular rhythm of a celestial cycle. 
It is often said that recent Interglacials have a 100 k year cycle, and must therefore be linked with the 100 k year eccentricity of the  Earth's obit. Strangely, for such a simple observation, this oft-quoted assertion is completely wrong. Even looking at the Interglacials in fig 1 will demonstrate this, because the last two Interglacials are about 110k years apart, while previous Interglacials are displaced by about 90 k years. So is this observation significant in any way?
Surprisingly, it is pivotal. Because how can we understand the mechanism behind Interglacial initiation, if we do not know what the underlying cycle is? Many researchers have been led astray because a mathematical frequency analysis of the data can combine two closely spaced cycles and erroneously points towards single a 100 k year cycle. So there are many analyses, like the 1997 paper by Muller and McDonald entitled _Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle: eccentricity or orbital inclination_ *1 that misidentify the astronomical cycle. In fact, the rather humorous answer to the title of their paper is: *neither!*  This is where observation and experience can triumph over the raw and untamed power of fourier transform mathematics, because the true Ice Age cycle is not a single 100 k fluctuation at all, but multiples of smaller 21,700 year oscillations. 
And so the true answer to this cornerstone of Ice Age climatology, is that the correct astronomical metronome for recent Ice Age initiation is the Earth's axial precession, not its orbital eccentricity or axial inclination. The precession of the equinox has a 25,700 year cycle, and it was known to the ancient Egyptians and Greeks as the Great Year. And its comparison to a solar year is perfectly valid, because the Great Year combines with orbital eccentricity to produce warm and cool seasons in each hemisphere just like a normal year  -  Great Seasons that are 5,420 years long.  (The Great Seasons are shorter, because of apsidal precession. So the Seasonal Great Year is only 21,700 years long, instead of 25,700 years.) And since a solar year has twelve months, the Great Year was also traditionally sub-divided into twelve Great Months of 2,140 years each (excluding apsidal precession). But in practice each of the Great Months in antiquity were of different lengths, because the astrological constellations that defined them are all of different sizes. So the knowledge and study of the precession of the equinox is of great antiquity. 
(Note that the precessional Great Year requires some orbitial eccentricity, before its seasons will differ. This is why some Great Seasons are stronger than others. See the red line in fig 9, where larger oscillations equal stronger seasons.) 
The Seasonal Great Year of 21,700 years in length is the reason for the variability in Interglacial spacings. If an Ice Age spans four precessionary cycles or Great Years, it will have a total cycle length of 87 k years, but if it spans 5 Great Years it will have a total cycle length of 109 k years. And this is exactly what we see in the historic climate record, as fig 1 demonstrates. However, climate scientists will dismiss this suggestion as being impossible, because a mechanism is then required whereby Ice Ages can span four or five Great Years (precessionary cycles) before producing another Interglacial. Why would any cyclical system miss out a number of intermediate cycles before responding? This is a good question and it will be fully explained later in this paper through the action of a special* 'secret' ingredient.*    
Fig 1. _Global temperature vs CO2 over 450,000 years from the Vostok ice core.  Ice Ages are at the bottom of the graph, Interglacials at the top. Note that CO2 concentrations follow global temperatures, rather than lead them. So CO2 is a follower, rather than an initiator and driver. Source: NCDC, NOAA._ _Ice Core | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)_

----------


## Marc

However, there should be no doubt about the initiating trigger for Interglacial periods, because the clear evidence for this is given to us in fig 2. The blue line in this graph is the variation in insolation in northern latitudes, caused by Milankovitch cycle Great Years (GY). Thus all the upper peaks in this Milankovitch blue line are 21,700 years apart, and represent the NH Great Year summer season (a summer season that is 5,420 years long). And it is quite apparent that both of the major Interglacial warmings and all of the minor warmings depicted here, follow the Great Year's NH spring and summer seasons. Note that temperatures do not follow the SH GY summer, which are represented by the troughs in this blue line, but only follow the NH GY summer. The difference being that the NH contains the great landmasses, and so we know that land is more important than ocean in Interglacial initiation and propagation.  
So the major recent Ice Ages are not modulated by orbital eccentricity, as is often assumed, and nor are they regulated by obliquity-inclination. Instead, they are actually regulated by the precession of the equinox and its resulting Great Year seasons. So just as the standard solar spring and summer seasons will chase away the winter snows in the NH, so too will the Great Year's spring and summer melt the Ice Age ice sheets in the NH  --  sometimes.   
This is why there are some shorter Ice Age periods of about 90 k years and longer ones of 110, k years, because they are responding to an underlying 21,700 year cycle. This does mean we need to explain the missing cycles, like the very obvious one 170 k years ago which did not produce a temperature response at all, but the reason for the selective response to NH Great Year summer forcing will become apparent later.   
But the important thing we know thus far, is that Interglacials are regulated by the Great Year, and only by the rising insolation during the Great Year's summer season in the NH. Note that *no* Interglacials are ever triggered by increasing insolation in the SH. The SH graph would be the inverse of the cycle in fig 2, so if there had been a SH warming that resulted in an Interglacial, the pink temperature line would coincide with a trough in the blue line in fig 2. And this is again a pivotal observation. So the requirements thus far for an Interglacial period are:  
a.  Increased insolation linked to the 22.7 k year Great Year.
b.  Only increased NH insolation will produce an effect.
     (ie: during the NH Great Spring and Great Summer seasons.)
c.  The NH landmasses are an important factor, for some reason.
d.  Not all NH Great Summers produce a temperature response.    
Fig 2. _C__hanges in insolation in high northern latitudes during the last 11 Great Years (Milankovitch Cycles). Each Great Year's NH summer season is shown by the peaks in the blue graph-line, and the Great Year's NH winter is represented by the trough. The pink line is the resulting worldwide surface temperature__._  _Source:_ _Milankovitch Cycles and Climate Change_  
Science papers will undermine the role of Great Year Milankovitch forcing by saying that the total forcing over the whole globe and the whole Great Year  is very small, averaging just 2 wm2. And so this very small forcing needs assistance in the form of a very strong feedback - CO2. So in the minds of both scientists and the media, CO2 becomes the vital feedback ingredient.  
However, although there are feedbacks involved in Interglacial warming, the dilution of Great Year summer forcing all over the globe is totally fallacious. We have already established that Interglacials are only a NH forcing event, and so spreading the effect of Great Year forcing across the globe is a totally false and unwarranted methodology. When it comes to melting the annual winter snows in the NH, it is not the temperature in Australia that matters. NH winter snow melt is initiated and sustained by local temperatures in the NH, and more pertinently by local temperatures in the high northern latitudes. So why would ice-sheet melt during the precessional Great Spring and Great Summer be any different?   
We shall see further evidence later demonstrating that Interglacial warming is actually a high latitude phenomena, caused by increased insolation on the northern ice sheets themselves. And so the true regional increase in insolation during the NH's Great Year summer season is much the same as in fig 2. The present Interglacial warming had 50 wm2 of extra insolation-forcing, while the previous Interglacial had an even larger 90 wm2 of extra insolation-forcing, in the high northern latitudes. So while a Great Year insolation-forcing of just 2 wm2 smeared over the whole globe does not appear very great, the regional insolation-forcing on the northern ice sheets themselves can be up to 90 wm2, and that is a highly significant increase in solar energy.  
But this increased Great Year (GY) forcing is obviously not the full story, because some NH GY summer seasons are completely ignored by the global surface temperature. The GY summer of 170 k years ago is a good case in point, where 80 wm2 of extra regional insolation in the NH produced no temperature response whatsoever. Why was that? What can produce such a different response between the GY summer 170 k years ago and the GY summer 135 k years ago, which produced a full-blown Interglacial warming? The answer is an additional 'secret ingredient' that will be explained in more detail later. 
Ice Age enhancement (feedbacks):
The oft-quoted primary feedback involved in Interglacial formation and enhancement is the mighty CO2 molecule, which has seemingly miraculous properties. It can influence anything from surface temperatures, to floods, to diseases, to animal behavior, and life expectancy. And so the miracle molecule just has to be involved in the Interglacial warming process too. But it is not, and we can see some evidence for this in fig 1, where the Ice Ages appear to have well defined and delineated maximum and minimum temperatures, no matter how warm the GY summer was or how cold the GY winter was. So there is obviously another factor involved here, that modulates and regulates surface temperatures during the GY summer and winter, but what is it?   
The miracle molecule, CO2, will produce a positive feedback effect, as we all know. But the effect is produces is not significant. Fig 3  shows that between the Ice Age concentration of 180 ppm and the Interglacial concentration of 300 ppm, the extra forcing energy provided by CO2 is only 4 wm2:  *    Age                  CO2                Insolation*
    Interglacial     300 ppm        258 wm2
    Ice Age            180 ppm        254 wm2
    Difference       120 ppm        004 wm2  
So over the course of an Interglacial warming period CO2 feedback-forcing averages about 4 wm2, which represents roughly a doubling of CO2  (the oft-quoted 'doubling of CO2' warming figure).  But this 4 wm2 is the total contribution of CO2 over the entire Interglacial period, and if we assume an Interglacial warming period of 5,000 years, this results in 0.008 wm2 per decade of extra insolation and extra warming. And this is about half the energy required to power a bee in flight. One has to wonder how 0.008 wm2 over the course of a decade, is going to assist in warming a frozen planet into an Interglacial period.    
Fig 3. _The 'feedback-forcing' ability of CO2.  Note that the effects of CO2 are greatest in the first 100 ppm, and then the graph flattens out.  So the effect of rising from 400 ppm to 500 ppm of CO2 is very small indeed._

----------


## Marc

The underestimated feedback:According to current literature a doubling of CO2 is assumed to be the equivalent of 4 wm2, and thiswill give a 1.5ºc change in global temperature (with CO2 alone doing the feedback). In which case, the 0.008 wm2 increase in CO2 forcing calculated above will give a 0.003ºc warming per decade. This paltry increase in energy is simply too insignificant to deliver a decisive feedback that will instantly force the world into an Interglacial. During the last Interglacial warming the world was warming at 1ºc per 1,000 years, and 0.008 wm2 per decade is simply not going to cut the ice _(sic)_, and so there are obviously some missing feedbacks here.    To overcome this deficiency it is claimed that CO2 is further assisted by water vapour and methane and also by albedo changes, to create a much more substantial change in world temperature. These extra components are thought to treble CO2's contribution, resulting in a 4.5ºc change in temperature per extra 4 wm2 (a doubling in CO2). This translates into 0.009ºc warming per decade over the entire Interglacial warming period of 5,000 years, and is about the temperature increase observed during the Interglacial warming period.    *    CO2+H2O positive feedback:* Great Year increased insolation       = More CO2+H2O = More greenhouse warming == More CO2+H2O = More greenhouse warming.   *    Albedo positive feedback:* Great Yearincreased insolation     = Less ice = Less albedo = More warming == Less ice = Less albedo = More warming.      Do note that ice-sheet albedo has largely disappeared from these feedback calculations for the modern era, because the ice sheets have largely disappeared. And so the Earth System Sensitivity (ESS) calculation of 4.5ºc for a doubling of CO2 (with ice sheets), has now become the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) value of just 3ºc for a doubling of CO2 (without ice sheets). (A doubling of CO2 represents about 4 wm2.)   But there is a problem here, because the large role played by CO2 feedbacks in the ESS and ECS forcing values has been calculated primarily from Ice Age temperature data. (Laboratory experiments have given an enormous variation in results, indicating that they cannot be taken seriously.)  But are these Ice Age feedback calculations correct? If albedo takes on a much greater role in Interglacial feedbacks, as will be demonstrated later, then the role of CO2 must be diminished to compensate.   For instance, the ESS value assumes about a 33% feedback contribution each, for CO2, H20, and albedo (Hansen and Sato, fig 5  *2). However, if the effect of albedo feedbacks doubled to 66% of the total, then CO2 and H20 would be reduced to providing just 17% each. More importantly, this suggestion would also have an impact on feedback calculations for the modern ice-free climate:           ESS  (with ice-sheet albedo):        Classical sensitivity     4 wm2   =   4.5ºc rise   *incl  * *1.5ºc     from CO2*.   (33% of  4.5ºc)        Revised sensitivity      4 wm2    =  4.5ºc rise   *incl  * *0.75 ºc  from CO2*.   (17% of  4.5ºc)          ECS  (without ice-sheet albedo):       Classical sensitivity     4 wm2   =   3.0ºc rise   *incl  1.5ºc     from* *CO2*.   (50% of  3.0ºc)        Revised sensitivity      4 wm2    =  1.5ºc rise   *incl  0.75ºc   from* *CO2*.   (50% of  1.5ºc)      So if we incorporate a much larger effect from albedo feedbacks, when calculating Ice Age climate sensitivity, then the role of the CO2 feedback has to be diminished to compensate - in this case reducing from 1.5ºc to just 0.75ºc for a doubling of CO2. Furthermore, the role of CO2 in the modern era will also be diminished, and so the all-important *total* climate sensitivity reduces from 3ºc to 1.5ºc for a doubling of CO2. In which case, CO2 would not be such a powerful modulator of the climate, and the threat of a runaway warming effect from increasing man-made CO2 emissions is likewise diminished. And we shall see later that the role of ice-sheet albedo may be much greater than the 66% assumed in this calculation, which would result in an even smaller role for CO2 in the modern climate system.    This reduced role for CO2 in feedbacks (a reduced climate sensitivity) would explain the closely delineated temperatures during Interglacials. If CO2 really did represent a very strong positive feedback system, and the primary regulator for Earth temperature, then the huge rise in CO2 concentrations during the Interglacial warming could well produce the dreaded 'tipping point' and 'runaway greenhouse effect' that the BBC and CNN try to scare us with every other day. The CO2 feedback would be so strong, that the Earth would just continue warming.      But increasing CO2 concentrations do *not* cause runaway temperatures at all. As can be seen in fig 1, maximum CO2 concentrations always result in global temperatures stabilising at about the same temperature, followed by reducing temperatures as the Great Year in the NH turns to autumn and then winter. And this is despite CO2 still having plenty of warming potential left in it. CO2 can continue giving a positive feedback effect all they way up to 1,000 ppm. And yet it does not. The Interglacial CO2 concentration always stops at about 300 ppm, and the temperature always stops at about our current world temperature. And the same maximum world temperature has been reached in each Interglacial and each warming period for the last 2.5 million years, as fig 4 demonstrates.    However, while CO2 cannot explain this Interglacial temperature limit, albedo feedbacks can. An albedo feedback driven by changes in polar ice will *always* result in a maximum temperature limit, which is reached when the majority of the ice has gone and there are no further significant changes in ice-albedo. And from this observation alone, we can rightly assume that the alarming reputation of CO2 as the primary regulator of world temperature has been grossly exaggerated. And that exaggeration has resulted from a complete misunderstanding about the causes and processes that trigger and assist an Interglacial warming event.   **  Fig 4.  _World temperatures over the last 5.5 million years. Note that our current world temperature has been the same maximum value for the last 2.5 million years. A very consistent maximum temperature indeed._   Feedback strength:  We have already seen that CO2 on its own produces a very weak feedback effect, averaging a 1.5 ºc warming over the entire Interglacial warming period (during which CO2 concentrations approximately double). To overcome this deficiency it is claimed that water vapour feedbacks will assist CO2, to create a more meaningful forcing component.  Water vapour, so it is said, will double the effect caused by CO2 resulting in 3.0ºc of warming over the course of the entire Interglacial warming. (And albedo, so it is claimed, will add another 1.5ºc making a total of 4.5ºc.)  But the assertion that water vapor assists CO2 feedbacks is probably incorrect.  Several climate realists have claimed, with good evidence and reasoning, that while water vapour itself may be a positive feedback, the clouds it creates represent an even stronger negative feedback. In other words, the combination of water vapour plus clouds will combine to form a negative feedback that resists temperature variations instead of enhancing them. Clouds increase the Earth's albedo just as strongly as snow and ice does, as can be seen in fig 5, and so water vapour plus clouds actually results in a stabilising *negative* feedback upon surface temperatures.   *    Cloud negative feedback:*     Warming Earth = More clouds = More albedo = Cooler Earth   *    Cloud reverse negative feedback:*     Cooling Earth = Less clouds = Less albedo = Warmer Earth    So water vapour plus clouds will regulate temperature like a thermostat, and keep the Earth temperature stable within tightly set bounds. And if this is so, then almost everything that the IPCC has claimed over the last 30 years, is incorrect. An essential component of the CO2 warming theory and scare story, is that CO2 will be assisted by H2O to create a more powerful feedback. And if H2O is not assisting CO2, but opposing it instead, then the entire CO2 Global Warming theory lies dead in the water.   This cloud thermostat-regulation theory has been expounded by Willis Eschenbach, amongst many others, and it is simple, logical, and of serious merit. And if proven correct, this theory alone destroys the CO2 Global Warming industry, let alone the additional effects of albedo being explored in this paper.   An Inherently Stable System | Watts Up With That? The Daily Albedo Cycle | Watts Up With That? Cooling and Warming, Clouds and Thunderstorms | Watts Up With That? So if CO2 and H2O appear incapable of assisting and enhancing Interglacial warming events, then what about albedo? Surprisingly, the albedo feedback is very strong, as can be seen in fig 5.  Insolation at65N in the summer averages 460 wm2, and if we delete the cloud albedo then about 380 wm2 of that insolation reaches the ground.  But if the land is covered by snow and ice the albedo reflections can be as high as 85%. And so up to 320 wm2 of the Sun's insolation is being reflected away and not assisting in warming the northern latitudes at all. This is a maximum figure for albedo, so let us take 60% as the Ice Age average in higher latitudes, which would mean that about 230 wm2 of the Sun's energy is being reflected away and only 150 wm2 is being absorbed by the ground.     As the snow and ice melts during an Interglacial period, the albedo of the land reduces to about 10%, or about 40 wm2 reflection. So in comparison to the high albedo Ice Age era, the ice-free Interglacial land is absorbing an extra 190 wm2.  You see the great difference here.   CO2 feedback-forcing increase, up to    4 wm2  (worldwide, spread over 5,000 years) Albedo feedback increase, up to         190 wm2  (regionally, each and every year)   However, in great contrast to this simple comparison, mainstream science smears this significant albedo forcing out across the entire globe, just as it did with the Great Year's summer insolation increase. For instance, in _Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Earth's Climate History_, James Hansen and Makiko Sato manage to reduce albedo forcing down to 3 or 4 wm2 (see their fig 6). *2  They do so by directly equating albedo with sea levels, and therefore with ice extent:    _Climate forcing due to albedo change is a function mainly of sea level, which implicitly defines ice sheet size._   But this calculation implicitly spreads albedo feedbacks across the whole globe. But this is a completely erroneous procedure. In the everyday world, the annual melting of snow and ice in Canada is caused by regional insolation and temperature increases in North America, and not by the ambient temperature in Argentina. Likewise, albedo warming of the NH ice sheets during an Ice Age is a local phenomena in the NH, as fig 2 clearly demonstrates. Interglacial warming events are *never* triggered by increased SH insolation during the SH Great Year summer, so why spread albedo feedback-forcing out across the entire globe and make it look weak and ineffective? And yet having done this, Hansen and Sato also say in the same paper:    _As quantified below, the magnitude of these orbital climate oscillations is determined by CO2 and surface albedo changes, with both mechanisms operating as powerful feedbacks … The surface albedo feedback was largely absent in the early Cenozoic, when the planet was too warm for large ice sheets to exist. But by the Pleistocene, when the planet had become cold enough for a large ice sheet to exist in North America, the orbital climate oscillations became huge.___  _According to Hansen and Sato, CO2 and albedo were equally powerful feedbacks during Ice Ages, as their fig 5c clearly illustrates. However, it was only when ice-sheet albedo feedbacks existed that 'climate oscillations became huge'. But this quite valid observation is in complete contradiction to the rest of their paper. You cannot have equally powerful feedbacks, and simultaneously claim that one completely dominates the other. If CO2 is as powerful as albedo then why did the Cenozoic era only have small climate oscillations? There was plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere during the Cenozoic era to act as a feedback, and yet it did not for some reason. And why did climate oscillations only become huge when 'the planet had become cold enough for large ice sheets to exist' ?  How did albedo so comprehensively overpower CO2, when they are supposed to be equally powerful feedbacks? Hansen and Sato are not exactly making sense. How a paper that is littered with such fundamental contradictions passes peer-review, is a bit of a mystery._ __  _The answer to this question and many other Ice Age problems, is that albedo is more of a local and regional feedback than a worldwide feedback, just as the Great Year's summer insolation effect is also local and regional. And albedo's feedback-forcings are much stronger when calculated locally, than when erroneously smeared out across the globe. From my own empirical observations the melting of dirty ice sheets is not really a function of ambient temperature, it is more a function of direct insolation on dirty ice, as I found out when I did some research on the Baltoro glacier in the Himalaya(see fig 6). And the Ice Age ice sheets did became dirty, as we shall see later, although probably not to the degree that the Baltoro glacier does._  __  _In which case, if the increased albedo feedback-forcing is a local phenomena with sunlight warming the (dirty) ice sheets directly, the increased absorption during the Great Year summer can be as much as 190 wm2. And this huge extra feedback absorption is not all spread out across the entire 5,000-year Interglacial warming period, as the CO2 feedback will be. A patch of dirty ice will greatly effect albedo and insolation absorption levels from day one. And if the dirt stays on the surface, just as the rocks and dirt stay on the surface of the Baltoro glacier, then the albedo-absorption will be greatly increased for each and every solar year during the entire Interglacial warming period. So if we take a modest 20% decrease in the total albedo on the ice sheets, the true feedback comparison may be more like:_ _ CO2 feedback-forcing increase, up to     0.0008 wm2  (worldwide per year)_ _ Albedo feedback increase, up to           80 wm2           (regionally every year)_  __  _So what is going to have the greatest effect on ice sheets and glaciers  -  the mighty albedo or the puny CO2?  Quite clearly, the primary feedback that enhances the progression of Ice Ages and Interglacials is actually snow-ice-albedo, while CO2 feedbacks were, and still are, a piss in the ocean._  __  _Ergo - CO2 is NOT the primary regulator of Ice Age temperatures._ _And remember that we have already seen that clouds have a thermostatically regulating effect on temperature, via the negative albedo of cloud formation. And the Earth's net albedo can almost be as strongly regulated by clouds, as it is by snow and ice.  Thus CO2's dribble-in-the-ocean feedback is doubly irrelevant in world temperature and climate, because the mighty cloud albedo can oppose and also overcome it: _  _    A CO2 change from 180-300 ppm equals increase of      4 wm2   (globally)_ _    A cloud increase of 20% will result in a reduction of    16 wm2   (globally)_ __  _    Assumptions:_  _    Average world insolation 340 wm2. Normal cloud reflection 80 wm2._  __  _So when the puny CO2 positive feedback tries to change world temperature, it is instantly slapped down by the mighty cloud negative feedback. And so Hansen and Sato's confident assertion at the beginning of their paper is completely incorrect.  CO2 is far from being the 'largest climate forcing', and appears to be trailing in third or fourth position a long way behind Great Year insolation, albedo, and clouds._ __  _Ergo - CO2 is NOT the primary regulator of current world temperatures._ __  __  _Fig 5._  _The albedo-reflection of ice and snow goes up to 85%.  So up to 85% of the northern hemisphere's 380 wm2 net insolation may be reflected by snowy land masses and ice sheets, versus about 10% for normal landmass and seas._  __  _Fig 6._  _The author standing atop the Baltoro Glacier in the Himalaya - with not a scrap of ice in sight. Any ice on the surface quickly melts because day-time temperatures are quite high - even in October at 18,000 ft altitude. This is what an ice sheet might look like, after a thousand years of dust storms (without quite so many boulders)._   __  _Ice Age regulation:_ _So world climate and temperature is a bi-stable system incorporating two extremes in temperature, which is initiated by the NH Great Year spring and summer season and assisted by strong regional albedo feedbacks. And the climate and temperature at two extremes of this bi-stable system is regulated by the cloud feedback thermostat system. _  _ But do note that CO2 does not figure in this scenario whatsoever, because it is insignificant and easily opposed and overcome by albedo feedbacks and the cloud regulating thermostat. So it is ice and albedo that enhance and promote Ice Ages and Interglacials, not CO2.  And it is clouds that regulate the temperature during the resulting Ice Age and Interglacial periods, not CO2. _  __  _And from this we can say with some confidence that the world will not get much warmer than it is at present, because polar ice extent and therefore NH albedo feedbacks are already at historic lows.  If ice and albedo cannot get much lower than they are now, and ice-albedo is the primary temperature feedback,  then the world cannot get much warmer.  So the shrill cries of a runaway greenhouse effect are deliberately misleading, because surface temperatures are not going to warm appreciably more than they are at present. _  __  _The Roman and Minoan warming periods were perhaps 1ºc warmer than now, no more. Indeed, in the tampered modern tamperature record 'scientists' have made the Roman and Minoan warming periods cooler than modern temperatures, because it was embarrassing to have warmer temperatures in the past when CO2 levels were lower. So we can be quite confident that the maximum albedo feedback temperature of the world is about the temperature we have now. So the shrill cries of deadly warming that will fry the world are just that - shrill cries from a new Green religion. And yet many politicians in the West are still looking at this cult-inspired deception with mouths agape, not comprehending the scale of the problem. This is called the Big Lie. It is a tried and tested technique and it catches people out because they cannot believe the audacity of it:_ __    _Quote:_ _If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. But the lie can only be maintained for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic (or metrological) consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State._  _Joseph Goebbels    (My brackets.)_  __

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Blah blah blah blah blah blah ....blah. Said the fly to the dust mites.

----------


## PhilT2



----------


## John2b

"From the beginning of serious salt water infiltration into South Floridas aquifers, through ominously bulging sediments in Arctic Ocean shallows, to an assortment of truly frightening data points from Greenland, its clear that weve passed the threshold from something may happen someday to something is happening nowa transition that probably has quite a bit to do with the increasingly shrill tone of climate-change denialist rhetoric"

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> 

  HahahahahahahahahajajahajajajJHJJajjajjkmsncjjjfk[burp]

----------


## PhilT2

Federal government approves Queensland's largest wind farm

----------


## John2b

> Federal government approves Queensland's largest wind farm

  What's it got to do with the Federal guvmint?

----------


## PhilT2

If Qld puts up too many wind turbines we will block the wind from going to other states so obviously the Federal govt has to regulate this. Too stupid? Nothing is too stupid for a denier blog. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...limate-change/

----------


## PhilT2

COP21 will be getting underway about now. There won't be too many surprises as most of the major nations have declared their level of reduction of emissions. The main question remaining will be what form of agreement is reached. A chance of a binding treaty with sanctions for non-compliance has mostly been written off, but what takes its place remains to be seen. Journalists are talking about the positive atmosphere despite the previous events in Paris. Adding to that feeling is the absence of Abbott and Harper.

----------


## Marc

*The Pause lengthens yet again*Guest Blogger / September 4, 2015 _A new record Pause length: no warming for 18 years 8 months_ *By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley* One-third of Mans entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since January 1997. Yet for 224 months since then there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). With this months RSS temperature record, the Pause sets a new record at 18 years 8 months.  Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 8 months since January 1997, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings occurred during the period of the Pause. As ever, a warning about the current el Niño. It is becoming ever more likely that the temperature increase that usually accompanies an el Niño will begin to shorten the Pause somewhat, just in time for the Paris climate summit, though a subsequent La Niña would be likely to bring about a resumption and perhaps even a lengthening of the Pause. The spike in global temperatures caused by the thermohaline circulation carrying the warmer waters from the tropical Pacific all around the world usually occurs in the northern-hemisphere winter during an el Niño year. However, the year or two after an el Niño usually  _but not always _ brings an offsetting la Niña, cooling first the ocean surface and then the air temperature and restoring global temperature to normal.  Figure 1a. The sea surface temperature index for the Nino 3.4 region of the tropical eastern Pacific, showing the climb towards a peak that generally occurs in the northern-hemisphere winter. For now, the Pause continues to lengthen, but before long the warmer sea surface temperatures in the Pacific will be carried around the world by the thermohaline circulation, causing a temporary warming spike in global temperatures. The hiatus period of 18 years 8 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. The start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated. And the graph does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate. The UAH dataset shows a Pause almost as long as the RSS dataset. However, the much-altered surface tamperature datasets show a small warming rate (Fig. 1b).  Figure 1b. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the GISS, HadCRUT4 and NCDC terrestrial monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly datasets shows global warming at a rate equivalent to a little over 1 C° per century during the period of the Pause from January 1997 to July 2015. Bearing in mind that one-third of the 2.4 W m2 radiative forcing from all manmade sources since 1750 has occurred during the period of the Pause, a warming rate equivalent to little more than 1 C°/century is not exactly alarming. However, the paper that reported the supposed absence of the Pause was extremely careful not to report just how little warming the terrestrial datasets  even after all their many tamperings  actually show. As always, a note of caution. Merely because there has been little or no warming in recent decades, one may not draw the conclusion that warming has ended forever. The trend lines measure what has occurred: they do not predict what will occur. The Pause  politically useful though it may be to all who wish that the official scientific community would remember its duty of skepticism  is far less important than the growing discrepancy between the predictions of the general-circulation models and observed reality. The divergence between the models predictions in 1990 (Fig. 2) and 2005 (Fig. 3), on the one hand, and the observed outturn, on the other, continues to widen. If the Pause lengthens just a little more, the rate of warming in the quarter-century since the IPCCs_First Assessment Report_ in 1990 will fall below 1 C°/century equivalent.  Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century, made with substantial confidence in IPCC (1990), for the 307 months January 1990 to July 2015 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at just 1 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH v. 5.6 satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.  Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to July 2015, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the near-zero observed anomalies (dark blue) and real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH v. 5.6 satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies. The page _Key Facts about Global Temperature_ (below) should be shown to anyone who persists in believing that, in the words of Mr Obamas Twitteratus, global warming is real, manmade and dangerous. The Technical Note explains the sources of the IPCCs predictions in 1990 and in 2005, and also demonstrates that that according to the ARGO bathythermograph data the oceans are warming at a rate equivalent to less than a quarter of a Celsius degree per century. Key facts about global temperature Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 224 months from January 1997 to August 2015  more than half the 440-month satellite record. Ø There has been no warming even though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since the Pause began in January 1997. Ø The entire RSS dataset from January 1979 to date shows global warming at an unalarming rate equivalent to just 1.2 Cº per century. Ø Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century. Ø The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.75 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us. Ø The fastest warming rate lasting 15 years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century. Ø Compare the warming on the Central England temperature dataset in the 40 years 1694-1733, well before the Industrial Revolution, equivalent to 4.33 C°/century. Ø In 1990, the IPCCs mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century. Ø The warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1 Cº per century. The IPCC had predicted close to thrice as much. Ø To meet the IPCCs central prediction of 1 C° warming from 1990-2025, in the next decade a warming of 0.75 C°, equivalent to 7.5 C°/century, would have to occur. Ø Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100. Ø The IPCCs predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than 15 years that has been measured since 1950. Ø The IPCCs 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950. Ø The oceans, according to the 3600+ ARGO buoys, are warming at a rate of just 0.02 Cº per decade, equivalent to 0.23 Cº per century, or 1 C° in 430 years. *Ø* Recent extreme-weather events cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming to speak of. It is as simple as that.

----------


## Marc

*Technical note* Our latest topical graph shows the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere dataset for as far back as it is possible to go and still find a zero trend. The start-date is not “cherry-picked” so as to coincide with the temperature spike caused by the 1998 el Niño. Instead, it is calculated so as to find the longest period with a zero trend. The fact of a long Pause is an indication of the widening discrepancy between prediction and reality in the temperature record. The satellite datasets are arguably less unreliable than other datasets in that they show the 1998 Great El Niño more clearly than all other datasets. The Great el Niño, like its two predecessors in the past 300 years, caused widespread global coral bleaching, providing an independent verification that the satellite datasets are better able than the rest to capture such fluctuations without artificially filtering them out. Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on reference measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which provide an independent verification of the temperature measurements by checking via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years. The RSS graph (Fig. 1) is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity. The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the _y_-intercept and slope of the line. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression, since summer temperatures in one hemisphere are compensated by winter in the other. Therefore, an AR(_n_) model would generate results little different from a least-squares trend. Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat. RSS itself is now taking a serious interest in the length of the Great Pause. Dr Carl Mears, the senior research scientist at RSS, discusses it at remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures. Dr Mears’ results are summarized in Fig. T1:  Figure T1. Output of 33 IPCC models (turquoise) compared with measured RSS global temperature change (black), 1979-2014. The transient coolings caused by the volcanic eruptions of Chichón (1983) and Pinatubo (1991) are shown, as is the spike in warming caused by the great el Niño of 1998. Dr Mears writes: “The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation.  This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought.” Dr Mears concedes the growing discrepancy between the RSS data and the models, but he alleges “cherry-picking” of the start-date for the global-temperature graph: “Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades.  Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of ‘I saw this plot on a denialist web site.  Is this really your data?’  While some of these reports have ‘cherry-picked’ their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate.  … The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.” In fact, the spike in temperatures caused by the Great el Niño of 1998 is almost entirely offset in the linear-trend calculation by two factors: the not dissimilar spike of the 2010 el Niño, and the sheer length of the Great Pause itself. The headline graph in these monthly reports begins in 1997 because that is as far back as one can go in the data and still obtain a zero trend. Curiously, Dr Mears prefers the terrestrial datasets to the satellite datasets. The UK Met Office, however, uses the satellite data to calibrate its own terrestrial record. The length of the Great Pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed. Sources of the IPCC projections in Figs. 2 and 3 IPCC’s _First Assessment Report_ predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded: “Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.” That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. For the rate of global warming since 1990 – the most important of the “broad-scale features of climate change” that the models were supposed to predict – is now below half what the IPCC had then predicted. In 1990, the IPCC said this: “Based on current models we predict: “under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3 Cº per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 Cº to 0.5 Cº per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 Cº above the present value by 2025 and 3 Cº before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors” (p_. xii_). Later, the IPCC said: “The numbers given below are based on high-resolution models, scaled to be consistent with our best estimate of global mean warming of 1.8 Cº by 2030. For values consistent with other estimates of global temperature rise, the numbers below should be reduced by 30% for the low estimate or increased by 50% for the high estimate” (p_. xxiv_). The orange region in Fig. 2 represents the IPCC’s medium-term Scenario-A estimate of near-term warming, i.e. 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] K by 2025. The IPCC’s predicted global warming over the 25 years from 1990 to the present differs little from a straight line (Fig. T2).  Figure T2. Historical warming from 1850-1990, and predicted warming from 1990-2100 on the IPCC’s “business-as-usual” Scenario A (IPCC, 1990, p. _xxii_). Because this difference between a straight line and the slight uptick in the warming rate the IPCC predicted over the period 1990-2025 is so small, one can look at it another way. To reach the 1 K central estimate of warming since 1990 by 2025, there would have to be twice as much warming in the next ten years as there was in the last 25 years. That is not likely. But is the Pause perhaps caused by the fact that CO2 emissions have not been rising anything like as fast as the IPCC’s “business-as-usual” Scenario A prediction in 1990? No: CO2 emissions have risen rather above the Scenario-A prediction (Fig. T3).  Figure T3. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, etc., in 2012, from Le Quéré _et al._ (2014), plotted against the chart of “man-made carbon dioxide emissions”, in billions of tonnes of carbon per year, from IPCC (1990). Plainly, therefore, CO2 emissions since 1990 have proven to be closer to Scenario A than to any other case, because for all the talk about CO2 emissions reduction the fact is that the rate of expansion of fossil-fuel burning in China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, etc., far outstrips the paltry reductions we have achieved in the West to date. True, methane concentration has not risen as predicted in 1990 (Fig. T4), for methane emissions, though largely uncontrolled, are simply not rising as the models had predicted. Here, too, all of the predictions were extravagantly baseless. The overall picture is clear. Scenario A is the emissions scenario from 1990 that is closest to the observed CO2 emissions outturn.  Figure T4. Methane concentration as predicted in four IPCC _Assessment Reports,_ together with (in black) the observed outturn, which is running along the bottom of the least prediction. This graph appeared in the pre-final draft of IPCC (2013), but had mysteriously been deleted from the final, published version, inferentially because the IPCC did not want to display such a plain comparison between absurdly exaggerated predictions and unexciting reality. To be precise, a quarter-century after 1990, the global-warming outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.27 Cº, equivalent to little more than 1 Cº/century. The IPCC’s central estimate of 0.71 Cº, equivalent to 2.8 Cº/century, that was predicted for Scenario A in IPCC (1990) with “substantial confidence” was approaching three times too big. In fact, the outturn is visibly well below even the least estimate. In 1990, the IPCC’s central prediction of the near-term warming rate was higher by two-thirds than its prediction is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. T5 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration. Is the ocean warming? One frequently-discussed explanation for the Great Pause is that the coupled ocean-atmosphere system has continued to accumulate heat at approximately the rate predicted by the models, but that in recent decades the heat has been removed from the atmosphere by the ocean and, since globally the near-surface strata show far less warming than the models had predicted, it is hypothesized that what is called the “missing heat” has traveled to the little-measured abyssal strata below 2000 m, whence it may emerge at some future date. Actually, it is not known whether the ocean is warming: each of the 3600 automated ARGO bathythermograph buoys takes just three measurements a month in 200,000 cubic kilometres of ocean – roughly a 100,000-square-mile box more than 316 km square and 2 km deep. Plainly, the results on the basis of a resolution that sparse (which, as Willis Eschenbach puts it, is approximately the equivalent of trying to take a single temperature and salinity profile taken at a single point in Lake Superior less than once a year) are not going to be a lot better than guesswork. Unfortunately ARGO seems not to have updated the ocean dataset since December 2014. However, what we have gives us 11 full years of data. Results are plotted in Fig. T5. The ocean warming, if ARGO is right, is equivalent to just 0.02 Cº decade–1, equivalent to 0.2 Cº century–1.  Figure T5. The entire near-global ARGO 2 km ocean temperature dataset from January 2004 to December 2014 (black spline-curve), with the least-squares linear-regression trend calculated from the data by the author (green arrow). Finally, though the ARGO buoys measure ocean temperature change directly, before publication NOAA craftily converts the temperature change into zettajoules of ocean heat content change, which make the change seem a whole lot larger. The terrifying-sounding heat content change of 260 ZJ from 1970 to 2014 (Fig. T6) is equivalent to just 0.2 K/century of global warming. All those “Hiroshima bombs of heat” of which the climate-extremist websites speak are a barely discernible pinprick. The ocean and its heat capacity are a lot bigger than some may realize.  Figure T6. Ocean heat content change, 1957-2013, in Zettajoules from NOAA’s NODC Ocean Climate Lab: Global ocean heat and salt content, with the heat content values converted back to the ocean temperature changes in Kelvin that were originally measured. NOAA’s conversion of the minuscule warming data to Zettajoules, combined with the exaggerated vertical aspect of the graph, has the effect of making a very small change in ocean temperature seem considerably more significant than it is. Converting the ocean heat content change back to temperature change reveals an interesting discrepancy between NOAA’s data and that of the ARGO system. Over the period of ARGO data, from 2004-2014, the NOAA data imply that the oceans are warming at 0.05 Cº decade–1, equivalent to 0.5 Cº century–1, or rather more than double the rate shown by ARGO. ARGO has the better-resolved dataset, but since the resolutions of all ocean datasets are very low one should treat all these results with caution. What one can say is that, on such evidence as these datasets are capable of providing, the difference between underlying warming rate of the ocean and that of the atmosphere is not statistically significant, suggesting that if the “missing heat” is hiding in the oceans it has magically found its way into the abyssal strata without managing to warm the upper strata on the way. On these data, too, there is no evidence of rapid or catastrophic ocean warming. Furthermore, to date no empirical, theoretical or numerical method, complex or simple, has yet successfully specified mechanistically either how the heat generated by anthropogenic greenhouse-gas enrichment of the atmosphere has reached the deep ocean without much altering the heat content of the intervening near-surface strata or how the heat from the bottom of the ocean may eventually re-emerge to perturb the near-surface climate conditions relevant to land-based life on Earth.  Figure T7. Near-global ocean temperatures by stratum, 0-1900 m, providing a visual reality check to show just how little the upper strata are affected by minor changes in global air surface temperature. Source: ARGO marine atlas. Most ocean models used in performing coupled general-circulation model sensitivity runs simply cannot resolve most of the physical processes relevant for capturing heat uptake by the deep ocean. Ultimately, the second law of thermodynamics requires that any heat which may have accumulated in the deep ocean will dissipate via various diffusive processes. It is not plausible that any heat taken up by the deep ocean will suddenly warm the upper ocean and, via the upper ocean, the atmosphere. If the “deep heat” explanation for the Pause were correct (and it is merely one among dozens that have been offered), the complex models have failed to account for it correctly: otherwise, the growing discrepancy between the predicted and observed atmospheric warming rates would not have become as significant as it has. Why were the models’ predictions exaggerated? In 1990 the IPCC predicted – on its business-as-usual Scenario A – that from the Industrial Revolution till the present there would have been 4 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing caused by Man (Fig. T8):  Figure T8. Predicted manmade radiative forcings (IPCC, 1990). However, from 1995 onward the IPCC decided to assume, on rather slender evidence, that anthropogenic particulate aerosols – mostly soot from combustion – were shading the Earth from the Sun to a large enough extent to cause a strong negative forcing. It has also now belatedly realized that its projected increases in methane concentration were wild exaggerations. As a result of these and other changes, it now estimates that the net anthropogenic forcing of the industrial era is just 2.3 Watts per square meter, or little more than half its prediction in 1990 (Fig. T9):  Figure T9: Net anthropogenic forcings, 1750 to 1950, 1980 and 2012 (IPCC, 2013).

----------


## Marc

Even this, however, may be a considerable exaggeration. For the best estimate of the actual current top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance (total natural and anthropo-genic net forcing) is only 0.6 Watts per square meter (Fig. T10):  Figure T10. Energy budget diagram for the Earth from Stephens _et al._ (2012) In short, most of the forcing predicted by the IPCC is either an exaggeration or has already resulted in whatever temperature change it was going to cause. There is little global warming in the pipeline as a result of our past and present sins of emission. It is also possible that the IPCC and the models have relentlessly exaggerated climate sensitivity. One recent paper on this question is Monckton of Brenchley _et al._ (2015), which found climate sensitivity to be in the region of 1 Cº per CO2 doubling (go to scibull.com and click “Most Read Articles”). The paper identified errors in the models’ treatment of temperature feedbacks and their amplification, which account for two-thirds of the equilibrium warming predicted by the IPCC. Professor Ray Bates gave a paper in Moscow in summer 2015 in which he concluded, based on the analysis by Lindzen & Choi (2009, 2011) (Fig. T10), that temperature feedbacks are net-negative. Accordingly, he supports the conclusion both by Lindzen & Choi (1990) (Fig. T11) and by Spencer & Braswell (2010, 2011) that climate sensitivity is below – and perhaps considerably below – 1 Cº per CO2 doubling.  Figure T11. Reality (center) vs. 11 models. From Lindzen & Choi (2009). A growing body of reviewed papers find climate sensitivity considerably below the 3 [1.5, 4.5] Cº per CO2 doubling that was first put forward in the Charney Report of 1979 for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and is still the IPCC’s best estimate today. On the evidence to date, therefore, there is no scientific basis for taking any action at all to mitigate CO2 emissions. Finally, how long will it be before the Freedom Clock (Fig. T11) reaches 20 years without any global warming? If it does, the climate scare will become unsustainable.  Figure T12. The Freedom Clock edges ever closer to 20 years without global warming

----------


## John2b

> One-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since January 1997. Yet for 224 months since then there has been no global warming at all

  Rubbish Marc. It's 369 months since the world had a below average temperature. Even Dr Roy Spenser, who set up the UAH satellite temperature record to discredit global warming, acknowledges that! 
Monckton is an utter crackpot. Has he cured your Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI or other various infectious diseases? Or anybody's'? 
Have you noticed how whenever he cites scientific literature, the cited literature never backs up his claims? 
Or did you notice that he just fakes data when he can't find data to support his pottyness? *
Is that the best you can do? FFS? * Where is the pause, BTW?

----------


## John2b

> For the best estimate of the actual current top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance (total natural and anthropo-genic net forcing) is only 0.6 Watts per square meter

  Hello? Anybody home? 0.6 watts per square metre is all that it takes for a warming of >0.1 degree per decade. Wouldn't it be funny if it were actually happening? Oh - it is, actually - doh!

----------


## John2b

> Figure T12. The Freedom Clock edges ever closer to 20 years without global warming

  The temperature record, however shows something completely different:

----------


## PhilT2

Monckton has again provided more evidence that he should never be taken seriously, not that further proof was necessary. In an interview in Paris he claimed that Abbott had seen through the global warming plot for what it was, "a very nasty totalitarian attempt to set up a kind of global system of governance". He also claimed that the UN had assisted Turnbull in the takeover. 
He also claimed to be setting up a group to prosecute Australian scientists for fraud in fabricating the evidence for global warming. 
It's very hard to make predictions, especially about the future but I'm willing to bet we will never see any credible evidence to back up either of these claims. But it will make no difference to some people because they don't use facts or evidence anyway.

----------


## John2b

> Monckton has again provided more evidence that he should never be taken seriously, not that further proof was necessary. In an interview in Paris he claimed that Abbott had seen through the global warming plot for what it was, "a very nasty totalitarian attempt to set up a kind of global system of governance".

  Tony Abbott says he would have died happy on the morning he was removed as PM. Tony Abbott says he would have died happy on the morning he was removed as PM 
An awful lot of people would be happy if had died, but instead he refuses to go away and we all have to endure his incontinent drivel like this: Tony Abbott says voters &#039;overwhelmingly&#039; want him to remain in public life - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## johnc

Monkton is a bit like Trump, no care at all for the drivel that falls from their mouths. Abbott on the other hand provides a social good by reminding us he never had the capacity to do the PM's role, never got rid of the training wheels and short pants

----------


## PhilT2

Everyone in the Labor Party wanted him to stay as PM too, but I don't think you can count that as a sort of endorsement. I suppose they now want him to stay on in politics to help remind people of what the right faction of the Libs can be like. but Malcolm will want to be rid of him so Tony will follow Joe into an ambassador role, perhaps to the Vatican, where he can link up with his old mate Cardinal Pell. Or maybe a role at the UN with Kev.

----------


## johnc

Can't see the UN but a junket at the Vatican is plausible, especially with Pell cheering from the sidelines.

----------


## PhilT2

Pell is due at the Royal Commission later this week, he has some explaining to do. Global warming is nothing compared to the heat he is going to cop under cross examination. i think he'll walk away but what little credibility he had is gone. Nobody will want to hear his opinion on anything ever again. His boss has over-ruled him on AGW anyway. 
Ambassador to the UK might suit Abbott more, he could hang out with Prince Philip and Lord Lawson and any other relics of a bygone era who think royalty and peerage still mean something to real people.

----------


## John2b

He's not wanted back in his home country, even though he apparently never revoked his citizenship. I doubt that his appointment as ambassador would be accepted by the British.  Tony Abbott was snubbed by the Queen on his trip to London

----------


## johnc

> Pell is due at the Royal Commission later this week, he has some explaining to do. Global warming is nothing compared to the heat he is going to cop under cross examination. i think he'll walk away but what little credibility he had is gone. Nobody will want to hear his opinion on anything ever again. His boss has over-ruled him on AGW anyway. 
> Ambassador to the UK might suit Abbott more, he could hang out with Prince Philip and Lord Lawson and any other relics of a bygone era who think royalty and peerage still mean something to real people.

  Pell's solicitors response is revealing, it is contrary to what the Catholic Church in Australia indicated it would do in its responses, Pell is being quite aggressive in using his paid legal eagle to cross examine and contradict which is not a good look for the institution that is the church.   

> He's not wanted back in his home country, even though he apparently never revoked his citizenship. I doubt that his appointment as ambassador would be accepted by the British.  Tony Abbott was snubbed by the Queen on his trip to London

  He is probably still smarting from the knock back from the Queen when he was last there, you are right though Abbott was a bit of a laughing stock overseas, he was our version of G.W. Bush

----------


## PhilT2

US senate hearings on climate change from today, all the usual talking points, nothing new. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KVTmo2Vxnk

----------


## John2b

> Pell is being quite aggressive in using his paid legal eagle to cross examine and contradict which is not a good look for the institution that is the church. 
> He is probably still smarting from the knock back from the Queen when he was last there, you are right though Abbott was a bit of a laughing stock overseas, he was our version of G.W. Bush

  Both of these guys must have been messed around with by kiddie fiddlers themselves to be so screwed up...

----------


## johnc

I wouldn't go that far but Tony's comments in the last few days would indicate he is delusional and his party should probably be worried about his mental health, on the basis of all the evidence he would not have got elected and beyond boats and a carbon tax goal he actually didn't achieve anything in any area resembling any election promises, in fact quite the opposite. I really think it would be in his and his families interests if he got out of politics, yet his public statements are so different to the reality you would have to wonder how compromised his thought processes have become.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Tony's comments in the last few days would indicate he is delusional...

  Perhaps he's lining up for Alan Jones' spot on radio in his life after politics?

----------


## johnc

> Perhaps he's lining up for Alan Jones' spot on radio in his life after politics?

  Could be some similarities, neither seem particularly welcome in the UK, both are full of misplaced self importance, TA may well be the prefect replacement.

----------


## PhilT2

it appears the COP21 is close to a final agreement. COP21: Climate deal 'final draft' reached in Paris - BBC News

----------


## John2b

Who would have predicted this? Must be what Rod means with his continued insistence that the whole climate change debate is 'coming to a head'.  "Negotiators from nearly 200 countries reached an agreement Saturday on what they say signifies the most important international pact to address climate change since the issue first emerged as a political priority decades ago.  The agreement includes a long-term goal of holding global temperature rise “well below” 2°C (3.6°F) by 2100 and recognizes a maximum temperature rise of below 1.5°C (2.7°F) as an ideal goal. The 2°C target is needed to avoid the most devastating effects of climate change, according to climate scientists, but it would not be enough to save many of the world’s most vulnerable countries. Those nations, largely small Pacific Island countries, launched a large-scale push for the more aggressive 1.5°C target to be included in the agreement. The draft text also calls for “global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible” and for the continued reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the second half of this century as science allows."   http://time.com/4146830/cop-21-paris-agreement-climate/

----------


## johnc

While there are no binding targets in terms of individual countries we do at least have a goal and it is a step forward. The numbskulls pretending it doesn't exist have shown themselves for what they are, unless we have people like Trump becoming U.S. President the dissidents will mainly fade away and the remainder will cease to have relevance and be seen as little more than fringe dwellers.

----------


## PhilT2

Iooks like it's a done deal. it's not perfect of course but getting nearly 200 people to agree on anything was always going to result in things having to be watered down a bit. Final draft is here. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf 
It must be good, both sides hate it. James Hansen has already said it's too weak (and he has a point) The anti AGW side will start frothing at the mouth shortly; will be interesting to hear the responses from the Republican candidates in the US presidential election.

----------


## PhilT2

"For the first time, every country in the world has pledged to curb emissions, strengthen resilience and join in common cause to take climate action. What was once unthinkable has become unstoppable." Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General 
Definitely the end of that nasty old AGW scam. 
In other news Malcolm has reversed a decision by Abbott to ban govt investment in wind power. This will give the new wind farm Commissioner something to do. 
Yes, definitely the end.

----------


## woodbe

> "For the first time, every country in the world has pledged to curb emissions, strengthen resilience and join in common cause to take climate action. What was once unthinkable has become unstoppable." Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General 
> Definitely the end of that nasty old AGW scam. 
> In other news Malcolm has reversed a decision by Abbott to ban govt investment in wind power. This will give the new wind farm Commissioner something to do. 
> Yes, definitely the end.

  Well, except for the deniers, they will keep on keeping on. 
At least Turnbull has shone the light on Abbott and Joe Hockey's hate of renewable energy. I know his hands are tied to some extent, but at least he refuses to join them in that nonsense. 
Pretty reasonable outcome for Paris, let's hope the world starts moving quickly.

----------


## woodbe

> Ha 15,000 post go by without a word!!

  Only if you don't read anything or watch the news. :P

----------


## John2b

I like this comment on the 'Hotwhopper" page:  "AnonymousDecember 13, 2015 at 1:04 PM The best thing about this agreement will be watching denier's heads explode over the next couple of weeks. 
Should be a lot of fun."

----------


## John2b

"For half a decade, Australia has been stuck in a fact-free debate on climate policy - one that has seen one of the biggest challenges the world faces turned into a domestic political chew toy. 
But where the failure at Copenhagen helped derailed Kevin Rudd's climate ambition back in 2009, success in Paris presents the opposite opportunity for Turnbull, who many believe has a deep desire to move to a more robust climate policy. 
The excuse presented for inaction for so long - that the world is not acting - no longer holds water. And the deal struck in Paris is going to require Australia, and all countries, to take on more responsibility to meet its long-term goals."  http://www.smh.com.au/environment/un...#ixzz3uBaNdZMy 
Just watch Julie Bishop pirouette away from her previous (now untenable) position:  Julie Bishop mocks Tanya Plibersek over Marshall Islands ... 
to a new 'pro planet Earth' position:  Paris climate talks: Bishop hails 'historic' day as nearly 200 countries sign deal

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Who would have predicted this? Must be what Rod means with his continued insistence that the whole climate change debate is 'coming to a head'.  "Negotiators from nearly 200 countries reached an agreement Saturday on what they say signifies the most important international pact to address climate change since the issue first emerged as a political priority decades ago.  The agreement includes a long-term goal of holding global temperature rise “well below” 2°C (3.6°F) by 2100 and recognizes a maximum temperature rise of below 1.5°C (2.7°F) as an ideal goal. The 2°C target is needed to avoid the most devastating effects of climate change, according to climate scientists, but it would not be enough to save many of the world’s most vulnerable countries. Those nations, largely small Pacific Island countries, launched a large-scale push for the more aggressive 1.5°C target to be included in the agreement. The draft text also calls for “global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible” and for the continued reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the second half of this century as science allows."   http://time.com/4146830/cop-21-paris-agreement-climate/

  HAHAHAHA what a joke

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I like this comment on the 'Hotwhopper" page:  "AnonymousDecember 13, 2015 at 1:04 PM The best thing about this agreement will be watching denier's heads explode over the next couple of weeks. 
> Should be a lot of fun."

  Nah, We will just laugh at you. This is means nothing.

----------


## Marc

*The ‘Binding’ Paris treaty is now just voluntary mush*   26 mins ago December 13, 2015 _But Obama still wants to send US energy use and living standards backward_ Guest essay by Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek Paris climate talks this week descended into madcap all-night negotiations, as delegates desperately tried to salvage some kind of agreement beyond empty promises to do something sometime about what President Obama insists is the gravest threat to our planet, national security and future generations. He gets far more energized about slashing energy use than about Islamist terrorism, even after the Paris and San Bernardino butchery. Determined for once to lead from upfront, he took a 500-person greenhouse gas-spewing entourage to the City of Light, to call for preventing increasing droughts, floods, storms, island-swallowing rising acidic ocean levels and other disasters conjured up by alarmist computer models. Legally binding carbon dioxide emission targets were too contentious to pursue. So was modifying the concept of “differentiated responsibilities.” It holds that countries that historically caused the recent atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up must lead in cutting their emissions, while helping developing countries eventually do likewise, by pouring trillions of dollars in cash and free technology into the Green Climate Fund for supposed climate change adaptation, mitigation and compensation. Developing countries had insisted on that massive wealth redistribution as their price for signing any binding document. Although China now emits far more CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) than the USA or EU, it refused to fast-track reducing those emissions. China and wealthy petro-states also opposed paying into the Climate Fund. Other major bones of contention were likewise never resolved. _Thus, in the end, what we apparently got out of Paris is voluntary emission caps, voluntary progress reviews, no international oversight of any voluntary progress, and voluntary contributions to the Fund._ Of course, the entire climate cataclysm mantra is based on the claim that carbon dioxide has replaced the solar and other powerful natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth and human history. Now, merely tweaking CO2 emissions will supposedly stabilize climate and weather systems. President Obama fervently believes this delusion. He will likely use the voluntary Paris gobbledygook to say America somehow has a “moral obligation” to set an example, _by de-carbonizing, de-industrializing and de-developing the United States._ Thankfully, Congress and the states will have something to say about that, because they know these anti-fossil fuel programs will destroy jobs and living standards, especially for poor, working class and minority families. The impacts would be far worse than many news stories and White House press releases suggest. Those sources often say the proposed climate treaty and other actions seek GHG reductions of 80% below predicted 2050 emission levels. The real original Paris treaty target is 80% below _actual 1990 levels_. _That means the world would have to eliminate 96% of the greenhouse gases that all humanity would likely release if we reach world population levels, economic growth and living standardspredicted for 2050. The United States would likely have to slash it CO2 and GHG reductions to zero._ Moreover, current 2050 forecasts already assume and incorporate significant energy efficiency, de-carbonization and de-industrialization over the next 35 years. They are not business-as-usual numbers or extrapolations of past trends. Further CO2 reductions beyond those already incorporated into the forecasts would thus be increasingly difficult, expensive, and indeed impossible to achieve. As we explain in a MasterResource.org analysis, there is a strong positive relationship between GDP and carbon-based energy consumption. Slashing fossil energy use that far would thus require decimating economic growth, job creation and preservation, and average per-person incomes. _In fact, average world per capita GDP would plummet from a projected $30,600 in 2050 to a miserable $1,200 per year._ _Average per capita GDP in 2050 would be less than what Americans had in 1830!_ Many futuristic technologies would still exist, but only wealthy families and ruling elites could afford them. That would be catastrophic for jobs, health and welfare in developed countries – and lethal to millions in poor nations, who would be denied the blessings of electricity and fossil fuels for decades to come. That is indefensible, inhumane and immoral. And for what? Mr. Obama and the alarmists in Paris insisted that drastic GHG reductions will hold global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius (3.5 F) and prevent climate and weather disasters. Now some even claim that the upper safety limit is actually 1.5 degrees C (2.7 F), which would require even more draconian energy and emission cutbacks. Otherwise, Earth could become uninhabitable, they assert. Nonsense. EPA’s own analyses suggest that its fully implemented Clean Power Plan would bring an undetectable, irrelevant reduction of perhaps 0.02 degrees Celsius (0.05 F) in average global temperatures 85 years from now – assuming carbon dioxide actually does drive climate change. In the Real World, climate changes regularly, and recent climate and weather trends and events are in line with historic experience. In fact, average global temperatures haven’t risen in nearly two decades; no category 3-5 hurricane has struck the USA in a record ten years; Greenland and Antarctic ice are at record levels; and still firmly alkaline sea levels (8.1 pH) are rising at barely seven inches per century. Many scientists believe the sun and other powerful natural forces may soon usher in a new era of _colder temperatures_, regardless of whether atmospheric CO2 rises above 0.40% (400 ppm). That would pose much greater threats to human health, agriculture and prosperity (and wildlife) than global warming. We must never forget: Fossil fuels facilitated successive industrial revolutions and enabled billions to live better than royalty did a century ago, helped average incomes to increase eleven-fold, and helped average global life expectancy to soar from less than 30 in 1870 to 71 today. Carbon-based energy still provides 81% of world energy, and supports $70 trillion per year in world GDP. It will supply 75-80% of global energy for decades to come, Energy Information Administration, International Energy Agency and other studies forecast. Carbon-based energy is essential if we are to bring electricity to the 1.3 billion people who still do not have it, and end the rampant poverty and lung, intestinal and other diseases that kill millions of people in poor countries every year. Furthermore, thousands of coal-fired power plants are built, under construction or in planning around the world. China and India will not consider reducing GHG emissions until 2030, and even then it will be voluntary and dependent on how their economies are doing. That means atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will continue to climb, greening the planet and spurring faster crop, forest and grassland growth. President Obama and the 40,000 climate alarmists gathered in Paris largely these inconvenient realities, and whitewashed the adverse consequences of anti-hydrocarbon policies. Even binding targets would have had minimal or illusory health, climate and environmental benefits. Instead, they would have horrendous _adverse effects_ on human health and environmental quality, while doing nothing to prevent climate change or extreme weather events. What alarmists wanted in Paris would have let unelected, unaccountable activists and bureaucrats decide which industries, companies, workers, families, states and countries win the Climate Hustle game, and which ones lose. And it’s not just President Obama, who wants to slash America’s carbon dioxide emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025 – and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050! Every Democrat presidential candidate demands similar actions: Hillary Clinton wants one-third of all US electricity to come from wind and solar by 2027; Bernie Sanders wants 80% by 2050; Martin O’Malley wants 100% by 2050. Obligating the United States to slash its fossil fuel use, and send billions of taxpayer dollars annually to dictators, bureaucrats and crony industrialists in poor countries would be disastrous. Thank goodness it did not happen. But we are not out of the woods yet.  Dr. Roger Bezdek is an internationally recognized energy analyst and president of Management Information Services, Inc., in Washington, DC. Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of _Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death._

----------


## John2b

Involuntary mush posting?

----------


## Marc

However ... the real fun is not watching this charade, after all I understand well how money is made and this is clearly a cash cow. Good luck to them.
The real fun is watching the "news" where the watermelon announcers pasts little snippets from their own doing after reading whatever they are supposed to, with great satisfaction. (So there, take this you scumbag viewer) 
Meantime the editors feed them stacks spewing steam and stories of particulate pollution something they repeat with glee. After Paris particulate pollution from cars and scooters and diesel and sooth from primitive burners will be a thing of the past.... err ... CO2 anyone? 
And when the dust is settled and another useless talk fest is over I still rejoice in the fact that all the lefties in the world are feverishly sponsoring the capture of the western world taxes to channel it to a right wing fascist central organisation that wants to rule what we do, how we do it and when ... or else. Lefties of the world, you have mush for brains.
PS
John, I can see you rushed to answer my post. Don't bother anymore because you are in my "ignore" list, that means I don't see your post at all. It is much more fun this way.

----------


## woodbe

So all countries agree there is a climate problem and agree to act, but 'this means nothing' to our thread starter. 
Predictable. 
Marc, COP is a goal agreement between countries. There is no world government. Each country has to take the agreement back home and try and make it happen, that's always been the way for these type of agreements. Some will exceed their commitments, others will fall short.

----------


## Marc

If GLobal warming caused by human activity producing extra CO2 is so "fool proof", there would be no need for this pathetic charade of mentioning and showing particulate air pollution in the same sentence with CO2 and it's alleged effect on climate. 
The reality is that we have one group of people who benefit from wast amounts of money given to counteract a phantom threat, supported by another much larger group of people who "believe" that somehow this "movement" will produce some sort of social realignment and will provide a fringe benefit they themselves can not produce.  
All countries agree there is money to be made with a scare of a non existing problem. Like all the other scares, they are a way to consolidate power, extract more taxes and justify spending it in all the wrong places. Reminds me of Mussolini asking the crowd -"Do you want to fight?"
Sad but it is a reflection of society today. It will change once more in time as it always has. The "climate" of course couldn't give two hoots about what we do and how much we pretend to tweak the CO2 production, that has demonstrated over and over has no bearing on temperatures. 
The fun continues ...  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

lol. 
Except the science of the effect of CO2 on the climate is well known, repeatedly proven in the science, not the news. You will never sound believable if you continue to deny that adding significant CO2 to the atmosphere has a measurable long term effect on the climate.

----------


## John2b

> The "climate" of course couldn't give two hoots about what we do and how much we pretend to tweak the CO2 production, that has demonstrated over and over has no bearing on temperatures.

  Not true. 
"...its easy to forget the real reason why our understanding of climate change is robust; its because of the combination of all the evidence that leads to a coherent, and consistent, picture of the likely consequences of anthropogenic CO2 emissions...  the convergence of all the evidence, typically referred to as consilience..."

----------


## John2b

> And when the dust is settled and another useless talk fest is over I still rejoice in the fact that all the lefties in the world are feverishly sponsoring the capture of the western world taxes to channel it to a right wing fascist central organisation that wants to rule what we do, how we do it and when ... or else. Lefties of the world, you have mush for brains.
> PS
> John, I can see you rushed to answer my post. Don't bother anymore because you are in my "ignore" list, that means I don't see your post at all. It is much more fun this way.

  Someone will have to ask Marc for his explanation of why all of the right-wing, far-right wing and radical right-wing governments of the world have ratified this "leftist" scam. Do they have mush for brains or what?

----------


## woodbe

Don't worry John, I'm sure Marc can't help himself from reading your posts  :Smilie:  
Maybe those right wing governments have a secret plan for world government?

----------


## John2b

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop yesterday signed the nation up to the most expensive treaty in global history, which she described as ambitious, effective and enduring. 
How long before Hunt dons a tutu, pointe shoes and joins in the pirouetting?

----------


## johnc

> HAHAHAHA what a joke

  Our Pacific Island neighbours don't think it is a joke, your response which is to belittle those groups reflects on your limited grasp of world events, reflect on it and think before you rush in next time.

----------


## johnc

I see we reference the recent US shootings, did you know children kill more people in the US each year than do terrorists, most of course would be accidental or unintentional, interesting that the writer would reference that as a greater threat. Maybe they should close kindergartens and schools until they come up with an answer for why kids kill people. The language and misrepresentation of figures in the article says it all, little more than drivel. 
It will be interesting to see how the Government moves forward on this, I would expect there are a number of members of the LNP who have been silent on this other than to tout the party line who will be keen to move on this issue but will tread carefully least the hard right of the party do another dummy spit which of course produced Abbott as leader last time round. I suspect Hunt is not the anti-Christ of lowering carbon emissions as some allude to and there will be others that come forward as we see incremental change. Expect more of "not harm the economy" added to anything that represents improving our current efforts, although the hard right that thought it would fix the budget deficit as soon as it got in has found that they really haven't got much of a clue and other than rhetoric haven't made the effort to what has caused our budget issues in the first place. Ironically shifting to a low carbon economy promises new jobs, new high tech products and a lift in employment. All the LNP have managed to do is twiddle their thumbs, lock in higher spending and close the car industry, hopefully Morrison can gather round some of the brighter minds in Treasury and actually do more than the last nutters three word slogans.

----------


## johnc

> Foreign Minister Julie Bishop yesterday signed the nation up to the most expensive treaty in global history, which she described as “ambitious, effective and enduring”. 
> How long before Hunt dons a tutu, pointe shoes and joins in the pirouetting?

  I reckon he has had his dance steps worked out for some time, just waiting for yesterdays man to go so he can try them out. Baby steps at the moment so they don't frighten the horses, no point rushing in and have the right wingers crack the poos like last time when they had to think about an ETS and changed leader to a crackpot instead.

----------


## Marc

Actually I agree on part of your post JohnC, the part you mention the incompetence of the liberal party and I add the Labour party, not to mention the greens and the rest of them down to the marijuana party. 
It is an unfortunate side of democracy. The elected representatives moves are done with the only aim of re-election in mind and total disregard to what is ethical, logical, good for the country, long term or anything else that is not re-election in 3 years. 
As far as "global warming action" eventually you will see what I can see, that it is a tool to channel funds to an unelected fascist entity with the aim of large profits and a hope of control. How far they will get depends from how numb and brain washed the crowd is. 
Sit back and enjoy the show.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Ironically shifting to a low carbon economy promises new jobs, new high tech products and a lift in employment.

  While I agree with the agreement in Paris, the idea that this is good for the global economy in the short and medium term is simple rhetoric and goes against fundamental principles of economics. 
beware anyone who says it will create more jobs (as opposed to different jobs) - you are increasing the cost base of the economy whenever you modify the demand and hence supply of base resources. 
ie new jobs in a green economy necessarily come at a cost to jobs in the "brown" economy and the broader one as energy costs climb.

----------


## johnc

> While I agree with the agreement in Paris, the idea that this is good for the global economy in the short and medium term is simple rhetoric and goes against fundamental principles of economics. 
> beware anyone who says it will create more jobs (as opposed to different jobs) - you are increasing the cost base of the economy whenever you modify the demand and hence supply of base resources. 
> ie new jobs in a green economy necessarily come at a cost to jobs in the "brown" economy and the broader one as energy costs climb.

  Err, no it doesn't, that is based on the assumption you are raising basic unit costs does it not but there is no compensating efficiencies. Research and development along with improvement in efficiencies become a cost driver pushing prices down as is happening. Most of what we are talking about is power production but there is also more efficient use of power, look no further than improved fuel efficiency of modern motor vehicles. It would also seem that battery technology linked with home generated solar will bring down distribution costs along with wind and solar distributed across a wider spread of the grid. It would also seem more efficient power consumption of heating and cooling units and better efficiency of new buildings will also contribute. It is going to be efficient management of our power grids shifting from large central generating units to a myriad of smaller units both commercial generating units and home sized generating capacity that will lead us forward.  
Where the main gain comes from is developing the technology and systems and marketing it to the rest of the world producing much needed export revenue, if we move at a slow pace we will miss that development wave and end up being importers of technology and just become another backward economy. As a country we have over invested in real estate and under invested in new industry and processes, we need to turn this around, being in the forefront of de carbonising the economy and the spin offs it will give us is where the jobs lie. It is really a difference of changing the mindset from a micro economics view to a macro one.

----------


## johnc

> Actually I agree on part of your post JohnC, the part you mention the incompetence of the liberal party and I add the Labour party, not to mention the greens and the rest of them down to the marijuana party. 
> It is an unfortunate side of democracy. The elected representatives moves are done with the only aim of re-election in mind and total disregard to what is ethical, logical, good for the country, long term or anything else that is not re-election in 3 years. 
> As far as "global warming action" eventually you will see what I can see, that it is a tool to channel funds to an unelected fascist entity with the aim of large profits and a hope of control. How far they will get depends from how numb and brain washed the crowd is. 
> Sit back and enjoy the show.

  With the change in PM we are starting to see a change in rhetoric, the innovation statement for a start is a more positive approach. Other portfolios are also changing tone slowly, the treasurer has a way to go yet, once he refutes the "spending not a revenue issue" we will be starting to get somewhere. We will not fix our current mess without addressing the changing mix in tax collections and the loss of tax through profit transfer amongst major internationals along with tax breaks we can no longer afford. You can see the national conversation starting to show some signs of intelligence but it relies on both the government, the opposition, the general public and business all being more positive in the way we discuss issues such as the economy, security and climate change.  "unelected fascist entity" is not a helpful statement, it is something you use if you want to avoid genuine engagement and discussion.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Apart from the money wasted that could be  used to clean up real pollution and lift people out of poverty, skeptics can do nothing but laugh their guts out over this agreement.

----------


## johnc

> Apart from the money wasted that could be  used to clean up real pollution and lift people out of poverty, skeptics can do nothing but laugh their guts out over this agreement.

   There is nothing to support your statement, the agreement gives targets, each country is free to find its own way to get there, in many cases renewables will go hand in hand to clean up pollution, if you could replace all of China's coal fired power plants with renewables then most air pollution would be gone which would have huge health benefits. It isn't that simple though, some of the answers are neither invented or thought of yet, it is about being on the road not about a locked in response. You have to change the mindset from reactionary to thinker, be a visionary not an old curmudgeon incapable of change.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Where the main gain comes from is developing the technology and systems and marketing it to the rest of the world producing much needed export revenue, if we move at a slow pace we will miss that development wave and end up being importers of technology and just become another backward economy. As a country we have over invested in real estate and under invested in new industry and processes, we need to turn this around, being in the forefront of de carbonising the economy and the spin offs it will give us is where the jobs lie. It is really a difference of changing the mindset from a micro economics view to a macro one.

  Way back when I studied economics, it was all about the efficient allocation of finite resources ( granted, I could never be bothered with third year macro, but I can't imagine it's changed that much) You simply can't escape it - the run on effects are there - so in your case where you're thinking about the increased efficiency for power usage, on the other hand, those people and techinologies have to have some from somewhere, whereas if the efficiency wasn't needed, then those resources would be used elsewhere in the economy.  This happens 100% of the time that govt policy steps in to modify the market. 
in this case, we are making the argument that the social cost is too high, and further that the market isn't taking into consideration the long term effects of pollution by allowing the market free reign.  This just means we think the costs are worth it, not that the costs of such interference don't exist. 
The paragraph I have quoted is about our relative competitiveness to the rest of the world.  Indeed a single country can do better than the global average in spite of the global costs and contraction; that is what competition is about.   
Whats macro and micro have to do with it?  That's the sort of @@@@@@@@ that politicians say, because they don't have anything else - don't get sucked in by these sound bites that have no substance behind them. 
while I totally agree with the real estate thing, and perhaps even the new industry, we simply don't do manufacturing here well unless it's very niche (processes)- it's simply a cost and size of market problem.  Who knows what product and industries lie ahead for Australia, but mining will continue for a very long time.  Cheap energy will not be our niche like it briefly was in the early 80's, but the economy for the moment is still going gangbusters (hence the real estate).

----------


## johnc

By micro I am pointing out you appear to be operating in a closed loop single economy in your comments, by macro you are taking a world view looking at wealth transfer if it is investment or "new money" if it is cash inflow from profit. Let's not get to excited you aren't the only one who has studied economics but I suspect for both of us it was a long time back and if we both get into fine detail it will simply bore the cr@p out of anyone who bothers to read it and possibly not even very accurate. In my case it was an economics minor but it was a long time ago and other than possibly giving you a better understanding when reading opinion pieces it isn't sufficient to actually think you can give opinions of any value beyond these limited interest forums.

----------


## woodbe

> Way back when I studied economics, it was all about the efficient allocation of finite resources ( granted, I could never be bothered with third year macro, but I can't imagine it's changed that much) You simply can't escape it - the run on effects are there - so in your case where you're thinking about the increased efficiency for power usage, on the other hand, those people and techinologies have to have some from somewhere, whereas if the efficiency wasn't needed, then those resources would be used elsewhere in the economy.  This happens 100% of the time that govt policy steps in to modify the market.

  You're missing something there. 
Yes, fossil fuel is a finite resource. But renewable energy is basically infinite*. We just have to put up the infrastructure to capture it. So we will have a capital expansion in the short term for infrastructure, but the running costs are infinitesimal compared to fossil fuel plants. We don't have to employ people and machinery to dig up fuel, transport it, and pour it into a furnace to create energy. 
*Technically, even renewables are finite, but until we have papered the whole planet with wind, solar, hydro, and tide arrays, (+ others we haven't even thought of yet), then we can consider it basically infinite.

----------


## Marc

The only renewable energy sources that are worth mentioning are the one we haven't even thought about yet.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> By micro I am pointing out you appear to be operating in a closed loop single economy in your comments, by macro you are taking a world view looking at wealth transfer if it is investment or "new money" if it is cash inflow from profit. Let's not get to excited you aren't the only one who has studied economics but I suspect for both of us it was a long time back and if we both get into fine detail it will simply bore the cr@p out of anyone who bothers to read it and possibly not even very accurate. In my case it was an economics minor but it was a long time ago and other than possibly giving you a better understanding when reading opinion pieces it isn't sufficient to actually think you can give opinions of any value beyond these limited interest forums.

  I was thinking the global economy as opposed to single, but indeed, a closed loop. 
fair enough on economics - economists change with the breeze.  All the good economists leave and and go into finance, the pontificators do journalism, and the truly incompetent do beaurcocracy.    :Wink:

----------


## pharmaboy2

> You're missing something there. 
> Yes, fossil fuel is a finite resource. But renewable energy is basically infinite*. We just have to put up the infrastructure to capture it. So we will have a capital expansion in the short term for infrastructure, but the running costs are infinitesimal compared to fossil fuel plants. We don't have to employ people and machinery to dig up fuel, transport it, and pour it into a furnace to create energy. 
> *Technically, even renewables are finite, but until we have papered the whole planet with wind, solar, hydro, and tide arrays, (+ others we haven't even thought of yet), then we can consider it basically infinite.

  Sorry but renewable energy is only infinite (very loose use of the word) in the theoretical physical sense.  It costs a great deal to harness it, and the infrastructure used to harness it has limited life and must be replaced.  If you need proof of this, you only need to look into how much "renewable energy" is currently produced into a free and open market place. Capital isn't free, even if your assertion that ongoing running costs are very low were true, you still have to pay for capital. 
given the physical parameters, it is possible that one day,a solar panel for example might be so cheap, so efficient, and so long lasting, that energy prices could come down markedly, but right now, we have to give substantial financial help to renewables to get them to be used.

----------


## johnc

Australia produces about a third of its CO2 emissions from electricity generation, we are in the top ten producers of greenhouses gases from power generation and the highest per capita in the world we run an inefficient network for distribution by world standards and a lot of our power plants are old. Once a coal fired plant gets to around 50 years old it will have required extensive maintenance to keep it going and refits from then on to keep it going at 50 they should probably be retired. Solar Panels have a design life of 25 years at the end of which they still should be at 80% original capacity and although they can't be upgraded will continue to produce power unassisted and with almost no maintenance for many years after that. Renewables are beginning to drive down the price of power, much of the power bill is delivery and retail distribution networks not generation cost. Coal is subsidised as well as renewables but the running costs of renewables is way less than coal. In both cases you pay for capital, at the moment the government is looking at being a lender through the clean finance corporation, they expect to be repaid. We are fast moving to a point that would allow us to remove subsidies, it is worth pointing out that most coal plants have inadequate funds set aside for mine rehabilitation nor do they pay towards negative health effects from particulate emissions, in effect coal gets a free ride. How much rehabilitation is required when you remove a wind turbine? Capital is expensive in all cases but as we replace aging coal plants it makes sense to use newer technology and work on making our distribution network more efficient. For anyone that has lived near a coal mine it isn't the best place to be, after a shower of rain you get a grey film over your car, you breathe in this rubbish, it leaves an enormous hole in the ground and as a result of groundwater pumping your water table falls bringing land subsidence. Coal gets a free ride, it will be good when we can phase it out world wide, or keep what we have for other purposes than power generation, it does have other less polluting possibilities.

----------


## woodbe

> Sorry but renewable energy is only infinite (very loose use of the word) in the theoretical physical sense.  It costs a great deal to harness it, and the infrastructure used to harness it has limited life and must be replaced.  If you need proof of this, you only need to *look into how much "renewable energy" is currently produced into a free and open market place*. Capital isn't free, even if your assertion that ongoing running costs are very low were true, you still have to pay for capital.

  Gee pharmaboy, you're slurping the kool aid, aren't you?  
A free and open marketplace? Really? 
Renewable energy costs capital, yes. So does FF plants, yes.  
Running costs of renewable plants is maintenance, not inputs. Plug that into your economics, delete the FF subsidies and see what comes out. lol.   

> report by US environmental think tank, Oil Change International and UK  humanitarian think tank, the Overseas Development Institute, found  Australia is paying $7 billion on average annually in production  subsidies to fossil fuel producers.

  G20 countries paying $633 billion in subsidies to oil, gas and coal companies: report - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
Yep, a free and open marketplace. Can't see how I missed that!  :Biggrin:

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Gee pharmaboy, you're slurping the kool aid, aren't you?  
> A free and open marketplace? Really? 
> Renewable energy costs capital, yes. So does FF plants, yes.  
> Running costs of renewable plants is maintenance, not inputs. Plug that into your economics, delete the FF subsidies and see what comes out. lol.    G20 countries paying $633 billion in subsidies to oil, gas and coal companies: report - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
> Yep, a free and open marketplace. Can't see how I missed that!

  hang on, so you are calling a rebate on fuel that's available to every single primary producer in the country a "fossil fuel subsidy"? 
this is just dumb to call that a subsidy. It was setup originally to ensure that when we increase excise on fuel we don't cause excessive price inflation and loss of global competitiveness.  It's a business input, in the same way that you don't charge business GST on all their inputs. 
you should also examine the motivation behind why a word is used.  If you say $7b in fossil fuel subsidies, people think the govt is paying out $7b in payments to use fossil fuels.  If however you said, primary production in this country claims back $7b in fuel excise - you gain a different understanding. 
its classic use of language to mis direct the public into thinking something else.   
Gee, I claim back the cost of fuel against my income, is that a fossil fuel subsidy as well?

----------


## John2b

*"E**nergy subsidies are projected at US$5.3 trillion in 2015, or 6.5 percent of global GDP, according to a recent IMF study. Most of this arises from countries setting energy taxes below levels that fully reflect the environmental damage associated with energy consumption.* 
"The revenue gain from eliminating energy subsidies is projected to be US$2.9 trillion (3.6 percent of global GDP) in 2015. This offers huge potential for reducing other taxes or strengthening revenue bases in countries where large informal sector constrains broader fiscal instruments. 
"Advanced economies would gain enough revenue to halve corporate income tax or cover one quarter of public health spending (Chart 2). In emerging economies, the revenue is worth double their corporate income tax revenues or public health spending. In low-income countries, it is about one and half times corporate income tax revenues or public health spending. 
"The net gain from reform, after subtracting the cost of higher energy prices to consumers from the fiscal and environmental gains, is projected at US$1.8 trillion (2.2 percent of global GDP)"  http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...NEW070215A.htm

----------


## Marc

Sure is, just like CO2 is "pollution" and has to be reported showing fog and steam and real pollutant. 
It's all smoke and mirrors and a very lucrative smoke and mirrors exercise. I only regret not being in the loop.

----------


## johnc

> hang on, so you are calling a rebate on fuel that's available to every single primary producer in the country a "fossil fuel subsidy"? 
> this is just dumb to call that a subsidy. It was setup originally to ensure that when we increase excise on fuel we don't cause excessive price inflation and loss of global competitiveness.  It's a business input, in the same way that you don't charge business GST on all their inputs. 
> you should also examine the motivation behind why a word is used.  If you say $7b in fossil fuel subsidies, people think the govt is paying out $7b in payments to use fossil fuels.  If however you said, primary production in this country claims back $7b in fuel excise - you gain a different understanding. 
> its classic use of language to mis direct the public into thinking something else.   
> Gee, I claim back the cost of fuel against my income, is that a fossil fuel subsidy as well?

  I don't think anyone locally is calling for farmers to pay the bowser price for fuel used off road, but remember this is a tiered rebate (diesel and other fuel rebates) depending on if it is heavy haulage or off road use. Farmers don't receive it on all fuel purchases they get no rebate for what goes through the family car nor the diesel ute if it is on road, the tractor gets more than the farm truck, mining is in the same boat, fishing gets something also.  Also you are targeting one small point of overall subsidies, this is a classic straw man argument, pick a tiny section of a persons reasoning, distort the response to imply it is the only point then try to destroy the entire comment through distraction. You generally do better than that, the call to end subsidy's is a good one, the farm gate price for fuel may be an exception but the day may well come when we have battery powered tractors, don't scoff, it is already being looked into.

----------


## woodbe

Good call, johnc.  
Guess who gets the largest share of the fuel subsidy, and it isn't farmers.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## pharmaboy2

A subsidy is a payment by govt usually to an economic sector to encourage it. 
a rebate, is mechanism for return of tax already paid. 
my understanding is that fuel excise was levied ostensibly for road improvement originally, which is why off road users of diesel got a rebate they don't use roads.  That was from the start. 
when you call something a "fossil fuel subsidy" - I'd suggest the large majority of Joe public think that means the govt is paying oil companies money to do business here, and or coal companies.  However, both industries are large payers of tax - it would be more honest to say that primary producers with off road vehicles don't pay excise on the diesel they use.  I can't help but think, the use of subsidy then 'fossil fuel' is deliberately misleading.  
and no, I haven't looked into what else is constituted within the $7b "fossil fuel subsidies", because as soon as my bullshitometer went off a few months ago when I heard it from the leader of the greens, I actually read an article on it because I couldn't believe that such a thing could be true (even with TA as PM I couldn't believe it).   This misleading is just another example that gives Marc and Rod ammunition - people start to think, well, if you had to mislead me, what else are you misleading me about. 
the debate needs integrity, not the need to overstate a case 
So maybe there are other things that are reasonable, but if someone makes an argument that doesn't pass the first step in fact checking, then it's right to cease listening to their argument. 
on costs of generation - what we really need, is more energy not just efficiencies IMO.  The reason is that while electricity is only 1/3rd or so of co2 output - if we concentrate on reducing it, we leave out all the other co2 producing things - eg to your point, replacing diesel use with battery use - which of course will need vast amounts of clean centrally produced energy. 
if we take a time horizon of a century into the future - we will still be needing fossil fuels for air travel  and air freight, so that oil in the ground will all eventually get burned.  In the mean time, the land based travel should be able to be solved with batteries and grid electricity, while sea based freight might be solved by small nuclear based plants as used in military currently. 
the advantage of storage technology of course, is that it enables use of variable power sources like wind, which by good fortune, is looking a little better today under the current PM than the last one.

----------


## Marc

*Quote of the Week: “The prudent man always studies seriously and earnestly to understand whatever he professes to understand, and not merely to persuade other people that he understands it; and though his talents may not always be very brilliant, they are always perfectly genuine. He neither endeavours to impose upon you by the cunning devices of an artful impostor, nor by the arrogant airs of an assuming pedant, nor by the confident assertions of a superficial and impudent pretender.” Adam Smith The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #209*  Anthony Watts / 44 mins ago December 13, 2015 *The Week That Was: 2015-12-12 (December 12, 2015) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project*  THIS WEEK: _By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)_ *COP-21:* The difficult part of the Conference of Parties (COP-21) of the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is over. On December 12, the organizers announced an agreement of sorts. Since the announcement went against the time constraints for this TWTW, adjectives describing the agreement will be left to others, and the analysis of it will be appear in the next TWTW, when it is more clear what was agreed. The following description comes from an article in the Wall Street Journal published on December 12, updated to 6:17 pm Eastern Standard Time. TWTW inserts are in brackets. _“More than 190 nations have agreed on a plan to limit climate change [assuming it is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases], ending a decades long search for an accord requiring the world’s economies to regulate the emission of gases that [SOME] scientists say are causing the earth to warm._  _“Negotiators sealed the deal after changing provisions that would have triggered a requirement that the agreement be approved by the U.S. Congress, where there are many lawmakers skeptical about a climate accord. They won over developing nations at the last hour by exempting them from obligations to help pay the bill for confronting climate change._  _“The deal calls for wealthy economies such as the U.S. and the European Union to shoulder more of the burden, including a pledge to channel at least $100 billion a year to poor countries to help them respond to climate change._ _“The deal also requires action for the first time from developing nations, including large emitters such as China and India, to find ways to lower the trajectory of their emissions growth, even as they attempt to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty._  _“Governments have pledged to limit the world’s warming from the dawn of the industrial era to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) and to “pursue efforts” to limit warming to 1.5 degrees._  _“Whether the agreement will work fast enough to stave off the most damaging impacts of climate change is far from certain. The world has already warmed 0.9 degree Celsius since the late 19th century, according to the United Nations._  _“The accord’s weak spot is it allows nations to determine their own emissions reduction plans, immune from challenges by other governments. That was a compromise necessary to bring a host of governments on board, including the U.S., which would have been forced to ratify an internationally-agreed emissions reduction plan in the U.S. Senate, where Republicans and a few Democrats have staunchly opposed climate-change legislation._  _“A coalition of developed countries and the poorest nations most vulnerable to climate change insisted the deal require governments to revisit their emission-reduction plans every five years. The first review will occur in 2023.”_ As expected by SEPP, the agreement rests on power and money – and an appeal to an animist religion. China and India demonstrated their power by demanding the payment $100 Billion per year from developed countries. Thus, citizens in developed countries may be forced to pay monies to the rich in poor countries due to extreme exaggerations by some Western scientists and politicians on the certainty of scientific knowledge in climate science. The appeal to an animist religion is found in a draft agreement proposed by the Co-Chairs of the UNFCCC, which appeals to Mother Earth. Often animist religions invoke fear of the unknown, particularly on children. For example, the religion of the Inuit of Canada was driven by fear – of monsters that may lurk outside the living area, particularly during the long winter nights, or may lurk at the water’s edge. Mid-20th century Inuit carvings, with artists living in newly formed villages, frequently depicted such monsters of their childhood. The UN International Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) and certain agencies of the US Government use computer models to project, predict, or forecast dire outcomes if humans continue to use fossil fuels, which are a critical part of modern civilization. In spite of over $40 Billion spent on climate science by the US since 1993, the US government and the IPCC has failed to narrow its official range of uncertainty of the sensitivity of the earth to a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) since 1979. It may be that the lowest bound is far too high. Also interesting is how will the US administration present this agreement, or parts of it, to Congress. The Administration has constantly exaggerated the threat of climate change, and submitted the US plan of emissions reduction to the UNFCCC without consulting Congress. Why should Congress feel obligated to comply with any plan that the Administration develops, on which it has not been consulted? See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy, Questioning the Orthodoxy, and On to Paris! ##################################################  # *Quote of the Week:* _“The prudent man always studies seriously and earnestly to understand whatever he professes to understand, and not merely to persuade other people that he understands it; and though his talents may not always be very brilliant, they are always perfectly genuine. He neither endeavours to impose upon you by the cunning devices of an artful impostor, nor by the arrogant airs of an assuming pedant, nor by the confident assertions of a superficial and impudent pretender.”_ Adam Smith _The Theory of Moral Sentiments_ (1759)

----------


## woodbe

> when you call something a "fossil fuel subsidy" - I'd suggest the large majority of Joe public think that means the govt is paying oil companies money to do business here, and or coal companies.  However, both industries are large payers of tax - it would be more honest to say that primary producers with off road vehicles don't pay excise on the diesel they use.  I can't help but think, the use of subsidy then 'fossil fuel' is deliberately misleading.

  Oh, I get your point: It's ok for oil and coal companies to get a rebate so they can make a larger profit, but ma and pa farmers are ripping us off by getting a free rebate on their fuel. And you reckon the greens are overstating their case??? lol. 
Rebate or subsidy is just the mechanism on how the fee is paid. It's paid on fossil fuel. Apparently you don't like hearing about fossil fuel? Would you prefer we called it dead dinosaurs or something?

----------


## Marc

*Evidence-Based Science:* John Christy’s written testimony was a solid challenge to the Paris conference and the EPA’s claim that CO2 emissions endanger human health and welfare (EPA’s Endangerment Finding). Key points include: · Many of UAH datasets are used to test hypotheses of climate variability and change · Outputs of the models are hypotheses (or claims) and do not provide proof of links between climate variations and greenhouse gases · Equations are not exact, but at best approximations · Fundamental: if we understand a system, then we should be able to predict its behavior. If we cannot predict, then at least some factors in the system are not well defined or perhaps even missing. [This is more restrictive than mere replication – which reproduces but does not guarantee the fundamental physics are well known. One can get the right answer for the wrong reasons.] For Christy, the relevant question is how much heat is accumulating in the global atmosphere? CO2-caused warming should be easily detectible by now. Since 1979, two independent means to monitor this layer [from surface to about 50,000 feet], balloons from below and satellites from above. Yet, the hot spot is missing. To demonstrate his findings Christy presented the results of 102 CMIP-5 rcp4.5 (representative concentration pathways) climate model simulations. Yet only one group of the 32 groupings of models runs is close to observations through November 2015 However, there is a very tight correspondence between the average of 4 balloon datasets and the average of 3 satellite datasets, extremely tight correspondence since 2005. On average, models over-estimate real world warming rate by 3 times – since 1979 – 37 years. _“Using the scientific method we would conclude that the models do not accurately represent at least some of the important processes that impact the climate because they were unable to “predict” what has already occurred. In other words, these models failed at the simple test of telling us “what” has already happened, and thus would not be in a position to give us a confident answer to “what” may happen in the future and “why.” As such, they would be of highly questionable value in determining policy that should depend on a very confident understanding of how the climate system works. “_ Christy went on to present the evidence from the tropical Mid-Troposphere, where the “hot spot” should occur. This gives more detail on how well the models perform regarding greenhouse gases. In the models, the tropical atmosphere warms even more than the global atmosphere. The difference between the observations and the models is even more extreme, but since 2012 convergence of the average of the balloon datasets and the satellite datasets is not quite as tight as with global data. On average, models over-estimate real world warming rate over the tropics by 4 times – since 1979 – 37 years. He then went on to assume the US stopped emitting carbon dioxide as of May 13, 2015, using the IPCC impact tool known as the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC) and a climate sensitivity of 1.8 ºC, which is indicated by empirical data. Even with no US CO2 emissions for the next 50 years, Christy and his assistant calculated that the model based increase in global temperatures would be only 0.05 to 0.08 ºC less than with US emissions. This minimal increase is less than observed monthly fluctuations in temperatures. Christy went on to discuss extreme weather events: in the US, 100 º F days per year are down (from 1895 to 2014); wildfires down (1960 to 2014); forest fires down (1965 to 2013); no Global increase in droughts (1982 to 2012) no major increase in flood or droughts in US (1895 to 2015) and world grain production, wheat, rice, and course grains, up significantly (1961-2012). Christy expressed disappointment in the scientific process used by the IPCC and its followers. Climate science is murky, with large uncertainties. There must be rigorous hypothesis testing (testing of claims). Yet, there is little or none. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), in every case, overestimated the tropical response to extra greenhouse gases, indicating the assumed climate response to greenhouse gases is too sensitive. He states a bias in government funding, with a (false) consensus more meaningful than objective investigation. Consensus is a form of “argument from authority” The consensus is little more than a consensus of those selected to agree with the consensus, with the Climate Establishment as the gatekeepers of information and opinion. Christy recommends that five to ten percent of government funding goes to exploring alternative hypotheses. Christy concludes that IPCC science has severe failings: 1) Theoretical understanding of the way greenhouse gases affects climate fails simple tests; 2) Even if one accepts climate models, the effect of proposed regulations will be negligible; 3) Claims of extreme weather events are not supported by evidence; 4) Official information is largely controlled by biased government agencies See links under Questioning the Orthodoxy – The Hearing

----------


## woodbe

How amazing that the dyed in the wool deniers are spouting about the COP negotiations. 
I thought they would be happy that around 200 nations have finally accepted the science of climate change and decided to do something about it at last. 
Some people are just never happy.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc



----------


## johnc

> A subsidy is a payment by govt usually to an economic sector to encourage it. 
> a rebate, is mechanism for return of tax already paid. 
> my understanding is that fuel excise was levied ostensibly for road improvement originally, which is why off road users of diesel got a rebate they don't use roads.  That was from the start. 
> when you call something a "fossil fuel subsidy" - I'd suggest the large majority of Joe public think that means the govt is paying oil companies money to do business here, and or coal companies.  However, both industries are large payers of tax - it would be more honest to say that primary producers with off road vehicles don't pay excise on the diesel they use.  I can't help but think, the use of subsidy then 'fossil fuel' is deliberately misleading.  
> and no, I haven't looked into what else is constituted within the $7b "fossil fuel subsidies", because as soon as my bullshitometer went off a few months ago when I heard it from the leader of the greens, I actually read an article on it because I couldn't believe that such a thing could be true (even with TA as PM I couldn't believe it).   This misleading is just another example that gives Marc and Rod ammunition - people start to think, well, if you had to mislead me, what else are you misleading me about. 
> the debate needs integrity, not the need to overstate a case 
> So maybe there are other things that are reasonable, but if someone makes an argument that doesn't pass the first step in fact checking, then it's right to cease listening to their argument. 
> on costs of generation - what we really need, is more energy not just efficiencies IMO.  The reason is that while electricity is only 1/3rd or so of co2 output - if we concentrate on reducing it, we leave out all the other co2 producing things - eg to your point, replacing diesel use with battery use - which of course will need vast amounts of clean centrally produced energy. 
> if we take a time horizon of a century into the future - we will still be needing fossil fuels for air travel  and air freight, so that oil in the ground will all eventually get burned.  In the mean time, the land based travel should be able to be solved with batteries and grid electricity, while sea based freight might be solved by small nuclear based plants as used in military currently. 
> the advantage of storage technology of course, is that it enables use of variable power sources like wind, which by good fortune, is looking a little better today under the current PM than the last one.

  With some of the miners busily shifting profits off shore to lower tax jurisdictions and heavy haulage chewing up the roads it is possible there could be support for winding back some of the rebates. With the rate of technological change I don't think I would be making projections a hundred years out on fuel use in aeroplanes, we may well have a perfectly reliable and speedy alternative. We already have trains that can run in excess of 400kph, who knows what they will be capable of in the future, just think going from city centre to city centre, no sitting on runways, carry your bags on, no hanging around for lost luggage, sounds good to me. We are unlikely to see anything running much over 900KPH simply because of the noise made when they crack the sound barrier. They probably haven't thought of what will be used 100 years from now but I would be surprised if planes have been replaced by something even more efficient. You have to think ahead not back. 
Actually a rebate is simply a return of money, it doesn't have to be for tax paid, just an outlay, in the past rebates existed for spouses, medical, living away in remote locations, all sorts of stuff. You are making this up as you go along, a refund of tax is usually more specific and in fact the fuel rebate you allude to is actually called a "Fuel Tax Credit" not a rebate as you claim.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Oh, I get your point: It's ok for oil and coal companies to get a rebate so they can make a larger profit, but ma and pa farmers are ripping us off by getting a free rebate on their fuel. And you reckon the greens are overstating their case??? lol. 
> Rebate or subsidy is just the mechanism on how the fee is paid. It's paid on fossil fuel. Apparently you don't like hearing about fossil fuel? Would you prefer we called it dead dinosaurs or something?

  What are you talking about? All primary producers are treated the same, it doesn't matter if they are pulling iron ore or coal out of the ground or wheat and corn.  What matters is that it's a level playing field.  Subsidy | Define Subsidy at Dictionary.com 
That's the problem word - subsidy 
another POV  The truth about energy subsidies - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
from a few years ago, but it's the same

----------


## johnc

> How amazing that the dyed in the wool deniers are spouting about the COP negotiations. 
> I thought they would be happy that around 200 nations have finally accepted the science of climate change and decided to do something about it at last. 
> Some people are just never happy.

  It is pathetic, the line has been "we will not change unless everyone else is doing it" now that everyone else wants to do it they are finding it hard to accept what they said originally. A sceptic in this debate is just your bog standard reactionary unable to cope with change.

----------


## woodbe

Having spent a bit of time in EU, johnc, I have to agree regarding trains. They are more efficient than busses and planes, and they take you into the city centre with no BS about luggage etc. I far prefer them. In Sweden, I was able to ride a train from Arlanda into Stockholm that runs on 100% renewable energy sources. It was very fast and clean, travelled about 200kph most of the trip.  
We should have trains like that along the east coast.

----------


## woodbe

> What are you talking about? All primary producers are treated the same, it doesn't matter if they are pulling iron ore or coal out of the ground or wheat and corn.  What matters is that it's a level playing field.

  Back to my previous answer. We subsidise the fossil fuel industry for decades while our governments have basically slammed the door on renewable energy after a few short years. If we want a level playing field how can we provide major support to coal, gas, and oil but not for renewables? Hopefully the commitments at COP will improve this. 
Agriculture is a different sector compared to FF mining and burning. We should decide the subsidies based on their operation. One of the major hiccups of the mining industry is the lack of restoration of the land they have mined when they are done. In Australia it is an ongoing catastrophe and similar overseas AFAIK. Rather than give the miners the subsidy we should put it into a restoration fund, we're going to need it. :P

----------


## Rod Dyson

> It is pathetic, the line has been "we will not change unless everyone else is doing it" now that everyone else wants to do it they are finding it hard to accept what they said originally. A sceptic in this debate is just your bog standard reactionary unable to cope with change.

  This agreement means nothing.  It gives so many countries so many outs and binds no-one to anything in particular.  The laughable thing is that they seem to think they can control the temperature to within .5 of a degree.  This is really really funny.  I say this agreement will just make the warmists look more stupid in years to come.   
Reality is that renewable energy is going to happen irrespective of the global warming argument and that should be encouraged.  It will become main stream one day.  But it wont be wind,  maybe solar, but more likely something else.   
Pharmaboy2  they have already given sceptics enough ammo through outrageous claims to keep us going for years as their predictions fall in a heap.  Personally I really couldn't give a damn any more.  I am just happy to sit back and watch people make fools of themselves.   
I only keep half an eye on this thread these days.  I couldn't care less what they say about my position on the subject, just rest assured I'm sitting back having a good laugh and biding my time.  Mind you I will have to be patient, stupid is not going away anytime soon.

----------


## Marc

> Back to my previous answer. We subsidise the fossil fuel industry for decades while our governments have basically slammed the door on renewable energy after a few short years. If we want a level playing field how can we provide major support to coal, gas, and oil but not for renewables? Hopefully the commitments at COP will improve this. 
> Agriculture is a different sector compared to FF mining and burning. We should decide the subsidies based on their operation. One of the major hiccups of the mining industry is the lack of restoration of the land they have mined when they are done. In Australia it is an ongoing catastrophe and similar overseas AFAIK. Rather than give the miners the subsidy we should put it into a restoration fund, we're going to need it. :P

  Basically your or rather the "green" argument is that subsidy should be a prop for ill conceived, uncompetitive, anti economical, fraud with faults, extremely polluting to manufacture, basically useless if not propped up by billions, gadgets plus punish the only real producers of energy by demonising them with false pretenses, so to "level the play field". 
A bit like a guy who is 5' tall and want's to join the Chicago Bulls so to level the playfield, you lower the basket to eye level and tie the other players legs together and poke one eye out of their faces.
It's levelled now guys, start playing, and be carefull, MY DAD is the referee!

----------


## John2b

From the Wall Street Journal - Business welcomes climate deal: 
"Many global corporate headquarters rushed to publicly embrace the climate deal struck in Paris over the weekend, despite lingering worry that the lack of specificity about the real costs to businesses could threaten competitiveness.  
"Many of the world’s multinationals—from coal and oil producers to consumer-goods makers, airlines and shipping firms—have, at times, watched warily over the past few decades of climate talks, worried about the inevitable costs of new environmental restrictions from home governments or those in key markets. But in recent years, as the science of global warming has come to be more broadly embraced—and the dangers of continued greenhouse-gas-emissions growth have become clearer—many executives have embraced efforts to take action."  Business Supports Climate Deal With Varying Degrees of Enthusiasm - WSJ 
The deniers in this thread must feel very lonely when the organisations they purport to support have abandoned them as well. Next they'll be claiming the Wall Street Journal is a leftist rag!

----------


## woodbe

> Basically your or rather the "green" argument is that subsidy should be a prop

  Get with the program, Marc. Its no longer a "green" argument. Its mainstream, supported by the published science and accepted even by the fossil fuel companies. Apart from the committed deniers, doing something about CO2 is now the new normal. 
About time. Hoping its not too late.

----------


## woodbe

> This agreement means nothing.

----------


## John2b

Fossil fuel subsidies are running about 15 times the amount of renewable subsidies according to the Australian government's own figures. 
The Parliamentary Budget Office has calculated that "the abolition of fossil fuel subsidies" would save $21.4 billion over four years. The PBO modelling assumes the abolition of fuel tax credits for all industries except agriculture, which would retain the diesel rebate for farmers. Meanwhile The Australian Renewable Energy Authority has approximately $2.5 billion in funding for its program up until 2022.  Ending four tax lurks would deliver $38 billion budget relief for Scott Morrison, budget office finds  ARENA funding | Australian Renewable Energy Agency

----------


## SilentButDeadly

It might be semantics but diesel tax credits and rebates aren't really subsidies...they don't incentivise the use of diesel. They are compensation of an on road usage tax when diesel is used 'off road'. 
Dropping the tax rebate would have minimal carbon benefit since it won't impact consumption. Agreed it would have budgetary benefit so perhaps it is still worth doing... 
As for subsidies...they should only be used in situations where the market is unable to generate the necessary investment on its own so governments act as guarantors. Moments of market failure if you will.  The ff market has no need for subsidies and the renewables market is nearly there as well.

----------


## woodbe

> It might be semantics but diesel tax credits and rebates aren't really subsidies...they don't incentivise the use of diesel. They are compensation of an on road usage tax when diesel is used 'off road'.

  Which was only relevant when the tax was used to fund road infrastructure. That is no longer the case, and hasn't been for a long time.

----------


## John2b

> It might be semantics but diesel tax credits and rebates aren't really subsidies...they don't incentivise the use of diesel.

  But they *do* de-incentivise measures to reduce consumption and find alternatives, which amounts to the same thing.

----------


## johnc

> It might be semantics but diesel tax credits and rebates aren't really subsidies...they don't incentivise the use of diesel. They are compensation of an on road usage tax when diesel is used 'off road'. 
> Dropping the tax rebate would have minimal carbon benefit since it won't impact consumption. Agreed it would have budgetary benefit so perhaps it is still worth doing... 
> As for subsidies...they should only be used in situations where the market is unable to generate the necessary investment on its own so governments act as guarantors. Moments of market failure if you will.  The ff market has no need for subsidies and the renewables market is nearly there as well.

  We also give fuel rebates to heavy vehicles over 4.5 tonne GVM that are driven on road, that would be the most obvious subsidy to remove, if you wanted a non subsidised level playing field. The rebate for on road heavy vehicle usage is under half the road charge levy. The rebate applies to most fuels used by business for plant such as generators, stationery engines, cleaning (think metho, kero) Obviously if you remove the subsidies on road freight you are going to see an increase in road freight charges as most of these businesses run on very tight margins as it is. Current rates are 13.06c per litre for heavy freight and most non diesel products and 39.2c per litre for off road.

----------


## woodbe

Probably push more freight to rail, which is more economical for long distances anyway, and reduces the wear and tear on the road network.

----------


## johnc

> Probably push more freight to rail, which is more economical for long distances anyway, and reduces the wear and tear on the road network.

   We would need to greatly improve handling at rail heads to get the efficiencies we would need for a big shift, it will come but most container movements remain by road as does most interstate freight

----------


## woodbe

Which is just crazy. 
Yes, we should be fixing rail heads to handle freight and get it off the road. 
Way back in the 70's I was working at a wholesaler in Vic. Everything we sent was via rail, even local suburban. I guess there are valid reasons it died out, but they are not about the basic economy of rail operation, its probably more about VicRail.

----------


## johnc

Way back in the '70's I was working for a manufacturer that sent a large volume of product from Melbourne to Sydney, one consignment of a number of freight cars got lost, how on earth do you do that? They turned up sometime later (about two years later) sitting in a rail siding in outback NSW, that was the final straw and all movements changed to road. I think inefficiency was the reason rail lost its freight handling, there is no reason it can't get it back but it will require a lot of investment. It makes sense to get a lot of freight off road and onto rail reducing damage to road surfaces and getting heavy transport off our freeways. Congestion I suspect will be the catalyst, but it will require more than market forces someone has to make sure the infrastructure can support the volume and systems must be in place to ensure high reliability in getting goods to final destinations. I know of one large regional road freight operator who has recently looked at rail as a means to move goods interstate and at this stage it doesn't stack up although the operator believes it is only a matter of time and while you may not want to be a first adopter you don't want to miss the boat and be locked out of a more efficient process either.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> But they *do* de-incentivise measures to reduce consumption and find alternatives, which amounts to the same thing.

  Not really...diesel still costs money and consumption bites in the margin.  And it's not like there's an alternative to diesel powered trucks.  Rail is an option within a constrained network but it is also hub-centric that it will struggle to maintain current efficiencies and want-it-now timelines. 
Removing fuel rebates will change little in terms of emissions (unless the transition to a viable alternative is incentivised...and there isn't one in Oz) but it will improve the budget bottom line...so still a good reason to kill them if one is afraid of budget deficits

----------


## John2b

Global warming continues unabated, and next year is like to be considerably hotter. This is because the second year of El Nino year couplets is almost always the warmest, and 2015 is only the first year.

----------


## johnc

Oh, but it hasn't warmed since 1998, all the denier blogs can't be telling porkies surely?

----------


## John2b

November was Earths warmest such month on record by a huge margin   https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/12/15/november-2015-was-earths-hottest-such-month-on-record-by-a-huge-margin/

----------


## PhilT2

The WMO has the current El Nino classed as "strong" compared to "very strong" for the '97 event. The difference is determined by sea surface temps in particular areas. But looking at this visual comparison would lead one to believe the current event was stronger. I think that before this one has ended it will be moved to the higher category.  http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/elnino2...5-animated.gif

----------


## John2b

> I think that before this one has ended it will be moved to the higher category.  http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/elnino2...5-animated.gif

  Nah - it's all BS anyway 'cos the view of the beach from Marc's shack hasn't changed in 80 years... 
(It has changed just a lot for the west coast of North America where that red band means the end of the coastal fishery industry this year. https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...-north-pacific)

----------


## Marc

So the priest of the goddess gaia have done it again. Burned on the altar of the environment is freedom of choice, and the e10 mafia will profit massively from the religious zeal of the 'save the earth or bust' activist.
The funniest bit is that the right elite lets the leftie troops run in front and then marches triumphant to collect the profits in the form of subsidies from the working drone to save the earth that needs not saving with products that do nothing for the alleged cause, make life dearer and in this case damage you car, mower outboard or chainsaw. Billions wasted to convert petrol stations and makes half a dozen people rich. 
Like with any other "alternative" it is a con, the consumer is misled, the cost increases, the money is diverted to a few private interest, and the enviro nazi are happy in the delusion that they have done something for the "earth".
Next will come the sale of indulgence from the new vatican to exempt some and allow them to continue sinning. 
It is a joke, but the only one that are laughing are the few on the receiving end of the subsidies. 
You reap what you saw. Funny how the greens are now complaining of what is the result of their 20 years of moaning and whining. NSW motorists misled to boost ethanol giants profits

----------


## Marc

*Energy, Carbon Dioxide, and The Pause*Guest Blogger / 14 hours ago December 16, 2015 *Guest essay by Ken Stewart* Obligatory smokestack image for any mention of energy and CO2 Here’s an alternative way to view The Pause. Rather than analysing temperature trends over time, here I compare temperature with carbon emissions and carbon dioxide concentration, and on the way look at a couple of interesting facts that need highlighting. I use energy data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015, CO2 data fromNOAA, and Temperature data from UAH. I need to get two important issues out of the way. Firstly, total energy consumption. Figure 1 shows global energy consumption from all sources for 2014. Fig. 1: Global Energy Consumption in Million Tonnes of Oil Equivalent  I aggregated coal, oil, and gas into one fossil fuel category. It is plainly obvious that fossil fuels are going to be around for a long time, unless there is a massive multiplication of (a) nuclear energy production, which may not appeal to some environmentalists, or (b) hydro-electricity dams, but that may not appeal either, and are there enough rivers?, or (c) windfarms and large scale solar, with storage, to produce 30 times what they produce now just to meet current demand. Cheap, reliable energy supply is going to depend on technological breakthroughs in the next 100 years and fossil fuels in the meantime. Secondly, the recent increase in carbon dioxide concentrations is almost entirely anthropogenic. Figure 2: CO2 concentration as a function of global energy consumption from 1965 to 2014:  99% of CO2 increase can be explained by energy use in all forms. Now, before Global Warming Enthusiasts drool all over their keyboards, let’s look at how this relates to temperature.
I have calculated 12 month running means of CO2 concentration and TLT anomalies. From November 1979 to November 2015- CO2 concentration increased from 336.6 ppm to 400.57 ppm. What happened in this period to global lower troposphere temperatures- arguably a better indicator of global warming than surface temperatures because they show what the bulk of the atmosphere is doing? Fig. 3: Tropospheric temperature anomalies vs CO2 concentration:  43.5% of the temperature increase over the satellite era can be explained by/ is associated with the increase of about 64 ppm of CO2. The relationship is anything but linear, however the linear trend indicates, if warming continues at the same rate while CO2 increases by 100 ppm, that temperature anomalies will increase by about 0.63C. By this estimate, doubling CO2 concentration from 280 ppm (what many believe to be pre-industrial concentration) will result in a temperature increase from whatever the global temperature was 250 years ago, of 1.76C. According to HadCruT4, we’ve already seen about 0.8C increase since 1850, so we’re nearly halfway there! Not only that, but we’ll stay below 2 degrees of warming without the need for any emissions reductions! But the temperature increase is not linear. The next plot shows the tropospheric temperature/ CO2 relationship while temperatures have paused. Fig. 4: TLT vs CO2, from 363 ppm to 400 ppm:  That, my friends is the true indicator of The Pause: while CO2 has increased by almost 37 ppm (out of 64 ppm), temperature has remained flat. The trend is +0.01C per 100 ppm CO2. Finally, I’ve separated the record into three phases: before, during, and after the large step change in the 1990s culminating in the 1997-98 El Nino and the following La Nina. Fig. 5: Temperature vs CO2 during the first phase, when CO2 increased by 20 ppm:  Fig. 6: Temperature vs CO2 during the second phase, when CO2 increased by about 14 ppm: 
Fig. 7: Temperature vs CO2 during the last phase, when CO2 increased by about 29.3 ppm:  Therefore I conclude: Barring a miraculous breakthrough, renewable energy has no hope of replacing cheap, reliable fossil fuels in the foreseeable future- thankfully!
Greenhouse gas increase is anthropogenic; CO2 increase has probably caused some small temperature increase; The relationship between CO2 and temperature in the satellite era is weak, with 58% of the CO2 increase occurring while temperatures have paused; Therefore temperature change is probably caused mainly by natural factors; Even if the long term “linear” trend continues, this rate is not alarming, and would lead to a temperature increase during a doubling of CO2 of less than 1.8C. I find it amusing that Global Warming Enthusiasts pin their hopes for an end to The Pause on a strong El Nino- in other words, on natural variability, the very thing that is supposed to have been overwhelmed by greenhouse warming.

----------


## Marc

By the way I am enjoying immensely the new view of this thread. By applying a short ignore list, only a few post are visible and the others are just a faded memory.
What is the say? Ignore is bliss? mm something like that  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

*E-MAIL CHALLENGE: 11/12/2015*  *November 12th, 2015*  Dear XXX, Today I am issuing a $10,000 Climate Change Challenge to you and scientists like you who have worked hard for many years researching climate change. Ozone depletion caused by chlorofluorocarbon gases (CFCs) and by effusive, basaltic, volcanic eruptions appears to provide a clear, complete, and sufficient explanation for all global warming observed in the past 100 years and throughout Earth history. These observations raise the question, what role does greenhouse-gas warming play? Estimates of the sensitivity of climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations assume that all observed warming was caused by greenhouse gases. Remarkably, however, the only published effort to quantify how much the air is warmed when carbon dioxide concentrations are increased (Ångström, 1900) did not find much effect. It is clearly critical for life on Earth that we get this right. Therefore, I am issuing today, *The Climate Change Challenge*, offering ten thousand US dollars ($10,000) from my children’s inheritance to the first person or group of people who can *demonstrate through observations* in the laboratory and/or in the field that a 15% increase in carbon dioxide, such as that observed from 1970 to 1998, can actually cause more warming of Earth than caused by observed contemporaneous depletion of the ozone layer of up to 60%. The terms of The Climate Change Challenge are explained at WhyClimateChanges.com/Challenge. The science of the theory of ozone depletion is explained as follows:  OzoneDepletionTheory.info, a detailed and fully referenced scientific website first published November 18, 2014.WhyClimateChanges.com, a new website intended primarily for non-scientists.WhyClimateChangesVideos.com, a 58-minute lecture on how global warming is caused by ozone depletion, not greenhouse gases.Volcanoes: A Forge for Climate Change, a TEDx talk given in Wilmington, DE, on October 28, 2015, that will be available on the web in December, 2015.My new book *What Really Causes Global Warming? Greenhouse gases or ozone depletion?* available atWhyClimateChanges.com/shop-online or from any book seller.  Join the scientific discussion groups.google.com/d/forum/why-climate-changes Follow information shared at #WhyClimateChanges Sincerely, Peter L. Ward

----------


## John2b

> What happened in this period to global lower troposphere temperatures- arguably a better indicator of global warming than surface temperatures because they show what the bulk of the atmosphere is doing?

  
The tropospheric temperature might be a better indicator of warming if it was where life took place, but it isn't. Why not analyse the temperature of Mars versus Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels? 
Done here on the Earth's surface when life has evolved, the surface temperature is all important, and the surface temperature is following CO2 levels as expected:

----------


## John2b

As more ice melts, water moves to the equator through centrifugal forces, and as a result the Earth's rotational speed slows down like a spinning ice skater who extends their arms. To some degree the land recovers where the ice is lost and reduces the effect of the mass shift caused by equatorial sea level rise. Of course for some time this has been expected and understood to a degree. Now how all of the pieces fit together has been proposed in a model that can account for actual historical measurements:  Reconciling past changes in Earth’s rotation with 20th century global sea-level rise: Resolving Munk’s enigma  Reconciling past changes in Earthâ€™s rotation with 20th century global sea-level rise: Resolving Munkâ€™s enigma | Science Advances

----------


## John2b

> I am issuing today, *The Climate Change Challenge*, offering ten thousand US dollars ($10,000) from my children’s inheritance to the first person or group of people who can *demonstrate through observations* in the laboratory and/or in the field that a 15% increase in carbon dioxide, such as that observed from 1970 to 1998, can actually cause more warming of Earth than caused by observed contemporaneous depletion of the ozone layer of up to 60%.

  If Peter L Ward (who appears to have written his own Wikipedia page) is going to pay $10,000 to everyone who demonstrates the relationship, he is going to have to rob quite a few million dollars of his children's inheritance LOL!

----------


## johnc

> If Peter L Ward (who appears to have written his own Wikipedia page) is going to pay $10,000 to everyone who demonstrates the relationship, he is going to have to rob quite a few million dollars of his children's inheritance LOL!

  No doubt he will be the sole judge so I would expect no one will put forward an idea that meets his criteria. No doubt the $10,000 is perfectly safe.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> If Peter L Ward (who appears to have written his own Wikipedia page) is going to pay $10,000 to everyone who demonstrates the relationship, he is going to have to rob quite a few million dollars of his children's inheritance LOL!

  Go Collect!!

----------


## Marc

Ha ha, yes, have a try, see how you go. I am sure the websites "How to answer skeptics post" has plenty of suggestions.  

> Anyone seeking to meet this challenge must send clear, written documentation of their observational experiments in sufficient detail that these experiments can be replicated by other groups. Submissions should be sent to: Climate Change Challenge, P.O. Box 4875, Jackson, WY 83001 before December 31, 2017. Submissions will be reviewed to determine if they are complete, credible, and clearly based on observation, not theory, because, in my view, it is the current theory implemented in climate models that does not appear to calculate energy correctly. Submitters will be asked to correct any deficiencies identified at this stage. Any credible experiments, documented adequately and meeting the requirements specified, may be submitted to others for replication and will ultimately be submitted to an independent panel of three experts in thermodynamics to determine if the Challenge has been met.

----------


## PhilT2

Do you guys still believe in the tooth fairy? Where he says submissions will be sent to others for replication and then evaluated by a panel of experts, who do you imagine will be paying for all of this? And when his kids find out his plans for their inheritance they might quietly put dear old dad into care. Ward has been putting his theory out there for years but the only journal i can find that published it was the "Journal of the Vacuum Coaters Society". Seriously. 
There are plenty of sites available to those with basic google skills that disprove his theory. Ward has successfully managed to ignore all of those for years. Why do you believe that now he will listen to anybody? Why should anyone write to him with a personal explanation of the greenhouse effect for him alone when he is too lazy to google it for himself?

----------


## Marc

*Expect more of this, as long as the words "climate" and "change" not necessarily in that order are there somwehere.  Climate Craziness of the Week: Aussie Artists bag $10,000 Public Grant to Attack Christmas Climate Waste*Eric Worrall / 2 hours ago December 19, 2015 Public money at work – Screen shot of a publicly funded Sydney sex clown attacking Christmas and Climate Change *Guest essay by Eric Worrall* A group of Sydney artists have collected $10,000 of public money, to perform a single showing of a play which featured a sex clown attacking the negative impact of Christmas on the global climate. According to The Daily Telegraph; SYDNEY Lord Mayor Clover Moore has slugged already hard-up ratepayers a whopping $10,000 to fund a controversial left-wing review that attacked Christmas as being bad for the environment. The show, called Climate Change Variety Hour, was performed in front of tiny audience of just 70 people at Sydney University on Saturday night. The poor turnout means Ms Moore spent about $142 of ratepayers’ cash per audience member. One of the acts featured a @bizarre performance by a near-naked “sex clown”.Read more (paywalled): The Daily Telegraph Link to the Video This isn’t the first time mixing a climate theme with inane nonsense has successfully secured public grant money. But seriously – is there no limit to bad taste and public waste? Couldn’t Sydney’s Lord Mayor find any better use for that $10,000? Maybe something slightly less climate related, like helping homeless people, or perhaps funding a few drug rehab beds, to help address Sydney’s out of control substance abuse problems?

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc

*The best summary of the ‘climate change’ issue I have read for a long time* *Posted: 16 Dec 2015 12:47 PM PST* *This is my last post for the year, and given that ‘climate change’ has been the dominant theme in 2015, and that the Paris Agreement has been accepted, at least in Paris, I thought I would finish the year with a simple piece on the ‘climate change’ issue. Most of it is the text of the verbal remarks that Professor Judith Curry made to a Senate Committee she was delivering her testimony to in early December. There’s nothing new in it, but she said it accessibly and well. For those who don’t know who she is, Professor Curry is probably the most distinguished climate scientist in the USA who  disputes the alarmism of the Obama administration and the scientists who support it.* *There are others like her, like Professor Will Happer from Princeton, and Professor Richard Lindzen from MIT, not to mention Professors Spencer and Christy who manage the UAH satellite temperature database. But Ms Curry runs a very good website as well. It is my ‘go-to’ site for finding out, and for reading debate between the various sides of the climate science issue. On her website comments and essays are nearly always temperate and well-researched, though there are couple of regular commentators whose purpose seems to be to derail whatever the subject of the post is.* *This is what she said.* *Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was the responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument: “Don’t trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of a thousand scientists has said, after years of careful deliberation.” That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.* *I starting speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reached conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives. The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American: Climate Heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues.* *I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink. I had accepted the consensus based on 2nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy.* *What have I concluded from this assessment?* *Human-caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is ‘dangerous’.* *The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by humans versus natural climate variability. Research effort and funding has focused on understanding human causes of climate change. However we have been misled in our quest to understand climate change, by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate change, in particular from the sun and from the long-term oscillations in ocean circulations.* *Why do scientists disagree about climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There is disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models. There is disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance.* *How then, and why, have climate scientists come to a consensus about a very complex scientific problem that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties?* *Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate that has polarized the scientific community. As a result of my analyses that challenge IPCC conclusions, I have been called a denier by other climate scientists, and most recently by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. My motives have been questioned by Representative Grijalva, in a recent letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech.* *There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests.* *In this politicized environment, advocating for CO2 emissions reductions is becoming the default, expected position for climate scientists. This advocacy extends to the professional societies that publish journals and organize conferences. Policy advocacy, combined with understating the uncertainties, risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty and objectivity – without which scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group.* *I would like to thank the committee for raising the issue of data versus dogma in support of improving the integrity of climate science.* *This concludes my testimony.* *There is a good video of her responding to Senator Markey during the hearing, here.* *Why don’t we in Australia have people of her calibre holding senior positions in universities and speaking out about the flaws in the official doctrine promulgated by the IPCC? The flaws and uncertainties are not so hard to find, after all, as Judith Curry points out. One reason is that, in contrast to the US, there is general, if tepid, acceptance within our major political parties that ‘global warming’ is important and probably a worry. In the USA the Republicans and Democrats differ sharply on this question.* *The second is that within the bureaucracy, with a few exceptions (like sea-level in NSW), there is also agreement that something has to be done. To speak out against that apparent certainty is, for people seeking employment, to risk appointment, promotion and funding. It is one pernicious aspect of current political correctness; there are others. Yes, we have excellent people who speak out, like Professor Bob Carter, Dr Jennifer Marohasy, Joanne Nova, Garth Paltridge, Alan Moran, and several others. But all of them, like me, have had to put up with official disapproval and hostility. In the Federal Parliament there has been only one politician, Dr Dennis Jensen, who has voiced the critical side.* *In the new year I’ll resume posting on 11 January, all being well. In the meantime a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all. And just for fun, Geoff Derrick’s sardonic comment on CoP21.*   *Share this:*

----------


## PhilT2

The clowns in that performance only got $10,000? That's cheap. Abbott appointed Tim Wilson to the Human Rights Commission at an annual salary of approx $400,000. Remember him, he was the Director at the IPA who predicted the plain packaging legislation was going to cost the Australian taxpayer billions. Some clowns cost more than others.

----------


## John2b

Why would you run this crazy experiment of changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere and oceans by adding enormous amounts of CO2 that have been buried since the pre-Cambrian era? Musks asks. Thats crazy. That is the dumbest experiment in history by far.  *We will eventually run out of oil, Musk said. If we dont find a solution to burning oil or transport and we then run out of oil, the economy will collapse and civilisation will come to an end.*  http://www.businessinsider.com.au/elon-musk-says-energy-is-the-biggest-problem-2015-4?r=US&IR=T

----------


## John2b

> Blah, blah, Professor Judith Curry, blah...

  (...more pasting dysentery ensues...)  
The problem with Curry's argument is that it is not the '97% consensus' that is significant, it is the 99.9% consilience of the evidence. The real reason why the understanding of climate change is robust is because of the combination of all the evidence that leads to a coherent, and consistent, picture of the likely consequences of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Individual opinions are irrelevant.

----------


## John2b

> The clowns in that performance only got $10,000? That's cheap. Abbott appointed Tim Wilson to the Human Rights Commission at an annual salary of approx $400,000. Remember him, he was the Director at the IPA who predicted the plain packaging legislation was going to cost the Australian taxpayer billions. Some clowns cost more than others.

  Wilson is also costing Australia's international reputation: 
"An Australian-led delegation to the West Bank featuring Minister Christopher Pyne, former speaker Bronwyn Bishop, Labor MP Tim Watts and Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson has been criticised by a minister in the Palestinian Authority, who said the group had "false information" and were "not well educated". 
Mr Wilson said the group "quizzed" the Palestinian Prime Minister and Education Minister about a range of topics. 
Palestinian Education Minister Dr Sabri Saidam described the meeting as "very explosive and very challenging" and said the group had asked "rude and blunt" questions. "The delegation had false information and twisted facts," Dr Saidam told the ABC. "So it was clear the delegation was not well educated. 
"Coming blindfolded to realities, bypassing the pain of Palestinians in terms of daily happenings is not going to solve the conflict."  Delegation to West Bank led by Christopher Pyne 'not well educated', local minister says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## John2b

> paste, paste, Idiocene, paste

  If this era becomes known as the "Idiocene" it will be because civilisation eventually choked on its own excrement knowing full well that is exactly what would would happen if civilisation didn't stop excreting waste into its own biosphere. You only need grade one arithmetic to understand that; and you need to believe in 'the magic potato sack' to think otherwise.

----------


## johnc

> Wilson is also costing Australia's international reputation: 
> "An Australian-led delegation to the West Bank featuring Minister Christopher Pyne, former speaker Bronwyn Bishop, Labor MP Tim Watts and Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson has been criticised by a minister in the Palestinian Authority, who said the group had "false information" and were "not well educated". 
> Mr Wilson said the group "quizzed" the Palestinian Prime Minister and Education Minister about a range of topics. 
> Palestinian Education Minister Dr Sabri Saidam described the meeting as "very explosive and very challenging" and said the group had asked "rude and blunt" questions. "The delegation had false information and twisted facts," Dr Saidam told the ABC. "So it was clear the delegation was not well educated. 
> "Coming blindfolded to realities, bypassing the pain of Palestinians in terms of daily happenings is not going to solve the conflict."  Delegation to West Bank led by Christopher Pyne 'not well educated', local minister says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  I would have to say Wilson has managed the job much better than I would have expected, however much like Abbotts attack on Jillian Triggs it was political not practical, an appointment designed for an outcome to the governments liking rather than someone qualified for the role. That entire Palestinian trip would have been a waste of time, that cohort are hardly the ones you would pick if you wanted some sort of positive outcome so it must have just been another junket, seeing as Brony is there I am guessing there was some helicopter legs and first class travel at our expense.

----------


## John2b

> I would have to say Wilson has managed the job much better than I would have expected...

  Yes, I would have to agree, which is not to say that I think he has done it well...

----------


## PhilT2

That the Human Rights Commission has gained Tim Wilson and lost Graeme Innes makes it a less competent organisation in my opinion. I mentioned the plain packaging issue because Wilson had been so vocal in his opinion about how much it would cost the Aust taxpayer. As you may have read the court found in favour of Aust recently and I think there is a good chance Philip Morris will wear all the legal costs.
Wilson's position on climate change is as poorly informed as his views on plain packaging. The fact that the tobacco companies and News Corp are the main funders of the IPA where Wilson worked is only coincidence.

----------


## woodbe

> The fact that the tobacco companies and News Corp are the main funders of the IPA where Wilson worked is only coincidence.

  Yep. He was a vocal campaigner for the IPA, which is why Abbott gave him the Human Rights Commissioner job. Inappropriate, as per just about everything Abbott did.

----------


## johnc

> Yes, I would have to agree, which is not to say that I think he has done it well...

  Nor do I, however much to my surprise he seems to have tempered his views rather than put his stamp on the organisation. I don't think he is a changed person but is instead an example of what was a number of very inappropriate choices in a number of Government organisations, clearly Abbott just wanted promotion of far right views rather than leaders who could do a decent job and fulfil the charter of those organisations. I wonder if he actually worked them out himself or if Rupert did it for him.

----------


## PhilT2

Wilson stuck by his views on changes to 18C when Abbott did a backflip on his pre-election promise to abolish that part of the Act. One of the few times Abbott recognised the political reality of winning elections in a country full of migrants. But this outbreak of common sense didn't last and got overpowered by his ideology. 
OT but news today that less kids are trying smoking, not entirely attributed to plain packaging, but it's a factor in reducing the appeal. 
In other news NOAA have released a report into the Arctic. Short version...hiatus? what haitus, it's getting warmer. Arctic Report Card

----------


## Marc

*Gavin Schmidt’s Magic Climate Balance*Eric Worrall / 9 hours ago December 21, 2015 Gavin Schmidt’s Magic Balance *Guest Essay by Eric Worrall* A new NASA study suggests that global warming is being suppressed by particulate pollution. The Abstract of the Study; *Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings* Kate Marvel,	Gavin A. Schmidt,	Ron L. Miller	& Larissa S. Nazarene Climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 is a widely used metric for the large-scale response to external forcing. Climate models predict a wide range for two commonly used definitions: the transient climate response (TCR: the warming after 70 years of CO2 concentrations that rise at 1% per year), and the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS: the equilibrium temperature change following a doubling of CO2 concentrations). Many observational data sets have been used to constrain these values, including temperature trends over the recent past inferences from palaeoclimate and process-based constraints from the modern satellite era. However, as the IPCC recently reported, different classes of observational constraints produce somewhat incongruent ranges. Here we show that climate sensitivity estimates derived from recent observations must account for the efficacy of each forcing active during the historical period. When we use single-forcing experiments to estimate these efficacies and calculate climate sensitivity from the observed twentieth-century warming, our estimates of both TCR and ECS are revised upwards compared to previous studies, improving the consistency with independent constraints.Read more: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2888.html Sadly the full study is paywalled, but I think we get the idea – the abstract is essentially arguing that global warming is being suppressed by other forcings. From the Press Release; The new calculations reveal their complexity, said Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper’s lead author. “*Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling,*” she said. “They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution. There’s more land in the northern hemisphere, and land reacts quicker than the ocean does to these atmospheric changes.” Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere, predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be. This means that Earth’s climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide–or atmospheric carbon dioxide’s capacity to affect temperature change–has been underestimated, according to the study. The result dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7° C); the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the estimate at 1.8°F (1.0°C). “If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then *you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future* when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver,” *Schmidt said*.Read more: (e) Science News The issue I have with this kind of theory is that it postulates an improbably exact balance between all the different forcings. If you start with zero or near zero warming, you can crank up the other forcings to anything you want, as long as everything sums to zero, as long as everything cancels out. The problem is that an observed random balance between powerful forcings is implausible. The stronger you make the forcings, the more improbable it is, that the terms will exactly balance. Why should CO2 exactly balance pollution? Why shouldn’t one term be much stronger than the other? Out of the near infinity of possible sums, suggesting an extended period of perfect balance is due to blind luck stretches credibility. To me this is the climate equivalent of the Cosmic Anthropic Principle. The Anthropic Principle suggests that the universe is well adjusted for life, because if it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be here to observe it. But as a scientific theory the anthropic principle is pretty nearly useless, because it shuts down further questions. Accepting life friendly cosmic constants as simply being due to a lucky throw of the dice, rejects the possibility that there is more to discover. A much simpler theory as to why our climate is so balanced, despite the release of allegedly dangerous amounts of anthropogenic CO2, is that either the various forcings are actually quite small, in which case any imbalances will be barely noticeable, or that an as yet unacknowledged dynamic mechanism, such as Willis’ emergent tropical heat pump, is compensating for any imbalance we are causing, and keeping the climate stable. The choice then is either to believe that our current climate stability is an improbable streak of good luck, or to search for evidence of an emergent dynamic mechanism which is suppressing radical change. NASA seems to want us to blindly embrace the theory that we’ve simply been very lucky, which is a shame, because there is a lot of evidence that the Earth’s climate contains powerful dynamic compensation mechanisms, which can easily adjust to counter any imbalance we are likely to cause.

----------


## John2b

> *Gavin Schmidt’s Magic Climate Balance*
>  NASA seems to want us to blindly embrace the theory that we’ve simply been very lucky, which is a shame, because there is a lot of evidence that the Earth’s climate contains powerful dynamic compensation mechanisms, which can easily adjust to counter any imbalance we are likely to cause.

  Anyone who believes in the 'magic potato sack' will no doubt find Eric Worrall's demented pseudo-scientific gobbledygook entirely plausible. Funny how the links in the essay do not support the thesis of the essay LOL.

----------


## Marc

*Volcanoes and Ozone: Their Interactive Effect on Climate Change*Guest Blogger / 1 min ago December 22, 2015 *Guest essay by David Bennett Laing*, Asst. Prof.of Geology, Univ. of Maine (retired) _Two different styles of volcanic eruption appear to have been the principal determinants of climate change throughout geologic time._ The very fact that opinions on climate change could have become as polarized as they have, even in scientific circles, suggests we may still have much to learn. Despite the best efforts of many of the world’s brightest minds, and the claims of some that “the science is settled,” climatic enigmas still persist. For the past nine years, Peter Langdon Ward has been working steadily in retirement from his career as a geophysicist and volcanologist with the US Geological Survey to try to demystify some of these enigmas. Two years ago, I joined my old friend and colleague in his quest. Last month, we published a new theory of global warming that we feel accounts far better for temperature change over the past 100 years and throughout the Phanerozoic Eon than the currently favored greenhouse warming theory. In view of the extreme difficulty in getting peer-reviewed journals to publish papers that question greenhouse theory, we decided to present our observations in a semi-popular book, “What Really Causes Global Warming? Greenhouse Gases or Ozone Depletion?”. The book is available in hardback, paperback, and ebook versions on amazon.com and on other book-seller sites. The book and the science are explained in detail at WhyClimateChanges.com, where autographed copies of the book are also available.  In brief, we find that major temperature changes throughout Phanerozoic time can be fully explained with two different styles of volcanic eruption: explosive volcanism causing global cooling and effusive volcanism causing global warming. It is well-known that aerosols from explosive volcanoes, such as the 1991 eruption of Pinatubo, reflect and scatter sunlight, causing global cooling. What we found is that _all_ volcanoes emit chlorine and bromine, which are observed to deplete the ozone layer, allowing increased irradiance of Earth by solar UV-B radiation, causing global warming. UV-B is 48 times more energy-rich than Earth’s IR radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide. The following graphic summarizes the processes involved (Note that in Panel 2, CFCs proxy for effusive volcanism, shown in Panel 3. Their global warming effects are similar, as discussed below). *Global Warming and Global Cooling Related to Ozone Depletion*  Panel 1: Under conditions normal before 1965, ultraviolet-C (UV-C) warmed the upper atmosphere, UV-B primarily warmed the ozone layer, and UV-A and visible light warmed Earth. Panel 2: CFCs, when they rise to the level of very cold polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs), release chlorine that depletes ozone, causing more UV-B than usual to reach Earth’s surface, thus cooling the ozone layer and warming Earth. Panel 3:Effusive volcanoes emit chlorine and bromine, which deplete ozone, leading to global warming. Panel 4: Explosive volcanoes similarly deplete ozone, but also eject megatons of water and sulfur dioxide into the lower stratosphere, forming globe-encircling aerosols whose molecules soon grow large enough to reflect and scatter sunlight, causing net global cooling. In the case of explosive volcanoes, the aerosol cooling effect overwhelms the warming effect from ozone depletion, but since effusive volcanoes don’t eject substantial amounts of gases into the stratosphere, warming prevails. Effusive eruptions are also much longer-lasting and can be extremely voluminous. Massive effusive eruptions in Iceland occurred precisely at the time when Earth warmed out of the last ice age (see Preboreal Warming in the following illustration).  *GISP2 Volcanic Sulfate From 9 to 16 Ka*  Periods of greatest warming coming out of the last ice age are contemporaneous with times of sulfate anomalies in numerous contiguous layers (note blue circles containing the number of layers). Red bars show volcanic sulfate deposited in individual layers of ice in the GISP2 borehole. The purple line shows the δ18O proxy for temperature adjusted for gas age. The Preboreal warming is contemporaneous with the largest sulfate deposit observed. The Bølling warming is contemporaneous with the largest number of contiguous layers containing volcanic sulfate. Dryas periods of increased glaciation are contemporaneous with little or no volcanism. Less massive effusive eruptions coincided with every one of the numerous, enigmatic Dansgaard-Oeschger warming events during the ice age (see numbers 0 to 1 on the right side of the above illustration and numbers 2-12 on the right side of the next illustration). *GISP2 Volcanic Sulfate from 22 to 46 Ka*  Dansgaard-Oeschger sudden warming events (numbers on the right side) all correspond to times of continuous volcanism. Red bars show the amount of sulfate in individual layers of ice in the GISP2 borehole. The purple line shows the δ18O proxy for temperature adjusted for gas age. Numbers in blue circles show the number of contiguous layers containing sulfate deposits at the time plotted. H2 to H5 are Heinrich events when large numbers of icebergs suddenly appeared in the northern Atlantic Ocean. Much more massive effusive eruptions accompanied extreme warming events during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, the End-Permian Extinction, the Cretaceous-Paleocene boundary, and many other times of major rapid temperature change throughout the Phanerozoic. We view the dramatic warming event of the late 20th century as anthropogenic, but not due to carbon dioxide. The event coincided with the release of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gases to the atmosphere, which are broken down by UV solar radiation in polar stratospheric clouds in late winter to release chlorine, thus mimicking the ozone depleting and global warming effects of effusive volcanism. The Montreal Protocol ended CFC production and thereby ended global warming, thus explaining the enigmatic “global warming hiatus” that prevailed from 1998 through 2013 (see following illustration). No other convincing explanation for the “hiatus” has been proposed or generally agreed upon (See ozonedepletiontheory.info/gg-warming-hiatus.html). A warming effect from the massive effusive eruption of Iceland’s Bárðarbunga volcano in late 2014 and early 2015, the largest since 1783, will likely make 2015 the warmest year on record. *Distinctly Different Trends*  Trends in temperature (red bars), (NOAA), tropospheric chlorine (green line) (Solomon, 1999), and ozone depletion (black line) (Staehelin et al., 1998) (WOUDC, 2014) over the past 70 years are distinctly different from trends in concentrations of greenhouse gasessuch as carbon dioxide (blue dashed line) (NOAA, 2014). Ocean heat content (Levitus et al., 2012) inceased with increasing ozone depletion and continues to increase while ozone depletion remains greater than levels prior to 1970. Carbon dioxide levels appear related to ocean heat content through the solubility of CO2 as a function of water temperature. Global temperature has plateaued rather than fallen, ice masses still continue to melt globally, and ocean heat content continues to rise, because chlorine remains in the stratosphere and continues to destroy ozone catalytically. This will continue for several decades, and due to heat storage in the oceanic thermal reservoir, it is likely that eventual lowering of global temperature will not occur unless there is a series of explosive volcanic eruptions. Until (and if) these occur, it seems equally likely that we will simply have to adapt to a world that is about one Fahrenheit degree warmer than it was in the mid-20th century, but at least we shouldn’t have to worry about “climate Armageddon” due to further warming, as long as we remain vigilant against further releases of existing CFC stockpiles and other chemicals that deplete the ozone layer. In the book, we also discuss apparent problems with greenhouse warming in considerable detail on both theoretical and observational grounds. An exhaustive literature search revealed that only one actual experiment has ever been performed to test greenhouse warming theory empirically. It was done by Knut Ångström in 1900, and he concluded that any warming effect from increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration was negligible. Accordingly, Peter Ward has issued a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can demonstrate by experiment that greenhouse gases are more effective at warming Earth than ozone depletion. To date, he has had no takers (see WhyClimateChanges.com/Challenge/). Meanwhile, we sought to assess the relative response of global temperature to mean monthly variations in ozone depletion and in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the same time interval in the northern hemisphere and found, in the following graph, a close correlation with temperature anomalies in the case of ozone depletion, but we also found that the carbon dioxide peak lags the temperature anomaly variation curve by two months, indicating little possibility of a significant influence of carbon dioxide variation on global temperature. A possible, but slight, influence is evident in the small upward deflection of the temperature anomaly curve in June. *The Relationship of Ozone Depletion to Temperature*  Mean monthly values of northern hemisphere temperature anomalies (red) and ozone depletion anomalies (green) for the period 1975 to 1998 and of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, (blue) since 1961, normalized as percentages. Carbon dioxide values, peaking in May, show only a minor effect on temperature anomalies, but coincidence of the peaks in ozone depletion and temperature in March suggest a possible causal relationship. We would welcome your thoughts on the foregoing, especially if they follow a careful reading of the book or the website WhyClimateChanges.com. It is clearly rather important for all living things on Earth that we get this right.

----------


## John2b

A summary of 'skeptical' posts for those who can't be bothered reading reams of incoherent drivel: 
Marc 17/12 2.30pm: Global warming is not anthropogenic, it is natural variation. 
Marc 17/12 2:50pm: Global warming is not natural variation but is not caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2- it is caused by anthropogenic activities causing ozone depletion. 
Marc 20/12: Judith Curry testifies to Congress that she used to believe in AGW, but now doesn't, not because the evidence has changed - it hasn't, but because of the 100,000s of climate scientists globally, a couple of climate scientists apparently discussed how to present the evidence in a compelling way. 
Marc 22/12: CO2 is a greenhouse gas after all, but the subtle balancing of various climate forcings is just too coincidental to evoke an equilibrium, and warming has paused so it must be false. This is obviously not written by someone who understands the Second Law of Thermodynamics. 
Marc 23/12: Back to CO2 is not a greenhouse gas yet surface heat is accumulating unabated, but the rest is too incoherent to summarise. 
Apologies for taking poetic license in my précis of the blogs pasted by Marc - I took my lead from the blogs themselves.

----------


## PhilT2

if you are already ignoring many of the basic laws of physics then supporting a few different theories on AGW that contradict each other is not a problem. 
There has been a significant hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica for a while now although it is decreasing now. If Ward's theory is correct, there must have been enough UV come through to turn that continent into a tropical paradise. And he has the same fixation on 1998 that all WUWT contributors have. But you should all go out and buy his book; like all good authors he has released it just in time for Xmas. Or maybe Santa will bring you a copy. If you believe anything from WUWT then...

----------


## John2b

> If this era becomes known as the "Idiocene" it will be because civilisation eventually choked on its own excrement knowing full well that is exactly what would would happen if civilisation didn't stop excreting waste into its own biosphere. You only need grade one arithmetic to understand that; and you need to believe in 'the magic potato sack' to think otherwise.

  "The consequences of continuing to treat the atmosphere as a gaseous sewer for humanitys pollutants are becoming increasingly hard to ignore, but nearly everything that defines a modern industrial economy as modern and industrial produces greenhouse gases, and the continued growth of the worlds modern industrial economies remains the keystone of economic policy around the world. The goal pursued by negotiators at this (COP21) and previous climate conferences, then, is to find some way to do something about anthropogenic global warming that wont place any kind of restrictions on economic growth." 
Like I said, grade one arithmetic is all one needs to realise the current ruling class hasn't got a clue.  http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com.au

----------


## Marc

*The End of Food*  Eric Worrall / 8 hours ago December 25, 2015  *Guest essay by Eric Worrall* “So, you’re awake. But you’re still going to die”. The first words I heard spoken by my surgeon, waking from general anaesthetic, after a horrific operation to try to repair the mess created by my ruptured appendix. Don’t get me wrong, I’m very grateful to the surgeon, whose extraordinary skill undoubtably saved my life. But that day I believed his warning. I thought I was going to die. After all, he was a highly qualified surgeon, a credible source of information. I learned something that week about credibility and evidence. People who follow WUWT might be aware of the flimsiness of the evidence behind sensationalist climate warnings. But most people don’t pay much attention to climate issues. Many of them remain susceptible to authoritative sounding scare stories. Consider the following;*The world faces widespread food shortages due to global warming: Crops will become scarce as droughts ravage Africa and Asia* … Widespread water shortages caused by rising global temperatures could lead to food shortages and mass migration, an expert has warned. The head of the World Meteorological Society, Michel Jarraud has warned that of all the threats posed by a warming climate, shrinking water supplies are the most serious. It is predicted that by 2025, some 2.8 billion people will live in ‘water scarce’ areas – a huge rise from the 1.6 billion who do now. Parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia will be worst affected, with pockets of Australia, the US and southern Europe also predicted to suffer. Mr Jarraud told Carbon Brief that although it has been a few years since a spate of major food crises, ‘all the ingredients are there for a food crisis to come back on a very large scale.’Read more: The world faces widespread food shortages due to global warming | Daily Mail Online Why isn’t this warning credible? For one thing, climate models have demonstrated no skill whatsoever at predicting climate on a global scale, let alone a regional scale. So making solemn announcements about specific future regional climate events, based on models which cannot demonstrate predictive skill, seems more than a little pointless. But you have to know that climate models are useless at prediction, to be able to conclude the warning isn’t credible. People don’t have time to research everything they are told. If someone credible tells a person seriously bad news, about an issue of which they have little prior knowledge, many people simply accept what they are told. I didn’t die – so my surgeon was wrong. Maybe I was just very lucky, though I believe there was another factor working in my favour. Everyone on my father’s side of the family live to an obscenely old age, and rarely get ill. The surgeon told me my appendix had ruptured at least a week before I was admitted to hospital. For most of that week, my immune system fought gangrene and peritonitis to a standstill, doing such a good job, I didn’t even know I was sick. Even with experience and skill, prediction is difficult. In my opinion, an authoritative sounding prediction based on unskilled models is downright reprehensible.

----------


## woodbe

Still can't help yourself lapping up the drivel from WUWT Marc?

----------


## John2b

> Still can't help yourself lapping up the drivel from WUWT Marc?

  *Deniersville: in the spirit of Christmas, the gift that keeps on giving...*

----------


## pharmaboy2

> *The End of Food*  Eric Worrall / 8 hours ago December 25, 2015  *Guest essay by Eric Worrall* “So, you’re awake. But you’re still going to die”. The first words I heard spoken by my surgeon, waking from general anaesthetic, after a horrific operation to try to repair the mess created by my ruptured appendix. Don’t get me wrong, I’m very grateful to the surgeon, whose extraordinary skill undoubtably saved my life. But that day I believed his warning. I thought I was going to die. After all, he was a highly qualified surgeon, a credible source of information. I learned something that week about credibility and evidence. People who follow WUWT might be aware of the flimsiness of the evidence behind sensationalist climate warnings. But most people don’t pay much attention to climate issues. Many of them remain susceptible to authoritative sounding scare stories. Consider the following;*The world faces widespread food shortages due to global warming: Crops will become scarce as droughts ravage Africa and Asia* … Widespread water shortages caused by rising global temperatures could lead to food shortages and mass migration, an expert has warned. The head of the World Meteorological Society, Michel Jarraud has warned that of all the threats posed by a warming climate, shrinking water supplies are the most serious. It is predicted that by 2025, some 2.8 billion people will live in ‘water scarce’ areas – a huge rise from the 1.6 billion who do now. Parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia will be worst affected, with pockets of Australia, the US and southern Europe also predicted to suffer. Mr Jarraud told Carbon Brief that although it has been a few years since a spate of major food crises, ‘all the ingredients are there for a food crisis to come back on a very large scale.’Read more: The world faces widespread food shortages due to global warming | Daily Mail Online Why isn’t this warning credible? For one thing, climate models have demonstrated no skill whatsoever at predicting climate on a global scale, let alone a regional scale. So making solemn announcements about specific future regional climate events, based on models which cannot demonstrate predictive skill, seems more than a little pointless. But you have to know that climate models are useless at prediction, to be able to conclude the warning isn’t credible. People don’t have time to research everything they are told. If someone credible tells a person seriously bad news, about an issue of which they have little prior knowledge, many people simply accept what they are told. I didn’t die – so my surgeon was wrong. Maybe I was just very lucky, though I believe there was another factor working in my favour. Everyone on my father’s side of the family live to an obscenely old age, and rarely get ill. The surgeon told me my appendix had ruptured at least a week before I was admitted to hospital. For most of that week, my immune system fought gangrene and peritonitis to a standstill, doing such a good job, I didn’t even know I was sick. Even with experience and skill, prediction is difficult. In my opinion, an authoritative sounding prediction based on unskilled models is downright reprehensible.

  Bit ironic - the surgeon in Eric's story is completely correct, it's just that Eric doesn't understand the importance of timing

----------


## woodbe

Meanwhile:  Australia's carbon emissions jump in 2015   

> Australia's greenhouse gas emissions increased by nearly 1 per cent  in 2015, a federal government report quietly released in the lead-up to  Christmas showed. The Climate Council said the increase showed Australia  urgently needed to transition to renewables and justified calls for a  worldwide moratorium on new coal mines.
> Australia emitted 549.3  mega-tonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide in 2014-15, up 0.8 per cent on the  year before but down nearly 3per cent on projections. Emissions  increases were recorded in the electricity, transport, fugitive  emissions and industrial and power generation sectors and offset only by  a strong decline in agricultural emissions.
> Combined with emissions from land use and deforestation the overall increase in emissions on the previous year was 1.3 per cent.

  Looks like we need to do more than pay the heavy polluters. Who would have guessed?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Meanwhile:  Australia's carbon emissions jump in 2015   
> Looks like we need to do more than pay the heavy polluters. Who would have guessed?

  or, you could quote from the report,  "Australia’s annual emissions for 2014-15 are estimated to be 549.3 Mt CO2-e. This figure is the second lowest emissions level since, and 1.9 per cent below, 2000 levels (560.2 Mt CO2-e) and 10.2 per cent below 2005 levels (611.4 Mt CO2-e)
 Emissions per capita and the emissions intensity of the economy, including the land sector, were both at their lowest levels in 25 years in 2014-15. Emissions per capita have fallen 28.4 per cent since 1990, while the emissions intensity of the economy has fallen 53.2 per cent since 1990." 
So lowest per capita in 25 years. 
of course, neither are monumentally useful, given you probably want an OECD list per capita, but surely it makes you wonder why the journalist reported it in that particular slant?

----------


## Marc

*Three Global Warming Stories The Media Don't Want You To See*  *185 Comments*  12/24/2015 05:08 PM ET   View Enlarged Image  *Climate:* Want to know the latest global warming news? Don't bother looking in U.S. media. They can't be bothered with stories that contradict the man-made climate change narrative. But the truth is out there. Let's start with a new paper from NASA — a distinctly American organization — that was covered by the British Express. The newspaper tells us that our space program has "found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialization where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place." This is, of course, the opposite of what we've been told for decades. The Express reports that the findings confirm that the aerosols from fossil-fuel combustion "actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily," as they reflect "solar radiation away from the planet." A NASA official said solar radiation is similarly bounced away from Earth when "deforestation in northern latitudes" results in bare land that "increases reflected sunlight." The Express further reports that the NASA paper's lead author said the findings show the "complexity" involved in estimating future global temperatures. This is something we've been saying for years. While the mainstream American press can't get off its carbon-dioxide fixation, we've noted that far too many variables affect global climate to focus on a single influence. The British Daily Mail also wrote about this NASA paper, which clearly has high news value. But the U.S. press couldn't get out of bed to cover the story. As far as we can tell, the legacy media in this country ignored it entirely. The same can be said about a study conducted by the Norwegian Polar Institute, which found "that there are probably more polar bears than the last time the bears were counted in this area in 2004, in spite of the fact that there have been many years with poor ice cover during this period." The American press doesn't want the public to know this because it throws into doubt the story it's been feeding us since the 1980s. Remember, we have been told over and again that man-made global warming was a grave threat to polar bears, which are an endangered species. Yet here's this study telling us that "scientists now estimate that there are around 975 polar bears in the Norwegian region, whereas they estimated a number of 685 in 2004," while another has found them to be in "excellent" condition, with some being "as fat as pigs."     
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: Three Global Warming Stories The Media Don't Want You To See - Investors.com 
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

----------


## PhilT2

Interesting, a story about what the US media doesn't want you to see, published in ..... the US media, featuring three stories, all published by the parent organisation in the US.

----------


## John2b

> another (study) has found them (polar bears) to be in "excellent" condition, with some being "as fat as pigs."

  The polar bears must be at the point of starvation; a fat pig weighs 150 kg and an adult polar bear normally weighs 250kg and can be up to 500kg.

----------


## John2b

> The newspaper tells us that our space program has "found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialization where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place."This is, of course, the opposite of what we've been told for decades.

  More nonsense from the dog whistle bloggers (it obviously works for Marc). NASA has said no such thing. The observed temperature rise can only be explained when ALL positive and negative contributions are taken into account. You might say thank goodness for the cooling effect of aerosols and deforestation, because without them global warming would have been much more severe. There is a easily understood animation of the contribution of different factors here:  What's Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise

----------


## John2b

"The sun has not risen above the North Pole since mid-September. The sea ice—flat, landlike, windswept, and stretching as far as the eye can see—has been bathed in darkness for months. "But later this week, something extraordinary will happen: Air temperatures at the Earth’s most northernly region, in the middle of winter, will rise above freezing for only the second time on record."  http://www.theatlantic.com/science/a...change/422166/

----------


## woodbe

In other news, the bets are failing for the sceptics:   

> *Weve all lost in bet about climate change, says Durango man*  *Data forces skeptic to concede bet on warming temperatures* 
> Former Exxon Mobile executive Roger Cohen has conceded he has lost a bet  with Richard Grossman on whether the average global temperature on  Earth would rise or fall over a decade. Cohen bet it wouldnt be higher,  but data shows the planet grew warmer.

  The Durango Herald 12/23/2015 | 'We've all lost' in bet about climate change, says Durango man 
The winner of the bet's comments:  

> Grossman, for his part, said theres not  much gained from the wager aside from the fact Durango Nature Studies  will receive $10,000 to go toward scientific education and research. He  said hes friendly with Cohen, but ultimately, he regards those who deny  climate change as selfish, refusing to acknowledge anything that could  interfere with their livelihood or belief system. 
> This  is a morbid thought, but Im 72, and Im glad Im old enough to not see  the full consequences of climate change, Grossman said. But I am  concerned about my three granddaughters and the generations that come  after us. Theyre going to know a world very different than the one we  have known and selfishly enjoyed.

----------


## woodbe

And here we have some nice work putting all the warming in one graphic for all who can see. Click the image to get transported to the live and interactive graphic at the Washington Post:    Scientists are looking at these indicators to measure climate change: Washington Post

----------


## woodbe

2015 Arctic Report Card.

----------


## John2b

"So why the hell shouldn't the rich destroy the planet? After all, it's theirs. They own it. We all live on it, true, but we're just renting space from the Landlords of our piece of earth, our air, our water.The Landlords do what they want with their property. To get at their gold, they dump arsenic in our drinking water; to get at their oil, they melt our polar caps and barf soot into our lungs. "Hervé Kempf, being French, is really upset about this. But many Americans applaud it. We call these resource rapists "entrepreneurs" - it's the only French word most journalists know - and drool over their rewards on re-runs of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."  Lifestyles of the rich and shameless | rabble.ca

----------


## Rod Dyson

> "So why the hell shouldn't the rich destroy the planet? After all, it's theirs. They own it. We all live on it, true, but we're just renting space from the Landlords of our piece of earth, our air, our water.The Landlords do what they want with their property. To get at their gold, they dump arsenic in our drinking water; to get at their oil, they melt our polar caps and barf soot into our lungs. "Hervé Kempf, being French, is really upset about this. But many Americans applaud it. We call these resource rapists "entrepreneurs" - it's the only French word most journalists know - and drool over their rewards on re-runs of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."  Lifestyles of the rich and shameless | rabble.ca

  Ah so that's the plan make the rich poorer.  That will work!!!  We will all be better off for sure.

----------


## PhilT2

> Ah so that's the plan make the rich poorer.  That will work!!!  We will all be better off for sure.

  I guess if we closed some of the tax loopholes and the cayman island tax havens and they had to start paying at least something then they would be poorer. I'm good with that, what about you?

----------


## John2b

> Ah so that's the plan make the rich poorer.  That will work!!!  We will all be better off for sure.

  So you're happy with Gina Rinehart's Glencorp borrowing money from overseas associates at grossly inflated interest rates and claiming that expense as a tax deduction so that it pays ZERO tax in Australia, meanwhile the same money is borrowed back at zero interest _and_ billions was paid to Glencorp in subsidies and excise concessions!!! You and every other Australian effectively contributed ~$150 out from your own pocket (to top the depleted budget revenue) just to help poor little Gina stay extra rich.  No Cookies | The Courier Mail 
She's just one of the 600 corporations in Australia which, despite turnovers of more than $100million, shonked the books to pay no tax in Australia. How did that make you 'better off'?  Australia unmasks 600 big earning companies which paid no tax in 2014 | Reuters

----------


## John2b

The latest update of the denier's favourite temperature record, the UAH satellite record, is out and it is official: _there has been no global cooling for 30 years!*_ The temperature has been rising at 0.2 degrees per decade.  
*Based on the same logic that deniers use.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I guess if we closed some of the tax loopholes and the cayman island tax havens and they had to start paying at least something then they would be poorer. I'm good with that, what about you?

  for sure

----------


## Rod Dyson

> So you're happy with Gina Rinehart's Glencorp borrowing money from overseas associates at grossly inflated interest rates and claiming that expense as a tax deduction so that it pays ZERO tax in Australia, meanwhile the same money is borrowed back at zero interest _and_ billions was paid to Glencorp in subsidies and excise concessions!!! You and every other Australian effectively contributed ~$150 out from your own pocket (to top the depleted budget revenue) just to help poor little Gina stay extra rich.  No Cookies | The Courier Mail 
> She's just one of the 600 corporations in Australia which, despite turnovers of more than $100million, shonked the books to pay no tax in Australia. How did that make you 'better off'?  Australia unmasks 600 big earning companies which paid no tax in 2014 | Reuters

  No

----------


## woodbe

> No

  Bit of a swinging door here Rod. 
So do you agree with the original proposition or not? 
Do you support Gina and co making huge profits and weaselling out of tax or not? Not paying tax on massive earnings means the country suffers lower tax income and normal tax payers pay more tax and get less benefits.

----------


## John2b

Dr Roy Spenser seems to be having a 'senior's moment'. He recently posted on his denier's blog: 
"Due to El Nino, our warm winter has delayed the frost flower formation by about a month. The first ones showed up two nights ago, when it reached about 26 deg. F. Then last night I set up my camera for time lapse photos, even though the stems were partially shredded and it looked like the temperature might not dip below 30 deg. F, which is barely cold enough for the frost flowers to form.  
"But this morning there was a rather nice display. The following video compresses 12 hours into 30 seconds, from about 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.  
"So, what does this have to do with global warming, you ask? Well, if not for global warming, the temperature would have been 2 deg. F colder and the flowers would have been 15% bigger, of course.  *"Another casualty of human-caused climate change."* 
(My bold) See: Frost Flowers: The Frost Awakens Â« Roy Spencer, PhD

----------


## PhilT2

Dr Spencer's UAH data has been getting a lot of attention lately and some seem surprised that it has not shown the lower troposphere as being hotter. It should not have come as a surprise as Dr Spencer's latest adjustment introduced a significant cooling influence. There have always been issues with the satellite data and some of them, to my knowledge, have never been resolved. They cannot provide accurate data for polar and high altitude areas so information from those areas is not included. How much this affects their results and whether there is an adjustment made to compensate for it I don't know. 
There have been more equipment failures on the satellites, including one of the main sensor for the lower troposphere. Dr Spencer has predicted that his data will show an increase in the first part of this year. How large remains to be seen. 
When the satellites were first set up they were calibrated by using data from weather balloons. This was not an ideal arrangement as the accuracy of that data has been questioned. However one would expect, because of this, that the balloon and satellite data would follow each other reasonably closely. But lately they have begun to differ significantly. See here for graph. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/12...ong/#more-7973  
To be fair to Dr Spencer he is one of the more rational of the anti-AGW crowd and he is more often attacked by the purists who reject all of the scientific principles behind climate change than by AGW supporters. To see what a true climate change denier believes check out J. Tracy from Florida Uni. He appears to be a true denier because he appears to question the Holocaust as well as 9/11, the JFK assasation but his recent claims that the mass shootings at Sandy Hook and others were faked got him more media attention. Allegations have been made that he demanded that the parents of children killed at Sandy Hook produce not only their child's death certificate but their birth certificate as well because he questioned whether their children ever existed. The University is reviewing his contract. http://www.ibtimes.com/was-sandy-hoo...notice-2229710 
When you see anti-AGW blogs ie the Oregon petition, who claim that Professors with PhD's support their position it is more likely that Prof Tracy, not Dr Spencer, is who they are talking about. Lewandowsky had this right.

----------


## John2b

*Earths poles are shifting because of climate change*Global warming is causing the North Pole's position to drift owing to subtle changes in Earth's rotation that result from the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which is losing about 250 gigatonnes of ice each year, the melting of mountain glaciers, which contributes about 194 gigatonnes per year, and contribution from Antarctica which adds up to 180 gigatonnes per year, but there is considerable uncertainty here because changes in the gravity field due to Earths crust rebounding are less well understood over Antarctica than elsewhere.  https://www.newscientist.com/article...limate-change/

----------


## woodbe

Oops, some climate change deniers are getting a bit of schooling:

----------


## johnc

I think you can pretty much assume anyone using data sets on temperature commencing in 1998 is a liar, a fabricator or just plain stupid. An interesting little clip, not that it will change anything other than elevate Cruz's profile as a lacky for vested interests trying to maintain the deniers myth.

----------


## John2b

> Oops, some climate change deniers are getting a bit of schooling:

  Thanks for the post Woodbe. Funny how deniers decry climate models as being false, except in the case of the satellite temperature model! 
Notice also how quiet everyone has been about the divergence of the satellite record and weather balloon temperature readings that they were originally calibrated with? That's because the weather balloon measurements are more in step with the surface temperature measurements, which is yet another line of evidence that the satellite temperature models are wrong.

----------


## John2b

So the one and only data set that the AGW deniers have been able to hold on to has now been shown to be erroneous. The satellite temperature record is as real as Alice in Wonderland.  Surface Temperature or Satellite Brightness? 
Where's Marc? Cue the pastearrhea...

----------


## Marc

_by_ JAMES DELINGPOLE14 Jan 20161,735 *Man-made global warming is our friend. According to a study inNature, the extra CO2 generated by our burning of fossil fuels has postponed the next ice age for at least 100,000 years.*The new research, published in the journal Nature, examined the eight global ice ages over the past 800,000 years and used complex climate models to determine the critical factors that kickstarted the big freezes. The result was surprisingly simple. A particular combination of lower sunlight at a latitude of 65 deg N, where snow surviving through the summer leads to ice sheets, and low carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was the signal for a new ice age to dawn. The level of sunlight is very predictable as it varies with cyclical changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun and in the tilt of the Earth’s axis, calledMilankovitch cycles. But the level of CO2 has been drastically altered by human activity, rising from 280ppm at the start of the industrial revolution to 400ppm today. The researchers showed that even if carbon emissions are limited to the amount consistent with a 2C rise in temperatures – the internationally agreed goal – there will be enough CO2 in the atmosphere to avoid future ice ages that could have started 50,000 or 90,000 years from now.Since a new ice age would kill life on earth far more effectively than a few degrees C of global warming, this ought to be good news. Unfortunately the study needs to be taken with a hefty pinch of salt because it’s based on “complex climate models” and emanates from Germany’s fanatically warmist Potsdam Institute, which is ideologically committed to “proving” that CO2 is a significant driver of “climate change” even when most real-world evidence suggests it’s not. One of the study’s co-authors is none other than Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the hard left activist who advised the Pope on his eco Encyclical last year and who was responsible for inventing the random and bogus 2° C target so often cited by policymakers to justify more green taxes and regulations. Schellnhuber says: “Now human interference is acting as a huge geological force, so this is a defining paper for the Anthropocene idea.”One of his fellow warmists, Professor Andrew Watson of the University of Exeter, agrees. The _Guardian_ quotes him as saying: “Humans now effectively control the climate of the planet. If only we were wise enough to be able to use that power responsibly. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ve reached that level of wisdom yet.”What neither appears to have appreciated is that if the science of this study is to be taken seriously then it spells disaster for the man-made global warming industry. The reason we should act now to combat climate change, we’re constantly told by activists, scientists and politicians, is to make sure the world is safe to be enjoyed by “future generations.” We don’t know much about “future generations” but of one thing we can be pretty sure: they’ll be much more comfortable living in tropics-style heat than they would be under a mile and a half of ice.

----------


## woodbe

LOL @ Marc.   
We have quite a few years before we need to worry about the next ice age. Climate change is a far larger and immediate threat to us than a stack of ice in another 100,000 years.  *Why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years: Climate and feedback effects explained*Delingpole, really?

----------


## PhilT2

Delingpole makes no sense at the best of times, If warming now is good if it prevents an ice age in 20,000 years, then shouldn't we start heating our homes now as winter is only a few months away?

----------


## John2b

Contrary to the tripe being promoted by some that the fossil energy will lift third world countries out of poverty (it never has and it won't) third world countries have made the lion's share in investments in renewable energy just as for the first time last year investments in renewable energy production worldwide have exceeded the investments in fossil energy.  • For the first time ever, over half of all new annual investment into clean energy power generating projects globally went toward projects in emerging markets, rather than toward wealthier countries. • New investment in renewables soared in 2014 in the 55 countries assessed to hit a record annual high of $126bn – up $35.5bn, or 39%, from 2013 levels.  Topping wealthier nations, key emerging markets attract record $126bn in clean energy investment - Bloomberg New Energy Finance  Over the 18 months to the end of 2015, the price of Brent crude plunged 67% from $112.36 to $37.28 per barrel, international steam coal delivered to the north west Europe hub dropped 35% from $73.70 to $47.60 per tonne. Natural gas in the US fell 48% on the Henry Hub index from $4.42 to $2.31 per million British Thermal Units.  Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory board at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said: “These figures are a stunning riposte to all those who expected clean energy investment to stall on falling oil and gas prices. They highlight the improving cost-competitiveness of solar and wind power, driven in part by the move by many countries to reverse-auction new capacity rather than providing advantageous tariffs, a shift that has put producers under continuing price pressure.  “Wind and solar power are now being adopted in many developing countries as a natural and substantial part of the generation mix: they can be produced more cheaply than often high wholesale power prices; they reduce a country’s exposure to expected future fossil fuel prices; and above all they can be built very quickly to meet unfulfilled demand for electricity. And it is very hard to see these trends going backwards, in the light of December’s Paris Climate Agreement.”  Clean energy defies fossil fuel price crash to attract record $329bn global investment in 2015 - Bloomberg New Energy Finance

----------


## PhilT2

Dr Robert Carter, formerly of James Cook University, passed away yesterday from a heart attack. He was 74.

----------


## John2b

> Dr Robert Carter, formerly of James Cook University, passed away yesterday from a heart attack. He was 74.

  In response to the Paris summit?

----------


## woodbe

Summary Information | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)  *Global Summary Information - December 2015*   *2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record;*  *December 2015 temperature record warm*  
 The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for  2015 was the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880.  During the final month, the December combined global land and ocean  average surface temperature was the highest on record for any month in  the 136-year record.    
 (click for bigger image)  *Global highlights: Calendar Year 2015* 
 For extended analysis of global climate patterns, please see our full Annual report  During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average.  This was the highest among all 136 years in the 18802015 record,  surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.29°F (0.16°C) and  marking the fourth time a global temperature record has been set this  century. This is also the largest margin by which the annual global  temperature record has been broken. Ten months had record high  temperatures for their respective months during the year. The five  highest monthly departures from average for any month on record all  occurred during 2015.Record warmth was broadly spread around the world,  including Central America, the northern half of South America, parts of  northern, southern, and eastern Europe stretching into western Asia, a  large section of east central Siberia, regions of eastern and southern  Africa, large parts of the northeastern and equatorial Pacific, a large  swath of the western North Atlantic, most of the Indian Ocean, and parts  of the Arctic Ocean.During 2015, the globally-averaged land surface temperature was 2.39°F (1.33°C) above the 20th century average.  This was the highest among all years in the 18802015 record,  surpassing the previous record of 2007 by 0.45°F (0.25°C). This is the  largest margin by which the annual global land temperature has been  broken.During 2015, the globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.33°F (0.74°C) above the 20th  century average. This was the highest among all years in the 18802015 record, surpassing the previous record of last year by 0.20°F (0.11°C).Looking above Earth's surface at certain layers of the atmosphere,  several different analyses examined NOAA satellite-based data records  for the lower and middle troposphere and the lower stratosphere. The 2015 temperature for the lower troposphere (roughly the  lowest five miles of the atmosphere) was third highest in the 1979-2015  record, at 0.65°F (0.36°C) above the 19812010 average, as analyzed by  the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). It was also third highest on  record, at 0.47°F (0.26°C) above the 19812010 average, as analyzed by  Remote Sensing Systems (RSS).  Record warmth was observed during the  SeptemberNovember seasonal period as well as December.The 2015 temperature for the mid-troposphere (roughly two miles  to six miles above the surface) was third highest in the 19792015  record, at 0.49°F (0.27°C) above the 19812010 average, as analyzed by  UAH, and fourth highest on record, at 0.40°F (0.22°C) above the  19812010 average, as analyzed by RSS.  A routine University of  Washington post-analysis found the UAH and RSS values to be 0.65°F  (0.36°C) and 0.54°F (0.30°C), respectively, above the 19812010 average,  both ranking third highest. Record warmth was observed during the  SeptemberNovember seasonal period as well as December. An independent assessment of the mid-troposphere, derived from  weather balloons, found the mid-troposphere departure to be 0.92°F  (0.51°C) above the 19812010 average, the highest in the 58-year period  of record. Record warmth was observed during the SeptemberNovember  seasonal period as well as December.The temperature for the lower stratosphere (roughly 10 miles to 13 miles above the surface) was 13th lowest in the 19792015 record, at 0.56°F (0.31°C) below the 19812010 average, as analyzed by UAH, and 14th  lowest on record, at 0.40°F (0.22°C) below the 19812010 average, as  analyzed by RSS.  The stratospheric temperature is decreasing on average  while the lower and middle troposphere temperatures are increasing on  average, consistent with expectations in a greenhouse-warmed world. According to data from NOAA analyzed by the Rutgers Global Snow  Lab, the average annual Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during  2015 was 9.5 million square miles. This was the 11th smallest  annual snow cover extent since records began in 1968 and smallest since  2008. The first half of 2015 saw generally below-normal snow cover  extent, with above-average coverage later in the year.Recent polar sea ice extent trends continued in 2015. The average  annual sea ice extent in the Arctic was 4.25 million square miles, the  sixth smallest annual value of the 37-year period of record. The annual  Antarctic sea ice extent was the third largest on record, at 4.92  million square miles, behind 2013 and 2014.

----------


## woodbe

So, Rod,  *R.I.P.
1998* 
lol.  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

Even the now known to be faulty (see chart below) satellite record had October, November and December last year as the three honest months on record. 
This chart shows the divergence between satellite temperature measurements and the same location and altitude measured by a balloon radiosonde (thermometer). Since 2008, the satellite record has under measured the real temperature. It overestimated the temperature in 1998. And remember, these are the lower troposphere temperatures (averaged to about 7 kilometres high), not surface temperatures where most humans live.

----------


## johnc

> So, Rod,  *R.I.P.
> 1998* 
> lol.

  The real nut cases will simply claim the current figures are wrong, some just never except a reality that doesn't match their day dreams. I have the feeling Rod may have already accepted that using 1998 as a base year was always deeply flawed because of that years El Nino event.

----------


## Marc

WARMING FORECASTS *REVISITING (YET AGAIN) HANSEN’S 1998 FORECAST ON GLOBAL WARMING TO CONGRESS*JANUARY 28, 2016 0 COMMENTS I want to briefly revisit Hansen’s 1998 Congressional forecast.  Yes, I and many others have churned over this ground many times, but I think I now have a better approach.   The typical approach has been to overlay some actual temperature data set on top of Hansen’s forecast (e.g.here).  The problem is that with revisions to all of these data sets, particularly the GISS reset in 1999, none of these data sets match what Hansen was using at the time.  So we often get into arguments on where the forecast and actuals should be centered, etc. This might be a better approach.  First, let’s start with Hansen’s forecast chart (click to enlarge).  Folks have argued for years over which CO2 scenario best matches history.  I would argue it is somewhere between A and B, but you will see in a moment that it almost does not matter.    It turns out that both A and B have nearly the same regressed slope. The approach I took this time was not to worry about matching exact starting points or reconciling difference anomaly base periods.  I merely took the slope of the A and B forecasts and compared it to the slope over the last 30 years of a couple of different temeprature databases (Hadley CRUT4 and the UAH v6 satellite data). The only real issue is the start year.  The analysis is not very sensitive to the year, but I tried to find a logical start.  Hansen’s chart is frustrating because his forecasts never converge exactly, even 20 years in the past.  However, they are nearly identical in 1986, a logical base year if Hansen was giving the speech in 1988, so I started there.  I didn’t do anything fancy on the trend lines, just let Excel calculate the least squares regression.  This is what we get (as usual, click to enlarge).  I think that tells the tale  pretty clearly.   Versus the gold standard surface temperature measurement (vs. Hansen’s thumb-on-the-scale GISS) his forecast was 2x too high.  Versus the satellite measurements it was 3x too high. The least squares regression approach probably under-estimates that A scenario growth rate, but that is OK, that just makes the conclusion more robust. By the way, I owe someone a thanks for the digitized numbers behind Hansen’s chart but it has been so many years since I downloaded them I honestly forgot who they came from.

----------


## John2b

> ...(unthinking pasting blogarrhea ensues)...

  Hansen's scenario 'B', which is the one most closely but not completely corresponds to what actually happened, results in a warming of 2.2 degrees per century, not 2.8. So why does Marc's unnamed blogger need to exaggerate the figure by more than 25% to 2.8 degrees? It seems that people who lie think a bigger lie has greater authority.

----------


## woodbe

What a load of bunk, Marc. 
So an unnamed poster (assuming you didn't make this stuff up yourself), digs up something Hansen produced in 1998 changes the data to make it look bad and starts picking it to bits. 
18 years ago??? 
So, climate science apparently hasn't moved forward since 1998? 
I think the skeptics are running out of ideas...

----------


## PhilT2

> something Hansen produced in 1998  
> I think the skeptics are running out of ideas...

  Hansen's graph and his appearance before the US congress happened June 23 *1988* not 1998. http://climatechange.procon.org/sour..._Testimony.pdf

----------


## woodbe

Lol. Good pickup PhilT2. 
So the skeptics are hanging out looking for something to deride *28 years ago*. 
Definitely, they have run out of ideas.

----------


## PhilT2

> Definitely, they have run out of ideas.

  It may be unsafe to assume that they had any idea to start with. I can't get over the basic dishonesty in the way his paper has been misrepresented many times. Hansen clearly stated he was basing his work on the GISS measurements. But when comparisons are done what is used is everything but GISS. The satellite temps are used all the time and that can only be described as deliberate misrepresentation.

----------


## PhilT2

Results just coming in on the Iowa caucuses; Cruz a clear winner with Trump just beating Rubio for second place. Iowa is a rural state with small minority population. A significant part of the crops grown go to for the production of biofuel and landowners derive income from the many wind turbines. There are also manufacturing plants there for turbines and biofuel. But the Republicans got a record turnout to select from a field of candidates all opposed to alternate energy. No word yet on the Democrat polls but Hilary was expected to win by a small margin.  Iowa Caucus Results 2016 Election: President Live Map by County, Real-Time Voting Updates - POLITICO

----------


## SilentButDeadly

America. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. [sigh]

----------


## PhilT2

> America. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. [sigh]

  Yeah, I'd be happy to sit back and laugh but the right wing idiots over there keep jibbering about "boots on the ground" to solve the issues in Syria; and they want to bomb Iran too; which means we'll get dragged into it as well. Abbott and Andrews are over there at the moment to discuss the big issue. Not the economy, multinational tax evasion or terrorism but the BIG issue: same sex marriage. The best thing Turnbull could do is keep those morons on the back bench until their electorate wakes up and gets rid of them. 
The polls were predicting a clear win for Trump but the demographic he appealed to were older low income whites who had not voted in a caucus before. And a percentage of them forgot or didn't bother turning up this time either. Cruz targeted the religious fundamentalists and they turned out. Many of the caucus meetings are held in churches so at least they knew where to go. 
Sanders targeted people who hadn't voted before too, young students. i didn't think they would turn out; the weather was bad with a snowstorm predicted, and this is a group that may not have their own transport. Hilary's team seemed well organised; the trick here is to get your supporters to actually turn up at the caucus meetings and i think the five leaders did well with the logistics. 
No final result yet on the Democrat race-too close to call, counting continuing.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Ask yourself...was anything different when Ronald Reagan and Bush Senior/Junior...and for that matter, Clinton the First...had the title of US President?

----------


## johnc

Pretty depressing if you are an American I would have thought, the two Democrat offerings are both long in the tooth, most of the Republicans are right wing nut jobs you wouldn't let loose anywhere but an asylum. Rubio looks interesting, however their politics has become that poisoned the chances of a decent president are low. It would be good if the could keep Andrews and Abbott over there, both men together still couldn't round up a functioning brain even if they pooled their resources.

----------


## PhilT2

Different or not what I really want to see is all the right wing fundamentalist nutters go crazy if Hillary wins. A black man then a woman in the white house; their heads will explode. 
But the differences, there are a few that might benefit us directly  
Obama lifted the restrictions Clinton and Bush put on stem cell research. There may be some real breakthroughs flow from this.
No new wars in the Middle East. We're part of an alliance; where they go we follow. why i'm not sure.
Regulation of the financial sector;if the US economy falls we all go with it.
A President that supports action on climate change. 
There were a few things that only impacted the locals eg healthcare, increased min wage etc but even having a President that spent all his time chasing the interns would be better than someone making stupid decisions driven by his ideology and religion.

----------


## Rod Dyson

This long, hot, dry summer is really getting me down.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> This long, hot, dry summer is really getting me down.

  Me too. It's only rained once and we are below average for a summer to date and in serious deficiency over the past 18 months... 
Learn to look outside your own immediate experience, Rod. There's a world out there...not just your world view.

----------


## PhilT2

About 90% of Qld still remains drought declared, even though there is localised flooding in some of those areas.  https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/q.../2016/jan1.gif

----------


## woodbe

> This long, hot, dry summer is really getting me down.

  Melbourne temps have been slightly above average, and Jan rainfall has also been above average. 
I guess summer gets you down every year, Rod...

----------


## woodbe

Its been hot and dry in the Arctic too, Rod. I think you're onto something.  :Biggrin:

----------


## John2b

Climate change deniers have been arguing for decades that climate science is not settled, so why are all the denier blogs cheering the demise of CSIRO's climate research?  Climate science to be gutted as CSIRO swings jobs axe 
The head of the CSIRO has deemed climate science is settled and it's too late to change the trajectory humanity has already unwittingly committed to. Now we just have to adapt to a world with more chaotic and destructive weather.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

We'll be fine. Rupert's got this... 
In the meantime... what's for lunch?

----------


## Marc

I am really enjoying this thread free of most replies since the usual suspects are on my ignore list, however can't avoid to see the quotes from the few that are not. One observation that seems to be common to all the quoted replies is vitriol against the bad "rich" 
This confirms once more ... as if that would be needed after so many other vitriolic comments ... that the warmist join the army of protest and objections, agitation, placards and hate for one reason and one reason only, plane hate of other people's success. Investigate other people's income and anyone over $100k is a suspect. Millionaires are criminals, billionaires are mass murderers. 
Very sad. 
How about migrate to North Korea?

----------


## woodbe

> I am really enjoying this thread free of most replies since the usual suspects are on my ignore list, however can't avoid to see the quotes from the few that are not. One observation that seems to be common to all the quoted replies is vitriol against the bad "rich" 
> This confirms once more ... as if that would be needed after so many other vitriolic comments ... that the warmist join the army of protest and objections, agitation pancart and hate for one reason and one reason only, plane hate of other people's success. Investigate other people's income and anyone over $100k is a suspect. Millionaires are criminals, billionaires are mass murderers. 
> Very sad. 
> How about migrate to North Korea?

  Nothing to say about the facts before you other than some kind of weird derision of those with whom you do not agree? 
You could do better, Marc.

----------


## John2b

> Nothing to say about the facts before you other than some kind of weird derision of those with whom you do not agree?

  Some people are happiest when the only sound in the echo-chamber of their head is their own voice, and no external realities challenge the fantasy world they live in.

----------


## johnc

Going on the spelling and punctuation I think Marc has been on the turps again, a reality check might not hurt as it was nothing more than a rant totally lacking in insight.

----------


## Marc

Yes, insight ... such a slippery concept. Works both ways too... mm 
Lets see what the dictionary says  _noun_
noun: *insight*
the capacity to gain an accurate and deep understanding of someone or something.
"his mind soared to previously unattainable heights of insight" synonyms: intuition, perception, awareness, discernment, understanding, comprehension, apprehension, appreciation, cognizance, penetration, acumen, astuteness, perspicacity, perspicaciousness, sagacity, sageness, discrimination, judgement, shrewdness, sharpness, sharp-wittedness, acuity, acuteness, flair, breadth of view, vision, far-sightedness, prescience, imagination; More_informal_nous, horse sense, savvy;  _rare_sapience, arguteness 
"your knowledge and insight have been invaluable to us"        an accurate and deep understanding.
plural noun: *insights*
"his work provides important insights into language use" synonyms: understanding of, appreciation of, revelation about, illumination of; Moreintroduction to, experience of, description of;  realization, recognition, enlightenment;  _informal_aha moment;  _informal_eye-opener 
"the book provides a rare *insight into* the complexities of government"    Psychiatry
awareness by a mentally ill person that their mental experiences are not based in external reality.  
Interesting ...  :Smilie:  
I like _perspicaciousness ..._  particularly because the spell check says it is wrong,  :Rofl5: Arguteness is not bad either.

----------


## woodbe

Hmm... Still no facts, just more drivel. 
1998 is dead for the deniers so they seem to be out of ideas now.

----------


## John2b

> Hmm... Still no facts, just more drivel. 
> 1998 is dead for the deniers so they seem to be out of ideas now.

  The whole 'pause' since 1998 didn't happen. It turns out to be yet another problem with the convoluted climate models used to derive a lower atmosphere temperature from the satellite microwave readings. Radiosonde (weather balloon) measurements taken by actual thermometers show no slowdown in the rate of warming of the lower troposphere and have diverged from satellite 'temperatures' taken at the same time and place. Since the climate models that UAH and RSS use to derive lower atmosphere temperatures have not been disclosed, it isn't possible for other researchers to know why they don't work, but they don't. This will be about the tenth time since the satellite records began that they have been shown to be wrong. 
In the past, satellites have had faulty instruments, there have been inexplicable discrepancies between satellites, different types of microwave sounders gave different results, the performance of the instruments drifted, the satellites ran out of fuel and had decaying orbits, there were incorrectly applied models, computer code that was "hodgepodge of code snippets written by different scientists, run in stepwise fashion during every monthly update, some of it over 25 years old", there were discontinuities between active satellites, plus differences in atmospheric weighting function height between instruments and drift in the time of day that readings were taken by the satellites. The statistical error range in the satellite data is much greater than the surface warming over the same period.

----------


## Marc

*John2b*
1K Club Member *					This message is hidden because John2b is on your ignore list.				* Hu hu, if you are answering my post don't bother!

----------


## Marc

*In questions of science, the authority of a thousand
is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.* _–Galileo Galilei _ John Coleman, Weather Channel Founder & Meteorologist.	  The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming ScamPage 2Page 3 All Pages 
Page 1 of 3  Roger Revelle, who later apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase called global warming *The following article is reprinted with permission. Visit Coleman's Corner for more articles, posts, and information.*
The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.
How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?
The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle obtained major funding from the Navy to do measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting post war atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago. Suess was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle co-authored a scientific paper with Suess in 1957—a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. The thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.
Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.
Back in the1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.
Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.
But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. Roger Revelle’s research at the Scripps Institute had tricked a wave of scientific inquiry. So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement. Automobiles and power planets became the prime targets.
Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.  *No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
a single experiment can prove me wrong.* _–Albert Einstein _ The Keeling curve continues to show a steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41 hundredths of one percent by weight. And, by the way, only a fraction of that fraction is from mankind’s use of fossil fuels. The best estimate is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result of civilization.
Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. As years have passed, the scientists have kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.
Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings.
Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations—a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). This was not a pure, “climate study” scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels.
Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize.
At the same time Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.
He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming." That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book “Earth in the Balance,” published in 1992.
So there it is. Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.
The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause célèbre of the media. After all, the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling." The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.
But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."
And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain, and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge, negative impact on the economy, jobs, and our standard of living. Considerable controversy still surrounds the authorship of this article. However, I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer and he assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.  *If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.* _–Albert Einstein _ Did Roger Revelle attend the summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "Apparently.” People who were there have told me about that afternoon, but I have not located a transcript or a recording. People continue to share their memories with me on an informal basis. More evidence may be forthcoming.
Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam. He might well stand beside me as a global warming denier. *Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s mea culpa as the actions of a senile old man.* The next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate. From 1992 until today, he and most of his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when asked about us skeptics, they insult us and call us names.
As the science now stands, the global warming alarmist scientists say the climate is sensitive to a “radiative forcing” effect from atmospheric carbon dioxide which greatly magnifies its greenhouse effect on atmospheric warming. The only proof they can provide of this complex hypothesis is by running it in climate computer models. By starting the models in about 1980 they showed how the continuing increase in CO2 was step with a steady increase in average global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990’s and claim cause and effect. But, in fact, those last two decades of the 20th century were at the peak of a strong 24 year solar cycle, and the temperature increases actually may have been a result of the solar cycle together with related warm cycle ocean current patterns during that period.
That warming ended in 1998 and global temperatures (as measured by satellites) leveled off. Starting in 2002, computer models and reality have dramatically parted company. The models predicted temperatures and carbon dioxide would continue to rise in lock step, but in fact while the CO2 continues to rise, temperatures are in decline. Now global temperatures are in such a nose dive there is wide spread talk from climatologists about an impending ice age. In any case, the UN’s computer model “proof” has gone up in a poof.
Nonetheless, today we have the continued claim that carbon dioxide is the culprit of an uncontrollable, runaway man-made global warming. We are told that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint. And, we are told we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists for this sinful footprint. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US Congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.
We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by the prohibiting of new refineries and of drilling for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that, the whole issue of corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies, which also has driven up food prices. All of this is a long way from over.
Yet I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.
Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.

----------


## woodbe

> *No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
> a single experiment can prove me wrong.*

  Not quite. The single experiment also needs to show it has merit.  
An alternative hypothesis can be produced, and it then needs to stand up, and then stand up independently by multiple methods and analysis. In the case of climate change, that is the basis of the acceptance of the current theory. So far, we don't have any accepted hypothesis that can tip the current theory out. 
This could happen, but I wouldn't place odds on it. We're a long way down the track now. Deniers are never going to produce the new, better theory. If it ever arrives, it will come from science, not from a bunch of ratbags who run around yelling 1998 on the internet.

----------


## PhilT2

An old article full of assumptions and errors about a scientist who retired 40 years ago doesn't add much to the debate. the world has moved on; we should too.

----------


## John2b

Somebody's smoking too much hooch. 
1. Greg Hunt praises the Yale Environmental Performance Index as "the most credible, scientifically-based, hard data-based analysis in the world". Direct Action auction winner voices doubts on the climate policy - 24/11/2015 
2. The Yale Environmental Performance Index rates Australia as 13th from the bottom of out of 180 counties, down ten places from just two years ago. Australia | Environmental Performance Index - Development 
3. Thomson Reuters, of which Murdoch's News Corporation is a major shareholder, creates an award for Best Minister to be presented at the World Government Summit, supposedly focused on aspects including innovative leadership, quality and impact. http://leavinguae.blogspot.com.au/20...-in-dubai.html 
4. Australia's greenhouse gases from its power sector jumped by 3.8 million tonnes in 2015 alone, and were 5.1 per cent higher than in June 2014 before the Abbott government scrapped the carbon tax, energy consultants Pitt & Sherry. Power sector carbon emissions jumped 3.8 million tonnes in 2015: Pitt & Sherry 
4. His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, honours Greg Hunt, Australian Minister for the Environment and Acting Minister for Cities and the Built Environment, with Best Minister in the World' Award. The honour comes as part of the second day of the 4th World Government Summit, which is being held under the logo ''Shaping Future Governments''. The Award is granted for ministers in recognition to their efforts and innovative environmental initiatives and had a significant impact in supporting reduction of environmental pollution rates in Australia by 93 tonnes of carbon. Australia&#x2019;s Greg Hunt named &#x2018;best minister&#x2019; at Dubai summit | The National

----------


## johnc

What a joke, direct action is not even delivering, I don't think Greg is a disaster but he hasn't exactly set the world on fire either. This is the bloke that believed a carbon tax was the only way to go until he had to follow Abbotts rubbish

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I have to admit...I giggled when I read of GHunts award. I look forward to more of his kind of innovation...even after the next election [sigh].

----------


## johnc

It would seem this lot are inept and so is the alternative we are a driverless steam train with a well stoked boiler, we are still travelling reasonably well but the ending looks unpleasant.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

We'll be fine...it might be a driverless steam train but there's no stoker either...the momentum we already have is sufficient for more laughs. 
There is no ending...just lots of encores.

----------


## John2b

This graph shows Australia's CO2 emissions from the NEM. The red line is the date Hunt took the Environment portfolio:   
Perhaps the judges mistakenly inverted the graph because it came from down under.

----------


## Marc

*Why I like Obama’s Oil Tax With Just A Few Tweaks*by ElmerB on February 6, 2016 in Obama, Opinion 
By Elmer Beauregard *Obama is proposing a $10 tax on oil to do 2 things, stop the use of fossil fuels and further subsidize “clean” energy. I would tweak this slightly by putting a $10 tax only on oil imported from the middle east or any country that still beheads people.*
Tariffs on imports have long been used by our country as a form of revenue generation and as a way to protect domestic producers. In fact before we started the Income Tax, tariffs were the largest revenue producer. But in recent years tariffs are frowned upon and are considered “protectionist”. I never understood why wanting to protect domestic interests is a bad thing.
Also America has a history of using trade sanctions and tariffs to discourage bad behavior by other countries. Remember during the 80’s how we used trade sanctions against south Africa to get rid of Apartheid?
Obama’s plan of a $10 tax on all oil including domestic oil I think would be the final nail in our economic coffin. Our economy is based on cheap energy and one of the only reasons we are limping along these days is the cheap cost of energy. But oil prices this low is hurting certain parts of our economy especially oil producing state like North Dakota.
The reason oil is so low is because of Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia are over producing and their stated reason is to take out the competition in places like Russia and North Dakota so they can enjoy a Monopoly again. This is a from of economic warfare and is killing the global economy and should not be allowed to happen.
Therefore I propose the U.S. put a tariff on oil from countries who still practice barbaric forms of punishment and treat women as possessions. This will do 2 things: It will drive the price of domestic oil back up to a more reasonable market driven price rather than an artificially low one. This will help oil producing states and drive up our economy over all. Plus, it will have a negative effect on places like Saudi Arabia who last year beheaded more people than ISIS and still stone women for being raped. Maybe they will turn from their primitive backward ways the way that South Africa did in the 80’s and join the modern world.
I think people would be willing to pay more at the pump knowing that it’s helping our own country and not some ruthless Prince on the other side of the world. Plus, Obama during his last State of the Unions Speech took credit for cheap gas and says it’s one of his greatest accomplishments (even though he had nothing to do with it and ran on making fossil fuels expensive to stop global warming) so why does he want to ruin his own legacy. *I know this will never happen for these reasons:*
1. It assumes global warming isn’t the biggest threat to mankind and that other things are more important.
2. It actually is a good idea and makes sense.
3.  It will actually help America.
4. It will hurt Muslim countries and give them less control of the world.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Wondering if that proposed tweak includes oil imported from Canada?

----------


## Marc

> ....Therefore I propose the U.S. put a tariff on oil from countries who still practice barbaric forms of punishment and treat women as possessions....

  ... 
Appealing to emotions ... they are learning something from the greens, see we don't have cuddly polar bears to use for that purpose.

----------


## johnc

What sort of point is that, I hardly see how the reaction to the punishment of the innocent will be anything but a human emotion, that would go back to the dawn of civilisation, it didn't originate with the greens or any other group including the polar bear lobby.

----------


## Marc

*Climate change: Fighting the odds*Someone who refuses to get into lockstep with the global warming alarmists is News Corp’s, Janet Albrechtsen.
Ms Albrechtsen dares to advance the looming, if not already present, methods of coercion used to silence all those with alternate views about rising temperatures and sea levels. Not on MSM’s agenda is the UN’s ramped up efforts to get their grubby hands on billions of dollars. _Addressing a September conference in London on climate change and international law, Philippe Sands QC called for a ruling from the International Court of Justice to “scotch” claims by “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential individuals” who challenge the “consensus” on man-made global warming. Are we re-entering the Middle Ages where you were treated as a traitor if you mentioned that the king might be dying — even if he was?_
Source: NewsCorp 4/11/15 *‘Tis the season for all that global warming folly*With the UN climate summit in Paris due to start later this month, the global warming silly season is well under way.
This week France’s popular weatherman Philippe Verdier was sacked by a French TV station for writing a book that challenges some scientists for inflating the effects of global warming. The UN gabfest, or COP21, is aimed at securing agreement from countries with vastly different levels of development, from the prosperous West to fast-growing economies in China and India, to less developed in Africa, to restrict global temperature rises to 2C. It’s a big ask, which may explain why the madness started even before Verdier was sacked by France 2.
More recently, the future king of England, Prince Charles, repeated his favourite claim that the Paris conference was our “last chance” to draw up a “Magna Carta for the Earth”. Charles is no King John. But, equally, Charles seems to have scant understanding of the real Magna Carta, a document that aimed to curb the powers of the king. Charles and his global warming enthusiasts now want a treaty that will deny countries such as China and India the ability to do what rich nations have done — use readily accessible and cheap carbon energy to build prosperous economies.
Here in Australia, just as the Prime Minister turned 61, 61 so-called “eminent” people signed an open letter calling on Malcolm Turnbull to put a moratorium on coalmining and new mines. That went nowhere. It was easily demolished when Turnbull said shutting down our coal industry would make zero difference to global emissions.
And if every silly season has a Santa, Shorten is surely it. More and more, the Opposition Leader resembles a second-rate actor who has assiduously studied a set of lines but hasn’t managed to inject any conviction into the role. This week Shorten has been on “a fact-finding mission” to the Pacific Islands. Translation: the Opposition Leader thinks he can use global warming to dent Turnbull’s popularity.
Shorten’s core problem begins with his role in past policy. Shorten rode the Kevin ’07 wave into office when Labor’s position was that global warming was the great moral challenge of our time and required an emissions trading system. As a senior minister, he then backed Rudd’s change of heart to dump the ETS. Shorten was a critical backer of Julia Gillard, when Labor’s new position was “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”. He was there too when Labor signed a deal with the Greens to legislate a carbon tax.
Shorten has a long and unfortunate history of reactionary-style politics. As a union leader, he injected passion into his position. In politics, he simply looks like a desperate political leader trying to attract the increasing number of centrist voters who are looking favourably at Turnbull and the Coalition. Last week, there were racy lines Labor would devote more funding to encourage girls to learn coding, as he tried to beat off Turnbull’s talk of innovation as a driver of growth. The education system has failed us, Shorten said. Ominous words, except it only serves as a reminder that while the country has doubled spending on education over the past decade to $40 billion, outcomes on basic measures of literacy and numeracy have gone backwards according to the most recent international scorecards of educational achievements. Shorten’s shadow boxing was evident as soon as Turnbull became PM. Labor’s attacks on Turnbull’s wealth served only to remind voters we have a PM who was highly successful before he entered politics and understands business. It makes a refreshing change from the career politicians who have never worked in the real world.
Last week Shorten proposed giving the vote to 16  and 17-year-olds. That went nowhere except into the cynical box, given Shorten thinks his best chance at winning an election comes by winning over teenagers under 18. If you can’t attract enough adult votes, well, to put it politely, you’re stuffed.
With the COP21 summit fast approaching, Shorten is now desperate to make climate change a positive for Labor. But, once again, his problem is one of believability. No one can question that Turnbull genuinely believes in the human drivers of global warming. It drives his critics mad and weakens the knees of his admirers.
Shorten’s history, on the other hand, is replete with stark episodes of him making statements thrust into his hands by spin doctors and pollsters. There’s no detail on the Opposition Leader’s uncosted “aspirational” 50 per cent renewable energy target. Nor has Shorten told us what Labor’s emissions target would be if he were the PM heading to Paris. A four-day visit to our Pacific neighbours does nothing to build Shorten and Labor’s credentials.
The hyperbole around global warming, Magna Cartas, last chances and moratoriums on coal will only ratchet up over the next few weeks. But the hyperbole won’t alter Turnbull’s commitment to take the Abbott government’s policy of a 26 to 28 per cent emissions reduction target on 2005 levels by 2030 to Paris.
None of it will alter the fact, while China and India will happily extract money from the West’s promised $US100bn Green Climate Fund, they won’t agree to a deal that curbs their emissions, and therefore their economic growth. China is building a new coal plant every seven to 10 days and has plans to boost its coal power by 50 per cent by 2040; India is intent on doubling its coal production by 2020. 
In other words, none of the hype will deliver a meaningful treaty at the Paris gabfest that is legally binding, enforceable and verifiable. Unless you believe in Santa.  Pass it on - email This Post *Leftist media saturates the news. Fight back. Send articles to your friends, politicians, local media, and facebook.*

----------


## johnc

Dear old Janet, she used to write a good article, reasonably balanced with a hint of right wing bias. These days it is usually just a rant against her favourite whipping boy, I still sometimes read her articles but they don't do anymore than preach to the converted and alienate the balanced mind.

----------


## John2b

Isn't she just Bolt in drag? Has anybody seen them together?

----------


## Marc

> What sort of point is that, I hardly see how the reaction to the punishment of the innocent will be anything but a human emotion, that would go back to the dawn of civilisation, it didn't originate with the greens or any other group including the polar bear lobby.

   Oh come on Johnc, it's not that hard. 
"The polar bears are dying" or "our kids will drown in a rising sea", is an appeal to emotions to the audience. True or false is irrelevant. The greens have mastered the art of obfuscation and appeal to emotions. The classic is the smokestacks emitting water vapour or a city covered in smog when they talk about CO2 emissions as a backdrop to the ABC "news". This are mostly false statements yet they still appeal to emotions because most people will not bother checking the facts, and no one would like to see an Australian city covered in smog or polar bears that are so cute and cuddly dying out because of the bad rich that are melting the ice (how dare they!) 
Another way to appeal to emotions is using a true statement like above, with the mistreating of women in the middle east, and attach it to a political statement with a scant relevance. Global warming and islam have nothing in common yet the current anti islam sentiment can be attached to it, with a bit of emotional glue.   
Listen to a unionist speech and learn how to appeal to emotions.

----------


## John2b

"The question Ive been trying to raise, here and elsewhere, isnt whether or not sun and wind are useful power sources; the question is whether its possible to power industrial civilization with them, and the answer is no.  
"That doesnt mean, in turn, that well just keep powering industrial civilization with fossil fuels, or nuclear power, or what have you. Fossil fuels are running shortas oilmen like to say, depletion never sleepsand nuclear power is a hopelessly uneconomical white-elephant technology that has never been viable anywhere in the world without massive ongoing government subsidies. Other options? Theyve all been tried, and they dont work either.   
"The point that nearly everyone in the debate is trying to evade is that the collection of extravagant energy-wasting habits that pass for a normal middle class lifestyle these days is, in James Howard Kunstlers useful phrase, an arrangement without a future. Those habits only became possible in the first place because our species broke into the planets supply of stored carbon and burnt through half a billion years of fossil sunlight in a wild three-century-long joyride. Now the needle on the gas gauge is moving inexorably toward that threatening letter E, and the joyride is over. It really is as simple as that."  The Archdruid Report

----------


## John2b

January 2016 "was the warmest January on record by a large margin while also claiming the title of most anomalously warm month in 135 years of record keeping," reports Climate Central. That means January beat out all previous 1,600-plus months since researchers began measuring global temperature records in the 1880s. 
According to the Weather Channel, in the far northern polar latitudes, NASA-calculated temperatures were a staggering 12.6 degrees Fahrenheit above average for the month.

----------


## autogenous

A global tax for the United Nations, and scientists.   You can only guess why scientists want an ETS. 
No ETS on coal in the UK which makes them worthless. 
Oil companies are excited because an ETS, is a tax on coal.  Shut down coal, the competitor to oil & gas, and oil prices go up. 
Australia puts all its coal slag and imports more into cement and concrete products.  If you shut down coal in Australia,  the amount of gas to used to make cement doubles, and cement production go to China. 
Coal in Australia dramatically reduces emissions in one of the highest production emitters in the world, cement production. 
Coal is essentially carbon neutral, where as wood burns cleaner than gas.

----------


## autogenous

Australias emissions are 0.04% of global emissions. You wipe every Aussie off the earth and it would do nothing.   

> This graph shows Australia's CO2 emissions from the NEM. The red line is the date Hunt took the Environment portfolio:   
> Perhaps the judges mistakenly inverted the graph because it came from down under.

----------


## woodbe

> Australias emissions are 0.04% of global emissions. You wipe every Aussie off the earth and it would do nothing.

  Are you including the fossil fuels we dig out of the ground and ship all over the planet? 
Even ignoring that, if we as a worldwide species are going to bring our emissions down we all have to act.

----------


## John2b

> A global tax for the United Nations, and scientists.   You can only guess why scientists want an ETS. 
> No ETS on coal in the UK which makes them worthless. 
> Oil companies are excited because an ETS, is a tax on coal.  Shut down coal, the competitor to oil & gas, and oil prices go up. 
> Australia puts all its coal slag and imports more into cement and concrete products.  If you shut down coal in Australia,  the amount of gas to used to make cement doubles, and cement production go to China. 
> Coal in Australia dramatically reduces emissions in one of the highest production emitters in the world, cement production. 
> Coal is essentially carbon neutral, where as wood burns cleaner than gas.

  You shouldn't take the Koch Bother's Fairy Tales as factual. They were simply written for the amusement of corrupt politicians.

----------


## John2b

> Australias emissions are 0.04% of global emissions. You wipe every Aussie off the earth and it would do nothing.

   

> If you shut down coal in Australia, the amount of gas to used to make cement doubles, and cement production go to China.

  These two statements are incongruous. Which one is true? You can't have it both ways.

----------


## autogenous

Australia has the highest uptake of solar panels in the world.   
Cars are already going electric.  Coal is carbon neutral because it is a direct replacement for cement by weight. And further in concrete. 
Australia is so far in front of everyone its a joke.   
Take the argument to the northern hemisphere. You are selling ice to the eskimos' here.

----------


## John2b

> Australias emissions are 0.04% of global emissions. You wipe every Aussie off the earth and it would do nothing.

  You have underestimated Australia's CO2 emissions by 25 times (oops!) and as Woodbe has pointed out, you forgot that a significant proportion of Australia's emissions are off-shore in other countries. In any case: 
"Australias per capita greenhouse gas emissions are the highest of any OECDcountry and are among the highest in the world. In 2006 our per capita emissions(including emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry) were 28.1 tonnescarbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) per person (DCC 2008d). Only five countries inthe world rank higherBahrain, Bolivia, Brunei, Kuwait and Qatar. Australias percapita emissions are nearly twice the OECD average and more than four times theworld average" 
"Australias agriculture industry has the second highest emissions intensityof the countries considered and is more than twice the average. "

----------


## John2b

> Australia has the highest uptake of solar panels in the world.

  China is installing solar panels at >20GW per year. That's equivalent to nearly half of Australia's ENTIRE electricity generating capacity being added every year in solar panels, or about 10 times Australia's entire solar capacity being added every year.   

> Coal is carbon neutral because it is a direct replacement for cement by weight.

  I guess you are planning to build you next house out of coal?    

> You are selling ice to the eskimos' here.

  You need to get out of the igloo more often.  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> Australia has the highest uptake of solar panels in the world.

  Really?? Where did you get that nonsense from?   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country   

> Cars are already going electric.  Coal is carbon neutral because it is a direct replacement for cement by weight. And further in concrete.

  Electric cars are an excellent idea if your electricity is zero or low carbon. Not typical in Australia, and especially not typical in areas of the highest population, NSW and Vic.    

> Australia is so far in front of everyone its a joke.   
> Take the argument to the northern hemisphere. You are selling ice to the eskimos' here.

  Unfortunately, we are far behind most of the world on a per capita basis. If we add the CO2 from our fossil fuel exports, we are a total disaster.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Coal is carbon neutral because it is a direct replacement for cement by weight. And further in concrete.

  Sorry Autogenous but your cementious bias has nailed you in knots yet again. 
Fly ash from coal burning is most definitely an important additive to both cement and concrete but it'll never make coal carbon neutral since most of the carbon is burnt out of the fly ash...and released into the atmosphere. The curing process of some fly ash constituents does reabsorb carbon dioxide but not much unless specifically targeted to do so by the mix. 
More to the point though...in my limited experience of cement kilns...most were gas fired though many were also augmented with pretty much anything that could burn...waste oil was common, ten cubic metres of seized marijuana wasn't but that went in as well. Coal? Rarely...if ever.

----------


## PhilT2

[QUOTE=autogenous;1005429]Coal is carbon neutral because it is a direct replacement for cement by weight. And further in concrete./QUOTE]
Can you explain how you work that out? When coal is burnt a much smaller quantity of material remains as ash. Of this only the fly ash is then used in concrete. Does the reduction in co2 gained by the use of this small amount of fly ash equal the co2 produced by burning the large amount of coal required to produce the fly ash? 
Edit Beaten to it by SBD

----------


## Marc

https://youtu.be/j2biK1hdKHo

----------


## John2b

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU06GuQ7svA

----------


## John2b

Marc's video implying that windmills are killing bald eagles is nonsense. A leading cause of bald eagle death in Minnesota, where the video was posted on a denier's blog site, is lead poisoning from the eagles eating the entrails of deer left by 'sports shooters'. There is no, non-photoshopped evidence at this time linking wind turbines and Minnesotan eagle injuries. This is just the same sort of emotional claptrap that Marc accuses 'warmists' of. 
I guess  since he is so concerned about the fate of wildlife, Marc will now start a campaign to make private gun ownership and hunting illegal.

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc

Wind Energy  See the musical YouTube video, Windmills Kill Birds.*NEWS! * See* Germany's Green Energy Disaster.*      Economist Michael J. Trebilcock studied wind power and found that *Wind power is a complete disaster*.  He points out that the United States Government subsidizes wind power at a rate of *$23.34 per MWh* compared to just $.25 for natural gas, $.44 for coal, $.67 for hydroelectric power, and $1.59 for nuclear power (2008 EIA statistics).  Trebilcock discovered that Denmark has over 6,000 wind turbines that supplement its energy grid, but has not been able to close even a single fossil fuel power plant as a result, because extra fossil energy is needed when the wind stops blowing.  In 2006 carbon dioxide emissions in Denmark rose by a whopping 36%, showing that large scale wind power projects do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in real-world situations.  Because of wind power, Denmark now has the highest electricity rates in Europe.  A study of Spain's energy program found that for every job created by state funded wind power schemes, 2.2 jobs were lost due to higher energy costs, and each new wind power job cost almost $2,000,000. in government subsidies.  To meet 100% of United States electricity demand with wind power would require impossible weather conditions and a wind farm covering an area larger than Texas and Louisiana combined.      Because of their extremely low power to weight ratio, windmills require the use of huge amounts of steel and other materials in their construction.  Wind turbines are being sold to the public as a carbon neutral product, but manufacturing windmill components is not a carbon neutral process.  Windmills are mainly made from power generated by burning coal and other fossil fuels.  Because of the enormous amount of resources required for windmill construction, and their intermittent and unreliable performance,windmills will not reduce CO2 emissions.  Building wind turbine farms covering vast areas of land will kill large numbers of birds and bats, and torture animals and humans living nearby with audible sounds as well as infrasound.  Infrasounds are very low frequencies below 20Hz that travel long distances and can cause headaches, insomnia, and other serious negative health effects. *NEWS! * T. Boone Pickens says "I've lost my ass in wind power_."_ - _"__The jobs are in the oil and gas industry__"_ - Pickens went on to say that _"He (Obama) needs to explain to his people, Hey, we can get on everything green.  We can get on everything renewable.  Then the cost of power will go up ten times.'  So be careful when you start fooling with it. _ According to "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL," _"The states with_ (wind power/renewable energy)_ mandates paid 31.9% more for electricity than states without them._ __

----------


## SilentButDeadly

8 posts full of hot air is not adding very much to the entertainment...nor my education.

----------


## Marc



----------


## SilentButDeadly

I didn't think there was one in the first place...

----------


## John2b

*Bird Mortality Associated with Wind Turbines at the Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area, Minnesota*  
"Recent technological advances have made wind power a viable source of alternative energy production and the number of windplant facilities has increased in the United States. Construction was completed on a 73 turbine, 25 megawatt windplant on Buffalo Ridge near Lake Benton, Minnesota in Spring 1994. The number of birds killed at existing windplants in California caused concern about the potential impacts of the Buffalo Ridge facility on the avian community. From April 1994 through Dec. 1995 we searched the Buffalo Ridge windplant site for dead birds. Additionally, we evaluated search efficiency, predator scavenging rates and rate of carcass decomposition. *During 20 months of monitoring we found 12 dead birds. Collisions with wind turbines were suspected for 8 of the 12 birds.* During observer efficiency trials searchers found 78.8% of carcasses. Scavengers removed 39.5% of carcasses during scavenging trials. All carcasses remained recognizable during 7 d decomposition trials. After correction for biases z*we estimated that approximately 36 ± 12 birds (<1 dead bird per turbine) were killed at the Buffalo Ridge windplant in 1 y*. Although windplants do not appear to be more detrimental to birds than other man-made structures, proper facility siting is an important first consideration in order to avoid unnecessary fatalities."  http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1674/0003-0031(2000)143%5B0041 :Blush7: MAWWT%5D2.0.CO%3B2 
"Migratory birds suffer considerable human-caused mortality from structures built to provide public services and amenities. Three such entities are increasing nationwide: communication towers, power lines, and wind turbines. Communication towers have been growing at an exponential rate over at least the past 6 years. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is especially concerned about growing impacts to some 836 species of migratory birds currently protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended. While mortality estimates are often sketchy, and won’t be verified until nationwide cumulative impact studies are conducted, current figures are troubling. Communication towers may kill from 4-50 million birds per year. Collisions with power transmission and distribution lines may kill anywhere from hundreds of thousands to 175 million birds annually, and power lines electrocute tens to hundreds of thousands more birds annually, but these utilities are poorly monitored for both strikes and electrocutions. More than 15,000 wind turbines may kill 40,000 or more birds annually nationwide, the majority in California." 
In other words wind turbines are responsible for between ~0.01% to ~0.0001% of total bird deaths caused by man-made towers and powerlines. Note those figures _exclude_ buildings and vehicles.  http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wind/refe...dmortality.pdf

----------


## John2b

> "The polar bears are dying" or "our kids will drown in a rising sea", is an appeal to emotions to the audience. True or false is irrelevant. 
> Listen to a unionist speech and learn how to appeal to emotions.

  Or "eagles will die out because of wind turbines!" Have you been indoctrinated by unionist's Marc?

----------


## Marc

*Wind power is a complete disaster*_Credit:_  By Michael J. Trebilcock, April 08, 2009, network.nationalpost.com ~~
There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the worlds most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind powers unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).
Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmarks largest energy utilities) tells us that wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that Germanys CO2 emissions havent been reduced by even a single gram, and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.
Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.
Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontarios current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense. Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it a terribly expensive disaster.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34  compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy. The Wall Street Journal advises that wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.
The Economist magazine notes in a recent editorial, Wasting Money on Climate Change, that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15.
Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers on a myriad of margins to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewables in terms of cost effectiveness.
The Ontario Power Authority advises that wind producers will be paid 13.5¢/kwh (more than twice what consumers are currently paying), even without accounting for the additional costs of interconnection, transmission and back-up generation. As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in electricity costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment. From this perspective, the governments promise of 55,000 new jobs is a cruel delusion.
A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies. Why will the Ontario experience be different?
In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately.
Then there are the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (such as wind turbines).
This unholy alliance of these two kinds of greens (doomsdayers and rent seekers) makes for very effective, if opportunistic, politics (as reflected in the Ontario governments Green Energy Act), just as it makes for lousy public policy: Politicians attempt to pick winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological landscape, instead of creating a socially efficient set of incentives to which we can all respond. _Michael J. Trebilcock is Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto. These comments were excerpted from a submission last night to the Ontario governments legislative committee On Bill 150._

----------


## John2b

> There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant.

  Boo hoo. South Australia generates more of its base load electricity from wind than any other source and has no coal fired power plants in operation - all have been closed over the past few years. And for the first time since the Haywood Inter-connector was installed in 1990, South Australia is exporting electricity to the eastern states.

----------


## woodbe

> *Wind power is a complete disaster*  _Credit:_  By Michael J. Trebilcock, April 08, 2009, network.nationalpost.com ~~
> There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the worlds most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity

  If an anti wind power article can't get it's first facts right, why should we believe any of it?   

> Denmark was a pioneer in developing commercial wind power during the 1970s, and today a substantial share of the wind turbines around the world are produced by Danish manufacturers such as Vestas and Siemens Wind Power along with many component suppliers. Wind power produced the equivalent of 42.1% of Denmark's total electricity consumption in 2015,[1][2] increased from 33% in 2013, and 39% in 2014.[3][4][5]

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark 
SA has even more than that 19% nonsense:   

> *Wind power* has become a significant energy source within South Australia  over the past decade. As of August 2014, there was an installed  capacity of 1,473 MW, which accounts for 27 per cent of electricity  production in the state.[1] This represents around half of Australia's installed wind power capacity.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_p...outh_Australia 
More bunk from Marc.

----------


## Marc

Ha ha, Is that all you've got? 
We need another source of energy but it is not wind nor solar in it's present state, and the "alternative" liquid fuels like biodiesel and ethanol are a complete shamble.  
But back to windmills. No one has yet measured the immense destructive trial left behind by the manufacturing of the windmill and the amount of energy required to make this wretched things. And after 15 years of poor performance they get demolished to produce yet another load of pollution and trash.   
The only reason people 'support' the idea of windmills and biodiesel and ethanol and solar hobby panels is because it conforms with their particular view of the world. An idyllic Hobbit like existence supported by the nanny state that has unlimited tax dollars to pamper all this nonsense. 
The time or reckoning is near. The global warming fraud has been exposed a long time ago, now is time to expose those who lied to benefit from it.

----------


## johnc

Honestly Marc what a load of rot, the carbon footprint of wind towers have been measured as has output and payback in both economic cost and environmental  impact, sometimes you just go a bit far and shoot yourself through both feet, this is one of those times.

----------


## woodbe

> Ha ha, Is that all you've got?

  No, that isn't all we have, we have heaps of validated current information rather than your outdated blog post copies, but we only needed a tiny amount of real information to shine a light on your quoted false propositions.

----------


## Marc



----------


## John2b

> The time or reckoning is near. The global warming fraud has been exposed a long time ago, now is time to expose those who lied to benefit from it.

  ROTFLMAO You've been claiming this for five years now...   

> « Some climate change news you may have missed this week. |     Main     | Employment number you will not see on your TV tonight »  *January 07, 2011*  *The Internet killed anthropogenic global warming hysteria* 
>                                Russ Steele 
> Writing at Master Resource Blog, Robert Michaels suggest that anthropogenic global-warming alarmism has died and attributes this early death to the Internet: _The end of climate science and the fall of climate politics could never have happened in a world of typewriters, faxes and three TV networks. Cheap telecom and the Internet brought it about, as any document that mattered became available with a Google inquiry and a mouse click. The East Anglia guys were still living in a world of paper journals. Nowadays all the peer reviews that matter come quickly by dozens to anyone who posts something worth (or not worth) reading. Lots of junk turns up, but that’s the freight for information that flows so cheaply and freely._ _This is really good news. It means that we will probably never see another mass hysteria that achieves the dimensions of global warming and carbon abatement policy – unless of course it’s real._
> Remember how the Internet caused the demise of Dan Rather's career as an investigative CBS Reporter when he got nailed over the “well investigated letters” about George Bush’s military career. He was busted in less than 24 hours by guys and gals in their pajamas using the Internet, because the fonts used in those "well investigated letters' didn’t exist at the time of the dates on the letters?
> In the anthropogenic global warming case it was the Internet blogs that became the alternative news sources, as the lame stream press ignored Climategate. They refused to publish the results independent investigations which had determined that the UN IPCC’s iconic Hockey Stick temperature was busted. Now, the Courts have insisted that the Hockey Stick author turn over his e-mails to the Virginia Attorney General. Those Internet e-mails maybe the smoking gun to prove that anthropogenic global warming is just scientific fraud, or worce an out right hoax. Long live the Internet.

   :2thumbsup:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The only reason people 'support' the idea of windmills and biodiesel and ethanol and solar hobby panels is because it conforms with their particular view of the world.

  Aaaaañnnnd the only reason other people oppose them is (and I quote) "because it conforms with their particular view of the world." 
Different poo, same bucket.

----------


## John2b

The Daily Caller News Foundation: 
Green energy is so unreliable and intermittent that it could wreck the power grid, according to industry and government experts. The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is currently investigating how green energy undermines the reliability of the electrical grid. FERC believe there is a “significant risk” of electricity in the United States becoming unreliable because “wind and solar don’t offer the services the shuttered coal plants provided.”   Except that story is as factual as anything Marc pastes. The idiots writing the faux news 'report' even linked the FERC report so you can see for yourself that the story is a load of bunk. No where in the report does the FERC say “wind and solar don’t offer the services the shuttered coal plants provided”. In fact the FERC report cited has nothing to do with supply unreliability. The report is about frequency stability of the national grid, and amongst the FERC's concerns is the fact that FERC has "concerns regarding the primary frequency response performance of existing resources" AKA coal and gas fired power stations, many of which do not have the same stringent requirements as new renewable generators of electricity.

----------


## Marc

*DailyMail*        *Wednesday, Mar 2nd 2016* 8PM  *23°C* 11PM  *22°C* 5-Day Forecast HomeTop    *In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale* 
By SIMON PARRY in China and ED DOUGLAS in Scotland 
CREATED: 06:32 EST, 27 January 2011 View comments *This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines... and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem*    
The lake of toxic waste at Baotou, China, which as been dumped by the rare earth processing plants in the background 
On the outskirts of one of China’s most polluted cities, an old farmer stares despairingly out across an immense lake of bubbling toxic waste covered in black dust. He remembers it as fields of wheat and corn.
Yan Man Jia Hong is a dedicated Communist. At 74, he still believes in his revolutionary heroes, but he despises the young local officials and entrepreneurs who have let this happen.  
‘Chairman Mao was a hero and saved us,’ he says. ‘But these people only care about money. They have destroyed our lives.’
Vast fortunes are being amassed here in Inner Mongolia; the region has more than 90 per cent of the world’s legal reserves of rare earth metals, and specifically neodymium, the element needed to make the magnets in the most striking of green energy producers, wind turbines. *RELATED ARTICLES*   Previous1Next    _Plan your visit to the real China with maillife.co.uk_   *SHARE THIS ARTICLE*  _Share_   _Live has uncovered the distinctly dirty truth about the process used to extract neodymium: it has an appalling environmental impact that raises serious questions over the credibility of so-called green technology._ _The reality is that, as Britain flaunts its environmental credentials by speckling its coastlines and unspoiled moors and mountains with thousands of wind turbines, it is contributing to a vast man-made lake of poison in northern China. This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about._ _Hidden out of sight behind smoke-shrouded factory complexes in the city of Baotou, and patrolled by platoons of security guards, lies a five-mile wide ‘tailing’ lake. It has killed farmland for miles around, made thousands of people ill and put one of China’s key waterways in jeopardy._  _This vast, hissing cauldron of chemicals is the dumping ground for seven million tons a year of mined rare earth after it has been doused in acid and chemicals and processed through red-hot furnaces to extract its components._ __ _Wind power's uncertainties don't end with intermittency. There is huge controversy about how much energy a wind farm will produce (Pictured above, wind turbines in Dun Law, Scotland)_  _Rusting pipelines meander for miles from factories processing rare earths in Baotou out to the man-made lake where, mixed with water, the foul-smelling radioactive waste from this industrial process is pumped day after day. No signposts and no paved roads lead here, and as we approach security guards shoo us away and tail us. When we finally break through the cordon and climb sand dunes to reach its brim, an apocalyptic sight greets us: a giant, secret toxic dump, made bigger by every wind turbine we build._ _The lake instantly assaults your senses. Stand on the black crust for just seconds and your eyes water and a powerful, acrid stench fills your lungs._ _For hours after our visit, my stomach lurched and my head throbbed. We were there for only one hour, but those who live in Mr Yan’s village of Dalahai, and other villages around, breathe in the same poison every day._ _Retired farmer Su Bairen, 69, who led us to the lake, says it was initially a novelty – a multi-coloured pond set in farmland as early rare earth factories run by the state-owned Baogang group of companies began work in the Sixties. _  _‘At first it was just a hole in the ground,’ he says. ‘When it dried in the winter and summer, it turned into a black crust and children would play on it. Then one or two of them fell through and drowned in the sludge below. Since then, children have stayed away.’_  _As more factories sprang up, the banks grew higher, the lake grew larger and the stench and fumes grew more overwhelming. _  _‘It turned into a mountain that towered over us,’ says Mr Su. ‘Anything we planted just withered, then our animals started to sicken and die.’_ _People too began to suffer. Dalahai villagers say their teeth began to fall out, their hair turned white at unusually young ages, and they suffered from severe skin and respiratory diseases. Children were born with soft bones and cancer rates rocketed._ _Official studies carried out five years ago in Dalahai village confirmed there were unusually high rates of cancer along with high rates of osteoporosis and skin and respiratory diseases. The lake’s radiation levels are ten times higher than in the surrounding countryside, the studies found. _  _Since then, maybe because of pressure from the companies operating around the lake, which pump out waste 24 hours a day, the results of ongoing radiation and toxicity tests carried out on the lake have been kept secret and officials have refused to publicly acknowledge health risks to nearby villages._ _There are 17 ‘rare earth metals’ – the name doesn’t mean they are necessarily in short supply; it refers to the fact that the metals occur in scattered deposits of minerals, rather than concentrated ores. Rare earth metals usually occur together, and, once mined, have to be separated._ __ _Villagers Su Bairen, 69, and Yan Man Jia Hong, 74, stand on the edge of the six-mile-wide toxic lake in Baotou, China that has devastated their farmland and ruined the health of the people in their community_   _Neodymium is commonly used as part of a Neodymium-Iron-Boron alloy (Nd2Fe14B) which, thanks to its tetragonal crystal structure, is used to make the most powerful magnets in the world. Electric motors and generators rely on the basic principles of electromagnetism, and the stronger the magnets they use, the more efficient they can be. It’s been used in small quantities in common technologies for quite a long time – hi-fi speakers, hard drives and lasers, for example. But only with the rise of alternative energy solutions has neodymium really come to prominence, for use in hybrid cars and wind turbines. A direct-drive permanent-magnet generator for a top capacity wind turbine would use 4,400lb of neodymium-based permanent magnet material._ _In the pollution-blighted city of Baotou, most people wear face masks everywhere they go. _  _‘You have to wear one otherwise the dust gets into your lungs and poisons you,’ our taxi driver tells us, pulling over so we can buy white cloth masks from a roadside hawker._ _Posing as buyers, we visit Baotou Xijun Rare Earth Co Ltd. A large billboard in front of the factory shows an idyllic image of fields of sheep grazing in green fields with wind turbines in the background._ _In a smartly appointed boardroom, Vice General Manager Cheng Qing tells us proudly that his company is the fourth biggest producer of rare earth metals in China, processing 30,000 tons a year. He leads us down to a complex of primitive workshops where workers with no protective clothing except for cotton gloves and face masks ladle molten rare earth from furnaces with temperatures of 1,000°C._ _The result is 1.5kg bricks of neodymium, packed into blue barrels weighing 250kg each. Its price has more than doubled in the past year – it now costs around £80 per kilogram. So a 1.5kg block would be worth £120 – or more than a fortnight’s wages for the workers handling them. The waste from this highly toxic process ends up being pumped into the lake looming over Dalahai. _  _The state-owned Baogang Group, which operates most of the factories in Baotou, claims it invests tens of millions of pounds a year in environmental protection and processes the waste before it is discharged._ _According to Du Youlu of Baogang’s safety and environmental protection department, seven million tons of waste a year was discharged into the lake, which is already 100ft high and growing by three feet each year. _  _In what appeared an attempt to shift responsibility onto China’s national leaders and their close control of the rare earths industry, he added: ‘The tailing is a national resource and China will ultimately decide what will be done with the lake.’_  _Jamie Choi, an expert on toxics for Greenpeace China, says villagers living near the lake face horrendous health risks from the carcinogenic and radioactive waste. _  _‘There’s not one step of the rare earth mining process that is not disastrous for the environment. Ores are being extracted by pumping acid into the ground, and then they are processed using more acid and chemicals. _  __ _Inside the Baotou Xijun Rare Earth refinery in Baotou, where neodymium, essential in new wind turbine magnets, is processed_  _Finally they are dumped into tailing lakes that are often very poorly constructed and maintained. And throughout this process, large amounts of highly toxic acids, heavy metals and other chemicals are emitted into the air that people breathe, and leak into surface and ground water. Villagers rely on this for irrigation of their crops and for drinking water. Whenever we purchase products that contain rare earth metals, we are unknowingly taking part in massive environmental degradation and the destruction of communities.’_ _The fact that the wind-turbine industry relies on neodymium, which even in legal factories has a catastrophic environmental impact, is an irony Ms Choi acknowledges. _  _‘It is a real dilemma for environmentalists who want to see the growth of the industry,’ she says. ‘But we have the responsibility to recognise the environmental destruction that is being caused while making these wind turbines.’_  _It’s a long way from the grim conditions in Baotou to the raw beauty of the Monadhliath mountains in Scotland. But the environmental damage wind turbines cause will be felt here, too. These hills are the latest battleground in a war being fought all over Britain – and particularly in Scotland – between wind-farm developers and those opposed to them._ _Cameron McNeish, a hill walker and TV presenter who lives in the Monadhliath, campaigned for almost a decade against the Dunmaglass wind farm before the Scottish government gave the go-ahead in December. Soon, 33 turbines will be erected on the hills north of the upper Findhorn valley._ _McNeish is passionate about this landscape: ‘It’s vast and wild and isolated,’ he says. Huge empty spaces, however, are also perfect for wind turbines and unlike the nearby Cairngorms there are no landscape designations to protect this area. When the Labour government put in place the policy framework and subsidies to boost renewable energy, the Monadhliath became a mouth-watering opportunity._ _People have been trying to make real money from Scottish estates like Jack Hayward’s Dunmaglass. Hayward, a Bermuda-based property developer and former chairman of Wolverhampton Wanderers, struck a deal with renewable energy company RES which, campaigners believe, will earn the estate an estimated £9 million over the next 25 years._ _Each of the turbines at Dunmaglass will require servicing, which means a network of new and improved roads 20 miles long being built across the hills. They also need 1,500 tons of concrete foundations to keep them upright in a strong wind, which will scar the area._ _Dunmaglass is just one among scores of wind farms in Scotland with planning permission. Scores more are still in the planning system. There are currently 3,153 turbines in the UK overall, with a maximum capacity of 5,203 megawatts. _  __   _Around half of them are in Scotland. First Minister Alex Salmond and the Scottish government have said they want to get 80 per cent of Scotland’s electricity from renewables by 2020, which means more turbines spread across the country’s hills and moors._ _Many environmental pressure groups share Salmond’s view. Friends of the Earth opposes the Arctic being ruined by oil extraction, but when it comes to damaging Scotland’s wilderness with concrete and hundreds of miles of roads, they say wind energy is worth it as the impact of climate change has to be faced._ _‘No way of generating energy is 100 per cent clean and problem-free,’ says Craig Bennett, director of policy and campaigns at Friends of the Earth. _  _‘Wind energy causes far fewer problems than coal, gas or nuclear. If we don’t invest in green energy, business experts have warned that future generations will be landed with a bill that will dwarf the current financial crisis. But we need to ensure the use of materials like neodymium and concrete is kept to a minimum, that turbines use recycled materials wherever possible and that they are carefully sited to the reduce the already minimal impact on bird populations.’_ _But Helen McDade, head of policy at the John Muir Trust, a small but feisty campaign group dedicated to protecting Scotland’s wild lands, also points out that leaving aside the damage to the landscape, nobody is really sure how much carbon is being released by the renewable energy construction boom. Peat moors lock up huge amounts of carbon, which gets released when it’s drained to put up a turbine._ _Environmental considerations aside, as the percentage of electricity generated by wind increases, renewable energy is coming under a lot more scrutiny now for one simple reason – money. We pay extra for wind power – around twice as much – because it can’t compete with other forms of electricity generation. Under the Renewable Obligation (RO), suppliers have to buy a percentage of their electricity from renewable generators and can hand that cost on to consumers. If they don’t, they pay a fine instead._ __ _One unit cell of Nd2Fe14b, the alloy used in neodymium magnets. The structure of the atoms gives the alloy its magnetic strength, due to a phenomenon known as magnetocrystalline anisotropy_  _There’s a simple beauty about RO for the government. Even though it’s defined as a tax, it doesn’t come out of pay packets but is stuck on our electricity bills. That has made funding wind farms a lot easier for the government than more cost-effective energy-efficiency measures. _  _‘If you want a grant for an energy conservation project on your house,’ says Helen McDade, ‘the money comes from taxes. But investment for turbines comes from energy companies.’_ _Already, RO adds £1.4 billion to our bills each year to provide a pot of money to pay power companies for their ‘green’ electricity. By 2020, the figure will have risen to somewhere between £5 billion and £10 billion. _  _When he was Chancellor, Gordon Brown added another decade to these price guarantees, extending the RO scheme to 2037, guaranteeing the subsidy for more than a quarter of a century._ _It’s not surprising there’s been an avalanche of wind-farm applications in the Highlands. Wind speeds are stronger, land is cheaper and the government loves you. _  _‘You go to a landowner,’ McDade says, ‘and offer him what is peanuts to an energy company yet keeps him happily on his estate so they can put up a wind farm, which in turn raises ordinary people’s electricity bills. There’s a social issue here that doesn’t get discussed.’_ _By 2020, environmental regulation will be adding 31 per cent to our bills. That’s £160 green tax out of an average annual bill of £512. As costs rise, more people will be driven into fuel poverty. When he was secretary of state at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband decreed that these increases should be offset by improvements in energy efficiencies. _  _It’s a view shared by his successor Chris Huhne, who says inflation due to RO will be effectively one per cent. Britain’s low-income families, facing hikes in petrol and food costs, will hope he’s right._ _Individual households aren’t the only ones shouldering the costs. Industry faces an even bigger burden. By 2020, environmental charges will add 33 per cent to industry’s energy costs. _  _Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group, says that, ‘Industry is getting the worst of both worlds. Around 80 per cent of the contracts for the new Thanet offshore wind farm (off the coast of Kent) went abroad, but the expensive electricity will be paid for here.’_ _Our current obsession with wind power, according to John Constable of energy think-tank the Renewable Energy Foundation, stems from the decision of the European Union on how to tackle climate change. Instead of just setting targets for reducing emissions, the EU told governments that by 2020, 15 per cent of all the energy we use must come from renewable sources._ _Because of how we heat our houses and run our cars with gas and petrol, 30 per cent of electricity needs to come from renewables. And in the absence of other technologies, that means wind turbines. But there’s a structural flaw in the plan, which this winter has brutally exposed._ _Study a graph of electricity consumption and it appears amazingly predictable, even down to reduced demand on public holidays. The graph for wind energy output, however, is far less predictable._ _Take the figures for December, when we all shivered through sub-zero temperatures and wholesale electricity prices surged. Peak demand for the UK on 20 December was just over 60,000 megawatts. Maximum capacity for wind turbines throughout the UK is 5,891 megawatts, almost ten per cent of that peak demand figure. _  _Yet on December 20, because winds were light or non-existent, wind energy contributed a paltry 140 megawatts. Despite billions of pounds in investment and subsidies, Britain’s wind-turbine fleet was producing a feeble 2.43 per cent of its own capacity – and little more than 0.2 per cent of the nation’s electricity in the coldest month since records began._ _The problems with the intermittency of wind energy are well known. A new network of cables linking ten countries around the North Sea is being suggested to smooth supply and take advantage of 140 gigawatts of offshore wind power. No one knows for sure how much this network will cost, although a figure of £25 billion has been mooted._ _The government has also realised that when wind nears its target of 30 per cent, power companies will need more back-up to fill the gap when the wind doesn’t blow. Britain’s total capacity will need to rise from 76 gigawatts up to 120 gigawatts. That overcapacity will need another £50 billion and drive down prices when the wind’s blowing. Power companies are anxious about getting a decent price. Once again, consumers will pay._ _Wind power’s uncertainties don’t end with intermittency. There is huge controversy about how much energy a wind farm will produce. Many developers claim their installations will achieve 30 per cent of their maximum output over the course of a year. More sober energy analysts suggest 26 per cent. But even that figure is starting to look generous. In December, the average figure was less than 21 per cent. In the year between October 2009 and September 2010, the average was 23.6 per cent, still nowhere near industry claims._ _Then there’s the thorny question of how many homes new installations can power. According to wind farm developers like Scottish and Southern Electricity, a house uses 3.3MWh in a year. Lobby group RenewablesUK – formerly the British Wind Energy Association – gives a figure of 4.7MWh. In the Highlands electricity usage is even higher._ _Last year, a report from the Royal Academy of Engineering warned that transforming our energy supply to produce a low-carbon economy would require the biggest investment and social change seen in peacetime. And yet Professor Sue Ion, who led the report, warned, ‘We are nowhere near having a plan.’_ _So, against the backdrop of environmental catastrophe in China and these less than attractive calculations, could the billions being thrown at wind farms be better spent? Undoubtedly, says John Constable. _  _‘The government is betting the farm on the throw of a die. What’s happening now is simply reckless.’_  *NUCLEAR, COAL, SOLAR, HYDRO, WIND: HOW THE ENERGY OPTIONS STACK UP*   _Enlarge  _  _
The British energy market is a hugely complicated and ever-changing landscape. We rely on a number of different sources for our energy - some more efficient than others, some more polluting than others. 
Here, you can see how much energy each type contributes, how much they are predicted to contribute in 2020, how much carbon dioxide they generate and how efficient they are.
Renewable energy sources receive varying subsidies - which are added to our energy bills - as a result of the government's Renewables Obligation, whereas 'traditional' sources do not. 
Critically, government cost figures do not include subsidies, whereas our measure shows precisely how much money a power station receives for each megawatt-hour (MWh) it produces, which includes the price paid for the energy by the supplier and any applicable subsidy. This is an instant measure of an energy supply's cost-efficiency; the lower the figure, the less that energy costs to produce. 
Note: figures relate to UK energy production. Approximately seven per cent of our electricity comes from imports or other sources_      _ 
Read more: In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale | Daily Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook_

----------


## Marc

There are two class of mafia. 
The blue collar that sells drugs and prostitution.
The white collar that gets subsidies for pretending to care for the environment.

----------


## woodbe

Lol. 
Getting a bit off track just copy/pasting whole articles from newspapers...   
Sure looks like wind is in growth till 2020 and will definitely reduce CO2 consumption in the UK, just as it does everywhere else...

----------


## John2b

The latest satellite temperature update - you know, the one the deniers love..

----------


## John2b

> There are two class of mafia. 
> The blue collar that sells drugs and prostitution.
> The white collar that gets subsidies for pretending to care for the environment.

  By Marc's reckoning, the Liberal National Coalition are the leaders of the white collar mafia. Here is the LNC government's plan for the white collar subsidies: THE COALITION’S DIRECT ACTION PLAN   
http://www.greghunt.com.au/Portals/0/PDF/TheCoalitionsDirectActionPlanPolicy2010.pdf

----------


## John2b

The future of energy with not a wind turbine in sight:  
Oil field   
 Fracking  
 Gulf oil spill from space.  
Soon to be the past even if not one iota of renewable energy is harnessed. Even primary students know the magic fossil energy potato sack is a myth.

----------


## John2b

The RSS satellite record for the mid troposphere has just been corrected again for errors resulting from diurnal variations. This is the fourth major revision to the RSS data set to correct for errors. 
As a result of more accurate correction for diurnal variations the temperature record there is a trend adjustment upwards from RSS v3.3's 0.077 C/decade by a massive nearly doubling to RSS v4's 0.125 C/decade. 
The new data set removes the discrepancy between projected and measured temperatures and puts the RSS temperature record smack bang on top of the output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.  http://journals.amet...CLI-D-15-0744.1

----------


## Marc

*Climate change profiteers have so far created a $53 billion market based on FEAR and FRAUD* 
Monday, February 29, 2016 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer _Tags: climate change, carbon credits, corruption_     *Facebook (1,1*  *Tw*    
(NaturalNews) It used to be that pharmaceuticals were one of the biggest profiteering frauds in the global market (besides warmongering). But "climate change," and the ever-present fear of it, has created a whole new market for carbon dioxide "trading," that analysts at Thomson Reuters Point Carbon say is now worth _$53_ _billion_ worldwide. 
The value of global markets for carbon dioxide, says the group, rose by about nine percent last year, bringing the total to just shy of 50 billion euros. And this amount is expected to climb even further in 2016, as the United States and other North American countries are forced into the new "global warming" paradigm of carbon taxes and credits. 
North America is precisely where the biggest gains in CO2 value were seen in 2015, rising an astounding 220 percent to about 10.6 billion euros compared to 2014. This is due to the massive expansion of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) scheme, which now covers transportation fuel emissions. 
Also known as "cap-and-trade," the scheme involves government-mandated use and emissions restrictions for CO2, a concept that stems from the idea that carbon dioxide is somehow responsible for a disastrous situation known as "climate change." But rather than focus on the worst climate offenders – which include factory farming, confined animal feeding operations and industrial chemicals – cap-and-trade initiatives are targeting everyday consumers. 
The program has also been accused of making climate conditions _worse,_ due to the fact that it's routinely abused as a way for corrupt entities to make money, while doing little to curb environmental pollution. We've been saying this all along – that, and the fact that carbon is _good_ for the environment, when properly sequestered in soils where it should be.  *Cap-and-trade has led to more pollution, carbon emissions* 
According to a report by the Stockholm Environment Institute, carbon credit schemes in Europe have already led to an increase in emissions of about 600 million tons. Particularly in Russia and the Ukraine, companies intentionally generated more "climate warming" chemicals, so that they could then "destroy" them in order to claim carbon credit cash. 
Cap-and-trade should also make people immediately think of Enron, the now-defunct energy company that just so happens to have been one of the first major traders in carbon credits. This commodity exchange, explains the report, allowed Enron's stock prices to rise to unrealistic levels very quickly, which in turn eventually led to the company's failure, along with the collapse of the coal industry. 
"We were surprised ourselves by the extent [of the fraud]; we didn't expect such a large number," stated one of the co-authors of the paper, Anja Kollmuss, to BBC News. "What went on was that these countries could approve these projects by themselves [since] there was no international oversight, in particular Russia and the Ukraine didn't have any incentive to guarantee the quality of these credits." 
And yet, the carbon credit market continues to boom, despite mounds of evidence showing that it doesn't work and has no, or only negative, effects on the overall amount of emissions released into the atmosphere. It's no better than any of the other commodities scams we've seen over the years, that basically invite fraudulent activity. 
"As researchers we can not prove the fraud, we can just point to the facts," Kollmuss adds about the three projects in particular that she and her team evaluated. "[W]hen they could gain credits they immediately increased production of [polluting] greenhouse gas in order to destroy them, and that lead [sic] to them getting many more credits than if they had produced it like they did before."  *Sources for this article include:  Trust.org  Breitbart.com  TheGuardian.com  BBC.co.uk* * 
Learn more: Climate change profiteers have so far created a $53 billion market based on FEAR and FRAUD - NaturalNews.com*

----------


## woodbe

lol. 
Marc, so you LIKE Sweden now?  :Biggrin:

----------


## John2b

> It used to be that pharmaceuticals were one of the biggest profiteering frauds in the global market (besides warmongering). But "climate change," and the ever-present fear of it, has created a whole new market for carbon dioxide "trading," that analysts at Thomson Reuters Point Carbon say is now worth _$53_ _billion_ worldwide.

  LOL - Marc you break me up! That wouldn't be the same Thomson Reuters 40% owned by Murdoch who awarded the Minister for Wikipedia Greg Hunt the "Best Minister in the World". You could fit several small countries in that credibility gap FFS.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> 8 posts full of hot air is not adding very much to the entertainment...nor my education.

  So the wind turbines don't kill birds??

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So the wind turbines don't kill birds??

  Sure they do. 
Every piece of human infrastructure kills something of the natural world. The question is do wind turbines kill less or more? The other question is does anyone really care about the answer?

----------


## woodbe

> The question is do wind turbines kill less or more?

  Good question.  
Ever driven on a country road Rod? Have you ever noticed the roadkill?

----------


## John2b

> So the wind turbines don't kill birds??

  There have been dozens of studies worldwide - many sponsored by anti-turbine groups. Most studies attribute around one bird death per turbine per year. As I posted in a previous post the best counts of bird deaths near turbines indicate they are responsible for between 0.01% and 0.0001% of total bird deaths from manmade towers and powerlines. When vehicle and tall building deaths are factored in you can add another decimal place. I have never seen a bird carcass at the base of a turbine in South Australia and it's fairly safe to say that there is not an army of clandestine turbine kill cleaners employed in SA, even if it would lower the unemployment rate.

----------


## John2b

The expression on Hunt's face says it all!

----------


## Marc

> Sure they do. 
> Every piece of human infrastructure kills something of the natural world. The question is do wind turbines kill less or more? The other question is does anyone really care about the answer?

  Well that is not really the point isn't it? 
The point is that the CO2 fraud has corrupted the search for a real alternative source of energy and made almost anything that makes electricity viable at the tune of billions of subsidies. Next thing we will see is fans in public toilets generating electricity via the wind produced in there. 
A side effect is that anything negative about this absurd contraptions is masked and swept under the carpet and not subject to any scrutiny at all. 
And wind mills are not alone. See how fracking is protected from scrutiny by moronic state governments.  
The big losers are those who actually are researching real alternatives that can stand on their two feet, not hobby crap to con the votes hungry governments into throwing tax money at them.  
It will pass, but not without more damage to the environment they claim to care about.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

That's not the point...just a point of view. 
You well know that all energy is subsidised or co-invested by governments at some point in the process simply because it makes private investors feel less exposed.  
As for viable alternatives....there's nothing new out there. Just variations on the same themes and the money being invested is staggering. Just have a squiz at the books in the fusion research going on (they've just had another little success too). Couple that with energy storage research and the money going into that is nuts. 
Wind and solar research is comparatively tiny in terms of dollars because of the maturity of the technology. It's mostly infrastructure these days and governments invest a lot in infrastructure...always have. 
Governments 'protect' fracking because of the concept of royalties...what's moronic about the dash for cash? Don't you approve of their opportunity to get rich?

----------


## John2b

> *Climate change profiteers have so far created a $53 billion market based on FEAR and FRAUD*

  Here's another bit of climate change profiteering going on:  *Investors in Miami Are Buying Up Land at Higher Elevations*As developers prepare for sea-level rise, low-income residents face displacement.   Investors in Miami Are Buying Up Land at Higher Elevations Before Sea Levels Rise - CityLab

----------


## John2b



----------


## John2b

It seems that rather than drag underdeveloped nations out of poverty, coal is going to drag shareholders from developed nations into poverty; who wudda thort?  *Peabody Energy, World's Largest Coal Miner, Expected to File for Bankruptcy as Stock Price Tanks*   http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/bu...ling.html?_r=0

----------


## johnc

The misleading rubbish put out be groups like Peabody and taken up by dunderheads like Tony Abbott have helped lead to an over supply of coal and temporally destroyed the market. The over supply of gas probably means the end of coal anyway it was never viable for the third world and past its use by date for the first world. The denier community have just made it worse because their economic incompetence simply laid a smoke screen while technology marched on, really this is just a failure of political and business leadership the far right will be consigned to the dust bin of history to join the far left who beat them there hopefully some real talent starts to emerge soon

----------


## PhilT2

Coal company bankruptcies may not always be what they appear. Some have incurred sizable liabilities in the form of restoration of sites when a big mine winds up. One way to avoid having to clean up any toxic residue or restoration of the site is simply transfer the assets elsewhere then bankrupt the company. This technique also gets rid of any obligation to pay retirement benefits or cover the cost of any long term health issues of former employees. 
Not saying that Peabody is doing this, just that it is a well known strategy used in the past.

----------


## johnc

Mine reclamation in this country has long been a public issue, privatise the profits but leave the debts to the taxpayer. Pretty disgusting behaviour but a long held practice.

----------


## woodbe

Yep. Look at the unfolding Clive Palmer ground and water pollution disaster in Qld.

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc

Global warming alarmists frequently make false and deplorable assertions (see, for example, my recent column debunking false claims that global warming is causing a decline in wheat production), but the Environmental Defense Fund’s recent fund-raising mailer, “10 Global Warming Effects That May Shock You,” may well set a new low. However, climate realists can make lemonade from EDF’s preposterous mailer by using it to show open-minded people the difference between global warming alarmists and global warming truth-tellers. EDF has assembled what it believes to be the 10 most powerful global warming assertions in the alarmists’ playbook, yet each assertion either backfires on alarmists or has been proven false. While reading how flawed EDF’s assertions are, remember these are the very best arguments global warming alarmists can make. Open-minded readers should have very little difficulty dismissing the mythical global warming crisis after examining the top 10 assertions in the alarmist playbook. Alarmist Assertion #1 “Bats Drop from the Sky – In 2014, a scorching summer heat wave caused more than 100,000 bats to literally drop dead and fall from the sky in Queensland, Australia.” The Facts Global warming alarmists’ preferred electricity source – wind power – kills nearly 1 million bats every year (to say nothing of the more than 500,000 birds killed every year) in the United States alone. This appalling death toll occurs every year even while wind power produces just 3% of U.S. electricity. Ramping up wind power to 10, 20, or 30% of U.S. electricity production would likely increase annual bat kills to 10-to-30 million every year. Killing 30 million bats every year in response to dubious claims that global warming might once in a great while kill 100,000 bats makes no sense.  Just as importantly, alarmists present no evidence that global warming caused the summer heat wave in a notoriously hot desert near the equator.  To the contrary, climate change theory and objective data show our recent global warming is occurring primarily in the winter, toward the poles, and at night. Australia’s highest recorded temperature occurred more than half a century ago, and only two of Australia’s seven states have set their all-time temperature record during the past 40 years. Indeed, Queensland’s 2014 heat wave paled in comparison to the 1972 heat wavethat occurred 42 years of global warming ago. If global warming caused the 2014 Queensland heat wave, why wasn’t it as severe as the 1972 Queensland heat wave? Blaming every single summer heat wave or extreme weather event on global warming is a stale and discredited tactic in the alarmist playbook. Objective science proves extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, and droughts have become less frequent and less severe as a result of the Earth’s recent modest warming.   Alarmist Assertion #2 “Lyme Disease Spreads” – Warmer temperatures are contributing to the range expansion and severity of tick-borne Lyme disease.” The Facts Lyme Disease is much more common in northern, cooler regions of the United States than in southern, warmer regions. Asserting, without any supporting data or evidence, that a disease that prospers in cool climates will become more prevalent as a result of global warming defies objective data and common sense. Moreover, a team of scientistsextensively researched Lyme Disease climate and habitat and reported in the peer-reviewed science journal _EcoHealth_, “the only environmental variable consistently association with increased [Lyme Disease] risk and incidence was the presence of forests.” Granted, alarmists can argue that forests are thriving under global warming, with the result that forest-dwelling ticks will also benefit. However, expanding forests are universally – and properly – viewed as environmentally beneficial. Alarmist attempts to frame thriving forests as harmful perfectly illustrate the alarmists’ proclivity to claim anything and everything – no matter how beneficial – is severely harmful and caused by global warming. Moreover, even if global warming expanded Lyme Disease range, one must look at the totality of global warming’s impact on the range of viruses and diseases. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports Lyme Disease “is rare as a cause of death in the United States.” According to the CDC, Lyme Disease is a contributing factor to less than 25 deaths per year in the United States. Indeed, during a recent five-year span examined by the CDC, “only 1 [death] record was consistent with clinical manifestations of Lyme Disease.” Any attempts to claim global warming will cause a few more Lyme Disease deaths must be weighed against the 36,000 Americans who are killed by the flu each year. The U.S. National Institutes of Health have documented how influenza is aided and abetted by cold climate. Any attempt to connect a warmer climate to an increase in Lyme Disease must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of a warmer climate’s propensity to reduce influenza incidence and mortality. The net impact of a warmer climate on viruses and diseases such as Lyme Disease and influenza is substantially beneficial and life-saving.  Alarmist Assertion #3 “National Security Threatened – The impacts of climate change are expected to act as a ‘threat multiplier’ in many of the world’s most unstable regions, exacerbating droughts and other natural disasters as well as leading to food, water and other resource shortages that may spur mass migrations.” The Facts The alarmists’ asserted national security threat depends on assertions that (1) global warming is causing a reduction in food and water supplies and (2) migrations of people to places with more food and water will increase risks of military conflict. Objective facts refute both assertions. Regarding food and water supplies, global crop production has soared as the Earth gradually warms. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is essential to plant life, and adding more of it to the atmosphere enhances plant growth and crop production. Longer growing seasons and fewer frost events also benefit plant growth and crop production. As this column has repeatedly documented (see articles here, here, and here, for example), global crops set new production records virtually every year as our planet modestly warms. If crop shortages cause national security threats and global warming increases crop production, then global warming benefits rather than jeopardizes national security.  The same holds true for water supplies. Objective data show there has been a gradual increase in global precipitation and soil moisture as our planet warms. Warmer temperatures evaporate more water from the oceans, which in turn stimulates more frequent precipitation over continental land masses. The result of this enhanced precipitation is an improvement in soil moisture at almost all sites in the Global Soil Moisture Data Bank. If declining precipitation and declining soil moisture are military threat multipliers, than global warming is creating a safer, more peaceful world. Alarmist Assertion #4 “Sea Levels Rising – Warmer temperatures are causing glaciers and polar ice sheets to melt, increasing the amount of water in the world’s seas and oceans.” The Facts The pace of sea level rise remained relatively constant throughout the 20th century, even as global temperatures gradually rose. There has similarly been no increase in the pace of sea level rise in recent decades. Utilizing 20th century technologies, humans effectively adapted to global sea level rise. Utilizing 21st century technologies, humans will be even better equipped to adapt to global sea level rise. Also, the alarmist assertion that polar ice sheets are melting is simply false. Although alarmists frequently point to a modest recent shrinkage in the Arctic ice sheet, that decline has been completely offset by ice sheet expansion in the Antarctic. Cumulatively, polar ice sheets have not declined at all since NASA satellite instruments began precisely measuring them 35 years ago. Alarmist Assertion #5 “Allergies Worsen – Allergy sufferers beware: Climate change could cause pollen counts to double in the next 30 years. The warming temperatures cause advancing weed growth, a bane for allergy sufferers.” The Facts Pollen is a product and mechanism of plant reproduction and growth. As such, pollen counts will rise and fall along with plant health and vegetation intensity. Any increase in pollen will be the result of a greener biosphere with more plant growth.  Similar to the alarmist argument, discussed above, that expanding forests will create more habitat for the ticks that spread Lyme Disease, alarmists here are taking overwhelmingly good news about global warming improving plant health and making it seem like this good news is actually bad news because healthier plants mean more pollen. Indeed, NASA satellite instruments have documented a spectacular greening of the Earth, with foliage gains most prevalent in previously arid, semi-desert regions. For people experiencing an increase in vegetation in previously barren regions, this greening of the Earth is welcome and wonderful news. For global warming alarmists, however, a greener biosphere is terrible news and something to be opposed. This, in a nutshell, defines the opposing sides in the global warming debate. Global warming alarmists claim a greener biosphere with richer and more abundant plant life is horrible and justifies massive, economy-destroying energy restrictions. Global warming realists understand that a greener biosphere with richer and more abundant plant life is not a horrible thing simply because humans may have had some role in creating it. Alarmist Assertion #6 “Beetles Destroy Iconic Western Forests – Climate change has sent tree-killing beetles called mountain pine beetles into overdrive. Under normal conditions those beetles reproduce just once annually, but the warming climate has allowed them to churn out an extra generation of new bugs each year.” The Facts Alarmists claim warmer winters are causing an increase in pine beetle populations. This assertion is thoroughly debunked by objective, real-world data. As an initial matter, alarmists have responded to recent bitterly cold winters by claiming global warming is causing colder winters. One cannot claim global warming is causing colder winters and then turn around and simultaneously claim global warming is causing warmer winters. Global warming activists’ propensity for doing so shows just how little value they place in a truthful debate.  Objective scientific data verify winters are getting colder, which counters the key prerequisite to EDF’s pine beetle claim. NOAA temperature data show winter temperatures in the United States have been getting colder for at least the past two decades. Pine beetles cannot be taking advantage of warmer winters if winters are in fact getting colder. Moreover, recent U.S. Forest Service data show pine beetle infestations have recently declined dramatically throughout the western United States. Forests and plant life are expanding globally, and particularly in the western United States. Pine beetles are a natural part of forest ecosystems. Expanding pine forests can support more beetles. The predictable increase in pine beetles is largely a product of, rather than a foil against, expanding pine forests. One can hardly argue that western pine forests are “destroying iconic Western forests” when western forests are becoming denser and more prevalent as the planet warms.  Also, beetles have bored through North American forests for millennia, long before people built coal-fired power plants and drove SUVs. Beetles are not dependent on warm winters, as evidenced by their historic prevalence in places such as Alaska. Finally, pine beetles tend to target dead, unhealthy, more vulnerable pine trees rather than healthy trees. Decades of over-aggressive fire suppression policies have caused an unnatural buildup of older, denser, more vulnerable pine forests. These conditions predictably aid pine beetles. Alarmist Assertion #7 “Canada: The New America – ‘Lusher’ vegetation growth typically associated with the United States is now becoming more common in Canada, scientists reported in a 2012 Nature Climate Change study.” The Facts Only global warming alarmists would claim that lusher vegetation and more abundant plant life is a bad thing. Playing on a general tendency for people to fear change, EDF and global warming alarmists argue that changes in the biosphere that make it richer, lusher, and more conducive to life are changes to be feared and opposed. If barren ecosystems constitute an ideal planet, then the alarmist fears of more plant life make sense. On the contrary, global warming realists understand a climate more conducive to richer, more abundant plant life is beneficial rather than harmful. Alarmist Assertion #8 “Economic Consequences – The costs associated with climate change rise along with the temperatures. Severe storms and floods combined with agricultural losses cause billions of dollars in damages, and money is needed to treat and control the spread of disease” The Facts Severe storms, floods and agricultural losses may cost a great deal of money, but such extreme weather events – and their resulting costs – are dramatically declining as the Earth modestly warms. Accordingly, EDF’s asserted economic costs are actually economic benefits. As documented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and here at Forbes.com, severe storms are becoming less frequent and severe as the Earth modestly warms. This is especially evident regarding hurricane and tornado activity, which are both at historic lows. Similarly, scientific measurements and peer-reviewed studies report no increase in flooding events regarding natural-flowing rivers and streams. Any increase in flooding activity is due to human alterations of river and stream flow rather than precipitation changes. Also, the modest recent warming is producing U.S. and global crop production records virtually every year, creating billions of dollars in new economic and human welfare benefits each and every year. This creates a net economic benefit completely ignored by EDF. Regarding “the spread of disease,” as documented in “Alarmist Assertion #2,” objective evidence shows global warming will thwart deadly outbreaks of influenza and other cold-dependent viruses. Additionally, the alarmists’ desired means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions – more expensive energy sources – make economic conditions even worse. Forcing the American economy to operate on expensive and unreliable wind and solar power will have tremendous negative economic consequences. President Obama acknowledged this fact when he promised that under his global warming plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” The economic consequences of Obama’s global warming policies can already be seen in electricity prices, which are currently the highest in U.S. history.  Remarkably, Obama’s global warming policies are increasing electricity prices even while new natural gas discoveries, revolutionary advances in natural gas production technologies, and a dramatic resultant decline in natural gas prices would otherwise spur a dramatic decline in electricity prices.     Alarmist Assertion #9 “Infectious Diseases Thrive – The World Health Organization reports that outbreaks of new or resurgent diseases are on the rise and in more disparate countries than ever before, including tropical illnesses in once cold climates.” The Facts Outbreaks of “new or resurgent diseases” are occurring precisely because governments have caved in to environmental activist groups like EDF and implemented their anti-science agendas. For example, DDT had all but eliminated malaria in the United States and on the global stage during the mid-20th century. However, environmental activists championed false environmental accusations against DDT and dramatically reduced use of the life-saving mosquito killer throughout much of the world.  As a result, malaria has reemerged with a vengeance and millions of people die every year as a result. Also, as documented above in “Alarmist Assertion #2,” global warming will reduce the impact and death toll of cold-related viruses such as influenza. In the United States alone, influenza kills 36,000 people every year, which dwarfs all heat-dependent viruses and diseases combined. Few people other than global warming alarmists would argue that it is better to have 36,000 people die each year from influenza than have a few people die each year from Lyme Disease (which, as documented above, isn’t even related to global warming).  Alarmist Assertion #10 “Shrinking Glaciers – In 2013, an iceberg larger than the city of Chicago broke off the Pine Island Glacier, the most important glacier of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. And at Montana’s Glacier National Park glaciers have gone from 150 to just 35 over the past century.” The Facts Calling attention to anecdotal incidents of icebergs breaking off the Antarctic ice sheet, while deliberately ignoring the overall growth of the Antarctic ice sheet, is a misleading and favorite tactic of global warming alarmists. Icebergs break off the Antarctic ice sheet every year, with or without global warming, particularly in the Antarctic summer. However, a particular iceberg – no matter how large – breaking off the Antarctic ice sheet does not necessarily result in “Shrinking Glaciers” as EDF alleges. To the contrary, the Antarctic Ice Sheet has been growing at a steady and substantial pace ever since NASA satellites first began measuring the Antarctic ice sheet in 1979. Indeed, during the same year that the EDF claims “an iceberg larger than the city of Chicago” broke off the Antarctic ice sheet and caused “Shrinking Glaciers,” the Antarctic ice sheet repeatedly set new records for its largest extent in recorded history. Those 2013 records were repeatedly broken again in 2014. The Antarctic ice sheet in 2013 and 2014 was more extensive than any time in recorded history, and yet the EDF pushes the lie that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is shrinking.

----------


## woodbe

> 

  Just  as importantly, alarmists present no evidence that 'global cooling'  caused the unusual snow in a notoriously warm and humid country.  Wikipedia: Cold_waves   

> *Cold Waves*
> A cold wave is a weather phenomenon that is distinguished by a cooling of the air. Specifically, as used by the U.S. National Weather Service,  a cold wave is a rapid fall in temperature within a 24-hour period  requiring substantially increased protection to agriculture, industry,  commerce, and social activities. The precise criterion for a cold wave  is determined by the rate at which the temperature falls, and the  minimum to which it falls. This minimum temperature is dependent on the  geographical region and time of year.[18]  Cold waves generally are capable of occurring any geological location  and are formed by large cool air masses that accumulate over certain  regions, caused by movements of air streams.[11] 
>  A cold wave can cause death and injury to livestock and wildlife. Exposure to cold mandates greater caloric  intake for all animals, including humans, and if a cold wave is  accompanied by heavy and persistent snow, grazing animals may be unable  to reach necessary food and water, and die of hypothermia or starvation. Cold waves often necessitate the purchase of fodder for livestock at considerable cost to farmers.[11] Human populations can be inflicted with frostbites when exposed for extended periods of time to cold and may result in the loss of limbs or damage to internal organs.
>  Extreme winter cold often causes poorly insulated water pipes to freeze. Even some poorly protected indoor plumbing  may rupture as frozen water expands within them, causing property  damage. Fires, paradoxically, become more hazardous during extreme cold.  Water mains may break and water supplies may become unreliable, making firefighting more difficult.[11] 
>  Cold waves that bring unexpected freezes and frosts during the  growing season in mid-latitude zones can kill plants during the early  and most vulnerable stages of growth. This results in crop failure as  plants are killed before they can be harvested economically. Such cold waves have caused famines.  Cold waves can also cause soil particles to harden and freeze, making  it harder for plants and vegetation to grow within these areas. One  extreme was the so-called Year Without a Summer of 1816, one of several years during the 1810s in which numerous crops failed during freakish summer cold snaps after volcanic eruptions reduced incoming sunlight.

----------


## John2b

> Global warming alarmists frequently make false and deplorable assertions.

   Maybe some do, but that is no excuse for the demonstrably false and deplorable assertions by James Taylor (Heartland Institute) which you unthinkingly reposted here.

----------


## John2b

> Just  as importantly, alarmists present no evidence that 'global cooling'  caused the unusual snow in a notoriously warm and humid country.

  Nice try Woodbe, but a person with their fingers in their ears, their eyes tightly closed, screaming "Nah, Nah, Nah...." at the top of their voice probably isn't open to reason.

----------


## Marc

*Oddball claim: Plants boost extreme temperatures by 5°C*Anthony Watts / 9 hours ago March 21, 2016 From the UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES and the “temperatures are always hotter no matter what” department comes this study that makes very little sense on the face of it, especially when we have articles like this one: _Hot in the City? How plants can help lower the temperature in towns._  . Of course, you have to consider the source of the claim, the same University that launched the “ship of fools” expedition to Antarctica. Early greening caused by global warming may amplify heatwaves across large parts of the Northern Hemisphere. CREDIT Sunny Day by Andreas Wienemann (CC2.0) _Improved plant types in climate model show significant impact on temperatures resulting from earlier spring greening_ Heatwaves from Europe to China are likely to be more intense and result in maximum temperatures that are 3°C to 5°C warmer than previously estimated by the middle of the century – all because of the way plants on the ground respond to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This projected temperature increase found by Australian researchers and published in _Nature Scientific Reports_ is more than half the change forecast by the IPCC under the business-as-usual model. The biggest temperature changes were projected to occur over needleleaf forests, tundra and agricultural land used to grow crops. “We often underestimate the role of vegetation in extreme temperature events as it has not been included in enough detail in climate models up until this point,” said lead author Dr Jatin Kala from Murdoch University. “These more detailed results are confronting but they help explain why many climate models have consistently underestimated the increase in the intensity of heatwaves and the rise in maximum temperatures when compared to observations.” To get their results the researchers looked at data from 314 plant species across 56 field sites. In particular, they investigated stomata, small pores on plant leaves that take in carbon dioxide and lose water to the atmosphere. Previously, most climate models assumed all plants trade water for carbon in the exactly same way, ignoring experimental evidence showing considerable variation among plant types. By not accounting for these differences, models have likely over-estimated the amount of water lost to the atmosphere in some regions. If plants release less water there is more warming and a consequent increase in heat wave intensity. The study is unique because, for the first time, it used the best available observations to characterise different plants water-use strategies within a global climate model. “These world-first results will have significant impact on the development of climate models around the world,” said one of the study’s authors, Prof Andy Pitman, Director of the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Climate Systems Science at UNSW. “However, it is the bringing together of observations by ecologists, theory from biologists, physics from land surface modellers and climate science in the global modeling, that is revolutionary.” The work that led to the study required investment in detailed observations, model development, and high performance computing. “This is a fantastic example of STEM-based science bringing together the ecological and climate modeling communities; two sectors which rarely work hand-in-hand,” said Prof Pitman. It was also a great example of public-good science, said Professor Belinda Medlyn, theoretical biologist at Western Sydney University and co-author of the study. “Our study of stomata was originally intended just to learn more about how plants work,” said Prof Medlyn. “We were really not expecting to find these important implications for heatwaves.” According to Dr Kala public good research of this magnitude can only be achieved through the strong institutions Australia has built up over time. “These institutions have enabled us to develop a world-leading climate model, unique observation systems and computational infrastructure that has far reaching benefits,” said Dr Kala. CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science developed the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS) model used in this study in partnership. ARC Discovery funding enabled ecological researchers at Macquarie and Western Sydney Universities to put together the plant observations from around the world to develop the new vegetation model. At the same time the National eResearch and Collaboration Tools and Research Project (NECTAR) was key to managing the data produced by the ACCESS model. The model itself used National Computational Infrastructure supported and resourced by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. “This long term investment in key infrastructure is why Australian science continues to punch above its weight,” said Prof Pitman. “It’s an investment with many public benefits for us and the rest of the world, that every Australian can be proud of.”

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Mr Watts is again showing the critical thinking skills of a beanbag...instead of trying to understand what the paper says or doesn't say...he just lazily says it's an odd result and probably wrong because the authors are by his reckoning damned by association. 
No doubt the findings of the paper are counter intuitive even to me but to suggest they are wrong in such terms makes him no better than useless to the ongoing discussion.

----------


## John2b

> No doubt the findings of the paper are counter intuitive even to me but to suggest they are wrong in such terms makes him no better than useless to the ongoing discussion.

  ...and makes anyone who promulgates such nonsense useless to the discussion as well.

----------


## John2b

I used to think the top environmental problems facing the world were global warming, environmental degradation and eco-system collapse, and that we scientists could fix those problems with enough science. But I was wrong. The real problem is not those three items, but greed, selfishness and apathy. And for that we need a spiritual and cultural transformation. And we scientists dont know how to do that.'  James Gustave Speth

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Apathy could be the biggest problem...but I couldn't be bothered to find out if it were true.

----------


## Marc

*NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years*Posted on March 7, 2016 by tonyheller In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.  NESDIS Strategic CommunicationsHere is why they are hiding the rest of the data. The earlier data showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming.   1520-0493(1978)106<0755:GTVSMA>2.0.CO;2I combined the two graphs at the same scale below, and put a horizontal red reference line in, which shows that the earth’s atmosphere has not warmed at all since the late 1950’s 
The omission of this data from the NOAA report, is just their latest attempt to defraud the public. NOAA’s best data shows no warming for 60 years. But it gets worse. The graph in the NOAA report shows about 0.5C warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original published data shows little warming during that period.  cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/angell/global.datDue to Urban Heat Island Effects, the NOAA surface data shows nearly one degree warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original radiosonde data showed little warming during that time. Global warming theory is based on troposphere warming, which is why the radiosonde data should be used by modelers – instead of the UHI contaminated surface data. NOAA’s original published radiosonde data showed little net troposphere warming from 1958 to 2010, when the data set ended. The next graph shows how NOAA has altered their 850-300 mb temperature data since 2011. Another hockey stick of data tampering. 2016 version : RATPAC-A-annual-levels.txt2011 version : global.dat

----------


## SilentButDeadly

That's hardly a gotcha...in fact that is a shrill empty by my read. A long way from a CONSPIRACY. Especially since the original author seems to repeatedly confuse warming and anomaly. Regardless, most of the plots still show a positive anomaly for most observations...

----------


## PhilT2

The original report has been trimmed a little in Heller's article, the original is here. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201601.pdf 
My issue is with the part where he combines two graphs in an attempt to show a long term trend. I don't think it is appropriate to do so; one measures ground to the 100mb level and the other is from 850mb to 200mb. That's from 0 to 53,000ft against 5000ft to 40,000ft, so not an apples to apples comparison in my book, but not my area of expertise so interested in other opinions.

----------


## PhilT2

Bribery and corruption in the oil industry; what a surprise! Unaoil | Leighton Holdings | Russell Waugh | Bribery Scandal

----------


## John2b

The World Bank to spend 28% of its investments on climate change mitigation and adaption projects:  http://www.worldbank...mate-challenges

----------


## John2b

Decades-old documents unearthed by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) show that executives in the oil industry knew fossil fuels posed a risk to the environment since the '40s, and in the next decades, carried out a campaign to cloud public perception of these risks.  
In 1946, a consortium of oil companies, including Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevrons predecessors, created the Smoke and Fumes Committee. Its purpose was to commission research on smog and air pollution resulting from fossil fuels, which the oil industry would use to shape public opinion on these issues. Out of this committee grew the Stanford Research Institute, which was set up to provide an academic shroud for the industry to fight accusations that its product caused pollution.

----------


## PhilT2

Over 160 nations, including Australia, have gathered in new York to sign the Paris agreement on climate change. Paris climate deal: What you need to know about the signing and what happens next - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
The UN Agenda 21, one world socialist government, led by the illuminati lizard men is almost here. At last! Let me be the first to welcome our new reptilian overlords.

----------


## Marc

ENERGYCOMMENTARY *16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against Climate Change Disbelievers*Hans von Spakovsky	/ @HvonSpakovsky / Cole Wintheiser	/ April 04, 2016 / 714 comments  31.k    _New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman speaks alongside former Vice President Al Gore. Neither Gore nor the AGs United for Clean Power has any concern over the First Amendment or the stifling of scientific debate. (Photo: Reuters/Mike Segar/Newscom)_  *COMMENTARY BY*Hans von Spakovsky@HvonSpakovsky _Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issuesincluding civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reformas a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundations Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tanks Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research._  Cole Wintheiser _Cole Wintheiser is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation._   Beginning in 1478, the Spanish Inquisition systematically silenced any citizen who held views that did not align with the kings. Using the powerful arm of the government, the grand inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada, and his henchmen sought out all those who held religious, scientific, or moral views that conflicted with the monarchs, punishing the heretics with jail sentences; property confiscation; fines; and in severe cases, torture and execution. One of the lasting results of the Spanish Inquisition was a stifling of speech, thought, and scientific debate throughout Spain. By treating one set of scientific views as absolute, infallible, and above critique, Spain silenced many brilliant individuals and stopped the development of new ideas and technological innovations. Spain became a scientific backwater. As an old adage says, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. So we now have a new inquisition underway in America in the 21st centurysomething that would have seemed unimaginable not too long ago. Treating climate change as an absolute, unassailable fact, instead of what it isan unproven, controversial scientific theorya group of state attorneys general have announced that they will be targeting _any_ companies that challenge the catastrophic climate change religion.   The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation.  Well respect your inbox and keep you informed.       Sign Up   Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General EricSchneiderman said, The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real. He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by lying about the dangers of climate change, they will pursue them to the fullest extent of the law. The coalition of 17 inquisitors are calling themselves AGs United for Clean Power. The coalition consists of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington State), as well as the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. Sixteen of the seventeen members are Democrats, while the attorney general for the Virgin Islands, Claude Walker, is an independent. The inquisitors are threatening legal action and huge fines against anyone who declines to believe in an unproven scientific theory.The inquisitors are threatening legal action and huge fines against anyone who declines to believe in an unproven scientific theory. Schneiderman and Kamala Harris, representing New York and California, respectively, have already launched investigations into ExxonMobil for allegedly funding research that questioned climate change. Exxon emphatically denounced the accusations as false, pointing out that the investigation that uncovered this research was funded by advocacy foundations that publicly support climate change activism. Standing next to Schneiderman throughout the press conference was the grand inquisitor himself, former Vice President Al Gore, who has stepped into the role of Tomas de Torquemada. Gore, who narrated a climate change propaganda film in 2006 entitled An Inconvenient Truth, praised the coalition, stating that what these attorneys general are doing is exceptionally important. Neither Gore nor the AGs United for Clean Power has any concern over the First Amendment or the stifling of scientific debate. When pressed on the effect such investigations and prosecutions will have on free speech, General Schneiderman claimed that climate change dissenters are committing fraud and are _not_ protected by the First Amendment. This comes on top of U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitting that the Justice Department is discussing the possibility of pursing civil actions against climate change deniers, and that she has already referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which federal law enforcement could take action. As we have said before, [l]evel-headed, objective prosecutors should not be interested in investigating or prosecuting anyone over a scientific theory that is the subject of great debate. And yet that is exactly what the AGs United for Political Power are going to do. Fortunately, there are other state attorneys general who understand the importance of the rule of law as opposed to what they say is an ambition to use the law to silence voices with which we disagree. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt and Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange said they would not be joining this coalition: Reasonable minds can disagree about the science behind global warming, and disagree they do. This scientific and political debate is healthy and should be encouraged. It should not be silenced with threats of criminal prosecution by those who believe that their position is the only correct one and that all dissenting voices must therefore be intimidated and coerced into silence. It is inappropriate for State Attorneys General to use the power of their office to attempt to silence core political speech on one of the major policy debates of our time.Although the Spanish Inquisition ended almost 200 years ago, the American Climate Change Inquisition appears to be just getting started. By threatening legal action and huge fines against anyone who declines to believe their climate theories, the attorneys general in this coalition are trying to end the debate over climate change, declaring any dissent to be blasphemy regardless of what many scientists believe. This strikes a serious blow against the free flow of ideas and the vigorous debate over scientific issues that is a hallmark of an advanced, technological society like ours.

----------


## Marc

*HOME**»**NEWS**»**EARTH**»**ENVIRONMENT**»**GLOBAL WARMING*    
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
New data shows that the vanishing of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming       127K               380         837         128K     Email       
The vanishing of polar ice (and the polar bears) has become a poster-child for warmists. Photo: ALAMY  *Take advantage of the strong Euro to send money back to the UK*
Enjoy bank-beating exchange rates and your first transfer free with Telegraph International Money Transfers
 Sponsored by Telegraph Money Transfers    
By Christopher Booker
10:15PM GMT 07 Feb 2015  
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records  on which the entire panic ultimately rested  were systematically adjusted to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Two weeks ago, under the headline *How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming*, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world  one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.       Watch: Climate change explained in 60 second animation  
Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way adjustments. First these were made by the US governments Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in global warming. *Related Articles*  *Barack Obama's personal battle against climate change* 23 Jan 2015*Rise in sea levels is 'faster than we thought'* 14 Jan 2015
Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely disappears Icelands sea ice years around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his countrys economy.
One of the first examples of these adjustments was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansens original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.  
Homewoods interest in the Arctic is partly because the vanishing of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current  this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record  for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained  has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.

----------


## John2b

Historians may look to 2015 as the year when @@@@ really started hitting the fan. Some snapshots: In just the past few months, record-setting heat waves in Pakistan and India each killed more than 1,000 people. In Washington state's Olympic National Park, the rainforest caught fire for the first time in living memory. London reached 98 degrees Fahrenheit during the hottest July day ever recorded in the U.K.; _The Guardian_ briefly had to pause its live blog of the heat wave because its computer servers overheated. In California, suffering from its worst drought in a millennium, a 50-acre brush fire swelled seventyfold in a matter of hours, jumping across the I-15 freeway during rush-hour traffic. Then, a few days later, the region was pounded by intense, virtually unheard-of summer rains. Puerto Rico is under its strictest water rationing in history as a monster El Niño forms in the tropical Pacific Ocean, shifting weather patterns worldwide.  The Point of No Return: Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here | Rolling Stone

----------


## John2b

It's been a very balmy autumn in Adelaide, almost the never ending summer. It seems that global warming might have something to do with that:

----------


## woodbe

Looks like John Christie has some explaining to do. Denial exposed thanks to Tamino:  *Cooling America* 
                                                  Posted on May 3, 2016 | 32 Comments 
                                           What if we wanted to use temperature data for the good old USA to show some good old American cooling? What data would we use? 
If we use the whole-USA data from NOAA (actually the data for the lower  48 states), thats not going to be easy. The trend since 1895 (when  the data begin) is warming: 
  The dots show annual averages, although the final one is highly  uncertain since it only includes data for the first three months (the  rest of the year isnt available yet). Nonetheless, the trend is  decidedly upward, as shown by the red line (a lowess smooth). The  current rate (based on monthly data rather than annual averages) is over  5°F per century. Even if we use a linear trend, quite ignoring the fact  that its warming faster now than before, we still get a rate of 1.4°F  per century since 1895. Not cool.
  Maybe we could do better if we focus on individual states. But which  ones? Heres a map showing the linear trend rates for all 48 states,  with red circles warming, blue circles cooling, larger circles for  larger rates: 
  Not good. Only two states (Alabama and Mississippi) show any cooling at  all, and even the fastest-cooling (Alabama) is only at a paltry  -0.35°F/century. Rhode Island, however, shows a linear rate since 1895  of warming at 2.9°F/century, twice the national rate.
  How about we abandon the trend in daily mean temperature, and go for the  daily high or low instead? Well probably want high, because nighttime  seems to have been warming faster than daytime. Here are the rates for  overnight lows: 
  Here they are for daily highs: 
  Well, were getting somewhere. Restricting to daily highs, Alabama is cooling at -0.7°F/century.
  But its still not very impressive (as the map shows). Why not pay heed  of the fact that winter has been warming faster than summer, and get rid  of the wintertime data? Using just the summer months, and just the  daily highs, we finally have something to work with: 
  Allright! Now _thats_ a nice big blue dot on Alabama; its  daytime-high summer-only temperature linear trend shows cooling at  -1.5°F/century. Thats something to talk about. Good thing we went with  the linear trend, because the _recent_ trend in Alabama summer-only daytime-high-only temperature is warming at +1.1°F/century.
  Maybe we should even recommend that everybody who wants to study climate  should focus on daily high temperature only, and summertime temperature  only.
  Recently John Christy and Richard McNider  put together some new temperature time series to compare with climate  model simulations. The only used locations in Alabama, only daytime high  temperatures, and they used only data from summer months. What a  coincidence.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

That looks like it reflects the flow of cooler air during Summer down from Canada and the Great Lakes through the Mississippi Valley...it might be misleading but it's pretty interesting regardless.

----------


## woodbe

It's certainly an interesting analysis from Tamino. The misleading is Christie et al connecting a blip on the radar to a belief that climate change is not real. 
Meanwhile, the Arctic agrees with me.  :Biggrin:

----------


## John2b

It's spring in the northern hemisphere. Ice melts. Nothing to see here - move along folks...    http://lethalheating.blogspot.com.au...s-started.html

----------


## John2b

"South Australia has become the first state to phase out dirty coal for generating electricity in favour of renewable energy. Alinta Energy today closed the last coal-fired power station in SA at  Port Augusta.

----------


## John2b

> I believe that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming and that there need to be irrefutable evidence both scientific and imperical to proove CO2 is warming the planet and that any warming would be as damaging as they claim.

  Seven years down the track since your first post Rod and what's happened? CO2 is rising relentlessly; the global surface temperature is skyrocketing into uncharted territory, arctic ice is melting out of existence, ocean life is dying, low lying coasts are being inundated with sea water, temperature rise is expanding tectonic plates and causing earthquakes , shifting seasons are disrupting food production. Do you still think humans cannot reduce emissions despite the fact that humans created the emissions that have caused this emerging catastrophe in the first place? I guess you believe in Darwin's survival of the fittest, but that does not auger well for the human race.      It's getting hotter, and suddenly getting hotter faster: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/1...g-accelerates/

----------


## Marc

> "South Australia has become the first state to phase out dirty coal for generating electricity in favour of renewable energy. Alinta Energy today closed the last coal-fired power station in SA at  Port Augusta.

  And so SA is the first (welfare) state to declare full dependency on the other states to bail them out when the oh so cool 'alternative' sources fail to deliver. Bravo SA once more doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

----------


## johnc

I wouldn't call gas generation 'alternative', grid connection between the states should lead to greater efficiency anyway.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Yeah but isn't it funny when gas & wind are your sources of power. Of course you could be Tassie...all piss and wind!!!

----------


## Uncle Bob

No mention of ACT (or NT) where IIRC they want to be on 100% renewable energy around 2020 (I think  :Rofl5:

----------


## John2b

> And so SA is the first (welfare) state to declare full dependency on the other states to bail them out when the oh so cool 'alternative' sources fail to deliver. Bravo SA once more doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

  
Ha, ha Marc, such a comedian! For the first time SA is exporting electricity to NSW displacing more expensive brown coal electricity from Victoria. And why did South Australia's coal fired generators close? Because they could not generate electricity at a price low enough to sell into the market - doh!

----------


## John2b

There is good reason to suspect that nearly 90 percent of earthquakes in Texas over the past 40 years were oil and gas industry-linked. And as the shale drilling boom has expanded, the number of quakes shaking Texas has risen dramatically. Over the last eight years, Texas went from experiencing two or three earthquakes a year to twelve — with fracking wastewater disposal the likely culprit.

----------


## woodbe

Message from Will Steffen   

> Today it was confirmed that Australian government officials pressured a prestigious international body to silence the truth about the risks of climate change for the Great Barrier Reef.  *I was one of the scientists they tried to silence.  * Heres the story: last year I was asked to review an international scientific report on the impacts of climate change on World Heritage sites and tourism. I reviewed a case study on the Great Barrier Reef, focussing on the increasing risks to tourism from climate change. The report was authored by UNESCO [1] and the International Union of Concerned Scientists. It promised to alert the world to the escalating risks that climate change poses for some of the most beautiful and valuable places on Earth.  *Overnight the report was released -- but mysteriously, the Great Barrier Reef had been cut completely.*  I was astonished, given weve just witnessed the worst coral bleaching event in the Reefs history.  *Australian officials have now confirmed to The Guardian that they asked the report authors to remove any reference to the Great Barrier Reef, or any Australian world heritage site.* No sections about any other country were removed.  *As a scientist, Im angry. As an Australian, Im disgusted.*

  Nothing to add to that.

----------


## woodbe

From the linked Guardian article: 
Every reference to Australia was scrubbed from the final version of a  major UN report on climate change after the Australian government  intervened, objecting that the information could harm tourism.
 Guardian Australia can reveal the report “World Heritage and Tourism  in a Changing Climate”, which Unesco jointly published with the United  Nations environment program and the Union of Concerned Scientists on  Friday, initially had a key chapter on the Great Barrier Reef, as well as small sections on Kakadu and the Tasmanian forests.
 But when the Australian Department of Environment saw a draft of the  report, it objected, and every mention of Australia was removed by  Unesco. Will Steffen,  one of the scientific reviewers of the axed section on the reef, said  Australia’s move was reminiscent of “the old Soviet Union”.
 No sections about any other country were removed from the report. The  removals left Australia as the only inhabited continent on the planet  with no mentions.
 Explaining the decision to object to the report, a spokesperson for  the environment department told Guardian Australia: “Recent experience  in Australia had shown that negative commentary about the status of  world heritage properties impacted on tourism.”

----------


## John2b

One would have thought that Greg Hunt would have taken a cue from Marc and put Unesco on his Department Against The Environment's ignore list. And WOW, what a lost opportunity to point out in the report that there has been *no sea level rise* observed by Marc at his family's beachside shack; the tourism industry must be distraught about that glaring oversight.

----------


## woodbe

Not much comment necessary for this graphic:    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/arctic-dive/

----------


## chrisp

Amazing! Marc is still arguing that anthropogenic global warming is nonexistent or a hoax.   :Eek:

----------


## woodbe

Yep.  :Biggrin:  
Welcome back Chris!

----------


## Marc

> Amazing! Marc is still arguing that anthropogenic global warming is nonexistent or a hoax.

  The only thing that is amazing is the disparity of "proof" available. You can find "scientific" proof to support any argument, and all claim to be the real thing.
So rather than criticising the messenger, think about what that means. 
Is there such disparity about any _other_ scientific argument? Not unless it has political purpose.  
 So the only conclusion is that the global warming scare was created for political purposes and is used still today for political purposes to shift resources and power towards the left using the left as a pawn for personal ambition of the few who benefit.  
To think that humans can change  the weather to the extent it is claimed, or even more ridiculous _revert_ changes that have already happened will go in the record books as the most absurd proposal humans have ever attempted and those who believe it as the most gullible.  Akin to religious claims of the most fanciful stories you can think of, the global warming scaremongers have fortunately failed to get this new branch of the environmentalism religion off the ground and have slowly slided into irrelevance.  
The only momentum left in this blatant fabrication is the votes politicians around the world are still harvesting from the unemployed lefties foot soldiers who are still beating the drum after the battle has finished and the field is deserted, and from the uninformed and the indolent who repeat what they hear on ABC. 
Sad really. And so expensive/  

> Treating climate change as an absolute, unassailable fact, instead of what it isan unproven, controversial scientific theorya group of state attorneys general have announced that they will be targeting _any_ companies that challenge the catastrophic climate change religion.

----------


## John2b

*Views link to serially debunked climate change denier zombie myths and dog whistles courtesy of previous post* 
LOL - welcome to the "post truth" world: @@@@@@@@! on Vimeo

----------


## woodbe

> The only thing that is amazing is the disparity of "proof" available. You can find "scientific" proof to support any argument, and all claim to be the real thing.

  I thought you were smarter than that, Marc. Every single published scientific paper has 'proof' even if it is outdated or erroneous. So yes, you can find proof for almost any argument by trawling through outdated and/erroneous scientific papers. What you must know is that the vast majority of published peer reviewed climate papers all point to the same conclusion: Humans have caused a significant effect on the climate and if we want to secure a reasonable future climate we had better do something about our CO2 emissions.   

> So rather than criticising the messenger, think about what that means. 
> Is there such disparity about any _other_ scientific argument? Not unless it has political purpose.

  Of course there is disparity about any other scientific argument. Look at tobacco for instance if you want to see the results of commercial gain by distorting the science. Science is not made from stone, it moves forward, so of course you can find outdated or erroneous papers that disagree with the current science on almost any subject.   

> So the only conclusion is that the global warming scare was created for political purposes and is used still today for political purposes to shift resources and power towards the left using the left as a pawn for personal ambition of the few who benefit.

  No, that is the conclusion of the denier and fossil fuel industry brigade. They are the science distorters for the public. The scientific community have been continuing to refine the science of the climate and publishing the facts of climate change in front of us for decades now, and the denier brigade have been distorting it in the media for just as long for their own non-scientific purposes.   

> To think that humans can change  the weather to the extent it is claimed, or even more ridiculous _revert_ changes that have already happened will go in the record books as the most absurd proposal humans have ever attempted and those who believe it as the most gullible.  Akin to religious claims of the most fanciful stories you can think of, the global warming scaremongers have fortunately failed to get this new branch of the environmentalism religion off the ground and have slowly slided into irrelevance.

  Nope, that is again a false claim. Humans are changing the climate, and we are _unable_ to revert those changes in any reasonable time scale. All we can do is to stop increasing the changes we have put in place. Even if we stopped today, the changes already in place will play out in the future.   

> The only momentum left in this blatant fabrication is the votes politicians around the world are still harvesting from the unemployed lefties foot soldiers who are still beating the drum after the battle has finished and the field is deserted, and from the uninformed and the indolent who repeat what they hear on ABC. 
> Sad really. And so expensive/

  There you go. The politicisation of the discussion. You suggest all lefties agree with climate change, and all on the right claim it as a fabrication. I think you would find people on both sides of the spectrum who do not agree with you. In fact the vast majority of the public agree on climate change, so there is a significant portion on the right who agree climate change is an issue caused by humans.

----------


## PhilT2

While on the subject of people with strange ideas i saw a list of Donald Trump's unique perception of reality recently. His theory that climate change is a conspiracy by the Chinese to cripple US industry is well known and, true to Lewendowski's findings he subscribes to a number of irrational ideas. He supports the "vaccines cause autism" conspiracy and his search for Obama's real birth certificate was well publicised. His election campaign has given him the opportunity to create some new theories of his own rather than borrow ones from others. The idea that Ted Cruz's father was involved in the JFK assassination displayed a truly creative mind. I'm sure we'll hear more before November. 
Some consider that the Republican establishment have been unlucky to have been saddled with such an eccentric candidate but I consider him par for the course in US right wing politics. Dig into Mitt Romney's beliefs and you will find some quite strange things. Then there was Sarah Palin. Nuff said.

----------


## John2b

Yet Trump is applying for permission to erect a coastal protection works to prevent erosion at his seaside golf resort, Trump International Golf Links & Hotel Ireland, in County Clare. The permit application for the wall, filed by Trump International Golf Links Ireland explicitly cites global warming and its consequences — increased erosion due to rising sea levels and extreme weather this century — as a chief justification for building the structure.   Donald Trump acknowledges climate change â€” at his golf course - POLITICO

----------


## John2b

> The only thing that is amazing is the disparity of "proof" available. You can find "scientific" proof to support any argument, and all claim to be the real thing./

  “We must be very lucky,” said one local weather aficionado. “Who else gets to experience a storm or bushfire or flood of the century every couple of years? This is a thrilling century. You’d think that these catastrophic weather events would only happen once every so often but we’re getting them all the time.  “When it’s not winds it’s rain, when it’s not rain it’s fire, sometimes there’s a cyclone or two about. It’s just amazing. To think my grandfather would have only seen one storm like this one in his entire lifetime but in a couple of years we’ll just be calling this ‘Tuesday’. 
“I’d go up the street and get myself a lottery ticket if the newsagency wasn’t closed due to flooding.”

----------


## chrisp

> The only thing that is amazing is the disparity of "proof" available. You can find "scientific" proof to support any argument, and all claim to be the real thing. 
> So rather than criticising the messenger, think about what that means. 
> Is there such disparity about any _other_ scientific argument? Not unless it has political purpose.

  It's been sometime since I've been actively posting in this thread and forum.  I was quite surprised that the anti-AGWers seem to still be stuck in the same old mindset. 
How many times has it been claimed that: "It hasn't warmed since (insert year)""It has been cooling since (insert year)"The warming trend is just natural fluctuations that will soon reverseThe models are all wrong  
and your gem: the human activity couldn't possibly have any impact on the big, huge, large world!  
And yet time and time again the data shows that the world is warming. 
It seems to me that AGW is now widely accepted by the general public as AGW modelling predictions come true. I seem to recall many years ago that Andrew Bolt claimed that (the then) predictions of the bleaching of the GBR were exagrated or just wrong!  Good luck to him trying to support that argument now. 
It is interesting to see that a major SA wine maker is migrating some of their vineyards to Tasmania due to climate change. 
Anyway, I'm certainly not going to bother trying to change your mind as I don't think anything will change your mind on AGW.  However, I do find it interesting that someone can so vigorously support an untenable position for so long.  That, I do find 'amazing'!  :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> Welcome back Chris!

  Thank you!

----------


## Marc

Oh yes, been there done that. 
The energy content in wind farms, the energy used to build them in the steel and concrete and the rest, will take the wind farm over 10 years of energy production to compensate the energy used to manufacture them.
Now that is sooooo clever!
Of course the business is to grab the vast amount of tax money thrown at them in the form of subsidies to pretend they are viable and harvest the vote of the gullible and the ill informed in the "green" process and ignore the environmental vandalism of their existent

----------


## John2b

> The energy content in wind farms, the energy used to build them in the steel and concrete and the rest, will take the wind farm over 10 years of energy production to compensate the energy used to manufacture them.

  False. The typical life cycle embedded energy of an all input to an on-shore wind turbine is paid back in less than twelve months based on actual yields off real turbines, which is about one third of the payback time for a plant to burn fossil energy to boil water to run a steam turbine and electrical generator, i.e. conventional coal fired electrical generation. 
The 'fuel' for a wind turbine is delivered for free and requires no infrastructure, unlike all fossil fuel generation which requires significant energy expenditure in the supply chain.  https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ain_Energy_Rev

----------


## Marc

*How Much CO2 Gets Emitted to Build a Wind Turbine?*August 16, 2014 by stopthesethings 26 Comments 
The ONLY justification for wind power – the massive subsidies upon which it entirely depends (see our post here); spiralling power prices (seeour post here); and the suffering caused to neighbours by incessant low-frequency noise and infrasound (see our post here) – is the claim that it reduces CO2 emissions in the electricity sector.
STT has pointed out – just once or twice – that that claim is nothing more than a central, endlessly repeated lie.
Because wind power fails to deliver at all hundreds of times each year, 100% of its capacity has to be backed up 100% of the time by fossil fuel generation sources – which run constantly in the background to balance the grid and prevent blackouts when wind power output collapses – as it does on a routine, but unpredictable, basis (see our posts here and hereand here and here and here and here and here and here). And for more recent woeful ‘efforts’: The Wind Power Fraud (in pictures): Part 1 – the South Australian Wind Farm Fiasco The Wind Power Fraud (in pictures): Part 2 – The Whole Eastern Grid Debacle
The mountains of dismal hard data tends to cut against the wilder claims emanating from the wind-worship-cult compounds that wind power ‘displaces’ – and will eventually ‘replace’ – conventional generation sources, but the ‘threat’ to BIG COAL, BIG GAS & BIG OIL is more imagined than real: Why Coal Miners, Oil and Gas Producers Simply Love Wind Power
Even before the blades start spinning – the average wind farm clocks up thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions: “embedded” in thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete. So, every wind farm starts with its CO2 abatement ledger in the negative.
Here’s Andy’s Rant with a breakdown of just how much CO2 goes to build one of these things. *So what’s the carbon foot print of a wind turbine with 45 tons of rebar & 481m3 of concrete?* Andy’s Rant
4 August 2014
Its carbon footprint is massive – try 241.85 tons of CO2.
Here’s the breakdown of the CO2 numbers.
To create a 1,000 Kg of pig iron, you start with 1,800 Kg of iron ore, 900 Kg of coking coal 450 Kg of limestone. The blast furnace consumes 4,500 Kg of air. The temperature at the core of the blast furnace reaches nearly 1,600 degrees C (about 3,000 degrees F).
The pig iron is then transferred to the basic oxygen furnace to make steel.
1,350 Kg of CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg pig iron produced.
A further 1,460 Kg CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg of Steel produced so all up 2,810 Kg CO2 is emitted.
45 tons of rebar (steel) are required so that equals 126.45 tons of CO2 are emitted.
To create a 1,000 Kg of Portland cement, calcium carbonate (60%), silicon (20%), aluminium (10%), iron (10%) and very small amounts of other ingredients are heated in a large kiln to over 1,500 degrees C to convert the raw materials into clinker. The clinker is then interground with other ingredients to produce the final cement product. When cement is mixed with water, sand and gravel forms the rock-like mass know as concrete.
An average of 927 Kg of CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg of Portland cement. On average, concrete has 10% cement, with the balance being gravel (41%), sand (25%), water (18%) and air (6%). One cubic metre of concrete weighs approx. 2,400 Kg so approx. 240 Kg of CO2 is emitted for every cubic metre.
481m3 of concrete are required so that equals 115.4 tons of CO2 are emitted.
Now I have not included the emissions of the mining of the raw materials or the transportation of the fabricated materials to the turbine site so the emission calculation above would be on the low end at best. *Extra stats about wind turbines you may not know about:*
The average towering wind turbine being installed around beautiful Australia right now is over 80 metres in height (nearly the same height as the pylons on the Sydney Harbour Bridge). The rotor assembly for one turbine – that’s the blades and hub – weighs over 22,000 Kg and the nacelle, which contains the generator components, weighs over 52,000 Kg.
All this stands on a concrete base constructed from 45,000 Kg of reinforcing rebar which also contains over 481 cubic metres of concrete (that’s over 481,000 litres of concrete – about 20% of the volume of an Olympic swimming pool). 
Each turbine blade is made of glass fibre reinforced plastics, (GRP), i.e. glass fibre reinforced polyester or epoxy and on average each turbine blade weighs around 7,000 Kg each.
Each turbine has three blades so there’s 21,000 Kgs of GRP and each blade can be as long as 50 metres.
A typical wind farm of 20 turbines can extend over 101 hectares of land (1.01 Km2).
Each and every wind turbine has a magnet made of a metal called neodymium. There are 2,500 Kg of it in each of the behemoths that have just gone up around Australia.
The mining and refining of neodymium is so dirty and toxic – involving repeated boiling in acid, with radioactive thorium as a waste product – that only one country does it – China. (See our posts here and here).
All this for an intermittent highly unreliable energy source.
And I haven’t even considered the manufacture of the thousands of pylons and tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission wire needed to get the power to the grid. And what about the land space needed to house thousands of these bird chomping death machines?
You see, renewables like wind turbines will incur far more carbon dioxide emissions in their manufacture and installation than what their operational life will ever save.
Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t the “cure” of using wind turbines sound worse than the problem? A bit like amputating your leg to “cure” your in-growing toe nail?
Metal emission stats from page 25 from the 2006 IPCC Chapter 4 Metal Industry Emissions report.
Cement and concrete stats from page 6 & 7 from the 2012 NRMCA Concrete CO2 Fact Sheet. *Andy’s Rant* Sometimes, the wick just ain’t worth the candle. *Share this:*

----------


## woodbe

Maybe it’s  just me, but doesn’t the “current state” of burning fossil fuels sound worse than  the solution? A bit like breathing smog to “cure” your cough? 
We've been there before, Marc. Wind power uses way less resources over the life of the turbine than constantly burning coal. They do not spew CO2 into the atmosphere every day for the life of the turbine. Yes, we have to build infrastructure to generate energy from wind, but at least we don't have to dig up old dinosaurs and burn them to make electricity.

----------


## John2b

What is a fossil energy burning, water boiling, steam engine electricity generator made out of? A lot of steel and concrete. 
What happens when someone rides in a car or a bus? They get swamped with 10,000 times, or more, the amount infrasonic energy that anyone is ever exposed to from a wind turbine. 
What happens when there is only fossil fuel fired steam engine generation feeding the grid? Fossils energy plants run near 100% in the background burning fossil fuel even when there is no demand for electricity, because it takes a few days to wind them up to capacity. 
What happens when there is more electricity capacity from wind turbines than is needed? The blades are feathered.

----------


## John2b

Proof that emission trading in Australia worked and Direct Action does not work:

----------


## PhilT2

The link between the tobacco industry and climate change denial is well established. A video objecting to tobacco plain packaging is doing the rounds at the moment and is being recognised as the worst attempt to imitate an Aussie accent ever heard.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0Zm8XtTBj0 
If you can cope with listening to it it's worthwhile to see how they manipulate the data attempting to prove their point. Two minutes on google will show you the links to climate change deniers and the right wing of the liberals.

----------


## John2b

Ha Ha, thanks PhilT2. According to the Property Rights Alliance's own promotional video, plain packaging of cigarettes has resulted in the best possible outcome for the tobacco industry, namely growth in their consumer base. No doubt they will want to promote plain packaging of tobacco products worldwide! 
Next thing, climate change deniers will be claiming wind generation promotes CO2 emissions by promoting the burning of antediluvian fossil energy. Oh wait - Marc just did that in his last post, LOL!

----------


## John2b

Renewable electricity generation powers ahead in South Australia after the closure of the last coal fired generator, even exporting up to 25% of generation at the lowest prices on the national grid:

----------


## Marc

Replacing nuclear power with wind in Sweden would literally double the country’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, according to a study published Monday by scientists from the Max Planck Institute and the Royal Institute of Technology. The study found that replacing nuclear with wind power would make the electrical grid unreliable. Conventional natural gas and coal power plants would be needed to compensate for the unreliability, which would create more CO2 emissions. The study was published in the peer-reviewed European Physical Journal Plus. Sweden gets most of its electricity from hydroelectric plants and nuclear reactors, so the country generates very few CO2 emissions. Sweden consumes very large amounts of electricity and energy on a per capita basis, but hydro and nuclear powers mean Swedish carbon emissions are relativity low compared to those of other countries. Sweden has nine operating nuclear power reactors, which provide about 40 percent of the country’s electricity.  Despite Sweden’s low CO2 emissions, environmentalists have been trying to force the country’s government to phase out nuclear power since the mid-1970s. The country had a national referendum in 1980 that called for nuclear energy to be phased out, but this proved extremely unfeasible. Sweden reversed the nuclear phase out in 2009 over the objections of environmentalists. Sponsored Links byReal world experience supports the study’s conclusions, as Germany, the only major European country to transition away from nuclear power, saw its CO2 emissions sharply increase as a result.  Nuclear power made up 29.5 percent of Germany’s energy in the year 2000, but by 2015, nuclear power only provided 16 percent of German energy. This decline has created an opening for coal-fired electricty, which now provides 44 percent of  Germany’s power. This shift caused Germany’s CO2 emissions to actually rise by 28 million tons each year after the policy changed. The shutdown plan has certainly done enormous damage to utilities, destroying their main sources of profit and increasing the price of electricity throughout Germany. The government has mandated that the nuclear reactors be replaced with green energy, but the estimated cost of doing so is over $1.1 trillion and the transition damaged Germany’s power grid so badly that the government plans to cap the total amount of wind energy at 40 to 45 percent of national capacity, according to a report published in April. Due to these adverse effects of green energy, Germans plans to get rid of  6,000 megawatts of wind power capacity by 2019. Wind and solar power continued to cause issues despite the cutbacks, and even nearly fried Germany’s power grid in May. The disaster was prevented when the government was forced to actually paid consumers to use electricity.  
Read more: Replacing Nuclear With Wind Would DOUBLE CO2 Emissions | The Daily Caller

----------


## John2b

Researchers use computer models to show that CO2 emissions would rise under a technology that even the World Nuclear Association acknowledges has lower lifecycle emissions than nuclear and publishes their revelatory findings in a science journal that specialises in sub-atomic particle physics. Peer Reviewed??? Pull the other one Marc, it plays "Jingle Bells".

----------


## mattwilliams78

Wow, 307 pages! I waded into this debate literally years ago but I'm glad to see the tide has finally turned against the deniers - I remember Chrisp being one of the other voices of reason some time ago. 
Whatever the deniers' many madcap conspiracy theories, as a mechanical engineer I have always resigned myself to the first and second laws of thermodynamics that state energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system (such as our isolated planetary atmosphere) and that entropy of a system always increases over time. If mankind is harvesting huge amounts of concentrated sunlight stored safely in the ground and burning it, how can that energy NOT be causing widespread warming?! How can that entropy not be increasing global levels so much that we return to the hot, humid, primordial soup that converted trees and other dead organisms into all of that coal and gas in the first place?!

----------


## Marc

Matt, I must ask you to refrain from using pejorative terms towards those who do not share your points of view. "Denier" is used to draw a parallel with holocaust deniers and is a despicable strategy.
I "deny" nothing, simply refuse an unproven hypothesis.  
As for your idea that our atmosphere is a closed system such is akin to the flat earth and geocentrism. 
I am afraid you get a fail on all points.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Marc...our atmosphere IS (for all intensive purposes) a closed system. At least to most things except energy... 
Not dissimilar to a pressure cooker on a stove...

----------


## Marc

Oh come on Silent ... the crux of the matter is ... are humans creating a runaway catastrophic global warming that will change the world as we know it forever and create 9 m sea level rise and make the tropics deserts and inhabitable and the rain will be a thing of the past and the warragamba dam will dry up ... or ... are we living in a OPEN system as far as heat is concerned so that the heat that comes from the sun (oh dear) and the heat that goes out to the never never (oh my) OPEN ... yes ... creates fluctuations in the weather pattern as it always has and as it always will. 
Oh sure, humans are making a difference, and so do cows and butterflies.  
The only thing that is closed is the minds of those who lend themselves to the power deals of those who are the winners in this game. This is just a new modern version of the call to arms for patriotism that creates wars and personal wealth for some, and misery for the rest.

----------


## Pendejo

> are humans creating a runaway catastrophic global warming that will change the world as we know it forever

  From what I have read and heard from the best scientists, the answer is "yes". 
Google "radio ecoshock" if you want to listen to those scientists yourself.

----------


## PhilT2

> This is just a new modern version of the call to arms for patriotism that creates wars and personal wealth for some, and misery for the rest.

  No, it's all a plot by the left to introduce a one world socialist govt. No, it's a conspiracy by the Chinese to cripple western civilization. Or perhaps it's a plot by all those corrupt scientists to....oh, never mind. 
Hence the term "denier"; to be more accurate wouldn't be polite.

----------


## Pendejo

Just want to reply to this thread to introduce myself. 
Sadly for Marc, I am a supporter of the science. By now, we should have moved beyond this sort of debate. Anyone renovating their house should be doing so in the expectation of more extreme and hotter weather in the future. This means:   Better insulation if you can afford itLighter colours (it amazes me to see the dark tiled roofs on new houses!)Solar power highly recommended (and room for storage batteries in homes will soon be needed, so plan for it)More energy in the atmosphere means more violent storms, so go for the best bracing of your frame that you can afford (in SEQ, I'm looking at 61m/s on my new build)Drainage issues are becoming major concerns because of downpours (more moisture in the atmosphere means more severe storms) 
I hope to contribute more to this thread over time.

----------


## John2b

> I hope to contribute more to this thread over time.

  Welcome to to the forum Pendegjo. The Renovate Forum is generally a very helpful place to visit. However you would be well advised to avail yourself of a flameproof jacket if you intend to participate in this particular topic. Don't take anything personally, especially when it is directed at you personally as it likely will be. To quote someone else,_ it is no secret that those with closed minds here are those who lend themselves to the power deals of those who are the winners in this game_; namely big multibillion dollar capex multination corporations who exploit the resources that belong to others, don't pay taxes, buy scientists and politicians and control the world financial system and would disregard local governance and people - AKA the *grassroots unemployed greenies*! 
How hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of climate research scientists employed by governments, universities, private trusts *and* for-profit multinational corporations, in first and third world countries, in totalitarian and free markets, socialist and capitalist countries, have been centrally controlled to conspired to pervert human knowledge so successfully by agreeing with each other for the past 160+ years is something that those deniers who would claim it is all a hoax have never seriously postulated. And as far the deniers are concerned they don't have to! Dunning and Kruger have conclusively proven that the deniers know they are right!

----------


## John2b

> Wow, 307 pages! I waded into this debate literally years ago but I'm glad to see the tide has finally turned against the deniers

  Even as ice polar volumes melt into oblivion, glaciers disappear without a trace, coastlines get erased, islands disappear under water, fish species migrate away from central latitudes, trees and other plant species migrate up mountains, deniers will not accept that the tide is turning. Rather land sinking, conspiracies, gun control laws, equal rights, abortion laws, same sex marriage, natural climate variation, and the beginning of the new (long overdue) ice age are the_ cause of all of the observed climate anomalies_ if they actually exist, which they don't (unless it happens to you as it did to Trump's golf course). YMMV.

----------


## Pendejo

> Don't take anything personally, especially when it is directed at you personally as it likely will be.

  Haha, don't worry, I am well equipped to withstand it. 
Everyone should ponder something as they get inundated with rain this weekend:  increases in rainfall extremes are linked to global warming. When you look at the association between the intensity of rainfall extremes and a record of global mean near-surface atmospheric temperature, rainfall intensity is found to increase at a rate of between 5.9% and 7.7% for each degree, depending on the method of analysis. This kind of change is precisely what can be expected if one assumes that the intensity of the most extreme rainfall events will scale with the capacity of the atmosphere to hold moisture. This is well known to increase with temperature at a rate of about 7% per degree 
I think the moist, rainy world of Blade Runner was more prescient than most people realized.   Increases in rainfall extremes linked to global warming

----------


## John2b

> Increases in rainfall extremes linked to global warming

  What global warming? Hint: don't look here:

----------


## Marc

Oh well ... one more for the ignore list, this one did not last long ... no wonder calling himself pubic hair!

----------


## John2b

> Oh well ... one more for the ignore list, this one did not last long ... no wonder calling himself pubic hair!

  Who said "I must ask you to refrain from using pejorative terms towards those who do not share your points of view"? Obviously that person did not mean it to apply to his own posts. #15346

----------


## mattwilliams78

Excellent response Pendejo. Even if Marc were right and the science was still debatable, which it's not, preparing for the worst is not a bad idea regardless of your position on ACC. Look at those wealthy homeowners at Collaroy who never dreamed that 15m of their yard would disappear overnight?!  
Marc, I haven't seen any cows or butterflies deforesting whole continents, creating open cut mines the size of small European countries or bleaching whole coral reefs that can be seen from space. If you don't think mankind is having a negative impact on the planet, far beyond our relative weight, and that we don't have any obligation or precaution to rein that in, then you are certainly denying something! But yeah, you might be right, its probably all those bloody money hungry lefty tree huggers just trying to stop battlers driving their 4L V8s to the shops and annoying those poor coal seam gas miners that just want to pump carcinogenic cocktails of chemicals into the ground to keep the mighty industrial juggernaut ticking over. Yeah, wish those bloody lefties would get out of the way of progress. 
Also, to your assertion that the Earth is an open system; sorry, you need to go back to school on that one - "The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero." System Earth, Part 1 How it works - Earth Systems - Using Systems in Science, Keeping out irrelevant details https://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html 
I find your flat-earther pejorative equally offensive!

----------


## Marc

Matt, a predictable reply but you still get a fail. We are talking about the assumption that man made CO2 is altering the climate permanently and therefore the issue is purely on heat. Last time I checked temperature is the result of energy exchange and not matter exchange ... less a few asteroids of course. So earth is for the purpose of global warming a completely OPEN system. We don't have a dome yet. Actually come to think of it, it is open also when it comes to matter, not only we get matter input, we also can and do jettison mater out of space, so that is wrong too. 
The "debate" on so called climate change that was originally Global Warming, name changed just to be on the safe side in case it stops warming ... (and who can say [deny] climate does not change right?) ... so this so called debate is actually a social/religious type of exchange. 
The topic lines up two group of individuals, those who are satisfied with themselves and have a reasonable handle on things around them and those who are dissatisfied with who they are or where they stand.  
The 'dissatisfied' invariably places the blame of his predicament outside, and so the target are those who seem content, happy, successful, higher up, in power, making decisions, any or all of the above. 
Along comes global warming, the perfect opportunity to blame that section of humanity you hate, in the hope to end your own misery and feel good about yourself. A new crusade, a new war, this time not against the moors or the nazis, but against those bastards on the right who are getting rich.  
I said this many times before: the warmist agitator and the conservative sceptic chose sides by default even before they know anything about the topic. 
What the global warming crusader can not see is that he is himself a puppet of a small minority who is way more clever than he thinks and that is using him for their own gain.

----------


## chrisp

> The topic lines up two group of individuals, those who are satisfied with themselves and have a reasonable handle on things around them and those who are dissatisfied with who they are or where they stand.  
> The 'dissatisfied' invariably places the blame of his predicament outside, and so the target are those who seem content, happy, successful, higher up, in power, making decisions, any or all of the above. 
> Along comes global warming, the perfect opportunity to blame that section of humanity you hate, in the hope to end your own misery and feel good about yourself. A new crusade, a new war, this time not against the moors or the nazis, but against those bastards on the right who are getting rich.  
> I said this many times before: the warmist agitator and the conservative sceptic chose sides by default even before they know anything about the topic. 
> What the global warming crusader can not see is that he is himself a puppet of a small minority who is way more clever than he thinks and that is using him for their own gain.

  I think that you are over complicating it by bring in emotion and feelings/bias in to the argument ('chose sides by default') 
It's quite simple really.  The facts are that the world is warming.  Many theorys have been proposed to explain the warming and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the warming is caused by man-made (or man-released) CO2. To hold any other position is just bias, ignorance of the facts, or an agenda to push. 
It's nothing to do with hate or agendas - it's just facts.  Well, it's just facts that matter to me when forming my views or opinions. I'm not sure about you though.  What is your agenda????

----------


## Marc

That we get warmer is not in dispute, even when the rate of warming has been exaggerated by the warmist side in the most creative ways imaginable just to keep the funding  flowing.  
What is in dispute is the rate that is imputable to human activity, and that despite the various anti science statement saying the debate is over, and the consensus, and the majority, and the all the rest of the known statements by those who benefit from the largess of politicians shopping for votes, in science there _must_ be scepticism and there _must_ be challenge or it is not science.  
A real scientist welcomes it does not demonise it and calls it anathema. 
When a group of scientist close ranks and say the debate is over you know there is an alternative agenda, a boss to please that is dishing out money, a belief akin to religion or all of the above. 
There are many more aspects of this pathetic state of affairs that is way off and stinking badly but I suggest to go back and read the many pages that are in this thread. Plenty has been said, no point repeating it. 
The earth is a closed system however is a new one. Love that one. So we have geocentrism, flat earth and closed system. What next?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Oh come on Silent ... the crux of the matter is ... are humans creating a runaway catastrophic global warming that will change the world as we know it forever and create 9 m sea level rise and make the tropics deserts and inhabitable and the rain will be a thing of the past and the warragamba dam will dry up ... or ... are we living in a OPEN system as far as heat is concerned so that the heat that comes from the sun (oh dear) and the heat that goes out to the never never (oh my) OPEN ... yes ... creates fluctuations in the weather pattern as it always has and as it always will. 
> Oh sure, humans are making a difference, and so do cows and butterflies.

  The answer to the first question is 'probably...but not in our lifetime'. The answer to the second question is 'yes'. 
Humans make a difference, Marc. We are not insignificant. To believe otherwise (in my opinion) suggests a belief in higher powers...as in ones that are neither cows nor butterflies.

----------


## John2b

Contrary to the notion often promoted in this forum, most climate scientists are not active change advocates, but are simply researchers studying the climate. Expecting them to set some kind of example, because their research indicates that maybe the world should take some action, is wrong. The only thing they are obliged to do is to present their research honestly and clearly, and to make it possible for the public and policy makers to be informed by the research that is done. 
Ironically, those climate scientists who advocate publicly are regarded, by some, as no longer scientifically credible, while those who don’t set some kind of public example, are regarded by some as hypocrites. When, in the future, the insufficient action to address climate change is apparent to everyone, it’s not going to be the fault of climate scientists who didn’t put solar panels on their roofs or lived near coastal waters.  It almost seems as though climate scientists simply can’t win, at least in the eyes of some.

----------


## John2b

> When a group of scientist close ranks and say the debate is over you know there is an alternative agenda, a boss to please that is dishing out money...

  Must be referring to stuff like this:  "Peabody's funding of groups like Friends of Science and others like CFACTshows a clear intent by the company to intervene in the climate public policy debate by casting doubt on the science. They know full well that science is the engine that drives environmental policy; derail the science and you stop the train.  http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/06/17/news/climate-change-groups-appear-creditors-coal-giants-bankruptcy-proceeding 
But not only are the corporate polluters "buying science" they are buying politicians as well:  Members of Congress | Dirty Energy Money - Oil Change International 
And that despite fossil energy companies contributing to the consensus that is so lovingly mocked by science deniers: 
"Exxon corporate documents from the late 1970s stating unequivocally there is no doubt that CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels was a growing problem well understood within the company."  Investigation Finds Exxon Ignored Its Own Early Climate Change Warnings | FRONTLINE | PBS  
I think you're on to something, Marc!

----------


## Marc

> I think that you are over complicating it by bring in emotion and feelings/bias in to the argument ('chose sides by default') 
> It's quite simple really.  The facts are that the world is warming.  Many theorys have been proposed to explain the warming and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the warming is caused by man-made (or man-released) CO2. To hold any other position is just bias, ignorance of the facts, or an agenda to push. 
> It's nothing to do with hate or agendas - it's just facts.  Well, it's just facts that matter to me when forming my views or opinions. I'm not sure about you though.  What is your agenda????

  How do you know the "facts" are what you believe they are?
Answer: you do not.
You _think_ you know because you trust one group of people and take what they say to be the truth. 
You have _faith_ in what someone says over what someone else is saying. You have faith in one group and mistrust the other. 
That is called belief and keeps no relation with facts.  
And if you dig a bit past the surface you will find that you chose the group "A" based on your particular set of values, values you have adopted way earlier probably before age 10. Your set of values has a series of round holes so you found a group of round pegs to plug in your round hole belief system and you say, matter of fact, this is the truth! Halleluiah ...   well, you may not say halleluiah, may be eureka!  
Another person goes through the same process to find the facts and will collect a series of square pegs dished out by group "B", that happen to fit in his square holes and he will say ... Amazing ... revelation, this is the truth ! 
Those preaching geocentrism did so based on some dubious passages in the bible, and the same goes for flat earth. That was the 'science' back then and the debate was over, not allowed, if you disagree you are a denier and burned alive. 
Today we have the scientific process that in theory wouldn't allow for such absurd distortion of the facts, however when it comes to global warming the scientific process has been corrupted in such a way that nothing is what it seems anymore, so many factors have gone in the way and so many foreign interest are attached to a few simple scientific principles, that the process is null and void.  
Burning people alive for their beliefs is not done anymore, openly anyway ... but many similar process are available to those on the right side, that is not the right, it's the left activated by the right making the left believe it is acting out of principle. 
Fascinating really.

----------


## PhilT2

Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans -

----------


## John2b

> Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans -

  Nah, I thought they were dying out. There's only one active one left in this forum...  While reaffirming the gloomy assessments of the study, Logsdon held out hope that the threat of fact-resistant humans could be mitigated in the future. Our research is very preliminary, but its possible that they will become more receptive to facts once they are in an environment without food, water, or oxygen, he said.  LMAO it hasn't happened in this thread.....

----------


## Pendejo

> We don't have a dome yet.

  Um, no, we do.  Scientists Find a Huge, Star Trek-esque Invisible Dome Around Earth   

> The "debate" on so called climate change that was originally Global Warming, name changed just to be on the safe side in case it stops warming

  Um, nope, it was first called climate change and then global warming https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/artic...climate-change   

> Along comes global warming, the perfect opportunity to blame that section of humanity you hate, in the hope to end your own misery and feel good about yourself. A new crusade, a new war, this time not against the moors or the nazis, but against those bastards on the right who are getting rich.

  Nope again, science has nothing to do with Right and Left. 
"The good thing about science is that its true whether or not you believe in it." (Neil deGrasse Tyson)   

> I said this many times before: the warmist agitator and the conservative sceptic chose sides by default even before they know anything about the topic.

  
That reminds me:  
"A General Manual of Denialism" 
* attack the messenger
* cherry-pick the data
* minimize the problem
* call for more evidence
* hire industry friendly scientists
* create front groups
* question the personal motives and integrity of the scientists
* cite nonexperts with minority opinions as authorities
* manufacture doubt
* shift the blame
* delay regulations
* question the science
* divert attention
* frame the issue as a threat to personal freedom
* claim that acceptance would repudiate a key philosophy, religious belief, or practice of a group.    

> What the global warming crusader can not see is that he is himself a puppet of a small minority who is way more clever than he thinks and that is using him for their own gain.

  The irony is overwhelming, coming from an unwitting drone of the fossil fuel companies.

----------


## Pendejo

> ..the rate of warming has been exaggerated by the warmist side in the most creative ways imaginable just to keep the funding  flowing.

  Quite apart from the fact that the general consensus amongst climate scientists I have read is that the IPCC is actually _underplaying_ the extent and speed of warming, the scientists are mostly in tenured positions or salaried jobs that they'd have with or without AGW. So the "keeping the funding flowing" is a silly furphy, which I suspect you know. 
Your untenable position seems to be that 99% of climate scientists have contrived an environmental crisis but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies, and their drones like you.   

> When a group of scientist close ranks and say the debate is over

  Just like the debate is over on other issues:   Evolution is a factSmoking causes cancer  
 If you question those facts, you'd be nuts. And the basic facts of global warming via CO2 are even more researched (and accepted in the scientific community) than those two items   

> a belief akin to religion

  “Climate change is not a belief system — it is a fact. This is science,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy

----------


## Pendejo

> How do you know the "facts" are what you believe they are?
> Answer: you do not.
> You _think_ you know because you trust one group of people and take what they say to be the truth. 
> You have _faith_ in what someone says over what someone else is saying. You have faith in one group and mistrust the other. 
> That is called belief and keeps no relation with facts.

  I trust scientists. Whom do you trust? Sites like WattsUpWithThat.com, the denier go-to site, run by a university dropout?

----------


## Marc

_by_ JAMES DELINGPOLE28 Mar 20161241 *SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER*      *Climate change is the biggest scam in the history of the world – a $1.5 trillion-a-year conspiracy against the taxpayer, every cent, penny and centime of which ends in the pockets of the wrong kind of people, none of which goes towards a cause remotely worth funding, all of it a complete and utter waste.*Here is an edited version of a speech on this subject I gave last week to the World Taxpayers’ Associations in Berlin. Good evening ladies and gentlemen; Guten Abend meine Damen und Herren. May I say how grateful I am to Staffan Wennberg and the World Taxpayers Associations for inviting me to speak in Berlin. This is my first time here since 1978. I was a schoolboy then. I learned my first German: “Was trinken wir? Schultheiss Bier.” Now I’m grown up and married with children even older than I was then. Yesterday I went on a tour and I couldn’t help noticing there seem to have been one or two changes. When I last came I have to confess that the Wall was the highlight of my trip. So echt Cold War. So _Spy Who Came In From The Cold_! I remember taking the U-bahn underneath the wall, passing through the East German side, and seeing empty grey platforms where the train never stopped, and lurking in the shadows grim looking guards with machine guns. And you know how they say: “If you’re not a communist by the time you’re 18 then you’re heartless and if you’re not a capitalist by the time you’re 40 then you’re brainless.”? Well I’m afraid I skipped that first stage and went straight to the second. All it took was that little glimpse of East Germany – a place so horrible that if you tried to escape they would shoot you with machine guns – to give me an abiding preference for free markets. Small Government. And low taxes. Low taxes. To many of us here, I suspect, it seems so obvious why low taxes are a desirable thing. We know, as Bastiat says: “The State is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” We’ve seen the performance of low-tax economies like Singapore and Hong Kong and compared it to the performance over the years of high-tax economies like Cuba, North Korea or France. And drawn the obvious conclusions. It’s obvious to us. The evidence supports it. Why isn’t it obvious to the rest of the world? Well one of the big problems I think is that over the years taxation has acquired a moral dimension it never had originally. When bad King John sent his tax collectors round 13th century England, everyone knew it was to fund his unpopular wars with France. No one said as they handed over their hard-earned groats:”Well at least it’s going to make a better society.” But today you hear it a lot. You hear people say things like “I don’t mind paying a bit extra in tax if it gives us a better health service.” Celebrities who try to reduce their taxes in complicated offshore schemes are pilloried in the newspaper. Companies like Google, Starbucks and Amazon which avoid paying taxes find themselves boycotted and the subject of angry campaigns on Twitter. There’s an idea abroad that if you don’t pay your taxes you’re not being clever and canny – as you would have been considered in John’s day. Rather you’re shirking your moral duty to create a better world. Well I disagree with this. I couldn’t disagree with it more strongly. I believe that far from being a moral force for good, taxes are – almost invariably – a force for greed, corruption, profligacy and waste. As PJ O’Rourke once noted: “Giving money and power to government is like giving *whiskey* and *car keys* to teenage boys.” Nowhere is this truer in the field of the environment which, I sincerely believe – and I’ve been doing a lot of research into this – must count among the biggest wastes of tax money in the history of the world. Last year Climate Change Business Journal – calculated that the total annual spend on the climate change industry is $1.5 trillion a year. All those carbon traders, climate researchers, renewables and biofuels experts, environment correspondents, professors of climate science at the University of East Anglia and the Potsdam Institute, sustainability officers on local councils, and so on, add up the cost of their grants and salaries – and $1.5 trillion _per year_ is the ballpark figure you reach. So what does $1.5 trillion look like in a global economic context? Well, it’s roughly the amount we spend every year on the online shopping industry. $1.5 trillion on the global warming industry; $1.5 trillion on the online shopping industry. But there’s a key difference between these two industries. One exists to provide buyers and sellers what they want – to their mutual benefit; the other is a sham. Buying stuff on the internet: it’s really useful, isn’t it? It has had a dramatically transforming effect on our quality of life, the way you can order a book at 11 o’clock on a Sunday night and have it appear on your doorstep the very next day. But how did this marvellous industry spring up? Was it because of all the special incentives and tax breaks granted by wise governments? Nope of course not. They weren’t necessary. The online shopping industry sprung up and grew and grew because it was what people wanted, where they chose – of their own volition – to spend their money. Now compare and contrast the global warming industry – which I call a Potemkin industry – because that’s what it is: a fraud; a sham; a conspiracy against the taxpayer. Do you want to have a guess how much that industry would be worth if it weren’t for all the money funnelled into it via government grants and taxpayer levies and subsidies and regulatory capture? Pretty close to zero, I’d say. Take wind farms – my hobby horse. The cost of intermittent, unreliable wind energy is roughly twice the market rate for onshore wind; three times the market rate for onshore. Nobody’s going to pay that kind of_money_ in the open market. The only way it’s going to happen if people are mandated by the government to do so: which is what of course has happened across Europe and in the US. Warren Buffett has said it: “wind farms don’t make sense without the tax credit.” They’re inefficient; they kill birds and bats; they spoil views; they’re environmentally unfriendly – rare earth minerals from China; they’re hazardous; they’re expensive; they’re ugly (well I think they are….) And in few countries is the damage these monstrosities have done more obvious than in Germany, home of the hateful _Energiewende._ _Energiewende_ means Energy Transition. It has been a disaster, as Rupert Darwallnoted in a recent Telegraph article. In 2004, the Green energy minister, Jürgen Trittin, claimed that the extra cost of renewable energy on monthly bills was equivalent to the cost of a scoop of ice cream. Nine years later, CDU minister Peter Altmaier said Energiewende could cost around €1 trillion by the end of the 2030s. The cost of feed-in tariffs and other subsidies is currently €21.8bn a year; €20bn is being spent on a new north-south high voltage line and investment in other grid infrastructure is likely to double that number. They cause real people real misery. In 2013, 345,000 German households could not pay their electricity bills because_Energiewende_ had made them so expensive. That’s the financial damage they’ve caused. What about the environmental damage? Here we are in Germany, the Greenest nation on earth. Aren’t Greens supposed to care about animals? Well they don’t about bats, clearly. Bats are special. The reason they’re so heavily protected by so many laws is that they are a K-selected species. That is, they reproduce very slowly, live a long time and are easy to wipe out. Having evolved with few predators – flying at night helps – bats did very well with this strategy until the modern world. But now we have all those eco-friendly wind turbines. Or as I call them bird-slicing, bat-chomping eco-crucifixes. A recent study in Germany by the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research showed that bats killed by German turbines may have come from places 1000 or more miles away. This would suggest that German turbines – which one study claims kill more than 200,000 bats a year – may be depressing populations across the entire northeastern portion of Europe. Why would anyone put up such things. One reason and one reason only: follow the money. Where does the money come from? Us! Who made the decision to spend that money? Not us. Oh definitely not us. Had it been us we might have done a bit of basic due diligence. Like, OK, so these wind turbines are necessary you say to save the planet from the threat of catastrophic and unprecedented man-made global warming? _Correct._ So has the planet ever been as warm in human history as it is today? _Well, only in the Minoan warming period and the Roman warming period and the Medieval warming period._ Just those. Right. And presumably back then all that CO2 heavy industry was burning was a real problem? No just kidding…Out of interest how much has the planet warmed in the last few years? _About 0.8 degrees C since 1850._ Right so since the end of the Little Ice Age (so called because it was characterised by unpleasant cold) and years like the infamous Year Without A Summer (1816), the planet has heated by less than the temperature increase you’d get on a spring day between say breakfast and mid-morning coffee time? _Ah yes but the computer models…_ Indeed the computer models. Those amazing models which have been predicting catastrophic, runaway warming, when there has been no significant warming since 1998 – so for eighteen years there has been no global warming? _Ah yes but the temperatures of February 2016…._ Look I could go on like this forever. I’ve been listening to these increasingly desperate excuses for decades. Perhaps some of you here believe them – if so, there’s a bridge I’d like to sell you… But it really doesn’t matter whether you believe in global warming or not because here’s the reality: All that money we’re being to spend on the global warming industry – that $1.5 trillion I mentioned earlier siphoned straight out of taxpayers’ pockets – it isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference. No, I exaggerate. It will make a teeny weeny bit of difference. Bjorn Lomborg has done the calculations. You’re going to love this, if you haven’t heard this before. These figures are just amazing. So recently you’ll recall there was a big UN climate conference in Paris COP 21 and all the leaders of the world flew in to save the planet from global warming. But before they turned up, each delegate nation made a voluntary agreement as to how much it was going to cut its carbon emissions. Not _compulsory_, note. So these countries are free at any stage to abandon their carbon reduction targets – as funnily enough South Korea did last week. This is how much – best case scenario – that various countries are prepared to do to combat climate change. So Lomborg added up all the countries INDCs – that stands for Intended Nationally Determined Contributions – and worked out, using the climate alarmists’ own models, what effect all this would have on global temperature. Do you want to know how much? (Oh this is the _optimistic_ scenario by the way, not the _pessimistic_ one). If all the countries do their bit then the total reduction in global warming – by the year 2100 will be 0.170 degrees Centigrade. As a climate sceptic friend of mine pointed out at the time, you’d experience a bigger temperature increase than that just walking down from the top to the bottom of the Eiffel tower. So there’s your deal folks: you – and taxpayers like you – are paying $1.5 trillion a year to reduce the world’s temperatures by the end of this century by 0.170. It’s so perfectly ridiculous it’s almost funny. And I suppose on a personal level I shouldn’t complain. I call climate change “the gift that goes on giving” because day in day out I get an endless stream of stories to write about the corruption, incompetence, skullduggery of the climate alarmism industry. But, putting my career aside for the moment, is this really a world we’d like to live in? Can it be right that people who have worked hard for their money should have it taken from them and then wasted in so spectacular fashion? And it’s not just the waste that’s so bad it’s worse than that. If it were simply a form of taxpayer-funded welfare scheme for otherwise unemployable environmental sciences graduates that would be one thing. But this is causing real, lasting harm in any number of ways. The corrupting effects on science – and the scientific method – which at times are almost redolent of Lysenkoism of the Stalin era. The brainwashing of schoolchildren such as you might have found with the Young Pioneers. The economic damage caused by the misallocation of resources, as so frequently happens in Communist countries The pollution caused by diesel (introduced, on EU recommendation, because it’s supposedly more CO2-friendly) which calls to mind Chernobyl or the poisoning of the Aral Sea. The human suffering of those 345,000 German households I mentioned who can’t pay their electricity bills. Does this authoritarianism and corruption and incompetence remind you of anything? Well it has often been said – and there is much anecdotal evidence to support this – that after the Berlin Wall came down the left had a bit of a problem. Capitalism had won the economic argument. Where could the left go next? But the solution was there waiting them – the green movement. In the guise of saving the world’s environment they could advance all their usual obsessions – control, regulation, state intervention, puritanism, compulsory immiseration – though this time with a smiling, fluffy face. Watermelons they call them: green on the outside, red on the inside. So the Berlin Wall came down but it never really went away. And sometimes I look at the world and what has been happening with the rise and rise of green lunacy and I ask myself: did the right side really win the Cold War or is it just an illusion?

----------


## Pendejo

Lol, James Delingpole, the denier twerp whose only qualification is a BA in English Lit. So _that's_ where you get your info, Marc! No wonder you're all at sea.  :No:  Here's a quote from Mr Delingpole:   

> I feel a bit of an imposter talking about the science. I'm not a scientist, you may be aware. I read English Literature.

  He has also said that climate is, and I quote, "not a scientific debate but a cultural and rhetorical one".  :Rofl:  
Here's some real news, Australians leading the world in solar tech: Milestone in solar cell efficiency by UNSW engineers | UNSW Newsroom

----------


## John2b

Marc says blah, blah. blah... 
"If all the countries do their bit then the total reduction in global warming – by the year 2100 will be 0.170 degrees Centigrade. As a climate sceptic friend of mine pointed out at the time, you’d experience a bigger temperature increase than that just walking down from the top to the bottom of the Eiffel tower. So there’s your deal folks: you – and taxpayers like you – are paying $1.5 trillion a year to reduce the world’s temperatures by the end of this century by 0.170."  So did anyone point out to your climate sceptic friend the the temperature at the top and the bottom of the Eiffel tower are totally irrelevant to climate change or global warming, Marc? 
So how much is it worth to keep the planet human inhabitable? Apparently "It’s so perfectly ridiculous it’s almost funny." Well, maybe for the narcissistic ignoramuses the physical environment in which they (briefly) live it doesn't matter. YMMV...

----------


## Bigboboz

> What global warming? Hint: don't look here:

  Does the temp jump from Dec to Jan in the last 3 years? Following the Dec line to where the Jan line begins for the following year has the temp jump quite a bit for 2013 to 2016.  1998 shows the temp can move quite a bit in the one month so it's possible but what's special about Dec to Jan that it consistently jumps?

----------


## John2b

> Does the temp jump from Dec to Jan in the last 3 years? Following the Dec line to where the Jan line begins for the following year has the temp jump quite a bit for 2013 to 2016.  1998 shows the temp can move quite a bit in the one month so it's possible but what's special about Dec to Jan that it consistently jumps?

  The curve is the 'year to date' average temperature starting from January each year, not a continuous temperature record. It simply shows how the current year's average temperature from January is panning out compared to previous years average temperature from January. It is very hot this year globally, like never before in recorded history, or even the past few years.

----------


## Marc

What consensus? Less than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty »     « Weekend Unthreaded *Spot the Vested Interest: The $1.5 Trillion Climate Change Industry*   _Climate Change Business Journal_ estimates the Climate Change Industry is a $1.5 Trillion dollar escapade, which means four billion dollars a day is spent on our quest to change the climate. That includes everything from carbon markets to carbon consulting, carbon sequestration, renewables, biofuels, green buildings and insipid cars. For comparison globalretail sales online are worth around $1.5 trillion. So all the money wasted on the climate is equivalent to all the goods bought online.
The special thing about this industry is that it wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for an assumption about relative humidity that is probably wrong. As such, it’s the only major industry in the world dependent on consumer and voter ignorance. This is not just another vested interest in a political debate; it’s vested-on-steroids, a mere opinion poll away from extinction. You can almost hear the captains of climate industry bellowing: “Keep ‘em ignorant and believing, or the money goes away!”.
To state the obvious: _Policy, or the anticipation of new policy, has been one of the biggest drivers of the industry, the report shows._
 Most industries this size exist because they produce something the market wants. They worry that competitors might chip into their market share, but they don’t worry that the market might disappear overnight. Normal industries fear that a “bad” political outcome might reduce profits by ten or twenty percent, and sometimes they donate “both ways”. But the climate industry has literally a trillion on the table that depends on big-government policy and election outcomes. They are always one prime-time documentary away from disaster. What if the public saw that thermometers were next to industrial exhaust vents? What if they learned that the climate models are unskilled, broken, and non-functional, or that 28 million weather balloons show carbon reduction is fruitless pursuit? What if they knew historic records are wildly adjusted to make the current weather look warmer than it would?
So while _The Guardian_ worries about the dark and evil influence of the fossil fuels industry they don’t seem at all concerned about the vested-monster-in-the-kitchen, the 1.5 Trillion Climate Industry. Ditto for the intrepid souls at the ABC/BBC/CBC who think they speak truth to power, but miss the most powerful lobby in the climate debate.
By the way, you can buy the 200 page Climate Change Consulting Report for $995, _or not._ …. Insurance Journal
Figures for the climate change consulting market are expected to more than double in the next five years, and the report’s authors believe the climate change industry as a whole will have an even steeper and faster growth trajectory than the environmental consulting industry – an industry that in 1976 had billings of $600 million and today generates $27 billion.
The sectors covered in the A new 200 page report  include:  climate change consultingsolar energy & wind powercarbon tradingcarbon capture & storagebioenergy: biomass & biofuelsenergy efficiency & demand responseconsulting & engineeringgreen buildingrenewable energy consultingclimate change adaptation   I think the lesson here is that if you have a dodgy theory, set up a dependent industry fast, and sit back while they lobby and push your theory for you.

----------


## Pendejo

> What consensus? Less than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty »

  Ha! From the actual study, rather than from Jo Nova's awful website, you get:  

> 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming

  More from the study itself at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es501998e   

> Our results for the level of consensus are similar to those found in other surveys.(3, 24-26) Doran and Kendall-Zimmermann(3) reported an 82% consensus among 3146 earth scientists, which rose to 88% for those who identified themselves as climatologists, which is very similar to our findings. *However, Oreskes,(2) Anderegg et al.,(4) and Cook et al.(5) reported a 97% agreement about human-induced warming, from the peer-reviewed literature and their sample of actively publishing climate scientists, as did Doran and Kendall-Zimmermann(3) for the most published climatologists. Literature surveys, generally, find a stronger consensus than opinion surveys*. This is related to the stronger consensus among often-published–and arguably the most expert–climate scientists. The strength of literature surveys lies in the fact that they sample the primary fora where the evidence is laid out, whereas the strength of opinion surveys such as ours relates to the fact that much more detail can be achieved about the exact opinions of scientists. As such, these two methods for describing scientific consensus are complementary.

     

> Spot the Vested Interest: The $1.5 Trillion Climate Change Industry

  But, but, what is the fossil fuel industry subsidy? How about this:  *Direct subsidy to fossil fuel industry according to the IMF: $5.3 Trillion per year* 
Elon Musk puts it at 6 trillion. 
Now that's the real thief of money and health, the biggest "vested interest" on Earth — the fossil fuel industry!

----------


## Bigboboz

> The curve is the 'year to date' average temperature starting from January each year, not a continuous temperature record. It simply shows how the current year's average temperature from January is panning out compared to previous years average temperature from January. It is very hot this year globally, like never before in recorded history, or even the past few years.

  So Jan is just an average for Jan that year but Dec is the average from Jan through to Dec for that year?

----------


## John2b

Correct

----------


## woodbe

Pandejo. Welcome! 
Thank you for taking the time to share real information that shows denier drivel for what it is. We will probably never see Marc changing his stance on climate, but there are many readers of this thread and it is worth pointing out the repeating fallacies that are presented by the deniers and copy/pasted into this thread.

----------


## John2b

> What consensus? Less than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty

  Er, no, that's nonsense. When 3500 scientists on three continents were asked "If we do not do anything towards adaptation and mitigation, the potential for catastrophe in the next 50 years resulting from climate change for other parts of the world is" 98.5% responded some potential to great potential, with 87% strongly agreeing with the premise that the chances of catastrophic events were great or very great in the next 50 years. Climate scientists with NO affiliation with the IPCC were even stronger believers that catastrophic climate events are looming as a result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions showing that the IPCC is actually conservative in its reporting of scientific views.    CliSci2015-2016hzg_report_2016_2.pdf

----------


## Pendejo

Bill Nye the Science Guy says:  *"Part of the solution to this problem or this set of problems associated with climate change is getting the deniers out of our discourse. You know, we can’t have these people – they’re absolutely toxic."*  
Here's what's happening to glaciers in Greenland    
If anyone here has a VPN, set your IP to a US address and go view this excellent video with Nye and Arnold Schwarzenegger https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvFHdRvS4Hc

----------


## John2b

> I think the lesson here is that if you have a dodgy theory, set up a dependent industry fast, and sit back while they lobby and push your theory for you.

  Or not. 
"Deniers claiming the science is still too uncertain to take action or that the public shouldn’t be worried need to take heed of this survey (like they have in the past, if even just to spin it) and accept that they’re a fringe minority at odds with an overwhelming consensus. That’s the facts, whether they like it or not."  https://www.academia.edu/26328070/Th...ists_2015_2016

----------


## John2b

*Improving estimates of Earth's energy imbalance*  The Earth is gaining energy owing to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and the large thermal inertia of the oceans.  "...for the period 2005-2015, the net heat uptake rate was Wm-2. To put this into somce context, this is just over 1022J per year, which – if it all remained in the land/atmosphere – would warm the land/atmosphere at more than 1C per year. Of course, it does not all heat the land/atmosphere, as most (> 90%) heats the oceans. However, this is still one of the key indicators that we are undergoing anthropogenic global warming (the climate system as a whole is continuing to accrue energy, even as we continue to warm)."  Bugger me, that explains why the surface temperature has been rising so fast in the past decade...     http://phys.org/news/2015-02-years-a...s-climate.html

----------


## Pendejo

> Snip copy-paste from denier site owned by Joanne Nova (real name Joanne Codling)

  Aha, so now we see where you get your "data", Marc.  :Eek:  
Joanne Nova is a collaborator with the IPA, itself funded by mining magnate Gina Rinehart (climate denier) and at least one major tobacco company, so she's really not a scientist, more of a political and corporate operative. Hint: get your science from scientists, not party apparatchiks. 
Nova was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, which was funded to the tune of $47 million by major oil companies and right-wing foundations. 
Wakey wakey! Did I hear the words "vested interests"?  :Biggrin:  
From Rational Wiki, Jo Nova in a nutshell:   

> Joanne "Jo" Nova (real name Joanne Codling) is an Australian writer, speaker, former TV host, anti-science presenter and a professional wingnut.[1] She maintains a blog which regularly regurgitates debunked climate denial myths, making her the poor Aussie's Ian Plimer or Andrew Bolt.[2] The site also has on its header the highly ironic phrase "Tackling tribalist groupthink." She has also written a handbook called "The Skeptic's Handbook," a brief pamphlet that reads like it was copy-pasted from another denialist site without the slightest whiff of actual research and peppered with pretty pictures.[3] The handbook concentrates on a few of the greatest hits, including: Satellites and weather balloons showing no warming (they do); the Oregon Petition "debunking" the scientific consensus (it doesn't); carbon dioxide lagging, not leading temperature change (ignoring Milankovitch cycles and feedbacks); the carbon dioxide effect being saturated (it isn't); and bad weather station siting (relying on the self-debunked work of Anthony Watts).[4] 
> In between regurgitating debunked climate myths, she often posts non-sensical fiscal arguments; then breaks into a general bitching session about anything including the denial crowd pleaser, the Gore bash fest. 
> She downplays the funding she and other denialists receive from the Heartland Institute and the Science and Public Policy Institute.

   

> I think the lesson here is that if you have a dodgy theory, set up a dependent industry fast, and sit back while they lobby and push your theory for you.

  
Ground control to Major [s]Tom[/s] Marc, back here on Earth it's common knowledge in the climate change blogs that the BAU scenario of the last IPCC report (i.e. the one we are on) suggests we are on target for a 4°C rise by 2060, and 6°C by 2100.  
The only way they could fiddle less warming out of the data is by factoring in impossible geoengineering.  
2.5°C is pretty much already in the bag NOW if lag and global dimming are factored in. This rise will happen even if industrial civilization collapses tomorrow. Another 20 or 30 years of probably rising car and power station emissions will give us 4°C. And 4°C leads to 6°C as positive feedbacks like methane will be kicking in hard from the 2°C to 4°C rise. I don't suppose the rise will be trivial, linear or stop at 6°C.  
Everything seems to be playing out worse than predicted

----------


## Pendejo

*As World Burns, Richest Nations Can't Decide When to End Fossil Fuel Handouts* 
Despite ambitious pledges, global energy ministers could not agree on a target date to phase out billions in subsidies to dirty energy

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Everything seems to be playing out worse than predicted

  Whilst I support your sentiment...your choice of words grates. I'd have said: 
"A few things seem to be playing out differently than predicted" 
Remember that we understand the fundamentals of what's happening now and why.  However, the nuances of what is going to happen from here on in are little better than wild-arsed guesses at this point.

----------


## johnc

I've just returned from the West coast of Pentecost island in the Vanuatu group while a work trip we did manage a bit of snorkeling. The amount of coral bleaching has wiped out large patches of almost all coral. Really sad, I hope we don't see these destroyed for good but the march of temperature increase combined with El Niño makes the future of these once pristine vibrant areas look very uncertain

----------


## Marc

> However, the nuances of what is going to happen from here on in are little better than wild-arsed guesses at this point.

  Ha ha, how true, reminds me of Ross Greenwood who I have named "the agitator". I picture him blowing in a brown bag in and out repeatedly each time he looks at the ASX index ... the sky is falling the sky is falling !!

----------


## Pendejo

> However, the nuances of what is going to happen from here on in are little better than wild-arsed guesses at this point.

  The nuances are not certain, but the broad outline is so clear that even Blind Freddie could forecast it accurately. 
I'm sure you agree .... unless you are one of those who think, like Ms Hansen, that we need to refer climate science to a Royal Commission?

----------


## johnc

I think SBD is saying while we can see where we are heading we aren't certain of speed and timing of arrival. His view doesn't differ that much to yours, although he can speak for himself for the amazing Pauline, you have to admire her ability to pick her self up and keep going no matter what hits her, that is a comparison we could make to a poster here I think.

----------


## PhilT2

> His view doesn't differ that much to yours, although he can speak for himself for the amazing Pauline, you have to admire her ability to pick her self up and keep going no matter what hits her, that is a comparison we could make to a poster here I think.

  Election funding - Australian Electoral Commission

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The nuances are not certain, but the broad outline is so clear that even Blind Freddie could forecast it accurately. 
> I'm sure you agree .... unless you are one of those who think, like Ms Hansen, that we need to refer climate science to a Royal Commission?

  Oh the broad outline is sufficiently clear as to be remarkable that we all are still standing around twiddling our thumbs instead of actually doing much about it. However, whilst we know pretty much what is going to happen with respect to many climate parameters we have little concept of how those changes will impact on individuals. As a result...[silence]. 
Hanson is a strikingly intelligent individual who is persistence personified but her moral compass is broken. As with her previous visit to the Big House, she will contribute little more than entertainment to the people she pretends to serve.

----------


## PhilT2

> Hanson is a strikingly intelligent individual

  Citation required

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Citation required

  (pers. com., SBD, 2016) 
Like I said...she has highly questionable moral standards but she doesn't qualify as stupid...to get where she has (twice) demonstrates that no end.

----------


## PhilT2

You're right, there is something there but I wouldn't call it intelligence. She has benefited from the silly mistakes of others, namely Malcolm's mistake of going to a double dissolution and the willingness of the media to give her a platform. Sunrise were even paying her to appear during the election campaign. 
But have a look at the One nation climate policy. Her spokesperson for this is a Malcolm Roberts who is fully into the whole Agenda 21, one world government thing. Check out his site. The Work of Malcolm Roberts
A search for intelligence might be more fruitful in another location.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> A search for intelligence might be more fruitful in another location.

  In the climate policy (or their intent/expectation to implement them) of the other major parties, perhaps? 
Hahahahahahahaaahaheeehee.....

----------


## Marc

*Forecasting 2018-2030 Mini Ice Age Global Weather, Using 2000 Years of Climate Records*     Looking back through the last 2000 year we have good climatic data to show us when grand Solar Minimums occurred and how long they lasted. With new scientific data and observations of the Sun’s activity, we can see that we are headed back into another Grand Solar Minimum. Therefore we can look back in time and predict the future of Australia’s and our planets climate for the next 40 years. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1… Polarity on the Sun http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
May Global temperatures Roy Spencer, PhD
Little Ice Age Southern Hemisphere http://theresilientearth.com/?q=conte…
Angkok Drought vs other parts of the world http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploa…
African Records http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploa…
SST Global http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/ano…
ENSO Pacific Temps http://notrickszone.com/2016/04/06/gl… https://wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung….
Atlantic AMO Tems http://www.vencoreweather.com/blog/20…
Sunspotless months http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FIRST…
Decoupleing Hemispheres sun and amplitude https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/0…
Past Solar Cycle Charts ad Graphs Beyond Landscheidt.... | Planetary Theory Moves to the Next Level

----------


## woodbe

lol. The denial collective. Thanks for reminding us Marc. 
Seems the denial camp can no longer deny the facts in front of them, so they are making up some future denial to spread around.  
Good luck with that.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

I never thought I would agree with Pauline on all points.  But I do ... wow! 
WHAT IS THE CLIMATE CHANGE AGENDA?Climate change has and will continue to be used as a political agenda by politicians and self interest groups or individuals for their own gain. We cannot allow scare mongering by people such as Tim Flannery, who make outlandish statements and are not held accountable. Climate change should not be about making money for a lot of people and giving scientists money. Lets know the facts and scientific evidence to make a well informed decision as to how best to look after our environment. Paying a carbon tax or an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is not going to wave a magic wand and stop nature changing the climate change. It will only make it harder for Australian families and businesses to make ends meet. We can address real environmental issues with legislation. Hitting struggling families and businesses with another tax has been designed to make some people a lot of money. Don't allow yourself to be misled.Our solution is comprehensive because core problems cannot be solved by adhoc, one-off party politics. That failed Liberal-Labor-National-approach, combined with Greens grandstanding, is causing Australia’s deterioration. To tap into Australia’s wealth and to share it with all Australians we need to get to the root causes, the core problems and address them comprehensively. We need to involve people across Australia in developing solutions to restore Australia’s productive heartland and wealth for the benefit of all.Pressure from a social media and mainstream media campaign, combined with backroom party powerbroker deals, removed Tony Abbott as Liberal leader and now under the leadership of Malcolm Turnbull, Australians may go back to being under a Carbon Dioxide trading scheme. Through One Nation, Australians can now have a say in politics. Send a signal to Greg Hunt, Malcolm Turnbull, voice-less Liberal MPs, the ALP and Greens. Vote for Pauline Hanson's One Nation and join us to bring back Australia.To be productive and wealthy an organisation or nation needs: Creativity - Australia has this in abundance;Human skills - a skilled workforce;Low-cost, reliable, abundant energy and independence of energy supply;Minerals for metalsClimate to grow food every day of the year across many climates from tropical to temperate;Freedom to be creative;Governance and sensible laws that protect hard work and support creative, productive ideas;Care and compassion for those who need support.  Australia has all these, in abundance.  
We can bring these back and enable people to find happiness and security.Instead of so-called 'Alternative Energies' that are really 'alternatives to energy', we will work to reduce energy prices, and bring back dependability and reliability through environmentally responsible, energies. Low cost energy enables efficiency and productivity that generate wealth to protect the environment.Our primary producers produce plant by-products which are currently wasted. Where conditions and economics allow, let’s enable them to make biofuels.Australians are at our best in sporting conquests and recovering from Natural disasters. Mateship shines. The greater the challenge the better Australians perform.    OUR SOLUTIONS    One Nation will oppose all taxes levied on Carbon Dioxide, be it a flat Carbon Tax or a floating Emissions Trading Scheme and for the removal of all associated legislations.Cancel all agreements obliging Australia to pay for foreign Climate Action and payment to the United Nations and foreign institutions.Restore farming, fishing and manufacturing industries to again become competitive and thrive. Cut green tape.Environmental impacts to be assessed on the use of empirical scientific evidence, not activists or non-government organisations pushing ideology and political agendas.Abolish the Renewable Energy Target (RET) and support practical cost-effective research into energy efficiency, reliability and dependability.Remove all subsidies and financial advantages offered to the renewable energy industry and make them compete on an even playing field with other energy sources.Support reliable, low-cost power generation. This has previously been Australia’s strongest competitive advantage.Hold a Royal Commission (or similar) into the corruption of climate science and identify whether any individual or organisation has misled government to effect climate and energy policy.Establish an independent Australian science body replacing the UN IPCC to report on climate science. It will be the beyond politicisation and be the basis of Australian policy on insurance and response to weather events.Review the Bureau of Meteorology to ensure independence and accountability for weather and climate records including public justification of persistent upward adjustments to historical climate records.Review the CSIRO to ensure independence and accountability and determine whether funding has influenced the direction and results of CSIRO's positions on the climate claims. Funding rom the U.N. in particular will be probed for an agenda not consistent for what is best for Australians.Ensure that all climate, energy and environmental policy decisions, requiring a scientific component, are based on the scientific method and empirical evidence. All decisions will be based on an economic, social and environmental assessment with environmental issues not automatically put ahead of humanity or economic realities.Remove from the education system the teaching of a biased and one-sided view of climate science. Teaching of climate science will begin in secondary school and will be based on the scientific method of scepticism until proven.Support renewable energy that does not impact on the environment and encourage research in the ability to store energy at affordable cost to households and businesses.The wind industry must compensate all residents who have been proven to suffer from Wind Turbine Syndrome and any residents where the presence of wind turbines have negatively affected the price of their home.  Australians have conquered far greater challenges. We can restore our constitutional federation.

----------


## PhilT2

Marc, you forgot to add the bit about her plan to stop the lizard men and their dastardly plot of world domination. Lucky she'll be gone after one term; hopefully just three years like last time or, at worst, six. I predict none of the above policies will ever be taken seriously.

----------


## woodbe

> 5. Remove all subsidies and financial advantages offered to the renewable  energy industry and make them compete on an even playing field with  other energy sources.

  Ha Ha HA HA LOL. Pfft. 
Better: Remove all subsidies from Coal, Oil, Gas, _and_ Renewables. Then we might have an even playing field. There is more subsidy for fossil fuels than renewables, so this would bring on a major swing to renewables Australia wide.

----------


## John2b

> Ha Ha HA HA LOL. Pfft. 
> Better: Remove all subsidies from Coal, Oil, Gas, _and_ Renewables. Then we might have an even playing field. There is more subsidy for fossil fuels than renewables, so this would bring on a major swing to renewables Australia wide.

  Correction: World-wide...

----------


## Marc

Don't you love it when the left get's agitated? 
I do. Love it. 
Paper bag anyone?  :Rofl5:

----------


## Pendejo

Climate is not a left-right issue, unless you lack intelligence. One of the biggest proponents for taking action on climate was Maggie Thatcher.  *
How Margaret Thatcher led the way on climate change*

----------


## PhilT2

Climate change is a left right issue in the US, about the only place that it is. Extreme fundamentalist religious beliefs are also a core belief of the right there. I think the majority of the republican congress would share both. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rikEWuBrkHc
The left has its share of nutters as well, we're just a little less likely to elect them to office. 
This fits in with Lewindowski's theory that anyone who holds one bizarre belief is likely to accept others. Pauline Hanson is no exception to this; she is onboard with the 'vaccines cause autism" idea; though I don't know how far down the rabbit hole she is with believing that it's all a conspiracy by the pharmaceutical companies.

----------


## John2b

> Paper bag anyone?

  You might need a paper bag when you realise that wholesale electricity prices shot to their highest levels on record after the recent election – in most states averaging *nearly* *double the average price when the carbon tax was in place. * The highs of VWA prices

----------


## John2b

It turns out that the idea that fossil energy companies copied the "Doubt is our product" meme from the tobacco industry is incorrect. In fact it was the other way round, with fossil energy companies engaging public relations spin doctors back in the 1950s to ward off emerging evidence of the damage being caused by emissions of CO2 from fossil energy sources. 
That six decades of active obfuscation of the damaged fossil energy companies have been causing has stopped them from taking $trillions in subsidies over the years. Nor from walking away from their responsibilities to remediate the damage at the sites of extraction, often using corporate company transactions to move assets from one 'brand' to another, so that the original company can file for bankruptcy protection. Peabody anyone?  Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public - Scientific American

----------


## Marc

Tuesday, 12 August 2014*Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry*Written by  Alex Newman            font size   Print Email     It is often said that non-scientists must rely on expert opinion to determine whether claims on alleged catastrophic man-made global warming are true. Putting aside the fact that there is no global-warming consensus among experts, one does not have to be a scientist, or even proficient in science, to be able to review past predictions, and then form an informed opinion regarding the accuracy of those predictions.
Suppose, for example, you regularly watch a local TV weatherman forecast the weather for your area. Would you need a degree in meteorology in order to decide for yourself how reliable, or unreliable, the weathermans forecasts are?
Warnings have been issued for many decades now regarding catastrophic climate change that forecasted certain trends or occurrences that we should already have witnessed. Yet such predictions have turned out to be very, very wrong. This was certainly the case with the alarmist predictions of the 1960s and 70s that mans activities on Earth were causing a catastrophic cooling trend that would bring on another ice age. And it is also the case with the more recent claims about catastrophic global warming. *ULINE Shipping Supplies**Huge Catalog! Over 31,000 Products. Same Day Shipping from 11 Locations**www.ULINE.com* 
What follows is a very brief review of these predictions compared to what actually happened. *Global Cooling?*
Americans who lived through the 1960s and 70s may remember the dire global-cooling predictions that were hyped and given great credibility by _Newsweek_, _Time_, _Life_, _National Geographic_, and numerous other mainstream media outlets. According to the man-made global-cooling theories of the time, billions of people should be dead by now owing to cooling-linked crop failures and starvation.
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000, claimed ecology professor Kenneth E.F. Watt at the University of California in 1970. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. Of course, 2000 came and went, and the world did not get 11 degrees colder. No ice age arrived, either.
In 1971, another global-cooling alarmist, Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich, who is perhaps best known for his 1968 book _The Population Bomb_, made similarly wild forecasts for the end of the millennium in a speech at the British Institute for Biology. By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people, he claimed. If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today. Of course, England still exists, and its population was doing much better in 2000 than when Ehrlich made his kooky claims. But long before 2000, Ehrlich had abandoned global-cooling alarmism in favor of warning that the Earth faced catastrophic global warming. Now he is warning that humans may soon be forced to resort to cannibalism.
To combat the alleged man-made cooling, experts suggested all sorts of grandiose schemes, including some that in retrospect appear almost too comical to be real. Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climate change, or even to allay its effects, reported Newsweek in its 1975 article The Cooling World, which claimed that Earths temperature had been plunging for decades due to humanitys activities. Some of the more spectacular solutions proposed by the cooling theorists at the time included melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers,_Newsweek_ reported.
Of course, the big alleged threat hyped in recent decades has been global warming, not global cooling. But the accuracy of the climate-change predictions since the cooling fears melted away has hardly improved. *United Nations Climate Refugees*
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by man-made global warming would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable in terms of producing climate refugees. Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas.
The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million climate refugees would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single climate refugee, by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of climate refugees and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth.
In the Bahamas, for example, according to the 2010 census, there was a major increase in population, going from around 300,000 in 2000 to more than 350,000 by 2010. The population of St. Lucia, meanwhile, grew by five percent during the same period. The Seychelles grew by about 10 percent. The Solomon Islands also witnessed a major population boom during that time frame, gaining another 100,000 people, or an increase of about 25 percent.
In China, meanwhile, the top six fastest growing cities were all within the areas highlighted by the UN as likely sources of climate refugees. Many of the fastest-growing U.S. cities were also within or close to climate refugee danger zones touted by the UN
Rather than apologizing for its undisputable mistake after being first exposed by reporter Gavin Atkins at Asian Correspondent, the global body responded in typical alarmist fashion: with an Orwellian coverup seeking to erase all evidence of its ridiculous predictions. First, the UNEP took its climate refugees map down from the Web. That failed, of course, because the content was archived online prior to its disappearance down the UN memory hole.
Then the UNEP tried and failed to distance itself from the outlandish claims, despite the fact that the map was created by a UNEP cartographer, released by UNEP, and repeatedly hyped by the outfit in its scaremongering campaigns. Eventually, as more and more media around the world began picking up the story, a spokesperson for the UN agency claimed the map was removed because it was causing confusion.
It was hardly the first time UN bureaucrats had made such dire predictions, only to be proven wrong. On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press ran an article headlined: UN Official Predicts Disaster, Says Greenhouse Effect Could Wipe Some Nations Off Map. In the piece, the director of the UNEPs New York office was quoted as claiming that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. He also predicted coastal flooding and crop failures that would create an exodus of eco-refugees, threatening political chaos.
Other UN predictions were so ridiculous that they were retracted before they could even be proven wrong. Consider, as just one example, the scandal that came to be known as Glaciergate. In its final 2007 report, widely considered the gospel of settled climate science, the UN IPCC suggested that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 or sooner. It turns out the wild assertion was lifted from World Wildlife Fund propaganda literature. The IPCC recanted the claim after initially defending it. *Pentagon Climate Forecasts*
Like the UN, the Pentagon commissioned a report on climate change that also offered some highly alarming visions of the future under global warming. The 2003 document, entitled An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security, was widely cited by global-warming theorists, bureaucrats, and the establishment press as evidence that humanity was facing certain doom. It also served as the foundation for the claim that alleged man-made climate change was actually a national security concern. However, fortunately for the taxpayers forced to pay for the study, the Pentagon report turned out to be just as ridiculous as the UN climate refugees forecasts.
By now, according to the not implausible scaremongering outlined in the report for a 10-year time period, the world should be a post-apocalyptic disaster zone. Among other outlandish scenarios envisioned in the report over the preceding decade: California flooded with inland seas, parts of the Netherlands unlivable, polar ice all but gone in the summers, and surging temperatures. Mass increases in hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters were supposed to be wreaking havoc across the globe, too. All of that would supposedly spark resource wars and all sorts of other horrors. But none of it actually happened.
The Pentagon report even claimed there was general agreement in the scientific community that the extreme scenarios it envisioned could come to pass, and reporters treated it as if it were a prophecy delivered to climate sinners by God Himself. However, when interviewed by the _Washington Times_ for a June 1, 2014 article, consultant and report co-author Doug Randall expressed surprise at how often the now-debunked forecasts were parroted. Yet he still defended the hysterical fear peddling. When you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to predict precisely whats going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up, Randall said. But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent.
The first article about the climate report appeared in early 2004, when the report was leaked to the U.K. Observer, under the sensationalistic title: Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us. In a bullet-point summary at the top of the _Observer_article, journalists Mark Townsend and Paul Harris added: Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war and Britain will be Siberian in less than 20 years. The rest of the article was just as outlandish, going even beyond what the now-discredited Pentagon report claimed. Other reporters took their cue from the _Observer_ article, which in retrospect would have been a hilarious piece of writing if it had not been taken so seriously at the time. *No More Snow?*
For well over a decade now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past. In March 2000, for example, senior research scientist David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. _Independent_ that within a few years, snowfall would become a very rare and exciting event in Britain. Children just arent going to know what snow is, he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.
The very next year, snowfall across the United Kingdom increased by more than 50 percent. In 2008, perfectly timed for a global warming legislation debate in Parliament, London saw its first October snow since 1934  or possibly even 1922, according to the U.K. _Register._ It is unusual to have snow this early, a spokesperson for the alarmist U.K. Met office admitted to _The Guardian_newspaper. By December of 2009, London saw its heaviest levels of snowfall in two decades. In 2010, the coldest U.K. winter since rec@ords began a century ago blanketed the islands with snow.
In early 2004, the CRUs Viner and other self-styled experts warned that skiing in Scotland would soon become just a memory, thanks to alleged global warming. Unfortunately, its just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry, Viner told _The Guardian_. Another expert, Adam Watson with the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, told the paper that the skiing industry in Scotland had less than two decades left to go. Yet in 2013, _too much snow_ kept many Scottish resorts closed. Nevis Range, The Lecht, Cairngorm, Glenshee and Glencoe all remain closed today due to the heavy snow, reported OnTheSnow.com on January 4, 2013. Ironically, by 2014, the BBC, citing experts, reported that the Scottish hills had more snow than at any point in seven decades. It also reported that the Nevis Range ski resort could not operate some of its lifts because they were still buried under unprecedented amounts of snow.
The IPCC has also been relentlessly hyping the snowless winter scare, along with gullible or agenda-driven politicians. In its 2001 Third Assessment Report, for example, the IPCC claimed milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms. Again, though, the climate refused to cooperate. The year 2013, the last year for which complete data is available, featured the fourth-highest levels on record, according to data from Rutgers Universitys Global Snow Lab. Spring snow cover was the highest in a decade, while data for the fall indicate that it was the fifth highest ever recorded. Last December, meanwhile, brought with it a new high record in Northern Hemisphere snow cover, Global Snow Lab data show. *Blame Global Warming?*
After the outlandish predictions of snowless winters failed to materialize, the CRU dramatically changed its tune on snowfall. All across Britain, in fact, global-warming alarmists rushed to blame the record cold and heavy snow experienced in recent years on  you guessed it!  global warming. Less snow: global warming. More snow: global warming. Get it? Good.
The same phenomenon took place in the United States just last winter. As record cold and snowfall was pummeling much of North America, warming theorists contradicted all of their previous forecasts and claimed that global warming was somehow to blame. Among them: White House Science Czar John Holdren. A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues, he claimed.
That assertion, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the UN settled science IPCC predicted in its 2001 global-warming report, which claimed that the planet would see warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change. Ironically, perhaps, Holdren warned decades ago that human CO2 emissions would lead to a billion deaths due to global warming-fueled global cooling  yes, _cooling_, which he said would lead to a new ice age by 2020.
Ridiculous forecasts have been made by other climate scientists who, like Holdren, continue to reap huge amounts of U.S. taxpayer dollars in salaries, grants, and benefits despite being consistently wrong. James Hansen, for instance, who headed NASAs Goddard Institute for three dec@ades before taking a post at Columbia University, is one of the best known climatologists in the world  despite his long and embarrassing record of bad forecasting spanning decades.
In 1988, Hansen was asked by journalist and author Rob Reiss how the greenhouse effect would affect the neighborhood outside his window within 20 years (by 2008). The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water, Hansen claimed. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds wont be there. The trees in the median strip will change.... There will be more police cars  [since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up. In 1986, Hansen also predicted in congressional testimony that the Earth would be some two degrees warmer within 20 years. In recent years, after the anticipated warming failed to materialize, alarmists have cooled on predicting such a dramatic jump in temperature over such a short period of time.
Separately, another prominent alarmist, Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, made some dramatic predictions in 1990 while working as chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund. By 1995, he said then, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots. By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers. The situation would get so bad that Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.
When confronted on his failed predictions, Oppenheimer, who also served as former Vice President Al Gores advisor, refused to apologize. On the whole I would stand by these predictions  not predictions, sorry, scenarios  as having at least in a general way actually come true, he claimed. Theres been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world thats in drought has increased over that period. Unfortunately for Oppenheimer, even his fellow alarmists debunked that claim in a 2012 study for _Nature_, pointing out that there has been little change in global drought over the past 60 years. *Arctic Ice*
Perhaps nowhere have the alarmists predictions been proven as wrong as at the Earths poles. In 2007, 2008, and 2009, Al Gore, the high priest for a movement described by critics as the climate cult, publicly warned that the North Pole would be ice-free in the summer by around 2013 because of alleged man-made global warming.
Speaking to an audience in Germany five years ago, Gore  sometimes ridiculed as The Goracle  alleged that the entire North Polarized [sic] cap will disappear in five years. Five years, Gore said again, in case anybody missed it the first time, is the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear.
The following year, Gore made similar claims at a UN climate summit in Copenhagen. Some of the models  suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years, Gore claimed in 2009. We will find out.
Yes, we have found out. Contrary to the predictions by Gore and fellow alarmists, satellite data showed that Arctic ice volume as of summer of 2013 had actually expanded more than 50 percent over 2012 levels. In fact, during October 2013, sea-ice levels grew at the fastest pace since records began in 1979. Many experts now predict the ongoing expansion of Arctic ice to continue in the years to come, leaving global-warming alarmists scrambling for explanations to save face  and to revive the rapidly melting climate hysteria.
Gore, though, was hardly alone in making the ridiculous and now thoroughly discredited predictions about Arctic ice. Citing climate experts, the British government-funded BBC, for example, also hyped the mass hysteria, running a now-embarrassing article on December 12, 2007, under the headline: Arctic summers ice-free by 2013. In that piece, which was still online as of July 2014, the BBC highlighted alleged modeling studies that supposedly indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Incredibly, some of the supposed experts even claimed it could happen before then, citing calculations performed by super computers that the BBC noted have become a standard part of climate science in recent years.
Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007, claimed Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, described as a researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School who was working with co-workers at NASA to come up with the now-thoroughly discredited forecasts about polar ice. So given that fact, you can argue that may be [sic]_our projection of 2013 is already too conservative_. (Emphasis added.) Other experts quoted in the BBC article agreed with the hysteria.
In the real world, however, the scientific evidence demolishing the global-warming theories advanced by Gore, the UN, and government-funded climate scientists continues to grow, along with the ice cover in both hemispheres. In the Arctic, for example, data collected by Europes Cryosat spacecraft pointed to about 9,000 cubic kilometers of ice volume at the end of the 2013 melt season. In 2012, which was admittedly a low year, the total volume was about 6,000 cubic kilometers.
Indeed, in 2007, when Gore and others started making their predictions about imminent ice-free Arctic summers, the average sea-ice area extent after the summer melt for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers. By 2013, even on September 13, the minimum ice-cover day for the whole year, ice levels were way above the 2007 average for the month  by an area almost the size of California. The lowest level recorded on a single day during 2013 was 5.1 million square kilometers. By late July 2014, Arctic sea-ice extent was almost at its highest level in a decade, and scientists expect even less melting this summer than last year.
Despite parroting the wild claims five years ago, the establishment press has, unsurprisingly, refused to report that Gore and his fellow alarmists were proven embarrassingly wrong. No apologies from Gore have been forthcoming, either, and none of the scientists who made the ridiculous predictions quoted by the BBC has apologized or lost his taxpayer-funded job. In fact, almost unbelievably, the establishment press is now parroting new claims from the _same_ discredited experts suggesting that the Arctic will be ice-free by 2016. *Antarctic Ice*
Even more embarrassing for the warmists have been trends in the Southern Hemisphere. Of course, all of the climate models and climate experts and scientists predicted that rising CO2 emissions would increase global temperatures, which would melt the ice in Antarctica  by far the largest mass of frozen H2O on the planet. Indeed, the forecasts were crucial to many of the other predictions about surging sea levels and related gloom and doom.
The problem for global-warming theorists is that the opposite happened. Indeed, sea ice in Antarctica is off the charts, consistently smashing previous record highs on a near-daily basis. Sea-ice area in the south is now at the highest point since records began  by a lot  and the warmists are searching frantically for an explanation. Some are, incredibly, considering their past forecasts, trying to blame global warming. But the fact remains: Their predictions for Antarctica were as wrong as they possibly could be. Instead of melting as forecasted, ice levels are surging to new and unprecedented heights. As of early July, an area of the southern oceans the size of Greenland is frozen that, based on the average, should currently be open waters. If both poles are considered together, there is about one million square kilometers of frozen area above and beyond the long-term average.
Even UN warmists have been forced to concede that they do not know what is going on or why their climate models that predicted melting have been proven so wildly off the mark. There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to  incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change, the IPCC admitted in its latest report. For now, the warmists have simply been trying their best to keep the public from noticing or examining the phenomenal growth in Antarctic ice.
As The New American reported earlier this year, the desperation and denial among warmists was illustrated perfectly in December. A ship full of global-warming alarmists led by a climate scientist went on a mission to study how global warming was melting Antarctic ice. Instead of completing their mission, they ended up getting their vessel trapped in record-setting levels of sea ice. *Obama Claims*
In his second-term inaugural address, Obama also made some climate claims, saying: Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms. Ironically, all three of the examples he provided of what he called the threat of climate change actually discredit his argument.
As _Forbes_ magazine pointed out last year, the number of wildfires has plummeted 15 percent since 1950, and according the National Academy of Sciences, that trend is likely to continue for decades. On droughts, a 2012 study published in the alarmist journal_Nature_ noted that there has been little change in global drought over the past 60 years. The UNs own climate alarmists were even forced to conclude last year that in many regions of the world, droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter.
Regarding hurricanes and tornadoes, it probably would have been hard for Obama to choose a worse example to illustrate the alleged threat of man-made warming. Contrary to predictions by global warmists, hurricanes and tornadoes have been hitting in record-setting low numbers. When the 2014 hurricane season starts it will have been 3,142 days since the last Category 3+ storm made landfall in the U.S., shattering the record for the longest stretch between U.S. intense hurricanes since 1900, noted professor of environmental studies Roger Pielke, Jr. at the University of Colorado, who last year left alarmists who had predicted more extreme weather linked to alleged global warming silent after pointing out the facts in a Senate hearing. The five-year period ending 2013 has seen two hurricane landfalls. That is a record low since 1900. After adjusting the data for trends such as population growth and better reporting, it appears that 2013 also featured the lowest number of tornadoes in the long-term record.
In June 2008, Obama declared: I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children  this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal. He was referring, of course, to his own election, as if he were some sort of savior here to save humanity from its carbon-climate sins. In the real world, though, despite his grandiose and bombastic view of himself as global climate messiah, Obama has no more power to stop the climate from changing than his legions of discredited experts have demonstrated to successfully predict it.
Also ironically, perhaps, is that there had been no global warming since long before he took office. Worldwide, the disastrous forecasts by climate alarmists have proven to be similarly embarrassing. By now, anybody who follows climate news knows that global warming has been on what alarmists call pause for 18 years and counting, despite ongoing increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. The stubborn refusal of temperatures to rise (and accelerate) as forecasted by all of the UNs 73 climate models has discredited the models, the UN, and the alleged science behind the computer forecasts. Every single model predicted more warming than has occurred, an atrocious record that defies explanation. Even a monkey rolling the dice or a scam artist pretending to read the future from a crystal ball would have a better record, based only on the laws of probability.
Of course, alarmists have come up with at least a dozen excuses for the failure of temperatures to rise in accordance with their debunked models. The Obama administrations favorite: the theory of The Ocean Ate My Global Warming. Last year, the Associated Press, citing leaked documents, reported that the U.S. government had pressured the UN IPCC to incorporate that excuse, for which there is not a scintilla of observable evidence, into its most recent global-warming report. *A Prediction*
The website Watts Up With That (WUWT), run by meteorologist and climate researcher Anthony Watts, highlighted the embarrassing record in late 2013 following a particularly devastating year for climate predictions. It seems like every major CAGW [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming] prediction has failed in 2013, the article explains, citing a vast trove of scientific data debunking alarmist forecasts. Regardless of efforts to nebulize CAGW to explain all forms of climatic and weather variation, in 2013 every loosely falsifiable prediction of the CAGW narrative seems to have failed. The apparent complete failure of the CAGW narrative in 2013 could make the most fundamentalist agnostic wonder if Mother Nature sometimes takes sides, aka the Gore Effect. Perhaps the Almighty has a sense of humor.
Few people would make an important decision based on next weeks weather forecast. When it comes to climate, though, the $360 billion-per-year climate establishment is telling humanity that civilization must be reorganized from top to bottom based on failed models purporting to make predictions decades and even centuries in advance. Flawed predictions aside, a great deal of evidence suggests accuracy or truth was never the intent  generating fear to seize more money and power was (and is). Many top alarmists have admitted as much, with some responding to the implosion of their theories with calls for censorship or, more extreme still, the imprisonment, re-education, and even execution of climate deniers.
The Earths climate has always changed, and very likely will continue to change, regardless of what humans do. What is now clear, though, is that the establishment has no idea what those changes will be  much less what drives the changes or how to control them.  _This article is an example of the exclusive content that's only available by subscribing to our print magazine. Twice a month get in-depth features covering the political gamut: education, candidate profiles, immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, guns, etc. Digital as well as print options are available!_
Related Article: Desperate Dash of Global Warming

----------


## Marc

Too much Co2 is killing us! Aaaaah ... 
I need more Co2 puf puf puf ...    it's the end of the world, 0.3C higher aaaaaaaah

----------


## John2b

The climate that most of us grew up with is gone for good as June marks Earth's 14th-straight record warm month, catapults globe into new climate regime. The temperature record confirms what climate scientists have been startled to see during the past several years  the Earth's climate has made a step jump into a new, hotter era with more intense and frequent extreme events.

----------


## Pendejo

This question is directed to resident climate denier, "Marc".  :Rolleyes:   Instead of copy-pasting all that garbage, why not just link to it so: *Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry* We keep referring to the opinions of reputable scientists, but you alone keep referring to non-scientists, like the writer of that article, Alex Newman, a right wing journo. That's like bringing a knife to a gunfight, hombre. Newman is a well-known distorter of the truth, and has no science training in his background (rather like that idiot who works for the British press, James Delingpole). For instance, he wrote an article called "*Al Gore Forecasted "Ice-Free" Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%*" in 2013. But it's simply not true! From Gore's speech in 2007: _"One study estimated that [the Arctic ice] could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years."_ Source: Arctic Sea Ice and Al Gore's "Prediction 2013" By Bruce Melton, 04 October 2013. That first *one study* would have projected 2014 (not 2013) ... the other said 22 years, which would be in *2029*. He didn't make predictions, he cited studies that lead to a range of dates. And I can guarantee we will be ice-free in the Arctic by 2029.

----------


## PhilT2

Do you mean that Marc pasted an article that was out of date, poorly researched and full of BS? Gee, that's never happened before....

----------


## John2b

In this forum at least, Marc is peddling for his 'side' on his own of late. From his namesake Marc Morano:  "We should not only talk to each other here but also quietly let the outside world know the truth. The truth will prevail eventually, but the more we call out the peddlers of falsehoods the sooner it will prevail, and the fewer innocent people the terrible policy consequences of their falsehoods will kill."  The truth isn't waiting to prevail, BTW, the truth is what we are swimming in, namely 378 straight months in a row with temperatures above the 20th century average, and not a below average month ever. How many gamblers would count on a winning streak like that?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Climate change is a left right issue in the US, about the only place that it is. Extreme fundamentalist religious beliefs are also a core belief of the right there. I think the majority of the republican congress would share both. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rikEWuBrkHc
> The left has its share of nutters as well, we're just a little less likely to elect them to office. 
> This fits in with Lewindowski's theory that anyone who holds one bizarre belief is likely to accept others. Pauline Hanson is no exception to this; she is onboard with the 'vaccines cause autism" idea; though I don't know how far down the rabbit hole she is with believing that it's all a conspiracy by the pharmaceutical companies.

  It's not just the US Phil - every major greens party is a socially progressive, left ideologically on economics.   
Climate change SHOULDNT be left/right, but it has become so with the environmental parties being taken over by the socialists - around the early 80's Greenpeace transformed from an environmental issue only group into a notably left wing political view group as well. 
the downside is, the left see that economic growth tends to go to the rich and corporations which they despise, so their solutions to all things environmental involve taxing the rich, curbing economic growth etc.  this is a direct incompatibility with capitalism. 
you have 2 types of people therefore that want to take action on climate change and they have largely different policies because they have different aims.  When rationality eventually takes over the discussion things will happen, but there's no sign of that at all.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Governments and communities of either political flavour will not be driving the adaptive response to climate change*...corporations will. And they tend to politically ambivalent. Follow the money... 
* It's too late in the day to be doing anything useful in the short term about modifying the climate response to greenhouse emissions.

----------


## Marc

All we need to do is wait. The world is going to cool soon enough and then the watermelons will start to cry it is my fault ... again ... Greens are a disease.

----------


## John2b

The increasing frequency at which temperature records are being broken indicates an_acceleration in global temperature rise_, something quite inconsistent with any imminent slowing of the rate of temperature rise. 
Even if the temperature was rising linearly, the rate of new records set would NOT be rising - it is simple mathematics. Forget about an impending temperature reaching stasis, let alone falling - it isn't going to happen unless a non weather related calamity (asteroid, massive volcanoes, nuclear war) occurs.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> The increasing frequency at which temperature records are being broken indicates an_acceleration in global temperature rise_, something quite inconsistent with any imminent slowing of the rate of temperature rise. 
> Even if the temperature is rising linearly, the rate of new records set would NOT rise.

  First, you have to determine if your first statement is actually true - secondly, temperature stations do suffer from the heat island effect, thirdly observation bias is usually a problem because you have to sort and sift to get decent data. 
finally, we have very accurate satellite data which easily trumps very bumpy data like local station records - if that shows an acceleration, then that is likely true. 
we have already experienced a failure to predict one negative feedback in the form of oceans, it's quite likely that precipitation and cloud formation is another - the scientific plausibility for a "runaway greenhouse effect" is not there because of historical changes. 
doesnt matter much, because 5c would change things a lot anyway. 
i vote that we immediately start encouraging nuclear forms of energy at the expense of fossil - this has 2 effects , 1 it provides us with lowering co2, it provides us with more energy availability ( that might have great roles to play in both mitigation and co2 sequestration and/or climate engineering)

----------


## Marc

Alternatively we can follow in Green"peace" suggestion to bump off 4 billion people and so we will all be fine and green, you know, not so much fart and all that.

----------


## Pendejo

> Alternatively we can follow in Green"peace" suggestion to bump off 4 billion people

  Source?   

> The world is going to cool soon enough

  Source? 
IMO there are only 2 types of commenter who deny the proven scientific reality of anthropogenic global warming:  Comment whores, who have sold their asses to the highest bidder — cash-for-comment scum;Congenital idiots, for whom there is no hope because subnormal IQ is a lifelong condition

----------


## John2b

> First, you have to determine if your first statement is actually true

  http://regclim.met.no/results/Benestad03_CR25-1.pdf   

> secondly, temperature stations do suffer from the heat island effect

  And the cool island effect due to irrigation and parklands:     

> thirdly observation bias is usually a problem because you have to sort and sift to get decent data.

  Ah-hem, there's been a few thousand peer reviews of temperature record methodologies and even fossil fuel funded climate science deniers like Dr Roy Spenser can't find bias despite decades of looking.   

> finally, we have very accurate satellite data which easily trumps very bumpy data like local station records - if that shows an acceleration, then that is likely true.

  Except that satellites don't measure surface temperature, they measure the temperature of a gas column several kilometres high and that is cooling at the top as a result of rising CO2 emissions which are trapping heat at the lower end of the columns, namely near the surface. In fact the satellites don't measure temperature at all - they measure the activity of oxygen molecules and use a complex climate model to infer temperature. The satellite records have been shown to be based on incorrect models on several occasions and each time their record has had to be adjusted upwards. The current modelling used by UAH has not been subjected to peer review, so who know what errors are embedded in it. And satellites don't measure the poles where the temperature is rising at triple the rate of the rest of the planet. 
In any case, satellite records are consistent with an increasing rate in global surface temperature rise.   

> i vote that we immediately start encouraging nuclear forms of energy at the expense of fossil - this has 2 effects , 1 it provides us with lowering co2, it provides us with more energy availability ( that might have great roles to play in both mitigation and co2 sequestration and/or climate engineering)

  You might want to check the results of the French experiment before you start on that. Hint: there won't be any more new nuclear reactors in France, climate change or not. 
In reality, the world doesn't need more energy - it's swimming in thousands of time more renewable energy than humankind could ever use - it just needs to stop pissing ancient fossil fuel sources against the wall with reckless abandon at every opportunity.

----------


## Pendejo

> i vote that we immediately start encouraging nuclear forms of energy

  Ah, no. 
Three in every four nuclear power builds worldwide are running late 
A review of the 66 nuclear reactors 'under construction' worldwide shows that 49 are running behind schedule, including all five in the US and most in China. The long and unpredictable build times of nuclear plants, and the extra costs that ensue, are a compelling reason not to depend on the technology for either power or to mitigate climate change Three in every four nuclear power builds worldwide are running late - The Ecologist    Part One: Economics Of Nuclear Power with Arnie Gundersen Part Two: Economics of Nuclear Power with Mycle Schneider 
Nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen on nuclear power vs alternative energy technologies A Road Less Taken: Energy Choices for the Future — Nuclear Energy Education 
More here: Fairewinds Nuclear Energy Education

----------


## pharmaboy2

Pendejo, nuclear is currently far safer than any other major form of energy, but it's definately effected by political favour - witness the incredible overreaction in Europe following Fukushima. 
just as a flag, the name Arnie gunderson came up in 3 of those links - that's a bit like a climate denier constantly referencing one of their scientists because they don't represent the mainstream.  Science is about taking on what the science says, and what the experts in the area say. 
the worlds energy use is still growing consistantly with no sign of slowing   
I admire the optimism that renewables are going to fill that gap, but trying to be rational, something really freaking big has to fill that gap, and if there is an emergency which I'm often told there is, then you need to take action fast and hard with a known technology that is technically able to fill the gap. 
renewables are 4 or 5 decades away at least, if you want to prevent you have to do something scale able, and now, not tomorrow. 
i have no money in the nuclear game, but it's glaring that many of those most upset by climate change are also first to discount nuclear power out of hand and immediately as a non option .  That is a hint of ideology not rationality

----------


## John2b

> Pendejo, nuclear is currently far safer than any other major form of energy, but it's definately effected by political favour - witness the incredible overreaction in Europe following Fukushima. 
> just as a flag, the name Arnie gunderson came up in 3 of those links - that's a bit like a climate denier constantly referencing one of their scientists because they don't represent the mainstream.  Science is about taking on what the science says, and what the experts in the area say. 
> the worlds energy use is still growing consistantly with no sign of slowing 
> I admire the optimism that renewables are going to fill that gap, but trying to be rational, something really freaking big has to fill that gap, and if there is an emergency which I'm often told there is, then you need to take action fast and hard with a known technology that is technically able to fill the gap. 
> renewables are 4 or 5 decades away at least, if you want to prevent you have to do something scale able, and now, not tomorrow. 
> i have no money in the nuclear game, but it's glaring that many of those most upset by climate change are also first to discount nuclear power out of hand and immediately as a non option .  That is a hint of ideology not rationality

  Every existing nuclear power station is a Fukushima/Chernobyl in preparation. The real damage down by the failure of nuclear power stations is the release of the waste materials stored onsite into the environment. Why? Because every nuclear power station is packed to the gunnels with nuclear waste, while a solution to find what to do with the waste is no nearer now than what it was 70 years ago. 
Nor has anyone got any idea how to decommission a nuclear power station and make it safe. The best plan so far is to continue to run an out-of-service-life nuclear facility essentially forever, but without generating electricity. 
There would be no gap in energy needs if >90% of it wasn't just pissed against the wall because it is cheaper to waste energy than to be energy efficient - at least in people's minds. 
"...many of those most upset by climate change are also first to discount nuclear power..." maybe _because_ those most likely to be upset by climate change are generally well-read realists - doh.

----------


## Marc

> Pendejo, nuclear is currently far safer than any other major form of energy, but it's definately effected by political favour - witness the incredible overreaction in Europe following Fukushima. 
> just as a flag, the name Arnie gunderson came up in 3 of those links - that's a bit like a climate denier constantly referencing one of their scientists because they don't represent the mainstream.  Science is about taking on what the science says, and what the experts in the area say. 
> the worlds energy use is still growing consistantly with no sign of slowing   
> I admire the optimism that renewables are going to fill that gap, but trying to be rational, something really freaking big has to fill that gap, and if there is an emergency which I'm often told there is, then you need to take action fast and hard with a known technology that is technically able to fill the gap. 
> renewables are 4 or 5 decades away at least, if you want to prevent you have to do something scale able, and now, not tomorrow. 
> i have no money in the nuclear game, but it's glaring that many of those most upset by climate change are also first to discount nuclear power out of hand and immediately as a non option .  That is a hint of ideology not rationality

   Not to mention opposing the building of dams.
The green leftie priests are up in a marble tower shouting down from their minaret what we are supposed to believe because they say so. Claiming the high moral ground and demonising anything that is not written in their religious book, nothing is halal unless they say so. 
Coal is and will always be the best cheapest source of energy by a country mile. 
And we will continue burning it despite the little dances and tantrums from the caffe latte society and all the little hobby style entertaining "alternatives" 
Until a real alternative is found. I look forward to that. Meantime coal it is.

----------


## Pendejo

> Until a real alternative is found. I look forward to that. Meantime coal it is.

  From today's AFR:   

> A Melbourne developer is connecting 49 homes equipped with solar panels and batteries to create a mini grid that will see them share power and cut consumption from the conventional grid by up to 70 per cent. 
> Read more: Melbourne's Codstream networks 49-home development to create solar mini grid | afr.com

  That's what's coming, and it's coming fast. Get out of the way, Luddites.    

> nuclear is currently far safer than any other major form of energy

  You're kidding, right? Do you know anything about decommissioning nuclear plants? In addition, nuclear power plants contribute to, rather than prevent, additional warming of Earth.  *False solution: Nuclear power is not 'low carbon*   

> Nuclear fuel preparation begins with the mining of uranium containing ores, followed by the crushing of the ore then extraction of the uranium from the powdered ore chemically. All three stages take a lot of energy, most of which comes from fossil fuels. The inescapable fact is that the lower the concentration of uranium in the ore, the higher the fossil fuel energy required to extract uranium. 
> Table 12 in the Berteen paper confirms the van Leeuwen result that for ore with uranium concentration around 0.01% the carbon footprint of nuclear electricity could be as high as that of electricity generation from natural gas. 
> This remarkable observation has been further confirmed in a report from the Austrian Institute of Ecology by Andrea Wallner and co-workers. They also point out that using ore with uranium concentration around 0.01% could result in more energy being input to prepare the fuel, build the reactor and so on, than will be generated by the reactor in its lifetime. 
> According to figures van Leeuwen has compiled from the WISE Uranium Project around 37% of the identified uranium reserves have an ore grade below 0.05%. 
> A conservative estimate for the future LCA of nuclear power for power stations intended to continue operating into the 2090s and beyond would assume the lowest uranium concentration currently in proven sources, which is 0.005%. 
> On the basis that the high concentration ores are the easiest to find and exploit, this low concentration is likely to be more typical of yet to be discovered deposits.  *Using 0.005% concentration uranium ores, the van Leeuwen, Berteen and Wallner analyses agree a nuclear reactor will have a carbon footprint larger than a natural gas electricity generator.* Also, it is unlikely to produce any net electricity over its lifecycle.

  And of course you did not watch the videos I linked, did you? Gunderson is a unique individual, a nuclear power engineer who is blowing the whistle on the industry, which is why I refer to him. Learn something and watch the videos! FFS.

----------


## Pendejo

Message to deniers and sceptics and those who think global warming is not so bad, and think we have plenty of time to take care of it:  *Prof Guy McPherson's Climate-Change Summary* 
I challenge you to read that and come back here with flippant comments.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> And of course you did not watch the videos I linked, did you? Gunderson is a unique individual, a nuclear power engineer who is blowing the whistle on the industry, which is why I refer to him. Learn something and watch the videos! FFS.

  If you think Gundersen is a scientist or a person to be taking advice then you are not a scientist in the slightest.  Have a read of the page on rational wiki about him.  His site is a known propaganda site for anti nuclear.  Now I didn't know that when you posted it up, but the first few sentences if reading betrayed language of a capital B believer, so I search about the man and the dubious site (fairewinds sure should set off some alarm bells) 
been as as well I am not a professional in the nuclear power sphere I don't have a strong opinion because I don't have the knowledge, but at least a rational thinking process can allow me to do a shallow investigation of the source who revealed himself to be on the outer edge not with the consensus. 1 of tens of thousands of nuclear engineers says nuclear is bad - the parallel with others cherry picking is in stark relief. 
so why do you think you have enough knowledge on nuclear energy to be so dogmatic? 
So the answer is, of course I didn't watch them, I checked the source first, not after. 
So, how about hydro?  What about GMOs, are you anti them as well?

----------


## johnc

The capital cost of nuclear plants along with a short design life and expensive decommissioning costs pretty much means the golden days of that power source are long gone. However the argument that the energy to manufacture a power station and produce the fuel is as much as what the thing will produce echo's the idiots that claim a wind turbine never repays the energy taken to build it. I don't think nuclear has a future but I do think hydro has greater potential, we are still slowly working towards a point that renewables can produce power when the wind stops and the clouds roll in. Storage of one form or another will probably plug the gap, coal and nuclear take to long to come up to operating power, gas turbines on the other hand are quicker but someone is going to need to pay for the plants to be held on standby, a bit like a Victorian desal plant really.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> The capital cost of nuclear plants along with a short design life and expensive decommissioning costs pretty much means the golden days of that power source are long gone. However the argument that the energy to manufacture a power station and produce the fuel is as much as what the thing will produce echo's the idiots that claim a wind turbine never repays the energy taken to build it. I don't think nuclear has a future but I do think hydro has greater potential, we are still slowly working towards a point that renewables can produce power when the wind stops and the clouds roll in. Storage of one form or another will probably plug the gap, coal and nuclear take to long to come up to operating power, gas turbines on the other hand are quicker but someone is going to need to pay for the plants to be held on standby, a bit like a Victorian desal plant really.

  Agree, my thoughts on nuclear realistically revolve around the gen 4 plants, which are factors of 2 more efficient with radioactive waste with manageable time periods.   Hydro has the huge advantage of being like a battery and fulfills the place that gas power plants sit - ie peak changes in demand. 
 one of the great potentials in decades time, is that an excess of energy allows for production of portable fuels which we will still need for things like air flight and ocean freight (assuming that oil does eventually run low - peak oil has being predicted for a long time now, but never seems to happen )

----------


## John2b

> (assuming that oil does eventually run low - peak oil has being predicted for a long time now, but never seems to happen )

  Peak oil has been and gone in the sense that production from conventional oil fields has been in decline for some time now. But it has been replaced by unconventional oil and gas extraction, AKA fracking, which will continue to supply fossil oil and gas until the entire surface of the planet looks like this:

----------


## Pendejo

> If you think Gundersen is a scientist or a person to be taking advice then you are not a scientist in the slightest.  Have a read of the page on rational wiki about him.

  Yes, I have, I am a long-time rationalwiki editor  :Smilie:  That page, written by a drone of the vastly well-funded nuclear industry, consists of carping and nit-picking. Gunderson is a heavyweight critic, taken very seriously by politicians, and the industry hates his guts.   

> His site is a known propaganda site for anti nuclear.

  Versus the hundreds of pro-nuke sites funded by industry? Fair enough.   

> so I search about the man and the dubious site  (fairewinds sure should set off some alarm bells)

  Looking for confirmation bias so you can keep your tiny mind closed? Well done.  :Doh:    

> revealed himself to be on the outer edge not with the consensus

  You're wrong. The consensus is that nukes are too expensive and too risky (waste problem, decommissioning problem, proliferation problem, slow to build problem, non-renewable fuel problem etc etc). That's why so few are being built, and those that are are mainly in China and India.   

> so why do you think you have enough knowledge on nuclear energy to be so dogmatic?

  Once again, WATCH THE BLOODY VIDEOS.   

> So the answer is, of course I didn't watch them, I checked the source first, not after.

  I'm done with you.  :Annoyed:  
Read this site or I'll put you on ignore: Our Renewable Future

----------


## Pendejo

> But it has been replaced by unconventional oil and gas extraction, AKA fracking, which will continue to supply fossil oil and gas until the entire surface of the planet looks like this:

  Actually, fracking will prove to be remarkably short-lived. Peak Oil will be back in the 2020s. Our Renewable Future

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Yes, I have, I am a long-time rationalwiki editor  That page, written by a drone of the vastly well-funded nuclear indust -oh, they disagree with me, they must be "industry" - whatever that means - consists of carping and nit-picking. Gunderson is a heavyweight critic, taken very seriously by politicians, and the industry hates his guts.   
> Versus the hundreds of pro-nuke sites funded by industry? Fair enough. So it's a conspiracy ?   
> Looking for confirmation bias so you can keep your tiny mind closed? Well done.  i am for good science based decision making, it doesn't need to agree with my opinion for it to be right    
> You're wrong. The consensus is that nukes are too expensive and too risky (waste problem, decommissioning problem, proliferation problem, slow to build problem, non-renewable fuel problem etc etc). That's why so few are being built, and those that are are mainly in China and India.  really, you seem very certain, at least as certain as Marc here   
> Once again, WATCH THE BLOODY VIDEOS.   
> I'm done with you.  
> Read this site or I'll put you on ignore:   Our Renewable Future

  lol, perhaps you are upset because someone has questioned you.  That's fine, i don't expect for a moment that you would immediately identify similar flaws that goes with denial.  You have an opinion that you believe is a fact, I have an opinion I believe is an opinion.  The reason I asked about GMOs is it's a common parallel belief with antinuclear, people are or they aren't - science or study rarely comes into it. 
i really don't know if nuclear is THE answer, I do believe it's something worth scientists and not politicians deciding on.  Fear is not the basis for rational decision making. 
perhaps others will read the thread and make judgement either way - Your mind doesn't seem to be up for change

----------


## Marc

Take the JW tract man ... or go to hell!  
How can anyone call himself "pubic hair" and want to be taken seriously? I put him on ignore after the first post.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Science and engineering has determined that nuclear works...if someone is prepared to pay for it. Economists and financial investors have determined that nuclear works...if someone is prepared to invest in it. Politicians can't decide if nuclear works... because they haven't found someone else to take responsibility for it. 
Nuclear power might be the answer...but only if everyone was asking the same question. 
Personally, I'd focus on doing more and better with the energy mix we already have.

----------


## Pendejo

> perhaps you are upset because someone has questioned you

  No, I'm upset because you *haven't got the common decency* to watch a video someone has linked specifically for you. If you linked material for me, I would read it. Onto the ignore list you go.

----------


## Pendejo

> How can anyone call himself "pubic hair" and want to be taken seriously? I put him on ignore after the first post.

  "Pendejo" means  "idiot, fool", it's a slang word. I use it here ironically, because of the low intellectual quality of some of my interlocutors. It's use is ironic. Oh, and the reason you ignored me was because I was one more voice of reason you weren't prepared to tolerate.

----------


## Pendejo

*"What’s also clear is that while nuclear power is tending to get more expensive, wind and solar get cheaper and cheaper every year"*  *An Industrial Strategy for Energy*

----------


## Marc

Yes, typical of those who think that Google can provide them with the knowledge they so badly lack.
When it comes to language and even worst slang expression that change from country to country, it is prudent to refer to people who actually speak the language and not a google search.
Spanish is the official language of over 20 countries and spoken by half a billion people. The google answers to spanish are mostly mexicanish, and mexico is responsible for degenerating not only english but also spanish.
Pendejo is a pubic hair. That's it. The word is also used to refer to a child referring to his small size in a derogatory way, and is also used as an insult in Mexico and in the movies. It woud be the equivalent of arshole but only to them and hollywood. 
I am not sure how you figure that calling yourself names reflects on other contributors on this forum, irony does not work that way.
And if that is your intention then it is deplorable and an added reason to keep you in the ignore list. 
Pathetic really.

----------


## johnc

For goodness sake who cares, really Marc if he is on your ignore list you can't read his posts anyway, let's all stop pretending we are experts and take a chill pill.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> "Pendejo" means  "idiot, fool", it's a slang word. I use it here ironically*because of the low intellectual quality of some of my interlocutors.* It's use is ironic. Oh, and the reason you ignored me was because I was one more voice of reason you weren't prepared to tolerate.

  I know he'll just have to view post, so I'll reply anyway.....  :Biggrin:  
translation - "I'm too smart for this forum, and the only reason you don't agree with me is because you are too stupid" 
nice.

----------


## John2b

The pots and the kettles are at it hammer and tongs... 
Meanwhile back on Earth Greenland, Antarctica and Earth's glaciers and ice caps lost 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles) of ice between 2003 and 2010, and Greenland alone lost another trillion tons of ice due to melting between 2011 and 2014 - about twice the previous decade's rate of melting. CryoSat reveals recent Greenland ice loss / CryoSat / Observing the Earth / Our Activities / ESA 
So much mass has been lost from the north pole that the rotational axis of the Earth is moving as a result. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rths-rotation/

----------


## Pendejo

> Yes, typical of those who think that Google can provide them with the knowledge they so badly lack.
> When it comes to language and even worst slang expression that change from country to country, it is prudent to refer to people who actually speak the language and not a google search.

  I am a native Spanish speaker. Please pull up your pants and give your mouth a chance.

----------


## Marc

> ... let's all stop pretending we are experts and take a chill pill.

  Ha ha, probably right. Not sure about the chill pill though. Do I take the red or the blue?  :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Why not both? And a bottle of wine as well? 
Works for me! 
Ours is not to reason why. Merely to point and giggle.

----------


## Marc

If you take both pills, you go into a lateral dimension where greenies are rednecks spanish speaker are polite and courteous and electricians post instructions on the internet for DIY home electricians  :Rofl5:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Blimey....your hallucinations are epic!!! 
I just go to sleep. 
Ours is not to reason why. Merely to point and giggle.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> The pots and the kettles are at it hammer and tongs... 
> Meanwhile back on Earth Greenland, Antarctica and Earth's glaciers and ice caps lost 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles) of ice between 2003 and 2010, and Greenland alone lost another trillion tons of ice due to melting between 2011 and 2014 - about twice the previous decade's rate of melting. CryoSat reveals recent Greenland ice loss / CryoSat / Observing the Earth / Our Activities / ESA 
> So much mass has been lost from the north pole that the rotational axis of the Earth is moving as a result. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rths-rotation/

  Um, dumb question - how can ice on the North Pole which is a floating ice sheet be a change in mass? 
greenland, Antarctic I get, North Pole, not so much

----------


## PhilT2

It's a bit tricky but I think it works like this; the ice concentrates the mass at the pole; a similar amount of water would distribute itself evenly over the planet. The same way the three gorges dam in China concentrated 40 billion tons of water in one place and slowed the rotation of the earth and shifted its axis (0.06microseconds and 18mm).

----------


## SilentButDeadly

It's not so much...most of shift has been attributed to loss of land based ice. John2b would've been better off using Arctic Circle.... 
Ours is not to reason why. Merely to point and giggle.

----------


## John2b

In a landmark legal case the Phillipines has given the "Carbon Majors" (the 47 companies who are the largest CO2 emitters globally) 45 days to respond to a complaint that their greenhouse gas emissions have violated the human rights of millions of people living in the Phillipines. Together these companies emitted around 315 gigatons of CO2 equivalent into the atmosphere, or nearly 22% of estimated global industry greenhouse gas emissions from 2010 to 2013.  "The Carbon Majors should be held accountable for violations orthreats of violations of Filipinos’ rights (a) to life; (b) to the highestattainable standard of physical and mental health; (c) to food; (d) to water;(e) to sanitation; (f) to adequate housing; and (g) to self-determinationresulting from the adverse impacts of climate change."     Climate Law Blog Â» Blog Archive Â» Petition to Philippines Human Rights Commission Seeks Investigation into âCarbon Majorsâ for Human Rights Violations

----------


## Pendejo

*Nuclear Power Advocates Claim Cheap Renewable Energy Is A Bad Thing* 
Nuclear power advocates are trying a new line of attack on solar and wind energy — it’s too darn cheap! 
In the real world, however, the unexpectedly rapid drop in the price of cleantech, especially renewable power and batteries, is a doubly miraculous game-changer that is already cutting greenhouse gas emissions globally and dramatically increasing the chances we can avoid catastrophic climate change.

----------


## Marc

*WIND MAKES ELECTRICITY EXPENSIVE AND UNRELIABLE WITHOUT CUTTING EMISSIONS*   Published on: Friday, 13 November, 2015 By preventing investment in gas, the dash for wind has done real harm
My Times article on wind power is below. An astonishingly poor attack on the article was made in The Guardian by Mark Lynas. He failed to address all the main points I made: he failed to challenge the argument that wind power has not cut emissions, failed to challenge the argument that wind power has raised the cost of electricity, he failed to challenge my argument that wind speeds are correlated across Europe. And he made a hash of attempting to criticise my argument that wind has made the system less reliable. The gist of his case was that the recent short-term emergency that gave rise to price spikes was caused by coal-fired power station outages. But the point was that these coincided with a windless day. In a system of coal and gas, the weather would not matter, but in a system dependent on wind, then coal outages on a windless day cause problems. Surely this was not too difficult to understand, Mark? Note that Germany had a windless day too.
Mark Lynas then took to twitter boasting in troll-fashion that he had debunked my article where he was joined by the usual green cheerleaders. They have shot themselves in the foot, I am afraid. I remain astonished at the fervour with which greens like Mark defend wind power at all costs, despite growing evidence that it does real environmental harm, rewards the rich at the expense of the poor and does not cut carbon dioxide emissions significantly if at all. It might even make them worse, as I argue here. If they really are worried about emissions, why do greens love wind? It isn't helping. 
Anyway, here's the article
Suppose that a government policy had caused shortages of bread, so the price of a loaf had shot up and was spiking even higher on certain days. Suppose that the high price of bread was causing massive job losses. Suppose that the policy was justified on the grounds that the bread was now coming from farmers whose practices were better for the environment, but it turned out they were probably worse for the environment instead. There would be a rethink, right?
For bread, read electricity. The government needs to rethink its electricity policy. Last week’s emergency was a harbinger of worse to come: because the wind was not blowing on a mild autumn day, the National Grid had to call for some large electricity consumers to switch off, and in addition offered to pay up to £2,500 a megawatt-hour — 40 times the normal price — for generators capable of stepping into the breach at short notice.
Among other lessons, this teaches us that letting Liberal Democrats run the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) for five years was an expensive mistake. What puzzles me is how little the current government seems to realise it must make a U-turn or get the blame itself.
The coalition promised secure, affordable and low-carbon power, but instead gave us unreliable, expensive and high-carbon power. What is worse, this outcome was “wholly predictable but wholly unanticipated by policymakers”, in the words of Rupert Darwall of the Centre for Policy Studies, speaking to a House of Lords committee (on which I sit) earlier this year.
Mr Darwall’s argument is that wind farms, which cost a lot to build and maintain but pay nothing for fuel, can sell electricity for very low prices when the wind’s blowing. Being intermittent, this power therefore destroys incentives to invest in highly efficient “combined-cycle” gas turbines (CCGTs).
If, when the wind blows, a new gas plant has to switch off, then the return on investment in gas is negative. Combined-cycle plants are sophisticated machines and don’t like being switched on and off. Therefore the gradual replacement of coal-fired power by much more efficient gas-fired power has stalled as a direct result of the wind-power boom.
To solve this problem, the government came up with a “capacity mechanism”, a fancy name for subsidising fossil fuels. But this further impost on the hard-pressed bill payers (likely to exceed £1.3 billion by 2020), instead of bringing forward new gas turbines, last year went mostly to keep old coal-fired stations going. The next auction, due in December, has brought a rash of bids from diesel generators. This is madness: wind power has made the country more reliant on dirty, high-carbon coal and diesel. (I declare my usual interest in coal, but note that coal has probably benefited from the policy I am criticising.)
Meanwhile, the old coal stations that have not attracted a subsidy are closing because of the coalition’s unilateral carbon tax (sorry, “floor price”). Eggborough, for instance, tried to switch to subsidised biomass, better known as wood — a fuel that emits even more carbon dioxide than coal per unit of energy — but was refused and so is closing. Thus, when the wind drops, we are plunged into crisis.
Wind’s advocates have long argued that cables to Europe would help on windless days because we could suck in power from Germany when the wind’s blowing there but not here. Yet last week, as we were debating this very issue in the Lords, I checked and wind was generating about 1 per cent of our electricity, and even less of Germany’s. Studies by the Renewable Energy Foundation published as long ago as 2008 have shown that wind speeds are well correlated across Europe most of the time. Was anyone listening?
Prices charged to electricity consumers have been rising because of the high cost of subsidies for wind power, especially offshore wind. The DECC’s numbers show that small businesses will be paying 77 per cent more per unit for electricity by 2020 than they would be if we were not subsidising renewables. The cost of the subsidies is on track to hit roughly £10 billion a year in 2020 and that’s before paying for the fleet of diesel generators being subsidised under the capacity mechanism and extra grid infrastructure costs. What are we getting for that money? A less reliable electricity system, a big increase in cost, lost jobs in the aluminium and steel industries and no discernible cuts in carbon dioxide emissions.
If that last claim seems far fetched, consider the following calculation. According to the wind industry, a 2-megawatt onshore wind turbine could cut emissions by about 1,800 tonnes a year in average conditions, offshore a bit more. With about 13 gigawatts of wind now in service, that would mean the total wind fleet can displace at most 15 million tonnes, or 2 per cent of our 700 million tonnes of total annual emissions.
But, since the effect of the wind boom (solar production, by the way, is an irrelevance lost in the decimal points) has been to deter new gas and prolong the life of inefficient coal, and since it wastes power to get a fossil-fuelled power station up to speed when the wind drops, and since expensive wind power has driven energy-intensive industries abroad to more carbon-intensive countries, the actual emissions savings achieved by wind are lower and probably negative. We would have been far better off buying new gas or “clean-coal” capacity instead: replacing coal with gas more than halves emissions.
After Wednesday’s near emergency, ministers must surely realise that we cannot rely on the weather to produce the right amount of electricity, and gas is far cheaper and more environmentally friendly than the DECC’s dirty diesel solution. As for nuclear power, Hinkley C was supposed to help with the supply crunch, but it will only come on stream in the mid-2020s, and at a gigantic cost.
The poor and the elderly are hardest hit by high electricity bills. What Chris Huhne and Ed Davey have done to our electricity supply, following the lead of Tony Blair’s foolish 2007 decision to accept a European Union target for renewables, is bonkers.
It has cost wealth, jobs, landscapes, wildlife, security of supply: and all for nothing in terms of emissions savings. It is no comfort to know that some of us have been predicting this for years. By: Matt Ridley | Tagged:     the-timesrational-optimist   AddThis Sharing Buttons

----------


## Pendejo

> By: Matt Ridley

  Oops, Marc, you forgot to add that Matt Ridley is a coal baron. Matt Ridley - SourceWatch 
So there we have it: Marc cut-n-pasting in full an article that makes special pleading for coal, authored by a coal baron rentier. Pass the sick bag, Alice! 
What's next, Marc? Will you be quoting Gina Rinehart on how great her coal mines are, and how she doesn't believe in climate science either?  :Doh:

----------


## John2b

One particular ideologically driven participant in this thread purports to believe that rentiers create wealth for everyone. That hasn't happened anywhere in the world in the last 40 years since Ayn Rand neoliberal economic emissaries infiltrated most large corporations and western national governments. Income equity was at its greatest in the 1970s and has been deteriorating ever since.

----------


## Pendejo



----------


## Pendejo



----------


## John2b

There is a bit of cognitive dissonance looming for Marcs diminishing "climate change is a hoax" crowd:   1. In 2015 the global temperature was the highest on record. 2. The average ocean surface temperature was warmest on record. 3. Upper ocean heat content was highest on record. 4. Global sea level was highest on record. 5. The El Niño event was among the strongest on record. 6. Greenhouse gases were highest on record. 7. The number of major tropical cyclones in Northern Hemisphere was a record, as was the damage done by them. 8. Summer Arctic sea ice was at its lowest extent ever. 9. Glaciers continued shrinking at an ever accelerating rate. 10. Extreme temperatures were most extreme on record.   Every one of these phenomena is consistent with mainstream climate science and climate modelling of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The $billions that the fossil energy industry has spent funding alternative 'climate science' to repudiate mainstream climate science can't stop the climate speaking for itself.  https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/

----------


## John2b

It's official, the Lieberal National Coal-ition can't even run a piss-up in a brewery: 
New Science Minister Greg Hunt MP told Fairfax Media he has instructed CSIRO's executives and board to "put the focus back on climate science", adding: "This is not an optional component, it's critical". The new strategy, to be devised over the next three months, includes 15 new climate science jobs and research investment worth $37 million over 10 years.  Turnbull government order CSIRO U-turn towards climate science

----------


## Pendejo

> There is a bit of cognitive dissonance looming for Marc’s diminishing "climate change is a hoax" crowd:   1. In 2015 the global temperature was the highest on record.

  From The Guardian's George Monbiot today:   

> This, on current trends, will be the hottest year ever measured. The previous record was set in 2015; the one before in 2014. Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. Each of the past 14 months has beaten the global monthly temperature record. But you can still hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998.

  *The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us*

----------


## John2b

We really do live in the Post Truth world. ACMA finds that Andrew Bolt can lie about climate change because his audience knows he is stupid and therefore isn't presenting facts: Regulator says Andrew Bolt too hyperbolic to be factual

----------


## autogenous

Greens say Australians are highest emitters.  That is because everyone else has nuclear power stations idiots! And we know why that is. One thousand reactors world wide (including medicine).  
UK doesn't even have ETS on coal credits.    
 Greens are essentially the climate criminals.  Talk about hypocritical deception.

----------


## autogenous

So if Oil and gas are the highest emitter of industrial carbon, why the hell do Greens keep crapping on about coal?  _Topping the list of private and state-held companies are Chevron,  ExxonMobil, Saudi Aramco, British Petroleum, Gazprom, Shell and the  National Iranian Oil Company. These seven companies alone have produced  almost one-fifth (18.7 percent) of all industrial carbon released into  the atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution._  Largest Producers of Industrial Carbon Emissions | Union of Concerned Scientists

----------


## autogenous

Lucky enough, OPEC started having panic attacks about Elon Musks Tesla electric vehicles, and Tesla Powerwall on to solar homes dropping the price of petrol in a fire sale to flush out any less competitive.  https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/powerwall 
But don't feel guilty on Greens behalf when they want you to pay a corrupt global tax.  Australians are the highest uptake of solar in the world.  
Don't consent to the United Nation ETS corrupt credit pig trough.

----------


## autogenous

An Australian company has just developed a lithium method that means lithium will cost half its current price to process.  Electric cars just got real.  WA company developing new technology to access lithium as demand for batteries to store renewable energy grows - ABC Rural (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## John2b

> Australians are the highest uptake of solar in the world.

  Not the world I (and probably you) live in:  1  Germany 491  2  Italy 308  3  Belgium 287  4  Japan 271  5  Greece 230  6  Australia 215  7  Czech Republic 198  -  United States 79  -  China 32  -  India 6.23

----------


## John2b

> So if Oil and gas are the highest emitter of industrial carbon, why the hell do Greens keep crapping on about coal?  _Topping the list of private and state-held companies are Chevron,  ExxonMobil, Saudi Aramco, British Petroleum, Gazprom, Shell and the  National Iranian Oil Company. These seven companies alone have produced  almost one-fifth (18.7 percent) of all industrial carbon released into  the atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution._  Largest Producers of Industrial Carbon Emissions | Union of Concerned Scientists

  Truth isn't stuff you just make up to support an ideological position. 
1. The Union of Concerned Scientists is not "The Greens" or affiliated with a "green" political party. 
2. Oil and coal are virtually neck and neck as sources of CO2 emissions. I don't recall any "green" movement advocating reductions in one source of anthropogenic CO2 emissions but not another. Perhaps you could provide an example.

----------


## woodbe

> So if Oil and gas are the highest emitter of industrial carbon, why the hell do Greens keep crapping on about coal?

  C'mon autogenous, you know more than that. 
Gas is about the lowest emitter of carbon from all the fossil fuels. 
Australia imports almost all of it's oil, but we mine coal, and coal is one of the highest carbon emitters, that would be why the greens have a problem with coal.    https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11

----------


## Pendejo

There is much to be said for Fee and Dividend

----------


## John2b

There is much to be said about climate change that isn't being said. The media largely relegates the greatest challenge facing humanity to footnotes, as industry and politicians hurtle the world towards systemic collapse of the planet  https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ollapse-planet

----------


## SilentButDeadly

The media sells what the people want to hear...[snuggles] 
Ours is not to reason why. Merely to point and giggle.

----------


## Pendejo

The fossil fuel industry keeps paying fringe "experts" to write hit pieces like this, and there are plenty of Marc's only too willing to listen: Three Facts Prove Climate Alarm Is a Scam

----------


## John2b

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Nothing for deniers to see here - move along folks.... 
Todays rainstorm in Louisiana is the eighth 500-year rainfall event across America in little more than a year, including similarly extreme downpours in Oklahoma last May, central Texas (twice: last May and last October), South Carolina last October, northern Louisiana this March, West Virginia in June, and Maryland last month.  https://psmag.com/americas-latest-50...5d0#.bw7pul106   [/COLOR]

----------


## autogenous

*Is Australia the world leader when it comes to household solar PV per capita?* Yes. Australia does likely have the highest proportion of households with PV systems on their roof of any country in the world.
 But to be clear, Australia does not have the most PV  rooftop capacity installed per person. By that we mean there are a  number of other countries that currently generate a higher proportion of  their total electricity from PV than Australia.
 Those countries may also have larger commercial and industrial PV  systems (often tens to hundreds of kilowatts in size) or utility PV  plants (which can be a megawatt – 1,000 kilowatts – to tens of megawatts  in size). Fact check: Is Australia the world leader in household solar power? | UNSW Newsroom     

> Not the world I (and probably you) live in:  1  Germany 491  2  Italy 308  3  Belgium 287  4  Japan 271  5  Greece 230  6  Australia 215  7  Czech Republic 198  -  United States 79  -  China 32  -  India 6.23

----------


## autogenous

Europe is a prick of a place to have coal, so is Japan.  Mainly because of the population density.  Quite frankly, they would be choking to death on the soot.
England is still high pressure washing the coal soot off their buildings, which is why England invested in nuclear, and Germany buy its electricity off France. 
If Hinkley point is pulled off, that will be a new era for nuclear as the begin burning nuclear waste in the reactor. 
Western Australias power station is Gas/Coal turbine. 
Western Australias cement is full of coal flume.  The coal waste dramatically reduces the emissions in the highest producer of emissions, cement production.  Without coal, the amount of gas burnt would dramatically increase to produce cement, with the amount of increased emissions by gas to produce cement.  http://www.nature.com/news/green-cem...utions-1.12460

----------


## autogenous

Germany opens another coal power plant   https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...ew-coal-plant/

----------


## autogenous

It is not practical to have all coal fired power stations in these high density countries. It would be a bloody disaster with the amount of soot they produce.  Which is why they have nuclear and other alternatives.   
So if the Greens knocked back nuclear in Australia, *does that mean Greens are climate criminals?*  There is hundreds of reactors worldwide which has kept emissions down.   

> Not the world I (and probably you) live in:  1  Germany 491  2  Italy 308  3  Belgium 287  4  Japan 271  5  Greece 230  6  Australia 215  7  Czech Republic 198  -  United States 79  -  China 32  -  India 6.23

----------


## autogenous

China has 33 nuclear reactors, another 22 reactors under construction  = 55 nuclear reactors  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China  *GE nuclear reactor eats its own waste* http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/27032/GE-nuclear-reactor-waste  
 We are about to burn all that nuclear waste

----------


## woodbe

> Germany opens another coal power plant   https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...ew-coal-plant/

  Old news. 
Germany is closing down Nuclear by 2022 due to concerns such as Fukishima. They have to fill the gap. Their coal plants are not like ours though...   

> A new power plant—named RDK8—in Karlsruhe, Germany, has achieved 10%  better efficiency than the current German coal-burning plants, reaching  47.1% efficiency. This means less coal needs to be burned for the same  power output, and the raised efficiency also means fewer emissions—a  huge reduction of 40% "compared to the global average conventional  coal-fired fleet," says GE.

  http://www.fastcoexist.com/3055915/n...to-a-new-level

----------


## autogenous

Germany buys its nuclear electricity off France.  Too frickin expensive.
Nothing to do with Fukishima 
 Although there is a lot of *old* nuclear power plants being shut down at end of life.   

> Old news.
> Germany is closing down Nuclear by 2022 due to concerns such as Fukishima. They have to fill the gap. Their coal plants are not like ours though... http://www.fastcoexist.com/3055915/n...to-a-new-level

----------


## woodbe

> China has 33 nuclear reactors, another 22 reactors under construction  = 55 nuclear reactors  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China  *GE nuclear reactor eats its own waste* http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/27032/GE-nuclear-reactor-waste  
>  We are about to burn all that nuclear waste

  What could possibly go wrong?  :Biggrin:

----------


## John2b

> It is not practical to have all coal fired power stations in these high density countries. It would be a bloody disaster with the amount of soot they produce.  Which is why they have nuclear and other alternatives.   
> So if the Greens knocked back nuclear in Australia, *does that mean Greens are climate criminals?*  There is hundreds of reactors worldwide which has kept emissions down.

  Soot is an optional byproduct of burning coal. Flue gasses can be cleaned, as they are in the case of the Hamburg plant you cited a couple of posts above. Flue gases from the plant are purified in three stages. The nitric oxides are converted into nitrogen and water vapour using ammonia-air mixture, followed by dust removal. Electrostatic precipitators separate the ash particles in the airflow. 
When there is at least *ten thousand times* as much easily exploited renewable energy than the world is currently consuming from fossil energy sources and nuclear, isn't anyone proposing a dirty fuel source, including nuclear, a criminal?

----------


## autogenous

Hopefully new gen reactors burn all the nuclear waste in short time.  I think there is about 30 years of uranium left

----------


## John2b

> Germany is closing down Nuclear by 2022 due to concerns such as Fukishima. They have to fill the gap. Their coal plants are not like ours though...

  The coal fired plant in question is owned by the Swedish government owned utility Vattenfall who has a contract to supply electric ity to Hamburg. The Germans are trying to buy back their own electricity generation BTW.

----------


## woodbe

> Germany buys its nuclear electricity off France.  Too frickin expensive.
> Nothing to do with Fukishima 
>  Although there is a lot of *old* nuclear power plants being shut down at end of life.

  Merkel immediately shut down 8 Nuclear plants as a direct response to Fukishima. That is exactly because of the Fukishima disaster. Yes the plants are getting old and they are not being replaced. All of them will be shut by 2022.

----------


## autogenous

We have put all LED lights in our house.  Our oven, heating, HWS are gas.  Im about to increase insulation properties of the house.  If our electricity service bills get any higher, we will dump the grid for a battery methanol fuel cell system. 
Our last electricity bill was $114.  Our gas is about $160 per bill.

----------


## John2b

> Hopefully new gen reactors burn all the nuclear waste in short time.  I think there is about 30 years of uranium left

  New generation reactors are just a fairytale at this stage. And no nuclear reactor ever is going to eat all of the waste plutonium from existing nuclear reactors because only one or two of the 15 isotopes of plutonium created by the nuclear fuel cycle is useable as fissile material in a reactor.

----------


## John2b

> We have put all LED lights in our house.  Our oven, heating, HWS are gas.  Im about to increase insulation properties of the house.  If our electricity service bills get any higher, we will dump the grid for a battery solar system. 
> Our last electricity bill was $114.  Our gas is about $160 per bill.

  I have insulated our house as well. We have 1.5 kW of grid connected solar and have generated more power than we use in every single quarter, summer, winter, spring or autumn, for the past five years and have been paid for our excess electricity every year.

----------


## autogenous

You still have to buy the solar solar system.  And old people will have to pay for someone to take the system off the roof, and down the tip eventually. 
You are paid in credits? Or cold hard cash?   

> I have insulated our house as well. We have 1.5 kW of grid connected solar and have generated more power than we use in every single quarter, summer, winter, spring or autumn, for the past five years and have been paid for our excess electricity every year.

----------


## John2b

Paid in cash (cheque twice per year). The solar system has paid for itself twice over in forgone electricity charges and credits.

----------


## PhilT2

Queensland's new One nation senator, Malcolm Roberts, is on Q & A tonight. He is a full on Agenda 21, UN plot for one world govt conspiracy theorist and climate change denier (but without the lizard men) On the rational side will be Brian Cox, a physicist with actual qualifications. Might be worth a look.

----------


## autogenous

What sort of tax do you pay on your business investment?   

> Paid in cash (cheque twice per year). The solar system has paid for itself twice over in forgone electricity charges and credits.

----------


## John2b

Most of the benefit is in not having to buy electricity. There is no tax on that! The credit amounts to ~$200 per annum.

----------


## autogenous

There is denying climate change. (climate change does also encompass natural warming etc)  It is however oversold and the ETS corruption no good. 
Australia has to head towards renewable for a number of reasons.   Global resources are finite, and more so every day 
If China gets up a decent middle class, fossil fuels will be twice the price they are today, making us poorer.  Best be ready. 
To me, Elon Musk is one of the greatest heros that ever lived.  A true leader

----------


## autogenous

If China didn't have 33 nuclear power stations, I doubt there would be the area to hold the solar panels.  Swathes of forest removed to host the panels.  
London was choking on its soot a century ago.  England has 52 million people in two Tasmania's. 
To build in China is cheap.  No labour overhead costs like Australians have,  A limited safety regime.  China is going to leave Australia in its wake.

----------


## Pendejo

New Yorkers Dealing With Hottest Day Of The Summer Â« CBS New York  Washington Weather Advisories - Weather Warnings & Watches for Washington, DC 
Nothing to see here, move along  :Doh:

----------


## autogenous

The earth has been getting hotter for 16000 years.  One swallow doesnt make a summer.  We are not talking about weather, we are talking about climate. Climate scientists work in 100000 year increments, not 200 years (since records began) 
Records have been broken for 16000 years. 
Weather is not climate.    

> New Yorkers Dealing With Hottest Day Of The Summer Â« CBS New York  Washington Weather Advisories - Weather Warnings & Watches for Washington, DC 
> Nothing to see here, move along

----------


## John2b

I think you might actually believe your own posts. As Silentbutdeadly said "Ours is not to reason why. Merely to point and giggle".

----------


## woodbe

> The earth has been getting hotter for 16000 years.  One swallow doesnt make a summer.  We are not talking about weather, we are talking about climate. Climate scientists work in 100000 year increments, not 200 years (since records began)

  Weather is short term. Days to Years. Centuries is definitely not weather. 
Climate is longer term than weather 20-30 years or more.

----------


## John2b

> Climate is longer term than weather 20-30 years or more.

  Ah, some people just like to make up their own personal definitions to make an ideological point. It doesn't matter, Earth couldn't care less. 
For what is't worth, according to the World Meteorological Organisation: Scientists determine average climate from a calculation of conditions over a *30-year period*. These averages create a baseline for comparing the current weather and climate. It helps answer questions like, “Are we having a hotter month, season or year than average?” 
From the point of view of climate change, it is the scale of species' lifetimes that is significant. If climate changes faster than the biosphere can adapt, then the biosphere is at risk. That's why the fact that climate is changing much, much faster than it has in the past, perhaps 100 times faster, is so concerning. 
There is absolutely no credible argument or postulation than anthropogenic emissions of CO2 released by burning in just a few decades from fossil fuel stocks that were accumulated over hundred of millions of years, is not the cause of the rapid climate change that is happening now.

----------


## Pendejo

> The earth has been getting hotter for 16000 years.  One swallow doesnt make a summer.  We are not talking about weather, we are talking about climate. Climate scientists work in 100000 year increments, not 200 years (since records began) Records have been broken for 16000 years. Weather is not climate.

  Heat waves are a growing trend across the globe. This summer, the Middle East has experienced record temperatures. July saw the heat index in Iran and the U.A.E. hit an almost unimaginable 60ºC. Actual temperature in the region hit hemispheric records of 54ºC. 
According to Live Science, most people will experience hyperthermia after 10 minutes in 60ºC. While we are not seeing temperatures go quite that high  yet  it is the unrelenting heat that kills. High temperatures combined with high humidity mean no relief. Even at night, temperatures do not fall sufficiently for the human body to adequately cool itself. 
In 2010, 55,000 people in Russia died in a heat wave. In 2003, 70,000 people across Europe were killed by heat. 
For decades, scientists have been warning that climate change  the cumulative outcome of over a century of burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon molecules that trap heat in the atmosphere  will create longer, more intense heat waves. 
A statistical analysis of the 2010 Russian heat wave found that there was an 80 percent likelihood that it would not have occurred without climate change. 
In 2013, Columbia University scientists warned that by 2020, New York City could see a 20 percent rise in heat-related deaths. By 2050, it could see a 90 percent rise. 
That's what I'm talking about.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Some may find this interesting http://www.cawcr.gov.au/projects/vic...05/BRR-014.pdf 
A just released research report from BoM entitled 'Climate Change Science and Victoria' which "summarises the state of the science regarding the climate of Victoria, its variability, ongoing trends and projected future changes in response to continued anthropogenic forcings".   
It is derived largely from last years release of national climate change projections but with additional work to make those projections more relevant to region's that are familiar to most Victorians.  Naturally, most of the findings at a Victorian scale are not dissimilar to the national or even MDB cluster findings - not much change between now and 2030 with the median max temp increase around 1 degree (slightly lower for median minimum); natural climate variability still the major driver of rainfall out to at least 2030.   
However, after 2030 and onwards to 2090, things usually go differently and with high confidence...so I look forward to my dotage and some interesting times with some measure of anticipation!

----------


## John2b



----------


## Pendejo

*
Solar Delivers Cheapest Electricity Ever, Anywhere, By Any Technology -- Half the price of coal!*

----------


## Marc

*How ‘consensus science’ blew the Solar Cycle 24 prediction, which turned out to be the lowest in 100 years*Anthony Watts / 1 day ago September 9, 2016 A few years ago, the best solar models predicted that Solar Cycle 24 would be larger than Solar Cycle 23. Here is a plot from NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) during those heady days, this one being from April 20th, 2007. Note the predicted ranges in red:   *Now, compare that prediction in 2007, to this plot of actual values today:* *Sunspot Number Progression* *Note that the current values plotted above still fall far short of the updated predictions that were made to account for a much lower Solar Cycle 24.* Back then NOAA said: *May 8, 2009 — Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Update* The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. _A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction_. *June 27, 2008* During the annual Space Weather Workshop held in Boulder, CO in May, 2008, the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel released an update to the prediction for the next solar cycle. In short, the update is that the panel has not yet made any changes to the *prediction issued in April, 2007*. The panel expects solar minimum to occur in March, 2008. The panel expects the solar cycle to reach a peak sunspot number of 140 in October, 2011 or a peak of 90 in August, 2012. *April 25, 2008* The official NOAA, NASA, and ISES Solar Cycle 24 prediction was released by the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel on April 25, 2007. The *Prediction Panel* included members from NOAA, NASA, ISES and other US and International representatives. Press Briefings and presentations at the SEC Space Weather Workshop, plus additional announcements and information from the Panel are linked below. The Panel expects to update this prediction annually. The Panel considered all Predictions of Solar Cycle 24 they found in the literature or received directly from an author. The *May 24, 2007 List* shows the predictions considered.So much for “consensus” based predictions. Not just a basic consensus mind you, but a_supermajority_, like, ummm *97%* or something like that. They even wrote a paper about that consensus, which you can read here. Our resident solar expert, Dr. Leif Svalgaard was in the 3% that said no. But even in that super-majority, there wasn’t really a true consensus on the numbers for Cycle 24, as this graphic illustrates:  They wrote then, bold mine: Cycle 24 Maximum Prediction • Will peak at a sunspot number of 140(±20) in October, 2011 (F10.7 = 187 sfu) Or • Will peak at a sunspot number of 90(±10) in August, 2012 (F10.7 = 141 sfu) – *The panel is split! – The next cycle will be neither extreme, nor average**Svalgaard presented these graphs in a presentation made in Lund, 20 September 2005:* Svalgaard also published a paper in GRL with this title: _Sunspot cycle 24: Smallest cycle in 100 years?_ *With the exception of Svalgaard, the panel of consensus scientists were all wrong, and Cycle 24 is turning out to be a complete forecast bust, and the the lowest in 100 years, and it was neither extreme, nor average.**So much for consensus based science!* *References*: *April 25, 2007 NOAA Press Release* NOAA’s Press Briefing document: *Solar Cycle 24 Consensus Prediction* Svalgaard’s Cycle 24 Prediction Lund.pdf (Lund, 2005) Svalgaard’s GRL 2005 paper  Cycle 24 Smallest 100 years.pdf Meanwhile, other indicators besides the sunspot number show cycle 24 remaining in a slump. *F10.7cm Radio Flux Progression* *AP Progression* At the top is the Sunspot Number, in the middle, the F10.7cm Radio Flux, and at the bottom, the Ap Index (a measure of geomagnetic activity) history. In all of the plots, the black line represents the monthly averaged data and the blue line represents a 13-month smoothed version of the monthly averaged data.  For the Sunspot Number and F10.7cm, the forecast for the rest of the solar cycle is given by the red line. About these ads  *Rate this:*       45 Votes   *Share this:* GoogleTwitterFacebook264RedditEmail       September 9, 2016 in Consensus, Solar.*Related posts**The sun is still in a slump – still not conforming to NOAA “consensus” forecasts**NOAA SWPC Solar Cycle 24 Prediction: “weakest since 1928”**Audio from the NOAA/SWPC press teleconference* *Post navigation*← Friday Funny – Josh at the London Climate Conference NSIDC: ‘two very strong storms’ failed to make a repeat of 2012 record low Arctic sea ice extent→

----------


## Marc

*Solar Energy Isn’t Always as Green as You Think**Do cheaper photovoltaics providing solar energy come with a higher environmental price tag?*By Dustin MulvaneyPosted 13 Nov 2014 | 16:00 GMT               Photo: Imaginechina/Corbis*On the Line:* A factory worker in China inspects crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells.Solar panels glimmering in the sun are an icon of all that is green. But while generating electricity through photovoltaics is indeed better for the environment than burning fossil fuels, several incidents have linked the manufacture of these shining symbols of environmental virtue to a trail of chemical pollution. And it turns out that the time it takes to compensate for the energy used and the greenhouse gases emitted in photovoltaic panel production varies substantially by technology and geography.
That’s the bad news. The good news is that the industry could readily eliminate many of the damaging side effects that do exist. Indeed, pressure for it to do so is mounting, in part because, since 2008, photovoltaics manufacturing has moved from Europe, Japan, and the United States to China, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Taiwan; today nearly half the world’s photovoltaics are manufactured in China. As a result, although the overall track record for the industry is good, the countries that produce the most photovoltaics today typically do the worst job of protecting the environment and their workers.
To understand exactly what the problems are, and how they might be addressed, it’s helpful to know a little something about how photovoltaic panels are made. While solar energy can be generated using a variety of technologies, the vast majority of solar cells today start as quartz, the most common form of silica (silicon dioxide), which is refined into elemental silicon. There’s the first problem: The quartz is extracted from mines, putting the miners at risk of one of civilization’s oldest occupational hazards, the lung disease silicosis.
The initial refining turns quartz into metallurgical-grade silicon, a substance used mostly to harden steel and other metals. That happens in giant furnaces, and keeping them hot takes a lot of energy, a subject we’ll return to later. Fortunately, the levels of the resulting emissions—mostly carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide—can’t do much harm to the people working at silicon refineries or to the immediate environment.
The next step, however—turning metallurgical-grade silicon into a purer form called polysilicon—creates the very toxic compound silicon tetrachloride. The refinement process involves combining hydrochloric acid with metallurgical-grade silicon to turn it into what are called trichlorosilanes. The trichlorosilanes then react with added hydrogen, producing polysilicon along with liquid silicon tetrachloride—three or four tons of silicon tetrachloride for every ton of polysilicon.  Photo: Imaginechina/AP Photo*Acid Drain:*Wastewater exits a plant operated by Jinko Solar Holding Co. In 2011, hydrofluoric acid used by the company for solar-panel manufacturing contaminated river water, killing hundreds of fish and dozens of pigs.
Most manufacturers recycle this waste to make more polysilicon. Capturing silicon from silicon tetrachloride requires less energy than obtaining it from raw silica, so recycling this waste can save manufacturers money. But the reprocessing equipment can cost tens of millions of dollars. So some operations have just thrown away the by-product. If exposed to water—and that’s hard to prevent if it’s casually dumped—the silicon tetrachloride releases hydrochloric acid, acidifying the soil and emitting harmful fumes.
When the photovoltaics industry was smaller, the solar-cell manufacturers got their silicon from chipmakers, which rejected wafers that did not meet the computer industry’s purity requirements. But the boom in photovoltaics demanded more than semiconductor-industry leftovers, and many new polysilicon refineries were built in China. Few countries at the time had stringent rules covering the storage and disposal of silicon tetrachloride waste, and China was no exception, as some Washington Post reporters discovered.
The paper’s investigation, published in March 2008, profiled a Chinese polysilicon facility owned by Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co., located near the Yellow River in the country’s Henan province. This facility supplied polysilicon to Suntech Power Holdings, at the time the world’s largest solar-cell manufacturer, as well as to several other high-profile photovoltaics companies.
The reporters found that the company was dumping silicon tetrachloride waste on neighboring fields instead of investing in equipment that could reprocess it, rendering those fields useless for growing crops and inflaming the eyes and throats of nearby residents. And the article suggested that the company was not alone in this practice.
After the publication of the Washington Post story, solar companies’ stock prices fell. Investors feared the revelations would undermine an industry that relies so much on its green credentials. After all, that’s what attracts most customers and draws public support for policies that foster the adoption of solar energy, such as the Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credit in the United States. Those who purchase residential solar systems can subtract 30 percent of the cost from their tax bills until the incentive expires in 2016.
To protect the industry’s reputation, the manufacturers of photovoltaic panels began to inquire about the environmental practices of their polysilicon suppliers. Consequently, the situation is now improving. In 2011 China set standards requiring that companies recycle at least 98.5 percent of their silicon tetrachloride waste. These standards are easy to meet so long as factories install the proper equipment. Yet it remains to be seen how well the rules are being enforced.
This problem could completely go away in the future. Researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., are looking for ways to make polysilicon with ethanol instead of chlorine-based chemicals, thereby avoiding the creation of silicon tetrachloride altogether.
The struggle to keep photovoltaics green does not end with the production of polysilicon. Solar-cell manufacturers purify chunks of polysilicon to form bricklike ingots and then slice the ingots into wafers. Then they introduce impurities into the silicon wafers, creating the essential solar-cell architecture that produces the photovoltaic effect.
These steps all involve hazardous chemicals. For example, manufacturers rely on hydrofluoric acid to clean the wafers, remove damage that comes from sawing, and texture the surface to better collect light. Hydrofluoric acid works great for all these things, but when it touches an unprotected person, this highly corrosive liquid can destroy tissue and decalcify bones. So handling hydrofluoric acid requires extreme care, and it must be disposed of properly.
But accidents do happen and are more likely in places that have limited experience manufacturing semiconductors or that have lax environmental regulations. In August 2011, a factory in China’s Zhejiang province owned by Jinko Solar Holding Co., one of the largest photovoltaic companies in the world, spilled hydrofluoric acid into the nearby Mujiaqiao River, killing hundreds of fish. And farmers working adjacent lands, who used the contaminated water to clean their animals, accidently killed dozens of pigs.
In investigating the dead pigs, Chinese authorities found levels of hydrofluoric acid in the river 10 times the permitted limit, and they presumably took these measurements long after much of the hydrofluoric acid had washed downstream. Hundreds of local residents, upset over the incident, stormed and temporarily occupied the manufacturing facility. Again, investors reacted: When major media outlets carried the news the next day, Jinko’s stock price dropped by more than 40 percent, translating to nearly US $100 million in lost value.
This threat to the environment needn’t continue. Researchers at Rohm & Haas Electronic Materials, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, have identified substitutes for the hydrofluoric acid used in solar-cell manufacture. One good candidate is sodium hydroxide (NaOH). Although NaOH is itself a caustic chemical, it is easier to treat and dispose of than hydrofluoric acid and is less risky for workers. It is also easier to treat wastewater containing NaOH.
Although more than 90 percent of photovoltaic panels made today start with polysilicon, there is a newer approach: thin-film solar-cell technology. The thin-film varieties will likely grow in market share over the next decade, because they can be just as efficient as silicon-based solar cells and yet cheaper to manufacture, as they use less energy and material.  Source: Argonne National Laboratory/Fengqi You et al.*Carbon in Creation:* Solar-panel manufacturers need electricity and thermal energy, and carbon emissions from their generation can vary widely with location. Panels produced in China, which relies heavily on coal for power, have a larger carbon footprint than those produced in Europe.
Makers of thin-film cells deposit layers of semiconductor material directly on a substrate of glass, metal, or plastic instead of slicing wafers from a silicon ingot. This produces less waste and completely avoids the complicated melting, drawing, and slicing used to make traditional cells. In essence, a piece of glass goes in at one end of the factory and a fully functional photovoltaic module emerges from the other.
Moving to thin-film solar cells eliminates many of the environmental and safety hazards from manufacturing, because there’s no need for certain problematic chemicals—no hydrofluoric acid, no hydrochloric acid. But that does not mean you can automatically stamp a thin-film solar cell as green.
Today’s dominant thin-film technologies are cadmium telluride and a more recent competitor, copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS). In the former, one semiconductor layer is made of cadmium telluride; the second is cadmium sulfide. In the latter, the primary semiconductor material is CIGS, but the second layer is typically cadmium sulfide. So each of these technologies uses compounds containing the heavy metal cadmium, which is both a carcinogen and a genotoxin, meaning that it can cause inheritable mutations.
Manufacturers like First Solar, based in Tempe, Ariz., have a strong record of protecting workers from cadmium exposures during manufacture. But there is little information about exposures to workers involved with cadmium at earlier stages in the life cycle of the metal, from the zinc mines where much of cadmium originates through the smelting process that purifies cadmium and turns it into semiconductor materials. Exposures after solar panels are discarded are also a concern. Most of the cadmium telluride that manufacturers dispose of due to damage or manufacturing defects is recycled under safe, controlled conditions. On the postconsumer end of the equation, the industry proactively set up a solar-panel collection and recycling scheme in Europe. Individual companies have also established recycling programs, such as First Solar’s prefunded take-back system. But more needs to be done; not every consumer has access to a free take-back program, and indeed many consumers may not even be aware of the need to dispose of panels responsibly.
The best way to avoid exposing workers and the environment to toxic cadmium is to minimize the amount used or to use no cadmium at all. Already, two major CIGS-photovoltaic manufacturers—Avancis and Solar Frontier—are using zinc sulfide, a relatively benign material, instead of cadmium sulfide. And researchers from the University of Bristol and the University of Bath, in England; the University of California, Berkeley; and many other academic and government laboratories are trying to develop thin-film photovoltaics that do not require toxic elements like cadmium or rare elements like tellurium. First Solar has meanwhile been steadily reducing the amount of cadmium used in its solar cells.
Toxicity isn’t the only concern. Making solar cells requires a lot of energy. Fortunately, because these cells generate electricity, they pay back the original investment of energy; most do so after just two years of operation, and some companies report payback times as short as six months. This “energy payback” time is not the same as the time needed to recoup a consumers financial investment in solar panels; it measures investments and payback times in terms of kilowatt-hours, not in terms of money.
Analysts also judge the impact of the energy used to make a solar panel by the amount of carbon generated in the production of that energy—a number that can vary widely. To do this, we give the energy a carbon-intensity value, usually represented as kilograms of CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour generated. Places that depend largely on coal have the most carbon-intense electricity in the world: Chinese electricity is a good example, having roughly twice the carbon intensity of U.S. electricity. This fits with the results of researchers in Illinois at Argonne National Laboratory and Northwestern University. In a report published this past June, they found that the carbon footprint of photovoltaic panels made in China is indeed about double that of those manufactured in Europe.
If the photovoltaic panels made in China were installed in China, the high carbon intensity of the energy used and that of the energy saved would cancel each other out, and the time needed to counterbalance greenhouse-gas emissions during manufacture would be the same as the energy-payback time. But that’s not what’s been happening lately. The manufacturing is mostly located in China, and the panels are often installed in Europe or the United States. At double the carbon intensity, it takes twice as long to compensate for the greenhouse-gas emissions as it does to pay back the energy investments.  Source: Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition*The Solar Scorecard:* The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition evaluates solar-panel manufacturers on a range of environmental and worker-safety criteria. Shown here are the 10 highest-ranked companies out of 40 evaluated in the coalition’s 2013 scorecard. At the top of the list is China’s Trina Solar, with a score of 77 out of 100 possible points._(Update: Trina raised its score to 92 in the 2014 Solar Scorecard, with the California-based company Sunpower in second place at 88.)_
Of course, if you manufacture photovoltaic panels with low-carbon electricity (for example, in a solar-powered factory) and install them in a high-carbon-intensity country, the greenhouse-gas-payback time will be lower than the energy-payback time. So perhaps someday, powering photovoltaic-panel manufacturing with wind, solar, and geothermal energy will end concerns about the carbon footprint of photovoltaics.
Water is yet another issue. Photovoltaic manufacturers use a lot of it for various purposes, including cooling, chemical processing, and air-pollution control. The biggest water waster, though, is cleaning during installation and use. Utility-scale projects in the 230- to 550-megawatt range can require up to 1.5 billion liters of water for dust control during construction and another 26 million liters annually for panel washing during operation. However, the amount of water used to produce, install, and operate photovoltaic panels is significantly lower than that needed to cool thermoelectric fossil- and fissile-power plants.
The choices investors and consumers make could, in principle, have a big influence on photovoltaic manufacturers’ practices. But it’s often tough to tell how these companies differ in the care they take to protect the environment. The solar industry has no formal ecolabel, like the Energy Star labels on household appliances and consumer electronics that help U.S. buyers identify energy-efficient products. And most people do not go out and purchase solar panels themselves. They hire third-party installers. So even if there were an ecolabeling scheme, it would depend on installers’ willingness to choose ecofriendly products.
For now, consumers can help push manufacturers to improve their environmental and safety records by asking installers about the companies making the products they use. This, in turn, would prompt installers to ask the manufacturers for more information.
Researchers at the National Photovoltaics Environmental Research Center at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y., have long been publishing studies about the possible environmental hazards of photovoltaics. Recently, formal environmental performance ratings for the solar industry have started to emerge.
Organizations such as the Center for International Earth Science Information Network are trying to establish some means of determining the environmental, health, and safety performance of manufacturers in developing countries. This group, which includes researchers from Yale and Columbia, is proposing the China Environmental Performance Index, which would operate at the provincial level to help China track progress toward environmental-policy goals.
Meanwhile, the Solar Energy Industries Association, a U.S. national trade organization, has proposed new industry guidelines in a document called the“Solar Industry Environment & Social Responsibility Commitment,” aimed at preventing occupational injury and illness, preventing pollution, and reducing the natural resources used in production. The document urges companies to ask suppliers to report on manufacturing practices and any chemical and greenhouse-gas emissions.
In addition, the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, which rates the environmental performance of electronics companies, has surveyed and ranked photovoltaic manufacturing companies based or operating in China, Germany, Malaysia, the Philippines, and the United States. Participation is voluntary and so far includes such major manufacturers as First Solar, SolarWorld, SunPower, Suntech, Trina, and Yingli; Chinese manufacturers Trina and Yingli have consistently ranked among the world’s top three most environmentally responsible companies. And Sharp, SolarWorld, and SunPower have been carefully tracking the greenhouse gases emitted and chemicals used in the manufacture of their solar panels for several years.
Such initiatives are coming none too soon. Many people today view photovoltaics as a panacea for our energy woes, given how dirty most of the alternatives are. But that does not mean we should turn a blind eye to the darker side of this technology. Indeed, we need to consider it very carefully. And just maybe, with a sustained effort by consumers, manufacturers, and researchers, the photovoltaics industry will one day be truly, not just symbolically, green. _This article originally appeared in print as “Solar’s Green Dilemma.”_ _This article was updated 12 November 2014._ *About the Author*Dustin Mulvaney is an assistant professor of environmental studies at San Jose State University, in California, where he concentrates on the solar-energy, biofuel, and natural-gas industries. Although he identifies himself as both a solar advocate and a solar user—he has a photovoltaic array in his yard—his research has made him mindful of the significant health risks and environmental costs of manufacturing PV panels.

----------


## r3nov8or

> Heat waves are a growing trend across the globe. This summer, the Middle East has experienced record temperatures. July saw the heat index in Iran and the U.A.E. hit an almost unimaginable 60ºC. Actual temperature in the region hit hemispheric records of 54ºC. 
> According to Live Science, most people will experience hyperthermia after 10 minutes in 60ºC. While we are not seeing temperatures go quite that high  yet  it is the unrelenting heat that kills. High temperatures combined with high humidity mean no relief. Even at night, temperatures do not fall sufficiently for the human body to adequately cool itself. 
> In 2010, 55,000 people in Russia died in a heat wave. In 2003, 70,000 people across Europe were killed by heat. 
> For decades, scientists have been warning that climate change  the cumulative outcome of over a century of burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon molecules that trap heat in the atmosphere  will create longer, more intense heat waves. 
> A statistical analysis of the 2010 Russian heat wave found that there was an 80 percent likelihood that it would not have occurred without climate change. 
> In 2013, Columbia University scientists warned that by 2020, New York City could see a 20 percent rise in heat-related deaths. By 2050, it could see a 90 percent rise. 
> That's what I'm talking about.

  And when humans are gone Earth will recover. We are temporary. What exactly is the problem?

----------


## John2b

It's ironic that WUWT lampoons 'consensus science' (without understanding what it is) whilst at the same time claiming credibility from being "The world's most viewed site on climate change" (which it isn't by a factor of 20 or more according to Google web site statistics). 
So WUWT is claiming a 10 year old projection on sunspots was wrong. That must explain why global temperature is so cold this year:

----------


## Pendejo

> It's ironic that WUWT lampoons 'consensus science' (without understanding what it is) whilst at the same time claiming credibility from being "The world's most viewed site on climate change" (which it isn't by a factor of 20 or more according to Google web site statistics).

  "The world's most viewed site on climate change by dumbass science deniers"  full quote, and fully accurate.   

> So WUWT is claiming a 10 year old projection on sunspots was wrong. That must explain why global temperature is so cold this year

  I want Mr Anthony Watts, university dropout, to explain how sunspots are related to global warming (hint: they aren't)

----------


## John2b

The "Gold Standard" temperature record for global warming deniers isn't playing ball anymore. Even the lower troposphere is warming:

----------


## autogenous

Climate scientists work in 100000 years.  The rest is weather. As you will see if you check a graph with say 400000 years on it. 
Anyone working in a few hundred years, is discussing weather.  Snake oil salesmen,

----------


## woodbe

> Climate scientists work in 100000 years.  The rest is weather. As you will see if you check a graph with say 400000 years on it. 
> Anyone working in a few hundred years, is discussing weather.  Snake oil salesmen,

  Denier speak. Climate is long term, but is does not have to be 100,000 years. Weather is short term, it's what is happening out your window today, tomorrow, last month and next month.   

> The difference between weather and climate is that weather consists of  the short-term (minutes to months) changes in the atmosphere.

  NASA - What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate? | NASA 
Climate is generally a term of 25+ years. Of course it can go for 100,000 or  million years.

----------


## autogenous

I think Ill stick with the Climate scientists    

> Denier speak. Climate is long term, but is does not have to be 100,000 years. Weather is short term, it's what is happening out your window today, tomorrow, last month and next month.    NASA - What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate? | NASA 
> Climate is generally a term of 25+ years. Of course it can go for 100,000 or  million years.

----------


## woodbe

> I think Ill stick with the Climate scientists

  I stick with climate scientists myself. I don't find many at the source of your image.  
Try looking at non-denier sites. You will find climate scientists agree that weather is short periods and climate is decades and above.

----------


## John2b

> I think Ill stick with the Climate scientists

  I think I'll stick with the weather that has made life as we know it possible - at least for now and our children's time on Earth. There is no need for humankind to induce radical climate change deliberately through reckless disregard in the timescale of our lives. But after that, bring on the ice ages and the infernos of pre and post anthropogenic planet earth for all I care.

----------


## Marc

> And when humans are gone Earth will recover. We are temporary. What exactly is the problem?

  Don't attempt logic with fanatics, no point.  
Funny how they like to strain the gnat ( half a degree in temperature, uhuuu ) and swallow the massive pollution their beloved "renewable" cause.  
It's ok, its all fun. 
By the way, I bought a Chilean wine today. Total crap.

----------


## John2b

> Don't attempt logic with fanatics, no point.

  There's a rabid fanatic here who frequently posts megabytes of cut & paste drivel riddled with logical fallacies.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## PhilT2

ARENA, the renewable energy agency, is supporting the development of 12 new large-scale solar plants across Aus, six of them in Qld. Historic day for Australian solar as 12 new plants get support - Australian Renewable Energy Agency | Australian Renewable Energy Agency 
Funding for Arena will be one of the issues discussed in parliament this week as part of the Omnibus bill. This bill may make it through the lower house but its chances of surviving intact in the senate are slim. 
Also in the senate this week the new One Nation senator from Qld will be making his first speech. Rumours are that he will use this occasion to warn us of the dangers of the UN Agenda 21 conspiracy for world domination. Maybe he will also warn us about the lizard men. Let's hope so, people really need to hear what climate deniers believe.

----------


## Pendejo

> Also in the senate this week the new One Nation senator from Qld will be making his first speech. Rumours are that he will use this occasion to warn us of the dangers of the UN Agenda 21 conspiracy for world domination. Maybe he will also warn us about the lizard men. Let's hope so, people really need to hear what climate deniers believe.

  Yes, Malcolm Roberts of One Nation is a worry. Roberts, a former coal miner and mining industry consultant, is even too much for denier Andrew Bolt, who asked to be removed from a list of advisors to the Galileo Movement after engaging in an email exchange with Roberts. 
Roberts is listed as a member of the advisory committee of the "Carbon Sense Coalition", a climate denier group established by Queensland coal industry veteran Viv Forbes. The voluntary group says “we oppose statutory limits on emissions of man-made carbon dioxide because we believe carbon dioxide plays a wholly beneficial role in our atmosphere. It is NOT a pollutant, nor does it drive global warming.”    
It makes me ashamed to be Australian when I see this idiot being interviewed.  Interview: New Senator Malcolm Roberts joins Lateline

----------


## woodbe

Also worth watching, Malcolm Roberts on Q&A gets to 'discuss' Climate Chamge with Brian Cox lol.

----------


## John2b

> I want Mr Anthony Watts, university dropout, to explain how sunspots are related to global warming (hint: they aren't)

  Although solar cycles are link to seasonal weather variations: http://phys.org/news/2011-10-link-so...-revealed.html

----------


## PhilT2

John Cook, author of the Skeptical Science blog, is leaving the University of Qld to take up a job as researcher in climate communications with George Mason University. His original qualification was in solar physics but he also has a PhD in cognitive psychology. His work on the mental processes of denialists has received worldwide recognition.

----------


## John2b

Proof that fact is stranger than fiction (rom the comments):  Cook et al will lead us back into the dark ages, and throw away all that we learned forwards from 1750’s and the great Enlightenment – and the age of empirical science, of experiment and observation – is dying. We are going back to the age of chasing the myths of a holy grail.  This is what ‘progressive’ [Socialist] political dogma facilitates, where social science becomes an art and witchcraft and sorcery of post normal methodology is the new orthodox. Then and throw in, the quackery of statistical jiggery-pokery. They teach maths and physics in schools in China – we teach our kids about the green nonsense, social history and about multikulti.  Spiegel Trashes John Cook’s Survey. Man’s Impact “Remains Hotly Disputed”…Only 10% Have Faith In Models

----------


## woodbe

> I think Ill stick with the Climate scientists

  Here is a more recent version of your graph in the hands of a genuine scientist (Watts is not watt a scientist is, he is a failed weatherman)

----------


## John2b

Climate is always changing:

----------


## Marc

FP COMMENT     TRENDINGOil | BlackBerry | Loonie | Housing | Gold | Brexit | CPP *EU’s green energy debacle shows the futility of climate change policies*Republish
Reprint     *Benny Peiser, Special to Financial Post* | April 14, 2015 9:17 AM ET More from Special to Financial Post  David Ramos/Getty ImagesA wind turbine spins at a wind farm on February 19, 2015 near Zaragoza, Spain.    TwitterGoogle+LinkedInEmailTypo?More  _Ontario will follow the EU at its peril — power rates will soar while industries depart_ As the Ontario government announces new unilateral climate policies, Canadian policymakers would be well advised to heed the lessons of Europe’s self-defeating green energy debacle. The European Union has long been committed to unilateral efforts to tackle climate change. For the last 20 years, Europe has felt a duty to set an example through radical climate policy-making at home. Political leaders were convinced that the development of a low-carbon economy based on renewables would give Europe a competitive advantage. European governments have advanced the most expensive forms of energy generation at the expense of the least expensive kinds. No other major emitter has followed the EU’s aggressive climate policy and targets. As a result, electricity prices in Europe are now more than double those in North America and Europe’s remaining and struggling manufacturers are rapidly losing ground to international competition. European companies and investors are pouring money into the U.S., where energy prices have fallen to less than half those in the EU, thanks to the shale gas revolution. Although EU policy has managed to reduce CO2 emissions domestically, this was only achieved by shifting energy-intensive industries to overseas locations without stringent emission limits, where energy and labour is cheap and which are now growing much faster than the EU. Most products consumed in the EU today are imported from countries without binding CO2 targets. While the EU’s domestic CO2 emissions have fallen, if you factor in CO2 emissions embedded in goods imported into EU, the figure remains substantially higher. Of all the unintended consequences of EU climate policy perhaps the most bizarre is the detrimental effect of wind and solar schemes on the price of electricity generated by natural gas. Many gas power plants can no longer operate enough hours. They incur big costs as they have to be switched on and off to back-up renewables. Most products consumed in the EU today are imported from countries without binding CO2 targetsThis week, Germany’s energy industry association warned that more than half of all power plants in planning are about to fold: Even the most efficient gas-fired power plants can no longer be operated profitably. Every 10 new units worth of wind power installation has to be backed up with some eight units worth of fossil fuel generation. This is because fossil fuel plants have to power up suddenly to meet the deficiencies of intermittent renewables. In short, renewables do not provide an escape route from fossil fuel use without which they are unsustainable. Gas-fired power generation has become uneconomic in the EU, even for some of the most efficient and least carbon-intensive plants. At the end of 2013, 14 per cent of the EU’s installed gas-fired plants stood still, had closed or were at risk of closure. If all gas plants currently under review were to close, this would amount to 28 per cent of current capacity by 2016. Almost 20 per cent of gas power plants in Germany have already become unprofitable and face shutdown as renewables flood the electricity grid with preferential energy. *Related*Counterpoint: Cementing cap-and-trade in OntarioTerence Corcoran: Manufacturing carbon hobgoblinsPeter Foster: The way backwards on carbon policy  To avoid blackouts, the government has to subsidize uneconomic gas and coal power plants. Already half of the 28 EU countries have in place or are planning to subsidize fossil fuel power plants to keep the lights on. Germany’s renewable energy levy, which subsidizes green energy production, rose from 14 billion euros to 20 billion euros in just one year as a result of the fierce expansion of wind and solar power projects. Since the introduction of the levy in 2000, the electricity bill of the typical German consumer has doubled. As wealthy homeowners and business owners install wind turbines on their land and solar panels on their homes and commercial buildings, low-income families all over Europe have had to foot the skyrocketing electric bills. Many can no longer afford to pay, so the utilities are cutting off their power. The German Association of Energy Consumers estimates that up to 800,000 Germans have had their power cut off because they were unable to pay the country’s rising electricity bills. The EU’s unilateral climate policy is absurd. First consumers are forced to pay ever increasing subsidies for wind and solar energy; secondly they are asked to subsidize nuclear energy too; thirdly, they are forced to pay for increasingly uneconomic coal and gas plants to back up power needed by intermittent wind and solar energy; fourthly, consumers are additionally hit by multi-billion subsidies that become necessary to upgrade the national grids; fifthly, the cost of power is made even more expensive by adding a unilateral Emissions Trading Scheme. Finally, because Europe has created such a foolish scheme that is crippling its heavy industries, consumers are forced to pay even more billions in subsidizing almost the entire manufacturing sector. In the last few years, major economies such as Canada, Australia and Japan have begun to realize the futility of going it alone and have retreated from unilateral policies and targets. Now even the EU has decided to walk away and has adopted a conditional climate pledge. It has burdened European taxpayers and businesses with astronomical costs while shifting its heavy industry and CO2 emissions to other parts of the world. Europe’s climate policy failure demonstrates beyond doubt that its unilateralism has been a complete fiasco. The lessons of this self-defeating debacle are clear: Don’t make the same mistakes or you will face the same fiasco. _Benny Peiser is the director of the London-based Global Warming Policy Forum. The text is based on written evidence he gave to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the U.S. Senate._

----------


## John2b

> Blah, blah, blah

  This should help: https://www.imodium.com/products-imo...symptom-relief

----------


## John2b

It is about time that the rule "You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use these Forums to post any material which is knowingly false and/or ... inaccurate..." was invoked once and for all.

----------


## Marc

Two climate scientists skeptical of man-made global warming are closely watching a study they say could be a “death knell” to climate alarmism.
A major scientific study conducted at the University of Reading on the interactions between aerosols and clouds is much weaker than most climate models assume, meaning the planet could warm way less than predicted. 
“Currently, details are few, but apparently the results of a major scientific study on the effects of anthropogenic aerosols on clouds are going to have large implications for climate change projections—substantially lowering future temperature rise expectations,” Cato Institute climate scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger wrote in a recent blog post.Michaels and Knappenberger, both self-described “lukewarmers,” cited a blog post by Reading scientist Dr. Nicolas Bellouin on the preliminary results of his extensive research into this rather vague area of climate science.  
Bellouin wrote “there are reasons to expect that aerosol-cloud interactions are weaker than simulated by climate models – and perhaps even weaker than the preliminary… estimate.” 
If Bellouin’s preliminary results hold (or are revised downward), that would mean there’s less of a cooling effect from human-created aerosols interacting with clouds, which morph clouds so they bounce incoming solar energy back into space. 
“It may be that aerosol-cloud interactions are lost in the noise of natural variability in cloud properties, but for such a large perturbation, the impacts are surprisingly hard to isolate,” Bellouin wrote. 
For decades, scientists assumed aerosols — mostly emitted from coal plants, shipping, car travel and other industrial sources — had a sizable cooling effect on the planet, but that might not be the case. More importantly, however, is the fact that if aerosols don’t have much of a cooling effect, the planet is not as sensitive to increases in greenhouse gas emissions. That means less warming.
“Less enhanced cloud cooling means that greenhouse gases have produced less warming than the climate models have determined,” Michaels and Knappenberger wrote. 
“Another way to put it is that this new finding implies that the earth’s climate sensitivity—how much the earth’s surface will warm from a doubling of the pre-industrial atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration—is much below that of the average climate model (3.2°C) and near the low end of the IPCC’s 1.5°C to 4.5°C assessed range,” they added. 
Michaels and Knappenberger are particularly interested in Bellouin’s work since it seems to support a study from last year by Bjorn Stevens, a scientist at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology. It found aerosols had much less of a cooling effect on the planet than assumed by climate models. 
Stevens’s study suggested “that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.”
Independent climate researcher Nick Lewis incorporated Stevens’s findings with his own on how much warming people could expect from doubling atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Lewis found the upper bound estimate of climate sensitivity is from 4.5 degrees to 1.8 degrees Celsius. 
In layman’s terms, doubling atmospheric concentrations of CO2 from around 400 parts per million today to 800 ppm in the future would cause 4.5 degrees Celsius of warming, based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate model data.
Incorporate the Max Planck study results, and warming would only be as high as 1.8 degrees Celsius — less than half of what IPCC originally predicted. 
Of course, Michaels and Knappenberger’s theory is not accepted by everybody. Stevens himself challenged their suggestion that climate sensitivity was lower because aerosols had less of a cooling effect on the planet. 
“As they stand, the results of this new study seem to confirm the results of an analysis published last year by Bjorn Stevens of the Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology which also showed a much smaller anthropogenic enhancement of the cooling property of clouds,” Michaels and Knappenberger wrote. 
Stevens is entitled to his own opinion, not his own results. And now it seems his research is being supported by Bellouin’s work. With less aerosol cooling, climate models could be tweaked to predict less future warming. 
“In the end, aerosol-cloud scientists reckon that it will come down to counting how often clouds happen to show strong sensitivity to aerosol perturbations,” Bellouin wrote. “Those discussions leave me with the feeling that such situations occur infrequently, and radiative forcing of aerosol-cloud interactions may need to be revised down to weaker values.” _Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter_  
Read more:  This New Study Devastates Claims Of Global Warming Alarmism | The Daily Caller

----------


## woodbe

lol. 
So Marc scours the internet to find anything that disagrees with what almost every publishing climate scientist suggests. 
Two scientists versus the rest.    
The total number of publishing scientists who reject man made climate change is only 4 Authors from 69,406:

----------


## John2b

> posts a report of a blog post that doesn't stand up to scrutiny about a blog post

  As it happens, the research that Dr Nicolas Bellouin is about to publish does not put the effect of aerosols outside of the possible range reported by the IPCC AR5, but at the lower end; other concurrent research puts it at the upper end. Dr Nicolas Bellouin's blog post is consistent with current understanding of climate science and does NOT "devastate claims of global warming alarmism". 
Nor do Michaels and Knappenberger have a "theory" as claimed in the Daily Caller report; they are not climate science researchers but activists who work for the Cato Institute* as public relations consultants (*funded by the Koch brothers).

----------


## Marc

*The mental illness of alarmism – climate depression, climate change delusion*   *Who would have guessed? A relentless propaganda campaign to generate fear about the climate has generated fear about the climate. It takes billions of dollars to generate delusion on this scale.*
After hopes for government-run-climates were dashed in Copenhagen, the price of setting up a fantasy came back to haunt the team.  The fallout was psychological pain. The failure of Copenhagen was a savage set-back for the scare campaign in so many ways. Only now, years later, do we hear just how bad the repercussions were.
The answer to “climate fear” is, of course, to look at data skeptically, and to stay logical. But instead, the big-government-NGO machine diverts more money down the deep well of unreason. Now there are research papers analyzing “The Debilitating Disease of Climate Alarmism”, and counselors are (presumably) paid to counsel people on how to be afraid, but not overly so.
What’s the difference between this and a cult? A 17 year old was hospitalized with dehydration because he believed if he didn’t drink water it would help prevent a water shortage. A PhD grad says ““Every time I talked about environmental issues, I would start crying”.
Meanwhile the sensible types quietly leave, and the maddies press on. Shame about the collateral damage. *A climate of despair* 
August 13, 2014  Konrad Marshall, _The Age_
Nicole Thornton remembers the exact moment her curious case of depression became too real to ignore. It was five years ago and the environmental scientist – a trained biologist and ecologist – was writing a rather dry PhD on responsible household water use.
The United Nations was about to hold its 2009 climate change conference in Copenhagen, and Thornton felt she had a personal investment in it. She, like many thousands of activists and scientists and green campaigners, had high hopes that a new and robust version of the Kyoto agreement would be created in Denmark.“But the reality was a massive, epic failure of political will. It broke me,” she says. “The trigger point was actually watching grown men cry. They were senior diplomats from small islands, begging larger countries to take action so that their nations would not drown with the rising seas.”
Thornton pauses,  takes a breath. “It still gets me, five years later. That’s when I lost hope that we were able to save ourselves from self-destruction. That’s when I lost hope that we would survive as a species. It made me more susceptible to what I call ‘climate depression’.”
If the term “climate depression” is new to you, it should be. No such condition is recognised by the world of psychiatry. There is no formalised syndrome.
Yet no matter what the nomenclature (some refer to the problem as “ecoanxiety”, while others talk about “doomer depression” and “apocalypse fatigue”), despondency over a what many believe is societal failure to adequately acknowledge or address environmental issues has become a line of psychological inquiry.
Journals have published papers with titles such as “The Debilitating Disease of Climate Alarmism” and “A Climate of Suffering”.
Six years ago, a dehydrated 17-year-old boy was brought into the Royal Children’s Hospital, refusing to drink water. He believed having a drink would somehow contribute to the global shortage of potable water, and became the first diagnosed case of “climate change delusion”.
The Australian Conservation Foundation had to bring in psychologists (paid from donations?) to help their team cope with the reality after their fantasies of control over the climate collapsed in Copenhagen.
Adam Majcher, of Australian Conservation Foundation, reached out to Burke and Blashki around the time of the failure in Copenhagen (which is acknowledged as an emotional nadir for green activists).
“We were seeing signs of a particular burden on our advocates,” says Majcher. “There was a shift in the moods and attitudes, with people becoming quite despondent, less engaged. Many people usually talkative were going a little quiet. And there was definitely a significant decline in activity in the program, along with frustrations playing out in isolation, anger.”
Burke and Blashki were brought in to deliver a presentation about recognising anxieties in yourself and others, and tips for those in an unhealthy frame of mind. Materials were sent to advocates around the country, so that they could recognise warning signs and look after themselves, or seek professional help.
Read it all at _The Age._
No doubt, the sufferers of climate fear blame skeptics for the lack of progress. In reality the people who fuel the fear are those hyping and exaggerating the threat and breaking laws of reason and evidence. Some (but not all) alarmists are milking the guilt and fear of good people for their own career progress and profits.
There’s a thin veneer of logic here:But other experts point out that we should not so easily or readily confuse helplessness with depression – nor should we mistake correlation for causation.
Professor Helen Berry, of the University of Canberra, has done extensive research into the health impacts of climate change, and says it is “unlikely” there is any such thing as climate depression.
“But it’s not the climate change component that’s causing the problem,” she says. “It’s the repeated failures themselves which make people feel helpless, which is a known cause of depression.” The other possibility Berry doesn’t consider is that people who are trained to hold irrational views (like that windmills in South Australian can prevent cyclones in Indonesia) are going to experience horrible cognitive dissonance as their beliefs persistently fail to convince other people, and fail against reality.
The sadness of this particular emotional fixation could be so easily lifted (although the depression itself may be real, and caused by something else entirely). In the end, a dose of reason may mean that their irrational fear that governments will_not_ pour billions into trying to change the weather will become a rational fear that governments _will_.
h/t Ian and Darren

----------


## woodbe

> *The mental illness of alarmism – climate depression, climate change delusion*

  lol. 
So Marc scours the internet to find anything that disagrees with what almost every publishing climate scientist suggests.

----------


## John2b

> lol. 
> So Marc scours the internet to find anything that disagrees with what almost every publishing climate scientist suggests.

  Quote: "...people who are trained to hold irrational views (like that windmills in South Australian can prevent cyclones in Indonesia)..." 
This nonsensical postulation epitomises just how incongruous the thinking of climate change deniers really is, which is probably why climate change denial is a rich field for research in psychology.  Google Scholar lists more than 1000 psychology papers referencing climate change denial published in the current decade. 
Some real progress in understanding the disorder has already been made. Interesting light reading on a couple of causes: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-change-denial

----------


## Marc

> The other possibility Berry doesnt consider is that people who are trained to hold irrational views (like that windmills in South Australian can prevent cyclones in Indonesia) are going to experience horrible cognitive dissonance as their beliefs persistently fail to convince other people, and fail against reality. The sadness of this particular emotional fixation could be so easily lifted (although the depression itself may be real, and caused by something else entirely). In the end, a dose of reason may mean that their irrational fear that governments will_not pour billions into trying to change the weather will become a rational fear that governments will.
> h/t Ian and Darren_

  Pure gold  :Rofl5:

----------


## woodbe

The problem is not pouring billions (of dollars) to change the weather. The problem is pouring millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere that will take generations for it to dissipate even if we stop dumping that waste into the atmosphere.  
Simple physics denied by the climate deniers.

----------


## PhilT2

The cruise ship Crystal Serenity has recently completed its voyage through the North West passage. Carrying just over 1000 passengers who paid between US$22,000 and $240,000 for the trip the ship did not need the assistance of the icebreaker that accompanied them. 
Wake up sheeple! How much more proof do you need that climate change is a giant conspiracy by cruise ship owners to take your money?

----------


## Pendejo



----------


## Pendejo

The simple version for Marc

----------


## Pendejo

*Industrial civilization is unsustainable*

----------


## John2b

> *Industrial civilization is unsustainable*

  
What? The Tooth Fairy, the Golden Goose and the Magic Potato Sack are just constructs of neo liberal economics? There is no need for climate science or computer models to appreciate that if you have a grasp of grade one arithmetic.

----------


## woodbe

On September 20, 2016, 375 members of the  National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel laureates, published an  open letter to draw attention to the serious risks of climate change.  The letter warns that the consequences of opting out of the Paris  agreement would be severe and long-lasting for our planet’s climate and  for the international credibility of the United States.
A full list of signers follows the text of the letter.    *
An Open Letter Regarding Climate Change From** Concerned Members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences*
Human-caused  climate change is not a belief, a hoax, or a conspiracy. It is a  physical reality. Fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution. But  the burning of oil, coal, and gas also caused most of the historical  increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. This  increase in greenhouse gases is changing Earth’s climate. 
Our  fingerprints on the climate system are visible everywhere. They are seen  in warming of the oceans, the land surface, and the lower atmosphere.  They are identifiable in sea level rise, altered rainfall patterns,  retreat of Arctic sea ice, ocean acidification, and many other aspects  of the climate system. Human-caused climate change is not something far  removed from our day-to-day experience, affecting only the remote  Arctic. It is present here and now, in our own country, in our own  states, and in our own communities. 
During the Presidential  primary campaign, claims were made that the Earth is not warming, or  that warming is due to purely natural causes outside of human control.  Such claims are inconsistent with reality. 
Others argued that no  action is warranted until we have absolute certainty about human impacts  on climate. Absolute certainty is unattainable. We are certain beyond a  reasonable doubt, however, that the problem of human-caused climate  change is real, serious, and immediate, and that this problem poses  significant risks: to our ability to thrive and build a better future,  to national security, to human health and food production, and to the  interconnected web of living systems. 
The basic science of how  greenhouse gases trap heat is clear, and has been for over a century.  Ultimately, the strength of that basic science brought the governments  of the world to Paris in December 2015. They went to Paris despite  pronounced differences in systems of government, in national  self-interest, in culpability for past emissions of greenhouse gases,  and in vulnerability to future climate change. The leaders of over 190  countries recognized that the problem of human-caused climate change is a  danger to present and future citizens of our planet. They made national  commitments to address this problem. It was a small but historic and  vital first step towards more enlightened stewardship of Earth’s climate  system. 
From studies of changes in temperature and sea level  over the last million years, we know that the climate system has tipping  points. Our proximity to these tipping points is uncertain. We know,  however, that rapid warming of the planet increases the risk of crossing  climatic points of no return, possibly setting in motion large-scale  ocean circulation changes, the loss of major ice sheets, and species  extinctions. The climatic consequences of exceeding such thresholds are  not confined to the next one or two electoral cycles. They have  lifetimes of many thousands of years. 
The political system also  has tipping points. Thus it is of great concern that the Republican  nominee for President has advocated U.S. withdrawal from the Paris  Accord. A “Parexit” would send a clear signal to the rest of the world:  "The United States does not care about the global problem of  human-caused climate change. You are on your own." Such a decision would  make it far more difficult to develop effective global strategies for  mitigating and adapting to climate change. The consequences of opting  out of the global community would be severe and long-lasting – for our  planet’s climate and for the international credibility of the United  States. 
The United States can and must be a major player in  developing innovative solutions to the problem of reducing emissions of  greenhouse gases. Nations that find innovative ways of decarbonizing  energy systems and sequestering CO2 will be the economic leaders of the  21st century. Walking away from Paris makes it less likely that the U.S.  will have a global leadership role, politically, economically, or  morally. We cannot afford to cross that tipping point.  
The following signers of this letter do so as individual NAS members and not on behalf of the NAS itself or their Institutions.   Responsible Scientists  US Election: Stephen Hawking and hundreds of scientists blast Trump&#039;s stance on climate - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## Pendejo

> During the Presidential  primary campaign, claims were made that the Earth is not warming, or  that warming is due to purely natural causes outside of human control.  Such claims are inconsistent with reality.

  Follow the money

----------


## John2b

Climate change denial is now a crime that governments and individuals can be prosecuted for if it results in environmental damage under new guidance issued by The International Criminal Court (ICC). As a signatory to the statute, Australia comes under the jurisdiction of the ICC along with 123 other countries.  https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=pr1238

----------


## Pendejo

Public enemy Number 1. Bring on the People's Court.

----------


## John2b

_The trouble with the world_ _is that the stupid are cocksure_ _and the intelligent are full of doubt._  Bertrand Russell 
The whole Abbotturnball LNC cabinet is a great example of cocksure stupidity.

----------


## Marc

*Study: Tropical Hotspot ‘Fingerprint’ Of Global Warming Doesn’t Exist In The Real World Data*  Anthony Watts / 2 days ago September 22, 2016 _One of the main lines of evidence used by the Obama administration to justify its global warming regulations doesn’t exist in the real world, according to a new report by climate researchers._ What the tropical hotspot is supposed to look like. Graphic courtesy Dr. David Evans *Guest essay by Michael Bastasch*, reprinted with permission Researchers analyzed temperature observations from satellites, weather balloons, weather stations and buoys and found the so-called “tropical hotspot” relied upon by the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant “simply does not exist in the real world.” They found that once El Ninos are taken into account, “there is no ‘record setting’ warming to be concerned about.” “These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world,” reads the report by economist James Wallace, climatologist John Christy and meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo. “Also critically important, even on an all-other-things-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series analyzed,” they wrote. When EPA released its CO2 endangerment finding in 2009, it used three lines of evidence to bolster its argument that greenhouse gases threatened human health through global warming.The crux of EPA’s argument rested on the existence of a “tropical hotspot” where global warming would be most apparent. That is, there should be enhanced warming in the tropical troposphere — the “fingerprint” of global warming. EPA’s endangerment finding is the legal basis for agency global warming regulations, including the Clean Power Plan (CPP) now being fought over in federal court. CPP aims to cut power plant carbon dioxide emissions 32 percent by 2030 and could cost $41 billion a year, according to independent estimates. D’Aleo and his colleagues looked at the data and controlled for El Ninos and La Ninas. What they found was that once natural oceanic warming and cooling events are accounted for, there’s no warming trend. “El Nino is not by any means new,” D’Aleo told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “The El Ninos and La Ninas do not occur at a regular frequency but tend to cluster as we showed in our paper.” Tropospheric temperatures are mainly measured by satellites and weather balloons, which collect data from the lowest few miles of the atmosphere. Satellites already show only slight warming since 1979, but they are sensitive to El Ninos and La Ninas. Removing El Ninos and La Ninas from tropospheric temperatures creates “temperature time series each having a flat trend.” Basically, D’Aleo and his colleagues found oceanic warming events are responsible for virtually all the warming since 1977 when El Ninos became more frequent and stronger. On the flip side, the recent “hiatus” in global warming can be explained by more frequent La Ninas, according to D’Aleo. “It is an accepted fact that El Ninos bring global warmth and La Ninas cooling,” D’Aleo said. “It is thus not at all surprising that the period from 1947 to 1977 brought cooling, 1977 to 1997 warming and we had a flat trend from 1997 to current.” With El Ninos and La Ninas adjusted out of the data, only volcanoes are left — base on EPA assumptions — to impact the climate, and D’Aleo’s report acknowledges “it was still possible that the volcanic activity was hiding CO2’s impact.” Volcanic aerosols can have a cooling effect on global average temperature; the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo caused a dip in satellite temperature data that lasted for a couple years. “The temperature data measurements that were analyzed were taken by many different entities using balloons, satellites, buoys and various land based techniques,” reads the report. “Needless to say, if regardless of data source, the results are the same, the analysis findings should be considered highly credible.” Climate scientists have been debating for years over the existence of the “tropical hotspot.” Christy, who co-runs the premier satellite temperature dataset at the University of Alabama in Huntsville with climatologist Roy Spencer, has presented evidence that climate models overpredicted warming in the tropical troposphere. Ross McKitrick, an environmental economist at the University of Guelph in Canada, also ran the numbers and found climate models overestimated warming in the tropical troposphere. McKitrick provided evidence of a phase shift in 1977 from dominant [La] Ninas to El Ninos — just like D’Aleo, Christy and Williams found. “Over the 55-years from 1958 to 2012, climate models not only significantly over-predict observed warming in the tropical troposphere, but they represent it in a fundamentally different way than is observed,” McKitrick wrote in a 2014 study. Originally published at The Daily Caller From the paper: *The Tropical Hot Spot– CONCLUSION*
The analysis above has shown many times over that the THS simply does not exist. Recall from Section IV:The proper test for the existence of the THS in the real world is very simple. Are the slopes of the three trend lines (upper & lower troposphere and surface) all positive, statistically significant and do they have the proper top down rank order? And that, quoting from Section XVI above:Adjusting for just the ENSO impacts via only MEI variables, NOT ONE of the Nine (9) Tropical temperature time series analyzed above were consistent with the EPA’s THS Hypothesis.
That is, adjusting for just the natural ENSO Impacts over their entire history; all tropical temperature data analyzed above have non-statistically significant trend slopes -which invalidates the THS theory. In short, if on an-other-things-equal basis, CO2 in fact has had a Statistically Significant impact on tropical  temperatures, its impact has been offset by other Non ENSOrelated
Natural Variables over the past 55 plus years. In fact, some climate scientists effectively now claim that, while the THS apparently cannot be found in the trend slopes of the relevant empirical temperature data, the CO2-generated warming has to be hiding somewhere yet to be found. This “Missing Heat” subject has been boiling up for some time and this heat has so far
not been found. Nevertheless, alarmist scientists are still claiming record-setting warming in the Contiguous U.S. and globally caused by rising CO2 levels. If true, this CO2 -caused missing heat has to be warming the planet by a currently unknown mechanism operating somehow outside the tropics. Therefore, this analysis moved on to test this new, never formally claimed before, hypothesis by ENSO adjusting the relevant Temperature data.

----------


## Marc

> "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."

     H.L. Mencken

----------


## John2b

> Researchers analyzed temperature observations from satellites, weather balloons, weather stations and buoys and found the so-called “tropical hotspot” relied upon by the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant “simply does not exist in the real world.”

  Is the fact that the EPA does not and did not place any particular emphasis on any localised hotspot enough to ring 'Denier Bells'? Global warming caused by increasing levels of CO2 is evidenced by a multiplicity of confluent factors: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

----------


## John2b

> *Study: Tropical Hotspot ‘Fingerprint’ Of Global Warming Doesn’t Exist In The Real World Data*

  Marc, did you actually READ this drivel before you posted? If you did, and STILL made your post, then one must assume you are no more than a troll and have no interest in the topic of this thread other than to antagonise those with whom you disagree. If you did read the drivel you posted and think it has some validity, then Dunning and Kruger have something to say about the strength of your convictions.

----------


## John2b

Just to remind everyone about what is causing global surface warming:  What's Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise

----------


## John2b

Just incase anyone thinks it isn't warming or it is insignificant here is the latest August compared to past Augusts:  Visualizing the Warmest August in 136 Years : Earth Matters : Blogs

----------


## Marc

> Daily Telegraph
> May 15, 2012 *FIVE years ago, Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery predicted that the nation’s dams would never be full again and major Australian cities would need desalination plants to cater for our water needs.*

  Can someone send this clown to Forbes?

----------


## Marc

*Old Tactics Revived as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Deception Fails. An Open Letter to an Open Letter*Anthony Watts / 12 hours ago September 24, 2016 *Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball* Recently an Open Letter was circulated and ostensibly signed by 375 members of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). It is reported on the web page is arrogantly called “ResponsibleScientists.org. Use of the term in this context implies that those who do not belong are irresponsible scientists. Responsibility should go without saying. I use the word _“ostensibly”_ to describe the representation of the Open Letter. The initial impression is that it is a letter from the NAS. It is not! A separate sentence at the bottom of the letter explains. _The following signers of this letter do so as individual NAS members and not on behalf of the NAS itself or their Institutions._ Do we assume they obtained permission from all the members of the NAS? Were the contents approved by all members? Is this the behavior of “responsible” scientists? The tactic of using a group is similar to the previous misuse of Academies of Science to promote the false narrative about global warming. Then it was orchestrated by Lord May (Brian May) when President of the Royal Society. At his instigation, all science societies were encouraged to take positions on behalf of their members. This missionary type of promotion and fervor is reflected in Lord May’s views on climate change identified in a2009, pre-COP 15 (Copenhagen), and pre-Climategate revelations, article as follows, _“…religion may have helped protect human society from itself in the past and it may be needed again._  _…the committed atheist_ (May)_ said he was worried the world was on a “calamitous trajectory” brought on by its failure to co-ordinate measures against global warming._  _He said that no country was prepared to take the lead and a “punisher” was needed to make sure the rules of co-operation were not broken._  _…in the past that was God and it might be time again for religion to fill the gap._  _“Maybe religion is needed,” “A supernatural punisher maybe part of the solution.”_  _He_ (May)_ said in the past a belief in a god, or gods, that punish the unrighteous may have been part of the mechanism of evolution that maintains co-operation in a dog-eat-dog world._  _Having a god as the ultimate punisher was possibly a logical step for a society to take, he added._ One of the few science societies to resist the idea was the Russian Academy of Science (RAS). The opposition was promoted by former (up to 2008) IPCC vice-chairman Yuri Israel, and Kirill Kondratieff, President of the RAS. In all cases, the society members were not consulted on and the action taken by a few. Some individual members protested, like Emeritus Professor of Physics Harold Lewis, who resigned from the American Physical Society in October 2010. His letter said in part _“the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”_  Despite the heroic action by Professor Lewis, the media picked up and pushed the collective action. As a result of May’s influence and the dictatorial actions of Society leaders the issue became a central ‘consensus’ argument against skeptics and later deniers. It was a dogmatic, almost religious argument, completely contrary to the basic requirements of science. Lord May the atheist, became Lord May the proselytizer for the new religion. Compare Professor Lewis’s comment against the first paragraph of the Open Letter. _Human-caused climate change is not a belief, a hoax, or a conspiracy. It is a physical reality. Fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution. But the burning of oil, coal, and gas also caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. This increase in greenhouse gases is changing Earth’s climate._ It is only a physical reality in the computers and Summary for Policymakers (SPM) Reports of the IPCC. Four people, Benjamin Santer, Kerry Emmanuel, George Field, and Ray Weymann, are identified as _“letter organizers.”_ Presumably, the word _“organizer”_ means one of them wrote the letter and the other three peer-reviewed before circulation for general signature. 375 signatures appeals to the consensus argument that is a favorite of AGW promoters but wrong because science is not about consensus. As Albert Einstein said, _No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong._  The Letter also uses _Argumentum Ad Verecundiam,_ an appeal to authority, by citing 30 Nobel Laureates. It is likely that most of them, and likely many of the 375, never read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report (IPCC). If they did and knew anything about climate science they would discover what German physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls found. _“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”_ If they checked further, they would discover that every climate forecast made by the IPCC since 1990 has been wrong. The creation of a misleading list to represent a society, or different forms of argument to support the unsupportable is not surprising. Two of the Letter organizers, Santer, and Emmanuel have been involved with the IPCC for a very long time. Santer was a graduate of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in its glory days before Climategate and the leaked emails. It is also likely that a high percentage of those signing are recipients of the_“corrupting dollar”_ Professor Lewis identifies. The lead name and likely the key organizer is Benjamin Santer. He is familiar with creating self-praising titles as part of the group at CRU. Under the direction of Gavin Schmidt they set up a web site titled Realclimate, presumably as opposed to what they determined was Unrealclimate. Santer was also familiar with controversy early in his career at the IPCC in what became known as the “Chapter 8” fiasco. It was also early in his career because he, like Michael Man, were appointed to senior IPCC positions shortly after graduation. As lead author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Report, he took wording agreed to by fellow chapter authors and modified it considerably. For example, the group wrote, 1._ “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”_ _2. “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”_ Under Santer it became _1. “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”_ _2. “The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”_ As anticipated the media picked up on the phrase _“discernible human influence on the global climate.”_ It became the focal point like the hockey stick did after the 2001 Report release. Avery and Singer noted in 2006 that, _“Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process_! John Daly discussed the evidence for Santer’ discernible influence claim including the work of Michaels and Knappenberger. There is no discernible human influence even today except in the deliberately limited, predetermined output, of the failed IPCC computer models. It is simple. If your predictions are wrong, your science is wrong. If you claim a consensus, it means the issue is purely political, like the words and actions used in the creation of this Open Letter. I will not enlist the support of other scientists in a letter countering the Open Letter because that would be another consensus. Rather, I prefer people check the facts for themselves. I urge those people who signed as members of the NAS and who have not read the IPCC Reports to do like Klaus-Eckart Puls. For those members of the NAS who did not see or approve the letter, I urge action within the Society. It is not just climate science credibility in jeopardy, but science in general. The threat increases as the real climate picture are prepared by responsible scientists and the corruption exposed.

----------


## Marc

A responsible scientist calmly explaining that global warming is God's punishment.

----------


## John2b

> Can someone send this clown to Forbes?

  Who? The clown who falsely misquotes Flannery? Or the clown who repeats and spreads those falsehoods in this forum?

----------


## John2b

> A responsible scientist calmly explaining that global warming is God's punishment.

  Is this what it is like inside your head, Marc, since you are on a rapid trajectory to being the last man standing in the denial camp?

----------


## woodbe

Oh yeah, look at that slope! It's COOLING !! LOL

----------


## Pendejo

7 degrees up. Kiss your * goodbye  Today's greenhouse gas levels could result in up to 7 degrees of warming

----------


## johnc

The 7 degrees up is not fully worked up, it is just imformation that can be built on, you would expect the upper number to drop, we are in deep poo though whatever way you look at it.

----------


## Marc

*http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/28/study-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-real  Now Even Michael Mann Admits The Pause In Global Warming Is Real; Throws Allies To Wolves**The Pause in global warming is real  not an urban myth concocted by evil deniers  a study has found, signalling the development of a major schism within the climate alarmist camp.*  It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims, the paper in Nature Climate Change says.Though the papers findings are not controversial  few serious scientists dispute the evidence of the temperature datasets showing that there has been little if any global warming for nearly 19 years  they represent a tremendous blow to the climate alarmist consensus, which has long sought to deny the Pauses existence. First, the study was published in Nature Climate Change a fervently alarmist journal which rarely if ever runs papers that cast doubt on the man-made-global-warming scare narrative. Secondly, it directly contradicts a widely-reported study produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) last year which attempted to deny the existence of the Pause (also known as the hiatus). This NOAA study was widely mocked, quickly debunked and is now the subject of a Congressional investigation by Rep Lamar Smith. Whats novel about this new study in Nature Climate Change, though, is that its not skeptics and Republicans doing the mocking and the debunking: its the kind of people who in the past were very much in the alarmist camp, including  bizarrely  none other than Michael Hockey Stick Mann, who co-authored the paper. What we have here, in other words, is signs of a major rift within the climate alarmist camp with different factions adopting different tactics to cope with the failure of their collapsing narrative. On one side are people like Thomas Karl and Thomas Petersen, the hapless NOAA scientists given the unenviable task of producing that risible paper last year which did its best to deny that the Pause was a thing. On the other are what might be called the rats deserting the sinking ship faction who have produced this new paper for Nature Climate Change, in which finally they concede what skeptics have been saying for many years: that there has been no global warming since 1998. This divergence in the alarmist camp is now going to create a dilemma for all those liberal media outlets  from the BBC to the Guardian to the LA Times  which reported on NOAAs death of the pause study as if it were a reliable and credible thing. Are they now going to report on the counter-narrative? Or are they going to ignore it and hope no one notices? The man who would like more than anyone to know the answer to this question is David Whitehouse, Science Editor of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and a former science editor at the BBC (till the point when his skepticism became too much for his employer). Thats because in 2007, he was one of the first scientists to draw attention to the mysterious slowdown in global warming. As he recalls in the Spectator:In 2007 I pointed out that it was curious that in recent years the global annual average temperature had not increased at a time when greenhouse gasses were increasing rapidly and when the media was full of claims that the earths temperature was getting higher and higher. I proposed no explanation but said that it was a curious observation that would probably change in the near future. I was lambasted for being a denier and liar. Yet in the following years the global temperature did not increase. Some vocal scientists spent more time saying it was wrong than actually looking at the data. While many in the media portrayed the phenomenon as a desperate weapon used by sceptics to undermine climate science, real scientists took notice and began to study the warming pause. It was not long before it was being discussed at conferences and in scientific journals. Something was clearly different about the nature of global temperature change since 1997 than it had been in the previous two decades. It was not only slower, but not increasing at all for many years. Indeed it was said in the prestigious scientific journal Nature that the pause or hiatus is the biggest problem in climate science.Whitehouse is too polite to name the alarmist shills and activist attack dogs who have fought so hard over the years to discredit anyone who has dared suggest the existence of a Pause. So I will. But in a separate article. It seems to me that these people are so disgusting, corrupt, nauseating and malign that they shouldnt simply be tacked on to the end of a news story. They should be made to perform the internet equivalent of Cerseis Walk of Shame; or, at the very least, to be put in the stocks and pelted with excrement. In the meantime let us all draw comfort from the fact that a) the alarmists are finally being forced to concede that their skeptic adversaries are right and b) that they are starting to turn on one another. This is the beginning of the end for the alarmist consensus. And not before time.

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc



----------


## woodbe

> 

  William Happer. Not a climate scientist.  https://www.theguardian.com/environm...limate-science  William Happer | DeSmogBlog  https://www.skepticalscience.com/Wil...apper_blog.htm  Greenpeace exposes climate change deniers Professors William Happer and Frank Clemente 
etc...

----------


## woodbe

> 

  Ivar Giaever. Not a climate scientist.  Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist  Ivar Giaever | DeSmogBlog  Ivar Giaever: Nobel Icon For Climate Deniers, and Philip Morris | DeSmogBlog

----------


## woodbe

> 

  John Coleman. Not a climate scientist.  John Coleman | DeSmogBlog  https://www.theguardian.com/environm...global-warming  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C...weathercaster)

----------


## johnc

I think we should encourage Marc to keep trying, I suspect there isn't a single post he has got right, that type of consistency deserves a prize

----------


## Marc

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...34052249,d.dGo

----------


## Bedford

> Just uneducated, stupid or a paid troll?; we need a poll, and here it is: ###########persistent-climate-deniers-what-motivates-them-120340/

  Well that vanished faster than a fart in a fan factory!

----------


## Marc

Yes, it seems that the paid professional agitators pedalling religion for pseudo science, want to play psychologist now. 
That's OK, like with any self appointed prophet the format, the attire, the background music or the fish are all irrelevant and the proof is in the prophecy. 
It is looking shakier every year and it seems I am not the only one making the same observations.  
Yes, more and more people are realising that the professional agitators are just that, lobbyist on a payroll in charge of keeping the gravy train rolling, and the cheer leaders shaking their backside... and what a gravy train it is! The world has never seen anything of that magnitude. It dwarfs even the church.  
And as far as the insults and name calling directed at me, guys how old are you? 10? Is that the best you can do? There are thousands of scientist that have seen the con for what it is and are speaking out. And there are others who convinced, or paid for, say the opposite. That is life, grow up and suck it in.  I present what others more qualified than me say and believe. You present your side if you want. I don't expect you to change your mind.
 One thing is for sure, time is on my side not yours. The more time goes by, the more the con will become apparent.
Enjoy it while it lasts. 
I thought the say is ... to last like a fart in a basket ...  :Rofl5:

----------


## Pendejo

> Well that vanished faster than a fart in a fan factory!

  Sigh, yes, can't have anything that actually discusses the reality of the matter, can we? That's the problems with the internet nowadays, everything is sanitized, the idiots have foghorns, and we're not allowed to talk about it.

----------


## Uncle Bob

> Well that vanished faster than a fart in a fan factory!

  Hi Bedford! 
Another similar saying: Hanging around like a fart in a freezer  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

*Another Statewide Blackout: South Australia’s Wind Power Disaster Continues* 
September 29, 2016  by stopthesethings 1 Comment  
Thanks to its ludicrous attempt to run on sunshine and breezes, South Australia has just experienced yet another Statewide blackout. SA’s vapid Premier, Jay Weatherill and what passes for media in this Country ran straight to the periphery, blaming everything except the bleeding obvious (see this piece of infantile doodling from wind cult central – the ABC).
STT’s SA operatives tell us the blackout occurred during a blustery spring storm (heavy rain, lightning and surging, gusty wind). The power supply went down across the entire State at precisely the same time (a little after 3:30pm). It took more than 5 hours to restore power to a few parts of the State, and many regions remained powerless for much longer than that.
True it was that lines were damaged in the mid-North around Port Augusta, but that doesn’t explain why the whole State’s supply went down. Grids are designed with with a level of redundancy, and to avoid complete collapses by isolating damaged sections, in order to keep the balance up and running.
For those truly interested in the cause, what appears in the graph above – care of Aneroid Energy – gives a clue as to the culprit.
SA’s 18 wind farms have a combined (notional) capacity of 1,580MW.
On 28 September (aka ‘Black Wednesday’), as the wind picked up, output surges by around 900MW, from a trifling 300MW (or 19% of installed capacity) to around 1,200MW.
As we explain below, electricity grids were never designed to tolerate that kind of chaos, but it’s what occurs in the hour before the collapse that matters.
From a peak near 1,200MW, there are drops and surges in output of around 250-300MW (equivalent to having the Pelican Point Combined Cycle Gas plant switched on and off in an instant).
At about 2:30pm there is an almost instantaneous drop of 150MW (1,050 to 900MW), followed by a rapid surge of around 250MW, to hit a momentary peak of about 1,150MW.
Then, in the instant before the blackout, wind power output plummets to around 890MW: a grid killing collapse of 260MW, that occurs in a matter of minutes (it’s all happened before, as we detail below). That 260MW collapse was the deliberate result of an automatic shutdown of the wind farms based in SA’s mid-North, located in the path of the storm front: the final and total collapse in SA’s power supply follows immediately thereafter.
Wind turbines produce no power at all until the wind speed reaches a constant 5-6m/s; when the wind really gets blowing and hits around 25m/s – as it did on 28 September – turbines automatically shut down to protect themselves from permanent structural damage: 11 tonne blades being flung about the countryside isn’t just a PR nightmare, it tends to impact on the unit’s operational capacity thereafter.
In the aftermath there was plenty of waffle about the system shutting down to ‘protect itself’: indeed it did.
But it was SA’s mid-North wind farms that were in damage control. Neigbouring Victoria was also battered by the same storm, but -perhaps due to the fact that it chugs along with ample capacity from reliable coal-fired plant and has a tiny amount of wind power capacity by comparison with SA – didn’t suffer anything like SA’s date with the Dark Ages.
During the blackout and in its aftermath, STT’s site was inundated by hits from South Australians looking for answers (no doubt on half-charged smart phones, while sitting freezing in the dark); using search terms such as: sa blackout cause; sa vic interconnector problems; south australia blackouts; south australia in turmoil; sa blackout wind responsible; sa premier blackouts; and south australia electricity chaos.
For those South Australians still looking on the internet (power supply permitting) for answers as to why their grid collapses on a regular basis, here is a primer on power generation for dummies.
There are 3 electricity essentials – that the power source and its delivery to homes and businesses be: 1) reliable; 2) secure; and 3) affordable. Which means that wind power – a wholly weather dependent power source, that can’t be stored and costs 3-4 times the cost of conventional power – scores NIL on all three counts.
As the wind power calamity unfolds in South Australia, all comers (including mainstream media hacks) are starting to take an interest in electricity generation which – before South Australia’s recent experience of statewide blackouts, routine load shedding and skyrocketing power prices – was something that the last few generations of Australians have taken for granted.
In an effort to educate, STT has attempted, once or twice, to lay out the electricity generation basics in clear and simple terms – that even journalists might understand.
We’ll start with this insight from the AEMO about what’s required to maintain the integrity of a functioning electricity grid. [Note that the term Power Electronic Converter (PEC) is the euphemism used for wind and solar power generation.] *Fact Sheet: System Strength*
 AEMO *What is System Strength?*
 System strength is an inherent characteristic of any power system.
System strength is important as it can materially impact the way a power system operates.
System strength is usually measured by the available fault current at a given location or by the short circuit ratio (the ratio of the short circuit current at a point in the grid with the current at that point under open circuit conditions and with normal voltages).
Higher fault current levels are typically found in a stronger power system, while lower fault current levels are representative of a weaker power system.
A high fault level, or high currents following a fault, could be viewed as the generation on the grid responding strongly to the drop in voltage at the fault – trying to restore the situation. Similarly a high short circuit ratio at a point in the grid is a measure of the strength of the response to any faults in that area.
Fault currents vary around the grid both by location and by voltage level. The fault currents are higher in areas close to synchronous generation and lower in areas further away from this generation. System strength reduces with increasing amounts of power electronic converter (PEC) connected generation, along with the displacement of synchronous generation which contributes more to the fault current.  *What are the Characteristics of Strong and Weak Systems?*
Power systems with a high quantity of on-line synchronous generation and very little PEC connected generation provide larger fault current and are categorised as strong systems. This is manifested by the ability of the power system to maintain stability in response to various types of disturbances.
Parts of the power system with PEC connected generation which are distant from synchronous generation are more likely to be weaker. Low system strength generally leads to increased volatility of network voltages during system normal and disturbance conditions. Low system strength can also compromise the correct operation of protection systems, and result in PEC connected generation systems disconnecting during disturbances.
Some weak systems are easy to identify, for example, an isolated part in the system with no nearby synchronous generation. In other parts of the power system where there is multiple concentrated PEC connected generation, weak systems can only be identified through complex power system studies conducted by engineers using detailed models. *Voltage Management in Strong and Weak Systems*
Strong power systems exhibit better voltage control in response to small and large system disturbances. *Weak systems are more susceptible to voltage instability or collapse.* *Increasing Connection of PEC Generation (Wind Turbines)*
Generation that is interfaced to the network using PECs requires a minimum system strength to remain stable and maintain continuous uninterrupted operation. Different types of converters use different strategies to match their output to the frequency of the system while maintaining voltage levels and power flows. In a weak system, these can fail to operate correctly through even relatively minor disturbances. *Operation of Protection Equipment in Weak Systems*
While weak systems are not new to system operators, they are attracting greater attention following the rise of large scale PEC connected generation in the power system (more wind turbines. Protection equipment within power systems work to clear faults, prevent damage to network assets and mitigate risk to public safety.
Protection equipment may be triggered when the current following a fault exceeds the protection activation point, or by the impedance calculated from this current. Weak systems exhibit lower fault current relative to the strong networks. In a weak system, protective equipment which is programmed to activate on measured current or the ratio of measured voltage to current, could be susceptible to unintended operation or failure to operate. Figure 1 – Current response from synchronous and PEC connected generation  _AEMO_
So much for the principle and theory, now let’s take a look at an inherently ‘weak system’ – thanks to the experiment being conducted in South Australia: 
The price of living with ‘PEC’ – ie trying to run on sunshine and breezes – is paid for with wrecked electrical appliances and – when the system shuts down to protect itself from wind power surges and collapses – the failure of whole local systems.
The latter has been part and parcel of life for commuters on Adelaide’s Seaford/Tonsley electric train line for months now: South Australia – Wind Powered Train Wreck: Power Supply Chaos Strands Thousands of Commuters
While the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers keep talking about ‘integration’ of their beloved power source, the actual result is ‘disintegration’: of local systems within the grid (eg the Seaford/Tonsley line); and collapses of the entire grid: Wind Industry’s Armageddon: Wind Farm Output Collapse Leaves 110,000 South Australian Homes & Businesses Powerless
In the video that follows, an electrical engineer, Andrew Dodson explains in detail the lunacy of trying to distribute wind power via a grid deliberately designed around on-demand generation sources.
STT recommends it to anyone with even the vaguest interest in how our electrical grid works (and that must now surely include anyone unlucky enough to hang their hat in South Australia, including the Seaford/Tonsley line’s ‘occasional’ commuters).
At the simplest level, think of our distribution grid as akin to a mains water distribution system. In order to function, the pipes in such a system need to be filled at all times with a volume of water equal to their capacity and, in order to flow in the direction of a user, the water within the pipes needs to be maintained at a constant pressure.
Where a household turns on a tap, water flows out of the tap (in electrical terms “the load”); at the other end an equal volume of water is simultaneously fed into the system and pumps fire up to maintain the pressure within it (although gravity often does the work).
In a similar fashion, an electricity grid can only function with the required volume of electricity within it; maintained at a constant pressure (voltage) and frequency (hertz) – all of which fluctuate, depending on the load and the input.
What Andrew Dodson makes crystal clear is that these essential certainties (essential, that is, to maintaining a stable and functioning electricity grid) have been tipped on their head, as a result of the chaos delivered by wind power. ****
****What Andrew has to say about wind power, in general, has special pertinence to Australians, not just South Australians.
The Federal Coalition government helped lock in a $45 billion electricity tax – which is to be directed at wind power outfits; and for no other purpose than to help them spear another 2,500 of these things all over the country.
And more so with Labor’s ‘Electricity’ Bill Shorten crowing louder than ever about a ludicrous 50% RET, the number would need to be in the order of 10-12,000 of them. Never mind the cost; and never mind what happens to the stability of the grid.
As Andrew Dodson points out, grid stability (frequency and load balancing) matters. Back in 2012, Australia’s Paul Miskelly (another highly experienced Electrical Engineer) ripped into the patent nonsense of wind power in his paper Wind Farms in Eastern Australia – Recent Lessons – published in the journal, _Energy and the Environment._ On the risk to grid stability from attempting to integrate intermittent and highly variable wind power output into Australia’s Eastern grid, Paul wrote: *PROPERTIES OF ELECTRICITY GRIDS*
 On an electricity grid supply and demand must be maintained in balance on a second-by-second basis (AEMO, [6]). Kirby et al [7], for example, in discussing these fundamental concepts, state:
“Small mismatches between generation and load result in small frequency deviations. Small shifts in frequency do not degrade reliability or markets efficiency although large shifts can damage equipment, degrade load performance, and interfere with system protection schemes which may ultimately lead to system collapse.”
Bevrani et al [8] discuss control parameters and strategies in detail and stress that any degradation of electricity grid control system safety margins will result in frequent, unscheduled, widespread blackouts (“system collapse”). A recent German government report highlights the likely catastrophic consequences resulting from any such event.
In South Australia, wind power output fluctuations (rapid surges and precipitous collapses) mean that “the [massive] mismatches between generation and load result in [huge] frequency deviations” – with “widespread blackouts”; which has “degraded load performance”, and led to a dangerously unstable power supply.
STT’s operatives inform us that the wide range in supply voltage caused by wind fluctuations has seen the grid managers in SA (SA Power Networks) reduce the voltage running in the grid to 220 Volts (the Australian Standard is 240). Ordinarily, the system is set to operate at 230 Volts, allowing for normal – load driven – fluctuations above and below that level, such that the upper limit never exceeds 240. Surges above 240 Volts put appliances (especially electronics) at risk of permanent damage. Now, with massive wind power surges a daily feature of SA’s power supply, the grid operator is faced with frequent and rapid rises in voltage; and has adjusted the operating voltage downwards to accommodate it.
So far, so technical. But what really matters is having power whenever and wherever you need it. As Joni Mitchell pondered in her 1970 hippy-hit-classic, Big Yellow Taxi, ‘Don’t it always seem to go, That you don’t know what you’ve got ‘Till it’s gone’.  During the mass blackout on 28 September, the politicians that put South Australia on the map (for all the wrong reasons) and the useful idiots in SA’s media that helped them, were all left sitting freezing in the dark, while they pondered where it all went wrong.
Welcome to your wind powered future! Ahh, so you’re keen to know how the grid works, NOW!??  *Share this:*

----------


## Bros

I wondered when the above post would surface, just more wind. 
Instead of being critical South Australia it is the first state to reach zero emissions.

----------


## Marc

Sure, but very simplistic. 
If for a minute we make an ablation of reality and imagine that lowering CO2 emissions is a meaningful goal that will achieve something measureable, then the second step is to measure the cost of this exercise. 
If the cost is higher than the alleged gains and if the gains are not even measurable and belong in an additional chapter after revelations, then that is called an exercise in futility.  
Zero emissions don't exist anyway, No emissions from electricity production may be, everything else, that is 99.99% of CO2 production remains in place even if we shut down all the Australian power supplies. Well no not correct, since by doing so we will probably kill 20% of the population or more and so less cars so ... yes, effective in lowering CO2 emissions, sure, at a high cost and for little or no reason at all. 
My opinion of course ... well mine and a few others.

----------


## woodbe

There are two costs, but Marc is only thinking of one: Money, money money.    
The other cost is to the planet, and every species that exists on the planet. If we continue to fail to move forward we KNOW that we will continue to remove species from the planet, and humans are on the list. 
Of course the deniers have a long list of reasons not to move forward.

----------


## John2b

> *Another Statewide Blackout: South Australias Wind Power Disaster Continues*  
>  During the mass blackout on 28 September, the politicians that put South Australia on the map (for all the wrong reasons) and the useful idiots in SAs media that helped them, were all left sitting freezing in the dark, while they pondered where it all went wrong.

   Never one to let the facts get in the way of a toxic rant! The blackout was caused when three of the four transmission powerlines between Adelaide and the north of South Australia and 22 towers across the network were damaged in yesterdays storms, dropping 700MW of generation off the grid. The type of generation had nothing to do with the blackout. There was a demand of 1500MW at the time of the blackout and 2500MW of thermal power available to go online, so absolutely nothing to do with renewables or wind generation.

----------


## Bros

> 2500MW of thermal power available to go online,

    Closer to one third of that and also depended on what state it was in at the time

----------


## John2b

> Closer to one third of that and also depended on what state it was in at the time

  Fact-check: According to AEMO Torrens island 1,280MW, Pelican Point (which had been partially moth-balled but was running on 28/9) 487MW, Osbourne 180MW, Hallett 200MW = 2147MW, plus Murraylink interconnector with a capacity of 220MW and Heywood interconnecor 650MW potentially available from Victoria. At the time of the blackout wind was producing more than 700MW so the combined capacity *available* within the state was ~190% of demand, or well in excess of 200% allowing for the interconnectors.

----------


## Bros

Still one third as no way 2500 MW would be available for start up. Steam plant if it tripped of would take many hours to come on line so you can only count the quick start plant and they are the open cycle gas turbines. So forget Torrens Island as it is gas fired boilers and if they trip off no way they are available for quick start. So knock off 165 from Pelican point as it is steam, and take out 60 from Osborne and you can add all of Hallett in and you are getting close to a third of 2500 Mw and it depends on how the  was configured during the event and I would have assumes Torrens Island would have been on line as it is all steam and proberbly does not have "black start" capability. All the inter connectors had tripped so they wern't available.
You can add in all the suppositions all you like but until the final report comes out none of us will know.

----------


## John2b

Bros I am not arguing that the plant can provide power instantly. But the supposition in Marc's post that when the wind doesn't blow, there is insufficient capacity in thermal plant for SA is plain bunkum and that is my point. By virtue of being widely distributed, wind generation ramps up and down slowly and predictably thanks to BOM's sophisticated weather monitoring capacity and there is plenty of time for gas and steam capacity to come on line when needed.

----------


## Bros

As for the renewables being the cause of the blackout I would very much doubt it as all the wind turbines would have been feathered due to excess wind and as you said the loss of the towers started a chain reaction but it highlights serious problems in the SA distribution system as these faults should have been isolated before the interconnector failed. Protection systems are duplicated and there are usually two systems monitoring for faults and a back up system if these fail and to me with limited knowledge the backup system operated instead of the distance protection. 
Distribution protection systems are finely tuned and are designed to operate in cycles of frequency so they are very very quick and any failure in a circuit breaker opening causes the next layer of protection to start which isolated larger and larger blocks until the fault is cleared.
I recently just finished reading the report on the power price spike in July and the part renewable's played in that.

----------


## John2b

The Victorian interconnector didn't fail, it was isolated as a result of 3 out of 4 north-south transmission lines being taken out by a cyclone and the consequent sudden disconnection of 700MW of power generation, which in turn caused the frequency to fall and resulted in the disconnection of generation sources to protect the generation infrastructure. Everything worked exactly as it is supposed to. Except for the storm, of course. There's never been a cyclone in SA before and consequently no apparent need to make transmission lines cyclone proof.

----------


## PhilT2

> Except for the storm, of course. There's never been a cyclone in SA before and consequently no apparent need to make transmission lines cyclone proof.

  Unusual weather; wonder what could be causing that?

----------


## Bros

> The Victorian interconnector didn't fail, it was isolated as a result of 3 out of 4 north-south transmission lines being taken out by a cyclone and the consequent sudden disconnection of 700MW of power generation,

  You obviously have better connections than I do as I saw reports of it tripping. 
If that is exactly how it it should work well I'll leave that you your opinion as I dont subscribe to it. In my working life I have been through two events where we lost generation one was 800Mw when a test went wrong and another was 1500 mw when transmission towers blew down none of them led to a complete shutdown as the automatic protection took care of it. In both of those instances there was no north south interconnecter.
You can have the last word, I will not be commenting. I await the report that will follow should be made public before the end of the year.

----------


## ringtail

> There's never been a cyclone in SA before and consequently no apparent need to make transmission lines cyclone proof.

  if you look at the pressure of some of these monster lows that hit down there they would easily be or be close to cyclone status but because they don't form over tropical waters they can't be called a tropical cyclone. Infrastructure should be built to armageddon  standards regardless of where it is. No excuse. Those towers appeared to be built from matchsticks. Windmills have more integrity than them.

----------


## Marc

> Those towers appeared to be built from matchsticks. Windmills have more integrity than them.

  That is because they are not built to produce electricity but to produce subsidies.

----------


## PhilT2

> That is because they are not built to produce electricity but to produce subsidies.

  A transmission tower produces electricity????

----------


## John2b

> That is because they are not built to produce electricity but to produce subsidies.

  The pylons in question were built decades ago to transmit coal powered electricity from Port Augusta to Adelaide, which shows just how stupid the above statement is. Is anyone surprised?

----------


## John2b

> if you look at the pressure of some of these monster lows that hit down there they would easily be or be close to cyclone status but because they don't form over tropical waters they can't be called a tropical cyclone.

  I think more correctly it was a tornado - I was just using the same term as the media.

----------


## Marc

*Call to end wind farms until power solution found*  Liberal Party senator Chris Back says wind power is not a solution to our climate challenges. *MEREDITH BOOTH*   
Reporter
Adelaide  @MeredithBooth   *DAVID UREN*   
Economics Editor
Canberra      South Australia’s power crisis was a “wake-up call” for other states on the impact on consumers of subsidised renewable energy, particularly wind power, a Liberal senator has warned.  Chris Back called for a morat@orium on new wind farms, and no more subsidies for wind energy generators until the Productivity Commission conducted a cost-@benefit analysis of the effect the industry was having on the @National Electricity Market and retail electricity costs. “There should be no further subsidies paid for an intermittent and unreliable power source that can be seen as a proven failure. There are solutions to our climate challenges but wind power is not one of them,” Senator Back said. Wholesale electricity prices in South Australian have now “normalised” to double the rate of other states. The state government applied pressure to accelerate upgrade works on the state’s Heywood @Interconnector with Victoria to bring it back online two days ear@lier than forecast. The connector, operated by private company ElectraNet, was offline when wholesale electricity prices spiked from an average of $100 per megawatt hour to almost $14,000/MWh on July 7, and triggered major businesses to threaten shutdowns.  MORE:Protect our energy advantageMORE:SA is canary in the coalmine   It was brought back into operation on Saturday night, lifting its former capacity from 460MW to 500MW between the states. The sapping of power by wind turbines during calm weather on July 7 at the height of the @crisis was also blamed for the price surge in the state, which is 40 per cent relian@t on wind and solar power generation since the closure of Alinta’s coal-fired power station in May. The upgraded interconnector would increase its capacity to 650MW in both directions over the next few months, but leaves South Australian consumers @reliant on wind and solar for 40 per cent of the energy mix, paying double the wholesale electricity price paid in eastern states. State Treasurer and Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis said yesterday his government had @applied pressure to accelerate the interconnector’s upgrade and @prices had now normalised. Consumers could “take advant@age of renewable resources and export them to the rest of the country” now that the upgrade has been completed. The upgrade came as Australian Energy Market Operator chairman Tony Marxsen @announced the sudden death on Saturday of founding chief executive Matt Zema. Mr Zema, 56, was a 30-year electricity industry veteran who had been the “heart and soul” of AEMO for eight years. Data from the operator yesterday showed South Australia’s @average spot wholesale price had dropped to $75.37/MWh on @Saturday, from $200/MWh on Friday. But prices were still well above those paid in NSW, Victoria and Queensland at between $33 and $57/MWh on Saturday.

----------


## woodbe

Oh yea, lets attack wind farms that were never the cause of the interruption.   
Maybe Marc thinks this is a wind turbine. lol.

----------


## woodbe

Here is a bit of analysis from *InDaily (Crikey copied it from InDaily) * *Blackout explainer: sorting through the spin* 
Electranet Network Services executive manager Simon Emms said the  state-wide blackout was triggered by an automatic shut-down when power  lines fell to the ground.
 “In the afternoon, there was a severe weather event that happened in  the mid-north and that resulted in approximately 700 megawatts of  generation tripping off,” he told ABC 891. “Once the system volts get  out of the technical parameters then the system shuts down. It’s sort of  like a car stalling because it loses power and it will just stall. It  all happened in probably five to seven seconds.
 “Within the first five seconds there were three events, so we suspect  that that is the lines coming to the ground and then, the next couple  of seconds, it was the system trying to operate within the technical  parameters — it couldn’t, so it turned it off.”
 SA Power Networks spokesperson Paul Roberts agreed, telling FIVEaa  radio that vital poles and wires were damaged in the storm, cutting off  energy supply.
 “The transmission infrastructure in this case was battered and it  meant that we weren’t getting any supply, but it also meant that this  protection system, which is built into the national electricity network  and into South Australia’s electricity network … responded to protect  your safety and mine.”
 According to the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), the root  cause of the blackout event was the loss of power lines during the storm  that supply power north of Adelaide.
 However, the reason for the failure of electricity supply across the rest of the state was still being investigated.
 “Initial investigations have identified the root cause of the event  is likely to be the multiple loss of 275 kilovolt (kV) power lines  during severe storm activity in the state,” a statement on the AEMO’s  website says.
 “These transmission lines form part of the backbone of South  Australia’s power system and support supply and generation north of  Adelaide. The reason why a cascading failure of the remainder of the  South Australia network occurred is still to be identified and is  subject to further investigation.”
 That’s a question that will be the heart of the political fallout:  Opposition Leader Steven Marshall insists that storm damage in one part  of the state shouldn’t knock out the entire system.
 Independent Snator Nick Xenophon wants an inquiry to examine this question, among others.
 Energy system expert Dylan McConnell, from the Melbourne Energy  Institute at the University of Melbourne, agrees with the key bodies’  assessment of the root cause, adding the failure had nothing to do with  South Australia’s mix of electricity generation.
 “The transmission failure is completely independent of the generation that underpins it,” he told _InDaily._
 He said questions could be explored about the quality of the  infrastructure that was damaged, but that raised the issue of gold  plating: how much is the community prepared to spend to safeguard the  system against rare events?  *Were renewables to blame?* 
 Responding to the blackout, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said that  South Australia had relied on “intermittent renewables” that had placed  different strains and pressures on the electricity grid than  traditional, base load power from fossil fuels or hydro.
 He said that several state Labor governments — not just in South  Australia — had set “extremely aggressive, extremely unrealistic”  targets for renewable energy use.
 “Targeting lower emissions is very important but it must be consistent with energy security.”
 Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg said that while last night’s  blackout was not linked with South Australia’s reliance on renewable  energy, there were questions to be asked about the wisdom the state’s  rapid uptake of green power.
 “There are two issues: what happened last night — a once in a 50 year  weather event — and there are questions about how resilient the system  is and how we can prevent and protect against that.
 “Then there’s the question about the huge uptake of renewables:  [including] what that does to the overall system both in terms of price  as well as reliability.”
 But did renewable electricity sources contribute to the blackout?
 According to Emms, South Australia’s energy generation mix was irrelevant.
 “The cause of it is unrelated to the type of generation we lost and we do have,” he told ABC 891 this morning.
 Clean Energy Council policy manager Tom Butler told _InDaily_ there was no evidence that South Australia’s reliance on renewable electricity was a factor in the blackout.
 He said that all power generation types — even if coal-fired  electricity were still being produced in South Australia — would have  shut down automatically during a weather event such the one experienced  last night.
 Australian Conservation Council campaigns director Paul Sinclair concurred.
 “If South Australia was powered entirely by coal, rather than by 40%  clean renewable energy, as it is, this blackout would still have  happened,” he said.
 “In fact, at the time of the outage, wind power was pumping out 1000 megawatts — it was working.”
 Energy market expert Dylan McConnell agreed — renewables weren’t connected to the failure.
 His colleague Roger Dargaville, the deputy director of the Energy Research Institute, wrote on _The Conversation_ website  that: “… as we find out more about the incident it may become apparent  that there are weaknesses in the grid that need addressing. However it  is hard to imagine how the high penetration of renewable energy in the  state could be implicated in this incident.”  *Did SA’s mix of generation lead to a delay in re-booting the system?* 
 A report on South Australia’s electricity system, published by AEMO  last month, warned that there was a limited capacity to reboot the  state’s electricity system in the event of a total blackout.
 “There is a limited pool of strategically-located SRAS (system  restart ancillary services) in South Australia to meet the current  standard,” the report says.
 “This indicates reliance on a single fuel source for all generation  involved in the system restoration process in South Australia.
 “Many of these gas-powered generating units do not have dedicated  fuel storage facilities, exposing South Australia to further risk if  there was a gas supply interruption during system restoration.”
 However McConnell, who has expertise in the cost  structure of energy technologies and the electricity market, said the  complete re-boot overnight had been an “incredible feat”.
 He said to re-start almost the entire state’s electricity supply  “from black” within hours was unprecedented in the national electricity  market.
 “The proof of the pudding is in the eating  – and this is quite a success story, to be honest,” he told _InDaily._
 “As far as I’m aware, they (AEMO) have never put these black start procedures into action before (at this scale).”
 Normally, parts of a system would be shut down across suburbs or a region.
 “But to restart an entire region I don’t think has been done in SA  before and I don’t think it’s been done in the national electricity  market before. It’s quite an incredible feat, really.” _–with AAP._

----------


## PhilT2

> Oh yea, lets attack wind farms that were never the cause of the interruption.   
> Maybe Marc thinks this is a wind turbine. lol.

  Obviously it's going to need a bigger subsidy to get back to producing power. Meanwhile two of Qld's right wing idiots, Malcolm Roberts and George Christensen have jumped on the bandwagon and blamed renewables for the blackout.

----------


## John2b

The real reason for the failure turns out to be privatisation of the network LOL.  "The operator of South Australia’s high-voltage electricity transmission infrastructure was warned of the risk of tower collapse a decade ago because of poor maintenance... ElectraNet was first warned in 2005 of the risk that 43 of its towers could collapse in windy conditions because of corrosion and degradation of foundations... ElectraNet said its towers were “fit for purpose” as they had worked satisfactorily for the past 50 years." 
What a joke!   http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/electranet-was-warned-of-tower-risk-long-ago/news-story/abc21f33acf2b752e6ec3e6fcb6e1999

----------


## woodbe

> Obviously it's going to need a bigger subsidy to get back to producing power. Meanwhile two of Qld's right wing idiots, Malcolm Roberts and George Christensen have jumped on the bandwagon and blamed renewables for the blackout.

  lol. Someone is responding to Roberts on his FB page. I wonder how long before it gets removed  :Biggrin:

----------


## PhilT2

That's where we have been going wrong; we need to draw pictures so he can understand. Christensen put up the post from "Stop these things" (the same one Marc put up) on his facebook and got a heap of abuse, but he's used to that.

----------


## Smurf

> The real reason for the failure turns out to be privatisation of the network LOL.

  Electricity started out privately owned just about everywhere. Worked at first then had all manner of problems once it became "competitive" with multiple players involved and around this time it was also clearly becoming an essential service. 
Then governments took over and progressively built state of the art (at the time) power stations and networks. 
Then it was sold and today we're still largely relying on the physical assets built during the era of public ownership. Not surprisingly, many of those assets are now at or past their intended lifespan and require replacement which, needless to say, the private owners aren't too keen on. 
The other reason governments took over is that private operators simply weren't willing to risk big $ on new technology that was unproven at the time. In Vic and SA that was the direct trigger and indirectly it was the same elsewhere in many cases. Given the situation today with CO2 etc we're back in that position - private investors just don't seem willing to risk the serious $ and long timeframes involved before they've any chance of a return in order to get these things up and running. Had they still been around the SECV, ETSA etc would have done it quite some time ago.

----------


## woodbe

Meanwhile, Donald Trump has denied his climate change tweet. 
From Huffington Post:  *There Is No Good Way To Explain Donald Trump's Climate Change Tweet*  *How do you deny saying what you clearly said?*   
HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. ― A number of fairly mendacious statements were made  during Monday nights first presidential debate. But arguably the most  brazen involved Donald Trumps views on climate change. 
                                                                                      The GOP nominee was called to task for claiming that climate change  is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese government. In response, he completely denied ever saying that. 
                                                              Rarely are there moments when you can definitively state, with zero  reservation, that a presidential candidate is lying. But this was one of  them. Trump literally tweeted the exact sentiment he denied ever  saying. Heres the 2012 proof:    

> The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

  How can someone deny having said  something with such conviction when there is readily available evidence  that he did? This is the question The Huffington Post posed to several  of Trumps surrogates after the debate ended Monday night. Here are  their explanations.   There Is No Good Way To Explain Donald Trump's Climate Change Tweet

----------


## PhilT2

A climate change denier unable to deal with reality; nothing new there. The Republican Party has become a circus and made a clown its leader; the sad part is that millions of voters will support him. Queenslanders can't be critical, we elected Hanson, Roberts and Christensen.

----------


## PhilT2

Rumour is that Malcolm Turnbull is advising the South Aust govt to make a deal with the right wing of the Liberal Party. "It's the quickest way to get power" he said  Politics – The Shovel

----------


## John2b

The world is now 120 years after Svante Arrhenius published his study of the effect of CO2 increases on global surface temperature, and he has proven to be so incredibly accurate that only the seriously afflicted Dunning Kruger neocons could still be arguing otherwise.  https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/worse-climate

----------


## Marc

*Massively Subsidised Wind Power Crushes Germany’s Biggest Power Provider as CO2 Emissions Soar*  August 1, 2016 by stopthesethings 6 Comments  
Sigmar Gabriel: Oberführer for Germany’s Wind Power Disaster. 
***The parallels between Germany and South Australia are as uncanny as they are frightening. The common feature being, of course, their ludicrous attempt to rely on sunshine and breezes.
Like South Australians, Germans went into wind power harder and faster than anyone else – and the cost of doing so is catching up with a vengeance.
The subsidies have been colossal, the impacts on the electricity market chaotic and – contrary to the environmental purpose of the policy – CO2 emissions are rising fast: if “saving” the planet is – as we are repeatedly told – all about reducing man-made emissions of an odourless, colourless, naturally occurring trace gas, essential for all life on earth – then German energy/environmental policy has manifestly failed (see our post here).
Some 800,000 German homes have been disconnected from the grid – victims of what is euphemistically called “fuel poverty”. In response, Germans have picked up their axes and have headed to their forests in order to improve their sense of energy security – although foresters apparently take the view that this self-help measure is nothing more than blatant timber theft (see our post here).
German manufacturers – and other energy intensive industries – faced with escalating power bills are packing up and heading to the USA – where power prices are 1/3 of Germany’s (see our posts here andhereand here). And the “green” dream of creating thousands of jobs in the wind industry has turned out to be just that: a dream (see our post here).
Those in charge of Germany’s power grid have stepped up calls for an end to the lunacy of trying to absorb a wholly weather dependent generation source into what was never designed to deal with the chaos presented on a daily basis: Germany’s Wind Power Debacle Escalates: Nation’s Grid on the Brink of Collapse
And the economics are so bizarre, that you’d think its “Energiewende” policy had been put together by the GDR’s ‘brains trust’, before the Berlin Wall took its tumble in 1989.
In Germany, around €200 billion has already been burnt on renewable subsidies; currently the green energy levy costs €56 million every day. And, the level of subsidy for wind and solar sees Germans paying €20 billion a year for power that gets sold on the power exchange for around €2 billion.
Like the Germans, South Australians are, for precisely the same reasons, witnessing the willful destruction of hundreds of businesses and thousands of jobs, while thousands are being deprived of power and tens of thousands more are struggling to pay their rocketing power bills.
South Australia’s base-load power supply has been wrecked by heavily-subsidised wind power – a product of massive Federal subsidies dished out under the Large-Scale Renewable Energy Target (see our post here).
The consequence being that, every time the wind drops out, spot prices rocket from around $70 per MWh to $2000-$4,000, frequently hitting the regulated market cap of $14,000 per MWh.
South Australia is now heavily reliant upon coal-fired power – dragged from Victoria over a couple of interconnectors which fail on a regular basis – as well as highly inefficient, fuel-hungry Open Cycle Gas Turbinesand diesel generators, smashing claims that SA’s renewables efforts are ridding the planet of the dreaded CO2 gas.
Germany is in much the same boat: the market perversion, caused by its colossal subsidies to wind and solar power outfits, has crushed not only its energy hungry industries, it’s crushing its biggest power generator, RWE in the bargain.  And, in the mother of all ironies, CO2 emissions continue to skyrocket.  Here’s Andrew Follett of the Daily Caller with the latest on Germany’s debacle. *Green Energy Could Cause the Largest Bankruptcy in German History*
Daily Caller
Andrew Follett
6 July 2016
One of Germany’s largest electrical companies is facing bankruptcy due to the enormous amounts of money it poured into green energy, according to a report published Wednesday by the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
The German utility Rheinisch-Westfälisches Elektrizitätswerk (RWE) was forced by the government to shut down many of its profitable nuclear reactors and build expensive wind and solar power. The government’s mandate to replace nuclear reactors with wind or solar power cost over $1.1 trillion. The company has a 46 percent chance of going bankrupt within the next two years, according to investment groups.
“It is the sheer distress which is behind the project. That’s because RWE needs huge amounts of money very pretty soon. Especially for its nuclear phase-out,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported Wednesday. “A good 10 billion euros have been reserved already. But that is hardly enough. The Initial public offering (IPO) is presumed to generate the additional resources that are required. RWE cannot afford to accumulate more debt. It is already loaded with €45 billion [$50 billion in] long-term liabilities on the balance sheet, almost eight times its equity, a menacing rate, while the rating agencies have given RWE just above ‘junk’ status.”
RWE’s overall earnings fell by almost 10 percent between 2014 and 2015 and are predicted to fall by up to 14 percent this year. The company’s attempt to sell stock reeks of an effort to raise the money required to stave of bankruptcy.
“If the IPO goes wrong, then RWE is – as is usual for companies without a future – a case for the administrator,” the paper continued.  “It would be the largest bankruptcy in German economic history.”
RWE’s only hope to avoid bankruptcy may be a lawsuit by German utilities suing the government for $21 billion in damages due to the country’s plan to shut down all nuclear reactors by 2022.
The shutdown plan has certainly done enormous damage to utilities, destroying their main sources of profit and increasing the price of electricity throughout Germany. The average German pays 39 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity due to intense fiscal support for green energy. The average American only spends 10.4 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Nuclear power’s decline has created an opening for coal power,according to a Voice of America article published in November. Coal now provides 44 percent of  Germany’s power, despite the fact that coal ash is actually more radioactive than nuclear waste.
In the year 2000, nuclear power made up 29.5 percent of Germany’s energy. In 2015 the share dropped down to 17 percent, and by 2022 the country intends to have every one of its nuclear plants shutdown.
This shift caused Germany’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to actually rise by 28 million tons  each year after Germany’s nuclear policy changed. Germany’s government decided to abandon nuclear energyafter the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan galvanized opposition.
Electricity from new wind power is nearly four times as expensive as electricity from existing nuclear power plants according to analysis from the Institute for Energy Research. The rising cost of subsidies is passed onto ordinary rate-payers, which has triggered complaints that poor households are subsidizing the affluent. *Daily Caller*   *Share this:*

----------


## Pendejo

Yep, Marc, you would be a reader of the trash website stopthesethings.com "Stop These Things" - SourceWatch 
Putting our resident clown to one side, I  saw this accurate comment elsewhere:   

> When Josh Frydenberg informs us that Germany is opening new coal mines, he is being selective with his words. He fails to mention that Germany has four times as many workers in the renewable energy sector as the coal industry and by the middle of the next decade coal will represent just one-tenth of Germany's energy mix. Frydenberg does it again by claiming our emissions targets constitute the second highest per capita in the G20 when in fact they actually represent some of the weakest targets in the world. When the Minister for Energy and Environment is at odds with leading climate scientists who say we need much stronger targets, it is easy to see the coal lobby in his corner. No amount of his cherry-picking will alter the fact that 2016 was the hottest year on record and he should be doing much more to reverse this trend.

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc

> Putting our resident clown to one side...

  *“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”― Socrates*

----------


## Marc



----------


## johnc

That one deluded individual has consistently shown he has no interest in the accuracy of what he posts nor any intention of trying to make his partisan political rants the least bit relevant to whatever he is objecting to. Case in point the last few cut and pastes, individuals who inhabit a different universe to main stream society and reality.

----------


## Pendejo

Ok, so let's go from the ridiculous to the sublime

----------


## Marc

Yes, traditional strategy. Get a group of intellectual grandstanding morality, obscure theories and other mumbo jumbo ... did they mention quantum physics? I thought I heard we need a larger moon to make higher tides? ... Well that and the 3 degrees increase in temperature that will wipe out the brazilian forest and turn it into ashes is enough for me.

----------


## Bros

Just read the interim report on the loss of SA power and the finger looks like being pointed to the wind farms and not because they are renewals but because of the protection settings which were to conservative. With the early tripping of the wind farms which resulted in the loss of the interconnect the system with few thermal units on was to skinny for the UF load block tripping to be effective. 
 To add insult to injury the PS paid for their black start capabilities could not supply Torrens Island for it to restart and it was delayed until a corridor from Victoria to Torrens Island was established which would have required a lot of switching. This isv a normal method of supplying a black thermal station which would only have standby diesels for emergency lights, oil pumps and barring gear but not enough to restart.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Just read the interim report on the loss of SA power and the finger looks like being pointed to the wind farms and not because they are renewals but because of the protection settings which were to conservative. With the early tripping of the wind farms which resulted in the loss of the interconnect the system with few thermal units on was to skinny for the UF load block tripping to be effective.

  I fail to understand how even the 'early' disconnect of the wind farm load can be held mostly or solely responsible for what happened.  
Yes this load would have stepped away early but everyone knew that big wind was coming and that the wind turbines would have to be feathered and taken out of supply. So additional capacity should have been available via gas PS and the interconnect to make up for it.  No dramas? 
By the time the two lines to the north and west of the state were toppled, I'd have thought most of the wind power would have been out of the system...it sure as heck was too windy in Clare for wind turbines to be operating at the time of the power fail! 
Interesting...

----------


## John2b

There was a huge grid meltdown and blackout caused by trees that affected 50 million people in parts of the USA and Canada in 2003 before any significant renewable generation was involved. The grid fauilure tripped out around 20 nuclear power stations in total, and it took five days to get all the nuclear stations back online. To get SA online from a black state in just a few hours with little thermal capacity was quite a feat and should be applauded.http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/o...tFinal-Web.pdf

----------


## Marc



----------


## Bros

> I fail to understand how even the 'early' disconnect of the wind farm load can be held mostly or solely responsible for what happened.  
> Yes this load would have stepped away early but everyone knew that big wind was coming and that the wind turbines would have to be feathered and taken out of supply. So additional capacity should have been available via gas PS and the interconnect to make up for it.  No dramas? 
> By the time the two lines to the north and west of the state were toppled, I'd have thought most of the wind power would have been out of the system...it sure as heck was too windy in Clare for wind turbines to be operating at the time of the power fail! 
> Interesting...

  Have a good read of the report and you have to have a good understanding of how electrical systems operate to appreciate the technical jargon in the report but in essence the collapsing of the towers inflicted damage on the system but it got through this but at the last fault the wind turbine protection said this is to many faults in to short a time and tripped. This resulted in the interconnect tripping on overload and the 5 steam units on line could not cope with the drop in frequency to 46 Hz and tripped. 
The system worked as it should and tripped as it should except the wind farms tripped to early. Like 10 blokes carrying a telegraph pole and 5 suddenly left so to keep going all the load goes back to the 5 remaining and if they are not strong enough it falls down. 
It would not have mattered if they were hydro, gas turbine, steam the end result would have been the same.

----------


## Marc

> It would not have mattered if they were hydro, gas turbine, steam the end result would have been the same.

  Sure, only that a coal fired does not collapse when there is a storm nor do they do so all together. Wind turbines our out there like a kite and shut down as they should, but to allow that much power to be generated by a system that is at the mercy of the elements is lunacy like anything to do with the save the earth hysteria. 
Why don't we build coal fired generators without a roof? If it does not rain she'll be right.

----------


## Bros

> Sure, only that a coal fired does not collapse when there is a storm nor do they do so all together. Wind turbines our out there like a kite and shut down as they should, .

   That is not what happened as coal fired stations would do the same if they had the same protection settings. The wind farms tripped off line and then I would have expected them to feather.

----------


## Marc

Mm ... I don't follow Bros ... Wind turbines are exposed to the weather. too much wind and they fold. Coal fired are not exposed to the weather and if there is too much wind or rain or hail nothing happens. 
If you have a couple of wind turbines for politicians photo opportunity, nothing happens when they fold. If you have half of your supply at the mercy of the weather, expect disasters every year. 
But of course if it is all for a good cause, it will all be swept under the carpet.

----------


## johnc

Short of cyclones wind turbines will produce some power whatever is going on. Coal fired power stations can be taken down by storms, usually as the distribution systems fail. They can also fail, let's not descend into a load of bull anything is capable of tripping out

----------


## John2b

It's ironic that distributed energy generation is actually more robust than centralised generation yet the argument about coal fired versus wind misses the entire point, which is if there is no distribution cables (because they were grounded by a storm) it makes no difference if the power was generated by nuclear, coal, gas, wind or a lot of ideological hot air - the generators will shut down to prevent damage to infrastructure. (All except for the ideological hot air generators, that is - they keep running!) 
Surely it isn't too hard to understand that with wind turbines distributed over a thousand kilometres north-south and a couple of hundred kilometres east-west as happens in SA, the cyclonic conditions in a zone a few tens of kilometres wide only affects just a few percent of all turbines at any time. When the transmission lines came down in the storm, wind was contributing approximate 1000MW, equivalent to ⅔ of SA demand at the time. It wasn't a lack of and/or over-reliance on wind generation capacity that ripped the pylons out of the ground. If anything, it was a lack of maintenance by the PRIVATE owners of the network that operated in true neocon spirit where profits are privatised, but costs are born by the public. They had their hands out for >$600million of government funding for maintenance earlier in the year.

----------


## John2b

> HAHAHAHA what a joke

  Not a joke anymore, Rod.   

> *The ‘Binding’ Paris treaty is now just voluntary mush*
>  26 mins ago December 13, 2015

  Not voluntary anymore, Marc. 
The Paris Agreement on climate change – the first _universal, legally binding, agreement to cut carbon emissions_ – was voted into law by enough nations to come into force. The Paris Agreement will enter into force on 4 November 2016, thirty days after the date on which at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55% of the total global greenhouse gas emissions have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Depositary.  Paris Agreement - Status of Ratification

----------


## Marc

> Short of cyclones wind turbines will produce some power whatever is going on. Coal fired power stations can be taken down by storms, usually as the distribution systems fail. They can also fail, let's not descend into a load of bull anything is capable of tripping out

  Sure, Tsunami, earthquakes, alien attacks, everything is possible. Historically none of this has ever happened not in this magnitude. Read the report and understand that wind turbines make the most unreliable and most expensive electricity in the world for no other reason than a political agenda. No amount of gilding the lily will change this. And don't think SA is the only case. 
The collusion of politicians with private interests with a varnish of "save the planet" is obscene. 
And if you add the fact that the planet is doing fine on i'ts own and needs not saving, the picture is complete. The earth is flat because the bible says so.

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc



----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Have a good read of the report and you have to have a good understanding of how electrical systems operate to appreciate the technical jargon in the report but in essence the collapsing of the towers inflicted damage on the system but it got through this but at the last fault the wind turbine protection said this is to many faults in to short a time and tripped. This resulted in the interconnect tripping on overload and the 5 steam units on line could not cope with the drop in frequency to 46 Hz and tripped. 
> The system worked as it should and tripped as it should except the wind farms tripped to early. Like 10 blokes carrying a telegraph pole and 5 suddenly left so to keep going all the load goes back to the 5 remaining and if they are not strong enough it falls down. 
> It would not have mattered if they were hydro, gas turbine, steam the end result would have been the same.

  Ahhh. That makes sense. Though given the state of the wind I'm somewhat surprised they were still online. That said though...even if they'd come out and the load taken up additional conventional power...it might have still been too much for the system to bear.

----------


## John2b

Nuclear power and almost no renewables hasn't stopped a strom disrupting electricity to more than 1 million people in Florida right now:  MATTHEW leaves 4 dead; 1 million+ without power in Florida

----------


## John2b

Solar has delivered more electricity to the grid than coal in the UK for over half a year - funny it hasn't caused a transmission line failure.   https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/c...ly+shares.html

----------


## phild01

> Solar has delivered more electricity to the grid than coal in the UK for over half a year  https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/c...ly+shares.html

  Let's put that statement in perspective, how much of the UK's electricity is now generated by coal.  Maybe not much considering that in 2016 they went for a period of no coal power generation.  How much is currently gas, nuclear, oil and imported!

----------


## John2b

> Let's put that statement in perspective, how much of the UK's electricity is now generated by coal.  Maybe not much considering that in 2016 they went for a period of no coal power generation.  How much is currently gas, nuclear, oil and imported!

  This time series ends before the current period, but clearly shows the trends.

----------


## phild01

In 2015 wind power was 12%.  Solar 2.2%. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/united-kingdom.aspx

----------


## Bedford

> It's ironic that distributed energy generation is actually more robust than centralised generation yet the argument about coal fired versus wind misses the entire point, which is if there is no distribution cables (because they were grounded by a storm) it makes no difference if the power was generated by nuclear, coal, gas, wind or a lot of ideological hot air - the generators will shut down to prevent damage to infrastructure. (All except for the ideological hot air generators, that is - they keep running!) 
> Surely it isn't too hard to understand that with wind turbines distributed over a thousand kilometres north-south and a couple of hundred kilometres east-west as happens in SA, the cyclonic conditions in a zone a few tens of kilometres wide only affects just a few percent of all turbines at any time. When the transmission lines came down in the storm, wind was contributing approximate 1000MW, equivalent to ⅔ of SA demand at the time. It wasn't a lack of and/or over-reliance on wind generation capacity that ripped the pylons out of the ground. If anything, it was a lack of maintenance by the PRIVATE owners of the network that operated in true neocon spirit where profits are privatised, but costs are born by the public. They had their hands out for >$600million of government funding for maintenance earlier in the year.

  Have you got a link to where that pic came from? 
Interesting to see that the tower is on the ground but the cables are still in the air.

----------


## John2b

> Have you got a link to where that pic came from? 
> Interesting to see that the tower is on the ground but the cables are still in the air.

  Transmission tower knocked over in Mid North South Australia - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
The cables that are still in the air are on an adjacent parallel transmission line that wasn't knocked over. Three out of four north - south transmission lines were brought down, one survived undamaged. 
These transmission lines once fed power from two coal fired power stations north of Adelaide that once supplied about ⅓ of Adelaide's electricity. The power stations have since been decommissioned because coal at the Leigh Creek mine nearby has been exhausted of easily extracted coal and the mine has closed. There is no other source of coal that can be delivered to the power stations with existing infrastructure. 
The existence of the transmission infrastructure has facilitated grid connection for wind turbines installed along the range of hills that extend for several hundred kilometres north of Adelaide adjacent to the lines.

----------


## Marc



----------


## Bros

When I was in SA early this year and last year I looked at the transmission towers especially the feeders to Roxby Downs and others and thought by Queensland standards they looked pretty flimsy. I suppose Queensland towers were built for a higher design wind speed.

----------


## John2b

Yes they do look flimsy. SA has the lowest customer density of mainland transmission networks in mainland Australia due to the large geographic spread of the customer base, which means a long ‘stringy’ network with relatively more infrastructure. I guess the cost of towers is a large component and there would have been a lot of pressure to keep them low cost.

----------


## John2b

Global warming hoax? Why are the polar ice caps melting?  http://<a href="https://www.youtube....soac0qun0g</a>

----------


## John2b

>55,000 homes without power currently in Victoria (down from 100,000 reported earlier). No doubt, Malcolm Turnbull will ask for an inquiry into the destabilisation of the power grid caused by Victoria's dependance on brown coal fired electricity generation.  Unplanned Outages – Total Customers Off Supply: 58,745 Updated at 8:41 pm https://www.outagetracker.com.au

----------


## SilentButDeadly

If only they had cut down all the trees...

----------


## Marc

*Now That World Government Has Been Achieved The Planet Can Start Cooling*by ElmerB on October 5, 2016 in Global Cooling, News, Obama,Opinion, Paris 2015
By Elmer Beauregard _Obama has done it, he has fulfilled his promise to  “fundamentally transform the United States” making it part of a UN World Government by signing the Paris Climate Treaty last December without Congressional approval. In one month the US will lose its sovereignty and will have to answer to the UN when it comes to its energy use._ _Now that Obama and the UN have achieved World Government with the fake threat of Global Warming I wonder if the Globe will magically start cooling off. They have fudged the data about as far as they can go to build the narrative that every year is the hottest ever. I predict they will start fudging the data the other way so they can say that World Government saved the planet. Especially with statements like this “The Paris Agreement’s credibility test starts today”, wink, wink._ Reuters
A sweeping global agreement to combat climate change by shifting the world economy away from fossil fuels will take force next month after passing a threshold for ratification on Wednesday with support from European nations.
Support for the Paris Agreement has widened to nations representing 56.75 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions, above the 55 percent needed for implementation, a U.N. website showed. The deal will formally start in 30 days.
European Union countries including Germany, France and Slovakia, which have completed domestic ratification, helped trigger the formal entry into force after a green light from the European Parliament on Tuesday.
The agreement, reached in December 2015, already has support from other major emitters led by China, the United States and India. In total, 72 countries out of 195 have ratified the agreement, according to the U.N. website.
Several nations hailed the rapid ratification of an agreement meant to cut global greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels, to limit floods, droughts, more powerful storms and rising ocean levels.
It took eight years for the previous U.N. climate deal, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that obliged only rich nations to cut emissions, to gain enough backing to take effect.
Entry into force “demonstrates unprecedented political momentum for climate action and bodes well for us moving forward”, said Thoriq Ibrahim, Environment Minister for the Maldives and Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States.
But he urged stronger action against global warming, saying “it is no exaggeration to say we are in a race against time”.
The Paris Agreement will take force just before the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 8. Republican Donald Trump opposes the accord while Democrat Hillary Clinton is a strong supporter.
Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever and Chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, said ratification showed that a shift to a low-carbon economy is “urgent, inevitable, and accelerating faster than we ever believed possible”.
But current national pledges for cuts in emissions are insufficient to achieve a Paris goal of limiting a rise in world temperatures to “well below” two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times.
U.N. studies project that average world temperatures are set to rise by 3 degrees (5.4 Fahrenheit) or more by 2100, based on current trends. And this year is expected to prove the warmest since records began in the 19th century, beating 2015.
“The Paris Agreement’s credibility test starts today,” said Tracy Carty of the charity Oxfam, adding that governments should raise their ambitions.

----------


## johnc

I can't believe there is anyone stupid enough to believe that world government stuff. Most countries struggle to govern themselves human beings aren't capable of working under one leadership group, give me a break.

----------


## chrisp

> I can't believe there is anyone stupid enough to believe that world government stuff.

  Purely anecdotally, but I have observed a strong correlation between those who believe in a 'world government conspiracy' and don't accept the science of global warming.

----------


## woodbe

Signing the Paris Climate Treaty means that you commit your country to reduce CO2 emissions. 
Most countries have signed international treaties. That does not give a world government control over their countries. If it did, then no-one would agree to those treaties. 
Meanwhile,

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I can't believe there is anyone stupid enough to believe that world government stuff.

  I'm not convinced that there is. People write that sort of stuff on the internet as clickbait to draw in the gullible to an advertising driven site...and there's money to be made in clickbait.

----------


## John2b

> People write that sort of stuff on the internet as clickbait to draw in the gullible to an advertising driven site...and there's money to be made in clickbait.

  There are a dozen contributors on this particular forum page (313). A third of the posts come from just one contributor and the majority of those posts are lazy cut and pastes of belligerent ideologically driven blogs. So how do you think the resident 'click baiter' in this forum is making money?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> There are a dozen contributors on this particular forum page (313). A third of the posts come from just one contributor and the majority of those posts are lazy cut and pastes of belligerent ideologically driven blogs. So how do you think the resident 'click baiter' in this forum is making money?

  He's not. The site that he's visiting is. Every time he visits it... 
Same goes with every YouTube video he links to...the video owner gets a nice little slice of the advertising revenue. 
It can be a nice little earner catering for an ideologically driven audience on the internet...or any audience of a decent size really...and you don't even have to believe what you are saying. You just have to come across in a convincing or entertaining or even bat guano crazy but mostly harmless way. 
It's a well proven model.

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc

THE LONG VIEW - Weather and Water - KEVIN LONG - Central Victoria - AUS 
RAPID GLOBAL COOLING FORECAST FOR 2017by Kevin Long January 2014 www.thelongview.com.au  
Understanding the details of the 18.6-year Lunar Declination Cycle is pivotal to understandingwhy the earth has been warming again since Feb 2012 and is predicted to rapidly cool againafter 2016. 
 This next drop in global temperature around 2017 will also be strongly influenced by the cooling effects of a rare solar minimum event known as the Bicentennial Solar Minimum Cycle which is predicted to impact the next three decades.
The changing lunar orbit is the dominant reason why "global average temperatures" rapidly rise for about 5 years before a gradual decline sets in during the following 13 years.  
These repeating trends confuse most people who are involved in the climate change debate. This lunar influence is not appreciated or understood by most climate scientists or the IPCC and their partners in crime, the very biased mass media.
 I must acknowledge upfront that there are many other longer-term climate drivers that also contribute to the fluctuations in global temperature. However in this paper I will only focus on the 18.6 year Lunar Declination Cycle and the Bicentennial Solar Minimum Cycle. 
2015 WILL BE THE WARMEST YEAR BEFORE A DEEP CHILL SETS IN 
Some of the largest and most rapid fluctuations in global average temperatures are brought about by the rapid swings our climate goes through when moving from a strong La Nina to a strong El Nino cycle.  
The 18.6-year Lunar Declination Cycle is the metronome behind these powerful anomalies that typically drive global temperature up by about 0.4°C within a five year period. A recent example of such a dramatic fluctuation was the rapid rise observed from 1992 to 1998 and then the general decline in average temperature until 2011.  
Recently the warmer part of the lunar cycle has once again been driving global temperatures up towards another warm extreme (expected mid to late 2015). 
LUNAR MINIMUM STANDSTILL TO PRODUCE ANOTHER CLOSE-TO-RECORD WARM YEAR.
Historically those warm surges in global temperature have occurred in the lead up years to the Lunar Minimum Standstill. February 1997 was the most recent Minimum Standstill.  
At the times of the Minimum Standstill, the moon only moves 18° north and south of the equator, in contrast to the much greater 28.5° movement that occurs during Maximum Standstill of 9.3 years before and after. 
The next Lunar Minimum Standstill occurs during October 2015. 
 Consequently during the four years leading upto this date, reducing amounts of equatorial heat will be moved to the polar regions. This is a direct result of the weaker “lunar air tides” not travelling as far south or north during this period.  
This will result in the accelerated growth of the “polar sea ice extent” which has already been occurring in the Antarctic during the last three years and for 18 months in the Arctic. (See my website document: “The Lunar Air Tide Cycle Explained”)
Consequently, during that same period (2012-2016), the sea surface heat will slowly build up in the equatorial regions - especially in the eastern Pacific where the El Nino anomalies develop. 
This extra heat concentration will minimise the development of any La Nina anomalies in the preceding two years(2013-14) before triggering the development of a warm and dry El Nino period during 2015. 
These standstill-enhanced El Nino years typically produce the fastest rise in global temperature, recording rises of up to 0.4°C above the preceding strongest La Nina-dominated years, which typically occur about 5 years prior. 
In the present cycle that cool wet La Nina event developed during 2010/11. These strongest and coolest La Nina anomalies of the 18.6 lunar cycle typically develop in the fourth year after the previous Maximum Standstill which recently occurred in Sept 2006. The following La Nina anomaly during2010 -11 was the wettest La Nina event for at least 160 years in Australia.  
That rare La Nina event caused eastern Australia’s climate to flip from a decade of severe drought to a 13-month period of record floods, before a quick return to dryer and warmer climate again during 2012-13. 
 Under the influence of the approaching Minimum Standstill, 2014 and 2015 should continue the global warming trends of 2012-13 and reach an average global temperature close to that of 1998 (the warmest year on record as per most data sets).  
However as soon as the next El Nino anomaly dissipates, during 2016 the most rapid global cooling trend for two centuries should become very obvious to all.  
97% OF SCIENTISTS MYSTIFIED BY THE EFFECTS OF LUNAR CYCLES 
The lunar cycle effects are not understood or defined by most scientists and therefore there is little chance that you will be told about the cycles by any other source other than this one – with the eminent exception of Mr. KenRing from New Zealand ( Predict Weather - the home of long range weather ) who has many books with extensive and easy-to-grasp explanations of the lunar cycle effects. The IPCC scientists would do well to incorporate his knowledge. 
Furthermore, it is unlikely that you will be told of future devastating global cooling trends or the reducing food production before world famine impacts us all – due primarily to the extremely biased world media, totally obsessed with only peddling endless amounts of the IPCC-generated “Anthropogenic Global Warming” propaganda. 
EVIDENCE OF LUNAR CYCLE AT WORK
During the last 18 months, the La Nina anomaly has shown signs of becoming established again, but has repeatedly collapsed back to neutral ENSO. Due to the present high levels of equatorial heat and the rapid growth of Antarctic sea ice during the last three years, this has resulted in December 2013 setting a new world record for the highest total polar sea ice extent in the satellite era. 
THREE DECADES OF SOLAR HIBERNATION TO BE ENDURED
For many years I have been researching Solar Minimum Cycles and their impacts on global climate. Almost everything I have read points to a very quiet hibernating sun going forward for the next three decades. An increasing number of scientists are now writing books on this subject, including John Casey who wrote “Cold Sun” (Trafford Publishing, 2011) which I read recently.  
Unlike most other books written about climate change, this book very clearly warns the reader of a long and dangerous period of global cooling bought on by the Bicentennial Solar Minimum Cycle, Casey and many others now predict a rapid return to the very cool climate of the early 1800’s. Casey’s fundamental message warns us of a future devastating world wide economic collapse and famine.  
FUTURE IMPACTS OF THE BICENTENNIAL SOLAR MINIMUM CYCLE
Considering the interplay with the lunar cycle, and all the other known natural climate drivers, I forecast that rapid global cooling will become the dominant climate change trend after 2016, coinciding with the return to extremely low levels of solar radiation after the present very weak Sun Spot Cycle has faded away later next year. 
Casey’s research supports my own research in that this type of “deep solar hibernation” occurs on average once every 206 years and brings on secondary events such as, massive volcanic eruptions, large earth-quakes and resultant Little Ice Age periods.  
The Maunder Minimum (1645 -1715) and the Dalton Minimum (1790 -1830) are the last examples of the recurring solar hibernation periods. 
SOLAR HIBERNATION ALSO TO BRING ON THE NEXT MEGA-DROUGHT
Finally, as a direct result of reducing solar radiation rates over the last three decades and the predicted continuation of this phenomenon for the next three decades, I forecast Australia’s Top End drought will continue on for many more years - slowly spreading south until the whole of Australia is impacted by the longest and driest mega-drought since the early 1800’s. 
These future climate conditions will be similar to those that were prevalent around the time Captain Cook stood on this wide brown land and large trees were growing in the bottoms of our deepest lakes. 
EXTRA INFORMATION
The supporting documents section of my website (below) has many more articles for you to read, covering some of the other major climate change drivers, including: the 60-year heat cycle, the PDO cycle, the synodic planetary cycle of Jupiter and Saturn, sun spot cycles, etc.
My documents include: “Mega-drought developing” and “Lunar Air Tides Cycles Explained”. I encourage you to seek out as much information as possible both from my web site and other informationsources you come across. 
Wishing you all the best 
Kevin Long For more information:  www.TheLongView.com.au

----------


## Marc

Marc laughing all the way to the bank

----------


## Marc

*To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here*Around 1250 A.D., historical records show, ice packs began showing up farther south in the North Atlantic. Glaciers also began expanding on Greenland, soon to threaten Norse settlements on the island. From 1275 to 1300 A.D., glaciers began expanding more broadly, according to radiocarbon dating of plants killed by the glacier growth. The period known today as the Little Ice Age was just starting to poke through.  
Summers began cooling in Northern Europe after 1300 A.D., negatively impacting growing seasons, as reflected in the Great Famine of 1315 to 1317. Expanding glaciers and ice cover spreading across Greenland began driving the Norse settlers out. The last, surviving, written records of the Norse Greenland settlements, which had persisted for centuries, concern a marriage in 1408 A.D. in the church of Hvalsey, today the best preserved Norse ruin.  
Colder winters began regularly freezing rivers and canals in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Northern France, with both the Thames in London and the Seine in Paris frozen solid annually. The first River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1607. In 1607-1608, early European settlers in North America reported ice persisting on Lake Superior until June. In January, 1658, a Swedish army marched across the ice to invade Copenhagen. By the end of the 17th century, famines had spread from northern France, across Norway and Sweden, to Finland and Estonia.    
Reflecting its global scope, evidence of the Little Ice Age appears in the Southern Hemisphere as well. Sediment cores from Lake Malawi in southern Africa show colder weather from 1570 to 1820. A 3,000 year temperature reconstruction based on varying rates of stalagmite growth in a cave in South Africa also indicates a colder period from 1500 to 1800. A 1997 study comparing West Antarctic ice cores with the results of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) indicate a global Little Ice Age affecting the two ice sheets in tandem.  
The Siple Dome, an ice dome roughly 100 km long and 100 km wide, about 100 km east of the Siple Coast of Antartica, also reflects effects of the Little Ice Age synchronously with the GISP2 record, as do sediment cores from the Bransfield Basin of the Antarctic Peninsula. Oxygen/isotope analysis from the Pacific Islands indicates a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature decline between 1270 and 1475 A.D.  
The Franz Josef glacier on the west side of the Southern Alps of New Zealand advanced sharply during the period of the Little Ice Age, actually invading a rain forest at its maximum extent in the early 1700s. The Mueller glacier on the east side of New Zealand’s Southern Alps expanded to its maximum extent at roughly the same time.
Ice cores from the Andeas mountains in South America show a colder period from 1600 to 1800. Tree ring data from Patagonia in South America show cold periods from 1270 to 1380 and from 1520 to 1670. Spanish explorers noted the expansion of the San Rafael Glacier in Chile from 1675 to 1766, which continued into the 19th century.
The height of the Little Ice Age is generally dated as 1650 to 1850 A.D. The American Revolutionary Army under General George Washington shivered at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78, and New York harbor was frozen in the winter of 1780. Historic snowstorms struck Lisbon, Portugal in 1665, 1744 and 1886. Glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana advanced until the late 18th or early 19th centuries. The last River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1814. The Little Ice Age phased out during the middle to late 19th century.  
The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots. A period of sharply lower sunspot activity known as the Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder. That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, another period of well below normal sunspot activity.  
The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.  
Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.  
The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As _The Economist_ magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.  
At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA’s _Science News_ report for January 8, 2013 states, _“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”_
That is even more significant because NASA’s climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement.
But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The_Voice of Russia_ reported on April 22, 2013, _“Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.”_  
That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, “Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” In other words, another Little Ice Age.

----------


## Marc

And so if the above is true there are reasons to be horrified, if you are a warming alarmist or not. 
Based on groundless propaganda launched by a failed politician not only most people swallowed the lies, we gave him a nobel prize and squandered trillions of dollars in futile attempts to reduce CO2, a harmless and very useful gas.  
However that is far from the worst side of this situation. The most damning side of the story are the "scientist" themselves. Far from trying to uncover the truth, thousands of scientist toed the line to keep the funds flowing, gave false advice to politicians and twisted the so called science to show what the pollies wanted to hear. The world is warming because of human activity and we are going to fry unless the pollies in their immense wisdom save us from ourselvs. 
In Australia we are paying 4 times what we should for electricity, squandered billions upon billions to fight non existing foes, plinking at windmills ... worst, installing windmills to cool the planet that is not warming by reducing CO2... that is going up and  up regardless because we are just exporting CO2 producing activities to china and India ... and CO2 is not the cause of warming anyway and ...and now we hear it will actually get cooler.  
Are we going to hang someone? Is someone facing court or gaol? is someone going to lose his job? Will prizes be returned? Now that we know it was all a lie, is electricity going to come down by 75% as it should? What about gas? Are we going to demolish all windmills and scrap solar panels and build new coal fired stations? 
Mm ... may be not. Oh ... I know ... it is not climate it is the weather ... yea ... that's it silly, it's the weather that changes .... :2thumbsup:  
When is "earth hour" again?

----------


## woodbe

> Now that we know it was all a lie, is electricity going to come down by 75% as it should? What about gas? Are we going to demolish all windmills and scrap solar panels and build new coal fired stations?

  The only way we will know it is a 'lie' is for capable scientists to publish their amazing analysis. 
Reading dribble off the internet does not wipe out the collected science that has been building for over a century. Just let your dribbler know he has to publish science instead of spewing garbage on the net. 
So far, there is basically almost nil published science that actually challenges climate change.

----------


## John2b

> [URL="http://www.thelongview.com.au/sunmoonclimate.html"]RAPID GLOBAL COOLING FORECAST FOR 2017 by Kevin Long January 2014

  Practically every claim made by Kevin Long in 2014 about the years 2015 onwards have already been proven false. His laughable website even links to sites that prove him wrong. 
No, 2015 was not the warmest year before cooling sets in, in fact it is almost certain that 2016 will be warmer than 2015.Somehow Kevin Long can't see his inconsistency in claiming that temperatures have been in decline since 1998 by 0.08 degrees per decade, yet 2015 was hotter than 1998! 
It apparently gives a lot of pleasure to a particular sad individual to publish false and often contradictory bumf in this forum. That person must surely be deafened by the dissonance in their own head.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And so if the above is true there are reasons to be horrified, if you are a warming alarmist or not.

  
And the word 'if' is the key to this one...

----------


## Marc

> The only way we will know it is a 'lie' is for capable scientists to publish their amazing analysis.
> .

  Is this the same amazing 'scientist' who told us that human produced CO2 is the only thing that matters and that we must lower it at any cost?  :Rofl5: 
You woodbe funny if you weren't so tragic.

----------


## woodbe

> Is this the same amazing 'scientist' who told us that human produced CO2 is the only thing that matters and that we must lower it at any cost? 
> You woodbe funny if you weren't so tragic.

  No. I was referring to your post which is full of hysteria and no published science. 
It's really simple. Most people who have taken the slightest interest in scientific research understand but you don't seem to be able to grasp science. Reading opinion on the internet may make you happy but it will never change the results of scientific enquiry. Scientific enquiry results in published science, and that published science is far more convincing that some whacko opinion on the internet.    https://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change 
We have been waiting for Rod and Marc et al (lol) since 7th Oct 2009, 07:51 PM to find valid science to counter that almost complete agreement between publishing scientists that the results of their research show that the climate is warming because of humankind. 
So far, we have been waiting for a whole 7 years and 8 days in this thread for published science that would eliminate the now huge collection of science that shows us that climate change is real. So far: none, just whacko opinion.

----------


## John2b

> So far, we have been waiting for a whole 7 years and 8 days in this thread for published science that would eliminate the now huge collection of science that shows us that climate change is real. So far: none, just whacko opinion.

  The et al deniers would have to actually be look at science first, but given how much contradictory and conflicting opinion that they paste and that et al deniers can't see any discordance in the drivel they post, it is clear et al deniers have zero interest in anything they conflicts their ideologically driven mantra. Real evidence and science is irrelevant to the aptly named deniers on this forum.

----------


## phild01

Climate has always been changing, what science proves it is not more to do with natural causes!
I recall being taught in school that we were heading towards an ice age.

----------


## woodbe

> Climate has always been changing, what science proves it is not more to do with natural causes!

  You sure about that? 
Science proves that mankind is adding to climate change. Of course there are natural causes.

----------


## phild01

> You sure about that? 
> Science proves that mankind is adding to climate change. Of course there are natural causes.

  Yes, if am to believe the history of the world. 
From what I gather, the scientists theorise that CO2 traps infra red radiation from the planet and that causes the earth to heat up. As there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere I am wondering how it keeps holding back enough of that radiation out to space for it to make a difference. 
Interested in how you understand how CO2 elements slow that movement as compared to other atmospheric compounds and elements? 
With so little CO2, it wouldn't really form a blanket, it would be like a shark net trying to catch mosquito larvae!

----------


## woodbe

> Yes, if am to believe the history of the world. 
> From what I gather, the scientists theorise that CO2 traps infra red radiation from the planet and that causes the earth to heat up. As there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere I am wondering how it keeps holding back enough of that radiation out to space for it to make a difference. 
>  How do you understand how CO2 elements slow that movement as compared to other atmospheric compounds and elements? 
> With so little CO2, it wouldn't really form a blanket, it would be like a shark net trying to catch mosquito larvae!

  Well, rather than making up ideas to suit your opinion rather than spending time to understand the science of the earth's atmosphere, how about you do a little reading about the Greenhouse effect. I'm sure you will have been taught it at school, but you seem to have forgotten about it?  The Greenhouse Effect - environment.gov.au  The Greenhouse Effect - HyperPhysics

----------


## phild01

Not wanting to wade through endless links, just want to understand if the those who believe the theory, understand how a CO2 compound traps or delays re-radiation as compared to what is leftover in the atmosphere, and how that attribute significantly impacts the weather.
 Is it more a belief in what they read or more importantly, an understanding of what they read!  I am interested in hearing this in their own words as a discussion.
The car comparison of course explains greenhouse but let's talk about the windshield and glass.  Again, .04% of the atmosphere is not a comparable analogy to that of glass.

----------


## Marc

Yes, man made CO2, is all it matters, because it is the only thing that can be used to scare people and make them pay through the nose for their fear. 
Yet even a primary school kid can understand that heat comes from the sun, therefore any variations in temperature must be linked to variations in the source that is the sun. Sure there are other factors, sure Greenhouse gases like water contribute, Particulate emissions from volcanoes and many other factors even marginally the so much overstated CO2, and from that the minuscule fraction attributed to human activity.  
Yet it has been proven at nauseam that increases in CO2 do not lead increases in temperature but follow it, so what are we doing trying to reduce it? Beside the obvious futility of this exercise that is costing trillions of dollars and is a complete waste, even if we could reduce CO2 emissions down to ZERO. the difference in climate would be also ZERO. A complete waste of time and money only benefiting the so called alternative energy industry and spurring subsidies and additional taxes. 
Eventually this gargantuan fraud will be impossible to hide yet the puppet masters will leave scot free. There are so many people involved in it that it is impossible to unravel in our life time. 
The Vatican of this fraud, the UN will find another distraction for humanity. 
For those who still barrack for the 'save the earth and reduce your carbon footprint', I have only two words. 
Wake up.

----------


## woodbe

> Not wanting to wade through endless links, just want to understand if the those who believe the theory, understand how a CO2 compound traps or delays re-radiation as compared to what is leftover in the atmosphere, and how that attribute significantly impacts the weather.

  Firstly, there are two links. The first is very short and has little to 'wade' through. The second link is still relatively short but more involved. 
Perhaps you could actually read either of them and explain what you don't understand. 
Lastly, yes we are dealing with a known theory. Theories are not 'believed' in the science community, they are 'accepted' if they are the best theory until a better theory is found. I'm not hopeful that there will be a better theory found, I think we basically have it.

----------


## phild01

I'm not sure why you think I don't understand greenhouse principles.  I am only asking in your own words how you understand how so little CO2, firstly delays or stops infra red radiation to space, and secondly how that might significantly affect climate.  Is it because 'scientists' say so or do you in your own words understand it?  I just want to know how a wheel works without someone saying because I read it. 
Theory is not scientific fact until proven.  While supported it's not really fact.

----------


## PhilT2

The best example I've found of how a gas that is in very small proportions has a very significant effect is the impact of the earth's ozone layer. In the upper atmosphere the area referred to as the ozone layer consists of approx 10 ppm of ozone. Yet this amount is sufficient to block nearly all of the dangerous part of the ultraviolet radiation. Without it life on earth would not exist. 
 Ozone at ground level is a completely different story. At 50ppm it starts to be fatal. Funny how something that is absolutely essential to life can also be a pollutant and toxic just depending on the concentration and the location. A bit like some other gases....

----------


## woodbe

> I'm not sure why you think I don't understand greenhouse principles.

  Well, because if you understand the greenhouse effect, you would also understand that adding more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere will alter the energy balance of the planet.    

> I am only asking in your own words how you understand how so little CO2, firstly delays or stops infra red radiation to space, and secondly how that might significantly affect climate.  Is it because 'scientists' say so or do you in your own words understand it?  I just want to know how a wheel works without someone saying because I read it. 
> Theory is not scientific fact until proven.  While supported it's not really fact.

  Theory is theory. All of our science is based on theory that is honed to the best accuracy we can get. Do you know how your computer works, to you accept the theory of electrons? Same stuff.  
If you understand greenhouse principle, you surely understand that adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will increase the greenhouse effect. 
Scientists don't 'say so'. They do research and analyse the effect of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and other climate issues. If they get their act together (many do) they are able to publish their results as long as they pass muster by other relevant scientists who review their paper. Not the same as a denier getting hold of a website and a yearly internet storage cost of $50 per year and pumping unscientific spiel onto the internet. 
If you have read any of my posts about the science, you would know that I accept the science of climate change. I don't believe, I accept. If the science changes because something new is found and supported by the bulk of the scientific climate community, then I too will accept that new science. I haven't read every climate change paper published, but I have read many. I suggest anyone who denies the results of scientific enquiry should spend some time actually reading some actual science rather than denial opinion which simply does not stack up. 
If the deniers want to be heard in the science realm, they need to publish. They cannot because their crazy ideas simply do not have a scientific basis.

----------


## PhilT2

I saw an experiment once where a piece of tubing (about 3m of 100mm) was set up with an infrared source at one end and an instrument at the other end to measure IR. The tube contained normal atmosphere and was sealed at each end. CO2 was added to the tube and the results measured.  
These results conform with what all universities have been teaching for years and what scientists in the real world have been using to make things like heat seeking missiles work.

----------


## phild01

Woodbe, all I asked is how you understand how CO2 holds IR back from entering space!
As for the ozone layer, it can be understood better now than it was at the time first identified.
As for atomic structure, it was not understood the way we understand it now and it will very unlikely ever be fully understood.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe, all I asked is how you understand how CO2 holds IR back from entering space!

  Only some, not all. If none passed to space the oceans would be boiling and we would be fried. 
Heat from the sun warms the earth. The earth radiates longwave IR into the atmosphere. Some passes into space and the CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs some IR radiation and re-radiates it. Some of the re-radiation passes into space, some passes back to earth. Adding more CO2 means more absorbtion of IR and re-radiation. This makes CO2 a heat trapping gas and adds to the greenhouse effect as CO2 concentration increases. 
We need a greenhouse effect or the planet would be a frozen snowball, but if the effect becomes stronger by adding more CO2 to it, the balance of energy held and re-radiated by the atmosphere causes increased warming.  https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

----------


## r3nov8or

> ... 
> Science proves that mankind is adding to climate change. Of course there are natural causes.

  But 'mankind' IS 'natural'.  
When mankind no longer exists things will change, naturally.

----------


## Marc

> But 'mankind' IS 'natural'.  
> When mankind no longer exists things will change, naturally.

  That is where you are wrong ... well no, you are not wrong but the green religion thinks different. 
Mankind is a weed that does not belong on this planet. Gaia is better off without humans. In fact some of the more extreme greens propose that we cull humanity down to 2 billions. They don't offer a method how to do this but would be happy for someone else to do it and enjoy the space afterwards.

----------


## Marc

> I saw an experiment once where a piece of tubing (about 3m of 100mm) was set up with an infrared source at one end and an instrument at the other end to measure IR. The tube contained normal atmosphere and was sealed at each end. CO2 was added to the tube and the results measured.  
> These results conform with what all universities have been teaching for years and what scientists in the real world have been using to make things like heat seeking missiles work.

   Wow ! and that proves ... what exactly?

----------


## PhilT2

> Wow ! and that proves ... what exactly?

  That small increases in co2 make a measurable difference even after the so called "saturation" level.

----------


## Marc

Yes sure, you are right ... in a tube. 
However the fraud of man made CO2 catastrophic global warming is the following:
According to Al Gore failed politician and self appointed expert, CO2 levels lead temperatures. However by making the X axis larger the fraud becomes obvious. CO2 increases FOLLOW temperature increases in the short period our friend Al shows. Increase of temperature due to the sun activity releases more CO2 from the ocean and so hotter means higher CO2.
However not even that is set in concrete. Lately the constant increase of man made CO2 has made CO2 percentages higher yet that has not reflected in any direct way on temperatures that has stabilised despite the constant increment in CO2.
And I don't have to repeat what others more qualified than me have said. In the past CO2 levels were 200 times higher than now yet that has not stopped us from going into an ice age. CO2 is not only essential for life to exist, it is fluid, goes up and down and is not the foe it is made to be. 
Yes, I understand that if you want to fabricate a boogeyman CO2 is perfect for the job since it can be blamed on human activity. And even better, on humans that have lots of activity as a result of their financial achievements. So rich are to blame more than poor ... perfect! 
That does not make it true of course and the trillions squandered behind windmills and solar crap makes the chinese rich sends our manufacturers and farmers broke due to cost of energy yet makes the alternative, idle, eco crap community happy.  
It all will get untangled eventually, that if we don't get into WW3 first. 
We live in interesting times and clinging to an idea fed to you by media and paid scientist is not very smart.

----------


## PhilT2

> According to Al Gore failed politician and self appointed expert, CO2 levels lead temperatures.

  I tend not to get my science from politicians. Something about not being qualified. Likewise I don't get my dentist to check my prostate; but we won't go into that right now. 
There have been many events over earth's long history. Sometimes warming has been caused by orbital changes, other times the warming has been caused by the release of large amounts of CO2 from a particular type of volcanic activity. it is dishonest cherrypicking to look at only one type of event and disregard the other. 
I understand you do not like the CO2 in a tube experiment. I would accept any proof you may have that the physical characteristics of CO2 change when it is not confined. Please explain how the CO2 knows when it is in a tube or not. Is it like those free range chickens who lay different eggs to the ones in cages?

----------


## phild01

Any very large scale simulated atmospheric condition experiments to show what CO2 does in varying components, rather than small lab tests?

----------


## PhilT2

There's probably something on scholar if you pick the right search terms. The problem is that it may lead you to an article in a journal that is behind a paywall. If you have a friend who has academic access you can get to these free, otherwise the only alternative is a trip to a major library
The other issue is that this was settled a long time ago. Arrhenius did the math to calculate the temp change for a doubling of CO2 back in 1896. His calculations still stand. Nobody is interested in doing an experiment to prove that the earth is not flat. The focus has changed to the investigation of the mental condition and motives of those who believe that it is.

----------


## phild01

I thought it would be obvious to do large scale experiments to prove the theory.  Earth flat theory is too easily disproved by the common man!  But CO2 conclusions are far too mystical, which is why I posed the question earlier, how in one's own words, is CO2 the critical factor that affects IR radiation to space.

----------


## woodbe

CO2 conclusions are not mystical, they are based on experiments and measurements. I answered your question previously, but you don't want to read it? 
CO2 is not the only gas that effects our temperature changes, there are others like Methane which is even more effective but it doesn't stay up there for as long as CO2. 
HFC reduction was in the news earlier: Climate change: Global deal reached to limit powerful greenhouse gases - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## Marc

Ha ha Phil, very funny, the comparison between CO2 and free range eggs that is.
Well ... I know what you are saying but there is no need for such 'experiment' even if it was possible, something clearly it is not. 
And is so because the AGW hypothesis is not a scientific problem but a psyop. I gave you the proof. This whole fraud was cemented by AlGore the inconvenient truth movie. This Psychological operation is used to shift power and resources to an industry that would otherwise not exist due to its' abject failure to deliver. 
 It was a fraud then and it is a fraud now because CO2 concentration increases do not produce temperature increases but it is temperature increases that produce a raise in CO2.
That alone should be enough to debunk the hypothesis that man made CO2 is overheating the planet. That and the obvious elephant in the room, the solar cycles and sunspot activity. 
However so much was said about save the planet rubbish and by so many prominent people ( I struggle to call them leaders) politicians, scientist, think tanks, professors and assorted left leaning green activist, that we have past the point of no return something like 20 years ago. Years of failed predictions, years of absurd statements, years of prophetic announcement that make the second coming pale in comparison have failed to even come close to anything resembling a fact.  
So to revert this massive inertia there needs to be more than a handful of retired scientist that from the safety of their retirement having nothing to lose, put forward tentative alternative explanation to the "end of the debate" consensus. 
Some politician will have to grow gonads, some scientist rediscover ethics and honesty above the need for fundings. It will happen, but I don't expect any executions. How could it when the executioner is involved? It will happen when the "denouncing" and the accusations start carrying more political power than the save the planet mantra.  
We live in interesting times. Like PG says ... get the popcorn.

----------


## woodbe

There you go. Denial of science actually exists. 
Climate change deniers are top of the tree. They deny every piece of published climate science. 
Kicked off by the Fossil Fuel industry many of whom now accept climate change and the reasons, but the fossil fuel believers won't turn back.

----------


## Marc

*The big picture: 65 million years of temperature swings*Greenland Interglacial Temperatures – last 10,000 years. Are we headed for an ice age? (See below for more detail.) David Lappi is a geologist from Alaska who has sent in a set of beautiful graphs–including an especially prosaic one of the last 10,000 years in Greenland–that he put together himself (and which I’ve copied here at the top).
If you wonder where today’s temperature fits in with the grand scheme of time on Earth since the dinosaurs were wiped out, here’s the history. We start with the whole 65 million years, then zoom in, and zoom in again to the last 12,000 from both ends of the world. What’s obvious is that in terms of _homo sapiens_ history, things are warm now (because we’re not in an ice age). But, in terms of _homo sapiens civilization,_ things are cooler than usual, and appear to be cooling.
Then again, since T-rex & Co. vanished, it’s been one long slide down the thermometer, and our current “record heatwave” is far cooler than normal. The dinosaurs would have scoffed at us: “What? You think _this_ is warm?”
With so much volatility in the graphs, anyone could play “pick a trend” and depending on which dot you start from, _you can get any trend you want._ — Jo GUEST POST by David Lappi*65 million years of cooling*The following two graphs (images created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art) are climate records based on oxygen isotope thermometry of deep-ocean sediment cores from many parts of the world [1]).  On both graphs, colder temperatures are toward the bottom, and warmer temperatures toward the top. Significant temperature events on the first graph show the start and end of Antarctic glaciation 34 and 25 million years ago, and the resumption of glaciation about 13 million years ago. It is obvious from the graph that we are now living in the coldest period of Earth’s history for the last 65 million years. Despite recent rumors of global warming, we are actually in a deep freeze. Global Temperature estimates over the last 65 million years. 
Image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art*5 million years of cooling*The last five million years of climate change is shown in the next graph based on work by  Lisiecki and Raymo  in 2005 [2] . It shows our planet has a dynamic temperature history, and over the last three million years, we have had a continuous series of ice ages (now about 90,000 years each) and interglacial warm periods (about 10,000 years each). There are 13 (count ‘em) ice ages on a 100,000 year cycle (from 1.25 million years ago to the present, and 33 ice ages on a 41,000 year cycle (between 2.6 million and 1.25 million years ago). Since Earth is on a multi-million-year cooling trend, we are currently lucky to be living during an interglacial warm period, but we are at the end of our normal 10,000 year warm interglacial period. 65 million years of global temperatures 
Image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art*The last 10 millenia*To detail the more recent prehistoric temperature changes, scientists have drilled a number of ice cores in ancient glacial ice.  Paleotemperature data from ice cores is considered to be our best continuous record of temperatures on the planet for time-spans up to about 420,000 years ago.  Annual layering in undisturbed glacial ice allows us to precisely date the layers, and gives us a very accurate time and temperature sequence. The US government drilled the GISP 2  ice core in central Greenland over a five-year period, and the data is available here.  This data set is useful because it reports temperatures (measured by oxygen isotopes) every 10 to 60 years — a good resolution.  I sometimes see graphs of ice-core temperatures or greenhouse gasses that are based on measurements every 1,000 or 2,000 years: not nearly close enough together for comparisons that are useful today. I downloaded and graphed these data in Excel myself. The following graphs have a time scale in years Before Present (BP).
The next graph of temperature from the ice core for the last 10,000 years (the current interglacial period) shows that Greenland is now colder than for most of that period (vertical scale in degrees C below zero). We can see the Medieval Warm Period  800 to 1,000 years ago was not particularly warm, and the Little Ice Age 150 to 650 years ago was one of the longest sustained cold periods during this interglacial. We are now recovering from this abnormal cold period, and the recovery started long before anthropogenic greenhouse gases were produced in any quantity. The curved  trend line in green shows that we have been experiencing declining temperatures for the past 3,000 years, and are likely to be heading down toward the next ice age. Temperatures are only considered to be increasing if viewed for the last 150 years, from 1850 onward, which is roughly when thermometers began collecting global data, and is also the period of time the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has chosen for its review. The red portion of the curve is the recovery from the Little Ice Age. The amount of 20th century warming is unknown, since it was recently revealed that unknown portions of the international temperature databases have been tampered with, and the amount and extent of the tampering has not been publicly documented. It is likely that some warming has continued into the 20th century, but it is also likely that the amount of warming is not as great as the 0.6 degrees C that the global warming advocates would lead us to believe.
Our current warming is well within natural variation, and in view of the general decline in temperatures during the last half of this interglacial, is probably beneficial for mankind and most plants and animals. The graph clearly shows the Minoan Warming (about 3200 years ago), the Roman Warming (about 2000 years ago), and the Medieval Warm Period (about 900 years ago). Great advances in government, art, architecture, and science were made during these warmer times. *UPDATE: This graph shows the ice-core data up until 1855*. The last 150 years (1705 to 1855) are highlighted in red to show the warming as the Earth began coming out of the LIA. Long-term, temperatures are now declining (for the last 3,000 years), and we appear to be headed for the next 90,000 year ice age, right on schedule at the end of our current 10,000 year warm period. We have repeated this cycle 46 times in succession over the last 2.6 million years. And in case you are wondering, the previous Antarctic ice cores tell a broadly similar story.  The following graph of ice core data from Vostok (vertical scale in degrees C variation from present) shows that Antarctica is also experiencing a long-term (4,000 year) cooling trend mirroring the Greenland GISP2 cooling trend. Though the individual temperature spikes and dips are different than in Greenland, the long-term temperature trend on the planet appears to be down, not up. And since it is so late in our current interglacial period, we could be concerned about global _cooling_. Vostok Antarctica, last 12,000 years of Interglacial temperature. The US is currently drilling a new ice core (see here), already at 1,512 meters where it is 7,700 years old, that is dated absolutely by counting annual ice layers, and each layer will be analyzed for temperature, greenhouse gases, and other constituents. This will give us the best Antarctic record yet. I believe the results will confirm the above. We geologists owe it to policy-makers to give them the benefit of our longer-term perspective. I believe we will regret regulating CO2, since doing so will not produce any measurable climate control, and may actually cause great harm to world economies. If we want to promote renewable energy sources (and I do), let us not penalize fossil fuel production and use.  We may soon need all the energy we can produce, if the long-term cooling continues.
My main point is that natural variation is so large, even if we cease all emissions completely, the climate will still change (just look at the graphs). The cost of (possibly) slightly influencing this change is so great, why not spend a lot less adapting to it? Since we don’t know if the long-term climate is cooling or warming (I bet on cooling long-term), we could spend trillions to cut emissions, only to have the climate cool catastrophically on its own. What then? Pump as much CO2 into the air as possible?
Warming is not a killer, but global cooling is. It would only take a few years of global crop failures from cold weather to put populations at serious risk. Both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are thickening: Leave anything on the ice, and it gets buried pretty fast (for example: the US South Pole Base was recently reconstructed because the old base was being crushed by snow and ice, and WWII planes lost on Greenland’s southeast coast, were _covered by 264 feet of ice_ in 50 years: see the image below). This is not rocket science. Sure, the sea-level edges are retreating (that is why we call them the ablation zones of a glacier), but they represent a minute portion of the continent-scale ice mass. “Glacier girl” crashed on an icecap in Greenland and became buried under 264 ft of ice.Joanne adds a few thoughts… *Antarctica: whiter than white, and its own separate system*Antarctica — whiter than white Greenland and the GISP cores are just one point on the globe. It’s hard to know what temperatures in the tropics were by drilling in the Arctic Circle. However, we do have hundreds of studies regarding the Medieval Warm Period about 1,000 years ago, and, clearly, the higher temperatures affected most of the globe (as I discuss in my post on why the Hockey Stick is audaciously wrong).
But, the Vostok ice core graph is not mirroring the detail in GISP. Why should we rely on Greenland as a better climate guide for the planet? Svensmark suggests that Antarctica responds uniquely. Because it is covered in Earth’s most reflective ice and snow, it has a very high albedo, sending most of the incident sunlight right back to space. The Arctic is not as white, and neither is Greenland. Greenland is also tied to local water and wind patterns, whereas the Antarctic is more isolated, and completely surrounded by vast oceans. The result is that cloud cover changes have a different effect on Antarctica. The theory goes that if the world becomes cloudier, most places cool, but Antarctica _warms_. The cloud tops are actually _less_ reflective than Antarctic snow, and they re-radiate the heat they absorb. They also trap heat from below, preventing it from escaping into space. An effect like this means that while Antarctica is a good indicator of big climate movements, it may not be so good for smaller changes on smaller time scales. Hence, Greenland may be a better indicator of planetary climatic trends over the past 10,000 years. *Not another IPCC-gate?*Fitting with this is the trend of the last few decades where most of the world warmed, but Antarctica _cooled_ and its sea ice_increased._ And as it happens, just today comes word of another cringeworthy error in AR4: They managed to whitewash the steady growth in Antarctic sea ice, and underestimate it by 50%.  (When the facts don’t fit your theory, _change the facts…_)
Jo *References:*Alley, R. B. (2000) The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quat. Sci. Rev. 19, 213-226  1 J. Zachos, et al (2001) –  _Trends, Rhythms, and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present_, _Science_ 292 (5517), 686–693 2  L. E. Lisiecki and M. E. Raymo  (2005) _– A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic δ18O records,_ Paleoceanography 20, 1003 UPDATE: Sunday Feb 21, 2010 – The Gisp graph of the last 10,000 years has been updated to improve it. The old graph is here. UPDATE: 5 Feb 2016 — The Gisp graph axis title was incorrect. “Years Before Present (2000AD)”  has been changed to “Years Before Present (1950AD)”.  The caption has been improved and the red coloring on the ice core data described. h/t to Josh, Harry Twinotter and Just-a-guy for improving this graph.       
Rating: 8.3/*10* (113 votes cast)  
The big picture: 65 million years of temperature swings, 8.3 out of 10 based on 113 ratings     The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot.  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  : 
Tiny Url for this post: The big picture: 65 million years of temperature swings Â« JoNova

----------


## woodbe

Lol. another post from a well known denier site. Fits in with the deniers perfectly.

----------


## phild01

Woodbe, you say you understand the science but you would likely have me exhaust my mind reading endless articles.  Can I not have someone who understands it as part to the discussion. Plenty of people accept the judgement of a scientist without a level of understanding, it is not relevant for me to listen to that opinion. I am happy for them to tell me what a scientist says but not an unqualified opinion added with it.
Let us not forget that scientists led us down a path of expensive idle desalination plants around the country! 
If experimentation reveals a particular characteristic of CO2, how is it understood that so little of it in the atmosphere has such a significant blanketing effect!  Even if the attributes of the molecules are understood, it's significance seems to be opinion that discounts any further investigation.  Experiment results are great but they need understanding.  And then they need to be verified in real world conditions to be relevant. 
Deducing CO2 as the culprit might be easy to do but how is the conclusion absolute, and to know no other possible unknown factors have been accounted for. 
It is not really fit to call a person a denier because they question things that are being deduced, that is an intimidating stance and reveals that one may lack an understanding of what they believe. You might call those who question the 'science' climate change deniers but I am not denying it, I'd like to know how one can feel so sure that some other causes are not being overlooked and that CO2 really is what the issue is.  As I said before, climate will always change no matter what people do, it is a dynamic feature of a world.

----------


## woodbe

Phil, here is the answer you did not read:   

> Only some, not all. If none passed to space the oceans would be boiling and we would be fried. 
> Heat from the sun warms the earth. The earth radiates longwave IR into the atmosphere. Some passes into space and the CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs some IR radiation and re-radiates it. Some of the re-radiation passes into space, some passes back to earth. Adding more CO2 means more absorbtion of IR and re-radiation. This makes CO2 a heat trapping gas and adds to the greenhouse effect as CO2 concentration increases. 
> We need a greenhouse effect or the planet would be a frozen snowball, but if the effect becomes stronger by adding more CO2 to it, the balance of energy held and re-radiated by the atmosphere causes increased warming.  https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

  That is as simple as I can make it. If you need more, you have to read more and try to grasp the science. 
You know that a small percentage of something can make a big difference to a larger something. That's not rocket science.

----------


## phild01

Woodbe, I read that but I don't think you understand what I ask, let's leave it at that.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe, I read that but I don't think you understand what I ask, let's leave it at that.

    Try to make your question concise. I explained what I understood your question was.  If you want to move forward, the best way of getting an answer is to have a conversation that refines both the question and the answers.   There are others here who can help if you don't like my response. You wouldn't be the first, and you won't be the last either  :Smilie:

----------


## PhilT2

> Woodbe, you say you understand the science but you would likely have me exhaust my mind reading endless articles.  Can I not have someone who understands it as part to the discussion. Plenty of people accept the judgement of a scientist without a level of understanding, it is not relevant for me to listen to that opinion. I am happy for them to tell me what a scientist says but not an unqualified opinion added with it.Let us not forget that scientists led us down a path of expensive idle desalination plants around the country!If experimentation reveals a particular characteristic of CO2, how is it understood that so little of it in the atmosphere has such a significant blanketing effect!  Even if the attributes of the molecules are understood, it's significance seems to be opinion that discounts any further investigation.  Experiment results are great but they need understanding.  And then they need to be verified in real world conditions to be relevant.Deducing CO2 as the culprit might be easy to do but how is the conclusion absolute, and to know no other possible unknown factors have been accounted for.It is not really fit to call a person a denier because they question things that are being deduced, that is an intimidating stance and reveals that one may lack an understanding of what they believe. You might call those who question the 'science' climate change deniers but I am not denying it, I'd like to know how one can feel so sure that some other causes are not being overlooked and that CO2 really is what the issue is.  As I said before, climate will always change no matter what people do, it is a dynamic feature of a world.

  Like Woodbe, I thought I had at least answered part of your question but if not then I'm happy to persist. The tube experiment I described is meant to show that the IR radiation cannot progress far through the atmosphere before being captured by CO2. The tube represents a vertical column of the atmosphere. The photon, which is the elementary particle that makes up all radiation has to make its way past every molecule on a 100km vertical journey to space. It's not just the CO2 but also the water vapour, methane, cfcs and other greenhouse gases that make this journey slower. Thanks to quantum mechanics we now know how different molecules trap radiation of different wavelengths. I understand that now satellite measurements confirm what the tube experiment shows. 
If there is some alternate theory and an as yet unknown factor that is causing the warming then the effect of CO2 has to first be disproven and the new factor identified and the method by which it causes warming described. The sunspot theory has too much evidence against it to be taken seriously; the variation in solar output is too small to cause the changes we're seeing. 
I don't know what else I can add if this doesn't answer your question but if I have misunderstood it in some way or can clarify something I am happy to do so. i don't claim to be an expert in this so my explanations may be less than ideal.

----------


## phild01

The tube experiment would be of interest, I would expect it was a big tube and repeated.  But does that experiment show that the atmospheric CO2 actually forms a blanket of CO2.  As I mentioned earlier, is it a shark net that is ineffective against escaping IR!

----------


## chrisp

> The tube experiment would be of interest, I would expect it was a big tube and repeated.  But does that experiment show that the atmospheric CO2 actually forms a blanket of CO2.  As I mentioned earlier, is it a shark net that is ineffective against escaping IR!

  CO2 in the atmosphere isn't a blanket nor does it form a blanket (like the ozone layer). It is dispersed throughout the atmosphere. The CO2 molecules is one of many that can re-radiate infrared and partially inhibits the escape of heat/radiation back into space.

----------


## PhilT2

> The tube experiment would be of interest, I would expect it was a big tube and repeated.  But does that experiment show that the atmospheric CO2 actually forms a blanket of CO2.  As I mentioned earlier, is it a shark net that is ineffective against escaping IR!

  I don't think the shark net is a apt comparison. The photon has to get past every molecule in its path on the 100km path to space. How many molecules in 100km? Not one shark net but billions.

----------


## Marc

To elucubrate what the CO2 does or does not do is a big waste of time. The Boogeyman of all greenhouse gases is a toothless tiger, check out this website that has the numbers for all greenhouse gases. From all of them CO2 is the less significant and from the total of CO2, human produced is almost insignificant when compared to the rest. 
The "Carbon" footprint is a joke. Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

----------


## PhilT2

The points get referred to as "zombies". They've been killed off time and time again but deniers go and dig up the rotting corpse of a long disproved argument and put it out there once more, hoping people won't notice how bad it stinks. It will get killed off again but that won't stop deniers dragging it out again, smelling even worse. Two minutes on google or with a basic physics textbook will prove how poorly supported this theory is, but to some people facts don't matter. To support  two different theories, one on water vapour and one on sunspots, on the same day is a rare skill

----------


## phild01

> The CO2 molecules is one of many that can re-radiate infrared and partially inhibits the escape of heat/radiation back into space.

   These are the demonstrative simulations I want to see and the degree of it.

----------


## chrisp

> These are the demonstrative simulations I want to see and the degree of it.

  I suggest that you search for, and read up on, 'radiative forcing' and go from there.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

It's the saddest part about science in general that demonstrating something with a sufficient degree of certainty to become accepted by your peers requires the sort of work, attention to detail and passion that would make a guilded craftsman nod in respect...if said craftsman had any idea or grasp of what was being articulated. 
And that's the issue...too much of the science is essentially impenetrable. Even to those us with the necessary training.  And that makes it such an easy target for those who either don't want to try to get to grips with it or have a vested interest not to...or just don't care. 
I'm no longer concerned which side of the ledger the impacts fall but there will be impacts.  My hope is that they happen slow enough that the collective human mind doesn't recognise what is happening...and if a few do notice that they won't bitch too much about it. 
Emission trading be damned.

----------


## John2b

> These are the demonstrative simulations I want to see and the degree of it.

  The effect of atmospheric CO2 in the atmosphere on reducing infrared emittance is measured in the Earth's moonshine, i.e. the light of the Earth reflected from the moon. The spectra of light (infrared, visible and ultraviolet) that the Earth emits, reflected in the moon shows the missing spectral lines that result from absorption by atmospheric CO2. 
For more than 150 years, hundreds of thousands of scientists whether independently self-funded, or employed by governments, universities OR business corporations, in first and third world countries, under totalitarian regimes, Communist governments, democracies and neocon 'free market' countries have all found that the Laws of Physics and Thermodynamics hold when it comes to solar energy balance at the Earth's surface - doh! 
Even if there was a great attempt to centrally control independent research, as the denialist conspiracy theorist Marc alleges ad nauseum, there is nothing a scientist would rather do than prove his colleagues wrong. The Nobel Prize for science is up for grabs FFS! Do you really think that not one of hundreds of thousands of climate scientists around the world wouldn't want to claim the fame and fortune a Nobel Prize brings, instead of playing along with a silly conspiracy?

----------


## phild01

> The effect of atmospheric CO2 in the atmosphere on reducing infrared emittance is measured in the Earth's moonshine, i.e. the light of the Earth reflected from the moon. The spectra of light (infrared, visible and ultraviolet) that the Earth emits, reflected in the moon shows the missing spectral lines that result from absorption by atmospheric CO2.

  That doesn't sound like it is measuring the effect of CO2, being a measurement of IR emittance only.  I am not after opinion, just the method used to determine the effects of CO2 in real world simulation.

----------


## John2b

> That doesn't sound like it is measuring the effect of CO2, being a measurement of IR emittance only.  I am not after opinion, just the method used to determine the effects of CO2 in real world simulation.

  It is absolutely a measurement of the effect of CO2 because the spectral lines show the subtraction of re-radiated energy due to CO2 in the atmosphere.

----------


## phild01

So analysing the spectrum shows what component of the IR came from CO2? 
Are you trying to say that analysed data says that measured IR to space lacks IR wavelengths that get absorbed by CO2!

----------


## John2b

> So analysing the spectrum shows what component of the IR came from CO2?

  Correct; the field of Spectroscopy has been used to determine the effect of different molecular components in a mixed media since Newton's 17th century theories became applied science in the  1800s.

----------


## Marc

The global warming devotees have predicted rain to stop, temperatures to be 10C higher, the Amazon to be on fire, millions of "climate" refugees to flood the west and many other catastrophic events. Had help from trillions of OUR dollars pushing their lies by politicians who have long ago worked out the number of votes they can harvest through this new religion and actors and hollywood putting together fantasies and fabrications. *Yet nothing will ever be able to change the truth. That CO2 has a negligible effect and our contribution even less when compared to all the others. 
Find a more credible boogieman. Say for example aliens living inside the moon that is hollow. ... oh ... and we want the money back for that de-salinisation plant!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
Putting it all together:* total human greenhouse gas*contributions* add up to about *0.28%* of the*greenhouse effect*.  *5.* To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or *0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity*. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below. *TABLE 4a.**Anthropogenic (*man-made*) Contribution to the "Greenhouse* *Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)*Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics  % of Greenhouse Effect % Natural % Man-made   Water vapor 95.000%  94.999% *0.001%*   Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618%  3.502% *0.117%*   Methane (CH4) 0.360%  0.294% *0.066%*    Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950%  0.903% *0.047%*   Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072%  0.025% *0.047%*   Total 100.00%  *99.72* *0.28%*   When greenhouse contributions are listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the *natural* greenhouse effect, is readily apparent. From *Table 4a,* both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.  *Water vapor*, responsible for *95%* of Earth's greenhouse effect, is *99.999% natural* (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.  *Anthropogenic* (man-made)* CO2* contributions cause only about *0.117%* of Earth's *greenhouse effect*, (factoring in *water vapor*). This is insignificant!  Adding up all *anthropogenic* greenhouse sources, the *total human contribution to the greenhouse effect* is around*0.28%*(factoring in *water vapor*).   *T*he *Kyoto Protocol* calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later. Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total *human greenhouse contributions* from CO2 by about *0.035%*. This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system! While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.   *" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "* *Dr. S. Fred Singer,* atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, _Wall Street Journal_  Research to Watch Scientists are increasingly recognizing the importance of water vapor in the climate system. Some, like Wallace Broecker, a geochemist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, suggest that it is such an important factor that much of the global warming in the last 10,000 years may be due to the increasing water vapor concentrations in Earth's atmosphere. His research indicates that *air reaching glaciers during the last Ice Age had less than half the water vapor content of today.* Such increases in atmospheric moisture during our current *interglacial period* would have played a far greater role in global warming than carbon dioxide or other minor gases.   " *I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "*  *Dr. Wallace Broecker*, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.  Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in *Earth's rotation* and *orbit*, as well as variations in the *sun's energy output*, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player. The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how *water vapor* was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are,* it wasn't!* || Global Warming || Table of Contents ||References:
1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000) *Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center*
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee *Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change* (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.  
2) "Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 :Shock: n the construction of the 'Greenhouse Effect Global Warming' dogma;" Tom V. Segalstad, University of Oslo 
3) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002) *Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC),* U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
4) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.
5) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:
a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264
b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat 
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998 
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT
e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada Alternate link: 
f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006 Alternate link: 
g. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001 Alternate link: 
h. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65 Link: 
5) *Global Climate Change Student Guide*
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom
6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California
7) Methane record and budget
Robert Grumbine  *Useful conversions:* 1 Gt = 1 billion tons = 1 cu. km. H20 1 Gt Carbon(C) = ~3.67 Gt Carbon Dioxide(CO2) 2.12 Gt C = ~7.8 Gt CO2 = 1ppmv CO2

----------


## John2b

Marc thanks for the detailed précis of why CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are so significant in setting global temperature! Yes, 0.28% is just a drop in the bucket, and you'd have to be pretty stupid to thank that a drop in the bucket does not add to the water already in the bucket, or that you can put an extra drop in day in, day out, without any impact on the water level.

----------


## PhilT2

Both Tyndall (1860) and Arrhenius (1896) recognised that water vapour was a powerful greenhouse gas. They also understood that it did not change unless the temperature of the atmosphere changed first. So they knew that carbon dioxide had to increase first before the powerful effects of water vapour came into play.  
Building on the work of Fourier, Arrhenius was first to predict that changes in CO2 would alter the greenhouse effect sufficiently to change the earth's temperature and he developed a formula to calculate the change in watts/sqm for changes in CO2 concentration fully understanding that it was the ability of CO2 to alter the concentration of water vapour that drove the change and did so logrithmically. 
Climate change deniers not only disrespect and defame scientists currently working on climate but they also disregard and deny the work of past greats in the field. I think much of this originates with the right wing of US politics and it's great to see them currently in self destruct mode. Just to to refresh, this is what inspires those Marc quotes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rikEWuBrkHc

----------


## John2b

Um - can't see that ice age Marc keeps insisting is IMMINENT, just the longest period of record high average temperatures month on month, in probably 7000 years. If anything, expect more of the same...

----------


## Bros

Sorry to pee on your parade but here is a bit of technical info for those who want to read it.  http://aemo.com.au/Media-Centre/-/me...49F38A36D.ashx

----------


## John2b

> Sorry to pee on your parade but here is a bit of technical info for those who want to read it.  http://aemo.com.au/Media-Centre/-/me...49F38A36D.ashx

  Who's peeing on anyone's parade, Bros? What happened, happened. FWIW there are some obvious errors in this 'report'. For a start the Heywood Inter-connector was not supplying 900MW at the time of the event - or ever - it only has a capacity of 650MW. At the time of the event, wind in SA was supplying ~950MW, thermal in SA ~350MW and demand was 1500MW, so Heywood was supplying <200MW, not 900MW as stated in the report. See for yourself:

----------


## woodbe

Interesting that the report claims 900MW if the max capacity of the Heywood connector is only 650MW! 
Of interest in the report regarding the windfarms tripping out too quickly during the fault:   

> Investigations to date indicate that information on the control system involved and its settings was not included in the models of wind turbine operation provided to AEMO during NEM registration processes prior to connection of the wind farms.

  That to me seems that there is a double error in the registration process for the windfarms. Firstly, the owners of the windfarms apparently did not provide the information, and secondly the AEMO clearly did not require (or did not check) that the information was provided and was adequate for the SA power grid. AEMO registered and allowed the windfarms to operate on the SA Power grid without this information. It certainly appears that the AEMO did not carry out it's duty in this regard. 
Since the fault, the AEMO is working with the windfarms to correct the error by requiring the windfarms to maintain connection during grid 'ride through' events instead of rapidly tripping out as many did.

----------


## Bros

> Interesting that the report claims 900MW if the max capacity of the Heywood connector is only 650MW! 
> Of interest in the report regarding the windfarms tripping out too quickly during the fault:   
> That to me seems that there is a double error in the registration process for the windfarms. Firstly, the owners of the windfarms apparently did not provide the information, and secondly the AEMO clearly did not require (or did not check) that the information was provided and was adequate for the SA power grid. AEMO registered and allowed the windfarms to operate on the SA Power grid without this information. It certainly appears that the AEMO did not carry out it's duty in this regard. 
> Since the fault, the AEMO is working with the windfarms to correct the error by requiring the windfarms to maintain connection during grid 'ride through' events instead of rapidly tripping out as many did.

  If the interconnect had a capacity of 650mw and it tripped at 900 mw this would have been caused by the loss of SA generation and the load would have instantly soared to the 900Mw value and tripped. This would have happened very short time maybe a cycle, I don't know the protection settings. As for the incorrect settings on the wind farm protection this would highlight the ever increasing private operators in the market and accepting by AEMCO of the settings of the protection by the private operator and not having the staff to check or not understanding how the protection is set. These software systems would have a lot of settings to choose from.

----------


## Bros

> Who's peeing on anyone's parade, Bros? What happened, happened. FWIW there are some obvious errors in this 'report'. For a start the Heywood Inter-connector was not supplying 900MW at the time of the event - or ever - it only has a capacity of 650MW.

   Maybe you could write to them and tell them they are wrong.

----------


## John2b

> Maybe you could write to them and tell them they are wrong.

  Thank you for your suggestion, Bros. I have already written to the Senator Matthew Canavan, Minister for Resources, since he publicly waded into the debate full of misinformation. This is the response I got: "...given the amount of correspondence received, I am only able to reply to those residing in Queensland"!  
In the second 'interim' report on the statewide blackout, AEMO concedes it does not know whether the wind farms tripped out BEFORE or AFTER the transmission lines came down! (UPDATE REPORT – BLACK SYSTEM EVENT IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA ON 28 SEPTEMBER 2016 Page 14 "It is not yet clear whether those conditions potentially contributed to the line faults or whether the transmission towers collapsed after the Black System.") Why would AEMO be releasing preliminary reports BEFORE they have fully assessed the circumstances? Could it be political pressure? In any case, their own analysis precludes the notion that the towers may have failed after the loss of generation capacity.

----------


## woodbe

> As for the incorrect settings on the wind farm protection this would highlight the ever increasing private operators in the market and accepting by AEMCO of the settings of the protection by the private operator and not having the staff to check or not understanding how the protection is set. These software systems would have a lot of settings to choose from.

  Of course the software has many settings to choose from. That is not the issue. 
The issue is that the controller of the energy grid must choose which settings are important for the stability and security of the grid. They should then require those settings to be set and shared with the AEMO for every energy producer so that the grid remains as stable as possible. 
There is no way that windfarm operators have freedom to connect with the grid without approval, and the approval requires configuration information passed to the AEMO. If AEMO fails to ask or check that appropriate configuration is in place, and allows connection to the grid without that information, then the failure is clearly not a windfarm responsibility, it is the controlling grid entity's responsibility.  
Clearly, AEMO is now working through that process to require appropriate parameters to be set and passed to AEMO and as a result of the failure, in future these parameters will be checked before connection is approved rather than ignoring them as seems to have occurred in the recent past. 
This is not to do with private operators choices. Connecting to the grid requires approval. Of course a bureaucratic entity is highly likely to fail to admit it's fault.

----------


## johnc

Rapidly finding fault and bleating endlessly about it must be one of the most unproductive activities of human kind. The SA power failure by now appears to have had a number of issues, on top of the weather, we should all focus on what caused the failure and then how we add stability to the existing grid followed by what we do to increase stability as new power sources come on line regardless of how they generate the power. The Federal governments response was from the dumb and dumber play book, effectively fixing blame and limiting or removing the chance of an optimum outcome. To blame renewables five minutes into this and suggest this was the problem after loosing a number of pylons and conveniently ignoring that fact was just ignorant politics.  
The turbine settings can have the blame shared between the operators and the regulators but it would seem the regulator may have been asleep at the wheel, I don't see how you can blame the operator in the absence of any directive. Equally I can't see the point of belting anyone with a baseball bat either. As for the pylons, maybe they need to steady program of replacement so we add towers capable of withstanding this level of wind. For years we have been told that wind power would never be as cheap as coal, now the blame game is coal can't compete with wind, go figure. Rather than ratchet up noise it would have been nice to see the government tone it down a bit so we get an optimum outcome rather than an inept political one.

----------


## woodbe

+1 to replace towers. 
I think the SA Govt asked for them to be upgraded about 10 years ago, but the foreign owner of the network basically refused. Great idea to sell the core assets of a state hey.  :Frown:

----------


## John2b

"Wind speed forecasts were up to 120 km/h, which SA transmission assets are designed to withstand... Information provided to AEMO indicates that damaged transmission lines were subjected to actual wind speeds that were much higher than forecast." 
http://www.aemo.com.au/Media-Centre/-/media/9027D5FB69294D408E4089249F38A36D.ashx page 5. 
The reason that the transmission towers were not replaced is that ElectraNet asked for a government handout of >$700million which was rejected.  (no title) 
It is a great system - privatise the profit, but not the costs or the risks. What have Australians got from privatisation of the electricity market apart from higher electricity prices, more employment redundancies, no revenue returned to government coffers, extraordinary maintenance costs born by governments from general tax revenue, and lower electricity reliability?

----------


## phild01

> It is a great system - privatise the profit, but not the costs or the risks. What have Australians got from privatisation of the electricity market apart from higher electricity prices, more employment redundancies, no revenue returned to government coffers, extraordinary maintenance costs born by governments from general tax revenue, and lower electricity reliability?

  NSW is next.  Funny how people don't notice Govt created Mafia style operations, where's Marc?

----------


## PhilT2

One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts got a lecture on basic physics yesterday during the estimates hearings but appeared to not believe most of it. Why bother with facts when there's a good conspiracy theory out there. Economics [Part 2] - 20/10/2016 13:55:00 â Parliament of Australia

----------


## johnc

Malcolm Roberts is a good example of lunatics trying to take over the asylum, I have no doubt he believes what he says which simply indicates he lacks sufficient intelligence to engage in self reflection or take on board information that conflicts with his stupidity. Perhaps we should put him in a room with Bernardi and Christenson and run a generator off the hot air.

----------


## John2b

> Malcolm Roberts is a good example of lunatics trying to take over the asylum...

  I would say succeeding in taking over the asylum! Roberts was elected with just 77 primary votes, yet will at times wield enough power to change the course of Australian politics. We can thank Turnbull and the LNC for the idiotic double dissolution halving the size of quotas needed to get a candidate up in the Senate, which is why there are so many 'colourful' politicians (AKA idiots).

----------


## r3nov8or

What's going on! There have been several consecutive posts of agreement.

----------


## PhilT2

Yesterday marked the fifty year anniversary of the disaster in Aberfan, Wales. There a mudslide of coal mine waste buried part of the town including the school, killing 116 children and 28 adults. This time the victims were not directly involved with the mine but coal mining has a long history of taking the lives of children. Kids were an essential part of the mine workforce, able to work in confined spaces and needing to be paid very little.  
I had a quick look at some of the major mine disasters to see if the number of children killed is recorded separately but couldn't find anything. Laws were passed in the UK in 1856 required children to be 9 years old before starting work and they were not permitted to work more than 16 hours a day. Later laws moved the age up and the hours down but there are indications that enforcement of the law was lax or non-existent. 
So the major mine explosions of the 1800's certainly took the lives of children. The Oaks in Yorkshire in 1866 killed 383; the Albion colliery in 1894 took 290; the Pretoria pit in 1910 took 344; Courrieres, France in 1906 took 1060. Even when the Senghenydd mine in Wales exploded in 1913 killing 439, a number of those were aged 14-16. The Chinese mine fire of 1942 took more than 1500 lives but no ages were recorded. In the third world children are still working in mines and still being killed if not by fire then by the health effects of mining. 
Many of those killed in mine explosions still lay where they died; the risk of recovering their bodies too high. Even in Moura , Qld when an explosion killed 11 in 1994, the risk of recovering the bodies was considered too high and the mine was filled in and sealed. 
So next time when you are sitting in the dark because the power has gone out, spare a thought for those who are still down there in the dark, especially the kids.

----------


## John2b

> These are the demonstrative simulations I want to see and the degree of it.

  The existence of the CO2 absorption effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859. The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Arrhenius made a prediction for climate sensitivity (the effect on the Earth's surface temperature for a doubling of CO2) that has proven to be remarkably accurate 120 years later. 
Leonardo da Vinci explained the phenomenon of Earthshine in the early 16th century when he realized that both Earth and the Moon reflect sunlight at the same time. Light is reflected from the Earth to the Moon and back to the Earth as earthshine. The spectra of Earth's radiation can be seen in reflected 'Earthshine' from the dark side of the moon (the side not facing the sun). The signature of the effect of CO2 is 'absorption' lines unique to CO2 (defined by its molecular makeup) are visible in the emitted spectra from Earth as seen reflected by the moon. CO2 in the atmosphere reduces the amount of long wave infrared energy escaping the plant, thus causing more heat to be retained. 
So the measured spectrum of Earthshine shows the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. In the satellite era, such spectral measurements of the missing infrared radiation from the Earth's surface caused by CO2 in the atmosphere can be and are made directly. The best stimulation is the real thing.

----------


## John2b

I bet most people don't realise that existing nuclear power stations are giant mausoleums of intractable nuclear waste, with no solution to deal with it on the horizon despite decades and $billions in research. Renewable energy may not kill off nuclear power, but the industries own waste constipation certainly will.  Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant Closes When It Can't Compete With Cheaper Energy : NPR

----------


## PhilT2

Breaking News. Today One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts produced an amazing paper that proves that all the worlds major scientific organisations have been wrong about climate change all along. No..wait. sorry, it's just more of the same tired old denialist crap that's been around for years. Carry on. Senator Roberts will also be doing a speaking tour with Tim Ball and Tony Heller  
Back in the real world world leaders are meeting in Morrocco today for the 22nd conference of parties (COP22) After last years successful meeting in Paris this one may be a bit of a let down as the parties work out the detail that will turn the Paris agreement into reality. 
Sometime Wednesday we should get official confirmation that a woman is now in control of the worlds largest nuclear arsenal. She may also have control of the US Senate which is good news for the position of the US as a leader in taking action against climate change. Nobody is expecting she will be a spectacular leader but compared to the alternative she'll be just fine.

----------


## chrisp

> Breaking News. Today One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts produced an amazing paper that proves that all the worlds major scientific organisations have been wrong about climate change all along. No..wait. sorry, it's just more of the same tired old denialist crap that's been around for years. Carry on. Senator Roberts will also be doing a speaking tour with Tim Ball and Tony Heller

  Wonders never cease! I shake my head in disbelief that someone like Malcolm Roberts can get elected in the first place. I sometimes wonder if the political system is broken allowing such an embarrassment to represent the people. Then again, it seems the USA is also well known for electing wackos.

----------


## PhilT2

> Wonders never cease! I shake my head in disbelief that someone like Malcolm Roberts can get elected in the first place. I sometimes wonder if the political system is broken allowing such an embarrassment to represent the people. Then again, it seems the USA is also well known for electing wackos.

  Roberts is, in my opinion at least genuine; he actually believes what he has written. Now someone like Ted Cruz, a Harvard educated lawyer, may just be telling the punters what they want to hear. Trump certainly is. And when you have a population where 50% believe the earth is 6000 years old and a talking snake caused all the problems, then you can get away with it. 
None of the ideas in Robert's paper are new, he's copied Plimer's idea that the increase in co2 comes from volcanoes. The fact that he is doing this tour with Heller probably means he has borrowed some of his ideas too; though I doubt Heller has any original ideas. Some claims he makes about temps being adjusted come from Jonova or other local blogs. The paper is here if you want to take a look. If you can work out how he manages to blame the co2 increase on Henry's Law let me know.  senatormroberts

----------


## PhilT2

The US election has just been called and Trump is the next president. Republicans will also have control of the senate, at least for the next two years. This is not good news for those hoping to see more progress on climate change. The only hope is that the Trump administration will be too disorganised to undo much of the work that has been done.

----------


## johnc

The Republicans in general are anti climate change, Marc will probably be as happy as a pig in poo for the next four years, Malcolm Roberts will be over the moon, thanks America

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Back in the real world world leaders are meeting in Morrocco today for the 22nd conference of parties (COP22) After last years successful meeting in Paris this one may be a bit of a let down as the parties work out the detail that will turn the Paris agreement into reality. 
> Sometime Wednesday we should get official confirmation that a woman is now in control of the worlds largest nuclear arsenal. She may also have control of the US Senate which is good news for the position of the US as a leader in taking action against climate change. Nobody is expecting she will be a spectacular leader but compared to the alternative she'll be just fine.

   :Hooray:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> the republicans in general are anti climate change, marc will probably be as happy as a pig in poo for the next four years, malcolm roberts will be over the moon, thanks america

  and me

----------


## PhilT2

I've given up making predictions on elections but in two years there are more senate elections. If Dems then get a majority they can stop the worst of the Trump decisions. But they won't be able to stop him putting some extreme right wing nutters into the supreme court. In the past this court has supported Obama's right to regulate emissions but this could all be undone.  
I don't know how many Trump supporters really believed him when he said that climate change was a conspiracy by the Chinese to cripple US manufacturing but there is broad support for lifting emission standards among Republicans. We will see the impact of this election immediately as the delegates at COP22 are making decisions now for the years ahead. While the US delegation are under instructions from Obama, all the other delegates will be aware that any committment the US makes will likely not be honoured.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The Republicans in general are anti climate change, Marc will probably be as happy as a pig in poo for the next four years, Malcolm Roberts will be over the moon, thanks America

  They can't undo it the current deal if enough other countries ratify in the meantime which is considered likely. And even if it does derail then the impacts on the US are just as interesting as elsewhere so it's all good.

----------


## woodbe

Australian Senator rails against climate conspiracy in 42-page report | Ars Technica   

> In August, Roberts sparred with physicist Brian Cox on ABCs _Q&A_ program, claiming that global temperature data had been manipulated by NASA to create the appearance of global warmingmuch to the consternation of Cox.  
> Shortly after, Roberts requested a climate science briefing from  Australias Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organization  (CSIRO). He was willing to listen, he said, to the proof that Earths  climate is warming, and human activity is responsible. He got that  briefing in late September. And he clearly didnt listen.  
>  On Sunday, Roberts held a press conference to promote a 42-page document  he had produced in response to CSIRO. Flanking Roberts at the press  conference were his notable co-authors. The first was Timothy Ball, a  retired Canadian geography professor who co-authored a book denying the  existence of the greenhouse effect (which exists) and who frequently  writes posts on a prominent contrarian blog accusing climate scientists  of fraud (and sometimes comparing them to Hitler).  
>  The second guest was Tony Heller, an American better known by his  blog pseudonym of Steven Goddard. Hellers blog seems to offer new  proof each week that temperature data has been fudged, accompanied by  reprocessing of the data in ways he thinks are better.  
> Roberts reportsubtitled We have a choice: the tyranny of  controlling opinions versus the freedom of objective scientific  evidencehas all the intellectual rigor of a chain e-mail. Amidst all  the claims of fabricated warming temperatures, Roberts finds space to  deny other environmental facts. After arguing that there is no need for  sustainable catch regulations for Australias fishing industry, Roberts  writes, Green politicians, activists, and nongovernment organisations  tell us our Great Barrier Reef is dying yet scientific researchers and  tour boat operators who live on the reef confirm that its thriving.  
>  Roberts states that sea level is not rising (and Pacific islands are  actually rising higher above sea level!) and that there has been no  global loss of glacial ice or sea ice. And then he starts in with a  collection of fuzzy jpeg graphs that supposedly show CSIRO to be wrong  about climate change.  
>  For example, the oxygen isotope record from a single Antarctic ice  core is lazily converted to temperature and treated as global average  temperature. Some instrumental temperature data is slapped on top, and  the claim is made that the world was at least 1 degree Celsius warmer  about a thousand years ago. (It was not.) The links to the data sources in the caption arent even right.  
>  Roberts even rejects the idea that human emissions of CO2 are changing the concentration in the atmospherea fact that can be verified by simple math as well as shifting isotopic signatures. Roberts falsely claims that the isotopic signature of fossil fuel CO2  is the same as volcanic gas, so we cant tell the difference.  Amazingly, he goes even further, adding the bizarre claim that  atmospheric CO2 is not and cannot be affected by human production.  
>  At the next step in the chain, Roberts document channels Timothy Ball and rejects the idea that increasing atmospheric CO2  can change atmospheric temperaturesflatly contradicting physics and  denying the existence of Venus at the same time. Roberts claims there is  a wide range of opinion on this incontrovertible fact and that  increased CO2 might even cool.  
> ...

  Article by Scott K. Johnson       Scott is a hydrogeologist and educator who has been covering the geosciences for Ars since 2011. 
Not much else to say, except that Roberts and Pauline Hanson support Trump. What a total whack job.

----------


## John2b

In 1959, the UN World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency signed an agreement (WHA 12-40) stating that neither of the two organisations should take any public position likely to harm the other's interest without consulting and getting the other's approval. This has had the effect that WHO is restricted in its ability to report on the effects on human health of radiation caused the nuclear industry, the use of nuclear power and the continuing effects of nuclear disasters such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc. This agreement has allowed the world nuclear industry to run rampant and deny the consequences of nuclear disasters . 
I wonder how those who claim the UN has an agenda of creating a 'one world government' explain that?

----------


## John2b

Here's a time-lapse Google Earth video showing what's happening to ice cover in Antarctica:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnKiWOxA35U

----------


## woodbe

And here's a very clear example of the difference between actual climate scientists and the dribbling climate deniers:    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/12...-top-3-tactics

----------


## John2b

This might be what a global warming 'tipping point' might look like:

----------


## woodbe

Latest temperature graphs courtesy of Tamino.:       

> It is widely publicized that 2016 will certainly break the record for  yearly average global temperature. Again. This will be the third year _in a row_ we’ve set a new record. It’s time we paid attention.
>   I’ve often emphasized that just because Earth shows an indisputable warming _trend_, that doesn’t mean every year will be hotter than the one before. In addition to trend, there is also a lot of _fluctuation_ in things like global temperature. So we shouldn’t expect each year to break the temperature record.
>   But we did in 2014. We did again in 2015, by a substantial margin. We  did again in 2016, by a substantial margin. The third year in a row of  record-breaking global temperature will probably get the most attention,  but it may not be the most important or most worrisome record set last  year.

  https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/01...s-record-year/

----------


## pharmaboy2

Woodbe, on that, I think Australia was 4th warmest year on record for 2016, but interestingly rainfall is yet again broadly average. 
this is the point where I seperate from climate alarmists.  While I don't think that AGW is good for us, I've consistently noted that the models of predicted outcomes have negatives attached outside of simple air temp - eg, in SE USA you get predicted worse storms, for NE predicted more serious winter storms, for Australia you get notably drier predictions. 
now I'm not across all models and all climates, but it's hard not to notice that for instance Tim Flannery's dire predictions of water shortages in Australia have not even remotely come to pass. Increased heat does not cause reducing rainfall, nor even correlate in Australia s example. 
going back to basics, this is hardly surprising, given the tropics are wetter than temperate climates, more heat, more evaporation from the sea, more moisture - conveniently more clouds also means more albedo that may mitigate things. 
and another one for the rationalist versus greenie test (we've already done nuclear). - where do you guys stand on dams and hydro-power?

----------


## woodbe

Pharmaboy2, we are talking global climate here, not Australia or any other country. 
Every country will have a variation from the global climate, they always have. What we do know is that the continuing increase in CO2 emissions is not showing any signs of stopping, and the effects will continue to have a significant future effect on the global climate. We are seeing it now everywhere.    
As long as there is a rational scientific rather than a political debate about the effect of dams on the local ecology I'm happy for dams and hydro power, but I think Australia doesn't have a lot of opportunity in that area.

----------


## PhilT2

> Woodbe, on that, I think Australia was 4th warmest year on record for 2016, but interestingly rainfall is yet again broadly average. 
> this is the point where I seperate from climate alarmists.  While I don't think that AGW is good for us, I've consistently noted that the models of predicted outcomes have negatives attached outside of simple air temp - eg, in SE USA you get predicted worse storms, for NE predicted more serious winter storms, for Australia you get notably drier predictions. 
> now I'm not across all models and all climates, but it's hard not to notice that for instance Tim Flannery's dire predictions of water shortages in Australia have not even remotely come to pass. Increased heat does not cause reducing rainfall, nor even correlate in Australia s example. 
> going back to basics, this is hardly surprising, given the tropics are wetter than temperate climates, more heat, more evaporation from the sea, more moisture - conveniently more clouds also means more albedo that may mitigate things. 
> and another one for the rationalist versus greenie test (we've already done nuclear). - where do you guys stand on dams and hydro-power?

  Poor old Tim Flannery's remarks have been spun to suit the beliefs of a number of writers. there are enough interpretations of his comments out there everyone is certain to find one that coincides with their pre-existing ideology. i should add the one I like as well, acknowledging that my preference for it is based on my own particular bias. https://indifferencegivesyouafright....er-fill-again/ 
There's also the issue of cherrypicking only one statement from a person who is not actually a working climate researcher and using that one statement (possibly out of context) to discredit the work of a whole body of actual climate researchers over many years. 
While we should never let facts get in the way of our beliefs I feel compelled to add this link to the BOM showing that most of Qld is in drought and has been that way for quite some time. https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/q.../2016/dec1.gif 
James Hansen suffered a similar fate at the hands of deniers. He made projections of what the surface temperature would be in the future. Deniers happily post graphs comparing his projections with, not the surface temp he used, but the satellite measurements of the upper troposphere. It's good enough to fool most of the punters. 
The IPCC makes two types of projections; those that will happen with a doubling of CO2 and those to happen by the end of this century. The fact that neither of these has yet happened does not deter deniers from loudly proclaiming that the projections are wrong. And the punters swallow this too. 
Basic physics tells us that a warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapour. This does not necessarily mean more clouds, nor does it tell us whether the cloud type will change from those that reflect heat to those that trap it. But research does tell us that atmospheric and ocean currents will change, taking the water vapour to fall as rain on areas different to where it fell before.

----------


## pharmaboy2

I'm not stupid enough to listen to muppets like bolt quoting out of context.  I think TF made himself a target by consistently being on the very pessimistic side over the last decade and a half - it's either because he genuinely is pessimistic or he has caught the politician disease of exaggerating everything thinking that will pull more people over to your POV. 
way back in 2000 he was spruiking then predictions for whom the time has passed now. 
australia of course is a very dry continent, I would expect if I picked a random year 50 years ago, some parts would be in drought at any given time. 
the problem with dire predictions is that when they are made, they often feel like they are too far away to be fact checked, but time moves forward rather quickly, and it comes to bite you on the @@@@. 
ill add another controversial figure who has done more to prevent the science coming through than anyone: Al Gore. 
well meaning, but again, becomes so alarmist (perhaps rightly so) that his arguments get massive publicity but then shot down in flames time and time again.  The thought leaders need to search for agreement, make compelling and convincing arguments, not lawyer like, he is wrong I am right dogmatic points of view. 
when the most noise comes from the rational and centrist people we will move on.  Whilever the socialist environmentalist groups have the podium, the position of the socially conservative right will continue to harden.  We cannot afford this. 
in the same way, we cannot afford for the nuclear capable countries to be closing down plants due to green ideology, nor a green ideology that is against hydro power when it's possibly the very best all round solution to this parlous state of affairs. 
the general lack of rationality makes we wonder if reduction of co2 is actually possible, and that therefore, we will need to manage engineering solutions, eg modifying crops, potentially geo engineering etc.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Pharmaboy2, we are talking global climate here, not Australia or any other country. 
> Every country will have a variation from the global climate, they always have. What we do know is that the continuing increase in CO2 emissions is not showing any signs of stopping, and the effects will continue to have a significant future effect on the global climate. We are seeing it now everywhere.    
> As long as there is a rational scientific rather than a political debate about the effect of dams on the local ecology I'm happy for dams and hydro power, but I think Australia doesn't have a lot of opportunity in that area.

  at what point do you have to value the global ecology over local ( billions of square km's over a thousand)? 
i think that's where scientific rationality has to take you - it's a set of scales

----------


## woodbe

> at what point do you have to value the global ecology over local ( billions of square km's over a thousand)? 
> i think that's where scientific rationality has to take you - it's a set of scales

  Local is more variable and the effects are becoming more obvious because the variability is wider and more common. Here in SA, in January on Friday the 13th, it is raining. Our water tank is overflowing. We've been here since 1994 and we have never had this kind of variability in January. Usually, we are baked dry and cooked.  
If you have any reasonable concern for the planet, then the major concern should be for the global effect of pumping CO2 into the planet's atmosphere. In due course, it will effect all of us. If you don't have any concern, then like any denier, you can pick and choose places that currently don't show obvious effects of climate change. 
Rather than quoting short news stories, just go and read some real science.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Local is more variable and the effects are becoming more obvious because the variability is wider and more common. Here in SA, in January on Friday the 13th, it is raining. Our water tank is overflowing. We've been here since 1994 and we have never had this kind of variability in January. Usually, we are baked dry and cooked.  
> If you have any reasonable concern for the planet, then the major concern should be for the global effect of pumping CO2 into the planet's atmosphere. In due course, it will effect all of us. If you don't have any concern, then like any denier, you can pick and choose places that currently don't show obvious effects of climate change. 
> Rather than quoting short news stories, just go and read some real science.

  im not sure you've understood my position. 
i take from what you write, that that is a good thing - Adelaide could do with more rain. 
i bet I've read more of the science than most here - it was one of my personal interests whilst semi retired for 4 years.  Without doubt we should be concerned - on a personal front I have made significant effort to use recycled materials, and lock up significant carbon in a quality building that can be deconstructed. 
anyway, I've read enough to know I have no idea or special understanding

----------


## Bigboboz

> I'm not stupid enough to listen to muppets like bolt quoting out of context.  I think TF made himself a target by consistently being on the very pessimistic side over the last decade and a half - it's either because he genuinely is pessimistic or he has caught the politician disease of exaggerating everything thinking that will pull more people over to your POV. 
> way back in 2000 he was spruiking then predictions for whom the time has passed now. 
> australia of course is a very dry continent, I would expect if I picked a random year 50 years ago, some parts would be in drought at any given time. 
> the problem with dire predictions is that when they are made, they often feel like they are too far away to be fact checked, but time moves forward rather quickly, and it comes to bite you on the @@@@. 
> ill add another controversial figure who has done more to prevent the science coming through than anyone: Al Gore. 
> well meaning, but again, becomes so alarmist (perhaps rightly so) that his arguments get massive publicity but then shot down in flames time and time again.  The thought leaders need to search for agreement, make compelling and convincing arguments, not lawyer like, he is wrong I am right dogmatic points of view. 
> when the most noise comes from the rational and centrist people we will move on.  Whilever the socialist environmentalist groups have the podium, the position of the socially conservative right will continue to harden.  We cannot afford this. 
> in the same way, we cannot afford for the nuclear capable countries to be closing down plants due to green ideology, nor a green ideology that is against hydro power when it's possibly the very best all round solution to this parlous state of affairs. 
> the general lack of rationality makes we wonder if reduction of co2 is actually possible, and that therefore, we will need to manage engineering solutions, eg modifying crops, potentially geo engineering etc.

  Excellent summary, I have similar views

----------


## woodbe

> im not sure you've understood my position. 
> i take from what you write, that that is a good thing - Adelaide could do with more rain.

  Correct, I do not understand your position.  
Changing the climate by loading the atmosphere with CO2 is not a good idea. Quoting blather from news sources is not talking about the science of climate change. If you have read actual science, why would you quote nonsense from biassed 'news' sources? 
Adelaide getting some wild weather is not a good thing, even if it does deliver extra rain in a dry climate. In the last few months we have had several storms that have knocked out the power system, and just after Christmas there were significant damage around the state from unusually wild storms. There were many people around the state without power for days from that event.  SA weather: More wild weather hits state after Adelaide storm leaves trail of destruction - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  
The extra rain delivered could not possibly balance the cost of damage from these events.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Correct, I do not understand your position.  
> Changing the climate by loading the atmosphere with CO2 is not a good idea. Quoting blather from news sources is not talking about the science of climate change. If you have read actual science, why would you quote nonsense from biassed 'news' sources? 
> .

  what quote? 
what biased news source?  Are you seeing something not there to fit a pre conceived notion?

----------


## woodbe

> what quote? 
> what biased news source?  Are you seeing something not there to fit a pre conceived notion?

  Just about every news source has a bias. Is that 'news' to you? Would be harder to find an unbiased news source. Better to quote real science than drivel from a news source. 
What we see from news sources is undue attention and reporting of denier positions on climate change which are not supported by actual published science. This is not an unusual situation because of the financial support of news organisations by profitable FF organisations who are having an impact on the health of the climate and the population.  
There are plenty of similar denier situations we have had to put up with. Tobacco, DDT, Thalidomide, Vaccines causing Autism. Probably plenty of others that didn't hit the news. Science solved those issues over time by doing appropriate science and publishing the results. Science has been working on Climate change for a long time now, the basics are pretty much nailed to the wall.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Just about every news source has a bias. Is that 'news' to you? Would be harder to find an unbiased news source. Better to quote real science than drivel from a news source. 
> What we see from news sources is undue attention and reporting of denier positions on climate change which are not supported by actual published science. This is not an unusual situation because of the financial support of news organisations by profitable FF organisations who are having an impact on the health of the climate and the population.  
> There are plenty of similar denier situations we have had to put up with. Tobacco, DDT, Thalidomide, Vaccines causing Autism. Probably plenty of others that didn't hit the news. Science solved those issues over time by doing appropriate science and publishing the results. Science has been working on Climate change for a long time now, the basics are pretty much nailed to the wall.

  You just accused me of using quotes from news sources or gathering information from news sources (that are always opinionated) - I'm just trying to figure out what you are talking about. 
your paragraph    

> Changing the climate by loading the atmosphere with CO2 is not a good idea. Quoting blather from news sources is not talking about the science of climate change. If you have read actual science, why would you quote nonsense from biassed 'news' sources?
> .

----------


## woodbe

> You just accused me of using quotes from news sources or gathering information from news sources (that are always opinionated) - I'm just trying to figure out what you are talking about. 
> your paragraph

   

> now I'm not across all models and all climates, but it's hard not to  notice that for instance Tim Flannery's dire predictions of water  shortages in Australia have not even remotely come to pass. Increased  heat does not cause reducing rainfall, nor even correlate in Australia s  example.

  PhilT2 gave a fair resume of the cherry picking of Tim Flannery's remarks on water storage that you mentioned. http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...ml#post1040473 
From his link:   

> *Climate Change Entails Heavier Flooding*  *As Climate Change Commissioner*, Flannery is  perfectly aware that intensified but rarer flooding constitues part of  IPCC modelling. As such it is patently absurd to state that Flannery  believes Australia will never again experience floods or that dams will  never fill again.
>  In asserting that Flannery believes Australias dams will never fill  again, Bolt would have us believe that Flannery is aware of only the  drying aspects of Climate Change and is unaware of the wetting  aspects. This shows how dishonestly Bolt handles the Climate Change  topic. 
> For the benefit of denialists like Bolt I produce here an extract, via Deltoid, from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) 12.1.5.1
> To summarize the rainfall results, drier conditions are anticipated for  most of Australia over the 21st century. However, consistent with  conclusions in WGI, an increase in heavy rainfall also is projected,  even in regions with small decreases in mean rainfall. This is a result  of a shift in the frequency distribution of daily rainfall toward fewer  light and moderate events *and more heavy events. This could lead to more droughts and more floods.*

----------


## pharmaboy2

> PhilT2 gave a fair resume of the cherry picking of Tim Flannery's remarks on water storage that you mentioned. http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/em...ml#post1040473 
> From his link:

  Can I be perfectly clear - I have not ever read bolts article nor any of the other "cherry picked" articles.  Those views are entirely my own and come from decades of watching Tim Flannery come out with predictions on outcomes, particularly on many dozens of docos and interviews on Lateline etc on theABC.  I don't have the inclination to spend many hours searching up quotes on digital media in order to prove them. 
the cherry picked quotes are the ones that get used because someone somewhere has stuck them in an article.  At best, they are poorly worded statements by someone professing to be a scientist of renown. 
my point isn't that he is an idiot, though I suspect that he he too far out of his own expertise to be making public pronunciations, but that allowing himself to so easily be drawn into catastrophic scenarios that he does the political picture a great deal of harm.  
Quality scientists are well aware of doubt and use careful language, TF  in my opinion does not - he is a political animal and a man with a cause. 
BTW! Phils article is another poor rebuff anyway and just follows the same he said she said genre.  What the hell, who said Tim Flannery said we will never have another flood or the dams would never refill.  I certainly wouldn't subscribe to him having dogmatic stupid beliefs such as that.  He certainly commented at the time that ongoing droughts and shortages would be the new norm and continuing lower rainfall  - he thought the pattern had changed, and it had not, we almost immediately stepped into an average rainfall picture but with increased temperatures. 
maybe it's not totally straw man , perhaps Allan jones or bolt said something like that, but you have to find someone that believes it before the article stands as a rebuff

----------


## pharmaboy2

ok, typical Tim Flannery coming up.  Not cherry picked, I simply searched Lateline tim Flannery, the picked something 10 years ago from the first page. 
link below to the whole thing, but within 90 seconds of reading a random interview with the man, here's what I read 
"PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: Look, what we've seen in the Arctic over the last two years has been such breathtaking change that you have to worry about stability for sea levels and for the entire Northern Hemisphere climate system. The rate of ice melt in 2005 increased by about five times over what it was previously and it's been very, very large again in 2006. Now if you take those two years as the new trajectory for ice melt in the Arctic - we've only two years of data there - but if we do that, there will be no Arctic to melt in five to 15 years and that is an astonishingly short period of time for an ice cap that's existed for three million years.   And when you think that - the climate system of the Northern Hemisphere is structured by the temperature gradings between the Pole and the equator, you know, so it’s as you start changing the temperature of the Pole you start reorganising the climate system of the Northern Hemisphere. So I'm very fearful that not in 50 or a hundred years time but within 10 or 20 years time we'll start seeing very large scale changes in the bio sphere and people will realise, perhaps belatedly, the nature of this emergency." 
ok, so I have hindsight on my side, and no doubt his defenders will say, but he said "if we take those 2 years" and will say but he said "IF" .  Well that's as maybe, but in the communication stakes on a current affairs program, that message of a total melt in 2 years is exactly what he communicated and further that by now we would see "VERY" large scale changes in the biosphere. 
thats just the first thing I hit - this is his modus operandi.  http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1842715.htm 
i don't know many people ahoy wouldn't see that as somewhat alarmist 
Edit - on the plus side, he is OK with nuclear power

----------


## woodbe

So your quoted lateline article is around 10 years old, and Flannery was talking about northern hemisphere changes, particularly the Arctic Ice Cap, and about large scale changes between the pole and the equator in 10-20 years. 
Guess what: We are already seeing large changes in the northern hemisphere in 10 years. Didn't you notice the many similar wild events across the northern hemisphere in the last few years? Or the effects of the unusual weather on refugees on the island of Lesbos in Greece since just last week? It was buried in snow and people were freezing, and that is not a normal event.  
More often and more wild weather events, changes in the atmospheric circulation around the north pole are bulging into populated areas. Significant ice loss in the Arctic. 10 years to go, and the CO2 rise hasn't stopped yet. Flannery isn't an actual climate scientist, but he is a scientist. He might be exaggerating in some ideas, but that particular article quote looks to be likely on track IMHO.  
If science is warning of a likely substantial change in future climate due to our escalating emissions, we can take it as alarmism and do little to nothing about it, especially when people like Bolt take it on. That's pretty much the result so far, we as a population are acting too slowly to preserve our future environment. 
BTW, Flannery has an Arts Degree, a Masters Science Degree, and a Doctorate in Palaeontology.  
Think climate, not weather. Read real science.

----------


## John2b

> this is the point where I seperate from climate alarmists.  While I don't think that AGW is good for us, I've consistently noted that the models of predicted outcomes have negatives attached outside of simple air temp - eg, in SE USA you get predicted worse storms, for NE predicted more serious winter storms, for Australia you get notably drier predictions. 
> now I'm not across all models and all climates, but it's hard not to notice that for instance Tim Flannery's dire predictions of water shortages in Australia have not even remotely come to pass. Increased heat does not cause reducing rainfall, nor even correlate in Australia s example.

  Actually a great deal of Flannery's predictions have come to pass, but governments HAVE acted so the consequences have not been as severe as what they would have been if the science was ignored and there was business as usual - doh!. At times, water resources have been rationed or withheld, some reallocated, and new water resources have been developed, none of which calls in to question any climate science. The fact that average rainfalls in Australia aren't changing a great deal obfuscates how, when and where the rain falls. In Adelaide, for example, where once rain fell typically in one day out of three over the course of a year, now there are now typically months with zero rainfall, and but then deluges from weather systems from the tropics, leading to flooding and erosion. No-one who understands the consequences of global warming and climate change would be surprised by this.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Have any of the desalination plants been needed? 
i understand desal plants aren't a bad thing from an insurance perspective, but still. 
australias weather/climate is inextricably linked to the waxes and wanes of El Niño La Niña - the question should be as to how ocean warming will effect this relative difference if at all.   Personally, I put much more weight in empirical data than predicted outcomes - I've seen so many solidly based predicted outcomes go the other way in another complicated system - the human body. 
so, your against nuclear aren't you John, how do you reconcile that with TF seeing it as a preferred option (not necessarily for Australia)? 
i think we can take it that we will always disagree on TF being a good predictor into the near future

----------


## John2b

> Have any of the desalination plants been needed?

  Perth's is currently supplying 47% of the city's water, Sydney's ran for two years straight at full capacity before the drought broke in 2012, Adelaide's is running, though not at full capacity and I can taste the difference in our water at home, and the Gold Coast one has run at capacity on a number of occasions.    

> australias weather/climate is inextricably linked to the waxes and wanes of El Niño La Niña - the question should be as to how ocean warming will effect this relative difference if at all. Personally, I put much more weight in empirical data than predicted outcomes - I've seen so many solidly based predicted outcomes go the other way in another complicated system - the human body.

  The fact that the heat energy in the oceans drives weather, and 97% of the excess heat being accumulated due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is being stored in the ocean should be ringing alarm bells loud and clear! Global warming projections don't predict weather or the year on year chaotic behaviour of ocean currents, but global warming projections have been remarkably accurate in predicting the extent of additional surface heat retention (warming) globally. The projections are the result of applying basic laws of physics, the same laws of physics used to design houses, cars, aeroplanes and air conditioning, etc. The formula (model) created by Svante Arrhenius around 1896 is relevant today and explains the global warming from then until now quite accurately. Quite frankly, if basic climate theory was wrong or didn't work, nor would the computer work that you are using to participate in this forum.   

> so, your against nuclear aren't you John, how do you reconcile that with TF seeing it as a preferred option (not necessarily for Australia)? 
> i think we can take it that we will always disagree on TF being a good predictor into the near future

  I am against nuclear because there is no waste solution within sight, even generations into the future. The world nuclear power generation industry has the most extraordinary case of nuclear waste constipation with almost all nuclear plants packed to the gunnels with intractable waste. Every nuclear power station is a Chernobyl/Fukushima in waiting. Fukushima failed because although the basic design was designed to cope with any foreseeable calamity, it was not able to cope with _multiple calamities,_ which is what happened (tsunami and power failure). It's not unlike the Twin Towers failing - they were designed to withstand fire, and plane crash, but not fire _and_ plane crash. The impact of the plane crashes destroyed the fireproofing of the steel structure and the ensuing fire weakened the steel until they collapsed. It is absolutely certain that there will be more nuclear power plant calamities in the future. Plus the whole idea that humanity can go on profligately consuming finite resources like we do now if only there was enough electricity is pure piffle. 
I don't particularly care what TF has to say about anything, other than when people deliberately mis-quote him (or anyone else) to perfidiously push an ideological barrow.

----------


## PhilT2

> Actually a great deal of Flannery's predictions have come to pass,

  I'm not sure I agree completely with that. The convention in climate science is that a period of about thirty years is necessary to establish a trend. None of Tim's predictions have been given the time needed. The trend may or may not be going in the right direction but needs the time to become statistically significant. 
Al Gore suffers the same fate. His prediction of more hurricanes was based on research predicting a doubling of intense storms by 2100. (Vecchi, 2010) Deniers were screaming "Wrong!!!" before the first decade was up. 
There will always be errors in climate science, especially in the attempts to warn us of what may lie ahead. Personally I would prefer to take the chance and accept some flaws rather than blunder ahead in the dark and make no effort to predict what awaits us. 
The problems in the scientific side pale into insignificance compared to issues among the anti AGW ranks. There's not a lot of predictions, right or wrong, coming from that side but there are clearly issues with the understanding of basic physics and chemistry. My favourite is this US senator who is in denial of, well, just about everything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rikEWuBrkHc 
Conspiracy theories are popular too and saying that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy to wreck US manufacturing apparently doesn't affect your chances of being president. Though our own Senator Roberts would dispute that as he leans more to it being a conspiracy by the UN. Then there's Tim Ball and the whole Principia Scientific crowd who are in denial of a greenhouse affect of any kind. And let's not forget Lord Monckton. 
Compared to that crowd Flannery is absolute saint.

----------


## John2b

> I'm not sure I agree completely with that. The convention in climate science is that a period of about thirty years is necessary to establish a trend. None of Tim's predictions have been given the time needed. The trend may or may not be going in the right direction but needs the time to become statistically significant.

  Fair comment, thanks.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I'm not sure I agree completely with that. The convention in climate science is that a period of about thirty years is necessary to establish a trend. None of Tim's predictions have been given the time needed. The trend may or may not be going in the right direction but needs the time to become statistically significant. 
> Al Gore suffers the same fate. His prediction of more hurricanes was based on research predicting a doubling of intense storms by 2100. (Vecchi, 2010) Deniers were screaming "Wrong!!!" before the first decade was up.  
> nt.

  For al gore, not a bad review of the situation   https://www.wunderground.com/resourc...ation/gore.asp 
its the association deliberately of a current weather event with global warming - same thing that Tim Flannery did during the drought.   The problem is, if you assign weather outcomes to AGW, as soon as it turns the other way (as it inevitably does) people make the same weather equals climate mistake in the other direction. 
i like the wording in the review above, essentially it's a campaign add - it seems pretty clear that the "campaign adds" are doing nothing more than motivate the denial team, particularly on the right, and particularly in the USA. 
i don't know what the answer is, I don't know how to get the politics out of it, but it has to happen

----------


## woodbe

The general association of a weather event with the known changing climate we are in, is just a tick. 
The science tells us that we are in for higher variability. We might not be able to say for sure that any one single weather event is because of climate change, but we cannot ignore the frequency and scale of the events we live through. 
The expectation is that we are in for more frequent and more wild weather events as the climate changes.  *Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes*  http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2617.html   

> We show that at the present-day warming of 0.85 °C about 18% of the  moderate daily precipitation extremes over land are attributable to the  observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times, which in turn  primarily results from human influence6.  For 2 °C of warming the fraction of precipitation extremes attributable  to human influence rises to about 40%. Likewise, today about 75% of the  moderate daily hot extremes over land are attributable to warming. It  is the most rare and extreme events for which the largest fraction is  anthropogenic, and that contribution increases nonlinearly with further  warming.

  https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/understanding-link-between-climate-change-and-extreme-weather

----------


## Smurf

> Adelaide's is running, though not at full capacity and I can taste the difference in our water at home

  I don't know what part of the city it supplies but I was in Adelaide recently and the water in the CBD didn't seem too bad. 
Either that or I've got used to it. In the past it definitely wasn't good, at least not compared to the water here in Tas, but this time I simply didn't notice it. 
So far as nuclear is concerned, there will be incidents and mishaps with any technology that's a given. Nuclear energy is however unique in man's total inability to deal with the consequences. 
Coal mine catches fire, gas plant blows up, dam collapses or whatever. A lot of destruction and potentially lost lives at the time but we do have the ability to clean up and move on. Not so with nuclear. 
I'm not totally against it, in some situations it probably is the most realistic option, but it's the option of last resort in my view. Looking at Australia we've got: 
Lost of wind and solar 
A truly massive geothermal resource if only we could work out a way to harness it. This warrants a serious effort akin to that put into brown coal in the early days - "find a way or make one". The geothermal resource could supply 100% of our electricity for thousands of years so this is potentially something of very major importance. 
We've still got hydro sites that could be developed. Indeed if we're willing to link to PNG then we could run two thirds of Queensland, our second largest state in electrical terms, on hydro versus it's predominant reliance on coal today. And there's still worthwhile hydro resources elsewhere in Australia, more than the equivalent of building another Snowy scheme, so it shouldn't be dismissed. 
If anyone in the world can make carbon capture and storage work then it ought to be Victoria. Brown coal is pretty clean chemically, inefficient but it's clean in a chemical sense, and we've got the largely depleted Bass Strait oil fields not far away as a possible storage site. It's not without risks but I'd take that over nuclear for sure.  
Biomass isn't a total solution but it could make a much greater contribution than it does now. 
Significant potential for wave and tidal power, the latter being extremely predictable in operation and with some commercial interest having been shown recently 
And then there's the point that nobody would sensibly suggest we close every CO2-emitting power station by tomorrow afternoon so we don't actually need a 100% replacement just yet. And then there's energy efficiency to throw into the mix. 
I'd be supportive of nuclear only if both geothermal and carbon capture and storage have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to not be viable alternatives. Only then does nuclear start to look sensible in Australia. And even if we do need it, we could reduce the number of reactors and thus the inherent risk and waste issues by also pursuing the other things I've mentioned. :Smilie:

----------


## pharmaboy2

just as an aside, it's not really a sustainable position to vote with opinion on any scientific topic.  Whether it's GMO's, nuclear power or climate change, if you haven't at least done a post graduate degree in the arena and worked in it for some time, then you don't have even a rudimentary understanding let alone enough of one to be prognosticating one way or the other. 
perhaos the better way forward is for all thinking people to try and open their mind, then seek out comment from those that don't have an intractable position, or a political motivation (one in the same really). 
it might be the medium here, but on both sides there is an amount of certainty that has nothing to do with science or understanding but people's self belief in their own understanding. 
me, I go with a few scientific podcasts that are quite rigorous and happy to change their minds, but avoid those that have at times a barrow to push - regrettably, in Australia that means I have to question anything from Qantum these days as they have allowed a level of illiteracy and bias to become ingrained (yes, I know it's just TV, but still it WAS Great once)

----------


## John2b

The thermodynamics of planetary energy balance is not an "opinion" any more than the thermodynamics of the internal combustion engine is an "opinion".

----------


## johnc

I go with scientific opinion, you need to bring a healthy scepticism to your reading though, which means accepting that projections are based on models that will shift as more information and data comes to hand. It also means when real data differs to earlier modelling you look to see if there is a trend to change in the direction to the original model or if it is a failed projection. There is no doubt in my mind that climate change is happening the question that remains is only how severe and what impact will it have both economically and on our lives which includes damage from extremes and food production. In any group some people for whatever reason are off the mark and have a bias that destroys good judgement which means the odd climate scientist is a nutter but the proportion is low, most of the ones who miss the mark have simply put to much reliance on an assumption that is disproved with time. As far as those who resist the idea of climate change we know that they tend to be conservative thinkers resistant to any form of change, which simply means they either aren't very bright or tend to be one dimensional thinkers with what amounts to tunnel vision. This can make them successful in some areas, as their single focus prevents them being distracted but they are unlikely to be much benefit to society as a whole. 
In the end those of us without the formal scientific training are limited to reading the work done by others and our assessment can be no more than deciding if the source can be relied upon. That is why when we hear of individuals like Malcolm Roberts writing about climate change we can pretty much work out in advance there will be nothing of value in their opinions as past bias has shown the individual is unable to apply intelligent thought.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Climate change and it's causes should be viewed as very likely correct, I get that, certainty is a different thing though - religious people are certain, scientific thinkers should always accept the chance of being wrong.

----------


## woodbe

> Climate change and it's causes should be viewed as very likely correct, I get that, certainty is a different thing though - religious people are certain, scientific thinkers should always accept the chance of being wrong.

  Individual published climate papers may have errors, and over time they (have been | and will be) corrected by newer and updated papers. That is a normal process in science. 
Climate change causes and effect in general though, is found correct. We know why, and there are thousands of published peer reviewed papers that all point to the same reasons and basic cause. Way more than 'likely correct'. Could climate change be tipped out the window by a cause that is not yet found? Of course it could, but the chances are so miniscule we should be reacting to the causes we already know.

----------


## johnc

> Climate change and it's causes should be viewed as very likely correct, I get that, certainty is a different thing though - religious people are certain, scientific thinkers should always accept the chance of being wrong.

  Ocean temperature, land temperature, ice melt etc etc, there is enough evidence to show we are experiencing change, the only question is by how much, sure there could be a self balancing mechanism out there but you wouldn't be expecting it. Rather than worrying about is it true I'd be more worried about the potential for the gulf stream to shift south.

----------


## Smurf

> The thermodynamics of planetary energy balance is not an "opinion" any more than the thermodynamics of the internal combustion engine is an "opinion".

  Agreed as such although to be fair it's a lot easier to measure what's going on with an engine than it is with an entire planet. 
Measurable amount of heat in, measurable amounts of mechanical power, heat into the cooling system, heat out the exhaust and so on. Much more certain than an entire planet where we can't directly measure exactly what's going where in real time.

----------


## John2b

> Agreed as such although to be fair it's a lot easier to measure what's going on with an engine than it is with an entire planet.

  I don't think that statement correctly characterises scientific understanding of the Earth's energy balance. Direct measurement of the Earth's radiative heat balance is possible by the spectral analysis of Earthshine (sunlight and IR emissions emitted by the planet) by satellites. Before the satellite era, measurements were made by observations of Earthshine reflected in the moon, the first of which were made way back in the 1920s by Danjon.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I don't think that statement correctly characterises scientific understanding of the Earth's energy balance. Direct measurement of the Earth's radiative heat balance is possible by the spectral analysis of Earthshine (sunlight and IR emissions emitted by the planet) by satellites. Before the satellite era, measurements were made by observations of Earthshine reflected in the moon, the first of which were made way back in the 1920s by Danjon.

  Satellites only cover a small fraction of the earths surface - all data I see on this subject is calculations and estimates with provisos on albedo, forestation and absorption rates for oceans, land mass etc plus impact of geology. 
its too simplistic, it's a bit like saying it's just entropy, failing to note that ts an open system. 
if it were simple, all the models would have accurately predicted the oceans effect as a matter of course. 
anyway,  is reducing population growth through education and contraception a more likely successful strategy to curb co2 than trying to get disparate countries to agree on reductions? 
second - should we not also be more focused on stopping deforestation and commencing reforestation in rainforest areas to try and turn back the tide? 
finally, how do we encourage less consumption of "stuff"

----------


## John2b

Modelling the distribution of energy in a chaotic system such as the ocean/atmosphere is difficult, but that is not because the anthropogenic forcing component of the entire Earth's energy balance is indeterminate. 
All the talk of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 or 2 degrees is just dealing with the _transient_ response. To keep the long term response within some sort of habitable limit, greenhouse gas emissions needed to stop completely in about 1980. In other words, there is so much warming already committed that if all emissions stopped today, there will still be serious climatic disruption in the longer term. Global warming will likely solve the population problem, not the other way around.

----------


## Doolittle

Rod,
  I am pursuing an experiment in Atmospheric Chemistry. It's goal is to show that CO2 is not a stable gas in our atmosphere as claimed. While I live in the U.S., one particular concern I have is the ozone hole over Antarctica. Why ? Please take the time to read this link.  
 Linking Ozone Depletion to Climate Change Linking Ozone Depletion to Climate Change 
    This link is to (banned) ozone depleting substance persists, https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/augu...esearch-shows/ 
   If my experiment is successful it might show where CO2 supports the ozone layer and at the same time might help scientists to find out how
a banned fluorocarbon is destroying the ozone layer over Antarctica.  
                                                                                                                                                         Doolittle 
p.s., to be clear, my experiment might show that water and co2 in our
atmosphere encourage ozone to occur. The experiment itself is quite
simple, the physics behind it isn't.

----------


## John2b

Where are all the RF global warming controverts these days? Hiding under their air conditioners, afraid to acknowledge it's getting hot here on planet Earth?  http://www.neoteo.com/wp-content/upl...17/01/02-9.jpg

----------


## Doolittle

John2b,
 With climate change, here is some serious reading if you don't mind. You see, if CO2 increases by as little as 30 ppm the frequency of Ice Ages
increase by a factor of 2.5. 
  Current CO2 theory is based on speculation that started at the last of the end of the last mini Ice Age. In 1896 Svante Arrhenius believed that CO2 caused cooling. His conclusion was based on studying Ice Ages. His formula for the warming of CO2 is what is used today. Why does this matter ?
  The ozone layer was discovered in 1913 by  French physicists Charles Fabry and Henri Buisson. It is possible that if CO2 encourages ozone to occur that the cooling effect of allowing ozone to occur is greater than the warming potential of CO2 and water in our atmosphere that allows for it.  
                                                                                                     Jim  Who Discovered Ozone, Ozone Layer, Its Depletion And The Ozone Hole? - Science and Inventions

----------


## johnc

"There hasn't been any warming since 1998" haven't heard that lie for awhile, one thing about liars as their position weakens most slink off to the shadows, mind you there are the odd exceptions and the Americans seemed to have elected one of those as president. This should be an abnormal year as El Nino would have turbocharged temperature, hopefully it actually drops back to a flatter increase over the next decade.

----------


## Doolittle

@All,
  These 4 links suggest ozone depletion and not co2 has been causing global warming. At present the Greenland Sea abyss is warming 10 times faster, searchable, it's heat comes from hydrothermal vents. An easy experiment is to place 1 liter of nitrogen, 2 1/2 cc's of co2 and 1/2 cc of water in a 2 meter diameter weather balloon (other than those 3 items the weather balloon is empty. If it is floated up to near the tropopause, the balloon will expand to equalize it's internal pressure with that of the upper troposphere/tropopause.
 If gases like O2, H2C, CH2O or O3 (ozone) are found in it then CO2's role in our atmosphere would need to be reconsidered.
The reason co2 is credited with global warming is because some scientists had said that a rise of 50% in atmospheric co2 is what ended the last Ice Age. Now other scientists are saying that the rise in co2 occurred 800 years after the Ice Age ended. This is because cold water absorbs co2 and warm water releases it.  What caused the end of the ice age? â Niels Bohr Institute - University of Copenhagen Does &#034;Global Warming Pause&#034; Debate Miss Big Picture? https://phys.org/news/2013-02-ozone-...-recovery.html  Linking Ozone Depletion to Climate Change

----------


## pharmaboy2

I thought it was well accepted what role the various ozones have.  One of the tables from the ipcc report summarises the various influencers of climate  http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/...luence-faq.PNG 
Skeptical science also has various discussions on these topics. The question you should ask yourself though, is why would the IPCC make stuff up, or get things so totally wrong, such that 19th century science usurps it?  https://skepticalscience.com 
Would require a really big conspiracy, and once conspiracies get above 100 people, they get too complicated over time .  There's not much you can say to someone who doubts man landed on the moon for instance - they have already suspended rational thought.

----------


## ringtail

> anyway,  is reducing population growth through education and contraception a more likely successful strategy to curb co2 than trying to get disparate countries to agree on reductions? 
> second - should we not also be more focused on stopping deforestation and commencing reforestation in rainforest areas to try and turn back the tide? 
> finally, how do we encourage less consumption of "stuff"

  
Without a doubt, the most sensible observations made in this thread to date.

----------


## PhilT2

> Without a doubt, the most sensible observations made in this thread to date.

  The UN put forward these ideas many years ago in a document called Agenda 21. The nutters have been going crazy over it ever since. Many people believe there are two rational sides to this debate and that an intelligent discussion could be had. I can't find much evidence of that. 
We have now reached a point where the increase in consumer demand nullifies any slowing in population growth. China has had population control in place for a long time but the growth of industrialisation and consumerism mean their CO2 output is growing immensely. Billions of people in the third world want the same standard of living as the overweight, diabetic couch potatoes in the west. Who are we to say no?

----------


## woodbe

Not a lot to say, just look:

----------


## Doolittle

> I thought it was well accepted what role the various ozones have.  One of the tables from the ipcc report summarises the various influencers of climate  http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/...luence-faq.PNG 
> Skeptical science also has various discussions on these topics. The question you should ask yourself though, is why would the IPCC make stuff up, or get things so totally wrong, such that 19th century science usurps it?

  
  pharmaboy2,
  It might be stranger than you think. In 2013 the IPCC came out with 2 reports. One stated that the ozone layer was set to start recovering. 
quote; 
 Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.  https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assess...mmary/ch5.html  
   I hope ya'all read this very carefully. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.
quote is from above. The link shows the IPCC knows the ozone layer is important. As for me, am wanting to demonstrate how CO2 allows for both CH4 and ozone. It's a neat trick they don't know. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-repo...c/sroc_spm.pdf

----------


## John2b

Here's the impact of ozone on global warming in perspective, pharmaboy2 (scroll down to see):  https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...d5ac-297062977

----------


## John2b

> Not a lot to say, just look:

  I think a major tipping point - the first year that global warming and climate change has disrupted the normal winter production of ice in the Arctic.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Here's the impact of ozone on global warming in perspective, pharmaboy2 (scroll down to see):  https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...d5ac-297062977

  Ah, one thing that is interesting in that lot, was deforestation.  It seemed to only take account of albedo changes, when the big differential for deforestation and land use is local climate changes - causes of receding glaciers, loss of precipitation etc, effects on local temperature monitoring stations. 
Second thing that's interesting is aerosols, though I've always just lumped it into visible ar pollution - as horrible as it sounds, there in potentially lies some sort of geo engineering solution, especially to moderate climate while the carbon cycle catches back up through slower measures. 
Of probably greater importance though in the face of climate change, is the development of GMO crops to increase yields in changing climates - there have been some phenomenal advances in this area just in the last year or 2

----------


## John2b

As the freight train thunders along the track towards the car stalled on the level crossing, the occupants of the car are tinkering with the failed windscreen wipers, trying to get a better view of how to lessen the impact. There's been some phenomenal advances in wiper blade technology in the last couple of years...

----------


## PhilT2

> As the freight train thunders along the track towards the car stalled on the level crossing, the occupants of the car are tinkering with the failed windscreen wipers, trying to get a better view of how to proceed. There's been some phenomenal advances in wiper blade technology in the last couple of years...

   :2thumbsup:  
One of the big issues is sea level rise and so far I haven't seen much progress on the development of GMO rice that withstands storm surge or grows well under a metre of salt water at high tide. Still a useful tool but not a solution.

----------


## John2b

> Satellites only cover a small fraction of the earths surface - all data I see on this subject is calculations and estimates...

  If that were true (which to the best of my understanding it is not) then it certainly isn't anymore: NOAAâs GOES-16 Weather Satellite Captures Its First Images of Earth | Space Exploration | Sci-News.com 
Will there be a dramatic shift in scientific understanding as a result of this new 'whole Earth' view? Hint: not if cars, computers, air-conditioners and other technology (developed by the application of the same laws of thermodynamics) happen to be working in your quarter of the globe, FFS!

----------


## PhilT2

The bookies are always on the lookout for new ways to relieve the punters of their spare cash so firms are now taking bets on when the Larsen C glacier will calve. Expert opinion has it likely to occur this month or next but there's a level of uncertainty with this. But when it does happen the 2000sqm iceberg released will be one of the largest ever.  
Contrary to some press reports this event itself will not contribute to sea level rise as the ice shelf is already floating. However the shelf is helping to hold back the rest of the glacier which after the break will increase in speed and push more land based ice into the ocean which will contribute to sea level rise. 
Global warming cannot be blamed for this as glaciers calve naturally but the ice shelf is thinner and weaker than it would normally be due to warming. 
Paddy's bookmakers are quoted as saying "This will be the biggest breakup since Brad Pitt and Anglina Jolie".  You can literally bet on when a massive iceberg will break off Antarctica

----------


## phild01

Was watching a part of a show, Human Universe with Brian Cox. 
Only part because he puts me to sleep, anyway he was going on about the earths elliptical orbit.  He says the earth's axis points towards Polaris but in a few thousand years the axis begins to move and points to a different place in the sky, and is said to precess, tracing out a circle in the sky every 27,000 years.  This changes where summer and winter occur and varying the earth's climate.  He adds that the planet's influence , like Jupiter, conspire to amplify the effects of precession. The most important change is every 400,000 years, that the the planet's orbit ellipse itself being bigger, then smaller, bigger, smaller. 
Also the Earth's geography amplifies the effect of precession of rapid and extreme climate fluctuations, like the Rift Valley going from wet, rain and lakes (when the earths orbit was at it's most elliptical), to dry within a few thousand years. Ten million years ago those Rift Valley lakes disappeared due to geological changes.  This led his discussion onto human evolution and brain size advancing at a point coinciding when the earth's orbit was most elliptical and climate at it's most volatile. 
So the theory is that human intelligence advances at a time when the earth's orbit is at it's most elliptical and climate is mostly volatile. 
So will we evolve to a new level of higher intelligence as a consequence of any dramatic climate change!

----------


## woodbe

> So will we evolve to a new level of higher intelligence as a consequence of any dramatic climate change!

  Only problem: We don't have 400,000 years to play with. 
There is a difference between long term climate procession and humans stuffing up the climate in a few hundred years.

----------


## woodbe

lol   
explains a lot...

----------


## John2b

The coming ice age is having some peculiar effects here in Australia:

----------


## John2b

Marc, chuck us some of your snow and ice, will ya mate?   
(Yes I know a heatwave isn't proof of climate change, but why shouldn't I follow the behaviour of the AGM deniers who happily post out of context 'facts' all the time?)

----------


## John2b

There is a great tool showing how global warming is impacting on temperatures and rainfall distribution around the world where you can enter your location and see the effects there:   https://nyti.ms/2jRocDD  How Much Warmer Was Your City in 2016? - The New York Times

----------


## Marc

> Was watching a part of a show, Human Universe with Brian Cox. 
> Only part because he puts me to sleep, anyway he was going on about the earths elliptical orbit.  He says the earth's axis points towards Polaris but in a few thousand years the axis begins to move and points to a different place in the sky, and is said to precess, tracing out a circle in the sky every 27,000 years.  This changes where summer and winter occur and varying the earth's climate.  He adds that the planet's influence , like Jupiter, conspire to amplify the effects of precession. The most important change is every 400,000 years, that the the planet's orbit ellipse itself being bigger, then smaller, bigger, smaller. 
> Also the Earth's geography amplifies the effect of precession of rapid and extreme climate fluctuations, like the Rift Valley going from wet, rain and lakes (when the earths orbit was at it's most elliptical), to dry within a few thousand years. Ten million years ago those Rift Valley lakes disappeared due to geological changes.  This led his discussion onto human evolution and brain size advancing at a point coinciding when the earth's orbit was most elliptical and climate at it's most volatile. 
> So the theory is that human intelligence advances at a time when the earth's orbit is at it's most elliptical and climate is mostly volatile. 
> So will we evolve to a new level of higher intelligence as a consequence of any dramatic climate change!

  I like it ... So ... if there are dramatic changes we will evolve smarter .... if there are no real changes, only smoke and mirrors, we will then de-volve dumber. It seems to fit the pattern so far.   
I wonder if all the heat from today is due to the lump of coal Scott brought into parliament? Clearly a possibility ... I don't believe in coincidences.  :Frown:

----------


## PhilT2

We've been trying to tell people about this for quite a while now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

----------


## havabeer

> We've been trying to tell people about this for quite a while now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

  i hate that argument. 
yes its sydneys hottest day on record, but it only just beat the record of 45.3 set in 1939.... and by only just beat yesterday got to 45.7 so turns out we could still get these kinds of temps 78 years ago

----------


## Moondog55

It can't be denied that climate change is happening; whether man-made accelerated or not. What most people ignore is that climate change we could deal with easily enough if only there were not so many people in the world.
I'll hop off my soap box now

----------


## Marc

Oh, yes, that is so helpful Moondog. Not original though, already proposed by Greenpeace. "Reduce population to 2 billions" they said ... did not want to speculate how though. 
May be you do? 
It's always useful to get the brain in gear _before_ the fingers start moving.

----------


## craka

There is no denying climate change. The world since its existence has been in a state of climate change.  Anyone remember the ice age, dinosaur era prior to that? 
I agree to a degree that the worlds population has some impact, however I think the impact humans have is grossly more involved with other parts of the enironment as far as stripping natural resources and poluting.  
Temperature records have only been kept within the last couple hundred years, there is no temperature records prior to this. Yes geo core samples are taken in modern day to 'guage' what the temperature was within a 'vicinity' of some threshold of time in the past centuries/millennials. However how acurate are they and what is the bias of the entity conducting the analysis? 
The worlds magnetic poles reverse every few hundred thousand years, surely this has to have an effect of the globes climate? One of the effects of the earth's magnetic field can be seen when solar winds travelling from the sun interact with earth's magnetic field causing 'northern lights'.   If this has an effect on light or EM waves it surely must have an effect on other matter as all matter will have magnetic dipoles. 
And after all that. Yes it's Bloody hot here too. Same for tomorrow apparently.

----------


## PhilT2

> Oh, yes, that is so helpful Moondog. Not original though, already proposed by Greenpeace. "Reduce population to 2 billions" they said ... did not want to speculate how though. 
> May be you do? 
> It's always useful to get the brain in gear _before_ the fingers start moving.

  Maybe it might be more useful to check Google, Greenpeace are quite open about how to achieve population reduction; it's on their site. Population and Ecology | Greenpeace International 
For the Google inept, Greenpeace supports the UN policy of increased economic development, womens rights, education and access to contraception as a means of lowering the population. The right wing conspiracy nutters will have none of this and have fabricated a multitude of lies about vaccines, chemtrails etc as a means of mass sterilization. All without a scrap of evidence. 
We will see the right wing in the US start to implement their policy of limiting access to birth control shortly as they defund family planning facilities for low income households.

----------


## chrisp

> Anyone remember the ice age, dinosaur era prior to that?

  I certainly don't remember back that far as it was wayyy before my time.  However, based on his views, I suspect that Marc will probably remember back that far as he is a bit if a dinosaur.   :Smilie:

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Maybe it might be more useful to check Google, Greenpeace are quite open about how to achieve population reduction; it's on their site. Population and Ecology | Greenpeace International 
> For the Google inept, Greenpeace supports the UN policy of increased economic development, womens rights, education and access to contraception as a means of lowering the population. The right wing conspiracy nutters will have none of this and have fabricated a multitude of lies about vaccines, chemtrails etc as a means of mass sterilization. All without a scrap of evidence. 
> We will see the right wing in the US start to implement their policy of limiting access to birth control shortly as they defund family planning facilities for low income households.

  Right wing has nothing at all to do with vaccines, chemtrails and other @@@@@@@@ - conspiracists and anti science nut bags have no political allegiances - just look at crystals, homeopathy, anti vaxxers, cale eaters, anti GMO.   :Wink:

----------


## PhilT2

> Right wing has nothing at all to do with vaccines, chemtrails and other @@@@@@@@ - conspiracists and anti science nut bags have no political allegiances - just look at crystals, homeopathy, anti vaxxers, cale eaters, anti GMO.

  I'm not saying that left wing nutters (and there are plenty of them) don't have their own conspiracies. What I said was that the right created a set of conspiracies aimed at discrediting the UN (Agenda 21) and the environmental movement. The left, I presume, create their own conspiracies to support their own agenda. 
I just think the right has been more successful at getting their nutters elected.

----------


## UseByDate

> Right wing has nothing at all to do with vaccines, chemtrails and other @@@@@@@@ - conspiracists and anti science nut bags have no political allegiances - just look at crystals, homeopathy, anti vaxxers, cale eaters, anti GMO.

   Wow. I misread this and thought that I had joined one of the conspiracies inadvertently. I read “cake eaters”. Must get new glasses. :Wink 1:

----------


## UseByDate

> Was watching a part of a show, Human Universe with Brian Cox. 
> Only part because he puts me to sleep, anyway he was going on about the earths elliptical orbit.  He says the earth's axis points towards Polaris but in a few thousand years the axis begins to move and points to a different place in the sky, and is said to precess, tracing out a circle in the sky every 27,000 years.  This changes where summer and winter occur and varying the earth's climate.  He adds that the planet's influence , like Jupiter, conspire to amplify the effects of precession. The most important change is every 400,000 years, that the the planet's orbit ellipse itself being bigger, then smaller, bigger, smaller. 
> Also the Earth's geography amplifies the effect of precession of rapid and extreme climate fluctuations, like the Rift Valley going from wet, rain and lakes (when the earths orbit was at it's most elliptical), to dry within a few thousand years. Ten million years ago those Rift Valley lakes disappeared due to geological changes.  This led his discussion onto human evolution and brain size advancing at a point coinciding when the earth's orbit was most elliptical and climate at it's most volatile. 
> So the theory is that human intelligence advances at a time when the earth's orbit is at it's most elliptical and climate is mostly volatile. 
> So will we evolve to a new level of higher intelligence as a consequence of any dramatic climate change!

  If you are using we in the last sentence as it is normally used. Ie yourself and others in your group then the last question is easily answered.
We won't evolve.We (individuals in a group ie humans) don't evolve. The group evolves, not the individuals within the group.  :No:

----------


## phild01

> If you are using “we” in the last sentence as it is normally used. Ie yourself and others in your group then the last question is easily answered.
> “We” won't evolve.“We” (individuals in a group ie humans) don't evolve. The group evolves, not the individuals within the group.

  Usage of 'we' surely was taken, as in evolution of the human collective.  That was the inference, and the theory sits well with survival of the fittest.

----------


## Marc

I wonder how that theory sits with the other one that states humans in colder climate are smarter? 
PS
It just hit me ... OMG ... if global warming is true, then we will gradually become dumber by default!!!! 
That is a scary thought.
And Canberra gets real hot in summer !!!  :Shock:

----------


## UseByDate

> Was watching a part of a show, Human Universe with Brian Cox. 
> Only part because he puts me to sleep, anyway he was going on about the earths elliptical orbit.  He says the earth's axis points towards Polaris but in a few thousand years the axis begins to move and points to a different place in the sky, and is said to precess, tracing out a circle in the sky every 27,000 years.  This changes where summer and winter occur and varying the earth's climate.  He adds that the planet's influence , like Jupiter, conspire to amplify the effects of precession. The most important change is every 400,000 years, that the the planet's orbit ellipse itself being bigger, then smaller, bigger, smaller. 
> Also the Earth's geography amplifies the effect of precession of rapid and extreme climate fluctuations, like the Rift Valley going from wet, rain and lakes (when the earths orbit was at it's most elliptical), to dry within a few thousand years. Ten million years ago those Rift Valley lakes disappeared due to geological changes.  This led his discussion onto human evolution and brain size advancing at a point coinciding when the earth's orbit was most elliptical and climate at it's most volatile. 
> So the theory is that human intelligence advances at a time when the earth's orbit is at it's most elliptical and climate is mostly volatile. 
> So will we evolve to a new level of higher intelligence as a consequence of any dramatic climate change!

  As the environment changes then the animals that best fit (survival of the fittest) the new environment will have a better chance of survival. The problem is that intelligence is not always a good predictor of survival. To the best of our knowledge, we are the only animal that can develop ideologies. This can result in many people believing that the afterlife is better than this life for the  people that share their ideology and is either non-existent or not too pleasant for those that don't and it is their duty to facilitate the transition to the afterlife. In the past this could not do much harm to the total population of mankind but with the development of nuclear weapons then the whole of humankind can be killed off, thus putting a stop to human evolution, quite easily. :Yikes2:

----------


## Marc

So ... you are afraid that someone deeply religious and in a very altruistic state of mind ... since he will only do the rest a favour whilst condemning himself to eternal torment... may hurry us along this valley of tears using a nuclear weapon. 
It is sort of a double oxymoron, with a few hierarchical complexities thrown in for good measure. Love it!

----------


## woodbe

We face a climate change which is already in process and is accelerating. 
Evolution allows any species including humans to adjust their biology to accept the changing climate  but it takes more than a century (multiple generations). We humans are a species who have changed our personal environment (heating and cooling in the home/work spaces etc) despite the changes in the environment around us. So arguably we have effectively stalled our evolution on the climate change effects to our biology. Third world humans have more exposure to the changes, but they still do not have enough time for evolution to alter their biology to keep up with the changes around us. Non-humans have been already altering their spatial range as a result of the changing climate (changing latitude and/or elevation or timing of plant flowering etc. to maintain a normal working range for the species) 
eg:  Links between plant speciesâ spatial and temporal responses to a warming climate | Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences

----------


## UseByDate

> So ... you are afraid that someone deeply religious and in a very altruistic state of mind ... since he will only do the rest a favour whilst condemning himself to eternal torment... may hurry us along this valley of tears using a nuclear weapon. 
> It is sort of a double oxymoron, with a few hierarchical complexities thrown in for good measure. Love it!

  I presume that this is directed at my post since it immediately follows mine. Where in my post do I claim to be afraid?   :No:

----------


## Moondog55

Well in the Western wall we should simply stop paying people to have kids and everywhere we should be providing free contraception and abortions  for those that want them. Or we simply wait for WW3 and Armegeddon

----------


## PhilT2

> Well in the Western wall we should simply stop paying people to have kids and everywhere we should be providing free contraception and abortions  for those that want them. Or we simply wait for WW3 and Armegeddon

  No need to do anything. When women get an education and some control over their own lives they choose to have fewer children. Most western countries have a birth rate barely enough to maintain a stable population. Without immigrants we would have a lot less growth.

----------


## Marc

> I presume that this is directed at my post since it immediately follows mine. Where in my post do I claim to be afraid?

  Well ... Use ... that is the general idea when you use this emoticon :Yikes2:  ... or this one  :Yikes:  or this ...  :PANCAKES:  ... ok ok, may be not this last one  :Smilie:

----------


## UseByDate

> Well ... Use ... that is the general idea when you use this emoticon ... or this one  or this ...  ... ok ok, may be not this last one

  I understand your reasoning, but I was trying to convey a sense of dread for others. I will probably be dead before it happens, although I can't be sure, so I have no fear.

----------


## John2b

Is there someone (anyone) still arguing that anthropogenic global warming is a myth in this thread? How do they tie their shoelaces? (OK maybe they don't wear shoes.) 
Sorry for the flippancy below. The brown area is >12 degrees above average.    Meteorologists were predicting NSW would set a state-wide record for February warmth during the current heatwave but few would have tipped the mark would be broken two days in a row. The blast of summer heat has placed south-eastern Australia on the map as the hottest place on the planet.  http://www.smh.com.au/environment/we...12-gub14c.html

----------


## Marc

Yes ... not long ago a down syndrome child was considered God's punishment for the sin of the parents. 
We have fortunately evolved out of that nonsense only to create a new religious nonsense.
it's hot? look at the calendar. its summer and in summer it is hot. Why is it hot you ask? many reasons, but your beloved CO2 boogeyman is absent. It was hotter before this february and it will be hotter after this one. And it will also be cooler and that will be a problem. 
We have cut trees down and built roads and houses and you are surprised it is hot and want to blame the bad rich that drive 4wd, be my guest.  
Do you want more windmills? 50% renewables? Look at SA basket case, look at the socialist republic of Victoria. Good examples right. You would like NSW to be the same. You will not get your wish. the Global warming fraud has run it's course and is dead. Thank you Donald Trump, thank you Brexit and welcome Netherland, France and probably Germany. The world will be a different place and not too soon. By by political correctness and socialist nonsense.   No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

----------


## woodbe

For non-deniers, denial is obvious for those who view a denier's opinion, but the denier has no idea that they are a denier. 
Weather is not the same as climate. Read real science, not opinion from a laughable newspaper supported by a team of coal fanatics. 
SA's electricity hiccups have not been due to renewables. Even Turnbull has had to accept his claim is wrong. 
Add Canberra to the 'basket case'. They are heading to 100% renewables. Good for them.

----------


## johnc

I see our pet denialist is still railing against religion, politics, anything but facts really, shame he doesn't try science for a change. It is very unlikely we will see another coal fired power station built in Australia unless the government heavily subsidises it as the capital cost is to high when weighed against economic risk. We have passed a point of no return, wind and solar is getting cheaper which in turn will drive down prices and has already started to do so in the wholesale price. We are now recognising our grid is not delivering due to constraints in sharing power between the states. We can expect to see an upgrade with a new line between Victoria and Tasmania and better interconnectors between the states. The next big wave of change will be battery storage, this is all just evolution to new technologies, it is a path we have been on pretty much for the last two hundred years and it is picking up pace. Those who resist change are really the dinosaurs and we know what happened to them, those who adapt will share the efficiencies that new technology brings. The environment kicked this particular transition off but basic economics has kicked in and will propel it forward. No coal means less farmland destroyed, better air quality and an end to land subsidence and diminished aquifers surrounding our larger coal mines, it should also mean we work on building turbines and blades here bringing employment back. Even if we built a new coal fired station it would not need anywhere near the labour force of a similar size station built in the latter half of the twentieth century. In any case despite the ranting's of Canberra gas is most likely a more suitable generator of power as a compliment to wind and water turbines and other renewables. South Australia's most recent black out was for no other reason than they did not bring in an idle gas turbine, that is a failure of management, not a failure of plant.

----------


## John2b

If any state's electricity supply is a 'basket case' it is Queensland's. Spot price by generators gaming the system have seen prices exceeding $13,000/MWh on more than 70 occasions recently, and that is despite Queensland having predominantly coal fired generation with a little gas and just a tiny proportion of renewables. 
Queensland's electricity price spikes far worse than South Australia during 'crisis' https://www.theguardian.com/environm...analysis-shows 
And Marc, where's your outrage about NSW's electricity supply which had to shut down 10% of the state's electricity demand by disconnecting industry so that ordinary people can run their air-conditioners during the recent heatwave? Surely that qualifies NSW's electricity system as a basket case!  Tomago aluminium smelter 'on the verge of disaster' as electricity cut off

----------


## phild01

Solar and wind power is fine but why wasn't the structure more intelligently done by Labour.   The first place to install them should have been next to hydro power generators.

----------


## johnc

Energy Australia which generate a large amount of power from coal fired generators have today come out and announced the future is renewables to meet demand peaks and asked the politicians to stop their games and start working on the problem. Coal generators aren't good for short term peaks anyway they remain a base load option and increasingly wind and solar is contributing to base load because it isn't centralised and it is rare not to have wind blowing through some generators in a state.Actually Phil the best place for wind generators is surprisingly where it is windy and solar panels of course where they get full sun. There are few if any benefits to being near hydro other than the existing transmission lines and sub stations.

----------


## phild01

> There are few if any benefits to being near hydro other than the existing transmission lines and sub stations.

  How's that. The Snowy was built to use low demand power to pump water back into the dams.  All that wasted wind and solar power could be used instead for these pumps.  The hydro generators could then deliver more usable energy.  There's wind and sun in those parts!  Maybe more of our dams could have been equipped this way!

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Solar and wind power is fine but why wasn't the structure more intelligently done by Labour.   The first place to install them should have been next to hydro power generators.

  Problem is, there is a general lack of rationality in energy discussion/policy. Last I looked the greens oppose hydro because of the local environment effect, even though it's the most efficient power storage system we have and we need storage when using wind or solar. 
gas is the next one, where not only are we exporting it, but there is whole load of fear about fracking which has stopped this form of gas in its tracks - all that complete irrationality over Condamine etc on social media, both farmers and the greens are against it, when gas is a perfect peak load supply, and may even be crucial to allow more renewables to be used.

----------


## johnc

It certainly could, placement of wind turbines is made on a combination of proximity to homes (Federal laws have a buffer zone) and wind speed and frequency, it just depends if there are suitable areas near dams such as the Snowy Scheme. Most turbines I understand tend to be near the coast.

----------


## Marc

Global warming priest and cheer leaders, should remember in case they forgot, that the only single solitary point of trying to generate electricity with puff and sweat is because they told us that human produced CO2 is so unbelievably large that makes life on earth unsustainable. We are going to choke to death in our own CO2.  
Bold faced lie.  
Therefore, the rest is also useless and a lie, and only convenient to extract trillions in subsidies to prop up an otherwise not viable industry and harvest votes from the gullible and the naïve, the idle and the socially marginalised who have found a new reason to complain ... it is hot. 
Enjoy whilst it lasts, there is not much string left.  
Welcome Pauline Hanson.

----------


## woodbe

> Global warming priest and cheer leaders, should remember in case they forgot, that the only single solitary point of trying to generate electricity with puff and sweat is because they told us that human produced CO2 is so unbelievably large that makes life on earth unsustainable. We are going to choke to death in our own CO2.  
> Bold faced lie.

  Except, Marc has not shown any supporting information. The suggested 'bold faced lie' can be proven to be actually not a lie by viewing the science. Unfortunately Marc prefers biassed news sources like the Daily Telegraph. Fortunately, the planet's information system has improved and far more real science information is available. 
If you don't read real information you become a pawn of the fossil fuel industry.

----------


## Marc

WRITTEN BY CHRISTOPHER BOOKER, TELEGRAPH ON FEBRUARY 13, 2017. POSTED IN LATEST NEWS*Will Donald Trump and the Republicans bring an end to the costliest scare story ever known?*COP21 
Two years ago last week, I wrote a column given the provocative heading “The fiddling of temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever”. It was the second of two articles which attracted a record 42,000 comments from all over the world, reporting on the discovery by expert bloggers in half a dozen countries – led in Britain by Paul Homewood on his site “Not a lot of people know that” – that something very odd appeared to have been done to the official land surface temperature records on which, more than anything else, the entire alarm over man-made global warming has rested.
These derive from the record known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), run by the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). By comparing archived data with that now being published, the bloggers claimed to have discovered that temperature records all over the world had, seemingly, been systematically “adjusted” to show older temperatures lower than those originally measured and more recent temperatures higher than those recorded: thus conveying the notion that the world is warming significantly more than the actual data justified.
This scandal has now  surfaced again with accusations made by Dr John Bates, a recently retired senior scientist at the NOAA, against his former boss , Tom Karl. Bates alleges that an NOAA paper written before the historic climate conference in Paris in 2015 breached its own rules and was based on misleading and unverified data. That, to many, looks like the paper was designed to stoke up hysteria over global warming in the run-up to the conference.
The warmist lobby had no greater concern at that time than the so-called “pause”: the evidence that, for nearly 20 years, the trend in global temperatures had been failing to rise as all the official computer models had predicted it should.
Karl’s paper won worldwide publicity by purporting to show that there had, in fact, been no “pause”, and that both land and sea temperatures had continued to rise more than was previously accepted.
What Dr Bates now claims is that, in defiance of rules he himself drew up and over his (Bates’s) private objections, Karl’s paper had again been based on “adjustments” that the scientific evidence didn’t justify.
The paper, widely quoted by President Barack Obama and others, played a key part in persuading the Paris conference to sign a “historic” (but non-binding) agreement to take all sorts of hugely costly measures to prevent global temperatures rising by “more than two degrees”.
Dr Bates’s claims could not be more timely; the word from Washington is that a high priority of Donald Trump’s administration, and the science committee in the US Congress, is that they now want a full investigation of all this temperature “adjusting”, which – contrary to the satellite data – looks like it has been giving such a dangerously unscientific picture of just how far and fast the world has in reality been warming. Once this scandal has been properly brought out into the open, it will raise the most disturbing question mark yet over the promotion of the greatest and costliest scare story the world has ever known. Read rest… *Be Social:*TwitterFacebook7GoogleLinkedIn1More     *Related*The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal everFebruary 9, 2015In "Latest news" The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' EverDecember 1, 2016In "Latest news" NOAA/NASA use only land-based temps to claim 2015 hottest year everJanuary 21, 2016In "Latest news"    Trackback from your site.  *LEAVE A COMMENT (NEWEST FIRST):*Wordpress CommentsTrackbacks *Comments (3)**G*FEBRUARY 13, 2017 AT 11:25 PM | #
I think one of the biggest misconceptions about this mega-scam is the assumption that this was always envisioned as a conspiracy. That notion makes it rightly hard to believe.
It makes much more sense when we examine how it evolved over time. Man-made-global-warming really started as a flawed but intriguing scientific hypothesis that made some headlines. Gradually the left realized how exquisitely this hypothesis could be formed into a political cause, funded by taxpayers, that would be easily manipulated with emotion and misinformation. Science as we know it, was soon turned on its ear.
It didn’t happen overnight. The conspiracy, as it is, evolved gradually over time. It never required major shot callers to assemble in hidden locations to secretly plan their deeds. In fact, the Paris Climate Conferences, UN Climate Groups, and others OPENLY revealed planned globalist redistribution of power and wealth while systematically eliminating national sovereignty. None of this could have been attempted without the willing accomplice of the mainstream media.
Even billions of dollars directed towards predetermined outcomes eventually succumb to the truth, so the left simply change the rules and narrative as needed to move their three card monte hustle down another alleyway. “Man made global warming” morphs into deliberately vague “climate change “, which morphs into, (fill in the blank)…  Will Donald Trump and the Republicans bring an end to the costliest scare story ever known?

----------


## woodbe

The bloggers are making claims they cannot prove and are being paraded by the Telegraph.   

> If you don't read real information you become a pawn of the fossil fuel industry.

----------


## John2b

> How's that. The Snowy was built to use low demand power to pump water back into the dams.  All that wasted wind and solar power could be used instead for these pumps.  The hydro generators could then deliver more usable energy.  There's wind and sun in those parts!  Maybe more of our dams could have been equipped this way!

  The Snowy's hydro scheme does in fact do a lot of pumped storage. The same electricity transmission system used to export their electricity is used to buy power when it's cheap and pump water. They don't need windmills alongside to achieve this. 
The canceled upgrade of the Murraylink inter-connector from South Australia to Red-Cliff would have helped export SA's cheap wind power to the Snowys for pumped storage, rather than it having to go through the often overloaded Heywood inter-connector to Victoria and then on to NSW. But the conservatives canned that.

----------


## John2b

> Global warming priest and cheer leaders, should remember in case they forgot, that the only single solitary point of trying to generate electricity with puff and sweat is because they told us that human produced CO2 is so unbelievably large that makes life on earth unsustainable. We are going to choke to death in our own CO2.  
> Bold faced lie.

  Agreed. What you posted is a bold faced lie, or at the very least a seriously delusional misrepresentation of facts. None of what you posted is representative of the views and/or actions of the people you take issue with.

----------


## John2b

> *Will Donald Trump and the Republicans bring an end to the costliest scare story ever known?*

  The 'end' Trump elicits will not be the one you think, dear Marc. Not on any front, economic, social, political or scientific.

----------


## PhilT2

> I wrote a column given the provocative heading “The fiddling of temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever”. It was the second of two articles which attracted a record 42,000 comments from all over the world, reporting on the discovery by expert bloggers in half a dozen countries – led in Britain by Paul Homewood on his site “Not a lot of people know that” – that something very odd appeared to have been done to the official land surface temperature records on which, more than anything else, the entire alarm over man-made global warming has rested.
> These derive from the record known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), run by the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). By comparing archived data with that now being published, the bloggers claimed to have discovered that temperature records all over the world had, seemingly, been systematically “adjusted” to show older temperatures lower than those originally measured and more recent temperatures higher than those recorded: thus conveying the notion that the world is warming significantly more than the actual data justified.
> This scandal has now  surfaced again with accusations made by Dr John Bates, a recently retired senior scientist at the NOAA, against his former boss , Tom Karl. Bates alleges that an NOAA paper written before the historic climate conference in Paris in 2015 breached its own rules and was based on misleading and unverified data. That, to many, looks like the paper was designed to stoke up hysteria over global warming in the run-up to the conference.
> The warmist lobby had no greater concern at that time than the so-called “pause”: the evidence that, for nearly 20 years, the trend in global temperatures had been failing to rise as all the official computer models had predicted it should.
> Karl’s paper won worldwide publicity by purporting to show that there had, in fact, been no “pause”, and that both land and sea temperatures had continued to rise more than was previously accepted.
> What Dr Bates now claims is that, in defiance of rules he himself drew up and over his (Bates’s) private objections, Karl’s paper had again been based on “adjustments” that the scientific evidence didn’t justify.
> The paper, widely quoted by President Barack Obama and others, played a key part in persuading the Paris conference to sign a “historic” (but non-binding) agreement to take all sorts of hugely costly measures to prevent global temperatures rising by “more than two degrees”.
> Dr Bates’s claims could not be more timely; the word from Washington is that a high priority of Donald Trump’s administration, and the science committee in the US Congress, is that they now want a full investigation of all this temperature “adjusting”, which – contrary to the satellite data – looks like it has been giving such a dangerously unscientific picture of just how far and fast the world has in reality been warming. Once this scandal has been properly brought out into the open, it will raise the most disturbing question mark yet over the promotion of the greatest and costliest scare story the world has ever known.

  This latest scoop from the tabloids has already made it onto Snopes as a complete fabrication. NOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating Climate Change Data 
The person who was quoted as claiming that the data was falsified now says he was misquoted and has retracted any inference that the data was wrong.  
Meanwhile the trump administration is busy dealing with the "resignation" of one of its senior advisers due to serious allegations that he lied about contact with the Russian ambassador.

----------


## phild01

> The Snowy's hydro scheme does in fact do a lot of pumped storage. The same electricity transmission system used to export their electricity is used to buy power when it's cheap and pump water. They don't need windmills alongside to achieve this.

  Not seeing your point.  Why buy it back if the erratic wind generation would negate that!

----------


## John2b

The hydro scheme buys electricity when it is cheap to pump water into storage, so it has capacity to generate extra electricity to sell when the price is higher. This is a significant source of operating income for the SMHS.

----------


## phild01

> The hydro scheme buys electricity when it is cheap to pump water into storage, so it has capacity to generate extra electricity to sell when the price is higher. This is a significant source of operating income for the SMHS.

  What I am talking about is why you think it doesn't make sense to use wind generated power for this purpose?

----------


## phild01

The thing is, the hydro could then generate more power during peak demand then maybe what it can now.

----------


## Bros

Pump storage utilizes the use of cheap energy from fossil fuel power stations during the night and run during the day as generators. 
You need a lot of fart machines to do that of a night even if the wind was blowing.

----------


## phild01

> You need a lot of fart machines to do that of a night even if the wind was blowing.

  Pretty sure I've seen too many of those travelling into Canberra.
The unused power they generate can be used to move water and generate more power in peak times.

----------


## Bros

> Pretty sure I've seen too many of those travelling into Canberra.
> The unused power they generate can be used to move water and generate more power in peak times.

  Not possible as they walk on water but they do move a lot of hot air.

----------


## Marc

> What I am talking about is why you think it doesn't make sense to use wind generated power for this purpose?

  It is possible Phil ... in theory. In practice the power generated by wind power is expensive, very expensive. The fact that the wind is free does not make the power generation free. Then the power required to move water in the magnitude you are talking about topping up a dam ... do you have an idea of the power requirements for lifting that amount of water? And the size of the pumps? The size and length of the wires to transport the power to the pumps? The cost of this top up procedure is far from "free", it is astronomical and completely anti economical.

----------


## John2b

> What I am talking about is why you think it doesn't make sense to use wind generated power for this purpose?

  Would you kindly show where you think I said anything of the sort?

----------


## phild01

> Would you kindly show where you think I said anything of the sort?

  You did say:
"They don't need windmills alongside to achieve this." #15838

----------


## John2b

> The cost of this top up procedure is far from "free", it is astronomical and completely anti economical.

  Er...cough, cough! Snowy Hydro has been making money out of pumped storage for decades, pumping when they can source cheap electricity from redundant 'base load' or more recently wind, and releasing the stored water to generate electricity when the price is high.

----------


## John2b

> You did say:
> "They don't need windmills alongside to achieve this." #15838

  Correct. They (Snowy Hydro) are connected to the national electricity grid, so they can access wind generated electricity wherever it is generated.

----------


## phild01

If only SA could have Hydro!

----------


## John2b

> If only SA could have Hydro!

  South Australia is known as the driest state in the driest continent on earth. The next best thing would be to have the Murraylink inter-connector upgraded to deposit excess wind energy into Snowys Hydro pumped storage directly and retrieve it when needed, but that was canned by the LNC. Inter-connectors have a huge role in smoothing out peak loads because they spread power over different time zones and weather conditions. This is regardless of energy generation, be from burning billion year old fossil algae, or from free renewable sources. 
An upgraded inter-connector might also mean cheaper electricity for Sydney, since wind energy from SA already sells into the NSW energy market when available at significantly lower cost than brown coal energy from Victoria (it is currently routed through Victorian inter-connectors).

----------


## Marc

Hospitals, public transport, public education and power generation are just a few examples of services that will never turn a profit. In other words, if we want them we have to accept that they will cost and produce a deficit and therefore should not be operating in a pretend "free" market. 
The private power generator starving the network from juice in order to drive prices up and increase profits is a travesty and should be in court for doing so. Even better, power generation should be purely in the hands of government.
The new clean coal generators are the future and will be for many decades until a new source of power is found. The part time hobby generators have no place on the network and all subsidies should be scrapped. 100 new dams should be built starting now.
Of course we first need to vote in someone who leads the government rather than riding on it for the perks and photo opportunities, or attract attention ( look at mee look at mee) with comments of poison wells and smallpox blankets.

----------


## johnc

Firstly clean coal doesn't exist, the closest you get is more efficient with lower emissions per KW, power generators don't starve the system, there is a regulator to prevent this from happening, hobby generators? this would be solar roof panels would it not. There is an opinion that power generation should remain with government however it is difficult to reconcile the comments from someone who rails against government, posts lies and untruths and uses endless hyperbole while ranting about religion then conveniently ignoring verifiable facts but of course using alternative facts. Really Marc do we have enough rivers and valleys for 100 extra dams and what would it achieve, other than environmental damage and a massive waste of financial resources that could be better spent elsewhere. In simple terms why post so much unsupported rubbish and reposting debunked and fraudulent links put up by fools, liars and the lunatic fringe.  
Business is there to produce a profit for shareholders, government is there to make sure economic settings facilitate business (amongst other things) and especially to ensure the countries infrastructure allows us to remain competitive. Ultimately a country works best when all citizens can work because there are sufficient jobs and adequate wages to enjoy a decent standard of living which in turn generates sales for business and taxes for government. Our power generation model is evolving, at the moment we run the risk of privatising the profits and capitalising the losses which will be the case if we start building capital intensive power plants. Current weaknesses seem to be in power delivery more so than generation, coal is so last century, pit rehabilitation and health impacts are in many cases privatised. Coal is in decline world wide as old plants close, it really is just a question of the pace of change and what replaces it. With a more diversified range of power generators what we are likely to see in the future is the expansion of current renewables along with new forms of power generation either not yet thought of or yet to come on line. What we need is a grid network capable of incorporating new efficiencies without the scale of dislocation currently being experienced as we experiment with new economic models and emerging technologies.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Hospitals, public transport, public education and power generation are just a few examples of services that will never turn a profit. In other words, if we want them we have to accept that they will cost and produce a deficit and therefore should not be operating in a pretend "free" market. 
> The private power generator starving the network from juice in order to drive prices up and increase profits is a travesty and should be in court for doing so. Even better, power generation should be purely in the hands of government.
> The new clean coal generators are the future and will be for many decades until a new source of power is found. The part time hobby generators have no place on the network and all subsidies should be scrapped. 100 new dams should be built starting now.
> Of course we first need to vote in someone who leads the government rather than riding on it for the perks and photo opportunities, or attract attention ( look at mee look at mee) with comments of poison wells and smallpox blankets.

  1st para: yes a thousand times yes...Except that's socialism.
2nd para: probably right but capitalism is king
3rd para: hahahahahahahaaahaheeehee...Not bloody likely. Not in today's economy or market.
4th para: got anyone in mind? None of the available options fit the description.

----------


## Marc

*Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal*Eric Worrall / 3 hours ago February 20, 2017  *Guest essay by Eric Worrall* In the wake of revelations by whistleblower Dr. John Bates, Congressman Lamar Smith, Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, has renewed demands for access to documents and correspondence relating to the release of the flawed Karl “Pausebuster” paper. *US Congress launches a probe into climate data that duped world leaders over global warming*  Republican Lamar Smith has announced an inquiry to acting chief of NOAAHe has demanded for all internal documents and communications between staffIt follows an investigation by the Mail on Sunday and information leaked by Dr John Bates By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday
PUBLISHED: 13:14 +11:00, 19 February 2017 | UPDATED: 19:10 +11:00, 19 February 2017 Revelations by the Mail on Sunday about how world leaders were misled over global warming by the main source of climate data have triggered a probe by the US Congress. Republican Lamar Smith, who chairs the influential House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology, announced the inquiry last week in a letter to Benjamin Friedman, acting chief of the organisation at the heart of the MoS disclosures, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). He renewed demands, first made in 2015, for all internal NOAA documents and communications between staff behind a controversial scientific paper, which made a huge impact on the Paris Agreement on climate change of that year, signed by figures including David Cameron and Barack Obama. …Read more: US Congress launches a probe into climate data | Daily Mail Online The following is the letter sent by Congressman Lamar Smith to Acting Administrator of NOAA Benjamin Freidman.  Source:https://science.house.gov/sites/repu...20Friedman.pdf (h/t E&E News) This is getting serious. NOAA defied efforts at Congressional oversight when President Obama was in charge. I doubt NOAA will enjoy the same immunity from oversight under President Trump. You can’t prosecute a scientist for making a mistake. You can potentially prosecute a civil servant if they are grossly negligent, cut corners, and provide misleading information to the public.

----------


## pharmaboy2

"Big Green groups continually claim that we don’t need nuclear because wind and solar are getting cheaper. That might be so, but how soon could wind and solar replace nuclear? Over the past five years, domestic wind-energy capacity has been growing by about 7 gigawatts per year. Each gigawatt of capacity produces about 2.6 terawatt-hours per year. Therefore, at current rates of growth, it will take about 46 years for wind energy to replace the electricity we are now getting from nuclear. Solar energy is growing, too. Over the past five years, domestic solar capacity has been growing at a rate of about 5 gigawatts per year. In 2015, each gigawatt of solar capacity produced about 1.5 terawatt-hours of electricity. Thus, at solar’s current rate of growth, it will take more than 100 years for solar to replace the electricity we are now getting from existing nuclear plants."  Read more at: Nuclear Power: Necessary Green-Energy Component | National Review 
this is where the republicans get their denial energy from - the democrats voted against a new nuclear power plant last year, and have opposed other investments in next generation nuclear power plants, while talking about the catastrophic (most over used word in the English language this last decade ) climate change that faces us, but not employing the obvious technology that is available right now with current technology. 
the world is going to be stuffed, and it's not because of Marc the denier but because of John the denier who won't stand for anything other than their own utopian solution

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I don't see anyone funding coal or nuclear power in Australia. Certainly not with the current mindset. Gas? Sure. Except a bunch of capitalists sold the fuel off to the world market so there's not enough left to light a fire with locally. Good for them. 
The rest of us? We'll probably be fine. Though economic activity could be a bit forked.  
Nuclear is not the answer. Because no-one has figured out the question.

----------


## PhilT2

> the democrats voted against a new nuclear power plant last year, and have opposed other investments in next generation nuclear power plants, while talking about the catastrophic (most over used word in the English language this last decade ) climate change that faces us, but not employing the obvious technology that is available right now with current technology. 
> the world is going to be stuffed, and it's not because of Marc the denier but because of John the denier who won't stand for anything other than their own utopian solution

  I presume we're talking US politics here; the Democrats have not held a majority in either house for the last four years(?) so their vote has been meaningless unless we're talking about a presidential veto.
And when the it does eventually hit the fan there'll be enough blame to go around; no denier needs to miss out.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> And when the it does eventually hit the fan there'll be enough blame to go around; no denier _of any persuasion_ needs to miss out.

  Edited for clarity. And it sounds fair to me.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I don't see anyone funding coal or nuclear power in Australia. Certainly not with the current mindset. Gas? Sure. Except a bunch of capitalists sold the fuel off to the world market so there's not enough left to light a fire with locally. Good for them. 
> The rest of us? We'll probably be fine. Though economic activity could be a bit forked.  
> Nuclear is not the answer. Because no-one has figured out the question.

  current mindset?  For sure. 
the question is what action are we going to take to seriously curb or neutralise carbon emissions? 
lots of rumination in Australia about solar and wind and how it could work with suddenly bucket loads of batteries, but the cold hard reality is all that capital equipment, cars, computers, technology and all that other stuff that comes from China, India, SE Asia etc need energy to produce, and not small amounts.  The local aluminium smelter across the harbour from me uses 6% of NSW s total power production. 
you ain't ever going to power that kind of thing with a windmill.   Germany, that awesome county of the greens is shutting down their nuclear power plants because the greens don't like nuclear, but when they say we use x amount renewables, they actually mean they are burning wood!  I mean, seriously, wood should be being locked up as best we can into buildings, not burnt for power, plus they are building new coal power plants, what the hell? 
when the greens bleat about catastrophic co2 driven climate change on one hand, then close down nuclear stations with life in them on the other, it's really hard to take their first point seriously. 
the lunatic right and the lunatic left are both leading us down a non too pleasant path

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> the lunatic right and the lunatic left are both leading us down a non too pleasant path

  Don't forget the worst and largest mob of all. The indifferent lunatics in the middle. 
Agree that the path we will follow will have an epic fall line, many rocks, no B line and no flow...and we'll all be riding cargo bikes packed full of family and flat screen TVs. And it'll be a self seeded mass start.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Lol 
if lunatics are on the edges, and dummies in the middle, then where are the smart people?

----------


## chrisp

> ... then where are the smart people?

  I think that they all hang out on the Renovate Forum   :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

Climate Council 2016 state of solar report  http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/upl...84f6f9dcbd.pdf 
And the reasons we should not be adding coal plants or nuclear: The costs are higher while the renewable costs are continuing to fall:     
Even for the one in a hundred who don't believe in the climate change we and our children and grandchildren will face.

----------


## John2b

[QUOTE=pharmaboy2;1043780]"Big Green groups continually claim that we dont need nuclear because wind and solar are getting cheaper. That might be so, but how soon could wind and solar replace nuclear? Over the past five years, domestic wind-energy capacity has been growing by about 7 gigawatts per year. Each gigawatt of capacity produces about 2.6 terawatt-hours per year. Therefore, at current rates of growth, it will take about 46 years for wind energy to replace the electricity we are now getting from nuclear. [/QUOTE] 
The big problem with this simple argument is that whilst the current deployment rates for wind and solar are acknowledged, the irrefutable point that nuclear cannot be rolled out quickly has been conveniently overlooked. In fact if every nation decided to implement a nuclear power plan immediately (and IF the capital was available to be invested!), the effect of a nuclear power rollout on CO2 reductions would be almost insignificant. Renewables can be deployed more than ten times faster than nuclear with almost immediate return on investment, so anyone who actually cares, pharmaboy2, is advocating renewables, not nuclear.  Common Myths of the Nuclear Industry - Helen Caldicott, MD

----------


## John2b

> Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

  There is no "Pausebuster" scandal. There never was. The Congressional Probe is a result of pure confection from the deniersphere and just another attempt at malevolent obfuscation. Cigarette, anyone?

----------


## phild01

The base power solution?

----------


## Marc

> current mindset?  For sure. 
> the question is what action are we going to take to seriously curb or neutralise carbon emissions? 
> lots of rumination in Australia about solar and wind and how it could work with suddenly bucket loads of batteries, but the cold hard reality is all that capital equipment, cars, computers, technology and all that other stuff that comes from China, India, SE Asia etc need energy to produce, and not small amounts.  The local aluminium smelter across the harbour from me uses 6% of NSW s total power production. 
> you ain't ever going to power that kind of thing with a windmill.   Germany, that awesome county of the greens is shutting down their nuclear power plants because the greens don't like nuclear, but when they say we use x amount renewables, they actually mean they are burning wood!  I mean, seriously, wood should be being locked up as best we can into buildings, not burnt for power, plus they are building new coal power plants, what the hell? 
> when the greens bleat about catastrophic co2 driven climate change on one hand, then close down nuclear stations with life in them on the other, it's really hard to take their first point seriously. 
> the lunatic right and the lunatic left are both leading us down a non too pleasant path

  Greens are a disease. They should get themselves a job and start paying taxes.

----------


## johnc

> Greens are a disease. They should get themselves a job and start paying taxes.

  That implies all Greens don't work, really patronising falsehoods once again, attack the messenger, avoid the topic, demonise, we only do those things when in our heart we know we are wrong. Nice for you to admit that Marc. For goodness sake make an effort to stay awake and stay on topic.

----------


## johnc

> There is no "Pausebuster" scandal. There never was. The Congressional Probe is a result of pure confection from the deniersphere and just another attempt at malevolent obfuscation. Cigarette, anyone?

  I notice those promoting this lumped it in with the Anti vax movement and climate gate (calling it the same), both a pile of rubbish, it is more than likely that this is more of the same. Odd that they don't see the fallacy of comparing the idea to disproved rants from the past.

----------


## pharmaboy2

[QUOTE=John2b;1043891]  

> "Big Green groups continually claim that we don’t need nuclear because wind and solar are getting cheaper. That might be so, but how soon could wind and solar replace nuclear? Over the past five years, domestic wind-energy capacity has been growing by about 7 gigawatts per year. Each gigawatt of capacity produces about 2.6 terawatt-hours per year. Therefore, at current rates of growth, it will take about 46 years for wind energy to replace the electricity we are now getting from nuclear. [/QUOTE] 
> The big problem with this simple argument is that whilst the current deployment rates for wind and solar are acknowledged, the irrefutable point that nuclear cannot be rolled out quickly has been conveniently overlooked. In fact if every nation decided to implement a nuclear power plan immediately (and IF the capital was available to be invested!), the effect of a nuclear power rollout on CO2 reductions would be almost insignificant. Renewables can be deployed more than ten times faster than nuclear with almost immediate return on investment, so anyone who actually cares, pharmaboy2, is advocating renewables, not nuclear.  Common Myths of the Nuclear Industry - Helen Caldicott, MD

  Well, I care, I care a lot, but I care for rationality and scientific based thinking, not what Helen Caldecott thinks -an anti nuclear campaigner that doesn't believe in nuclear? Wow, surprising...... 
words are simple, actions are harder, and providing industrial sized base load power that is 99.99% reliable is not solar and wind.  Love solar and wind for my house, super cool, excellent source of power, but not with the ability to stop a shed load of burning power stations being built the world over 
my enemy isn't renewables, its power stations that create CO2   

> The base power solution?

  Dont ask inconvenient questions Phil.

----------


## John2b

> my enemy isn't renewables, its power stations that create CO2

  Electricity from atomic energy emits 90 to 140 g CO2 per kWh of electricity produced. Compare this with Solar power, water power and wind power at 10 - 40, Gas burning plants330 - 360, new coal burning plants 1,000 - 1,100. 
The world doesn't need base load electrical power, it needs electrical power that matches electrical load. Nuclear can't be turned down when demand falls, it runs like there is no tomorrow (literally) and the excess heat energy not used for electricity has to consume water to boil into steam, or heat rivers, estuaries and oceans, with all of the serious associated negative environmental impacts. Even after nuclear fuel is 'spent' and nuclear power plants are 'decommissioned' they will continue to produce unusable heat energy that has to be managed for centuries/millennia to come. No one will know the true unit cost of generating electricity from nuclear power in our lifetime or that of our children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren.

----------


## phild01

> The world doesn't need base load electrical power, it needs electrical power that matches electrical load.

  Too easy  :Confused:

----------


## Marc

*100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering*  Climate Central just ran this piece, which the Washington Post picked up on. They claimed the US was “overwhelmingly hot” in 2016, and temperatures have risen 1,5°F since the 19th century.    The U.S. Has Been Overwhelmingly Hot This Year | Climate CentralThe first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. Climate Central is conflating mild temperatures with hot ones. 
They also claim US temperatures rose 1.5°F since the 19th century, which is what NOAA shows.   Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century 
The adjustments being made are almost exactly 1.5°F, which is the claimed warming in the article. The adjustments correlate almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. NOAA is adjusting the data to match global warming theory. This is known as PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.) 
The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database. When presented with my claims of fraud, NOAA typically tries to arm wave it away with these two complaints.  They use gridded data and I am using un-gridded data. They “have to” adjust the data because of Time Of Observation Bias and station moves. 
Both claims are easily debunked. The only effect that gridding has is to lower temperatures slightly. The trend of gridded data is almost identical to the trend of un-gridded data. Time of Observation Bias (TOBS) is a real problem, but is very small. TOBS is based on the idea that if you reset a min/max thermometer too close to the afternoon maximum, you will double count warm temperatures (and vice-versa if thermometer is reset in the morning.) Their claim is that during the hot 1930’s most stations reset their thermometers in the afternoon.
This is easy to test by using only the stations which did not reset their thermometers in the afternoon during the 1930’s. The pattern is almost identical to that of all stations. No warming over the past century. Note that the graph below tends to show too much warming due to morning TOBS. NOAA’s own documents show that the TOBS adjustment is small (0.3°F) and goes flat after 1990.    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climat...5_diffs_pg.gif Gavin Schmidt at NASA explains very clearly why the US temperature record does not need to be adjusted. You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers.
One recent innovation is the set up of a climate reference network alongside the current stations so that they can look for potentially serious issues at the large scale – and they haven’t found any yet.  NASA – NASA Climatologist Gavin Schmidt Discusses the Surface Temperature RecordNOAA has always known that the US is not warming.  U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – NYTimes.comAll of the claims in the Climate Central article are bogus. The US is not warming and 2016 was not a hot year in the US. It was a very mild year.

----------


## woodbe

Dealing with climate is about the planet, not about one country. 
Even so,    

> When presented with my claims of fraud, NOAA typically tries to arm wave it away with these two complaints.   They use gridded data and I am using un-gridded data.They “have to” adjust the data because of Time Of Observation Bias and station moves. 
> Both claims are easily debunked. The only effect that gridding has is to  lower temperatures slightly. The trend of gridded data is almost  identical to the trend of un-gridded data.

  NOAA Presents real data which is not fraud. Deniers continue to attack climate science instead of accepting real data analysis by real scientists. The deniers are not skilled in science so they create fake information to attack real data.

----------


## John2b

> The US is not warming and 2016 was not a hot year in the US. It was a very mild year.

  If last year in USA was mild, I would hate to see a bad year: 
As seven of the top 10 US weather events involved extreme rainfall, and several _1-in-1,000 year events_, perhaps it could be called it the year of the flood. *2016: A historic year for billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in U.S:*    https://www.sott.net/article/338031-...events-of-2016

----------


## Marc

The sky is falling the sky is falling, give me money to buy solar panels...

----------


## pharmaboy2

> If last year in USA was mild, I would hate to see a bad year: 
> As seven of the top 10 US weather events involved extreme rainfall, and several _1-in-1,000 year events_, perhaps it could be called it the year of the flood. *2016: A historic year for billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in U.S:*    https://www.sott.net/article/338031-...events-of-2016

  i wouldn't be making any assumptions over data such as that.  By their very nature, you will always have new records given enough data points (tens of thousands of points in the US).  Second, you should always be dismissive of someone who uses dollar estimates without knowing if they have been corrected for appropriate inflation - at first site, that graph does not say (all amount in year xx dollars). 
that doesn't mean that there isn't some truth in the article, there may be, but ad hoc collection of data is more of an article and a long way from a study.

----------


## John2b

> ... ad hoc collection of data is more of an article and a long way from a study.

  Too true. This was in response to the latest bout of denier dysentery just a few posts above which duplicates the logical fallacy you've highlighted several times over.    

> By their very nature, you will always have new records given enough data points...

  
Yes BUT in the absence of a trend, the number of record highs would be matched by the number of record lows*.  That isn't the case by a considerable margin. Since the post above is about the USA...   *February heat: record highs clobbering lows by more than 100-to-1 ratio*  http://mashable.com/2017/02/23/febru.../#2wUoTnHsW5qM  
(*This was primary school mathematics in my days.)

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Too true. This was in response to the latest bout of denier dysentery just a few posts above which duplicates the logical fallacy you've highlighted several times over.   
> Yes BUT in the absence of a trend, the number of record highs would be matched by the number of record lows*.  That isn't the case by a considerable margin. Since the post above is about the USA...   *February heat: record highs clobbering lows by more than 100-to-1 ratio*  February heat wave: record highs beating lows by more than 100-to-1 ratio  
> (*This was primary school mathematics in my days.)

  "But, in the absence of a trend" - lows and highs would not match, statistically this is just the way it is, chance is a bumpy thing.  Second, there is always a trend, especially in such things as climate/weather.  
So in this case, in a warm February, you'd expect record highs rather than record lows, yes? So where's the news?  - presumably a warm February that isn't over, but it's reported as low records versus high records - why choose those 2 comparisons?, why not average temps compared to other warm februaries? 
doesnt matter what side it's from a polemic is a polemic.   
People navigate by the exceptions, the media also only report exceptions (they call it news).  Science is about building a theorem and testing it with unknown data (not back testing and fitting to curves).  Lots of bad science comes from seeing an excursion and assuming a cause, so science isn't immune, that's why peer review and testing is so important. 
Anyway, that's why the saying lies, damned lies and statistics holds some water, statistics work really well when you are trying to discover something, but when you are using them to prove something you already hold to be true, you tend to search for the stats that backup what you believe. 
for global warming, it's simply average temperature recordings, not extremes, averages because averages iron out the bumps and that's what you need to show a trend 
edit - I think it was Brian cox who said statistics is harder than people think because it's often counterintuitive

----------


## John2b

What is significant about global warming is actually the amount of accumulated heat energy in the engine-room of the Earth's weather system, namely the oceans. The surface temperature is simply a proxy for warming, a noisy one at that and despite all the brouhaha about it by no means the  most important one. 
Your statement that "lows and highs would not match, statistically this is just the way it is" is incongruous with your statement "averages iron out the bumps and that's what you need to show a trend" which applies equally to matching the number of record highs and lows, and pre AGM this can be shown to be the case. 
Just focussing at a small movement in averages tends to obfuscate the consequential large disruption in extremes, which are impacting weather systems now, with 1-in-a-hundred year events happening several times in a decade all over the place.

----------


## Marc

*A Trifecta of Green Lunacy: The law of unintended consequences kicks in*Anthony Watts / 1 day ago February 23, 2017 *Green Lunacy #1: £450 Million Lost Over Failed Green Power That Is Worse Than Coal* The Times, 23 February 2017
Ben Webster Northeast of Drax, author Paul Glazzard, source Wikimedia *Britain is wasting hundreds of millions of pounds subsidising power stations to burn American wood pellets that do more harm to the climate than the coal they replaced, a study has found.*  _Green subsidies for wood pellets were championed by Chris Huhne when he was energy and climate change secretary. Mr Huhne, 62, was jailed in 2013 for perverting the course of justice/_LEON NEAL/ AFP/ GETTY IMAGES Chopping down trees and transporting wood across the Atlantic Ocean to feed power stations produces more greenhouse gases than much cheaper coal, according to the report. It blames the rush to meet EU renewable energy targets, which resulted in ministers making the false assumption that burning trees was carbon-neutral.
Green subsidies for wood pellets and other biomass were championed by Chris Huhne when he was Liberal Democrat energy and climate change secretary in the coalition government. Mr Huhne, 62, who was jailed in 2013 for perverting the course of justice, is now European chairman of Zilkha Biomass, a US supplier of wood pellets. *The report* was written by Duncan Brack, a former special adviser to Mr Huhne, for Chatham House, the respected international affairs think tank. Britain is by far the biggest importer of wood pellets for heat and power in the EU, shipping in 7.5 million tonnes last year, mostly from the US and Canada. Drax, Britain’s biggest power station, received more than £450 million in subsidies in 2015 for burning biomass, which was mostly American wood pellets. The report says that the government’s assessment of the impact on the climate of switching from coal to wood pellets is flawed because it ignores emissions from burning pellets in power stations. The assessment counts only emissions from harvesting, processing and transporting wood pellets. 
Wood pellets are claimed to be carbon-neutral partly because the forests from which they come are replanted. New trees would eventually absorb as much carbon as was emitted when mature trees were harvested and burnt. However, the report says that this process could take centuries — too late to contribute to preventing climate change over coming decades.
Mr Brack said: “It is ridiculous for the same kind of subsidies that go to genuine zero-carbon technologies, like solar and wind, to go to biomass use that might be increasing carbon emissions. It’s not a good use of money.
“For any biomass facility that is burning wood for energy, unless they are only burning stuff like saw-mill residues or post-consumer waste, their activities will be increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere for decades or centuries. We shouldn’t be subsidising that.” *Full post* *Green Lunacy 2: Household Solar Storage Increases Co2 Emissions, Study Concludes* Energy & Technology, 31 January 2017
Tereza Pultarova, *Contrary to popular belief, household storage for solar power doesn’t reduce cost or CO2 emissions, an American study suggests.* 
As charging and discharging a home battery itself consumes energy, feeding surplus solar power into the storage device instead of into the grid results in higher overall electricity consumption for the household, as well as higher emissions because the increased consumption needs to be covered by fossil fuel-based energy. This increase is quite substantial – up to 591KWh annually.
“I expected that storage would lead to an increase in energy consumption,” said Robert Fares from the Cockrell School of Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, “but I was surprised that the increase could be so significant – about an eight to 14 per cent increase on average over the year.”
Fares, together with Professor Michael Webber, analysed the impact of home energy storage using electricity data from almost 100 Texas households that are part of a smart grid test bed managed by Austin-based renewable energy and smart technology company Pecan Street Inc.
The results are relevant for Texas, where the majority of grid electricity comes from fossil fuels. As a result, the increased consumption due to storage technology leads to higher carbon, sulphur and nitrogen dioxide emissions.
The situation, however, is different for utility companies, which could reduce their peak grid demand by up to 32 per cent thanks to solar energy storage and cut down the magnitude of solar power injections to the grid by up to 42 per cent.
“These findings challenge the myth that storage is inherently clean, but that, in turn, offers useful insights for utility companies,” Webber said.
“If we use the storage as the means to foster the adoption of significantly more renewables that offset the dirtiest sources, then storage – done the right way and installed at large-scale – can have beneficial impacts on the grid’s emissions overall.”
The study was published in the journal _Nature Energy_. *Full post* *3) Green Lunacy 3: Protected Forests In Europe Felled To Meet EU Renewable Targets* The Guardian 24 November 2016
Adam Neslen *Europe’s bioenergy plants are burning trees felled from protected conservation areas rather than using forest waste, new report shows*
Protected forests are being indiscriminately felled across Europe to meet the EU’s renewable energy targets, according to an investigation by the conservation group Birdlife.
Up to 65% of Europe’s renewable output currently comes from bioenergy, involving fuels such as wood pellets and chips, rather than wind and solar power.
Bioenergy fuel is supposed to be harvested from residue such as forest waste but, under current legislation, European bioenergy plants do not have to produce evidence that their wood products have been sustainably sourced.
Birdlife found logging taking place in conservation zones such as Poloniny national park in eastern Slovakia and in Italian riverside forests around Emilia-Romagna, where it said it had been falsely presented as flood-risk mitigation. *Full story*

----------


## pharmaboy2

> What is significant about global warming is actually the amount of accumulated heat energy in the engine-room of the Earth's weather system, namely the oceans. The surface temperature is simply a proxy for warming, a noisy one at that and despite all the brouhaha about it by no means the  most important one. 
> Your statement that "lows and highs would not match, statistically this is just the way it is" is incongruous with your statement "averages iron out the bumps and that's what you need to show a trend" which applies equally to matching the number of record highs and lows, and pre AGM this can be shown to be the case. 
> Just focussing at a small movement in averages tends to obfuscate the consequential large disruption in extremes, which are impacting weather systems now, with 1-in-a-hundred year events happening several times in a decade all over the place.

  indeed it is congruent, because your statement was "record" highs and lows, records then preselects the extreme without taking into account the average.  Averages are not a summation of the outliers, in fact depending on the data set it is often best to exclude the outliers - eg calculation of average wages for instance. 
so extremes are extremes and should be looked at discreetly, but carefully and avoiding recent observation bias. 
Whether 1 in a 100 year events are becoming more common should align with a predictable cause and effect scenario on selected events.  Eg what is it specifically that causes hurricanes in the gulf, is that cause measurable, and has it changed.  Before I made any conclusion on snow storms for instance, I'd want a really tight well accepted causation that can then be tied back to global warming. 
maybe an example is evidence based medicine versus science based medicine - there are trials that show statistically significant positive outcomes for things like acupuncture, homeopathy and chiropractic, yet zero plausibility for the effect.   I don't need someone to re run the trial to know that it's a false result when there is no scientific plausibility. 
I know the planet is warming, I would expect an increase in record lows, I would expect some areas to receive more rain some less, I would not expect more cold events however, so those would need detailed well accepted Theories as to how they relate to global warming, not loose ideas that curve fit. 
climate science is having a hard time I suspect because of many bloggers far too quick to make conclusions, and in the past, the IPCC being far too accepting of model predictions that when not true , the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. 
Bloggers with more confidence than trump are the enemy of science, and right now, the world is full of them.

----------


## John2b

Climate science isn't having a hard time at all - the communication of climate science is. 
Models don't make predictions, they make projections, and those projections are only valid when the underlying assumptions do not change. Climate scientists might project that CO2 will rise at a certain rate if current economic development continues at a certain rate and CO2 is locked to world GDP. If economic development slows, say due to a GFC, and if CO2 production becomes 'unlocked' from world GDP, say because of an increasing mix of renewable energy generation and/or a move to less CO2 intensive industry as a result of public pressure, then OF COURSE the projection will not hold!!!! To suggest that the IPCC got this wrong is disingenuous in the extreme and/or shows total ignorance of the whole IPCC process. 
The proportional effect of atmospheric CO2 levels on heat retention was devised way back in the 1890s and has proved to incredibly accurate.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Climate science isn't having a hard time at all - the communication of climate science is. 
> Models don't make predictions, they make projections, and those projections are only valid when the underlying assumptions do not change. Climate scientists might project that CO2 will rise at a certain rate if current economic development continues at a certain rate and CO2 is locked to world GDP. If economic development slows, say due to a GFC, and if CO2 production becomes 'unlocked' from world GDP, say because of an increasing mix of renewable energy generation and/or a move to less CO2 intensive industry as a result of public pressure, then OF COURSE the projection will not hold!!!! To suggest that the IPCC got this wrong is disingenuous in the extreme and/or shows total ignorance of the whole IPCC process. 
> The proportional effect of atmospheric CO2 levels on heat retention was devised way back in the 1890s and has proved to incredibly accurate.

  Incredibly accurate?   Here's the guy, have a read  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius 
the rest of your post is a shocking strawman argument

----------


## John2b

Where has the formula Arrhenius derived been shown to be disproven or wrong? 
Remembering that a projection of the growth of CO2 emissions depends on the behaviour of society at a future time, please explain why if the behaviour society changes, the projection would be expected to hold true. 
You claim the "IPCC (is) being far too accepting of model predictions that when not true". Where is the evidence you have to support this?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Where has the formula Arrhenius derived been shown to be disproven or wrong? 
> Remembering that a projection of the growth of CO2 emissions depends on the behaviour of society at a future time, please explain why if the behaviour society changes, the projection would be expected to hold true. 
> You claim the "IPCC (is) being far too accepting of model predictions that when not true". Where is the evidence you have to support this?

  Arrhenius - " In his calculation Arrhenius included the feedback from changes in water vapor as well as latitudinal effects, but he omitted clouds, convection of heat upward in the atmosphere, and other essential factors. His work is currently seen less as an accurate quantification of global warming than as the first demonstration that increases in atmospheric CO2 will cause global warming, everything else being equal." 
Clever guy, important discovery, but you said it was incredibly accurate, well if you think that it's incredibly accurate, then feel free to have your own beliefs. 
why the assumption that my questioning of model accuracy is about CO2 projections?  You are barking at a shadow. 
the FAR  projections had a climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 that was 1.5c - low, 2.5c best and 4.5c high.  I remember that caused much consternation as it was so wide as to be useless. aerosols, ocean temperature sink, ocean acidification, probably lots more

----------


## John2b

The IPCC distills the research of 10,000's of climate researchers, some of whom are paid by universities, some paid by governments, some paid by corporations, some in eastern block countries, some in western countries, some in first world countries, some in third world countries, some in communist economies and some in capitalist economies. Do you understand what the IPCC actually does and that it does not of itself make predictions or projections? 
I said Arrhenius's formula was incredibly accurate. That is in the context of embryonic physics more than 100 years ago. It is incredibly accurate by any reasonable assessment, and the formula is still in use because it hasn't been superseded by a better, more accurate formula. 
The shadow you say I am barking at is the shadow that you propounded - it wasn't my construct. 
I think you have been drinking too much of the denier camp Kool-aid if you think that the IPCC's reported climate sensitivity is wrong. The actual recorded temperature record is in the middle of the IPCC's projected range.  
Since you have disparaged my posts and since your last post didn't answer my my previous questions, I'll ask again:  Where has the formula Arrhenius derived been shown to be disproven or wrong?  Remembering that a projection of the growth of CO2 emissions depends on the behaviour of society at a future time, please explain why if the behaviour society changes, the projection would be expected to hold true.  You claim the "IPCC (is) being far too accepting of model predictions that when not true". Where is the evidence you have to support this?

----------


## John2b

> *A Trifecta of Green Lunacy: The law of unintended consequences kicks in*

  “If we use the storage as the means to foster the adoption of significantly more renewables that offset the dirtiest sources, then storage – done the right way and installed at large-scale – can have beneficial impacts on the grid’s emissions overall.” 
Great post Marc! Built in self-debunked 'news'. Maybe as an ideological based denier you missed that - such is life for those driven by ideology and not fact.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Lol 
> if lunatics are on the edges, and dummies in the middle, then where are the smart people?

  Smart people? Dunno. 
To paraphrase a great quote...'some of us are dumb but the sum of us is dumber'.

----------


## John2b

> To paraphrase a great quote...'some of us are dumb but the sum of us is dumber'.

  Best contribution for some time. Thanks!

----------


## Marc

*Richard Lindzen Petition to President Trump: Withdraw from the UN Convention on Climate Change*  Eric Worrall / 5 hours ago February 25, 2017  *Guest essay by Eric Worrall* Dr. Richard Lindzen has sent a petition to President Trump, asking the President to withdraw the United States from the United Nations Convention on Climate Change. The petition contains the names of around 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals, including physicists, engineers, former Astronauts, meteorologists, immunology specialists, marine biologists, chemists, statisticians, doctors, military weather specialists, geologists, accountants, a former director of NASA, economists, soil specialists, mathematicians, hydrologists, environmental scientists, computer modelling specialists, and many more. It is a long list.  Let us hope that President Trump acts quickly on Dr. Lindzen’s request. If anyone you know claims the climate debate is over, show them a copy of Dr. Lindzen’s petition.  https://cloudup.com/iHcBpTDmCNu

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *Richard Lindzen Petition to President Trump: Withdraw from the UN Convention on Climate Change*  Eric Worrall / 5 hours ago February 25, 2017  *Guest essay by Eric Worrall* Dr. Richard Lindzen has sent a petition to President Trump, asking the President to withdraw the United States from the United Nations Convention on Climate Change. The petition contains the names of around 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals, including physicists, engineers, former Astronauts, meteorologists, immunology specialists, marine biologists, chemists, statisticians, doctors, military weather specialists, geologists, accountants, a former director of NASA, economists, soil specialists, mathematicians, hydrologists, environmental scientists, computer modelling specialists, and many more. It is a long list.  Let us hope that President Trump acts quickly on Dr. Lindzens request. If anyone you know claims the climate debate is over, show them a copy of Dr. Lindzens petition.  https://cloudup.com/iHcBpTDmCNu

  Yeah but why. And what 'good' will it do for the USA? It would probably cost them to make the effort to opt out. Better for them and these numpties to continue on the path of doing sod all. Let the future sort them out...

----------


## John2b

> Dr. Richard Lindzen has sent a petition to President Trump, asking the President to withdraw the United States from the United Nations Convention on Climate Change.
> The petition contains the names of around 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals, including physicists, engineers, former Astronauts, meteorologists, immunology specialists, marine biologists, chemists, statisticians, doctors, military weather

  Marc, if you have a brain tumour, you'd be well advised to take advice from a neurosurgeon. You would do well to be cautious about non-expert opinions from non-practicing and de-listed physicians, urologists, paediatricians, immunologists, gynaecologists, psychiatrists, nephrologists, etc, etc, no matter how wonderfully they petitioned you.   

> It is a long list.

  Actually it is a very, very, short list and represents less than 1 in a hundred of, for example, the membership of the American Physical Society. In fact, it's barely one signature for each of the nearly 200 scientific organisations around the world, representing many millions of qualified and active researchers and scientists, and which concur that human activity is causing changes to the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, leading to global warming.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Marc, if you have a brain tumour............

  I was wondering where that was going....... 
Lindzen does have some valid points though in his work - the forcing number of water vapour to anyone in the formal sciences seems a little like educated guesswork.   
i still hope we have an anthropogenic co2 driven heating on top of a natural heating (or return to previous stasis), and that therefore water vapour is a weak or neutral positive feed back, that therefore can turn negative feedback (via albedo) with enough temperature increase. 
i would think the other side of the coin is that the carbon cycle is the negative feedback which has a significant time penalty. 
one of these is more likely, but unlike the formal sciences it is a question of probability not binary

----------


## John2b

Oh yes, Lindzen has made some valid points, but he has made a career of being wrong about climate science and has been famously wrong about climate change models.

----------


## Marc

*Fake Polar Bear Scare Unmasked: The Saga of a Toppled Global Warming Icon*Guest Blogger / 2 hours ago February 27, 2017 _In spite of claims that polar bear populations are facing pressure from loss of Arctic summer sea ice, their numbers have in fact grown. Video follows._  *Guest essay by Dr. Susan Crockford* For more than ten years, we’ve endured the shrill media headlines, the hyperbole from conservation organizations, and the simplistic platitudes from scientists as summer sea ice declined dramatically while polar bear numbers rose. Now, just in time for International Polar Bear Day, there’s a video that deconstructs the scare. It runs about 8 minutes, written and narrated by me, produced by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. https://youtu.be/z6bcCTFnGZ0

----------


## woodbe

Real info on Polar Bears:  They ARE on the Red List.  Ursus maritimus (Polar Bear)   

> In light of the significant probability, across scenarios, of a  reduction in mean global population size greater than 30%, and the  relatively low probability of a reduction greater than 50%, we conclude  that Polar Bears currently warrant listing as Vulnerable under criterion  A3c (IUCN 2014).

  Polar Bears remain regarded as vulnerable due to many factors, including Climate Change effects in the Arctic.

----------


## Marc

So can you point out which part of that video is actually wrong and why are you right? 
The polar bears are either in decline or on the rise, it can't be both.

----------


## Marc

*Are Polar Bear Researchers Blinded by Belief, or Acting Dishonestly?*  Anthony Watts / December 1, 2014  *Guest essay by Jim Steele*, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of *Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism* Suggesting impending climate doom, headlines have been trumpeting polar bears are “barely surviving” and “bears are disappearing” prompted by a press release hyping the paper _Polar bear population dynamics in the southern Beaufort Sea during a period of sea ice decline (_hereafterBromaghin 2014), which based on an ongoing US Geological Survey (USGS) study. Dr. Susan Crockford rightfully criticized the media’s fear mongering and failure to mention increasing bear abundance since 2008 here. She also pointed out that modelers have consistently failed to account for the negative impacts of heavy springtime ice here. I want to reinforce Crockford’s posts, plus argue the problem is much worse than she suggested. Bromaghin 2014’s purported 25 to 50% population decline is simply *not real*. The unprecedented decline is a statistical illusion generated by the unrealistic modeling of polar bear survival from 2003 to 2007. The highly unlikely estimates of low survival were made possible only by ignoring the documented effect of cycles of heavy springtime sea ice which forces bears to hunt outside the researchers’ study area. Although several of Bromaghin’s co-authors had previously published about negative impacts of heavy springtime ice, they oddly chose to never incorporate that evidence into the USGS models. The following demonstrates how the statistical illusion of “disappearing polar bears” was generated and I urge you to forward your concerns about USGS fear-mongering via subjective modeling to your congressmen and push them to fully investigate these USGS’ polar bear studies. Perhaps polar bear researchers are just victims of confirmation bias. Co-authors of Bromaghin 2014 have long tied their authority, fame and fortune to predictions of impending polar bear extinctions due to *lost summer sea ice*. In a 2008 Dr. Andrew Derocher predicted, “It’s clear from the research that’s been done by myself and colleagues around the world that we’re projecting that, by the middle of this century, two-thirds of the polar bears will be gone from their current populations”. Dr Steve Amstrup, chief scientist for Polar Bear International and the USGS researcher that initiated the Beaufort Sea studies, previously published “Declines in ice habitat were the overriding factors determining all model outcomes. Our modeling suggests that realization of the sea ice future which is currently projected, would mean loss of ≈ 2/3 of the world’s current polar bear population by mid-century.”1 Furthermore the USGS’ political reputation is on the line because their studies led to the listing of polar bears as “threatened” due to decreasing summer ice they attributed to CO2 warming. But why do USGS model estimates differ from Inuit experts and the Nunavut government who have steadfastly claimed it is the time of the most polar bears. And why does the USGS’ models differ from numerous surveys (i.e here and here) that support the Inuit claims? There are *2 major flaws* in USGS models: *1)* USGS Polar bear researchers tirelessly point to hypothesized stress due to lost summer sea ice, yet they completely ignore much *more critical cycles of heavy springtime ice*. As previously documented by Bromaghin’s co-authors, the condition of springtime sea icedetermines the abundance and/or accessibility of ringed seal pups. Eighty percent or more of the bears’ annual stored fat is accumulated during the ringed seal pupping season that stretches from late March to the first week of May. At that time female bears emerge from their maternity dens to feast on ringed seal pups, and accordingly USGS mark and recapture studies focus virtually all their efforts during the month of April. Yet not one model has incorporated known changes sea ice during that same period. Is that data purposefully omitted because heavy spring time ice does not support their CO2-driven extinction scenarios? *2)* Furthermore heavy springtime ice forces movement outside the study area because it prevents local access to seal pups. Any *movement outside the study area prevents subsequent recapture and can erroneously cause models to assume emigrant bears are dead.* That false assumption creates lower survival estimates which then dramatically lower population estimates. Misinterpreting a temporary or permanent exodus away from a stressful local environment was the same critical error that led to bogus extinction claims for the Emperor Penguins. Coincidently one modeler, Hal Caswell, created both models falsely suggesting Emperor Penguins and Polar Bears are both on the verge of extinction. *1) Why Spring Ice Conditions Are More Critical than Summer Ice*. South Beaufort Sea bears increase their body weight primarily by binging on ringed seal pups, and the bears’ springtime weight gains are huge. Researchers reported capturing a 17-year-old female, with three cubs-of-the-year, in November 1983 when she weighed just 218 lbs. Her weight would have continued to drop, as it does for all bears, throughout the icy winter. Weights do not increase until seal pups become available in late March and April. But after gorging on seal pups, she was recaptured in July and weighed 903 lbs, a four-fold weight change in just 4 months. 2 (her picture is below). The ability to rapidly gain weight, hyperphagia, evolved as a crucial survival strategy to take advantage of abundant but temporary food sources. Springtime ice conditions govern their access to the fleeting availability of ringed seal pups.  In 2001, Bromaghin 2014 co-author Stirling described the negative impacts of heavy rafted springtime ice. “In the eastern Beaufort Sea, in years during and following *heavy ice conditions in spring, we found a marked reduction in production of ringed seal pups and consequently in the natality of polar bears*.” Stirling noted it took about 3 years for both seal and bear populations to rebound. Stirling also reported the South Beaufort Sea undergoes ~10-year cycles of such heavy ice, and those stressful cycle had been observed in the 70s, 80s and 90s. 5 The most recent cycle of heavy ice is well documented and occurred precisely when bears increasingly exited the study area from 2003 to 2007. In 2008, Bromaghin 2014 co-authors Stirling, Richardson, Thiemann, and Derocher published _Unusual Predation Attempts of Polar Bears on Ringed Seals in the Southern Beaufort Sea: Possible Significance of Changing Spring Ice Conditions_. 10 Those researchers had observed that “unusually rough and rafted sea ice extended for several tens of kilometers offshore in the southeastern Beaufort Sea from about Atkinson Point to the Alaska border during the seals’ breeding season from 2003 through 2006”, precisely when their models calculated low survival and a rapid decline in the polar bear population. Those researchers reported “*heavy ice reduces the availability of low consolidated ridges and refrozen leads with accompanying snowdrifts typically used by ringed seals for birth and haul-out lairs*.” And they observed, “*Hunting success of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) seeking seals was low despite extensive searching for prey*. It is unknown whether seals were less abundant in comparison to other years or less accessible because they maintained breathing holes below rafted ice rather than snowdrifts, or whether some other factor was involved.“ (Forcing bears to claw through rafted ice gives the seals ample time to escape.) Polar bears never defend territories. Instead polar bears are highly mobile. Dependent upon seal pups for most of their annual energy supply, a supply that varies annually, bears simply migrate to regions with greater seal abundance.  After giving birth and completing their annual molt by late June, most ringed seals migrate out to sea to fatten and are no longer available to the bears. After late June the amount of sea ice is no longer important habitat for ringed seals. So any correlations with summer sea ice extent from August to November have a relatively insignificant impact on survival. In fact, more open water benefits seals. In a previous essay, Why Less Summer Ice Increases Polar Bear Populations, I explained why ringed seals avoid thick multi-year ice, and why more open water later in the season benefits the whole food web. Bromaghin 2014’s co-author Stirling previously co-authored a paper reporting ringed seals must feed intensively in the open waters of summer in order to store the fat needed to survive the winter, and that *seals suffer when sea ice is slow to break up*. 4 He pointed out that in 1992 when breakup of sea ice was delayed by 25 days, the body condition of all ringed seals declined resulting in declining body condition of bears. To supplement their diet, bears will feed on a wide array of alternative items from whale carcasses, walruses to geese eggs. Despite the 2nd lowest extent of Arctic summer ice in 2007, researchers on Wrangel Island reported fatter bears than they had previously documented.6 All the evidence suggests summer ice is far less critical than the condition of springtime ice. So is the erroneous focus on summer ice conditions merely driven by researchers predictions that rising CO2 will cause widespread polar bear extinctions in 30 years? 2) *Movement Lowers Survival Estimates which Lowers Population Estimates* Bromaghin 2014 authors acknowledged that the observed movement could bias model results, but simply dismissed the observed transiency of wandering bears writing, “The analyses of movement data suggested that Markovian dependency in the probability of being available for capture between consecutive *years remains a potential source of bias*. However, we view these results with some caution because of the small sample sizes and prior evidence that bears prefer ice in waters over the narrow continental shelf. Further, *there is no reason to suspect behavior leading to non-random movement during the spring capture season changed during the investigation.”* But their dismissal is nothing less than dishonest. Bromaghin 2014 authors had indeed observed that heavy springtime ice resulted in reduced hunting success and reduced body condition and would force bears to hunt elsewhere. Bromaghin 2014 authors were denying their own evidence. A subset of bears had been radio-collared in order to track their movements. Between 2001-2003 when their study area experienced normal springtime ice conditions, researchers estimated high survival probability and high abundance, and only 24% of the radio-collared females had wandered outside their study area making them unavailable for recapture. In contrast during the years of heavy springtime ice between 2004 and 2006 researchers estimated unprecedented low survival, low abundance and observed an increased number of collared females outside the study area doubling to 47% in 2005 and 36% in 2006. 7,9 Yet Bromaghin 2014 argue “*there is no reason to suspect behavior leading to non-random movement during the spring capture season changed during the investigation.”* A previous study by Amstrup had mapped the range over which radio-collared bears travelled each year. From his 3 examples illustrated below it is clear that polar bears are not always found in the same place each year. *Furthermore in accordance with the changing availability of seal pups due to cycles of heavy springtime ice, he reported polar bears exhibited their lowest fidelity to any given area during the spring pupping season.* Finally Amstrup’s map shows bears naturally wander outside the boundaries of the study areas searching for food. Because researchers restricted their search efforts to the east of Barrow Alaska, bears moving in and out of the Chukchi sea area have a far less recapture probabilities. Likewise bears that wander between Alaska and Canada will have different recapture probabilities because different amounts of effort were expended in each country. Due to movement of bears in and out of the Chukchi Sea region, Amstrup had determined those movements heavily biased previous survival and abundance estimates. 8, 12Bromaghin 2014 also report that the Chukchi Sea region is more productive than the Beaufort Sea. So it is highly likely that bears migrate between the Beaufort Sea study area and the Chukchi Sea in response to varying periods of localized heavy springtime ice and seal pup availability. So why does Bromaghin 2014 dismiss observed movement bias by arguing “*there is no reason to suspect behavior leading to non-random movement during the spring capture season changed during the investigation”* and contrary to their own evidence suggest bears would remain in the more productive Chukchi Sea region.  In 2001 Amstrup had previously estimated survival rates *of South Beaufort bears as 96.2% and natural survival rates were 99.6% and a population could be more than 2500 bears in 1998. 3* Amstrup reported “polar bears compensate for a low reproductive rate with the potential for long life” (i.e high survival). Because movements of bears into and out of his study area had greatly biased his results he warned, “*models that predict rapid increases or decreases in population size would not mirror reality*.” Curiouser and curiouser he no longer heeds his own advice. Amstrup and his colleagues suddenly embraced the unprecedented low survival rates of 77%, and a rapid 25 to 50% decline in the population between 2004 and 2008 as seen in their graph of estimated abundance.  In order for their model to generate that unprecedented low survival rate of 77%, (despite no observed change in the trend of body condition for 95% of Beaufort Sea bears) 11modelers had to dismiss the observed movements outside their study area. Once Bromaghin’s authors had dismissed the significance of springtime movement, their models would interpret a lack of recaptures as an indicator of dead bears which then produced the illusion of a rapidly declining polar bear population. Below is a table illustrating the simplified effects of historical survival estimates on abundance calculations (assuming no additions from new births and immigration). The numbers listed in the gray columns on the left are the USGS study’s actual number of bears captured annually, and the number of that total capture that were previously marked bears. As the study progressed and newly captured bears are marked, the pool of marked bears increases. If the study area was a closed system, we would expect each year’s total number of captures to consist of an increasingly higher percentage of marked bears once the pool of marked bears was large enough. But each year the number of previously marked bears made up only ~50% of the total captures, suggesting a larger population was more likely than what was currently estimated, and that the length of this study was not yet long enough. In the simplest models, abundance is determined by dividing the total number of bears captured each year by the *percentage* of captured marked bears from the pool of previously marked bears. (Read How science Counts Bears for a further discussion of mark and recapture studies) However the size of the pool of marked bears depends upon the bears’ survival probability. To illustrate, for each year I generated 3 different pools according to different historical survival estimates. The resulting change in abundance calculated from those 3 different survival probabilities are highlighted in yellow. If researchers assumed *100% survival*, which is close to Amstrup’s 99.6% in his original study, (but with no additions from birth or immigration) then Bromaghin’s data would estimate a 2010 growing population of 2,255 bears. An estimate that is remarkably similar to Amstrup’s 1998 estimate of ~2500 bears.  If the researchers assumed Amstrup’s *96% survival*, a lower survival estimate due to the impact of hunting, then the 2010 abundance would be calculated at 1865 bears. Again remarkably close to Amstrup’s suggested abundance of 1800 for a hunted population. In the 2006 USGS analyses, 7 the authors interpreted fewer recaptures as an averaged lower survival rate of 92%. A *92% survival rate* would produce a stable 2010 population estimate of 1664 bears, which is also 70% higher than Bromaghin’s results. The only way to generate a tragically declining bear population was to employ much lower survival estimates. And as evidenced by their graph below, that is just what they did for the period of heavy springtime ice with low seal availability and much greater movement out of the study area. When the springtime ice returned to normal so did the bears, and their estimated survival rates likewise returned to the expected high ~95%. The huge error bars in Bromaghin’s survival probabilities (see graph below) during those heavy ice years, illustrates the great uncertainty regards the actual fate of marked bears that were never recaptured.   So we must question why these polar bear researchers ignored their co-author’s earlier warning, “*models that predict rapid increases or decreases in population size would not mirror reality*.” Were polar bear researchers blinded by climate change beliefs, or acting dishonestly? *Literature Cited*   1. Amstrup (2007) Forecasting the Range-wide Status of Polar Bears at Selected Times in the 21st Century USGS Science Strategy to Support U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Polar Bear Listing Decision 2. Ramsay, M, and Stirling, I. (1988) Reproductive biology and ecology of female polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Journal of Zoology (London) Series A 214:601–634. 3. Amstrup, S. et al. (2001) Polar Bears in the Beaufort Sea: A 30-YearMark–Recapture Case History. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, Volume 6, Number 2, Pages 221–234 4. Chambellant, M. et al. (2012) Temporal variations in Hudson Bay ringed seal (Phoca hispida) life-history parameters in relation to environment. Journal of Mammalogy, vol. 93, p.267-281 5. Stirling, I. (2002)Polar Bears and Seals in the Eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf: A Synthesis of Population Trends and Ecological Relationships over Three Decades. Arctic, vol. 55, p. 59-76 6. Ovsyanikov N.G., and Menyushina I.E. (2008) Specifics of Polar Bears Surviving an Ice Free Season on Wrangel Island in 2007. Marine Mammals of the Holarctic. Odessa, pp. 407-412. 7. Regehr et al 2006, Polar bear population status in the southern Beaufort Sea: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006 8. Amstrup et al (2000) Movements and distribution of polar bears in the Beaufort Sea Can. J. Zool. Vol. 78, 2000 9. Regehr, E., et al. (2010) Survival and breeding of polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea in relation to sea ice. Journal of Animal Ecology 2010, 79, 117–127 10. Stirling, I. et al. (2008) Unusual Predation Attempts of Polar Bears on Ringed Seals in the Southern Beaufort Sea: Possible Significance of Changing Spring Ice Conditions. Arctic, vol 61, p. 14-22. 11. Rode, K. et al. (2007) Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea III: Stature, Mass, and Cub Recruitment in Relationship to Time and Sea Ice Extent Between 1982 and 2006. USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Administrative Report. 12. Amstrup, S. and Durner, G. (1995) Survival rates of radio-collared female polar bears and their dependent young. Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 73. P. 1312‑1322. [COLOR=#999999 !important]Advertisements[/COLOR]

----------


## John2b

> The polar bears are either in decline or on the rise, it can't be both.

  Legislation was enacted a few decades ago banning harassment, hunting, capture, or killing of polar bears in five Arctic states: Greenland, Norway, the United States, Canada and the Russian Federation. Maybe that has something to do with the slow recovery in polar bear numbers over the past few decades. Obviously numbers would have rebounded to much greater levels in the absence of habitat destruction resulting from climate change over the same period.

----------


## PhilT2

> So can you point out which part of that video is actually wrong and why are you right? 
> The polar bears are either in decline or on the rise, it can't be both.

  It's not up to us to do your homework for you, if you want to read something and just accept it without even basic checks then that's your problem. The GWPF does no research on polar bears nor does Susan Crockford. Maybe Heartland don't pay her enough. And nobody at WUWT has ever actually got off the couch and counted bears. So I'll choose to believe the work done by the people who actually went out and did the work of trying to monitor the bear population. 
Just to help you out this one time. When someone talks about one or two populations of bears and google tells you there are nineteen suspect cherrypicking. And when they say the effect of extent of spring ice melt on bears was not taken into consideration then go to google again and put in "polar bears spring sea ice" and up will come all these studies where people did actually check exactly that. Takes less than a minute.

----------


## John2b

> The petition contains the names of around 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals, including physicists, engineers, former Astronauts, meteorologists, immunology specialists, marine biologists, chemists, statisticians, doctors, military weather specialists, geologists, accountants, a former director of NASA, economists, soil specialists, mathematicians, hydrologists, environmental scientists, computer modelling specialists, and many more.

  One of the "eminent" or otherwise "qualified" individuals who signed the petition was none other than One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts, the same Malcolm Roberts who was elected with just 77 primary votes. Yes that's correct, a grand total of 77 Australians thought Roberts would be a good choice for senator. In the categories Lindzen has listed, he's omitted the one for totally ignorant self-important tossers who struggle to tie their own shoelaces, which I suspect is a category that covers an awful lot of his cohorts, like Roberts.

----------


## woodbe

> So can you point out which part of that video is actually wrong and why are you right? 
> The polar bears are either in decline or on the rise, it can't be both.

  The video is not done by a polar bear scientist researcher. It is done by a person who does not publish scientific Polar Bear research, and is clearly paid by a climate denial organisation which has no credibility: Heartland. 
And there are many separate populations of Polar bears in the Arctic, and the scientific researchers tell us that some populations are growing and others are falling. There is not enough population research to be emphatic about the actual population numbers and changes over the whole area. They are on the Red List, which means they are at risk based on actual scientific research. 
So yes, Polar bears can be in decline and also on the rise based on their locality.

----------


## Marc

You guys are absolutely pathetic. All you can say is either that the author is not qualified, or that he is a "denier" or that somehow you don't like his or her findings.  
Accept the fact that to believe in AGW it requires as much faith as to believe in the green leprechaun in the back of your garden, it has as much "science" content and it exists with the only purpose of shifting resources and power to otherwise dead projects and dead parties and dead ideas that belong in a museum.  
Your attitude and "replies" have proven it at nauseam.

----------


## PhilT2

> All you can say is either that the author is not qualified, or that he is a "denier" or that somehow you don't like his or her findings.

  No, your cut and paste claimed the spring sea ice extent was not measured. I showed you how to do a basic google search that revealed that the ice had been comprehensively studied. If you chose not to do that search that's your right. Others may choose to do so and discover for themselves that the report is wrong. I doubt that anyone will be surprised by that as the GWPF and WUWT lost all scientific credibility long ago. Only the faithful continue to believe and to maintain their faith they must avoid searching for facts. When you're ready to enter the real world, the facts are out there waiting for you.

----------


## woodbe

+1 PhilT2 
Marc, Science isn't based on blogs and newspapers.  
The 'author' you quoted is a known denier who is funded by a well known denier funding source.  
It's your choice to swallow the misinformation from wuwt and gwpf, but most of us take heed of actual science, which is based on hard research and publication after the information and theories are checked by other actual qualified scientists. Previously noted, but ignored by yourself  and those who prefer non-science spiel.  https://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4186

----------


## johnc

Marc, once again you logic just isn't evident, again you come back to faith and petty insults. Your sources are from unqualified people, if you want to be checked for cancer nobody uses a plumber, yet in effect you do on this topic. Without exception your sources are highly suspect and generally unqualified in the climate change area. The rest of us read from sources we believe are reputable and form our views as we go along, we don 't invent nor do we hold fixed views you have to remain flexible as more information comes forward and old models and information are tested and expanded. Yours is just a finger in ears mantra of no it isn't, no it isn't punctuated by some bizarre link you have trawled up.

----------


## John2b

> You guys are absolutely pathetic. All you can say is either that the author is not qualified, or that he is a "denier" or that somehow you don't like his or her findings.

  Face it Marc, if your posts on this topic did not contain so much trivially discredited tripe, your posts would not attract so much derision.

----------


## John2b

Royal Dutch Shell issued a stark warning of the catastrophic risks of climate change and produced this documentary in 1991. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOWi8oVXmo

----------


## Marc

*MSN augments “Fake News” with photoshopped penguin photos*Guest Blogger / 1 hour ago March 1, 2017  *Guest post by Jim Steele*
Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of *Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism*
MSN appears to be a source of climate fear mongering and “fake climate news” based on their story under the headlines _Antarctica hits record high temperature at balmy 63.5°F_ .
The story was accompanied by what can only be a horribly photo-shopped photograph for the unassuming warmunista of a mushroom-shaped ice form teetering on a rocky outcrop. 
Supposedly it was photographed on the opposite side of the continent from which the record temperature occurred. Climbing such a structure would be a difficult technical climb for an experienced mountaineer. Furthermore when Adele penguins come ashore to breed they avoid the ice if possible, only crossing snowfields as the seek ice-free breeding territories. Lastly if you magnify the picture 500%, the penguins become extremely pixilated, the ice chunk less so, and the background rocks even less so, a fingerprint of 3 different photographs with different resolution that have been overlain.
MSN reported, “An Argentine research base near the northern tip of the Antarctic peninsula has set a heat record at a balmy 63.5° Fahrenheit (17.5 degrees Celsius), the U.N. weather agency said on Wednesday.” The record was set in 2015 and the WMO report simply confirmed the temperature. The Wunderblog had reported in March 2015, “On March 24th Base Esperanza (under Argentinean administration) located near the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula reported a temperature of 17.5°C (63.5°F). Although this is the warmest temperature ever measured since weather stations became established [in 1953] on the southern continent, it is complicated by what the very definition of ‘Antarctica’ is.
To induce fear over Esperanza’s temperature record MSN writes, “Antarctica locks up 90 percent of the world’s fresh water as ice and would raise sea levels by about 60 meters (200 ft) if it were all to melt, meaning scientists are concerned to know even about extremes around the fringes.”
However high temperatures at Esperanza tell us nothing about climate change, or if there is any threat of melting ice caps or rising sea level. Instead Esperanza presents a prime example of how temperatures can rise dramatically without any increased input of heat. Argentina’s Esperanza weather station is situated on the most extreme equatorward tip of the Antarctic peninsula and its mean monthly temperature for March is -3.6 C. But Esperanza’s location subjects it to episodic warm northwesterly winds which is why it is also infamous for its foehn wind storms that can dramatically increase temperatures by 10 to 40 C degrees in a matter of hours.
This record 17 C (63.5 F) temperature recently recorded, is 20 C above average, and as expected the record temperature is the result of foehn winds. Foehn winds warm temperatures via adiabatic heating (no heat input) as descending winds passing over the nearby mountains warm from adiabatic compression. It is meaningless weather regards penguins. But no mention of foehn winds by MSN.
At least the Wunderblog, was honest about the cause of record warming in 2015 stating, “A strong high pressure ridge and a *Foehn wind* led to the record temperatures as Jeff Masters explains here:
This week’s record temperatures were made possible by an unusually extreme jet stream contortion that brought a strong ridge of high pressure over the Antarctic Peninsula, allowing warm air from South America to push southwards over Antarctica. At the surface, west to east blowing winds over the Antarctic Peninsula rose up over the 1,000-foot high mountains just to the west of Esperanza Base, then descended and warmed via adiabatic compression into a warm foehn wind that reached 44 mph (71 km/hr) at 09 UTC on March 24th, near when the maximum temperature was recorded. A similar event also affected Marambio on the 23rd.”Likewise in the 2016 paper _Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with natural variability_researchers with the British Antarctic Survey reported, “The trend in the SAM led to a greater flow of mild, northwesterly air onto the AP [Antarctic Peninsula] with SAT [surface air temperature] on the northeastern side increasing most because *ofamplification through the foehn effect.”* This isn’t the first time such photo fakery has been used. There’s the _Ursus Bogus_ episode, and NCDC’s fake flooded house, to name a couple. Anything for the cause – Anthony

----------


## Marc

*New bear species discovered: Ursus Bogus*Anthony Watts / May 12, 2010 
	 	 I had been avoiding this photo issue, because well, the whole thing is stupid no matter how you look at it and it’s been been heavily covered elsewhere. But when Tim Blair coined the clever headline “_Ursus Bogus_“, in the Daily Telegraph, I knew I had to pass it on to American readers. WUWT readers may also recall NOAA/NCDC using photoshopped pictures of a flooded house in their big whoop-de-doo climate impacts report last year. They had to pull the report. Heh.
Blair writes: _Science_ magazine is deeply  disturbed: _We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation  of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists  in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific  facts._To illustrate its item about scientific facts, _Science_ chose this  image of a doomed poley bear: 
 One small problem. 
As James  Delingpole reveals, that poley bear image is fake. It’s been  photoshopped. _Science_ subsequently admitted: _The image associated with this article was  selected by the editors. We did not realize that it was not an original  photograph but a collage, and it was a mistake to have used it._As _Science_ says: “There is always some uncertainty associated  with scientific conclusions.”
=======================================
I wonder how they missed the description here at the source of the photo?
It reads: Stock photo description
A polar bear managed to get on one of  the last ice floes floating in the Arctic sea. Due to global warming the  natural environment of the polar bear in the Arctic has changed a lot.  The Arctic sea has much less ice than it had some years ago. (This  images is a photoshop design. Polarbear, ice floe, ocean and sky are  real, they were just not together in the way they are now)So much for peer reviewed editing. Maybe next time they’ll use the penguin version.

----------


## Marc

Global warming bogus reports and doomed polar bear's report and bogus everything else report ... oh but they are all full of schienze right?
Pull the other one!

----------


## woodbe

Haha! 
So the forum master denier continues to quote bogus non-science to support denial. 
Doesn't seem to realise that science is actually about science, not bogus fake science from the denier site he drinks the kool-aid from.

----------


## John2b

> The story was accompanied by what can only be a horribly photo-shopped photograph for the unassuming warmunista of a mushroom-shaped ice form teetering on a rocky outcrop. 
> Supposedly it was photographed on the opposite side of the continent from which the record temperature occurred. Climbing such a structure would be a difficult technical climb for an experienced mountaineer. Furthermore when Adele penguins come ashore to breed they avoid the ice if possible, only crossing snowfields as the seek ice-free breeding territories. Lastly if you magnify the picture 500%, the penguins become extremely pixilated, the ice chunk less so, and the background rocks even less so, a fingerprint of 3 different photographs with different resolution that have been overlain.

  More trivially disproved drivel from the master driveller. Here's another version of the picture. Magnify it by as many % as you like, the penguins just don't become pixelated at all. The poor emeritus Director Jim Steele's great grand children obviously weren't around to show him how to use a computer. 
(Hint the distortion around the penguins in the small image is a typical artefact of JPEG compression caused when the original photo was converted to a data saving format for low bit rate online publishing, nothing to do with being photoshopped!)   
Click here for a bigger, but still compressed, version: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/wp-conte...a-20160408.jpg 
Two Adelie penguins stand atop a block of melting ice on a rocky shoreline at Cape Denison, Commonwealth Bay, in East Antarctica January 1, 2010. 
You can buy the original picture in full resolution here: http://pictures.reuters.com/C.aspx?V...=2C0BF1O422GGB

----------


## John2b

> It’s been  photoshopped.

  This is photoshopping; would anyone be surprised if you approve of this:

----------


## John2b

Here's more photoshopping for you Marc. You can tell because the camel foot is in focus but the bottle of sunscreen lotion is pixelated. And it's in a newspaper that said a climate scientist said something.  https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-warming#img-1   https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ng?CMP=soc_567

----------


## phild01

> Here's more photoshopping for you Marc. You can tell because the camel foot is in focus but the bottle of sunscreen lotion is pixelated. And it's in a newspaper that said a climate scientist said something.  https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-warming#img-1   https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ng?CMP=soc_567

   :Confused:  Was that something to do with toes.... I can't see what you are saying!!

----------


## PhilT2

Never mind the toe, I can't even see the camel. But the real point here is that when you can't dispute the data that shows record temps and record ice loss at both poles then you distract people with claims of photoshopping. 
In other news, David "avocado" Wolfe will be touring Australia shortly and for the measly sum of $440 he will share his wisdom on health, diet and nutrition. It is not clear whether he will share his wisdom in other areas such as the NASA conspiracy to conceal the fact that the world is flat and gravity is all a hoax. He also advises against vaccines and chemotherapy. Is he a climate change denier? Well of course he is. Avoid the rush, book early, only $440...

----------


## John2b

> Was that something to do with toes.... I can't see what you are saying!!

  My post is satire and as silly as the nonsense it parodies, I hope. PM me for the secret to the 'camel's foot'; it's a descriptive term I found in a men's magazine at the barber's, not something to explain on a family friendly forum, though I thought it might appeal to the proponent of my parody. Alternative just delete my folly, or I can if you think it inappropriate. This topic is polluted with much folly, often cut and pasted, by another forum participant, which is the trigger of so much jovial banter for others, myself included. I do get carried away in response sometimes.

----------


## johnc

I think that part of the camel is actually the toe rather than the foot, just saying, not that it means anything.

----------


## Marc

*Weapons Of Mass Deception*Posted on January 30, 2017 by tonyheller The criminals in the MSM pushing the global warming scam have established standard _Pavlov’s Dogs_ techniques for pushing progressives deeper into their insanity. When progressives see these images, they drool mindlessly. Water vapor tinted red with Photoshop. These are man-made clouds, and images like this normally are taken on very cold days when the water condenses quickly. It has nothing to do with pollution or heat. Glaciers calving.  Glaciers are rivers of ice. 500 billion tons of snow falls on Greenland every year, and it all has to return to the sea to maintain equilibrium. It has nothing to do with global warming. Snow melts in the summer.  Rivers form in Greenland during the summer, just like they do everywhere else. 500 billion tons of snow falls on Greenland every year, and it all has to return to the sea to maintain equilibrium. It has nothing to do with global warming. Happy, healthy Polar Bears on ice flows. This is what they do in the summer. Ice melts every summer, and refreezes every winter. We see these images every day in the press. The people promoting them are criminals, not journalists. Their intent is to deceive, not inform.

----------


## woodbe

Lol again! The denier is not talking about climate, and definitely not talking about science.  
This is the real arctic climate now (only 2 days ago) showing exactly what is happening due to Climate Change:    Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

----------


## johnc

Equilibrium, as per Tony Heller, obviously someone who has trouble with the truth. Sea ice since 1979 has been declining about 3% or so per decade, although 2017 looks like it maybe an outlier.

----------


## johnc

In an effort to cut down on the large amount of time a certain contributor spends looking for worthless rubbish we could offer a little shortcut, something he can just post every few days which perfectly encapsulates the value of the information contained within those posts. So for that person here it is :Redface:

----------


## Marc

*Greenpeace Claims Immunity from Lawsuits Because Its Claims Are Hyperbole* 2:02pm EST March 3, 2017 *by Katie Brown, PhD* Theres been an interesting twist of events involving Greenpeace, one of the major groups pushing the failing #ExxonKnew campaign: Theyve been sued by Resolute, a Canadian forest-products company, for defamation and false claims about the companys operations.    But when Greenpeace had to answer for its actions in court, the group wasnt so sure it could defend its claims. In fact, they admitted those claims had no merit. As Resolutes President and CEO Richard Garneau explained in a recent op-ed,A funny thing happened when Greenpeace and allies were forced to account for their claims in court. They started changing their tune. Their condemnations of our forestry practices do not hew to strict literalism or scientific precision, as they concede in their latest legal filings. *Their accusations against Resolute were instead hyperbole, heated rhetoric, and non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion that should not be taken literally or expose them to any legal liability.*These are sober admissions after years of irresponsible attacks.  (emphasis added) No forest loss was caused by Resolute, the groups concede  now that they are being held accountable. As the _Financial Post_ also reported,But now Greenpeace says it never intended people to take its words about Resolutes logging practices as literal truth. The publications use of the word Forest Destroyer, for example, is obvious rhetoric, Greenpeace writes in its motion to dismiss the Resolute lawsuit. Resolute did not literally destroy an entire forest. It is of course arguable that Resolute destroyed portions of the Canadian Boreal Forest without abiding by policies and practices established by the Canadian government and the Forest Stewardship Council, but that is the point: The Forest Destroyer statement cannot be proven true or false, it is merely an opinion. In other words, Greenpeace is admitting that it relies on non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion, and *because its claims are not meant to be factual, the group believes it cannot be held legally responsible for what it says*. Notably, Greenpeace has been actively pushing for legal action against ExxonMobil, alleging the company knew about climate change in the 1970s and 1980s before the worlds top scientists had come to any solid conclusions. When the Rockefeller-funded InsideClimate News and Columbia School of Journalism produced their #ExxonKnew hit pieces, Greenpeace immediately called for the Department of Justice to investigate ExxonMobil, saying,*The Department of Justice should open a federal investigation immediately and hold the company legally accountable for misleading the public*, lawmakers, and investors about the impacts of climate change. A DOJ investigation should be broad and look into the role of other fossil fuel companies, trade associations, and think tanks in sowing doubt about the risks of climate change. (emphasis added) Greenpeace claims it cannot be sued because its misleading claims were not meant to be factual, but it then claims the U.S. Department of Justice needs to investigate an energy company for what it calls misleading the public. It will come as no surprise that Greenpeace is also funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefeller Family Fund, the same groups that have been bankrolling #ExxonKnew every step of the way. Representatives from Greenpeace were in attendance at a secret strategy meeting in January 2016, held at the Rockefeller Family Fund offices in New York, where the activists met to brainstorm how to establish in publics mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution, delegitimize them as a political actor, and force officials to disassociate themselves from Exxon. A former member of Greenpeaces Board of Directors, Kenny Bruno, last year tweeted,I dont want to abolish Exxon. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub. If it wasnt already abundantly obvious, these latest developments just go to show how much credulity Greenpeace has. Source: https://energyindepth.org/national/g...are-hyperbole/ I hope Resolute takes these eco-clowns for every penny they have and they get shut down. Like the case won against Gawker for defamation, they deserve it.

----------


## John2b

> There’s been an interesting twist of events involving Greenpeace, one of the major groups pushing the failing #ExxonKnew campaign: They’ve been sued by Resolute, a Canadian forest-products company, for defamation and false claims about the company’s operations.

  Resolute lodged the complaint against Greenpeace on 31st May 2016. Here's the result:  *Court dismisses ‘vexatious’ allegations by Resolute Forest Products against Greenpeace*  The decision awarded Greenpeace full costs for the appeal.  Court dismisses ‘vexatious’ allegations by Resolute Forest Products against Greenpeace | Financial Post 
I give that

----------


## PhilT2

The right wing approach to free speech is a little flexible; their right is be inaccurate is absolute. Anyone criticising them...well that's a different matter altogether.

----------


## craka

Ok to join the party.  
Like just about all legal matters it's a tic for tac game.  Both parties Greenpeace and Resolute did the wrong thing. One by Greenpeace making false/misleading accusations (Greenpeace admitted to this in 2013) and secondly by Resolute trying to turn the scope of the trial into a inquiry on Greenpeace.  
As far as my opinion.  Like I've stated previously I do not believe the Global warming/climate change is due to human activities alone. I believe most climate change is a naturally occurring event, and likely to be involved with magnetic pole reversal that happens every few hundred thousand years.
I do believe we need to stop the pollution, mass deforrestation and use of finite resources.  It is a tragedy that so many patents were locked up by oil companies. https://www.theguardian.com/business...uction-patents

----------


## PhilT2

> As far as my opinion.  Like I've stated previously I do not believe the Global warming/climate change is due to human activities alone. I believe most climate change is a naturally occurring event, and likely to be involved with magnetic pole reversal that happens every few hundred thousand years.

  It's ok to have an opinion but what evidence do you have to support it? There is a half baked theory that a weakening of the earths magnetic field allows more solar radiation in and results in warming. The actual measurements of incoming radiation do not support this so the theory has never been taken seriously as far as I can see. Is this site the main source of your information? Why Climate Change | Magnetic Pole Relocation

----------


## Marc

> _“A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.”_ _“How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).”_ _“At this point, the private sector seems like a more ‘honest’ place for a scientist working in a politicized field than universities or government labs — at least when you are your own boss.”_  Judith Curry

    *A Climate Story That Must be Told*   Anthony Watts / 6 hours ago March 4, 2017 *Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball* Emotionally, it is almost impossible to walk a mile in another person’s shoes. It is particularly true when the other person is of a different sex. I say this because I believe a climate science story that must be told is the degree of difference in nastiness directed at those who questioned the prevailing AGW wisdom. People who have not experienced it cannot imagine how vile and intimidating it gets, although there are some hints in the “Comments” section of articles on WUWT. It would be worse without a moderator, but even then, you would not see the type of material sent to an individual. What is more disturbing for me, is that the intensity and nastiness are even higher for some than others. I think there are ways that a person can get a sense of the experience of another’s shoes, but it is only a sense. For example, as a young boy I delivered newspapers and on one occasion was attacked by a large dog. Since then I have been afraid of large dogs, and that has influenced my life because I walk every day, but avoid areas where I know there are large dogs. The outrage is that the dog owners are influencing my life without even being aware of it. For this reason, whenever women hold a “take back the night” event to protest having their freedom of movement limited by unknowing people I provide complete support. It does not put me in their shoes but does give me a sense of their anger and frustration. I am explaining this because of the experiences of two women involved in the climate debate, Judith Curry, and Sallie Baliunas. I have not spoken with either woman about this column. I also suspect they would not approve, but in a way that is the problem. They know that complaints are automatically considered self-serving, a sign of weakness, and all the other epithets in our society. Judith Curry wrote about why she abandoned climate science in eloquent words but, in my opinion, because of the societal situation, they were restrained and non-accusatory. I cannot walk a mile in her shoes as a male climate skeptic of longstanding, but, like my dog experience, I have an awareness. I am writing this column because, as a male I am ashamed of the behaviour of too many other males, but also because most would not even know what was and is going on. I watched from a close and better informed vantage point what these women experienced. What happened to them is symptomized by a man, some argue George Bernard Shaw fits the pattern, who was both a misanthrope and a misogynist. This fascinates me because if you hate everybody doesn’t that include women? Apparently, they hate everyone, but *really* hate women. It is shameful for society in general, but especially in science, where open, completely unfettered, discourse must occur. The level of animosity and nastiness in debates and discussions is a symptom of the collapse of civility, and that can presage a collapse of civilization. I watched the level of animosity increase as the level of civility declined at climate conferences. It quickly reached a point where conferences were either AGW or Skeptics conferences and then, because of political interference, there were very few of the latter. Therefore, the first Heartland Climate Conference in New York in 2009 was so significant. It was the first major international skeptics conference and valuable for that, but also underlines a scientific divide that should not exist. Judith Curry and Sallie Baliunas crossed that divide. Curry was working on the AGW approach as chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. In the interests of proper, balanced, open, science Curry invited Steve McIntyre to make a presentation explaining his side of the ‘hockey sick’ story. I could have told her what would happen because the nastiest attacks I ever received were from department colleagues: this included a three-page letter that a lawyer deemed libelous. They also deliberately made work and advancement difficult because they controlled promotion, tenure and all aspects of my career. To my knowledge, I remain today the person longest in rank as an Assistant Professor in the history of Canadian universities. My final promotion to full Professor was only achieved after a direct appeal, with evidence, to the University President. Some of this is explained by Sayre’s law that says,“Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low.” I know academic politics are the nastiest because I was in the military, worked in private industry, and worked for a civilian government. What happened to those who were openly climate skeptics reached another level altogether. Curry and Baliunas were two people who experienced this, but from what I observed, at another level again. Judith Curry provided a very open and reasoned explanation for choosing to step aside from mainstream academia. Here are some quotes;“A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.” “How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).” “At this point, the private sector seems like a more ‘honest’ place for a scientist working in a politicized field than universities or government labs — at least when you are your own boss.” Based on my experience this was a tempered, reasonable effort that only speaks to the technical and bureaucratic frustrations and shows concern for the students. However, there is a hint of the hurt and anguish about a forced change in career path and a glimmer of the hostile environment in the workplace. The fact that Curry, a clearly private person, decided to ‘retire’ publically speaks volumes. The fact that any academic is forced so far outside their comfort zone speaks volumes about what was going on in climate science and academia should give us all pause, but there is more to it than that, I don’t think Curry was aware of or could have known, what happened to Sallie Baliunas. The main reason is that Baliunas completely and very quietly withdrew from research and academia and, as I understand, retired to the countryside. I discovered what went on because of our mutual attempts to help people understand the great climate deception. Occasionally over the years, people contacted me after investigating the work of the IPCC. They experience what happened to Klaus-Eckart Puls.I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. These people were so shocked that they sought out someone to confirm that what they found was true. In the case of Albert Jacobs and the people that became the _Friends of Science__,_ they approached Sallie Baliunas and me. We both provided as many answers and as much help as possible. One day Albert advised me that they were unable to contact Sallie. I finally contacted Willie Soon, another severely beleaguered skeptic, because he was a colleague who published with Sallie when she worked as an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Her career also included a period as Deputy Director of the Mount Wilson Observatory. Besides the FOS contacts, I was pleased to work briefly with Sallie on the historical relationships between climate, crops, ergot fungus poisoning and witchcraft. I like to think that Sallie’s study of witchcraft gave her insight into the persecution of people, especially women, through the exploitation of hysteria and false information. Sallie very quietly disappeared into the good night, but what happened before that helps understand why. One of the biggest challenges to the AGW deception was the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). David Deming testified before Congress on the threat it was to their narrative. Baliunas and Soon produced an excellent paper from a multitude of sources that confirmed the existence of the MWP. Michael Mann got rid of the MWP with his production of the ‘hockey stick,’ but Soon and Baliunas were another problem. What better than to have a powerful placed academic destroy their credibility for you? Sadly, there are always people who will do the dirty work. Here is how I described what went on in my book _The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science._ “A perfect person and opportunity appeared. On 16th October 2003 Michael Mann sent an email to people involved in the CRU scandal;Dear All, Thought you would be interested in this exchange, which John Holdren of Harvard has been kind enough to pass along… At the time, Holdren was Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy & Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government. Later he became Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President_(Obama)_ for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—informally known as the United States Science Czar. In an email on October 16, 2003, from John Holdren to Michael Mann and Tom Wigley we’re told:_I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my “Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or less self-explanatory._ This is what Holdren sent to the Wednesday Breakfast group:I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me, correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position. The exchange Holdren refers to is a challenge by Nick Schulz editor of Tech Central Station (TCS). On August 9, 2003, Schulz wrote:In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my website, you are quoted as saying: My impression is that the critics are right. It is unfortunate that so much attention is paid to a flawed analysis, but that’s what happens when something happens to support the political climate in Washington. Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not? Holdren provides lengthy responses on October 13, 14, and 16th, but his comments fail to answer Schulz’s questions. After the first response Schulz replies:I guess my problem concerns what lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily much more heavily, given the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree? Of course, Holdren doesn’t agree. He replies:But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing—it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows. No, it doesn’t evolve; it is either on one side or the other. This argument is in line with what has happened with AGW. He then demonstrates his lack of understanding of science and climate science by opting for Mann and his hockey stick over Soon and Baliunas. His entire defense and position devolve to a political position. His attempt to belittle Soon and Baliunas in front of colleagues is a sad measure of the man’s character. Schulz provides a solid summary when he writes:I’ll close by saying I’m willing to admit that, as someone lacking a PhD, I could be punching above my weight. But I will ask you a different but related question. How much hope is there for reaching reasonable public policy decisions that affect the lives of millions if the science upon which those decisions must be made is said to be by definition beyond the reach of those people? We now know they deliberately placed it beyond the reach of the people and restricted it to the group that he used to ridicule Soon and Baliunas.” I attended a conference about a controversial issue a few years ago at which the debate became increasingly personal and nasty. The Chairperson acted properly by interrupting and saying; _“People, please, we can disagree, but we don’t have to be disagreeable.”_ The level of debate on the claim of anthropogenic global warming went far beyond being disagreeable, but there was no chairperson to call a halt. Why are personal attacks so vicious when the subject is as innocuous as weather and climate? What do lawsuits have to do with learning, research, or science? Why were the attacks so nasty that they drove two superbly qualified women to the sidelines? One of many incorrect statements made in the global warming/climate change debate was that the science is settled. Ironically, those who said it did more to be disagreeable than anyone. The nastiness began and increased as evidence continued to emerge showing the science wasn’t settled. In response to the question reportedly posed by John Maynard Keynes,“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir? Clearly, if you are unprepared to change your mind, you are forced to increasingly nasty, uncivil behavior. It is a manifestation of the idea that if the end is the sole objective, it justifies any means. It is no coincidence that this is a central theme of Saul Alinsky’sRules for Radicals.

----------


## John2b

> ...I do not believe the Global warming/climate change is due to human activities alone. I believe most climate change is a naturally occurring event, and likely to be involved with magnetic pole reversal that happens every few hundred thousand years.

  It's perfectly alright to have an opinion, but the climate couldn't care less about anyone's opinion. So what's really warming the planet?  https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...ing-the-world/

----------


## pharmaboy2

The Hockey stick. 
Here's one of the examples of over zealousness that drives the AGW skeptics.. 
the original Manns hockey stick   
First, it was rarely published with the blue uncertainty shaded area in tact, second it shows no medieval warming maximum. 
now by 2005, a more accepted graph was published   
Thisone clearly shows a different view, and amongst scientists is the accepted temperature record as far as I can tell.  The second one still shows the current warming as being much deeper and faster - for the last decade there has been no good reason to use michael mans work, it just isn't as accurate as current accepted work. 
that in essence gives the skeptics oxygen - in any other part of science, using the out dated graph would be shouted down immediately, but manns graph is still used.  The fact that the medieval climate maximum is real doesn't mean anything apart from something interesting - it should never have been glossed over in the first place, that it was points to some level of intellectual dishonesty that has pervaded climate science in the past, and still does on the panic ridden side today

----------


## John2b

> Clearly, if you are unprepared to change your mind, you are forced to increasingly nasty, uncivil behavior.

  So we've noticed...

----------


## Marc

*Manhattan Contrarian*BLOG/ARTICLES/ARCHIVE/ABOUT/CONTACT         *The Impending Collapse Of The Global Warming Scare*December 14, 2016/ Francis MentonOver the past three decades, the environmental movement has increasingly hitched its wagon to exactly one star as the overwhelming focus of the cause, namely "climate change."  Sure, issues of bona fide pollution like smog and untreated sewage are still out there a little, but they are largely under control and don't really stir the emotions much any more.  If you want fundraising in the billions rather than the thousands, you need a good end-of-days, sin-and-redemption scare.  Human-caused global warming is your answer! Even as this scare has advanced, a few lonely voices have warned that the radical environmentalists were taking the movement out onto a precarious limb.  Isn't there a problem that there's no real evidence of impending climate disaster?  But to no avail.  Government funding to promote the warming scare has been lavish, and in the age of Obama has exploded.  Backers of the alarm have controlled all of the relevant government bureaucracies, almost all of the scientific societies, and the access to funding and to publication for anyone who wants to have a career in the field.  What could go wrong? Now, enter President-elect Trump.  During the campaign, as with many issues, it was hard to know definitively where Trump stood.  Although combatting climate change with forced suppression of fossil fuels could be a multi-trillion dollar issue for the world economy, this issue was rarely mentioned by either candidate, and was only lightly touched on in the debates.  Sure, Hillary had accused Trump of calling climate change a "hoax" in a November 2012 tweet.  (Actual text: _"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make American manufacturing non-competitive."_)  But in an early 2016 interview, Trump walked that back to say that the statement was a joke, albeit with a kernel of truth, because _"climate change is a very, very expensive form of tax"_ and _"China does not do anything to help."_  Trump had also stated that he intended to exit the recent Paris climate accord, and to end the War on Coal.  So, was he proposing business-as-usual with a few tweaks, or would we see a thorough-going reversal of Obama's extreme efforts to control the climate by fossil fuel restrictions? With the recently announced appointments, this is starting to come very much into focus.  In reverse order of the announcements:  Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, as Secretary of State.  As of today, we still have as our chief diplomat the world leader of smugness who somehow thinks that "climate change" caused by use of fossil fuels is the greatest threat to global security.  He is shortly to be replaced with the CEO of Exxon.  Could there be a bigger poke in the eye to the world climate establishment?  I'm trying to envision Tillerson at the next meeting of the UN climate "conference of parties" with thousands of world bureaucrats discussing how to put the fossil fuel companies out of business.  Won't he be laughing his gut out?Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy.  Not only was he the longest-serving governor of the biggest fossil fuel energy-producing state, but in his own 2012 presidential campaign he advocated for the elimination of the Department of Energy.  This is the department that passes out tens of billions of dollars in crony-capitalist handouts for wind and solar energy (Solyndra!), let alone more tens of billions for funding some seventeen (seventeen!) research laboratories mostly dedicated to the hopeless task of figuring out how to make intermittent sources of energy competitive for any real purpose.And then there's Scott Pruitt for EPA.  As Attorney General of Oklahoma, another of the big fossil fuel energy-producing states, he has been a leader in litigating against the Obama EPA to stop its overreaches, including the so-called Clean Power Plan that seeks to end the use of coal for electricity and to raise everyone's cost of energy. You might say that all of these are very controversial appointments, and will face opposition in the Senate.  But then, Harry Reid did away with the filibuster for cabinet appointments.  Oops!  Barring a minimum of three Republican defections, these could all sail through.  And even if one of these appointments founders, doesn't the combination of them strongly signal where Trump would go with his next try? So what can we predict about where the climate scare is going?  Among members of the environmental movement, when their heads stop exploding, there are plenty of predictions that this will be terrible for the United States:  international ostracism, loss (to China!) of "leadership" in international climate matters, and, domestically, endless litigation battles stalling attempts to rescind or roll back regulations.  I see it differently.  I predict a high likelihood of substantial collapse of the global warming movement, both domestically and internationally, over the course of the next couple of years. Start with the EPA.  To the extent that the global warming movement has anything to do with "science," EPA is supposedly where that science is vetted and approved on behalf of the public before being turned into policy.  In fact, under Obama, EPA's principal role on the "science" has been to prevent and stifle any debate or challenge to global warming orthodoxy.  For example, when a major new Research Report came out back in Septemberclaiming to completely invalidate all of the bases on which EPA claims that CO2 is a danger to human health and welfare, and thus to undermine EPA's authority to regulate the gas under the Clean Air Act, EPA simply failed to respond.  In the same vein, essentially all prominent global warming alarmists refuse to debate anyone who challenges any aspect of their orthodoxy.  Well, that has worked as long as they and their allies have controlled all of the agencies and all of the money.  Now, it will suddenly be put up or shut up.  And in case you might think that the science on this issue is "settled," so no problem, you might enjoy this recent round-up at Climate Depot from some of the actual top scientists.  A couple of excerpts: _Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson:  'I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side. ' . . ._ _Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘Global warming is a non-problem’ – ‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’_ Now the backers of the global warming alarm will not only be called upon to debate, but will face the likelihood of being called before a highly skeptical if not hostile EPA to answer all of the hard questions that they have avoided answering for the last eight years.  Questions like:  Why are recorded temperatures, particularly from satellites and weather balloons, so much lower than the alarmist models had predicted?  How do you explain an almost-20-year "pause" in increasing temperatures even as CO2 emissions have accelerated?  What are the details of the adjustments to the surface temperature record that have somehow reduced recorded temperatures from the 1930s and 40s, and thereby enabled continued claims of "warmest year ever" when raw temperature data show warmer years 70 and 80 years ago?  Suddenly, the usual hand-waving ("the science is settled") is not going to be good enough any more.  What now? And how will the United States fare on the international stage when it stops promising to cripple its economy with meaningless fossil fuel restrictions?  As noted above, people like Isabel Hilton predict a combination of ostracism and "loss of leadership" of the issue, most likely to China.  Here's my prediction:  As soon as the United States stops parroting the global warming line, the other countries will quickly start backing away from it as well.  This is "The Emperor's New Clothes," with the U.S. in the role of the little kid who is the only one willing to say the obvious truth in the face of mass hysteria.  Countries like Britain and Australia have already more or less quietly started the retreat from insanity.  InGermany the obsession with wind and solar (solar -- in the cloudiest country in the world!) has already gotten average consumer electric rates up to close to triple the cost in U.S. states that embrace fossil fuels.  How long will they be willing to continue that self-destruction after the U.S. says it is not going along?  And I love the business about ceding "leadership" to China.  China's so-called "commitment" in the recent Paris accord is not to reduce carbon emissions at all, but rather only to build as many coal plants as they want for the next fourteen years and then cease _increasing_ emissions _after 2030_!  At which point, of course, they reserve their right to change their mind.  Who exactly is going to embrace that "leadership" and increase their consumers' cost of electricity by triple or so starting right now?  I mean, the Europeans are stupid, but are they _that_ stupid?  And finally, there is the question of funding.  Under Obama, attaching the words "global warming" or "climate change" to any proposal has been the sure-fire way to get the proposal whatever federal funding it might want.  The Department of Energy has been the big factor here.  Of its annual budget of about $28 billion, roughly half goes to running the facilities that provide nuclear material for the Defense Department, and the other half, broadly speaking, goes to the global warming cause:  crony capitalist handouts for wind and solar energy providers, and billions per year for research at some seventeen (seventeen!) different energy research laboratories.  During the eight Obama years, the energy sector of the U.S. economy has been substantially transformed by a technological revolution that has dramatically lowered the cost of energy and hugely benefited the American consumer.  I'm referring, of course, to the fracking revolution.  How much of the tens of billions of U.S. energy subsidies and research funding in that time went toward this revolution that actually produced cheaper energy that works?  Answer:  _Not one single dollar!_  All of the money was completely wasted on things that are uneconomic and will disappear as soon as the government cuts off the funding spigot.  All of this funding can and should be zeroed out in the next budget.  Believe me, nobody will notice other than the parasites who have been wasting the money. If the multi-tens-of-billions per year funding gusher for global warming alarmism quickly dries up, the large majority of the people living on these handouts will have no choice but to go and find something productive to do.  Sure, some extreme zealots will find some way to soldier on.  But it is not crazy at all to predict a very substantial collapse of the global warming scare over the course of the next couple of years. The environmental movement has climbed itself way out onto the global warming limb.  Now the Trump administration is about to start sawing off the limb behind them.     
[ ... and not soon enough ...  :2thumbsup:  ]

----------


## John2b

> The Hockey stick. 
> Here's one of the examples of over zealousness that drives the AGW skeptics.. 
> the original Manns hockey stick   
> First, it was rarely published with the blue uncertainty shaded area in tact, second it shows no medieval warming maximum. 
> now by 2005, a more accepted graph was published

  Cough, cough...  The first graph has a timescale of 1000 - 2000 years, the second 0 - 2000 years. If you match the timescales of the first and second graphs, they do concur. No, Mann did not leave out the medieval warming period. Here is Mann's graph (and others) with the 0 - 1000 year data as well:  
It is abundantly clear that Mann did not leave out the medieval warming period. To suggest he did is intellectual dishonesty. You earn one poop for your effort.

----------


## craka

> It's ok to have an opinion but what evidence do you have to support it? There is a half baked theory that a weakening of the earths magnetic field allows more solar radiation in and results in warming. The actual measurements of incoming radiation do not support this so the theory has never been taken seriously as far as I can see. Is this site the main source of your information? Why Climate Change | Magnetic Pole Relocation

  No it hasn't been.  The thing with science is in it's own admission not  an exact science as in what it is thought today may not be the full  realisation of an area of study,  ie science is constantly evolving in  it's technologies and it's studies.  
My thoughts are some what  related to some university physics study, an my thoughts are based upon  the fact that all matter is made of atoms, all atoms contain protons,  neutron, and electrons. Electrons have spin and thus are considered  magnetic dipoles. Thus if there is a change in magnetic field there  would have to be some response by magnetic dipoles interacting with a  magnetic field.  It is known that the earths magnetic poles have revered periodically over time, and when it occurs happens over a period of time.  
What is considered to be half baked, may not be.  Einstein's special relativity theory was not believed to true for some significant years later and was only proven in recent years. Einstein&#039;s theory of relativity finally proven - The Spectrum

----------


## John2b

> The thing with science is in it's own admission not  an exact science...

  Yes science is not exact, but not in the way you seem to think at all! You are using an incredibly complex machine that is the result of inexact science to post in this forum. The ability to put billions of electronic components onto a tiny sliver of silicon that makes your PC work is the same science that is used to design the engine in your car, the world's nuclear power plants and describe the effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If the science that defines AGW is broken, your PC, car and every other technological device would be broken as well.

----------


## pharmaboy2

happy to get a poop from Marc's opposing shadow, means I'm on the right track - down the middle not at the extreme. 
the graphs are very clear and tell a story, only the naive think that no forethought goes into scale, where it starts and where it ends.

----------


## phild01

But how do any other factors get accounted for when modelling.  Things like variation of the earth's surface, earth's orbit, solar emissions, planetary positions, earth's heat exhaust etc. Do we have to accept that the modelling is absolute!

----------


## John2b

> happy to get a poop from Marc's opposing shadow, means I'm on the right track - down the middle not at the extreme. 
> the graphs are very clear and tell a story, only the naive think that no forethought goes into scale, where it starts and where it ends.

  Yes the graphs are abundantly clear; Mann did not omit the medieval warm period in his 'hockeystick' graph like you purported. BTW being right has nothing to do with being in the middle. Climate change could not give a damn about ideological position your's, Marc's or mine.

----------


## craka

> Yes science is not exact, but not in the way you seem to think at all! You are using an incredibly complex machine that is the result of inexact science to post in this forum. The ability to put billions of electronic components onto a tiny sliver of silicon that makes your PC work is the same science that is used to design the engine in your car, the world's nuclear power plants and describe the effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If the science that defines AGW is broken, your PC, car and every other technological device would be broken as well.

  There are several streams of science that you are referring to within that post.  I'm not stating that science is not purposeful, it very much is. Just there can be more than one thought or theory, but unfortunately the only way of knowing/proof is going to be time.

----------


## John2b

> There are several streams of science that you are referring to within that post.

  There is no such thing as 'proof' in science; proof is something for mathematics. Yet all of the streams of science referred to in the post (AND all of the thousands of streams of science that were not referred to) are subject to laws of thermodynamics - there is no stream of science that can 'opt out'. The laws of thermodynamics define the effect of human emissions of greenhouse gases, and actual observations just confirm what the laws define. Which is very reassuring because if they didn't, nothing else defined by the same laws would work like expected either, starting with your shoelaces and toaster.

----------


## PhilT2

> No it hasn't been.  The thing with science is in it's own admission not  an exact science as in what it is thought today may not be the full  realisation of an area of study,  ie science is constantly evolving in  it's technologies and it's studies.  
> My thoughts are some what  related to some university physics study, an my thoughts are based upon  the fact that all matter is made of atoms, all atoms contain protons,  neutron, and electrons. Electrons have spin and thus are considered  magnetic dipoles. Thus if there is a change in magnetic field there  would have to be some response by magnetic dipoles interacting with a  magnetic field.  It is known that the earths magnetic poles have revered periodically over time, and when it occurs happens over a period of time.  
> What is considered to be half baked, may not be.  Einstein's special relativity theory was not believed to true for some significant years later and was only proven in recent years. Einstein&#039;s theory of relativity finally proven - The Spectrum

  I think that you still have a ways to go to establish that the reversal will cause warming. If some response occurs what exactly is it and how does it cause warming? What has happened in previous reversals? Have they always caused warming?

----------


## woodbe

> But how do any other factors get accounted for when modelling.  Things like variation of the earth's surface, earth's orbit, solar emissions, planetary positions, earth's heat exhaust etc. Do we have to accept that the modelling is absolute!

  Modelling is the best projection at the point at which the model is created. From that point on, the model is improved as further knowledge is added to the model over time. 
I don't think you can find a scientist that will suggest a climate model is absolute. Over time and with continual improvements (like adding more factors to the model once science has done enough research on the details of those factors) the models become more accurate. Will they continue to improve? Of course they will. 
So no, we don't have to accept modelling is absolute. On the other hand as a species we would be foolish to ignore the model projections before us.

----------


## John2b

> ... as a species we would be foolish to ignore the model projections before us.

  Oh come on, as a species we would never willingly do anything foolish, like give the keys to a nuclear weapons arsenal to a psychopathic malignant narcissist. Oops, we just did...

----------


## John2b

> Modelling is the best projection at the point at which the model is created.

  True, but models can/will never accomodate the effect of changes in human behaviour that result from knowledge of the projected outcome of the model.

----------


## pharmaboy2

thoght you may find this interesting woodbe, seems to be at the centre of most uncertainty, from the NOAA 
"Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate _feedbacks_ related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when it's warmer), leading to more water _vapor_ in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor." 
from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring...ion=watervapor

----------


## John2b

> But how do any other factors get accounted for when modelling.  Things like variation of the earth's surface, earth's orbit, solar emissions, planetary positions, earth's heat exhaust etc. Do we have to accept that the modelling is absolute!

  I have never met, heard or read of anybody in climate science who thinks that climate models are anything more than just models that produce projections based on a certain set of assumptions. It's the deniers who get wound up about what models are meant or not meant to be. And polar bears on ice blocks.

----------


## John2b

> thoght you may find this interesting woodbe, seems to be at the centre of most uncertainty, from the NOAA

  All of that conjecture about cloud feedbacks is just fine and dandy, but it does not mean that there is uncertainty about the role of anthropogenically emitted greenhouse gases. Unlike water vapour, CO2, methane, ozone, etc, do not rain out of the atmosphere, but have combined to permanently shift the Earth's radiation balance (i.e. the balance between heat in and heat out) towards a higher temperature equilibrium. That the *expected* effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions matches the *observed* effect at least twenty times closer than any other plausible cause of the current land and ocean warming is not odd or remarkable at all.

----------


## phild01

Accept the models for what they are.  If they are an indicator then that is good, but I wouldn't be speaking of what they indicate as being absolute.  No need to associate denial as the alternative view!

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Accept the models for what they are.  If they are an indicator then that is good, but I wouldn't be speaking of what they indicate as being absolute.  No need to associate denial as the alternative view!

  Yeah, so what John sort of mentioned in an oblique way, is that it's 95% certain that there is anthropogenic cause of current warming of between 1% of the effect and 100% of the observed effect.  Same sentence spun differently. 
see, it's a catastrophe on its way, but not enough of a catastrophe to warrant moving positively towards nuclear power, nor to building massive hydro systems unless they are ecologically sound, probably not even enough to lose their fear of GMO crops. 
nothing will ever be done of substance becauase you have the 2 sides eminently presented here, and whatever one side says the other says no.  The left and the right are genetically incapable of compromise at the moment, so Phil, strap yourself in, don't buy low lying land near sea, and hope that water vapour works the same in the tropics and is a self limiting forcer of warming

----------


## Marc

> Accept the models for what they are.  If they are an indicator then that is good, but I wouldn't be speaking of what they indicate as being absolute.  No need to associate denial as the alternative view!

  Denier is a derogatory term used to associate holocaust denier with AGW denier. It demonstrate the intransigence of the religious zealots that pedal the global warming fraud. 
Yet they think they ride the high moral ground of pure incontestable science.

----------


## Marc

*Observtional Data - QandA- and Truth.*  Posted on Facebook today:   _The Lone Ranger and Tonto went camping in the desert. After they got their tent all set up, both men fell sound asleep.Some hours later, Tonto wakes the Lone Ranger and says, 'Kemo Sabe, look towards sky, what you see? '
'The Lone Ranger replies, 'I see millions of stars.'_ _'What that tell you?' asked Tonto.__The Lone Ranger ponders for a minute then says, 'Astronomically speaking, it tells me there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo. Time wise, it appears to be approximately a quarter past three in the morning. Theologically, the Lord is all-powerful and we are small and insignificant. Meteorologically, it seems we will have a beautiful day tomorrow.
What does it tell you, Tonto?'_ '_You dumber than buffalo $h!It means someone stole our tent.'__Now that may be a good joke on Facebook, but the point of that post isObservational data. 
And what does observational data tell us about earth's temperature record? 
Well,  here's NASA's (modified) idea:  _ _   This is probably the graph that Celebrity Scientist Brian Cox disgracefully THREW rudely at Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts on the very left slanted Australian TV Panel show QandA.  (LINK) 
So, what is the "Observational data" for that period? What would Tonto have seen above the (lack of) tent? 
Well, in January 2016, if that was when the tent was taken away:   _    _Posted by Geoff Brown at 18:06_

----------


## pharmaboy2

Just for anybody wondering what the temp data is above it's te RSS dataset - satellite measurement since 1997, it's one of 5 datasets and the only one that shows only slight warming, for more info  https://thinkprogress.org/climate-de...246#.jf67wgzbo 
i also object to the term "deniers" - it's just an insult, ignorance is pervasive amongst all humans, the topics just change between individuals.  Ignorance is only a problem when you also think you know and understand something that you are actually ignorant about - At the extreme you become a narcissist or a Trump

----------


## John2b

> Yeah, so what John sort of mentioned in an oblique way, is that it's 95% certain that there is anthropogenic cause of current warming of between 1% of the effect and 100% of the observed effect.  Same sentence spun differently.

  One thing is for sure, I am obviously miserable as a communicator. The certainty that 100% of the current warming is anthropogenic is much, much higher than 95%; in fact it is *almost certain* that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are contributing more than *105%* of the current *observed* warming. It is only because of particulates emitted by agriculture, industry, diesel engines and volcanoes that the the net warming *observed* is *less* than the the contribution of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions alone.

----------


## PhilT2

RSS has three sets of data, lower middle and total troposphere. There are also a number of different versions of each as the sets, all dating from 1979. When you select an earlier version of just one set and shorten the time period to some arbitarily chosen year we choose words to describe that. Cherrypicking is most common but misleading, deceptive, dishonest, and fraudulent have been used as well.  
When I use a word, Humpty said....

----------


## John2b

> Denier is a derogatory term used to associate holocaust denier with AGW denier.

  Nope, nothing to do with Nazis (or religion), denier is a term used in the climate debate to describe people who have a propensity to deny logical conclusions that are entirely consistent with both historical observations of climate and the applied physics of thermofluid dynamics (namely the laws of conservation of energy) in relation to climate.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Yeah, so what John sort of mentioned in an oblique way, is that it's 95% certain that there is anthropogenic cause of current warming of between 1% of the effect and 100% of the observed effect.  Same sentence spun differently.
> g

  Sorry, over reach by me, should check before I run off on memory and assume on a quote.  More accurately , from 2013 IPCC  _It is_ _extremely likely__ [defined as 95-100% certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [human-caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together._

----------


## phild01

> Nope, nothing to do with Nazis (or religion), denier is a term used in the climate debate to describe people who have a propensity to deny logical conclusions that are entirely consistent with both historical observations of climate and the applied physics of thermofluid dynamics (namely the laws of conservation of energy) in relation to climate.

  Isn't that just being dogmatic.  True science wouldn't be that, would it?

----------


## John2b

> _Well, in January 2016, if that was when the tent was taken away:_

  
Very "in-tents" post Marc. What if The Lone Ranger and Tonto slept under the stars, and not in the tent they erected? Well, peer review would probably have picked that up before the story teller made a fool of themselves...

----------


## John2b

> RSS has three sets of data, lower middle and total troposphere. There are also a number of different versions of each as the sets, all dating from 1979. When you select an earlier version of just one set and shorten the time period to some arbitarily chosen year we choose words to describe that. Cherrypicking is most common but misleading, deceptive, dishonest, and fraudulent have been used as well.

  And every few years the RSS satellite data set (_and_ the UAH satellite data set) have had to be *adjusted* to match actual real atmospheric temperature measurements because the climate *model*(!) that satellite data processors use to generate an equivalent 'temperature' from proxy O2 IR measurements have been shown to be *wrong*.

----------


## PhilT2

> Isn't that just being dogmatic.  True science wouldn't be that, would it?

  Back in #15923 I mentioned a Mr Wolfe who is convinced the world is flat and gravity is a hoax. What else but "denier" would suffice, bearing in mind forum rules? 
I am open to suggestions for a one word description for the people who are going to pay the asking price of $440 for advice from said person. "Gullible" doesn't seem to quite cover it.

----------


## phild01

> Back in #15923 I mentioned a Mr Wolfe who is convinced the world is flat and gravity is a hoax. What else but "denier" would suffice, bearing in mind forum rules? 
> I am open to suggestions for a one word description for the people who are going to pay the asking price of $440 for advice from said person. "Gullible" doesn't seem to quite cover it.

  That is not a particularly effective analogy.  Anyone now has the means available to know the earth is not flat.  In early times, there would have been great difficulty in understanding this.
Most people today take it on trust what the 'scientific' community has to say.  Are there any true scientists on this thread or are we all sitting in armchairs?  Personally I can see what data indicates but just not compelled to be dogmatic about it.

----------


## John2b

> Posted on Facebook today: _Posted by Geoff Brown at 18:06_

  Thanks Marc, it was surely appreciated by all of Geoff Brown's fifteen (15) Google+ followers as well. https://plus.google.com/112307306875662535675

----------


## PhilT2

> Anyone now has the means available to know the earth is not flat.

  Anyone with basic skills can prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with a simple experiment done in an ordinary workshop. Yet this is denied regularly on denier sites.

----------


## phild01

> Anyone with basic skills can prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with a simple experiment done in an ordinary workshop. Yet this is denied regularly on denier sites.

  Maybe that *is* accepted by those you mention but the impact isn't as readily accepted; the level of impact is not as easily proven! 
As I see it most people who you want to address are everyday people who have little idea what is being put forward (referring to all the never ending graphs and data sets as put forward in this thread), and will just accept majority opinion whether it is published data or the opinion of the person next door.  Most people would be too afraid to argue with a consensus especially with those who can talk forever on the matter, and especially if they should dare be called a 'denier'. 
Because the evidence isn't absolute, the argument could be more flexible without the emotion.  I think it only gets emotional because of a degree of uncertainty that does exist, and frustration creeps in from both camps.

----------


## Marc

*Princeton Physicist on ‘global warming’: ‘We should not bow to religious dogma disguised as science’Read the Full Article *    *Prominent Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'In past centuries, some of the most educated members of society wrote learned books on how to ferret out witches and presided in trials where witches were condemned to death. There never was a threat from witches, and there is no threat from increasing carbon dioxide.'* *What is really being asked is, “Do you agree with the party line of the previous administration, that continued emissions of carbon dioxide will destroy the planet unless the people of the world do exactly what they are told?” The answer to this question should also be a resounding no; we should not bow to religious dogma disguised as science. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines the word “hoax” as “to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous.” So hoax is a pretty good description of the article of faith that nominees are being asked to endorse: that carbon dioxide is supposedly dangerous “carbon pollution.”* *Trump meets with Princeton scientist who called ‘global warming’ fears ‘pure belief disguised as science’*   By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotFebruary 2, 2017 7:40 PM  By Dr. William Happer – Tribune News Service The media and hostile congressional interrogators have routinely asked nominees for high positions in the new Trump administration some variant of the question, “Is climate change a hoax?” Nominees should answer forthrightly, “No!” Climate has been changing since the Earth was formed — some 4.5 billion years ago. Climate changes on every time scale — whether decades, centuries or millennia. The climate of Greenland was warm enough for farming around the year 1100 A.D., but by 1500, the Little Ice Age drove Norse settlers out. There is no opportunity for a hoax, since climate change is so well documented by historical and geophysical records. But none of the climate change of the past was due to humans. The very minor warming in the past few centuries is mostly from non-human causes as well. What is really being asked is, “Do you agree with the party line of the previous administration, that continued emissions of carbon dioxide will destroy the planet unless the people of the world do exactly what they are told?” The answer to this question should also be a resounding no; we should not bow to religious dogma disguised as science. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines the word “hoax” as “to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous.” So hoax is a pretty good description of the article of faith that nominees are being asked to endorse: that carbon dioxide is supposedly dangerous “carbon pollution.” All living creatures respire huge amounts of carbon dioxide every day. Carbon dioxide is essential to the growth of plants, which have been coping with a carbon dioxide famine for several tens of millions of years, an instant in geological time. Satellites already show dramatic greening of the earth as carbon dioxide levels begin to recover toward their historical norms. Those levels had been measured in thousands of parts per million (ppm), not today’s puny 400 ppm. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but much less important than the major greenhouse gas, water vapor, H2O, and clouds. Observations, including the extended “hiatus” in warming since about the year 2000 — which is poised to continue now that the El Nino warming of 2015-2016 is behind us — show that more atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause only modest warming of the Earth’s surface. This would benefit the world in many ways, extending growing seasons and lessening human mortality, which increases in cold weather. And modest warming means that there will also be no dangerous increase in sea levels. Climate alarmists are advancing a false narrative. To limit increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide, smug elites demand that developing countries not burn fossil fuels as inexpensive, reliable sources of energy.  It is immoral to deny much of the world’s population this opportunity to escape centuries of poverty. Real pollutants from fossil fuel combustion, oxides of sulfur, nitrogen, fly ash, etc., do need rational control by cost-effective technology. But more carbon dioxide is a benefit to humanity and the “social cost of carbon,” aka carbon dioxide, is negative.  Many sincere people, without the time or training to dig into the facts, have been misled by the demonization of carbon dioxide.  This seems to be a recurrent feature of human history. In past centuries, some of the most educated members of society wrote learned books on how to ferret out witches and presided in trials where witches were condemned to death.  There never was a threat from witches, and there is no threat from increasing carbon dioxide.  The great Baltimore iconoclast, H.L. Mencken got it right when he observed: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Climate change is the latest hobgoblin.  #  William Happer is an emeritus Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University and a former Director of Energy Research of the U.S. Department of Energy. Readers may write him at 258 Jadwin Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 08544. # Trump meets with Princeton scientist who called ‘global warming’ fears ‘pure belief disguised as science’ – *Trump meets with Dr. Will Happer who, in 2015, declared UN climate “policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?”* *Happer in 2017 ‘outraged by distortions of CO2 & climate intoned by hapless, scientifically-illiterate newscasters’* *Happer in 2016: ‘If global warming were any other branch of science it would have been abandoned a long time ago’* *Happer to U.S. Senate: The Earth is currently in a ‘CO2 ‘famine.’*

----------


## John2b

> *‘We should not bow to religious dogma disguised as science’*

  ...and then that's exactly what Marc does. This is where the above post belongs:  :Poop:

----------


## craka

> Because the evidence isn't absolute, the argument could be more flexible without the emotion.  I think it only gets emotional because of a degree of uncertainty that does exist, and frustration creeps in from both camps.

  I agree with you.

----------


## woodbe

William Happer is a known climate denier. That's why Trump likes him.  https://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer  https://skepticalscience.com/William_Happer_quote.htm

----------


## Marc

_William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, in the Department of Physics at Princeton University. A long-time member of JASON, a group of scientists which provides independent advice to the U.S. government on matters relating to science, technology, and national security, Happer served as Director of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science from 1991–1993._ 
Best known to the general public as a vocal critic of the U.N. IPCC “consensus” on global warming, he has been called frequently to give expert testimony before various U.S. congressional committees on the subject of global warming (climate change). In 2015, he found himself at the center of a new controversy involving a so-called “sting” operation organized by Greenpeace.  _A list of some of Professor Happer’s major research publications may be accessed here_. *
These excerpts have been taken from the interview, and appear here without quotes. (h/t to WUWT reader Sasha)* 
About three months after the beginning of the Clinton administration, Hazel O’Leary called me into her office to ask, “What have you done to Al Gore? I am told I have to fire you.” I assume that the main thing that upset Al Gore (left) was my questioning of blatant propaganda about stratospheric ozone that was his focus at the time: “ozone holes over Kennebunkport” and similar nonsense.
…while I was at DOE. But watching the evening news, I would often be outraged by the distortions about CO2 and climate that were being intoned by hapless, scientifically-illiterate newscasters. *
Greenpeace is one of the many organizations that have made a very good living from alarmism over the supposed threat of global warming. They are unable to defend the extremely weak science. So, they demonize not only the supposed “pollutant,” atmospheric CO2, but also any scientists who seem to be effectively refuting their propaganda.* 
GreenpeaceI suppose I should be flattered to be one of their targets: je mehr Feinde, je mehr Ehre (“the more enemies, the more honor”), as the old German saying goes. But my trials pale compared to those of scientists like Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, and others, who were not only vilified, but driven from their jobs.
The result of the Greenpeace smear included many hostile, obscene phone calls and emails with threats to me, my family, even my grandchildren. George Orwell wrote about these tactics in his novel, 1984, when he described the daily, obligatory “Two Minutes of Hate” for Emmanuel Goldstein (Leon Trotsky) and his agents, who were the enemies of Big Brother (Stalin) and his thugs. *
Greenpeace and other even more fanatical elements of the global-warming movement fully embrace the ancient lie that their ideological end — elimination of fossil fuel — justifies any means, including falsification of scientific data and character assassination of their opponents.* 
Global warming is a well-established fact. This statement is only half true. A more correct statement would be “global warming and global cooling are both well-established facts.” The earth is almost always warming or cooling. Since the year 1800, the earth has warmed by about 1° C, with much of the warming taking place before much increase of atmospheric CO2. There was a quite substantial cooling from about 1940 to 1975. There has been almost no warming for the past 20 years when the CO2 levels have increased most rapidly. The same alternation of warming and cooling has characterized the earth’s climate for all of geological history.
…more CO2 will be a benefit to humanity. The predicted warming from more CO2 is grossly exaggerated. The equilibrium warming from doubling CO2 is not going to be 3° C, which might marginally be considered a problem, but closer to 1° C, which will be beneficial. One should not forget that the “global warming” is an average value. 
There will be little warming in the tropics and little warming at midday. What warming occurs will be mostly in temperate and polar regions, and at night. This will extend the agricultural growing season in many countries like Canada, Scandinavia, and Russia. More CO2 greatly increases the efficiency of photosynthesis in plants and makes land plants more drought-resistant. So, the net result of more CO2 will be strongly beneficial for humanity. 
The astonishing recent claim by NOAA, that there never was a hiatus, reminds me of the Baron’s soliloquy about the power of his treasure chests in Pushkin’s “little tragedy,” The Miserly Knight, of 1830 (AKA The Covetous Knight). I have tried to reproduce the solemn, iambic pentameter of Pushkin’s verse in my translation :
And muses will to me their tribute bring, 
 Free genius will enslave itself to me,
 And virtue, yes, and, sleepless labor too
 With humble mien will wait for my reward.
 I’ve but to whistle, and obedient, timid,
 Blood-spattered villainy will crawl to me
 And lick my hand, and gaze into my eyes,
 To read in them the sign of my desire. *
The hockey-stick temperature record was conspicuously absent from the latest IPCC report, which speaks volumes.* 
My guess is that the hockey stick started out as an honest but mistaken paper, but one welcomed by the global-warming establishment. They had been embarrassed for years by the Medieval Warm Period, when Vikings farmed Greenland, and when emissions from fossil fuels were negligible. A.W. Montford’s book, The Hockey Stick Illusion (Anglosphere Books, 2015), is a pretty good summary of what happened  *NOAA’s recent attempt to eliminate the hiatus is an example of the same kind of thinking that went into the hockey stick.*  
If a politically correct theory does not agree with observations, revise the observations. This is the complete opposite of Nobel Laureate–physicist Dick Feynman’s definition of science, which he spelled out in an entertaining lecture at Cornell University in 1964 : _
In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works._ _If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it._ *
I don’t question that the earth has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age, but I am persuaded that most of the warming was due to natural causes, about which the governments can do nothing.* 
We are already seeing more vegetation on the earth and it is absorbing more CO2. But as I will discuss in response to your next question, I believe that more CO2 is good for the world, that the world has been in a CO2 famine for many tens of millions of years and that one or two thousand ppm would be ideal for the biosphere. I am baffled at hysterical attempts to drive CO2 levels below 350 ppm, or some other value, apparently chosen by Kabbalah numerology, not science. 
…plants get the carbon they need from the CO2 in the air. Most plants draw other essential nutrients — water, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, etc. — from the soil. Just as plants grow better in fertilized, well-watered soils, they also grow better in air with CO2 concentrations several time higher than present values.
Essex and McKitrick are on target in their book, _Taken by Storm_. It is striking that many skeptics, like me, are retired. Aside from character assassination, there is not much the attack dogs of the climate consensus can do to us, at least so far. But young academics know very well that they will risk their careers by expressing any doubt about the party line on global warming. 
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. 
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. 
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
Are our all-powerful governments going to fight increases or decreases of solar activity? Where is Owen Glendower when we need him to “call the spirits from the vasty deep,” or King Canute to stop the tides? I am not keen to submit to lunatic, government-sponsored geoengineering schemes of contemporary Dr. Strangeloves. Nor does driving the earth’s human population down from its current seven billion people to no more than 1 billion have much appeal to me, even though it is promoted by influential climate advisers of politicians and popes. Are we supposed to draw straws to decide which six out of seven people must disappear from the face of the earth? *
I can’t see any reason to reduce CO2 emissions. Doubling or quadrupling current CO2 levels will be good for the world. The economic burdens you talk about are all pain with no gain for most of the world.* 
The evidence that CO2 is a pollutant so fearsome that we must give up democracy, punish “deniers,” and impoverish much of the world by eliminating the use of fossil fuels is looking more and more like spectral evidence. If you can’t find real scientific evidence for alarm, dream up hockey sticks, dream away hiatuses, and get rid of your opponents as soon as possible. 
Isn’t the freedom to think what we like and say what we think at the very heart of the scientific endeavor? If so, then how did we get ourselves into this fix? *
The situation seems to many of us to be truly scandalous — one that historians of science are going to be making hay out of for decades and centuries to come.* 
During Stalin’s Great Terror, the equivalents of evil fossil fuel interests were Leon Trotsky and his followers. They were a direct threat to Stalin’s control of the world-wide Communist movement, just as climate skeptics are regarded as an existential threat to the global warming establishment.
I would be surprised if the net total funding of climate skeptics exceeded $2 or $3 million dollars a year, and even that may be high. In the last few years, US government spending for climate research [https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...o-congress.pdf (48-page PDF)] has been about $20 billion dollars a year — more than a thousand times greater than skeptic funding. But even this huge financial advantage is not sufficient to support the pathetically weak scientific case that the world is in danger from more CO2. 
In accepting his 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore said the summer Arctic could be ice-free by 2013 due to CO2 emissions. I invite readers to have a look at the data site I mentioned earlier [http://www.climate4you.com/]. A few minutes of inspection of the “sea ice” link will show that there has been no significant change in sea ice since 2007. With all due respect to Nobel Laureate Gore, there was plenty of summer ice in 2013. 
Full interview: William Happer Interview | The Best Schools

----------


## woodbe

Should read a bit of desmog blog:   

> Fossil Fuel Funding  William Happer has accepted funding from the fossil fuel industry in the past. In a Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide, Peabody Energy paid him $8,000 which was routed through the CO2 Coalition. [8]
>   In a 2015 undercover investigation by Greenpeace, Happer  told Greenpeace reporters that he would be willing to produce research  promoting the benefits of carbon dioxide for $250 per hour, while the  funding sources could be similarly concealed by routing them through theCO2 Coalition.  [8]

  He has been repeatedly exposed as a paid supporter of climate denial by fossil fuel companies.  
Once again, and still, Marc presents non-science, non-published information to support an opinion.

----------


## John2b

> Once again, and still, Marc presents non-science, non-published information to support an opinion.

  By comparison, Marc's fervent adherence to dogma makes devoutly Christian Roman Catholics look like atheists.

----------


## John2b

> *The hockey-stick temperature record was conspicuously absent from the latest IPCC report, which speaks volumes.*

  Nope, the hockey-stick temperature record is very much at the core of the latest IPCC AR5 report, which speaks volumes about deniers who suggest otherwise.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Should read a bit of desmog blog:   
> He has been repeatedly exposed as a paid supporter of climate denial by fossil fuel companies. 
> .

  Not a fan of the guy, but why is this relevant, whereas it's not relevant where others are being paid from? 
all I read was a sting conducted by Greenpeace, it's not exactly robust. 
everyone is paid by someone who has a cause or a side as is perceived from the "other side" - it's no stronger than Marc's argument are about lefty academics funded by govts

----------


## woodbe

Take your info from wherever you prefer. I take mine from actual publishing climate scientists. 
Marc smothers the forum with non-publishing non-climate scientists, usually climate denier blogs. Forgive me for pointing that out every now and then. 
Perhaps you think that non climate scientists paid by fossil fuel companies are equal to climate scientists who actually do real science, real publish, and only get a uni wage. Your choice.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Perhaps you think that non climate scientists paid by fossil fuel companies are equal to climate scientists who actually do real science, real publish, and only get a uni wage. Your choice.

  Science is what determines equal, its quality, whether it's  properly peer reviewed, if it's reproducible etc.  if a real scientist get paid through an institute that takes money from corporate sponsors, it should be the science that matters not the sponsors.

----------


## Marc

Pharma ... in this thread it goes a bit like this. If you are a global warming alarmist, you _own_ the truth, so whatever you the agitator say, goes.  
If you on the other side want to advance an alternative view, whatever you say is just parroting the oil company who pay corrupt scientist or not even scientist, just some moron from the street, to say what the oil company wants.  
Interestingly most if not all the time the argument put forward is never addressed, but the character of the presenter/author is invariably dragged in the mud of their delusion, making every post a personal attack on me or the guy writing the article.  
It's fun and adds zero credibility to a cause that has run it's course and has robbed western governments of trillions of dollars gone to left wing lost causes.  
The world goes on, and I look forward to the new cause that the left will embrace when this is dead. Feminism, save the wales and gay marriage are a bit passe so, who knows? Save the heritage tomato and lettuce seeds?  :Smilie:  I am awaiting with baited breath.

----------


## woodbe

> Science is what determines equal, its quality, whether it's  properly peer reviewed, if it's reproducible etc.  if a real scientist get paid through an institute that takes money from corporate sponsors, it should be the science that matters not the sponsors.

  Correct. The bottom line is that a legitimate scientist does research and produces a peer reviewed publication which is published by a verifiable legitimate publication. The peer reviewers are known scientists who also work in the field the research is done. 
When someone who works in a different field, spreads misinformation outside their area of expertise and which is not published in a peer reviewed publication, and accepts funding from a fossil fuel company that supports a biassed spiel then it is fair to reveal why the result is not believable on several levels. 
William Happer appears to have only published one paper on climate change, titled “Climate Science and Policy: Making the Connection” (PDF).  Upon further investigation, this paper was published by the George C. Marshall Institute and not by any peer-reviewed journal. [64] 
  Happer has also published an article on “Energy basics” in the “Forum” section of  Issues in Science and Technology. [65] 
Make your own choice. You claim you have interest in peer reviewed science.

----------


## John2b

> Not a fan of the guy, but why is this relevant, whereas it's not relevant where others are being paid from? 
> all I read was a sting conducted by Greenpeace, it's not exactly robust. 
> everyone is paid by someone who has a cause or a side as is perceived from the "other side" - it's no stronger than Marc's argument are about lefty academics funded by govts

  It's relevant because there is no scientific argument about the fundamentals of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the measured effect they are having on the excess storage of energy in the Earth's weather systems. The "side" that claims it is not happening is the "side" that is benefitting massively by denying what is clearly known and understood to be true. Only people ignorant of the fundamental principles of the laws of energy conservation, or are ideologically driven by a belief system and not able to think rationally about climate change, can be swayed to think there is "uncertainty" in the basics of climate science. There simply is not. 
Where there is uncertainty is in the exact outcome of this once only human experiment. The weather is a chaotic system which cannot be accurately modelled. In a chaotic system a tiny change in the start conditions can cause an enormous difference in the endpoint (aka the butterfly effect). That does not mean there is any uncertainty in what the endpoint conditions will be in a general sense, and that is what is already clearly evident in recent weather observations - a drift up in average land and ocean surface temperatures, a loss of polar ice and glacier mass and more extreme weather.

----------


## woodbe

> Pharma ... in this thread it goes a bit like this. If you are a global warming alarmist, you _own_ the truth, so whatever you the agitator say, goes.  
> If you on the other side want to advance an alternative view, whatever you say is just parroting the oil company who pay corrupt scientist or not even scientist, just some moron from the street, to say what the oil company wants.

  Again, your choice. Ignore real science that has been moving forwards for centuries and you are stuck with accepting drivel from people without adequate capability in the climate field.  
It would be far better to realise there are potential disasters for our planet and do our best to minimise them by reducing our impact on the climate.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Correct. The bottom line is that a legitimate scientist does research and produces a peer reviewed publication which is published by a verifiable legitimate publication. The peer reviewers are known scientists who also work in the field the research is done. *agree wholeheartedly*  
> When someone who works in a different field, spreads misinformation outside their area of expertise and which is not published in a peer reviewed publication, and accepts funding from a fossil fuel company that supports a biassed spiel then it is fair to reveal why the result is not believable on several levels. 
> William Happer appears to have only published one paper on climate change, titled “Climate Science and Policy: Making the Connection” (PDF).  Upon further investigation, this paper was published by the George C. Marshall Institute and not by any peer-reviewed journal. [64] 
>   Happer has also published an article on “Energy basics” in the “Forum” section of  Issues in Science and Technology. [65] 
> Make your own choice. You claim you have interest in peer reviewed science.

  Second paragraph though is correct until you say "accepts funding" 
if "accepting funding" was a necessarily corrupting factor then by extension anyone who is paid by someone else is corrupted by that someone else s view (if they have one) 
in reality what happens, is if the fossil fuel company has an anti AGW stance (they certainly don't all have this view), they may well pick scientists who agree with them for funding decisions, however if they funded someone who didn't have a position or were pro consensus, it's unlikely that a small amount of funding would buy an opinion. 
so the source of the funding is confirming the view it isn't changing it. 
BUT, this is the other sid of the coin that Marc pedals - he claims the other side, so it's an intrinsically weak argument to just flip and claim it works the other way. 
and out there in the real world, I deal a lot with people who receive grants from pharmaceutical companies to do reasearch etc, rest assured, you don't get their hearts and minds with a little bit of financial support, you get research done for sure, but you don't get to control the output or their opinion in any way shape or form

----------


## pharmaboy2

> It's relevant because there is no scientific argument about the fundamentals of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the measured effect they are having on the excess storage of energy in the Earth's weather systems. The "side" that claims it is not happening is the "side" that is benefitting massively by denying what is clearly known and understood to be true. Only people ignorant of the fundamental principles of the laws of energy conservation, or are ideologically driven by a belief system and not able to think rationally about climate change, can be swayed to think there is "uncertainty" in the basics of climate science. There simply is not.

    "Its relevant because they are wrong" - that's what I read. 
and that is faulty reasoning.  It's faulty because the outcome is what you have judged and then looked for the cause that you have ascertained as funding.   
On pure logic basis, it is either relevant or it is not.  There is no need for the outcome to be wrong at all, it is either relevant as measured discreetly or it is not. 
now, personally, it could be relevant, it might not be, I don't think I can know, equally you guys seem as sure as Marc that it is causal , I believe that's an error in logic

----------


## John2b

> "Its relevant because they are wrong" - that's what I read.

  Nope, it's relevant because there is no pretence when an oil company says they will pay for a 'science' opinion that suits their business model. Funding for *real* scientific research, whether it be funding from government, universities, philanthropists or industry, should not be conditional on the outcome of that research, and that Pharmaboy is the unequivocal difference and why it matters.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Yeah, but why are you sure it's conditional on the outcome?   I don't see it, he has been chosen probably, so he is going to agree with their position, but that's not conditional. 
conditional is close to fraud  : improper influence, but these guys don't need to influence him, they simply hire the guy that give s the right answer. 
so, let's take the Cato institute.  Right there you have a group that is most likely to produce you a paper on AGW that is anti. So why?  Is it because they change the facts, because they get the views they pay for?  Or is it just because anyone who is anti AGW is going to be interested in working for them, and pretty much no one else would. 
that is therefore correlation, the Cato institute didn't cause the research outcomes they selected the scientists most likely to produce it (or indeed, the scientists selected the Cato institute) 
these people really believe what they say, they aren't lying, they are being truthful.  To think otherwise you get into big ol conspiracy theories.  Fox is for conspiracy, science shouldn't play in that game

----------


## woodbe

> Second paragraph though is correct until you say "accepts funding" 
> if "accepting funding" was a necessarily corrupting factor then by extension anyone who is paid by someone else is corrupted by that someone else s view (if they have one)

  Nope. Not true. A real scientist accepts funding via the open university, organisation or company they work for. They do not hide their funding by hidden third party organisations. They are open and involve the organisation they work for so that funding is clearly not tied to the results of their research. The funding is usually shown in the published paper.   

> in reality what happens, is if the fossil fuel company has an anti AGW stance (they certainly don't all have this view), they may well pick scientists who agree with them for funding decisions, however if they funded someone who didn't have a position or were pro consensus, it's unlikely that a small amount of funding would buy an opinion.

  Correct. So a fossil fuel company bent in that way would select a person such as Happer, not a known publishing climate scientist.   

> so the source of the funding is confirming the view it isn't changing it. 
> BUT, this is the other sid of the coin that Marc pedals - he claims the other side, so it's an intrinsically weak argument to just flip and claim it works the other way. 
> and out there in the real world, I deal a lot with people who receive grants from pharmaceutical companies to do research etc, rest assured, you don't get their hearts and minds with a little bit of financial support, you get research done for sure, but you don't get to control the output or their opinion in any way shape or form

  The people you know are working in the actual field they are in. They get grants for the actual field they are in. They wouldn't get funding for an area out of their expertise. People like Happer received sly 'grants' (payments) for fields they are not working in to try and publicly distort the actual reality of real science.

----------


## John2b

> Yeah, but why are you sure it's conditional on the outcome?   I don't see it, he has been chosen probably, so he is going to agree with their position, but that's not conditional.

  Because the vast majority of the deniers aren't even doing climate research FFS, just proffering opinion based on who pays them. Is it really that hard to see? Is your Google button broken?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Because the vast majority of the deniers aren't even doing climate research FFS, just proffering opinion based on who pays them. Is it really that hard to see? Is your Google button broken?

  Careful, John2b. You are heading down Marc's Road. 
Opinion can be bought. But that doesn't make it science. Pharmaboy is talking about science...have perspective on the distinction.

----------


## pharmaboy2

So it's a generalisation then, ok.

----------


## woodbe

> So it's a generalisation then, ok.

  Not sure what you are responding to there. My response is specific to Happer, but there are others playing the same game. 
Have any of your researchers received grants for something out of their specific knowledge area? Have they hidden the source of their funding? If they publish, do they reveal the funding?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Not sure what you are responding to there. My response is specific to Happer, but there are others playing the same game. 
> Have any of your researchers received grants for something out of their specific knowledge area? Have they hidden the source of their funding? If they publish, do they reveal the funding?

  Response was to john2b - didn't expect a post between them. 
to the above, yes, but never the amounts, well, rarely the amounts.  That's a question of propriety, my comments are about the assumption that where the funding comes from effects the outcome, or more pointedly, the assumption that those I diasagree with are dishonest, but those I agree with are purer than the driven snow 
more generally, the discussion here is he said she said, you're an idiot, you're deluded.  Why not try and run a discussion that engages the curious, not demonises them (not that the chief protagonist is curious). You win minds with engagement and open discussion, you listen, you question, you lead down the path of discovery.  Spending energy shouting at Marc reinforces his view not weakens it, especially when the tactics are similar. 
more negotiation, more manners, more listening required

----------


## John2b

> Opinion can be bought. But that doesn't make it science. Pharmaboy is talking about science...have perspective on the distinction.

  I though he was talking about the Cato Institute you know the one that "... is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries. In July 1976, the name was changed to the Cato Institute. Cato was established to have a focus on public advocacy, media exposure and societal influence." Nope, nothing to with with science...

----------


## woodbe

> to the above, yes, but never the amounts, well, rarely the amounts.  That's a question of propriety, my comments are about the assumption that where the funding comes from effects the outcome, or more pointedly, the assumption that those I diasagree with are dishonest, but those I agree with are purer than the driven snow

  Which is a fair idea if, and only if, the person receiving the funding does not hide it, and is qualified to produce the research. That goes for both sides. Whether the amount is revealed is a much lesser concern.   

> more generally, the discussion here is he said she said, you're an idiot, you're deluded.  Why not try and run a discussion that engages the curious, not demonises them (not that the chief protagonist is curious). You win minds with engagement and open discussion, you listen, you question, you lead down the path of discovery.  Spending energy shouting at Marc reinforces his view not weakens it, especially when the tactics are similar. 
> more negotiation, more manners, more listening required

  All possible when we have a personal discussion rather than bearing a mountain of copy/paste from known denier sites.

----------


## Marc

*What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled*  _-_ _David Siegel _ https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-...ace#.nl32aw6kx  THIS ESSAY has had over 175,000 views. Please link to ClimateCurious.com. Welcome new readers from my Interview with Barack Obama. Enjoy! What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind? If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.   More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it. Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.   1Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves. The increase in storms is simply a result of improved measurement methods. There has been no real increase.   2Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth iswarming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.   3There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.   4New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.   5CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.     6There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.   7Sea level will probably continue to rise — not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.   8The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. Theyhave more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.   9No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them. Reefs are more threatened by sunscreen than by CO2.   10The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*. Could this possibly be right? Is it heresy, or critical thinking — or both? If I’ve upset or confused you, let me guide you through my journey.   Iwon’t present all the science. Instead, my goal is to give you a platform for investigating the other side of the debate, so you can form your own opinion. I have noted important and quick reads with an asterisk* — if you have time for further study, start with those videos and documents. Here are the sections:     • Critical Thinking     • Four Hard Questions     • The Climate Consensus     • Manufacturing Consensus     • Who Can We Believe?     • What Should We Do?     • Summary     • What Do You Think? This nine-thousand-word essay represents over 400 hours of research boiled down into a half-hour reading experience, with links to 250+ carefully chosen documents and videos. I’m building the argument from the bottom up, so take your time and see if it makes sense. Along the way, I’ll list five “smoking guns” that I think make the argument for decarbonization unsupportable. Before we dive in, I want to talk about …   My journey into critical thinking has taught me to hold strong opinions loosely. I’ve been more wrong in my life than I thought was possible. Now I try to put my reactions aside and look at all the evidence before coming to a conclusion. Policy always involves politics. Governments often make policy decisions by starting with a social objective and then bring in the “facts” to justify the goal (think of the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and others). We shouldn’t be surprised to find social agendas driving at least some of the “science” of global warming. In addition, studies show that political beliefs cloud our ability to process information. Strong political beliefs can cause us to look at one side of an issue and ignore the evidence. We should try to avoid shortcuts and look directly at the data. Forecasts are mental constructs; they are not properties of the physical world. Forecasts are tools, not truth. In most cases, the size of the error bars (uncertainty) around the number is more important than the number itself. Consensus is not an argument for any scientific principle. Many important scientists toiled alone to make discoveries that were less than popular. One key paper can be worth more than thousands of papers reinforcing a myth. The claim that 97 percent of scientists believe in man-made global warming is one such myth. Almost all scientists expect a small man-made contribution to warming, so the claim is misleading. Metastudies are important. One key paper can be a breakthrough, but there are very few of those. A better source of information is properly done metastudies (reviews of all the literature on a topic) conducted by qualified statisticians. They help find the signal in the noise. 
Read the rest here  https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-...ace#.nl32aw6kx

----------


## woodbe

Ok Pharmaboy, show us how to respond to Marc's long copy/paste. Over to you!

----------


## Marc

*1. What are the natural drivers of temperature and its variability?*  Incoming solar radiation is the primary driver of temperature. A second factor is the atmosphere, which traps heat and reflects some of it back to earth. Other factors play smaller roles. I’ll start with the familiar greenhouse-gas model and then present a more accurate picture based on solar activity. The Greenhouse Effect
In this section, I focus on CO2 because it’s regarded as the main greenhouse gas after water vapor. Looking at the 750-million-year graph below, we see some extreme cold periods, then warm epochs punctuated by ice ages, all while CO2 (yellow) was far above what it is today. There is almost no correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide until about ten million years ago.   Starting around a million years ago, the curves start to sync up, and we see a pretty definitive supercycle of about 100,000 years for both:    Think about that: CO2 had _no correlation_ with temperature for more than 2 billion years, and now it’s _causing_ temperature to rise? _Something’s_ going on, but what? Let’s zoom in:  Notice that temperature generally changes _first_, and CO2 changes some 800+ years later. Blue line to the left, red line to the right. This is called thetemperature lag — an inconvenient truth for CO2-warming enthusiasts; it’s well known but not well understood. It could easily be a complex relationship, but CO2 changes do not initially cause historical temperature changes. On a shorter time scale, we start to get some perspective:   At this scale of 11,000 years, it doesn’t seem like CO2 is “driving” temperature. We are in the middle of an upswing coming out of the Little Ice Age, but there is also an overall cooling trend. Before the twentieth century, there was plenty of temperature variability, and it continues today. If you have heard about the hockey-stick controversy, it’s about whether this graph created by Michael Mann, which Al Gore likes to stand in front of on a scissor lift, represents reality:   It doesn’t.  Despite what you read on Wikipedia, this graph was manufactured by carefully cherrypicking the data from tree rings . Looking at tree rings is about the least accurate way to measure ancient temperatures.  Better methods involve looking at drilled ice and sediment cores. Using those methods, we see a pronounced period _warmer than today_ from 1000 to 1300 AD, called the Medieval Warm Period, and then the Little Ice Age about 400 years ago (same time period as above):    This single issue invalidates many of Al Gore’s claims* and undermines the IPCC’s predictions of man-made CO2 catastrophe. (You’ll find a list of relevant studies at CO2Science.org*.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Marc, when I copy and paste, mostly the forum won't allow it  - it fails to up load, how do you do it?  And how long does it take?

----------


## Marc

If you are copying text, just highlight and copy/paste.
if it's a picture like the graphics, right click on the picture and "copy image address" 
Then use the insert image icon and chose from url
paste the image address in the field and depending on the image you may need to uncheck the "retrieve remote file and reference locally" box or not. Most of the time you need to uncheck and click ok.
If you done it right it's immediate, no loading time at all.  
It is very funny how the local alarmist, talk about copy and paste as if it is some form of cheating. The reality is that we all rely on someone else's knowledge and experience to form an opinion. Posting it gives others the chance to read and form their opinion much better then if I try to explain it. Of course it may be extremely inconvenient to show that I am not the only one that does not swallow the cult's doctrine.

----------


## PhilT2

> It is very funny how the local alarmist, talk about copy and paste as if it is some form of cheating. The reality is that we all rely on someone else's knowledge and experience to form an opinion. Posting it gives others the chance to read and form their opinion much better then if I try to explain it. Of course it may be extremely inconvenient to show that I am not the only one that does not swallow the cult's doctrine.

  Not so much cheating as a sort of brain dead type of activity. Just once put your own opinion out there. Actually read the crap that you paste ,then go and look at what their critics have said about their crappy science. Then tell us why you put your faith in the people like the Idso family who believe their bible determines what happens in the world, not mankind's activities. i tried to check some of the links in your cut and paste but it must be old as the links are broken.  But you would have known that if you had actually checked it yourself.  
The article does illustrate one point rather well, the core religious beliefs of the authors appears to determine what science they accept so to accept the reality of global warming would mean abandoning a long held faith, so any debate with them would most likely be pointless. See their state of belief on their site here.  CO2 Science 
Their position is not uncommon among US right wing politicians.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5yNZ1U37sE

----------


## John2b

> Incoming solar radiation is the primary driver of temperature. A second factor is the atmosphere, which traps heat and reflects some of it back to earth. Other factors play smaller roles.

  You've nailed it Marc!

----------


## woodbe

> You've nailed it Marc!

  Indeed he has! 
The fossil fuel companies agree as well: 
Shell:

----------


## woodbe

Not just Shell either,  
Exxon:

----------


## pharmaboy2

Interesting how the big bad fossil fuel company card is often pulled ( eg the funding of scientist question earlier), and given woodbe's info above, I did a quick search of position statements for the worlds biggest oil companies, checked chevron, lukoil, Exxon and shell, and each accepted climate change and its importance and co2's role. 
i haven't done home grown rio and bhp, nor glencore, bit corporates who are contrarian seem pretty thin on the ground, so I wonder who Fox think they are defending?

----------


## Marc

The oil company would officially mention CO2 role and "accept" global warming (whatever that means), because it is PC and necessary for PR. 
Where the members of the board personal belief system is positioned is irrelevant.  
The AGW agitators and their various cheer leaders and assorted claque on the other hand have every interest to keep the charade going, so anything goes. Frogs, penguins, bears, barrier reef, left handed moths are all endangered because you drive a car, eat meat and pass wind.  
The ice is getting thinner under the global warming fraud, and despite herculean efforts (courtesy of the taxpayer) to convince the world that the sky is falling, the public is turning away from this charade in drows. 
Governments that depend on the public for their very existence thanks to the voting system, (yes I vote too) have worked out that agitating the global warming flag does not produce as many votes as it once did so they are turning away too. Slow process, may be a bit faster now with DT in the US and soon a few more conservative governments in Europe.   
Yes, conservatives are evil, they only think in money for themselves and their cronies from the oil companies. Such niggards will close the tap on the trillions squandered on the emperor's clothes. 
But the emperor is naked!
Shut up you denier!

----------


## PhilT2

> I did a quick search of position statements for the worlds biggest oil companies, checked chevron, lukoil, Exxon and shell, and each accepted climate change and its importance and co2's role.

  How long have they held that position? I thought that the main issue was their funding of organisations like Cato, Heartland, ALEC and others who do no research of their own but give publicity only to anti AGW viewpoints. In this case the oil companies are funding the distribution of information that their own research has told them is not accurate.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yes, conservatives are evil...!

  They're not actually. It's just that some of them are stupid. Which is OK because about the same proportion of those on the other side are also stupid. That's what balance actually is... equal doses of stupidity.

----------


## johnc

The large miners aren't stupid, we are seeing them change tack, I don't think there is much doubt by most of the companies of the reality of climate change and I guess the early funding of denier type groups reduced the pace of change. However we are starting to see a push in public reports of wanting certainty, some of the miners are moving away from coal others aren't opening new mines simply because the writing is on the wall. Companies like Origin are building portfolios of renewables but what we are seeing is a call from the miners of some form of tax on carbon and policy certainty. there is a lot of frustration with the current government who don't seem to know what they are doing in this area. It would probably suit many of these companies to put an end to the push for new mines for the present as it allows them to retain decent pricing on the product coming from existing developed operations.  
Of interest today is the reports that Elon Musk has made an offer to SA to build a large bank of battery storage which he claims will eliminate the outages that we have seen recently from spikes and overloads on the interconnector. If this comes off, they have done one before apparently, then we are starting to see what is effectively base load out of renewables.

----------


## PhilT2

Looks like the ALP will have a win in the WA state election; appears to have been decided on state issues. Climate change didn't feature as a big issue but it certainly didn't deter people from supporting the ALP. The Greens have held their position with perhaps a slight increase.

----------


## Marc

"Moving away from coal" is as stupid statement as moving away from electricity and go back to horse power. We sell megatons of coal to china and india and whoever want's it to have cheap power and if we don't Brazil or Africa will yet we are oh no ... too good for using coal, we will use sterilised canary poo. Pleeeeeese!!!!!! 
We have resources to power our needs for another 1000 years and beyond. Coal is here to stay and no amount of scaremongering will change that.
Second in line is nuclear, with much cheaper and quicker to build and reliable nuclear power stations. We have uranium and sell it to France and the rest but we are too good for nuclear?  
The cost to the world of this moronic fraud will one day be revealed and will be up there in the quadrillions in direct expenditure, opportunity cost, and slowing down. 
Only sheer ignorance or rusted on political convictions can keep an individual stuck in this pathetic rut.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> How long have they held that position? I thought that the main issue was their funding of organisations like Cato, Heartland, ALEC and others who do no research of their own but give publicity only to anti AGW viewpoints. In this case the oil companies are funding the distribution of information that their own research has told them is not accurate.

  No idea how long, remember that those institutes also do plenty of other free market work as well, though heartland has become almost completely climate change based now.  They don't release who donates , but it seems very broad with lots of individuals.  The only Exxon donation I could find was a few hundred thousand post 98. 
seems a bit of an overreach on the whole funding story when it's such a small amount of money with little hard facts - I was quite surprised - urban myth led me to expect tens of millions coming from the big oil and mining companies.  Realstically, compared to govt bodies who work on climate change they have almost no resources at all - they sure get a lot of airplay though with what resources they have. 
id compare these guys to Greenpeace at the other end of the spectrum - both ends deeply entrenched in pseudo science and bull....

----------


## pharmaboy2

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...denial-effort/ 
exxon seems 2008 was their last effort, so presumably they changed their mind around then

----------


## woodbe

Except... 
Most of the funding is hidden in the climate denial business. How can you then know that "it's such a small amount of money" ? 
It was previously revealed that a single person, climate skeptic Willie Soon, was given $230k by the Koch brothers, more than Exxon poured into the whole denial business? 
The suggestion that the funding is little to nothing. Doesn't pass the smell test.  :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...denial-effort/ 
> exxon seems 2008 was their last effort, so presumably they changed their mind around then

  Scientific American from your quoted article:   

> In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
>   	Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.

  and...   

> "Without a free flow of accurate information, democratic politics and  government accountability become impossible," he said. "Money amplifies  certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in  the public square." 
>  	Powerful funders, he added, are supporting the campaign to deny  scientific findings about global warming and raise doubts about the  "roots and remedies" of a threat on which the science is clear.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Except... 
> Most of the funding is hidden in the climate denial business. How can you then know that "it's such a small amount of money" ? 
> It was previously revealed that a single person, climate skeptic Willie Soon, was given $230k by the Koch brothers, more than Exxon poured into the whole denial business? 
> The suggestion that the funding is little to nothing. Doesn't pass the smell test.

  because you can check their total budgets which they have to publish as "charities".  It's all relative, Greenpeace for instance is $300m per annum, which dwarfs the dodgy anti climate science brigade which as below you've come up with $558m for 8 years worth. 
im aware 558m sounds like a lot, but it's over 7 or 8 years - I would have expected it to be a multiple of that amount - over the same time period, Greenpeace as a single organisation by itself is massive in comparison. 
speaking of which, if Greenpeace could only find that amount by Exxon, you can bet it's not a lot more.  Either way, assuming it's more widespread than we have evidence for because it doesn't fit our pre disposed expectations is a slippery slope

----------


## woodbe

> because you can check their total budgets which they have to publish as "charities".

  So we can see the total budgets for "charities", but where do we find the hidden funding in a company with a total revenue of US$218.6 billion? 
Regardless, US$558m over 7-8 years into 100 climate denial organisations, so an average of ~$750k per year per denial organisation to pay people to spew misinformation on the public every year. 
You think it's a little, I think it's a lot.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

*An oldie but a goodie ...   The Log in the Eye of Greenpeace*  Anthony Watts / June 29, 2011 Source: SPPI *by Dennis Ambler* *Matthew 7:5* –_ Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye._ As Greenpeace publishes yet another attack on a reputable scientist, (Dr Willie Soon), who happens to disagree with the IPCC, they again ignore the massive funding going into the “green” movement, from corporations including “big oil”, foundations and governments. Their constant attacks on the integrity of  genuine scientists are classic diversionary tactics to avoid close examination of the millions of dollars going into the Global Warming project. A commentary by David and Amy Ridenour in the Washington Times of June 14th last year, showed the major extent of funding to environmental groups by BP, who were being attacked by those same groups over the oil spill in the Gulf.  BP was also a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, _(not the same as the Climate Action Network)_ contributing substantial funding to the climate-change-related lobbying efforts of the environmental groups within it, which include the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Nature Conservancy and the World Resources Institute. The new “climate friendly” BP was first promoted by BP CEO, Lord John Browne in 1997, (then Sir John Browne), now on the Climate Change Advisory Board of Deutsche Bank along with Dr Pachauri of the IPCC and Professor John Schellnhuber of the German Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. A report in the Washington Examiner, entitled “Working for Big Green can be a very enriching experience” by Mark Tapscott, showed that the leaders of 15 top Big Green environmental groups are paid more than $300,000 in annual compensation, with a half million dollar plus figure for the top “earner”. He mentions that *Environmental Defense Fund President* *Frederic Krupp*, receives total compensation of *$496,174*, including $446,072 in salary and $50,102 in other compensation. Close behind Krupp among Big Green environmental movement executives is *World Wildlife Fund- US President* *Carter Roberts*, who was paid *$486,394*, including a salary of $439,327 and other compensation of $47,067. *Krupp and Roberts* are particularly interesting because EDF and WWF-US both receive funding from the Grantham Foundation and both are on the joint management board of Jeremy Grantham’s climate institutes at the *London School of Economics*, (LSE), and*Imperial College*, London. Jeremy Grantham is the chairman and co-founder of *GMO*, a $140 billion global investment management company based in Boston with offices in London, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney and Zurich. His first excursion into climate funding in the UK was “The Grantham Institute for Climate Change*”* set up with £12 million, (~$19million) at *Imperial College,* London in 2007. The chairman of the LSE Grantham Institute, Lord Stern of the infamous Stern Review, is heavily involved in carbon trading via carbon ratings agency, Idea Carbon. He joinedIdeaGlobal, the parent company in 2007, as Vice Chairman. He also advises HSBC on carbon trading. Environmental Defense boast on their website of their influence on policy in Washington and how they get around the law on lobbying caps: http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=8943 “EDF has long been a powerful voice in Washington, and when the need began to exceed the $1 million annual cap on our lobbying established by tax law, *we created a sister group*, the Environmental Defense Action Fund, which is *free of spending limits*. This has enabled us to ratchet up our legislative efforts, particularly on climate, and to advocate strong environmental laws even as the stakes increase.” A BBC investigation in 2007 by reporter Simon Cox found that the European Commission is giving millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to environmental campaigners to run lobbying operations in Brussels. Friends of the Earth Europe (FoE), received almost half of its funding from the EU in 2007. Greenpeace also don’t mention the money that the EPA gives to NGO’s, for example National Resources Defense Council are currently in receipt of a grant of *$1,150,123,* (XA – 83379901-2) for promoting carbon trading. The World Resources Institute (WRI) has received *$3,879,014* from the EPA in the last nine years for propaganda projects and promotion of emissions trading schemes,*$715,000 in the current period 2011/12*. If the EPA really were interested in science, they would be funding the genuine research undertaken by people like Dr Soon, rather than policy promotion for their own agenda. Members of the board of WRI, are *Al Gore* and Theodore Roosevelt IV. Mr Roosevelt is the chairman of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. and is the former chairman of the ill-fated Lehman Brothers’ Global Council on Climate Change and a board member of the Alliance for Climate Protection, whose chairman is *Al Gore.* The 2008 income forGore’s “Alliance” was over $88 million. Greenpeace really should be very careful when they seek to muddy the waters on climate science by discrediting opposing scientists, they may well find that the water is full of dirty green linen. See alsoSPPI paper by Joanne Nova: Climate Money and Donna LaFramboise, BP, Greenpeace & the Big Oil Jackpot , the text of which follows here: ***************** *BP, Greenpeace & the Big Oil Jackpot*  In what passes for debate about climate change one of the most tiresome allegations is that skeptics are lavishly funded by big oil. As a result of this funding, so the argument goes, the public has been confused by those who’ll say anything in exchange for a paycheck. “Follow the money” we’re told and you’ll discover that climate skeptics are irredeemably tainted. Ergo nothing they say can be trusted. Ergo their concerns, questions, and objections should be dismissed out of hand. It’s therefore amusing that *the current oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is now drawing attention to the close relationship between climate change activists and BP* – _aka_British Petroleum, an entity for which the descriptor “big oil” was surely invented. According to the _Washington Post_ the green group Nature Conservancy – which encourages ordinary citizens to personally pledge to fight climate change – “has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years.” Gee, didn’t Greenpeace build an entire ExxonSecrets website to expose the allegedly diabolical fact that, over a 9-year-period (1998-2006) ExxonMobil donated a grand total of $2.2 million to a conservative think tank? *$10 million versus $2 million. Who do we suppose has the cozier relationship with big oil?* But that’s just the beginning. The _Washington Post_ also points out that Conservation International, another green group which insists climate change represents a “profound threat,” has “accepted $2 million in donations from BP over the years and partnered with the company on a number of projects.” Funny, Greenpeace doesn’t talk about that. Nor does it mention:  that BP is funding research into “ways of tackling the world’s climate problem” at Princeton University to the tune of $2 million per year for 15 yearsthat BP is funding an energy research institute involving two other US universities to the tune of $500 million – the aim of which is “to develop new sources of energy and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environment”that ExxonMobil itself has donated $100 million to Stanford university so that researchers there can find “ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming”  The only dollar amounts Greenpeace cites in its explanation of why it decided to launchExxonSecrets is that measly $2.2 million. Versus 10 + 2 + 30 + 500 + 100. Let’s see, which all adds up to…wait for it…$642 million. If the world is divided into two factions – one that believes climate change is a serious problem and another that thinks human influence on the climate is so minimal it’s indistinguishable from background noise – *one group has pulled off a bank heist while the other has been panhandling in front of the liquor store.*
In the same document in which Greenpeace talks about the ExxonMobil money it chillingly asserts that climate “deniers” aren’t entitled to free speech. Why? Because “Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda.” Actually, the big thinkers on the subject have consistently taken the opposite view. John Stuart Mill was adamant that no one has the right to decide what is or is not propaganda on everyone else’s behalf. He would have looked Greenpeace in the eye and told it to stop imagining that its own judgment is infallible. More than a hundred years later Noam Chomsky famously declared that if you don’t believe in freedom of expression for opinions you despise you don’t believe in it at all. *If Greenpeace would like to have a serious conversation about who, exactly, is spreading misinformation I’m up for that – since it’s overwhelming obvious that the big oil jackpot was awarded to those on the Greenpeace side of the debate.* The fact that climate change activists have enjoyed such a powerful funding advantage and yet insisted all the while that the exact opposite was the case is troubling. It tells us a good deal about their intellectual rigour. About their character. And about their ability to distinguish fact from fiction. If there really is a climate crisis, if our grandchildren’s future really is imperiled, these aren’t the people to lead us out of the wilderness.  UPDATE (June 6): Reader Terry Kesteloot alerted me to the fact that the Greenpeace.org website is apparently infected with a “very low” risk computer virus. The links in this post to Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets FAQ have therefore been replaced with links to a copy of the document that resides at Archive.org (scroll down once the page loads). If your machine has virus protection, the document may be viewed directly on the Greenpeace website HERE. .. >> Slurs, smears & money >> Independent bloggers vs corporate environmentalists >> Money to burn >> Shielding climate orthodoxy from free speech *Related articles*   Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout (rkadlec.wordpress.com)

----------


## John2b

> Interesting how the big bad fossil fuel company card is often pulled ( eg the funding of scientist question earlier), and given woodbe's info above, I did a quick search of position statements for the worlds biggest oil companies, checked chevron, lukoil, Exxon and shell, and each accepted climate change and its importance and co2's role. 
> i haven't done home grown rio and bhp, nor glencore, bit corporates who are contrarian seem pretty thin on the ground, so I wonder who Fox think they are defending?

  Do you understand there might be a difference between what is said and what is done? 
For example, someone once stated this position publicly, and we all know how that ended up: "no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS" under a Coalition government"

----------


## John2b

> It is very funny how the local alarmist, talk about copy and paste as if it is some form of cheating.

  No, copy and paste shows an inability to offer reasoned argument based on comprehension of the subject matter.   

> The reality is that we all rely on someone else's knowledge and experience to form an opinion.

  Well, SOME people do, instead of thinking for themselves...   

> Posting it gives others the chance to read and form their opinion much better then if I try to explain it.

  So would posting a personal summary and a link, with the side benefit being avoided forum gastro attacks.   

> Of course it may be extremely inconvenient to show that I am not the only one that does not swallow the cult's doctrine.

  Marc, your cut and pastes show just how deeply you _have_ swallowed the global warming denialist cult's doctrine; there are vastly more inconsistencies than agreed positions in your cut and paste posts, and most are authored by people with no direct experience of the topic on which they make assertions. Why does it anger you when this is pointed out BTW?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Do you understand there might be a difference between what is said and what is done? 
> For example, someone once stated this position publicly, and we all know how that ended up: "no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS" under a Coalition government"

  Untill there is evidence to the contrary, you work with the evidence you have. 
you are a soldier for the cause.

----------


## woodbe

> Untill there is evidence to the contrary, you work with the evidence you have.

  There is evidence to the contrary, and it has been exposed enough times for us not to ignore that funding is actually hidden. The funding seen in financial reports and press releases is definitely not an accurate indication of the actual funding.  
The Peabody Energy fossil fuel company information was exposed during bankruptcy. It was never released until then.   

> After Peabody filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, documentation became available revealing the scope of Peabody’s funding to third parties. The list of funding recipients includes trade associations, lobby groups and climate-contrarian scientists.

    

> This latest revelation is significant because in recent years, fossil  fuel companies have become more careful to cover their tracks. An analysis by Robert Brulle  found that from 2003 to 2010, organisations promoting climate  misinformation received more than US$900 million of corporate funding  per year.
>   However, Brulle found that from 2008, open funding dropped while  funding through untraceable donor networks such as Donors Trust  (otherwise known as the “dark money ATM”) increased. This allowed  corporations to fund climate science denial while hiding their support. 
>   The decrease in open funding of climate misinformation coincided with  efforts to draw public attention to the corporate funding of climate  science denial. A prominent example is Bob Ward, formerly of the UK  Royal Society, who in 2006 challenged Exxon-Mobil to stop funding denialist organisations.

  https://theconversation.com/a-brief-...e-denial-61273

----------


## pharmaboy2

So where's the evidence that Peabody publicly said they believed in AGW needed to change etc etc, then actually funded the reverse?  Coz I must have missed that bit in the article . 
too many conspiracy theories going on in this thread, and way too much motivated reasoning, though that one is pretty much ubiquitous, the higher the belief the more motivation seems to be there.   
We we need negotiators in public life not dogmatic capital B believers, the dogmatic believers never convince anyone of their cause, they just die angry

----------


## woodbe

> So where's the evidence that Peabody publicly said they believed in AGW needed to change etc etc, then actually funded the reverse?  Coz I must have missed that bit in the article .

  ? No need to go down the route you have chosen.  
You claimed that you have to work with the evidence you have. Evidence is now shown that the funding of climate denial organisations by fossil fuel companies is often hidden. Whether they publicly believed or non-believed climate change is not the source of this discussion or the relevance of their funding decision. Just look at Exxon - they researched and accepted climate science and actually publicly shared it, then they publicly denied and secretly funded against it years later. 
If a fossil fuel company publicly accepted climate change science, would there be a reason for that company to secretly fund denial of that science?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> If a fossil fuel company publicly accepted climate change science, would there be a reason for that company to secretly fund denial of that science?

  
Haha, sorry about the rant. 
but the question - same reason the abc used to give equal time perhaps?  You might provide both sides with funding in the same way that corporations will often donate to both the liberals and Labor.  The secret bit - well no, but if they dont divulge one side they may not divulge the other equally.  If they tell the world they donate to xyz climate foundation but then donate to heartland and say nothing, that doesn't look good at all, ie even if you are embarrassed slightly, then why donate anyway?

----------


## woodbe

Good question. 
In politics, plenty of companies donate to both sides of politics openly. Some donate to one side only or give more to one side than the other. All visible if we care to look. 
Why would a fossil fuel company publicly donate to an open climate foundation and then privately hide a donation to a climate denial organisation like Heartland? 
Two possible reasons: Firstly, because their public climate opinion is actually not their real opinion but they are using donations to real climate science organisations to improve their public face. So they look good while they slip cash to denial organisations behind their back. 
Secondly, they have a large financial structure based on fossil fuel income. They might actually know and agree about climate science, but they fund denial organisations to delay forced change to fossil fuel extraction and consumption to maintain their profit margins and shareholder income.  
I'm sure there are other reasons.  :Smilie:

----------


## johnc

I would have thought as a fossil fuel company you would want to extract as much product as you can from existing fields to recoup development costs and provide a yield. Slowing down a move to renewables helps achieve that aim, whatever the real reason humans tend to resist change as a pack we lean towards the certainties of the past not the bright horizons of a brilliant new future least it turn out to be nothing but a mirage. I think the Tesla brand is a sign everything is shifting, much like Microsoft and Apple before it a combination of marketing and new product has seen a larger shift in thinking towards real stuff you can touch rather than dreams that are yet to be realised. We have made huge strides in technology and efficiency in recent years and we are starting to see affordable product appearing that the middle class can afford. I feel we now have momentum behind us with the two biggest polluters in China and the USA starting to make solid reductions in CO2 emissions, something I don't think Trump can halt even if he wants to as the Federal government there is only part of the equation states like California are doing a lot of the heavy lifting and there are a number of large scale projects in the development stage that will come on line over the next couple of years with more to come.  
My suspicion is the funding to denier groups will just slowly ease off and then cease as their influence wains, no one wants to finance groups that aren't delivering some sort of benefit and that will be the catalyst that sees funding end. I would have thought the profit gouging in Victoria should be of greater interest where energy companies are working on far better margins than both NSW and QLD and are clearly operating in a market that has benefited them from Abbotts green smoke screen and left them unaccountable and able to abuse market power despite the high number of retailers. It is a market failure from poor privatisation and needs a rethink as this is having an economic impact on the states industry and households.

----------


## Marc

The problem with socialists is that eventually they run out of other peoples money. (Margaret Thatcher) 
And SA, the welfare state has finally achieved just that. 
Gas anyone?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The problem with socialists is that eventually they run out of other peoples money. (Margaret Thatcher) 
> And SA, the welfare state has finally achieved just that. 
> Gas anyone?

  Cheaper and far more fun to use yours! 
In the end it's all to prop up the free market economy so every political label wins...

----------


## Marc

The morons run this hobby experiment with the electricity supply and now want to be congratulated for building a gas station? And borrow the money to do it? 
Oh and they were too good to store nuclear waste, imagine that! It would be against their religion. TABU ... (Paste here Silent's avatar)   :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

Except... The SA government is not having to borrow the money for it. They have adequate surplus for the investment. 
Personally, I'd prefer a larger renewable solution, but at least gas emits less CO2 than the coal fired stations power is drawn from in Vic. 
Also, the SA Government was positive for a nuclear waste storage option but could not get enough agreement from the public and the lobbyists to attempt it.

----------


## johnc

I don't see what the issue is with gas as a back up system, Victoria has been using it for years, some smaller scale to boost power up the east coast of the state and larger plants to smooth peaks, works well. I note Marc's comments, pity he doesn't take the time to find out what the real story is rather than the usual fall back positions based on hot air.

----------


## John2b

The reason for the SA government building a publicly owned gas-fired peaking electricity generation station is that the owners of the existing gas peaking electricity generation stations in SA (of which there is enough spare capacity plus a good deal more) are not willing to run the generators when required, because the privately owned electricity generators make much more money out of 'gaming' the energy market spot price than out of supplying mundane consumer demand.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> The reason for the SA government building a publicly owned gas-fired peaking electricity generation station is that the owners of the existing gas peaking electricity generation stations in SA (of which there is enough spare capacity plus a good deal more) are not willing to run the generators when required, because the privately owned electricity generators make much more money out of 'gaming' the energy market spot price than out of supplying mundane consumer demand.

  Have you got any evidence?  Because that reads like a rumour at best, such conduct tends to come under the accc and has jail terms attached.

----------


## woodbe

> Have you got any evidence?  Because that reads like a rumour at best, such conduct tends to come under the accc and has jail terms attached.

  Not a rumor. 
Gas generators have a choice to bid into the market once they are technically acceptable by the market operator. They are generally not required to generate. If they do not bid then they do not generate. They have the option to watch the market and enter the market only when the prices escalate.   
Jail terms for following the market rules? What?

----------


## johnc

> Have you got any evidence?  Because that reads like a rumour at best, such conduct tends to come under the accc and has jail terms attached.

  I think you are getting a bit excited about the reach of the ACCC and its ability to set gaol terms, you may be confusing powers of prosecution with ability to sentence I suspect. SA has been the victim of a failed system as the gas generation available has not been brought on when it has been needed with reliance mainly on the interconnector. When those poles blew over tripping the interconnector it was largely because the wind turbines had also tripped, if the gas turbine had been running that may have prevented the scale of the blackout although the damage probably guaranteed some areas would be without power. John2B is on the money, the focus is on making profit, not surprising as these units ultimately have shareholders with an expectation that profit is the main focus, however the state is after power ensuring economic output is maintained across the entire state not just profit for a single (or set of single)business. 
Both SA and the Federal governments have been playing politics with this for some time, everything from market regulation, carbon taxes, renewables. The real problem is the national market is failing because politicians aren't doing their job in ensuring that we actually have a decent grid and power mix. Instead they have been pretending at a Federal level that taking your hands off the wheel and relying on a free market you will get an optimum result. This flies in the face of economic reality, competition only works up to a certain level, you require government management to ensure the actual infrastructure is there in the first place. Real competition only helps on price it actually isn't that helpful in ensuring large utilities support a diversified economy like ours.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Not a rumor. 
> Gas generators have a choice to bid into the market once they are technically acceptable by the market operator. They are generally not required to generate. If they do not bid then they do not generate. They have the option to watch the market and enter the market only when the prices escalate.   
> Jail terms for following the market rules? What?

  it was the thinking  of "gaming" the market with also being a provider that I think is a question for the ACCC.  I took that to mean that even as a generator they allow or even push the market to higher price levels instead of entering - ie gaming is about distorting the market deliberately with market power (ie, they have multiple generation businesses) I suspect from your replies that that is not what happened at all.  
from the quick reading I did, I can only imagine that the contracted price for gas they have only makes it worthwhile for them when the price on the national market is very high which happens due to contractual clauses for guaranteed supply from the retailers. 
ultimately, what is at issue is that SA have been trying to run a wind power generation market but actually rely on coal as insurance through the national grid.  This might be a bit like Germany claiming x amount renewables and non nuclear when in fact when things go tits up, they rely on power from te French nuclear stations and wherever else.   
This is is the thing with baseload, people love to say you don't need it ninety five percent of the time, but when you don, it's an imperitive not just a nice to have.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Is baseload still baseload when it comes at you with a 15 minute spot price?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Is baseload still baseload when it comes at you with a 15 minute spot price? 
> Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

  
Was the system designed by Lehman brothers?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Doubt it. But their rules might have been adopted!

----------


## John2b

> Have you got any evidence?  Because that reads like a rumour at best, such conduct tends to come under the accc and has jail terms attached.

  There is plenty of evidence, and it is all in the public record for those who care to avail themselves. https://www.theguardian.com/australi...m-report-finds 
In fact Queensland has been inflicted with many more instances of price gaming by electricity suppliers than in SA even though renewables are not part of the mix, with prices spiking to greater levels than SA on more than twice the number of occasions.  https://www.theguardian.com/environm...analysis-shows

----------


## Marc

> Both SA and the Federal governments have been playing politics with this for some time, everything from market regulation, carbon taxes, renewables. The real problem is the national market is failing because politicians aren't doing their job in ensuring that we actually have a decent grid and power mix. Instead they have been pretending at a Federal level that taking your hands off the wheel and relying on a free market you will get an optimum result. This flies in the face of economic reality, competition only works up to a certain level, you require government management to ensure the actual infrastructure is there in the first place. Real competition only helps on price it actually isn't that helpful in ensuring large utilities support a diversified economy like ours.

  We are the biggest exporter of gas in the world, have one of the biggest reserves of coal and uranium yet pay the highest electricity prices in the world, higher than Japan and have an unreliable outdated supply. How did this happen in such a short period? 
Answer, both main parties play the identity game of I-am-greener-than-you to harvest gullible votes and pay ever increasing subsidies to useless wind turbines and allowing higher and higher prices when we should be paying lower and lower.  
No infrastructure I agree with that. we should have built 100 more dams, and some 10 nuclear plants and make the green party illegal for inciting to violence. 
The new Malcolm now pretending to be innovative announcing a bigger "Hydro scheme" will pump water from the lakes back up in the dam to have a second go at producing electricity. He is now promoting the perpetual motion machine, never mind that it loses 20% in the process. 
Our PM should buy a mirror, have a hard look at himself and after a few sessions with a psychologist come out and declare he is Labour and move accordingly across the floor.

----------


## woodbe

Poor Malcolm  :Smilie:  He is torn between the factions of his party, and he can no longer push his own views. He does have a large solar array and battery system on his own home though. 
Gas is a problem for Australia. Firstly, because previous governments deleted the requirement to hold a percentage of available gas for the Australian population. That gave the gas corps the ability to make more cash while ignoring the needs of Australia. We are being rooted by those companies and the government should put those requirements back. 
Secondly, Gas is still a fossil fuel. It isn't as bad as coal but it still has impact on the climate. It is better as a transition to renewables though. 
And why are our electricity prices surging? One reason is because most states sold off their electricity assets and the people of Australia are being ripped off. We used to deal directly with the government owned generators (like ETSA here in SA) but when the system was sold off, they pushed a retail wedge between the power generators and the public so the price went up to pay for a whole new group of unnecessary parasites. Especially in Vic.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> And why are our electricity prices surging? One reason is because most states sold off their electricity assets and the people of Australia are being ripped off. We used to deal directly with the government owned generators (like ETSA here in SA) but when the system was sold off, they pushed a retail wedge between the power generators and the public so the price went up to pay for a whole new group of unnecessary parasites. Especially in Vic.

  Its sort of related to privatisation and also not.  So the explanation I got from a engineer exec in Ausgrid.  Essentially, the public business in nsw had been having cash pulled out at every opportunity with only a minimum investment in infrastructure (pre 2000).  The govt then moved towards selling off the businesses, but then had to build in a way of encouraging the businesses to invest in infrastructure. 
what they did, was say you can make a 10% Rate of return (I don't know what the actual % was, but it was in the order of that), by lifting retail prices to pay for that investment.  What the companies did was start building infrastructure, like big sub stations for a few hundred million each by borrowing at 4% making a guaranteed profit margin into the future of around 4 or 5% even if the infraturucture wasn't needed. 
so the policy said, you will make more money the more money you spend and you just get to transfer that cost to your customers and there is no competition (competition only happens at the retail provider and that is very limited anyway) 
ultimately this his is the kind of stupidity that happens when you allow beauracrats to design market based systems in a  fundamentally monopolistic situation - you can only guess as to where they took advice from  
electricity prices are are largely a result of failure of govt to manage it, it's not a green policy, it's a failure of management 
this process was across nearly all the states according to a four corners report a few years ago, the national spot market is simply another example to fix something they broke themselves, but the spot pricing doesn't effect retail prices, unlike inbuilt capital returns

----------


## woodbe

Michael Mann, The Madhouse Effect: Climate Denial in the age of Trump. Presented at Sydney Environment Institute

----------


## PhilT2

There is a Q & A session on the above video starting at about the 47 min mark. A number of people putting foward questions are obviously not convinced of the reality of AGW. The questions they put reinforces my belief that if we are ever to have an intelligent debate about AGW then the anti AGW side have to first find someone with intelligence.

----------


## woodbe

> There is a Q & A session on the above video starting at about the 47 min mark. A number of people putting foward questions are obviously not convinced of the reality of AGW. The questions they put reinforces my belief that if we are ever to have an intelligent debate about AGW then the anti AGW side have to first find someone with intelligence.

  Anyone can challenge the existing science and even change the results if their paper is better than the already published science. Publish it in a peer reviewed journal. 
Science is not about debate or opinion. That is not how science works. 
Turning up to a public climate presentation and spewing non published climate denial spiel at a public meeting cannot get a discussion because it would take way too long to involve the details and discuss the actual science behind it. Even if that was done, the deniers will not accept it, and they usually jump onto the next denier meme. The moderator asked for the name of the questioner and to keep the questions short because the Q&A session has a short time and plenty of questions.

----------


## John2b

> We are the biggest exporter of gas in the world, have one of the biggest reserves of coal and uranium yet pay the highest electricity prices in the world, higher than Japan and have an unreliable outdated supply. How did this happen in such a short period? 
> Answer, both main parties play the identity game of I-am-greener-than-you to harvest gullible votes and pay ever increasing subsidies to useless wind turbines and allowing higher and higher prices when we should be paying lower and lower.

  Australia is the only nation in the world that allows foreign companies to extract its gas without conditions and then sell it back at the global price. On 100bn cubic metres of LNG, Australia is expected to receive just $800m, while on the same amount Qatar’s government is expected to receive $26.6bn in royalties.  How did this come about? Nothing to do with greenies or political correctness, just neoliberal economics of the type championed by Marc, pure and simple.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Neoliberal?   The new liberals would be left progressive one would assume...... 
most of the price hikes have been infrastructure related Marc, a bit of the solar panel etc rebates and a small amount other.   
royalties are neither left nor right, you simply extract whatever you think you can get.  The costs of getting LNG out of deep sea on a remote coast with semi skilled labour on six figure incomes  is vastly different from a country where you import third world labour and don't give a toss about safety

----------


## John2b

Neoliberal economics, from Ayn Rand disciples like Alan Greenspan, were introduced by Reagan in the US, Thatcher in the UK and Howard in OZ. That's when corporate greed was declared good and public ownership of utilities began to be abandoned by governments for the sake of short term funds, which were usually used to throw bags of lollies at the electorate and curry political favour. Prior to this, the "free market" was tightly controlled by western governments because the west couldn't afford to allow communist countries to outperform in economic development. Government economic regulations went out the window after the Berlin Wall came down - there was no longer a perceived need to ensure the "free market" outperformed centrally controlled economies. 
I'm all for giving away Australia's gas and buying gas back from overseas - NOT! If Australia can't export LNG without a reasonable return to its owners (the Australian public) why sell it at all FFS? Frankly, Australia's cost of delivery of LNG to Asia is much lower that of Qatar, but Australia does not act strategically with its LNG resources, because the industry is split between many different companies and government jurisdictions.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Neoliberal economics, from Ayn Rand disciples like Alan Greenspan, were introduced by Reagan in the US, Thatcher in the UK and Howard in OZ. That's when corporate greed was declared good and public ownership of utilities began to be abandoned by governments for the sake of short term funds, which were usually used to throw bags of lollies at the electorate and curry political favour. Prior to this, the "free market" was tightly controlled by western governments because the west couldn't afford to allow communist countries to outperform in economic development. Government economic regulations went out the window after the Berlin Wall came down - there was no longer a perceived need to ensure the "free market" outperformed centrally controlled economies. 
> I'm all for giving away Australia's gas and buying gas back from overseas - NOT! If Australia can't export LNG without a reasonable return to its owners (the Australian public) why sell it at all FFS? Frankly, Australia's cost of delivery of LNG to Asia is much lower that of Qatar, but Australia does not act strategically with its LNG resources, because the industry is split between many different companies and government jurisdictions.

  So in other words it's a made up term to be used perjoritively against anything or anyone who disagrees with your own world view.  Love all the self justification rubbish that follows though. 
ya numpty, qatars cost of delivery INCLUDES the royalty - that's the entire point, qatars cost of removal is so damn cheap they get big royalties as a result that bridges the gap between price gained and net cost of bringing it to market.  Australia should charge whatever royalty they can so it's still economical to spend the capital to get it out of the ground and get it to market. 
one of the answers to our gas shortfall is developing coal seam - we've stopped because of ill educated farmers and other associated greenies who love the CSIRO when they report on climate change but then won't take CSIRO advice on fracking because it disagrees with their world view. 
THAT, is hypocrisy. (Same same for GMO foods, hydro power, nuclear power etc etc)

----------


## John2b

> So in other words it's a made up term to be used perjoritively against anything or anyone who disagrees with your own world view.  Love all the self justification rubbish that follows though.

  Nope, I leave making up stuff for others to do.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism   

> one of the answers to our gas shortfall is developing coal seam...

  ...or we could simply stop giving it away for no net economic benefit to the nation.   

> ill educated farmers and other associated greenies ... won't take CSIRO advice on fracking

   
... or maybe those ill educated farmers and other associated greenies just don't want this in their kitchens: Light Your Water On Fire from Gas Drilling, Fracking - YouTube

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Nope, I leave making up stuff for others to do.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolibera *
> yeah, yeah, that's pretty much what it says, Same same* 
> ...or we could simply stop giving it away for no net economic benefit to the nation.   
> ... or maybe those ill educated farmers and other associated greenies just don't want this in their kitchens: Light Your Water On Fire from Gas Drilling, Fracking - YouTube

  What, no economic benefit for Australia? - who do they employ, Indonesians? Where do the employees pay tax? Mumbai perhaps?  What about corporate tax, and all the other infrastructure - you're a bit hard to please on what constitutes economic benefit  
you tube also thinks the Condamine river is the big bad fracking crowd - all the fracking stuff I've seen is about as backed up as Marc's assertions.  Anecdata at best - methane does occur in nature you know.....

----------


## John2b

> What, no economic benefit for Australia? - who do they employ, Indonesians? Where do the employees pay tax? Mumbai perhaps?  What about corporate tax, and all the other infrastructure - you're a bit hard to please on what constitutes economic benefit

  A huge proportion of the infrastructure capital cost AND wear and tear on infrastructure used by the LNG exporters was / is paid for by Australian taxpayers. Because of where it is, it won't be much use to anyone once the gas finally flickers out. 
Structural changes in the gas extraction industry means the already small number of employees engaged in gas extraction are in significant decline year on year. 
More than 60% of resource exporters paid NO Australian corporate tax - you can read about it here: https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Larg...4-income-year/ 
Those that did pay corporate tax were still in receipt their share of $billions in resource industry subsidies. 
History shows that when the miners are done exporting they will transfer business assets into another legal entity, liquidate the licensee company, and leave taxpayers to clean up the mess. You do know there are about 50,000 abandoned mines in Australia that have not been remediated as required by the resource extraction licenses issued for those mines? Rehabilitation of over 50,000 abandoned mines in Australia to hit taxpayers | MINING.com

----------


## pharmaboy2

I'd be interested to know how you find your links. I'd bet pounds to peanuts that you don't Religiously read mining.com nor the ATO website, so you get your links from somewhere else.  It seems likely, you have a conclusion, then search for the answer, or better yet, read the story in Matilda or green news, then look for the source, and expect others to read through the total catalogue. 
you do i hope realise that is exactly how Marc produces all this stuff that agrees with his own narrative and this is the point im trying to get across.  This is only something you can self examine as to how you always come across the same information or a bit of news that confirms your own bias.  You want to find out that miners rape the country, pay no tax, probably eat small children and anything else that fits your narrative. 
this is no different to how the denial group end up with repeating the same information - its groupthink, its searching for 'facts' within your own narrative. 
if you want proof - look at the question you were answering - it was about offshore LNG, yet your reply is about abandoned mines -  these are holes in the ground, have not much at all to do with extracting gas from under the sea, so why the article and the rant? 
because it fits your personal crusade, just like Marc's info fits his personal crusade.     :Wink:

----------


## John2b

Interesting program tonight on ABC "the views of distinguished former members of the US military and senior policy makers who warn that climate change is not only real, it's a threat to global security." The Age of Consequences - Four Corners

----------


## John2b

> I'd be interested to know how you find your links.

  You are far off the mark when you try to analyse my psych, yes I do read widely. And why the personal attack in every post in response to mine; why not address the discussion?   

> you do i hope realise that is exactly how Marc produces all this stuff that agrees with his own narrative and this is the point im trying to get across.

  Your own confirmation bias in your expressed views compares with Marc pretty well IMHO.

----------


## John2b

> if you want proof - look at the question you were answering - it was about offshore LNG, yet your reply is about abandoned mines -  these are holes in the ground, have not much at all to do with extracting gas from under the sea, so why the article and the rant?

  No, the discussion was about the LNG export industry, of which WA offshore extraction represents somewhere around half. The rest comes from onshore extraction. The abandoned mines are in many cases operated by the same resource companies that are involved in LNG extraction. Are you suggesting that off-shore drillers are better at remediating the environment after they have finished? We'd have to take your word on that because no one would know; but I wouldn't bet one cent that they are.

----------


## pharmaboy2

I'm making the assumption that gas doesn't exactly lay waste to vast tracks of land , spoil, washeries, overburden, airb orn dust - that sort of stuff, so they have less to remediate.   
But im not an enviro mentalist -  i care about climate change from a rational point of view.  Low co2 power sources are what matters, clean air etc does as well, whether an old mine site somewhere still has green tree frogs matters far less to me, and I definitely dont think we should be missing economic politics with the environment

----------


## pharmaboy2

Actually, can all that irrelevant rubbish  
do you accept that you have a bias?

----------


## woodbe

> do you accept that you have a bias?

  Explain what a non-bias would be in a discussion about climate change. 
There have been plenty of bias, often the news dribble gives equal time to a climate denier when the science is being very clear that denial is not real science and is not a valid discussion. 
Are we facing 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees is a valid discussion for example, not that climate change 'doesn't exist'. Anyone who cares to look at the actual science will realise that.

----------


## Marc

The long arm of the anti CO2 religion.
The hysterical shrieks of the anti "carbon" mob are to be found almost everywhere, benefit of almost endless funds. The one place you don't expect to hear this sort of idiocy is when you watch a movie like Prometheus. Besides being a knockoff from Alien, the script writer thought it would be a good idea to add a religious line.
The captain landing his craft on a far away planet "How is the atmosphere?" 
Answer - "70% Nitrogen, 25% oxygen and the rest other gases"
Breathable? Hardly! says the scientist. "IT WOULD BE LIKE BREATHING THROUGH AN EXHAUST PIPE" ... 3% CO2 completely TOXIC !!!! 
Aaaah the dedication of the religious zealots, flat earthers ignorant morons is admirable.

----------


## woodbe

> Aaaah the dedication of the religious zealots, flat earthers ignorant morons is admirable.

  That's exactly how the deniers behave. I wouldn't call them admirable.  
Meanwhile the actual science is based on years of hard work and actual analysis.

----------


## Marc



----------


## woodbe

Perfect example Marc. He is not a Climate researcher and is spewing the usual climate denier spiel.   

> Aaaah the dedication of the religious zealots, flat earthers ignorant morons is admirable.

----------


## Marc

Earth hour anyone? How cute. Hold it in for an hour

----------


## John2b

> I'm making the assumption that gas doesn't exactly lay waste to vast tracks of land , spoil, washeries, overburden, airb orn dust - that sort of stuff, so they have less to remediate.

  That assumption would be wrong. I have worked at the Moomba gas fields in SA's far north and the scale of work is almost unimaginable; there are thousands of kilometres of pipes connecting hundreds and hundreds of wells. This picture isn't of Moomba, but you get the idea of what a modern gas field looks like.      

> But im not an enviro mentalist - i care about climate change from a rational point of view. Low co2 power sources are what matters, clean air etc does as well, whether an old mine site somewhere still has green tree frogs matters far less to me, and I definitely dont think we should be missing economic politics with the environment

  
Humanity does not live apart from the environment, humanity depends on the environment to provide everything necessary to life. There is no over-arching distinction between what is good for a green tree frog and what is good for mankind, nor is there any sustainable economic justification for degrading the environment. 
If humanity is going to survive the next century and beyond, what matters is sustainability. Industrial development and using fossil reserves for energy is in total conflict with sustainability, as is using the land, rivers, the oceans or the sky as refuse tips for industrial and modern technological waste, including the residues of burning 500 million year old dead algae, AKA coal.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> That assumption would be wrong. I have worked at the Moomba gas fields in SA's far north and the scale of work is almost unimaginable; there are thousands of kilometres of pipes connecting hundreds and hundreds of wells. This picture isn't of Moomba, but you get the idea of what a modern gas field looks like. 
> ........... 
> Humanity does not live apart from the environment, humanity depends on the environment to provide everything necessary to life. There is no over-arching distinction between what is good for a green tree frog and what is good for mankind, nor is there any sustainable economic justification for degrading the environment. 
> If humanity is going to survive the next century and beyond, what matters is sustainability. Industrial development and using fossil reserves for energy is in total conflict with sustainability, as is using the land, rivers, the oceans or the sky as refuse tips for industrial and modern technological waste, including the residues of burning 500 million year old dead algae, AKA coal.

  see this is it in a nutshell.  For you, what is good for the frog is good for humans, further that the environment that man requires is as it is.  That is your opinion, and this is where things get a little messy, because science is about facts, eg the green tree frog is declining in x spots, the direct cause is a and b.   
Man distinguishes themselves by the obvious fact that they can modify their environment - clothing, huts, air conditioning, irrigation, fertiliser etc etc. 
so an example where your bias differs from my bias, is  
"nor is there any sustainable economic justification for degrading the environment." 
mine would be, as long as there is a sustainable economic argument for modifying the argument, for example. 
the reason that I reply to these posts is because the posts given the impression that you know you are right and don't quite know where science and fact end and personal opinion starts.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Explain what a non-bias would be in a discussion about climate change. 
> There have been plenty of bias, often the news dribble gives equal time to a climate denier when the science is being very clear that denial is not real science and is not a valid discussion. 
> Are we facing 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees is a valid discussion for example, not that climate change 'doesn't exist'. Anyone who cares to look at the actual science will realise that.

  Bias is inevitable, it's self recognition that matters. 
where opinion matters is in convincing those that you need to.  For instance, we need to enrol the conservative side of politics, particularly in the US, but others also in climate science, and of course fOx, who do a fair bit of the damage on their own.  Convincing is part of negotiation, but also picking your battles.

----------


## johnc

> What, no economic benefit for Australia? - who do they employ, Indonesians? Where do the employees pay tax? Mumbai perhaps?  What about corporate tax, and all the other infrastructure - you're a bit hard to please on what constitutes economic benefit  
> you tube also thinks the Condamine river is the big bad fracking crowd - all the fracking stuff I've seen is about as backed up as Marc's assertions.  Anecdata at best - methane does occur in nature you know.....

  Actually there is a lot being written about the offshoring of profits, low levels of employment and lack of revenue flow to the Government. One of the destinations of the Gladstone gas fields is Japan which adds a tariff when it arrives yet there is no compensation to our government for taking an asset that belongs to the Australian public. The capital costs of these recent fields have hit companies like Origin and Santos quite hard as well as the Government that pumps quite a lot into these projects through transport links, town infrastructure and other facilities, in many cases tax on wages is about as good as it gets which isn't much as these modern plants require few workers compared to fields that had been developed in the Moomba and Bass Strait days. While we can pontificate here there has really been no decent public policy on this for some time, that should have happened when the mining tax kicked off, whether that tax was ideal is debatable as it allowed some rorting of commonwealth revenue by the states however both royalties and corporate tax should be given some consideration as we blew the last mining boom and mistakes made then are why we are in a budget deficit now,

----------


## woodbe

> Bias is inevitable, it's self recognition that matters. 
> where opinion matters is in convincing those that you need to.  For instance, we need to enrol the conservative side of politics, particularly in the US, but others also in climate science, and of course fOx, who do a fair bit of the damage on their own.  Convincing is part of negotiation, but also picking your battles.

  If people ignore (or distort) the actual science, there is no use of talking about negotiation. That is just madness. Very unlikely to convince a denier regardless of their political bent. As you can see in this thread, a denier repeats known false information and swaps to the next rung when the bogus information is revealed as false.

----------


## johnc

> Bias is inevitable, it's self recognition that matters. 
> where opinion matters is in convincing those that you need to.  For instance, we need to enrol the conservative side of politics, particularly in the US, but others also in climate science, and of course fOx, who do a fair bit of the damage on their own.  Convincing is part of negotiation, but also picking your battles.

  An interesting concept, my view of the extreme end (the far right) is that we have a group that actually for whatever reason aren't able to think broadly or see a future different from today. They live by a set of rules or points that they are incapable of moving away from as to do so destroys their belief systems and introduces self doubt. Self doubt is actually what we need to embrace all forms of change. I feel we need to embrace the middle ground of mainstream politics, that is both the current left and right and forge a future from there. Turnbull seems to be keeping the slavering dogs of the far right in the tent and mainly on the chain by talking up coal yet his Snowy Mountain play only makes sense if the future is 100% renewable power and possibly a larger state involvement in building these assets. The problem with the far right is that they think they are mainstream and can carry the middle ground with them, ultimately I doubt that is the case and in the end all they are likely to achieve if successful is stagnant economies and a fractured and disillusioned voting public.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> If people ignore (or distort) the actual science, there is no use of talking about negotiation. That is just madness. Very unlikely to convince a denier regardless of their political bent. As you can see in this thread, a denier repeats known false information and swaps to the next rung when the bogus information is revealed as false.

  Pick your battles. 
not the complete denier who believes capital B that it's all bulls hit.  There is a bunch however who are unsure and feel it's impossible to get a centred view, but also know for sure that the green left is untrustworthy and are against capitalism, globalisation etc.  they are your target - majority rules, but you need a majority in both parties not just one

----------


## pharmaboy2

> An interesting concept, my view of the extreme end (the far right) is that we have a group that actually for whatever reason aren't able to think broadly or see a future different from today. They live by a set of rules or points that they are incapable of moving away from as to do so destroys their belief systems and introduces self doubt. Self doubt is actually what we need to embrace all forms of change. I feel we need to embrace the middle ground of mainstream politics, that is both the current left and right and forge a future from there. Turnbull seems to be keeping the slavering dogs of the far right in the tent and mainly on the chain by talking up coal yet his Snowy Mountain play only makes sense if the future is 100% renewable power and possibly a larger state involvement in building these assets. The problem with the far right is that they think they are mainstream and can carry the middle ground with them, ultimately I doubt that is the case and in the end all they are likely to achieve if successful is stagnant economies and a fractured and disillusioned voting public.

  so where to start? 
first, the "far right" is your descriptor of a group you don't agree with.  It's not about far left, far right or extremism, it needs to be about climate.  If you take the view that it's about climate first and second, then you have to consider what the possible consensus solutions would be. 
there will never be a consensus when the outcome is abandoning economic growth, or for instance where carbon pricing is a tax which is then used by the state to give to others - it needs to be revenue neutral.  Each aspect needs to be carefully considered so it skirts the fundamental topic that is disagreed on - politics.  Like it or not, economics, free markets, taxation, individual freedoms are always politics and need to be excluded

----------


## woodbe

> Pick your battles. 
> not the complete denier who believes capital B that it's all bulls hit.  There is a bunch however who are unsure and feel it's impossible to get a centred view, but also know for sure that the green left is untrustworthy and are against capitalism, globalisation etc.  they are your target - majority rules, but you need a majority in both parties not just one

  You're steering into playing politics, not debating climate science. 
The only 'battle' worth playing is over the degree of the problem we face. The known published scientific research explains that the climate will impact us and our descendants. 
The 'centred view' would be somewhere between 1.5 and 2 degrees.

----------


## Marc

Pharma ... the Global Warming beat up has never been about the climate. Never.  
It wasn't when Margaret Thatcher set the wagon rolling, it wasn't when Al Gore made himself rich and famous with a bunch of lies, it wasn't when he got the Nobel price. It is not about climate when politicians use it as a political tool to produce votes, it is not about climate when non scientific, political institutions like the ipcc drum up support with fabrications, it is not about the climate when universities have to come up with findings that agree with the politicians that release funds. 
Global warming is political first and foremost. The funny part is that the one pulling the strings only pretend to be on the left so that the left cheerleaders join in the chorus but the real benefit is for the rich politicians and the rich industrialist whilst the foot soldiers are left holding the baby in the form of higher prices for fuel and energy.  
Oh, but they are "saving the planet" you say? 
Not really. Planet need not saving and the trillions squandered so far have made not a iota of difference and another 30 years of this farce will produce equally zero results.  
This is not a left versus right wing of politics. It is about one crafty group of liars that succeeded in mesmerising another group that was out there looking for a cause to fight for since they lost the communist cause.   This turned into a religious cause and the rest is history. The "climate" is just an excuse. 
The economics of this gargantuan fraud don't interest them too much since it is the right side of the equation that is paying for it generally speaking. 
Pretty pathetic really.

----------


## johnc

> so where to start? 
> first, the "far right" is your descriptor of a group you don't agree with.  It's not about far left, far right or extremism, it needs to be about climate.  If you take the view that it's about climate first and second, then you have to consider what the possible consensus solutions would be. 
> there will never be a consensus when the outcome is abandoning economic growth, or for instance where carbon pricing is a tax which is then used by the state to give to others - it needs to be revenue neutral.  Each aspect needs to be carefully considered so it skirts the fundamental topic that is disagreed on - politics.  Like it or not, economics, free markets, taxation, individual freedoms are always politics and need to be excluded

  Carbon price or a tax on carbon was once proposed by the Liberals as the model they wanted but that got derailed. It is also a false assumption that economic growth will fall with renewables, in fact the negativity on this issue has allowed absurd levels of electricity price increases and a corresponding negative impact on GDP growth. Building power generation of any form increases GDP because it is money spent in the economy, what you need to be sure of is it brings down the price of power. Much is made of power price increases yet little of the cause. I'd put the far right, the far left, One Nation and some of the lunatic fringe in the box marked "doesn't have much of a clue about anything" that is because they inflexible and can't adjust. We actually need to make a number of changes because economically Australia is loosing the plot, carbon is a minor part of that, industry policy, competition policy, tax collection, inefficiencies in the domestic housing market, allocation of tax resources. We actually need to be raising tax at 25% to 26% of GDP to fund our spending, that is a historical figure, if you delete a tax the money has to be made up from somewhere or you reduce spending. The think is our treasurer as well as the last couple haven't really bothered to bring that forward instead relying on a bit of demonising to provide a smokescreen for inaction. Look what both power prices and national debt have done since this lot got in, they have done bugger all to fix the problem because they have locked themselves into a straight jacket and can't see a way out. Probably collecting more from the multinationals screwing us or excessive use of the research and development allowance would be a politically acceptable start but you need a treasurer up to the task for that along with a supportive party room.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> You're steering into playing politics, not debating climate science.

  How so?   I want politics out of it. (Everything after. ' there's a bunch' is third person view of the population you are dealing with, not my personal view) 
as to degree of change, it's also effect of change.   Within that Michael Mann interview was the speculation that a drought which was caused by global warming caused Isis, and that is the proof of how important climate change is.  I think that sort of stuff is dangerous ground - the Arab spring really didn't quite turn out like it should have done, but using it as an example for global warming is a stretch for anyone other than capital B believers. 
this summer just gone gives a hint of what is going to be the new norm - ie heatwaves that will stretch electricity supplies and an average to wetter conditions for most of the eastern seaboard, probably drier in the west.  It was supposed to be very much drier when hotter on the east but it's proven not to be he case. 
that said limiting change to around the 2c mark seems a prudent goal, we can adapt around that level easily, 5 degrees maybe starts heading into melting Greenland, though that's a centuries process

----------


## pharmaboy2

Johnc, where is the evidence that Australia is losing the plot economically? 
not many places that still have a funded welfare state and have missed a recession ( despite the technical causes of said bullet dodging). It's still the best country in the world to live in, but we could do with politicians that don't fight over seemingly everything

----------


## Marc

*Final Proof Global Warming Purely Political*  JUNE 22, 2014 / BRIGGS / 107 COMMENTS  _The Skeptic went that way!_ _Regular readers will have expected the next installment in our tour of_ Summa Contra Gentiles. _This will appear next week after my class is over. I may say that the day-after effects of copious wine and sunshine are more than sufficient proof for God’s divine instruction, and therefore it follows God exists._ Have you noticed, really noticed, that the concept of proof has all but disappeared from major media stories on global warming?  Proof-stories are those that say “The science predicted this-and-such, and here is the evidence verifying the prediction.” These were common in the early days of the panic, back in the late ’90s when temperatures cooperated with climate models, but are now as rare as conservatives in Liberal Arts departments. The reason is simple: there is little in the way of proof that the dire predictions of global warming are true, and much evidence, plain to the senses, that they are false. Global warming stories still appear with the same frequency as before, but they have changed character. The new stories demonstrate convincingly, if there was any doubt left, that global warming “science” is purely political.  This is because people believe global warming not because of the science but because they desire its “solution.” Take this example from the San Francisco _Chronicle_, “Democrats use climate change as wedge issue on Republicans“.When President Obama stood before students in Southern California a week ago ridiculing those who deny climate science, he wasn’t just road testing a new political strategy to a friendly audience. He was trying to drive a wedge between younger voters and the Republican Party. Democrats are convinced that climate change is the new same-sex marriage, an issue that is moving irreversibly in their favor… Wedge issues are those in which one side believes strongly that it has the moral high ground.   In other words, the president and his party want the only acceptable argument to be “_I believe_“. Anybody who offers calm, logical arguments against the theory of “catastrophic” man-made global warming, such as observing models do not make skillful predictions, must be shouted down, shunned, driven from polite society, called evil, labeled as brutes, shamed, fired, de-funded, imprisoned.  (Remember those brave academics who called for the arrest of skeptics? Here,here, and here.) When a True Believer meets a skeptic he sticks his fingers in his ears, stamps his feet, and screeches “Denier!” (or “Bigot!”) as if this is a knock-down devastating rebuttal. In the True Believer’s favor, a rampaging mob does earn a certain respect.  It’s rather funny in its way. Who with me recalls the academic other-way-of-knowing culture war of the 1990s which griped the academy? The literature, sociology, education, and other soft professors insisted that science had no special cause for respect, that scientific knowledge was just “another way of knowing”, that truth must always be accompanied by scare quotes because “truth” belonged to whoever was in power, etc., etc.  The war culminated in physicist Alan Sokal’s famous hoax, where he managed to get a prestigious other-way-of-knowing _peer-reviewed_ journal to publish an article of scientific gibberish. Embarrassed, relativists sounded the general retreat and thereafter were sure to make themselves seen endorsing science whenever they could; they even adopted scientific techniques for their own research, even when this was clearly nonsensical.  Right after Sokal came global warming. The timing was perfect. Here was a science that accorded perfectly with the politics of the relativists. It was embraced with gusto. “We’re all scientists now!” they said. _Global_ warming meant _global_, top-down “solutions.” Man-made catastrophic global warming was not “true”, but capital-T TRUE. A clear victory for Science.  Climate scientists were feted and funded, and many understandably gave in to the temptation to be pampered publicly. Adulation is a strong drug and addicting. To keep the supply steady, these scientists regularly ratcheted up their rhetoric, soon passing well beyond the evidence and venturing into wild speculation. Audiences were enraptured. Facts were long forgotten. All that could be seen were “solutions.”  The UN, knowing a good deal when it saw one, got involved. So did those politicians which saw they could use global warming as a “wedge issue” to harm their opponents. Governments which had higher things on its minds ignored or downplayed the movement, except when they could benefit from it. For instance, Uganda “will on Saturday 12th July host the first ever International Climate Change Conference for Children.” Ugandan leaders smell money.  And now, at rock bottom, we have our president acting like an addled college student attending an “awareness raising” rally calling out “Nyah nyah nyah.” The point is this: the relativists were right all along. They should not have capitulated. Science—I mean its practice and not the facts—is just another way of knowing. Research which gets funded is that which is aligned with the reigning politics. “Truth” is what those in power say it is. Power, even voting, determines “reality.” *Share this:*

----------


## John2b

[QUOTE=Marc;1046401]The war culminated in physicist Alan Sokal’s famous hoax, where he managed to get a prestigious other-way-of-knowing _peer-reviewed journal to publish an article of scientific gibberish.[_/QUOTE] 
This is not correct. Why does the author Briggs need to make stuff up if facts support his position? The journal the article was published in, "Social Text", was not peer reviewed, it was not a science journal and the article was not a science article. No points for realising that Brigg's blog cut and pasted above isn't supported by facts, nor a factual record of anything.

----------


## johnc

> Johnc, where is the evidence that Australia is losing the plot economically? 
> not many places that still have a funded welfare state and have missed a recession ( despite the technical causes of said bullet dodging). It's still the best country in the world to live in, but we could do with politicians that don't fight over seemingly everything

  You have to look at the past and how we dealt with earlier issues. A good starting point for many is probably Whitlam, he came in at a time when our economy was showing stress from the effects of a strong protectionist policy that while protecting local manufacturing, was also preventing proper efficiencies in the companies that manufactured, leading to not enough investment in new product and more efficient machinery. I am not a big fan of the concept one party is bad and the other the good, one of the reasons we have stability is that while governments change they do not have a great upheaval with it. Our laws regulations and government departments continue on as they are and change is incremental and manageable. Whitlam, not the greatest of economic managers got hit with oil shocks, baby boomers and women hitting the workforce in large numbers pushing up unemployment, rising interest rates and inflation. Fraser in his time while a bit timid got the ball rolling on reform even though he didn't undertake micro economic reform he did start to deregulate the economy and instigated the Campbell report although he later admitted it was a regret that he didn't follow through on those recommendations. Hawke did and many of the changes, the broadening of the tax base (GST, FBT, Super) the lowering substantially of company tax and so forth. That was finalised really by Howard with the GST. Rather than commission reviews though Howard from what I could see sub contracted policy out to the IPA moving his party further right in the process, lowered the GST, reduced tax on super and lowered income taxes. Unfortunately he didn't broaden the tax base or raise anything to replace the lost revenue and when the mining construction period ended we had insufficient tax revenue to cover spending. With Rudd we got the Cooper review on super, which he foolishly placed limits on and the Henry review on taxation which he sort of played with and we saw the mining tax. If we move on quickly to Gillard/Abbott, for the first time since well before Whitlam we really saw a man who was just going to oppose anything, nothing Gillard put up was going to get through if he could stop it there was no attempt to work for the country it was just vindictive opposition. In government Abbott/Hockey had nothing, any cuts to spending they matched with new spending our deficit raged out of control. We are now drifting under Turnbull, there is no effort to dust off the Henry review which is a good document or introduce something to replace it. no effort to broaden the tax base or fix leakage in the system. I think we are drifting, we are going to rake up greater debt and we are not attempting to fix the problem.  
Having said that we do still have an economy that is maintaining economic growth even if it is anaemic and below what it needs to be to soak up unemployment it is also only positive as a combination of our high immigrations levels and mining exports, the rest of the economy is languishing. It is not that the Liberals don't have the talent, Turnbull though seems to have been hobbled by those in the right of his party but may be starting to break through. So what you said is pretty much on the money we have a lot to be thankful for but it would be great to have politicians that don't fight over everything and that is the problem. We need the middle ground of Australian politics to at least agree on how we fix our deficit, capital city house price disaster (not if you own one but it is dragging the economy down) and the way we manage our mining resources and go back to bickering about the detail rather than bickering about actually doing anything at all. We are OK because of changes made in the 1980's to 1990's we now need to get our act together to make the adjustments required to remain a prosperous nation in 2050.

----------


## John2b

A Japanese court has found the state and the operator of the Fukushima nuclear plant liable for failing to take preventive measures against the tsunami that crippled the facility. The court found that "... science-based evidence of major risks to the nuclear plant was “foreseen” but ignored and not acted upon by Japan’s government and Tepco... (including) ...a 2002 government assessment that concluded there was a 20% risk of a magnitude 8 or greater earthquake off the coast of northeastern Japan within 30 years." 
There is a serious precedent here for corporations and governments who ignore the science-based evidence of degenerative climate change being caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.  In first, government and Tepco found liable for Fukushima disaster | The Japan Times

----------


## pharmaboy2

Johnc,  so what are the next reforms, steps? 
one of the difficulties is we have an economy without much if any spare capacity - Housing prices are also driving the construction sector, so the difficulty with any policy that tries to effect housing prices, is that there is a fine line between causing a small correction and a large crash which will also bring the construction sector to a halt

----------


## johnc

> Johnc,  so what are the next reforms, steps? 
> one of the difficulties is we have an economy without much if any spare capacity - Housing prices are also driving the construction sector, so the difficulty with any policy that tries to effect housing prices, is that there is a fine line between causing a small correction and a large crash which will also bring the construction sector to a halt

   Shouldn't your question be "who is talking about where we go next" you don't have the answers, nor do I, what we need is the politicians to be working on getting and articulating that to the general public. Hint, the right wing aren't into progress at the moment.

----------


## John2b

"The iconic Great Barrier Reef, already badly damaged by global warming during three extreme heatwaves, in 1998, 2002 and 2016, is being yet damaged by a new bleaching event is under way now," Great Barrier Reef: 'See it while you still can'

----------


## John2b

> Johnc,  so what are the next reforms, steps?

----------


## John2b

> This is not a left versus right wing of politics. It is about one crafty group of liars that succeeded in mesmerising another group that was out there looking for a cause to fight for since they lost the communist cause.

  I think you are on to something Marc. The 'free market economic' principles that were discarded in favour of "neoliberal economics" when the Berlin Wall came down certainly haven't improved conditions for the vast majority of the worlds' citizens, in either first or third world countries. And that is without considering the uneven impacts of climate change which affects poor people much more seriously than affluent people. Ah... at least Tony recognised that coal is good for humanity*. (*Of course, Abbott was referring to 'his' humanity - the 0.01% who own 90% of everything.)

----------


## johnc

> 

  One of the issues identified in recent times is profit shifting overseas, some internationals seemed to have mastered the art of not paying tax and this needs to be stopped in its tracks. The main issue is it will need international coordination which is generally almost impossible to achieve. International tax treaties work well in some ways but are often limited in the way they can deal with profits being shifted to low or no tax regimes. Recently there was some talk of abolishing stamp duty on property purchases and bringing in a new land tax. There is also nothing wrong with the idea of actually increasing the tax rate on individuals providing you put on earmuffs to lower the noise from the stuck pigs. Of course there is nothing wrong either about constraining costs but we have been running efficiency dividends for a number of years (reduction of funding in real terms) and there may be nothing more to save without actually cutting programs and then you have problems if these are in areas that the public has become used to funding and relies on those services. The thing is we have to reign in the deficit and we have to have the public on side to do it and our politicans need to rule out anything before it has at least been discussed in a mature manner.  
We seem to have become overly sensitive to almost everything, if someone was to suggest we should cut all healthcare to the over 65's because they are no longer productive members of society as a group then rather than just shutting down the idea in an attack it would actually be beneficial if people behaved in a rational manner and raised why it was a bad idea. I.e. some are productive, it is not acceptable or equitable, healthcare is for life etc. In the end if politicians are looking into something raising the contrarian point is important even if the purpose is to highlight why that is a path we should not take as a just society. A good example is a carbon tax, far more efficient and effective than Abbotts direct action plan which appears to be little more than another of his many failures.

----------


## John2b

Ah... direct action. What a good idea that isn't!

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Shouldn't your question be "who is talking about where we go next" you don't have the answers, nor do I, what we need is the politicians to be working on getting and articulating that to the general public. Hint, the right wing aren't into progress at the moment.

  Well, here's my idea - no parliament may introduce any new legislation unless they withdraw as a bare minimum an equal number of lines of legislation as well. 
there isn't much desire or push for substantive reforms ATM.  Last one was flattening the tax system - took 20 years for that one to get over the line.

----------


## johnc

> Well, here's my idea - no parliament may introduce any new legislation unless they withdraw as a bare minimum an equal number of lines of legislation as well. 
> there isn't much desire or push for substantive reforms ATM.  Last one was flattening the tax system - took 20 years for that one to get over the line.

  What does that achieve, you can only add fifty words if you also repeal 50 words, sounds like a good way to get nothing done or produce something unworkable. There is some poorly drafted legislation in the tax act, however removing chunks isn't going to help anyone. If you wish to reduce complexity you have to withdraw entire bills, to do that you need to identify stuff that is no longer used. The UK did this to some effect and got rid of masses of old statute, however to link it to anything new makes no sense.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Gives the legislature motivation to stop doing things for the most minor of reasons.  They do it in the USA, or you have to have a sunset provision.   Every time I deal with legislation it's extremely ponderous, with referrrals to other legislation, wordy beyond belief, and often written for the very occasional example instead of the 99%. 
So what would it do?  Probably change the legislative balance from doing unimportant things to looking at the big picture

----------


## Marc

*Effect of Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Early Human Societies*  Guest Blogger / 3 days ago March 24, 2017 *Guest essay by Don Healy* Agriculture in ancient Egypt. Their main crops were wheat, barley and ’emmer’ wheat. Source: wall mural During the past 100,000 years, human societies have witnessed the vast change in climate that has occurred as we have transitioned from a glacial period that ended about 20,000 years ago, into the current interglacial period. During the early stages of this period, human lived as hunter/gatherers, relying on a diet that was very heavily weighted towards meat from a wide variety of wild animals, but also included eggs, nuts, fruits and grasses, to the past 10,000 years or less, when agriculture became a much more dominate feature in society and allowed human populations to remain in the one area and create towns and small hamlets. With agriculture came the domestication of many of the wild meat sources. As the agricultural model was perfected, much larger town and cities were created, society became more complex and the overall standard of living increased. In the past, it was assumed that societal changes were the prime driver in the change from the hunter/gatherer life style to the agricultural based society, but with the recent research into the change in the composition of the atmosphere over time from the various ice core research programs, another possibility emerges. From the ice core data we can now track the quantity of CO2 present in the atmosphere at various points in history, back to about 500,000 years ago. CO2 is one of the key ingredients in the photosynthetic process.  *From : Our Changing Climate* Numerous studies have shown the benefits from increasing CO2 levels on plant growth, but until recently, few studies have been conducted to understand how plants respond to the lower CO2 concentrations that were the norm during the glacial periods. Currently, CO2 levels are slightly above 400 ppm. However, during the last glacial period, ending about 20,000 years ago, CO2 levels were as low as 170 to 180 ppm. Below 200 ppm marks the very lowest level for CO2 since plants evolved and at these levels most plants are essentially starved for CO2. The purpose of this paper will be to show that it is very likely that it was the increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere, to levels above 250 ppm, that created the conditions for the plants that served as food sources to humans to thrive, and that made it worthwhile for humans to spend the time and energy in cultivating crops, which then allowed for the creation of cities and much more complex social orders. Prior to reaching this turning point, it was more efficient for humans to let wild animal species forage for the more limited vegetative offerings available, convert the plant material to protein and fat, and harvest the animals. Until about 8000 years ago, the human diet was composed primarily of meat from wild animals, supplemented with nuts, berries, mushrooms, and fungi in the local area. The transition from hunter/gatherer to agriculturalist was not necessarily a one-way process. Climatic changes could have necessitated a return to past methods when necessary for survival, such as occurred during the Younger Dryas. However, as the following graphs will show, the viability of numerous plants drops considerably as CO2 concentrations diminish. Biomass and seed yield were only about 40% of current plant production rates during the glacial periods; levels that would make agriculture an inefficient use of time and energy in those early cultures.  *From:* *http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...10.03441.x/pdf** Pg. 682* To clarify, there are three different photosynthetic pathways: C3, C4 and CAM. For the purposes of this discussion, only the C3 and C4 pathways are of concerned. CAM is utilized by cacti and similar plants that are not a large component of the human diet. The C3 process evolved first, over 400 million years ago when CO2 levels where many times current levels and are utilized by about 85% of the existing plant species today. The C4 process evolved much more recently, about 30 to 40 million years ago, when CO2 levels had dropped to levels still above todays levels, but much lower than when C3 plants evolved. It is believed that the C4 process was a natural adaptation to lower atmospheric CO2. With CO2 levels rising from levels of 180 ppm during the last glaciation to about 400 ppm currently, the C3 plants show a larger response, but the C4 plants also benefitted to a considerable degree, due to increased drought resistance and mycorrhizal colonization of plant roots. Examples of C3 plants are beans, rice, wheat, barley, rye, oats, soybean, peanut, cotton, sugar beets, spinach, potatoes, all woody trees and most lawn grasses. The C4 plants include corn, sugarcane, sorghum, millet, Bermuda grass and poa. *From: CO2 Science* A more graphic display of the effect of various CO2 levels on plant growth follows:  *From:* *http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...10.03441.x/pdf** Pg. 677* Higher concentrations of CO2 also have another beneficial effect upon plant growth. As CO2 levels increase up to certain limits, plants are able to use water more efficiently. The reason for this is that the stomata, the pores on the leaves of plants, must remain open longer at low CO2 concentrations to allow sufficient CO2 to enter the plant. CO2 is one of crucial ingredients in the photosynthetic process. While the stomata are open, water vapor escapes as transpiration. The longer the stomata remain open to allow sufficient CO2 to enter the leaf for photosynthesis to occur, the more water escapes. Thus, plants are more drought resistant at higher CO2 concentrations. Many plants species evolved at much higher CO2 concentrations than we are experiencing currently. The predecessors to Gymnosperms, or evergreens, evolved about 360 million years ago when CO2 levels were about 4000 ppm, 10 times today’s levels. The Angiosperms, or flowering and deciduous trees, evolved about 160 million years when CO2 levels were about 2200 ppm, over five times current levels. So at the levels experienced during the last glacial period of 180 ppm, the plant kingdom was clearly under great stress. We are all quite aware that the survival of the more advanced members of the animal kingdom which includes humans, are clearly dependent upon the well-being of the plant kingdom. So it would appear that during recent glacial periods, much of the life on earth was in jeopardy. Will rising CO2 levels enhance the growth of many plant species existing today? The answer is clearly yes. A note of caution is warranted here in that the burning of coal, oil and wood have been responsible for most of the increase in CO2 concentration in the modern era, and the burning of these fuels also releases many other toxic substances and pollution into the atmosphere, such as soot, nitric oxides, sulfur dioxides, and trace amounts of radioactive material. However, it would appear that within certain limits the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been beneficial to date, and very likely will continue to be for some time into the future. Please examine the graphs on the next page.  *From:**http://ibrarian.net/navon/paper/11__...perid=19948732** Page 236* Greening of the Globe: If the studies cited above are correct, then it would stand to reason that we should be able to detect a growth response in the vegetated portions earth and possibly see an expansion in the overall area occupied by vegetation. The abstract below indicates that this is occurring. From: *http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate3004.html*“Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services*1*, *2*. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.” During the 400 million or so years that plants have existed on earth, the average CO2 level has been about 1100 ppm, with a high near 4000 ppm when gymnosperms first evolved about 360 million years ago,, to a low of 180 ppm during the last glacial period. Agriculture did not become a practical enterprise for humans until 8,000 to 10,000 years ago when CO2 levels finally moved above 250 ppm during the current interglacial period. At today’s levels, just over 400 ppm we are seeing a significant increase in both the growth of individual plants and in their global distribution. The last 2.5 to 3 million years comprise an ice age in which the pattern has been 100,000 years of glacial advance, interspersed with interglacial periods of 10,000 to 20,000 years, give or take. During the recent glacial advance, when CO2 levels dropped to 180 ppm, mark the very lowest levels of CO2 during the past 500 million years, and probably much longer. It should be noted, that below levels of 180 ppm, things become extremely dire. Were we to return to levels much below 250 ppm we would probably lose 70 to 80 percent of the human population to starvation and the societal turmoil that would ensue as we have to forgo the benefits of agriculture and go back to being foragers. The IPCC warns us that at CO2 levels above 300 ppm we face dire consequences. It appears that the quandary we are facing is this: Do we allow CO2 levels to rise, face a modestly warming earth, but one with abundant plant growth, or try to lower CO2 levels which could have much more disastrous consequences for mankind? Ironically, if past geologic history is any indication, we could be approaching the end of the current interglacial and will then have to deal with the glacial narrative. So, the question I put to you is this: After reviewing the information above, and perhaps doing your own research, what would be the ideal concentration of CO2?

----------


## Marc

Allan M.R. MacRae March 24, 2017 at 9:47 pm https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/...omment-1883937 I have no time to run the numbers, but I do not think we have millions of years left for carbon-based life on Earth. Over time, CO2 is ~permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks, so concentrations get lower and lower. During an Ice Age, atmospheric CO2 concentrations drop to very low levels due to solution in cold oceans, etc. Below a certain atmospheric CO2 concentration, terrestrial photosynthesis slows and shuts down. I suppose life in the oceans can carry on but terrestrial life is done. So when will this happen  in the next Ice Age a few thousand years hence, or the one after that ~100,000 years later, or the one after that? In geologic time, we are talking the blink of an eye before terrestrial life on Earth ceases due to CO2 starvation.
________________________ I wrote the following on this subject on 18Dec2014, posted on Icecap.us: On Climate Science, Global Cooling, Ice Ages and Geo-Engineering:
[excerpt] Furthermore, increased atmospheric CO2 from whatever cause is clearly beneficial to humanity and the environment. Earths atmosphere is clearly CO2 deficient and continues to decline over geological time. In fact, atmospheric CO2 at this time is too low, dangerously low for the longer term survival of carbon-based life on Earth. More Ice Ages, which are inevitable unless geo-engineering can prevent them, will cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations on Earth to decline to the point where photosynthesis slows and ultimately ceases. This would devastate the descendants of most current [terrestrial] life on Earth, which is carbon-based and to which, I suggest, we have a significant moral obligation. Atmospheric and dissolved oceanic CO2 is the feedstock for all carbon-based life on Earth. More CO2 is better. Within reasonable limits, a lot more CO2 is a lot better. As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on Earth, I feel it is my duty to advocate on our behalf. To be clear, I am not prejudiced against non-carbon-based life forms, but I really do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. They could be very nice.  :Redface: ) Best, Allan https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/...#comment-79524 [excerpts from my post of 2009] Questions and meanderings: A. According to para.1 above: During Ice ages, does almost all plant life die out as a result of some combination of lower temperatures and CO2 levels that fell below 200ppm (para. 2 above)? If not, why not? [updated revision  perhaps 150ppm not 200ppm?] When all life on Earth comes to an end, will it be because CO2 permanently falls below 200ppm as it is permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks, hydrocarbons, coals, etc.? Since life on Earth is likely to end due to a lack of CO2, should we be paying energy companies to burn fossil fuels to increase atmospheric CO2, instead of fining them due to the false belief that they cause global warming? Could T.S. Eliot have been thinking about CO2 starvation when he wrote:
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper. Regards, Allan  :Redface: )

----------


## John2b

> So, the question I put to you is this: After reviewing the information above, and perhaps doing your own research, what would be the ideal concentration of CO2?

  That's a no-brainer: the ideal concentration of CO2 would be the one that humans and CURRENT plants used as food sources evolved in, namely in the 200-300 ppm range.

----------


## PhilT2

Only WUWT could condense so much stupid into one cut and paste article. Mankind, or his ancestors, survived all the previous ice ages.

----------


## Marc

> That's a no-brainer: the ideal concentration of CO2 would be the one that humans and CURRENT plants used as food sources evolved in, namely in the 200-300 ppm range.

   Why?

----------


## John2b

> Why?

  Throughout the history of life on Earth, major events such as mass extinctions have been linked to environmental changes. Even relatively small changes in climate have driven major ecosystem changes. Contemporary overfishing, pollution, and CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are each causing conditions comparable to previous global warming, acidification, and hypoxia events that have caused mass extinctions in the past.

----------


## woodbe

Life on the planet can adapt over thousands of years, but not over short periods. Genetics can adapt but it takes time. That is just how it is.

----------


## PhilT2

The ideal concentration of co2 is one that keeps sea level where it is now.Sure, climate has always changed but now there are billions of us and we can't all just move further inland when sea level rises.

----------


## Marc

> Throughout the history of life on Earth, major events such as mass extinctions have been linked to environmental changes. Even relatively small changes in climate have driven major ecosystem changes. Contemporary overfishing, pollution, and CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are each causing conditions comparable to previous global warming, acidification, and hypoxia events that have caused mass extinctions in the past.

  Really? Wow!
You forgot one ... or two ... The rainfall will never fill the dams again. (the chief moron)
The "carbon" emissions from coal burning increases the number of cyclones and their intensity. (The new moron) 
The idea that humans can tweak the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere and in that way regulate like our home air conditioner the climate on earth is as laughable as geo centrism and flat earth. Then again it was the religion of the time and this is the religion of our time. 
Around the world there are 1600 new coal fired PowerStation being built ... we are pulling them down. 46 in Japan many more in Germany some with lignite coal just like the one we proudly demolished. 
There are over 600 if memory serves me right, nuclear power stations. we have 40% of the world reserve of uranium and no power station.  
And this is all thanks to people like you. And I say this meaning you. Because people like you have been used by a powerful elite that achieved exactly what they set out to achieve, that is high prices of electricity and subsidies to an otherwise unsustainable industry of so called renewables. Thank you guys, good job.  
The funniest part of this is that you guys actually believe what you repeat, yet it will affect you the most. I don't care for high price of electricity. I can pay my bills with ease. others are not so fortunate and the one that will be worst affected are those who are screaming the loudest to save a planet that needs not saving.  
Just like the foot soldiers in any war that get killed senselessly for someone else fight and obscure undisclosed purposes. Wake up guys, you are doing the dirty job for a few billionaires and it is you who will get the power cut when you can't pay the bill.  And the planet will keep on rolling and giggle about your worries.

----------


## John2b

> Really? Wow!
> You forgot one ... or two ... The rainfall will never fill the dams again. (the chief moron)
> The "carbon" emissions from coal burning increases the number of cyclones and their intensity. (The new moron)

  Whether your 'quotes' were ever made or not (and if actually made, whether they are represented out of context or not) is irrelevant to the question that you posed of what is the ideal CO2 level.   

> The idea that humans can tweak the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere and in that way regulate like our home air conditioner the climate on earth is as laughable as geo centrism and flat earth. Then again it was the religion of the time and this is the religion of our time.

  No, the idea that humans can alter ecosystems with no consequences is dangerously ignorant. The idea that humans cannot alter the climate is not supported by observations, or common sense, and is trivially proven wrong.   

> Around the world there are 1600 new coal fired PowerStation being built ... we are pulling them down. 46 in Japan many more in Germany some with lignite coal just like the one we proudly demolished.

  Fact: world new coal fired power electricity generation is not causing coal consumption to increase; it is mainly replacing old inefficient coal power electricity generation being removed from service. Most often new efficient coal fired electricity plants are replacing myriads of old inefficient small electricity plants _and_ industrial boilers. Total consumption of coal globally has been declining for the past several years. What is the point are you trying to make?   

> There are over 600 if memory serves me right, nuclear power stations. we have 40% of the world reserve of uranium and no power station.

  There are about 450 nuclear reactors for utility electricity generation worldwide of which about 300 are operational and about 150 being decommissioned at end of service life. After after 60 or so years of nuclear power, there is still no safe means of dealing with the waste byproduct, no established method of decommissioning a nuclear reactor past its safe working life, and no idea of the cost of maintaining non-operating nuclear power stations for generations and possibly centuries whilst in the decommissioning phase, expenses that were never factored into the cost of nuclear generation. Yet even without including those costs in delivered electricity prices, nuclear electricity generation has not been economic anywhere in the world without massive government subsidy and government market manipulation to guarantee demand.   

> And this is all thanks to people like you. And I say this meaning you. Because people like you have been used by a powerful elite that achieved exactly what they set out to achieve, that is high prices of electricity and subsidies to an otherwise unsustainable industry of so called renewables. Thank you guys, good job.

  The benefactors of high electricity pricing are the 'free market' elite who have achieved exactly what they set out to do by astroturfing using pseudoscientific front organisations and bloggers who seem to elicit a frenzy of cut and paste duplication of their fanciful nonsense. If in doubt, look at your own posts which exemplify how minions are used to great effect in the obfuscation of fact.   

> The funniest part of this is that you guys actually believe what you repeat, yet it will affect you the most. I don't care for high price of electricity. I can pay my bills with ease.

  Bully for you. In any case the price of electricity pales into insignificance against the price of rampant consumption.   

> others are not so fortunate and the one that will be worst affected are those who are screaming the loudest to save a planet that needs not saving.

  You are correct, the planet does not need saving. It will simply revert to a climate state that is has been in previously, one that doesn't support life as we know it, where weedy species dominate and the oceans are full of slime and jellyfish. The oceans are halfway there already and it has happened right under everyones' noses. Read: Stung!: On Jellyfish Blooms and the Future of the Ocean, Gershwin, Earle   

> Just like the foot soldiers in any war that get killed senselessly for someone else fight and obscure undisclosed purposes. Wake up guys, you are doing the dirty job for a few billionaires and it is you who will get the power cut when you can't pay the bill.  And the planet will keep on rolling and giggle about your worries.

  Mirror anyone?

----------


## Marc

> You are correct, the planet does not need saving. It will simply revert to a climate state that is has been in previously, one that doesn't support life as we know it, where weedy species dominate and the oceans are full of slime and jellyfish. The oceans are halfway there already and it has happened right under everyones' noses.

  etc and bla and bla.
Lets see what Buddha says, may as well right? Whats the difference with your own little religion right? Both need faith to believe what can not be seen nor proven.   The world ends because 7 suns surround Earth and burn it to a crisp. The trees and other plant life burn away, covering the Earth in a layer of ashes. Oceans dry up. Life, of course, dies off long before the Earth itself is destroyed.
And you know, scientifically, that’s possible. Not likely, but possible. And very similar to what scientists say: the Sun will expand, frying everything on Earth, until the size of the Sun becomes greater than the orbit of the Earth around the Sun (i.e. the Earth will fall into the Sun). And on an even greater scale, our galaxy is predicted to collide with another. And that’s that.
So, will the end of the world happen this month?
Buddha had said,
“จุดจบของโลกอยู่ที่ ๖๐๐๐ ล้านปี และ จุดจบของโลก กับ จุดจบของสัตว์ที่มีวิญญาณครองต่างกัน”
“The world will end at the age of 6 billion years. The end of the world, and the end of life on this world, will not be at the same time.”
I don’t know if ‘the world’ (โลก lok3) just meant Earth, or if it meant everything in the universe. There was likely no concept of anything beyond Earth when Buddha was around.
Anyway, Buddha also said that before him, there were three previous Buddhas. Life on the world ended (mass extinction?) between each one because of water, wind, and fire (natural disasters?). And he said there will be one last Buddha before the world itself is destroyed.
Some have looked at this mathematically. If the world will last 6 billion years, and there are to be 5 Buddhas, that gives us about 1.2 billion years per Buddha. The 4th Buddha died ~2500 years ago, so we have 1 or 2 billion years left to go. (whew!)
But the human species has only been around 4 million years. Assuming that all Buddhas were human (right?), that gives about 1 million years per Buddha. That would mean we still have 1 million years left to go (whew, again!). Assuming, of course, the Buddhas were evenly distributed throughout time, and not all clumped at the end . . .
So, where does Buddha say we will all go when the world ends? There being no physical place left to live, all life will then exist in Phromalok. An entirely new world will then form, life will return back to it, and the cycle of creation will restart again (see previous blog post). 
[Phromalok sounds like my place to be. I just hope the greens don't get started there too]

----------


## woodbe

> etc and bla and bla.
> Lets see what Buddha says, may as well right? Whats the difference with your own little religion right? Both need faith to believe what can not be seen nor proven.

  Climate change is not a religion. Buddha is a religion. Climate science is science, not religion. 
To discuss climate science, you actually have to involve science rather than religion or non-science from those that actually deny science like the non-science poster child who occupies this thread and continues to quote non-science. 
There actually are religious who understand and accept science. 
There are some of those that deny science claim that science is a religion. They may never understand how science works because they are like the ostriches with their head in the sand. They see nothing...

----------


## John2b



----------


## John2b

> Climate science is science, not religion.

  And climate science denial is a psychosis that being a creed mimics a religion, despite the stricken being oblivious to the fact.

----------


## John2b

> etc and bla and bla.

  You're on a winner Marc. Why bother with an objective discussion of facts when an "etc and bla and bla" trumps everything?

----------


## Marc

*Global Warming: Policy Hoax versus Dodgy Science* 
November 17th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.   In the early 1990s I was visiting the White House Science Advisor, Sir Prof. Dr. Robert Watson, who was pontificating on how we had successfully regulated Freon to solve the ozone depletion problem, and now the next goal was to regulate carbon dioxide, which at that time was believed to be the sole cause of global warming. I was a little amazed at this cart-before-the-horse approach. It really seemed to me that the policy goal was being set in stone, and now the newly-formed United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had the rather shady task of generating the science that would support the policy. Now, 25 years later, public concern over global warming (aka climate change)is at an all-time low remains at the bottom of the list of environmental concerns. Why is that? Maybe because _people don’t see its effects in their daily lives_. 1) By all objective measures, severe weather hasn’t gotten worse. 2) Warming has been occurring at only half the rate that climate models and the IPCC say it should be. 3) CO2 is necessary for life on Earth. It has taken humanity 100 years of fossil fuel use to increase the atmospheric CO2 content from 3 parts to 4 parts per 10,000. (Please don’t compare our CO2 problem to Venus, which has 230,000 times as much CO2 as our atmosphere). 4) The extra CO2 is now being credited with causing global greening. 5) Despite handwringing over the agricultural impacts of climate change, current yields of corn, soybeans, and wheat are at record highs. As an example of the disconnect between reality and the climate models which are being relied upon to guide energy policy, here are the yearly growing season average temperatures in the U.S 12-state corn belt (official NOAA data), compared to the average of the climate model projections used by the IPCC:   Yes, there has been some recent warming. But _so what_? What is its cause? Is it unusual compared to previous centuries? Is it necessarily a bad thing? And, most important from a policy perspective, _What can we do about it anyway_? *
The Policy Hoax of Global Warming* Rush Limbaugh and I have had a good-natured mini-disagreement over his characterization of global warming as a “hoax”. President-elect Trump has also used the “hoax” term. I would like to offer my perspective on the ways in which global warming is indeed a “hoax”, but also a legitimate subject of scientific study. While it might sound cynical, global warming has been used politically in order for governments to gain control over the private sector. Bob Watson’s view was just one indication of this. As a former government employee, I can attest to the continuing angst civil servants have over remaining relevant to the taxpayers who pay their salaries, so there is a continuing desire to increase the role of government in our daily lives. 
In 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given a legitimate mandate to clean up our air and water. I remember the pollution crises we were experiencing in the 1960s. But as those problems were solved, the EPA found itself in the precarious position of possibly outliving its usefulness. So, the EPA embarked on a mission of ever-increasing levels of regulation. Any manmade substance that had any evidence of being harmful in large concentrations was a target for regulation. I was at a Carolina Air Pollution Control Association (CAPCA) meeting years ago where an EPA employee stated to the group that “we must never stop making the environment cleaner” (or something to that effect). There were gasps from the audience. 
You see, there is a legitimate role of the EPA to regulate clearly dangerous or harmful levels of manmade pollutants. _But it is not physically possible to make our environment 100% clean._ As we try to make the environment ever cleaner, the cost goes up dramatically. You can make your house 90% cleaner relatively easily, but making it 99% cleaner will take much more effort. 
As any economist will tell you, money you spend on one thing is not available for other things, like health care. So, the risk of over-regulating pollution is that you end up killing more people than you save, because if there is one thing we know kills millions of people every year, it is poverty. Global warming has become a reason for government to institute policies, whether they be a carbon tax or whatever, using a regulatory mechanism which the public would never agree to if they knew (1) how much it will cost them in reduced prosperity, and (2) how little effect it will have on the climate system. 
So, the policy prescription does indeed become a hoax, because the public is being misled into believing that their actions are going to somehow make the climate “better”. _Even using the IPCC’s (and thus the EPA’s) numbers, there is nothing we can do energy policy-wise that will have any measurable effect on global temperatures._ 
In this regard, politicians using global warming as a policy tool to solve a perceived problem is indeed a hoax. The energy needs of humanity are so large that Bjorn Lomborg has estimated that in the coming decades it is unlikely that more than about 20% of those needs can be met with renewable energy sources. Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with fossil fuels as our primary energy source for decades to come. Deal with it. And to the extent that we eventually need more renewables, let the private sector figure it out. Energy companies are in the business of providing energy, and they really do not care where that energy comes from. *
The Dodgy Science of Global Warming* The director of NASA/GISS, Gavin Schmidt, has just laid down the gauntletwith President-elect Trump to not mess with their global warming research. Folks, it’s time to get out the popcorn. Gavin is playing the same card that the former GISS director, James Hansen, played years ago when the Bush administration tried to “rein in” Hansen from talking unimpeded to the press and Congress. 
At the time, I was the Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA/MSFC, and NASA had strict regulations regarding talking to the press and Congress. I abided by those regulations; Hansen did not. When I grew tired of them restricting my “freedoms” I exercised my freedom — to resign from NASA, and go to work at a university. Hansen instead decided to play the ‘persecuted scientist’ card. After all, he (and his supporters in the environmental community) were out to Save The Earth ™ , and Gavin is now going down that path as well. 
I can somewhat sympathize with Gavin that “climate change” is indeed a legitimate area of study. But he needs to realize that the EPA-like zeal that the funding agencies (NASA, NOAA, DOE, NSF) have used to characterize ALL climate change as human-caused AND as dangerous would eventually cause a backlash among those who pay the bills. We The People aren’t that stupid. 
So now climate research is finding itself at a crossroads. Scientists need to stop mischaracterizing global warming as settled science. I like to say that global warming research isn’t rocket science — it is actually much more difficult. At best it is dodgy science, because there are so many uncertainties that you can get just about any answer you want out of climate models just by using those uncertainties as a tuning knob. The only part that is relatively settled is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has probably contributed to recent warming. That doesn’t necessarily mean it is dangerous. And it surely does not mean we can do anything about it… even if we wanted to.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Marc, have you ever noticed that the articles that agree with your view when written by a scientist are generally written by only one of maybe 4 or 5 scientists.  I just read from the bottom of that last one, and I thought I will surely know who this is, and yep, Roy spencer. 
a minority of one scientist can certainly be right, but it's usually over really big ideas - they lead the others with world changing ideas that overturn previous assumptions and accepted wisdom.  Lindzen, gray, spencer et al, seem mor like the last of the hold outs on old positions - it's no piece of chance that they are well past their prime (well, one of them is in a hole now). 
lindzen is possibly the only skeptic who has some validity as a scientist - that's a very small room to be in, it's an especially small room for a non trained person outside of their expertise to be shouting, "heh, he's the one that's right, everyone else is wrong " 
Mind you, the world is full of people who get their medical advice from unqualified naturopaths, chiropractors, Chinese medicine, homeopathy etc , so why should I be surprised.

----------


## Marc

Mm ... interesting ... I believe your comments have much more to do with identity politics than the content of the article. 
Not different from all the other alarmist on this thread. 
Which part do you think is wrong and why do you have a different view?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Mm ... interesting ... I believe your comments have much more to do with identity politics than the content of the article. 
> Not different from all the other alarmist on this thread. 
> Which part do you think is wrong and why do you have a different view?

  its got nothing to do with politics, it's about science and how you gather information and conclusions. 
ive mentioned I was skeptical of AGW in the past, and pretty much I changed my mind when I realised the people I was siding with had conspiratorial views, also fundamentalists, and half a dozen scientists in the field of climatology.  There comes a time when you get to decide on whether you take advice of professionals or take advice from the few who stand on the outside. 
i fully understand the rejection of the socialist environmentalist which is nearly all of them, but you can have concerns on the environment and anthropogenic caused climate change without being some lefty who blindly supports anything that Greenpeace says or just as bad, the Greens. 
i was merely asking if the fact that there are very few scientists that can be called on to give a polemic on skepticism as it pertains to AGW, troubles you at all, that is all. 
figuring out where the truth lies is not so easy

----------


## Marc

My friend, to each of my post ... correction articles I chose to post authored by others, all the locals have to say is comments on the character of the author. 
That is the definition of identity politics that drives AGW politics. Global warming is political first and foremost, the environment is just a side dish.  
No one is interested in the science because the data is falsified and the studies are designed to "proove" a predetermined and politically necessary result. 
Subsidies are a bribe to produce even more global warming supportive results, so there is no point in searching for the so called truth. There are only a handful of poeple who speak against this status quo. Growing slowly but still small since there is no money in dissent. For now anyway. Soon to change. Watch this space.

----------


## phild01

I agree we don't know enough.  I am led to believe CO2 long ago was some 350 times greater than it has been around the time of the industrial revolution (and later).  Then the planet was an average 7C degrees warmer.  CO2 now being twice as high by the same measure, and it is intriguing that temperature rise would be significant as a comparative number.

----------


## John2b

> I am led to believe CO2 long ago was some 350 times greater than it has been around the time of the industrial revolution (and later).  Then the planet was an average 7C degrees warmer.  CO2 now being twice as high by the same measure, and it is intriguing that temperature rise would be significant as a comparative number.

  As the stars including the sun age, they get hotter. That is the reason why elevated CO2 levels eons ago were associated with a different temperature balance on Earth.

----------


## John2b

> My friend, to each of my post ... correction articles I chose to post authored by others, all the locals have to say is comments on the character of the author. 
> That is the definition of identity politics that drives AGW politics. Global warming is political first and foremost, the environment is just a side dish.

  Yet it is perfectly alright for you to disparage the authors with whom you don't agree, including those who post here. By your own implicit admission you do this for political/ideological reasons with no concern for the truth. I am not interested in your theories of politics or religion any more than I am interested in the views of the crackpots you call authors, mostly unqualified people who can't even agree amongst themselves.

----------


## phild01

> As the stars including the sun age, they get hotter. That is the reason why elevated CO2 levels eons ago were associated with a different temperature balance on Earth.

  Perhaps the sun's variable output plays the biggest part in what is seen as a 'climate change'!

----------


## Marc

> Yet it is perfectly alright for you to disparage the authors with whom you don't agree, including those who post here. By your own implicit admission you do this for political/ideological reasons with no concern for the truth. I am not interested in your theories of politics or religion any more than I am interested in the views of the crackpots you call authors, mostly unqualified people who can't even agree amongst themselves.

  Ys, John, very interesting, but this is better:
What is your reply to this, not how you hate Spencer ... you can make a Voodoo doll of Roy later.  Now, 25 years later, public concern over global warming (aka climate change)is at an all-time low remains at the bottom of the list of environmental concerns. Why is that? Maybe because _people don’t see its effects in their daily lives. 1) By all objective measures, severe weather hasn’t gotten worse. 2) Warming has been occurring at only half the rate that climate models and the IPCC say it should be. 3) CO2 is necessary for life on Earth. It has taken humanity 100 years of fossil fuel use to increase the atmospheric CO2 content from 3 parts to 4 parts per 10,000. (Please don’t compare our CO2 problem to Venus, which has 230,000 times as much CO2 as our atmosphere). 4) The extra CO2 is now being credited with causing global greening. 5) Despite handwringing over the agricultural impacts of climate change, current yields of corn, soybeans, and wheat are at record highs. As an example of the disconnect between reality and the climate models which are being relied upon to guide energy policy, here are the yearly growing season average temperatures in the U.S 12-state corn belt (official NOAA data), compared to the average of the climate model projections used by the IPCC:   Yes, there has been some recent warming. But so what? What is its cause? Is it unusual compared to previous centuries? Is it necessarily a bad thing? And, most important from a policy perspective, What can we do about it anyway?_

----------


## PhilT2

This is just Marc trying to get other people to do his homework for him again. Anyone with an interest in Dr Spencer's opinions could use google and find out about them for themselves. But just for laughs here is my opinion of Roy's opinions. As Dr Spencer provides no evidence, neither do I; that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.   

> Ys, John, very interesting, but this is better:
> What is your reply to this, not how you hate Spencer ... you can make a Voodoo doll of Roy later.  Now, 25 years later, public concern over global warming (aka climate change)is at an all-time low remains at the bottom of the list of environmental concerns. Why is that? Maybe because _people dont see its effects in their daily lives. 1) By all objective measures, severe weather hasnt gotten worse.  Interesting opinion but no evidence so who knows. The statement is a bit vague too.   2) Warming has been occurring at only half the rate that climate models and the IPCC say it should be.  Another interesting opinion but don't you think that if Dr Spencer had any evidence he would let us know.   3) CO2 is necessary for life on Earth.  Everyone agrees with this. Water is necessary for life too but those who lost homes in the recent floods probably think that it's possible to have too much of a good thing.   4) The extra CO2 is now being credited with causing global greening.  Lots of people agree with this too; many of them are climate scientists who provide evidence of how this happens.   5) Despite handwringing over the agricultural impacts of climate change, current yields of corn, soybeans, and wheat are at record highs. As an example of the disconnect between reality and the climate models which are being relied upon to guide energy policy, here are the yearly growing season average temperatures in the U.S 12-state corn belt (official NOAA data), compared to the average of the climate model projections used by the IPCC:  Selecting a small part of the USA and saying this represents the entire world is the worst kind of cherrypicking.   Yes, there has been some recent warming. But so what? What is its cause? Is it unusual compared to previous centuries? Is it necessarily a bad thing? And, most important from a policy perspective, What can we do about it anyway?_

----------


## pharmaboy2

Corn belt? 
interestingly, there was an article doing the rounds a few weeks ago from scientific American - pretty much, parts of the world that have not experienced warming in terms of new warm records have a tendency to believe AGW is not true and areas where they are experienced warming accept the scientific view.   Guess where the corn belt lies? 
so, opportunity to rant!!!   When some panic merchant comes on the TV following a storm, a heatwave, a big snow storm, a cold snap and says how it's all to do with global warming and the end is nigh, all they achieve is reinforce to the general public that you can associate climate with weather.  So every time it's cold, they think global warming in a myth

----------


## John2b

> Ys, John, very interesting, but this is better:
> What is your reply to this, not how you hate Spencer ... you can make a Voodoo doll of Roy later.

  I don't hate Dr Roy Spencer, or anyone else for that matter. In fact I often read Dr Spencer's blog. Do you?   

> _1) By all objective measures, severe weather hasn’t gotten worse._

  __ 
Despite making this claim, I'd be surprised if you can find anywhere that Dr Spencer has actually done a study or statistical analysis of trends in climate extremes. The people below have done studies and have found that there is significant irrefutable statistical increase in global severe weather events. Who are you going to believe and if you take an individual's speculation over a huge body of evidence, analysed and critiqued, what is your analysis of the flaws in each study?   Allan, R., 2011: Climate change: Human influence on rainfall. _Nature_ 2011 Volume: 470, Pages: 344–345 doi:10.1038/470344a Allan, R. and B. Soden, 2008: Atmospheric Warming and the Amplification of Precipitation Extremes. _Science_ 2008: Vol. 321 no. 5895 pp. 1481-1484 DOI: 10.1126/science.1160787 Allan P., B. Soden, V. John, W. Ingram, and P. Good, 2010: Current changes in tropical precipitation. _Environ. Res. Lett_. 2010 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/025205 Ash, Andrew, 2011: Coincidence or climate change? _Australian Broadcasting News._ February 3, 2011. Coincidence or climate change? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Bender, M., T. Knutson, R. Tuleya, J. Sirutis, G. Vecchi, S. Garner, and I. Held, 2010: Modeled Impact of Anthropogenic Warming on the Frequency of Intense Atlantic Hurricanes. _Science_. 22 January 2010: 327 (5964), 454-458. DOI:10.1126/science.1180568 http://www.sciencemag.org/citmgr?gca=sci;327/5964/454 Bonfils, C. and B. Santer, 2010: Investigating the possibility of a human component in various pacific decadal oscillation indices. _Climate Dynamics_ 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s00382-010-0920-1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0920-1. Changnon, S., D. Changnon, T. Karl, 2006: Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States. J. _Appl. Meteor. Climatol.,_ 45, 1141–1155. doi: 10.1175/JAM2395.1 Christidis N, P.A. Stott, F.W. Zwiers, H. Shiogama, and T. Nozawa, 2009: Probalistic estimates of recent changes in temperature: a multi-scale attributions analysis._ Climate Dynamics_ 2009. Christidis, N., P.A. Stott, and S. Brown, 2011: The role of human activity in the recent warming of extremely warm daytime temperatures. _Journal of Climate_ doi:10.1175/2011JCLI4150.1 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/...2011JCLI4150.1 Cohen, J., J. Foster, M. Barlow, K. Saito, and J. Jones, 2010: Winter 2009–2010: A case study of an extreme Arctic Oscillation event, _Geophys. Res. Lett_., 37, L17707, doi:10.1029/2010GL044256. Dai, A.: 2011: Drought under global warming: a review. _Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change_, 2: 45–65. doi: 10.1002/wcc.81 Ding, T., Qian, W. and Yan, Z. (2010), Changes in hot days and heat waves in China during 1961–2007. _International Journal of Climatology_, 30: 1452–1462. doi: 10.1002/joc.1989 Emanuel, K., 2007: Environmental factors affecting tropical cyclone power dissipation. _Journal of Climate_, 20(22), 5497-5509. Groisman, P., Knight, R., Karl, T., Easterling, D., Sun B., and Lawrimore, J. 2004: Contemporary Changes of the Hydrological Cycle over the Contiguous United States: Trends Derived from In Situ Observations. _J. Hydrometeor_, 5, 64–85. doi: 10.1175/1525-7541(2004)005<0064 :Cry: COTHC>2.0.CO;2 Gronewald, Nathaniel, 2010: Is the Flooding in Pakistan a Climate Change Disaster? Devastating flooding in Pakistan may foreshadow extreme weather to come as a result of global warming. _Scientific American._ August 18, 2010. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ding-in-pakist Gutowski, W.J., G.C. Hegerl, G.J. Holland, T.R. Knutson, L.O. Mearns, R.J. Stouffer, P.J. Webster, M.F. Wehner, F.W. Zwiers, 2008: Causes of Observed Changes in Extremes and Projections of Future Changes in _Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands_. T.R. Karl, G.A. Meehl, C.D. Miller, S.J. Hassol, A.M. Waple, and W.L. Murray (eds.). A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, DC. Hansen, J., 2011: _Perceptions of Climate Change_. March 27, 2011. Dr. James E. Hansen — Communications Hoerling, M., J. Eischeid, X. Quan, and T. Xu, 2007: Explaining the record 2006 US warmth. _Geophys. Res. Letters_, 34, doi:10.1029/2007GL030643. Greenhouse Gases Likely Drove Near-record U.S. Warmth in 2006 Karl, T.R., G.A. Meehl, T.C. Peterson, K.E. Kunkel, W.J. Gutowski, Jr., D.R. Easterling, 2008: Executive Summary in _Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands_. T.R. Karl, G.A. Meehl, C.D. Miller, S.J. Hassol, A.M. Waple, and W.L. Murray (eds.). A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, DC. Karl, T.R., G.A. Meehl, and T.C. Peterson, 2009: _Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States_. Cambridge University Press, 2009. Knutson, T., J. McBride, J. Chan, K. Emanuel, G. Holland, C. Landsea, I. Held, J. Kossin, A. Srivastava, and M. Sugi, 2010: Tropical cyclones and climate change. _Nature Geosci_ 2010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo779 Supplementary information : Tropical cyclones and climate change : Nature Geoscience Kossin, J. P., 2008: Is the North Atlantic hurricane season getting longer? _Geophys. Res. Lett_., 35, L23705, doi:10.1029/2008GL036012 Kunkel, K.E., P.D. Bromirski, H.E. Brooks, T. Cavazos, A.V. Douglas, D.R. Easterling, K.A. Emanuel, P.Ya. Groisman, G.J. Holland, T.R. Knutson, J.P. Kossin, P.D. Komar, D.H. Levinson, and R.L. Smith, 2008: Observed changes in weather and climate extremes. In: _Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate: Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands_[Karl, T.R., G.A. Meehl, C.D. Miller, S.J. Hassol, A.M. Waple, and W.L. Murray (eds.)]. Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.3. U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Washington, DC, pp. 35-80. Lazo, J., M. Lawson, P. Larsen, and D. Waldman, 2010: U.S. Economic Sensitivity to Weather Variability. _Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society_. doi:10.1175/2011BAMS2928.1 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/...2011BAMS2928.1 Lee, T., and M. J. McPhaden, 2010: Increasing intensity of El Niño in the central-equatorial Pacific, _Geophys. Res. Lett_., 37, L14603, doi:10.1029/2010GL044007. Li, W., L. Li, R. Fu, Y. Deng, and H. Wang, 2010: Changes to the North Atlantic Subtropical High and Its Role in the Intensification of Summer Rainfall Variability in the Southeastern United States. _Journal of Climate_ 2010 doi:10.1175/2010JCLI3829.1 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/...2010JCLI3829.1 Lott N., T. Ross, A. Smith, T. Houston and K. Shein, 2011: _Billion Dollar U.S. Weather Disasters_, 1980-2010. National Climatic Data Center. Jan. 18, 2011. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html Masters J., 2010: Bolivia ties its all-time heat record. Dr. Jeff Masters _Wunderblog_. November 23, 2010. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...?entrynum=1701 McPhaden, M., 2010 NASA/NOAA Study Finds El Niños Growing Stronger. _NOAA News August 25, 2010_. NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NASA/NOAA Study Finds El Niños Growing Stronger McVicar, T. and Roderick, M. Atmospheric Science: Winds of Change. Nature _Geoscience 3, 747–748_ (2010) doi:10.1038/ngeo1002 http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo1002.html Meehl, G.A., J.M. Arblaster and C. Tebaldi, 2007: Contributions of natural and anthropogenic forcing to changes in temperature extremes over the U.S.  _Geophys. Res. Lett_., 34, L19709, doi:10.1029/2007GL030948. Meehl, G.A., and H. Teng, 2007: Multi-model changes in El Niño teleconnections over North America in a warmer climate.  _Cli. Dyn_., 29, 779-790, DOI 10.1007/s00382-007-0268-3. Meehl, G. A., H. Teng, and G. W. Branstator, 2006: Future changes of El Niño in two global coupled climate models.  _Climate Dynamics_, 26, 549-566, doi: 10.1007/s00382-005-0098-0. Meehl, G. A., T. F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. Knutti, J.M. Murphy, A. Noda, S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver, and Z. –C. Zhao, 2007: Global Climate Projections. In: _Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change_ [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 747–845. Meehl, G. A., C. Tebaldi, G. Walton, D. Easterling, and L. McDaniel, 2009: Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S., _Geophys. Res. Lett_., 36, L23701, doi:10.1029/2009GL040736. Milly, P.C.D., R. T. Wetherald, K. A. Dunne, and T. L. Delworth, 2002: Increasing risk of great floods in a changing climate. Nature (31 January 2002) doi:10.1038/415514a Min S., X. Zhang, F. Zwiers, and G. Hegerl, 2011: Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes. _Nature_ 2011 Volume: 470, Pages: 378–381. doi:10.1038/nature09763 Murakami, H., B. Wang, and A. Kitoh, 2011: Future Change of Western North Pacific Typhoons: Projections by a 20-km-Mesh Global Atmospheric Model*. J. _Climate_, 24, 1154–1169. doi: 10.1175/2010JCLI3723.1 NOAA 2010a. NOAA Arctic Report Card 2010. Future of Arctic Sea Ice and Global Impacts. http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/ NOAA 2010b. NOAA Arctic Report Card 2010. Warm Arctic-Cold Continents Pattern. http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/wa...continent.html and http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/impacts-about.html NOAA 2011. National Climatic Data Center. Billion Dollar U.S. Weather Disasters.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html Overland, J., M. Wang, and J. Walsh, 2010: Arctic Report Card. NOAA, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, WA Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington, Seattle, WA International Arctic Research Center, Fairbanks, AK October 14, 2010 http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html Pall P., T. Aina, D. Stone, P. Stott, T. Nozawa, A. Hilberts, D. Lohmann, and M. Allen, 2011: Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000. _Nature_ 2011 Volume: 470, Pages: 382–385 doi:10.1038/nature09762 Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof and Co-authors, 2007: Technical Summary. _Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change_, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 23-78. Peterson, T.C., D.M. Anderson, S.J. Cohen, M. Cortez-Vázquez, R.J. Murnane, C. Parmesan, D. Phillips, R.S. Pulwarty, J.M.R. Stone, 2008: Why Weather and Climate Extremes Matter in _Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands_. T.R. Karl, G.A. Meehl, C.D. Miller, S.J. Hassol, A.M. Waple, and W.L. Murray (eds.). A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, DC. Pryor, S. C., R. J. Barthelmie, D. T. Young, E. S. Takle, R. W. Arritt, D. Flory, W. J. Gutowski Jr., A. Nunes, and J. Roads (2009), Wind speed trends over the contiguous United States, J. _Geophys_. Res., 114, D14105, doi:10.1029/2008JD011416. AGU - American Geophysical Union Rao, Suryachandra A., Hemantkumar S. Chaudhari, Samir Pokhrel, B. N. Goswami, 2010: Unusual Central Indian Drought of Summer Monsoon 2008: Role of Southern Tropical Indian Ocean Warming. J. _Climate_, 23, 5163–5174. doi: 10.1175/2010JCLI3257.1 Schär, C., P. Vidale, D. Luthi, C. Frei, C. Haberli, M. A. Liniger, and C. Appenzeller, 2004: The role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heatwaves. _Nature_ 2004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02300 Seager, R., Y. Kushnir, J. Nakamura, M. Ting, and N. Naik, 2010: Northern Hemisphere winter snow anomalies: ENSO, NAO and the winter of 2009/10, _Geophys. Res. Lett_., 37, L14703, doi:10.1029/2010GL043830 Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, R.B. Alley, T. Berntsen, N.L. Bindoff, Z. Chen, A. Chidthaisong, J.M. Gregory, G.C. Hegerl, M. Heimann, B. Hewitson, B.J. Hoskins, F. Joos, J. Jouzel, V. Kattsov, U. Lohmann, T. Matsuno, M. Molina, N. Nicholls, J. Overpeck, G. Raga, V. Ramaswamy, J. Ren, M. Rusticucci, R. Somerville, T.F. Stocker, P. Whetton, R.A. Wood and D. Wratt, 2007: Technical Summary. In: _Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change_ [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Stott, Peter, 2010: _Climate change: how to play our hand? There have always been extremes of weather around the world but evidence suggests human influence is changing the odds_. The Guardian. August 9, 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...hange-flooding Stott, P.A. , D.A. Stone, and M.R. Allen, 2004: Human Contribution to the European heat wave of 2003. _Nature_, 432(7017), 610-614 Stott, P. A., Gillett, N. P., Hegerl, G. C., Karoly, D. J., Stone, D. A., Zhang, X. and Zwiers, F. , 2010: Detection and attribution of climate change: a regional perspective. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1: 192–211. doi: 10.1002/wcc.34 Tebaldi, C., K. Hayhoe, J. M. Arblaster, and G. A. Meehl, 2006: Going to the Extremes – An Intercomparison of Model-Simulated Historical and Future Changes in Extreme Events. _Climatic Change_, 2006. Trapp, R.J., N.S. Diffenbaugh, H.E. Brooks, M.E. Baldwin, E.D. Robinson, and J.S. Pal, 2007: Severe thunderstorm environment frequency during the 21st century caused by anthropogenically enhanced global radiative forcing, _PNAS_ 104 no. 50, 19719-19723, Dec. 11, 2007. Trenberth, K.E., P.D. Jones, P. Ambenje, R. Bojariu, D. Easterling, A. Klein Tank, D. Parker, F. Rahimzadeh, J.A. Renwick, M. Rusticucci, B. Soden and P. Zhai, 2007: Chapter 3, Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Trenberth, K. E., 1999: The extreme weather events of 1997 and 1998. _Consequences_, 5, 1, 2–15. http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/vol5no1/extreme.html Trenberth, K., 2010: _Tennessee Floods Demonstrate Potential Impacts of Climate Change_. Project on Climate Science. May 5, 2010. http://theprojectonclimatescience.or...limate-change/ Trenberth, K. E., 2011: Changes in precipitation with climate change. _Climate Research_. doi:10.3354/cr00953, in press. Trewin, B. and H. Vermont, 2010: Changes in the frequency of record temperatures in Australia, 1957-2009.  _Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal_, 60, 113-119 Vautard, R., Cattiaux, J., Yiou, P, Thépaut, J., and Ciais, P. Northern Hemisphere atmospheric stilling partly attributed to an increase in surface roughness. _Nature Geoscience_ 3, 756–761 (2010) doi:10.1038/ngeo979. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...l/ngeo979.html Vavrus, S., J. Walsh, W. Chapman, and D. Portis, 2006: The behavior of extreme cold air outbreaks under greenhouse warming. _Int. J. Climatol_. 26: 1133–1147 (2006) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1301 Weider, K., and D. F. Boutt (2010): Heterogeneous water table response to climate revealed by 60 years of ground water data, _Geophys. Res. Lett_., 37, L24405, doi:10.1029/2010GL045561. Wentz, F., L. Ricciardulli, K. Hilburn, and C. Mears, 2007: How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring? _Science_ 13 July 2007: 317 (5835), 233-235. Published online 31 May 2007 [DOI:10.1126/science.1140746] Wergen, G. and J. Krug, 2010: Record-breaking temperatures reveal a warming climate. _Europhysics Letters_, Volume 92, Issue 3, pp. 30008 (2010). DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/92/30008 Young, I., S. Zieger, A. Babanin: Global Trends in Wind Speed and Wave Height. _Science_. 2011 Mar 24. DOI: 10.1126/science.1197219 Zhang, X., F.W. Zwiers, G.C. Hegerl, F.H. Lambert, N.P. Gillett, S. Solomon, P. Stott and T. Nozawa, 2007: Detection of human influence on 20th century precipitation trends. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature06025 Zwiers F., X. Zhang, and Y. Feng, 2010: Anthropogenic Influence on Long Return Period Daily Temperature Extremes at Regional Scales. _Journal of Climate_ 2010 doi:10.1175/2010JCLI3908.1

----------


## John2b

> _2) Warming has been occurring at only half the rate that climate models and the IPCC say it should be._

  Not true. Using a local temperature record and suggesting it represents a _global_ trend is a bit of a stretch - like using the left edge of your middle toe to imply the condition of you skin all over. Below is a _global_ comparison of the AR4 model projections against the actual global temperature record. Despite the odd dips in GDP growth (second graph) and their impact on emissions growth visible in the third graph, you'd have to agree that the models are pretty good after all.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Pirates

----------


## John2b

> _3) CO2 is necessary for life on Earth._

  Some plants may benefit from additional CO2 in the atmosphere, but many species on Earth survive only in very specific abiotic conditions. Extinctions occur when species are killed by abiotic environmental change, such is what is currently happening amongst phytoplanktons in response to increased ocean levels of dissolved CO2, a consequence of increased atmospheric CO2. Phytoplankton are responsible for 95% of all primary production of food and use energy from the sun directly in the oceans. The effect of diminishing phytoplankton is altering the entire food chain and balance of species in the oceans worldwide. Oceans are returning to jellyfish, slime and toxic sludge, fish stocks are collapsing, and it is happening right under everyones' noses.

----------


## John2b

> Pirates

  The blind application of statistical analysis and cherry-picked data leads to spurious correlations, even when done by Dr Roy Spencer. The principles of scientific research are to start with a hypothesis and use data to support or refute it. That's how science works, including climate science.

----------


## John2b

> _4) The extra CO2 is now being credited with causing global greening._

  ...but it is not all beneficial - far from it in oceans which are approximately ¾ of the Earth's surface (see above post on the state of oceans).

----------


## John2b

> _5) Despite handwringing over the agricultural impacts of climate change, current yields of corn, soybeans, and wheat are at record highs._

   
In the US maybe, but not globally. When it comes to increasing crop yields, industrial scale mechanisation, increases in the area of land used for primary production, increased use of input resources (fertiliser, water, herbicides, selective breeding, education of farmers, etc, etc) no doubt played just a bit more than an insubstantial role. However in recent years the growth rates of world agricultural production and crop yields have slowed. Only a dozen or two food sources provide the bulk of world nutrition. Of these, the total global production of rice, corn, fish, sugarcane, meat, eggs and chicken, milk and dairy, soy beans and maize/corn have all been in decline for some years, and in some instances in decline for decades.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> The blind application of statistical analysis and cherry-picked data leads to spurious correlations, even when done by Dr Roy Spencer. The principles of scientific research are to start with a hypothesis and use data to support or refute it. That's how science works, including climate science.

  Maybe the pure sciences.  The reality is, the pattern in the statistics is the data that leads to the hypotheses, then it's backtested which of course it fits - its up to peers to check into the process and test with different data.

----------


## John2b

Do you have some different data to support your 'decline in numbers of pirates causes global temperature rise' hypothesis? 
What I found seems to indicate the graph you posted is just made up nonsense, but maybe there is a global temperature causation effect. Here's some real statistics:  Pirate attacks hit an all-time high worldwide:  http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42584628/n.../#.WOvuF1KmPMU  
Pirate attacks 1985 - 2012:

----------


## Marc

*http://www.snf.ch/en/researchinFocus/newsroom/Pages/news-170327-press-release-suns-impact-on-climate-change-quantified-for-first-time.aspx  Sun's impact on climate change quantified for first time*   27/03/2017      For the first time, model calculations show a plausible way that fluctuations in solar activity could have a tangible impact on the climate. Studies funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation expect human-induced global warming to tail off slightly over the next few decades. A weaker sun could reduce temperatures by half a degree.   There is human-induced climate change, and there are natural climate fluctuations. One important factor in the unchanging rise and fall of the Earth's temperature and its different cycles is the sun. As its activity varies, so does the intensity of the sunlight that reaches us. One of the key questions facing climate researchers is whether these fluctuations have any effect at all on the Earth's climate. IPCC reports assume that recent solar activity is insignificant for climate change, and that the same will apply to activity in the near future. Researchers from the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos (PMOD), the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), ETH Zurich and the University of Bern are now qualifying this assumption. Their elaborate model calculations are supplying a robust estimate of the contribution that the sun is expected to make to temperature change in the next 100 years. For the first time, a significant effect is apparent. They expect the Earth's temperature to fall by half a degree when solar activity reaches its next minimum. According to project head Werner Schmutz, who is also Director of PMOD, this reduction in temperature is significant, even though it will do little to compensate for human-induced climate change. "We could win valuable time if solar activity declines and slows the pace of global warming a little. That might help us to deal with the consequences of climate change." But this will be no more than borrowed time, warns Schmutz, since the next minimum will inevitably be followed by a maximum. *Strong fluctuations could explain past climate*  At the end of March, the researchers working on the project will meet in Davos for a conference to discuss the final results. The project brought together various research institutions' capabilities in terms of climate effect modelling. PMOD calculated what is known as "radiative forcing" taking account of particle as well as electromagnetic radiation, ETH Zurich worked out its further effects in the Earth's atmosphere and the University of Bern investigated the interactions between the atmosphere and oceans. The Swiss researchers assumed a greater fluctuation in the radiation striking the Earth than previous models had done. Schmutz is convinced that "this is the only way that we can understand the natural fluctuations in our climate over the last few millennia." He says that other hypotheses, such as the effect of major volcanic eruptions, are less conclusive. Exactly how the sun will behave over the next few years remains a matter of speculation, however, since appropriate data series have only been available for a few decades and they reveal no evidence of fluctuations during this time. "To that extent, our latest results are still a hypothesis," says Schmutz, "and it remains difficult for solar physicists to predict the next cycle." But since we have been observing a consistently strong phase since 1950, it is highly likely that we will experience another low point in 50 to 100 years' time. It could be every bit as intense as the Maunder Minimum, which brought particularly cold weather during the 17th century. *Important historical data*  The research project also placed great importance on the historical perspective. The Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Bern compared data series on past solar activity with other specific climatic conditions. People have been recording the number of sunspots, which correlates well with solar activity levels, for some three centuries now. However, it is much more difficult to quantify exactly how cold it was on Earth back then. "We know that the winters during the last minimum were very cold, at least in northern Europe," says Schmutz. The researchers still have a fair amount of work to do before they have a detailed understanding of the relationship between solar activity and the global climate both in the past and in the future. A solar flare captured by the Solar Dynamics Observatory, a satellite launched by NASA in 2010 (JPG, 1.5 MB)

----------


## John2b

Have you switched 'sides' Marc, or have you unwittingly just reposted something you thought supports your 'global warming is a hypothesis hoax' but which actually does not challenge anything about the certainty of climate science or the findings of the IPCC, and is based on computer models of climate to boot! Perhaps you should have actually read past the headline and tried to understand what this research means first before posting. Ditto all of the other denialist bloggers who have rushed to make the same post in error LOL.  In the framework of FUPSOL-I we proposed new reconstructions of the solar activity and solar spectral irradiance (SSI) covering 500 years (1600-2100) based on the analysis of the improved 10Be data set and the comprehensive solar radiation code COSI. We developed a fully coupled atmosphere-ocean-chemistry-climate model (AOCCM) and simulated the climate and ozone layer behavior from 1600 up to 2100 by applying spectral solar forcing and all other known forcing data compiled by the project team. The results suggest that the predicted decline of the solar activity in the second half of 21st century might compensate up to 20 % of the greenhouse warming and delay the recovery of the ozone layer.
In any case, the authors note that "... there is observational evidence that the solar UV forcing should be stronger than applied in our experiments". In other words, they are suggesting their model is overstating the extent that speculated declining solar activity would have on greenhouse gas warming.  SNF | P3 Forschungsdatenbank | Project 147659

----------


## pharmaboy2

It's proper pirates , not your pseudo pirates - don't you know anything at all!  Swords, cutlasses and parrots  http://sparrowism.soc.srcf.net/home/pirates.html

----------


## John2b

> It's proper pirates , not your pseudo pirates - don't you know anything at all!  Swords, cutlasses and parrots  Pastafarian Sparrowism

  
LOL thanks enjoyed a read about Sparrowism!

----------


## Marc

Citing the sun changes as the main source of temperature variations seems a rather obvious Observation.
However it has been ridiculed by the advocates of "humans are bastards" religion  for decades. This article not only vindicates the role of the sun but also dares to utter the concept of a ( should I dare?) temperature reduction... Oh no!!!...heretics!
Sure they have shuffled some human induced and warming words strategically placed for good measure and politically correctness. 
Still, sun flares up, temperature up. Sun slows down... Temperature down. Now that I could have told them for far less money. A bit like my open fire at home. Wow ... What a finding!!! Glad you like it John, see we can agree on something. 
May be the next study can be on the reasons it is colder at night and warmer during the day... And no it is not because of CO2

----------


## John2b

> Citing the sun changes as the main source of temperature variations seems a rather obvious Observation.
> However it has been ridiculed by the advocates of "humans are bastards" religion  for decades.

  Rubbish Marc, you really haven't even read the abstract of the study, have you? The variable output of the sun factors in every climate model. You can see the effect of the sun's output over time on surface temperature here: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...ing-the-world/

----------


## phild01

> You can see the effect of the sun's output over time on surface temperature here: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...ing-the-world/

  Back in 2003 an article explains the difficulty measuring solar output reliably, how does that linked graph confidently show solar output prior to this time?  https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/17jan_solcon  _The best place to measure the solar constant is high above the clouds--in space. But there's a problem there, too: The typical design-life of most satellites is only 5 to 10 years; after that, fuel runs out and the satellite goes cold and quiet. They're not around long enough to measure the solar constant for decades-long stretches._ _When new satellites are launched to replace dying ones, it's hard to know if a reading of, say, "10 units" from the new satellite truly equals "10 units" measured by the old one, making the consistency of the data record uncertain. Furthermore, satellite sensors degrade as they age--a result of sustained exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation._ _From this patchwork of aging satellites and sensors, scientists somehow need to assemble a continuous, consistent record of the Sun's intensity over 30 ... 40 ... 50 or more years!_ _ 
Below: If space radiometers were perfect, the data from these 5 different sensors would overlap and form a single line. In fact, they differ by as much as 1.5 W/m2. Image credit: Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium. [more]_

----------


## John2b

Making a homogeneous data set from disparate data sources is not specifically a climate science problem, but a very general science-wide one. One of my first jobs in the early 1970s was the statistical analysis of crop yields and quality in response to different agricultural treatments and inputs, from data taken at different trial sites, different seasons, different soils, different slopes, different weeds, etc, so that meaningful advice could be given to farmers about what to sow, when to sow and what inputs to use for to maximise financial returns. This ability to sift through disparate data and still produce robust science is the overwhelming reason that crop yields surged ahead, tripling and more, in the last 50 years of last century (growth which someone incorrectly tried to attribute to growing atmospheric CO2 levels earlier on this page). 
There is a continuous overlap in data sets for the Meteosat first and second generation satellites that have measure solar irradiation, the first of which launched in 1977. Currently four of the Meteosat satellites are still operation, one first and three second generation. The data overlaps allow adjustment of the disparate data set into a single data set by compensating for different offsets in the individual data sets. In addition, having simultaneous data records from different sources that overlap increases the accuracy of the combined data set over any single source data set, another neat trick of statistics. 
Prior to the satellite era in around 1975 a scientist called Jack Eddy discovered that irregular variations in solar surface activity, which had been recorded for a few centuries, were correlated with major climate shifts, indicating solar irradiance was proportional to sunspot activity. Consequently records of sunspot activity from the mid 1800s can now be stitched together with satellite records using contemporary sunspot observations to provide a continuous record of solar irradiance for the past 300 years or so.

----------


## phild01

> Prior to the satellite era in around 1975 a scientist called Jack Eddy discovered that irregular variations in solar surface activity, which had been recorded for a few centuries, were correlated with major climate shifts, indicating solar irradiance was proportional to sunspot activity. Consequently records of sunspot activity from the mid 1800s can now be stitched together with satellite records to provide a continuous record of solar irradiance for the past 150 years or so.

  Somehow I don't feel comfortable with that, and that advanced measures are required to verify what is happening now!  _"SOLCON, short for "Solar Constant radiometer," is a high-precision solar-intensity sensor that Joukoff and colleagues keep at the Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium. " "Every few years they fly SOLCON on a short mission into space to spot-check the agreement of Sun-watching satellites in orbit at the time."_

----------


## John2b

> Somehow I don't feel comfortable with that, and that advanced measures are required to verify what is happening now!

  There's been nearly forty years of overlap between satellite recording and sunspot recordings, long enough to understand the relationship for the purpose of attribution the degree of changes in surface temperature to levels of solar irradiation. There is a difference between absolute irradiation measurements and relative ones. The absolute values, being verified by SOLCON, do not affect the veracity of generating a continuous record from data sets with well understood relative relationships. 
In fact, the SOLCON missions will increase the 'absolute' accuracy of historical records just as they increase the 'absolute' accuracy of contemporary recordings. It may not be obvious, but it's how most science works; values of one metric are inferred or calculated from values of another metric through well known and understood laws of physics. When you drive your car or get in an aeroplane, you expect that it is going to work safely for exactly the same reasons that the climate science of global warming is congruent with those laws of physics.

----------


## John2b

There is a narrative on these pages that the CO2 emissions of the world will be determined by India and China. It will be, but not in the way that some people posit. The countries most often cited as the reason nothing will change are the same countries that are leading change. Whu wudda thort?  http://assets.climatecentral.org/ima...2_s_c1_c_c.jpg

----------


## pharmaboy2

> There is a narrative on these pages that the CO2 emissions of the world will be determined by India and China. It will be, but not in the way that some people posit. The countries most often cited as the reason nothing will change are the same countries that are leading change. Whu wudda thort?  http://assets.climatecentral.org/ima...2_s_c1_c_c.jpg

  No information at all - how do you come to accept that it is worthy of reproduction? 
its population stupid, and population seeking western economic output

----------


## John2b

> its population stupid, and population seeking western economic output

  Ahem, have you provided any information to support your postulation that it is not worthy of reproducing? Did you read the web page where the image was taken from? Is your Google button broken? Two facts for you to ponder: 
1. The majority of emissions since the industrial revolution have come from countries with little or negative population growth; 
2. World economic growth has been decoupled from growth in industrial greenhouse gas emissions, which have not grown for the past few years. Even in China CO2 emissions have been declining since 2014.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Ahem, have you provided any information to support your postulation that it is not worthy of reproducing? Did you read the web page where the image was taken from? Is your Google button broken? Two facts for you to ponder: 
> 1. The majority of emissions since the industrial revolution have come from countries with little or negative population growth; 
> 2. World economic growth has been decoupled from growth in industrial greenhouse gas emissions, which have not grown for the past few years. Even in China CO2 emissions have been declining since 2014.

  I deleted it back to the home page and got nothing, not even a home page - try it, see, then apologise maybe 
I didn't postulate that it was unworthy out of hand, I asked you whether you had checked it - *so* why did you deliberately misrepresent my post?    
point 1  - did you read the second part of the sentence "and population seeking western conomic output" , or did you ignore it for some reason? 
Point 2 - possible in the short term, unlikely over the very long term 
First hit for China   China - Climate Action Tracker 
Right, so westernising of the developing world isn't a major threat to world climate, and similarly the march towards 10b population growth is no cause for concern?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> No information at all - how do you come to accept that it is worthy of reproduction? 
> its population stupid, and population seeking western economic output

  See, Heres a way to answer it, 
image comes from this article  China, India Become Climate Leaders as West Falters | Climate Central 
written by John Upton.  Climate central.  It's an opinion piece and really doesn't tackle population change and the developing world, just where things seem to be going politically as regards climate change policy. 
see how easy it is to be a normal human

----------


## John2b

> Right, so westernising of the developing world isn't a major threat to world climate, and similarly the march towards 10b population growth is no cause for concern?

  How can you draw those conclusions from my post and why are you deliberately misrepresenting my post?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## John2b

> point 1  - did you read the second part of the sentence "and population seeking western conomic output" , or did you ignore it for some reason?

  Since I didn't provide an attribution for the statement, the best you can be doing is guessing what comes next. This article discusses some of the reasons why population control is not going to solve the climate crisis: Population control will not solve the climate crisis

----------


## John2b

> See, Heres a way to answer it...  ...see how easy it is to be a normal human

   

> ...how do you come to accept that it is worthy of reproduction? its population stupid...

  Calling someone you don't agree with "stupid" might be *normal* behaviour in your circle of friends. I'm not about to adopt your standards just yet.  :Smilie:

----------


## pharmaboy2

S   

> Calling someone you don't agree with "stupid" might be *normal* behaviour in your circle of friends. I'm not about to adopt your standards just yet.

  Apologies if that s how it was taken.  It is not intended to be a personal insult, it's a saying , bit like - "it's the economy stupid" 
Maybe i should have have put it in a quote

----------


## phild01

> S  
> Apologies if that s how it was taken.  It is not intended to be a personal insult, it's a saying , bit like - "it's the economy stupid"

  That's how I saw it until the other way was highlighted.  Too much abbreviated grammar on the forum :Rolleyes:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

So is "it's climate change, stupid" socially acceptable yet?

----------


## johnc

> So is "it's climate change, stupid" socially acceptable yet?

   I don't think you can insert "stupid" into anything contentious without insult. " It's the Economy stupid" works because no one disputes the existence of an economy.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I don't think you can insert "stupid" into anything contentious without insult. " It's the Economy stupid" works because no one disputes the existence of an economy.

  Yes but most people don't really know how the Economy works (even me!) so​ that still makes the 'stupid' assessment true. Same goes for Climate Change. 
If you are insulted by others calling out your ignorance then who's fault is that? Yours for being ignorant or theirs for telling the truth? Best bet for anyone to do your research or shut the truck up.

----------


## pharmaboy2

It's the climate stupid, would fit - anyways it's a political/economic slogan derived from  it's the economy stupid - I would have thought it'd made it into the vernacular by now as a somewhat more oblique reference to the elephant in the room

----------


## John2b

Somewhere the point of my original post went missing, namely that despite Western economies outsourcing a lot of their greenhouse gas emissions to China, and despite China's burgeoning middle-class with its Western inspired rates of consumption, greenhouse gas emissions are in decline in China, for example. 
This is happening much faster than any population control measure could achieve (or did achieve during the 'one child' policy period). How? Through replacing fossil with renewable energy, and through energy efficiency measures. So simple even Australia could do it if it bothered to try.

----------


## phild01

Not really interested in the published data but am interested how the world's pollution data is actually sourced, is this just a satellite measure.

----------


## johnc

> Yes but most people don't really know how the Economy works (even me!) so​ that still makes the 'stupid' assessment true. Same goes for Climate Change. 
> If you are insulted by others calling out your ignorance then who's fault is that? Yours for being ignorant or theirs for telling the truth? Best bet for anyone to do your research or shut the truck up.

  Economics seems to be something most people think they understand but no one can agree on, oh well perhaps climate change falls into that category after all.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Somewhere the point of my original post went missing, namely that despite Western economies outsourcing a lot of their greenhouse gas emissions to China, and despite China's burgeoning middle-class with its Western inspired rates of consumption, greenhouse gas emissions are in decline in China, for example. 
> This is happening much faster than any population control measure could achieve (or did achieve during the 'one child' policy period). How? Through replacing fossil with renewable energy, and through energy efficiency measures. So simple even Australia could do it if it bothered to try.

  ?????? 
all the graphs when you search up co2 emissions China show increasing co2, not declining.  One lone graph says co2 from fossil fuel use, but it's one from 30 which all show increasing co2 , now and into the future, although the stratospheric growth since 2000 has finally slowed

----------


## John2b

It is challenging to find national emission data that is trustworthy and up to date. Probably the most reliable information source for carbon-dioxide gas emissions are the International Energy Agency: (Statistics) or the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC: :Cry: arbon Emission::Time Series Data). These sources tend publish results a few years behind real time because such intensive studies literally take years to process and check all of the data, so they only have results to ~2013 published. 
However there are other means to estimate CO2 emissions that correlate well with the massive studies cited above, but that can provide trend data in months after the fact, not years. For example the European Commission's Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (see: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_d...ort-103425.pdf) and The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (see IEEFA Update: China Is Now Three Years Past Peak Coal - Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis : Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis), for example.

----------


## Pendejo

For reasons of personal sanity, my wife and I have decided against worrying about AGW in the future. We are of the opinion that there is no hope of preventing a climate catastrophe, and that humans are doing what they have always done and will always do, which is to destroy their habitat (many instances in history). The fact that humanity is doing it this time with full knowledge of the consequences still galls, but my wife and I are old now (~60) and our one child is 35+ and has no children, and wants no children, and has had a good life and will probably be able to live the remainder of his life reasonably well and pass away before the impacts of the climate disaster become too awful to bear. 
This must sound very selfish to many here, but at least it's honest. 
I've spent several years fighting climate trolls (similar to the one you have here) on various forums on the 'net, and it has proved a thankless task. The trolls are never satisfied, they never change their minds, they never look at the data, and many are funded by the biggest & most profitable industry on the planet, the fossil fuel industry, so they never will be anything but perversely obstructive. Battling them is a Sisyphean task, and I've had enough.

----------


## Pendejo

*Podcast - Racing towards the climate precipice, with Noam Chomsky*  Download/Listen

----------


## John2b

> This must sound very selfish to many here, but at least it's honest.

  No; the selfish are those stealing their children's future...   

> Battling them is a Sisyphean task, and I've had enough.

  There might be only a few kiddies playing in this sandpit, but to date there have been 936,308 views of this topic. Of course the trolls will never change, but damned if they are going to bully everyone else out of the sandpit. Thanks for sharing your bucket and spade in the past Pendejo!

----------


## johnc

I am not quite as pessimistic but close to it, the sadest thing about the trolls is the deceit, blatant lies and untruths, which I see as a low act and detrimental to mankind. I think we will experience severe impacts towards the end of this century and it will take a long time to correct. Sadly those that fought against curbing emissions will be long dead and will never be held accountable for their actions. I do think the major emitters are starting to kick some goals, to little to late, in the end the only conclusion you can draw is mankind has enough stupid people to follow the crooks and spivs who don't give a stuff beyond their own comfort.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> It is challenging to find national emission data that is trustworthy and up to date. Probably the most reliable information source for carbon-dioxide gas emissions are the International Energy Agency: (Statistics) or the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC:arbon Emission::Time Series Data). These sources tend publish results a few years behind real time because such intensive studies literally take years to process and check all of the data, so they only have results to ~2013 published. 
> However there are other means to estimate CO2 emissions that correlate well with the massive studies cited above, but that can provide trend data in months after the fact, not years. For example the European Commission's Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (see: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_d...ort-103425.pdf) and The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (see IEEFA Update: China Is Now Three Years Past Peak Coal - Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis : Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis), for example.

  Unhappily, I'm afraid chinas co2 is still increasing according to those, though on the plus side the growth has certainly slowed, which is what I assume you meant, thus perhaps a peak is close - still, if you look at the growth in the last decade and a half it is quite extraordinary, and the question will become if India will replace them in the near future and will Africa supplant them in decades to come.. 
the observation that the west has transferred its output to china I think is correct.  NSW can meet its targets easily if one aluminium smelter closes down, but the production will still happen, just elsewhere on the globe.

----------


## John2b

> Unhappily, I'm afraid chinas co2 is still increasing according to those

  According to the IEA "In China, emissions fell by 1% last year, as coal demand declined while the economy expanded by 6.7%", while CDIAC has preliminary figures for 2014 at 0.4% growth over 2013, after an average annual growth in the previous decade of 8.6%. EDGAR says "...China started to curb its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2015. China and ... reduced their emissions by ... 2.6% ... compared to 2014" and IEEFA says China "reduced its coal consumption in 2016 by 4.7%" and is "China is three years past peak coal". 
That's one reference from each of the four cited websites - all consistent with Chinese emissions being in decline since 2014. How do you draw the conclusion that China's CO2 emissions are still growing?   

> ...the question will become if India will replace them in the near future

  Not likely. India does not have the water resources necessary to greatly expand the generation of electricity by fossil fuels, or nuclear energy for that matter. India does not have a national electricity grid and more than half the Indian communities without power are not near electricity transmission lines. For these not inconsiderable reasons, and economics as the cost of renewable generation is now lower than fossil generation, India's future growth in electricity generation will focus on local renewable energy sources, not central thermal generators.    

> NSW can meet its targets easily if one aluminium smelter closes down, but the production will still happen, just elsewhere on the globe.

  NSW could also meet its target if one aluminium smelter used renewable energy instead of fossil fuel. And Australia could reduce emissions if it stopped using aluminium to make discardable products and packaging that are used once before going to landfill - what idiot ever thought that was a good idea? I know, someone who made* a lot of money out of it. (*Actually, the money wasn't "made", it was just transferred from consumers to the Aluminium producers.)

----------


## pharmaboy2

> According to the IEA "In China, emissions fell by 1% last year, as coal demand declined while the economy expanded by 6.7%", while CDIAC has preliminary figures for 2014 at 0.4% growth over 2013, after an average annual growth in the previous decade of 8.6%. EDGAR says "...China started to curb its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2015. China and ... reduced their emissions by ... 2.6% ... compared to 2014" and IEEFA says China "reduced its coal consumption in 2016 by 4.7%" and is "China is three years past peak coal". 
> That's one reference from each of the four cited websites - all consistent with Chinese emissions being in decline since 2014. How do you draw the conclusion that China's CO2 emissions are still growing?   
> Not likely. India does not have the water resources necessary to greatly expand the generation of electricity by fossil fuels, or nuclear energy for that matter. India does not have a national electricity grid and more than half the Indian communities without power are not near electricity transmission lines. For these not inconsiderable reasons, and economics as the cost of renewable generation is now lower than fossil generation, India's future growth in electricity generation will focus on local renewable energy sources, not central thermal generators.    
> NSW could also meet its target if one aluminium smelter used renewable energy instead of fossil fuel. And Australia could reduce emissions if it stopped using aluminium to make discardable products and packaging that are used once before going to landfill - what idiot ever thought that was a good idea? I know, someone who made* a lot of money out of it. (*Actually, the money wasn't "made", it was just transferred from consumers to the Aluminium producers.)

  How?  Skepticism mainly.  When I looked the first time with broad searches I got graphs which didn't show a decline, then when I looked at national outputs on your first link, I got the same, then when I did a quick read if your second link, I got a whole boxed warning (2.3 page 20 I think) which pretty much said, there's a 10% margin for error in the Chinese numbers and double the error spread if other countries. 
i don't know - that sort of seems promising, but is against trend so you'd normally need more than that to call a change in trend, especially in a number with such wide allowances for error.  On my first searches it wasn't the accepted view - fair bit of cynicism on Chinese numbers ( I wonder why?.???  :Wink: .  
Smelters really don't agree with anything other than guaranteed supply - no one invests in that area without absolute certainty that the power will keep coming and keep coming at the price agreed.  Tomago smelter uses 150% of the total of all renewable energy produced in NSW, and it also needs it 24/7.  I'm certainly not a fan of such materials used in packaging but I acknowledge that it's a metal that is indispensable in the modern world. 
Al smelters at one of th more obvious outcomes of carbon shifting, it sure seems that carbon was a driver of closing plants in the west and opening of plants in China using cheap and dirty power .  The dirty part is perhaps a bigger motivator for China's policies than any real concern for the global climate

----------


## John2b

If you look, the graphs that come up on Google search mostly end in 2013; either 2013 or 2014 was the peak year in China coal consumption so those Google graphs aren't going to show the decline - doh! 
Error margins affect previous years data also, so the error margins quoted don't alter or invalidate trends. Your cynicism could easily be dispelled, but it does require some effort to be informed and a decent set of @@@@@@@@ filters to extract the Western world's China meme, which is some decades out of date yet often repeated by rote in this forum. 
Renewable energy does not have to be intermittent. An example is the 40+ year-old pumped hydro storage part of the Snowy Mountains Scheme; any excess wind, solar, or indeed excess fossil powered thermal energy (the so called base-load electricity which burns away even when not needed just so the boilers are pressurised ready for demand) can be used to pump water back up to the top with a cycle efficiency that is as good as batteries. Prime Minister Turnbull recently announced a proposed $2billion expansion to the Snowys which in part is to bolster the pumped storage capability. 
The problem is the energy sector being fragmented into many separated private and commercial financial interests: individual generators, transmitters and suppliers don't profit by cooperating to bring down the price of electricity or or encouraging its efficient use; quite the opposite in fact.

----------


## John2b

> The dirty part is perhaps a bigger motivator for China's policies than any real concern for the global climate

  I suspect you have not been to China nor interacted with many new Australians from China. Your inferences run completely contrary to my experience, except to say that private corporations in China generally operate to the same vacuum devoid of moral and ethical standards as private corporations in Australia or anywhere else in the world.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I remember visiting the Tomago smelter in 1988. Impressive place. The most impressive thing about it was the electricity. The joint literally throbbed with it. I remember asking the bloke...how much do you pay for power? He wouldn't say because it would have been so low at the time that it might as well have been sunshine.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I suspect you have not been to China nor interacted with many new Australians from China. Your inferences run completely contrary to my experience, except to say that private corporations in China generally operate to the same vacuum devoid of moral and ethical standards as private corporations in Australia or anywhere else in the world.

  Pardon?  The inference is my comment is racist - you are just a dick, back onto ignore you go

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I remember visiting the Tomago smelter in 1988. Impressive place. The most impressive thing about it was the electricity. The joint literally throbbed with it. I remember asking the bloke...how much do you pay for power? He wouldn't say because it would have been so low at the time that it might as well have been sunshine.

  last I heard it was 4c a kWh.  It's 12% of nsw power, 2 power stations!  Incredible for a single factory.  You'd only build one if you had an excess of cheap power.

----------


## John2b

> last I heard it was 4c a kWh.  It's 12% of nsw power, 2 power stations!  Incredible for a single factory.  You'd only build one if you had an excess of cheap power.

  It is no secret that the cost of generation and transmission is more than 4c/kWh. And how much is the typical tariff for consumers? Is everyone in NSW happy subsidising Tomago through their power bills and/or do they get paid a dividend from Tomalgo's profits?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It is no secret that the cost of generation and transmission is more than 4c/kWh. And how much is the typical tariff for consumers? Is everyone in NSW happy subsidising Tomago through their power bills and/or do they get paid a dividend from Tomalgo's profits?

  And how much would it cost us to get our bauxite smelted in China and shipped back to us as aluminium ingots?  
In the end, closing Tomago would not help. As a resource, the thing is too valuable to lose. The problem is that it's very demand does not drive investment in efficiencies and improvements in the power stations that provide it...or alternatives. Frankly, it's probably the only thing keeping the two Lake Macquarie plants viable.

----------


## John2b

> Pardon?  The inference is my comment is racist - you are just a dick, back onto ignore you go

  WTF?? All I can say is Thank God for small mercies like the ignore list that protects me from trolls (not that I am religious) LOL. 
I am still not sure whether I should adopt Pharmaboy2's principles of civil conversation: I have never felt the need to call another forum contributor a 'dick', but then, I have never felt the need to lecture others on netiquette either. 
Meanwhile, real world observations of climate change wildly outstrip the forecasts based on those 'dodgy' IPCC models: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...evel-rise-ipcc

----------


## John2b

> And how much would it cost us to get our bauxite smelted in China and shipped back to us as aluminium ingots?  
> In the end, closing Tomago would not help. As a resource, the thing is too valuable to lose. The problem is that it's very demand does not drive investment in efficiencies and improvements in the power stations that provide it...or alternatives. Frankly, it's probably the only thing keeping the two Lake Macquarie plants viable.

  Did someone suggest we should stop smelting aluminium in Australia? I missed that.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Did someone suggest we should stop smelting aluminium in Australia? I missed that.

  Your line of questioning implied that Tomago was not a good deal for NSW...ergo...

----------


## John2b

> Your line of questioning implied that Tomago was not a good deal for NSW...ergo...

  I made no judgements but asked if NSW consumers were happy to subsidise Tomago through consumer electricity pricing. ...ergo what?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I made no judgements but asked if NSW consumers were happy to subsidise Tomago through consumer electricity pricing. ...ergo what?

  Ergo it's not really a subsidy if it is baseload income. Besides NSW consumers don't have a choice. The reason those power plants are there is to make bauxite into aluminium. They also happen to power a few houses as a bonus. In other words, it's not as simple as 4 cents per kW hour. Sadly. 
Look...when it all comes down to it...your writing lacks nuance. It's a bit binary. So it is easy to assume that you haven't fully considered why stuff happens. No bad thing given I do that all the time but still...the world will never be what you want it to be. Or think you can make it be...

----------


## John2b

> Look...when it all comes down to it...your writing lacks nuance. It's a bit binary. So it is easy to assume that you haven't fully considered why stuff happens. No bad thing given I do that all the time but still...the world will never be what you want it to be. Or think you can make it be...

  Ha - you make me smile. I don't have a view of what the world *should* be LOL. I just don't accept logical fallacies as justification for bad policy.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I just don't accept logical fallacies as justification for bad policy.

   :Biggrin:  and that is why you fail...we are human after all

----------


## John2b

> and that is why you fail...we are human after all

  Being human is one of my aspirations... ergo I fail often thankfully  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

For an Adelaide dweller to question the other state's affairs is hilarious to put it mildly.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> And how much would it cost us to get our bauxite smelted in China and shipped back to us as aluminium ingots?  
> In the end, closing Tomago would not help. As a resource, the thing is too valuable to lose. The problem is that it's very demand does not drive investment in efficiencies and improvements in the power stations that provide it...or alternatives. Frankly, it's probably the only thing keeping the two Lake Macquarie plants viable.

  One of the points this highlights, is that the large majority of electricity use is commercial and industrial, and all electricity is only 60% of energy use.  When you think of just the 2 plants in the upper hunter, Liddell and Bayswater - they can supply the entire use of NSW households. 
 In reality, the 4 plants around newcastle end up supplying a significant proportion of the east coast of Australia, even though there are direct high tension cables heading into tomago from the upper hunter and also Lake Macquarie ( probably reflective of commissioning dates of generation and pot lines). 
just reminds me though of the SA premier patting himself of the back for SA renewables in electricity, but at the same time neglecting to mention the importance of fossil fuel generation in keeping them going when the @@@@ hits the fan  :Wink:  
too much discussion is about households and ignoring the huge commercial use - I can't count the number of hotels I stay in that still run halogen lights and have aircon that sets way too cold in summer

----------


## John2b

> For an Adelaide dweller to question the other state's affairs is hilarious to put it mildly.

  How pompous! Which state had to turn off its smelting industry to prevent statewide electricity blackouts more than once this year? Oh that's right, it was New South Wales LOL.

----------


## John2b

> too much discussion is about households and ignoring the huge commercial use - I can't count the number of hotels I stay in that still run halogen lights and have aircon that sets way too cold in summer

  Having been on an energy auditing team for a large building complex, I would be surprised if most large buildings couldn't cut 50% of their energy consumption with a payback of only a year or two. In fact, my experience 80% wouldn't be that hard to achieve for many. And there-in lies the best chance of controlling greenhouse gas emissions in our lifetime: not population control, and not nuclear power which are both far too slow in implementation to make any difference, but simply control of energy consumption.

----------


## John2b

Australian investment fund managers managing more than $1trillion, equivalent to about 60% of Australia's annual economic output, are urging governments to act on enacting a carbon pricing or emissions trading scheme. This is part of a world group of G20 investment funds worth more than $15trillion, lobbying for G20 governments to act on climate change. 
How can anyone still argue that AGW is a scam organised by climate scientists for funding research with such a logical disconnect in facts?  Investor Group on Climate Change - Home

----------


## Bigboboz

Cynic in me says because the fund "managers" will have opportunities to make money from either system...

----------


## John2b

> Cynic in me says because the fund "managers" will have opportunities to make money from either system...

  If that is the case they don't need to argue for change.

----------


## Bigboboz

> If that is the case they don't need to argue for change.

  How so? Do we have either currently?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

More opportunities and the perception of less risk if their argument is successful...

----------


## pharmaboy2

> More opportunities and the perception of less risk if their argument is successful...

  Part of the electricity supply problem - we are heading down a shortage path, but no one wants to build base power thermal because they think the rules might change and their 9c /kWh cost might increase to 11c killing the investment entirely.  Once you've built it, marginal cost is all that matters for whether you continue to run it or not, but when you are building from scratch that question is the difference between profitable and pissing it up against the wall. 
risk is instability and change, not price, especially when you are a price maker and the consumer simply has to pay it. 
I know, a little bit random, but heh....

----------


## SilentButDeadly

True. The power system we are going to have will be far less passive, far more unstable, far more sustainable and far more risky than in any iteration to date. The opportunities are epic, so too are the potential rewards but the risks are daunting unless you have deep pockets or are well insured or removed.

----------


## Marc

The Deplorable Climate Science Blog _"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman_  Skip to content  Home100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering100% Predictable Fraud From Government Climate Scientists1986 – The Year When Climate Fraud Reached A Tipping PointAll Temperature Adjustments Monotonically IncreaseAlterations To Climate DataArctic Sea Ice FraudBiggest Fraud In Science HistoryClimate RacketeeringCRU Temperature FraudCU Sea Level FraudDisappearing GlaciersFitting An ElephantGHCN CodeGHCN SoftwareGlacial Retreat Before 1910Global Temperature Record Is A Smoking Gun Of Collusion And FraudHansen Confirmed The MWP In 1981History Of NASA/NOAA Temperature CorruptionIce-Free Arctic ForecastsIce-Free Arctic ForecastsNASA Doubling Warming Since 2001NASA Hiding The DeclineNASA Hiding The Decline In Sea Level And TemperatureNASA Sea Level FraudNASA/CRU Southern Hemisphere Temperature FraudNOAA Global Temperature FraudNOAA US Temperature FraudNOAA’s US Climate Extremes Index Is FraudulentNSIDC Busted!Reducing CO2 – To Save The ClimateSystematic Destruction Of The Temperature RecordThe 100% Fraudulent Hockey StickThe 52% ConsensusThe Corrupt History Of NASA Temperature HistoryThe Government KnewThe NASA Temperature Record Is GarbageWest Antarctic Collapse Scam100% Predictable Fraud From Government Climate Scientists     In 1990, Tom Karl and the IPCC showed that Earth was much warmer 900 years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP.)  1990 IPCC ReportBut by 1995, climate scientists had made the decision to get rid of the inconvenient MWP. U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public WorksBy 2001, Michael Mann and the IPCC followed up on their plans, and eliminated the MWP. IPCC Third Assessment Report – Climate Change 2001The 1990 IPCC report also had detailed Arctic sea ice satellite data from NOAA, which showed that Arctic sea ice extent was much lower in 1973 than in 1979. 1990 IPCC ReportGovernment scientists also knew in 1985 that Arctic sea ice extent was much lower in the 1940’s and 1950’s than it was in 1973. Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide (Technical Report) | SciTech ConnectThe pre-1979 Arctic sea ice data was extremely inconvenient, so NOAA simply made it disappear. They now start their graphs right at the peak year in 1979. I have been trying to obtain the pre-1979 IPCC satellite data from NOAA for over six months, and they have been “unable to locate it.” ftp://ftp.oar.noaa.gov/arctic/docume...report2016.pdfIn the 1950’s scientists were well aware that the “thin crust” of Arctic sea ice was disappearing, and predicted an ice-free Arctic within a generation. The Changing Face of the Arctic; The Changing Face of the Arctic – The New York TimesScientists were also aware that by 1970 Arctic sea ice was getting much thicker and more extensive. U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic – The New York TimesThis prior warmth and subsequent cooling in the Arctic was inconvenient, so NOAA and NASA made it disappear. Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature AnalysisIn 1985 Phil Jones At CRU showed a large global warming spike around 1940, followed by about 0.5C cooling. Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide (Technical Report) | SciTech ConnectThe 1940’s spike was inconvenient for Phil Jones and the rest of his cohorts, so they discussed how to get rid of it.  di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txtAnd that they did. They have completely eliminated the 1940’s blip and subsequent cooling. It no longer exists in the temperature record. https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/t...e/HadCRUT4.pngNASA has also removed the inconvenient 1940’s warmth and subsequent cooling, just as scientists discussed doing. 1981 version 2017 versionIn 2013, the post-2000 global warming pause was central to the IPCC report. Global warming pause ‘central’ to IPCC climate report – BBC NewsThis was inconvenient to NOAA and NASA, so Tom Karl and Gavin Schmidt made it disappear. Evidence against a global warming hiatus? — ScienceDaily There was no pause « RealClimateThis fraud was so blatant that even NOAA’s principal scientist and hockey stick fraudster Michael Mann called it out. Climate scientists versus climate data | Climate Etc. Nature Climate Change February 1, 2016In 1990, NASA determined that satellite temperatures were more accurate than surface temperatures, and should be adopted as their standard. 01 Apr 1990 – EARTHWEEK: A DIARY OF THE PLANET Global WarmingSatellite data does not give NASA the answer they want, so the US space agency ignores satellites, and instead releases fraudulent surface temperatures. Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

----------


## Marc

The fraud is not limited to temperature data. In 1982, NASA’s James Hansen showed that sea level stopped rising after the mid-1950’s for twenty years. NASA has since erased this pause, and turned it into an acceleration. NASA 1982 NASA 2016This is just a small sampling of the climate fraud being done right under our noses by NASA, NOAA and CRU. It is essential that the Trump administration end this fraud. Under the Trump administration, government employees stand to make huge amounts of money by whistleblowing fraud. Contact Kent Clizbe for details. *Kent Clizbe* *Fraud Detection Services* *kent@kentclizbe.com* *www.credibilityassurance.com* *571 217 0714*

----------


## John2b

> The fraud is not limited to temperature data. In 1982, NASA’s James Hansen showed that sea level stopped rising after the mid-1950’s for twenty years....  Under the Trump administration, government employees stand to make huge amounts of money by whistleblowing fraud.

  The data dose not show a pause in sea level rise for twenty years. Can I claim some money for pointing out the fraud in your post Marc? 
How do you explain that satellite measurements showing sea level rise are fraudulent as your cut-and-paste drivel claims even though they can measure the entire sea surface, but satellite temperature records are "accurate" even though they do not measure the surface but measure a column of air several kilometres high which is cooling at the top due to increased atmospheric CO2 retaining heat at the bottom?

----------


## Bros

I think there are only a very small number of total deniers. The rest can be divided into three camps.
1 Those who believe that there is climate change and not sure weather human activity is the cause and what the solution is
2 Those who believe it is human induced and want to get rid of all CO2 emission no matter what and not worry about the short term consequences
3 Those who believe if is human activity and want a measured approach to getting rid of CO2 
I notice China and India are compared but to compare then with Australia is absurd as these two countries have a lot of nuclear and they don't produce any CO2 and it will be the fossil fuel plants that will reduce output in a downturn or the commissioning of new nuclear plant.  
To get rid of the energy intensive industries from Australia to off shore just to give a warm feeling is another absurdity as we all live in the same atmosphere. 
We now find CSG is not as plentiful as first thought and we are tapping into straight gas to satisfy poor decisions by gas companies just to satisfy their contracts and gas burning is still a greenhouse gas. 
I have worked in fossil fuel plants for a very long time and when you look at turbine shafts 60CM diameter weighting 250 ton spinning at 3000RPM I find it hard to understand how a few acres of solar panels and fart turbines can replace these.

----------


## John2b

> I notice China and India are compared but to compare then with Australia is absurd as these two countries have a lot of nuclear and they don't produce any CO2 and it will be the fossil fuel plants that will reduce output in a downturn or the commissioning of new nuclear plant.

   
China and India both produce about 1% of their total energy from nuclear, or about 2% of their total electricity generation.   

> ...when you look at turbine shafts 60CM diameter weighting 250 ton spinning at 3000RPM I find it hard to understand how a few acres of solar panels and fart turbines can replace these.

  A few acres won't and I've never heard it suggested otherwise. I'm not sure what the point of your post is - that climate change that ultimately destroys the environment that supports human life is unavoidable lest humanity suffer the short term consequences of reducing human induced climate change?

----------


## Bros

> I'm not sure what the point of your post is - that climate change that ultimately destroys the environment that supports human life is unavoidable lest humanity suffer the short term consequences of reducing human induced climate change?

  Sorry you cant understand.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I think there are only a very small number of total deniers. The rest can be divided into three camps.
> 1 Those who believe that there is climate change and not sure weather human activity is the cause and what the solution is
> 2 Those who believe it is human induced and want to get rid of all CO2 emission no matter what and not worry about the short term consequences
> 3 Those who believe if is human activity and want a measured approach to getting rid of CO2 
> I notice China and India are compared but to compare then with Australia is absurd as these two countries have a lot of nuclear and they don't produce any CO2 and it will be the fossil fuel plants that will reduce output in a downturn or the commissioning of new nuclear plant.  
> To get rid of the energy intensive industries from Australia to off shore just to give a warm feeling is another absurdity as we all live in the same atmosphere. 
> We now find CSG is not as plentiful as first thought and we are tapping into straight gas to satisfy poor decisions by gas companies just to satisfy their contracts and gas burning is still a greenhouse gas. 
> I have worked in fossil fuel plants for a very long time and when you look at turbine shafts 60CM diameter weighting 250 ton spinning at 3000RPM I find it hard to understand how a few acres of solar panels and fart turbines can replace these.

  The problem with china and India is that they have both more than tripled their thermal stations in the last decade or so, both while proclaiming how important climate change and co2 was, while still building coal fired plants.  Incidentally, at the same time china was also building the massive hydro at three gorges while greenpeace et al had a hissy fit over that as well (no pleasing a greenie no matter what).  Then you get their dodgy figures of how it's all about renewables - man speak with forked tongue.... 
people types;
number 2's are pessimists who live in a fantasy land.  They often have an innate belief in the concept of a runaway greenhouse effect, a general fear of change, and little understanding of humanity. 
number 3's can be a bit number 2 but have the pragmatism to know you have to be realistic and you can at least hope things won't go as bad as the out and out pessimists.  It also includes the large middle ground which take a pragmatic risk reduction approach, as in what can be done, what are the likely outcomes, and how much does it cost to mitigate. 
theres One missing though - the fatalists. They assume the world will end and that humanity are a pox on the earth as its all too late.  They often ascribe more value to anything natural as opposed to the apparent unnatural ness of humanity, use terms like Gaia, global ecology, tragedy, catastrophe etc etc. 
on electricity supply, the four corners show last week was pretty interesting, but the numbers they talk about with these battery banks are astoundingly low when you compare them to say a Bayswater power station - just one of those hunter valley stations can take care of the whole of SA (pretty amazing when you think about it)

----------


## Bros

> on electricity supply, the four corners show last week was pretty interesting, but the numbers they talk about with these battery banks are astoundingly low when you compare them to say a Bayswater power station - just one of those hunter valley stations can take care of the whole of SA (pretty amazing when you think about it)

  There is 8000 MW due to close in the next 15 years including Bayswater and that is a huge amount and I would expect the industries that depend on reliable 24/7 power will leave Australia putting an awful lot of people on the scrapheap.

----------


## John2b

> The problem with china and India is that they have both more than tripled their thermal stations in the last decade or so, both while proclaiming how important climate change and co2 was, while still building coal fired plants.

  China has shut down 1,000s of often very inefficient coal fired boilers for every new thermal power station built, which is why China's overall coal consumption is in decline despite increasing electricity generation capacity from coal fired plants. China has a massive oversupply of coal fired electricity generation capacity, so much so that in 2017 more than 100 permits to build new coal based electricity plants have been cancelled.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> There is 8000 MW due to close in the next 15 years including Bayswater and that is a huge amount and I would expect the industries that depend on reliable 24/7 power will leave Australia putting an awful lot of people on the scrapheap.

  I think a lot of people don't quite understand that concept 
the residential sector only consumes around 34% of electricity, commercial 25% and industrial 34%.  So those last 2 are the electricity consumed in people's jobs pretty much.  It's one thing to change your light globes over and put solar on your roof, it's quite another to do something similar on an office building or a factory using vast amounts of energy. 
we can easily make any of our targets by simply closing down Alcan, but that production will just move somewhere else, and you can bet it won't be moving somewhere where all the power comes from wind.

----------


## Bros

> I think a lot of people don't quite understand that concept 
> the residential sector only consumes around 34% of electricity, commercial 25% and industrial 34%.  So those last 2 are the electricity consumed in people's jobs pretty much.  It's one thing to change your light globes over and put solar on your roof, it's quite another to do something similar on an office building or a factory using vast amounts of energy. 
> we can easily make any of our targets by simply closing down Alcan, but that production will just move somewhere else, and you can bet it won't be moving somewhere where all the power comes from wind.

   :Iagree:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Which is why it should be coal. And yet no-one will put into place policies and processes that will allow coal to pay its way and pay its share...so we don't get new thermal power plants to replace the old ones. 
And if we can't get the politics right to go with new coal then there's sixth fifths of Pfaff all's chance of nuclear. Not a bad outcome to my mind anyway. 
So it's back to looking after myself and sod the rest of us with off grid generation. Which is not really the answer either...

----------


## John2b

> we can easily make any of our targets by simply closing down Alcan, but that production will just move somewhere else, and you can bet it won't be moving somewhere where all the power comes from wind.

  Out of the mouths of babes...  "Golden Northwest Aluminum is building its own power plant -- including a 24 MW wind farm -- to make up for the supply lost due to drought affecting the Northwest's hydro system."  Aluminium smelter builds wind plant | Windpower Monthly 
"Trimet, Germany’s largest producer of aluminum, is testing technology to turn its smelters into a "virtual battery" capable of delivering 1.12 gigawatt-hours of flexible capacity...  ...will be able to compensate for fluctuations in the power grid, making it easier to manage intermittent renewables. Trimlet says that implementing its technology across Germany’s four aluminum smelters, three of which it owns, could provide a demand response capacity equal to a third of Germany’s 40 gigawatt-hours of pumped hydro storage.  Trimet is making efforts to mask the environmental impact of this almost 100-terawatt-hour annual consumption...for example... a wind farm at its smelter in the port of Hamburg.  Press releases | TRIMET Aluminium SE https://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...o-huge-battery

----------


## Bigboboz

> Out of the mouths of babes...  "Golden Northwest Aluminum is building its own power plant -- including a 24 MW wind farm -- to make up for the supply lost due to drought affecting the Northwest's hydro system."  Aluminium smelter builds wind plant | Windpower Monthly

  24MW out of 750MW...
"But it says it will build a wind project and two gas generators, with a  combined capacity of nearly 750 MW, to help make up for the power BPA  has historically supplied directly to the smelters."  
Quote from the owner:
"I can't say the power will go directly to the smelters, but the benefits will," 
Doesn't sound like wind power gives them the reliability they're after, just enough green noise to distract from the two gas generators being built

----------


## pharmaboy2

> 24MW out of 750MW...
> "But it says it will build a wind project and two gas generators, with a  combined capacity of nearly 750 MW, to help make up for the power BPA  has historically supplied directly to the smelters."  
> Quote from the owner:
> "I can't say the power will go directly to the smelters, but the benefits will," 
> Doesn't sound like wind power gives them the reliability they're after, just enough green noise to distract from the two gas generators being built

  ROFTL!  Dude, don't interfere with the narrative - it was a win for wind remember , all 3% of total supply

----------


## John2b

> Doesn't sound like wind power gives them the reliability they're after

  Wind plus pumped hydro gives reliable electricity at the same cost as "baseload" coal without the downside of CO2 emissions. 
"A new study by energy experts from the Australian National University suggests that a 100 per cent renewable energy electricity grid – with 90 per cent of power coming from wind and solar – will be significantly cheaper future option than a coal or gas-fired network in Australia."  The government is right to fund energy storage: a 100% renewable grid is within reach | ECI

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Which is why it should be coal. And yet no-one will put into place policies and processes that will allow coal to pay its way and pay its share...so we don't get new thermal power plants to replace the old ones. 
> And if we can't get the politics right to go with new coal then there's sixth fifths of Pfaff all's chance of nuclear. Not a bad outcome to my mind anyway. 
> So it's back to looking after myself and sod the rest of us with off grid generation. Which is not really the answer either...

  I think there is a little fear here that policies such as CT will definitively kill thermal coal.  I know there are people who say they won't invest in coal thermal until there is certainty, but once it's done, talk is cheap.   Technology is also a threat as well - battery tech is getting heaps of research and if it comes through, the thermal plant could be dead in 10 years. 
it used to be the ROI on these things (large infrastructure) was only 7 or 8 years for payback so it justified the capital, now with interest rates so low, the payback is well out there, and with no known future beyond 10 years, it becomes too risky for private capital. 
it strikes me that politics is about what people who vote think, and whilever people who vote don't think about industry supply until they lose their jobs, nothing will happen until you get to that point.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> it strikes me that politics is about what people who vote think, and whilever people who vote don't think about industry supply until they lose their jobs, nothing will happen until you get to that point.

  Can't just blame people... industry is seemingly either silent, stupid or disingenuous or a combination of them all on this as well.

----------


## Bros

> it strikes me that politics is about what people who vote think, and whilever people who vote don't think about industry supply until they lose their jobs, nothing will happen until you get to that point.

   You only have to look at the US and see it went so far that they have now elected a president who is pro coal and anti emission reduction. Now a lot of that was from help from the "rust belt" but the same will happen here if people end up out of work and power ends being restricted.
Blackouts are a great political tool and it was used to effect in Queensland in the 80's.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Can't just blame people... industry is seemingly either silent, stupid or disingenuous or a combination of them all on this as well.

  Isn't the media also the conduit by which you get the information as well? 
on the four corners program, they interviewed a couple of small businesses that rely on energy to actually exist, and prior to that it had never even come across my radar (apart from al smelting), nor had I really thought about how much energy cost had been a competitive advantage in Australia for a long time. 
there is a fundamental disconnect between jo public though and the very idea of business and taxes for instance.  Business is bad, self serving, only cares about profits etc.  An international business that pays little corporate tax but employs a lot of people still contributes because the employees pay loads of tax- I saw this argument on one of the senate sub committees to do with international tax avoidance, and the amount of fbt, gst, other indirect taxes plus personal income tax paid was staggering, but the committee was only concerned with one thing - corporate income tax. 
People are greedy, almost 100%, corporations reflect that, so at least they are predictable. 
edit - I should just do a massive edit - Corporations/industry are people. Ends

----------


## Bigboboz

> Wind plus pumped hydro gives reliable electricity at the same cost as "baseload" coal without the downside of CO2 emissions.

  I like hydro but hydro needs more damns which also can't be built because someone somewhere will object on anything.  Anyway, still not sure what the point of linking the article was.  My takeaway was, build a small amount of wind farm capacity for others to deal with the peaks and troughs it supplies as a distraction for the two gas power stations being built.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I like hydro but hydro needs more damns which also can't be built because someone somewhere will object on anything.  Anyway, still not sure what the point of linking the article was.  My takeaway was, build a small amount of wind farm capacity for others to deal with the peaks and troughs it supplies as a distraction for the two gas power stations being built.

  you mean, like the Greens? 
The Australian Greens - the party that calls for zero emissions by 2030 for Australia and the world, yet absolutely rejects hydroelectricity and nuclear as options, yet people still associate the greens with climate science when in fact they are anti science and just as ideologically driven as any right wing think tank. 
" Part of the problem with the Greens’ approach is that it made many of its energy choices long before climate change was a major issue. The party emerged as a political force through campaigns against nuclear technologies and the Franklin River dam. It has always backed wind and solar (which now provide around 2% of global energy), but has opposed the world’s two largest sources of low-carbon energy: hydroelectrcity (6.8%) and nuclear (now 4.4%). Am I suggesting that the Greens embrace nuclear power? While that is unlikely given their deeply held political commitments, it is not unreasonable to ask for an end to the anti-nuclear fearmongering. The Greens’ national policy platform demands the closure of the OPAL reactor south of Sydney, which produces radioisotopes for cancer detection and treatment. Without such reactors, life-saving nuclear medicine would become impossible." 
above from  the conversation.com

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> you mean, like the Greens? 
> The Australian Greens - the party that calls for zero emissions by 2030 for Australia and the world, yet absolutely rejects hydroelectricity and nuclear as options, yet people still associate the greens with climate science when in fact they are anti science and just as ideologically driven as any right wing think tank. 
> " Part of the problem with the Greens approach is that it made many of its energy choices long before climate change was a major issue. The party emerged as a political force through campaigns against nuclear technologies and the Franklin River dam. It has always backed wind and solar (which now provide around 2% of global energy), but has opposed the worlds two largest sources of low-carbon energy: hydroelectrcity (6.8%) and nuclear (now 4.4%). Am I suggesting that the Greens embrace nuclear power? While that is unlikely given their deeply held political commitments, it is not unreasonable to ask for an end to the anti-nuclear fearmongering. The Greens national policy platform demands the closure of the OPAL reactor south of Sydney, which produces radioisotopes for cancer detection and treatment. Without such reactors, life-saving nuclear medicine would become impossible." 
> above from  the conversation.com

  I still vote for them. It (very) mildly annoys the National Party. Enough of a reason to do it in my book

----------


## John2b

> I like hydro but hydro needs more damns which also can't be built because someone somewhere will object on anything.  Anyway, still not sure what the point of linking the article was.  My takeaway was, build a small amount of wind farm capacity for others to deal with the peaks and troughs it supplies as a distraction for the two gas power stations being built.

  No, most pumped hydro uses dams that are already there. Your takeaway is exactly what the fossil energy industry lobbyists want.

----------


## John2b

> I still vote for them. It (very) mildly annoys the National Party. Enough of a reason to do it in my book

  Pharmaboy2 hasn't read the Greens manifesto or else he wouldn't post such nonsense, unless he has read it and is being intentionally misleading.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Pharmaboy2 hasn't read the Greens manifesto or else he wouldn't post such nonsense, unless he has read it and is being intentionally misleading.

  I haven't read it either...it's not relevant to me.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I haven't read it either...it's not relevant to me.

  You vote for them though? 
straight from an article from a pretty left leaning website I would have thought.  But yes, the greens won't entertain nuclear as a solution under any circumstances at all, and also against mining of uranium point blank.  This is a dogmatic position not a pragmatic one. 
for hydro, I shall quote from their "manifesto" (lol, reminds me of a bearded looney out in the woods sending out mail bombs) " Exclusion from the RET of new large-scale hydroelectric power stations and all electricity from burning native forests."
Which of course means they don't consider new hydro to be a renewable resource - this is a nod to all the members of their party that came out of the franklin dam protests (the taswegians of course in this area are now having the last laugh), and want to be able to protest again at the first opportunity. 
what we really need is a party for climate change that don't carry the political baggage of the past, are singular focussed and pragmatic in approach

----------


## PhilT2

> what we really need is a party for climate change that don't carry the political baggage of the past, are singular focussed and pragmatic in approach

  We don't have one of them. You're being idealistic. (Just wanted to get in on the name calling)

----------


## pharmaboy2

Yes, definate irony. 
ill say something nice about them then - Natali has at least dragged them towards sanity , still a ways to go but better than the previous leadership born of chaining themselves to bulldozers. 
my local greens who are supposed to be for public transport, protested against a light rail project and affordable housing - pretty much are anti anything that the current state liberal govt wants to do, even if it agrees with their basic beliefs - they seem to be like tony Abbott in that way.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You vote for them though?

  Of course, when your other choices are the National Party, some other right wing loonies and occasionally the Labor Party... wouldn't you?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Of course, when your other choices are the National Party, some other right wing loonies and occasionally the Labor Party... wouldn't you?

  No, but I've got the opposite problem, an electorate that only ever votes labor regardless of how badly treated and taken for granted they are.  I dont vote.

----------


## PhilT2

> Of course, when your other choices are the National Party, some other right wing loonies and occasionally the Labor Party... wouldn't you?

  Yep, in a safe seat it's all you can do.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I dont vote.

  In that case, in the immortal words of Steve Earle..."If you don't vote then don't bitch".

----------


## Marc

From all the lunacy spitted out as "policy" I like the "housing affordability" concept the most, particularly the proposed solutions. 
Shouldn't we talk about energy affordability? Food affordability? Work availability? Child care affordability? Decent schooling without left indoctrination availability? 
We have a class of politicians that, like anyone with some money, invests in real estate, shares or superannuation, yet make a show of waving around their arms like windmills and tear the hair out over price increases, and pretend to care about perfectly legitimate price increases due to market forces fuelled by their policies of indiscriminate immigration, indiscriminate and illegal foreign buyers, non existing infrastructure in smaller towns. Then pretending to care by talking about negative gearing as if it is some form of porn only available to the infamous rich. 
Jo public unless he owns an investment property wouldn't know what negative gearing is if it smacked him in the face. 
Housing affordability ... ha ha, I know we can no longer afford this class of politician, every single one of them regardless of flavour. 
If I had 20 years less I would organise a legal revolt.

----------


## Bigboboz

> No, most pumped hydro uses dams that are already there. Your takeaway is exactly what the fossil energy industry lobbyists want.

  You posted it. So what was your takeaway?  My takeaway from why you posted it was to prove that industry can use wind farms. 
Of course most use dams that are already there, it's so hard to get acceptance for new ones.

----------


## John2b

> You posted it. So what was your takeaway?

  I have no takeaway. I made a post, as I often do, to counterpoise an emphatically presented narrow-sighted view of someone who would like to think they are enlightened. The fact that *some* other forum participants don't "get" the point of my posts just validates why I make those posts.  :Smilie:

----------


## Bigboboz

It didn't back up your point though did it?   
Seems crap references are thrown around by both sides which is no surprise

----------


## John2b

> It didn't back up your point though did it?

  I didn't make a point, I posted a link.   

> Seems crap references are thrown around by both sides which is no surprise

  There are no "sides" in this discussion. The discussion is between what is observed to be happening (observations which are entirely consistent with the physical sciences - the physics that underpin every technological thing people rely on to work) and those who deny what is observed to be happening. This is despite anthropogenic global warming being readily observed, consistently, repeatedly by climate researchers in first and third world countries, by climate researchers funded by industry and government, by climate researchers in free market economies and in communist or centrally controlled economies, by climate researchers working for corporations, universities, military and philanthropists, by climate scientists working for coal and oil companies, consistently since the first observations made in the early 1800s and consistent with the first predictions made in the late 1800s. It's a no-brainer. 
How can all these different professionals and organisations be centrally controlled as some here consistently claim?! Sure there are a few people masquerading as 'scientists' who claim there is no anthropogenic effect on climate. Were they genuine, they would represent way less than 0.001% of experts with relevant knowledge and experience. Of course, the deniers here don't like their treasured 'scientists' being called out for what they are - charlatans and/or hellions for hire. The deniers say their dandy 'experts' integrity cannot be questioned, whilst they rampantly misrepresent, slur, defame and disparage anyone who doesn't agree with them. The irony is that no two can agree with each other on just about anything!  https://player.vimeo.com/video/17531...e=0&portrait=0

----------


## johnc

> It didn't back up your point though did it?   
> Seems crap references are thrown around by both sides which is no surprise

  To be honest you seem to be flogging a dead horse, you don't have to agree with posters, taking exception is fine, however in this case we have much to do with nothing and it becomes tiresome, how about we all move on.

----------


## Bigboboz

> To be honest you seem to be flogging a dead horse, you don't have to agree with posters, taking exception is fine, however in this case we have much to do with nothing and it becomes tiresome, how about we all move on.

  Yeah the horse is dead but I suspect we have different autopsy results.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

And different recipes for preparing the carcass for human consumption.

----------


## johnc

Horse isn't bad with white sauce, I have eaten it once like that and also in sausage, any recipes welcomed I may have eaten it but never prepared it and you can certainly buy nags cheaper enough.

----------


## Marc

So are we talking about horse takeaway? Sort of mackers horseburger? I am confused.

----------


## johnc

> So are we talking about horse takeaway? Sort of mackers horseburger? I am confused.

   You might be talking about minced or ground horse I suspect, 14 hands of mince, that is a totally different concept

----------


## PhilT2

Sticking with the equine theme, the horse's rear end that sits in the oval office has been in the news all week. The appointment of a special counsel, sometimes referred to as a special prosecutor, has raised hopes that a quick impeachment may be possible. I don't really believe that the Democrats want this, their best hopes lie in keeping Trump where he is. Until the balance of power changes in the Senate it is an unrealistic expectation anyway.  
What the constant turmoil in the white house will achieve will be a near paralysis of the Trump agenda. The pressure of having to respond to the demands of the special prosecutor as well as the three congressional committees will mean there is less time to reverse the progress made in combatting climate change.  
There are a few by-elections coming up and the results may make Republicans even more hesitant to act.

----------


## johnc

I doubt the nation has the stomach for Pence, nor do I think the Democrats are in a hurry best to let Trump roast himself slowly, I have never seen one man kick so many own goals and learn zip at the same time. What a goose!

----------


## John2b

> For an Adelaide dweller to question the other state's affairs is hilarious to put it mildly.

  "The NSW government will issue warnings of potential threats to electricity supplies from next summer after its review of February's heatwave found the power sector to be vulnerable."  http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/code-warm-nsw-to-introduce-warnings-to-keep-electricity-on-during-heatwaves-20170522-gwa242.html 
"Victorian cities faced power cuts to ensure NSW made it through big heatwave"  Victorian cities faced power cuts to ensure NSW made it through big heatwave

----------


## John2b

Just 7 per cent of voters want the government to invest in Adani mine - nine times that number say they would prefer taxpayer cash going towards renewable energy   http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...21-gw9k4g.html

----------


## PhilT2

two issues with Adani at the moment; the $1B loan from the Feds and a royalty "holiday" from the state govt. Adani is only doing what all businesses do in similar circumstances; trying to screw the govt to get the best deal for themselves. The Qld labor govt desperately needs to win seats in the areas impacted by projects in the Galilee basin if they are to hold on to power. The election is tipped for later this year, possibly October. So they are treading a fine line between appearing to support Adani to retain voters in central Qld, but at the same time, trying not to upset too many voters in other areas by giving away the royalty payments that other mines pay.

----------


## PhilT2

Seems that the Adani board has "deferred" this project indefinitely.

----------


## John2b

There's an oversupply of grid connected electricity in India and the grid does not extend to the 300 million people without power. Not only has Adani been hammering Australian governments for concessions, it has been hammering Indian governments for concessions too. 
The reality is that the Indian government is tiring of operators like Adani bidding for power only to gain government subsidies for its expensive imported coal in an oversupplied market. Not only does India not need the power Adani would generate, that power capacity can only be used by displacing India's own coal industry workers and government owned generators. 
Adani is unlikely to be paid a premium for putting Indians out of work when there is already an oversupply in Indian coal production and grid connected electricity generation. This is a significant part of the reason Adani has put Carmichael on hold, not just action or lack of action by Australian governments.  BFM Indiaâ€™s coal retreat casts doubt on Queensland Adani mine - BFM  https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...idly-changing/

----------


## johnc

They are also having trouble getting financing as the banks are setting limits on the quality of coal they will lend money to. They are no longer interested in lower quality coal due to the surplus in that market, they will lend on higher grades of black stuff. Adani is going to struggle to get its coal accepted in the Indian market due to quality and cost, the Carmichael mine has never been a shining jewel, its advantage has always been the volume of coal it could produce rather than the quality. Having said that it isn't rubbish either, it is simply the world may not require its coal on top of current exploitable operating mines.

----------


## Bros

The elephant in the room 7 GW of Nuclear power is planned

----------


## Marc

CLIMATE SCIENCE PROCESS, SKEPTIC SUMMARIES *MATT RIDLEY: WHAT THE CLIMATE WARS DID TO SCIENCE*  JULY 8, 2015 1 COMMENT I cannot recommend Matt Ridleys new article strongly enough.  It covers a lot of ground be here are a few highlights. Ridley argues that science generally works (in a manner entirely parallel to how well-functioning commercial markets work) because there are generally incentives to challenge hypotheses.  I would add that if anything, the incentives tend to be balanced more towards challenging conventional wisdom.  If someone puts a stake in the ground and says that A is true, then there is a lot more money and prestige awarded to someone who can prove A is not true than for the thirteenth person to confirm that A is indeed true. This process breaks, however when political pressures undermine this natural market of ideas and switch the incentives for challenging hypotheses into punishment.Lysenkoism, a pseudo-biological theory that plants (and people) could be trained to change their heritable natures, helped starve millions and yet persisted for decades in the Soviet Union, reaching its zenith under Nikita Khrushchev. The theory that dietary fat causes obesity and heart disease, based on a couple of terrible studies in the 1950s, became unchallenged orthodoxy and is only now fading slowly. What these two ideas have in common is that they had political support, which enabled them to monopolise debate. Scientists are just as prone as anybody else to confirmation bias, the tendency we all have to seek evidence that supports our favoured hypothesis and dismiss evidence that contradicts itas if we were counsel for the defence. Its tosh that scientists always try to disprove their own theories, as they sometimes claim, and nor should they. But they do try to disprove each others. Science has always been decentralised, so Professor Smith challenges Professor Joness claims, and thats what keeps science honest. What went wrong with Lysenko and dietary fat was that in each case a monopoly was established. Lysenkos opponents were imprisoned or killed. Nina Teicholzs book  The Big Fat Surprise shows in devastating detail how opponents of Ancel Keyss dietary fat hypothesis were starved of grants and frozen out of the debate by an intolerant consensus backed by vested interests, echoed and amplified by a docile press. This is precisely what has happened with the climate debate and it is at risk of damaging the whole reputation of science. This is one example of the consequencesLook what happened to a butterfly ecologist named Camille Parmesan when she published a paper on  Climate and Species Range that blamed climate change for threatening the Edith checkerspot butterfly with extinction in California by driving its range northward. The paper was cited more than 500 times, she was invited to speak at the White House and she was asked to contribute to the IPCCs third assessment report. Unfortunately, a distinguished ecologist called Jim Steele found fault with her conclusion: there had been more local extinctions in the southern part of the butterflys range due to urban development than in the north, so only the statistical averages moved north, not the butterflies. There was no correlated local change in temperature anyway, and the butterflies have since recovered throughout their range.  When Steele asked Parmesan for her data, she refused. Parmesans paper continues to be cited as evidence of climate change. Steele meanwhile is derided as a denier. No wonder a highly sceptical ecologist I know is very reluctant to break cover. He also goes on to lament something that is very familiar to me  there is a strong argument for the lukewarmer position, but the media will not even achnowledge it exists.  Either you are a full-on believer or you are a denier.The IPCC actually admits the possibility of lukewarming within its consensus, because it gives a range of possible future temperatures: it thinks the world will be between about 1.5 and four degrees warmer on average by the end of the century. Thats a huge range, from marginally beneficial to terrifyingly harmful, so it is hardly a consensus of danger, and if you look at the probability density functions of climate sensitivity, they always cluster towards the lower end. What is more, in the small print describing the assumptions of the representative concentration pathways, it admits that the top of the range will only be reached if sensitivity to carbon dioxide is high (which is doubtful); if world population growth re-accelerates (which is unlikely); if carbon dioxide absorption by the oceans slows down (which is improbable); and if the world economy goes in a very odd direction, giving up gas but increasing coal use tenfold (which is implausible). But the commentators ignore all these caveats and babble on about warming of up to four degrees (or even more), then castigate as a denier anybody who says, as I do, the lower end of the scale looks much more likely given the actual data. This is a deliberate tactic. Following what the psychologist Philip Tetlock called the psychology of taboo, there has been a systematic and thorough campaign to rule out the middle ground as heretical: not just wrong, but mistaken, immoral and beyond the pale. Thats what the word denier with its deliberate connotations of Holocaust denial is intended to do. For reasons I do not fully understand, journalists have been shamefully happy to go along with this fundamentally religious project. The whole thing reads like a lukewarmer manifesto.  Honestly, Ridley writes about 1000% better than I do, so rather than my trying to summarize it, go read it. What the climate wars did to science | Matt Ridley

----------


## johnc

That really is a pile of crap, the best bit is at the end the author names someone that writes a 1000% better than he does, really he could have named Trump who is barely literate and still be correct.

----------


## Bigboboz

True but the Matt Ridley article was actually good

----------


## pharmaboy2

"The theory that dietary fat causes obesity and heart disease, based on a couple of terrible studies in the 1950s, became unchallenged orthodoxy and is only now fading slowly." 
sometimes, the danger in an article is the fault of the assumptions.  I've always understood that fat intake is correlated with obesity, but that dietary fat is strongly correlated and increases cardiovascular risk.   
Its in the the authors imagination that dietary fat is somehow not linked to increased heart disease and that it is fading.  The scienctifc consensus among national bodies and the published papers still bear this out to be true.   
If All the national bodies still recommends lower saturated fats, that increased cholesterol is bad for cardiovascular health etc, then why does this guy believe otherwise?  Is it general conspiracies that he enrols in?   
there are doctors around convinced fat is now good, but they are few and far between,  watching a few docos isn't a replacement for scientific study

----------


## Marc

Mm ... I have no interest in debating the bad science behind western recommendation in diet, lets just say that the so called food pyramid is a pile of crook. 
And there are doctors still today that say taking supplements makes expensive urine. 
That article is a really good one and I want to hear from the detractors which part is incorrect, not that the author uses the wrong kind of hat and his toenails are too long.

----------


## PhilT2

The butterfly study done by Parmasan took four years and involved examining numerous areas where the species existed or had existed in the past. I can find no record of any similar work done by Steele to disprove her work. in fact I can't find any record of any work done by Steele in this area at all. If he has collected data on any butterfly species at any time anywhere perhaps you could point it out.

----------


## phild01

> And there are doctors still today that say taking supplements makes expensive urine.

  Probably because it's true.  Modern day snake oil.

----------


## pharmaboy2

You have to examine the motivation behind articles.  It is clearly impossible to read even a single % of climate science papers and understand them, so you must decide whom you trust.  This is the whole problem with cherry picking, you can read from a position and simply choose the stuff that you like and distrust that which doesn't fit.  Articles are entertaining and interesting, and Matt Ridley may be right, but he also may be wrong. 
personally, I choose the major national bodies/academies etc for the most likely, most scientific view, and do not listen to someone with a political view that goes alongside their climate view (it's obviously going to motivate the reasoning).

----------


## Marc

The analysis of how so called scientist work for the general consensus to keep their grants and make politicians happy is obviously correct. 
The true deniers are those who deny science from a constant scrutiny and scepticism that makes true science and new discoveries possible.  
Then there is that old say ... how would it go in English ... Distrust is a poor remedy for ignorance ... or that other equivalent ...  The most elaborate creeds are a poor substitute for knowledge and study ...

----------


## PhilT2

> The analysis of how so called scientist work for the general consensus to keep their grants and make politicians happy is obviously correct...

  It would be nice if you actually had some evidence to back that up. For example, now that the US has a president that believes the global warming is a conspiracy by the Chinese can we expect to see studies proving this as the scientists seek to "make politicians happy"?

----------


## PhilT2

> And there are doctors still today that say taking supplements makes expensive urine.

  Probably because there are enough good quality studies to back them up. There are exceptions of course; folic acid for pregnant women. Enough Is Enough: Stop Wasting Money on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians

----------


## Bros

> Probably because it's true.  Modern day snake oil.

  After I had cataract surgery my eye specialist said there could be a benefit from taking Fish Oil tablets. As my mother was classified as blind when she died due to Macular degeneration I will continue to use them maybe it will help maybe not.

----------


## Marc

The most recalcitrant members of the medical establishment are probably the surgeons, and they put everyone that is on chemotherapy on antioxidants.  
Many years ago there was an attempt by the medical associations to use the European parliament to force patients to seek a prescription in order to buy nutritional supplements. There was a groundswell revolt and the number of emails sent to European "parliamentarians" clogged the parliament computers for days. Had this con succeeded, every respectable doctor would dutifully prescribe to all their patients supplements produced by the same pharmaceuticals who make allopathic prescriptions. 
Arthroscopy is snake oil yet we all pay through the nose with Medicare. I have to pay $1000 extra this year. 
There are many forms of snake oil, and the catastrophic global warming triggered by my 4wd is one of them. 
Enough is enough. Stop wasting your money on harebrained concept like "Carbon Neutral" and the best one of all, "Earth Hour"

----------


## pharmaboy2

> After I had cataract surgery my eye specialist said there could be a benefit from taking Fish Oil tablets. As my mother was classified as blind when she died due to Macular degeneration I will continue to use them maybe it will help maybe not.

  I think if an ophthalmologist told you that, then that is a fair call.  The list of supplements and indications they have evidence for is probably in the dozens.  The claims by people who sell them, probably number in the tens of thousands. 
i have a famous bunch of looneys in my town - the church of ubuntu who have all sorts of nutty beliefs about marijuana.  It doesn't follow that marijuana is not useful for something.

----------


## Marc

Church of Ubuntu ... wow ... they would feel right at home in Noosa ...  :Smilie:    

> I think if an ophthalmologist told you that, then that is a fair call.

  That is a common mistake. My brother and my wife are both Ophthalmologist yet they wouldn't know about fish oil if it hit them in the face. 
A physician or an endocrinologist with an interest in alternative medicine may be. Ophthalmologist choose the profession because it is mostly free of emergencies and has minimal patient contact. And their work is purely technical and their interest is one organ completely isolated from the person. 
My brother in law is an orthopaedic surgeon and he sees the person like a mechanic sees a car that needs fixing. 
Alternative medicine has no place in their world.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Well one things for sure, any ophthalmologist knows more than me about matters pertaining to the eyes, and a quick search of the data shows there's varying levels of evidence in wet amd, and given the quote says " fish oil could help", that is reasonable. 
That's the sort of stuff you get from ranzco,  so while it's possible to be shooting from the hip, it's also likely it's not. (Presentation or posters)

----------


## DavoSyd

> and a quick search of the data shows there's varying levels of evidence in wet amd, and given the quote says " fish oil could help", that is reasonable.

  you could also research "placebo" and then try to decide how much a person taking a pill that a professional tells them "will help" might impact on their outcomes. 
if a doctor says taking fish oil could help, then maybe the doctor (knowing fish oil will do no harm) might consider that it could help, regardless of its actual qualities...

----------


## Bros

> Well one things for sure, any ophthalmologist knows more than me about matters pertaining to the eyes, and a quick search of the data shows there's varying levels of evidence in wet amd, and given the quote says " fish oil could help", that is reasonable.

  I will be continuing to take the tablets irrespective of Dr Marc's diagnosis.

----------


## Marc

Ha ha, Bros, how is it that you don't see I am supporting your choice? 
 What you were told is correct, but not as others suggest because the person telling you is an ophthalmologist "so he must know for sure" ... in fact the run of the mill don't and laugh at the suggestion from their marble tower.
The point here is that many professionals dismiss what they don't know much about or have no interest, or the pharma they trust is not producing.  
In your case, lucky you, your ophthalmologist shows some interest in what they normally dismiss. 
The "expensive urine" comment has done more damage in the last 30 years than flu and pneumonia combined.  
And the idea that cholesterol ingestion = cholesterol plaque is another pathetic oversimplification that has been doing the rounds for over 60 years ... 
THen, there is another myth and legend perpetuated by medical literature and that is the legend of the lactic acid or rather lactate, based on the frog experiment from 1920ties. I leave you to look into that one, another example of not challenging the establishment. When you hear someone telling you that after strenuous exercise his lactic acid has built up and produced pain and he needs to consume bicarb to counteract the acid, you can have a good belly laugh.

----------


## Bros

> Ha ha, Bros, how is it that you don't see I am supporting your choice? 
> .

  I assumed that as you said your wife and BIL never knew about it so it is classed a quackery. There are a number of things that are not proven as fact but taken them does no harm and maybe some good. The one I refer to is low dose aspirin.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> you could also research "placebo" and then try to decide how much a person taking a pill that a professional tells them "will help" might impact on their outcomes. 
> if a doctor says taking fish oil could help, then maybe the doctor (knowing fish oil will do no harm) might consider that it could help, regardless of its actual qualities...

  context. If patient asks, I have heard xyz is good for condition abc, most medical professionals will answer as above - it helps patients have a little ownership of their treatment as well, and this is a good thing . That is entirely different to a specialist who offers that xyz could help without prompting.  These are the little idiosyncrasies in the interaction that we tend not to see because we weren't there, which is why a dogmatic yes or no is not appropriate. 
Fish oil has evidence in cardiovascular risk, particularly for people with low omega 3 diets- it has good scientific plausibility and certainly reasonable epidemiological evidence and some placebo controlled trials as well (not all of them are positive - proviso, this is from memory so it may have changed)

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Ha ha, Bros, how is it that you don't see I am supporting your choice? 
>  What you were told is correct, but not as others suggest because the person telling you is an ophthalmologist "so he must know for sure" ... in fact the run of the mill don't and laugh at the suggestion from their marble tower.
> The point here is that many professionals dismiss what they don't know much about or have no interest, or the pharma they trust is not producing. 
> .

  see, this is typical of the jump to conclusion that makes for faulty decision making.  You put in quotes that "so he must know for sure", yet that is not what was said, so who or what do you think you are quoting? 
this is how we end up with people taking scientific advice from andrew bolt......

----------


## John2b

> The elephant in the room 7 GW of Nuclear power is planned

  That's a pretty small elephant at ~2.3% of India's generation capacity at the end of the 12th National Electricity Plan 2017 - 2027. Even that proportion is unlikely to be achieved as it is considered there will be "considerable slippage" in the commissioning of nuclear power plants. The plan is on track for renewables to contribute 56.5% of India's electricity by 2027.  http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/committee/nep/nep_dec.pdf

----------


## John2b

It isn't medical researchers pushing the 'cholesterol myth' or the many 'diet additive myths'; it is the good old "free market" and government attempts to prop it up contrary to the public interest using marketing tools such as the food triangle, which was devise to support new diversity in farms, not health policy. 
If you want to make a comparison to climate science, it isn't the climate scientists creating myths, it is the "free market" and government attempts to prop it up contrary to public interest. Just 7% of Australia's population approves of taxpayer money being spent on developing coal mines, yet government concessions well in excess of $1billion are on the table from both Liberal and Labor governments over Adani and Carmichael alone. 
The idea that climate change science is a money racket needs to be put to bed once and for all. War mongering is vastly more lucrative. By the Australian Liberal government's own figures, less than 0.1% of government research funding goes to climate science, whilst about 25 times as much goes to military science and technology research.

----------


## Marc

Doctors are no different from other people. They study what they are interested, and specialise in what they have affinity with. 
Most of them will have no interest in alternative medicine and the one that do, will probably hide their interest from colleagues for fear of ridicule. 
This is changing slowly but the specialist are the one lagging behind. 
In fact, what you (Bros) said is what usually happens, what they don't know is dismissed as false. Those that have an open mind are those who you want to stay close to.  
As far as aspirin, i wish they made up their mind. every year they come up with a different reason to take and then not to take it. The latest one is not to unless you had a TIA. They used to put diabetics on aspirin and now they took them off ... who knows.

----------


## Marc

> see, this is typical of the jump to conclusion that makes for faulty decision making.  You put in quotes that "so he must know for sure", yet that is not what was said, so who or what do you think you are quoting? 
> this is how we end up with people taking scientific advice from andrew bolt......

  Semantics

----------


## phild01

> Just 7% of Australia's population approves of taxpayer money being spent on developing coal mines,

  Where do these statistics come from, I never get asked and anyone I know couldn't really care. I suspect a lot of these statistics have a PC error.

----------


## John2b

> Where do these statistics come from, I never get asked and anyone I know couldn't really care. I suspect a lot of these statistics have a PC error.

  The ReachTEL poll surveyed 2984 residents across Australia in late April. Of course there is an error margin, just like any other sampling process, but that does not invalidate the result, and there are plenty of other polls showing how little support the government's position has across the wider community.  Just 7 per cent of voters want the government to invest in Adani mine: poll

----------


## phild01

> The ReachTEL poll surveyed 2984 residents across Australia in late April. Of course there is an error margin, just like any other sampling process, but that does not invalidate the result, and there are plenty of other polls showing how little support the government's position has across the wider community.  Just 7 per cent of voters want the government to invest in Adani mine: poll

  Sorry, misread your original statement as it related to taxpayer money.

----------


## Bros

> The ReachTEL poll surveyed 2984 residents across Australia in late April. Of course there is an error margin, just like any other sampling process, but that does not invalidate the result, and there are plenty of other polls showing how little support the government's position has across the wider community.  Just 7 per cent of voters want the government to invest in Adani mine: poll

  Telephone polls are rubbish. They frame the question to suit those paying. I have participated in a couple of telephone surveys and the questions are framed to get a specific answer. 
A case of "he who pays the piper calls the tune"

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Where do these statistics come from, I never get asked and anyone I know couldn't really care. I suspect a lot of these statistics have a PC error.

  If course it's BS, here's the questions from the push poll  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2C63WTG 
dont know about you, but no one thinking is going to say yes to question 2, our forum AGW deniers are even going to say no to that one. 
if you however asked, 
Are you concerned about electricity blackouts? 
would you support policy initiatives to guarantee supplies of electricity, by funding renewable and non renewable generation? 
Polls aren't worth a bumper unless you know the details; an excellent example however of how crap journalists have become.

----------


## Marc

SKEPTIC SUMMARIES *LAYMAN’S PRIMER ON THE CLIMATE SKEPTIC POSITION*NOVEMBER 12, 2014 ADMIN 1 COMMENT I am a “lukewarmer”, which means a skeptic that agrees that man-made CO2 is incrementally warming the Earth but believes that the amount of that warming is being greatly exaggerated.  In addition, I believe that the science behind evidence of current “climate change” is really poor, with folks in the media using observations of tail-of-the-distribution weather effects to “prove” climate change rather than relying on actual trend data (which tend to show no such thing). I have written two articles at Forbes.com summarizing this position and the debate. Understanding the Global Warming Debate Denying the Catastrophe: The Science of the Climate Skeptic’s Position  *
Understanding the Global Warming Debate* _Warren Meyer , _ _ CONTRIBUTOR_ _I write about business, economics, and climate change_  _Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own._     _Likely you have heard the sound bite that "97% of climate scientists" accept the global warming "consensus".  Which is what gives global warming advocates the confidence to call climate skeptics "deniers," hoping to evoke a parallel with "Holocaust Deniers," a case where most of us would agree that a small group are denying a well-accepted reality.  So why do these "deniers" stand athwart of the 97%?  Is it just politics?  Oil money? Perversity? Ignorance?_ _We are going to cover a lot of ground, but let me start with a hint._ _In the early 1980's I saw Ayn Rand speak at Northeastern University.  In the Q&A period afterwards, a woman asked Ms. Rand, "Why don't you believe in housewives?"  And Ms. Rand responded, "I did not know housewives were a matter of belief."  In this snarky way, Ms. Rand was telling the questioner that she had not been given a valid proposition to which she could agree or disagree.  What the questioner likely should have asked was, "Do you believe that being a housewife is a morally valid pursuit for a woman."  That would have been an interesting question (and one that Rand wrote about a number of times)._ _In a similar way, we need to ask ourselves what actual proposition do the 97% of climate scientists agree with.  And, we need to understand what it is, exactly,  that the deniers are denying._ _It turns out that the propositions that are "settled" and the propositions to which some like me are skeptical are NOT the same propositions.  Understanding that mismatch will help explain a lot of the climate debate._ _The Core Theory_  _ADVERTISING_   _Let's begin by putting a careful name to what we are talking about.  We are discussing the hypothesis of "catastrophic man-made global warming theory."  We are not just talking about warming but warming that is somehow man-made.  And we are not talking about a little bit of warming, but enough that the effects are catastrophic and thus justify immediate and likely expensive government action._ _In discussing this theory, we'll use the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as our main source.   After reading through most of the IPCC's last two reports, I think it is fair to boil the logic behind the theory to this picture:_ __ _As you can see, the theory is actually a chain of at least three steps:_  _CO2, via the greenhouse effect, causes some warming.__A series of processes in the climate multiply this warming by several times, such that most of the projected warming in various IPCC and other forecasts come from this feedback, rather than directly from the greenhouse gas effect of CO2.__Warming only matters if it is harmful, so there are a variety of theories about how warming might increase hazardous weather (e.g. hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts), raise sea levels, or affect biological processes._  _In parallel with this theoretical work, scientists are looking for confirmation of the theory in observations.  They have a variety of ways to measure the temperature of the Earth, all of which have shown warming over the past century.  With this warming in hand, they then attempt to demonstrate how much of this warming is from CO2.  The IPCC believes that much of past warming was from CO2, and recent work by IPCC authors argues that only exogenous effects prevented CO2-driven warming from being even higher._ _This is just a summary.  We will walk through each step in turn._   _PAGE 1 / 4 Continue_

----------


## Marc

_ Continued from page 1_ CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas  The first step in the theory is the basic greenhouse gas theory -- that CO2 will raise the temperature of the Earth as its concentration increases (through a process of absorption and re-radiation that we will not get into). Its probably irresponsible to call anything in a science so young as climate "settled," but the fact that increased atmospheric CO2 will warm the Earth by some amount is pretty close to being universally accepted.  More debatable is how much warming will occur.  We have measurements of warming from laboratory experiments, but these are hard to translate directly to the complex climate system.  The generally accepted value for direct greenhouse gas warming from CO2 is something like 1-1.2C per doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and most past IPCC reports have settled on a number in this range. While some of the talk-show-type skeptics have tried to dispute this greenhouse theory, most of what I call the science-based skeptics do not, and accept a number circa 1C for the direct warming effect of a doubling of CO2. So what's the problem?  Why the debate?  Isn't this admission a "game over" for the skeptics?  Actually, no.  To understand this, let us do a bit of extrapolation.  Current CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere today are around 390ppm, or about 0.039%.    But even if we were to hit a relatively pessimistic level of 800ppm by the end of the century, this would, by the numbers above, imply a warming of about one degree.  While potentially undesirable, a degree of warming is hardly catastrophic.   The catastrophe comes from the second chained theory. The Positive Climate Feedback Theory  As the Earth warms, we expect there to be changes that may further accelerate or decelerate the warming.  These are called feedbacks.  Take one example -- as the Earth warms, there will likely be less snow and ice coverage of the Earth.  Snow and ice tend to reflect heat back into space more than does bare land or water, so that this loss could add additional warming above and beyond the initial warming from CO2.  On the opposite end of the scale, many plants grow faster with warmer air and more airborne CO2, and such growth could in turn reduce atmospheric carbon and slow expected warming. It turns out the critical feedback involves water vapor.  While CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, it is a weak one when compared to water vapor.    Rising temperatures may increase evaporation and therefore the amount of water vapor in the air, thus adding powerful greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere and accelerating warming.  On the other hand, water evaporated by rising temperatures may form more clouds that shade the Earth and help to reduce temperatures.  Whether future man-made global warming is catastrophic depends a lot on the balance of these effects. The IPCC assumed that strong positive feedbacks dominated, and thus arrived at numbers that implied that feedbacks added an additional 2-4 degrees to the 1 degree from CO2 directly.  So in the IPCC numbers, at least two thirds of the future warming comes not from the basic greenhouse gas effect but a second independent theory that the Earth's climate is dominated by strong positive feedbacks.  Other more alarmist scientists have come up with feedback numbers even higher.  When Al Gore says that we will see a tipping point where temperatures will run away, he is positing that feedbacks will be nearly infinite (a phenomenon we can hear with loud feedback screeches from a microphone). But the science of this positive climate feedback theory is far from settled.  Just as skeptics are probably wrong to question the basic greenhouse gas effect of CO2, catastrophic global warming advocates are wrong to over-estimate our understanding of these feedbacks.   Not only may the feedback number not be high, but it might be negative, as implied by some recent research, which would actually reduce the warming we would see from a doubling of CO2 to less than one degree Celsius.  After all, most long-term stable natural systems (and that would certainly describe climate) are dominated by negative rather than positive feedbacks.   _ PAGE 2 / 4 Continue_

----------


## Marc

_Continued from page 2_ Nice Theory, But What Do We Actually See Happening?  At some point, theorizing becomes stale unless the theories are supported by observations.  And the most important single observation relative to catastrophic man-made global warming theory is that the world has indeed warmed over the last century, by perhaps 0.7C, coincident with the period mankind has burned a lot of fossil fuels. Some skeptics have tried, relatively futilely I think, to deny that the world is warming at all.  Certainly skeptics have a lot of evidence that this measured warming may be exaggerated --  there are some serious flaws in our surface temperature measurement system today and almost certainly much worse flaws in the numbers from, say, 1900 to which we are comparing current readings.    But radically new technologies, such as satellites, that are not susceptible to these same flaws and coverage gaps have still measured an upward drift in temperatures over the last 30 years.   When looking at the historic temperature record, skeptics today tend to focus more on the fact that temperatures have leveled off over the last 10-15 years.   Both sides of the debate play annoying games with cherry-picked end-points and graph scales to try to support their arguments, but most reasonable people look at the graph above of the last 15 years and will agree temperatures have been relatively flat.  Even more important for scientists (since the oceans are a much larger heat reservoir than the atmosphere) is the fact that the new ARGO floating temperature stations have measured little or no increase in ocean heat content since they were put in service in 2003. These facts actually lead to one of my favorite examples of the two sides in the debate talking past each other (this example actually played out in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal over the past several weeks).  Skeptics will say, "temperatures have been flat for 10-15 years."  Global warming advocates will respond, "the last decade has seen some of the hottest temperatures in the last 100 years."  Both statements are actually correct.  Imagine spending all day climbing to the top of a tall plateau.  Walking around on the plateau, with every step, it is correct to say that you are at the highest point you have been all day, but it is also correct to say you are no longer climbing. Whichever the case, the flat surface temperatures and ocean heat content create a real problem for the man-made catastrophic global warming theory.  There is no reason why warming should take a break, and we are starting to hear more frequently, even among catastrophic global warming supporters, discussion of "the missing heat." Attributing the Action of Complex Systems to Individual Inputs  A couple of years ago, the Obama Administration was tasked with figuring out how many jobs, if any, were created by the stimulus.  Just adding up jobs at firms that had received government cash was not good enough -- the theory of the Keynesian stimulus is that there is a multiplier (similar to the positive feedback in climate) that creates far more jobs than just the ones that can be directly measured.  But how do we count these jobs?  We don't have any sort of measuring device to tell us that one job would or would not have existed if, say, Solyndra had not gotten stimulus money. What the Administration did was this:  they took a computer model, the same one that originally said the stimulus would be effective, and plugged in the actual spending numbers to get a modeled job creation number.   As political messaging, this made perfect sense.  As science, the notion of checking a theoretical model's output with additional runs of the same model, rather than observational data, certainly leaves something to be desired.  But to be fair, it's a tough problem - how does one sort out the effect of changing one variable in a complex system where hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of other variables are changing simultaneously? This is the problem scientists face in trying to determine the causes of the 0.7C warming over the last century.  And, ironically, the IPCC's main argument was very similar to the way the stimulus was scored.  They took computer models, which by their own admission left out a lot of the complexity in the climate, and ran them with and without manmade CO2 in the 20th century.  Their conclusion:  only man's CO2 could have caused the measured warming.  Skeptics like to describe this logic slightly differently:  the IPCC says it had to be CO2 because they couldn't think of anything else it could be. So could it be anything else?  Skeptics will argue that the period of rapid temperature increase the IPCC studied was relatively short, basically the 20 years from 1978 to 1998.  Skeptics will point out that the world experienced a near identical pace of temperature increase from 1910-1940, well before our modern society began emitting CO2 in earnest, casting into doubt whether the more recent increase was truly unprecedented and only possible given manmade CO2. Further, skeptics like to point to at least four other climate factors that might reasonably have contributed to the 0.7C of warming:  Solar output, which was higher in the second half of the 20th century than the firstOcean cycles, like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which were in their warm period during the critical warming period from 1978-1998 that so worried the IPCCContinued recovery from the Little Ice Age, which bottomed out world temperatures in the 17th and 18th centuriesMan's land use, including agriculture and urbanization  All told, there is no doubt that CO2 is helping to warm the planet, but skeptics are reluctant to ascribe all of the last century's warming to this one cause when there were so many other forces working in the same direction. The problem for global warming supporters is they actually need for past warming from CO2 to be higher than 0.7C.  If the IPCC is correct that based on their high-feedback models we should expect to see 3C of warming per doubling of CO2, looking backwards this means we should already have seen about 1.5C of CO2-driven warming based on past CO2 increases.  But no matter how uncertain our measurements, it's clear we have seen nothing like this kind of temperature rise.  Past warming has in fact been more consistent with low or even negative feedback assumptions. To defend the hypothesis of strong positive climate feedback, global warming supporters must posit that there are exogenous climate effects that are in fact holding down the increase due to CO2.  Thus has been born the theory of man-made sulfate aerosols, basically pollution from burning dirty fuels, that is keeping the Earth cool.  When the rest of the world gets around to reducing these emissions as has the US, the theory goes, then we will see rapid catch-up warming.  Skeptics point out that no one really has any idea of the magnitude of the cooling from these aerosols, and that, ironically, every global warming model just happens to assume exactly the amount of cooling from these aerosols that is needed to make their models match history.  Skeptics call this their "plug variable."   _ PAGE 3 / 4 Continue_

----------


## Marc

_Continued from page 3_ Hurricanes and Tornadoes and Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My  Certainly changing atmospheric temperatures, and perhaps even more importantly, changes in ocean temperatures, can be expected to have knock-on effects, both negative and positive  (yes, I know the suggestion of positive effects borders on heresy, but don't you think folks in higher latitudes might appreciate longer growing seasons?)  Skeptics argue, however, that too often the studies of these effects suffer from one of four types of mistakes:  _Measurement Technology Bias_ - Improvements in our ability to accurately count or measure a phenomenon is mistaken for a real underlying change in the frequency of the phenomenon.  A great example is tornadoes.  The count of annual tornadoes appears to have increased over the last fifty years, but this increase is almost entirely due to Doppler radar and other technologies identifying previously unrecognized twisters.  If one looks solely at larger tornadoes (class F3-F5) that were unlikely to be overlooked even with older technologies,annual counts are flat to slightly down over the last fifty years._One sample makes a trend_ - This is less a flaw of any particular formal study and more a flaw in media coverage and among catastrophic global warming advocates (e.g. Al Gore).  Individual extreme weather events are pointed to as proof of climate shifts, even when summary statistics show no such thing.  For example, individual hurricanes like Katrina are pointed to as proof that global warming is increasing hurricane frequency and severity, when in fact measures of hurricane frequency and total energy (e.g. total cyclonic energy) have actually been decreasing over the last several years, to near all-time _lows_._What is normal_ -  Trends in certain variables are labeled as "abnormal" or "unprecedented" or "not natural" despite our having an extraordinarily short history of measurements such that it is almost impossible for us to say with any confidence exactly what "normal" is.  In some cases, recent trends are labeled abnormal or unprecedented even when that trend appears to be long-standing and pre-date man-made CO2.  A great example is glacier retreat.  We have good measurements showing substantial retreats in glaciers dating all the way back to the late 1700s (at the end of the little ice age).  However, recent retreats in these same glaciers are portrayed as new and shocking and man-made, rather than in context of a longer-term trend (the exact same situation obtains with sea levels)._Everything looks like a nail_ - Climate is an extremely complex system with many, many variables changing simultaneously.  It's a big, complicated engine we really don't understand that takes all these inputs and spits out certain outputs  (e.g. snow in Washington today).  Like a religious zealot that sees the face of God in his piece of toast, some observers seem to be able to magically attribute particular weather outcomes to the action of one single variable out of these millions.  Even more amazingly, time after time, it seems to be the exact same variable, man-made CO2, that is unilaterally creating the result.  Conclusion So let's come back to our original question -- what is it exactly that skeptics "deny."  As we have seen, most don't deny the greenhouse gas theory, or that the Earth has warmed some amount over the last several year.  They don't even deny that some of that warming has likely been via man-made CO2.  What they deny is the catastrophe -- they argue that the theory of strong climate positive feedback is flawed, and is greatly exaggerating the amount of warming we will see from man-made CO2.  And, they are simultaneously denying that most or all of past warming is man-made, and arguing instead that the amount that is natural and cyclic is being under-estimated. So how about the "97% of scientists" who purportedly support global warming?  What proposition do they support?  Let's forget for a minute a variety of concerns about cherry-picking respondents in studies like this  (I am always reminded by such studies of the quote attributed, perhaps apocryphally,  to Pauline Kael that she couldn't understand how Nixon had won because no one she knew voted for him).  Let's look at the actual propositions the 97% agreed to in one such study conducted at the University of Illinois.  Here they are:1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? The 97% answered "risen" and "yes" to these two questions.  But depending on how one defines "significant" (is 20% a significant factor?) I could get 97% of a group of science-based skeptics to agree to the same answers. So this is the real problem at the heart of the climate debate -- the two sides are debating different propositions!  In our chart, proponents of global warming action are vigorously defending the propositions on the left side, propositions with which serious skeptics generally already agree.   When skeptics raise issues about climate models, natural sources of warming, and climate feedbacks, advocates of global warming action run back to the left side of the chart and respond that the world is warming and greenhouse gas theory is correct.    At best, this is a function of the laziness and scientific illiteracy of the media that allows folks to talk past one another;  at worst, it is a purposeful bait-and-switch to avoid debate on the tough issues. Postscript: I wrote more on this topic in a previous discussion of the science of the skeptics position here.  These topics, with charts, data, and sources, are expanded substantially in a video presentation here.   _ PAGE 4 / 4_ _1 Comment on this story_

----------


## John2b

> Telephone polls are rubbish. They frame the question to suit those paying. I have participated in a couple of telephone surveys and the questions are framed to get a specific answer. 
> A case of "he who pays the piper calls the tune"

  The quality of ALL polls relates to the framing of questions. If you want to discredit a particular poll, then post the results of a poll, in fact any poll, telephone or otherwise, that produces a different result to the poll you want to question.

----------


## John2b

> If course it's BS, here's the questions from the push poll

  I don't see how the questions support your claim. It is abundantly clear that the vast majority of people don't think Australian public money should be spend for Adani's benefit, as many other polls posed by many other organisations have also conclusively shown.

----------


## John2b

> So let's come back to our original question -- what is it exactly that skeptics "deny."  As we have seen, most don't deny the greenhouse gas theory, or that the Earth has warmed some amount over the last several year.  They don't even deny that some of that warming has likely been via man-made CO2.

  Another day, another denier position irreconcilable with the previous denier position. What a luxury to totally lack self awareness.

----------


## Bigboboz

> The ReachTEL poll surveyed 2984 residents across Australia in late April. Of course there is an error margin, just like any other sampling process, but that does not invalidate the result, and there are plenty of other polls showing how little support the government's position has across the wider community.  Just 7 per cent of voters want the government to invest in Adani mine: poll

  Love the comment to one of the photos
"The Adani mine by itself will push global temperatures above the threshold increase of two degrees." 
Wow! One hell of a mine (pun intended)

----------


## Bigboboz

> I don't see how the questions support your claim. It is abundantly clear that the vast majority of people don't think Australian public money should be spend for Adani's benefit, as many other polls posed by many other organisations have also conclusively shown.

  Is the actual script for the survey disclosed? I couldn't find it. 
If the leading statement is something like "The Adani mine by itself will push global temperatures above the threshold increase of two degrees.", you can't see that unduly affecting survey results? Not saying they said said something like this, just that we don't know what they said (well I don't) and that results can be served on a platter if needed.  I've pulled out of surveys as it was blatant about what result that wanted manufactured. 
On balance, the mine sounds like a dog if it can't wash it's face without government assistance despite apparently being so huge that a rail line kills the deal.  Reeks of vote buying. That never happens!

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Is the actual script for the survey disclosed? I couldn't find it. 
> If the leading statement is something like "The Adani mine by itself will push global temperatures above the threshold increase of two degrees.", you can't see that unduly affecting survey results? Not saying they said said something like this, just that we don't know what they said (well I don't) and that results can be served on a platter if needed.  I've pulled out of surveys as it was blatant about what result that wanted manufactured. 
> On balance, the mine sounds like a dog if it can't wash it's face without government assistance despite apparently being so huge that a rail line kills the deal.  Reeks of vote buying. That never happens!

  Hi Bob, the actual script was disclosed and I linked to it above - the link needs a few goes to get it to work,  then you can read the questions. 
It wasn run by getup, and as you suspect, questions designed to get a response.  A response to it by a local paper makes for a better view of the situation.  Also an advocacy poll - the questions are designed to push their agenda but pretend to be a poll - it's campaigning, not polling.  No Cookies | Townsville Bulletin

----------


## Bigboboz

> Hi Bob, the actual script was disclosed and I linked to it above - the link needs a few goes to get it to work,  then you can read the questions.

  Ok thanks, I didn't realise the surveymonkey link was the actual poll questions.  There is usually a spiel given prior to the specific questions, I'd like to see that as well... 
The Townsville article compares their result to the other poll and I  can't see 6.8% mentioned anywhere.  The SMH article didn't give any  detail, just took the Getup statement and ran with it.     

> It wasn run by getup, and as you suspect, questions designed to get a response.  A response to it by a local paper makes for a better view of the situation.  Also an advocacy poll - the questions are designed to push their agenda but pretend to be a poll - it's campaigning, not polling.  No Cookies | Townsville Bulletin

  Of course asking people closer to who will receive the benefit of government pork barrelling will also give a different result but agree with your premise!

----------


## PhilT2

This comes from the UK press so make ot what you will. UKIP, long known for their climate denial, were never considered rocket scientist material so it may be true. Ex-Ukip politician calls for death penalty for suicide bombers | Metro News

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> This comes from the UK press so make ot what you will. UKIP, long known for their climate denial, were never considered rocket scientist material so it may be true. Ex-Ukip politician calls for death penalty for suicide bombers | Metro News

  Ignorance, suicide bombing and political expediency is not relevant to a discussion about climate adaptation...[probably, yet]

----------


## John2b

> Ignorance, suicide bombing and political expediency is not relevant to a discussion about climate adaptation...[probably, yet]

  It is entirely relevant to the climate discussion that the governance that controls policy is dominated by politicians whose best effort is to suggest that dead people ought to be killed. In fact, the example given epitomises the level of the intellect of the so called "climate debate".

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I think it is entirely relevant to the climate discussion, that the governance that controls policy is dominated by politicians whose best effort is to suggest that dead people ought to be killed. In fact, the example given epitomises the level of the intellect of the so called "climate debate".

  Dominated? Politically? Truck no. Media femtoseconds? Oh hell yeah. This was click bait dumbtruckery of the highest cleverness and cyncicary. No more. No less. If you want to legitimise it in opinionated rage then go right ahead...

----------


## John2b

> If you want to legitimise it in opinionated rage then go right ahead...

  Not sure what you're on... Where was (is) the legitimisation of rage in my post???

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Not sure what you're on... Where was (is) the legitimisation of rage in my post???

  It started with 'I think...'. That's not allowed.

----------


## John2b

Here's an example of the intellect of political discussion about climate change:  Scott Morrison holds a lump of coal in Parliament - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## John2b

> It started with 'I think...'. That's not allowed.

  'I think' has been deleted... New meaning is... the same as the old meaning - I think (doh - not allowed!).

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> 'I think' has been deleted... New meaning is... the same as the old meaning - I think (doh - not allowed!).

  If you'd prefer 'Thinking is not tolerated' then I'd be chummy with that...

----------


## John2b

> If you'd prefer 'Thinking is not tolerated' then I'd be chummy with that...

  Love your work...

----------


## DavoSyd



----------


## Marc

> This comes from the UK press so make ot what you will. UKIP, long known for their climate denial, were never considered rocket scientist material so it may be true. Ex-Ukip politician calls for death penalty for suicide bombers | Metro News

  When it makes for funny headlines, and despite the left's relentless efforts to brand this attacks as "lone wolf", implying they have no links to organised terrorism, any politician from any persuasion and any level of IQ is welcome when they speak about the fact we are under attack by a religious/political credo that hates us and wants to take over. 
The more people talk about the fact we are at war the better. Eventually it will be politically palatable to take measures to protect us from this retrograde dark ages murderers.  
I can see a link between this obscurantism by politicians, particularly from the left but also from the pretend right, read Malcolm T. and the Global Warming fraud. 
An islamic terrorist attack, disguised and covered up by "nothing to see here, move along" has a reason. Do not upset the voters, we want their vote, pretend we are stupid and this are just common criminals or mentally disturbed individuals with no organization behind them. Keep on voting for us, you are safe, we keep on giving you refugee visas and housing commission and Centrelink Payment even for 4 wifes. 
Global warming con? Same thing. We are the knight in shining armor when it comes to protect us from catastrophic global warming, look at us and vote for us. Greens? we are with you! Concerned yet ignorant citizen? we are on the ball, vote for us!  
It's a lot of fun, but the headline "Dead penalty for suicide bomber" takes the cake. 
Of course they don't mean it, it's all painted cardboard, toothless tigers, charade, pour la galerie ...

----------


## pharmaboy2

Came across this article the other day which outlines the thinking of science denial and how common it is.  Further it equates AGW, anti gmo, and anti-vaxxers as equal in science denial.  I hope somebody finds it an interesting read  https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/0...-all-the-same/ 
The introduction    *Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same*Posted on May 23, 2017by Fallacy Man
I imagine that quite a few people were upset by the title for this post, so let me explain what I mean, and please hear me out before you sharpen your pitchforks. The arguments used by all three of these groups, and indeed by science deniers more generally, are all fundamentally the same. In other words, the underlying logical structure is identical for the arguments used in support of all three of these positions. Thus, it is logically inconsistent to criticize one of these positions while embracing another.
You see, what I have observed over the past few years of blogging is that very few people like to think of themselves as “anti-science” or as a “science denier.” Those people certainly exist, and I do encounter them, but most of the people who visit my blog/page claim to love science…at least until it disagrees with their ideology. This puts them in a difficult position, because when a scientific result conflicts with their beliefs, they have to find some excuse or justification for why they don’t accept the results of science on that particular topic, and what I see over and over again is that everyone falls back on exactly the same excuses, regardless of what anti-science position they are trying to defend. For example, on several occasions, I have seen people criticize anti-vaccers for appealing to the authority of a few fringe “experts.” Then, a few threads later, I see those same people appealing to the authority of a few fringe experts on topics like climate change and GMOs. Similarly, I see people ridicule climate change deniers for thinking that all climatologists have been bought off, but when the topic shifts to GMOs, suddenly those same people start claiming that Monsanto has bought off all of the world’s genetic engineers/food scientists. Do you see what I am getting it? You can’t criticize someone for using a particular line of reasoning, then turn around and use that same line of reasoning to support your own particular form of science denial. That’s not logically consistent, and it’s not how science operates. Science is a method. It either works or it doesn’t, and you can’t cherry-pick when to accept it.
I suspect that people are becoming more upset with me, rather than less upset, so if you are currently unhappy with me, then I want you to stop and carefully think about this before you read any further. I’m not attacking you, I’m not even ridiculing you, but I am trying to help you think rationally and consistently. If you truly love science, rather than simply liking it when it agrees with your preconceptions, then you should hear me out. You should take a good look at the arguments and examples that I am going to present, and you should make sure that you are actually being rational and logically consistent. I also want to clarify that I don’t think people who believe these views are unintelligent or even consciously denying science. As I’ve previously discussed, I used to be a creationist and a climate change denier, so I know first-hand just how easy it is for ideology to cloud your judgement and make you think that you are being rational, when you are actually just denying reality.   Before I go any further, I need to make it explicitly clear that none of these positions exist because of any actual scientific evidence supporting them. In every case, they are soundly defeated by a veritable mountain of consistent scientific results. On GMOs, for example, over 1,700 studies have been conducted, and they failed to find any evidence that GMOs are worse than traditional crops for either human health or the environment, and in some cases, they are better (Nicolia et al. 2013; also see Sanvido et al. 2006, Snell et al. 2012, Van Eenennaam and Young. 2014, and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine report 2016). This is, of course, also the conclusion that nearly 300 scientific organizations reached after reviewing the data. Climate change is the same story. Because of carbon isotopes, we know that we have greatly increased the CO2 in the atmosphere (Bohm et al. 2002; Ghosh and Brand 2003; Wei et al. 2009), and thanks to satellite measurements, we know that our CO2 is increasing the amount of heat energy that the earth’s atmosphere traps (Harries et al. 2001; Griggs and Harries 2007). Further, studies of past climate clearly show that CO2 is a major driver of climate change (Lorius et al. 1990; Tripati et al. 2009; Shakun et al. 2012), and we have carefully studied the sun, volcanic emissions, Milankovitch cycles, etc. and none of them can explain the current warming, but including our greenhouse gasses in the analyses does explain the warming (Stott et al. 2001; Meehl, et al. 2004; Allen et al. 2006; Wild et al. 2007; Lockwood and Frohlich 2007, 2008; Lean and Rind 2008; Foster and Rahmstorf 2011; Imbers et al. 2014). Indeed, literally thousands of studies have all converged on the conclusion that we are causing the planet to warm, and peer-reviewed studies to the contrary are virtually non-existent (but see the next major point below). As a result, this is another topic that enjoys an extremely strong consensus among actual experts. Similarly, vaccines have been studied thousands of times and have been shown to be extremely safe and effective. Indeed, they are the most well-studied treatment in medical history, and you can find trials that looked at pretty much whatever particular adverse event you are interested in. There are, for example, numerous studies that failed to find any evidence that vaccines cause autism, including a meta-analysis with over 1.2 million children (Taylor et al. 2014). There are studies showing that vaccines don’t cause SIDs (Hoffman et al. 1987; Griffin et al. 1988; Mitchell et al. 1995; Fleming et al. 2001; Vennemann et al. 2007a; Vennemann et al. 2007b), studies showing that they don’t cause asthma or allergies (Schmitz et al. 2011; Grabenhenrich et al. 2014), studies showing that the flu vaccine doesn’t increase fetal or infant deaths (Mak et al. 2008; Pasternak et al. 2012a; Pasternak et al. 2012b; Fell et al. 2012; Haberg et al. 2013), etc. (you can find a non-exhaustive  list of a bunch of other safety trials here).

----------


## johnc

Whenever we feel threatened or see something sickening the human condition seems to be to respond with violence. We can't attack "them" because so often the them is actually us, or someone born here. ISIS are successful because they have learned to market the violence in war torn parts of the middle east and point the finger at the west, in so doing they inspire often marginalised individuals to retaliate. In the west our desire is to strike at the heart of terrorists to wipe them out, something we are reasonable successful at but in doing that we seem to be inspiring ever more marginalised nutters to perform evil acts on their fellow man. Mind you ISIS is certainly feeling the heat but we can't surgically remove them once they have been beaten down they will simply go underground or something new will rise up to replace it. 
I don't have the answer, nobody does, however violence to cure violence doesn't seem to be working. It would seem there is no simple answer, poverty, lack of opportunity, corruption, political failure, disadvantage all seem part of the problem. The work of the UN, inadequate though it is remains important as does diplomatic efforts to improve countries human rights records. The west through its actions seems to have spawned ISIS, we now have to contain it. Perhaps rather than spend trillions on weapons of war we should spend more on helping impoverished nations build their economies, improve infrastructure and governance as well as limit exploding population growth that strains all those things. 
The US wants to stop family planning in countries that it provides aid to if they mention the word abortion, as well as increase the money we spend on arms. As their failed efforts in Afghanistan commencing with arming and training the mujahedeen created a vacuum which lead to the formation of the Taliban, then Al Queda and ultimately ISIS out of their failed efforts in Iraq I would suggest we know where not to look.  
Look at countries like East Timor where we had peace keeping operations, the electorate given a voice and agencies tasked with rebuilding and a genuine effort to remove small arms from the population. 
No point vilifying the US at least they do go in to contain some of the worlds hot spots and remain a major contributor to the UN, however there does need to be a more mature level of discussion than the rubbish spewing forth in post #16301.

----------


## John2b

> ...however there does need to be a more mature level of discussion than the rubbish spewing forth in post #16301.

  Agreed. The book "The Operators" gives a pretty good insight into how politically motivated military intervention from outside a nation creates an incubator for terrorist movements.  Exclusive Excerpt: The Operators by Michael Hastings - Rolling Stone

----------


## John2b

> Came across this article the other day which outlines the thinking of science denial and how common it is.  Further it equates AGW, anti gmo, and anti-vaxxers as equal in science denial.

  Unfortunately this article contains at least one glaring logical fallacy. Corporates are pushing GMOs for market control, not the benefit of mankind, in the same way that a hand-full of companies control the energy market globally. Neither commercial group wants to lose market share to decentralisation of production, be it food or energy. 
One objection to GMO's is political, namely the ethics of corporatising ownership of global food production down to DNA levels. The scientific question of whether GMO food is safe or not is irrelevant in the context of whether half a dozen companies should be allowed to own global food production. 
Farmers are already being sued by the global seed companies for planting seed they grew themselves from seed they bought, and even for allowing their crop to be cross-polinated by a neighbours GMO crop - by wind! 
The rise of superweeds is another consequence of economic crops GMOed to be herbicide tolerant. 25 million hectares of prime US agricultural land are now infested with superweeds that are not controlled by the herbicide the economic crop was engineered to tolerate of. It should be self evident that doing more of what caused the problem isn't going to solve it. 
The proponents of GMO are in the same camp as the deniers of AGW - that of ignoring the consequences of their pet action and/or inaction.

----------


## Marc

I must agree in part with John2b ....  :Eek: 
Ha ha ... seriously. 
It is a rather low and simplistic strategy to bunch everything we disagree with and include a few very discredited ideas to somehow transfer the discredit onto what we want to shine a bad light on. Should have included paedophilia, Ku Klux Klan and holocaust deniers in the mix .... hold on, the latter is already been used. 
To JohnC who usually makes some sense ... what terrorist teach is no secret. Would you bring a rabid dog for a pet to your home? Yet that is what politicians all over the world have done in the last 20 years and have done so purely to build up their electoral base. They should be in gaol for that, every single one of them. They have knowingly allowed the enemy to enter the country and they have given them shelter and food and money for smokes and looked the other way every time they teach and preach violence, and perform their ill conceived acts of ... how they call it now? Political violence, and pontificate that this has no link with terrorism at every given opportunity.
They should be trailed for treason. 
A face to face survey conducted in England reveals that from the so called moderate muslims, 4% agree with terrorist acts to send a message. Call it 10% to include those who were not game to admit it and so you have 150,000 people who openly support terrorism in the country that has given them shelter and food and money in the bank. 
And you say there is no solution? Of course there is, it's called deportation, something that should happen at the drop of a hat. And those born here that go to war abroad, should be made stateless. Simple. THey can go and live in Liberia.

----------


## pharmaboy2

What's relevant for genetically modified organisms is whether increasing the output of land means that less land needs to be employed for agriculture, means less global warming.  How less tillage in the GM modified corn and soy crops has mean less burning of diesel. 
the "big bad corporates" are only interested in big crops like corn, soy, wheat, canola etc, but gmo has already saved papaya, may well save bananas, what about golden rice.  Plenty of genetic work on crops for the poorest few billion as well and CRISPR will make this work extremely easy and cheap in the next few years. 
crops that can grow in sandy soils, with less water, with less herbicide, with greater yields, tolerant to flood - these things are necessary in the adaptation period we are coming into.  Scaremongers we need not.

----------


## John2b

> crops that can grow in sandy soils, with less water, with less herbicide, with greater yields, tolerant to flood - these things are necessary in the adaptation period we are coming into.

  Agreed. But the notion that industrial agriculture uses less inputs, causes less damage and produces more food is a myth.  "According to the ETC Group, a research and advocacy organization based in Ottawa, the industrial food chain uses 70 percent of agricultural resources to provide 30 percent of the world’s food, whereas what ETC calls “the peasant food web” produces the remaining 70 percent using only 30 percent of the resources.  Yes, it is true that high-yielding varieties of any major commercial monoculture crop will produce more per acre than peasant-bred varieties of the same crop. But by diversifying crops, mixing plants and animals, planting trees — which provide not only fruit but shelter for birds, shade, fertility through nutrient recycling, and more — small landholders can produce more food (and more kinds of food) with fewer resources and lower transportation costs (which means a lower carbon footprint), while providing greater food security, maintaining greater biodiversity, and even better withstanding the effects of climate change. (Not only that: their techniques have been demonstrated to be effective on larger-scale farms, even in the Corn Belt of the United States.) And all of this without the level of subsidies and other support that industrial agriculture has received in the last half-century, and despite the efforts of Big Ag to become even more dominant."  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/op...anted=all&_r=0 
Also of interest:  The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations: The State of Food and Agriculture 2014  http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4036e.pdf

----------


## Bigboboz

> Agreed. But the notion that industrial agriculture uses less inputs, causes less damage and produces more food is a myth.  "According to the ETC Group, a research and advocacy organization based in Ottawa, the industrial food chain uses 70 percent of agricultural resources to provide 30 percent of the world’s food, whereas what ETC calls “the peasant food web” produces the remaining 70 percent using only 30 percent of the resources.  Yes, it is true that high-yielding varieties of any major commercial monoculture crop will produce more per acre than peasant-bred varieties of the same crop. But by diversifying crops, mixing plants and animals, planting trees — which provide not only fruit but shelter for birds, shade, fertility through nutrient recycling, and more — small landholders can produce more food (and more kinds of food) with fewer resources and lower transportation costs (which means a lower carbon footprint), while providing greater food security, maintaining greater biodiversity, and even better withstanding the effects of climate change. (Not only that: their techniques have been demonstrated to be effective on larger-scale farms, even in the Corn Belt of the United States.) And all of this without the level of subsidies and other support that industrial agriculture has received in the last half-century, and despite the efforts of Big Ag to become even more dominant."  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/op...anted=all&_r=0 
> Also of interest:  The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations: The State of Food and Agriculture 2014  http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4036e.pdf

  If this was actually the case then it would be happening.  Food production is a competitive environment, if what they claim is true business would be all over it. Sure frame the "measures" to fit your lens of the world and as with a survey you can get the result you want. 
Like, "a third go to feed animals". Yeah...what a complete waste...but where would my steak and bacon come from then?

----------


## John2b

> Like, "a third go to feed animals". Yeah...what a complete waste...but where would my steak and bacon come from then?

  Did you know that growing your steak and bacon needs about 20 times as much input resources (fertilizers, agricultural machinery, fuel, irrigation, and pesticides) per unit of protein produced by plant based food?

----------


## Marc

The solution to the world problems according to the global warming agitators ... we all abandon the cities, go live in caves and eat raw vegetables. Problem solved.
Hang on ... what was the problem again? 
I think that most armchair environmentalist that drive a pushbike on Sundays to annoy motorist and have 2 cars at home, are overweight and live off the public purse, should start looking at themselves first. May be buy a mirror or two to hang in strategic places at home.

----------


## Bigboboz

> Did you know that growing your steak and bacon needs about 20 times as much input resources (fertilizers, agricultural machinery, fuel, irrigation, and pesticides) per unit of protein produced by plant based food?

  Your point is? If we all go vego (vegan even?) and as Marc says live in caves the planet could then support 20 billion people? 
Maybe we should also get rid of predators as well, they're too inefficient eaters. 
[do we need to have a separate vego vs meat thread? This could get long]

----------


## John2b

> Your point is?

  That the diet of wealthy nations is a major contributor to anthropogenic global warming, resource depletion and environmental pollution. Humanity does not live on the planet in isolation of its ecology, rather the viability of life on planet Earth is dependent on a healthy planetary ecology.

----------


## John2b

> The solution to the world problems according to the global warming agitators ... etc...

  I've never met anyone anything like the people you are describing, and certainly NONE of the environmentalists I know fit your description let alone any part of it. Although rather a lot of the chardonnay conservationists I have met fall into the protected 'business/entrepreneur' class that is so dear to your heart.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Your point is? If we all go vego (vegan even?) and as Marc says live in caves the planet could then support 20 billion people? 
> Maybe we should also get rid of predators as well, they're too inefficient eaters. 
> [do we need to have a separate vego vs meat thread? This could get long]

  You are just going to encourage the Gaia response with that.  You know, human beings are all intertwined with ecology of the planet and are more like a virus, next step being we should eliminate humans from the earth etc etc . 
We've already got our Eco-socialist anti globalisation persona for the thread and on the other side our Fox news loving republican, we don't need anymore extreme ends thanks.

----------


## John2b

> You are just going to encourage the Gaia response with that.

  Only people who breath in the atmosphere, drink the water or eat food from the Earth need to care about the interconnectedness of life on this planet.

----------


## Bigboboz

> Only people who breath in the atmosphere, drink the water or eat food from the Earth need to care about the interconnectedness of life on this planet.

  The vast majority care, it's about how extreme you want to go.  I'm sure there are some people that think you're trashing the earth and not making enough of an effort.

----------


## John2b

> The vast majority care, it's about how extreme you want to go.

  Ensuring the planet continues to be capable of supporting human life for the few decades without undue hardship is extreme enough for me.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Ensuring the planet continues to be capable of supporting human life for the few decades without undue hardship is extreme enough for me.

  Plenty of decades left. More than enough for your ancestors to forget you existed and salve your/mine/our conscience.  After that...it doesn't matter. 
The problem with worrying about the future with respect to anthropogenic climate change is that it often smacks of reflecting poorly on one's personal legacy...and that path can lead to some dark and individually useless places. 
The damage is done. Accept it. Move on. Adaptation is eminently possible. And it will happen.

----------


## John2b

> Plenty of decades left.

  For me and you, maybe. For a many others, the undue hardship caused by climate change has already kicked in (a subjective statement, I know). Wealth is pretty handy for adaption, but an awfully large proportion of the world's inhabitants don't have that luxury. 
As a proportion, the oceans are by far the greater part of the Earth's biosphere. The change in CO2 and O2 levels due to atmospheric emissions and ocean warming and pollution are having a devastating effect on ocean biology. That is going to have a greater impact than many people realise, and much sooner. The oceans are returning to what they were 100s of millions of years ago - oceans of slime and jellyfish. 
And it has happened almost unnoticed and unreported. The trouble is that each new generation has its own memory and starts a new baseline for what is considered 'normal'.  Big Fish Stories Getting Littler : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR  Ocean Slime Spreading Quickly Across the Earth

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Perhaps. But with respect to the oceans... that's built in. It is going to happen regardless. Complaining about it will achieve nothing.

----------


## PhilT2

In the case Juliana v US, a childrens trust is suing the US govt over damage to the environment. A number of organisations joined the govt to defend the action. These have been fossil fuel companies and manufacturers associations. The case took an unexpected turn last week when the judge asked the defendants to submit a statement of their position on climate change. They were unable to do this due to not being able to agree on a position nor being willing to put their views into a legal document. Now a number of companies have decided to withdraw from the action. U.S. fossil fuel groups pull out of climate change court case | Reuters

----------


## Marc

> Your point is? If we all go vego (vegan even?) and as Marc says live in caves the planet could then support 20 billion people? 
> Maybe we should also get rid of predators as well, they're too inefficient eaters. 
> [do we need to have a separate vego vs meat thread? This could get long]

  Don't forget kill all the cows because of their tendency to pass gas ... oh my can't have that! 
I propose a tax on fat. Human fat that is. If your weight is over the correct BMI, you either pay a large penalty or spend some time in rehabilitation, at your own cost. 
The fat police will be vegan on pushbikes armed with cattle prods. 
I think that the global warming alarmist would love to kill off a few billion people but don't have the gonads to admit it.  https://youtu.be/LcM5HdVKNI0?t=31

----------


## John2b

> But with respect to the oceans... that's built in.

  Yes, built in, as a consequence of how humans have scoured out almost the entire ocean useable biomass, or at least enough to be completely disruptive; and treated the oceans as a giant waste repository over the past few decades, the same way the atmosphere is treated. Does that sanction behaviour that is known to be the cause?

----------


## Danos

This guy has a great podcast (and soon to release a free movie) which tries to debunk a whole heap of conspiracy theories and other phenomena.  Helping people understand global warming is one of the subjects. 
His movie should come out soon and is designed to help school kids understand critical thinking in the "post fact" age we are in.   
I've only just recently started listening and its pretty entertaining.  https://skeptoid.com/ 
These are the specific global warming podcasts  https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4549

----------


## pharmaboy2

^^^^^^ ah, Brian dunning ;  great on all sorts of mythical stuff. 
i cant help though than think of the Dunning-Kruger effect whenever I hear his name, I doubt he is a relation though.  much on thus thread has a relationship to the DK effect.  Whenever someone tells me they understand something scientific, I know they don't.

----------


## John2b

> ^^^^^^ ah, Brian dunning ;  great on all sorts of mythical stuff. 
> i cant help though than think of the Dunning-Kruger effect whenever I hear his name, I doubt he is a relation though.  much on thus thread has a relationship to the DK effect.  Whenever someone tells me they understand something scientific, I know they don't.

  So pharma, do you understand the Dunning-Kruger effect? If you say you do, then by following your own reasoning people might assume you don't.

----------


## John2b

> This guy has a great podcast (and soon to release a free movie) which tries to debunk a whole heap of conspiracy theories and other phenomena.  Helping people understand global warming is one of the subjects.

  Yep, no models or theories are needed to establish AGW as a fact - doh! I've been here on this forum for three years pointing that out at every opportunity, not that it makes any difference to the ideologically driven anti-science brigade here who will take their technology as a given but won't accept the consequences that follow from the same laws of physics.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> So pharma, do you understand the Dunning-Kruger effect? If you say you do, then by following your own reasoning people might assume you don't.

  haha, fair call.  It is psychology though, so only psychologists think it's science, the rest of us just think it's interesting

----------


## John2b

> haha, fair call.  It is psychology though, so only psychologists think it's science, the rest of us just think it's interesting

   :Smilie:

----------


## Danos

> ...who will take their technology as a given but won't accept the consequences that follow from the same laws of physics.

  haha I contemplated mentioning this but held my tongue.

----------


## PhilT2

Results of the UK election and it appears the Conservatives will need to ally with one of the minor parties as they will not have a majority in their own right. While climate change did not rate highly in the campaign, the climate denialist UK Independance Party (UKIP) suffered a major loss of support. This follows their dismal performance in last month's council elections where they lost 144 of the 145 seats they held.
Is this the Trump factor at work?

----------


## johnc

There was some speculation following Trumps win plus Brexit that the world would swing further to the right. However with the French presidential outcome and now the UK that this may not be the case. I notice our own right wing loonies are a lot quieter, Abbott who is really not a complete right wing nutter but does hang out with a few is quieter but really can't help opening his mouth to change feet. Yes, I think we might be seeing the Trump factor at play, let's face it sooner or later the general public gets the idea that the extreme ends of the political spectrum are full of bigots, fools and the social and economic incompetents no one else will tolerate. Mind you it could all change back in a flash, probably a North Korean flash.

----------


## Bigboboz

> Abbott who is really not a complete right wing nutter

  I'm not convinced, he just learnt to let others speak for him

----------


## Marc

*Denying the Catastrophe: The Science of the Climate Skeptic's Position* Warren Meyer ,   CONTRIBUTOR _I write about business, economics, and climate change_   In last weeks column, I lamented the devolution of the climate debate into dueling ad hominem attacks, which has led in almost a straight line to the incredible totalitarian vision of the 10:10 climate groups recent film showing school kids getting blown up for not adhering to the global warming alarmists position. In writing that column, it struck me that it was not surprising that many average folks may be unfamiliar with the science behind the climate skeptics position, since it almost never appears anywhere in the press. This week I want to give a necessarily brief summary of the skeptics case. There is not space here to include all the charts and numbers; for those interested, this video and slide presentation provides much of the analytical backup. It is important to begin by emphasizing that few skeptics doubt or deny that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas or that it and other greenhouse gasses (water vapor being the most important) help to warm the surface of the Earth. Further, few skeptics deny that man is probably contributing to higher CO2 levels through his burning of fossil fuels, though remember we are talking about a maximum total change in atmospheric CO2 concentration due to man of about 0.01% over the last 100 years.  What skeptics deny is the catastrophe, the notion that mans incremental contributions to CO2 levels will create catastrophic warming and wildly adverse climate changes. To understand the skeptics position requires understanding something about the alarmists case that is seldom discussed in the press: the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming is actually comprised of two separate, linked theories, of which only the first is frequently discussed in the media.  The first theory is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels (approximately what we might see under the more extreme emission assumptions for the next century) will lead to about a degree Celsius of warming. Though some quibble over the number  it might be a half degree, it might be a degree and a half  most skeptics, alarmists and even the UNs IPCC are roughly in agreement on this fact.  But one degree due to the all the CO2 emissions we might see over the next century is hardly a catastrophe. The catastrophe, then, comes from the second theory, that the climate is dominated by positive feedbacks (basically acceleration factors) that multiply the warming from CO2 many fold. Thus one degree of warming from the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 might be multiplied to five or eight or even more degrees.  This second theory is the source of most of the predicted warming  not greenhouse gas theory per se but the notion that the Earths climate (unlike nearly every other natural system) is dominated by positive feedbacks. This is the main proposition that skeptics doubt, and it is by far the weakest part of the alarmist case. One can argue whether the one degree of warming from CO2 is settled science (I think that is a crazy term to apply to any science this young), but the three, five, eight degrees from feedback are not at all settled. In fact, they are not even very well supported.  Of course, in the scientific method, even an incorrect hypothesis is useful, as it gives the scientific community a starting point in organizing observational data to confirm or disprove the hypothesis. This, however, turns out to be wickedly difficult in climate science, given the outrageously complex nature of the Earths weather systems.  Our global temperature measurements over the last one hundred years show about 0.7C of warming since the early 1900s, though this increase has been anything but linear. Skeptics argue that, like a police department that locks on a single suspect early in a crime investigation and fails to adequately investigate any other suspects, many climate scientists locked in early on to CO2 as the primary culprit for this warming, to the exclusion of many other possible causes.  When the UN IPCC published its fourth climate report several years ago, it focused its main attention on the Earths warming after 1950 and in particular on the 20-year period between 1978 and 1998. The UN IPCC concluded that the warming in this 20-year period was too rapid to be due to natural causes, and almost certainly had to be due to mans CO2. They reached this conclusion by running computer models that seemed to show that the warming in this period would have been far less without increased CO2 levels.  Skeptics, however, point out that the computer models were built by scientists who have only a fragmented, immature understanding of complex climate systems. Moreover, these scientists approached the models with the pre-conceived notion that CO2 is the main driver of temperatures, and so it is unsurprising that their models would show CO2 as the dominant factor.   In fact, the period 1978 to 1998 featured a number of other suspects that should have been considered as potentially contributing to warming. For example, the warm phase of several critical ocean cycles that have a big effect on surface temperatures, including the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, coincided with this period. Further, the second half of the 20th century saw far greater solar activity, as measured by sunspot numbers, than the first half of the century. Neither ocean cycles nor solar effects, nor a myriad of other factors we probably dont even know enough to name, were built into the models. Even mans changing land use has an effect on measured temperatures, as survey efforts have shown urban areas, which have higher temperatures than surrounding rural locations, expanding around our temperature measurement points and biasing measured temperatures upwards. If CO2 is but one of several causes of warming over the past decades, then current climate models almost certainly have to be exaggerating future warming. Only by attributing all of the past warming to CO2 can catastrophic future warming forecasts be justified. In fact, even the 0.7C of measured historic warming is well under what the climate models should have predicted for warming based on past CO2 increases and their assumed high sensitivity of temperature to CO2 levels. In other words, to believe a forecast of, say, 5C of warming over the next 100 years, we should have seen 2C or more of warming over the past century.   This is why the IPCC actually had to make the assumption that global temperatures would have fallen naturally and due to other manmade pollutants over the past several decades. By arguing that without mans CO2 the climate would have cooled by, for example, 0.5C, then they can claim past warming from CO2 as 1.2C (the measured 0.7C plus the imaginary 0.5C).  Anyone familiar with how the Obama administration has claimed large stimulus-related jobs creation despite falling employment levels will recognize this approach immediately.    Despite these heroic efforts to try to find observational validation for their catastrophic warming forecasts, the evidence continues to accumulate that these forecasts are wildly overstated. The most famous forecast of all is perhaps NASAs James Hansens forecast to Congress in 1988, a landmark in the history of global warming alarmism in this country. Despite the fact that 2010 may well turn out to be one of the couple warmest years in the past century (along with 1998, both of which are strong El Nino years), the overall trend in global temperatures has been generally flat for the last 10-15 years, and have remained well below Hansens forecasts. In fact, Hansens forecasts continue to diverge from reality more and more with each passing year. Of course, as we all know, global warming has been rebranded by alarmist groups as climate change and then more recently as climate disruption. This is in some sense inherently disingenuous, implying to lay people that somehow climate change can result directly from CO2. In fact, no mechanism has ever been suggested wherein CO2 can cause climate change in any way except through the intermediate step of warming. CO2 causes warming, and then warming causes climate changes. So the question of warming and its degree still matters, no matter what branding is applied. In fact, it is in the area of the knock-on effects of warming, from sea level increases to hurricanes, that some of the worst science is being pursued. Nowhere can we better see the effect of money on science than in climate change studies, as academics studying whatever natural phenomenon that interests them increasingly have the incentive to link that phenomenon to climate change to improve their chances at getting funding.   The craziness of climate scare stories is too broad and deep to deal with adequately here, as nearly every 3-sigma weather anomaly suddenly gets attributed to climate change. But lets look at a couple of the more well-worn examples. In an Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore warned of the world being battered by more and more Katrina style category 5 storms; in fact, 2009 and 2010 have seen record low levels of global cyclonic activity, despite relatively elevated temperatures. Or take the melting ice cap: on the same exact day in 2007 when newspapers screamed that the Arctic had hit a 30-year low in sea ice extent, the Antarctic hit a 30-year high. The truth of the matter is that ice is indeed melting and sea levels are rising today  as they were in 1950, and 1900, and even 1850 (long before much man-made CO2). The world has warmed continuously since the end of the little ice age around 1820 (a worldwide cold spell generally linked to a very inactive period in the sun) and sea levels can be seen to follow an almost unbroken linear trend since that time.   Alarmists like to call climate skeptics deniers, usually in an attempt to equate climate skeptics with holocaust deniers. But skeptics do not deny that temperatures have warmed over the last century, or even that man (through CO2 as well as land use and other factors) has played some part in that warming. What skeptics deny, though, is the catastrophe. And even more, what skeptics deny is the need to drastically reduce fossil fuel use  a step that will likely be an expensive exercise in the developed west but an unmitigated disaster for the poor of Asia and Africa. These developing nations, who are just recently emerging from millennia of poverty, need to burn every hydrocarbon they can find to develop their economies.   Postscript: You will notice that I wrote this entire article without once mentioning either the words hockey stick or Climategate. I have never thought Michael Manns hockey stick to be a particularly compelling piece of evidence, even if it were correct. The analysis purports to show a rapid increase in world temperatures after centuries of stability, implying that man is likely the cause of current warming because, on Manns chart, recent temperature trends look so unusual. In the world of scientific proof, this is the weakest of circumstantial evidence.   As it turns out, however, there are a myriad of problems great and small with the hockey stick, from cherry-picking data to highly questionable statistical methods, which probably make the results incorrect. Studies that have avoided Manns mistakes have all tended to find the same thing  whether looking over a scale of a century, or millennia, or millions of years, climate changes absolutely naturally. Nothing about our current temperatures or CO2 levels is either unusual or unprecedented.   The best evidence that the problems identified with Manns analysis are probably real is how hard Mann and a small climate community fought to avoid releasing data and computer code that would allow outsiders to check and replicate their work. The Climategate emails include no smoking gun about the science, but do show how far the climate community has strayed from what is considered normal and open scientific process. No science should have to rely on an in-group saying just trust us, particularly one with trillions of dollars of public policy decisions on the line.

----------


## DavoSyd

oh, i see, the moniker is "catastrophe denier" now is it?

----------


## PhilT2

The good thing about this article is that it is so out of date that there has been plenty of time for it to be proven wrong. For a story about the science of the skeptic's position it is a bit odd that it doesn't actually cite any science, so it's safe to assume there isn't any. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

----------


## chrisp

> oh, i see, the moniker is "catastrophe denier" now is it?

   :Roflmao:  
It seems that even the so called 'skeptics' are shifting their view and arguments. It wasn't all that long ago that the 'skeptic' argued that (a) there wasn't any temperature rise; then (b) it was all just natural variations; which then turned into (c) the human contribution to the temperature rise is trivial; now it is moving to (d) the temperature is rising and humans are contributing but maybe it won't be that bad. 
It's interesting to see the anti-AGW arguments change and evolve over the time in this thread alone. 
It'll take some people quite a while to accept the science. I dare say it may even require a generation change but, we'll all get there eventually.

----------


## UseByDate



----------


## UseByDate

> Results of the UK election and it appears the Conservatives will need to ally with one of the minor parties as they will not have a majority in their own right. While climate change did not rate highly in the campaign, the climate denialist UK Independance Party (UKIP) suffered a major loss of support. This follows their dismal performance in last month's council elections where they lost 144 of the 145 seats they held.
> Is this the Trump factor at work?

  Only because the other parties stole their ideas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQfsLrMkyTE   :Roflmao:

----------


## John2b

*EnergyAustralia announces 19 per cent increase to electricity prices in NSW*The reason given is the high cost of non-renewable sources in Energy Australia's procurement portfolio, which is the same as saying they have a low proportion of low cost renewable energy suppliers upstream. 
That damned wind in SA just keeps blowing profits down for fossil generators!  EnergyAustralia announces 19 per cent increase to electricity prices in NSW

----------


## pharmaboy2

> *EnergyAustralia announces 19 per cent increase to electricity prices in NSW*  
> The reason given is the high cost of non-renewable sources in Energy Australia's procurement portfolio, which is the same as saying they have a low proportion of low cost renewable energy suppliers upstream. 
> That damned wind in SA just keeps blowing profits down for fossil generators!  EnergyAustralia announces 19 per cent increase to electricity prices in NSW

  strangely, I read the reason was closing down of coal fired plants, and shortfalls of gas. 
the wind generation when it's in excess does indeed push the prices down, however that has knock on effects.  That is, you get say 5 hours of cheap power, then the wind drops at the end of the day, and the coal fired stations have to pick up the slack, but they can't just fire up they have to keep going all the time.  There's no input cost so the marginal for wind is almost zero, because capital is sunk. 
this is akin to the public transport problem where you have to build a system to handle peaks but then it's underustilised for the rest of the day  
Either way, the federal govt and the opposition need to get things sorted together going forward.  Stop blaming everyone else (I'm looking at you SA energy minister)

----------


## phild01

:Arrow Up: +1

----------


## Bigboboz

> strangely, I read the reason was closing down of coal fired plants, and shortfalls of gas.

  Glad it wasn't just me, may be we have to read between the non-existent lines? 
What I wonder about is, there must be a point where the system just runs out of capacity regardless of price. Or is the premise, industry just closes down once the price exceeds what they can pay and hence drops demand?

----------


## DavoSyd

read this in the comments section;   

> "Scrapping the Carbon Tax will save the average family $550 a year.” Tony Abbott email to Liberal supporters 11.49am 17/7/2014

----------


## John2b

My electricity costs have not gone up. Our house is a net exporter of electricity in every month of the year for the past 6 years from our tiny 1.5kW solar array. It's paid for itself more than twice over and at the same time has helped keep a lid on transmission and power costs for other  electricity consumers, because small scale solar has a huge cost saving impact by reducing the size of generation and transmission infrastructure needed to meet the annual peak demand on the 10 or so stinking hot days each year in SA. 
Our own low self consumption comes  not through foregoing any modern convenience or appliance, but is down to choosing energy efficient appliances combined with decent insulation and a properly orientated house for passive heating and cooling. If someone as stupid as I can do it, anyone here who thinks they are smarter than  me and wants to surely can. CO2 emission problem for Australia solved while everyone saves money, not to mention better air quality and reduced health issues for the general population, without even the need a government cow-prod approach.

----------


## phild01

Maybe the greens have infiltrated coal powered plants, declared them EOL when they are okay, and having them torn down.

----------


## Uncle Bob

> Maybe the greens have infiltrated coal powered plants, declared them EOL when they are okay, and having them torn down.

  Nope. It's just greed and corruption and nothing else. In other words just the capitalist system working as it should.

----------


## DavoSyd

> In other words just the capitalist system working as it should.

  yup.   

> In recent years, much of the increase in prices has been attributed to the need to invest in the network component because of previous underinvestment in maintaining the network or to increase capacity.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> yup.

  Fa kin oath.

----------


## UseByDate

> My electricity costs have not gone up. Our house is a net exporter of electricity in every month of the year for the past 6 years from our tiny 1.5kW solar array. It's paid for itself more than twice over and at the same time has helped keep a lid on transmission and power costs for other  electricity consumers, because small scale solar has a huge cost saving impact by reducing the size of generation and transmission infrastructure needed to meet the annual peak demand on the 10 or so stinking hot days each year in SA. 
> Our own low self consumption comes  not through foregoing any modern convenience or appliance, but is down to choosing energy efficient appliances combined with decent insulation and a properly orientated house for passive heating and cooling. If someone as stupid as I can do it, anyone here who thinks they are smarter than  me and wants to surely can. CO2 emission problem for Australia solved while everyone saves money, not to mention better air quality and reduced health issues for the general population, without even the need a government cow-prod approach.

    I am not sure that this would be so for a new system. A 1.5 kW solar system will generate an average of 5.5 kWh of energy per day in Adelaide. The feed in rate is about 7c per kWh. Thus if you export (sell) all your energy generated you will get 38.5c per day. This will not even pay for you supply charge which is typically 80c per day.

----------


## woodbe

> I am not sure that this would be so for a new system. A 1.5 kW solar system will generate an average of 5.5 kWh of energy per day in Adelaide. The feed in rate is about 7c per kWh. Thus if you export (sell) all your energy generated you will get 38.5c per day. This will not even pay for you supply charge which is typically 80c per day.

  Sure it would. John2b says his system is a net exporter of electricity every month. kW positive. Your costs might vary according to the current feed in tarrif, but the costs would be significantly less than someone using large amounts of power and not exporting to the grid. 
If your 1.5 kW solar system will generate an average of 5.5 kWh of energy per day and you use it in your household, you save more than 33c per kWh you use in your home, ($1.80 per day) That wipes the daily charge and saves a dollars worth of normally imported power. 
The basis of solar has been altered by several changes. The feed in tariff is now low; The cost per PV system has fallen significantly; Battery systems are becoming economical; Fed Govt has been and continues to fail to make a clear case for the public energy supply.

----------


## UseByDate

> Sure it would. John2b says his system is a net exporter of electricity every month. kW positive. Your costs might vary according to the current feed in tarrif, but the costs would be significantly less than someone using large amounts of power and not exporting to the grid. 
> If your 1.5 kW solar system will generate an average of 5.5 kWh of energy per day and you use it in your household, you save more than 33c per kWh you use in your home, ($1.80 per day) That wipes the daily charge and saves a dollars worth of normally imported power. 
> The basis of solar has been altered by several changes. The feed in tariff is now low; The cost per PV system has fallen significantly; Battery systems are becoming economical; Fed Govt has been and continues to fail to make a clear case for the public energy supply.

  Well you still have to pay the 80c per day, so a saving is $1 per day if, and only if, you use all the electricity you generate yourself when it is available. How could you ensure that you use all the energy you generate? Even with a battery (or use to heat hot water) is is still extremely hard. The energy generated varies throughout the day and throughout the year and the load varies.

----------


## woodbe

> Well you still have to pay the 80c per day, so a saving is $1 per day if, and only if, you use all the electricity you generate yourself when it is available. How could you ensure that you use all the energy you generate? Even with a battery (or use to heat hot water) is is still extremely hard. The energy generated varies throughout the day and throughout the year and the load varies.

  By managing your power use.  
Is it hard? Yes, in some ways it is hard because we as the public have been educated to rely on the government power supply. Now that the government has failed to move forward effectively, we as the public have a choice: Cop the cost on our electricity bill and just pay it, or make a personal decision to generate some or all of our power for our own household and manage it. 
Managing your house for heating and cooling, power devices like fridges and hot water systems are all part of the equation. 
We made a decision in our household because we are not keen on burning fossil fuel. As a result we are generating more electricity than we consume. If we can do it, so can anyone else.

----------


## phild01

Maybe the government fails to move forward because the greens want it all their own way.

----------


## woodbe

> Maybe the government fails to move forward because the greens want it all their own way.

  Or maybe Tony and his backbench fans wants to hold onto coal power, knobbling the government. Any time Josh Frydenberg (or even Malcolm) says anything supporting better than fossil fuel doom falls across the Liberal Party.  
There is a reason why forward moves have not been taken, they are looking back, not forward.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> We made a decision in our household because we are not keen on burning fossil fuel. As a result we are generating more electricity than we consume. If we can do it, so can anyone else.

  going to be difficult for someone who lives in a unit, or south facing roof, or under shade trees......

----------


## phild01

> As a result we are generating more electricity than we consume. If we can do it, so can anyone else.

  What world are you in!

----------


## woodbe

> going to be difficult for someone who lives in a unit, or south facing roof, or under shade trees......

  Not at all. If you live in a unit or other difficult areas for solar, you need to use other options.  http://cpagency.org.au/wp-content/up...de2014-web.pdf 
Get together with other unit owners who actually care and you can move forward faster than the government.

----------


## Marc

The question is not how to do it, but *why*.
It's all a pointless exercise that will not make an iota of difference to heating or cooling. 
It is all a bizarre sacrifice to a new found god taken in by millions with the need to belong to something and to have that cosy feeling of collective _do good_. 
And as pointless as to throw a pinch of salt over your left shoulder ... or touch wood. Only in a larger and much more expensive fascion. 
Oh that warm feeling of "earth day"  :Rofl5:

----------


## woodbe

> What world are you in!

  We are in the real world. Apparently you are in some other world?

----------


## phild01

> We are in the real world. Apparently you are in some other world?

  Who's we, your assumptions are blinkered.

----------


## woodbe

> The question is not how to do it, but *why*.
> It's all a pointless exercise that will not make an iota of difference to heating or cooling.

  If you supply solar power into your house and use it for heating and cooling, your costs over time will be less than if you import that electricity from the grid.  
The cost of solar power is only based on the capital cost of the PV system and long term maintenance. Effectively no running costs.  
Fossil fuel power consumes running costs for every kWh for ever. It has to be dug out of the ground, transported, and burned. 
Even if you care less about fossil fuel.

----------


## woodbe

> Who's we, your assumptions are blinkered.

  Please explain the assumptions you claim, Mr Community Moderator.

----------


## UseByDate

> By managing your power use.  
> Is it hard? Yes, in some ways it is hard because we as the public have been educated to rely on the government power supply. Now that the government has failed to move forward effectively, we as the public have a choice: Cop the cost on our electricity bill and just pay it, or make a personal decision to generate some or all of our power for our own household and manage it. 
> Managing your house for heating and cooling, power devices like fridges and hot water systems are all part of the equation. 
> We made a decision in our household because we are not keen on burning fossil fuel. As a result we are generating more electricity than we consume. If we can do it, so can anyone else.

  John2b states that his electricity costs have not gone up. Since electricity prices have gone up then this means that he is using less electricity. If he is using less then he is exporting more, assuming he is generating the same. The more he exports the less saving he will make. (33c kWh if self consumed and 7c kWh if exported). The amount of co2 saved is independent of the amount of electricity consumed by John2b. The electricity exported will be used by others. 
 The easiest way of reducing electricity co2 emissions is the move from Victoria to Tasmania. This will result in a 90% saving.

----------


## Marc

> Who's we, your assumptions are blinkered.

  We? Who? Who mentioned we? or who for that matter.  :Rofl5:   https://youtu.be/kTcRRaXV-fg?list=RD...9LcoY&amp;t=88

----------


## woodbe

> John2b states that his electricity costs have not gone up. Since electricity prices have gone up then this means that he is using less electricity. If he is using less then he is exporting more, assuming he is generating the same. The more he exports the less saving he will make. (33c kWh if self consumed and 7c kWh if exported). The amount of co2 saved is independent of the amount of electricity consumed by John2b. The electricity exported will be used by others. 
>  The easiest way of reducing electricity co2 emissions is the move from Victoria to Tasmania. This will result in a 90% saving.

  I'm sure John2b will be along in due course. 
Probably cheaper to put solar on the roof than to move to Tasmania, but Tassie is a nice place...

----------


## phild01

> Please explain the assumptions you claim, Mr Community Moderator.

  You made an assumption anyone can generate more electricity than they use. I'd really like to know how that can be achieved by anyone in the context you made that statement.  It is a direct reference to anyone's circumstances.  Your world must be a place of no grid supply and no congestion which is not the real world that most people live in.  As you would have it we would need inefficient and expensive electricity to be an adjunct for solar and wind generation when it isn't available. Not to mention the particular need to supply transport, manufacturing, business and so on, that households no longer help smooth out an efficient power generation scheme for.  We are not ready for the leap of faith you have, not yet anyway.  Batteries are crap and there are environmental issues.  When hydrogen production is a reality, I'll jump on board.

----------


## Marc

> John2b states that his electricity costs have not gone up. Since electricity prices have gone up then this means that he is using less electricity.

   He is using less electricity 2b good. The rewards are ... out of this world  :Rofl5:

----------


## DavoSyd

> Maybe the government fails to move forward because the greens want it all their own way.

  what has the federal government got to do with retail energy prices?

----------


## woodbe

> You made an assumption anyone can generate more electricity than they use. I'd really like to know how that can be achieved by anyone in the context you made that statement.  It is a direct reference to anyone's circumstances.  Your world must be a place of no grid supply and no congestion which is not the real world that most people live in.  As you would have it we would need inefficient and expensive electricity to be an adjunct for solar and wind generation when it isn't available. Not to mention the particular need to supply transport, manufacturing, business and so on, that households no longer help smooth out an efficient power generation scheme for.  We are not ready for the leap of faith you have, not yet anyway.  Batteries are crap and there are environmental issues.  When hydrogen production is a reality, I'll jump on board.

  There are two parts required for the assumption: Firstly, you need to be aware of your energy use, and secondly you really want to correct it. That gives you the handle you can use to pull you out of the hole you are in. Generating electricity by solar PV will help you out of the hole, and improving the efficiency of your house and devices will shorten the length taken to extract you out of the hole. 
People without adequate income or assets are locked into your assumption that people are unable to extract themselves. The rest of us can if we want. It is a choice. 
Inefficient and expensive electricity is exactly on the table of the Federal Government right now. They are supporting fossil fuel companies above our population.

----------


## phild01

> There are two parts required for the assumption: Firstly, you need to be aware of your energy use, and secondly you really want to correct it. That gives you the handle you can use to pull you out of the hole you are in. Generating electricity by solar PV will help you out of the hole, and improving the efficiency of your house and devices will shorten the length taken to extract you out of the hole. 
> People without adequate income or assets are locked into your assumption that people are unable to extract themselves. The rest of us can if we want. It is a choice. 
> Inefficient and expensive electricity is exactly on the table of the Federal Government right now. They are supporting fossil fuel companies above our population.

  I can speak for myself, I don't see myself in a hole and I have regard for energy usage.  I have had an energy conscience for most of my life.

----------


## woodbe

> I can speak for myself, I don't see myself in a hole and I have regard for energy usage.  I have had an energy conscience for most of my life.

  As you say, you do not seem to want to completely correct your energy use. Happy to use fossil fuels and pay extra to energy companies to manage your base power. That's fine, there are people all along the range from using 100% grid energy to 100% offgrid non-fossil fuel power. Same with choice of efficiency in their homes. 
The only people who crawl out of a hole are those that are aware they are actually in one and want out of it.

----------


## phild01

> As you say, you do not seem to want to completely correct your energy use. Happy to use fossil fuels and pay extra to energy companies to manage your base power. That's fine, there are people all along the range from using 100% grid energy to 100% offgrid non-fossil fuel power. Same with choice of efficiency in their homes. 
> The only people who crawl out of a hole are those that are aware they are actually in one and want out of it.

  You really live in another world, thankfully I don't hope for wind or sun to be warm especially after the sun goes down.  But Woodbe, if you like to have the final word.....

----------


## woodbe

> You really live in another world, thankfully I don't hope for wind or sun to be warm especially after the sun goes down.  But Woodbe, if you like to have the final word.....

  Well, my final word is that I would not live in your world, but your world is probably not as bad as the worst if you care for efficiency. You have your choices, and I have mine.

----------


## John2b

> going to be difficult for someone who lives in a unit, or south facing roof, or under shade trees......

  I live in a unit, and do have some shading issues, but still export every month. I also manage to run the house on rainwater most of the time as well. Because I have no spare space for a large rainwater tank, I have seven small ones tucked away in corners, with a total capacity of around 15,000 litres. Because of wet summers due to climate change, we usually get through summer without running out of water, however because of dry winters due to climate change, we are currently running on empty in June! Adelaide's rainfall patterns have changed so much over the past couple of decades that historical records are meaningless. Most of the rain now comes from the north west in summer, not the south west in winter. 
Our year round average consumption of electricity has been between 3-4 kWh per day for the past few years, even though I work from home. Being early(ish) solar adopters we are on a high feed in tariff for net exports which means that apart from not ever having an electricity bill, we get a few hundred dollars annually from sales of our electricity to the grid. But rather than this payment to us costing other electricity consumers, it has in fact helped keep the retail price of electricity down for all retail consumers by dramatically lowering the capacity of generation and transmission infrastructure necessary to meet peak demand on the roughly ten hot days each summer here. It is estimated that on those peak days, rooftop solar in Adelaide is producing well over 30% of total demand, none of which goes through the transmission grid as it is all consumed locally by the small scale generators themselves and, of course, their neighbours in the streets nearby who don't have solar panels. 
For my next house, which I have already purchased but not moved to and where space isn't such an issue, I have already installed 4kW of panels and 48kWh of battery storage, and disconnected from the grid. I have another 2kW of panels but no space left on the roof, so they will be ground mounted once I move. The reason for the 'big' system in the new house is that we will use more electricity to replace fossil fuels, e.g. electric lawn mower, electric car, electric utility vehicle, electric water pumps, etc. 
To paraphrase John F Kennedy: We choose to lessen our impact on the planet's natural resources not because it is hard, but because it is easy!

----------


## John2b

> He is using less electricity 2b good. The rewards are ... out of this world

  I have two motivations: one is to be a responsible adult and to do what I believe is ethically correct; the other is to save money, and hence reduce the need to work to earn money to support my lifestyle. You may take issue with the first motivation, but I can assure you that the second motivation is a very real driver, and used to prioritise every step I have taken in progressing to a low impact lifestyle that gives up nothing of the modern technological lifestyle and freedoms enjoyed by other Australians.

----------


## John2b

> ...The feed in rate is about 7c per kWh...

  7 cents per kWh is about 10 cents per kWh _less_ than the retailers pay to wholesale suppliers. Any small scale generator only getting 7 cents is being ripped off blind, and should cancel their contract and look for better deals, which do exist.

----------


## Marc

Meantime the global warming hysteria put in motion with fraud, lies and political mongrels jumping on board has claimed over 50 new victims. 
Environmentally un friendly explosive fridges forced down the throat of the consumer and cheap crappy cladding to reduce energy loss from building in the cheapest and crappiest way possible, coupled with bastard builders and council authorities come all together to light the pyre. Good for you greens! keep on crapping away and save the planet. Greens are a disease and we need a powerful antibiotic.

----------


## John2b

> ...If your 1.5 kW solar system will generate an average of 5.5 kWh of energy per day and you use it in your household, you save more than 33c per kWh you use in your home, ($1.80 per day) That wipes the daily charge and saves a dollars worth of normally imported power...

  Correct calculation Woodbe. However because of shading we generate only about 4.5kWh averaged over the year, but this is still greater than our consumption. Over the past couple of decades We've gone from consuming ~20kWh per day to 3-4kWh per day despite adding a lot of modern labour saving and comfort technology. How? By not pissing energy against the wall with ridiculously inefficient appliances and practises. If you want to keep water in a leaky bucket, you can do two things: you can run a tap into the bucket; or you can plug the leak. Most Australians seem to do the former and complain about the cost. I've chosen to do the second.

----------


## John2b

> Meantime the global warming hysteria put in motion with fraud, lies and political mongrels jumping on board has claimed over 50 new victims.

  Complete and utter rot Marc. The building cladding used that caused the catastrophe of the Grenfell Tower was specifically not recommended for application to high rise by the manufacturer, but was chosen by the building redeveloper because it saved a few thousand pounds for the entire 24 floors and 120 units over the recommend building cladding, and because there is no requirement under the UK building code to comply with a specific directive such as what constitutes safe building materials. 
It was purely, simply and completely a direct consequence of neoliberal "cutting of red tape" so developers can get on with it. There will be many more red-tape-less catastrophes worldwide and in Australia, just as there have been many prior red-tape-less disasters that foreshadowed this one.

----------


## DavoSyd

Holy shiiiit Marc, I can't believe you believe what you are typing... Pure trolling or pure insanity...

----------


## phild01

> I live in a unit, and do have some shading issues, but still export every month. I also manage to run the house on rainwater most of the time as well.

   Perhaps you and Woodbe should see what shape Sydney and Melbourne development is taking place.  It is rampant development even as far from the city centre where I am.  Show these residents what they should be doing to save water and generate their own power.
This one in the outer reaches of Granville:

----------


## DavoSyd

Are you saying that a new high rise apartments will not be environmentally better than old ones?

----------


## phild01

> Are you saying that a new high rise apartments will not be environmentally better than old ones?

  There are limits that can't be overcome.  Better, yes... but in a so so sort of way.
But how the major cities are increasingly heading, I am responding to the opinion that anyone can mostly negate energy requirements, particularly in units.

----------


## John2b

> Show these residents what they should be doing to save water and generate their own power.

  I have done exactly that. My situation is not an accident or good fortune, it is a consequence of the choices I have made. Every person has choices and can make them informed or ill-informed as they see fit. This is not rocket science - if as stupid as others here assert that I am, I can still do it, then anyone can.

----------


## John2b

> ...I am responding to the opinion that anyone can mostly negate energy requirements, particularly in units.

  Quite frankly, in units it is easier if anything. I have done the things that I have because they are easy, not because they are hard.

----------


## phild01

Go on, so where are the solar collectors to be placed in the individual apartments and where oh where to collect the water as you say.
Or are your choices eating out and spending the day shopping in air conditioned Westfield, or maybe sit in the apartment reading a book with a tiny waeco and watch tv on a smartphone.  Not everyone wants to camp an uncomfortable lifestyle.  What about those who work at home and have a normal dependency for power.  Those with kids that need their clothes dried and it has been raining solid for 2 weeks.

----------


## DavoSyd

https://thewarrencentre.org.au/activ...-rise-phase-1/

----------


## phild01

> https://thewarrencentre.org.au/activ...-rise-phase-1/

  I know efficiency can be gained but let's look at what is actually happening.  Thousands of units being built to BCA requirements.  Plus with all existing structures combined, and the ratio of leading edge design will be a very small ratio for a very long time.  Nearly all these people are quite helpless to achieve goals and none of them should be penalised for choosing to exist as one would normally do.  Some people actually feel the cold differently to others, some like it frigid, others don't.

----------


## John2b

> Go on, so where are the solar collectors to be placed in the individual apartments and where oh where to collect the water as you say.
> Or are your choices eating out and spending the day shopping in air conditioned Westfield, or maybe sit in the apartment reading a book with a tiny waeco and watch tv on a smartphone.  Not everyone wants to camp an uncomfortable lifestyle.  What about those who work at home and have a normal dependency for power.  Those with kids that need their clothes dried and it has been raining solid for 2 weeks.

  I live in a unit and work from home. They are choices I made, the same as anyone else makes choices about where they live and what they do. No one granted me any special privileges and it rains where I live too. I take advantage of all the usual modern conveniences and as I've said previously no visitor to my place would think it is any different or special.

----------


## phild01

> I live in a unit and work from home. They are choices I made, the same as anyone else makes choices about where they live and what they do. No one granted me any special privileges and it rains where I live too. I take advantage of all the usual modern conveniences and as I've said previously no visitor to my place would think it is any different or special.

   How is a unit resident going to generate on average 4.5kW per day as you say you do in your unit?

----------


## ringtail

> What about those who work at home and have a normal dependency for power.  Those with kids that need their clothes dried and it has been raining solid for 2 weeks.

  Forget the kids Phil, what about the welders ?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

The ideals of the greens and assorted green cheer leaders and their claque, are as practical as a wooden knife. Their "way of life" is only possible because the large proportion of the population have a different way of life that allows for free loaders to exist. It's a bit like the no vaccination mob that gets away with it only because they are under the 5% mark.  
Wind and solar exist only because there is base load coal that allows their existence, therefore they should be banned and demolished until they can provide base load at a competitive price and without subsidies. The whole concept is a fraud and the whole "emissions reduction" exercise pointless. 
We are mortgaging the economy for an unproven hypothesis created to make an otherwise unsustainable and uncompetitive industry viable. 
Not much more to go for the global warming agitators. Something else will turn up to keep the politicians on top of their game. WW3 comes to mind.

----------


## sol381

> Forget the kids Phil, what about the welders ?

  Aren`t Milwaukee coming out with a battery powered welder. :Biggrin:

----------


## phild01

> I live in a unit.................Because I have no spare space for a large rainwater tank, I have seven small ones tucked away in corners, with a total capacity of around 15,000 litres.

   :Shock:  Pics please.

----------


## John2b

> How is a unit resident going to generate on average 4.5kW per day as you say you do in your unit?

  There are those who will repeat adnauseam that it can't be done, but there are those who refuse to listen and just go do it. Maybe such a unit owner could join or form a solar collective whereby the panel do not need to be on their own roof...

----------


## phild01

> There are those who will repeat adnauseam that it can't be done, but there are those who refuse to listen and just go do it. Maybe such a unit owner could join or form a solar collective whereby the panel do not need to be on their own roof...

  Sydney is our most populous city, rather than saying things like it can be done, suggest how this city can do it *including the base-load requirement*.  And we want to satisfy a daily requirement of at least 15kW a day.

----------


## John2b

> https://thewarrencentre.org.au/activ...-rise-phase-1/

  Spot on Davo. I worked in any energy audit team for a large complex in the 1990's and formed the view that most high-rise could cut its energy usage by 50% with a payback of 12 months or so. After that, it's just money in the bank. The problem is that building owners won't spend money to save recurrent expenses for their tenants and accountants don't factor energy costs into lease expenses.

----------


## Marc

I think that one way to correct this thought misalignment would be to legislate that only those who show a meaningful economic activity on their tax return and pay one dollar or more tax after all their subsidies are taken away can vote. That would take care of 50% of voters. 
For the rest, no vote allowed.
Come back ... next year !
John, are you serious? Is that your practical view of modern day life? A night pot to collect rain water and a toy panel to power the lights. Who do you think you are Robinson Crusoe?  How is a normal family unit suppose to function with kids and adults going to work and coming home late? Oh ... sorry forgot that greens don't have kids and don't work ... to save the planet.

----------


## John2b

> Sydney is our most populous city, rather than saying things like it can be done, suggest how this city can do it *including the base-load requirement*.  And we want to satisfy a daily requirement of at least 15kW a day.

  The average consumption in our household is less than 2kWh per day per person and I wager our lifestyle is as good and comfortable as anybody else's. Where does your figure of 15kWh per day per person come from and what do they need it for?

----------


## John2b

> I think that one way to correct this thought misalignment would be to legislate that only those who show a meaningful economic activity on their tax return and pay one dollar or more tax after all their subsidies are taken away can vote. That would take care of 50% of voters.

  ... and nearly 100% of our current Federal government Ministers LOL!

----------


## chrisp

It seems that some dinosaurs still roam the earth.   :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

You complainers in NSW are way behind. Time to get moving.    Australian Photovoltaic Institute â¢ PV Postcode Data 
Solar isn't the main solution, but for residents, it is their only solution. Those without PV have to buy all of their electrical energy from the generators who have been screwed over by the Australian Government, preventing action and moving forward, and especially by Tony Abbott:  Why you're about to pay through the nose for power - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## DavoSyd

> I know efficiency can be gained but let's look at what is actually happening. .

  oh, sorry, it seemed like you didn't think it was possible? 
you are just saying people aren't doing stuff, not that people can't do stuff? 
all in all, that's a pretty vacuous line of discussion...

----------


## phild01

> Spot on Davo. I worked in any energy audit team for a large complex in the 1990's and formed the view that most high-rise could cut its energy usage by 50% with a payback of 12 months or so. After that, it's just money in the bank. The problem is that building owners won't spend money to save recurrent expenses for their tenants and accountants don't factor energy costs into lease expenses.

  Funny you say this, but in that idealistic world, that it is all doable.  But in the real world, what people can afford dictates how things are done.  I'd love to see buildings built in this manner but your approach is to justify payback with expenditure.  Here in Sydney, it is a very real struggle to afford a house or unit of any description and things inevitably happen to a price point.  There is always something waiting in the wings sniffing and taking more money out of our pockets. It's like a conspiracy, if people have any more money available it will be seized by the next available opportunity, like our huge road tolls, utilities, goods or services. Some have plenty and can invest, the rest make do. 
Still want to see how 15,000 litres gets stashed in the corners of a home unit!

----------


## DavoSyd

> How is a unit resident going to generate on average 4.5kW per day as you say you do in your unit?

  Tesla now accepting orders for solar roof   

> *Tesla now accepting orders for solar roof*
> Teslas much-hyped solar roof is now available to pre-order, with Australian installations expected to commence from 2018.
> The solar roof comprises solar energy generating glass tiles that connect to a Tesla battery. The roof is indistinguishable from traditional tile roofs and even comes in four different varieties  textured, smooth, tuscan and slate.
> Users can customise the amount of energy generated through using a mix of solar and non-solar tiles, which look indistinguishable. Tesla says the cost of the roof is expected to be US$21.85 a square foot for a roof with 35 per cent solar tiles, a price Bloomberg said was cheaper than expected (though a traditional roof with solar is estimated to still be 30 per cent cheaper).
> This translates to about AU$320 a square metre.
> Tesla says because the roof generates electricity, it is cheaper than a traditional roof.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Still want to see how 15,000 litres gets stashed in the corners of a home unit!

  i'm keen to know too!

----------


## DavoSyd

> Here in Sydney, it is a very real struggle to afford a house or unit of any description and things inevitably happen to a price point.

  http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/re...s/heap-faq.pdf   

> The Home Energy Action Program (PDF 175KB) (HEA) delivers energy efficiency improvements to low-income households across the state by helping them access energy-saving appliances and home improvements.
> This program continues the success of the recent award-winning Home Power Savings Program (PDF 542KB), which has helped more than 220,000 low-income households collectively save 120,000 MWh of electricity and over $36 million on their power bills each year.
> The HEA Program is offering financial support for eligible low income households to access energy efficient fridges and TVs at a discounted price.

----------


## phild01

> oh, sorry, it seemed like you didn't think it was possible? 
> you are just saying people aren't doing stuff, not that people can't do stuff? 
> all in all, that's a pretty vacuous line of discussion...

  You are leading me into another point of discussion, though it does relate to power demands.  All new buildings should meet a higher standard and eventually that will happen.  My concern is efficient base-load provision which is being eroded.

----------


## John2b

> Funny you say this, but in that idealistic world that it is all doable.  But in the real world, what people can afford dictates how things are done.  I'd love to see buildings built in this manner but your approach is to justify payback with expenditure.

  How do people buy a home: they borrow the money and pay it back. What's wrong with paying back with savings instead of earnings? Then there will be more money to spend on all those essentials, not less. 
How difficult is it to understand that the cost of a house is not its purchase price, but the cost of _ownership_ including expenses, like traveling to work and paying the electricity bill. 
While you are going blue in the face telling everyone it can't be done, others are just getting on and doing it, and reaping the benefit.

----------


## phild01

> http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/re...s/heap-faq.pdf

  Aware of the scheme and great incentive to drive the rental grubs out of the market.
I have seen hot water systems run continuously because the cost was prohibitive to resolve a leak.  I sorted the thing out but it wasn't a legal solution.  Legislation can be an impediment to sensible solutions, but is another story.

----------


## DavoSyd

> You are leading me into another point of discussion, though it does relate to power demands.  All new buildings should meet a higher standard and eventually that will happen.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_building   

> My concern is efficient base-load provision which is being eroded.

  oh, so the "base-load fallacy"?

----------


## phild01

> How do people buy a home: they borrow the money and pay it back. What's wrong with paying back with savings instead of earnings? Then there will be more money to spend on all those essentials, not less. 
> How difficult is it to understand that the cost of a house is not its purchase price, but the cost of _ownership_ including expenses, like traveling to work and paying the electricity bill. 
> While you are going blue in the face telling everyone it can't be done, others are just getting on and doing it, and reaping the benefit.

  You refuse to see the point that people barely have the money to build a deposit to purchase a property.  Obviously you seem to think people in a place like Sydney can just go out and do as you wish them to do.

----------


## John2b

> Still want to see how 15,000 litres gets stashed in the corners of a home unit!

  I'm still waiting to see your justification of why every man woman and child needs 15kWh for electricity per day for personal use... 
I have one round 4,000lt tank in the common carpark by agreement with the other unit owners, three rectangular 2500lt tanks are along narrow pathways at the sides of the building along the boundary, one round 2000lt and one oval 1000lt one are in corners of the block, as is another rectangular 1500lt one. I'm sure you've seen photographs of rainwater tanks.

----------


## phild01

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_building   
> oh, so the "base-load fallacy"?

  Hardly!

----------


## DavoSyd

> Hardly!

  are you not concerned that the efficiency of base-load power provision is in decline?

----------


## John2b

"A penny spar'd is twice got" - that's how ordinary people can build wealth. I don't have a silver spoon or fortuitous background, but I'm prepared to pursue what can be done, rather than scratching my ass complaining about what can't be.

----------


## phild01

> I'm still waiting to see your justification of why every man woman and child needs 15kWh for electricity per day for personal use... 
> I have one round 4,000lt tank in the common carpark by agreement with the other unit owners, three rectangular 2500lt tanks are along narrow pathways at the sides of the building along the boundary, one round 2000lt and one oval 1000lt one are in corners of the block, as is another rectangular 1500lt one. I'm sure you've seen photographs of rainwater tanks.

  John, that is good for you but doesn't give you the right to expect other unit holders to take note.  Your ability to do this is not what the general unit dweller could ever achieve.  It is an irrelevant comment for the general unit dweller. 
As for 15kW, that is a bit less than average consumption AFAIK.  Most people need it for their daily demands and because they live in older buildings, and have family demands.  You seem to justify your points by the standard you set.  Clearly you have money to spare:  

> For my next house, which I have already purchased but not moved to and where space isn't such an issue, I have already installed 4kW of panels and 48kWh of battery storage, and disconnected from the grid. I have another 2kW of panels but no space left on the roof, so they will be ground mounted once I move. The reason for the 'big' system in the new house is that we will use more electricity to replace fossil fuels, e.g. electric lawn mower, electric car, electric utility vehicle, electric water pumps, etc. 
> To paraphrase John F Kennedy: We choose to lessen our impact on the planet's natural resources not because it is hard, but because it is easy!

  What do you expect the average person to do, go to the bank and ask for a loan to rip their house apart to do all the necessary things to make it comfortable, buy the electric gizmo's and tell the bank because it has payback they can be assured they too will be getting a good return.

----------


## John2b

> oh, so the "base-load fallacy"?

  What most people mean by 'base-load power' is actually non-despatable power: i.e. power that can't be turned off when not required. It is 1800s technology that is incredibly inefficient, wasteful and environmentally damaging, whether from coal or nuclear boiled water. What is needed is dispatch-able power, or demand responsive power. That is what will bring down the cost of generation. Solar, hydro and wind are dispatch-able generators - there is no downside in not taking electricity out of a solar panel, water out of a dam or feathering a wind turbine when the power isn't needed. The old model of using non-despatchable power as a flywheel for the grid also belongs back in the 1800s. Why not use a central clock to set frequency and synchronisation across electricity generators, whether fossil fired water boilers or wind, solar and hydro generators?

----------


## phild01

> are you not concerned that the efficiency of base-load power provision is in decline?

   

> My concern is efficient base-load provision which is being eroded.

  Many reasons to delve into.

----------


## DavoSyd

> As for 15kW, that is a bit less than average consumption AFAIK. 
> .

  that's per household AFAIK

----------


## phild01

> that's per household AFAIK

   ...your figure? 
edit:
As an indicator google searching shows more.
My billing shows for a household of four people *who also use gas,* their daily usage is 14.8kW daily.

----------


## John2b

> As for 15kW, that is a bit less than average consumption AFAIK.  Most people need it for their daily demands and because they live in older buildings, and have family demands.  You seem to justify your points by the standard you set.  Clearly you have money to spare:

  No, i do it because I don't have money to spare, and I do it because it is easy, not because it is hard.   

> What do you expect the average person to do, go to the bank and ask for a loan to rip their house apart to do all the necessary things to make it comfortable, buy the electric gizmo's and tell the bank because it has payback they can be assured they too will be getting a good return.

  I am an ordinary person who has had to make choices from the same range of options available to others. I might be different in that I refuse to be blindsided by the ignorance of others. 
Why the personal attacks? (General question! Not specifically directed at anyone.)

----------


## DavoSyd

> ...your figure?

  of my household?

----------


## phild01

> of my household?

  no, see my edit.

----------


## DavoSyd

4670.0 - Household Energy Consumption Survey, Australia: Summary of Results, 2012

----------


## DavoSyd

https://www.aer.gov.au/system/files/...rch%202015.PDF

----------


## phild01

> Why the personal attack?

  Not so, just trying to see the viability of what you say.
If you want people to do as you do, they need to see how it makes sense.  I have raised the issue with you because you declared how easily unit dwellers can do what you do. I showed you how a populous city unit/apartment is now, and  asked how  it is possible to generate 4.5kw daily.  You eventually showed it was a farm that captures your share. I asked how Sydney could do this but nothing forthcoming.  How you store water is to be commended but you say it as though any unit dweller can do it.  It's all made out to be so easy, I have to disagree with that assertion until I am shown in a practical way, how!

----------


## phild01

> 4670.0 - Household Energy Consumption Survey, Australia: Summary of Results, 2012

  I did see that but I only wanted to find the average daily electricity usage, probably buried there somewhere but was quicker to refer to my billing.

----------


## DavoSyd

> I did see that but I only wanted to find the average daily electricity usage, probably buried there somewhere but was quicker to refer to my billing.

  so I am telling you that the figure you posted of 15kWh per day is per HOUSEHOLD not per person... are you disagreeing with that?

----------


## DavoSyd

Attachment 117662

----------


## UseByDate

> 7 cents per kWh is about 10 cents per kWh _less_ than the retailers pay to wholesale suppliers. Any small scale generator only getting 7 cents is being ripped off blind, and should cancel their contract and look for better deals, which do exist.

  Yes you can get a higher FIT but there is often a trade off. Often the price of electricity is higher or the daily supply charge is higher or there is a extended contract period. Also there is a risk to the strategy of relying on a high FIT. There is no requirement for a retailer in SA to provide any FIT at all. It can be withdraw at will. https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/...SouthAustralia

----------


## phild01

> so I am telling you that the figure you posted of 15kWh per day is per HOUSEHOLD not per person... are you disagreeing with that?

  We are talking about dwellings, John presumed I was talking 15kW per person @#16401.  I also mentioned the figure of 14.8kW per 4 person household also using gas.  The rate per person rises substantially to the multiple person dwelling per person rate.  Haven't got a figure for that but possibly anywhere up to say 10kW, let you find that one. 
In my area, I know the average is far higher than is indicated by the billing.

----------


## phild01

> Attachment 117662

  Fairly agrees doesn't it? I assume that is per dwelling.

----------


## DavoSyd

> We are talking about dwellings.

  OK, great! 
it did seem you were talking about supplying "each person" with 15kWh base-load - my bad  :Frown:

----------


## woodbe

> Yes you can get a higher FIT but there is often a trade off. Often the price of electricity is higher or the daily supply charge is higher or there is a extended contract period. Also there is a risk to the strategy of relying on a high FIT. There is no requirement for a retailer in SA to provide any FIT at all. It can be withdraw at will. https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/...SouthAustralia

  I think that is correct, a retailer can say they will not pay anything, but that isn't what they are doing. 
Given the rising price of electricity, due to limitations of generation in the commercial generation world, the value of FIT is rising even if the retailers are not paying for it.  
You pump solar PV onto the grid, and they pay you 7c/kWh while they bill your neighbour 4 times the cost or more. Definitely a rip off.  The end result is that the ripoff makes solar battery systems valuable for PV homes. Pump excess PV into a battery and save the cost of escalating power from the grid. 20% price hike on the way this year alone.

----------


## phild01

> OK, great! 
> it did seem you were talking about supplying "each person" with 15kWh base-load - my bad

  Nah, it was a presumption not on my part.  It really isn't relevant to quote per person figures as people mostly live in groups under one roof.  The single person usage would just skew figures to be not so relevant.

----------


## DavoSyd

> I asked how Sydney could do this but nothing forthcoming.!

  
I posted this, you might have missed it?  Tesla's solar roof sets Elon Musk's grand clean-energy ambitions into motion

----------


## DavoSyd

then there's this: Forward Labs' new solar roof is 33% cheaper than Tesla's - and it can be installed in half the time | Inhabitat - Green Design, Innovation, Architecture, Green Building

----------


## woodbe

Those Tesla and Forward roofs look good, but if you already have a roof, it's cheaper to add PV Panels on top of it. 
Building a new house, or replacing an old roof, then maybe those systems are probably good.

----------


## Marc

Davo and Co ... all this seems very interesting but you fail to see the essence of the problem. _Assuming_ that it is a matter of life an death that we curb the pitifully small amount of human produced CO2. _Assuming_  that it can be done with solar and wind, this is not a matter to be taken up by individuals with an individual hobby like approach. Roof top? Batteries? are you kidding? 
We work and pay tax, the highest tax on the planet, we maintain a very large number of courtesans that dance around in Canberra and move their hips from side to side for the sole purpose to take decisions as to how to spend OUR money.  
To pretend it is a moral issue that has to be taken up by individuals and play the guilt trip on individuals who are already contributing 40% of their income and more and giving it to the morons of the day is absurd. 
I pay taxes, I want to flick the switch and have power and I want it at a fraction of what I am paying now, because our country has the biggest reserves of coal and uranium on earth and we are exporting it CHEAP for others to use yet are pretending it is immoral for use it for ourselves. Plus we need to listen to the mental greens that make believe if you don't ride a pushbike you are a traitor. 
It's a worn out topic, a pathetic excuse for political bantering and should be exposed for the fraud it is.

----------


## DavoSyd

> a pathetic excuse for political bantering and should be exposed for the fraud it is.

  you keep saying that, but that won't ever make it true. 
besides, if it was a fraud, surely  it would be proven by now? 
sadly, your assertion is merely a crackpot conspiracy theory...

----------


## phild01

> I posted this, you might have missed it?  Tesla's solar roof sets Elon Musk's grand clean-energy ambitions into motion

  I am for practical solar power but the night time thing just keeps getting in the way not to mention industry needs.  I guess the industry thing will disappear to China but the base power thing is an issue.  Using batteries is horrendously expensive, bad environmentally and shouldn't come with an expectation of us being uncomfortably cold or hot. Existing dwellings should not be factored out of the argument either, something that keeps being ignored. 
Has anyone researched the possibility of hydrogen production, and containment from solar?
Ah, just reading this as I was considering heating the water with the electrolysis process: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4...en-from-water/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-t...-hydrogen-247/ 
If only hydrogen was easy to get, problems solved.

----------


## ringtail

> Aren`t Milwaukee coming out with a battery powered welder.

  If by "battery" you mean the grid, then yep, probably.  :Biggrin:

----------


## DavoSyd

do you remember what I was replying to? you asked about practical examples...    

> I am for practical solar power but the night time thing just keeps getting in the way not to mention industry needs.  I guess the industry thing will disappear to China but the base power thing is an issue.  Using batteries is horrendously expensive, bad environmentally and shouldn't come with an expectation of us being uncomfortably cold or hot. Existing dwellings should not be factored out of the argument either, something that keeps being ignored.

  here is a interesting battery: https://www.solarquotes.com.au/batte...-types/sodium/

----------


## johnc

> Davo and Co ... all this seems very interesting but you fail to see the essence of the problem. _Assuming_ that it is a matter of life an death that we curb the pitifully small amount of human produced CO2. _Assuming_  that it can be done with solar and wind, this is not a matter to be taken up by individuals with an individual hobby like approach. Roof top? Batteries? are you kidding? 
> We work and pay tax, the highest tax on the planet, we maintain a very large number of courtesans that dance around in Canberra and move their hips from side to side for the sole purpose to take decisions as to how to spend OUR money.  
> To pretend it is a moral issue that has to be taken up by individuals and play the guilt trip on individuals who are already contributing 40% of their income and more and giving it to the morons of the day is absurd. 
> I pay taxes, I want to flick the switch and have power and I want it at a fraction of what I am paying now, because our country has the biggest reserves of coal and uranium on earth and we are exporting it CHEAP for others to use yet are pretending it is immoral for use it for ourselves. Plus we need to listen to the mental greens that make believe if you don't ride a pushbike you are a traitor. 
> It's a worn out topic, a pathetic excuse for political bantering and should be exposed for the fraud it is.

  We don't pay higher taxes, not even close, that is the centrepiece of your argument and it doesn't hold water. Second the issue with coal fired generators is they are actually expensive to build, the coal isn't free and forget CO2, coal actually harms those who mine it (black lung), those who live near it (air borne particles) and depletes water tables, destroys usable land and damages aquifers through water depletion. Again ignoring CO2 we want generation that is cost effective and reliable, coal is old technology it will gradually get phased out with a small amount being utilised for power generation and most of its use steel production would be my best guess. Nuclear is not really an option, expensive plants, they take forever to build, have a short working life and take forever to shut down. If you want really expensive power go nuclear and build in decommissioning costs, this is one of the main reasons on top of accidents as to why there is no appetite to build them. You just make it up as you go along, take a deep breath, put aside the hyperbole, the world is moving on, time you began to move with it. This attitude actually wreaks economies by sticking with old and redundant ways, you have to embrace the future, I know it is hard for minds locked in straight jackets but you could try a bit more than you do.

----------


## phild01

> do you remember what I was replying to? you asked about practical examples...    
> here is a interesting battery: https://www.solarquotes.com.au/batte...-types/sodium/

  I did mean 'real world' practical.  I doubt from what it says that I would define it as practical! 
"Their disadvantages mainly relate to their expected cycle life and cost. The GridEdge Quantum battery, for example, has an expected cycle life of 3,500 cycles at 80% depth of discharge, compared to over 4000 cycles (*some as high as 10,000!)* for lithium ion batteries.*How much will a sodium-nickel-chloride battery setup cost?*GridEdge currently *sells their Quantum 9.6kWh battery, which is an all-in-one unit, for $20,000 installed. This is a much more expensive cost-per-kwh than lithium-ion batteries of similar capacity.*"

----------


## DavoSyd

> I did mean 'real world' practical.  I doubt from what it says that I would define it as practical!

  you missed the _interesting_part:   

> *- Fully recyclable, and no toxic or dangerous chemicals are used in their manufacture.*  *- No fire risk, due to the chemistry of the batteries*

----------


## UseByDate

> Forget the kids Phil, what about the welders ?

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAtRdDJ8MYE#t=3m50s

----------


## chrisp

> I did mean 'real world' practical.  I doubt from what it says that I would define it as practical! 
> "Their disadvantages mainly relate to their expected cycle life and cost. The GridEdge Quantum battery, for example, has an expected cycle life of 3,500 cycles at 80% depth of discharge, compared to over 4000 cycles (*some as high as 10,000!)* for lithium ion batteries.*How much will a sodium-nickel-chloride battery setup cost?*  GridEdge currently *sells their Quantum 9.6kWh battery, which is an all-in-one unit, for $20,000 installed. This is a much more expensive cost-per-kwh than lithium-ion batteries of similar capacity.*"

   
With the emergence of renewables in to the grid, it is, and will, change how we go about using energy. By changing our energy usage patterns we can somewhat mitigate the need for energy storage. 
The mega convenience of burning fossil fuels to supply electricity 'on demand' will, and is, changing. When will come more aware of 'when' we use electricity. It is not unlike the 'off peak' tariffs of old when we were encouraged to use electricity during the night to heat hot water by providing it at a discounted rate. 
Smart metering has been rolled out with the intention of progressively moving to a 'time of day' tariff where for certain periods of the day electricity will become cheaper and other times it will become more expensive. This is simply a more modern, and flexible, version of the off-peak tariff. 
With the advent of PV in to the system, the peak production starting to align with the sunshine. For households with PV that means that energy is available and cheapest during the day (and not at night as previously). It then makes sense to use electricity during the day rather than at night. So, running the dishwasher and washing machine in the middle of the day will become the most economical time. 
Air conditioning demand tends to track solar output quite well so it also starts to make sense to run the air conditioner when it is hottest! With fossil fuel, we are more likely to face blackouts if everyone was relying on coal or gas powered electricity. 
I suppose that what I'm saying is that need to adapt our usage patterns to best suit the generation technology. This is not unlike the old off-peak electricity that we used to heat water over night. We could still use electricity during the day but we were encouraged to use it at night as it was much cheaper. The same sort of economic drivers will be used to move us to renewable energy.

----------


## UseByDate

> Tesla now accepting orders for solar roof

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGGk90YljhQ

----------


## phild01

> you missed the _interesting_part:

  Did see that too but the cycles and cost did the damage.

----------


## phild01

> [/CENTER]
>  This is not unlike the old off-peak electricity that we used to heat water over night. We could still use electricity during the day *but we were encouraged to use it at night* as it was much cheaper. .

   With my off-peak I am only allowed the HWS, nothing else.

----------


## phild01

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAtRdDJ8MYE#t=3m50s

  When I look at the cost of lithium ion batteries for vans, it's hard to imagine how this truck can have a competitive pricing point.  Did note it has an on-board generator but missed how much this gets utilised!

----------


## DavoSyd

> Did see that too but the cycles and cost did the damage.

  here is their full battery comparison table https://www.solarquotes.com.au/batte...parison-table/ 
and to be totally clear, I was just pointing out how the battery had some v*ery good attributes,* not that you should buy one.

----------


## UseByDate

> When I look at the cost of lithium ion batteries for vans, it's hard to imagine how this truck can have a competitive pricing point.  Did note it has an on-board generator but missed how much this gets utilised!

  I know that there are incentives in Norway to buy electric cars but they now buy more electric/hybrid cars than pure internal combustion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FBAJXNnNFI

----------


## johnc

> With my off-peak I am only allowed the HWS, nothing else.

  Although that is how it is meant to work we discovered after removing a HWS that was only meant to work on night rate that we were still using night rate electricity. Looks like the fridge, dishwasher and a bunch of other appliances had been getting night rate for years. All good things come to an end, the power provided contacted and no more night rate, good while it lasted though.

----------


## Bedford

> Looks like the fridge, dishwasher and a bunch of other appliances had been getting night rate for years.

  So your fridge was only running a few hours a day? 
Not good if you're a beer drinker.  :Biggrin:

----------


## johnc

> So your fridge was only running a few hours a day? 
> Not good if you're a beer drinker.

  Very droll, during the day, day rate, of an evening night rate, plus it is the fridge the beer is stored in.

----------


## Bedford

> Very droll, during the day, day rate, of an evening night rate, plus it is the fridge the beer is stored in.

  Hmmm, night rate was switched by a time clock, it was either off or night rate and separately metered. 
If the clock had been tampered with it might run night rate for longer but wouldn't switch to day rate. 
Now back to the sundials.....

----------


## John2b

> Why the personal attack?

   

> Not so, just trying to see the viability of what you say.

  Sorry, the moment I hit the enter key I realised it read like I was directing that comment at you - it was meant to be a general one, but as I was literally being dragged out the door by my wife at the time I couldn't edit or delete it.

----------


## John2b

> If you want people to do as you do, they need to see how it makes sense.  I have raised the issue with you because you declared how easily unit dwellers can do what you do. I showed you how a populous city unit/apartment is now, and  asked how  it is possible to generate 4.5kw daily.  You eventually showed it was a farm that captures your share.

  No that is not true. Show me where I have ever prescribed what other people SHOULD do. You won't be able to because I haven't. What I have done is to take practical and simple measures to save my own energy costs and simultaneously reduce this household's environmental impact, and give my own experience as an example of how it can be done - at least with my determination and my circustances. What I have claimed, and I stand by the claim, is that people do have choices and how they make those choices has an enormous impact on their living expenses and environmental impact. 
My solar panels are on the roof of my unit, not in some external location. The comment you seem to be referring to was an example I gave of how other people who can't put panels on their roof have overcome this issue. 
As I have previously stated, at the beginning of my own personal energy adventure, the household electricity consumption was over 20kWh per day. We have not forgone any modern conveniences, but focussed instead on using energy wisely, and are now able to exceed the household electricity requirement with a partially shaded 1.5kW solar array. If you asked me when we installed the panels if we would ever use less than 20% of what we were previously using, I probably would have said that it isn't possible. But that isn't the question or premise I started with. I didn't even have a particular goal, I just wanted to justify the investment in solar panels that we had made.

----------


## chrisp

> With my off-peak I am only allowed the HWS, nothing else.

  That's right. It was somewhat puzzling as to why only it was only limited to hit water. I guess it was something to do with the primitive timers used. 
With the new time-of-day tariffs and smart meters the whole house is billed at the prevailing rate at the time. This could be good of it could be bad so we will all be 'encouraged' to be more mindful of when we use electricity. It's all part of the master plan.  :Smilie:  
[btw, it's taken me hours to finish this post so I may have missed some posts in the meantime].

----------


## Bedford

> Originally Posted by *chrisp*    This is not unlike the old off-peak electricity that we used to heat  water over night. We could still use electricity during the day *but we were encouraged to use it at night* as it was much cheaper. .

    

> It is not  unlike the 'off peak' tariffs of old when we were encouraged to use  electricity during the night to heat hot water by providing it at a  discounted rate.

  Ya couldn't beat these blokes with five aces  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Marc

EXCUSE me: are you of the Left? Then aren’t you ashamed by the moron movement that the Left now represents? I’m sure you once thought being of the Left meant you were against fascists. But aren’t you embarrassed to find you are now exactly what you condemn? *BLOG WITH ANDREW BOLT* *MORE ANDREW BOLT* *How does it feel to be in a mob now burning books, torching cartoons, censoring videos, threatening companies, suing students and shutting debates with violence?* *Here are 10 examples.*  *1. Two Liberal MPs — Tim Wilson and Andrew Hastie — were this month filmed debating same-sex marriage.* *Their debate was very respectful, yet Leftists threatened the sponsor, Coopers brewery, forcing it to take down the video and join the Marriage Equality campaign.* *
2. Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose filmmaker colleague Theo van Gogh was murdered by a jihadist, announced she was returning to Australia next week for lectures on how Islam threatens freedom.* *This triggered yet more death threats against her, and now prominent Muslim women, academics and occasional ABC commentators have signed a petition expressing their “utmost disappointment” that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is being brought to Australia, vilifying her as “hate-mongering”.* *Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been subjected to death threats for criticising Islam. * *3. Chief executives of 30 companies, including IBM, this month demanded the Turnbull government break its election promise to let the public vote on same-sex marriage, insisting instead on a politicians’ vote.* *But Jewish LGBTI group Aleph Melbourne and former Greens candidate Rod Swift still aimed at IBM for employing a managing partner, Mark Allaby, who was a member of a Christian group against gay marriage.* *
4. Conservative Senator Cory Bernardi was guest speaker at a Melbourne event last month to discuss free speech and Islam, but protesters for 90 minutes physically stopped audience members from boarding a bus to get the venue.* *
5. One Nation leader Pauline Hanson was to discuss Islam at a meeting of conservative Jews in Melbourne last November, but police warned they could not guarantee the safety of the audience from the Left, forcing the meeting to be cancelled.* *
6. Labor and the Greens are blocking the Turnbull government’s reforms to the Racial Discrimination Act, even though it was misused by activists to muzzle debate on Aboriginal dysfunction and the politics of racial identity.* *Protesters stopped people boarding a bus to see Senator Cory Bernardi discuss free speech and Islam.**For example, it was used against seven Queensland students who had complained that an Aboriginal-only computer room at their university was racial segregation. Three had to pay $5000 in go-away money and three more were sued for $250,000.* *Then the late Bill Leak was hounded by the Human Rights Commission under this law — and vilified on the ABC as a racist — for his cartoon noting the shocking levels of child abuse in Aboriginal communities.* *
7. Labor last week suggested passing even tougher laws on free speech that could make opposing same-sex marriage more dangerous.* *Already Hobart’s Catholic Archbishop has been dragged to Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.* *
8. Last week, Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young attacked the right of a “middle-aged white guy” like Senator David Leyonhjelm to say taxpayers should not subsidise child care for the rich, and Labor MP Graham Perrett questioned the right of “white fellas to be sitting having this conversation” about reforming free speech laws.* *Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. Picture: Andy Brownbill**This is how the Left’s politics of racial identity is even used to ban critics from speaking on the grounds of their “race”.* *In fact, the white leader of Canada’s Left-wing New Democratic Party last month deleted a Facebook post quoting Beyonce’s hit Irreplaceable — “To the Left, to the Left” — after Black Lives Matter complained that “appropriating Black culture is not intersectional feminism”.* *
9. Prominent social scientist Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, was this month forced to flee Vermont’s Middlebury College after violent students screaming “racist, sexist, anti-gay” shut down his lecture.* *Another academic was taken to hospital with neck injuries.* *Socialist Alternative students at Melbourne University and Sydney University have also shut lectures by conservatives.* *
10. The ACTU’s new secretary is Sally McManus, who said unions had a right to break laws they didn’t like.* *She has also endorsed a Greens-backed boycott of Israel, which includes boycotting Jewish academics from Israel.* *
Those are 10 more signs that our freedom to speak is being stolen from us by morons.* *I say “morons” not just because the safe way to settle debates is to simply prove your opponents wrong — or learn you’re wrong instead.* *They are morons also because they’re too dumb or desperate to even try to argue, preferring to settle debates with fists, threats, abuse, boycotts, race rules or the law.* *You, on the Left: do you really want to be part of this morons’ movement?*

----------


## phild01

> No that is not true. Show me where I have ever prescribed what other people SHOULD do.

  Pharma asked  

> going to be difficult for someone who lives in a unit, or south facing roof, or under shade trees......

  and you responded  

> I live in a unit, and do have some shading issues, but still export every month. I also manage to run the house on rainwater most of the time as well. Because I have no spare space for a large rainwater tank, I have seven small ones tucked away in corners, with a total capacity of around 15,000 litres. Because of wet summers due to climate change, we usually get through summer without running out of water, however because of dry winters due to climate change, we are currently running on empty in June! Adelaide's rainfall patterns have changed so much over the past couple of decades that historical records are meaningless. Most of the rain now comes from the north west in summer, not the south west in winter. 
> Our year round average consumption of electricity has been between 3-4 kWh per day for the past few years, even though I work from home. Being early(ish) solar adopters we are on a high feed in tariff for net exports which means that apart from not ever having an electricity bill, we get a few hundred dollars annually from sales of our electricity to the grid. But rather than this payment to us costing other electricity consumers, it has in fact helped keep the retail price of electricity down for all retail consumers by dramatically lowering the capacity of generation and transmission infrastructure necessary to meet peak demand on the roughly ten hot days each summer here. It is estimated that on those peak days, rooftop solar in Adelaide is producing well over 30% of total demand, none of which goes through the transmission grid as it is all consumed locally by the small scale generators themselves and, of course, their neighbours in the streets nearby who don't have solar panels.  
> To paraphrase John F Kennedy: We choose to lessen our impact on the planet's natural resources not because it is hard, but because it is easy!

   Your final message was   

> To paraphrase John F Kennedy: We choose to lessen our impact on the planet's natural resources not because it is hard, but because it is easy!

  I read that post of yours on the fly simpy because the response activity was happening in real time, but I did take an implication from it that anyone living in a unit could do similar.  The communication breakdown was that I had visions of you residing in typical unit living off the smell of an oily rag. You seem to be in something akin to a duplex with a yard and your own roof.  I was trying to imagine how you could mount your solar array and stash so much water in the corners of your unit.  I don't think your unit fits what pharma and I were imagining, and hardly fits within this context.  
This confuses me a bit now  

> As I have previously stated, at the beginning of my own personal energy adventure, the household electricity consumption was over 20kWh per day. We have not forgone any modern conveniences, but focussed instead on using energy wisely, and are now able to exceed the household electricity requirement with a partially shaded 1.5kW solar array. If you asked me when we installed the panels if we would ever use less than 20% of what we were previously using, I probably would have said that it isn't possible.

  So have you gone from 20kW a day to 3-4kW a day?

----------


## John2b

> So have you gone from 20kW a day to 3-4kW a day?

  Yes, that is correct, electricity consumption reduced by 80% with no discernible impact on our lifestyle. I know that a lot of the electricity our household "uses" is still being pissed against the wall because current technology uses energy so inefficiently, yet for economic reasons we are constrained to continue to use a great deal of modern technology.

----------


## phild01

> Yes, that is correct, electricity consumption reduced by 80% with no discernible impact on our lifestyle. I know that a lot of the electricity our household "uses" is still being pissed against the wall because current technology uses energy so inefficiently, yet for economic reasons we are constrained to continue to use a great deal of modern technology.

  You say little is different now but how is it.  None or little TV, no A/C, hand washing, no drier for wet spells, no electric cooking, small fridge. Or take long holidays!
To go from 20 to 3, would take drastic changes.  Appliances haven't improved to that degree!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Just got my power bill for the last three months. We have a 2.2 kW panel set up through a smart meter in Victoria. Our average daily consumption was 5.35 kWh. Improved weatherboard cottage from the 1920's with insulated walls and ceiling but bare floors. Two adults one child. Gas boosted but spark pumped solar HWS. Two house supply pumps. Wood heating. Swampy cooling. And a powered sewage treatment system. Most of the major appliances date from around 2010 and would be familiar to any Harvey Norman shopper. 
It's not rocket science to not use much but it means you can't​ be a helicopter when it comes to managing what is happening on the ground. Saving money in this space costs effort and time. If you couldn't be arsed investing that then don't complain about the extra coin you need to part with for more energy as a result...nothing comes for free even when it means consuming less. 
Efficiency = time + money + effort.  And it's an unequal relationship.

----------


## phild01

> Wood heating. Swampy cooling.

  Big power difference there to what the normal city dweller has.  My biggest consumpatron is AC.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Big power difference there to what the normal city dweller has.  My biggest consumpatron is AC.

  Couldn't get it. Insufficient power supply via the mains. Irony, eh?  
Shame because it would have been cheaper in the long run. New swampy was 5k, new woodie was 1.5k, quote for RC AC was ~8k. Operating coin for swampie is 2-3 kWh per day of operation (pretty much every afternoon and weekend between December and March), woodie is $500 per annum.  
Because of the insulation the RC wouldn't​ work hard and spend most time being off rather than swampie and wood fire have to operate longer to be as effective and stay that way. Plus house has to be vented rather than sealed as for RC AC so again less efficient.

----------


## John2b

> You say little is different now but how is it.  None or little TV, no A/C, hand washing, no drier for wet spells, no electric cooking, small fridge. Or take long holidays!
> To go from 20 to 3, would take drastic changes.  Appliances haven't improved to that degree!

  Some appliances have improved enormously, but only if you choose energy efficient ones. Mostly our savings are due to selection of energy efficient appliances. E.g. ordinary TV (>500 watts) to LED TV with energy (ambient light brightness) control (<120 watts), from a fridge that used >1.2 kWh per day to one that uses <0.4, dozens of wall warts that used 5 watts or so each to 'V' rated ones that use less than 1 watt each, washing machine that used several kWh per load to one that uses less than 1kWh, an instant gas HWS that used 6 watts just waiting for a hot water tap to be turned on to one that uses less than 2 watts, 300 watts of halogen lighting in one room to less than 20 watts of LED, secondary glazing of windows (adding second glass to existing), bubble glazing (bubblewrap over bathroom window, etc), temporary glazing (plastic shrink film over windows), a few $100 of additional building insulation, external shading of windows to reduce summer heat gain, NAS, modem and WAP that use 30 or so less watts than the previous ones, master switches that turn off anything with a clock in it e.g. stove, oven, microwave, etc, and timers that switch off wall wart chargers for the electric toothbrush, shaver, iRobot vacuum, etc. After these changes our biggest consumers of electricity now in order are: refrigerator, lighting, home theatre entertainment system, oven, washing machine, aquarium, dishwasher and pump for the rainwater that the house runs on, and lastly RC air conditioner that only needs to be used a few days of the year. We've reduced 'phantom' power consumption from a >200 watts to <25 watts - that alone saves more than 4 kWh per day. Wood for slow combustion heater costs around $250 per annum to heat entire house over winter. We live within 2km of CBD.

----------


## phild01

> We've reduced 'phantom' power consumption from a >200 watts to <25 watts - that alone saves more than 4 kWh per day.

  Meaning standby?  4kW hard to imagine :Confused:

----------


## John2b

> Meaning standby?  4kW hard to imagine

  Standby and things that are on all the time like the aquarium pump, NAS, modem, WAP, burglar alarm, clock radio, smoke detector, pressure pump for rainwater, laptop supplies, printer, phone chargers, cordless telephone, any appliance that doesn't have a mechanical power switch like the dishwasher, washing machine, and any appliance that has an electronic control panel like the instant HWS, microwave and refrigerator, etc, etc. They add up. Households where no thought has been given to standby, vampire and phantom electricity use can easily use >>4kWh. According to an energy auditor and author of book about making old houses energy friendly with whom I had a conversation it is not uncommon for some larger households with kids to consume >10kWh per day in standby, phantom and vampire electricity.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Meaning standby?  4kW hard to imagine

  Ours is currently 2.7 kWh so 4 is no stretch at all.  
It's not just standby. It basically everything that's on all the time. Even your fridge draws current when the compressor is not running...that's standby too.

----------


## John2b

> Even your fridge draws current when the compressor is not running...that's standby too.

  My fridge doesn't and that was no accident. I got our household phantom/vampire electricity down to a bit over 1kWh per day, which is still around 30% of our electricity consumption. 
I rented a townhouse about ten years ago and found the electric garage door opener was using 2.4kWh per day in standby. It turned out to be faulty. After repair it *only* used 1kWh per day in standby!!!! This was about the second most popular door opener on the market at the time!

----------


## phild01

Bit by bit I might measure mine but I just don't believe it will be anything like that.  As for the instant HWS, I am not running out every moment I need hot water to turn it on.  And turning off the smoke detector, not touching that one. Some others too that I would rather leave running than put up with such inconveniences.  I have heard these claims before but when I have spot checked stuff, I found the claims to be exaggerated...need to revisit.  The most wasteful wart I have is the PVR one which uses about 300W a day.
Got me going now
Laptop wart unplugged from computer 0W daily, plugged in not charging 240W daily, plugged in charging 720W;
Dishwasher 20W daily left on and 28W switched off at the front panel (weird and triple checked);
Washing Machine 45W daily;
Cordless phone, Voip box and modem 254W daily;
Microwave 19W daily;
55" TV Standby 5W daily (93W running)

----------


## DavoSyd

> The most wasteful wart I have is the PVR one which uses about 300W a day.
> Got me going now
> Laptop wart unplugged from pc 0W daily, plugged in not charging 240W daily
> Dishwasher 20W daily left on and 28W switched off at the front panel (weird and triple checked)

   if you are going to discuss this stuff PLEASE use the correct terminology.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt_hour https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/...he-difference/ 
no one were is talking in "watts per day"...  
i found that the AC unit we have (that we hardly use) was sitting on 100Wh standby, so that was 2.4kWh a day! 
it is turned off at the meter box now...

----------


## johnc

We also found out that the reverse cycle aircon was a major power user even though we seldom use them. Both units are now turned off, one gets switched back on when we need a bit of cooling but that might only be a few days each year. We are still consuming more than we should on standby but the house is a lot cheaper to run.

----------


## phild01

> if you are going to discuss this stuff PLEASE use the correct terminology.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt_hour https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/...he-difference/ 
> no one were is talking in "watts per day"...  
> i found that the AC unit we have (that we hardly use) was sitting on 100Wh standby, so that was 2.4kWh a day! 
> it is turned off at the meter box now...

  No, talking daily stuff :Rolleyes:

----------


## phild01

I have checked out most things now and still well under 1kW a day.

----------


## DavoSyd

> I have checked out most things now and still well under 1kW a day.

  so under 0.04kWh for your standby power? 
that's incredible! well done  :Smilie:  
but what "things" are you counting? and how are you measuring them? 
what is your average electricity bill?

----------


## phild01

> so under 0.04kWh for your standby power? 
> that's incredible! but what "things" are you counting? 
> what is your average electricity bill?

  I am fairly power aware and factor in yearly running costs.  When I bought my TV it had to rate well for picture, second priority was power usage.
My daily usage varies through the year depending on seasons.  One period I looked at last night indicated 11kW daily, but my AC is running to maintain a temperature I like to have.  At the moment it is running to maintain a room temp around 22-24 degrees.  When I had a wood fire my daily usage would have been far less.
Doing those measurements this morning confirmed my belief that the talk of warts and standby using so much power, is a bit of a furphy!

----------


## DavoSyd

following this comment   

> I am fairly power aware and factor in yearly running costs.

  with   

> Doing those measurements this morning confirmed my belief that the talk of warts and standby using so much power, is a bit of a furphy!

  is weird,  
you call yourself power conscious, and say you make decisions about appliances based on energy efficiency, so do you assume that everyone else must do this so this assumption allows you to conclude that the claims that *Standby energy consumption adds $860 million to electricity bills* are therefore a bit of a furphy? 
that's some dodgy logic! 
until i actually measured the usage at the power box, i had no idea the AC was pulling 2.4kWh every DAY....

----------


## DavoSyd

and it is still unclear how you are determining the standby power numbers? 
and is the 11kWh per day just you? or a group of people? that's pretty good if for a household...

----------


## phild01

Let it rest, I did say I am *fairly power* aware.  It is not a big issue for me, I don't care too much about it, as long as what is available to buy isn't power hungry.  I gave you the example of  the TV, I looked at star ratings and narrowed the choice.  But power usage is not my first priority.  When I set the TV up I did check the power usage against what was claimed and it was correct.  I did this because manufacturers have been caught out on this. 
What I measure with I have found strongly agrees with appliance labelling so have no reason to doubt it's accuracy.  I did the wart check long ago when people got on TV claiming how power hungry they were.  The claim could not be substantiated with what I had.  This issue has come up again on this thread, and the checks I just did reveal no difference to what I found before.  Mind you, the devices I have are not old so perhaps are designed to minimise standby power, except for the PVR which is the most wasteful never actually turning off.  I can live with that. 
As for turning off the AC, HWS and communication devices, no that won't happen.  Far too inconvenient.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Laptop wart unplugged from computer 0W daily, plugged in not charging 240W daily, plugged in charging 720W;
> Dishwasher 20W daily left on and 28W switched off at the front panel (weird and triple checked);
> Washing Machine 45W daily;
> Cordless phone, Voip box and modem 254W daily;
> Microwave 19W daily;
> 55" TV Standby 5W daily (93W running)

  I think your figures are off or at worst poorly expressed.   
If your washing machine is using 45 watts (I truly hope not) just sitting there plugged in, switched on and doing nothing then it's using a smidge over 1 kwh each and every day.  Our front loader by comparison uses about 3 to 5 watts (or about 0.07 kwh each day) just sitting there plugged in and on...which it rarely is.

----------


## phild01

> I think your figures are off or at worst poorly expressed.   
> If your washing machine is using 45 watts (I truly hope not) just sitting there plugged in, switched on and doing nothing then it's using a smidge over 1 kwh each and every day.  Our front loader by comparison uses about 3 to 5 watts (or about 0.07 kwh each day) just sitting there plugged in and on...which it rarely is.

  I am quoting daily (as already indicated) usage figures, after all aren't we interested in how much power is being consumed in a 24 hour period.  You will now find my front loader is using a bit less than yours.

----------


## woodbe

Just share as kW/h... (kW per hour)

----------


## phild01

> Just share as kWh...

  Don't agree.  How about I use stars instead :Biggrin:

----------


## woodbe

You never agree.  :Smilie:  
I corrected my suggestion to make it clearer. Most devices pull a certain rate of power, and easily measured on an hourly basis.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I am quoting daily (as already indicated) usage figures, after all aren't we interested in how much power is being consumed in a 24 hour period.  You will now find my front loader is using a bit less than yours.

  So if I divide 45 watts by 24 then I'll get 1.875 watts...so lets say 2 watts (much better).  In which case that's a smidge under 0.05 kwh per day.  Sound reasonable? 
My front loader is currently consuming nothing...it's switched off!  But there's a whole swag of computer, safety and pump equipment that isn't hence my 2.7 kwh per day standby consumption figure.

----------


## phild01

> So if I divide 45 watts by 24 then I'll get 1.875 watts...so lets say 2 watts (much better).  In which case that's a smidge under 0.05 kwh per day.  Sound reasonable?

  Yep and leaving it on unless I push the panel power button hmm, $4.50 yearly saving.

----------


## chrisp

> Just share as kW/h... (kW per hour)

  kWh! It's a power x time product. 
I must apologise on behalf of the electrical engineers for coming up with really confusion and clumbersome non-SI units of energy. 
For the benefit of anyone interested, energy is measured in Joules. Power is the rate of energy, measured in Watts (= J/sec). Unfortunately, the electrical industry tends to use kWh instead of Joules. A kWh is 1000 Joules/sec x 1 hr = 3,600,000 J. (The time units cancel out to leave the energy unit). 
kW/h would be the units of the acceleration of energy or the velocity of power.  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

What does the preacher say? ... to strain the gnat (mosquito) and swallow the camel ...  
The long conversation above shows ordinary grown up people turned into some form of third world energy beggars because they have swallowed the fraud of global warming with the delight of power companies and politicians who love scared and weak citizens. 
Oh but KW/h needs a pontifical correction.   :Rofl5:

----------


## woodbe

And a tiny and reducing number of people believe scientific fact is fraud. 
The list is small, Tony Abbott, Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, Donald, Marc, Rod,.. Anyone else?

----------


## DavoSyd

people get picked up on here for talking in centimetres but you don't want to use correct energy terminology? Ok.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yep and leaving it on unless I push the panel power button hmm, $4.50 yearly saving.

  Sure.  I never said it was the low hanging fruit...

----------


## PhilT2

> because they have swallowed the fraud of global warming

  With all due respect you are getting a little repetitive on this. Is it not possible for you to consider that when faced with a choice between the oddballs like Trump, Roberts, Monckton etc and every major scientific organisation in the world most of us choose the views of the qualified experts? 
That's before we get to the failure of the anti-agw team to produce any real scientific evidence to discredit the existing theory and instead mostly resort to claims of fraud that they never seem to be able to find evidence to prove.

----------


## UseByDate

> if you are going to discuss this stuff PLEASE use the correct terminology.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt_hour https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/...he-difference/ 
> no one were is talking in "watts per day"...   *i found that the AC unit we have (that we hardly use) was sitting on 100Wh standby, so that was 2.4kWh a day!* 
> it is turned off at the meter box now...

  I think you mean that it has a standby energy consumption rate of 100W not 100Wh.

----------


## UseByDate

> kWh! It's a power x time product. 
> I must apologise on behalf of the electrical engineers for coming up with really confusion and clumbersome non-SI units of energy. 
> For the benefit of anyone interested, energy is measured in Joules. Power is the rate of energy, measured in Watts (= J/sec). Unfortunately, the electrical industry tends to use kWh instead of Joules. A kWh is 1000 Joules/sec x 1 hr = 3,600,000 J. (The time units cancel out to leave the energy unit). 
> kW/h would be the units of the acceleration of energy or the velocity of power.

  So it was you who came up with the kWh unit of energy. :Smilie:

----------


## DavoSyd

> I think you mean that it has a standby energy consumption rate of 100W not 100Wh.

  Correct, that's what I meant, go to the top of the class!  
I got it wrong, very embarrassing  :Frown:

----------


## UseByDate

> Correct, that's what I meant, go to the top of the class!  
> I got it wrong, very embarrassing

  Not as wrong as some of the other posters. :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

I must say that I've been very impressed with the positive discussions in this thread of recent. It makes a nice change from the cutting-and-pasting of some biased and ill informed commentary from elsewhere on the internet that some (one?) seems to think passes as worthwhile contributions to this thread.   :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

Evil of many, consolation of fools ...   
Or ... (much better)
“Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.” 
Theodore Roosevelt

----------


## PhilT2

One way to respond to claims of posting other people's ideas is to ... post more of other people's ideas.

----------


## John2b

A word of warning for the use of plug in power monitors such as sold by Jaycar, Bunnings, etc: most do not correctly measure power consumption, especially at low levels. This is because most of these cheap units do not compensate for power factor. Electrical loads such as transformers and motors are inductive and current lags voltage, but on the other hand old school fluorescent lights are capacitative as are some inverters used for AC units, and in this case the current leads the voltage. Simple power meters that work on the formula P=VI (power = voltage x current) will often read way high, because the real power is only equal to the components of current and voltage that are in-phase (or synchronised) with each other. The part of the voltage and current that are not in phase is called reactive power and is returned back to the mains supply every half-cycle. 
This limitation of plug-in power monitors means a reading of 100 watts for an air conditioner in standby is quite likely to be incorrect. 100 watts is a lot of energy (grab a 100 watt bulb after its been on for a few minutes if you don't believe me... No don't - I don't want to be sued when you burn your hand! In the case of the garage door controller I mentioned earlier with a 100 watt standby load, the unit was hot enough to barbecue a steak. Even after being 'fixed' and using *only* forty watts in standby, it got hot enough to fry an egg. 
Likewise with the dishwasher that 'uses' more power switched off than switched on - it isn't. Whats happening is the power factor is degraded in the "off" position by the EMI suppression capacitor across the switch, but most plug-in power meters report the consumption as though the power factor was unity. 
There is at least one plug-in power meter that does measure real power consumption correctly for not much money: https://reductionrevolution.com.au/p...in-power-meter 
Rotating through appliances the house over several seasons I built up a profile of how much power everything uses summer, autumn, winter and spring, and on that basis I tackled the high cost vampire power users and worked my way down. As electricity has become more expensive, I have been prepared to spend more money on energy reductions. I ending up prepared to spend up to $10 to save 1 watt of vampire energy (=24 watt-hours per day or 8.76kWh per year), because that gives a payback period of not much more than 3 years for something on 24 hours per day.

----------


## phild01

> There is at least one plug-in power meter that does measure real power consumption correctly for not much money: https://reductionrevolution.com.au/p...in-power-meter

  Very identical to the one I use which did not come from Jaycar, Bunnings or Ebay and I did pay a bit more than that.
Actually, I googled mine and the choice site took me to that one.  So is that a Steplight model? 
  As for the dishwasher, perhaps I did not wait long enough or it uses power to retain what operation it was at when switched off. On/Off is electronic in operation, the front panel is always extinguished whether on or off...it may be just a quirk.

----------


## DavoSyd

> 100 watts is a lot of energy (grab a 100 watt bulb after its been on for a few minutes if you don't believe me...

  well, you could grab a 100W amplifier after it has been playing music at full volume for a few minutes to evaluate your analogy?

----------


## chrisp

> A word of warning for the use of plug in power monitors such as sold by Jaycar, Bunnings, etc: most do not correctly measure power consumption, especially at low levels.  
> (Snip) 
> There is at least one plug-in power meter that does measure real power consumption correctly for not much money: https://reductionrevolution.com.au/p...in-power-meter

  Excellent advice.  :2thumbsup:  
Keep an eye out on the Aldi units when they come up on their special buys. The last one I purchased does measure real power - and it looks remarkably similar to the unit in the web link.

----------


## John2b

> well, you could grab a 100W amplifier after it has been playing music at full volume for a few minutes to evaluate your analogy?

  Not really - the peak to average ratio of compressed music is about 10:1, so a hundred watt amplifier will only deliver about 10 watts of power into the speaker before clipping distortion begins. A conventional amplifier is around 50% efficient, so if it is delivering 10 watts into the speaker, it will dissipate about 10 watts in its output stage, plus a fairly small amount in the power supply. Most amplifiers apart from hifi ones are digital these days and about 80%+ efficient; a 100 watt digital amplifier playing music without clipping will dissipate about 2 watts in its output stage, and perhaps as much again in the switch-mode power supply so only about 4 watts all together.

----------


## John2b

> Very identical to the one I use

  Yes the Step Light (oops - now called Reduction Revolution) one is rebranded quite a bit; I think if it looks like the one on the link, it will measure true power.   

> As for the dishwasher, perhaps I did not wait long enough or it uses power to retain what operation it was at when switched off. On/Off is electronic in operation, the front panel is always extinguished whether on or off...it may be just a quirk.

  Was there anything else plugged in to the power meter with the dishwasher at the same time? Reactive loads can interact and play havoc with power meters. I have a whole of house one made by Current Cost (UK) hooked into the meter box. As reactive loads are switched on and off, its reading jumps about quite often in the opposite direction to the amount of real power being used, because of the the effect of the total power factor of the house changing as appliances swap reactive power with each other (if one is inductive and another capacitive).

----------


## UseByDate

> Very identical to the one I use which did not come from Jaycar, Bunnings or Ebay and I did pay a bit more than that.
> Actually, I googled mine and the choice site took me to that one.  So is that a Steplight model? 
>   As for the dishwasher, perhaps I did not wait long enough or it uses power to retain what operation it was at when switched off. On/Off is electronic in operation, the front panel is always extinguished whether on or off...it may be just a quirk.

  Just what I was about to say. Mine is a Watts Clever model and was purchased from Steplight. It looks like Steplight don't sell my model any more.  When I google Watts Clever the first site on the list is www.reductionrevolution.com.au/Monitor‎

----------


## phild01

Nothing else was plugged in but the power switch is just a touch sensitive type so power would never be really off. And when on it is just pretty much the same as being off.  I put it down to the need for it to store.  It is all just a controller box on the inside, to turn it off fully would need to be done at the power outlet.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Not really - the peak to average ratio of compressed music is about 10:1, so a hundred watt amplifier will only deliver about 10 watts of power into the speaker before clipping distortion begins. A conventional amplifier is around 50% efficient, so if it is delivering 10 watts into the speaker, it will dissipate about 10 watts in its output stage, plus a fairly small amount in the power supply. Most amplifiers apart from hifi ones are digital these days and about 80%+ efficient; a 100 watt digital amplifier playing music without clipping will dissipate about 2 watts in its output stage, and perhaps as much again in the switch-mode power supply so only about 4 watts all together.

  nice! 
but seriously, on the spec sheet for the Onkyo below, what does the "*Power Consumption 170 W*" mean?  http://www.uk.onkyo.com/downloads/2/...tasheet_EN.pdf 
does that mean it will burn more, or less than a 100W incandescent bulb? 
(and I don't mean an incandescent Halogen bulb, because that would burn you a hell of a lot more than a normal incandescent bulb, right?) 
EDIT: my point is, using 100W standby does not mean you are going to get burned by the device... so your light bulb analogy is far-fetched...

----------


## DavoSyd

> so power would never be really off.

  i.e. "vampire power"

----------


## John2b

> but seriously, on the spec sheet for the Onkyo below, what does the "*Power Consumption 170 W*" mean? does that mean it will burn more, or less than a 100W incandescent bulb? 
> (and I don't mean an incandescent Halogen bulb, because that would burn you a hell of a lot more than a normal incandescent bulb, right?)

  The amount of power an amplifier uses has two parts - the idling power which is a few watts, and the power to reproduce the music playing, which varies depending on loudness (of the music, not the position of the volume control which is irrelevant). 
The rated power consumption is usually the maximum power the unit can draw under normal operating conditions, but really it is whatever Onkyo meant when they wrote the brochure, because they haven't specified the conditions for the measurement. For a conventional amplifier one could usually divide the input power rating by 4 to estimate the rated output power per channel into the rated load impedance. In this case, that gives 170/4 = ~ 40 watts into 4 ohms, maybe 30 watts into 8 ohms per channel. Another way of estimating the power is to look at the weight of the unit, in this case 7.3 kilograms. My shed amplifier which produces a maximum of 25 watts per channel weighs 5.5 kilograms. These rough estimates are valid for conventional class A/B analogue amplifiers with linear power supplies, like the TX-8020 is. 
For the light bulbs,the 100 watts is the same for each and they will produce the same amount of heat. But the glass of the halogen will be hotter because it has a much smaller surface area. The smaller surface area gets hotter to dissipate the same amount of heat as a larger, cooler bulb, at the same power. Hope I've made some sense!

----------


## DavoSyd

so 100W is not 100 joule, right? 
but the answer to why a split system Air Conditioner draws 100W in standby is "crankcase heater". 
not:   

> This limitation of plug-in power monitors means a reading of 100 watts for an air conditioner in standby is quite likely to be incorrect.

----------


## DavoSyd

> These rough estimates are valid for conventional class A/B analogue amplifiers with linear power supplies, like the TX-8020 is.

  i just checked my Onkyo 578 and get:   
during TV watching, but i think a fair bit of that is the DSP... (but i can still touch it...)

----------


## John2b

> so 100W is not 100 joule, right?
> but the answer to why a split system Air Conditioner draws 100W in standby is "crankcase heater".

  100 watts is 100 joules used every second. 
Some air-conditioners have a cabinet heater, which is switched on during sub-zero, humid conditions to prevent icing of the evaporator coils. For most locations in Australia the heater is never switched on, which is why many air-conditioners sold in Australia don't even have a heater in the outdoor unit.

----------


## UseByDate

Standby energy used by AC was news to me so decided to do some research. Found this.....  How To Reduce Your Air Conditioner's Standby Power
 It is not just crankcase heaters.

----------


## John2b

> i just checked my Onkyo 578 and get...

  
To be fair to others, this is getting a bit too far off topic to pursue here.

----------


## John2b

> Standby energy used by AC was news to me so decided to do some research. Found this.....  How To Reduce Your Air Conditioner's Standby Power
>  It is not just crankcase heaters.

  A good reason to buy a *real* brand like Daikin. Pay a little bit more up front and save many multiples of the purchase price over the life of the unit. If the purchase price is extra low, the cost of ownership is very likely to be wicked.

----------


## DavoSyd

> To be fair to others, this is getting a bit too far off topic to pursue here.

  Well, you called BS on my reported AC standby usage, and i called BS on your "if it's drawing 100W it will burn you" analogy... So yeah, I guess 'off topic' in this thread is a movable feast...

----------


## John2b

> Well, you called BS on my reported AC standby usage...

  I am sincerely sorry if you felt I was attacking your posts.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

After 331 pages and 8 years, we have wandered all over the map and even off into Middle Earth (more than thrice) so off topic is a broad church in this place...

----------


## John2b

> After 331 pages and 8 years, we have wandered all over the map and even off into Middle Earth (more than thrice) so off topic is a broad church in this place...

  Yes, very true, and I am at least as guilty as anyone else...

----------


## DavoSyd

When the brethren are arguing with each other and the anti crew keeps posting cut & pastes you know you are in furious agreement...  
Reduce energy consumption.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yes, very true, and I am at least as guilty as anyone else...

  The list of guilty is also a broad church.  
But even churches have their funny side...the Gillard despising dude from Perth brings back awesome memories.  He makes Marc's  contributions seem even more droll and unfunny than they truly are. @Woodbe had a great time as I recall...

----------


## chrisp

> But even churches have their funny side...the Gillard despising dude from Perth brings back awesome memories.  He makes Marc's  contributions seem even more droll and unfunny than they truly are. @Woodbe had a great time as I recall...

  I found it hard to believe that Dr Freud was real at all. It was almost like he may have been an alter ego or an unconscious mind.

----------


## UseByDate

> A good reason to buy a *real* brand like Daikin. Pay a little bit more up front and save many multiples of the purchase price over the life of the unit. If the purchase price is extra low, the cost of ownership is very likely to be wicked.

  I will be buying a couple of split system AC units this year (which is why I got interested in the standby statement) and I have discovered from other fora that the standby power quoted in the specifications does not include heater loads. I don't know if it is true or not. You could argue that it is not a standby load because it is ambient temperature dependant. 
 How can you choose which AC to buy when the specifications might be a tad dishonest? 
 PS I will be talking to my local Daikin installer next week.

----------


## John2b

Just buy a Daikin. I'm not an A/C expert, but I have lived in a dozen or so houses with different brands of split A/C, and have had friends and family buy other brands (including 'premium' Japanese brands). I've even had a friend try to sue one of the Korean manufacturers for poor performance. Just by a Daikin. They are quiet inside and outside, effective without being obtrusive, efficient and durable, generally less gaudy to look at, won't rust out in 5 years, etc. Just buy a Daikin. When my friends and family come to my place and ask why my A/C is so much better than theirs (quieter, smaller, less obtrusive, more effective, etc), I say "Why didn't you buy a Daikin like I suggested!" Just buy a Daikin.

----------


## phild01

> PS I will be talking to my local Daikin installer next week.

  Would daiken be any better than other top brands!

----------


## John2b

> Would daiken be any better than other top brands!

  Yes. I worked for a while in a store that sold Fujitsu and Panasonic, so all the guys there bought one of those two brands. My advice is buy a Daikin.

----------


## phild01

Have seen mixed reviews about Daiken.

----------


## John2b

> Have seen mixed reviews about Daiken.

  Is there a brand you have not seen mixed reviews about?

----------


## John2b

Some advocates of the benefits of CO2 and global warming can see no down side to a warmer planet. Things that live, and many things that don't live, only work between two temperature limits - freezing and boiling. As the temperature moves towards one or the other, the systems that support life struggle. Contemporary plant, animal and human life has evolved for 1000s of years within a very narrow temperature range. So has technology. It doesn't take much of a shift to make life very difficult, like this:  *Flights grounded as temperatures set soar to 50C in extreme heatwave*   "As the ambient temperature at a particular airport increases, in this case into the [high 40s] at Phoenix, the amount of lift and power in aircraft engines declines, and the result is that for any given runway length, you can carry less and less payload," Robert Mann, an industry analyst and former airline executive, said.  "As temperatures get that extreme, you have to offload so much fuel or passengers or cargo that it no longer makes sense to fly," he said.  Arizona flights grounded as temperatures set soar to 50C in extreme heatwave - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## phild01

> Is there a brand you have not seen mixed reviews about?

  You're telling us to buy Daiken yet when looking around it seems Panasonic might have the edge.

----------


## John2b

> You're telling us to buy Daiken yet when looking around it seems Panasonic might have the edge.

  Edge in what way? Panasonic make consistently good products across their range, yet nothing Panasonic makes is particular spectacular in performance, just well made, competently designed and somewhat stodgy as though everything is put together by committees. I've been in a few places with Panasonic splits. If I have a choice I would by a Daikin, but that's just me.

----------


## phild01

I thought you might have worked for daikin.  As for daikin or panasonic I'm not sure I would go with either as mitsubishi and fujitsu seem every bit as good.

----------


## John2b

> I thought you might have worked for daikin.  As for daikin or panasonic I'm not sure I would go with either as mitsubishi and fujitsu seem every bit as good.

  Nope, never worked for Daikin, was loosely involved with Panasonic and Fujitsu A/C sales for a while as mentioned previously, which just reinforces my point of view. My parents put in a Mitsubishi split. "Don't" is all I will say about that. When they visit my place and ask why doesn't their A/C work like mine, I say because you didn't buy a Daikin like I suggested. There is an art to getting the air in a room conditioned comfortably from a split, with even temperature, without apparent drafts or cold spots / hot spots. Nothing beats Daikin splits in terms of comfort, which is why you buy the thing in the first place.

----------


## phild01

> Nope, never worked for Daikin, was loosely involved with Panasonic and Fujitsu A/C sales for a while as mentioned previously, which just reinforces my point of view. My parents put in a Mitsubishi split. "Don't" is all I will say about that. When they visit my place and ask why doesn't their A/C work like mine, I say because you didn't buy a Daikin like I suggested. There is an art to getting the air in a room conditioned comfortably from a split, with even temperature, without apparent drafts or cold spots / hot spots. Nothing beats Daikin splits in terms of comfort, which is why you buy the thing in the first place.

   

> I'm not an A/C expert,

  ok

----------


## John2b

And the point of your post is???  I'm sure people who are interested have already read my comments and don't need you to repost them ,but thanks anyway. 
I'm not an A/C expert. I undertook a degree in Electrical Engineering and then changed to Electronics, but also studied Thermofluid Dynamics and metal fabrication techniques for manufacturing. Those fields cover practically every aspect of making a practical air conditioner. However in this thread I have been speaking of the consumer experience, i.e. what is it like to own and use different brands of air conditioning splits. If you don't like my point of view, you are perfectly free to ignore it.

----------


## phild01

> I'm not an A/C expert. I undertook a degree in Electrical Engineering and then changed to Electronics, but also studied Thermofluid Dynamics. Those three fields cover practically every aspect of making a practical air conditioner. However in this thread I have been speaking of the consumer experience, i.e. what is it like to own and use different brands of air conditioning splits. If you don't like my point of view, you are perfectly free to ignore it.

  And that is my point, rather than telling people your opinion as a product fact, it is at the end of the day an opinion.  You were quite demanding for people to buy Daikin and nothing else (I think I counted 5 times).  I think you may find they aren't the cream they might have been once with manufacturing outside Japan and common manufacturing standards with all top manufacturers.
In the meantime I had a look at this comparison and also noticed elsewhere, the so called star people 'canstar' had panasonic ahead.

----------


## johnc

Different properties, we have a range, Mitsubishi, Fujitsu and Daiken, like John2B I prefer Daiken, I reckon they are a better unit, the other two are ok but early research we did indicated Daiken used less on standby. Fujitsu I seem to recall may use 170W on standby, however we haven't put a power meter on the appliance. We also run two three phase units in two separate commercial units, can't remember the brand and a Daiken split in the third, Daiken is cheaper to run than the two big units which are both over ten years old. Daiken about two years old.

----------


## phild01

> Different properties, we have a range, Mitsubishi, Fujitsu and Daiken, like John2B I prefer Daiken, I reckon they are a better unit, the other two are ok but early research we did indicated Daiken used less on standby. Fujitsu I seem to recall may use 170W on standby, however we haven't put a power meter on the appliance. We also run two three phase units in two separate commercial units, can't remember the brand and a Daiken split in the third, Daiken is cheaper to run than the two big units which are both over ten years old. Daiken about two years old.

  Doesn't  the R32 in newer units have them more efficient, not sure!

----------


## John2b

> In the meantime I had a look at this comparison and also noticed elsewhere, the so called star people 'canstar' had panasonic ahead.

  Canstar has them ahead on manufacturer's own self produced paper claims, not independent actual REAL measured performance or USER evaluations. If you don't want hear of my real world experience, simple: ignore it - no skin off my noise! BTW where did I claim any superior position? I premised all of my comments by saying "I am not an A/C expert", in case you didn't notice. What is your beef? Haven't you got anything better to do than nit-pit over everything I say? Or don't you think the forum readers here aren't intelligent enough to filter comments and make up their own minds?

----------


## phild01

> Canstar has them ahead on manufacturer self produced paper claims, not independent actual REAL measured performance or_ USER_ evaluations.?

  _"In Canstar Blue’s customer satisfaction ratings for air conditioners, Panasonic finished above every other manufacturer with five out of five stars across all categories – overall satisfaction, reliability, ease of use, quietness, value for money, functionality and after sale service. Daikin was rated four stars in every research category. Both brands performed strongly, but in this regard Panasonic edged Daikin."_  https://www.canstarblue.com.au/appliances/cooling-heating/daikin-vs-panasonic-air-conditioners-reviewed/    

> If you don't want hear of my real world experience, simple: ignore it - no skin off my noise! BTW where did I claim any superior position? I premised all of my comments by saying "I am not an A/C expert", in case you didn't notice. What is your beef? Haven't you got anything better to do than nit-pit over everything I say? Or don't you think the forum readers here aren't intelligent enough to filter comments and make up their own minds?

  Actually value your experience but not sure about dogmatic advice that is based on opinion, to the detriment of other manufacturers that produce a comparable product too (repair delays could be taken into account as well).  Take it as nit-picking but don't you feel forum comments should show a bit of balance! 
With all that I have read so far, the top manufacturers are all good.  But this conversation started when you responded to Usebydate's comments about 'standby power' when you said "buy a Daikin" with no supporting data (#16524).  The inference was that Daikin doesn't have a standby power problem, and something I still don't know! I am trying to get to the root of that with the other thread I started where this exchange also belongs: https://www.renovateforum.com/f193/s...-power-122295/.

----------


## Rod Dyson

Hi Guys,  I see we are still going!  How are those models working out for you?  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

First of all, Phild01, you must appreciate that more than anything else you have turned this thread into an all or nothing one by trying to set 'gotcha' questions for me each step along the way. Sorry if I offended you, but in any case my response was directed to the OP not to you, and you are welcome to ignore anything and everything I say. 
Point of order: I did not respond to Usebydate's comments about 'standby power' to endorse any brand of anything. 
It is worth noting that the method of Canstar's customer satisfaction ratings is a corporate secret. Canstar do not undertake the ratings themselves but subcontract to a public relations company that expressly does not disclose its methodology, a rather extraordinary position for a company to adopt if it is supposedly reporting on public opinion. Take from that what you will 
If you want to buy an air-conditioner that rates well on a commercial rating site, then buy what the commercial rating site recommends and don't think too much about the basis of their recommendations.  But if you want an air-conditioner that is great to live with and offers low cost of ownership (as opposed to being sold at a cheap purchase price) then buy one based on real experience. No one has ever taken me to task over the advice I have given; not the least because if I have no reason to comment, I don't. 
You say I have been dogmatic. I agree. But advice that is dogmatic might be based on ample experience, or a mental disorder. Forum readers might be interested to to know what you think my dogmatic advice is based on.

----------


## John2b

> Hi Guys,  I see we are still going!  How are those models working out for you?

  Hey Rod, it's getting hot in here! The models failed to predict how hot or how fast global warming due to greenhouse gases was taking effect. Even the greatest climate skeptic scientist's own records created to hide global warming by measuring something other than surface temperature can't hide the problem of CO2 emissions:  http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte..._2017_v6-1.jpg 
The Antarctic that was supposed to be accumulating ice is actually in a crisis of losing ice mass A new crack in one of Antarcticaâs biggest ice shelves could mean a major break is near 
And all that heat the went "missing" into the oceans is about to bite severely Ocean acidification is global warming&#039;s forgotten crisis | Climate Home - climate change news 
But don't worry too much: if you are over 60, you might get to live your life out without too much disruption and discomfort. Your children won't.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

There are times John2b when you really need to apply a filter to your inclinations to respond to everything every time. 
Rod was simply stirring and is not the slightest bit interested in the content of a response, only that he got one. 
And Phil can't figure out if you are being dogmatically Daikin or are trying to be funny.

----------


## phild01

> First of all, Phild01, you must appreciate that more than anything else you have turn this thread into an all or nothing one by trying to set 'gotcha' questions for me each step along the way. Sorry if I offended you, but in any case my response was directed to the OP not to you, and you are welcome to ignore anything and everything I say. 
> It is worth noting that the method of Canstar's customer satisfaction ratings is a corporate secret. Canstar do not undertake the ratings themselves but subcontract to a public relations company that expressly does not disclose its methodology, a rather extraordinary position for a company to adopt if it is supposedly reporting on public opinion. Take from that what you will 
> If you want to buy an air-conditioner that rates well on a commercial rating site, then buy what the commercial rating site recommends and don't think too much about the basis of their recommendations.  But if you want an air-conditioner that is great to live with and offers low cost of ownership (as opposed to being sold at a cheap purchase price) then buy one based on real experience. No one has ever taken me to task over the advice I have given; not the least because if I have no reason to comment, I don't. 
> You say I have been dogmatic. I agree. But advice that is dogmatic might be based on ample experience, or a mental disorder. I am interested to to know what you think my dogmatic advice is based on.

  Maybe it's the way you respond to things.  Someone presents an issue that unit owners would have, and then you make it seem easy stashing 15,000 litres of water in your unit as well as generating 4.5kW of average daily power as a response, good grief! Someone raises the issue of standby power for a/c and you respond by telling them to buy a daikin as though it doesn't have this issue.  By now you should have been able to substantiate that.  It's nothing personal, just that throughout this whole emissions thread, there is endless ridicule based on the presentation of charts, measures and figures.  By now why can't the commentary just be fairly open-minded. 
To be honest, I wouldn't know what a/c is best, maybe daikin, panasonic, mitsubishi or fujitsu or something else.  And who can keep up with model changes when manufacturer improvements level the field, AFAIK they all seem to be good units.  BUT if we knew which unit doesn't have high standby power requirements, then that is worthy of attention.  I think that is why I focused on your comments as much as I did. 
Have to agree about Canstar, and think that as well with all the other promotional evaluators that abound, especially money matters and supermarket products.  Is there anything else to judge things by!  Brian here is an installer of A/C and has made various comments regarding different units...his comments really help but I am not sure he bothers with this thread. 
What is your advice based on? well I think.....on a very narrow field of units you have come across.  A/C seems to be very different ball game today, Brian's experience would hold far greater knowledge, not sure he has nominated any stand out unit on today's market though!

----------


## John2b

Phil, I made NO comment about standby power of A/C's that related to ANY particular brand. I made a comment that plugin power meters can misreport A/C standby loads (AND many other standby loads) because many power meters don't display real power, but show 'reactive' power. You really need to go back an re-read my posts more carefully.

----------


## John2b

> There are times John2b when you really need to apply a filter to your inclinations to respond to everything every time. 
> Rod was simply stirring and is not the slightest bit interested in the content of a response, only that he got one. 
> And Phil can't figure out if you are being dogmatically Daikin or are trying to be funny.

  Hey thanks Silent, I do appreciate your comment  :Smilie: . I've always enjoyed reading your posts (sincerely). I suspect you are correct about Rod. The master attempted to have me shut down when I first posted in this thread, and that holds a special place in my heart. Sometimes I can't work out if I am trying to be funny or not either, which I suspect that is the nature of irony. But mostly I just say things because they are real, if not comfortable, facts. I have never said anyone should do anything, even though doing that is the thing of which I am most accused. Apparently because I say I can live without burning a ton of coal every day, far from being an inspiration I am being ever so nasty to my compatriots. Who wudda thort... 
BTW I do take heart from a surprising number of Renovate members who do not post in the forum but who have contacted me directly and thanked me for my posts.

----------


## phild01

> Phil, I made NO comment about standby power of A/C's that related to ANY particular brand. I made a comment that plugin power meters can misreport A/C standby loads (AND many other standby loads) because many power meters don't display real power, but show 'reactive' power. You really need to go back an re-read my posts more carefully.

  You are confusing this.
here, the context was standby power!

----------


## Marc

2b, or not 2b, that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles, And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep No more; and by a sleep, to say we end the heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks that Flesh is heir to? 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep, To sleep, perchance to Dream; aye, there's the rub, for in that sleep of death, what dreams may come, when we have shuffled off this mortal coil, must give us pause.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Yeah I always found Shakespeare confusing too.

----------


## John2b

Thanks for providing the link. I am clearly wrong. I meant that comment to mean "if you buy a premium brand like Daikin, you can expect fewer issues with the use and ownership of the unit". By way of explanation, Phil, your posts come at me from left field and make me feel like a punching bag. I denied making the link between standby power and the reason to by a Daikin because the way you read my comment was not the meaning I intended when I wrote it. It is clear to me that I expressed my thought poorly and anyone would read it like you did! 
As it happens my model of Daikin does NOT have a requirement to be in standby for four hours before running, unless the temperature is sub-zero, so my statement is not misleading read the way you read it, even though it wasn't the meaning I intended. I don't know if this is true for current model Daikin splits and would caution others not to assume it is. 
For what it is worth, I labour the point of what can be done using examples from my own life because 1. they are real actual experiences, not anecdotes, of things that I know can be done with a little imagination and a positive outlook, and because 2. bad things happen when good people do nothing, of which saying everything is all too hard is a good example. 
BTW a unit is the term most commonly used to describe single story co-joined residential accomodation in Adelaide and the unit I live in is one of four in a single story building. However not having roof-space for solar panels does not preclude a property owner from taking advantage of PVs and I gave the example of community solar schemes. Here's a story about community solar: Investors snapping up community energy projects, with some selling out in minutes - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
There is even an example of a high rise apartment tower in Adelaide that stores around 4,000,000 litres of water from its roof catchment, has PVs on the roof and the facade, uses co-generation to heat water in the pool while generating its own power, etc, etc. I am not suggesting this can be retrofitted to existing towers, but I am suggesting that an apartment tower does not need to be an energy disaster for its owners.  Conservatory on Hindmarsh Square | Hines Property

----------


## phild01

Well, it did read that way and reinforced with the latter posts you made.   

> There is even an example of a high rise apartment tower in Adelaide that stores around 4,000,000 litres of water from its roof catchment,

   BTW a tower with 4 million litres of water from it's catchment roof area.  How big is that roof?

----------


## John2b

> It's nothing personal, just that throughout this whole emissions thread, there is endless ridicule based on the presentation of charts, measures and figures.  By now why can't the commentary just be fairly open-minded.

  Open mindedness isn't restricted to one side of a conversation, Phil. It has never been my intention to ridicule any person or any comment, unless it was  the comment or person responded to was fair game, for example by being ridiculous. Like all forums, there are multiple streams running in the thread and any particular comment might reflect that. For those reasons I try not to take personal offence at the nasty stuff that gets thrown at me. That said, I am sincerely and humbly sorry for any offence I've caused and apologise to anyone who has genuinely been offended by the way I have responded to a post they made.

----------


## John2b

> Well, it did read that way and reinforced with the latter posts you made.
>  BTW a tower with 4 million litres of water from it's catchment roof area.  How big is that roof?

  Fair enough. I was oblivious to what I was apparently building on  :Doh:  
The project details give a site area of 18,000 m2, the roof might be ⅔ of that I guess. Adelaide has ~550mm rainfall, so that roof would potentially catch ~6,000,000 litres annually.

----------


## phild01

> Open mindedness isn't restricted to one side of a conversation, Phil. It has never been my intention to ridicule any person or any comment, unless it was  the comment or person responded to was fair game, for example by being ridiculous. Like all forums, there are multiple streams running in the thread and any particular comment might reflect that. For those reasons I try not to take personal offence at the nasty stuff that gets thrown at me. That said, I am sincerely and humbly sorry for any offence I've caused and apologise to anyone who has genuinely been offended by the way I have responded to a post they made.

  Not you, just the flavour of the thread in itself.

----------


## phild01

> Fair enough. I was oblivious to what I was apparently building on  
> The project details give a site area of 18,000 m2, the roof might be ⅔ of that I guess. Adelaide has ~550mm rainfall, so that roof would potentially catch ~6,000,000 litres annually.

  A trip to Sydney or Melbourne might reveal what the real world is more like. Doubt units here would be able to capture so much water per capita...maybe!  Storing around 2 olympic swimming pools of water is probably a big ask though!

----------


## John2b

I've done a lot of things in my life. I've had two stints as consulting engineer since 2000. In the first period most of my time was working with architects and other engineers in or on tall buildings in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. I resigned when I got sick of spending so much time away from home - the company wanted me to rotate through the four cities (inc Adelaide) spending three months of the year in each.

----------


## phild01

Fair enough :Smilie:

----------


## PhilT2

A recent paper in Nature Geoscience discusses the causes of difference between models and observations of satellite troposphere warming rates. Because this article mentions models and has Michael Mann as one of the authors it has caused a certain amount of hyperventilating in the anti-agw sector.  https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/.../ngeo2973.html  (Abstract only)   
Not that I'm trying to change the subject or anything....

----------


## John2b

I suspect the denier-blogosphere's misjudgment of the abstract of this paper is the reason behind Rod's recent pop-up post #16550. Within nanoseconds of one denier posting his misjudgment of the abstract, all of the denier sites around the world have mindlessly cut and pasted "reports" that that scientists admit the models are faulty, or that scientist acknowledge the warming pause was real. Neither is correct, because the research actually demonstrated that the models are robust. The irony is that the satellite temperature is "measured" indirectly and depends on the same laws of physics as climate models, but I think that is a tad too difficult for deniers to comprehend.  
When any simulation is run, certain assumptions are required as inputs to the model. For example when predicting the accumulation of superannuation, assumptions are made about the future level of contributions, the future earnings of the fund, the future fees to be deducted by the fund manager and the future tax treatment of superannuation when drawn out. The fund planner will estimate how much the fund will contain at different ages so the beneficiary can see what they are likely to have to live on at different retirement ages. BUT if any one of the underlying assumptions alters after the projection was run, of course the value of the superannuation at retirement will be different to the calculated one. Does that mean the underlying model used in the calculation was faulty? Of course not; it just means that the input assumptions changed during the period the fund ran - doh! 
The research referred to above has shown that climate temperature forcing was in reality lower than the values used as inputs to climate projection models. Without paying to read the paper, it isn't easy to know which ones. It could have been, for example, the accelerated rate of native forrest burning in Indonesia and the Amazon over the past couple of decades that caused lowering of heat from the sun hitting the Earth's surface. The research also shows that if the models are instead inputted with the actual measured level of climate temperature forcing that panned out, the discrepancy between the models and the satellite record disappears. 
Are the models broken? No. Are the models useless? No. If modelling wasn't a useful tool, no one would be able to borrow money from a bank to buy a house.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> There are times John2b when you really need to apply a filter to your inclinations to respond to everything every time. 
> Rod was simply stirring and is not the slightest bit interested in the content of a response, only that he got one. 
> And Phil can't figure out if you are being dogmatically Daikin or are trying to be funny.

   :2thumbsup:  :2thumbsup:  
Its like poking an ants nest!!  I am over it, nothing happening nor will it.  Just taking a lot longer for some to realize it.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Its like poking an ants nest!!  I am over it, nothing happening nor will it.  Just taking a lot longer for some to realize it.

  I respect Marc because he has the hide of a water buffalo and the self confidence to use it in a characterful wau.  
You on the other hand strike me as petulance personified. Quite a shame. You and yours have my deepest sympathy.

----------


## Marc

*Some Fun with IPCC Texts*  Guest Blogger / 10 hours ago June 22, 2017 *Guest essay by Leo Goldstein*  I’ve already written about the epic moment, when IPCC apparently recognized that most of the recent warming had been due to the natural variability. Instead of telling that to the world, IPCC has just altered the definition of _climate change_ in its Third Assessment Report (TAR, 2001) to include natural variability and changes in solar activity, and proceeded as if nothing happened. This point should have marked the end of climate alarmism. Instead, it became a new beginning.  All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. We should occasionally have fun by ridiculing selected passages from IPCC texts. Let’s look at some of its self-serving terms and definitions. For example, _IPCC AR5 WG1, Summary for Policymakers_, defines the equilibrium climate sensitivity as:*“The equilibrium climate sensitivity* quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.” (_p. 16_)   This “definition” is found in the IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers. In its usual repertoire, the IPCC gives two different definitions for the same term, and uses semantic trickery to make the reader _feel_ they are equivalent. The definition _assumes_ that all radiative forcing is caused by change in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, something that the IPCC wanted to _prove_. Also, this definition is substantially different from the Glossary in the full assessment. The following definitions are from the _IPCC AR5 WG1, Glossary_ (starting at p. 1448; red color is in the original):  *“Climate.* Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.”   The word _climate_ does not need to be defined. This attempt at defining it is intended to give the word _climate_ a meaning different from the conventional one. But this definition is also formally defective because it is a) circular; and b) attempts to define the simple term climate through the complex and obscure “climate system.”  *“Climate change.* Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes. See also Climate change commitment, Detection and Attribution.”   The mother of formal fallacies in the climate alarmism. See _Abusing Semantics is the First and Last Refuge of Climatism_.*
“Climate change commitment.* Due to the thermal inertia of the ocean and slow processes in the cryosphere and land surfaces, the climate would continue to change even if the atmospheric composition were held fixed at today’s values. Past change in atmospheric composition leads to a committed climate change, which continues for as long as a radiative imbalance persists and until all components of the climate system have adjusted to a new state. The further change in temperature after the composition of the atmosphere is held constant is referred to as the constant composition temperature commitment or simply committed warming or warming commitment. Climate change commitment includes other future changes, for example, in the hydrological cycle, in extreme weather events, in extreme climate events, and in sea level change. The constant emission commitment is the committed climate change that would result from keeping anthropogenic emissions constant and the zero emission commitment is the climate change commitment when emissions are set to zero. See also Climate change.” 
A whole dissertation hidden inside of a definition! It implicitly assumes that the addition of 0.01-0.02% of CO2 molecules to the atmospheric composition substantially affects climate. Further, it suggests that nothing else matters until “the climate system have adjusted to a new state”. Even better hidden is the hint that a change in the atmospheric composition is irreversible, and can only be held fixed.*
“Climate model* (spectrum or hierarchy) A numerical representation of the climate system based on the physical, chemical and biological properties of its components, their interactions and feedback processes, and accounting for some of its known properties. The climate system can be represented by models of varying complexity, that is, for any one component or combination of components a spectrum or hierarchy of models can be identified, differing in such aspects as the number of spatial dimensions, the extent to which physical, chemical or biological processes are explicitly represented or the level at which empirical parametrizations are involved. Coupled Atmosphere–Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) provide a representation of the climate system that is near or at the most comprehensive end of the spectrum currently available. There is an evolution towards more complex models with interactive chemistry and biology. Climate models are applied as a research tool to study and simulate the climate, and for operational purposes, including monthly, seasonal and interannual climate predictions. See also Earth System Model, Earth-System Model of Intermediate Complexity, Energy Balance Model,Process-based Model, Regional Climate Model and Semi-empirical model.” 
Another dissertation, in which *each* sentence is false. In short, it _defines_ that IPCC models correctly represent the climate system, all evidence to the contrary to be damned.“*Climate sensitivity*. In IPCC reports, equilibrium climate sensitivity (units: °C) refers to the equilibrium (steady state) change in the annual global mean surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon dioxide concentration. …” 
This definition implicitly assumes that CO2 concentration determines or significantly impacts surface temperatures – something that the IPCC wanted, but failed, to prove.*“Extreme weather event*. An extreme weather event is an event that is rare at a particular place and time of year. Definitions of rare vary, but an extreme weather event would normally be as rare as or rarer than the 10th or 90th percentile of a probability density function estimated from observations. By definition, the characteristics of what is called extreme weather may vary from place to place in an absolute sense. When a pattern of extreme weather persists for some time, such as a season, it may be classed as an extreme climate event, especially if it yields an average or total that is itself extreme (e.g., drought or heavy rainfall over a season).” 
According to this definition, a weather event that happens once a week is an extreme weather event. For example, a summer rain in Southern California is an extreme weather event per this definition. A rainy summer is classified as an extreme climate event, too. Even when treated as a broad explanation rather than a definition, this passage suffers from at two defects: a) failure to limit the definition to events with significant negative consequences associated with the word _extreme_; b) too broad of allowance in percentiles; outside of the range of 0.5 – 99.5 percentiles would be more appropriate. The effect and intent of these defects is typical for IPCC texts. It allows scientists to report something innocuous, and the media to use the same words to paint a scary picture.*“Global mean surface temperature*. An estimate of the global mean surface air temperature. However, for changes over time, only anomalies, as departures from a climatology, are used, most commonly based on the area-weighted global average of the sea surface temperature anomaly and land surface air temperature anomaly.” 
The word “anomaly” implies that the Earth has a “normal global temperature.” There is no such thing. This is something only flat-Earthers could believe. Departures from climatology are not anomalies, but variations.*“Heat wave*. A period of abnormally and uncomfortably hot weather. See also Warm spell.” *“Warm spell*. A period of abnormally hot weather. For the corresponding indices, see Box 2.4. See also Heat wave.” 
See also weather cooking and The Hammer of Witches. In September 2016, I submitted a long affidavit with criticism of the IPCC terminology, rules, and actions. with a Motion to Intervene in the big lawsuit Exxon against Maura Healey, a nutty Attorney General of Massachusetts (_TX-ND, 4:16-cv-469-K_). Enjoy reading!

----------


## Marc

*Peer Review of “Weather Cooking”*  June 15, 2017climate alarmism, climate cult Do you know that the _Hammer of Witches_ has been peer reviewed?
In or around 1487, the theological faculty of the University of Cologne peer reviewed the Hammer of Witches (the quoted edition is _Mackay_, The Hammer of Witches: A Complete Translation of the Malleus Maleficarum. Cambridge University Press*(1)*):  _“The proceedings are then carried out under the careful guidance of Lambertus de Monte, the head of the theological faculty of the University of Cologne, who first states his own approval of the questions to be approved, and is then followed with greater or lesser enthusiasm by other members of the faculty who were present. The proceedings were based on the faculty members’ prior reading of the work.”_ (p. 9) 
The Hammer of Witches “educated” its readers on the presumed witchcraft and encouraged them to take action against alleged witches.  Among other things, it accused the supposed witches of causing what is currently called extreme weather events: _
“THE METHOD BY WHICH THEY [WITCHES] STIR UP HAILSTORMS AND RAIN STORMS AND ALSO MAKE LIGHTNING STRIKE HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS (Chapter Fifteen)_ _NEXT, THAT DEMONS AND their disciples can cause such acts of sorcery in stirring up lightning, hailstorms and rain storms …”_ (p. 380) 
The analogy between the Hammer of Witches and the IPCC texts runs much deeper than it seems.  In both cases the spiteful texts benefited from recent advances in information technology.  The Hammer of Witches was published soon after the invention of the printing press.  Use of the printing press made the Hammer widely accessible.  Similarly, IPCC texts and their interpretations were widely distributed over the Internet, totally outmatching real scientific works on the subject (such as the Nierenberg Report) that were available only in the printed form until recently. 
More “weather cooking”*(2)* quotes from the Hammer of Witches: 
“_There is a story in the Ant Hill about someone who was under arrest. When asked by the judge how they stir up hailstorms and rain storms and whether it was easy for them to cause them, he answered, ’It is easy for us to cause hailstorms … Then, when a certain demon comes, we sacrifice a black rooster to him at a crossroads by casting it up into the air. Having accepted it, the demon obeys and immediately stirs up a breeze. Yet, he does not always cast the hailstorms and lightning bolts into the places intended by us …’_” (p. 382) 
“_It is good idea to turn to events discovered by us. In the diocese of Constance, twenty-eight German miles from Ravensburg in the direction of Salzburg, a very savage hailstorm was stirred up, and for a distance of one mile it crushed the produce, crops and vineyards to such an extent that two years later the harvest in the vineyards was hardly judged to be plentiful. Then the matter was reported by the notary of the Inquisition, a the popular outcry necessitating an inquisition, since certain people, or rather virtually all the inhabitants of the town, deemed that these events had taken place through acts of sorcery. Hence, with the agreement of the chief magistrates, an inquisition in accordance with legal requirements (concerning the Heresy of Sorceresses) was conducted by us for half a month.  The trail led to two persons in particular (though the number of other suspects was not small). One was called Agnes the bathkeeper, the other Anna of Mindelheim. They were arrested …  the bathkeeper was exposed to questioning under the lightest torture … Without a doubt, she had on her person the sorcery of silence (which judges must always beware of), since she asserted her innocence during the first onslaught …_” (p. 383) 
Among other things, the Hammer of Witches listed traits, allegedly shared by witches.  The modern analogy of a witch is a “climate denier.”  IPCC texts do not identify those who  disagree with them, but the government of California, headed by Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, does so right on its website: “_Many of the deniers share some traits …_” 
IPCC uses the phrase “*warm spell*.”  It claims that warm spells are already “_likely in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia_” (2013, IPCC AR5 WG1, SpaM, Table SPM.1, p.7) and that they kill people.  And the finger is pointed at us. *updated from February 9, 2017* 
(1) Incidentally, the Cambridge University Press also publishes the IPCC reports.
(2) For comparison, see the video of Dr. Sally Baliunas talking about weather cooking allegations, issued by the modern climate alarmists.

----------


## DavoSyd

UK weather latest: Today is hottest day in June for more than 40 years 
Mercury rises above the 30C mark for fifth day in a row, for first time since 1995 
Jon Sharman 
Wednesday 21 2017  UK weather latest: Today is hottest day in June for more than 40 years | The Independent

----------


## PhilT2

Davo, don't bother with facts, Marc never does. The important thing is the conspiracy. This latest cut and paste is a classic example; you won't find any science in it. But take a look at a recent court action by the author of the above cut and paste. Leo Goldstein, also known as Ari Halperin, tried to sue dozens of environmental organisation and charitable trusts for being part of the global warming conspiracy. Just to make sure he listed "various John and Jane Does" as defendants in his suit. The charges ranged from fraud to causing the space shuttle to be cancelled. All a giant conspiracy. It got thrown out of court of course; something to do with a lack of any facts to support it.  https://defyccc.com/docs/lawsuit/201...al%20image.pdf

----------


## John2b

> Hi Guys, I see we are still going! How are those models working out for you?

   

> Rod was simply stirring and is not the slightest bit interested in the content of a response, only that he got one.

   

> Its like poking an ants nest!!

   "In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> "In Internet slang, a *troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement."*  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

  Don't feed the troll. It's harder to kick them in the fork when their head is in the trough.

----------


## Marc

> UK weather latest: Today is hottest day in June for more than 40 years  and bla bla bla

  *Global Warming Fraud Levels Could Reach Record High In 2017*  Posted on June 7, 2017 by tonyheller The National Wildlife Federation says Lake Erie water levels are below average, and could drop 4-5 feet. Global Warming and the Great Lakes  National Wildlife FederationThe actual Lake Erie has water levels inches away from a record high  Lake Erie inches away from hitting record-high water level | cleveland.comThe people behind the global warming scam, lie about essentially everything. It is time to bring this scam down. Im headed to DC next week for some important meetings towards that end.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Marc can therefore now be regarded as a physical constant.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I respect Marc because he has the hide of a water buffalo and the self confidence to use it in a characterful wau.  
> You on the other hand strike me as petulance personified. Quite a shame. You and yours have my deepest sympathy.

  save me

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> save me

  Save yourself.

----------


## DavoSyd

"In order to fulfil my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the US will withdraw from the Paris climate accord," Trump said from the White House Rose Garden.

----------


## PhilT2

Another cut and paste that makes absolutely no sense. One undated article says the water level "could drop 4-5 feet* by the end of the century*" and the other says the lake is currently at near record levels. Wow, only 83 years to go, it better start dropping soon.

----------


## Marc

*Quotes from the Carbonazis*  "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole." Ottmar Edenhofer -- Co-chair of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015. Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. "I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." - Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
"The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models." - Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
"The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful." - Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University
"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience." - Al Gore, Climate Change activist
"Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced - a catastrophe of our own making." - Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, 2006
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis..." - David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member
"By the end of this century climate change will reduce the human population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic." - Sir James Lovelock, Revenge of Gaia
"Climate Change will result in a catastrophic global sea level rise of seven meters. That's bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis." - Greenpeace International
"This planet is on course for a catastrophe. The existence of Life itself is at stake." - Dr Tim Flannery, Principal Research Scientist
"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today's problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time." - Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
"The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government." - Mikhail Gorbachev, State of the World Forum
"I envisage the principles of the Earth Charter to be a new form of the ten commandments. They lay the foundation for a sustainable global earth community." - Mikhail Gorbachev, co-author of The Earth Charter
"In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways." - Dr Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General
"Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises." - Lester Brown, WorldWatch Institute
"Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself." - UN Commission on Global Governance
"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level." - UN Agenda 21
"The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope." - David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth
"If we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don't think it is possible under capitalism" - Judi Bari, principal organiser of Earth First!
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King
"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land." - David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First! 
(My comment: What do you plan to do with all those humans already living there?)
"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
"Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath the surface of the earth is a willful expansion of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature." - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." -- Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview
"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it's full complement of species, returning throughout the world." -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
(I guess that answers my above question what they plan to do with us mere mortals!)
"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
"Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor." - Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia
"The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man." - Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.'' - Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb
"I don't claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the cull to the size of the surplus population." - Prince Philip, preface of Down to EarthThe above few quotes make it clear that the elites' idea of an ideal world is one they have all to themselves!
"A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible." - United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion." - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind"One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." - Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier
"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing." - Christopher Manes, Earth First!
"The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth - social and environmental." - Ingrid Newkirk, former President of PETA
"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
"The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon the emergence of a new faith in the future. Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to resanctify the earth." - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
"The greatest hope for the Earth lies in religionists and scientists uniting to awaken the world to its near fatal predicament and then leading mankind out of the bewildering maze of international crises into the future Utopia of humanist hope." - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind
"The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human species has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution.... Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature." - Rene Dubos, board member, Planetary Citizens
"Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian Religious tradition." - Peter Singer, founder of Animal RightsIn June 2007, Tim Flannery warned Brisbane that its ?water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months".  Last month Brisbane recorded the wettest December in 150 years.But of course, who could forget the Australian BOM which predicted that _"The national outlook for total rainfall over spring (September to November), is neutral for most of the country"_ which was promptly followed by record downfalls and widespread floods with some areas getting 400% of the average rainfall. The only part of the country the BOM predicted  ?_a wetter than normal spring"_ was in South West WA (which recorded one of its driest springs since measurements began). -- The Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Aug 2010Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000."[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots...[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.
"Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.
"Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
"By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.
"If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.
"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970 Created by a WRH reader        *SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA*  Facebook Twitter Google Plus Myspace MSN Live Yahoo LinkedIn Orkut Digg Delicious    
Read more: www.whatreallyhappened.com CLIMATEGATE: A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY (UPDATED FOR WINTER 2016-2017) | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

----------


## phild01

Never read the cut and pastes (not enough time in my life), but couldn't help noticing Tim Flannery's name in that lot Marc. Have to agree he sparked enormous economic damage to the country with desalination plants built by Labour, mothballed.  Others might, but I won't be forgetting that one.

----------


## Marc

This lot makes Hitler and Mussolini look like boy scouts. What most people can not see is that the global warming fraud agenda is a totalitarian regime established with the excuse of a threat to humankind. Totalitarian regime _always_ start with acts for "our own good". It's ok for the local armchair environment fans to make believe it's all a lie orchestrated by the bad extreme right. Show me statements by the right of the argument that say anything even remotely outrageous as written above. Man is the enemy so kill all humans? At least Hitler had the courtesy to want some to survive.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Save yourself.

  You guys have zero sense of humor these days.  Lighten up a bit.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> You guys have zero sense of humor these days.  Lighten up a bit.

  Hells bells, Rod. I laughed as I typed it...

----------


## chrisp

> Never read the cut and pastes (not enough time in my life)

  I concur. I'm happy to spend time out of curtesy reading posts written by other forum members as they have taken the trouble to compose and type their own posts. However, when they post large cut-and-pastes of others' biased, unbalanced opinion without any new facts in support of their own argument, then I think that the posts are a waste of my time - and theirs.  
I'm prepared to read Marc's posts if he is prepared to write his own thoughts rather than regurgitate someone else's opinion piece posted elsewhere on the web.   

> This lot makes Hitler and Mussolini look like boy scouts. What most people can not see is that the global warming fraud agenda is a totalitarian regime established with the excuse of a threat to humankind. Totalitarian regime _always_ start with acts for "our own good". It's ok for the local armchair environment fans to make believe it's all a lie orchestrated by the bad extreme right. Show me statements by the right of the argument that say anything even remotely outrageous as written above. Man is the enemy so kill all humans? At least Hitler had the courtesy to want some to survive.

  Actually, after that post, I'm not so sure I want to read Marc's posts. Wow, I thought that some if the cut-and-posts were wacky but that tops them!   :Smilie:

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Hells bells, Rod. I laughed as I typed it...

  Good to know  :Smilie:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Good to know

  And that made me grin too

----------


## John2b

> Never read the cut and pastes (not enough time in my life), but couldn't help noticing Tim Flannery's name in that lot Marc. Have to agree he sparked enormous economic damage to the country with desalination plants built by Labour, mothballed.  Others might, but I won't be forgetting that one.

  Firstly, you guys give Flannery an extraordinary amount of credit for mobilising 1000s of people and $10billions across dozens of jurisdictions - WAY too much credit for someone whom you (collectively) seem to be consider a buffoon FFS! 
Secondly, please explain what you mean by "mothballed" when the desalination plants are currently supplying 47% of Perth's water needs, 14% of Adelaide's water needs, and 4% of Melbourne's water needs, and in 2010-2012 supplied about 12% of Sydney's water needs, averting severe water restrictions? 
Desalinated water plants provide despatch-able water during dry periods when weather conditions are unfavourable, just like despatch-able 'base-load' electricity generation, which provides electricity when the wind isn't blowing or the sun shining. There is a glaring incongruity between the stated position on desalinated water and past posts on despatch-able electricity generation.

----------


## phild01

$535m paid to keep desalination plant in state of 'hibernation' http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...7c001786048fca http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/...eb098aad97ef06 http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...62c2129feca939  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...8808ff8f1562df 
Seems to me that much of the water production is just a political measure to recoup the unnecessary costs.

----------


## John2b

There have been quite a few posts suggesting than a few degrees of warming might be a good thing. Of course, for lifeforms that have evolved under the recent past climatic conditions that is an extraordinary claim. In the case of human physiology with its 37 degree core temperature, there is an upper air temperature and humidity which is quite critically life threatening and it isn't much above where the climate is now:  *"The fact that temperature and relative humidity best predict times when climatic conditions become deadly is consistent with human thermal physiology, as they are both directly related to body heat exchange. First, the combination of an optimum body core temperature (that is, ~37C), the fact that metabolism generates heat (~100 W at rest) and that an object cannot dissipate heat to an environment with equal or higher temperature (the second law of thermodynamics), dictates that any ambient temperature above 37oC will result in body heat accumulation and a dangerous exceedance of the optimum body core temperature (hyperthermia). Sweating, the main process by which the body dissipates heat, becomes ineffective at high relative humidity (air saturated with water vapour prevents evaporation of sweat); therefore, body heat accumulation can occur at temperatures lower than the optimum body core temperature in environments of high relative humidity."*

----------


## John2b

> $535m paid to keep desalination plant in state of 'hibernation' Nocookies | The Australian No Cookies | Gold Coast Bulletin No Cookies | The Advertiser  Nocookies | The Australian

  May be true, but entirely misses the point. The water that was / is provided by the desal plants would not have been available when it was needed if they weren't there - doh! 
(And how is Flannery responsible for the neoeconomic policies that set the economic parameters of the operating contracts anyway?) 
Do you think that making roads that can accomodate peak hour traffic is a waste of taxpayer's money when most of the time there is far less traffic on the road?

----------


## phild01

So you feel we really needed the Sydney and Melbourne ones.  Not sure what the significant contribution was that you infer.  Adelaide, well they never had good water anyway so I suppose they are now getting something from it.

----------


## John2b

> Adelaide, well they never had good water anyway...

  By all means, bag the home town of someone you don't agree with - it will show everyone how strong your argument is  :2thumbsup:

----------


## phild01

Not bagging Adelaide, when I was there and had more hair, can never forget how stiff my hair was after a wash, ie hard water.  I believe it was because of salinity rising from vegetation removal along the Murray.  Surely you recall that too.  I am not anti-Adelaide at all, I liked Don Dunstan  :Smilie: . 
Now back to Sydney and Melbourne's panic construction of desal plants.  Nothing made me madder at the time when our one was to built.  Far too soon.

----------


## woodbe

Desal plants were commissioned because of a lengthy dry period.  
Adding desal plants adds water security for the population. Perth is the most critical but we never know when the states will have another extended dry spell. Once the dry spell arrives, it takes too long to build a significant desal plant.  
Water Security is the reason, and an extended dry period initiated desal plants all across Australia.

----------


## phild01

Don't buy the urgency. These things can be built when things get critical, in the meantime don't use swimming pools or use water in a wasteful way.  Massive price to pay for a 'just in case' situation IMO.  I also see a lot of the talk justifying the premature implementation as simply political spin.

----------


## woodbe

Lol. We forget the years of drought and water restrictions and decide everything is fine because we have plenty of water now.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drough...e_21st_century

----------


## PhilT2

Qld has a desal plant on the Gold Coast that was a bit of a political football for a while. Built after many years of drought, it came on line a year or two before the big floods of 2011. Water restrictions are not popular on the coast; empty swimming pools, dried out public parks and gardens and other limits upset the people that make a living off the tourist trade. As the population continues to grow in SE Qld i think we will need to use all the tricks in the book. We can already do water recycling, household water tanks are common but we have no more big rivers to dam.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Don't buy the urgency.

  I think it was because someone was selling something shiny? 
this sums it up:    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-0...r-says/7807914

----------


## John2b

> I think it was because someone was selling something shiny?

  Ah - I see. They can't switch off the desalination plant because its solar powered!   :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Ahhh the desal plants... interesting pieces of infrastructure. The water industry really likes them and understands their significance in the scheme of things but the political industry doesn't know or want to know how and why they work or what is required to keep them working. 
Now if the industry had had its way in the first place the single city desal plants on the East Coast wouldn't have been built in the first place. Rather they would have had built many smaller plants inland to take advantage of a much better and far cheaper source of water - tertiary treated sewage effluent. But it turns out that politicians really can't sell excrement or even want to be seen trying...

----------


## PhilT2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toowoo...ferendum,_2006

----------


## phild01

> politicians really can't sell excrement or even want to be seen trying...

  Come on, they're always trying this :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Come on, they're always trying this

  Yeah but it's not actual excrement they're working with.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toowoo...ferendum,_2006

  Yeah... we've got no smarter since then as a species too.

----------


## Marc

> Ahhh the desal plants... interesting pieces of infrastructure. The water industry really likes them and understands their significance in the scheme of things but the political industry doesn't know or want to know how and why they work or what is required to keep them working.

  The reason we have desal plant in sydney is because of politicians not despite them. We have the global warming fraud on one side. Then T Flannery and Co jump on the bandwagon of handouts to feed the Bshit artist that feed the voters. Politicians jump on the "me too" pushbike and see the opportunity to be seen as "active" to "save the planet" and voila ... desal plant. Politicians have no regard to money spent because it is not their money. Their money is safe and sound tucked in their super and other deals. We are the mugs. We need a revolution, a purge. There are no principles in this politicians, look at the so called liberals complaining about what kevin and julia spent yet spend twice as much an keep on spending to be like labour. It's absolutely pathetic.

----------


## phild01

> look at the so called liberals complaining about what kevin and julia spent yet spend twice as much an keep on spending to be like labour.

   Labour dug a hole we can't get out of and the Senate keeps us there.

----------


## John2b

Wind turbines don't just produce electricity, they shelter animals in Australia's denuded landscapes.

----------


## johnc

> Labour dug a hole we can't get out of and the Senate keeps us there.

   It isn't that simple. We cut tax rates, gave generous discounts to capital gains, lowered some and removed other taxes on super and the icing on the cake was a fall in company tax receipts partly fuelled by active tax minimisation by large multinationals. The digging was part LNP part Labor. Spending as a % of GDP remains at the higher end of normal. We have a revenue problem not helped by wedging and spin by politicians deflecting from the issue and working against good policy. Our problem is a failure of the political class and commentators and a dense uninformed public. Aka we are losing the plot in civil discourse.

----------


## phild01

No, Labour Rudd thought he was in a lolley shop throwing ridiculous money at his ill thought-out ideals with no consideration to the damage it was doing to the economy.  Rudd, Gillard and Shorten are just dangerous partners with 'our' federal money.  They racked up so much debt we now struggle with the interest.  It's naive to think they did not create the problem. No party today can overcome what they did.  How is it that so many forget that the current deficit started and ballooned with them.  Libs cannot do anything with a senate that thinks it is the government.  What's the point of having an elected government if the senate and opposition sabotage their right to govern.

----------


## John2b

Err... Australians elect the senate too, just in case you didn't know... 
BTW as a dispenser of lollies, Rudd can't hold a candle to John Howard, who did to the electorate pretty much what Rolf Harris allegedly did to young women...

----------


## phild01

It's the tail wagging the dog. 
Yes the electorate does elect a Senate but we have no idea what that lot on that butcher paper are all about.  There is too much wrong with the Senate system so much so I have poor respect for it. When I vote I go one way reps party and jumble the senate paper. I reckon many others mix their preferences too, as a form of protest.  After all the Senate is not the primary consideration in most people's minds.  I also loathe the fact that we have only a choice between two parties that can likely govern, neither of which represent what most want in government. I think mostly half and half of what each stand for! Someone recently said to me that elections should only be there for those who want to vote.  Didn't agree at first, but think I do now.

----------


## John2b

> Someone recently said to me that elections should only be there for those who want to vote.  Didn't agree at first, but think I do now.

  Voluntary voting? That's how Trump got elected and how the UK got a Brexit that is a dog's breakfast.  
The real problem with our current political system is our politicians' failure to understand that a party that wins an election is merely granted the responsibility to manage the country's affairs, not the right to impose ideology unilaterally.

----------


## johnc

Your party shirt is showing Phil, Howard got the ball rolling, Rudd was a bit of a lost cause but by enacting Howard's last two tax cuts he perpetuated the problem Howard started. Howard remains the standard for giveaways and spending. Abbott was simply useless and in my opinion far worse than Whitlam he was merely useless with money, Abbott was useless with everything. This current lot are just beginning to show signs of having a clue but it is early days

----------


## phild01

> Your party shirt is showing Phil, Howard got the ball rolling, Rudd was a bit of a lost cause but by enacting Howard's last two tax cuts he perpetuated the problem Howard started. Howard remains the standard for giveaways and spending. Abbott was simply useless and in my opinion far worse than Whitlam he was merely useless with money, Abbott was useless with everything. This current lot are just beginning to show signs of having a clue but it is early days

  Howard's days were eventually up and I didn't vote for him in his final election campaign, so I am not showing my party shirt as you say (maybe because I don't have one). When the remnants of the Rudd period are totally gone would be when I might pass a vote their way.
 Interesting how some think Howard set Labour policies in concrete of never being able to keep things in surplus.  Their's was a pathetic episode in government in that they couldn't keep a tidy reign on spending! 
 Get through the veneer of these parties, why would you have a party shirt. 
As for Abbott, he needed to go too but some good came from that period, which the greens abhor.

----------


## Marc

> Your party shirt is showing Phil, Howard got the ball rolling, Rudd was a bit of a lost cause but by enacting Howard's last two tax cuts he perpetuated the problem Howard started. Howard remains the standard for giveaways and spending. Abbott was simply useless and in my opinion far worse than Whitlam he was merely useless with money, Abbott was useless with everything. This current lot are just beginning to show signs of having a clue but it is early days

   Ha ha, party shirt? 
Johnc barometer: 
Government at the right, _useless_, 
Leftie government economic vandal buddies with Chavez : _apologetic_ Current pretend right haplessly leaning left, lost in a limbo of global warming and gay marriage ... _bravo now they are showing signs to have a clue!_ ...  :Smilie:  
Oh my ... only Tony Abbot can lead the Liberals out of the hole they have dug for themselves due to complete lack of convictions, principles and sense of patriotism. Oops I said a rude word the "p" word ... it will be @@@@@@@@ed  out by the website for sure. 
The wrecking of the west economy by the global warming fraud embraced with hysterical fervour by the left hordes will eventually be called in history books as the biggest economic vandalism a group of countries have ever inflicted on themselves. 
Meantime China and India are laughing all the way to the bank. We demolish coal fired stations and sell cheap coal to them and buy solar panels and windmills with a 10,000% mark up in exchange. Yes, eventually the penny will drop and eventually someone with gonads bigger than a pea will timidly tell the moron electorate that ... well sorry but it was all a lie. There is no "global warming" let's go back to normality and debate something more interesting like if we actually need to broadcast invitations to other planets to come and invade us, or if we really need to persuade children that they are actually transgender only they don't know it .... oh sorry we are doing that already. Canberra 150 children _transitioning to something else_, Goulbourn zero ... mm

----------


## johnc

> Howard's days were eventually up and I didn't vote for him in his final election campaign, so I am not showing my party shirt as you say (maybe because I don't have one). When the remnants of the Rudd period are totally gone would be when I might pass a vote their way.
>  Interesting how some think Howard set Labour policies in concrete of never being able to keep things in surplus.  Their's was a pathetic episode in government in that they couldn't keep a tidy reign on spending! 
>  Get through the veneer of these parties, why would you have a party shirt. 
> As for Abbott, he needed to go too but some good came from that period, which the greens abhor.

   I reckon Swan's hero was probably Costello, he did little other than follow Peter's existing direction he never showed any sign he had much independent thought on the economy. Hockey had no idea at all and other than a bit of bleating about large international companies dodging tax achieved nothing at all. Hockey was silly enough to unwind tax measures while leaving spending compensation in place appeasing Abbot but making things worse in the process. Our current nutter is showing signs he is getting the idea we can only hope that the bull stops and rather than framing the argument they want we will actually get honest commentry and some effort to redress the current revenue issues.

----------


## John2b

> Meantime China and India are laughing all the way to the bank. We demolish coal fired stations and sell cheap coal to them and buy solar panels and windmills with a 10,000% mark up in exchange.

  Hmm. India and China have transformed their energy markets and don't want, or need, coal from Australia. Indeed both countries are legislating to minimise/eliminate coal imports. 
Oh dear... You claim that Australians are paying 100 times more for renewable energy generation than what it costs to produce. Yet even at what you claim is an enormously inflated price, the cost of renewable electricity is below the cost of fossil energy fired water boiler technology. You can't see your own logical disconnect here?   

> if we really need to persuade children that they are actually transgender only they don't know it

  ... and the relevance to this topic is??? You really need to explain why your repeated psychotic posts should be allowed in this forum.

----------


## johnc

I don't think gender orientation posts are appropriate here either, a bit like farting in a lift, of no interest to anyone else and leaves a nasty stench that you don't expect in a civilised community.

----------


## Marc

> I don't think gender orientation posts are appropriate etc bla bla.

  Your reply is a perfect example to illustrate my point. 
The left that has long ago infiltrated the education departments all over the country is pushing for the "safe schools" program. This is an abomination and an assault on family values and an assault on the kids concerned. Why do we have to tolerate mind boggling discourses from morons who tell us matter of fact that 50% of kids are forced into their gender by society?  
This is political war waged on us just like global warming propaganda is political war on the ordinary person. My point has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with the abuse of kids for political purposes. 
The numbers I posted are real and illustrate how Canberra, the refuge of the activist on that topic has distorted the kids minds, whilst in a neighbouring town with comparable population without the political pressure this is not the case. 
This is an example of how ethics and principles and common sense go out the window when it comes to the left wanting to make political points. The left is poison to the ordinary person and poison to the country.  The global warming fraud they defend so vehemently is just another example of their lack of integrity not to mention lack of intelligence to realise they are being used as cannon fodder for a few elite that benefits from this rubbish and that will eventually drop them like yesterdays newspaper. 
Should I tell the story of the nun telling the kids the police will take them away because their parents don't take care of them waving an alleged letter from the PM, something some took so seriously as to start crying ... only to tell them at the end of the day it was a lesson about the stolen generation? Very appropriate political propaganda?

----------


## johnc

It actually has nothing to do with climate change Marc, I realise you seem to have the view that everything you disagree with has a leftist political agenda but the rest of us probably see it as little more than a few loose kangaroos in the top paddock. The safe schools program is simply a political fixation of the extreme right there isn't much wrong with the program and left to the tuning and adjustments these programs are subjected to would eventually satisfy most objections. There is a whiff of false news in the objections along with the religious right getting in on the act to try and retain some sort of relevance. There is nothing to indicate that you know a single thing of what is really being taught other than further distorting some originally distorted rubbish that made it into the chat rooms of the usual suspects.

----------


## Marc

Ha ha, thank you for your accurate reply. it's no different from all the other replies where you and others either attempt to discredit the author of the article or myself without ever addressing what is actually allegedly wrong with the views expressed. 
I find it particularly hilarious when you guys complain about me "copying and pasting" other people's writings with much more qualifications than me, and would prefer (understandably) me to write it myself. What nonsense! if you think the author is wrong, address the idea not the person, and it is the same here. "False news" funnily enough used by Donald Trump and adopted by our left leaning pretend liberal, fake conservative PM, "religious right", what else? ... "Chat rooms". You have no idea what to say but you know I am wrong ... ha ha, that's ok with me John. Oh forgot the kangaroos (?)  
Next time try to address the point made without hyperbole, and tell me what is good about bankrupting the country with triple and quadruple the electricity price for zero gain in CO2 "emissions" that are no harm and in fact are plant food anyway. 
China and India are having a belly laugh at our expense all thanks to the global warming fraud. I have a belly laugh about it too since I am personally not affected, I can pay electricity bills if they went to tenfold, but I doubt that is the case with most folks. We are going down the path of Venezuela and Argentina and Greece and some are so fervently religious about this nonsense that they can not see the forest for the trees.  
I am going to switch off my computer now to reduce emissions ... the word "emissions" has some connotation of bodily functions somehow, can we use another one?  :Rofl5:

----------


## John2b

> China and India are having a belly laugh at our expense all thanks to the global warming fraud.

  China's coal production fell by 9% last year while renewable sources accounted for 19.7 percent of the total energy mix, and China is embarking on a $474billion renewable energy program. Meanwhile the Indian government predicts that 57% of India’s total electricity capacity will come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2027. And who operates the world’s largest solar plant in Tamil Nadu? Adani! Yes, Adani! 
They sure are laughing their heads off at Australia! You got that right, Marc.

----------


## PhilT2

Here's a song about my favourite climate denier.. and Tony Abbott's best mate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtHOmforqxk

----------


## johnc

> Here's a song about my favourite climate denier.. and Tony Abbott's best mate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtHOmforqxk

  A great song, if you download it through iTunes the proceeds go to victims.

----------


## woodbe

Bought it when it first came out. 
At last, Pell has decided to come home. Let's see the result.

----------


## johnc

We certainly don't want any comment on the charges, regardless of the outcome what is important is a fair trial for all parties, the alleged victims and the accused.

----------


## John2b

Got to love this: the facial reactions of the astronaut Buzz Aldrin, who's life depended on the application of scientific models, listening to the anti-science Trump talking about future US scientific endeavour:  https://www.facebook.com/DailyMail/v...4872950572438/

----------


## Marc

*FINKEL REPORT'S FUNNY FIGURES* Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
June 14, 2017 7:08am  The Turnbull Government is pushing the Finkel report as a miracle that would give us lots more renewable energy - an amazing 42 per cent of our electricity - by 2030 without higher power prices or more blackouts.   
But this graph - fig. 3.8 from the Finkel report - suggests it's just making stuff up.
​Consider the explosion in green power it's predicting: Shares (%) are: hydro wind/solar/bio rooftop
Present 8 9 2
2020 8 16 4
2030 CET 8 25 9
2050 CET 8 54 11No more hydro, of course, since we've got bans on such dams.
But look at winds, solar and biomass - that nearly doubles in just three years and nearly triples in 13. Since solar farms aren't huge, most of that huge growth is expected to come from wind farms. Are we really expecting triple the wind farms we have now? Without the system becoming even more unreliable or prices going through the roof?
Then look at rooftop solar. In just the next three years Finkel is predicting a doubling of the amount of panels on roofs, even though feedback tariffs have been wound back. But even more extraordinary is that he reckons we will have solar panels explode from 2 per cent of our power supply to 9 per cent in just 13 years - more than quadrupling.
Really?
I can see that happening only if power prices keep rocketing up, making that somehow economic without government subsidies. But isn't the Turnbull Government claiming our power prices will fall?
These projections are what the Government relies on?  Alan Moran: _Finkel is utter rubbish, if only because he says that renewables are now cheaper than coal but that they still need a subsidy. Replacing a product with another that is three times as costly can do nothing other than raise prices in general; add the intrinsic reduced reliability of wind, its dispersed nature and we have a cocktail for economic demise.__Finkel has 47 per cent share of exotic renewables by 2050 up from an already crippling 20 per cent in 2020. Even his requirement of a 3 year notice of closure is unworkable - what is the government to do? Require a firm suddenly confronted with major capex to stay in production made unprofitable by the very policies the Government has brought into operation?_

----------


## Marc

*Finkel numbers don’t add up*Alan Finkel’s report was a wasted opportunity to deal with climate change and improve energy security. Picture: AAP  PAUL KERINThe Australian12:00AM June 19, 2017Save Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on emailShare more...  We all know damned lies and statistics can be misleading. So too can graphs, modelling assumptions and the omission or glossing over of critically important information. Take the Finkel report.  The report by chief scientist Alan Finkel on the future security of the national electricity market was released on June 9. In it, Finkel recommended a “clean energy target” for the electricity sector, rather than an emissions intensity scheme. A CET is similar to the existing shockingly dysfunctional renewable energy target, except (in Finkel’s words) “all fuel types, including coal with carbon capture and storage or gas” would be eligible provided they meet an “emissions intensity threshold”. In choosing between policy options, a key consideration must be their relative costs. Yet Finkel’s report presented almost nothing on that front, and the little it did was misleading. At one point, it claimed the “overall resource cost” of Finkel’s CET was “similar” to that of an emissions intensity scheme; at another, it said it was “slightly higher”. What evidence did it provide? A single unreadable bar chart (chart A) with no numbers on it. This chart purported to show the resource costs of Finkel’s CET and an emissions intensity scheme compared with business as usual. Looking at the chart, you’d have a hard time seeing any difference between the resource costs of Finkel’s CET and an emissions intensity scheme. But what matters in considering policy options are the changes in costs those options generate. The Finkel report didn’t disclosed those changes at all. It simply glossed over them. That’s just not good enough.  Finkel cited as the source for chart A modelling work by Jacobs, but that work wasn’t publicly released with his report. That’s not good enough either. The Jacobs report was finally released last Tuesday afternoon, after I kicked up a fuss about its non-release. The Jacobs report presented the resource costs in a different way (chart B). Chart B shows the change in resources costs of various policy options compared with business as usual. Unlike Finkel, Jacobs actually disclosed specific numbers; they show the additional cost of Finkel’s CET is $5 billion — yes, billion — over business as usual. That’s $1.5bn — or 43 per cent — more than the additional cost of an energy intensity scheme. The Jacobs report also disclosed the cost of abating emissions is only $7.50/tonne under an energy intensity scheme, but $10.50/tonne under Finkel’s CET. Finkel’s report didn’t even mention abatement costs. Basic economics dictates a CET must be significantly more costly than an energy intensity scheme. Unlike a CET, an energy intensity scheme provides direct incentives to reduce high-emissions generation and demand if they are the least-cost ways to meet emissions reduction targets. Finkel’s CET is a type of “low emissions target”. Interestingly, a consulting report for the Climate Change Authority dated February 17 found the cost disadvantage of a low emissions target versus an energy intensity scheme was $14bn — much greater than the $1.5bn that Jacobs estimated for Finkel. Guess who the CCA’s consultant was? Jacobs. The CCA-Jacobs results were also quoted in a joint report by the CCA and the Australian Energy Markets Commission, dated June 1. The Finkel report simply dismissed the Jacobs-CCA modelling, claiming its low emissions target was “significantly different” to his CET. But it’s hard to figure out what those differences are because Finkel’s report didn’t specify the details of his CET. Not even the critically important “emissions intensity threshold”. In fact, according to the Jacobs reports, the emissions intensity thresholds for Finkel’s CET and the CCA’s low energy target are identical. The reasons why Jacobs estimated a smaller cost disadvantage for Finkel’s CET have nothing to do with any difference between Finkel’s CET and the authority’s low energy target per se. They have everything to do with two key modelling assumptions Finkel told Jacobs to make. First, Finkel told his consultants to assume that demand does not respond to price. That’s @astounding economics. In contrast, the costs presented in the Jacobs-CCA report were “demand-adjusted resource costs”, as they should be. Those costs took account of consumers’ demand responses to price and the welfare gains/losses that result. Inquiries are supposed to consider the public interest. What matters is not supply costs per se but the net benefits (consumer benefits less supply costs). As demand reductions are an important part of the least-cost way to reduce some emissions, Finkel has understated his CET’s cost disadvantage versus an emissions intensity scheme. Second, Finkel specified a much weaker emissions reduction. The Jacobs-CCA emissions reductions were consistent with global action to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees; in that modelling, emissions intensity under both an energy intensity scheme and a low energy target fell to about 0.05t/MWh by 2050. In the Jacobs-Finkel modelling, emissions intensity in 2050 is five times higher than that. Finkel’s offhand dismissal of the CCA/AEMC report is @alarming given Finance Minister Mathias Cormann told the Senate on March 30 the CCA/AEMC report “will be informed by independent modelling … and will be factored into the work undertaken by chief scientist Finkel”. Finkel has no excuse. He had plenty of time to consider the CCA/AEMC report and the Jacobs-CCA work. He could have easily engaged with the authority or AEMC to ensure consistent analysis. At the very least, he should have explained specifically why the Jacobs-Finkel and Jacobs-CCA modelling results were different and disclosed and justified his specific modelling instructions. Finkel also recommended his CET because it had “better price outcomes” than an energy intensity scheme — even though he stated the price difference was “small”. But Australia’s economic welfare depends on real economic costs, not prices. A CET may have “better” price outcomes only because it subsidises generators with low marginal costs and doesn’t penalise high-emissions generators. But it’s for these very reasons — plus the lack of price incentives to reduce demand — that a CET is more costly than an energy intensity scheme. In any case, it’s hardly even-handed to cite a downside of an energy intensity scheme (higher prices) and ignore the upside (the benefits of demand responses that those prices generate). As Malcolm Turnbull ruled out an energy intensity scheme last December, it is fair enough that Finkel considered a CET. However, he shouldn’t have obscured and downplayed its cost disadvantage versus an energy intensity scheme. Well-conducted inquiries clearly and even-handedly state the costs and benefits of policy options — including options ruled out by governments, so we can all see the opportunity costs forgone. The CCA/AEMC report did that and recommended an energy intensity scheme as the preferred policy option, despite the Prime Minister’s edict. Dealing with climate change and improving energy security are both vitally important issues. The Finkel review was a great opportunity to achieve progress on both. Instead, Finkel has produced a shambolic report and wasted that opportunity. _Paul Kerin is adjunct professor, School of Economics, University of Adelaide._

----------


## woodbe

> Dealing with climate change and improving energy security are both vitally important issues.

  Hi Marc, 
I quoted the most important part of your copy/paste from the Australian newspaper. 
For once I agree with you. Yes, we have vitally important issues with climate change and energy security, and yes, our Commonwealth Government is still not working hard enough to prepare Australia for the future.

----------


## DavoSyd



----------


## woodbe

SA is moving away from coal. Heading further into renewables:  South Australia teams with Tesla, Neoen to build world&#039;s biggest lithium ion battery in bid to secure power - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   

> The world's largest lithium ion battery will be installed in South  Australia under an agreement between Tesla, Neoen and the State  Government, Premier Jay Weatherill has announced. 
> The Government said the 100-megawatt (129 megawatt hour) battery places SA at the forefront of global energy storage technology.

  Tied into the Hornsdale 315MW wind farm north of Jamestown, SA. 
The Lyon Group is also into renewables in the Riverland: 330MW Solar and 100MW battery. Due to begin 2018.  Lyon Group announces $1b battery and solar farm for South Australia&#039;s Riverland - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## phild01

Who is paying and what is the real cost?
100MW is a bit of a trickle and that is it's total capacity so maybe it's good for 20MWH or less -just guessing, and is that the true deliverable capacity, and over how many years before battery replacement?
What will be the battery replacement cost, and is it a contractual replacement agreement with Tesla? 
I did a very rough cost estimation and it seems that any household benefitting might be around a $5000 cost to them.  If the batteries are cycled heavily then that will get very expensive.  Just a quick guesstimate on my part! I base that on the 50 million he is risking.

----------


## woodbe

SA has significant renewables but also draws power from Vic. Vic has it's own catastrophe in play. 
100MW lithium power plant is only good for 20MWH? According to the news info, the plant is good for 129MWH.  
Wikipedia says Lithium can run to 1000 cycles and more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithiu...y#Battery_life   

> lithium-ion battery lifespan could vary by a factor of five, with some  Li-ion cells losing 30% of their capacity after 1,000 cycles, and others  having better capacity after 5,000 cycles

  Those two SA solar/wind systems mentioned adds 600MW of extra power to the SA grid. That is cheaper per KW than the recent suggestion from the Feds of building another Coal Power Plant. They are also faster to deploy. SA has had power issues and they are working on it actively. The next state with major issues is in Vic due to an ancient Hazelwood coal station being shut down with no future plan in place at the time - it should have had a replacement plan... Selling off power plants without retaining some active control has been the issue for both states. 
Running a coal/gas plant costs more than a renewable plant. For the life of a coal/gas plant the supply has to be mined and transported to the generation plant for the life of the plant. Renewables just need routine maintenance.

----------


## John2b

100 MW is the dispatch-able capacity equivalent to a 100MW gas, 100MW coal or 100 MW nuclear generator. The difference between the four sources is that the battery system can respond to demand changes in milliseconds, not minutes like gas, hours like coal or the days it takes nuclear to match demand. 
129 MWH is the capacity of the battery bank. That is, if it is delivering 20 MWH as per Phil's post each hour, it can do so for 6 hours or more. The whole point of a battery system so to allow for patchy cloud or gusty wind so that those two sources can be used closer to capacity. Unlike fossil fuel or nuclear generators, there is no penalty for not using ALL of the energy available at a given time from wind or solar - the blades can be feathered or the inverter throttled back without damaging the system or the generator. However even with spare capacity, variable sources can suddenly fall below demand due to environmental changes, and the battery storage can take up the slack instantly. 
The battery bank can also be charged from inexpensive power imported from Victoria as generation there attempts to ramp back down after the morning or evening demand peak and is sometimes forced to pay commercial consumers to use electricity to keep frequency under control. This type of energy trading is not unlike how the Snowy Hydro scheme makes money out of pumped storage.

----------


## phild01

> 100MW lithium power plant is only good for 20MWH? According to the news info, the plant is good for 129MWH.  
> Those two SA solar/wind systems mentioned adds 600MW of extra power to the SA grid. That is cheaper per KW than the recent suggestion from the Feds of building another Coal Power Plant.

  Yes, I was conservative.  100MW would be the hourly rate, wouldn't it!  100MW is the claim even though they do say 129MW, so maybe they need to keep 29 in the bank.  That 100MW is probably what is available in the tank, so for what is needed it would be distributed over night time hours, not just one hour.
I reckon per household the cost is far higher than the figure I came up with.
As for those cycles, they would be delicately cared for batteries, just like the claims were for compact fluorescent's which were nowhere near what was claimed.

----------


## chrisp

> Yes, I was conservative.  100MW would be the hourly rate, wouldn't it!  100MW is the claim even though they do say 129MW, so maybe they need to keep 29 in the bank.  That 100MW is probably what is available in the tank, so for what is needed it would be distributed over night time hours, not just one hour.

  I suspect that you are confusing energy (measured in MWh - the size of the 'tank') with power (measured in MW - how quickly the tank can be filled or emptied).

----------


## pharmaboy2

> SA has significant renewables but also draws power from Vic. Vic has it's own catastrophe in play. 
> 100MW lithium power plant is only good for 20MWH? According to the news info, the plant is good for 129MWH.  
> Wikipedia says Lithium can run to 1000 cycles and more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithiu...y#Battery_life   
> Those two SA solar/wind systems mentioned adds 600MW of extra power to the SA grid. That is cheaper per KW than the recent suggestion from the Feds of building another Coal Power Plant. They are also faster to deploy. SA has had power issues and they are working on it actively. The next state with major issues is in Vic due to an ancient Hazelwood coal station being shut down with no future plan in place at the time - it should have had a replacement plan... Selling off power plants without retaining some active control has been the issue for both states. 
> Running a coal/gas plant costs more than a renewable plant. For the life of a coal/gas plant the supply has to be mined and transported to the generation plant for the life of the plant. Renewables just need routine maintenance.

  Couple of things been missed here. 
1. A decent size plant is 2000MW.  There are 2 of them destined to close up the road from me in 5 and 11 years respectively.
2. A coal fired plant is not about big MW, it's about big MW required at 8pm when all the solar is gone and the wind has died. 
finally, coal is indeed still cheaper by quite a ways, the problem in the market however, is that coal requires an input which costs, wind is capital driven and so generates free power at midday when it's breezy.  Coal obviously can't compete with that marginal cost at that time.  However come evening, we want power and the power needs to be provided by coal, whose turbines can't magically be started up suddenly and someone poke the fire. 
what the effect of all this is a market that is now deeply flawed with an up and down supply where the providers of the night power that's needed, battery powered cars anyone?, has to take a bath in the middle of the day in order to provide for he night. 
you really need to properly understand those preceding paragraphs to have some idea as to how someone can claim wind and solar are cheap but really aren't because they can't supply at all times. 
we simply don't have a solution to twenty four hour energy security without either coal, geo thermal or nuclear.  Or possibly burning forests as the Germans do, or building the worlds biggest dam like the chinese

----------


## phild01

> I suspect that you are confusing energy (measured in MWh - the size of the 'tank') with power (measured in MW - how quickly the tank can be filled or emptied).

   I am taking what is said to mean there will be a diirty big battery pack with 100MW delivery that is is nothing after 1 hour.  Batteries generally don't like that type of abuse either.

----------


## Marc

I look at SA and think of someone on the unemployment "benefit" paid by those fools who actually work and asking for a new car and Foxtel paid for.
SA get your head out of your ass and find a way to get out of bankruptcy before you do the dance of the swans with your other little green mates from Denmark. And if you can find some time in your busy schedule of idiotic energy decisions on borrowed money, see if you can get started building those submarines commissioned by your friend the fake conservative Malcolm as a way of more welfare payments. 
What is all this calligraphic diarrhoea? 
We are approaching half a trillion dollars of debt and you want to spend more in useless inefficient fancy expensive useless wind generation? Did I mention useless? 
You guys are unbelievable. Your religious zeal is only matched by the Spanish inquisition coupled up with TV evangelists. 
CO2 is good for you ... CO2 is good for you ... CO2 is good for you ... CO2 is good for you ... CO2 is good for you ... CO2 is good for you ... CO2 is good for you ... etc

----------


## woodbe

> Couple of things been missed here. 
> 1. A decent size plant is 2000MW.  There are 2 of them destined to close up the road from me in 5 and 11 years respectively.
> 2. A coal fired plant is not about big MW, it's about big MW required at 8pm when all the solar is gone and the wind has died. 
> finally, coal is indeed still cheaper by quite a ways,

  Running a single 2000MW plant or running 7 x 300MW plants spread around the state will do the same, but with more flexibility due to the different types of generation. The plan is for renewable energy generators to have decent battery backup for times when the wind or solar is not dispatchable. 
Coal is not cheaper, and it is definitely causing damage to the environment. Clean Coal is a fallacy.

----------


## phild01

> Running a single 2000MW plant or running 7 x 300MW plants spread around the state will do the same, but with more flexibility due to the different types of generation. The plan is for renewable energy generators to have decent battery backup for times when the wind or solar is not dispatchable. 
> Coal is not cheaper, and it is definitely causing damage to the environment. Clean Coal is a fallacy.

  I bet coal is a lot cheaper compared to battery costs.

----------


## woodbe

Tesla to supply world&#039;s biggest battery for SA, but what is it and how will it work? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   

> *How will it be used?*Neoen said the battery would primarily  provide stability for the power grid, something traditionally the domain  of coal, gas and hydro, rather than wind or solar.
> Since the  closure of Port Augusta's coal-fired power stations last year, the  market has tightened in SA and prices have been very high.
> The big  battery should be able to provide competition in this market to help  drive down prices, with an eventual flow-on to power consumers.
> In  return for its undisclosed financial contribution to the battery  project, the SA Government would gain the right to tap up to 70 per cent  of the battery's output at times.
> That energy could be used to  avoid future load-shedding blackouts in summer if electricity demand is  forecast to outstrip supply.

----------


## woodbe

> I bet coal is a lot cheaper compared to battery costs.

  Battery is just backup. Coal needs to compare with renewable power. It cannot.

----------


## chrisp

> I am taking what is said to mean there will be a diirty big battery pack with 100MW delivery that is is nothing after 1 hour.  Batteries generally don't like that type of abuse either.

  You'd surprised how much difference a relatively small amount of energy storage can make to a system. An analogy would be to look at a hybrid car. The battery pack is small and wouldn't actually drive the car very far, but it makes a significant difference to the fuel economy. 
The mathematics behind why a hybrid car is more efficient is very similar to why energy storage makes a difference with renewable energy. The notable difference is that in the car the aim is to keep the load on the internal combustion engine as steady as possible while the load varies (load levelling). In the power system, the aim is to keep a steady supply available while the generator output fluctuates (supply levelling).

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Running a single 2000MW plant or running 7 x 300MW plants spread around the state will do the same, but with more flexibility due to the different types of generation. The plan is for renewable energy generators to have decent battery backup for times when the wind or solar is not dispatchable. 
> Coal is not cheaper, and it is definitely causing damage to the environment. Clean Coal is a fallacy.

  clean coal is probably falacy  
coal is definitely causing damage to the environment 
coal is clearly cheaper when you factor in 24/7 operation and production, but before you add in carbon downside . 
you don't seem to have a grip on the need for baseload - we need to replace baseload, and these batteries can't even begin to solve the problem in the medium term. This is a looming problem that few seem able to grasp. 
there was a report the other day that pretty much said, carbon needs to be drastically cut NOW! Not waiting for some technology not even dreamed up to come.   We either use known technology and and capture carbon (forest, building material, conversion with lime, who knows) or we face serious outcomes. 
greenpeace and their policies are not the saviour of this planet, they are the enemy of rational solutions.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> You'd surprised how much difference a relatively small amount of energy storage can make to a system. An analogy would be to look at a hybrid car. The battery pack is small and wouldn't actually drive the car very far, but it makes a significant difference to the fuel economy. 
> The mathematics behind why a hybrid car is more efficient is very similar to why energy storage makes a difference with renewable energy. The notable difference is that in the car the aim is to keep the load on the internal combustion engine as steady as possible while the load varies (load levelling). In the power system, the aim is to keep a steady supply available while the generator output fluctuates (supply levelling).

  Is hybrid a myth?  https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-rev...m-part-1-39703 
thats 7.5l per hundred kms.  For comparison, I drove a ford mondeo TDi for 4 weeks.  I achieved above 970km per tank (56litres per fill).   
I like your metaphor, but in the real world the hybrid has a real hard time competing with a half decent diesel (many would call it a POS diesel) 
i

----------


## phild01

> Battery is just backup. Coal needs to compare with renewable power. It cannot.

  That's a red herring.  The cost of batteries to meet demand would exceed coal many times.  The context of discussion relates for the need to meet demand when the sun doesn't shine .

----------


## phild01

> You'd surprised how much difference a relatively small amount of energy storage can make to a system. An analogy would be to look at a hybrid car. The battery pack is small and wouldn't actually drive the car very far, but it makes a significant difference to the fuel economy. 
> The mathematics behind why a hybrid car is more efficient is very similar to why energy storage makes a difference with renewable energy. The notable difference is that in the car the aim is to keep the load on the internal combustion engine as steady as possible while the load varies (load levelling). In the power system, the aim is to keep a steady supply available while the generator output fluctuates (supply levelling).

  I say the analogy is flawed as the demand for household power comes when people get home from work, and it is dark.

----------


## chrisp

> Is hybrid a myth?  https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-rev...m-part-1-39703 
> thats 7.5l per hundred kms.  For comparison, I drove a ford mondeo TDi for 4 weeks.  I achieved above 970km per tank (56litres per fill).   
> I like your metaphor, but in the real world the hybrid has a real hard time competing with a half decent diesel (many would call it a POS diesel) 
> i

  You're missing the point. The efficiency of the hybrid comes from using a small amount of energy storage (battery) to capture energy that would be lost during braking. The more stop-starting the better the energy saving (relatively). There is little or no difference (hybridvs non-hybrid) in highway driving. Any car with a more efficient internal combustion engine will give better fuel economy - hybrid or not. 
The hybrid analogy holds very very well with how energy storage works on a electricity grid with intermittent generators.

----------


## woodbe

> That's a red herring.  The cost of batteries to meet demand would exceed coal many times.  The context of discussion relates for the need to meet demand when the sun doesn't shine .

  You are missing the point. Firstly, because the major renewable supply in SA is not solar. Wind runs when the sun doesn't shine. Try walking outside at night in the the SA hills, there is a lot of wind. All we need is some dispatchable backup power to bridge the gap for several backup systems including the Government's upcoming generation. 
SA is a nett importer of energy from Vic. 
The cost of battery isn't the issue. The SA Government is adding generation and backup battery. Battery is there to bridge the gap, not to supply the complete demand. When SA had recent issues it was because the demand was greater than supply, interconnector issues, and several local backups fell over. Adding renewable energy to the SA grid with battery backup gives SA more renewable energy, more independent power from the new ongoing Vic problem. 
The SA and the Vic supply problems are not fake issues. Without an effective Commonwealth Government, SA and Vic have to get on with the current problem while the Feds sit on their hands.

----------


## DavoSyd

> The SA and the Vic supply problems are not fake issues. Without an effective Commonwealth Government, SA and Vic have to get on with the current problem while the Feds sit on their hands.

  which is not entirely dissimilar to the US situation...

----------


## phild01

> You are missing the point. Firstly, because the major renewable supply in SA is not solar. Wind runs when the sun doesn't shine. Try walking outside at night in the the SA hills, there is a lot of wind. All we need is some dispatchable backup power to bridge the gap for several backup systems including the Government's upcoming generation. 
> SA is a nett importer of energy from Vic. 
> The cost of battery isn't the issue. The SA Government is adding generation and backup battery. Battery is there to bridge the gap, not to supply the complete demand. When SA had recent issues it was because the demand was greater than supply, interconnector issues, and several local backups fell over. Adding renewable energy to the SA grid with battery backup gives SA more renewable energy, more independent power from the new ongoing Vic problem. 
> The SA and the Vic supply problems are not fake issues. Without an effective Commonwealth Government, SA and Vic have to get on with the current problem while the Feds sit on their hands.

  Are you telling me that SA has enough wind power to meet demands each night, without sucking power from other states, and the monster batteries will ensure this?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> You are missing the point. Firstly, because the major renewable supply in SA is not solar. Wind runs when the sun doesn't shine. Try walking outside at night in the the SA hills, there is a lot of wind. All we need is some dispatchable backup power to bridge the gap for several backup systems including the Government's upcoming generation. 
> SA is a nett importer of energy from Vic. 
> The cost of battery isn't the issue. The SA Government is adding generation and backup battery. Battery is there to bridge the gap, not to supply the complete demand. When SA had recent issues it was because the demand was greater than supply, interconnector issues, and several local backups fell over. Adding renewable energy to the SA grid with battery backup gives SA more renewable energy, more independent power from the new ongoing Vic problem. 
> The SA and the Vic supply problems are not fake issues. Without an effective Commonwealth Government, SA and Vic have to get on with the current problem while the Feds sit on their hands.

  seems if the other person doesn't agree with a poster, they are "missing the point" 
perhaps they see things from another POV, have seen your point, but it's not enough in their view to change their mind? 
Either way, SA  renewable only works because they get to use VIC, NSW etc grid power when it doesn't work out for them. 
the power crisis they had was caused because they were belting out wind power in an afternoon with no sign of wind abating so no one was scaling up, and the wind blew too strong and a fair number of the wind turbines shut down because of it, this had a knock on effect, and very rapidly required more power than the interconnector could safely deliver so it's safety went off, and closed the whole interconnectir down.  Well, that's how I remember it anyways. 
a metric shedload of batteries could have softened all that across an hour and it wouldn't have happened in the exact same way. 
blaming the commonwealth govt for a power issue is deadset the sign of a weak state who can't man up to anything - biggest cop out ever.   Premier, woe is me, it's all the federal govt (who doesn't do electricity) fault.  Seriously? And the locals lapped it up. 
i live in hope that when a Nsw premier blames everyone else for our own problem we call it for what it is and change govt (not for bad administration, but for not owning their own problems) 
a state acting like a bunch of welfare recipients whinging about how they are hard done by and not paid enough.... 
pb (channelling Marc)

----------


## woodbe

> Are you telling me that SA has enough wind power to meet demands each night, without sucking power from other states, and the monster batteries will ensure this?

  No, I am telling you that SA is well on track for increasing local SA energy supply and has plans for more dispatchable power. SA will pull less power from Vic as these plans come to fruition. Battery and upcoming 250MW Gas are both backups to enable to fill the gaps from any undispatchable renewable supply and/or supply faults.

----------


## phild01

From my reading Qld Labour Anna Bligh ignored advice and set the gas export market off.  So maybe before blaming the feds because it's lib, look where the rot set in.  Lots of gas to get SA running but the cartel now gets in the way.

----------


## woodbe

> Either way, SA  renewable only works because they get to use VIC, NSW etc grid power when it doesn't work out for them.

  Pulling grid power from the other state has been the norm for a long time. Australia is a nation, and we share resources as a nation. The issue is in two parts: First, the other state that supplies to SA has a major electricity supply problem for itself, and it will take some time for it to be resolved. If both states have low supply and high demand there will be major problems. Secondly, we as a nation and as a planet have to resolve the climate problem as soon as possible. Burning fossil fuel is not the solution.   

> the power crisis they had was caused because they were belting out wind power in an afternoon with no sign of wind abating so no one was scaling up, and the wind blew too strong and a fair number of the wind turbines shut down because of it, this had a knock on effect, and very rapidly required more power than the interconnector could safely deliver so it's safety went off, and closed the whole interconnectir down.  Well, that's how I remember it anyways.

  Not how that occurred. There was a major wind storm that damaged the interconnector. While that occurred, the windfarms did trip due to the AEMO control specifications not enabled. A windfarm has a number of trip faults before the windfarm disconnects from the grid specified by the AEMO, but the AEMO allowed windfarms to connect to the grid without those specifications enabled. By default, the windfarms tripped too soon. As I understand by reading, those specifications have been corrected in the windfarm control systems now.   

> a metric shedload of batteries could have softened all that across an hour and it wouldn't have happened in the exact same way. 
> blaming the commonwealth govt for a power issue is deadset the sign of a weak state who can't man up to anything - biggest cop out ever.   Premier, woe is me, it's all the federal govt (who doesn't do electricity) fault.  Seriously? And the locals lapped it up. 
> i live in hope that when a Nsw premier blames everyone else for our own problem we call it for what it is and change govt (not for bad administration, but for not owning their own problems) 
> a state acting like a bunch of welfare recipients whinging about how they are hard done by and not paid enough.... 
> pb (channelling Marc)

  Not worth responding to a national issue being blamed on welfare recipients. I'm not a welfare recipient.

----------


## John2b

> Are you telling me that SA has enough wind power to meet demands each night, without sucking power from other states, and the monster batteries will ensure this?

  If ever there was a comment that exposed a naivety of understanding of the mechanics and economics of electricity generation and supply, it might look the above...

----------


## John2b

Australia's CO2 emissions have grown despite the LNC's claims emissions would fall under their policies. Not that they want anyone to know... FOI documents confirm government holding almost one year's worth of pollution data

----------


## Marc

South Australia is like a tick. 
A parasite that lives off it's host blood, sucking away and never thanking it.  As if such parasitic attitude was not enough,  it injects it's poison in the host with total disregard of the consequence. 
Do we really need to listen to SA's experimenting with our money and asking for hand outs at the same time? 
South Australia, stop lecturing us and go and get a job! Oops, forgot you got given one ... yes the submarine ... more like a sheltered workshop that one. 
On second thought ... we can give them a job. How about sending all the "refugees" from Sydney and Melbourne so they can feel what it is to have parasites to support.
Mm ... may be not, they would then ask for more subsidies.

----------


## phild01

> If ever there was a comment that exposed a naivety of understanding of the mechanics and economics of electricity generation and supply, it might look the above...

   What, leaving it at that without demonstrating your pov!

----------


## phild01

So, it seems SA just wants a very expensive capacitor with little concern for their base power.

----------


## woodbe

> So, it seems SA just wants a very expensive capacitor with little concern for their base power.

  Nope, that's not it. 
SA is building up it's own base power using renewables. The battery system is the backup to bridge any gaps due to intermittent power drop outs.

----------


## phild01

> Nope, that's not it.
> The battery system is the backup to bridge any gaps due to intermittent power drop outs.

  That's what I meant by an expensive capacitor.  Those things should also satisfy base power when the wind doesn't blow, hence my point about drawing upon other states.

----------


## woodbe

> That's what I meant by an expensive capacitor.  Those things should also satisfy base power when the wind doesn't blow, hence my point about drawing upon other states.

  Not required for a battery to completely satisfy base power. That would be very expensive and never required. 
And when the wind blows and the solar is on, SA exports to VIC. As SA's renewable capacity continues to grow. SA is exporting even now.    https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/...patch-overview  
The issue for SA is higher demand than local electricity production over summer.   https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/...m-term-outlook 
As SA continues to grow it's local renewable power capacity it will solve that issue in due course.

----------


## John2b

> That's what I meant by an expensive capacitor.  Those things should also satisfy base power when the wind doesn't blow, hence my point about drawing upon other states.

  NSW is historically by far the biggest importer of electricity. SA's draw on the national grid is minor by comparison.   NEM net imports last six years

----------


## John2b

> ...Those things should also satisfy base power when the wind doesn't blow...

  That is a good point Phil, and one that has now been acknowledged. Future renewable sources are likely to be built with storage/backup on-site and not in the least because it makes good economic sense for the facility operator in the current market, although it does increase the startup cost for each facility.

----------


## UseByDate

> the power crisis they had was caused because they were belting out wind power in an afternoon with no sign of wind abating so no one was scaling up, and the wind blew too strong and a fair number of the wind turbines shut down because of it, this had a knock on effect, and very rapidly required more power than the interconnector could safely deliver so it's safety went off, and closed the whole interconnectir down.  Well, that's how I remember it anyways.

  Not quite right. According to the final report on the SA blackout, the wind turbines did not shut down directly as a result of too much wind. They shut down because strong winds blew power line pylons over which caused voltage instability. The wind turbines shut down as a result of voltage instability. ie There would not have been a black out if the pylons had not been blown over.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> NSW is historically by far the biggest importer of electricity. SA's draw on the national grid is minor by comparison.   NEM net imports last six years

  interesting. 
sort of looks like VIc and qld have generators that are in the business of generating and selling, while NSW is in the business of supplying a commodity which they generate when needed.    
I'm not getting the general feeling that the whole privatisation of electricity, national grid etc was put together in the most efficient manner. 
at the same time, we have  shortage of gas due to bulk exports and made worse by moratoriums on coal seam gas which are driven by politics and not science. 
i heard about the whole fracking things a few years ago, looked into it, and could find almost no scientific support for the claims made first by farmers, then taken up by environmentalist groups - no one seems to be questioning any of the myths going round the internet, but govts of both persuasions seem to cave in to pressure.  It's almost as if democracy has decided that if a majority of people believe something then it must be true

----------


## woodbe

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...st-truth-world   

> For months politicians and fossil fuel industry have lied about the viability of  renewables. Now Tesla’s big battery in South Australia will prove them  wrong. 
> For months now, Malcolm Turnbull, Josh Frydenberg, various fossil  fuel energy executives and media commentators like Paul Kelly have been  rabbiting on about the “energy trilemma”.  It’s their contention that energy policy must deal with cost,  reliability and emissions, and that it is impossible to achieve all  three at the same time. Conveniently, they choose to put emissions at  the bottom of this list and bury it under a pile of coal, which they  claim is cheap and reliable. 
> This is not true. Not even close to it. It doesn’t stand up to basic scrutiny.  
> Renewable energy, which obviously wins on emissions, is now beating coal  on cost. What’s more, with an energy grid managed effectively by people  who want renewables to succeed, it is no less reliable than fossil  fuels. The fact that arch-conservative, Cory Bernardi, was recently revealed to have installed rooftop solar panels demonstrates  that these people do not even believe their own rhetoric. They have  just chosen to throw truth onto the fire of climate change for political  reasons. 
> Interestingly, the great bulk of Australians already don’t believe this story. The Climate Institute’s latest (and sadly final) Climate of the Nation  report, featuring comprehensive polling data on a range of  climate-related issues, showed once again that the vast majority of  Australians want to see more renewable energy, do not believe that  renewable energy is driving price rises (correctly identifying  mis-regulation, privatisation and other corporate price-gouging as more  to blame), and don’t think renewables need fossil fuels to back them up  in the long term.

  Yep. The public knows, the deniers deny, and the Australian Government is off the rails being patted on their head by the fossil fuel industry.

----------


## UseByDate

> South Australia is like a tick. 
> A parasite that lives off it's host blood, sucking away and never thanking it.  As if such parasitic attitude was not enough,  it injects it's poison in the host with total disregard of the consequence. 
> Do we really need to listen to SA's experimenting with our money and asking for hand outs at the same time? 
> South Australia, stop lecturing us and go and get a job! Oops, forgot you got given one ... yes the submarine ... more like a sheltered workshop that one. 
> On second thought ... we can give them a job. How about sending all the "refugees" from Sydney and Melbourne so they can feel what it is to have parasites to support.
> Mm ... may be not, they would then ask for more subsidies.

  Maybe NSW should build a wall or even a solar wall to keep out the South Australians.   :Blush7:    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p0c22gHb8E

----------


## Bros

> you don't seem to have a grip on the need for baseload - we need to replace baseload, and these batteries can't even begin to solve the problem in the medium term. This is a looming problem that few seem able to grasp.
> .

   There is no doubt about that as no one seems to understand "base load"

----------


## John2b

> There is no doubt about that as no one seems to understand "base load"

  Here is a typical electricity demand curve over a couple of days. It is obvious that demand can fluctuate over a 2:1 ratio, from 700 to 1400 MW within a single 12 hour period, which happens twice within the space of 48 hours.   
1880s boiling water technology electricity generators, irrespective of whether the water is boiled by burning coal, oil, gas or by nuclear fission, take hours/days to ramp up or down output. Such generators must be run at a capacity that exceeds expected peak demand at any given time, and excess energy is boiled off in cooling towers or or flushed into rivers or out to sea. 
What is actually needed is demand responsive electricity generation, which means having excess capacity that is throttled back WITHOUT wasting energy and creating pollution and CO2 emissions. This is where wind, solar, battery and hydro all exceed, as all can be ramped up (if deployed under capacity) and ramped down with no environmental penalty. 
Below is what the current mix of electricity sources look like in action. Most rooftop solar is consumed at the source, thus reducing the late afternoon NEM air conditioning demand peak. (The gas generation in this graph is all gas turbine, which is demand responsive.)

----------


## Bros

> 1880s boiling water technology electricity generators, irrespective of whether the water is boiled by burning coal, oil, gas or by nuclear fission, take hours/days to ramp up or down output. Such generators must be run at a capacity that exceeds expected peak demand at any given time, and excess energy is boiled off in cooling towers or or flushed into rivers or out to sea.

   You don't believe that rubbish do you? Flushing excess energy away what rubbish.

----------


## DavoSyd

> You don't believe that rubbish do you? Flushing excess energy away what rubbish.

  this is supposed to be a building web forum, and you have not heard of HRV? 
same principle applies to the energy that is dispersed ('flushed away') from power stations... 
and it is nothing to do with "beliefs" - it is basic science...

----------


## Bros

> HRV?.

  Bought a HRV last year, not a bad car to drive.

----------


## phild01

> Bought a HRV last year, not a bad car to drive.

  Had a ride in the last of the HSV's recently...whoa!

----------


## DavoSyd

> Bought a HRV last year, not a bad car to drive.

----------


## Bros

> Had a ride in the last of the HSV's recently...whoa!

  I bet you got "flushed away" with all that power.

----------


## phild01

Acceleration like I have never felt before....some car.  Oh oh, Tesla talk will hit on this.

----------


## John2b

> You don't believe that rubbish do you? Flushing excess energy away what rubbish.

  If the excess pressure in the boilers as a result of sudden ramping down of boiling water steam turbine generation output would cause the boilers to explode if steam wasn't vented to the air or cooled in some other way. It is a consequence of the Law of Conservation of Energy BTW.

----------


## DavoSyd

> It is a consequence of the Law of Conservation of Energy BTW.

----------


## Bros

> If the excess pressure in the boilers as a result of sudden ramping down of steam turbine generation output would cause the boilers to explode if steam was vented to the air or cooled in some other way. It is a consequence of the Law of Conservation of Energy BTW.

   Oh come on I have worked in power stations for over 20 yrs and no boiler ever exploded and no steam was ever vented on large load rejection.
Well my Yin and Yang was getting out of balance and a visit to the Emissions thread has restored the balance for now.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Well my Yin and Yang was getting out of balance

  you don't mean Loy Yang?

----------


## Bedford

...

----------


## John2b

> Oh come on I have worked in power stations for over 20 yrs and no boiler ever exploded and no steam was ever vented on large load rejection.

  You conveniently left out "or cooled in some other way". What typically happens in contemporary plants when a generator drops load is the steam bypasses the turbine and goes directly to the condenser, and then to a cooling tower, lake, river or the ocean.

----------


## Marc

Now this is a novel turn. We have the religious demonisation of coal, that horrible black substance that leads to sin and damnation. 
We also need to condemn the sinful behaviour of those who are in the business of producing that abhorrent instrument of satan, electricity.  
The Amish clearly have the right balance when they refuse to use it. Look at those atrocious practices of flushing excess power in the sea, leading to the electrification of fish and crabs who when subject to this flow of current change their habits and turn to iniquitous practices.  
Change your ways sinners! turn away from the electricity power! 
 Unless produced by a process approved by the church of the _verdura fresca_, such electricity is anathema and wrong. You should switch off all power and use hand tools. This has the fringe benefit of reducing the lust and tendency of playing with yourself. 
Wind is the answer folks, and when there is no wind, never mind, light a candle, cook on wood fire, that is the way of the future, stay away from sin and damnation!!!

----------


## Bros

> you don't mean Loy Yang?

  Fossilised mud burner.

----------


## pharmaboy2

So thinking of what solutions are possible for spiky renewable . 
1.  Hot water storage needs to be moved to high wind, high solar periods 
2 truly smart meters which modify load based on centralised information.  Eg, the smart meter knows what loads are air conditioning and pool pumps, water heaters etc and can turn them off when needed 
3 we need to get back on the gas bandwagon. That includes unpopular stuff like coal seam - gas turbines have much quicker response times to unexpected load. 
4 big coal stations need to be operated by govt when they get to end of life, so they can be kept operational so it's available for the occasional  (stop the rediculous short term price hikes) use. 
5 cars going electric needs proper planning to be able to make sure the electcity needed is planned for and renewable. 
6 a proper conversation about next gen nuclear is required.   In the future you have much greater flexibility and options when you have lots of power available - eg producing portable fuels, converting atmospheric carbon into storable forms

----------


## Bros

> You conveniently left out "or cooled in some other way". What typically happens in contemporary plants when a generator drops load is the steam bypasses the turbine and goes directly to the condenser, and then to a cooling tower, lake, river or the ocean.

   Governors are wonderful things.

----------


## Bros

> So thinking of what solutions are possible for spiky renewable . 
> 1.  Hot water storage needs to be moved to high wind, high solar periods 
> 2 truly smart meters which modify load based on centralised information.  Eg, the smart meter knows what loads are air conditioning and pool pumps, water heaters etc and can turn them off when needed 
> 3 we need to get back on the gas bandwagon. That includes unpopular stuff like coal seam - gas turbines have much quicker response times to unexpected load. 
> 4 big coal stations need to be operated by govt when they get to end of life, so they can be kept operational so it's available for the occasional  (stop the rediculous short term price hikes) use. 
> 5 cars going electric needs proper planning to be able to make sure the electcity needed is planned for and renewable. 
> 6 a proper conversation about next gen nuclear is required.   In the future you have much greater flexibility and options when you have lots of power available - eg producing portable fuels, converting atmospheric carbon into storable forms

  Stop talking sense on this thread it must be nonsense.

----------


## woodbe

Gas is better than coal, but still adds significant CO2 to the atmosphere. More than half of coal.   
The best option is to move to renewables, use battery backup and gas as the final backup.  
Also, if gas is leaked to the atmosphere during mining and transport, it has a larger impact, but it does dissipate faster than CO2.

----------


## Marc

All of the "debate" is based on the assumption that CO2 is bad and needs to be avoided.
 This is a false assumption and therefore the rest of your analysis is false too. 
Take away the fallacy of the "bad" co2, all your dancing around this subject is complete and utter nonsense.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Gas is purely about filling the gap left by solar and wind, as does hydro . Unfortunately our geography doesn't lend itself so much to hydro, plus they are long term projects. 
what about 6 woodbe?   Society has enormous flexibility if it has access to large amounts of power - we may need lots of energy for adapting and we may need to modify (return) our atmosphere in the future

----------


## John2b

> Governors are wonderful things.

  They are, but they don't break the law of conservation of energy. The excess energy in the thermal inertia of the boiling water steam generator system bypasses the turbines and goes to waste as I said right at the beginning. This is also how 'spinning reserve' functions.

----------


## woodbe

> Gas is purely about filling the gap left by solar and wind, as does hydro . Unfortunately our geography doesn't lend itself so much to hydro, plus they are long term projects. 
> what about 6 woodbe?   Society has enormous flexibility if it has access to large amounts of power - we may need lots of energy for adapting and we may need to modify (return) our atmosphere in the future

  This one:   

> 6 a proper conversation about next gen nuclear is required.   In the  future you have much greater flexibility and options when you have lots  of power available - eg producing portable fuels, converting atmospheric  carbon into storable forms

  Australia has enormous reserves of Uranium, more than anywhere else on the planet:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...anium_reserves 
Kazakhstan has the second largest reserve and produces 39% compared to Australia's ~10% 
There was a recent proposal for Australia (SA) to store used radioactive materials in the outback in stable and deep rock, and the proposal was squashed. If the population cannot to agree to store the spent uranium here, I can't see any government getting ahead with nuclear power plants. Over the life of nuclear power, it is just not economical, and in case of future assault between countries nuclear plants will be on the hit list for sure. My opinion is that if we mine uranium, we should also store the used uranium or we should not mine it. 
Decommissioning Nuclear plants is a huge expense:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...ecommissioning

----------


## Bros

> They are, but they don't break the law of conservation of energy. The excess energy in the thermal inertia of the boiling water steam generator system bypasses the turbines and goes to waste as I said right at the beginning. This is also how 'spinning reserve' functions.

   Not even remotely correct.

----------


## John2b

> Decommissioning Nuclear plants is a huge expense...

  *124 years after construction started and 92 years after the closure of Trawsfynydd power station, in around 2083 the area is expected to have been restored to its pre-nuclear state.* 
I'll believe that when it actually happens! It is hard to believe that nuclear fired 1880s technology boiling water steam electricity generation is economic, taking into account that decommissioning typically is going to take many times the functional life of the plant, and even that is pure optimistic speculation until someone, somewhere, actually does achieve a fully decommissioned nuclear plant. Hint: it's extremely unlikely to happen in the lifetime of anyone reading this post.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trawsf...ecommissioning

----------


## John2b

> Not even remotely correct.

  Not even a remotely edifying post, Bros.

----------


## Bros

> Not even a remotely edifying post, Bros.

  Your making all the statements trying to show your knowledge but you are way off track.  
So to keep my Yin and Yan in balance I will leave you to your misinformation.

----------


## John2b

> 6 a proper conversation about next gen nuclear is required.   In the future you have much greater flexibility and options when you have lots of power available - eg producing portable fuels, converting atmospheric carbon into storable forms

  A *proper*, hey even *intelligent*, conversation might acknowledge that no matter how "high tech" the nuclear reactor might be, it is merely boiling water as the front end to 1880s steam powered electricity generation, with all the inefficiencies and downsides that are a consequence of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

----------


## John2b

> Your making all the statements trying to show your knowledge but you are way off track.

  Why don't you enlighten the forum with facts instead of innuendoes and get back on track then? I am (and surely many others are) breathless in anticipation!

----------


## woodbe

> Your making all the statements trying to show your knowledge but you are way off track.  
> So to keep my Yin and Yan in balance I will leave you to your misinformation.

  Well Bros, you have made the claim, tell us your version of the facts.

----------


## Bigboboz

> NSW is historically by far the biggest importer of electricity. SA's draw on the national grid is minor by comparison.   NEM net imports last six years

  NSW has almost 5x SA's population, absolutes aren't always that useful...

----------


## John2b

> NSW has almost 5x SA's population, absolutes aren't always that useful...

  Over the period shown, per-capita imports for NSW are practically equal to per-capita imports for SA. The post was in response to this post from a NSW forum member:   

> South Australia is like a tick.  A parasite that lives off it's host blood, sucking away and never thanking it.

  #16665

----------


## Marc

The nonsense keeps on spinning. What does it matter who "imports" what? The point is that people need electricity to live. No one is going back to caves and woodfire to the dismay of greens, cheerleaders and claque. More people more electricity usage.  
Someone invented this myth of the bad CO2, complete falsehood swallowed by the marginal, the no vaccination mob, the ill informed and those looking for a cause any cause ... and cheerfully accepted by politicians who capture every photo opportunity to gather votes to perpetuate themselves in their cushy job and would promote heroin in primary schools if there was votes to be gained.  
SA is the perfect example of what would happen if hobby, unprofessional, unreliable, made up, crappy, improvised, rushed methods of producing electricity would be adopted in large scale. Wind and Solar exist only because of massive subsidies. It equates to make TukTuk compete with trains, and pay the tuktuk 100 times more per passenger to justify it's existence.  
The debate about renewables is in itself, from a technical point ludicrous. The market takes care of the inefficient and the expensive by making it disappear. Only government intervention keeps this abominations turning to appease the dumb voter. If you then realise that the whole exercise is as useful as the rain dance or avoiding black cats or throwing a pinch of salt over your left shoulder, it gets even more irritating. 
The irony is that those who pay for this are those who least support it and their more fervent believers are those who can hardly support themselves let alone contribute anything to society. Perhaps it is this fact that makes them even more dedicated, in their delusion that they are in this way compensating for their shortcoming by saving the planet. 
A sad state of affairs. 
Someone must come up with another equally vacuous quest to be taken up so that this one is finally forgotten and relegated to the history records as the dumbest fraud humanity has ever believed in.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> A *proper*, hey even *intelligent*, conversation might acknowledge that no matter how "high tech" the nuclear reactor might be, it is merely boiling water as the front end to 1880s steam powered electricity generation, with all the inefficiencies and downsides that are a consequence of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

  What?  Perhaps a tesla car is based on 5000 year old technology too!  Lol, that's one of the strangest claimed arguments I have ever read on these pages

----------


## pharmaboy2

> This one:   
> Australia has enormous reserves of Uranium, more than anywhere else on the planet:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...anium_reserves 
> Kazakhstan has the second largest reserve and produces 39% compared to Australia's ~10% 
> There was a recent proposal for Australia (SA) to store used radioactive materials in the outback in stable and deep rock, and the proposal was squashed. If the population cannot to agree to store the spent uranium here, I can't see any government getting ahead with nuclear power plants. Over the life of nuclear power, it is just not economical, and in case of future assault between countries nuclear plants will be on the hit list for sure. My opinion is that if we mine uranium, we should also store the used uranium or we should not mine it. 
> Decommissioning Nuclear plants is a huge expense:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...ecommissioning

  next gen plants?  Why would you even contemplate building a first or second generation plant - science and technology has moved on 
a quote  
"Nuclear power, particularly next-generation nuclear power with a closed fuel cycle (where spent fuel is reprocessed), is uniquely scalable, and environmentally advantageous. Over the past 50 years, nuclear power stations – by offsetting fossil fuel combustion – have avoided the emission of an estimated 60bn tonnes of carbon dioxide. Nuclear energy can power whole civilisations, and produce waste streams that are trivial compared to the waste produced by fossil fuel combustion. There are technical means to dispose of this small amount of waste safely. However, nuclear does pose unique safety and proliferation concerns that must be addressed with strong and binding international standards and safeguards. Most importantly for climate, nuclear produces no CO2 during power generation." 
thats from Hansen et al https://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-change 
i still can't quite believe that you guys who are so concerned about co2 are dogmatically against any form of nuclear power, even if it saves the planet.  The scientists of climate certainly don't seem to be.

----------


## woodbe

> "However,  nuclear does pose unique safety and proliferation concerns that must be  addressed with strong and binding international standards and  safeguards. "

  That is exactly what I was saying: "and in case of future assault  between countries nuclear plants will be on the hit list for sure"   

> i still can't quite believe that you guys who are so concerned about co2 are dogmatically against any form of nuclear power, even if it saves the planet.  The scientists of climate certainly don't seem to be.

  Not sure if you actually read what I wrote: 
"There was a recent proposal for Australia (SA) to store used radioactive  materials in the outback in stable and deep rock, and the proposal was  squashed. If the population cannot to agree to store the spent uranium  here, I can't see any government getting ahead with nuclear power  plants." 
Nuclear plants over long term are not as economical and not as safe as renewable plants. That's just how it is. Are newer plants safer than older plants? Of course they are, but are they safer than renewables? Nope.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> "There was a recent proposal for Australia (SA) to store used radioactive  materials in the outback in stable and deep rock, and the proposal was  squashed. If the population cannot to agree to store the spent uranium  here, I can't see any government getting ahead with nuclear power  plants." 
> Nuclear plants over long term are not as economical and not as safe as renewable plants. That's just how it is. Are newer plants safer than older plants? Of course they are, but are they safer than renewables? Nope.

  I agree that right now, there is a political problem, but that is also strongly driven by the environmentalists.  I don't think it's on an Australian timeline for at least a few decades. 
but, you are talking about safety as if the 2 are equal in substance.  Have a look at those graphs, we need lots of power at night and on rainy cloudy days - I shudder to think of the line losses over 4000km to avoid cloudy days.  So why is safety suddenly your major driver?  No one complained about the safety of coal, yet it kills far more people per year than nuclear. 
the vast majority of specialists in electrical supply talk about the need for base load, while the vast majority on the environmentalist side talk about it as if it's a myth.   I have learnt one thing with this debate, and that is to pay attention to the experts in the field, I know nothing of nuclear power, same as I know nothing of climate science, but I have enough skill to navigate towards experts and scientists in those fields and look to base opinion on those majority positions. 
We are potentially facing a serious threat, you have to do that rationally.  I know Tim Flannery is not a fan of nuclear power generally, but even he sees it as part of the solution to climate change -he sees no other way

----------


## John2b

> Are newer plants safer than older plants? Of course they are...

  Sorry to nit-pick but no one actually knows whether breeder reactors will be safer or not. The stakes are a lot higher and the risks are a lot greater. Based on the historically demonstrated fallibly of human technology, next gen nuclear will bring with it next gen disasters on a scale until then unimaginable. 
Why doesn't everyone support nuclear? 1: Prudence. 2: Because it is not necessary (there are alternatives) and the money can be spent on them. 3: Nuclear is unable to make any significant difference to global warming within a timeframe that will prevent catastrophic climate change. 4: boiling water and throwing away ⅔'s of the energy thus produced - how smart is that? 5: Breeder reactors still produce vast amounts of radioactive waste for which there is no established method of disposal, nor any likely to be developed this century based on past attempts.

----------


## John2b

Electricity from nuclear power stations contributes less than 5% of global electricity and a much smaller proportion of global energy, and its contribution is in decline. A simple energy efficiency campaign could produce savings in electricity consumption much greater than this in as little as a year or two. 
Many nuclear generators planned for India and China have been shelved or cancelled, not for reasons of safety, viability or cost, but because of a lack of potable water. Fresh water is becoming one of the scarcest commodities on Earth. Governments need to decide whether they want to feed their citizens or give them nuclear sourced electricity, and the Indian and Chinese governments are increasingly coming down in favour of the former.

----------


## woodbe

Yes, we need power at night and on rainy and cloudy days (and even on no wind days and nights). 
There are many solutions for overnight/cloudy/rainy/windless interruptions to renewable energy that do not require a nuclear generator. Even if a nuclear generator was installed in Australia, it would be on the east coast where the majority of population exists, so SA would still needs a local resolution. 
There are plans on the drawing board for SA for several backup systems to support renewable energy. Batteries and gas backup are already on the go, other items like pumped hydro are looking possible. With enough renewables and effective backups in place Australia doesn't need Coal or Nuclear. Could nuclear supply power, of course it could, but the capital cost is enormous and that also brings a risk that is not required or acceptable to the population today. Who knows if the population will change it's mind in the future, anything can happen. 
Baseload is a myth based on fossil fuel generation. It was a fact when we only had fossil fuel generation but we are climbing out of that hole.    Busting the baseload power myth âº Analysis and Opinion (ABC Science)

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Sorry to nit-pick but no one actually knows whether breeder reactors will be safer or not. The stakes are a lot higher and the risks are a lot greater. Based on the historically demonstrated fallibly of human technology, next gen nuclear will bring with it next gen disasters on a scale until then unimaginable. 
> Why doesn't everyone support nuclear? 1: Prudence. 2: Because it is not necessary (there are alternatives) and the money can be spent on them. 3: Nuclear is unable to make any significant difference to global warming within a timeframe that will prevent catastrophic climate change. 4: boiling water and throwing away ⅔'s of the energy thus produced - how smart is that? 5: Breeder reactors still produce vast amounts of radioactive waste for which there is no established method of disposal, nor any likely to be developed this century based on past attempts.

  Breeder reactors?  What is the relevance to what woodbe said?   Gen 3 and gen 4 is not about breeder versus not, that was a 1970's nuclear armament debate. 
what its about now is designs that are inherently safe (eg not dependant on rods to slow reaction, they require constant firing of neutrons to keep them going ) and using current waste, or not producing waste. 
These are reactors that cannot meltdown.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Yes, we need power at night and on rainy and cloudy days (and even on no wind days and nights). 
> There are many solutions for overnight/cloudy/rainy/windless interruptions to renewable energy that do not require a nuclear generator. Even if a nuclear generator was installed in Australia, it would be on the east coast where the majority of population exists, so SA would still needs a local resolution. 
> There are plans on the drawing board for SA for several backup systems to support renewable energy. Batteries and gas backup are already on the go, other items like pumped hydro are looking possible. With enough renewables and effective backups in place Australia doesn't need Coal or Nuclear. Could nuclear supply power, of course it could, but the capital cost is enormous and that also brings a risk that is not required or acceptable to the population today. Who knows if the population will change it's mind in the future, anything can happen. 
> Baseload is a myth based on fossil fuel generation. It was a fact when we only had fossil fuel generation but we are climbing out of that hole.    Busting the baseload power myth â€º Analysis and Opinion (ABC Science)

  Thx, problem is woodbe for every article professing their solution there's another saying its all unproven but we have to move on with what we can right now. 
also just reading that China, India and Russia all have substantial building programs still going on nuclear gen 3 reactors plus some gen 2.  It's probably notable that the democracies are running scared, apart from France who of all the western economies arent one of our problems for co2. 
gen Iv and thorium, and still work on fusion hold enormous promise over the longer term.  Thorium solving a waste problem as well. 
Gas while useful still is an emitter and not ideal - perhaps new technologies of storing heat then using that horrible boiler technology to extract energy in the evening have a great future as well.   
Wind is a little ironic here though, as its price has come down its making other forms of energy uneconomic - energy competition seems a little unwise.  We could end up with cheap energy on the windy days and no energy at all at other times. - I never thought I'd say it, but we need some regulation and planning in this market

----------


## phild01

> Wind is a little ironic here though, as its price has come down its making other forms of energy uneconomic - energy competition seems a little unwise.  We could end up with cheap energy on the windy days and no energy at all at other times. - I never thought I'd say it, but we need some regulation and planning in this market

  And zero privatisation, oh well too late now.

----------


## woodbe

> Thx, problem is woodbe for every article professing their solution there's another saying its all unproven but we have to move on with what we can right now. 
> also just reading that China, India and Russia all have substantial building programs still going on nuclear gen 3 reactors plus some gen 2.  It's probably notable that the democracies are running scared, apart from France who of all the western economies arent one of our problems for co2. 
> gen Iv and thorium, and still work on fusion hold enormous promise over the longer term.  Thorium solving a waste problem as well. 
> Gas while useful still is an emitter and not ideal - perhaps new technologies of storing heat then using that horrible boiler technology to extract energy in the evening have a great future as well.   
> Wind is a little ironic here though, as its price has come down its making other forms of energy uneconomic - energy competition seems a little unwise.  We could end up with cheap energy on the windy days and no energy at all at other times. - I never thought I'd say it, but we need some regulation and planning in this market

  Lol. Wind is cheaper, uses no energy to generate and other forms (like fossil fuels) is uneconomic. That's where we are, and renewable systems are getting cheaper. Why on earth would we want to install dearer, more dangerous, power systems? Our country is already freaking out about the current price rises, we need more efficient, more sustainable, more healthy for the planet, sources of power.  
The up front cost of nuclear is enormous, and it takes a long time to build. For Australia, the nuclear has to be run through our governments. Major convoluted laws and regulations would have to be created from scratch. Won't happen anytime soon. Ask your younger friends up to their mid to late 20's what they think, they are the people who have to deal with it when we are in retirement or nursing homes. I've been at a young party recently and the discussion I was not involved in but could hear was definitely right onto renewables, not into fossil fuel or nuclear. I think the chance of nuclear for Australia was way back in the 70-80's, not now, and not in the future. 
Interesting that you parade China and others as totems of nuclear power. Have a look, here is China:    Wind power surges past nuclear in China, India, Brazil and South Africa : RenewEconomy

----------


## pharmaboy2

I'm not against wind, I just happen to see them as different sorts of supplies.   You install other systems because they fulfill your needs for constant power.  Safety depends on how much information you have - whose to say how safe thermal storage is or batteries (especially for the miners of the lithium etc) 
From wikipedia on china nuclear  "As of May 2017, the People's Republic of China has 37 nuclear reactors operating with a capacity of 32.4 GW and 20 under construction with a capacity of 20.5 GW.[1][2][3] Additional reactors are planned, providing 58 GW of capacity by 2020.[4]China's National Development and Reform Commission has indicated the intention to raise the percentage of China's electricity produced by nuclear power from the current 2% to 6% by 2020" 
at at the same time, why in heavens name would you ask the younger generation what they think?  an uneducated opinion gets you nowhere - that's the sort of thing that informs one nation as to what to do.  You need to get scientists and engineers together who have worked in the area and want to solve the problem - policy should always be formed on expertise not just strongly held views

----------


## phild01

> (especially for the miners of the lithium etc)

  I think the environmental concern relating to lithium mining is very conveniently untouched here!

----------


## chrisp

> Lol. Wind is cheaper, uses no energy to generate and other forms (like fossil fuels) is uneconomic. That's where we are, and renewable systems are getting cheaper.

  I'm not sure if I'm misreading it or I'm being too pedantic, but wind does use energy!  :Smilie:  
The renewable energy sources are shifting the game as they have zero 'fuel costs' (which is perhaps what you meant?) i.e. The wind and sun is free so after the capital and maintenance costs, there are no on-going costs to worry about. Coal on the other hand might be a cheap fuel, but it isn't a zero-cost fuel. 
So, we have an energy source that is very low cost to produce but somewhat intermittent versus a energy source that has a cost but uses a non-zero-cost fuel and pollutes. It's very easy to see where the market is heading with this - you use your low-cost (renewables) where possible and the higher cost fossil fuels as a last resort. 
The intermittency issue doesn't need to be solved overnight as the system will simply evolve and progressively become more and more renewable. One advantage that renewables have over fossil fuels is that, as the 'fuel' cost is zero and the 'fuel' is non-polluting, efficiency doesn't play that bigger a part in it (other than the initial capital cost). Therefore I can see that one solution is to eventually have an abundance of renewable energy generators so that the excess energy can then be stored in batteries, hydro or thermal storage for the times that there is no wind nor solar. 
The other game changer is that renewables tend to be 'distributed' generators (many small generators in many different locations) whereas fossil fuel powered generators tend to be large and centralised. The distributed model being used for the renewables is in itself helping to overcome the intermittency. With a large grid, the only time there wouldn't be renewable power is when the entire continent is without wind or sun. 
It's great the see SA sign up for the battery! It'll be yet another game changer along the way to the new energy economy. The politics of the world will change once oil ceases to be a sought after commodity.

----------


## Marc

The above conversation equates to a gala night on the Titanic were all the do-gooders talk in soft voices, clinking glasses with expensive champagne and make noises of pretend cultural significance whilst the captain sends the boat full steam ahead into an iceberg because he wants to win a race.

----------


## chrisp

> The above conversation equates to a gala night on the Titanic were all the do-gooders talk in soft voices, clinking glasses with expensive champagne and make noises of pretend cultural significance whilst the captain sends the boat full steam ahead into an iceberg because he wants to win a race.

  Good analogy - the Titanic was coal powered and look what happened to it.  :Eek:

----------


## Bedford

> Good analogy - the Titanic was coal powered and look what happened to it.

  It was also designed by engineers............. :Biggrin:

----------


## John2b

You're on dangerous ground talking sense in this forum Chrisp.   

> The other game changer is that renewables tend to be 'distributed' generators (many small generators in many different locations) whereas fossil fuel powered generators tend to be large and centralised.

  And therein lies the major *failing* of renewables and why there is such a huge corporate battle against them: the inability of large corporations to control and corner the market due to its innate distribution and self-suficiency model. The corporate world has mobilised to discredit renewables and simultaneously astroturf "safe nuclear", "clean coal", "global warming pause", "climate conspiracy", etc, nonsense to the gullible.

----------


## Marc

JAMES DELINGPOLE *Do penises cause climate change? Discuss*  *The academic hoax that shows how generations of kids are paying good money to study pure, unmitigated, mind-warping drivel*  James Delingpole      _(image: getty)_  James Delingpole 3 June 2017 9:00 AM          ‘Why not think about Gender Studies?’ asked an advertorial aimed at prospective students in the newspaper I was reading. Actually, I can think of lots of reasons, starting with: what kind of employer in his right mind (or her right mind, come to that) would be insane enough to take on a graduate with an intellectually worthless degree indicative of shrill resentment, bolshiness, blue hair, lax personal hygiene and weaponised entitlement? But two US academics, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, recently came up with an even better one. They managed to get published in a social sciences journal a paper arguing that the penis is not in fact a male reproductive organ but merely a social construct and that, furthermore, penises are responsible for causing climate change. It ought to go without saying that their paper, ‘The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct’, was a spoof. Yet it was peer-reviewed by two supposed experts in gender studies, one of whom praised the way it captured ‘the issue of hypermasculinity through a multidimensional and nonlinear process’, and the other of whom marked it ‘outstanding’ in every applicable category. Their model was the Sokal Hoax of 1996, when New York University physics professor Alan Sokal persuaded an academic journal to accept a similarly meaningless paper titled ‘Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity’. His aim was partly to mock the incoherence of post-modernist social science, and partly to demonstrate that humanities journals will publish anything so long as it is couched in the language of ‘proper leftist thought’.  Like Sokal’s, the latest hoax was careful to observe all the fashionable left-wing pieties. ‘We suspected that gender studies is crippled academically by an overriding, almost religious belief that maleness is the root of all evil,’ the authors later observed. So they included lots of derogatory language about men and male vices such as ‘manspreading’ — a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide, which they described as ‘akin to raping the empty space around him’. This is funny, obviously, but it’s also a bit worrying for a number of reasons. One is what it tells us about the reliability of ‘peer review’, so often claimed in academe as the gold standard which independently validates research. But as Matt Ridley recently noted, all it really is is a way for ‘academics to defend their pet ideas and reward their chums’. He cited a report by Donna Laframboise, a Canadian investigative journalist, which concluded: ‘Fraudulent research makes it past gatekeepers at even the most prestigious journals.’ She was talking not only about social sciences but about the harder ones, such as medicine, where accuracy can be a matter of life or death. She quoted a US National Institutes of Health official’s claim that ‘researchers would find it hard to reproduce at least three-quarters’ of published medical findings.  There are similar problems with her particular area of interest, global warming. A scare industry worth an annual $1.5 trillion has been built on the notion that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for unprecedented and catastrophic changes to the world’s climate. Yet the scientists promoting this hypothesis are a fairly small, closed shop who validate one another’s work in a process which has been nicknamed ‘pal review’ and whose response to criticism from dissidents is to bully them, smear them and have them denied access to mainstream science journals.  
But what should disturb us almost more, I think, is the broader problem that generation after generation of impressionable kids are now paying good money — and expecting good jobs afterwards — to study pure, unmitigated, mind-warping drivel. There’s a fashion for denigrating all non-STEM subjects as worthless, which I don’t at all agree with: history, English literature, classics and so on do, when properly taught, provide an invaluable training in critical thinking. It’s when a subject gets hijacked by post-modernism — and nebulous fields like gender studies are particularly prone to this — that further education becomes not just pointless but actively dangerous. 
Consider, for example, the response in the social studies community to the latest hoax. Far from being embarrassed by it, some of them find it empowering. One academic wrote in _Psychology Today_: ‘Never mind that post-modernism questions the very idea of intellectual rigor [sic], and thus academic hoaxes are one of the most post-modern things imaginable. In many ways this academic hoax validates many of post-modernism’s main arguments.’ Our children, our future, are spending three, four or more years at university being encouraged to reject truth, logic, reason, the canon of established thought, and encouraged to look down on those poor deluded, undereducated fools who think otherwise. Can you see where this combination of arrogance and toxic stupidity might lead, especially when operating hand-in-hand with aggressive identity politics movements based on race or gender? In the US, at Pomona College, black students recently argued that ‘truth’ was a tool of white supremacy aimed at ‘silencing oppressed people’. South African students have called science a ‘product of racism’ which should be scratched from the curriculum because it rejects traditional alternatives like witchcraft. Neither of these, unfortunately, was a sophisticated intellectual joke.

----------


## John2b

> It was also designed by engineers.............

  Better hope engineers have nothing to do with Gen 4 nuclear power then!

----------


## John2b

Global power consumption today is about 15 terawatts. Currently, the global nuclear power supply capacity is only 375 gigawatts (2.5%). To supply 15 TW with nuclear only (ignoring growth in the market), needs about 15,000 nuclear reactors. Why won't this happen?  *Land and location: One nuclear reactor plant requires about 20.5 km2 (7.9 mi2) of land to accommodate the nuclear power station itself, its exclusion zone, its enrichment plant, ore processing, and supporting infrastructure. Secondly, nuclear reactors need to be located near a massive body of coolant water, but away from dense population zones and natural disaster zones. Simply finding 15,000 locations on Earth that fulfill these requirements is extremely challenging.*  *Lifetime: Every nuclear power station needs to be decommissioned after 40-60 years of operation due to neutron embrittlement - cracks that develop on the metal surfaces due to radiation. If nuclear stations need to be replaced every 50 years on average, then with 15,000 nuclear power stations, one station would need to be built and another decommissioned somewhere in the world every day. Currently, it takes 6-12 years to build a nuclear station, and up to 20 years to decommission one, making this rate of replacement unrealistic.*  *Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs*  https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclea...ld-energy.html

----------


## woodbe

> I'm not sure if I'm misreading it or I'm being too pedantic, but wind does use energy!  
> The renewable energy sources are shifting the game as they have zero 'fuel costs' (which is perhaps what you meant?) i.e. The wind and sun is free so after the capital and maintenance costs, there are no on-going costs to worry about. Coal on the other hand might be a cheap fuel, but it isn't a zero-cost fuel. 
> So, we have an energy source that is very low cost to produce but somewhat intermittent versus a energy source that has a cost but uses a non-zero-cost fuel and pollutes. It's very easy to see where the market is heading with this - you use your low-cost (renewables) where possible and the higher cost fossil fuels as a last resort. 
> The intermittency issue doesn't need to be solved overnight as the system will simply evolve and progressively become more and more renewable. One advantage that renewables have over fossil fuels is that, as the 'fuel' cost is zero and the 'fuel' is non-polluting, efficiency doesn't play that bigger a part in it (other than the initial capital cost). Therefore I can see that one solution is to eventually have an abundance of renewable energy generators so that the excess energy can then be stored in batteries, hydro or thermal storage for the times that there is no wind nor solar. 
> The other game changer is that renewables tend to be 'distributed' generators (many small generators in many different locations) whereas fossil fuel powered generators tend to be large and centralised. The distributed model being used for the renewables is in itself helping to overcome the intermittency. With a large grid, the only time there wouldn't be renewable power is when the entire continent is without wind or sun. 
> It's great the see SA sign up for the battery! It'll be yet another game changer along the way to the new energy economy. The politics of the world will change once oil ceases to be a sought after commodity.

  Good discussion there chrisp. 
Yes, wind generation uses energy, but not energy transported in a train and burned to create electricity. The energy comes from the wind to turn the wind turbines.

----------


## phild01

I believe wind generators consume energy when there is a dearth of power around.

----------


## chrisp

> Global power consumption today is about 15 terawatts. Currently, the global nuclear power supply capacity is only 375 gigawatts (2.5%). To supply 15 TW with nuclear only (ignoring growth in the market), needs about 15,000 nuclear reactors.

  15 TW  :Eek:   That's an enormous amount of energy!  That's ..... let me think ..... that's less than 0.01% of the 173,000 TW solar energy that hits the earth every single day. What are these greenies thinking? Do they think that huge amounts of energy just falls out of the sky for free!!!!   :Smilie:

----------


## woodbe

> I believe wind generators consume energy when there is a dearth of power around.

  Thats it? So run out of anti-wind responses now? 
How many watts per wind generator with no wind? mW? kW? W?

----------


## phild01

> Thats it? So run out of anti-wind responses now? 
> How many watts per wind generator with no wind? mW? kW? W?

  Ha, dare I say something negative about a wind turbine.   :Rolleyes:

----------


## Marc

https://www.masterresource.org/grass...3-reasons-why/ Again, our modern society is based on abundant, reliable, affordable electric *power*. All these specious claims for wind energy are simply part of a long line of snake oil sales spiels – intended to fool the public and enable politicians to justify favoring special interests by enriching various rent-seekers (which will then return the favor via campaign contributions and other reelection support). They get away with this primarily for three basic reasons.*1* – Wind proponents are not asked to independently PROVE the merits of their claims before (or after) their product is forced on the public. *2* – There is no penalty for making bogus assertions or dishonest claims about their product’s “benefits,” so each successive contention is more grandiose than the last. *3* – Promoting wind is a _political_ agenda that is divorced from real science. A true scientific assessment is a comprehensive, objective evaluation with transparent real world data – not on carefully massaged computer models and slick advertising campaigns, which are the mainstay of anti-science evangelists promoting political agendas. So, in effect, we have come around full circle. A hundred-plus years ago, wind energy was recognized as an antiquated, unreliable and expensive source of energy – and now, after hundreds of billions of wasted tax and consumer dollars, we find that (surprise!) it still is an antiquated, unreliable and expensive source of energy. This is what happens when science is relegated to a back-of-the-bus status. _Paraphrasing Dr. Jon Boone:_Let’s see the real world evidence for the lobbyists’ case. I’m weary of these relentless projections, uncontaminated as they are by reality. In a nutshell, what these profiteers are seeking to do, through methodological legerdemain, is to make wind appear to be what it is not. This is a plot lifted out of Cinderella and her step-sisters, or the Emperor’s New Clothes. It’s really a story of class aspirations, but one that is bizarrely twisted: giving wind a makeover to make her seem fetching and comely when in fact she’s really a frog. When you hear that wind opposition is all about NIMBYs, think about the above points, and then reflect on what NIMBY really means: _The Next Idiot Might Be You_. But consider the sources. When a major turbine manufacturer calls a catastrophic failure like a blade falling off component liberation, we know we are in for an adventurous ride in a theme park divorced from reality. See *WiseEnergy.org* and *EnergyPresentation.Info* for more detailed explanations, including charts, photographs, entertaining graphics, and numerous references. ——— *John Droz, Jr., a physicist & environmental advocate, can be reached at “aaprjohn at northnet dot org”.*

----------


## John2b

> ..... let me think ..... that's less than 0.01% of the 173,000 TW solar energy that hits the earth every single day...

  and >90% of what is used is just pissed against the wall in inefficiencies ..... less than 0.001% of what hits the Earth is more than enough for everyone and still have power to waste.

----------


## John2b

John Droz, Jr. I'm pretty sure he was Lieutenant Commander Quinton McHale in McKales Navy, so he'd know everything about sea level rise. Hey, weren't you Captain Wally Binghamton, Marc?

----------


## woodbe

> at at the same time, why in heavens name would you ask the younger generation what they think?  an uneducated opinion gets you nowhere - that's the sort of thing that informs one nation as to what to do.  You need to get scientists and engineers together who have worked in the area and want to solve the problem - policy should always be formed on expertise not just strongly held views

  There are two sides of this coin. Yes, there are educated scientists etc, and there are the public. From listening to the young and listening to the old, I have to say that the younger have more open minds than the older in terms of the science of climate change and moving forward, especially those past retirement. The older generally do not easily accept climate change or any change, they are locked in to the history they grew up in.  
The older have difficulty accepting change is necessary. The youth see the requirements displayed by scientists and say yes, lets do it now. They know what the future is if the world sits on it's hands, because they will have to live through it but the old will be gone by then.  
So yes, in heavens name I definitely would ask the younger generation what they think. By the mid 20's they have as much education (or more) as the general public and they have view for the future of their world.

----------


## phild01

The young minds haven't had time enough to digest what they are indoctrinated with at school.

----------


## woodbe

Mid to late 20's? 
Those over 65 are indoctrinated in the past. I listen to both, prefer the younger. Your choice.

----------


## phild01

It takes a while, and it makes me cringe that the school system has teachers moulding young minds.

----------


## chrisp

> It takes a while, and it makes me cringe that the school system has teachers moulding young minds.

  Do tell us more. I'm interested in your thoughts on this. I was not aware of any indoctrination.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Do tell us more. I'm interested in your thoughts on this. I was not aware of any indoctrination.

  it is a bit funny, you know... now that you mention it... 
of the few climate deniers i am personally aware of, all of them did not have much schooling or were always proudly anti-establishment... 
maybe many of the rest of us HAVE been so efficiently and effectively indoctrinated (that no-one actually noticed) and there is a core group who avoided this indoctrination and must speak out? 
i now recall back to studying at a university and being lectured by so-called "professors" about the environment, and we had whole lecture theaters being told about the effects humans have on the environment and NONE of the other students stood up and shouted "NOT TRUE, YOU LIE!!!" 
perhaps the indoctrination was effectively complete in high school i guess? 
it was weird too, there were libraries full of books (yes, i went to uni in the 20th century) that ALSO discussed the environment in similar ways to the lecturers, but i guess books in a library are easy to fake too?

----------


## phild01

It's not about denial, it's about absolute evidence.  I don't say CO2 isn't an issue.  I don't say it is either.  Marc might be right and it comes down to what you believe.  I'm yet to see that the evidence is *absolute*. I don't mind if people say it looks like CO2 is a most likely concern, but I am left wondering when they say it is the problem absolutely.

----------


## DavoSyd

it's not just CO2 - it is all GHG

----------


## johnc

> it is a bit funny, you know... now that you mention it... 
> of the few climate deniers i am personally aware of, all of them did not have much schooling or were always proudly anti-establishment... 
> maybe many of the rest of us HAVE been so efficiently and effectively indoctrinated (that no-one actually noticed) and there is a core group who avoided this indoctrination and must speak out? 
> i now recall back to studying at a university and being lectured by so-called "professors" about the environment, and we had whole lecture theaters being told about the effects humans have on the environment and NONE of the other students stood up and shouted "NOT TRUE, YOU LIE!!!" 
> perhaps the indoctrination was effectively complete in high school i guess? 
> it was weird too, there were libraries full of books (yes, i went to uni in the 20th century) that ALSO discussed the environment in similar ways to the lecturers, but i guess books in a library are easy to fake too?

  We are indoctrinated, there are a number of studies, and while that is my slant what the studies point to should be of no surprise to most people. teachers represent views that span society, outside of subjects that require application of rules (maths science etc) teachers will give a representation of social values that reflect the society they live in. So teachers as a group don't push a teachers view, they actually repeat a view according to their community, the view will differ from teacher to teacher and kids in the end are most influenced by parents. However teachers are educated so those uneducated buffoons that rail against everything probably aren't going to be mirrored in a staff room but the prevailing political and social views of the day will be.

----------


## Marc

Leftist indoctrination starts in primary school and whoever denies that is a moron, is blind and deaf, lives in a cave and off the grid or is part of the problem.  
As far as the demonisation of CO2 there is a long string of problems with that.
To begin with CO2 is not a pollutant and is essential for life on earth, it exists in a very low concentration today, used to be hundreds of times higher and the human contribution is ridiculously small.  
The link between CO2 and temperature fluctuation was falsified by Al Gore and he should have a jail sentence for that instead of a nobel price, but considering the pathetic politicization of the noble prize particularly the "peace" one, it actually makes sense.  
If humanity ceased to exist and all human activity from vehicles factories, agriculture and husbandry ceased instantly today, the effect on climate would be so small that it would be very difficult if not impossible to measure by the Martians that would come to visit.  
The concept that temperatures are going up and that this trend must be stopped starts from the false premise that there is an ideal temperature and that such needs to be restored or maintained. Spurious and false. We had lower and higher temperatures and we will have them in the future without need of any "help" from deluded cultist. 
If in a hypothetical future, a universal dictator decided that he wanted to alter the world temperature, the most ineffective and expensive method he could use is to reduce CO2. 
To try to reduce temperatures by reducing CO2 is like trying to poke a hole in a body of water using a stick. Quadrillions of dollars spent on this quest of plinking at windmills will result in poverty and famine yet no change in "climate". Clearly the current agenda is to destroy the west industrial dominance by harping at it's humanity. 
There are many things in the world that are undesirable, way more than a minuscule excess of CO2 and that have a much more dramatic effect on our lives, yet the agitators of the left are silent on them. Their selective memories and their patchy ethics are a clear show of what minions they are and make it crystal clear that as true minions they don't even know who their real master is and what their master's agenda truly is.

----------


## DavoSyd

> We are indoctrinated, there are a number of studies, and while that is my slant what the studies point to should be of no surprise to most people. teachers represent views that span society, outside of subjects that require application of rules (maths science etc) teachers will give a representation of social values that reflect the society they live in. So teachers as a group don't push a teachers view, they actually repeat a view according to their community, the view will differ from teacher to teacher and kids in the end are most influenced by parents. However teachers are educated so those uneducated buffoons that rail against everything probably aren't going to be mirrored in a staff room but the prevailing political and social views of the day will be.

  i was not talking about "kids and teachers" - i was talking about tertiary education....

----------


## DavoSyd

> Leftist indoctrination starts in primary school

  can you list your 10 most abhorred primary school indoctrinations?

----------


## johnc

> i was not talking about "kids and teachers" - i was talking about tertiary education....

  Change the word "teacher" for "lecturer" then, same difference, there is nothing to indicate educators (better word for you) having voting tendencies that differ much to the general population. Although I would hope they are under represented amongst one Nation and Corry Barnardi's party of ratbags.

----------


## johnc

> can you list your 10 most abhorred primary school indoctrinations?

  I suspect in Marc's alternative universe every primary school and every teacher is a ranting communist hell bent on ending capitalism and taking his precious assets to be sold and spent on even more leftist re-education of the proletariat. It may also include a boost in spending on chardonnay sipping and café latte.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Change the word "teacher" for "lecturer" then, same difference, there is nothing to indicate educators (better word for you) having voting tendencies that differ much to the general population.

  erm, so which set of beliefs have these teachers and educators been encouraging ("forcing?") students to accept uncritically? 
EDIT - this is really for phil01 to clarify really... he raised the concept initially....

----------


## Marc

> I suspect in Marc's alternative universe every primary school and every teacher is a ranting communist hell bent on ending capitalism and taking his precious assets to be sold and spent on even more leftist re-education of the proletariat. It may also include a boost in spending on chardonnay sipping and café latte.

  Ha ha, must love JohnC  :Rofl5:

----------


## chrisp

> Leftist indoctrination starts in primary school and whoever denies that is a moron, is blind and deaf, lives in a cave and off the grid or is part of the problem.

  Do I take it that you have recently been in a primary school classroom and that you have witnessed this indoctrination that you speak of? I'd be interested to hear about it as it seems that I must have been busy in my cave, or off grid, or that my sensors are somewhat diminished.

----------


## Bedford

If you think you haven't been indoctrinated by the school system, you probably have.

----------


## Bros

> If you think you haven't been indoctrinated by the school system, you probably have.

    :2thumbsup:

----------


## phild01

Was about to say similar, not something you can argue the point on because if you don't believe it then you can't accept it.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Was about to say similar, not something you can argue the point on because if you don't believe it then you can't accept it.

  biggest cop out ever. 
you saying a person is indoctrinated, that's a pretty big insult. 
you better be able to back it up with being able to explain which 'belief/s' that person/those people have been brainwashed into accepting uncritically.... and you could go a step further and set out who did the indoctrination and for what purpose...

----------


## Bedford

> biggest cop out ever. 
> you saying a person is indoctrinated, that's a pretty big insult. 
> you better be able to back it up with being able to explain which 'belief/s' that person/those people have been brainwashed into accepting uncritically.... and you could go a step further and set out who did the indoctrination and for what purpose...

   :Smilie:

----------


## DavoSyd

> 

  Oh, I get it, don't I feel silly. 
Hook, line and sinker...

----------


## chrisp

> If you think you haven't been indoctrinated by the school system, you probably have.

   

> 

   

> Was about to say similar, not something you can argue the point on because if you don't believe it then you can't accept it.

  You may like to look a little closer to home if you are accusing others of being indoctrinated and you deny accepted and robustly supported science. It sounds a little like projection to me.

----------


## PhilT2

One of the few things I took away from my (unsuccessful) attempt to do a degree was the importance of backing up what you say with evidence. There is a proper way to do that and it's sadly lacking in some posts. Without evidence what you're saying is opinion; in an area where perhaps you have no qualifications. I spent my entire time in the education system in Catholic schools thanks to some Irish background. I can't fault their attempts to indoctrinate students; they were relentless. But I walked away from it at 16 and never went back. My leftist tendency originated from the govt trying to send me to a war and were reinforced by later events.

----------


## Bedford

> You may like to look a little closer to home if you are accusing others of being indoctrinated and you deny accepted and robustly supported science. It sounds a little like projection to me.

   :Smilie:

----------


## phild01

I accept scientific facts, the dogmatic assumptions can be disconcerting.  Bear in mind you are using the term "accepted science".

----------


## chrisp

> I accept scientific facts, the dogmatic assumptions can be disconcerting.  Bear in mind you are using the term "accepted science".

  What do you define as 'scientific facts'? Would gravity qualify? Newtonian mechanics? Special relativity? Smoking causes cancer?

----------


## phild01

Yep, the smoking one is interesting but well within our means of understanding.

----------


## Marc

Smoke causes cancer like cars cause smashes. 
Geocentrism was a scientific fact. Smoke up your anus was a scientific fact. no need to repeat the sad feats of science and their marriage with religion or politics. Science is a prostitute that provides an alibi to whoever pays more. 
If there was the slightest scientific interest in this moote debate of anti CO2, a true scientist would come up with the fact that reducing CO2 would make no difference to average temperatures and that the cost of such experiment is criminal and has as only purpose destroying economies and not saving any planet known to man.

----------


## DavoSyd

> a true scientist would...

  Ah, "only a true Scotsman... "

----------


## Marc

Whilst the traitor throws the stone and hides the hand from the safety of distance, stating Liberals are actually not conservatives ... DT ignoring the moronic left media, delivers a speech we have yet to hear from any of the intellectual pygmies dwelling in Canberra at our expense.
Oh ... but the left was busy faking a snubbing by the Polish first lady. All in good fun, after all that is all they can deliver between joints.  https://youtu.be/xYZCtfIPsEQ?t=338

----------


## Bedford

> You may like to look a little closer to home if you are accusing others of being indoctrinated and you deny accepted and robustly supported science. It sounds a little like projection to me.

  Having quoted me in your above reply, please show where and who I accused. 
Also show where I deny anything.

----------


## John2b

> If you think you haven't been indoctrinated by the school system, you probably have.

  Do you think you were indoctrinated by the school system Bedford? 
(Hint: in you answer no, you most probably were, if you answer yes, you most probably were. Your premise, not mine!)

----------


## John2b

> Having quoted me in your above reply, please show where and who I accused. 
> Also show where I deny anything.

  Come off it Bedford. There were three people quoted in that post and nothing was attributed to anyone in particular. If you truely feel affronted, as opposed to just trolling, then the post has hit a nerve that you might want to explore before you cast aspersions.

----------


## John2b

> Whilst the traitor throws the stone and hides the hand from the safety of distance, stating Liberals are actually not conservatives ...

  Der - liberals are not conservatives. Not in Australia, not anywhere. Menzies Liberal doctrine is totally incompatible with Abbott's neoconservative dogma. Abbott's faction cannot reclaim a party that was NEVER theirs. To suggest otherwise is merely exposing one's political naivety and ignorance. 
(Hint: Many current Australian Labor Party policies are politically right of Menzies's doctrine.)

----------


## Marc

> ...accepted and robustly supported science...

  like ... geocentric universe? phlogiston? Ulcers caused by stress? Lactic acid slows you down? Young earth? Static universe? The four humours? link between cholestero and diet?

----------


## Bedford

> Do you think you were indoctrinated by the school system Bedford? 
> (Hint: in you answer no, you most probably were, if you answer yes, you most probably were. Your premise, not mine!)

  Absolutely I was indoctrinated, the trick is to be able to recognise it.

----------


## chrisp

> Yep, the smoking one is interesting but well within our means of understanding.

  I'm trying to understand where the line is as you see it. Would you categorise the statement that 'smoking causes cancer' as a 'scientific fact' or a 'dogmatic assumption'?

----------


## John2b

> like ... geocentric universe? phlogiston? Ulcers caused by stress? Lactic acid slows you down? Young earth? Static universe? The four humours? link between cholestero and diet?

  Whatever you are taking Marc, do yourself a favour and cut back a little.

----------


## phild01

> Absolutely I was indoctrinated, the trick is to be able to recognise it.

  +1

----------


## phild01

> I'm trying to understand where the line is as you see it. Would you categorise the statement that 'smoking causes cancer' as a 'scientific fact' or a 'dogmatic assumption'?

  It's a statistic, and medically understood.  It doesn't always cause cancer though, in one's lifetime.

----------


## John2b

> Absolutely I was indoctrinated, the trick is to be able to recognise it.

  But that just replaces one indoctrination with another - seriously! 
When I went to school, i was gifted with an inquisitive mind, one that questions everything both during and post *formal* education.

----------


## John2b

> It's a statistic.

  Embedded in that reply is denial of the science of lung cancer, which does not depend on statistics, but a rigorous analysis of cause and effect, replicated thousands of times in different places by different people, AKA known as the scientific method.

----------


## phild01

> Embedded in that reply is denial of the science of lung cancer, which does not depend on statistics, but a rigorous analysis of cause and effect, replicated thousands of times in different places by different people, AKA known as the scientific method.

  Wait till I finish editing.  You are so impatient.

----------


## John2b

> Wait till I finish editing.  You are so impatient.

  Oops, sorry  :Tapedshut:

----------


## chrisp

> It's a statistic, and medically understood.  It doesn't always cause cancer though, in one's lifetime.

  Agree. It's statistically accepted to cause cancer in a population not not always causal in every individual. 
It was hotly contested for many decades and even when the statistical evidence was there the tobacco industry would claim that there wasn't definitive causal connection. 
I suppose I wonder just how much evidence some people need (I'm not directing this at you) before they are prepared to accept the scientific evidence. 
I appreciate that Marc has pointed out examples of where science has been wrong in the past. In case he missed it, I was also pointing out some areas where the science has been wrong, or rather incomplete - e.g. Newtonian mechanics. It's practically right, but the theory has since been improved upon.

----------


## Bedford

> But that just replaces one indoctrination with another - seriously! 
> When I went to school, i was gifted with an inquisitive mind, one that questions everything both during and post *formal* education.

  So did you recognise the indoctrination?

----------


## John2b

> So did you recognise the indoctrination?

  So you did not comprehend my post? Or was it too much indoctrination to accept a possible different outcome from the education system?

----------


## DavoSyd

> It's a statistic,

  so is "there are nearly 10'000 schools in Australia"

----------


## John2b

Meanwhile, back at the coalface... 
The originator of this thread made a pop-up post a few days ago to gloat about the denier blogosphere's mis-interpretation of reworked modelling of the satellite temperature record - you know, the satellite record that apparently pointed to a global warming pause. If Rod had a gun and a foot, well you get the picture... 
It turns out that (even though the multiple satellite temperature recording experiments have been run by people trying to disprove global warming) that the satellite record has been grossly underreporting temperature rise over the past couple of decades. This is because of a faulty application of the computer climate models used to generate surface temperatures of the Earth from indirect satellite measurements that didn't fully take into account declines in satellite orbits as they age. 
Warning: deniers don't want to look here: it's your own sacred cow that is being slaughtered by your "side". 
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998  https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-co...ing-since-1998

----------


## phild01

> so is "there are nearly 10'000 schools in Australia"

  !!!????

----------


## John2b

> It's a statistic, and medically understood.  It doesn't always cause cancer though, in one's lifetime.

  So true! Some smokers get run over by a bus or die of diabetes or heart disease from eating the contemporary Australian diet, a little while before lung or throat cancer, or emphysema, gets them...

----------


## DavoSyd

> !!!????

  i asked - who indoctrinated who, when, where and why?

----------


## Marc

*Children’s schooling suffers as teachers pursue Marxist agenda*   KEVIN DONNELLYThe Australian12:00AM December 19, 2016Save Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on emailShare more... 178  There’s nothing new in NSW’s Helensburgh Public School using Year 3 children as refugee activists and classroom teachers wearing T-shirts with the slogan “Teachers for Refugees — Close the Camps, Bring Them Here”.  The NSW Teachers Federation and the Australian Education Union have a long history of using the education system to indoctrinate students with Marxist-inspired causes. In 2002, after the Howard government committed troops to Iraq, the AEU directed teachers to “take action in your workplace and community” and to “support students who take an anti-war stance (and to) encourage participation in peaceful protests”. Instead of education and the curriculum being objective, whereby students are taught to be critical-minded and to weigh alternative points of view, the AEU’s leadership is only concerned with imposing its politically correct views on controversial issues. While parents are shocked by the Marxist-inspired Safe Schools LGBTQI program, which teaches children gender is fluid and celebrating being a man or a woman is heteronormative, the AEU gives it full support. Its federal president, Correna Haythorpe, describes critics of the Safe Schools program as “extreme conservatives” opposing a “highly effective and positive program”. At a time when Australia’s international test results are in free fall, the AEU, instead of focusing on the basics, is more interested in campaigning for “global movements for peace, social justice, nuclear disarmament, justice for refugees and the environment”. In relation to climate change, AEU Victorian branch president Meredith Peace is happy to visit schools as a result of being trained “by Al Gore to give his famous climate change presentation as part of his Climate Project”. Since its establishment in the early 1990s, the AEU and its state and territory branches have campaigned for a plethora of neo-Marxist, feminist, LGBTQI and postcolonial causes. Such is the success of the AEU in determining what happens in the school curriculum that a past president, Pat Byrne, was able to boast “the conservatives have a lot of work to do to undo the progressive curriculum”. Instead of celebrating Australia’s economic successes, our high standard of living and the fact that we are a peaceful, democratic nation, the AEU argues the curriculum must critique the “role of the economy, the sexual division of labour, the dominant culture and the education system in reproducing inequality”. As such, the AEU is a long-time critic of the academic curriculum and meritocracy, where there are winners and losers. Supposedly, based on a Marxist view of society, the traditional curriculum and competition reinforce capitalist hegemony and the power of the ruling class. Instead of ranking students in terms of motivation and ability, and holding schools responsible for results, the AEU argues learning must “be premised on co-operation rather than competition and the prospect of success rather than failure”. Drawing on communist theorists such as Antonio Gramsci, Pierre Bourdieu and Louis Althusser, schools are condemned as essential parts of the ideological state apparatus that, as a result, must by captured and transformed. As prominent Victorian union activist Bill Hannan argued some years ago, “We don’t have to wait for society to change before education can change. Education is part of society. By changing it, we help to change society.” Or, as argued by the then left-wing Victorian education minister Joan Kirner, “we have to reshape education so that it is part of the socialist struggle for equality, participation and social change, rather than instrument of the capitalist system”. Not surprisingly, given it’s old-style statist view of education, where governments, bureaucracies and teacher unions enforce a command-and-control model of public policy, the AEU opposes the existence and funding of Catholic and independent schools. Even though parents are voting with their feet and about 35 per cent of students attend non-government schools, the AEU argues “there is no pre-existing, predetermined entitlement to public funding: i.e. there is no a priori justification for public funding to private schools”. By denying funding to non-government schools and arguing that additional billions must be spent on government schools, especially to employ more teachers and prospective union members, the AEU is obviously driven by self-interest. Self-interest also explains why the AEU is committed to an antiquated and inflexible centralised enterprise bargaining system, one that ensures its seat at the table and that denies individual schools the freedom to shape employment conditions that best suit local needs. Ignored is the international movement to free schools from provider capture, represented by charter schools in the US and free schools in England, and to give them the autonomy to best meet the needs and aspirations of their local communities. Instead of educating students in a balanced and impartial way the AEU is committed to indoctrinating children with neo-Marxist, politically correct groupthink. _Kevin Donnelly is senior research Fellow at the Australian Catholic University and author of Dumbing Down._

----------


## Marc

Attempting to deny the above described reality demonstrate the scientific link between CO2 demonisation and marxist ideology acquired early in life without even knowing it.
You have been indoctrinated ... yes ... my word you have. 
The set of values that determines human behaviour is usually acquired before age 10. Teachers are well aware of this and their goal is to make as mani minions as possible whilst they are at their mercy. Not all teachers mind you, but too many in too many countries. To deny this is rather pointless, it is as clear as daylight and anyone can find out how, when why and where this is common practice.  
One of the reason the global warming fraud was so successfully spread around the word with not much challenge, it fits with the mindset of the left and their parasitic victimhood mentality.

----------


## Bedford

> Or, as argued by the then left-wing Victorian education minister Joan Kirner, we have to reshape education so that it is part of the socialist struggle for equality, participation and social change, rather than instrument of the capitalist system.

  Ha Ha! funny you dragged her up, her husband Ron, as one of my "teachers" was one of the main indoctrinaters.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Do you think you were indoctrinated by the school system Bedford? 
> (Hint: in you answer no, you most probably were, if you answer yes, you most probably were. Your premise, not mine!)

  airswing.  The knowledge of the indoctrination neutralises it.  See above post about catholic schooling - all you need is the awareness. 
EDIT - sorry, hadn't read all the posts after - it's a bit od a passé comment by now.... 
on teachers - it's too broad, I'd say public school non management level are strongly left - the rest are a wash. 
things like "invasion day" are progressive left and part of public primary school education,

----------


## johnc

> erm, so which set of beliefs have these teachers and educators been encouraging ("forcing?") students to accept uncritically? 
> EDIT - this is really for phil01 to clarify really... he raised the concept initially....

  I think on this little tangent we are all being a little tongue in cheek. kids don't arrive in the world with a set of skills to manage, in fact unlike the animal kingdom it takes quite some time for a human being to learn to feed and look after themselves. As parents we teach our children how to survive. Because we are reasonable evolved we have to subcontract out some of that learning stuff to teachers so we have schools, we also have social activities that also teach kids skills. So in a way we are all involved in the indoctrination of children, my point is that the indoctrination in schools is probably no different to the indoctrination at home with teachers passing on their slant without realising it same as parents. We all carry bias and no matter how hard we try to be whatever contemporary society deems normal we will deviate from the norm. the deviation by teachers across the board is no different to parents across the board. That means you eliminate those on the extreme end of normal, so views that are illegal or immoral are not considered as part of normal deviation.

----------


## phild01

> i asked - who indoctrinated who, when, where and why?

  No, you said: so is "there are nearly 10'000 schools in Australia" which didn't make any sense to me hence !!!???

----------


## phild01

> EDIT - this is really for phil01 to clarify really... he raised the concept initially....

  I did and the discussion pretty much covers it, no further comment being really necessary.  Usually you will find lot of what one thinks is rooted in the way they were given information through parenting and school.   Not sure why you feel it is personal!

----------


## DavoSyd

> I think on this little tangent we are all being a little tongue in cheek. kids don't arrive in the world with a set of skills to manage, in fact unlike the animal kingdom it takes quite some time for a human being to learn to feed and look after themselves. As parents we teach our children how to survive. Because we are reasonable evolved we have to subcontract out some of that learning stuff to teachers so we have schools, we also have social activities that also teach kids skills. So in a way we are all involved in the indoctrination of children, my point is that the indoctrination in schools is probably no different to the indoctrination at home with teachers passing on their slant without realising it same as parents. We all carry bias and no matter how hard we try to be whatever contemporary society deems normal we will deviate from the norm. the deviation by teachers across the board is no different to parents across the board. That means you eliminate those on the extreme end of normal, so views that are illegal or immoral are not considered as part of normal deviation.

  so now are you actually talking about the process of 'socialisation' rather than the more specific 'indoctrination'... 
oh wellz... 
i guess only the strong will survive!

----------


## DavoSyd

> Not sure why you feel it is personal!

  you are essentially using it to say that opposing arguments exist because that side is 'indoctrinated' and therefore have not critically evaluated their position. 
that is not fair. 
EDIT - and if you think that the process of learning and forming one's own views of life is immutable once a person leaves 'school' or 'home', then that kinda says more about the depth of your indoctrination...

----------


## phild01

> you are essentially using it to say that opposing arguments exist because that side is 'indoctrinated' and therefore have not critically evaluated their position. 
> that is not fair. 
> EDIT - and if you think that the process of learning and forming one's own views of life is immutable once a person leaves 'school' or 'home', then that kinda says more about you...

  This is starting to be a troll but I think this is a fair summary:  *"Indoctrination is the process of inculcating a person with ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or professional methodologies (see doctrine).[1] Humans are a social animal inescapably shaped by cultural context, and thus some degree of indoctrination is implicit in the parent–child relationship, and has an essential function in forming stable communities of shared values." * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination 
Sorry if you feel offended, it seems you are!

----------


## DavoSyd

lol, the NEXT sentence under your quote from your link:   

> In the political context, indoctrination is often analyzed as a tool of class warfare, where institutions of the state are identified as "conspiring" to maintain the status quo.

  i.e. accusing a particular side of an argument as being indoctrinated is likely to be offensive?  
"_you are just being a limp tool of the state_" 
but you are right, you didn't mean to offend with your offhand comment...

----------


## phild01

Dave, I'd rather not entertain any further presumptions and my comment was not "offhand".

----------


## Marc

> I think on this little tangent we are all being a little tongue in cheek. kids don't arrive in the world with a set of skills to manage, in fact unlike the animal kingdom it takes quite some time for a human being to learn to feed and look after themselves. As parents we teach our children how to survive. Because we are reasonable evolved we have to subcontract out some of that learning stuff to teachers so we have schools, we also have social activities that also teach kids skills. So in a way we are all involved in the indoctrination of children, my point is that the indoctrination in schools is probably no different to the indoctrination at home with teachers passing on their slant without realising it same as parents. We all carry bias and no matter how hard we try to be whatever contemporary society deems normal we will deviate from the norm. the deviation by teachers across the board is no different to parents across the board. That means you eliminate those on the extreme end of normal, so views that are illegal or immoral are not considered as part of normal deviation.

   Very true, we all use bias, prejudice and discrimination as a survival tool. We discriminate our suppliers and service providers, we use bias, prejudice and preconceived notions when assessing a risk be it personal or professional, we discriminate using bias and preconception to choose a friend or partner, to choose a suburb to live in to select a customer, a product, a holiday and in each and every other human activity. Bias, prejudice and discrimination are the only tool we have to predict a future outcome based on the information at hand. Prejudice and bias are only politically incorrect because we like to pretend we are blind to the obvious signals that are available to us, and our humanity desires a different more trusting approach than we would if selecting stock for a shop or seeds for our fields. We would like it to be different, we hope it is. Sometimes we are lucky others we are not.  
When it comes to our children, we as parents pass on our experience or try to. Yes we outsource some of the formal education to teachers paid by us or by the state according to the choices we have, however the similarities end there. A teacher may have his own set of bias and prejudice inherited from his family or developed by himself. Not interested. He or she have no right to impose their own set of private ideas on my child unless it is a set of formal values clearly part of a curriculum I accept to be thought to my child. Any other approach is sneaky, illegal and an abuse of trust. I have personally confronted a number of teachers on their teachings, had some expelled from school others had to retract their teachings publicly. But I was always alone in this, most parents don't have the time, the skills or the awareness to do this. 
To "teach" CO2 is pollution, or the global warming fraud to children equates to teach religion in a science class. It is out of place, and parents should not tolerate it ever. 
The definition of indoctrination may help:  indoctrination ɪnˌdɒktrɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/ _noun_   the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. "I would never subject children to religious indoctrination"  The key word here is "uncritically"The person doing the 'indoctrination' does so in the knowledge that the one being indoctrinated does not have the ability to discriminate between truth and falsehood. To teach a topic that is out of scope to advance a personal agenda should carry jail time.

----------


## chrisp

> To "teach" CO2 is pollution, or the global warming fraud to children equates to teach religion in a science class. It is out of place, and parents should not tolerate it ever.

  I'd very disappointed if the education system wasn't teaching students about AGW and it's causes. Not to do so would indicate that their curriculum is out of date. 
I suspect that a few here might benefit from going back to school.  :Smilie:

----------


## johnc

> so now are you actually talking about the process of 'socialisation' rather than the more specific 'indoctrination'... 
> oh wellz... 
> i guess only the strong will survive!

  Socialisation surely is conforming with peers and the society you live in, working with-in its written and unwritten rules of behaviour. You indoctrinate, if you like, your ideals and view of social norms, the two go hand in hand. These days teaching works within lesson plan guidelines from those who set curriculum standards at a state and federal level. While we all have a bias I doubt that it is particularly noticeable in a classroom level, lesson plans will generally cover what they need to according to the type of subject. Teaching as a rule reflects that particular societies bias and how the individual is seen within it, when you get something like the US system that teaches creationism as a valid argument against society I would suggest you have unadulterated indoctrination, while something like our system that takes a scientific approach is focused on learning according to what we currently accept as fact.

----------


## johnc

> I have personally confronted a number of teachers on their teachings, had some expelled from school others had to retract their teachings publicly. But I was always alone in this, most parents don't have the time, the skills or the awareness to do this. 
> To "teach" CO2 is pollution, or the global warming fraud to children equates to teach religion in a science class. It is out of place, and parents should not tolerate it ever.

  If you have in fact been involved in the sacking of teachers it makes you nothing but a bully, the fact that other parents have not joined with you should cause you to reflect on your behaviour. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect including those who do not agree with your view on CO2. That is all I will say on this matter.

----------


## phild01

What was this snap quoted comment meant for!!???!  

> "_you are just being a limp tool of the state_"

----------


## Marc

> If you have in fact been involved in the sacking of teachers it makes you nothing but a bully, the fact that other parents have not joined with you should cause you to reflect on your behaviour. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect including those who do not agree with your view on CO2. That is all I will say on this matter.

   You are being prejudicial without knowing all the facts. The cases I was involved in and there were a few because I have 4 kids, had nothing to do with global warming and included sexual misconduct, false teachings, political teachings and religious indoctrination. The bullying was all from their side and was reluctantly recognised by the authorities. I was alone in defending my children because that is human nature. We are on our own most of the time and this was no exception.

----------


## Marc

> I'd very disappointed if the education system wasn't teaching students about AGW and it's causes. Not to do so would indicate that their curriculum is out of date. 
> I suspect that a few here might benefit from going back to school.

  I agree actually. i would have no objection if this topic is part of the school curriculum. I would in such case probably write to the board of studies to take it off, but if it is there no problem. The problem is when teachers take it upon themselves to impose their beliefs because they think they know best and do so un unsuspecting minors.

----------


## woodbe

Except... 
AGW is not something teachers take it on themselves. It is science, and it has been published for a very long time now. 
The biggest risk is that there might be AGW denier teachers spreading false info. I give the kids more ability to work it out than accept denial. 
And deniers spreading false info on Renovateforum etc.

----------


## John2b

> You are being prejudicial without knowing all the facts.

  That may be true, Marc, but you bully and belittle people you've never met and/or their views and whom you know very little about, or paste content from others that do, practically every-time you participate in this forum.

----------


## PhilT2

> To "teach" CO2 is pollution, or the global warming fraud to children equates to teach religion in a science class. It is out of place, and parents should not tolerate it ever.

  The finding that CO2 is a pollutant comes from a decision in the US Supreme Court in which the court found that greenhouse gases, including CO2, met the definition of a pollutant under the definition provided in the US Clean Air Act. I would expect that this would be a legitimate topic in a class discussion on how legal decisions shape environmental regulations. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf

----------


## Bigboboz

This is the definition from the Act 
The Act defines “air pollutant” to include “any air pollu-
tion agent or combination of such agents, including any
physical, chemical, biological, radioactive . . . substance or
matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the am-
bient air.” 
Pretty damn broad, not surprised they defined it as a pollutant. So where would you cut the list of pollutants to teach kids about? Pretty sure this list would be too big for any adult to remember.

----------


## Marc

> This is the definition from the Act 
> The Act defines “air pollutant” to include “any air pollu-
> tion agent or combination of such agents, including any
> physical, chemical, biological, radioactive . . . substance or
> matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the am-
> bient air.” 
> Pretty damn broad, not surprised they defined it as a pollutant. So where would you cut the list of pollutants to teach kids about? Pretty sure this list would be too big for any adult to remember.

  That is from the American EPA. 
Rather crap definition open to any interpretation you like. 
This is the definition of pollution:  *pollutant*     [p_uh_-*loot*-nt] 
Spell Syllables   Word Origin   See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun1.something that pollutes.  2.any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products,that renders the air,soil,water,or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.   The key words here are RENDERS HARMFUL OR UNSUITABLE FOR PURPOSE   Under the EPA definition if you add distilled water to a river you are polluting it. Under the dictionary definition of pollutant, you are not polluting the river with water neither are you polluting the air with CO2.

----------


## PhilT2

As the court said "likely to cause significant harm to the plaintiff"

----------


## Bigboboz

Too much oxygen will kill you.  Plants make oxygen, time to regulate plants I guess.

----------


## John2b

Marc's dictionary definition is conclusive: water may be a pollutant in a river and CO2 may be a pollutant in the air. 
Put hot water into a river (e.g. from a power plant) and it is rendered harmful to the natural life that lives in it, ergo the water is polluting the river. 
Put CO2 into the air and the atmosphere is rendered unfit for its function of controlling the Earth's radiative energy to maintain a temperature range that supports life and biodiversity as it has evolved and exists now, ergo the CO2 is polluting the air.

----------


## phild01

_'ergo'_, what is wrong with the English 'therefore'!

----------


## Marc

I like ergo ...
Cogito ergo sum.
Ergo nomic ... Ergo tamine ... Hyp ergo lic ... P ergo la     :Rofl5:  
Mm ... can't find a picture of a man falling down an embankment and clutching at straws ... where is google when you need it  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

> _'ergo'_, what is wrong with the English 'therefore'!

  Nothing wrong with 'therefore' but the English word 'ergo' has a more explicit meaning.  Therefore vs Ergo - What's the difference? | WikiDiff

----------


## Bedford

> biggest cop out ever. 
> you saying a person is indoctrinated, that's a pretty big insult. 
> you better be able to back it up with being able to explain which 'belief/s' that person/those people have been brainwashed into accepting uncritically.... and you could go a step further and set out who did the indoctrination and for what purpose...

  Try this, Print - Vrroom    

> The message indicates how some teachers were involved in the  anti-Vietnam War movement. It states that the principal of one school is  reported to be encouraging students to attend 'moratorium'  demonstrations, and is inviting organisers to speak at the school. Many  school students also played an active role in the anti-war movement. The  older male students faced the prospect of being conscripted to fight in  Vietnam if Australia's involvement in the war continued.          A 'teach-in', such as that mentioned in this message, was a form of  protest staged as a mass teaching exercise that was loosely structured  around a particular themein this case, the Vietnam War in a world  context. This document is evidence that such protests were regarded by  ASIO as potentially subversive. The venue, just outside (Old) Parliament  House, would have provided an extra reason for security concerns in  case of any violence.

  
I have no comment on the purpose, if you have issues with it you could try talking to ASIO.

----------


## Marc

Every person that has a conviction of any description will in time attempt to talk to someone else about it. Human nature. It can be as harmless as "I like jazz" to I want to organise a march in favour of the republic. 
People that are in a position of authority are limited by law in how they utilize that position and clearly can not use it to advance personal agendas.
Teachers are a clear example of a person in a position of authority that can NOT use that position to preach their crap to unsuspected children. They must teach what they are required by the school/curriculum/parents/principal/board of studies ... but NOT what they _think_
they would like children to know because of their own personal convictions.  
Examples abound. During the Vietnam war, civilians protested against it and it was seen as the thing to do. Who wants to support war right?
Wrong.
Civilian protest against the Vietnam war caused the politicians to panic and abandon their south Vietnam alleles to their own fate at a time when the north was ready to capitulate. 
60,000 soldiers died in vain and unknown number of south vietnamese killed after the fall of saigon. The teachers union backed a communist invading nation, brainwashed children to support their marxist cause and was never called to account for it.

----------


## John2b

> The teachers union backed a communist invading nation, brainwashed children to support their marxist cause and was never called to account for it.

  Whether true or not, the Vietnam war wasn't discussed at my school in those terms, ever. The groundswell in Australia against the war was humanitarian, not ideological. This was the first war whence the appalling depravity of combat was screened into Australian lounge rooms. The US had no plan and no reason to rule Vietnam, and the Vietnamese had no reason to want a US colonial government. The US may have been able to "win" the war, but who knows what that would have meant? 
This picture of a soldier absorbed in a personal pursuit oblivious of what is happening around him is what killed the war, not some activism by a teachers' union or some socialist conspiracy.  how-nick-ut-s-photo-napalm-girl-changed-the-vietnam-war-908256835749

----------


## John2b

Meanwhile, back in the present and on the topic of this thread, Alan Kohler just presented data from the Australian Bureaux of Statistics and the Reserve Bank of Australia which shows that electricity prices fell in Australia from the point in time at which the 'carbon tax' was introduced and only began rising again at the point in time that the 'carbon tax' was repealed. Sometimes history doesn't record what everyone wants to believe. Reality yet again debunks the false memes of ideological posts in this thread.   http://i.imgur.com/buuyIPC.jpg

----------


## woodbe

Australia records hottest July, Bureau of Meteorology says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   

> Australia has had its warmest July on record, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has said.
> A  BOM report to be released later today will show the country's average  July temperature was at its highest in more than 100 years of weather  recording, forecaster David Crock said.

  Add to that the continuing increase in annual temperature along with emissions increases, and the science tells us we should be doing everything we can to reduce our emissions.

----------


## Bros

> Australia records hottest July, Bureau of Meteorology says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)   
> Add to that the continuing increase in annual temperature along with emissions increases, and the science tells us we should be doing everything we can to reduce our emissions.

  Like peeing in the ocean and expecting the level to rise, all the others peeing in with bigger bladders will need to stop.

----------


## woodbe

> Like peeing in the ocean and expecting the level to rise, all the others peeing in with bigger bladders will need to stop.

  Sure. We have to do what we can. Better to be closer to the leaders than trailing years behind like Trump.

----------


## Marc

The Bureau of Meteorology has falsified data for decades to underpin policies that cost hundreds of billions of dollars to our economy. Their criminal actions have been uncovered many times and documented. This is a religious crusade that proves once more the nature of the global warming fraud. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/climate-change-the-facts-2017/news-story/8ae132fe19c923913b6aaf7cd5654d01

----------


## woodbe

> It takes courage to defend your principles.
> It takes much more courage to challenge them. _​ M.G.G._

  The change in climate due to emissions has been scientifically proven for decades. The deniers still spiel out unproven falsehoods. 
Time for your courage, Marc.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Courage is not required when railing on the Internet. Only some misguided confidence in one's anonymity. 
Your are wasting your time here, Woodbe. Even the moderators are in on the denialism so busting your @@@@ here is pointless.

----------


## Uncle Bob

> Even the moderators are in on the denialism

  Eh?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Eh?

  It's true! I read it on the Internet!

----------


## Bros

> Even the moderators are in on the denialism so busting your @@@@ here is pointless.

  Where did you get that bit of useless information from?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Where did you get that bit of useless information from?

  Andrew Bolt said so...or maybe it was someone else. I don't know. Perhaps I felt it in the tea leaves. But it's probably as correct an assertion as anything else in this thread...

----------


## Bros

> Andrew Bolt said so...or maybe it was someone else. I don't know. Perhaps I felt it in the tea leaves. But it's probably as correct an assertion as anything else in this thread...

   Next thing you will be telling us you can feel it in your water.

----------


## phild01

> Even the moderators are in on the denialism

  Why would I deny climate change, it has always changed AFAIK!

----------


## woodbe

> Why would I deny climate change, it has always changed AFAIK!

  So you agree that the climate change we are talking about is not natural, that the change is due to the human effect of emissions and other human causes to environment changes to the planet?

----------


## phild01

> So you agree that the climate change we are talking about is not natural, that the change is due to the human effect of emissions and other human causes to environment changes to the planet?

  How would I know, my knowledge is not absolute.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> How would I know, my knowledge is not absolute.

  You need to spend more time on the Internet!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Next thing you will be telling us you can feel it in your water.

  I am my own spirit level so yeah why not?

----------


## woodbe

> How would I know, my knowledge is not absolute.

  No one's knowledge can be absolute. Tell us your opinion based on the facts you have seen.

----------


## phild01

> No one's knowledge can be absolute. Tell us your opinion based on the facts you have seen.

   Uncertain. I need absolute facts. 
....but I do know climate is a moving target.

----------


## woodbe

> Even the moderators are in on the denialism so busting your @@@@ here is pointless.

   

> Uncertain. I need absolute facts. 
> ....but I do know climate is a moving target.

  So unable to share your own basic opinion in this long thread. 
Seems SBD is correct...

----------


## phild01

> So unable to share your own basic opinion in this long thread. 
> Seems SBD is correct...

  An opinion is a belief. You are asking me to share a belief, to what end!

----------


## woodbe

> An opinion is a belief. You are asking me to share a belief, to what end!

  An opinion is a personal opinion based on the facts you have absorbed. It doesn't have to be a belief. 
As you're moderator in this forum, I'm just asking where you stand.

----------


## phild01

Woodbe, there is something not right with that demand, good night.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe, there is something not right with that demand, good night.

  Never made a demand, I just ask. 
I share my opinion, which is based on science I have read for many years. You know what my opinion is, and after SBD said what he said, I asked you for your own opinion. 
Your choice. If you wouldn't offer a basic opinion, maybe SBD was correct... 
Good night to you too.

----------


## Bros

> As you're moderator in this forum, I'm just asking where you stand.

  Why do moderators need to say where they stand as we are no different from normal posters and can have an opinion?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Why do moderators need to say where they stand as we are no different from normal posters and can have an opinion?

  Agree much - it's not like it's a thread that's being moderated compared to some. 
this whole topic I think has 3 overriding facts 
1. Co2 is a greenhouse gas
2 human beings have increased atmospheric co2 substantially by burning fossil fuels
3. The global climate is getting warmer - somewhere about 1 degree c 
you can argue the toss between causation and correlation, effects of water vapour, how much warming is bad etc etc.  they are the 3 basics though that I think determine "denialism".  The problem is when you use overarching terms like global warming, climate change androprogenic climate change because they mean different things to different people, they are not well defined terms but merely topics, so asking "do you believe in climate change?", one infers "belief" is part of it, second depending on how the person views the topic will depend on what they think they are being asked.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Why do moderators need to say where they stand as we are no different from normal posters and can have an opinion?

  You are different from a normal poster. You have the power to project your opinion when it suits you through your moderation role. You may not conciously exercise this power but the perception of others is there.  
One could argue that the propogation of misinformation is something that may require moderation...as moderators you probably need some policy and knowledge capacity to exercise it. Or simply declare the topic/thread irrelevant to the forum in general and get rid of it.

----------


## woodbe

> Why do moderators need to say where they stand as we are no different from normal posters and can have an opinion?

  Why does anyone need to say where they stand? There is no requirement. I simply asked the question. It's a fair question and it is up to the person to decide if they will respond. 
The question was a result of SBD's claim, and would be worth to hear from any frequent moderator in this thread where they stand, but again it is only a free question that does not have any requirement to reply. 
On the other hand, we are in the open forum world here, why wouldn't anyone in the thread share their own opinion about the topic, most of us here do share that across the range of personal opinions.

----------


## Bros

> You are different from a normal poster. You have the power to project your opinion when it suits you through your moderation role. You may not conciously exercise this power but the perception of others is there.

  That's drawing a long bow there as we never use our moderation facilities to project an opinion.   

> One could argue that the propogation of misinformation is something that may require moderation...as moderators you probably need some policy and knowledge capacity to exercise it. Or simply declare the topic/thread irrelevant to the forum in general and get rid of it.

  Bit rich there as there is a collection of knowledge on the forum and in most cases I wouldn't know what is misinformation that is for other posters to say it is correct or not. The internet is full of misinformation it takes an open mind and some knowledge to sort out the wheat from the chaff. 
Moderation on this forum is very light.

----------


## phild01

> Why does anyone need to say where they stand? There is no requirement. I simply asked the question.

  here: #16846 
For me it's not black and white.  Opinion here about climate change is derivative.  Am interested in information, not necessarily how it is assembled.
My position... do what is economical, practical and comfortable to do dealing with pollution and the environment.

----------


## Marc

As usual a lot of lack of any substance in the replies and a lot of emotions and "positions". 
On the "position" topic. How does someone take a position rather than another position? Based on what? Research where? Has anyone here studied climatology formally at university? I have done 3 climatology subjects for 3 years at uni but wouldn't call myself a climatologist, however that little bit gives me a better understanding of the fraud being perpetuated by interested parties. 
How do you guys reach your conclusions? 
It appears that bias and prejudice are more likely the basis of opinions that are steered by political confession rather than scientific understanding.  
I suggest to invest $29.99 in education on the subject and once you have read the book we can all get together again and discuss it on a plain level field. 
You can buy the book "Climate Change, the facts 2017 here:  https://payments.ipa.org.au/cctf/

----------


## UseByDate

> Like peeing in the ocean and expecting the level to rise, all the others peeing in with bigger bladders will need to stop.

  Australian bladders are quite large on average. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contri...g_by_Australia.

----------


## Marc

And if you are interested in truth ... which I severely doubt, since "global warming" is but a political left wing excuse to milk the taxpayer to yet more money towards plinking at windmills, pun intended ... let's have a look at the world wide touted coral bleaching and doomsday barrier reef scenario. 
The word out there is that "global warming" is causing a devastating effect on the coral reefs since coral does not adapt to changes in temperature and dies out, bleaches, at the slightest change in the water temperature. 
The facts are different. 
When coral reef spawn they let go their 'seeds' to an unknown ecosystem. The seeds can go to hotter climates or colder climates thousands of nautical miles away from the origin. Unlike trees that reproduce within the same ecosystem corals are highly adaptable to wide variations of temperature. The same coral reef in queensland thrives even better in hotter climate in PNG.
But don't let facts go in the way of a good story.
Bleaching. Corals bleach because they are dumping their symbionts in favour of a better one.  Large sections of the reef bleach only to recover and flourish much better in a few years time. It is part of their life cycle and can be compared to bushfires. The end result is a better organism. Bleaching is part of the normal cycle in any coral reef. 
But doomsday scenarios make for much better stories and sell the fraud of global warming.  
If you think you can find scientific facts by googling the subject think again.
You can find bleating bleaching stories in large numbers, but you will be hard pressed to find one scientist to risk unemployment and explain to you the truth about the bleaching process and what it means.

----------


## UseByDate

> I am my own spirit level so yeah why not?

  You will be starting yoga classes next. :Wink:

----------


## woodbe

> I suggest to invest $29.99 in education on the subject and once you have read the book we can all get together again and discuss it on a plain field. 
> You can buy the book "Climate Change, the facts 2017 here:  https://payments.ipa.org.au/cctf/

  Hmm... Do you really know what you are thinking?   

> The IPA key policy positions include: advocacy for privatisation and  deregulation; attacks on the positions of unions and non-government  organisations; support of assimilationist indigenous policy (cf. the Bennelong Society) and refutation of the science involved with environmental issues such as climate change.

  and:   

> *The IPA and climate change* In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald, IPA Executive  Director John Roskam confirmed the IPA's key role in supporting  Australian climate sceptics. '"Of all the serious sceptics in Australia,  we have helped and supported just about all of them in their work one  way or another," he says, listing some prominent figures on the local  circuit. "Ian Plimer - we launched his book - Bob Carter, Jo Nova, William Kininmonth."'[6]
>  In 2008, the institute facilitated a donation of $350,000 by Dr G.  Bryant Macfie, a climate change sceptic, to the University of Queensland  for environmental research. The money, which was routed via the IPS,  was to fund three environmental doctoral projects with the IPA  suggesting two of the three agreed topics. George Bryant Macfie was  described as a "medical doctor and philanthropist" and a "long-standing  IPA member." Announcing the grant, Macfie complained that "environmental  activism" was akin to a new religion infecting science. "The crucifix  has been replaced by the wind turbine," he said. The topics for the  research included an examination of agricultural practices and chemical  usage and the effectiveness of banning tree-clearing in Australia as a  way to store carbon.[7] At the time Macfie held 634,846 shares in Strike Resources Limited, making him one of the was a top 20 shareholders.[8] (By 2010, Macfie had increased his shareholding to 800,000 shares, representing .615% of the company's shares.[9]) Strike Resources is a Perth-based mineral exploration company which is seeking to develop an iron project in Peru and the Berau Thermal Coal Project in Indonesia.[10]
>  In 2011, the institute paid for hundreds of copies of Ian Plimer's book _How to get expelled from school: a guide to climate change for pupils, parents and punters_ to be sent to Australian schools. [11]

    Institute of Public Affairs - SourceWatch 
Need more courage, Marc.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Marc

Interesting.
So skeptics support each other ... a bit like the other side only infinitesimally smaller. 
Anything to say about the science in the book? 
or is the fact that someone paid for the book a disqualifier for the content? Last time i checked the global warming industry and propaganda machine is paid with my tax money. And I say my money because in case you dont know, 50% of Australians don't pay any tax overall after you take all the giveaways into account. 
A rather pathetic state of affairs. So yes, if you want to push an alternative agenda you need money. Sort of a rather obvious observation. 
Or is it that the money comes from (gasp) mining? OMG! 
Would it be better if the money comes from the Vatican? Mm ... nee a rather discredited bunch that one ... how about the real taxpayers association? Would that satisfy your rather high expectations?
I see what I can do.
Meantime, why don't you read the book? A lot of good content. If you find something you disagree with in the scientific content, let me know and I will pass it on.
Meantime enjoy. 
PS
"In and interview with the Sydney Morning Herald" .... haaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahah  :Rofl5: 
I love it when the leftie media uses the term skeptic as if saying criminal, pedofile, murderer and assume the rest of the world thinks just like them.
Lefties and greens are a disease.

----------


## John2b

> As you're moderator in this forum, I'm just asking where you stand.

   

> Woodbe, there is something not right with that demand, good night.

  A perfectly reasonable question, and one you may have already answered with your posts of several commonly used AGW denier memes, e.g. from just the previous page alone:   

> Why would I deny climate change, it has always changed AFAIK!

   

> How would I know, my knowledge is not absolute.

   

> Uncertain. I need absolute facts. ....but I do know climate is a moving target.

  ‘Global warming is part of a natural cycle’–This idea is one short step above appealing to magic | Grist  ‘The scientists aren’t even sure’ — No scientist ever is | Grist

----------


## pharmaboy2

there can't be a conversation with anyone that believes in conspiracies, because pointing out a fact that they don't accept us responded with a conspiracy.  This holds for all conspiracists - it's circular, that's what they want you to believe etc, once the conspiracy view has been adopted, anything that disagrees is a lie, a false fact.

----------


## phild01

John2b, why are you into labelling people with such fervour!
If someone is in disagreement with your ideology, you instantly dismiss them as a 'denier'.  Where do you get your feeling of superiority to stand above anyone who might have a variant discipline to your own.
Calling someone a denier is akin to calling someone a heretic.

----------


## John2b

> Anything to say about the science in the book?

  An odd question to ask about a book (apparently funded by Gina Rinehart LOL) that intentionally excludes any scientific contribution. The content in the book has all been debunked to death before, but trust Marc to promote this manual of Zombie Pseudoscience.

----------


## woodbe

> Anything to say about the science in the book?

  If a book is good, it should be published openly, not hidden inside an environment falsehood organisation. 
Prefer to read real science. There is more science papers to read without filling your mind up with skeptic rubbish that has been shown to be falsehood for years. 
REAL Scientific content is published and checked by qualified scientists. That would probably kick that book clear out of the park. The book funded by Gina? HAHAHAHA!  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

> And if you are interested in truth ... which I severely doubt, since "global warming" is but a political left wing excuse to milk the taxpayer to yet more money towards plinking at windmills...

  According to the IMF Australian subsidies to coal, petroleum and natural gas extraction amounted to $24.6billion in 2013 and $30.6billion in 2015. That's almost as much as the entire country spends on research and development, of which climate science is just a tiny fraction of 1%. If that wasn't clear, the cost to the Government's budget for climate research is way less that 1/100th of the cost to the Government's budget in subsidies, foregone taxation and consequential expenses incurred for/by the fossil energy extraction industry. Where's you indignation and anger about those figures Marc?  *Counting the Cost of Energy Subsidies*  http://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/...3/sonew070215a  *How much does Australia spend on science and research?*   https://theconversation.com/infograp...research-61094

----------


## John2b

> John2b, why are you into labelling people with such fervour!
> If someone is in disagreement with your ideology, you instantly dismiss them as a 'denier'.  Where do you get your feeling of superiority to stand above anyone who might have a variant discipline to your own.
> Calling someone a denier is akin to calling someone a heretic.

  Read again more carefully. I merely expressed an observation, namely that you have posted several commonly used AGW denier memes. That is an observable fact regardless of the observer's ideology.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Calling someone a denier is akin to calling someone a heretic.

  are you denying that you are a climate change denier? 
using the wikipedia definition: 
"[Climate change denial] involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views contradicting the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions"

----------


## pharmaboy2

> According to the IMF Australian subsidies to coal, petroleum and natural gas extraction amounted to $24.6billion in 2013 and $30.6billion in 2015. That's almost as much as the entire country spends on research and development, of which climate science is just a tiny fraction of 1%. If that wasn't clear, the cost to the Government's budget for climate research is way less that 1/100th of the cost to the Government's budget in subsidies to the fossil energy extraction industry. Where's you indignation and anger about those figures Marc?  *Counting the Cost of Energy Subsidies*  IMF Survey : Counting the Cost of Energy Subsidies  *How much does Australia spend on science and research?*   https://theconversation.com/infograp...research-61094

  jeez, that stuff in the imf article isn't what people understand the word "subsidy" to mean. 
what they have worked out is what is the total cost of all energy in hidden health and environmental costs, and that consumers should pay somewhere around $30b more in total for all energy to cover all costs.  It's probably also correct to point out that it's a research article from within the imf not a policy position of the imf.

----------


## woodbe

> jeez, that stuff in the imf article isn't what people understand the word "subsidy" to mean. 
> what they have worked out is what is the total cost of all energy in hidden health and environmental costs, and that consumers should pay somewhere around $30b more in total for all energy to cover all costs.  It's probably also correct to point out that it's a research article from within the imf not a policy position of the imf.

  It's a fair assessment. Given the population and the effect on the planet's environment, we do need to include those impacts in cost basis.   

> The bulk of energy subsidies in most countries are due to undercharging  for domestic environmental damage, including local air  pollution—especially in countries with high coal use and high population  exposure to emissions—and broader externalities from vehicle use like  traffic congestion and accidents. In many top subsidizers in percent of  GDP and in per capita terms, these also reflect the setting of domestic  energy prices below their supply cost.

  We shouldn't ignore the impact, but even if we do here in Australia, the subsidies for fossil fuel are enormous.

----------


## Marc

> are you denying that you are a climate change denier? 
> using the wikipedia definition: 
> "[Climate change denial] involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views contradicting the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions"

  Davo, your question ... or reply ... (?) is disingenuous to put it mildly. 
Any scientific proposition to warrant the name of scientific, requires constant scrutiny and verification over and over using a healthy dose of skepticism. That is the scientific method. The global warming industry is not interested in risking the loss of trillions of dollars of taxpayers money and wouldn't be able to withstand open scrutiny, so resorts to cloak and dagger tactics, drafting any marginal organisation that is on the look for a cause in the process. 
Wrapping themselves in layers of morality and pretend altruism, they pontificate from their fake marble tower that whoever disagrees with them is a "denier", word carefully chosen to draw a parallel to a universally discredited position of denying the holocaust during WW2. 
Your wikipedia definition is a joke because is loaded with bias and prejudice, and full of adjectives that provide a preconceived notion that deniers have *unwarranted contrarian* views that contradict the *scientific opinion* etc  
Any purely scientific hypothesis, and the change in climate caused by human produced CO2 is only that, a hypothesis, welcomes skeptical analysis as a way to reinforce and perhaps even demonstrate the validity of said hypothesis.
Not so with global warming, rebaptised climate change and then catastrophic climate change, and perhaps something else in the near future, perhaps the biggest fraud in human history. Global warming is a political movement invented with fraud and falsified data to shift political power and resources towards an otherwise non viable industry.  
As such it must assert their views with pretenses of moral superiority and blackmailing their scientist and associated politicians. A sad state of affairs that will eventually come to an end not without dilapidating the largest sum of money ever spuriously spent by humanity including both big wars.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Davo, your question ... or reply ... (?) is disingenuous to put it mildly.

  _disingenuous _ you say? 
that's let the cat out of the bag then!

----------


## DavoSyd

> Any scientific proposition to warrant the name of scientific, requires constant scrutiny and verification over and over using a healthy dose of skepticism. That is the scientific method.

  ah, the scientific method, e.g.   
i guess they forgot to add in the 'skepticism' step?

----------


## woodbe

> ah, the scientific method, e.g.   
> i guess they forgot to add in the 'skepticism' step?

  Definitely not something that is the basis in the IPA's falsification book.

----------


## Marc

Still no one taking up the catastrophic coral bleaching fallacy? 
Or is that also "settled science" and beyond the realm of debate?
Too hard? 
This is the sound of those who are rushing to google to form an "opinion" on coral bleating

----------


## woodbe

> Still no one taking up the catastrophic coral bleaching fallacy? 
> Or is that also "settled science" and beyond the realm of debate?
> Too hard?

  Send us a link to a scientific, published, and peer reviewed paper and I'll be happy to consider your claim.

----------


## phild01

> Read again more carefully. I merely expressed an observation, namely that you have posted several commonly used AGW denier memes. That is an observable fact regardless of the observer's ideology.

  ....no, you implied what I am!

----------


## DavoSyd

> Still no one taking up the catastrophic coral bleaching fallacy? 
> Or is that also "settled science" and beyond the realm of debate?
> Too hard?

  i googled this,  https://www.skepticalscience.com/coral-bleaching.htm 
but you said we shouldn't try to google things, so i guess we'll never know the truth™?

----------


## phild01

> are you denying that you are a climate change denier? 
> using the wikipedia definition: 
> "[Climate change denial] involves denial, dismissal, unwarranted doubt or contrarian views contradicting the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions"

  Another silly implication.  The fervour of what you expect people to be.

----------


## DavoSyd

> The fervour of what you expect people to be.

  can you rephrase that statement, or is there a typo in there? I don't get it?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> It's a fair assessment. Given the population and the effect on the planet's environment, we do need to include those impacts in cost basis.   
> We shouldn't ignore the impact, but even if we do here in Australia, the subsidies for fossil fuel are enormous.

  irs environmental economics 101,  however I question the use of the term "subsidy" which to the readership has a totally different connotation.  Ie a subsidy is financial help provided to an industry by government. 
even having briefly some contact with environmental economics back in its infancy, I would never have recognised the term "subsidy" applying to all costs for all energy output.  The only reason I quickly researched it, was the numbers seemed impossibly large - headline grabbing even.... 
its just misleading thats all.  And being misleading does debate no good at all - if it were a real estate agent you'd simply call it a lie

----------


## DavoSyd

> its just misleading thats all.

  totally agree. especially when $20 billion is being bandied about... 
in the context, it might be an 'externalities measure' not a "subsidy" as a guy in the pub would understand it...

----------


## Bros

This thread is like climate change. It stays cold for a while then a head of steam builds up and away we go.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> . Global warming is a political movement invented with fraud and falsified data to shift political power and resources towards an otherwise non viable industry. 
> .

  How big is this conspiracy Marc? 
are the European leaders in on it?  What about the scientists?  How many people at NASA?  Perhaps it's Greenpeace that's taken over the upper echelons of govt? 
where are the whistleblowers?

----------


## DavoSyd

> This thread is like climate change. It stays cold for a while then a head of steam builds up and away we go.

  you watch the steam disappear when this sort of stuff gets posted:   

> How big is this conspiracy Marc? 
> are the European leaders in on it? What about the scientists? How many people at NASA? Perhaps it's Greenpeace that's taken over the upper echelons of govt? 
> where are the whistleblowers?

  Phil is not a conspiracy theorist (just a pragmatist apparently) so won't reply, and Marc will just ctrl c/ctrl v some random crap from one of the multitude of BS website out there...

----------


## John2b

> ....no, you implied what I am!

  I merely pointed out your propensity to post common AGW denier memes and there was/is no need for me to imply anything; readers will draw their own implied meaning of what you write if they choose to do so.

----------


## John2b

> ...however I question the use of the term "subsidy" which to the readership has a totally different connotation.  Ie a subsidy is financial help provided to an industry by government.

  My mistake, I meant to type "subsidies, foregone taxation and consequential expenses". Thanks for pointing out the imprecision - I have altered my post.   

> And being misleading does debate no good at all - if it were a real estate agent you'd simply call it a lie

  As far as the IMF is concerned, they use the definition of subsidy that they provide in the document. There is no reason to accuse anyone or any organisation of lying.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> This thread is like climate change. It stays cold for a while then a head of steam builds up and away we go.

  Perhaps I should hang poo on the mods more often?  :Tongue:

----------


## Marc

> i googled this,  https://www.skepticalscience.com/coral-bleaching.htm 
> but you said we shouldn't try to google things, so i guess we'll never know the truth?

  Davo ... if you don't know about something (that means if you ignore it) and are given a clue ... usually the best course of action is to consider the remote possibility that may be ... just may be that clue might mean something. 
All you pulled up is the usual claptrap about the bleating bleaching. And not even a good one at that.
Come back ... NEXT YEAR ! 
(the soup nazi)

----------


## DavoSyd

Sorry boss, I guess you're the king of the clues! Right?

----------


## DavoSyd

It's not possible for anyone else to have a monopoly on the truth like you have, is it?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

It keeps the forum ticking over...so there is an upside.

----------


## DavoSyd

Oh right! The ads! My bad...

----------


## John2b

> Not so with global warming, rebaptised climate change and then catastrophic climate change, and perhaps something else in the near future, perhaps the biggest fraud in human history. Global warming is a political movement invented with fraud and falsified data to shift political power and resources towards an otherwise non viable industry.

  It's amazing what a group of ramshackle co-conspirators can do, even stop the snow falling at Australia's ski resorts, just to prop up their falsified data:  Heading to the slopes this winter? Why much of the snow you'll see comes from a machine, not the sky - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## Bros

> It's amazing what a group of ramshackle co-conspirators can do, even stop the snow falling at Australia's ski resorts, just to prop up their falsified data:

  Strong snow falls on Victoria&#039;s alps, as authorities prepare for blizzards - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## John2b

Sigh - climate change and global warming (trend) does not mean an end to weather (variability). Look at the total area of blue in each curve below from 1972 top left to 2011 bottom right. It is easy to see the typical amount of snowfall is diminishing as the years roll by, even if some years are above trend and others below.  Or another way of looking at it - snowfalls at every Victorian ski resort are trending downwards:

----------


## Bros

Next year we will know what the great unwashed think of emissions and power as both SA and QLD will go to the polls.  
National party in QLD won two elections using power reliability as an issue resulting from strikes and power prices and renewals policy are what current opposition are using against the government promising to build a new base load power station.

----------


## John2b

Ahem, I doubt very much that South Australians will be voting on any particular single issue, let alone energy/emissions. The general dissatisfaction of the electorate with the LNC Federal Government and the lack of a visible opposition party, or at the very least alternative policies, in SA probably means than the incumbents will romp back in, regardless of any perceived imperfections in their policies or ideology. 
Meanwhile, at least we know that Australia's alpine ski resorts have a future now they can make "snow" in temperatures up to 30 degrees Celsius.

----------


## Bros

Risky thinking as they say governments lose elections oppositions don't win them. The last election in QLD was a good demonstration of this as the government had a monumental number of seats but to everyone's surprise they were shown the door. 
Pollsters never picked it who are now getting less reliable. 
I know at this stage it is early days but the shots have been fired in QLD.

----------


## John2b

This is for Marc:

----------


## John2b

> Risky thinking as they say governments lose elections oppositions don't win them.

  I think you've put your finger on it, the LNC opposition in SA is not about to 'win' anything, let alone an election. I know nuthn of QLD poltics...

----------


## PhilT2

> Next year we will know what the great unwashed think of emissions and power as both SA and QLD will go to the polls.  
> National party in QLD won two elections using power reliability as an issue resulting from strikes and power prices and renewals policy are what current opposition are using against the government promising to build a new base load power station.

  Nov 5 is the hot tip for the Qld election; local member is out campaigning already. One Nation preferences will decide the winner. Labor will use the threat of power privatisation by the LNP and the ghost of Campbell Newman to keep their supporters from jumping ship. 
Power prices may drop off the agenda completely if the circular firing squad known as the Trump administration manages to create a trade war, or even an actual shooting war. The level of their stupidity has not been fully realised yet.

----------


## John2b

Is there no end to the global warming/climate conspirators' efforts? And how did they do it?:  Swiss police say hundreds of bodies of mountaineers who have gone missing in the Alps in the past century could emerge in coming years as global warming forces the country’s glaciers to retreat. Alpine authorities have registered a significant increase in the number of human remains discovered last month, with the body of a man missing for 30 years the most recent to be uncovered.   https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...es?CMP=soc_567

----------


## John2b

> Power prices may drop off the agenda completely if the circular firing squad known as the Trump administration manages to create a trade war, or even an actual shooting war. The level of their stupidity has not been fully realised yet.

  There is nothing whatsoever that Trump has done that is out of character yet; and only wishful ignorance (or less likely, actual ignorance) can suggest otherwise. Trump is the same Trump he has always been and very publicly so. There are, or should be, no surprises in his behaviour to anyone who isn't comatose or dead.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> There is nothing whatsoever that Trump has done that is out of character yet; and only wishful ignorance (or less likely, actual ignorance) can suggest otherwise. Trump is the same Trump he has always been and very publicly so. There are, or should be, no surprises in his behaviour to anyone who isn't comatose or dead.

  Surely, the point of trump is that he is unpredictable? 
youd think a narcissist would always act in their own interest, but because they live in a fantasy land is unwise to think you have their measure

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Next year we will know what the great unwashed think of emissions and power as both SA and QLD will go to the polls.  
> National party in QLD won two elections using power reliability as an issue resulting from strikes and power prices and renewals policy are what current opposition are using against the government promising to build a new base load power station.

  And it will still tell us nothing useful...or anything we do not already know.

----------


## PhilT2

> Surely, the point of trump is that he is unpredictable? 
> youd think a narcissist would always act in their own interest, but because they live in a fantasy land is unwise to think you have their measure

  It's not just Trump, it's his whole administration. Not only are they the greatest collection of flakey oddballs ever given authority but, like Trump, they lack experience in politics, diplomacy and foreign policy. And Trump is too busy with Twitter to provide leadership. The difference between the Trump administration and a child care centre is at least the child care centre has adult supervision. The constant leaking of confidential information and staff turnover shows how dysfunctional it is.

----------


## Marc

*The anti-trump Left are the fascists they denounce*     Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
January 24, 2017 8:58am  Imagine if Hillary Clinton had won the election, and it was Trump supporters taking to their streets to insist she was not a legitimate president.  
Imagine Trump supporters cheering when one of their most famous faces told of dreaming of "blowing up the White House". Wouldn't the media damn them as "fascists"?
So why go soft on Madonna?  The Left looks increasingly like the fascists they condemn. The intolerance and contempt for democracy is frightening.

----------


## woodbe

Not surprising that non-right people are becoming more agitated as the twit president continues to stuff up. Even his side of politics won't agree to his dumb healthcare ideas. 
Democracy allows the public to think and say what they want, intolerance and contempt of an idiot president. That is how democracy works. 
What is frightening is not the public's annoyance of the president. It's the behaviour of the president stuffing up the USA. 
Have a look at Venezuela now, to see how democracy can be destroyed in weeks.

----------


## Bros

> Nov 5 is the hot tip for the Qld election; local member is out campaigning already.

  A Sunday? Nov 5th a day I remember from the past.

----------


## John2b

What's Bolt on about? Clinton is front and centre of the US's right-wing neoliberal / neoeconomic establishment. Having a ideology left of extreme right doesn't mean it is left-wing - doh! 
Bolt: "The Left looks increasingly like the fascists they condemn". Ahem, the left is condemning Trump's Administration; for once I might agree with Bolt, fascism does seem to be the closest ideology to describe that.

----------


## UseByDate

> Risky thinking as they say governments lose elections oppositions don't win them. The last election in QLD was a good demonstration of this as the government had a monumental number of seats but to everyone's surprise they were shown the door. 
> Pollsters never picked it who are now getting less reliable. 
> I know at this stage it is early days but the shots have been fired in QLD.

  https://youtu.be/9XZ5e5OpF1A?t=859

----------


## PhilT2

> A Sunday? Nov 5th a day I remember from the past.

  Maybe the 4th then. We'll have the fireworks a day early. Campaigners out in the local streets today so I'd say it's definitely on for this year. 
What makes polling difficult is that some people are not willing to admit that they are going to vote for nutters like One Nation or Cory Bernardi's Conservatives. But their preferences will decide where Qld goes.

----------


## Marc

*Western climate change alarmists won’t admit they are wrong*  Cooling towers spilling steam: always there in the backdrop.  CLIVE JAMESThe Australian12:00AM June 3, 2017Save Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on emailShare more... 1264  When you tell people once too often that the missing extra heat is hiding in the ocean, they will switch over to watch _Game of Thrones, where the dialogue is less ridiculous and all the threats come true. The proponents of man-made climate catastrophe asked us for so many leaps of faith that they were bound to run out of credibility in the end._  _Now that they finally seem to be doing so, it could be a good time for those of us who have never been convinced by all those urgent warnings to start warning each other that we might be making a comparably senseless tactical error if we expect the elastic cause of the catastrophists, and all of its exponents, to go away in a hurry._ _I speak as one who knows nothing about the mathematics involved in modelling non-linear systems. But I do know quite a lot about the mass media, and far too much about the abuse of language. So I feel qualified to advise against any triumphalist urge to compare the apparently imminent disintegration of the alarmist cause to the collapse of a house of cards. Devotees of that fond idea haven’t thought hard enough about their metaphor. A house of cards collapses only with a sigh, and when it has finished collapsing all the cards are still there._ _Although the alarmists might finally have to face that they will not get much more of what they want on a policy level, they will surely, on the level of their own employment, go on wanting their salaries and prestige._ _Illustration: Eric Lobbecke_  _READ MORE__Forces align to lay siege to reef_   _To take a conspicuous if ludicrous case, Australian climate star Tim Flannery will probably not, of his own free will, shrink back to the position conferred by his original metier, as an expert on the extinction of the giant wombat. He is far more likely to go on being, and wishing to be, one of the mass media’s mobile oracles about climate. While that possibility continues, it will go on being danger@ous to stand between him and a television camera. If the giant wombat could have moved at that speed, it would still be with us._ _The mere fact that few of Flannery’s predictions have ever come true need not be enough to discredit him, just as American professor Paul Ehrlich has been left untouched since he predicted that the world would soon run out of copper. In those days, when our current phase of the long discussion about man’s attack on nature was just beginning, he predicted mass death by extreme cold. Lately he predicts mass death by extreme heat. But he has always predicted mass death by extreme something._ _Actually, a more illustrative starting point for the theme of the permanently imminent climatic apocalypse might be taken as August 3, 1971, when The Sydney Morning Herald announced that the Great Barrier Reef would be dead in six months._ _After six months the reef had not died, but it has been going to die almost as soon as that ever since, making it a strangely durable emblem for all those who have wedded themselves to the notion of climate catastrophe._ _The most exalted of all the world’s predictors of reef death, former US president Barack Obama, has still not seen the reef; but he promises to go there one day when it is well again._ _In his acceptance speech at the 2008 Democratic convention, Obama said — and I truly wish that this were an inaccurate paraphrase — that people should vote for him if they wanted to stop the ocean rising. He got elected, and it didn’t rise._ _The notion of a countdown or a tipping point is very dear to both wings of this deaf shouting match, and really is of small use to either. On the catastrophist wing, whose “narrative”, as they might put it, would so often seem to be a synthesised film script left over from the era of surround-sound disaster movies, there is always a countdown to the tipping point._ _When the scientists are the main contributors to the script, the tipping point will be something like the forever forthcoming moment when the Gulf Stream turns upside down or the Antarctic ice sheet comes off its hinges, or any other extreme event which, although it persists in not happening, could happen sooner than we think. (Science correspondents who can write a phrase like “sooner than we think” seldom realise that they might have already lost you with the word “could”.)_ _When the politicians join in the writing, the dramatic language declines to the infantile. There are only 50 days (former British PM Gordon Brown) or 100 months (Prince Charles wearing his political hat) left for mankind to “do something” about “the greatest moral challenge … of our generation” (Kevin Rudd, before he arrived at the Copenhagen climate shindig in 2009)._ _When he left Copenhagen, Rudd scarcely mentioned the greatest moral challenge again. Perhaps he had deduced, from the confusion prevailing throughout the conference, that the chances of the world ever uniting its efforts to “do something” were very small. Whatever his motives for backing out of the climate chorus, his subsequent career was an early demonstration that to cease being a chorister would be no easy retreat because it would be a clear indication that everything you had said on the subject up to then had been said in either bad faith or @ignorance. It would not be enough merely to fall silent. You would have to travel back in time, run for office in the Czech Republic @instead of Australia, and call yourself Vaclav Klaus._ _Australia, unlike Rudd, has a globally popular role in the @climate movie because it looks the part._ _Common reason might tell you that a country whose contribution to the world’s emissions is only 1.4 per cent can do very little about the biggest moral challenge even if it manages to reduce that contribution to zero; but your eyes tell you that Australia is burning up. On the classic alarmist principle of “just stick your head out of the window and look around you”, Australia always looks like Overwhelming Evidence that the alarmists must be right._ _Climate Change: The Facts 2017 edited by Jennifer Marohasy_ _Even now that the global warming scare has completed its transformation into the climate change scare so that any kind of event at either end of the scale of temperature can qualify as a crisis, Australia remains the top area of interest, still up there ahead of even the melting North Pole, @despite the Arctic’s miraculous @capacity to go on producing ice in defiance of all instructions from Al Gore. A C-student to his marrow, and thus never quick to pick up any reading matter at all, Gore has evidently never seen the Life magazine photographs of America’s nuclear submarine Skate surfacing through the North Pole in 1959. The ice up there is often thin, and sometimes vanishes._ _But it comes back, especially when some@one sufficiently illustrious confidently predicts that it will go away for good._ _After 4.5 billion years of changing, the climate that made outback Australia ready for Baz Luhrmann’s viewfinder looked all set to end the world tomorrow. History has already forgotten that the schedule for one of the big drought sequences in his movieAustralia was wrecked by rain, and certainly history will never be reminded by the mass media, which loves a picture that fits the story._ _In this way, the polar bear balancing on the Photoshopped shrinking ice floe will always have a future in show business, and the cooling towers spilling steam will always be up there in the background of the TV picture._ _The full 97 per cent of all satirists who dealt themselves out of the climate subject back at the start look like staying out of it until the end, even if they get satirised in their turn. One could blame them for their pusillanimity, but it would be useless, and perhaps unfair. Nobody will be able plausibly to call actress Emma Thompson dumb for spreading gloom and doom about the climate: she’s too clever and too creative. And anyway, she might be right. Cases like Leonardo DiCaprio and Cate Blanchett are rare enough to be called brave. Otherwise, the consensus of silence from the wits and thespians continues to be impressive._ _If they did wish to speak up for scepticism, however, they wouldn’t find it easy when the people who run the big TV outlets forbid the wrong kind of humour._ _On Saturday Night Live back there in 2007, Will Ferrell, brilliantly pretending to be George W. Bush, was allowed to get every word of the global warming message wrong but he wasn’t allowed to disbelieve it. Just as all branches of the modern media love a picture of something that might be part of the Overwhelming Evidence for climate change even if it is really a picture of something else, they all love a clock ticking down to zero, and if the clock never quite gets there then the motif can be exploited forever._ _A favourite image: polar bear on a shrinking piece of ice._ _But the editors and producers must face the drawback of such perpetual excitement: it gets perpetually less exciting. Numbness sets in, and there is time to think after all. Some of the customers might even start asking where this language of rubber numbers has been heard before._ _It was heard from Swift. In Gulliver’s Travels he populated his flying island of Laputa with scientists busily using rubber numbers to predict dire events. He called these scientists “projectors”. At the basis of all the predictions of the projectors was the prediction that the Earth was in danger from a Great Comet whose tail was “ten hundred thousand and fourteen” miles long. I should concede at this point that a sardonic parody is not necessarily pertinent just because it is funny; and that although it might be unlikely that the Earth will soon be threatened by man-made climate change, it might be less unlikely that the Earth will be threatened eventually by an asteroid, or let it be a Great Comet; after all, the Earth has been hit before._ _That being said, however, we can note that Swift has got the language of artificial crisis exactly right, to the point that we might have trouble deciding whether he invented it or merely copied it from scientific voices surrounding him. James Hansen is a Swiftian figure. Blithely equating trains full of coal to trains full of people on their way to Auschwitz, the Columbia University climatologist is utterly unaware that he has not only turned the stomachs of the informed audience he was out to impress, he has lost their attention._ _Paleoclimatologist Chris Turney, from the University of NSW, who led a ship full of climate change enthusiasts into the Antarctic to see how the ice was doing under the influence of climate change and found it was doing well enough to trap the ship, could have been invented by Swift. (Turney’s subsequent Guardian article, in which he explained how this embarrassment was due only to a quirk of the weather and had nothing to do with a possible mistake about the climate, was a Swiftian lampoon in all respects.)_ _Compulsorily retired now from the climate scene, Rajendra Pachauri, formerly chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Clim@ate Change, was a zany straight from Swift, by way of a Bollywood remake of The Party starring the local imitator of Peter Sellers; if Dr Johnson could have thought of Pachauri, Rasselas would be much more entertaining than it is. Finally, and supremely, Flannery could have been invented by Swift after 10 cups of coffee too many with Stella. He wanted to keep her laughing. Swift projected the projectors who now surround us._ _They came out of the grant-hungry fringe of semi-science to infect the heart of the mass media, where a whole generation of commentators taught each other to speak and write a hyperbolic doom-language (“unprecedent@ed”, “irreversible”, et cetera), which you might have thought was sure to doom them in their turn. After all, nobody with an intact pair of ears really listens for long to anyone who talks about “the planet” or “carbon” or “climate denial” or “the science”. But for now — and it could be a long now — the advocates of drastic action are still armed with a theory that no fact doesn’t fit._ _Australian author, journalist and broadcaster Clive James._ _The theory has always been manifestly unfalsifiable, but there are few science pundits in the mass media who could tell Karl Popper from Mary Poppins. More startling than their ignorance, however, is their defiance of logic. You can just about see how a bunch of grant-dependent climate scientists might go on saying that there was never a Medieval Warm Period even after it has been pointed out to them that any old corpse dug up from the permafrost could never have been buried in it. But how can a bunch of supposedly enlightened writers go on saying that? Their answer, if pressed, is usually to say that the question is too elementary to be considered._ _Alarmists have always profited from their insistence that climate change is such a complex issue that no “science denier” can have an opinion about it worth hearing. For most areas of science such an insistence would be true. But this particular area has a knack of raising questions that get more and more complicated in the absence of an answer to the elementary ones. One of those elementary questions is about how man-made carbon dioxide can be a driver of climate change if the global temperature has not gone up by much over the past 20 years but the amount of man-made carbon dioxide has. If we go on to ask a supplementary question — say, how could carbon dioxide raise temperature when the evidence of the ice cores indicates that temperature has always raised carbon dioxide — we will be given complicated answers, but we still haven’t had an answer to the first question, except for the suggestion that the temperature, despite the observations, really has gone up, but that the extra heat is hiding in the ocean._ _It is not necessarily science denial to propose that this long professional habit of postponing an answer to the first and most elementary question is bizarre. American physicist Richard Feynman said that if a fact doesn’t fit the theory, the theory has to go. Feynman was a scientist. Einstein realised that the Michelson-Morley experiment hinted at a possible fact that might not fit Newton’s theory of celestial mechanics. Einstein was a scientist, too. Those of us who are not scientists, but who are sceptical about the validity of this whole issue — who suspect that the alleged problem might be less of a problem than is made out — have plenty of great scientific names to point to for exemplars, and it could even be said that we could point to the whole of science itself. Being resistant to the force of its own inertia is one of the things that science does._ _When the climatologists upgraded their frame of certainty from global warming to climate change, the bet-hedging man@oeuvre was so blatant that some of the sceptics started predicting in their turn: the alarmist cause must surely now collapse, like a house of cards. A tipping point had been reached._ _Unfortunately for the cause of rational critical inquiry, the campaign for immediate action against climate doom reaches a tipping point every few minutes, because the observations, if not the calculations, never cease exposing it as a fantasy._ _I myself, after I observed journalist Andrew Neil on BBC TV wiping the floor with the then secretary for energy and climate change Ed Davey, thought that the British government’s energy policy could not survive, and that the mad work that had begun with the 2008 Climate Change Act of Labour’s Ed Miliband must now surely begin to come undone. Neil’s well-inform@ed list of questions had been a tipping point. But it changed nothing in the short term. It didn’t even change the BBC, which continued uninterrupted with its determination that the alarmist view should not be questioned._ _How did the upmarket mass media get themselves into such a condition of servility? One is reminded of that fine old historian George Grote when he said that he had taken his A History of Greece only to the point where the Greeks failed to realise they were slaves. The BBC’s monotonous plugging of the climate theme in its science documentaries is too obvious to need remarking, but it’s what the science programs never say that really does the damage._ _Even the news programs get “smoothed” to ensure that nothing interferes with the constant business of protecting the climate change theme’s dogmatic status._ _To take a simple but telling example: when Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s Vice-Chancellor and man in charge of the Energiewende (energy transition), talked rings around Greenpeace hecklers with nothing on their minds but renouncing coal, or told executives of the renewable energy companies that they could no longer take unlimited subsidies for granted, these instructive moments could be seen on German TV but were not excerpted and subtitled for British TV even briefly, despite Gabriel’s accomplishments as a natural TV star, and despite the fact he himself was no sceptic._ _Wrong message: easier to leave him out. And if American climate scientist Judith Curry appears before a US Senate com@mittee and manages to defend her anti-alarmist position against concentrated harassment from a senator whose only qualification for the discussion is that he can impugn her integrity with a rhetorical contempt of which she is too polite to be capable? Leave it to YouTube. In this way, the BBC has spent 10 years unplugged from a vital part of the global intellectual discussion, with an increasing air of provincialism as the inevitable result. As the UK now begins the long process of exiting the EU, we can reflect that the departing nation’s most important broadcasting institution has been behaving, for several years, as if its true aim were to reproduce the thought control that prevailed in the Soviet Union._ _As for the print media, it’s no mystery why the upmarket newspapers do an even more thorough job than the downmarket newspapers of suppressing any dissenting opinion on the climate._ _In Britain, The Telegraph sensibly gives a column to the diligently sceptical Christopher Booker, and Matt Rid@ley has recently been able to get a few rational articles into The Times, but a more usual arrangement is exemplified by my own newspaper, The Guardian, which entrusts all aspects of the subject to George Monbiot, who once informed his green readership that there was only one reason I could presume to disagree with him, and them: I was an old man, soon to be dead, and thus with no concern for the future of “the planet”._ _I would have damned his impertinence, but it would have been like getting annoyed with a wheelbarrow full of freshly cut grass._ _These byline names are stars committed to their opinion, but what’s missing from the posh press is the non-star name committed to the job of building a fact file and extracting a reasoned article from it. Further down the market, when The Daily Mailput its no-frills newshound David Rose on the case after Climategate, his admirable competence immediately got him labelled as a “climate change denier”: one of the first people to be awarded that badge of honour._ _The other tactic used to discredit him was the standard one of calling his paper a disreputable publication. It might be — having been a victim of its prurience myself, I have no inclination to revere it — but it hasn’t forgotten what objective reporting is supposed to be. Most of the British papers have, and the reason is no mystery._ _They can’t afford to remember. The print media, with notable exceptions, is on its way down the drain. With almost no personnel left to do the writing, the urge at editorial level is to give all the science stuff to one bloke. The print edition of The Independent bored its way out of business when its resident climate nag was allowed to write half the paper._ _In its last year, when the doomwatch journalists were threatened by the climate industry with a newly revised consensus opinion that a mere 2C increase in world temperature might be not only acceptable but likely, The Independent’s chap retaliated by writing stories about how the real likelihood was an increase of 5C, and in a kind of frenzied crescendo he wrote a whole front page saying that the global temperature was “on track” for an increase of 6C. Not long after, the Indy’s print edition closed down._ _At The New York Times, Andrew Revkin, star colour-piece writer on the climate beat, makes the whole subject no less predictable than his prose style: a cruel restriction._ _In Australia, the Fairfax papers, which by now have almost as few writers as readers, reprint Revkin’s summaries as if they were the voice of authority, and will probably go on doing so until the waters close overhead. On the ABC, house science pundit Robyn Williams famously predicted that the rising of the waters “could” amount to 100m in the next century. But not even he predicted that it could happen next week. At The Sydney Morning Herald, it could happen next week. The only remaining journalists could look out of the window and see fish._ _Bending its efforts to sensationalise the news on a scale previously unknown even in its scrappy history, the mass media has helped to consolidate a pernicious myth. But it could not have done this so thoroughly without the accident that it is the main source of information and opinion for people in the academic world and in the scientific institutions. Few of those people have been reading the sceptical blogs: they have no time. If I myself had not been so ill during the relevant time span, I might not have been reading it either, and might have remained confined within the misinformation system where any assertion of forthcoming disaster counts as evidence._ _The effect of this mountainous accumulation of sanctified alarmism on the academic world is another subject. Some of the universities deserve to be closed down, but I expect they will muddle through, if only because the liberal spirit, when it regains its strength, is likely to be less vengeful than the dogmatists were when they ruled. Finding that the power of inertia blesses their security as once it blessed their influence, the enthusiasts might have the sense to throttle back on their certitude, huddle under the blanket cover provided by the concept of “post-normal science”, and wait in comfort to be forgotten._ _As for the learned societies and professional institutions, it was never a puzzle that so many of them became instruments of obfuscation instead of enlightenment. Totalitarianism takes over a state at the moment when the ruling party is taken over by its secretariat; the tipping point is when Stalin, with his lists of names, offers to stay late after the meeting and take care of business._ _The same vulnerability applies to any learned institution. Rule by bureaucracy favours mediocrity, and in no time at all you are in a world where the British Met Office’s (former) chief scientist Julia Slingo is a figure of authority and Curry is fighting to breathe._ _On a smaller scale of influential prestige, Nicholas Stern lends the Royal Society the honour of his presence. For those of us who regard him as a vocalised stuffed shirt, it is no use saying that his confident pronouncements about the future are only those of an economist. Klaus was only an economist when he tried to remind us that Malthusian clairvoyance is invariably a harbinger of totalitarianism. But Klaus was a true figure of authority. Alas, true figures of authority are in short supply, and tend not to have much influence when they get to speak._ _All too often, this is because they care more about science than about the media. As recently as 2015, after a full 10 years of nightly proof that this particular scientific dispute was a media event before it was anything, Freeman Dyson was persuaded to go on television. He was up there just long enough to say that the small proportion of carbon dioxide that was man-made could only add to the world’s supply of plant food. The world’s mass media outlets ignored the footage, mainly because they didn’t know who he was._ _I might not have known either if I hadn’t spent, in these past few years, enough time in hospitals to have it proved to me on a personal basis that real science is as indispensable for modern medicine as cheap power. Among his many achievements, to none of which he has ever cared about drawing attention, Dyson designed the TRIGA reactor. The TRIGA @ensures that the world’s hospitals get a reliable supply of isotopes._ _Dyson served science. Except for the few holdouts who go on fighting to defend the objective @nature of truth, most of the climate scientists who get famous are serving themselves._ _There was a time when the journalists could have pointed out the difference, but now they have no idea. Instead, they are so celebrity-conscious that they would supply Flannery with a new clown suit if he wore out the one he is wearing now._ _A bad era for science has been a worse one for the mass media, the field in which, despite the usual blunders and misjudgments, I was once proud to earn my living. But I have spent too much time, in these past few years, being ashamed of my profession: hence the note of anger which, I can now see, has crept into this essay even though I was determined to keep it out. As my retirement changed to illness and then to dotage, I would have preferred to sit back and write poems than to be known for taking a position in what is, despite the colossal scale of its foolish waste, a very petty quarrel._ _But it was time to stand up and fight, if only because so many of the advocates, though they must know by now that they are professing a belief they no longer hold, will continue to profess it anyway._ _Back in the day, when I was starting off in journalism — on The Sydney Morning Herald, as it happens — the one thing we all learned early from our veteran colleagues was never to improve the truth for the sake of the story. If they caught us doing so, it was the end of the world._ _But here we are, and the world hasn’t ended after all. Though some governments might not yet have fully returned to the principle of evidence-based policy, most of them have learned to be wary of policy-based evidence. They have learned to spot it coming, not because the real virtues of critical inquiry have been well argued by scientists but because the false claims of abracadabra have been asserted too often by people who, though they might have started out as scientists of a kind, have found their true purpose in life as ideologists._ _Modern history since World War II has shown us that it is unwise to predict what will happen to ideologists after their citadel of power has been brought low. It was feared that the remaining Nazis would fight on, as werewolves. Actually, only a few days had to pass before there were no Nazis to be found anywhere except in Argentina, boring one another to death at the world’s worst dinner parties._ _After the collapse of the Soviet Union, on the other hand, when it was thought that no apologists for Marxist collectivism could possibly keep their credibility in the universities of the West, they not only failed to lose heart, they gained strength._ _Some critics would say that the climate change fad itself is an offshoot of this @lingering revolutionary animus against liberal democracy, and that the true purpose of the climatologists is to bring about a world government that will ensure what no less a philanthropist than Robert Mugabe calls “climate justice”, in which capitalism is replaced by something more altruistic._ _I prefer to blame mankind’s inherent capacity for raising opportunism to a principle: the enabling condition for fascism in all its varieties, and often an imperative mindset among high-end frauds._ _On behalf of the UN, Maurice Strong, the first man to raise big money for climate justice, found slightly under a million dollars of it sticking to his fingers, and hid out in China for the rest of his life — a clear sign of his guilty knowledge that he had pinched it._ _Later operators lack even the guilt. They just collect the money, like the Prime Minister of Tuvalu, who has probably guessed by now that the sea isn’t going to rise by so much as an inch; but he still wants, for his supposedly threatened atoll, a share of the free cash, and especially because the question has changed. It used to be: how will we cope when the disaster comes? The question now is: how will we cope if it does not?_ _There is no need to entertain @visions of a vast, old-style army of disoccupied experts retreating through the snow, eating first their horses and finally each other. But there could be quite a lot of previously well-subsidised people left standing around while they vaguely wonder why nobody is listening to them any more. Way back in 2011, one of the Climategate scientists, Britain’s Tommy Wils, with an engagingly honest caution rare among prophets, speculated in an email about what people outside their network might do to them if climate change turned out to be a bunch of natural variations: “Kill us, probably.” But there has been too much talk of mass death already, and anyway most of the alarmists are the kind of people for whom it is a sufficiently fatal punishment simply to be ignored._ _Nowadays I write with aching slowness, and by the time I had finished assembling the previous paragraph, the US had changed presidents. What difference this transition will make to the speed with which the climate change meme collapses is yet to be seen, but my own guess is that it was already almost gone anyway: a comforting view to take if you don’t like the idea of a posturing zany like Donald Trump changing the world._ _Personally, I don’t even like the idea of Trump changing a light bulb, but we ought to remember that this dimwitted period in the history of the West began with exactly that: a change of light bulbs. Suddenly, 100 watts were too much. For as long as the climate change fad lasted, it always depended on poppycock; and it would surely be unwise to believe that mankind’s capacity to believe in fashionable nonsense could be cured by the disproportionately high cost of a temporary embarrassment. I’m almost sorry that I won’t be here for the ceremonial unveiling of the next threat._ _Almost certainly the opening feast will take place in Paris, with a happy sample of all the world’s young scientists facing the fragrant remains of their first ever plate of foie gras, while vowing that it will not be the last._ _This is an exclusive extract from the essay Mass Death Dies Hard by Clive James in Climate Change: The Facts 2017 edited by Jennifer Marohasy, published next month by the Institute of Public Affairs._

----------


## Marc

This is the best part  :Smilie:   

> _Personally, I don’t even like the idea of Trump changing a light bulb, but we ought to remember that this dimwitted period in the history of the West began with exactly that: a change of light bulbs. Suddenly, 100 watts were too much. For as long as the climate change fad lasted, it always depended on poppycock; and it would surely be unwise to believe that mankind’s capacity to believe in fashionable nonsense could be cured by the disproportionately high cost of a temporary embarrassment. I’m almost sorry that I won’t be here for the ceremonial unveiling of the next threat._

----------


## PhilT2

> This is the best part

  Seriously? That's the best part? Is there anything apart from ad homs is this book? Is there anything new is this edition that wasn't in the 2014 version? What does Ian Plimer have to say? I have his book "Heaven and Earth" and the errors in it are well documented. If his contribution in this book are as badly researched then I can see myself saving the $40/copy to spend on more useful things, like polish for the chrome on the towball on the kingswood.

----------


## Bros

Can't understand these figures.  Australian households pay highest power prices in world | afr.com

----------


## phild01

> Can't understand these figures.  Australian households pay highest power prices in world | afr.com

  Geeze, the Financial Review could do with a proof reader!

----------


## Bros

> Geeze, the Financial Review could do with a proof reader!

  Used to be a prestige paper once but since they have taken the chainsaw to the journalists their quality has slipped.

----------


## John2b

The AFR shows SA's electricity price as 47.13¢ per kilowatt hour, yet my bill shows after the July price rises that I am being charged 38.00¢ per kilowatt hour. I'm not on any special deal because I export solar and as a result can't access any discount plans with my supplier. The AFR has overstated electricity costs in SA by 24% and much more for people on contracts. Take that into account and the AFR's premise falls flat on its face, just more ballyhooing about nothing!

----------


## Bros

> The AFR shows SA's electricity price as 47.13¢ per kilowatt hour, yet my bill shows after the July price rises that I am being charged 38.00¢ per kilowatt hour. I'm not on any special deal because I export solar and as a result can't access any discount plans with my supplier. The AFR has overstated electricity costs in SA by 24% and much more for people on contracts. Take that into account and the AFR's premise falls flat on its face, just more ballyhooing about nothing!

  The Queensland price is wildly wrong as well.  
I got got this from a Facebook link a mate sent me that was sent around by Glenn Kelly (I think that is his name) who is a Lib politician.

----------


## phild01

> .. the AFR's premise falls flat on its face, just more ballyhooing about nothing!

  The quoted price seems consistent with the highest hour charge for those who have time of day metering.
Even as high as 54 cents where I am. 
https://www.agl.com.au/-/media/AGLData/DistributorData/PDFs/PriceFactSheet_AGL367195SR.pdf

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> *Western climate change alarmists wont admit they are wrong*  Cooling towers spilling steam: always there in the backdrop.  CLIVE JAMESThe Australian12:00AM June 3, 2017Save Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on emailShare more... 1264  When you tell people once too often that the missing extra heat is hiding in the ocean, they will switch over to watch _Game of Thrones, where the dialogue is less ridiculous and all the threats come true. The proponents of man-made climate catastrophe asked us for so many leaps of faith that they were bound to run out of credibility in the end._  _Now that they finally seem to be doing so, it could be a good time for those of us who have never been convinced by all those urgent warnings to start warning each other that we might be making a comparably senseless tactical error if we expect the elastic cause of the catastrophists, and all of its exponents, to go away in a hurry._ _I speak as one who knows nothing about the mathematics involved in modelling non-linear systems. But I do know quite a lot about the mass media, and far too much about the abuse of language. So I feel qualified to advise against any triumphalist urge to compare the apparently imminent disintegration of the alarmist cause to the collapse of a house of cards. Devotees of that fond idea havent thought hard enough about their metaphor. A house of cards collapses only with a sigh, and when it has finished collapsing all the cards are still there._ _Although the alarmists might finally have to face that they will not get much more of what they want on a policy level, they will surely, on the level of their own employment, go on wanting their salaries and prestige._ _Illustration: Eric Lobbecke_  _READ MORE__Forces align to lay siege to reef_   _To take a conspicuous if ludicrous case, Australian climate star Tim Flannery will probably not, of his own free will, shrink back to the position conferred by his original metier, as an expert on the extinction of the giant wombat. He is far more likely to go on being, and wishing to be, one of the mass medias mobile oracles about climate. While that possibility continues, it will go on being danger@ous to stand between him and a television camera. If the giant wombat could have moved at that speed, it would still be with us._ _The mere fact that few of Flannerys predictions have ever come true need not be enough to discredit him, just as American professor Paul Ehrlich has been left untouched since he predicted that the world would soon run out of copper. In those days, when our current phase of the long discussion about mans attack on nature was just beginning, he predicted mass death by extreme cold. Lately he predicts mass death by extreme heat. But he has always predicted mass death by extreme something._ _Actually, a more illustrative starting point for the theme of the permanently imminent climatic apocalypse might be taken as August 3, 1971, when The Sydney Morning Herald announced that the Great Barrier Reef would be dead in six months._ _After six months the reef had not died, but it has been going to die almost as soon as that ever since, making it a strangely durable emblem for all those who have wedded themselves to the notion of climate catastrophe._ _The most exalted of all the worlds predictors of reef death, former US president Barack Obama, has still not seen the reef; but he promises to go there one day when it is well again._ _In his acceptance speech at the 2008 Democratic convention, Obama said  and I truly wish that this were an inaccurate paraphrase  that people should vote for him if they wanted to stop the ocean rising. He got elected, and it didnt rise._ _The notion of a countdown or a tipping point is very dear to both wings of this deaf shouting match, and really is of small use to either. On the catastrophist wing, whose narrative, as they might put it, would so often seem to be a synthesised film script left over from the era of surround-sound disaster movies, there is always a countdown to the tipping point._ _When the scientists are the main contributors to the script, the tipping point will be something like the forever forthcoming moment when the Gulf Stream turns upside down or the Antarctic ice sheet comes off its hinges, or any other extreme event which, although it persists in not happening, could happen sooner than we think. (Science correspondents who can write a phrase like sooner than we think seldom realise that they might have already lost you with the word could.)_ _When the politicians join in the writing, the dramatic language declines to the infantile. There are only 50 days (former British PM Gordon Brown) or 100 months (Prince Charles wearing his political hat) left for mankind to do something about the greatest moral challenge  of our generation (Kevin Rudd, before he arrived at the Copenhagen climate shindig in 2009)._ _When he left Copenhagen, Rudd scarcely mentioned the greatest moral challenge again. Perhaps he had deduced, from the confusion prevailing throughout the conference, that the chances of the world ever uniting its efforts to do something were very small. Whatever his motives for backing out of the climate chorus, his subsequent career was an early demonstration that to cease being a chorister would be no easy retreat because it would be a clear indication that everything you had said on the subject up to then had been said in either bad faith or @ignorance. It would not be enough merely to fall silent. You would have to travel back in time, run for office in the Czech Republic @instead of Australia, and call yourself Vaclav Klaus._ _Australia, unlike Rudd, has a globally popular role in the @climate movie because it looks the part._ _Common reason might tell you that a country whose contribution to the worlds emissions is only 1.4 per cent can do very little about the biggest moral challenge even if it manages to reduce that contribution to zero; but your eyes tell you that Australia is burning up. On the classic alarmist principle of just stick your head out of the window and look around you, Australia always looks like Overwhelming Evidence that the alarmists must be right._ _Climate Change: The Facts 2017 edited by Jennifer Marohasy_ _Even now that the global warming scare has completed its transformation into the climate change scare so that any kind of event at either end of the scale of temperature can qualify as a crisis, Australia remains the top area of interest, still up there ahead of even the melting North Pole, @despite the Arctics miraculous @capacity to go on producing ice in defiance of all instructions from Al Gore. A C-student to his marrow, and thus never quick to pick up any reading matter at all, Gore has evidently never seen the Life magazine photographs of Americas nuclear submarine Skate surfacing through the North Pole in 1959. The ice up there is often thin, and sometimes vanishes._ _But it comes back, especially when some@one sufficiently illustrious confidently predicts that it will go away for good._ _After 4.5 billion years of changing, the climate that made outback Australia ready for Baz Luhrmanns viewfinder looked all set to end the world tomorrow. History has already forgotten that the schedule for one of the big drought sequences in his movieAustralia was wrecked by rain, and certainly history will never be reminded by the mass media, which loves a picture that fits the story._ _In this way, the polar bear balancing on the Photoshopped shrinking ice floe will always have a future in show business, and the cooling towers spilling steam will always be up there in the background of the TV picture._ _The full 97 per cent of all satirists who dealt themselves out of the climate subject back at the start look like staying out of it until the end, even if they get satirised in their turn. One could blame them for their pusillanimity, but it would be useless, and perhaps unfair. Nobody will be able plausibly to call actress Emma Thompson dumb for spreading gloom and doom about the climate: shes too clever and too creative. And anyway, she might be right. Cases like Leonardo DiCaprio and Cate Blanchett are rare enough to be called brave. Otherwise, the consensus of silence from the wits and thespians continues to be impressive._ _If they did wish to speak up for scepticism, however, they wouldnt find it easy when the people who run the big TV outlets forbid the wrong kind of humour._ _On Saturday Night Live back there in 2007, Will Ferrell, brilliantly pretending to be George W. Bush, was allowed to get every word of the global warming message wrong but he wasnt allowed to disbelieve it. Just as all branches of the modern media love a picture of something that might be part of the Overwhelming Evidence for climate change even if it is really a picture of something else, they all love a clock ticking down to zero, and if the clock never quite gets there then the motif can be exploited forever._ _A favourite image: polar bear on a shrinking piece of ice._ _But the editors and producers must face the drawback of such perpetual excitement: it gets perpetually less exciting. Numbness sets in, and there is time to think after all. Some of the customers might even start asking where this language of rubber numbers has been heard before._ _It was heard from Swift. In Gullivers Travels he populated his flying island of Laputa with scientists busily using rubber numbers to predict dire events. He called these scientists projectors. At the basis of all the predictions of the projectors was the prediction that the Earth was in danger from a Great Comet whose tail was ten hundred thousand and fourteen miles long. I should concede at this point that a sardonic parody is not necessarily pertinent just because it is funny; and that although it might be unlikely that the Earth will soon be threatened by man-made climate change, it might be less unlikely that the Earth will be threatened eventually by an asteroid, or let it be a Great Comet; after all, the Earth has been hit before._ _That being said, however, we can note that Swift has got the language of artificial crisis exactly right, to the point that we might have trouble deciding whether he invented it or merely copied it from scientific voices surrounding him. James Hansen is a Swiftian figure. Blithely equating trains full of coal to trains full of people on their way to Auschwitz, the Columbia University climatologist is utterly unaware that he has not only turned the stomachs of the informed audience he was out to impress, he has lost their attention._ _Paleoclimatologist Chris Turney, from the University of NSW, who led a ship full of climate change enthusiasts into the Antarctic to see how the ice was doing under the influence of climate change and found it was doing well enough to trap the ship, could have been invented by Swift. (Turneys subsequent Guardian article, in which he explained how this embarrassment was due only to a quirk of the weather and had nothing to do with a possible mistake about the climate, was a Swiftian lampoon in all respects.)_ _Compulsorily retired now from the climate scene, Rajendra Pachauri, formerly chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Clim@ate Change, was a zany straight from Swift, by way of a Bollywood remake of The Party starring the local imitator of Peter Sellers; if Dr Johnson could have thought of Pachauri, Rasselas would be much more entertaining than it is. Finally, and supremely, Flannery could have been invented by Swift after 10 cups of coffee too many with Stella. He wanted to keep her laughing. Swift projected the projectors who now surround us._ _They came out of the grant-hungry fringe of semi-science to infect the heart of the mass media, where a whole generation of commentators taught each other to speak and write a hyperbolic doom-language (unprecedent@ed, irreversible, et cetera), which you might have thought was sure to doom them in their turn. After all, nobody with an intact pair of ears really listens for long to anyone who talks about the planet or carbon or climate denial or the science. But for now  and it could be a long now  the advocates of drastic action are still armed with a theory that no fact doesnt fit._ _Australian author, journalist and broadcaster Clive James._ _The theory has always been manifestly unfalsifiable, but there are few science pundits in the mass media who could tell Karl Popper from Mary Poppins. More startling than their ignorance, however, is their defiance of logic. You can just about see how a bunch of grant-dependent climate scientists might go on saying that there was never a Medieval Warm Period even after it has been pointed out to them that any old corpse dug up from the permafrost could never have been buried in it. But how can a bunch of supposedly enlightened writers go on saying that? Their answer, if pressed, is usually to say that the question is too elementary to be considered._ _Alarmists have always profited from their insistence that climate change is such a complex issue that no science denier can have an opinion about it worth hearing. For most areas of science such an insistence would be true. But this particular area has a knack of raising questions that get more and more complicated in the absence of an answer to the elementary ones. One of those elementary questions is about how man-made carbon dioxide can be a driver of climate change if the global temperature has not gone up by much over the past 20 years but the amount of man-made carbon dioxide has. If we go on to ask a supplementary question  say, how could carbon dioxide raise temperature when the evidence of the ice cores indicates that temperature has always raised carbon dioxide  we will be given complicated answers, but we still havent had an answer to the first question, except for the suggestion that the temperature, despite the observations, really has gone up, but that the extra heat is hiding in the ocean._ _It is not necessarily science denial to propose that this long professional habit of postponing an answer to the first and most elementary question is bizarre. American physicist Richard Feynman said that if a fact doesnt fit the theory, the theory has to go. Feynman was a scientist. Einstein realised that the Michelson-Morley experiment hinted at a possible fact that might not fit Newtons theory of celestial mechanics. Einstein was a scientist, too. Those of us who are not scientists, but who are sceptical about the validity of this whole issue  who suspect that the alleged problem might be less of a problem than is made out  have plenty of great scientific names to point to for exemplars, and it could even be said that we could point to the whole of science itself. Being resistant to the force of its own inertia is one of the things that science does._ _When the climatologists upgraded their frame of certainty from global warming to climate change, the bet-hedging man@oeuvre was so blatant that some of the sceptics started predicting in their turn: the alarmist cause must surely now collapse, like a house of cards. A tipping point had been reached._ _Unfortunately for the cause of rational critical inquiry, the campaign for immediate action against climate doom reaches a tipping point every few minutes, because the observations, if not the calculations, never cease exposing it as a fantasy._ _I myself, after I observed journalist Andrew Neil on BBC TV wiping the floor with the then secretary for energy and climate change Ed Davey, thought that the British governments energy policy could not survive, and that the mad work that had begun with the 2008 Climate Change Act of Labours Ed Miliband must now surely begin to come undone. Neils well-inform@ed list of questions had been a tipping point. But it changed nothing in the short term. It didnt even change the BBC, which continued uninterrupted with its determination that the alarmist view should not be questioned._ _How did the upmarket mass media get themselves into such a condition of servility? One is reminded of that fine old historian George Grote when he said that he had taken his A History of Greece only to the point where the Greeks failed to realise they were slaves. The BBCs monotonous plugging of the climate theme in its science documentaries is too obvious to need remarking, but its what the science programs never say that really does the damage._ _Even the news programs get smoothed to ensure that nothing interferes with the constant business of protecting the climate change themes dogmatic status._ _To take a simple but telling example: when Sigmar Gabriel, Germanys Vice-Chancellor and man in charge of the Energiewende (energy transition), talked rings around Greenpeace hecklers with nothing on their minds but renouncing coal, or told executives of the renewable energy companies that they could no longer take unlimited subsidies for granted, these instructive moments could be seen on German TV but were not excerpted and subtitled for British TV even briefly, despite Gabriels accomplishments as a natural TV star, and despite the fact he himself was no sceptic._ _Wrong message: easier to leave him out. And if American climate scientist Judith Curry appears before a US Senate com@mittee and manages to defend her anti-alarmist position against concentrated harassment from a senator whose only qualification for the discussion is that he can impugn her integrity with a rhetorical contempt of which she is too polite to be capable? Leave it to YouTube. In this way, the BBC has spent 10 years unplugged from a vital part of the global intellectual discussion, with an increasing air of provincialism as the inevitable result. As the UK now begins the long process of exiting the EU, we can reflect that the departing nations most important broadcasting institution has been behaving, for several years, as if its true aim were to reproduce the thought control that prevailed in the Soviet Union._ _As for the print media, its no mystery why the upmarket newspapers do an even more thorough job than the downmarket newspapers of suppressing any dissenting opinion on the climate._ _In Britain, The Telegraph sensibly gives a column to the diligently sceptical Christopher Booker, and Matt Rid@ley has recently been able to get a few rational articles into The Times, but a more usual arrangement is exemplified by my own newspaper, The Guardian, which entrusts all aspects of the subject to George Monbiot, who once informed his green readership that there was only one reason I could presume to disagree with him, and them: I was an old man, soon to be dead, and thus with no concern for the future of the planet._ _I would have damned his impertinence, but it would have been like getting annoyed with a wheelbarrow full of freshly cut grass._ _These byline names are stars committed to their opinion, but whats missing from the posh press is the non-star name committed to the job of building a fact file and extracting a reasoned article from it. Further down the market, when The Daily Mailput its no-frills newshound David Rose on the case after Climategate, his admirable competence immediately got him labelled as a climate change denier: one of the first people to be awarded that badge of honour._ _The other tactic used to discredit him was the standard one of calling his paper a disreputable publication. It might be  having been a victim of its prurience myself, I have no inclination to revere it  but it hasnt forgotten what objective reporting is supposed to be. Most of the British papers have, and the reason is no mystery._ _They cant afford to remember. The print media, with notable exceptions, is on its way down the drain. With almost no personnel left to do the writing, the urge at editorial level is to give all the science stuff to one bloke. The print edition of The Independent bored its way out of business when its resident climate nag was allowed to write half the paper._ _In its last year, when the doomwatch journalists were threatened by the climate industry with a newly revised consensus opinion that a mere 2C increase in world temperature might be not only acceptable but likely, The Independents chap retaliated by writing stories about how the real likelihood was an increase of 5C, and in a kind of frenzied crescendo he wrote a whole front page saying that the global temperature was on track for an increase of 6C. Not long after, the Indys print edition closed down._ _At The New York Times, Andrew Revkin, star colour-piece writer on the climate beat, makes the whole subject no less predictable than his prose style: a cruel restriction._ _In Australia, the Fairfax papers, which by now have almost as few writers as readers, reprint Revkins summaries as if they were the voice of authority, and will probably go on doing so until the waters close overhead. On the ABC, house science pundit Robyn Williams famously predicted that the rising of the waters could amount to 100m in the next century. But not even he predicted that it could happen next week. At The Sydney Morning Herald, it could happen next week. The only remaining journalists could look out of the window and see fish._ _Bending its efforts to sensationalise the news on a scale previously unknown even in its scrappy history, the mass media has helped to consolidate a pernicious myth. But it could not have done this so thoroughly without the accident that it is the main source of information and opinion for people in the academic world and in the scientific institutions. Few of those people have been reading the sceptical blogs: they have no time. If I myself had not been so ill during the relevant time span, I might not have been reading it either, and might have remained confined within the misinformation system where any assertion of forthcoming disaster counts as evidence._ _The effect of this mountainous accumulation of sanctified alarmism on the academic world is another subject. Some of the universities deserve to be closed down, but I expect they will muddle through, if only because the liberal spirit, when it regains its strength, is likely to be less vengeful than the dogmatists were when they ruled. Finding that the power of inertia blesses their security as once it blessed their influence, the enthusiasts might have the sense to throttle back on their certitude, huddle under the blanket cover provided by the concept of post-normal science, and wait in comfort to be forgotten._ _As for the learned societies and professional institutions, it was never a puzzle that so many of them became instruments of obfuscation instead of enlightenment. Totalitarianism takes over a state at the moment when the ruling party is taken over by its secretariat; the tipping point is when Stalin, with his lists of names, offers to stay late after the meeting and take care of business._ _The same vulnerability applies to any learned institution. Rule by bureaucracy favours mediocrity, and in no time at all you are in a world where the British Met Offices (former) chief scientist Julia Slingo is a figure of authority and Curry is fighting to breathe._ _On a smaller scale of influential prestige, Nicholas Stern lends the Royal Society the honour of his presence. For those of us who regard him as a vocalised stuffed shirt, it is no use saying that his confident pronouncements about the future are only those of an economist. Klaus was only an economist when he tried to remind us that Malthusian clairvoyance is invariably a harbinger of totalitarianism. But Klaus was a true figure of authority. Alas, true figures of authority are in short supply, and tend not to have much influence when they get to speak._ _All too often, this is because they care more about science than about the media. As recently as 2015, after a full 10 years of nightly proof that this particular scientific dispute was a media event before it was anything, Freeman Dyson was persuaded to go on television. He was up there just long enough to say that the small proportion of carbon dioxide that was man-made could only add to the worlds supply of plant food. The worlds mass media outlets ignored the footage, mainly because they didnt know who he was._ _I might not have known either if I hadnt spent, in these past few years, enough time in hospitals to have it proved to me on a personal basis that real science is as indispensable for modern medicine as cheap power. Among his many achievements, to none of which he has ever cared about drawing attention, Dyson designed the TRIGA reactor. The TRIGA @ensures that the worlds hospitals get a reliable supply of isotopes._ _Dyson served science. Except for the few holdouts who go on fighting to defend the objective @nature of truth, most of the climate scientists who get famous are serving themselves._ _There was a time when the journalists could have pointed out the difference, but now they have no idea. Instead, they are so celebrity-conscious that they would supply Flannery with a new clown suit if he wore out the one he is wearing now._ _A bad era for science has been a worse one for the mass media, the field in which, despite the usual blunders and misjudgments, I was once proud to earn my living. But I have spent too much time, in these past few years, being ashamed of my profession: hence the note of anger which, I can now see, has crept into this essay even though I was determined to keep it out. As my retirement changed to illness and then to dotage, I would have preferred to sit back and write poems than to be known for taking a position in what is, despite the colossal scale of its foolish waste, a very petty quarrel._ _But it was time to stand up and fight, if only because so many of the advocates, though they must know by now that they are professing a belief they no longer hold, will continue to profess it anyway._ _Back in the day, when I was starting off in journalism  on The Sydney Morning Herald, as it happens  the one thing we all learned early from our veteran colleagues was never to improve the truth for the sake of the story. If they caught us doing so, it was the end of the world._ _But here we are, and the world hasnt ended after all. Though some governments might not yet have fully returned to the principle of evidence-based policy, most of them have learned to be wary of policy-based evidence. They have learned to spot it coming, not because the real virtues of critical inquiry have been well argued by scientists but because the false claims of abracadabra have been asserted too often by people who, though they might have started out as scientists of a kind, have found their true purpose in life as ideologists._ _Modern history since World War II has shown us that it is unwise to predict what will happen to ideologists after their citadel of power has been brought low. It was feared that the remaining Nazis would fight on, as werewolves. Actually, only a few days had to pass before there were no Nazis to be found anywhere except in Argentina, boring one another to death at the worlds worst dinner parties._ _After the collapse of the Soviet Union, on the other hand, when it was thought that no apologists for Marxist collectivism could possibly keep their credibility in the universities of the West, they not only failed to lose heart, they gained strength._ _Some critics would say that the climate change fad itself is an offshoot of this @lingering revolutionary animus against liberal democracy, and that the true purpose of the climatologists is to bring about a world government that will ensure what no less a philanthropist than Robert Mugabe calls climate justice, in which capitalism is replaced by something more altruistic._ _I prefer to blame mankinds inherent capacity for raising opportunism to a principle: the enabling condition for fascism in all its varieties, and often an imperative mindset among high-end frauds._ _On behalf of the UN, Maurice Strong, the first man to raise big money for climate justice, found slightly under a million dollars of it sticking to his fingers, and hid out in China for the rest of his life  a clear sign of his guilty knowledge that he had pinched it._ _Later operators lack even the guilt. They just collect the money, like the Prime Minister of Tuvalu, who has probably guessed by now that the sea isnt going to rise by so much as an inch; but he still wants, for his supposedly threatened atoll, a share of the free cash, and especially because the question has changed. It used to be: how will we cope when the disaster comes? The question now is: how will we cope if it does not?_ _There is no need to entertain @visions of a vast, old-style army of disoccupied experts retreating through the snow, eating first their horses and finally each other. But there could be quite a lot of previously well-subsidised people left standing around while they vaguely wonder why nobody is listening to them any more. Way back in 2011, one of the Climategate scientists, Britains Tommy Wils, with an engagingly honest caution rare among prophets, speculated in an email about what people outside their network might do to them if climate change turned out to be a bunch of natural variations: Kill us, probably. But there has been too much talk of mass death already, and anyway most of the alarmists are the kind of people for whom it is a sufficiently fatal punishment simply to be ignored._ _Nowadays I write with aching slowness, and by the time I had finished assembling the previous paragraph, the US had changed presidents. What difference this transition will make to the speed with which the climate change meme collapses is yet to be seen, but my own guess is that it was already almost gone anyway: a comforting view to take if you dont like the idea of a posturing zany like Donald Trump changing the world._ _Personally, I dont even like the idea of Trump changing a light bulb, but we ought to remember that this dimwitted period in the history of the West began with exactly that: a change of light bulbs. Suddenly, 100 watts were too much. For as long as the climate change fad lasted, it always depended on poppycock; and it would surely be unwise to believe that mankinds capacity to believe in fashionable nonsense could be cured by the disproportionately high cost of a temporary embarrassment. Im almost sorry that I wont be here for the ceremonial unveiling of the next threat._ _Almost certainly the opening feast will take place in Paris, with a happy sample of all the worlds young scientists facing the fragrant remains of their first ever plate of foie gras, while vowing that it will not be the last._ _This is an exclusive extract from the essay Mass Death Dies Hard by Clive James in Climate Change: The Facts 2017 edited by Jennifer Marohasy, published next month by the Institute of Public Affairs._

  Tapatalk saves me...and blanks all of the cut and paste out to make it unreadable. How cool is that? Maybe it's a conspiracy...

----------


## pharmaboy2

> The AFR shows SA's electricity price as 47.13¢ per kilowatt hour, yet my bill shows after the July price rises that I am being charged 38.00¢ per kilowatt hour. I'm not on any special deal because I export solar and as a result can't access any discount plans with my supplier. The AFR has overstated electricity costs in SA by 24% and much more for people on contracts. Take that into account and the AFR's premise falls flat on its face, just more ballyhooing about nothing!

  there are a huge number of different contracts.  TOU tariffs, different  supply charges, progressive gross metering with off peak etc etc.  presumably they would use tariffs that are comparable across the states, eg Time of use, especially because the biggest users end up on these tariffs (so called smart metering - but not actually smart)

----------


## woodbe

Definitely the retail price is becoming ridiculous via the retail sector. 
Looking at the data dashboard monday morning at around 9:20AM today, the power price at the AEMO is between $83.73 to $135.07 per MWh - so 8-13 CENTS per kWh.  https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/...patch-overview 
The history table is available: https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/...ge-price-table

----------


## Bros

Interesting four corners tonight.   Recycling companies stockpiling thousands of tonnes of glass as cheap imports leave market in crisis - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
As kids we could make money from selling long neck bottles back to the softdrink manufacturers. Everyone had the same bottle weather it was beer or softdrink and every small town had their softdrink making plant and the big towns their breweries but we have seen the end of that era. 
We recycle jars to be used for making jam, pickles and chutney but we end up throwing a lot away.

----------


## PhilT2

Qld gets a container deposit scheme next year so the number of bottles returned for recycling in this state at least will increase enormously. Maybe we could use them to make optic fibre and give everyone decent internet. Our nbn gets connected this week but it's just crappy old coax from the foxtel cable on the pole. Not expecting anything spectacular 
New galaxy poll out today has Labor marginally ahead of LNP but One Nation on 15%. Depends on how their preferences go but I think they will favour the LNP enough to get them over the line. Maybe a hung parliament with One Nation, Katter or independents holding the balance of power. The matter of Malcolm Roberts' citizenship may come up and if he is found to have been less than truthful it may take a bit of the gloss off Pauline's popularity. The senate will not become smarter if he departs as Hanson's sister will take his place but at least his kooky ideas on climate change will disappear from senate hearings. The combined IQ of One Nation senators will still not exceed single digits.

----------


## Bros

> Depends on how their preferences go but I think they will favour the LNP enough to get them over the line.

  Extreme right wing of the Liberal party same as Greens the left wing of the Labor party.   

> The matter of Malcolm Roberts' citizenship may come up and if he is found to have been less than truthful it may take a bit of the gloss off Pauline's popularity.

  Since when does a politician tell the truth?

----------


## UseByDate

> Qld gets a container deposit scheme next year so the number of bottles returned for recycling in this state at least will increase enormously. Maybe we could use them to make optic fibre and give everyone decent internet. Our nbn gets connected this week but it's just crappy old coax from the foxtel cable on the pole. Not expecting anything spectacular 
> New galaxy poll out today has Labor marginally ahead of LNP but One Nation on 15%. Depends on how their preferences go but I think they will favour the LNP enough to get them over the line. Maybe a hung parliament with One Nation, Katter or independents holding the balance of power. The matter of Malcolm Roberts' citizenship may come up and if he is found to have been less than truthful it may take a bit of the gloss off Pauline's popularity. The senate will not become smarter if he departs as Hanson's sister will take his place but at least his kooky ideas on climate change will disappear from senate hearings. The combined IQ of One Nation senators will still not exceed single digits.

  Her sister may not necessarily become senator. It is possible for Malcolm Roberts  to replace Malcolm Roberts according to this article.   One Nation: Will Pauline Hanson&#039;s sister replace Senator Malcolm Roberts if he is disqualified? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Interesting four corners tonight.   Recycling companies stockpiling thousands of tonnes of glass as cheap imports leave market in crisis - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
> As kids we could make money from selling long neck bottles back to the softdrink manufacturers. Everyone had the same bottle weather it was beer or softdrink and every small town had their softdrink making plant and the big towns their breweries but we have seen the end of that era. 
> We recycle jars to be used for making jam, pickles and chutney but we end up throwing a lot away.

  Recycling is such a crock.  One of the big justifications is saving "landfill", which is possibly our least likely to run out of resource.  The whole of Australia produced 20m tonnes of landfill last year, while just in the hunter valley, we dug holes enough for 160m tonnes of coal to come out .   We aren't going to run out of landfill opportunities in this country. 
at the very least recycling should save more energy than it uses to make new.  
Given its a renovation forum, its salient to note that the big recyclers of demolition waste in NSW, recycle what they can make money out of, and the rest gets put on a train and buried in Queensland.  How dumb is that?  That's what $240 tonne does to he market place (going up a lot faster than electricity prices, that's for sure)

----------


## ringtail

Hopefully we will put a levy back on landfill so you lot can keep your waste all to yourselves

----------


## John2b

> Recycling is such a crock.  One of the big justifications is saving "landfill", which is possibly our least likely to run out of resource.

  You've got a point. Potential landfill sites are seemingly endless. So is the ocean - or at least it was once thought as an endless dumping ground. However now there is more mass of plastic refuse in the oceans than there is biomass (i.e. fish, etc) and a typical cubic meter of seawater near coasts contains millions of pieces of microscopic plastic debris. The fish you eat today are ultimately living off the plankton that are living off plastic refuse, and all of the phthalates those plastics contained. Sperm counts in men down 80% from a century ago and infertility rising - anyone wonder why??? 
But actually you are wrong that the reason for recycling is avoiding landfill. In fact recycling is at the far end of the list of things that will mitigate climate change: Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Repurpose, and as a last resort: Recycle.

----------


## John2b

> Hopefully we will put a levy back on landfill so you lot can keep your waste all to yourselves

  The largest proportion of most Council's rates is the levee for waste disposal, but apparently that isn't much of a disincentive. I remember a time when households were entitled to a single 45 litre rubbish bin per week, not like today's collection of typically 3 x 240 litre rubbish, recycling and green waste bins.

----------


## phild01

> Hopefully we will put a levy back on landfill so you lot can keep your waste all to yourselves

   Maybe NSW needs to remove their levy.  Bit like the prohibition era, and a kick start to   organised waste Mafia style!

----------


## John2b

In addition to the "world's biggest" (129MWh) lithium ion battery being built in South Australia by Tesla and Neoen as a rapid supply/demand response solution, a trial will start in South Australia next year to produce hydrogen gas from excess renewable (wind and solar) energy to be stored and distributed through existing natural gas infrastructure, which can accept 10% or more hydrogen without modification.  Tesla to supply world&#039;s biggest battery for SA, but what is it and how will it work? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  Hydrogen to be injected into Adelaide&#039;s gas grid in &#039;power-to-gas&#039; trial - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
In other developments, the CSIRO has developed a new method of separating hydrogen from ammonia which will allow the transportation of hydrogen in ammonia at an energy density greater than that of liquid hydrogen, but without any of the problems of storing liquid hydrogen. This development opens the door to a new energy export industry based on hydrogen from renewable energy.  Renewable hydrogen could fuel Australia&#039;s next export boom after CSIRO breakthrough - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## Bros

> In other developments, the CSIRO has developed a new method of separating hydrogen from ammonia which will allow the transportation of hydrogen in ammonia at an energy density greater than that of liquid hydrogen, but without any of the problems of storing liquid hydrogen. This development opens the door to a new energy export industry based on hydrogen from renewable energy.  Renewable hydrogen could fuel Australia&#039;s next export boom after CSIRO breakthrough - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  Nearly every night I see on TV breakthrough is cancer cures but these breakthroughs seen to fade away.  
I now get the feeling breakthrough reports are just part of getting more funding for projects.

----------


## Bedford

> I now get the feeling breakthrough reports are just part of getting more funding for projects.

  Never been any different.........

----------


## PhilT2

> Nearly every night I see on TV breakthrough is cancer cures but these breakthroughs seen to fade away.  
> I now get the feeling breakthrough reports are just part of getting more funding for projects.

  Usually there is a big difference in what the scientists say about their work and what the media reports. Auntie is nowhere near as bad as the Murdoch rags but the tendency to talk things up is still there. And while we may have a great invention there is no guarantees there will not be a better one later or that there will be buyers for it. 
The scientist in this story is realistic and dampens down the reporters enthusiasm a few times. He ends by saying it will depend on finding investors and markets. I can't find any extravagant claims in his report.

----------


## chrisp

> Nearly every night I see on TV breakthrough is cancer cures but these breakthroughs seen to fade away.

  Most technological developments happen in small steps. It is very very rare of a game-changing breakthrough to happen. 
Picking up on your analogy, cancer won't be cured over night by a breakthrough but by a large number of small improvements in our knowledge on how to prevent and cure particular cancers. The survival rate is progressively (and slowly) improving. A quick google search turns up some figures - the 5-year survival rate for cancer in Australia has improved from 48% in the mid-1980s to 68% in 2009 to 2013 (figures from "The Courier", 30 March 2017). 
I could speculate that much of the improvement in cancer survival would have been due to education, prevention and early diagnosis as well as treatment. Cigarette anyone? 
Similar changes happen in other areas too. Just look at the fuel efficiency and performance improvements (along with reductions in the tailpipe pollution) in our cars over the decades. Again, these changes didn't happen over night but progressively bit by bit. 
And are the news stories for funding? Maybe. Publicly is important for all fields competing for grants. It's sort of sad that public good research is subject to such competition but it is part of the rigorous checks and balances of the system.

----------


## John2b

More interesting facts and figures about hydrogen vehicles and how they could interact with, store energy for and even power the electricity grid:  Regenerative Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles to advance Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology | Hydrogen Cars Now

----------


## phild01

I keep saying it, hydrogen!

----------


## UseByDate

Worth a look. If you have 50 mins spare, watch the videos.  Toyota vs Tesla: Can hydrogen fuel-cell cars compete with EVs? : RenewEconomy

----------


## Bros

Hydrogen car not new.  No Cookies | The Courier Mail

----------


## UseByDate

> Hydrogen car not new.  No Cookies | The Courier Mail

  "never you mind about that" Joh Bjelke-Petersen :No:

----------


## Marc

Global warming activist and assorted agitators have never been about the "environment"
They have always seen this as a back door for their marxist cause. *
U.N. Official Admits Global Warming Agenda Is Really About Destroying Capitalism* by Tyler Durden Feb 3, 2017 6:57 PM _Submitted by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,_ A shocking statement was made by a United Nations official* Christiana Figueres* at a news conference in Brussels. __  Figueres admitted that the Global Warming conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which she is the executive secretary, *has a goal not of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism.* She said very casually: _“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”_ She even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake:_“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”_I was invited to a major political dinner in Washington with the former Chairman of Temple University since I advised the University with respect to its portfolio. We were seated at one of those round tables with ten people. Because we were invited from a university, they placed us with the heads of the various environmental groups. They assumed they were in friendly company and began speaking freely. Dick Fox, my friend, began to lead them on to get the truth behind their movement. _Lo and behold, they too admitted it was not about the environment, but to reduce population growth._ Dick then asked them, “Whose grandchild are we trying to prevent from being born? Your’s or mine? *All of these movements seem to have a hidden agenda that the press helps to misrepresent all the time.* One must wonder, at what point will the press realize they are destroying their own future? Investors.com reminds Figueres that the only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie:_ From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled._

----------


## John2b

> Global warming activist and assorted agitators have never been about the "environment"
> They have always seen this as a back door for their marxist cause.

  Your post is absolute rubbish, Marc. There are hundreds of thousands of science professionals worldwide who work in private, corporate, educational and/or government organisations in first world countries, third world countries, socialist countries, capitalist countries, dictatorships, democracies, etc, who do care about the effects of climate change on the environment, yet they do not agree about how climate change should be mitigated. No one person speaks for them all. Just how stupid do you think your friends and colleagues in this forum must be if they are to accept your ridiculous conspiracy theory?

----------


## pharmaboy2

Bloody hell, it's not rocket science, and itsnot the death of capitalism. 
its just capitalism has to now take into account all costs - this includes undesireable outputs, ie pollution.  You used to be free to pump all sorts of particulates into the air as well, but regulations have stopped most of that and will also stop the free for all on burning fossil fuels.   
What the left like to also add ( see greens et al) is that the blame is also with economic expansionism and that we must constrain generally.  Well, this is a philosophical position of the left green movement- they aren't even close to power pretty much anywhere in the world and aren't getting closer.  They ave that position because they have Marxist heritage and have co opted that belief system with the one that we are running out of all resources and we shouldn't use more than is replaceable. 
Marc, don't mix up the leftist "watermelons" as you call them, with rationalists concerned about global warming and our long term future as a result

----------


## Marc

Pollution is a genuine concern, minuscule additions of CO2 by humans is not pollution and is not a concern. Mixing the two and pretending they are all the same only plays in the hand of the global warming fraud, GWF for short.
Those who benefit from the GWF are clearly not the greens who are a parasitic lot who will starve if capitalism stops dropping crumbs for them to pick up. 
The elite that benefits from the GWF uses the greens, environmentalist and "concerned" people to advance their position and keep on robbing the taxpayer from trillions of dollars to fix something that is not broken using technology that is completely unsustainable if it wasn't for the GWF subsidies.
Pollution has always existed and it was always addressed in a rather unconvincing way and centred on the easy targets and ignored the real problematic areas. The CO2 "problem" is a con, a fraud, false science and an excuse to rip us all up, starting with the electricity bill.  It is as false as the "miracles" used to "sanctificate" ordinary people and promoted in the same way for similar purposes.

----------


## John2b

There is nothing minuscule about anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It is well known that at CO2 concentrations even as low as 1000ppm have negative effects on brain function in humans, particularly in cognition and decision making. Concentrations of CO2 indoors are much higher than outdoors as a function of the number of air changes provided by ventilation systems. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are already impacting the cost of operating HVAC systems which must introduce greater quantities of fresh air to maintain indoor CO2 within acceptable limits.  http://www.advancedsciencenews.com/c...-brain-on-co2/

----------


## Marc

> It is well known that at CO2 concentrations even as low as 1000ppm have negative effects on brain function in humans

   :Rofl5: 
Love your beat ups John, I suggest you open the windows since the average of CO2 is 400ppm so nothing to worry about your brain function. I hope anyway.  :Smilie:  
10,000 ppm is harmless, not that it will get to that anytime soon. If you go camping you probably have 20,000 ppm in your tent and don't even know it.  http://www.ivhhn.org/index.php?optio...=article&id=84 Due to the high levels of CO2 required to cause harm, concentrations of CO2 are often expressed as a_percentage_ of the gas in air by volume (1% = 10,000 ppmv). This is in contrast to other volcanic gases. *Exposure Effects*  Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a toxic gas at high concentration, as well as an asphyxiant gas (due to reduction in oxygen). Irritation of the eyes, nose and throat occurs only at high concentrations. The concentration thresholds for health effects are outlined in the table. *Health effects of respiratory exposure to carbon dioxide*
(Baxter, 2000; Faivre-Pierret and Le Guern, 1983 and refs therein; NIOSH, 1981).Exposure limits 
(% in air) Health Effects  2-3 Unnoticed at rest, but on exertion there may be marked shortness of breath  3 Breathing becomes noticeably deeper and more frequent at rest  3-5 Breathing rhythm accelerates. Repeated exposure provokes headaches  5 Breathing becomes extremely laboured, headaches, sweating and bounding pulse  7.5 Rapid breathing, increased heart rate, headaches, sweating, dizziness, shortness of breath, muscular weakness, loss of mental abilities, drowsiness, and ringing in the ears  8-15 Headache, vertigo, vomiting, loss of consciousness and possibly death if the patient is not immediately given oxygen  10 Respiratory distress develops rapidly with loss of consciousness in 10-15 minutes  15 Lethal concentration, exposure to levels above this are intolerable  25+ Convulsions occur and rapid loss of consciousness ensues after a few breaths. Death will occur if level is maintained.

----------


## John2b

My post was not about the level of CO2 required to induce toxic and lethal effects, but about the effects of CO2 on cognitive function and wellbeing. 
"As the ventilation rate (i.e., rate of outdoor air supply to the indoors) per person decreases, the magnitude of the indoor–outdoor difference in CO2 concentration increases. Consequently, peak indoor CO2 concentrations, or the peak elevations of the indoor concentrations above those in outdoor air, have often been used as rough indicators for outdoor-air ventilation rate per occupant. Epidemiologic and intervention research has shown that higher levels of CO2 within the range found in normal indoor settings are associated with perceptions of poor air quality, increased prevalence of acute health symptoms (e.g., headache, mucosal irritation), slower work performance, and increased absence." 
Do some research:  https://scholar.google.com.au/schola...KwASkQgQMIJjAA

----------


## chrisp

Marc, I stumbled upon this article that I thought that you'd enjoy Climate Scientist Who Questioned The Ethics Of Children Is About To Go On Maternity Leave

----------


## pharmaboy2

> My post was not about the level of CO2 required to induce toxic and lethal effects, but about the effects of CO2 on cognitive function and wellbeing. 
> "As the ventilation rate (i.e., rate of outdoor air supply to the indoors) per person decreases, the magnitude of the indoor–outdoor difference in CO2 concentration increases. Consequently, peak indoor CO2 concentrations, or the peak elevations of the indoor concentrations above those in outdoor air, have often been used as rough indicators for outdoor-air ventilation rate per occupant. Epidemiologic and intervention research has shown that higher levels of CO2 within the range found in normal indoor settings are associated with perceptions of poor air quality, increased prevalence of acute health symptoms (e.g., headache, mucosal irritation), slower work performance, and increased absence." 
> Do some research:  https://scholar.google.com.au/schola...KwASkQgQMIJjAA

  Are we seriously going to start arguing the toss of what implications co2 has at percentages way above what will change the climate forever? 
just for fun, your body doesn't recognise low oxygen, it only recognises high co2 in your blood - the need to breath reflex.  So what stops you suffocating is co2 in your blood, so don't put helium in a paper bag and breath that, because you won't notice you are short of breath and will pass out, and possibly die (depending on whether you drop the bag or not when unconscious 
BTW Marc, I had a quick look at James cook university today and their published papers on coral , not surprisingly those papers point to water temp change as one of the major causes of coral bleaching

----------


## Marc

Chrisp, thank you for the article but i am afraid I found nothing to be enjoyed. Just one more person who was in the marble tower of superiority and that life has thrown a spanner in the works bringing her down to the commoners' level of "vulgar" reproduction. She then had to find the words to wriggle out of her previous position.  
Nothing remarkable. 
As for the weather is getting hotter gobbledygook, that is also unremarkable. Sorry ...

----------


## John2b

> ...She then had to find the words to wriggle out of her previous position...

  Did you not read the article, or did you just fail to comprehend it's content? She did not wriggle out of a previous position, nor was what she said prior in conflict with her current view.

----------


## UseByDate

Uncertainty in climate science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP5n...ature=youtu.be

----------


## DavoSyd

> Uncertainty in climate science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP5n...ature=youtu.be

  holy crap, check out this person: https://www.youtube.com/user/WhirledPublishing (top comment on the video you posted)

----------


## John2b

> Global warming activist and assorted agitators have never been about the "environment"
> They have always seen this as a back door for their marxist cause.

  Who let the (Marc-ist) dogs out and let them take control of Australia's electricity generation? 
Energy executives tell Turnbull they aren’t interested in prolonging life of coal plants. The government met with the heads of Energy Australia, Origin Energy, AGL Snowy Hydro, Momentum Energy, Alinta Energy, Simply Energy and the Australian Energy Council. 
Executives told the prime minister, the energy minister, Josh Frydenberg, the treasurer, Scott Morrison, and the deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce, that they were not interested in running businesses that were intent on reducing their climate risk, so _they weren’t interested in maintaining the lifespan of existing coal-fired plants_, like Liddell in New South Wales.  Turnbull targets power companies over bills, generators call for Clean Energy Target

----------


## Marc

> Uncertainty in climate science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP5n...ature=youtu.be

  Mm ... what's new about what she says? She admits to the pause that was so vehemently denied by all the agitators. She is a good sort and she speaks with a potato in her mouth. She talks about US (me)  the scientist and you the society ... (she is not part of society) she makes an excellent case of "look at me look at me" ... besides this ... nothing new. Same old crap about stored energy and how catastrophe will strike when we are sleeping.  
If only we could use all that phantom stored energy we could reduce our electricity bill ... hang on, our electricity bill is high _because_ of this claptrap. Oh my. 
In the eighties this same know it all so called scientist told us that in the year 2000 all snow will be artificial ... We never learn. 
Not to mention that all cars will fly, but that was another dumb prediction, and the rain will stop forever and the sea will rise 9 meters tomorrow and ...  :Screwy:

----------


## John2b

> ...She admits to the pause that was so vehemently denied by all the agitators.

  Incorrect. She discussed the pause of surface _atmospheric_ warming (which is not on its own _global_ warming)_;_ a pause which had been anticipated by at least some climate scientists, not the least because the weather from year to year and decade to decade is 'noisy'. Global warming is the total accumulation of excess heat in the climate systems and particularly the oceans, which are the powerhouse of weather. There was no pause in global warming.

----------


## UseByDate

> Mm ... what's new about what she says? She admits to the pause that was so vehemently denied by all the agitators. She is a good sort and she speaks with a potato in her mouth. She talks about US (me)  the scientist and you the society ... (she is not part of society) she makes an excellent case of "look at me look at me" ... besides this ... nothing new. Same old crap about stored energy and how catastrophe will strike when we are sleeping.  
> If only we could use all that phantom stored energy we could reduce our electricity bill ... hang on, our electricity bill is high _because_ of this claptrap. Oh my. 
> In the eighties this same know it all so called scientist told us that in the year 2000 all snow will be artificial ... We never learn. 
> Not to mention that all cars will fly, but that was another dumb prediction, and the rain will stop forever and the sea will rise 9 meters tomorrow and ...

  Mm ... what's new about what she says?   She is not saying anything new. She is trying to explain why it is so difficult for scientists to explain to non-scientists climate change theory and what can be done to improve the situation. The concept of  probability is not well understood by many people.   She admits to the pause that was so vehemently denied by all the agitators. No she does not. See post #16963 She is a good sort and she speaks with a potato in her mouth. I don't know how you can tell she is a good sort purely by watching this video. She could be a serial axe murderer in her spare time for all we know and in any case it is irrelevant to the content of her presentation. She speaks with a middle class south east England accent with a tinge of public speaking nerves. Even with my diminished sense or hearing I had no trouble understanding her. If you had difficulty and perceived a potato in her mouth there could be a problem with the speakers you are using. She talks about US (me) the scientist and you the society ... (she is not part of society) she makes an excellent case of "look at me look at me" ... besides this ... nothing new. You seem to be criticising the person rather than the content of her presentation and borders on an implicit  _ad hominem._ Same old crap about stored energy and how catastrophe will strike when we are sleeping. Can you direct me to the point in the video where she states  catastrophe will strike when we are sleeping? I can't find it. 
If only we could use all that phantom stored energy we could reduce our electricity bill ... hang on, our electricity bill is high _because_ of this claptrap. Oh my. Your electricity bills are high because of lack of investment in new electrical energy generating infrastructure over the last ten years brought about by politicising climate change science and having no stable energy policy in place that investors can rely upon. In the eighties this same know it all so called scientist told us that in the year 2000 all snow will be artificial ...   I would guess that  this same know it all so called scientist was a child in the eighties and would not have told  us anything. We never learn. How true of some.
Not to mention that all cars will fly, but that was another dumb prediction, and the rain will stop forever and the sea will rise 9 meters tomorrow and ...   :Screwy:   *Mark my word: A combination airplane and motor car is coming. You may smile, but it will come.* Henry Ford, 1940

----------


## Marc

:Lbah blah blue: .

----------


## johnc

> .

  A perfect summation of all your posts, exceptionally succinct, well done!

----------


## Marc

Delenda est Marxism  :Cool:  
Fraud: 
While the global warming alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven't been so good at hiding their real motivation. Yet another one has slipped up and revealed the catalyst driving the climate scare. We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different. If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures -- they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state. 
Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015. So what is the goal of environmental policy? 
"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer. For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn't really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated." 
Mad as they are, Edenhofer's comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement's dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement. "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit. "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history." 
The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish -- because, as Edenhofer said, "in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming. Perhaps Naomi Klein summed up best what the warming the fuss is all about in her book "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate." "What if global warming isn't only a crisis?" Klein asks in a preview of a documentary inspired by her book. "What if it's the best chance we're ever going to get to build a better world?" 
In her mind, the world has to "change, or be changed" because an "economic system" -- meaning free-market capitalism -- has caused environmental "wreckage." This is how the global warming alarmist community thinks. It wants to frighten, intimidate and then assume command. It needs a "crisis" to take advantage of, a hobgoblin to menace the people, so that they will beg for protection from the imaginary threat. The alarmists' "better world" is one in which they rule a global welfare state. They've admitted this themselves.  http://www.investors.com/politics/ed...warming-scare/  RELATED: The Paris Climate Deal Was A 'Fraud' And A 'Sham' ... Until Trump Decided To Ditch It By Leaving Paris Climate-Change Deal, Trump By Leaving Paris Climate-Change Deal, Trump Will Do U.S. Economy A 'Yuuuge' Favor

----------


## Marc

Moronic comments are always welcome, but at least be honest about what you expect to achieve with your global warming activism. 
If you don't even know what is the aim of your own movement then, I am afraid you need to find a good psychiatrist.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Moronic comments are always welcome, but at least be honest about what you expect to achieve with your global warming activism. 
> If you don't even know what is the aim of your own movement then, I am afraid you need to find a good psychiatrist.

  The aim is to achieve no noticeable (by humans anway) change in the world climate.  
But that won't happen. Mind you most currently living humans won't notice or won't be around to notice what happens anyway. So why whinge, Marc?

----------


## PhilT2

> So why whinge, Marc?

  That's all there is to do when you live under a bridge.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> That's all there is to do when you live under a bridge.

  At least there's no need for a bridge to get over his problem then. Just got to get him used to the idea of the other side. Might be easier to fix DPRK/US relations though.

----------


## Marc

> The aim is to achieve no noticeable (by humans anyway) change in the world climate.  
> But that won't happen. Mind you most currently living humans won't notice or won't be around to notice what happens anyway. So why whinge, Marc?

  It's not like you not to understand. Read the previous post again (16967). It's not about the climate. NO ONE really cares about it, and no one should waste his time worrying about it.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It's not like you not to understand. Read the previous post again. It's not about the climate. NO ONE cares about it, and no one should waste his time worrying about it.

  I can't read it. Tapatalk automatically greys out your cut and pastes for some reason...so they are illegible. Has done for years. 
Plenty of punters care about the climate, the environment and all that stuff. If they didn't we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's just that none of them are in your echo chamber. 
Probably cause they're all shouting into mine... fortunately I have tinnitus and alcohol in here with me.

----------


## chrisp

> I can't read it. Tapatalk automatically greys out your cut and pastes for some reason...so they are illegible. Has done for years.

  What a clever app! It cuts out Marc's BS for you. It must be bliss.

----------


## Marc

Try this, (in a moment of lucidity  :Smilie:   ) it is just text so it should be visible. Otherwise go to the link 
Chris ... I realise you know this but to call the articles I post "mine" is a bit of a stretch. I am not the author so disparaging me makes no difference. Try to read it and reply with your take on the article not my person. Global warming is a fraud. That is it in a nut shell. A fraud with Marxist inspiration and pretense of altruism, that many support without realising that it is not an environmental movement but a left political movement aimed at capturing resources and shift power. A movement that aims and dreams to be a totalitarian regime "for our own good" as all the totalitarian regimes do including North Korea.   
http://www.investors.com/politics/ed...warming-scare/ 
Delenda est Marxism   
Fraud: 
While the global warming alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven't been so good at hiding their real motivation. Yet another one has slipped up and revealed the catalyst driving the climate scare.
We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.
If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures -- they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.  
Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy?  
"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.
For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn't really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."  
Mad as they are, Edenhofer's comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement's dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.
"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."  
The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish -- because, as Edenhofer said, "in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.
Perhaps Naomi Klein summed up best what the warming the fuss is all about in her book "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate."
"What if global warming isn't only a crisis?" Klein asks in a preview of a documentary inspired by her book. "What if it's the best chance we're ever going to get to build a better world?"  
In her mind, the world has to "change, or be changed" because an "economic system" -- meaning free-market capitalism -- has caused environmental "wreckage."
This is how the global warming alarmist community thinks. It wants to frighten, intimidate and then assume command. It needs a "crisis" to take advantage of, a hobgoblin to menace the people, so that they will beg for protection from the imaginary threat. The alarmists' "better world" is one in which they rule a global welfare state. They've admitted this themselves.

----------


## Marc

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.  
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.  
"What if global warming isn't only a crisis?" Klein asks in a preview of a documentary inspired by her book. "What if it's the best chance we're ever going to get to build a better world?" Naomi Klein  
The alarmists' "better world" is one in which they rule a global welfare state. They've admitted this themselves.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Your fears are unlikely to be realised in your lifetime. And yet, one must ask why would what you fear be a bad thing?

----------


## Marc

Unlike the self proclaimed victims who form the masses that feel cheated and shortchanged by life in general and successful people in particular, walking around twisting their hands moaning and groaning, I do not fear much at all, I observe and adapt. 
However to answer your question with the thoughts it deserves it would take way too long. It is like asking why do we need laws at all, why do we marry and why do we have private property or even an elected government, election, democracy, moral codes, 2 genders etc.  
But in short ... if at all possible, to say "why fear what the global warming fraud is attempting" is to validate that the end justifies the means. A falsehood was proposed and it took hold and the falsehood says humans are having a catastrophic effect on the temperature of the planet by their very existence. 
False.
However what I say and the global warming agitators confirm is that the goal, the objective, the aim is not environmental but socio-political. After having failed in spectacular fashion Marxism has dressed itself with the spoils of the green movement and is attempting once more to gain control with false pretenses. 
Far from being interested in any altruistic quest, far from have any interest in the climate, marxist in general are marching to gain control in any form possible. 
If communism is valued by the voters, then they need to form a party and stand on a soap box and see who will vote for them. This convoluted con is not how governments are formed and not how laws are passed. This is how tyrants come to power. I certainly will not condone their methods, not to rob us of our tax money, not to change environmental policy and not to infiltrate the education system teaching a string of degenerate ideas.

----------


## John2b

> ...After having failed in spectacular fashion Marxism has dressed itself with the spoils of the green movement and is attempting once more to gain control with false pretenses. Far from being interested in any altruistic quest, far from have any interest in the climate, marxist in general are marching to gain control in any form possible....

  What a windfall those marxists have, what with the world's climate warming up just in time for them to adopt that warming for their conspiracy... (sarc). 
In the current economic paradigm growth is touted as the 'means to an end' that will lift people in underdeveloped countries out of poverty. Yet after decades of solid world economic growth which has exceeded population growth by a factor of about 5 times, there are _more_ people living in poverty in the world than there were, _not less!_ 
Everyone witnessed the spectacular failure of the USSR. I have never heard anybody propose Marxism, communism or socialism as a solution to global warming. 
The planet is under stress. Exponential growth hits limits very fast, and in the evolution of humankind there have been many prior limits hit and conquered by changes of behaviour or technology, e.g. farming (as a consequence to depleted natural food sources) and sanitation systems (as a response to plague), even banning CFCs as a response to the hole in the ozone layer that threatened to damage all lifeforms on the Earth's surface if it was allowed to expand. 
With world population doubling every few decades, whilst agriculturally productive land is in decline due to erosion, degradation, desertification, urban sprawl, salinification, and dare I say climate change, how will food production keep abreast of population growth?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> more[/I] people living in poverty in the world than there were, _not less!_

  where did you get that info from, because it doesn't seem correct.  You have to be careful with poverty, plenty of people use relative definitions of poverty to make it seem worse than it is. 
from world bank follows     According to the most recent estimates, in 2013, 10.7 percent of the world’s population lived on less than US$1.90 a day, compared to 12.4 percent in 2012. That’s down from 35 percent in 1990.Nearly 1.1 billion people have moved out of extreme poverty since 1990. In 2013, 767 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day, down from 1.85 billion in 1990.

----------


## John2b

True the World Bank claims poverty is falling in absolute numbers, but the World Bank’s definition of extreme is by no means universally accepted. For decades, critics have pointed to methodological issues while others have questioned the very notion of a one-poverty-line-fits-all approach. But even accepting the World Banks definition, the vast majority of the world reduction in poverty over the past 30 years is a consequence of China's economy, a centrally controlled communist economy  :Shock: .

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Unlike the self proclaimed victims who form the masses that feel cheated and shortchanged by life in general and successful people in particular, walking around twisting their hands moaning and groaning, I do not fear much at all, I observe and adapt. 
> However to answer your question with the thoughts it deserves it would take way too long. It is like asking why do we need laws at all, why do we marry and why do we have private property or even an elected government, election, democracy, moral codes, 2 genders etc.  
> But in short ... if at all possible, to say "why fear what the global warming fraud is attempting" is to validate that the end justifies the means. A falsehood was proposed and it took hold and the falsehood says humans are having a catastrophic effect on the temperature of the planet by their very existence. 
> False.
> However what I say and the global warming agitators confirm is that the goal, the objective, the aim is not environmental but socio-political. After having failed in spectacular fashion Marxism has dressed itself with the spoils of the green movement and is attempting once more to gain control with false pretenses. 
> Far from being interested in any altruistic quest, far from have any interest in the climate, marxist in general are marching to gain control in any form possible. 
> If communism is valued by the voters, then they need to form a party and stand on a soap box and see who will vote for them. This convoluted con is not how governments are formed and not how laws are passed. This is how tyrants come to power. I certainly will not condone their methods, not to rob us of our tax money, not to change environmental policy and not to infiltrate the education system teaching a string of degenerate ideas.

  You can rest your fears then because the socialists, Marxists and Communists won't 'save' us from the impacts of global warming either. Nor will they play a more than cursory role in governance at the world scale in the next couple of decades at least...

----------


## Marc

That is where you are wrong. They have already altered the political culture with political correctness, with massive pretend refugee migration, with massive expenditure in "alternative" energy production, with false teaching and degenerate programs in schools and I can go on. Check your electricity bill. It is a small elite that kick started this, it is the mass of brain dead lefties that makes it possible.

----------


## pharmaboy2

What's the go with electricity bills? 
any cursory reading on the topic will find carbon policy as the very slightest influence, even though sometimes lollies love to overstate it. 
the biggest and dumbest cause was guaranteed rates of return below capital cost for infrastructure spend, so spend $400m on a couple of big sub stations, get a guaranteed 9% return (passed on to customers) borrow at 5%.  This even included paying 60c FITs to solar installations which could then just be passed on to the rest of your customer base. 
then you've got privatisation of the energy suppliers to different types of generation, so a wind supplier brings down the price on a windy afternoon reducing returns for the baseload supplier who has to run all day anyway, hence they start turning them off based on predictions of needed supply. 
its a total cluster f up of disparate policies which seemed on their own to be good ideas but combined with the smartest people being on the private side, and no integrated plan, ended up returning funds to state govts at the cost of higher electricity bills. 
its about to get even worse as the price keeps escalating, people come to the point of producing their own power with grid connection for emergencies. Less profit will drive up the supply charge, then people will go off grid, driving up supply charge even higher for those left. 
carbon pricing did almost nothing (hence no change in price when carbon tax was repealed) 
australia has a special place in the world with some of the most expensive electricity for really no good economic reason  (apart from ineffeiciency)

----------


## woodbe

More news from the SA Government. Once again, stepping away from emissions from electricity generation:     

> Today, we are taking another massive step forward in delivering our plan  for reliable, affordable and clean power for all South Australians.  *My Government is backing a world-leading renewable energy  project - a solar thermal plant in Port Augusta - delivered by  SolarReserve.* 
> This 150MW plant, the biggest of its kind in the world, will supply the  Government with its electricity needs and provide more competition to  the energy market – delivering lower prices to households. 
> Construction of the $650 million project will begin in 2018, and is estimated to be completed in 2020. 
> Importantly, this project will deliver more than 700 jobs, with requirements for local workers, supporting our State's regions. 
> The Port Augusta story is a shining example of the transition of the South Australian economy. 
> We’ve seen the closure of a dirty coal-fired power station. We’re now  seeing the commissioning of this world-leading renewable energy  project.  
> This shows just how far renewable technologies have come. Renewables  have always been cleaner. Renewables are now cheaper. And importantly,  renewables are providing certainty and stability to the market. 
> This, in addition to our State-owned gas plant, and the world's largest  lithium ion battery, will help to make our energy grid more secure. 
> It's another key part of our energy plan, delivering South Australian power for South Australians. 
> ...

  **

----------


## John2b

If you’ve been paying attention, you know that on Aug. 21, we’re in for a special cosmic treat: the Great American Eclipse of 2017.   The moon’s shadow will track a 4,000-kilometre course across the continental United States from coast to coast, beginning with Depoe Bay, Ore., and end after 93 minutes in McClellanville, S.C.. As a result, tens of millions of Americans will be treated to that rarest of natural wonders: a total eclipse of the sun.   Canada, unfortunately, won’t experience a total eclipse, but the view will still be impressive: The sun will be 86 per cent eclipsed in Vancouver, 70 per cent in Toronto, and 58 per cent in Montreal. Canadians who want to experience totality from the comfort of home will need to wait until April 8, 2024 (Hamilton, Montreal and Fredericton), Aug. 23, 2044 (Edmonton and Calgary) or May 1, 2079 (Saint John and Moncton).   In the meantime, back here in 2017, everyone is focused on Aug. 21. Under the path of the eclipse, schools will be closed, traffic will be a nightmare, and hotel rooms at the Days Inn are on offer for $1,600 a night.   Absolute faith in eclipse predictions   What is remarkable among all this excitement and frenzy is the lack of “eclipse deniers.” Nobody doubts or disputes the detailed scientific predictions of what will happen.   I will be watching the eclipse from Simpson County, Ky., where I expect I will be joined by thousands of others, all of us knowing in advance that totality for us will begin at 1:26:44 p.m., and will end 141 seconds later. It is inconceivable to any of us that the predictions will be wrong by even a single second.   Not one person will argue beforehand that the jury is still out on eclipses, that scientists have tampered with the data, that eclipses are faked by NASA, that exposing children to eclipses causes autism or even that eclipses are a Chinese hoax. Across the continent, there will be climate deniers, creationists, anti-vaxxers and flat-Earthers looking upwards through their eclipse glasses, all soaking up this wondrous moment along with everyone else.   https://theconversation.com/eclipse-of-reason-why-do-people-disbelieve-scientists-81068

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> That is where you are wrong. They have already altered the political culture with political correctness, with massive pretend refugee migration, with massive expenditure in "alternative" energy production, with false teaching and degenerate programs in schools and I can go on. Check your electricity bill. It is a small elite that kick started this, it is the mass of brain dead lefties that makes it possible.

  My electricity bill is bugger all. We only use 8 kWh per day and the panels cover most of that. Efficiency is the key but if you want to continue with your blindly heroic consumption of energy go right ahead...just don't complain about the bill or expect anyone to give you solace if you do. 
As for the rest... that's your opinion rather than a statement of fact. Suggesting I'm wrong because my opinion doesn't conform with your opinion is worthy of a benign chuckle.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> More news from the SA Government. Once again, stepping away from emissions from electricity generation:    
> [/B]

  I was intrigued by this. They put out a tender for the power and reckoned this was the best deal and at three quarters of the best bid for a coal fired plant.  
I am curious about the potential fallback position for SA if the deal or proponent goes south before the plant is commissioned. What was the second best option I wonder?

----------


## woodbe

> I was intrigued by this. They put out a tender for the power and reckoned this was the best deal and at three quarters of the best bid for a coal fired plant.  
> I am curious about the potential fallback position for SA if the deal or proponent goes south before the plant is commissioned. What was the second best option I wonder?

  This new plant is a future powerplant that will be starting to be installed in 2018 and expected to be up and running in 2020.  
Anything can happen, but the SolarReserve is a large solar organisation with lots of projects on the ground and in process:  Global Projects â SolarReserve 
SA's current situation is being remedied by this summer. Two Gas power plants, and a new Hornsdale windfarm with the 129MWh Tesla battery.

----------


## phild01

That Tesla deal has me wondering.  Is Tesla's keenness to do this more of an opportunity to use SA as a guinea pig.  They offer it for free if not built on time, but if it has problems, is SA lumbered with a white elephant.  Just wondering, haven't investigated it.

----------


## woodbe

> That Tesla deal has me wondering.  Is Tesla's keenness to do this more of an opportunity to use SA as a guinea pig.  They offer it for free if not built on time, but if it has problems, is SA lumbered with a white elephant.  Just wondering, haven't investigated it.

  So, you think this will be the first major grid connected battery system from Tesla?  https://www.businessinsider.com.au/t...ra-loma-2017-1 
Don't think so... 
The updated plan for wind and solar power plants is to have battery backup options to give better renewable power.

----------


## phild01

> So, you think this will be the first major grid connected battery system from Tesla?  https://www.businessinsider.com.au/t...ra-loma-2017-1 
> Don't think so... 
> The updated plan for wind and solar power plants is to have battery backup options to give better renewable power.

  As I say, not something I have investigated, and only wondering.  Is all the Tesla battery technology the same or is there variation?

----------


## woodbe

> As I say, not something I have investigated, and only wondering.  Is all the Tesla battery technology the same or is there variation?

  Same for Tesla large grid connected battery systems. I think the Tesla Car battery uses different chemistry than the grid battery.

----------


## PhilT2

UQ Gatton solar research facility has had a battery operating for a couple of years now.  UQ Gatton Battery Storage System - The Global Change Institute - The University of Queensland, Australia

----------


## Marc

Some interesting graphs and reading, enjoy https://realclimatescience.com/100-p...te-scientists/

----------


## PhilT2

One of the first graphs taken from the link in marc's post, missing satellite data from before late 1978; which just happens to be the date the satellite was launched. And he blames NOAA for hiding the data from him.

----------


## John2b

> Some interesting graphs and reading, enjoy

  I particularly enjoyed this bit:  The pre-1979 Arctic sea ice data was extremely inconvenient, so NOAA simply made it disappear. They now start their graphs right at the peak year in 1979. I have been trying to obtain the pre-1979 IPCC satellite data from NOAA for over six months, and they have been “unable to locate it.”  It might be because the satellites didn't exist before 1979 LOL.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I particularly enjoyed this bit:  The pre-1979 Arctic sea ice data was extremely inconvenient, so NOAA simply made it disappear. They now start their graphs right at the peak year in 1979. I have been trying to obtain the pre-1979 IPCC satellite data from NOAA for over six months, and they have been unable to locate it.  It might be because the satellites didn't exist before 1979 LOL.

  Tapatalk faded that text out to invisibility so it must be rubbish...  :Tongue:

----------


## PhilT2

Another cherrypicked article; NASA did not publish this report. It was from Spencer and Christy who for the first ten years of satellite measurements believed that there was no warming. They later changed their minds and accepted that there had been some warming. That part of the story was conveniently omitted. Spencer and Christy have continued to 'adjust" their data ever since. I can find no information that says that NASA have concluded that satellite data is more accurate than any other source. Since there is no link to back up that quote I must assume the author couldn't find one either.

----------


## craka

> More news from the SA Government. Once again, stepping away from emissions from electricity generation:    
> [/B]

  I remember seeing a small scale trial setup of one of these the CSIRO had at Mayfield NSW around 2008/2009.  The arrays of mirrors track the sun and all focus back to a thermal pad for heat exchange.

----------


## Marc

> I was intrigued by this. They put out a tender for the power and reckoned this was the best deal and at three quarters of the best bid for a coal fired plant.  
> I am curious about the potential fallback position for SA if the deal or proponent goes south before the plant is commissioned. What was the second best option I wonder?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> 

  When you see a small flock of them it'll mean a coal fired station is underway. When there's a proper flotilla...nuclear power.

----------


## John2b

> Another cherrypicked article  *snip*

  Maybe relevant to humans who live in the upper atmosphere; meanwhile down here on surface Earth only the flapping wings of flying pigs are providing relief from rising temperatures...

----------


## John2b

Looking to buy two half-finished nuclear reactors? It may be your lucky day. 
For sale: two half-finished nuclear reactors (never used)  https://www.commercialrealestate.com...c-all-alwayson

----------


## PhilT2

Trump explainng clean coal technology. "They take out the coal... and they clean it"  What Donald Trump Meant by &#39;Clean Coal&#39; in Phoenix Speech | Time.com 
Lots more people now predicting that he will not last a full term.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Looking to buy two half-finished nuclear reactors? It may be your lucky day. 
> For sale: two half-finished nuclear reactors (never used)  https://www.commercialrealestate.com...c-all-alwayson

  
And why, because it's cheaper to burn gas for baseload!  I'm hoping that outcome isn't something you're considering a win. 
the concrete has been cast, the co2 mostly spent, and they've dropped at the finishing straight because there's suddenly more gas about ( at guess, coal seam)

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Trump explainng clean coal technology. "They take out the coal... and they clean it"  What Donald Trump Meant by &#39;Clean Coal&#39; in Phoenix Speech | Time.com 
> Lots more people now predicting that he will not last a full term.

  To call trump dumb is an insult to stupid people

----------


## Marc

> When you see a small flock of them it'll mean a coal fired station is underway. When there's a proper flotilla...nuclear power.

  Japanese government planning to build 45 new coal fired power stations to diversify supply - ABC Rural - ABC News

----------


## Bros

> Lots more people now predicting that he will not last a full term.

  He's even turning on his close supporters and members of the republican party. 
If he had half a brain he would cultivate the media as the media like it or not have big influences at election times.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Japanese government planning to build 45 new coal fired power stations to diversify supply - ABC Rural - ABC News

  So they are planning a flotilla of flying pigs...when they've released them into the wild then and only then can you revel in your smugness...

----------


## PhilT2

> Japanese government planning to build 45 new coal fired power stations to diversify supply - ABC Rural - ABC News

  With a declining population and increased efficiency leading to decreased demand it is predicted that most of the 45 new power stations will never actually get built. Certainly some will, but as replacement for older plant. Either way Japan remains committed to the Paris agreement. Japanâs thermal power to drop 40% by 2030 : RenewEconomy

----------


## Uncle Bob

I think the Japanese population has only just started it's decline thanks to the Fukushima disaster and probably the whole planet eventually  :Frown:

----------


## Bros

The Japanese population has been in decline for many years. Someone told me that sometime in 2300 there will only be one person left in Japan.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The Japanese population has been in decline for many years. Someone told me that sometime in 2300 there will only be one person left in Japan.

  They've been where we're now since the 1990's. Stagflation. Only a 30 year head start!

----------


## Bros

> They've been where we're now since the 1990's. Stagflation. Only a 30 year head start!

   Yes our population will go into a steep decline. We won't see it but our grandchildren will.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yes our population will go into a steep decline. We won't see it but our grandchildren will.

  Grandchildren?

----------


## Bros

> Grandchildren?

  There will be a few.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> There will be a few.

  True. But will there be enough?

----------


## Bros

> True. But will there be enough?

  We'll never know.

----------


## John2b

> Yes our population will go into a steep decline. We won't see it but our grandchildren will.

  Gee Bros, I didn't realise you were an octogenarian.

----------


## Bros

> Gee Bros, I didn't realise you were an octogenarian.

   I was wondering when someone would find the mistake. I looked up the population growth for Australia and it keeps going up but Japan is going down to oblivion. They forecast the Australian population to be 30 to 40 mil by 2050. Don't know where all the food and water will come from.

----------


## John2b

> I was wondering when someone would find the mistake. I looked up the population growth for Australia and it keeps going up but Japan is going down to oblivion. They forecast the Australian population to be 30 to 40 mil by 2050. Don't know where all the food and water will come from.

  It won't, and that's the point. Food production has been in decline for a decade or two due to over-production, overdrawing of natural resources, etc. There's only 10% of the edible biomass in the oceans that was there a few decades ago. Sure, humanity has got better at harvesting those ever declining resources, but that is just compounding the problem. Hard limits to exponential growth hid hard and much faster than expected. If a resource is harvested at a rate doubling every decade there is only 1 decade between 50% being left, and none being left, even if the resource has been reliably harvested for thousands of years. Like your water example...

----------


## ringtail

So, what's the easiest, least offensive way to kill 3 to 4 billion first world people AND keep the third world exactly where it should be ? Growth, growth, growth. We must have growth. Beautiful, unsustainable growth.

----------


## John2b

> So, what's the easiest, least offensive way to kill 3 to 4 billion first world people AND keep the third world exactly where it should be ? Growth, growth, growth. We must have growth. Beautiful, unsustainable growth.

  No need to kill anyone - just lets live within the planet's resources. What's the point of pissing 99.9% of every resource against the wall anyway? Our rubbish - less than 50kg per year into landfill. Our electricity consumption - about ½ what comes off the 1500 watt array on our roof, our water consumption - what falls on the roof. What do we miss out on? Nuthn. NUTHN. Got NAS, massive Home Theatre system, air conditioning (and insulation), two cars (one is a sports car for fun), dishwasher, monitored burglar alarm, basically every mod con - but efficient ones. And we travel overseas most years to visit the outlaws, all within an audited 3 tons of CO2 emissions per year, which is about ⅛ of the Australian average. And we offset that by revegetating and reafforestation projects. For example in the past month we've helped plant about 5,000 trees, some of which we grew from seed ourselves. We aren't doing this for our kids (we don't have any) we're doing it because it is the right thing to do for the planet and its inhabitants, even the ones who think we are nuts!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> So, what's the easiest, least offensive way to kill 3 to 4 billion first world people AND keep the third world exactly where it should be ? Growth, growth, growth. We must have growth. Beautiful, unsustainable growth.

  Virtual reality. Check out a spectacular piece of fiction called 'Shovel Ready'.  
There's a more geeky and less violent version of the same idea called 'Ready Player One' which has been turned into a forthcoming movie by some hack director by the name of Spielberg...

----------


## ringtail

> No need to kill anyone - just lets live within the planet's resources. What's the point of pissing 99.9% of every resource against the wall anyway? Our rubbish - less than 50kg per year into landfill. Our electricity consumption - about ½ what comes off the 1500 watt array on our roof, our water consumption - what falls on the roof. What do we miss out on? Nuthn. NUTHN. Got NAS, massive Home Theatre system, air conditioning (and insulation), two cars (one is a sports car for fun), dishwasher, monitored burglar alarm, basically every mod con - but efficient ones. And we travel overseas most years to visit the outlaws, all within an audited 3 tons of CO2 emissions per year, which is about ⅛ of the Australian average. And we offset that by revegetating and reafforestation projects. For example in the past month we've helped plant about 5,000 trees, some of which we grew from seed ourselves. We aren't doing this for our kids (we don't have any) we're doing it because it is the right thing to do for the planet and its inhabitants, even the ones who think we are nuts!

  Surely killing a few wouldn't do any harm though.

----------


## John2b

> Japanese government planning to build 45 new coal fired power stations to diversify supply - ABC Rural - ABC News

  As in China, Japan's new coal fired power stations are part of an emissions reduction strategy. They will reduce total coal consumption through the retirement of older, less efficient fossil fuel based generation. https://www.iea.org/countries/membercountries/japan/

----------


## John2b

Meanwhile the deck chairs on planet Earth are rearranged and countries play pass-the-parcel on responsibility, wilfully ignorant of the predicament being created.   https://www.climaterealityproject.or...ampaign=CRinPA

----------


## phild01

[QUOTE=John2b;1061092]As in China, Japan's new coal fired power stations are part of an emissions reduction strategy. They will reduce total coal consumption through the retirement of older, less efficient fossil fuel based generation./QUOTE]  :Confused:

----------


## pharmaboy2

> It won't, and that's the point. Food production has been in decline for a decade or two due to over-production, overdrawing of natural resources, etc. There's only 10% of the edible biomass in the oceans that was there a few decades ago. Sure, humanity has got better at harvesting those ever declining resources, but that is just compounding the problem. Hard limits to exponential growth hid hard and much faster than expected. If a resource is harvested at a rate doubling every decade there is only 1 decade between 50% being left, and none being left, even if the resource has been reliably harvested for thousands of years. Like your water example...

  Food production in decline? 
where are you talking about, australia,  Japan, globally, cos it doesn't fit with what's happening out there in the real world, where we are year in year out successfully feeding the globe despite rampant population growth in the countries that can least afford it. 
technology has increased yields spectacularly over the decades, and genetics will give another uptick on that front over the coming decades as well, especially with changing climate so modifying crops can do more with less 
yes Phil, doesn't make sense I know.  Japan can hit targets because they aren't growing, but they need to replace a whole heap of nuclear that they decided to retire due to irrational fears.

----------


## John2b

[QUOTE=phild01;1061095]  

> As in China, Japan's new coal fired power stations are part of an emissions reduction strategy. They will reduce total coal consumption through the retirement of older, less efficient fossil fuel based generation./QUOTE]

  For each new coal fire power station in China, thousands of inefficient coal fired boilers have been shut down. That's one reason why China's coal consumption has been in decline for several years, even though the economy is growing.

----------


## phild01

[QUOTE=John2b;1061103]  

> For each new coal fire power station in China, thousands of inefficient coal fired boilers have been shut down. That's one reason why China's coal consumption has been in decline for several years, even though the economy is growing.

  Seems you like what they are doing but I thought you would object to new coal fired power stations!

----------


## John2b

> ...technology has increased yields spectacularly over the decades, and genetics will give another uptick on that front over the coming decades as well, especially with changing climate so modifying crops can do more with less.

  Irrespective of genetics, natural or modified, crop outputs are dependent on crop inputs - diesel, water, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulphur, trace elements, the 'right' amount of heat and light and enough hours of cold in winter. GMO crops can't make protein if one of the necessary inputs is missing, or sometimes if one is in oversupply. Not all food crops benefit from rising CO2 either; in fact yields of some are in decline already as a consequence of fossil fuel burning. 
Soils need a healthy microscopic life to break down the underlying geological material to create soil and release trace elements and micronutrients that crops need. This process is independent of the veracity of crop production and when the trace elements and micronutrients are depleted, there's not much that can be done with genetics to compensate. 
The vast areas of once productive land has been lost for decades due to erosion, loss of top soil, salinity, which are consequences of land clearing, and urban sprawl. Food production has to compete for water with fossil fuelled and nuclear fired boiling water electricity generation. There isn't enough coastline for all electricity to be generated there without destroying the remnant fish spawning habitat. There simply isn't enough fresh water to feed the current world population and increase the use of water for electricity generation. 
Most nitrogen based fertiliser for commercial production is made from fossil oil or gas, a declining resource. Phosphorus comes from guano based rock deposits, also a finite and declining resource. 
GMO can increase yield, but often at the expense of flavour (e.g. tomatoes) or protein content (e.g. grains). Most GMO research has been based on pesticide resistance, the creation of "Round-Up Ready" crops. This has given rise to "superweeds" which are resistant to herbicides and are another factor in the declining area of productive land. The USA has lost 24,000,000 hectares of productive land due to superweed infestation. 
The edible biomass in the oceans is less than 10% of what was there 100 years ago, due to unsustainable levels of fishing. In fact, there's more mass of plastic in the oceans today than there is mass of fish. 
Climate is changing so fast that it is challenging for plant geneticists to keep up with it. New varieties of fruit trees with lower requirements of chill hours for bud set need to be developed, but trees generally take years to reach maturity. In Australia it is quite frequent to have regional crop failures of apples, cherries, kiwi fruit, etc, due to warming winters. 
When exponential growth hits a hard limit it does so blindingly quickly, as the planet is about to find out. In fact, people with their heads in the sand won't even see it coming, until it hits them like a tsunami.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Such a happy soul John ..... 
The thing about exponential graphs of anything, is that it never continues ad Infinitum.  Population isn't exponential, neither is food demand, nor as we are now finding out, fossil fuel use (when is peak oil coming...) 
in the scientific literature, about the least common GMO I see, is something to do with roundup or weeds, you are too Monsanto focused mate - it's about disease resistance, using less herbicides, drought resistance increasing yield per plant etc. plenty is corporate developed because a farmer is happy to pay more for seed that returns more crop.  But there are plenty more improvements particularly in the third world available for agriculture, and producing more doesn't mean more inputs - ag is just one of the major success stories for humans  
runoff has has to be managed, because this effects fish stocks too, but we do treat the oceans as a free for all. 
no doubt, some places will be changing their crops over time - difficult though, I haven't kept an eye on the rest of the world, but the model predictions of dryness for Australia east haven't really born out, so we are getting temp increases, possibly drier winters but overall average rainfall.  Of course as soon as we get another El Niño, the doomsayers will be back out, right now however we are getting away with it. 
you would have watched al gores latest by now surely John, is it just as dramatic as last time? 
(I'm expecting him to set back proper environmentalism in the US another 10 years again)

----------


## phild01

Just saw school children protesting and advocating same sex marriage on ABC news.  Indoctrination at play in our schools!

----------


## John2b

> Such a happy soul John .....

  I am very happy. Thank you for sharing your concern!   

> The thing about exponential graphs of anything, is that it never continues ad Infinitum. Population isn't exponential, neither is food demand, nor as we are now finding out, fossil fuel use (when is peak oil coming...)

  Exponential growth never continues ad infinitum because it can't - doh! Peak oil has been and gone. "Unconventional" oil is filling the gap since peak oil. And that's another serious reason for the loss of prime agricultural land that I hadn't mentioned in my previous post. Thanks for bringing it up!   

> in the scientific literature, about the least common GMO I see, is something to do with roundup or weeds

  I'm not reading the GMO literature. Does it mention the 24,000,000 hectares of herbicide resistant superweeds in the USA alone?   

> But there are plenty more improvements particularly in the third world available for agriculture, and producing more doesn't mean more inputs - ag is just one of the major success stories for humans

  There are many improvements possible to agriculture, particularly in the third world. You have to accept your cherished magic potato sack story is a myth though. More output means more input QED.   

> runoff has has to be managed, because this effects fish stocks too, but we do treat the oceans as a free for all.

  The jellyfish and slime like it though...   

> no doubt, some places will be changing their crops over time - difficult though

  Yes.   

> I haven't kept an eye on the rest of the world, but the model predictions of dryness for Australia east haven't really born out, so we are getting temp increases, possibly drier winters but overall average rainfall. Of course as soon as we get another El Niño, the doomsayers will be back out, right now however we are getting away with it.

  Overall rainfall totals are meaningless when because of climate change the rain falls when it is destructive rather than productive. Floods, anyone?   

> you would have watched al gores latest by now surely John, is it just as dramatic as last time? 
> (I'm expecting him to set back proper environmentalism in the US another 10 years again)

  I have not ever watched any of Gore's films or even seen him interviewed. I don't need a celebrity to sell me science. In fact, I don't need a scientist to sell me science. Everything in climate science is confined by the laws of conservation of energy. Imperfect as they (i.e. Newtonian Physics) may be, EVERY human achievement is only possible because those laws work well enough.

----------


## pharmaboy2

"Laws of conservation of energy"?  That's a bit left field and not in my understanding standard climate science. 
the earth isn't a closed system - we are right next to a vast zero degree kelvin space that happily takes energy radiated outwards.  It doesn't make sense simply because periods of high volcanic activity cool the earth not warm it because the atmosphere is really what governs the biosphere temp. 
im happy to stick with mainstream science thanks. 
unless you have some quality explanations from mainstream science sites? Happy to read them

----------


## John2b

> "Laws of conservation of energy"?  That's a bit left field and not in my understanding standard climate science. 
> the earth isn't a closed system - we are right next to a vast zero degree kelvin space that happily takes energy radiated outwards.  It doesn't make sense simply because periods of high volcanic activity cool the earth not warm it because the atmosphere is really what governs the biosphere temp. 
> im happy to stick with mainstream science thanks. 
> unless you have some quality explanations from mainstream science sites? Happy to read them

  Hahaha you joking right? You say the Earth's climate system (and its inward and outward radiation, which is what the entire CO2 issue is about) is NOT subject to the laws of conservation of energy? Can you cite ANYONE (Malcolm Roberts and other total crackpots excluded) to support that notion?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Hahaha you joking right? You say the Earth's climate system (and its inward and outward radiation, which is what the entire CO2 issue is about) is NOT subject to the laws of conservation of energy? Can you cite ANYONE (Malcolm Roberts and other total crackpots excluded) to support that notion?

  What, do you English at all? 
i didn't say anything like that.  You said you don't need scientists to sell you climate science, I mean wtf - you smarter than everyone else?  You brought up laws of conservation of energy as if that is all that's needed to explain climate science

----------


## John2b

> What, do you English at all? 
> i didn't say anything like that.  You said you don't need scientists to sell you climate science, I mean wtf - you smarter than everyone else?  You brought up laws of conservation of energy as if that is all that's needed to explain climate science

  I accept science - that's why I don't need to be sold. The Earth's entropy is subject to the laws of conservation of energy. Which bit of that don't you get? It IS all that's needed to understand the Earth's energy balance. And climate science cannot contravene that reality.

----------


## PhilT2

Whether you think it is all that is needed or not, the laws of thermodynamics cause a few issues in denier circles. THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why conventional Greenhouse Theory Violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics 
Maybe we need Wein and Planck as well.

----------


## Marc

> Just saw school children protesting and advocating same sex marriage on ABC news.  Indoctrination at play in our schools!

  Marxism at work. Every value is a target, every asset is a target. The west is falling victim of it's own tolerance and democratic process.
The fool and the idle are their agents.

----------


## John2b

> Whether you think it is all that is needed or not, the laws of thermodynamics cause a few issues in denier circles. THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Why conventional Greenhouse Theory Violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

  The model they are trying to debunk is nothing like the actual 'greenhouse effect', obviously a trivial misunderstanding of the process by a nincompoop, so it's a rather pointless strawman article. The pause never happened, either.

----------


## PhilT2

> The model they are trying to debunk is nothing like the actual 'greenhouse effect', obviously a trivial misunderstanding of the process by a nincompoop, so it's a rather pointless strawman article. The pause never happened, either.

  I have that site bookmarked because I can't find a better example of a failure to do basic math*s* among denier blogs. Though the competition is tough. Scroll down to the scenario he uses to illustrate how the first law can't possibly work. There's an input of 1unit, then magically a further 0.1 appears from nowhere, is radiated, reflected and then added to total radiation. In denier math*s* this is proof. From a person with a degree.

----------


## Bros

Well I just added to the unsustainability of resources, I pensioned off my 6yr old steam driven mobile phone and bought a smart phone. even though my other phone is still working but I want to find out what people are looking at when I go to the doctors, shopping center, walking along the road etc. 
I got an Iphone and I notice it has an expiry date. Looking into it it seems to be a date when apple wont support or my suspicious mind tell me it could be another Volkswagen and there is a part in the operating system which after this date will drastically slow down the phone and make it unreliable. Volkswagen kept their secret well and it took an outsider to find out what they had done. 
I'm not normally a person to throw something that is still working away but I must be getting soft in the head.

----------


## chrisp

> Well I just added to the unsustainability of resources, I pensioned off my 6yr old steam driven mobile phone and bought a smart phone.

   :2thumbsup: 
You'll be able to read and post in the forum 24/7 no matter where you are.

----------


## Bros

> You'll be able to read and post in the forum 24/7 no matter where you are.

  I think not, or I hope not.

----------


## phild01

You might end up like me, my smart phone is for calls and the time.  Have no intention of using the google store.

----------


## John2b

> I got an Iphone and I notice it has an expiry date. Looking into it it seems to be a date when apple wont support or my suspicious mind tell me it could be another Volkswagen and there is a part in the operating system which after this date will drastically slow down the phone and make it unreliable. Volkswagen kept their secret well and it took an outsider to find out what they had done.

  Not sure about the iPhone expiry date thing. Mine iPhone is even older than your 'steam phone' (purchased October 2010) and still works just fine. In fact, I sold quite a few thousands of dollars of test equipment that have been replaced by some relatively cheap iPhone apps and a few inexpensive interfaces. These are electroacoustic analysers and measurement tools which I use very frequently, almost daily. 
Volkswagen wasn't doing anything that nearly all auto manufacturers were doing, BTW. The mistake VW made was to boast about it within inner circles of the auto industry. Regulators have known only too well about the emissions breaches for many, many years, even decades, but because of the strength of the auto industry lobby, governments haven't given the regulators the power to act.

----------


## Bros

> Volkswagen wasn't doing anything that nearly all auto manufacturers were doing, BTW. The mistake VW made was to boast about it.

  They certainly weren't boasting about bypassing the emission controls when not under test.

----------


## John2b

> They certainly weren't boasting about bypassing the emission controls when not under test.

  They certainly were very smug about it: VW papers shed light on emissions scandal - BBC News  http://fortune.com/inside-volkswagen-emissions-scandal/ 
The history of engine 'condition of use' detection strategies goes back at least as far as Chrysler's "Lean Burn" carburettion / ignition control systems introduced with the Australian CL Valiant in 1976. The lean burn caused NOX emissions to peak, but it was only allowed to occur after a period of 'steady state' driving, which conveniently precluded any kind of emission testing routine. It did this by monitoring how frequently the throttle was being opened and closed.

----------


## johnc

We had one of those cheating engines rated at 6.5l per 100k it produced 5.4l over a number of years. I am not complaining. Now using the Euro 6 version will happy if it does as well

----------


## PhilT2

One VW engineer has already been sentenced and a number of executives are scheduled for trial shortly with jail sentences expected for some. https://www.motoring.com.au/volkswag...jailed-108624/

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I accept science - that's why I don't need to be sold. The Earth's entropy is subject to the laws of conservation of energy. Which bit of that don't you get? It IS all that's needed to understand the Earth's energy balance. And climate science cannot contravene that reality.

  The bit?  It's not an isolated system, you just can't avoid that obvious fact .  The sun is external, volcanology is external to biosphere climate, the earth loses heat to space. The balance between radiation in and out is not fixed, not only that but all carbon dioxide is not from biologic sources so moves in and out of the carbon cycle, effectively the same for Methane. 
if you want to define the earth as a closed system, go ahead, making an assumption to make the maths easy however does not make it true

----------


## John2b

> if you want to define the earth as a closed system, go ahead, making an assumption to make the maths easy however does not make it true

  I don't know what your post means - I haven't defined anything. I said the Earth must conform to the laws of entropy. You haven't suggested any reason why it doesn't or shouldn't. Maybe we actually agree putting semantics aside. 
To quote someone much more knowledgeable than I am:  "The fundamentals of AGW are very simply that we pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and causing the atmospheric concentrations to rise. This increased atmospheric CO2 reduces the outgoing longwavelength flux and pushes the system out of energy balance; we will be gaining more energy than were losing. This extra energy will be distributed throughout the climate system (atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere) and some of it will warm the surface, causing surface temperatures to rise. In fact  given the increase in atmospheric CO2  the only way to regain energy balance is for surface temperatures to rise.  
Of course, our climate is very complicated and there are various circulations patterns/cycles in the atmosphere and in the oceans. This means that there will periods when this extra energy is distributed in such a way as to cause the surface to warm faster/slower than at other times. This doesnt, however, mean that some of the warming is not anthropogenic; until we regain energy balance, its essentially all anthropogenic."

----------


## pharmaboy2

Agree with the quote, I'm not a physicist and know for sure I don't understand laws of thermodynamics, so I'll leave it at that. 
some possibly interesting news  https://www.newcastle.edu.au/newsroo...xide-emissions 
the sorts of symptoms solutions we need to find - wonder if there is potential in cement production given its such a high producer of co2

----------


## PhilT2

A weather station outside Houston, Texas has recorded 51.88 inches of rain from Hurricane Harvey. So far 30 fatalities have been reported. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/u...g.html?mcubz=1

----------


## Marc

It's all my fault. Flatulence and 4wd galore. Oh well, I can take it, blame away.   

> Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. ... Winston Churchill

----------


## PhilT2

> It's all my fault.

  We accept your acknowledgement of guilt. A space has been reserved for you in the cell with the VW engineer; he has been alone there for some time and eagerly awaits your arrival.
The global warmist, UN Agenda 21 socialist plot for world domination is proceeding to plan, all co2 offenders will be eliminated.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It's all my fault. Flatulence and 4wd galore. Oh well, I can take it, blame away.

  That's the great thing about weather. Everybody shares it. Politics be damned.

----------


## Marc

'Climate Denier': Imprecise, Fallacious And Hateful  
Robert Bradley Jr. , CONTRIBUTOR  
I cover energy issues from a private property, free market perspective  
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.  
"Trump Taps Climate Skeptic for Top Environmental Post." So read a page-one headline in the Wall Street Journal last month. A balanced article followed, describing president-elect Trump's pick for administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt. One opinion was quoted from oil and gas producer Harold Hamm; an opposite view from climate activist Tom Steyer.  
Compare that to the New York Times. CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL read the print edition subtitle. The web headline: "Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Denialist, to Lead E.P.A." The Times article does not quote any supporters of the pick but does usefully quote Pruitt himself.  
"Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind," he wrote in National Review earlier this year. "That debate should be encouraged  in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime."  
This tale of two newspaper headlines indicates the highly polarized, emotional debate over the physical science, economics, politics, and diplomacy of climate change. But words and terms are powerful things. Precision and civility are needed in light of the confirmation debate set for EPA administrator-designate Pruitt.  
More precise, descriptive, and noninflammatory terms need to come to the top in a new policy era. The term skeptic can be joined by critic to designate those wary of what passes for mainstream climate science.  
As the climate "consensus" continues to weaken (climate warming is well below model predictions), and natural warming in the post-Little Ice Age era is better understood and appreciated, non-alarmist rather than "skeptic" or "critic" should come to be used more for the Pruitt position.  
A term still more favorable (than skeptic) is climate change realist: someone who embraces the global lukewarming,beneficial view of climate sensitivity to the enhanced greenhouse effect.  
A multidisciplinary descriptor for Pruitt would be critic of climate activism, meaning someone who does not accept the alleged problem in the first place, or who fears a government solution more than the alleged problem of unpriced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.  
Imprecision and Fallacy  
One term needs to be banished from the debate. A referee should throw the flag for unsportsmanlike conduct at the use of the term climate denier in Pruitt's hearing.  
The first problem with this term is its notorious imprecision. Conservatives and libertarians can certainly agree with climate scientist/activist James Hansen's statement that  
Climate is always changing. Climate would fluctuate without any change of climate forcings. The chaotic aspect of climate is an innate characteristic of the coupled fundamental equations describing climate system dynamics.  
The real question is the extent to which climate change is occurring relative to the past, and to what extent the causality is natural versus manmade (anthropogenic). The pyramid of evaluation then goes to questions about the extent to which manmade change is good or bad  whether government policy should intervene . and if so, how that intervention should be divided between mitigation and adaptation.  
That multifaceted debate is far beyond the scope of this post. But the term "denier" does not describe the Pruitt-side position. Because no one denies that the climate is changing, "denial" and "denier" represent a straw man fallacy, defined as: Substituting for a person's actual position or argument a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position or argument. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertb.../#7662890a1757

----------


## John2b

> ...As the climate "consensus" continues to weaken (climate warming is well below model predictions), and natural warming in the post-Little Ice Age era is better understood and appreciated, non-alarmist rather than "skeptic" or "critic" should come to be used more for the Pruitt position.  A term still more favorable (than skeptic) is climate change realist: someone who embraces the global lukewarming,beneficial view of climate sensitivity to the enhanced greenhouse effect....

  These two sentences encapsulate why the term "denier" is in reality much too mild. For a start, there is no weakening in the concordance of scientific research on climate which is approximately of the order of 99.99%, and rising daily. If you want to be considered a climate change realist, don't say there is any scientific debate that the cause of recent global warming is anything other than anthropogenically induced warming - there is not! (Well, except amongst deniers...) 
The benefits of global warming are a moot point, but there is no uncertainty that global warming at the rate that is happening now is NOT beneficial to currently living species of flora and fauna, because it is clearly outpacing the rate at which said species can adapt, even the technologically savvy Homosapians!

----------


## John2b

*BOM: Australia's hottest winter on record, maximum temperatures up nearly 2C on the long-term average* BOM: Australia&#039;s hottest winter on record, maximum temperatures up nearly 2C on the long-term average - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## DavoSyd

> bom: Australia&#039;s hottest winter on record, maximum temperatures up nearly 2c on the long-term average - abc news (australian broadcasting corporation)

  faaaaaaakkkkkeeee

----------


## Bros

> *BOM: Australia's hottest winter on record, maximum temperatures up nearly 2C on the long-term average*   BOM: Australia&#039;s hottest winter on record, maximum temperatures up nearly 2C on the long-term average - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  I'm not sure it means a lot as I heard BOM have an explanation for it was the cold fronts that normally move from SW through were passing south as the high pressure systems were to strong and to far north. Be interesting to know the averages for all states except QLD, NT and North WA. As the explaination from BOM was while unusual was normal.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I'm not sure it means a lot as I heard BOM have an explanation for it was the cold fronts that normally move from SW through were passing south as the high pressure systems were to strong and to far north. Be interesting to know the averages for all states except QLD, NT and North WA. As the explaination from BOM was while unusual was normal.

  "Be alert but not alarmed" is all the rage in the public service these days...

----------


## John2b

*We can't say Hurricane Harvey caused climate science deniers but it certainly worsened them*https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&client=safari

----------


## John2b

> ... Be interesting to know the averages for all states except QLD, NT and North WA. ...

  Here's the map of averages from the BOM page:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Here's the map of averages from the BOM page:

  No wonder no one noticed eh?

----------


## Marc

What does "average" mean, who "averages" it and who says average is good and higher than average is bad?
And how much higher? 0.1C higher than 25C is above average. So what? 
Scaremongering brings money in for this clowns. So they will continue to fake data like they have done for the last 30 years. This are the fake news that take money from your pocket and puts it in the pockets of the fake news industry and the electricity company pockets and all the other "alternative" industries that have sprung up. 
Unless you feed from this new industry I suggest you are shooting yourself in the foot by continuing to support the global warming alarmism. You will not change a iota in the "global" context, you will not save the planet that needs not saving. I suppose you may get some sense of satisfaction but the same can be achieved with a hobby.
I suggest train spotting as an equivalently meaningless activity.
Or you can enter in a rock paper scissors championship.

----------


## PhilT2

> Scaremongering brings money in for this clowns. So they will continue to fake data like they have done for the last 30 years.

  One day you might share all the evidence that you have of this fakery. Maybe you will find the cojones to actually name the local people you believe are doing it. But I'm not holding my breath. Then at least the matter could be settled in a defamation action where the lawyers for the scientists of the weather bureau could take your house to cover their costs. 
I don't intend this as a personal attack but you have made allegations (which you can't prove) against the Australian scientific community; some of whom I know reasonably well. They deserve better than this. Time to put up or shut up.

----------


## John2b

> So they will continue to fake data like they have done for the last 30 years.

  So why were the oil companies publishing fake data more than thirty years ago? Surely it was against their own interests to acknowledge the problem of global warming from CO2 emissions as Canada's Imperial Oil (Esso) did in its annual report in 1980:   
The annual environmental report went on to acknowledge that atmospheric CO2 had risen from 280 ppm in 1850 to 320 ppm in 1980. Interestingly in those days ~95% of the community blamed industry for environmental degradation and more than 90% wanted governments to do more. It is amazing how much benefit the fossil fuel industry has derived from a few $billion spent on astroturfing, spin and lobbying to tone down public concern over global warming to where it is today, and to cultivate automatons that proselytize the idea of bogus science on their behalf (as we see too often in this thread).  https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ronmental.html

----------


## PhilT2

Nick Anderson by Nick Anderson for Sep 1, 2017 | Read Comic Strips at GoComics.com

----------


## UseByDate

How hard would it be to power the world with “renewable” energy?
 This video is definitely thought provoking. It is mainly UK centred but a lot of the presentation deals with the world.
 NB Rate of energy consumption in the UK is 125kWh per day per person and in Australia is 200kWh per day per person. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o

----------


## pharmaboy2

> How hard would it be to power the world with “renewable” energy?
>  This video is definitely thought provoking. It is mainly UK centred but a lot of the presentation deals with the world.
>  NB Rate of energy consumption in the UK is 125kWh per day per person and in Australia is 200kWh per day per person. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o

  Good video, will upset a few people here though.  We could definately do with more rattional conversation

----------


## Marc

Skewed politically correct. Does not mention coal generation because according to him, coal production in UK has peaked. whatever that means, yet he happily proposes to "reduce population" and install solar panels in someone else's country among other nonsense. No mention that there is enough coal to power the world for another two centuries or three.  
If we have to go into a sensible conversation, the first question is why do we have to reduce CO2 emissions? He is happy to part from a false premise that this is imperative. It is not. More global warming propaganda only with pretend white gloves. 
It's an improvement from the watermelon agitators, but equally unproductive. Proposes nothing, besides "not shouting"  :Smack:  this is for mentioning population reduction and for ridiculing status and lifestyle (other people's life style of course not his own) 
All in all I give him 2 for trying and zero for content.

----------


## UseByDate

> (other people's life style of course not his own)

  Marc; He is dead. :Doh:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay

----------


## woodbe

> If we have to go into a sensible conversation, the first question is why do we have to reduce CO2 emissions? He is happy to part from a false premise that this is imperative. It is not.

  Like most scientists and also now most of the population accept the results of repeated and published climate science. Climate science isn't new and has been confirmed repeatedly. David Mackay in the TedEd talk is a scientist, a Physicist. 
Why do we have to reduce CO2 emissions? Because we are damaging the planet for future of humanity. This is a true premise, but denied by a small group of science deniers, fed by information from sources like the oil industry, just like the tobacco industry denied the effect of their impact on the population while they poured the cash into their vaults.

----------


## Marc

Why the head slapping? Am I supposed to know? 
It's still a zero.

----------


## John2b

It appears that the data David Mackay was using was quite out of date (he prepared this talk in 2008 BTW). Energy demand in the UK has been falling for more than a decade and renewables rising much faster than he seemed to anticipate possible, already more than quadrupling the data he used. Fossil energy sources in the UK contribute vastly less today to the energy mix in the UK today. 
Anyone who has worked in energy auditing, as I have, would not agree with MacKay that energy savings must be as difficult and life changing or as limited in scope as he posited, at least not for technical reasons. Seriously reducing energy wastage would probably mean the world doesn't even need new renewables, and everybody would be better off through lower a proportion of income spent on energy. 
Of course the corporations who run the so called "free market" would not be better off if centrally controlled energy markets decline, so there isn't much chance of change that benefits ordinary people happening whilst the fossil energy companies have so much financial and lobbying power that they can and do dictate national energy policy in most countries of the world. 
It is interesting to see Australia's position at the top left of MacKay's graphic, with enormous reserves of renewable energy per person, per consumption and per land area. It's ridiculous that Australia's fortuitous world leading position for renewables has been squandered, Australia's public energy infrastructure sold to overseas interests and Australia's fossil energy reserves dumped uncompetitively on the international market when Australia is a net importer of energy. And then sheeple complain about the cost of electricity and gas in Australia. We haven't seen anything yet!

----------


## Marc

I think I agree with John this time. 
Did I really say that?  :Biggrin:

----------


## pharmaboy2

> It appears that the data David Mackay was using was quite out of date (he prepared this talk in 2008 BTW). Energy demand in the UK has been falling for more than a decade and renewables rising much faster than he seemed to anticipate possible, already more than quadrupling the data he used. Fossil energy sources in the UK contribute vastly less today to the energy mix in the UK today. 
> t!

  Got some numbers? 
he was talking total energy use, and when I read the latest and greatest from the guardian and the lauded twenty five percent renewables, I note it doesn't include heating, nor transport and is only talking about electricity.  Even including nuclear they are at forty five percent, but just for electricity. 
The maths is the maths, it's way off where we need to be , I say from the comforts of my ducted air house....

----------


## John2b

> Got some numbers?

  http://www.iea.org/media/countries/UnitedKingdom.pdf

----------


## pharmaboy2

Fitz in with exactly what my thoughts are.  Electricity gen is around 25% renewable, but add in the whole mix and those graphs are gently moving not much change from 2010 or whatever

----------


## John2b

Electricity generated from renewables had been increasing ~19% year on year and accounted for 11.3% in 2012, and was up to 26% in 2015. That's 350% increase from 2010. Emissions were 25% lower in 2016 than in 2015, from changes in the electricity mix. That means each Briton effectively produced 400kg less CO2 without doing anything. Generation from coal and gas combined has fallen by 38% since 2010.   

> ...not much change from 2010 or whatever

      PARDON???  :Yikes2:

----------


## pharmaboy2

John, you seemed to have missed the point .  It was 90% non renewable for the whole energy use, not electricity.  I understand they have done a great job with electricity, but mckay was trying to get people to understand the total size of the problem.  
 You must include transport, gas used for heating, energy used in industry as well for a carbon footprint. 
Gas is being used instead of coal, which personally I don't see as a win for the environment at all.  They have achieved more than we have, but there is so far to go, everything at our disposal has to be used.  You just can't solve the problem with wind turbines, and especially not transport fuel with crops (that is a dead end in terms of resources needed) 
mind you, I'm not sure "imports" is any great achievement.  Anyone surviving on imports is not secure, and the imports ultimately probably come from fossil fuel anyway

----------


## John2b

No I do not 'miss the point' - I do realise that electricity is a small part of total energy consumption. I said that in his TED talk MacKay used old data (which he did) and that the data was out of date (which it was) and that things have changed much faster than MacKay posited as possible (which they have). So rather than seeing MacKays TED talk as constructive, I see it as mis-informative and de-motivational. I am *not* suggesting that was his intent, but those two issues with the presentation are not helpful. BTW _part_ of the rapid change to 2016 is due to energy efficiencies, which are occurring in the _whole_ energy sector, not just electricity.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Well, I've read all your stuff, and frankly it doesn't seem to disagree with what he said at all.   
Perhaps its demotivaional because it's true, and you can't escape from this impending 2c increase with fluffy things like wind and biomass.  You need serious change, and while we have lots of space, they don't but they do at least have nuclear to help them along, but because they have gas, they are also burning shed loads of the stuff as well. 
first thing we need is for Greenpeace to be dissolved, then probably the Republican, everything else will flow from there 
im pretty sure David McKay would like to disagree with you John, he isn't a fan of green washing

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I think I agree with John this time. 
> Did I really say that?

  That's it, I'm all for someone that disagrees with both ends of the spectrum, sorry Marc.

----------


## John2b

I didn't write much or post much at all, so for you to hang anything on what I posted is more than a bit futile. However, if you read as widely as I do, you wouldn't be impressed much by any single person's point of view, and you might be a little bit more of a true sceptic. 
BTW more than 2C of average surface warming is already locked in even if greenhouse gas emissions stopped yesterday morning. The Paris agreement is about limiting the _transient_ temperature response, not the _equilibrium_ temperature response, which is where the climate will end up without active de-carbonisation of the atmosphere. And that warming will not be evenly distributed, with some areas warming maybe 5 times as much as average - ouch!

----------


## John2b

> That's it, I'm all for someone that disagrees with both ends of the spectrum, sorry Marc.

  Science, and the reality it documents, does not have a 'spectrum'. Thinking it is right or clever to be 'on the fence' or 'in the middle' is just being delusional.

----------


## UseByDate

> Why the head slapping? Am I supposed to know? 
> It's still a zero.

  I just assumed that you had undertaken basic research into the subject and the presenter before offering your critique of the presentation and was just having a doh moment. It seems I was wrong.

----------


## UseByDate

> It appears that the data David Mackay was using was quite out of date (he prepared this talk in 2008 BTW). Energy demand in the UK has been falling for more than a decade and renewables rising much faster than he seemed to anticipate possible, already more than quadrupling the data he used. Fossil energy sources in the UK contribute vastly less today to the energy mix in the UK today. 
> Anyone who has worked in energy auditing, as I have, would not agree with MacKay that energy savings must be as difficult and life changing or as limited in scope as he posited, at least not for technical reasons. Seriously reducing energy wastage would probably mean the world doesn't even need new renewables, and everybody would be better off through lower a proportion of income spent on energy. 
> Of course the corporations who run the so called "free market" would not be better off if centrally controlled energy markets decline, so there isn't much chance of change that benefits ordinary people happening whilst the fossil energy companies have so much financial and lobbying power that they can and do dictate national energy policy in most countries of the world. 
> It is interesting to see Australia's position at the top left of MacKay's graphic, with enormous reserves of renewable energy per person, per consumption and per land area. It's ridiculous that Australia's fortuitous world leading position for renewables has been squandered, Australia's public energy infrastructure sold to overseas interests and Australia's fossil energy reserves dumped uncompetitively on the international market when Australia is a net importer of energy. And then sheeple complain about the cost of electricity and gas in Australia. We haven't seen anything yet!

  Not that out of date. The official figures show a reduction in overall use of energy over 17 years of 17% . Note that most of that was due to energy intensive industry moving offshore. Renewable energy as a percentage of the overall energy consumption went from 1% to 9% over 17 years.
 250 million tonnes of oil equivalent is 123 kWh per person per day.   UK energy: how much, what type and where from? | Visual.ONS

----------


## Marc

I am terrified at the 2C temperature increase. I assume that the sea level will now rise 9 meters for sure. I Think I'll shift my house up the hill next week.
The flooding of the road wouldn't be a problem due to the imminent market release of flying cars powered by miniaturised solar generators and the ubiquitous flux capacitor.

----------


## PhilT2

> I am terrified at the 2C temperature increase. I assume that the sea level will now rise 9 meters for sure. I Think I'll shift my house up the hill next week.

  Just going by the number of things you reckon you've done we figure you are about 127 years old already, so it is a bit optimistic for you to expect to see something that won't happen till 2050 at the earliest. Leave the house where it is.

----------


## John2b

> Not that out of date.

  Your link is a little out of date too. Exponential growth isn't very forgiving of old data. Which is not to say that renewable energy will save the world, and I never suggested it would. More worrying is the exponential growth in consumption of finite resources, AKA economic growth. Some people on this forum think is a wonderful thing, but the faster the economy accelerates, the bigger the bang will be at the end. There will be an end, BTW, and it isn't going to wait for future generations' grandchildren. 
"Economic growth is an artefact of the use of fossil fuels. Before large amounts of coal were extracted, every upswing in industrial production would be met with a downswing in agricultural production, as the charcoal (from wood) or horse power required by industry reduced the land available for growing food. Every prior industrial revolution collapsed, as growth could not be sustained. But coal broke this cycle and enabled – for a few hundred years – the phenomenon we now call sustained growth. 
It was neither capitalism nor communism that made possible the progress of the modern age. It was coal, followed by oil and gas. Now, with the accessible reserves exhausted, we must ransack the hidden corners of the planet to sustain our impossible proposition. The scouring of the planet has only just begun–everywhere that contains something concentrated, unusual, precious, will be sought out and exploited, its resources extracted and dispersed, the world’s diverse and differentiated marvels reduced to the same grey stubble."

----------


## John2b

> I am terrified at the 2C temperature increase. I assume that the sea level will now rise 9 meters for sure.

  I think I agree with you Marc. 
" ...the last interglacial period, about 120,000 years ago, when temperatures were about a degree warmer than pre-industrial levels ... seas were 20 to 30 feet higher than today..."

----------


## UseByDate

> Your link is a little out of date too. Exponential growth isn't very forgiving of old data. Which is not to say that renewable energy will save the world, and I never suggested it would. More worrying is the exponential growth in consumption of finite resources, AKA economic growth. Some people on this forum think is a wonderful thing, but the faster the economy accelerates, the bigger the bang will be at the end. There will be an end, BTW, and it isn't going to wait for future generations' grandchildren. 
> "Economic growth is an artefact of the use of fossil fuels. Before large amounts of coal were extracted, every upswing in industrial production would be met with a downswing in agricultural production, as the charcoal (from wood) or horse power required by industry reduced the land available for growing food. Every prior industrial revolution collapsed, as growth could not be sustained. But coal broke this cycle and enabled – for a few hundred years – the phenomenon we now call sustained growth. 
> It was neither capitalism nor communism that made possible the progress of the modern age. It was coal, followed by oil and gas. Now, with the accessible reserves exhausted, we must ransack the hidden corners of the planet to sustain our impossible proposition. The scouring of the planet has only just begun–everywhere that contains something concentrated, unusual, precious, will be sought out and exploited, its resources extracted and dispersed, the world’s diverse and differentiated marvels reduced to the same grey stubble."

   My link was from the Office for National Statistics hosted on a government website. It was published on the 15 August 2016 collating data to the end of 2015.   
 The following was updated July 2017. https://www.gov.uk/government/upload.../ECUK_2017.pdf 
 Note that this data is “Final energy consumption” whereas my previous referenced data was “Primary energy consumption”.  
              “Overall Final Energy Consumption  Final energy     consumption increased by 2,167 ktoe (1.6 per cent) in 2016 to     140,668 ktoeThe majority of     the increase was due to gas which increased by 1,356 ktoe (3.2 per     cent)The domestic     sector saw the biggest increase in both absolute and percentage     terms; by 1,249 ktoe (3.1 per cent)On a temperature     corrected basis (see key terms), consumption increased by 1,330 ktoe     (0.9 per cent) with transport being the primary driver of this     increaseThe transport     sector accounted for the largest share of final consumption at 40     per cent in 2016, the same share as in 1015, with the domestic     sector accounting for 29 per cent, industry 17 per cent, and the     services sector 14 per cent”

----------


## Marc

Media’s silence of the climate scams
    • MAURICE NEWMAN
    • The Australian
    • 12:00AM August 1, 2017
    •     
How lucky to have gatekeepers such as the ABC, SBS and Fairfax Media to protect us from the likes of Climate Depot founder Marc Morano, recently here promoting his documentary Climate Hustle?  
Thanks to mainstream media censorship, Morano’s groundbreaking film, which promised a heretical fact-finding journey through the propaganda-laced world of climate change, was denied publicity. Described as “the most dangerous documentary of the year”, Climate Hustle “exposes the myth of the 97 per cent ‘scientific’ consensus, debunks hype about temperature and extreme weather, and introduces viewers to key scientists who have reversed their views and converted to scepticism”.  
Fortunately, Al Gore had no difficulty finding the media opportunities Morano couldn’t, to push his apocalyptic movie An Inconvenient Sequel. It continues the scaremongering of Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Like the first, it’s full of scary weather videos and features, Gore reminding us that we are at a tipping point with the result that our children will inherit a world of “stronger storms, wor@sening floods, deeper droughts, mega-fires, tropical diseases spreading through vulnerable populations in all parts of the Earth, melting ice caps flooding coastal cities, unsurvivable heat extremes, and hundreds of millions of climate refugees”. Facts don’t stand in the way of a good story. But, then, most who consider this movie a “must see” will take delight in having their fantasies and prejudices confirmed.  
The movie shamelessly promotes green tech, a field in which Gore is a successful investor. His advocacy and political access are believed to have made him the world’s first “carbon billionaire”. But that’s the self-serving nature of climate-change politics. It confers wealth and privilege on its boosters. Doubters are banished.  
Take the generous financial rewards and status showered on scientists who discover human links to global warming. Under the cloak of academic authority, junk science regularly passes uncritically into the mainstream as credible research. School and university students are indoctrinated with the catastrophic warming faith “so that science can @advance” (and sceptics can be @silenced).  
Crony capitalists are encouraged to invest in renewable energy through attractive taxpayer subsidies. We are told the crippling costs of renewable energy targets are the price we must pay to save the planet. Energy poverty and the premature death of the elderly through lack of affordable heating are downplayed or accepted as collateral damage.  
Much of the media volunteered as propagandists, refusing to report fully and accurately, or even to report at all. Extreme weather events continue to be hyped as proof of reckless human activity when no causation is proved. Against predictions and record human emissions, the decline during the past decade in the frequency and intensity of storms and other natural catastrophes goes largely unreported. And there has been no measurable warming for the past 19 years. Who knew?  
But catastrophic climate change is about political power. Using Malthusian environmental ideology, the climate movement is aimed at what can loosely be called the Western way of life. How else to explain the Paris Agreement under which, for their sins, rich nations must hobble their economies and compensate poor countries so that the largest emitters, China, India and Russia, can emit freely? Donald Trump spotted this idiocy and quit the agreement.  
But even the thuggishness of the climate establishment can’t hide the intellectual corruption behind it all or the willingness of scientists to compromise their work for generous grants and political influence. We’ve had access to thousands of emails and computer files from leading scientists revealing data manipulation, collusion to keep raw data from independent examination and scientific journals pressured to reject contradictory studies.  
Australian scientist Jennifer Marohasy recently outed the Bureau of Meteorology for limiting the lowest temperature that an individual weather station can record. If this is accepted practice, no wonder American physicist Charles Anderson declares “it is now perfectly clear that there are no reliable worldwide temperature records”.  
And on it goes. John Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program and responsible for all weather and climate research, testified that “scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results”. Then, politically inspired to have the maximum possible impact on world leaders attending the 2015 Paris climate conference, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued an exaggerated report based on unverified data. Esteemed scientist Hal Lewis resigned in disgust from the American Physical Society, saying climate change “is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long career”.   *Despite it all, climate science is defended to the death. Invalidate it and “the greatest moral challenge of our generation” unravels and, with it, a compelling reason to meddle in others’ lives.*   
While publicly politicians refuse to discuss the science, they feast on its alarmism. But they cannot forever feign ignorance of the scientific fraud deeply embedded in its core. Australians are waking up. They are growing suspicious of Labor premiers genuflecting to Gore, promising zero net emissions by 2050 and questioning the Turnbull government’s virtue signalling for staying with the Paris Agreement. Slowly it is dawning on them that they and future generations are being played for fools, paying a horrifying price and enduring pointless pain, for spurious “save the planet” propaganda.  
    • Share on Facebook
    • Share on Twitter
    • Share on email
    • Share more...

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Not that out of date. The official figures show a reduction in overall use of energy over 17 years of 17% . Note that most of that was due to energy intensive industry moving offshore. Renewable energy as a percentage of the overall energy consumption went from 1% to 9% over 17 years.
>  250 million tonnes of oil equivalent is 123 kWh per person per day.   UK energy: how much, what type and where from? | Visual.ONS

  you are on the money, but some people have to align any evidence to their own world view, so they reject what disagrees and misappropriate what is close enough till it reinforces beliefs. 
above we have the horrifically simplistic statement that economic growth only exists due to fossil fuel burn. Just writing something doesn't make it true, and worse still, writing tripe just fuels the skeptics, gives them evidence of the green conspiracy they so wish exists. 
i can't help but make an observation about the fossil fueled economic growth idea - if it's true, then more than anything that is argument for massive investment in nuclear power in all its forms in order to progress humanity, because therefore energy is vital to human living standards.

----------


## PhilT2

> "Economic growth is an artefact of the use of fossil fuels.

  Although this was written by George Monbiot in the Guardian, it is not an original idea. Economists have been exploring the relationship between economic growth and fossil fuels for some time. Causal Relationship between Fossil Fuel Consumption and Economic Growth in Japan: A Multivariate Approach | Ishida | International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy

----------


## John2b

Global power consumption today (2011) is about 15 terawatts (TW). Currently, the global nuclear power supply capacity is only 375 gigawatts (GW). In order to examine the large-scale limits of nuclear power, Abbott estimates that to supply 15 TW with nuclear only, *we would need about 15,000 nuclear reactors*. In his analysis, Abbott explores the consequences of building, operating, and decommissioning 15,000 reactors on the Earth, looking at factors such as the amount of land required, radioactive waste, accident rate, risk of proliferation into weapons, uranium abundance and extraction, and the exotic metals used to build the reactors themselves.  
“*A nuclear power station is resource-hungry* and, apart from the fuel, uses many rare metals in its construction,” Abbott told PhysOrg.com. “The dream of a utopia where the world is powered off fission or fusion reactors is simply unattainable. Even a supply of as little as 1 TW stretches resources considerably.”
His findings, some of which are based on the results of previous studies, are summarized below.  
Land and location: One nuclear reactor plant requires about 20.5 km2 (7.9 mi2) of land to accommodate the nuclear power station itself, its exclusion zone, its enrichment plant, ore processing, and supporting infrastructure. Secondly, nuclear reactors need to be located near a massive body of coolant water, but away from dense population zones and natural disaster zones.* Simply finding 15,000 locations on Earth that fulfill these requirements is extremely challenging*.  
Lifetime: Every nuclear power station needs to be decommissioned after 40-60 years of operation due to neutron embrittlement - cracks that develop on the metal surfaces due to radiation. If nuclear stations need to be replaced every 50 years on average, then with 15,000 nuclear power stations, *one station would need to be built and another decommissioned somewhere in the world every day.* Currently, it takes 6-12 years to build a nuclear station, and up to 20 years to decommission one, making this rate of replacement unrealistic.  
Nuclear waste: Although nuclear technology has been around for 60 years, *there is still no universally agreed mode of disposal*. It’s uncertain whether burying the spent fuel and the spent reactor vessels (which are also highly radioactive) may cause radioactive leakage into groundwater or the environment via geological movement.  
Accident rate: To date, there have been 11 nuclear accidents at the level of a full or partial core-melt. These accidents are not the minor accidents that can be avoided with improved safety technology; they are rare events that are not even possible to model in a system as complex as a nuclear station, and arise from unforeseen pathways and unpredictable circumstances (such as the Fukushima accident). Considering that these 11 accidents occurred during a cumulated total of 14,000 reactor-years of nuclear operations, *scaling up to 15,000 reactors would mean we would have a major accident somewhere in the world every month*.  
Proliferation: The more nuclear power stations, the greater the likelihood that materials and expertise for making nuclear weapons may proliferate. Although reactors have proliferation resistance measures, *maintaining accountability for 15,000 reactor sites worldwide would be nearly impossible*.  
Uranium abundance: At the current rate of uranium consumption with conventional reactors, the world supply of viable uranium, which is the most common nuclear fuel, will last for 80 years. Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, the viable uranium supply will last for less than 5 years. (Viable uranium is the uranium that exists in a high enough ore concentration so that extracting the ore is economically justified.)  
Uranium extraction from seawater: Uranium is most often mined from the Earth’s crust, but it can also be extracted from seawater, which contains large quantities of uranium (3.3 ppb, or 4.6 trillion kg). Theoretically, that amount would last for 5,700 years using conventional reactors to supply 15 TW of power. (In fast breeder reactors, which extend the use of uranium by a factor of 60, the uranium could last for 300,000 years. However, Abbott argues that these reactors’ complexity and cost makes them uncompetitive.) Moreover, as uranium is extracted, the uranium concentration of seawater decreases, so that greater and greater quantities of water are needed to be processed in order to extract the same amount of uranium. Abbott calculates that the volume of seawater that would need to be processed would become economically impractical in much less than 30 years.  
Exotic metals: The nuclear containment vessel is made of a variety of exotic rare metals that control and contain the nuclear reaction: hafnium as a neutron absorber, beryllium as a neutron reflector, zirconium for cladding, and niobium to alloy steel and make it last 40-60 years against neutron embrittlement. Extracting these metals raises issues involving cost, sustainability, and environmental impact. In addition, *these metals have many competing industrial uses*; for example, hafnium is used in microchips and beryllium by the semiconductor industry. If a nuclear reactor is built every day, the global supply of these exotic metals needed to build nuclear containment vessels would quickly run down and create a mineral resource crisis. This is a new argument that Abbott puts on the table, which places resource limits on all future-generation nuclear reactors, whether they are fueled by thorium or uranium.   *The same problems plague fusion reactors in addition to fission reactors*, even though commercial fusion is still likely a long way off.  *Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs*  https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclea...nergy.html#jCp

----------


## John2b

> Although this was written by George Monbiot in the Guardian, it is not an original idea. Economists have been exploring the relationship between economic growth and fossil fuels for some time.

  I posted it because I thought it was explained it in a way that was easy to understand. Humanity's advancement is leveraged off exploiting 100s of million years of stored energy (which was all solar originally). And some people don't think it will end in tears LOL.

----------


## John2b

> Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs. Blah, Blah...

  Oh - on top of that, nuclear power stations waste twice as much energy as unwanted heat than they produce in harnessable electricity. If the whole world was powered off nuclear generation, the amount of consequential waste heat itself will impact on global warming by directly warming the atmosphere and water bodies to a significant degree.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Although this was written by George Monbiot in the Guardian, it is not an original idea. Economists have been exploring the relationship between economic growth and fossil fuels for some time. Causal Relationship between Fossil Fuel Consumption and Economic Growth in Japan: A Multivariate Approach | Ishida | International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy

  Alas, it's merely an idea though.  Correlation, causation and all that stuff. 
a beloved concept though of the far left and green left that we must save the world and the only way is to contract our economies, quality of life etc and live simple spartan lives without power, transport, consumables.  It's the sort of stuff that keeps Marc getting out of bed every morning to rage against the conspiracy.   :Wink:

----------


## PhilT2

> Alas, it's merely an idea though.  Correlation, causation and all that stuff. 
> a beloved concept though of the far left and green left that we must save the world and the only way is to contract our economies, quality of life etc and live simple spartan lives without power, transport, consumables.  It's the sort of stuff that keeps Marc getting out of bed every morning to rage against the conspiracy.

  I've hope I've never denied that the left has it's share of nutters, we just don't elect them as president of a nuclear power. It's one of the strategies of deniers to find one random quote (usually out of context) from one random left wing nut and claim that we all support that statement. The problem is that deniers have now started to believe their own lies. 
As for what gets Marc out of bed in the morning I have ceased to believe that anything related to logic or evidence is involved so I don't concern myself too much with it. 
With regard to the cut and paste promoting Marano's "Climate Hustle" I have not seen it nor will I. Reviews are clear that it contains no new information nor any valid scientific work. The people in it who are critical of climate models all retired before Windows 95 was released so I question their evaluation of current modelling technology.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Nailed it Phil. 
ive decided a while ago on my radical path.  That path is pretty much if it appears and is supported by scientific American, Discover ,  I consider it science, if it comes from anyone source with a clear political bent, Many grains of salt should be taken along with it

----------


## John2b

> a beloved concept though of the far left and green left that we must save the world and the only way is to contract our economies, quality of life etc and live simple spartan lives without power, transport, consumables.

  I had to double check the identity of the poster. That sounds like an artisan crafted post only Marc could make LOL. 
I have never met one of these 'far left' or 'green' people who get mentioned here so often, not that I particularly care to. To be clear I have never contended "the only way is to contract our economies, quality of life etc and live simple spartan lives without power, transport, consumables". Quite the contrary, I live with all the mod cons and more 'convenience' than I can possibly know what to do with. But through making considered choices my lifestyle does not encompass all the waste that typifies Australian consumption. Waste and inefficiency is purely optional, and I have opted out to a great extent (there's always more I could do, however). Our household would barely put 50kg of rubbish into landfill per year, yet we live a quality of life that is the envy of many of our much wealthier* contemporaries. (*I've retired so essentially I don't have an income, which makes it easy for people to be wealthier than me - therefore I'll exclude people earning $½million pa and above.) 
If you think I must have to go without something, ask what you think that is, 'cos I'm buggered if I know what it is.

----------


## PhilT2

Nuclear power stations are shutting down as Hurricane Irma continues towards Florida.  Nuclear plants in Hurricane Irma's path are shutting down - Sep. 7, 2017

----------


## John2b

> ...scientific American, Discover...

  Magazines often present representations or 'executive summaries' of the science. Reading them alone doesn't always impart much wisdom, and the articles often contain factual errors - they are not always fact checked by the original researchers.

----------


## John2b

> Nuclear power stations are shutting down as Hurricane Irma continues towards Florida.  Nuclear plants in Hurricane Irma's path are shutting down - Sep. 7, 2017

  What? I thought nuclear was a safe energy source...

----------


## John2b

> My link was from the Office for National Statistics hosted on a government website. It was published on the 15 August 2016 collating data to the end of 2015.

  I did not mean to mock your post - I am sorry if the irony in my post wasn't clear. Geometric and exponential progressions have a property that accelerates with each unit of time. Over timespans of hundreds of time units the difference, say, between plenty of space and asphyxiation is typically *one* time unit. I don't mean to be obtuse but I can't explain it better than that, at least not right now. 
In relation to the data from 2015, that is 'out of date' just because geometric progression is happening.

----------


## John2b

> ...Climate Hustle “exposes the myth of the 97 per cent ‘scientific’ consensus, debunks hype about temperature and extreme weather, and introduces viewers to key scientists who have reversed their views and converted to scepticism”...

  Whoever suggested science was conducted by consensus? In fact, the concordance of observations with anthropogenically induced global warming is greater than 99.99% and rising. The whole point of John Cook's consensus exercise was to show the consistency of conclusions from 10,000s of independently conducted studies. 
John Cook is a researcher in behavioural science, so disparaging his research findings is disingenuous obfuscation of the research's significance, which is that the notion there is a debate about AGW amongst scientists active in the field of climate is pure drivel. 
Climate Hustle does not expose 'the myth' of consensus but merely dog whistles to its audience of ideologues, who then go on their merry way of unthinkingly disseminating that claptrap like perfect little cut and paste automatons - see the post above for an example. 
100% of physicists know that the Newton's law of universal gravitation is actually flawed and does not work at either the extremely large (universe) scale, or the extremely small (atomic) scale. Yet it works well enough that practically every human technological construct ever imagined can and does(!) depend on its application with total faith. 
Even if there are gaps in the understanding of the laws of conservation of energy, even if those laws are flawed at some level, the laws work well enough for there to be absolute certainty the Earth's gain in heat energy consequent to human emissions of CO2 is resulting in higher surface temperatures.

----------


## PhilT2

Anyone know more on this? How close is the underground mine to the dam? https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/env...12-gyflz5.html

----------


## John2b

No surprises here, at least not for those who haven't been sleeping for the past few decades. 
It was made for an internal military audience to illuminate the challenges of operating in megacity environments William Layer, an Army spokesperson  https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/...iggest-cities/

----------


## John2b

It's not summer yet, but rooftop solar still contributed a peak of 48% of SA's electricity a couple of days ago, shifting the old grid delivered electricity consumption minimum from the middle of the night, to the middle of the day. This has a huge impact on reducing necessary grid infrastructure peak capacity and hence the cost required to meet peak demand, because peak electricity demand coincides with peak heat from the Sun (namely air condition loads), which is also when solar PV output peaks.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Tough one is winter evening demand, and how much impact rain has. 
there is however plenty of upgrades needed for network though.   
1.  Off peak usage needs to move to a proper smart control, which of course makes peak demand even higher ( if you are concentrating on solar)
2 networks currently restrict output of solar for network reasons ( commonly 5.0kw) 
(mid winter is the difficulty)

----------


## Marc

The dementia of exporting coal and gas cheap for others to have cheap electricity, and the imbecility of forcing the nation into ultra expensive deals with solar and wind to please a few activist is so idiotic, that is hard to describe in one sentence. History will see this as the age of the boneheaded onanist creeps.

----------


## John2b

> The dementia of exporting coal and gas cheap for others to have cheap electricity...

  A proponent of the 'free market' says this with a straight face WTF   :Shock:   Meanwhile Asian severely cut imports of thermal coal from Australia for economic reasons LOL.  Japan, Taiwan and Korea accelerate demise of thermal coal market : RenewEconomy  India to stop imports of low grade thermal coal in two years, says Piyush Goyal - The Financial Express  China to cut coal capacity by 800 million tonnes by 2020 | Fin24    

> ...the imbecility of forcing the nation into ultra expensive deals with solar and wind to please a few activist...

  It's economics, not activism. Conventional 1880s technology fossil fuel burning water-boiling steam engine electricity generators just don't cut it economically anymore.  IEA: Coal Boom Is Over 
Agl Says It Would Be Too Expensive To Keep Liddell Power Station Running Beyond 2022 Nocookies | The Australian    

> History will see this as the age of the boneheaded onanist creeps.

----------


## Marc

Coal is and will be for many more decades the cheapest fuel to produce electricity. Only a new invention unknown today will bump coal to a second place.
Solar and wind are relegated to the very last and more expensive form of electricity ever produced, when compared on an equal basis.
Arguments from the green left abound, pushed by paid activist who have nothing better to do, otherwise unemployable who have no other ethics then the actions that are self serving. The damage inflicted to the western world economy in the last 20 years by this morons and by the brain dead politicians who think they are clever, is in the order of quadrillions of dollars if you consider the loss of markets. 
Advocating wind and solar as a source of energy whilst selling off cheap energy to other nations should be considered treason.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Coal is and will be for many more decades the cheapest fuel to produce electricity. Only a new invention unknown today will bump coal to a second place.
> Solar and wind are relegated to the very last and more expensive form of electricity ever produced, when compared on an equal basis.
> Arguments from the green left abound, pushed by paid activist who have nothing better to do, otherwise unemployable who have no other ethics then the actions that are self serving. The damage inflicted to the western world economy in the last 20 years by this morons and by the brain dead politicians who think they are clever, is in the order of quadrillions of dollars if you consider the loss of markets. 
> Advocating wind and solar as a source of energy whilst selling off cheap energy to other nations should be considered treason.

  Treason is clearly profitable. At least in the Australian context. We are a quarry after all.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Finally, some good news,  https://www.nature.com/news/limiting...ssible-1.22627 
across a fair few news sites in the last day or so.  Essentially, co2 models are wrong and we can still make the Paris goal.  It will be interesting to see how this paper lands in the next few months and if it changes some of the climatologists views on how long we have and what can be achieved

----------


## John2b

> Finally, some good news...

  Not quite. Nothing is about to overturn the laws of thermodynamics and hide the heat that has accumulated resulting the change in radiation balance due to CO2 emissions. Models are not wrong - thank goodness or else practically every modern technology you depend on and use wouldn't work FFS. The global heat from elevated CO2 levels has accumulated and is there. Using cherry picked noisey and variable proxy records of temperature to pretend it isn't happening isn't going to cut it. Nor is there any reason to expect nations to meet or exceed their targets - quite the contrary.  *Study saying climate change poses less of a threat than first thought 'has been dangerously misinterpreted:*  https://www.standard.co.uk/news/worl...-a3638521.html

----------


## johnc

Looks like a bit of an outlier report, interesting but nothing I would put much value in at this stage, will be interesting if anything follows that gives it some support but at this stage it looks like its base information may be redundant with the changes over the last couple of years in global temperature readings.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Dftt....

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Looks like a bit of an outlier report, interesting but nothing I would put much value in at this stage, will be interesting if anything follows that gives it some support but at this stage it looks like its base information may be redundant with the changes over the last couple of years in global temperature readings.

  well, at least it provides some hope.  I wouldn't be calling it redundant given it was published this week in a pretty significant journal.  Time will tell

----------


## John2b

> Ya didn't read it did you...... seriously why bother with the reply tha is completely irrelevant because you didn't read it

  Yes, I did read it, with just a smidgen of scientific scepticism. And then rather than trust my own judgment, I read what knowledgeable commentators had to say about the 'report'. Then I posted what I found, along with a link to some objective criticism of the report. Did you read that link, or just make an irrelevant post? 
(I posted one link for clarity, not the several reviews of the report that I read. No one link distills all of the criticisms raised BTW.)

----------


## pharmaboy2

Dftt

----------


## John2b

Quote from the study: "Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0 °C above the mid-nineteenth century. If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 °C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation."  As unlikely as this scenario is to occur (quite frankly camels are more likely to pass through the eye of a needle than countries are to give up fossil energy) the paper is still just talking about the *transient* temperature respnse, not the *equlibrium* temperatureresponse, for which the planet is already locked in to well over 2 degrees of warming, even if greenhouse gas emissions went to zero a decade ago.

----------


## John2b

> its a couple of days old, and you've dismissed a paper published in geoscience on your own vibe?  Fark me

  Not my vibe at all - I did not define or proclaim the laws of thermodynamics, and NOBODY has proposed to overturn them with a better set yet. The 'wet behind the ears' brigade are welcome to think there are fairies are the bottom of the atmosphere, but quite frankly accumulated heat is accumulated heat, and it isn't disappearing anytime soon regardless of any wishful thinking.

----------


## Oldsaltoz

> I am dead set against the introduction of an ETS for several reasons. 
> First, even if Global Warming was true we could never reduce emissions to a degree that would have any effect on global temperatures. 
> Second, an ETS will cripple the Australian economy for no net benefit. 
> Third I believe that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming and that there need to be irrefutable evidence both scientific and empirical to prove CO2 is warming the planet and that any warming would be as damaging as they claim. 
> Interested to know your thoughts? 
> Cheers Rod

  Update: Hi Rod, seems the scientists now believe that Co2 is not a warming element at all. in fact it could be a cooling element according to some.

----------


## johnc

The Nature article that Pharma posted a link to expressed doubts about the study, there is nothing wrong with the study itself but it is clearly looking at the rosiest scenario it can. This probably gives us an idea of what we can expected if we actually get our @@@@@ together, so a faster pace of mitigation than we are experiencing. It isn't something written by the liars and misinformers that we often see links to, it is clearly a considered review of data to which optimistic predictions have been applied to. It should be seen as something that could be a part of a suite of information for planners and legislators when looking at worst case, best case scenarios. Let's not get over sensitive it is articles like that which should form part of a rational discussion on the impacts of climate change rather than the Malcolm Roberts variety which are cloud cuckoo land ideas for the imbecilic and deranged amongst us.

----------


## John2b

> ...it is clearly a considered review of data to which optimistic predictions have been applied to. It should be seen as something that could be a part of a suite of information for planners and legislators when looking at worst case, best case scenarios....

  The problem with the scenario presented by the paper is that it extrapolates (estimates, or models, if you like) future projected temperature rise based on the continuation of a cherry-picked period of slow rise of the modern temperature record (the falsely called 'hiatus'). The study is already known to be not 'optimistic', but just plain wrong. They should have used the entire temperature record, warts and all, or given very good reason why they chose not to. 
As far as I can see the study was more an exercise in statistical "curve fitting" to generate a desired outcome (a technique which happens to be an area of expertise of the lead author BTW), rather than a real attempt at progressing understanding of climate science. Whether they framed the study that way intentionally or not, it isn't "rosie", it's delusional. I don't see how an erroneous climate projection generated from aberrant data helps rational discussion about the future consequences of greenhouse gas emissions at all, sorry. 
The paper inadvertently created a bit of a field day for the climate change denier fake news and blog sites:  Possible good news about climate change leads to confused coverage – Scott Johnson/arsTECHNICA.  Daily Wire article misunderstands study on carbon budget (along with Fox News, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, Breitbart…) – Climate Feedback.  Factcheck: Climate models have not ‘exaggerated’ global warming – Zeke Hausfather/Carbon Brief.  Is there really still a chance for staying below 1.5oC global warming – Stefan Rahmstorf/Realclimate.

----------


## dazzler

> Coal is and will be for many more decades the cheapest fuel to produce electricity. Only a new invention unknown today will bump coal to a second place.
> Solar and wind are relegated to the very last and more expensive form of electricity ever produced, when compared on an equal basis.
> .

  Only if you omit the Levelised cost of electricity production (LCOE).   
The two things against Coal in Australia are; 
1. The cost to replace coal power stations at the end of their life
2. A reducing customer base for base load power 
For 1 - Our 'cheap coal' power is from ageing plants.  As these require replacement that cost has to be factored into the price.  Coal power is a fixed cost.  It is not getting cheaper to produce.  Finance to build them, if you can get it, is at much higher rates to cover the risk.  This is why AGL is not going to extend the life of Liddel or build another new coal powered station.  When the POWER company wont invest in Coal there is one simple reason.  Economics.  
For 2 - Consumers with solar such as myself are fairly power sufficient requiring baseload only of an evening.  So our use of baseload, and therefore $$ to the power company, has been declining over the past years and continues to decline.  Every time a customer instals solar the $$ to power companies reduce.  It IS a falling energy market so companies like AGL, in order to make a profit, need to stem the flow of homes with solar power AND those moving to battery backup who will virtually come off the grid totally.  The only way for power companies to maintain a profit is to sell power CHEAPER than a person can do themselves at home with solar/batteries.  AND, Solar and Battery storage are getting cheaper by the month. 
Even if climate change was proven to be crap today coal will still die.  
Its simple economics - Supply and Demand.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Update: Hi Rod, seems the scientists now believe that Co2 is not a warming element at all. in fact it could be a cooling element according to some.

   :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

> Only if you omit the Levelised cost of electricity production (LCOE).   
> The two things against Coal in Australia are; 
> 1. The cost to replace coal power stations at the end of their life
> 2. A reducing customer base for base load power 
> For 1 - Our 'cheap coal' power is from ageing plants.  As these require replacement that cost has to be factored into the price.  Coal power is a fixed cost.  It is not getting cheaper to produce.  Finance to build them, if you can get it, is at much higher rates to cover the risk.  This is why AGL is not going to extend the life of Liddel or build another new coal powered station.  When the POWER company wont invest in Coal there is one simple reason.  Economics.  
> For 2 - Consumers with solar such as myself are fairly power sufficient requiring baseload only of an evening.  So our use of baseload, and therefore $$ to the power company, has been declining over the past years and continues to decline.  Every time a customer instals solar the $$ to power companies reduce.  It IS a falling energy market so companies like AGL, in order to make a profit, need to stem the flow of homes with solar power AND those moving to battery backup who will virtually come off the grid totally.  The only way for power companies to maintain a profit is to sell power CHEAPER than a person can do themselves at home with solar/batteries.  AND, Solar and Battery storage are getting cheaper by the month. 
> Even if climate change was proven to be crap today coal will still die.  
> Its simple economics - Supply and Demand.

  Welcome back Dazzler!

----------


## dazzler

Was in the neighbourhood.  Hi all!

----------


## Marc

Hi Dazzler, welcome back. 
Pity your argument has more holes than Swiss cheese.
I particularly like the   

> 2. A reducing customer base for base load power

  I can picture the average punter placing a sign on his door "No base load canvassing, go away, I am solar self sufficient"  
What a load of hogwash.

----------


## Marc

http://principia-scientific.org/the-...rth-s-climate/  *Combined System Effects*With an increase in CO2, solar absorption by atmosphere increases a bit to 79+ and surface absorption decreases a like amount to 161-. Therefore, surface radiation drops a like amount to 63-. And its T1 drops to 14.85-. With increased e0 the transfer rate from surface to atmosphere by absorption decreases to 23-. And since the atmosphere T0 decreases to -18.15-, the net radiation rate from atmosphere to space must drop to 199- = 79+ + 23- + 97, because CO2 is a better absorber of surface spectrum than solar spectrum. Direct transmittance from surface to space would increase to 40+ such that the total to space remains 199- + 40+ = 239.0, satisfying overall energy balance. *Therefore increasing CO**2** causes decreases in surface T**1** = 14.85-, atmosphere T**0** = -18.15-, and global T = 4.60-. There is no CO**2** global warming mechanism. There are at least four global cooling mechanisms. This refutes UN IPCC claim doubling CO**2** from 400 to 800 causes Earth’s T to increase 1.2C to 2.5C.* *[So it was all a futile exercise.] Can we have the Nobel prize back?*

----------


## DavoSyd

> What a load of hogwash.

----------


## woodbe

> *http://principia-scientific.org/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-dioxide-cools-earth-s-climate/
> Combined System Effects*  With an increase in CO2, solar absorption by atmosphere increases a bit to 79+ and surface absorption decreases a like amount to 161-. Therefore, surface radiation drops a like amount to 63-. And its T1 drops to 14.85-. With increased e0 the transfer rate from surface to atmosphere by absorption decreases to 23-. And since the atmosphere T0 decreases to -18.15-, the net radiation rate from atmosphere to space must drop to 199- = 79+ + 23- + 97, because CO2 is a better absorber of surface spectrum than solar spectrum. Direct transmittance from surface to space would increase to 40+ such that the total to space remains 199- + 40+ = 239.0, satisfying overall energy balance. *Therefore increasing CO**2** causes decreases in surface T**1** = 14.85-, atmosphere T**0** = -18.15-, and global T = 4.60-. There is no CO**2** global warming mechanism. There are at least four global cooling mechanisms. This refutes UN IPCC claim doubling CO**2** from 400 to 800 causes Earth’s T to increase 1.2C to 2.5C.* *
> [So it was all a futile exercise.] Can we have the Nobel prize back?*

  No, you cannot :P    https://www.desmogblog.com/principia...-international

----------


## Marc

Oh I see ... you know better!
Why don't you publish something then?

----------


## woodbe

> Oh I see ... you know better!
> Why don't you publish something then?

  Yes, I clearly know better, it's not difficult to know better if you read real science instead of non-scientific spiel. 
There is a difference between reading scientific published climate data and a non-scientist deciding to publish non-scientific opinions. That's what prinicipia-scientific.org and other climate deniers do. 
Science of climate has been chased and published by thousands of educated scientists. Every published climate paper has been checked by relevant scientists before published. Over time the results are clear to read, but some people never read them, they decide and prefer to read non-scientific rubbish from climate deniers. That's what you do, and you paste it here, not understanding that it clearly shows that you never read or accept real science.

----------


## John2b

> Oh I see ... you know better!
> Why don't you publish something then?

  Why don't you?

----------


## John2b

> The Four Known Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earth&#039;s Climate | Principia Scientific International

  Did you read the article Marc? The lines of argument presented by Dr Pierre Latour are childish gibberish to anyone with a basic understanding of the application of the laws of thermodyanmics to the Earth / Sun / Universe. The author may be an expert in controlling chemical reactions in industrial production, but he is clearly out of depth on surface / atmosphere / space energy transfers.

----------


## Marc

Nocookies | The AustralianOPINION  *A cold climate for science*   MICHAEL ASTENThe Australian12:00AM June 22, 2017 
The clear-headed logic shown by Bjorn Lomborg on this page on Monday (“Paris was never the answer to warming concerns”) underscores the tragedy of Australian universities passing up the opportunity to gain a national institute linked to his Copenhagen Consensus Centre. 
In 2015 the University of Western Australia first accepted $4 million of government money to establish the Australian Consensus Centre, then retreated in the face of politically correct activist-led protests (ironically, despite the fact Lomborg endorses the core tenet of the Paris Agreement that anthropogenic CO2 will lead to an increase in global temperatures of 4C by 2100). 
Flinders University then considered a proposal to establish such a centre, but in a curious coincidence the process terminated in the week of a ministerial reshuffle. I am aware of two other Australian universities where discussions on the possibility of seizing the day, and the $4m on offer, took place but failed to gain support because of high-level ideological opposition to Lomborg’s position, which may be described as “not an alarmist” even though his views qualify as “warmist”. 
While I endorse Lomborg’s work (especially his right to say it, a right by no means widely endorsed in the powerhouses of intellectual diversity we call universities) I happen to disagree on some of his scientific basis. My own studies of historical and ancient temperature records point towards a major component of natural cycles of global temperature variations on timescales of 64 years, hundreds of years and thousands of years. When such cycles over decades and centuries are considered, the magnitude of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or Lomborg’s) projected temperature rise to 2100 is probably reduced by a factor between two and four. 
Nicola Scafetta at the University of Naples has been prolific in analysing global temperature data and identifying dominant frequencies that can be related to natural frequencies of the solar system, of which a 60-65 year cycle is a dominant contributor to change over the past century. That same cycle was identified by Svetlana Jevrejeva of Britain’s National Oceanography Centre in sea-level tidal records going back to 1700. A similar cycle plus a longer one of about 200-250 years has been identified in 250 years of climate records in Germany and 11,000 years of Antarctic ice-core records by German and Chinese scientists led by Horst Ludecke of the University of Applied Sciences at Saarbrucken in Germany. That last cycle fits rather neatly to a record of cyclic advance and retreat of the major glaciers of the European Alps, as studied by Hanspeter Holzhauser at the University of Bern, Switzerland. 
This snippet of peer-reviewed journal publications illustrates the serious case for recognition of such natural cycles. And when we recognise that the 64-year cycle and the 200-year cycle were close to their maximums around 2010 we have a partial explanation for the global temperature increases of the past century, and for the slowdown of the past couple of decades. Rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere do contribute to temperature increases, but Scafetta, for example, calculates it to be only half of that observed. This scenario, founded on observational evidence of quantitative climate change, predicts that future anthropogenic warming will be at most half today’s IPCC estimates and will be offset in part by the onset of cooling associated with the 64-year and 200-year cycles. 
With the clean energy target espoused in the Finkel review calculated to cost Australia $5 billion over 33 years it is truly extraordinary that the nation does not have an independent source of information for evaluating differing scenarios, economic and scientific. Despite that huge slice of national wealth proposed for clean energy, we have zero effort within our existing government-funded research institutions evaluating whether or how the scientific scenario of natural temperature cycles modifies or invalidates the basis for the proposed economic commitments. More alarming, as experience with Lomborg shows, existing institutions apparently refuse to countenance debate on alternative scenarios even when independent funding is on offer. 
John Christy of the University of Alabama and Judith Curry, former chair of the department of atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, are eminent climate scientists who have given expert testimony to US congressional committees. Both have argued that the huge national commitments based on climate science call for an adversarial “red team-blue team” approach to test the claims and counterclaims of mainstream and sceptical scientists. Scott Pruitt, US Environmental Protection Authority Administrator in the Trump administration, endorses the idea as a tool to “ask what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world with respect to this issue of CO2”. Australia co-operates with the US in international military actions and refugee settlement where we see mutual interests. There is opportunity for us to do the same in evaluating the consequences of linked anthropogenic and natural cycles in climate change on our CET and our commitments under the Paris Agreement. 
Michael Asten is a retired professor of geophysics and continuing adjunct senior research fellow at Monash University.

----------


## John2b

> ...The clear-headed logic shown by Bjorn Lomborg...

  You lost me right there with that colossal oxymoronic statement. A little known corollary to 'Heisenberg's uncertainty principle' is 'Lomborg's certainty principle' which asserts that Lomborg cannot exist in the same place and time as logic (sarcasm). 
BTW can somebody please point out the obvious to Aspen: the estimate for the end of century temperature CANNOT be reduced by a factor between two and four, because average temperature rise has ALREADY exceeded his proposed end of century range and is still rising with not a chance of reversal in sight.

----------


## dazzler

Thanks Marc.  
A nice deflection. Care to actually address what I wrote? 
Bet you can't.

----------


## Marc

What are we talking about ? Beer?

----------


## DavoSyd

> Bet you can't.

  i'll jump on that one....

----------


## John2b

There's seriously hot weather brewing with just set records likely to tumble by degrees(!).  New temperature records expected as NSW, Queensland brace for second spring heatwave - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## Marc

*Its worse than They thought: warming is slower than predicted*Guest Blogger / 12 hours ago September 26, 2017 _By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley_ When _The Times,_ a Murdoch paper previously slavish in kow-towing to the Party Line on climate, leads with a story picked up from the more healthily skeptical _Daily Mail_ to the effect that climate scientists have admitted the threat of global warming is not as bad as previously thought, ones first instinct is to cheer. In the climate debate, though, it pays to read the small print. Official climatology does not usually admit its many errors: instead, we are ordered to obey the consensus, as the Party Line is these days rebranded. On reading the headlines, I suspected at once that the true purpose of the latest admission, by Millar _et al._ in the current issue of _Nature Geoscience_, is to minimize and thus to conceal the true magnitude of past over-predictions. Here is how the _Daily Mail_ reported the latest findings: The research by British scientists shows that, under the old projections, the world ought now to be 1.3 C° warmer than the mid-19th century average. In fact the new analysis shows it is 0.9-1.0 C° above. Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, accepted that the old projections had been wrong. There has been just 0.85 C° global warming since 1850, taken as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the HadCRUT4 monthly data. This not particularly thrilling rate it is equivalent to about half a degree per century. Fact-checking this part of Grubbs statement, then, shows that his 0.9-1.0 C° observed warming since 1850 is on the high side, but not by much.  As we shall see, the Millar paper, in saying official climatology would predict only 1.3 C° global warming since 1850, has greatly understated the warming that would have been predicted. Not by coincidence, in the current issue of _Nature Geovoodoo_ there is also a short paper by Gunnar Myhre, whose 1998 intercomparison between three climate models concluded that the CO2 forcing had previously been overstated by 15%. Myhres latest paper says: The combined radiative forcing from all well-mixed greenhouse gases [the non-condensers, notably CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and a sprinkling of halocarbons] was 3.1 Watts per square meter in 2015 , and just about all of that forcing has occurred since 1850. To determine how much global warming official climatology would predict in response to 3.1 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing, we shall use the official zero-dimensional model. The equation for that model is strikingly naïve. Where _w, W_ are pre-feedback and post-feedback global warming respectively (i.e., reference sensitivity and equilibrium sensitivity), and where _f_ is the feedback factor,  You may well be startled  indeed, outraged  that the equation official climatology uses to tell us how much warming were going to get is as naïve as that. Why are we spending billions a year on IPCC if it all boils down to just that nonsensical equation? Nevertheless, I shall calibrate it to demonstrate that, naïve though it is and wrong though it is, it is indeed what climatology now uses. If one takes official values for the inputs _w, f,_ the equation duly spits out the official predictions of equilibrium sensitivity _W_. Vial _et al._ (2013), relied upon by IPCC (2013) for the official diagnosis of the global warming predicted by the latest generation of computer models, says that about 85% of the uncertainty in equilibrium sensitivity _W_ arises from uncertainty in the feedback sum _c,_ and hence in the feedback factor _f,_ which, in the official way of doing things, is simply equal to _c_ divided by 3.2 Kelvin per Watt per square meter. In reality, as we shall hope to demonstrate in a learned paper before long, feedbacks have only a small influence on warming, so that the only uncertainty is in the magnitude of the forcing, but our paper proving that fact is still awaiting reviewers comments now three weeks overdue. For now, therefore, we shall just do things the official way, though it is egregiously at odds with mainstream science  and with experiments commissioned by us at a government laboratory, which have confirmed in every particular that we have correctly understood the mainstream science and official climatology has not. Calibrating the official zero-dimensional-model equation proceeds thus. IPCC (2013, fig. 9.43), cites Vial _et al._ (2013) as having officially diagnosed the feedback sum _c_ from simulated abrupt 4-fold increases in CO2 concentration in 11 fifth-generation models. The 11 models mean value for _c_ was 1.57W m2 K1, implying a mid-range estimate of 0.49for _f_. Vial also gave the 2 σ bounds of _f_ as the mid-range estimate ± 40%. i.e. 0.49 ± 0.20; and the implicit CO2 forcing, atypically including fast feedbacks, was 4.5 Watts per square meter. The direct warming _w_ at CO2 doubling in Vial is thus 4.5 / 3.2 = 1.41 C°, about 20% higher than IPCCs 1.16 C°. Using _f_ = 0.49 and _w_ = 1.41 C°, the zero-dimensional model equation yields an interval of equilibrium sensitivities _W_ of 2.0-4.5 C° in response to doubled CO2, as shown in *bold type* in the table. Since the values the equation determines from official inputs are near-perfectly coextensive with many published official intervals, the equation is duly calibrated. Like it or not (and you shouldnt), it is what the Forces of Darkness use.  The only discrepancy is in the central estimate of post-feedback global warming, where the zero-dimensional model predicts 2.8 K and the published official estimates predict 3.3 K.  This discrepancy arises because official climatology occasionally forgets that the curve of the zero-dimensional-model equation is not a straight line but a rectangular hyperbola (see above). Using IPCCs *3.0* [1.5, 4.5] C° official range of predicted equilibrium sensitivities to doubled CO2, a mid-range estimate _f_ = 0.49 for the feedback factor visibly implies a mid-range estimate of 2.25 C° for post-feedback global warming, not the 3 C° imagined by IPCC, and still less the 3.3 C° that is the CMIP5 models mid-range projection. One can, therefore, determine the implicit mid-range estimate of post-feedback warming in the fifth-generation models by using the zero-dimensional-model equation. Where the direct or pre-feedback warming _w_ in response to doubled CO2 concentration is 1.16 K, and where the post-feedback warming _W_ is predicted to be 3.3 K, as the CMIP5 models predict, the feedback factor implicit in that prediction is 1  (1.16 / 3.3) = 0.65. Now we have enough information to determine the global warming that the CMIP5 models would predict in response to the 3.1 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing, from all anthropogenic sources, that Myhre (2017) says has occurred since about 1850. The direct or pre-feedback warming is simply 3.1 / 3.2, or about 1 C°. Using the now-calibrated but dumb official zero-dimensional-model equation from above, the post-feedback warming that he CMIP5 models would have predicted since 1850 is 1 / (1  0.65), or 2.75 C°, more than twice the 1.3 C° mentioned in the Millar paper and more than three times the 0.85 C° of global warming that has actually occurred. For comparison, our corrected version of the zero-dimensional-model equation would have predicted 1.2 C° warming in response to 3.1 Watts per square meter of anthropogenic forcing since 1850, far closer to the 0.85 C° that was observed than official climatologys 2.75 K. One could do a similar analysis based on the statement in IPCC (2013) that there had been 2.3 Watts per square meter of anthropogenic radiative forcing since pre-industrial times, implying 2.05 C° global warming to date, or almost thrice the 0.75 C° observed from 1850-2011 according to the HadCRUT4 dataset. Our equation would have predicted 1.0 C°, again far closer to observed reality than the 2.05 C° that the official equation would predict. Or one could compare IPCCs central prediction in 1990 that in the 36 years 1990-2025 there would be 1 C° global warming (equivalent to 0.75 C° in the 27 years 1990-2016) with the actual warming of 0.45 C° over the period, taken as the mean of two terrestrial and two satellite datasets. Again, the unsoundly-based official prediction is a substantial exaggeration compared with the observed outturn, but our corrected model comes much closer to the truth, suggesting 0.37 C° warming, far closer to the 0.45 C° that actually occurred than the 0.75 C° that IPCC had predicted. Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University is cited by the _Daily Mail_ as having said that if the world followed ambitious reductions in CO2 emissions there would be even odds of meeting the unscientific Paris aspiration of a Canute-like restriction of global temperature to 1.5 C° above the pre-industrial value, equivalent to 0.65 C° above todays global mean surface temperature. However, on present trends CO2 concentration will rise from 400 to 650 ppmv by 2100, causing a direct warming of 0.8 C°, with a further 0.2 C° contributed by temperature feedbacks. The 1.5 C° aspiration, therefore, will not be met even using our mainstream equation rather than official climatologys defective equation. Unless, that is, Professors Harde and Happer are right that the CO2 forcing, as well as the feedbacks on which our paper concentrates, has been exaggerated. Professor Harde has estimated that it is overstated by 30%; Professor Happer, for a different reason that does not overlap with Professor Hardes conclusion, says the CO2 forcing has been overestimated by 40%. If both Professors are right, the CO2 forcing has been over-predicted by 82%. If we are also right, then the direct warming this century will be 0.45 C°, with another 0.1 C° from feedbacks. Though there are other greenhouse gases, these are more or less exactly offset by negative anthropogenic forcings, so that, even without any mitigation efforts in this century, the Paris ambition will in reality be met by 2100. And, if the world warms by more than 0.65 C° compared to today, but does not do so till after 2100, the rate of warming will be too slow to be dangerous,. There is now no need for the UNFCCC or for the IPCC. Abolish both. Official climatology has vastly exaggerated its predictions. Its disfiguring attempts to conceal the true extent of the discrepancy between exaggerated prediction and unexciting observation will fail. That discrepancy is attributable to errors chiefly in the representation of feedbacks in the zero-dimensional and, inferentially, in the three-dimensional models whose outputs the simple equation faithfully reproduces, indicating its efficacy as a black-box diagnostic. Correction of the errors in the official equation generates predictions far less extreme and far closer to real-world observation than the wild exaggerations on the basis of which governmental and intergovernmental entities have hitherto profitably panicked.  Though the Millar paper serves to conceal the true extent of the official exaggerations on which demands for climate action have been unwisely based, it is at another level an early crack in the dam that indicates that the entire edifice of nonsense is about to fail. Have courage! The truth that global warming will be small, harmless and net-beneficial will soon prevail over the screeching extremists. The Millar paper is not the beginning of the end, but it is at least the end of the beginning.

----------


## John2b

And now Antarctic ice is collapsing as well:  *Sea Ice Extent Sinks to Record Lows at Both Poles* https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...-at-both-poles

----------


## John2b

> *...*_By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley..._

  How does he explain this:

----------


## John2b

While you're talking to Monckton, Marc, ask him to explain this too:

----------


## DavoSyd

monckton = bunkum

----------


## UseByDate

Truck is fuelled with rocks! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko-l-CSqV_8

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I'm still giggling at Monckton's idea that any of the Murdoch papers are slavish to the Party line on climate....

----------


## John2b

Marc/Rod, in view of the supposed collapse of policy on global warming I'd like to know why, despite policy uncertainty, the United States remains the second-largest growth market for renewables, and India's solar PV and wind developments together represent 90% of capacity growth due to the worlds lowest prices for both technologies. Care to comment?  https://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/renew2017MRSsum.pdf

----------


## PhilT2

Someone left the door unlocked and Tony Abbott got out. He had to fly halfway round the world to find a roomful of idiots who would pay to listen to him but only if he told them what they wanted to hear. Luckily, Tony is good at that. https://www.thegwpf.org/tony-abbott-daring-to-doubt/

----------


## DavoSyd



----------


## PhilT2

I don't think Tone is stupid; ok, he might have taken a few hits during his boxing career but most of the brain cells still work. The conservative religious right faction has a good deal of influence in the Liberal Party and in the electorates and Tony knows what they both want to hear. His judgement is affected by his anger at being done over by Malcolm and he has been heavily indoctrinated in his religion. He sees opposition to climate change as the path back to the lodge and revenge on Malcolm. This depends on him being able to blame high electricity prices on renewables and environmental policies. Once he can get enough voters to swallow that he believes that the party will repent and restore him to the leadership. 
His ideas, like his points in the speech at the GWPF, do not stand up to even five minutes of rigorous scrutiny. But Tone is not looking for support from those who think; his appeal is like that of One Nation, an emotional one aimed at mostly older people who fear change and religious fundamentalists who fear loss of influence.

----------


## DavoSyd

> I don't think Tone is stupid;

     

> _Forrest's version of the saying means that stupidity is not just a  surface thing derived from a person's appearance. Stupidity is a  matter of deeds, not looks. Like the other versions, it comes down to  this: judge people by what they do, not by how they appear._

----------


## Marc

TRANSCRIPT OF THE HON. TONY ABBOTT MP, ADDRESS TOTHE GLOBAL WARMING POLICYFOUNDATION, WESTMINSTER,LONDON October 10, 2017  Thank you for giving me the same platform that you’ve previously given to fellow Australians John Howard and George Pell. I will strive to beworthy of their example and their friendship; to offer a common sense way through the climate conflict; and, also, to place this particular issuein the broader search for practical wisdom now taking place across the Western world.  It would be wrong to underestimate the strengths of the contemporary West. By objective standards, people have never had better lives. Yetour phenomenal wealth and our scientific and technological achievements rest on values and principles that have rarely been more widelychallenged.  To a greater or lesser extent, in most Western countries, we can’t keep our borders secure; we can’t keep our industries intact; and we can’tpreserve a moral order once taken for granted. Eventually, something will crystalize out of this age of disruption but in the meantime we couldbe entering a period of national and even civilizational decline.  In Australia, we’ve had ten years of disappointing government. It’s not just the churn of prime ministers that now rivals Italy’s, the internaldivisions and the policy confusion that followed a quarter century of strong government under Bob Hawke and John Howard. It’s theinstitutional malaise. We have the world’s most powerful upper house: a Senate where good government can almost never secure a majority.Our businesses campaign for same sex marriage but not for economic reform. Our biggest company, BHP, the world’s premier miner, lives offthe coal industry that it now wants to disown. And our oldest university, Sydney, now boasts that its mission is “unlearning”.  Of course, to be an Australian is still to have won the lottery of life, and there’s yet no better place to live and work. But there’s a naggingsense that we’re letting ourselves down and failing to reach anything like our full potential.  We are not alone in this. The Trump ascendancy, however it works out, was a popular revolt against politics-as-usual. Brexit was a rejection ofthe British as well as of the European establishments. Yes, the centrist, Macron, won in France but only by sidelining the parties that had ruledfrom the start of the Fifth Republic. And while the German chancellor was re-elected, seemingly it’s at the head of an unstable coalition afterlosing a quarter of her vote.  Everywhere, there’s a breakdown of public trust between voters and their leaders for misdiagnosing problems, for making excuses aboutwho’s to blame, and for denying the damage that’s been done.  Since the Global Financial Crisis, at least in the West, growth has been slow, wages stagnant, opportunities limited, and economic andcultural disruption unprecedented. Within countries and between them, old pecking orders are changing. Civilizational self-doubt iseverywhere; we believe in everyone but ourselves; and everything is taken seriously except that which used to be.  Just a few years ago, history was supposed to have ended in the triumph of the Western liberal order. Yet far from becoming universal,Western values are less and less accepted even in the West itself. We still more or less accept that every human being is born with innatedignity; with rights, certainly, but we’re less sure about the corresponding duties.  We still accept the golden rule of human conduct: to treat others as we would have them treat us – or to use the Gospel formula to “love yourneighbour as you love yourself” – but we’re running on empty.  In Britain and Australia, scarcely 50 per cent describe themselves as Christian, down from 90 per cent a generation back. For decades, we’vebeen losing our religious faith but we’re fast losing our religious knowledge too. We’re less a post-Christian society than a non-Christian, oreven an anti- Christian one. It hasn’t left us less susceptible to dogma, though, because we still need things to believe in and causes to fightfor; it’s just that believers can now be found for almost anything and everything.  Climate change is by no means the sole or even the most significant symptom of the changing interests and values of the West. Still, onlysocieties with high levels of cultural amnesia – that have forgotten the scriptures about man created “in the image and likeness of God” andcharged with “subduing the earth and all its creatures” – could have made such a religion out of it.  There’s no certain way to regain cultural self-confidence. The heart of any recovery, though, has to be an honest facing of facts and aninsistence upon intellectual rigour. More than ever, the challenge of leadership is to say what you mean and do what you say. The lesson I’vetaken from being in government, and then out of it, is simply to speak my mind. The risk, when people know where you stand, is losing theirsupport. The certainty, when people don’t know where you stand, is losing their respect.  Of course, we’re all nostalgic for the days when governments and oppositions could agree on the big issues; but pleading for bi-partisanshipwon’t create it. As my government showed on border protection policy, the only way to create a new consensus is to argue the case, to makea decision, and then to let the subsequent facts speak for themselves.  The modern world, after all, is not the product of a successful search for consensus. It’s what’s emerged from centuries of critical enquiry andhard clash. Without the constant curiosity and endless questioning that has driven our scientists and engineers, and the constant striving forimprovement that’s long guided our planners and policy makers, there’d be no cures for disease, no labour-saving appliances, no sanitation,no urban improvement, no votes for women, no respect for minorities; in other words, no modern world.  That may not actually bother some green activists whose ideal is an Amish existence, only without reference to God. But it should botheranyone and everyone who wants longer, safer, more comfortable and more prosperous lives.  Beware the pronouncement, “the science is settled”. It’s the spirit of the Inquisition, the thought- police down the ages. Almost as bad is theclaim that “99 per cent of scientists believe” as if scientific truth is determined by votes rather than facts.  There are laws of physics; there are objective facts; there are moral and ethical truths. But there is almost nothing important where no furtherenquiry is needed. What the “science is settled” brigade want is to close down investigation by equating questioning with superstition. It’s anaspect of the wider weakening of the Western mind which poses such dangers to the world’s future.  Physics suggests, all other things being equal, that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would indeed warm the planet. Even so, theatmosphere is an almost infinitely complex mechanism that’s far from fully understood.  Palaeontology indicates that over millions of years there have been warmer periods and cooler periods that don’t correlate with carbon dioxideconcentrations. The Jurassic warm period and the ice ages occurred without any human contribution at all. The medieval warm period whencrops were grown in Greenland and the mini-ice age when the Thames froze over occurred well before industrial activities added toatmospheric carbon dioxide.  Prudence and respect for the planet would suggest taking care not lightly to increase carbon dioxide emissions; but the evidence suggeststhat other factors such as sun spot cycles and oscillations in the Earth’s orbit are at least as important for climate change as this trace gas –which, far from being pollution, is actually essential for life to exist.  Certainly, no big change has accompanied the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration over the past century from roughly 300to roughly 400 parts per million or from 0.03 to 0.04 per cent.  Contrary to the breathless assertions that climate change is behind every weather event, in Australia, the floods are not bigger, the bushfiresare not worse, the droughts are not deeper or longer, and the cyclones are not more severe than they were in the 1800s. Sometimes, they domore damage but that’s because there’s more to destroy, not because their intensity has increased. More than 100 years of photography atManly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen despite frequent reports from climate alarmists that this isimminent.  It may be that a tipping point will be reached soon and that the world might start to warm rapidly but so far reality has stubbornly refused toconform to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s computer modelling. Even the high-priests of climate change now seem toconcede that there was a pause in warming between the 1990s and 2014.  So far, though, there’s no concession that their models might require revision even though unadjusted data suggests that the 1930s wereactually the warmest decade in the United States and that temperatures in Australia have only increased by 0.3 degrees over the pastcentury, not the 1 degree usually claimed.  The growing evidence that records have been adjusted, that the impact of urban heat islands has been downplayed, and that data sets havebeen slanted in order to fit the theory of dangerous anthropogenic global warming does not make it false; but it should produce much cautionabout basing drastic action upon it.  Then there’s the evidence that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide (which is a plant food after all) are actually greening the planet andhelping to lift agricultural yields. In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves, so a gradual lift in globaltemperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial.  In what might be described as Ridley’s paradox, after the distinguished British commentator: at least so far, it’s climate change policy that’sdoing harm; climate change itself is probably doing good; or at least, more good than harm.

----------


## Marc

Australia, for instance, has the world’s largest readily available supplies of coal, gas and uranium, yet thanks to a decade of policy basedmore on green ideology than common sense, we can’t be sure of keeping the lights on this summer – it’s akin to Saudi Arabia being in apetrol drought, and in the policy-induced shift from having the world’s lowest power prices to amongst the highest, our manufacturing industryhas lost its one, big comparative economic advantage.  About 20 years ago, in Australia, limiting carbon dioxide emissions first became a goal of public policy. It was the Howard government, back in1997, that originally introduced the Renewable Energy Target, a stealth carbon tax, requiring energy suppliers to source a percentage of theirpower from new renewable generation. But in those far off days, it was just 2 per cent.  During the energy discussions around the Howard cabinet table, I recall thinking “why not encourage more solar hot water systems to reducepower use” and “why not incentivise the installation of solar panels to help power people’s homes”?  Way back in the 1980s, in my final provost’s collection at The Queen’s College, Lord Blake had observed: “Mr Abbott needs to temper hisrobust common sense with a certain philosophic doubt”. If only more of us had doubted sooner and realised sooner how easy it was withrenewable power to have too much of a good thing!  Unsurprisingly, a conservative cabinet did indeed respond to farmers’ worries about the drought then gripping eastern Australia; and thepublic’s then eagerness to support environmental gestures with other people’s money. We thought we could reduce emissions, or at least limittheir increase, without much disruption to everyday life, hence these gestures to the zeitgeist. Where the subsidy was modest and the impacton the power system minimal, our thinking ran, why not accommodate the feel-good urge to be “responsible global citizens”?  In its last few months, the Howard government even agreed in-principle to support an emissions trading scheme. But Howard was shrewdenough to know how the most important consequences of any policy were often the unintended ones. His government’s refusal to ratify theKyoto climate change treaty, even though we’d secured a good deal for Australia, showed his caution about the impact of emissions reductionon power prices and the wider economy.  For the incoming Labor Prime Minister after 2007, though, climate change was nothing less than the “greatest moral challenge of our time”.The Rudd-Gillard government believed in an emissions trading scheme, no ifs, no buts, and in a ten-fold increase in the mandatory use ofrenewables.  For a while, the Liberal-National opposition was inclined to go along with it. My own leaning for the first year or so was not to oppose it; but mydoubts about the theory of climate change were growing and my sense that an ETS would turn out to be a “great big new tax on everything”was hardening.  To a party audience in country Victoria in October 2009, I observed that the so-called settled science of climate change was “absolute crap”;and after winning the opposition leadership had a secret party room ballot to oppose an ETS because it was not our job to enter into weakcompromises with a bad government.  As it happened, the 2010 election was more about power prices than about saving the planet. Under great political pressure, then PrimeMinister Julia Gillard, declared “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. But early in 2011, as part of her minoritygovernment’s deal with the Greens, she committed to a carbon tax that would put wholesale power prices up by 40 per cent.  The 2013 election was a referendum on Labor’s carbon tax – as well as Labor’s complete loss of control over our maritime borders – with athumping win to the Liberal-National Coalition.  In July 2014, the Abbott government abolished the carbon tax, saving the average household about $500 a year. In early 2015, we reducedthe Renewable Energy Target from 28 to 23 per cent. It wasn’t enough, but it was the best that we could get through the Senate. My cabinetalways had some ministers focussed on jobs and cost of living; and others more concerned with emissions reduction, even though ourcontribution to global emissions was barely one per cent.  Inevitably, our Paris agreement to a 26 to 28 per cent emissions reduction was a compromise based on the advice that we could achieve itlargely through efficiencies, without additional environmental imposts, using the highly successful emissions reduction fund; because, as Isaid at the time, “the last thing we want to do is strengthen the environment (but) damage our economy”.  At last year’s election, the government chose not to campaign on power prices even though Labor was promising a 50 per cent RenewableEnergy Target (requiring a $50 billion over-build of wind farms) and a 45 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 (requiring a new carbon tax).After a net gain of 25 seats at the previous two elections, when we had campaigned on power prices, we had a net loss of 14 when we didn’t.  And subsequent events have made the politics of power once more the central battleground between and within the two main parties.Although manufacturing, agriculture and transport are also large carbon dioxide emitters, the politics of emissions reduction has alwaysfocussed on power generation because shifting to renewables has always been more saleable to voters than closing down industry, giving upcars and not eating beef.  As a badge of environmental virtue, the South Australian state Labor government had been boasting that, on average, almost 50 per cent ofits power was wind-generated – although at any moment it could vary from almost zero to almost 100 per cent. It had even ostentatiouslyblown up its one coal- fired power station.  In September last year, though, the wind blew so hard that the turbines had to shut down – and the inter-connector with Victoria and itsreliable coal-fired power failed too. For 24 hours, there was a state wide blackout. For nearly two million people, the lights were off, cashregisters didn’t work, traffic lights went down, lifts stopped, and patients were sent home from hospitals.  Throughout last summer, there were further blackouts and brownouts across eastern Australia requiring hundreds of millions in repairs to theplant of energy-intensive industries. Despite this, in a display of virtue signalling, to flaunt its environmental credentials (and to boost prices forits other coal-fired plants), last March the French-government part-owned multinational, Engie, closed down the giant Hazelwood coal-firedstation that had supplied a quarter of Victoria’s power.  The Australian Energy Market Operator is now sufficiently alarmed to have just issued an official warning of further blackouts this summer inVictoria and South Australia and severe medium term power shortfalls. But in yet more virtue-signalling, energy giant AGL is still threateningto close the massive Liddell coal-fired power station in NSW and replace it with a subsidised solar farm and a much smaller gas-fired powerstation relying on gas supplies that don’t currently exist.  Were it not rational behaviour based on irrational government policy, this deliberate elimination of an essential service could only be describedas a form of economic self-harm.  Hydro aside, renewable energy should properly be referred to as intermittent and unreliable power. When the wind doesn’t blow and the sundoesn’t shine, the power doesn’t flow. Wind and solar power are like sailing ships; cheaper than powered boats, to be sure, but we’ve stoppedusing sail for transport because it couldn’t be trusted to turn up on time.  Because the weather is unpredictable, you never really know when renewable power is going to work. Its marginal cost is low but so is itsreliability, so in the absence of industrial scale batteries, it always needs matching capacity from dependable coal, gas, hydro, or nuclearenergy. This should always have been obvious.  Also now apparent is the system instability and the perverse economics that subsidised renewables on a large scale have injected into ourpower supply. Not only is demand variable but there’s a vast and unpredictable difference between potential and dispatch-able capacity at anyone time. Having to turn coal fired power stations up or down as the wind changes makes them much less profitable even though coalremains by far the cheapest source of reliable power.  A market that’s driven by subsidies rather than by economics always fails. Subsidy begets subsidy until the system collapses into absurdity. InAustralia’s case, having subsidised renewables, allegedly to save the planet; we’re now faced with subsidising coal, just to keep the lights on.  We have got ourselves into this mess because successive federal governments have tried to reduce emissions rather than to ensure reliableand affordable power; because, rather than give farmers a fairer return, state governments have given in to green lobbyists and banned orheavily restricted gas exploration and extraction; and because shareholder activists have scared power companies out of new investment infossil fuel power generation, even though you can’t run a modern economy without it.  In the short term, to avoid blackouts, we have to get mothballed or under-utilised gas back into the system.  In the medium term, there must be – first – no subsidies, none, for new intermittent power (and a freeze on the RET should be no problem ifrenewables are as economic as the boosters claim); second, given the nervousness of private investors, there must be a government-builtcoal-fired power station to overcome political risk; third, the gas bans must go; and fourth, the ban on nuclear power must go too in case a drycountry ever needs base load power with zero emissions.  The government is now suggesting that there might not be a new Clean Energy Target after all. There must not be – and we still need to dealwith what’s yet to come under the existing target.  In the longer term, we need less theology and more common sense about emissions reduction. It matters but not more than everything else.As Clive James has suggested in a celebrated recent essay, we need to get back to evidence based policy rather than “policy basedevidence”.  Even if reducing emissions really is necessary to save the planet, our effort, however Herculean, is barely-better-than-futile; becauseAustralia’s total annual emissions are exceeded by just the annual increase in China’s.  There’s a veneer of rational calculation to emissions reduction but underneath it’s about “doing the right thing”. Environmentalism hasmanaged to combine a post-socialist instinct for big government with a post-Christian nostalgia for making sacrifices in a good cause.Primitive people once killed goats to appease the volcano gods. We’re more sophisticated now but are still sacrificing our industries and ourliving standards to the climate gods to little more effect.  So far, climate change policy has generated new taxes, new subsidies and new restrictions in rich countries; and new demands for more aidfrom poor countries. But for the really big emitters, China and India, it’s a first world problem. Between them, they’re building or planning morethan 800 new coal-fired power stations – often using Australian coal – with emissions, on average, 30 per cent lower than from our ownageing generators.  Unsurprisingly, the recipients of climate change subsidies and climate change research grants think action is very urgent indeed. As for thegeneral public, of course saving the planet counts – until the bills come in and then the humbug detector is switched on.  Should Australia close down its steel industry; watch passively while its aluminium industry moves offshore to places less concerned aboutemissions; export coal, but not use it ourselves; and deliberately increase power prices for people who can’t install their own solar panels andbatteries? Of course not, but these are the inevitable consequences of continuing current policies.  That’s the reality no one has wanted to face for a long time: that we couldn’t reduce emissions without also hurting the economy; that’s theinconvenient truth that can now no longer be avoided.  The only rational choice is to put Australian jobs and Australia’s standard of living first; to get emissions down but only as far as we canwithout putting prices up. After two decades’ experience of the very modest reality of climate change but the increasingly dire consequencesof the policy to deal with it, anything else would be a dereliction of duty as well as a political death wish.  I congratulate the Global Warming Policy Foundation for your commitment to rational inquiry; your insistence that the theory must be made tofit the facts, rather than the other way round; your concern to do good, rather than just to seem good; and for the hope I share with you: that,in the end, the best policy will turn out to be the best politics.  I’m reminded of the story of a man randomly throwing pieces of paper from the window of a train. Eventually his companion asked him why hedid it. It keeps the elephants down, he said. “But there are no elephants here”, his companion replied. “Precisely; it’s a very successfulmethod”.  A tendency to fear catastrophe is ingrained in the human psyche. Looking at the climate record over millions of years, one day it will probablycome; whatever we do today won’t stop it, and when it comes, it will have little to do with the carbon dioxide emissions of mankind.

----------


## woodbe

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/10/0...icy-foundation 
LOL. Tony Abbott is a climate denier through and through.   

> *Climate Scientists Attack Tony Abbott's 'Misleading' Speech to Global Warming Policy Foundation*Australian climate scientists have hit back at their former Prime  Minister Tony Abbott, describing his speech to a London think tank as  being laced with distortions, falsehoods, misrepresentations,  and misdirection.
>   Abbott told the contrarian Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)  that rising carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning could be  beneficial and compared acceptance of human-caused climate change  to religion.
>   The GWPF, founded by former Thatcher government treasurer Lord Nigel Lawson, consistently pushes positions on climate change that fall well outside the established science.
>    The foundation, which claims to be bi-partisan but has accepted  funding from many conservative figures, had declined requests from  several specialist climate change media outlets to hear the Abbott  lecture, claiming the speech was not a media event.
>   Dr. Benjamin Henley, a University of Melbourne scientist specializing  in ancient climate change and climate models, who read the transcript,  said: It is precarious territory for a politician to enter the  scientific boxing ring, with only a bible of conspiracy theories and  misconstrued talking points in hand. His speech is full of falsehoods,  miscomprehension, and basic untruths.
>   Abbott lost the leadership of the conservative Liberal Party and,  with it, the Prime Ministership, in September 2015 to the countrys  current leader, Malcolm Turnbull.
>   Abbotts public position on climate science has flip-flopped over the years. He  once described the science as absolute crap but during office,  claimed to accept the basic facts and said he took the issue seriously.
>   But he has also denied any link between rising temperatures and Australias bushfires, going against decades of research. * 
> Abbott's 'Misleading' Claims* 
> ...

----------


## phild01

> LOL. Tony Abbott is a climate denier through and through.

  Here we go again with the name calling.  When will people be allowed an opinion without the intimidation.
When I listened to a bit of what he had to say I picked up on his comment that we can adjust to weather change...hardly denial.

----------


## woodbe

> Here we go again with the name calling.  When will people be allowed an opinion without the intimidation.
> When I listened to a bit of what he had to say I picked up on his comment that we can adjust to weather change...hardly denial.

  This is not name calling. It is denial. The government made a call for a known scientist to produce a plan for the energy future for Australia. The plan is based on science, but the government, and Tony are trashing the entire idea and pushing for a new coal station. 
The majority of the Australian population wants to move away from carbon pollution, but the Government is stuck in the past.

----------


## phild01

> This is not name calling. It is denial.

  It is name calling and labelling of people. It is an intimidating tactic. It is a means of manipulating a person's uncertainty.

----------


## DavoSyd

defending Tony Abbott from name calling? 
I hope you are trying to be ironic...

----------


## woodbe

> It is name calling and labelling of people. It is an intimidating tactic. It is a means of manipulating a person's uncertainty.

  If we had a personal conversation with someone who was prepared to have an honest discussion, then yes, they would probably not be claimed to be a denier. 
However, if we hear from a well known politician who spews incorrect climate information repeatedly for many years, then they are clearly a climate denier. 
It isn't just woodbe who reads the info delivered from Tony and described:  https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/10/h...limate-change/  https://www.theguardian.com/environm...veals-a-coward  The Saddest, Wrongest &#039;Fact&#039; In Tony Abbott&#039;s Climate Speech  https://www.echo.net.au/2017/09/tony...ar-everything/ 
etc, etc, etc. 
A politician has access to the best science in the country, but if they clearly then ignore that science then they have a label.

----------


## Marc

There is so much good sense in everything Tony had to say. 
The usual attack on the person without any attempt of addressing any of the points made, is but proof of religious adherence to dogma rather than substance. 
Those who aspire to an Amish style world (without God mind you) or a Mosquito Coast adventure are welcome to start a new life in a place like the Guyanas or similar but leave the normal people be. We don't need any "alternative" to anything, not to energy not to gender and certainly not to climate.

----------


## DavoSyd

> There is so much good sense in everything Tony had to say.

  do you have any specific examples of what you personally find to be sensible?   

> The usual attack on the person without any attempt of addressing any of the points made

  please refer to: https://www.renovateforum.com/f187/e...ml#post1063829 
there are MANY people laughing/cringing/crying at Mr Abbott's most recent words... 
this speech has truly set Mr Abbott apart from the "normals" and it the realm of "supra-normals"...   Tony Abbott speech: Allies go to ground and Labor lashes 'loopy' ex-PM over climate change views  Tony Abbott's climate change speech in London reveals his true self - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  Tony Abbott says climate change action is like trying to 'appease the volcano gods' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  https://www.theguardian.com/environm...veals-a-coward   https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/pol...11-gyybi6.html   https://www.fiveaa.com.au/shows/davi...ing-Mad-Speech   http://www.afr.com/news/tony-abbott-...0171009-gyxjt6   https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/10/0...icy-foundation

----------


## Marc

Davo ... as much as I like to chat with you in matters of your building, in terms of politics of the so called climate change, you clearly ignore the basics and have a complete lack of discernment past the social media or (God help us) the ABC level. 
Everything Mr Abbott has said is valid current and sensible. We can not continue pandering to the parasitic left for the sake of a few votes. It is the end of the road of this charade and when unfortunately no one will go to jail over this atrocious fraud, the bleeding and the bleating has to stop. Now is a good time for this.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Davo ... as much as I like to chat with you in matters of your building,

  lol, you are not the only one who has studied Climate Science at university Marc... 
at least i have more than an Certificate of Completion  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

Irrelevant and you don't know the first thing about me. It is not about how many inches, it is about backing the wrong horse and you are flogging the proverbial and don't even know it. The pushers of the global waring fraud are the real flat-earthers and remind me of those ghost tours they offer in Sydney at the rocks ... or the vatican stories of the miracles of St Pathetic from No Hoper. All very credible.

----------


## phild01

> then they are clearly a climate denier.

  This is the type of attitude that turns me away from reading on.  Like the greens, no room to accommodate alternate thinking to what they want.  A better world is when people don't feel so absolute in what they 'believe' they know.

----------


## Marc

> In what might be described as Ridley’s paradox, after the distinguished British commentator: at least so far, it’s climate change policy that’sdoing harm; climate change itself is probably doing good; or at least, more good than harm.

  and then     

> I’m reminded of the story of a man randomly throwing pieces of paper from the window of a train. Eventually his companion asked him why he

    

> did it. 
> It keeps the elephants down, he said. “But there are no elephants here”, his companion replied. “Precisely; it’s a very successful method”.

----------


## John2b

> Everything Mr Abbott has said is valid current and sensible.

  Almost got it Marc, but not quite. If only you had said "Nothing Mr Abbott has said...". What Abbott said is what he will be judged by. Abbotts speech was chock-full of internal contradictions. He suggested there had been a conspiracy to tamper with temperature readings, but then acknowledged the globe was warming. He described carbon dioxide as a trace gas and dismissed its role in warming, but then said warming from CO2 would be good. And then he claimed that as a "trace gas CO2 is insignificant, but not when it comes to its ability to green the planet and help plants grow. Has Abbott's stupidity (or that of his defenders) no bounds? It seems not.

----------


## chrisp

> Almost got it Marc, but not quite. If only you had said "Nothing Mr Abbott has said...". What Abbott said is what he will be judged by. Abbott’s speech was chock-full of internal contradictions. He suggested there had been a conspiracy to tamper with temperature readings, but then acknowledged the globe was warming. He described carbon dioxide as a “trace gas” and dismissed its role in warming, but then said warming from CO2 would be good. And then he claimed that as a "trace gas” CO2 is insignificant, but not when it comes to its ability to green the planet and help plants grow. Has Abbott's stupidity (or that of his defenders) no bounds? It seems not.

  Quite right. But I did notice that Mr Abbott has made some progress - he has moved from AGW is ‘absolute crap’ to acknowledging that the world has warmed and that CO2 is playing a part. He’s a bit slow but one day he might get there....maybe.

----------


## woodbe

> This is the type of attitude that turns me away from reading on.  Like the greens, no room to accommodate alternate thinking to what they want.  A better world is when people don't feel so absolute in what they 'believe' they know.

  Suit yourself Phil. We have been there before. Some people hide their opinion, others share it. 
Abbott has been a long time climate denier. He's in the far right of the Liberal party and I doubt he will ever move left toward the centre of the Liberal party. His recent speech at the known climate denier organisation (GWPF) was not based on science, it was based on his own political opinion. Real journalists were excluded from his speech, Real Scientists have already pointed out that his speech was not based on real science and was basically repeatedly broken during his speech.

----------


## phild01

Woodbe, just for the record,my comments were general and not in defence of Abbott.  My respect for Abbott is not that great.  My respect for Turnbull is not much better.  And I have no respect for Shorten nor the greens leader.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe, just for the record,my comments were general and not in defence of Abbott.  My respect for Abbott is not that great.  My respect for Turnbull is not much better.  And I have no respect for Shorten nor the greens leader.

  Everyone has their own opinion of our pollies. Fair enough. 
Your respect list seems to put Turnbull on the top, followed by Abbott, then Shorten and Di Natale at the bottom of the list. My list would put Tony at the bottom of that list.

----------


## phild01

> Everyone has their own opinion of our pollies. Fair enough. 
> Your respect list seems to put Turnbull on the top, followed by Abbott, then Shorten and Di Natale at the bottom of the list. My list would put Tony at the bottom of that list.

  You are right, in a 44 gallon drum Di Natale's arrogance is in the sediment, Shorten would be a few gallons up and the other two would be swimming hard to make 11 gallons.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Irrelevant and you don't know the first thing about me.

  so it is appropriate for you to assume and denigrate my understanding of the issue here:   

> Davo ... in terms of politics of the so called climate change, you clearly ignore the basics and have a complete lack of discernment past the social media or (God help us) the ABC level.

  but then say your level of understanding is irrelevant? 
laugh out loud.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Bros

> Woodbe, just for the record,my comments were general and not in defence of Abbott.  My respect for Abbott is not that great.  My respect for Turnbull is not much better.  And I have no respect for Shorten nor the greens leader.

  Whats left frightens me.

----------


## pharmaboy2

What australia needs is for schools to teach less calculus and lots more statistics. 
i really think that understanding statistics in this modern world is critical to unwinding of these arguments, and tony Abbott as an example of someone who is intelligent but still has no appreciation of statistics. 
for Australians it's pretty hard to ignore the clear and obvious temperature changes we have experienced, so it's now demonstrateable even in current lifetimes and experience, plus a little exploring of your local weather data.  This is the reality for most people, they find it easier to believe in their own experience than published information.  Pick your own weather station and start looking back at records over the last decade or 2 and see how that compares to the far longer time period before then.  Realistically you should have in a 100 year temperature record a couple of records over the last 2 decades (out of a total of 24 set records (monthly record max and record minimums). 
now look at them and see if you have more or less and if they are more new maximums or new minimums. 
for most of the east coast look at last January for a heatwave that was a first in my 45 years of memory, and a winter that has been far warmer than usual, and all this without interference from El Niño (for those with an interest in our local climate). 
if you are interested in storms, look up storm  intensities versus number, it's pretty similar.   So it's now in the realms of current personal observations. 
as to what is the cause, it should be reasonably clear that it's us.  It's either our deforestation, general pollution, carbon, methane, other gases, particulates.  Or of course a mix of all of those. 
listening to a scientist tells you it's in the majority co2, with a water vapour component that amplifies it. 
then 
what to do? 
do you just go on your merry way and hope the doomsayers are completely wrong or do you start to do something?

----------


## Bros

> as to what is the cause, it should be reasonably clear that it's us.  It's either our deforestation, general pollution, carbon, methane, other gases, particulates.  Or of course a mix of all of those.

  You have to leave the option open that it may be none of the above as there has been climate change before when as far as I know there were few if any humans on the earth. 
 There have been ice ages and there are marine fossil in western Queensland that are a long way from the sea.

----------


## DavoSyd

> You have to leave the option open that it may be none of the above

  that is called the "null hypothesis" isn't it? 
and in another's words:   

> What australia needs is for schools to teach less calculus and lots more statistics.

----------


## Marc

I love all the intro but when you come to the only part that is relevant, that is ... is it human caused ... you just say that it is "reasonably clear that it is us"  
It is reasonably clear that there is God ... or ... it is reasonably clear that there is no God. Those are reasonable statement based on belief, mumbo jumbo or hope. 
The global warming fraud was invented with the hope that it would take among the ignorant, the gullible and those who are out there to find something to do and believe in. 
The inordinate amount of money thrown at the 'cause' made it politically necessary to support yet not for that more true. Scientist are on a payroll and say what they are told to say. Dissenting voices are easy to silence. Data is easy to falsify. 
Not for much longer.
The left is already diversifying into support for degenerates and assorted mentally ill. Will they branch into support for polygamy and pedophilia?  Quite possible.
Not statistics but common sense is required, but who will teach it? The ABC? Dr Karl? 
It is reasonably clear that the remedy they force us to swallow is doing harm and it is reasonably clear that the so called global warming is as mild and as harmless as it has ever been. The sky is not falling and if you had a smidgeon of understanding of statistics you would see that for yourself. 
Kevin Rudd, and Obama have done more damage to the ecology of the planet than 100 years of CO2 "emissions" combined by redirecting trillions to a false solution that made a few people rich and made zero changes to the climate. That any reasonable and same person still beats the drum of reducing CO2 is beyond belief.

----------


## pharmaboy2

So you have to ask the question, "is there evidence of climate change at this speed in the past?" 
so if the answer is yes, then you have evidence to back up the point, if the answer is no, then logic says you stick with the evidence you do have

----------


## DavoSyd

> i really think that understanding statistics in this modern world is critical to unwinding of these arguments, and tony Abbott as an example of someone who is intelligent but still has no appreciation of statistics.

  well, actually Mr Abbott is saying the statistics are falsified.  
so it is a pretty hard ask to expect someone to appreciate something that they have no faith in...

----------


## DavoSyd

> The left is already diversifying into support for degenerates and assorted mentally ill.

   _paging phild01, we have name calling and labelling of people in progress, paging phild01..._

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I love all the intro but when you come to the only part that is relevant, that is ... is it human caused ... you just say that it is "reasonably clear that it is us"  
> It is reasonably clear that there is God ... or ... it is reasonably clear that there is no God. Those are reasonable statement based on belief, mumbo jumbo or hope. 
> The global warming fraud was invented with the hope that it would take among the ignorant, the gullible and those who are out there to find something to do and believe in. 
> The inordinate amount of money thrown at the 'cause' made it politically necessary to support yet no for that more true. Scientist are on a payroll and say what they are told to say. Dissenting voices are easy to silence. Data is easy to falsify. 
> Not for much longer.
> The left is already diversifying into support for degenerates and assorted mentally ill. Will they branch into support for polygamy and pedophilia?  Quite possible.
> Not statistics but common sense is required, but who will teach it? The ABC?

  Timelines Marc for the first question.  quantifying the effect past and also future is a different question, I'm only talking about the past 
"it is reasonably clear that there is no God" is clearly a belief and unscientific.   
So perhaps examine the local statistics and tell us how much warming has happened in your local

----------


## pharmaboy2

> well, actually Mr Abbott is saying the statistics are falsified.  
> so it is a pretty hard ask to expect someone to appreciate something that they have no faith in...

  Probaly because he has never understood and thinks they can be falsified easily, like our resident Marc. 
there isn't any hope for anyone with a conspiratorial bent because it makes rational decision making impossible.  I'd apply that equally as well,

----------


## Marc

The paradox of the climate change consensus Posted onApril 17, 2016|513 Comments by Judith Curry  In our view, the fact that so many scientists agree so closely about the [causes of the] earth’s warming is, itself, evidence of a lack of evidence for [human caused] global warming.– D. Ryan Brumberg andMatthew Brumberg   The latest nonsensus on consensus from Cook, Oreskes et al. has been published [link].  The title ‘Consensus on consensus’ pretty much sums up what the paper is about — they claim that the combined weight of allthe climate consensus papers that finds >90% agreement by scientists should convince us that ‘97%’ is robust.  I have criticized the idea of the 97% consensus many times [link], and I will leave it to others to critique this latest paper.  In this post I focus on the paradox of the climate consensus, as articulated in a blog post by D. Ryan Brumberg and Matthew Brumberg entitledThe Paradox of Consensus. Excerpts:  Consensus, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. The more easily testable and verifiable a theory, the less debate we would expect.  But as a question becomes more complex and less testable, we wouldexpect an increasing level of disagreement and a lessening of the consensus. On such topics, independent minds can—and should—differ.  We can use a simple formula to express how an idea’s popularity correlates with its verifiability. Let us introduce the K/C ratio—the ratio of “knowability,” a broad term loosely encapsulating how possible it isto reduce uncertainty about an idea’s correctness, to “consensus,” a measure of the idea’s popularity and general acceptance. Topics that are easily knowable (K ~ 1) should have a high degree of consensus (C ~1), whereas those that are impossible to verify (K ~ 0) should have a low degree of consensus (C ~ 0). When the ratio deviates too far from the perfect ratio of 1, either from too much consensus or too little, thereis a mispricing of knowledge.Indeed, in cases of extreme deviations from the perfect ratio, additional support for a concept with such a lopsided K/C ratio increasingly subtracts fromits potential veracity.This occurs because ideas exist not simply at a single temporal point, but rather evolve over the sweep of time. At the upper reaches of consensus, there is less updating of views toaccount for new information—so much so that supporters of the status quo tend to suppress new facts and hypothesis. Government agencies deny funding to ‘sham’ scientists, tenure boards dissuade youngresearchers from pursuing ‘the wrong’ track, and the establishment quashes ‘heretical’ ideas. Too high consensus (skewed K/C ratio) inhibits the ability of an idea to evolve towards truth.    While not always clear why the K/C ratio can become highly skewed, one interpretation is that more than just the search for knowledge is at play.  The scope of agreement achieved by the world’s climate scientists is breathtaking. To first approximation, around 97% agree that human activity, particularly carbon dioxide emissions, causes global warming.So many great minds cannot possibly be wrong, right?  Yet something nags us about this self-congratulatory consensus. Our intuition is that this narrow distribution of opinions yields a knowability to consensus ratio far removed from the perfect ratio of 1. To reachtheir conclusions, climate scientists have to (a) uncover the (historical) drivers of climate, (b) project the future path of these inputs and others that may arise, and (c) predict how recursive feedback loopsinteract over multi-decadal time horizons, all without being able to test their hypotheses against reality.  We would, therefore, expect this limit on empirical verifiability to birth widely divergent views on the path, causes, and consequences of earth’s future climate. In other arenas, only after a theory has beenempirically verified has the scientific community coalesced around it. Even then, scientists continue to subject such theories to rigorous testing and debate.  Yet the expectation of a rich debate among scientists about climate change does not reconcile easily with the widely endorsed shibboleth that human activity will warm the globe dramatically and dangerouslyover the next one hundred years. Any discussion that doubts the fundamental premises of climate change is dismissed by the mainstream media and climate scientists as pseudo-science conducted by quacks orideologues.  In our view, the fact that so many scientists agree so closely about the earth’s warming is, itself, evidence of a lack of evidence for global warming. Does this mean that climate change is not happening? Notnecessarily. But it does mean that we should be wary of the meretricious arguments mustered in its defense.  JC reflections  This essay provides an important insight in the K/C ratio — the ratio of knowability to consensus.  There is genuine scientific consensus on the following points:  	• global temperatures have increased overall since 1880  	• humans are contributing to a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations  	• CO2 emits and absorbs infrared radiation  For the most consequential issues, there remains considerable debate:  	• whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes  	• how much the planet will warm in the 21st century  	• whether warming is ‘dangerous’  	• whether radically reducing CO2 emissions will improve the climate and human well being  Leveraged by the consensus on the three points above that are not disputed, the climate ‘consensus’ is being sold as applying to all of the above, even the issues for which there remains considerable debate.  For past a certain point, each increase in the level of consensus makes it more difficult for new information to surface, thereby lowering the veracity we should assign to it.  The skewed scientific  ‘consensus’ does indeed act to reinforce itself, through a range of professional incentives:  ease of publishing results, particularly in high impact journals; success in funding; recognition frompeers in terms of awards, promotions, etc.; media attention and publicity for research;  appeal of the simplistic narrative that climate science can ‘save the world’; and a seat at the big policy tables.  The net result of this skewed ‘consensus’ is that inadequate attention is being paid to natural climate variability, and too many people, including scientists, assume that CO2 is a giant control knob that, if reduced,can eliminate bad weather, sea level rise, etc.  While not always clear why the K/C ratio can become highly skewed, one interpretation is that more than just the search for knowledge is at play.  Apart from the professional incentives described above, there are a range of political drivers that incentivize the consensus, including broad environmentalism, anti-fossil fuel sentiments, anti-capitalismsentiments, and a desire for world government that transcends national policies.  And finally, there is the seductiveness of identifying a simple cause of all of society’s problems, and a simple solution.  I think the Brumbergs are correct to conclude:  In our view, the fact that so many scientists agree so closely about the [causes of the] earth’s warming is, itself, evidence of a lack of evidence for [human caused] global warming.  Eliciting the opinion of experts is worthwhile, but it is important to clearly delineate which ‘experts’ should count:  There must be a sufficient number of others who did arrive (and continue to arrive) at the same conclusion through independent verification and testing.  A substantial majority of the individuals responding to the ‘expert’ surveys have not contributed to the primary literature on detection and attribution and have not conducted an independent assessment of thisissue.  Instead they have arrived at their conclusion based on the second-order evidence that a ‘consensus’ exists.  This consensus that has been manufactured by the IPCC in response to perceived desires of policy makers“makes it more difficult for new information to surface, thereby lowering the veracity we should assign toit.”  So, what have Cook, Oreskes et al. accomplished with their new paper? They are further reinforcing a very skewed consensus that is not defensible based upon our knowledge base.

----------


## Marc

*Pure gold: *  :Biggrin:   While not always clear why the K/C ratio can become highly skewed, one interpretation is that more than just the search for knowledge is at play.  Apart from the professional incentives described above, there are a range of political drivers that incentivize the consensus, including broad environmentalism, anti-fossil fuel sentiments, anti-capitalism sentiments, and a desire for world government that transcends national policies.  And finally, there is the seductiveness of identifying a simple cause of all of society’s problems, and a simple solution.

----------


## Marc

> Whats left frightens me.

  Understandably. That is why it is called sinister ...  :Smilie:

----------


## phild01

> _paging phild01, we have name callinlabel like that eg and labelling of people in progress, paging phild01..._

  Are you always this insistent!!!
As a group, greens and the like intimidate the rest with labelling and confusion. They work like noisy mina birds.
Agree Marc's frustration shouldn't let him resort to the same tactic either.
Happy now!

----------


## chrisp

> *Pure gold: *   While not always clear why the K/C ratio can become highly skewed, one interpretation is that more than just the search for knowledge is at play.  Apart from the professional incentives described above, there are a range of political drivers that incentivize the consensus, including broad environmentalism, anti-fossil fuel sentiments, anti-capitalism sentiments, and a desire for world government that transcends national policies.  And finally, there is the seductiveness of identifying a simple cause of all of society’s problems, and a simple solution.

  what a lot of drivel - “knowability”!!  I wonder what the K/C ratio is of the theory of gravitation. I suppose it is skewed too! 
It’s probably more interesting to ask why a few people are so opposed to the theory and facts that man made (or man released) CO2 is causing global warming. And, why are they politicising the matter. It’s a strange world.

----------


## Marc

The theory of gravity is not particularly well understood, but take arithmetics for example. Understanding say 1 and consensus is necessarily very high we can say 1. So the ratio is 1
If you take the placebo effect, such is not very well understood can we say ratio 0.5? The "consensus' on the placebo effect will necessarily be close to 0.5 ... ratio? 1 again. there is a balance between the unknown and the consensus. 
Take Global Warming. We know very little and can have certainty about very little to do with how the atmosphere works. Let's say understanding is 0.3, yet we have a consensus allegedly of 0.97 ... Ratio? 0.3 
Clearly something is not right and the above is a perfect explanation Apart from the professional incentives described above, there are a range of political drivers that incentivize the consensus, including broad environmentalism, anti-fossil fuel sentiments, anti-capitalismsentiments, and a desire for world government that transcends national policies. PS The earth was deemed to be the centre of the universe because the Bible says so. However the mechanics of the cosmos were completely unknown to those who pontificate the earth to be the centre. Understanding was zero, yet consensus was 1 or you would be burned alive.

----------


## woodbe

> The paradox of the climate change consensus Posted onApril 17, 2016|513 Comments by Judith Curry  In our view, the fact that so many scientists agree so closely about the [causes of the] earth’s warming is, itself, evidence of a lack of evidence for [human caused] global warming.– D. Ryan Brumberg andMatthew Brumberg   The latest nonsensus on consensus from Cook, Oreskes et al. has been published [link].  The title ‘Consensus on consensus’ pretty much sums up what the paper is about — they claim that the combined weight of allthe climate consensus papers that finds >90% agreement by scientists should convince us that ‘97%’ is robust.  I have criticized the idea of the 97% consensus many times [link], and I will leave it to others to critique this latest paper. lol lol lol.

  Here is a real scientist's impression of the crap from Judith Curry:  James' Empty Blog: Currywurst 
James is a clever bloke and well regarded real scientist working on climate prediction.   

> Google tells me  Curry's been all over this "fundamentally dumb" idea like a rash. It  must have seemed like a good wheeze to earmark some funding and  publicity for those who can't raise it on the merits of their research.  But now she's obvioulsy been tapped up for membership of the “team”,  it's finally dawned on her that she'd have to work with a bunch of  crazies and losers who have no idea what the hell they are talking  about. 
> What hasn't dawned on her yet, is that that's where she belongs. 
> Seriously, who is she trying to kid? This is the very same Judith Curry  who infamously puffed some brain-meltingly abysmal drivel by Murray  Salby, doesn't know what the word “most” means, and wrapped herself in  flags of convenience but couldn't explain what they meant. To name just  three episodes early in her blogging career before I gave up even  bothering to check what she was saying.

  lol. : "crazies and losers who have no idea what the hell they are talking  about" That applies to Tony too.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> what a lot of drivel - “knowability”!!  I wonder what the K/C ratio is of the theory of gravitation. I suppose it is skewed too! 
> It’s probably more interesting to ask why a few people are so opposed to the theory and facts that man made (or man released) CO2 is causing global warming. And, why are they politicising the matter. It’s a strange world.

  
Reminds me of evolution .  People conflate the English language use of the word theory with the scientific term.  The theory of gravity is a good way to hopefully explain that "theory" isn't just a loose idea. 
there is a part of climate change forcing that seems short on explanation to me, and that is how water vapour can be a forcer but seemingly without a point where is becomes a negative feedback.  While I can accept it is a positive feedback, but it also follows increased temperature.  Given in the past the planet has been warmer than now, it should be clear that there must be negative feedbacks in the system.  The carbon cycle is an inadequate explanation to that quandary. 
perhaps the above comes from thos, particularly around the turn of the millennium who seemed to be sure there was a runaway greenhouse effect that couldn't be stopped, and we were rapidly approaching some tipping point that would leave a Venus like earth.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Its probably more interesting to ask why a few people are so opposed to the theory and facts that man made (or man released) CO2 is causing global warming.

  pretty sure it's are beyond that, most people agree that man made (or man released) CO2 is causing global warming, including Marc, but it is actually the econo-social impacts of mitigating the environmental impacts of global warming that they are worried about...

----------


## chrisp

> Reminds me of evolution .  People conflate the English language use of the word theory with the scientific term.  The theory of gravity is a good way to hopefully explain that "theory" isn't just a loose idea. 
> there is a part of climate change forcing that seems short on explanation to me, and that is how water vapour can be a forcer but seemingly without a point where is becomes a negative feedback.  While I can accept it is a positive feedback, but it also follows increased temperature.  Given in the past the planet has been warmer than now, it should be clear that there must be negative feedbacks in the system.  The carbon cycle is an inadequate explanation to that quandary. 
> perhaps the above comes from thos, particularly around the turn of the millennium who seemed to be sure there was a runaway greenhouse effect that couldn't be stopped, and we were rapidly approaching some tipping point that would leave a Venus like earth.

  Temperatures have been different in the past. But so too have been the conditions such as the composition of the atmosphere and the solar conditions. I find it somewhat incredible that some can make comments such as the temperature has changed in the past and somehow all the scientists have overlooked something very basic. 
The AGW theory has looked at the variables and the link is CO2. 
Also, perhaps think of things as a thermodynamic system - energy flow in, energy flow out etc. The equilibrium point doesn’t depend upon feedback as such, just balance of energy in and out. GHG are slowing the ‘out’, the Earth warms at bit, warmer earth radiates a bit more and a new equilibrium is reached.

----------


## chrisp

> pretty sure it's are beyond that, most people agree that man made (or man released) CO2 is causing global warming, including Marc, but it is actually the econo-social impacts of mitigating the environmental impacts of global warming that they are worried about...

  I take your point, however, I’m not sure that Marc actually agrees that CO2 is causing global warming - he is not like most people.    :Smilie:

----------


## DavoSyd

> I take your point, however, I’m not sure that Marc actually agrees that CO2 is causing global warming - he is not like most people.

  well, were part way there since Marc agreed with EVERYTHING Mr Abbott said in his recent speech - and Mr Abbott said that global warming was occurring:    

> temperatures in Australia have only increased by 0.3 degrees over the past century

   but Mr Abbott also reckons increased CO2 is beneficial for crop yields too... 
so we're back the blind leading the blind...

----------


## Bros

> Someone left the door unlocked and Tony Abbott got out. He had to fly halfway round the world to find a roomful of idiots who would pay to listen to him but only if he told them what they wanted to hear. Luckily, Tony is good at that. https://www.thegwpf.org/tony-abbott-daring-to-doubt/

  Well it bought him back into the spotlight and he can even say he kick started this thread.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Well it bought him back into the spotlight and he can even say he kick started this thread.

  well, technically Philt2 kick started this thread... 
and if the spotlight of derision is where one of our most ridiculed Prime Minister likes to be, then good for him!!

----------


## Bros

> well, technically Philt2 kick started this thread... 
> and if the spotlight of derision is where one of our most ridiculed Prime Minister likes to be, then good for him!!

  Gets the press going about Turnbull's leadership and it gets under Turnbull's skin which is how he likes it.  
All grist for the mill.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Gets the press going about Turnbull's leadership and it gets under Turnbull's skin which is how he likes it.

  well yes, there is that!!!  :Biggrin:

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Temperatures have been different in the past. But so too have been the conditions such as the composition of the atmosphere and the solar conditions. I find it somewhat incredible that some can make comments such as the temperature has changed in the past and somehow all the scientists have overlooked something very basic. 
> The AGW theory has looked at the variables and the link is CO2. 
> Also, perhaps think of things as a thermodynamic system - energy flow in, energy flow out etc. The equilibrium point doesn’t depend upon feedback as such, just balance of energy in and out. GHG are slowing the ‘out’, the Earth warms at bit, warmer earth radiates a bit more an a new equilibrium is reached.

  found an explanation of positive feedback  https://skepticalscience.com/positiv...ay-warming.htm 
possibly an interesting aspect of this is hidden in a few of their pages and comments, in that runaway GH effect is an argument of anti AGW, yet I was consistently first exposed to it by proponents of the threat of AGW around 15 years ago, who were convinced the world would cook at some point(not too distant a point really).  This is perhaps a good example when the doomsayers actually end up pushing the other sides barrow.   
We we see this right now with the marriage debate, where shouting violent alternative lifestyles are completely awesome at strengthening the no vote and of course opposingly, someone villifies gays and talks violence increases the yes vote. 
all the idiots and their Gaia mentality, and short time horizon predictions put the nail in their own coffin.  Likewise for conspiracists of the right, or religious fundamentalists.  Normal people read it and think I don't want to be sided with that sort of argument

----------


## PhilT2

> The theory of gravity is not particularly well understood, but take arithmetics for example. Understanding say 1 and consensus is necessarily very high we can say 1. So the ratio is 1
> If you take the placebo effect, such is not very well understood can we say ratio 0.5? The "consensus' on the placebo effect will necessarily be close to 0.5 ... ratio? 1 again. there is a balance between the unknown and the consensus. 
> Take Global Warming. We know very little and can have certainty about very little to do with how the atmosphere works. Let's say understanding is 0.3, yet we have a consensus allegedly of 0.97 ... Ratio? 0.3 
> Clearly something is not right and the above is a perfect explanation Apart from the professional incentives described above, there are a range of political drivers that incentivize the consensus, including broad environmentalism, anti-fossil fuel sentiments, anti-capitalismsentiments, and a desire for world government that transcends national policies. PS The earth was deemed to be the centre of the universe because the Bible says so. However the mechanics of the cosmos were completely unknown to those who pontificate the earth to be the centre. Understanding was zero, yet consensus was 1 or you would be burned alive.

  Get back to the place that taught you maths as quickly as you can. It may not be too late to get your money back.

----------


## Bros

I used to think people with the title of "professor" were brilliant people but when I read rubbish like this I now have my doubts.  Base load power: The dinosaur in the energy debate - Science News - ABC News

----------


## chrisp

> I used to think people with the title of "professor" were brilliant people but when I read rubbish like this I now have my doubts.  Base load power: The dinosaur in the energy debate - Science News - ABC News

  Interesting reading. I know two out of the four people quoted. Small world! The two that I know are both brilliant and I wouldn’t dismiss their ideas or thoughts lightly just because you don’t like, or perhaps don’t understand, what they are saying. 
The general concept of ‘off peak’ is becoming less and less relevant these days. In much the same way, I suppose the article is pointing out that ‘base load’ is also becoming less relevant.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I used to think people with the title of "professor" were brilliant people but when I read rubbish like this I now have my doubts.  Base load power: The dinosaur in the energy debate - Science News - ABC News

  Which bits are rubbish? 
my common sense bone tells me the negative price is rubbish (or at least extremely rare). But the rest agrees with my general understanding.  Electricity supplier s should be forced to supply proper smart meters and information very soon

----------


## Bros

> my common sense bone tells me the negative price is rubbish (or at least extremely rare).

  No that is fact the fiction bit is that base load is not needed. Hot waters are finished by 3am and after that what is powering your fridge, hospital, street lights, police stations, 24 hr industries but Base Load. Base load is the minimum needed to run the system.

----------


## DavoSyd

> what is powering your fridge, hospital, street lights, police stations, 24 hr industries but Base Load. Base load is the minimum needed to run the system.

  the media article implied that the research indicates that coal was not needed for this...

----------


## Bros

> the media article implied that the research indicates that coal was not needed for this...

  They all skirt around how to supply this base load and go straight for peak loads.

----------


## DavoSyd

> They all skirt around how to supply this base load and go straight for peak loads.

  i paraphrased it as this:  "His team ran simulations using NEM data to simulate the potential power generation of renewables and claimed renewables were able to supply the simulated NEM"

----------


## Bros

> i read this:  "His team ran simulations using NEM data to simulate the potential power generation of renewables and claimed renewables were able to supply the simulated NEM"

   and the next paragraph said 
.  

> He claims that a combination of existing technologies, including hydro and biofuelled gas turbines, were able to supply the simulated NEM even during "peak demand" — on winter evenings following overcast days.

----------


## DavoSyd

i don't get you? 
if something can supply peak demand, surely that includes the base load?

----------


## Bros

A few numbers at 3am this morning. 
NSW 5886MW 
QLD 5515MW 
VIC 3740MW 
SA 916MW 
TAS 924 MW 
Add all this up and you have base load. 
5 min ago SA wind turbines were contribution 371 MW so at 3am they would be getting their base load form Victoria. 
You need a lot of very very big batteries and fart machines to make up this base load.

----------


## Bros

Peak is on top of base load.

----------


## DavoSyd

they said it could supply the entire NEM 
what's that?

----------


## chrisp

> Peak is on top of base load.

  I suspect that the term ‘base load’ is causing some confusion. 
There is a minimum demand and a peak demand. The article talks about the ‘base load’ as an artificially inflated load using market mechanisms to encourage power usuage overnight to minimise the winding down of coal power stations. There is also some confusion with ‘base load’ equating to ‘coal generated’. 
Your example of hot water is a classic case. In a renewable energy world, we heat water using a solar hit water system during the day. In the coal powered world, we encourage water heating during the night. The idea of encouraging ‘base load’ is now dated and unnecessary with the newer technologies.

----------


## Bros

> they said it could supply the entire NEM 
> what's that?

  i don't know add the base load up and try and forecast the demand and weather and you will more then double the base load.

----------


## Bros

> I suspect that the term ‘base load’ is causing some confusion. 
> There is a minimum demand and a peak demand. The article talks about the ‘base load’ as an artificially inflated load using market mechanisms to encourage power usuage overnight to minimise the winding down of coal power stations. There is also some confusion with ‘base load’ equating to ‘coal generated’. 
> Your example of hot water is a classic case. In a renewable energy world, we heat water using a solar hit water system during the day. In the coal powered world, we encourage water heating during the night. The idea of encouraging ‘base load’ is now dated and unnecessary with the newer technologies.

  It is real load not artificial and hotwaters come on when the system winds down around between 10 and midnight is when the hot waters come on but they have finished by 3am as the storage systems are up to temperature. Then the real base load applies.

----------


## DavoSyd

here's the Diesendorf et al. abstract:  *Abstract*As a part of a program to explore technological options for the transition to a renewable energy future, we present simulations for 100% renewable energy systems to meet actual hourly electricity demand in the five states and one territory spanned by the Australian National Electricity Market (NEM) in 2010. The system is based on commercially available technologies: concentrating solar thermal (CST) power with thermal storage, wind, photovoltaic (PV), existing hydro and biofuelled gas turbines. Hourly solar and wind generation data are derived from satellite observations, weather stations, and actual wind farm outputs. Together CST and PV contribute about half of total annual electrical energy supply.
A range of 100% renewable energy systems for the NEM are found to be technically feasible and meet the NEM reliability standard. The principal challenge is meeting peak demand on winter evenings following overcast days when CST storage is partially charged and sometimes wind speeds are low. The model handles these circumstances by combinations of an increased number of gas turbines and reductions in winter peak demand. There is no need for conventional base-load power plants. The important parameter is the reliability of the whole supply-demand system, not the reliability of particular types of power plants.   *Highlights*► We simulate 100% renewable electricity in the Australian National Electricity Market. ► The energy system comprises commercially available technologies. ► A range of 100% renewable electricity systems meet the reliability standard. ► Principal challenge is meeting peak demand on winter evenings. ► The concept of base-load power plants is found to be redundant.

----------


## Bros

The only thing I can agree with is it is going to be astronomically expensive to replace the coal fired base load. Private industry won't do it as they want quick returns and to do that the power price would be through the roof. It can only be done by governments who take a long term view on returns. NBN is an example as private industry weren't interested due to the outlay and insufficient short term return. 
Solar systems are easy just plonk down a few hundred panels and negotiate a contract and away you go but when you look at pump storage you are looking at big big dollars and they are not interested there so it has to be governments. 
If you cant understand the concept of base load you never will so that's it from me.

----------


## chrisp

> It is real load not artificial and hotwaters come on when the system winds down around between 10 and midnight is when the hot waters come on but they have finished by 3am as the storage systems are up to temperature. Then the real base load applies.

  it is encourage by artificial/market incentives for the convenience of coal fired power stations.

----------


## chrisp

> The only thing I can agree with is it is going to be astronomically expensive to replace the coal fired base load. Private industry won't do it as they want quick returns and to do that the power price would be through the roof. It can only be done by governments who take a long term view on returns. NBN is an example as private industry weren't interested due to the outlay and insufficient short term return. 
> Solar systems are easy just plonk down a few hundred panels and negotiate a contract and away you go but when you look at pump storage you are looking at big big dollars and they are not interested there so it has to be governments. 
> If you cant understand the concept of base load you never will so that's it from me.

  I don’t know of any private companies who are interested in building new coal fired power stations. They don’t even want to keep the old ones they already own going either. That must, surely, tell you something?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> it is encourage by artificial/market incentives for the convenience of coal fired power stations.

  Well, not quite the convenience - more the necessity of moving demand into other times as much as possible.  But this doesn't suit renewables. 
we are however going to need more total capacity

----------


## phild01

> That must, surely, tell you something?

  Tells me that government hardly exists, privatisation of essential services was always going to end in tears!

----------


## chrisp

> Tells me that government hardly exists, privatisation of essential services was always going to end in tears!

  Regarding the first statement, neither the public nor private sectors can make a case for building new coal powered stations. So I don’t see it as a government, or lack thereof, thing. It seems that it is only Tony Abbott, and maybe some of his supporters, that are suggesting that the government should build new coal powered stations. 
I fully agree agree with your second statement.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## phild01

> Regarding the first statement, neither the public nor private sectors can make a case for building new coal powered stations. So I don’t see it as a government, or lack thereof, thing. It seems that it is only Tony Abbott, and maybe some of his supporters, that are suggesting that the government should build new coal powered stations. 
> I fully agree agree with your second statement.

  Government hardly exists in the form that it should in the public interest.  It once served people better than it does today, but discovered a means of palming off responsibility to the private sector.  People always seem to think the private sector can do better than the public sector.

----------


## chrisp

> Government hardly exists in the form that it should in the public interest.  It once served people better than it does today, but discovered a means of palming off responsibility to the private sector.  People always seem to think the private sector can do better than the public sector.

  Well said. I agree. 
I thought that it was the private sector that wanted a piece of the pie once the government (and public purse) has done all the hard working setting up the public infrastructure. Governments too probably see it as a short-term windfall to sell off public infrastructure. Not a good mix.

----------


## Marc

*Australia not building coal fired plants is as ridiculous and irrelevant as a vegetarian beef farmer. We have the largest coal reserves and sell it happily but pretend to be too good for burning it. Same goes for uranium. Governments here are a bunch of morons that cling to their positions pretending and pandering only to keep their jobs. Most people in government are otherwise unemployable social parasites.    
Forget Paris: 1600 New Coal Power Plants Built Around The World*  charles the moderator / July 3, 2017 From the NYT *1,600 new coal-fired power plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries.*   When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year, even as President Trump vowed to “bring back coal” in America, the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing’s new role as a leader in the fight against climate change. But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade. These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries. Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent. The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Electricity generated from fossil fuels like coal is the biggest single contributor globally to the rise in carbon emissions, which scientists agree is causing the Earth’s temperatures to rise. “Even today, new countries are being brought into the cycle of coal dependency,” said Heffa Schücking, the director of Urgewald. The United States may also be back in the game. On Thursday, Mr. Trump said he wanted to lift Obama-era restrictions on American financing for overseas coal projects as part of an energy policy focused on exports. “We have nearly 100 years’ worth of natural gas and more than 250 years’ worth of clean, beautiful coal,” he said. “We will be dominant. We will export American energy all over the world, all around the globe.” hat tip\The Global Warming Policy Foundation *Full story*

----------


## John2b

> No that is fact the fiction bit is that base load is not needed. Hot waters are finished by 3am and after that what is powering your fridge, hospital, street lights, police stations, 24 hr industries but Base Load. Base load is the minimum needed to run the system.

  The problem is that when the HWS are all hot and switch off, the "base load" power stations are not able to respond to the sudden drop in demand and go on burning fossil energy at the "peak base load rate" and most of the energy is just dumped into cooling towers, rivers and oceans. Unlike demand responsive generation boiling water steam engine generators cannot be slowed down after the post midnight peak, or they won be online in time for the morning rush. Great plan - NOT!

----------


## DavoSyd

> *Australia not building coal fired plants is as ridiculous and irrelevant as a vegetarian beef farmer.*

  no. 1 rule of a drug dealer, don't touch your stash...

----------


## John2b

> Forget Paris: 1600 New Coal Power Plants Built Around The World

  Your cut and paste conveniently left out how many coal power plants and coal fired boilers are being closed over the same period, Marc. New coal power plants are generally replacing old inefficient coal plants to a much greater degree than creating new capacity. That is why worldwide thermal coal consumption peaked in 2014 and is now in sharp decline.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Electricity generated from fossil fuels like coal is the biggest single contributor globally to the rise in carbon emissions, which scientists agree is causing the Earth’s temperatures to rise.

  John2b - Marc doesn't even READ the quotes he puts up... he just follows his overlords decree...

----------


## pharmaboy2

I'm not sure public private ownership is the big problem here.  It's about setting up a national energy market which makes peak supply valuable and everything else not so, and also some providers that have significant marginal costs with others that have capital cost only. 
now that would work with a non vital product, but electricity is a need not a want, especially for the economy.  That means you have to manage risk of non supply.  On top of that they have separated the business of providers from suppliers who have different motivations

----------


## chrisp

> John2b - Marc doesn't even READ the quotes he puts up... he just follows his overlords decree...

  I wonder if Marc even has his own independent thoughts or views as he seems to mostly post (via mass cut and pastes) the views and thoughts of others.

----------


## John2b

> Snip... 
> SA 916MW 
> 5 min ago SA wind turbines were contribution 371 MW so at 3am they would be getting their base load form Victoria.

  Not so Bros. The Heywood inter-connector has only 460 MW of capacity - not enough to top up the extra 545 MW being used in SA. In any case according to AEMO SA has 2957 MW of fossil fuel fired electricity generation capacity, more than enough not to 'need' to import any 'baseload' electricity from Victoria.

----------


## DavoSyd

> I wonder if Marc even has his own independent thoughts or views as he seems to mostly post (via mass cut and pastes) the views and thoughts of others.

  last time someone asked for Marc's own views;   

> do you have any specific examples of what you personally find to be sensible in Tony Abbott's speech?

  Marc's response was quote forthright:   

> Davo ... as much as I like to chat with you in matters of your building, in terms of politics of the so called climate change, you clearly ignore the basics and have a complete lack of discernment past the social media or (God help us) the ABC level.

  i.e i am too dumb to understand it...   

> Everything Mr Abbott has said is valid current and sensible.

  (despite his speech being apparently written by at least 4 if not 5 different people) 
then, the obligatory tirade etc...   

> We can not continue pandering to the parasitic left for the sake of a few votes. It is the end of the road of this charade and when unfortunately no one will go to jail over this atrocious fraud, the bleeding and the bleating has to stop. Now is a good time for this.

----------


## John2b

> ...  It's about setting up a national energy market which makes peak supply valuable...

  Ahem... the value of peak supply IS the problem. It is what the private sector excels at. It's a consequence of 'supply and demand' economics where suppliers benefit from demand driven price hikes.  Private operators 'game' the market to cream up on peak demand, often charging many times the 'normal' price and sometimes making their whole month's profit in a few hours, particularly in Queensland. You can even watch it in real time: https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/...Data-dashboard    Why the recent price spikes in Queensland Electricity? - edge

----------


## Bros

> The problem is that when the HWS are all hot and switch off, the "base load" power stations are not able to respond to the sudden drop in demand and go on burning fossil energy at the "peak base load rate" and most of the energy is just dumped into cooling towers, rivers and oceans. Unlike demand responsive generation boiling water steam engine generators cannot be slowed down after the post midnight peak, or they won be online in time for the morning rush. Great plan - NOT!

    The Cyber power station again.

----------


## DavoSyd

> The Cyber power station again.

  it's not hard to imagine it... comes (as always) back to costs...

----------


## UseByDate

Electricity grid 101 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX0G9F42puY

----------


## DavoSyd

> Electricity grid 101 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX0G9F42puY

  there's also this: https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/File...Fact-Sheet.pdf

----------


## Bros

Another dint in my belief in the fact "professor" can be smart.  Gambling addiction: How a Canberra university professor lost $230,000 on the pokies - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## DavoSyd

> Another dint in my belief in the fact "professor" can be smart.

  errr... well actually....  Intelligence and its relation to addiction / Addiction Education Blog - www.cnsproductions.com   

> *INTELLIGENCE AND ITS RELATION TO ADDICTION* Posted on November 28, 2011  A new longitudinal study into the relationship between measured levels of intelligence, and addiction *shows a marked tendency toward more addiction behavior among those with higher IQs* -- twice as much for men, and a three times greater likelihood among women. Also a look at new research on brain physiology and its relation to pain.

  but anywhooooo....

----------


## John2b

Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades. How well have climate models projected global warming?  https://www.instagram.com/p/BZ38rf7F3al/

----------


## John2b

> The only thing I can agree with is it is going to be astronomically expensive to replace the coal fired base load. Private industry won't do it as they want quick returns and to do that the power price would be through the roof.

  Over the next five years, the International Energy Agency projects renewables growing by roughly 1,000 gigawatts. That is half of the total capacity of coal fired power plants worldwide, said Frankl, and it has taken 80 years to build all of those. It isn't all being "done by governments" either, quite the contrary, it's being driven by economics. See for yourself:  Renewables 2017

----------


## phild01

The only reason private enterprise gets involved is because its like a toll road.  Just build it and let the money flow in.  They don't give a damn about base load or our need for it.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The only reason private enterprise gets involved is because its like a toll road.  Just build it and let the money flow in.  They don't give a damn about base load or our need for it.

  Free market economy 101. That's the Liberal way. Privatise profit and put loss on the public purse. 
We  (the Royal we) don't need base load. Very few ordinary people do. But quite a few big businesses do and they pay sod all for it...just saying

----------


## phild01

As far as I remember it was Labour that pulled the trigger on this mess, in conjunction with appeasing the greens.  They betrayed the Australian people without any thought with their money wasting ideals.  Not to mention the near useless NBN, batts, halls, sea water and whatever else.

----------


## phild01

> We  (the Royal we) don't need base load. Very few ordinary people do. But quite a few big businesses do and they pay sod all for it...just saying

  Really, let's cut off SA and see how they cope on batteries after a string of hot nights.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Really, let's cut off SA and see how they cope on batteries after a string of hot nights.

  I'm cool with that.

----------


## phild01

> I'm cool with that.

   They won't  :Biggrin:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> They won't

  More qualified people than you or I seem to think otherwise. Either way I'm happy to watch the experiment.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Free market economy 101. That's the Liberal way. Privatise profit and put loss on the public purse. 
> We  (the Royal we) don't need base load. Very few ordinary people do. But quite a few big businesses do and they pay sod all for it...just saying

  Who employ people and pay taxes to employ people, just sayin'   :Wink:  
old way - can govt legitamately get involved in a business of service provision 
new way - is govt needed to get involved, if not run it privately. 
all that privatising in the eighties and nineties immediately preceded the largest growth in real household net income in decades upto 2007 nb : unfortunately most of that increase seemed to have been spent on bank loans for housing etc

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Who employ people and pay taxes to employ people, just sayin'   
> old way - can govt legitamately get involved in a business of service provision 
> new way - is govt needed to get involved, if not run it privately. 
> all that privatising in the eighties and nineties immediately preceded the largest growth in real household net income in decades upto 2007 nb : unfortunately most of that increase seemed to have been spent on bank loans for housing etc

  True...like I said, that's the free market for you. As long as the Government has the will and capacity to cover for the odd market failure then we are all good.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Policy idea 
Storage hot water systems, pool pumps, hard wired air conditioners can be wired to a controlled circuit for a 20% discount to electricity.  The controlled circuit can be shut down for a max of 30min per 60 min during high load on a suburb by suburb basis. 
so, when short of power, instead of winding up the gas burners et al, or turning off lights, ovens, restricting industry , domestic air cons and pools are turned off - you could easily shed 20% right there without impacting people or the economy. 
last heatwave they very nearly ended the life of a smelter that employs directly and indirectly some 5000 people, all because it was the single easiest target for a lack of generation (closing it apart from the impact on people's lives also just moved the energy use overseas)

----------


## DavoSyd

> Policy idea

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynami...lectric_power)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_response

----------


## woodbe

> Policy idea 
> Storage hot water systems, pool pumps, hard wired air conditioners can be wired to a controlled circuit for a 20% discount to electricity.  The controlled circuit can be shut down for a max of 30min per 60 min during high load on a suburb by suburb basis. 
> so, when short of power, instead of winding up the gas burners et al, or turning off lights, ovens, restricting industry , domestic air cons and pools are turned off - you could easily shed 20% right there without impacting people or the economy. 
> last heatwave they very nearly ended the life of a smelter that employs directly and indirectly some 5000 people, all because it was the single easiest target for a lack of generation (closing it apart from the impact on people's lives also just moved the energy use overseas)

  Already on the move for A/C users in three states:  Power bills: Why the Government wants to pay you to switch off this summer - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## DavoSyd

> you could easily shed 20% right there without impacting people or the economy.

  do residential HWS, HVAC & pool pumps make up 20% of the electricity consumed? that's a lot.

----------


## DavoSyd

> True...like I said, that's the free market for you.

  it's not really an economically efficient market when a retailer is also a producer...

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Already on the move for A/C users in three states:  Power bills: Why the Government wants to pay you to switch off this summer - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  See how brilliant I am!    :Biggrin:  
no need to muck around, just get it done. 
ultimately, the market currently doesn't work because the price signal goes to the retailer not to the person on the consumption end - the very large majority are still on all excess power use over some arbitrary number pay the same regardless. 
not exactly an innovative industry

----------


## John2b

> not exactly an innovative industry

  It's not like the industry hasn't been screaming for reform, but that isn't going to happen while Turnbull is hostage to the lunatic fringe of "Liberal" neocons. Meanwhile the industry is compelled to act within the confines set by the government's archaic energy policy framework.

----------


## Bedford

> Meanwhile the industry is compelled to act within the confines set by the government's archaic energy policy framework.

  Which is?

----------


## phild01

> Either way I'm happy to watch the experiment.

  I doubt they want to try that experiment!

----------


## Marc

Coming back in vogue in a suburb near you. Jobs will be created to shovel manure, apply within.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Which is?

  well, to simplify it for you - in the words of the AER, the framework is one that embodies:  “High levels of market concentration and vertical integration between generators and retailers [that] lead to market structures that may provide opportunities for the exercise of market power."

----------


## phild01

> well, to _simplify_ it for you - in the words of the AER, the framework is one that embodies:  “High levels of market concentration and vertical integration between generators and retailers [that] lead to market structures that may provide opportunities for the exercise of market power."

   :Confused:  :Confused:  :Confused:  .... confounding the question to make a statement!!

----------


## Marc

We've ascertained proximity from the personification of redundant axioms, presupposed upon tautological repetitions, and enhanced our paradoxical paradigms via redundant innovations. Vertical integration between the adulators and the claque will galvanise the market of subsidies and subsidence, gilding further the already embellished dispensation of tributes from the oblivious remunerators. 
Delenda est holeribusque.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Which is?

  Therein lies the problem...

----------


## phild01

Strange how the government is meant to explain a policy for what was inherited.  Well before that everything was just fine.  Then the idea of capturing wind and sun has tuned it on it's head.  How is it that policy wasn't talked about back then!
All government fumble through issues.  Wait until Shorten gets in with his lot,  watch them frig around with the greens pecking at their backsides.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Strange how the government is meant to explain a policy for what was inherited.  Well before that everything was just fine.  Then the idea of capturing wind and sun has tuned it on it's head.  How is it that policy wasn't talked about back then!
> All government fumble through issues.  Wait until Shorten gets in with his lot,  watch them frig around with the greens pecking at their backsides.

  Truth is they didn't inherit a policy. Previous mob didn't really have one either. They did have a renewable energy policy and legislation to boot but both of those were shot in the head. And not replaced with anything else. 
In the absence of anything useful (outside of the market regulator), the market has had its own ideas. As markets do...and all power to them if you'll pardon the pun.

----------


## Bros

> We've ascertained proximity from the personification of redundant axioms, presupposed upon tautological repetitions, and enhanced our paradoxical paradigms via redundant innovations. Vertical integration between the adulators and the claque will galvanise the market of subsidies and subsidence, gilding further the already embellished dispensation of tributes from the oblivious remunerators. 
> Delenda est holeribusque.

  I had one of those but the axle broke and I threw it away.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Truth is they didn't inherit a policy.

  no, they had a MANDATE didn't they? 
and haven't the LNP squandered that...

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> no, they had a MANDATE didn't they? 
> and haven't the LNP squandered that...

  If you say so...I couldn't possibly give a rats anus.  
My quality of life hasn't got anything but better over the last 30 years and it's my view that neither politics or politicians of any particular persuasion have had very much to do with it. They are however a very necessary evil in the sort of society I'd prefer to live in.

----------


## DavoSyd

wow, the twists and turns this thread keeps taking!  
it's like a pick-a-path!

----------


## John2b

> wow, the twists and turns this thread keeps taking!  
> it's like a pick-a-path!

  Meanwhile back in the real world, 2017 is so unexpectedly warm it is freaking out the record keepers...

----------


## DavoSyd

my grass is dying...

----------


## John2b

> Coming back in vogue in a suburb near you. Jobs will be created to shovel manure, apply within.

  Taking things into one's own hands is coming back in vogue. You need to keep abreast of the times, Marc.

----------


## Marc

There is no bigger injustice than those who live and use a community and do not contribute to it one iota taking always and never giving. If the same people stand on soap boxes and make demands ... the injustice becomes a sick joke.  Why I would like a flat rate tax:  In a "progressive" rate tax system, the more you earn the more you pay right? Seems fair.
Well it isn't. Depending in which country you live, this may be different but the concept is the same.  Say you earn $50,000 a year, you pay $8,547 in tax. Fair? I suppose so. 
What happens if you earn twice as much, so $100,000 a year? Well you would pay double that right? Wrong! You pay $26,947 or triple the rate.
And if you earn three times that? that is $150,000 a year? Well your bill is $46,447. What is that 5 times the rate?  
If you earn twice that again, so $300,000? hold on to your seat, you pay $116,847.  So in other words, if you earn $50,000 you pay about 17% in tax. If you earn $300,000 you pay 39% or almost 14 times the rate when you actually earned 6 times the amount.  Fair?   The most common justification for this atrocious injustice is that "rich people can afford to pay more".  "Affording" is an absurd concept that pre judges what is essential and what is not, making determinations for a third party of what is necessary or superfluous for that person. A gross invasion of privacy.   All the justifications for this regressive and punitive system are based on a deep rooted bias against wealth. An ancestral idea rooted in poor interpretations of religious beliefs that money is evil, that the rich become rich at the expense of the poor and a lot of other aberrations. Governments of course do not act based on this believes but do so because the voters believe it. Voters see it as fair to punish those who dare earn this "obscene" amounts. Governments know it is way easier to tax an individual then a corporation. A business pays 28.5% of net earnings regardless of amount. You make 100,000 you pay 28.5% you make 100,000,000 you pay 28.5% ... still way too high but at least it is equitable between businesses. 
Now that's justice. that is fair. 
Another massive injustice is in the rules for "tax deductions" from your income. A business can deduct from gross earnins even the coffee beans used in the office. The biggest group of taxpayers, the employees, have been slowly stripped from every possible deduction down to almost nothing at all. Even transport to and from your place of work, something that clearly is essential to earn your keep is taken away, and everything else with it.  Iif you add to this the fact that 50% of taxpayers pay no NET tax at all since what they pay in taxes they get back in benefits or deductions, and another fact that a low income earner uses way more public resources than a high income earner does per capita, this system is so unfair that it is almost unbelievable that it even exists in the current form. I say let's have a flat rate of tax for everyone with no exceptions and no possible deductions. No claiming anything at all. Pay the flat rate of ... well whatever it will have to be to be revenue neutral ... what? 20%, 25%? No deductions and everyone pays the same confounded rate, no exceptions.  
Let's have a flat rate political party!

----------


## phild01

Marc, I don't think people really earn their overly big pay packets so I reckon it is fair to slug them hard...just saying.

----------


## Marc

Phil ... your reply contains two counts of bias that are uncalled for. 
Don't really earn ... define "earning". 
Overly big ... please set parameters. 
If you take emotions like resentment, jealousy, envy out of the equation, conceded not easy, your reply is not rational. Payments for service rendered are based on what the employer is prepared to pay. Sometimes the employer gets it wrong, and must terminate the contract. Most of the time offer and demand balances the pay of almost everyone. 
There is a market for what you can offer and there is a value for what you can offer. If it is scarce you are worth more, if it is common you are worth less. The stock phrase "no one is worth that much" comes from those who are worth less (in pay scale mind you) referring to those who are getting paid more.  
The size of the pay is a well known contention. What is ordinary, say pay under 100k a year gross, are deemed "OK". Pays over $500k are deemed "Obscene". 
It may be popular belief but that does not make it correct. 
If you are getting paid 2 millions for conquering a new market for a company, then your pay is cut down to $500k because the public perceives that you are not earning your pay, I think you will suddenly see my point of view.  
To have 50% of people in the workforce paying zero real tax money, and that is not considering those who do not work at all ... is not a fair society, is an unbalanced, biased society that milks the successful to run a pretend altruistic society based on the effort of a few. Sure, you can say that without population to consume, companies wouldn't have consumers. Rather baseless because no one can live in isolation and we all depend from each other. 
And precisely because of that we should all pay the same percentage of tax without any deductions of any sort. And those who earn more should be applauded and used as example to aspire to, and not a target to be shunned.
Those who choose not to work and depend from others for their keep, should have no say in how the nation is run. No tax return, no vote. 
This would make the above debate go away in a flash.
And the Labor party would probably disappear if they can no longer be voted in by promising money for nothing to capture the idle vote.   
In my opinion anyway

----------


## UseByDate

> There is no bigger injustice than those who live and use a community and do not contribute to it one iota taking always and never giving. If the same people stand on soap boxes and make demands ... the injustice becomes a sick joke.  Why I would like a flat rate tax:  In a "progressive" rate tax system, the more you earn the more you pay right? Seems fair.
> Well it isn't. Depending in which country you live, this may be different but the concept is the same.  Say you earn $50,000 a year, you pay $8,547 in tax. Fair? I suppose so. 
> What happens if you earn twice as much, so $100,000 a year? Well you would pay double that right? Wrong! You pay $26,947 or triple the rate.
> And if you earn three times that? that is $150,000 a year? Well your bill is $46,447. What is that 5 times the rate?  
> If you earn twice that again, so $300,000? hold on to your seat, you pay $116,847.  So in other words, if you earn $50,000 you pay about 17% in tax. If you earn $300,000 you pay 39% or almost 14 times the rate when you actually earned 6 times the amount.  Fair?   The most common justification for this atrocious injustice is that "rich people can afford to pay more".  "Affording" is an absurd concept that pre judges what is essential and what is not, making determinations for a third party of what is necessary or superfluous for that person. A gross invasion of privacy.   All the justifications for this regressive and punitive system are based on a deep rooted bias against wealth. An ancestral idea rooted in poor interpretations of religious beliefs that money is evil, that the rich become rich at the expense of the poor and a lot of other aberrations. Governments of course do not act based on this believes but do so because the voters believe it. Voters see it as fair to punish those who dare earn this "obscene" amounts. Governments know it is way easier to tax an individual then a corporation. A business pays 28.5% of net earnings regardless of amount. You make 100,000 you pay 28.5% you make 100,000,000 you pay 28.5% ... still way too high but at least it is equitable between businesses. 
> Now that's justice. that is fair. 
> Another massive injustice is in the rules for "tax deductions" from your income. A business can deduct from gross earnins even the coffee beans used in the office. The biggest group of taxpayers, the employees, have been slowly stripped from every possible deduction down to almost nothing at all. Even transport to and from your place of work, something that clearly is essential to earn your keep is taken away, and everything else with it.  Iif you add to this the fact that 50% of taxpayers pay no NET tax at all since what they pay in taxes they get back in benefits or deductions, and another fact that a low income earner uses way more public resources than a high income earner does per capita, this system is so unfair that it is almost unbelievable that it even exists in the current form. I say let's have a flat rate of tax for everyone with no exceptions and no possible deductions. No claiming anything at all. Pay the flat rate of ... well whatever it will have to be to be revenue neutral ... what? 20%, 25%? No deductions and everyone pays the same confounded rate, no exceptions.  
> Let's have a flat rate political party!

  Will your proposed flat tax policy also apply to unearned income?

----------


## chrisp

> Phil ... your reply contains two counts of bias that are uncalled for. 
> Don't really earn ... define "earning". 
> Overly big ... please set parameters. 
> If you take emotions like resentment, jealousy, envy out of the equation, conceded not easy, your reply is not rational. Payments for service rendered are based on what the employer is prepared to pay. Sometimes the employer gets it wrong, and must terminate the contract. Most of the time offer and demand balances the pay of almost everyone. 
> There is a market for what you can offer and there is a value for what you can offer. If it is scarce you are worth more, if it is common you are worth less. The stock phrase "no one is worth that much" comes from those who are worth less (in pay scale mind you) referring to those who are getting paid more.  
> The size of the pay is a well known contention. What is ordinary, say pay under 100k a year gross, are deemed "OK". Pays over $500k are deemed "Obscene". 
> It may be popular belief but that does not make it correct. 
> If you are getting paid 2 millions for conquering a new market for a company, then your pay is cut down to $500k because the public perceives that you are not earning your pay, I think you will suddenly see my point of view.  
> To have 50% of people in the workforce paying zero real tax money, and that is not considering those who do not work at all ... is not a fair society, is an unbalanced, biased society that milks the successful to run a pretend altruistic society based on the effort of a few. Sure, you can say that without population to consume, companies wouldn't have consumers. Rather baseless because no one can live in isolation and we all depend from each other. 
> ...

  Marc, pay your taxes and be happy. By all means feel free to tell us all about how hard you work and how much you make, but don’t grizzle over paying your share of tax. 
As for your claimed 50% who don’t pay net taxes, how many are those who earning considerable income have structured their tax affairs to artificially minimise their taxable income? Negative gearing anyone? 
Philosophically, I have trouble believing that someone who earns 100x the average income contributes 100x the value or effort to society. 
Anyway, why are we discussing tax in a climate change thread?

----------


## DavoSyd

> Anyway, why are we discussing tax in a climate change thread?

  because one participant likes to feel that he controls the discussion?

----------


## PhilT2

One Nation and some of their fellow travellers from Libertyworks had a love-in here in Brisbane last weekend. The main topic was climate change but I'm sure some of their other over simplistic ideas got an airing as well. The flat tax has been part of One Nation policy in the past (the flat earth one might have been there too) but perhaps Hanson picked up a high school maths textbook and realised it wouldn't work. 
Basically the answer is that Aust voters have repeatedly showed their preference for a certain level of welfare. We are particularly fussy about caring for our returned soldiers and the elderly; we want a health system that works, and unemployment benefits are just basic math; dole =$12,000pa, jail=$80,000. People have to eat, they'll find a way. The myth that there are hundreds of thousands out there who refuse to work is just that , a myth. 
To maintain our current level of services a flat tax would have to be about 35c/$, this is enough to push low income earners into a position where they need govt assistance. So the govt is then in the position of taking and giving back with all the necessary bureaucracy required to do that. There are countries where a flat tax is in effect, Mongolia and Ukraine among them. Flights leaving every day for those who want to experience the joys of it....

----------


## Marc

> [a] As for your claimed 50% who don’t pay net taxes, how many are those who earning considerable income have structured their tax affairs to artificially minimise their taxable income? Negative gearing anyone? 
> [b] Philosophically, I have trouble believing that someone who earns 100x the average income contributes 100x the value or effort to society. 
> [c] Anyway, why are we discussing tax in a climate change thread?

  [a] It's not 'my' claim but tax data. 50% of those who work pay zero net tax once all the concessions are taken into account. Claiming expenses from a second business like rental property is a genuine business deduction and there is nothing "artificial" in it. 
 If you don't like property owners claiming expenses, try telling a business they can no longer claim the losses they incur when conducting their business. Your words:" To structure their tax affairs to artificially minimise their taxable income..." is rather funny. Do you "structure your tax affair to maximise your tax bill"? 
Minimising tax is a requirement if you want to stay in business. 
The fact that an employee can not claim any expenses at all and is therefore the big mug when it comes to tax time is a defect I have addressed in my first post. 
The fact that an individual is required to pay so much more than a business earning the same amounts is an aberration that needs addressing. 
The fact that common people resent those who do well and resent businesses having better understanding of the tax law and being better at adapting to it's constant changes is deplorable and precisely my point. I go further, I say no more deductions of any kind against a salary and everyone pays a flat rate of tax, the key word being everyone pays the same rate.  
[b] It's not about your particular philosophy of life but about market. I have trouble believing a washed and torn jean is worth twice as much as one that is in pristine condition but that is the market and I have no say in it.
 If I am able to produce an app that makes me 150 millions, I am sure someone somewhere will have a grand objection to philosophically accept that I made such amount of money and they made zip... and the philosophy is mainly based on their share ( that is zip), and not so much about what I hypothetically made. 
The philosophy of money is mainly an array of thoughts about other peoples money. I find that also very funny.  
 Contribution to society in my little debate is measured in how much tax you pay. Sure there are other contributions like voluntary work ( that in my view only highlight the incompetence of governments)  
Then there is the popular perception that there are some jobs that are more "valuable" than others. Who contributes more to society? ... a carpenter, plumber, teacher, doctor, dentist, barrister, judge, cleaner, lollipop man?  ... answer ... each one contributes as much as he pays in taxes because his job, whatever the nature of his job is, he got paid to do it so there is no "virtue" in it. 
The right to conduct business is paid by with taxes, the rest is political BS and philosophical clap trap. If someone is not paying any tax (50% of taxpayers claw back all of it) something is severely wrong with the way we charge tax and "negative gearing" has nothing to do with it because a rental property generates 10 times the amount of income for others than the pittance that it is allowed to claim in expenses.  
[c] The threat of global warming is a fraud that was invented to shift resources and power towards an area of the economy that is otherwise non viable. It's like selling ice cream to the eskimos. Give enough subsidies and even that becomes viable.  
When the producers of this big con are clearly not from the left of politics but big barons of industry, they have devised this fraud in a way that it appeals to the left and the greens ... well same thing ... and it is the left that pushes for more personal income tax, more business tax, more handouts and more expenses even when we are broke. 
It is the left that pushes for more expenditure towards renewables that are a gargantuan black hole that gives nothing back. How much have we cooled the planet after 20 years of throwing trillions towards it? Answer nothing.  
So my point is simple. Simplify the tax system with a flat rate, and take the vote away from those who contribute nothing to society in the form of tax, no tax return no vote, and silence forever this debate.

----------


## DavoSyd

> So my point is simple. Simplify the tax system with a flat rate, and take the vote away from those who contribute nothing to society in the form of tax, no tax return no vote,

  so my mum shouldn't be allowed to vote? 
that doesn't sound very fair or rational? in fact it seems very unfair and very irrational... 
or is that your underlying point - life is unfair and should not make sense?

----------


## PhilT2

In Marc's plan the returned soldier on disability because of injuries received in the line of duty, the elderly who have worked their whole life, the parent who takes a few years off to raise their kids, the student who stays at university longer to get better qualifications are all not entitled to vote. But also those who structure their finances to reduce their tax liability to zero lose the vote as well. It is as stupid as it sounds.

----------


## johnc

> In Marc's plan the returned soldier on disability because of injuries received in the line of duty, the elderly who have worked their whole life, the parent who takes a few years off to raise their kids, the student who stays at university longer to get better qualifications are all not entitled to vote. But also those who structure their finances to reduce their tax liability to zero lose the vote as well. It is as stupid as it sounds.

  I suspect in Marc's world those who line their own pockets are the ones who contribute and as a result should get to pay little or no tax. There is no obligation to contribute in any form, however money is the social key, someone who contributes through volunteer work obviously has no value nor those in Phil's post. The individual is king the community is worthless. Bit sad really.

----------


## chrisp

> I suspect in Marc's world those who line their own pockets are the ones who contribute and as a result should get to pay little or no tax. There is no obligation to contribute in any form, however money is the social key, someone who contributes through volunteer work obviously has no value nor those in Phil's post. The individual is king the community is worthless. Bit sad really.

  To continue on with this theme... 
I suspect that in Marc’s world.... Marc thinks that he is the victim as he thinks that he is somehow paying too much tax. I suspect that he thinking it is a waste of taxpayers money to support layabouts (such as pensioners and the disabled) when the tax system could be restructured to support him instead. 
(this is fun  :Smilie:  ).

----------


## John2b

If a universal flat rate of tax on income was applied, on both what was 'earned' through personal endeavour and what was 'un-earned' such as capital gains, share options or returns on investments, then those Australians with the highest incomes would be the hardest hit by a considerable margin. The treasury would be embarrassed by the riches it had to manage if government condoned and 'non conforming' tax dodges were forgone. Those who are wealthy enough can and do use company structures, discretionary trust accounts, deeming, self managed superannuation funds and super contributions, mortgage offset accounts, negative gearing, shelf companies and investment management entities to minimise tax to an extent not even dreamed about by the average Ozzie bludger that Marc likes to pillory. And since the pollies on both sides are all into it themselves, there is not a chance of meaningful taxation reform anytime soon.

----------


## Marc

> To continue on with this theme... 
> I suspect that in Marc’s world.... Marc thinks that he is the victim as he thinks that he is somehow paying too much tax. I suspect that he thinking it is a waste of taxpayers money to support layabouts (such as pensioners and the disabled) when the tax system could be restructured to support him instead. 
> (this is fun  ).

  
It has nothing to do with me. I know how to survive in any environment and I would make money even in Russia. it's about a better society, and it is obviously a hypothetical debate since I don't have a political party nor work in parliament, so take it easy and think ...  think. 
The exception to the rule are easy to point out. In my hypothetical reform the pensioner would be excepted if his pension is not taxable. You would be surprised if I tell you a lot of pensioners pay tax? But that is another matter since you like to look for hairs on an eggshell. 
You can compile a list of victims of circumstances and genuine cases of not being able to pull their weight. That would make 5% of the population if that. May be just 3%.
Concentrate on 95% of the population and you get the picture. 
Flat rate tax. Best thing ever. Everyone pulls their weight and no tax free threshold. Now that I would really like to see !

----------


## DavoSyd

> Concentrate on 95% of the population and you get the picture. !

  shouldn't you be focussing on ~50% of the population?  
school kids don't do tax returns until they are 15ish...  
should 16yo school kids get to vote when they have their Macca's job? 
or do they only get a 1/3 of a vote because they only "pull their weight" on the weekends?

----------


## Marc

Davo ... what to say? You are focusing on the detail and I am talking a broad concept that ... as explained surprisingly well by John2b, it actually can not come 2b for many obvious reasons. Not right now anyway ... but the 15 or the 16 year old? 1/3 vote? Whaaaat? Can a pet vote? can parents vote for their yet unborn child by proxy? ... come on Davo, you can do better. 
No pay ... no play. That's fair. Most people wouldn't like it ... sure. People like to not pay tax yet like to tell the daddy government they must have more windmills. Rather childish. 
I say we have no money, demolish the windmills and build coal fired, nuclear and hydro galore.  
And let the wingers do their worst. 
As far as the concept of "unearned money" this is an archaic concept that makes no sense yet is loved by all lefties. 
if you earn money from employment or if you make money from an investment you bought with money you earend from employment what is the difference? I tell you the difference. You did not spend your earned money in the pub and instead invested it in an income producing asset. Now you have your salary and an additional income ... there fore now you turned into a dirty greedy capitalist who is making "un earned' money (stolen from the poor) and should be taxed triple because this is undeserved, unearned, cream fro the top ... come on guys do you really believe that rubbish? 
Some poeple in the sixties bought abalone licenses for very little money and now the same licence is rented out for 100 grand a year. Unearned money? Where were you in the sixties when the licenses were offered for $7 ? You did not want to take the risk right? What is abalone anyway. What about Google shares ... did you miss out when they sold them for $84? They are at $1000 now. Unfair right? Unearned money. oh my, the lefties world is a kindergarten painted pink and beige.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Davo ... what to say?

  so should school kids get a vote or not?

----------


## DavoSyd

they'll definitely be voting for the more windmills party...

----------


## UseByDate

> As far as the concept of "unearned money" this is an archaic concept that makes no sense yet is loved by all lefties. 
> if you earn money from employment or if you make money from an investment you bought with money you earend from employment what is the difference? I tell you the difference. You did not spend your earned money in the pub and instead invested it in an income producing asset. Now you have your salary and an additional income ... there fore now you turned into a dirty greedy capitalist who is making "un earned' money (stolen from the poor) and should be taxed triple because this is undeserved, unearned, cream fro the top ... come on guys do you really believe that rubbish?

  The age pension is defined as unearned income and is taxed. How is this money stolen from the poor?

----------


## PhilT2

> Davo ... what to say? You are focusing on the detail and I am talking a broad concept that

  That's because it only seems reasonable as a broad concept. When you get down to the detail of making it work you realise that this will be a great employment scheme for the army of lawyers, bureaucrats and scrutineers that will be required to police it. 
At the recent Libertyworks lovefest Prof Ian Plimer launched his new book. He has never responded to the many critics of his previous effort "Heaven and Earth"; one critic said for this work to be true not just climate science needs to be wrong but also basic physics, chemistry, biology and statistics need to be disproven. But for the true believers facts don't matter. Angry old white men need to have someone to blame for the world not being the way they want it. So migrants are "stealing our jobs" and "all living on welfare" at the same time. Renewables are the only cause of power price increase because one plus one does not equal two. The unemployed and underemployed outnumber job vacancies by a significant amount. But everyone could find a job if they wanted. Because facts don't count to true believers. The poor must be punished for being poor. 
If only we would implement their ideas all our problems would be solved. Facts don't matter if you only believe hard enough.

----------


## Bros

> Davo ... what to say? You are focusing on the detail and I am talking a broad concept that ... as explained surprisingly well by John2b, it actually can not come 2b for many obvious reasons. Not right now anyway ... but the 15 or the 16 year old? 1/3 vote? Whaaaat? Can a pet vote? can parents vote for their yet unborn child by proxy? ... come on Davo, you can do better. 
> No pay ... no play. That's fair. Most people wouldn't like it ... sure. People like to not pay tax yet like to tell the daddy government they must have more windmills. Rather childish. 
> I say we have no money, demolish the windmills and build coal fired, nuclear and hydro galore.  
> And let the wingers do their worst. 
> As far as the concept of "unearned money" this is an archaic concept that makes no sense yet is loved by all lefties. 
> if you earn money from employment or if you make money from an investment you bought with money you earend from employment what is the difference? I tell you the difference. You did not spend your earned money in the pub and instead invested it in an income producing asset. Now you have your salary and an additional income ... there fore now you turned into a dirty greedy capitalist who is making "un earned' money (stolen from the poor) and should be taxed triple because this is undeserved, unearned, cream fro the top ... come on guys do you really believe that rubbish? 
> Some poeple in the sixties bought abalone licenses for very little money and now the same licence is rented out for 100 grand a year. Unearned money? Where were you in the sixties when the licenses were offered for $7 ? You did not want to take the risk right? What is abalone anyway. What about Google shares ... did you miss out when they sold them for $84? They are at $1000 now. Unfair right? Unearned money. oh my, the lefties world is a kindergarten painted pink and beige.

  And   

> That's because it only seems reasonable as a broad concept. When you get down to the detail of making it work you realise that this will be a great employment scheme for the army of lawyers, bureaucrats and scrutineers that will be required to police it. 
> At the recent Libertyworks lovefest Prof Ian Plimer launched his new book. He has never responded to the many critics of his previous effort "Heaven and Earth"; one critic said for this work to be true not just climate science needs to be wrong but also basic physics, chemistry, biology and statistics need to be disproven. But for the true believers facts don't matter. Angry old white men need to have someone to blame for the world not being the way they want it. So migrants are "stealing our jobs" and "all living on welfare" at the same time. Renewables are the only cause of power price increase because one plus one does not equal two. The unemployed and underemployed outnumber job vacancies by a significant amount. But everyone could find a job if they wanted. Because facts don't count to true believers. The poor must be punished for being poor. 
> If only we would implement their ideas all our problems would be solved. Facts don't matter if you only believe hard enough.

  My brain hurts!

----------


## PhilT2

> My brain hurts!

  There's a reason why Tony Abbott and Cory Bernardi are the heroes of the anti climate change movement. Both are deeply religious. Don't think, brother, just believe.
Oh, and don't forget to tithe too.

----------


## John2b

If only every Australian had taken out a $7 abalone license in the 1960s, we ALL be zillionaires now. It's the fault of those bludgers who didn't do it back then, including the ones who weren't yet born, or like me, were just in primary school.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Flat rate tax. Best thing ever. Everyone pulls their weight and no tax free threshold. Now that I would really like to see !

  Got any precedent for where it has worked? Or any suggestions for where it should be tried first...just to make sure it does.

----------


## phild01

Marc's ideal tax reform may eventuate yet.  Roads were once a thing taxes were collected for.  Now that revenue goes to grubby operators. Same with the airport, tips, electricity and so many other ex govt operations.  Privatisation... government wins out because they still collect what they did before privatisation but now, people effectively pay what was a tax to the grubs who now run those things.  Effectively people now have a hidden type of tax on top of their normal tax.  You can argue that user pays, but it is for the icing that the cake once never had.

----------


## UseByDate

> Got any precedent for where it has worked? Or any suggestions for where it should be tried first...just to make sure it does.

  The devil is in the detail and not all flat tax implementations are created equal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

----------


## UseByDate

> If only every Australian had taken out a $7 abalone license in the 1960s, we ALL be zillionaires now.

  But no abalones. :Doh:

----------


## Bros

Flat tax wasn't that Joh's idea and recently I saw the redhead promoting flat tax.

----------


## UseByDate

> There's a reason why Tony Abbott and Cory Bernardi are the heroes of the anti climate change movement. Both are deeply religious. Don't think, brother, just believe.
> Oh, and don't forget to tithe too.

  Que sera sera. :Wink:

----------


## UseByDate

> Flat tax wasn't that Joh's idea and recently I saw the redhead promoting flat tax.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxocjZ01f2I

----------


## pharmaboy2

Sort of inbuilT into these discussions, is a little bit of politics of envy.  Stuff the rich, obscene whatever. 
soemthing that never seems to enter the conversation however, is where the average wage earners express thanks or anything other than derision for higher income earners. 
the truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country contribute 50% of income tax. 
so without that top 10%, you could safely consider a massive drop in services, wholesale unemployment in the public sector etc etc. 
the other implication of many of these discussions is that the more wealthy are somehow dishonest in tax affairs.  this seems to fly in the face of personal experience where householders and service providers are keen for cash discounts or to receive payment in cash - this of course is illegal, but in australia seems to be accepted as widely as a pension in Greece

----------


## Bros

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxocjZ01f2I

  Gee I hope that's not your normal standard of video's

----------


## UseByDate

> the other implication of many of these discussions is that the more wealthy are somehow dishonest in tax affairs.  this seems to fly in the face of personal experience where householders and service providers are keen for cash discounts or to receive payment in cash - this of course is illegal, but in australia seems to be accepted as widely as a pension in Greece

  When did cash cease being legal tender?

----------


## UseByDate

Back to energy. G. B. National Grid status   French National Grid status  
 Show electrical generation in the UK and France. It is near real time updated and shows the dynamic nature of electrical supply instantly, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly. I can't find any corresponding data for Australia's grid.

----------


## chrisp

> Marc's ideal tax reform may eventuate yet.  Roads were once a thing taxes were collected for.  Now that revenue goes to grubby operators. Same with the airport, tips, electricity and so many other ex govt operations.  Privatisation... government wins out because they still collect what they did before privatisation but now, people effectively pay what was a tax to the grubs who now run those things.  Effectively people now have a hidden type of tax on top of their normal tax.  You can argue that user pays, but it is for the icing that the cake once never had.

  May be a Buffett tax style tax rule will come in one day?  See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule

----------


## UseByDate

> Gee I hope that's not your normal standard of video's

  You flatter me.  :Blush7:  My tastes are quite eclectic.  :Sneaktongue:

----------


## John2b

> But no abalones.

  When Kangaroo Island was first settled it was not uncommon to find abalones in the bays weighing more than 3kg! Humans have fished 95% of the edible biomass out of the oceans and there's no big fish left.

----------


## phild01

> When Kangaroo Island was first settled it was not uncommon to find abalones in the bays weighing more than 3kg! Humans have fished 95% of the edible biomass out of the oceans and there's no big fish left.

  We should balance things out and cull the sharks.

----------


## John2b

> Show electrical generation in the UK and France. It is near real time updated and shows the dynamic nature of electrical supply instantly, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly. I can't find any corresponding data for Australia's grid.

  Some of that information is contained here: Our Live Generation Widget, as seen on RenewEconomy – NEM-Watch 
and here: https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/...atch-overview;  https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/...#price-demand;  https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/...m-term-outlook.

----------


## John2b

> the other implication of many of these discussions is that the more wealthy are somehow dishonest in tax affairs.

  Ahem... One of Australia's famous mining magnates pays herself slightly more than the income of the entire Australian mining industry's blue collar workforce of some 40,000+ people and yet declares no personal income and pays no personal income tax. Yes, she works very hard. There are thousands of examples like this, if not quite so extreme.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Ahem... One of Australia's famous mining magnates pays herself slightly more than the income of the entire Australian mining industry's blue collar workforce of some 40,000+ people and yet declares no personal income and pays no personal income tax. Yes, she works very hard. There are thousands of examples like this, if not quite so extreme.

  . " 
"Herself"? 
gine rhinehart seems to pay around $500m in tax each year.  I think it's safe to say she puts more into the coffers than the entire membership of renovate forum added together then multifplied by a factor....  No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

----------


## Marc

All interesting and somewhat predictable replies. 
However in the maze of political convictions the point I made is obscured.  
a) 50% of working tax payers pay zero net tax. That is not counting the other that don't work or do not declare their income and get around it with cash. Sure legal tender, thank you Use ...  
If you think this is OK, you have to re-examine your values. 
Oh ... and by the way, If Gina pays herself any amount of money as income, she must pay tax. If she does not, then it is not income. She... last time I checked, does not make the tax law. Your elected representatives do. 
So it is the law that must change. Everyone must pay tax. It is a matter of education. The kid that works at mackers must pay tax and so must workers employees,  Gina and Apple and Microsoft. Tax has to be simple, fair and unavoidable. 
If everyone pays tax the same rate, that is fair. 
As far as Gina paying no tax ... don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

----------


## DavoSyd

https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Res...iduals#Figure9

----------


## chrisp

> a) 50% of working tax payers pay zero net tax. That is not counting the other that don't work or do not declare their income and get around it with cash.

  Do you have a reference or source for the above statement? I’d be curious to see the data and read the source.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Do you have a reference or source for the above statement? Id be curious to see the data and read the source.

  https://data.gov.au/dataset/taxation...e-a0b3374ebe55 
Chart 9

----------


## chrisp

> Sort of inbuilT into these discussions, is a little bit of politics of envy.  Stuff the rich, obscene whatever. 
> soemthing that never seems to enter the conversation however, is where the average wage earners express thanks or anything other than derision for higher income earners. 
> the truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country contribute 50% of income tax. 
> so without that top 10%, you could safely consider a massive drop in services, wholesale unemployment in the public sector etc etc. 
> the other implication of many of these discussions is that the more wealthy are somehow dishonest in tax affairs.  this seems to fly in the face of personal experience where householders and service providers are keen for cash discounts or to receive payment in cash - this of course is illegal, but in australia seems to be accepted as widely as a pension in Greece

  I think it is somewhat deeper than rich vs poor or similar dichotomy. 
In my view there is a commonly held believe or indoctrination, particularly in the capitalist or free-enterprise world, that is you work hard, you will do well. For a fair percentage of the population this is probably true - i.e. work harder and get paid more. However, I suspect some then assume that the converse is true - work less and get paid less, and further assume that if someone are poor, they are probably lazy. 
I suspect that there are many people who are working very hard, but are not earning much. Likewise, there are probably some who are doing very little work and are earning well. 
I suppose that Im old enough to see that the world doesnt treat all fairly, and that some will have some advantages over others by birth, ability or circumstances. 
I dont resent the rich being rich, but I would resent the rich evading paying their fair share of tax (legally or illegally).

----------


## Bros

> You flatter me.  My tastes are quite eclectic.

  Oh, I would have thought eccentric would describe it.

----------


## UseByDate

> https://data.gov.au/dataset/taxation...e-a0b3374ebe55 
> Chart 9

  Chart 9 refers to taxable income not working tax payers. 
 Age pensioners have taxable income but most are not working tax payers.

----------


## UseByDate

> Oh, I would have thought eccentric would describe it.

   :2thumbsup:

----------


## UseByDate

> Some of that information is contained here: Our Live Generation Widget, as seen on RenewEconomy – NEM-Watch 
> and here: https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/...atch-overview;  https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/...#price-demand;  https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/...m-term-outlook.

  Thanks.
I will study the data at my leisure.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I think it is somewhat deeper than rich vs poor or similar dichotomy. 
> In my view there is a commonly held believe or indoctrination, particularly in the capitalist or free-enterprise world, that is you work hard, you will do well. For a fair percentage of the population this is probably true - i.e. work harder and get paid more. However, I suspect some then assume that the converse is true - work less and get paid less, and further assume that if someone are poor, they are probably lazy. 
> I suspect that there are many people who are working very hard, but are not earning much. Likewise, there are probably some who are doing very little work and are earning well. 
> I suppose that I’m old enough to see that the world doesn’t treat all fairly, and that some will have some advantages over others by birth, ability or circumstances. 
> I don’t resent the rich being rich, but I would resent the rich evading paying their fair share of tax (legally or illegally).

  Everything up to the last sentence I agree. 
i equally resent both the average wage earner and the rich for evading tax illegally. 
tax avoidance (managing tax affairs) generally I don't have a problem with (exception probably being google, apple et al).  As Kerry packer might have said anyone not minimising their tax should have their head read.  
Besides whats eats a fair share, should someone earning a million dollars pay 50 times more tax than the average, 20 times more tax, 10 times more? 
the thing about the term "rich" is what it actually means is anybody making more than me, and because I can afford to live on what I do, then anyone making lots more doesn't need it so we should just tax it. 
just look above, Gina rinehart is dissed for not paying tax, yet the facts seem otherwise, so what counted in the beginning was that she is rich, not what the actual tax situation is.  I don't know where John read what he read, but in mist circumstances no one challenges it because it fits the narrative.  The Pratts pay no tax but give away plenty of money to good causes - knowing that, why do you think they pay no tax?

----------


## UseByDate

Who pays what? ATO names large companies that paid zero tax in 2014-15 - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## DavoSyd

> Chart 9 refers to taxable income not working tax payers. 
>  Age pensioners have taxable income but most are not working tax payers.

  so Marc's statement us even LESS likely to be true?

----------


## John2b

> Do you have a reference or source for the above statement? I’d be curious to see the data and read the source.

  There are a couple of pieces of information in that post that have separately been reported in the media many times over the past couple of years. The person concerned has had ample opportunity to put the record straight if either piece was incorrect or misrepresentative.

----------


## John2b

This is about the USA, but it's really no different here: 
“Businesses now have privileges not seen since the Gilded Age. Executives make more money than ever. Corporate profits are at record highs. The courts are expanding corporate rights, as companies exert great political power and dominate our policy discourse. But the most valuable perquisite corporate officers possess is the ability to commit crimes with impunity...”  
Now there’s no trial, no jail, just a settlement amount.  The only payment is a fine – money subtracted from the shareholders, reduced wages, and increased consumer prices.  This does absolutely nothing to reform business, quite the opposite.  Not only is there no jail time, but executive retirement packages remain intact, there are no claw backs, no reason not to get even more greedy, and the company can write off some of the fine, since it’s tax deductible, and banks could earn credits for building affordable housing or helping mortgage holders, subtracting from the fine owed further...  The Chickenshit Club | Book by Jesse Eisinger | Official Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster

----------


## UseByDate

> so Marc's statement us even LESS likely to be true?

  Marc's statement contains no detail, so who knows if it is true or not. That is why a reference was requested.

----------


## Marc

> Everything up to the last sentence I agree. 
> i equally resent both the average wage earner and the rich for evading tax illegally. 
> tax avoidance (managing tax affairs) generally I don't have a problem with (exception probably being google, apple et al).  As Kerry packer might have said anyone not minimising their tax should have their head read.  
> Besides whats eats a fair share, should someone earning a million dollars pay 50 times more tax than the average, 20 times more tax, 10 times more? 
> the thing about the term "rich" is what it actually means is anybody making more than me, and because I can afford to live on what I do, then anyone making lots more doesn't need it so we should just tax it. 
> just look above, Gina rinehart is dissed for not paying tax, yet the facts seem otherwise, so what counted in the beginning was that she is rich, not what the actual tax situation is.  I don't know where John read what he read, but in mist circumstances no one challenges it because it fits the narrative.  The Pratts pay no tax but give away plenty of money to good causes - knowing that, why do you think they pay no tax?

  In another life I used to run personal development courses ... yes I wrote this story before.  
My favourite question to the group was ... -"What do you think is a fair amount for a person to earn? Lets say $50k?" (it was a fair bit less those days but people are the same)
100% would nod and say yes, 50k is a fair amount
I would go up in increments and say 100K 150K and gradually lose most of the class to expressions of disdain. -"That is too much" or "No one needs that" and words to that effect.
I wouldn't stop there and ventured in the half, and the millions and tens of millions only to see distorted faces and expressions of horror and disgust. I loved doing that. 
Each individual has a blueprint in his mind of what is "right" to earn and what is "wrong", and yes, it relates directly to their own income. We would call it the person's values or anti-values depending from how each particular value would add or take away from the persons ability to grow in all aspects. 
The key of this matter is that most people acquire this set of values before age ten and mostly by default, without any personal intervention. Only 5% of people ever challenge those values, discard those that do not serve them and replace them with those who do.  
The global warming fraud, was designed by chance or design I don't know, in a way that appeals to a large group of people who resent the "establishment", hate success in others and see this "cause" as a way to get back at those they hate where it hurts more, the hip pocket of the economy. Spend quadrillions or we are all doomed. Does not matter that it is false and a con. The success is not in the environmental results or it would have stopped long ago. Obviously environment success is zero. The real success is in the political muscle developed to force governments to do what is demanded from them and have a nice source of income from subsidies at the same time. The communist revolution would say "we are the victims, give back to us" ... today it is "The planet is the victim, give back to it" ... not much difference, same attitude same con ... it is for "the others" to do what the "victim" wants done.   
If the real social reasons behind this movement are exposed for what they are, an old bugbear of hate success and riches pedalled by poor interpretations of religions for millenia, and nothing to do with common good or the "planet", then may be the shine will come off those who pretend altruism when really pushing their onw agenda of hate and resentment.  
I say to those, start paying real taxes as your contribution to the society you live in, and stop disparaging those who are doing well and contributing for you and another 10 or may be 100 of you. 
Just a thought ... or two ... and sorry if I left out all the other interesting post that deserve answers. Better luck next time  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

> In another life I used to run personal development courses ... yes I wrote this story before.  
> My favourite question to the group was ... -"What do you think is a fair amount for a person to earn? Lets say $50k?"

  You've demonstrated that a leading question, will most often result in the answer alluded to.  :2thumbsup:  
You might ask yourself why it should be perfectly OK for you to disparage anyone and everyone while you preach how dreadful it is for your ideological opponents to disparage your golden calves.

----------


## John2b

"Tony Abbott’s ongoing bullsh*t will provide enough energy to power the nation for a generation, a Coalition policy report claims.  
"Announcing the new policy today, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said Mr Abbott was a self-renewing resource that was seemingly endless. “Just when you think we’re almost out of @@@@@@@@, we discover huge new reserves. It’s a renewable resource,” he said.  
"He said the energy created every time Mr Abbott opened his mouth could power a small town. “It’s a mix of air, wind and lot of faecal matter – it’s totally sustainable”.  
"Asked to comment on the policy, Mr Abbott said some @@@@ about goats and gods, which was then sent straight to the grid." 
Energy Policy: Australia To Be Entirely Powered By Tony Abbottâ€™s @@@@@@@@ By 2020 – The Shovel

----------


## PhilT2

> The global warming fraud, was designed by chance or design I don't know, in a way that appeals to a large group of people who resent the "establishment", hate success in others and see this "cause" as a way to get back at those they hate where it hurts more, the hip pocket of the economy. Spend quadrillions or we are all doomed. Does not matter that it is false and a con. The success is not in the environmental results or it would have stopped long ago. Obviously environment success is zero. The real success is in the political muscle developed to force governments to do what is demanded from them and have a nice source of income from subsidies at the same time. The communist revolution would say "we are the victims, give back to us" ... today it is "The planet is the victim, give back to it" ... not much difference, same attitude same con ... it is for "the others" to do what the "victim" wants done.

  If you don't have an answer to over a hundred years of scientific evidence then pseudo psychological bs is all you have left.

----------


## John2b

> If you don't have an answer to over a hundred years of scientific evidence then pseudo psychological bs is all you have left.

  Actually, there was only ever a whole lot of psycho-babble (the 'psycho' being the proponent and the 'babble' being the proponent's ideology).

----------


## John2b

Antarctic ice is melting much more rapidly than expected and will contribute a lot more sea level rise than previous predictions. The next assessment report of current climate science (AR6 due in 2021) is shaping up to be a real doozy as the deep-rooted conservatism of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is eroding away by the confluence of thousands of streams of independent observational evidence in the real world.  https://www.nature.com/articles/natu...www.nature.com

----------


## PhilT2

Senator Roberts has been ruled ineligible to sit in the senate; not that it will make any real difference. His place will be taken by the next person on the One Nation ticket but I doubt they have anyone with quite the conspiratorial mindset that Roberts has. I'll miss his contribution towards making One Nation look like the circus it really is.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Senator Roberts has been ruled ineligible to sit in the senate; not that it will make any real difference. His place will be taken by the next person on the One Nation ticket but I doubt they have anyone with quite the conspiratorial mindset that Roberts has. I'll miss his contribution towards making One Nation look like the circus it really is.

  I will miss his 'mad' eyes... maybe we should move to Ipswich?

----------


## PhilT2

> I will miss his 'mad' eyes... maybe we should move to Ipswich?

  I wouldn't bother, Roberts got a senate seat on Hanson's coattails; by himself I just don't believe he can con the people of Ipswich into believing he's playing with a full deck. But I've been wrong about One Nation before. Qld elected a bunch of them once before and they proved themselves totally unfit to govern even by the low standards we have here. But voters have short memories.

----------


## John2b

> ...Roberts got a senate seat on Hanson's coattails...

  Aren't you being a bit hard on the guy? He did actually get 77 personal votes of the 209,468 votes needed for a Senate seat in Queensland. Looking at Robert's history that was a huge achievement.

----------


## PhilT2

If Roberts wats to nominate for a Qld seat he needs to get a move on. Lots of pollies out campaigning this weekend and a few anouncements made to make the current govt look good. If we are to have the election in early Dec she has to call it soon. Climate may not be a big issue in the campaign but electricity prices will be.

----------


## John2b

The world burns roughly one cubic mile of oil every year. To replace this, as oil extraction prices soar due to field depletion and as non-conventional extractions return vastly less on cost, the world would need to build the equivalent of 2,600 Nuclear plants very year for 50 years (130,000 total). That's ~52 new nuclear power stations every week! And the world is running out of freshwater already without having to divert many gigalitres of freshwater for each and every one of tens of thousands of new nuclear plants. The only option is a huge energy diet - worldwide calorific consumption per person needs to be decimated, irrespective of CO2 emissions and consequent global warming impact. Not having an emissions trading target means Australia has missed the boat, and every Australian will be overboard without a lifejacket.

----------


## Bigboboz

That'll solve low coal prices

----------


## UseByDate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNspEpMK7FE

----------


## John2b

The utter stupidity of the fossil energy lobby knows no bounds! US Energy Secretary Rick Perry links fossil fuel development to preventing sexual assault.  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rick-pe...exual-assault/

----------


## UseByDate

> The utter stupidity of the fossil energy lobby knows no bounds!

  It is not just the fossil energy lobby. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisi..._Education_Act

----------


## John2b

> It is not just the fossil energy lobby. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisi..._Education_Act

  Three of the four senators who sponsored that Louisiana Science Education Act were paid-up members of the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. 
ALEC works with and is funded by corporations such as ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, Peabody Energy, and Reynolds Tobacco. Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line.  Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills.

----------


## Marc

http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/getfile/1...nzClimate_.pdf 
The 1333 flood in Florence 
The great flood of the Arno River inFlorence in November 1333 (the first recorded) killed more than 3 000 people. As was chronicled by Giovanni Villani(Cronica, Tomo III, Libro XII, II) “D’unagrande questione fatta in Firenze se ‘ldetto diluvio venne per iudicio di Dio o percorso naturale ...”
— “The great debate in Florence was on whether the flood occurred for God’s will or for natural causes”. In November 1966, a somewhat bigger flood occurred, killing ~100 people. 
 Had these occurred after 2000, the“attribution dilemma” and debate would have been on whether the flood occurred for anthropogenic climate change or for natural causes.D. Koutsoyiannis,  
 Saving the world vs. dispelling climate myths and fears 
 A culture promoting fear: from God’s punishmentto Earth’s punishment http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/getfile/1...nzClimate_.pdf

----------


## John2b

Outside of your imagination, Marc, there is no climate change "attribution dilemma". No one needs to be an intellectual giant to realise that if there is more energy in the climate system, then there will be more energetic weather - doh! Search for "climate change attribution dilemma" on Google, or any variation of that you care for. No doubt the lack of results will spur another conspiracy theory - LOL.

----------


## John2b

"Average electricity prices in South Australia fell below those in coal-rich Victoria and NSW in the first four months of the financial year, and have been the lowest of any mainland eastern state in the past two months." Professor Garnaut said that: "South Australia's experience would be of international interest because no national energy market in the developed world has such a high renewable energy penetration." 
In other news, forward contract prices in the four main NEM states have increased by a few dollars per MWh _since_ the National Energy Guarantee was announced by the COALition. Who wudda thort?

----------


## Marc

Epicurus’s contribution in “attribution dilemmas”: The aim of science in dispelling fears and myths, and the role of scientists   Epicurus 341–270 BC It is impossible for someone to dispel his fears about the most important matters if he doesn't know the nature of the universe but still gives credence to myths  (Principal Doctrines, 12).  As I study nature, I would prefer to speak all truth bravely about what is beneficial to all people, even though it be understood by none, rather than to conform to popular opinion and thus gain the constant praise of the many (Vatican Sayings, 29).
.........................
 Modern fears promoted by the political and climate orthodoxy   If political leaders have one duty above all others, it is to protect the security of their people. Thus it was, according to the prime minister, to protect Britain's security against Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction that this country went to war in Iraq.  And yet our long-term security is threatened by a problem at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, or indeed international terrorism: human-induced climate change.   As a climate scientist who has worked on this issue for several decades, first as head of the Met Office, and then as co-chair of scientific assessment for the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change, the impacts of global warming are such that I have no hesitation in describing it as a “weapon of mass destruction”. Houghton (2003) 
 ................. Weapons of mass destruction continued: Are Syria’s conflict and Brexit caused by climate change? The devastating civil war that began in Syria in March 2011 is theresult ofcomplex interrelated factors. The focus of the conflict is regime change, but thetriggers include a broad set of religious and sociopolitical factors, … andchallengesassociated with climate variability and change and the availability and use offreshwater (Gleick, 2014). There is evidence that the 2007−2010 droughtcontributed to the conflict in Syria. …anthropogenic forcing has increased the probability of severe and persistentdroughts in this region, and made the occurrenceof a 3-year drought as severe asthat of 2007−2010 2 to 3 times more likely than by natural variability alone. Weconclude that human influences on the climatesystem are implicated in thecurrent Syrian conflict (Kelley et al., 2015). There’s already some really interesting work — not definitive but powerful —showing thatthe droughts that happened in Syria contributed to the unrest andthe Syrian civil war (Obama, 2016). The “principal” cause of the Syrian Civil War had been theworst drought in900 years… The resulting war brought more refugees into Europe, causingpolitical instability and helping convince some in the UK to vote to leavetheEuropean Union (Gore, 2017).D. Koutsoyiannis, Saving the world vs. dispelling climate myths and fears 6D. Koutsoyiannis, Saving the world vs. dispellingclimate myths and fears 7 Scientists predicted lots 
.....................................  Scientists predicted lots of catastrophes in the past, God laughed... (we too may laugh now)   1970: Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. George Wald, Harvard Biologist, share of the 1967 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (quoted in Looney, 2011, p. 390, and Dudley, 2001, p. 26) .     1970: Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. … By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine. Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University (quoted in Looney, 2001, p. 389).     1970: The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years... If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age. Also: We have about five more years at the outside to do something. Kenneth E. W. Watt, Ecologist and Professor of University of California, Davis (Environmental Action, 1970, pp. 14-15). D. Koutsoyiannis, Saving the world vs. dispelling climate myths and fears 8    The Club of Rome predicted catastrophes, God laughed... (we too may laugh now) In 1972, the report by Meadows et al. (1972), written for the Club of Rome warned that the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury (and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. If you have cruel heart, there is abundance of predicted catastrophes for your amusement; the above citations, as well as Bailey (2000, 2015), Bratby (2008), provide a guide to start. D. Koutsoyiannis, Saving the world vs. dispelling climate myths and fears 9    Ecologists predict catastrophes, God laughs... (some of us laugh, too)   On the occasion of the first Earth Day, “celebrated” 47 years ago (on 22 April 1970) several predictions of ecological catastrophes were issued. Senator Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct” (from Bailey, 2000, 2015).  In 1975 Paul and Anne Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it” (from Bailey, 2000, 2015).  In 2002 Edward O. Wilson wrote. “Now we are no longer counting extinctions in the past but instead commitments to extinction in the near future … [I]t is safe to say that at least a fifth of the species of plants and animals would be gone or committed to early extinction by 2030, and half by the end of the century. If, on the other hand, an all-out effort is made to save the biologically richest parts of the natural world, the amount of loss can be cut by at least half” (Wilson, 2002).     In 2007 in its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), IPCC predicted that “There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5 °C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5 °C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe”(IPCC, 2007). D. Koutsoyiannis, Saving the world vs. dispelling climate myths and fears 10    Ecologists alleviate their predictions for catastrophes, God laughs... (some of us laugh, too)  While in its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 2007, IPCC gave rough quantitative predictions on species extinction (from 20-30% to 40-70% depending on the temperature increase), in its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in 2014 downsized its predictions and made them fuzzier.  From the Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers (IPCC, 2014)  “A large fraction of species faces increased extinction risk due to climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors (high confidence).”  “The risks associated with temperatures at or above 4°C include substantial species extinction, global and regional food insecurity, … (high confidence)”  From IPCC Ch. 4 — Terrestrial and Inland Water Systems (Settele et al., 2014)  “Models project that the risk of species extinctions will increase in the future owing to climate change, but there is low agreement concerning the fraction of species at increased risk, the regional and taxonomic focus for such extinctions and the time frame over which extinctions could occur.”  “Modeling studies and syntheses since the AR4 broadly confirm that a large proportion of species are projected to be at increased risk of extinction at all but the lowest levels of climate warming.” D. Koutsoyiannis, Saving the world vs. dispelling climate myths and fears    11 Who will save us from saviors?  In 17 November 2011, several email exchanges of protagonists in the “climate change research” leaked and the “Climategate” scandal broke out.  Featured excerpts from emails:  “If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.”  “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.” Source: pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/

----------


## Marc

Facts: global temperature has increased
Data: UAH satellite data for the lower troposphere (global average) gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites(http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6...cdc_lt_6.0.txt). Fact: From 1995 to 2007 there has been an increase of 0.3 K in the globallyaveraged 10-yearclimatic temperature; the data indicate no temperature change atthe 10-year climatic scale before and after that period (increase 0.11 K/decade).D. Koutsoyiannis,Saving the world vs. dispelling climate myths and fears 12-0.500.511970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020Temperature difference from 1981-2010average, KMonthly10-year climate (average of past 10 years)0.3 K F  Facts: global temperature has increased (2) Data: NCDC/NOAA global temperature data (http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/incdc_gl.dat).  Note 1: These data are being repeatedly revised and each new version usuallyboosts the observed temperature increase (see comparison with UAH data). Note 2: According to the latest version of the data, from 1940 to date there hasbeen anincrease of 0.9 K in the globally averaged 10-year climatic temperature or0.8 K in the globally averaged 30-year climatic temperature; the data indicateclimatic fluctuations before that period (average increase 0.07 K/decade).  Facts: Ocean heat content has increased (but how much?) Data: NODC upper ocean (0-2000 m) heat content (http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iheat2000_global.dat); conversion into equivalenttemperature using information fromKennish (2001) and Menard & Smith (1966). Fact: From 1975 to date there has been an increase of 236 ZJ in the upper oceanheat content averaged globally at a10-year climatic scale; this corresponds to a temperature increase of 0.074 K (average rate 0.015 K/decade = 0.15 K/century).  Facts: Floods have not increased through the centuries Data: Number of flood events, distributed by intensity, of the Arno River, which caused damage in Florence between the 12th and 20th centuries(Caporali et al.,2005). Note 1: Fewer floods in the 20th century than in most other centuries. Note 2: Fewer high- and medium-intensity floods in the 20th century thanin all but one other centuries.  Data: Flood frequency, estimated from documents and archives in Spain for the last millennium (Barriendos et al., 2006).  Note: Fewer floods in the 20th century than in 17th -19th centuries.   Facts: Droughts have not increased Data: Average of reconstructions of a self-calibrating Palmer Drought Severity Index (scPDSI) for Central Europe based on the “Old World Drought Atlas” (OWDA)project which used tree-ring data. The graph indicates drier conditions during the“Medieval Climate Anomaly” (MCA) period, in ~1300, and in ~1800, and alsoshowsan extraordinary megadrought in the mid-15th century (Cook et al., 2015). Quote: “Megadroughts reconstructed over north-central Europe in the 11th and mid-15thcenturies reinforce other evidence from North America and Asia that droughtswere more severe, extensive, and prolonged over Northern Hemisphere landareas before the 20th century, with an inadequate understanding of their causes.”

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Fact: Every fact is a misinterpretation of data 
Data: See previous post.

----------


## Marc

Epilogue  In 1927, Werner Heisenberg published his uncertainty principle, expressing the limitations of predictability in the quantum world.     In 1930, David Hilbert pronounced his aphorism “Wir müssen wissen, wir werden wissen” (“We must know, we will know”).  Hilbert did not know that the day before, Kurt Gödel had announced his incompleteness theorem thus having killed Hilbert’s dogma.     Almost 90 years after, climate-change-ologists and climate-impactologists (including hydrologists) have advanced the Hilbert’s dogma to “We must know, we know” (in particular, we know what the future will be: hell).     2300+ years ago, Epicurus pronounced science as the enemy of fear.  If we care about progress, we need to reestablish the link of science with philosophy and technology, and isolate science from ideology.     Uncertainty is not an enemy; rather this world is livable because of it. The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers. Erich Fromm

----------


## John2b

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle applies to scientific observations, not pseudoscientific ideology where it is vanquished by the Dunning-Kruger effect. If in doubt, read the above post.

----------


## John2b

Blowing up decrepit coal fired power stations is part of the effort that has resulted in South Australia having the cheapest wholesale electricity prices in Australia.  Boilers at Port Augusta Northern Power Station demolished by explosion - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)  South Australia's power now cheaper than coal-fired states - Ross Garnaut | afr.com

----------


## DavoSyd

As Karl Stephanovic said; stop waffling!

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> As Karl Stephanovic said; stop waffling!

  Yeah but who to?

----------


## John2b

This is what the brink of a mass extinction event looks like:    https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/...bix125/4605229

----------


## DavoSyd



----------


## Marc

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/western-climate-change-alarmists-wont-admit-they-are-wrong/news-story/892c0088ec01f9186e068f55f2ca6794 
...................Compulsorily retired now from the climate scene, Rajendra Pachauri, formerly chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Clim@ate Change, was a zany straight from Swift, by way of a Bollywood remake of _The Party starring the local imitator of Peter Sellers; if Dr Johnson could have thought of Pachauri, Rasselas would be much more entertaining than it is. Finally, and supremely, Flannery could have been invented by Swift after 10 cups of coffee too many with Stella. He wanted to keep her laughing. Swift projected the projectors who now surround us._ _They came out of the grant-hungry fringe of semi-science to infect the heart of the mass media, where a whole generation of commentators taught each other to speak and write a hyperbolic doom-language (unprecedent@ed, irreversible, et cetera), which you might have thought was sure to doom them in their turn. After all, nobody with an intact pair of ears really listens for long to anyone who talks about the planet or carbon or climate denial or the science. But for now  and it could be a long now  the advocates of drastic action are still armed with a theory that no fact doesnt fit._ _Australian author, journalist and broadcaster Clive James._  _The theory has always been manifestly unfalsifiable, but there are few science pundits in the mass media who could tell Karl Popper from Mary Poppins. More startling than their ignorance, however, is their defiance of logic. You can just about see how a bunch of grant-dependent climate scientists might go on saying that there was never a Medieval Warm Period even after it has been pointed out to them that any old corpse dug up from the permafrost could never have been buried in it. But how can a bunch of supposedly enlightened writers go on saying that? Their answer, if pressed, is usually to say that the question is too elementary to be considered._  _Alarmists have always profited from their insistence that climate change is such a complex issue that no science denier can have an opinion about it worth hearing. For most areas of science such an insistence would be true. But this particular area has a knack of raising questions that get more and more complicated in the absence of an answer to the elementary ones. One of those elementary questions is about how man-made carbon dioxide can be a driver of climate change if the global temperature has not gone up by much over the past 20 years but the amount of man-made carbon dioxide has. If we go on to ask a supplementary question  say, how could carbon dioxide raise temperature when the evidence of the ice cores indicates that temperature has always raised carbon dioxide  we will be given complicated answers, but we still havent had an answer to the first question, except for the suggestion that the temperature, despite the observations, really has gone up, but that the extra heat is hiding in the ocean._  _It is not necessarily science denial to propose that this long professional habit of postponing an answer to the first and most elementary question is bizarre. American physicist Richard Feynman said that if a fact doesnt fit the theory, the theory has to go. Feynman was a scientist. Einstein realised that the Michelson-Morley experiment hinted at a possible fact that might not fit Newtons theory of celestial mechanics. Einstein was a scientist, too. Those of us who are not scientists, but who are sceptical about the validity of this whole issue  who suspect that the alleged problem might be less of a problem than is made out  have plenty of great scientific names to point to for exemplars, and it could even be said that we could point to the whole of science itself. Being resistant to the force of its own inertia is one of the things that science does._  _When the climatologists upgraded their frame of certainty from global warming to climate change, the bet-hedging man@oeuvre was so blatant that some of the sceptics started predicting in their turn: the alarmist cause must surely now collapse, like a house of cards. A tipping point had been reached._ _Unfortunately for the cause of rational critical inquiry, the campaign for immediate action against climate doom reaches a tipping point every few minutes, because the observations, if not the calculations, never cease exposing it as a fantasy._  _I myself, after I observed journalist Andrew Neil on BBC TV wiping the floor with the then secretary for energy and climate change Ed Davey, thought that the British governments energy policy could not survive, and that the mad work that had begun with the 2008 Climate Change Act of Labours Ed Miliband must now surely begin to come undone. Neils well-inform@ed list of questions had been a tipping point. But it changed nothing in the short term. It didnt even change the BBC, which continued uninterrupted with its determination that the alarmist view should not be questioned._ _How did the upmarket mass media get themselves into such a condition of servility? One is reminded of that fine old historian George Grote when he said that he had taken his A History of Greece only to the point where the Greeks failed to realise they were slaves. The BBCs monotonous plugging of the climate theme in its science documentaries is too obvious to need remarking, but its what the science programs never say that really does the damage._  _Even the news programs get smoothed to ensure that nothing interferes with the constant business of protecting the climate change themes dogmatic status._ _To take a simple but telling example: when Sigmar Gabriel, Germanys Vice-Chancellor and man in charge of the Energiewende (energy transition), talked rings around Greenpeace hecklers with nothing on their minds but renouncing coal, or told executives of the renewable energy companies that they could no longer take unlimited subsidies for granted, these instructive moments could be seen on German TV but were not excerpted and subtitled for British TV even briefly, despite Gabriels accomplishments as a natural TV star, and despite the fact he himself was no sceptic._  _Wrong message: easier to leave him out. And if American climate scientist Judith Curry appears before a US Senate com@mittee and manages to defend her anti-alarmist position against concentrated harassment from a senator whose only qualification for the discussion is that he can impugn her integrity with a rhetorical contempt of which she is too polite to be capable? Leave it to YouTube. In this way, the BBC has spent 10 years unplugged from a vital part of the global intellectual discussion, with an increasing air of provincialism as the inevitable result. As the UK now begins the long process of exiting the EU, we can reflect that the departing nations most important broadcasting institution has been behaving, for several years, as if its true aim were to reproduce the thought control that prevailed in the Soviet Union._  _As for the print media, its no mystery why the upmarket newspapers do an even more thorough job than the downmarket newspapers of suppressing any dissenting opinion on the climate._ _In Britain, The Telegraph sensibly gives a column to the diligently sceptical Christopher Booker, and Matt Rid@ley has recently been able to get a few rational articles into The Times, but a more usual arrangement is exemplified by my own newspaper, The Guardian, which entrusts all aspects of the subject to George Monbiot, who once informed his green readership that there was only one reason I could presume to disagree with him, and them: I was an old man, soon to be dead, and thus with no concern for the future of the planet._ _I would have damned his impertinence, but it would have been like getting annoyed with a wheelbarrow full of freshly cut grass._  _These byline names are stars committed to their opinion, but whats missing from the posh press is the non-star name committed to the job of building a fact file and extracting a reasoned article from it. Further down the market, when The Daily Mailput its no-frills newshound David Rose on the case after Climategate, his admirable competence immediately got him labelled as a climate change denier: one of the first people to be awarded that badge of honour._  _The other tactic used to discredit him was the standard one of calling his paper a disreputable publication. It might be  having been a victim of its prurience myself, I have no inclination to revere it  but it hasnt forgotten what objective reporting is supposed to be. Most of the British papers have, and the reason is no mystery._ _They cant afford to remember. The print media, with notable exceptions, is on its way down the drain. With almost no personnel left to do the writing, the urge at editorial level is to give all the science stuff to one bloke. The print edition of The Independent bored its way out of business when its resident climate nag was allowed to write half the paper._  _In its last year, when the doomwatch journalists were threatened by the climate industry with a newly revised consensus opinion that a mere 2C increase in world temperature might be not only acceptable but likely, The Independents chap retaliated by writing stories about how the real likelihood was an increase of 5C, and in a kind of frenzied crescendo he wrote a whole front page saying that the global temperature was on track for an increase of 6C. Not long after, the Indys print edition closed down._ _At The New York Times, Andrew Revkin, star colour-piece writer on the climate beat, makes the whole subject no less predictable than his prose style: a cruel restriction._ _In Australia, the Fairfax papers, which by now have almost as few writers as readers, reprint Revkins summaries as if they were the voice of authority, and will probably go on doing so until the waters close overhead. On the ABC, house science pundit Robyn Williams famously predicted that the rising of the waters could amount to 100m in the next century. But not even he predicted that it could happen next week. At The Sydney Morning Herald, it could happen next week. The only remaining journalists could look out of the window and see fish._  _Bending its efforts to sensationalise the news on a scale previously unknown even in its scrappy history, the mass media has helped to consolidate a pernicious myth. But it could not have done this so thoroughly without the accident that it is the main source of information and opinion for people in the academic world and in the scientific institutions. Few of those people have been reading the sceptical blogs: they have no time. If I myself had not been so ill during the relevant time span, I might not have been reading it either, and might have remained confined within the misinformation system where any assertion of forthcoming disaster counts as evidence._  _The effect of this mountainous accumulation of sanctified alarmism on the academic world is another subject. Some of the universities deserve to be closed down, but I expect they will muddle through, if only because the liberal spirit, when it regains its strength, is likely to be less vengeful than the dogmatists were when they ruled. Finding that the power of inertia blesses their security as once it blessed their influence, the enthusiasts might have the sense to throttle back on their certitude, huddle under the blanket cover provided by the concept of post-normal science, and wait in comfort to be forgotten._  _As for the learned societies and professional institutions, it was never a puzzle that so many of them became instruments of obfuscation instead of enlightenment. Totalitarianism takes over a state at the moment when the ruling party is taken over by its secretariat; the tipping point is when Stalin, with his lists of names, offers to stay late after the meeting and take care of business._ _The same vulnerability applies to any learned institution. Rule by bureaucracy favours mediocrity, and in no time at all you are in a world where the British Met Offices (former) chief scientist Julia Slingo is a figure of authority and Curry is fighting to breathe._ _
On a smaller scale of influential prestige, Nicholas Sternlends the Royal Society the honour of his presence. For those of us who regard him as a vocalised stuffed shirt, it is no use saying that his confident pronouncements about the future are only those of an economist. Klaus was only an economist when he tried to remind us that Malthusian clairvoyance is invariably a harbinger of totalitarianism. But Klaus was a true figure of authority. Alas, true figures of authority are in short supply, and tend not to have much influence when they get to speak._ _All too often, this is because they care more about science than about the media. As recently as 2015, after a full 10 years of nightly proof that this particular scientific dispute was a media event before it was anything, Freeman Dyson was persuaded to go on television. He was up there just long enough to say that the small proportion of carbon dioxide that was man-made could only add to the worlds supply of plant food. The worlds mass media outlets ignored the footage, mainly because they didnt know who he was._ _
I might not have known either if I hadnt spent, in these past few years, enough time in hospitals to have it proved to me on a personal basis that real science is as indispensable for modern medicine as cheap power. Among his many achievements, to none of which he has ever cared about drawing attention, Dyson designed the TRIGA reactor. The TRIGA @ensures that the worlds hospitals get a reliable supply of isotopes._ _Dyson served science. Except for the few holdouts who go on fighting to defend the objective @nature of truth, most of the climate scientists who get famous are serving themselves._ _There was a time when the journalists could have pointed out the difference, but now they have no idea. Instead, they are so celebrity-conscious that they would supply Flannery with a new clown suit if he wore out the one he is wearing now._ _
A bad era for science has been a worse one for the mass media, the field in which, despite the usual blunders and misjudgments, I was once proud to earn my living. But I have spent too much time, in these past few years, being ashamed of my profession: hence the note of anger which, I can now see, has crept into this essay even though I was determined to keep it out. As my retirement changed to illness and then to dotage, I would have preferred to sit back and write poems than to be known for taking a position in what is, despite the colossal scale of its foolish waste, a very petty quarrel._ _But it was time to stand up and fight, if only because so many of the advocates, though they must know by now that they are professing a belief they no longer hold, will continue to profess it anyway._ _Back in the day, when I was starting off in journalism  on The Sydney Morning Herald, as it happens  the one thing we all learned early from our veteran colleagues was never to improve the truth for the sake of the story. If they caught us doing so, it was the end of the world._ _
But here we are, and the world hasnt ended after all. Though some governments might not yet have fully returned to the principle of evidence-based policy, most of them have learned to be wary of policy-based evidence. They have learned to spot it coming, not because the real virtues of critical inquiry have been well argued by scientists but because the false claims of abracadabra have been asserted too often by people who, though they might have started out as scientists of a kind, have found their true purpose in life as ideologists._ _Modern history since World War II has shown us that it is unwise to predict what will happen to ideologists after their citadel of power has been brought low. It was feared that the remaining Nazis would fight on, as werewolves. Actually, only a few days had to pass before there were no Nazis to be found anywhere except in Argentina, boring one another to death at the worlds worst dinner parties._ _After the collapse of the Soviet Union, on the other hand, when it was thought that no apologists for Marxist collectivism could possibly keep their credibility in the universities of the West, they not only failed to lose heart, they gained strength._ _
Some critics would say that the climate change fad itself is an offshoot of this @lingering revolutionary animus against liberal democracy, and that the true purpose of the climatologists is to bring about a world government that will ensure what no less a philanthropist than Robert Mugabe calls climate justice, in which capitalism is replaced by something more altruistic._ _I prefer to blame mankinds inherent capacity for raising opportunism to a principle: the enabling condition for fascism in all its varieties, and often an imperative mindset among high-end frauds._ _On behalf of the UN, Maurice Strong, the first man to raise big money for climate justice, found slightly under a million dollars of it sticking to his fingers, and hid out in China for the rest of his life  a clear sign of his guilty knowledge that he had pinched it._ _
Later operators lack even the guilt. They just collect the money, like the Prime Minister of Tuvalu, who has probably guessed by now that the sea isnt going to rise by so much as an inch; but he still wants, for his supposedly threatened atoll, a share of the free cash, and especially because the question has changed. It used to be: how will we cope when the disaster comes? The question now is: how will we cope if it does not?_ _There is no need to entertain @visions of a vast, old-style army of disoccupied experts retreating through the snow, eating first their horses and finally each other. But there could be quite a lot of previously well-subsidised people left standing around while they vaguely wonder why nobody is listening to them any more. Way back in 2011, one of the Climategate scientists, Britains Tommy Wils, with an engagingly honest caution rare among prophets, speculated in an email about what people outside their network might do to them if climate change turned out to be a bunch of natural variations: Kill us, probably. But there has been too much talk of mass death already, and anyway most of the alarmists are the kind of people for whom it is a sufficiently fatal punishment simply to be ignored._ _Nowadays I write with aching slowness, and by the time I had finished assembling the previous paragraph, the US had changed presidents. What difference this transition will make to the speed with which the climate change meme collapses is yet to be seen, but my own guess is that it was already almost gone anyway: a comforting view to take if you dont like the idea of a posturing zany like Donald Trump changing the world._ _
Personally, I dont even like the idea of Trump changing a light bulb, but we ought to remember that this dimwitted period in the history of the West began with exactly that: a change of light bulbs. Suddenly, 100 watts were too much. For as long as the climate change fad lasted, it always depended on poppycock; and it would surely be unwise to believe that mankinds capacity to believe in fashionable nonsense could be cured by the disproportionately high cost of a temporary embarrassment. Im almost sorry that I wont be here for the ceremonial unveiling of the next threat._ _Almost certainly the opening feast will take place in Paris, with a happy sample of all the worlds young scientists facing the fragrant remains of their first ever plate of foie gras, while vowing that it will not be the last._ _This is an exclusive extract from the essay Mass Death Dies Hard by Clive James in Climate Change: The Facts 2017 edited by Jennifer Marohasy, published next month by the Institute of Public Affairs._

----------


## DavoSyd

> _This is an exclusive extract from the essay Mass Death Dies Hard by Clive James in Climate Change: The Facts 2017 edited by Jennifer Marohasy, published next month by the Institute of Public Affairs__._

  will you be at the book signing Marc?

----------


## Marc

_Dyson served science. 
Except for the few holdouts who go on fighting to defend the objective nature of truth, most of the climate scientists who get famous are serving themselves._ _There was a time when the journalists could have pointed out the difference, but now they have no idea. Instead, they are so celebrity-conscious that they would supply Flannery with a new clown suit if he wore out the one he is wearing now. 
................. _ To take a conspicuous if ludicrous case, Australian climate star Tim Flannery will probably not, of his own free will, shrink back to the position conferred by his original metier, as an expert on the extinction of the giant wombat. He is far more likely to go on being, and wishing to be, one of the mass media’s mobile oracles about climate. While that possibility continues, it will go on being danger@ous to stand between him and a television camera. If the giant wombat could have moved at that speed, it would still be with us. The mere fact that few of Flannery’s predictions have ever come true need not be enough to discredit him, just as American professor Paul Ehrlich has been left untouched since he predicted that the world would soon run out of copper. In those days, when our current phase of the long discussion about man’s attack on nature was just beginning, he predicted mass death by extreme cold. Lately he predicts mass death by extreme heat. But he has always predicted mass death by extreme something. Actually, a more illustrative starting point for the theme of the permanently imminent climatic apocalypse might be taken as August 3, 1971, when _The Sydney Morning Herald announced that the Great Barrier Reef would be dead in six months._ _After six months the reef had not died, but it has been going to die almost as soon as that ever since, making it a strangely durable emblem for all those who have wedded themselves to the notion of climate catastrophe._ _The most exalted of all the world’s predictors of reef death, former US president Barack Obama, has still not seen the reef; but he promises to go there one day when it is well again._

----------


## John2b

> ...August 3, 1971, when _The Sydney Morning Herald announced that the Great Barrier Reef would be dead in six months..._

  What was that from Marc? Freezing over I suppose since you have repeated claims here maybe a hundred times that climate scientists in the 1970s were fear-mongering about catastrophic global cooling.

----------


## John2b

> Actually, a more illustrative starting point for the theme of the permanently imminent climatic apocalypse might be taken as August 3, 1971, when _The Sydney Morning Herald announced that the Great Barrier Reef would be dead in six months._

  Anyone wondering why this cut and paste that has ripped its way around the global denier blogosphere is never linked to its source? Could it be that:

----------


## John2b

> Actually, a more illustrative starting point for the theme of the permanently imminent climatic apocalypse might be taken as August 3, 1971, when _The Sydney Morning Herald announced that the Great Barrier Reef would be dead in six months._

  Anyone wondering why this cut and paste that has ripped its way around the global denier blogosphere is never linked to its source? Could it be that the claim is just made up drivel?:   
The Great Barrier Reef gets a grand total of 6 mentions in the Sydney Morning Herald in August 1971, and none of them have anything to do with its supposed impending demise.

----------


## PhilT2

Qld voters have spoken and while it may be a while before we know what they have said the good news is starting to trickle in. Former Senator Roberts from One Nation appears to have lost his attempt to move into state politics. It also looks like the leader of the Qld branch of One Nation, former LNP member Steve Dickson may also lose his seat.

----------


## PhilT2

In Qld the Kidston Enegy Park is up and running; in SA the battery has also started on schedule. WattClarity | Making Australia&#039;s Electricity Market Understandable 
Qld itself is still running despite the fact that we don't know yet who is actually running it, as counting continues in the state election. The Adani mine,which featured in the election campaign, looks less likely to ever start running as yet more banks decline the opportunity to provide financing for it. 
Malcolm is still running the country though there is some disagreement about the direction he is taking it. The wowsers are all sure we are headed for hell if the SSM legislation is passed but I predict the sun will still rise in the east the next day and life will go on pretty much as before. 
I plan on running away from home and not coming back until it's safe to go to the shops without being trampled. I'd also like to get in early (just in case the world does end) and wish all a safe and happy Xmas and thanks for your contribution to this forum over the last year.

----------


## John2b

> ...in SA the battery has also started on schedule...

  ... and electricity prices in South Australia fell below those in coal-rich Victoria and NSW in the first four months of the financial year, and have been the lowest of any mainland eastern state in the past few months... 
It's a bugger when ideology and reality diverge, isn't it Marc? 
Australian Financial Review Nov 6 2017: South Australia's power now cheaper than coal-fired states  South Australia's power now cheaper than coal-fired states - Ross Garnaut | afr.com 
Merry Xmas everyone.

----------


## Bros

> Australian Financial Review Nov 6 2017: South Australia's power now cheaper than coal-fired states  South Australia's power now cheaper than coal-fired states - Ross Garnaut | afr.com 
> .

  Totally useless link

----------


## DavoSyd

> Totally useless link

  here ya go:  South Australia's power now cheaper than coal-fired states - Ross Garnaut | afr.com

----------


## Bros

> here ya go:  South Australia's power now cheaper than coal-fired states - Ross Garnaut | afr.com

  Thanks

----------


## John2b

> Totally useless link

  Works for me. Still. But I accept that some people think my links are totally useless, and that's a cross I'll just have to bear. Meanwhile, even producers of gross embedded energy products like Australia's biggest cement supplier are clamouring to buy renewable energy - with absolutely no doubt decisions are based on price: Adelaide Brighton signs up for renewable power from Infigen Energy | afr.com

----------


## Bros

Another useless link.

----------


## chrisp

> Works for me. Still. But I accept that some people think my links are totally useless, and that's a cross I'll just have to bear.

  ... or you’re a subscriber to the AFR. Non-subscribers will get a page nagging them to subscribe! 
For non-subscribers, one tip with links to paywall sites is to search for the same article via Google. The Google link will usually (sometimes?) allow you to view the articles behind the paywall.

----------


## DavoSyd

> ... or you’re a subscriber to the AFR. Non-subscribers will get a page nagging them to subscribe! 
> For non-subscribers, one tip with links to paywall sites is to search for the same article via Google. The Google link will usually (sometimes?) allow you to view the articles behind the paywall.

  you actually have to search google + find the AFR link + click the drop down and click "Cached" 
ergo: Adelaide Brighton signs up for renewable power from Infigen Energy | afr.com

----------


## DavoSyd

still, John should be doing this hocus pocus, it is strange he doesn't realise it's behind a paywall?

----------


## UseByDate

> Works for me. Still. But I accept that some people think my links are totally useless, and that's a *cross*_ I'll just have to bear_. Meanwhile, even producers of gross embedded energy products like Australia's biggest cement supplier are clamouring to buy renewable energy - with absolutely no doubt decisions are based on price: Adelaide Brighton signs up for renewable power from Infigen Energy | afr.com

  Reminds me of a friend of mine who, when growing up, went to Sunday school. He was convinced there was a bear in the bible called Gladly who was cross eyed. He had miss heard the phrase  “gladly my cross I bear”. :Doh:

----------


## PhilT2

It's "Glady the cross eyed bear" by Ed McBain, a popular kids book.  https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-446-51989-2

----------


## UseByDate

> It's "Glady the cross eyed bear" by Ed McBain, a popular kids book.  https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-446-51989-2

  The joke was on me.  :Shock:

----------


## chrisp

> It's "Glady the cross eyed bear" by Ed McBain, a popular kids book.  https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-446-51989-2

  Are you sure that’s a kids book????

----------


## PhilT2

> Are you sure that’s a kids book????

  You're right, McBain is a popular crime fiction writer, so not a kids book.

----------


## Bros

> ... or you’re a subscriber to the AFR. Non-subscribers will get a page nagging them to subscribe! 
> For non-subscribers, one tip with links to paywall sites is to search for the same article via Google. The Google link will usually (sometimes?) allow you to view the articles behind the paywall.

   If you are going to post a link to support your argument it should be accessible to all posters not just subscribers nor via using google makes you look like a real goose.

----------


## John2b

> ... or you’re a subscriber to the AFR. Non-subscribers will get a page nagging them to subscribe! 
> For non-subscribers, one tip with links to paywall sites is to search for the same article via Google. The Google link will usually (sometimes?) allow you to view the articles behind the paywall.

  Thanks for the suggestions, chrisp. I'm not a paid subscriber to AFR or any other paper or website, so why a site I can see is paywalled for others is a mystery. 
[Edited to delete duplicate information after reading posts after the one I responded to.]

----------


## SilentButDeadly

I laughed...

----------


## John2b

We humans need to keep a core temperature of ~37 degrees to survive. Death normally occurs if the core body temperature reaches 43 degrees. When air temperatures are above 37, humans rely on cooling from perspiration to contain core temperatures, but this doesn't work in high temperatures with high humidity. Many places on Earth are/have already headed into uninhabitable climate. So much for a bit of warming being a great benefit to humankind! 
BTW, recent comparisons of global warming projections from models with actual measured global warming records show that models have under-predicted recent actual global warming. This means that greenhouse gas emissions will need to be curtailed much faster than current expectations to have any chance of keeping transient warming below the current world targets. Remember that _equilibrium_ global warming is going to be much higher than the transient warming that COP is aiming for, even if future emissions were zero or negative.  https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24672

----------


## Bros

At $199 I’ll give it a miss.

----------


## PhilT2

Sometimes if there is an article that i want to read I wait until the journal comes to the local library and access it there, for some I wait until I have a job near the State library or the local university and go check it out there. 
The same goes for newspaper articles. If i do need to actually see them for some particular reason then the library has copies. Links are always useful to me even if they are to a paywalled site.

----------


## John2b

Reading the abstract is free, Bros.

----------


## Bros

> Reading the abstract is free, Bros.

  I know but I would rather see the report then you can decide for yourself as to what to believe.

----------


## woodbe

Often read the reports at our local (SA Flinders Uni) library.  
Best to read the abstract, then if you wish to read the entire article, drop into the local Uni like UQ in Queensland.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I know but I would rather see the report then you can decide for yourself as to what to believe.

  If you are making non critical decisions perhaps reading lots of abstracts is better.  The whole paper is useful when it is completely new and or disagrees with the body of evidence . 
most quality papers take and hour or 2 each to make a meaningful understanding, even then, it’s very unlikely the stats, methods etc are truly understood by the reader. 
possibly the best use of full papers (scientific ones at least) is to Read carefully and note how much you don’t understand - more than anything it’s the realisation of how little you truly understand that gives way to wisdom

----------


## Bros

> If you are making non critical decisions perhaps reading lots of abstracts is better.  The whole paper is useful when it is completely new and or disagrees with the body of evidence . 
> most quality papers take and hour or 2 each to make a meaningful understanding, even then, it’s very unlikely the stats, methods etc are truly understood by the reader. 
> possibly the best use of full papers (scientific ones at least) is to Read carefully and note how much you don’t understand - more than anything it’s the realisation of how little you truly understand that gives way to wisdom

  If the cause is so important to science and the whole world it would stand to reason to make this available publicly which would show there concern not to make it available shows to me it is just a money making buisness. 
As for going to a university it is difficult to do for me as you would have to read it there and as been said scientific papers can take a bit of reading and I would like to take time to read. 
I have read some scientific papers on a cancer subject I have been interested in and it takes time to read it but I get a pretty good idea what's is being said and weather it is believable when you find out the size of the sampling and the duration of the testing. 
Abstracts only wet your appetite for more and in this case a sales pitch.

----------


## woodbe

Fair comment about the difficulty to spend time on the published and costly journals. Not sure of the legal situation, but I do occasionally photocopy the particular article at the uni. Could also copy it on the phone but haven't. 
To be fair, the journals have employees and paper publishing and transport of the publications. Not many published journals or magazines are free because there are associated costs to produce the information and to publish it... 
There has been some movement by some who agree that the information should be openly access by anyone interested, but not yet by any of the major publishers such as https://www.nature.com/ 
A couple of examples of open access journals:  https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/recent_papers.html  IJERPH | 2017 - Browse Issues mdpi has also a wide range of journals in similar and other science areas. Free for readers, with article processing charges (APC) paid by authors or their institutions.

----------


## PhilT2

Before the internet journals were the only way scientists could get their work out there. We're stuck with a system that hasn't moved with the times. Journals have cornered the market and are reluctant to relinquish control of a profitable revenue stream. It's not  limited to climate science; every branch of scientific research is caught in the same trap. Some scientists, including some in climate research, are pushing for open access and making their work freely available, if you know where to look. 
But they risk being penalised by the academic world which awards promotions and grants to those with a good history of published work that has stood the test of scrutiny by their peers. 
There is no conspiracy to hide the information from us. Available at a local library that has a photocopier is close enough to free for me until open access takes over;which hopefully is only a few years away.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Phil, the peer review part is vital though.  Not only does it check work, but the journals also sift through the tens of thousands of papers and choose the ones that have actually studied something new.  The downside is that null papers are rarely published because they lack interest, though often important. 
Elsevier does make pretty good profits on all its journals , but the problem is that open access has plenty of problems as well. There was a guy who wrote a fake paper and it was accepted in quite a number of open access journals, somthe review process is needed. 
its not perfect, but otoh I’m not sure it’s relevant.  Given almost any question you can find a paper that by itself agrees with whatever slant you want and looks OK.  This area is as easy as any other to find a contrarian paper or review that sounds plausible, and that’s why I think reading papers outside of your area  of speciality is fraught with danger

----------


## Marc

So we are now debating articles you need to pay to read. Sweet.
The "global warming" industry reminds me of another little industry that rose it's ugly head in NSW recently. Recycling. 
Very good idea to re-use materials that would otherwise go to waste and landfill, recycling has been the do-gooder catchphrase for many decades now.  
Recycling is usually the lowest paying job on the planet and many countries unemployed and homeless, pay their meals by collecting paper, glass, steel tin cans, plastic, fabric etc and take it to a manufacturing plant that pays to re-use those materials.
There is a catch in recycling though ... the product needs to have a market value. Must be worth something to be worth collecting and processing. It does not matter how much the green industry prompts our collective guilt so that we don't throw that bottle in the rubbish but re-cycle it ... if the bottle is worth nothing, there is no point. 
In Bob Hawke's time we were big in recycling paper. The state's stockpile of paper was a mile high and several miles wide yet no one was buying. I am not sure how dear old Bob got rid of it, probably shipped it to Haiti between dusk and dawn, and similar fate had many other oh so green initiatives.
But now ... (drum roll) ... we proudly present the NSW container deposit _scheme. _ Just the fact that it is called a "scheme" should ring all the alarms. If something has a value and it will be chanelled towards someone who can use it, you don't need a "scheme" (read scam).
But hey, must give Gladys B. an "A" in business scams. See, this is how it goes:  
Remember I said the material must have some value in order to be worthwhile recycling? No Marc, you are wrong, that is not needed. All you need is to charge the consumer an inordinate excess for the privilege of consuming (wasteful lot you are) and then promise to return a small part of that extra fat, if the consumer is stupid enough to jump through some stupid hoops and get some few dollars thrown at them.
First scam.  
Second scam, the state is going to send manufacturers broke if they try to comply with the state demands NSW cash-for-cans 'will send us broke' 
Many drink manufacturers have already stated they will not pay. 
But the part I like the most is SA itself, the model state when it comes to nincompoop schemes. 
Glass bottles are worth nothing because of cheap imports so we keep on stockpiling it and keep on rolling in more stock. Who will pay for this madness? The same idiots that pay for all the other green scams, that is you and me.   Recycling companies stockpiling thousands of tonnes of glass as cheap imports leave market in crisis - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
Meantime Gladys enjoys a large salary for the privilege of yet another green scam.  
Sorry must go now, have to do the run of collecting bottles out of the neighbours waste bin and take it to the local collection point. 
It is "un-manned" (shouldn't it be un-personned?) ... so I can take bottles, and pick up cash from the manufacturers superannuation (screw the rich) and drop off my other rubbish that does not fit in my bin. Have a ton of second hand bricks, may as well take them too for recycling there. 
They can sort it out right? 
I should change my signature to ... Go SOLAR and recycle the Sun rays! Woohoo yea!   
I feel great, I just recycled a lot of bottles and got paid for my good dead. I congratulate myself.  :Smilie:

----------


## phild01

Marc, you touched that nerve with me.  Apparently the yellow bin is no longer considered an appropriate way to recycle our bottles.  And who is going to cart barrow loads of bottles to collection points other than the kids.  So the yellow bin is no longer the way to do it so all my bottles will likely end up in the red bin instead. Paying 15 cents more a bottle and then not finding their way back to a collection point, who gets to keep the deposit paid!

----------


## Marc

I suggest to use the yellow bin to recycle asbestos instead.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Paying 15 cents more a bottle and then not finding their way back to a collection point, who gets to keep the deposit paid!

  In the main, it'll probably be the recycling companies that the NSW government have engaged to collect the bottles.They've got to be paid and the bottles aren't worth much on their own. Whatever is left over disappears into Treasury. 
I'm comfortable with that. 
Don't get too comfortable chucking bottles in general waste as the next step is to charge households for waste disposal by the ratio of weight:volume. It it weighs more than a preset amount for the volume of a mini wheelie bin then ka-ching... isn't a liberalised free market where the user must pay their own way a wonderful thing?

----------


## phild01

> In the main, it'll probably be the recycling companies that the NSW government have engaged to collect the bottles.They've got to be paid and the bottles aren't worth much on their own. Whatever is left over disappears into Treasury. 
> I'm comfortable with that. 
> Don't get too comfortable chucking bottles in general waste as the next step is to charge households for waste disposal by the ratio of weight:volume. It it weighs more than a preset amount for the volume of a mini wheelie bin then ka-ching... isn't a liberalised free market where the user must pay their own way a wonderful thing?

  As I see it the manufacturers are in for a windfall, so not comfortable with that.  Don't see how Treasury gets it. 
As for bin weight, plastic bottles weigh next to nothing.  If the government isn't happy enough with our yellow bin compliance then I don't care anymore and the red bin gets it.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> As I see it the manufacturers are in for a windfall, so not comfortable with that.  Don't see how Treasury gets it. 
> As for bin weight, plastic bottles weigh next to nothing.  If the government isn't happy enough with our yellow bin compliance then I don't care anymore and the red bin gets it.

  The beverage makers won't see it as the money passes through them in order to return to the consumer. They'll pay 100%. But not all the deposits will get paid so the Government will keep some but then they'll have to pay to operate the scheme so it gets put into some sort of economic activity. 
It doesn't devalue kerbside recycling. If anything it places a higher value on some of your recyclables in the hope that the recycling industry gets a cleaner waste stream and therefore a more valuable product. 
Throw away whatever wherever if that floats your boat (after all it's your rubbish- you bought it) but don't imagine for a second that it's a smart and sensible thing to do.

----------


## PhilT2

Don't understand how anyone could object to a scheme that would result in less litter on our streets, beaches, parks and waterways. Ratepayers and taxpayers bear the cost of cleaning up after the morons who won't clean up after themselves and chuck their litter out the car window. Maybe some of these people won't change their behaviour after the introduction of this scheme but at least they will now have to pay.

----------


## PhilT2

The container deposit scheme will also add to the cost of all sugar loaded soft drinks that are contributing to the obesity problem we have in this country. Hopefully it might result in some people considering limiting their consumption of these products, which will lead to some reduction in the obesity related health problems and reduce the burden on the public health system. Lots of "maybe's" there but could be another win for the taxpayer. 
Why did we wait so long before doing this?

----------


## Bigboboz

> The beverage makers won't see it as the money passes through them in order to return to the consumer. They'll pay 100%. But not all the deposits will get paid so the Government will keep some but then they'll have to pay to operate the scheme so it gets put into some sort of economic activity. 
> It doesn't devalue kerbside recycling. If anything it places a higher value on some of your recyclables in the hope that the recycling industry gets a cleaner waste stream and therefore a more valuable product. 
> Throw away whatever wherever if that floats your boat (after all it's your rubbish- you bought it) but don't imagine for a second that it's a smart and sensible thing to do.

  I thought NSW has the manufacturers running the system not the government, so the windfall doesn't go to the government.  So the manufacturers will be incentivised to make it difficult to return bottles...

----------


## Bigboboz

> Don't understand how anyone could object to a scheme that would result in less litter on our streets, beaches, parks and waterways. Ratepayers and taxpayers bear the cost of cleaning up after the morons who won't clean up after themselves and chuck their litter out the car window. Maybe some of these people won't change their behaviour after the introduction of this scheme but at least they will now have to pay.

  Walk me through how this will change the behaviour of the people that just litter everywhere? Aren't we just talking about bottles (glass only?)?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I thought NSW has the manufacturers running the system not the government, so the windfall doesn't go to the government.  So the manufacturers will be incentivised to make it difficult to return bottles...

  You might think that...but you'd be wrong.  NSW Gov is paying a consortium run by Cleanaway and Tomra to manage the scheme. Container Deposit Scheme NSW | Return And Earn tcnsw – Just another WordPress site 
Beverage makers aren't interested in helping because the scheme makes their products seemingly more expensive so they perceive they'll sell less going forward.

----------


## woodbe

> Walk me through how this will change the behaviour of the people that just litter everywhere? Aren't we just talking about bottles (glass only?)?

  No idea how NSW works (or not), but in SA 10c per bottle, plastic glass or tetra packs. I have spent plenty of time in the east, and there are way more of these items trashed around the burbs compared to SA. The population needs a benefit to look after their trash. Some people continue to throw their drink bottles beside the road, but part of the rest of the population is happy to pick them up.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Walk me through how this will change the behaviour of the people that just litter everywhere? Aren't we just talking about bottles (glass only?)?

  Simple.  It places a cash value on what was previously considered a valueless product. Human nature says if something is of cash value then it can be exchanged for cash.  Even if some pinhead decides to toss it away into the scrub...someone else will come looking for it.  Imagine the next Clean Up Australia Day in Sydney.  There'll be people getting stabbed for bags of empty beer bottles...anything to pay off the mortgage!

----------


## chrisp

Can I check if I’m in the right thread - is this the carbon tax thread or is it the bottle tax thread? They do sound awfully similar.   :Smilie:

----------


## PhilT2

Research from other countries prove that they work. Container deposit schemes work: so why is industry still opposed? 
I haven't checked the research in detail; it shows that the recycling rate improves enormously but I don't know if the recycling is being done by the purchaser of the container or a person who is collecting containers to make money. I suspect both occur to some degree.

----------


## PhilT2

> Can I check if I’m in the right thread - is this the carbon tax thread or is it the bottle tax thread? They do sound awfully similar.

  A thread going off-topic; no, that never happens here....

----------


## DavoSyd

w00t - there's a collection point just up the road! 
on the way to the bottle shop! 
everything's coming up Milhouse!

----------


## Marc

> Don't understand how anyone could object to a scheme that would result in less litter on our streets, beaches, parks and waterways. Ratepayers and taxpayers bear the cost of cleaning up after the morons who won't clean up after themselves and chuck their litter out the car window. Maybe some of these people won't change their behaviour after the introduction of this scheme but at least they will now have to pay.

  Your post epitomises the "green" thinking. Simplistic, unworkable, poorly thought out, bloody expensive, targeting the wrong people, with half a dozen hidden agendas behind it and some few more I can't be bothered spelling out, but with a large banner marching at the front ... How can anyone possibly be against cleaning up? 
It's no different from all the other harebrained schemes myths fallacies and assorted BS that litter our landscape and make us bleed tax money into various black holes.  
And the reasons are always the same. This boneheaded ideas have behind them a solid business strategy, only the one holding the placards will see no benefit, and neither will the environment. Only the recipients of the votes and those with the moneybag.

----------


## PhilT2

So it's another conspiracy then. Lucky you spotted it, nobody else did.

----------


## Bros

> A thread going off-topic; no, that never happens here....

  After 17428 posts it would be impossible for a thread to stay always on topic but it is like a winding road it comes back on track.

----------


## chrisp

> After 17428 posts it would be impossible for a thread to stay always on topic but it is like a winding road it comes back on track.

   Absolutely! 
I think that most it is due to AGW being accepted universally so the issue of a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme is fairly moot these days. It is only a few outliers that seem to be doubtful. But then again, I suppose that there are still a few people who believe that the world is flat, that smoking is harmless, that NASA faked the moon landing, ....

----------


## Marc

And that "climate change" is humans doing. 
Accepted "universally" oh my, when was the last time you stuck your nose outside Melbourne?

----------


## Bros

> Absolutely! 
> I think that most it is due to AGW being accepted universally so the issue of a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme is fairly moot these days. It is only a few outliers that seem to be doubtful. But then again, I suppose that there are still a few people who believe that the world is flat, that smoking is harmless, that NASA faked the moon landing, ....

   Weather you believe burning fossil fuel contributes to global warming or not to not recycle is insane as there are no more raw material being made and eventually these will get scarce and costly.  
It is cheaper in energy to recycle instead of making something from the raw materials.

----------


## Bigboboz

> You might think that...but you'd be wrong.  NSW Gov is paying a consortium run by Cleanaway and Tomra to manage the scheme. Container Deposit Scheme NSW | Return And Earn tcnsw – Just another WordPress site

  Good to hear   

> Beverage makers aren't interested in helping because the scheme makes their products seemingly more expensive so they perceive they'll sell less going forward.

  Seemingly more expensive? So they add more than 10c* to each bottle and return 10c?  
* I couldn't see how much they're adding to the original price, they left that out of the FAQ. Odd.

----------


## Bigboboz

> Simple.  It places a cash value on what was previously considered a valueless product. Human nature says if something is of cash value then it can be exchanged for cash.  Even if some pinhead decides to toss it away into the scrub...someone else will come looking for it.  Imagine the next Clean Up Australia Day in Sydney.  There'll be people getting stabbed for bags of empty beer bottles...anything to pay off the mortgage!

  I get why it works, just don't like that it socialises the cost of clean up onto everyone and those littering I bet won't change their behaviour. Sure they pay a bit but most dispose correctly so the cost is socialised...always the easy solution!

----------


## Bigboboz

> Weather you believe burning fossil fuel contributes to global warming or not to not recycle is insane as there are no more raw material being made and eventually these will get scarce and costly.  
> It is cheaper in energy to recycle instead of making something from the raw materials.

   :What he said:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> After 17428 posts it would be impossible for a thread to stay always on topic but it is like a winding road it comes back on track.

  And there's some stonking corners to drift around on the way. Plus there's a couple of sharks to jump as well!!

----------


## Marc

> Weather you believe burning fossil fuel contributes to global warming or not to not recycle is insane as there are no more raw material being made and eventually these will get scarce and costly.  
> It is cheaper in energy to recycle instead of making something from the raw materials.

  I doubt anyone would question that in principle Bros. 
However it is not that simple. Manufacturing is complicated, raw material mining or producing is complicated and all revolve around market forces. Sometimes, markets and prices have no logic. Finished product cost less than the raw materials they are made from. And  vice versa it can be cheaper to make something anew than recycle old stuff.
So recycling is not always cost effective nor makes economic sense in the current market. 
What makes even less sense is to create a fake demand by taxing a product to pretend it is "recycled" for feel good political reasons. It is inane and offends even the intelligence of a goldfish. 
Considering that the recycling market is drowning in unwanted stock, the _only_ way to correct this with honesty is to engage some region of the brain and find a demand for glass, paper, or whatever product we want to make wanted, not return some of the tax to appear to care.  
If you want recycled paper for your business cards, you pay more. Moronic I know but at least that created some form of a market. If government had any intention of doing something right rather than scoring cheap political points at taxpayers expenses, they would create a market for bottles. Make Christmas trees with bottles, grind bottles and give ministers an enema with it, anything but what they are doing now.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I get why it works, just don't like that it socialises the cost of clean up onto everyone and those littering I bet won't change their behaviour. Sure they pay a bit but most dispose correctly so the cost is socialised...always the easy solution!

  Privatising profit and socialising cost is an inherent part of modern economics. Especially when it comes to mineral resources, agriculture, infrastructure development and energy generation. Therefore it is part of life. 
We all subsidise the dickheads. 
This recycling thing is small biscuits by comparison. 
#sarcasm #grumpyoldmunchkin

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> I doubt anyone would question that in principle Bros. 
> However it is not that simple...

  Most of the unwanted stock is poor quality due to contamination with 'other stuff'. Thus its value is reduced because it's harder to reprocess.  No one wants it... 
These sort of bespoke and expensive recycling schemes are all about producing a higher quality source of material. It's sad but it's necessary. 
In the end it all comes down to people. And people are stupid. Filtering out stupid is really expensive and often strangely counter productive... something about less voters and less economic activity I'm told.

----------


## Marc

Do you know that for a fact? Those pictures wiht bags of bottles look pristine to me.
 Bottlers need to wash all bottles even new ones before they fill them so wash second hand bottles is a no brainer, needs zero investment and is done all over the world with the same equipment they use now.
The NSW government has opted for the easiest way and the known way. Tax and con the consumer and the voter pretending to fix a non existing problem. Most folks use their yellow bin for bottles and cans.  I see no large scale littering problem, not in Sydney and surroundings anyway. So we don't have a problem that needs fixing.
Sure you can see some littering at weekends in parks with bins overflowing. What we have is a rubbish collection problem not a recycling problem since none of it is going to recycling anyway, and that is my point when I say this is a con. We are paying more for the drinks in order to give incentives to people to pick up and dispose rubbish, something the council is paid to do. 
Incentives for bottlers to use second hand bottles via tax savings and different incentives is a no brainer and could yield the same political return and no backlash when the fraud becomes obvious, but requires intelligence and the right honest attitude that is completely absent from the political scene that is far too quick to jump at pretend green schemes and so reticent to use common sense and logic.

----------


## phild01

> I see no large scale littering problem, not in Sydney and surroundings anyway. So we don't have a problem that needs fixing.

  100% agree.

----------


## woodbe

lol. Really?   

> The Keep Australia Beautiful National Litter Index for NSW  found drink containers made up 49 per cent, take away containers 24 per  cent and print and advertising material eight per cent of total litter  volume in NSW.
> NSW Environment Minister Mark Speakman​ will  announce the index results on Wednesday, highlighting the drop for being  "almost halfway" to meeting the Premier's Priority of reducing litter  volume by 40 per cent by 2020.

  Sydney's dirty secret - the item responsible for almost 50 per cent of litter 
Maybe the Sydneysiders are so aware of the common rubbish they simply no longer notice. When I visit Sydney, the rubbish is totally obvious compared to a cleaner place back home.

----------


## Marc

Dirty tricks: Lifting lid on glass recyclingâ€™s dirty secret 
We don't need to pay more for some to pick up bottles since those bottles will go nowhere fast. No one is recycling we are talking about collecting. It's a con and will always be a con until bottlers are forced to refill their bottles. 
Thank you for making my point Woodbe ... it is a con to call this recycling. It is a rubbish collection scheme and last time I checked I pay $2000 to the council to do so. Do I really need to pay more again? 
Typical of all that emanates from greens. Smoke and mirrors and plenty of guilt trips. Recycling is to reuse the prime material, reusing is in case of bottles to refill them. Collecting rubbish and correcting littering is a council job and calling it "_recycling"_ is fraud pure and simple. Just like calling solar panels "saving the planet" that needs not saving.

----------


## woodbe

> Dirty tricks: Lifting lid on glass recyclingâ€™s dirty secret 
> We don't need to pay more for some to pick up bottles since those bottles will go nowhere fast. No one is recycling we are talking about collecting. It's a con and will always be a con until bottlers are forced to refill their bottles. 
> Thank you for making my point Woodbe ... it is a con to call this recycling. It is a rubbish collection scheme and last time I checked I pay $2000 to the council to do so. Do I really need to pay more again?

  Well, I guess if the population dumps rubbish everywhere, then someone has to pay to collect it. You pay an extra $2000 over your normal rubbish collection? Wow, the problem is even bigger than I thought!

----------


## Marc

Woodbe, can you write something that makes sense for a change? 
If you define recycling you will then know this is not recycling. 
No one can recycle something that no one wants to use, reuse, melt down or find a value in any other way. 
If the present rubbish collection is outdated or lacking it is the council that needs correcting it via the massive money they extort from the ratepayer. 
If you have a point it eludes me.

----------


## Bedford

Forty odd years ago I was doing the garbage run of over one hundred 44 gallon rubbish bins amongst the picnic grounds where I worked. 
Every Monday and Friday they were full, the Government in it's wisdom decided that if they removed the bins, they would remove the rubbish and the cost of collecting it. 
They removed the bins and placed signs saying "Please take your rubbish home". 
This resulted in an increase in Wombat sightings, long drop dunnies being chock a block, and the extinction of the hollow log. 
Brilliant.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe, can you write something that makes sense for a change? 
> If you define recycling you will then know this is not recycling. 
> No one can recycle something that no one wants to use, reuse, melt down or find a value in any other way. 
> If the present rubbish collection is outdated or lacking it is the council that needs correcting it via the massive money they extort from the ratepayer. 
> If you have a point it eludes me.

  I think you are missing the point completely. As a community, we should not be dumping and leaving rubbish across our lands. Some of the items are recyclable but leaving anything dumped becomes a problem. If the population decides not to dump waste appropriately, then the governments have to clean up the mess.     www.epa.sa.gov.au/files/13021_kesab2016.pdf 
If a price is added to the bottles that is refunded to the customer when they return the empty, then there is less rubbish around the land. Simple, works, and low cost.

----------


## phild01

Agree Marc, it's a con and the stats are usually compiled by those with an agenda, which get slanted.  When I look around I don't see much to complain about.
Got a pile of plastic bottles about to go in the red bin for tomorrow's collection.

----------


## Bros

> I think you are missing the point completely. As a community, we should not be dumping and leaving rubbish across our lands. Some of the items are recyclable but leaving anything dumped becomes a problem. If the population decides not to dump waste appropriately, then the governments have to clean up the mess.   
> If a price is added to the bottles that is refunded to the customer when they return the empty, then there is less rubbish around the land. Simple, works, and low cost.

   Woodbe you are in SA where the drink deposit exists what do you actually do not how you should do it? 
I am of the vintage where we used to collect long neck bottles and take them to the local soft drink factory and collect the refund. The local soft drink factory has disappeared now and the glass bottles have been replaced by the plastic one.

----------


## woodbe

Hi Bros, 
We store our empty drink bottles out in a box on the verandah. When it is full we drop it off at the recycling place on the way to the city. It's easy, quick and simple. Paid in cash for the refund. Can also drop off wine bottles (no deposit) and cardboard boxes flattened also free. They also collect electronics but don't know if there is a cost to do that.  
The issue is that a percentage of the population will dump bottles when they have emptied them wherever they drink them. Having a deposit may not solve the problem for those people, but there are always other people following along some time later and happy to collect the dumped bottles to pick up the refund. I regularly walk 5km+ several times a week in the area and yes I pick up a bottle if I see one. I pickup one or two a week so some other people are dropping bottles and obviously more than myself collecting them. The result is basically little to no bottles around the place compared to places I visit in Sydney etc.

----------


## phild01

I reckon the streets yellow bins will be raided by never ending marauding vans and trucks soon enough.  Just like what happens when we have a council cleanup.

----------


## chrisp

> Woodbe you are in SA where the drink deposit exists what do you actually do not how you should do it? 
> I am of the vintage where we used to collect long neck bottles and take them to the local soft drink factory and collect the refund. The local soft drink factory has disappeared now and the glass bottles have been replaced by the plastic one.

  I do recall a time in Victoria when there was a (iirc) 5 cent deposit on soft drink bottles and probably also on glass milk bottles (remember those?). I was too young at the time to know if this was a voluntary arrangement or mandatory arrangement. My parents owned a milk bar (remember those?) at the time and empty bottles were simply exchanged when buying another. I.e. if you were buying a bottle of soft drink, you could pay the full price, or bring in a empty and pay the reduced price (sans deposit). I do recall as kids it was common to round up some empty bottle and take them to the shop and exchange them for lollies. Empty bottles were just as good as cash in those days. Empty soda siphons were worth 20 cents and eagerly sought. 
From the shop keepers view, the deal was much the same with the suppliers. They were deliver (wooden) cases of drinks, and take back cases of empties. It was only when there was a mismatch in the numbers would money be exchanged for the deposits.

----------


## phild01

Yes remember the deposit for bottles well.  Then soft drink was sold in non-returnable glass bottles.  Still remember the styrofoam wrapped pepsi bottles.  Back then soft drink wasn't as prevalent as what it has become, and that deposit system as it operated  would be unworkable today.  The solution was the yellow bin, but apparently not good enough for some of those who like to extoll spin.

----------


## chrisp

> Yes remember the deposit for bottles well.  Then soft drink was sold in non-returnable glass bottles.  Still remember the styrofoam wrapped pepsi bottles.  Back then soft drink wasn't as prevalent as what it has become, and that deposit system as it operated  would be unworkable today.  The solution was the yellow bin, but apparently not good enough for some of those who like to extoll spin.

  I recall that part of the reasoning for the single-use bottles was the cost of the bottles themselves. The reusable bottles were heavier and more durable - and more costly - than the thinner single use bottles. I suppose I could take a leaf out of Marc’s conspiracy theory book and suggest that the packaging industry just wanted to up their turnover by selling single use packaging.

----------


## woodbe

The issue is not so much the yellow bin, the issue is for the percentage of people who do not return the bottles to anywhere, they just drop them on the ground. 
There is also an issue for some that place the bottles into the rubbish bins and land up in landfill:   

> The scheme is perceived by the overwhelming majority to have been  effective in reducing recyclable containers going to landfill (92%),  reducing litter in South Australia (97%) and encouraging recycling/reuse  of drink containers (98%), all showing increases since the previous  study.

  FAQs | EPA

----------


## Marc

I am amazed at the capacity some people have to generate smoke and background noise. 
If the recycling industry is drowning in unwanted stock they are keeping in warehouses with nowhere to go, can you tell me how is it that you are stopping it from going to landfill? You are just delaying the inevitable at great cost to the taxpayer who is paying through the nose for this inane wastage in storage.  Does anyone know what happened to the massive stockpile of paper we had in the eighties?  
And WE are beating our chest for having "adopted" such great _scheme_ ? The yellow bin works, people recycle and have been doing so for the last 30 years in NSW. With no initiatives to create a market for the stuff we throw in the bin, besides some little known private initiatives like the one that sold stuff for arts and crafts, almost everything from the yellow bin goes to landfill and so once more the duplication of collection trucks is a total waste and may as well give us two rubbish bins and use just the one truck.   
Littering is a separate issue and it is cultural. I walk the dog in the local reserve and every week have to pull a shopping trolley out of the creek that some imbecile decided to toss in there rather than leaving on the footpath for the tractor to collect. There are substantial rewards in place for spotting trolleys yet that does not stop this sort of vandalism nor will the 10c stop people tossing beer bottles out of their car in motion.  
I am all for recycling, in fact I would like to see much more done. I am as stupid as to feel satisfaction in placing containers in the yellow bin even when I know it will most likely be wasted. The current NSW scheme does nothing for recycling and will most likely do nothing for the very small littering problem we may have.  It takes ingenuity, intelligence and negotiating skills to achieve the recycling of material back into a manufacturing process. We currently lack all of the above.

----------


## woodbe

I am also amazed at the capacity some people have to generate smoke and background noise. 
My response was for your own claim:   

> Second scam, the state is going to send manufacturers broke if they try to comply with the state demands NSW cash-for-cans 'will send us broke' 
> Many drink manufacturers have already stated they will not pay. 
> But the part I like the most is SA itself, the model state when it comes to nincompoop schemes. 
> Glass bottles are worth nothing because of cheap imports so we keep on  stockpiling it and keep on rolling in more stock. Who will pay for this  madness? The same idiots that pay for all the other green scams, that is  you and me.   Recycling  companies stockpiling thousands of tonnes of glass as cheap imports  leave market in crisis - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  If the NSW 'cash for cans' process is wrong, they should follow the long successful process that SA has continued for years.

----------


## Bedford

> There is also an issue for some that place the bottles into the rubbish bins and land up in landfill:   FAQs | EPA

  It's got nothing to do with recycling as very little is recycled anyway. 
It's to do with a litter problem disguised in "Feel Good"   

> *The container deposit scheme started in 1977 to reduce the litter  problem* created by littered beverage containers and over time it has  been extended to cover other frequently littered containers used for  bottled waters, small flavoured milk drinks, sports drinks, spirit based  ready to drink beverages (whisky, cola, etc).  
>  However, glass containers for wine and spirits and also larger fruit  juice and flavoured milk containers (one litre and above) are not  usually found in the litter stream because most of these beverages are  consumed at home, or at licensed premises. These containers are  generally recovered by kerbside recycling.

  They're pretty selective. 
Anyone ever watched a rubbish truck in a court in a housing estate? 
One truck and all bins go in it.

----------


## woodbe

> It's got nothing to do with recycling as very little is recycled anyway. 
> It's to do with a litter problem disguised in "Feel Good" 
>  They're pretty selective. 
> Anyone ever watched a rubbish truck in a court in a housing estate? 
> One truck and all bins go in it.

  Maybe in your area, but here we have 3 bins, and each is collected by separate trucks. Rubbish is every week, green waste and recyclable swap every week in our area. 
Collecting the recyclable litter rather than dumping it in landfill will able the country to recycle it in the future. PET is the most common element, and can be reused and has significant potential.   

> Worldwide, approximately 7.5 million tons of PET were collected in 2011.  This gave 5.9 million tons of flake. In 2009 3.4 million tons were used  to produce fibre, 500,000 tons to produce bottles, 500,000 tons to  produce APET sheet for thermoforming, 200,000 tons to produce strapping tape and 100,000 tons for miscellaneous applications.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PET_bottle_recycling  
Might not be your own current opinion, but definitely better than "Feel Bad". Collect and process usable reprocessable bottles even if the country hasn't significantly yet taken up the chance.

----------


## PhilT2

> It's got nothing to do with recycling as very little is recycled anyway. 
> It's to do with a litter problem disguised in "Feel Good" 
> They're pretty selective. 
> Anyone ever watched a rubbish truck in a court in a housing estate? 
> One truck and all bins go in it.

  Got any figures that show what is, or isn't, being recycled and if so, how much?
The truck issue certainly doesn;t happen here.

----------


## woodbe

> Got any figures that show what is, or isn't, being recycled and if so, how much?
> The truck issue certainly doesn;t happen here.

  Maybe a split truck. 
Before our area switched to separate bins, we had a split bin and the truck collected both sides of the bin and had two sections in the truck.

----------


## phild01

Maybe something missed here but recyclables are being stockpiled or sent to Queensland as land waste.  Why do you think the recycling companies want to build furnaces pretending to be as an adjunct to the electricity supply.  Because they don't want to pay for the stuff going to landfill and also to get rid of stockpiled recyclables.
My first load of pet bottles just went in the red bin....makes no difference.
The government knows what's going on and know no answer and so pretend recycling any which way is all good spin.

----------


## Bedford

> PET is the most common element, and can be reused and has significant potential.

  Yes, seems they could even incinerate it and run a power station with it.   

> PET, as with many plastics, is also an excellent candidate for thermal disposal (incineration), as it is composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, with only trace amounts of catalyst elements (but no sulfur). PET has the energy content of soft coal.

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

----------


## Bedford

> Got any figures that show what is, or isn't, being recycled and if so, how much?
> The truck issue certainly doesn;t happen here.

  This Mob's probably got figures, Waste Disposal and Kerbside Collection - Edward River 
One truck one household rubbish bin, and if you want to recycle anything you have to do the 10k round trip to the tip.

----------


## Marc

The only true practical recycling that goes on around here is steel at the tip (free tipping) or the scrapyard (peanuts payments), bricks and concrete at the concrete recycling place (pay for the privilege). The rest is a load of BS and we pay for the marketing and the flags and banners. This morons couldn't organise a tea party in a nursing home.

----------


## PhilT2

I was looking at some insulation recently and all of it had "Made from recycled material" on it. So who wants to call them all liars?

----------


## Bros

> When I visit Sydney, the rubbish is totally obvious compared to a cleaner place back home.

  I wonder if that is a recycling problem or a terrorist related problem?

----------


## Bigboboz

> I was looking at some insulation recently and all of it had "Made from recycled material" on it. So who wants to call them all liars?

  Materiality.

----------


## phild01

> I was looking at some insulation recently and all of it had "Made from recycled material" on it. So who wants to call them all liars?

  The feel good token gesture.

----------


## woodbe

Definitely a token of the future, but Australia and the world is moving forward. One of the reasons is the amount of landfill is enormous. If the waste is separated from reusable items there will be less landfill, and the recycled products will use less energy than creating the same from initial resources and energy. 
Here is one company dealing with Green waste, food waste, organic recycling, paper, cardboard, aluminium, plastic etc.  https://www.cleanaway.com.au/our-services/recycling/ 
Amusing that many of those unable to accept human based climate change seem to be unable to see the changing of recyclables.

----------


## woodbe

> This Mob's probably got figures, Waste Disposal and Kerbside Collection - Edward River 
> One truck one household rubbish bin, and if you want to recycle anything you have to do the 10k round trip to the tip.

  Except:   

> *Community Recycling Centres* The  Blighty Waste Disposal Depot and the Deniliquin Landfill Depot are both  Community Recycling Centres, which means you can dispose of a range of  reusable and recyclable materials free of charge, including:  Gas bottles;Fire extinguishers;Paint;Fluoro globes and tubes;Household and car batteries;Glass containers;Cardboard and paper;Motor and other oils; andSmoke detectors.

  Deniliquin area is a country area, not Sydney. High population areas need more rapid improvements, but at least there is capability to dump recyclables even in the country areas.

----------


## Bigboboz

> Definitely a token of the future

  Wow, just wow...   

> , but Australia and the world is moving forward. One of the reasons is the amount of landfill is enormous. If the waste is separated from reusable items there will be less landfill, and the recycled products will use less energy than creating the same from initial resources and energy.

  All very interesting but this change only impacts the small amount that is littered about.  You're trying to make this sound like it's revolutionary.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Definitely a token of the future, but Australia and the world is moving forward. One of the reasons is the amount of landfill is enormous. If the waste is separated from reusable items there will be less landfill, and the recycled products will use less energy than creating the same from initial resources and energy. 
> Here is one company dealing with Green waste, food waste, organic recycling, paper, cardboard, aluminium, plastic etc.  https://www.cleanaway.com.au/our-services/recycling/ 
> Amusing that many of those unable to accept human based climate change seem to be unable to see the changing of recyclables.

  Don't pretend that holes in the ground near concentrations of humans aren't now getting expensive...and there's always money in muck. The social licence is cheaper that way...

----------


## PhilT2

> Wow, just wow...   
> All very interesting but this change only impacts the *small amount* that is littered about.  You're trying to make this sound like it's revolutionary.

  I think it's about 8 million tons of plastic that goes into the ocean each year. https://scripps.ucsd.edu/search/site/plastic

----------


## phild01

Hmmm, that's like every person on earth throwing a large pet bottle into the ocean about 30 times a year. Probably another slanted statistic.
Or did I calc incorrectly!
Is bad nonetheless.

----------


## PhilT2

> Hmmm, that's like every person on earth throwing a large pet bottle into the ocean about 30 times a year. Probably another slanted statistic.
> Or did I calc incorrectly!
> Is bad nonetheless.

  Comes from research done by CSIRO and UCLA Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean | Science

----------


## phild01

Also, is it normal western waste or mostly 3rd world waste?
Not logging in to read.

----------


## PhilT2

> Also, is it normal western waste or mostly 3rd world waste?
> Not logging in to read.

  Probably mostly third world, but personally I find it hard to ask others to clean up their act unless one has already done so oneself.  Sometimes leading by example is all there is...

----------


## phild01

Leading by example is unlikely to change the ways of third world priorities.

----------


## Marc

That Cleanway link is pure window dressing. It is one thing to say what could be done, another what is really done. 
I linked several articles about the reality of recycling today. Saturation and no market for used containers. Everyone knows steel is recycled even when the price of scrap has fallen through the floor and that concrete and bricks are crushed and used at great expense to the consumer that must take it to a tip and pay through the nose for the privilege. 
No one in his right mind is "against" recycling. I am against political BS that costs me money and does not produce anything in return but poorly thought out attempts at harvest a few misguided votes. 
Just like "global warming" myths and legends.

----------


## Bedford

Regarding roadside collection of scrap metals, ever watched the compactor bursting the fridges and aircos releasing the refrigerant gasses? 
Penalties,  Refrigeration and Airconditioning under Australia's Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989 - Home Page

----------


## John2b

Where discarded plastic drink containers go to die (they float):   
Great Pacific Garbage Patch - 1 trillion pieces of plastic  https://rustygarnersmith.wordpress.c...garbage-patch/

----------


## PhilT2

> Regarding roadside collection of scrap metals, ever watched the compactor bursting the fridges and aircos releasing the refrigerant gasses? 
> Penalties,  Refrigeration and Airconditioning under Australia's Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989 - Home Page

  Fridges are not allowed to be put out for our kerbside cleanups for just that reason. All our dumps have a place to put them where they are degassed before crushing. Kerbside Clean Up - Logan City Council

----------


## Bedford

They are in other places, https://www.yarraranges.vic.gov.au/P...als-collection   

> Metals, whitegoods and equipment (fridge doors removed)

----------


## phild01

> Where discarded plastic drink containers go to die (they float):   
> Great Pacific Garbage Patch - 1 trillion pieces of plastic  https://rustygarnersmith.wordpress.c...garbage-patch/

  Just an image to me....where do I google earth it?
As for being trapped in Arctic ice then that would fly in the face of the world heating up, as such, just another 'spin' comment.

----------


## woodbe

TedX explains the gyre:

----------


## PhilT2

> Just an image to me....where do I google earth it?
> As for being trapped in Arctic ice then that would fly in the face of the world heating up, as such, just another 'spin' comment.

  The plastic would be trapped in the ice as the Arctic freezes up in the winter then released in the summer. Not sure how that has anything to do with the well documented decrease in the polar ice cap. Not sure that why happens to the plastic is relevant, surely the issue is that it is in the ocean in the first place? 
What happens to the tourism business when the barrier reef starts to look like that?

----------


## phild01

> The plastic would be trapped in the ice as the Arctic freezes up in the winter then released in the summer. Not sure how that has anything to do with the well documented decrease in the polar ice cap. Not sure that why happens to the plastic is relevant, surely the issue is that it is in the ocean in the first place? 
> What happens to the tourism business when the barrier reef starts to look like that?

  The statement was trying to sensationalise entrapped rubbish, but it just wasn't noteworthy.

----------


## DavoSyd

> The statement was trying to sensationalise entrapped rubbish, but it just wasn't noteworthy.

  exactly! 
the immensity of the rubbish is simply sensational by itself.

----------


## John2b

> Just an image to me....where do I google earth it?

  Great Pacific Garbage Patch - 1 trillion pieces of plastic - Google Search

----------


## DavoSyd

> Great Pacific Garbage Patch - 1 trillion pieces of plastic - Google Search

  what about on Google Maps?

----------


## woodbe

> what about on Google Maps?

  Quote from Google Ocean product manager Steve Miller:   

> Regarding the gyre: the trash gyre presents its own set of challenges.  Even  if we had satellite imagery, the gyre likely wouldn’t appear in  it. Most of the  plastic is particulate and/or a bit under the surface  so you can’t see it in the  imagery.

  https://searchengineland.com/great-p...le-earth-21333

----------


## John2b

> what about on Google Maps?

  Great Pacific Garbage Patch google maps - Google Search  Why You Can't See The Great Pacific Garbage Patch On Google Earth (or Google Maps) 
Actually, I think the main reason is that the ocean is not covered by air reconnaissance planes capturing the photo images that are used by Google Earth and Google Maps, so there are few surface photographic images available to map the ocean surface, except on coastal fringes near populated lands.

----------


## John2b

Here's an idea of the scale (the garbage is three dimensional, not just on the surface, it's like an iceberg):   
There's a garbage patch either side of Australia too in the Indian and Pacific oceans:      https://sciengsustainability.blogspo...in-oceans.html

----------


## DavoSyd

interesting read here, for those who might be interested...

----------


## woodbe

> They are in other places, https://www.yarraranges.vic.gov.au/P...als-collection

  Contacted Yarra Ranges Council with your suggestion but no identification. Response came from the Waste Management department:   

> Fridges, freezers and air conditioners are collected using a tray truck to ensure they are not damaged.  The collected items are then taken to either Coldstream or Knox Transfer Station (KTS) for degassing.  KTS Recycling is licensed to degas fridges. 
> Sometimes the crews will come across damaged fridges which no longer contain refrigerant, these may be collected with other items of scrap metal.

  If you are certain that gassed fridges are being damaged at pickup, I suggest you make a direct complaint to the council. If you send me a message, I can reply with the details.

----------


## Bros

Out driving today and took particular notice of the road side rubbish and there were plenty of drink containers but they were the type given out by the takeaway shops. I also notice a few of the rectangular boxes which I expect full of chicken bones, I never saw one drink bottle or can.

----------


## DavoSyd

OK mate, where'd ya drive exactly?

----------


## Bros

> OK mate, where'd ya drive exactly?

  Secret squirrel stuff.

----------


## phild01

> Out driving today and took particular notice of the road side rubbish and there were plenty of drink containers but they were the type given out by the takeaway shops. I also notice a few of the rectangular boxes which I expect full of chicken bones, I never saw one drink bottle or can.

  Yes thinking of littering, that's exactly what I ever see,  KFC and McDonalds packaging/cups.

----------


## pharmaboy2

What is it $160m or something?  How many unemployed or disability pensioners could be paid to clean up the roadsides, bush dumps etc with that money?

----------


## DavoSyd

do you have any idea what "disability" means?

----------


## DavoSyd

> Yes thinking of littering, that's exactly what I ever see,  KFC and McDonalds packaging/cups.

  when you went overseas, what did you see then?

----------


## John2b

I remember a McDonalds opening approximately 0.5km from my house back in about 1990. Within 24 hours discarded McDonald's pickles, tomato slices, chip cups, hamburger boxes and coffee cups appeared all over the street and footpath in front of our house, and discarded McDonald's crap continued to be a problem until I sold the house and moved years later. At the time it made me so angry I wanted to collect it all and dump it on McDonalds' head office doorstep. Later one of my colleagues who owned a McDonalds franchisee owner told me his net/net cost (i.e. including all overheads and labour) for a McBurger was about 20 cents (~1994) - that's more than 90% NET profit!!! Owning a franchise was better than a license to print money.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> do you have any idea what "disability" means?

  Yes, won’t work.  It’s where the chronically unemployed go to get off the Centrelink merry go round (also gets them off the unemployment statistics)

----------


## PhilT2

> Yes, won’t work.  It’s where the chronically unemployed go to get off the Centrelink merry go round (also gets them off the unemployment statistics)

  "Disability" means "won't work"????? So all those kids with Downs, autism, cerebral palsy etc are just faking to so they can get the pension?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> "Disability" means "won't work"????? So all those kids with Downs, autism, cerebral palsy etc are just faking to so they can get the pension?

  Surely you know Phil that the “Disability Pension” is a number of people with absolutely genuine disabilities , but at least half have nothing really wrong with them, other than being unemployable.  Eg Low back pain, fibromyalgia type pain, unknown lethargy, sore knees, you name it. 
the disability support pension is nearly double the percentage of the population now as compared to the late 1980’s. We don’t have more disabled people, we have more unemployed (unemployable?) that have figured out how to become disabled in the system

----------


## Marc

> Yes, won’t work.  It’s where the chronically unemployed go to get off the Centrelink merry go round (also gets them off the unemployment statistics)

   Yes, used to be the case, getting harder now. Disability pension is the most sought after and the one that has the highest rejection rate of all Centrelink payments. 50% rejection in the past few years. It could be stopped by charging people with attempted fraud but it would be politically unpalatable. 
The only one that get pension or disability pension without any waiting time and hardly any scrutiny are sadly so called refugees. The rest line up at the local doctor and pester him or her for a certificate to show Centrelink they are sick and can not look for work. This strategy works if you get the "right" doctor for years on end. 
It is a social problem and something most countries must accept as a fact of life. Most societies have a percentage that does not want to work no matter what. Generally around 3 to 4 %. Only some societies like Japan have a work culture that extends to almost all. Countries with no welfare system mask this problem because they rely on the family to shelter those who like to depend on others. 
How did recycling become disability pension fraud?  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

> ...at least half have nothing really wrong with them, other than being unemployable..... 
> ...the disability support pension is nearly double the percentage of the population now as compared to the late 1980’s....

  Where do the statistics for "at least half have nothing really wrong with them" come from? 
The definition of disability was crafted by the World Health Organisation in the 1980s and in Australia the Disability Services Act was enacted in 1986. Prior to that people with disability were ignored, or hidden in institutions or asylums. Is it any wonder that the proportion of people recognised to have a disability has risen since the 1980s?

----------


## John2b

Back on topic: "Reliable baseload" coal is at the centre of major blackout risks this summer in Australia. Global warming and more extreme summer heat are conspiring to reduce the capacity of thermal power plants and increase their rate of failure. 
* 420MW out at Liddell for most of summer due to broken turbine;
* 700MW at Mt Piper withdrawn for tube leaks;
* 980MW tripped in Qld and Vic.
It doesn't help that thermal plants are ageing and the banks are becoming more risk averse to lending money for new thermal plants, and increasing ruling out loans entirely.  Update on financing of thermal coal mining projects | NAB News

----------


## John2b

The Australian tax avoided by just one of the top companies here would barely cover the entire world global budget for climate change research and action:

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Where do the statistics for "at least half have nothing really wrong with them" come from? 
> The definition of disability was crafted by the World Health Organisation in the 1980s and in Australia the Disability Services Act was enacted in 1986. Prior to that people with disability were ignored, or hidden in institutions or asylums. Is it any wonder that the proportion of people recognised to have a disability has risen since the 1980s?

  you are wrong, there has been disability pensions since the 70’s, name changes along the way etc 
1/3rd are musculoskeletal connective tissue disorders , 1/4 are psychological/psychiatric - these ones are easiest to fake of the dozen or so disorders.  I am somewhat surprised these issues are new to anybody, particularly though the 90’s as the unemployed moved across to DS.  10% of learning difficulties and comprise most of the young population. 
Speak to a specialist physician in this area, and you will get the story as to how many are putting it on. 
BTW, revenue is not profit, expenses have to be taken out

----------


## PhilT2

> Where do the statistics for "at least half have nothing really wrong with them" come from?

  This is the internet; you are allowed to pull figures out of your a###.

----------


## pharmaboy2

It’s not just allowed, it’s an inalienable human right! 
look at the post a couple up, aligns revenue with tax.  It’s almist certain the person who created the table is fully aware of how irrelevant revenue is to profits to taxes, but they go ahead anyway, knowing that it will be reproduced and spread because it fits someone’s narrative, and they can ad a comment that is even more misleading

----------


## Bros

> Back on topic: "Reliable baseload" coal is at the centre of major blackout risks this summer in Australia.

  Yes it is and will be for some time. No one seems to interested in storage, there are plenty of solar farms being built as they are cheap and the returns are quick but the development of storage e.g. pump storage is very limited as the costs are very much higher and have a longer time frame. So until there is genuine storage ability coal will be the base load. 
Tube leaks and trips are normal for thermal stations part of the complexity of the plant.

----------


## Marc

Yes, the usual claptrap from those who have some form or another of fake religion or are just watermelons and must comply with those believes.  
I spent the last 20 years researching and prosecuting fraud against the federal government, and the statement 50% of disability pensioners shouldn't be on it, is accurate. Just like 80 to 90% of refugees of late are not refugees at all, and prove it by going for a holiday back to their country of origin, the same country they claimed they had to flee because their life was at risk.  
As for that tax avoidance copy and paste above, besides being total crap of course, may I remind the honorable John to be, that avoiding tax is the professional duty of tax accountants.   *Tax avoidance is the legal usage of the tax regime in a single territory to one's own advantage to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law.*  
I would like a corporate tax layer suggesting his employer to pay more tax and use a stopwatch to count the seconds it takes to lose his job.  
If a government wants to collect more tax, it has to change the tax legislation. Corporations are in business to make a profit and need to take tax law into account. They are not churches for gaia or any other deity. Government allow concessions and keep the rules in place because they balance it with other benefits from employment and economic growth. Dual tax rate is one traditional way to stimulate economic growth in a region. Talking bull excrement is the usual way to vaive green banners that have no grasp of reality.

----------


## Marc

> It’s not just allowed, it’s an inalienable human right! 
> look at the post a couple up, aligns revenue with tax.  It’s almost certain the person who created the table is fully aware of how irrelevant revenue is to profits to taxes, but they go ahead anyway, knowing that it will be reproduced and spread because it fits someone’s narrative, and they can ad a comment that is even more misleading

  Green activist and red bulldust promoters are well aware of the general population's resentment against "the rich" and their deep ignorance of tax law and particularly corporate tax, so it is very easy to talk with their backside and make believe. 
A company can turnaround billions of dollars and even make billions of profit yet if all the profits are reinvested those profits pay no tax because they turn into an expenditure. 
If companies had to pay tax on everything they do that makes a profit on the books, they would go broke or never grow. I know that watermelons would be very happy with the destruction of western civilization and the evil capitalism but fortunately for me, they are in the minority. A small and stinky minority for now. There is always the alternative of going into self exile to Cuba ... well that is a bit passe ... may be North Korea?

----------


## PhilT2

> It’s not just allowed, it’s an inalienable human right! 
> look at the post a couple up, aligns revenue with tax.  It’s almist certain the person who created the table is fully aware of how irrelevant revenue is to profits to taxes, but they go ahead anyway, knowing that it will be reproduced and spread because it fits someone’s narrative, and they can ad a comment that is even more misleading

  Multi-nationals shift their profits to low tax countries even though that profit may have been legitimately earned elsewhere. For example if you buy a certain brand of computer it is sold to you from Ireland, a low tax country. The computer does not come from there, the company is not based there; it just has it's bank account there. 
To try and combat this form of tax evasion some countries base a certain amount of the tax a company is liable for on the revenue, not the profit the organisation makes.

----------


## PhilT2

And if you quote a figure like 50% of something and don't back it up with a link from a reputable source, I will always assume that you pulled the number out of your a###.
So will most other rational people.

----------


## John2b

World Bank to end financial support for oil and gas extraction: *http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2017/12/12/world-bank-group-announcements-at-one-planet-summit*

----------


## John2b

Global warming is a fraud because someone has not noticed any sea level rise at the family shack on over 40 years. In other news, the same person does not  a pimple on their nose, therefore pimples are a myth and the entire medical industry is a sham. And even though historically robust economic growth is associated with higher corporate tax rates, the same person claims if companies had to pay tax on ... profit(s), they would go broke or never grow. Diddums.  http://www.truth.org/globalwarmingsc...iongoodforall/

----------


## pharmaboy2

Here’s one for the organic diet people out there  Carbon footprints and land use of conventional and organic diets in Germany - ScienceDirect 
organic diet versus conventional.  Even though an organic diet consumes much less meat, the land use per person is 40% higher for an organic diet than conventional and the carbon footprint is equal

----------


## Marc

> Here’s one for the organic diet people out there  Carbon footprints and land use of conventional and organic diets in Germany - ScienceDirect 
> organic diet versus conventional.  Even though an organic diet consumes much less meat, the land use per person is 40% higher for an organic diet than conventional and the carbon footprint is equal

  That is not really of much value. Growing organic crops requires more land because it has to rely on lower or no use of fertilizers pesticides etc to start with. Sure. So? 
How about a study on the collateral damage by residues of pesticide in our food? The damage by health authorities who ignore known studies on the damage from additives? 
I think organic is a step in the right direction and hope the certification process will not be corrupted by the corrupt authorities in question. 
Much more interesting is to compare the land usage of crops vs animals for food. The difference is massive and if you take into account the land usage for crops to feed or finish the animals before slaughter, the difference is abysmal. So from an economic point of view, a vegetarian or vegan diet is more efficient in the use of land than a carnivorous one.  
But before the anti fart and lactose intolerant start clapping, think about this: Plenty of pasture land is worthless for agriculture so can not compare the two and it is not all just square kilometers. There is more to soil than it's surface and agriculture accounts for a lot of pollution just like animals account for a lot of erosion. 
We have to eat and we are not getting fewer, to the great disappointment of some drongos who would like to decimate the human population to appease gaia.  
Interesting but not very conducive debate. Much more important is to kill off the last residues of global warming myths and legends and use that energy to clean up the environment from pollution. REAL one not fake one. Without CO2 there would be no plants nor animals. The more the merrier. Fact.
CO2 is not pollution ... watermelons are. 
PS
Funny how no takers on the "Tax avoidance" regurgitation.

----------


## Bros

> Funny how no takers on the "Tax avoidance" regurgitation.

  Why do you ask?

----------


## Bedford



----------


## johnc

> Green activist and red bulldust promoters are well aware of the general population's resentment against "the rich" and their deep ignorance of tax law and particularly corporate tax, so it is very easy to talk with their backside and make believe. 
> A company can turnaround billions of dollars and even make billions of profit yet if all the profits are reinvested those profits pay no tax because they turn into an expenditure. 
> If companies had to pay tax on everything they do that makes a profit on the books, they would go broke or never grow. I know that watermelons would be very happy with the destruction of western civilization and the evil capitalism but fortunately for me, they are in the minority. A small and stinky minority for now. There is always the alternative of going into self exile to Cuba ... well that is a bit passe ... may be North Korea?

   This is a complex area however your comments are at best misguided. We do have an issue with companies shifting profit overseas rather than pay tax where it is earned. Reinvesting income in a business does not automatically lead to a deduction. Rorting R and D expenditure as well as shifting money in round robin exercises to totally avoid tax all exist. This type of post really isn't in the ball park of reality.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Interesting but not very conducive debate. Much more important is to kill off the last residues of global warming myths and legends and use that energy to clean up the environment from pollution. REAL one not fake one. Without CO2 there would be no plants nor animals. The more the merrier. Fact.
> CO2 is not pollution ... watermelons are.
> .

  The problem is that climate change and the seasonal shifts it has been contributing to have begun to eat away at the boundaries of Australian cropping zones. What was once relatively reliable and consistently productive is slowly now getting more marginal. 
Mind you... we'll always be able to produce more broadacre crops than we in Oz consume regardless of climate change for at least another century or more but there may not be enough to bring in all that lovely foreign money in due to selling all that produce that we currently do.

----------


## John2b

> Here’s one for the organic diet people out there  Carbon footprints and land use of conventional and organic diets in Germany - ScienceDirect 
> organic diet versus conventional.  Even though an organic diet consumes much less meat, the land use per person is 40% higher for an organic diet than conventional and the carbon footprint is equal

  "However the carbon footprints and land use of organic diets, and how they compare to conventional diets, have not yet been quantified... General conclusions about the overall performance of conventional and organic agriculture are not supported by this study ... (because)... issues, such as biodiversity, ecotoxicity impacts and animal welfare, were not considered." 
The land use is greater in organic food production because of vastly lower stock densities, which translates into vastly lower rates of land degradation and vastly lower rates of cadmium buildup in soils and the food produced. Outside of smoking, conventional agriculture is the greatest source of cadmium intake by humans. There is no safe margin of cadmium exposure and the need to lower human exposure is desperate. Cadmium produces a number of health problems and is a known carcinogen. 
BTW is the paywall policeman on holidays?

----------


## John2b

> 

  
Good to see biodegradable paper cups were used, not plastic bottles like many marathons, eh Bedford?

----------


## Marc

> This is a complex area however your comments are at best misguided. We do have an issue with companies shifting profit overseas rather than pay tax where it is earned. Reinvesting income in a business does not automatically lead to a deduction. Rorting R and D expenditure as well as shifting money in round robin exercises to totally avoid tax all exist. This type of post really isn't in the ball park of reality.

  Not interested in a tax law debate you probably know little about, However I will add to what I said already that the point is rather simple. A vast majority of business stick to the tax law. That is, they do nothing illegal. The ATO is well aware of the ways used to reduce tax exposure. They are not stupid. There is a small minority of business that break the law and get regularly caught.  
It may be of interest to add that, statistically it is the smaller operator that cheats the most and it is the larger companies who engage in tax avoidance by legal means perfectly acceptable. The populus likes a good "tax avoidance" story and the lefties like to exploit it, relying on the ignorance of their audience. Nothing new there. Like I said, tax avoidance is by definition legal and the professional purpose of accountants. 
If the government of the day needs more money to fund their ill conceived schemes to keep their jobs, all they need to do is change the law. They don't do it because they rely on the fringe benefit of the business to provide work and economic growth and know that corporations will just leave if the taxation becomes too onerous. A balancing act every government needs to face. They do from time to time beat their chest and pretend to go out on a witchhunt and eventually make little meaningless changes to appease the ignorant electorate 
The media talking faces, breathing in a paper bag when talking about corporate tax or successful people's personal tax is very funny. 
I say, talk to your accountant and stop doing cash jobs. 
Tax the rich, tax the boss, tax the landlord, tax the corporations are all catch cry worthy of Peron, Chavez, Castro and similar morons but have no place in Australia today. Well for now anyway. If Edison wins the next elections they may come back in vogue

----------


## PhilT2

I feed my herd of pink unicorns on a diet of chocolate moonbeams. It has improved things immensely; disability pension claims are down 50%, unemployment claims down 90%, tax liability down 10%. There is zero evidence that disputes the effectiveness of this plan. 
And it makes as much sense as the post above.

----------


## Marc

> The problem is that climate change and the seasonal shifts it has been contributing to have begun to eat away at the boundaries of Australian cropping zones. What was once relatively reliable and consistently productive is slowly now getting more marginal. 
> Mind you... we'll always be able to produce more broadacre crops than we in Oz consume regardless of climate change for at least another century or more but there may not be enough to bring in all that lovely foreign money in due to selling all that produce that we currently do.

  The only thing eating away at Australia's agriculture is the government stupidity at allowing it to be sold off. The increase of CO2 has increased crops and made marginal areas more productive. It is draughts and mismanagement of agricultural practices that degrades the land. Not to mention invasion of weeds and pests coming out of national forests and national parks that make the law for others and don't stick to it themselves. You can not link droughts to human activity not even if you believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden and the present political scenery is devoid of any vestige of intelligence required to improve on the current situation and too busy stealing water from farmers to pour it in the Murray.

----------


## Marc

PRESS RELEASE:  DTU Space at the Technical University of Denmark A breakthrough in the understanding of how cosmic rays from supernovae can influence Earth´s cloud cover and thereby climate is published today in the journal Nature Communications. The study reveals how atmospheric ions, produced by the energetic cosmic rays raining down through the atmosphere, helps the growth and formation of cloud condensation nuclei – the seeds necessary for forming clouds in the atmosphere. When the ionization in the atmosphere changes, the number of cloud condensation nuclei changes affecting the properties of clouds. More cloud condensation nuclei mean more clouds and a colder climate, and vice versa. Since clouds are essential for the amount of Solar energy reaching the surface of Earth the implications can be significant for our understanding of why climate has varied in the past and also for a future climate changes. Illustration of cosmic rays interacting with the atmosphere. A proton with energy of 100 GeV interact at the top of the
atmosphere and produces a cascade of secondary particles who ionize molecules when traveling through the air. One 100 GeV proton hits every square meter at the top of the atmosphere every second. Cloud condensation nuclei can be formed by the growth of small molecular clusters called aerosols. It has until now been assumed that additional small aerosols would not grow and become cloud condensation nuclei, since no mechanism was known to achieve this. The new results reveal, both theoretically and experimentally, how interactions between ions and aerosols can accelerate the growth by adding material to the small aerosols and thereby help them survive to become cloud condensation nuclei. It gives a physical foundation to the large body of empirical evidence showing that Solar activity plays a role in variations in Earth’s climate. For example, the Medieval Warm Period around year 1000 AD and the cold period in the Little Ice Age 1300-1900 AD both fits with changes in Solar activity. “Finally we have the last piece of the puzzle explaining how particles from space affect climate on Earth. It gives an understanding of how changes caused by Solar activity or by super nova activity can change climate.”says Henrik Svensmark, from DTU Space at the Technical University of Denmark, lead author of the study. Co- authors are senior researcher Martin Bødker Enghoff (DTU Space), Professor Nir Shaviv (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), and Jacob Svensmark, (University of Copenhagen).  The new study The fundamental new idea in the study is to include a contribution to growth of aerosols by the mass of the ions. Although the ions are not the most numerous constituents in the atmosphere the electro-magnetic interactions between ions and aerosols compensate for the scarcity and make fusion between ions and aerosols much more likely. Even at low ionization levels about 5% of the growth rate of aerosols is due to ions. In the case of a nearby super nova the effect can be more than 50% of the growth rate, which will have an impact on the clouds and the Earth’s temperature. To achieve the results a theoretical description of the interactions between ions and aerosols was formulated along with an expression for the growth rate of the aerosols. The ideas were then tested experimentally in a large cloud chamber. Due to experimental constraints caused by the presence of chamber walls, the change in growth rate that had to be measured was of the order 1%, which poses a high demand on stability during the experiments, and experiments were repeated up to 100 times in order to obtain a good signal relative to unwanted fluctuations. Data was taken over a period of 2 years with total 3100 hours of data sampling. The results of the experiments agreed with the theoretical predictions. The hypothesis in a nutshell  Cosmic rays, high-energy particles raining down from exploded stars, knock electrons out of air molecules. This produces ions, that is, positive and negative molecules in the atmosphere.The ions help aerosols – clusters of mainly sulphuric acid and water molecules – to form and become stable against evaporation. This process is called nucleation. The small aerosols need to grow nearly a million times in mass in order to have an effect on clouds.The second role of ions is that they accelerate the growth of the small aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei – seeds on which liquid water droplets form to make clouds. The more ions the more aerosols become cloud condensation nuclei. It is this second property of ions which is the new result published in Nature Communications.Low clouds made with liquid water droplets cool the Earth’s surface.Variations in the Sun’s magnetic activity alter the influx of cosmic rays to the Earth.When the Sun is lazy, magnetically speaking, there are more cosmic rays and more low clouds, and the world is cooler.When the Sun is active fewer cosmic rays reach the Earth and, with fewer low clouds, the world warms up.The implications of the study suggests that the mechanism can have affected:The climate changes observed during the 20th centuryThe coolings and warmings of around 2°C that have occurred repeatedly over the past 10,000 years, as the Sun’s activity and the cosmic ray influx have varied.The much larger variations of up to 10°C occurring as the Sun and Earth travel through the Galaxy visiting regions with varying numbers of exploding stars. The authors  Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Institute, in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU).Senior Resercher Martin Andres Bødker Enghoff, Danish National Space Institute, in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU).Professor Nir Shaviv, Physics Institute, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Ph.D. student Jacob Svensmark, Dark Cosmology Center, University of Copenhagen. Full journal reference H. Svensmark, M.B. Enghoff, N. Shaviv and J. Svensmark, _Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei_, Nature Communications DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02082-2 The paper is here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2 *Abstract:*Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei
H. Svensmark 1, M.B. Enghoff 1, N.J. Shaviv2 & J. Svensmark1,3 Ions produced by cosmic rays have been thought to influence aerosols and clouds. In this study, the effect of ionization on the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei is investigated theoretically and experimentally. We show that the mass-flux of small ions can constitute an important addition to the growth caused by condensation of neutral molecules. Under present atmospheric conditions the growth rate from ions can constitute several percent of the neutral growth rate. We performed experimental studies which quantify the effect of ions on the growth of aerosols between nucleation and sizes >20 nm and find good agreement with theory. Ion-induced condensation should be of importance not just in Earth’s present day atmosphere for the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei under pristine marine conditions, but also under elevated atmospheric ionization caused by increased supernova activity. *From the discussion section of the paper:*This suggests that there are vast regions where conditions are such that the proposed mechanism could be important, i.e., where aerosols are nucleated in Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone and moved to regions where relative large variations ionization can be found. Here the aerosols could grow faster under the influence of ion condensation, and the perturbed growth rate will influence the survivability of the aerosols and thereby the resulting CCN density. Finally the aerosols are brought down and entrained into the marine boundary layer, where clouds properties are sensitive to the CCN density2. Although the above is on its own speculative, there are observations to further support the idea. On rare occasions the Sun ejects solar plasma (coronal mass ejections) that may pass Earth, with the effect that the cosmic ray flux decreases suddenly and stays low for a week or two. Such events, with a significant reduction in the cosmic rays flux, are called Forbush decreases, and can be used to test the link between cosmic ray ionization and clouds. A recent comprehensive study identified the strongest Forbush decreases, ranked them according to strength, and discussed some of the controversies that have surrounded this subject. Atmospheric data consisted of three independent cloud satellite data sets and one data set for aerosols. A clear response to the five strongest Forbush decreases was seen in both aerosols and all low cloud data. The global average response time from the change in ionization to the change in clouds was ~7 days, consistent with the above growth rate of ~0.4 nm h−1. The five strongest Forbush decreases (with ionization changes comparable to those observed over a solar cycle) exhibited inferred aerosol changes and cloud micro-physics changes of the order ~2%7. The range of ion production in the atmosphere varies between 2 and 35 ions pairs s−1 cm−337 and from Fig. 1b it can be inferred from that a 20% variation in the ion production can impact the growth rate in the range 1–4% (under the pristine conditions). It is suggested that such changes in the growth rate can explain the ~2% changes in clouds and aerosol change observed during Forbush decreases. It should be stressed that there is not just one effect of CCN on clouds, but that the impact will depend on regional differences and cloud types. In regions with a relative high number of CCN the presented effect will be small, in addition the effect on convective clouds and on ice clouds is expected to be negligible. Additional CCNs can even result in fewer clouds. Since the ion condensation effect is largest for low SA concentrations and aerosol densities, the impact is believed to be largest in marine stratus clouds.*Further reading:*COSMIC RAYS, CLOUDS AND CLIMATE
Henrik Svensmark  – DOI: 10.1051/epn/2015204
National Space Institute – Technical University of Denmark – Elektrovej, Bygning 328, 2800 Kgs – Lyngby, Denmark
The most profound questions with the most surprising answers are often the simplest to ask. One is: Why is the climate always changing? Historical and archaeological evidence of global warming and cooling that occurred long before the Industrial Revolution, require natural explanations. Link to the PDF: SvensmarkEPN_46-2-2_2015 From that article: Red curve is the variation in the local supernova rate, and therefore also the variation in cosmic ray flux during the last 500 Myr. The colored band indicates climatic periods: warm periods (red), cold periods (blue), glacial periods (white and blue hatched bars) and finally peak glaciations (black and white hatched bars). The proportions of carbon-13 in sediments (d13C in parts per mill) over the past 500 Myr, shown in the scattered points, reflect changes in the carbon cycle. d13C carries information on the burial of organic material in sediments, and is therefore a record of bio-productivity. Blue dashed curve is smoothed d13C. Circles are d13C from marine carbonates, open circles with a star symbol, Jurassic to Neogene, are a carbon isotopic record of organic matter. Note that there are three brief gaps in the d13C data (end-Silurian, mid-Carboniferous and mid Jurassic). Abbreviations for geological periods are Cm –Cambrian, O – Ordovician, S – Silurian, D – Devonian, C – Carboniferous, P – Permian, Tr – Triassic, J – Jurassic, K – Cretaceous, Pg –Palaeogene, Ng – Neogene.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The only thing eating away at Australia's agriculture is the government stupidity at allowing it to be sold off. The increase of CO2 has increased crops and made marginal areas more productive. It is draughts and mismanagement of agricultural practices that degrades the land. Not to mention invasion of weeds and pests coming out of national forests and national parks that make the law for others and don't stick to it themselves. You can not link droughts to human activity not even if you believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden and the present political scenery is devoid of any vestige of intelligence required to improve on the current situation and too busy stealing water from farmers to pour it in the Murray.

  It's ignorant rubbish like this that diminishes anything you might have say on any topic on this forum...you clearly have not a clue about so many things yet you still write facetious claptrap about them rather that accepting your ignoranceband doing something about it.

----------


## Marc

Yes, good try Silent, I can't take you seriously anyway with that avatar and name. 
Nice diversion from the post above. Not that I care. The global warming fraud is collapsing steadily. 
I you think chinese ownership is a good thing, or buying back water license with taxpayers money to throw them in the sea, or keeping public land as a reservoir for pests and weeds, be my guest. 
It does not matter what you think anyway, doesn't it?

----------


## woodbe

No diversion of your last post, it was your post before that, and SBD was correct. 
There are major issues in NSW for the water licenses, irrigators are pulling way more water than their licenses and the government are not accurately checking.   More claims of excess water extraction by NSW irrigators surface 
Climate change is real, is a major threat to the planet by the population, regardless of external cosmic ray effects. No collapse, more accurate climate info every day. Except if someone has always denied the human population has an effect on the climate they continue to deny the truth.

----------


## Marc

Lots of hot air yet no global warming. 
There is one thing the global warming fraudster can do and that is talk hot air.
There is one thing they can not do and that is alter the past. 
And to their great disappointment the "catastrophic global warming" is reluctant to show.  
Oh yes ... forgot ... the bad farmers (how dare they) are using more than the draconian restrictive water "allocation" to water their crops. the solution is to allow illegal foreign acquisition and look the other way. After all the farmer is a bastard for using too much water. The Chinese are going to comply for sure. 
• A dire warning from French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who claimed on May 13, 2014 that we have “500 days to avoid climate chaos.” 
500 days after May 13, 2014 is September 24, 2015. 
What happened in September 2015?  *The September 23rd Apocalypse*  Posted on September 1, 2015 by Mike Rothschild Biblical prophecy watchers, apocalypse predictors, rapture preachers, and doomsday preppers are buzzing about an upcoming day that might finally usher in the End of the World As We Know It: September 23, 2015. This is supposedly the day that a confluence of events, both political and scientific, is going to herald the destruction of humanity.  So global warmers preppers piggy back even on this ridiculous "predictions". You can read more here    https://skeptoid.com/blog/2015/09/01...rd-apocalypse/  The difference between false prophets and modern day snake oil merchants is that in days past, if the prophecy did not eventuate, the prophet was disgraced and may be even killed. Today we sweep false prophecy under the carpet, blame someone prominent for the failure and may be even give the false prophet more money to see if he can have another go at "proving" what we want to hear. There are hundreds if not thousands of false global warming "prophecies" that made the media round, and were presented by agitated believers breathing heavily into a paper bag.  yet when they don't eventuate or are proven wrong, they disappear only to be followed by yet another false prediction.  if you can not see the correlation between global warming and any of the organised religions, you clearly left your common sense behind.

----------


## woodbe

No Marc, the climate change is not a prophesy, it is based on real science. I'm sure you can find prophesies for any opinion, but science isn't a prophesy. 
Real science is based on real work. Not based on religion or anything other than science.

----------


## Bros

> Real science is based on real work.

  Stop using those blasphemous words, Trump has banned the use of “science-based” so it is not allowed any more.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Considering global warming is such a load of rubbish, my local weather station had another record today, even though not predicted.  Highest since 1916 for December was 42.8,  today registers as 44.   The highest minimum ever recorded for December q was 24.6 last year (dec 31) and today the minimum was 24.6. 
just to add to it, the highest recorded since 1916 45.5 in February this year.  Also of note it’s currently a La Niña event. 
been as well We are allowed to be unscientific in this forum, and because I can’t be arsed to check the veracity of the claim I’m about to state, when I was a kid, over 40c days were always associated with strong w NW winds.  Today was just a relatively still but superbly hot day, and i noticed the same earlier this year, that the the super hot days can be just quite still and overpowering.

----------


## Marc

Yes, Pharma, good observations but I am not sure what your point is. 
No one disputes that the weather is variable. There is summer, winter, spring and the other one, not necessarily in that order. So? 
The _only_ BS that is doing the rounds is that all this changes that have been happening for the last few million years are all my fault. Well mine and yours that is.  
And the most laughable of all the BS put together is that we can actually _change it back_ to whatever the normal is. Do you know what the normal temperature is supposed to be? If we get 40C in Newcastle will you be happy? What about 38? may as well go the full hog and claim 34 to be the maximum allowed heat ever. Ah the blessing if we only could kill off Gina R and the other sinner what's his name, purge the world of all those greedy magnates the world would be a much cooler place. 
We did try some time ago spearheaded by the pope ... what was it called again? Inquisition? yes, that's right, we did kill a whole lot of witches and wizards and satan lost a lot of followers and we gained a lot of favour with God. We can do it all over again. Dead to the infidels!

----------


## woodbe

> The _only_ BS that is doing the rounds is that all this changes that have been happening for the last few million years are all my fault.

  Yes, that is BS. Humans have not been on the planet for millions of years. 
Humans began to make significant change to the climate in the last couple of hundred years, not millions of years.  
Has been continually and more accurately studied over time and there is basically no disagreemant that the humans are impacting the climate.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Weather is variable.   Records should be randomly distributed, they are not 
It’s not even theoretical now, it’s part of your own experience

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Weather is variable.   Records should be randomly distributed, they are not 
> It’s not even theoretical now, it’s part of your own experience

  Yep. Measured 146 km/h winds across my roof on Tuesday afternoon plus 12.6 mm of rain and the power has only just been restored. I will be cleaning up till Friday and then driving a thousand kilometres to forget about it with family encouragement. 
This is on top of the 77 mm storm in 45 mins that we got last month and the 50 mm in 15 minutes we got the month before that. The last time this happened was last year on Rememberance Day...and in 2011. They were both supposed to be 1 in 100 year events. And this is semi-arid Australia with winter dominant rainfall. Duck Fat.

----------


## PhilT2

Comments?  http://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big...g-trips-70003/

----------


## John2b

> Comments?  Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units after Loy Yang trips : RenewEconomy

  It's just those bloody watermelon greenies showing off PhilT2. As Marc has repeatedly pointed out they are just a'holes who won't get on board with the 'base-load fixes everything' and 'global warming is a scam' ideology. Who cares if the battery storage thingy did what it was designed to do? The battery thingy only works because Australia let the Chinese by our farms, and that's because the free market must not be allowed to operate except when Marc or his RSL mates think it's OK.

----------


## Marc

Yes, the usual claptrap. CO2 has increased steadily and temperature records have not. The relation between human produced CO2 and temperature does not exist, and you can jump up and down as much as you want, it will not make it real.

----------


## UseByDate

> Comments?  Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units after Loy Yang trips : RenewEconomy

    :2thumbsup:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Yep. Measured 146 km/h winds across my roof on Tuesday afternoon plus 12.6 mm of rain and the power has only just been restored. I will be cleaning up till Friday and then driving a thousand kilometres to forget about it with family encouragement. 
> This is on top of the 77 mm storm in 45 mins that we got last month and the 50 mm in 15 minutes we got the month before that. The last time this happened was last year on Rememberance Day...and in 2011. They were both supposed to be 1 in 100 year events. And this is semi-arid Australia with winter dominant rainfall. Duck Fat.

  Ohhhh nicely edited by the mods. Cunning stunts all round in this place...

----------


## Bros

> Ohhhh nicely edited by the mods. Cunning stunts all round in this place...

  Tough!

----------


## John2b

Even though the world is feeling the effects of a steady rise through extreme weather, droughts, heatwaves, shifting rains, melting ice and rising sea levels, some people some remain convinced that the whole global warming thing is an elaborate hoax. They readily find backing for their conspiracy theories and pseudoscience in conservative media outlets. 
So how have the predictions of climate change deniers panned out? Apart from being wrong, these failed predictions have one thing in common: they all reject the role that human emissions of carbon dioxide are having on global temperatures. Levels of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, deforestation and land clearing keep climbing and the hottest five-year period recorded in the modern era will be the one we’ve just had.  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/dec/19/checkmate-how-do-climate-science-deniers-predictions-stack-up

----------


## John2b

Although some politicians, pundits, and members of the public do not believe it, global warming predictions by mainstream climate scientists have been remarkably accurate while those made by climate deniers have not.  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...-pseudoscience

----------


## johnc

> Although some politicians, pundits, and members of the public do not believe it, global warming predictions by mainstream climate scientists have been remarkably accurate while those made by climate deniers have not.  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...-pseudoscience

  However it is Christmas let us hope that in the new year countries can elect leaders not populists. People who have the intelligence to move us forward. Regardless of what we think of our own politicians compared to others countries we are doing ok. For 2018 let us not feed the trolls and may we have less leaders from the fringe and more from the centre.

----------


## John2b

Worthy sentiments Johnc. Unfortunately the centre in Australian politics seems to be a very lonely place:   https://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2016

----------


## Marc

I have to laugh when politicians define themselves as "center". What does that even mean? 
The dictionary says that such politician will "oppose political changes which would result in a significant shift of society either strongly to the left or the right" ... so a politician that calls himself centre is telling you that he will ignore any principle he may have left forgotten in some recondit corner of his brain that would perhaps benefit society, and dedicate all his efforts to stay in the center of everyone else's desires. A sort of political prostitute. 
The leader that is absent in the western world is the one that has the capacity to see what is required and the will to apply it for the good of the country disregarding the potential backlash from those that oppose it due to their own myopia, political affiliation, ill conceived hidden agendas and under the counter deals and paybacks. Such leader will never call himself "centre". He will be a person of principles and love of his country and disdain for career politicians, political correctness, identity politics and image politics.
And he does not exist yet.

----------


## PhilT2

> The leader that is absent in the western world is the one that has the capacity to see what is required and the will to apply it for the good of the country disregarding the potential backlash from those that oppose it due to their own myopia, political affiliation, ill conceived hidden agendas and under the counter deals and paybacks. Such leader will never call himself "centre". He will be a person of principles and love of his country and disdain for career politicians, political correctness, identity politics and image politics.
> And he does not exist yet.

  No such person can ever exist. And even if he did no one would vote for him/her. If a party; the greens for example, proposed a law that permitted the sun to continue to rise in the east every morning then a big percentage of the electorate would oppose it, purely because it was a Greens policy. We won't get better politicians till we get smarter voters. Ones that understand basic science.

----------


## PhilT2

Back at #17533 Marc cut and pasted an article from WUWT about a paper from Henrik Svensmark claiming cosmic rays cause global warming. Svensmark has been flogging this hobby horse of his for some time now, not realising that the poor animal was dead before it got out of the starting gate. Now i know that most people stopped believing anything at WUWT a long time ago but for those who just like to check you can follow the links here to get to all the papers that shoot Svensmark down in flames.  https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/20...eference-list/

----------


## John2b

A new version of NEM Watch now shows generation and demand of electricity for each state, along with electricity being used to charge batteries such as the 100 MWh Tesla battery in SA and the electricity being used for pumped hydro storage in NSW and TAS. As I post this all three states with storage are 'charging' from excess generation online in SA and VIC.  Live Supply &#038; Demand Widget, sponsored by RenewEconomy – NEM-Watch

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Tough!

  😘🖕

----------


## John2b

At the annual Dirty Dog Dryland Derby, in Wisconsin, climate change was both a subject of dispute and a fact of life.    https://www.newyorker.com/tech/eleme...ocial_facebook

----------


## John2b

Some interesting survey results have recently been published which show the enormous chasm between what the climate change deniers think Australians believe and what Australians actually believe. 
For a start, only 3% of Australians do not believe climate change is happening. 
Nearly nine out of ten Australians who think the climate is changing think that human activity is contributing to or causing global warming. 
Twice as many people believe that the Federal Government is responsible for tackling climate change as those who believe it is an international responsibility. 
Most people think that renewable energy targets are the best mechanism to reduce carbon emissions. In fact, significantly more people opposed same sex marriage than oppose financial mechanisms to reduce coal consumption.  https://www.ipsos.com/en-au/2017-ips...-change-report

----------


## phild01

> Twice as many people believe that the Federal Government is responsible for tackling climate change as those who believe it is an international responsibility.

  Well, that shows how bright that sample set are!

----------


## PhilT2

Q8 (who should be responsible for action on climate change; international community, fed govt, state govt or industry?) is a bit ambiguous to me. Who else can take action except the Federal Govt; and isn't our govt part of the international community?

----------


## Bros

> Q8 (who should be responsible for action on climate change; international community, fed govt, state govt or industry?) is a bit ambiguous to me. Who else can take action except the Federal Govt; and isn't our govt part of the international community?

  As long as it doesn't affect me. :Wink:  :Wink:

----------


## PhilT2

> As long as it doesn't affect me.

  Whether it's the cost of inaction or the cost of making the necessary changes, do you think the govt is not planning on sticking all of us, you included, with the bill?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> For a start, only 3% of Australians do not believe climate change is happening. 
> Nearly nine out of ten Australians who think the climate is changing think that human activity is contributing to or causing global warming.

  you are being optimistic.  It’s only 42% of people who think human activities is the main or entire cause of climate change 
So you have a majority that think it’s either natural or partly natural processes. 
its where you put the emphasis that determines meaning. 
if someone thinks that humans are responsible for say less than half of observed change, then they aren’t going to be very motivated for curtailing carbon output

----------


## Bros

> Whether it's the cost of inaction or the cost of making the necessary changes, do you think the govt is not planning on sticking all of us, you included, with the bill?

  Governments are not a business they are not buying and selling goods and they get money from us the taxpayer or if you don't pay tax from other charges so in a word YES. 
My previous reply was a tongue in cheek replay as the majority of Australians don't care as long as it doesn't affect them the NIMBY syndrome, When it hits the hip pocket nerve see what happens.

----------


## Bedford

> For a start, only 3% of Australians do not believe climate change is happening.

  That must be the Brake Mechanics referred to earlier in the thread. :Rolleyes:

----------


## Marc

*Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud?*   2/24/2017   Reprints Climate Change: We're often told by advocates of climate change that the "science is settled." But in fact, "science" itself is in a deep crisis over making claims it can't back up, especially about climate. As BBC News Science Correspondent Tom Feilden noted last week, "Science is facing a 'reproducibility crisis' where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests." This isn't just his journalistic opinion, but the conclusion of the University of Virginia's Center for Open Science, which estimates that roughly 70% of all studies can't be reproduced. And this includes the field of climate change, by the way. It's a disaster. Being able to reproduce others' experiments or findings from models is at the very heart of science. Yet, radical climate change advocates would have us spend 2% of global GDP, or roughly $1.5 trillion a year, to forestall a minuscule amount of anticipated warming based on dubious modeling and experiments. Meanwhile, the federal government spends literally billions of dollars a year on climate change, with virtually none of the money funding scientists who doubt the climate change threat. There is no serious debate. This is a problem for all of science. Worse, our government's own science fraud is a big problem. Dr. John Bates, a former top scientist at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, recently detailed how a government paper that called into question the 18-year "pause" in global warming was based on "experimental" data and politicized. That "paper" was used to justify President Obama's signing of the Paris climate agreement. Meanwhile, Georgia Institute of Technology climatologist Judith Curry recently retired, blaming the "CRAZINESS (her emphasis) in the field of climate science." Even so, mythical claims of a "consensus" among scientists about climate change continue in an effort to shut up critics. Those who dissent, and literally thousands of scientists and engineers do, are shouted down and harassed. As Princeton University physicist Will Happer told the left-wing British newspaper the Guardian earlier this week: "There's a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult. ... It will potentially harm the image of all science." It's time for some science Glasnost. New EPA Director Scott Pruitt has called for an open debateon climate science, rather than the name-calling and outright dishonesty of the past. Real science has nothing to fear from more openness and discussion, but everything to fear from more politicized dishonesty. RELATED: Global Warming And Climate Change: Facts & Fiction If Global Warming Is Real, Why Do Government Scientists Have To Keep Cheating? Global Warming Alarmists Claim A Scalp, Drive Skeptical Scientist From University

----------


## woodbe

> you are being optimistic.  It’s only 42% of people who think human activities is the main or entire cause of climate change

  Except the majority of the population is aware that human activities has and is causing climate change. Some think close to 100% and the opinions swing down from there, but the majority agree that the human population is causing an impact. Well, except Marc and a few percent of people with no scientific reality.

----------


## John2b

> you are being optimistic.  It’s only 42% of people who think human activities is the main or entire cause of climate change

  Optimistic or pessimistic depends on your ideological position. The statistics are that of the 92% of people who think that climate is actually happening, 87% (80/92) of the survey sample believe that _some_ or all of that climate change is caused by human activity. That's "Nearly nine out of ten...". 
Other research I have read suggests that the 3% of deniers think that they represent ~70% of society. In other words, deniers think roughly 20 times as many people think like they do as actually do. Which just goes to show that science deniers are pretty good at believing the babble in the echo chamber of their own head, but not much else. This whole thread of 17571 posts is a pretty good example of a handful of deniers battling against all odds, batting away every bit of evidence that contravenes their belief set LOL.

----------


## John2b

> We're often told by advocates of climate change that the "science is settled." But in fact, "science" itself is in a deep crisis over making claims it can't back up, especially about climate.

  Nope, climate science is not in crisis. There is scientific debate about the impact of ocean acidification, the rate that ice sheets and glaciers melt, the prevalence of hurricanes, drought and disease as a consequence of global warming, and about the likely range of climate sensitivity, the temperature rise expected with a doubling of CO2 levels. Established facts - like gravity, evolution, or global warming from greenhouse gas emissions - are not being debated.

----------


## PhilT2

> global warming from greenhouse gas emissions - are not being debated.

  When Scott Pruitt was appointed head of the EPA in the US, he talked about having a "red team, blue team" debate on climate science. This got the anti AGW folks all excited for a while but now rumours are that the Trump administration has quietly decided to "pospone" the idea.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Except the majority of the population is aware that human activities has and is causing climate change. Some think close to 100% and the opinions swing down from there, but the majority agree that the human population is causing an impact. Well, except Marc and a few percent of people with no scientific reality.

  
But if youve bought the idea that its partly or substantially a natural cycle you aren’t going to be as motivated to pay a price to fix it.

----------


## woodbe

> But if youve bought the idea that its partly or substantially a natural cycle you aren’t going to be as motivated to pay a price to fix it.

  I haven't 'bought' the idea you presume. 
The Australian State and Federal Governments are voted for generally just around 50% and they have the right to run the country. If I accepted your suggestion, there would never be a government in this country. 
The science has been analysed by the climate scientists over time more than a century now, they no longer argue about the human impact on the climate because all the reputable scientific evidence is totally apparent for anyone who cares to read and dare to understand. The only people who argue about the impact of the climate are the non-scientists who prefer to continue to burn fossil fuels rather than to move forward and stop damaging the climate so fast. 
If the population, the pollies, etc, decide to ignore the basic science significance of burning fossil fuels into the climate, then the future population of the planet will be degraded by many means and the main cause will be the extreme temperature changes too fast for the human population to live as well as they have for thousands of years. We already see those processes occurring around the planet for non-humans and plants.

----------


## Marc

*If Global Warming Is Real, Why Do Government Scientists Have To Keep Cheating?*   KERRY JACKSON2/06/2017   A few decades back, an upstanding member of the global warming alarmist community said that if the public was going to take the threat of man-caused climate change seriously, the alarmists were going to have to exaggerate the evidence. It was in 1989 that Stephen Schneider wrote in Discover magazine that in order "to capture the public's imagination . . . we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." Let's not forget that the late climatologist was first a believer in global cooling in the 1970s. He was worried that a new ice age was coming. Of course the alarmist community has followed Schneider's script. It's spent much of the last three decades trying to spook the public into a panic. One example of this agenda to drive fright into our brains was the ClimateGate scandal at Britain's University of East Anglia. A series of email threads between climate scientists showed that they were torturing the temperature data to produce evidence of warming that wasn't occurring. Who can forget their conspiracy to "hide the decline"? Don't think this is an isolated incident. News out of the United Kingdom over the weekend tells us that "world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data." "A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the United Nations climate conference in Paris in 2015," the Daily Mail reports. "The report claimed that the 'pause' or 'slowdown' in global warming in the period since 1998 — revealed by U.N. scientists in 2013 — never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected." The Daily Mail identifies the whistleblower as "John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation." His strong objections to the publication "of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a 'blatant attempt to intensify the impact.' " Bates blames Thomas Karl, the paper's lead author, whom he said insisted "on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation . . . in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause." Please don't be surprised. Government-paid researchers are desperate to perpetuate the climate shock. They know that if there is no warming as they have predicted, the generous public funds that support their work will eventually dry up. It is in their financial interest to keep the public tied up in knots of anxiety and to dupe politicians, who are eager to assume the posture of caring guardians of the environment so they'll to continue to hand them money And it fits right in with the other evidence problems that undermine the global warming narrative, such as the hopelessly flawed temperature record, the unreliable models that can't even predict the past, and the possibility that as many half of the alarmist research papers could be wrong. Instapundit Glenn Reynolds is fond of saying that he'll believe there's a warming crisis when the people who are saying it's a crisis start acting like it is. Maybe we'll start believing there's a warming problem when government scientists quit cheating to make it look like a problem exists. RELATED: June Hottest Month On Record? Just Another Overheated Claim As Many As Half Of Global Warming Research Papers Might Be Wrong  Yes, Virginia, A Climate Cover-Up

----------


## Marc

*June Hottest Month On Record? It's Just One More Overheated Claim*   KERRY JACKSON7/13/2016   Reprints A trusted -- by some -- federal agency says that this June was the hottest June on record in the Lower 48. Many will take this as further evidence that man's greenhouse gas emissions are cooking the planet. Others will look at it and ask "what in the world are these people talking about?" 
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said last week that "above-average temperatures spanned the nation from coast to coast, and 17 states across the West, Great Plains and parts of the Southeast experienced temperatures much above average." 
Well, OK. But what about those places where June was cooler than usual, or was at least nowhere near a record warm month. Real Climate Science points out a few spots where it didn't get so hot in June and asks "where was this record heat located?" 
It surely wasn't in Crosbyton, Texas, where June 2016 was cooler than many a June going back more than 100 years. Nor was it in Albany, Ga.; Lexington, Va.; or Berkeley, Calif., or several other locations around the nation. 
Real Climate Science also points out that, "averaged over the whole country, only 3.2% of June days were over 100 F, compared to 11% during June 1933." Only 17.4% of weather stations reached 100 degrees this June "compared to 57.6% during June 1933." One of the points that has to be taken from this is the foolishness of trying to determine an average temperature for a country, let alone an entire planet. 
And it is indeed foolishness. Bjarne Andresen, a professor at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, says the concept of a global temperature is thermodynamically as well as mathematically impossible to establish. "It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," Andresen, an expert in thermodynamics, says. 
"A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate." In summing up Andresen's findings, the University of Copenhagen said trying to average the global temperature is like "calculating the average phone number in the phone book." The answer is "meaningless." 
This isn't the alarmists' only statistical problem, either. The data themselves used to reach the "average" are hard to trust. Earlier this year IBD reminded readers that "about two-thirds of 1,218 government weather stations in the continental U.S. were located on sites that distort readings." Nearby heat sources render the readings unreliable. 
NOAA would have more credibility if it simply reported that summer had arrived in the Northern Hemisphere in June and reminded Americans, particularly those in regions where June was cooler than usual, that, yes, summer is hot.   KERRY JACKSON | ibdnews@investors.com

----------


## woodbe

Marc, The significance of temperature changes is over years, not a hot summer day (or month). 
As usual, you are not reading science, you are reading dribble from deniers...

----------


## John2b

*“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”*― Plato

----------


## Marc

*As Many As Half Of Global Warming Alarmist Research Papers Might Be Wrong*   KERRY JACKSON11/10/2016     The global warming alarmist community firmly believes it has science on its side. The science is settled, its members repeat incessantly to show how "sciency" they are, despite the fact that they are wrong. And 97% of scientists believe man's carbon dioxide emissions are causing climate change, they say with great conviction, even though it's simply not true.  Among its many efforts show it's a coalition of the enlightened, the Democratic Party works hard to convince the public that it's the "party of science." At the same time, it labors just as aggressively to portray the Republican Party as the "anti-science party," and it enthusiastically tags doubters as unthinking hicks. Given these facts, what are the alarmist community and the Democrats, whose platform hysterically calls climate change "an urgent threat," to do about research that has found that "much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue"?  If this is indeed the case, then half of all global warming papers might also be untrue. According to the foreword of "Peer Review: Why Skepticism Is Essential," written by Donna Laframboise for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, "a significant part of the references in the fourth assessment" of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report were made "to 'gray literature.' "  "That is, press releases, 'reports' from pressure groups and the like, which are not remotely the normal peer-reviewed scientific literature." In other words, IPCC-referenced propaganda.  For the moment, let's imagine that from here on out, every piece of literature used by the IPCC to further the narrative is published by ostensibly reliable researchers. That still leaves much room for doubt. The Global Warming Policy Foundation report says that "even if all the citations used by the IPCC were peer-reviewed, this would not mean they were infallible."  Laframboise says science is plagued with an "reproducibility crisis," meaning that published findings cannot be independently verified. She believes that "there is no reason to believe that the politically charged arena of climate science is exempt from" the problems found in other scientific research, "or that it doesn't share the alarming rates of irreproducibility observed in medicine, economics and psychology."  "Currently, climate research is not subjected to meaningful due diligence prior to the IPCC presenting it as sound in its reports," Laframboise writes. "Until key climate findings meet a higher standard than mere peer review, we cannot claim that our climate policies are evidence-based."  But the alarmist community isn't interested in evidence. It is consumed with fueling panic and creating a climate of fear, and goes out of its way to bully those who don't agree with its narrative. Rather than provide real evidence  it simply can't  it traffics in condemnations, character assassination, reprisals and marginalization. Its members act more like a high-school clique than responsible and open-minded adults. Those holding a different opinion are treated as "others."  Science's "reproducibility crisis" is not the alarmists' only problem. It's another in a stack of inconveniences that keeps growing for them. The computer models that are their gold standards are flawed to the point of being truly useless, and the temperature record they cite is about as reliable as any statement ever made by a Clinton in pursuit of political gain.  Alarmists need some real science, but a political coalition that regards genetically modified crops the way a Medieval peasant feared black cats isn't likely to find any.     KERRY JACKSON | ibdnews@investors.com

----------


## John2b

*Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed*   Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming. Every single one of those analyses had an errorin their assumptions, methodology, or analysisthat, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus" 
Broadly, there were three main errors in the papers denying climate change. Many had cherry-picked the results that conveniently supported their conclusion, while ignoring other context or records. Then there were some that applied inappropriate curve-fittingin which they would step farther and farther away from data until the points matched the curve of their choosing. 
And of course, sometimes the papers just ignored physics altogether. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup 
There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming, he writes. Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory thats overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, _but the 23% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other._

----------


## Bros

Hasn't got here yet. Brutal record-breaking cold snap hits northern United States and Canada - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## Marc

Wait for it. 
When it is cold "It's weather" when it is hot, it is climate. 
I would like to see politicians who close down generators because of some farcical religious belief, thrown in jail for intentionally endangering human life. 
Global warming fraud is the biggest fraud in human history and the most expensive.

----------


## woodbe

Fake info Marc. 
Due to emissions major impact to the atmosphere, the climate is both  warming (by average), and becoming more wildly variable. 
That means we see more wild weather as well as world temperature rising over time. 
You don't need to believe me, just read about the actual science report (and there are plenty more)  *Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective* 
This _BAMS_ special report presents  assessments of how human-caused climate change may have affected the  strength and likelihood of individual extreme events. 
                This sixth edition of explaining extreme events of the previous  year (2016) from a climate perspective is the first of these reports to  find that some extreme events were not possible in a preindustrial  climate. The events were the 2016 record global heat, the heat across Asia, as well as a marine heat wave off the coast of Alaska.  While these results are novel, they were not unexpected. Climate  attribution scientists have been predicting that eventually the  influence of human-caused climate change would become sufficiently  strong as to push events beyond the bounds of natural variability alone.  It was also predicted that we would first observe this phenomenon for  heat events where the climate change influence is most pronounced.  Additional retrospective analysis will reveal if, in fact, these are the  first events of their kind or were simply some of the first to be  discovered.  https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cf...e-perspective/ 
Chapter ONE: (PDF) http://www.ametsoc.net/eee/2016/ch1.pdf  *1. INTRODUCTION TO EXPLAINING EXTREME EVENTS OF * *2016 FROM A CLIMATE PERSPECTIVE*  Over  the  past  six  years,  *more  than  130  peer-** reviewed papers evaluating the potential connection  between extreme weather and anthropogenic climate * *change* have been presented in this annual special  edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological  Society. Of the roughly 89 papers that did identify  a climate change signal in the authors analysis of  an extreme event, each found climate change had  shifted the odds of an event happening. Prior to this  year, however, none had determined that human- caused climate change was an essential factor in the  occurrence of the event. In this years report, for  the first time, we present three new research papers  that conclude the extreme magnitude of a particular  weather event was not possible without the influence  of human-caused climate change.  Read on if you would like to be aware of the climate impact on the planet...

----------


## John2b

> When it is cold "It's weather" when it is hot, it is climate.

  Nope: when it's abnormally cold or abnormally hot, it is an aberration. Climate science has postulated for decades that weather aberrations would increase in response to global warming, so why would anyone be surprised that they have?  https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...arsher-winter/   

> I would like to see politicians who close down generators because of some farcical religious belief, thrown in jail for intentionally endangering human life. Global warming fraud is the biggest fraud in human history and the most expensive.

  Prosecuting people for endangering human life for the global warming fraud, namely global warming denial, is unlikely to have much effect even though largely targeting the same people as prosecutions resulting from the Panama and Paradise Papers. In all cases irreversible damage is done to victims long before the perpetrators are held to account.

----------


## johnc

I think in some people stupidity is infinite, no better example is calling science a religion, at least we no longer burn heretics at the stake if we did I can imagine our pet denier gleefully gathering piles of kindling to even the score on those progressives with new age views challenging his old world views. He can't quite see it though can he!

----------


## johnc

Most of Australia's coal driven plants are nearing the end of their lives and will not be replaced, it is no longer economic to keep them going. It is obvious that for a number of reasons including loss of agricultural land, damage to aquifers and particulate pollution that these plants belong in museums as relics. New technologies have got to the point where we can modulate power, store our surplus and pull out of those stores when needed. From a manufacturing model this greatly reduces waste and should produce greater returns as well as moderate costs. The next stage most likely will be trying to reduce the poles and wires costs which seems to be the big issue on rising power costs. In the end those who decided to pretend green policies were solely responsible for rising power costs have caused a lot of economic harm by turning the blow torch of open disclosure away from the real reasons and preventing policy positions that would have reduced the costs to industry and vulnerable households. The key will always being responsive to emerging technologies and efficiencies. 
The theme of this long running thread is those who deny climate change. However in every area there will always be a small percentage that are simply unable to digest or process facts that challenge their views. In the 1950's they would be the extreme end of the left, the communists and socialist dreamers. Today it is the right wing who cannot cope with change or facts that clearly show they are wrong. Sadly their weapon is insult and ridicule for they have nothing else. 
Let us call it what it is, a processing issue, it means they are consistent and predictable which can be a strength, sadly in this context they damage the market model preventing the most efficient economic outcomes.

----------


## phild01

> New technologies have got to the point where we can modulate power, store our surplus and pull out of those stores when needed.

  Not noticing much on that front except for some little batteries.

----------


## John2b

> Not noticing much on that front except for some little batteries.

  What about Snowy Hydro 2.0, which includes an additional 2000 MW of pumped hydro storage (Tumut 3 already has 1800 MW of capacity from pumped hydro storage) and Tasmania's hydro power plans to include up to 2500 MW of pumped hydro? 
BTW, the 'little' 100 MW of battery storage at Jamestown was crucial in preventing blackouts nearly 1000km away by giving time for other backup generation to kick in when one of the generators at Loy Yang tripped recently. Without instant support from the "little" battery backup, the frequency drop from the failure of generation at Loy Yang would have caused automated load shedding and blackouts.  *Australia’s Tesla battery responded to power failure in 140 milliseconds and prevented 10-30 minute blackout*  https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/1...-blackout.html  Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units after Loy Yang trips : RenewEconomy

----------


## Marc

The statements from the usual suspects is distorting noise from fanatics that know that politicians react to minuscule yet loud minorities. This pathetic fraud has cost us a lot of money for no gain whatsoever and it is the noise that is clouding the majority's judgement.  
The very fact that the new industrialised nations like India and China are building coal fired power stations at a rate of knots with our coal, and we are hoping for the wind to blow is so absurd that is beyond description, and can only be equated to a religion hoping for Saint Marmaduck to perform a miracle, and for Saint Patheticus to build a really big battery.  
The only thing more astonishing than the stupidity described above is the apparently sincere fixation of the few fanatics to "believe" that CO2 needs to be reduced and that the microscopic contribution from human activity has any bearing on climate not to mention the absurd concept that reducing CO2 can actually "revert" the elusive heating that is failing to materialize anyway. If you add to this scenario the fact that there are no normals in climate and that the only norm is variability, to claim that change is bad can only come from deep ignorance or intentional carefully planned deceit.  
Meantime the global warming industry marches ahead diverting trillions from what should be spent on infrastructure and development and squanders it on smoke and mirrors we all pay for only to see it evaporate for no return.  
Greens are a disease.

----------


## PhilT2

> The statements from the usual suspects is distorting noise from fanatics that know that politicians react to minuscule yet loud minorities. This pathetic fraud has cost us a lot of money for no gain whatsoever and it is the noise that is clouding the majority's judgement.Greens are a disease.

  I wouldn't put up with it if I were you. Sue them. Get all your evidence together and put it before a judge. Let us know how you go. We'll wait......

----------


## pharmaboy2

> However in every area there will always be a small percentage that are simply unable to digest or process facts that challenge their views. In the 1950's they would be the extreme end of the left, the communists and socialist dreamers. Today it is the right wing who cannot cope with change or facts that clearly show they are wrong. .

  Its not a small percentage, it’s probably getting towards 90% of the population who start with a view then look for information that confirms it. 
There are lots of views that people hold very dearly as fact that have no basis in science, ie there are clear cut scientific consensus views that are denied.  The next step of course is believing in a conspiracy which is a much smaller percentage. 
poeple like to make their own mind up or think they know enough about a subject to form their own conclusions.  Their chance of getting it right are around chance.  Further there is no clear pattern between left and right ideologues. 
in this particular subject, it wasn’t always a left right divide.  That seems to correlate with the socialist left gaining control of the environmentalist movement somewhere in the eighties.  The socialist left saw economic development as being shared unequally within society and thus grew a distrust of anything involving economic growth - this morphed into environmentalism where the idea crystallised into economic development is fundamentally at odds with the environment.   
This anti development ( rather than pro environment) view energised the right politically and unfortunately environmentalism has become assumptively anti economic progress. 
I don’t see an answer, because I don’t see an environmental party yet that doesn’t have a socialist position ( btw, I don’t include centre right ALP or democrats in the US as socialists)  environmentalists should be environmentalists and not have political positions on social equality etc.

----------


## phild01

> *Australia’s Tesla battery responded to power failure in 140 milliseconds and prevented 10-30 minute blackout*  https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/1...-blackout.html  Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units after Loy Yang trips : RenewEconomy

  I mean, so what! Why wouldn't you expect a battery to respond quickly.  It's a bit like the mouse waking up the elephant.

----------


## UseByDate

> The very fact that the new industrialised nations like India and China are building coal fired power stations at a rate of knots with our coal, and we are hoping for the wind to blow is so absurd that is beyond description, and can only be equated to a religion hoping for Saint Marmaduck to perform a miracle, and for Saint Patheticus to build a really big battery.

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

----------


## PhilT2

> I mean, so what! Why wouldn't you expect a battery to respond quickly.  It's a bit like the mouse waking up the elephant.

  So why did we take so long to build one? And why did we keep paying so much to other providers for a service that a battery could deliver faster and cheaper?

----------


## phild01

> So why did we take so long to build one? And why did we keep paying so much to other providers for a service that a battery could deliver faster and cheaper?

  Seriously!!!
 Battery technology has only improved in recent years (and probably thanks to our battery tools) but is still way off from being great!
And what is this service being compared with?

----------


## PhilT2

> Seriously!!!
>  Battery technology has only improved in recent years (and probably thanks to our battery tools) but is still way off from being great!
> And what is this service being compared with?

  Seriously. UQ has been playing around with their battery and solar farm for a while now. I'll try and find the link again but I did read that power providers were charging up to $6m a day for providing emergency frequency stabilisation which is what the battery did(and much quicker and cheaper,)

----------


## woodbe

> So why did we take so long to build one? And why did we keep paying so much to other providers for a service that a battery could deliver faster and cheaper?

  Good question.  
My opinion is the government is being forced by their hard right, and also the national energy controllers (AEMO) and the fossil fuel companies to continue rather than to move forward. 
Thankfully, the SA government is not locked into the fossil fuel system, and has been active to move the SA grid forward. Hopefully, the Aussie power system will also move forward and drag the fossil fuel forward with them, rather than be dragged back by the fossil fuel industry. 
The Jamestown battery fixing the power fault issue, was not required by the AEMO, but the Jamestown battery management decided to practically show the country that a battery system can better manage faults on the grid better and faster than the ridiculous expensive existing system.

----------


## phild01

So how in the past was it going to be possible to implement a battery support system that was feasible to implement, experimental ideals are only one step in the process.  What reliable proven effective battery technology was going to be used.... wet cells!
And when will the point be reached where people need not worry about their A?C, big screens, pool pumps and refrigerators being operative 24/7/365 with no concern about battery capacity.

----------


## PhilT2

> it wasn’t always a left right divide.  That seems to correlate with the socialist left gaining control of the environmentalist movement

  It's not that the left gained control, the right abandoned the field. There was a really noticeable change in US politics in 2010. McCain had run against Obama in 2008 with policies that supported action against climate change eg a cap and trade policy. When the mid term elections came in 2010 the hard right of the republican party pushed back against the introduction of emission control policy. They had the support of the major fossil fuel companies, particularly the Koch brothers. They were able to disendorse fellow republicans who supported AGW and provided finance only to those candidates who promised to oppose any legislation limiting greenhouse gases. The party faithful just fell into line with their elected leaders.

----------


## Bros

> Thankfully, the SA government is not locked into the fossil fuel system, and has been active to move the SA grid forward. Hopefully, the Aussie power system will also move forward and drag the fossil fuel forward with them, rather than be dragged back by the fossil fuel industry.

  But they are via the interconnector to Victoria.

----------


## woodbe

> So how in the past was it going to be possible to implement a battery support system that was feasible to implement, experimental ideals are only one step in the process.  What reliable proven effective battery technology was going to be used.... wet cells!
> And when will the point be reached where people need not worry about their A?C, big screens, pool pumps and refrigerators being operative 24/7/365 with no concern about battery capacity.

  The past is the past. Effective battery systems were not reasonable for the grid until better battery systems like Lithium became available. That is only in the last few years, and even now the largest single battery system in the world is right here is SA since December 2017. In the future, better battery systems will be even better. 
The issue of people worrying about their AC system with 'big screens' etc, is based on the Australian government and states failing to maintain and replace ageing power stations. It's not really about the type of power, it is about complete lack of decisions by those governments. Power supplies should have government future plans in place well before they are in the situation of old degrading power plants.

----------


## phild01

> That is only in the last few years,

  That was my point in reply....and these batteries are still not good enough.

----------


## woodbe

> But they are via the interconnector to Victoria.

  Sure, but the way SA has and is moving the power system the amount of power is becoming more backup TO the grid.   
We know that the weather is becoming more wild, and we know the last time the weather tripped the SA grid. Much better to have more flexible and various power systems, and to properly maintain the backup systems under control of the AEMO (which denied the SA backup failures were their fault, but were under the AEMO control...)

----------


## woodbe

> That was my point in reply....and these batteries are still not good enough.

  Well, they are the best to date, and we can expect even better. They already have shown they are way better than the ancient systems to maintain the power system. 
Of course we will get better systems over time.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Marc

> Thankfully, the SA government is not locked into the fossil fuel system ...

  . :Roflmao:  
Just like the no-vacc and the bicycle riders and the rest of the nice citizen that vote yes and extract something for nothing relying on the stupid 15% of people who actually pay tax. 
(Back to the ignore list ... he made it out for a while ... oh well! )

----------


## John2b

> The very fact that the new industrialised nations like India and China are building coal fired power stations at a rate of knots with our coal...

  Practically all of the new coal fired electricity generation deployed in China over the last few years was to replace inefficient boilers. Coal consumption is going down as the new power stations come on line. In northern China alone more than 44,000 small coal-fired boilers and 70 old coal fired electricity plants were closed just this year. In January 2017 the Chinese government cancelled permits for 150 GW of as yet unbuilt coal fired power stations and is now moving to cancel coal import contracts. This is old news. Do try to keep up.  In latest move, China halts over 100 coal power projects https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKBN151090  Trade battle looms as China curbs coal imports to help local miners | afr.com

----------


## woodbe

> . 
> Just like the no-vacc and the bicycle riders and the rest of the nice citizen that vote yes and extract something for nothing relying on the stupid 15% of people who actually pay tax. 
> (Back to the ignore list ... he made it out for a while ... oh well! )

  Just so you know, (apart from Marc ignoring) I'm a vacc supporter not an Anti-vaxxer, I ride a bike (but walk way more than ride), voted yes, extract electricity for nothing from the sun, and must be one of the 15% because I pay lots of tax.

----------


## phild01

> Sure, but the way SA has and is moving the power system the amount of power is becoming more backup TO the grid.

   That hardly offsets the imports, the exports are either redundant or exacerbate the expense of the standby power.

----------


## PhilT2

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the transition to a carbon free economy was going to be achieved without problems. Like waiting for the perfect battery. Imagine what would have happened if we had applied these rules previously. Like "lets not mine coal until we can be sure we won't kill thousands of miners" or 'let's not build power stations until we have a design that is not polluting" and "let's not develop any vaccines against polio until we are absolutely sure there will be no side effects". 
We seem to be applying a different set of rules that never applied previously. 
Nothing worthwhile was ever achieved without risk.

----------


## woodbe

> That hardly offsets the imports, the exports are either redundant or exacerbate the expense of the standby power.

  SA has and is moving the power system - the amount of power is becoming more backup TO the grid. 
To the grid: SA already has a significant battery backup system running and active since December.  
As at 5 June 2017, AEMO was aware of 29 publicly announced electricity generation developments in South Australia, totalling 5,717MW. Examples: Riverland Solar 330MW, Tailem Bend Solar 100MW, Whyalla Solar 140MW, Whyalla Solar tracking 100MW, Spencer Gulf pumped storage hydro 150MW, Tailem Bend Diesel 29MW, and more coming. 
Significant electricity generation projects in process SA from mid 2017:
-> Turbines x9 run diesel and will switch to gas: 276MW (in process)
-> Hornsdale windfarm 102MW, with 129MW Tesla battery (done)
-> Electranet's battery 30MW (expected to be online by May)
-> Waterloo Windfarm increase added 19.8MW (done)
-> Port Augusta 150MW solar thermal generation (construction starts in 2018) 
So, yes SA is in process to have more local energy production to support the state and to add energy to the national grid.

----------


## Bros

> Sure, but the way SA has and is moving the power system the amount of power is becoming more backup TO the grid.

  What a difference a few hours makes are you using any of the fossil electricity or are you using the fart stuff?

----------


## Bros

> The issue of people worrying about their AC system with 'big screens' etc, is based on the Australian government and states failing to maintain and replace ageing power stations. It's not really about the type of power, it is about complete lack of decisions by those governments. Power supplies should have government future plans in place well before they are in the situation of old degrading power plants.

  I'm going the have to go and have a lay down as I agree. Your state is no different they sold off the power system for a handful of silver expecting the private sector to add more capacity. But lo and behold they just made as much money from their purchase and then shut it down almost called assert stripping. SA government is now having to play catchup. 
I have said it before that the private sector will not finance any power supplies unless they cane get a quick return the only ones who can do this is governments as they can spend a lot of money for a return later. Look at the cost of the extra pump storage for the Snowy even though the Snowy Mts authority said they will finance it but I'm sure they will be looking for government guarantees when they are raising the money. 
Batteries so far are small beer and remains to be seen if they are any good but the best now for generation of a night is pump storage but this costs a lot of money and returns are down the track. 
An example is the NBN no private sector would build it and it is then left to the government to finance. 
In Queensland Adani wants the government to built the railway line as the ability to get a return quickly is nearly impossible.

----------


## woodbe

> What a difference a few hours makes are you using any of the fossil electricity or are you using the fart stuff?

  Myself? Create enough energy for our home and electric vehicle to be basic energy neutral over the whole year. Solar. 
SA uses way less fossil energy than the eastern states. The most non-renewable is gas which is way better than coal used in your state.

----------


## woodbe

> I'm going the have to go and have a lay down as I agree. Your state is no different they sold off the power system for a handful of silver expecting the private sector to add more capacity. But lo and behold they just made as much money from their purchase and then shut it down almost called assert stripping. SA government is now having to play catchup. 
> I have said it before that the private sector will not finance any power supplies unless they cane get a quick return the only ones who can do this is governments as they can spend a lot of money for a return later. Look at the cost of the extra pump storage for the Snowy even though the Snowy Mts authority said they will finance it but I'm sure they will be looking for government guarantees when they are raising the money. 
> Batteries so far are small beer and remains to be seen if they are any good but the best now for generation of a night is pump storage but this costs a lot of money and returns are down the track. 
> An example is the NBN no private sector would build it and it is then left to the government to finance. 
> In Queensland Adani wants the government to built the railway line as the ability to get a return quickly is nearly impossible.

  Good for you. 
Sure, SA is having to play catchup. At least they have been moving forward while the nation has been sitting on their hands. 
The Aussie governments have thrown away most of the power plants by sale, and have blown the income from the sale through their budgets. That was part of their mess causing a lack of future energy plans. 
Batteries are a small part of the energy sector, but they are an excellent system to bridge the gaps for renewable power due to variable wind and solar. The Pt Augusta solar system will have a full day's energy backup. We will start to see similar systems in the eastern states. Pumped storage is basically like a different type of battery, higher capital cost but longer life. 
Adani, should fund their own infrastructure, not suck it from the Aussie governments. Hopefully the whole project will wither away.

----------


## Bros

> Good for you.

  Don't let it go to your head.

----------


## PhilT2

> Adani, should fund their own infrastructure, not suck it from the Aussie governments. Hopefully the whole project will wither away.

  The decision to attack Adani, not for their environmental impact, but because of the billion dollar loan, was a deliberate strategy by the green groups and it worked very well. They even got One Nation to agree with them.

----------


## Bedford

https://patch.com/massachusetts/barn...ezing-to-death

----------


## woodbe

And the current global temps (Dec 29):    http://www.climatereanalyzer.org/

----------


## Marc

Bedford! come on!! that is "weather" _we_ are talking about _climate_.... geeeeee ...  
Watch the heat all over the world. In Sydney the instrument is located in Auburn ... clever hei? Probably next to an aircon too. 
The "yes it is hot" guys, could volunteer and park their scooters next to it to keep it warm.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## phild01

> Bedford! come on!! that is "weather" _we_ are talking about _climate_.... geeeeee ...  
> Watch the heat all over the world. In Sydney the instrument is located in Auburn ... clever hei?

  Why would a scientific instrument be placed in concrete and bitumen based environment, is that to skew the outcomes!? Just asking!

----------


## John2b

> Why would a scientific instrument be placed in concrete and bitumen based environment, is that to skew the outcomes!? Just asking!

  Monitoring stations are often kept where they have been historically positioned for continuity. This means that over time some datasets have been adjusted to compensate for the heat island effect. As far as generating a cohesive and accurate historical record, keeping fixed stations is much superior to moving stations around all over the place. Even a couple of hundred meters can make a huge difference to weather records. When it is necessary to move a station, normally years of data will be overlaid between the new and the old station so that the differences between the two can be fully understood. In Adelaide, the BOM site was moved from the west parklands (to accomodate a school expansion) to the eastern suburbs side of the city some decades ago. Now because of the built environment encroaching on the eastern BOM site, a station near the old western site has been established, and they are in the process of running both sites until sufficient data has been analysed to understand the discontinuity caused by changing sites. Weather is generally considered to be running thirty year averages so even a few years overlap is a severe compromise, but BOM funds are not unlimited. Moving back to very close to the old site will allow the record to be stitched back over nearly 150 years.  Adelaide's official weather observation station is returning to its original location

----------


## PhilT2

> Why would a scientific instrument be placed in concrete and bitumen based environment, is that to skew the outcomes!? Just asking!

  That's what I want to know too. When they set up one of the Brisbane stations in 1898 why didn't they make allowances for the jumbo jets and the multi storey high-rise? Just asking!

----------


## Bedford

....

----------


## PhilT2

That could explain some things. There's a book "The great oil conspiracy" by Jerome Corsi  in which the author claims that oil is continuously being produced underground and that oil wells will refill themselves over time. Maybe this is how it happens! 
Corsi has a PhD from Harvard so some people take him seriously. He also has books about the JFK conspiracy, the Obama birth certificate conspiracy, the conspiracy around the shroud of Turin......starting to notice a trend yet? 
Of course he is a raging climate change denier as well, it's all a conspiracy I tell you.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> That could explain some things. There's a book "The great oil conspiracy" by Jerome Corsi  in which the author claims that oil is continuously being produced underground and that oil wells will refill themselves over time. Maybe this is how it happens! 
> Corsi has a PhD from Harvard so some people take him seriously. He also has books about the JFK conspiracy, the Obama birth certificate conspiracy, the conspiracy around the shroud of Turin......starting to notice a trend yet? 
> Of course he is a raging climate change denier as well, it's all a conspiracy I tell you.

  there is reasonable support for abiogenic petroleum, gas etc.  ultimately we know there is Methane in the solar system that is not from life, there are also sources of hydrocarbons not in sedimentary rocks, and obviously we know hydrocarbons are emitted from volcanoes. 
to say all hydrocarbons we exploit are fossil fuels is a fact is to misuse the term “fact”.  More reasonable doubt in this area than what the cause of global warming is

----------


## PhilT2

> to say all hydrocarbons we exploit are fossil fuels is a fact is to misuse the term “fact”.

  I think that Corsi holds the same position as the late Sir Fred Hoyle who believed that no oil deposits came from fossils. The Tale of the Never-ending Abiotic Oil- CSI 
Both Hoyle and Tom Gold were astronomers who worked together and both developed the "steady state" theory of the universe as opposed to the "big bang" theory. they were eventually proven wrong on this and I think their ideas on abiotic oil will suffer the same fate. Both were, however, brilliant scientists.

----------


## phild01

Big Bang....why wasn't it a perfect bang!?

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I think that Corsi holds the same position as the late Sir Fred Hoyle who believed that no oil deposits came from fossils. The Tale of the Never-ending Abiotic Oil- CSI 
> Both Hoyle and Tom Gold were astronomers who worked together and both developed the "steady state" theory of the universe as opposed to the "big bang" theory. they were eventually proven wrong on this and I think their ideas on abiotic oil will suffer the same fate. Both were, however, brilliant scientists.

  @@@@, you sucked me in with that - I didn’t notice the source LOL, started reading and as it got progressively more out there, then approached looney until  I finally got to the last paragraph - oh dear. 
there are some aspects to how accepted science has progressed which are problematic eg, what it takes to create life is the starting point for primordial earth and so how the atmosphere progressed is intertwined with an idea we have no evidence for.  
Paspernia appeals to me from a statitics POV, seems far more likely than earth being a super special place. And I’ve been waiting for the predicted peak oil for 30 years - when’s it coming? 
The cosmological constant is also another one of those basic things that is so at the root of all cosmos theory that we get to the point where we have to invent 2 states of matter that must be there but we haven’t observed an effect from it (dark energy and dark matter) 
soemtimes i suspect the human race is a lot more certain on things it has any right to be

----------


## John2b

> ...I’ve been waiting for the predicted peak oil for 30 years - when’s it coming?

  Peak oil came and went in about 2005, at least in the sense of conventional 'drill a hole and pump out' type of oil.  Since then the gap has been increasingly filled with "unconventional' oil from fracking shale, and tar sands oil, both very poor quality and both require energy intensive extraction with EROI (energy return on investment) typically around 4 or less, which is ~1/10 of conventional oil and much worse than solar PV, for example. The environmental damage being cause by both fracking and tar sand extraction is monumental, but a world addicted to liquid fossil energy has few alternatives. Forget personal transport and electric cars, the world runs on diesel - farm machinery, trains, trucks and ships are what gets essential consumables to where they are needed. Peak unconventional oil is only a few decades away.

----------


## Bros

Weather again. I once read that the last time Niagara falls froze was in the early 1900's maybe it was climate change back then.  US weather: Record-shattering cold reaches as far south as Florida; parts of Niagara Falls freeze over - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## Marc

See, that's the problem Bros, you are not listening. When global warming started the heat pushed all the cold up north and now it is all concentrated _there._ No point complaining! We told you so. When it is cold it is _the weather._  When we get 42 degrees in Penrith AAAAAAAAAH GLOBAL WARMING AAAAAAAAAAAH

----------


## John2b

One would have thought our resident skeptic would do some fact checking since he apparently thinks he is the gatekeeper of truth. Something like Niagara freezing is easy to find information on. Turns out the freezing is not unusual at all: 
"Niagara Falls gets cold every year. The average temperature in Niagara Falls in January is between 16 and 32 degrees. Naturally, it being that cold, ice floes and giant icicles form on the falls, and in the Niagara River above and below the falls, every year. The ice at the base of the falls, called the ice bridge, sometimes gets so thick that people used to build concession stands and walk to Canada on it. It’s nothing out of the ordinary. It is not, to put it bluntly, big polar vortex news."  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f73e4c88e317

----------


## johnc

> Weather again. I once read that the last time Niagara falls froze was in the early 1900's maybe it was climate change back then.  US weather: Record-shattering cold reaches as far south as Florida; parts of Niagara Falls freeze over - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  Must be that pesky Alzheimer's kicking in Bros. The article only mentions cold records being broken, Niagara freezes over more regularly than once every hundred years, or 89 as you allude to, look up polar vortex, for Marc's benefit it is cold being pushed south something to do with thinning ice, cause and action stuff. Beyond some people but Bros should be able to work it out.

----------


## Bros

> Must be that pesky Alzheimer's kicking in Bros.

  Not Alzheimer's at all as I can remember I forgot it is when you can't remember you forget then you have problems.    

> The article only mentions cold records being broken, Niagara freezes over more regularly than once every hundred years, or 89 as you allude to, look up polar vortex, for Marc's benefit it is cold being pushed south something to do with thinning ice, cause and action stuff. Beyond some people but Bros should be able to work it out.

  You are quite correct when I looked it up but I was going on remembering a photo I had seen dated 1911 and I found it hard to believe that that quantity of flowing water would freeze very often.

----------


## Bros

> One would have thought our resident skeptic would do some fact checking since he apparently thinks he is the gatekeeper of truth.

  If that was directed at me yes I was wrong has happened before will certainly happen again.

----------


## Marc

Oh I get it now ... the North pole has a thinning problem so all the ice is going south .... aaaaaaah ... makes a lot of sense. 
This is like debating with a religious fanatic that that shadow on the wall is not the image of Maria from Andalucia ... what's the point? It's a matter of faith. And they call it "science" ... well there was a church called the Christian Science.  Very popular they even have a newspaper in the US. My mother used to go there, they told here no need for dentist since you get a third denticion, no worries. 
As long as you guys believe in global warming, global warming it is. I believe in the Hawkesbury monster and do look out for it from time to time when I go skiing.

----------


## John2b

> If that was directed at me...

  Nope, not you. We all make mistakes - well almost all of us. There is an vociferous prattling going on in this thread by a self-proclaimed sceptic, who most often doesn't make any sense at all vis-à-vis easily verifiable reality.

----------


## PhilT2

> If that was directed at me yes I was wrong has happened before will certainly happen again.

  Definitely not you. But if you're interested in competing for the role let me offer you a few tips. 
First, cut and paste more, lots more. Never use a simple link when whole pages can be pasted. Never mind that the stuff being pasted is out of date, been proven wrong and comes from non credible sources, paste it anyway.
And feel free to make any statement you feel could be true. No need to do a basic google to attempt to verify it and never post any link leading to evidence to support your claim. If your statement defames lots of well qualified people all around the world, all the better. 
Or you might decide not to bother; sometimes a circus only needs one clown.

----------


## johnc

> Not Alzheimer's at all as I can remember I forgot it is when you can't remember you forget then you have problems.    
> You are quite correct when I looked it up but I was going on remembering a photo I had seen dated 1911 and I found it hard to believe that that quantity of flowing water would freeze very often.

   Alzheimers isn't all bad, you can hide your own Easter eggs for a start and then have fun finding them.  
Looks like the Polar Vortex hasn't finished with North America yet, they have more to come. We have family about an hour south of Niagara Falls, no doubt they will be keen to head south as they usually head to Florida for end of winter at the end of January, returning in April.

----------


## johnc

> Oh I get it now ... the North pole has a thinning problem so all the ice is going south .... aaaaaaah ... makes a lot of sense. 
> This is like debating with a religious fanatic that that shadow on the wall is not the image of Maria from Andalucia ... what's the point? It's a matter of faith. And they call it "science" ... well there was a church called the Christian Science.  Very popular they even have a newspaper in the US. My mother used to go there, they told here no need for dentist since you get a third denticion, no worries. 
> As long as you guys believe in global warming, global warming it is. I believe in the Hawkesbury monster and do look out for it from time to time when I go skiing.

   It has nothing to do with ice going south, you clearly do not get it and sadly never will.

----------


## John2b

> Alzheimers isn't all bad, you can hide your own Easter eggs for a start and then have fun finding them.

  I do that with my tools every day, but I wouldn't call it fun....

----------


## John2b

"(The) 100-megawatt lithium ion battery in South Australia is "far exceeding expectations" and shoring up Australia's electricity grid just as the mercury soars this weekend."  http://www.smh.com.au/environment/all-happening-very-quickly-tesla-battery-sends-a-jolt-through-energy-markets-20180103-h0cxr7.html  http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...226-story.html

----------


## Marc

Climate is what we expect
Weather is what we get _Mark Twain _ Stop wasting other people's money on delusions, myths, legends and grand schemes. 
Rather make yourself useful by giving instead of taking. 
Yours truly
Marc  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

It is a myth that Mark Twain wrote:  Climate is what we expect Weather is what we get 
I'll give you a link: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/0...te-vs-weather/

----------


## Bedford

*Snowstorm blankets Sahara in white*  Snowstorm blankets Sahara in white - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## Marc

If you have nothing to say,
say nothing ... Mark Twain 
Noise proves nothing, often a hen who has laid an egg
cackles as if she had laid an asteroid ... Mark Twain 
Obscurity and competence, that is the life worth living ... Mark Twain 
Self promotion and incompetence is the life most chose to live ... Marc, yours truly

----------


## John2b

> *"*_Do dumb-ass things, suffer dumb-ass consequences"_

  * 
One presumes you posted this as an example... * Snowstorm blankets Sahara in white - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)*  *

----------


## John2b

> Self promotion and incompetence is the life most chose to live ...

  “All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure.” Mark Twain

----------


## johnc

> “All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure.” Mark Twain

  Well that explains Trump

----------


## Bedford

> Originally Posted by *Bedford*   *"*_Do dumb-ass things, suffer dumb-ass consequences"_    ** One presumes you posted this as an example... Snowstorm blankets Sahara in white - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)**

  If that's the best you can come up with, perhaps you need a better scriptwriter?

----------


## PhilT2

That mankind is doing something dumb (causing climate change) is settled for most of us. But snowfall in the desert in the middle of winter in the same mountain range as the Moroccan ski resorts just to the west is not the most surprising of the likely consequences. If 25mm of rain had fallen it would have been just as unusual but wouldn't have made headlines. Why do people think that mountains in a desert don't get cold?

----------


## John2b

There's a new technical term for the rate of climate change occurring as arctic ice melts and methane releases ramp up: f'd.  https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...-climatologist

----------


## Bedford

> There's a new technical term for the rate of climate change occurring as arctic ice melts and methane releases ramp up: f'd.  https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...-climatologist

  *
Vice (magazine)*   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_(magazine)#

----------


## John2b

Thank goodness Australia has so much reliable and cheap "baseload" coal fired electricity generation - NOT! 
"The afternoon failure (Loy Yang B) set off a wholesale price rollercoaster, with electricity spot prices spiking from $86.72 a megawatt-hour at 3:30 pm to $1960.54 a megawatt-hour at 4 pm, rising to $5682 per megawatt-hour at 4:30 pm, then hitting *$12,931 a megawatt-hour* at 5 pm, before sliding back to $5078.6 a megawatt hour by 6 pm. Prices eventually fell to $238.45 a megawatt hour by 6:30 pm."  Loy Yang B failure sends prices soaring, triggers supply safeguards 
The irony is that as national summer heat waves increase in size and intensity due to global warming, the capacity of thermal power generators decreases. It is a death spiral predicated by the laws of thermodynamics, the same physical laws that make the things work in the first place.

----------


## PhilT2

At least it will help meet our emission reduction targets if the coal fired plants keep breaking down.

----------


## PhilT2

While on the subject of things that don't work, the Trump administration reached its one year mark yesterday. The govt has shut down at the moment because Congress is unable to agree on a spending bill but this is just another step in an administration that will be remembered for it's bumbling incompetence and corruption. The high staff turnover and dealing with the Mueller inquiry will keep them distracted enough to prevent them doing too much harm to emission reduction efforts.

----------


## John2b

Wait for the onslaught of deniers misreporting research into glaciers in Greenland (see first link below). The researchers found a few mW per square meter (milliwatts = 1/1000 watt) of geothermal energy contributing to melting glaciers from the bottom. The denier blogs got their m's mixed up and reported MW (megawatts = 1,000,000 watts). That's a small error of 1 billion times! Remember the average insolation from the sun averaged over the surface of the globe is around 1000W per square meter. Adding less than 0.01% to this is going to do diddly-squat (technical term for FA; also about as much as the average denier knows about climate science).  https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-01-...to-slide.html# 
But don't take my word for it, you can read the actual research paper here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19244-x 
In other news China to develop Arctic shipping routes opened by global warming  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-42833178

----------


## Marc

What a load of crap *Science News* _from research organizations_   *Methane hydrate is not a smoking gun in the Arctic Ocean* 
Date:August 22, 2017
Source: CAGE - Center for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Climate and EnvironmentSummary:Methane hydrate under the ocean floor was assumed to be very sensitive to increasing ocean temperatures. But a new study shows that short term warming of the Arctic ocean barely affects it.Share:       *FULL STORY* 
One of the gas hydrate mounds, also known as pingos, on the ocean floor in the Arctic. _Credit: Pavel Serov; CAGE - Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Environment and Climate_   
Clathrate (hydrate) gun hypothesis stirred quite the controversy when it was posed in 2003. It stated that methane hydrates -- frozen water cages containing methane gas found below the ocean floor -- can melt due to increasing ocean temperatures.
According to the hypothesis this melt can happen in a time span of a human life, dissociating vast amounts of hydrate and releasing methane into the atmosphere. Consequently, this would lead to a runaway process, where the methane released would add to the global budget of greenhouse gases, and further accelerate the warming of the planet. *Limited impact at an Arctic site*
This dramatic hypothesis inspired science fiction and scientists alike, spurring the latter to further investigate the sensitivity of hydrates. A new study in _Nature Communications_ has thus found that the hydrate gun hypothesis seems increasingly unlikely, at least for a specific site in the Arctic Ocean that is highly susceptible to warming.
"Short term temperature warming has limited impact on the gas hydrate stability. We show that warming can significantly affect gas hydrates in the seabed only when ocean temperature is constantly rising for several centuries," says the lead author of the study Dr. Wei-Li Hong of CAGE and currently Geological Survey of Norway. *Hydrate mounds seeping methane for thousands of years*
Hong and colleagues reported on an increase of methane flux beneath large mounds of hydrates in an area called Storfjordrenna, in the Barents Sea close to Svalbard. These gas hydrate pingos are all profusely seeping methane.
But according to Hong, even though the area is shallow, and potentially susceptible to temperature change, these seeps are not intensifying because of the momentary warming. "The increase of methane flux started several hundreds to thousands of years ago, which is well before any onset of warming in the Arctic Ocean that others have speculated," says Hong.
The study was based on measurements of pore water chemistry in the sediments from the area. Pore water is water trapped in pores in soil, and can be analysed to reveal environmental changes in a given area through time. Scientists also analysed authigenic carbonate, a type of rock created through a chemical process in areas of methane release, as well as measured bottom water temperatures. Data from these analyses was then used in a model experiment. *Natural state of the system*
For the past century, bottom water in the area fluctuated seasonally from 1,8 to 4,6 degrees Celsius. Even though these fluctuations occurred quite often, they only affected gas hydrates that were shallower than 1,6 meters below the sea floor.
The hydrates are fed by a methane flow from deeper reservoirs. As this area was glaciated during the last ice age, this gas compacted into a hydrate layer under the pressure and cold temperatures under the ice sheet. Hydrates can be stable in the first 60 meters of sediments.
"The results of our study indicate that the immense seeping found in this area is a result of natural state of the system. Understanding how methane interacts with other important geological, chemical and biological processes in the Earth system is essential and should be the emphasis of our scientific community," Hong states.  *Story Source:* Materials
provided by *CAGE - Center for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Climate and Environment*. _Note: Content may be edited for style and length._ *Journal Reference*:  Wei-Li Hong, Marta E. Torres, JoLynn Carroll, Antoine Crémière, Giuliana Panieri, Haoyi Yao, Pavel Serov. *Seepage from an arctic shallow marine gas hydrate reservoir is insensitive to momentary ocean warming*. _Nature Communications_, 2017; 8: 15745 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms15745   *Cite This Page*:  MLAAPAChicago 
CAGE - Center for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Climate and Environment. "Methane hydrate is not a smoking gun in the Arctic Ocean." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 22 August 2017. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170822100400.htm>.

----------


## Marc

If ever there was a doubt that "global warming" is a political lefty social engineering propaganda, this thread is living proof of that.  
For those adept to Slacktivism, carry on, you make my day.

----------


## woodbe

Science of "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" is not based on opinions, but you are welcome to have your own opinion. 
Science of "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" is based on hard work over centuries of science. 
Science of "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" is about the whole planet, not about claiming minor items eliminate the change over the whole planet.   2017 temperature summary Â« RealClimate

----------


## Marc

And for those gaia adorators who love free wind and free sun energy, and live in the progressive region of south Australia and in the Socialist Republic of Victoria ... good for you!
You are now paying twice the price you were paying just last year. That is an unprecedented achievement and deserves a mention in the stupidity scale. In one to ten I say the global warming idiocy is up there in the 8 mark.  Why is it that politicos make such poor decisions? The authors of "You Can't Enlarge the Pie" suggest that government leaders could benefit from basic decision-making skills. Plus: Q&A with HBS professor Max Bazerman.   by Max H. Bazerman, Jonathan Baron & Katherine Shonk  In "You Can't Enlarge the Pie," the authors argue that barriers to effective government decision making result in poor decisions about critical issues like the environment, organ transplants, and energy policy. Why? Because government leaders have hidden psychological biases that distort decision making. These barriers are:  Do no harm.Their gain is our loss.Competition is always good.Support our group.Live for the moment.No pain for us, no gain for them. The antidote? An approach used in the business schools, whereby students are taught to identify and correct hidden biases. The main goal of any government should be, the authors maintain, to enlarge the pie of resources that society has available to distribute. This is done by identifying wise tradeoffs for society as a whole.  Hidden biases ... I call them anti-values, and the worst has to be the "rich is evil - poor is virtuous" mantra from the idiotic left. 
Who can protect Australia from another term of a pseudo conservative virtual lefty, or even worse, a Labor term with Edison at the head of the hysterical mob?
I don't know. 
SA and VIC, you are my heros, you have demonstrated that idiocy is invisible and can be even painted as a virtue.

----------


## John2b

*China has announced plans to develop shipping lanes through the Arctic to become a "Polar Silk Route".*  Beijing said global warming meant viable shipping routes through the Arctic would become increasingly important for international trade.  China to develop Arctic shipping routes opened by global warming - BBC News

----------


## Marc

More crap   *AN ICE-FREE ARCTIC OCEAN HAS HAPPENED BEFORE*Home >Blog >Arctic sea ice 
Published on: Monday, 29 August, 2016
When the Arctic loses all its sea ice one summer, will it matter?
My Times column on how the Arctic sea ice has melted in late summer before, between 10,000 and 6,000 years ago: 
The sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is approaching its annual nadir. By early September each year about two thirds of the ice cap has melted, then the sea begins to freeze again. This year looks unlikely to set a record for melting, with more than four million square kilometres of ice remaining, less than the average in the 1980s and 1990s, but more than in the record low years of 2007 and 2012. (The amount of sea ice around Antarctica has been increasing in recent years, contrary to predictions.)
This will disappoint some. An expedition led by David Hempleman-Adams to circumnavigate the North Pole through the Northeast and Northwest passages, intending to demonstrate “that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through”, was recently held up for weeks north of Siberia by, um, ice. They have only just reached halfway.
Meanwhile, the habit of some scientists of predicting when the ice will disappear completely keeps getting them into trouble. A Nasa climate scientist, Jay Zwally, told the Associated Press in 2007: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012.” Two years later Al Gore quoted another scientist that “there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years” — that is, by now.
This year Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University has a new book out called Farewell to Ice, which gives a “greater than even chance” that the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free next month. Not likely. He added: “Next year or the year after that, I think it will be free of ice in summer . . . You will be able to cross over the North Pole by ship.” The temptation to predict a total melt of the Arctic ice cap, and thereby get a headline, has been counterproductive, according to other scientists. Crying wolf does not help the cause of global warming; it only gives amusement to sceptics.
Would it matter if it did all melt one year? Here’s the point everybody seems to be missing: the Arctic Ocean’s ice has indeed disappeared during summer in the past, routinely. The evidence comes from various sources, such as beach ridges in northern Greenland, never unfrozen today, which show evidence of wave action in the past. One Danish team concluded in 2012 that 8,500 years ago the ice extent was “less than half of the record low 2007 level”. A Swedish team, in a paper published in 2014, went further: between 10,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago, the Arctic experienced a “regime dominated by seasonal ice, ie, ice-free summers”.
[Here is the abstract of the latter paper: _Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years BP) compared to present day conditions. This sea ice minimum has been attributed to the northern hemisphere Early Holocene Insolation Maximum (EHIM) associated with Earth's orbital cycles. Here we investigate the transient effect of insolation variations during the final part of the last glaciation and the Holocene by means of continuous climate simulations with the coupled atmosphere–sea ice–ocean column model CCAM. We show that the increased insolation during EHIM has the potential to push the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover into a regime dominated by seasonal ice, i.e. ice free summers. The strong sea ice thickness response is caused by the positive sea ice albedo feedback. Studies of the GRIP ice cores and high latitude North Atlantic sediment cores show that the Bølling–Allerød period (c. 12,700–14,700 years BP) was a climatically unstable period in the northern high latitudes and we speculate that this instability may be linked to dual stability modes of the Arctic sea ice cover characterized by e.g. transitions between periods with and without perennial sea ice cover.]_
This was a period known as the “early Holocene insolation maximum” (EHIM). Because the Earth’s axis was tilted away from the vertical more than today (known as obliquity), and because we were then closer to the Sun in July than in January (known as precession), the amount of the Sun’s energy hitting the far north in summer was much greater than today. This “great summer” effect was the chief reason the Earth had emerged from an ice age, because hot northern summers had melted the great ice caps of North America and Eurasia, exposing darker land and sea to absorb more sunlight and warm the whole planet.
The effect was huge: about an extra 50 watts per square metre 80 degrees north in June. By contrast, the total effect of man-made global warming will reach 3.5 watts per square metre (but globally) only by the end of this century.
To put it in context, the EHIM was the period during which agriculture was invented in about seven different parts of the globe at once. Copper smelting began; cattle and sheep were domesticated; wine and cheese were developed; the first towns appeared. The seas being warmer, the climate was generally wet so the Sahara had rivers and forests, hippos and people.
That the Arctic sea ice disappeared each August or September in those days does not seem to have done harm (remember that melting sea ice, as opposed to land ice, does not affect sea level), and nor did it lead to a tipping point towards ever-more rapid warming. Indeed, the reverse was the case: evidence from stalagmites in tropical caves, sea-floor sediments and ice cores on the Greenland ice cap shows that temperatures gradually but erratically cooled over the next few thousand years as the obliquity of the axis and the precession of the equinoxes changed. Sunlight is now weaker in July than January again (on global average).
Barring one especially cold snap 8,200 years ago, the coldest spell of the past ten millennia was the very recent “little ice age” of AD1300-1850, when glaciers advanced, tree lines descended and the Greenland Norse died out.
It seems that the quantity of Arctic sea ice varies more than we used to think. We don’t really know how much ice there was in the 1920s and 1930s — satellites only started measuring it in 1979, a relatively cold time in the Arctic — but there is anecdotal evidence of considerable ice retreat in those decades, when temperatures were high in the Arctic.
Today’s melting may be man-made, but the EHIM precedent is still relevant. Polar bears clearly survived the ice-free seasons of 10,000-6,000 years ago, as they cope with ice-free summers or autumns in many parts of their range today, such as Hudson Bay. They need sea ice in spring when they feed on seal pups and they sometimes suffer if it is too thick, preventing seals from breeding in an area.
Meanwhile, theory predicts, and data confirms, that today’s carbon-dioxide-induced man-made warming is happening more at night than during the day, more during winter than summer and more in the far north than near the equator. An Arctic winter night is affected much more than a tropical summer day. If it were the other way around, it would be more harmful.
Some time in the next few decades, we may well see the Arctic Ocean without ice in August or September for at least a few weeks, just as it was in the time of our ancestors. The effect on human welfare, and on animal and plant life, will be small. For all the attention it gets, the reduction in Arctic ice is the most visible, but least harmful, effect of global warming.
By: Matt Ridley | Tagged:	 rational-optimistthe-times

----------


## John2b

> And for those gaia adorators who love free wind and free sun energy, and live in the progressive region of south Australia and in the Socialist Republic of Victoria ... good for you! You are now paying twice the price you were paying just last year.

  The problem with your post Marc is that New South Wales' and Queensland's electricity prices went up even more than Victoria's in 2017! 
A little fact checking goes a long way to preventing an embarrassing blunder. Comparing average wholesale electricity prices in 2017 to 2016: NSW +57%, Vic +44%, Qld +55%, SA +76%, Tas -27%.  (Source AEMO https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/...ge-price-table) 
SA's battery has already helped prevent eastern state blackouts on several occasions this summer by responding long before the lumbering coal-fired back-ups (that were supposed to provide emergency power) and providing the national grid frequency control ancillary services to keep the power on.  
Rising summer temperatures are causing Eastern States fossil fuel fired power stations to trip: 
NSW's Eraring coal-fired power station in Penrith tripped on January 7, dropping around 275 megawatts in 10 minutes.  
Victoria’s Loy Yang A coal-fired power station has already tripped eight times this month (January 2018).  
Queensland's Kogan Creek, Australia’s second-newest coal power plant, has broken down twice this month.  
Victoria’s Loy Yang Unit 2 plus Yallourn Units 1 and 3 were offline at the same time this month.  
NSW’s new Tallawarra gas plant has failed twice this month.

----------


## John2b

> More crap

  Thanks for your headline - it saved me having to read your post. By the way, sea ice in the Arctic is declining at around 50,000 square kilometres per year whilst at the same time Iceland and Alaska are losing nearly 500 gigatons (about 450 cubic kilometres) of ice each year.

----------


## DavoSyd

> A little fact checking goes a long way to preventing an embarrassing blunder.

  then...   

> NSW's Eraring coal-fired power station in Penrith tripped on January 7, dropping around 275 megawatts in 10 minutes.

  ...quite a chuckle  :Biggrin:

----------


## Bros

> SA's battery has already helped prevent eastern state blackouts on several occasions this summer by responding long before the lumbering coal-fired back-ups (that were supposed to provide emergency power) and providing the national grid frequency control ancillary services to keep the power on.  
> .

  Its gratifying to see in this modern age that some people believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

----------


## Marc

"Lumbering coal fired back up" What a joke, do you really believe that your pathetic energy source is the main source and when the wind does not blow they run to wind up the coal fired plants and blow on the coals to get a fire going? 
You guys believe anything the priest tells you. What is the point of even talking? I told a catholic friend when they appointed their pope that I know him when he conspired to murder a group of priests who had leftie ideas and if he thought his appointment has now made him infallible. He said yes.

----------


## John2b

> Its gratifying to see in this modern age that some people believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

  Personally I grew out of belief in the tooth fairy in about 1960. But why contemplate why so many other places in the world are planning grid connected battery systems since the SA experiment, when you can imagine it is just tooth fairy stuff? 
No less than the head of Australia’s national energy market regulator, Audrey Zibelman, said the Tesla lithium ion battery in South Australia is a “very important part of our (i.e. Australia's) summer plan”. And here's why - see how fast the battery arrested a falling frequency caused when one of the units at Loy Yang A tripped on December 14, 2017:

----------


## phild01

Not sure what the big deal is about the battery, just a bit of a kick start for the more critical requirement.

----------


## John2b

> ...quite a chuckle

  Straight from the news: On January 7, when temperatures soared to 47.3 degrees in Penrith (that's Penrith west of Sydney), the ageing Eraring coal-fired power station tripped, dropping about abound 275 megawatts in the space of 10 minutes – essentially at the same time everyone had their air-conditioners and fans turned to maximum. 
Solar energy shines as heatwaves switch off gas and coal plants

----------


## John2b

> Not sure what the big deal is about the battery, just a bit of a kick start for the more critical requirement.

  The kick start is exactly the big deal - it prevents a large section of the grid tripping out because of under-frequency before the dinosaurs wake up, turn up the flames to boil some more water, and pick up the load.

----------


## phild01

Those things seemed to be fine before the free power destabilised the power grid.

----------


## Bros

> The kick start is exactly the big deal - it prevents a large section of the grid tripping out because of under-frequency before the dinosaurs wake up, turn up the flames to boil some more water, and pick up the load.

   Like peeing in the ocean.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Straight from the news: On January 7, when temperatures soared to 47.3 degrees in Penrith (that's Penrith west of Sydney), the ageing Eraring coal-fired power station tripped, dropping about abound 275 megawatts in the space of 10 minutes – essentially at the same time everyone had their air-conditioners and fans turned to maximum. 
> Solar energy shines as heatwaves switch off gas and coal plants

  Soooo, you realise the Eraring PS is a few KM from Penrith?  
like a few hundred...

----------


## DavoSyd

If you want to point outMarc's inaccurate posts, you gotta ensure yours are accurate.

----------


## John2b

> Those things seemed to be fine before the free power destabilised the power grid.

  Not true, in the past the power just went out in those circumstances and everyone accepted it as 'normal'.

----------


## John2b

> If you want to point outMarc's inaccurate posts, you gotta ensure yours are accurate.

  Of course I agree, but am ignorant of what the inaccuracy is...

----------


## Bros

> NSW's Eraring coal-fired power station in Penrith tripped on January 7, dropping around 275 megawatts in 10 minutes.

  What a dumb statement.

----------


## phild01

> Not true, in the past the power just went out in those circumstances and everyone accepted it as 'normal'.

  Don't recall such happening!  Usually possums.

----------


## John2b

So I am ignorant of where Eraring is in relation to Penrith. It was a cut and paste from the cited and linked news story, though obviously wrong. Doesn't change anything about Marc's BS post which was unattributed but obviously deliberate misinformation (not accusing Marc of being the author).

----------


## John2b

> What a dumb statement.

  We all make them once in a while... like this one   

> Like peeing in the ocean.

----------


## John2b

Satellite data confirm what computer models have warned for years: Oceans are rising faster as the planet warms, and coastal communities face increasing flood risk.  https://australiascience.tv/sea-leve...-accelerating/

----------


## phild01

> Satellite data confirm what computer models have warned for years: Oceans are rising faster as the planet warms, and coastal communities face increasing flood risk.  https://australiascience.tv/sea-leve...-accelerating/

  I suppose it is convenient that the exacting science of today wasn't around for the past 2000 years (or even 100,000 years) for comparative data! 
"analysed 25 years of satellite data and found that the rate of acceleration is about* 0.08mm per year*. "

----------


## DavoSyd

Convenient? 
What are you talking about?

----------


## Bros

Put your hands together everyone SA fart engines are currently generating 800 MW

----------


## woodbe

Live Supply &#038; Demand Widget, sponsored by RenewEconomy – NEM-Watch 
Outputs current now: 
Wind: 1048MW
Solar: 408MW
Gas: 665MW 
Renewables are running over double the gas generation currently. 
Prefer renewables, yes. If we need to run non-renewables then Gas is significantly way better than burning coal.

----------


## UseByDate

> Put your hands together everyone SA fart engines are currently generating 800 MW

  I assume the reference relates to SA's wind turbine electricity generation. Interesting terminology used. To describe wind turbines as fart engines when they produce next to no noxious gasses when generating power and to be totally "blind" to the massive amount of noxious gasses emitted from coal generated electrical energy is mind boggling. 
 It was not me, it was the dog comes to mind. :Smilie:

----------


## Bros

> Live Supply & Demand Widget, sponsored by RenewEconomy – NEM-Watch 
> Outputs current now: 
> Wind: 1048MW
> Solar: 408MW Roof top solar estimate
> Gas: 665MW 
> Renewables are running over double the gas generation currently. 
> Prefer renewables, yes. If we need to run non-renewables then Gas is significantly way better than burning coal.

   Solar: 408MW Roof top solar estimate

----------


## woodbe

> Solar: 408MW Roof top solar estimate

  Not what I wrote, Bros. 
The solar input is currently mostly house rooftop, but is starting to be move significantly forward industrial solar input.  
Sundrop is already running. 51,500 square metres. The facility's concentrated solar thermal plant peak heat production rate is 39 MW (that's heat production),and desalinates water while producing 1.5 MWe of electricity.    
Enroute to production in Port Augusta, completed by 2020. 150-megawatt solar thermal power with eight hours of storage. Plant will deliver 495 gigawatt hours of power annually, or 5 per cent of SA's energy needs. Solar thermal power plant announced for Port Augusta &#039;biggest of its kind in the world&#039; - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## Marc

> I assume the reference relates to SA's wind turbine electricity generation. Interesting terminology used. To describe wind turbines as “fart engines” when they produce next to no noxious gasses when generating power and to be totally "blind" to the massive amount of noxious gasses emitted from coal generated electrical energy is mind boggling. 
>  “It was not me, it was the dog” comes to mind.

  They are fart engines because they do as much as a fart in the wind would do. 
Noxious gases I assume refers to CO2. For those who still ignore this essential truth, CO2+water+sunlight is turned by green plants into carbohydrates and is THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE LIFE POSSIBLE ON EARTH. And the only vehicle to turn sunlight into food and fuel and building material 
Well besides buying tinned spaghetti bolognese in the supermarket ... oh wait a moment ... spaghetti and tomato are also made with this "NOXIOUS GAS" CO2 ... oh my. Really?
Yes really my beloved ignorants, CO2 is not pollution, it is essential for life on earth AND EVERYTHING YOU SEE THAT IS NOT MINERAL IS MADE WITH CO2.  Oh wow, did not know that? 
 The more the merrier. Double the total CO2 and enjoy greener pastures, and pleeease, pretty please spare me the links to green website citing the level of CO2 that is toxic to humans. if you ever go camping you will have 20% CO2 in your tent besides a healthy dose of CH4 and you will survive. 
This crap will continue for as long as politicians benefit from the votes from the ignoramus that fan this gargantuan farce. One of the downsides of democracy. If only we would wake up in Australia and ban preferential votes being auctioned off to the highest bidder. 
We definitely need a revolution.

----------


## Bros

Maybe you should read a bit further into your widget.   

> *Across Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania (the NEM).* _(The NEM operates in Eastern Standard Time (UTC + 10 hours) and does not shift with daylight savings.  Hence for clarity it is known as “NEM time”)_  Supply Data for most of the fuel types is supplied by the AEMO East and is of 5 minute cadence.1)  It comes from the AEMO’s “Initial MW” SCADA readings taken from most of the larger generators that operate in the NEM and are allocated to respective Fuel Types using information in our Generator Catalog.
> 2)  In some cases where generation by a particular fuel type is relatively small (such as the case of the few bagasse-fired power stations in QLD that have data reported by AEMO) we have taken the step of leaving them classified as “Other” to save space in the legend.
> 3)  Where a new station appears with fuel type that is not yet set, it will appear as fuel type “Other” for an interim period.
> This widget was updated (March 2015) to include “APVI Small Solar”, which is the _estimated_ production from small-scale (i.e. predominantly rooftop) solar PV – described here .

  And

----------


## UseByDate

> They are fart engines because they do as much as a fart in the wind would do. 
> Noxious gases I assume refers to CO2. For those who still ignore this essential truth, CO2+water+sunlight is turned by green plants into carbohydrates and is THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE LIFE POSSIBLE ON EARTH. And the only vehicle to turn sunlight into food and fuel and building material 
> Well besides buying tinned spaghetti bolognese in the supermarket ... oh wait a moment ... spaghetti and tomato are also made with this "NOXIOUS GAS" CO2 ... oh my. Really?
> Yes really my beloved ignorants, CO2 is not pollution, it is essential for life on earth AND EVERYTHING YOU SEE THAT IS NOT MINERAL IS MADE WITH CO2.  Oh wow, did not know that? 
>  The more the merrier. Double the total CO2 and enjoy greener pastures, and pleeease, pretty please spare me the links to green website citing the level of CO2 that is toxic to humans. if you ever go camping you will have 20% CO2 in your tent besides a healthy dose of CH4 and you will survive. 
> This crap will continue for as long as politicians benefit from the votes from the ignoramus that fan this gargantuan farce. One of the downsides of democracy. If only we would wake up in Australia and ban preferential votes being auctioned off to the highest bidder. 
> We definitely need a revolution.

  I lived in London and experienced the smog of 1952 that was caused by the burning of coal. Once you experience it you would not be so blase.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
 Not just CO2 https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/...n#.WoPD6eeYPIU

----------


## Marc

An old one but a good one  http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles...nicgas2008.pdf  *“The Chilling Costs of ClimateCatastrophism” by* _Ray Evans _ Satanic Gas 
The Politics of Carbon Dioxide
(first published in Quadrant, September 2008) .   Ray Evans 
Carbon is the sixth element in the periodic table. It is unique among the elements in the vast number and variety of compounds it can form. 
With hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other elements, it forms a very large number of compounds. There are close to ten million known carbon compounds, many thousands of which are vital to organic and life processes. Carbon is essential to life. 
As we now see in the Commonwealth government’s Green Paper Carbon Pollution ReductionScheme, and newspaper sub-headings (“Carbon’s a diabolical foe” Australian Financial Review)carbon is now being demonised by the media and by ministers of the Crown. 
How did we get to a situation where fantasy has triumphed over reality? 
We can begin this particular episode in the ongoing battle concerning the demonisation of carbon with the testimony given by James Hansen, a scientist with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, to the US Senate Committee chaired by Al Gore (then Senator for Tennessee). 
 The date was 20 June 1988, a date which had been predicted as likely to be hot andhumid in Washington. Hansen told the Committee that he was "99 percent sure . . the [human caused] greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now." He stated that his claim was based on computer models and temperature measurements.  
We now know that the night before the hearing, the air-conditioning had been turned off, and the windows opened, so that the Committee Room was hot and very humid, and the TV cameras were able to focus on the sweat dripping off the various participants. _continue reading here_ http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles...nicgas2008.pdf

----------


## woodbe

> Noxious gases I assume refers to CO2. For those who still ignore this essential truth, CO2+water+sunlight is turned by green plants into carbohydrates and is THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE LIFE POSSIBLE ON EARTH. And the only vehicle to turn sunlight into food and fuel and building material

  https://andthentheresphysics.files.w...etal_page4.jpg   *1. Identify Claim:*
CO2 is plant food. *2. Argument Structure:*
P1: Plants need CO2 to grow.
C: CO2 is good for plants. *3. Inferential Intent:*
Deduction *4. Validity:*
INVALID. Fails to take into account negative impacts of global warming on plant growth.
4-6 etc. on the link. *Summary of fallacies:* *Slothful Induction:* Ignores the way that climate change impacts agriculture through increased heat stress and flooding. CO2 fertilisation is just one factor effecting plant growth. The full picture shows that negative impacts outweigh benefits.

----------


## Marc

The smog of 1952? caused by coal fired power plants? or rather obsolete domestic heaters? Your predictions are like those who predicted New York to be buried under 5 meters of horse poo.

----------


## woodbe

> Maybe you should read a bit further into your widget.   
> And

  Doesn't say that any SA non-household solar is in 'Other' 
Doesn't say that your comment was Roof top solar estimate. 
You can be correct, do you have access to the actual information?

----------


## Bros

Have another look at my quote.

----------


## Marc

*18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year*  Carpe Diem, Environmental and Energy Economics Font SizeAA  In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 46th anniversary of  Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 16 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but _spectacularly_ wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are *18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started*:   1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”  2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. 
3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” 
4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” 
5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” 
6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” 
7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness. 
8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”  
9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” 
10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” 
11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate. 
12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles. 
13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. 
14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'” 
15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990. 
16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” 
17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.” 
18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” *
MP:* Let’s keep those spectacularly wrong predictions from the first Earth Day 1970 in mind when we’re bombarded tomorrow with media hype, and claims like this from the 2015 Earth Day website:Scientists warn us that climate change could accelerate beyond our control, threatening our survival and everything we love. We call on you to keep global temperature rise under the unacceptably dangerous level of 2 degrees C, by phasing out carbon pollution to zero. To achieve this, you must urgently forge realistic global, national and local agreements, to rapidly shift our societies and economies to 100% clean energy by 2050. Do this fairly, with support to the most vulnerable among us. Our world is worth saving and now is our moment to act. But to change everything, we need everyone. Join us. 
Finally, think about this question, posed by Ronald Bailey in 2000: *What will Earth look like when Earth Day 60 rolls around in 2030?* Bailey predicts a much cleaner, and much richer future world, with less hunger and malnutrition, less poverty, and longer life expectancy, and with lower mineral and metal prices. But he makes one final prediction about Earth Day 2030: “There will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never looked so bleak.” In other words, the hype, hysteria and spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions will continue, promoted by the “environmental grievance hustlers.”

----------


## Marc

[92]  1962 Feb 4 Jeane Dixon, various Indian astrologers Dixon predicted a planetary alignment on this day was to bring destruction to the world. Mass prayer meetings were held in India. [93][94]  1967 Aug 20 George Van Tassel This day would mark the beginning of the third woe of the Apocalypse, during which the southeastern US would be destroyed by a Soviet nuclear attack, according to this UFO prophet, who claimed to have channeled an alien named Ashtar. [95]  1967 Jim Jones The founder of the People's Temple stated he had visions that a nuclear holocaust was to take place in 1967. [96]  1969 Aug 9 George Williams The founder of the Church of the Firstborn predicted the Second Coming of Christ would occur on this day. [97]  1969 Charles Manson Manson predicted that an apocalyptic race war would occur in 1969. [98]  1972 Herbert W. Armstrong The second of three revised dates from Armstrong after his 1936 and 1943 predictions failed to come true. [89]  1974 Jan David Berg Berg, the leader of Children of God, predicted that there would be a colossal doomsday event heralded by Comet Kohoutek. [99]  1975 Herbert W. Armstrong Armstrong's fourth and final prediction. [89]  Jehovah's Witnesses From 1966 on, Jehovah's Witnesses published articles which stated that the fall of 1975 would be 6000 years since man's creation, and suggested that Armageddon could be finished by then. [100]  1976 Brahma Kumaris The Brahma Kumaris founder, Lekhraj Kirpalani, has made a number of predictions of a global Armageddon which the religion believes it will inspire, internally calling it "Destruction". During Destruction, Brahma Kumari leaders teach the world will be purified, all of the rest of humanity killed by nuclear or civil wars and natural disasters which will include the sinking of all other continents except India. [101]  1977 John Wroe The founder of the Christian Israelite Church predicted this year for Armageddon to occur. [78]  William M. Branham This Christian minister predicted the Rapture would occur no later than 1977. [102]  1980 Leland Jensen In 1978 Jensen predicted that there would be a nuclear disaster in 1980, followed by two decades of conflict, culminating in God's Kingdom being established on Earth. [103]  1981 Chuck Smith The founder of Calvary Chapel predicted the generation of 1948 would be the last generation, and that the world would end by 1981. Smith identified that he "could be wrong" but continued to say in the same sentence that his prediction was "a deep conviction in my heart, and all my plans are predicated upon that belief." [104][105]  1982 Apr–Jun Tara Centers Full-page ads in many newspapers April 24 and 25, 1982, stated that "The Christ is Now Here!" and that he would make himself known "within the next two months". [106]  1982 Mar 10 John Gribbin, Stephen Plagemann Predicted in their 1974 book _The Jupiter Effect_ that combined gravitational forces of aligned planets would create a number of catastrophes, including a great earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. [107][81]  1982 Jun 21 Benjamin Creme Creme took out an ad in the _Los Angeles Times_ stating that the Second Coming would occur in June 1982 with the Maitreya announcing it on worldwide television. [108]  1982 Pat Robertson In late 1976 on his _700 Club_ TV programme, Robertson predicted that the end of the world would come in this year. [109]  1985 Lester Sumrall This minister predicted the end in this year, even writing a book about it entitled _I Predict 1985_. [110]  1986 Apr 29 Leland Jensen Jensen predicted that Halley's Comet would be pulled into Earth's orbit on April 29, 1986, causing widespread destruction. [111]  1987 Aug 17 José Argüelles Argüelles claimed that Armageddon would take place unless 144,000 people gathered in certain places across the world in order to "resonate in harmony" on this day. [112]  1988 Sep 11–13, Oct 3 Edgar C. Whisenant Whisenant predicted in his book _88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988_ that the Rapture of the Christian Church would occur between September 11 and 13, 1988. After his September predictions failed to come true, Whisenant revised his prediction date to October 3. [113]  1989 Sep 30 Edgar C. Whisenant After all his 1988 predictions failed to come true, Whisenant revised his prediction date to this day. [113]  1990 Apr 23 Elizabeth Clare Prophet Prophet predicted a nuclear war would start on this day, with the world ending 12 years later, leading her followers to stockpile a shelter with supplies and weapons. Later, after Prophet's prediction did not come to pass, she was diagnosed with epilepsy and Alzheimer's disease. [114][115]  1991 Sep 9 Menachem Mendel Schneerson This Russian-born rabbi called for the Messiah to come by the start of the Jewish New Year. [116]  1991 Louis Farrakhan The leader of the Nation of Islam declared that the Gulf War would be the "War of Armageddon which is the final war." [117]  1992 Sep 28 Rollen Stewart This born-again Christian predicted the Rapture would take place on this day. [118]  1992 Oct 28 Lee Jang Rim(이장림 or 李長林) Lee, the leader of the Dami Mission church, predicted the rapture would occur on this day. [119]  1993 David Berg Berg predicted the tribulation would start in 1989 and that the Second Coming would take place in 1993. [120]  1994 May 2 Neal Chase This Bahá'í sect leader predicted that New York would be destroyed by a nuclear bomb on March 23, 1994, and the Battle of Armageddon would take place 40 days later. [121]  1994 Sep 6/29, Oct 2 Harold Camping Camping predicted the Rapture would occur on September 6, 1994. When it failed to occur he revised the date to September 29 and then to October 2. [122][123]  1995 Mar 31 Harold Camping Camping's fourth predicted date for the end. This would be Camping's last prediction until 2011. [122]  1996 Dec 17 Sheldan Nidle Californian psychic Sheldan Nidle predicted that the world would end on this date, with the arrival of 16 million space ships and a host of angels. [124]  1997 Mar 26 Marshall Applewhite Applewhite, leader of the Heaven's Gate cult, claimed that a spacecraft was trailing the Comet Hale-Bopp and argued that suicide was "the only way to evacuate this Earth" so that the cult members' souls could board the supposed craft and be taken to another "level of existence above human". Applewhite and 38 of his followers committed mass suicide. [125]  1997 Aug 10 Aggai The 1st-century bishop of Edessa predicted this date to be the birth date of the Antichrist and the end of the universe. [126]  1997 Oct 23 James Ussher This 17th-century Irish archbishop predicted this date to be 6000 years since Creation, and therefore the end of the world. [127]  1998 Mar 31 Chen Tao(陳恆明) Hon-Ming Chen, leader of the Taiwanese cult God's Salvation Church, or Chen Tao – "The True Way" – claimed that God would come to Earth in a flying saucer at 10:00 am on this date. Moreover, God would have the same physical appearance as Chen himself. Chen chose to base his cult in Garland, Texas, because he thought it sounded like "God's Land." On March 25, God was to appear on channel 18 on every TV set in the US. [128]  1999 Jul Nostradamus A quatrain by Nostradamus which stated the "King of Terror" would come from the sky in "1999 and seven months" was frequently interpreted as a prediction of doomsday in July 1999. [129]  1999 Aug 18 The Amazing Criswell The predicted date of the end of the world, according to this psychic well known for predictions. [130]  1999 Sep 11 Philip Berg Berg, dean of the worldwide Kabbalah Centre, stated that on this date "a ball of fire will descend, destroying almost all of mankind, all vegetation, all forms of life." [131]  1999 Charles Berlitz This linguist predicted the end would occur in this year. He did not predict how it would occur, stating that it might involve nuclear devastation, asteroid impact, pole shift or other Earth changes. [132]  Hon-Ming Chen The leader of the cult Chen Tao preached that a nuclear holocaust would destroy Europe and Asia in 1999. [133]  James Gordon Lindsay This preacher predicted the great tribulation would begin before 2000. [134]  Timothy Dwight IV This president of Yale University foresaw Christ's Millennium starting by 2000. [135]  Nazim Al-Haqqani Predicted that the Last Judgment would occur before 2000. [136]  2000 Jan 1 Various During and before 1999 there was widespread predictions of a Y2K computer bug that would crash many computers on midnight of December 31, 1999, and cause malfunctions leading to major catastrophes worldwide, and that society would cease to function. [81]  Credonia Mwerinde, Joseph Kibweteere An estimated 778 followers of this Ugandan religious movement perished in a devastating fire and a series of poisonings and killings that were either a group suicide or an orchestrated mass murder by group leaders after their predictions of the apocalypse failed to come about. [137][138]  Jerry Falwell Falwell foresaw God pouring out his judgement on the world on this day. [139]  Tim LaHaye, Jerry B. Jenkins These Christian authors stated that the Y2K bug would trigger global economic chaos, which the Antichrist would use to rise to power. As the date approached, however, they changed their minds. [140]  2000 Apr 6 James Harmston The leader of the True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days predicted the Second Coming of Christ would occur on this day. [141]  2000 May 5 Nuwaubian Nation This movement claimed that the planetary lineup would cause a "star holocaust", pulling the planets toward the Sun on this day. [142]  2000 Peter Olivi This 13th-century theologian wrote that the Antichrist would come to power between 1300 and 1340, and the Last Judgement would take place around 2000. [143]  Isaac Newton Newton predicted that Christ's Millennium would begin in 2000 in his book _Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John_. [144]  Ruth Montgomery This self-described Christian psychic predicted the Earth's axis would shift and the Antichrist would reveal himself in this year. [145]  Edgar Cayce This psychic predicted the Second Coming would occur this year. [146]  Sun Myung Moon The founder of the Unification Church predicted the Kingdom of Heaven would be established in this year. [147]  Ed Dobson This pastor predicted the end would occur in his book _The End: Why Jesus Could Return by A.D. 2000_. [148]  Lester Sumrall This minister predicted the end in his book _I Predict 2000_. [149]  Jonathan Edwards This 18th-century preacher predicted that Christ's thousand-year reign would begin in this year. [150]  2001 Tynnetta Muhammad This columnist for the Nation of Islam predicted the end would occur in this year. [151]  2003 May 27 Nancy Lieder Lieder originally predicted the date for the Nibiru collision as May 2003. According to her website, aliens in the Zeta Reticuli star system told her through messages via a brain implant of a planet which would enter our solar system and cause a pole shift on Earth that would destroy most of humanity. [152]  2003 Oct 30–Nov 29 Aum Shinrikyo This Japanese cult predicted the world would be destroyed by a nuclear war between October 30 and November 29, 2003. [153]  2006 Sep 12 House of Yahweh Yisrayl Hawkins, pastor and overseer of The House of Yahweh, predicted in his February 2006 newsletter that a nuclear war would begin on September 12, 2006. [154]  2007 Apr 29 Pat Robertson In his 1990 book _The New Millennium_, Robertson suggests this date as the day of Earth's destruction. [155]  2010 Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn This order predicted the world would end during this year. [156]  2011 May 21 Harold Camping Camping predicted that the Rapture and devastating earthquakes would occur on May 21, 2011, with God taking approximately 3% of the world's population into Heaven, and that the end of the world would occur five months later on October 21. [157]  2011 Sep 29 Ronald Weinland Ronald Weinland stated Jesus Christ would return on this day. He prophesied nuclear explosions in U.S. port cities by July 2008 as the blowing of the Second Trumpet of Revelation. After his prophecy failed to come true he changed the date for the return of Jesus Christ to May 27, 2012. [158]  2011 Oct 21 Harold Camping When his original prediction failed to come about, Camping revised his prediction and said that on May 21, a "Spiritual Judgment" took place, and that both the physical Rapture and the end of the world would occur on October 21, 2011. [157]  2011 Aug–Oct Various There were fears amongst the public that Comet Elenin travelling almost directly between Earth and the Sun would cause disturbances to the Earth's crust, causing massive earthquakes and tidal waves. Others predicted that Elenin would collide with Earth on October 16. Scientists tried to calm fears by stating that none of these events were possible. [159]  2012 May 27 Ronald Weinland Ronald Weinland stated that Jesus Christ would return and the world would end on this day. [160]  2012 Jun 30 José Luis de Jesús José Luis de Jesús predicted that the world's governments and economies would fail on this day, and that he and his followers would undergo a transformation that would allow them to fly and walk through walls. [161]  2012 Dec 21 Various The 2012 phenomenon predicted the world would end at the end of the 13th b'ak'tun. The Earth would be destroyed by an asteroid, Nibiru, or some other interplanetary object; an alien invasion; or a supernova. Mayanist scholars stated that no extant classic Maya accounts forecasted impending doom, and that the idea that the Long Count calendar ends in 2012 misrepresented Maya history and culture. Scientists from NASA, along with expert archeologists, stated that none of those events were possible. [162][163]  2013 Aug 23 Grigori Rasputin Rasputin prophesied a storm would take place on this day where fire would destroy most life on land and Jesus Christ would come back to Earth to comfort those in distress. [164]  2014 Apr – 2015 Sep John Hageeand Mark Biltz The so-called blood moon prophecy, first predicted by Mark Blitz in 2008 and then by John Hagee in 2014. These Christian ministers claim that the tetrad in 2014 and 2015 may represent the beginning of the Messianic end times. [165]  2017 Sep 23 – Oct 25 David Meade Author, and conspiracy theorist David Meade predicted that Nibiru would become visible in the Earth's sky and that said planet would then "soon" destroy the Earth and Armageddon would take place during this date. [166]

----------


## woodbe

> Have another look at my quote.

  I read your quote, but it does not explain several things: 
1. Solar farms are exporting power. Their export appears to be mixed with the household exports.
2. Households with solar are using power before exporting. The only info available to the NEM is the exported data. 
3. No info that the rooftop solar is an estimate. All current SA solar is in one single item.
4. There are even more major solar farms in production, so the NEM will probably have to deal with the info rather than mix it with the household exports.

----------


## Bros

NEM has 4 solar farms in NSW and QLD 2 in the mix separate to small scale solar. 
They had better get their finger out and build more as Liddell closes in 4 yrs time and the four units are currently generating 1400 MW

----------


## Marc

Prediction ... the massive increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will make it possible for Sus Scrofa to be airborne

----------


## UseByDate

> The smog of 1952? caused by coal fired power plants? or rather obsolete domestic heaters? Your predictions are like those who predicted New York to be buried under 5 meters of horse poo.

  By definition the domestic heaters (open fires) used at the time were not obsolete. Maybe the fuel used (coal) would be considered obsolete, by many, in today's climate.
 The pollution was caused by domestic burning of coal, generating electricity by burning coal, train locomotion by burning coal and diesel engines in busses when running. In all cases the burning of fossil fuel caused the pollutants.
I have not made any predictions.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London *Sources of pollution*
 The cold weather preceding and during the Great Smog led Londoners to burn more coal than usual to keep themselves warm. Post-war domestic coal tended to be of a relatively low-grade, sulphurous variety (economic necessity meant that better-quality "hard" coals tended to be exported), which increased the amount of sulphur dioxide in the smoke. There were also numerous coal-fired power stations in the Greater London area, including Fulham, Battersea, Bankside, Greenwich and Kingston upon Thames, all of which added to the pollution. According to the UK's Met Office, the following pollutants were emitted each day during the smoggy period: 1,000 tonnes of smoke particles, 140 tonnes of hydrochloric acid, 14 tonnes of fluorine compounds, and 370 tonnes of sulphur dioxide which may have been converted to 800 tonnes of sulphuric acid.[6]
 Research suggests that additional pollution-prevention systems fitted at Battersea may have worsened the air quality, reducing the output of soot at the cost of increased sulphur dioxide, though this is not certain. Additionally, there was pollution and smoke from vehicle exhaust—particularly from steam locomotives and diesel-fuelled buses, which had replaced the recently abandoned electric tram system – and from other industrial and commercial sources.[7]

----------


## John2b

> Your predictions are like those who predicted New York to be buried under 5 meters of horse poo.

  Why not? Because horses are no longer the primary motive force used in New York. In the same way predictions the world will be under water because of CO2 emissions won't come true IF known science is acted on and CO2 emissions are abated.

----------


## John2b

> Put your hands together everyone SA fart engines are currently generating 800 MW

   
On top of that, right now as I post, turbines in both NSW and VIC are well exceeding SA's wind generation. Even QLD is having a good go at it.

----------


## Marc

Who cares what happened in england 60 years ago? You are obfuscating the topic either from ignorance or deception and your proposal that burning coal in a 100 year old domestic heater, a locomotive and a bus (?) ... somehow relates to the production of CO2 in a coal fired powerstation is as absurd as the belief that rhinoceros horns are aphrodisiac. 
The intentional use of the word "carbon" when referring to CO2 is part of the deception. The mixing and confusing the term pollution when used for particulate emissions and using it also for clean and essential CO2 is all part of the big fraud that is the global warming deception. I am surprised that a grown up person with an otherwise normal intellect can be part of such pathetic belief and such dishonest and corrupt movement.
CO2 is not "pollution" but lefty farty green movements are clearly pollution from every possible point of view.

----------


## woodbe

> Who cares what happened in england 60 years ago?

  Anyone who is (or previously during that time) aware about the impact of the environment. Becoming aware moves the population forward. 
CO2 growth is a major environmental issue for the world. CO2 growth is definitely not a deception. It is a fact, that deniers simply deny real science. Just like Marc.

----------


## John2b

> I am surprised that a grown up person with an otherwise normal intellect can be part of such pathetic belief and such dishonest and corrupt movement. CO2 is not "pollution" but lefty farty green movements are clearly pollution from every possible point of view.

  A grown up person with any intellect (let alone a 'normal' one) would not use words like "lefty farty green". There is hope for you yet, Marc: After death you are aware that you've died, says scientists not funded by the climate change agenda. It might be the first time you have lucid thoughts...  https://ideapod.com/death-youre-awar...gn=sciencedump

----------


## Bros

> Not what I wrote, Bros.

  You are correct and it wasn't my intention to change the quote, I just edited it to make an addition to cut and past however I never went back and removed the addition so my mistake.

----------


## Marc

Scientist studying "after death experiences" 
Are this the same scientist who tell us that CO2 is pollution?
They must be.
Let's see ... if someone's heart stops, is he dead? 
The test is simple, if his heart can be restarted and he resumes a normal life, clearly he was not dead. May have died if left alone ... sure. But he wasn't ... so he was not let to die and was therefore not dead and so his "experience" is a delusion just like the "scientist" studying this "experiences" .... aaaah I saw a white light and wanted to follow it but someone was pulling me back and so i came back from the dead ... And I saw gaia waving at me telling me, fight for me ... "carbon" is hurting me, go and tell the world to stop burning coal and vote for Labour and the greens ... if possible move to South Australia ...  :Rofl5:  
PS 
Prediction: CO2 concentration will continue to rise the same minuscule proportion they have been rising following the population growth. Temperatures will continue ignoring this variation and do what they do best, follow the sun activity.
Not long to go for a lowering of temperatures that will show that al gore and his cronies, supporters, donors and assorted cheerleaders are a bunch of phonies and crooks that created an industry with fake data and fake so called science.

----------


## woodbe

If a scientist analyses the 'after death experience', that is not the problem. 
CO2 in normal ratio is not pollution, but when it's levels continue to increase then yes it is pollution.  
There are thousands of scientists involved in analysis of the climate.  
CO2 raising is an issue for the world because it changes the climate.

----------


## John2b

Who should be surprised hat someone who has their own personal definition of climate should also have their own personal definition of death just so they can argue a research finding LOL!  "Death is defined as the ending of life or the total and permanent cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat, brain activity (including the brain stem), and breathing."  https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death/

----------


## Marc

> "Death is defined as the ending of life or the total and permanent cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat, brain activity (including the brain stem), and breathing."

  John ... only you can rush into an answer that only supports my point and not yours. 
If death by your definition is the PERMANENT cessation of all vital functions, how can anyone say that they re-started this permanently cessated functions? If they can be restored, then they were not stopped permanently and therefore the person was not dead in the first place. There has been only one resucitacion that merits such title. If you believe the story, Lazarus was dead 3 days and decomposing and stunk. He was resurrected. The rest of people who the medical profession brags to "resuscitate" are simply kicked along and re-started a heart beat that had stopped TEMPORARILY. A rather simple state of affairs. 
But don't let reason stop your fancy ideas of life after death, gaia and the white light pulling you away into that other dimension. On your way back you can tell us all what gaia whispered in your ear. Carbon is baaaaad, vote for Julia Gillard ... oops, now that would be a good example of resuscitation.
And before you jump at the idea that Lazarus was dead and came back to life therefore his state was not permanent, you will need to then define permanent. I say a person is dead when no human intervention can change his state. in this way future advances in medicine will show that a lot of people simply go from a temporary loss of functions to a permanent one according to where they are and who is there to help them or not help them along. Someone who has gone permanently can not come back to tell his story and so all those stories are phoney.

----------


## DavoSyd

> CO2 is all part of the big fraud

  still waiting for some proof Marc... 
the fraud that IS evident is being perpetrated by the people saying "nothing should be done" and sadly they are defrauding their own descendants...

----------


## Bedford

> After death you are aware that you've died, says  scientists not funded by the climate change agenda. It might be the  first time you have lucid thoughts...  https://ideapod.com/death-youre-awar...gn=sciencedump

  This article states, "Scientists have drawn this conclusion because they have observed the continuation of brain activity after the body has stopped showing signs of life." 
However "the point of death is taken as the moment when the heart stops beating and blood flow to the brain is cut off."    

> Who should be surprised hat someone who has their own personal definition of climate should also have their own personal definition of death just so they can argue a research finding LOL!  "Death is defined as the ending of life or the total and permanent cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat, brain activity (including the brain stem), and breathing."  https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/death/

  Shis article states,  

> Death is defined as the ending of life or the total and permanent  cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat,  brain activity (including the brain stem), and breathing.

   (as above) 
So which of these statements is correct John? 
I personally think the second one is correct as I'm pretty confident that if a person aimed both barrels of a shotgun at the roof of their mouth and pulled the triggers unleashing two and a quarter ounces of SGs at 1200fps, no-one would be aware or able to detect any signs of life. 
BTW, it's quite a job cleaning the walls after this happens. :Frown:

----------


## Marc

Of course this little side BS about "proof" of life after death by our dear left handed John to be or not to be ... the point, if there ever was one, is not who is dead and when but that "scientist" as long as you pay them will commit to support almost anything you like, just like politicians who would legislate free pot in primary schools if there was votes in it.  
And for those naive enough to think we can _do_ _something_ to change the weather, I suggest a trip to the Amazon. I heard that some tribes there have similar beliefs. Maybe you can drum up support there or learn how to do it.   
If you think CO2 is the culprit, and that you can "reduce" it. Think again. CO2 increases are linked to population increases and unless you want to clone Hitler or Pol Pot, you will be in real strife to reduce human population. If you add to the fact that your beloved refugee programs that are oh so humanitarian are providing fertile ground for third world population to reproduce free of the population control that is natural in their habitat, namely killing each other, you have the perfect recipe for even more CO2. 
But relax, the CO2 farce is just that, a farce, a fraud. It will end soon enough, when the sun activity slows down even more, CO2 goes up and up and temperatures go down. 
That will be oh so much fun!

----------


## John2b

> But relax, the CO2 farce is just that, a farce, a fraud. It will end soon enough, when the sun activity slows down even more, CO2 goes up and up and temperatures go down. That will be oh so much fun!

  You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. Global temperature is going up whilst solar irradiance is going down.

----------


## DavoSyd

> the CO2 farce is just that, a farce, a _fraud_.

  you keep using that word, i do not think it means what you think it means...

----------


## pharmaboy2

That article/ purported study in death reads like a cult of chiropractors trying to confirm their own belief in magic by making assumptions about what happens when the heart stops then  making up some wildly unscientific hypothesis to explain that which did not agree with their previous assumptions. 
mind continues on after death means you farked up how you defined death you muppets - they should stick to their crystals and shakra..... 
and that my friends is a farce.....   :Wink:

----------


## Bedford

> Originally Posted by *Marc*   the CO2 farce is just that, a farce, a _fraud_.      you keep using that word, i do not think it means what you think it means...

    

> That article/ purported study in death reads  like a cult of chiropractors trying to confirm their own belief in magic  by making assumptions about what happens when the heart stops then   making up some wildly unscientific hypothesis to explain that which did  not agree with their previous assumptions. 
> mind continues on after death means you farked up how you defined death  you muppets - they should stick to their crystals and shakra..... 
> and that my friends is a farce.....

  So Davo, you now know what a farce is, you only have to work out what fraud is, unless you were actually referring to the word "that".

----------


## Marc

Most people underestimate the power of belief. Belief is blind to anything that disproves it. Belief works against any scientific principle and is the complete opposite to a person trying to prove a case, investigate a problem or working in developing a hypothesis or studying a concept. Belief would be a handicap for all of that and anyone that wants to be serious, should put all 'beliefs' aside and be open to constant reviews.
if someone has the money and pull to create a false religion, he will play on emotions and call to believers to trust him to avoid scrutiny, and be very heavy on the unbeliever, the denier and the dinosaur.  
The global warming fraud is akin to a false religion and their supporters are the believers who will turn your car over and set it alight just because you call their bluff.  
it is just one more show of what fanatics are capable of and how they can be easily manipulated.
Sad really.

----------


## DavoSyd

"fraud" 
I'm confident that you could google the definition yourself?

----------


## John2b

> Most people underestimate the power of belief. Belief is blind to anything that disproves it. Belief works against any scientific principle and is the complete opposite to a person trying to prove a case, investigate a problem or working in developing a hypothesis or studying a concept. Belief would be a handicap for all of that and anyone that wants to be serious, should put all 'beliefs' aside and be open to constant reviews.

  I am sure you truely believe what you are saying Marc. Sad really (that you can't put your beliefs aside).

----------


## chrisp

> I am sure you believe what you are saying Marc. Sad really.

  I’m not sure that he does. I sometimes wonder if it is himself that he is trying to convince. He certainly isn’t convincing anyone else! 
It’s quite amusing how Marc always seems to weave religion in to his posts. There is probably something Freudian in it somewhere.  
Speaking of ‘Freud’, whatever happened to the Dr?

----------


## Bedford

> i do not think it means what you think it means...

     

> "fraud" 
> I'm confident that you could google the definition yourself?

  Marc knows what it means, I know what it means, so what exactly do you think it means?

----------


## DavoSyd

Lol, so you're resorting to "I know you are, you say you are, so what am I?" 
Very sophisticated!

----------


## DavoSyd

And is it an admission that you have never watched the movie called The Princess Bride? 
How sad for you...

----------


## johnc

> I’m not sure that he does. I sometimes wonder if it is himself that he is trying to convince. He certainly isn’t convincing anyone else! 
> It’s quite amusing how Marc always seems to weave religion in to his posts. There is probably something Freudian in it somewhere.  
> Speaking of ‘Freud’, whatever happened to the Dr?

  He either got banned or his head imploded because there was nothing in it to withstand normal atmospheric pressure, vacuum really is a bugger!

----------


## UseByDate

> Who cares what happened in england 60 years ago?

  What happened in London 65 years ago is an example of man changing the environment to the detriment of millions of people. _“If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.”_ George Bernard Shaw   

> You  are obfuscating the topic either from ignorance or deception and your  proposal that burning coal in a 100 year old domestic heater, a  locomotive and a bus (?) ... somehow relates to the production of CO2 in  a coal fired powerstation is as absurd as the belief that rhinoceros  horns are aphrodisiac.

  Have I made any reference to CO2 except to state the fact that other chemicals are emitted ? Why the singular?   

> The intentional use of the word "carbon" when referring to CO2 is part  of the deception.

  Where have I use the word “carbon”? Now that you have brought it up- https://www.theguardian.com/environm...global-warming   

> CO2 is not "pollution" but lefty farty green movements are clearly pollution from every possible point of view.

  I have no experience of lefty "farty green movements” but if you do, I suggest you consult a medical doctor. :Shock:

----------


## Marc

Use ... I'll answer your post because I think you are a decent and well intentioned person. Just my gut feeling. 
In my opinion you lose the argument every time if you appeal to emotions, use completely unrelated examples and claim the high moral ground. You have done all of it in your post. 
Furthermore ... in a debate about the unproven *hypothesis* that the minuscule addition of man made CO2 is altering the climate in a catastrophic way, you answered my post that was about burning coal in a power plant, with ... " Oh! burning coal is terrible! see what happened in England etc." 
I am sure smog in pommyland was terrible. I lived in a city that had domestic garbage incinerators and you couldn't hang clothes out to dry because they would come down the line covered in sooth. Things we do. We had lead in petrol and paint, asbestos everywhere, we blew tobacco smoke up people's ass and told them that vitamins make expensive urine.  
What has that to do with CO2 and the so called climate change? Nothing, but it appeals to emotions and confuses the issue by citing particulate emissions like soot and diesel exhaust when the only issue is CO2 (that's good for you). You want to talk pollution, real one not made up like CO2? Plenty to talk about. Try pesticides and chemical additives in our food, mercury in fish and people's mouth ( with the blessing of all dentists) etc etc etc.
Nothing to do with climate change. 
I remember a pastor who preached fire and brimstone down to the young people in the church, because they were being encouraged by the few professionals in the church to take up mainstream courses like physiotherapy, medicine, law, dentistry and his gripe was that this young people were going do slide down into perdition and perversion, because those professions pay a lot of money and as we all know money is at the root of all evil. Makes a lot of sense right? I told him that since money is so bad, I stopped from that moment contributing money to anything to do with the church to spare the church from evil.  
Doomsday preachers of the climate sort, do exactly the same. Appeal to emotions (we doom our next generation), call the sins of the fathers (carbon), and claim the high moral ground ... ( all those corrupt rich people driving fancy 4wd and boats) ... etc etc, the old story. 
Look around you Use ... everything you see that is not mineral, is MADE FROM CO2. Literally. Now tell me again that CO2 is pollution ... oh yes, Johnmaybe told me once that anything that is too much, is pollution. (define too much please) ... 
Oh ... and now I understand why the pastor thinks money is bad! Too much money must be bad, particularly when it belongs to others that don't want to share ( the bastards) ...  just a little is OK, particularly if it comes as donations or ... subsidies ...  
And if you want to talk real pollution, you have a pen pal here, let's talk real not imaginary pollution.

----------


## PhilT2

In the US the EPA is the department that has jurisdiction over air pollution. In 2007 a number of states sued the EPA to force the agency to classify CO2 as a pollutant so that any action they took to regulate it would be legitimate. The action was successful. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf 
For the rest of the world, including Aust, the decision is meaningless. It is enough that we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, a fact anyone can prove for themselves with a simple experiment. However the US court decision does help identify those who have spent too much time getting their science from the internet and suggests they are unable to think for themselves and *realise* what is relevant in their own country,

----------


## UseByDate

> This article states, "Scientists have drawn this conclusion because they have observed the continuation of brain activity after the body has stopped showing signs of life." 
> However "the point of death is taken as the moment when the heart stops beating and blood flow to the brain is cut off."    
> Shis article states, (as above) 
> So which of these statements is correct John? 
> I personally think the second one is correct as I'm pretty confident that if a person aimed both barrels of a shotgun at the roof of their mouth and pulled the triggers unleashing two and a quarter ounces of SGs at 1200fps, no-one would be aware or able to detect any signs of life. 
> BTW, it's quite a job cleaning the walls after this happens.

  The study is not claiming that the statement _"the point of death is taken as the moment when the heart stops beating and blood flow to the brain is cut off."_ is the legal definition of death. It is stating that for the purposes of the study that is the definition that will be used. Obviously you cannot interview dead people.   
 The statement _“Death is defined as the ending of life or the total and permanent cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat, brain activity (including the brain stem), and breathing.”_ is technically wrong in that it combines both definitions. (only one definition being required to determine death.) *The definition of death*
 “_If we use s 41 of the_ _Human Tissue Act 1982_ _(VIC) as our guide, a person has died when there has been an:_  _irreversible     cessation of circulation of blood in the body of the person; or_ _irreversible cessation of all function of     the brain of the person.”_  
 To the layman the statement is correct. That is, if the first definition of death is present the second definition will also be present. Also if the second definition of death is present then the first definition will be present. (assuming not being connected to a mechanical breathing machine)   
 So in answer to your question: _"the point of death is taken as the moment when the heart stops beating and blood flow to the brain is cut off.”_ being used as the definition of death in the study is correct by definition.
 And
 “_Death is defined as the ending of life or the total and permanent cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat, brain activity (including the brain stem), and breathing.”_ although not technically correct would be correct if no mechanical intervention was used to prevent death. When will a person be declared legally dead under Australian law?

----------


## Marc

I know a lot of people who came back from the dead and have lots of stories to tell. If you use the old definition of death ... when one stops breathing. All divers are dead and when they resurface they resuscitate. 
What has that to do with the fraud of global warming? 
Oh yes, I know, a side story.  
Maybe I can tell you some stories ... mm ... lets see ... like when a drunk policeman pointed a machine gun at me and told me "if you move you are dead" ... and then ... "give me your ID" ...  man that was a dilemma that makes you forget global warming ... ha ha you guys have to lighten up and get a life.

----------


## John2b

> Maybe I can tell you some stories ...

  Tell us the story about if "temperatures will continue to do what they do best, follow the sun activity", how come since ~1960 the sun irradiance has been going down temperatures have accelerated upwards...  https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...s-not-the-sun/

----------


## John2b

The north pole is hitting 25 degrees above average. "It's Arctic winter. The sun set in October and won't be seen again until March. Perpetual night, but still above freezing. How weird is that?" Robert Rohde,  physicist at the University of California at Berkeley. 
Still waiting for your "It's the Sun that did it" story, Marc.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-above-normal/

----------


## Marc

*On the naming and shaming of Carbon Dioxide*  Guest Blogger / 1 day ago February 27, 2018 Guest essay by Tom Peer Poor old carbon dioxide. One minute it was a harmless gas providing as vital a link in the cycle of life as water or oxygen and then the next thing it knows it’s a pollutant. To add insult to injury it’s not even carbon dioxide any more, just plain old carbon. Stripped of two out of three of its constituent atoms. No longer oxidised, instead demonised as humanity’s greatest threat, it’s a bad time to be CO2. It’s enough just to say “carbon pollution” and instead of meaning soot or smoke or anything that involves real carbon pollution you’re actually referring to imaginary damage wreaked by a harmless gas. What was it that poor old CO2 did wrong. How come it’s public enemy number one and Nitrous Oxide gets to go to all the cool parties? The carbon shaming reached a nadir this morning with the Telegraph’s latest foray into the climate debate  A headline that would make sense if we were talking about actual carbon, but we aren’t, we’re talking about CO2, and the headline demonstrates the bizarre and pervasive lack of understanding about the difference between the two. Let’s not forget the European diesel fleet is the end result of a policy designed to save the planet by reducing CO2 and nothing of course to do with providing a competitive advantage for German manufacturers over foreign competitors who might have had slightly more compunction about faking the results of emissions tests. Since the VW scandal the very same priesthood class that’s been sermonizing about the evils of CO2 for the last two decades has taken a remarkably haughty position over the choking diesel fumes that have seen air quality in our cities drop to a level not seen since the days of coal fires and pea soup fogs. The London Times’ resident atmospheric physics expert Prof. Hugo Rifkind told us with his usual supercilious panache that: _Even a sceptic has to believe in air pollution_ I don’t usually let any of this denier name calling get to me, but that one stuck in the craw. Something I suppose about the murderous idiocy of the diesel fraud choking me personally unlike denying the developing world the benefits of fossil fuels which keeps the unnecessary deaths safely remote. Exactly how do they reconcile their moralizing zeal for CO2 reduction with a mocking condemnation of those who opposed a policy aimed at reducing CO2. Of course, I forgot, all fossil fuels are just so old hat. We’re all going electric now. The solution to the pollution problem created by the warmists and the rent-seeking motor manufacturers isn’t, as you’d think, listening to the people that said diesel was nonsense and using cheap and efficient petrol cars. Oh no, that would be far too simple. And would be sort of tacitly admitting our planet saving zealotry has already killed more people than global warming ever will. No, the solution apparently lies in going back to the same people that caused the problem in the first place and seeing what regulations and subsidy they now need to fix a problem caused by regulation and subsidy. Instead of gentle nudges in the direction of diesel engines for people buying 60 grand German autos, we need wholesale government subsidy for electric cars like they give to Tesla in America. Who could argue with that? Don’t you realise Electric cars don’t produce any carbon at all?

----------


## John2b

The whole cut and paste above is based on fallacy. The diesel 'scandal' had nothing to do with carbon or CO2, it was about NOX or nitrous oxide emissions. NOx gases react to form smog and acid rain as well causing the forming of fine particles (PM) and ground level ozone, both of which are associated with public health issues.

----------


## Bros

Marc do you go fishing much outside the forum as your CO2 bait is very effective so you must be a good fisherman.

----------


## DavoSyd

he sure is a master baiter in this thread!  :Laughing1:

----------


## Bros

> he sure is a master baiter in this thread!

   :2thumbsup:

----------


## chrisp

> he sure is a master baiter in this thread!

  He sure is. 
Personally, I no longer bother reading any of the posts that are just a cut-and-paste slab of text from elsewhere. I’ve read enough to know that they are just poorly argued opinion pieces and are just not worth the time. 
I’m happy to read stuff that Marc writes himself as I find it interesting to see how an intelligent fellow like Marc can be so staunchly (and I dare say illogically) supportive of the carbon economy.

----------


## John2b

Call me a sceptic if you like, but it would be fair to say that a good deal of what I have learned about the effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and its consequential global warming has come from digging into the validity of claims made in Marc's copious and apparently mindless cut-and-pastes.

----------


## Bros

> Personally, I no longer bother reading any of the posts that are just a cut-and-paste slab of text from elsewhere. I’ve read enough to know that they are just poorly argued opinion pieces and are just not worth the time.

  I have given up reading them in this thread as well   

> I’m happy to read stuff that Marc writes himself as I find it interesting to see how an intelligent fellow like Marc can be so staunchly (and I dare say illogically) supportive of the carbon economy.

  That is an assumption and you may be right but have you ever thought you could be wrong and he is winding posters up which he does successfully. 
When I have had time on my hands I wind up the Indian callers when they ring about my computer or some other thing they sell. 
I was at a meeting some years ago and a contentions motion was put up and a person seconded it. The normal to and frowning too place and when it went to the vote the person who seconded it voted against it.I thought that strange but he said it is in the rules of meetings and he wanted to see the arguments first.  
Now Marc could be the equivalent to the seconder, we shall never know only he knows.

----------


## Marc

> ...we shall never know only he knows.

  It's no secret and you know it. I despise anything to do with "reduction" of CO2 because it is based on a fallacy and an idiotic "consensus" , read a chorus of morons singing and dancing together for more funds.
The expressions that are all the rage in inner city coffee shops for thin single vegetarians like "carbon emissions" ... "de-carbonisation" ... or even better the "carbon economy" or the "carbon pollution", is an outrageous admission of petulant ignorance of the worst kind, namely the fanatic kind that does not think and repeats fraudulent arguments and hollow arguments shielded by the trends and the "beliefs" 
It is a rather pathetic state of affairs.
My "support for the carbon economy" is a lovely and trendy set of words yet is meaningless in any context you care to put it. Is a pathetic appeal to emotions and has zero value from a scientific point of view and from a political one.
Just in case anyone has forgotten, we _are_made of carbon, we are carbon based organism, our whole biosphere is carbon based and the biosphere relies on one, and one only element to exist, and that is CO2. 
The warmist can dance all day long around their high priests, and write long convoluted stories about the "carbon economy". it makes no difference to the biological reality. The level of CO2 is linked to the sun activity and that minuscule addition that comes from man, is related to population. More people, more CO2. Too bad. Don't like it? Find a planet that is Calcium based and camp there.

----------


## John2b

Someone doesn't know about Venus, a planet a little closer the Sun than Earth with more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere and a surface temperature of 470 degrees celsius. Must be a Billy Madison post: Billy Madison (1995) - Quotes - IMDb

----------


## phild01

> Someone doesn't know about Venus, a planet further than the Sun than Earth

   :Confused:

----------


## Marc

Yes, I can see the light now ... Venus surface temperature is directly proportional to it atmospheric CO2 ... excuse me CARBON ... content.
So it comes to reason that if we can pump out all the carbon, Venus will cool down quick smart. Worth a try!
Let's start a collection to cool down Venus. I'll start with one Fijian dollar  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

> 

   :Frown:  Thanks Phil, I mixed up kilometres and miles  :Frown: . I've fixed my post. My mistake does not change the science - or the non-science!

----------


## woodbe

> Just in case anyone has forgotten, we _are_made of carbon, we are carbon based organism, our whole biosphere is carbon based and the biosphere relies on one, and one only element to exist, and that is CO2.

  No-one I know has ignored carbon on this planet. However, carbon is not the only effective element. Without Oxygen for example, humans die. The issue is not that carbon exists on this planet, the issue is that increasing amounts of carbon will (and is already) altering the world environment that will impact the living beings on this world. 
Science is not a 'fallacy' but non-scientists repeat the fallacies that have repeatedly proven to be incorrect.  https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/04/8...ce-sentiments/

----------


## Marc

> Thanks Phil, I mixed up kilometres and miles . I've fixed my post. My mistake does not change the science - or the non-science!

   So Venus is hot because of CO2 ... therefore we will burn just like venus unless we put up more windmills.
What a load of bovine excrement. 
Venus axis is inclined at 177 degrees and one day lasts 243 earth days. And you want to tell me you can compare the two?
Pull the other one John

----------


## DavoSyd

> More people, more CO2.

  well, that's where you are wrong...  
only certain types of human are causing increases in the gases that are causing widespread global warming, and yes - you ARE one of those types!!! 
the human population has increased for millennia without any  CO2 increases... didn't it? 
i think pre-1800's yeah?

----------


## Marc

Davo, you are funny. And you are just repeating one of the commandments in the global warming activist bible. Blame someone else and be very loud about it ... I think it is the second or third commandment. 
The only difference between you and me, is that I am part of the CO2 equation and recognise it and proud of it. You are just part of the equation as I am but you _think_ that you have a handle on it and that makes you without sin. Very funny. 
Breath in and breathe out Davo, there is no harm in CO2 and never will be. In fact the only harm will come if we ever are successful in reducing it, something that is clearly impossible thank God and not gaia.  
As for CH4, that is another matter. Stop eating all those beans!!!!  :Smilie:

----------


## DavoSyd

> there is no harm in CO2 and never will be.

  Marc, you are funny.  And you are just repeating one of the commandments in the global warming denialists bible. Blame someone else and be very loud about it ... I think it is the second or third commandment.  The only difference between you and me, is that I am part of the CO2 equation and recognise it and i'm not proud of it. You are just part of the equation as I am but you _think that you have a handle on it and that makes you without sin. Very funny. 
Breath in and breathe out Marc, there is harm in CO2 and forever will be. In fact less harm will come if we ever are successful in reducing it, something that is clearly possible,._

----------


## Marc

Mm ... not very original.  
What is the harm in CO2 again? 
Oh yes ... catastrophic global warming ... so it comes to reason that more CO2 = higher temperature.
But Co2 has been going up and temperatures if you take the raw data without falsification nor massages has not gone up ... mm. Very strange.
Something stinks.
It must be all that CH4 emissions. Too much greenery in the diet.  
This too will pass. 
Why don't' you advocate to stop pumping sewage in the sea? That would be a worthwhile cause.
Conceded a stinky one.  :Smilie:

----------


## DavoSyd

> But Co2 has been going up and temperatures ... has not gone up ... mm.

  yeah, that sounds like a pretty stauch opinion, but that is simply all it is.

----------


## Marc

That's ok Davo ... you are forgiven for now  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

Once Again, The #FauxPause Is Killed By Actual Research - Greg Laden&#039;s Blog

----------


## John2b

About 80% of the Australian population wants to end the use of fossil fuels, but Australian governments don't generally act on public sentiment (same sex marriage is a case in point). If you've ever wondered why... 
"Last month Australia slipped further down the rankings in the international corruption index. Among a wide range of factors cited by Transparency International was Australia’s “inappropriate industry lobbying in large-scale projects such as mining”, as well as “revolving doors and a culture of mateship”. As several high-profile cases have recently revealed, the close ties that continue to exist between senior politicians, former political staffers, and the big end of town have had a real and lasting impact on the perception of political transparency in Australia."  *Revealed: the extent of job-swapping between public servants and fossil fuel lobbyists*  https://theconversation.com/revealed...obbyists-88695

----------


## Bros

> About 80% of the Australian population wants to end the use of fossil fuels

  Big statement how do you back it up?

----------


## John2b

Government charged its Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, to go through an extensive considered policy process to address national challenges of security, a ordability and emissions reduction in electricity. 
The Finkel Review was released in June 2017; providing a “blueprint” for a clear, long-term energy policy to deliver on Australia’s emissions reduction commitments, provide a ordable electricity, and ensure a high level of security and reliability. The key recommendation of the Finkel Review is for the Government to introduce a Clean Energy Target; to incentivise new types of energy, at lower cost. 
In order to understand people’s views of how the Government has responded to the recommendations of the Finkel Review, ReachTEL conducted a survey of 2,176 residents across Australia on the 20th September 2017. 
Three quarters of Australians (77%) recognise the importance of a Clean Energy Target (CET) - to incentivise new types of energy, at lower cost.
A minority of only 4% are unsure if the Government should implement a CET. A CET is essentially the subject of this thread, so less than 4% of Australians agree with the premise put up by Rod in post #1.  https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/up...e7c376f5a0.pdf

----------


## Marc

Simple. That is the Pareto efficiency. 
The 80% who "want to end the use of fossil fuels" are those same 80% who live off the efficiency of the remaining 20%. 
The same 80% who have rocks in their heads and have little notion of what would happen if we end the use of fossil fuels, because they have always leaned on the 20% who have always carried them like unwanted ballast.
The unfortunate negative of democracy is that the 80%'s individual vote is worth the same as the 20%'s individual vote.
SA + VIC + TAS + ACT ... would they qualify for 80%? ... probably not. May be if you throw in the staff at the ABC and the City of Sydney council?

----------


## Bedford

> Originally Posted by *John2b*   
>  About 80% of the Australian population wants to end the use of fossil fuels

  Australian population, 24,598.900, June '17, and they surveyed 2176 of them and decided that,   

> Three quarters of Australians (77%) recognise the importance of a Clean Energy Target (CET)

  I take it you don't realise that 2176 is about 0.0088% of the Aus population. 
No prizes for guessing who to select for a survey that small, that's of course if it even did happen.   

> A CET is essentially the subject of this thread, so less than 4% of Australians agree with the premise put up by Rod in post #1.

  Well the poll regarding that revealed 64.8 % against. https://www.renovateforum.com/f187/c...ax-poll-98944/

----------


## Bros

> In order to understand people’s views of how the Government has responded to the recommendations of the Finkel Review, ReachTEL conducted a survey of 2,176 residents across Australia on the 20th September 2017.

   What a load of ?????. Have you ever done a reach tel survey or any other telephone survey? I have a couple and never again as the questions are asked in a manner that you reply to the people who commission the survey want and not what you really think.  
If you asked the question do you want fossil fuel phased out and are you prepard to put up with power outages when it is very hot or other time when the sun done shine and the wind done blow and the results answers will be a lot different.

----------


## PhilT2

> No prizes for guessing who to select for a survey that small, that's of course if it even did happen.

  It may have slipped your notice but I have a bit of a fixation on people basing what they say on silly little trivialities like facts, evidence, stuff like that. If you have some of them to support the idea that a widely publicised survey never actually happened and the company involved never said a word then perhaps you could share?

----------


## John2b

Here is the result of a different poll by a different organisation on a different date - April 2017. The same survey found nationally, a majority of Coalition voters – 55 per cent – also wanted a faster move to renewables.

----------


## Bros

> Here is the result of a different poll by a different organisation on a different date - April 2017. The same survey found nationally, a majority of Coalition voters – 55 per cent – also wanted a faster move to renewables.

    And what was the question? It make all the difference to your answers.

----------


## John2b

Another poll or 10,271 people a year earlier found 57.2 per cent of respondents supported the government introducing "an emissions intensity scheme that forces emissions reductions from high-emissions power plants such as coal generators".  https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...31-gr5f6f.html

----------


## John2b

> And what was the question? It make all the difference to your answers.

  The question is clearly spelt out above the table of results, and yes it makes a difference - it very effectively deals with your objections.

----------


## Bros

> The question is clearly spelt out above the table of results, and yes it makes a difference - it very effectively deals with your objections.

  Cant see any question just a statement. It doesn't say much.

----------


## John2b

Let's look at another poll by a different organisation (Lowy Institute) at a different time, this one in June last year. 81 per cent of respondents wanted policymakers to focus on clean energy sources such as wind and solar, _even if it costs more_. The respondents were given a choice of two positions, shown on the results:    https://www.lowyinstitute.org/public...ore-investment

----------


## John2b

> Cant see any question just a statement. It doesn't say much.

  "Do you support or oppose an increased renewable energy target in your own state?" is very much a question, of which 77% said yes, and even 78% in Marc's cherished NSW.

----------


## John2b

In another poll 96% of Australians said they want renewable energy to be the primary energy source for Australia.  *Most Australians want renewables to be primary energy source, survey finds*https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jun/27/most-australians-want-renewables-to-be-primary-energy-source-survey-finds

----------


## John2b

> Australian population, 24,598.900, June '17, and they surveyed 2176 of them and decided that,/

  How much of your blood do you need to send to pathology to analyse and see if you have an infection? Just a representative sample - doh!

----------


## Bros

But no one is game to asks the real question which I said above and I will repeat i again.  "If you asked the question do you want fossil fuel phased out and are you prepard to put up with power outages when it is very hot or other time when the sun done shine and the wind done blow ."

----------


## phild01

I take little notice of these silly surveys, as Bros says they are always designed to achieve an outcome knowing people's opinion can be manipulated ...it's all spin.

----------


## Bedford

> It may have slipped your notice but I have a bit of a fixation on people basing what they say on silly little trivialities like facts, evidence, stuff like that. If you have some of them to support the idea that a widely publicised survey never actually happened and the company involved never said a word then perhaps you could share?

    

> Key Findings,

   https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/up...e7c376f5a0.pdf  

> 1* Three quarters of Australians (77%)* recognise the importance of a Clean Energy Target (CET) - to incentivise new types of energy, at lower cost.

  My Bolding. 
There  were only 2176 surveyed and as an Australian citizen I and 24,596,724 Australians were denied  the opportunity and not made aware of it.. So the statement/figures can only be  false.  Were you surveyed Phil, can you prove it happened?   
Where was it widely publicised and was this before or after the survey?

----------


## woodbe

> But no one is game to asks the real question which I said above and I will repeat i again.  "If you asked the question do you want fossil fuel phased out and are you prepard to put up with power outages when it is very hot or other time when the sun done shine and the wind done blow ."

  That is not the logical question or result. 
If we are going to phase out fossil fuel, we would replace it with renewables even if "the sun done shine and the wind done blow". Don't you know about multiple methods of energy storage? 
The current result of the AU governments is that multiple fossil fuel systems are way out of time and the possibility of decisions have been ignored for years. Well, except for SA.

----------


## Marc

I release another poll's key finding:
80% of all vegetarian single male living in inner city (if with their mum or not was not asked) ... agree that "Something should be done to reduce carbon emissions."
80% don't know how or why, and assume carbon is something that burns and is black. The definition of "emitting" is a tad obscure to them.
80% really like soya latte made from organic peruvian coffee beans.
The other 20% like Cannabis tea and think emitting has to do with bodily functions.

----------


## Bedford

> How much of your blood do you need to send to pathology to analyse and see if you have an infection? Just a representative sample - doh!

  10 ml will cover the majority of tests but it can be done with as little as 1ml, because it is the same, so a representative sample is all that is required. 
Whereas with the Australian population you have 24,598.900 people who are not the same.

----------


## Bros

> That is not the logical question or result.

  Of course it is lawyers would ask that as well and TV interviewers to get the result they want.   

> If we are going to phase out fossil fuel, we would replace it with renewables even if "the sun done shine and the wind done blow". Don't you know about multiple methods of energy storage?.

  Yep I have a battery in my car but it doesn't run it only starts if for the fossil fuel to run it. Pump storage is way way to small and now the snowy expansion is expected to be getting towards twice the initial estimate. I have a hot water system that stores energy but that is for my comfort.   

> The current result of the AU governments is that multiple fossil fuel systems are way out of time and the possibility of decisions have been ignored for years. Well, except for SA.

  SA imports fossil fuel generation and what is Osborne, Pelican Point and Torrens Island running on fresh air, no fossil fuel Gas.

----------


## Marc

We should all emigrate to SA, jump on Centrelink que and bum around and participate in protest against the bad rich fossil fuel carbon economy dudes.

----------


## phild01

> We should all emigrate to SA, jump on Centrelink que and bum around and participate in protest against the bad rich fossil fuel carbon economy dudes.

  Now if SA suddenly had all of Australia move there, then candle sales would go through the roof.

----------


## Marc

Nee ... you forgot kerosene lamps? Easily converted to biodiesel !
And the wood stoves will come back in fashion, new foundries would open, of course fired by native hardwood only (No malaysian rainforest wood ever)

----------


## woodbe

> Yep I have a battery in my car but it doesn't run it only starts if for the fossil fuel to run it. Pump storage is way way to small and now the snowy expansion is expected to be getting towards twice the initial estimate. I have a hot water system that stores energy but that is for my comfort.

  You mentioned 'Pump Storage', not I. There are plans for Pumped storage in SA. 
But as I mentioned, there are multiple methods of power storage. Yes, pump storage is just one method. As I asked: "Don't you know about multiple methods of energy storage?"    

> SA imports fossil fuel generation and what is Osborne, Pelican Point and Torrens Island running on fresh air, no fossil fuel Gas.

  Moving forward takes time, but at least SA is moving. There are two projects in plan at Port Augusta:  Solar thermal power plant announced for Port Augusta &#039;biggest of its kind in the world&#039; - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
150MW Solar thermal power plant. Solar thermal uses heliostats, or mirrors, to concentrate sunlight onto a tower that heats molten salt. 
The heat created is then used to generate steam. Solar Reserve said the plant will be able to provide between eight and 10 hours of storage and had no requirement for gas or oil generated electricity as a backup.   Project - DP Energy 
The total generation  capacity of the project will be up to 375MW. It will produce enough  energy to power approximately 154,000 South Australian households. 
Plenty of other plans in process and existing power plants like Hornsdale already have significant electricity backups.

----------


## PhilT2

> Were you surveyed Phil, can you prove it happened? 
> Where was it widely publicised and was this before or after the survey?

   
A quick google gives me the media who published the results of the survey but if I wanted proof i suppose I could ring Reachtel and ask them if they really did this. But i have no real reason to suspect that the Climate Council falsified a report and used the name of Reachtel to make it sound authentic. Or perhaps the Council and Reachtel conspired together to issue a bogus report. I don't have any evidence to support making such a baseless allegation so I won't. 
Sampling is a tried and proven technique with a solid research base. The report from the Climate council was open in stating exactly how many people were called so there is no basis to suggest that they misrepresented how the data was collected.

----------


## John2b

> But no one is game to asks the real question which I said above and I will repeat i again.  "If you asked the question do you want fossil fuel phased out and are you prepard to put up with power outages when it is very hot or other time when the sun done shine and the wind done blow ."

  Strawman argument. There have been "power outages when it is very hot or other time when the sun done shine and the wind done blow" for ever - nuthin to do with renewables.

----------


## John2b

> I release another poll's key finding:

  There is no need to make up fairytales! Just cite a poll that backs up your ideological belief - any one will do.

----------


## John2b

> 10 ml will cover the majority of tests but it can be done with as little as 1ml, because it is the same, so a representative sample is all that is required. 
> Whereas with the Australian population you have 24,598.900 people who are not the same.

  Bedford, sampling works because a small sample can be representative of the whole _if_ the sample is taken properly. _The same is equally true for blood and public opinion._ Bless your lucky stars that this is true, for representative sampling is the basis of disease control that has banished plagues and childhood deaths over the past few centuries.

----------


## phild01

> sampling works because a small sample can be representative of the whole _if_ the sample is taken properly.

  Seem to recall some more recent pollings didn't reflect that level of accuracy.  
Sampling is also prone to biased selection depending on the mood of those doing it.

----------


## Bros

> Strawman argument. There have been "power outages when it is very hot or other time when the sun done shine and the wind done blow" for ever - nuthin to do with renewables.

  And with renewables it will get much worse.

----------


## John2b

> And with renewables it will get much worse.

  Haha, renewables have recently prevented some state-wide blackouts when coal fired generators have failed! You've been drinking too much of Marc's Kool-Aid. 
A significant factor behind contemporary blackouts has been the privatisation of once publicly owned electricity utilities that were formally operated in the public interest. Private energy providers make their money by "gaming" the system - and that is contrary to the best interests of public energy security.  Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units after Loy Yang trips  https://www.smh.com.au/environment/all-happening-very-quickly-tesla-battery-sends-a-jolt-through-energy-markets-20180103-h0cxr7.html

----------


## Bros

> Haha, renewables have recently prevented some state-wide blackouts when coal fired generators have failed!

   Are you for real coal fired generators are much more reliable then wind and sun.

----------


## John2b

> Seem to recall some more recent pollings didn't reflect that level of accuracy.  
> Sampling is also prone to biased selection depending on the mood of those doing it.

  Absolutely phild01, sampling is only as accurate as the measurement parameters and the diligence in application. The worst polls are the ones biased by the echo chambers in peoples' own heads. There is a lot of that behind the 'denialist' posts in this thread - especially those who heap scorn on research without even bothering to clarify if is representative or not, or who don't even understand how statistical sampling works. Never mind - those same people still benefit from applied statistical analysis in finance, health, technology, etc, etc, even if they choose to deny it applies to public opinion.

----------


## John2b

> Are you for real coal fired generators are much more reliable then wind and sun.

  Real coal fired generators are much more reliable then wind and sun except when they fail, as they have done frequently and as they will continue to do so. Irrespective of whether coal, gas or nuclear energy was the energy source, energy security in the past has been by boiling excess water to have spare capacity available to meet unexpected demand when a generator fails. Water is now a scarce commodity and countries can't afford to limit agriculture just for turning water into steam for the sake of "reliable" energy.

----------


## Bros

> Real coal fired generators are much more reliable then wind and sun except when they fail, as they have done frequently and as they will continue to do so. Irrespective of whether coal, gas or nuclear energy was the energy source, energy security in the past has been by boiling excess water to have spare capacity available to meet unexpected demand when a generator fails. Water is now a scarce commodity and countries can't afford to limit agriculture just for turning water into steam for the sake of "reliable" energy.

   Here we go again you posted this before and you still don’t know how thermal boilers work in electrical generation. 
Now hearing that fairy story I can now go to bed cooled by an Air Conditioner run by a coal fired power station

----------


## John2b

> Here we go again you posted this before and you still don’t know how thermal boilers work in electrical generation...

  ...and you still haven't shown otherwise!

----------


## John2b

"Water and energy are interlinked. Significant amounts of water are needed in almost all energy generation processes, from generating hydropower, to cooling and other purposes in thermal power plants, to extracting and processing fuels."  *Thirsty Energy: Securing Energy in a Water-Constrained World*http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/su...r-energy-nexus

----------


## Bedford

Thanks for posting this John, it certainly backs up what Marc says.

----------


## John2b

You're welcome, Bedford, however it does not support Marc's notion of NSW being welfare free, or the 20% supporting the 80%. It in fact shows there are high levels of welfare support across all of Australia.

----------


## John2b

> Simple. That is the Pareto efficiency. 
> The 80% who "want to end the use of fossil fuels" are those same 80% who live off the efficiency of the remaining 20%.

  So where does the 20% get its income from? That would be the 80% you are deriding - doh! Remove the 80% of your so called parasites from the economy and the 20% elite, who make their profits from the economic activity of the 80%, are stuffed.

----------


## Marc

I love it!
SA, VIC and TAS at the forefront of the taxpayers rip off. 
I wonder how the ACT is doing. 
I remember many moons ago I went to visit the telstra tower in Canberra. 
I was with wife and 4 little kids and the last thing I wanted was to queue up. Saw a very long queue of very well behaved citizen lining up to go in and a solitary window with no one in front. I jumped at the solitary ticket seller and paid something like a dollar a head and asked why was the other window so busy and this one not. he said that the other one was for "concession card holders". That day I was the only one that had to pay. I thought it was hilarious. That was 25 years ago.

----------


## PhilT2

> very long queue of very well behaved citizen lining up to go in and a solitary window with no one in front. I jumped at the solitary ticket seller and paid something like a dollar a head and asked why was the other window so busy and this one not. he said that the other one was for "concession card holders".

  So you managed to get in ahead of all the pensioners on their day trip from the retirement village; good for you.

----------


## PhilT2

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...pplication/pdf 
just some info on where welfare dollars go; one of the larger welfare costs and one that is increasing, is the age pension due to the retirement of the "babyboomers". Many of these are people who worked and paid tax for many years and to regard them as "parasites" is just plain wrong. 
Another large and increasing welfare cost is support for people with disabilities. Again if kids with downs, autism and cerebral palsy are your idea of parasites there's nothing I can say. Welfare spending in this area is part state and part federal and states provide different levels of assistance so comparing one state with another is difficult. 
Then there's unemployment benefits which is a much smaller, and decreasing, part of the welfare budget.

----------


## John2b

Cut it out with the facts stuff, PhilT2! Next thing you'll be repeating the fact that global warming is happening, as Brown Brothers wines and other primary producers know from tough first hand experience. They've had to move vineyards south from the Victoria to Tasmania for their cool climate varieties, and are now wondering where south they will go next as Tasmania becomes too warm: 
While politicians question the reality of climate change, farmers and businesses act - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## Marc

> So you managed to get in ahead of all the pensioners on their day trip from the retirement village; good for you.

  Funny but untrue. It was a weekend and the queue was packed with couples and families with kids. There may have been some pensioners too but most if not all were able body middle aged and kids that prefered to line up to avoid paying a pittance then stand on their own feet. That is what is pathetic with the monstruos overgrown abused and unsustainable welfare system.

----------


## John2b

What is worse - family struggling to make ends meet being inconvenienced by having to queue to save a couple of dollars on an admission charge, or a financially comfortable person who is negatively gearing an 'investment property', thus inflating the value of real estate and making housing unaffordable for the struggling family?  What is negative gearing if not merely middle class welfare? 
Disclaimer: I own three houses, one of which is negatively geared, but the condescending opinion expressed above is highly offensive. The vast majority of wealthy people were born into wealth or at the very least opportunity, and that does not make them any more hard working or deserving of their privileged position, present company included.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Cut it out with the facts stuff, PhilT2! Next thing you'll be repeating the fact that global warming is happening, as Brown Brothers wines and other primary producers know from tough first hand experience. They've had to move vineyards south from the Victoria to Tasmania for their cool climate varieties, and are now wondering where south they will go next as Tasmania becomes too warm: 
> While politicians question the reality of climate change, farmers and businesses act - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  they are all just part of the conspiracy... wake up sheeple! 
they are just falsifying their temperature data, just like the BoM and NASA are doing... 
fake news!

----------


## Marc

Is the welfare data falsified too?

----------


## DavoSyd

> Is the welfare data falsified too?

  ask yourself this - is it all  a part of the big conspiracy 
if it's not, then the data must be rock solid and watertight...

----------


## Bedford

> What is worse - family struggling to make ends meet being inconvenienced by having to queue to save a couple of dollars on an admission charge, or a financially comfortable person who is negatively gearing an 'investment property', thus inflating the value of real estate and making housing unaffordable for the struggling family?  What is negative gearing if not merely middle class welfare? 
> Disclaimer: I own three houses, one of which is negatively geared, but the condescending opinion expressed above is highly offensive.

  Have you considered making one of those houses available for crisis accommodation?

----------


## John2b

> Have you considered making one of those houses available for crisis accommodation?

  We are transitioning from one property in the city to a remote off-grid property. The city property we were living in (a unit) will be rented to help pay our mortgage on the new wilderness property as we are both retired. The other property, also a unit in the city, is already rented. We'll have to sell one of the city units eventually to discharge the mortgage.

----------


## Marc

John maybe, idea of what negative gearing is, reflects the marxist idea that "what is yours is mine and what is mine is mine". In other words, his negative gearing is OK, my negative gearing is not ok.
Considering that the term was coined by real estate spruikers in the eighties that advertised full page "let the taxman pay for your investment", it was always the target of cheap lefties that did not even understand the concept let alone the poor investment that a negatively geared property is, particularly for those on lower incomes. 
Losing money on your investment is never a good idea, yet it is what 80% of business need to do the first year or even subsequent years to get a business going hoping for the good times to come. 
Of course it is easier to wave the red flag to the masses and say that "negative gearing" is a tax rip off for the rich, "that inflates the price of properties".
But just for the record, lets state what this infamous negative gearing actually is. 
It is claiming your epenses against your earnings. 
And that is what 100% of all business or sole trader in any country in the world does.
Only blind political claptrap can present it as a "tax rip off".
So negative gearing inflates the price of fish and chip shops, Lollypop factories, and car rental business too. Not to mention ebay traders and Thai massage parlors.
You dirty capitalist!

----------


## johnc

The real issue is cost of housing, negative gearing is a side show, one of the factors in house pricing. really if people have to tag others with political slurs and brands they aren't capable of being part of an adult discussion. Ultimately the financial health of the nation is best served with as many as possible either owning homes or paying affordable rents, investors recently are enabled through tax concessions to afford higher house prices which push up rents. Maybe the public purse shouldn't be handing out refund cheques to landlords, maybe we need to look at housing supply in our inner cities and decide if we want our suburban blocks or need to simply allow developers to build mini Singapore's or Hong Kong's. It is a complex issue, no single factor pushes up rents or housing costs and rises are not consistent across the country. Negative gearing probably has minimal if any effect in country towns with plenty of housing stock, it does though in tightly held cities, policy needs mean all options must always remain on the table, politicians doing their job properly use the levers that help steer the economy and actions such as land supply and density rules to moderate demand. All of that has failed in recent years. Really the big concession is the 50% discount on capital gains, it makes no sense to lower tax on idle speculation, most housing investors rely on capital gains to come out in front on heavily mortgaged properties, getting tax back on a level playing field may help things a bit.

----------


## Marc

Housing "affordability" is another nonsense. Price of anything is offer and demand. Bring in 300,000 people a year and see demand go up. Cut migration to zero and see what happens to house prices. Look the other way and pretend nothing to see when Chinese investors break the law with bribes to RE agents and buying what they are not allow to buy, and see prices claim.  
So called negative gearing is not a tax "concession", is what any business needs to do in order to exist. If you own a bakery and you can not deduct from your gross takings the cost of making bread, you can not open the doors. If you can not claim your expenses from your earnings in a rental property business, you are equally doomed. Any business can tap from different sources of income and subsidise the one that is making a loss.  
The problem with negative gearing and the public perception that it is some form of scam, is that most folks wouldn't know what this expression really means and how it works, and second, most people don't make a distinction between the business of owning real estate, and the purchase of a property for their own use. 
Of course some countries like Cuba have solved the problem and investing in residential property to rent is Verboten!  
If you drive a car for business you claim the expenses on tax. Your neighbour who does not have a business, does not call you a scammer because he can not claim his car on tax. 
I am sure that the ability to claim a ute on tax drives the prices of second hand utes up. So? Are we going to ban tradies from claiming their car on tax because it makes cars unaffordable? Will we now introduce the concept of "car affordability"?. It would be just as absurd as it is now with the current idea that houses are expensive due to those rotten investors and the government colluding by giving them that ill gotten "tax concession".  
The reality in relation to housing in general is that the rental market exists because of the dad and mum investors who own, in 95% of cases just one property that is making them a loss. Private investors that in the vast majority are hemorrhaging money at alarming and sometimes unsustainable rates, are subsidising the rental market and competing for tenants with rates that do not cover the cost of paying the mortgage and sometimes not even for cost of repairs. Add to that capital gain tax that equates to stealing, real estate is a rotten business. 
Real estate investing exists only because the owner can claim a small portion of his massive losses on tax. And I say a small portion because the 95% of single dwelling investors that have a job and pay some form of tax, will be able to deduct expenses only at the marginal rate of personal income tax they pay, usually not more than 20%. So to all of those who cry blue murder in relation to negative gearing I say, do your maths and talk to your accountant. If you lose $30,000 a year on your rental and think you are OK because you "negative gear it", you are in fact losing $30,000 and recovering $6000 leaving you with a loss of 24,000 a year. In ten years you have lost $240,000 Not very smart. 
And when you sell the government will tell you that if the property has doubled the value in then years you have made a PROFIT of ... if you bought at 300k and sold at 600k ... 300,000 dollars. 
Is that a real profit? of course it is not! Can you sell at 600k and buy another at 300K ? No! so it is not profit, just inflation. You can only buy at 600k now.  
Furthermore if you paid your property off, you have no longer "negative gearing" If your rental is making a profit, no negative gearing.
So tell me now who is going to be the loser if Edison and his cronies in the Labor party actually abolish negative gearing?

----------


## woodbe

> Furthermore if you paid your property off, you have no longer "negative  gearing" If your rental is making a profit, no negative gearing.

  That is not what most of the property investors do. 
They take a significant mortgage, and rent the property out. The costs  of the mortgage will give the owner negative gearing and reduce their  normal income tax, and as a group increasing and pushing up the property  prices. They don't pay off the mortgage unless they decide to sell off  the property. 
That is exactly what has been happening now for the young kids who  unlike you, myself and my friends, and most of the young population with  basic jobs back then. Since Negative gearing began, Lawyers, Firemen,  Nurses, Politicians, etc are and having been pushing the property prices  through the roof. The Government should have pulled negative gearing  back years ago but now any younger people I have met all across the  nation are stuffed. They cannot buy a property anything like when we  could. 
There is a reason the pollies don't fix the problem: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...20-gvp2g5.html

----------


## Marc

There is no "problem" to fix. 
Do you see a problem with tradies claiming their truck on tax? 
To say that negative gearing has made housing unaffordable is nonsense. Housing prices have gone up due to an increase in demand caused by massive immigration and lack of new housing stock. The investment properties that ordinary australians have invested in the last 30 years is not new and makes up for the rental market. That market is also stretched to the limit. Abolishing negative gearing will only hurt those who are negatively geared and on low income, and those renting.    

> ...They take a significant mortgage, and rent the property out. The costs of the mortgage will give the owner negative gearing and reduce their normal income tax, and as a group increasing and pushing up the property prices. They don't pay off the mortgage unless they decide to sell off the property.

  THis is the sort of politically motivated nonsense that people got stuck in their head without even understanding what they are saying. 
So The (bad) owner takes up a 'significant' loan and buys a property with borrowed money, rents it out at a loss, allowing this way for someone to have a roof over their head and pay way less than they would have to if buying ... however ... and here comes why the owner is baaad ... "The costs of the mortgage will give the owner negative gearing and reduce their normal income tax" wow! he is a real bastard isn't he?
lets see the real numbers ... He has taken on a loan of $600,000 with an interest bill at 4% of $24,000 a year and renting it out at $500 will provide this baaad person with $26,000 a year ... Oops no negative nothing. OK, say there are other expenses, agent fees, tenant punches a wall in etc, another $10,000 ... so he finally makes a loss, (that is what he really wanted to screw the taxman) rental income is now 16,000 and he made a loss of $8000 he can claim against his salary.
His marginal tax rate is 32.5% so he can claim $2600 off his tax bill. 
He should be shot.
For getting into $600,000 loan to shave off 2600 off his tax bill and make a real loss of 5,400. 
And this exercise is supposed to push the prices of property up?
What a load of nonsense.

----------


## woodbe

> And this exercise is supposed to push the prices of property up?

  Absolutely.    
The negative gearers can hold a property with minimal costs and minimal asset invested into the property. More investors and the competition with the normal home buyers push up the prices over time and push the normal people out of their capability of buying a family home they want to live in.

----------


## John2b

> Housing prices have gone up due to an increase in demand caused by massive immigration and lack of new housing stock.

  The fact is that the highest rate of post war net immigration per capita in Australia coincided with the fastest rise in the growth rate of the Australian economy, so according to the "demand" argument there should now be a glut of rentals at rock bottom prices which drive current house prices down to the cost of a hamburger. There has never been so many unoccupied houses in Australian history as there are currently.

----------


## woodbe

*Home ownership would rise if negative gearing is scrapped, study says*    Melbourne University modelling, presented to Reserve Bank, says  nearly 75% of Australian households will be better off if the policy is  ditched.     
Three-quarters of Australian households will be better off if negative gearing is abolished, a study presented to the Reserve Bank of Australia shows.
 Close to 75% of households could own their own homes if the policy  was axed, and house prices would soften by 1.2% while rents would rise  “only marginally”, it said.
 The economic modelling undertaken by Melbourne University economists was presented to a Reserve Bank workshop last month, and publicly released on Friday.
 The paper, by department of economics researchers Yunho Cho, Shuyun  May Li, and Lawrence Uren, found that eliminating negative gearing would  lead to an overall welfare gain of 1.5% of gross domestic product.
  It found home ownership rates could be lifted to 72.2% of households, the highest level since 1991. The current level is 66.7%, the lowest level since the mid-1950s.  https://www.theguardian.com/australi...oes-study-says

----------


## Bros

Negative gearing is a risky investment for some as it relies on a form of pyramid selling in that when you want to make a profit the value of the investment has increased. This is fine if it does and the interest rates remain low but if interest rates rise the lender wants more back so some people can be in difficulties. A lot of people get sucked in by clever sales seminars and are convinced to borrow from banks who were pretty loose with their lending. 
House prices have risen in places but there has been a steep drop in prices in the resource town in Qld, Nt and Wa. Have a friend who bought two houses in a mining town for half the price that was paid for one. 
Used to work with a bloke who was negatively geared with shares and made good money. When he retired he put his super and all his money in Storm and was convinced to borrow more, and the result is history. 
House prices are driven by what customers and councils want. 
A developer won’t buy and develop land at huge cost unless they know they will make a profit and there have been many developers who have gone broke.

----------


## Marc

> The negative gearers can hold a property with minimal costs and minimal asset invested into the property. More investors and the competition with the normal home buyers push up the prices over time and push the normal people out of their capability of buying a family home they want to live in.

  More nonsense. This is the sort of language you expect in Cuba. 
"The negative gearers" vs "the normal home buyers" ... or even better " the normal people!" _Woodbe Marx_ 
You have conveniently ignored the fact that there is no "normality", only buyers and sellers. 
There is however business people and there is consumers. 
Just like restaurateurs compete with housewifes when buying food. They buy to sell it, the housewife buys to eat it. Different. There is no anomaly, only in the mind of a marxist who would like to abolish the ownership of property as a business and restrict it to the user alone. 
Cuba is your natural place.
For the rest of the world, if you are in the business of buying properties to rent them out, you must be able to write off your expenses. If expenses are higher than rent, you must be able to write that excess loss from either another property that is in the black or your own income if you have a job or run a fish and chip shop at a profit. It is the abc of any business. 
Politicians like to pretend they care about voters. They don't, they care about the votes to remain in business. And so they wave different flags to entice different outrageous reactions to pretend they care.
"Negative gearing" is one of those flags.
Particularly useful because no one really understand how poor of a tool it is to the investor. 
If my detailed explanation above does not help, you obviously are only interested in making waves not in understanding that this:   

> "negative gearers can hold a property with minimal costs and minimal asset invested"

   is false. 
What does minimal cost mean? An investor or an owner occupier pay the same, face the same cost and expenditures. The investor just like the OO needs to live somewhere and has his own housing cost just like everyone else, unless he lives in China. And when the foreign investors are ignored by you and politicians, when vacant housing that belongs to asian investors is overlooked for political reasons, the housing boom provoked by indiscriminate migration is pinned on the measer rebate the investor can obtain from the losses he incurred.
I tell you what would be fair. It would be fair if the loss in an investment property could be written off against another source of income in full and not only at the marginal rate. This way the person who pays 45% on his personal income, wouldn't have an advantage over the person who pays 19% income tax, but that reality even when it would give you an argument against the baaaad rich, escapes you. 
Last but not least, I love the statement in your cut and paste that says that investors ... sorry "negative gearers" can hold a property with "minimal assets" ... what does that even mean? That the bad owner rents the property empty? Should he furnish it for the tenant to smash it up? Make house calls and cook the tenant his dinner? 
I used to have 2 blocks of flat in Mt Isa, fully furnished. I replaced more furniture, carpets and white goods in 3 years than all of you guys put together have ever bought in you entire life. I had a person commit suicide in a unit and it was closed for a month, units set on fire, doors and windows smashed. Oh I forgot. I couldn't negative gear a thing because it was making a profit all along despite the above inconvenience. Most of my properties were always in the black and not negative nothing. It is the only way to make money. Losing money is bad business.
Not all is like the communist media depicts it. it pays to know a bit about the issue.

----------


## woodbe

1. A negative gearer can purchase a house or many houses with high mortgage. Their investment is a loan and the costs are higher than the rent. 
2. Most negative gearers rent the property without furniture. 
3. If a renter of your property suicides themselves, it is unlikely because of negative gearing. 
4. If your properties were creating more income than costs, then you were clearly not negatively gearing.   

> In 2014-15, 1.27 million people recorded a rental net loss. This was  down slightly from the 1.3 million in the years before and meant that  12.8% of taxpayers were negative gearing.

  5. Negative gearing is ripping the ability of the young to own a house. FACT.

----------


## Bedford

> 5. Negative gearing is ripping the ability of the young to own a house. FACT.

   

> Disclaimer: I own three houses, one of which is negatively geared, but  the condescending opinion expressed above is highly offensive. The vast  majority of wealthy people were born into wealth or at the very least  opportunity, and that does not make them any more hard working or  deserving of their privileged position, present company  included.

  Seems like woodbe is referring to you John.

----------


## woodbe

> Seems like woodbe is referring to you John.

  I'm referring to the government failing to improve the system for the young people unable to purchase their home because the property values have escalated due to negative gearing. 
The population would not have gone negative gearing if the government closed it down.  
Can't claim the population choices are the reason, Bedford. It's the Government's choice causing the issue.

----------


## Bedford

> I'm referring to the government failing to improve the system for the young people unable to purchase their home because the property values have escalated due to negative gearing.

  Well you can't negative gear a property until after you've bought it so I don't see how that escalated the value. 
Owner occupiers can't negative gear and (I'm guessing) would account for a greater percentage of the purchasers, so why isn't this keeping prices down? 
I think one of the causes is the RBA dropping interest rates historically low allowing buyers to finance more which allows bidding wars pushing up prices.   HISTORICAL INTEREST RATES AUSTRALIA 
Banks have a lot to answer to also with 105% lends etc allowing people to extend themselves further, also pushing prices up.   

> The population would not have gone negative gearing if the government closed it down.

  They did close it down in about 1985, but then reinstated it a couple of years later.   

> Can't claim the population choices are the reason, Bedford. It's the Government's choice causing the issue.

  Yes, lowering interest rates trying to boost the economy, and it worked too, just look at house prices!  :Biggrin:

----------


## John2b

From the perspective of the purchaser negative gearing makes a second house cheaper to buy than a first house. It distorts the housing market in favour of investment purchases, which in turn increases competition for houses, pushes up prices and shuts out first home buyers. It encourages the owners of second houses to leave them vacant rather than put them on the rental market (at least as long as they can get away with without incurring the wrath of the ATO), thus putting pressure on rental prices. It has no structural, social or economic purpose other than currying favour for government. I don't believe negative gearing is anything other than middle class welfare. However it exists and I would be a fool not to take advantage of it, given that I have the opportunity (why would I turn down "free", unearned money?). As I have now retired, it is unlikely I will have enough income to make a deduction against expenses in the future anyway.

----------


## Bigboboz

Negative gearing is a distraction, the two issues relating to buying property for investment is the capital gains tax discount and that you can leverage property so high so cheaply.   
Negative gearing gets so much attention because it's clear that those putting themselves in this position are betting that prices will go up ie they're speculators which add no benefit to the property market so it gets people riled up (rightly so).  Take away the tax distortion that is the capital gains tax discount and the ability to gear so high and you remove the speculators.   
Wasn't there a property thread for all of this?

----------


## Marc

More nonsense, so everyone who is "betting" that prices will go up is a _speculator ..._ 
That covers about everyone that buys a property. _Speculating_ Engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk but offering the chance of large gains, 
especially trading in commodities,stocks, etc., in the hope of profit from changes in the market price. 
Well sort of since the "large gains" are relative, and the ATO considers inflation "profit"  
What would you like to see Bob? Anyone hoping to make money with RE should be shot? One hand cut off? May be carve one eye out so he learns next time that making money is evil?  
Incredible! what do you guys do for a crust? Professional agitators for the CFMEU? Do you live in housing commission?

----------


## Marc

*The Modern Warm Period Delimited*Guest Blogger / 1 day ago March 10, 2018 Guest essay by David Archibald This recent post discussed the end of the Modern Warm Period and the year that global cooling began. That post was inspired by a comment to a post on WUWT six to eight years ago to the effect that climate is controlled by the Sun’s magnetic flux – no need to worry about much else. The comment seemed to come from a warmer scientist – they are well funded, have plenty of time on their hands, some are smart and idle curiosity would get a few looking into what controls climate. The results would not be published of course. To paraphrase Mussolini, everything within the narrative, nothing outside the narrative, nothing against the narrative. If the Sun’s magnetic flux controls climate, you don’t have to worry about what goes on under the hood – the effect of EUV on the NAO, the GCR flux, the F10.7 flux, any other flux apart from the magnetic flux. A comment by Bellman on that recent post inspired me to process the aa Index data a bit further. This is what the aa Index looks like from the beginning of recording in 1868:  Figure 1: aa Index 1868 – 2018 The end of the Modern Warm Period remains December 2008 which is the month of the Solar Cycle 24/25 minimum. The beginning of the Modern Warm Period is now September 1933 which is the month of the Solar Cycle 16/17 minimum. That is the true beginning of the Modern Warm Period because of what is evident from this graph:  Figure 2: Cumulative aa Index against long term average 1868 – 2017 It is evident from Figure 2 that 1933 marked the reversal in the trend of the cumulative aa Index plotted against its average. The Sun was running a lot hotter from 1933. That interpretation is supported by the longer term Open Solar Flux data set by Lockwood:  Figure 3: Open Solar Flux 1676 – 2011 The Maunder Minimum, the Dalton Minimum and the 1970s cooling period are evident from Figure 3. The lows in Lockwood’s flux during the Modern Warm Period remained higher than the average of the period from the Dalton Minimum that preceded it. Once again, plotting up the cumulative data of this series makes the break in trend evident:  Figure 4: Cumulative Open Solar Flux 1676 – 2011 Confirmation that 1933 is the beginning of the Modern Warm Period comes from the climatic response, starting with glaciers:  Figure 5: Curves showing the variations of glacier termini Figure 5 is from page 15 of Ahlmann’s 1953 report to the American Geographical Society entitled _Glacier Variations and Climatic Fluctuations_. Glaciers in Sweden, Norway and Iceland started retreating a lot faster from about 1933. So did glaciers on the opposite side of the planet:  Figure 6: Glacier length South Island of New Zealand Figure 6 shows that three of the four glaciers on New Zealand’s South Island started retreating about 1933. If a lot of glaciers started retreating around 1933 that should be evident in the rate of sea level change. And so it is:  Figure 7: Global Sea Level 1700 – 2002 Figure 7 shows that sea level was effectively flat from around 1900 to 1933 then took off from 1933. Now that the Modern Warm Period is over, glaciers should have stopped retreating and should now be bulking up. There is evidence for that starting with the Greenland Ice Sheet:  Figure 8: Accumulated Surface Mass Balance for the Greenland Ice Sheet The blue line is the 2016 – 2017 season which was at the upper bound of accumulation from 1981 to 2010. The Greenland Ice Sheet is back to putting on weight and that is coming out of the oceans. Figure 9 shows where the weight went on, all 544 billion tonnes of it:  Figure 9: Map of accumulated anomaly since September 1, 2016. The readouts are in the blue – Greenland, on balance, is now a story of ice accumulation. Other climatic evidence for the end of the Modern Warm Period is the plethora of cold temperature records set in the United State and Europe in early 2018, including sharksfreezing to death. David Archibald’s latest book is _American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare_

----------


## Rod Dyson

> *The Modern Warm Period Delimited*Guest Blogger / 1 day ago March 10, 2018
> [FONT=inherit]Guest essay by David Archibald

  All make too much sense Marc.  If they cant comprehend your argument for negative gearing there is no hope for this!

----------


## PhilT2

Just David Archibald still predicting global cooling... any day now. At least he's consistent; wrong of course but consistently wrong. Even the comments at wuwt tell him he's wrong.

----------


## DavoSyd

> *The Modern Warm Period Delimited*  David Archibald’s latest book is _American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare_

  this is MORE proof the FAKE NEWS reports about glacial retreat,  
i am SICK of reading about how most of the worlds' glaciers are melting! and anyways, glacial melt can only be simply a drop in the ocean compared to all the rivers that flow into the ocean every day!

----------


## Marc

Davo, the good news is that it is all fake. A big large unbelievably expensive con to screw us over with the price of almost everything.

----------


## chrisp

> Davo, the good news is that it is all fake. A big large unbelievably expensive con to screw us over with the price of almost everything.

  Negative gearing?  :Confused:

----------


## John2b

Yeah, even the bit about Greenland Ice Sheet growing is fake. This graph is from the exact same paper from which Marc's fake article above was drawn. You can see the massive upswing in Greenland's ice right here, there it is: the last dot on the bottom right!    GRACE data showing ice mass changes of the Greenland ice sheet (right-hand axis), and its contribution to sea level rise (left-hand), from 2002 to January 2017. Credit: Polar Portal

----------


## Bigboboz

> More nonsense, so everyone who is "betting" that prices will go up is a _speculator ..._ 
> That covers about everyone that buys a property.

  As with everything it's about finding the right balance, not one extreme position or the other that you imply are the only options.  We all buy expecting prices to go up, we don't all buy 100% relying on them going up substantially to offset the negative yield from very high leverage.   
My point is: 
1. Property as an investment is distorted by the availability of cheap high leverage.  No other investment option can achieve the same loan terms and rate. 
2. Property is further distored with yield losses written off at the full tax rate but the capital returns taxed at a discount.  
3. And to boot, if it doesn't work out as a good investment, you have natural base of buyers willing to buy you out called owner occupiers if things don't work out.  Name another investment that has a back stop buyer base like that?  Oh and annual injection of demand via 'healthy' levels of immigration 
In the current setup, it's very rational to be an investor leveraged to the eye balls, just saying it's distorted and not convinced it's healthy.  Again talking about getting the balance right, not going to the other extreme.  
Rob

----------


## John2b

> The Greenland Ice Sheet is back to putting on weight and that is coming out of the oceans. Figure 9 shows where the weight went on, all 544 billion tonnes of it:  Figure 9: Map of accumulated anomaly since September 1, 2016. The readouts are in the blue – Greenland, on balance, is now a story of ice accumulation. Other climatic evidence for the end of the Modern Warm Period is the plethora of cold temperature records set in the United State and Europe in early 2018, including sharksfreezing to death.

  Here is the entire original graphic from which the above image was deceitfully edited, showing it as it was published. The left parts shows winter ice gain, which is typical of any winter ice gain in the modern record, and does not support the post's claims at all. The question is: If Marc's source is correct, why did they need to falsely misrepresent the published data?   
Left: Map showing the difference between the annual SMB this year compared with the 1981-2010 period (in mm of ice melt). Blue shows more ice gain than average and red shows more ice loss than average. Right: Map of total mass change (in metres of ice melt) between June 2006 and January 2017. Red shading indicates mass loss and blue shows gains.

----------


## Marc

> As with everything it's about finding the right balance, not one extreme position or the other that you imply are the only options.  We all buy expecting prices to go up, we don't all buy 100% relying on them going up substantially to offset the negative yield from very high leverage.   
> My point is: 
> 1. Property as an investment is distorted by the availability of cheap high leverage.  No other investment option can achieve the same loan terms and rate. 
> 2. Property is further distored with yield losses written off at the full tax rate but the capital returns taxed at a discount.  
> 3. And to boot, if it doesn't work out as a good investment, you have natural base of buyers willing to buy you out called owner occupiers if things don't work out.  Name another investment that has a back stop buyer base like that?  Oh and annual injection of demand via 'healthy' levels of immigration 
> In the current setup, it's very rational to be an investor leveraged to the eye balls, just saying it's distorted and not convinced it's healthy.  Again talking about getting the balance right, not going to the other extreme.  
> Rob

  More political nonsense.
So you think that investors should be treated different than OO and the banks should lend them less? Maybe you don't know that such is the case already and has always been so? An investment is a higher risk and the bank treats it different. I am sure you will be happy with that. Also the banks have a backroom where the investors are flogged for daring to request a loan. 
Your point 1 is junk. You can have a loan for shares on similar condition than with a property. Having said that it may come to you as a shock but banks don't care for social engineering, they are a business and their goal is to make money. They lend to the lowest risk cheaper than to the higher risk. Property is low risk. Gold is low risk. Bank shares are low risk. Bitcoin is high risk ...and the 50% discount on capital gain applies just the same.  
Point 2 is also junk since anyone with two business (bastard how dare he?) can do just the same.  
Point 3 ... I can believe someone can write that. The bad investors are such cretin that they, when they decides to sell, can exploit the expands of the market at their leisure. Slave drivers! Speculators! 
Maybe you would like to see buyers culled? 
Anyone aspiring to buy a property have to take a number and get in queue? 
Only members of the party can apply? 
I think that to make you happy we should vote in a family member of Castro and impose a cap on properties so that the speculators have to sell at a fixed price. Prices will be fixed per m2 according to postcodes. No indexation allowed. buy and sell at just the one price. Housing crisis solved!
I am a genius!  :Smilie:  
By the way, I think that capital gain tax is a criminal act by the government and an attempt at fleecing those who have the audacity to make quick turnaround by knowing what they are doing. In other words a low attempt at social engineering.
The 50% discount after a year is just an admission that the tax is punitive

----------


## Bedford

Just for info, I am not prepared to comment one way or the other excepting that I think that low interest rates have been a major factor.  Interest-only home loans under scrutiny - 7.30

----------


## chrisp

> Just for info, I am not prepared to comment one way or the other excepting that I think that low interest rates have been a major factor.  Interest-only home loans under scrutiny - 7.30

  Hi Bedford, 
That’s an interesting story. I wonder if interest rates have anything to do with it or whether it is the aggressive ‘property investor’ strategy that was her downfall? I have read about an ‘investor’ strategy (not to be confused with a property developer which is quite different) where one rounds up a minimum deposit for an investment property (perhaps using the equity in their own home), rents it out, pays the loan out at a minimal (interest only) rate,and hopes that it appreciates in value. Once the equity grows (mainly due to the increase in the value of the property), that extra equity is used to buy another property. And so on it goes, and eventually the ‘investor’ holds a lot of properties but with minimal equity in any of them. The investor is very highly geared and it only takes a downturn in rental yield before it all unravels and the banks start calling in extra repayments, or forcing a sale. It sounds like this is what has happened in this case. 
I suspect that the low interest rates would make it easier to acquire more properties sooner and would contribute to the investor being able to gear themselves higher. But in the end, I suspect that they would have become unravelled whether the interest rates were high or not?

----------


## Bedford

> Hi Bedford, 
> That’s an interesting story. I wonder if interest rates have anything to do with it or whether it is the aggressive ‘property investor’ strategy that was her downfall?

  I said I wasn't going to comment on it! (her)  :Biggrin:  
However interest rates don't always remain the same and there are a lot of spruikers out there as mentioned earlier.   

> I have read about an ‘investor’ strategy (not to be confused with a property developer which is quite different) where one rounds up a minimum deposit for an investment property (perhaps using the equity in their own home), rents it out, pays the loan out at a minimal (interest only) rate,and hopes that it appreciates in value. Once the equity grows (mainly due to the increase in the value of the property), that extra equity is used to buy another property. And so on it goes, and eventually the ‘investor’ holds a lot of properties but with minimal equity in any of them. The investor is very highly geared and it only takes a downturn in rental yield before it all unravels and the banks start calling in extra repayments, or forcing a sale. It sounds like this is what has happened in this case.

  Maybe, maybe not, interest rates and rental income may have remained the same but the "interest only" period of the loan expired. 
If the interest only period was say, 5 years of a 25 year loan term, the repayment requires the "principal" component plus the interest to be paid now in 20 years.    

> I suspect that the low interest rates would make it easier to acquire more properties sooner and would contribute to the investor being able to gear themselves higher. But in the end, I suspect that they would have become unravelled whether the interest rates were high or not?

  If interest rates were double at the time someone tries to borrow they could probably only borrow half as much and therefore wouldn't be in as deep. 
Some mortgage calculators here, https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/tools-...age-calculator 
Simply the repayment increases substantially as shown below, with 3.5m borrowed the repayment changes from $11,677 to $21,219 per month after the loan comes off IO after 5 years.

----------


## chrisp

> Simply the repayment increases substantially as shown below, with 3.5m borrowed the repayment changes from $11,677 to $21,219 per month after the loan comes off IO after 5 years.

  I’m making some simplifications to try and understand the situation. 
I’m assuming an average of 20% equity in each property, so a $3.5M loan equates to a $4.4M property portfolio. 
I’m not sure what a typical rental yield is, but if I assume 4%, the annual rental income would be $4.4M x 4% = $176k/year 
During the interest-only period, the loan repayments (using the figures provided) would be $11,677 x 12 = $140k/year == profit of $36k/year 
However, once the interest-only period expires, the loan repayments become $21,219 x 12 = $255k/year == loss of $79k/year, which is a hell of a lot of money to cover on a nurse’s salary!

----------


## Bros

It may seem hard but I have no sympathy for her. She took a gamble and lost as it was all depending on the good times rolling on and it they did she would be travelling business class sipping champagne. She can't now blame the banks as they didn't stuff the letterbox with money she went and asked for it believing the sprukers. 
I mentioned Storm before and when I was asked to invest in Storm financial by a couple of people who retired and threw all their super in it plus sold an investment property and borrowed heaps of money to invest more. I was called a fool as it couldn't fail but I had the last laugh as one went from $2m in asserts to the aged pension greed again. If they had succeed the laugh would have been on me the conservative investor.

----------


## Bedford

> Im making some simplifications to try and understand the situation.

  You're starting to get the hang of it!  :Biggrin:    

> Im assuming an average of 20% equity in each property, so a $3.5M loan equates to a $4.4M property portfolio.

  Maybe but with LMI https://www.mortgagechoice.com.au/ho...age-insurance/ the loan may have been close to 100%.   

> Im not sure what a typical rental yield is, but if I assume 4%, the annual rental income would be $4.4M x 4% = $176k/year 
> During the interest-only period, the loan repayments (using the figures provided) would be $11,677 x 12 = $140k/year == profit of $36k/year 
> However, once the interest-only period expires, the loan repayments become $21,219 x 12 = $255k/year == loss of $79k/year, which is a hell of a lot of money to cover on a nurses salary!

  However, you need to add in council rates, water rates, insurance,  Land Tax, property managers commission% plus leasing fees and what ever else they charge, plus any maintenance and repair costs before you can spend any rent on making loan repayments. 
Generally the higher priced houses offer the greatest chance of capital gain,  but at a lower rent percentage. 
Rule #1, you can't make loan repayments with capital growth, think about that one!  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

There are many ways to accumulate a real estate portfolio safely. Usually when you find out about a strategy in the newspaper or worse on a tv ad or a so called course, you should run the other way and fast. 
However I wouldn't call it greed. Where is the line between "greed" and intelligent investment? There is no such line, it is a judgement expressed after the fact when the strategy fails. if the strategy works out, it is not greed but astute investment. 
The most interesting side of this side debate is that it is not detached from the big global warming scam. 
It is not a coincidence that those who are into properties and shares and self managed super are the target of the warmist. 
If in doubt check the new organised theft by labour on the abolition of imputation credits. Labour hates self funded retirees and self managed super. it's an old bugbear, an old socialist obsession. Pretend you care for the have-nots by hitting those who have worked all their life for what they have.  Call them "lucky" and "privileged" as if they had inherited their assets, found them on the street, bought with a win at the lottery. 
And coincidentally the global warming agitator will join the parade and the cheerleaders of the anti negative gearing and the anti imputation credits (not that they know what it is)
Rather sad 
Who said that the global warming scam is not political but has to do with science?

----------


## Bros

> If in doubt check the new organised theft by labour on the abolition of imputation credits. Labour hates self funded retirees and self managed super. it's an old bugbear, an old socialist obsession. Pretend you care for the have-nots by hitting those who have worked all their life for what they have.  Call them "lucky" and "privileged" as if they had inherited their assets, found them on the street, bought with a win at the lottery.

  Liberals don't do to bad at ripping retirees off either.

----------


## Marc

Of course the current (de)generation of Liberals are indistinguishable from Labour. 
There are two large pots of money in our economy. One is Super and the other is real estate. When the government is composed by a bunch of incompetent who are only interested in clinging to power. the only way to have money to throw at voters is by ripping off those who are holding a slice in one of the big pots and trample on private property and changing the goal post at every turn. We need a class action against the government

----------


## Bigboboz

> More political nonsense.
> So you think that investors should be treated different than OO and the banks should lend them less?

   No I think the investment lending on property has terms far more favourable than other investment options that can be leveraged.  What's appropriate for OO is depends on the borrowers circumstance.   

> Maybe you don't know that such is the case already and has always been so?

  Wrong, it was not difficult to get high LVR loans for investment purposes, this has only changed recently.   

> An investment is a higher risk and the bank treats it different. I am  sure you will be happy with that.

  Depends on the borrowers total asset an income position.    

> Your point 1 is junk. You can have a loan for shares on similar condition than with a property. Having said that it may come to you as a shock but banks don't care for social engineering, they are a business and their goal is to make money. They lend to the lowest risk cheaper than to the higher risk. Property is low risk. Gold is low risk. Bank shares are low risk. Bitcoin is high risk ...and the 50% discount on capital gain applies just the same.  
> Point 2 is also junk since anyone with two business (bastard how dare he?) can do just the same.  
> Point 3 ... I can believe someone can write that. The bad investors are such cretin that they, when they decides to sell, can exploit the expands of the market at their leisure. Slave drivers! Speculators!

  It's the package deal of the 3 points, so your argument addressing each point singularily is pointless.   

> Maybe you would like to see buyers culled? 
> Anyone aspiring to buy a property have to take a number and get in queue? 
> Only members of the party can apply?

  Nope. Again, just suggesting a better balance, not suggesting going to the other extreme.  It's not a complex concept.   

> I think that to make you happy we should vote in a family member of Castro and impose a cap on properties so that the speculators have to sell at a fixed price. Prices will be fixed per m2 according to postcodes. No indexation allowed. buy and sell at just the one price. Housing crisis solved!
> I am a genius!  
> By the way, I think that capital gain tax is a criminal act by the government and an attempt at fleecing those who have the audacity to make quick turnaround by knowing what they are doing. In other words a low attempt at social engineering.
> The 50% discount after a year is just an admission that the tax is punitive

  Wow, you really just ran with the fantasy that I'm arguing for the other extreme!  :Shock:   
Rob

----------


## Bigboboz

> However I wouldn't call it greed. Where is the line between "greed" and intelligent investment? There is no such line, it is a judgement expressed after the fact when the strategy fails.

  Where's the line between "greed" and intelligent investment? Perhaps when it's not intelligent investment!? If someone is only looking at the upside and don't assess the downside or flat don't understand the risks, I'd call that greed. 
BTW, why did greed need to be in quotations? 
No investment can be done with hindsight (if only!), very true but pretty sure you can classify the Storm clients as greedy. Or stupid but still greedy.  I doubt they assessed the risk of the strategy and only calculated the potential returns assuming the market continued as it had.   
Rob

----------


## PhilT2

Apologies for posting climate stuff in the real estate section. A judge in a US case has asked both the plaintiffs and defendants to provide him with a briefing on climate science and has posed a number of questions. http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/clima...6011_order.pdf
They're pretty basic stuff and the judge could easily get his answers from google. However the defendants in this case are oil companies and it will be interesting to see what answers they provide. Will it be what their own scientists have been telling them or what their PR dept has been telling shareholders?
Maybe Rex Tillerson will help them out now that he has some spare time...

----------


## Bros

> Of course the current (de)generation of Liberals are indistinguishable from Labour. 
> There are two large pots of money in our economy. One is Super and the other is real estate. When the government is composed by a bunch of incompetent who are only interested in clinging to power. the only way to have money to throw at voters is by ripping off those who are holding a slice in one of the big pots and trample on private property and changing the goal post at every turn. We need a class action against the government

  I think the strategy for retirement now is to aim for a pension at 70 even if it means retiring early. If you have to much get a brand new house where you would like to live and all new cars and appliances and have as many holidays as you can to get the money down as there is little incentive now for self funded retirement as government of all persuasions view the assets of individuals to be theirs to plunder by various means. 
As for Labors absurd imputation credit I have a friend who is on the pension and he gets about $300 per yr for imputation credits and I have no doubt there are many others. He is not rich by any means.

----------


## Marc

People will slowly start to corporatise everything they can to achieve low personal income and no personal assets.

----------


## PhilT2

Debt is now over half a trillion; we're all going to feel some pain to get this fixed.

----------


## John2b

Interesting new battery technology that achieves the same energy density as lithium batteries, but is based on carbon and water. The working prototype proton battery uses a carbon electrode as a hydrogen store, coupled with a reversible fuel cell to produce electricity.  First Rechargeable Battery Uses Cheap Carbon Instead Of Lithium : Science : Tech Times

----------


## phild01

> First Rechargeable Battery Uses Cheap Carbon Instead Of Lithium : Science : Tech Times

  Wonder if we will ever hear of this again!

----------


## Bros

> Apologies for posting climate stuff in the real estate section.

  I wouldn't get to carried away. If there are posts that are relevant the mods start a new thread and move posts. 
As for Rex Tillerson he is proberbly digging a bomb shelter just in case.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Wonder if we will ever hear of this again!

  you reckon the Big Oil will buy it up? 
i hope so, the proton battery could be one among many potential contributors towards meeting the gargantuan demand for electrical energy storage that will arise with the global shift to zero greenhouse emission, and that surely will mean MORE COSTS to everyone!!

----------


## Bedford

> Debt is now over half a trillion; we're all going to feel some pain to get this fixed.

  Certainly are, they are now able to use personal bank deposits to bail-in the banks if necessary.  Sold A Pup  The Bank Deposit Bail-In  Digital Finance Analytics (DFA) Blog

----------


## PhilT2

Stephen Hawking passed away in his sleep last night. His contribution to science will long outlive him.

----------


## phild01

Gone to the big black hole in the sky.  Sad news.

----------


## Bedford

> *Bill Shorten urges investors to offset imputation credit losses with property*

  Bill Shorten urges investors to offset imputation credit losses with property | afr.com

----------


## Marc

Of course! How could I miss that fantastic idea!
I am voting Labour from now on.

----------


## Bros

> Of course! How could I miss that fantastic idea!
> I am voting Labour from now on.

  Good on you Marc it’s about time you voted for a real left wing party instead of the current left leaning party we have in Government.

----------


## PhilT2

Never mind, the greens will save you. https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/pol...14-p4z4bc.html 
Time to face some unpleasant reality. Debt has to be repaid and the govt will always tax those who have money rather than those who don't.
To see how unpopular conservatives are at the moment check the Pennslyvania by-election in the US. Trump will put people off voting conservative for a decade.

----------


## phild01

> Never mind, the greens will save you. https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/pol...14-p4z4bc.html

  The greens could not care less, as usual just being opportunistic.

----------


## PhilT2

> The greens could not care less, as usual just being opportunistic.

  Are you saying that the other parties do?

----------


## phild01

> Are you saying that the other parties do?

  It's a mixed bag, generally opportunistic and power tripping.

----------


## DavoSyd

> It's a mixed bag, generally opportunistic and power tripping.

   

> Though the two sides like to paint every election as a clear choice between good (us) and evil (them), many voters have concluded all politicians are the same – liars and cheats.

  https://www.smh.com.au/business/next...04-h0td58.html

----------


## johnc

> Never mind, the greens will save you. https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/pol...14-p4z4bc.html 
> Time to face some unpleasant reality. Debt has to be repaid and the govt will always tax those who have money rather than those who don't.
> To see how unpopular conservatives are at the moment check the Pennslyvania by-election in the US. Trump will put people off voting conservative for a decade.

  While the Trump effect had a lot to do with it, the Democrat candidate was on the far right of his party being anti abortion rights and pro gun, the GOP candidate was a 60yo less than appealing tea party has been. The Republicans though must be starting to get the idea that they have a problem.

----------


## Bros

> The Republicans though must be starting to get the idea that they have a problem.

  I think the smart ones knew that when Trump got elected.

----------


## John2b

The last word on Australian bludgers:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoD0efoHzeA

----------


## Bros

:2thumbsup:

----------


## Bedford

> *Iron Matrix prototype house in WA could cost up to 30 per cent less to build than regular houses*

  https://www.domain.com.au/news/iron-...180313-h0xfnr/

----------


## Marc

From zero emissions, to zero renewables. 
A journey worth watching.   
By by SA

----------


## woodbe

Nothing about Australia. That was in Germany. 
Wind turbines reach their end of production and are removed and replaced by newer and more efficient wind turbines. 
The  renewable energy in SA will not be removed by changing the government.  The new SA government won't be moving fast with renewables like the  previous government, but they will remain faster than the rest of the  country for quite a long time.

----------


## chrisp

I don’t know how accurate the article is, but here is a link that was sent to me - Marshall's first promise as SA premier: Kill Tesla battery plan : RenewEconomy

----------


## John2b

> I don”t know how accurate the article is, but here is a link that was sent to me - Marshall's first promise as SA premier: Kill Tesla battery plan : RenewEconomy

  On radio today the Premier said on radio today that if a contract with Tesla to supply batteries to 50,000 houses already existed, then it would be honoured. However if there is no signed agreement in place, they will pursue their own policy which has allocated $100 million to subsidise battery systems for 40,000 homes with existing solar systems. There is a slight irony in that Labor's scheme had no cost to the State budget, whereas the Liberal's plan will cost $100 million. Apparently preventing a commercial provider supplying inexpensive electricity to lower socioeconomic suburbs at no cost to taxpayers is not as attractive to a Liberal government as spending taxpayers money on subsidising wealthy suburbs to upgrade their existing solar systems with batteries. 
Another policy the new government has is to finally get another interconnector to New South Wales. 
""In many ways, having an interconnector with NSW will improve the viability of [renewable energy projects] because it will create an export highway out of our state," Mr Marshall said." 
The new Marshall Government wants the Commonwealth to set a nationally consistent renewable energy target, so it's not likely SA's wind, solar and battery projects are about to go the way of the dodo.

----------


## Bros

> Another policy the new government has is to finally get another interconnector to New South Wales. 
> ""In many ways, having an interconnector with NSW will improve the viability of [renewable energy projects] because it will create an export highway out of our state," Mr Marshall said."

  Much easier said than done.

----------


## John2b

> Much easier said than done.

  Technically much easier than Basslink (for example) but politically much harder when the current federal LNP government doesn't want electricity from wind turbines being stored as pumped hydro to impact the profits of their fossil energy benefactors, even though they are comitted to spend $ billions buying the Hydro back from Victoria (quite frankly just gratuitous state welfare) and $ billions more upgrading Hydro's pumped storage capacity.

----------


## Oldsaltoz

> I am dead set against the introduction of an ETS for several reasons. 
> First, even if Global Warming was true we could never reduce emissions to a degree that would have any effect on global temperatures. 
> Second, an ETS will cripple the Australian economy for no net benefit. 
> Third I believe that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming and that there need to be irrefutable evidence both scientific and empirical to proof CO2 is warming the planet and that any warming would be as damaging as they claim. 
> Interested to know your thoughts? 
> Cheers Rod

   
Hi Rod, Your spot on we do NOT need an ETS. As for Global warming, it's a dead horse and I wish they would stop flogging it. he revised consensus of the scientists who do not write papers for payment. Agree that CO2 is not in any way responsible for global warming, in fact, some think it may actually help cooling, and don't forget plants need CO2 to convert it into Oxygen.   Andavagoodweekend.  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

Who would have thought? Out of the woods (or at least woodworking forum) comes more zombie science deniers.

----------


## Bros

> Technically much easier than Basslink (for example).

    Building power lines on land is quite easy all you need is money and for a decent link to NSW is lots of it.

----------


## Bros

> Who would have thought? Out of the woods (or at least woodworking forum) comes more zombie science deniers.

   Renovate forum please. You might find a lot who haven’t been a vocal as yourself who don’t think like you and haven’t shown their hand.

----------


## John2b

> Renovate forum please. You might find a lot who haven’t been a vocal as yourself who don’t think like you and haven’t shown their hand.

  Fair enough Bros, however it was once the woodworking forum if you have belonged for long enough. People can believe what they want if they are utterly determined to ignore reality. When I joined this forum I was threatened with being kicked off for posting on this topic without first reading all of the previous posts. I am astounded that after thousands of comments debunking posts such as one postulating that "plants need CO2 to convert it into Oxygen" somehow falsifies the fundamental physics that underpin climate change and global warming and, in fact, ALL modern technology, people still pop up like zombies espousing such nonsense. Anyone truely interested in the relationship of CO2 and plants should read the link below.  https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

----------


## John2b

Here's a bit of salient reality for this thread:  *15,000 scientists issue dire warning that "time is running out" on climate change* https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scienti...limate-change/

----------


## chrisp

> You might find a lot who haven’t been a vocal as yourself who don’t think like you and haven’t shown their hand.

  Bros, You’re probably right about the views some of the less-vocal might hold, but it does bring to mind the Daniel Patrick Moynihan quote - “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts”.

----------


## PhilT2

Replying to a nine year old post primarily about a long dead issue (Rudds ETS) is not the main problem When you express an opinion that contradicts every major research organisation and nearly every university in the world it would help to post some actual evidence (if you really had any)

----------


## Marc



----------


## Marc

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”                                                                                                  Thus spoke Voltaire.﻿

----------


## PhilT2

It's not possible to refute the science in the above as there is none. Neither of them is fit to lick Stephen Hawkings boots. Cosmic consciousness of the universe?? Give me a break. How could anybody swallow that much crap in one sitting?

----------


## John2b

Thanks for the TED link, Marc, but the speaker tripped up badly on the very first sentence, which should have sent your B-S alarm ringing loudly. By definition NO _scientist_ thinks that science already understands the principles of everything leaving only the details to be filled in. This is an outrageous piece of dog whistling drivel designed to appeal to people who take information blindly with no sceptical reflection. There isn't much point in watching the rest of the TED talk after the speaker reveals his personal grand disillusion which forms the basis of the talk. But I did listen for another few seconds to hear blunder number 2. 
I have never heard anybody say "I don't believe in God, I believe in science" either, nor have I read that as a premise. Your life depends on the application of the laws of physics as you would fully understand if, for example, you drive a car which is based on thousands of subsystems that all depend on the laws of physics holding true without the interference of an invisible hand. All this was designed by "believing" in science AKA applying the laws of physics, but that does not make science a belief system. And what is your alternative - design by Devine intervention? 
Only 36 seconds into the video and 100% nonsense so far. I will save the time saved by not watching the rest and think for myself instead.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Renovate forum please. You might find a lot who haven’t been a vocal as yourself who don’t think like you and haven’t shown their hand.

  bwahahaha!!! 
start a poll then!!!!!

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Hi Rod, Your spot on we do NOT need an ETS. As for Global warming, it's a dead horse and I wish they would stop flogging it. he revised consensus of the scientists who do not write papers for payment. Agree that CO2 is not in any way responsible for global warming, in fact, some think it may actually help cooling, and don't forget plants need CO2 to convert it into Oxygen.   Andavagoodweekend.

   :2thumbsup:

----------


## PhilT2

Working together you two could really achieve something

----------


## Bedford

> I think one of the causes is the RBA dropping interest rates historically low allowing buyers to finance more which allows bidding wars pushing up prices.

   

> *Long and painful: Peter Costellos rate warning for households*

  https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...20-p4z5bj.html

----------


## John2b

Here's an interesting story about how data mining on social media is used to target propensities in individuals or groups to believe certain things, for political and financial gain. It might explain the intransigence of climate deniers, if they are being fed fake news based on personality profiling. Who is funding all of this - big money, big corporations, the alt-right. This company has taken credit for Trump's election and the Brexit vote, amongst other recent befuddling political outcomes.

----------


## John2b

If you want to see the CEO of a data mining company poo in his pants trying to defend the manipulation of public perceptions to gain political advantage, watch this and stick around to the end! If you are wondering why I am posting this, it is because without doubt the fossil energy industry is using these same tactics to defer, derail and disrupt the change to a non-fossil energy system.

----------


## phild01

> If you are wondering why I am posting this, it is because without doubt the fossil energy industry is using these same tactics to defer, derail and disrupt the change to a non-fossil energy system.

  I was going to watch that but your last comment did not induce me to do so. 
Anyway, I'd love to see a decline in the uptake of facebook, google and anything else that collects data on people's behaviour..

----------


## Marc

> Thanks for the TED link, Marc . .......
> Only 36 seconds into the video and 100% nonsense so far. I will save the time saved by not watching the rest and think for myself instead.

  That' OK John, I did not expect you to see any link between the so called "scientific constants" and the "science is settled" claim. For anyone else who is interested in how scientist manipulate what they can not explain, listen to the author's encounter with the scientist that deal with measuring constants like the speed of light or G, that happen to be not so constant at all and their rather pathetic so called solutions. 
There is massive amounts of nonsense spewed out by people paid to do so, and by amateurs who seem to enjoy doing so, probably for the benefit of their own personal dogma or some other unrelated agenda.  
As always John, I suggest other less harmful activities for entertainment purposes ... like trainspotting or start a button collection. 
Your own state has done hopefully a 180 degree turn away from the futile pursuit of sanctity ( 100% renewables) and decided that the sin of burning coal may actually be the natural thing to do. 
Farmers can always do with a bit more CO2 
We wait with baited breath.

----------


## John2b

> I was going to watch that but your last comment did not induce me to do so. 
> Anyway, I'd love to see a decline in the uptake of facebook, google and anything else that collects data on people's behaviour..

  I didn't know I had such power of influence! Beside the issue is much more insidious than that. Any website you visit is implicated in data collection, as is anything potentially you watch on cable / satellite / online TV and they don't have to know your personal identity for the data to be used for psychological profiling and targeting messages in a form that resonates with your world view. Soon facial recognition technology will be used to learn more about peoples behaviour, as it already is in China. 
Currently keeping a watchful eye on its 1.4 billion population with over 176 million surveillance cameras, by 2020, China is looking to quadruple the number of cameras and build an overreaching surveillance network that is "omnipresent, completely connected, always on and fully controllable", according to the country's National Development and Reform Commission. Chinese authorities use facial recognition, public shaming to crack down on jaywalking, criminals. The technology is also used by the authority to find missing family members, apprehending fugitives, and identify forged documents.  Chinese authorities use facial recognition, public shaming to crack down on jaywalking, criminals - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Facial recognition system are also being rolled out by Border Farce - oops, Force, around Australia.

----------


## John2b

> That' OK John, I did not expect you to see any link between the so called "scientific constants" and the "science is settled" claim.

  The only people who make the "science is settled" statement are science deniers like yourself attempting to set up a straw-man argument. That being said, the fundamental physical laws that underpin heat exchange systems to and from your body, the radiator in your car, and between the Sun, the Earth and space are not about to be disproven or fail anytime soon, so don't fear your TV and computer, which also depend on the same laws, will keep working for now, so you can continue to share your ridiculous and unproven conspiracy theories for everyone else's enjoyment.

----------


## chrisp

The politics and politicians might change, but it is fairly clear where the energy supply is going - renewables and energy storage to support the renewable energy generation. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/v...21-p4z5hh.html

----------


## John2b

Thanks Crisp. The article says: "The Turnbull government has committed up to $25 million to what will be the first installation of large-scale, grid-connected batteries in Victoria." So the Turnbull government slams SA for going it alone on batteries and then funds batteries for Victoria. How sanctimonious! Marc would be proud.

----------


## Marc

Another classic example of false and misleading propaganda 
If Americans Switched From Meat-Heavy to Plant-Based Diet, It Would Be Equivalent to Taking 660 Million Cars Off the Road - One Green PlanetOne Green Planet

----------


## phild01

Making everyone vegetarian is their next move, they don't want to make that too well known yet.

----------


## PhilT2

> Making everyone vegetarian is their next move, they don't want to make that too well known yet.

  I don't see them pushing their views down everyones throat as hard as Abbott, Bernardi and others try to force their religion on to all of us. (Barnaby is an exception; he's not as vocal on "family values" as he used to be) At least most of the greenies are practising what they preach.

----------


## PhilT2

> Another classic example of false and misleading propaganda 
> If Americans Switched From Meat-Heavy to Plant-Based Diet, It Would Be Equivalent to Taking 660 Million Cars Off the Road - One Green PlanetOne Green Planet

  Because Marc posted it I naturally assumed it would be wrong in some way. When you check the actual article it states that the change of diet would "eliminate 660 million vehicle miles" not "taking 660 million cars off the road". No one ever said greenies get it right every time. 
I don't see an issue with the rest of it, 20% of the population could eat a little less and be better off for it.

----------


## John2b

Ignoring the fossil energy inputs used to produce meat in western countries, there is the issue of water required. Water shortages will likely have more a more immanent impact on diet than how many million car miles are saved by changing diet. The glaciers that feed most of the water into European countries and all the Asian countries fed from the Himalayan glaciers e.g. China and India are going to run into severe water shortages as the glaciers retreat and the snow that's needed to replenish then disappears due to global warming. It's already happening and starting to bite severely. Look at how much water is needed to produce your favourite food below:  *Data summary*Foodstuff Quantity Water consumption, litres  Source: IME   Chocolate 1 kg 17,196  Beef 1 kg 15,415  Sheep Meat 1 kg 10,412  Pork 1 kg 5,988  Butter 1 kg 5,553  Chicken meat 1 kg 4,325  Cheese 1 kg 3,178  Olives 1 kg 3,025  Rice 1 kg 2,497  Cotton 1 @ 250g 2,495  Pasta (dry) 1 kg 1,849  Bread 1 kg 1,608  Pizza 1 unit 1,239  Apple 1 kg 822  Banana 1 kg 790  Potatoes 1 kg 287  Milk 1 x 250ml glass 255  Cabbage 1 kg 237  Tomato 1 kg 214  Egg 1 196  Wine 1 x 250ml glass 109  Beer 1 x 250ml glass 74  Tea 1 x 250 ml cup 27

----------


## John2b

I guess the anti emission trading scheme guys will be pretty pleased with themselves when they see this:    *Arctic Sea Ice Missed a Record
Low This Winter. Barely.*https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e=sectionfront

----------


## Marc



----------


## woodbe

LOL. Judith Curry. One of the 3% of scientists who fail to agree the impact on the planet. 
Curry, 63, is retiring from her tenured position as a professor at the  School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of  Technology. She's instead going to focus on growing her private  business, Climate Forecast Applications Network, which provides insights  into climate and weather risks for agriculture and energy companies. 
Real Climate discussion of Judith:  *Judy Curry’s attribution non-argument*            	      Filed under:  Climate modellingClimate ScienceGreenhouse gases
 — gavin @ 18 April 2017  
                                Following on from the ‘interesting’ House Science Committee hearing two weeks ago, there was an excellent rebuttal curated by ClimateFeedback of the unsupported and often-times misleading claims from the majority witnesses. In response, Judy Curry has (yet again) declared herself unconvinced by the evidence for a dominant role for human forcing of recent climate changes. And as before  she fails to give any quantitative argument to support her contention  that human drivers are not the dominant cause of recent trends. 
 Her reasoning consists of a small number of plausible sounding, but  ultimately unconvincing issues that are nonetheless worth diving into.  She summarizes her claims in the following comment:   … They use models that are tuned to the period of interest, which should  disqualify them from be used in attribution study for the same period  (circular reasoning, and all that). The attribution studies fail to  account for the large multi-decadal (and longer) oscillations in the  ocean, which have been estimated to account for 20% to 40% to 50% to  100% of the recent warming. The models fail to account for solar  indirect effects that have been hypothesized to be important. And  finally, the CMIP5 climate models used values of aerosol forcing that  are now thought to be far too large. These claims are either wrong or simply don’t have the implications she claims. Let’s go through them one more time.  *1) Models are NOT tuned [for the late 20th C/21st C warming] and using them for attribution is NOT circular reasoning.* 
 Curry’s claim is wrong on at least two levels. The “models used”  (otherwise known as the CMIP5 ensemble) were *not* tuned for consistency  for the period of interest (the 1950-2010 trend is what was highlighted  in the IPCC reports, about 0.8ºC warming) and the evidence is obvious  from the fact that the trends in the individual model simulations over  this period go from 0.35 to 1.29ºC! (or 0.84±0.45ºC (95% envelope)).   _Ask yourself one question: Were these models tuned to the observed values?_
 Second, this is not how the attribution is done in any case. What  actually happens is that the fingerprint of different forcings are  calculated independently of the historical runs (using subsets of the  drivers) and then matched to the observations using scalings for the  patterns generated. Scaling factors near 1 imply that the models’  expected fingerprints fit reasonably well to the observations. If the  models are too sensitive or not enough, that will come out in the  factors, since the patterns themselves are reasonably robust. So models  that have half the observed trend, or twice as much, can still help  determine the pattern of change associated with the drivers. The  attribution to the driver is based on the best fits of that pattern and  others, not on the mean or trend in the historical runs. *2) Attribution studies DO account for low-frequency internal variability*
 Patterns of variability that don’t match the predicted fingerprints  from the examined drivers (the ‘residuals’) can be large – especially on  short-time scales, and look in most cases like the modes of internal  variability that we’ve been used to; ENSO/PDO, the North Atlantic  multidecadal oscillation etc. But the crucial thing is that these  residuals have small trends compared to the trends from the external  drivers. We can also put these modes directly into the analysis with  little overall difference to the results. *3) No credible study has suggested that ocean oscillations can account for the long-term trends*
 The key observation here is the increase in ocean heat content over  the last half century (the figure below shows three estimates of the  changes since 1955). This absolutely means that more energy has been  coming into the system than leaving.   
 Now this presents a real problem for claims that ocean variability is  the main driver. To see why, note that ocean dynamics changes only move  energy around – to warm somewhere, they have to cool somewhere else. So  posit an initial dynamic change of ocean circulation that warms the  surface (and cools below or in other regions). To bring more energy into  the system, that surface warming would have to cause the  top-of-the-atmosphere radiation balance to change positively, but that  would add to warming, amplifying the initial perturbation and leading to  a runaway instability. There are really good reasons to think this is  unphysical.
 Remember too that ocean heat content increases were a _predicted_ consequence of GHG-driven warming well before the ocean data was clear enough to demonstrate it. *4) Indirect effects of solar forcing cannot explain recent trends*
 Solar activity impacts on climate are a fascinating topic, and  encompass direct radiative processes, indirect effects via atmospheric  chemistry and (potentially) aerosol formation effects. Much work is  being done on improving the realism of such effects – particularly  through ozone chemistry (which enhances the signal), and aerosol  pathways (which don’t appear to have much of a global effect i.e. Dunne et al. (2016)).  However, attribution of post 1950 warming to solar activity is tricky  (i.e. impossible), because solar activity has declined (slightly) over  that time:   *5) Aerosol forcings are indeed uncertain, but this does not impact the attribution of recent trends very much*.
 One of the trickier issues for fingerprint studies is distinguishing  between the patterns from anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases.  While the hemispheric asymmetries are slightly larger for aerosols, the  overall surface pattern is quite similar to that for greenhouse gases  (albeit with a different sign). This is one of the reasons why the most  confident statements in IPCC are made with respect to the  “Anthropogenic” changes all together since that doesn’t require parsing  out the (opposing) factors of GHGs and aerosols. Therefore in a  fingerprint study that doesn’t distinguish between aerosols and GHGs,  what the exact value of the aerosol forcing right is basically  irrelevant. If any specific model is getting it badly wrong, that will  simply manifest through a scaling factor very different from 1 without  changing the total attribution. *What would it actually take to make a real argument?*
 As I’ve been asking for almost three years,  it is way past time for Curry to shore up her claims in a quantitative  way. I doubt that this is actually possible, but if one was to make the  attempt these are the kind of things needed:   Evidence that models underestimate internal variability at ~50-80 yr timescales by a factor of ~5. Evidence that indirect solar forcing can increase the long-term  impact of solar by a factor of 3 on centennial time-scales or reverse  the sign of the forcing on 50-80 yr timescales (one or the other, both  would be tricky!). Evidence that warm surface ocean oscillations are associated with  increased downward net radiation at the TOA. [This is particularly hard  because it would mean the climate was fundamentally unstable]. Evidence that the known fingerprints of different forcings are  fundamentally wrong. Say, that CO2 does not cool the stratosphere, or  that solar forcing doesn’t warm it.
 Absent any evidence to support these statements, the claim that  somehow, somewhere the straightforward and predictive mainstream  conclusions are fundamentally wrong just isn’t credible.

----------


## John2b

Judith Curry's introduction is her own undoing. The IPCC is not the opinion of thousands of scientists. It is the distillation of the contents of 100,000's of research projects conducted by public and private, corporate, university and government studies, in eastern and western countries, in free market and centrally controlled market economies, in countries all around the world. The the unanimity of that research data regardless of where or by whom it was conducted has been shown to be greater than 99.9% consistent with the "global warming hypothesis". Most of the contributors to climate research from which the IPCC does its synthesis would argue that the IPCC is _far too conservative_ in its attribution to climate change and projections of environmental consequences. This is probably because _anybody_ can register to be an "expert reviewer" and have a hand in the editorial process of the synthesis, such as Christopher Monckton, Judith Curry and other science deniers famously have.

----------


## John2b

Love the "free market" economy - it is so efficient. The gas exporters (who mostly do not pay tax in Australia) are spewing they can't get enough gas to make the gas liquefaction terminal economic. Australia suffers gas prices triple what the export price of gas is because of forward contracts for supply of gas that does not exist. And Victoria plans a new import terminal for gas to cover a local shortfall. 
"As Australia ramps up to become one of the world’s biggest gas exporters, skyrocketing local gas prices are driving one company to build a new gas import terminal, highlighting an apparently absurd situation for local gas users. On Thursday AGL announced it had come closer to realising its plans to build a $250m LNG import terminal, nominating a port 80km south of Melbourne as its preferred location. “This project will enable access to the world market for gas, injecting some much-needed competition into the Australian market and help ease the tight gas supply,” said Richard Wrightson, AGL executive general manager."   'It's absurd': new gas import terminal for one of world's biggest gas exporters  https://www.theguardian.com/australi...-gas-exporters

----------


## woodbe

Scotland!  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8283166.html  Scotland  has become a world leader in sourcing its electricity from renewables,  after a record year in 2017 for creating eco-friendly energy, figures  show.
  The nation got more than two-thirds – 68.1 per cent – of its  electricity from green schemes last year – an increase of 26 per cent on  the year before.
  The figure was a rise of 14.1 percentage points from the 54 per cent reached in 2016. 
That is the movement in the most of the world, but how is Australia going: 
Currently, Tony Abbot and his group of climate deniers are trying to start a new fossil fuel plant.   https://www.theguardian.com/environm...m-but-it-helps 
There seems to be three rules for membership of the Coalition’s new backbench Monash Forum that wants taxpayer subsidies for new coal fired power stations.  
Firstly, you have to really love the life-giving and not-really-all-that-deadly  rock from the late Permian and Carboniferous which, if they made it  into a snack bar, you would totally want to eat it and then rub the bits  left sticking to the wrapper all over your naked form.  
 Second, you need to harbour a deep dislike for renewable energy,  which you find untrustworthy and suspicious because its feedstock is as  illusive as catching sunbeams and harnessing atmospheric pressure  differences.  
 Thirdly, you need to have enough respect for a great Australian war  hero and nation builder – Sir John Monash – that you’d appropriate his  name and legacy for your own little coal gang.
 Oh no wait, there are four rules. Because, most importantly, to  qualify for coal star membership of the Monash Forum, you need to be a  climate science denier – a proper one that goes to climate denial  meetings on the other side of the world and gives speeches and stuff.  
 Like Nationals MP George Christensen, for example, who seems to have been a chief architect of the Monash Forum.

----------


## DavoSyd

c'mon Marc, please post another video refuting the garbage these guys are posting, it boils my blood when people post such nonsense!!! clearly fraudulent figures, made up by scientists PAID to make it look good! 
i am so proud of TA and his Monash Group, with so much anti-coal rhetoric around in the community, huge efforts must be made to ensure that people understand how important coal is to our economy!

----------


## John2b

Abbott, Christiansen, Abetz and Andrews (collectively the intellectual equivalent of a black hole) obviously did as much research on the use of Monash's name as they have on climate change, i.e. none. General Monash's descendants have asked the MPs stop using his name: "...we disassociate ourselves specifically from the forum's use of the Monash name to give their anti-science and anti-intellectual argument an air of authority and we ask that they withdraw the name. (Sir John Monash) would be a proponent of the new technologies, [for example] wind and solar generation rather than revert to the horse and buggy era."

----------


## woodbe

Message from the climatecouncil.org.au 
Here we go again.   *Like a bad memory dug up from the past, Tony Abbott and a minority of backbenchers have re-emerged, calling for coal to be a key part of Australia’s energy future.  *  
 Under the inappropriate name of the ‘Monash Forum’ (1), Abbott and co want the Federal Government to extend the life of our polluting coal-fired power stations, and establish new so-called ‘clean coal’ power stations (with the bill to be footed by taxpayers).
 But Australians won’t be fooled by this bizarre attempt to drag us back to the 20th century.   *Because we know that coal is always polluting.*  *Whether it’s disguised as ‘ultra super critical’, ‘high efficiency, low emissions’ or ‘carbon capture storage’, new coal will ramp up Australia’s already rising greenhouse gas pollution levels and prevent Australia from effectively tackling climate change.   *  
 The Climate Council went straight out in the media this week, mythbusting the claims of this minority group of politicians, by swiftly injecting facts into the debate. Like the fact that *‘clean coal’ is hugely expensive, and will hurt taxpayers’ hip pockets even more.* Just last year, America’s largest ‘clean coal’ power station sensationally scrapped its future plans as its costs skyrocketed to more than $7.5 billion USD (2).   *Right now is a critical time for the future of Australia’s energy sector and our ability to tackle climate change. The next COAG Energy Council meeting of state and federal energy ministers** is fast approaching. This meeting will decide the fate of the woefully inadequate National Energy Guarantee (NEG), and determine the future of Australia’s energy sector.*

----------


## Bros

> Under the inappropriate name of the ‘Monash Forum’ (1), Abbott and co want the Federal Government to extend the life of our polluting coal-fired power stations, and establish new so-called ‘clean coal’ power stations (with the bill to be footed by taxpayers).
>  But Australians won’t be fooled by this bizarre attempt to drag us back to the 20th century.

   They sure will have something to say when the cost of power goes through the roof.

----------


## John2b

> They sure will have something to say when the cost of power goes through the roof.

  You must be pleased then, Bros, that a recent AEMO report highlighted the fact that the Hornsdale battery, powered by renewables in country SA*, has reduced the cost of electricity for all consumers in the national energy market. (*Jamestown is my home town as it happens.) 
Hornsdale Power Reserve http://aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Med...er-Reserve.pdf 
 Power Shift: Anything Coal And Gas Can Do, Renewables And Energy Storage Can Do Cheaper https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikesco.../#715ec805300b  Five ways the power grid changed for the better over summer | afr.com

----------


## Bros

Your bill gone down yet?

----------


## Marc

Don't you love it when the word "polluting" is used to refer to CO2? I do ... it is the trademark of the watermelons.
The best was Bob Brown. he used to say polluters and polluting blowing the word sideways through the corner of his mouth ... like "pfulooting" ... haha. what a bunch of parasitic clowns.

----------


## phild01

Seeing how much bills have gone up, any small reduction would be a small token gesture...won't hold my breath.
It's all bs to me.

----------


## Marc

Absolutely. Do you see anyone bringing the bills down to half? No chance. they will come down 5% if that and only to go up again the next time around. We have a virtual marxist government and no leadership. If it is any consolation it is the same problem world wide. Professional politicians detached from the voters living in a bubble paid by us and fed by professional lobbyist and assorted free loaders.

----------


## woodbe

> Your bill gone down yet?

  Yes.   

> Seeing how much bills have gone up, any small reduction would be a small token gesture...won't hold my breath.
> It's all bs to me.

  Our bills have gone down. Not bs, but fact.   

> Absolutely. Do you see anyone bringing the bills down to half? No chance. they will come down 5% if that and only to go up again the next time around. We have a virtual marxist government and no leadership. If it is any consolation it is the same problem world wide. Professional politicians detached from the voters living in a bubble paid by us and fed by professional lobbyist and assorted free loaders.

  Our bills have been below zero since adding solar panels to our home. 
Values have improved over time because of the improvement from the home energy consumption. The cost of our solar system has been eliminated since installation. That includes the cost of the installation and the use of electricity in the home. We're not the only people in the world that have made a decision to extract themselves from ridiculous energy prices. 
For those that decide not to take control of their energy, then it will take longer time, but states that move away from burning coal will move faster than states that continue to burn coal. Ignoring the emissions from burning coal, the costs are still high to dig coal from the ground, transport to the burning coal stations, burn the coal, and maintain the coal stations, and continue to run old coal stations past their efficient operations.

----------


## John2b

> Your bill gone down yet?

  As you must know, the dominant factor by far in rising electricity prices has little to do with generation costs, it has been established by enquiry after enquiry to be due to 'gold plating' of transmission and distribution infrastructure, a consequence of the privatisation of electricity assets not renewables. 
BTW we haven't paid a single cent for electricity since we replaced energy hogging appliances with efficient ones and installed a 1.5kW PV array about 7 years ago. Even taking the cost of replacement appliances our net savings so far amounts to several thousand dollars. More recently (new house) we decided to go off grid completely with a PV / battery system. 
Network costs the main driver of electricity prices, consumer watchdog finds:  https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...15-gz17m3.html 
The real cause of electricity price rises in NSW  https://theconversation.com/the-real...es-in-nsw-8955

----------


## John2b

> Seeing how much bills have gone up, any small reduction would be a small token gesture...won't hold my breath.
> It's all bs to me.

  Generation costs are a minor component of your electricity bill at only a few cents per kWh and falling, but rises in distribution costs are far outstripping any savings.  http://www.energynetworks.com.au/sit...rk-costs_2.pdf

----------


## phild01

> Our bills have gone down. Not bs, but fact.

  I made no reference to your private energy supply.
It is a fact that solar and wind power has pushed the cost of essential supply sky high.
Battery backup is environmentally unsound, expensive, limited in supply and will need regular replacement.

----------


## Bros

> Our bills have gone down. Not bs, but fact. 
> Our bills have been below zero since adding solar panels to our home.

  Well said, a case of up you jack I'm in the lifeboat. 
There a lot of people less fortunate than you that have to pay for their power.

----------


## woodbe

> I made no reference to your private energy supply.
> It is a fact that solar and wind power has pushed the cost of essential supply sky high.

  Anyone who cares about the cost would have reduced their consumption by replacing inefficient items in the household, and adding solar if they can. 
Replacing old ancient power stations costs. The issue for Australia is that the governments failed to move forward for a long time, so Australia has to replace many old power stations in a short period, and yes that caused increased costs. Over time, the new systems based on renewables have lower running costs because they do not need to dig coal and transport and burn it. Simple facts!  https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/up...b04cd93f78.pdf

----------


## Bros

> BTW we haven't paid a single cent for electricity since we replaced energy hogging appliances with efficient ones and installed a 1.5kW PV array about 7 years ago. Even taking the cost of replacement appliances our net savings so far amounts to several thousand dollars. More recently (new house) we decided to go off grid completely with a PV / battery system.

  Another one that thinks only of himself and then preaches to others less fortunate.

----------


## phild01

> Replacing old ancient power stations costs. The issue for Australia is that the governments failed to move forward for a long time, so Australia has to replace many old power stations in a short period, and yes that caused increased costs.

  I can't help but think this is a furphy!
AGL for a very long time have been pushing people away from coal generated power.  It seems to me the company, like the National Broadcaster, has been infiltrated by greenies.  Now AGL has taken the position of denying us essential coal generated power, but not only that, are determined to block anyone else from supplying it.  Ageing power plants, yeah well, makes me wonder.

----------


## woodbe

> Another one that thinks only of himself and then preaches to others less fortunate.

  It's not about preaching to others less fortunate. 
You asked if the bill has gone down, you asked this community about it. Should we not reply? 
If you are in a high electricity cost, then you have capability to invest to improve rather than to pour your cash into the coal mine.

----------


## phild01

> It's not about preaching to others less fortunate. 
> You asked if the bill has gone down, you asked this community about it. Should we not reply? 
> If you are in a high electricity cost, then you have capability to invest to improve rather than to pour your cash into the coal mine.

  That's a twist.  The context of the rising power bills issue should not be about your alternative option.

----------


## woodbe

> That's a twist.  The context of the rising power bills issue should not be about your alternative option.

  Sorry phil, there are plenty of possible responses from anyone in this thread. There is no requirement to say something you only prefer. 
Alternative? No. It is a reasonable option that a significant percentage of the population has moved forward with. Would have been an alternative option back in the 1970's, but not since solar is a normal option for most of the population.

----------


## phild01

> Sorry phil, there are plenty of possible responses from anyone in this thread. There is no requirement to say something you only prefer. 
> Alternative? No. It is a reasonable option that a significant percentage of the population has moved forward with. Would have been an alternative option back in the 1970's, but not since solar is a normal option for most of the population.

  Woodbe, as I have said before, I have little issue with solar power.  Unsure about wind power but anything that is cost effective gets a tick.  But the argument for these energy sources generally ignore supply demand when these systems are off-line, as do your posts.  Yes, solar panels are now a viable cost alternative but the battery storage systems are a poor substitute for what we are losing.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe, as I have said before, I have little issue with solar power.  Unsure about wind power but anything that is cost effective gets a tick.  But the argument for these energy sources generally ignore supply demand when these systems are off-line, as do your posts.  Yes, solar panels are now a viable cost alternative but the battery storage systems are a poor substitute for what we are losing.

  And what we have been losing is the governments failing to replace energy production. 
Battery systems are now into the viable price envelope and will become even cheaper over time.  
Don't need everything in battery power. There is salt, hydro etc energy storage.

----------


## Marc

The argument for individual solar panels is the same as the argument from cyclist.  
Forgetting for a moment that most if not all solar panels over inflated prices were paid with taxpayers money "subsidies" and various protection money rackets, attempting to minimise one's own energy bill is one thing. A completely different one is for the nation to guarantee year round 24 hs supply for industry, services and individuals. 
There is no way today to produce energy competitively with amateurish crap like wind and solar. The only reason those contraptions can be manufactured and sold is because we have been sold a fraud, a lie that CO2 is pollution and must be reduced. It is only that gargantuan fraud that sustains the whole lot of the "alternative" industry. Take away the CO2 fraud and you have nothing. Coal is the way to go, and so is Hydro and may be Geothermal.  
The rest is rubbish and equates to the shrill screams of the cyclist who demand the use of the road whilst paying nothing and obey no road rules. 
They have no qualm in riding on single line roads with dual line between them and no shoulder and the state has legislated that motorist can go ( oh thank you, how generous) over the double line in order to accommodate this nincompoop and by doing so put themselves in the way of oncoming traffic. 
It beggars belief.

----------


## Bros

> It's not about preaching to others less fortunate. 
> You asked if the bill has gone down, you asked this community about it. Should we not reply? 
> If you are in a high electricity cost, then you have capability to invest to improve rather than to pour your cash into the coal mine.

  Of course it is preaching to those who can't afford solar system by taking advantage of the high feed in tariff sweetener and most importantly the high initial cost of the system

----------


## Bros

> And what we have been losing is the governments failing to replace energy production.

  Blame the government. When I last looked most of the generators were in private hands and now they are in the process of constraining supply by closing power station to jack up prices. 
Anyhow SA should be right now as the left leaning bicycle riding green government have been show the door so a new government can try and fix up the mess.

----------


## chrisp

The support for coal by some of the members here is astounding. If I recall correctly (and I might well be wrong) most of the coal plants in the country were built by the government using public funds a very long time ago. That is coal generation was 100% government subsidised when it started up. Renewables today are only getting partially subsidised. 
We are well beyond the point of coal generation being economical. No private investors will put money in to building a new coal powered electricity plant these days. It’d be a ‘very brave’ (read ‘stupid’) government that would fund or even subsidise a new coal powered station today. Add to this the environmental impact of burning coal and coal is a dead duck. 
AGL is probably using the public challenge by the ultra-right to distance itself from the coal-era. I very much doubt that they are politically motivated, but rather they see commercial opportunities in being seen as progressive with their generation technologies - and the government is handing them a publicity campaign opportunity on a plate!

----------


## Bros

> The support for coal by some of the members here is astounding.

  I think you are drawing along bow there   

> AGL is probably using the public challenge by the ultra-right to distance itself from the coal-era. I very much doubt that they are politically motivated, but rather they see commercial opportunities in being seen as progressive with their generation technologies - and the government is handing them a publicity campaign opportunity on a plate!

  Private companies are only in business to make money for the management and shareholders so anything they do is a means to this end.  
They don't come up for reelection by the public. AGL has thrown around every technology except Nuclear to replace its coal fired power station but there have been no numbers to replace the 1560 Mw they are generation this minute and 1560Mw is an awful lot of energy.

----------


## PhilT2

> 1560Mw is an awful lot of energy.

  US installed 7000mw of new wind turbines last year. Trump is doing really well, isn't he.  https://www.awea.org/4Q2017press

----------


## Bros

> US installed 7000mw of new wind turbines last year. Trump is doing really well, isn't he.  https://www.awea.org/4Q2017press

  Australia will need all of that along the southern states to make up for the avg 35% capacity factor and they need the land to built them. Fossil plants which includes gas and coal have a capacity factor and more importantly an availability factor with wind and solar having zero.

----------


## John2b

> Another one that thinks only of himself and then preaches to others less fortunate.

  Your statement deserves the gold medal for ignorance Bros, assuming you are serious.

----------


## John2b

> Of course it is preaching to those who can't afford solar system by taking advantage of the high feed in tariff sweetener and most importantly the high initial cost of the system

  Nonsense Bros. Lifetime cost is is has nothing to do with income. When I put the first solar system up I was on the bones of my ass having lost my marriage and business, and having to give up practically everything I owned to the bankruptcy administrator. I made the sacrifice to reduce future costs, and if I can do it under those circumstances, anyone can. And guess what? All my neighbours have benefited because during summer peaks more than 35% of power is generated and used locally, not having to go through that mega expensive distribution system. That is why despite the burgeoning suburbs of McMansions and their associated 3-phase air-conditioning units, the old generation and transmission systems have been able to cope with the summer peak. Actually - the old generation and transmission systems do not have to cope with the summer peaks because they are being supplied by rooftop solar paid for largely by the people you like to disparage!

----------


## Bros

> Your statement deserves the gold medal for ignorance Bros, assuming you are serious.

  Certainly am, as by your own admission you have   

> I own three houses, one of which is negatively geared,

   which puts you well above the average Australian

----------


## chrisp

> [...]but there have been no numbers to replace the 1560 Mw they are generation this minute and 1560Mw is an awful lot of energy.

  Actually, “1560 MW” is power, not energy. I thought that you might have known the difference? 
It is interesting to read that it is a 2000MW station but it has been effectively de-rated due to reliability issues. It seems that even AGL doesn’t rely on it in times of high demand. So much for coal powered ‘base load’ capacity!

----------


## Bros

> the people you like to disparage!

  I'm not disparaging anyone just point out facts.

----------


## chrisp

> Another one that thinks only of himself and then preaches to others less fortunate.

  I have a friend who is semi-retired and lives on the smell of an oily rag. He’d be the most frugal person I personally know and doesn’t waste a cent. The last time I visited his house he proudly showed me his new Tesla PowerWall.

----------


## phild01

> It seems that even AGL doesn’t rely on it in times of high demand. So much for coal powered ‘base load’ capacity!

  AGL are deliberate in their agenda and cannot be believed.

----------


## Bros

> Actually, 1560 MW is power, not energy. I thought that you might have known the difference? 
> It is interesting to read that it is a 2000MW station but it has been effectively de-rated due to reliability issues. It seems that even AGL doesnt rely on it in times of high demand. So much for coal powered base load capacity!

  Does happen toward the end of life which applies to all machinery even the human body nothing strange there.

----------


## Bros

> I have a friend who is semi-retired and lives on the smell of an oily rag. He’d be the most frugal person I personally know and doesn’t waste a cent. The last time I visited his house he proudly showed me his new Tesla PowerWall.

  If it is one person they can indulge in all the toys they like doesn't make it efficient.

----------


## PhilT2

> Australia will need all of that along the southern states to make up for the avg 35% capacity factor and they need the land to built them. Fossil plants which includes gas and coal have a capacity factor and more importantly an availability factor with wind and solar having zero.

  Offshore wind farms in Europe have reported up to 65% capacity factor so I would be interested to see what the studies say we could get from a wind farm in Bass Strait. The latest floating turbines are rated at 9.5mw.  https://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...sly-efficient/ 
If you run into someone who has sailed in that area ask them how strong the breeze is in Bass Strait, I hear it's good.

----------


## John2b

> Anyhow SA should be right now as the left leaning bicycle riding green government have been show the door so a new government can try and fix up the mess.

  If only you knew! The Marshall Liberal election platform was politically left of Weatherill's Labor platform. Marshall promised more money for hospitals (and re-opening closed ones), more money for public schools, more money on public transport, more money for the Arts, more money for cyclists, more public ownership of energy infrastructure, etc, etc, because there were ZERO votes in being politically to the right of the neoliberal Labor government run by Weatherill.

----------


## John2b

> I'm not disparaging anyone just point out facts.

  Nope, you're showing your prejudices, and facts are conspicuous by their absence.

----------


## Bros

> Offshore wind farms in Europe have reported up to 65% capacity factor so I would be interested to see what the studies say we could get from a wind farm in Bass Strait.

  Not quite the numbers I see.  http://euanmearns.com/uk-offshore-wi...ical-analysis/

----------


## John2b

> I think you are drawing along bow there

  More likely Crisp just read the posts in this forum without the usual ideological blindness of some.

----------


## Bros

> If only you knew! The Marshall Liberal election platform was politically left of Weatherill's Labor platform.

  You don't believe politician promises do you?

----------


## John2b

> Certainly am, as by your own admission you have 
>   which puts you well above the average Australian

  How would you know what my net worth is Bros? What level of mortgage do I have? What are my discretionary costs of living compared to average (i.e. what personal sacrifices am I making). And what moral authority do you have to pass judgement on people you know nothing about?

----------


## Bros

> More likely Crisp just read the posts in this forum without the usual ideological blindness of some.

    Well here you go start naming who is   

> The support for coal by some of the members here is astounding

   complete with facts of course not assumptions.

----------


## Bros

> How would you know what my net worth is Bros? What level of mortgage do I have? What are my discretionary costs of living compared to average (i.e. what personal sacrifices am I making). And on what moral authority do you have to pass judgement on people you know nothing about?

  Only by your own posts.

----------


## John2b

> You don't believe politician promises do you?

  I do happen to know a couple of the Liberal party members personally, and they are good sorts.  The Liberals here are best characterised as a group of people with loosely associated ideology - not really an organised party. Marshall was only leader because of a dearth of leadership talent in the party and got elected because he campaigned on centralist policies, which were a fair way politically left of the past 16 years of Labor government. What Marshall has suddenly found out to his great surprise is that the government he won is not HIS, and the old party hacks and string pullers are laying down the law on what the government will actually do. In that sense you are right, the policies that Marshall ran for the election will most likely fall by the wayside.

----------


## Bros

> n that sense you are right, the policies that Marshall ran for the election will most likely fall by the wayside.

    Happens all the time as they are a bunch of backsliders when they have to implement their agenda they went to the public on, no party is immune from that.

----------


## John2b

> Only by your own posts.

  What you post about me is entirely symptomatic of the way you characterise many people of whom you know nothing. Why so hard to address the topic?

----------


## chrisp

> I think you are drawing along bow [sic] there

  I dont think that lm drawing a longbow at all. Here we are in a thread that has near 18,000 posts on the merits and otherwise of an emissions trading scheme.

----------


## Bros

> I don’t think that l’m ‘drawing a longbow’ at all. Here we are in a thread that has near 18,000 posts on the merits and otherwise of an emissions trading scheme.

   Well who are the coal supporters here?

----------


## chrisp

> Well who are the coal supporters here?

  Are you serious? Read back a page or two in this thread! 
Or, are you taking my comment personally? If so, maybe look in the mirror.  :Redface: )

----------


## Bros

> Are you serious? Read back a page or two in this thread! 
> Or, are you taking my comment personally? If so, maybe look in the mirror. )

  Marc is the only one who supports coal and it is his right to do so if he chooses.

----------


## PhilT2

> Not quite the numbers I see.  http://euanmearns.com/uk-offshore-wi...ical-analysis/

  You're comparing apples to oranges there. Your figure is an average of all UK offshore wind farms; some quite old and nearly all using old tech located in shallow waters. My figure was taken from the latest project showing what can be achieved with the latest tech; bigger generators with taller towers and located further out to sea to get access to stronger, more constant wind. 
Does anyone know anything about the status of the bass Strait project? https://reneweconomy.com.au/plans-au...er-pace-49478/

----------


## phild01

What's the additional cost of locating and maintaining a sea based wind turbine compared to a land based one?  Plus the seemingly short term operating life of these things with technology advancements making them redundant!?

----------


## PhilT2

I'm not sure whether the Europeans have gone offshore because of the shortage of real estate or to get access to stronger, more constant wind. Maybe a bit of both. The latest towers are over 200m to the hub with 85m blades; not sure I want one in the backyard.
Construction costs are changing as the industry moves from mounting them on the sea floor in shallow water close to land to floating towers further out to sea where winds are better. Output is said to be three times higher. Maintainance might be a bit tricky but if we can do it with oil rigs then it must be possible. 
The speed of progress makes everything redundant fairly quickly these days; in Europe they seem to update the older turbines with with more efficient blades and bigger generators. In the US it appears they just abandon them and build new ones.

----------


## woodbe

Hi Bros,   

> Of course it is preaching to those who can't afford  solar system by taking advantage of the high feed in tariff sweetener  and most importantly the high initial cost of the system

  Initial cost of the solar system is not high. The average cost 5kW  system cost as at April 2017 is $1.26 per watt or about $6800. That is  way cheaper than the cost when we installed solar on the home.   

> Blame the government. When I last looked most of the  generators were in private hands and now they are in the process of  constraining supply by closing power station to jack up prices. 
> Anyhow SA should be right now as the left leaning bicycle riding green  government have been show the door so a new government can try and fix  up the mess.

  The Governments can decide if there will be a new power plant, they can  decide if the Government owns it, or if it is in private hands. The  problem from the governments is that they have failed to make decisions  in a reasonable time. That is why the energy system has been failing

----------


## Bros

> Hi Bros,
> Initial cost of the solar system is not high. The average cost 5kW  system cost as at April 2017 is $1.26 per watt or about $6800. That is  way cheaper than the cost when we installed solar on the home.

  The cost is about right but with our place it is not economic as we only use about 7KwH during daylight hours and 10KwH of a night and that is at the high rate. Initially we were quoted over $10,000 for the same system many yrs ago and with the power costs it was marginal as far as economics are concerned. Now there is a big dis incentive to getting solar as Ergon are now charging $450 to put a new meter on. Now the miserable feed in tariff they are offering is on a year by year basis and I can see soon that they will be paying nothing or forcing people to go to zero feed in. 
In the past there were a number of fly by night installers who installed cheap systems and those systems are now failing. My neighbor has had to pay for new inverter and the fixing screws to the roof are not galv and these are now almost at the point of being impossible to replace and they got a quote for this and it was over $1,000     

> The Governments can decide if there will be a new power plant, they can  decide if the Government owns it, or if it is in private hands. The  problem from the governments is that they have failed to make decisions  in a reasonable time. That is why the energy system has been failing

  I would dispute that as the Liberal government take the attitude of the market will take care of it and they have done nothing the labour government have the greens sticking it to them on one side and the unions loss of jobs on the other and they have stood back.
I believe large scale solar is on the nose now as the electricity suppliers have enough now. As an example i have friend in NQ who have 400 acres as part of their farm they are not using and two yrs ago they signed a contract with xyz to build a solar plant there. It is ideal area with a 132kv transmission line within 200m of the block and to this date nothing has happened. While our friends don't know what the delay is and the fact they don't need to 400 acres they are in no hurry but I suspect they can't get the cost they are seeking to make the project viable for investors. 
Pump storage for reliability would be the way to go combined with solar but pump storage has very high capital costs and I can't see private enterprise entering into that as the initial returns will not be there so these systems are then left to government to finance similar to NBN.

----------


## phild01

> .... and the fixing screws to the roof are not galv and these are now almost at the point of being impossible to replace and they got a quote for this and it was over $1,000

  I often wonder how the roof panels are attached so that the roof will never leak or corrode, depending if it is tiled or metal roofing!

----------


## woodbe

> The cost is about right but with our place it is not economic as we only use about 7KwH during daylight hours and 10KwH of a night and that is at the high rate. Initially we were quoted over $10,000 for the same system many yrs ago and with the power costs it was marginal as far as economics are concerned. Now there is a big dis incentive to getting solar as Ergon are now charging $450 to put a new meter on. Now the miserable feed in tariff they are offering is on a year by year basis and I can see soon that they will be paying nothing or forcing people to go to zero feed in. 
> In the past there were a number of fly by night installers who installed cheap systems and those systems are now failing. My neighbor has had to pay for new inverter and the fixing screws to the roof are not galv and these are now almost at the point of being impossible to replace and they got a quote for this and it was over $1,000

  There are people who work positive and others that work negative. A system could wipe out the 7kWh and there would be methods of moving some of the power consumption from the night into the day. The costs of power will continue to increase. If Ergon is wrong, change the supplier. You don't need to do anything, but if you want to improve you can over time.   

> I would dispute that as the Liberal government take the attitude of the market will take care of it and they have done nothing the labour government have the greens sticking it to them on one side and the unions loss of jobs on the other and they have stood back.
> I believe large scale solar is on the nose now as the electricity suppliers have enough now. As an example i have friend in NQ who have 400 acres as part of their farm they are not using and two yrs ago they signed a contract with xyz to build a solar plant there. It is ideal area with a 132kv transmission line within 200m of the block and to this date nothing has happened. While our friends don't know what the delay is and the fact they don't need to 400 acres they are in no hurry but I suspect they can't get the cost they are seeking to make the project viable for investors. 
> Pump storage for reliability would be the way to go combined with solar but pump storage has very high capital costs and I can't see private enterprise entering into that as the initial returns will not be there so these systems are then left to government to finance similar to NBN.

  The current governments have the capability of starting a renewable system. They then have a choice they would make whether the system is owned by the government, shared by businesses or totally moved away from the government funding. That's how the government works on all projects including renewable energy projects. 
Pumped hydro could be either. They pump up at the cheapest costs, and export at the highest costs. Turnbull has said the government will fund the Snowy pumped hydro system, but there will be other systems around the country that will be funded any way. The government often help to fund the feasibility to get things started. 
Your friend in NQ may have their own issues and problems. That is not the same as the solar systems in the country is stopping. Queensland currently has 18 large-scale projects under construction, which is the most in the country. 
“Solar is the cheapest way to generate electricity in the world – full  stop,” he said. “It’s not unusual for grid pricing to be north of 20c  per kilowatt hour in a majority of jurisdicitions. A solar array, at an  average size for an average home, if you amortise the cost over 20  years, the effective rate is 5c per kilowatt hour. That’s called an  economic no-brainer.”  https://www.theguardian.com/australi...r-analysts-say (February 2018)

----------


## woodbe

> I often wonder how the roof panels are attached so that the roof will never leak or corrode, depending if it is tiled or metal roofing!

  Brackets are attached to the roof and are sealed. Often, tiles have brackets under the bottom lip of the tiles and attached to the beams under the tiles. Corrugated roof the brackets are attached at the top of the curve. If they are done correctly, they are unlikely to leak or corrode, but sure, poor installation could cause issues just like a normal roof incorrectly installed will leak. 
Tiles:   
Corrugated roof:   https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/...-on-your-roof/

----------


## phild01

Thanks for that.

----------


## Bros

> There are people who work positive and others that work negative. A system could wipe out the 7kWh and there would be methods of moving some of the power consumption from the night into the day.

  Yes you could move my $0.35 HW from night to day but if the sun don't shine I am then on the high tariff. You can get smart inverters for this but they cost more and the fall back is then the tariff 11 which is the high tariff. Solar would save me $1.99 per daylight and if I move the HW $0.35 ignoring the feedback as this can't be relied on to continue as it is a year by year thing 
If Ergon   

> is wrong, change the supplier. You don't need to do anything, but if you want to improve you can over time.

  Can't be done only one supplier.    

> The current governments have the capability of starting a renewable system. They then have a choice they would make whether the system is owned by the government, shared by businesses or totally moved away from the government funding. That's how the government works on all projects including renewable energy projects.

  Of course they can but for reasons I said before they don't want to.   

> Pumped hydro could be either. They pump up at the cheapest costs, and export at the highest costs. Turnbull has said the government will fund the Snowy pumped hydro system, but there will be other systems around the country that will be funded any way. The government often help to fund the feasibility to get things started.

  Yes as I said before pumped hydro is very expensive to install and only governments have the financil ability to do this. Yes you will get small scale systems but for the large systems to replace coal fired generators you need lots of money 
Your friend in NQ may have their own issues and problems. That is not the same as the solar systems in the country is stopping. Queensland currently has 18 large-scale projects under construction, which is the most in the country.   

> “Solar is the cheapest way to generate electricity in the world – full  stop,” he said. “It’s not unusual for grid pricing to be north of 20c  per kilowatt hour in a majority of jurisdicitions. A solar array, at an  average size for an average home, if you amortise the cost over 20  years, the effective rate is 5c per kilowatt hour. That’s called an  economic no-brainer.”  https://www.theguardian.com/australi...r-analysts-say (February 2018)

  I don't dispute that but one of the quotes    

> In Queensland, residential solar panels are already the state’s largest source of energy, producing more combined than the 1.7GW Gladstone power station. Just under a third (30%) of residential homes in the state have solar installed – the most in the country.

   where it is not uncommon like we had recently the whole east coast of Qld except for the SE corner was covered in cloud negligible solar output there. 
last time I did my sums a 5KW system would take 17 yrs to break even again neglecting the unreliable feed in tariff and system maintenance.

----------


## phild01

> Yes you could move my $0.35 HW from night to day

  Am I reading right 35cents KWh for OP storage hot water!

----------


## Bros

> Am I reading right 35cents KWh for OP storage hot water!

  TOTAL for the night between 1 and 2 KWH at $0.173 per Kwh

----------


## woodbe

Weather happens anywhere in the world, and when the cloud cover is there, then the solar power is lower, but over time the capacity is functional:  https://pvoutput.org/map.jsp?state=QLD 
Every year, the retail cost of power is rising. I saw that happening in 2010 and decided to do something. Rod Dyson back then denied it was effective and would never put any funds into solar on his home. I wonder what his power costs have been since 2011 when our system was installed. Maybe he has solar now or maybe he is still thinking it was a bad idea. 
Everyone has a choice. Some decide to move forward and over time they might not be excellent but worth a try. Others wait, wait, wait and never get there. Some cannot because of their location or funding problems, it isn't the same for everyone. The best is to work out the possibilities and decide, that is how we did it and it did cost a lot but over time we have the benefit.

----------


## doovalacky

It will be interesting if this project goes ahead in WA. 1200 300m-high wind turbines which would generate up to 5000MW, with a further 2400MW from solar panels all to be exported overseas. Makes the local use look small. 
I've no idea what the status of the coal power plants over east are like but WA is all getting up in years. The newest two are 9 years old but the some of the main base load units are 30+ years old. That's not including some of the even older units built in 1966 that the government spent 300m+ refurnishing then recently declared they are mothballing them again due to safety/efficiency. Money that could have payed for a new cleaner more efficient unit, it cost around 575M for a 300MW unit in 2001.
In 2014 there was a series of failures at Muja station that almost saw WA in rolling blackouts as well. It was the wind, solar and diesel plants that got us through the peak.  
Putting band aids on aging plant only works so long and in the meantime the technology has improved which could greatly reduce current pollution. After Japan's incident I can't ever see a nuclear plant being built in Australia which leaves coal or gas as a base load. 
While we will see more green projects occur I can't see the government having the willpower to commit to a major project such as above. Even if they did it probably would turn into a NBN style bungle at the next election.
Batteries and solar will have a slow ingress in residential but it will never cover everything. Especially with so many people who expect everything to be handed to them rather than save.

----------


## chrisp

> TOTAL for the night between 1 and 2 KWH at $0.173 per Kwh

  1-2 kWh per night for hot water. That equates to 3.6 to 7.2 MJ which is approximately only 12 to 25 litres of hot water heated per night. That’s impressive! You’d easily be able to heat that much water most every day of the year using some sort of solar system (PV or solar hot water). For the few days that are 100% cloud, you could pay the day-rate and still be ahead.

----------


## Bedford

> 1-2 kWh per night for hot water. That equates to 3.6 to 7.2 MJ which is approximately only 12 to 25 litres of hot water heated per night. Thats impressive!

  Wouldn't that depend on the temperature to start with? In a storage unit it would be rarely starting from cold, and I guess you could be actually heating more than that number of liters.   

> Youd easily be able to heat that much water most every day of the year using sort sort of solar system

  So how much would that cost compared to what it's costing Bros now?

----------


## Bros

> 1-2 kWh per night for hot water. That equates to 3.6 to 7.2 MJ which is approximately only 12 to 25 litres of hot water heated per night. That’s impressive! You’d easily be able to heat that much water most every day of the year using some sort of solar system (PV or solar hot water). For the few days that are 100% cloud, you could pay the day-rate and still be ahead.

  We use very little hot water as there is only 2 of us and as it is summer in QLD only a little for showers and washing dishes washing is done with cold water, we have no mechanical dishwashers. I would expect that to go up a bit in winter. I had to replace my HW system a while back and we ran for 5 days without needing any power and when I drained it the water was so hot you could get burnt. 
When we built our house we paid a bit for the land as it is on top of a hill and by midday the seabreeze starts and we have no need for air conditioning except in the bedroom as the sea breeze drops of a night so we do use the AC there and I worked it out is cost use $0.40 for the night. We have one in the lounge for when my wife was recovering from a knee replacement and we only ran it once this summer. 
So solar is marginal in return. I recently made some inquiries as to the cost and one bloke was realistic and he said my needs would be satisfied by a 1.5Kw system with a 3Kw inverter cost $3400 + $450 from Ergon, the rest wanted to sell me 5Kw and better system and said that my switchboard was OK which I knew was not correct. The first bloke was as I said realistic and twigged I was an electrician and told me what I would have to do to make my switchboard compliant for the new meters. 
My SIL on the Gold Coast got a 3 KW system  installed by Origin with $0.15 feed in and remoter metering and can pay it off for about $4000. 
As for me the jury is out.

----------


## John2b

> We use very little hot water as there is only 2 of us and as it is summer in QLD only a little for showers and washing dishes washing is done with cold water, we have no mechanical dishwashers.  ... the seabreeze starts and we have no need for air conditioning except in the bedroom... as we *only* use about 7KwH during daylight hours and 10KwH of a night

  How on Earth do you use 17 kWh per day? (And, yes, I do know that is around the Australian average!) I worked from home, we had all mod cons, home theatre with monster screen, security system, video intercom and gate release, wireless broadband with network attached storage, dishwasher, garden lighting, etc, etc and used 3 - 5 kWh per day. As I have previously said, I chose to get rid of energy hogs and insulate properly. When I invested in solar I was determined to get my money back, hence the attention to eliminating energy wastage. The investment in grid connect solar took just a bit over 3 years to pay back, because even with a 'tiny' 1.5kW system, we exported the bulk of our generation, and achieved a net export in every month in the past 6+ years. 
Edit: we had gas instant hot water and a gas cook top, which combined would save a few kWh per day. And we also had to pay $450 for a new meter, which has been factored into the return on investment calculations.

----------


## John2b

> Marc is the only one who supports coal and it is his right to do so if he chooses.

  Your post nicely sidesteps the issue that whilst Marc is entitled to his own opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts. It also conveniently ignores your own posts about the appropriateness of various energy sources.

----------


## phild01

Geeze John, what about how our need for night time power is conveniently ignored by so many of the other posts here, only to be met with the bad idea of having environmentally unfriendly batteries everywhere.  By your own admission the bulk of your 1.5KW solar is exported, and possibly as redundant power. Doesn't that mean you need a source of power from somewhere other than solar!

----------


## chrisp

> Wouldn't that depend on the temperature to start with? In a storage unit it would be rarely starting  cold, and I guess you could be actually heating more than that number of liters.

  Heating water is one of the hardest substances to heat. Each kilogram of water takes about 4,200 Joule of energy to raise its temperature by 1 degree Celsius. From memory, I assumed a 70 degree temperature rise which might be a little on the high side for Queensland but I have also ignored heat losses that will enviably happen. 
Interestingly, Bros has essentially proposed his own solution to cloudy days. His hot water system current holds about 5 days worth of hot water. It is effectively an energy storage system.   

> So how much would that cost compared to what it's costing Bros now?

  Energy costs would be close to zero using solar or PV. I think that the issue Bros has is the upfront  capital costs and the payback period. His low energy use (for hot water at least. I’m not sure where to other 15kWh per day are going) is probably making it hard to justify to upfront capital costs. 
The interesting thing about having PV is that it turns the old ‘off peak tariff’ idea upside down. It becomes much cheaper to use energy during the day than at night. So it would be better to heat water during the day than at night. What I love about PV is that is well matches air conditioning needs. In the middle of summer I can run air conditioners and not be drawing energy from the grid at all - free cooling (ignoring the capital costs of course) so I feel free to cool my house as much as I like and not place any stress on my budget or the electricity grid.

----------


## Bros

> Energy costs would be close to zero using solar or PV. I think that the issue Bros has is the upfront  capital costs and the payback period. His low energy use (for hot water at least. I’m not sure where to other 15kWh per day are going) is probably making it hard to justify to upfront capital costs.

  I know where it goes but it is the way we choose to live at this time. I don't complain about our usage or cost but what I am most concerned about is reliability. I also get sick of lies told by companies fuel companies are one and some electricity companies as well. AGL and Origin are vertically integrated so they can manipulate the price. The Government woke up to this with the NBN as they cannot be a retailer only a wholesaler.
I think governments will be regretting selling electricity asserts and the Queensland voters thought the same when a government with a huge majority was thrown our for proposing to sell asserts which included the power network.   

> The interesting thing about having PV is that it turns the old ‘off peak tariff’ idea upside down. It becomes much cheaper to use energy during the day than at night. So it would be better to heat water during the day than at night. What I love about PV is that is well matches air conditioning needs. In the middle of summer I can run air conditioners and not be drawing energy from the grid at all - free cooling (ignoring the capital costs of course) so I feel free to cool my house as much as I like and not place any stress on my budget or the electricity grid.

  You must have different weather to us as it is a rare day to be cloudless and this then drops the air cond back to higher tarriff. This was obvious when i was outback where the skies are fairly clear and my friend had a solar pump and he said watch what clouds do and just high cloud dropped the pump out. if you were using AC all day from solar I have no idea how much clouds will interfere with the cost of operation maybe it is minimal I dont know.

----------


## John2b

> Doesn't that mean you need a source of power from somewhere other than solar!

  Absolutely! We exported energy when it was surplus (often as demand peaked) and imported when the sun wasn't shining, oddly enough during low demand - when the "base load" generators' with "spinning reserve" would otherwise be boiling off water to stop their boilers from exploding.

----------


## phild01

> Absolutely! We exported energy when it was surplus (often as demand peaked) and imported when the sun wasn't shining, oddly enough during low demand - when the "base load" generators' with "spinning reserve" would otherwise be boiling off water to stop their boilers from exploding.

  I would say most solar exports happen when grid demand is low and generated power is imported when demand is high! 
The spin-off you refer to only happens because of how poorly solar integrates with the essential base-load supply.

----------


## John2b

> I would say most solar exports happen when grid demand is low and generated power is imported when demand is high! 
> The spin-off you refer to only happens because of how poorly solar integrates with the essential base-load supply.

  Rooftop solar typically reduces peak demand from conventional generation because peak demand is driven by air conditioners in the afternoon when solar is also peaking - it is the sun that is driving both phenomena. An added benefit is that this electricity does not have to go through the transmission infrastructure as it is locally distributed, reducing transmission costs. For several years now, solar has capped the growth in peak demand across Australia, reducing the requirement for new generation infrastructure that all electricity consumers would have had to pay for.

----------


## John2b

> You must have different weather to us as it is a rare day to be cloudless and this then drops the air cond back to higher tarriff. This was obvious when i was outback where the skies are fairly clear and my friend had a solar pump and he said watch what clouds do and just high cloud dropped the pump out. if you were using AC all day from solar I have no idea how much clouds will interfere with the cost of operation maybe it is minimal I dont know.

  PV in Queensland generates 3.6 kWh per kW of installed capacity averaged across a full year. I.e. a 3 kW system will average ~11 kWh / day or ~4,000 kW per year. This data is aggregated from nearly 5,000 actual systems running in QLD. You could get more accurate local daily data by searching for systems in your postcode.  https://pvoutput.org/state.jsp

----------


## phild01

> Rooftop solar typically reduces peak demand from conventional generation because peak demand is driven by air conditioners in the afternoon when solar is also peaking - it is the sun that is driving both phenomena. An added benefit is that this electricity does not have to go through the transmission infrastructure as it is locally distributed, reducing transmission costs. For several years now, solar has capped the growth in peak demand across Australia, reducing the requirement for new generation infrastructure that all electricity consumers would have had to pay for.

  Yes but I think this graph represents the reality:  *The summer electricity load curve for households in NSW* Source: EMET Consultants Pty Ltd  
Don't see solar helping that curve much!

----------


## chrisp

> Yes but I think this graph represents the reality:  *The summer electricity load curve for households in NSW* Source: EMET Consultants Pty Ltd  
> Don't see solar helping that curve much!

  I can! Look closer. The midnight peak is boosted by hot water -move this to mid day. Air conditioners can be ran during the day (to keep your house cool rather than let it heat up during the day). Both these will make a significant difference to the peak load.

----------


## phild01

> I can! Look closer. The midnight peak is boosted by hot water -move this to mid day. Air conditioners can be ran during the day (to keep your house cool rather than let it heat up during the day). Both these will make a significant difference to the peak load.

  No, don't agree.  The hot water is shoulder to the true peak and may as well be an adjunct to the effective solution.  Also, most homes would not benefit too much by daytime ac, even newer insulated homes would still run ac in the evenings.  Most people aren't pig headed about their ac usage wanting to feel comfortable.  People should be able to do the things they need to do without greenies breathing down their necks.

----------


## Bros

> Yes but I think this graph represents the reality:  *The summer electricity load curve for households in NSW* Source: EMET Consultants Pty Ltd  
> Don't see solar helping that curve much!

   Am I reading that right “Waterbed” mustn’t be like the water bed I used to have.

----------


## phild01

> Am I reading that right “Waterbed” mustn’t be like the water bed I used to have.

  Yeah, noticed that as well.  I miss my waterbed, best sleep I ever had and it hardly used any power.
Actually can't see it on the graph.

----------


## chrisp

> No, don't agree.  The hot water is shoulder to the true peak and may as well be an adjunct to the effective solution.  Also, most homes would not benefit too much by daytime ac, even newer insulated homes would still run ac in the evenings.  Most people aren't pig headed about their ac usage wanting to feel comfortable.  People should be able to do the things they need to do without greenies breathing down their necks.

  Hor water can be moved anywhere during the day - Bros pointed out that his system holds 5 days of hot water. 
Look at the air conditioning load - it is a time delayed sun-peak for the day. i.e. the insulation on the house is delaying the air conditioning load or it is people coming home after work. Nothing stopping one from turning on an air conditioner early (turn on via internet or timer) rather than waiting for the house to become too hot. A/C and PV track each other very well. 
I have both PV and A/C. I can run a/c as much as I want. Hotter days seem to produce more PV - strange but true!

----------


## phild01

> Hor water can be moved anywhere during the day - Bros pointed out that his system holds 5 days of hot water. 
> Look at the air conditioning load - it is a time delayed sun-peak for the day. i.e. the insulation on the house is delaying the air conditioning load or it is people coming home after work. Nothing stopping one from turning on an air conditioner early (turn on via internet or timer) rather than waiting for the house to become too hot. A/C and PV track each other very well. 
> I have both PV and A/C. I can run a/c as much as I want. Hotter days seem to produce more PV - strange but true!

  I think the best you will find is people intuitively turning ac on an hour before they get home and for many this will be outside effective solar hours. 
All of this still does not address the problem that peak usage happens heavily outside sunshine hours.  Why doesn't discussion centre on solutions instead of avoiding the obstacle...and batteries are a terrible solution as that technology currently stands.  In the meantime a grid supply is essential under any prevailing conditions.  Forget about time shifting when things can be done.

----------


## Bros

> Hor water can be moved anywhere during the day - Bros pointed out that his system holds 5 days of hot water.

   I think I should clarify our hot water is 250l and there are only two in the house, if you had a couple of teenage girls in the household they could use most of that in a day.

----------


## phild01

I also have a 250 that runs cold with 4 people in one night.

----------


## woodbe

> I also have a 250 that runs cold with 4 people in one night.

  What water flow have you chosen for the shower?

----------


## chrisp

> I also have a 250 that runs cold with 4 people in one night.

  Wow! I’m convinced that we should start building more coal fired power stations so that phild01 and his three family members can have endless hot showers!   :Smilie:

----------


## phild01

> Wow! I’m convinced that we should start building more coal fired power stations so that phild01 and his three family members can have endless hot showers!

  Irrelevant comment and as usual the problem of night-time power supply 'need' is being conveniently ignored. 
And if you must know, I likely use less power for my showers than many others.

----------


## woodbe

Night time supply can be reduced easily, but you don't like any of the options. 
-> Maintain the house temperature during the day. 
-> Heat the hot water system during the day. 
-> Store power using battery tech and use it after sun sets. 
The best current solution is to add solar to the house, and use as much of that power to heat the water, run the washing machine, maintain the temp to minimise the after sun power costs.

----------


## phild01

> Night time supply can be reduced easily, but you don't like any of the options. 
> -> Maintain the house temperature during the day. 
> -> Heat the hot water system during the day. 
> -> Store power using battery tech and use it after sun sets. 
> The best current solution is to add solar to the house, and use as much of that power to heat the water, run the washing machine, maintain the temp to minimise the after sun power costs.

  The common house doesn't fare well wasting daytime power for the ac when no one is home and only suitable for people who don't mind the the extremes of temperature.
Heating the hot water during the day requires an expensive panel alternative that may fail in time, but agree it with it
Battery storage longevity is unproven, very expensive, environmentally unsound and a poor technology as they are now.
None of this resolves night-time power requirements suitably.

----------


## pharmaboy2

You guys seem a little obsessed about household energy use patterns. 
what about commercial and industrial, especially globally? It’s one thing for a house to install panels to keep it going through the day, it’s quite another for the CBD is sydney to do the same, or for an aluminium plant or other industry to generate their own 
household baseload has been warped by off peak, but the other big factor needing available baseload has been the demands of commerce and industry during the day and night 
in terms of household economics, the most cost effective battery is the grid, and that battery is a bloody big coal fired power station

----------


## Marc

But coal is black!

----------


## woodbe

> The common house doesn't fare well wasting daytime power for the ac when no one is home and only suitable for people who don't mind the the extremes of temperature.
> Heating the hot water during the day requires an expensive panel alternative that may fail in time, but agree it with it
> Battery storage longevity is unproven, very expensive, environmentally unsound and a poor technology as they are now.
> None of this resolves night-time power requirements suitably.

  Phild01,  
If you install solar panels on your house, it is currently cheaper to use the energy in the house than to export to the grid for cents. The solar system saves 20c+ per kWh.  
Then it is cheaper to maintain the the house temps during the day rather than wait until the sun goes down and you have to pay high import costs. 
Heating hot water via the PV panels is the same benefit. The solar heats the hot water while you are at work at no cost.  
Battery system is reliable. Over time, the capacity will reduce depending on daily consumption etc. The Tesla battery runs warranty in 10 years to 70% capacity.  
Costs of battery systems is becoming reasonable. Partly because the costs of the battery has improved, but also because the cost of imported electricity has continued to increase and probably will continue to increase. 
All those requirements for anyone with interest to reduce their home costs over time. Anyone who sits on their hands will have to pay the full high cost of power from the grid. 
Re your hot water system running out of hot water, what water flow are your showers L/min.

----------


## Bros

> You guys seem a little obsessed about household energy use patterns. 
> what about commercial and industrial, especially globally? It’s one thing for a house to install panels to keep it going through the day, it’s quite another for the CBD is sydney to do the same, or for an aluminium plant or other industry to generate their own 
> household baseload has been warped by off peak, but the other big factor needing available baseload has been the demands of commerce and industry during the day and night 
> in terms of household economics, the most cost effective battery is the grid, and that battery is a bloody big coal fired power station

  Up you Jack I’m in the lifeboat.

----------


## chrisp

> Irrelevant comment and as usual the problem of night-time power supply 'need' is being conveniently ignored. 
> And if you must know, I likely use less power for my showers than many others.

  It is a relevant comment - it’s taking the Mickey out of your comment! You are essentially arguing that until there is a perfect solution to nighttime supply that there is no solution! 
I think that you are ‘conveniently ignoring’ the possibilities and hanging on to reasons (‘but we use too much water to use solar HW’) to maintain the old technology status quo.

----------


## Bedford

> I think that the issue Bros has is the upfront  capital costs and the payback period.

  So what is the capital cost of heating   

> approximately only 12 to 25 litres of hot water heated per night.

  ?

----------


## phild01

> It is a relevant comment - it’s taking the Mickey out of your comment! You are essentially arguing that until there is a perfect solution to nighttime supply that there is no solution! 
> I think that you are ‘conveniently ignoring’ the possibilities and hanging on to reasons (‘but we use too much water to use solar HW’) to maintain the old technology status quo.

  Okay, dumb  comment then. You have construed my comment without understanding it's context.  The comment I made had no relation at all to power usage.  Go back and you might see it had to do with what Bros passed comment about, in that how long his 250l hot water can last for!
 Need to take the blinkers off. 
The infiltration of solar comes with no forethought of the problems it was going to create.  There seems to be an expectation that that problem can be glossed over.  So far the solutions are rubbish with the expectation that we will go off-grid.  As has been raised, what will the CBD's and industry be left with!

----------


## phild01

Woodbe, I don't know.  But sure it might last longer if a very slow prickly shower head is used, but the showers will be less enjoyable and will be longer.  Anyway isn't that more to do with saving water!

----------


## Marc

> Up you Jack I’m in the lifeboat.

  I think it's more like ... "Up yours Jack, I rammed your ship and sunk it, this is mine"  :Smilie:

----------


## Bros

> Heating the hot water during the day requires an expensive panel alternative that may fail in time, but agree it with it
> .

  Fronius inverters have a set of contacts they can be configured by the user to close when a solar system reaches a value set by the user. Using this and an inter posing relay you can heat water from solar direct. OK if you can live with a couple of days with no input into the HW heater (overcast day). I suppose you could have an override if you get into a position of many days that are overcast but I would think you could only use peak tariff for this.
Nowdays I couldn’t see any value in a solar HW system.

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe, I don't know.  But sure it might last longer if a very slow prickly shower head is used, but the showers will be less enjoyable and will be longer.  Anyway isn't that more to do with saving water!

  We replaced the shower head years ago. Significantly dropped the hot water system use in the shower and everyone found the shower better than the original. Used less water and as a result less water and less energy per day. 
You're saying as I expected and explained. You're not the only one, there are many who either never find the information, or they cannot agree for several reasons (99% incorrect). 
There are people in the community that want to move forward, save energy and power costs over time. Others seem to deny any relevant information shared and try to stay in the past. 
Just so you know, there is plenty of information available, you do not have to accept my opinion. 
Water Rating Gov AU Choose products  https://www.choice.com.au/home-impro...es/showerheads  https://liveability.com.au/renovatio...-shower-heads/  https://pure-electric.com.au/product...flow-4.5-litre  https://www.waterpik.com/shower-head...ower-head-gpm/

----------


## phild01

Woodbe, I have tried water saver showers and I know what I prefer.  I really care less about the water saving aspect.  After all, that climate dill got it wrong and with lots of rain, people with swimming pools full, I should not worry.

----------


## phild01

BTW, this sticker is still om my WM:

----------


## woodbe

> Woodbe, I have tried water saver showers and I know what I prefer.  I really care less about the water saving aspect.  After all, that climate dill got it wrong and with lots of rain, people with swimming pools full, I should not worry.

  So you tested the "very slow prickly shower head", the only information you shared, and you didn't like it. 
Even if you "really care less about the water saving aspect" you could save energy from your electricity bill. 
Many different low flow shower heads are available, and you could find them to preserve your hot water and the water consumption saving energy. 
Like I said, your choice, but just don't complain about the cost of energy.

----------


## chrisp

> Woodbe, I don't know.  But sure it might last longer if a very slow prickly shower head is used, but the showers will be less enjoyable and will be longer.  *Anyway isn't that more to do with saving water!*

  Interesting question. I looked up some numbers. Apparently the average cost for water in Australia according to the ABS is $3.08 per 1000 litre. 
A 250 litre hot water system therefore holds $0.77 worth of water. 
If I assume that the system heats the water 75 degrees (say, the water enters the HWS at 10 degrees and is heated to 85 degrees), the energy required is 4200 J/C/lt x 250 lt x 75 C = 78.75 MJ = ~22 kWh. 
Using an electricity cost of 14 cents per kWh, this equates to $3.08 per tank full. 
So, on a good off peak rate, a tank full of hot water is costing you about $4 per tank, of which $3 is the electricity cost. On the day rate you could easily double the electricity cost. 
So, a water-saving shower head could be more appropriately called an ‘energy-saving shower head’. 
If you are indeed emptying the tank every day, your electricity bill for water alone would be $1124 per year on off-peak rate. 
If it is of any interest, many years ago I had a standard shower head and it wasn’t uncommon to run out of (gas heated) hot water. After I fitted a water saving shower head (9 lt/min from memory) we have not once ran out of hot water. The difference was also very evident on the gas bill too! I reckon that we halved our gas bill. 
I’d seriously recommend trialling a water saving shower head if you don’t already have one. I think that they actually give a better shower than the non-water-saving shower heads.

----------


## phild01

All I said I have a 250l tank that will run cold with 4 people.  It was the original house setup back in the '80's and at that time it was the recommended size at a pinch.  When I say cold it means when the shower becomes uncomfortably cool. The comment should not have inferred 4 people depend on it daily, it was a simple comment relating, again, to what Bros mentioned.  Why make a big deal out of it!!!

----------


## phild01

> So you tested the "very slow prickly shower head", the only information you shared, and you didn't like it. 
> Even if you "really care less about the water saving aspect" you could save energy from your electricity bill. 
> Many different low flow shower heads are available, and you could find them to preserve your hot water and the water consumption saving energy. 
> Like I said, your choice, but just don't complain about the cost of energy.

  The 250 is now part of the rented area and I did change the head years ago to conserve the hot water and after it was mentioned to me that the tank can run out.  Personally I use instantaneous gas set at 37 degrees.  So I don't mix cold water in and it uses less energy as it doesn't try to achieve a higher temp.  As for flow, I like what I have and care less about the flow. If we have drought conditions again, then I might change it.
Incidentally, you may have missed post #18023 as we were writing at the same time.

----------


## DavoSyd

The point is Phil that you use so much anecdotal evidence to support your positions, they become untenable... 
"I did X and it didn't work, so Y is probably not going to work too..."

----------


## Bedford

> So, a water-saving shower head could be more appropriately called an energy-saving shower head. 
>  If you are indeed emptying the tank every day,

  Your water consumption would be the same with a water saving shower head or just an open pipe hanging out of the wall, "if you are indeed emptying the tank everyday" 
Might just take a little longer............. 
I really think you blokes are trying to pick fly shiet out of pepper here, if you look at a water bill, the consumed water is the least of your cost. 
All things come at a cost if you want them, nearly everything costs more each year, do what ever makes you feel good, or get over it.

----------


## phild01

> The point is Phil that you use so much anecdotal evidence to support your positions, they become untenable... 
> "I did X and it didn't work, so Y is probably not going to work too..."

  Can you make your posts more sensible.

----------


## DavoSyd

Just a simple observation based on your posts... But if you reckon it's nonsense, then you are certainly entitled to express your opinion.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Can you make your posts more sensible.

  sure,  there are guys busting their butts to provide you, specifically, with evidence and information about the points being discussed, then you come back with "yeah, not really, i dont think so..."  
this indicates that perhaps you, specifically, are not approaching the matters with sufficient independence and ability to take in new information to re-evaluate your existing positions, thus making any 'discussion' pointless and worthless...

----------


## phild01

> sure,  there are guys busting their butts to provide you, specifically, with evidence and information about the points being discussed, then you come back with "yeah, not really, i dont think so..."  
> this indicates that perhaps you, specifically, are not approaching the matters with sufficient independence and ability to take in new information to re-evaluate your existing positions, thus making any 'discussion' pointless and worthless...

  Your posts tend to be juvenile and not easy to take any notice of, so I won't.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Your posts tend to be juvenile and not easy to take any notice of, so I won't.

  admittedly, i basically only frequent this thread to read material  submitted by chrisp, woodbe, PhilT2, John2b, johnc, SilentButDeadly, UseByDate and pharmaboy...  (and Bros at times) 
so my posts are inconsequential at best! 
I'll leave postings that you *should* be taking notice of to those who diligently take the time and effort to submit useful and insightful information!

----------


## Bros

> (and Bros at times)

  I’m touched. 
I read them all except the cut and paste, when it suits me I post.

----------


## Bedford

> admittedly, i basically only frequent this thread to read material  submitted by chrisp, woodbe, PhilT2, John2b, johnc, SilentButDeadly, UseByDate and pharmaboy...  (and Bros at times) 
> so my posts are inconsequential at best! 
> I'll leave postings that you *should* be taking notice of to those who diligently take the time and effort to submit useful and insightful information!

  Awww shucks, Marc and I didn't get a mention! 
Prolly 'cos we're not in the inner sanctum. 
Or maybe because we dare to question rather than just accept.

----------


## chrisp

> sure,  there are guys busting their butts to provide you, specifically, with evidence and information about the points being discussed, then you come back with "yeah, not really, i dont think so..."  
> this indicates that perhaps you, specifically, are not approaching the matters with sufficient independence and ability to take in new information to re-evaluate your existing positions, thus making any 'discussion' pointless and worthless...

  I agree, except that I don’t actually intend to change Phil’s mind. It’d be a bonus if that happened! I post my stuff for the benefit to others that might be reading the thread. I also have a perversion for numerating things for a back-of-the-envelope analysis. 
I do still find it interesting, somewhat perplexing, but fascinating that some people will go to so much trouble to affirm their views whether or not those views are sensible or supported by facts. I suppose that it might be a form of confirmational bias? Numerating that one is way beyond my abilities! 
In the end, I don’t really give a bat s—t what Phil thinks about his water usage, his energy consumption, or his flippant view of facts. He is entitled to his own views, his own opinions, his own water usage, and his own energy bills.

----------


## Bros

> Awww shucks, Marc and I didn't get a mention! 
> .

  Sorry you feel left out but I’ll read you posts.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Or maybe because we dare to question rather than just accept.

  if all that you do is question things, then are you really adding anything at all to the discussion??

----------


## Bedford

> if all that you do is question things, then are you really adding anything at all to the discussion??

  Well it's a debate in case you hadn't noticed, requires input from both sides. 
You lot wouldn't have an advertising platform otherwise. 
Besides, you can learn a lot more by asking questions than just accepting blindly.   

> *DavoSyd*   admittedly,  i basically only frequent this thread to read material  submitted by  chrisp, woodbe, PhilT2, John2b, johnc, SilentButDeadly, UseByDate and  pharmaboy...  (and Bros at times)

  Well you read my post because you quoted it. :Rolleyes:  
So which is it?

----------


## chrisp

> Well you read my post because you quoted it. 
> So which is it?

  Don’t worry Bedford, I do read your posts and I do have a tremendous respect for you. Mind you, that doesn’t mean that I always agree with you!  :Smilie:

----------


## DavoSyd

> Well it's a debate in case you hadn't noticed, requires input from both sides. 
> You lot wouldn't have an advertising platform otherwise. 
> Besides, you can learn a lot more by asking questions than just accepting blindly.

  as per my signature... 
but you only seem put the reverse view, you seldom seek to proffer the alternative?   

> Well you read my post because you quoted it. 
> So which is it?

  _"i basically only go to the footy to watch the football, but I occasionally take notice of the erudite commentary from the back of the grandstands..."_ 
how's that?

----------


## Bedford

> Dont worry Bedford, I do read your posts and I do have a tremendous respect for you. Mind you, that doesnt mean that I always agree with you!

  That's fine Chris, I understand that. 
But I don't see why I shouldn't be able to question to seek clarification or whatever. 
If you look at the number of posts fired off here and the number that are edited immediately they go live I don't think it's unreasonable.

----------


## Bedford

> but you only seem put the reverse view, you seldom seek to proffer the alternative?

  Well if I had the same view as you lot it wouldn't be a debate, which part of that don't you understand? 
Seems it's ok for you to ask questions.   

> fyi: my post count is high because I ask lots of questions, not because I provide lots of answers...

   :Rolleyes:

----------


## DavoSyd

> Well if I had the same view as you lot it wouldn't be a debate, which part of that don't you understand? 
> Seems it's ok for you to ask questions.

  asking questions is not the same as "daring to question", is it? 
you are borderline conspiracy theory with some of your questioning... aren't you? 
that is not what i am doing at all.  
I.e false equivalence'  
anyway, I'm out... keep up the fun times!

----------


## chrisp

> asking questions is not the same as "daring to question", is it? 
> you are borderline conspiracy theory with some of your questioning... aren't you? 
> that is not what i am doing at all.  
> I.e false equivalence'  
> anyway, I'm out... keep up the fun times!

  I like the Asimov’s axiom link in the link in your post - ‘wronger than wrong’:   

> When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronger_than_wrong)

  Cool!!!

----------


## phild01

For the past few days I have been looking at solar panel installation costs.  Seems for $5000 I can get a 4KW system though I don't trust the AGL payback estimate.  I'm half tempted but need to confirm a few suspicions.  I probably only need a 2KW system but the roof orientation isn't ideal. 
Honestly I don't know where this criticism of my views comes from though I believe there are a couple of blinkered assessments. Seems a few of you just like to look for opportunity to construe objection to anything that doesn't fall in line with your beliefs! 
I install LED lights and buy appliances with good energy ratings, the latest being a TV that had the best rating I could find for the money.  My awareness of having a properly insulated house-build in the '80's surpassed many of the other houses being constructed then and still performs highly.  Fully insulated with foil and fibreglass to walls, not just the roof. My extension also carried a premium for specifying tinted laminated smart glass (my choice).  I take a practical approach to these things without being fanatical.  And I will keep pushing you lot to provide practical ideas to resolve the need for power when the sun don't shine.

----------


## chrisp

> For the past few days I have been looking at solar panel installation costs. Seems for $5000 I can get a 4KW system though I don't trust the AGL payback estimate. I'm half tempted but need to confirm a few suspicions. I probably only need a 2KW system but the roof orientation isn't ideal.  Honestly I don't know where this criticism of my views comes from though I believe there are a couple of blinkered assessments. Seems a few of you just like to look for opportunity to construe objection to anything that doesn't fall in line with your beliefs!  I install LED lights and buy appliances with good energy ratings, the latest being a TV that had the best rating I could find for the money. My awareness of having a properly insulated house-build in the '80's surpassed many of the other houses being constructed then and still performs highly. Fully insulated with foil and fibreglass to walls, not just the roof. My extension also carried a premium for specifying tinted laminated smart glass (my choice). I take a practical approach to these things without being fanatical. And I will keep pushing you lot to provide practical ideas to resolve the need for power when the sun don't shine.

  Sorry if you are feeling somewhat embattled, and well done with all your purchases.  :2thumbsup:  
Re your last sentence above, a very quick Google search turned up https://science.howstuffworks.com/en...ergy-night.htm

----------


## woodbe

> For the past few days I have been looking at solar panel installation costs.  Seems for $5000 I can get a 4KW system though I don't trust the AGL payback estimate.  I'm half tempted but need to confirm a few suspicions.  I probably only need a 2KW system but the roof orientation isn't ideal.

  AGL is a large company, and they post their solar plans. Why do you distrust them?  https://www.agl.com.au/residential/e...r-energy-plans 
What 4kW brand of panels, inverter and which installer?

----------


## phild01

I am looking at the AGL and solarcalculator sites. Thing is I believe Sydney summers are more cloudy than in the past. So are there solar panels that work better than 10-25% in cloudy weather.  Also need to factor in current discounts and the need to run a 250 tank at twice the rate that it currently is priced at.  Also if these systems have to use time of day metering .  I have fixed price supply.

----------


## Marc

This recent diversion into domestic matters is revealing. A mixture of wishful thinking and misinformation with a bit of truth thrown in for good measure.  
A simile would be a big heavy bus that runs on a large V12 Detroit Diesel and that for reasons of fashion and good looks, has added pedals under the seats for the passengers to pedal along when they feel like, so that hey feel good about themselves. An _app_ is provided on the back of the seat in front, that provides the energy input by each passenger. 
Avocado smoothies run through a straw that hangs from the roof above each seat. 
The passengers talk about themselves and compare energy input ... "look at me!" and they take lots of selfies ... Sometimes when the road goes downhill the passengers feel that they can really run by themselves. They feel empowered and say to each other, "we can be _​self sufficient we don't_ need_ the motor, let's shut it down and throw the driver out the window!_

----------


## PhilT2

> This recent diversion into domestic matters is revealing. A mixture of wishful thinking and misinformation with a bit of truth thrown in for good measure.  
> A simile would be a big heavy bus that runs on a large V12 Detroit Diesel and that for reasons of fashion and good looks, has added pedals under the seats for the passengers to pedal along when they feel like, so that hey feel good about themselves. An _app_ is provided on the back of the seat in front, that provides the energy input by each passenger. 
> Avocado smoothies run through a straw that hangs from the roof above each seat. 
> The passengers talk about themselves and compare energy input ... "look at me!" and they take lots of selfies ... Sometimes when the road goes downhill the passengers feel that they can really run by themselves. They feel empowered and say to each other, "we can be _​self sufficient we don't_ need_ the motor, let's shut it down and throw the driver out the window!_

  Most people missed it but it was international unicorn day just recently. https://www.unicorn-day.com/ 
Now I know some think these creatures are mythical but i can assure you they are every bit as real as the benefits of cryotherapy. And my belief in them makes as much sense as what was posted above.

----------


## Marc

That's OK Phil ... you can believe what you want, after all everything you see is from your own creation. Just don't ask me to feed your unicorn because I run out of watermelons.

----------


## PhilT2

> That's OK Phil ... you can believe what you want, after all everything you see is from your own creation. Just don't ask me to feed your unicorn because I run out of watermelons.

  That just shows how little you know; unicorns don't eat watermelons. They feed exclusively on chocolate moonbeams and after they have had a good feed what comes out the other end gets posted up on WUWT for deniers to devour with enthusiasm.

----------


## woodbe

> I am looking at the AGL and solarcalculator  sites. Thing is I believe Sydney summers are more cloudy than in the  past. So are there solar panels that work better than 10-25% in cloudy  weather.  Also need to factor in current discounts and the need to run a  250 tank at twice the rate that it currently is priced at.  Also if  these systems have to use time of day metering .  I have fixed price  supply.

  No solar panels currently able to head much past 20% in the sun. Obviously less efficiency in the cloudy days.  https://www.energymatters.com.au/pan...-solar-panels/ 
You have an instant gas hot water system, why would you want to run a  250L tank? If you did run a 250L tank, you could run it during the day  from the solar, zero cost unless the weather is poor. 
If you have a fixed price, the solar system will reduce the consumption  of electricity from the grid, and export power to the grid. The exported power will reduce the cost of imported power, and if any of the overnight power is moved into the day then the costs will improve again.

----------


## DavoSyd

Is everybody looking forward to Frydenberg at the NPC? 
I know I am!

----------


## phild01

> No solar panels currently able to head much past 20% in the sun. Obviously less efficiency in the cloudy days.  https://www.energymatters.com.au/pan...-solar-panels/ 
> You have an instant gas hot water system, why would you want to run a  250L tank? If you did run a 250L tank, you could run it during the day  from the solar, zero cost unless the weather is poor. 
> If you have a fixed price, the solar system will reduce the consumption  of electricity from the grid, and export power to the grid. The exported power will reduce the cost of imported power, and if any of the overnight power is moved into the day then the costs will improve again.

  _That should have read 10-25%  of their capacity.  _ Why I have both gas and electric is because the house is divided into two.
I believe I need to do my own payback period calculation as I believe my assessment will be at odds with the suppliers estimation.  I need to know what they base their figures on.  The HWS will be expensive to heat for the many cloudy days we get now (It will need a minimum of around 4KW a day.

----------


## woodbe

> It will need a minimum of around 4KW a day.

  4kW a day would be 4x24=96kWh. Surely, you mean 4kWh per day. 
Currently in our area a 5kW solar system is pumping out around 20kWh per day.

----------


## chrisp

> 4kW a day would be 4x24=96kWh. Surely, you mean 4kWh per day. 
> Currently in our area a 5kW solar system is pumping out around 20kWh per day.

  I just had a look at mine (6.7 kW dc, 5.4kW ac). We have had some overcast weather this week. Daily energy production for the past 7 (full) days were: 
Wednesday: 31.6 kWh
Thursday: 14.8 kWh
Friday: 25.7 kWh
Saturday: 30.6 kWh
Sunday: 25.4 kWh
Monday: 26.3 kWh
Tuesday: 9.63 kWh 
Everyday exceed our consumption so there was a net export each day. However, our hot water is heated by gas.

----------


## John2b

phild01 have a look at PVoutput.org and bang in your postcode to find systems near you. It is possible to look at real outputs back over years of daily history to see the effect and frequency of cloudy days. Here's one in Sydney last winter - on a typical cloudy day it still generated more than 2kWh per kilowatt of installed capacity.

----------


## phild01

> 4kW a day would be 4x24=96kWh. Surely, you mean 4kWh per day. 
> Currently in our area a 5kW solar system is pumping out around 20kWh per day.

  What I wrote was that the HWS needs around 4KW a day ie the tank on average will need around 4000W for the whole day.

----------


## chrisp

> What I wrote was that the HWS needs around 4KW a day ie the tank on average will need around 4000W for the whole day.

  Hi Phil, 
I think that you need to check either the quantity or the unit. 
If it is actually 4 kW over the day, you’d be using about $25 of electricity per day to heat your water at day-rate. 
I suspect that you might be meaning 4 kWh (which would correspond to 45 litres of hot water per day)?

----------


## phild01

> Hi Phil, 
> I think that you need to check either the quantity or the unit. 
> If it is actually 4 kW over the day, you’d be using about $25 of electricity per day to heat your water at day-rate. 
> I suspect that you might be meaning 4 kWh (which would correspond to 45 litres of hot water per day)?

  No I meant what i said. It needs 4000W.  Whether it gets it in one day or one hour, it doesn't matter. How can I express it better if the system can't at times give me 4KWh because of a cloud!

----------


## chrisp

> No I meant what i said. It needs 4000W.  Whether it gets it in one day or one hour, it doesn't matter.

  That’s clearer. 
How many elements does the HWS have? 
If it has two, sometimes (depending upon the tariffs) you can connect an element to come on via the solar PV and use the other element as an off-peak ‘boost’ element.

----------


## UseByDate

> What I wrote was that the HWS needs around 4KW a day ie the tank on average will need around 4000W for the whole day.

  Phil If your hot water system is a standard electrical bulk (250 litre) water heater it would be very unusual to have a 4 kW resistance element. Most are 3.6 kW. Some are 2.4 kW but they are used with smaller tanks.

----------


## phild01

> That’s clearer. 
> How many elements does the HWS have? 
> If it has two, sometimes (depending upon the tariffs) you can connect an element to come on via the solar PV and use the other element as an off-peak ‘boost’ element.

  Just the one and hear what you are saying.  As a rental the occupant would not be expected to be sensible enough to overide it.  So I need to find out if I can keep my current off-peak as is.

----------


## UseByDate

> Thats clearer.

  Can you explain it to me?

----------


## Bedford

> Phil If your hot water system is a standard electrical bulk (250 litre) water heater it would be very unusual to have a 4 kW resistance element. Most are 3.6 kW. Some are 2.4 kW but they are used with smaller tanks.

  Not that unusual, I have a couple of 250l HWS with 4.8KW elements.

----------


## UseByDate

> Not that unusual, I have a couple of 250l HWS with 4.8KW elements.

  How many do you have rated at 4kW? http://www.thermalproducts.com.au/wp...atelements.pdf

----------


## phild01

NO,No,no! I have a 3600W element.  Over a quarter it will need on average 4000W per day,  how do I better explain it or are we being obtuse! :Doh:

----------


## chrisp

> NO,No,no! I have a 3600W element.  Over a quarter it will need on average 4000W per day,  how do I better explain it or are we being obtuse!

  That’s not clearer! I’m confused!

----------


## UseByDate

> NO,No,no! I have a 3600W element.  Over a quarter it will need on average 4000W per day,  how do I better explain it or are we being obtuse!

  I still don't understand what you mean. How many kWh of energy do you think your HWS uses to heat the water per day?

----------


## Bedford

> How many do you have rated at 4kW? http://www.thermalproducts.com.au/wp...atelements.pdf

  I don't have any at 4kw, I have more than one at 4.8kw. 
Like this, http://www.electriciansupplies.com.a...oducts_id=1462 
What's the big deal?

----------


## phild01

> I don't have any at 4kw, I have more than one at 4.8kw. 
> Like this, http://www.electriciansupplies.com.a...oducts_id=1462 
> What's the big deal?

  It used to have one of those until I replaced it with a 3.6.

----------


## phild01

> I still don't understand what you mean. How many kWh of energy do you think your HWS uses to heat the water per day?

   360/90

----------


## UseByDate

> I don't have any at 4kw, I have more than one at 4.8kw. 
> Like this, http://www.electriciansupplies.com.a...oducts_id=1462 
> What's the big deal?

  No big deal. It is the 4 kW elements that are unusual. Not the 4.8 kW ones.

----------


## UseByDate

> 360/90

  What are the units?

----------


## phild01

> What are the units?

  No, that's all I have :Tongue:

----------


## UseByDate

> No, that's all I have

  If you don't know how much energy you need to heat your HWS; do you know how much money you spend each day on hot water?

----------


## phild01

> If you don't know how much energy you need to heat your HWS; do you know how much money you spend each day on hot water?

  I am saying the HWS needs on average 4000 watts of power per day for the typical amount of power consumed by my particular water tank. I am not talking about how much it consumes in one hour and never inferred that. Therefore, what is your point?
Are you confused by the standard measure of electricity consumption normally defined for an appliance!

----------


## UseByDate

> No I meant what i said. It needs 4000W.  Whether it gets it in one day or one hour, it doesn't matter. How can I express it better if the system can't at times give me 4KWh because of a cloud!

   

> I am saying the HWS needs on average 4000 watts of power per day for the typical amount of power consumed by my particular water tank. I am not talking about how much it consumes in one hour and never inferred that. You are correct. You did not infer how much energy  your water tank consumes in one hour. You actually stated it in the top  quote. In other posts you have stated that your heating element is 3.6  kW. Either one of the statements is incorrect or both are. Therefore, what is your point? I don't have a point.
> Are you confused by the standard measure of electricity consumption normally defined for an appliance! Hopefully I am not confused by the difference between power and energy. The standard measure of electricity consumption marked on appliances is the maximum rate  of energy consumption of the appliance. To workout how much energy is  consumed you also need to know the period of time that the appliance is  consuming energy. (simple resistance load).

  (For the pedants. When I say consumed I mean converted. The electrical energy is converted to heat energy)

----------


## chrisp

> NO,No,no! I have a 3600W element.  Over a quarter it will need on average 4000W per day,  how do I better explain it or are we being obtuse!

  Phil, 
We arent being obtuse - or we arent trying to be obtuse (although it might just come naturally to me!  :Smilie:  ). The problem is a confusion with the posted figures and the specifically the units being quoted. 
Can you post a picture of the rating plate of the HWS?

----------


## phild01

> Can you post a picture of the rating plate of the HWS?

  I don't need to post images of the rating plate.  Let's make this easy.  Look at Bedford's post at #18073 and click his link.  Look at the item and pretend it says 3.6 rather than 4.8.  That'd what I have....geeze!!
And by the way, *on a daily average* the tank will run that element for *just over one hour* before the thermostat cuts it. 
I reckon most people would pretty much understand my original comment.

----------


## chrisp

> I don't need to post images of the rating plate.  Let's make this easy.  Look at Bedford's post at #18073 and click his link.  Look at the item and pretend it says 3.6 rather than 4.8.  That'd what I have....geeze!!
> And by the way, *on a daily average* the tank will run that element for *just over one hour* before the thermostat cuts it. 
> I reckon most people would pretty much understand my original comment.

  With respect, I do understand the field very well and all the confusion has been generated by yourself and your sloppy numbers and units.  
I wish you all the best with it.

----------


## UseByDate

:2thumbsup:

----------


## Bros

> 360/90

  Should do something about that blood pressure.

----------


## PhilT2

> Should do something about that blood pressure.

  Maybe a bit of cryotherapy....

----------


## phild01

> With respect, I do understand the field very well and all the confusion has been generated by yourself and your sloppy numbers and units.

   Rubbish, you lot were deliberately being obtuse. The units were fine.  If I went for a trip to Brisbane, I wouldn't say it is 100kmh or 890kmh. I'd say I need to go 890km.

----------


## chrisp

> What I wrote was that the HWS needs around 4KW a day ie the tank on average will need around 4000W for the whole day.

  A Watt is a Joule per second. It is the rate of energy flow. Your comment of 4kW a day translates to 4000 Joules per second per day.    

> The units were fine.  If I went for a trip to Brisbane, I wouldn't say it is 100kmh or 890kmh. I'd say I need to go 890km.

  But you did exactly that - see the first quote!

----------


## phild01

> A Watt is a Joule per second. It is the rate of energy flow. Your comment of ‘4kW a day’ translates to 4000 Joules per second per day. 
> But you did exactly that - see the first quote!

  Instead of of labouring a point that is on your mind, just say what is your point.  _You do know what I am talking about_ so just state the way of expression if you know it is wrong, instead of carrying on in a confused state. As it is people readily relate better to energy consumed expressed in 'watts'.

----------


## chrisp

Phil, 
If I knew, I (and others) wouldn’t keep asking. 
At some point, you said that you run out of hot water using a 250 lt HWS. Then you said something about 4000W on average a day. And then it’s 4kWh (which is a sensible unit, but the quantity doesn’t match the running out of water comment. It’s about 45 lt of hot water). The element was 4000W then 3600W (which isn’t a matter on any real contention), then we get “360/90” - and you accuse me (and others) of being obtuse!

----------


## phild01

From the start I did not mention KWh until you guys started.

----------


## UseByDate

> From the start I did not mention KWh until you guys started.

  If you had we would not be confused. We would have even excused the upper case K.  :Smilie:

----------


## UseByDate

> Should do something about that blood pressure.

   :Happydance:

----------


## phild01

> If you had we would not be confused.

   #18057  

> (It will need a minimum of around 4KW a day.

    

> We would have even excused the upper case K.

  Oh well, at least I am not the only one: Glossary:Kilowatt hours (KWh) - Statistics Explained

----------


## UseByDate

> #18057    
> Oh well, at least I am not the only one: Glossary:Kilowatt hours (KWh) - Statistics Explained

  You are confusing kWh with kW.
kWh = energy
kW = power
The upper case K used as a prefix for 1000 is not usually used because it can be confused with the unit of temperature K (kelvin) within the SI measurement system. It is not uncommon to get it wrong.  https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html

----------


## DavoSyd

> You are confusing kWh with kW.

  this guy's entire site is useful, but he sets it out like this:   

> *Why is the difference between Energy and Power important?*  It is very common for people to mistakenly interchange the terms energy and power as if there is no difference. Most people do it all the time without noticing. It drives electrical geeks like me up the wall. Especially when I read it in national newspapers and books!  For example: If someone is talking about their electricity usage and says:  *“I used 8 kW yesterday” * They probably mean that they used 8 units of electrical energy yesterday, In which case they should have said  _“I used 8 kWh yesterday” _ Yeah, yeah I know what you are thinking: Who cares?  Well it is actually quite important if you are buying a solar system. If someone says they need a solar power system to produce 8 kW, they might end up being quoted an 8 kW solar power system. Which will cost about $10,000 at today’s prices and produce about 32 kWh per day.  If, what they actually meant was that they need one to cover an energy usage of 8 kWh per day, then they really need a 2 kW solar system which costs about $3,000 at the time of writing!  So please don’t confuse kW and kWh. If you do you may end up with a solar system that is completely the wrong size!

  https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/...he-difference/

----------


## John2b

Back onto the recent topic over baseload and integrating renewables, it is quite clear in the live data for the National Energy Market that gas and hydro are easily accomodating the variations in wind and solar, that electricity generation from coal in both its lessor and greater damaging versions is doing quite well, and that the energy system is not at risk from malfunction due to renewable's intermittency.  https://opennem.org.au/#/widget/small

----------


## John2b

If you are not alarmed that the planet is experiencing record high temperatures globally (with some very small areas of exception) during a neutral ENSO then you should probably consider emergency psychoanalysis. And no exceptions for personal views - everyone can have their own opinion but not their own facts. Earth is warming about 170 times faster than any previous period.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.95f6b5dce03f  https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...lasting-longer

----------


## DavoSyd

It's just sun cycles John  
/s

----------


## Uncle Bob



----------


## John2b

> It's just sun cycles John

  denial comes in son cycles too

----------


## John2b

> *sounds of exasperation*

  Ignoring the bloody obvious is a finely honed skill of ideologically driven deniers. Witness this thread - LOL.

----------


## phild01

I couldn't watch all of that video as it was more to do with advertising his car buyer's website.  But I'd be interested in the feasibility of what it was about.  Large scaling apparently means it can work but I wouldn't know until I understand the input/output energy ratio and the capturing of the pollutants.  I am all for hydrogen and wonder why we don't have solar farms producing it...must be missing something.

----------


## phild01

> Ignoring the bloody obvious is a finely honed skill of ideologically driven deniers. Witness this thread - LOL.

  John, reckon you need to give the 'denier's label' attack a rest.  I don't think it helps your cause.

----------


## Marc

*Al Gores global warming vision proves more mirage than material*  Al Gore predicted a dangerous climate tipping point in his 2007 book Assault on Reason.The Austral12:00AM February 1, 2018 *ADAM CREIGHTON*   
Economics Correspondent
Sydney  @Adam_Creighton     Al Gores vision of a dangerous @climate tipping point, foreshadowed in his 2007 book _Assault on Reason, has failed to materialise, according to a top American business professor who a decade ago challenged the former US vice- president to bet on how global @ave@rage temperature would change._  _Mr Gores staff said he did not take bets, but a decade on Scott Armstrong, a business professor at the Wharton Business School, has concluded that global temperature deviations since 2007 had easily fallen within the natural level of variation, and no change was the most accurate way to describe global weather patterns over the past decade._ _When you lack scientific evidence, the primary way to keep global warming alive is to avoid having a testable hypothesis, Professor Armstrong said, mocking how some observers had touted the extremely cold weather that occurred in January (in the northern hemisphere) as another piece of evidence of global warming._ _The UNs 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected warming of 3C every century, which prompted governments to introduce taxes and regulations to curb CO2 emissions._ _Professor Armstrong said he had seen no dangerous long-term trends in temperature data and, in any case, like most people, he would prefer temperatures a little warmer. A few years ago, people in the US were asked how much tax they would be willing to pay on gasoline to completely eliminate dangerous global warming  the amount was about a dollar._ __ _Professor Armstrong and his academic colleague Kesten Green at the University of South Australia took Mr Gores tipping point scenario, charitably, to be the business as usual forecast from the UNs 2001 panel on climate change, which had anticipated a 0.3C increase in average global temperature every decade._ _The bet was monitored on theclimatebet.com site using global temperature data from University of Alabama researchers._ _Global temperatures have @always varied on all timescales and Professor Armstrong was not highly confident that he would win a 10-year bet when temperatures had commonly drifted up or down by 0.3C over 10-year periods in the past, Dr Green said._ _The monthly data showed the years from 2008 to 2014 were largely cooler than the 2007 average deviation, while 2016 and last year were warmer. Between AD16 and 1935, a no change forecast over periods of one to 100 years was much more accurate than a hypothesis of global cooling or warming, the academics said._ _The 2001 IPCC report said ...the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible._ _The fact the last two years  favoured the warming forecast is meaningless in the context of the swings in temperature that @occurred during the bet, and that will continue to occur in the @future, Dr Green said._ _Basing public policy on failed alarmist scenarios is irrational, and is causing enormous harm._

----------


## DavoSyd

Deniers denying denial? 
Wowzers!  
This thread DOES have everything!

----------


## chrisp

> I couldn't watch all of that video as it was more to do with advertising his car buyer's website.  But I'd be interested in the feasibility of what it was about.  Large scaling apparently means it can work but I wouldn't know until I understand the input/output energy ratio and the capturing of the pollutants.  I am all for hydrogen and wonder why we don't have solar farms producing it...must be missing something.

  I’ve been trying to work out how coal - which is mostly carbon - gets turned in to hydrogen. There is a good article at The Conversation that explains the process https://theconversation.com/explaine...ean-fuel-94911 
The hydrogen as fuel is an interesting idea that has been proposed for decades. I think that the main barrier has been the problem of how to store hydrogen. I thought that the idea of storing it as ammonia might take off.

----------


## John2b

> Deniers denying denial? 
> Wowzers!  
> This thread DOES have everything!

  You have to laugh when the master denier himself posts graphs in this thread that contradict his own line of argument! BTW who on Earth actually cares what Gore said anyway? 
Dr R Spenser, the denier who established a satellite recording system to disprove climate science has had to eat humble pie. Actual facts are not something that can be manipulated to suit an ideology, as he found out. Spenser's record supports the IPCC projections as predictably as Marc's posts ignore fact:

----------


## John2b

> I’ve been trying to work out how coal - which is mostly carbon - gets turned in to hydrogen.

  Yep - not much hydrogen in coal at ~ 4%. Perhaps that is one reason why gas company Linc Energy has been found guilty of causing serious environmental harm by its now outlawed process of underground coal gasification in Queensland's western Darling Downs - the return on investment is poor and the coincident furtive emissions significant. 
What a fraccing mess: Linc Energy guilty on all charges  https://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.a...l-cha/3382910/

----------


## John2b

> John, reckon you need to give the 'denier's label' attack a rest.  I don't think it helps your cause.

  There are heaps of people who read this thread but don't post in it (as of now views = 999,955). If I have a cause at all it is to call out the BS. I get plenty of feedback thanking me for that phild01.

----------


## phild01

Sydney today totally covered in back-burning smoke. You guys wouldn't be too happy with that!  I'm not either.

----------


## DavoSyd

I'm here for the 1,000,000th view... 
C'mon, we can do it!

----------


## DavoSyd

It's grey smoke here Phil? Not sure how close you are to Fiddletown, but if it's black smoke where you are, evacuate!

----------


## John2b

> ... I am all for hydrogen and wonder why we don't have solar farms producing it...must be missing something.

  In SA there are two renewable (wind & solar) energy to hydrogen projects underway, one at Crystal Brook where a 50MW wind and solar-fuelled electrolyser will deliver 20 tonnes of hydrogen a day, the other at Port Lincoln to produce 10 tonnes of hydrogen a day for a $35 million investment. Compare those to Abbotturnbull's $500 million brown coal pilot plant that is expected to produce just 4 (four!) tonnes of hydrogen gas in a YEAR! The LNC guvmint has the coal industry so far up its ass that it is coming out of their mouths!

----------


## phild01

> In SA there are two renewable (wind & solar) energy to hydrogen projects underway, one at Crystal Brook where a 50MW wind and solar-fuelled electrolyser will deliver 20 tonnes of hydrogen a day, the other at Port Lincoln to produce 10 tonnes of hydrogen a day for a $35 million investment. Compare those to Abbotturnbull's $500 million brown coal plant that is expected to produce just 4 (four!) tonnes of hydrogen gas per YEAR! The LNC guvmint has the coal industry so far up its ass that it is coming out of their mouths!

  Well that is interesting.  It was blatantly clear to me that solar could produce hydrogen solely by it's own power.  The thing would just sit there compressing the stuff ready for use.

----------


## John2b

> I'm here for the 1,000,000th view... 
> C'mon, we can do it!

    Replies: 18,115Views: 1,000,046

----------


## phild01

Well didn't get a bite from the back-burning post.  I often wonder how back-burning is viewed from what damage it contributes to the atmosphere. 
Anyway, have been following up on solar installations.  Seems AGL only want to give a minimum installation of 3.1 with oversized panels.  They use a Sonis inverter they have no problems with.  Another company uses Fronius inverters with smaller LG panels but costs $1000 more.  AGL say 11 cents per kWh to the grid and they leave my current tariffs as they currently are, so no time of day metering.  Not sure what the arrangement is with the other company, need to find this out.

----------


## Bedford

> I often wonder how back-burning is viewed from what damage it contributes to the atmosphere.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Southeast_Asian_haze    

> It is estimated that in 1997, peat and forest fires in Indonesia  released between 0.81 and 2.57 Gt of carbon; equivalent to 1340  percent of the amount released by global fossil fuel burning, and  greater than the carbon uptake of the world's biosphere. These fires may  be responsible for the acceleration in the increase in carbon dioxide  levels since 1998.[61][62] More than 100 peat fires in Kalimantan and East Sumatra have continued to burn since 1997; each year, these peat fires ignite new forest fires above the ground.

  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat#Peat_fires

----------


## Bros

> They use a Sonis inverter they have no problems with.

  Have you got that right as I seen no such inverter

----------


## phild01

> Have you got that right as I seen no such inverter

  oops, should be Solis.

----------


## phild01

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Southeast_Asian_haze     
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat#Peat_fires

  I reckon we wouldn't be doing these intensive back-burns if the greenies didn't prohibit the removal of trees within the unreasonable distances of the houses we live in.  Where I am it is prescribed at 3m and the council couldn't care much about public safety or losses.
Less burning, cleaner air.

----------


## Bedford

It's not just Back-burning but also bush fires. 
There is still peat burning in western Vic, Peat fires still burning at Lake Bullen Merri, Lake Elingamite and Lake Cobrico after two weeks 
(Note, to a depth of 7m) 
That link is two weeks old but some are still burning.

----------


## Bros

> oops, should be Solis.

  Had a look at it and it is pretty light on detail. 
 If you want to get detailed information you will need the WIFI unit and a connection to the inter to use the on line servers. You would also need to know if it is locked to AGL and the password if they use one.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Well didn't get a bite from the back-burning post.

  obvious troll was obvious...

----------


## phild01

> was obvious...

  .. yeah sure...yawn. 
Actually was to raise a point you guys ignore.

----------


## chrisp

> .. yeah sure...yawn. 
> Actually was to raise a point you guys ignore.

  What sort of ‘bite’ were you hoping for?

----------


## phild01

> What sort of ‘bite’ were you hoping for?

  I think there should be discussion about how you have considered the effects of man-made fires on your environmental concerns.  Am I to understand forest fires are contributing as much to that concern about CO2?  Seems to me back-burning also has similar impacts! 
ATM, think I'd rather be talking about solar installs.

----------


## chrisp

> I think there should be discussion about how you have considered the effects of man-made fires on your environmental concerns.  Am I to understand forest fires are contributing as much to that concern about CO2?  Seems to me back-burning also has similar impacts!

  I think it comes down to the time to replenish the trees and coal. If we are burning trees at about the same rate that they grow, then it is probably carbon neutral. However, your point stands if we are burning trees at a greater rate than they grow then we will be adding carbon to the atmosphere. 
The coal we are burning is hundreds of millions of years old so it’ll take quite a while for it be be replenished!   

> ATM, think I'd rather be talking about solar installs.

  PV is good. It may not instantly provide you with total energy independence but it certainly helps.

----------


## phild01

> PV is good. It may not instantly provide you with total energy independence but it certainly helps.

  Actually looking for info about the component quality.  I know that there has been a jump in panel performance and it seems AGL may be using the old junk and others are promoting the better stuff as premium when it is pretty much run of the mill for where we are now. So just trying to sort through the con and junk installations.

----------


## DavoSyd

https://www.solarquotes.com.au/learn...ar-energy.html

----------


## chrisp

> Actually looking for info about the component quality.  I know that there has been a jump in panel performance and it seems AGL may be using the old junk and others are promoting the better stuff as premium when it is pretty much run of the mill for where we are now. So just trying to sort through the con and junk installations.

  If it is any help, I went with LG panels and Enphase micro inverters. I went with LG on the strength of a Choice recommendation. There seemed to be few suppliers but the one I found near me also handled Enphase. I wasn’t particularly after Enphase but I was aware of the benefits of the micro inverters so I happily went with them. I would have also been happy with a SMA (Sunny Boy) inverter as I have used them before and I have access to the programming tools and know how to work out the password. 
I think that you are on the right track - check carefully as it can be hit and miss with quality.

----------


## phild01

The micro inverters are of interest but AGL doesn't provide them and  the other leading installer I spoke with didn't come back with that offering. I take little notice of what choice says but maybe the LG's are good considering they are where the production technology is now.
Interestingly these micro thingies do MPPT.

----------


## DavoSyd

There's some panel comparisons here;  https://www.solarquotes.com.au/panels/comparison/chart/

----------


## woodbe

Our system is relatively old now, installed early 2011 and faces west  :Smilie:  
ET Panels and SMA Inverter.  The SMA had a fault a year after install and had a software upgrade and zero issues since then. 
We chose the size system to eliminate the energy consumption of the house. Since then, we have improved the house efficiency and have added an EV electric car with no extra electricity consumption. 
Efficiency of the system doesn't seem to have any significant degrading over the years.

----------


## Bros

Hasn't this bloke got some free publicity with his cold winter, David Taylor

----------


## DavoSyd

who?

----------


## PhilT2

> Hasn't this bloke got some free publicity with his cold winter, David Taylor

  He's using sunspots as the basis for his predictions, not sure how good the science behind it is. The southern oscillation and the indian dipole are both neutral at the moment and we've just had a hot, dry month. So I think he might be wrong.
I use chicken entrails to make my predictions; they're no better than taking a guess but you do get to eat the rest of the chicken.

----------


## John2b

Of course David Taylor has made previous predictions that have proven to be true. So have I as has everyone else has ever made a prediction about anything, and we've all made incorrect ones too just like Mr Taylor. Love his map:

----------


## Bros

I wasn’t really supporting or not his prediction but the number of papers who picked up on his predictions is surprising.

----------


## DavoSyd

> I wasnt really supporting or not his prediction but the number of papers who picked up on his predictions is surprising.

  i googled him, and yeah, lots of 'coverage'... 
the _currency_ is eyeballs,  
the _bait_ is headlines, 
the term is "clickbait"... 
perfect example:  *The map EVERY Australian should see: With the country set to shiver ...*

----------


## DavoSyd

the most interesting 'person' in the media at the moment is Frydenberg...

----------


## Marc

> i googled him, and yeah, lots of 'coverage'... 
> the _currency_ is eyeballs,  
> the _bait_ is headlines, 
> the term is "clickbait"... 
> perfect example:  *The map EVERY Australian should see: With the country set to shiver ...*

  So just like Al Gore ... only he is making not much money ... oh and no Nobel prize either.  What was Al's Nobel prize for? The biggest number of failed predictions ever?

----------


## John2b

> So just like Al Gore ... only he is making not much money ... oh and no Nobel prize either.  What was Al's Nobel prize for? The biggest number of failed predictions ever?

  Gee Marc, in one post "making not much money" is virtuous, yet in many of your posts making lots of money is virtuous and should never be criticised. 
But not when it comes to a few particular people who according to you peddle misinformation. 
BTW makers of sugar drinks and processed food, for example, are orders of magnitude worse offenders of profiting from mistruths than the Gores and Flanneries of the world, if one accepts the proposition that Gore and Flannery are purveying mistruth. Given that both Gore and Flannery are simply repeating the condensed views of 100,000s of others who actually know what they are talking about, the later proposition is tenuous to say the least.

----------


## DavoSyd

> So just like Al Gore ... only he is making not much money ... oh and no Nobel prize either.  What was Al's Nobel prize for? The biggest number of failed predictions ever?

  who cares about Al Gore?

----------


## Marc

> who cares about Al Gore?

   You all do. Everyone who pushes the CO2 is baaad mantra is parroting Al Gore. He is/was the spearhead marketeer for this gargantuan fraud and one of those who profits from it big time. 
Predictions are usually big business. Everyone tries to 'predict' something, be it in politics, economic markets, trends, religions or fashions, predictions are worth a fortune, when they actually eventually come to be. The only test for prophets is that they are right, the one thing that discredits prophecies and their authors is that they do not eventuate.   
Prophets can prolong their pretences using their popularity and lie their head off depending on the depth of their pockets but eventually they get unstuck. When they do, they become advisers to some party that likes to spend other peoples money, to the Vatican or the Russian mafia.  
John2b, your post deserves no answer.

----------


## woodbe

Marc, you can make any personal opinion you like, but you cannot deny the facts. 
1. My interest in climate change is on the basis of real science. 
2. Al Gore is not a climate scientist. 
Anyone  who actually spends time reading actual science does not have to accept  an opinion from a single scientist, and definitely doesn't have to  accept a non-scientist. If your opinion that anyone who accepts the  actual facts about climate science should accept a non scientist  opinion, then your opinion is 100% incorrect. 
You deny real climate science, that is your opinion, and is not based on real science.

----------


## DavoSyd

> You all do. Everyone who pushes the CO2 is baaad mantra is parroting Al Gore.

  Pardon? what allows you to draw that conclusion about me, or about any person? i was studying the impact of climate change at a tertiary level almost a decade before Al Gore released the "documentary" thing he did. 
it is sad that such terminally misinformed individuals like you exist Marc, but i guess without variability in our species - humanity would not have evolved to philosophise about its own failings?

----------


## Marc

*And those individual who built this contraptions at taxpayers expense and run them at taxpayers expense and rob them at every quarter with the energy bill also studied at tertiary level. Not necessarily a good thing*  :Biggrin: * 
Kaput!: German Wind Farms Set for Dismantling as Subsidies Dry Up*  November 14, 2017 by stopthesethings 10 Comments 
Claims that wind turbines run on the smell of an oily rag and last for 25 years are a proven nonsense.
What wind worshippers tend to forget is that these things have a useful (that is to say economic) lifespan of around 12 years.
Subsidies are what built them. Subsidies are what run them. So, when the subsidies run out, it isnt long before the only remaining force at work is rust.
No country went harder or faster than Germany, when it came to spearing wind turbines and splaying solar panels as far as the eye can see.
The cost for German households and businesses, in terms of rocketing power prices, has been colossal and the effect on its grid is both costly and chaotic (a point picked up in the second piece in todays post).
But first, heres what happens when the subsidy plug gets pulled. *German Wind Farms to be Terminated as Subsidies Run Out*
GWPF
DPA/ZDF
31 October 2017
Wind power is the most important component of Germanys green energy transition. The end of subsides for older turbines, however, threatens countless wind farms. By 2023, more than a quarter of Germanys onshore wind farms may be gone.
Several thousand wind turbines in Germany are likely to be closed down in the next decade because they will no longer receive any subsidies. If electricity prices do not rise over the next decade, only a few plants will survive on the market without subsidies, says an analysis by the Berlin-based consulting firm Energy Brainpool. This assessment is shared by most professionals. In any case, by 2020, the shutdown of existing facilities is to be expected to a greater or lesser extent, an article by several economists of the Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research in Leipzig concludes.
The sticking point is the electricity price of 2021, which nobody knows today. Older wind turbines who have been running for 20 years or more will lose their subsidies under the Renewable Energy Act (EEG), but not their operating permit. They could go on generating power, if they would be profitable. Like all older technology, after 20 years of wear and tear, wind turbines are prone to repairs and are more maintenance-intensive than new products. Operating costs are higher too. The current electricity price of around three cents per kilowatt hour would not be enough to keep wind farms running  with perhaps a few exceptions in particularly good locations.
By 2021 alone, 5,700 wind turbines with a capacity of 4,500 megawatts will be closed down. In the following years, 2,000 to 3,000 megawatts each will be decommissioned. The German Wind Energy Association estimates that by 2023 around 14,000 megawatts of installed capacity will be gone. That would be more than a quarter of the currently installed onshore wind power capacity which would be eliminated.
The planned expansion corridor for onshore wind energy envisages that 2,900 megawatts of power will be installed in 2020 and in subsequent years. But thats gross, not net. Decommissioned and dismantled facilities are not considered. In light of the current situation, more wind capacity would be decommissioned than new capacity added. Onshore wind energy would shrink, not grow. Full story in German _GWPF_

----------


## Marc

And for the tertiary educated soya chino society ( who naively think they are the only one), a touch of reality about how the rest of the world plans to face the growing demand for electrical power. 
Australia will face the growing demand for energy with compost bins, Eveready batteries, hobby panels and paying Chinese companies to put up useless wind farms at astronomical cost. They love it. They suck subsidies from Canberra and buy Lamborghini for their kids who come to "study" here. 
Meantime the rest of the world: *Forget Paris: 1600 New Coal Power Plants Built Around The World*charles the moderator / July 3, 2017 From the NYT *1,600 new coal-fired power plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries.* When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year, even as President Trump vowed to “bring back coal” in America, the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing’s new role as a leader in the fight against climate change. But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade. These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries. Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent. The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Electricity generated from fossil fuels like coal is the biggest single contributor globally to the rise in carbon emissions, which scientists agree is causing the Earth’s temperatures to rise. “Even today, new countries are being brought into the cycle of coal dependency,” said Heffa Schücking, the director of Urgewald. The United States may also be back in the game. On Thursday, Mr. Trump said he wanted to lift Obama-era restrictions on American financing for overseas coal projects as part of an energy policy focused on exports. “We have nearly 100 years’ worth of natural gas and more than 250 years’ worth of clean, beautiful coal,” he said. “We will be dominant. We will export American energy all over the world, all around the globe.” hat tip\The Global Warming Policy Foundation

----------


## woodbe

That's what happens reading from the twirps like the GWPF. Lies and hiding the true information.  *Wikipedia info:*  *Wind power in Germany* is a growing industry. The installed capacity was 55.6 gigawatt  (GW) at the end of 2017, with 5.2 GW from offshore installations. The  wind power share of the country's total electricity generation was  estimated at 9.3% in 2010,[1] 10.6% in 2011,[2] and 13.3% in 2015.[3]
 More than 26,772 wind turbines were located in the German federal area by year end 2015, and the country has plans for further expansion.[4][5] As of the end of 2015 Germany was the third largest producer of wind power in the world by installations, behind China and the USA.[6]   *Offshore wind power*Offshore wind energy also has great potential in Germany.[7]  Wind speed at sea is 70 to 100% higher than onshore and much more  constant. A new generation of 5 MW or larger wind turbines which are  capable of making full use of the potential of wind power at sea has  already been developed and prototypes are available. This makes it  possible to operate offshore wind farms in a cost-effective way once the  usual initial difficulties of new technologies have been overcome.[8]
 On 15 July 2009, the first offshore German windturbine completed  construction. This turbine is the first of a total of 12 wind turbines  for the alpha ventus offshore wind farm in the North Sea.[9]
 Following the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, Germany's federal government is working on a new plan for increasing renewable energy commercialization, with a particular focus on offshore wind farms.[10] Under the plan, large wind turbines  will be erected far away from the coastlines, where the wind blows more  consistently than it does on land, and where the enormous turbines  won't bother the inhabitants. The plan aims to decrease Germany's  dependence on energy derived from coal and nuclear power plants.[11] The German government wants to see 7.6 GW installed by 2020 and as much as 26 GW by 2030.[12]
 A major challenge will be the lack of sufficient network capacities  for transmitting the power generated in the North Sea to the large  industrial consumers in southern Germany.[13]
 In 2014, all in all 410 turbines with 1747 megawatts were added to  Germany's offshore windparks. Due to not yet finished grid-connections,  only turbines with combined 528.9 megawatts were added to the grid feed  at the end of 2014. Despite this, the gigawatt offshore windpower  barrier was reportedly breached by Germany around the end of 2014[14] During 2015 offshore windpower was tripled to over 3 gigawatts capacity, signalling the growing importance of this sector.[3]     *And the reason the wind turbines in the photo was removed:*   *Repowering*Repowering,  the replacement of first-generation wind turbines with modern  multi-megawatt machines, is occurring in Germany. Modern turbines make  better use of available wind energy and so more wind power can come from  the same area of land. Modern turbines also offer much better grid  integration since they use a connection method similar to conventional  power plants.[24][25]

----------


## PhilT2

A danish company Orsted, has won a contract to construct 551Mw of offshore wind in the north Sea, bringing to 1140Mw the total of new wind capacity Germany plans to build before 2024. Orsted is also exporting its technology to the US where some states on the east coast plan offshore wind farms in the Atlantic. https://www.bloomberg.com/press-rele...e-wind-auction

----------


## John2b

*Coals decade of stagnation*Global coal demand dropped for a second year in a row in 2016, approaching the previous record for two-year declines set in the early 1990s. Global demand for coal fell by 1.9% in 2016 to 5 357 Mtce, as lower gas prices, a surge in renewables and energy efficiency improvements put a major dent on coal consumption. Demand for coal has now dropped by 4.2% since 2014, almost matching the fall of 1990-1992 which was the largest two-year decline recorded since the IEA started compiling statistics more than 40 years ago. In 2016, rising coal use in India and other Asian countries was unable to offset large declines in the United States, China (where demand dropped for the third consecutive year) and in the United Kingdom (where demand dropped by more than 50%). In the United States, coals dominance in the power sector has been eroded by low gas prices; in China, coal demand has fallen due to lower use in the industrial and residential sectors linked to efforts to improve air quality; while in the United Kingdom a recently introduced carbon price floor has rung the death knell for coal use in power generation. Coals share in the global energy mix is forecast to decline from 27% in 2016 to 26% in 2022 on sluggish demand growth relative to other fuels. Growth through 2022 is concentrated in India, Southeast Asia and a few other countries in Asia. Coal demand declines in Europe, Canada, the United States and China, the largest coal consumer by far, and where we forecast a structural but slow decline with some fluctuations linked to short-term market requirements. As a result of these contrasting trends, global coal demand reaches 5 530 Mtce in 2022, which is only marginally higher than current levels, meaning that coal use all but stagnates for around a decade. Although coal-fired power generation increases by 1.2% per year in the period 2016-22, its share of the power mix falls to just below 36% by 2022, the lowest level since IEA statistics began.  https://www.iea.org/coal2017/

----------


## Marc

*Global thermal coal demand to outstrip supply, grow by 5% in 2018: Noble* Goa, India (Platts)--13 Feb 2018 434 am EST/934 GMT  
Powered by Asia's continuing demand, the global seaborne thermal coal market is expected to grow by around 48 million mt or 5% from 2017 to touch 974 million mt in 2018, trading house Noble Group said Tuesday. 
While the spike in demand will largely come from Asia, the market is contemplating the supply to be short by about 10 million mt, it added. 
"2018 will be another strong year for the coal market along with most other commodities," Rodrigo Echeverri, head of hard commodities analysis, Noble Resources International, said at the Coaltrans conference in Goa. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/a...ook-cba-2018-2 https://www.businessinsider.com.au/c...balance-2018-2 https://industry.gov.au/Office-of-th...ermal-Coal.pdf

----------


## Marc

*Strong global demand delivering more coal mining jobs for NSW*  March 20, 2018 NSW Mining - Latest News - NSW Mining The International Energy Agency (IEA) has once again forecast that world coal demand will rise, despite halving its outlook for growth in India. https://www.carbonbrief.org/iea-worl...g-growth-india

----------


## Marc

Why have a group of people pushed so hard to manufacture the CO2 boogyman ?
Look at the reserves of coal ... we have coal to produce cheap electricity for another 1000 years and the reserves are in just 10 countries. Who wouldn't want to break such oligopoly at all cost? But how? Only a religious concept that would move the populace to tremble in their ignorance and disdain for the big end of town can do it. The Vatican did it in the middle ages, a few clever people did it just now. 
 And the mercenary politicians always looking for the moronic voter followed. 
Then and now the sycophantic claque chanted along. 
The problem the global warming fraudsters face however is that the catastrophic heating is not happening. That is the one thing that they can not manufacture. They can falsify data, place gauges on top of heating sources, twist their hands and cry in front of the cameras, give banners to kids and sing kumbaya as long as they want ... the climate is not playing along with the fraud. 
Eventually a new source of energy will be found. Sure. There will be many attempts are monopolising it, regulate it, make massive profits from it, decuplicate it's price to keep the populace at bay, who knows. We will probably not see it but to predict human behaviour is easy, just look back.  
Or read this thread and wonder at the immensity of human stupidity.

----------


## woodbe

> Eventually a new source of energy will be found. Sure. There will be many attempts are monopolising it, regulate it, make massive profits from it, decuplicate it's price to keep the populace at bay, who knows. We will probably not see it but to predict human behaviour is easy, just look back.

  A couple of responses. 
First, renewable energy production is rising faster than coal. Renewable energy is not monopolising energy supply like the coal industry is and has for centuries. People have renewable energy devices bought by themselves in their own home that reduces or eliminates the import of coal power in their home. 
And wind power is a major factor around the world to reduce the consumption of coal power. Not owned by a monopoly like the coal system. 
If all the renewable energy was eliminated the use of coal would way enormous and way more damage to the world. 
Lastly, the creation of coal was about 300 million years ago, but its consumption is within a couple of hundred years. That's like eating all the food in your kitchen with no other food available. Ridiculous to destroy the assets and tip the world into terrible climate on the way. 
Of course, someone who takes no interest in real science but just reads fake news and believes it, will agree with Marc.

----------


## phild01

> Ridiculous to destroy the assets and tip the world into terrible climate on the way.

  How is it an asset if we aren't going to use it?

----------


## woodbe

> How is it an asset if we aren't going to use it?

  Do you understand what an asset is?

----------


## phild01

> Do you understand what an asset is?

   Gee, I think so!  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset#Formal_definition An asset is a resource controlled by the entity as a result of past events and from which future economic benefits are expected to flow to the entity[  https://www.accountingcoach.com/terms/A/assets Things that are resources owned by a company and which have future economic value that can be measured and can be expressed in dollars.  https://thelawdictionary.org/asset-2/ A financial contract or physical object with value that is owned by an individual, company, or sovereign, which can be used to generate additional value or provide LIQUIDITY.

----------


## woodbe

> Gee, I think so!

  Reducing the consumption of the asset of coal, that asset will continue to remain as an asset for future use.

----------


## phild01

> Reducing the consumption of the asset of coal, that asset will continue to remain as an asset for future use.

  It follows that every imaginable thing, a thought or anything tangible is an asset. So nothing escapes the meaning of an asset and now we have diminished it's meaning.  I consider in the real world, your use of the word is a twist. 
And the future use of coal is what, if we no longer burn it!  Maybe make diamonds.

----------


## UseByDate

> A danish company Orsted, has won a contract to construct 551Mw of offshore wind in the north Sea, bringing to 1140Mw the total of new wind capacity Germany plans to build before 2024. Orsted is also exporting its technology to the US where some states on the west coast plan offshore wind farms in the Atlantic. https://www.bloomberg.com/press-rele...e-wind-auction

  Why? It is a long way from the west coast of America to the Atlantic. Would it not be more economic to build the wind farms in the Pacific?

----------


## woodbe

> And the future use of coal is what, if we no longer burn it!  Maybe make diamonds.

  The planet will have to continue to slowly burn coal for a long time yet. Over time, there will be other ideas in the use of coal which is primarily carbon with other minor elements. I'm sure the scientists will have ideas of using coal without destroying the environment by burning it.

----------


## PhilT2

> Reducing the consumption of the asset of coal, that asset will continue to remain as an asset for future use.

  One of the concerns of coal companies is that their reserves may become "stranded assets", whether this term applies to places like the Adani mine in Qld I'm not sure. Economists like Prof Quiggen at UQ estimate that the price for thermal coal needs to be about $100/ton for the galilee basin coal to be viable. That's not expected to happen anytime soon so about four or five "planned start" dates for Adani have passed and banks remain reluctant to provide finance.

----------


## woodbe

Absolutely. The burning of coal is reaching toward the end of the process. There are plenty of reasons why coal burning is being challenged by new methods of generating electricity.  
The coal will be definitely "stranded assets" for _burning_ coal, but in the future there will be different uses for coal.

----------


## woodbe

> perhaps you mean “maybe” at a stretch!

  There are people in the world who think negative, others think positive.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...ure-out-of-it/

----------


## johnc

> It follows that every imaginable thing, a thought or anything tangible is an asset. So nothing escapes the meaning of an asset and now we have diminished it's meaning.  I consider in the real world, your use of the word is a twist. 
> And the future use of coal is what, if we no longer burn it!  Maybe make diamonds.

  So is it a current asset, something you intend to use soon, a fixed asset, something you utilize but don't necessarily destroy in the process, or an intangible asset, something you can't really get your hands on. Quite frankly this is a @@@@@@@@ argument. Coal is a resource and not using it doesn't mean it is either an asset or no longer an asset. It is sitting on the shelf and may well be used in the future, its value may shift but it remains an asset. You don't have to dig everything up today, it can be left for future generations you know, it would be nice to think we can actually work towards a planet that has closed loops because our current destruction of easily available resources will eventually mean the economics of closed loops will out way the current dig and dump methods.

----------


## phild01

> Quite frankly this is a @@@@@@@@ argument.

  Okay your opinion, but it's extending the meaning as being an assumed asset for something that hasn't happened.  For me an asset has value that can be liquidated in a moment of choosing.

----------


## John2b

> *Global thermal coal demand to outstrip supply, grow by 5% in 2018: Noble*

  And from a nearby planet just a few months earlier: 
"The global coal market is forecast to see oversupply of 16 million tonnes this year, Noble Resources chief coal analyst Rodrigo Echeverri said on Monday.
“Those (producers) who are going to expand into the second-half of this year are going to have to face price pressure,” Echeverri told the Coaltrans Asia conference in Bali.
“The producers are now making money, so it’s in the hands of the producers what they do with that money. To go and invest in their own production and expand it - that’s actually not a very good idea for the market.” 
Rather than decline, the price actually doubled in the period of Noble's forecast. Let's hope Rodrigo gets a better donkey to try and pin a tail on this time, or at least slips his blindfold off for a moment.

----------


## John2b

Coal comes in many grades. Most of the industrialised world has already depleted their high grade, low sulphur reserves, and indeed most of their anthracite. In the USA, the tonnage of coal mined peaked in 2008, but the _energy_ content of coal mined peaked a decade earlier in 1998. By 2012, the energy content of coal mined in the US had declined to 86% of its 1998 peak. 
Lignite is such a poor source of energy that it has to be burned where it is mined to be economically viable. Global coal consumption fell by 53 million tonnes of oil equivalent  (-1.7%) and global production by a whopping 231 mtoe (-6.2%), with US production registering a second consecutive substantial fall (-19.0%, -85 mtoe). A rise in world tonnage of coal mined isn't going to reverse the existing decline in world energy generation from coal. And as the price of other energy sources continue to tumble dramatically, it remains to seen whether coal in any form will be able to compete as a thermal energy source in the medium to long term. 
And none of the above has anything to do with climate, politics, dogma or religion.

----------


## Marc

John2b ... what a rubbish argument. We all know that we are using coal. the more we use the more it reduces. if eventually coal becomes scarce or too expensive to extract ... a very long time away ... the price will rise until it become uneconomical. By then there will be a substitute or a new way to create energy. 
But that is besides the point. My point is that the market for coal far from reducing is increasing and will increase even more when the political suicide mission that was betting for wind will become political poison due to the astronomical cost to consumer. 
Coal is here to stay and the proof is in the number of coal fired power stations that are planed to be built or in the process. The fraud that CO2 is "pollution" will slowly be swept under the carpet. The word "emissions" will be relegated to the place it belongs, the toilet.

----------


## johnc

> Okay your opinion, but it's extending the meaning as being an assumed asset for something that hasn't happened.  For me an asset has value that can be liquidated in a moment of choosing.

  Think of it in reverse, an asset remains an asset regardless of an ability to liquidate it in an instant. If it isn't easily sold it becomes an illiquid asset and its value most likely fall in the short term. Current assets are usually something you consume or sell with-in twelve months, a long term asset such as land is something that lasts over a longer period and may not be consumed at all.

----------


## DavoSyd

> My point is that the market for coal is increasing and will increase even more when the political suicide mission that was betting for wind will become political poison.

  so why is it taking so long for voters to realise wind is not the answer?  
can't the pro-coal lobby put forth a convincing ripost?  
what is preventing the pro-emissions politicians from cementing the voters minds?  and how long will it take to convince voters that coal is indeed the answer? 
the problem might be that voters are buying into the "_it's another record warmest year on record_" reports that the perennial clickbaiters are pushing out?  
how must the pro-coal lobby combat the terminally misinformed voters?  *Majority of Australians support phasing out coal power by 2030, survey finds https://www.theguardian.com/australi...0-survey-finds*

----------


## John2b

It is not an argument but a _fact_* that despite the tonnage of mined coal going up the net energy content of mined coal has been going down. *Perhaps _fact_​ is a concept you are not familiar with Marc.

----------


## Marc

My dearest Davo, the answer in relation to voters may not be palatable, but may be my brother's usual say in this matters may be fitting ... it goes like this: 
"Eat shitt ... millions of flies can not be wrong"  
As for those who like to strain the gnat of the definition of an asset ... and swallow the camel of CO2 is "pollution" ... an asset unless it can be sold, produces money or is otherwise useful for a valuable purpose, is no longer an asset. perhaps you may want to check the meaning of obsolescence.

----------


## chrisp

> We all know that we are using coal. the more we use the more it reduces. if eventually coal becomes scarce or too expensive to extract ... a very long time away ... the price will rise until it become uneconomical. By then there will be a substitute or a new way to create energy.

  Marc, 
The quoted part of your post above is just about right. The only thing that you have wrong is the timing. We have already reached the point where coal isn’t worth mining (or soon will) and we already have ‘a new way to create energy’.

----------


## Marc

Well aware of that Chris but the difficulty facing the coal mining industry is not that coal has become scarce and needing expensive operations to extract. Far from it. Coal mining has been poisoned by political interest powerful enough to sink one cheap energy source that is still cheap and plentiful, in favour of an expensive, requiring imported and highly polluting machines. A form of energy that is unreliable and requires massive subsidies to be even viable. It is a con operation at a vast scale. But don't worry, it is getting unstuck and the con getting exposed. Political fraud has a large inertia because no one wants to say we were wrong. If you don't believe this check "multiculturalism". Who is game to say we got it wrong? Not much different with this fraud. It is easier to continue toe the party line.

----------


## phild01

> and we already have ‘a new way to create energy’.

   :Confused:

----------


## chrisp

> 

  ... like the PV system you are considering.

----------


## John2b

> ... like the PV system you are considering.

  i think you mean 'harvest' not 'create'.

----------


## phild01

> ... like the PV system you are considering.

  Install on Tuesday but it isn't a new way to create energy at all, and doesn't negate our need for coal.

----------


## chrisp

> Install on Tuesday but it isn't a new way to create energy at all, and doesn't negate our need for coal.

  Were you also considering a micro-coal-powered generator in your backyard as well?  :Smilie:  
We wouldn’t even consider a micro-coal system, yet we’d happily consider PV.  
There are many more generation technologies available other than coal and PV. It’s not surprising that banks won’t back coal mining, nor is the power industry willing to built a new coal powered power station in Australia unless the government provides some form of subsidies. We passed that economic point many years ago. 
Then add AGW and coal is well and truely on the way out.

----------


## chrisp

> i think you mean 'harvest' not 'create'.

  I stand corrected, but I was quoting Marc.

----------


## phild01

> Were you also considering a micro-coal-powered generator in your backyard as well?

  hmmm!    

> There are many more generation technologies available other than coal and PV.

  As effective and practical as coal or gas, I don't think so!

----------


## chrisp

> As effective and practical as coal or gas, I don't think so!

  So, you see no possibility of viable alternatives to coal or gas?

----------


## phild01

> So, you see no possibility of viable alternatives to coal or gas?

  Only when hydrogen can be produced and managed in an economical way.
Don't ignore the heavy commercial and industry use of power.  The solution has to fit all, not just the home use.

----------


## Marc

Interesting how much easier is to get hung up on words and skip the facts of the fraud you are defending.
There is no difference in the two expressions "create energy" or "generate energy" since to generate means to create and vice versa. 
So ... to accept 'generate energy' as meaning to transform fuel into electricity and to say that create energy is wrong, is rather puerile. 
I am well aware that anyone with basic high school physics knows that the general consensus is, that energy can not be created therefore your quick reaction to my 'create energy' even when it is not grammatically incorrect.   
However, conservation laws contradict in part quantum mechanics, and have no meaning whatsoever in the holographic universe, so those little insular high school concepts mean in reality very little. 
Reality ... being the key word. 
And in this particular reality the best way to create energy is by building a coal fired generator on top of a coal mine.

----------


## John2b

> Interesting how much easier is to get hung up on words and skip the facts of the fraud you are defending.

  BTW how's the sea level at the family shack going, Marc - still no rise discernible? That proves your point that global warming is a fraud, doesn't it!

----------


## John2b

> Only when hydrogen can be produced and managed in an economical way.
> Don't ignore the heavy commercial and industry use of power.  The solution has to fit all, not just the home use.

  One solution does not have to fit all, any more than it does now or ever has. If the $trillions that have been spent to protect existing monopoly energy suppliers had been spent instead on development of alternative energy models, there would not be the problem now that needs solving. That was obvious way back in the the 1970s to me, and probably earlier to people older than me.

----------


## phild01

> Er, no - one solution does not have to fit all, any more than it does now or ever has.

  Are you going to go and blow the turbine when nothing else is doing it's job on a wet still day. Sorry guys, the sun isn't shining, the wind isn't blowing, the batteries are cactus, they stopped mining coal and the gas company is holding us all to ransom...let's continue the work schedule sometime whenever. 
Things aren't government owned anymore...us!  We are at the mercy of complacent money rich CEO's. 
Call 000.

----------


## John2b

> I stand corrected, but I was quoting Marc.

  Doh! - Marc creates his own facts that don't conform to the laws of physics. A corollary note is that those who quote Marc are quite often factually wrong.

----------


## Marc

> So, you see no possibility of viable alternatives to coal or gas?

  Sure thing. Nuclear, Hydro and Geothermal to start with. 
Would love for someone to find a cheap way to split H2 from O, it would be worth even if it is just to see the greens die from a bile overdose. 
John2b ... you can not stoop any lower if you dived in a septic tank to retrieve a 20c coin.

----------


## John2b

> ...Call 000.

  Or one might just take responsibility for ones own life. Plenty of power at our place every time the local electricity network goes down as it did today for several hours. We don't depend on any centrally controlled/distributed utilities anymore, not the least because the supply infrastructures have all been sold to (or modelled on) "for profit" organisations. We chose not to be "fodder for the machine" (aka victims of the current economic system) and save money in the process. Money not spent is money we don't have to work to earn BTW. YMMV.

----------


## John2b

> John2b ... you can not stoop any lower if you dived in a septic tank to retrieve a 20c coin.

  Sorry, I obviously should not have brought up something you said.

----------


## woodbe

> Are you going to go and blow the turbine when  nothing else is doing it's job on a wet still day. Sorry guys, the sun  isn't shining, the wind isn't blowing, the batteries are cactus, they  stopped mining coal and the gas company is holding us all to  ransom...let's continue the work schedule sometime whenever.

  Nice opinion, but not the facts. 
Every single power production and transport can fail. Even Coal and Gas.  
Mining  of coal and gas will slowly die off over time and will be replaced over  that time with reliable and low pollution options.

----------


## phild01

> Plenty of power at our place every time the local electricity network goes down as it did today for several hours.

  Add up the cost of achieving that outcome and equate it against the cost had you not have done it.  Include the costs for upgrades and replacement as things need doing to make it an honest calculation.  Also factor in the extra you need to pay for goods and services as provider costs increase for them.

----------


## phild01

> Nice opinion, but not the facts. 
> Every single power production and transport can fail. Even Coal and Gas.

  Really, through my entire life, I don't recall ever being let down by a coal fired power station.... maybe it's something that escapes my memory!
 Possums are what impact my supply.

----------


## johnc

> Really, through my entire life, I don't recall ever being let down by a coal fired power station.... maybe it's something that escapes my memory!
>  Possums are what impact my supply.

  Ah, selective memory, we have had brownouts and blackouts from failure of coal powered generators, it isn't earth shattering anything has a capacity to fail. Generally though the failures are caused by unexpected demand or mechanical failure the problem of course being the time taken to bring other generation on line. The more diverse and wide spread our generation capacity and the more battery capacity including the new Snowy Hydro development the more reliable our grid will become. The inter connectors have made a big difference as well. The fastest we now have is the SA battery, the slowest our thermal turbines in response times.

----------


## woodbe

> Really, through my entire life, I don't recall ever being let down by a coal fired power station.... maybe it's something that escapes my memory!
>  Possums are what impact my supply.

  Hang around, the coal stations are aged, have failed, and the government has sat on their hands for years. Plenty of coal stations around Australia has had issues. 
Better keep the possoms out of your solar system  :Smilie:  
Loy Yang: https://www.smh.com.au/environment/w...10-h0g9y4.html 
Eraring NSW: https://reneweconomy.com.au/intermit...-a-week-47037/ 
Frydenburg corrected about Coal fail stations: https://reneweconomy.com.au/frydenbe...failure-50351/

----------


## phild01

That SA battery pretty much is just one expensive capacitor that bridges the short time for a *real* power-horse to take effect.  As I say I don't recall being let down by a coal fired generator, the thing is, it is there when needed and it will work even if there is a delay due to a variety of whatever reasons.  So things in the past have served us well in effective delivery.  By the way, we have good coal in NSW and I have only ever seen nice steam coming out of them.

----------


## chrisp

> By the way, we have good coal in NSW and I have only ever seen nice steam coming out of them.

  I’d be most surprised if you could _see_ the CO2 that is being emitted. But just because it is invisible doesn’t mean that it isn’t there!

----------


## John2b

> Really, through my entire life, I don't recall ever being let down by a coal fired power station.... maybe it's something that escapes my memory!
>  Possums are what impact my supply.

  In one week in December four coal fired generators suddenly went off line: a 420MW unit at Milmerran in Queensland on Tuesday 12 December 2017, a 700MW unit at Mt Piper in NSW on Wednesday 13, a 560MW unit at Loy Yang A (unit 3) in Victoria on Thursday 14 and a 700MW unit at the Eraring coal fired power station in New South Wales on Monday 18. 
Victoria's brown coal-fired power stations had 16 major failures over the 2017/18 summer and are a huge liability for the National Electricity Market. Between January 15 and 21 when there was an average of one coal fired generator failure a day in Victoria. On the 18th of January Loy Yang B dropped off the market during a period of peak demand causing the wholesale price of electricity to rise to $13,000 per megawatt hour. 
The irony is that AEMO can predict with a large degree of accuracy any swings in output from wind and solar, but it can't predict unexpected outages from large thermal units, which is the type of failure that most often causes wide-scale system blackouts.

----------


## John2b

> That SA battery pretty much is just one expensive capacitor that bridges the short time for a *real* power-horse to take effect.

  The Hornsdale Power Reserve is capable of responding more rapidly to a contingency event than conventional synchronous generation. The battery is also significantly more accurate than conventional turbines in both frequency and demand response. Because of the batterys high performance capabilities AEMO currently uses the battery to provide Frequency Control Ancillary Services in all eight FCAS markets, to maximise power system security benefits at a lower cost than FCAS services from conventional synchronous generators. 
AEMO Report: Initial Operation of the Hornsdale Power Reserve Battery Energy Storage System, April 2018  http://energylive.aemo.com.au/Innova...B132EF9B0.ashx

----------


## John2b

> Add up the cost of achieving that outcome and equate it against the cost had you not have done it.  Include the costs for upgrades and replacement as things need doing to make it an honest calculation.  Also factor in the extra you need to pay for goods and services as provider costs increase for them.

  You've posted a pretty good summary of why we abandoned conventional utility supply chains - the lower cost (over multi-year timescales) and greater reliability of doing it ourselves, plus avoidance of consequential losses and future price hikes from utility providers. 
I had to laugh when the water utility banged on the door at our city home one day last December with several cartons of water because of a burst water main - I didn't know because we run on our own rainwater. And I laughed again at our rural property this April when crew from a fleet of network maintenance vehicles (on our property to service power lines that pass over it) apologised for the peninsula-wide loss of power - we didn't know because we are off-grid.

----------


## Bedford

> Or one might just take responsibility for ones own life. Plenty of power at our place every time the local electricity network goes down as it did today for several hours. We don't depend on any centrally controlled/distributed utilities anymore, not the least because the supply infrastructures have all been sold to (or modelled on) "for profit" organisations. We chose not to be "fodder for the machine" (aka victims of the current economic system) and save money in the process. Money not spent is money we don't have to work to earn BTW. YMMV.

  What is the location of your "place"?

----------


## John2b

> What is the location of your "place"?

  Rural SA.

----------


## phild01

> In one week in December four coal fired generators suddenly went off line: a 420MW unit at Milmerran in Queensland on Tuesday 12 December 2017, a 700MW unit at Mt Piper in NSW on Wednesday 13, a 560MW unit at Loy Yang A (unit 3) in Victoria on Thursday 14 and a 700MW unit at the Eraring coal fired power station in New South Wales on Monday 18. 
> Victoria's brown coal-fired power stations had 16 major failures over the 2017/18 summer and are a huge liability for the National Electricity Market. Between January 15 and 21 when there was an average of one coal fired generator failure a day in Victoria. On the 18th of January Loy Yang B dropped off the market during a period of peak demand causing the wholesale price of electricity to rise to $13,000 per megawatt hour. 
> The irony is that AEMO can predict with a large degree of accuracy any swings in output from wind and solar, but it can't predict unexpected outages from large thermal units, which is the type of failure that most often causes wide-scale system blackouts.

  Nothing there I ever noticed, even so you are quoting recent events probably due to the disruption that the new alternatives are injecting.

----------


## phild01

> You've posted a pretty good summary of why we abandoned conventional utility supply chains - the lower cost (over multi-year timescales) and greater reliability of doing it ourselves, plus avoidance of consequential losses and future price hikes from utility providers.

  Without knowing what you paid up front ???, you are trying to tell me that it is working out cheaper for you!
 I assume you have installed very expensive battery backup. And stress at the thought of each night-time watt consumed in those periods of overcast weather. 
If you are in a location of no rain and you are totally off-grid, then you would be one of the lucky few who could do that. But that ain't cheap to do.

----------


## phild01

> The Hornsdale Power Reserve is capable of responding more rapidly to a contingency event than conventional synchronous generation. The battery is also significantly more accurate than conventional turbines in both frequency and demand response. Because of the battery’s high performance capabilities AEMO currently uses the battery to provide Frequency Control Ancillary Services in all eight FCAS markets, to maximise power system security benefits at a lower cost than FCAS services from conventional synchronous generators. 
> AEMO Report: Initial Operation of the Hornsdale Power Reserve Battery Energy Storage System, April 2018  http://energylive.aemo.com.au/Innova...B132EF9B0.ashx

  huh!!??... all I see is a super expensive power bridge.

----------


## Bros

> If you are in a location of no rain and you are totally off-grid, then you would be one of the lucky few who could do that. But that ain't cheap to do.

  I don't know diesel generators are pretty well priced nowdays.

----------


## phild01

> I don't know diesel generators are pretty well priced nowdays.

  Yes but the fuel may not be! And it does counters the ideal being upheld here.

----------


## John2b

> Nothing there I ever noticed, even so you are quoting recent events probably due to the disruption that the new alternatives are injecting.

  The 20 coal fired power generation failures cited were all caused by either boilers splitting, turbine failures, coal dust fires, electrical switchboard meltdowns, overheating of plant and machinery, lack of cooling water and/or coal supply disruption. It takes quite a flight of fancy to attribute any of those to renewable generation.

----------


## John2b

> Yes but the fuel may not be! And it counters the ideal being upheld here.

  On what basis do you make that judgement?

----------


## John2b

> huh!!??... all I see is a super expensive power bridge.

   You either didn't read the Australian Energy Market Operator's report, or have a built in resistance to comprehending its conclusions.

----------


## phild01

> The 20 coal fired power generation failures cited were all caused by either boilers splitting, turbine failures, coal dust fires, electrical switchboard meltdowns, overheating of plant and machinery, lack of cooling water and/or coal supply disruption. It takes quite a flight of fancy to attribute any of those to renewable generation.

  Comes down to the economics of provision being compromised by freely obtained energy I guess.

----------


## phild01

> You either didn't read the Australian Energy Market Operator's report, or have a built in resistance to comprehending its conclusions.

  Not much interested in spin, the thing is expensive for what it achieves.

----------


## UseByDate

> I have only ever seen nice steam coming out of them.

  How? Steam is an invisible gas. You may have see water vapour but I would not know if it was nice or otherwise. :Smilie:

----------


## phild01

> On what basis do you make that judgement?

  Off-grid generators are a bit of a cheat. Your ideal would surely be not to use any fuel source that gives off CO2.  Using a personal generator would give off more than a centralised supply to everyone.

----------


## UseByDate

> Off-grid generators are a bit of a cheat. Your ideal would surely be not to use any fuel source that gives off CO2.  Using a personal generator would give off more than a centralised supply to everyone.

  CO2 neutral   https://www.motherearthnews.com/rene...r-zmaz81jazraw

----------


## DavoSyd

> My dearest Davo, the answer in relation to voters may not be palatable, but may be my brother's usual say in this matters may be fitting ... it goes like this: 
> "Eat shitt ... millions of flies can not be wrong"

  ironically, flies don't actually eat faeces Marc... 
but you can continue to make up whatever facts you want to suit your narrative  :Wink:

----------


## Bedford

> ironically, flies don't actually eat faeces Marc... 
> but you can continue to make up whatever facts you want to suit your narrative

   

> Two feces-eating insects are certain species of fly and the dung beetle.

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

> A female Oriental latrine fly

   
So who's gotta eat shitt now.............

----------


## DavoSyd

Wow, so you actually googled "do flies eat shitt?" 
Classic stuff right here!

----------


## John2b

> Not much interested in spin, the thing is expensive for what it achieves.

   How would you know if it is expensive for what it does when by your own admission you don't know/aren't interested in what it does?

----------


## John2b

> Off-grid generators are a bit of a cheat. Your ideal would surely be not to use any fuel source that gives off CO2.  Using a personal generator would give off more than a centralised supply to everyone.

  Who said we depend on fossil fuel for backup generation? False assumptions result in fallacious conclusions.

----------


## John2b

I didn't go off-grid for fun; it is all part of my retirement / financial security plan. It obviously grates the "it can't be done" brigade that other people are already doing it, successfully, economically and cleanly.

----------


## phild01

> I didn't go off-grid for fun; it is all part of my retirement / financial security plan. It obviously grates the "it can't be done" brigade that other people are already doing it, successfully, economically and cleanly.

  Hardly.

----------


## phild01

> Who said we depend on fossil fuel for backup generation? False assumptions result in fallacious conclusions.

  You are off grid, how do you do your backup!?

----------


## John2b

> You are off grid, how do you do your backup!?

   On a typical cloudy day we have a few kWh of excess energy and no need to back up. The battery has capacity for several days worth of energy for the household and guests, so even if the sun didn't rise one day, we still don't need backup generation.

----------


## phild01

> On a typical cloudy day we have a few kWh of excess energy and no need to back up. The battery has capacity for several days worth of energy for the household and guests, so even if the sun didn't rise one day, we still don't need backup generation.

  I doubt that would be the same for those who run the A/C through the night.

----------


## Bedford

> On a typical cloudy day we have a few kWh of excess energy and no need to back up. The battery has capacity for several days worth of energy for the household and guests, *so even if the sun didn't rise one day*, we still don't need backup generation.

  I suspect if the sun doesn't rise one day, it probably won't rise the day after either, or ever, so how are you going to charge the batteries? 
That's if you can find them in the dark...............

----------


## Bros

> I suspect if the sun doesn't rise one day, it probably won't rise the day after either, or ever, so how are you going to charge the batteries? 
> That's if you can find them in the dark...............

  Start the diesel

----------


## John2b

> I suspect if the sun doesn't rise one day, it probably won't rise the day after either...

   ...in which case I'll have more to worry about than charging batteries, as will everyone else. The point is that on cloudy days I still generate plenty of power. And on cloudy days in SA I am not going to need any air conditioning.

----------


## phild01

> And on cloudy days in SA I am not going to need any air conditioning.

  Plenty of cloudy days anywhere else where it's needed. So perhaps your solution won't work for most other people!

----------


## John2b

> Plenty of cloudy days anywhere else where it's needed. So perhaps your solution won't work for most other people!

  Our system is designed for our circumstances - doh! If we were living somewhere else, we'd design a system for that location instead! It would be just as viable and just as easy and just as economic. The first step for anyone to who wants free their dependence on expensive, centrally controlled energy is to renounce the "locally produced energy is impractical for my circumstances" myth. The second step is to understand that there are two sides to any energy equation: input and output. The size of one is related to the other. Having said that, there are five laptops, three desktops, two iPads and innumerable smart phones along with all the wireless related palaver to support the inhabitants here, plus all mod cons - three fridges/freezers, dishwasher, home theatre, etc, etc, yet we still have energy to "burn" on cloudy days. 
And how much did it cost??? Less than half what most people spend on a car these days.

----------


## phild01

> Our system is designed for our circumstances - doh! If we were living somewhere else, we'd design a system for that location instead! It would be just as viable and just as easy and just as economic. The first step for anyone to who wants free their dependence on expensive, centrally controlled energy is to renounce the "locally produced energy is impractical for my circumstances" myth. The second step is to understand that there are two sides to any energy equation: input and output. The size of one is related to the other. Having said that, there are five laptops, three desktops, two iPads and innumerable smart phones along with all the wireless related palaver to support the inhabitants here, plus all mod cons - three fridges/freezers, dishwasher, home theatre, etc, etc, yet we still have energy to "burn" on cloudy days. 
> And how much did it cost??? Less than half the amount of money most people spend on a car these days.

  You don't wish disclose how much this has cost all up, and purport it is a myth for people to think they can't free themselves from a centralised supply economically.  I think you are really dreaming. 
Sydney could have two weeks straight of total cloud cover, and Sydney has what, 20% of the population.  Yep I can just see all these houses existing on Solar panels and batteries running home theatres, 3 fridges, 10 computer devices, dishwasher and washing machine etc etc etc. Solar cost for 20 years, and batteries big enough to do it.  Would I be reasonably correct in saying $15,000 might be enough battery for an average user day capacity?  Multiply that by 14 straight cloudy days so $210,000 to cover that at say 15kWh per day.  Hang on, we need to be sure the panels can generate say 20kWh per day, oh no the greenies won't let us remove trees, which rules out plenty of people from having effective solar, but some might be 'lucky' with just partial shading and need to fork out extra for micro-inverters or optimisers.  Then what about those in units and those that have very limited roof space that doesn't point the right way.  Some are lucky to have reasonably good solar real estate, others won't.  And will these expensive environmentally unfriendly batteries go the distance!
I don't think it is a myth.  

> renounce the "locally produced energy is impractical for my circumstances" myth

----------


## Marc

The true dementia of this pie in the sky ideas is self evident when you read this sort of proposals as if they are given to the plebs from a higher moral ground ... take responsibility ... what moronic idiocy. With millions living in high rise, both working 9 to 5 to pay the mortgage and you have to listen to this idiots proposing to shitt in a bucket and charge a battery by pedal as the solution to a non existing problem.
Let me remind you that all this pathological hysteria is based on the fraud that CO2 is pollution. I say the greens and their retarded ideas are moral pollution of the worst kind.

----------


## phild01

Sydney and Melbourne, the most populous areas of Australia - Melbourne has half a year of overcast days (180) and Sydney has 134 days according to this account: https://www.theage.com.au/articles/2...174072344.html
So maybe I was wrong in saying each house might need 20kWh of Solar, let's make it a reasonable 40kWh.  Seems like a lot of solar panels to go off-grid.  Now think I am being ultra conservative for what so many families can typically use.  

> Our system is designed for our circumstances - doh! If we were living somewhere else, we'd design a system for that location instead! It would be just as viable and just as easy and just as economic. The first step for anyone to who wants free their dependence on expensive, centrally controlled energy is to renounce the "locally produced energy is impractical for my circumstances" myth. The second step is to understand that there are two sides to any energy equation: input and output. The size of one is related to the other. Having said that, there are five laptops, three desktops, two iPads and innumerable smart phones along with all the wireless related palaver to support the inhabitants here, plus all mod cons - three fridges/freezers, dishwasher, home theatre, etc, etc, yet we still have energy to "burn" on cloudy days.

  Your context does imply 'off-grid' for anyone.

----------


## Marc

It is typical of marginal pot smoking unemployable individuals to a) blame others for their own shortcoming and b) parrot their way of life as the one everyone else must adopt. What this people miss every time is that it is the rest of the country, that is 99% that work and pay taxes, that make the marginals way of life possible.

----------


## John2b

> Now think I am being ultra conservative for what so many families can typically use.

  Your post is yet another example of ignoring the consumption half of the equation. 
After installing our first solar system, a modest 1.5kW array, I wanted to ensure we got our financial outlay back. Over the years prior I thought we had been pretty efficient on energy having got our household consumption down from over 20kWh to around 12kWh per day averaged over the year, but I made it a mission to reduce it further. I got it down to below 4kWh per day averaged over the year and that was with me working from home. I have posted about what I did previously in this forum and we did not forego any of life's modern conveniences to achieve that level of consumption. 
This spurred me to consider offering a consulting service to others who might like to do the same. I spoke to a couple of other people advertising the service of energy system design and was dismayed to hear that in their experience typical Australians have zero interest in energy efficiency. All their clients wanted to know was how big a system they needed to have so they could continue to piss energy against the wall like they had been doing for years. 
With five adults here for the past fortnight using the dishwasher, washing machine, etc, and with no effort spent on energy efficiency measures (haven't been here long enough to have time to do any analysis), our consumption has been typically 7kWh per day. The 4.6kW PV array is typically generating around 10kWh on a sunless cloudy day. The Australian made Selectronic inverter can supply an intermittent 12kW load, meaning we can treat this house pretty much like any other. We have 46kWh of carbon/lead* battery storage. (*Activated carbon coating on the electrodes reduces sulfation and extends the battery life.) Lead batteries are relatively cheap, don't need expensive battery management and have an established recycling infrastructure - nearly all are recycled, and kept out of landfill waste. The system doesn't have wi-fi and I don't control it or look at it on my smartphone, rather it was designed to have the least number of breakable parts or subsystems. The cost of the system installed professionally by an accredited local business was $35,000, although this price does not include a backup generator because we don't have one incorporated into the system. The system was quite deliberately significantly over-specified for our projected consumption and I expect it will outlast us in this house, though of course it will require some maintenance. The first system on our city strata home has operated faultlessly for more than 6 years and paid back more than double its initial outlay.

----------


## DavoSyd

Apparently it's just passed 410...

----------


## John2b

> Apparently it's just passed 410...

  Judging from your post, in which you omitted to imply the increase in atmospheric CO2 was virtuous, you are just another marginal pot smoking unemployable individual who blames others for your own shortcoming and parrots your way of life as the one everyone else must adopt. Shame on you!

----------


## John2b

Nothing to see here, move along folks...

----------


## John2b

On this day in 2011, someone posted a time series purporting to show the world should be worried about global cooling.   
I thought it would be fun to see how it panned out using the same data set. Here it is: 
I'll leave it to the original poster to provide the appropriate response:

----------


## PhilT2

More on the Hornsdale Power Reserve and its impact on prices. https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-stun...battery-63917/

----------


## John2b

> More on the Hornsdale Power Reserve and its impact on prices. https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-stun...battery-63917/

  The stunning numbers behind success of Tesla big battery  
"Van Gendts calculations are just the latest in a series of assessments that show how the Tesla battery  despite being mocked by detractors for its small size compared to the overall grid  is having an impact on the market. 
Various estimates have put the cost savings to consumers from the FCAS market alone at around $35 million, just in the first four months of its operation. Thats a pretty good bang for the buck for the estimated $50 million investment by the South Australia government. South Australia is the only state that has experienced a decline in FCAS prices over the past few months.  The fact that the Tesla big battery has been able to puncture the FCAS pricing bubbles created by the gas cartel illustrates how even small additions to capacity  and new dispatchable technologies  can change the equations and market dynamics."

----------


## John2b

World May Hit 2 Degrees of Warming in 10-15 Years Thanks to Fracking 
The most recent climate data suggests that the world is on track to cross the two degrees of warming threshold set in the Paris accord in just 10 to 15 years, says Ingraffea in a 13-minute lecture titled “Shale Gas: The Technological Gamble That Should Not Have Been Taken,” which was posted online on April 4. 
That’s if American energy policy follows the track predicted by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which expects 1 million natural gas wells will be producing gas in the U.S. in 2050, up from roughly 100,000 today.

----------


## woodbe

*Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum*https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/05...m-dum-dum-dum/ 
Im sometimes puzzled by GWPF (the Global Warming Policy  Foundation). Do they think their readers are gullible idiots, or is the  GWPF itself that stupid? 
Case in point: One of their latest  makes a big deal about the fact that from February 2016 to February  2018 global temperature data from NASA showed the largest 2-year drop  (yes, drop!) in a century. Heres the data, with a red line showing the  trend and a blue line connecting the months Feb.2016 and Feb.2018 (just  so you know exactly what theyre talking about).    
 Its not so much that the GWPF is making a big deal out of one of the  fluctuations (while ignoring the trend); what they really seem intent on  is to whine about how the press isnt making a big deal out of it.  Unless youre blind or incredibly _stupid_, its so obvious this  event isnt newsworthy that claiming it should be is the kind of  evidence which makes climate deniers look like the fools they are.
  So why is GWPF doing this? Is their tribe really a bunch of idiotic suckers? Or are they just that dum dum dum dum dum?  
  A recent hearing held by the U.S. House of Representatives committee on  space, science, and technology, supports the former view. Particularly  dum dum dum dum dum were comments from Mo Brooks, congressman from  Alabama, who wants to blame sea level rise on rocks and dirt filling the oceans. If that strikes you as soooooooo stupid that you cant believe it, that you think I might be making this up  check out the video. Around 1h 26m in.  
  Its rather like blaming your morbid obesity on the fact that every time  you breathe in and out, your weight changes. Forget about the fact that  its such a tiny change it has nothing to do with your 200-pound weight  gain! Blame your obesity on breathing! You certainly dont need to go  on a diet!
  The arguments from GWPF often strike me as so incredibly stupid that I wonder whether theyre _trying_  to sabotage themselves. Then Im reminded just how easy it is to get  climate deniers convinced  even fired up  over the stupidest excuse  for global warmings consequences you can think of.
  Whether or not GWPF believes their own stuff, clearly the politicians  who deny the reality, human cause, and/or danger of global warming are *plenty* dumb enough to be suckered.

----------


## PhilT2

This is just the "but there's been no warming since 1998" being reset and starting again. Those who believed it last time will believe it again.

----------


## John2b

But, but, but Marc's been checking the tide levels on brass plaques at his family's waterfront properties on three continents for more than 100 years and there's been no discernible trend, which is irrefutable proof that pot smoking unemployable individuals made up all the laws of thermodynamics.

----------


## Marc

https://youtu.be/cs7gg-PwE4o?t=597

----------


## John2b

> https://youtu.be/cs7gg-PwE4o?t=597

  Wannabe a director? "Go out, find a story you love, and tell it."

----------


## PhilT2

A frank assessment of your own side of politics is a rare thing but this comes close. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWQg-VG9Euw 
I don't share his pessimism, i see more incompetence than malevolence in the Trump administration and climate science will be strengthened by this brief interlude.
Facts usually prevail.

----------


## John2b

Unfortunately, incompetence seems to be Trump's main strength. https://twitter.com/M_G_Stone/status...tid%3D12059257

----------


## DavoSyd

Many weaknesses... https://hellogiggles.com/news/donald...ame-thing/amp/

----------


## John2b

Cold temperatures in the central and eastern United States during April 2018 were no match for the rest of the world's overwhelming warmth. 
The month ranked as the third warmest April on record and also the *400th consecutive month the globe has recorded above-average temperatures.* 
The last time temperatures across all of earth's land and ocean surfaces were below average was in December 1984.  https://weather.com/news/climate/new...-united-states

----------


## John2b

That triumph of obfuscation, Tony Abbott's $500,000 wind turbine committee held just one face-to-face meeting in the last two years. It has failed to provide any official advice to government, and has had publication of its discussion papers repeatedly rejected by research journals. The wind turbine committee used four of its seven video conference meetings one year merely to discuss its 2016 annual report, which is just eight pages long! The committee is yet to determine which aspects of wind turbines might be worth researching, despite having less than 6 months left before it is due to give final advice to government.  https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...11-p4zks3.html

----------


## John2b

Just five years ago, Bridenstine, a conservative, three-term representative from Oklahoma, denied that human activity is responsible for a warming planet, sea level rises and other climate changes. Trump selected Bridenstine to head up NASA and rein in their research on climate change. His views have evolved, however, and he now supports the mainstream scientific consensus that human activity is causing Earth’s climate to change on an unprecedented scale. Too bad for the bullyboy neoliberals of the world and other specious climate science deniers.  https://www.businessinsider.com.au/n...18-6?r=US&IR=T

----------


## Oldsaltoz

Can you show us the South pole over the same period?

----------


## DavoSyd

i see they are STILL trotting out this old graph, still using fake data!!!

----------


## Marc

*Read about the climatic doom world of 2030 and see hidden truths*Guest Blogger / 6 hours ago June 12, 2018 *By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.*Summary: Read the shocking news in this warning from global experts about our future climate! We can learn much from this report, but not what they intended. *“Climate Futures: responses to climate change in 2030“**By Forum for the Future, October 2008.*Looking back at the lurid warnings from the Left and Right provides a test of their vision. It helps us gauge the validity of the forecasts that dominate our headlines. Such as this terrifying vision of 2030 made a decade ago by a team of experts hired by Forum for the Future. The Forum is one of the many vaguely leftist advocacy organizations lavishly funded by corporations. We are almost halfway there. Let’s look at their predictions. The expert authors of this report do not directly connect their climate change scenario to those used by the IPCC in AR4 (its 2007 report). But they explain, as usual in leftist forecasts, that the IPCC is “timid” and our future will be much worse than the IPCC predicts. This narrative continues today, as the Left believes that the implausible RCP8.5 is our certain future unless we restructure the world according to their wishes. “But it seems more and more likely they {predictions of the IPCC} will be looked back on in years to come and seen as timid. …So the five possible future worlds that we describe are different responses to a similar level of climate change. In all of them, climate change is a serious problem and follows a path towards the upper end of IPCC estimates….” They interview only alarmists, giving not a hint that other experts have radically different views. For example. as in this failed prediction (emphasis added). It is part of climate alarmists’ series of failed predictions about the end of snow. “A report from Friends of the Earth in Australia, _Climate Code Red: the case for emergency action_ {key points here}, reviewed some of these changes. It makes alarming reading – Arctic sea ice could disappear in summer _by 2013_ …” From the Dpurb website. As usual in this genre of fiction, current problems are considered harbingers of the future – not the commonplace troughs of global cycles in a growing and improving world. Food riots and $150 oil were trendy issues in 2008. “Our scenarios are based in part on the latest IPCC reports from 2007, which drew on science from the previous years. They are already out of date. The most recent science says climate change will go further and faster. We are closer to the thresholds than we thought. What’s more, indirectly related impacts that our interviewees said were long-term – food riots, import tariffs, oil at $150 – are happening now.” Journalists focused, by design, on the scariest of their five scenarios: the environmental war economy. Such as “Climate change study predicts refugees fleeing into Antarctica” by Urmee Khan in _The Telegraph_. This scenario is the usual dream of extremists, left and right: doom forces the world to put _them_ in charge. But too late to avoid disasters. This scenario assumes with greenhouse gas emissions declining after 2019 due to severe actions by governments around the world.  “Licences are required to have children in some countries and awarded on a points system; climate-friendly behaviour earns extra points.”Governments have banned personal car ownership and forced citizens to replace convector ovens with microwaves. Kettles and washing machines are automatically switched off when households exceed their energy quotas.”Refugees from Bangladesh and the Pacific make up 18% of New Zealand’s population. Others are being relocated to permanent settlements on the Antarctic Peninsula, which is projected to have a population of 3.5 million by 2040.”In some countries it is a crime to publicly question the existence of man-made climate change.”The oil price broke $400/barrel in 2022, making shipping and aviation prohibitively expensive, and leading to a collapse in international trade.” They describe events happening this year, in 2018. Such as the “reunification of Korea under the brokerage of Russia and China, with the capital in Pyongyang.” (nope) and that the “Antarctic Peninsula opened for mineral exploitation” (nope). We have interesting things to look forward to. Such as 2020 being “the year of no winter in the northern hemisphere.” That looks unlikely. As does in 2022 that the “oil price hits $400/barrel.” Then things turn ugly. In nine years, 2027, an “extreme heatwave in Europe kills 200,000.” But there are exciting events coming for leftists. In 2028 the “leader of the No Climate Change Party in Canada, is convicted of denying the existence of climate change. He is deported to the international convict settlement on Kerguelen in the Southern Ocean.” Leftists thugs are doing this today, their volunteer violence suppressing the voices of those on the Right. In 2029 we will get another Leftist dream: the “first planned permanent settlement in Antarctica, a ‘global community’.” A blank slate society in the wilderness in which they can create a Leftist heaven (after their failures to create new men and women in the Soviet Union and Mao’s China)! From iMediaEthics. *Conclusions*That the Left and Right so often attempt to influence us using fear reveals what they think of us (i.e., we are easily frightened fools, incapable of rational thought). Decades of saturation bombing by scary scenarios has damaged our ability to see and plan for the future. It is a mad version combining “chicken little” and “the boy who cried wolf!” But there are no consequences for lies and exaggerations in propaganda campaigns. Tribal truths rule. Leftists believe what their leaders tell them, as do those on the Right. Generations of failed predictions have not shaken either side’s confidence. But the middle has become skeptical and alienated, leaving our public policy wheels spinning wildly and futilely. We must become better grounded in order to find areas of broad agreement well-supported by research. See the posts here for suggestions. *For More Information*Hat tip on this to Steve Goddard, who does a remarkably great job discovering past follies of climate forecasts that would otherwise go down the memory hole. For more information see The keys to understanding climate change, all posts about forecasts, and especially these…  About RCP8.5: Is our certain fate a coal-burning climate apocalypse? No!The climate change crisis as seen from 2100 AD (a business as usual scenario).Stratfor gives us good news, showing when renewables will replace fossil fuels.Focusing on worst case climate futures doesn’t work. It shouldn’t work.Updating the RCPs: The IPCC gives us good news about climate change, but we don’t listen.Celebrate Los Angeles’ survival, despite the prediction of its destruction in 2017.Hopeful news for us about climate change from the Horse Manure Crisis of 1894.

----------


## PhilT2

> Can you show us the South pole over the same period?

  Do you mean all of Antarctica or just the polar region? Antarctica is about twice the area of Australia so there are places that are warming rapidly and others not so much. Central West Antarctica among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth

----------


## John2b

> Can you show us the South pole over the same period?

  The temperature over a large ice mass is generally stabilised because when ice melts although it is absorbing heat it remains at 0 °C. Without global warming Antarctica's ice mass would not be reducing. The water formed after melting is also at 0 °C, but to melt the ice requires approximately 80 calories per gram - enough to raise the same amount of water by 80 °C. Antartica has been losing ice at an increasing rate since around 1950, with the rate tripling in just the last few years.  From 1992 to 2011, Antarctica lost nearly 76 billion metric tons of ice each year. From 2012 to 2017, the melt rate increased to more than 219 billion metric tons per year.  Antarctica's Ice Is Melting at an Alarmingly Fast Rate | Time

----------


## Marc

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uplo...Groupthink.pdf 
It is only by obtaining some sort of insight into the psychology of crowds that it can be understood 
how powerless they are to hold any opinions other than those which are imposed upon them.
Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd 
Executive summary: 
 By any measure, the belief that the earth faces an unprecedented threat from ‘human inducedclimate change’ has been one of the most extraordinary episodes in the historyof either science or politics. It has led scientists and politicians to contemplatenothing less than a complete revolution in the way mankind sources the energy requiredto keep modern industrial civilisation functioning, by phasing out the fossil fuelson which that civilisation has been built.
But for 30 years the way this has all come about has given expert observers causefor increasing puzzlement. In particular they have questioned: 
• the speed with which the belief that human carbon dioxide emissions werecausing the world dangerously to warm came to be proclaimed as being sharedby a ‘consensus’ of the world’s climate scientists; 
• the nature and reliability of much of the evidence being cited to support thatbelief; 
• the failure of global temperatures to rise in accordance with the predictions ofthe computer models on which the ‘consensus’ ultimately rested. 
But there was also the peculiarly hostile and dismissive nature of the response bysupporters of the ‘consensus’ to those who questioned all this, a group that includedmany eminent scientists and other experts. 
The purpose of this paper is to use the scientific insights of a professor of psychologyat Yale back in the 1970s to show the entire story of the alarm over global warmingin a remarkable new light.
 The late Professor Irving Janis analysed what happens when people get caught up in what he termed ‘groupthink’, a pattern of collective psychological behaviour with three distinctive features, that we can characterise as rules.
• A group of people come to share a particular view or belief without a properappraisal of the evidence.
• This leads them to insist that their belief is shared by a ‘consensus’ of all right mindedopinion.
• Because their belief is ultimately only subjective, resting on shaky foundations,they then defend it only by displaying an irrational, dismissive hostility towardsanyone daring to question it.

----------


## DavoSyd

another extremely high quality peer reviewed journal article provided for consideration! 
I particularly enjoyed the "about the author" section...   

> Much of his journalism consists of the reckless endangerment of the public. In a long series of articles he has falsely claimed that the danger from white asbestos is insignificant. He has published scores of articles insisting that global warming isn't caused by humans, and suggesting that we can carry on burning fossil fuels without regard for the climate. Even when the people he cites as his sources try to correct him, he keeps repeating the myth. 
> How many people have campaigned against efforts to curtail man-made climate change because of the misinformation he has published? 
> The mistakes he made in his last column almost compare to his all-time cock-up of cock-ups, in which he pointed out, in February 2008, that "Arctic ice isn't vanishing after all." The "warmists", he said, had made much of the fact that in September 2007 northern hemisphere sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But now the ice cover had bounced back, proving how wrong they were. He even published a graph to demonstrate that the ice had indeed expanded between September and January. In other words, Booker appeared incapable of distinguishing between summer and winter.

----------


## Marc

A personal epilogue: the wider picture   _Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one._ 
Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds    There were two reasons why I was pleased to be asked by the Global Warming Policy Foundation to write this paper. One, as I hope these pages have demonstrated, was that Janis’s analysis of groupthink can help us to see in a new light the real nature one of the strangest episodes in human history.    But the other was that this has provided an opportunity to show that his thesis has very much greater relevance to our understanding of collective human psychology than has been generally recognised. One obvious reason for this is that, to illustrate his theory, he drew only on those few episodes in mid-20th century American political history that were the focus of his study. He showed in each case how a small group of men at the centre of power had become so obsessively fixed on a particular policy that they refused to listen to any evidence that might have raised doubts about what they were agreed on.    In each case their failure to consider all its possible consequences led to disaster. Certainly, more recent history has provided numerous other examples that Janis could have added to his case-studies. One of the more obvious was the recklessly obsessive fashion in which George W. Bush and Tony Blair launched their invasion of Iraq in 2003.  So focussed were they on overthrowing Saddam Hussein that they gave no proper thought to what might happen once their goal had been achieved, with the result that Iraq was plunged into years of bloody sectarian chaos.    But what particularly struck me when I first came across Janis’s thesis was how much more widely relevant it is to our understanding of collective human behaviour than he was able to demonstrate from just his particular rather limited set of examples (or even than perhaps he himself realised).  It can certainly help us to see in a new light the story of global warming, but once we recognise Janis’s basic rules of how groupthink operates, we can see other more general instances of it all over the place, both in history and very much in the increasingly puzzling world around us today.    *We can see how, although most cases of groupthink originate only from a small number of people, those same rules continue to apply when their belief comes to be shared by ever larger numbers of others, who for whatever reason find their belief appealing and are drawn into sharing it by the power of prestige and the contagious power of second-hand thinking.  Precisely because those inside the groupthink bubble cannot think outside it, and look only for evidence which reinforces their belief, it is impossible for them to have any serious dialogue with those who question it. Safe in their bubble, they can thus enjoy a sense of moral superiority over those unenlightened outsiders who disagree 93 with them, who can simply be caricatured as just crazy people, dismissed as not worth listening to.  *  Any general picture of the part played by groupthink in human affairs must inevitably take account of the fact that, throughout history, few examples have been more extreme than the more fanatical perversions of religion, which is why there is no more obvious example of this today than those terrorist movements inspired by Islamic fundamentalism, such as Isis and Al Qaeda, whose members are transformed by their groupthink into collective psychopaths.  Equally, such a general picture must allow for how the divided world of politics inevitably becomes prey to all kinds of groupthink, large and small; and how this becomes more pronounced the further any group moves towards the ‘hard left’ or ‘hard right’ extremes of the political spectrum.    This is never more conspicuous than in those countries where a totalitarian regime seeks to impose its own form of groupthink on an entire population. History provides us with no more dramatic examples than the great revolutionary upheavals that led to such regimes seizing power in the first place, as in England after 1640, France after 1789 and Russia in 1917. Each was originally inspired by a desire to curb the powers of a seemingly oppressive ruling order, but ended up with a new ruling order far worse than the one it replaced.  Even in democracies we can see much less extreme versions of groupthink at work in all sorts of ways. And how often in politics we see two opposing forms of groupthink pitched against each other, as in the unusually fractious US presidential election that led to the election of President Trump or the spectacle of the two rival campaigns in Britain’s Brexit referendum, where both sides vied with each other to make equally wild claims that bore little or no relation to reality.    In fact, different forms of groupthink have become such a ubiquitous presence in our time that when I first came across Janis’s book I realised that I had unwittingly been writing about examples of it through much of my professional life. *One of the strangest and most conspicuous examples has been the rise in recent decades of that intense social pressure to conform with all the multifarious ideological positions which are deemed to be ‘politically correct’.* * This has become the ‘New Puritanism’ of our time, displaying all the self-righteous certainty we associate with the intolerance of those original Puritans in the 17th century.  The sense of moral outrage we associate with political correctness is almost invariably directed at those who can be portrayed as having, through oppression, prejudice or discrimination, turned some other group into a ‘victim’ – of ‘sexism’, ‘racism’, ‘homophobia’ or whatever.  The same fundamental narrative inspires the views of our more fanatical ‘animal rights’ campaigners.*    I*t also lies behind the way the belief in manmade climate change has become added to the litany of politically correct causes, by seeing the planet itself as a ‘victim’ which must saved from the evils of ‘Big Oil’, ‘Big Carbon’ and all those other 94 malign forces that are threatening it with catastrophic global warming.*    My first book back in 1969, was The Neophiliacs: a study of the revolution in English life in the Fifties and Sixties. This was an analysis of the explosion of social, moral and cultural change which, in the ten years after 1956, transformed Britain into an almost unrecognisably different country. Only now do I see how much of what I was writing about was shaped by those same rules of groupthink.  From the rise of ‘pop culture’ and the ‘permissive society’ to Harold Wilson’s ‘New Britain’, much of it was essentially based on different forms of collective make-believe, the consequences of which would turn out to be so different from what had been imagined when that headlong rush into change began.    In 1979 I made a two-hour documentary for the BBC, City of Towers, tracing how directly the mess made of Britain’s cities in the 1960s by architects, planners and politicians stemmed from the ‘brutalist’ urban visions of the architect Le Corbusier back in the 1920s. Again, this was a perfect case-study in how groupthink based on makebelieve can lead to disastrously unforeseen consequences.    I later wrote books about other subjects on which Janis’s thesis can shed revealing new light, ranging from those food scares, such as BSE, which became such a damaging feature of British life in the late-1980s and 1990s (not one of which turned out to be based on proper scientific evidence), to the collective psychology behind that most ambitious political project of our age, the European Union.    And no general account of the power of groupthink these days would be complete without a picture of how it has in recent decades transformed the culture of the BBC. Its relentless propagandising over global warming has been only one of the more glaring symptoms of how the corporation’s coverage has become dictated and distorted by a similarly one-sided ‘party line’ on almost any controversial issue of the day.    But these widely different examples of how people can get caught up groupthink have three things in common.  One is that their beliefs always eventually turn out to have been based on a false picture of the world, in some way shaped by the makebelieve that it is different from what it really is.  The second is the irrational degree of intolerance they display towards those who do not share their beliefs.  The third is how ultimately their groupthink must always end up in some way colliding uncomfortably with the reality their blinkered vision has overlooked.    Every South Sea Bubble ends in a crash. Every form of groupthink eventually has its day.  This is invariably what happens when human beings get carried along by the crowd, simply because they have lost the urge or ability to think for themselves.

----------


## DavoSyd

To call your opponent a victim of groupthink is to ascribe their views solely to their upbringing, area of residence or social associations, and to deny that they are capable of coming to reasoned conclusions on their own.  
It should hardly need pointing out that consensus on robust scientific theories (such as evolution) is not groupthink, or that thinking in groups – e.g. the ancient philosophical academies - is what has enabled most of the advances of human civilisation.  
But the modern user of “groupthink” ignores such truths, the better to paint his opponents as intellectual zombies.  
As used today, the word is therefore a classic example of Unspeak: a rhetorical intervention designed to shut down argument before it starts. 
 What is really going on when someone complains of “groupthink” is a kind of bovine attempt at self-glamorisation;  _"You follow the herd and parrot groupthink, whereas I am a superior maverick able to think for myself and unmask the nonsense that everyone else believes."_  
This implicit claim, however, is quite severely undermined by the cliche of using the term “groupthink” itself. After all, given that it’s so lamentably common, to accuse others of groupthink is about the most groupthinky thing you can do.

----------


## Marc

Nice circular reasoning completely deprived of any useful meaning. Does not address any of the points nor does it shed any light on the reality of heard thinking.  
This are the main points:
(Please address at least one)   *One of the strangest and most conspicuous examples has been the rise in recent decades of that intense social pressure to conform with all the multifarious ideological positions which are deemed to be ‘politically correct’.* * This has become the ‘New Puritanism’ of our time, displaying all the self-righteous certainty we associate with the intolerance of those original Puritans in the 17th century.  The sense of moral outrage we associate with political correctness is almost invariably directed at those who can be portrayed as having, through oppression, prejudice or discrimination, turned some other group into a ‘victim’ – of ‘sexism’, ‘racism’, ‘homophobia’ or whatever.  The same fundamental narrative inspires the views of our more fanatical ‘animal rights’ campaigners.  It also lies behind the way the belief in manmade climate change has become added to the litany of politically correct causes, by seeing the planet itself as a ‘victim’ which must saved from the evils of ‘Big Oil’, ‘Big Carbon’ and all those other 94 malign forces that are threatening it with catastrophic global warming.   
The sky is falling ... aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!! * **

----------


## DavoSyd

> Nice circular reasoning completely deprived of any useful meaning. Does not address any of the points nor does it shed any light on the reality of heard [sic] thinking.  
>  This are the main points:
>  (Please address at least one)

  if you were to actually post an original thought that wasn't a personal attack, someone might eventually engage with you on an intellectual level, 
until then, you'll just have to put up with looking in the absurdity mirror...

----------


## Bedford

> if you were to actually post an original thought  that wasn't a personal attack, someone might eventually engage with you  on an intellectual level, 
> until then, you'll just have to put up with looking in the absurdity mirror...

      

> To call your opponent a victim of groupthink is to ascribe their views solely to their upbringing, area of residence or social associations, and to deny that they are capable of coming to reasoned conclusions on their own.  
> It should hardly need pointing out that consensus on robust scientific theories (such as evolution) is not groupthink, or that thinking in groups  e.g. the ancient philosophical academies - is what has enabled most of the advances of human civilisation.  
> But the modern user of groupthink ignores such truths, the better to paint his opponents as intellectual zombies.  
> As used today, the word is therefore a classic example of Unspeak: a rhetorical intervention designed to shut down argument before it starts. 
>  What is really going on when someone complains of groupthink is a kind of bovine attempt at self-glamorisation;  _"You follow the herd and parrot groupthink, whereas I am a superior maverick able to think for myself and unmask the nonsense that everyone else believes."_  
> This implicit claim, however, is quite severely undermined by the cliche of using the term groupthink itself. After all, given that its so lamentably common, to accuse others of groupthink is about the most groupthinky thing you can do.

  So much for original thoughts,  :Rolleyes:  https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...rds-groupthink   

> To call your opponent a victim of groupthink, then, is to ascribe their  views solely to their upbringing, area of residence or social  associations, and to deny that they are capable of coming to reasoned  conclusions on their own.

----------


## John2b

> Nice circular reasoning completely deprived of any useful meaning. Does not address any of the points nor does it shed any light on the reality of heard thinking.

  I thought I 'heard thinking' too but it turned out to be the noise of cutting and pasting gibberish, which being factually incorrect shed no light on anything at all. How ironic - the noise was just another display of 'denier group think'*. 
(*I am being very loose with the definition of "think".)

----------


## Marc

> So much for original thoughts,  https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...rds-groupthink

  Originality is overrated. All it matters is the truth.
You can copy and paste the truth and it is still true. In fact it is probably more true than if you add some personal spin to it.  
There is one simple reality in this debate. Either CO2 is dooming the planet. Or it isn't.
Considering that CO2 has been many times higher in the past and it has not killed us, I vote for, CO2 is no problem. 
What would happen if we had the unfortunate power to reduce it?
Crop failures and eventually desertification.
I say, CO2 is good and the more the merrier. 
That is why I contribute as much CO2 as possible to the earth's atmosphere.

----------


## chrisp

> Considering that CO2 has been many times higher in the past and it has not killed us

  A question if I may? Just how long ago was it that the CO2 concentration ‘many times higher’ than now? Can we assume ‘many times’ is double or triple the present 400ppm. So, how long ago do we need to go back to get a CO2 concentration of over 1000ppm? 
And, to place the answer to the above in context, could you also let us all know how long ‘us’ (which I take to be humankind) have been on the planet?

----------


## woodbe

> Considering that CO2 has been many times higher in the past and it has not killed us, I vote for, CO2 is no problem.

  Yes, CO2 has been higher millions of years ago, but NOT when humans were living on the planet.    *The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist*The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn&#039;t Exist | Climate Central

----------


## PhilT2

The real issue is that when CO2 levels were this high in the past sea level was 15m higher. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=RaD3ax2j3Ks

----------


## Marc

*​Sure Chris. Even when yours is obviously a rhetorical question aimed at debating that CO2 levels were higher when humans did not roam the earth. 
Irrelevant.  'Us' is a figure of speech. You and me were not around back then, yet that is irrelevant.
We are destroying the Australian economy to comply with a doctrine that says CO2 is producing catastrophic climate change. It is not.
And that is what is all about. A bold face lie, manufactured to shift wealth and power. And supporters of this quasi religion, are the one doing harm, not CO2. Just like the Spanish inquisition thought it was serving God by killing those who did not comply, the modern day CO2 inquisition is truly convinced they are serving "the planet" by "reducing emissions". History will not be kind with this era of fanaticism and wasteful persecution that is harming the western world and leaving the east and third world untouched.  
Thousands of new coal fired power plants are built around the world and fuelled with Australian coal, yet we are too good to use it, when our energy requirements would produce as much CO2 as 0,0000001 of the rest of the world. Not that it matters, since CO2 is not the problem. The problem is marxist ideology disguised as "green" that has gained the mock name watermelons to the new version of communist, that are but the foot soldiers serving the rich minority that is benefiting from this pathetic state of affairs.    Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon dioxide levels*Anthony Watts / June 4, 2013 *NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 312 JUNE 4th 2013* *CARBON DIOXIDE* There are two gases in the earth’s atmosphere without which living organisms could not exist. Oxygen is the most abundant, 21% by volume, but without carbon dioxide, which is currently only about 0.04 percent (400ppm) by volume, both the oxygen itself, and most living organisms on earth could not exist at all. This happened when the more complex of the two living cells (called “eukaryote”) evolved a process called a “chloroplast” some 3 billion years ago, which utilized a chemical called chlorophyll to capture energy from the sun and convert carbon dioxide and nitrogen into a range of chemical compounds and structural polymers by photosynthesis. These substances provide all the food required by the organisms not endowed with a chloroplast organelle in their cells. This process also produced all of the oxygen in the atmosphere The relative proportions of carbon dioxide and oxygen have varied very widely over the geological ages.    It will be seen that there is no correlation whatsoever between carbon dioxide concentration and the temperature at the earth’s surface. During the latter part of the Carboniferous, the Permian and the first half of the Triassic period, 250-320 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration was half what it is today but the temperature was 10ºC higher than today . Oxygen in the atmosphere fluctuated from 15 to 35% during this period From the Cretaceous to the Eocene 35 to 100 million years ago, a high temperature went with declining carbon dioxide. The theory that carbon dioxide concentration is related to the temperature of the earth’s surface is therefore wrong. The growth of plants in the Carboniferous caused a reduction in atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide, forming the basis for large deposits of dead plants and other organisms. Plant debris became the basis for peat and coal., smaller organisms provided oil and gas, both after millions of years of applied heat and pressure from geological change; mountain building, erosion, deposition of sediments, volcanic eruptions, rises and fall of sea level and movement of continents. Marine organisms used carbon dioxide to build shells and coral polyps and these became the basis of limestone rocks The idea promulgated by the IPCC that the energy received from the sun is instantly “balanced” by an equal amount returned to space, implies a dead world, from the beginning with no place for the vital role of carbon dioxide in forming the present atmosphere or for the development or maintenance of living organisms, or their ability to store energy or release it. Increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by return to the atmosphere of some of the gas that was once there promotes the growth of forests, the yield of agricultural crops and the fish, molluscs and coral polyps in the ocean. Increase of Carbon Dioxide is thus wholly beneficial to “the environment” There is no evidence that it causes harm. Cheers Vincent Gray Wellington, New Zealand

----------


## Marc

*Comparison of Atmospheric Temperature with CO2* *Over The Last 200 Years*|| Temperature -vs- CO2 || Global Warming || Table of Contents ||   *Temperatures* have increased, according to the data, by about *0.5° C* over the last 100 years. Most of these increases occurred in the first half of this time period. *CO2* has also increased during this same time period-- from about *300 ppm to 370 ppm*. Interestingly, the majority of these additions have occurred in the last 50 years, when temperature increases have been slowest.
Independent data from orbiting satelites continuosly measuring global temperatures since the 1970's indicate that over the last 25 years that they has actually been a slight decrease in overall global temperatures.      NOTE: All charts were plotted directly from composite data sets using Lotus 1-2-3.  *CO2 Graph Sources:*  *Temperature Graph Sources:*  2001-1958: South Pole Air Flask Data
1958-1220 B.P.: Law Dome, Antarctica
1220 B.P.- 2302 B.P.: Taylor Dome, Antarctica
2302 B.P.- 414k B.P.: Vostok Ice Core Data 2000-1979: Satellite stratospheric data
1979-1871: S. Hemisphere ground temp. data
1871- 422k B.P.: Vostok Ice Core Data   || Temperature -vs- CO2 || Global Warming || Table of Contents ||*References:*
Historical Isotopic Temperature Record from the Vostok Ice Core
The data available from CDIAC represent a major effort by researchers from France, Russia, and the U.S.A. 
1) _Vostok ice core: a continuous isotope temperature record over the last climatic cycle (160,00 years)_.
Jouzel, J., C. Lorius, J.R. Petit, C. Genthon, N.I. Barkov,
V.M. Kotlyakov, and V.M. Petrov. 1987.
Nature 329:403-8.
2) _Extending the Vostok ice-core record of palaeoclimate to the penultimate glacial period._
Jouzel, J., N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, C. Genthon, V.M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, J.R. Petit, D. Raynaud, G. Raisbeck, C. Ritz, T. Sowers, M. Stievenard, F. Yiou, and P. Yiou. 1993.
Nature 364:407-12.
3) _Climatic interpretation of the recently extended Vostok ice records._
Jouzel, J., C. Waelbroeck, B. Malaize, M. Bender, J.R. Petit, M. Stievenard, N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, T. King, V.M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, D. Raynaud, C. Ritz, and T. Sowers. 1996.
Climate Dynamics 12:513-521.
4) _Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica._
Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pepin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999.
Nature 399: 429-436.

----------


## Marc

I wonder if there is a correlation between global temperatures and unisex toilets?

----------


## John2b

> *Temperatures* have increased, according to the data, by about *0.5° C* over the last 100 years. Most of these increases occurred in the first half of this time period.

  This is what happens if you include the last 37 years of data left off the previous graphs, which I suspect was deliberately in reverse time to make comprehension difficult. Look where 1979 is on the time series below!

----------


## John2b

> I wonder if there is a correlation between global temperatures and unisex toilets?

  I've read thousands of posts in this forum and there seems to be only one person who can't manage to keep smut and religion out of their posts. What happened in your childhood Marc?

----------


## Marc

The Australian12:00AM February 1, 2018Save Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on emailShare more... 599*ADAM CREIGHTON* 
Economics Editor
Sydney  @Adam_Creighton    Al Gore’s vision of a dangerous @climate “tipping point”, foreshadowed in his 2007 book _Assault on Reason, has failed to materialise, according to a top American business professor who a decade ago challenged the former US vice- president to bet on how global @ave@rage temperature would change._  _Mr Gore’s staff said he did not take bets, but a decade on Scott Armstrong, a business professor at the Wharton Business School, has concluded that global temperature deviations since 2007 had easily fallen within the natural level of variation, and “no change” was the most accurate way to describe global weather patterns over the past decade._ _“When you lack scientific evidence, the primary way to keep ‘global warming’ alive is to avoid having a testable hypothesis,” Professor Armstrong said, mocking how some observers had “touted the extremely cold weather that occurred in January (in the northern hemisphere) as another piece of evidence of global warming”._ _The UN’s 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected warming of 3C every century, which prompted governments to introduce taxes and regulations to curb CO2 emissions._ _Professor Armstrong said he had seen “no dangerous long-term trends” in temperature data and, in any case, “like most people”, he would prefer temperatures “a little warmer”. “A few years ago, people in the US were asked how much tax they would be willing to pay on gasoline to completely eliminate dangerous global warming — the amount was about a dollar.”_ __ _Professor Armstrong and his academic colleague Kesten Green at the University of South Australia took Mr Gore’s “tipping point” scenario, charitably, to be the “business as usual” forecast from the UN’s 2001 panel on climate change, which had anticipated a 0.3C increase in average global temperature every decade._ _The “bet” was monitored on theclimatebet.com site using global temperature data from University of Alabama researchers._ _“Global temperatures have @always varied on all timescales and Professor Armstrong was not highly confident that he would win a 10-year bet when temperatures had commonly drifted up or down by 0.3C over 10-year periods in the past,” Dr Green said._ _The monthly data showed the years from 2008 to 2014 were largely cooler than the 2007 average deviation, while 2016 and last year were warmer. Between AD16 and 1935, a “no change” forecast over periods of one to 100 years was “much more accurate” than a hypothesis of global cooling or warming, the academics said._ _The 2001 IPCC report said “...the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”._ _“The fact the last two years … favoured the warming forecast is meaningless in the context of the swings in temperature that @occurred during the bet, and that will continue to occur in the @future,” Dr Green said._ _“Basing public policy on failed alarmist scenarios is irrational, and is causing enormous harm.”_

----------


## UseByDate

> *​Sure Chris. Even when yours is obviously a rhetorical question aimed at debating that CO2 levels were higher when humans did not roam the earth. 
> Irrelevant.  'Us' is a figure of speech. You and me were not around back then, yet that is irrelevant.*

   

> A question if I may? Just how long ago was it that the CO2 concentration many times higher than now? Can we assume many times is double or triple the present 400ppm. So, how long ago do we need to go back to get a CO2 concentration of over 1000ppm? 
> And, to place the answer to the above in context, could you also let us all know how long us (which I take to be humankind) have been on the planet?

  Assuming abiogenesis occurred only once then our ancestors, and the ancestors of all life, have been around for 4.4 billion years. Clearly *Marc is correct*.

----------


## John2b

> Assuming abiogenesis occurred only once then our ancestors, and the ancestors of all life, have been around for 4.4 billion years. Clearly *Marc is correct*.

   True, and the ancestral bacteria, algae and jellyfish that revelled in those past climate conditions are surreptitiously back, right under everyone's noses. The future is not so rosy for lifeforms that proliferated during, and congruently with, the last 10,000 years of relatively stable global climate.

----------


## John2b

> _“Basing public policy on failed alarmist scenarios is irrational, and is causing enormous harm.”_

  You are on to something Marc! Thanks to alarmists like you claiming that the science our civilisation depended on to prosper is a fallacy, current public policy globally mostly disregards the World's best attempt to understand climate change as distilled by the 1000s of eminent scientists who have reviewed 100,000s of research projects on the topic (AKA the IPCC's Assessment Reports). The best that can be said of the Paris Climate Agreement is that it barely pays lip service to the significance of mankind's obsession of suddenly reversing in the space of a few decades the carbon sequestration that occurred over billions of years.

----------


## PhilT2

> Clearly *Marc is correct*.

  You'll have to point that out for me; on past performance it's highly unlikely. 99% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct; many because of climate change. I'd like to think that we are smart enough to avoid a similar fate but Marc constantly produces evidence to the contrary.

----------


## r3nov8or

> 99% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct; many because of climate change. I'd like to think that we are smart enough to avoid a similar fate

  The only 'smarts' we have is the ability to measure it. That is where it ends.

----------


## PhilT2

Yet another reason why anyone interested in facts doesn't bother with WUWT. https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2018/06/...ies-about.html

----------


## John2b

> _Professor Armstrong said_ _he had seen “no dangerous long-term trends” in temperature data and, in any case, “like most people”, he would prefer temperatures “a little warmer”. “A few years ago, people in the US were asked how much tax they would be willing to pay on gasoline to completely eliminate dangerous global warming — the amount was about a dollar.”_ __

  An average line properly placed will have equal area above and below the line - that's basic mathematics. If you divide each graph above in half, a trend line will have equal area above and below the line _in each half._ 
What Professor Armstrong very eloquently shows is that the IPCC have _under-projected_ the subsequent temperature rise (at least as far as it is possible to tell from the data set Armstrong chose to use) - there is less green and more red in the righthand half compared to the lefthand half of the IPCC graph (left side graph) meaning the trend line is not steep enough to represent the true trend. It is even more blatantly obvious in the right side graph that purports to show no trend! 
Either Armstrong is quite ignorant of the subject he is writing about, or Armstrong is counting on his readers being ignorant. Thanks for exposing another charlatan, Marc.

----------


## DavoSyd

> *​We are destroying the Australian economy*

  ** 
got a graph or cut/paste to prove this? 
i'll provide a quote from the recent 2017 Review of Climate Change Policies undertaken by the Federal Government, released less than 6 months ago:     

> The Governmentrecognises that in reducing emissions and meeting our international commitments there are economicimpacts to be balanced. Through effective policies, ambitious and responsible targets, and carefulmanagement, Australia is playing its role in global efforts to reduce emissions, while maintaining a strongeconomy and realising the benefits of the transition to a lower-emissions future.

  or is this all part of the "big con"?

----------


## UseByDate

> You'll have to point that out for me; on past performance it's highly unlikely. 99% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct; many because of climate change. I'd like to think that we are smart enough to avoid a similar fate but Marc constantly produces evidence to the contrary.

  Marc is not arguing that all species managed to survive through the periods when the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were above 1000 ppm. He is stating that our ancestors did. I would not be able to type this text if my ancestors did not survive the high (above 1000ppm) CO2 levels. To argue the contrary would not be logical.

----------


## chrisp

> Considering that CO2 has been many times higher in the past and it has not killed us, I vote for, CO2 is no problem.

   

> Marc is not arguing that all species managed to survive through the periods when the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were above 1000 ppm. He is stating that our ancestors did. I would not be able to type this text if my ancestors did not survive the high (above 1000ppm) CO2 levels. To argue the contrary would not be logical.

  Marc stated ‘us’ in his post. Whether we take (i) ‘us’ literally (you and me), or (ii) to mean ‘humankind’, or - as UseByDate has done - to mean (iii) ‘any life form or pre-life form on earth’, will change what Marc is ‘arguing’. The auguement presented using the of definitions of ‘us’ in (i) and (ii) above are clearly wrong. The argument using the definition (iii) is so broad it is effectively irrelevant. 
I’ve always been very perplexed as to what Marc is arguing - and even more perplexed as to why!

----------


## DavoSyd

Marc seems most concerned about the economy. 
He seems most upset that the Australian economy will be destroyed trying to prevent or limit the impacts of climate change...

----------


## Marc

Clearly you are disconnected from any economic activity if you think that electricity prices follow the average consumer price index. 
Here are the smart ones in a nutshell. Fancy an aluminium smelter in this states? how about a fish and chip shop?
Only religious dogma can blind an otherwise normal individual into believing we are living business as usual times.

----------


## Marc

> Marc seems most concerned about the economy. 
> He seems most upset that the Australian economy will be destroyed trying to prevent or limit the impacts of climate change...

  Correction. Our government is destroying the economy for dogmatic reasons that do not and will never prevent nor limit anything to do with the climate.

----------


## John2b

> I would not be able to type this text if my ancestors did not survive the high (above 1000ppm) CO2 levels. To argue the contrary would not be logical.

  This can only true if your ancestors were not Hominids, because CO2 levels have not been above ~400ppm for the last 20 million years.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Clearly you are disconnected from any economic activity

  quite the opposite actually.   

> Here are the smart ones in a nutshell. Fancy an aluminium smelter in this states? how about a fish and chip shop?

  I asked you to back up your statement that the Australian economy is being destroyed... can you do that?

----------


## John2b

> quite the opposite actually.
> I asked you to back up your statement that the Australian economy is being destroyed... can you do that?

  I read somewhere (the Australian Financial Review?) that the 'average' Australian household is spending $145,000 a year: $70,000pa from earned income and $75,000pa from borrowings against increasing equity in the family home (AKA the housing bubble). If anything is going to destroy Australia's economy it is this 'magic potato sack' economic system (AKA the neo-economics system that took over the world in ~1980). Spending on climate change mitigation is immaterial to the health of the economy, after all, economic activity is agnostic - it cares not whether it is building mines, schools, roads, hospitals, potato farms, solar panels or wind turbines. All economic activity provides employment and economic activity, irregardless of what the activity is. There is no downside whatsoever to fiscal activity based on responding to the best understanding of consequences and risk, except perhaps to people/corporations which have gambled on 'business as usual' and bugger the consequences.

----------


## Marc

Providing you can take the green coloured glasses off ... perhaps. But I am not very hopeful Davo.   
2014
Energy is a significant input cost to many Australian industries and is accounting for a growingproportion of residential disposable income for low-income households.The consequences of rising energy prices are predictable and are now playing out in what maybecome a classic case study in economics in the years to come: demand destruction; loss ofcompetitiveness of Australian industry that relies on reasonably priced energy driving offshoring ofproduction; and rising energy poverty in the residential sector.The offsets are intended to be greater national income from international sales of energy and theassociated economic benefits from being able to source goods from more cost-competitivecountries.There is rigour and logic to these arguments, but many of the domestic market consequences comefrom policy decisions, not from efficient resource allocation, so the full impacts of what may seemreasonable policy decisions at the time are now coming to light and will become more transparentover the next 3 to 5 years – and will be unpalatable.The question then is – do we have the trade-offs right – are the impacts of the policy decisions worththe pain of the restructuring? Do we even understand the consequences?It is interesting that strong economic argument is put forward for the development of energy exportindustries but that the same rigour and logic is largely lacking for domestic energy policy decisions. Amore holistic approach is required, with rigour, and this needs to be redressed urgently. 
2017  *The Destruction By Government Of Australia’s Electricity Market*   Brett Hogan  1 July 2017  , IPA TODAY, PUBLICATIONS, Uncategorized, Climate Change, Energy and Resources *Share:*  Throughout the western world over the last 20-30 years in particular, we have witnessed the tightening hand of the state, which has become ever more bold in insisting where and how we live, who we can work for or employ, what we can say and think, whose car we can get into, whose home we can stay in, and what we’re allowed to put into our mouths. But these remarks are about how government intervention has destroyed the electricity market in Australia and throughout much of the western world, and what it means for personal and economic liberty, now and in the future. Let me start by outlining what a market should be, and how it should work with electricity. A real market is simply a place where consumers and producers meet, and agree on a price and means to satisfy consumer demand. A real electricity market is one open to all fuel technologies – coal, gas, uranium, wind, water or the sun. Where producers compete to grow market share and increase their profit based on efficient production, with all consumers – household and business – the winners. A real market is one where producers, facilitated by government through the regulatory system, work to satisfy consumer demand. To a large extent this is what we had throughout most of Australia until 2006, with a wholesale cost of electricity bouncing along at between $25 to $40 per megawatt hour – or around 3 cents an hour to burn 10, 100-watt lightbulbs. States played to their strengths, with Queensland and New South Wales largely powered by black coal, Victoria brown coal and Tasmania hydro, with gas playing an important role, coming on to the market in times of high demand. Blackouts occurred, but were rare and typically localised due to temporary power line damage. Unfortunately what we now have, is anything but a real market, and it’s bipartisan, state and federal government decisions to use the electricity system to drive carbon dioxide emission reductions, at the expense of electricity affordability and reliability, that is largely responsible. The major vehicle has been the national Renewable Energy Target, which started as a small industry assistance policy by the Howard Government in 2001 that aimed for an additional 2% of Australia’s electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2010 Government programs of course rarely go away, particularly subsidy schemes, and the RET has since been expanded to aim for a 23% share of renewables by 2020. Let’s be clear what the RET is – the federal parliament has passed a law forcing electricity retailers to buy renewable electricity. Under the RET, new renewable generators like wind and solar farms, get paid twice for their electricity output – the wholesale market price at the time as well as the value of the Renewable Energy Certificate, currently around $80. As they have this guaranteed second source of income, it doesn’t matter what the official price on the market is, because they still get paid a decent return. As more and more solar and wind producers come onto the market, chasing the subsidies available under the RET, State Government power-purchase agreements where they guarantee to buy output from new wind and solar, or new programs like the Clean Energy Corporation’s looming solar thermal funding round, they are also destroying the market for everyone else. Our coal power stations, which are responsible for 75% of the nation’s electricity have stopped investing in anything other than core maintenance and their owners are almost all talking about the dates they’ll close. Given that electricity demand is constant, but wind and solar only work when there’s wind or sun, consumers and businesses are increasingly reliant on a smaller number of coal and gas fired power stations and the handful of interconnectors between the states to keep the lights on. Between 2006 and 2016, retail electricity prices doubled, wholesale prices in some areas tripled and the three major retailers recently announced additional price rises of around 20% which actually started this morning. The Australian Energy Market Operator is now talking about ‘demand management’ – which is code for electricity rationing – as a desirable response to limited supplies and we’ve had the South Australian Government getting stuck into BHP for not having their own power back-up at Olympic Dam. Who else but government would say to their biggest customers – “you want too much!” Access to affordable and reliable energy is the single most important reason for the massive decrease in the percentage of the world population living in poverty from over 94% in 1820 to less than 10% in 2015. The number of people living in extreme poverty declined by nearly 80 percentage points between 1981 and 2015 alone. Affordable electricity is responsible for the increased production and safe storage of food, clean drinking water, the mass manufacture of clothing, the ability to heat and cool our homes and businesses, a better quantity and quality of housing, access to and safe storage of medicine, and the ability to transport ourselves around our local neighbourhoods, cities, countries, and internationally. Unless as a planet we want to go backwards – this is why this debate matters. Top 10 Facts to Keep in Mind Putting the Australian market aside, there are 10 facts that I would like to highlight.  World Demand for Fossil Fuels Including Coal is Strong  Let’s start with the big one, because the contrary argument is something the environmental movement promote all of the time. According to last month’s annual BP Statistical Review of World Energy, coal, oil and gas are still responsible for over 85% of global energy consumption and together with nuclear and hydro 97%! Despite the billions that’ve already gone into them, renewables represent only 3% of the world energy market. This equals around 11 days’ worth over the course of a whole year. The International Energy Agency has predicted that world electricity consumption will grow by nearly 70% over the next 25 years and that more coal will be consumed for electricity in 2040 than today, even if countries keep their promises to the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement. In 2040, coal, oil & gas will still be 74% of Total Primary Energy Demand or 84% with hydro & nuclear. But let’s not just ask the independent forecasters – let’s also look at the details of what some renewables activists are saying. Greenpeace found in early 2017 that a total of 62 countries are planning over 800 gigawatts of new coal-fired power stations, equal to over 30 times Australia’s current coal-fired capacity. Bloomberg New Energy Finance last year found that global investment in new coal and gas power would be worth $1.2 trillion and $892 million respectively between 2016 and 2040. And need I remind you that you need 800 kilograms of coal to make one tonne of steel and 220 tonnes of coal to make a single wind turbine.  The Paris Climate Change Agreement Will Not Cut Emissions  The dirty little secret of the environment movement is that even in the unlikely event that all countries adhere to their Paris Climate Agreement promises, carbon dioxide emissions will still rise over the period to 2025 and 2030. Putting aside differences of opinion about the effect of increased carbon dioxide levels on global temperatures and accepting the climate models, even though the Agreement aims to limit global temperature growth to within 2 degrees of pre-industrial levels and aspires to hold them to 1.5 degrees, in the unlikely event that all national pledges are honoured, temperatures will still rise by 2.7 degrees by 2100. Listen to the language activists use. China and India are NOT cutting emissions – in both cases, particularly China, their commitment is to cut their ‘emissions intensity’ which is basically an artificial construct of carbon dioxide per person – negated by a larger population and economic growth. These two countries alone will counter the genuine emissions reductions pledged by the west, which just means a massive wealth transfer from west to east, for no environmental benefit. In actual fact, the only thing driving emissions reduction in the west is de-industrialisation. As is well documented, the reason Europe chose 1990 as the start of the previous Kyoto Protocol was that it allowed it to count the collapse of industry following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Emissions reduction in Europe has actually stalled in the last two years and pretty much the only country that has cut emissions is the United States because of fracking and substituting gas for low quality coal – not the embrace of renewables.  China and the Developing World are Not Going Renewable  Neither China nor India are dropping coal or gas power. Yes, China is closing over 1,000 coal mines, but that is because it had over 10,000 in the first place. This is about economic efficiency, and it is a good thing. China installed 52 gigawatts of new coal in 2015, which is more than the whole of Australia’s generating capacity in just one year. In fact, one theory why China is potentially installing more coal power than it needs right now, is so that it can, a few years down the track, suddenly declare it is building no more and accept international kudos while it backfills its empty capacity. Similarly India recently announced it would close 37 coal mines – a fact quickly jumped on by the green movement who conveniently ignore that it actually has over 400. India installed 18 gigawatts of new coal in the 12 months after it submitted its Paris Climate change target which is more than 10 Hazelwoods and in its National Electricity Plan (released last December) India confirmed it was building 50 gigawatts more. Despite what you hear, India is not ending coal imports. It is aiming to cease importing coal for its government-owned, internal coal power stations for efficiency reasons but its energy minister has consistently said that this does not apply to the privately owned, coastal power stations like the ones owned by Adani. Both countries are taking advantage of every technology to increase electricity for their people, including coal, nuclear hydro, wind and solar, and are actively building new coal and gas power stations and modernizing their existing fleet.  Consumption is Being Driven By People Wanting to Improve Their Lives  In 2014, the United Nations projected that the number of people throughout the world living in cities will increase 3.9 billion in 2014 to 6.4 billion in 2040. In India, 404 million people will move to cities, which is equal to 1,000 people every hour for 25 years and in China the figure is 292 million. Just think about those massive infrastructure changes that will be needed to make this possible – and the business opportunities that it will create for countries like Australia. Currently, 1.2 billion people throughout the world, including 240 million in India, don’t have access to electricity and 2.7 billion people, including 840 million in India, burn oils, dung, crop waste and other material in household ovens to cook their meals and heat their homes. These people are not prepared to accept poorer living standards than we enjoy in the west, no matter what environmentalists intend, and neither they should. By way of example, in October 2015 Scientific American published an article on the small rural Indian village of Dharnai where Greenpeace set up a solar micro-grid as part of its fantasy to have the people of Asia and Africa bypass grid electricity. What ended up happening is instructive. The grid was set up, but as the villagers tried to use modern electrical appliances the batteries quickly drained.  Greenpeace then tried to restrict supply to 5 hours per day and limit the use of appliances, whereupon the villagers led a protest against a visiting government minister saying that: “We want real electricity, not fake electricity.” The village was then quickly connected to the grid. It is simply not possible to industrialise the world on wind and solar power.  There is a Very Big Difference Between Capacity and Generation  Listen very carefully when renewables advocates talk about how big a particular solar or wind project is. Capacity to deliver is not the same as ability to deliver. The human body has the capacity to work 24 hours a day, but the reality is that output is normally one third of that, after 8 hours of sleep and 8 of play. Renewables are the same. Unlike coal, gas and nuclear machines which can generate electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at over 90% of their capacity for 30,40,50 years – solar and wind power typically operate at 25% to 33% of their potential and of course at night or in still conditions deliver 0%. This is why coal-fired power stations are cheap to operate – because they can recover their cost every second of the day. Just because renewables occupy 40% of the capacity of the grid, as they now do in South Australia and as the Government of Victoria has now pledged, doesn’t mean that they can deliver 40% of the electricity. In fact wind farm operator Infigen warned the Stock Exchange last week that its production in the financial year that concluded yesterday was down some 40% on the previous 12 months which suggests it will deliver a lot less than the 30.1% capacity detailed its 2015-16 Annual Report. And if you read for example that a wind project can power 100,000 homes it doesn’t actually mean it can guarantee power to 100,000 homes. It just means that, wind and sun willing, its expected total output is equivalent to the consumption of that many ordinary homes.  Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are a Problem, But Not for Us  Yes, there are fossil fuel subsidies throughout the world and it is a problem, but it isn’t as bad as you may think. According to the International Energy Agency, world fossil fuel subsidies dropped from costing $500 billion per year in 2014 to $325 billion per year in 2015, and it isn’t Australia, the US and Europe that are the culprits, it is Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuala and similar places who use taxpayer money to artificially reduce the cost of production or cost to consumers. These are the world’s real fossil fuel subsidies and the ones that should be eliminated. Interestingly, world renewable energy subsidies are climbing and the IEA has estimated they are now worth $150 billion. In Australia, research for the Minerals Council found renewables subsidies cost $3 billion in 2015-16.  Germany Proves that Renewables Will Always Be Expensive  Germany, and similarly wind-farm laden Denmark, have the most expensive electricity prices in the world. When German’s Renewable Energy Levy started in 2000 at 0.2 cents per kilowatt hour the then Environment Minister, a Green MP, said that the cost to consumers would be no more than “a scoop of ice cream.” Sixteen years later it has increased by over 2,000% to 6.88 cents per kilowatt hour and there is no relief in sight, despite a market share of over 30%. Amusingly, the German Renewable Energy Levy is used both to subsidise the construction of new renewables – and also to compensate incumbent renewables producers for the low wholesale price caused by additional renewables. Nearly 50% of German electricity bills are now government taxes and charges, Germany paid over 1 billion Euros in 2015 to stabilise its major power lines alone,  and the Dusseldorf Institute for Competition Economics last year estimated that the total cost of Germany’s energy transformation would reach 520 billion Euros by 2025, and keep going. Of course Germany is lucky to have 8 neighbouring countries that it can import electricity from if it starts to run short, all of which have nuclear, coal or gas as at least one of their top two energy sources, a back-up Australia does not enjoy. It is also ironic that Germany’s most important source of electricity, is actually the much-maligned brown coal.  Australia has Plenty of Fossil Fuels, Including Brown Coal  Australia has the world’s fourth largest reserves of coal, behind only the USA, Russia and China. According to Geoscience Australia, we have over 100 years’ worth of black coal and 1,000 years’ worth of brown coal with the latter at seams over 200 metres thick in parts of the Latrobe Valley. New, ultra-supercritical and advanced-ultra-supercritical coal power plants, which are in use and being built throughout the world, use new technology to burn coal at higher temperatures and under higher steam pressure, meaning a reduction on coal consumed and carbon dioxide emitted, of up to 50%. The Minerals Council of Australia recently estimated that over 1,015 supercritical or ultra-supercritical generating units are currently in operation worldwide with another 1,231 planned or under construction. Small, modular nuclear reactors are also under development, that can be factory-built, don’t need water for cooling, and are able to better adjust output to demand. With 30% of the world’s uranium, over 1,000 years of coal, and nobody knows how much gas and oil still to be discovered this country could be the world’s leading exporter of energy technologies.  The World Simply Can’t Afford to Go Renewable  I highlighted earlier that despite world renewable susbidies now costing $150 billion per year, they represent only 3% of world energy consumption. Of course 65% of renewables output in Europe is from bioenergy, most of which involves burning trees to feed into power stations to make electricity. Can you believe that under the rules, burning wood is considered carbon neutral? Last month Bloomberg New Energy Foundation estimated that the global push for renewables would cost $7.4 trillion between 2016 and 2040, but an additional $5.3 trillion would be needed to hold the planet to a two-degree warming trajectory. India said in 2015 that it would need $2.5 trillion for its renewables transition. The cost of renewables doesn’t include the vast tracts of land that would be needed for wind farms and solar panels or towers that would equal one coal, gas or nuclear power station. It also doesn’t include the opportunity cost of the various renewables schemes and scandals including Northern Ireland’s Renewable Heat Initiative which gave out 160 GBP of subsidies for every 100 GBP spend on wood chips, leading people to install burners to heat vacant rooms and factories for 24 hours a day to earn a government-sanctioned 60% return on their money. Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg got it right in 2015 when said that “When the wind is not blowing, wind-generated electricity is the most expensive electricity of all because it cannot be bought at any price,” a point equally applicable to other weather-dependent renewables like solar and hydro. If renewables targets are not pulled back, you will be paying for them in your taxes and in your electricity bills.  We Need New Sources of Generation  You’ll hear from time to time people talk about how the system is changing and how vast networks of batteries in the home and in the garage, smart technology and new interconnectors between the states, will allow people and businesses to trade electricity in a virtual market. But while this is partly true, just remember that batteries and interconnectors don’t create electricity. They only store or transport the electricity that someone else still has to make. The South Australian blackout of last September was the classic example of the limits of relying on a connection with far-off generators. Most household solar systems can barely generate enough electricity to cover that home’s needs, let alone cover that house, your neighbour’s, the guy down the road, and your car and the workplace. Or as Matt Ridley wrote for The Australian last year, you would need 160 million Tesla Powerwalls to cover one day’s electricity consumption in just the UK – or 3.3 billion of them to cover one week’s consumption if you electrify the country’s heating and transport networks as well. Powerwalls are not Duracell – they don’t come with six month’s energy stored inside. And when the big industrial generators that make all of the electricity are closed, there won’t be an excess of electricity to put into them. Conclusion and the Future I would like to conclude by analysing where we going – and where we should be going, because we are sleepwalking to an energy disaster in this country. We’ve been very lucky up to now – with unused but yet-to-be-dismantled gas stations, diesel generators, and legacy black and brown coal hanging around able to put out spot fires, but that luck is coming to an end. South Australia is now a net- importer of electricity. This summer Victoria will be a net-importer during peaks and Tasmania’s independence hangs on rainfall and the Basslink cable with Victoria not breaking again. The Finkel Review of a few weeks back will not solve the problem – in fact it will make it worse. Its recommendations, which include new Security and Reliability Obligations’, an agreed federal/state ‘emissions reduction trajectory,’ more bodies, report and plans, are just more band-aids to cover for the fact that we don’t have enough reliable generating power. If the Greens and their friends get their way, there will be no new coal mines or power stations, gas fields and networks and the nuclear industry will stay banned. This will be particularly the case in Victoria, where the State Government has aimed for a 40% renewables target. Combine that 40% target with a commitment to no new coal, gas or oil developments, a stance against nuclear energy and limited hydro opportunities and that means there are very few options for the state. The Greens can’t have it both ways – fossil fuels, particularly coal, can’t be both on the way out and needing to be banned at the same time. Renewables can’t already be cheaper than fossil fuels but still needing multi-decade subsidy plans or power purchase arrangements from government to be commercial. Electricity prices will continue to rise and reliability fall if producers are forced by government policy to only install sub-standard technologies. I fear the short-term response from government will be to continue to find new ways to limit or ‘manage’ demand – and I’m particularly alarmed by the ‘successful’ 2012-2015 trial by an English electricity distributor, which at the press of a central button could remotely reduce each household’s power usage, as I am with Dark Green activist mutterings of a human ‘carbon budget’ or ‘carbon quotas.’ Do you want to be able to decide how much electricity you can consume, provided it is safe and available and you are able to pay for it – or do you want the government to do it for you? If we want to fix this crisis – or at the very least prevent it from getting worse, then we need to get government out of the market. Ideally, policy makers should freeze or preferably abolish the Renewable Energy Target, state renewables targets, Clean Energy Finance Corporation and Australian Renewable Energy Agency as well as all other forms of price support for renewables and let them compete in an open market with others like coal, gas and nuclear to satisfy consumer demand. Government should act as the guarantor of competition and ensure that the regulatory system does not exclude any form of new generation. State and federal legislative restrictions on uranium exploration and industry development as well as nuclear power should be abolished as should the centrally mandated banning of gas exploration for conventional and unconventional sources of gas. Did you know that it is illegal in Victoria to even look for uranium and has been so for over 30 years? We shouldn’t care what technology is used, so long as it’s affordable, and works when needed. Destroying Australia’s electricity market to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30% of 35% of 1.8% of the world’s total is economic madness of the highest order. The real test of a healthy market is – what happens when the government is doing nothing – which should incidentally be the ultimate end point of policy. If renewables really are the cheapest form of electricity then we can end all subsidies immediately. And if they are not, after 16 years of subsidies, maybe it is time to draw a line under them lest they become the car industry of the 21st century. While in the short-term I am pessimistic about what will happen in the electricity market because I believe it’s more likely policy makers will muddle along from crisis to crisis, wasting more and more money as bills continue to increase and reliability worsens; long term I am optimistic because the forces of demand can only be suppressed for so long. It is just a shame that so much of our – and your – money will be wasted in the meantime. _This speech was delivered by Brett Hogan, IPA Director of Research, at the Students for Liberty Annual Conference on Saturday 1 July 2017._

----------


## Marc

*How government destroyed cheap electricity in Australia*Satyajeet Marar     Satyajeet Marar 26 February 2018 2:56 PM        You know something is wrong when a country with over 33 per cent of the world’s Uranium and abundant reserves of cheap coal struggles to provide cheap and reliable electricity to its own people. Power bills are now rising at over six times the rate of our wages – a staggering 12.4 per cent spike in 2017 alone. The price hikes don’t just hurt families. They kill jobs, stagger innovation and tarnish our productivity and competitiveness. Unfortunately for us, the heavy-handed pursuit of taxpayer-subsidised wind and solar by zealous bureaucrats has driven our coal-fired plants into early retirement, cursed parts of the country with rolling blackouts and forced us to rely increasingly on expensive natural gas. Coal has traditionally been the backbone of Australia’s energy needs. It is abundant and cheap to mine. Even today Australia holds an estimated 1,095 year supply of brown coal and 110 years of black coal reserves. Coal also remains the preferred back-up for intermittent renewables as current solar and wind generation technology is incapable of accounting for energy needs without a backup generator powered by fossil fuels. We saw this in action in 2016, when South Australia – a state committed to the most ambitious renewable energy target in the country, underwent a series of crippling blackouts due to insufficient supply when it was needed – forcing a bailout courtesy of coal-fired generators in Victoria and New South Wales. Today, SA and VIC, who have each pushed the hardest for renewables, enjoy the highest electricity prices in the country. Even battery storage technology funded by substantial handouts from the South Australian government and others to multinational companies, like Tesla, remains far from viable as a replacement for fossil fuel. The closure of coal-fired power stations means that our fossil fuel of choice is now natural gas, a relatively expensive product. Gas prices remain high due to tight regulations and strong demand from Asian export markets.     By contrast, the rest of the world continues to develop and rely on coal – including countries that have committed to reducing carbon emissions. TheInternational Energy Agency concludes that coal is likely to still be the world’s leading energy source in 2040 even if all Paris Accord signatory nations meet their commitments and even Greenpeace acknowledges that ten times the number of coal-fired power stations were under construction worldwide as of January 2017 than over the 10 months prior. Instead of eliminating coal, Germany and Thailand are both upgrading brown coal power stations to provide cheap energy with lower emissions. So why aren’t energy companies in Australia investing in new coal-fired plants? The answer is because government policy has created an environment that deters investment. The government currently uses your tax dollars to subsidise electricity generated by wind and solar power to the tune of $74 and $214/MWh respectively. By contrast, coal and natural gas can only generate revenue as and when electricity is sold. During periods when wind or sunlight are abundant, coal plants sell less electricity due to the artificial advantage the subsidy creates and turn a lesser profit on what they do sell because wholesale prices are depressed. This makes it difficult for investors in coal to pay for the large fixed costs involved, including staff salaries, capital financing and regulatory costs. Unlike solar and wind, these costs do not decrease based on the amount of electricity sold – making coal an unprofitable investment in Australia. Some might consider these problems to be worth bearing. After all, coal will eventually run out and it isn’t ‘clean’ -it produces carbon emissions and pollutes the air. But the answer cannot be policy that artificially props up another energy source which ironically relies on the very same carbon-polluting fossil fuels it is supposed to replace – resulting in rolling blackouts, volatile spot prices and exorbitant electricity bills. Nuclear power offers cheap, clean and reliable energy. A kilogram of uranium-235 produces two to three million times the energy of a kilogram of coal and the carbon footprint of a nuclear plant is barely 25 per cent that of a solar farm. As early as 2006, a Howard government report concluded that nuclear power was a viable option and that ample sites and technology were available for safe disposal of waste, with recent innovations limiting the waste generated even further. It’s no surprise that Russia, India and China are building new nuclear reactors while the UK, France, USA, South Korea and many other developed nations rely on nuclear for a substantial portion of their energy needs. Australia has the world’s largest uranium reserves and over 20 per cent of the world’s thorium. Of course, it would make far too much sense for Australia to pursue this option. Which is why we are the only country in the world’s top 25 economies where the government has effectively banned the development of nuclear power. _Satyajeet Marar is the Director of Policy at the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance. _

----------


## Marc

The Australian12:00AM April 20, 2018Save Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on emailShare more... 96*JOE KELLY* 
Political Reporter
Canberra  @joekellyoz    Major Australian companies and small businesses are struggling to cope with record electricity price hikes that have forced them to seek alternative power sources, consider cutting thousands of jobs and pass costs on to consumers.  As the Turnbull government today hopes to secure support for its signature energy policy in Melbourne, some small to medium-sized businesses have questioned how the national energy guarantee will reduce soaring power bills. Independent supermarket owners have experienced price rises of hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past 12 months, warning that it could push up @grocery prices and benefit Coles and Woolworths, which they argue have the ability to absorb the increases and strike better power deals. Master Grocers Australia chief executive Jos De Bruin, who represents independent supermarkets, said: “I don’t think anyone knows what it (the NEG) means. “What does it mean? What can the federal government actually do to influence electricity prices.  READ MOREWe need power, let’s have passionDAVID LEYONHJELM  “We have been exploring what we can do at a federal level. We went to see (Energy Minister) Josh Frydenberg last October/November. We gave him a document to say that between February and October last year our electricity went up $110 million as an industry sector. That’s independent supermarkets. Our members were @coming off old contracts and going on to new contracts. “We needed to show him these examples. Because margins are so slim in supermarkets we’ve got nowhere to go. That could cost us 2500 jobs. … The only lever in variable costs we have to pull is in employment.” Len Morabito, general manager of four SUPA IGAs and a freestanding liquor store, said he was $215,000 worse off than at this time last year because of electricity price increases. He said this was a 31 per cent rise from the 2016-17 financial year. Mr Morabito said the four @supermarkets were scatted across regional Victoria in Leongatha, Korumburra, Shepparton and Bendigo. The business runs a warehouse and its headquarters out of Moorabbin, in southeast Melbourne, and employs more than 500 people. “I can’t believe the lack of uproar,” he said. “It’s just ridiculous ... I don’t think we’ve seen it come through in grocery prices, but sooner or later it’s going to hit.” Mr Frydenberg will use today’s Council of Australian Governments meeting of state and @territory energy ministers to push through final design work on the NEG, with the aim of securing a deal on the policy by August. Mr Frydenberg says the guarantee represents an “opportunity which cannot be missed” with key manufacturing companies backing the overhaul including BlueScope — which says its electricity costs are likely to rise 93 per cent to $113m by the end of financial year 2018 when compared with @financial year 2016. “It is time for all governments — federal, state and territory — to put the national interest first and deliver a more affordable and @reliable energy system through the national energy guarantee,” Mr Frydenberg said. The minister has also put pressure on energy retailers to pass on reductions in wholesale prices, @arguing that wholesale @prices are down 35 per cent across the @National Electricity Market over the past month compared with the same period last year. The NEG is aimed at guaranteeing energy reliability, while lowering costs for consumers and delivering on Australia’s Paris Agreement commitment to reducing carbon emissions by 26 per cent on 2005 levels. It will put an obligation on electricity @retailers to buy power at a set level of emissions intensity each year to meet a 2030 reduction target while also forcing retailers to meet a percentage of demand from reliable power generation. Rheem, the @nation’s largest producer of water heaters and a supporter of the NEG, said its power costs were more than 50 per cent higher than last year. The National Farmers Federation yesterday appealed to state and federal energy ministers to end the “policy stalemate”, warning that farmers and those in the agriculture supply chain were “suffering from spiralling upward electricity prices”. Opposition energy spokesman Mark Butler said the NEG was not at a stage where an agreement could be finalised, but said “everyone wants to see work continue on a bipartisan solution”. *More stories on this topic Top users to wear cost of NEGFrydenberg’s energy warningQld only winner in price plan  *

----------


## Marc

*This must be the best explanation of the green lunacy that is gripping the western world.   Great storytelling is vital to winning the green debate* Stories with deep cultural resonance allow people to see themselves 'on the right side' of an issue, as Aesop, Pushkin and Dr Seuss show _Andrew Simms_ *
 @andrewsimms_uk* Tue 1 Jan 2013 23.46 AEDTFirst published on Tue 1 Jan 2013 23.46 AEDT  The young Once-ler from Dr Seuss's The Lorax is a personification of the short-sighted capitalist exploitation of nature, writes Andrew Simms Photograph: Allstar/Universal PicturesSlowly and painfully it's dawning on campaigning organisations that no amount of fact and rational argument will win the case on climate change. 
As the Radical Emissions Reduction conference, organised by the Tyndall Centre at the Royal Society, 
heard on 11 December, forces don't align according to a rational analysis and policy process.Rather, powerful interests mobilise constituencies by manipulating people's sense of belonging to different groups. And they do so by telling stories with deep cultural resonances that allow people to see themselves "on the right side" of an issue.   This presents a problem. In spite of the fluidity of much social media, large scale media ownership still tends to be politically one-sided (to the right).
A tilted playing field creates a communication problem, but only up to a point. Good storytelling breaks the leash of attempts at narrow cultural control. And, when it comes to folk wisdom, the devil certainly doesn't have all the best tunes, or tales. As it's the season of myth and legend, here's just a few that might come in handy.  
How better to capture the self-defeating over-exploitation of the planet's life-supporting biosphere than with a few words from Aesop. In the goose that laid the golden egg, the young farmer is not satisfied with his daily bounty of precious metal – for which read also the bounty of our oceans, farmland and forests. 
Depending on the version of the story, the goose is killed either by demands to lay ever more, or cut open in the belief that inside it must be full of gold. But, on having its neck wrung it turns out to be like any other bird inside. Either way, all is lost through a sense that what the farmer already had, wasn't enough.  
Hans Christian Andersen's tale, _The Emperor and the Nightingale_, is a good cautionary tale about the dangers of technological 'upgrade culture'. Searching for things of the greatest beauty in his kingdom, the Emperor has brought to court the elusive nightingale, whose song enchants him. But he forgets the nightingale when made a gift of a jewelled, mechanical substitute, and the real bird leaves the palace. After the robotic bird breaks, Death comes to stalk the gravely ill ruler. Then, the real nightingale returns and its serenade is so spell-binding that Death retreats and the Emperor survives.  
In _The Fisherman and the Fish_, by Alexander Pushkin, reworks an older tale to give a succinct account of the emptiness of the consumerist, hedonic treadmill. One day a gold fish that speaks like a human is caught in the net of a seemingly content old fisherman. He lives in a hut by the sea with his good wife. Pleading for its life the fish promises to grant any wish. The Fisherman refuses in honour but, on hearing the tale, his outraged wife demands he return and ask for the wish.
Over days the fish then grants the requests that begin with a new wash tub, and escalate to a mansion, as each fails to satisfy and bring happiness. The couple overreach finally when the wife, now made a Tsaritsa, asks for the fish to become her servant. Returning home the fisherman finds his mansion returned to a hovel and the gift of every other wish gone. Pushkin echoes the Brothers Grimm tale _The Three Wishes_, in which a woodsman is implored by a spirit living in a tree not to cut it down. This, in turn, is contemporary to the popular early 19th century song _Woodman Spare That Tree_ by George Pope Morris.
One of the greatest tales of Western literature, Goethe's _Faust_, contains not just the tragedy of a man who loses his soul, but also a parable of the tragedy of development. In his quest Faust is first a dreamer then a lover. 
Finally he reinvents himself as that modern ambiguity, a 'developer,' riding roughshod over people and dispossessing them, having convinced himself he is improving their lot. It's impossible to read without thinking of the machinations behind giant modern construction programmes that trample communities, whether dams, airports, office blocks, motorways or shopping centres.
More recently Dr Seuss's _The Lorax_, written in 1971 during the burgeoning of the modern environmental movement, is about as direct an environmental fable as you can get. It concerns the fate of the Truffula Trees. The Lorax must protect them from the 'Once-ler' – a personification of short-sighted capitalist exploitation of nature – who is:Figgering on biggering
and BIGGERING
and BIGGERING
and BIGGERING
turning more Truffula Trees into Thneeds
which everyone, EVERYONE, EVERYONE needs! More recently still, a central motif of Philip Pullman's _His Dark Materials_trilogy is the 'Subtle Knife,' which cuts through the fabric of worlds allowing people to travel from one to the other. But, the price of their convenience is the release of dark forces. Pullman himself concedes an analogy with airplane contrails, aviation and climate change. 
Less well known, but a favourite of mine, are the tales of Archy, a cockroach with the soul of a poet, and Mehitabel, an alley cat with a celebrated past. Nightly, Archy types letters to his 'boss' describing their adventures by jumping on the keys of a mechanical typewriter (hence no upper case letters). His wry and poignant stories started appearing in 1916 in a daily column by Don Marquis written for the New York Evening Sun. 
At the end of Dr Kevin Anderson's call for immediate, radical emissions reduction at the Tyndall conference, he quotes the philosopher Roberto Unger saying the greatest obstacle to transformation is the lack of imagination to conceive that the world could be different. That's why over the next year, those working on climate change may need fewer facts, and more and better story telling. 
Archy, in his elegiac missive, _What the ants are saying_, signs off with these words:it wont be long now it won't be long
till earth is barren as the moon
and sapless as a mumbled bone 
dear boss I relay this information
without any fear that humanity
will take warning and reform It's now thirty-five months before the world enters a new, more perilous phase of global warming, and counting.

----------


## PhilT2

Yet another part of the big conspiracy revealed to us. Thanks, Marc.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Providing you can take the green coloured glasses off ... perhaps. But I am not very hopeful Davo.

   

> if you were to actually post an original thought that wasn't a personal attack, someone might eventually engage with you on an intellectual level, 
> until then, you'll just have to put up with looking in the absurdity mirror...

  but yeah, this sums you up best I guess?

----------


## Marc

I posted good articles in relation to the damage that high energy prices are doing to the economy, in the delusion that you were actually interested.
Obviosuly you are not and prefer to show yourself in line with the watermeons way of thinking.
And that is Ok too. Watermelons are lovely in summer on ice.

----------


## UseByDate

> Marc stated ‘us’ in his post. Whether we take (i) ‘us’ literally (you and me), or (ii) to mean ‘humankind’, or - as UseByDate has done - to mean (iii) ‘any life form or pre-life form on earth’, will change what Marc is ‘arguing’. The auguement presented using the of definitions of ‘us’ in (i) and (ii) above are clearly wrong. The argument using the definition (iii) is so broad it is effectively irrelevant. 
> I’ve always been very perplexed as to what Marc is arguing - and even more perplexed as to why!

  Most of what Marc posts on this subject is irrelevant. Therefore, to me, it seemed obvious that Marc meant definition (iii).

----------


## UseByDate

> This can only true if your ancestors were not Hominids, because CO2 levels have not been above ~400ppm for the last 20 million years.

  Totally illogical argument. Why limit our ancestors to hominids? Most of our ancestors were not hominids. Some were.

----------


## DavoSyd

> I posted good articles in relation to the damage that high energy prices are doing to the economy,.

  oh great? you can copy paste google search results? WOW! 
sorry, but that is not engaging intellectually Marc.  
if you are attempting to prove your point, you need to 1) make your point, in this case "the economy is being destroyed by _X, Y and/or Z_", and 2) provide reasons for your claim, then 3) back your reasoning up by supporting references.  
you cant simply jump straight to step 3.  :No:  
(EDIT: and citing articles written by hyper-partisan sources means it is so much harder to prove your thesis...)

----------


## Bedford

> oh great? you can copy paste google search results? WOW! 
> sorry, but that is not engaging intellectually Marc.  
> if you are attempting to prove your point, you need to 1) make your point, in this case "the economy is being destroyed by _X, Y and/or Z_", and 2) provide reasons for your claim, then 3) back your reasoning up by supporting references.  
> you cant simply jump straight to step 3.

  So are you going to give Marc an after school detention as well or just the lecture?   

> (EDIT: and citing articles written by hyper-partisan sources means it is so much harder to prove your thesis...)

  Yes, that's your problem exactly.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Yes, that's your problem exactly.

  yes, the problem being that extremists tend to post extremist views, with scant regard for factual accuracy...

----------


## John2b

> Totally illogical argument. Why limit our ancestors to hominids? Most of our ancestors were not hominids. Some were.

  In that case, most of ancestors could not live in the climatic conditions we have today, anymore than humans could live in theirs - doh!

----------


## John2b

> So are you going to give Marc an after school detention as well or just the lecture?

  That's a bit rich. Who in this forum does 99% of the lecturing measured by verbiage? And nearly all of it is self-contradictory crap full of logical fallacies.

----------


## Marc

Your liberal and repetitive use of the ad homine argument * and the red herring argument ** is tiresome yet as amusing as it is predictable.  But I don't blame you. It would be impossible to argue in favour of a 60% energy price increase, let alone an 80 or 150%. So of course you must use smoke mirrors, throw confetti up in the air and dance the Polka in lederhosen and a multicolored hat. Have fun. Post a photo of you doing this so we can have a belly laugh together.   
*An *ad hominem argument is one that is used to counter another argument, but it is based on feelings of prejudice (often irrelevant to the argument), rather than facts, reason or logic. It is often a personal attack on one's character rather than an attempt to address the issue at hand. 
** .*The *red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic.*

----------


## Bedford

> In that case, most of ancestors could not live in the climatic conditions we have today, anymore than humans could live in theirs - doh!

  How do you know that? 
Got proof?

----------


## UseByDate

> In that case, most of ancestors could not live in the climatic conditions we have today, anymore than humans could live in theirs - doh!

  Typical Aunt Sally argument.
 When did I ever claim that all our ancestors could exist in all climatic conditions that have ever existed during Earth's history? If you can show evidence that I did I will gladly accept the -doh!

----------


## UseByDate

> How do you know that? 
> Got proof?

  Actually it is easy to prove. Most of our ancestors lived in the deep ocean. Humans cannot.

----------


## DavoSyd

> *An *ad hominem argument is one that is used to counter another argument, but it is based on feelings of prejudice (often irrelevant to the argument), rather than facts, reason or logic. It is often a personal attack on one's character rather than an attempt to address the issue at hand. 
> ** .*The *red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic.*

  how ironic.

----------


## phild01

> Actually it is easy to prove. Most of our ancestors lived in the deep ocean. Humans cannot.

  https://www.newscientist.com/article...ution-of-life/  *47 million years ago*  The famous fossilised primate known as “Ida” lives in northern Europe. Early whales called protocetids live in shallow seas, returning to land to give birth. *40 million years ago*  New World monkeys become the first simians (higher primates) to diverge from the rest of the group, colonising South America. *25 million years ago*  Apes split from the Old World monkeys. *18 million years ago*  Gibbons become the first ape to split from the others.    

> This can only true if your ancestors were not Hominids, because CO2 levels have not been above ~400ppm for the last 20 million years.

----------


## UseByDate

> https://www.newscientist.com/article...ution-of-life/  *47 million years ago*  The famous fossilised primate known as “Ida” lives in northern Europe. Early whales called protocetids live in shallow seas, returning to land to give birth. *40 million years ago*  New World monkeys become the first simians (higher primates) to diverge from the rest of the group, colonising South America. *25 million years ago*  Apes split from the Old World monkeys. *18 million years ago*  Gibbons become the first ape to split from the others.

  From your own link *3.8 billion years ago?* This is our current “best guess” for the beginning of life on Earth. It is distinctly possible that this date will change as more evidence comes to light. The first life may have developed in undersea alkaline vents, and was probably based on RNA rather than DNA.
 At some point far back in time, a common ancestor gave rise to two main groups of life: bacteria and archaea. How this happened, when, and in what order the different groups split, is still uncertain

----------


## phild01

> From your own link *3.8 billion years ago?*

  your point being...!!
My point was 20 million years ago primates were well under way, whereas you suggested we were all pretty much in the oceans.

----------


## Bros

> That's a bit rich. Who in this forum does 99% of the lecturing measured by verbiage? And nearly all of it is self-contradictory crap full of logical fallacies.

   You don’t do to bad yourself.

----------


## Marc

Monday, June 18, 2018Get FREE Blog Update    *Good Hearts, Fooled Minds: Top 4 Fallacies of the Hijacked Environmental Movement*  The Hijacked Environmental Movement: are you getting green-washed? *The hijacked environmental movement*  is a symptom of the current general, collective state of humanity: good hearted but ignorant. Kind hearted but hoodwinked. Many people in the environmental movement are in it for the right reasons: they see the ongoing poisoning and destruction of the planet by corporations, and are determined to defend and speak out for the Earth. Yet, in spite of their good intentions, they have unwittingly allowed themselves to be channeled in a direction that is not really going to help the Earth. They are unintentionally supporting the very forces that are responsible for the pillaging of it. By continuing to push notions that carbon dioxide is a poison, that global warming exists and mankind is responsible for it, that we need a worldwide carbon tax and that we require Agenda 21-style global governance, these people are unknowingly promoting the New World Order program – and unwittingly placing elite controllers in power who don’t care about the environment and view it merely as a resource to be exploited. It has even gotten to the point where those resisting *climate change* (another Rothschild-Rockefeller creation) are being treated like criminal extremists – there have even been calls in the US by climate scientists for Obama to prosecute them! Welcome to Planet Earth. If your opinion diverges too much from the mainstream, you could get locked up for *thinking wrongly*. With the current focus being on the 2015 UN Summit, the hackneyed buzzword of _sustainability_ is being thrown around like there’s no tomorrow. In this context, it’s worth revisiting how the environmental movement came to be so hijacked and co-opted. The hijacked environmental movement comes from the Report From Iron Mountain. *Basis for the Hijack: Conspiracy Reports from The Iron Mountain and The Club of Rome*  The basis for the hijacked environment movement lies with formerly secret military reports, and one of the elite Round Table groups that run the world: the Club of Rome. I wonder if those who believe in *AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming)* or *Manmade Global Warming* have any idea that the elite came up with the idea of using mankind itself as the global threat against which we are all supposed to gather behind a One World Government? The 1966 *Report from the Iron Mountain* was commissioned by JFK and considered by LBJ as too dangerous to reveal to the public at the time when it was completed. This excerpt from it discusses how a Global Government could function without war, and suggests the threat could instead be environmental pollution: “It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power.”   The Hijacked Environmental Movement refers to the fact that the Green Movement has been infiltrated & overtaken to steer the world toward Global Governance. The *Club of Rome* is one of 6 groups that are close to the center of the Rhodesian Round Table (ultimately funded by Rothschild) which also includes The Bilderberg Group, the CFR, the RIIA, the UN and The Trilateral Commission. The Club of Rome’s 1991 document entitled _The First Global Revolution_? contains this passage:“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together … all these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”The current environmental movement we see today has been seeded, or at least hijacked, a long time ago. Let’s take a look at the top 4 fallacies the NWO conspirators have managed to get naive greenies to believe. If only the hijacked environmental movement could see the obvious: carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a poison. *The Hijacked Environmental Movement Fallacy #1: Carbon Dioxide is a Poison*  Let’s start with the basics: *carbon dioxide (CO2) is a nutrient*, not a poison. We breathe out carbon dioxide every breath, but we also take some of it in on the inbreath. According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), we are therefore poisoning ourselves every breath! Think about it – if CO2 were really a poison, why does it help plants grow so much? Why is it a key part of the fundamental equation of biology: sugar + oxygen = carbon dioxide + water + heat? How is it that those in the environmental movement are ignorant of basic biology? As the website _PlantsNeedCO2.org_ states, the more CO2 around, the better plants grow:“In Idso and Idso’s (1994) analysis of soil nutrient limitations, the percentage growth enhancement due to a 300-ppm rise in the air’s CO2 content actually did exhibit a slight (but statistically non-significant) decline, dropping from 51% to 45% when nutrients went from non-growth-limiting to limiting in a group of 70 experiments.  But when the atmospheric CO2 enrichment was 600 ppm, this slight negative trend reversed itself, going from a CO2-induced growth stimulation of 43% when nutrients were present in abundance to a 52% enhancement when their supply was sub-optimal.  And for a 1200-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2, the percentage growth enhancement jumped from 60% when the soil nutrient supply was adequate to 207% when it was less-than-adequate.”It’s a simple equation: the more CO2 you have, the more the plants like it, and the faster they will grow. The demonization of carbon dioxide is not about helping the environment. The NWO idea has always been to attach the worsening condition of the environment to an individual’s energy usage – and even his or her breathing – so as to introduce a *carbon tax*. The Government literally wants to tax you for breathing – for merely being alive!  The hijacked environmental movement may not know it, but manmade global warming is the hottest hoax around! *The Hijacked Environmental Movement Fallacy #2: The Manmade Global Warming Hoax*  AGW or manmade global warming has been exposed as a giant scam. It still remains an open question whether the world is warming or cooling, given all the fakery and fudging of data, such as ClimateGate, where hackers found that scientists at the UK’s East Anglia University had deliberately distorted the figures. (See the work of Ian Plimer, Christopher Monckton and others in exposing this.) That is why the term _global warming_ got changed to _climate change_ – this way, no matter what happens with the weather, the IPCC can say the climate is changing. Climate change is a slick truism – you can’t argue against it. Of course the climate is changing. When has it not changed? The great documentary _The Great Global Warming Swindle_ years ago exposed the lies behind the very political climate change agenda. More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have challenged the manmade global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and shredded its credibility. Further, climate change, whether we are causing it or not, is not necessarily bad; in some cases studieshave suggested it is responsible for re-greening parts of the world and changing lives for the better. The hijacked environmental movement doesn’t see that the focus on carbon is to prepare us for a global carbon tax. *The Hijacked Environmental Movement Fallacy #3: The Carbon Tax and Global Governance as Eco-Solutions*  As pointed out above, all this focus on carbon is for one reason: taxation. The whole scheme to get people and corporations fixated on their carbon footprint – rather than how much actual benefit or harm they are doing the environment – is to pave the way for more taxation and centralization of power. To have a worldwide *carbon tax*, of course, you need a One World Government to enforce and collect it. The UN, ICLEI and its other subdivisions are constantly talking about *global governance* for this very reason. For further information on this topic, check out George Hunt’s work in exposing how Evelyn Rothschild and David Rockefeller were cooking up the *cap-and-trade scheme* in the 1980s. He was at some of the meetings where the carbon tax was being discussed! *The Hijacked Environmental Movement Fallacy #4: Overpopulation*  Mahatma Gandhi once said: “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.” There is no doubt that rising populations can put a strain on resources, yet where is the proof that the Earth cannot support 7 billion people? Or 9 billion people? Is it really population that is the problem here, or is it rather *self-centered greed* and *destructive environmental practices and technologies*? The “green” concern with overpopulation has at its foundation eugenics. We can accept the world’s rising population not as a threat or a reason to justify killing (which goes by the euphemism of depopulation), but rather as a challenge. It can propel us into living more from the heart, to having more compassion for those less well off than us, to doing a better job of sharing, of distributing resources equitably. It can stimulate us into better modes of efficiency. Could the rising population help a critical mass of people awake to the truth of free energy, and the fact that free energy or over unity devices already exist which provide practically unlimited energy for free or very cheaply? It has been known in many countries for a long time that as you increase education, you decrease population, naturally. There is no need for stealth sterilization programs, introducing contraceptives through vaccines or other depopulation murder programs. When people gain a higher education, they organically choose to have less kids. If the conspirators really cared about the planet’s population, why not use their money to help everyone access better education? The answer is, of course, that they don’t. Underpinning the propaganda of overpopulation is *eugenics*. It’s the idea that some humans are superior to others, and that some humans don’t deserve to be here. This is really the philosophical and spiritual basis of the hijacking. As they have confessed, the conspirators in their delusions (see Prince Philip above) view the rest of the population as a virus that must be rid from the planet. Yet, the real virus is the fear mindset that runs the show in the brains of the elite controllers. The real problem with the environment is the fact we’re trashing it – period. *The Real Problem Isn’t Climate Change or Carbon*  The real problem with the environment isn’t climate change or carbon. It’s that we as a collective species are trashing and degrading it. We are in serious danger of ruining our environment to such an extent that it will no longer be able to support an oxygen-breathing species like ours. We spill oil in our oceans and rivers. We kill off species faster than we can even classify them. We make substances which don’t biodegrade and end up in giant landfills. We cut down forests without taking enough care to replace them. We use an economic system which incentivizes *planned obsolescence* and economically encourages us to throw things away rather than repair them. We let maniacal men rule out-of-control Governments that spray toxic barium, aluminum and strontium chemtrails all over the world – and get away with it. What does any of this have to do with climate change or carbon? These 2 terms are a huge distraction and a deliberate way to trick people who genuinely care for the environment. As David Icke says, we need streetwise spirituality and activism. *Solution: Get Informed Before You Demonstrate*  Do you deeply care for the environment? Great! Then do your research first before joining any protests. Oppose fracking, GMOs, corporate welfare to military companies (the Pentagon is the biggest polluter on planet) and geoengineering, which is spraying poison all over the world. Last year, in September 2014, around 400,000 people turned up in New York for the People’s Climate March – but what is the point of this activism if it gets diverted? As David Icke says, we need streetwise spirituality. We need to have our hearts in the right places, but also put our thinking caps on, otherwise we will easily by led astray by tricksters. Only once the leaders of the environmental movement have their hearts and brains in alignment can we effect real change on the ecosystems of Planet Earth. *****Want the latest commentary and analysis on Conspiracy, Natural Health, Sovereignty, Consciousness and more? Sign up for free blog updates! _Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative news / independent media site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com,__ writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the global conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance._

----------


## UseByDate

> your point being...!!
> My point was 20 million years ago primates were well under way, whereas you suggested we were all pretty much in the oceans.

  Where did I say that primates were pretty much in the oceans?
 I said that most of our *ancestors* lived in the ocean.  
 Our ancestors did not start when primates evolved. They started when life started and that life was in the ocean for approximately 3 billion years, give or take.

----------


## phild01

> Where did I say that primates were pretty much in the oceans?
>  I said that most of our *ancestors* lived in the ocean.  
>  Our ancestors did not start when primates evolved. They started when life started and that life was in the ocean for approximately 3 billion years, give or take.

  Yes, you are right.  I just took all this confusion to be more meaningful in comparative argument, and it was more to do with our evolutionary ancestors that had arms and legs.  Bit silly to be taking it back as far as the amoeba, bacteria or whatever happened to kick life off.

----------


## UseByDate

> Yes, you are right.  I just took all this confusion to be more meaningful in comparative argument, and it was more to do with our evolutionary ancestors that had arms and legs.  Bit silly to be taking it back as far as the amoeba, bacteria or whatever happened to kick life off.

  The trouble with not taking it back all the way is that you have to arbitrarily decide when to stop. No two posters will agree and that would make any argument meaningless.

----------


## chrisp

> The trouble with not taking it back all the way is that you have to arbitrarily decide when to stop. No two posters will agree and that would make any argument meaningless.

  I think that the context is Marc’s contention that ‘CO2 levels many more times the present level (or some words similar) won’t hurt as we have survived those levels in the past. If Marc thinks at we can survive in an atmosphere with ‘many times’ the CO2 concentration, he is clearly wrong. We wouldn’t survive, nor were we present when the CO2 levels were high. 
There were other forms of life that happy lived in atmospheres that would kill us, but that doesn’t support Marc’s gross general statement that more CO2 is good.

----------


## Marc

Rubbish. You can have 1000 ppm of CO2 and still have a perfectly safe atmosphere. 
Check the CO2 level here https://www.co2.earth/ 
And that is on top of a volcano. So there is bound to be big differences between the checking stations that are mostly in urban industrialised areas not surprisingly. 
Still to get from 400 to 1000 there would need to be a cataclysmic eruption of thousands of volcanos at the same time. 
Total beat up. 
Why don't you campaign for real environmental issues not fake one.
For example ... our oh so green supermarkets will stop distributing plastic bags to save the planet ... and start selling plastic bags for $0.10 and the bags they sell are ten times thicker and tougher PLASTIC bags, likely to stay in the waterways for 1000 years. 
Save the planet my ass.
What is wrong with PAPER bags?
Oh the trees ... yes forgot. Another beat up. The more paper we use, the more trees we plant. But who is interested in simple logic? Save the trees !
Earth hour anyone?

----------


## PhilT2

Once you cut and paste quotes from David Icke (as Marc has above) every last trace of credibility is gone forever.

----------


## John2b

https://www.renovateforum.com/f187/e.../index367.html  

> Check the CO2 level here https://www.co2.earth/

  Thanks for the link Marc. You can read about the discovery of global warming in your link:  *200-Years of Scientific Discovery About Global Climate Change*  In the 1820s in France, Jean Fourier was investigating the behaviour of heat when his calculations revealed that the earth should not be as warm as it is.  That is, the earth is too small and too far from the sun for it to be as warm and livable as it is.  On its own, solar radiation is not enough.  So what was warming the earth?  As he pondered this question he came up with some suggestions.  Among them is the idea that heat energy from the sun penetrates the earth's atmosphere, and that some was not escaping back into space.  The warmed air, he suspected, must be acting as a kind of insulating blanket.  He had described what now is commonly known as the Greenhouse Effect.  Fourier was the first to do so.  In the 1820s, Fourier did not have the technology to make the measurements needed to explore his hypothesis.  Decades later, the Victoria natural historian, John Tyndall, brought a fresh perspective to Fourier's question and suggestion.  As an avid mountain climber, Tyndall observed evidence of climate-induced changes in ice caps, and he conducted experiments to measure the heat trapping propertities.  This led to his discovery that water vapour and carbon dioxied are good at trapping heat.  Tyndall's insights captured the interst of a Swedish scientist.  Svante Arrhenius figured out that earth's temperature is not regulated by water vapour because it recycles rapidly in and out of the atmosphere.  Rather, he saw that carbon dioxide regulates temperature directly as it is a long-lived resident of the atmosphere that changes relatively slowly over time.  As Arrhenius explored these issues, he worked with his colleage Arvid Hogbom, a Swedish geologist who was studing natural carbon dioxide cycles.  Hogbom had discovered that CO2 emissions from coal-burning factories were similar to emissions from some natural sources.  The two investigators asked what would happen if emissions from human sources increased and accumulated over centuries.  Arrhenius calculated that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the global average temperature by 5 to 6C. 
You can read Arrhenius's 1896 paper where he projects rather accurately the effect of elevated CO2 levels on surface temperature here:   _On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground_  Svante Arrhenius  Philosophical Magazine and Journal of ScienceSeries 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.  http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1...m18-173546.pdf

----------


## Marc

> I think that the context is Marc’s contention that ‘CO2 levels many more times the present level (or some words similar) won’t hurt as we have survived those levels in the past. If Marc thinks at we can survive in an atmosphere with ‘many times’ the CO2 concentration, he is clearly wrong. We wouldn’t survive, nor were we present when the CO2 levels were high. 
> There were other forms of life that happy lived in atmospheres that would kill us, but that doesn’t support Marc’s gross general statement that more CO2 is good.

  
Sorry Chris it is you who is wrong this time.
We can survive with many times the present CO2 that is around 400 ppm ... we can go as far as 10,000 ppm. 
Carbon dioxide isn’t nearly as poisonous as carbon monoxide.   CO can be lethal even in very low concentrations. For instance, at about 667 ppm CO concentration, 50% of your haemoglobin can be converted to carboxyhaemoglobin. Even exposure to over 100 ppm of CO can be dangerous to health.  However, CO2 isn’t as toxic. At about 10,000 ppm it can cause drowsiness. Suffocation occurs between 70,000–100,000 ppm even when oxygen is sufficiently present. Abnormally increased levels of CO2 in blood is known as hypercapnia, meaning the partial pressure of CO2 in blood is above 45 mmHg. CO2 poisoning occurs because it can change the blood pH and cause respiratory acidosis. Increased levels of CO2 can decrease the blood pH because it throws off the CO2 to bicarbonate ion ratio. In sever cases of hypercapnia (partial pressure of CO2 above 75 mmHg) one would progressively experience disorientation, panic, hyperventilation, convulsions, unconsciousness, and finally death.  So would human be able to live with the great ferns in the Palaeozoic era? Of course! The panic about 400 ppm of CO2 is an absolute beat up. As it is the fear of increasing temperatures due to CO2.
Beat up with an agenda. 
The fact that you don't know what the agenda is, is irrelevant in the great scheme of thinks.   
And if you panic ... remember ... the best remedy is to breathe in a paper bag. in and out, to increase CO2 in your lungs. Perfectly safe.  :Smilie:   
In fact according to this graph, we could survive even in the precambrian era's atmosphere. 
And the correlation between CO2 and temperatures ... wow! you can really tell how CO2 drives temperatures ... NOT.

----------


## Marc

> Once you cut and paste quotes from David Icke (as Marc has above) every last trace of credibility is gone forever.

  Ha ha, Phil, very funny. _My_ 'credibility' is irrelevant. Completely irrelevant, it is only the facts as we know them, the truth or the lies, and the ability to extrapolate to future events that counts.  
It is a common place response from those defending the great big con of the global warming, to dig up dirt on the author of an article rather than reply or rebuke the argument proposed. It is called "Ad Hominem" a fallacious avoidance of the main argument deflecting it to a different subject, the author.  
Conspiracy theories are a separate topic. They are great fun and to label something a conspiracy theory is a sure way to cheaply discredit and mock something we would rather stay buried. The desired effect is to dismiss the conspiratorial suspicion out of hand with no discussion whatsoever. 
There are of course thousands of false conspiracies however there are many that turned out to be true, and probably many more that are true but couldn't be proven or are still uncertain. 
The interesting part is that to label something a conspiracy theory does not reduce belief in it, so it is a rather perverse way to shoot yourself in the foot. 
Much better to debate the argument and leave the labels and the ad hominem out of it.
After all if a drug addict tells you that drugs are bad, it does not detract from the truth of the argument. 
Take the posts above. My contention was that CO2 is perfectly safe in much higher levels than earth has ever experimented, and certainly many times over the current concentration. Read the answer and see who is addressing that point.
For example: -"No not true because at 1000 ppm we will all die because that would prove that CO2 levels are irrelevant so there will be a revolution to throw out all the global warming strokers and cheer leaders and we will kill each other until there is no one left. So ... CO2 is bad" 
Just an example.  :Smilie:

----------


## PhilT2

> Ha ha, Phil, very funny. _My_ 'credibility' is irrelevant. Completely irrelevant, it is only the facts as we know them, the truth or the lies, and the ability to extrapolate to future events that counts.  
> It is a common place response from those defending the great big con of the global warming, to dig up dirt on the author of an article rather than reply or rebuke the argument proposed. It is called "Ad Hominem" a fallacious avoidance of the main argument deflecting it to a different subject, the author.  
> Conspiracy theories are a separate topic. They are great fun and to label something a conspiracy theory is a sure way to cheaply discredit and mock something we would rather stay buried. The desired effect is to dismiss the conspiratorial suspicion out of hand with no discussion whatsoever. 
> There are of course thousands of false conspiracies however there are many that turned out to be true, and probably many more that are true but couldn't be proven or are still uncertain. 
> The interesting part is that to label something a conspiracy theory does not reduce belief in it, so it is a rather perverse way to shoot yourself in the foot. 
> Much better to debate the argument and leave the labels and the ad hominem out of it.
> After all if a drug addict tells you that drugs are bad, it does not detract from the truth of the argument. 
> Take the posts above. My contention was that CO2 is perfectly safe in much higher levels than earth has ever experimented, and certainly many times over the current concentration. Read the answer and see who is addressing that point.
> For example: -"No not true because at 1000 ppm we will all die because that would prove that CO2 levels are irrelevant so there will be a revolution to throw out all the global warming strokers and cheer leaders and we will kill each other until there is no one left. So ... CO2 is bad" 
> Just an example.

  When you post a quote from someone who believes that prince Philip is secretly a lizard man and part of a plan for world domination then mockery seems appropriate to me. Using facts to refute an argument that is not based on any facts at all is a waste of time because the person putting foward such an irrational case obviously lacks the mental acuity to participate in rational debate. 
Your position on CO2 is a half truth that carefully omits other factors. When all the relevant information is taken into consideration our past geological history proves that CO2 causes temperature increases; it's not the only thing that does, but it does and history proves it. The graph you use is not linked to any credible research but was just put together by misappropriating the work of two separate authors who do not support its use in such a manner.

----------


## woodbe

> Ha ha, Phil, very funny. _My_ 'credibility' is irrelevant. Completely irrelevant, it is only the facts as we know them, the truth or the lies, and the ability to extrapolate to future events that counts.

  Marc, you are posting to show YOUR CREDIBILITY. You are posting non-scientific opinions and posting non-science to support your opinion. 
The science has worked out for decades that increasing greenhouse gases will impact the planet, and that is exactly what is happening. 
The scientists know and have tested, checked by hundreds/thousands of other scientists and released the info. Most people are aware that the climate is in trouble, but a small group are denying it. Some are ignorant, and others are wealthy by digging up the fossil energy and burning it. 
Your credibility is relevant for YOU and anyone who reads your incorrect info. 
Read scientific papers, not the fake news.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## John2b

> Much better to debate the argument and leave the labels and the ad hominem out of it.

  Please start doing so anytime you like, Marc, but don't expect anyone to hold their breath until you do.

----------


## Bros

Food for thought.  http://www.minerals.org.au/file_uplo...s_3March17.pdf

----------


## woodbe

> Food for thought.  http://www.minerals.org.au/file_uplo...s_3March17.pdf

  Good info there. 
Of  course, it is a current aspect of the subsidies is about the recent  generation mix which is mostly renewable generation. Non renewable is  the old system that was mostly built by the governments or supported by  the governments. 
The old system was then mostly sold to private  companies and the capital amount was dropped into the government cash  balance. To compare the new and the old generation costs the cost of the  plants should be compared of the sale and also the costs of mining the  coal and gas to compare them.  https://www.crikey.com.au/2004/04/23...ower-sell-off/ 
Generally, the governments built the plants and later sold off their power plants.  
Now we really have good food for thought.

----------


## John2b

> Food for thought.  http://www.minerals.org.au/file_uplo...s_3March17.pdf

  If the claimed "$63 million in subsidies (2 per cent of total) went to supporting generation from coal (including by supporting coal mining activities that may indirectly benefit electricity generation from coal)" didn't set your brain screaming "that's ridiculous", then your sceptic nerve is comatose! Most credible research of the level of fossil energy industry subsidies in Australia point well in excess of $10 billion per annum. Turns out that BA Economics is just an extraction industry funded lobby enterprise based in Canberra which writes whatever they are paid to write.

----------


## Bedford

> If the claimed "$63 million in subsidies (2 per cent of total) went to supporting generation from coal (including by supporting coal mining activities that may indirectly benefit electricity generation from coal)" didn't set your brain screaming "that's ridiculous", then your sceptic nerve is comatose! Turns out that BA Economics is just an extraction industry funded lobby enterprise based in Canberra which writes whatever they are paid to write.

  How about you post up the subsidies figures then John? 
And while you're at it have you got proof of this yet?   

> In that case, most of ancestors could not live in  the climatic conditions we have today, anymore than humans could live in  theirs - doh!

----------


## PhilT2

Here''s a couple of papers that give different figures for the amount of subsidy going to fossil fuels.  http://www.tai.org.au/sites/defualt/...ntitlement.pdf https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk...files/9992.pdf

----------


## Marc

And to all those morons that are frantically typing on the WWW that the "deniers" are spreading the myth of CO2 being beneficial, and that more CO2 will not benefit plants ... pay a visit to you local greenhouse grower were the levels of CO2 are 1500 ppm with 30% yield increases. And the farmer does not need an oxygen mask to work in there.
That's right, no mask required. Someone already told him that Co2 is not poisonous. The marines work safely in submarines with 8000 ppm. 
I really want to see the day where all this will be a sad joke, like the GHMC  or great horse manure crisis.
I wonder what the soyachino society will find trendy then.

----------


## John2b

> How about you post up the subsidies figures then John? 
> And while you're at it have you got proof of this yet?

  I have put subsidies up before, several times, and you can follow PhilT2's links if you want more. Here's another angle: The 81 largest fossil fuel companies in Australia had a combined revenue of $109 billion in Australia in 2015/16, but collectively paid less than $1 million in tax to the Australian government in 2015, based on data published by the ATO. That's less than 1% a tax rate and they still pocket the subsidies! I'd be happy if I earned $99,000 then claimed $10,000 in government rebates bringing my income to $109,000 and then only had to pay $1000 in income tax. What about you?  https://www.marketforces.org.au/camp.../taxavoidance/ 
Arguments about what definition of ancestral you want to use aside, when Earth's last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago it entered a long, stable period of mostly warm, mostly wet conditions, an epoch called the Holocene. The entire history of civilization fits within it and all the revolutions in farming, city building and industry were designed, and work, within it. This period of relatively stable environment and climate that enabled life as we currently experience it is ending. It is ending because human activity is altering the environment _and_ climate in many profound ways. Marc is right on one point - of course the Earth will survive, but human civilisation may not. It is cold comfort then that some future species may list Homo sapiens as ancestral. 
The most common meaning of ancestor, and the most appropriate in terms of this discussion, is along these lines: An *ancestor* is a parent or (recursively) the parent of an antecedent (i.e., a grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent, and so forth). *Ancestor* is "any person from whom one is descended. In law the person from whom an estate has been inherited."  definition of ancestor - Google Search

----------


## Bros

> I have put subsidies up before, several times, and you can follow PhilT2's links if you want more. Here's another angle: The 81 largest fossil fuel companies in Australia had a combined revenue of $109 billion in Australia in 2015/16, but collectively paid less than $1 million in tax to the Australian government in 2015, based on data published by the ATO. That's less than 1% a tax rate and they still pocket the subsidies! I'd be happy if I earned $99,000 then claimed $10,000 in government rebates bringing my income to $109,000 and then only had to pay $1000 in income tax. What about you?  https://www.marketforces.org.au/camp.../taxavoidance/ 
> Arguments about what definition of ancestral you want to use aside, when Earth's last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago it entered a long, stable period of mostly warm, mostly wet conditions, an epoch called the Holocene. The entire history of civilization fits within it and all the revolutions in farming, city building and industry were designed, and work, within it. This period of relatively stable environment and climate that enabled life as we currently experience it is ending. It is ending because human activity is altering the environment _and_ climate in many profound ways. Marc is right on one point - of course the Earth will survive, but human civilisation may not. It is cold comfort then that some future species may list Homo sapiens as ancestral. 
> The most common meaning of ancestor, and the most appropriate in terms of this discussion, is along these lines: An *ancestor* is a parent or (recursively) the parent of an antecedent (i.e., a grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent, and so forth). *Ancestor* is "any person from whom one is descended. In law the person from whom an estate has been inherited."  definition of ancestor - Google Search

  Muddying the water again. How much has the renewals got in subsidies in the last 10yrs and how much per yr on on going subsidies? 
Just a number.

----------


## UseByDate

> The most common meaning of ancestor, and the most appropriate in terms of this discussion, is along these lines: An *ancestor* is a parent or (recursively) the parent of an antecedent (i.e., a grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent, and so forth). *Ancestor* is "any person from whom one is descended. In law the person from whom an estate has been inherited."  definition of ancestor - Google Search

  It is only common in the sense that most people in the world believe that we are only descended from humans. This is because religion (or at least a believe in a creation myth) tells them that humans were created at a set point in history. A lot of posters to this thread constantly try to rein in opinion and steer the thread towards science. 
 I clicked your link to the definition of ancestor and I note that you omitted definition 2. 
 ancestor
 ˈansɛstə/ _noun_
 noun: *ancestor*; plural noun: *ancestors*  a person,     typically one more remote than a grandparent, from whom one is     descended.*an early     type of animal or plant from which others have evolved.*an early version     of a machine, system, etc.

----------


## John2b

> It is only common in the sense that most people in the world believe that we are only descended from humans. This is because religion (or at least a believe in a creation myth) tells them that humans were created at a set point in history. A lot of posters to this thread constantly try to rein in opinion and steer the thread towards science. 
>  I clicked your link to the definition of ancestor and I note that you omitted definition 2.

  I did not "omit" definition 2, I posted the common meaning as the relevant one for the context of the thread. I also provided the link so people can see for themselves what the common meaning is. By using the wider definition of ancestors that includes bacteria and algae, are you implying that homo sapiens could survive in the same conditions as algae and bacteria hundreds of thousands of years ago? Clearly that is not true.

----------


## John2b

> How much has the renewals got in subsidies in the last 10yrs and how much per yr on on going subsidies? 
> Just a number.

  I don't have all day to search for information for you, but a quick look revealed some telling numbers: IMF estimate for Australian government fossil energy subsidies $41 billion in 2015. AFR estimate for Australian government renewable subsidies $2.2 billion in 2017. That puts the fossil energy subsidy level at nearly 20 times more than subsidies for renewables - and that is overlooking the fact that some of the "renewables" subsidies went to that oxymoron called "clean coal"! Both equally credible sources, and no surprises for anyone who is interested in the topic and reads widely.

----------


## UseByDate

> I did not "omit" definition 2, I posted the common meaning as the relevant one for the context of the thread. I also provided the link so people can see for themselves what the common meaning is. By using the wider definition of ancestors that includes bacteria and algae, are you implying that homo sapiens could survive in the same conditions as algae and bacteria hundreds of thousands of years ago? Clearly that is not true.

  But the common meaning is only common because publishers that wish to sell dictionaries tend to not want to offend a large proportion of their potential customer base.
 I do believe that we (modern humans) could have survived hundreds of thousands of years ago, biologically, (culturally is another matter) with the bacteria and algae  present at that time.    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...uman-ancestor/
 I am not studied in this area of science so could be wrong. Why could we not survive when Lucy was around?

----------


## Bros

> I don't have all day to search for information for you, but a quick look revealed some telling numbers: IMF estimate for Australian government fossil energy subsidies $41 billion in 2015. AFR estimate for Australian government renewable subsidies $2.2 billion in 2017. That puts the fossil energy subsidy level at nearly 20 times more than subsidies for renewables - and that is overlooking the fact that some of the "renewables" subsidies went to that oxymoron called "clean coal"! Both equally credible sources, and no surprises for anyone who is interested in the topic and reads widely.

   Now remove the “guessestimates” and what is the fossil fuel subsidy which would be quite low.

----------


## John2b

> But the common meaning is only common because publishers that wish to sell dictionaries tend to not want to offend a large proportion of their potential customer base.

  That would make dictionaries useless for their intended purpose, namely study and language learning. Definitions are individually numbered with the central meaning of each part of speech put first - this is generally the most common meaning. The usual order after the central meaning is: figurative or transferred meanings, specialised meanings, obsolete, archaic or rare meanings.   

> https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...uman-ancestor/
>  I am not studied in this area of science so could be wrong. Why could we not survive when Lucy was around?

  The is a not so subtle difference between humans being able to survive in the time of Lucy and a civilisation of 7.5 billion humans being able to survive in the climate that Lucy lived in. That a human could physically survive misses the context of the original post.

----------


## John2b

> Now remove the “guessestimates” and what is the fossil fuel subsidy which would be quite low.

  Fossil energy subsidies would be quite close to the “guessestimates”, namely around twenty times renewable subsidies. IMF exists because governments and other organisations and corporations find its information meaningful. The Australian government is one of the organisations that fund the IMF.

----------


## UseByDate

> That would make dictionaries useless for their intended purpose, namely study and language learning. Definitions are individually numbered with the central meaning of each part of speech put first - this is generally the most common meaning. The usual order after the central meaning is: figurative or transferred meanings, specialised meanings, obsolete, archaic or rare meanings.

  No. Dictionaries are not used to study language. They reflect usage by the common people.
 Usage in Law is much greater controlled. Law and contracts must not be so fluid that they change with common usage changes to the meaning of words.    
 The context of this argument is biology. Why have you chosen to use what you consider to be the common meaning on the basis of position in a dictionary and not what biologists consider the meaning to be?  Ancestor dictionary definition | ancestor defined
 ancestor
 noun  A person from whom     one is descended, especially if more remote than a grandparent; a     forebear.A forerunner or     predecessor._Law_ The     person from whom an estate has been inherited._Biology_* The actual or     hypothetical organism or stock from which later kinds evolved.*    

> The is a not so subtle difference between humans being able to survive  in the time of Lucy and a civilisation of 7.5 billion humans being able  to survive in the climate that Lucy lived in. That a human could  physically survive misses the context of the original post.

  Which original post?  
You don't believe dictionaries are edited for the prospective customers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHwvT4Xl5Uo

----------


## Bedford

> The is a not so subtle difference between humans being able to survive in the time of Lucy and a civilisation of 7.5 billion humans being able to survive in the climate that Lucy lived in. That a human could physically survive misses the context of the original post.

   

> In that case, most of ancestors could not live in  the climatic conditions we have today, anymore than humans could live in  theirs - doh!

  So why couldn't Lucy survive today, it would only add  one  more to the 7.5 billion?

----------


## John2b

> So why couldn't Lucy survive today, it would only add  one  more to the 7.5 billion?

  You need to read my comment in its context of replying to _your post_, which wasn't about Lucy, it was about your algae and bacterial ancestors that have long ago vanished from Earth because the conditions don't suit them anymore.

----------


## John2b

"This week marks the thirtieth anniversary of Hansen’s testimony, and it would be hard to think of a more lugubrious milestone. In the intervening three decades, *nearly half of the Arctic ice cap has melted away*, the oceans have acidified, much of the American West has burned, lower Manhattan, South Florida, Houston, and New Orleans have flooded, and average temperatures have continued to climb. 
Just last week, a team of scientists reported in _Nature_ that *the rate of melt off Antarctica has tripled in the past decade*; as the Washington _Post_ put it, “If that continues, we are in serious trouble.” (Were the Antarctic ice to melt away entirely, global sea levels would rise by two hundred feet; if just the more vulnerable West Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea levels would rise by about ten feet.) 
Also last week, scientists reported that most of Africa’s oldest baobab trees have died, probably because of climate change, and last month researchers showed that *rising* *CO**2* *levels were reducing the nutrient content of rice*, which is probably the single most important food source for people. Yet Washington continues to ignore the problem, or, worse still, to actively impede efforts to address it."  https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/listening-to-james-hansen-on-climate-change-thirty-years-ago-and-now

----------


## Bros

> Fossil energy subsidies would be quite close to the guessestimates, namely around twenty times renewable subsidies. IMF exists because governments and other organisations and corporations find its information meaningful. The Australian government is one of the organisations that fund the IMF.

   As I said before take out the guessestimates eg CO2 emissions and some figure someone made up for global warming and the result will be near zero.  
CO2 and Global warming are not recognised in Australia otherwise they would be taxed which they are not so delete those two guessestimates and get the real value.

----------


## Bros

> Of  course, it is a current aspect of the subsidies is about the recent  generation mix which is mostly renewable generation. Non renewable is  the old system that was mostly built by the governments or supported by  the governments. 
> The old system was then mostly sold to private  companies and the capital amount was dropped into the government cash  balance. To compare the new and the old generation costs the cost of the  plants should be compared of the sale and also the costs of mining the  coal and gas to compare them.
> .

  I dont and never have supported public assets being sold. Both political parties have been guilty of this. Governments get the money and go about wasting it better to keep them as even if they lack some efficiency at least they keep people employed not thrown on the dole heap. 
The recent three elections in Queensland hammered that home to both parties.

----------


## Bedford

> In that case, most of ancestors could not live in the climatic conditions we have today, anymore than humans could live in theirs - doh!

     

> How do you know that? 
> Got proof?

   

> You need to read my comment in its context of replying to _your post_, which wasn't about Lucy, it was about your algae and bacterial ancestors that have long ago vanished from Earth because the conditions don't suit them anymore.

  John, you ignored my post asking for proof and when I asked again you posted this,     

> Arguments about what definition of ancestral you want to use aside, when  Earth's last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago it entered a long,  stable period of mostly warm, mostly wet conditions, an epoch called the  Holocene. The entire history of civilization fits within it and all the  revolutions in farming, city building and industry were designed, and  work, within it. This period of relatively stable environment and  climate that enabled life as we currently experience it is ending. It is  ending because human activity is altering the environment _and_  climate in many profound ways. Marc is right on one point - of course  the Earth will survive, but human civilisation may not. It is cold  comfort then that some future species may list Homo sapiens as  ancestral. 
> The most common meaning of ancestor,* and the most appropriate in terms of this discussion*, is along these lines: An *ancestor*  is a parent or (recursively) the parent of an antecedent (i.e., a  grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent, and so forth). *Ancestor* is "any person from whom one is descended. In law the person from whom an estate has been inherited."

  I think you're getting a little confused John.

----------


## Marc



----------


## PhilT2

> CO2 and Global warming are not recognised in Australia

  We are part of the Paris agreement to limit the impact of global warming.  Paris Agreement | Department of the Environment and Energy

----------


## John2b

> I think you're getting a little confused John.

  Bedford, thank you for your insight on my mental acuity. It is clear that proof in your terms does not exist, not from anyone, let alone me. 
Your contention is irrelevant to the topic of this thread, which you most certainly know. You've had your fun being impervious to reason and inoculated to understanding. Time to move on.

----------


## johnc

> As I said before take out the “guessestimates” eg CO2 emissions and some figure someone made up for global warming and the result will be near zero.  
> CO2 and Global warming are not recognised in Australia otherwise they would be taxed which they are not so delete those two “guessestimates” and get the real value.

  Good grief Bros, have you lost the plot mate, we do actually measure CO2 emissions here as part of the Paris Climate Accord, some of the methodology is a bit questionable however Malcolm Turnbull and Liberals have recognised climate change, although a few malcontents have a problem with that. Incidentally nobody questions CO2, its existence is not disputable only its effect on the planet.

----------


## John2b

> 

  So why is global coal consumption in decline Marc? (Hint: for each new coal fired power station planned in China, more than 1000 inefficient coal fired boilers are being shut down.)  “A distinction needs to be kept in mind between capacity and electrical output,” Nace says. “Even though there are more power plants, the actual production of electricity from those plants – and likewise the amount of coal used worldwide – has fallen every year since 2013, with a small drop in 2014 and larger drops in 2015 and 2016.”  Coalswarm | The Global Reference on Coal

----------


## phild01

> So why is global coal consumption in decline Marc? (Hint: for each new coal fired power station planned in China, more than 1000 inefficient coal fired boilers are being shut down.)

  So more than 266.000 coal stations are being shut down in China!!! Must be more to it than that.

----------


## PhilT2

> So more than 266.000 coal stations are being shut down in China!!! Must be more to it than that.

  You might be making the same mistake that Marc's post makes; confusing units with plants. A power station will have a number of units, not sure but I think Hazelwood had 8 units. Marc's post not only omits the number of stations being closed and confuses addition of units to existing stations with new stations but he also omits to subtract the number of stations that were planned but later cancelled. The real number of new stations is about 150 with another 100 old stations getting additional units. Hard to pin down exact figures as govts change plans and make promises all the time. For example if Trump is successful in starting a trade war then China may need to reassess their plans for projected demand urgently.  https://qz.com/1235125/the-number-of...e-near-enough/

----------


## Bros

> Good grief Bros, have you lost the plot mate, we do actually measure CO2 emissions .

  Read my reply I said it is never measured for a penalty so you cannot use it as a subsidy so my comment stands it is not used in Australia since it was thrown out by the conservative government.

----------


## Bros

> We are part of the Paris agreement to limit the impact of global warming.  Paris Agreement | Department of the Environment and Energy

   But we don’t apply a $ figure to it so it cannot be used in terms of subsidy.

----------


## PhilT2

> But we don’t apply a $ figure to it so it cannot be used in terms of subsidy.

  Not sure I understand your reasoning there. The term "subsidy" is used a bit flexibly depending on your point of view. But if the govt charged coal companies a lower rate to move coal by rail than any other user could get then wouldn't that count as a subsidy? How anyone feels about global warming wouldn't change that.

----------


## phild01

> But if the govt charged coal companies a lower rate to move coal by rail than any other user could get then wouldn't that count as a subsidy?

  Is that an inferred subsidy to benefit coal rather than a subsidy to benefit road use.  It could well be an environmental subsidy instead.
If a general freight subsidy that removed interstate trucks from the road, I'd be for it.

----------


## Marc

> So more than 266.000 coal stations are being shut down in China!!! Must be more to it than that.

  The greens can not live with the idea that their attempt at demonising coal has failed. Sure older powerplant are replaced with newer ones. What does that prove? Millions of cars are scrapped and melted down every year, therefore the conclusion is that cars are on the way out, replaced by pushbikes and rickshaw.
if coal usage is reducing it is because the new plants are more efficient, just like cars use less petrol. Plus more nuclear plants, and of course the ubiquitous let insignificant wind and solar, adds its token amount to the ever increasing need for more power.
Hint ... more population, more power required, more fuel burned.  
So why are the pathetic greens opposing any attempt at reducing migration accusing the government of using   

> _“cheap politics of racism and crass anti-migrant sentiment”_. What few people realise is that under The Greens’ immigration policy, Australia would see its population hit a massive 43 million by 2060 – well over double the 19 million population that existed when The Greens abandoned its stable population policy in 1998!?  Since The Greens have advocated raising Australia’s already turbo-charged immigration intake, it would appear that The Greens support a very ‘Big Australia’.This is why I view the The Greens as a fake environmental party that is hellbent on destroying the Australian environment and incumbent residents’ living standards via never-ending mass immigration and rapid population growth.

  Green party, green movements, green policies do not exist. No one cares for the environment. The environment is a political football tossed around for different agendas. 
Co2 scare, is a crass attempt as scaring the ignorant and the gullible. 
This too will end.

----------


## PhilT2

> This too will end.

  Care to make a prediction when that will happen? People have been predicting the end of the global warming "scam" and a looming "ice age" for a while now. In the end facts beat fantasy.

----------


## DavoSyd

> The greens can not live with the idea that their attempt at demonising coal has failed.

  regardless of who is responsible for the shaping of public opinion,  
the opinion is clear: *coal = demon*  

> *Australians want focus on renewables not coal, Lowy poll finds*   *By Peter Hannam*  Updated7 June 2017  6:59pmfirst published at 1:56pm   Australians overwhelmingly want governments to favour renewable energy over fossil fuels even if it costs more, and concerns about climate change are strengthening, a new Lowy Institute poll finds.  The survey of 1202 adults during the first three weeks of March found 81 per cent of respondents wanted policymakers to focus on clean energy sources such as wind and solar, even if it costs more to ensure grid reliability.

----------


## UseByDate

> The greens can not live with the idea that their attempt at demonising coal has failed. Sure older powerplant are replaced with newer ones. What does that prove? Millions of cars are scrapped and melted down every year, therefore the conclusion is that cars are on the way out, replaced by pushbikes and rickshaw.
> if coal usage is reducing it is because the new plants are more efficient, just like cars use less petrol. 
>  This too will end.

  Too true. Much less petrol.  https://youtu.be/eW5Pw9s-8q8?t=562

----------


## Bros

> But if the govt charged coal companies a lower rate to move coal by rail than any other user could get then wouldn't that count as a subsidy? .

   But they dont do they as the railways in Queensland are private and I think same in NSW so no subsidy there.

----------


## PhilT2

> But they dont do they as the railways in Queensland are private and I think same in NSW so no subsidy there.

  But they did in the past. If we count the subsidies renewables are getting at the beginning then shouldn't we recognise the subsidies coal got in its early days?

----------


## UseByDate

> But they dont do they as the railways in Queensland are private and I think same in NSW so no subsidy there.

  The Public Transport system is “privatised” in Adelaide, but the Government gets to set the fare charged and provides a massive subsidy for each ticket sold. I don't know about freight.

----------


## johnc

> Read my reply I said it is never measured for a penalty so you cannot use it as a subsidy so my comment stands it is not used in Australia since it was thrown out by the conservative government.

  I think you are just shifting feet, either that or in a hole and still digging. Altering comments to fit an opinion when challenged is a silly way to go about a discussion. Try moving on, this isn't a big deal no need to feel threatened.

----------


## Bros

> I think you are just shifting feet, either that or in a hole and still digging. Altering comments to fit an opinion when challenged is a silly way to go about a discussion. Try moving on, this isn't a big deal no need to feel threatened.

   Not challenged just asking the question as to the dollar figure that coal is subsidised vs subsidies for renewals can’t you understand or is it to embarrassing to reply. 
My message is still unchanged.  
As Mark Twain said “never argue with idiots” so I will leave you to your thoughts.

----------


## John2b

> No. Dictionaries...reflect usage by the common people...
> Which original post?

  Dictionaries...reflect usage by the common people - aka common usage!!!!! The "original" post was the one in which other posters including myself assumed the common meaning of the word was being used because that was consistent with context with the post. If you are not across that particular post why are you playing semantics? Just trolling?

----------


## John2b

> So more than 266.000 coal stations are being shut down in China!!! Must be more to it than that.

  Please read more carefully: more than 1000 coil fired *boilers* are being shut down for each new coal fired power station. Practically every factory once had its own coal fired  boiler for energy before contemporary centrally distributed electricity from efficient electricity plants, same as in pre-1900s Europe! Huge efficiencies are resulting from central electricity generation, as well as lower levels of pollution and coal consumption. That is the main reason the economic growth in China is occurring despite lowering consumption of fossil energy - the much talked about "decoupling of CO2 emissions and economic growth".

----------


## John2b

> But they dont do they as the railways in Queensland are private and I think same in NSW so no subsidy there.

  Both classic cases of a public asset (infrastructure funded with public money) being transferred to private sector which takes the profit whilst the letting the asset decline to the point that its imminent loss is so critical that public money is used to reinstate the asset. Ever seen 'Groundhog Day'?

----------


## John2b

> The Public Transport system is “privatised” in Adelaide, but the Government gets to set the fare charged and provides a massive subsidy for each ticket sold. I don't know about freight.

   Yes, that's correct, Adelaide has similar financial arrangements in place as every other capital city in Australia with 'privatised' public transport.

----------


## phild01

> Please read more carefully: more than 1000 coil fired *boilers* are being shut down for each new coal fired power station. Practically every factory once had its own coal fired  boiler for energy before contemporary centrally distributed electricity from efficient electricity plants, same as in pre-1900s Europe! Huge efficiencies are resulting from central electricity generation, as well as lower levels of pollution and coal consumption. That is the main reason the economic growth in China is occurring despite lowering consumption of fossil energy - the much talked about "decoupling of CO2 emissions and economic growth".

  Geeze you can spruik it, your original comment was a subterfuge to make it seem there is a colossal departure from coal fired electricity and making the numbers seem like for like. It was a nonsense comparative statement loosely delivered to gain effect. 
And this is what you said:  

> So why is global coal consumption in decline Marc? (Hint: for each new coal fired power station planned in China, more than 1000 inefficient coal fired boilers are being shut down.)

  
You hardly qualified your usage of the word "boiler" as you are now trying to do.  Typical biased reporting in my view. 
Perhaps you should write more carefully!

----------


## DavoSyd

Are you admitting you are readily fooled by shrewd writings?

----------


## John2b

> Geeze you can spruik it, your original comment was a subterfuge to make it seem there is a colossal departure from coal fired electricity and making the numbers seem like for like. It was a nonsense comparative statement loosely delivered to gain effect.

  My comment was clear, and you clearly understood it when it was repeated. Maybe ideological blindness makes things difficult to understand. Just like fictitious zombies, fictitious *facts* never seem to die, even though I have pointed out the fallacy of 'new coal fired power stations equals more coal consumption' many, many times in this forum over the past few years.

----------


## phild01

> My comment was clear, and you clearly understood it when it was repeated. Maybe ideological blindness makes things difficult to understand. Just like fictitious zombies, fictitious *facts* never seem to die, even though I have pointed out the fallacy of 'new coal fired power stations equals more coal consumption' many, many times in this forum over the past few years.

   Typical denial of your subterfuge in the first instance, and then trying to make it seem your follow up was always a part of the original context.  You are dodging with a sidestep what you were trying to illude.

----------


## John2b

> Typical denial of your subterfuge in the first instance

  Denial of what? Explain where there is subterfuge in the sentence "for each new coal fired power station planned in China, more than 1000 inefficient coal fired boilers are being shut down."

----------


## John2b

Despite China's continuing focus on eliminating "scattered" coal use in backstreet workshops and rural heating facilities and requiring them to switch to centrally generated electricity, China has been building far too much coal generation capacity, partly because the planners didn't factor in industry modernising and becoming more energy efficient. 
In 2017 China cancelled permits for more than 150 new coal power stations, some of which were already under construction. Those generation projects were worth ~$80 billion and had a combined capacity of >50,000 megawatts (which is more than Australia's entire electricity generation capacity from all sources). 
For perspective in 2017 China's installed capacity of hydropower reached 338,000 MW, wind power reached 150,000 MW and solar power reached 100,000 MW. 
Not satisfied with its current progress in emissions reductions, in 2017 China's government approved plans for a national emissions trading scheme that will eventually cover eight energy intensive industrial sectors: power; iron and steel; non-ferrous metals, such as aluminium; chemicals; petro-chemicals; paper; building materials; and civil aviation. This follows trials of emission trading schemes for several years in some provinces to develop the framework of how the national scheme will work.

----------


## phild01

> Denial of what? Explain where there is subterfuge in the sentence "for each new coal fired power station planned in China, more than 1000 inefficient coal fired boilers are being shut down."

  Of course, you would know already. 
 You clean up the statement when I challenged that number with a retrospective qualification. So I should take it you made the statement in support of newer coal power technology. 
 You made a sensational headline with a twist.

----------


## Bros

> Both classic cases of a public asset (infrastructure funded with public money) being transferred to private sector which takes the profit whilst the letting the asset decline to the point that its imminent loss is so critical that public money is used to reinstate the asset. Ever seen 'Groundhog Day'?

   Got up this morning and I thought I was dreaming as I agree with you, must be dreaming. 
Must write a note to myself not to make it a habit.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Denial of what? Explain where there is subterfuge in the sentence "for each new coal fired power station planned in China, more than 1000 inefficient coal fired boilers are being shut down."

  Cmon mate you clearly set out to trick everyone... You should be ashamed.  
It's not like other people post up easily misunderstood facts!  
You're just lucky phil is not seriously taking you to task over your wanton subterfuge, otherwise you'd be in big trouble for all the outrage you've caused...

----------


## Bedford

> Cmon mate you clearly set out to trick everyone... You should be ashamed.  
> It's not like other people post up easily misunderstood facts!  
> You're just lucky phil is not seriously taking you to task over your wanton subterfuge, otherwise you'd be in big trouble for all the outrage you've caused...

  You left out the loss of credibility............

----------


## DavoSyd

> You left out the loss of credibility............

  There's certainly enough credulity in this thread!

----------


## UseByDate

> Dictionaries...reflect usage by the common people - aka common usage!!!!! The "original" post was the one in which other posters including myself assumed the common meaning of the word was being used because that was consistent with context with the post. If you are not across that particular post why are you playing semantics? Just trolling?

  I am using the term common people to mean people without status. Traditionally and historically that meant not the aristocracy. Today it can mean non-experts.    
 Dictionaries...reflect usage by the common people - aka common usage!!!!!  
 but they don't, necessarily, reflect common usage by experts if you determine common usage by position in a dictionary. Common usage can change with different sets of people.  
 You referred to the/an original post without telling me what post you meant (a post number would be good). I then asked what original post you meant.  You then responded with If you are not across that particular post why are you playing semantics?. How can I know whether or not I am  across that particular post if I don't know what post you mean?  
 If I were to guess what post you meant it would be Marc's post #18272
 Marc made the claim Considering that CO2 has been many times higher in the past and it has not killed us, I vote for, CO2 is no problem.
 Clearly the context is biology.
 A discussion then tried to establish what Marc meant by us. Us probably means Humans and the reference to the past would include our ancestors. Marc could only be correct if he meant by us the same meaning as biologists use. Ie Humans and their ancestors. Biologists place no limit to ancestry, bar the start of life on this planet. 
 PS https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stress https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...english/stress  
 Using the two dictionaries above. How would you determine the common usage of the word stress?

----------


## Marc

I suggest that the sexagesm, tetheradick, wankapin, stop behaving like aholehole and stop bumfiddling. 
Your questions make you stand as low as a dick-dick. You are turning everything to aktashite.  :Smilie: 
Now you truly need a dictionary  :Rofl5:

----------


## John2b

> How can I know whether or not I am “ across that particular post” if I don't know what post you mean?

  No need to guess - you are arguing semantics about the word 'ancestors' so the original post in that thread started by Marc that introduced the word ancestors - your post #18290. My subsequent post tried to use irony (apparently unsuccessfully) to illustrate that 'ancestors' is only meaningful in the context of the current discussion when it refers to the same species that those climate alarmists claim are going to be impacted by climate change, namely homo sapiens.   

> A discussion then tried to establish what Marc meant by “us”. “Us” probably means Humans and the reference to the past would include our ancestors. Marc could only be correct if he meant by “us” the same meaning as biologists use. Ie Humans and their ancestors. Biologists place no limit to ancestry, bar the start of life on this planet.

  You and Marc must two of an extremely select group that include algae and bacteria when you say 'us'. I am pretty sure that the rest of us participating in this forum are exclusively homo sapiens, but then I am using the common meaning of us.   

> PS https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stress https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...english/stress 
>  Using the two dictionaries above. How would you determine the “common usage” of the word “stress”?

  One of your links is to a US dictionary, the other to a UK one. Being an Australian in Australia apparently having a discussion with other Australians in an Australian forum, I would refer to the only truely Australian dictionary, the Macquarie Dictionary: *stress* _verb_  to lay stress or emphasis on, emphasise. My edition does not have a definition for the noun stress, but it is an 1997 edition and the Macquarie has grown enormously as more word usages have been reported by lexicologists to add to subsequent editions. Unfortunately Macquarie requires a paid subscription to view online, or a membership of the Australian National Library. 
Funnily enough your cited dictionaries (the UK English one and the US English one) both give the same common definition as the Macquarie Australian dictionary for the verb form of stress.

----------


## phild01

> One of your links is to a US dictionary, the other to a UK one. Being an Australian in Australia apparently having a conversation with other Australians I would refer to the only truely Australian dictionary, the Macquarie Dictionary: *stress* _verb_  to lay stress or emphasis on, emphasise. My edition does not have a definition for the noun stress, but it is an 1997 edition and the Macquarie has grown enormously as more word usages have been reported by lexicologists to add to subsequent editions. Unfortunately Macquarie requires a paid subscription to view online, or a membership of the Australian National Library.

  I had a Macquarie dictionary and threw the trashy thing away.

----------


## John2b

> I had a Macquarie dictionary and threw the trashy thing away.

  Wow - given your personal castigation the Macquarie Dictionary must be even better than I realised  :Biggrin:

----------


## phild01

> Wow - given your personal castigation the Macquarie Dictionary must be even better than I realised

   Some are easily pleased, I prefer an unadulterated version of the English language.

----------


## John2b

> I suggest that the sexagesm, tetheradick, wankapin, stop behaving like aholehole and stop bumfiddling. 
> Your questions make you stand as low as a dick-dick. You are turning everything to aktashite. 
> Now you truly need a dictionary

  Ad hominem anyone?

----------


## John2b

> Some are easily pleased, I prefer an unadulterated version of the English language.

  That's ironic, given English is the result of the adulteration of many other languages - LOL! 
A significant portion of the English vocabulary comes from Romance and Latinate sources. Estimates of native words (derived from Old English) range from 20%33%, with the rest made up of outside borrowings. A portion of these borrowings come directly from Latin, or through one of the Romance languages, particularly Anglo-Norman and French, but some also from Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish; or from other languages (such as Gothic, Frankish or Greek) into Latin and then into English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreig...ces_in_English

----------


## John2b

> Biologists place no limit to ancestry, bar the start of life on this planet.

  you must be pleased then that some of your ancestors have come for a visit...  *Climate change drives spread of toxic algae*https://www.pressherald.com/2018/06/...cientists-say/

----------


## John2b



----------


## John2b

> It’s a simple equation: the more CO2 you have, the more the plants like it, and the faster they will grow.

  Raised levels of carbon dioxide greenhouse gas in the atmosphere might increase crop yields this benefit is cancelled out by other environmental effects.  World’s supply of vegetables plummets because of climate change https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/11/world...7/?ito=cbshare 
C3 grains and legumes (e.g. rice, wheat,  barley, rye, and oats,  soybean, peanuts, spinach and potato) have lower concentrations of zinc and iron when grown under field conditions at the elevated atmospheric CO2. Already dietary deficiencies of zinc and iron are a substantial global public health problem. An estimated two billion people suffer these deficiencies, causing a loss of 63 million life-years annually.  Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition  https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13179   

> I contribute as much CO2 as possible to the earth's atmosphere.

  What a guy!

----------


## UseByDate

> you must be pleased then that some of your ancestors have come for a visit...  *Climate change drives spread of toxic algae*   https://www.pressherald.com/2018/06/...cientists-say/

  Based on your post; I am not sure you know what an ancestor is.
 All of my ancestors are dead. How can they come for a visit?

----------


## John2b

> All of my ancestors are dead. How can they come for a visit?

  Toche UseByDate. Yet being dead never stops climate change / greenhouse effect deniers' arguments visiting this forum. There's more zombies here than in the Drunken Zombie Film Festival.

----------


## Bedford

> Climate deniers' arguments are dead, but that never stops them visiting this forum. There's more zombies here than in the Drunken Zombie Film Festival.

  You hang in there John, only another 71 posts to go...............

----------


## UseByDate

> Toche UseByDate. Yet being dead never stops climate change / greenhouse effect deniers' arguments visiting this forum. There's more zombies here than in the Drunken Zombie Film Festival.

  I hope you mean “touche”.
 Many moons ago I was in the Middlesex County fencing team. (sabre).

----------


## UseByDate

> That's ironic, given English is the result of the adulteration of many other languages - LOL!

  That's a bit like saying a Chocolate Eclair is the result of the adulteration of pastry, cream and chocolate. How dare you.   :Wink:

----------


## Pendejo

This thread is proof that arguing with deniers is pointless. The defiant mood of today’s climate deniers is best captured by the stirring words of Blackadder’s General Melchett: _“If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through!”_ 
Denial represents more than a right wing view of a party – be it Australian Coalition or US Republican. It denies scientific evidence to the extent of being delusional. In general, deniers fervently support individual freedom in contrast to collective action; their freedom often extends to the exploitation of the natural world and causes great harm to human health. The denier’s personal views are threatened by the implications of necessary collective action by all governments to address climate change. The condition of denial is incurable. The climate denier dismisses the collective scientific evidence and typically returns with the one scientific paper that does not fit the pattern, or like Trump and the G7 they simply walk out or refuse discussion. The belief of climate change deniers is usually unshakable. Many delude themselves that there is a conspiracy. The fervour of deniers often drives them into influential positions where they can do most damage. (Dr David Shearman on 19 July 2017)   _"We are slowly beginning to leave this earth." (Samuel Beckett)_

----------


## UseByDate

> I suggest that the sexagesm, tetheradick, wankapin, stop behaving like aholehole and stop bumfiddling. 
> Your questions make you stand as low as a dick-dick. You are turning everything to aktashite. 
> Now you truly need a dictionary

  Maybe after Marc has had a nice cup of tea, a scone and a lie down, he can tell us what he meant by us and ancestor. :Smilie:

----------


## DavoSyd

> This thread is proof that arguing with deniers is pointless.

----------


## Pendejo

Hey Davo, I've been lurking on and off in this thread. I find the deniers to be a pretty sad lot, but occasionally they say something so batsheet crazy that it evokes amusement.

----------


## DavoSyd

At least guano is useful...

----------


## John2b

> At least guano is useful...

   Yeah but I can't work out how to get Marc's posts onto the garden. Should I print and compost them?

----------


## John2b

> I hope you mean “touche”.

  Of course, thank you for the correction. I could use a fencer on my rural property to protect the garden, but more the high tensile rather than sabre type  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

> Maybe after Marc has had a nice cup of tea, a scone and a lie down, he can tell us what he meant by us and ancestor.

  _Tea? scones?_ ... ok I am sure you mean well ... Coffee and a nice crostata for me.   There is one simple reality in this debate. Either CO2 is dooming the planet. Or it isn't.
Considering that CO2 has been many times higher in the past and it has not killed us, I vote for, CO2 is no problem. 
What would happen if we had the unfortunate power to reduce it?
Crop failures and eventually desertification.
I say, CO2 is good and the more the merrier. 
That is what I said. 
I hope that by now the argument that it wasn't several times higher is taken care of, and the FACT that it takes 10,000 ppm to affect us a tad and 100,000 to kill us has sunk in. 
Funny thing is what a search for "toxic levels of CO2" reveals. From big fat lies of 1000 ppm and we are all domed. To confusing CO with CO2 ... it is all very funny. Meantimes in submarines they work with 8000 ppm.  
To your question.
Where would you be if you ancestors did not make it? If they died with the dinosaurs? You means YOU
We wouldn't be talking right?
What if the ancestors of your ancestors did not make it?
Kaput right?
CO2 levels never killed anyone, not bacteria, not plants, not lizards and not monkeys and not humans.
It takes way more than 4-500 ppm to kill us. ten times more and we are still OK. Considering it has never been that high, barely half that a very long time ago, I can assure you, your descendent are as safe as your ancestors were.  
you are funny man.

----------


## Marc

Every time I read the word "denier" used as a pejorative term, i have to giggle. 
How oxygen deprived must your intellect be to actually use such stolid expression is hard to imagine.
Yet perfectly understandable after reading this little obiter dictum ...   _One of the strangest and most conspicuous examples [of group thinking]  has been the rise in recent decades of that intense social pressure to conform with all the multifarious ideological positions which are deemed_ _to be ‘politically correct’. 
This has become the ‘New Puritanism’ of our time, displaying all the self-righteous certainty we associate with the intolerance of those original Puritans in the 17th century. 
The sense of moral outrage we associate with political correctness is almost invariably directed at those who can be portrayed as having, through oppression, prejudice or discrimination, turned some other group into a ‘victim’ – of ‘sexism’, ‘racism’, ‘homophobia’ or whatever. 
The same fundamental narrative inspires the views of our more fanatical ‘animal rights’ campaigners. 
It also lies behind the way the belief in manmade climate change has become added to the litany of politically correct causes, by seeing the planet itself as a ‘victim’ which must saved from the evils of ‘Big Oil’, ‘Big Carbon’ and all those other 94 malign forces that are threatening it with catastrophic global warming._

----------


## John2b

> This thread is proof that arguing with deniers is pointless.

  I don't expect people who are inoculated against erudition to change their views, but lot of people read this thread and I am not inclined to let the BS go unchallenged.  Some people do the crossword for pleasure; I amuse myself by following the links to garbage that the deniers post and drawing attention to the fallacies in them. I get quite a few messages from people who appreciate and/or enjoy the posts I make.

----------


## John2b

> There is one simple reality in this debate. Either CO2 is dooming the planet. Or it isn't.

  No one with the tiniest grasp of basic physics would/does suggest that CO2 is dooming the planet.   

> it takes 10,000 ppm to affect us a tad and 100,000 to kill us has sunk in.

  
Mortality is hardly the issue. Studies show that in todays office environments where CO2 can be as high as 1000ppm, cognitive performance of workers is already compromised. *Elevated CO2 Levels Directly Affect Human Cognition*  https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-...-2748e7378941/  *Direct Effects of Low-to-Moderate CO2Concentrations on Human Decision-Making Performance https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3548274/*    

> Meantimes in submarines they work with 8000 ppm.

   ...which may be why Germany lost the war...(just joking!) Fortunately in Australia's Collins Class submarines CO2 levels are held to much lower limits.

----------


## chrisp

*1000 ppm CO2* 
From https://www.nap.edu/read/12877/chapter/9#104 a 1000 ppm atmosphere will result in about a 4.5 degree global temperature rise    Chapter 2 Science and impacts of climate change | Climate Change Authority provides a chart that outlines the impact of various temperature rises...   
It’s hardly the utopia that Marc portrays it to be!  
But I suppose that dinosaurs will probably like it  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

So tell me Chris ... we are supposed to believe that 450 ppm CO2 equates to 1.5 C temperature increase world wide and 1000 ppm means 4.5 C increase? 
Calling this a fabrication is being nice.

----------


## John2b

> So tell me Chris ... we are supposed to believe that 450 ppm CO2 equates to 1.5 C temperature increase world wide and 1000 ppm means 4.5 C increase? 
> Calling this a fabrication is being nice.

  What's your projection Marc? In nearly 200 years no one else has come up with an alternative explanation for the warmth of Earth given its distance from the sun, or shown the magnitude of temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 to be something else. In fact the constant from the Stefan-Boltzmann law that Savant Arrhenius use to calculate his estimate of surface temperature rise form a doubling of CO2 in 1896 is still the same Stefan-Boltzmann constant used today. If Stefan-Boltzmann law were wrong thermodynamic systems like coal power plants could not be designed using physics and several generations of engineers would be out of work. The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838 and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, who measured the radiative properties of specific greenhouse gases.[7] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.[8] However, the term "greenhouse" was not used to refer to this effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901. 
Arrhenius used infrared observations of the moon  by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh  to calculate how much of infrared (heat) radiation is captured by CO2 and water (H2O) vapour in Earth's atmosphere. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan-Boltzmann law), he formulated what he referred to as a 'rule'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StefanBoltzmann_law

----------


## DavoSyd

> So tell me Chris ... we are supposed to believe that 450 ppm CO2 equates to 1.5 C temperature increase world wide and 1000 ppm means 4.5 C increase? 
> Calling this a fabrication is being nice.

   

> Previous research has consistently shown that it is more common among politically conservative individuals to deny climate change.  
> In her thesis, Kirsti Jylhä has investigated this further and in more detail. Her studies included ideological and personality variables which correlate with political ideology, and tested if those variables also correlate with climate change denial. The results show that climate change denial correlates with political orientation, authoritarian attitudes and endorsement of the status quo.  
> It also correlates with a tough-minded personality (low empathy and high dominance), closed-mindedness (low openness to experience), predisposition to avoid experiencing negative emotions, and with the male sex.  
> Importantly, one variable, named social dominance orientation (SDO), helped explain all these correlations, either entirely or partially.

  https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1004103313.htm

----------


## Marc

And that explains the alleged super efficiency of CO2 in increasing temperatures how?
Your post refers to the sheepish "belief" as opposed to healthy skepticism. 
The very reason I call the global warming scam a religion. Invented by a few clever individuals and swallowed by the masses that need to believe there is a way to appease their fears. 
Relax Davo, the sky is not falling, temperatures will rise and fall, and so will CO2. Whatever we do 'against' CO2 equates to a national suicide note, because power prices will climb further and further whilst the rest of the world happily uses our coal, uranium and gas. 
And all for nothing, since whatever we do, the "globe" does not really care.

----------


## chrisp

> And that explains the alleged super efficiency of CO2 in increasing temperatures how?
> Your post refers to the sheepish "belief" as opposed to healthy skepticism. 
> The very reason I call the global warming scam a religion. Invented by a few clever individuals and swallowed by the masses that need to believe there is a way to appease their fears. 
> Relax Davo, the sky is not falling, temperatures will rise and fall, and so will CO2. Whatever we do 'against' CO2 equates to a national suicide note, because power prices will climb further and further whilst the rest of the world happily uses our coal, uranium and gas. 
> And all for nothing, since whatever we do, the "globe" does not really care.

  I see that you placed quotation marks around ”belief” and used the word ‘religion’. Then state your ‘belief’ that science is a scam and accuse others who quote science of blindly following a religion - oh, the irony!

----------


## Bedford

> I see that you placed quotation marks around belief and used the word religion. Then state your belief that science is a scam and accuse others who quote science of blindly following a religion - oh, the irony!

  And where exactly in your above quote of Marc's did he use the word science?? 
You're just making stuff up Chris. 
You wonder why no-one believes any of this BS that's posted. 
I don't know the answer to his question, do you?

----------


## John2b

Come off it Bedford. If it looks like a @@@@, smells like a @@@@, feels like a @@@@ and tastes like a @@@@, it is probably a @@@@. No one makes more posts in this forum that associate climate science with the words "hoax", "scam", "fraud" and "religion" than Marc, and that's bloody obvious to everyone not suffering from attention deficit disorder.

----------


## Bros

> No one makes more posts in this forum that associate climate science with the words "hoax", "scam", "fraud" and "religion" than Marc,

   Certainly keeps you on your toes.

----------


## Marc

This is two unaswered question now.
One to Chris:
How can anyone believe that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere, will TRIPLE the temperature rise? That not mentioning the fact that 1000 ppm is pure fiction, like the 9m ocean level rise we had to have ... ten years ago?
One for dear old Davo
How does your (figuratively speaking) little essay into psychology explain the science fiction graph posted by Chris?
Simple questions fellows.  
John ... I usually don't read your post because you are in my ignore list, and I get to read them when others quote you. Sorry man, better luck next time.
PS
Oh ... I see now, thank you Bros ... I see that I didn't miss much at all. 
As for my views on Global bulldust and organised religion, How hard is it to draw a parallel between the two? Hardly difficult. 
If anyone can get away with a graph that tells you tripling temperatures is just a matter of doubling the existing CO2 in the atmosphere, _and people believe it_ ... that is just like someone telling others that a stain on the wall is actually a self generated photo of the virgin of Guadalupe. 
The believers are collecting subsidies.  https://youtu.be/0LG12pew3As

----------


## Bedford

> Come off it Bedford. If it looks like a @@@@, smells like a @@@@, feels like a @@@@ and tastes like a @@@@, it is probably a @@@@. No one makes more posts in this forum that associate climate science with the words "hoax", "scam", "fraud" and "religion" than Marc, and that's bloody obvious to everyone not suffering from attention deficit disorder.

  I take it that you can't answer Marc's question either?

----------


## DavoSyd

> I don't know the answer to his question, do you?

  *"...if you emit one tonne of carbon dioxide, it will lead to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change.* 
Concordia University. "Carbon Emissions Linked To Global Warming In Simple Linear Relationship." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 11 June 2009.

----------


## DavoSyd

> How does your (figuratively speaking) little essay into psychology explain the science fiction graph posted by Chris?

  it provides insight to the mind of a science-denier, nothing to do with your fetish with Crisp...

----------


## Marc

*17% "error" ... (yea right)* *When it is false data from the caffe latte side, it is an oops ... error.* *When it is from the skeptic side it is an act of disbelief and the priests are all up in arms rubbing their effigies, and calling to arms to cull the infidels. * I don't _believe_ one iota that comes from the mouths or pens from the so called scientist on the payroll.
And as usual no answer to either of my two simple questions.
John, you hoped for pubic hair help, but he is not playing it seems.    *Study shows increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is lower than predicted because of plants*  *October 14, 2014 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report*   Credit: Wikipedia.A team of researchers in the U.S. claims that climate models used to predict the rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are approximately 17 percent too high because they incorrectly approximate how much CO2 plants pull from the atmosphere. In their paper published in _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team describes how they studied the ability of plants to absorb increased amounts of CO2 and discovered that they are capable of pulling more out of the atmosphere than has been previously thought and the difference is approximately equal to the error difference reported by simulation models._    _Plants, as most people learn in grade-school, use light as part of the photosynthesis process to convert the suns' energy into energy the plant can use to grow—oxygen is then emitted as a byproduct. What's not really clear is how plants in general respond to the presence of more CO2 in the air. Prior research has shown that some plants grow bigger, which tends to cause them to take in more CO2._ _Recently, it's come to light that climate models have on average been off a little bit in predicting how much CO2 is being added to the atmosphere by man-made processes. More specifically, over the years, 1901 to 2010, that error rate has been found to be on average 17 percent too high, and scientists have been racing to figure out why._ _In this new effort, the researchers took a new look at the photosynthesis process and how it might be altered in the presence of increasingly higher concentrations of CO2. They found that as CO2 levels rose, plants altered the way they processed the gas, saving more of it to use as a fertilizer, which allowed the plants to grow bigger or to become more robust, which in the end meant more CO2 was taken out of the atmosphere. Not coincidently, the researchers note, their research showed that when plants were exposed to the same higher levels of CO2 as actually occurred over the past century, they were able to absorb on average 16 percent more CO2, which very nearly coincides with the 17 percent error difference earth scientists have found with their climate models._ _The research team suggests their results indicate that climate models need to be modified to take proper account of the behavior of plants as CO2 levels rise._ _  Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-10-co2-atmosphere.html#jCp_

----------


## chrisp

> One to Chris:
> How can anyone believe that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere, will TRIPLE the temperature rise?

  ”doubling” and “TRIPLE”? What are you assuming to be the zero levels? 
CO2 has gone from about 300ppm (pre Industrial Age)  to 400ppm. About a 30% increase. The preindustrial-age average global temperature was about 14 degrees Celsius and has gone up about 1 degree. As you will be aware, with temperature, the Celsius and Fahrenheit temperature scales use non-absolute zero references. So, global temperature has increase from about 287 kelvin to 288 kelvin. Add another 3 degrees or so is far from “TRIPLE”.  
It’s not hard to see a 2-3 fold increase in CO2 resulting in a 5 degree temperature rise - as John has pointed out the science. But I don’t think that recognised science or facts will change your ‘beliefs’. 
Enjoy your anti-science religion!  :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> Previous research has consistently shown that it is more common among politically conservative individuals to deny climate change. In her thesis, Kirsti Jylhä has investigated this further and in more detail. Her studies included ideological and personality variables which correlate with political ideology, and tested if those variables also correlate with climate change denial.The results show that climate change denial correlates with political orientation, authoritarian attitudes and endorsement of the status quo. It also correlates with a tough-minded personality (low empathy and high dominance), closed-mindedness (low openness to experience), predisposition to avoid experiencing negative emotions, and with the male sex. Importantly, one variable, named social dominance orientation (SDO), helped explain all these correlations, either entirely or partially. 
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161004103313.htm

  That has got to be the best post in this thread for quite sometime. 
Im not going to pretend to be an authority on the science of climate change, but Im more than happy to read up as we go along.  
However, I find the psychology of the science-denier mind fascinating - it gives insights in to what the social dynamics must have been like when the idea of the earth being the centre of the universe were being challenged. 
I still dont understand why Marc is so resistant to progress of knowledge.

----------


## Marc

Chris ... my boy ... I'll make it real simple.
Look up at the picture above ... straight off the altar of global baloney. 
it paints a picture of straight cause and effect ... I know, balloney in itself, but does not stop there ... it tells you, if you chose to believe it, that when 450 ppm equates to a 1.5 c increase ... a level of 1000 ppm equates to a 4.5 c INCREASE. 
Couldn't be more simple than that, nor could it be more false than that. 
The smokescreen of kelvin and absolute zero is very funny. You can use Wedgwood scale for what I care. It is still false, misleading and a whole heap of dung.
If there is a way to make CO2 greenhouse effect triple in efficiency I would like to know how.

----------


## John2b

> I take it that you can't answer Marc's question either?

  It's very simple Bedford - the answer to Marc's question is well known and established - yes 450 ppm CO2 equates to 1.5 C temperature increase world wide and 1000 ppm means 4.5 C increase, give or take a small margin and depending on how long after the CO2 rise the temperature recording is made. 
The effect of doubling of CO2 was first calculated in 1896 and although a doubling of CO2 has not occurred yet, the 1896 projection appears in 2018 to be as accurate as could possibly be expected when the temperature record since then is analysed. Bear in mind that the Earth has a huge thermal inertia and global temperature changes take decades or more to respond to a change in thermal forcing, so even if CO2 in the atmosphere became static today, there is decades of future warming locked in. 
Without any heat from external sources, the Earth's surface temperature would be close to 0*°* Kelvin, or -273.15*°* C. But there is that big heat source called the Sun. Given how far it is from the Sun if the Earth were a planet with a benign atmosphere then the Earth's average surface temperature would be -18*°* C. This is determined by the Stefan Boltzmann Law Equation. Even if the physics didn't exist to calculate the temperature without the greenhouse effect, it is still known because the temperature of the Moon's surface is known to be on average ~-20*°* C. But the Earth is not that cold! 
Both water vapour in the atmosphere and various other trace gasses conspire to reduce the outflow of radiant energy back to space, and this causes the average temperature of the Earth to be around 15*°* C and rising as the quantities of those gases in the atmosphere rise.

----------


## DavoSyd

> If there is a way to make CO2 greenhouse effect triple in efficiency I would like to know how.

   either you are trolling or you are not so widely read as you purport...

----------


## Marc

Fanaticism.
That is the problem, with Global so called warming, with religion of any sort, with marxism you name it. Yes truly also with fascism and bigotry.
it is not for me to judge, but from pure observation of the media around the world, the worse behaviour, the most atrocious and unbelievable abuse, bullying and harassment in todays political climate, comes from the left wing of politics and the global warming fanatics.
Oh yes they like to play the victims and have decades of practice at it. Claim the victim status and stretch the hands out for subsidies, respect no one and scream high pitch notes of ridiculous claims backed by cronies on the payroll. 
This too will pass.  *Fanaticism Is a Disease Like Alcoholism*  *Fanatics Anonymous 12 Steps. At core, don’t blame the addict; blame the disease*  Posted Nov 04, 2014  SHARETWEETEMAILMORE   Fanatics, ideologues and absolutists are humanity’s greatest scourge. Whether they’re the leaders or the followers, fanatics are people who indulge in a heady, intoxicating and toxic concoction of self-affirming, know-it-all confidence that they have unique access to absolute truths, truths so perfect that they have to impose them on everyone.
The absolute truths that fanatics latch onto might be religious or political, right wing or left wing, Christian or Islamic, libertarian or communist, new age spiritual or old-time religious. It’s not what they believe that makes them fanatics but how they believe it, that they have final word, no need to consider further evidence, no need to ever wonder or doubt themselves again.
Fanaticism is a drug. Let loose on society it's like crack cocaine or alcoholonly worse. Fanatics drive through life like alcoholics driving under the influence. They think they’re perfectly fine driving. They kill innocent bystanders, sometimes by the thousands or millions.
We’ve learned though, that treating alcoholics as criminals doesn’t help us or them. Alcoholics Anonymous has been so successful in part because it gives the addict a graceful way out of the corner he or she is painted into. It’s hard to kick a drug if sobriety means admitting that you’re a vile person through and through. Shaming the addict can make him dig in his heals. It’s easier to kick it if you declare that you’ve become host to a virulent disease that can attack any of us. No one is exempt from the risk. It’s not your fault, but it is your responsibility to kick it.
What's needed is an AA-style safe-haven for recovering political and religious fanatics, ideologues and absolutists. It’s message is, "Yes, you’re a wreck and have done real damage. But don't beat yourself up over it. Like so many of us, you became host to a powerful parasite that mutates quickly and has taken over minds throughout human history. Don't blame yourself. You are not alone. Join us. Together we can lick this thing."
Here’s a rough draft for the 12 Steps of Fanatics Anonymous
1. We admitted we were powerless over fanaticism—that our lives had become unmanageable. 
2. Came to believe that Reason, a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of Reason.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have Reason remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly invoked reason to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory, and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through inquiry, debate, conversation, curiosity and doubt to improve our conscious contact with Reason seeking for better understanding of the human tension between what we want to believe and what’s most likely to be true.
12. Having had an awakening to Reason as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to fanatics of all kinds, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
Of course, the peculiar move here is replacing god with Reason, and more peculiar perhaps to repurpose the AA model for fanatics anonymous, what with AA’s surrender to god’s will, the most notorious excuse for fanaticism in fanaticism’s long and sordid history. article continues after advertisement
And what is Reason anyway?
Reason is nature’s gift to humankind and to the humanitarian impulse. It’s also called rationality, which comes from the same root as ratio, to compare, discern, evaluate, judging carefully and humbly in our efforts to find the better bets on how to live.
Reason is also related to logos, a word with diverse implications over the millennia but related to language, and logic, uniquely human gifts for our ongoing effort to understand the true ways of the world.
Ongoing--that’s how science practices reason. Where fanatics say “I reasoned once, came to the absolute truth and don’t have to reason again,” science, a practical practice we can learn to apply well beyond the lab, admits that there’s no last word, just today’s best guesses, to be improved upon through ongoing inquiry. 
Sustained reason is just the hard work that an addiction to fanaticism frees us from. No wonder fanaticism is so intoxicating. Being a know-it-all provides such powerful pain relief. Reason is a much harder master than god. Humbling ourselves to it is painful.
No wonder so many of us fall off the wagon.

----------


## Marc

A lot of bull answers yet no explanation how and why is it that 450 ppm produces 1.5c yet just over double the amount produces triple the effect.
Clearly fake since the effect should reduce and not increase per unit of CO2.

----------


## chrisp

> Chris ... my boy ... I'll make it real simple.
> Look up at the picture above ... straight off the altar of global baloney. 
> it paints a picture of straight cause and effect ... I know, balloney in itself, but does not stop there ... it tells you, if you chose to believe it, that when 450 ppm equates to a 1.5 c increase ... a level of 1000 ppm equates to a 4.5 c INCREASE. 
> Couldn't be more simple than that, nor could it be more false than that. 
> The smokescreen of kelvin and absolute zero is very funny. You can use Wedgwood scale for what I care. It is still false, misleading and a whole heap of dung.
> If there is a way to make CO2 greenhouse effect triple in efficiency I would like to know how.

   

> A lot of bull answers yet no explanation how and why is it that 450 ppm produces 1.5c yet just over double the amount produces triple the effect.
> Clearly fake since the effect should reduce and not increase per unit of CO2.

  It seems like you are somehow stuck in linear mathematics. Did you do any maths beyond linear equations? Not every relationship is linear. I mentioned before that the Celsius scale uses an artificial zero reference (the freezing-point of water at one atmosphere) so factoring off an offset scale is nonsensical. 
Anyhow, I very much doubt that you are after an explanation at all.

----------


## John2b

> A lot of bull answers yet no explanation how and why is it that 450 ppm produces 1.5c yet just over double the amount produces triple the effect.
> Clearly fake since the effect should reduce and not increase per unit of CO2.

  The additional greenhouse effect is from the baseline of -18*°*C, the greenhouse effect being around 33*°* to give surface temperature of ~14.5*°* (at 280ppm CO2).
The number 1 greenhouse gas is water vapour, not CO2 which directly contributes less, but as the temperature rises so does the amount of water vapour and hence the contribution of CO2 is magnified.

----------


## John2b

Of course the greenhouse effect is not a linear one - below 0*°* C some atmospheric water vapour desublimates (turns to ice or snow)!

----------


## PhilT2

I don't quite follow how some of you are reading that graph Chris posted. For what its worth here's my take on it. The first doubling of CO2, from 270ppm to 560ppm results in a temp increase of approx 2.5 degrees, the next doubling from 560ppm to 1120ppm results in a similar increase. That's how the logarithmic relationship is supposed to work.To suggest that a 100% increase in CO2 will result in a 100% increase in temp, as that is how I interpret Marc's post, is, well it's not realistic or we would already be toast, literally. 
Or have I got that wrong? Is he saying that if the first doubling of CO2 causes a rise of 2.5 degrees then the next doubling should cause more?

----------


## Marc

> It seems like you are somehow stuck in linear mathematics. Did you do any maths beyond linear equations? Not every relationship is linear. I mentioned before that the Celsius scale uses an artificial zero reference (the freezing-point of water at one atmosphere) so factoring off an offset scale is nonsensical. 
> Anyhow, I very much doubt that you are after an explanation at all.

   More BS answers.
if you introduce a chemical element in a system and can measure an effect from introducing this element, you can not expect that the addition of twice the amount wil have double the effect from the first lot. Most of the time this results are vastly reduced depending from the system in question. The efficiency of the element used reduces. In your graph not only it does not reduce, it increases two fold. Making this sort of predictions are akin to predict the second coming.
It is BS, and you attempts at patronising me is noted but ignored.

----------


## chrisp

> More BS answers.
> if you introduce a chemical element in a system and can measure an effect from introducing this element, you can not expect that the addition of twice the amount wil have double the effect from the first lot. Most of the time this results are vastly reduced depending from the system in question. The efficiency of the element used reduces. In your graph not only it does not reduce, it increases two fold. Making this sort of predictions are akin to predict the second coming.
> It is BS, and you attempts at patronising me is noted but ignored.

  You’re stuck in an linear world. I think it is a bit more complex than double this equals double that. 
I’m not patronising you - I’m calling out your mindset. Even if a nobel prize winner explained AGW to you, it wouldn’t change your belief. I don’t expect that you’ll change your beliefs no matter what is presented here or elsewhere. I figure that you are ‘cornered’ by your position on AGW and won’t ever change your views. I certainly don’t expect that I could ever change your mindset. 
I’m more interested in watching you steadfastly uphold your ill-founded views and beliefs - and trying to understand why you do so. (I’m certainly not here for the AGW science).

----------


## DavoSyd

> I don't quite follow how some of you are reading that graph Chris posted.

  Geez, just read the text in the source?   https://www.nap.edu/read/12877/chapter/9#104

----------


## Marc

> You’re stuck in an linear world. I think it is a bit more complex than double this equals double that.

  You are not making any sense.
The alleged effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere is allegedly ... increases in temperatures. Lets just assume this is true for argument sake.
If it is true and it is a big IF ... adding more CO2 should produce some form of increases in temperatures.
However ... like you well point out, twice the amount of CO2 would never equate to twice the increase. So true!
Yet your graph shows triple the increase. 
Chris, earlier you told me that we would all die if we had 1000 ppm CO2 when in fact we could go on up to 10,000 ppm in CO2. ou never agnoledged that and now you are banging on with something that makes even less sense. It is sense-less. 
Ok I had enough of this. 
That article I copied earlier about fanaticism is a good one. 
See, the difference between global warming apologist and me is that I must *defend my rights* to cheap electricity and freedom of choice of car/truck,  from the fanatics that due to some faulty brain wiring think that they can IMPOSE their BELIEFS onto the rest of the world. No different from the inquisition, or any other totalitarian regime or belief in history.   

> Fanatics, ideologues and absolutists are humanity’s greatest scourge. Whether they’re the leaders or the followers, fanatics are people who indulge in a heady, intoxicating and toxic concoction of self-affirming, know-it-all confidence that they have unique access to absolute truths, truths so perfect that they have to impose them on everyone.

----------


## PhilT2

Just a graph to help explain the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temp. Note that the increase of CO2 from 100 to 200 causes a bigger increase in temp than the increase from 600 to 700ppm.

----------


## chrisp

> ... the difference between global warming apologist and me is that I must *defend my rights* to cheap electricity and freedom of choice of car/truck...

  That sounds like guilt is part of your stance on AGW. I’m not aware of any *right* to cheap electricity. Maybe it is you that is playing the victim? 
My view is that energy is very very cheap. We don’t know how good we have it burning fossil fuels. It is pleasing to see that renewables are actually reaching the point of being cheaper than fossils - good for consumers and good for the environment. But having said that, you do have some control over what you pay for energy. There are several members here who are paying zero for their energy and you could always pick up a few tips from them. 
Re your vehicles, you can always take a few pages out of what the high performance car enthusiast do and run your cars on ethanol. 
The world changes (mostly for the better) and the old will give way to the new. You can fight change if you want but I think that it is futile and a waste of energy. Coal/fossil powered electricity will give way to better alternatives.

----------


## Marc

Ha ha, did not expect any answer of course.
Still no answer to the fake graph and no answer to the 1000 ppm CO2 and we will all die.
Plenty of hot air and smoke and mirrors of course.
No disappointments there.
The global warming religion is damaging free thinking and imposing ... particularly on millennials with the help of the marxist education system ... that there is only one truth. Flat earth revisited. 
i feel sorry for whoever does not have control of his finances and a good healthy margin to play with. The global warming alarmist are hard at work to make your life a misery ... and they have even a "scientific" explanation for it.

----------


## chrisp

> Ha ha, did not expect any answer of course.
> Still no answer to the fake graph and no answer to the 1000 ppm CO2 and we will all die.
> Plenty of hot air and smoke and mirrors of course.
> No disappointments there.
> The global warming religion is damaging free thinking and imposing ... particularly on millennials with the help of the marxist education system ... that there is only one truth. Flat earth revisited. 
> i feel sorry for whoever does not have control of his finances and a good healthy margin to play with. The global warming alarmist are hard at work to make your life a misery ... and they have even a "scientific" explanation for it.

  I already addressed the 1000ppm CO2 in Post #18418 which included reputable data. You haven’t been able to refute it at all - your only response is to provide a few rants and personal attacks and say that you don’t believe it. 
You are free to believe whatever you like - we do have a freedom of religion right!  :Smilie:

----------


## chrisp

> i feel sorry for whoever does not have control of his finances and a good healthy margin to play with.

  On that point, renters can be hard done by as they usually can’t install PV or solar hot water on the property to help offset energy bills. Even if they did, they’ll lose it when they move. Perhaps we can petition our local members to mandate solar panels and energy efficient appliances (heating, good insulation, etc.) in rental properties to help the less well off?

----------


## phild01

> Perhaps we can petition our local members to mandate solar panels and energy efficient appliances (heating, good insulation, etc.) in rental properties to help the less well off?

  That's 'greenie' talk, just increase the rent if solar is mandated for renters.

----------


## phild01

At the end of the day, I'd love to know what the proponents have for neutralising man created CO2.  Do you think forests will ever be what they once were, ever be transport and an industry that doesn't emit CO2. How will we get our building materials without CO2 emissions; how can we have non stop traffic on a major city's 8 lane highway sustained with zero CO2 emission, then there is the CO2 emission making a lithium battery, and so on. 
Can you describe the world as you think it can possibly be, that emits a level of CO2 you are happy with, and how it copes with population growth and without denying meat as a food of choice!

----------


## PhilT2

> Can you describe the world as you think it can possibly be, that emits a level of CO2 you are happy with, and how it copes with population growth and without denying meat as a food of choice!

  It's not so much what I would be happy with but what the science dictates. We currently produce about 9 gigatons annually;luckily less than half stays in the atmosphere. The oceans and the biosphere take care of the rest for us. Some of the solutions we need to undertake are already underway; birth rates are falling in many countries and some have declining populations. Beef consumption is declining in some countries too. 
Renewable energy is increasing everywhere and a number of countries have plans to phase out fossil fuel power generation. Plans also exist to phase out petrol powered cars. There are some real challenges there in how we decarbonise air travel and freight transport. The Paris agreement was a major step foward as all the world leaders finally got their act together and accepted the reality of the problem. Donald Trump is a setback but in the long term he will be seen as nothing but a pimple on the rear end of history. Hopefully this November he will lose control of the congress and then lack the authority to do any real harm.  
We will still leave our grandkids with some problems to solve. They will probably have to devise a way to pull some of the CO2 out of the atmosphere. planting more trees won't be enough. In our lifetimes we can expect to see advances in battery technology and lower prices but the issues of employment and economic growth without population growth will be left for the next generation.

----------


## phild01

I perceive much of this as a token gesture to what that 'new world' is really wanted to be like by the so called climate scientists!

----------


## Bros

> Renewable energy is increasing everywhere and a number of countries have plans to phase out fossil fuel power generation..

  What countries?

----------


## Marc

> On that point, renters can be hard done by as they usually can’t install PV or solar hot water on the property to help offset energy bills. Even if they did, they’ll lose it when they move. Perhaps we can petition our local members to mandate solar panels and energy efficient appliances (heating, good insulation, etc.) in rental properties to help the less well off?

  _There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. — ROBERT HEINLEIN _

----------


## Marc

> I perceive much of this as a token gesture to what that 'new world' is really wanted to be like by the so called climate scientists!

  I particularly like the proposals to slaughter millions of cattle to stop the belching and farting. The global warming fanatics need their brain re-wired to put it mildly.
This is marxism revisited, nothing else.

----------


## chrisp

> I perceive much of this as a token gesture to what that 'new world' is really wanted to be like by the so called climate scientists!

  
Are you suggesting that it is the climate scientists that are engineering a new world? 
The scientists aren’t driving the change at all. All they are doing is reporting their scientific observations and future projections. 
It is humans collectively that are driving climate change. We collectively also need to work out how to respond to the change we have set in place.

----------


## Marc

We should respond by hanging the architects of this con in a public place.

----------


## DavoSyd

> We should respond by hanging the architects of this con in a public place.

  Found the fascist.  
No need for any other labels really...

----------


## phild01

> Are you suggesting that it is the climate scientists that are engineering a new world? 
> The scientists aren’t driving the change at all. All they are doing is reporting their scientific observations and future projections.

  No, how can that be, their reporting *IS* the driving force.  Nearly everyone who wants to follow the climate agenda are mere mortals who get their information from the scientists.  The scientists hold the obvious position to lead the brigade, everyone's conclusion is based on the information they provide without question. Even the analysts get directed by what they say. 
I have no interest in what the majority of people think on this issue, people are like sheep.  I am more interested in the carbon atom, comparing the carbon atoms in a lump of coal and what carbon atoms are left after it is burnt,  it's effects on sunlight in the atmosphere, experiments that can anticipate the effects of having, say, a 1000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than what there is now, sliding the effect level backwards, the equilibrium of our solar system and our planet over time, and so on I suppose.  And the question I posed, how will it be possible to have so many happy people on the planet without emitting CO2.  To this end consider the things that make people happy.  Don't you think you are kidding if you think the world can have it's wants, population growth, and growing world economies.  I still want to know the achievable future vision and no CO2 emissions.

----------


## Marc

> ...... I still want to know the achievable future vision and no CO2 emissions.

  It's called a utopia. However a utopia most of the time is a pie in the sky with a purpose even if not achievable. A "no CO2" planet is a dead planet or rather a dystopia. 
For those who still harbour an interest in freedom and free thinking and those who can think for themselves without any party booklet, here is a good book to read. _ 
Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex_. Rupert Darwall.
Encounter Book, 2017. 334 pages.
The subtitle of Rupert Darwall’s book about "the totalitarian roots of the climate-industrial complex" seems designed to appeal to readers who are already skeptical about current climate change and environmentalist policies. While his book definitely proves the thesis implicit in its title, it is far more than a handbook for “skeptics.” _Green Tyranny_ is a must-read for every person who cherishes freedom and who wants to know how environmentalism could become so powerful that, in some countries, it seems like a new state religion.
The author intended this book to complement his earlier work, _The Age of Global Warming_, which was critical of policies and initiatives aimed at fighting climate change. In _Green Tyranny,_ he wanted to focus on continental Europe in general, and Sweden and Germany, in particular.
In the preface, we learn how Darwall sees Germany:German culture harbors an irrational, nihilistic reaction against industrialization, evident before and during the Nazi era. It disappeared after Hitler’s defeat and only bubbled up again in the terrorism and anti-nuclear protests of the 1970s and the formation of the Green Party in 1980.As a German, I must rate his judgment of my nation quite accurate. By choosing Sweden as an example, he picked the ideal showcase of a Western country where the government significantly managed to shape public opinion about environmentalism over the decades. But even more interesting is the role of Sweden’s politicians especially during the 1960s and 1970s, who were critical in setting up various UN organizations that lead, among others, to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Darwall presents a wealth of details to explain how a powerful Green/Left network managed to occupy key political positions in Europe and the U.S. and to establish (or gain control of) institutions that give them unquestioned authority over the subject. Learning about this development, it is particularly frustrating to read how these institutions were often created by financing from very wealthy donors.
He also explains how the onslaught on freedom happens openly (if unnoticed by the media and general public) by highlighting a crisis of global proportions – such as man-made climate change – which requires solutions that “normal democracies” aren’t able to provide. They must be settled by a council of experts, which acts outside the democratic process.
It is surprising to read that over time almost all political parties did their share in promoting the Green interventionist agenda. If not the entire party, then some senior politician would do so, even in a conservative or classic liberal (libertarian) party. For instance, he writes: “The use of NGOs as shock troops to overwhelm business opposition to environmental protection had been envisaged by a top German government bureaucrat, Günter Hartkopf, in a 1986 address to his civil servant colleagues.” It is crucial to know that Hartkopf was a member of the Free Democratic Party (FDP), Germany’s classical liberal party.   _Green Tyranny_ is a must-read for every person who cherishes freedom and who wants to know how environmentalism could become so powerful that, in some countries, it seems like a new state religion.   Darwall also examines individual policies designed to stave off climate change. In the case of Germany with its “_Energiewende_,” the effort to decarbonize the economy, he proves that even after billions of dollars in government spending and ever-rising electricity costs for consumers, Germany’s CO2 emissions remain basically the same. Meanwhile, the grid’s stability has continuously deteriorated. Despite its obvious absence of success, Germany relies more heavily upon wind farms and photovoltaic solar power systems. Darwall concludes that numerous issues pushed by the Greens were merely publicity stunts, resulting mainly in higher costs, less growth, and diminished freedom. Darwall is adamant when he regards environmentalism as a serious threat to freedom and cites alarming examples of how the Green agenda managed to influence, not only politics, but public opinion and industrial policy, as well. Darwall links a number of Green ideas in Germany, like the use of wind turbines for power generation, back to the Nazis – a connection which, while definitely interesting, is of secondary importance for me. The general anti-freedom sentiment that infuses transatlantic environmentalism is Darwall’s overall theme, and it is exactly this threat he demonstrates perfectly in his book. While Darwall’s book does not claim to be academic literature, it comes with almost 50 pages of endnotes, which will encourage diligent readers to dig deeper into the subject. As with any book, he could have written even more on specific topics, e.g., the origin of the Club of Rome and the role of Aurelio Peccei, whom he mentions once. Knowing that every book could be longer, and not every reader appreciates books approaching Randian dimensions, I am very happy with the current length of the book. It is rare to read a book on a topic that one is very familiar with and yet learn so many new facts and details. _Green Tyranny_ is this kind of book, and I am convinced that it contains a wealth of information for readers at almost every level of expertise on the subject. Considering the importance of this book for understanding the situation we face today I hope that, at a minimum, a German version will be published soon.

----------


## Marc

> Found the fascist.  
> No need for any other labels really...

  *Fascism (**/ˈfæʃɪzəm/**) is a form of radical* authoritarian nationalism*,*[1][2]*characterised** by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce,*[3]* which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe*  *The green movement is a fascist movement. I propose a liberating revolution that includes capital punishment for crimes against the nation.* A dictionary is a great thing Davo  :Wink:

----------


## chrisp

> For those who still harbour an interest in freedom and free thinking and *those who can think for themselves without any party booklet, here is a good book to read*.

  Oh, the irony astounds!   :Lmfao:

----------


## johnc

> Oh, the irony astounds!

   Frightening really, there seems to be not a skeric of self awareness

----------


## DavoSyd

> *I propose a liberating revolution that includes capital punishment for crimes against the nation.*

  Oh, OK.  
So "delusional psychopath" then?  
Glad that's settled...

----------


## Bros

> That sounds like guilt is part of your stance on AGW. Im not aware of any *right* to cheap electricity.  
> Re your vehicles, you can always take a few pages out of what the high performance car enthusiast do and run your cars on ethanol. 
> .

   That would be worse as the greenhouse gas it produces and loss of land would be worse than using petroleum based fuels.

----------


## DavoSyd

> That would be worse as the greenhouse gas it produces and loss of land would be worse than using petroleum based fuels.

  Did you miss Marc's post stating he wanted to produce as much ghg as possible?

----------


## DavoSyd

> What countries?

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_phase-out

----------


## Bros

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_phase-out

  
 Of the countries mentioned there Canada Nuclear, gas (fossil fuel) coal. 
Leaving out wind and solar it is obvious that the fossil fuel generation will be replaced with Nuclear and gas which is a fossil fuel. 
Japan Nuclear, coal and gas both fossil.
Italy Gas (fossil fuel)
France mostly Nuclear
Germany Coal and Nuclear
United Kingdom Coal and Nuclear.

----------


## Marc

https://youtu.be/BnZhqoMV6m0

----------


## chrisp

> That would be worse as the greenhouse gas it produces and loss of land would be worse than using petroleum based fuels.

  Biofuels are better in terms of ghg emissions. The growing plants absorb about the same in ghg as produced by the use of the fuel. 
I’m not sure about the loss of land?

----------


## DavoSyd

the post you replied to: 
"some countries have plans to phase out fossil fuel use"  
You said : "what countries?"  
That link I posted tells you.  
Feel free to update the Wikipedia page - that's how that website works...

----------


## Bros

> Biofuels are better in terms of ghg emissions. The growing plants absorb about the same in ghg as produced by the use of the fuel. 
> I’m not sure about the loss of land?

   What about the production of ethanol as that uses quite a bit of greenhouse gas fuel. 
From what I have seen written the jury is out on weather ethanol is better or worse than petroleum based fuel taking the whole process into account.

----------


## chrisp

> What about the production of ethanol as that uses quite a bit of greenhouse gas fuel.

  https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...ol_environment

----------


## John2b

> We should respond by hanging the architects of this con in a public place.

   Your fanaticism seems to get more extreme with every post...

----------


## Bros

There are plenty of articles around like this.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...cut-emissions/

----------


## John2b

> _There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. — ROBERT HEINLEIN _

  The whole world is being forced to pay for unwanted CO2 emissions which IS tyrannical!

----------


## Bros

> https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...ol_environment

  Even that leaves a get out of jail clause.

----------


## John2b

> There are plenty of articles around like this.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...cut-emissions/

  It's a projection based on science, climate science data and computer modelling. Surely that can't be right?

----------


## Bros

> It's a projection based on computer modelling. Surely that can't be right?

   Do you know any different? If so please enlighten me.

----------


## John2b

> Do you know any different? If so please enlighten me.

  So climate science (AKA physics) and computer modelling produce valid results which should be believed as long as they suit your personal ideology?

----------


## Bros

> So climate science (AKA physics) and computer modelling produce valid results which should be believed as long as they suit your personal ideology?

   I have no idea what you are saying.

----------


## UseByDate

> Of the countries mentioned there Canada Nuclear, gas (fossil fuel) coal. 
> Leaving out wind and solar it is obvious that the fossil fuel generation will be replaced with Nuclear and gas which is a fossil fuel. 
> Japan Nuclear, coal and gas both fossil.
> Italy Gas (fossil fuel)
> France mostly Nuclear
> Germany Coal and Nuclear
> United Kingdom Coal and Nuclear.

  UK electricity generation.
 Coal has largely been phased out in favour of gas. Only in December and January (winter, low daylight hours) are significant coal burning months. They plan to shut down all 16 coal fired stations by 2025.   Live monitoring of the UK electricity National Grid

----------


## chrisp

> There are plenty of articles around like this.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...cut-emissions/

  It’s complex, isn’t it?  It seems that it might be a matter of what land is used for the biofuel crops, and what was growing on the land before. 
One advantage of ethanol is that it is essentially renewable in the sense that we can produce it from fast growing crops. Whereas fossils fuels take millions of years to replenish. 
I wonder how much land would be required to replace the existing fossil fuel consumption? I suspect that PV and electric vehicles might produce a better yield.

----------


## DavoSyd

> So climate science (AKA physics) and computer modelling produce valid results which should be believed as long as they suit your personal ideology?

  I wouldn't actually describe Bros as one of Marc's acolytes...

----------


## chrisp

> I wouldn't actually describe Bros as one of Marc's acolytes...

  I agree. I think Bros is a true sceptic in the sense that he just wants to be convinced before making up (or changing?) his mind.

----------


## Bedford

> Re your vehicles, you can always take a few pages out of what the high performance car enthusiast do and run your cars on ethanol.

  I'm not sure it's as simple as that, I think Marc's vehicle is diesel fueled...........

----------


## chrisp

> I'm not sure it's as simple as that, I think Marc's vehicle is diesel fueled...........

  Yes, it would be more complicated for Marc, he’d have to remember to use the biodiesel bowser.

----------


## Bedford

> Re your vehicles, you can always take a few pages  out of what the high performance car enthusiast do and run your cars on  ethanol.

   

> Yes, it would be more complicated for Marc, hed have to remember to use the biodiesel bowser.

  
So are you saying they run high performance cars on biodiesel?

----------


## chrisp

> So are you saying they run high performance cars on biodiesel?

  No

----------


## UseByDate

> So are you saying they run high performance cars on biodiesel?

  They run on electricity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eGhjhx8O9M

----------


## Bedford

> No

  So what are you saying Chris? 
You can't run a diesel engine on just ethanol, or at least not for very long.

----------


## Marc

https://youtu.be/dVjXwS8HzFw?t=36    *Biofuels one of our greatest environmental blunders*  Just as the zero-emissions electric car fallacy ignores the environmental impacts of electricity generation, the zero-emissions biofuel myth ignores the environmental impacts of production.  *CONTRIBUTOR   *  Updated: October 18, 2016  *February 24, 2014 aerial photo by Greenpeace on Indonesia's Borneo Island shows the clearing of trees for development of a palm oil plantation. The rainforest being destroyed is home to endangered orangutan and tigers. BAY ISMOYO / AFP/GETTY IMAGES*SHAREADJUSTCOMMENTPRINT By Gwyn Morgan Are biofuels really greener than the fossil fuels they displace? For internal-combustion-powered vehicles, much of the focus has been on trying to reduce carbon emissions by adding ethanol to gasoline and vegetable oil to diesel.  Biofuel has become an enormous global industry, producing some 100 billion litres annually. Mandatory ethanol and vegetable oil standards have been enacted in 64 countries. But biofuels fail on several fronts. First we need to correct the popular misconception that burning biofuel produces significantly lower emissions than gasoline or diesel. There’s little difference.  Essentially, all of the hypothesized emission reduction relies on the premise that, since plants consume carbon dioxide to grow, the carbon they remove approximates the carbon released when burned. This is the basis for the biofuel industry’s claim of zero net emissions. But just as the zero-emissions electric car fallacy ignores the environmental impacts of electricity generation, the zero-emissions biofuel myth ignores the environmental impacts of production. And there’s a lot of evidence that these production impacts cause very serious environmental damage, while exacerbating global food shortages and creating price escalations. Let’s start with fuel ethanol. The Unites States and Brazil are by far the largest producers. In the U.S., some five billion bushels of corn are used annually to produce 49 billion litres of ethanol fuel through the same highly energy-intensive fermentation and distillation process used to produce whiskey. Multiple studies, including by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, conclude that the fossil fuel used to produce corn ethanol creates essentially the same carbon emissions as the gasoline and diesel displaced. But that’s only part of the environmental impact. Rising corn prices have led to the draining and tillage of ecologically important wetlands. And increased fertilizer use has sent nutrient-rich runoff into streams and rivers, resulting in weed-choked, oxygen-starved water courses devoid of fish and other aquatic life. Meanwhile in Brazil, almost one million acres a year of carbon-dioxide-absorbing tropical forest are clear cut and replaced by sugar cane for ethanol production. Studies show that the net effect is about 50-per-cent more carbon emissions than by fuelling automobiles with fossil fuels. Then there’s the food-or-fuel issue. The cereal grain required to produce enough ethanol to fill the fuel tank of an average-size car would feed one person for a year. In 2000, some 70 per cent of global corn imports came from the U.S., but that important global food supply has largely been redirected to ethanol production. International food-focused non-governmental organizations such as Oxfam cite biofuels as contributing to food supply shortages and price increases that disproportionately hurt the world’s poor. What about the environmental impacts of producing palm oil for bio-diesel? Indonesia is the world’s largest producer of palm oil and the island of Borneo, in particular, is a great place to produce it, provided you first burn one of the world’s most important rainforests. A visit to this land is a depressing lesson in the unintended consequences of actions taken by politicians half a world away. I have witnessed the lung-choking smoke as hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of rainforest were burned to create huge industrial palm tree farms. The same scenario is playing out in remote parts of Indonesian Sumatra. How ironic that decisions aimed at environmental benefit are permanently destroying the lungs of our planet, obliterating the way of life of aboriginals who have lived in harmony with nature for centuries, and wiping out habitat for endangered species like orangutan. A National Geographic article entitled Bio-fuels: The Original Car Fuel states, “Gasoline and diesel are actually ancient biofuels … made from decomposed plants and animals that have been buried in the ground for millions of years.” Trying to replace these ancient biofuels with fuels made from plants grown today is one of mankind’s greatest environmental blunders. _Gwyn Morgan is a retired Canadian business leader who has been a director of five global corporations._ _Troy Media _ The interesting part of the idiocy of man made "biofuels" as opposed to natural biofuels of course, is that the apologist and cheer leaders and claque* that applaud anthropogenic fuels do so quoting increasing markets and "popularity", ignoring all the numerous negatives. 
So basically biofuels are a success because people buy them (the fact that is is out of pure and ignominious false data and massive ignorance seems to be irrelevant)  
The fact that fossil fuels are way more common, does not make them "popular" but a disgrace, a sin, a dark habit that must be eliminated.
What a joke. 
Then again that is religion for you. *a group of sycophantic followers.

----------


## Bedford

> They run on electricity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eGhjhx8O9M

  Performance is not just speed. 
What it will pull is more beneficial and considering the owners manual says it's not suitable for towing purposes, it's probably ok to run to the supermarket, as long as that's not too far. :Biggrin:

----------


## DavoSyd

Sooooo, how does this "ignore" feature work?

----------


## Bros

> I agree. I think Bros is a true sceptic in the sense that he just wants to be convinced before making up (or changing?) his mind.

   Society needs sceptics it keeps the evangelists on their toes as they have to prove their case.

----------


## phild01

I am still waiting for the answer of how the world can continue without, or with impossibly appropriate CO2 emissions.....clearly we are doomed.

----------


## Bros

> UK electricity generation.
>  Coal has largely been phased out in favour of gas. Only in December and January (winter, low daylight hours) are significant coal burning months. They plan to shut down all 16 coal fired stations by 2025.

   Gas is a fossil fuel. What complicates the UK comparison is they rely on Nuclear and they can also get generation from France that is entirely Nuclear.
Their situation can’t be compared to Australia and to be fair there was no comparison with Australia mentioned in posts.

----------


## chrisp

> So what are you saying Chris? 
> You can't run a diesel engine on just ethanol, or at least not for very long.

  Ethanol? Biodiesel isn’t ethanol. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

----------


## DavoSyd

> I am still waiting for the answer of how the world can continue without, or with impossibly appropriate CO2 emissions.....

  With all due respect, that's a pretty inane question...

----------


## UseByDate

> Performance is not just speed. 
> What it will pull is more beneficial and considering the owners manual says it's not suitable for towing purposes, it's probably ok to run to the supermarket, as long as that's not too far.

  No; you also need good acceleration and road holding.
1000km range
 How remote are you? :Sneaktongue:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd9JQAkcYak

----------


## Bedford

> Ethanol? Biodiesel isnt ethanol. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

  I never said it was, you said Marc could run his cars on ethanol.   

> Re your vehicles, you can always take a few pages  out of what the high performance car enthusiast do and run your cars on  ethanol.

   You label others as deniers, but is it any wonder people question when you play these childish games? 
I thought you were above that Chris.

----------


## Marc

Easy mistake, biofuel vs biodiesel. 
Biodiesel is actually a very good resource if ... it is made from oil that would otherwise go to the tip. 
Low tech to make and not too hard on the engine if made properly. It is in the same league as building bunkers and stockpiling ammo and tin food for 'prepping' 
Biofuels are really just another crappy mistake ... if you believe CO2 is baaad.
if you like me think that Co2 is just a bioproduct of human existence and that if we are to stay here we may as well adapt to more CO2 that is mostly harmless then, why bother?  https://www.theguardian.com/science/...hange.biofuels

----------


## chrisp

> I never said it was, you said Marc could run his cars on ethanol.   
>  You label others as deniers, but is it any wonder people question when you play these childish games? 
> I thought you were above that Chris.

  Bedford, with respect it is you that seems to be playing semantic games. Do you think that I know what type of vehicles each forum member drives and what it’s fuel requirements are? Maybe it is you that is ‘playing games’ here? 
‘performance car’, fanatics love ethanol. If Marc drives a 4x4 diesel engined tank or similar, then in my books, that is not a ‘performance car’. Your views may differ. 
As to the label ‘denier’ - if you feel that the label fits, then wear it!  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

And just as an illustration ... Diesels can run on up to 95 per cent 120-proof ethanol and just five per cent diesel. One hundred and twenty-proof ethanol is 60 per cent pure ethanol and 40 per cent water.
How about that  :Smilie:

----------


## Bros

> And just as an illustration ... Diesels can run on up to 95 per cent 120-proof ethanol and just five per cent diesel. One hundred and twenty-proof ethanol is 60 per cent pure ethanol and 40 per cent water.
> How about that

   What sort of diesel? A 30yr Old Yanmar, I doubt if the current common rail diesels would run for long on biodiesel.

----------


## John2b

deleted

----------


## phild01

> With all due respect

  Coming from you....

----------


## Bedford

> Bedford, with respect it is you that seems to be playing semantic games. Do you think that I know what type of vehicles each forum member drives and what its fuel requirements are?

  I think you should find out before suggesting what fuel to put in it. 
I made a polite comment,    

> I'm not sure it's as simple as that, I think Marc's vehicle is diesel fueled...........

  And you made a typical condescending reply,   

> Yes, it would be more complicated for Marc, hed have to remember to use the biodiesel bowser.

   

> As to the label denier - if you feel that the label fits, then wear it!

  Ok.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Coming from you....

  Vapid.

----------


## John2b

> Society needs sceptics it keeps the evangelists on their toes as they have to prove their case.

  I hope you're not sceptical of open heart surgery because it might save you one day, whether you, your doctor, or anybody else is on their toes or not. 
You do realise that at a fundamental physics level the same laws of thermodynamics that determine the brakes in your car will work also define the inter-space thermodynamics of heat transfer known as the greenhouse effect? Fortunately the physics are robust and your car stops when you apply the brakes. 
A lot of people rely on computers and information technology without any idea of how it works, yet you don't find non-electronic engineers being sceptical about whether electronics is just a bit scam to change how people do things, which would make as much sense as non-scientists being sceptical about climate change.

----------


## phild01

> Vapid.

  yep, your level of respect.

----------


## Marc

> What sort of diesel? A 30yr Old Yanmar, I doubt if the current common rail diesels would run for long on biodiesel.

  Biodiesel is produced by trans esterification of animal or vegetable fat in the presence of a catalyst. Good quality biodiesel is as good of better than diesel from oil and can be used on any diesel engine. Unfortunately both home made or commercial biodiesel production is a minefield and requires very good quality controls that are far too easy to ignore.  
Older type diesel engines like old Lister stationary engines may be able to run on straight vegetable oil with some basic modifications. In fact the original diesel engine invented by Rudolf Diesel was built to run on peanut oil and the inventor most likely murdered because of that.

----------


## DavoSyd

> yep, your level of respect.

  Ya, OK, mate...

----------


## Bros

> I hope you're not sceptical of open heart surgery because it might save you one day, whether you, your doctor, or anybody else is on their toes or not. 
> You do realise that at a fundamental physics level the same laws of thermodynamics that determine the brakes in your car will work also define the inter-space thermodynamics of heat transfer known as the greenhouse effect? Fortunately the physics are robust and your car stops when you apply the brakes. 
> A lot of people rely on computers and information technology without any idea of how it works, yet you don't find non-electronic engineers being sceptical about whether electronics is just a bit scam to change how people do things, which would make as much sense as non-scientists being sceptical about climate change.

   Clutching at straws there, a case of nonsense.

----------


## phild01

> Ya, OK, mate...

  Best you try to ignore my posts, hey!

----------


## DavoSyd

> Best you try to ignore my posts, hey!

  How can I do that - is there an ignore feature?

----------


## DavoSyd

Or is that for mods only?

----------


## chrisp

> Or is that for mods only?

  All members can set up their own ‘ignore list’. Just go to ‘forum actions’ —> ‘general settings’ —> ‘edit ignore list’ and enter in the usernames.

----------


## Bedford

In the interests of keeping this thread alive, I've put my ex Admins hat on and dragged up this old post. :Biggrin:  
We all need to keep it civil...............   

> GLOBAL WARNING  The ice is *VERY* thin in here, tread carefully  Or You May Disappear  Into The Icehole.

----------


## John2b

Diesel's patent in 1895 was for an engine that, ironically, ran on coal dust (Marc should be chuffed). The French government contracted the Otto company to manufacture a diesel cycle engine to run on peanut oil - it was not one of Rudolf Diesel's engines.

----------


## John2b

> Clutching at straws there, a case of nonsense.

  Not at all!

----------


## John2b

On the contention that it was been warmer in the past, therefore there is no need to worry about future warming of a few degrees, there is a lot to learn from records of the past conditions on Earth. For one thing, sea levels were six meters higher than today when the Earth was previously 2 degrees above pre-industrial temperature. 250 million people live in the zone that will be flooded by just ~1/10 of that.   *Lessons about a future warmer world using data from the past*  https://phys.org/news/2018-06-lesson...mer-world.html  *Palaeoclimate constraints on the impact of 2 °C anthropogenic warming and beyond*  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0146-0  *Sea Level Could Rise at Least 6 Meters*   https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...east-6-meters/

----------


## Bedford

*Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as 'unsustainable subsidized food burning' in analysis by Cornell scientist*    Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as 'unsustainable subsidized food burning' in analysis by Cornell scientist | Cornell Chronicle

----------


## PhilT2

Ethanol production was introduced in the US in the '70s when issues in the middle east was causing concern about energy security. Generous subsidies were introduced to encourage farmers to produce more corn and legislation introduced to mandate its use. Tariffs were imposed to prevent the importation of ethanol from other countries such as Brazil which can produce it at much lower cost from sugar cane. 
The areas in the US that benefit from the subsidies are mid west farming states that are predominately right wing. So the politics of ethanol override its environmental impact.

----------


## Marc

There is vast information, articles and studies on biofuel and the consensus  :Smilie:  is that it's a complete waste of time in relation to CO2 reduction not to mention a substandard fuel. Both form of biofuel, ethanol and biodiesel have some marginal merit when the primary material is otherwise waste. For example Bagasse for ethanol and tallow or restaurant fat waste for biodiesel. Considering the energy required to process both fuels the win is marginal at best.  
More of a feel good exercise like that yellow bin where we all religiously place our containers and plastic bottles and aluminium cans with great satisfaction of doing the right thing ... only for the stuff to end up in landfill after the extra charge from the council to "recycle" it. In NSW we also paid 120 millions to recycle bottles that returned 15 millions to the consumer. I wan't a business like that. 
As for Diesel, John ... close but no cigar. It was not Rudolf Diesel but (another) Rudolf Pawlikowski who run engines on carbon powder successfully. Diesel engines run on liquid fuel, even when R. Diesel did try coal powder petrol and ammonia and almost blew his head off. 
The diesel engine as it was built in those days could burn any sort of heavy oil including vegetable oil. The Otto company merely adapted an existing engine to run on peanut oil.

----------


## UseByDate

> There is vast information, articles and studies on biofuel and the consensus  is that it's a complete waste of time in relation to CO2 reduction not to mention a substandard fuel. Both form of biofuel, ethanol and biodiesel have some marginal merit when the primary material is otherwise waste. For example Bagasse for ethanol and tallow or restaurant fat waste for biodiesel. Considering the energy required to process both fuels the win is marginal at best.

  Biofuel is not just ethanol and biodiesel.
 At this very moment the UK electrical grid is generating 2.25 GW of electricity using biofuel and zero using coal.

----------


## John2b

> Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as 'unsustainable subsidized food burning' in analysis by Cornell scientist.

  What is unsustainable is each person on Earth on average consuming fossil energy at the rate of the equivalent work output of 4000 humans. The bulk of that energy is just pissed against the wall in inefficiencies, encouraged by fossil energy being so cheap. That is about to change for reasons that have nothing to do with climate change, but because the return on investment of fossil energy sources is rapidly declining from 100 to 1 in the heyday of oil discoveries to closer to 10 to 1 today. Fossil energy isn't as cheap as it once was and the price is only going in one direction from now - up.

----------


## Marc

The UK uses zero coal ... really?

----------


## John2b

> As for Diesel, John ... close but no cigar. It was not Rudolf Diesel but (another) Rudolf Pawlikowski who run engines on carbon powder successfully. Diesel engines run on liquid fuel, even when R. Diesel did try coal powder petrol and ammonia and almost blew his head off. 
> The diesel engine as it was built in those days could burn any sort of heavy oil including vegetable oil. The Otto company merely adapted an existing engine to run on peanut oil.

  I bow to your superior knowledge of coal dust and peanut oil, but how did you get your first post on the topic so wrong then? 
BTW is your 'ignore' button broken?

----------


## John2b

> The UK uses zero coal ... really?

   Not what was claimed, the claim was zero coal for electricity generation. See for yourself:

----------


## Bedford

> Biofuel is not just ethanol and biodiesel.
>  At this very moment the UK electrical grid is generating 2.25 GW of electricity using biofuel and zero using coal.

  What are they making the biofuel from?

----------


## Marc

Biomass. Basically they burn whatever they can find cheap that burns. Wood pellets, agricultural waste. 
I want to know why is coal not classified as biomass. it is bio and it is mass. 
Biomass of course produces CO2 emissions like any other thing you care to burn and just the same as coal does, but the funniest part is reading the green apologist websites that sing the prise of biomass calling it "Stored solar energy". Err ... yes, I call it STORED CO2 ... the hypocrisy is flabbergasting.  
Compare "biomass" that goes first from it's initial production, be it logging, chipping, pressing depending what it is. Then classified as waste, then gathered and transported, then sold and purchased a couple of times until it lands in the furnace.
Compare the above with a coal mine next to a furnace. Dig the coal, shovel it in a trolley and push it to the mouth of the furnace. 
Give it up guys, you are talking so much dung that soon we will revisit the NY great manure crisis. 
So the pommies are burning gas instead of coal. Big whoop. Gas burns without producing CO2? Is it magic? i suggest that the greenies BS should be dried out in the sun and used as biomass to produce green power. Now that is an idea that will burn for years to come.
The problem is that it is not free. It is costing those who pay taxes a big lump of money, probably more than if we burned dollar notes for fuel.

----------


## PhilT2

Don't want to start more semantics but I think its biomass (wood chips) not biofuel. The UK is converting one of its big coal fired power plants from coal to wood.
Not sure how far they have progressed. Controversy over importing the wood chips from the US.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_power_station

----------


## Marc

Funny how the UK is importing chips from the US to burn it and some councils in Australia are trying to ban wood heaters.

----------


## PhilT2

> I want to know why is coal not classified as biomass. it is bio and it is mass.

  Basically the biomass such as sawmill waste etc gets left to decompose and releases its CO2 content anyway. By burning it we at least get the benefit of the power generated for the same CO2 increase which gets absorbed by replanting the milled areas.,  Burning coal gives us the CO2 and sea levels of the Jurassic era, leaving it in the ground has no impact on CO2.

----------


## PhilT2

> Funny how the UK is importing chips from the US to burn it and some councils in Australia are trying to ban wood heaters.

  Funny how the UK banned coal for home heating years ago and the health of people in the big cities improved greatly. Seems to make sense that banning it in power stations would help too.

----------


## Marc

Co2 is not soot 
Same as water vapour is not Co2 ... someone should tell the guys in ABC

----------


## Bedford

> Don't want to start more semantics but I think its biomass (wood chips) not biofuel. The UK is converting one of its big coal fired power plants from coal to wood.
> Not sure how far they have progressed. Controversy over importing the wood chips from the US.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_power_station

  
From your link,   

> Each unit will consume about 2.3 million tonnes of biomass yearly, requiring an estimated annual total of 7.5 million tonnes in 2017. This is equivalent to two-thirds of Europe's entire energy biomass consumption in 2010, and requires 1,200,000 ha (4,600 sq mi; 12,000 km2) of forest to supply on a continuous basis.[62][63] North America was expected to be the source of the vast majority of the biomass, although some would be domestically sourced willow and elephant grass.[64]

  I think that's a little more than sawmill waste. 
It seems the wheel has turned from 30 years ago.

----------


## UseByDate

> The UK uses zero coal ... really?

  Yes. Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction.

----------


## UseByDate

> Don't want to start more semantics but I think its biomass (wood chips) not biofuel. The UK is converting one of its big coal fired power plants from coal to wood.
> Not sure how far they have progressed. Controversy over importing the wood chips from the US.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_power_station

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel  
 “A *biofuel* is a fuel that is produced through *contemporary* biological processes, such as agriculture and anaerobic digestion, rather than a fuel produced by geological processes such as those involved in the formation of fossil fuels, such as coal and petroleum, from prehistoric biological matter.”  
 I am not sure why you would not consider something like wood chips to not fit the above definition.

----------


## UseByDate

> Biomass. Basically they burn whatever they can find cheap that burns. Wood pellets, agricultural waste. 
> I want to know why is coal not classified as biomass. it is bio and it is mass. 
> Biomass of course produces CO2 emissions like any other thing you care to burn and just the same as coal does, but the funniest part is reading the green apologist websites that sing the prise of biomass calling it "Stored solar energy". Err ... yes, I call it STORED CO2 ... the hypocrisy is flabbergasting.  
> Compare "biomass" that goes first from it's initial production, be it logging, chipping, pressing depending what it is. Then classified as waste, then gathered and transported, then sold and purchased a couple of times until it lands in the furnace.
> Compare the above with a coal mine next to a furnace. Dig the coal, shovel it in a trolley and push it to the mouth of the furnace. 
> Give it up guys, you are talking so much dung that soon we will revisit the NY great manure crisis. 
> So the pommies are burning gas instead of coal. Big whoop. Gas burns without producing CO2? Is it magic? i suggest that the greenies BS should be dried out in the sun and used as biomass to produce green power. Now that is an idea that will burn for years to come.
> The problem is that it is not free. It is costing those who pay taxes a big lump of money, probably more than if we burned dollar notes for fuel.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel  
 “A *biofuel* is a fuel that is produced through *contemporary* biological processes, such as agriculture and anaerobic digestion, rather than a fuel produced by geological processes such as those involved in the formation of fossil fuels, such as coal and petroleum, from prehistoric biological matter.”  
 It has to be a contemporary biological process.

----------


## UseByDate

> Funny how the UK is importing chips from the US to burn it and some councils in Australia are trying to ban wood heaters.

  To improve air quality. That is why polluting industry is in located remotely from where people live.

----------


## UseByDate

> What are they making the biofuel from?

  It is mostly agricultural. Wood chips, sawdust and waste from grain crops.

----------


## PhilT2

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel  
>  “A *biofuel* is a fuel that is produced through *contemporary* biological processes, such as agriculture and anaerobic digestion, rather than a fuel produced by geological processes such as those involved in the formation of fossil fuels, such as coal and petroleum, from prehistoric biological matter.”  
>  I am not sure why you would not consider something like wood chips to not fit the above definition.

  Call it whatever you want, but biofuel also includes ethanol and biodiesel. Biomass seems like a more appropriate term when the fuel is wood only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass

----------


## Bedford

> To improve air quality.

  Certainly sounds like they've got that sorted. 
From your link above,   

> *Air pollution[edit]*  _Main articles: Biomass § Environmental damage, and Ethanol_fuel § Air_pollution_ Biofuels are similar to fossil fuels in that biofuels contribute to air pollution. Burning produces carbon dioxide, airborne carbon particulates, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides.[67] The WHO estimates 3.7 million premature deaths worldwide in 2012 due to air pollution.[68] Brazil burns significant amounts of ethanol biofuel. Gas chromatograph studies were performed of ambient air in São Paulo, Brazil, and compared to Osaka, Japan, which does not burn ethanol fuel. Atmospheric Formaldehyde was 160% higher in Brazil, and Acetaldehyde was 260% higher.[69]The Environmental Protection Agency has acknowledged in April 2007 that the increased use of bio-ethanol will lead to worse air quality. The total emissions of air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides will rise due the growing use of bio-ethanol. There is an increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels to produce the biofuels as well as nitrous oxide from the soil, which has most likely been treated with nitrogen fertilizer. Nitrous oxide is known to have a greater impact on the atmosphere in relation to global warming, as it is also an ozone destroyer.[70]

----------


## UseByDate

> Certainly sounds like they've got that sorted. 
> From your link above,

  I said that polluting industry is located remotely from where people live. This improves air quality for the people. Ie the air that they breath. *It does not in itself reduce pollution.* Marc's comment about banning wood fired heaters in highly populated areas is concerned with breathing choking smoke from neighbouring heaters.

----------


## UseByDate

Green gas anyone? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDHdSNJpoXs

----------


## UseByDate

> Call it whatever you want, but biofuel also includes ethanol and biodiesel. Biomass seems like a more appropriate term when the fuel is wood only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass

  Nobody said ethanol and biodiesel were not biofuels. Wood as a fuel does fit the definition of a biofuel. It seems that the industry refers to it as biomass. Ie a subset of possible biofuels. Whatever it is called it has been classified as a renewable fuel.

----------


## Marc

*“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.*     

> It has to be a contemporary biological process.

  That only if you subscribe to the mythology that CO2 is bad ... but hang on, wood burning produces CO2. What is the difference if it is contemporary or ancient? It is still CO2 right?
Mmm ... lets see what _others_ have to say. 
And ... by the way ... can be forego the usual comments about the author's alcoholism, sexual habits, deranged partners and pervert pets, and try to rebuke if you are able to the POINTS made in the article rather than your opinions about the author.  Just for a change. It will be fun!  :Smilie:     *Biomass Emits Double The CO2 Of Gas*  FEBRUARY 26, 2015  _tags: biomass_   By Paul Homewood  
As we all know, burning coal and gas to produce electricity is BAD, but burning wood is GOOD. But what do the actual figures tell us? I asked DECC to supply comparative figures CO2 produced/MWh, for coal, gas and biomass (specifically wood pellets). I specifically requested that the biomass figures should purely relate to emissions from the power stations, and not to include “whole life” calculations. This was their reply:  _1) We have identified a calculation of the biologically derived CO2 emitted from a typical power station converted to biomass combustion. The calculation assumed that 47% of the dry weight of the wood pellet is carbon and that large biomass conversions are typically 35.5% efficient at converting the energy content of the wood pellets into electricity. 
These assumptions would need to be amended for specific biomass fuels, and power station operating conditions. Also the value below is higher than the true value of CO2 emissions as no allowance was made for the carbon retained in the ash at the power station._ _The value calculated was 920 kg CO2/MWh of electricity generated._ _We do not routinely estimate the emissions of biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) from combustion of wood pellets when calculating the national emissions total. In reporting emissions the UK follows the requirements of IPCC guidelines on International Greenhouse Gas reporting. In order to avoid double counting of emissions and removals, the reporting convention is that the CO2 contained within biological materials, such as wood pellets, which are to be burnt for energy purposes, such as electricity generation, is accounted for by the harvesting country. This emission is reported by countries included under the forest management sector._ _2) The quantity of CO2 emitted by fuel use in the pellet making process depends on a range of factors such as how the fuels are used to dry the biomass before pelletisation. As examples; _  _• saw mill offcuts require no additional drying before pelletisation, 
• natural forest-side drying can reduce timber moisture content from 50% to 25% without requiring energy, 
• the CO2 released in generating the electricity used in pelletising will normally have the typical CO2 impact of the electricity network of the country in which it is located._ _3) The BEAC report and spreadsheet referred to above contain values for the comparable emissions of carbon dioxide from typical coal and natural gas fired power stations of 1018 and 437 kg CO2 equivalent/ MWh electricity generated respectively._ So, on a straight comparison, we get:     *CO2 
kg/MWh*  Coal 1018  Gas 437  Bio 920   While bio is slightly better than coal, it is emitting more than double the CO2 of gas. None of these figures account for the emissions involved in processing or transporting wood pellets. Equally of course, they don’t include these for fossil fuels, although it seems reasonable that the add on emissions for gas would not be as great.  The only logic to biomass is that forests are replanted to compensate for the extra CO2 produced, but, even if this is true, it would take decades to happen. In any event, if the forests were left where they were, how much CO2 would simply have been sequestrated into the soil? Or if the wood had been used for other purposes, such as building material, there would be no extra emissions at all. Given that we are supposed to only have a few years left to save the planet, would it not be more sensible to be burning gas? The only conclusion is that the whole biomass farrago has been no more than a gimmick, with a veneer of “sustainability”. The clue lies in DECC’s statement: _In reporting emissions the UK follows the requirements of IPCC guidelines on International Greenhouse Gas reporting. In order to avoid double counting of emissions and removals, the reporting convention is that the CO2 contained within biological materials, such as wood pellets, which are to be burnt for energy purposes, such as electricity generation, is accounted for by the harvesting country. This emission is reported by countries included under the forest management sector._  *In other words, you can burn as many trees as you like, as long as they are not your own. 
Without this edict, biomass would be dead in the water.*

----------


## UseByDate

> *“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.*     
> That only if you subscribe to the mythology that CO2 is bad ... but hang on, wood burning produces CO2. What is the difference if it is contemporary or ancient? It is still CO2 right?
> Mmm ... lets see what _others_ have to say. 
> And ... by the way ... can be forego the usual comments about the author's alcoholism, sexual habits, deranged partners and pervert pets, and try to rebuke if you are able to the POINTS made in the article rather than your opinions about the author.  Just for a change. It will be fun!     *Biomass Emits Double The CO2 Of Gas*  FEBRUARY 26, 2015  _tags: biomass_   By Paul Homewood  
> As we all know, burning coal and gas to produce electricity is BAD, but burning wood is GOOD. But what do the actual figures tell us? I asked DECC to supply comparative figures CO2 produced/MWh, for coal, gas and biomass (specifically wood pellets). I specifically requested that the biomass figures should purely relate to emissions from the power stations, and not to include “whole life” calculations. This was their reply:  _1) We have identified a calculation of the biologically derived CO2 emitted from a typical power station converted to biomass combustion. The calculation assumed that 47% of the dry weight of the wood pellet is carbon and that large biomass conversions are typically 35.5% efficient at converting the energy content of the wood pellets into electricity. 
> These assumptions would need to be amended for specific biomass fuels, and power station operating conditions. Also the value below is higher than the true value of CO2 emissions as no allowance was made for the carbon retained in the ash at the power station._ _The value calculated was 920 kg CO2/MWh of electricity generated._ _We do not routinely estimate the emissions of biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) from combustion of wood pellets when calculating the national emissions total. In reporting emissions the UK follows the requirements of IPCC guidelines on International Greenhouse Gas reporting. In order to avoid double counting of emissions and removals, the reporting convention is that the CO2 contained within biological materials, such as wood pellets, which are to be burnt for energy purposes, such as electricity generation, is accounted for by the harvesting country. This emission is reported by countries included under the forest management sector._ _2) The quantity of CO2 emitted by fuel use in the pellet making process depends on a range of factors such as how the fuels are used to dry the biomass before pelletisation. As examples; _  _• saw mill offcuts require no additional drying before pelletisation, 
> • natural forest-side drying can reduce timber moisture content from 50% to 25% without requiring energy, 
> • the CO2 released in generating the electricity used in pelletising will normally have the typical CO2 impact of the electricity network of the country in which it is located._ _3) The BEAC report and spreadsheet referred to above contain values for the comparable emissions of carbon dioxide from typical coal and natural gas fired power stations of 1018 and 437 kg CO2 equivalent/ MWh electricity generated respectively._ So, on a straight comparison, we get:     *CO2 
> kg/MWh*  Coal 1018  Gas 437  Bio 920   While bio is slightly better than coal, it is emitting more than double the CO2 of gas. None of these figures account for the emissions involved in processing or transporting wood pellets. Equally of course, they don’t include these for fossil fuels, although it seems reasonable that the add on emissions for gas would not be as great.  The only logic to biomass is that forests are replanted to compensate for the extra CO2 produced, but, even if this is true, it would take decades to happen. In any event, if the forests were left where they were, how much CO2 would simply have been sequestrated into the soil? Or if the wood had been used for other purposes, such as building material, there would be no extra emissions at all. Given that we are supposed to only have a few years left to save the planet, would it not be more sensible to be burning gas? The only conclusion is that the whole biomass farrago has been no more than a gimmick, with a veneer of “sustainability”. The clue lies in DECC’s statement: _In reporting emissions the UK follows the requirements of IPCC guidelines on International Greenhouse Gas reporting. In order to avoid double counting of emissions and removals, the reporting convention is that the CO2 contained within biological materials, such as wood pellets, which are to be burnt for energy purposes, such as electricity generation, is accounted for by the harvesting country. This emission is reported by countries included under the forest management sector._  *In other words, you can burn as many trees as you like, as long as they are not your own. 
> Without this edict, biomass would be dead in the water.*

  The definition of biofuel or biomass is totally independent of any subscription to any mythology.

----------


## UseByDate

> *“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.*     
> That only if you subscribe to the mythology that CO2 is bad ... but hang on, wood burning produces CO2. What is the difference if it is contemporary or ancient? It is still CO2 right?
> Mmm ... lets see what _others_ have to say. 
> And ... by the way ... can be forego the usual comments about the author's alcoholism, sexual habits, deranged partners and pervert pets, and try to rebuke if you are able to the POINTS made in the article rather than your opinions about the author.  Just for a change. It will be fun!     *Biomass Emits Double The CO2 Of Gas*  FEBRUARY 26, 2015  _tags: biomass_   By Paul Homewood  
> As we all know, burning coal and gas to produce electricity is BAD, but burning wood is GOOD. But what do the actual figures tell us? I asked DECC to supply comparative figures CO2 produced/MWh, for coal, gas and biomass (specifically wood pellets). I specifically requested that the biomass figures should purely relate to emissions from the power stations, and not to include “whole life” calculations. This was their reply:  _1) We have identified a calculation of the biologically derived CO2 emitted from a typical power station converted to biomass combustion. The calculation assumed that 47% of the dry weight of the wood pellet is carbon and that large biomass conversions are typically 35.5% efficient at converting the energy content of the wood pellets into electricity. 
> These assumptions would need to be amended for specific biomass fuels, and power station operating conditions. Also the value below is higher than the true value of CO2 emissions as no allowance was made for the carbon retained in the ash at the power station._ _The value calculated was 920 kg CO2/MWh of electricity generated._ _We do not routinely estimate the emissions of biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) from combustion of wood pellets when calculating the national emissions total. In reporting emissions the UK follows the requirements of IPCC guidelines on International Greenhouse Gas reporting. In order to avoid double counting of emissions and removals, the reporting convention is that the CO2 contained within biological materials, such as wood pellets, which are to be burnt for energy purposes, such as electricity generation, is accounted for by the harvesting country. This emission is reported by countries included under the forest management sector._ _2) The quantity of CO2 emitted by fuel use in the pellet making process depends on a range of factors such as how the fuels are used to dry the biomass before pelletisation. As examples; _  _• saw mill offcuts require no additional drying before pelletisation, 
> • natural forest-side drying can reduce timber moisture content from 50% to 25% without requiring energy, 
> • the CO2 released in generating the electricity used in pelletising will normally have the typical CO2 impact of the electricity network of the country in which it is located._ _3) The BEAC report and spreadsheet referred to above contain values for the comparable emissions of carbon dioxide from typical coal and natural gas fired power stations of 1018 and 437 kg CO2 equivalent/ MWh electricity generated respectively._ So, on a straight comparison, we get:     *CO2 
> kg/MWh*  Coal 1018  Gas 437  Bio 920   While bio is slightly better than coal, it is emitting more than double the CO2 of gas. None of these figures account for the emissions involved in processing or transporting wood pellets. Equally of course, they don’t include these for fossil fuels, although it seems reasonable that the add on emissions for gas would not be as great.  The only logic to biomass is that forests are replanted to compensate for the extra CO2 produced, but, even if this is true, it would take decades to happen. In any event, if the forests were left where they were, how much CO2 would simply have been sequestrated into the soil? Or if the wood had been used for other purposes, such as building material, there would be no extra emissions at all. Given that we are supposed to only have a few years left to save the planet, would it not be more sensible to be burning gas? The only conclusion is that the whole biomass farrago has been no more than a gimmick, with a veneer of “sustainability”. The clue lies in DECC’s statement: _In reporting emissions the UK follows the requirements of IPCC guidelines on International Greenhouse Gas reporting. In order to avoid double counting of emissions and removals, the reporting convention is that the CO2 contained within biological materials, such as wood pellets, which are to be burnt for energy purposes, such as electricity generation, is accounted for by the harvesting country. This emission is reported by countries included under the forest management sector._  *In other words, you can burn as many trees as you like, as long as they are not your own. 
> Without this edict, biomass would be dead in the water.*

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-c...energy_sources
The figure quoted for biomass is for co-firing with coal. Dedicated biomass is half that figure.

----------


## chrisp

It seems that there is some contention over whether biofuels are carbon neutral or not. There seem to be some recent studies that are questioning the overall carbon neutrality of biofuels and some studies even come up with a carbon positive overall result. It all seems to revolve around what land is used and what crops are grown - and what the land was used for. And the fuel used in the farm and manufacturing machinery! 
It seems that biofuels can be very low carbon overall if the right crops and right land is used. 
I’m not sure what to opponents of biofuels are going to use to fuel their internal combustion engines when petroleum fuels become scarce? 
Anyway, I looked up the link (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life...energy_sources) provided by UseByDate and saw this table...   
I think the reader can can see the benefits or otherwise of various fuels themself.

----------


## John2b

Only a tiny percentage of energy extracted from any source is actually used usefully. The vastly greater proportion is just pissed against the wall in inefficiencies. 
Some countries do strikingly better than others in saving energy. in the 2018 International Energy Efficiency Scorecard published recently by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy no country came close to a perfect score, and the average remained the same as in 2016  51 out of a possible 100 points. Overall, Germany and Italy tie for first place this year with 75.5 points, closely followed by France (73.5), the United Kingdom (73), and Japan (67). Australia came last of the industrialised countries with a score of 39.5 points.  World Energy Rankings Suggest Countries Need Energy Efficiency to Meet Paris Goals | ACEEE

----------


## Bros

> Only a tiny percentage of energy extracted from any source is actually used usefully. The vastly greater proportion is just pissed against the wall in inefficiencies. 
> Some countries do strikingly better than others in saving energy. in the 2018 International Energy Efficiency Scorecard published recently by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy no country came close to a perfect score, and the average remained the same as in 2016 — 51 out of a possible 100 points. Overall, Germany and Italy tie for first place this year with 75.5 points, closely followed by France (73.5), the United Kingdom (73), and Japan (67). Australia came last of the industrialised countries with a score of 39.5 points.

   It is like comparing apples and oranges to compare Australia with European countries. They have Nuclear power and are compact. You could fit Australia into Europe. 
They have very efficient transport system vs Australia that for most general freight uses road transport. 
USA is the only country you could compare with Australia and they to have Nuclear energy.

----------


## DavoSyd

> It is like comparing apples and oranges to compare Australia with European countries.

  yep,  spot on, Australia is not a leading energy efficiency innovator:   The 2018 International Energy Efficiency Scorecard | ACEEE 
and this is an issue too:

----------


## Bros

> yep,  spot on, Australia is not a leading energy efficiency innovator:   The 2018 International Energy Efficiency Scorecard | ACEEE 
> and this is an issue too:

  Irrelevant answer.

----------


## John2b

> It is like comparing apples and oranges to compare Australia with European countries. They have Nuclear power and are compact. You could fit Australia into Europe.....

  No, it is more like comparing apples with rotten apples - sources of energy and distances for freight have absolutely no impact on the scores in the report.

----------


## Bros

> No, it is more like comparing apples with rotten apples - sources of energy and distances for freight have absolutely no impact on the scores in the report.

   More rubbish.

----------


## John2b

With respect Bros, you seem to have an inclination to make ill-informed, reactionary posts. If you checked you would see that the report is based on 36 measures of efficiency. None of these metrics is affected by source or cost of energy, nor with market costs that might vary from one country to another.

----------


## Marc

*Dear Climate Alarmists – We Will Never Forget nor Forgive.*  By Adam Piggott -  November 13, 2017_278_   _Share on Facebook  Tweet on Twitter_   __ _Originally published 7 February, 2017, given that as another Australian summer approaches we are about to hit peak climate alarmist silly season, it is time for an encore._ _It’s been a rough ten years as a so-called “climate denier”. Every year the climate data would show a complete refusal to follow the accepted and official line, and every year the faith of the climate change faithful only seemed to get stronger and stronger. And their abuse of heretics like myself only got stronger and stronger. I have lost friendships over my stance on this issue. I have been attacked publicly by those around me on numerous occasions. And I have endured the casual mockery at social gatherings where the accepted response has been to pat me on the head in a condescending manner – here he is; our own climate denier. Isn’t he precious?_  _I have watched landscapes I love destroyed by the looming figures of gigantic wind farms that stand in mute mockery of my continued resistance to this enormous scam. I have observed with silent loathing the hypocrites who swan around in their enormous SUVs while proudly parading their dubious green credentials, even as ordinary families struggle with the reality of paying their ever-increasing power bills. Only a few months ago, a piece I wrote on the climate change scam elicited concerned emails and calls from people I know who cautioned me with the treacherous path I was taking._ _But money talks and @@@@@@@@ walks, and the money is beginning to drop out of this con to end all cons._  _The usual platitudes are being spoken, but actions speak louder than words. Courtesy of Maggies Farm, here are a couple of articles that caught my attention. The first is from the Manhattan Contrarian who observes that climate alarmism doesn’t seem to be working any more. Governments are beginning to invest mightily in coal-fired power stations, of all things. Who would have ever believed it? Meanwhile the dismal climate science is rocked by yet another scandal as employees and insiders, who previously refused to speak out for fear of the consequences, are now beginning to find their voices once again. They know which way the wind is blowing and the wind has begun to shift._  _But here’s the thing. Once this all unravels, and it will unravel very quickly as soon as the money stops flowing, those of us on the side that is ludicrously described as being “deniers” are not going to forget. We are not going to let you bastards off the hook. We remember what has been said and written about us. We don’t even need to remember – the internet is forever. You’re not going to shrug off this one as just another Y2K. And you’re certainly not going to quietly move on to your next charade of choice that you’ll ram down our throats and wallets with your usual religious fervour._ _
Because the climate scam was too big. You pushed all of your chips into the centre of the table and said, “all in,” with a smug stare at us sitting on the other side of the felt. And you busted out. Not only have you busted out, but you don’t have any more chips to play. We’re not going to let you have any. From now on, every time you come up with some pathetic attempt to control populations through a fear-based con we will remind everyone of climate change. Every time governments attempt to hijack science to support a political agenda, we will bring up that old climate change bugbear. You are going to be shoved into the corner as the crazy bearded freak standing on the side of the road with his sign proclaiming the end of the world is nigh. We aren’t going to listen to you any more. You have proven yourselves too stupid or untrustworthy to participate in public discourse._  _And that goes for those in my social circle as well. You know who you are. You’re the ones that have been parroting the climate change line like blind simpletons for the past ten years. A decade of listening to you idiots chant on and on about “the science!” when you wouldn’t know science if it slapped you across the face with a Bunsen burner. A decade of watching you drive around with a “no more oil” sticker on your car bumper. I mean, how much more clueless do you have to be?_  _A decade of you retarded monkeys claiming that plant food is a pollutant. Years of you driving electric cars that only exist due to the biggest taxpayer subsidy in history, while you are seemingly oblivious to the fact that they need to be plugged into an electric power grid. Decades of you opposing nuclear power, which if any of your bogus claims were true would be the immediate answer if mankind truly were in some kind of climate peril. Decades of you pontificating at how the sea levels are going to rise while you buy palatial beach-front homes, and you then have the gall to sue local councils for sea erosion after you participated in demonstrations to stop them building a sea wall._  _Years of you advocating for corn to be turned into bio fuel while there are still people in the world with not enough food to eat. Morons who buy solar panels with taxpayer subsidies and then put them on the side of the roof facing the street which signals your virtuousness but fails to get any sunlight. Years of you actually believing that there is such a thing called renewable energy, and every time some country manages to get some above-average power from them due to a fortuitous combination of weather events, you scream it from the top of your lungs that this is incontrovertible proof that the entire world will soon be run on wave farms. Eleven years of you quoting total @@@@ from An Inconvenient Truth._  _Years of governments investing huge amounts of taxpayer money in renewable scams so that they were forced to parrot the official line, otherwise their foolish investments would be at risk. Boy, that chicken is coming home to roost. Years of listening to cretins living on tiny island nations, who have completely mismanaged their delicate ecosystems but now want to blame it all on rich countries and guilt trip us into bailing them out. Years and years of a concerted attempt by the UN and other globalist organizations to subvert and destroy capitalism by using the climate scam as a proxy, while listening to people in your social circles whose entire lives and standard of living depend entirely on the capitalist model, go along with the scam like lemmings following each other off a cliff._  _And you lot had the nerve to label the very few of us who stood up to this rubbish and tried to protect the very system which you so mindlessly enjoy as being climate deniers?_  _You can all go @@@@ yourselves. We will not forget. We will remind you for the rest of our lives. We will write the histories. You will never again be able to publicly hide from your cowardice, your avarice, your gullibility, your ignorance, and your sheer stupidity. But at least you’ll still have that free market capitalist model to enjoy which you so badly wanted to throw in the recycling bin._ _You’re welcome._  _This article was originally published at https://pushingrubberdownhill.com/, where Adam Piggott publishes regularly and brilliantly. You can purchase Adam’s books here._

----------


## Bros

> With respect Bros, you seem to have an inclination to make ill-informed, reactionary posts. If you checked you would see that the report is based on 36 measures of efficiency. None of these metrics is affected by source or cost of energy, nor with market costs that might vary from one country to another.

   You compared several countries implying Australia was bad but you seem to want to ignore the differences which are significant.

----------


## chrisp

> *Dear Climate Alarmists – We Will Never Forget nor Forgive.*  By Adam Piggott -  November 13, 2017_278_   _Share on Facebook  Tweet on Twitter_   __ _Originally published 7 February, 2017, given that as another Australian summer approaches we are about to hit peak climate alarmist silly season, it is time for an encore._ _It’s been a rough ten years as a so-called “climate denier”. Every year the climate data would show a complete refusal to follow the accepted and official line, and every year the faith of the climate change faithful only seemed to get stronger and stronger. And their abuse of heretics like myself only got stronger and stronger. I have lost friendships over my stance on this issue. I have been attacked publicly by those around me on numerous occasions. And I have endured the casual mockery at social gatherings where the accepted response has been to pat me on the head in a condescending manner – here he is; our own climate denier. Isn’t he precious?_  _I have watched landscapes I love destroyed by the looming figures of gigantic wind farms that stand in mute mockery of my continued resistance to this enormous scam. I have observed with silent loathing the hypocrites who swan around in their enormous SUVs while proudly parading their dubious green credentials, even as ordinary families struggle with the reality of paying their ever-increasing power bills. Only a few months ago, a piece I wrote on the climate change scam elicited concerned emails and calls from people I know who cautioned me with the treacherous path I was taking._ _But money talks and @@@@@@@@ walks, and the money is beginning to drop out of this con to end all cons._  _The usual platitudes are being spoken, but actions speak louder than words. Courtesy of Maggies Farm, here are a couple of articles that caught my attention. The first is from the Manhattan Contrarian who observes that climate alarmism doesn’t seem to be working any more. Governments are beginning to invest mightily in coal-fired power stations, of all things. Who would have ever believed it? Meanwhile the dismal climate science is rocked by yet another scandal as employees and insiders, who previously refused to speak out for fear of the consequences, are now beginning to find their voices once again. They know which way the wind is blowing and the wind has begun to shift._  _But here’s the thing. Once this all unravels, and it will unravel very quickly as soon as the money stops flowing, those of us on the side that is ludicrously described as being “deniers” are not going to forget. We are not going to let you bastards off the hook. We remember what has been said and written about us. We don’t even need to remember – the internet is forever. You’re not going to shrug off this one as just another Y2K. And you’re certainly not going to quietly move on to your next charade of choice that you’ll ram down our throats and wallets with your usual religious fervour._ _
> Because the climate scam was too big. You pushed all of your chips into the centre of the table and said, “all in,” with a smug stare at us sitting on the other side of the felt. And you busted out. Not only have you busted out, but you don’t have any more chips to play. We’re not going to let you have any. From now on, every time you come up with some pathetic attempt to control populations through a fear-based con we will remind everyone of climate change. Every time governments attempt to hijack science to support a political agenda, we will bring up that old climate change bugbear. You are going to be shoved into the corner as the crazy bearded freak standing on the side of the road with his sign proclaiming the end of the world is nigh. We aren’t going to listen to you any more. You have proven yourselves too stupid or untrustworthy to participate in public discourse._  _And that goes for those in my social circle as well. You know who you are. You’re the ones that have been parroting the climate change line like blind simpletons for the past ten years. A decade of listening to you idiots chant on and on about “the science!” when you wouldn’t know science if it slapped you across the face with a Bunsen burner. A decade of watching you drive around with a “no more oil” sticker on your car bumper. I mean, how much more clueless do you have to be?_  _A decade of you retarded monkeys claiming that plant food is a pollutant. Years of you driving electric cars that only exist due to the biggest taxpayer subsidy in history, while you are seemingly oblivious to the fact that they need to be plugged into an electric power grid. Decades of you opposing nuclear power, which if any of your bogus claims were true would be the immediate answer if mankind truly were in some kind of climate peril. Decades of you pontificating at how the sea levels are going to rise while you buy palatial beach-front homes, and you then have the gall to sue local councils for sea erosion after you participated in demonstrations to stop them building a sea wall._  _Years of you advocating for corn to be turned into bio fuel while there are still people in the world with not enough food to eat. Morons who buy solar panels with taxpayer subsidies and then put them on the side of the roof facing the street which signals your virtuousness but fails to get any sunlight. Years of you actually believing that there is such a thing called renewable energy, and every time some country manages to get some above-average power from them due to a fortuitous combination of weather events, you scream it from the top of your lungs that this is incontrovertible proof that the entire world will soon be run on wave farms. Eleven years of you quoting total @@@@ from An Inconvenient Truth._  _Years of governments investing huge amounts of taxpayer money in renewable scams so that they were forced to parrot the official line, otherwise their foolish investments would be at risk. Boy, that chicken is coming home to roost. Years of listening to cretins living on tiny island nations, who have completely mismanaged their delicate ecosystems but now want to blame it all on rich countries and guilt trip us into bailing them out. Years and years of a concerted attempt by the UN and other globalist organizations to subvert and destroy capitalism by using the climate scam as a proxy, while listening to people in your social circles whose entire lives and standard of living depend entirely on the capitalist model, go along with the scam like lemmings following each other off a cliff._  _And you lot had the nerve to label the very few of us who stood up to this rubbish and tried to protect the very system which you so mindlessly enjoy as being climate deniers?_  _You can all go @@@@ yourselves. We will not forget. We will remind you for the rest of our lives. We will write the histories. You will never again be able to publicly hide from your cowardice, your avarice, your gullibility, your ignorance, and your sheer stupidity. But at least you’ll still have that free market capitalist model to enjoy which you so badly wanted to throw in the recycling bin._ _You’re welcome._  _This article was originally published at https://pushingrubberdownhill.com/, where Adam Piggott publishes regularly and brilliantly. You can purchase Adam’s books here._

  I suppose the flat-earthers of the past probably felt much the same way too. It’s a pretty emotion article that you posted (rather copied and pasted). I suspect that you’ll be waiting a very long long time for the vindication of your views! Good luck with that!

----------


## DavoSyd

> Irrelevant answer.

  Awww, poor Bros... Didn't read the cited article, but still thinks he's got something useful to say about it?

----------


## DavoSyd

Can people please stop block quoting Marc's posts! I've just found the ignore feature, but his posts are still appearing!

----------


## chrisp

> Can people please stop block quoting Marc's posts! I've just found the ignore feature, but his posts are still appearing!

  Sorry about that! I normally don’t bother to read his cut-and-pastes as I think if he can’t be bothered thinking for himself and writing his own thoughts, I couldn’t be bothered to read them either. (Funny how he claims others are in group think yet he is the one who mostly just slab-posts other’s poorly thought out views). 
However, the last lot of drivel he posted I thought was quite interesting - it’s a lament to the poor climate change denier! It warmed the cockles of my heart!  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

> You compared several countries implying Australia was bad but you seem to want to ignore the differences which are significant.

  No, I did not compare several countries - I posted some research that made comparisons of different countries. Criticise their methodology if you like, but first inform yourself on what basis they made those comparisons.

----------


## John2b

- duplicated post deleted

----------


## John2b

> (Funny how he claims others are in group think yet he is the one who mostly just slab-posts other’s poorly thought out views)...

   ...and as often as not are littered with logical and factual inconsistencies just like your cited post. But the amusement derived from reading Marc's posts are what makes him endearing. 
In the post above that attempts to demonise NOAA, the proponent Dr John Bates did not claim that the study was wrong, only that he 'guessed' the timing of its release might be political. "I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people,” Bates said. Dah-dum! 
Marc is seemingly blind to what is/has happened in the real world around him in the course of this discussion thread. As evidence mounts exponentially and as the further out on the fringe his views become, the more determined he is to believe that the minority older white male ideology he imbibes in will somehow overwhelm reality. As much as I might and do worry about the future, the notion that Marc might be right is quite frankly not something that enters my consciousness. I sincerely hope for Marc's sake that he is not judged in the manner he judges others.

----------


## John2b

All of the bleating that goes on here about renewables pushing up the price to consumers of electricity is ignoring the elephant in the room - consumers are illegally being ripped off by the network companies who's charges amount to nearly half of the cost of electricity:  Network charges – the cost of the poles, wires and electricity distribution – have been the largest single factor in rising power bills over the last few years. These costs account for between 40 and 50 per cent of household bills. The network and gas pipeline businesses were able to cover their corporate tax liabilities, which have typically amounted to around $600 million annually, by passing these costs onto the consumer. However, the Australian Tax Office said the real cost of these tax liabilities may only be about $200 million, which meant networks may have been charging consumers three times the real price.  *Energy regulator demands networks' tax records over price-gouging*   https://www.smh.com.au/business/cons...28-p4zo98.html

----------


## Bros

> Awww, poor Bros... Didn't read the cited article, but still thinks he's got something useful to say about it? ...

   Couldn’t read it as I would have had to sign up. 
If you post rubbish like that I won’t bother reading it.

----------


## Bros

> No, I did not compare several countries - I posted some research that made comparisons of different countries. Criticise their methodology if you like, but first inform yourself on what basis they made those comparisons.

   But the article did and you posted it as you continually complain about Australia.

----------


## Marc

*When will it be time to short Tesla?*  By Adam Piggott -  April 26, 2018_16_   _Share on Facebook  Tweet on Twitter_   _ 
This article popped up on my feed on the weekend:_ _
More hilarious facts about Tesla from a hedge fund manager who’s short the stock._ _“All companies in a capitalistic system need to earn profits and those profits need to be attractive relative to the amount of shareholder capital employed. Tesla has never earned an annual profit. Along with digital currencies and Unicorns, Tesla appears to be caught up in a gold-rush-fever type of emotional response, both from a “they will take over the world” and a “they will save the world” combination of hopes, instead of their owners looking at the numbers …_ _“… As anyone with automotive experience knows, profit margins are far higher on bigger, more expensive cars. Therefore, the faster Tesla makes Model 3’s, the more money they will lose.”_  _I’ve been saying this for a while now. Elon Musk is the biggest fraud the world has ever seen. He recently approved an increase in his annual salary to $5 billion per year, more than every other CEO of a top fortune 500 company combined._ _And this is the problem that I have with shorting Tesla stock – the timing._  _Yesterday afternoon after a big lunch of Normandy oysters, barbeque pork ribs and grilled vegetables I laid myself down on the couch and watched The Big Short. I’ve seen it a few times but I always enjoy it. I was reminded of the fact that before the 2008 crisis hedge fund manager Michael Burry bet against the mortgage backed securities. He made his bet in 2005 which turned out to be two years too early, meaning he had to pay high monthly premiums._  _Not only that, when the banks realised what was happening they refused to value the securities accurately, essentially making the entire system fraudulent. I am sure that one of the main reasons that they did this was a deep unwillingness to acknowledge the ugly truth. If Burry was right then they were wrong and being wrong has consequences._  _Back to Tesla. The company is a giant fraud built on a pile of sand, but the entire green economy is exactly the same. Windfarms do not make money. Solar panels do not make money. Recycling garbage does not make money. All of these things, and many more, (lets not even talk about wave farms), lose money._  _If people have bet big one way they don’t want to know that it is bad. Worse than that, they will continue to throw money at it right up to the point when it falls off a cliff. So if you were to bet against this market, by shorting Tesla stock for example, you’re not just betting against market forces; you’re betting against global delusion._  _Of course it will happen. The market will crash. If anything this is an even bigger opportunity than the 2008 financial crisis. There is far more taxpayer money invested in this green energy @@@@@@@@._  _But when to bet against it, that is the question. It is a fraudulent market already, let alone when people deep in it begin to wake up to the fact themselves. You could be paying a lot of monthly premiums before it all goes bad._ _Photo by Eric Lumsden_  _This article was originally published at https://pushingrubberdownhill.com/,_

----------


## Bedford

> Im not sure what to opponents of biofuels are going to use to fuel their internal combustion engines when petroleum fuels become scarce?

  I'll be using a gas producer, same as when fuel was rationed during the war. 
Are these biofuels capable of lubricating engines and bearings etc?

----------


## John2b

> Are these biofuels capable of lubricating engines and bearings etc?

  Synthetic lubricants made from non-petroleum raw materials like alcohol to make esters which are better and last longer than petroleum based lubricants.

----------


## John2b

> But the article did and you posted it as you continually complain about Australia.

  Did you read it?

----------


## DavoSyd

> Couldn’t read it as I would have had to sign up. 
> If you post rubbish like that I won’t bother reading it.

  Sign up was easy for me; 
John
Doe John@doe.com 
And if you don't read relevant content, at least you should start your post/s with  
"I didn't read the article, but... " 
That whole dumb argument around that stupid graph would not have occurred if people actually read the description of the graph in the literature it was lifted from!

----------


## Bedford

> Synthetic lubricants made from non-petroleum raw materials like alcohol to make esters which are better and last longer than petroleum based lubricants.

  I am well aware of Synthetic lubricants, but that has nothing to do with the question. 
If you don't understand the question, don't change the subject.

----------


## Bros

> Did you read it?

   Your link yes.

----------


## Bros

> Sign up was easy for me; 
> John
> Doe John@doe.com 
> And if you don't read relevant content, at least you should start your post/s with  
> "I didn't read the article, but... " 
> That whole dumb argument around that stupid graph would not have occurred if people actually read the description of the graph in the literature it was lifted from!

   Never bother to read articles that are behind paywall nor for those who want you to sign up, if their article is that good they wouldn’t ask you to sign up. Global Warming is supposed to be important so it mystifies me as to why they put restrictions on reading.

----------


## John2b

> Your link yes.

   Then why the need to mischaracterise its content and my reason for posting it? I aspire for a better Australia. What is your problem with that?

----------


## John2b

> Never bother to read articles that are behind paywall nor for those who want you to sign up, if their article is that good they wouldn’t ask you to sign up. Global Warming is supposed to be important so it mystifies me as to why they put restrictions on reading.

  It is the publisher who deems whether access is free or not. The authors are rarely the publishers.

----------


## John2b

> I am well aware of Synthetic lubricants, but that has nothing to do with the question. 
> If you don't understand the question, don't change the subject.

  Calm down Bedford. Your question sounds like it has an implicit implication - please explain what you were intending to discover. 
Note: Edited to correct mistake about how I read Bedford's post.

----------


## Bedford

> Calm down Bedford. As you are well aware, your question had an implicit implication - please explain what you were intending to discover.

  No implicit implication just a simple question. 
I'll try again,   

> Are these biofuels capable of lubricating engines and bearings etc?

  Do these biofuels have the capability of lubricating internal combustion engines such as a dry sumped engine that previously required a fuel/oil mix?

----------


## PhilT2

Renewable Lubricants | Home

----------


## Marc

> Do these biofuels have the capability of lubricating internal combustion engines such as a dry sumped engine that previously required a fuel/oil mix?

  Vegetable or animal fat can be turned into lubricants with a lot of chemical manipulation and a large added cost. Just like Biodiesel that almost disappeared from the market, this vegetable derivates exist only because some countries mandate them to exist regardless of cost. It is another market that was invented for a few to make money , a lot to feel good, and us to hold the can. 
A search with "what happened to biodiesel" or what happened to biofuels will bring up scores of articles lamenting the lack of subsidies to prop up an artificial market created by morons for morons.

----------


## John2b

> No implicit implication just a simple question.

  My apologies! Do you mean are the biofuels capable of carrying a lubricant in emulsion like petroleum fuels, or operating without a lubricant?

----------


## John2b

> It is another market that was invented for a few to make money , a lot to feel good, and us to hold the can.

  Yet PhilT2's link is to a company that has been making renewable lubricants for 27 years, has 250 products in its range, and does not receive government subsidies nor do its products attract subsidies or rebates in the US market where they are manufactured. Joint research conducted by Renewable Lubricants with government agencies and other private corporations has been co-funded just like many other corporations that develop products for market.

----------


## Bedford

> My apologies! Do you mean are the biofuels capable of carrying a lubricant in emulsion like petroleum fuels, or operating without a lubricant?

  Neither, I want to know if the biofuels are "oily" enough themselves to lubricate an engine without the need for additives after the point of purchase.

----------


## chrisp

> Im not sure what to opponents of biofuels are going to use to fuel their internal combustion engines when petroleum fuels become scarce?

   

> I'll be using a gas producer, same as when fuel was rationed during the war. 
> Are these biofuels capable of lubricating engines and bearings etc?

   

> Synthetic lubricants made from non-petroleum raw materials like alcohol to make esters which are better and last longer than petroleum based lubricants.

   

> No implicit implication just a simple question. 
> I'll try again, 
> Do these biofuels have the capability of lubricating internal combustion engines such as a dry sumped engine that previously required a fuel/oil mix?

   

> Renewable Lubricants | Home

   

> My apologies! Do you mean are the biofuels capable of carrying a lubricant in emulsion like petroleum fuels, or operating without a lubricant?

  John, Youre very patient with a question asked in a vague manner. Good on you.  :2thumbsup:

----------


## Marc

Biodiesel if made properly, free of glycerin and a dozen more potential contaminants is a good fuel. See here for some quality issues Biodiesel Fuel Quality - eXtension
I had to do my pump and injectors after using biodiesel from a petrol station chain that used to sell it. One crap batch was all that I needed to face $1500 in repairs.  
Diesel fuel needs to be able to lubricate the injectors and pump, enough for them not so seize. No other lubricating requirements for diesel fuel. 
A petrol engine requires no lubricating properties for it's fuel.  
Ethanol suffers from being highly hygroscopic and so sucks up all the moisture from the air and the water ends up at the bottom of the tank. 
No good. 
Bought a new Subaru last month and they told me I would void warranty if I used E10.  
Same story with two stroke engines. Use E10 at your own peril.
A car can be made to use 100% ethanol but it will need to be made specifically for that fuel from factory. Not hard but hardly a smart move.  
Ethanol just like Biodiesel is a bad idea poorly implemented and can only be forced on the consumer with government mandates that ignore the consumer and pander to the green vote.

----------


## Bros

> My apologies!

   Can I frame that comment?

----------


## Bros

> Then why the need to mischaracterise its content and my reason for posting it? I aspire for a better Australia. What is your problem with that?

   None, but like the boy who called wolf your posts are critical of what we do in Australia so your posts lose relavance.

----------


## Bedford

> John, Youre very patient with a question asked in a vague manner. Good on you.

  Cut the condecending BS Chris, just because you can't understand the question doesn't necessarily make it vague.   

> Calm down Bedford. Your question sounds like it  has an implicit implication - please explain what you were intending to  discover. 
> Note: Edited to correct mistake about how I read Bedford's post.

  John was at least gentlemanly enough to apologise.   

> My apologies!

----------


## John2b

> None, but like the boy who called wolf your posts are critical of what we do in Australia so your posts lose relavance.

  False comparison. The boy who cried wolf made stuff up - I didn't. Please explain why I shouldn't want Australia to be a better country?

----------


## John2b

> Can I frame that comment?

   I am mortal - I make mistakes - I am not too proud to apologise when I do. I acknowledge I read your post with personal a bias of where you were coming from. I am sorry for doing that. I did not get the gist of your question until you clarified it. I still think it is unclear in its original form, even with the benefit of your clarification. Fuel isn't generally considered a lubricant. Even the lubricating properties of diesel in the traditional high pressure injector pump design are tenuous at best.

----------


## John2b

> ...your posts are critical of what we do in Australia so your posts lose relavance.

  It might be salient to remember that this thread started 18,598 posts ago which was critical of what Australia was doing. It's not something I started.

----------


## Bedford

> I am mortal - I make mistakes - I am not too proud to apologise when I do. I acknowledge I read your post with personal a bias of where you were coming from. I am sorry for doing that. I did not get the gist of your question until you clarified it. I still think it is unclear in its original form, even with the benefit of your clarification. Fuel isn't generally considered a lubricant. Even the lubricating properties of diesel in the traditional high pressure injector pump design are tenuous at best.

  John, what you've written seems as if you are replying to me, I didn't ask about framing anything.   

> I acknowledge I read your post with personal a bias of where you were coming from. I am sorry for doing that.

  Personal bias.... Enough said.  
You need to stop listening to the jungle drums in the background about "gotchyas" etc, trust me, I know how it works.   

> Even the lubricating properties of diesel in the traditional high pressure injector pump design are tenuous at best

  Really, Diesel Engine Technology: IN LINE INJECTION PUMP LUBRICATION

----------


## John2b

> Personal bias.... Enough said.

  It's not just me, Bedford.   

> Really, Diesel Engine Technology: IN LINE INJECTION PUMP LUBRICATION

  Confirms exactly what I said - "any foreign material that finds its way into the fuel system can damage or seriously impair the operation of these parts" because diesel is at best a marginal lubricant! 
 You need to heed your own 'jungle drum' advice, as should one or two others here.

----------


## Bedford

> Confirms exactly what I said - "any foreign material that finds its way into the fuel system can damage or seriously impair the operation of these parts"

  Any foreign material that finds its way into the injector pump is a filter problem.   

> because diesel is at best a marginal lubricant - doh!

  Diesel is an adequate lubricant that has well and truly stood the test of time.

----------


## Marc

> _Even the lubricating properties of diesel in the traditional high pressure injector pump design are tenuous at best_

  What does that mean John? 
Do you know how a pump works and the different kinds of pumps there are in use today?  
What about the different kind of diesel fuels?  
Things are not always as easy nor as obvious. Biodiesel is not a fuel that is universal for all diesel engines and is not easy to produce in high amounts nor with the high quality required to preserve the integrity of the engines it serves. 
Biodiesel just as Ethanol can theoretically work for some engines if done with high quality. They are experimental fuels produced to make a point. Can you scratch your left ear with your right hand stretching your arm around the back of your head? sure ... the question is why would you do it? To prove what? 
The FACT is that if you use biodiesel or ethanol you risk very expensive repairs. The fuel quality is unreliable, and the supply is not there to increase the volumes and make production worth while. 
Like everything that start with the words "Eco" or "Bio" or "Sustainable" or "Green" or any other prefix that implies virtue or moral high ground by elevation, it is of lower quality, unreliable, may not work and ... invariably is more expensive.

----------


## John2b

> Any foreign material that finds its way into the injector pump is a filter problem.
> Diesel is an adequate lubricant that has well and truly stood the test of time.

   Your jungle drums come across loud and clear.  :2thumbsup:  
Would you run your motor car engine with the sump full of diesel? No need to answer!

----------


## John2b

> What does that mean John?

  You claim to have put me on your ignore list Marc, so I can't respond to this which must be a phantom post. Plus your post answers questions I didn't ask, which is a definite no-no here. 
Meanwhile in the UK many old school diesel vehicle owners buy canola oil from Tesco in 20 litre casks to run their vehicles on, because canola oil from the supermarket is much cheaper than pump diesel, or was cheaper until a few years ago. Don't try this in a modern common rail diesel though as such engines need an especially concocted elixir. 
Oh, Marc, you never did explain how you got your first post on historic diesel engine fuels so wrong, being the expert that you are on coal dust and peanut oil. 
BTW  "Eco", "Bio", "Sustainable" and "Green" are not words I use, with the exception of quite often pointing out that "sustainable" is an oxymoron.

----------


## chrisp

When Australia introduced unleaded petrol (and withdrew leaded petrol) to reduce pollution , you may recall that older engines couldn’t use unleaded as the lead was used as a valve lubricant as well as a octane booster. Newer engines used hard valve seats and could tolerate lead-free petrol. 
A similar situation has happened in diesel fuel. Australia has changed over to ultra low sulfur diesel in 2009. The Sulfur in the diesel, and some other impurities that are removed in the refining process, also served as lubricants in older engines. Extra lubricants are added back in to the newer diesel fuel to compensate. 
I would expect that all diesel fuel sold in Australia, whether it to fossil or bio origins, would need the comply with current standards. 
The issue of lubricity of the fuel, like the issue of pre-unleaded fuel cars, would be something the owner of the old vehicle may have to deal with. I don’t think that it is an issue of conventional fossil vs bio diesel as such.

----------


## Marc

Both of your google wisdom is noted. Clearly you don't know anything beyond what google tells you. Please go back to arguing over global warming because you know nothing about biofuels and it's shortcomings.

----------


## chrisp

Do I hear ‘jungle drums’?  :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

What's the point Chris, you are two armchair environmentalist and I happen to have 20 years of work on large diesel engines. 
I can see the tide is about to turn and it's the best time to catch some fish.

----------


## John2b

Interesting isn't it that diesel engines' performance characteristics are governed by the same laws of physics and thermodynamics as global warming. You can't have one without the other LOL! (Says someone who studied physics and thermodynamics at uni more than 40 years ago, when we were supposedly all suffering from the great global freeze groupthink!)

----------


## Bedford

> Would you run your motor car engine with the sump full of diesel? No need to answer!

  Well I'm going to answer, no, I would use the manufacturers recommendation. 
But this is just another diversion as my comment,   

> Diesel is an adequate lubricant that has well and truly stood the test of time.

  Was in response to you saying,   

> Even the  lubricating properties of diesel in the traditional high pressure * injector pump* design are tenuous at best.

  And,   

> Confirms exactly what I said - "any foreign material that finds its way  into the *fuel system* can damage or seriously impair the operation of  these parts" because diesel is at best a marginal lubricant!

  My question was related to dry sumped engines that used a fuel/oil mix, so what are you on about?   

> Do these biofuels have the capability of lubricating internal combustion  engines such as a dry sumped engine that previously required a fuel/oil  mix?

----------


## Bedford

> When Australia introduced unleaded petrol (and withdrew leaded petrol) to reduce pollution , you may recall* that older engines couldnt use unleaded* as the lead was used as a valve lubricant as well as a octane booster.

  Well the pollution may be correct but the bolded bit is BS.    

> However, some pre-1986 vehicles will operate satisfactorily on Unleaded (ULP) or Premium Unleaded (PULP)

  https://www.racq.com.au/cars-and-dri...-pre-1986-cars   

> Lead replacement additive must be used at every fill as it has no residual effect.

  Kinda defeats the purpose....... 
And from personal experience with three leaded fuel vehicles, I ran them all on unleaded with no additives or issues. 
Even in a V8 truck using five gallons an hour for nearly twenty years. Only thing I did to it was retard it two degrees. 
These could be fitted to provide upper cylinder lubricant if necessary, same as used with LPG.   *FVSK - Flashlube Valve Saver Kit  * Flashlube Fuel and oil additives Norwood Parade Auto Spares open 7 days www.derek.com.au

----------


## chrisp

> https://www.racq.com.au/cars-and-driving/cars/owning-and-maintaining-a-car/facts-about-fuels/unleaded-petrol-and-pre-1986-cars      
> 			
> 				Lead replacement additive must be used at every fill as it has no residual effect.
> 			
> 		     
> Kinda defeats the purpose.......

  Are you saying that the additive contains lead? I didnt know that. Can you provide a link?

----------


## Bedford

> Are you saying that the additive contains lead? I didnt know that. Can you provide a link?

  No lead as far as I know, the additive was supposed to overcome the pinging problems that some engines had when the lead was removed. 
Both brothers were petrolheads and tried all these additives to achieve nothing other than more exhaust fumes............. 
Some info about lead, http://www.classicrallyclub.com.au/d...utes_facts.pdf 
Note that this article refers to1999/2000yr, so ten or twelve years after us.

----------


## John2b

Many US engines of the leaded fuel era suffered from valve seat recession without the lubricating properties of lead in the petrol. On the other hand, by the 1980s many Japanese and European engines had stronger valve seats and did not. Engines would run perfectly fine without the lead (providing the octane rating was high enough) until in the case of engines with soft valve seats, the valves gave trouble with sealing, causing overheating and poor mileage and eventually outright failure. The solution for engines that could suffer valve seat recession was an upper cylinder head lubricant added to the fuel to restore the valve lubrication that the lead had once given.

----------


## John2b

> My question was related to dry sumped engines that used a fuel/oil mix, so what are you on about?

   The way your question was posed seem to be implying that the fuel provided the lubricant. I think it's been done it to death now. I suggest we move on.

----------


## chrisp

Valve lubrication a side, I think it is easy to overlook the fact that oil reserves are only a transient energy source when looked at over a longer timescale. You could say that oil as fuel is a flash in the pan. 
Energy use has exploded over the past 80 years or so. Oil as an energy source particularly took off in the mid last century.  
(Graph from https://www.financialsense.com/contr...1820-in-charts ) 
BP provides an outlook of the remaining oil reserves (https://www.bp.com/en/global/corpora...-reserves.html)  *    
			
				Global proved oil reserves in 2017 fell slightly by 0.5 billion barrels (-0.03%) to 1696.6 billion barrels, which would be sufficient to meet 50.2 years of global production at 2017 levels
			
		  * 
So, global warming a side, fossil fuel petrol and diesel will not last forever and alternatives will need to be found. 
I wonder if future generations will look back and refer to the 1950-2050 as the fossil fuels age?

----------


## Bedford

> The way your question was posed seem to be  implying that the fuel provided the lubricant.

  You've got it now, as I said,   

> Neither, I want to know if the biofuels are  "oily" enough themselves to lubricate an engine without the need for  additives after the point of purchase.

    

> fossil fuel petrol and diesel will not last forever and alternatives will need to be found.

  Which is why I asked about the biofuels lubrication abilities. 
When you look at the amount of *typical two stroke* engines in use, mowers, chainsaws, blowers, brushcutters, outboard motors, bikes. etc that need a fuel/oil mix, if the biofuel could adequately lubricate, you could remove the need to manufacture/supply a separate lubricant. 
If the biofuels are as environmentally friendly as they seem to indicate, in the case of outboard motors surely this would help reduce "real" pollution to waterways as they currently burn the oil and blow it under the water. 
Dunno, I'm just a zombie.

----------


## PhilT2

The renewable lubricants people do make a two stroke oil and their site does have a story on how the EPA in the US requires all vessel operating in US coastal waters and in the Great Lakes to use environmentally approved lubricants on all "oil to sea interfaces" (not sure what that is) I understand that is not exactly the same as what you are saying about removing the need for a separate lubricant for two strokes and that rule probably only applies to the larger commercial vessels anyway.

----------


## John2b

> When you look at the amount of *typical two stroke* engines in use, mowers, chainsaws, blowers, brushcutters, outboard motors, bikes. etc that need a fuel/oil mix, if the biofuel could adequately lubricate, you could remove the need to manufacture/supply a separate lubricant.

  From tomorrow (1 July 2018) the sale of small two strokes engines is effectively banned in Australia. Retailers have one year to quit old stock. It will be a decade I guess until we see, smell and hear the end of all that appalling noise, stink and pollution of the army of blowers, suckers, mowers, slashers, chainsaws, concrete cutters, etc, etc. And not a second too soon IMHO. The legislation was first proposed about 40 years ago and had been blocked by well funded industry lobbyists and industry bodies. To what end? Who benefited by the big end of town stalling progress? Your guess is a good as mine...  Emissions crackdown to slash sale of two-stroke lawn mowers, outboard motors - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## John2b

> ... in the case of outboard motors surely this would help reduce "real" pollution to waterways as they currently burn the oil and blow it under the water....

  The Coorong is a closed coastal lagoon 140 kilometres long which has no flushing water flow. I remember in the late 1980s taking a tourist cruise on the MV Aroona for a few hours along the waterway. The Aroona was diesel powered and blew its exhaust into the water. As we traveled along, a black V-shaped plume in the water extended from the stern to the shore on either side. In the lagoon there is nowhere for that pollutant to go or dissipate - it is effectively trapped in the water. That image and the utter stupidity that mankind can display towards the natural environment has stuck in my mind for the last 30 years.

----------


## chrisp

> From tomorrow (1 July 2018) the sale of small two strokes engines is effectively banned in Australia. Retailers have one year to quit old stock. It will be a decade I guess until we see, smell and hear the end of all that appalling noise, stink and pollution of the army of blowers, suckers, mowers, slashers, chainsaws, concrete cutters, etc, etc. And not a second too soon IMHO. The legislation was first proposed about 40 years ago and had been blocked by well funded industry lobbyists and industry bodies. To what end? Who benefited by the big end of town stalling progress? Your guess is a good as mine...  Emissions crackdown to slash sale of two-stroke lawn mowers, outboard motors - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  Wow! Thanks for posting that - I wasn’t aware that it was happening. 
I grew up on 2-strokes (mostly motor bikes and model aeroplanes) and have a fond memories of them. However, over the years I’ve been moving over to 4-stokes. The last 2-Stoke engine to be removed from service at my place was the whipper snipper. I purchased a 4-stroke Honda and it has been fantastic. It is very quiet. However, the carbi jets are very small and are prone to gummy up. I’ve found that a small dose of injector cleaner every now and again soon fixes it.

----------


## Bedford

> From tomorrow (1 July 2018) the sale of small two strokes engines is effectively banned in Australia. Retailers have one year to quit old stock. It will be a decade I guess until we see, smell and hear the end of all that appalling noise, stink and pollution of the army of blowers, suckers, mowers, slashers, chainsaws, concrete cutters, etc, etc. And not a second too soon IMHO. The legislation was first proposed about 40 years ago and had been blocked by well funded industry lobbyists and industry bodies. To what end? Who benefited by the big end of town stalling progress? Your guess is a good as mine...  Emissions crackdown to slash sale of two-stroke lawn mowers, outboard motors - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  
Old news John, why do you think people look for alternative ways to improve things, as I for one have done. 
The trouble with most of this stuff is that progress gets stymied by dogooders who have NFI what it's really about.

----------


## John2b

> Performance is not just speed.

  Thought this was interesting. An electric car has slashed the record for the Pikes Peak hillclimb set in 2013 at this years event. Most ordinary vehicles can't reach the summit unless driven extremely sedately.  *Electric VW smashes Pikes Peak record*  https://www.drive.com.au/sport/motor...-record-118619

----------


## John2b

> The trouble with most of this stuff is that progress gets stymied by dogooders who have NFI what it's really about.

  Without more information I have NFI what you are on about. Are you blaming dogooders for the demise of 2-stoke pollution?

----------


## John2b

Do-gooders: 
- banning child labour in coal mines; 
- mandating public schools so everyone can receive an education; 
- insisting on public vaccinations to prevent small pox; 
- forcing municipal sanitation to prevent the black plague; 
- supplying safe drinking water to prevent cholera; 
- eliminating lead paint to protect children’s intellectual development; 
and many, many more actions considered heinous by a few elderly white conservative males.  
Those damn do-gooders are a menace to society. Next thing they will be trying to stop us annihilating ourselves through human induced climate change. What if they are wrong and make the world a better place - FOR NOTHING?!

----------


## Bedford

> Without more information I have NFI what you are on about. Are you blaming dogooders for the demise of 2-stoke pollution?

  Companies are aware of environmental issues and work towards improving things.  4 stroke versus 2 stroke - Husky Chainsaw Specialists  https://www.rurallifestyledealer.com...ions-chainsaws 
But what is the point of that if lobbiest have it banned? 
Why would a company bother doing more research and development when the product could be banned before they've even put one in service? 
The stupid part is you can use 4 stroke mower that can only be started with aerostart and and electric drill that you have to walk beside so you can see where your going, and it's legal. :Doh:

----------


## Marc

The ban is not on 2 stroke engines, it is on crap quality 2 stroke or 4 stroke engines. 
Overdue.
Meantime top quality chainsaw are still and will be 2 stroke. 
The new hybrid 4 hailed to be the best of both worlds is actually the worst of both worlds. Has the extra complications of the 4 stroke without any of the benefits and still needs to burn oil mix in the fuel.  
Interesting side note. I have a collection of Homelite chainsaw from the sixties when they were top quality. Their petrol lid states 16:1 oil mixture.
I tried them on that rate mixture and they are real stinky and smokey. Switched to 32:1 with a modern oil and the exhaust is as clear as any good 4 stroke. 
I bet they would pass modern emission standards too.

----------


## John2b

> Companies are aware of environmental issues and work towards improving things.

  Companies were well aware of environmental issues in the '70s (when I studied engineering) yet those same companies avoided being obliged to improve things for the next 40 years. I put that down to the do-badders overwhelmingly outweighing the do-gooders, since Reagan, Thatcher, Delors, Mulroney, Howard et al f#*ed the world all over with neoliberalism and neoeconomics.

----------


## Bedford

Well Fook me!   

> Mr Fooks said the changes were expected to improve air quality and save the taxpayer $1.7 billion in health costs over 20 years."It's not a vote winner but it's a no-brainer, it needed to be done," he said. "Half of the market is already using these clean new products and they're the quality ones." Mr Fooks said some two-stroke whipper snippers and hand saws would survive the transition

  He's certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed this bloke.

----------


## John2b

> He's certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed this bloke.

  Ha ha  :2thumbsup:  that's what I thought! Doesn't change the message though.

----------


## Marc

Politicians legislate according to what the polls tell them will harvest votes, not what is best for Australia. One of the downsides of democracy, especially one that requires voting every 3 years. Because of that they are pushed in front of a microphone with a tenuous grasp of the topic at hand. Saying hand in stead of chain does not matter to them. If you tell them they would probably say ... yea ... whatever. 
The "ban" on supermarket shopping bag is just another example. The grey bag degrades and disintegrates in less than a year and quicker if out in the sun. The replacement bags sold for 15c will outlive a grey bag for decades. 
yet politicians and their cheer leaders in the media tell us that the ban is because the grey bag remains intact for THOUSAND years.  
 I hoped we would go back to paper bags. Would increase the plantation of trees and be biodegradable, not to mention clean. A reusable bag is a bacteria trap and a health hazard.
The good thing about this is that for the next year there will be 2 stroke outboard motors to be had heavily discounted.  :Smilie: 
I am waiting for someone to say that 2 stroke diesel are banned ...  :Rofl5:   https://youtu.be/cCkapdc_MvM?t=122

----------


## PhilT2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=nBsI_wdhodU

----------


## Bedford

> Companies were well aware of environmental issues in the '70s (when I studied engineering) yet those same companies avoided being obliged to improve things for the next 40 years. I put that down to the do-badders overwhelmingly outweighing the do-gooders, since Reagan, Thatcher, Delors, Mulroney, Howard et al f#*ed the world all over with neoliberalism and neoeconomics.

  That's not entirely true, you seem to have ignored the discussion yesterday about the removal of lead in fuel in the '80s. 
Cars in the early/mid '70s were being fitted with anti pollution devices. 
There is some history about some progress with marine engines over the years in the attachment. 
I don't have a link to it or know anything about it's parentage.

----------


## Bros

> I don't have a link to it or know anything about it's parentage.

   Proberbly right. I remember the early ETec engines were a complete failure with engines seizing.

----------


## John2b

> That's not entirely true, you seem to have ignored the discussion yesterday about the removal of lead in fuel in the '80s. 
> Cars in the early/mid '70s were being fitted with anti pollution devices.

  Those emission devices introduce in 1976 in Australia were patented by the big three auto manufacturers in the 1940s and '50s. 1960s EH Holdens already had the bosses on the inlet manifolds for the placement of pollution controls yet the implementation of those controls was deferred for more than another decade by the auto manufacturers stonewalling the government, saying it would take more decades for the technology to be developed. Same with seat belts. In ~1975 my mate's uncle had a 14 year old Peugeot with inertia reel seatbelts, i.e. from around 1960. We didn't get inertia reel seatbelts in Australia for another 26 years because - you guessed it - the motor industry needed time to develop them!!!!

----------


## John2b

A mate of mine who I studied engineering with scored a job at Chrysler Australia's Tonsley facility as chief suspension engineer. In ten years all he did was design hubcaps. It's not like the Valiant suspension couldn't be improved: remember the Charger's embarrassing dalliance in Australian motorsport - the damn thing would not go around corners!

----------


## Bedford

> Those emission devices introduce in 1976 in Australia were patented by the big three auto manufacturers in the 1940s and '50s. 1960s EH Holdens already had the bosses on the inlet manifolds for the placement of pollution controls yet the implementation of those controls was deferred for more than another decade by the auto manufacturers stonewalling the government, saying it would take more decades for the technology to be developed. Same with seat belts. In ~1975 my mate's uncle had a 14 year old Peugeot with inertia reel seatbelts, i.e. from around 1960. We didn't get inertia reel seatbelts in Australia for another 26 years because - you guessed it - the motor industry needed time to develop them!!!!

  Got a link to those patents?   

> A mate of mine who I studied engineering with  scored a job at Chrysler Australia's Tonsley facility as chief  suspension engineer. In ten years all he did was design hubcaps. It's  not like the Valiant suspension couldn't be improved: remember the  Charger's embarrassing debut in Australian motorsport - the damn thing  would not go around corners!

  So improving the suspension reduces pollution?

----------


## John2b

> That's not entirely true, you seem to have ignored the discussion yesterday about the removal of lead in fuel in the '80s.

  As it happens, in the 1980s I was president of the BMW Drivers Club in SA. With assistance from BMW's Munich engine engineering department I wrote an article about the removal of lead from Australian petrol and the implications of using unleaded fuel in BMWs. All of BMW's post WW2 engines had been engineered to run on lead-free petrol because the writing was on the wall for lead in petrol for many decades before governments could overcome the auto industry's well funded lobbying.

----------


## John2b

> Got a link to those patents?

  There were hundreds and thousands of patents. Post war the big US auto manufacturers harvested the best engineering graduates and basically locked them up in design labs, patenting their clever designs and then shelving those designs. Want proof - open the bonnet of an EH Holden or Australian '60s Ford or Chrysler and look at the flats on the inlet manifolds that decades later would provide locations for the pollution control plumbing. When I was studying engineering I used to read the International Journal Automotive Engineering which was available in our library from cover to cover.   

> So improving the suspension reduces pollution?

   
Actually it does by reducing fuel consumption. But that is not the point I was making, which was simply that manufacturer's reluctance to deliver pollution control was part of a much bigger aversion to government regulation and had little, if not nothing, to do with a lack of technical capability.

----------


## John2b

Another bad day for wind across Australia:  Live Supply & Demand Widget, sponsored by RenewEconomy  NEM-Watch

----------


## Bedford

> There were hundreds and thousands of patents.

   Just because a patent is put on a design doesn't mean it works.   

> Post war the big US auto  manufacturers harvested the best engineering graduates and basically  locked them up in design labs, patenting their clever designs and then  shelving those designs.

  Clearly this shows intent to improve things, and gradually they did.   

> Want proof - open the bonnet of an EH Holden or  Australian '60s Ford or Chrysler and look at the flats on the inlet  manifolds that decades later would provide locations for the pollution  control plumbing.

  And again it shows they were working on it, why else would these companies put so much into R&D if they had no intention of using it?

----------


## UseByDate

https://scienceprogress.org/2008/10/...ad-regulation/ 
 It was irresponsible parents and sub-normal children that was to blame. Not the lead in the paint. :Doh:   *“1930s:* The industries rejected scientific evidence, claiming there was no proof of causation and tried to blame the children and families as being irresponsible for allowing children to eat the paint chips, claiming that they were “sub-normal to start with.”"

----------


## John2b

> Clearly this shows intent to improve things, and gradually they did.

  US manufacturers had started implementing emission controls in other markets from the 1950s using those mysterious bosses found on Australian car inlet manifolds. The auto industry's intent was very clearly to delay the implementation in pollution control for as long as possible. I remember the auto industry in Australia lying through their collective teeth about how the technology didn't exist to parliamentary enquiries during the 1970s when I was studying engineering and knew it did exist. Same with seat belts, and laminated windshields before that!

----------


## Bedford

> Want proof - open the bonnet of an EH Holden.

    

> US manufacturers had started implementing emission  controls in other markets from the 1950s using those mysterious bosses  found on Australian car inlet manifolds.

  That's interesting considering the EH Holden were only born in 1963,   

> In 1963, two versions of a totally new "Red"' 6-cylinder engine were born.

  https://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/holden_red_motor    

> When I was studying engineering I used to read the International Journal Automotive Engineering which was available in our library from cover to cover.

  Is that where you got this information, if so, it is clearly wrong.   

> The auto industry's intent was  very clearly to delay the implementation in pollution control for as  long as possible.

  Why was that and where did you get that information from, same book as above?   

> I remember the auto industry in Australia lying  through their collective teeth about how the technology didn't exist to  parliamentary enquiries during the 1970s when I was studying engineering  and knew it did exist.

  What was the result of the Parliamentary Inquiry, and why didn't the auto industry want it, considering they had,   

> hundreds and thousands of patents

   

> when I was studying engineering

  Yeah, got that bit, multiple times........

----------


## John2b

> That's interesting considering the EH Holden were only born in 1963

  But the motor was not new for the EH! I honestly would not think it necessary to point the bloody obvious out to someone confident enough to argue about this topic.  

> Personal bias.... Enough said.  
> You need to stop listening to the jungle drums in the background about "gotchyas" etc, trust me, I know how it works.

  Honestly Bedford those jungle drums are beating so loudly in your head that you can't heed your own advice. 
This is an edit: The "completely new" red engine introduced for the EH used the same intake manifold as the EJ grey engine. The rest of what I said stands.

----------


## PhilT2

Here's an article from the Guardian that refers to the patents on early low pollution vehicles held by fuel companies such as ExxonMobil; it indicates some of them date from the '40s. They also seem to indicate that Exxon and others were less than completely honest with govt and shareholders as to their understanding of climate change and the viability of different options. https://www.theguardian.com/business...uction-patents 
For some of the time period when these alleged deceptions occurred the CEO of Exxon would have been Rex Tillerson, the former Secretary of State in the Trump administration.
More detail could be found in the reports by the Centre for International Environmental Law.

----------


## Bedford

> But the motor was not new for the EH! I honestly would not think it necessary to point the bloody obvious out to someone confident enough to argue about this topic. 
> Honestly Bedford those jungle drums are beating so loudly in your head that you can't heed your own advice.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden...-six_motor#Red     

> Superseding the _Grey_ motor, the _Red_  motor was manufactured between 1963 and 1980. This was a completely new  engine and in no way a further development of the grey motor.

  What was the result of the Parliamentary Inquiry John?

----------


## John2b

Thanks PhilT2. The ‘true believers' are so amorphous and so ambiguous that it is difficult to refute them. Their beliefs create an almost obsessional response.

----------


## John2b

> What was the result of the Parliamentary Inquiry John?

  The result of multiple parliamentary enquiries was that the auto industry was given significant delays in the implementation of a whole lot of other public benefit technologies like laminated glass windscreens, collapsable steering columns, seatbelts and later inertia reel seatbelts, head safe dashboards (hard metal ones were not fun in even a minor accident) and pollution control, because "the technology didn't exist" and the industry "needed time to develop", despite the fact that all these technologies were in use in other parts of the world at the time.

----------


## John2b

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden...-six_motor#Red

  The "completely new" red engine introduced for the EH used the same intake manifold as the EJ grey engine - with its provision for pollution control plumbing that Holden claimed they did not have the technology to implement more than a decade later.

----------


## PhilT2

> The "completely new" red engine introduced for the EH used the same intake manifold as the EJ grey engine - with its provision for pollution control plumbing that Holden claimed they did not have the technology to implement more than a decade later.

  I think you might find that the "completely new" red motor had certain similarities to the chev six already in use in the US.

----------


## John2b

Meanwhile, back on Earth, 30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansens amazing global warming prediction. The actual 19882017 temperature increase was about 0.6C. Hansens 1988 global climate model was almost spot-on. Who wudda thort? The laws of physics that underpin every convenience of modern life actually work!  *30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansens amazing global warming prediction https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ing-prediction*

----------


## John2b

> I think you might find that the "completely new" red motor had certain similarities to the chev six already in use in the US.

  LOL - no kidding!! Who wudda thort? (Just joking!)

----------


## Bedford

> The "completely new" red engine introduced for the EH used the same intake manifold as the EJ grey engine - with its provision for pollution control plumbing that Holden claimed they did not have the technology to implement more than a decade later.

   138 Grey - Holdenpaedia      https://www.ebay.com.au/p/Holden-GMH...or/10012323579    
Yes the seller states EJ because he doesn't know the difference either.

----------


## Bedford

> The result of multiple parliamentary enquiries was that the auto industry was given significant delays in the implementation of a whole lot of other public benefit technologies like laminated glass windscreens, collapsable steering columns, seatbelts and later inertia reel seatbelts, head safe dashboards (hard metal ones were not fun in even a minor accident) and pollution control, because "the technology didn't exist" and the industry "needed time to develop", despite the fact that all these technologies were in use in other parts of the world at the time.

  Was this in Australia and can you provide a link please?

----------


## phild01

> 138 Grey - Holdenpaedia      https://www.ebay.com.au/p/Holden-GMH...or/10012323579    
> Yes the seller states EJ because he doesn't know the difference either.

  .... they do look different  :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

> Was this in Australia and can you provide a link please?

  The battle between the Australian government and the Australian auto industry was on the nightly news for years. Where were you?

----------


## Marc

Yes, the bastard capitalist suck eggs. Long live Marx!

----------


## John2b

> .... they do look different

  You're right - in the pictures the EGR boss is there in a different position. 
Edit: should have written PCV not ERG

----------


## John2b

> Yes, the bastard capitalist suck eggs. Long live Marx!

   I think you meant Long Live Marcx!

----------


## John2b

I am wrong. The Holden grey motor has a different inlet manifold to the Holden red motor. (In my defence, I was about 7 years old when dad traded in the previous Holden for an EH). Does my mistake mean that Holden (and the auto industry in Australia) did not obfuscate and defer innovations that would benefit the public? Absolutely not! My personal opinion about this is totally irrelevant - the history books are what counts.

----------


## Bedford

> You're right - in the pictures the EGR boss is there in a different position.

  No EGR valve listed in my parts books for either motor. 
Perhaps you meant PCV valve?  PCV - Holdenpaedia  *Grey Motor Crankcase Ventilation:* 
 Grey Motors had no connection between the Crankcase and the Inlet  Manifold so are not described as having Positive Crankcase Ventilation.  Grey Motors did have a Crankcase Ventilation System. Air from the Fan  was forced into the Oil Filler Cap and came out the Breather Pipe that  pointed under the Car. This system was used for FX FJ FE FC FB EK EJ.  *Early Red Motor Crankcase Ventilation:* 
 This system is the same as that used on Grey Motors except there is  no Fan forced airflow. The airflow under the Car draws air through the  Crankcase. This system was used for EH HD HR.     

> The true believers' are so  amorphous and so ambiguous that it is difficult to refute them. Their  beliefs create an almost obsessional response.

  Quoted for truth.

----------


## PhilT2

> Yes the seller states EJ because he doesn't know the difference either.

  Technically the seller's right or half right at least; the last of the ej's had the red motor.

----------


## Bedford

> Technically the seller's right or half right at least; the last of the ej's had the red motor.

  Fair enough too, but it was the best/clearest pic I could find to show the difference between the Red and Grey manifolds. 
Re your comment earlier about new red motor and similarities with the Chev six, I'm pretty sure the petrol engine the Japs put in the 60 series Landcruiser was a copy of the 250 Chev, no link or proof though.

----------


## PhilT2

> Fair enough too, but it was the best/clearest pic I could find to show the difference between the Red and Grey manifolds. 
> Re your comment earlier about new red motor and similarities with the Chev six, I'm pretty sure the petrol engine the Japs put in the 60 series Landcruiser was a copy of the 250 Chev, no link or proof though.

  Not unheard of Morris 1000 and Datsun 1200 look identical, Perkins and Mazda diesels I think can even interchange parts But the Chev (GM) and Holden issue is different, when it's the parent company you're not allowed to steal ideas.
And an ERG boss is not the same as an ERG valve.

----------


## John2b

> Perhaps you meant PCV valve?

  PCV is correct.  

> _The ‘true believers' are so amorphous and so ambiguous that it is difficult to refute them. Their beliefs create an almost obsessional response.   _

  Also correct. Note: This post being #18667 despite the physics being settled more than a century ago!

----------


## John2b

Even though Bedford would have everyone believe I make stuff up for fun, Peugeot inertia reel seat belts for 1960 onwards 404's are still available today: RP500452530

----------


## PhilT2

> Yes, the bastard capitalist suck eggs. Long live Marx!

  Those capitalists in the auto industry got so many govt handouts they should have been registered with centrelink.

----------


## Bedford

Regarding the bosses you've all been banging on about, if you look at the pipe coming from the inlet manifold, it feeds a vacuum operated fuel pump.  https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/RECONDIT...-/182599421675 
I think you'll find that the unused boss was to feed the vacuum operated windscreen wipers on the early models,  https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/RECONDIT...-/191815689002 
but was left blank once they went to electric wipers. 
The boss was also used to feed vacuum boosted brakes if and when fitted. 
Nothing to do with reducing emissions.     
ADRs  https://infrastructure.gov.au/vehicles/design/   

> The First Edition ADRs were distributed for discussion purposes. However, they were not adopted as a legally binding set of standards under either national or state/territory law.  The Second Edition ADRs first came into effect on 1 January 1969. These ADRs were selectively applied under state/territory law. They were subsequently made part of the national standards by Determination No 2 of 1989 published by the Commonwealth Government Gazette (Special Gazette series) No S 291 dated 1 September 1989.

----------


## DavoSyd

> Those capitalists in the auto industry got so many govt handouts they should have been registered with centrelink.

  Out from the excruciating pains of Holden history lessons a piece of pure gold emerges!

----------


## PhilT2

My local state MP was up at the local shopping centre handing out free reusable bags as the phase out of plastic was introduced. I stopped to talk as I know some of the young women who work in his office. They said that while most were happy to take a few free bags there were those who refused them because they came from a Labor MP. And there were also the usual few cases of those who had to give them a heap of abuse because of the change. They work for a politician so they expect a certain amount of that. 
What i was surprised to hear was that the checkout staff have been copping it, even physical assault too. I always suspected that anti environmentalists had a few issues in the thinking dept but when you need to put your hands on a girl at the checkout because you can't have a plastic bag then you're a complete moron. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44674112

----------


## John2b

> I always suspected that anti environmentalists had a few issues in the thinking dept... https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44674112

  I heard people express anger because they have to "pay" for something that used to be "free"! Who do they think paid for the "free" plastic bags? The Tooth Fairy?

----------


## John2b

> Regarding the bosses you've all been banging on about...

  That little round knob on the RHS of the manifold is where one day a PCV hose would be connected to reduce pollution from blow-by gasses. This provision on the manifold goes all the way back to the FX Holden released in 1948, although the PCV connection didn't arrive until the HJ Holden 26 years later in 1974.

----------


## Bedford

> That little round knob on the RHS of the manifold is where one day a PCV hose would be connected to reduce pollution from blow-by gasses. This provision on the manifold goes all the way back to the FX Holden released in 1948, although the PCV connection didn't arrive until the HJ Holden 26 years later in 1974.

  John, you're going to piss Davo off again. 
However, if they designed that boss (knob) for the hose to vent the crankcase into the inlet manifold it would put all those gasses into the rear two cylinders and it would be impossible to tune it. Probably creating more emissions. 
The inlet for the PCV valve needs to be under the center of the carb so it mixes inline with the fuel/air mix. 
Holden first fitted PCV valves to the HK in '68.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holden_HK    

> The *Holden HK* series is an automobile which was produced by Holden in Australia from 1968 to 1969. Introduced in January 1968

    PCV - Holdenpaedia   

> *Partial PCV:* 
>  This was fitted from HK on and uses the EH style filler cap. The rear  of the rocker cover has the PCV Valve and a hose connected to the Inlet  Manifold.

----------


## UseByDate

What's a Holden? :Wink:

----------


## John2b

> However, if they designed that boss (knob) for the hose to vent the crankcase into the inlet manifold it would put all those gasses into the rear two cylinders and it would be impossible to tune it.

   
There was a reason why the plugs on cylinders 5 and 6 fouled up on holden motors that had this arrangement of plumbing.

----------


## Bedford

> There was a reason why the plugs on cylinders 5 and 6 fouled up on holden motors that had this arrangement of plumbing.

  Thanks for confirming what I said above, however, that didn't come from Holden like that. 
Clearly you can see where a PCV inlet hose has been cut and a bolt shoved in it at the LH side of the carby. :Doh:  
I suspect they may have used an adapter plate like this, https://www.amazon.com/Aluminum-Carb.../dp/B074G4CQB4   
in the wrong orientation and just dummied it up rather than pulling it apart and rotating it. 
It came from Holden like this with the PCV hose entering below the carby, PCV - Holdenpaedia     
This is how it should be, pic may not be the same model/year etc but the basics remain the same. 
1) is vacuum for the brake booster. 
2) is inlet for PCV valve hose. 
3) is vacuum for timing advance, 
4) is fuel inlet.      
Let it go now John.

----------


## Bros

> .

  What’s that red box?

----------


## DavoSyd

> What’s that red box?

  Energy Polarizer...

----------


## DavoSyd

Damn those renewables!  
Evil Marxist bastards I tells ya!

----------


## Bedford

> Whats that red box?

  It's part of the Climate Control system, but also serves as additional engine cooling if needed on steep inclines or heavy towing, if activated. 
Currently it's useless as there's no plumbing connected.

----------


## John2b

> It came from Holden like this with the PCV hose entering below the carby

  Quite clearly the PCV manifold connection ended up on an adaptor plate which was added later beneath the carby, but that isn't where it started. There were more than a couple of Holden engine variations and many different versions of plumbing over the years.  Engine Code Notes  130 130E HT Holden / HG Holden  130 130T Early LC Torana  130 CA Late LC Torana and LJ Torana  130 QA HQ Holden  138 2250H Early LC Torana High Compression  138 2250L Early LC Torana Low Compression  138 CB late LC Torana , LJ Torana High Compression  138 CC late LC Torana, LJ Torana Low Compression  138 HB LH Torana, LX Torana High Compression  138 HC LH Torana, LX Torana Low Compression  149 149D HD Holden High Compression  149 149E HD Holden Low Compression  149 H EH Holden High Compression  149 Y EH Holden Low Compression  161 161H HK Holden / HG Holden High Compression  161 161L HK Holden / HG Holden Low Compression  161 161R HR Holden High Compression  161 161W HR Holden Low Compression  161 2600H LC High Compression  161 2600L LC Low Compression  161 2600S LC GTR  173 CD LC Torana / LJ Torana High Compression  173 CE LC Torana / LJ Torana Low Compression  173 CF late LC GTR  173 FE CF Bedford Low Compression  173 GD late HG High Compression  173 GE late HG Low Compression  173 HD LH / LX ADR27 and LX, UC ADR27A manual High Compression  173 HE LH / LX ADR27 and LX, UC ADR27A manual Low Compression  173 N5D GMP&A 173 Replacement Short Motor VC-VH  173 ND Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Red Motor High Compression  173 NE Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Red Motor Low Compression  173 QD HQ Holden to late HZ Holden High Compression (export only in HZ)  173 QE HQ Holden to HZ Holden Low Compression (export only in HZ)  173 VD VB to VH Commodore (Red and blue)  173 XQD LX, UC Torana ADR27A auto High Compression  173 XQE LX, UC Torana ADR27A auto Low Compression  173 ZD late HZ Holden High Compression (export only in HZ)  173 ZE late HZ Holden Low Compression (export only in HZ)  179 179F HD Holden  179 179X HD X2  179 M EH Holden  186 186A HR Holden  186 186K HR X2 up to engine no. 186K162700, HR 186S from engine no. 186K162701  186 186L HT Holden, HG Holden Low Compression  186 186NxxxxS Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Motor for HK-HG (for engines supplied post HQ release)  186 186P HK Holden, HT Holden, HG Holden  186 186S HK Holden, HT Holden, HG Holden  186 186X Early LC XU-1 ## (assumed to be only in pilot cars)  186 3100X Later LC XU-1  186 CK Late LC XU-1  186 NK Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Motor late LC XU-1  202  11QL HQ Statesman (export only in HJ-HZ). Also UC Torana SL.  202 FL CF Bedford High Compression  202 GL  late HG High Compression  202 GM late HG Low Compression  202 HL LH, LX ADR27 and LX, UC ADR27A manual High Compression  202 HM LH, LX ADR27 and LX, UC ADR27A manual Low Compression  202 JL LJ Torana GTR  202 JP LJ Torana GTR XU-1  202 N5K GMP&A VK EFI Replacement Motor  202 N5L GMP&A 202 Replacement Motor VC-VH Commodore, WB  202 N5M GMP&A 202 Low Compression Replacement Motor VC-VH, WB  202 NL Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Red Motor High Compression  202 NM Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Red Motor Low Compression  202 NP Nasco Replacement Motor for LJ Torana GTR XU-1  202 QL HQ Holden to late HZ Holden and LX Torana High Compression  202 QM  HQ to HX Low Compression  202 VL  VB to VK Commodore (Red, Blue and Black)  202 VM  VB Commodore to VK Commodore (Red, Blue and Black) Low Compression  202 VK  VK Commodore EFI  202 WL  WB (blue)  202 XQL  LX, UC Torana ADR27A auto High Compression  202 XQM  LX, UC Torana ADR27A auto Low Compression  202 ZL  late HZ  253 11QR HQ Statesman (export only in HJ-HZ) High Compression  253 11QS HQ Statesman custom Low Compression  253 11ZR export only in HZ Statesman ##  253 253H HT Holden and HG Holden High Compression  253 253L HT Holden and HG Holden Low Compression  253 253NxxxxS HT Holden and HG Holden Nasco Replacement engine High Compression ## (for engines supplied post HQHolden release)  253 BS 1979 E and S Series Bedford (Chevrolet pattern gearbox)  253 QR  HQ Holden / late HZ Holden High Compression  253 QS  HQ Holden / HJ Holden Low Compression  253 ZR late HZ  253 N5R  GMP&A 253 Replacement Motor VC-VH, WB  253 NR  Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Red Short Motor HQ-HZ, VB. Possible GM-H Warranty Engine from late 1970s.  253 NS Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Red Short Motor HQ-HX ##  253 HR  LH Torana / LX Torana High Compression  253 HS  LH Torana / LX Torana Low Compression  253 VR  VB Commodore to VH Commodore (Red and Blue Engines)  253 WR  WB Commercial  307 307 HK Holden and HT Holden 5-litre  308 11QT HQ and late HZ Statesman  308 11WT WB Statesman  308 11ZT Late HZ Statesman  308 12WT  Late WB Statesman  308 308H HT Holden and HG Holden  308 308NxxxxS HT and HG Nasco Replacement engine (for engines supplied post HQ release)  308 BV  1979 E, M and S Series Bedford L43 option (Low Compression, 2 barrel Rochester)  308 HZ  LH SLR5000 L34  308 HT  LH / LX SLR5000 and LX SS L31 including A9X (except LH SLR5000 L34)  308 N5A  GMP&A 304 Replacement Short Motor LV2  308 N5B  GMP&A 304 Replacement Short Motor V5H  308 N5C  GMP&A 304 Replacement Short Motor VK A9L  308 N5G  GMP&A 304 Replacement Short Motor V7X  308 N5J  GMP&A 304 Replacement Short Motor VL  308 N5T  GMP&A 308 Replacement Short Motor VC-VK, WB  308 N5W  GMP&A 308 Replacement Short Motor VL A9L  308 N5Z GMP&A 308 Replacement Short Motor V5H  308 NT  Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Short Motor HQ-HZ, VB, LH/LX SLR5000 (except L34) and LX SS L31.
Possible GM-H Warranty Engine from late 1970s.  308 NZ  Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Short Motor for L34  308 QT  HQ-late HZ  308 SU  VN-VSIII Replacement Motor (pre 179/195kW engine)  308 SM  VSIII/VT Replacement Motor (179kW/195kW)##  308 SVM  VSIII 179kW/195kW Statesman ##  308 SVU  VQ-VSIII Statesman except 179kW/195kW VSIII.  308 VT  VB to VK 308 (Red, blue and black)  308 VA  VK 304 LV2  308 VB  VK 304 early 1985 manual only V5H  308 VC  VK Group A (engine painted Red) A9L  308 VE  VN HSV 200kW (SV5000 and other 'Red Cover' engines)  308 VG  VK 304 late 1985 manual only V7X  308 VJ  VL 304  308 VK  VN Group A 4-bolt (plus other 4-bolt models eg VP GTS)  308 VL  VR-VS 5.7L 215kW  308 VM  VT 179kW plus VSIII ute and Statesman 179kW. Also VSIII ute and Statesman with HBD 195kW engine. ##  308 VN  VT 304 HSV 195kW  308 VP  VL Walkinshaw and VT 5.7L 220kW HSV (different blocks, common number)  308 VU  VN to VS 304 (except VSIII ute and Statesman with 179kW engine)  308 VZ  VK 308 V5H  308 VW  VL A9L  308 WT  WB commercial  308 ZT  Late HZ  327 327xxxxxTxxxxH5 HK first style 327  327 327xxxxxKxxxxH HK second style 327 (Any other 327 prefixed engine not represented as per above is from a GMH built Pontiac, Chevrolet etc.)  350 11QU HQ Statesman  350 350 Very early HT (manual only? Pagewood only?) ##  350 350M HT and HG manual.  350 350A  HT and HG auto.  350 QU HQ 350 other than Statesman. Usually found in 81837 coupe and XW8 Kingswood (GTS 350 4-door). Also found in LS coupe, Premier, Kingswood (non XW8) and ute. Possibly others.FxxxxGHFxxx - 1976-1978 Australian complianced Chevrolet C20, K20 and C30 trucks.  Gen III 6MA Auto L76 (fitted to some VYII)  Gen III 6MB Manual (fitted to some VYII)  Gen III 7NB Auto L98 6.0L VZ wagon and ute post VE sedan release.  Gen III 7NC Auto VE  Gen III 7ND Manual VE  Gen III CAK Manual L98 6.0L VZ wagon and ute post VE sedan release.  Gen III VF LS1 (5.7L) and LS2 (6.0L) VTII to VZ Commodore, ute and 1-tonner. Monaro V2 to VZ. Includes HSV vehicles. Except for VZ ute and wagon built post VE release.  Gen III ZLF VE LS2

----------


## Bedford

> Quite clearly the PCV manifold connection ended up on an adaptor plate which was added later beneath the carby, but that isn't where it started. There were more than a couple of Holden engine variations and many different versions of plumbing over the years.  Engine Code Notes  130 130E HT Holden / HG Holden  130 130T Early LC Torana  130 CA Late LC Torana and LJ Torana  130 QA HQ Holden  138 2250H Early LC Torana High Compression  138 2250L Early LC Torana Low Compression  138 CB late LC Torana , LJ Torana High Compression  138 CC late LC Torana, LJ Torana Low Compression  138 HB LH Torana, LX Torana High Compression  138 HC LH Torana, LX Torana Low Compression  149 149D HD Holden High Compression  149 149E HD Holden Low Compression  149 H EH Holden High Compression  149 Y EH Holden Low Compression  161 161H HK Holden / HG Holden High Compression  161 161L HK Holden / HG Holden Low Compression  161 161R HR Holden High Compression  161 161W HR Holden Low Compression  161 2600H LC High Compression  161 2600L LC Low Compression  161 2600S LC GTR  173 CD LC Torana / LJ Torana High Compression  173 CE LC Torana / LJ Torana Low Compression  173 CF late LC GTR  173 FE CF Bedford Low Compression  173 GD late HG High Compression  173 GE late HG Low Compression  173 HD LH / LX ADR27 and LX, UC ADR27A manual High Compression  173 HE LH / LX ADR27 and LX, UC ADR27A manual Low Compression  173 N5D GMP&A 173 Replacement Short Motor VC-VH  173 ND Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Red Motor High Compression  173 NE Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Red Motor Low Compression  173 QD HQ Holden to late HZ Holden High Compression (export only in HZ)  173 QE HQ Holden to HZ Holden Low Compression (export only in HZ)  173 VD VB to VH Commodore (Red and blue)  173 XQD LX, UC Torana ADR27A auto High Compression  173 XQE LX, UC Torana ADR27A auto Low Compression  173 ZD late HZ Holden High Compression (export only in HZ)  173 ZE late HZ Holden Low Compression (export only in HZ)  179 179F HD Holden  179 179X HD X2  179 M EH Holden  186 186A HR Holden  186 186K HR X2 up to engine no. 186K162700, HR 186S from engine no. 186K162701  186 186L HT Holden, HG Holden Low Compression  186 186NxxxxS Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Motor for HK-HG (for engines supplied post HQ release)  186 186P HK Holden, HT Holden, HG Holden  186 186S HK Holden, HT Holden, HG Holden  186 186X Early LC XU-1 ## (assumed to be only in pilot cars)  186 3100X Later LC XU-1  186 CK Late LC XU-1  186 NK Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Motor late LC XU-1  202  11QL HQ Statesman (export only in HJ-HZ). Also UC Torana SL.  202 FL CF Bedford High Compression  202 GL  late HG High Compression  202 GM late HG Low Compression  202 HL LH, LX ADR27 and LX, UC ADR27A manual High Compression  202 HM LH, LX ADR27 and LX, UC ADR27A manual Low Compression  202 JL LJ Torana GTR  202 JP LJ Torana GTR XU-1  202 N5K GMP&A VK EFI Replacement Motor  202 N5L GMP&A 202 Replacement Motor VC-VH Commodore, WB  202 N5M GMP&A 202 Low Compression Replacement Motor VC-VH, WB  202 NL Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Red Motor High Compression  202 NM Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Red Motor Low Compression  202 NP Nasco Replacement Motor for LJ Torana GTR XU-1  202 QL HQ Holden to late HZ Holden and LX Torana High Compression  202 QM  HQ to HX Low Compression  202 VL  VB to VK Commodore (Red, Blue and Black)  202 VM  VB Commodore to VK Commodore (Red, Blue and Black) Low Compression  202 VK  VK Commodore EFI  202 WL  WB (blue)  202 XQL  LX, UC Torana ADR27A auto High Compression  202 XQM  LX, UC Torana ADR27A auto Low Compression  202 ZL  late HZ  253 11QR HQ Statesman (export only in HJ-HZ) High Compression  253 11QS HQ Statesman custom Low Compression  253 11ZR export only in HZ Statesman ##  253 253H HT Holden and HG Holden High Compression  253 253L HT Holden and HG Holden Low Compression  253 253NxxxxS HT Holden and HG Holden Nasco Replacement engine High Compression ## (for engines supplied post HQHolden release)  253 BS 1979 E and S Series Bedford (Chevrolet pattern gearbox)  253 QR  HQ Holden / late HZ Holden High Compression  253 QS  HQ Holden / HJ Holden Low Compression  253 ZR late HZ  253 N5R  GMP&A 253 Replacement Motor VC-VH, WB  253 NR  Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Red Short Motor HQ-HZ, VB. Possible GM-H Warranty Engine from late 1970s.  253 NS Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Red Short Motor HQ-HX ##  253 HR  LH Torana / LX Torana High Compression  253 HS  LH Torana / LX Torana Low Compression  253 VR  VB Commodore to VH Commodore (Red and Blue Engines)  253 WR  WB Commercial  307 307 HK Holden and HT Holden 5-litre  308 11QT HQ and late HZ Statesman  308 11WT WB Statesman  308 11ZT Late HZ Statesman  308 12WT  Late WB Statesman  308 308H HT Holden and HG Holden  308 308NxxxxS HT and HG Nasco Replacement engine (for engines supplied post HQ release)  308 BV  1979 E, M and S Series Bedford L43 option (Low Compression, 2 barrel Rochester)  308 HZ  LH SLR5000 L34  308 HT  LH / LX SLR5000 and LX SS L31 including A9X (except LH SLR5000 L34)  308 N5A  GMP&A 304 Replacement Short Motor LV2  308 N5B  GMP&A 304 Replacement Short Motor V5H  308 N5C  GMP&A 304 Replacement Short Motor VK A9L  308 N5G  GMP&A 304 Replacement Short Motor V7X  308 N5J  GMP&A 304 Replacement Short Motor VL  308 N5T  GMP&A 308 Replacement Short Motor VC-VK, WB  308 N5W  GMP&A 308 Replacement Short Motor VL A9L  308 N5Z GMP&A 308 Replacement Short Motor V5H  308 NT  Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Short Motor HQ-HZ, VB, LH/LX SLR5000 (except L34) and LX SS L31.
> Possible GM-H Warranty Engine from late 1970s.  308 NZ  Nasco (or equivalent) Replacement Short Motor for L34  308 QT  HQ-late HZ  308 SU  VN-VSIII Replacement Motor (pre 179/195kW engine)  308 SM  VSIII/VT Replacement Motor (179kW/195kW)##  308 SVM  VSIII 179kW/195kW Statesman ##  308 SVU  VQ-VSIII Statesman except 179kW/195kW VSIII.  308 VT  VB to VK 308 (Red, blue and black)  308 VA  VK 304 LV2  308 VB  VK 304 early 1985 manual only V5H  308 VC  VK Group A (engine painted Red) A9L  308 VE  VN HSV 200kW (SV5000 and other 'Red Cover' engines)  308 VG  VK 304 late 1985 manual only V7X  308 VJ  VL 304  308 VK  VN Group A 4-bolt (plus other 4-bolt models eg VP GTS)  308 VL  VR-VS 5.7L 215kW  308 VM  VT 179kW plus VSIII ute and Statesman 179kW. Also VSIII ute and Statesman with HBD 195kW engine. ##  308 VN  VT 304 HSV 195kW  308 VP  VL Walkinshaw and VT 5.7L 220kW HSV (different blocks, common number)  308 VU  VN to VS 304 (except VSIII ute and Statesman with 179kW engine)  308 VZ  VK 308 V5H  308 VW  VL A9L  308 WT  WB commercial  308 ZT  Late HZ  327 327xxxxxTxxxxH5 HK first style 327  327 327xxxxxKxxxxH HK second style 327 (Any other 327 prefixed engine not represented as per above is from a GMH built Pontiac, Chevrolet etc.)  350 11QU HQ Statesman  350 350 Very early HT (manual only? Pagewood only?) ##  350 350M HT and HG manual.  350 350A  HT and HG auto.  350 QU HQ 350 other than Statesman. Usually found in 81837 coupe and XW8 Kingswood (GTS 350 4-door). Also found in LS coupe, Premier, Kingswood (non XW8) and ute. Possibly others.FxxxxGHFxxx - 1976-1978 Australian complianced Chevrolet C20, K20 and C30 trucks.  Gen III 6MA Auto L76 (fitted to some VYII)  Gen III 6MB Manual (fitted to some VYII)  Gen III 7NB Auto L98 6.0L VZ wagon and ute post VE sedan release.  Gen III 7NC Auto VE  Gen III 7ND Manual VE  Gen III CAK Manual L98 6.0L VZ wagon and ute post VE sedan release.  Gen III VF LS1 (5.7L) and LS2 (6.0L) VTII to VZ Commodore, ute and 1-tonner. Monaro V2 to VZ. Includes HSV vehicles. Except for VZ ute and wagon built post VE release.  Gen III ZLF VE LS2

  Mornin' John, Please post a pic of, and a link to, a Holden original equipment supplied inlet manifold, showing the location of the PCV valve connection to it, to prove what you have stated exists. 
Even the triple carbed XU1 had the PCV hose split to spread the fumes/gasses evenly at the base of the carbs before it entered the head.

----------


## DavoSyd

in other none Holden related news, the Grattan Institute has articulated the three issues that caused the electricity price increases;   

> First, big, old, low-cost, coal-ﬁred power stations closed (Northern in South Australia in 2016 and Hazelwood in Victoria in 2017). Although they were low-cost to operate, they faced big maintenance bills that weren’t worth paying given low market prices as a result of historic oversupply. Their closure reduced supply and so pushed prices up. This accounts for about 60 per cent, or $6 billion, of the increase in the value of electricity traded annually in the NEM between 2015 and 2017. 
> Second, the price of key inputs, especially gas and black coal, rose just when the plants they fuel were needed more often, pushing prices up still further. This accounts for nearly 40 per cent of the increase. In both cases, the market responded efﬁciently and appropriately to the changing circumstances. 
> The third issue is that major electricity generators ‘game’ the system: they use their power in concentrated markets to create artificial scarcity of supply and so force prices up. Gaming has mainly occurred in Queensland and South Australia, but there are signs of it in Victoria since the closure of Hazelwood, and it could emerge in NSW as supply tightens with the scheduled closure of the Liddell coal-fired power station in 2022

   and provides the following three sensible conclusions:    

> First, wholesale prices are very unlikely to return to previous levels of around $50 per megawatt hour. Over-supply, as a result of historic over-building, is disappearing, and gas prices will stay higher than they were in the past.And new generators, using any technology, including coal, cost more. Additional, subsidised renewable supply could put some downward pressure on prices, but this will be transitory because the ‘intermittency’ of wind and solar energy will ultimately have to be paid for. This is not good news, but politicians should be honest with consumers about the harsh truth: higher wholesale electricity prices are the new normal. 
> Second, governments and the market operator should consider additional changes to the bidding rules to reduce gaming. But more drastic actions, such as lowering the cap on wholesale prices or intervening in the market to break up private energy companies, should be rejected because they are likely to create bigger problems. 
> And third, governments must provide stable energy and climate-change policy so there are clear incentives to invest when supply tightens and prices rise. Australian households and businesses could then get low-cost, high-reliability, and low-emissions electricity.

    https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/905-Mostly-working.pdf

----------


## Marc

https://www.facebook.com/TonyAbbottM...6802886203646/

----------


## UseByDate

> https://www.facebook.com/TonyAbbottM...6802886203646/

  Why does not Tony actually read what happened during the SA blackout? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_S...alian_blackout
 I got power back in just over three hours. Most of Adelaide city and suburbs got power back within six hours. Only remote SA had to wait 24 hours or more and that was because *transmission lines* had been damaged by a once in fifty year storm.

----------


## PhilT2

> https://www.facebook.com/TonyAbbottM...6802886203646/

  "Selective blackouts have become relatively common" Where? Sorry, my mistake, it's just Abbott the serial liar.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5l...eature=related

----------


## UseByDate

Tony in drag?  :Smilie:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mumq6fEiXE4

----------


## chrisp

> Why does not Tony actually read what happened during the SA blackout? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_S...alian_blackout

  Good question! 
Tony Abbott was a Rhodes Scholar and I have no doubt he is a bright fellow. So, I’d guess that he does know the real reasons behind the SA blackouts. I suspect that he adopts a ‘lowest common denominator’, ‘everyday person’ persona (remember ‘Canadia’ and eating raw, unpeeled, onions!) to win political support. It seems that quite a few fall for his ruse.

----------


## UseByDate

> Good question! 
> Tony Abbott was a Rhodes Scholar and I have no doubt he is a bright fellow. So, I’d guess that he does know the real reasons behind the SA blackouts. I suspect that he adopts a ‘lowest common denominator’, ‘everyday person’ persona (remember ‘Canadia’ and eating raw, unpeeled, onions!) to win political support. It seems that quite a few fall for his ruse.

  Seems to be working. :Redface:  
  “As elaborated on in his will, Cecil Rhodes' goals in creating the Rhodes Scholarships were to promote civic-minded leadership among "young colonists"[4]:24 with "moral force of character and instincts to lead", for "the furtherance of the British Empire, for the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire".[4]:59 With the scholarships, he "aimed at making Oxford University the educational centre of the English-speaking race".” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_Scholarship

----------


## DavoSyd

Did Marc seriously post a Tony Abbott quote in response to a Grattan Institute excerpt?

----------


## Marc

Yes, the pendulum is finally going the other way. The big con is no longer sustainable, the solar panels and windmills manufacturers have safely hidden their billions in Switzerland and the Bahamas, and the watermelon soldiers feel all fuzzy and warm inside and have yet to realise they have been shamefully used. Just like "multiculturalism" in Europe, the global warming farce is wide open. 
Coal ... welcome back ... "carbon" oops sorry CO2 will continue to flow like it has all this time despite 150% increase in electricity prices. 
Chanting in chorus to oppose traditional true and proven methods to produce electrical power and substitute them for expensive crap did not work.
Especially because the cheer leaders and the claque that supported the change in media and left circles had the destruction of capitalism as goal and not the environment. Yes we could see that all the time. 
Watermelons, you went to relieve yourself behind the bushes and did not see the highway behind you. Oh my!

----------


## PhilT2

Scott Pruitt has "resigned" as the US EPA chief. Among the many issues he was facing over his management of the dept was legal action requiring him to produce the research on which he based his opinion on climate change. His resignation will bring that action to a halt; not that we would have ever seen it anyway. His level of incompetence was remarkable even for the Trump administration. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...a-chief-695291

----------


## johnc

He would have to be the most wasteful of all of Trumps appointments, demanding amongst other things a $200000 job for his wife, however the replacement may well be even worse although with any luck not as expensive to run as Pruitt

----------


## Marc

'Climate Change Denier' Marc Morano Pushes Back on Global Warming Hysteria | CBN News

----------


## UseByDate

> Not sure I understand your reasoning there. The term "subsidy" is used a bit flexibly depending on your point of view. But if the govt charged coal companies a lower rate to move coal by rail than any other user could get then wouldn't that count as a subsidy? How anyone feels about global warming wouldn't change that.

   

> But they dont do they as the railways in Queensland are private and I think same in NSW so no subsidy there.

  Not totally privatised.  *“Aurizon (ASX: AZJ)*
 Australia’s largest rail freight operator, Aurizon, isn’t like most businesses. Without boring you with the details, the Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) caps the amount of revenue Aurizon can generate to prevent the company from using its monopoly position to set unfair prices. 
 The QCA dictates what return shareholders can earn. And, this year, the QCA drastically reduced Aurizon’s revenue allowance for 2018–2021 to $3.9bn – *a billion dollars below what the company said it would need to cover its costs.* 
 As things stand, Aurizon has a book value of $2.41 per share and the QCA only allows for that equity to earn a return of 6.99%. The QCA decision is still only a draft but it’s unlikely to be adjusted much higher. If you require an 8% return on your investment, you’ll need to buy the stock at a 25% discount to book value, yet the current share price is an 80% _premium_ to book value. 
 Add to this the fact that half of earnings are from hauling coal, iron ore and freight, which is exposed to the vagaries of the resource industry. One day to the next, Aurizon looks like a safe infrastructure stock, but its business model and today’s share price makes it risky for long-term shareholders.”

----------


## PhilT2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor..._in_Queensland 
The above link gives the history of the introduction of electricity supply in Qld and details the issues of unreliability in the immediate post war years. It also notes the large govt subsidy provided to help establish the network.
The changeover to renewables may not be as big a problem.

----------


## Bros

Couple of images that might be relevant here

----------


## PhilT2

The ACCC has released a report following their inquiry into retail electricity pricing.  https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files...%20summary.pdf 
Surprisingly they found that we might all be paying a bit too much for power. They attribute this to the possibility that govts in the past may have made some poor decisions and energy suppliers might possibly be ripping us off. Who would have thought that could happen?

----------


## John2b

> ...Surprisingly they found that we might all be paying a bit too much for power. They attribute this to the possibility that govts in the past may have made some poor decisions and energy suppliers might possibly be ripping us off. Who would have thought that could happen?

  Some of the poorest decisions of all time have been to sell publicly owned assets, assets which either charged net costs to consumers or returned surpluses to the government for the benefit of the owners (who just happened to be the aforementioned consumers). It has always been done always to buy lollies to toss at electors. Howard mastered lolly tossing as the ultimate political art-form, and every political decision since his era has been afflicted with the consequences of an electorate swayed into voting bias by political lolly tossing. 
The "free market" advocates may argue with this, but someone needs to point out that the "free market" is, and always was, a myth. A profit somewhere results from a loss somewhere else, maybe deferred, but still a loss. The "free market" depends on growth for its myth to continue but despite the squealing of its advocates, growth and prosperity does not and never did need the "free market" to continue.

----------


## John2b

A doco to warm any sceptic's heart on the telly tonight. Isn't it amazing what a few scientists with a data on a couple of trace gases in the atmosphere and a computer model can work out. Next thing, climate scientists will be ganging up and stating the bloody obvious! This is getting out of hand...  *The Hole: How Maggie and Ronnie Saved the World*  https://www.sbs.com.au/guide/article...bs:guide:tile2**

----------


## Rod Dyson

More propaganda !! 
They have got one thing right in the link BS guide LOL

----------


## Marc

I love the new watermelons propaganda complaining that someone is making a profit and perhaps even ripping us off and therefore the free market model is wrong and the Cuba model is so much better.
Perhaps the red side of the melon impedes the concept of free, to somehow reach the frontal lobe.  Free means without intervention, subsidies or any other government market distorting initiative, bull-in-the-china-shop style. If coal and wind had a chance to compete in a free market, wind would be junk overnight. It is only religious belief that keeps the mills turning because they appease Gaia and the spirit of the red blooded green serpent. 
If anyone has difficulty understanding the concept of what government does to a market, look at child care. Why is child care cost in Australia one of the highest in the world? Is it because the evil child care industry is greedy? Profit is evil? Degenerate rich owners should be shot? 
Not for a minute. It is because of subsidies. Everything that the government has it's claws in becomes double or triple price overnight. Pay subsidies and see the overall price go up like a bread loaf in the oven. Of course people will take advantage of such bonanza, who wouldn't? take away subsidies and the price of childcare will reduce to 1/4 of it's current price. Take away subsidies from the so called "renewables" and make them disappear, and see the cost of electricity reduce to 1/2 or less.  
Oh but no, we can't do that! the watermelons will not vote for us anymore. Better squeeze the stupid taxpayer who is chained to his day job to pay for his overpriced house and has no say, and nowhere to turn politically.
We should have qualified voting system. No tax return, no vote.

----------


## phild01

> Everything that the government has it's claws in becomes double or triple price overnight.

  Not necessarily so, parked at an airport or hospital recently, or gone to the tip! Not to mention privately held road tolls. 
Monopoly corruption.  Hmm, yeah, that is government getting it's claws off things, so you are probably correct in that respect.

----------


## John2b

> Everything that the government has it's claws in becomes double or triple price overnight.

  Must be why government controlled health care in Australia is a tiny fraction of the cost of free market health care in the USA.

----------


## UseByDate

> Politicians legislate according to what the polls tell them will harvest votes, not what is best for Australia. One of the downsides of democracy, especially one that requires voting every 3 years. Because of that they are pushed in front of a microphone with a tenuous grasp of the topic at hand. Saying hand in stead of chain does not matter to them. If you tell them they would probably say ... yea ... whatever. 
> The "ban" on supermarket shopping bag is just another example. The grey bag degrades and disintegrates in less than a year and quicker if out in the sun. The replacement bags sold for 15c will outlive a grey bag for decades. 
> yet politicians and their cheer leaders in the media tell us that the ban is because the grey bag remains intact for THOUSAND years.  
>  I hoped we would go back to paper bags. Would increase the plantation of trees and be biodegradable, not to mention clean. A reusable bag is a bacteria trap and a health hazard.
> The good thing about this is that for the next year there will be 2 stroke outboard motors to be had heavily discounted. 
> I am waiting for someone to say that 2 stroke diesel are banned ...   https://youtu.be/cCkapdc_MvM?t=122

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COgeYj7o2qc

----------


## John2b

> Yes, the pendulum is finally going the other way. The big con is no longer sustainable...

  Must be that pendulum thingy. July 2018: 
"73% of Americans now think there is solid evidence of global warming. This 73% level of acceptance surpassed the previous record level of 72% ... and marks the fifth straight (annual) survey that at least 70% of Americans think that there is evidence that temperatures on the planet are rising."  *More Americans than ever say climate change is real, human-caused*  http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-n...ate-belief.pdf

----------


## Bigboboz

> Not necessarily so, parked at an airport or hospital recently, or gone to the tip! Not to mention privately held road tolls. 
> Monopoly corruption.  Hmm, yeah, that is government getting it's claws off things, so you are probably correct in that respect.

  Government mandated monopolies so they could get the max price for the asset.

----------


## phild01

> Government mandated monopolies so they could get the max price for the asset.

  Taxation takes a different corrupt path...mafia style.

----------


## UseByDate

New battery technology.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lATQEbd2Yh4

----------


## phild01

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lATQEbd2Yh4

  I might consider watching these youtubes if you offered something of what they are about.

----------


## Bedford

PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA 
Inquiry into electric
vehicles  Electric Vehicles.pdf

----------


## phild01

> New battery technology.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lATQEbd2Yh4

  Thanks for the edit, interesting where this goes.

----------


## UseByDate

> Thanks for the edit, interesting where this goes.

  The trouble with electric car development is that it advances so rapidly. People will be reluctant to buy one in case a better version comes out next year. I was surprised when it was stated that it would be possible to 80% charge a car in two minutes (6 min mark in video). If Nissan Leaf is sold for sub $40k in Australia, I will be getting one.

----------


## phild01

Of course, when most cars end up on battery, the government will have new taxes in place, then missing out on fuel excise!

----------


## UseByDate

> Of course, when most cars end up on battery, the government will have new taxes in place, then missing out on fuel excise!

  Death and taxes. :Rolleyes:  
 Of the two, I choose taxes. :Smilie:

----------


## PhilT2

> Death and taxes. 
>  Of the two, I choose taxes.

  Who said you get a choice?

----------


## UseByDate

> Who said you get a choice?

  You can't do both concurrently.

----------


## PhilT2

> You can't do both concurrently.

  Do you doubt the ability of the govt to tax you after you're dead, ie take money from your estate?

----------


## UseByDate

> Do you doubt the ability of the govt to tax you after you're dead, ie take money from your estate?

  They may be able to tax my estate but they can't tax me.

----------


## Bigboboz

> You can't do both concurrently.

  Don't have to do both concurrently to still cop both.  One certainly ends the other!

----------


## UseByDate

> Death and taxes. 
>  Of the two, I choose taxes.

   

> Don't have to do both concurrently to still cop both.  One certainly ends the other!

  True, but while I am alive I get to choose whether to pay taxes or to commit suicide. If I don't decide to die, nature will probably intervene ie it is *not my choice*.

----------


## DavoSyd

This thread just took a morbid turn!

----------


## John2b

> Politicians legislate according to what the polls tell them will harvest votes, not what is best for Australia.

  Ever wonder why politicians rarely act on climate change?  "(In the US) direct lobbying expenditures tend to run between $3 billion and $4 billion annually. And that number doesn’t include all the spending on political action committees, media or public relations, which would likely cost around the same amount.  “...environmental organization and the renewable energy sectors were outspent by the corporate sectors involved in the production or use of fossil fuels by a ratio of approximately 10 to 1."   *How lobbyists buy climate change legislation*  https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how...ge-legislation

----------


## PhilT2

Super Saturday is over so it's safe to come out from under the doona. The result was not a surprise; the opposition always does well in by-elections. The size of the swing to them was a bit bigger than expected and the distribution of preferences was not what I expected. The One Nation leader, before leaving on a cruise, directed her followers to preference the LNP. A good percentage of them appear to have ignored this directive and preferenced the ALP. This meant that the net impact of the increased One Nation vote was effectively zero. 
This is good news for Bill Shorten and the ALP; if they can avoid shooting themselves in the foot for the next twelve months then they will take over at the next election. Having a party in power that agrees on and understands the basic laws of physics will make us all better off. 
Those of us who believe that this means that the one world socialist illumati UN conspiracy is finally coming true should just pull the doona back up. Bill is not coming to get you....yet.

----------


## Marc

> True, but while I am alive I get to choose whether to pay taxes or to commit suicide. If I don't decide to die, nature will probably intervene ie it is *not my choice*.

  I believe the say about the certainty of tax and death refers to the fact that both are equally inevitable. No choice. The death side is rather obvious, the tax side may seem that is optional. What makes it inevitable is not that you have to do a tax return but that in any purchase even the most trivial there is tax included. Only someone living in a cave and eating berries and starting fire buy rubbing sticks would be ... if he is very careful ... tax exempt. 
Interestingly, such is the ideal greenie existence ... well providing you are not too greedy and rip all the berries and then the poor birds starve ... and obviously avoid passing gas at all cost  :Smilie:

----------


## Bros

Whats the go here?   

> The fuel was also used to expose 45 tonnes of silicon a year to radiation in order to power solar and wind farms, and hybrid cars.

  From Radioactive nuclear rods leave Sydney bound for France - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## John2b

> Whats the go here?

  They've been doing a bit of neutron transmutation doping, which is one way of making certain semiconductors. It isn't the most important way or the only way of making those semiconductors, but same as with nuclear medicine which doesn't need nuclear reactors either, it's a handy spin tool for political purposes.

----------


## Marc

*Climate Change Hoax Exposed* by Cal Thomas Tue, 3/13/2018 | Tribune Content Agency, LLC
Apocalypse now?
By Cal Thomas
Tribune Content Agency
Since the beginning of recorded history there have been end of the world predictions. In recent years we have had radio preachers, politicians and scientists declare with certainty that the world would soon end, either because of our decadent lifestyle, or because of “global warming,” now known as “climate change.”
Responses to these Chicken Little declarations have ranged from people hiding in caves to the most recent announcement by Costco that it has a doomsday meal kit for sale. The cost is $6,000. The online listing says the kit contains 36,000 servings of food that will feed a family of four for one year.
Marc Morano’s new book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change” (Regnery Publishing) is just in time to refute the argument that “climate change” will destroy all life on Earth. It is a mark of Morano’s dark humor that he features as an “endorsement” of the book a comment by the liberal Daily Kos, which calls Morano “evil personified.”
The book is a point-by-point takedown of the predictions of disaster made by the climate change movement, none of which have materialized, but when one is part of a cult, facts don’t matter.
In the book’s foreword, the late John Coleman, who was a meteorologist, TV weatherman and co-founder of The Weather Channel, writes: “We meteorologists are well aware of how limited our ability is to predict the weather. Our predictions become dramatically less reliable as they extend into the future. When we try to predict just a few weeks into the future our predictions become increasingly inaccurate. Yet the ‘climate change’ establishment that now dominates the UN bureaucracy and our own government science establishment claim that they can predict the temperature of the Earth decades into the future.”
Coleman then gets to the heart of the issue: “Their global warming scare is not driven by science; it is now being driven by politics. So today anybody who defies the prevailing ‘climate change’ scare puts his career and his reputation into extreme danger.”
Among the facts revealed in Morano’s book are these: The world spends $1 billion a day to “prevent” global warming; A UN scientist says the “97 percent consensus” on global warming was “pulled from thin air,” presumably hot air from many politicians; scientific organizations claim climate change ‘consensus,’ but have not polled their members; climate policies are not helping, but “crushing the world’s poor”; The Paris climate accord theoretically postpones global warming by just four years, but will cost $100 trillion if fully implemented; climate change has been blamed for prostitution, barroom brawls, airplane turbulence and war; one climate activist is quoted as saying we should “protect our kids by not having them”; recent “hottest year” claims are based on statistically meaningless year-to-year differences; Antarctica is actually gaining, not losing ice; carbon dioxide levels today are 10 times lower than in some past Ice Ages.
Morano argues that the debate over climate change is not settled, as many claim. Science is never settled and apparently neither is the politics of climate change, which is being advanced by people who want more control over every aspect of our lives.
Real scientists who specialize in climate and related fields are quoted in the book. These are voices we rarely, if ever, see mentioned in the mainstream media because the media are part of the collusion.
Read this book and you will become an informed climate change denier, armed with arguments and facts to counter the propaganda being pushed by climate change fanatics. It will also save you $6,000 the next time you visit Costco.
(Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com.)

----------


## woodbe

A recent review of Cal's opinion about the climate:  *Unlike Cal Thomas, world should heed science of climate change* 	 	 	 	 	 	 		Published April 03. 2018 3:40PM  
 	       		 		 		  	 		Contrary to Cal Thomas’s assertion in “Challenging the cult of climate change,” (March 19), there is ample evidence that human activity is forcing climate change.
The  following “cults” have concluded that human activity is the primary  source of global warming: The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,  American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical  Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society,  American Physical Society and the Geological Society of America. The  list of scientific organizations is much longer, though Mr. Thomas would  probably object to any with a foreign address. Another well known  “cult,” the U.S. Military, is increasingly sounding alarms about the  challenges that global warming will bring.
It’s disturbing to see  Mr. Thomas disparage the work of the scientific community. His line of  reasoning involves irrelevant arguments and misrepresents what is known.  He cites a study showing an increase in ice mass in eastern Antarctica  as evidence we need not worry about sea level rise. Conveniently, he  ignores the consensus (which includes the author of the eastern  Antarctica study) that ice mass increases will not abate sea level rise.
It  appears the Cal Thomas cannot take the time to understand the science,  lest it interfere with his ideology. Turning our back on science will  not solve problems.
Fred Behringer
Old Lyme  https://www.theday.com/article/20180403/OP02/180409816

----------


## John2b

According to Morano's book global warming stopped in 1998. Whoops!
I don't suppose Morano's book of debauchment will be too popular in Europe this year, or next...  *EUROPEANS are preparing for the hottest weather in decades, with temperatures expected to soar to dramatic heights in coming days.*  https://www.news.com.au/technology/e...beb3d5e2ac923e

----------


## Marc

*30 YEARS OF EXAGGERATING GLOBAL WARMING* Herald Sun
June 23, 2018 4:36am Pat Michaels and Ryan Maue fact check the explosive claim  made 30 years ago by probably the high priest of the global warming scare:   _James E. Hansen wiped sweat from his brow. Outside it was a record-high 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, as the NASA scientist testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during a prolonged heat wave, which he decided to cast as a climate event of cosmic significance. He expressed to the senators his “high degree of confidence” in “a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming.”_  _With that testimony and an accompanying paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Mr. Hansen lit the bonfire of the greenhouse vanities, igniting a world-wide debate that continues today about the energy structure of the entire planet..._ _But the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s predictions affords an opportunity to see how well his forecasts have done—and to reconsider environmental policy accordingly._  _Mr. Hansen’s testimony described three possible scenarios for the future of carbon dioxide emissions._ _He called Scenario A “business as usual,” as it maintained the accelerating emissions growth typical of the 1970s and ’80s. This scenario predicted the earth would warm 1 degree Celsius by 2018._  _Scenario B set emissions lower, rising at the same rate today as in 1988. Mr. Hansen called this outcome the “most plausible,” and predicted it would lead to about 0.7 degree of warming by this year._  _He added a final projection, Scenario C, which he deemed highly unlikely: constant emissions beginning in 2000. In that forecast, temperatures would rise a few tenths of a degree before flatlining after 2000._  _Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C._ _Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16._ _Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t._  _And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago. _ But will this temper the great global warming scare?
Will our politicians think twice before spending billions more and wiping out our coal-fired electricity generators to "stop" global warming?
Or are too many egos and agendas invested now in this scare to stop it?

----------


## Marc

https://youtu.be/sGZqWMEpyUM
Browse: Home / 2016 / August / 07 / Physicist Murry Salby Compares CO2 “Pseudo-Science” To The Medical Quackery Of Blood-Letting! *Physicist Murry Salby Compares CO2 “Pseudo-Science” To The Medical Quackery Of Blood-Letting!*_By P Gosselin on 7. August 2016_ Share this...   Last month at the University College London, atmospheric scientist Prof. Murry Salby, formerly of Macquarie University in Australia, gave a damning presentation on man-made CO2 and its (lack of) impact on global climate. Hat-tip: a reader by e-mail.  He begins by reminding that climate is a subject of “_limited understanding_” and that it one of “_limited observation_” He tells the audience that carbon in the atmosphere cannot be regulated and is NOT a pollutant. On why CO2 science got to where it is today, he cites Mark Twain: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” *Neither cleaner nor greener* In his introduction he explains how CO2 will be a pollutant to our ecosystem only when the day arrives that water vapour becomes a pollutant – i.e. never in our geological lifetime. He says that energy sources that circumvent CO2 emissions are neither greener nor cleaner – just different. *IPCC premise impossible* Later he shows that although humans have emitted twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere over the last decade compared to a decade earlier, growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not change at all. He states: The premise of the IPCC that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible.” Salby says this is “hardly a surprise”.  During the presentation Salby presents the scientific reasoning why CO2 is not the harmful gas it is claimed to be. *Worst agreement in human history* Near the end, the renowned dissident physicist slams the junk-science-based COP21 agreement, which would cost some 359 TRILLION dollars, and that the cost would be borne disproportionately by the disadvantaged in more ways than one. 40,000 people perished last winter alone in Europe due to hypothermia because they could not afford to heat their homes, he reminds us. At 1:16:00 he concludes that 360 trillion dollars for climate protection will result in literally no benefit at all for citizens of the planet. On this scientific insanity: My God. What an indictment of this era.”*Pseudoscience comparable to the quackery of bloodletting* In his concluding remarks Salby compares climatology to the medical quackery of bloodletting, which was used to try to treat George Washington’s throat infection. The treatment treated the infection, alright – after it had killed Washington in a mere 72 hours! An excellent video that’s worth every minute.

----------


## woodbe

> *30 YEARS OF EXAGGERATING GLOBAL WARMING* But will this temper the great global warming scare?
> Will our politicians think twice before spending billions more and wiping out our coal-fired electricity generators to "stop" global warming?
> Or are too many egos and agendas invested now in this scare to stop it?

  Nope. Because your info is not based on science and real facts.    https://www.climate.gov/#dataServices

----------


## woodbe

> https://youtu.be/sGZqWMEpyUM

  Lol. Murry Salby! 
You should find someone better... 
Try reading real science, instead of reading rubbish.

----------


## Marc

_COST? $ 359,000,000,000,000 Achievement? ZERO _

----------


## Marc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VILr1xH3io

----------


## John2b

"...from the first report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in May 1990, the whole argument that global warming is a potentially disastrous danger has been based on the predictions ... 
"But observation is different. Seeing things happening around you cannot be gainsaid like predictions can, and in this remarkable summer of 2018, events in the real world have been starting to catch up with the climate models’ forecasts of an overheating globe."  *Was this the heatwave that finally ended climate denial?* https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-2018-sceptics

----------


## DavoSyd

Absolute bunkem John, everyone knows "weather" does not equal "climate"... 
This panoptic weather situation has nothing to do with so-called "climate change"! It's just a normal aberration, probably caused by the sun, or the eclipse, or something...

----------


## UseByDate

Battery update for the sceptics. 500 mile range, 1 minute charge and one third the price. Coming to you soon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ3BJ7Fc0dg

----------


## phild01

Didn't watch, too long.
But why say sceptics.  For what is available now, you have to be sceptical.  I am waiting for the day it becomes a viable alternative in every respect. 
Some outfit (Solar service Group) just offered to give me a subsidised battery installation.  Their generous offer was going to save me around 20 cents a day for an outlay of $5,500.  Now that is just stupid.

----------


## UseByDate

> Didn't watch, too long. If you don't watch you won't learn. Arguments are best exercised from a position of knowledge.
> But why say sceptics.  For what is available now, you have to be sceptical.  I am waiting for the day it becomes a viable alternative in every respect. I suppose I mentioned sceptics because you always get the naysayers. With cars you get “range too short”, “takes too long to charge” and the killer “too expensive”. Merely trying to give people a heads up as to what will be available in the near future in the rest of the world.
> Some outfit (Solar service Group) just offered to give me a subsidised battery installation.  Their generous offer was going to save me around 20 cents a day for an outlay of $5,500.  Now that is just stupid. It is not stupid for Solar Service Group. A fool and his money is easily parted.

  .

----------


## phild01

> _If you don't watch you won't learn. Arguments are best exercised from a position of knowledge._.

  Well, I started to watch it but it fluffed about too much for my patience :Smilie:

----------


## Marc

> _Merely trying to give people a heads up as to what will be available in the near future in the rest of the world._

  When I was attending primary school, the heads up from teachers those days was that in the year 2000 all cars would fly.  
Battery technology has come a long way and will improve further? Sure, no point making a dogma from batteries.  
Electric cars in the near future? Sure, expensive, and limited. 
Zero emission? FALSE. 
Plenty of _emissions_ from the electricity required to charge all those cars, not to mention the additional heavy cables required to feed all those fast chargers at the servo or at home.  
Hint ... if it wasn't for the "_global warming_" fallacy, the transition towards electric cars would be a natural one governed by offer and demand and not directed by dogmatic beliefs and moral high ground of "save the planet". This is one more industry that is fuelled by the CO2 is pollution bold face lie.
I love CO2 ... thinking in starting a Facebook club of CO2 lovers, care to join?

----------


## Bros

> But why say sceptics.  For what is available now, you have to be sceptical.  I am waiting for the day it becomes a viable alternative in every respect.

  Every week I see on the news a cancer cure, by now it should have been eliminated but not so causes me be a skeptic

----------


## Marc

There have been dozens of cancer cures in the last 50 years, intentionally suppressed or conveniently forgotten. Eventually one really expensive will be "discovered" when the mainstream palliative remedies will be shunned by so many so to be no longer viable.

----------


## phild01

On the news, CSIRO have some breakthrough with hydrogen/ammonia and some sort of membrane, promising to be the fuel of choice.  Double the price of petrol but with twice the power, but I doubt the fuel excise has been factored with that comment!!  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-0...ntial/10082514 
We might be getting somewhere now as it overcomes the bane of transporting hydrogen over long distances.

----------


## PhilT2

> Every week I see on the news a cancer cure, by now it should have been eliminated but not so causes me be a skeptic

  There are many types of cancer and there is no single cure that works on all of them. But many successful treatments have been developed and some cancers that were a death sentence a few decades ago now have a 90% survival rate.

----------


## John2b

> There have been dozens of cancer cures in the last 50 years, intentionally suppressed or conveniently forgotten. Eventually one really expensive will be "discovered" when the mainstream palliative remedies will be shunned by so many so to be no longer viable.

  The only thing required to make a cure for anything expensive is ... a patent. Free, or cheap remedies, (if and where they actually exist) will always be viable by definition.

----------


## John2b

> Every week I see on the news a cancer cure, by now it should have been eliminated but not so causes me be a skeptic

   Made in Australia: A new class of medication stops cancer in its tracks by by putting cancer cells to sleep, preventing them from dividing and proliferating. http://hospitalhealth.com.au/content...#ixzz5NZXYxlCI

----------


## John2b

> When I was attending primary school, the heads up from teachers those days was that in the year 2000 all cars would fly.

  My teachers never suggested anything of the sort. Don't make the mistake of a hasty generalisation if you want your posts to be taken seriously.

----------


## John2b

> Hint ... if it wasn't for the "_global warming_" fallacy, the transition towards electric cars would be a natural one governed by offer and demand and not directed by dogmatic beliefs and moral high ground of "save the planet". This is one more industry that is fuelled by the CO2 is pollution bold face lie.
> I love CO2 ... thinking in starting a Facebook club of CO2 lovers, care to join?

  But Marc, what are your posts but just a call to SAVE THE PLANET from environmentalists?! Hint: the planet does not need saving, it will survive rampant capitalism, rampant environmental degradation and rampant environmentalism all equally well. Whether it remains a viable habitat economically or ecologically for humankind is another thing...

----------


## PhilT2

> There have been dozens of cancer cures in the last 50 years, intentionally suppressed or conveniently forgotten. Eventually one really expensive will be "discovered" when the mainstream palliative remedies will be shunned by so many so to be no longer viable.

  While we're on the subject of conspiracy theories it was good to see Alex Jones kicked off facebook, spotify and a few others. It was bad enough that he called the parents of Sandy Hook victims "crisis actors" but his idiot followers proceeded to hunt those families down and publish their addresses, causing them to be deluged with threats and hate mail.

----------


## UseByDate

> Every week I see on the news a cancer cure, by now it should have been eliminated but not so causes me be a skeptic

  What you see are not cures for cancer. What you see are generally the promise of maybe a cure, but it will take 10 years of development and trials to prove that their particular treatment works and they need xxx dollars to proceed to the next phase of development. If they actually had a cure and it was cheap enough then it would be in use curing cancer.  
 Physics is simple in comparison to biology. It is much easier to predict when a product can be commercialised. Getting a product to market can be influenced by politics and  economics though. 
 Battery example: Tesla have just invested billions of dollars building a factory to build batteries for Tesla cars. If a new battery is invented that makes the Tesla factory obsolete then Tesla may decide to buy the patent for the new battery and shelve the new battery for a while.

----------


## John2b

It's rather ironic that Marc's doyens of the capitalist world are busy building bunkers on the south island of New Zealand so they can live comfortably through the coming apocalypse. Who do they think is going to mow their lawns and grow their vegetables when the CO2 poo hits the fan?!
In private Facebook groups, wealthy survivalists swap tips on gas masks, bunkers, and locations safe from the effects of climate change. One member, the head of an investment firm, told me, “I keep a helicopter gassed up all the time, and I have an underground bunker with an air-filtration system.” He said that his preparations probably put him at the “extreme” end among his peers. But he added, “A lot of my friends do the guns and the motorcycles and the gold coins. That’s not too rare anymore.”  “Saying you’re ‘buying a house in New Zealand’ is kind of a wink, wink, say no more. Once you’ve done the Masonic handshake, they’ll be, like, ‘Oh, you know, I have a broker who sells old ICBM silos, and they’re nuclear-hardened, and they kind of look like they would be interesting to live in.” 
New Zealand’s reputation for attracting doomsayers is so well known in the hedge-fund manager’s circle that he prefers to differentiate himself from earlier arrivals. He said, “This is no longer about a handful of freaks worried about the world ending.”  *Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich*  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...the-super-rich

----------


## UseByDate

> On the news, CSIRO have some breakthrough with hydrogen/ammonia and some sort of membrane, promising to be the fuel of choice.  Double the price of petrol but with twice the power, but I doubt the fuel excise has been factored with that comment!!  Hydrogen fuel breakthrough in Queensland could fire up massive new export market - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
> We might be getting somewhere now as it overcomes the bane of transporting hydrogen over long distances.

  I can see a use for hydrogen to transport energy over long distances, for example over oceans, but it must be a very inefficient. Using it to power cars seems silly to me if a country already has an electrical grid built.
 Case 1. Generate electricity then convert it to hydrogen. Then transport the hydrogen (road or rail). Then distribute the hydrogen to fuelling places (service stations). Once it is in the car it is then converted back to electricity.
 Case 2. Generate electricity. Use the electricity to charge car.
 I still think case 2 will dominate in most countries.

----------


## UseByDate

> When I was attending primary school, the heads up from teachers those days was that in the year 2000 all cars would fly.

  Marc. You really should be more discerning when predictions of the future are presented to you. Really, a primary school teacher !
 Now if you really want to know what the future holds for you, I know of a kindly gypsy woman who can help you out. She also sells pegs and lucky charms if you need some. :Smilie:

----------


## John2b

A group of scientists from the Stockholm Resilience Centre, the University of Copenhagen, the Australian National University and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research said that there were certain tipping points that could lead to abrupt changes one after the other. 
The world is perilously close to moving into irreversible hothouse conditions with global average temperatures climbing as much as 4-5 Celsius  even if emissions reduction targets are met, according to a new study. 
From about 50 years ago when I first became conscious of society treating the atmosphere as the inexhaustible refuse tip I realised this was an inevitable consequence. Frankly, it's a no brainer that one should not pee in their ONLY swimming pool.  *Hothouse Earth: Planet will become uninhabitable if climate tipping point reached, study finds*   https://www.rt.com/news/435353-hotho...climate-study/

----------


## phild01

> I can see a use for hydrogen to transport energy over long distances, for example over oceans, but it must be a very inefficient. Using it to power cars seems silly to me if a country already has an electrical grid built.
>  Case 1. Generate electricity then convert it to hydrogen. Then transport the hydrogen (road or rail). Then distribute the hydrogen to fuelling places (service stations). Once it is in the car it is then converted back to electricity.
>  Case 2. Generate electricity. Use the electricity to charge car.
>  I still think case 2 will dominate in most countries.

  You might be missing the point.  With so much invaluable outback land, hydrogen production has all the space it needs to produce enormous quantities virtually for nothing. Transporting the Ammonia, may not be that significant.
And no need to muck around with batteries and the charging regime.

----------


## UseByDate

> You might be missing the point.  With so much invaluable outback land, hydrogen production has all the space it needs to produce enormous quantities virtually for nothing. Transporting the Ammonia, may not be that significant.
> And no need to muck around with batteries and the charging regime.

  Generating electrical energy is not virtually free. If a system is for example only 50% efficient, then the capital equipment cost, to generate the electricity, would be doubled.

----------


## phild01

> Generating electrical energy is not virtually free. If a system is for example only 50% efficient, then the capital equipment cost, to generate the electricity, would be doubled.

  Not sure what you mean.  The hydrogen that is produced virtually for free is available 24/7, no worrying about battery efficiencies.

----------


## John2b

Dispatchable generation - the holy grail? How difficult is it to understand there is no environmental downside to not using ALL of the electricity a solar panel could generate, or ALL of the electricity a turbine could produce, or ALL of the electricity a hydro scheme has in capacity? Unlike fossil energy/nuclear fusion boiling water technology, which consume energy irrespective of demand and require vast quantities of scarce fresh water to operate, renewable dispatchables don't cost the Earth.

----------


## Bros

> Unlike fossil energy/nuclear fusion boiling water technology, which consume energy irrespective of demand and require vast quantities of scarce fresh water to operate,

   Again not true.

----------


## John2b

> Again not true.

  Please share your unique understanding of how thermal energy plants either: don't require energy wasteful spinning reserve in order to meet demand peaks; or don't require vast reserves of fresh water to operate; or both. You may be poised for a Nobel Prize...

----------


## John2b

Marc reminds us a bit of warming is a good thing. But since every mechanical and environmental system is designed to operate within a set of expected parameters not everyone will agree with Marc's exasperations: Bitumen melting on Bruce Highway south of Mackay trashes truck tyres - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

----------


## Bros

> Please share your unique understanding of how thermal energy plants either: don't require energy wasteful spinning reserve in order to meet demand peaks; or don't require vast reserves of fresh water to operate; or both. You may be poised for a Nobel Prize...

  You make all the statements you should check if what you are saying is correct.

----------


## Bros

> Marc reminds us a bit of warming is a good thing. But since every mechanical and environmental system is designed to operate within a set of expected parameters not everyone will agree with Marc's exasperations: Bitumen melting on Bruce Highway south of Mackay trashes truck tyres - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  Not warming just the opposite to cold.

----------


## Bedford

> Please share your unique understanding of how thermal energy plants either: don't require energy wasteful spinning reserve in order to meet demand peaks; or don't require vast reserves of fresh water to operate; or both. You may be poised for a Nobel Prize...

  It's all in the EGR valve John.

----------


## DavoSyd

> While we're on the subject of conspiracy theories it was good to see Alex Jones kicked off facebook, spotify and a few others. It was bad enough that he called the parents of Sandy Hook victims "crisis actors" but his idiot followers proceeded to hunt those families down and publish their addresses, causing them to be deluged with threats and hate mail.

   there are some utter scumbags out there...  led by utter scumbags...

----------


## PhilT2

AGL has just announced a profit of $1 billion for this year, an increase of 28% from last year. CEO Andy Vessey, after having his salary increased by an average of 10% the last few years will not get an increase in his $6.9 mil package this year. Profit for next year is predicted to exceed this years by only a small margin.  https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/bus...09-p4zwe3.html 
My point is not if these figures are appropriate or not but to ask those who claim renewables are the primary cause of high energy prices how they explain this.

----------


## John2b

> You make all the statements you should check if what you are saying is correct.

  From an electrical engineering website: 
"In a coal or nuclear plant, the thermal power changes very slowly, perhaps 10-20% per hour. To have power available for spinning reserve, the steam turbines are run at a lower power than the boilers, the main throttle is set so that there is some steam available but not used. The excess steam bypasses the turbine and its energy is wasted. If more power is required, the steam valve can be carefully opened and the power delivered increases. For a big steam turbine this might still take 30 seconds. So to a first approximation the slow thermal plants consume fuel for the full total of actual power + spinning reserve."  Inefficiencies in maintaining spinning reserve in thermal power plants are a consequence of the laws of physics and thermodynamics. People who don't believe in global warming by definition deny the validity of the laws that govern the design of practically every contemporary technology. Yet spinning reserves in thermal electricity generation still waste energy and cooling water, irrespective of ideology. 
This particularly applies to slow responding thermal generators such as nuclear, and to a lessor degree coal. Battery storage such as Hornsdale in SA has minimal energy expense in having "spinning" reserve, nor does spare capacity in renewable generation. For example, an PV array is not wasting energy when less than its rated output for current level of insolation is being used, yet all of this reserve capacity is available if required in milliseconds, nor is the spinning reserve in a hydroelectric generation plant burning energy merely to be available.

----------


## Bros

> From an electrical engineering website: 
> "In a coal or nuclear plant, the thermal power changes very slowly, perhaps 10-20% per hour. To have power available for spinning reserve, the steam turbines are run at a lower power than the boilers, the main throttle is set so that there is some steam available but not used. The excess steam bypasses the turbine and its energy is wasted. If more power is required, the steam valve can be carefully opened and the power delivered increases. For a big steam turbine this might still take 30 seconds. So to a first approximation the slow thermal plants consume fuel for the full total of actual power + spinning reserve.

  What a load of garbage. It doesn’t happen like that.

----------


## John2b

> AGL has just announced a profit of $1 billion for this year, an increase of 28% from last year.

  If only - AGL's profits after tax and earnings per share actually nearly tripled:  https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/201808...3n6cgn87gk.pdf

----------


## Marc

> AGL has just announced a profit of $1 billion for this year, an increase of 28% from last year. CEO Andy Vessey, after having his salary increased by an average of 10% the last few years will not get an increase in his $6.9 mil package this year. Profit for next year is predicted to exceed this years by only a small margin.  https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/bus...09-p4zwe3.html 
> My point is not if these figures are appropriate or not but to ask those who claim renewables are the primary cause of high energy prices how they explain this.

   Very simple. The global warming fraud and it's alleged remedy the "renewable' fallacy has made electricity a gold mine. Like all gold mines that rake in billions, the CEO and board of directors benefit the most. 
Or do you want to argue that the bad CEO salary is what is driving the electricity price up?  :Rofl5:

----------


## John2b

> What a load of garbage. It doesn’t happen like that.

   Why keep to yourself something you know that the rest of the world does not? The Nobel Prize (and a financial jackpot) awaits the person who can reveal a process where a steam turbine thermal power plant can have spinning reserve without wasting energy.

----------


## John2b

> Very simple. The global warming fraud and it's alleged remedy the "renewable' fallacy has made electricity a gold mine.

  Nope, profit margins are what is driving up electricity prices. Profit equals revenue - cost of providing service. It is bloody obvious when the profits of electricity retailers (who do not generate or distribute electricity, or even read electricity meters) are soaring that how the energy is produced and what government energy policy is are almost totally irrelevant to soaring consumer charges. Corporate greed doesn't need any supporting political ideology, left, right, black, brown or green.

----------


## Bros

> Why keep to yourself something you know that the rest of the world does not? The Nobel Prize (and a financial jackpot) awaits the person who can reveal a process where a steam turbine thermal power plant can have spinning reserve without wasting energy.

  When you pull up at a traffic light on your green bicycle clad in Lycra are you wasting energy?  
You are the spinning reserve and when the lights change this spinning reserve starts with you pushing down on the pedals.

----------


## John2b

> When you pull up at a traffic light on your green bicycle clad in Lycra are you wasting energy?  
> You are the spinning reserve and when the lights change this spinning reserve starts with you pushing down on the pedals.

  I do not wear Lycra, my bicycle is blue not green, even when stationary my body consumes energy for cellular respiration (AKA known as staying alive), neither me nor my bicycle generate electricity for the national electricity grid, and when I pull up at the traffic light I am at risk of falling off the bike which at my age I occasionally do. None of these realities challenge the laws of thermodynamics that determine the extra energy cost of electricity generation based on boiling water technology having spinning reserve.

----------


## Bros

> None of these realities challenge the laws of thermodynamics that determine the extra energy cost of electricity generation based on boiling water technology having spinning reserve.

  Nothing to do with thermodynamics just simple operating philosophy done it hundreds of times.

----------


## John2b

> Nothing to do with thermodynamics just simple operating philosophy done it hundreds of times.

  The Laws of Thermodynamics have everything to do with the efficiency of thermal electricity generation. It is impossible to have spinning reserve in steam powered electricity generation without additional waste heat, or else the the law of conservation of energy would be violated. Of course IF spinning reserve could be made to work without consuming extra energy, the world's energy crisis would be solved because fuel would not be needed to run thermal power plants. 
The link below is to a university primer on energy for anyone interested in how energy is transformed from one type to another. http://matse1.matse.illinois.edu/energy/prin.html

----------


## DavoSyd

> done it hundreds of times.

  well, can you actually explain it then?  
in technical terms, not in abstract 'bike rider' type analogies? 
you cant just keep repeating "your statement is incorrect..." and expect other people to become ethereally enlightened...

----------


## Bros

> well, can you actually explain it then?  
> in technical terms, not in abstract 'bike rider' type analogies? 
> you cant just keep repeating "your statement is incorrect..." and expect other people to become ethereally enlightened...

  Well think of it like you car you are driving along at 1/4 throttle opening (forget about the speed limits) and where is the spinning reserve it is the amount between you current throttle position and maximum throttle position. The only difference is the reserve is not petrol but steam.

----------


## DavoSyd

er, what about friction Bros? 
the car is using energy to overcome friction whenever it is moving [spinning]

----------


## John2b

> Well think of it like you car you are driving along at 1/4 throttle opening (forget about the speed limits) and where is the spinning reserve it is the amount between you current throttle position and maximum throttle position. The only difference is the reserve is not petrol but steam.

  If you have to put your foot on the accelerator, that is not spinning reserve, but actually spare engine output capacity that you are drawing on. The equivalent of spinning reserve in a car would be the ability to drive over a hill without having to depress the accelerator and without slowing down. 
The time from "throttling" up the fuel to a steam boiler and being able to constantly draw extra power from the turbines without dropping the steam pressure is typically measured in hours. Spinning reserve needs to be available in seconds, not hours, and that's why it wastes energy.

----------


## Bros

> The time from "throttling" up the fuel to a steam boiler and being able to constantly draw extra power from the turbines without dropping the steam pressure is typically measured in hours. Spinning reserve needs to be available in seconds, not hours, and that's why it wastes energy.

  More rubbish. Go up to Torrens Island power station and find someone who will explain it to you then you can tell them how it should work with all your internet knowledge of thermodynamics.

----------


## woodbe

> More rubbish. Go up to Torrens Island power station and find someone who will explain it to you then you can tell them how it should work with all your internet knowledge of thermodynamics.

  Bros, if you understand it, please explain how that the spinning reserve maintains power with no loss.

----------


## johnc

> More rubbish. Go up to Torrens Island power station and find someone who will explain it to you then you can tell them how it should work with all your internet knowledge of thermodynamics.

  For goodness sake Bros, quit while you are behind and before you dig any deeper. You clearly cannot explain your position because it is beyond your level of understanding, there is nothing wrong with that nobody expects you to hold an appropriate engineering degree but even I find your last few comments boorish with an excess of unnecessary arrogance. You are better than this.

----------


## Bros

> For goodness sake Bros, quit while you are behind and before you dig any deeper.

  I am well within my depth and have been operating thermal power stations for over 20 yrs so believe me I should know. I don't intend going any further and spoil the keyboard warriors from their internet searching however if I see any posts that are untrue I will comment.

----------


## DavoSyd

> I am well within my depth and have been operating thermal power stations for over 20 yrs so believe me I should know.

  _argumentum ad verecundiam_

----------


## Marc

So what is the warmist argument this time? That the boiler wastes energy to catch up when peak demands happens? Considering that there is not one single power plant in operation but a string of them with a massive inertia, the argument is stupid.
But even if it was true ... what do you care that some bits of coal are wasted? Since when are you interested in saving coal? Coal is cheap and plentiful. It's so cheap that most of the world powers their plants with our coal.
We on the other hand thanks to the likes of you, have to make excuses. Oh my ... sorry ... I am a privileged white male ... not a he nor a she ... may be "it" is satisfactory?

----------


## John2b

> More rubbish. Go up to Torrens Island power station and find someone who will explain it to you then you can tell them how it should work with all your internet knowledge of thermodynamics.

  One of my mates from the early 1970s (Phil Reid) actually worked the Torrens Island control room for a few decades until he retired. Phil even took me and a few other interested friends through the station once for a "tech" (technical) tour. I enrolled in electrical engineering in 1975 at the South Australian Institute of Technology (now the University of South Australia), where I also studied thermodynamics, so my knowledge on the topic is pre-internet. One of my lecturers (in electrical networks) was called Kopetski and was a Chinese Russian, or vice versa, and handed out course notes in Russian. We really had to work hard to understand the subject well enough to pass exams LOL. If I had persisted in electrical engineering, instead of moving to electronic engineering, then the power generation industry would most likely been the heart of my career, rather than electro-acoustics. But the fascinating thing is that for all the differences, the underlying physical laws and relationships are the same across the engineering disciplines.

----------


## Bedford

> I enrolled in electrical engineering in 1975 at the South Australian Institute of Technology, where I also studied thermodynamics,

  And EGR valves.............. :Doh:

----------


## John2b

> We on the other hand thanks to the likes of you, have to make excuses.

  Just ignore my posts if they bother you.

----------


## John2b

> And EGR valves..............

  Correct, but not as part of my formal engineering studies. As I posted previously the Institute library subscribed to the international automotive engineering journal which published all of the worldwide 'breakthrough' technological developments of the automotive industry (and a lot of mundane ones), and I was an avid reader of that publication. One of my colleagues who graduated as a mechanical engineer (and went on to work as chief suspension designer for Chrysler) and I were avid car nuts in those years. My poor mate only ever got to design hubcaps before chucking in the towel with Chrysler, or when Mitsubishi took over - I can't remember which. Whatever, it shows just how anti-progressive the auto industry was in those days.

----------


## UseByDate

> One of my mates from the early 1970s (Phil Reid) actually worked the Torrens Island control room for a few decades until he retired. Phil even took me and a few other interested friends through the station once for a "tech" (technical) tour. I enrolled in electrical engineering in 1975 at the South Australian Institute of Technology (now the University of South Australia), where I also studied thermodynamics, so my knowledge on the topic is pre-internet. One of my lecturers (in electrical networks) was called Kopetski and was a Chinese Russian, or vice versa, and handed out course notes in Russian. We really had to work hard to understand the subject well enough to pass exams LOL. If I had persisted in electrical engineering, instead of moving to electronic engineering, then the power generation industry would most likely been the heart of my career, rather than electro-acoustics. But the fascinating thing is that for all the differences, the underlying physical laws and relationships are the same across the engineering disciplines.

  Back in 1966 I enrolled at Brunel University in engineering. It was a four year degree course. The first year all engineers studied the same subjects. The second year we split into three disciplines. Electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and production engineering. The third year we split again. The mechanical engineers split into their disciplines. The electrical engineers split to study either electronic engineering (me) and what we called power engineering. (What you are calling electrical engineering ).
 I left university with a degree in “electrical engineering (electronic)”. The power engineers left with a degree in “electrical engineering (power)”.
 So to me electronic engineering is a subset of electrical engineering. Maybe the terminology has changed with time or location.
 Do you work for Halcro?

----------


## John2b

> Do you work for Halcro?

   No, but I did know Bruce Candy (the owner and designer of Halcro and MineLab products) and sat next to (my faulty memory defies me - David Rose? - Candy's Halcro marketing manager*) on a plane once to Sydney to demonstrate Halcro amplifiers in the Sydney Opera House ~2000. I was representing the company that supplied the loudspeakers for the demonstration. I also worked on other projects with Tony and Max (Designmakers) who created Halcro's physical designs.  *Rose(?) had a little bit (or more) to do with the scheme of things (AKA phone gambling) that financed David Walsh's mega-million dollar MONA art museum in Hobart. The scheme worked by relieving individuals (including one named Packer) of millions of dollars on race days.

----------


## John2b

> Back in 1966...

  Back in 1966 I was in a class where my teacher (Clarry Maywald) was distinguished his 'Beatles' haircut, and certainly not by any adeptness at his occupation.

----------


## Marc

In this genitalia size contest, should I post in imperial or metric units?

----------


## DavoSyd

> In this genitalia size contest, should I post in imperial or metric units?

  I dunno, what did dinosaurs use to measure stuff with?

----------


## UseByDate

> No, but I did know Bruce Candy (the owner and designer of Halcro and MineLab products) and sat next to (my faulty memory defies me - David Rose? - Candy's Halcro marketing manager*) on a plane once to Sydney to demonstrate Halcro amplifiers in the Sydney Opera House ~2000. I was representing the company that supplied the loudspeakers for the demonstration. I also worked on other projects with Tony and Max (Designmakers) who created Halcro's physical designs.  *Rose(?) had a little bit (or more) to do with the scheme of things (AKA phone gambling) that financed David Walsh's mega-million dollar MONA art museum in Hobart. The scheme worked by relieving individuals (including one named Packer) of millions of dollars on race days.

  I worked for MineLab in the mid 1980s. I designed the digital part (hardware and software) of the first “ground balancing” metal detector that MineLab manufactured. It could detect the “firing pin” in a plastic mine in inductive soils. No other metal detectors, at that time, could do that. I worked with Bruce on a daily basis.

----------


## John2b

I only knew Bruce as he once presented a paper on the Halcro amplifier design at a meeting of the Audio Engineering Society. There were a lot of extremely clever radio and audio engineers in Adelaide in those days who had an enormous influence globally. I was always intrigued by how insight in one discipline could lead to innovation or application in another discipline, e.g. the application of RF wave theory from his expertise in broadband military (spy) antenna design that John Dunlavy used in loudspeaker design (Duntechs which were made in Adelaide and air freighted to the US market). John kindly allowed me to use his very well equipped research laboratories for loudspeaker developments for the Adelaide Festival Centre through the late '80s.

----------


## phild01

> In this genitalia size contest, should I post in imperial or metric units?

  Metric has bigger numerics :Biggrin:

----------


## chrisp

> In this genitalia size contest, should I post in imperial or metric units?

  I think that you should use cubits for authenticity.

----------


## John2b

> I think that you should use cubits for authenticity.

  Marc's posts usually have a muggeseggele of truth to them so I guess he's the expert on forum smut.

----------


## John2b

> If he was an operator there it would be a brilliant idea then you can forget once and for all that steam is not dumped or bypassed the turbine except on startup when temperature matching is taking place, once synchronized all the steam is used for work with some from turbine interstage tapping points for feed heaters.

  Where did I mention steam dumping or steam bypassing the turbine? In a quotation from Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange, a question and answer site for electronics and electrical engineering professionals, students, and enthusiasts. The boiler/turbine/generator system is less efficient when running sub-optimally in order to preserve some spinning reserve. Inertia is a component of spinning reserve, but as soon as inertial energy is used to power the generators frequency will begin to drop. To have sufficient spinning reserve the boilers must to be producing more heat energy than the generators are currently using using and the turbines and generators must have more output capability than current demand. Like in your car example, there has to be some spare throttle and a reserve of fuel in the carburettor. Your analogy breaks down after that because extra energy in the form of petrol can be delivered to the virtually instantly carburettor, whereas a steam boiler is slow to build up pressure to feed the turbines. This is the sort of problem we had to deal with in the electrical engineering lab, which had motors, turbines, boilers, generators and gearboxes set up on benches with tachometers, dynamometers, etc, etc so we could run real life experiments and measure performance of many types of energy transformation. All of this stuff is defined by the equations derived from the laws of thermodynamics.

----------


## Bros

> Where did I mention steam dumping or steam bypassing the turbine?

  Well I better delete this John2b as he is an imposer.  https://www.renovateforum.com/f187/e...ml#post1080995
and https://www.renovateforum.com/f187/e...ml#post1064076
and https://www.renovateforum.com/f187/e...ml#post1057512
and https://www.renovateforum.com/f187/e...ml#post1057469

----------


## John2b

> Well I better delete this John2b as he is an imposer.  https://www.renovateforum.com/f187/e...ml#post1080995
> and https://www.renovateforum.com/f187/e...ml#post1064076
> and https://www.renovateforum.com/f187/e...ml#post1057512
> and https://www.renovateforum.com/f187/e...ml#post1057469

  Thanks Bros. Your tenacity in proving a pointless point is admirable, but doesn't correct the many mistakes in your posts. And the laws of thermodynamics still hold, even if my memory doesn't always.

----------


## Bros

> Thanks Bros. Your tenacity in proving a pointless point is admirable, but doesn't correct the many mistakes in your posts. And the laws of thermodynamics still hold, even if my memory doesn't always.

  I never said I was always right but you do. I rarely make any comment unless I know what I am talking about and I dont rely on search engines to back up what I say.  
Remember what i was once told if you go about telling lies you have to have a bloody good memory as you have to remember the last lie you told, the truth stays the same.

----------


## Bros

> Thanks Bros. Your tenacity in proving a pointless point is admirable, but doesn't correct the many mistakes in your posts. And the laws of thermodynamics still hold, even if my memory doesn't always.

  Additionally I have deleted my post of the explaination as you are not much better than an internet troll and the truth is rational posting is irrelevant.

----------


## Marc

2b or not 2b ... that is the question :Doh:

----------


## John2b

> I never said I was always right but you do. I rarely make any comment unless I know what I am talking about and I dont rely on search engines to back up what I say.  
> Remember what i was once told if you go about telling lies you have to have a bloody good memory as you have to remember the last lie you told, the truth stays the same.

  Where have I ever said I was always right? I know better than anyone else how fallible I am and I have never shied away from acknowledging my mistakes. To suggest I am a liar says more about you than me.

----------


## Bedford

> I know better than anyone else how fallible I am and I have never shied away from acknowledging my mistakes.

  Well you did here, https://www.renovateforum.com/f187/e...ml#post1079062

----------


## John2b

Very funny Bedford. You have not proven me wrong. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I tired of feeding your obsession with character assassination. Time to move on.

----------


## Marc

Pope John the second B is infallible. 
I noticed that a long time ago Bedford.  :Rofl5:

----------


## PhilT2

> Pope John the second B is infallible. 
> I noticed that a long time ago Bedford.

  Anyone promoting port Arthur conspiracies has no credibility to question anyone else on truthfulness. That some let that slide says something too.
Let's move on.
Coal fired power stations are dinosaurs well on their way to extinction. Debating the fine details of their operation is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

----------


## John2b

I just looked at Live Supply &#038; Demand Widget, sponsored by RenewEconomy – NEM-Watch. 1/3 of Australia's electricity is being generated by non-fossile energy sources. No one would have believed that possible when this thread started back when the global warming deniers were trumpeting that the world was about to start cooling. The amount of warming above pre-industrial temperatures has instead almost doubled since this thread started.

----------


## Bedford

> Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I tired of feeding your obsession with character assassination.

  That's all in your imagination John, BS is still BS.

----------


## phild01

Thread pending.

----------

